. . . . . . . Supervalent Thought


Combover (Approach 2)

Us living as we do, upside down…

Another try: I’ve been arguing that a person is a loosely-knotted cluster of impulses, reflections, apprehensions and prehensions moving through ordinary time (imagine a net with head, hands and feet), and not, ontologically, an extreme solidity of form constantly under threat of dissolution by the fragile infrastuctures for maintaining fantasy. The latter is best exemplified by the iconic image of the combover subject. The subject of the combover stands in front of the mirror just so, to appear as a person with a full head (of hair/ideas of the world). Harsh lighting, back views, nothing inconvenient is bearable in order for the put-together headshot to appear.  No one else can be fully in the room, there can be no active relationality: if someone else, or an audience, is there, everyone huddles under the open secret that protects the combover subject from being exposed socially confronting the knowledge that the world can see the seams, the lacks, and the pathos of desire, effort, and failure.

Who isn’t the combover subject? No-one. The combover subject literalizes the plaint of ordinary subjectivity to be allowed to proceed in its incoherence and contradictions. The very fantasy of a subject bound to itself as a solid structure is itself material for a combover. Even a philosophical skeptic like Cavell, at home with the failure of language to be adequate to its situation and its desire, finds satisfaction in style; and even a depressive realist like me, who sees her failure to be idealizable as confirmation of her good sense, takes comfort in encountering a version of herself that will not be surprised by delight but by being the recognizable thing she has come to trust, the thump and the stumble.

The sad paradox is that knowing all this does not move subjectivity toward some fiercely honest revelatory affective foundation for a repaired or healed internal fracture.  I might say, here’s where I am contradictory. But I could be wrong: my honesty might be the very performance of the combover. I might say to my interlocutors (I always say), tell me where my thought or pedagogy does not work: but I may reject what I do not recognize as the project I have tried to groom.  This is why, I suppose, in Cruel Optimism, I am so taken by the situation tragedy of adjustment: in the narrative modes of the literature of precarity we see the ways people try to maintain their fantasies of themselves in the face of the evidence that they are not adding up. Spreading economic and political precarity forces more and more people to face in public the dissolution of their combover fantasy. It might be a relief to face it (see depressive realism) but it is never only a relief:  the lost safety net, fantasmatic as it was, cannot provide a foundation for living. This is why we need to make friends with our awkwardness and self-estrangement. Indeed, we have already made friends with it—we couldn’t proceed without it.

At conferences, during lectures, people fall asleep while listening, and it is not usually a commentary on the performance or content: it might be blood sugar, it might be disaffection, but most often it’s the soothing racket that allows the smooth arc of being read to to provide its own satisfaction. We listen, we think, our eyes flutter, and the will becomes bendy: until something catches us up, that is, and we fall, again, back into trying to focus, track, and be competent. In private scenes like this it is possible not to cover with an overunifying drama the hole that a thought created in intention, the sense of an opening in relationality that one can approach only from this side and that. A conference or any listening situation is a plaza in which one can hang around catching things on the fly before pursuing them and then losing track, only to take up this thread and that one later.

We are trained to be embarrassed when someone points out incoherence or the unfinishedness of thought in process, as though an open zipper, a nakedness we hadn’t intended to reveal. The subject of the combover produces queasy comedy, because we know it could be us, is us. But the affect attached to the non-relation between predictable you and incoherent you could be otherwise, and the stakes of developing a comic space of grace (of self- and other-directed generosity) in sociality are not just affective but have analytic and political consequences.  For whom is there give in the system of norms? Who enjoys the space of permission for enabling a contradictory thought/life not to appear as a failed one?  Insofar as the dramatic, self-inflated,  sovereign subject’s reign as the figure of ordinary being refuses what’s fugitive and unraveled in ordinary affectivity and self-performance we are in a political situation that reproduces and valorizes authoritarianism tout court.


7 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Sorry I’m chiming in on this so late after the posting date.

This is great, especially commendable in its push to consider loose, fuzzy, incoherent subjectivity without generating a sense of panic about letting go of a prevailing model of subjectivity—even in its critical, pathologized form. You deploy a tone of voice that, for some reason, reminds me of EKSedgwick.

This seems somehow like the complementary gesture to much popular culture studies (historically), which amped up the affective stakes of ordinariness in order to help justify the relevance of its projects (the everyday is where subjectivity is fashioned! authoritarian/fascist politics produce their permission through the production of popular culture! the sense of ordinariness covers over a hegelian-historical drama of resistance and domination!). I don’t read what you’re doing here as going against that sort of approach, so much as cutting at a diagonal. It seems to me that you’re instead de-dramatizing the psychological account of subjectivation and, in the process, arguing that subjectivity is more accurately, realistically, helpfully understood as a sort of background hum that casts a sonic halo of presence around the self. Like the hiss of radiators reminding you that the heat is on and your space is a lived one.

Anyway, I had a question about whether “predictable you” vs “incoherent you” is really an opposition at all, but my plane is boarding, so I have to be elliptical. I’ll try to come back in a few hours and post a follow-up!

Comment by theluisgarcia

See my response to Arnika in combover #1. No it’s not an opposition, that’s my point; predictable is one of the forms one takes up from within one’s loosely organized affectual being. But when I am trying to produce a non-tragic version of negativity the distinction can look like an opposition, I guess, but that’s not what I intend at all. In this case they’re temporally distinct.

Comment by supervalentthought

thanks! that clarifies things for me, particularly temporalizing it into a (repeatable) phase of subjective shape-holding, rather than an atemporal state. So you see “incoherent” as another form that can be taken up and discarded, or is it descriptive of vaguely-tethered affectual being?

Comment by theluisgarcia

incoherent is a way of describing the affective overdetermination of the subject, from which one takes various forms relationally, including self-relationally, one of which could be a disorganized one, sure, but that’s the difference between a state of x and a form of x.

Comment by supervalentthought

[...] Berlant has recently been publishing an amazing series of posts on combover subjectivity, and one way to describe what she’s getting at would be to say that, if we’re [...]

Pingback by What Mother Gothel knows, and what Rapunzel sings « Have a Good Time

[...] Here’s another attempt at explaining the effect of affect as a theoretical construct, this time from Lauren Berlant’s excellent blog, [...]

Pingback by An Apology: Pop Culture and Theories of Affect | Gnovis Journal

[...] what happened next? At this point I would like to introduce theorist Lauren Berlant’s notion of ‘combover subjectivity’. Berlant speaks to the metaphor of the combover as a way of accounting for the non-coherence of [...]

Pingback by Britney Spears the abject pop star « Robots Dancing Alone




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 531 other followers

%d bloggers like this: