EXAM 4: A New Wave of Modernist Thinking

Queer and Feminist Theory : A New Wave of Modernist Thinking

Ladies and gentleman, please give a round of applause to our guest speakers for coming out tonight to share their work with us at the graduate Center at Hunter College. Before I open the floor to any discussion I would like to sum up some of the major points of tonight.

These two women share in common the interest in de-centralizing the normative approach to gender and its attachments.

Mrs. Butler is analyzing gender as a performative entity. She critiques in her writings, “Gender Trouble”, the notion of the supposed definition of sex and gender. That sex is biological and gender is acquired culturally. She deviates from this and approaches this in an epistemological way. She uses her knowledge of feminism and agrees that there has between a split in feminism. That the feminist approach is based on a constructed manner where its uses “identity politics” to shape the view on women.  She argues that sex is actually not biological. Sex is the result of what gender is; sex is the effect of gender. Sex is only a word that was developed and sex and gender are essential to one another and both constructed. She goes on to say that gender and identity is more of a performance than a “set” thing. There is no stable gender identity, hence no universal gender. She uses “drag queen” as an act of gender being Gender is not be dealt with through a binary mindset of male or female.   “…gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original; in fact, it is a kind of imitation that produces the very notion of the original as an effect and consequence of the imitation itself” This concludes that gender is not only 2 different ways, but can be technically be thousands of ways.

Ms. Puar has similar views to Ms. Butler, but takes a different approach to gender and feminism. She attempts to skim off this epistemological layer and dive deep into the ontology of it. She uses “intersectionality”, first brought about by Kimberle Crenshaw, and analyzes the topic regarding identity politics. “ Intersectionality is a tool to diagnose racial differences”. She uses the waves of feminism and how intersectionality has  molded WOC as the “others”. This othering has caused feminist attempts for equality to counteract, as they are racializing WOC. Paur also uses assemblages as to what they do and how they “de-privilege the human body”. Hence, a body is made of matter and matter is a sort of “actor”. We can have not only a human body, but also a body of water or a body of something else. This takes us to the conclusion that matter is a “doing”. Puar finally puts assemblages and intersectionality together to give us a final synthesis of the two. She agrees with Crenshaw saying that intersectionality is more of an event, which leads to identity. Finally, she uses Massimo’s example of the increase in domestic violence during the super bowl. He says that the interaction of bodies (not only human, but of matter) lead to events that lead to identities. A man, who is watching the super bowl played by other man is drinking beers, may be lead to physical abuse of the spouse. The super bowl is showing the physical violence of a game and may lead him to violence as a “reflex” of the interactions he has in this environment.

This leads me to wonder if Ms. Puar can put her knowledge to use and prevent this sort of violence from occurring not only between adults, but also the violence that is seen in children as a result of what is watched on television. Should she push forward some type of law that would abolish any type of violence for children of a certain age?

I also have a question for Mrs. Butler, If you are talking about gender and sex being socially constructed should we stop referring to individuals as female and male? Are this terms irrelevant to the world and should we be referred to as our names? Do you think that a name given to a person should in a sense also be their gender?

Advertisements

http://sociologylegion.wexam-ii-knowledge-production-and-post-structuralism-deleuze-and-foucault/

I included a journal entry and discussed intellectual along with its role. I incorporated the BWO and linked it back to the role of the intellectual. I was also able to incorporate what it means to practice theory and their correlations. i linked these philosophers and their theories with a new theory called, ” non-representational  theory, which begun in the 90′s and is being put into practice now.

 

