October 30, 2013 § Leave a comment
October 22, 2013 § Leave a comment
AAB | about a bicycle
I’m, like, in love with you!
issue 3 | autumn 2013
“To be affected by something is to evaluate that thing” – Sara Ahmed
In conjunction with our recent summer project on The Affective State, issue three explores the specificity of the term “affect,” from enabling ugly feelings for political action, to discursively produced affect, to pre-subjective intensities, to the effect of neoliberal precarity on our affective lives, to physiology, psychology, and to the body.
Join us as we the celebrate the launch of our third issue, I’m, like, in love with you! Featuring the works of Megan Hepburn, Penelope Hetherington, Anahita Jamali Rad, Rafaela Kino, Danielle LaFrance, Dorothy Trujillo Lusk, Kaylin Pearce, Nikki Reimer, and Jacquelyn Ross.
AAB is a group of self-identified women, with interest in reading and discussing interesting critical themes that are pertinent to the space and time of the readers.
Hosted at the THE READING ROOM: 1146 e Pender St.
The issue will be available for $10 at the launch.
October 15, 2013 § Leave a comment
October 8, 2013 § Leave a comment
(Image courtesy of Nikki Reimer)
There’s no getting it when it comes to affect theory. But what Brown exposes is how that which binds individuals and groups is based on an order of affect attached to belief. A problematic arises as the culturalization of liberal democratic societies produces a division between those who have culture and whom culture has. Within the context of the War on Terror, the West eagerly promote their position as the moral arbiter of tolerance (i.e., respect for women’s rights, free speech, private property, religious). Most importantly, it is based on time when the logic of tolerance is implemented for political gain.
Her analysis includes how those bound to their culture show great signs of weakness while those on the outside, freely able to exit and enter as they so choose, are mighty and powerful. The latter bare the marks of a strong national culture. We discussed how immigration often produces strong religious sentiments as a way to build strong ties and bonds.
Brown turns to Freud to expose how group behaviours are enacted. Let us remember how civilization, according to Freud, is both the source of individual happiness and is the undoing of the social subject. That which binds and unravels is based in affect not traits. According to Freud, we “progress” from organicist identities to individuals. To be in love, to satisfy our own desires narcissistically, replaces the ego ideal by a common object — a common voice, a common leader. If love is made public it becomes dangerous. Love must be civilized, must be domesticated.
Culture is powerful, no wonder it’s sterilized. When it can’t be digested…
October 2, 2013 § Leave a comment
Come join us for the final session of this season’s About a Bicycle reading and discussion series. In the Affective State, we’ve tried to get directly at this thing that was consistently coming up throughout our past sessions, only to find out in this session, that that thing, affect, is precisely that which cannot be directly accessed. We’ve explored various theoretical procedures from D&G’s intensities, to culturally or socially produced affect, to the body, physiology, and psychology. In this session, however, we’re really going to get at it. Wendy Brown will deconstruct our subjectivities, and then Marx: the Video, will allow us to feel Karl.
Your critical apparatus is at the base of the spine.
Readings can be accessed via the schedule.
Times (see email for locations/contact information):
Love and solidarity from the bottom of our hearts,
October 2, 2013 § Leave a comment
Sedgwick and Frank’s text reads like a love letter to a deceased Tomkins. Some of us found it difficult to not be affected by what appears like a naively simplistic and repetitious prose. Unlike S&F, we didn’t allow that affection to impede our critical abilities.
We enjoyed the description of the binaries, an opposition to which is appealing. We discussed a similarity between the graphic representation of Tomkins’s affects to the intensities of D&G. The intensity of a stimulus defines which affect is realised in the subject of feeling.
We couldn’t agree wholeheartedly with S&F’s criticism of Cvetkovich, at felt it was a somewhat playground defence of their hero.
And Nina Power hits us where it hurts us: in our commodified relationships to ourselves, reminding us of our complicities, whether in “lipstick feminism” (wha?) or in our lifestyle choices that perpetually lead to ideologies preserving us as good capitalist subjects.