Open Journal Montreal

By Christian Bertelsen.

“Damen und Herren, guten Abend und begrüßen […]” thundered a voice from the loudspeakers. The open-roof stadium, which seemed to extend beyond the limits of one’s vision, was nearly full. There might have been an insignificant number of vacant seats in the blue section, but they were sure to be filled by their respective owners any minute now.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, good evening and welcome to Munich’s OlympiaStadion for the first leg of this evening’s Champion’s League Quarterfinal match-up between FC Real Madrid and FC BAYERN MÜNCHEN […]” translated the announcer as he customarily does. The interest in this encounter between two European superpowers extended far beyond the borders of Spain and Germany, these two teams have made a global name for themselves; FC Real Madrid was, admittedly, the more popular of the two though. Tonight, however, they were underdogs. You see Real are never underdogs. No matter where they play. They have a contingent teeming with so much talent that the home and away binary is often unimportant. Nevertheless, this was Munich and thus a different story all together.

There was a great bustle amid the Olympiastadion this evening. Filled to the brim with Bayern fans, this stadium could not accurately be described as a mere arena, no, this was a seething caldron, white-hot. This beautifully symmetrical structure, replete with calculated lines and arches, was specifically designed to house and contain these acrid structures of feelings, but such emotions are, of course, unruly.

“The startling line-up for Bayern will consist of Kahn, Sagnol, Kuffour, Kovac, Lizarazu – Demichelis, Hargreaves, Ballack, Zé Roberto, Pizarro, Makaay. Real will field Casillas, Salgado, Helguera, Raul Bravo, Roberto Carlos, Beckham, Guti, Figo, Raul, Zidane, Ronaldo […]” the Bayern supporter’s chants and cries did their very best to muffle the segment announcing Real’s starting eleven. From the ground level of the kick-off spot, the sight that one could behold was truly magnanimous. The intensity of the stadium lights whitened out the edges of all that which was caught in their rays, thereby giving each object, person or blade of grass an auratic quality. That which was soon to unfold before the spectators was to do so upon a canvas constituted by a particular time and space… one that—regardless of the result—was not to be forgotten any time soon.

At this point, 17 of the 21 spectators, or interlocutors rather, were comfortably in their seats. Zygmunt Bauman had taken up the responsibility of reserving the tickets and finding a suitable seating arrangement. In fact, it appeared as though he took the task a little too seriously because he was personally offended at the thought of four of his colleagues potentially being late for kick-off. This wasn’t because he was an avid soccer fan, no, this was simply because Bauman was a stickler like that. Getting a ticket for this match proved to be exceptionally difficult, nevertheless, Bauman—having prepared adequately in advance—succeeded in securing two rows, one of ten and another of eleven just behind. In the first row, starting from the left, John Dewey, Michael Payne and Georges Rousseau were marveling at the atmosphere in this arena, it was first time that any of them had a seen a European soccer match; Dewey was particularly impressed and thought to himself: you’d think this was a world series game! Seated next to them were Joanne Sharp, Paul Routledge, Chris Philo and Ronan Paddison—all of whom were content to wait until
kick-off in silence. Continuing towards the end of the row, Brian Massumi and Paul Virilio were busy catching up, while Robyn Longhurst dismally looked on. She was desperately craving a German pretzel, but knew she shouldn’t. In the second row, from right to left this time, Peter van Wyck—an ecology of calm1—sat with legs crossed calmly observing the pre-game spectacle while at once eavesdropping on Virilio and Massumi. Come on, he was fellow Montrealer—naturally he was curious. The seat immediately next to van Wyck was vacant and once Kim Sawchuk came into view it was clear why. Moving left, Judith Butler, Eve Sedgwick, Linda Hutcheon and Andrew Parker sat abreast of one another. And though one might be led to think that they’d have a lot to say between them, they were remarkably sullen. Next there was Steve Shaviro who, flanked by true gloom to his left and a fidgety Bauman to his far right, felt as though he had really won the lottery. And as fitting a time as any, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari and Michel Foucault came strolling in, sharing a few laughs.

“Hello Zygmunt!” Foucault exclaimed cheerily.

He knew this would irritate Bauman even more.