Dear Journal,

You will be pleased to know that I have finally found my calling. At thanksgiving dinner this past week I was reunited with my aunt and her very capitalistic and snobby family. The interrogations began and the questions, ” what am I going to do with my life” started.  There was no escape from this at the dinner table so I used my knowledge from sociology class to my advantage. I started off by telling them that i refused to be part of this unfair social order and wanted to stray from it as far as possible. I told them about Foucault Deleuze and and their post-modern philosophies. I told them how I wanted to be an intellectual the cool way- ” Auntie , if you think you are like an ” intellectual”, think again. The normal intellectual we usually think of may be referred to as someone who produces knowledge and puts it into practice, but are always funded by a higher order. In this instances capitalists are the real bosses, they found the intellectual to guide society towards the ideologies that they want to put into practice. They want to do this to get their way and step on society making them their leaping stones towards the finish line. I, on the other hand, refuse to follow the path of this intellectual. After studying Foucault and Deleuze in my sociology class, I had an enlightment. The right way to be an intellectual is to put an end to capitalism and oppression. The new radical intellectual would take form as a producer of knowledge and rises with the masses as he/she represents them. Of course, my goal as an intellectual would not be to totalize power, because at the end we always need some type of struggle for the world to function. Now a days we have been losing this struggle and letting the bigger ones win. I also already consider myself a practicing intellectual. According to Foucault, theory is immanent and comes from within. He also states that theory and practice are essentially the same. You can’t have theory without practice and vise versa. The concept of immanence brings me to discuss another of Deleuze’s work titled, ” Body Without Organs”, where he discusses the desire to practice this “BWO”, but never being capable of reaching it. BWO is referred to as the “pre-self” and “pre-conscious”, where you are freed into a fluid movement on a “same plane”. When he talks about this he isn’t actually talking about it literally, he is saying that we should free ourselves from the structuralism  and social orders of the world and live in immanence. This brings me back to my goal as an intellectual to live from within. BWO is the dismantling of the self, hence you become party of the world and no longer separate from it. This also ties into my idea of rising with the people. I want to achieve equality that the world needs. However, BWO can never be achieved according to Deleuze. It is a limit or asymptote like in calculus where you come very close and this “non-achieving” becomes a practice because it never reaches an end. So there you have it, I want to change the world by dismantling everything that already is and start again from immanence to become a part rather than a separate thing it. I want to bring about my own knowledge and share it. I know that I will always face a constant struggle, I know that I will never achieve BWO, but I know that I will put this theory into practice and be the best intellectual there is!!!!

….So this is kind of how it went. After I was done there was a long silence and then they started talking about mowing their lawn. After my little inspiring speech at dinner I took it upon myself to prove to them that I was serious and it wasn’t just some emotional come-back. I actually found this new social science approach called “non -representational theory” where social scientists now don’t only want to focus on the environment and world and “represent”, but bring in the theory of the “becoming”. This new idea will explore more of the pre-conscious rather than the conscious. It goes deep into exploration and into what happens before the conscious mind comes into play. It will more abstract and go into something like the theories of Deleuze. I cant wait to learn more and embark on my journey !! :)

Video Fom PUAR on Current Social Theory blog

Hello Ladies,

 

So I was able to watch Puar talk  Christina left on her blog. (only watched half , but I really find Puar to have very complex, interesting thoughts that all seem to cross each other)

 

Some stuff I got from her :

Puar uses homonationalism as a critique on how gay rights came about in the national and international setting.  She talks about how these “non-heteronormative subjects” are integrated into societies. She talks at a national level about homonationalsim and how there has been queer progress in the US. She uses homonationalism as an “analytic frame”. for her homonationalism has lead to some “irony”. An example is how the US repealed the “Don’t ask dont tell” law the same day the US repealed the “Dream Act” law. For anyone who isn’t aware of these laws, the “Dont ask don’t tell” law was a law that prohibited gay disclosure in the military. The dream act was a law that was going to be passed that would legalize undocumented students in the US. I find it very ironic that the same day that gay rights were being extended, “other” people were being dispreiveldged from their rights. she calls homonationalism , ” a structuruing force of modernity”, its a “historical shift”. The government is shifting on how to govern different types of populations in the 21st century. homonationalism has become  some sort of negativity for people and ” it is bad to be called a homonationalist”. For her she doesn’t see this as an accusation or a problematic position and, ” can’t stand outside of”. Its there ! For her homonationalism is and assemblage of state practices, bodily practices of neoliberal economic forces and various kinds of global discourses”. Puar goes on to homonationalism at an international level and talks about Palestine and Israel. She gives an example of Tel-Aviv being  the world’s best gay city in 2011, yet she says that that day a law was passed prohibiting outsiders from being included. another example is how Israel has given freedom of LGBQ, yet has passed laws that prohibit these being from disagreeing with the state regarding other issues.  This is somewhat a form of pink washing.

 

This is all that I got from the video, but she goes into much more depth.

You guys should definitely watch it !

 

Good luck on the exam !!

