filthy univocal theory

[starfrosting]

"A disturbingly large amount of theory seems explicitly to undertake the proliferation of only one affect, or maybe two, of whatever kind-- whether ecstasy, sublimity, self-shattering, jouissance, suspicion, abjection, knowingness, horror, grim satisfaction, or righteous indignation. It's like the old joke: "Comes the revolution, Comrade, everyone gets to eat roast beef every day." "But Comrade, I don't like roast beef." "Comes the revolution, Comrade, you'll like roast beef." Comes the revolution, Comrade, you'll be tickled pink by those deconstructive jokes; you'll faint from ennui every minute you're not smashing the state apparatus; you'll definitely want hot sex twenty to thirty times a day. You'll be mournful and militant. You'll never want to tell Deleuze and Guattari, 'Not tonight, dears, I have a headache.'"
(eve sedgwick, touching feeling)

Comments

[agoraphiliac.livejournal.com]

I'm reading this book right now; I read it a few years ago, but it means something more to me these days. (ok also I have to read it, for a class.) This is actually the point at which Sedgwick most convinced me--not the revolution joke, which still stings me a bit, but just before that: the one positive affect. It got to me because I recognize it so well, and because I've so enjoyed imitating those theories myself, writing things that end in jouissance or sublimity or joy or whatever (including "whatever" itself, in Agamben).

I also like those parts of the essay where she allows as how strong theories are so broad they can shelter numerous writerly pleasures and numerous "weak theories"--somethimes she seems to mean it, sometimes not.

[taxishoes.livejournal.com]

I don't do theory but this is amusing anyway.

[starfrosting.livejournal.com]

Comes the revolution, you'll do theory and like it.

[taxishoes.livejournal.com]

Psh, maybe in your revolution.

[agoraphiliac.livejournal.com]

Oh, wait: are you quoting it in scorn? In defense of filthy univocal theory, which is neither filthy nor univocal?

I'm a weak reader. I agree with whatever I've read in the last week: Deleuze and Guattari, Sedgwick, Carlyle, Locke... ok maybe not Locke.

[starfrosting.livejournal.com]

I was quoting it cos it made me laugh, mainly (telling D&G not tonight dears!?) but also because I agree with her diagnosis of prescriptive this-is-the-affect-to-cultivate theory.

When you mentioned Agamben and "whatever" in your early reply, I was a little confused-- I've only read Homo Sacer and working on The Open, so if you feel like elaborating I'd love to hear!

[agoraphiliac.livejournal.com]

It's in The Coming Community; there's an analysis of some medieval philosophy term, quodlibet, that means "whatever," and it becomes the occasion for some beautiful writing to the effect that "the coming being is whatever being"--something without qualities. I'm garbling it. It's really quite lovely, and a very short, easy read in comparison to Homo Sacer.

[starfrosting.livejournal.com]

the whatever to-come--- it sounds really lovely, actually. I'll have to read it eventually.