Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 14:06:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mani Salem-Haghighi <msalemha-AT-uoguelph.ca>
Subject: Re: representation, ...




Fadi wrote:

> Mani, in your response to
> Camilla's criticism you point out that the dice throw has nothing to do
> with subjectification.  This is something I agree with though cannot
> place from your perspective considering that you had previously insisted
> on the "intentionality" (your word) of desire.  If that's not
> subjectification I don't know what is!  In fact, this notion seems
> entirely antithetical to (at least my reading) of what G&D mean by desire.
> 

I'm really glad you've brought this up, Fadi. This question has been on 
my mind for a long time and maybe you can help. First of all, I didn't 
really insist on the intentionality of desire, I just said that other 
explanations baffle me and I asked for guidance! (which I hope to get 
here.) Secondly, I think I should quickly add that I don't have some 
kind of a Husserlian account of intentionality in mind. That *would* be 
subjectifying. Pooh. I was talking about the directed-ness of desire, not 
its telos, but its (perhaps aimless) directionality, if you like. 

I'm a little scared now of bringing up Foucault, but it may help to 
remember what he says in Sexuality vol.1 about power: "Power relations 
are both intentional and non-subjective." (94) And he goes on to say that 
power is always directed _at_ something, without anyone directing it at 
that thing, and it _does_ things without anyone _choosing_ to do these 
things. He makes this move in order to keep power diffuse and at the same 
time somehow lucid, clear. I know how foolish it would be to make a wild 
leap from here to desire, but the same organizational pattern has got to be 
immanent in desire, no? 

love

mani  

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