Month: March 2008 (page 1 of 2)

Units

I’d like to see somebody write a theory of the irreducible unit. What’s more, I’d like to see two kind of units defined: static and variable units. For Saussurean linguistics, the phoneme is always the static irreducible unit. For an addict, though, the irreducible unit is the hit. The hit is always exactly what’s required, no less. But what’s required is always different. For the addict, some chemical interaction between the body and the drug determines the content of the hit, and so the the theory of units has to come into contact with biology.

How does the dedication to the unit govern the organization of drives? What is the administrative or disciplinary capacity of the unit? How much weight should the theory of the unit receive once embedded in any theory of social relations?

One Sentence From A Work-In-Progress

“Such contextual moments appear rather as deictic splinters lodged in the writing.”

Bartleby & Co.

crispin_glover2.jpg

Reading Enrique Vila-Matas’s Bartleby & Co. as a kind of warm-up to constructing my orals lists. It’s a hybrid text – a series of reflections on (mostly?) real “writers of No” within a fictional frame. Writers of No, writers that withdraw from writing or never write anything at all, wrench language open by refusing to use it. Part of the work of the writer of No is to puncture the boundary between working and not working, yet almost all of the writers of No Vila-Matas lists experience their not-writing as a zone of indetermination, an uncomfortable and permanent caesura in life’s rhythm. Vila-Matas’s narrator, of course, being a writer of No until he stirs and begins to write his book.

I find myself envious of both Vila-Matas’s book and the writers he chronicles, secret practitioners of conceptual art avant la lettre.

Shock

lo28906_angelusnovus.jpg
Thinking a bit about “Shock” while reading Benjamin and Eisenstein today. “Shock” as a term freighted with Dada’s anarchism, Benjamin’s mystical Marxism, Eisenstein’s communism. It’s a term that — at least when translated into English from German, French, Russian, etc — cuts across the first few decades of the twentieth century. But I’m not sure if “Shock” is always “Shock.” For Benjamin, shocks both stun and shatter constellations of thought, an instant of insensibility that leaves its trace in thought. For Eisenstein, the term relates to the affective dimensions of film content: “As I understand it, content is the summary of all that is subjected to the series of shocks to which in a particular order the audience is to be exposed” (“The Method of Making Workers’ Films”). Perhaps the only difference between the two of them is that Eisenstein is the filmmaker, and thus delivers shocks to the world, while Benjamin is subjected to them.

To Do List

kelseygrammer.jpg

The paper in which I demonstrate the anarchist politics of Frasier.

The class in which I teach the cultural politics of Michael Crichton, John Grisham, and Maeve Binchy.

Taking the cat for a walk down Bushwick Ave.

Learning to Double Dutch.

Growing again.

Older posts

© 2024 Mark Sussman

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