“I Would Rather Be a Cyborg Than a Goddess”

2/3/2016 AccessProvidedbyRutgersUniversityat02/23/1311:51PMGMT

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.jasbirpuar.com/assets/JKP_CyborgGoddess.pdf 1/23

Thisisthehtmlversionofthefilehttp://www.jasbirpuar.com/assets/JKP_CyborgGoddess.pdf.Googleautomaticallygenerateshtmlversionsofdocumentsaswecrawltheweb.

Page1



AccessProvidedbyRutgersUniversityat02/23/1311:51PMGMT

Page2

Iwouldratherbeacyborgthanagoddess

BecomingIntersectionalinAssemblageTheory



JasbirK.Puar

GridshappenwritesBrianMassumi,atamomentinParablesfortheVirtualwhereoneistemptedtobesweptawaybytheendlessaffirmativebecomingsofmovement,flux,andpotential,asopposedtobeingpinneddownbytheretroactivepositioningofidentity(2002,8).Forthemostpart,Massumihasbeenlessinterestedinhowgridshappenthaninaskinghowtheycanunhappen,ornothappen.Whatthetensionbetweenthetwopurportedlyopposingforcessignals,atthisjunctionofscholarlycriticism,mightbethoughtofasadialoguebetweentheoriesthatdeploythesubjectasaprimaryanalyticframe,andthosethathighlighttheforcesthatmakesubjectformationtenuous,ifnotimpossibleorevenundesirable.Ihaveseenthistensionmanifestacutelyinmyownworkonintersectionalityandassemblagetheory.OntheonehandIhavebeenastaunchadvocateofwhatisnowcommonlyknownasanintersectionalapproach:analysesthatforegroundthemutuallycoconstitutiveforcesofrace,class,sex,gender,andnation.NumerousfeministthinkersconsiderintersectionalitythedominantparadigmthroughwhichfeministtheoryhasanalyzeddifferenceLeslieMcCallarguesthatintersectionalitymightbeconsideredthemostimportanttheoreticalcontributionthatwomensstudies,inconjunctionwithotherfields,hasmadesofar(McCall2005,1771).Intersectionalanalysisisnowaprevalentapproachinqueertheory.1Atthesametime,encounteringapoststructuralistfatiguewiththenowpredictableyetstill

Page3

necessarydemandsforsubjectrecognition,Ialsoarguedinmybook,TerroristAssemblages:HomonationalisminQueerTimes,thatintersectionalityasanintellectualrubricandatoolforpoliticalinterventionmustbesupplementedifnotcomplicatedandreconceptualizedbyanotionofassemblage.FollowingMassumiontheretrospectiveorderingofidentitiessuchasgender,race,andsexualorientationwhichbackformtheirreality,inTerroristAssemblagesIwrite,[I]ntersectionalidentitiesandassemblagesmustremainasinterlocutors



50philoSOPHIA

intension...intersectionalidentitiesarethebyproductsofattemptstostillandquelltheperpetualmotionofassemblages,tocaptureandreducethem,toharnesstheirthreateningmobility(Puar2007,213).Subjectpositioningonagridisneverselfcoincidingpositioningdoesnotprecedemovementbutratheritisinducedbyitepistemologicalcorrectivescannotapprehendontologicalbecomingsthecomplexityofprocessiscontinuallymistakenforaresultantproduct.2

SincethepublicationofTerroristAssemblages,inresponsetoanxietiesaboutmyapparentprescriptiontoleaveintersectionalitybehind(asifonecould),Ihaveoftenbeenaskedtoelaborateonthepoliticalusagesofassemblagesandassemblagetheory.AprominentconceptintheworkofGillesDeleuzeandFelixGuattari,assemblageseemstoinspiredoubtaboutitspoliticalapplicability,whileintersectionalityseemstoholdfastasasuccessfultoolforpoliticalandscholarlytransformation.Partoftheassumptionatworkinthesequeriesisthatrepresentation,anditsrecognizedsubjects,isthedominant,primary,ormostefficaciousplatformofpoliticalintervention,whileaDeleuziannonrepresentational,nonsubjectorientedpoliticsisdeemedimpossible.Perhapsthesequeriesalsorevealconcernsabouthowtheymightbesomehowincompatibleorevenoppositional,despitethefactthatintersectionalityandassemblagearenotanalogousintermsofcontent,utility,ordeployment.Asanalytics,theymaynotbereconcilable.Yettheyneednotbeoppositionalbutrather,Iargue,frictional.

Inwhatfollows,Ioffersomepreliminarythoughtsonthelimitsandpossibilitiesofintersectionalityandassemblageandwhatmightbegainedbythinkingthemthroughandwitheachother.Whatarethestrengthsofeachintherealmsoftheory,politicalorganizing,legalstructures,andmethod?Throughhighlightingtheconvivialcrossingsofthesetwodifferentiatedbutnotoppositionalgenealogies,Ioffersomethoughtsonepistemologicalcorrectivesinfeministknowledgeproductionwhichhasbeendriven,sometimessinglemindedly,bythemandateofintersectionalanalysistoseewhatkindsoffuturesarepossibleforfeministtheorizing.Irereadtheformativeconceptthatfueledthemetaphoricinvocationofintersectionality,specificallyKimberlCrenshawsuseofthetrafficintersection,toshowwhereintersectionality,asthatwhichretroactivelyformsthegridandpositionsonit,andassemblage,asthatwhichispriorto,beyond,orpastthegrid,notsomuchintersect(though

Page4



Iwouldratherbeacyborgthanagoddess51

Iamtemptedtomakethepun)butratherresonatewitheachother.Thatistosay,whatfollowsaspirestoanaffirmative,convivialconversationbetweenwhathavegenerallybeenconstruedasoppositionalsetsofliteratures:thatofwomenofcolorintersectionalfeministtheory,andfeministtheorythathasbeeninvestedinpostrepresentational,posthuman,orpostsubjectconceptualizationsofthebody.Myaimhere,then,isnottoevaluatethelimitsandpotentialsofintersectionalityforthesakeofrefiningintersectionalityitself,nortoweighinondebatesaboutwhetherintersectionalityisoutmodedandoutdated(Tayloretal.2011,3),buttoputintersectionalityintandemwithassemblagetoseehowtheymightbethoughttogether.