The two teams kicked-off before the trio had the time to find their seats. Real immediately took possession. Raul swiftly passed the ball back to Beckham without so much as a glance. When you’re that good, you don’t look, you feel. Instead of customarily passing back to the defense, Beckham offensively made a first-time through ball to Zidane on the left side. Real wanted to set the tone from the very start. This was going to be a game of total football; if Bayern wanted to win an utter besetzung was required. Zidane saw an opening towards the center and proceeded to capitalize on it. Bayern quickly closed down his space. Three men to each man, don’t let them control the ball. Those were the coach’s instructions. Zidane, knowing and feeling the flow, blindly released the ball forward and down the left. Roberto Carlos—already running—latched on to it at breakneck speed. Though short, his powerful limbs carried him at such speeds that, given two steps, he could often lose his opponent completely. Sagnol, have defended against Roberto Carlos many times before, knew what to expect. The interception course was set. Perfectly timed in fact. Sagnol slide-tackled and got nothing but ball. The flow had effectively been broken. And the clock read 01:03.

“Okay I believe that now we can finally begin,” Bauman said glaring at the tardy trio. None of them looked particularly concerned.

“First I would like thank Deleuze for the great idea of moving out of the class and conducting our discussion elsewhere.”

“Next time we should have the discussion while playing,” Deleuze retorted with a blank expression.

“Okay…” Bauman could never tell if he was joking.

“Who would like to start?” he continued.

“Okay then, what topic should we delve into first?” speaking to fight the silence.

Butler was unimpressed. Not so much with Bauman—though that too—but, rather, with the world of football—matches like these. The fact that football—and footballing culture—was rooted in patriarchy and served to perpetuate it, annoyed her. Just last month, Sepp Blatter, the president of FIFA, claimed that to increase the popularity of women’s soccer the uniform should be transformed into to something more sexy.

“How about structure?” Butler offered, spontaneously breaking the silence.

“Did you have anything in particular in mind?” responded Sawchuk while scribbling on her yellow pad of paper.

“Well, I was just reflecting how it is structures such as these (pointing to the field) that feminists such as myself have primarily been interested in dismantling. I use the word dismantle to emphasize the lengthy nature of the struggle that we have been involved with. You see, these structures engender problematic sedimentations of thought. In this particular case, we can see sedimentations of thought that have influenced directly, or obliquely, conceptions of malehood, heteronormativity, etc.,” Butler replied while at once realizing that she no longer cared to elaborate any further.

“Yes, I see how this may be of concern because it is within the interstices of habit—thus within structures, such as communities for instance—that thinking is secreted,”2 Dewey added agreeingly.

“Well, it might be important for us to consider how there has been positive change within a structure such as football. Take David Beckham there on the field for instance. He seems to present himself as a fulcrum for such change—” began Sawchuk.

“—Yes in fact—” Parker eagerly interjected “—I have co-authored a book with Ellis Cashmore—on just that subject—entitled “One David Beckham…?” Celebrity, Masculinity and the Socceratti, in which, we attempt to limn how David Beckham is a media icon who occupies a number of different, and salient, iconographic positions. For instance, he is renown for his footballing abilities and has a number of football fans as a result. As well, he models, thus by dint of the exposure he accrues with that he has developed a number of adoring fans—many of which are women. However, and this is important, Beckham has also developed legions of gay fans that he positively acknowledges. Add to that, the fact that he remains a committed father and husband.” This was right up his alley, so he was more than happy to elaborate further.

“So essentially, while it might be said that he serves to perpetuate a certain heteronormativity by virtue of his marriage and family, he nonetheless succeeds in commingling a number of identities and copular
presuppositions—and in that way challenging them as well. That is why he is such an intriguing icon, because he challenges and commensurates conventions in a way that one might of once thought impossible. Beckham’s appeal resonates, at times transgressively, across a number of different communities. Always changing himself, Beckham is truly an icon of alterity,” concluded Parker.

“Yes but I feel it important to draw attention to the fact that, Beckham is the icon that he is only by virtue of the privileged economic position that his skills—or his looks rather—afford him,” broached Bauman with the aim of redirecting the conversation.

