File spoon-archives/baudrillard.archive/baudrillard_1995/baudrillard.07-95, message 38


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 

     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005