In Frieze Magazine here. Her critique focuses on the lack of attention to 70s feminism and Deleuze:
What they don’t see, or don’t want to see – for I certainly think there is some chicanery involved here – is that the switch to Spinoza is a switch to the radical materiality of the body; the entire body thinks. You don’t think with the mind; you think with the entire fleshed existence. So they start from an assumption about correlationism that is overdetermined by a number of deletions and flagrant bibliographical ommissions. It is a very narrow point. And I don’t understand why they do this to everybody: Deleuze isn’t good; feminism isn’t good; media theory (however much they use it) isn’t good. We disagree on what the unit of reference for thinking is. For me, it’s the body immersed in radically immanent relations.
I think the omissions are demonstrably true, though not in such thinkers I cover in Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects as Jane Bennett and Liz Grosz. Catherine Malabou is attempting her own thinking of immanentism, but in general it’s true–not just in speculative realism, but Continental in general–that neo-Spinozism is a major track often ill understood by those who came up through the line of phenomenology and post-phenomenology.