|

Passages from the Affect Theory Reader

1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 These are the passages I read aloud on the first day of class. Sorry it’s taken me a while to get around to posting them!

2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Here’s the citation: Siegworth, Gregory J. and Melissa Gregg. “An Inventory of Shimmers” The Affect Theory Reader. Ed. Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010. 1-28.

3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Affect arises in the midst of in-betweenness: in the capacities to act and be acted upon. Affect is an impingement or extrusion of a momentary or sometimes more sustained state of relation as well as the passage (and the duration of passage) of forces or intensities. That is, affect is found in those intensities that pass body to body (human, nonhuman, part-body, and otherwise), in those resonances that circulate about, between, and sometimes stick to bodies and worlds, and in the very passages or variations between these intensities and resonances themselves. Affect, at its most anthropomorphic, is the name we give to those forces –– visceral forces beneath, alongside, or generally other than conscious knowing, vital forces insisting beyond emotion –– that can serve to drive us toward movement, toward thought and extension, that can likewise suspend us (as if in neutral) across a barely registering accretion of force-relations, or that can leave us overwhelmed by the world’s apparent intractability. Indeed, affect is persistent proof of a body’s never less than ongoing immersion in and among the world’s obstinacies and rhythms, its refusals as much as its invitations. (1)

4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 [F]irst encounters with theories of affect might feel like a momentary (sometimes more permanent) methodological and conceptual free fall. Almost all of the tried-and-true handholds and footholds for so much critical-cultural-philosophical inquiry and for theory –– subject/object, representation and meaning, rationality, consciousness, time and space, inside/outside, human/nonhuman, identity, structure, background/foreground, and so forth –– become decidedly less sure and more nonsequential (any notion of strict ‘determination’ or directly linear cause and effect goes out the window too). Because affect emerges out of muddy, unmediated relatedness and not in some dialectical reconciliation of cleanly oppositional elements or primary units, it makes easy compartmentalisms give way to thresholds and tensions, blends and blurs. […] It is no wonder too that when theories have dared to provide even a tentative account of affect, they have sometimes been viewed as naively or romantically wandering too far out into the groundlessness of a world’s or a body’s myriad inter-implications, letting themselves get lost in an over-abundance of swarming, sliding differences: chasing tiny firefly intensities that flicker faintly in the night […] But […] affect in its immanence signals the very promise of affect theory too: casting illumination upon the “not yet” of a body’s doing, casting a line along the hopeful (though also fearful) cusp of an emergent futurity, casting its lot with the infinitely connectable, impersonal, and contagious belongings to this world.

5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 It might help to think about Williams’s structures of feeling as the “emergent futurity of the last sentence here.

Source: https://985archive.queergeektheory.org/passages-from-the-affect-theory-reader/