ARCHIVE - Comments on: ET2.0: Hybridism, Monstrosity, and Art that Misbehaves http://blogs.evergreen.edu/wolachd/blog/2009/01/03/et20-hybridism-monstrosity-and-art-that-misbehaves/ Experiments in Text is a Collective Blog for Students & Where Some of the Readings & Can Be Found Tue, 12 Apr 2011 04:50:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 ARCHIVE - By: zane http://blogs.evergreen.edu/wolachd/blog/2009/01/03/et20-hybridism-monstrosity-and-art-that-misbehaves/comment-page-1/#comment-654 zane Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:28:41 +0000 http://blogs.evergreen.edu/wolachd/?p=27#comment-654 I think my post was confused/confusing…”who is speaking here?”..it’s mostly from my own point of view…Derrida seems in this interview to be --quite sensibly-- refraining from hasty judgments…looking at things with a cool head. This is probably a good way to approach the question of monsters, which is so connected with fear and reactivity. My thoughts were set in motion by David’s response to Neil’s post – David poses the problem--how do we go about our attempts to understand the status quo and its power… Neil wrote : “ the fabric of society has been woven with predictability in mind-predictability in the status quo”…I wanted to point out the other side of the coin, the fact that ‘society’ and its status quos have evolved in constant relationship with threads of monstrosity. It seems to me that we’re anthropomorphizing, projecting our own fears, if we try to use the metaphor of the human individual to characterize society, which is ancient and inhuman. For us, as Neil says ,“any deviation from the known is to leave the footpath and possibly not return”, but the survival of society requires that some individuals do just that. An ant colony might provide a slightly better metaphor…it has to send individuals out in many directions…feel out danger….it can usually afford to lose a bunch of its members in this enterprise. This is still probably too anthropomorphic. (maybe any metaphor per se is going to be too anthropomorphic?) We need to clarify the differences between our encounters with the monstrous and ‘society’’s if we seek to make effective interventions in the social field. It’s tempting to think that society is ‘scared of monsters’ in an immediately intelligible way, but we have to be aware not only of its rigidity but also of its great resilience –especially today – techno-capitalism seems to thrive off of the monstrous. I wasn’t trying to draw attention to the fetishization of the monstrous but rather to repeat the idea that the equation of normality with excess is in accord with the prevailing irrationality of human production, its out-of-control-edness… I think my post was confused/confusing…”who is speaking here?”..it’s mostly from my own point of view…Derrida seems in this interview to be –quite sensibly– refraining from hasty judgments…looking at things with a cool head. This is probably a good way to approach the question of monsters, which is so connected with fear and reactivity. My thoughts were set in motion by David’s response to Neil’s post – David poses the problem–how do we go about our attempts to understand the status quo and its power… Neil wrote : “ the fabric of society has been woven with predictability in mind-predictability in the status quo”…I wanted to point out the other side of the coin, the fact that ‘society’ and its status quos have evolved in constant relationship with threads of monstrosity. It seems to me that we’re anthropomorphizing, projecting our own fears, if we try to use the metaphor of the human individual to characterize society, which is ancient and inhuman. For us, as Neil says ,“any deviation from the known is to leave the footpath and possibly not return”, but the survival of society requires that some individuals do just that. An ant colony might provide a slightly better metaphor…it has to send individuals out in many directions…feel out danger….it can usually afford to lose a bunch of its members in this enterprise. This is still probably too anthropomorphic. (maybe any metaphor per se is going to be too anthropomorphic?) We need to clarify the differences between our encounters with the monstrous and ‘society’’s if we seek to make effective interventions in the social field. It’s tempting to think that society is ‘scared of monsters’ in an immediately intelligible way, but we have to be aware not only of its rigidity but also of its great resilience –especially today – techno-capitalism seems to thrive off of the monstrous. I wasn’t trying to draw attention to the fetishization of the monstrous but rather to repeat the idea that the equation of normality with excess is in accord with the prevailing irrationality of human production, its out-of-control-edness…

