[-empyre-] Subject: Re: Meillassoux / Harman
a at pad.ma
Sun Jun 17 08:09:45 EST 2012
I just noticed how a phrase there christina
to sing our house.
> We must have a poetics of relation, as Glissante said, or we die.
slipped so literally close to tim's onetime post on dancing about
That is very much a poetics of relation, dont you think?
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 19:15:46 -0700
> From: Judith Halberstam <halberst at usc.edu>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Meillassoux / Harman
> Message-ID: <70CE80EA-580A-43D6-B7A9-320DB6FA3BBF at usc.edu>
> . What is that larger problem? Well, as any Feminism 101 course will show
> us, the gender hierarchy that assigns male to the 1 and female to the 0 in
> the binary coding of gender, also assigns male to the status of subject and
> female to the status of object. Hence, having occupied the status of
> "object" for some time within both the symbolic and the imaginary of the
> cultures within which we participate, surely the category of "female"
> should allow for some access to the question of what is it like to be an
> 3. Think of Butler's critique of Lacan here - in the lesbian phallus, she
> basically takes on those who would argue that feminist and queer critiques
> of Lacanian psychoanalysis miss the point. Arguing that if all bodies lack
> and female bodies are deployed metaphorically to represent that lack, and
> if all phallic bodies only possess the phallus contingently but male bodies
> are deployed metaphorically to represent that possession, Butler points to
> a heteronormative foundation to Lacan's mapping of the subject. Offering
> instead a "lesbian phallus" that is both detachable and mobile (what does
> OOO have to say about lively objects such as the dildo?), Butler shows that
> male narcissism leads to a) misrecognition of the penis as the phallus and
> b) the inability to theorize the object and the abject. After Butler,
> object oriented philosophy, it seems to me, would have to pass through the
> gendered territory of the subject/object relation.
> 4. And since Michael believes that the onus of representation/critique
> falls to those who say they have been left out, one word: Fanon! Indeed,
> again, as with Butler, we have an elaborate racial critique of the
> subject/object relation already mapped by Fanon in the "Fact of Blackness"
> and in Fred Moten's work on the elaboration of the Black subject as
> commodity and in Hortense Spiller's work on the "American Grammar" of race
> that assigns whiteness to the subject position and blackness to the
> perpetual object.
> So, ok, if women and racialized bodies have all too often been rendered as
> "things" in the marketplace of commodity capitalism, and if a lot of the
> work on on Object Oriented Philosophy leaves the status of the human
> unmarked even when rejecting it in favor of the object and relations
> between objects then surely we need a queer and or feminist OO philosophy
> in order to address the politics of the object.
> --What are the relations between slaves and farm machines?
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the empyre