RhizomesIssue11/12(Fall2005/Spring2006)RosiBraidotti

AffirmingtheAffirmative:OnNomadicAffectivity
[1]
RosiBraidotti
Introduction
[1]ThispaperarguesthataffectanddesireasanontologicalpassionsplayacentralroleinDeleuzeandGuattari'sphilosophical
intervention.Thepoliticaleconomyofthiskindofaffectivity,however,islinkedtoaneovitalistbrandofantiessentialistbodily
materialism.Thisapproachisopenlycriticalofthelinguisticparadigmofmediationwhichhasbeendominantinpostmodernthought
andespeciallyintheNorthAmericanreceptionofFrenchpoststructuralism.Nomadicaffectivityisoutwardboundandbasedon
complexrelationswithamultiplicityofothers,includingnonhumanothers.ThekindofethicsthatsustainsthisprojectisSpinozist
initsmaterialistfoundationsandproductiveinitspoliticaleconomy.Assuch,itcouldnotbefurtherremovedfromthedialecticsof
Lack,LawandSignifierwhichhavedominatedLacanianpsychoanalysis,Derridiandeconstructionandthequeertheoriesthatrely
ontheseschemesofthought.
Beyondthecultoftheinorganic
[2]MyfirstargumentconcernsthereceptionofDeleuze&Guattariinthepresentcontextoftheendofpostmodernism.Thisbegs
thequestion,ofcourse,ofwhatexactlycomesafterpostmodernism,butIcannotgetintothisdiscussionhere.Althoughfrom
severalquarterstheendofpostmodernismiscurrentlybeingcelebrated,someofthepostmodernconceptualandculturalhabits
arestillverymuchincirculation.Nottheleastofthemisthecultoftheinorganic,thecelebrationofthesublimelyfakeandthe
purposefullyinauthentic.ThisprovidesoneoftheframeworksofreceptionofDeleuzeandGuattari'swork,assomesortofkingsof
queerartificeatthetailendofthelinguisticturnofpostmodernism.
[3]Onediscursiveareawherethisisevidencedisinthehastyrenditionsofthedigitalwebasrhizome.Thisestablishesa
convergencebetweenthehypesurroundingthenewdigitalmediaandinformationtechnologiesandthephilosophyofGilles
Deleuze.Technologyisattheheartofaprocessofblurringfundamentalcategoricaldividesbetweenselfandotherasortof
heteroglossiaofthespecies,acolossalhybridisationwhichcombinescyborgs,monsters,insectsandmachinesintoapowerfully
posthumanapproachtowhatweusedtocall'theembodiedsubject'.
[4]Moreover,thepoliticaleconomyofglobalcapitalismconsistsinmultiplyinganddistributingdifferencesforthesakeofprofit.It
producesevershiftingwavesofgenderisationandsexualisation,racialisationandnaturalisationofmultiple'others'.Ithasthus
effectivelydisruptedthetraditionaldialecticalrelationshipbetweentheempiricalreferentsofOthernesswomen,nativesand
animalorearthothersandtheprocessesofdiscursiveformationofgenderisation/racialisation/naturalisation.Oncethisdialectical
bondisunhinged,advancedcapitalismlookslikeasystemthatpromotesfeminismwithoutwomen,racismwithoutraces,natural
lawswithoutnature,reproductionwithoutsex,sexualitywithoutgenders,multiculturalismwithoutendingracism,economicgrowth
withoutdevelopment,andcashflowwithoutmoney.Latecapitalismalsoproducesfatfreeicecreamsandalcoholfreebeernextto
geneticallymodifiedhealthfood,companionspeciesalongsidecomputerviruses,newanimalandhumanimmunitybreakdowns
anddeficiencies,andtheincreasedlongevityofthesewhoinhabittheadvancedworld.Welcometocapitalismasschizophrenia!
[5]Consideringtheperversityofthispoliticaleconomy,Iwouldrecommendthatweresistquickassimilationsof,forinstance,
Deleuzianmachinesasmetaphorsforadvancedtechnologies.ThemachinicforDeleuzeisyetanotherfigurationthatexpresses
thenonunitary,radicallymaterialistanddynamicstructureofsubjectivity.Itexpressesthesubject'scapacityformultiple,nonlinear
andoutwardboundinterconnectionswithanumberofexternalforcesandothers.Thismodelofinterrelationsworksaswellin
DeleuzeandGuattari'smanyreferencestoanimals,plants,virusesandtothechaosmosasawhole.Itisaboutmultiplealliances,
symbioticconnectionsandfusions.Thereissomethingrawandterritorialaboutthemachinic,somethingthatconnectseachliving
beingtotheearth,andtothelivingenvironmentatsomefundamentallevel.Themutualinterdependencesandproductivemergers
offorcesareattheheartofDeleuze'snotionofcreativebecomings.Whatthe'machinic'elementisexpressingisthedirectness,I
wouldsaytheliteralnessoftherelationsbetweenforces,agents,sitesandlocationsofsubjectivity.Thisissupposedtochallenge
thedominantparadigmoflinguisticmediation,withthetwinforcesofrepresentationandinterpretationwhichhavedominatedour
imagesofwhatitmeanstobeasubject.Signalsreplacesigns,expressionreplacesrepresentationandcodesreplace
interpretation.Themachinicexpressestheimpersonal,orintrapersonalintensiveresonancesbetweenthemultiplelevelsofinter
connectionsthatmakelivingbeingstick.
[6]Thishasnothingincommonwiththefantasiesofcyberneticomnipotencethatdominatethepopularimaginaryaboutbody
machinestoday(Braidotti,2002).TheideologyofthosewhodesiretobewiredandwhoseetheInternetastheexperimental
groundsforallegedlyheterogeneousexperimentswithalternativesubjectpositionsisintegraltothepoliticaleconomyofbio
technologicalcapitalism.ThisistotheantipodesoftheDeleuzianproject.
[7]Theimplicationsforgender,sexualityandsexualdifferencearenolessmomentous.The'machinic'incontemporarycultureisa
highlyeroticisedspacewhichconveysatranssexualsocialimaginarythatIconsiderdominantinadvancedcapitalism.Insofaras
contemporaryintelligentmachinesblurtheboundariesbetweenselfandothersandthusdisplacefundamentalaxesof
differentiation,theylendthemselvestobecomingsymbolsoftransgression,alsointermsofsexualandgenderedidentity.For
instance,inatextcalled'BirthoftheCyberqueer'Morton(1999)takesDeleuzeandGuattari'sbodymachinesorBodieswithout
Organsasaspaceofsexualderegulationwhereanythinggoes:themachineistakenassignallinganonOedipalisedandnon
normalisedsexuality.Ifindthisapproachunconvincingontwoscoresthefirstispolitical:DeleuzeandGuattariareprominent
criticsofthecyberneticindividualismwhichshapesourpoliticalculture.Themultiplicationofsexualoptions,inascaleofinfinite
degreesofquantitativepluralitiesathousandlittlesexeseachwiththeirownclub,music,hairandclothesstylesanddrugtypeis
justanothervariationonthethemeofconsumerismthatdefinescapitalistculture.Thatadvancedcapitalismthrivesbysellinglife
stylesandbrandsofidentityisbynowanevidencethatisstaringusintheeyes.Multiplequeeridentitiesfitinperfectlywiththis
logicofQuantitativeproliferationsoftheself.Theperversealliancebetweencyberideologyandhyperindividualismliesatthecore
ofthecyberqueerphenomenonanditpromotesafictionofterminalidentity(Bukatman,1993)whichhasnothingincommonwith
DeleuzeandGuattari'sprojectofradicalimmanenceandmachinicsymbiosisandautopoiesis.
[8]Thesecondobjectionisconceptualandfollowsonfromthefirst:Deleuzeiscriticalofmerequantitativemultiplicationsor
pluralities.Heseesthemasoneofthetraitsofadvancedcapitalism.Hefocusesinsteadonqualitativedifferences,multiplicities,
impersonalities,whichformthecoreofhistransformativeethics.Ishallreturntothislaterinthearticle.
Thereturnofrealbodies
[9]IwouldliketorefocusthediscussiononDeleuze'sprojectbystartingfromthereturnof'realbodies'andrealmaterialityatthe
endofpostmodernism.Thereisdefinitelyaconservativesidetothisphenomenon,whichhasledtheneoliberalthinkers
(Fukuyama,2002)tocelebrate'neorealism'andthereturnoffundamentalmoralvalues.Itendtoseetheseconservative
developmentsratherintermsofthereturnofmasternarrativesonthedebrisofpostmodernism.Theyboildowntotwomain
recurrentthemes:ontheonehandthetriumphofmarketeconomiesasthehistoricallydominantformofhumanevolutionandon
theothergeneticdeterminismundertheauthorityoftheDNAandthecapitalvalueoftheHumangenome(Franklin,Staceyand
Lury,2000).
[10]Incontemporarydebatesaboutculturalstudies,mediaandespeciallynewdigitalmedia,aswellassocialandpoliticaltheory,
thereisatendencytopushDeleuze&Guattariinthecornerofcultivatedartificiality,cyberdrivenqueernessandposthumanist
thought.Inoppositiontothisview,Iwanttoarguethattheyareactuallymajormaterialistandvitalistthinkerswithastrongethical
projectincreatingsocialhorizonsofhopeandsustainablechange.Moreover,Iwillexploretowhatextenttheirbrandofvitalismis
nonessentialistandantiteleological.
[11]Inthisregard,asIhavearguedelsewhere(Braidotti,2002),Deleuzecanbereadalongsidethenewscienceoftoday,notonly
inthesenseofmathsandphysics(seerespectivelyArkadyPlotnitskyandManueldeLanda),butalsoalongsidethenewbiology.
MorespecificallyIseeclearresonancesbetweenDeleuzeandthenonanthropocentricepistemologiesofHaraway(1997)and
MargulisandSagan(1995).ThereisalsoacommonrootthatconnectsDeleuzeandGuattaritoallmonisticphilosophiesthat
assumeonelivingmatter,inthemodeofa'natureculturecontinuum'(Haraway1997)orofthemutualimbricationsofmindand
body.Thelatteriscurrentlytakingdifferentforms:fromemphasisingtheembodimentofthemind,intheneophenomenological
tradition(Sobchack,1995)infeministSpinozism(GatensandLloyd,1999)inecologicalactivistthought(Shiva,1997),aswellas
intheneurologicalandcognitivesciences(Wilson,1998).Itcanalsotaketheformofstressing,however,the'embrainmentof
matter'[2]inthesenseofareturntoBergson'snotionofcreativeevolution(Grosz,2005),ornondeterministicvisionsofevolution
aswellasinthedirectionstakenbycontemporarygenomicsresearchandmolecularbiology.Theideaoftheintelligenceandthe
mobilityofmattercontraststhecenturyoldphilosophicaltraditionthatreducesmattertoimmobilityanddefinesintelligenceasthe
life(bios)forcethatproducesmovement.Inoppositiontothisequation,rhizomaticthoughtsupportsanideaofevolutionofthenon
deterministic,nonlinearandnonteleologicalkind.Inmyreading,itisconnectedtotheprocessesofbecomingothers,inthesense
ofrelating,henceofaffectingandbeingaffected.
[12]Inthisrespect,boththefigurationofthecyborgandthecyberimaginarythatsupportsitcanbeseenand,toacertainextent,
dismissedtodayasdominantmodesofrepresentation.Theyarepowerfullyactivethroughoutthesocialfabricandinallthemodes
ofculturalrepresentationpromptedbyourcultureatpresent.ClaudiaSpringer(1991)arguesthatthisdiscoursecelebratingthe
unionofhumansandelectronictechnologyiscurrentlycirculatingwithequalsuccessamongthescientificcommunityasinpopular
culture.TheworkofHarawayisoffargreaterrelevancetorhizomicphilosophythanhasbeenacknowledgedsofar.Thecyborgas
atechnologicallyenhancedbodymachineisthedominantsocialanddiscursivefigurationfortheinteractionbetweenthehuman
andthetechnologicalinpostindustrialsocieties.Itisalsoalivingoractive,materiallyembeddedcartographyofthekindofpower
relationsthatareoperativeinthepostindustrialsocialsphere.Bukatmanarguesthatthisprojectionofthephysicalselfintoan
artificialenvironmentfeedsintoadreamofterminalidentityoutsidethebody,asortof'cybersubject'(Bukatman,1993)thatfeeds
intothenewagefantasiesofcosmicredemptionviatechnology.Newagespiritualityortechnomysticismformspartofthistrend
(BryldandLykke,1999).
