Edelman is obsessed with puns. Anyone else catch this?

"The left in this is always right from the vantage point of reason, but left in the shade by its reason is the darkness inseparable from its light." (p14)

Very entertaining, though perhaps not so necessary?

Ok, no one has ventured here yet, to my surprise, so I'll go there: What, exactly, are the real and tangible consequences of advocating for No Future?

Having felt a similar sort of response as KF mentioned in class - one of both great intrigue and at once horror at the idea of No Future - I am quite compelled by Edelman's discussion around the work of Politics against the politics of the sign, as well as the marking that occurs with queerness as resistive practice.

Out of curiosity, what do people think about alternatives to the issue of the rhetoric of humanitarianism that Agamben critiques?

I hate to go back to the now time-old argument about whether or not postmodernism is anything new or just some rearticulation of modernity, etc. but i struggled throughout this text with the lack of distinction that Agemben makes between the state of zoe and bios in present versus throughout history. I understand somewhat clearly the connection of their collapse to our present moment that he mentions (p.

There is a great deal about the underlying implications of Agemben's argument that resonated as a slightly different take on Butler's same dilemma. Where Agemben argues for the collapse of zoe and bios such that our once natural and pure 'bare life' is politicized in a way that the two experiences may no longer be had without the other, Butler seems to be implicitly positing a similar case for pre-subjectivity.

A quick clarification/pondering: If we accept Butler's definition of 'the subject' as NOT interchangeable with 'the individual' or 'the person,' but instead as "the linguistic occasion for the individual to achieve and reproduce intelligibility" (p12), at what point or in what instance, might one not be considered a 'subject'?

Perhaps this is my utter ignorance of the chronology of this postmodern strain of critical theory, but there is something in Butler's central thesis that strikes me as not especially revolutionary. She writes as if no one, to date, has made the connection between political power and domination of the psyche. Indeed, she offers this most in depth exploration into the theoretical underpinnings of the ways in which Freud and Foucault can be navigated to create a theory that acknowledges power's supression on a psychic level.

Oh how time does pass...I meant to post after class on Monday about some things I had been pondering. Please chime in if you're still interested in chatting about Zizek, etc.

I saw this in the Pomona student Digester, and thought people might be interested:

Please join us this Thursday, Nov. 15th at 4:15 PM in the Founder's Room of Honnold/Mudd Library for a Claremont Discourse Lecture, sponsored by The Libraries of The Claremont Colleges.
New Politics - Mass Media
Henry Krips, Professor of Cultural Studies, Claremont Graduate University