The Minor Gesture by Erin Manning

8/17/2019 The Minor Gesture by Erin Manning

1/36

T

H

E

M I N

O

R

G E S T U

R E E R I

N M A N

N I N G


2/36

T H E M I N O R G E S T U R E


3/36

T H O U G H T I N T H E A C T A series edied by Erin Manning and Brian Massumi


4/36

T H E M I N O R G E S T U R E

E R I N M A N N I N G

D U K E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S D U R H A M A N D L O N D O N 2 0 1 6


5/36

© Duke Universiy Press All righs reserved

Prined in he Unied Saes o America on acid-ree paper ∞Designed by Amy Ruh Buchanan

ypese in Arno and Avenir by Graphic Composiion, Inc.,

Bogar, Georgia

Library o Congress Caaloging-in-Publicaion Daa

Names: Manning, Erin, auhor.

ile: Te minor gesure / Erin Manning.

Oher iles: Tough in he ac.

Descripion: Durham : Duke Universiy Press, .

Series: Tough in he ac | Includes bibliographical reerences and

index.

Idenifiers: (prin) | (ebook)

(hardcover : alk . paper) (pbk. : alk. paper)

(e- book)

Subjecs: : Percepion (Philosophy) | Sel (Philosophy)

| Cogniive neuroscience—Philosophy. | Auism. | Poliical

psychology.

Classificaion: . . (prin) |

. (ebook) | —dc

record available a htp://lccn.loc.gov/

Cover ar: Nahaniel Sern and Erin Manning,Weaher Paterns: Te Smell of Red. Insallaion,

Glasshouse, New York, . Phoo by Leslie Plumb.Couresy o he ariss and Leslie Plumb.


6/36

F O R B E N J O N E S ( – )

who ollowed he minor gesures o he ker

in he sudy o wha else living can be

always measure he kerf

i makes a difference

measure he absence

i is he very suff, he

very kerf, of desire.


7/36


8/36

C O N T E N T S

P R E FACE ix

Inroducion: In a Minor Key

1. Agains Mehod

2. Arulness: Emergen Colleciviiesand Processes o Individuaion

3. Weaher Paterns, or How MinorGesures Enerain he Environmen

4. Dress Becomes Body:Fashioning he Force o Form

5. Choreographing he Poliical

6. Carrying he Feeling 7. In he Ac: Te Shape o Precariy

8. Wha a Body Can Do: A Conversaion wih Arno Boehler

Posscrip: Affirmaion wihou Credi

NOTE S

R E F E R ENCE S

I N D E X


9/36


10/36

P R E F A C E

Tere’s somehing abou wriing books ha is ou o ime. As hough he wriing only really knows wha i’s afer once i has begun o make is wayino he world. For me, hinking oo has always had his qualiy: hink-ing hickens in is encouner wih he uuriy ha oriens i. Tis uuriyin hinking’s presenness is par o wha keeps hinking lihe: hinking isalways ou o sync wih isel.

Te bes kind o encouner wih hinking’s ouside is he kind hadeeply lisens o wha wriing is rying o do, almos hinking beyond whahe auhor is capable o hinking, hen reurning ha hinking, almos beyond wha he reader can hink, o he auhor. In his gesure o encoun-er, no one is rying o convince anyone: hough is hinking collecivelya is limi.

Going hrough he review process or Te Minor Gesure , I had he lucko encounering hinking a he limi. In an affirmaive gesure—wha I call“affirmaion wihou credi” in he posscrip—he reviewers ook ime ohink- wih he ex in a gesure o wriing- wih, reurning Te Minor Ges-ure o me wih he richness o an engagemen ha was capable o openingmy hinking beyond where I hough i could go. In his reurn, I receivedno a simple accoun o how wriing perorms knowledge, bu somehingmuch more imporan: an engagemen wih how hinking does is work,in he wriing.

Wha sruck me, in reading hese reviews (can hese sill be called reviews?), was how ragile his gesure o wriing- wih made me eel. Teragiliy, I hink, has o do wih wriing pushed o a limi where i is ruly


11/36

x Preace

in conac wih he remulousness o hinking in he ac. Bringing houghino conac wih is limi his way is a minor gesure. I is a minor gesurein ha i acivaes a endency already in germ and emboldens i oward analering o wha ha endency can do. A hough less concerned wih he

cerainy o wha i knows is more open o he minor in hinking, moreopen o he orce o he as- ye-unormed coursing hrough i. Tis minorendency values he force o orm, no jus he orm knowledge akes.

Te Minor Gesture engages direcly wih his ension beween knowl-edge and value. Wha else could be a sake in he encouner i i weren’organized around he cerainy o knowing? Wha migh become hinkablei knowledge weren’ so ied o an accoun o subjec-driven agency? And,

wha else migh value look like i i weren’ ramed by judgmen? A minor gesure ha acivaes he colleciviy a he hear o hough

effecs change. I affecs no only wha he ex can become: i alers o hecore wha hinking can do. I gives value o he processual uncerainy ohough as ye unormed, and gives ha hough he space o develop col-lecively.

For heir elegan engagemen wih collecive hinking in he ac, I hankhese reviewers by name: Greg Seigworh and Fred Moen. Tank you orinviing me o hink beyond he limi o wha seemed hinkable, and orhinking here wih me.

I also hank he SenseLab, wih whom he hinking never sops, wheher we are making or moving or alking or wriing. My lie is changed, conin-uously, by he hinking ha moves us.

And, as always: hank you o Brian Massumi. Even when we’re no wri-ing ogeher I hear he speculaive orce o our collecive hinking in my

words. You have augh me ha we never wrie alone.


12/36

I N T R O D U C T I O N

In a Minor Key

Tis book begins in a minor key and works o creae a field o resonance orhe minor. I does so hrough he concep o he minor gesure. Te minorgesure, allied o Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guatari’s concep o he minor,is he gesural orce ha opens experience o is poenial variaion. I doeshis rom wihin experience isel, acivaing a shif in one, a difference inqualiy.

A minor key is always inerlaced wih major keys—he minor works hemajor rom wihin. Wha mus be remembered is his: neiher he minornor he major is fixed in advance. Te major is a srucural endency haorganizes isel according o predeermined definiions o value. Te minoris a orce ha courses hrough i, unmooring is srucural inegriy, prob-lemaizing is normaive sandards. Te unwavering belie in he major ashe sie where evens occur, where evens make a difference, is based on ac-ceped accouns o wha regisers as change as well as exising parameers orgauging he value o ha change. Ye while he grand gesures o a macro-poliics mos easily sum up he changes ha occurred o aler he field, i ishe minoriarian endencies ha iniiae he suble shifs ha creaed hecondiions or his, and any change. Te grand is given he saus i has no

because i is where he ransormaive power lies, bu because i is easier oideniy major shifs han o caalogue he nuanced rhyhms o he minor.

As a resul, hese rhyhms are narraed as secondary, or even negligible.Te minor is a coninual variaion on experience. I has a mobiliy no

given o he major: is rhyhms are no conrolled by a preexising sruc-ure, bu open o flux. In variaion is in change, indeerminae. Bu inde-erminacy, because o is wildness, is ofen seen as unrigorous, flimsy, islack o solidiy misaken or a lack o consisency. Te minor hus ges casaside, overlooked, or orgoten in he inerplay o major chords. Tis is he


13/36

Inroducion

downside o he minor, bu also is srengh: ha i does no have he ullorce o a preexising saus, o a given srucure, o a predeermined me-ric, o keep i alive. I is ou o ime, unimely, rhyhmically invening isown pulse.

Te minor isn’ known in advance. I never reproduces isel in is ownimage. Each minor gesure is singularly conneced o he even a hand,immanen o he in-ac. Tis makes i pragmaic. Bu he minor gesurealso exceeds he bounds o he even, ouching on he ineffable qualiy ois more-han. Tis makes i speculaive. Te minor gesure works in hemode o speculaive pragmaism. From a speculaively pragmaic sance, iinvens is own value, a value as ephemeral as i is mobile. Tis permeabil-iy ends o make i ungraspable, and ofen unrecognizable: i is no doubdifficul o value ha which has litle percepible orm, ha which has no

ye quie been invened, le alone defined. And so he minor gesure ofengoes by unperceived, is improvisaional hreads o variabiliy overlooked,despie heir being in our mids. Tere is no quesion ha he minor isprecarious.

And ye he minor gesure is everywhere, all he ime. Despie is pre-cariy, i resuraces puncually, claiming no space as such, bu space-o-variaion. Te minor invens new orms o exisence, and wih hem,in hem, we come o be. Tese emporary orms o lie ravel across heeveryday, making unimely exising poliical srucures, acivaing newmodes o percepion, invening languages ha speak in he inersices omajor ongues. Te minor gesure’s indeerminacy, and even is ailure ohrive, is wha ineress me here. For here is no quesion, i seems o me,ha we pu oo much credence in ha which persiss, in he edifices rebuildaily by echnocras. Tere mus be oher ways o living?

In is movemen, he minor gesure creaes sies o dissonance, sagingdisurbances ha open experience o new modes o expression. In makingel he even’s limi, he operaional inerval where he even exceeds hesum o is pars, he minor gesure puncually reoriens experience. Teeven here is defined according o a Whieheadian concep o he acualoccasion. Acual occasions are he coming-ino- being o indeerminacy

where poenialiy passes ino realizaion (Whiehead : ). Whenspeaking o he even’s poenialiy, I am lingering on he side o he as- ye-undeermined share o he acual occasion. I am ocusing on he phaseo realizaion o he even, o experience, where i has no ye ully becomehis or ha. Te minor gesure is acive in his indeerminae phase o heeven. Tis is no o underesimae he necessiy o an even’s coming o


14/36

In a Minor Key

orm. As Alred Norh Whiehead emphasizes, i is he even’s aomiciy,is capaciy o be ully wha i is, ha ulimaely opens he way or he po-enial o wha is o come: wihou aomiciy, in an arena o pure becoming,here would be no “elbow room in he universe,” no opening or he dis-

juncions hrough which difference is produced (: ). Te empha-sis here is no on he coninuiy o becoming, an infiniely open accouno process, bu on he becoming o coninuiy: process puncuaed. Teeven and he minor gesure are always in co-composiion, he minor ges-ure puncuaing process, moving he welling even in new and divergendirecions ha aler he orienaion o where he even migh oherwisehave setled.

By making everyhing an even, by emphasizing ha here is nohing

ouside o or beyond he even, he aim is o creae an accoun o experi-ence ha requires no omnipresence. Te even is where experience acual-izes. Experience here is in he ense o lie-living, no human lie per se, buhe more-han human: lie a he inersices o experience in he ecologyo pracices. From his vanage poin o an ecology o pracices, i is urgeno urn away rom he noion ha i is he human agen, he inenional, voliional subjec, who deermines wha comes o be. I is urgen o urnaway rom he cenral ene o neuroypicaliy, he wide-ranging belie hahere is an independence o hough and being atribuable above all o hehuman, a beter-han-ness accorded o our neurology (a neurology, i mus be said, ha reeks o whieness, and classism). Neuroypicaliy, as a cenral bu generally unspoken ideniy poliics, rames our idea o which lives are worh fighing or, which lives are worh educaing, which lives are worhliving, and which lives are worh saving.

Despie is role as a ounding gesure o humanism, o individual-ism, neuroypicaliy remains or he mos par in he background o oureveryday lives. Cerainly, aciviss who figh or neurodiversiy are veryaware o how neuroypicaliy rames experience. Bu or he res o us, neu-roypicaliy as such ends o be backgrounded, and so we underesimae

boh is orce and is pervasiveness. Issues ha mos readily define neuro-ypicaliy as oundaional are ofen seen as given. We pay hem litle aten-ion: we don’ end, or insance, o quesion he aborion o vas numberso Down syndrome euses. Or we don’ hink o menal illness as on aspecrum wih our own neurology. Or we ignore how pervasive i is noo creae robus accommodaions or difference and rarely organize evens wih accommodaion in mind. We don’ concern ourselves wih he acha, oo ofen, people wih disabiliies, inellecual or physical, are offered


15/36

Inroducion

palliaive care insead o lie-susaining reamen or diseases. We ooofen see all o hese scenarios—i we do see hem a all—simply as aspecso exisence a his curren juncure: hey are wha hey are, and surely heyhave come o be or a reason. Neuroypicaliy ells us wha is in our bes

ineres, and we end o accep i wholesale. I is or his reason ha neuro-ypicaliy as oundaional ideniy poliics is rarely named as such. Whendo we quesion wha we mean by independence, by inelligence, by knowl-edge? When do we honor significanly differen bodies and ask wha heycan do, insead o jumping o he conclusion ha hey are simply deficien? When is he a body, he immobilized body, he blind body, he dea body,he old body, he spasic body celebraed? Yours, mine, he lie o he auis-ic, sill augh in segregaed classrooms, yours, mine, he lie o he schizo-phrenic, o he psychoic, he depressed, insiuionalized and ou o sigh, yours, mine, he Firs Naions, disenranchised by a setler colonialism hareuses o recognize poliical pracices neurodiverse a heir core, yours,mine, he drug addic, he drunk, he black man, reaed las in he emer-gency ward (i reaed a all), yours, mine, he ransgender, he ranssexual,he gay or lesbian, our righs oo rarely recognized as hey should be, yours,mine, lives deemed less worhy, less worhy no jus because o our visibledifference, bu because we have already been classed as less-han, as lesseducable, as less desirable, as less knowledgeable, as less valuable. We havealready been siuaed, aligned in opposiion o he dominan ideal o lie, ohe majoriarian discourse o neuroypicaliy, and we all shor.

I define his raming o exisence as neuroypical no o underesimaeoher orms o oppression, including racism, classism, sexism. My hope iso underscore he muual indebedness o he narraive o neuroypicaliyand he raming o cerain bodies and cerain orms o lie as less worhy.ake blackness. Neuroypicaliy, Fred Moen suggess, is anoher name oraniblackness. Te neuroypical sages he encouner wih lie in such a way as o exclude wha canno fi wihin is order, and blackness, or whaMoen describes as “black socialiy,” always ulimaely exceeds capure.

In a videoaped conversaion eniled “Do Black Lives Mater” beweenhimsel and Robin D. G. Kelley, Moen speaks o he concep o black so-cialiy in he conex o he murders o Michael Brown and Eric Gar-ner. He explains:

We need o undersand wha he sae is deending isel rom and Ihink ha in his respec, he paricular insances o Michael Brown’smurder and Eric Garner’s murder are worh paying some atenion o.


16/36

In a Minor Key

Because wha he drone, Darren Wilson [he police officer], sho inoha day was insurgen Black lie walking down he sree. I don’ hinkhe mean o violae he individual personhood o Michael Brown, he

was shooing a mobile Black socialiy walking down he sree in a wayha he undersood implicily consiued a hrea o he order he rep-resens and ha he is sworn o proec. Eric Garner on he everyday basis iniiaed a new alernaive kind o markeplace, anoher mode osocial lie. Ta’s wha hey killed, OK? So when we say ha Black livesmater I hink wha we do someimes is obscure he ac ha i’s in acBlack lie ha maters. Ta insurgen Black social lie sill consiues aproound hrea o he already exising order o hings.