“From the perspective of the work I did on community, figures such as David Beckham are problematic. Beckham is a reification of the jet-setter, the individual who has no use for community. To truly be an icon, you must be capable of traversing space with ease. The icon has no rooted community. I am not so sure that he should be deified. Instead, I am concerned with the disservice that such people do to the old notion of community. To wit, the effects of late capitalism are such that the individual—in a society of risk—sees him or herself better served by securing the greatest amount of personal prosperity and autonomy.3 Thus, to this end community is nothing more than an anchor—a tedious obstacle—that offers nothing more than the potential of threat or undue drag. Nevertheless, the crux of society lies in the imperative link between both the individual and his or her community; it has been here where sociality has been wrought,” concluded Bauman.

John Dewey, having looked skeptically at him throughout, finally had a chance to retort. “Bauman, dear sir, you seem to imply that membership to a community brings with it necessary attenuation of one’s autonomy and potentiality. I must underline, that community, as I describe it, is not a miasmal entity, it is instead the social space where a greater autonomy and potentiality is possible. For experience is, of course, public.”

Finding himself closed down on the right wing, Figo looked to pass. Beckham, having read the play, moved up to offer himself as a possibility. Figo released a sharp pass and Ballack simultaneously rushed to intervene. Realizing that he wouldn’t be able to intercept in time, Ballack lunged with one leg extended. It was an act of desperation and he knew it. He didn’t care. Missing the ball entirely, Ballack’s heel broadsided Beckham’s ankle swiftly knocking him off his feet; Beckham saw it coming—in a sport like this you have too. Just prior to the point of contact, Beckham had prepared himself by remaining light on his feet. If he hadn’t taken that precaution, a tackle like that could have broken his ankle. But how did this come about? Rewind.

At 05:38 after kickoff, Beckham and Ballack were tussling in midfield. Ballack despised Beckham. To him, Beckham wasn’t a footballer he was a media spectacle. Sagnol, picking out Ballack, released a long aerial pass. Both Beckham and Ballack rose to meet it. Ballack placed his arm over Beckham’s shoulder and used it as leverage. This irritated Beckham, so he retaliated by elbowing him just under the rib cage. Being 1.89 meters—that’s 6’2”—Ballack generally won most aerial battles. This encounter was no different. After heading the ball onto the path of his teammate, Ballack made sure that all 1.89 meters of him came down on Beckham. This brought about a silent scowl from the Real star; mute, put explicit nonetheless. Ballack stared back and, pointing with his index, distinctly uttered “Pass auf!” (Watch out!). Pause. This was the moment in which the threat had been begotten.

Now back to the crushing tackle, the event. The referee immediately reached for his pocket, the only question was whether it would be a red or yellow card. Red would effectively end Ballack’s game, whereas yellow would serve as a strong caution. The referee had to be quick about this. A crowd of quarrelsome players had already encircled the two individuals; one shove could spell mayhem. Fingers emerged with a yellow card in hand. Ballack disagreed and voiced it. Shut up, just shut up. One wrong word could magnetically bring out a red. The referee decided to be kind and pay no attention to his complaints. Beckham initially had to limp but then immediately realized that he could shake it off and carry on. The clock read 32:27.

“The soccer field is space that allows for a multiplicity of threat. It provides fertile ground for
it—nurtures it even. For instance, there is a persistent threat of injury on this soccer field. You never know when it will strike,” Massumi finally said though still concentrating.

Virilio seized upon Massumi’s moment of thought. “Bayern’s counterattacking style reveals that they’re playing in such a way as to anticipate the threat—or accident—of Real scoring and taking the lead. Thus, threat serves as something to work against, it is productive.”4

“I wonder if we are not overlooking the role of risk in all of this,” inquired van Wyck in order to problematize the flow of conversation.

“How do you mean?” a puzzled Bauman asked.

“Well, I think there is a necessary distinction to be made between risk and threat… Risk is
quantifiable. Risk eclipses ethical decision-making. But threat, on the other hand, is more diffuse. It is almost like fear, only fear has an object.”5

“Well,” Deleuze began, “would you agree that, as a result of the manifold and shifting vectors which are perpetually constituting themselves on the field, both risk and threat are—and can be—present? For instance, the threat of being scored on is constantly present throughout the entire game, however, we have to concede that there are moments of risk in which the threat is both heightened and far more discernible, right? Hmm—look at the structure of play on the field right now for example.”