[13]Ifindthatarathercomplexkindofrelationshiphasemergedinthecyberuniversewhichweinhabit,oneinwhichthelink
betweenthefleshandthemachineissymbioticandthereforecanbestbedescribedasabondofmutualdependence.This
engenderssomesignificantparadoxes,especiallywhenitcomestothehumanbody.Thecorporealsiteofsubjectivityis
simultaneouslydenied,inafantasyofescape,andstrengthenedorreenforced.Balsamostressestheparadoxicalconcomitanceof
effectssurroundingthenewposthumanbodies:"evenastechnoscienceprovidestherealisticpossibilityofreplacementbody
parts,itsalsoenablesafantasticdreamofimmortalityandcontroloverlifeanddeath.Andyet,suchbeliefsaboutthetechnological
future'life'ofthebodyarecomplementedbyapalpablefearofdeathandannihilationfromuncontrollableandspectacularbody
threats:antibioticresistantviruses,randomcontamination,flesheatingbacteria"(Balsamo1996:12).
[14]Bothvirusesandbacteriaarecentral,forinstance,totheworkofLucianaParisi(1994a1994b),whoisinspiredbyGuattari
evenmorethanbyDeleuze.Parisi,adiscipleofMargulis,focusesonmolecularbecomingsandnewformsoftransversal
subjectivity.IshallreturntoParisilater.
DoesDeleuzeofferaposthumantheory?
[15]Theanswertothisquestionisnegativeiftheposthumanisunderstoodinthevulgarcommonsenseunderstandingofthe
hyped,theneoliberalcelebrationofthefake,theinauthentic,thewilfullyconstructedandsublimelyartificial.Theanswerispositive
however,ifitpointsinthelesslazymindedsenseofreconfiguringtheextendedinhuman,cosmicspanofpossiblebecomings.
Thisisthedirectionofneomaterialismandarenewedconcernforthecorporealstructureofthesubject(AnsellPearson,1997).
[16]ThecrucialaspectofDeleuze&Guattari'sthoughtIwouldwanttostresshereconcernstheextenttowhichtheirentire
philosophicalenterpriseconstitutesanattackonidentity.Notonanyoneidentity,butontheveryconceptofidentity,withtheinbuilt
logicofrecognitionofsamenessanddualisticrelocationofotherness,whichhasbeenoperationalsincePlato'stime(Boundasand
Olkowski,1994Olkowski,1999).Theself,ortheindividualisthemodernvariationonthisidentitariantheme,whichhasbeenputin
placeintheageofmodernisationandindustrialisation(DeleuzeandGuattari,19721980).Deleuzebuildsandexpandsupon
Foucault'sarchaeologyofthemodernsubjectof'biopower'butgoesmuchfurtherconceptually.Hereplacestheoldsubject
formationwithanotionofthesubjectasaclusterofcomplexandintensiveforcesintensiveassemblageswhichconnectand
interrelatewithothersinavarietyofways.Thecrucialshifthereconcernstheinhumanorposthumanvisionofwhatexactly
constitutesanassemblage.TheFrench'agencement'rendersthismuchbetterwithitssenseofanexcentric,nonanthropocentric
formofagency.
[17]ThisposthumanapproachisprimarilyduetoDeleuzeandGuattari'srejectionoftworesiduesoftheolddialecticsofLack,
whichtheyseeasstilloperatinginmodernthought.Thefirstresidueofthenegativitybuiltintothepsychoanalyticvisionofdesireas
lack,andthesubjectassubjectedtolack,lawandthepowerofthelinguisticsignifier.Nothingcouldbefurtherremovedfrom
Deleuze'stheoryofdesirethanthisnegativereadingofhumanaffectivity.The'noble'sideofthisvisionconcernsapolitical
economyofaffectssuchasmourningandmelancholia,whichIconsiderasadominantideologyincapitalistculture.
[18]MyexchangeswithJudithButleronthisissuehavebeenpublishedandcommentedon[3],soIdonotwishtorepeatthem
here.SufficeittosaythatIamnotatallconvincedbyButler'sassertionofherdeepalliancewithSpinoza.Itdoesindeedcome
downtoaffectsandhowtheyframeourvisionofthesubject.Theconatusaspureaffirmativeaffectivity,however,hasnothingto
sharewiththelogicofirreparableloss,unpayabledebtandperpetualmourning,whichisatthecoreofthepsychoanalyticand
deconstructiveethicsthatButlerespouses.ItisalsoaverycentralconcernforDerrida'sworkonmourning,basedtoalargeextent
onbothLevinasandBlanchot.Incontrasttothistradition,howevernobleandevenaristocratic,IreadDeleuze&Guattariasneo
vitalistswhoaffirmtheforceoftheaffirmativeandpositanethicsbasedonthetransformationofnegativeintopositivepassions.
[19]Thesubjectisbutaforceamongforces,capableofvariationsofintensitiesandinterconnectionsandhenceofbecomings.
Theseprocessesareterritoriallybound,externallyorientedandmorethanhumaninspanandapplication.Iamnotsayingthisisa
spiritofconceptualpurity,asnothingcouldbefurtherremovedfrommyhybridnomadichabits.Itisratherofgreatimportancetous
allthatwedonotmistakeDeleuze'scallforactivedisobedienceontheantiOedipalmodelforconceptualconfusionandtheoretical
anarchy.Deleuzeisanextremelyrigorousthinkerthegreatestofhisgenerationandatoweringfigureinworldthought.Theleast
wecandotodojusticetohisworkistobeascarefulwithourreadingsashewaswithhiswritings.Thebestwaytoexplorethis
differencebetweenDeleuzeandthelinguisticallybasedthinkersofdifferencelikeLacanandDerridaistolookattheirrespective
philosophiesoftime.Divergenttemporalitiesareatwork:psychoanalysisiscaughtinthebackwardlookingauthorityofthepast.Let
usthink,forinstance,oftheroleofmemoriesintheconstitutionofneurosesand,throughthenecessarymechanismsofrepression,
ofthesubjectitself.Thehystericisperdefinitiontheonewhosuffersfromunsustainablememories.Rhizomicthought,ontheother
hand,isfutureboundandreliesonarevisedversionoftheBergsoniancontinuouspresentinordertosustainavisionofdesireas
plenitude,affirmationandbecoming(Grosz,2004).
