Post by swalker on Feb 4, 2016 8:34:16 GMT
Did anyone else find the discussion of fragmentation and articulation on pg. 44 of Another Materialist Rhetoric to be ever so slightly problematic in Greene's overall thesis of a new materialism? I read and reread that section, hoping to understand how the fragmentation of a text, followed by the rearticulation of that text created a rhetorical abandonment of the "Logic of Influence". I don't know if I am misreading that section, or if I just don't understand where Greene is coming from here.
When I visualize this "logic of articulation, I can't help but think of cutting up materialism into tiny pieces, throwing those pieces through the hoops required to sidestep the "logic of influence", and then sticking the pieces all back together like a pull apart skeleton. Maybe my metaphor is just off, but I have a hard time believing that if one is required to "reassemble" some pieces of their theory after breaking it down, that all of the concepts and ideas which make up that theory would escape unharmed. I am also not sure why articulation becomes the metaphor here. Is it just because the theory itself is more flexible than a "logic of influence", or is there more to it?
When I visualize this "logic of articulation, I can't help but think of cutting up materialism into tiny pieces, throwing those pieces through the hoops required to sidestep the "logic of influence", and then sticking the pieces all back together like a pull apart skeleton. Maybe my metaphor is just off, but I have a hard time believing that if one is required to "reassemble" some pieces of their theory after breaking it down, that all of the concepts and ideas which make up that theory would escape unharmed. I am also not sure why articulation becomes the metaphor here. Is it just because the theory itself is more flexible than a "logic of influence", or is there more to it?