]]> ARCHIVE - By: wolachd http://blogs.evergreen.edu/wolachd/blog/2009/01/03/et20-hybridism-monstrosity-and-art-that-misbehaves/comment-page-1/#comment-647 wolachd Sun, 11 Jan 2009 05:41:55 +0000 http://blogs.evergreen.edu/wolachd/?p=27#comment-647 You're right, Zane. I don't think Derrida (here) is seeking to idict conservatism in any particular way, or a way that is embued with the dialectical and interventionist spirit of a Brecht, say, or maybe more to the point, Kristeva. I don't think, however, that Derrida is suggesting that monstrosity, or one's relationship to it, is an a priori condition of "any status quo." You seem to be making the leap from an a prior condition of persistence in time and thus encountering change to an a priori phenomenology of threat, as well as an ackonwledgment of anything we might deem as a status quo. It is perhaps the notion of a status quo that Derrida is here challenging, trading that notion in (and in my estimation incorrectly) for the notion of normality (how things typically go vs. how things are). Your suggestion that we dance with monsters I take to be one way (?) of saying that while we fear the deeply unfamiliar, are threatened by it, we also seek it out, fetishize it. So there is a dialectical process at work here that Derrida, at least above, does not tacitly acknowledge, as Kristeva, for instance, does. If we take this line, though, we end up closer to where Adorno ended up, that we get to a point at which "everyone knows," an end of [insert flavor of the month] thesis. Where transgression is "liquidated" and/or hyper-self-reflexive, giving way to pastiche. I won't say here whether either set of theses strike me as truthlike, other than to say that you are good to point out a kind of quietism, or at least passive sociology, in Derrida's answer to Weber. You’re right, Zane. I don’t think Derrida (here) is seeking to idict conservatism in any particular way, or a way that is embued with the dialectical and interventionist spirit of a Brecht, say, or maybe more to the point, Kristeva. I don’t think, however, that Derrida is suggesting that monstrosity, or one’s relationship to it, is an a priori condition of “any status quo.” You seem to be making the leap from an a prior condition of persistence in time and thus encountering change to an a priori phenomenology of threat, as well as an ackonwledgment of anything we might deem as a status quo. It is perhaps the notion of a status quo that Derrida is here challenging, trading that notion in (and in my estimation incorrectly) for the notion of normality (how things typically go vs. how things are). Your suggestion that we dance with monsters I take to be one way (?) of saying that while we fear the deeply unfamiliar, are threatened by it, we also seek it out, fetishize it. So there is a dialectical process at work here that Derrida, at least above, does not tacitly acknowledge, as Kristeva, for instance, does. If we take this line, though, we end up closer to where Adorno ended up, that we get to a point at which “everyone knows,” an end of [insert flavor of the month] thesis. Where transgression is “liquidated” and/or hyper-self-reflexive, giving way to pastiche. I won’t say here whether either set of theses strike me as truthlike, other than to say that you are good to point out a kind of quietism, or at least passive sociology, in Derrida’s answer to Weber.

]]> ARCHIVE - By: zane http://blogs.evergreen.edu/wolachd/blog/2009/01/03/et20-hybridism-monstrosity-and-art-that-misbehaves/comment-page-1/#comment-646 zane Sun, 11 Jan 2009 05:22:26 +0000 http://blogs.evergreen.edu/wolachd/?p=27#comment-646 Little in Derrida's above sketch of the MONSTER sounds to me like an indictment of human society's conservativism. The relationship to the monster is a necessary consequence of the human psychic structure insofar as it is temporally organized. Habit is the basis of our orientation in time. Any creature of habit is going to encounter monsters if it persists long enough. 'Society' has this situation pretty well scoped-out. The relationship to the monster is an a priori condition of any 'status quo'. Human society, a cunning old (monster) hand at the game of persistence, wouldn't dream of attempting to avoid (other) monsters...It dances with them...has made a 'habit' of the dance...continually varies its moves, seeks embrace more and more monsters....it tries to dominate them or at least -- to keep up. Nonetheless, by this point, it's the monsters who lead the dance...maybe they always have? "Monstrosity may reveal or make one aware of what normality is": by now "everyone knows" that transgression itself is the only guarantor of the boundaries of any field. Little in Derrida’s above sketch of the MONSTER sounds to me like an indictment of human society’s conservativism. The relationship to the monster is a necessary consequence of the human psychic structure insofar as it is temporally organized. Habit is the basis of our orientation in time. Any creature of habit is going to encounter monsters if it persists long enough. ‘Society’ has this situation pretty well scoped-out. The relationship to the monster is an a priori condition of any ‘status quo’. Human society, a cunning old (monster) hand at the game of persistence, wouldn’t dream of attempting to avoid (other) monsters…It dances with them…has made a ‘habit’ of the dance…continually varies its moves, seeks embrace more and more monsters….it tries to dominate them or at least — to keep up. Nonetheless, by this point, it’s the monsters who lead the dance…maybe they always have? “Monstrosity may reveal or make one aware of what normality is”: by now “everyone knows” that transgression itself is the only guarantor of the boundaries of any field.

