'The capacity to affect and to be affected'. This simple definition opens a world of questions - by indicating an openness to the world. To affect and to be affected is to be in encounter, and to be in encounter is to have already ventured forth. far from being enclosed in the interiority of a subject, affect concerns an immediate participation in the events of the world. It is about intensities of experience. What is politics made of, if not adventures of encounter? What are encounters, if not adventures of relation? The moment we begin to speak of affect, we are already venturing into the political dimension of relational encounter. This is the dimension of experience in-the-making. This is the level at which politics is emergent.
In these wide-ranging interviews, Brian Massumi explores this emergent politics of affect, weaving between philosophy, political theory and everyday life. The discussions wend their way 'transversally': passing between the tired oppositions which too often encumber thought, such as subject/object, body/mind and nature/culture. New concepts are gradually introduced to remap the complexity of relation and encounter for a politics of 'differential affective attunement', 'collective individuation', 'micropolitics', 'thinking-feeling', 'ontopower', 'immanent critique'. These concepts are not offered as definitive solutions. Rather, they are designed to move the inquiry still further, for an ongoing exploration of the political problems posed by affect.
Politics of Affect offers an accessible entry-point into the work of one of the defining figures of the last quarter century, as well as opening up new avenues for philosophical reflection and political engagement.
Brian Massumi is Professor of Communication at the University of Montreal. He is the author of several books, including What Animals Teach Us about Politics and Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation.
First time reading affect theory, I like it. The book goes in circles and Massumi kind of said so in the preface, as in it builds on itself. Convoluted for sure but I think that goes with the territory. I found this helpful for thinking about living like really living and breathing, pre-narrative a-narrative (infra-narrative?). However I'm still not sure how this kind of thinking can be practically applied to politics, in the everyday and not just theoretically. I was unsatisfied by the examples and metaphors given. The bull was the best metaphor and the conclusion was my favorite part of the book. I think meditation is a technique of increasing intensity and widening the perceived potential in every moment, he never talked about that but it was all over everything anyway (every thing any way).
Took me about a year of off and on reading to finally finish this book...
I think the interview format was the right choice, and there were some intensely poetic moments that felt very literary despite the fact this is a theoretical text. I loved the notion that walking is controlled falling, meaning our possibilities and what we create is bound by constraints (in a productive way). Also loved the articulation of freedom as a generative process rather than a particular state.
I feel like I still don't know much about affect theory though; I'm left with this impression that I've just read a bunch of quotes nicely strung together rather than a rigorous theoretical text. Maybe I'm just reluctant to read Deleuze and it's holding me back from understanding further. Either way, the argument felt loose in a way I didn't enjoy and prevented me from rating the book higher.
I was skeptical of the interview format, but I really appreciated it (especially for the topic). I also liked how nearly every interview came back to Spinoza’s definition of affect.