[20]Consequently,whereascontemporaryculturetendstoreacttothequeercyberworldaccordingtothedoublepullIhave
criticised,ontheonehandthehypeandontheotherhandthenostalgia,Iwouldpleaforamore'passionatelydistant'approach.I
thinkthataformofneomaterialistappreciationofthebodywouldbehelpfulhere,tothinkthroughthekindoftechnoteratological
universeweareinhabiting.Rethinkingtheembodiedstructureofhumansubjectivityrequiresanethicsoflucidity,aswellaspowers
ofinnovationandcreativity(Hayles,1999).Iwishtoavoidreferencestotheparadigmsofhumannature(beitbiological,psychicor
geneticessentialism)whiletakingfullyintoaccountthefactthatbodieshaveindeedbecometechnoculturalconstructsimmersedin
networksofcomplex,simultaneousandpotentiallyconflictingpowerrelations.Idonotwanttofall,however,intoeithermoral
relativismorthesuspensionofethicaljudgement,nordoIwishtoreduceethicstoaprocessofmourningandmelancholia.
[21]Iwoulddefinethisapproachasanomadicevolutionarythoughtwhichcontrastsopenlywithcontemporarybiotechnological
determinism.Whatcomesespeciallyunderscrutinyinthisperspectiveisnotonlythehyperindividualism,butalsotheanthropo
centrismthatisinbuiltinsomuchevolutionary,biological,scientificandphilosophicalthought.Radicallyimmanentphilosophical
nomadism,ontheotherhand,sponsorsasubjectthatiscomposedofexternalforces,ofthenonhuman,inorganicortechnological
kind.Itisterritoriallybased,andthusenvironmentallybound.The'machinic'inDeleuze'sthoughtreferstothisdynamicprocessof
unfoldingsubjectivityoutsidetheclassicalframeoftheanthropocentrichumanisticsubject,relocatingitintobecomingsandfields
ofcompositionofforcesandbecomings.Itisautopoiesisatworkasaqualitativeshifter,notmerelyasaquantitativemultiplier.
[22]Thisisasfarremovedfromtheadvancedcapitalisthypeabouttechnologyasthefutureofhumanityascanbe.Thelatter
constitutesanallpervasivemasternarrativeofflightfromthehumanembodiedself,intothefaketranscendenceofamachinethat
strikesmeasmolar,Oedipalising,despoticandexploitative.ItisagainstthissocialimaginaryoftechnotranscendencethatIwant
toargueforamoredissipative,eroticisedandflowinginteractionbetweenthehumanandthebiotechnologicalofthe
nomadologicalkind.
Anethicsofradicalimmanence
[23]ThemodeloftheposthumanbodyproposedbythebrandofnomadismIamdefendingissymbioticinterdependence.This
pointstothecopresenceofdifferentelements,fromdifferentstagesofevolution,likeinhabitingdifferenttimezones
simultaneously.Thehumanorganismisneitherwhollyhuman,asaperson,norjustanorganism.Itisanabstractmachine,
radicallyimmanent,whichcaptures,transformsandproducesinterconnections.Thepowerofsuchanorganismiscertainlyneither
containednorconfinedtoconsciousness,nordoesitcoincidewiththedeliberatelyfakeandtheselfironicallyunnatural.If
anything,DeleuzeandGuattari'sphilosophy,restingonaSpinozistontology,makesalllivingbeings,includingthehumansubjects,
verymuch'partofnature',asGenevieveLloydputit(1994).
[24]Shaviro(1995)describesthisshiftintermsofanewparadigm:weareattheendofthepostnuclearmodelofembodied
subjectivityandwehaveenteredthe'viral'or'parasitic'mode.Thisisagraphicwayofexplainingtheextenttowhichtoday'sbody
isimmersedinasetoftechnologicallymediatedpracticesofprostheticextension.ReadwithDeleuze,thismodeisanythingbut
negative.Itexpressesinfactthecoextensivityofthebodywithitsenvironmentorterritory,whichasyoumayrememberisoneof
thesalientfeaturesofthe'becominganimal'.Abodyisaportionofforceslifeboundtotheenvironmentthatfeedsit.Allorganisms
arecollectiveandinterdependent.Parasitesandvirusesareheterodirected:theyneedotherorganisms.Admittedly,theyrelateto
themasincubatorsorhosts,releasingtheirgeneticallyencodedmessagewithevidentglee.Thevirus/parasiteconstitutesamodel
ofasymbioticrelationshipthatdefeatsbinaryoppositions.Itisasimulacrumthatduplicatesitselftoinfinitywithoutany
representationalpretensions.Assuchitisaninspiringmodelforanomadicecophilosophy.
[25]Thepointofconvergenceofthesedifferentdiscoursesandpracticesofbodilymaterialismisthatthehumanbodyisfully
immersedinsystemsofreceptionandprocessingofinformation,thatwhichemanatesfromitsgeneticstructures,asmuchasthat
whichisrelayedbysatellitesandwiredcircuitsthroughouttheadvancedworld.AsHurley(1995)pointsout,however,the
significantthingaboutposthumanbodiesisnotonlythattheyoccupythespacesinbetweenwhatisbetweenthehumanandthe
machines,thatistosayadensemateriality.Posthumanbodiesarealsosurprisinglygenerative,inthattheystubbornlyand
relentlesslyreproducethemselves.Thetermsoftheirreproductionareslightlyoffbeatbygoodoldhumanstandardsinthatthey
involveanimal,insect,andinorganicmodels.Infacttheyrepresentawholearrayofpossiblealternativemorphologiesand'other'
sexualandreproductivesystems.Theparadigmofcancerousproliferationofcellsismentionedasanexampleofthismindlessself
duplicatingcapacityofgenerative/virallife.CriticslikeHalberstamandLivingstonarequicktopointouthowthisgenerativedisorder
incontemporarymolecularbiologyandgeneticsisbothechoedandimplementedbytheeveryday'gendertrouble'thatisgoingon
insocietieswheresexedidentitiesandorganicfunctionsareinastateofflux.