]]> ARCHIVE - By: wolachd http://blogs.evergreen.edu/wolachd/blog/2009/01/03/et20-hybridism-monstrosity-and-art-that-misbehaves/comment-page-1/#comment-644 wolachd Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:11:36 +0000 http://blogs.evergreen.edu/wolachd/?p=27#comment-644 Neil, Good points, and agreed, I think. The questions go deeper, though. That is, I think the difficulty (cf. Of Grammatology) is in a) locating the sources of power that generate "the status quo," and b) describing in some way what the status quo is, i.e., to move from "that's life" to "this is what life looks like through one set of lenses" or "this is what some part of life somewhere looks like when viewed through a particular, maybe even modular, experiment..." Thanks, Neil. Neil,

Good points, and agreed, I think. The questions go deeper, though. That is, I think the difficulty (cf. Of Grammatology) is in a) locating the sources of power that generate “the status quo,” and b) describing in some way what the status quo is, i.e., to move from “that’s life” to “this is what life looks like through one set of lenses” or “this is what some part of life somewhere looks like when viewed through a particular, maybe even modular, experiment…” Thanks, Neil.

]]> ARCHIVE - By: neil http://blogs.evergreen.edu/wolachd/blog/2009/01/03/et20-hybridism-monstrosity-and-art-that-misbehaves/comment-page-1/#comment-642 neil Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:31:37 +0000 http://blogs.evergreen.edu/wolachd/?p=27#comment-642 “Texts and discourses that provoke at the outset reactions of rejection, that are denounced precisely as anomalies or monstrosities are often texts that, before being in turn appropriated, assimilated, acculturated, transform the nature of the field of reception, transform the nature of social and cultural experience, historical experience.” Thinking aloud; This quote is not surprising. The fabric of society has been woven with predictability in mind-predictability in the status quo. This status quo is safe, known. Any deviation from the known is to leave the footpath and possibly not return. Is surviving about understanding the odds and having the outcome of ones actions be predictable? If so anomalies or montrostrosities are “one offs” or outliers, the very thing society doesn’t need in order to maintain predictability. Shedding light on our true nature doesn’t gratify us (imperial) now it only leaves us with more questions, which take on a life of their own. Those questions are/seem (you chose) untamable. Pursuing the untamable only takes us off task- surviving is hard enough. It’s not about progression versus regression but about maintaining rules to the game that are understood. The bottom line is transformation has always been a painful experience. The discipline and depth of character needed in order to see that transformation through is what really defines us. Entering that redefinition zone means you will come out the other side changed. That may be the biggest fear of all. “Texts and discourses that provoke at the outset reactions of rejection, that are denounced precisely as anomalies or monstrosities are often texts that, before being in turn appropriated, assimilated, acculturated, transform the nature of the field of reception, transform the nature of social and cultural experience, historical experience.”

Thinking aloud; This quote is not surprising. The fabric of society has been woven with predictability in mind-predictability in the status quo. This status quo is safe, known. Any deviation from the known is to leave the footpath and possibly not return. Is surviving about understanding the odds and having the outcome of ones actions be predictable? If so anomalies or montrostrosities are “one offs” or outliers, the very thing society doesn’t need in order to maintain predictability. Shedding light on our true nature doesn’t gratify us (imperial) now it only leaves us with more questions, which take on a life of their own. Those questions are/seem (you chose) untamable. Pursuing the untamable only takes us off task- surviving is hard enough. It’s not about progression versus regression but about maintaining rules to the game that are understood. The bottom line is transformation has always been a painful experience. The discipline and depth of character needed in order to see that transformation through is what really defines us. Entering that redefinition zone means you will come out the other side changed. That may be the biggest fear of all.

