Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 19:47:37 +0000 From: "steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> Subject: Re: question... lucasist and the SI - modes of production glen I'll take this with me and get back to you after the weekend - off to the island for a couple of days. steve Glen Fuller wrote: >Steve, > >I don't really deal with gender. That is one of my general scholarly >blindspots that I am working on to improve. In my paper I kind of gloss >over it. I think it is a very complex issue that requires someone a lot >smarter than me!!! The (re)production of enthusiasms I guess could be >aligned according to gender. But I would be wary of associating >something like the buffy series with a necessarily non-masculine >enthusiasm. I have actually been thinking about it in terms of >the 'pimp' as the pimp figure has become a constituent part of one of >the dominant tropes within popular culture, especially MTV-ised pop >culture. I have been thinking about the pimp seriously after the rise >to popularity of the 'Pimp My Ride' tv show on MTV. I am currently in >Europe so I got watch all the episodes a couple of weekends ago. >Anyway, you are either a facilitator of desire (pimp) or the 'hoe' (fan >object - fanject) or the perp who enjoys 'himself' (fan). Is the 'perp' >and 'pimp' necessarily masculine? Is the 'hoe' necessarily feminine? If >desire is unlocked from the oedipal triangle, but then re-examined in >terms of how it is reconnected within popular culture formations I am >not sure if gender is the best way to talk about it. The pressing >problem is more the economic considerations of enthusiasm and how it is >(re)produced, sustained and exploited if the economic is understood >(along with desire) as a determinate modality of enthusiasm. Or >something like that, needs a lot more work. > >More specifically, I am normally only interested in gender, if gender >(understood as the discoursed molar aggregate of power relations >facilitated through distinctions made of biological difference) is one >of the necessary conditions for a specific event. It then becomes a >question of scale and what happens in an event ('what do bodies do'), >like if there are a group of guys and someone does something, is that >action related to gender? What are the necessary conditions for the >action-event? In my car stuff I talk about technological difference in >much the same way as gender, as not all actions of participants in a >hyper-masculine culture like car enthusiasm are in a direct relation to >the incorporeal attributes of anthropomorphic gendering. Why? Because >technologies also have a 'gender' (derived from Marx's "nonhuman sex") >that is no way human. This is a controversial position and expect to >get hammered by feminists, but I think it is more important to focus on >which differences 'matter' in the eventuality of action, not how such >actions can be reconciled to conform to well worn reductive notions of >mimetic relations. In other words, it is a bit like saying all candy- >events are candy-ish because of the dominant ingredient of sugar. But >all candies are different from each other because of the minor >ingredients that differenciate the sugarness. For example, in Coke it >is allegedly the 'secret ingredient' that defines Coke by its Cokeness. >I think work on the big stuff (like gender or sugar) needs to be >complimented by the 'little stuff' (which is why it is a question of >scale). However, in enthusiast car cultures the role of the car is not >exactly 'little'!!! > >Is it even possible to talk about 'truth-value' anymore though? I think >this discussion has happened a number of times on this list! I have >been reading some stuff that begins teasing out the ramifications of >D&G's conception of simulacra. There is a particularly good paper by >Nathan Widder [(2004). "Foucault and Power Revisited." European Journal >of Political Theory 3(4): 411-432. online version here if not a member >of sage journal databases: http://www.psa.ac.uk/cps/2003/nathan% >20widder.pdf ] that does some good work talking about post-identity >politics from a Deleuzian rereading of Foucault. Anyway, in a similar >way, I would ask if we should rather be talking about 'post-truth >politics'? If you take the Badiou/Lacan/Zizek-event (here is Zizek on >the event, which is close enough): > >"The Event is the impossible Real of the structure, of its synchronous >symbolic order, the engendering violent gesture which brings about the >legal Order that renders this very gesture retroactively 'illegal', >relegating it to the spectral repressed status of something that can >never by fully acknowledged-symbolised-confessed. In short, the >synchronous structural Order is a kind of defence-formation against its >grounding event which can be discerned only in the guise of a mythical >spectral narrative." from The Fragile Absolute, or, Why is the >Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?, p.92. > >Then Truth is still possible in some Real sense. However, if the >actualisation of the virtual only ever produces a low-level simulacra >(from Massumi on the molar aggregate of the 'person'): > >"Since no particular body can entirely coincide with the code >(regularized functions) enveloped in its assigned category and in the >various images recapitulating it, a molar person is always a bad copy >of its model - an unacknowledged, low-level becoming; an undercover >simulation." User's Guide, p. 181, fn 12. > >Then we end up with Guattari's politico-aesthetic paradigm, which would >contradict the SI/Spectacle perspective. Maybe the 'labour of truth' is >a better way to talk about the different levels of discursive practice >(linguistic and extra-linguistic) that facilitate the becoming of an >event's modality (passage from the virtual to the actual). A key >example I will probably be using in the politicized version of the >sequels paper is Powell's 'case' for war put forward at the UN. In >other words, I am much more interested in the production of truth by >way of the cinematic (spectacle) than the truth value of the spectacle. >Maybe, in this way, you could align the pessimism of the SI take on the >Spectacle with Baudrillard's take on simulacra. I have yet to read >Deleuze's cinema books so maybe they can offer something?? But first I >need to read logic of sense (after I finish D&R!!)... > >Ciao, >Glen. > > > > > >>glen >> >>i was interested in your paper - (you'll have to email me a copy, >> >> >please). > > >>Is it necessary for the 'fan' to be masculine in your theory? in >> >> >other > > >>words in the mode of production where does the woman enter into the >>structure. I was thinking especially of the attack on the >> >> >blockbuster by > > >>such movies as 'Hero' and of course the Buffy and Chicklet >> >> >phenomenas. > > >>What made me think of 'value' was the existence of those media >> >> >events such > > >>as the documentary series 'The Power of Nightmares' which uniquely >> >> >deserves > > >>the status of being a truth-event given the way in which it describes >> >> >the > > >>history of the neo-cons, the islamists and third-way neoliberals >>relationsionships to power and their use of fear. The Debord/SI point >> >> >is > > >>that they believed that all media events/images were absolutely >> >> >equivilant > > >>in that there is no truth in the spectacle. It occurred to me that a >>media/event such as the Power of Darkness considered as a truth-event >>denying the absoluteness of the SI perspective - truth is an >> >> >interesting > > >>problem... >> >>steve >> >> >> >> >> > > > --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed --- This message may have contained attachments which were removed. Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005