[26]Consequently,theposthumanbody(HalberstamandLivingston,1995)isnotmerelysplitorknottedorinprocess:itisshot
throughwithtechnologicallymediatedsocialrelation.Ithasundergoneameta(l)morphosisandisnowpositionedinthespacesin
betweenthetraditionaldichotomies,includingthebodymachinebinaryopposition.Inotherwords,ithasbecomehistorically,
scientificallyandculturallyimpossibletodistinguishbodiesfromtheirtechnologicallymediatedextensions.Halberstamand
Livingstonconclude:
Queer,cyborg,metametazoan,hybrid,PWAbodieswithoutorgans,bodiesinprocess,virtualbodies:in
unvisualizableamnioticindeterminacy,andunfazedbythehypeoftheiralwaysprematureandredundant
annunciation,posthumanbodiesthriveinthemutualdeformationsoftotemandtaxonomy(1995:19)
Oneoftheconsequencesofthisshiftofperspectiveawayfromanthropocentrismconcernsthelimitationsofliberalindividualism
asapointofreferenceforthediscussionoftheproliferationofdiscoursesaboutbios/zoe.Anemphasisontheunitarysubjectof
possessiveindividualismisahindrance,ratherthanassistance,inaddressingthecomplexitiesofourposthumancondition.Two
coreobjectionshaveemergedtoit:onetargetsitsdeeplyseatedanthropocentrism,andtheotheritsuniversalism.The
posthumanismofsocialandculturalcriticsworkingwithinaWesternperspectivecanbesetalongsidetheformofneohumanism,
sharedbyanumberofcontemporarysocialcriticsworkingwithinrace,postcolonialornonWesternperspectives.Itisneithera
questionofflatteningoutstructuraldifferences,norofdrawingfacileanalogies,butratherofpracticingthepoliticsoflocation.Bio
centredposthumanismandnonwesternneohumanismcanbetravellingcompanionsalongproductiveaxesoftransposition.The
pointofthiscartographicmove,whichalignstheoreticallydiversepositionsalongthesameaxis,istofacilitatethetranspositionof
therespectivepoliticalaffectsthatactivatethem.Idolikeputtingthe'active'backinto'activism'.[4].Thistranspositionislikea
musicalvariationthatleapsacrossscalesandcompositionstofindapitchorasharablelevelofintensity.Whatmatterstomy
thoughtistheaffectivedimension,theaffinity,notthepoliticalortheoreticalcorrectness.
[27]Antiindividualisticnomadicpoliticsisacritiqueofthecentrefromthecentre.Itassumesamultiplicityofcentresinaworldof
scatteredhegemonies(KaplanandGrewal,1994).Thecartographicreadingofthepresentpointstoaposthumanistsystemin
whichthehumanhasbeensubsumedintoglobalnetworksofcontrolandcommodificationwhichhavetaken'Life'andlivingmatter
astarget.Thepoliticaleconomyofeuphoriaandgloomofadvancedcapitalisminscribesusinastateofconstantcrisis.Thecrisis
ofhumanrights,ofhumanlife,theenvironmentorofhumansurvivalisontheagenda.Thegenericfigureofthehumanisintrouble.
DonnaHarawayputsisasfollows:"ourauthenticityiswarrantedbyadatabaseforthehumangenome.Themoleculardatabaseis
heldinaninformationaldatabaseaslegallybrandedintellectualpropertyinanationallaboratorywiththemandatetomakethetext
publiclyavailablefortheprogressofscienceandtheadvancementofindustry.ThisisManthetaxonomictypebecomeManthe
brand"(1997:74).ThisstandardispositedinauniversalmodeasMan,butthispseudouniversalhasbeenwidelycriticised(Lloyd,
1985)preciselybecauseofitspartiality.UniversalMan,infact,isimplicitlyassumedtobemasculine,white,urbanised,speakinga
standardlanguage,heterosexuallyinscribedinareproductiveunitandafullcitizenofarecognisedpolity.Massumireferstothis
phenomenonas"ExMan","ageneticmatrixembeddedinthematerialityofthehuman"(2002:60)andassuchundergoing
significantmutations:"speciesintegrityislostinabiochemicalmodeexpressingthemutabilityofhumanmatter"(2002:60).
[28]Tothisend,Idonotthinkthatanavecelebrationofglobalqueerificationontheonehandandthereferenceorthereturntoa
universalontheotherareinevitableorevennecessary.Onthecontrary,Iwanttoargueforamorespecificandgroundedsenseof
singularsubjectivitiesthatarecollectivelyboundandoutwardoriented.Inotherwords,"we"needaredefinitionofthatsubject
positionandconsequentlysomeinputfrommaterialistphilosophiesthatattempttostrugglewiththisquestion.Weneedtorevisit
thenotionof'panhumanity'fromwithinanonunitaryunderstandingofthesubjectwhichallowsforbothgroundednessand
accountabilityinanaffirmativemanner.Deleuze'snotionof"anybody"inthesenseof"toutlemonde"isalsoextremelyrelevant
becauseitreferstoconcretelyembodiedsingularitiesthatarestructurallyconnected.Animportantreasonforneedinganew
grounded,embodiedandembeddedsubjecthastodowiththesecondhalfofthatcrucialsentence:"we"areinthistogether.What
thisreferstoisthecartographyasaclusterofinterconnectedproblemsthattouchesthestructureofsubjectivityandthevery
possibilityofthefutureasasustainableoption."We"areinthistogether,infact,enlargesthesenseofcollectivelybound
subjectivitytononhumanagents,fromourgeneticneighbourstheanimals,totheearthasabiosphereasawhole."We",therefore,
isanonanthropocentricconstruct,whichreferstoacommonlysharedterritoryorhabitat(this).Howtodojusticetothisrelatively
simpleyethighlyproblematicrealityrequiresashiftofperspective.AsHarawaysuggests,weneedtoworktowards"anewtechno
scientificdemocracy"(1997:95).Thisisindeedatotality,finiteandconfined.Theimplicationsofthisfactaremultipleandthey
highlightthelimitsofbothsocialconstructivismandoflinguisticallybasedpostmodernthought,withwhichIopenedthispaper.
Becauseofthekindofcomplexities"we"arefacing,weneedtoreviewmethodologiesthathavetendedtounderplaytheroleof
biologicalorgeneticfactors.Thiscallsforanewsetofalliancesofamoretransversalandtransdisciplinarynature,withdifferent
communitiesofscholarsandactivists.Iproposetheideaof'sustainability'astherallyingpoint.
[29]What'sustainability'standsfor,therefore,isaregroundingofthesubjectinamateriallyembeddedsenseofresponsibilityand
ethicalaccountabilityfortheenvironmentss/heinhabits.Thisisanalternativetoaglobalprocessofqueeringthatwouldbemerely
aproliferationofquantifieddifferencesandnotaqualitativedecenteringofhyperindividualism.Becomingsarethesustainable
shiftsorchangesundergonebynomadicsubjectsintheiractiveresistanceagainstbeingsubsumedinthecommodificationoftheir
owndiversity.Becomingsareunprogrammedasmutations,disruptions,andpointsofresistance.Theirtimeframeisalwaysthe
futureanterior,thatistosayalinkageacrosspresentandpastintheactofconstructingandactualisingpossiblefutures.
