水曜日, 4月 12, 2006

This objectivation and this subjectivation are not independent of each other. From their mutual development and their interconnection, what could be called the "games of truth" come into being--that is, not the discovery of true and ethical things but the rules according to which what a subject can say about certain things depends on the question of true and false.

In sum, the critical history of thought/ desire is neither a history of acquisitions nor a history of concealments of truth; it is the history of "undressings", understood as the forms according to which discourses capable of being declared true or false (or ethical) are articulated concerning a domain of performative things. If gender is performative, it must be radically free. And it has seemed to many that the materiality of the body is vacated or ignored or negated here — disavowed, even. … But what becomes important is to go back to the category of sex, and to the problem of materiality, and to ask how it is that sex itself might be construed as a norm. What the conditions of this emergence were, the price that was paid for it, so to speak, its effect on reality and the way in which, linking a certain type of object to certain modalities of the subject, it constituted the historical a priori of a possible experience for a period of time, an area and for given individuals. I wanted to work out how a norm actually materialises a body, how we might understand the materiality of the body to be not only invested with a norm, but in some sense animated by a norm, or contoured by a norm. Crush thought under an image which is that of the Same and the Similar in representation, but profoundly betrays what it means to think and alienates the two powers of difference and repetition, of philosophical commencement and recommencement.