To plan the March presentation I should perhaps think in terms of pages like a few disparate slides. I can write them separately, starting anywhere, and give each one bullet points, with quotations.
- Race is constitutive of modernity and the modern subject; F d S works at the symbolic level so is good on/for studies of representation
- Race also underlies capital (and note – this, too, has implications for identity and subjectivity–being property, having value)
- Universality, transparent “I”, universal poesis, transcendental poesis; logics of inclusion and of obliteration
- Globality (outside universality): wounded captive body, corpus infinitum, Plenum, different “pillars”
- This theory is important and different because if not, the ghost of the Subject walks. When we want inclusiveness, strategic essentialism, and so on, we are letting the ghost walk
- It is also important because of the difference between what she does and people like Bersani do: they also let the ghost walk
- How different from Shohat/Stam
- How different from Bourdieu/Wacquant
- Ideally: her place in BR theory–for one thing, this is philosophy not sociology, is working at the symbolic level (here coming full circle back to the beginning of the paper
We will see. But I love to do research and to write, and I love theory. I want to find out how to work on this in an even more grounding way than this past semester. It is calming and strengthening to be into your work.
I also want, this coming year, not to get beaten down and/or consumed by anger at: obstruction, attacks for doing one’s job, attacks for competence, and so on. I want to see them clearly and name them quickly, so as to put them in their place and not go through so much struggle. Maintain wholeness, create more wholeness.
Also, on the next/last post, about Haroldo de Campos: look how much there is in that article, how much there is to teach and write on and about it.
I love research and writing and they take time and focus.