I have to admit that the term ‘relationality’ does not resonate for me (yet); while I subscribe to the tenants (such as Barad describes above–ideas of an emergent ontology from the interaction between agents), the idea of multiple ontologies and ontological politics is most compelling for my own work.

I draw heavily on Mol’s idea of the multiple object:

What does the multiple object mean for birdwatching? I use the term enactment to describe birding as an activity that through its practice makes and remakes itself. In other words, birding is a dynamic practice that changes its “shape” given a particular set of actors in a particular context. The significance of thinking about birding this way lies in the multiple ways people interact with birds, birds with people and both birds and people with the landscape. The importance of this research is not in uncovering and cataloguing what kinds of bird-watching-acts are out there, rather, it is about what might be made in the relations of “watching” birds; what is brought into being through the various enactments. Birding is a form of inter-species sociality and a kind of intervention in the always-social nature of the world. Thus, if these engagements between people, birds and place, called “birding,” occur in more than one way, or in multiple ways, then I am suggesting that these enactments can also be conceived of as a multiple object.

Perhaps in my argument of an always-social nature of the world, rationality is just another way to describe it.