IntersectionalityandItsDiscontents

IthasbeenmorethantwentyyearssinceKimberlCrenshawwrotehergroundbreakingpiecetitled,DemarginalizingtheIntersectionofRaceandSex:ABlackFeministCritiqueofAntidiscriminationDoctrine,FeministTheory,andAntiracistPolitics(1989),which,alongwithher1991pieceMappingtheMargins:Intersectionality,IdentityPolitics,andViolenceagainstWomenofColor,wentontobecomeseminaltextsforthetheorizationofintersectionality.Thetwentiethanniversarywasmarkedbyanumberofspecialjournalissues,editedbooks,andconferencescommemoratingCrenshawscontributionanddiscussingtheimpactofintersectionalfeministtheorizing,perhapsgeneratingaresurgenceofinterestinthetopic,asanniversariesarewonttodo.AsactivistandtheoreticaldiscourseaboutdifferencedevelopedoverseveraldecadesbyblackfeministsintheUnitedStatessuchasAudreLorde,bellhooks,AngelaDavis,andTheCombaheeRiverCollective,thetermintersectionalitywasintroducedbyandbecamesolidifiedasafeministheuristicthroughCrenshawsanalysisofU.S.antidiscriminationlegaldoctrine.Crenshawmappedoutthreeformsofintersectionalanalysisshedeemedcrucial:structural(addressingtheintersectionofracismandpatriarchyinrelationtobatteringandrapeofwomen)political(addressingtheintersectionofantiracistorganizingandfeministorganizing)andrepresentational(addressingtheintersectionofracialstereotypesandgenderstereotypes,particularlyinthecaseof2LiveCrew).Herinterventionintomutuallyexclusiveidentityparadigmsisoneofrethinkingidentitypoliticsfromwithin,inparticular,fromwithinsystemiclegalexclusions.3

WhileCrenshawspecificallytargetedtheelisionsofbothcriticalraceparadigmsandgendernormativeparadigms,intersectionalityemergedfromthestrugglesofsecondwavefeminismasacrucialblackfeministinterventionchallengingthehegemonicrubricsofrace,class,andgenderwithinpredominantlywhitefeministframes.Pedagogically,sincetheemergenceandconsolidationofintersectionalityfromthe1980son,ithasbeendeployedmoreforcefullyasa



Page5

feministinterventiontodisruptwhitenessandlesssoasacriticalraceinterventiontodisruptmasculinistframes.Thus,preciselyintheactofperformingthisintervention,whatisalsoproducedisanironicreificationofsexualdifferenceasa/thefoundationalonethatneedstobedisrupted.Sexualandgenderdifferenceisunderstoodastheconstantfromwhichtherearevariants,justaswomenofcolorareconstructedindominantfeministgenerationalnarrativesasthenewestarrivalsamongthesubjectsoffeminism.Thispedagogicaldeploymenthashadtheeffectofresecuringthecentralityofthesubjectpositioningofwhitewomen.

Howisthispossible?Thetheoryofintersectionalityarguesthatallidentitiesarelivedandexperiencedasintersectionalinsuchawaythatidentitycategoriesthemselvesarecutthroughandunstableandthatallsubjectsareintersectionalwhetherornottheyrecognizethemselvesassuch.InthesuccinctwordsofArunSaldahna,usingVenndiagramstoillustratehispoint,Thetheoryofintersectionalityholdsthatthereisnoactualbodythatisamemberofonlyoneset(Saldanha2010,289).Butwhatthemethodofintersectionalityismostpredominantlyusedtoqualifyisthespecificdifferenceofwomenofcolor,acategorythathasnowbecome,Iwouldargue,simultaneouslyemptiedofspecificmeaninginitsubiquitousapplicationandyetoverdeterminedinitsdeployment.Inthisusage,intersectionalityalwaysproducesanOther,andthatOtherisalwaysaWomanofColor(nowonreferredtoasWOC,tounderscoretheoverdeterminedemptinessofitsgratuitousness),whomustinvariablybeshowntoberesistant,subversive,orarticulatingagrievance.4Morepointedly,itisthedifferenceofAfricanAmericanwomenthatdominatesthisgenealogyofthetermwomenofcolor.Indeed,Crenshawisclearthatshecentralizesblackwomensexperienceandpositsblackwomenasthestartingpointofheranalysis(Crenshaw1991,1243).Thus,theinsistentconsolidationofintersectionalityasadominantheuristicmaywellbedrivenbyanxietiesaboutmaintainingtheintegrityofadiscreteblackfeministgenealogy,onethatmightactuallyobfuscatehowintersectionalityisthoughtofandfunctionsdifferentlyindifferentstrandsofblackfeministandwomenofcolorfeministthought.Forexample,whileCrenshewsworkisaboutdisruptingandreconcilingwhatareperceivedtobeirreconcilablebinaryoptionsofgenderandrace,AudreLordesseminalpieceAge,Race,Class,andSex:WomenRedefiningDifferencefrom1984readsasadynamic,affectivelyresonantpostulationofinchoateandsometimescontradictoryintersectionalsubjectivities.5

ThisironicotheringofWOCthroughanapproachthatmeanttoalleviatesuchotheringisexacerbatedbythefactthatintersectionalityhasbecomecathectedtothefieldofwomensstudiesastheparadigmaticframethroughwhichwomenslivesareunderstoodandtheorized,aproblemreifiedbybothWOC



52philoSOPHIA

feministsandwhitefeminists.6McCallnotesthatfeministsareperhapsaloneintheacademyintheextenttowhichtheyhaveembracedintersectionality...

Page6

asitselfacentralcategoryofanalysis(McCall2005,1771).Thisclaimtointersectionalityasthedominantfeministmethodcanbeproducedwithsuchinsistencethataninterestinexploringotherframes,forexampleassemblage,isrenderedproblematicandevenproducesWOCfeministsinvestedinmultiplegenealogiesasracetraitors.7Thisaccusationofcoursereinforcestheimplicitunderstandingthatintersectionalityisatooltodiagnosespecificallyracialdifference.Despitedecadesoffeministtheorizingonthequestionofdifference,differencecontinuestobedifferencefrom,thatis,thedifferencefromwhitewoman.Distinctfromaframethatprivilegesdifferencewithin,differencefromproducesdifferenceasacontradictionratherthanasarecognizingitasaperpetualandcontinuousprocessofsplitting.Thisisalsothenanironicreificationofracialdifference.MaliniJoharSchueller,forexample,arguesthatmostscholarshiponWOCisproducedbyWOC,whilemanywhitefeminists,althoughhailingintersectionalityasaselfevident,primarymethodologicalrubric,continuetoproducescholarshipthatpresumesgenderdifferenceasfoundational.WritesSchueller:Whilewomenofcolortheorizeaboutaparticulargroupofwomen,manywhitefeministscontinuetotheorizeaboutgender/sexuality/womeningeneral.Andlater:Indeed,ithasbecomealmostagiventhatworksingenderandsexualitystudiesacknowledgemultipleaxesofoppressionorinvokethemantraofrace,class,genderandsexuality(Schueller2005,64).8Muchlikethelanguageofdiversity,thelanguageofintersectionality,itsveryinvocation,itseems,largelysubstitutesforintersectionalanalysisitself.WhatIhaveelsewherecalleddiversitymanagementcanmorerigorouslybedescribedasatendencytodisplacetheconceptofintersectionalityfromanypoliticalpracticeandsocioeconomiccontextbytranslatingitintoamerelytheoreticalabstractionofslippingsignifiersofidentity(Ereletal.2011,66).

