Apparently a discussion took place on Sara Ahmed’s facebook page where she took my discussion of borromean critical theory to be an attack on her because I characterized her work as an example of “phenomenological critical theory”. This was in no way my intention. I wouldn’t have linked to her fine book if I didn’t think this. As I thought I tried to make clear, I see Ahmed’s work as an example of good and valuable phenomenological analysis of subaltern bodies. It is analysis I would recommend. The whole point of thinking a borromean knot is to think how the three orders are on equal footing and how we ought not privilege one over the other. My sole point was that I think we’ve tended to erase materiality in the robust sense, that we need to make room for it, and that I think we need to think how the three orders are entangled with one another. I don’t think the material body can be assimilated to the lived body of experience. Indeed, I don’t think we can have an experience of our material bodies at all. Put differently, I think there’s a phenomenological body, a symbolic body, and a material body. What I want is a framework robust enough to think the entanglement of these three bodies with one another. In my view, work like Ahmed’s provides us with crucial insight into the phenomenological or experienced body. I just don’t think it gets at the material body. That’s not a rejection, but simply that there are other dimensions to what we are. I’m looking to synthesize, not exclude. What I want is neurology and biochemistry and phenomenology and critical semiotics. It’s not exclusive or’s I’m after. Hence the model of entangled orders.
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013 at 5:37 am
Do you mean “I am sorry, Ahmed!”? Perhaps using the person’s first name would be a better way of soliciting forgiveness, Bryant.
February 26, 2013 at 5:38 am
I figured that would be disrespectful.
February 26, 2013 at 5:41 am
That aside, the aim here isn’t so much one of soliciting forgiveness as underlining my remarks weren’t an attack or denigration.
February 26, 2013 at 6:40 am
What’s amazing to me is not the apology itself, but that so many supposed philosophers seem to take to heart every little critical remark… let’s grow up world, if your philosophy is of worth it will have the staying power, and a little criticism will only make it stronger if its message is of worth. If you believe in your message it will stand, if you don’t believe it will go the way of all lesser lights, into the waste bin worthless notions. This pettiness of slights and facebook hijinks seems of little worth to me: the whole idea of laundry in the public sphere is a sign of little souls begging for attention. I’ll have no part of it nor those who truck in such dreck. Everyone seems to carry their emotions on their virtual cuffs waiting for someone to make a false move. Why are people so fearful of a little criticism?
February 26, 2013 at 12:54 pm
n-r, so it goes in the gossip-world of the hothouse…
February 26, 2013 at 1:10 pm
“This pettiness of slights and facebook hijinks seems of little worth to me: the whole idea of laundry in the public sphere is a sign of little souls begging for attention.”
Since you seemed to have read the actual exchange, do you care to point out where exactly you found the evidence of pettiness? How about writing public posts about private exchanges without any citations or examples? If Levi was so concerned about offending Sara, why not send her an email? And if they are not introduced, why not join the Facebook discussion and explain your position? What is the purpose of this post exactly?
Plus, this “I’m not against anything, I’m for everything” attitude coming from Levi is really hilarious, considering the history of his previous engagements with Ahmed and others (on a variety of topics) – most ended in proverbial tears, I believe.
February 26, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Yikes, MH! There’s no fight here. The post outlines what a borromean critical theory is trying to do and why it’s not rejecting phenomenological analysis. I hardly think mentioning someone talked about feeling attacked on fb is a horrible breach of privacy. I’m also perplexed as to why you’d characterize previous discussions with Ahmed on this blog in the way you do. Are you really suggesting that any dispute over positions is a form of abuse? I thought all those debates were perfectly respectful and productive.
February 26, 2013 at 1:51 pm
I egregiously cited her book as an example of phenomenological critical analysis of subaltern bodies:
Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others
No matter how you cut it, phenomenological analysis isn’t materialist analysis. It is, after all, a philosophy of consciousness and the subject. That’s okay!
February 26, 2013 at 2:05 pm
As for citing the thread, I think it was an act of kindness not to directly quote it. It was pretty ugly.
February 26, 2013 at 2:47 pm
I think it was good of you to clear the air, Levi. Too many things can be taken out of context and misinterpreted and misunderstood (especially in text), that putting in the effort to clarify a miscommunication is crucial. I’m not sure I understand why posting an explanation on your blog is somehow ‘wrong’ or self-indulgent as MH seems to be implying.
February 26, 2013 at 4:26 pm
MH,
How do you figure?
This is a project I’ve been hammering away at for a long time. You’ll find it in my article in The Speculative Turn, as well as the introduction to The Democracy of Objects. It’s inaccurate to suggest that I’m claiming I’m not against anything. Rather, my position is that both semiotics and phenomenology have yielded genuine insight and truths, and therefore ought not be abandoned, but that we also need to make room for materiality. All sorts of disagreements can arise from within a borromean framework for the simple reason that theories focused on each order make inflated claims. Alfred Schutz’s phenomenology of the social world, for example, misses all sorts of social dynamics pertaining to how capital functions and how the symbolic functions for the simple reason that these things aren’t given to phenomenological experience. Forms of inquiry centered around the semiotic, miss all sorts of things about phenomenological lived experience and materiality. Materialisms miss all sorts of things about the phenomenological and the semiotic. Thinking these three orders together will involve revision of how each order is thought.
February 27, 2013 at 4:03 am
Oomph… All I was trying to say was that Levi is not exactly an example of open-minded charity and “respectfulness” – anyone reading this blog or talking about it is perfectly clear about this (including Levi himself), so there is no reason to constantly play up this ridiculous “well, I’m perfectly respectful and nice, why does everyone think I’m not” nonsense. This blog generates a lot of negative discussion – google “Levi Bryant” and “kind of a dick” and see what you get – just get over yourself and accept it.
The fact that Sara Ahmed will not comment here is a good evidence of how useful this “clearing of air” really is.
February 27, 2013 at 1:37 pm
MH,
Oh I suspect Ahmed is commenting here. That aside, I personally think she has difficulty dealing with any disagreement. It has nothing to do with dickishness. In the past she’s said that she detests philosophy. There was no attack in my post on borromean critical theory, but just a description of her work that she herself uses. Our previous discussion on politics over the summer was just that, a discussion. I argued that things aren’t intrinsically political but must be made political, she disagreed. The discussion was polite and standard fair. At one point she did claim that I should just bow to whatever she says because she’s an expert in social and political theory– ie, she appealed to authority rather than reasons –but there was nothing nasty about the discussion.
February 27, 2013 at 1:52 pm
You’re welcome to read the earlier exchanges here. Hardly out of the ordinary I think.
http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/war-machines-and-military-logistics-some-cards-on-the-table/
http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/lets-talk-about-politics-again-ian-bogost/