【24h】

Being or Sex, and Differences

机译:存在或性别与差异

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This essay focuses on three differences, on the basis of which it eventually revises current conceptions of biopolitics. First, there is the difference between sex and sexual difference. Sex pertains to virtual time and is another term for the death drive or Being (or substance, in the Spinozian sense), as the power of its self-actualization, because of which Sex or Being is self-referential; by contrast, sexual difference introduces (actual) time and mortality. The second difference concerns sexual difference itself, as the two modes of having a rapport with the failed Oneness of Being, due to the latter’s self-referentiality. The third is the theoretical difference between Lacan and Deleuze, which - as I argue by focusing on central concepts such as automatism, machine, affect, signifier, virtual and actual time, death drive, narcissism, and lack - is structured like sexual difference, that is, as the abyss of incommensurability between the sexes that persists and is required, in spite of all similarities, for the affirmation of a third unassimilable and unknown Other - Being qua self-referentiality. As between the sexes, the most intimately shared point by the two thinkers is the recognition of the indispensability of this radical Otherness, which in their case is condensed in their common assault on empirical (actual) linear time. Finally, I argue that biopolitics has nothing to do either with the repression of sexuality - one’s rapport with the One’s self-referentiality cannot be repressed, for repression applies only to signifiers - or with its discursive production (as in Foucault’s inversely symmetrical criticism of the “repression hypothesis”). Rather, biopolitics in capitalist modernity is an effect of the commodification of labor-power, that is, of the potential of labor to actualize itself. This unprecedented “commerce of the potential as potential” (Virno) amounts to the commerce - i.e., the attempt to inscribe within (economic) representation - of that which persists only as long as it cannot be established in the enunciable: Being or Sex.View full textDownload full textKeywordsbiopolitics, Deleuze, Lacan, Lévi-Strauss, Marx, SpinozaRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2012.701048
机译:本文着眼于三个差异,并在此基础上最终修订了当前的生物政治概念。首先,性别和性别差异之间存在差异。性别与虚拟时间有关,是死亡驱动力或存在(或斯宾诺斯主义意义上的实质)的另一个术语,因为它是自我实现的力量,因此性别或存在是自指的。相反,性别差异会引入(实际)时间和死亡率。第二种差异涉及性别差异本身,这是由于存在的自我指称而与失败的存在性融为一体的两种方式。第三个是拉康与德勒兹之间的理论差异,正如我通过关注诸如自动性,机器,情感,指示符,虚拟和实际时间,死亡驱动力,自恋和缺乏等核心概念所指出的那样,其结构类似于性别差异,也就是说,尽管存在所有相似之处,但作为两性之间不可逾越的深渊,仍然存在,这是确认第三种不可同化和未知的“其他-具有自我指称性”所必需的。在两性之间,这两个思想家最密切的共同点是认识到这种激进的“异性”的不可或缺性,在他们的情况下,这种异性凝聚在他们对经验(实际)线性时间的共同攻击中。最后,我认为生物政治学与压抑性行为无关-一个压制与一个人的自我指称的关系是无法压制的,因为压制仅适用于指称者-或与它的话语性产生(如福柯对“压制假设”的反对称批评。相反,资本主义现代性中的生物政治是劳动力商品化的结果,即劳动力实现自身潜力的影响。这种史无前例的“将潜力作为潜力进行交易”(Virno)等于只有在无法阐明的情况下才持续存在的贸易,即试图在(经济)表示中进行登记。或性爱。 facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more“,发布号:” ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b“};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2012.701048

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号