Jasbir Puar, Mrs. Clinton, Homantionalism, and Pink washing

Im posting what I think was most important from this article: If you are intereted in reading the full article a link is also provided :

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3560/gay-rights-as-human-rights_pinkwashing-homonationa

 

Gay Rights as Human Rights: Pinkwashing Homonationalism

 

In her speech Secretary Clinton was, perhaps unknowingly, reproducing this generative alienation between political and human rights. She emphasized that LGBTQs everywhere had the same rights to love and have sex with whomever they choose as partners, and to do so safely. In making this statement, she reiterated a central tenet of what Jasbir Puar names homonationalism: the idea that LGBTQs the world over experience, practice, and are motivated by the same desires, and that their politics are grounded in an understanding that ties 1) the directionality of their love and desire into a stable identity and 2) that stable identity into the grounds from which one speaks and makes political claims. Secretary Clinton suggested that queers everywhere, whether white or black, male or female or transgendered, soldier or civilian, rich or poor, Palestinian or Israeli, can be comprehended and interpellated through the same rights framework. But the content of what she she calls “gay rights” is informed by the experiences and histories of (namely white gay male) queers in the United States, and thus there is an emphasis on visibility and identity politics and an elision of the class and political struggles that animate the lives of the majority of the third world’s heterosexual and homosexual populations. Thus detached from its locality, “gay rights” can travel internationally not only as a vehicle for normative homo-nationalism, but as a vehicle for neoliberal ways of producing politics and subjects more broadly.

Of course, as Clinton said, homosexuality is not an export from “the west.” Homosexuality is not like Coca Cola or Cheerios. It is not diasporic, in that it has a fixed origin point that then is spread throughout the rest of the world, even if it is true that what it means to identify today as homosexual is historic and emerges at its apex within the transition from the civil rights era, through the GRID/ AIDS killing zones, to the era of liberal identity politics in the United States. Furthermore, non-Western people who identify as homosexual through a homo-national narrative or through the consumption of homonational products are not somehow “inauthentic.” They are markers of the reality that we live within a world that is increasingly connected through the movement of people, capital and information yet increasingly stratified across class and political lines. We live in a world of rights and in a world where the female and/or queer gendered body (but never, we should note, the male heterosexual body) has become a political anchor. This success story did not begin with homonationalism, which is only one of its latest railways stations. Homonationalism is not the end goal of a conspiratorial “gay international,” rather, it is only one aspect of the reworking of the world according to neoliberal logics that maintain not only the balance of of power between states, but also within them. In fact, homonationalism produces normative homosexuality in the same fashion that normative “heterosexuality” continues to be shaped and regulated internationally through the interventions of human rights corporations, international funding and research agencies, and the foreign and domestic policies of states. Thus the The World Bank, The UNDP, Human Rights Watch, and the US State Department together project ideal modes of heterosexuality by promoting “adult” ages of consent, educated, employed and (re) productive couples, and love/choice, non kin and non arranged marriages that mimic the model of “stranger sociality” at large. Within a neoliberal framework, all of these are not seen as “political interventions” but merely policy recommendations. Clinton’s speech fits neatly into this project by isolating “gay rights” as rights to identity, from “political justice,” understood as the continuos participation in the reconfiguration of power and the grammar of life that it licenses. To act within a framework of political justice implies an acceptance to play the role of agitator, an acceptance to act in the spaces that human rights cannot and will not capture for both disciplinary and political reasons. It is to act knowing that you will never achieve your goals, but that you will play a role in pushing the cause of justice forward even if, by definition, justice can never be achieved because it is constantly moving. It is a positionality, not a position. As Arendt once explained, political activism is acting with the knowledge that you will fail, but that you care enough to act under this signature of immanent failure.

Let’s take the case of Palestine, which, as activists and academics have recently highlighted, is being subjected to a pinkwashing campaign by the Israeli government. Here, a focus on “gay rights” or “women’s rights” as opposed to “political justice” in fact repeats a colonial distinction made by a British mandate between two populations, a Jewish one that would have rights to a homeland, and a non-Jewish (the word Palestinian was not used) one that was to enjoy full civil rights. In the British mandate for Palestine, no mention was made of non-Jews’ political rights, an omission which in hindsight we understand to be informed by the attempt to continue to deny the indigenous people of Palestine self determination, while promising them that they practice of life (as separate from politics) would continue without discrimination. Today, the promise of “gay rights” for Palestinian goes something like this: The United States will protect your right to not be detained because as a gay, but will not protect you from being detained because you are Palestinian. As a queer, you have the right to love and have sex with whomever you choose safely and without discrimination, but you do not have the right to be un-occupied, or to be free from oppression based on your political beliefs, actions, and affiliations. As long as it is Arabo-Islamic culture and its manifestation through (Palestinian) law that is oppressing you, we are here for you. If you are being oppressed by Israeli colonial policies, you’re on your own. As long as you confine your politics to your sexuality, and you speak as a queer subaltern in a language of rights that we understand (because we wrote it) we are here for you. One is tempted to call the production of such a narrow and reductive framework through which queers are to become politically legible an exercise in homophobia.

