Monday, January 24, 2011
Agamben
"Nothing begins or ends in a substance. There are no subjects, just processes of subjectivity."
Thursday, January 13, 2011
A note on the title
Not sure about this but it came from the inescapablism of the ism,
in a sense. Ism's errect the ideas of a culture able to 'speak' about things. Also, the ism has its foundation in patriarchal practice. It was men that errected the first (alknowledged) pen of thought. So there are many many penises in history - penises considered permenantly errect. I am probably being over explanatory here but its my first spoke in the wheel of blogspeak.
Anywho, I would initially approach 'errectisms' in relation to postfeminism because it is so obviously and actively unpassive that it often reinstates the active - passive dichotomy it should be trying to erradicate. I know this is well documented already by feminist debates, but still! it cant be undone.
Too often it happens that one is considered either feminine or feminist. The former is passive allowing for the 'active streamlined male' to approach and the latter is active and threatens to engulf a male identity that is revealed as passive and unassuming through it. The binary admits artificiallity in todays theoretical circles but, of times, artificiallity still works. So the Errectism of the ism and of feminism seems inevitable and its language is quite a powerful thing! - Often i think the word feminism is bulky and wears a big jacket with shoulder pads on, it doesn't wear a bra and it smokes the odd cigar and then the 'feminine' coughs a sweet and unassuming cough in its cloud of smoke.
The problem still remains that there is no 'femme' in 'ism' is there?
in a sense. Ism's errect the ideas of a culture able to 'speak' about things. Also, the ism has its foundation in patriarchal practice. It was men that errected the first (alknowledged) pen of thought. So there are many many penises in history - penises considered permenantly errect. I am probably being over explanatory here but its my first spoke in the wheel of blogspeak.
Anywho, I would initially approach 'errectisms' in relation to postfeminism because it is so obviously and actively unpassive that it often reinstates the active - passive dichotomy it should be trying to erradicate. I know this is well documented already by feminist debates, but still! it cant be undone.
Too often it happens that one is considered either feminine or feminist. The former is passive allowing for the 'active streamlined male' to approach and the latter is active and threatens to engulf a male identity that is revealed as passive and unassuming through it. The binary admits artificiallity in todays theoretical circles but, of times, artificiallity still works. So the Errectism of the ism and of feminism seems inevitable and its language is quite a powerful thing! - Often i think the word feminism is bulky and wears a big jacket with shoulder pads on, it doesn't wear a bra and it smokes the odd cigar and then the 'feminine' coughs a sweet and unassuming cough in its cloud of smoke.
The problem still remains that there is no 'femme' in 'ism' is there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)