Guti, recognizing that a good twenty feet had opened up directly in front of him, decided to run the ball up.
Demichelis sensed the urgency of immediately closing down this nascent flow. It would be a gamble. If he failed to close Guti down, then he would be leaving a clear path on goal and Real don’t miss opportunities—or gifts—such as those. However, if he didn’t intervene, then Guti would find himself in a position to either take the shot, or choose from three individuals who were themselves in mouthwatering scoring positions. It was mathematics. You were constantly doing math on the field: calculating probabilities, risks, margins of error, opponents’ rates, speeds, etc. Some problems were more abstract than others. This one, however, was relatively straightforward. Demichelis deduced that interception was the best possible option. He sprinted forward keeping his legs apart—being as wide as possible. This forced Guti to pass quicker than he had intended. Feeling it, Demichelis extended his left foot and was able to get a piece of it. The deflection fell kindly to Kovac who, without hesitation, passed to Zé Roberto on the left wing. Normally, the silky Brazilian would relish the opportunity to run the ball forward, weaving in and out of midfielders and defenders, but not this time. Prior to having received the pass he had surveyed his team’s positioning and noted that Hargreaves was completely unmarked on the right wing. Drawing a number of Real’s midfielders and defenders with him, he darted towards the left touchline and made a precise cross to Hargreaves. It was about ratios. In normal circumstances, you had twenty-two players on the field. The trick was to mete out the most efficient allocation of your team’s resources. By the same token, you would have to do your very best to skew the opponent’s apportioning. Hence after chesting down the cross, Hargreaves found himself with plenty of space. This was dangerous for Real. Makaay busied himself with stretching the defence, while Ballack sought to occupy the open space deep on the left wing. It was three on two. This was risk. You could calculate the danger. Cutting into the center, Hargreaves made haste in heading directly on goal. One team’s opportunity is another’s risk. The thing that unites these diametrically opposed moments is their ephemeral nature. Seeing that Makaay was positioned in front of a two meter gap between Real’s two defenders, Hargreaves released a pass while continuing to run on goal. Encrypted in the pass was a message and Makaay was acutely aware of it. Give and go. Makaay controlled it beautifully and laid it back onto Hargreaves’ path. Meeting the ball just on the edge of the penalty area, Hargreaves wound up and shot low and to the left. Raul Bravo stretched to deflect it, but Hargreaves had intelligently placed it under him. Casillas—seeing it late—remarkably dove in time to turn it around his right post. This was risk. Real were lucky to emerge unscathed.

“This was a classic example of risk. It was indeed calculable. On the other hand, someone like Zidane can often pose a threat from distance—even when it is seemingly impossible. I think that Peter makes an important distinction—would agree with my illustration Peter?” inquired Deleuze.

“Yes,” van Wyck said after a moment of thought.

Then came the half time whistle. Overall, Bayern were the better team. With an intelligent blend of all-out defense and swift counterattack, Bayern where able to do the impossible, hold and threaten Real.

***

Bayern emerged from the tunnel with a resolute air of calm. They had controlled the match thus far, now, in the second half, they were beholden to convert their convincing possession into a goal; total concentration was demanded, one lapse could be fatal. Stifle their desire with your collective poise. The coach was explicit.

Pizarro nudged the ball towards Makaay who blindly one-timed it to Ballack. The conductor. It was he who brought the strings into harmony with one another. At first, the crescendo began softly: a swift and graceful pass to Hargreaves on the right. The loudness gradually rose: Hargreaves constantly picking up speed along the touchline. Still rising: Hargreaves centered without breaking his stride. It began to culminate: Makaay rising concomitantly with the cross. The musical climax: Makaay connecting squarely with the cross and redirecting high and to the far left corner. Thereafter the cello note dissipates: only a foot wide, the ball screams by the post heading out of play. The note finally comes to an end: as the ball stops rolling several meters behind the net. Bayern continued where they have left off. The clock read 46:37.

“For the second half, I think that we should try to focus on the individual as much as possible,” Bauman suggested.

“In the arc of post-structuralist thought one of the things that is most salient is the fact that there is a concerted effort on the part of theory and theorists to resituate the individual at fore, to recognize their agency and effectivity amid the structures that they find themselves imbricated within. Confirmation of such a course change is echoed by Sharp et al. in their mapping out the later part of Foucault’s work,”6 he continued.

