If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.Įnter your library card number to sign in.
Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account. When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution.Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.Click Sign in through your institution.Shibboleth / Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.Ĭhoose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways: Get help with access Institutional accessĪccess to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. Namely, because Deleuze also recognizes the irreducibility of the materiality that he reduces, affect ends up suppressing the body again and again ad infinitum. Purely idealist readings miss a more brutal consequence. It is not even enough to say Deleuze is less materialist than the most ideal philosopher. In light of which, however, I do not simply unearth grounds on which to question Deleuze’s materialism. On the other hand, however, the same affective autonomy remains complicit with the tradition in a way neglected by Deleuze and influential commentators: Deleuze dematerializes and disembreduces, affect ends up suppressing the bodyodies affect in order to render it autonomous. As what takes place between individuals, on the one hand, Deleuze gives affect an autonomy that would be unthinkable in the philosophical tradition according to which sensations derive from and belong to a pre-existent being. The gesture makes Deleuze both more and less traditional than the tradition. Deleuze generalises and radicalises this idea of becoming such that it no longer takes place between two states of one individual but, rather, between two heterogenous individuals. For Spinoza, affectus refers to an individual’s passage or (in Deleuze’s terms) ‘becoming’ between two states. This third perspective includes Lawrence Grossberg’s notion of affective investments, Christian Lundberg’s Lacanian-inspired view of affect, Sara Ahmed’s work on the sociality of emotion, and Gernot Böhme’s theory of atmospheres.Chapter 5 specifies the precise but silent moment in which Deleuze breaks with Spinoza. Recent extensions of this tradition tend to emphasize the importance of materiality, or what Jane Bennett has called “thing-power.” A number of scholars working in communication and cultural studies have created a third, hybrid tradition that attempts to bridge or mediate the two dominant historical accounts. This tradition, whose most famous proponent is Gilles Deleuze, is evident in Brian Massumi’s theory of autonomous affect and Nigel Thrift’s non-representational theory. The second perspective, which is typically associated with developments in philosophy and the humanities, treats affect as an intensive force. Recent extensions of this tradition include the work of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Lisa Cartwright, and Teresa Brennan. Tomkins’s theory of primary affects and Antonio Damasio’s theory of basic emotions. The first perspective, which has its roots in psychology and neuroscience, tends to view affect as an elemental state. Affect has historically been conceptualized in one of two dominant ways.
0 kommentar(er)