Insurgen Black lie is neurodiverse hrough and hrough. Tis is ishrea, ha i canno be properly regulaed, ha i exceeds he boundso he known, ha i moves oo much—“I don’ need o disavow he no-ion ha black people have rhyhm.” Blackness, lie-living, is lie a helimi. Moen coninues: “Aniblackness is anilie. Somewhere along heline black flesh held he responsibiliy o proecing generaiviy. . . . Lieis Black lie. . . . When you say Black lie maters, you are saying lie ma-ers, and when you say lie maters, you are saying Black lie maters.” Ta

neuroypicaliy as ounding ideniy poliics discouns black lie implies, ahe limi, ha i discouns all lie, all generaive orce, all unbounded, un-predicable, rhyhmic, insurgen lie.

Neurodiversiy is he pah I choose here o explore insurgen lie. En-couraged by neurodiversiy acivism, I ake neurodiversiy as a plaorm orpoliical change ha undamenally alers how lie is defined, and valued.I do his wih he neurodiversiy movemen’s call in mind: o honor com-plex orms o inerdependence and o creae modes o encouner or ha

difference.

One o he compelling enes o he movemen or neurodiver-siy is ha i explicily calls or social and medical services. Many classicalauisics, or insance, canno live wihou aciliaion. Tey need assis-ance. And so hey no only wan o be seen as valuable in heir difference,hey also wan heir need or aciliaion o be seen as a necessary and hon-ored aspec o social lie. Te neurodiversiy movemen celebraes he re-laional orce o aciliaion broadly defined. Tis emphasis on relaion iscenral o my discussion o aciliaion in chaper .

Te neuroypical, as real conribuor o sociey and o humaniy ingeneral, is srongly paired wih a noion o independence undersood ac-cording o normaive definiions o abiliy and able- bodiedness ramed by


17/36

Inroducion

wha I call he voliion-inenionaliy-agency riad. Despie several decadeso he Disabiliy Ac, wha Guatari would call “normopahy” coninues orule, no only defining value in erms o normaive crieria o uncioning,

bu also reducing he imporance o relaion by placing aciliaion on heside o lack: hose who need aciliaion demonsrae a lack o inelligence,a lack o will, a lack o agency. Te neuroypical is he very backbone o aconcep o individualiy ha is absoluely divorced rom he idea ha re-laion is acually wha our worlds are made o. Te neuroypical does noneed assisance, does no need accommodaion, and cerainly does noneed aciliaion. Te neuroypical is independen hrough and hrough.

Te approach I am aking here, in my calling ino quesion he cenral-iy o neuroypicaliy as grounding srucure or exisence as we pracice

i, migh be called schizoanalyic, no because here is an encouner wihschizophrenia per se, bu because he accoun involves an engagemen wihhe cleaving o experience. A working definiion o schizoanalysis or hepurposes o his projec migh be: he acive operaion ha creaes schisms,in an ecology o pracices, opening up he even o is poenial or a collec-iviy alive wih difference. A concep ha composes well wih he aciviyo his cleaving is agencemen . Agencemen , as Guatari wries, is a juncionha “secrees [is own] coordinaes, [ha] can cerainly impose connec-ions, bu [does] no impose a fixed consrain” (: ). Mobilizing hecleave o he even, is inernal schism, agencement oregrounds no heagency o an individual acing on he even, bu hose very operaions ha“secree heir own coordinaes” in the event , affecing how i comes o ex-pression. A schizoanalyic approach, as I will elaborae in chaper , affirmshese complex ecologies ha could no come ino exisence wihou heschisms ha radically aler he operaional qualiy o he even.

As he posscrip will emphasize, a schizoanalyic approach has a beliein he world. In his sense i is Niezschean: “Was ha lie? Well hen, oncemore!” (: ). Te world i believes in is a world where o ac is an in-herenly affirmaive gesure ha canno be disinguished rom he in-ac ohe even. Wha acs a he hear o he even is he minor gesure. Tis isno o say ha he minor gesure is inherenly posiive, or good. Te minorgesure, like schizoanalysis, is operaional. I shifs he field, alering he va-lence o wha comes o be. I is affirmaive in is orce, emphaic in is belie. Ye i would be o radically misundersand he cu o difference o ignorehe pull o he ragic, as Niezsche makes clear in drawing a connecion beween affirmaion and ragedy. Tis is urher developed in he posscrip.


18/36

In a Minor Key

Deleuze’s words should also be heeded: “I is no he marginal whocreae he lines; hey insall hemselves on hese lines and make hem heirpropery, and his is fine when hey have ha srange modesy o people ohe line, he prudence o he experimener, bu i is a disaser when hey slip

ino a black hole rom which hey no longer uter anyhing bu he micro-ascis speech o heir dependency and heir giddiness: ‘We are he avan-garde,’ ‘We are he marginal’ ” (: , ranslaion modified). Te minorgesure is no he figure o he marginal, hough he marginal may carry aspecial affiniy or he minor and wish o compose wih i. Te minor ges-ure is he orce ha makes he lines remble ha compose he everyday,he lines, boh srucural and ragmenary, ha ariculae how else experi-ence can come o expression. o compose wih he minor gesure requires,

as Deleuze cauions, he prudence o he experimener, a prudence awakeo he speculaive pragmaism a he hear o he welling even. Sudy andresearch-creaion, boh developed in he firs chaper, are echniques orexperimenal prudence, a prudence paien enough o engage wih ha

which experimenaion unsetles, a prudence atuned o he orce o hein-ac. Bu beware: his is no he prudence o a passive oulier! Tis is aenaiveness in he ac ha jumps a he chance o discover wha else heeven can do. I is a prudence ha composes a he edges o he as- ye-unhough in he rhyhm o he minor gesure.

Te minor gesure is he acivaor, he carrier, i is he agencement hadraws he even ino isel. I moves he nonconscious oward he conscious,makes el he unsayable in he said, brings ino resonance field effecsoherwise backgrounded in experience. I is he orward-orce capable ocarrying he affecive onaliy o nonconscious resonance and moving ioward he ariculaion, edging ino consciousness, o new modes o exis-ence.

Tis capaciy o acualize, a he edge o he virual where he acual isno- ye, is wha makes he minor a gesure: he minor is a gesure insoar asi puncuaes he in-ac, leading he even elsewhere han oward he gov-ernan fixiy o he major, be i he major in he name o normaive poliicalsrucures, o insiuional lie, o able- bodiedness, o gender conormiy, oracial segregaion. Tis book celebraes he ragiliy and he persisence ohe minor gesure, perceiving in i more poenial han in he sel-direced“I” ha sands ouside experience and speaks he major languages o he brands o individualism and humanism ha rame neuroypicaliy as hecener o being.


19/36

Inroducion

THE U NDERC O MMO NS

Te regiser o he minor gesure is always poliical: in is puncual reori-ening o he even, he minor gesure invens new modes o lie-living. Imoves hrough he even, creaing a pulse, opening he way or new en-dencies o emerge, and in he resonances ha are awakened, poenial ordifference looms. Tis is how I am defining he poliical: he movemenacivaed, in he even, by a difference in regiser ha awakens new modeso encouner and creaes new orms o lie-living. Lie-living in is usagehroughou reuses o privilege this lie, his human lie, a he expense odifferen orms and orces o lie, even as i recognizes he imporance ohe puncualiy o this singular even we call our lie. Lie-living is a way

o hinking lie wih and beyond he human, hinking lie as more-han-human. Deleuze’s concep o a life resonaes srongly here, a life definedin his las ode o living as he flux o liveliness coursing hrough exisenceunlimied. Te conjuncion beween he minor gesure and lie-living isa poliical ecology ha operaes on he level o he in-ac, asking a every

juncure wha else lie could be. How this singular lie-orienaion car-ries exisence, and where is minor gesures may lead, is always, or me, apoliical quesion.