“Indeed,” Foucault confirmed. Turning towards Joanne Sharp, Paul Routledge, Chris Philo and Ronan Paddison, he continued:

“You were particularly interested in my focusing upon the individual. In my third volume of The History of Sexuality, I have suggested that “in a political space where the political structure of the city and the laws with which it is endowed have unquestionably lost some of their importance, although they have not ceased to exist for all that, and where the decisive elements reside more and more in men, in their decisions, in the manner in which they bring their authority to bear, in the wisdom they manifest in the interplay of equilibria and transactions, it appears that the art of governing oneself becomes a crucial political factor,”7

“Indeed. Foucault, dear sir, I find your focus on the individual, and the important role that they play, to be very much in accord with some of the considerations that my pragmatic approach was predicated upon. I have argued that “pragmatism and instrumental experience bring into prominence the importance of the individual. It is he who is the carrier of creative thought, the author of action, and of its application.”8 Thus, in that respect we agree. However, one of the nuances that distinguishes our work is the fact that you take a multitude of structures—as in epistemic and discursive—into account far more than I. This is not to say that I have completely neglected them, rather, it is just that I have chosen to focus more specifically on the structures of education because I have been chiefly concerned with seeing that individuals get all the tools that they need to carry out their creative thought in the most effective manner possible,” Dewey offered agreeingly.

“Well, to speak to what Foucault brought up earlier—that is with regards to his later privileging of the individual. Part of our goal in fleshing out entanglements of power was a) to further develop how power can be reconsidered vis-à-vis geography, but as well, b) to problematize the conception of power and it’s functioning. For instance, in further fleshing out the dynamics of power we sought to problematize things like de Certeau’s conception of strategies and tactics. In our work, we specifically take issue with simple binaries. De Certeau writes, strategy “postulates a place that can be delimited as its own and serve as the base from which relations with an exteriority composed of targets or threats (customers or competitors, enemies, the country surrounding the city, objectives and objects of research, etc.) can be managed,”9 whereas with a tactic he explains that it “is a calculated action determined by the absence of a proper locus, […] [and it has] a mobility that must accept the chance offerings of the moment, and seize on the wing the possibilities that offer themselves at any given moment;”10 essentially tactics are “a clever utilization of time.”11 Thus, for de Certeau, strategies operate primarily in the realm of the spatial and tactics in that of the temporal. Our challenge to this becomes manifest when we highlight how “the word power comes from the Latin word potere, meaning ‘to be able’. In this sense, power should not be viewed solely as an attribute of the dominant, expressed as coercion or political control, since it is also present in the ability to resist,”12 therefore it is also present in the weak and the individual. Thus, part of what we were trying to do was to redress the weak and individual’s positioning within entanglements of power. Because realistically speaking, the weak are of course capable of strategizing.” Sharp spoke for the four of them.

“Who is the weak and the powerful with these two teams?” inquired George Rousseau.

“Both of these teams are considered superpowers, however, the book makers and coaches alike would probably agree that Real—due to their all-star lineup—are the most powerful team in Europe,” Bauman explained.

“Nevertheless, recognition of that power is important too. Take for example our match here. Bayern—though they thoroughly respect Real—are not by any means daunted by the formidable power of their opponent, instead they are busying themselves with playing a solid defensive and attacking game. You see there are gradients to recognition. Had Bayern been completely awed by Real, then that recognition of superiority, would have lent Real a significant degree of power over them. Naturally this could have had an adverse effect on their performance,” Sharp furthered.

After musing over Sharp’s critique of de Certeau, Longhurst—addressing Sharp, Routledge, Philo and Paddison—added:

“And I think that what your examination of power entanglements also does, is that it dispels the notion of power, or the powerful, as being easily represented through the metaphor of the body. We seem to forget far too often that the bodies of power that we speak of are not whole bodies by any means; they are fragmented13 and, at times, almost tenuously held together. Though we would like to think that we have come a long way from totalizing forms of thought, they nevertheless seem to tarry with respect to our conceptions of bodies of power. In part, what my work seeks to do is to problematize the way the body is represented. Thus in theory, the metaphoric body is far too often conceived as being a clean, airtight container, when in actual fact this is never the case. I question the quixotic use of the body. The body is often that which “breaks its boundaries—urinates, bleeds, vomits, farts, engulfs tampons, objects of sexual desire, ejaculates and gives birth. The reason this is significant is that the messiness of bodies is often conceptualised as feminised and as such is Othered.”14

“That is one of the reasons why we have sought recourse to the apposite metaphor of the hermaphrodite is because it “does not imply or refer back to a lost unity […], [and] neither are its separations and nonidentities the result of lack or prohibition,”15 Shaviro confidently offered.

