[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.It seems to me that the challenge today is to better understand how the normativity of the economic in its neoliberal guise is inevitably and fundamentally linked to the reproduction of gender, sexual, kinship, desire, and biopolitical (that is, biocapital, human capital) normativity.JB: In a sense, we are confronted again with the challenge taken up by socialist feminisms a few decades ago, and one that continues to be important to those who are thinking about the economy of the household, the reproduction of labor, the differential production of illiteracy and poverty.One reason I am interested in precarity, which would include a consideration of “precaritization,” is that it describes that process of acclimatizing a population to insecurity.It operates to expose a targeted demographic to unemployment or to radically unpredictable swings between employment and unemployment, producing poverty and insecurity about an economic future, but also interpellating that population as expendable, if not fully abandoned.These affective registers of precaritization include the lived feeling of precariousness, which can be articulated with a damaged sense of future and a heightened sense of anxiety about issues like illness and mortality (especially when there is no health insurance or when conditions of labor and accelerated anxiety converge to debilitate the body).This is just one example of how a condition crosses the economic and cultural spheres, suggesting that what we need precisely are a new set of transversal categories and forms of thought that elude both dualism and determinism.Notes1 See also the exchange between Judith Butler and Nancy Fraser in New Left Review and Social Text for different views on the relationship between capitalism and heterosexism: Judith Butler, “Merely Cultural,” New Left Review, 227 (January–February 1998): 33–44 (previously published in Social Text, 52/53 [Fall–Winter 1997]: 265–76); Nancy Fraser, “Heterosexism, Misrecognition and Capitalism: A Response to Judith Butler,” New Left Review, 228 (March–April 1998): 140–50 (previously published in Social Text, 52/53 [Fall–Winter 1997]: 279–89).2 Wendy Brown, “Neo-liberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy,” Theory and Event, 7(1) (2003) (online journal).4Sexual dispossessionsAA: In the context of poststructuralist and psychoanalytic feminist theorizations of gender and sexuality, dispossession might be connected to a crucial constitutive and regulatory fiction of gender and sexuality – namely having versus not having.Having versus not having the phallus, in its inextricable relation with the distinction between being and having the phallus, lies at the heart of presumptions of materiality that construct truth regimes of sex, gender, and the body.JB: I am wondering if we can think together about what happens when we put “constitutive” together with “regulatory fiction.” Do we mean to say that a certain fiction regulates the formation of gender as well as sexuality? Regulation and constitution are often thought as separate sorts of activities, so to put them together suggests that the means through which gender and sexuality are regulated are also the condition of possibility for their emergence.In other words, regulatory ideals give shape and trajectory to emergent gender and sexuality.Does this dual operation of power function in the same way for gender as for sexuality? It seems to me that it might be important to separate the regulatory constitution of gender from the regulatory constitution of sexuality, and that we cannot assume enduring structural or causal links between the two.Admittedly, they are very often implicated in one another, but to understand how, we need to have a situational analysis.I would not want to say that the regulation of gender is only or always in the service of regulating sexuality, or that the regulation of sexuality has as its primary aim the stabilization of gender norms.That can sometimes be true, but it is surely as often the case that these two regulatory modes work at cross-purposes or in ways that prove to be relatively indifferent to one another.AA: In response to your very important question about what it means to put together “constitutive” and “regulatory” modes of power, I would say that this gesture of bringing-together perhaps seeks to invoke the ambivalent and provisional powers of subjectivation, which both constitute subjects and regulate them, as you say, but in various and contingent ways, intensities, contexts, and dispersals, and in ways that encompass – albeit not seamlessly actualize and control – the subjects’ erotic attachments to the identity designations they are called to assume and perform.What is important in the scene of subjectivation is that desire and the law are inextricably intertwined [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]