The Manhole Cover as a Metaphor of Withdrawal: Towards a Philosophical Topology of the Opaque Interface

The contemporary condition of total digitalization and hyper-connectivity presents a fundamental paradox: unprecedented access to information and communication is built upon the radical opacity of the underlying infrastructures. Understanding this crisis requires new philosophical metaphors capable of conceptualizing withdrawal and ontological rupture. This philosophical essay aims to trace the process of conceptualizing the phenomenon of the urban manhole cover as a key metaphor of contemporaneity, one that reveals the ontological gap between the human world of experience (Umwelt) and the concealed realm of non-human actors including infrastructures, data, andnetworks. The central research question is: How does the manhole cover, as a material and symbolic object, allow us to conceptualize the nature of power and interaction in an age of hidden technological complexity? The study aims to situate the manhole cover within the framework of spatial theory (P. Sloterdijk) and Actor-Network Theory (B. Latour); To analyze it as a "stain of the Real" through the psychoanalytic optics of J. Lacan; To interpret the manhole cover as an "objectin-itself" within G. Harman's Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO); investigate the representation of the manhole cover and its immaterial analogues in contemporary art and choreography; To examine the politico-economic dimension of the manhole cover through the lenses of Marxism and speculative aesthetics. The primary material of the study is the urban manhole cover itself, examined as a semiotic and philosophical object. The analysis is extended to its representations and conceptual avatars in contemporary art, choreography (e.g., works by Sasha Waltz, Murad Merzuki), and cinema, which serve as case studies for its metaphorical expansion. The research employs a multidisciplinary methodological toolkit, including methods of philosophical topology, comparative analysis, and the conceptual apparatus of Object-Oriented Ontology, Actor-Network Theory, psychoanalysis, and discourse analysis. This synthesis allows for a multi-faceted deconstruction of the object. The manhole cover is conceptualized as a universal metaphor of withdrawal and a "non-interface." Its heuristic power lies not in pointing toward hidden information, but in marking the very fact of ontological incommensurability between human and non-human realms. The study argues that power in the modern world is increasingly exercised not by controlling the information "beneath the cover," but by administering the boundaries and managing the consequences of this fundamental opacity. The metaphor is thus extended from an epistemological problem (what is hidden) to an ontological and political one (how we relate to the radically Other). The manhole cover disrupts the immunological logic of spheres, acting as a gateway into the alien realm of networks. It functions as a traumatic void, a puncture in the symbolic fabric of the urban order, pointing to the unsymbolizable Real of infrastructure. As an object-in-itself, it perpetually withdraws from all relations and perceptions, embodying a core principle of OOO. The "manhole-coin," adorned with city coats of arms, is revealed as a token of symbolic power, a fixed sign that legitimizes the appropriation of the subterranean world and naturalizes the city's infrastructural authority. In contemporary art, the manhole cover and its immaterial counterparts (airflows, and data streams) become metaphors for opaque forces that actively shape the body and consciousness.

1. Arustamova, A. A. (2007) ‘Vospriyatie SShA v russkoi putevoi literature serediny XIX v. (na materiale knigi

2. A. Lakiera Puteshestvie po Severno-Amerikanskim Shtatam, Kanade i ostrovu Kube) [The perception of the USA in Russian travel literature of the mid-19th century (based on A. Lakier’s book Journey through the North American States, Canada and the Island of Cuba)]’, Novyj filologičeskij vestnik, (1), pp. 118–126. (In Russian).

3. Arustamova, A. A. and Rastorgueva, M. Ju. (2015) ‘Africa in the poetry of Antonin Ladinsky’, Perm university herald. Russian and foreign philology, 7(3), pp. 68–76. (In Russian).

4. Avanessian, A. (2019) Metafizika segodnya [Metaphysics today]. Moscow: V-A-C Press. (In Russian).

5. Avanessian, A. and Hennig, A. (2012) Präsens – Poetic Eines Tempus. Berlin: Diaphanes. (Russ. ed.: (2014) Poetika nastoyashchego vremeni. Moscow: RGGU Publ.).