“I have read your article and am familiar with your work, on page 78, you write: “the hermaphrodite requires a third party (the insect) so that the female part may be fertilized, or so that the male part may fertilize,”16 I would underline that it is nevertheless problematic that the women must forever be acted upon and not have the agency to act herself,”17 Butler—citing by memory—caustically replied.

“I find it important to extend Longhurst’s insight that only the cleanliest, whole,
airtight—essentially male bodies which get invoked. First, Payne would you agree that this occurrence is very much in keeping with a general phallogocentrism of academic discourse?” Sawchuk asked him.

“Of course,” responded Payne. He felt that he really no part to play in this discussion.

“Okay then…” she said while crossing something off her yellow pad of paper. Sawchuk turned to Longhurst.

“Second, I believe that, though you are right to point out that the male is always naturally invoked when the body is named, there is another reason for the eschewal of the “fluid, volatile, messy, leaky bodies”18 in academic discourse that I would have liked to see you explore a little further. This avoidance also occurs because the porous and leaky body implies the dissolution and decomposition generally attributed to death; of course, as always death is that which we don’t speak about. In fact, one can locate this in your text, when you lament that “one of the downsides of social constructionism though is that is [sic] can render the body incorporeal, fleshless, fluidless, little more than a linguistic territory. The materiality of bodies becomes reduced to systems of signification."19 In this passage we witness how your speech contiguously addresses an attenuation of life—you are hovering around the mention of death. And just as it has been said that there has been a death of the author, so too has there been a death of the body, only you are very careful to strictly address it at a metonymical remove—you seem reticent about confronting the subject of death,” Sawchuk mentioned while furiously jotting and doodling on her pad.

“The reason why I bring this up, is because I find that same tension can be felt in my article, in that
“biotourism is the fantasy that one can voyage into the interior space of the body without intervening in its life processes, with silent footsteps, without leaving a trace,”20 essentially, without bringing about
death,” Sawchuk concluded.

“That is certainly something that I don’t address in too much detail in that article, but I must admit that I did notice the tension too,” agreed Longhurst.

Sitting just behind Sawchuk, was a woman who appeared to have been following the entire conversation up until this point. She leaned forward to speak.

“I’m sorry I couldn’t help but overhear your conversation here—I am Sherene Razack, I teach at OISE in Toronto,” she exclaimed.

There was an instant reaction from some of the interlocutors who had heard of her before.

“May I join this discussion?” she asked.

“By all means,” Bauman said most graciously.

“I have recently read your article Robyn, and one of the most salient parts—and something we could have easily glanced over, is your mention of Dorn’s warning that “we must not take ‘flight from the messiness of disability into myth and metaphor.’”21 I believe he makes an important caution when he warns how the “feminist poststructuralist work on shifting locations, fluid and multiple identities and nomadic forms of thought is underpinned by ableist assumptions” (Ibid). Some poststructuralist thought presupposes that the individual actor has a certain ability, a certain mobility, a certain intelligence, etc. Is it not possible that some of these notions somewhat neglect the fact that some individuals cannot partake in becoming, nomadology, etc. because they are constrained and confined by complex and interlocking forms of oppression? In short, is not possible that we donot all possess the same space to maneuver? It is for reasons such as these that I am reticent about fully embracing some of poststructuralism’s concepts. I feel that one of the potential dangers of invoking their notions, is that
we can far too easily operate on the presupposition that there is an equal potential for becoming, nomadology, etc. amongst the actors that we are speaking about—and that such a presupposition masks the specific power relations that engender particular forms of constraint that circumscribe and individuate potential. I am well aware that the theorists who beget these notions are themselves completely cognizant that the subject we theorize about is always already imbricated within a network of relations and that their ideas are conceived of with that in mind, however, we mustn’t forget the disjuncture between saying and being.22 Or, as I have said in my book Looking White People in the Eye: “How much of a choice is it to flee poverty and starvation in lands ravaged by a global economy dominated by the First World? Who is ultimately responsible for such flight?”23 posed Razack.

