| ... |
... |
@@ -1,15
+1,0 @@ |
| 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 |