Te poliical opening ha lurks here is buil o a procedural archiecurecalled he undercommons, a concep coined by Fred Moen and SeanoHarney. Te undercommons is no a given sie, no a place predefined,no even a recognizable enclave we could reurn o having ound i once.Te undercommons is an emergen colleciviy ha is sied in he encoun-er. Allied o he minor gesure, i is an acivaor o a endency more hani is an offering o a commonaliy. Wha makes i a commons is no heexising gahering bu is speculaive presence as an ecology o pracices.Te undercommons is a enaive holding in place o ragile comings-ino-relaion, physical and virual, ha creae he poenial o reorien fields olie-living—a belie in he ineffable and is powers o resisance keep i alive.

In Moen and Harney’s reading o he undercommons, he universiylooms large as a sie in need. Te academic insiuion also has a major roleo play wih respec o he policing o neuroypicaliy. For his reason, likeMoen and Harney, I will firs dwell on he example o wha an undercom-mons migh look like in he conex o academia beore hen opening heundercommons beyond he sricures o he academic insiuion o whaelse sudy looks like in he everyday.


20/36

In a Minor Key

Neuroypicaliy involves a hierarchizaion o knowledge, based as i ison a belie ha avors normaive orms o insrucion and segregaes knowl-edge according o acceped ideas o wha serves sociey bes. Mos accepedapproaches o learning assume neuroypicaliy wih regard o processing

inormaion, hereby segregaing no only neurodiverse learners, bu alsopredefining wha couns as knowledge.

In Te Undercommons , Moen and Harney oreground he universiyas an insiuional sysem ha, in he neoliberal economy, hrives on a be-lie ha knowledge can be encapsulaed and markeed. Tere is no ques-ion ha his endency has become more marked in he las decades, wih unding or he humaniies, social sciences, he heoreical sciences,and sudio ars (o name only he mos obvious examples) coninuouslyunder hrea due o heir so-called uselessness in he economic marke-place. Wih he increased pressure o bringing unds o he universiyhrough gran- wriing comes he generalizaion o knowledge and heemphasis on disciplinary raming. Te shif looks somehing like his: inorder o ge grans, scholars and ariss wihin he universiy are askedo rame heir own work according o perceived use- value (read: gran-

value). Tis ends o hierarchize cerain orms o knowledge over ohers,hough hese hierarchies can urn around quie quickly, given he mobil-iy o capial. Paired wih he increased financial insabiliy o he univer-siy, which leads o ewer posiions being creaed and hus ewer differ-ences wihin he ranks, his can have he effec o narrowing knowledgeo wha are perceived o be he needs o he discipline (now redefinedaccording o graning caegories), ofen acing agains he very openingslearning can aciliae.

Criique ends o lead he way. Learning is a ragile enerprise ha canoo easily be sideracked by he encroachmen o wha is se up, in advance, as relevan or irrelevan. In he name o criique, his ragiliy is ofenramed and deadened hrough he crafing o quesions ha already haveanswers, or whose answers are close a hand, conained wihin preexisingacademic discourse. “Te criical academic quesions he universiy, ques-ions he sae, quesions ar, poliics, culure. Bu in he undercommonsi is ‘no quesions asked’ ” (Moen and Harney : ). Te mode o cri-ique ha operaes as an academic rope sifles he very opening hrough

which ragile new modes o exisence can come o expression. Wha iknowledge were no assumed o have a orm already? Wha i we didn’ yeknow wha needed o be augh, le alone quesioned?


21/36

Inroducion

Te undercommons opens he way or he crafing o problems greaerhan heir soluions. Here I am ollowing Henri Bergson, who suggessha he bes problem is he one ha opens up an inuiive process, no heone ha already carries wihin isel is fix. A solvable problem was neverreally a problem, Bergson reminds us. Only when a quesion is in line wihhe creation of a problem is i ruly operaional. Mos academic quesionsare o he solvable, unproblemaic sor. Wha he undercommons seeksare real problems, problems inuied and crafed in the inquiry. Bergson

wries:

I is he clariy o he radically new and absoluely simple idea, whichcaches as i were, an inuiion. As we canno reconsruc i wih pre-

exising elemens, since i has no elemens, and as on he oher hand, oundersand wihou effor consiss in recomposing he new rom whais old, our firs impulse is o say i is incomprehensible. . . . One mus . . .disinguish beween he ideas which keep heir ligh or hemselves,making i penerae immediaely ino heir slighes recesses, and hose

whose radiaion is exerior, illuminaing a whole region o hough.(: )

Te challenge, as Bergson underscores, involves crafing he condiionsno o solve problems, or o resolve quesions, bu o illuminae regionso hough hrough which problems- wihou-soluions can be inuied.Problems “mus be given ime. Te philosopher has no always he pa-ience. How much simpler i is o confine onesel o noions sored up inlanguage!” (: ). Te call made by he undercommons is ha we re-rain rom aking on problems ha are already recognizable, available, bu work insead, collecively, o inven open problems ha bring us ogeherin he mode o acive inquiry. We mus be careul, hough, in doing so,no o creae alse problems. “False problems are o wo sors, ‘nonexisenproblems,’ defined as problems whose very erms conain a conusion ohe ‘more’ and he ‘less’; and ‘badly saed’ quesions, so defined becauseheir erms represen badly analyzed composies” (Deleuze : ). Falseproblems, like he quesions he undercommons does no ask, bring usup agains “an illusion ha carries us along, or in which we are immersed,inseparable rom our condiion” (Deleuze : ). False problems and

badly saed quesions mainain he saus quo. Academic criique anddebae are oo ofen played ou a he level o alse problems and badlysaed quesions.


22/36

In a Minor Key

o explore regions o hough ha open ono new kinds o problem-aic processes, I begin he book wih an accoun o research-creaion.Research-creaion is he erm given, in Canada, o academic work ha isevaluaed boh or a creaive, usually arisic conribuion, and a writen,

more heoreical or philosophical one. On he surace, research-creaionis a erm wihou much racion, more a unding caegory han a concep-ual approach. Since , however, when he erm came ino general us-age in Canada, he SenseLab has aken i on as a problem, asking how hehyphen beween research and creaion opens up he differenial beweenmaking and hinking. Tis differenial, we argue, needs o be kep alive inis difference—philosophy does no require arisic pracice any more hanar requires philosophy. Differen pracices mus reain heir singulariy. A

he same ime, when hey do come ogeher, as wih research-creaion, iis imporan o inquire ino wha he hyphenaion does o heir singular-iy. We find research-creaion o be a erile field or hinking his coming-ino-relaion o difference. Problems ha arise include: How does a prac-ice ha involves making open he way or a differen idea o wha can beermed knowledge? How is he creaion o conceps, in he conex o hephilosophical, isel a creaive process? How can we bring he differen reg-isers o ar and philosophy, o making-hinking, ogeher in ways ha arecapable o honoring heir difference? In wha ways does he hyphen makeoperaional inersiial modes o exisence? Here, as we have done a heSenseLab or he pas decade, I ake research-creaion as one o he moslively curren modaliies, in he academic insiuion, o problem-making,and I explore how i creaes fields o inquiry or reraming how knowl-edge is praciced beyond ypical orms o academic use- value, includinghe value we place on linguisic expression and language- based evaluaion.Research-creaion, I argue in chaper , has no mehod o ollow, and noready-made modes o evaluaion.

