"Man* is no longer man enclosed, but man in debt. It is true that capitalism has retained as a constant the extreme poverty of three quarters of humanity, too poor for debt**, too numerous for confinement: control will not only have to deal with erosions of frontiers*** but with the explosions within shanty towns or ghettos."
*[HER] "This article is about adult [developed] human males. For humans in general, see Human. For the word "man", see Man (word). For the island, see Isle of Man. For other uses, see Man (disambiguation). "Manhood" redirects here. For other uses, see Manhood (disambiguation). "Men" redirects here. For other uses, see Men (disambiguation)." [Wikipedia]
[HER: HERMENEUTIC]
[HER: HERMENEUTIC]
*** [CINE] Bamako (2006) puts the IMF/World Bank on trial. [CINE: CINEMATIC]
[ANT] Just as “man” is marked by debt, so are the “3/4 of humanity,” situated as an antithesis, marked and disciplined by a regime of visibility and reiteration. It is “man,” marked by debt, whose position is reliant on the ‘too poor’ or ‘too numerous’ for its denotative meaning. [QST] Is not the three quarters also marked—Third World, Fourth World, developing, and even marked by the debt of structural adjustment? Why do these spaces become reconstituted as a site for battle, as filled with potential, yet always already marked by that which relies on its opposition? In what ways does denotation, that which references the sign, attempt to depoliticize and make equal hierarchies of meaning, whose existence, while plural, is produced in and through a particular discourse?
ReplyDelete[ANT: ANTITHESIS]
[REF] [DIS] Does the excess of desire drive capitalism, both materially and epistemologically (the ultimate mastery of each and every frontier)? If, through repetition, the frontier is yielded and produced as new, constructed as that which needs to be consumed, then control thus works through the proliferation and construction of unending desire(s). Although the asymptotic border of the frontier is never fully mastered, pleasure is invoked in its unending (re)production, an unending penetration of and construction of the frontier. If pleasure can also be thought of as “in excess,” in what ways can this excess become unpleasureable? In what ways does this excess of pleasure speak death (death as the ultimate frontier)? Has the unconscious been penetrated by late capitalism? Or had it always been penetrated?
ReplyDelete[DIS: DISCOURSE: PSYCHOANALYTIC]
[REF: REFERENTIAL]