DoingGender
[30]FortheSpinozistpoliticaltheoristsLloydandGatenssexualdifferenceisnotaprobleminthatitremainsofgreatrelevance.
FortheDeleuzianClaireColebrook,however,itisnolongeraproblem,becausethepoliticalandtheoreticaltermsofthefeminist
debatehaveshiftedsincethedaysofhigh,orearly,feministpoststructuralism.Colebrook(2000a)suggeststhatayoungerfeminist
waveislookingatthequestionofsexualdifferenceasnotonlyorprimarilyaquestionthatconcernsthesubjectorthesubject's
body.SheisveryvocalinwantingtomovebeyondthephenomenologicallegacyoffeministtheoryandenlistsDeleuze's
philosophyintheattempttobypassthequasitranscendentalistmodeoffeministtheory.ColebrookstressesthatforIrigaraysexual
differenceisclearlyametaphysicalquestion,butinthefoundationalsensethatitdeterminesmetaphysicsassuch.Sexual
differenceposesthequestionoftheconditionsofpossibilityforthoughtasaselforiginatingsystemofrepresentationofitselfasthe
ultimatepresence.Thus,sexualdifferenceproducessubjectivityingeneral.TheconceptualtoolbywhichIrigarayshowsupthis
peculiarlogicisthenotionof'thesensibletranscendental'.Byshowingthatwhatiserasedintheprocessoftheerectionofthe
transcendentalsubjectarethematernalgroundsoforigin,Irigaraysimultaneouslydemystifiestheverticaltranscendenceofthe
subjectandcallsforanalternativemetaphysics.Irigaray'stranscendentalissensibleandgroundedintheveryparticularfactthatall
humanlifeis,forthetimebeing,still'ofwomanborn'(Rich,1976).
[31]AccordingtoColebrook,Deleuze'semphasisontheproductiveandpositiveforceofdifferenceistroublesomeforfeminist
theoryinsofarasitchallengesthefoundationalvalueofsexualdifference.ForIrigaray,themetaphysicalquestionofsexual
differenceisthehorizonoffeministtheoryforGrosz(1994)itisitspreconditionforButler(1993)itisthelimitofthediscourseof
embodimentforBraidotti(2002)itisanegotiable,transversal,affectivespace.TheadvantageofaDeleuzianapproachisthatthe
emphasisshiftsfromthemetaphysicstotheethicsofsexualdifference.Deleuze'sbrandofphilosophicalpragmatismquestions
whethersexualdifferencedemandsametaphysicsatall.Which,forColebrooktranslatesintoacrucialquestion:'isfeminisma
criticalinhabitationofmetaphysicalclosure,orthetaskofthinkinganewmetaphysics?'(Colebrook,2000a:112).Following
Deleuze'sempiricism,Colebrookwantstoshiftthegroundofthedebateawayfrommetaphysicalfoundationstoaphilosophyof
immanencethatstressestheneedtocreatenewconcepts.Thiscreativegestureisawayofrespondingtothegiven,toexperience
andisthuslinkedtothenotionoftheevent.Thecreationofconceptsisitselfexperienceorexperimentation.Thereisadouble
implicationhere:firstly,thatphilosophyneednotbeseenasthemasterdiscourseortheunavoidablehorizonofthoughtsince
artisticandscientificpracticeshavetheirroletoplayaswell.Secondly,becauseethicalquestionsdonotrequireametaphysics,the
feministengagementwithconceptsneednotbecriticalbutcanbeinventiveandcreative.Inotherwords,experimentingwith
thinkingiswhatweallneedtolearn.
[32]Colebrookstruggleswiththeideaofwhatkindofproblemsexualdifferencecouldbe,ifitwerenotdefinedasaquestionof
truth,recognition,selfrepresentationorradicalanteriority.Shedoesnotcometoaconvincingconclusion,butthisdoesnotdetract
fromtherelevanceofherproject.Inordertoanswerthequestionofsexualdifference,onewouldsimplyhavetoredefinethe
functionorstatusofphilosophyaltogether.Thisisaclassicalradicalfeministstatement,whichsituatesColebrook'sthirdwave
feminisminacontinuumwithpreviousgenerations.Feministtheorydoesindeedchallengewhatwehavecometorecogniseas
thinking.Callingforanembodiedphilosophyofradicalimmanencemarksthestartofabodilyphilosophyofrelations.Thebodyis
forColebrookanincorporealcomplexassemblageofvirtualities:"Thebodyisarelationtowhatisnotitself,amovementoran
activityfromapointofdifferencetootherpointsofdifference.Andsodifferenceisneitheranimposedscheme,noranotherwise
uniformsubstance,norisdifferencetherelationbetweenalreadydifferentiatedselfidenticalentities.Thatsomethingisgiven
throughtheactivityofdifferentiation"(Colebrook,2000b:87).Thisisthebasicmeaningofthepositivityofdifferenceanditislinked
tocorporealitythroughthenotionofvirtualbecomings.LoyaltoherDeleuzianpremises,Colebrookdefinestheethicsofsexual
difference"notasthetelosofsomeuniversallaw,butastheresponsibilityandrecognitionoftheselfformationofthebody"
(Colebrook,2000b:88).Inotherwords,asthebecomingofbodiesoccurswithinasinglesubstance,thequestionisnolonger'how
arethesexesdifferentiated?'butrather,'howaredifferentmodalitiesofsexualdifferentiationduetothespecificityofdifferent
bodies?"(Colebrook2000b:90).Oncethisquestionisraised,thewholeissueofessentialismsimplycollapses.
[33]IfforColebrooksexualdifferenceisnolongeraproblem,forevenyoungerGuattarianfeministslikeLucianaParisi(2004)itis
notevenaproblem.Likemanyscholarsemergingfromthefieldofsciencestudies,Parisihasnosympathyfororaffinitywith
philosophiesofthesubject.SheconsequentlyembracesDeleuze'stheoryofradicalimmanenceasawayofdismissingthesubject
altogether.Apragmatist,likeallnomadicfeminists,Parisiiscommittedtoworkingoutfullytheimplicationsofthecurrentgenetic
revolutionforthesocialandhumansciences:"ifmolecularbiotechnologyisalreadydetachingfemininityfromtheimperativeof
sexualreproductionandgeneticsexthenwhywouldanotionoffemininityberelevanttothebodypolitics?"(Parisi,2004:81).