6. Badiou, A. (2016) La vraie vie. Paris: Fayard. (Russ. ed.: (2019) Istinnaya zhizn’. Moscow: PANGLOSS Publ.).

7. Baudrillard, J. (1981) Simulacres et simulation. Paris: Galilée. (Russ. ed.: (2015) Simuliakry i simuliatsii. Moscow: Postum Publ.).

8. Bauman, Z. (2003) City of Fears, City of Hopes. London: Goldsmith’s College. (Russ. ed.: (2008) ‘Gorod strakhov, gorod nadezhd’, Logos, (3), pp. 24–54.).

9. Benjamin, W. (1980) ‘Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit’, in Gesammelte Schriften. Band I, Werkausgabe Band 2, herausgegeben von Rolf Tiedemann und Hermann Schweppenhäuser. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, pp. 431–469. (Russ. ed.: (2012) Proizvedeniye iskusstva v epokhu yego tekhnicheskoy vosproizvodimosti. Izbrannyye esse. Moscow: Medium Publ.).

10. Blanc, C. le (1998) Kierkegaard. Paris: Les Belles Lettre. (Russ. ed.: (2021) Kierkegaard. Moscow: RIPOL klassik Publ.).

11. Bogdanova, O. A. (2020) ‘“The Heterotopia of Estate” in the Novel by Z. N. Gippius “Roman-Tsarevich” (1913)’, The Problems of historical poetics, 18(1), pp. 294–314. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15393/j9.art.2020.7542

12. Evallyo, V. D. (2021) ‘Screen environment in the Moscow subway (metro)’, Bulletin of Slavic Cultures, 60, pp. 8–20. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.37816/2073-9567-2021-60-8-20

13. Foucault, M. (1984) ‘Des espaces autres (1967) Hétérotopies’, Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité, (5), pp. 46–49. (Russ. ed.: (2006) ‘Drugie prostranstva’, in Intellektualy i vlast’: Izbrannye politicheskie stat’i, vystupleniya i inter’vy. Ch. 3. Moscow: Praxis Publ., pp. 191–204.).

14. Harman, G. (2012) Weird Realism: Lovecraft and Philosophy. Winchester; Washington: Zero Books. (Russ. ed.: (2020) Weird-realizm: Lavkraft i filosofiya. Perm: Hyle Press.).

15. Harman, G. (2018) Object oriented ontology: new ‘theory of everything’. London: Pelican Books. (Russ. ed.: (2021) Ob"ektno-orientirovannaya ontologiya: novaya «teoriya vsego». Moscow: Ad Marginem Press.).

16. Harman, G. (2019) Art and objects. Medford: Polity. (Russ. ed.: (2023) Iskusstvo i ob"ekty. Moscow: Institut Gaidara Publ.).

17. Korchagina, T. V. (2024) ‘The application of the method of participant observation in the study of art practices of contemporary russian rooftop photographers’, Cultural code, (4), pp. 35–47. (In Russian).

18. Korndorf, A. (2010) ‘Architecture of the underworld, or once again about theater iconography of the underworld kingdom’, Iskusstvoznanie, (1–2), pp. 92–143. (In Russian).

19. Krasheninnikov, I. (2017) ‘Research directions to study urban tissue porosity’, Architecture and modern information technologies, (3), pp. 215–226. (In Russian).

20. Lacan, J. (1973) Les quatre concepts fondamentaux de la psychanalyse (1964), livre 11. Paris: Editions du Seuil. (Russ. ed.: (2004) Seminars. Book 11. Chetyre osnovnye ponyatiya psikhoanaliza (1964). Moscow: Gnosis; Logos.)

21. Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Russ. ed.: (2014) Peresborka sotsial’nogo: vvedenie v aktorno-setevuyu teoriyu. Moscow: VShE Publ.).

