The Big No 2022
DOI: 10.5749/j.ctv270kv8d.10
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Afro-Pessimism and Non-Philosophy at the Zero Point of Subjectivity, History, and Aesthetics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Because, on any given day, we might imagine, the captive personality did not know where s/he was, we could say they were culturally ‘unmade,’ … We might say that the slave ship, its crew, and its human‐as‐cargo stand for a wild and unclaimed richness of possibility , that is not interrupted, not counted/accounted, or differentiated, until its movement gains the land thousands of miles away from the point of departure.Rather than provide us with a productive alternative to the subject as posited by modern world‐making, the subject of the abyss is figured as lacking an ontological grounding; ‘suspended’ in ‘non‐differentiation’ (see also Ibrahim, 2021: 15), with no possibility of going back to ‘irretrievable selves’ after passing through ‘The Door of No Return’ (Brand, 2002: 224). This is ‘the absence of Black subjectivity (and homeland, and political sovereignty) that can never be fully realized’ (Culp, 2021: 11). Thrown into a world in which it is never ‘at home’, the abyssal subject is unable to ontologically project itself upon the world.…”
Section: The World As Abyss Forged Through the Middle Passagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because, on any given day, we might imagine, the captive personality did not know where s/he was, we could say they were culturally ‘unmade,’ … We might say that the slave ship, its crew, and its human‐as‐cargo stand for a wild and unclaimed richness of possibility , that is not interrupted, not counted/accounted, or differentiated, until its movement gains the land thousands of miles away from the point of departure.Rather than provide us with a productive alternative to the subject as posited by modern world‐making, the subject of the abyss is figured as lacking an ontological grounding; ‘suspended’ in ‘non‐differentiation’ (see also Ibrahim, 2021: 15), with no possibility of going back to ‘irretrievable selves’ after passing through ‘The Door of No Return’ (Brand, 2002: 224). This is ‘the absence of Black subjectivity (and homeland, and political sovereignty) that can never be fully realized’ (Culp, 2021: 11). Thrown into a world in which it is never ‘at home’, the abyssal subject is unable to ontologically project itself upon the world.…”
Section: The World As Abyss Forged Through the Middle Passagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…85 Building on this concept of the politics of withdrawal, Culp reinforces the Laruellian idea of non-participation in relations as an active form of participating in the political space. 86 Unexpectedly, the retreat from the political turns out to be unambiguously politicising: Culp suggests that 'the way through is not to pity the nihilism of nonbeing in a move to redeem them; rather, the non-of the nonbeing and its survival is an ultimatum that invited an insurrection against the world' . 87 In Anthropocene terminology, these insights insist against saving the world and instead suggest ways to end it, as Culp notes.…”
Section: From Entanglement Fetishism To the Possibility Of Being With...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As Dekeyser and Jellis (Dekeyser & Jellis, 2021, p. 318) argue, much research in human geography still remains ‘affirmational’, ‘the inclination to embrace—ontologically, politically, and/or ethically—the productive forces of inciting, sustaining, and cultivating existence’ (see also Chandler & Pugh, 2022; Noys, 2010; Pugh, 2022). Yet, there is also today certainly a broader backlash against affirmational approaches, through the rise of such tropes as ‘worldlessness’ (Dekeyser, 2022), ‘world‐destructive theory’ (Colebrook, 2021) and ‘nothingness’ (Moten, 2016; Oliver & Dekeyser, 2022), the ‘nonrelational’ (Harrison, 2007; Rose et al, 2021), ‘Afropessimism’ (Culp, 2021; Wilderson III, 2020), the ‘abyssal’ (Chandler & Pugh, 2022; Pugh, 2022; Pugh & Chandler, 2023), the ‘ante‐ontological’ (Harney & Moten, 2013, 2021; Ife, 2021; Ruiz & Vourloumis, 2021) and ‘paraontological’ (Bey, 2020; Chandler, 2014; da Silva, 2022). In various ways, the unobtainable, that which cannot be reduced to the cuts and distinctions of ontological world‐making, or the ontic realm, is rising to the surface of debate as a focus for research.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%