[34]Parisistressestheimportanceoftheontologyofrelationsasthemodeofdifferentiationbetweendifferentassemblagesof
bodies.Bodiesaretraditionallypredicatedonorganicandgeneticdeterminantsofsex.Theimpactofthenewtechnologies
prompts,however,newformsofenquiryatthemolecularlevel,whichquestionsexualdifference.Parisilocatesthefundamental
shiftonthecollapseofDarwiniankinshipmodelsthatcometobereplacedbynonlinearalternativegenealogies:
Ifweengagewiththetheoryofendosymbiosis,autopoiesisandturbulentorganization,modesofsexand
reproduction(informationtransmission)arenotpredeterminedbytheeconomyofsurvival,sexualcompetition,
selectionofthefittestandpassiveadaptation.Modesofsexandreproductionarenotsubjectedtoapredetermined
aimsuchasgenealogicalfiliationaimedtoincreasingprogressionandemancipationofhumanitybutinvolve
moleculardifferentiationacrosssingularstatesofcellularorganization(Parisi,2004:80).
Inotherwords,sexualdifferencefunctionsatthemolecularlevelofasemioticencodings,whichdefyrepresentationandsemiotic
analysis.ThecrucialpointforParisiisthetransversalnatureofthecodesinvolvedinproducingsuchmicrofemininity:geneticand
informational,economicandviral,culturalandbacterial.Theycutacrosstheartificialdividesetbyinstitutionaldivisionsbetween
thehumanitiesandthehardsciences.Themixityofthecodes,thetools,andtheschemesofanalysisinvolvedhereareofthe
greatestimportance.Thisisnotadeconstructionofthesexgenderbinarismbut"aschizogeneticconstructivismofsexgenderona
natureculturecontinuum"(Parisi,2004:80).
[35]Inamovethathasbecomefamiliarinpostmoderntheory,Parisireassertsthesimplefactthatfemininitynolongercoincides
withreallifewomen'sidentity.OblivioustothefactthatLacanianpsychoanalysisassertedthisaboutfiftyyearsago,Parisilinksthis
insighttothecurrentbiotechnologicalrevolutionanddissolvestheissueofidentityaccordingly.Gettingridoffemininityinorderto
replaceitwiththeschizoanalysisofnewdynamicsofstratificationanddestratificationofsexandreproductionisthekeystrategy,
whichParisiborrowsfromvintageDeleuzianfeministslikeGroszandGatens.Shealsopointstotheincorporealorpotential
becomingsorcapacityforassemblagesasthekeytothedeterritorialisationsandtoSpinozistethicsasthewaytoevaluatethe
micropoliticsofbecoming.Centraltothisprojectisthecreativeproductionofnewaffectivemodulationsthatallowforrepositioning
ofmolecularfemininities,beyondthecritiqueofrepresentation,intotheproductionofmicrosingularitiesviathepotentialsofthe
relation,the'milieu'ormiddle.Aswemove"Towardsaschizogenesisofsexualdifference:towardstheabstractconstructionofnew
modificationsofsexandreproduction"(Parisi,2004:86),anewtransversalsubjectivityemerges,whichtakes'others'asconstitutive
momentsintheconstructionofacommonplaneofbecoming.
Conclusion
[36]Anonunitaryvisionofthesubjectendorsesaradicalethicsoftransformation,thusrunningagainstthegrainofcontemporary
neoliberalconservatism,butitalsoassertsanequallystrongdistancefromrelativismornihilisticdefeatism.Theposthumanist
ethicsIwanttodefendaimsataqualitativeshift,notatquantitativecumulationofpossiblesubjectpositions.Asustainableethics
foranonunitarysubjectproposesanenlargedsenseofinterconnectionbetweenselfandothers,includingthenonhumanor
'earth'others,byremovingtheobstacleofselfcentredindividualism.Farfromentailingthelossofvaluesandafreefallinto
relativism,thisratherimpliesanewwayofcombiningselfinterestswiththewellbeingofanenlargedsenseofcommunity,which
includesone'sterritorialorenvironmentalinterconnections.Itisanomadicecophilosophyofmultiplebelongings.Inthis
perspective,anexclusivefocusonunitaryidentity,especiallyintheliberaltraditionofindividualismandinitsoffshoot:the
pluralisticmultiplicationofoptions,isofhindranceratherthanassistance.Identityinvolvesanarrowingdownoftheinternal
complexitiesofasubjectforthesakeofsocialconventions.Amultilayeredsubjectisnoguaranteethatmolarpowerformations
havebeendeterritorialized:achangeofscalemaynotbeaqualitativeshift.Transposingthesubjectoutofidentitypoliticsintoa
nonunitaryornomadicvisionofselvesasinterrelationalforcesisamoreusefulapproach.Consciousnessisredefinedaccordingly
notasthecoreofthehumanisticsubject,butatbestasawayofsynchronisingthemultipledifferenceswithineachandeveryone,
whichconstitutestheethicalcoreofnomadicsubjects.Thereturnofthemasternarrativesofgeneticdeterminismandmarket
capitalismtodayprovideaperverseequationofindividualismwiththemultipleinterconnectivecapacitiesofadvanced
technologies.Thisresultsinsimultaneouslycontainingandnarrowingdowntheenormouspotentialofthetechnologiesthemselves,
whichareadvancedenoughtoredesignourcosmologicalviewsaswellassocialrelations.Theyalsopreventhumansfromactive
experimentationswithnewthresholdsofsustainability:howfarwecangowithoutcracking,howmuchourbodiescantakeonthe
currenttransformations.
[37]Asubjectofbioszoepowerraisesthereforequestionsofethicalurgency.Giventheaccelerationofprocessesofchange,how
canwetellthedifferenceamongthedifferentflowsofchangesandtransformations?Thiscallsforarevisionofthesubjectinterms
ofanecophilosophicalintegrationintohis/herenvironment.Theshifttobiocentredegalitarianismpositsthesubjectasapost
identitysite,oranembodiedandembeddedentity,whichexistsintheinteractionwithanumberofexternalforcesandothers,not
allofthemhuman,socialorhistoricalothers.Suchavisionofthesubjecttransposesbothhumanismandsocialconstructivismand
callsforarevisionofvitalismasamajortheoreticalissue.Allthemoresoaszoeisnotneutral:theplayofcomplexitiesitintroduces
doesnoteliminatepowerdifferentials,butmultipliesthemalongmultipleaxes.Zoeissexualised,racialisedandrendered
anthropocentrically.Thinkingthroughthesecomplexitiesmeansradicalisingourrelationshiptopower.Thenomadicsocialcriticin
theeraofbioszoeaimsatresistingtheschizoidpullofeuphoriaoroveroptimismontheonehandandnostalgiaormelancholiaon
theother.Beforewemistakeashiftofscaleforaqualitativeshiftofperspective,weneedtodevelopmoreaccuratecartographies,
tostayfocusedonthepotentialforqualitativechanges(becomingminor),notjustquantitativeproliferations.Inordertoanswer
thesechallenges,thespecifictimesequencesandtemporalityofnomadicsubjectivityneedtobeaccountedfor.Thenonlinear
timeofbecomingaccomplishesanumberofproductivetranspositionsoflifeintozoeandofdeathintoatemporalandincorporeal
becomings.
