[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 104 KB, 800x600, 1420332634552.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7437270 No.7437270 [Reply] [Original]

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.

>> No.7437273

>>7437270

If you can't say it in easier terms then I'm afraid sociology isn't really your thing.

>> No.7437275

>>7437273
I think that's his point.

>> No.7437297

Gramsican conception of hegemony has nothing to do with your faggaultian power dynamics

when will you fuckwits understand this

>> No.7437310
File: 35 KB, 328x500, 51i2cUjC2qL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7437310

Total presence breaks on the univocal predication of the exterior absolute the absolute existent (of that of which it is not possible to univocally predicate an outside, while the equivocal predication of the outside of the absolute exterior is possible of that of which the reality so predicated is not the reality, viz., of the dark/of the self, the identity of which is not outside the absolute identity of the outside, which is to say that the equivocal predication of identity is possible of the self-identity which is not identity, while identity is univocally predicated of the limit to the darkness, of the limit of the reality of the self). This is the real exteriority of the absolute outside: the reality of the absolutely unconditioned absolute outside univocally predicated of the dark: the light univocally predicated of the darkness: the shining of the light univocally predicated of the limit of the darkness: actuality univocally predicated of the other of self-identity: existence univocally predicated of the absolutely unconditioned other of the self. The precision of the shining of the light breaking the dark is the other-identity of the light. The precision of the absolutely minimum transcendence of the dark is the light itself/the absolutely unconditioned exteriority of existence for the first time/the absolutely facial identity of existence/the proportion of the new creation sans depth/the light itself ex nihilo: the dark itself univocally identified, i.e., not self-identity identity itself equivocally, not the dark itself equivocally, in “self-alienation,” not “self-identity, itself in self-alienation” “released” in and by “otherness,” and “actual other,” “itself,” not the abysmal inversion of the light, the reality of the darkness equivocally, absolute identity equivocally predicated of the self/selfhood equivocally predicated of the dark (the reality of this darkness the other-self-covering of identity which is the identification person-self).

>> No.7437323

>>7437270

I once took to many amphetamines too.

>> No.7437324

Holy fuck, it's real. She actually wrote that. I thought it was a parody, but it's in published sources.

SPOILER: It's not difficult to read at all, if you know what she's talking about. If you have even a MINIMUM of background in the shit she's talking about, she's basically saying something incredibly simple. Practically introductory. She's just going out of her fucking way to be an obtuse cunt about it and produce a giant unreadable, unfollowable wall of text.

I always thought Butler was just another typical pain in the ass pomo person with obscurantist prose because it's the norm. But here she took something that could be explained in simple non-jargon English to an uninitiated person relatively easily, and which is just painfully obvious and goes-without-saying to any reasonably initiated person, and turned it into a big run-on phallus just for the sake of waving it around.

Fuck Judith Butler. Fucking lesbian. She writes like a first year grad student.

>> No.7437330

>>7437324
Also, weird, the OP blurb was published in Diacritics in 1997 and I just read an article from the 1997 issue of Diacritics twenty minutes ago.

>> No.7437337

>>7437324
Ok so what is she saying

>> No.7437344

>>7437337
TRANSLATING......

"poststructuralism came after structuralism"

seriously I've barely read Althusser and mostly "read about" him, only indirectly know Foucault's archaeology / Derrida's deconstruction / discourse analysis in any depth, and reading it you immediately get, "yep, poststructuralism sure came after structuralism alright." And sure enough, if you google the blurb, the beginning of the sentence right after that one mentions Derrida and Foucault directly.

Anyone who has taken a first year undergrad class that even mentioned Marxian ideas can understand the base-superstructure analogy, economic/production relations determining social/cultural etc., but she turns it into "capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways." Similar for the rest of it, which can basically all be simplified down to "you know Foucault, right? That."

Needlessly abstract terms from specific jargon lexicons ("repetition, convergence, rearticulation") make it sound worse than it is.

>> No.7437354
File: 151 KB, 500x348, PutinCookie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7437354

>>7437324
This.

>> No.7437356

>>7437270
>convergence
towards what ?

>>7437270
>rearticulation
what is this ?

in brief, she says that the pleb questions the institutions ?

>> No.7437388

>>7437324
>Fuck Judith Butler. Fucking lesbian. She writes like a first year grad student.
Then the modern universities must fucking love their grad students!

>> No.7437444

>>7437270
i agreed with her until she made this claim

its way off mark

>> No.7437451

What silly gibberish

>> No.7437452

>>7437310
You're an idiot.

>> No.7437453

Is that a lesbean?