Te erm Moen and Harney propose or he crafing o problems issudy , emphasizing ha sudy is no a place where everyone “dissolves inoa suden” bu where here is he acknowledgmen ha here is no way“o being inellecual ha isn’ social.” In a conversaion beween himsel,Sevphen Shukaiis, and Seano Harney, Moen explains:

When I hink abou he way we use he erm “sudy,” I hink we are

commited o he idea ha sudy is wha you do wih oher people. I’salking and walking around wih oher people, working, dancing, su-ering, some irreducible convergence o all hree, held under he name


23/36

Inroducion

o speculaive pracice. Te noion o a rehearsal—being in a kind o workshop, playing in a band, in a jam session, or old men siting on aporch, or people working ogeher in a acory—here are hese variousmodes o aciviy. Te poin o calling i “sudy” is o mark ha he in-

cessan and irreversible inellecualiy o hese aciviies is already pres-en. Tese aciviies aren’ ennobled by he ac ha we now say, “oh, i

you did hese hings in a cerain way, you could be said o be have beensudying.” o do hese hings is o be involved in a kind o common in-ellecual pracice. Wha’s imporan is o recognize ha ha has beenhe case—because ha recogniion allows you o access a whole, varied,alernaive hisory o hough. (Moen and Harney : –)

Wheher we call i sudy or we call i research-creaion and engage direcly wih knowledge as i is being reramed in pockes o academic discourse, wha maters is ha here is an explici disavowal o mehod as generaor oknowledge. For mehod, aligned as i is o he major, is wha seeks o cap-ure he minor gesure, wha seeks o capure sudy, and silence i.

Wih he undercommons as beacon or emergen colleciviy, and sudy,or research-creaion, as is mode o engagemen, his book atemps o geaway rom asking quesions ha already conain heir answers. “Wha I

would wan o do is no so much keep producing quesions bu o sep ohe side o he quesion a bi and hink hrough he imporance o sudy—ha i migh be possible o imagine a orm o movemen or poliical mobi-lizaion ha would be driven by or cenered on he aciviy o sudy ina way ha does no require he figuraion o he suden, or poeniallysome sor o reificaion o he figure o he suden” (Bousque, Harney,and Moen : ). Sudy, like research-creaion, reues he “subjec”o sudy, and in so doing i also reuses he “objec o sudy.” I does so by

always beginning wih he creaion o a problem ha is ruly producive oinquiry. In so doing, i opens he field o experience o he more-han oobjecs or subjecs preormed. Sudy is an ac ha delighs in he acivaiono he as- ye-unhough. I is an aciviy o immanen criique, as I argue inchaper , an ac ha only knows he condiions o is exisence rom wihinis own process, an ac ha reuses o judge rom wihou. Sudy, research-creaion—hese are pragmaically speculaive pracices ha, while abso-luely enrenched in heir own process o making-ime, here , now , remain

unimely. For as pracices, hey acivae even-ime, he ime unparsed ohe inuiive, a concep I explore urher in chaper , invening problemsha have no home, no reerence ye. Such problems need a collecive o


24/36

In a Minor Key

answer hem; hey need he undercommons. Tey require sudy. And, i bears repeaing: wha emerges rom sudy will never be an answer. Whaemerges will be paien experimenaion. Wha emerges will be anohermode o encouner, anoher problem, anoher opening ono he poliical

as sie as ye undefined.

WHAT ART CAN DO

o begin wih research-creaion is o immediaely siuae he orce o heminor gesure in he aciviy o he differenial. Te differenial, he ac-ive hyphen ha brings making o hinking and hinking o making, en-sures ha research-creaion remain an ecology o pracices. Tis ecology o

pracices needs a puncual proo-even such as he minor gesure o bringis poenial ino ocus. Te minor gesure acivaes he differenial suchha he ecology’s incipien heerogeneiy becomes operaional. When hishappens, somehing has begun o ake orm ha exceeds he regisers omaking on one end and hinking on he oher. A movemen o hough,as Bergson migh say, becomes acive, and in his aciviy a new regiser begins o ake shape. Tis new regiser is neiher ar per se nor philosophy:i is sudy, i is pracice, i is speculaion.

In mos cases research-creaion as an academic caegory is direcly con-cerned wih artistic pracice. Combined wih sudy, however, he emphasismoves oward he exploraion o how modes o making and hinking be-come consolidaed in emergen, collecive orms o pracice ha are arul,i no necessarily arisic in he srong sense. Te arul, or wha RaymondRuyer () calls “he aesheic yield,” is defined hroughou as he in-aco he more-han where he orce o orm remains emergen. Arul prac-ices honor complex orms o knowing and are collecive no because heyare operaed upon by several people, bu because hey make apparen, inhe way hey come o a problem, ha knowledge a is core is collecive.Pracices ha hink muliply are many: hey can be acivis pracices, envi-ronmenal pracices, social pracices. Tey can involve child-rearing, social work, eaching, playing. Tey can ake place on a park bench, in he ciy, inhe classroom, in he kichen. o hink muliply is o hink in he regisero he hyphen, o he differenial, in he complex field o sudy opened up

by he undercommons.In chaper , where he concep o he arul akes orm, I propose we

work no wih he curren and mos ypical definiion o ar, which endssill o oreground an objec, bu wih an aspec o is medieval definiion:


25/36

Inroducion

ar as the way. By ocusing on process insead o orm, i becomes pos-sible no only o raise he issue o he objec—o ask how a ocus on heobjec is similar in many ways o siuaing he subjec as iniiaor o expe-rience—bu o explore how ime is engaged in he arisic process. Fol-

lowing Bergson, I urn o inuiion, and is manner o making ime. I argueha inuiion is as key o a process as any oher building- block and hahrough inuiion, as allied o he creaion o a problem, he arul comeso expression.

Wha ar can do when i weaks oward he arul, wha research-creaion can do when he differenial is acivaed by a minor gesure, is omake el he inervals, he openings and capures wihin a process ha ison is way o becoming a pracice. Tis is explored in more deail in chap-er .

Te arul, in my reading o i, is aligned o wha I have elsewhere called“auisic percepion.” Auisic percepion is he opening, in percepion,o he uncaegorized, o he unclassified. Tis opening, which is how manyauisics describe heir experience o he world, makes i iniially difficulo parse he field o experience. Raher han seeing he pars absracedrom he whole, auisic percepion is alive wih endings ha creae ecol-ogies beore hey coalesce ino orm. Tere is here as ye no hierarchicaldiffereniaion, or insance, beween color, sound, ligh, beween humanand nonhuman, beween wha connecs o he body and wha connecso he world. When we engage in pracice, when we are subsumed by pro-cess, we ofen seek his kind o percepion, and i is available o us all: au-isic percepion does no belong exclusively o auisics. Te difference isha, excep in exreme circumsances, mos o us parse experience beorehaving a direc experience o he field in is complexiy. Te auisic, onhe oher hand, direcly perceives he complexiy beore (and beween)he parsings.

In he chapers ha ollow, he arul is always colored by he edgingsino percepibiliy o auisic percepion. I ocus on auisic percepionno only o honor neurodiversiy, o ake ino accoun modes o exisenceI consider key o making our worlds richer, bu o make a poliical case orhe necessiy o creaing echniques and minor gesures ha open exisenceo is percepual more-han. Tis is no o deny ha auisic percepion, orall is percepual wonders, also makes ypical aspecs o everyday lie diffi-cul o manage. For insance: crossing a sree, i is always saer o have beencapable o parsing cars rom sidewalks rom humans. Afer all, we live in a world ha privileges orms o percepion where he par can quickly and


26/36

In a Minor Key

easily be singled ou rom he whole. By oregrounding he inheriance oauisic percepion in he arul, we are reminded ha he qualiaive open-ings in experience acivaed by auisic percepion have a value in heir ownrigh. Te problem is no wih auisic percepion bu wih how we consi-ue and value he rameworks o everyday living.

Frameworks o everyday living are also o he even. And so, like allevens, hey can be modulaed by minor gesures. Tey can be opened upo heir poenial in ways ha inervene ino capialis ime. Tey can be-come orms o resisance. Tey can do so, or insance, by alering rhyhms,reducing our alignmen o he homogeneiy o capialis speed. Aleringhe speed a which he everyday ends o uncion creaes openings orneurodiverse orms o percepion. I also makes ime or modes o encoun-

er oherwise elided. Tis call or he coursing o minor gesures wihinrames o everyday lie involves crafing echniques ha creae he condi-ions no or slowness exacly, bu or he opening o he everyday o de-grees and shades o experience ha resis ormaion long enough o allowus o see he poenial o worlds in he making. Tis involves becomingmore atuned o even-ime, he nonlinear lived duraion o experience inhe making. For i is in even-ime ha he minor gesure unes he eveno wha i can do.