Politicalpracticeandsocioeconomiccontextareshiftingmetricsthatrequireahistoricizationoftheeventofintersectionality,itsemergence,andthethoughtthatitmovedandgenerated.Furtherquestionsaboutpracticeandcontextarisewhenintersectionalityissituatedwithinthechanginghistoricalandeconomiclandscapeofneoliberalcapitalismandidentity.Whatdoesanintersectionalcritiquelooklikeormoretothepoint,whatdoesitdoinanageofneoliberalpluralism,absorption,andaccommodationofallkindsof




differences?Ifitisthecasethatintersectionalityhasbeenmainstreamedinthelasttwodecadesawaytomanagedifferencethatcolludeswithdominantformsofliberalmulticulturalismisthequalitativeforceoftheinterpellationofdifferenceitselfalteredoruncertain?Shouldintersectionalityhavetoaccountforanythingbeyondthecontextofthelegaldoctrinefromwhichitwasdeveloped?Letmequalifythatmyconcernisnotabouttheformative,generative,andnecessaryinterventionofCrenshawswork,butaboutboththechangedgeopoliticsofreception(onethatpurportstoincluderatherthanexcludedifference)aswellasatendencytowardreificationinthedeployment

Page7

ofintersectionalmethod.Hasintersectionalitybecome,asSchuellerimplies,analibifortherecenteringofwhiteliberalfeminists?WhatisapoststructuralisttheoryofintersectionalitythatmightaddressliberalmulticulturalandpostracialdiscoursesofinclusionthatdestabilizetheWOCasamereenablingprosthetictowhitefeminists?

Suchquestionsabouttime,history,andtheshiftsfromexclusiontoinclusionalsobringtotheforethedynamicsofthespatializationofintersectionalanalyses.If,asAvtarBrahandAnnPheonixhaveargued,olddebatesaboutthecategorywomanhaveassumednewcriticalurgency(BrahandPheonix2004,76)inthecontextofrecenthistoricalevents,suchasSeptember11thandtheoccupationofAfghanistanandIraq,transnationalandpostcolonialscholarspointoutthatthecategoriesprivilegedbyintersectionalanalysisdonotnecessarilytraversenationalandregionalboundariesnorgenealogicalexigencies,presumingandproducingstaticepistemologicalrenderingsofcategoriesthemselvesacrosshistoricalandgeopoliticallocations.Indeed,manyofthecherishedcategoriesoftheintersectionalmantraoriginallystartingwithrace,class,gender,nowincludingsexuality,nation,religion,age,anddisabilityaretheproductsofmodernistcolonialagendasandregimesofepistemicviolence,operativethroughaWestern/EuroAmericanepistemologicalformationthroughwhichthenotionofdiscreteidentityhasemerged.JosephMassadquiteastutelypointsout,inhisrefinementofFoucauldianframingsofsexuality,thatthecolonialprojectdeployedsexualityasaconceptthatwaslargelyinternalizedwithinintellectualandjuridicalrealmsbutwasnotdistilledasawidespreadhegemonicproject.Whileonemightworry,then,aboutthedevelopmentandadaptationofthetermsgayorlesbianortheglobalizationofthetermqueer,Massadhighlightsthegraverproblemofthegeneralizationand



54philoSOPHIA

assumedtransparencyofthetermsexualityitselfatakenforgrantedcategoryofthemodernistimperialproject,notonlyanimposedepistemologicalframe,butalsoontologicallypresumptuousorinfact,anepistemologicalcaptureofanontologicallyirreduciblebecoming(Massad2009).

Theseproblemsofepistemicviolencearereproducedinfeministandgayandlesbianhumanrightsdiscourses,asintesectionalityisnowwidelyunderstoodasapolicyfriendlyparadigm.InherpiecedetailingtheincorporationofthelanguageandtheconceptualframeofintersectionalityintoUNandNGOforums,NiraYuvalDavispointsout:Theanalysisandmethodologyofintersectionality,especiallyinUNrelatedbodiesisjustemergingandoftensuffersfromanalyticconfusionsthathavealreadybeentackledbyfeministscholarswhohavebeenworkingontheseissuesforlonger(YuvalDavis2006,206).YuvalDavisalsonotesthattherelativelyrecentspreadofintersectionalityinEuropehaslargelybeenattributedtoitsamenabilitytopolicydiscussions,anattributionsheargueselidestheworkonmigrantfeminismsinEuropeandparticularlythescholarlyinterventionsofblackBritishfeministsinthe1970s.

Page8

Tofurthercomplicatethetravelsofintersectionaltheorizing,intheUnitedStatesintersectionalitycamefromaveryspecificsetofsocialmovements,whereasinEurope,wherethetermiscurrentlybeingwidelytakenup,theinterestinintersectionalitydoesnotemergefromsocialmovements(andinfact,asYuvalDavispointsout,withtheexceptionperhapsofBritain,theeffortsofmigrantwomentochallengedominantfeministframeswentlargelyignored).Rather,thisnewfoundinterestinintersectionalitysignalsabelatedrecognitionoftheneedtotheorizeracialdifferenceitalsofunctionsasamethodforEuropeanwomensstudiestocatchupinstitutionallywithU.S.womensstudies.Thecategorynationthereforeappearstobetheleasttheorizedandacknowledgedofintersectionalcategories,transmittedthroughaformofglobalizingtransparency.TheUnitedStatesisreproducedasthedominantsiteoffeministinquirythroughtheuseofintersectionalityasaheuristictoteachdifference.Thus,theEuroAmericanbiasofwomensstudiesandhistoryoffeminismisironicallyreiteratedviaintersectionality,elidingthemaininterventionoftransnationalandpostcolonialfeministscholarssincethe1990s,whichhasbeen,inpart,aboutdestabilizingthenationcenteredproductionofthecategoryWOC(KaplanandGrewal1994).

TheissuesIhavesketchedoutreflectissuesaboutknowledgeproductionand




suggestthatintersectionalityisaviablecorrectivetoepistemologicalviolence,shouldtheselimitationsregardingsubjectpositioningbeaddressed.Butadifferentcritiquesuggeststhatintersectionalityfunctionsasaproblematicreinvestmentinthehumanistsubject,inparticular,thesubjectX.ReyChowhasproducedthemostdamningcritiqueofwhatshecallspoststructuralistsignificatoryincarceration,seriouslyquestioningwhetherthemarginalizedsubjectisstillaviablesitefromwhichtoproducepolitics,muchlesswhetherthesubjectisanecessaryprecursorforpolitics(Chow2006,53).Differenceproducesnewsubjectsofinquirythattheninfinitelymultiplyexclusioninordertopromoteinclusion.Differencenowprecedesanddefinesidentity.PartofChowsconcernisthatpoststructuralisteffortstoattendtothespecificityofOthershasbecomeauniversalizingprojectthatisalwaysbeholdentotheselfreferentialityofthecenter,ironicallygiventhatintersectionalityfunctionsasacallforandaformofantiessentialism(BrahandDavis2004,76).ThepoststructuralistfatigueChowdescribesiscontingentonthefollowingtemporalsequencing:SubjectXmaybedifferentincontent,butshowsup,timeandagain,asthesameinform.(Examplesmightbefoundintherelativelyrecententranceofbothtransidentityanddisabilityintotheintersectionalfray.)

