Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Tribe of Pyn: Literary Generations in the Postmodern Period by David Cowart, and: The Cambridge Introduction to Postmodernism by Brian McHale (review)

The Tribe of Pyn: Literary Generations in the Postmodern Period by David Cowart, and: The... by capitalism in terms that precisely anticipate much of Santner’s argument. One insight contributed by this work is a distinction between flesh considered sub specie aeternitatis (to borrow from both Spinoza and de Vries’ response) and considered at the level of individual bodies or modes. This distinction allows a bridge between de Vries and Santner’s reply: Santner’s concern is the particular formation of the flesh under capitalism, and the ways that formation drives bodies to work individu- ally and in concert. De Vries’ response is more concerned with the ways that flesh (considered from a more a- su bjective and global perspective) might oer ff opp- or tunities for different forms of organization that only appear at a remove from the bodies that produce flesh in its present form. Both levels of analysis are necessary, and a more expansive conversation among thinkers working with similar concepts of immanence, surplus, and collective embodiment (of whom Spinoza and Kordela are two of the most perceptive) suggests itself as one useful way to continue to map the terrain Santner has laid out.  Whitman College matthew Bost works cited Balibar, Étienne. e Th Philosophy of Marx . Trans. Chris Turner. London: Verso, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Comparatist University of North Carolina Press

The Tribe of Pyn: Literary Generations in the Postmodern Period by David Cowart, and: The Cambridge Introduction to Postmodernism by Brian McHale (review)

The Comparatist , Volume 41 – Nov 1, 2017

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-north-carolina-press/the-tribe-of-pyn-literary-generations-in-the-postmodern-period-by-uXDDx0A28B
Publisher
University of North Carolina Press
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Comparative Literature Association.
ISSN
1559-0887

Abstract

by capitalism in terms that precisely anticipate much of Santner’s argument. One insight contributed by this work is a distinction between flesh considered sub specie aeternitatis (to borrow from both Spinoza and de Vries’ response) and considered at the level of individual bodies or modes. This distinction allows a bridge between de Vries and Santner’s reply: Santner’s concern is the particular formation of the flesh under capitalism, and the ways that formation drives bodies to work individu- ally and in concert. De Vries’ response is more concerned with the ways that flesh (considered from a more a- su bjective and global perspective) might oer ff opp- or tunities for different forms of organization that only appear at a remove from the bodies that produce flesh in its present form. Both levels of analysis are necessary, and a more expansive conversation among thinkers working with similar concepts of immanence, surplus, and collective embodiment (of whom Spinoza and Kordela are two of the most perceptive) suggests itself as one useful way to continue to map the terrain Santner has laid out.  Whitman College matthew Bost works cited Balibar, Étienne. e Th Philosophy of Marx . Trans. Chris Turner. London: Verso,

Journal

The ComparatistUniversity of North Carolina Press

Published: Nov 1, 2017

There are no references for this article.