A poliics allied o sudy, engaged in he crafing o problems ha openup he ime o he even, is an affirmaive poliics, no in he sense ha iis opimisic, bu in he sense ha i begins wih he in-ac and embraceshe orce o he what else a he hear o all speculaive pragmaisms. Such apoliics emphasizes he echniques and condiions ha lead o he creaiono new problems, raher han promising an already-consiued field replee

wih orm and conen. Form and conen are shor-lived, and his makeshem alse sarers. In a poliics atuned o emergen difference, we mus begin insead in he mids, where orce has no ye uned o orm. In hismiddle, where he even is sill welling, here is poenial or new diagramso lie-living o be drawn.

IN THE A C T

Alernaive diagrams or lie-living mus resis reurning o a model oinside-ouside where he human subjec is siuaed as he moivaor o ex-perience. Tis is our habi: o make he work abou us. When we do so, we se up condiions ha are only generaive as regards wha we perceiveas our own well- being. Framing our approach o he poliical his way, we


27/36

Inroducion

place he subjec, he human, in he posiion o agency, promoing he acin erms o he voliional hrus o our own inenionaliy. Even when wegive voice o hose silenced, even when we speak in he name o he mul-iude, even when we alk abou he “agency” o an arisic process, even

when we ry o give agency o an oppressed people, we assume a mediaion beween an ac and is unolding, mos ofen atribuing he push o aciono ourselves as a species, while sill reaining a srong sense ha he worldis ulimaely led and enhanced by he neuroypical ew. Tis is he problem

wih agency: i makes he subjec he subjec o he acion. Wha i he acdid no ully belong o us?

Around he urn o he wenieh cenury, boh Bergson and William James become invesed in his problem o he ac. Wha is i, hey ask, hamakes us so cerain ha he ac is voliionally direced by a human subjec?

Wha is i ha gives us he srong sense ha he ac’s effor belongs o us? And why is i so hreaening, I migh add, o hink ha wihin he ac hereis a considerable involunary share o aciviy?

In chaper , I explore James’s accoun o he eeling o effor in deail.Here I will urn o Bergson’s analysis o he same quesion. Te eeling oeffor, Bergson suggess, seems o be allied o a muscular sensaion: hemagniude associaed wih an effor is quanified according o he degreeo muscular sensaion a given aciviy demands. Tis suggess ha he eel-ing o effor is allied o consciousness: wha we name effor has somehingo do wih a conscious esimaion o inensiy. Even when he effor is in vain—as in, or insance, picking up wha we hough was a heavy box o books bu was acually an empy box—he feeling o effor remains. Effor would hereore seem o be aply conneced o a willul movemen under-aken, is inensive magniude linked o he expecaion o he amoun omuscular conracion needed o ollow hrough wih he ac.

And ye, as boh Bergson and James poin ou, here is an issue wih heabove analysis. Firs, inensiy canno be quanified. I is bu a shading, acoloring, o he even, in he even. I inensiy is el o have magniude,he magniude can only be qualiaive. A quanificaion canno hereore

be assigned o inensiy per se, bu mus insead be conneced o a sense o wha he inensiy represened, afer he ac. Wha his means is ha hereis an alliance beween he eeling o effor and how he even has come o be known in rerospec. Tis knowing-in-rerospec is he work conscious-ness does in he parsing o an even. Bergson wries: “Bu jus as con-sciousness . . . concenraes on a given poin o he organism he increasingnumber o muscular conracions which ake place on he surace o he


28/36

In a Minor Key

body, hus convering hem ino one single eeling o effor, o growing in-ensiy, so i will hyposaize under he orm o a growing desire he grad-ual aleraions which ake place in he conused heap o coexising psychicsaes” (: ). Wha is el as quaniaive effor is el consciously, back-

grounding no only he qualiaive complexiy in he even, bu inensiy’sown qualiaive mulipliciy. In he parsing ha occurs wih consciousness,a cerain povery o complexiy has been chosen over he conused heap.Tis leads o he inervals o sensaion—is degrees and mulipliciies— being flatened ino one single overarching eeling. Te ransiion rom hecomplexiy o a purely qualiaive experience o he eeling o effor occa-sioned in he conscious accouning o he ac makes he inervals o sen-saion appear “as differen inensiies o one and he same eeling, which ishus supposed o change in magniude” (Bergson : ). Whereas in henonconscious welling even, every shif caused a change in naure, in urncausing a qualiaive ransormaion in he field o experience, wih he on-se o consciousness he endency is o backgrid effec ono cause, creainga solid accouning o change ha organizes he even wihin a emporalgrid. Tis solid accouning is quanifiable only because i can be said o behe same or differen—in ime, in space, in effec—rom he las solid ac-couning o experience. “Consciousness, accusomed o hink in erms ospace and o ranslae is houghs ino roos, will denoe he eeling by asingle word and will localize he effor a he exac poin where i yields auseul resul: i will hen become aware o an effor which is always o hesame naure and increases a he spo assigned o i, and a eeling which, re-aining he same name, grows wihou changing is naure” (Bergson :). Wih consciousness, he eeling ends o move rom he even inohe subjec, where he effor’s magniude is direcly aligned o experiencesparsed, pas and presen.

I he eeling o effor is ied o consciousness, i ollows ha i mus beied o voliion. Te argumen would look like his: when a movemen ismade consciously, we know he effor conained because movemen is vo-liional, and as such, i belongs o us. A voliional movemen, because i isinenional, and because i comes rom us, mus hereore already include

wihin is parameers he knowledge o how much effor is necessary ocarry i ou. Tis effor is learned and comes hrough repeiion. Once hemovemen becomes a habi i is praciced voliionally, ha is, inenionally.

We hus have agency over i. We end o divide movemen ino wo general caegories: reflexes or

auomaic movemens, on he one hand, and direced or voliional move-


29/36

Inroducion

mens, on he oher. We are augh ha reflex, which is considered in-sincual and hereore less refined han voliional movemen, is a direc,nonconscious response in the event o a cause. A paren running ino hesree o grab heir child beore i ges hi by a car is engaged in auomaicmovemen, suddenly capable o amazing acs o srengh and samina, allo which ake place nonconsciously. Direced, or voliional movemen, onhe oher hand, is defined as sraegized movemen. Because i is consid-ered o be beyond insinc, direced movemen is said o be more ree hanauomaic movemen. Afer all, i is conscious, and consciousness is saido be a prerequisie or reedom. One sign o his reedom is ha voliionalmovemen is said o be able o resis he sric overlay o cause ono effec.For insance, during a game, a soccer player migh be augh a sraegy haincludes moving in a cerain way on he field, bu she is equally expeced o be able o consciously, ha is, voliionally, aler course i necessary. Indeed,he soccer player’s alen is ofen measured by his “ree ac” o movemenshe is expeced o be able o underake in he spli second o a change inplay. Tis differeniaion beween conscious and nonconscious movemen,

beween so-called “ree” movemen, on he one hand, and auomaic orreflex movemen, on he oher, is problemaic or several reasons. Firs, ihierarchizes orms o movemen according o conscious behavior, ignoringhe complex endings wihin consciousness ha open i o nonconsciousinflecions. Second, i classifies as primiive orms o movemen ha arealive in the event , hus siuaing auisic percepion, or insance, on he sideo reflex and neuroypical percepion on he side o voliion, hereby ur-her cemening he hierarchy. I also conuses wo levels o cause and effecin is accoun o reedom.

