Scan barcode
A review by corey
Sex, or the Unbearable by Lauren Berlant
Anyone remotely interested in affect theory or queer theory would do well to read this book.
In some respects, this is an incredibly compelling book. The questions posed that trouble both Edelman's and Berlant's theories about relation, politics, etc. are substantial. LE, if negativity is itself structure, can the so-called "antisocial" project do what it claims to do? LB, what if the encounter with the unbearable cannot shift the consequences of world-building; what if the Symbolic is as intractable as Edelman thinks it is?
Of course, in another sense the book is a failure. It concludes with LB asking, with some exasperation: "If not repair, what? If not world-building, what?" Meanwhile, in his respective concluding statement, Edelman continues to more or less implicitly dismiss Berlant's optimism as naive. Though they both explicitly say that they would like to somehow "multiply" their formulations, it's not clear how that might ever happen, unless both Edelman and Berlant are willing to make some serious theoretical concessions (spoiler alert: they're not).
Personally, I tend to reluctantly agree with Edelman. We can't think outside the Symbolic structure until that structure has become totally unlivable.
In some respects, this is an incredibly compelling book. The questions posed that trouble both Edelman's and Berlant's theories about relation, politics, etc. are substantial. LE, if negativity is itself structure, can the so-called "antisocial" project do what it claims to do? LB, what if the encounter with the unbearable cannot shift the consequences of world-building; what if the Symbolic is as intractable as Edelman thinks it is?
Of course, in another sense the book is a failure. It concludes with LB asking, with some exasperation: "If not repair, what? If not world-building, what?" Meanwhile, in his respective concluding statement, Edelman continues to more or less implicitly dismiss Berlant's optimism as naive. Though they both explicitly say that they would like to somehow "multiply" their formulations, it's not clear how that might ever happen, unless both Edelman and Berlant are willing to make some serious theoretical concessions (spoiler alert: they're not).
Personally, I tend to reluctantly agree with Edelman. We can't think outside the Symbolic structure until that structure has become totally unlivable.