Many progressive critics miss the point that pinkwashing, the process by which the government of Israel attempts to promote itself as a safe haven for Palestinian queers from “their culture,” is not primarily about gay rights or homosexuality at all. Pinkwashing only makes sense as a political strategy within a discourse of Islamophobia and Arabophobia, and it is part of a larger project to anchor all politics within the axis of identity, and identitarian (and identifiable) groups. Thus critics of pinkwashing who assume an international queer camaraderie repeat a central tenet of homonationalism: homosexuals should  be in solidarity with and empathize with each other because they are homosexual. Sarah Schulman recently wrote in the New York Times about the dangers of “the co-opting of white gay people by anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim political forces in Western Europe and Israel.” One should ask why white gays are seen as always being co-opted by these forces, rather than as active producers of and willing participants in racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia. If queer activists in Palestine have taught us anything, it is that not all homosexuals are allies or potential allies. A gay Israeli in a military uniform is both an enemy and a target of anti-occupation politics, just as a gay Zionist in the United States is an enemy of the Palestinian cause and the cause of queer Palestinians because they are rooted within that Palestinian national cause. The idea that Euro-American gays must be appealed to on the basis of their sexuality by others who share their sexuality partakes in the the alienation of both sexuality from politics and of “queer Palestinians” from their non-queer selves and communities. It also panders to and reproduces a homonational argument that Euro-American gays are more likely to respond if they are addressed by an indigenous gay that, preferably, speaks about the Palestinian cause in the common tongue of LGBTQ rights. Furthermore, Schulman’s argument rests on the idea that there is something different, and potentially redemptive, about being gay, and in making this claim she relies on the affective scars of the universalized experience of homophobia. But homophobia is not one thing, nor is it experienced in the same way or to the same extent by homosexuals the world over (because they themselves are not the same thing). Moreover, homophobia could be a less defining experience than say, the racism experienced by an African American queer or a Syrian queer protesting against authoritarianism and neoliberal market restructuring. In fact, the experience of homophobia as the primary discrimination one faces in life is usually the mark of an otherwise privileged existence. For the majority of the people of the world, oppression, to paraphrase Edward Said on culture, is contrapuntual. It moves, is multi-directional, it is adaptive, and it forms a terrain of interconnected injustices

One of the surprising lessons we can learn from the emerging debate on pinkwashing is the extent to which homonationalism has become hegemonic. Both the Israeli government and pinkwatching -not pinkwashing- activists partake in different aspects of homonationalism because they must in order to be heard by the same intended audience: white gays who have economic and political resources. Pinkwatching-not pinkwashing – activists, in trying to counter Israel’s attempt to mobilize gay rights discourses to justify their brutal military occupation and ongoing policies of colonial settlement, teach us all a bitter lesson. Groups that try to counter pinkwashing by engaging in what they call pinkwatching, like PQBDSAl-Qaws, and Pinkwatching Israel, try to strategically deploy homonationalism in order to include within it notions of political and economic justice for all Palestinians. They walk the precarious line between the daily realities of LGBTQ discrimination and oppression and the dangers of separating and elevating that particular discrimination over the terrain of interconnected oppressions that forms, in part, what it means to be Palestinian. They show us that the language of gay rights in the Arab world is a double bind: we must use it in order to achieve restitution from very real, and very immediate oppression, but as we use this language it mobilizes us in a struggle to transform questions of social, political, and economic justice into claims of discrimination. This discrimination, in turn, can only be addressed by nation states or by international political bodies that are actively involved in oppressing our peoples, our families and loved ones, and the parts of us that not captured by the LGBTQ paradigm. We cannot “choose” to not be who we have become, but we must recognize how we have been formed as neoliberal rights seeking and speaking bodies, and how this formation is linked to a history of depoliticization and alienation. In other words, we must be both tactical and skeptical when this language reaches to embrace us, and when we, as activists and as academics, use it ourselves. We must find ways to critically inhabit this homonational world and try, always, to act within the uncomfortable and precarious line between rights and justice.

