Can we have a ‘turn’ to end all turns?

In the early 20th century there began a marked reorientation within analytic philosophy, with a concern for language gradually coming to supplant some of philosophy’s more traditional concerns. In fact, it’s not entirely meaningful to describe this as a trend within ‘analytic philosophy’ because this ‘linguistic turn’ was integral to the field formation of analytic philosophy in its current form. Therefore I think talk of a linguistic turn is entirely meaningful. It refers to a change of direction within a discipline which had important consequences for that discipline. However consider this list of other ‘turns’ within the social sciences and humanities:

1. the linguistic turn
2. the cultural turn
3. the affective turn
4. the sensory turn
5. the reflexive turn
6. the digital turn
7. the participatory turn
8. the narrative turn
9. the biographical turn
10. the spatial turn
11. the social turn
12. the interpretive turn
13. the ontological turn
14. the postmodern turn
15. the practice turn
16. the pragmatic turn
17. the historical turn
18. the discursive turn
19. the cognitive turn
20. the critical turn
21. the computational turn
22. the transnational turn
23. the emotional turn
24. the practical turn
25. the neuroscientific turn
26. the complexity turn
27. the nonhuman turn
28. the ethical turn
29. the argumentative turn
30. the action turn
31. the animal turn
32. the gender turn
33. the constructivist turn
34. the somatic turn
35. the pictorial turn
36. the auditory turn
37. the communicative turn
38. the dialogic turn
39. the global turn
40. the semiotic turn
41. the theoretical turn
42. the cosmopolitan turn
43. the relational turn
44. the naturalist turn
45. the material turn (via Jesse in comments)
46. the temporal turn (via martin eve)
47. the insect turn (via martin eve)

With the exception of the cultural turn, I think these are all a bit silly. While the linguistic turn and (I think) the cultural turn were largely retrospective, proposing the concept as a way of making sense of a shift in focus that had already taken place, the invocation of other turns usually aims to be performative. In declaring a turn, we aim to bring that turn into being, implicitly positioning the text that declares the turn at the centre of the new tradition of inquiry.

When you see the scale with which turns are claimed, it gives the impression of disciplines unable to come to terms with their own lack of development. The hyperactive proclamation of new turns stands in for cumulative progress, often grounded in little more than a claim that a few people have published on this topic recently and that more should do so soon. To a certain extent it makes me despair but I also find it very interesting. I’m getting increasingly interested in shifting naming conventions (e.g. how does the ‘X turn’ relation to ‘X studies’?) and the role they play in shaping the unfolding of intellectual inquiry.