Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 07:20:30 EDT From: ma-AT-dsd.camb.inmet.com (Malgosia Askanas) Subject: Re: the wager of seduction All right, let's see if I can avoid the question a bit less. Tristan, my problem is that your question does its own disregarding -- it disregards the specificity of my original one. I was not talking about writing in general, but specifically about writing for such purposes as were claimed to be baudrillardian -- disappearance, breakdown, etc. I have the feeling that we are on this list for reasons which do have to do with the political ramifications of Baudrillard's writings -- and specifically with some broadly conceived resistance -- even if it is hard to say to _what_. And since it _is_ very hard to say to what, I am not sure that the best way to tease this out of ourselves (as in some sense I think we want to) is to negate it; it's too fragile for this. That was the point I was trying to make. Your point: insisting on writing/theorizing as resistance. Well, much would need to be taken into consideration here. Insistence itself, as a way of digging in one's heels, can be a form of resistance. Writing, as a way of conspicuously occupying a certain territory, can be a form of resistance. These are on the performative side. Now does theorizing per se have a performative side? An interesting question, yes? Then there is the striving, through writing, to change thought, to resist forms of thought. And there are the performative aspects of _specific_ writings, such as B's "seduction". I know this doesn't address your question, but at least it goes towards poking rather than avoidance. - malgosia ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005