Exam Three: Race and Post-Colonialism

Spivak: Welcome gentlemen. Well, shall we get started?

 

Foucault:  It has come to my understanding that we are here to bring upon an activist movement to this college to help out the minorities in gaining a bigger voice in the student government body. I think that this is a great idea!

 

Fanon : I do agree, we shall start off by analyzing why the student government mainly holds positions with Caucasian males. I say, there’s seems to be some type of inferiority complex with the minority groups in the school. It seems that their collective unconsciousness may have encountered some type of psychological trauma. As I stated in my book, “Back skins, Whites Masks”, there is definitely something holding them back from them themselves initiating something.

Foucault: Fanon, as intellectuals it is our job to provide our service. We posses the knowledge to be intellectuals and its is our job to relay this knowledge to the oppressed. We must make this masses rise !

 

Spivak: Foucault, I feel as though you may be missing the point here. We are not simply here to engrave and brain washes our beliefs into the people, we are only here to help, not take over. Throughout history we have encountered so much epistemic  violence  in the world. Colonization has wiped out most of the genuine western culture that once lived. Hegemonic power has caused so much damage to our world and the last thing I would want is us to be a part of it.

 

Fanon: I agreed with you Gayatri. The white man has subconsciously caused the black man to lose himself and surrender to his ideologies. I once stated in my book that once a group comes in with an idea /belief and finds himself faced with an opposition of his known truth, he quickly disregards this other belief without any second thought to it. This is where racism, prejudice and many other things come into play.

 

Spivak: yes Fanon, you are certainty right. The ones who belief themselves superior to the “others” , often go out colonizing the “others”, praising themselves with the right intentions. The truth is that they often try to impose their new knowledge as intellectuals with an underlying hunger for financial reasons. In my book, “Can the Subaltern Speak”, I use the subaltern as a n example of how these groups are treated with such indignity. Often they are forced into new beliefs that are recklessly imposed on them by these so called intellectuals. Gentlemen, we are gathered here today to act as teachers and give guidance to these who need us. We are not here to act as a dictatorship. We all have the common goal to open the eyes of those that have been treated unequal and unfairly.It is apparent in our works that we hold great intentions for the world. As sociologists  we are here to fix society and better the circumstances we find it in.

 

Foucault: yes, I do believe we can achieve something great. We are here to provide the knowledge, and I know I did not mention this in my work, that we are here not to just pour out knowledge , but to also listen to other knowledge and integrate the two.

EXAM 1:Post -Marxism

I tried to tie in the rejection if ideology and the influences that many young people believe in, but are not quite aware of the full definition and end up creating just another sub-culture of a new norm.

 

Setting: Willaimsburg, Brooklyn, NY

Louise and Marie have decided to set up a date to meet at an art show in the heart of brookly hoping to re-kindle their lost love since louise had returned to France for quite a while. This is thier frist date.

Louis, this art show is just splendid!

Yes my dear, I do agree. I have chosen this place as our first date because it reminds me how art can be so diverse. I can truly see how every piece has a sense of individuality. The strokes on this piece can never be exactly imitated by another hand. It’s just so comforting to see how art is probably the closest thing to individuality . you see my dear, we as individuals do not possess complete individuality. We are all born into an ideological world.

 

Louise, I don’t understand, if we don’t possess complete individuality and we are the creators of this art, then how is it that art has more individuality than we do?

Well dear, it is quite simple, but let me go get us some appetizers before I explain 🙂

O wonderful, let me accompany you my love

As Louis and Marie approach the appetizer table they walk into a conversation happening between 2 other individuals. They overhear a man in his mid-twenties talking about advertisements and how useless they are. He is dressed in some converse shoes and black jeans

“Advertisements are for people who like to be gullible and conform, I find that ads only work for the naive. They try to follow societies every move and make clones of themselves while they’re at it. I, myself, follow my own path. See, this is all a plan for the perfect capitalistic society . All these big bosses just want to control everyone and make them buy buy buy ! Their ads condition society into thinking they’re making a smart investment. I consider myself a happy, independent individual who has achieved liberation from it all” ! 🙂

As this young man is talking we see Louis approaching as he has decided to cut in.