In he moving, in he ac, we are in an immanen cause-effec relaion.Te soccer player’s acive response o a change in play is an accoun ocause-effec, bu one where cause-effec is sill in ransormaion, affeced

by emergen improvisaional movemen operaions. How he shif in play will affec he game is no sraegized consciously by he moving soccerplayer; he cause-effec scenario is no measured in he doing. Somehingalogeher differen is a sake: he soccer player is in he field, is moved by he field; her movemen no a response o he play so much as he acivaion o a new field o relaion. Te alen ascribed o he soccer player isulimaely due no o her voliional abiliy o move, bu o her capaciy oeffec cause in he even , opening he field o is poenial hrough inuiiverealignings acivaed by mobile cues, leading o a (re)direcing o he game.

All movemen works his way, as I argue in chaper . When we believe we


30/36

In a Minor Key

have consciously affeced he direcion o an even, when we eel ha aneven has been moved by our voliion alone, i is because a backgriddingono he even has aken place ha has made sense o he play- by-play.Tis is usually how we explain our acions, bu i is no how we ac. How

we ac is based on a coninuous inerplay o conscious and nonconsciousmovemen wih nonconscious movemen playing a vial par, especially asregards movemen’s creaive poenial.

In our everyday movemens, especially in relaion o movemens hahave become habiual, a movemen migh noneheless feel compleely vo-liional. When his is he case, wha has happened is ha we’ve experienceda sense o déjà-el, in he even. Tis déjà-el occurs in he inersices ohe conscious and he nonconscious, direcing he even o is amiliariy-in-eeling. Wha is imporan o realize, and wha I explore urher in chap-er , is ha he eeling o voliion is no voliion isel. Te eeling o voli-ion is more aply defined as a cerain recogniion, in he moving, o ourhaving already moved “jus his way.” Bu movemen-moved is never wicehe same: i is always alered by he ecologies ha creae his singular fieldo relaion, and ha influence how i will unold this ime. Voliional move-men undersood as movemen belonging o he subjec and ully direced by he subjec is, hereore, impossible. Such an accoun o voliion, as sug-gesed above, can only be narraed afer he ac. Tis pos aco narraiono our movemens as voliional is o course more sraighorward i heac mainains a cerain similariy across variaions. Major movemens—movemens ha have a orm ha can easily be recognized, such as getingon he bus—are hereore more easily pos-idenified as “voliional” hanare minor gesures.

Troughou, I consider movemen as decisional raher han voliional,decision defined here no as exernal o he even bu as he cu, in heeven, hrough which new ecologies, new fields o relaion are crafed. Tesoccer player’s reoriening o he field was decisional in jus his way. Non-conscious movemen is decisional in he sense ha i is capable o aleringhe course o he even in he even . Elsewhere, I’ve called he atunemen,in he even, oward decisional movemen, choreographic hinking, em-phasizing he abiliy o movemen o cue and align in spaceimes o compo-siion in ways ha open experience o new regisers. Reflecive conscious-ness acually ges in he way o his process, as dancers and ahlees willates o. Movemen-moving is a is mos creaive, is mos operaional, when no curailed by he imposiion o narraives o voliion and inen-ionaliy.


31/36

Inroducion

THE NO NC O NSC IO U S SHA RE

Affec is one o he mos habiual ways we experience he nonvolunary inhe ac. Bergson wries: “Te inensiy o affecive sensaions migh . . . benohing more han our consciousness o he involunary movemens whichare being begun and oulined” (: ). Te orce o he affecive movesus. When his movemen unes oward an experience ha can be definedas such, he conscious share o he nonconscious has briefly made isel el.Degrees o parsing are possible here. Tere can, or insance, be a eeling,irreducible o definiion bu noneheless semi-consciously ascerained, a-ecively el bu unariculaed, o an uneasiness or a remulousness. Or, incases where affec unes o emoion, here can be a clearer parsing ino helanguage o a singular eeling. In he second insance, where affec uneso emoion, here is a shadowing over o he inensiy o affec, hough anaffecive race sill remains.

In he case o affec, he involunary ends o be recognized and even ac-ceped, bu only insoar as i is considered o have no real effec on our mo-daliies o exisence. For we know well ha affec is considered lower on hescale han reason or raionaliy. All is well wih affec as long as ulimaely

we can hold i back and use our voliion o seer our eelings, imposing de-cision rom wihou. Te problem should be clear by now. In ransposingreason ono affec we are rying o have i boh ways: we wan o eel he in-effable, ye deceive ourselves ino hinking we can sideline he ineffable andleave he bubbling ground o he welling even when i suis us. We wano believe we can decide where he even will ake us. Tis is a mirage haunderesimaes he orce o he nonvolunary in our daily lives.

Because we have litle by way o evaluaive sraegies or he nonvol-unary, because he nonvolunary resiss mehod, and, in many cases, lan-guage, here remains a firm belie ha i is o lesser value han conscious,so-called voliional experience. Ye nonconscious experience is ull oknowledge: i is, afer all, he sie o decision. No decision, as menionedabove, is made ouside he even’s welling. Boh Carl Schmit and Whie-head, in heir differen ways, emphasize ha decision is he cu ha openshe even o a new field o relaion, no he ac ha precedes or ollows heeven. Decision is no wha happens afer he affecive opening o he eveno is poenial, bu wha cleaves he even, in he even. Te minor gesureis a decisional cu.

Te decisional cu is everywhere acive. ake he example o pickingup milk a he corner sore. You migh assume ha his simple ac is com-


32/36

In a Minor Key

pleely voliional. Bu much is lef open o he even’s own process o de-cision, even in wha seems o be such a simple, habiual ac. You may nohave realized, or insance, he way your movemen was immanenly di-reced and shaped no by your will alone, bu by he pull o he corner

sore, or wha James calls he “erminus,” a pull ha doesn’ necessarilyinclude a direc ollow-hrough. For while he sore did ge you up, whileis immanen direcionaliy did incie direcional mobiliy, i is possibleha in his corner sore insance you’re sill in your living-room becauseon he way o he door a song began o play on he radio ha brough hecouch ino ocus and you ound yoursel lying down o lisen o i inseado geting milk. Likely, when asked, you will say ha you decided o lie onhe couch, ha you didn’ really need he milk, bu in ac he even decided

and you ollowed, open o he naure o he even- based improvisaion hais par o all our daily choreographies.

I emphasize he nonvoliional in he ac because so much is aken orgraned in he name o neuroypicaliy, in he name o voliion, o inen-ionaliy, o agency. For hose who pass as neuroypical, or whom move-men usually reads as voliional, i seems absoluely accepable o have lis-ened o he song on he couch insead o walking o he corner o ge milk.Bu or he auisic or anyone else or whom acivaion and impulse conrolmay be an issue, he daily experience o not ending up where our move-men seemed iniially o be direced is no only deeply rusraing, bu canalso be aken as a sign o our lesser value as human beings: anyhing hamakes us less independen in he eyes o a world ha akes inenionaliyand voliion as a normaive sandard ends o decrease our perceived valueas conribuors o sociey.

One reason we ideniy nonvolunary movemen as oher o neuroyp-ical movemen is because we have a endency o see movemen as conin-uous, a view perpeuaed by he habi o backgridding he even in con-sciousness, hereby inroducing homogeneiy ino he aciviy afer heac. Movemen is o course anyhing bu coninuous, is aciviy consanlyinfleced by he improvisaory qualiy o a response, in he even, o cuesand alignmens. Jus hink o he las ime you moved on a crowded side-

walk. I’s amazing how ew people we bump ino in he weler o crowdsmoving!