]]> ARCHIVE - By: wolachd http://blogs.evergreen.edu/wolachd/blog/2009/01/03/et20-hybridism-monstrosity-and-art-that-misbehaves/comment-page-1/#comment-624 wolachd Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:42:34 +0000 http://blogs.evergreen.edu/wolachd/?p=27#comment-624 Adam, These are two great questions - whether the future is necessarily monstrous in a deterministic way, or whether the indeterminate is monstrous simpliciter; and whether, if I understand you correctly, all monsters are tamed in the end, i.e., questioning of the possibility of the untamable. I think for Derrida the future is necessarily indeterminate, therefore monstrous in the sense he is invoking - fear-inducing and unknowable. I think he is also suggesting that his work is a kind of taming of that which is not yet identifiable. To think of deconstruction as taking known entities--a western canon text, say--and forgoing its normative interpretation in favor of removing one or more accepted premises - this experiment is a threat of established, set notions just as the primary text with features that test the very idea of "text", this text's arrival, causes the experience, the phenomenology of threat. When we have decided that a text has "bite," that very nomination is the removal, perhaps slow, but eventual removal of the bite. So, there is one sort of inevitability: the domestication of the monster. The question arises, however, in what way is the monstrous valuable? Why SHOULD one value monstrosity? There are, in a word, many threats one would deem valueless, or, at least having a valuation that is in total, negative. So what kind of valuation are we talking about? Thanks, Adam Adam,

These are two great questions – whether the future is necessarily monstrous in a deterministic way, or whether the indeterminate is monstrous simpliciter; and whether, if I understand you correctly, all monsters are tamed in the end, i.e., questioning of the possibility of the untamable. I think for Derrida the future is necessarily indeterminate, therefore monstrous in the sense he is invoking – fear-inducing and unknowable. I think he is also suggesting that his work is a kind of taming of that which is not yet identifiable. To think of deconstruction as taking known entities–a western canon text, say–and forgoing its normative interpretation in favor of removing one or more accepted premises – this experiment is a threat of established, set notions just as the primary text with features that test the very idea of “text”, this text’s arrival, causes the experience, the phenomenology of threat. When we have decided that a text has “bite,” that very nomination is the removal, perhaps slow, but eventual removal of the bite. So, there is one sort of inevitability: the domestication of the monster. The question arises, however, in what way is the monstrous valuable? Why SHOULD one value monstrosity? There are, in a word, many threats one would deem valueless, or, at least having a valuation that is in total, negative. So what kind of valuation are we talking about? Thanks, Adam

]]> ARCHIVE - By: padam http://blogs.evergreen.edu/wolachd/blog/2009/01/03/et20-hybridism-monstrosity-and-art-that-misbehaves/comment-page-1/#comment-620 padam Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:41:28 +0000 http://blogs.evergreen.edu/wolachd/?p=27#comment-620 Yes the future may be "necessarily monstrous," however, I'd say that often unrecognizable shadows become familiarly harmless toys at a closer glance. Next I wonder, does monstrosity hinge on true threat itself or on my uncertainty encircling the realization of potential threat? With the former, the toy was never monstrous, with the latter, it was literally monstrous in that moment. With the former, a monstrous future must bite like a lion and bulldoze like an elephant, with the latter, a monstrous future could be permitted to fall apart like stuffed animals unveiled by the light of the present. Monstrosity is more than just novelty. I'd say your writing must have bite. Yes the future may be “necessarily monstrous,” however, I’d say that often unrecognizable shadows become familiarly harmless toys at a closer glance. Next I wonder, does monstrosity hinge on true threat itself or on my uncertainty encircling the realization of potential threat? With the former, the toy was never monstrous, with the latter, it was literally monstrous in that moment. With the former, a monstrous future must bite like a lion and bulldoze like an elephant, with the latter, a monstrous future could be permitted to fall apart like stuffed animals unveiled by the light of the present.

Monstrosity is more than just novelty. I’d say your writing must have bite.

]]>