22. Latour, Bruno. (2001) Pasteur: guerre et paix des microbes; suivi de Irréductions. Paris: La Découverte. (Russ. ed.: (2015) Paster: voina i mir mikrobov s prilozheniem ‘Nesvodimogo’. Saint Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Evropeiskogo universiteta v Sankt-Peterburge Publ.)

23. Latour, B. (2023а) ‘How Better to Register the Agency of Things’, Sociology of Power, 35(2), pp. 156–196. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2023-2-156-196

24. Latour, B. (2023b) ‘Why Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern’, Philosophical Literary Journal Logos, 33(5), pp. 29–61. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/0869-53772023-5-29-61

25. Latour, Br. (2013) ‘Spheres and networks. Two ways to reinterpret globalization’, Bulletin of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series Philosophy, (2), pp. 5–16. (In Russian).

26. Lefebvre, H. (1974) ‘La production de l’espace’, L Homme et la société, 31(1), pp. 15–32. https://doi. org/10.3406/homso.1974.1855 (Russ. ed.: (2015) Proizvodstvo prostranstva. Moscow: Strelka Press.).

27. Markov, A. V. and Shtayn, O.A. (2024) ‘Jagged and curved: mascaron as philosophy of the city’, Science. Art. Culture, (4), pp. 152–159. (In Russian).

28. Markov, A. V. and Shtayn, O.A. (2025) ‘Platbands as cultural heritage: theoretical framework for study’, Kulʹturnoe nasledie Rossii, (2), pp. 23–31. (In Russian).

29. Orlova, G. A. (2016) ‘Co-authorization, not co-authorship: the adventures of transcript in the digital age’, Steps, 2(1), pp. 200–223. (In Russian).

30. Poroshenko, O. Yu. (2021) “The existence ot the city,” Vestnik Vâtskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, (2), pp. 45–51. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.25730/VSU.7606.21.017

31. Prashcheruk, N. V. (2023) ‘Heterotopia of the Estate in I. A. Bunin’s Prose’, Philological Class, 28(3), pp. 92–102. (In Russian).

32. Radkau, J. (1998) Das Zeitalter der Nervosität. Deutschland zwischen Bismarck und Hitler. München: Carl Hanser Verlag. (Russ. ed.: (2017) Epokha nervoznosti: Germaniya ot Bismarka do Gitlera. Moscow: VShE Publ. https://doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-1321-7 ).

33. Salnikova, E. V. (2016) ‘The role of transit area space in the theatre and screen reality’, Bulletin of slavic cultures, (1), pp. 189–204. (In Russian).

34. Salnikova, E. V. (2018) ‘The plasticity concept in the cinema’, Art and culture studies, (2), pp. 138–167. (In Russian).

35. Salnikova, E. V. (2021) ‘Urban verticality in the adventurous cinema plots. from the films of Georges Méliès to the Fantômas series’, Telekinet, (2), pp. 6–14. (In Russian).

36. Simmel, G. (1985) ‘Bridge and Door’, Lotus International, 47, pp. 52–56. (Russ. ed.: (2013) ‘Most i dver’’, Sociology of power, (3), pp. 145–150.).

37. Skopin, D. (2018) ‘The End of Bourgeois Dwellings. Communal Apartments and Museums in “The Moscow Diary”’, Philosophical Literary Journal Logos, 28(1), pp. 115–140. (In Russian). https://doi. org/10.22394/0869-5377-2018-1-115-140

38. Sloterdijk, P. (1999) Sphären / 2: Makrosphärologie, Globen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (Russ. ed.: (2007). Sfery. Makrosferologiia.T 2. Globusy. Nauka Publ.).

39. Sukhorovskaya, D.N. and Ermakova, L.I. (2021) ‘The concepts of “space” and “place” in urban philosophy’, Sociologiâ, (1), pp. 220–227. (In Russian).

40. Zuckerman, E. (2013) Rewire. Digital Cosmopolitans in the Age of Connection. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. (Russ. ed.: (2015) Novye soedineniya. Tsifrovye kosmopolity v kommunikativnuyu epokhu. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press.).