CyborgsandOtherCompanionateAssemblages

Theliteratureonintersectionalityhasbeenbolsteredbythefocusonrepresentationalpoliticsscholarsconcernedwiththeimpactanddevelopmentof

Page9

representationalpoliticsrarelycomeintodialoguewiththoseconvincedofthenonrepresentationalreferentofmatteritself.Therehasyettobeaseriousinterrogationofhowthesetheoriesonmatterandmatteringmightanimateconceptualizationsofintersectionality.IamspeakingbroadlyoftheworkofDonnaHaraway,ElizabethGrosz,ElizabethWilson,KaranBarad,PatriciaClough,DianneCurrier,ClaireColebrook,VickyKirby,MiriamFraser,andLucianaParisi,tonameafew.Whilethisgroupisanartificialconstructionofmyownmakingandreflectsmanydivergentinterestsanddifferenttheoreticalorientations,afewnoteworthycommonalitiesrunacrossthem.Divestedfromsubjectformation(butfordifferentreasonsthanChow),thesefeministscholarsinscienceandtechnologystudies,someinflectedbyposthumanism,othersbyDeleuzianthought,havegenerallyarguedthattheliminalityofbodilymatter



56philoSOPHIA

cannotbecapturedbyintersectionalsubjectpositioning.Theyprofferinsteadthenotionthatbodiesareunstableentitiesthatcannotbeseamlesslydisaggregatedintoidentityformations.ElizabethGrosz,forexample,foregroundingitsspatialandtemporalessentializations,callsintersectionalityagridlockmodelthatfailstoaccountforthemutualconstitutionandindeterminacyofembodiedconfigurationsofgender,sexuality,race,class,andnation(Grosz1994).Theycanbelooselydescribedasfeministmaterialistsorfeministsinvestedindecenteringlinguisticsignificationandsocialconstructionismthatstilltakesadivisionbetweenmatteranddiscourseasthestartingpointfordeconstructivecritique.9

Harawayhasarguablybeenthemostinfluentialofthisgroup.Inaleadingtextfromthisliteratureshefamouslystated,astheverylastlineinhergroundbreaking1985essayAManifestoforCyborgsthatshewouldratherbeacyborgthanagoddess,favoringthepostmoderntechnologizedfigureoftechnohumanoverthereclamationofaracialized,matriarchalpast,thusimplicitlyinvokingthisbinarybetweenintersectionalityandassemblage(Haraway1985).SeveraltheoristshavecritiquedHarawaysuseofthetropeofwomanofcolortodenoteacyborgparexcellence,includingChelaSandovalandSchueller(whohasarguedthatwomenofcolorfunctionasaprosthetictothecyborgmyth,which,asIpointoutearlier,isnotunlikehowWOCfunctioninrelationtointersectionality)(Sandoval2000Schueller2005).EventhoughHarawayscyborgsaremeanttounderminebinariesofhumansandanimals,ofhumansandmachines,andoftheorganicandinorganicacyborgactuallyinhabitstheintersectionofbodyandtechnology.DianneCurrierwrites:Intheconstructionofacyborg,technologiesareaddedtoimpactupon,andatsomepointintersectwithadiscrete,nontechnologicalbody....Thus,insofarasthehybridcyborgisforgedintheintermeshingoftechnologywithabody,inaprocessofaddition,itleaveslargelyintactthosetwocategories(human)bodyandtechnologythatprecededtheconjunction.Currierarguesthatdespiteintendingotherwise,thetheorizationofcyborgswindsupunwittingly

Page10

reinscribingthecyborgintothebinarylogicofidentitywhichHarawayhopestocircumvent(Currier2003,323).Harawaydoesnotactuallyapproachahuman/animal/machinenexus,thoughmorerecenttheorizationsofthenature/culturedivide,byLucianaParisiforexample,demarcatethebiophysical,thebiocultural,andthebiodigital(Parisi2004,12).Still,thequestionofhowthe




bodyismaterialized,ratherthanwhatthebodysignifies,isthedominantoneinthisliterature.

AssemblageisactuallyanawkwardtranslationoftheFrenchtermagencement.TheoriginalterminDeleuzeandGuattarisworkisnottheFrenchwordassemblage,butagencement,atermthatmeansdesign,layout,organization,arrangement,andrelationsthefocusbeingnotoncontentbutonrelations,relationsofpatterns(Phillips2006,108).Inagencement,asJohnPhillipsexplains,specificconnectionswithotherconceptsispreciselywhatgivesthemtheirmeaning.Conceptsdonotprescriberelations,nordotheyexistpriortothemrather,relationsofforce,connection,resonance,andpatterninggiverisetoconcepts.AsPhillipswrites,thepriorityisneithertothestateofaffairs[whatonemightcallessence]northestatement[enunciationorexpressionofthatessence]butratheroftheirconnection,whichimpliestheproductionofasensethatexceedsthemandofwhich,transformed,theynowformparts(ibid.,108).TheFrenchandEnglishdefinitionsofassemblage,however,bothrefertoacollectionofthings,acombinationofitemsandthefactofassembling.TheproblematicthathauntsthistraversalfromFrenchtheoreticalproductiontoU.S.academicusageisaboutthegenerativeeffectsofthismistranslation.Phillipsarguesthattheenunciationofagencementasassemblagemightbejustifiedasafurthereventofagencement(assemblage)wereitnotforthetendencyofdiscoursesofknowledgetooperateasstatementsaboutstatesofaffairs(ibid.,109).

