| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,15 @@ |
|
1 |
+**Their focus on an ideal framework that the subject functions under as a starting point for normativity fails fails to recognize the way our becoming control us - identity should be understood through the fluid relations of the machine. JUN:** |
|
2 |
+Jun, Nathan. “Deleuze, Values, and Normativity.”. LHP MK |
|
3 |
+The primary focus of...often novel ways” (May 2005: 125). ¶ |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+**They force the subject to be graded against a majoritarian worldview that always leaves it empty - any degree of deviancy leads the subject incomplete, causing it to desire its own oppression. DELEUZE AND GUATTARI:** |
|
6 |
+Deleuze and Guattari. Deleuze and Guattari. “Anti-Oedipus.” Pg. 26-29. 1977. LHP MK |
|
7 |
+In point of...be accounted for. |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+**The alternative is to dismantle the face ~-~-- this undermines the faciality machines that they seek recognition through and their normative value. BIGNALL ’12:** |
|
10 |
+Bignall, Simone. “Dismantling the Face: Pluralism and the Politics of Recognition.” University of New South Wales. 2012. LHP MK |
|
11 |
+Deleuze and Guattari...inevitability and stability. |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+**The role of the ballot is to vote for the better debate that best interrogates the oppressive politics of recognition. MACCORMACK:** |
|
14 |
+Maccormack, Patricia “Faciality” http://archeologia.women.it/user/quarta/workshops/spectacles2/patriciamaccormack.htm. LHP AA |
|
15 |
+I would add to this...into the ‘individual’ face |