“A critique of the hierarchical oppositions that have structured Western thought: inside/outside, mind/body, literal/metaphorical, speech/writing, presence/absence, nature/culture, form/meaning.”
“To be haunted by the anxiety that, with deconstruction, the very possibility of a dictionary explodes.”
"Not to destroy but to give a different structure and functioning.”
“To tease out warring forces of signification within a text.”
“An investigation of the tension between modes of signification, as between the performative and constative dimensions of language.”
“A form of writing in which the ‘I-ness’ of the self is given emphasis as both the limitation and possibility of appropriation in so far as context is concerned.”
“When a text quotes and requotes, with or without quotation marks, when it is written on the brink, when you start, or indeed have already started, to lose your footing. When you lose sight of any line of demarcation between a text and what is outside it.”
“Effective or active (as one says) interventions, in particular political and institutional interventions that transform contexts without limiting themselves to theoretical or constative utterances even though they must also produce such utterances.”
"To deconstruct every substantial identity, to denounce behind its solid con-sistency an interplay of symbolic overdetermination—briefly, to dissolve the substantial identity into a network of non-substantial, differential relations; the notion of symptom is the necessary counterpoint to it, the substance of enjoyment, the real kernel around which this signifying interplay is structured.”
"To be deeply concerned with the 'other’ of language.”
“A gesture in opposite directions at the same time: on the one hand to preserve a distance and suspicion with regard to the official political codes governing reality; on the other, to intervene here and now in a practical and engagé manner whenever the necessity arises.”
“Deconstruction is not a skepticism or a nihilism. It is a form of critical intimacy—a kind of love rather than an act of destruction—for an enemy inside already. In deconstruction, the line between friend and enemy shifts.”
“[N]ot synonymous with “destruction,” [deconstruction] is in fact much closer to the original meaning of the word “analysis” itself, which etymologically means “to undo”–a virtual synonym for “to de-construct.” If anything is destroyed in a deconstructive reading, it is not the text, but the claim to unequivocal domination of one mode of signifying over another. A deconstructive reading is a reading which analyzes the specificity of a text’s critical difference from itself.”
“What deconstruction is not? everything of course! What is deconstruction? nothing of course!”
y'all are so fucking dense and transphobic if u think exlcluding oppressors from spaces that are meant to protect the ppl the oppress is comparable to terf rhetoric in which the oppressors are actively excluding the people they oppress oh my goD don’t talk to trans ppl if you (A) don’t want to critically think for two seconds about power dynamics in the context of institutional oppression and (B) don’t understand that by comparing exclusionists to terfs you LITERALLY UNDERMINE the VIOLENCE that terfs are responsible for against trans women
I’LL SHOW YOU MINE By Katie Stienstra, 26, Montreal.
The “selfie” has become an incredibly enigmatic product of our time. Not until recently has self portraiture existed in such a prolific and disparate form. Selfies have become a way to express self confidence, self consciousness, and have become a new and powerful tool of communication in the hands of the maker. Nude selfies, typically exchanged within private transmissions between lovers’ cellphones have become hot commodities. Hackers have infiltrated the previously intimate spaces in which these images were created to be viewed, scandalizing the women in the images. Suddenly, the power being held by the women who placed their own bodies within a frame with their own self-determination is being imposed upon, and the exposure of these images has become a new threat to female liberty for celebrities and average women alike. With “I’LL SHOW YOU MINE” I seek to navigate what happens when one deliberately and consensually removes ones own selfies from their original context. Are these nude images pornographic through their public presentation? Are they simple exercises in narcissism, or are they redemptive icons? “I’LL SHOW YOU MINE” has been created through the curation of my own nudes which were made specifically with the intention of inciting desire or lust in another individual. The work lives by removing pre-existing nude selfies from the framework of the cellphone and inserting them into an art-historical, and institutional context. Once the images have been (re)created, digitally modified and presented large scale, they become monstrous, overwhelming clusters of pixelated flesh. Their size and abstraction encourages the viewer to step back, not only to gain their ground in front of the image, but also to attempt to piece together what the image actually is. Much like an abstract painting, the content of the image is unclear and difficult to understand unless the viewer allows themselves distance. In this arrangement of space, the image domineers the viewer to a degree that does not allow them to express ownership or dominance over the photograph, nor the body presented in it-the very opposite effect of holding the image in ones hand.
i don't think terminating a child with a (potential or definite) disability is necessarily ableist? taking care of disabled children costs more emotionally, physically, and economically for the parents, who may not want to go through that additional stress when the cost of raising a child sans disability is already so high. i'm not saying that's not insensitive but it's also not ableist? like i think it's kind of hypocritical to say that abortion is the mother's choice and then judge [...]
decisions she makes as inherently ableist. it’s about what SHE can handle. assessing the costs [extra physical labor, emotional stress, monetary debt] and the benefits [having a child to love] is a harsh decision and i think it’s great when parents are able to choose having a disabled child come to term, but idk do you see where i’m coming from when i draw a distinction between sort of assessing your own needs before your fetus (the whole point of pro-choice) and outright ableism?
“Decisions like that are definitely products of an abelist society that devalues disabled lives, gives abled people the power to decide whose lives are “worth living,” makes the resources and knowledge necessary for raising a disabled child very difficult to access for a lot of people, and of course creates the class of “disabled” people in the first place (according to the social model of disability).”
”But it’s really disingenuous to claim that the fault for this ableism rests solely on the parents’ shoulders in all cases—the solution to this problem would be to destroy ableist structures that devalue disabled existence and deny disabled people resources, not to indiscriminately attack a means by which some of the effects of ableist structures are sometimes enacted (i.e. abortion), especially considering that the people who seek abortions are often vulnerable members of society themselves.”
Like I’m not trying to be rude but I addressed that point multiple times, so I’m not sure what post you were reading.
Beyond that, I’m a bit uncomfortable with how you’re completely taking the focus off of the wider context of institutional ableism in which these decisions are made. This ask reads to me like you’re saying all disabled children are just inherently harder and more “stressful” to raise by nature, when in my original post I was very careful to point the blame for the “difficulty” of raising disabled children at an ableist society that, again, makes the resources and knowledge necessary for raising a disabled child very difficult to access for a lot of people. Not to mention the fact that without ableism, disability wouldn’t exist in the first place (again, look into the social model of disability).
Regardless of where the blame lies for the occurrence of this type of abortion (which I honestly think needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis), it’s still eugenicist thinking and you’re erasing that.
Oh, and not all people who get abortions are women, so.
Many academic disciplines also reduce their influence by neglecting political diversity. Sociology, for example, should be central to so many national issues, but it is so dominated by the left that it is instinctively dismissed by the right.
Ehhh? The reason there are so few conservatives in sociology is probably because most conservatives reject one of sociology’s basic premises: that social, cultural, and institutional contexts influence individual humans in ways that can be predicted and studied.
In your opinion... How do larger forces of race, class, and gender shape body norms for men and women and in what ways are these norms born from specific historical, cultural, and/or institutional contexts? *just getting insight from you :) you seem smart.
Ummmmmm I’m sorry but you are totally asking me to do your homework for you and I refuse. Use google scholar for great books with good answers for big questions.