Oneproductivewayofapproachingthiscontinentalimpassewouldbetoasknotnecessarilywhatassemblagesare,butrather,whatassemblagesdo.Whatdoesassemblageasaconceptualframedo,andwhatdoestheirtheoreticaldeploymentassuchdo?Whatisapracticeofagencement?Forcurrentpurposes,assemblagesareinterestingbecausetheydeprivilegethehumanbodyasadiscreteorganicthing.AsHarawaynotes,thebodydoesnotendattheskin.WeleavetracesofourDNAeverywherewego,welivewithotherbodieswithinus,microbesandbacteria,weareenmeshedinforces,affects,energies,wearecompositesofinformation.Assemblagesdonotprivilegebodiesashuman,norasresidingwithinahumananimal/nonhumananimalbinary.Alongwithadeexceptionalizingofhumanbodies,multipleformsofmattercanbebodiesbodiesofwater,cities,institutions,andsoon.Matterisanactor.FollowingKarenBaradonhertheoryofperformativemetaphysics,matterisnotathingbutadoing.Inparticular,Baradchallengesdominantnotionsofperformativitythatoperatethroughanimplicitdistinctionbetween

Page11



58philoSOPHIA

significationandthatwhichissignified,statingthatmatterdoesnotmaterializethroughsignificationalone.WritesBarad:

Aperformativeunderstandingofdiscursivepracticeschallengestherepresentationalistbeliefinthepowerofwordstorepresentpreexistingthings.

Performativity,properlyconstrued,isnotaninvitationtoturneverything(includingmaterialbodies)intowordsonthecontrary,performativity

ispreciselyacontestationoftheexcessivepowergrantedtolanguagetodeterminewhatisreal.Hence,inironiccontrasttothemonismthattakes

languagetobethestuffofreality,performativityisactuallyacontestationoftheunexaminedhabitsofmindthatgrantlanguageandotherformsof

representationmorepowerindeterminingourontologiesthantheydeserve(Barad2003,802).10

Baradsisaposthumanistframingthatquestionstheboundariesbetweenhumanandnonhuman,matteranddiscourse,andinterrogatesthepracticesthroughwhichtheseboundariesareconstituted,stabilized,anddestabilized.Significationisonlyoneelementofmanythatgiveasubstancebothmeaningandcapacity.InhisbookANewPhilosophyofSociety:AssemblageTheoryandSocialComplexity,ManuelDeLandaundertakestheradicalmovetomakelanguagelast(DeLanda2006,16).Inthispostpoststructuralistframing,essentialism,whichisusuallypositedastheoppositeofsocialconstructionism,isnowplacedsquarelywithintherealmsofsignificationandlanguage,whatDeLandaandothershavecalledlinguisticessentialism.KarenBaradwrites:Languagehasbeengrantedtoomuchpower.Thelinguisticturn,thesemioticturn,theinterpretativeturn,theculturalturnitseemsthatateveryturnlatelyeverythingisturnedintolanguageorsomeotherformofculturalrepresentation....Thereisanimportantsenseinwhichtheonlythingthatdoesnotseemtomatteranymoreismatter(Barad2003,801).Categoriesrace,gender,sexualityareconsideredevents,actions,andencountersbetweenbodies,ratherthansimplyentitiesandattributesofsubjects.Situatedalongaverticalandhorizontalaxis,assemblagescomeintoexistencewithinprocessesofdeterritorializationandreterritorialization.InAThousandPlateaus,DeleuzeandGuattariproblematizeamodelthatproducesaconstantinordertoestablishitsvariations.Instead,theyargue,assemblagesforegroundnoconstantsbutrathervariationtovariationandhencetheeventnessofidentity(DeleuzeandGuattari1987).DeLandathusarguesthatraceandgenderaresituatedasattributesonlywithinastudyofthepatternofrecurringlinks,aswellasthepropertiesofthoselinks(DeLanda2006,56).Usingthenotionofassemblage(notethetranslationofagencementasarrangementhere),Guattarielaboratesthelimitsofmolarcategoriessuchasclass:



Page12

Takethenotionofclass,ortheclassstruggle.Itimpliesthatthereare

perfectlydelimitedsociologicalobjects:bourgeoisie,proletariat,aristocracy....Buttheseentitiesbecomehazyinthemanyinterzones,theintersections

ofthepetitebourgeoisie,thearistocraticbourgeoisie,thearistocracyoftheproletariat,thelumpenproletariat,thenonguaranteedelite....Theresult:an

indeterminacythatpreventsthesocialfieldfrombeingmappedoutinaclearanddistinctway,andwhichunderminesmilitantpractice.Nowthenotionof

arrangementcanbeusefulhere,becauseitshowsthatsocialentitiesarenotmadeupofbipolaroppositions.Complexarrangementsplaceparameterslike

race,sex,age,nationality,etc.,intorelief.Interactivecrossingsimplyotherkindsoflogicthanthatoftwobytwoclassoppositions.Importingthisnotion

ofarrangementtothesocialfieldisntjustagratuitoustheoreticalsubtlety.Butitmighthelptoconfigurethesituation,tocomeupwithcartographies

capableofidentifyingandeludingcertainsimplisticconceptionsconcerningclassstruggle.(Guattari2009,26)

RereadingIntersectionalityasAssemblage

OneofCrenshawsfoundationalexamplesthatofthetrafficintersectiondoesindeeddescribeintersectionalityasanevent.Crenshawwrites,Considerananalogytotrafficinanintersection,comingandgoinginallfourdirections.Discrimination,liketrafficthroughanintersection,mayflowinonedirection,anditmayflowinanother.Ifanaccidenthappensinanintersection,itcanbecausedbycarstravelingfromanynumberofdirectionsand,sometimes,fromallofthem.Andlater:Butitisnotalwayseasytoreconstructanaccident:Sometimestheskidmarksandtheinjuriessimplyindicatethattheyoccurredsimultaneously,frustratingeffortstodeterminewhichdrivercausedtheharm.Inthesecasesthetendencyseemstobethatnodriverisheldresponsible,notreatmentisadministered,andtheinvolvedpartiessimplygetbackintheircarsandzoomaway(Crenshaw1989,149).

AsCrenshawindicatesinthisdescription,identificationisaprocessidentityisanencounter,anevent,anaccident,infact.Identitiesaremulticausal,multidirectional,liminaltracesarentalwaysselfevident.Theproblemofhowthetwopreexistingroadscomeintobeingnotwithstanding,thereisemphasisonmotionratherthangridlock,onhowthehaltingofmotionproducesthedemandtolocate.Theaccidentitselfindicatestheentryofthestandardizingneedsofthejuridicalisthereacrimetakingplace?Howdoesonedetermine




whoisatfault?Asametaphor,then,intersectionalityisamoreporousparadigmthanthestandardizationofmethodinherenttoadisciplinehasallowedittobetheinstitutionalizationofwomensstudiesintheUnitedStateshasledtodemandsforasubject/s(subjectX,infact)andamethod.

Page13

Howeveranimatedthesceneoftheaccidentatthetrafficintersectionmightread,itstillremains,Iwouldargue,primarilytrappedwithinthelogicofidentity.IwanttoturnnowtoamomentinBrianMassumisParablesfortheVirtualwherehereadsanincidentofdomesticviolencethroughwhathecallsthehomeeventspace(Massumi2002,81).Forhim,theeventisnotdefinedasadiscreteactorseriesofactionsoractivities,butratherthefoldingofdimensionsoftimeintoeachother(ibid.,15).Thisfoldingofdimensionsoftimeisaresultoftheconversionofsurfacedistanceintointensity[which]isalsotheconversionofthematerialityofthebodyintoanevent(ibid.,14).InterestedintheclaimregardingapurportedincreaseindomesticviolenceduringSuperBowlSunday,Massumiwrites:

Thehomeentryofthegame,atitscrestofintensity,upsetsthefragile

equilibriumofthehousehold.Thepatternsofrelationsbetweenhouseheldbodiesisreproblematized.Thegameeventmomentarilyinterruptsthepattern

ofextrinsicrelationsgenerallyobtainingbetweendomestictypes,astypedbygender.Astruggleensues:agenderstruggleoverclashingcodesofsoci

ality,rightstoaccesstoportionsofthehomeanditscontents,andritualsofservitude.Thesociohistoricalhomeplaceconvertsintoaneventspace.

Thetelevisionsuddenlystandsoutfromthebackgroundofthefurnishings,imposingitselfasacatalyticpartsubject,arrayingdomesticbodiesaround

itselfaccordingtothedifferentialpotentialsgenerallyattachingtotheirgendertype.Foramoment,everythingisupintheairandaroundtheTV

set,andbetweenthelivingroomandthekitchen.InproximitytotheTV,wordsandgesturestakeonunaccustomedintensity.Anythingcouldhappen.

Themalebody,sensingthepotential,transducestheheterogeneityoftheelementsofthesituationintoareflexreadinesstoviolence.Thegameis

riggedbythemalesalreadyconstitutedpropensitytostrike.Thetypicalpatternofrelationsisreimposedintheunityofmovementofhandagainst

face.Thestrikeexpressestheempiricalrealityofsituation:recontainmentbythemaledominatedpowerformationofthedomestic.Theeventshort



60philoSOPHIA

circuits.Theeventisrecapture.Thehomeeventspaceisbacktotheplaceitwas:acontainerofasymmetricrelationsbetweentermsalreadyconstituted

accordingtogender.Foldingbackontodomestication.Codedbelonging,nobecoming.(ibid.,8081)

Sowhattranspiresinthisassemblageoftheeventspace?Thereisanintensificationofthebodysrelationtoitself(onedefinitionofaffect),producednotonlybythesignificanceofthegame,SuperBowlSunday,butbythebodilyforceandenergygivenovertothissignificance.Thedifferencebetweensignificationandsignificance(sense,value,force)isaccentuated.Thereisafocusonthepatternsofrelationsnottheentitiesthemselves,butthepatterns

Page14

withinwhichtheyarearrangedwitheachother.Theplacementswithinthespaceitselfhavenotnecessarilyaltered,buttheintensifiedrelationshavegivennewcapacitiestotheentities(Thetelevisionsuddenlystandsout).NotAssemblage,butAgencement.Househeldbodiesarenotorganicbodiesalone:thetelevisionisanactor,amatterwithforce,conveying(notdeterministically,butsuggestively)whomoveswhereandhowandwhen.Thetelevisionisanaffectiveconductor:InproximitytotheTV,wordsandgesturestakeonanunaccustomedintensity.Thereisasenseofpotentiality,abecoming.Anythingcouldhappen.Itisamomentofdeterritorialization,alineofflight,somethingnotavailableforimmediatecaptureeverythingisupintheair,andquiteliterally,theairischargedwithpossibility.Intersectionalidentitycomesintoplay,asthe(white)maleisalwaysalreadyideologicallycodedasmorepronetoviolence.Finally,thestrikehappens:thehandagainstface.Thelineofflightisreterritorialized,forwardintothesocialscript,aclosingoffofonebecoming,routedintoanotherassemblage.

Massumiwrites:Thepointofbringingupthisissueisnottoenterthedebateonwhetherthereisanempiricallyprovablecausallinkbetweenprofessionalsportsandviolenceagainstwomen.Theoutpouringofverbalaggressionprovokedbythemeresuggestionthattherewasalinkisenoughtoestablishthetheoreticalpointinquestionhere:thatwhatthemassmediatransmitisnotfundamentallyimagecontentbuteventpotential(Massumi2002,269n5).Thus,thisreadingofMassumisisnotatextualanalysisofthepossibilitythatwatchingviolenttelevisionproducesviolence,orviolentsubjects.Itisnotatheoryofspectatorshipidentification,butofaffectiveintensification:




themeetingoftechnology(goodoldtelevision,noneedtoalwaysprivilegetheInternet),bodies,matter,molecularmovements,andenergetictransfers.Massumihasbeencriticizedforaestheticizingviolence,butIwouldarguethatwhatheconveyssowellistheinterplaybetweensignificationandsignificance,movementandcapture,matterandmeaning,affectandidentity.UnlikeCrenshawsaccidentatthetrafficintersection,thefocushereisnotonwhetherthereisacrimetakingplace,nordeterminingwhoisatfault,butratherasking,whataretheaffectiveconditionsnecessaryfortheeventspacetounfold?Inthemostbasicoffeministterms,wecanreadMassumisinterestinunravelingthescriptasofferingadifferentwayofthinkingaboutthequestions,whatcausesdomesticviolenceandhowcanwepreventit?

***Theresobviouslymuchmoretosayaboutsuchanexamplecertainlyone

cannote(onceagain)thatMassumialsopresumessex/genderdifferentiationastheprimaryonethatlocatesbodiesonthegrid.ButinrereadingMassumisexample,onesees,asSaldanhaargues,usingtheDeleuzianconceptsofmolarandmoleculardifferences,thatintersectionalityasaconceptisonlymeantforthemolarlevel...molecularforcescontinuallyupsetthetopological

Page15

localizabilityofabody(Saldanha2010,290).Inclosing,andasanefforttosignpostthelinesofflightthisessaycannotfullyfollowgivenspacerestrictions,myownconcernsaboutintersectionalframeworksgofarbeyondrethinkingitscontextualspecificity(thisisnotonlyaboutepistemologicalincongruenceorcorrectives,butmoreimportantly,ontologicalirreducibility).AsIhavearguedinTerroristAssemblages:Nomatterhowintersectionalourmodelsofsubjectivity,nomatterhowattunedtolocationalpoliticsofspace,place,andscale,theseformulationsthesefinetuningsofintersectionality,asitwere,thatcontinuetobedemandedmaystilllimitusiftheypresumetheautomaticprimacyandsingularityofthedisciplinarysubjectanditsidentitarianinterpellation(Puar2007,206).MyinterestininterrogatingthepredominanceofsubjecthooditselfisdrivenpreciselybythelimitationsofpoststructuralistcritiquethatReyChowforegrounds,theconcernsaboutthenature/culturedivideandquestionsoflanguageandmatterthatthetechnoscienceandmaterialistfeministshaveoutlined,andtheattentiontopowerandaffectthatassemblagetheoristscentralize.