Bergson uses music as an example. For some o us, i is very difficul oselec ou sensory inpu. o lisen o music migh be o hear i as a many-imes-unolding, unimely complexiy. I migh mean you hear no heune as such, or he measure, bu he music’s differenial, is composie


33/36

Inroducion

and rhyhmic orce o orm. For hose o us less atuned o auisic per-cepion, however, his is likely no how we hear i. Wha we hear inseadis a more homogenized version: we consciously reduce he sensaion osound’s inensiy o a quaniaive magniude ha is averaged ou. “Tus

when we speak o he inensiy o a sound o medium orce as a magniude, we allude principally o he greaer or less effor which we should have our-selves o expend in order o summon, by our own effor, he same audiorysensaion” (Bergson : ). Tis averaging ou hrough consciousnessdisances us rom sound as pure qualiy: “Te sound would remain a purequaliy i we did no bring in he muscular effor which produces i or he vibraions which explain i” (: ). In he parsing o sound, he music’squaliaive nuance is diminished.

o hear he differenial o music’s immanen rhyhms, o paricipae di-recly in he qualiy o is sounding, i is necessary o hold back he con-scious ordering o sensaion. I is necessary o increase he duraion o heexperience o direc percepion, hereby honing auisic percepion. ForBergson, his means doing away wih he idea ha sensaion can be mea-sured, which also means: ariculaed, idenified, parsed. Parsing, so allied wih he neuroypical, no only reduces our capaciy o eel he complexiyo he even in he even, i perpeuaes he hierarchy o conscious experi-ence over nonconscious experience, reason over affec. “Wha srenghenshe illusion on his poin is ha we have become accusomed o believein he immediae percepion o a homogeneous movemen in a homo-geneous space” (: ). By siuaing he even ouside o is aciviy, we become accusomed o neuralizing he orce no only o wha he evencan do, bu wha he even is doing . In Bergson’s accoun, his involves apos aco spaializaion o duraion, o even-ime.

Coninuing wih his example o music, Bergson wries: “As I inerprehis new series . . . as a coninuous movemen, and as his movemen hashe same direcion, he same duraion and he same velociy as he preced-ing, my consciousness eels isel bound o localize he difference beweenhe second series o sensaions and he firs elsewhere han in he move-men isel” (: –). Wha i insead o parsing movemen, we dwelin movemen-moving? Tis would allow us o be more atuned o he di-erenial a he hear o he even, o is immanen conras. I we did so, we would no longer be able o believe in pure coninuiy and would perhapsrerain rom our endency o homogenize experience. And we would begino more easily perceive minor gesures a work.


34/36

In a Minor Key

Minor gesures recas he field, open i o conras, make el is differen-ial. Tey do so by acivaing, in he even, a change in direcion, a changein qualiy. Te acivaion o a change in qualiy is wha Bergson defines asreedom. Freedom is here no linked o human voliion, nor is i allied o

inenionaliy or agency. Freedom is insead allied o he in-ac, o he deci-sional orce o movemen-moving, o he agencemen ha opens he eveno he ullness o is poenial. Freedom is how he even expresses is com-plexiy, in he even.

Bergson’s concep o reedom does no separae ou aciviy rom hein-ac. In doing so, i radically reposiions voliion as an aspec o experi-ence, acive in he ac, no longer he exernal direcor o experience medi-aed. Wihou a hierarchy o conscious versus nonconscious experience,

a more complex composiional field o experience emerges. Here hereis sill room or muaion, or difference, or an opening oward he as-

ye-unseen, he as- ye-unhough, he as- ye-unel. In hese inersices ohe as- ye, minor gesures prolierae and can be harnessed oward he re-oriening o experience. Tis is reedom, or Bergson, defined agains heusual definiion o he ree ac, which would separae reedom rom hein-ac, placing reedom side by side wih a volunaris noion o decision.Tis more ypical definiion o reedom has us sanding ouside he even.

We are ree because we are raional, because we orien he ac, because wehave agency, because we resis he affecive orces o hose passions and de-sires ha would seer us in he wrong direcion. In his usual definiion oreedom, as Bergson says, “we give a mechanical explanaion o a ac, andhen subsiue he explanaion or he ac isel” (: ). Tis is nohe way Bergson concepualizes reedom. As he wries, “ime is no a linealong which one can pass again” and hereore “reedom mus be sough ina cerain shade or qualiy o he acion isel and no in he relaion o hisac o wha i is no or o wha i migh have been” (: – ).

Freedom, or Bergson, is dynamic, ecological. Freedom is a qualiy ohe ac, an ehos in he ac’s opening ono experience. No all evens areree, bu in every even we find he germs o reedom. Tese germs mus

be ended, mus be sown in ways ha allow he ac o creae problems ha will in urn generae modes o acion, o aciviy, o acivism ha creaenew modes o exisence. Te minor gesure ends he germs o experiencein-orming, opening he ac o is poenial. In his sense, he minor gesureis a orce or reedom. For he gesure is only a minor gesure insoar as iopens he way, insoar as i creaes he condiions or a differen ecology


35/36

Inroducion

o ime, space, o poliics. Te minor gesure, we mus remember, is de-fined by is capaciy o vary, no o hold, no o conain. I acs on, moveshrough, is gesuring always oward a uuriy presen in he ac, bu as yeunexpressed. Tis is is orce, his is is call or reedom.

In he chapers ha ollow, his is he operaive quesion: wha kinds opracices can be crafed ha are generaive o minor gesures? Wha migha poliics o he minor gesure ac like, here , now , in he even? And how can we ariculae he delicae conras carried by he minor gesure wihou fla-ening ou difference, homogenizing experience?

Tis poses a significan challenge: how o ariculae modes o exisence,o ariculae fields o experience, ha operae as much in he noncon-scious as in he conscious realms, how o do so in a language ha operaeschiefly wihin he realm o he conscious. Perhaps he firs sep is no o beoo cerain o he rame ha would separae he nonconscious rom con-sciousness. Saes o consciousness, Bergson wries, “are processes and nohings; . . . i we denoe hem each by a single word, i is or he convenienceo language; ha hey are alive and hereore consanly changing; ha,in consequence, i is impossible o cu off a momen rom hem wihoumaking hem poorer by he loss o some impression, and hus alering heirqualiy” (: ). Minor gesures operae a his cusp where he non-conscious and he conscious co-compose, where language operaes “be-neah he words,” as auisic Amelia (ormerly Amanda) Baggs migh say(). From his posiion o indeerminacy, o he ineffable, how o makeinelligible he singulariy o wha canno be measured or caegorized bu isel and, in some sense, known? Here, where here is no percepible differ-ence, as Bergson says, “beween oreseeing, seeing and acing,” he minorgesure is key. For he minor gesure can open he way or a differen kindo knowing, a knowing in he even, in nonlinear even-ime, a knowingha, while impossible o parse, delighs in he orce o concepual inven-ion (: ). Te minor gesure is an ally o language in he making.

“Freedom” may no be a word o hold ono. For now, I use i as a place-holder o remind us ha voliion and reedom need no be hough o ascomplemenary. I use i also because he neurodiverse are rarely consideredree in a world where reedom is usually associaed wih independence.

A serious aking ino accoun o he nonvolunary aspec o reedom Berg-son oregrounds migh ulimaely make he neurodiverse ree, ree o bedifferen, ree o need and receive aciliaion, ree o perceive he complex-iy o experience on heir own erms, and ree, also, o move, o live, o lovein unpredicable ways. For reedom is no o be ound in he ordering o ex-


36/36

perience, in is measure, bu in he dynamic inensiy o he even’s unold-ing. Tis unolding affecs us, moves us, direcs us, bu i does no belong ous. Freedom is ransversal o he human: i cus across human experience bu is no defined by i. As Bergson wries: “Te process o our ree aciviy

goes on, as i were, unknown o ourselves, in he obscure dephs o our con-sciousness a every momen o duraion” (: ). Te heerogeneiy ohe nonconinuous naure o experience is cerainly no easy o ariculae,

bu i is rich, infiniely so. o hear i, i is necessary o rerain rom setingexperience apar rom he in-ac.

Documents

The Minor Gesture by Erin Manning