/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6060374]

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

[Anonymous No.6060378]

shut up dyke get me a beer

[Anonymous No.6060380]

[Anonymous No.6060394]

>>6060374
Is that an actual quote, or is this just a parody?
I mean after reading though it for few time, I get it, and mostly agree with it. But holy fuck is it long winded sentence.
But I mean, if you read Hegel, particularity Phenomenology of Spirit, you'll get similar length of sentences.

>>6060378
dat edge
>>>/v/

[Anonymous No.6060411]

>>6060394
>I get it, and mostly agree with it

[Anonymous No.6060417]

>>6060411
I guess the best course of action is, to kill yourself, because you'll never as intellectually superior as I am :^)

[Anonymous No.6060427]

>>6060417
Can you explain what she means?

[Anonymous No.6060434]

am i crazy if i got it on my first go? it's not good writing by any means but i guess i'm familiar with the jargon and syntax now

[Anonymous No.6060446]

>>6060427
That moving from structuralist view of power to a more "post-structuralist" view means that now any "insight", that any research re-creates hegemony linked with ever-changing sites and strategies of this new definition of power.

Man I really hope this is, right.
But yeah long sentences are the ban of continental philosopher from Hegel onwards. Why can't they write a bit more clearly and in shorter more concise sentences?

[Anonymous No.6060460]

>structures
>structures
>structures

>relations
>relations
>relations

>contingent
>contingent
>contingent

This ugly man doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.6060488]

It just says that classic structuralism ended up taking capital as the focus the same way military power was treated centuries ago, but modern thinking challenges the idea of structure as an objective a priori knowledge. If different cultures dealt with power in different ways, we shouldn't assume that there's a set of possibilities, all of them tied to how hegemonic power was used in the past.

It's not weird or complex, although I would assume that at some later point she challenges our modern idea of how power used to work since our sources are pretty open to interpretation.

[Anonymous No.6060514]

>>6060374
not this thread again
hurr whats structuralism
durr obfuscatory language
waaaaaaaa shitposting!!!!!!1

[Anonymous No.6060516]

>>6060374
Cash Rules Everything Around Me.
Might Makes Right.
Much Interdependence.
Very The More Things Change, The More They Remain The Same.

[Anonymous No.6060552]

>>6060374
Is she not just describing her theory of performativity?

[Anonymous No.6060568]

>>6060488
So, basically, because of all the strange shit we've seen in modernity, neither money nor military power is necessarily the underlying structure beneath human relations?

[Anonymous No.6060572]

>>6060374
>tfw I used to have the same haircut as j-butt

[Anonymous No.6060574]

>>6060568
I think she's saying that it is the performance of power that defines it, rather than mere capital, and that the nature of this performance is determined by cultural circumstances.

[Anonymous No.6060575]

>>6060374
she looks like Kyle MacLachlan

[Anonymous No.6060577]

>>6060568
dude discourse lmao

[Anonymous No.6060582]

>>6060575
she looks like Michael J Fox a little

[Anonymous No.6060587]

>>6060575
kek

[Anonymous No.6060628]

Why doesn't she just use plain English?

[Anonymous No.6060632]

>>6060628
why don't you try to work on your comprehension skills?

[Anonymous No.6060637]

omg lol wat does that even mean? it's just a bunch of gobbly gook

[Anonymous No.6060640]

>>6060568
No, it' about the performance of power and our linear understanding of history tied to pre materialist modernity.

>>6060552
not particularly describing, but touching it

[Anonymous No.6060641]

>>6060632
Comprehending continental philosophpy is not the same as comprehending English, anon.

[Anonymous No.6060645]

>>6060628
Why don't you read above basic english?

[Anonymous No.6060698]

>people discussing a po-mo generator quote.

every time.

its hilarious that you cant even tell.

[Anonymous No.6060729]

>>6060574
>>6060640
Can you give an example of the performance of power being shaped by culture over money? Is that kinda like how wealthy women can still be powerless because of muh patriarchy?

[Anonymous No.6060769]

>>6060698
The source is 1997's Further Reflections on the Conversations of Our Time. You can search for it and find it quite easily aamong people being smug about how bad they are at understanding long sentences.

[Anonymous No.6060798]

>>6060698

good one

[Anonymous No.6060836]

>>6060729
Consider pre industrial societies or those that never had an interest in economic wealth. 1700 Japan is a nice example considering this is japanese bulletin forum. The merchants were able to have business with China while the elite didn't respect the continent, so few merchants did so and the ones that did (and became quite wealthy through it) had problems with the local market because they were shameful pigs.

[Anonymous No.6060868]

>>6060374
Hello, sexy lady!