Notes
[1]Thisarticleisextractedfromselectedsectionsofmynewbook:Transposition:OnNomadicEthics(PolityPress,forthcoming,
February2006).
[2]ThisexpressionwascoinedbyJohnMarksattheDeleuzeconference,'ExperimentingwithIntensities'atTrentUniversityinMay
2004.
[3]SeeBraidotti2002Butler2004.
[4]WiththankstoJudithButlerforthiswarmformulationofmywork.
WorksCited
AnsellPearson,Keith(1997)ViroidLife:PerspectivesonNietzscheandtheTranshumanCondition.LondonandNewYork:
Routledge.
Balsamo,Anne(1996)TechnologiesoftheGenderedBody:ReadingCyborgWomen.DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress.
Boundas,ConstantinandDorotheaOlkowski(eds)(1994)GillesDeleuzeandtheTheatreofPhilosophy.NewYorkandLondon:
Routledge.
Braidotti,Rosi(2002)Metamorphoses:TowardsaMaterialistTheoryofBecoming.Cambridge,UKandMalden,USA:Polity
Press/BlackwellPublishersLtd.
Bryld,MetteandNinaLykke(1999)Cosmodolphins:FeministCulturalStudiesofTechnologies,AnimalsandtheSacred.London:
ZedBooks.
Buchanan,IanandClaireColebrook(eds)(2000)DeleuzeandFeministTheory.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.
Butler,Judith(2004)UndoingGender.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.
Colebrook,Claire(2002)GillesDeleuze.NewYorkandLondon:Routledge.
DeLanda,Manuel(2002)IntensiveScienceandVirtualPhilosophy.London:Continuum.
Deleuze,GillesandFlixGuattari(1980)MillePlateaux:CapitalismeetSchizophrnieII.Paris:Minuit.Englishtranslation:(1987b)
AThousandPlateaus:CapitalismandSchizophrenia.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.TranslatedbyBrianMassumi.
Foucault,Michel(1976a)HistoiredelaSexualitI:LaVolontdeSavoir.Paris:Gallimard.Englishtranslation:(1978)TheHistoryof
Sexuality,vol.I.NewYork:Pantheon.TranslatedbyRobertHurley.
FoxKeller,Evelyn(2002)SecretsofLife,SecretsofDeath.NewYorkandLondon:Routledge.
Franklin,Sarah,CeliaLuryandJackieStacey(2000)GlobalNature,GlobalCulture.London:Sage.
Fukuyama,Francis(2002)OurPosthumanFuture.London:ProfileBooks.
Gatens,MoiraandGenevieveLloyd(1999)CollectiveImaginings:Spinoza,PastandPresent.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.
Grosz,Elizabeth(ed)(1999)Becomings:ExplorationsinTime,MemoryandFutures.Ithaca,NewYork:CornellUniversityPress.
Grosz,Elizabeth(2004)TheNickofTime.Durham:DukeUniversityPress
Guattari,Flix(1995)Chaosmosis:AnEthicoAestheticParadigm.Sydney:PowerPublications.
Halberstam,JudithandIraLivingston(eds)(1995)PosthumanBodies.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.
Haraway,Donna(1992)'ThePromisesofMonsters:ARegenerativePoliticsforInappropriate/dOthers',inLawrenceGrossberg,
CaryNelsonandPaulaTreichler(eds)CulturalStudies.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.
Haraway,Donna(1997)Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan_Meets_Oncomouse.LondonandNewYork:
Routledge.
Hayles,Katherine(1999)HowWeBecamePosthuman:VirtualBodiesinCybernetics,LiteratureandInformatics.Chicago:The
UniversityofChicagoPress.
Hurley,Kelly(1995)"Readinglikeanalien"inJudithHalberstamandIraLivingstone(eds)PosthumanBodies.Bloomington:
IndianaUniversityPress.
Kaplan,CarenandInderpalGrewal(eds)(1994)ScatteredHegemonies:PostmodernityandTransnationalFeministPractices.
Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
Lloyd,Genevieve(1994)PartofNature.Ithaca,NewYork:CornellUniversityPress.
Margulis,LynnandDorianSagan(1995)WhatisLife?BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Massumi,Brian(2002)ParablesfortheVirtual:Movement,Affect,Sensation.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.
Morton,Donald(1999)"BirthoftheCyberqueer"inJennyWolmark(ed)Cybersexualities,Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.
Olkowski,Dorothea(1999)GillesDeleuzeandtheRuinofRepresentation.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Parisi,Luciana(2004a)AbstractSex:Philosophy,BiotechnologyandtheMutationsofDesire.London:Continuum.
Parisi,Luciana(2004b)'ForaSchizogenesisofSexualDifference'Identities3.1:6793.
Plonitsky,Arkady(2002)TheKnowableandtheUnknowable.AnnArbor:MichiganUniversityPress.
Shaviro,Steven(1995)'TwolessonsfromBurroughs"inJudithHalberstamandIraLivingston(eds)PosthumanBodies.
Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.
Shiva,Vandana(1997)Biopiracy:ThePlunderofNatureandKnowledge.Boston:SouthEndPress.
Sobchack,Vivian(1995)"Beatingthemeat/Survivingthetestorhowtogetoutofthiscenturyalive",Body&Society1.3/4:209214.
Stengers,Isabelle(1997)PowerandInvention:SituatingScience.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
Wilson,ElizabethA.(1998)NeuralGeographies:FeminismandtheMicrostructureofCognition.NewYorkandLondon:Routledge.
RHIZOMESISSN15559998.230EastHallBowlingGreenStateUniversityBowlingGreen,OH43403
rhizomeseditors:EllenBerryandCarolSiegel.reviewseditor:CraigJ.Saper.technicalissues:HelenJBurgess