Politics of Affect

I have read Massumi's "Parables for the Virtual" (see my review), and so I was enlisted in the speed, vividness, direct address of the language of affects. So when I read this book, I was ready for what was to come. I felt right at home, and the book's more "casual" approach to these ideas made me feel that I was among colleagues.But I don't know who this book will benefit, in the absence of reading the more considered texts of "Parables..." It has a "marketing" feel to it; that the book seeks to make these ideas more familiar; and yet if I come to these texts first, I might wonder just what kind of book am I reading. Is it psychology? Am I supposed to do something different because of what this book offers?I really don't think these notions are ready for this kind of treatment yet. I think that they need more fermenting in the brew of Continental thinking (I am not sure how much of Deleuze's "univocity" and "virtuality," and "difference" is taken into account, for instance); I have always felt that the "pragmatic" orientation rushes too quickly to the "cash value" of an idea -- which I suspect might be in play here,Still, Massumi's work, and that of his colleague Erin Manning (also interviewed in the book, but not listed as an author!!!), will help us along to a new outlook on just what is "real" after all, and just what it is that we need to learn to relate to and appreciation in one another, and the earth, if we are to sustain this endeavor of human aspiring. I say, it will help us move from the "deep" work of Deleuze and Derrida, but only after we have done that work, not as a substitute for it.I'm with you Brian and Erin, but this book is a bit too breezy for what is at stake, in my estimation. But then I became a philosopher in the context of Hegel's Phenomenology and Logic -- so it is probably me that is behind the curve.

Arrived as expected. Good read.

ok

Perfect!