Iwanttomakeonefinalconnectionbetweenintersectionality,assemblage,andthedebatesondisciplinarysocietiesandsocietiesofcontrol,derivedfrom



62philoSOPHIA

theworkofMichelFoucaultandDeleuzesextensionofit.Whiledisciplineworksatthelevelofidentity,controlworksatthelevelofintensityidentityisaprocessinvolvinganintensificationofhabituation,thusdisciplineandcontrolaremutuallyentwined,thoughnotnecessarilycompatible,witheachother.Inthe2007EnglishtranslationofMichelFoucaults197778lecturestitledSecurity,Territory,andPopulation,Foucaultdistinguishesbetweendisciplinarymechanismsandsecurityapparatuses,whatDeleuzewouldlatercometocallcontrolsocieties.Onthedisciplinaryorganizationofmultiplicity,Foucaultwrites:Disciplineisamodeofindividualizationofmultiplicitiesratherthansomethingthatconstructsanedificeofmultipleelementsonthebasisofindividualswhoareworkedonas,firstofall,individuals(Foucault2007,12).Manyrelationsbetweendiscipline(exclusionandinclusion)andcontrol(modulation,tweaking)havebeenproffered:one,asvariousoverlappingyetprogressivestagesofmarketcapitalismandgovernmentalitytwo,ascoexistingmodelsandexercisesofpowerthree,controlasaneffectofdisciplinaryapparatusescontrolastheepitomeofadisciplinarysocietyparexcellence(inthatdisciplinaryformsofpowerexceedtheirsitestoreproduceeverywhere)andfinally,asFoucaultsuggestsabove,disciplinaryframesasaformofcontrolandasaresponsetotheproliferationofcontrol.

Itseemstome,andIposetheseasspeculativepointsthatIcontinuetothinkthrough,thatintersectionalcritiquehasbothintervenedinthelegalandcapitaliststructuresthatdemandthefixityoftherightsbearingsubjectandhasalsosimultaneouslyreproducedthedisciplinarydemandsofthatsubjectformation.AsNormaAlarconprescientlyasked,in1984,inherresponsetothepublicationofThisBridgeCalledMyBack,arewegoingtomakeasubjectofthe

Page16

wholeworld?(Alarcon1990,361).If,asBrahandPhoenixargue,akeyfeatureoffeministanalysisofintersectionalityis...decentering...thenormativesubjectoffeminism(BrahandPhoenix2004,78),thenhowdofeministthinkersaddresstheproblemthattheconstructofthesubjectisitselfalreadynormative?Atthisproductiveimpasse,then,isthisconundrum:theheuristicofintersectionalityhasproducedatremendousamountofworkonWOCwhileconcomitantlyexcusingwhitefeministsfromthiswork,recenteringgenderandsexualdifferenceasfoundationalandprimaryindeed,thisamplificationofknowledgehasinsomesensesbeenatthecostofWOC.Yetwe(thiswealwaysunderduressandcontestation)mightbereachingapoststructuralist




fatiguearoundthenotionofthesubjectitself.Thelimitsoftheepistemologicalcorrectiveareencountered.Therefore,todismissassemblagesinfavorofretainingintersectionaliden

titarianframeworksistodismisshowsocietiesofcontroltweakandmodulatebodiesasmatter,notpredominantlythroughsignificationoridentityinterpellationbutratherthroughaffectivecapacitiesandtendencies.Itisalsotomissthatassemblagesencompassnotonlyongoingattemptstodestabilizeidentitiesandgrids,butalsotheforcesthatcontinuetomandateandenforcethem.Thatistosay,gridmakingisarecognizedprocessofagencement.Buttorenderintersectionalityasanarchaicrelicofidentitypoliticsbypassesentirelythepossibilitythatforsomebodieswecancallthemstatisticaloutliers,orthoseconsignedtoprematuredeath,orthoseonceformerlyconsidereduselessbodiesorbodiesofexcessdisciplineandpunishmaywellstillbeaprimaryapparatusofpower.Therearedifferentconceptualproblemsposedbyeachintersectionalityattemptstocomprehendpoliticalinstitutionsandtheirattendantformsofsocialnormativityanddisciplinaryadministration,whileassemblages,inanefforttoreintroducepoliticsintothepolitical,askswhatispriortoandbeyondwhatgetsestablished.Sooneofthebigpayoffsforthinkingthroughtheintertwinedrelationsofintersectionalityandassemblagesisthatitcanhelpusproducemoreroadmapsofpreciselythesenotquitefullyunderstoodrelationsbetweendisciplineandcontrol.

Toreturntothetitleofthispiece,andthejuxtapositionthatHaraway(unfortunately,butpresciently)renders,wouldIreallyratherbeacyborgthanagoddess?Theformerhailsthefutureinateleologicaltechnologicaldeterminismculturethatseemsnotonlyoverdetermined,butalsoexceptionalizesourcurrenttechnologies.Thelatternatureisembeddedintheracializedmatriarchalmythosoffeministreclamationnarratives.Certainlyitsoundssexier,thesedays,tolayclaimtobeingacyborgthanagoddess.Butwhydisaggregatethetwowhentheresurelymustbecyborgiangoddessesinourmidst?NowthatisabecomingintersectionalassemblagethatIcouldreallyappreciate.

RutgersUniversity

Page17

Notes

1.Foracomprehensiveoverviewofthesedebatesinqueertheory,seeTayloret

al.,2011.



64philoSOPHIA

2.ForthefullreadingofMassumionmovementandmyinterpretationofit

regardingdebatesonintersectionality,seePuar2007,21126.

3.Disruptinghegemonicframesofraceandgenderseemstobetheinitialimpetus

formanyintersectionalanalyses,whileotheroppressionsfollowforexample,

theCombaheeRiverCollectivewrites:Acombinedantiracistandantisexist

positiondrewustogetherinitially,andaswedevelopedpoliticallyweaddressed

ourselvestoheterosexismandeconomicoppressionundercapitalism(Combahee

RiverCollective,TheCombaheeRiverCollectiveStatement,1979).

4.Mypointhereissimple:intersectionalityrarelyreferstoworkonwhitesubjects,

withtheimportantexceptionofwhiteworkingclasswomen.Andmoregener

allyitrarelyreferstoworkaddressingprivilegedsubjects,forexample,white

upperclassmen.Whilethestudyofthesesubjectsmaywellindeedinvolvean

intersectionalanalysisorapproach,theclaimtothetermitselfissuturedtoa

referentthatleadstoracialessentialization.

5.AsLordewrites,AsafortynineyearoldBlacklesbianfeministsocialist

motheroftwo,includingoneboy,andamemberofaninterracialcouple...

(1984,120).

