6 thoughts on “My contribution to the Agamben symposium

  1. so “The Political Theology blog” had “published” your “contributions to their “symposium. I think we’ve heard this sort of thing before, what’s next, they’re going to politicize your blogging of their contrubutions to some nonexistent publishing?

    frankly, my dear, i don’t give damn

  2. I am sympathetic to your adjudications here. My only suggestion is that, rather than casting the Nietzschean tradition of genealogy as one of DISCONTINUITIES with a traceable thread (be it in inertial effects or signatures), that you think of it more in terms of CONTINGENCY (still traceable as it is) instead. It’s more elegant, less binary. Moreover, it also clarifies Nietzsche’s historiographic conception as a disavowal of (uni)linear causation in favor of a more open “economy” of multivectoral and multivariate affect(u)s across time (with all its “unmanageable” concrete specificities). This, in turn, could be a helpful corrective to Agamben’s (Heideggerian) flattening out of history and congelation of the West.

  3. David, I think contingency is an apt term to get past the false binary of continuity and discontinuity, and I think that I am operating in terms of contingency without explicitly naming it — I just felt constrained to work within the terms Toscano had laid out given that his critique was orienting my essay.

    I still have no clue what Emily was getting at.

Comments are closed.