A striking feature of much contemporary social and political theory is its concern with ontology. Indeed, as I argued in the previous chapter, the poststructuralist style of theorizing is rooted in a particular set of ontological commitments. Yet the turn to ontology is far from uncontroversial. Many social scientists consider ontological questions to be at best irrelevant or at worst a misleading distraction from the proper business of explaining the social world. Those who do accept that ontological reflection is important often disagree about the meaning and scope of the concept of ontology. In fact, even those who may share an understanding of the concept probably disagree about the particular ontological assumptions that inform their research and thinking. For example, whilst many poststructuralists share many ontological assumptions, they often disagree about their respective understandings of the subject or subjectivity or about the character and effects of social structures on political agency. Another important disagreement in poststructuralist theory divides those who affirm a philosophy of immanence, as against a commitment to transcendence, as well as an ontology of abundance rather than one of lack (Connolly, 2005b; Howarth, 2010b; 2011; Tønder, 2005).