6.Thisisdespitethefactthattherearewidegeopoliticaldifferencesintheinterest

inintersectionality.AssomeonewhoworkswithgraduatestudentsatRutgers,

Iencounteravarietyofunevenresponsestotheimportanceofintersectionality,

determinedinpartbyvariationsamongwomensandgenderstudiesprograms

andgeographicalregionsfromstudentswhoarewellschooledinthelexicon

ofintersectionalityandpresumeatakenforgrantednessofitsnecessity,tothose

whohaveneverencountereditintheirundergraduateschooling.

7.Thisisanobservationbasedonresponsestomyworkaswellasanecdotal

evidencefromseveralWOCwithwhomIhavediscussedtheseissues.

8.Schuellersoverallprojectexaminestheuseofracialanalogyaswayofresta

bilizingwhitewomenasthepropersubjectoffeminism,whatsheterms

incorporationbyanalogy.

9.Therehavebeenmanyvariedstrandsofmaterialistfeminismandnotallofthese

thinkerswoulddescribethemselvesassuch.Foragoodoverviewofwhathas

beenrecentlyhailedasthenewmaterialisms,seetheIntroductiontoCoole

andFrost2010.

10.WhileIfindBaradveryusefulinthinkingabouthowperformativityhascometo

signalapredominantlylinguisticprocess,thedangerofhernotionofontological

realismisthattheefforttodestabilizelinguistessentialismmaywellprivilege

anessentializedtruthproducedthroughmatter,asortofontologicalessentialism

ormaterialistessentialismthatusesalinguisticframeperformativitytoshore

Page18



upthedurationaltemporalitiesofmatter.Asimilarconundrumappearsinthe

workofJaneBennetsVibrantMatter:APoliticalEcologyofThings.Herotherwise

instructivetheorizationofthevitalityofmatterisundercut,inmyopinion,by

theuseofagencyassomethingthatcanbeaccordedtocertainformsofmatter.

Agencyasithashistoricallybeendeployedreferstothecapacitiesoftheliberal

humanistsubject,ananthropocentricconceptualizationofmovement.

References

Alarcon,Norma.1990.Thetheoreticalsubject(s)ofThisbridgecalledmybackand

AngloAmericanfeminism.InMakingface,makingsoul/haciendacaras:Creativeand

criticalperspectivesbyfeministsofcolor,ed.GloriaAnzaldua,35669.SanFrancisco:

AuntLuteBooks.

Barad,Karen.2003.Posthumanistperformativity:Towardanunderstandingofhow

mattercomestomatter.Signs:JournalofWomeninCultureandSociety28,no.3:

80131.

Brah,Avitar,andAnnPhoenix.2004.AintIawoman:Revisitingintersectionality.

JournalofInternationalWomensStudies3:7586.

Chow,Rey.2006.Theageoftheworldtarget.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

CombaheeRiverCollective.1979.TheCombaheeRivercollectivestatement.

Coole,Diana,andSamanthaFrost.2010.Newmaterialisms:Ontology,agency,and

politics.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

Crenshaw,KimberlWilliams.1991.Mappingthemargins:Intersectionality,identity

Politics,andviolenceagainstwomenofcolor.StanfordLawReview6:124199.

.1989.Demarginalizingtheintersectionofraceandsex:Ablackfeminist

critiqueofantidiscriminationdoctrine,feministtheoryandantiracistpolitics.

TheUniversityofChicagoLegalForumVolume1989:FeminismintheLaw:Theory,

PracticeandCriticism:13967.

Currier,Dianne.2003.Feministtechnologicalfutures:Deleuzeandbody/technology

assemblages.FeministTheory3:32138.

DeLanda,Manuel.2006.Anewphilosophyofsociety:Assemblagetheoryandsocial

complexity.LondonandNewYork:Continuum.

Deleuze,Gilles,andFelixGuattari.1987.Athousandplateaus.Trans.BrianMassumi.

Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Erel,Umut,JinHaritaworn,EncarnacionGutierrezRodriguez,andChristianKlesse.2011.

Onthedepoliticisationofintersectionalitytalk:Conceptualisingmultipleoppressions

incriticalsexualitystudies.InTheorizingintersectionalityandsexuality,ed.Yvette

Taylor,SallyHines,andMarkE.Casey,5678.NewYork:PalgraveMacMillan.

Foucault,Michel.2007.Security,territory,population:LecturesatthecollegedeFrance,

197778.Trans.GrahamBurchell.NewYork:Picador.

Grosz,Elizabeth.1994.Volatilebodies:Towardacorporealfeminism.Indianapolis:

UniversityofIndianaPress.




Page19

Guattari,Felix.2009.Iamanideathief.InSoftsubversions:Textsandinterviews

19771985,ed.SylvereLotringer,trans.ChetWienerandEmilyWittman,2233.

LosAngeles:Semiotext(e).

Haraway,Donna.1985.Manifestoforcyborgs:Science,technology,andsocialist

feminisminthe1980s.SocialistReview80:65108.

Kaplan,Caren,andInderpalGrewal.1994.Scatteredhegemonies:Postmodernityand

transnationalfeministpractices.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Lorde,Audre.1984.Sisteroutsider:Essaysandspeeches.Berkeley:CrossingPress.

Massad,Joseph.2009.HownottostudygenderintheArabworld.LectureatOberlin

College.

Massumi,Brian.2002.Parablesforthevirtual:Affect,movement,sensation.Durham:

DukeUniversityPress.

McCall,Leslie.2005.Thecomplexityofintersectionality.Signs:JournalofWomenIn

CultureandSociety30,no.3:17711800.

Parisi,Luciana.2004.Abstractsex:Philosophy,technology,andmutationsofdesire.London

andNewYork:Continuum.

Phillips,John.2006.Agencement/assemblage.Theory,CultureandSociety23,no.23:

108109.

Puar,JasbirK.2007.Terroristassemblages:Homonationalisminqueertimes.Durham:

DukeUniversityPress.

Saldanha,Arun.2010.Politicsanddifference.InTakingplace:Nonrepresentational

theoriesandhumangeography,ed.BenAndersonandPaulHarrison,283303.

Surrey,UK,andBurlington,VT:AshgatePublishing.

Sandoval,Chela.2000.Themethodologyoftheoppressed.Minneapolis:Universityof

MinnesotaPress.

Schueller,MaliniJohar.2005.Analogyand(white)feministtheory:Thinkingrace

andthecolorofthecyborgBody.Signs:JournalofWomeninCultureandSociety

30,no.1:6392.

Taylor,Yvette,SallyHines,andMarkE.Casey,eds.2011.Theorizingintersectionality

andsexuality.NewYork:PalgraveMacMillan.

YuvalDavis,Nira.2006.Intersectionalityandfeministpolitics.EuropeanJournalof

WomensStudies13,no.3:193209.



66philoSOPHIA

Documents

“I Would Rather Be a Cyborg Than a Goddess”