[Anonymous No.6060878]

>>6060374

Judith Butler rediscovers what a con artist is, is lionized in continental canon because of it. This shit is why people should start with the Greeks, but then, Butler did, and could barely read and understand Antigone.

[Anonymous No.6061081]

>>6060374
And? Socialist Humanism was already on this territory of contingency long before you bedwarmed as a faggot for a French professor Judith. Vulgar Marxism had more historicity than you've ever had. And Hannah Arendt basically took this terrain, by herself, before madness and murder were a twinkle in Althusser's mind.

[Anonymous No.6061083]

>>6060427
"our power is different"

[Anonymous No.6061108]

>>6060446
1) Structuralism and post-structuralism are the only ways in which I Butler admit you can comprehend the world.
2) In Structuralism, Marx's capital (as interpreted by Althusser, as a totality of social relations that over determines every instance) structured social relations in its own image
2b) I thereby deny any of Poulantzas' work as structuralism, or in fact read deeply into Althusser himself, I produce a pastiche of structuralism much like undergraduates will in their turn produce a pastiche of me. ISA, what are they?
3) I bowdlerise Gramsci shamelessly
4) Apparently Gramsci uses time some how in a new way. Let's just forget all about council communism, or socialist humanism, or post-war workerism. I, Judith Butler, have discovered the nature of social reality!!
5) Structure still exists, but now it is timey wimey, and it still over determines, but through some kind of material social process in time, maybe through something like where ideology is important—oh wait, Althusser and Poulantzas already said that, and this is what Lukacs and the Frankfurts were working on—better use jargon to cover up the origin of these ideas in Marxism and workers' revolt
6) TIMEY WIMEY STUFF. But it isn't about workers power, oh no, hegemony exists without an object, the subject of science is the bourgeoisie (hegemony) and the contingency of the rearticulation of power isn't realised as the success of a worker's war of position.
7) I therefore save the use of Althusser for the vindication of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.6061153]

The sea as a smooth space is a specific problem of the war machine. As Virilio shows, it is at sea that the problem of the fleet in being is posed, in other words, the task of occupying an open space with a vortical movement that can rise up at any point. In this respect, the recent studies on rhythm, on the origin of that notion, do not seem entirely convincing. For we are told that rhythm has nothing to do with the movement of waves but rather that it designates "form" in general, and more specifically the form of a "measured, cadenced" movement.25 However, rhythm is never the same as measure. And though the atomist Democritus is one of the authors who speak of rhythm in the sense of form, it should be borne in mind that he does so under very precise conditions of fluctuation and that the forms made by atoms are primarily large, nonmetric aggregates, smooth spaces such as the air, the sea, or even the earth (magnae res). There is indeed such a thing as measured, cadenced rhythm, relating to the coursing of a river between its banks or to the form of a striated space; but there is also a rhythm without measure, which relates to the upswell of a flow, in other words, to the manner in which a fluid occupies a smooth space.

[Anonymous No.6061174]

>>6061108
t: wife strangler

[Anonymous No.6061190]

Spirit, however, has shown itself to us to be neither the mere withdrawal of self-consciousness into its pure inwardness, nor the mere absorption of self-consciousness into Substance and the nothingness of its (self-) distinction. Spirit is the movement of the self which empties (externalizes) itself of self and sinks itself within its own substance, and qua subject, both has gone out of that substance into itself, making its substance an object and a content, and also supersedes this distinction of objectivity and content. That first reflexion out of immediacy is the subject's process of distinction of itself from its substance, the notion in a process of self-diremption, the going-into-itself and the coming into being of the pure ego. Since this distinction is the pure action of Ego=Ego, the notion is the necessity for and the rising of existence, which has the substance for its essential nature and subsists on its own account. But this subsisting of existence for itself is the notion established in determinate form, and is thereby the notion's own inherent movement – that of descending into the simple substance, which is only subject by being this negativity and going through this process.

[Anonymous No.6061225]

>>6060769
>people being smug about how bad they are at understanding long sentences.
Lol, yeah, I find it funny that anti-intellectualism is actually becoming smug rather than being merely resentful.

>>6060374
This passage has been explicated numerous times in the past, on /lit/. Just search the archive.
I know it is posted as a meme, but some actually think it is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.6061239]

Convince me that trying to understand these obscurantist hacks isn't a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.6061245]

>>6061239
It's not possible.

[Anonymous No.6061256]

>muh, fluidity.

[Anonymous No.6061269]

>>6060878
>This shit is why people should start with the Greeks, but then, Butler did, and could barely read and understand Antigone.
This reminds me why Paglia is my waifu.

[Anonymous No.6061308]

>>6061269
I'd want Paglia to get drunk and tear me to pieces with a body of other drunken women in the night.