“If i may only interrupt for a moment gentlemen, my name is Louise and I happen to have taken interest in your conversation. It seems to me that your individualistic approach make sense , but seem to lack some knowledge  of what it means to be an individual. You see you are claiming to have deviated from the effects of ideology and you consider yourself to have reached a utopia of individualism. I must explain to you what ideology is and how you perceive yourself is not correct. I can then help you and give you a few suggestions on how to achieve what you are looking for. You see, ideology is something that we are born into, we are the subjects of ideology, we respond to the world according to what we see, hear, smell. We are influenced to formulate our own ideas. you must have been influenced a certain way where the ideology you hold is rebellious the normal one and you are trying to do the opposite. Every institution in the world belongs to a ideological state apparatus. An ISA is a specific institution that helps shape who we are. An example is the clothing store you bought your clothes from. We also have a repressive state apparatus. This type is a more unified one that more or less controls us to keep us in line of the proper ideologies we must follow. I don’t think you have completely deviated from ideology, but you may be rebelling a bit. If are telling me that you are not an ideologist, the explain to me why you decided to wear this outfit? I can tell that this is some type of shoe bought clothing that you were influenced to buy. You evidently did not make this from scratch. You are here in this art show because some how you are influenced by this art work. Everything in life is ideological and influences a person to shape themselves accordingly. Today you young “hipsters” are so into deviation from the norm that you actually create a whole new norm. You guys reject mainstream music, but praise other types that become mainstream within you culture. You guys deliberately deviate into a whole new type of liberation that may as well incarcerate you into a new type of normality. you see, real individuality comes from inside , not a collective of ways you “should” follow in order to become a complete individual. You are saying ads don’t get to you , yet you are clearly wearing urban outfitter. I know because my nephew shops there. Well I must return to my company. Good evening gentlemen.

 

BWO and Antonin Artaud

Body without Organs
In 1947, the French artist Antonin Artaud wrote and produced a play for radio entitled Pour en finir avec le jugement de Dieu (To Have Done With the Judgment of God). Drawing on his concept of the Theatre of Cruelty (cruelty not in the sense of sadistic pain, rather a violent shattering of a false reality which inveigles our perceptions), Artaud developed the notion of a body without organs, writing:

Man is sick because he is badly constructed. We must make up our minds to strip him bare in order to scrape off that animalcule that itches him mortally, god, and with god his organs. For you can tie me up if you wish, but there is nothing more useless than an organ. When you will have made him a body without organs, then you will have delivered him from all his automatic reactions and restored him to his true freedom. Then you will teach him again to dance wrong side out as in the frenzy of dance halls and this wrong side out will be his real place (Antonin Artaud: Selected Writings, 1976, p. 570-571).

For French theorists Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, the body without organs describes the virtual dimension of the body. The two contend that there is actual body which expresses movements, affects, traits, etc., and a virtual body as well, which is a huge reservoir of potential connections, movements, affects, traits, etc. These potentialities operate as what Deleuze and Félix Guattari term the body without organs (often abbreviated as BwO). Like Artaud’s suggestion that the true condition of the body without organs is freed from a punishing and repressive God, Deleuze and Guattari remap the biological body into a space “permeated by unformed, unstable matters, by flows in all directions, by free intensities or nomadic singularities, by mad or transitory particles” (A Thousand Plateaus, 1987, p. 40).

In a debate setting, the body without organs illustrates both the shortcomings of psychoanalysis (due to its insistent focus on partial drives and objects) and a potential alternative. Deleuze and Guattari write:
The BwO is what remains when you take everything away. What you take away is precisely the phantasy, and signifiances and subjectifications as a whole. Psychoanalysis does the opposite: it translates everything into phantasies, it converts everything into phantasy, it retains the phantasy. It royally botches the real, because it botches the BwO (A Thousand Plateaus, 1987, p. 151).
In his recent book Organs without Bodies (2003), Slavoj Žižek takes issue with the concept, although several Deleuzian scholars strongly argue that Žižek royally botches his own understanding of the BwO.

Entry by Joey Battocletti, 19 June 2007

So we sometimes forget that the bWO was not an original of Deleuze but burrowed from the playwright Antonin . This comparison made between them helps me understand bWO from a different light