homies! if you got links to bell hooks and foucault content hit me with em please i’m trying to be the class keener!

Here’s the Foucault Reader

"Historicism starts from the universal and, as it were, puts it through the grinder of history. My problem is exactly the opposite. I start from the theoretical and methodological decision that consists in saying: Let’s suppose that universals do not exist. And then I put the question to history and historians: How can you write history if you do not accept a priori the existence of things like the state, society, the sovereign, and subjects? It was the same question in the case of madness. My question was not: Does madness exist? My reasoning, my method, was not to examine whether history gives me or refers me to something like madness, and then to conclude, no, it does not, therefore madness does not exist. This was not the argument, the method in fact. The method consisted in saying: Let’s suppose that madness does not exist. If we suppose that it does not exist, then what can history make of these different events and practices which are apparently organized around something that is supposed to be madness? So what I would like to deploy here is exactly the opposite of historicism: not, then, questioning universals by using history as a critical method, but starting from the decision that universals do not exist, asking what kind of history we can do."


Foucault, Birth of Biopolitics (via tiredshoes)

Yes this is the quote this is THE quote this is why Foucault is perfect

(via adornoble)

Fredric Jameson: A Collection of Available Texts



Conveniently provided below is a compendium of texts by Jameson for your reading/studying pleasure:

Nationalism, Colonialism, and Literature (with Edward Said) (1988)

Postmodernism or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1991)

The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings on the Postmodern, 1983-1998 (1998)

A Singular Modernity: Essay on the Ontology of the Present (2002)

Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions (2005)

The Modernist Papers (2007)

Aesthetics and Politics (with Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Bertolt Brecht, and Georg Lukács) (2010)

The Hegel Variations: On the Phenomenology of Spirit (2010)

Marxist Literary Theory: A Reader


Gilles Deleuze on Cinema - What is the Creative Act? (1987)

This 45 minute talk at a conference in 1987 on the “act of creation” in cinema is perhaps the most intimate capture of Gilles Deleuze on film besides the Abécédaire interview. Gilles Deleuze speaks continuously and fluidly in a raspy but gentle and sincere voice that betrays much reverence for the work of figures such as Bresson and Kurosawa, particularly as concerns what Deleuze claims to be an absolute need of theirs to adapt the works of Shakespeare and Dostoevsky for film. Other figures discussed include Syberberg, Straub and Duras, along with a discussion of Foucault and disciplinary societies. Deleuze concludes with a meditation on what he calls the “mysterious connection between the work of art and the act of resistance.”


i sent a misspelled meme into the tumblr ether. i’m embarrassed. this is the correction.

Looks like you need to go to grad school for spelling.


i sent a misspelled meme into the tumblr ether. i’m embarrassed. this is the correction.

Looks like you need to go to grad school for spelling.

"Our blindness to the results of systemic violence is perhaps most clearly perceptible in debates about communist crimes. Responsibility for communist crimes is easy to allocate: we are dealing with subjective evil, with agents who did wrong. We can even identify the ideological sources of the crimes - The Communist Manifesto, Rosseau, even Plato. But when one draws attention to the millions who died as a result of capitalist globalization, from the tragedy of Mexico in the sixteenth century through to the Belgian Congo holocaust a century ago, responsibility is largely denied. All this seems to have just happened as the result of an ‘objective’ process, which nobody planned or executed and for which there was no ‘Capitalist Manifesto’ (The one who came closest to writing it was Ayn Rand)"


Slavoj Žižek, Violence

(via i-ballz)

Yup. Yup yup yup. Violence is one of his best not-theoretically-hyperfocused books.

(via sterwood)

"People ask, So what is this [Body without Organs]?—But you’re already on it, scurrying like a vermin, groping like a blind person, or running like a lunatic: desert traveler and nomad of the steppes. On it we sleep, live our waking lives, fight—fight and are fought—seek our place, experience untold happiness and fabulous defeats; on it we penetrate and are penetrated; on it we love."

- Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus. [p. 150] (via manymanywolves)

This is pretty cool.


Philosophy is not wordless profound insight. Philosophy is prose. Philosophy happens not in mystical moments, but in the creation of mundane sentences. It happens on the page, in the pen, through the keyboard, in dialogue with students and peers, and to some extent but only secondarily in private inner speech. If what exists on the page is not clear, the philosophy is not clear. Philosophers, like all specialists, profit from a certain amount of jargon, but philosophy need not become a maze of jargon. If private jargon doesn’t regularly touch down in comprehensible public meanings, one has produced not philosophy but merely a fog of words of indeterminate content. There are always gaps, confusions, indeterminacies, hidden assumptions, failures of clarity, even in great philosophical prose stylists like Hume, Nietzsche, and David Lewis. Thus, these philosophers present ample interpretative challenges. But the gaps, confusions, indeterminacies, hidden assumptions, and even to some extent the failures of clarity, are right there on the page, available to anyone who looks conscientiously for them, not shrouded in a general fog.

If a philosopher can convince the public to take him seriously — or her, but let’s say him — being obfuscatory yields three illegitimate benefits: First, he intimidates the reader and by intimidation takes on a mantle of undeserved intellectual authority. Second, he disempowers potential critics by having a view of such indeterminate form that any criticism can be written off as based on a misinterpretation. Third, he exerts a fascination on the kind of reader who enjoys the puzzle-solving aspect of discovering meaning, thus drawing from that reader a level of attention that may not be merited by the quality of his ideas (though this third benefit may be offset by alienating readers with low tolerance for obfuscatory prose). These philosophers exhibit a kind of intellectual authoritarianism, with themselves as the assumed authority whose words we must spend time puzzling out. And simultaneously they lack intellectual courage: the courage to make plain claims that could be proven wrong, supported by plain arguments that could be proven fallacious. These three features synergize: If a critic thinks she has finally located a sound criticism, she can be accused of failing to solve the interpretive puzzle of the philosopher’s superior genius.


- Eric Schwitzgebel, “Obfuscatory Philosophy as Intellectual Authoritarianism and Cowardice.” (via andrewfm)

"My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same a bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So my position leads not to apathy but to a hyper- and pessimistic activism. I think that the ethico-political choice we have to make very day is to determine which is the main danger."


Michel Foucault, “On the Genealogy of Ethics: An Overview of Work in Progress,” in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, Second Edition With an Afterword by and an Interview with Michel Foucault (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1983), pp. 231-232.

(Hat tip to Pritch for this one.)