--- chris l smith <clsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> The "Oedipal personhood" that Deleuze and Guattari
> establish as part
> of the formation of the capitalist axiomatic (state
> typology), is
> directly threatened by the molecular desires of the
> sexual
> minorities, and their 'becomings' because of its
> inability to
> accommodate (capture) such formations.
okay, i think i'm with you... but why sexual
minorities in particular? i mean: what is it that
rubbermen, foot fetishists and lesbian separatists
have in common that situates them so decisively
outside the thresholds of the state? like in a-o, 294,
d&g say: "if sexuality is the unconscious investment
of the large molar aggregates, it is because on its
other side sexuality is identical with the interplay
of the molecular elements that constitute these
aggregates..." so aren't they saying, here and in the
passages around this, that all sexuality tends towards
an irrecuperable molecular movement? so what's special
about sexual minorities?
it seems like a kind of banal exoticising gesture - oh
look at the flashy perverts, well obviously they're
outside the state. when the reality is much less
interesting. or am i reading "minority" wrong - like
maybe it would make sense if i read it as in minor
literature, becoming minor - sexual minority as a
stuttering of hegemonic sexual ontologies. uh maybe...
=====
"The lust of the goat is the bounty of God." - William Blake.
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!