>> No.7437460

>>7437453
no it's a woman who wishes she was a man

>> No.7437487

yo this board is aids when's it gunna catch pneumonia

>> No.7437494

>>7437487
For every thread that dies of AIDS, ten more shall rise in its place.

>> No.7437495

>2015
>people still take continental garbage seriously

>> No.7437558

>>7437495
>any year
>he takes the analytic/continental divide seriously
there's a clue right in the fucking name: it's just a rivalry between the faculties at a couple of universities. there are no genuine divides in terms of ideas or methods.

>> No.7437588

>>7437273
if you go into academia you'll be expected to write in that way

god forbid you want to be lucid and to the point

>> No.7437644

>>7437270

try Jameson. wage is still the sole determinant of social class. in "introducing the question of temporality" poststructuralist accounts wrong extract the capitalist social formation from its historical moment; ironically these accounts constitute a more deep-seated eurocentrism by simultaneously globalizing capitalist power relations and insisting on their primacy in a nearly eternal, metaphysical sense, all under the moniker of "power relations" employed like a Hegelian concrete. for all their whining about running from Hegel, in favoring mental structures over material ones the French postmoderns and their disciples sure did return to him, and in the most dialectical way possible: confluence in the guise of a negation. what we need is a return to Marx.

>> No.7437664

>>7437344
Nah, your version of it reduces it to 'first Althusser, then Foucault'. Hardly clearer because you have to refer to other texts to have a clue what she could be saying. Her wording may be confusing, but if you can get through that everything you need to understand her point is there on the page.

>> No.7438890

>>7437270
Fuck me, I thought that was a picture of Michael J. Fox.

>> No.7438948

>>7437588
At my university, you would get insanely bad grades for writing like that as a student. Theorists can write like that, but students who do are considered to either mask their shallow understanding in syntax, trying too hard or not being able to convey difficult ideas succinctly.

>> No.7438962

>>7437664
The rub is that she's not actually trying to explain anything to anyone. She has no fucking target audience. If you don't have the Grad Student Standard Package of general fuzzy knowledge about Althusser, Foucault, and Derrida, then you won't get what she's saying at all. But if you do, you will get it so trivially that you're like "uh.. yeah, and?"

That's what's jarring about it. It's not erudite. It's not ultra-complex for some dubious reason like the ideas being so complex that they require complex formulation.

I'm trying to think of an analogous example but I'm too tired to type one up. It's something like describing playing Counter-Strike as
>The subject must utilise his or her primary instrument of enemy termination with great adroitness, taking meticulous care to fixate the precision assist module at the centre of the cathode ray tube device as nearly as is possible within the limits of the real to the cranium of the opposing force manifested in this instance by an individual, at which juncture the input device will be tapped with his appendage ...
If you were completely uninitiated, you might be able to claw through it, but to anyone who actually plays any FPS it's like "shoot the guy" but typed funny. So, in writing something like this, who is your audience? The people who will get it and think you're jerking yourself off, or the people who won't get it and who will just be annoyed?

>> No.7441041

I know that gender is a social construct but can someone please explain to me how she thinks sex is a social construct too? I heard that she doesn't actually believe there are penises or vaginas.

>> No.7441051

bump

>> No.7441053

>>7441041
>>7441051
>bumping a thread after the last post was 5 minutes ago

>> No.7441058

>>7437354
*Give that man a piece of Ukraine

>> No.7441061

>>7441041
>Gender is a social construct
Wew lad

>> No.7441100

I haave onew finger up my ass as Ittype this

This one
s for yyou Judith

>> No.7441102

>>7441100
uguu~ that's so kawaii :3

c-can you pls describe the sensation for us senpai ^_^

>> No.7441105

>>7437270
why does xhe wear xer hair like such a stereotypical lesbian

>> No.7441109

>>7438962
you have to write like that to join the secret underground quasi-continental sociology society at which point you can enjoy rampant paedophilia with cocktail snacks and cuban cigars

>> No.7441110

>>7441105
>you will never force Judith Butler to grow her hair out long and put on makeup and wear a sexy dress and shave and primp her body immaculately
>you will never kiss her with your big manly man lips and grab her with your rough man hands like you're smooching a broad in the 1950s
>you will never discursi-rape judith butler

>> No.7441111

>>7438948
In my course for academic writing, our prof pretty much said "you're expected to show your erudition, also known as thesaurus abuse, in your writing. it's stupid and pointless but hate the game, not the players"

he was a cool irish guy who gave zero fucks about anything except irish free verse poetry

>> No.7441114

>>7441109
it's a branch of acephale