Dear Simon,
There is no one definition of affect and it has been and is being used
quite differently by a number of different people in a number of
different traditions. Currently the term is undergoing something of a
renaissance not least due to, 1. moves (which have been underway for
some time) within cognitive science to take emotions, embodied activity,
the affectual seriously, as modes of 'cognition in action' or
'pre-cognition' 2. the continued influence of the writing of Deleuze and
Guattari in Anglophone social science. 3. the cross-over of these two
lines! Found in particular in the work of Brain Massummi, William
Connolly and, to a certain extent Jane Bennett. 4. the continued import
of the Freudian tradition, esp. via Lacan and Zizak. 5. Feminist
accounts of embodiment, often influenced by one or more of the above.
For example, the work of Elizabeth Grosz, Gail Wiess, Moria Gaitens,
Genevieve Lloyd, Elspeth Probyen, Sara Ahmend. 6. an apparent
reassessment and quite widespread re-engagement with the
phenomenological tradition across the social sciences, in particular
with the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty. In geography it is probably the
work of Nigel Thrift and Sarah Whatmore which has gone furthest down
this path of investigation.
Deleuze draws the concept of affect primarily from Spinosa. In his
important essay 'Spinosa and Us' he lays out the use of Spinosa's
writing for contemporary theory, concentrating in particular on how
thinking about the affectual leads to a rethinking of how we define
bodies (apologies for the long quote but it contains a very good
example):
"Concretely, if you define bodies and thoughts as capacities for
affecting and being affected, many things change. You will define an
animal, or a human being, not by its form, its organs, and its
functions, and not as a subject either; you will define it by the
affects of which it is capable. Affective capacity, with a maximum
threshold and a minimum threshold, is a constant notion in Spinosa. Take
any animal and make a list of affects, in any order. Children know how
to do this: Little Hans, in the case reported by Freud, make a list of
the affects of a draft horse pulling a cart in a city (to be proud, to
have blinkers, to go fast, to pull a heavy load, to collapse, to be
whipped, to kick up a racket, etc.). For example: there are greater
differences between a racehorse than between an ox and a plow horse.
This is because the racehorse and the plow horse do not have the same
affects nor the same capacity for being affected; the plow horse has
affects in common rather with the ox" (1988 p.124 - 'Spinosa: Practical
Philosophy)
So what we have here is a relational definition of bodies; bodies
defined not in terms of an identity, an essence, but in terms of
capacities for connection (or becoming). This allows one to both keep an
appreciation of the singularity of a particular body without
essentialising any element thereof. Of equal importance this way of
describing bodies is done so primarily in terms of potential and
therefore considers the horizons of those bodies and how those horizons
come to be as such. Hence for Deleuze the question of 'what a body can
do' i.e. of its 'affective capacity' is an intrinsically political
question in so far as it is about the ability of bodies to act, combine,
relate, experience. Thus the question of 'affective capacity' is a
practical political question in terms of the social forces which shape
and seek to determine proper or appropriate affections; i.e. becomings
and modes of relating. It is within this context that questions of a
renewed and slightly different cultural politics take shape; one which
is as concerned with practical ways of being and becoming and with
events, with the passions and with the force of aesthetic practices, as
much as with identity, representation and signification.
Apologies for the long answer to such a short question.
Yours,
Paul
Dr. Paul Harrison
Department of Geography, University of Durham
Science Laboratories, South Road
Durham, DH1 3LE
+44 (0)191 3341893
-----Original Message-----
From: A forum for critical and radical geographers
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon Batterbury
Sent: 25 June 2004 19:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Digest
what is "affect?"
--
Dr Simon Batterbury
Currently in UK
http://geog.arizona.edu/~web/simon.htm
From mid July 2004:
lecturer, SAGES
University of Melbourne
221 Bouverie Street
Melbourne Vic 3010
Australia
[log in to unmask]
http://www.geography.unimelb.edu.au/
Quoting Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]>:
> There are 2 messages totalling 196 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Translocal Subjectivities AAG 2005 CFP
> 2. CFP: Playing with Mother Nature: Video Games, Space, and Ecology
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|