Deleuze turned directly towards her before beginning to speak.

“Well, as I am certainly one the culprits you target—however obliquely—in your critique, I feel it necessary to speak to you and respond to your qualms and queries. I submit though that the things that we have advanced in our plateaus is really not so exclusive and rigid as you have just intimated—” Guattari decided to interject.

“—Yes, we believe that one may use these ideas in the ways that are beneficial to them. In fact whether one was to find a number of useful things or even nothing at all in their plateaus, we have created them in order to encourage creativity—and certainly not to disseminate rigid concepts which serve to preclude one’s becoming—” Deleuze continued where Guattari had left off.

“—Nevertheless, with that said, I do believe you make an important methodological point of
consideration; one that should remind the user of such concepts that it would be a fallacy to assume that their
subjects of inquiry all possess the same point of departure. Therefore, a certain analytical rigour is of course
required on the part of the theorist,” Deleuze responded ever so calmly.

“Sherene, I found—I mean we found—it particularly intriguing when you spoke of ‘complex and interlocking forms of oppression,’ because this resonates with our argument about how “resistance in one place may therefore be complicit with domination in another.”24 In this respect, we truly find the work of Arjun Appadurai and Doreen Massey to be useful in the disinterring and expounding of the salient corollaries that occur as a result of positioning, space and exterior flows and influences. Additionally, this is a point that brings the disjunctures between North American feminism and the internationally peripheral feminist fractions to the fore. It reveals that if the third wave of feminism is going to strengthen and develop in an innovatively fruitful manner, then such disjunctures will need to be bridged.” Joanne Sharp said, again speaking for the four of them.

“Yes indeed. Part of my primary concerns is fleshing out how some subjects can simultaneously occupy positions of oppression and empowerment within the spheres of education and the law—thus as you pointed understanding one’s positioning is imperative,” Razack responded in complete accord.

“Something that we all seem to be hovering around is that many of the analyses are marked by a theoretical reticence—or by theory that balkingly operates on a certain level of generality; this is, of course, intentional. It is indicative of the general post-structuralist approach: walk softly and be parsimonious about the generalizations you make. This cautiousness should not be construed as a lack of confidence in making assertions, rather, it stems from a heighten wisdom, one that recognizes that plurality and contingency severely challenge the formulation of theory; it is by no means an uncertainty, rather, it is a honed awareness. Moreover, with this level of theoretical generality, it is incumbent upon the academic, social activist and individual to thereafter put a greater emphasis on doing rather than merely saying; talk is cheap. If these kinds of analyses are not pragmatically applied, or considered during application, then there is the potential of rendering such works useless or tenuous in their rigour. Indeed, this potential danger is echoed by Joanne et al. when they warn that “there is a danger in what is too often the metaphorical nature of space-talk about ‘margins’, ‘decentrings’ and so on, without a concomitant concern with the related issue of the material manifestation of spaces wherein domination and resistance are outworked,”25 Hutcheon posited.

It was at this point that Ballack, who had been successfully orchestrating a number of forays in the Real’s half, lost possession to Zidane. Never failing to make the most pivotal of passes, Zidane immediately played an acute throughball to Rinaldo who was already running on goal. Kuffour had succeeded in closely marking him for the entire game, however, this time around Rinaldo’s speed and tricky footwork graced him the smallest of openings just on the left side of goal. Taking full of advantage of this fleeting instance, Rinaldo toe-poked the ball to the far right corner. Unfortunately, he didn’t connect with the ball well enough to give it the force it needed to get past the keeper. Thus, Kahn easily smothered the ball. Bouncing the ball while waiting for his teammates to get into opportune positions, Kahn yelled some words of encouragement. The captain was expected to rally his troops.

The clearance found its way to Ballack who managed to nod it down for Hargreaves on the right. Hargreaves immediately passed it on to Pizarro who was open further down the line. Up until this point Pizarro had been having a disappointing game, only one shot on goal. For a Bayern Munich striker this was completely
unacceptable—embarrassing even. But things were about to change. Managing to outpace Helguera ever so slightly, Pizarro delivered a pin-point cross to Makaay—who in Helguera’s absence—had no trouble in heading this gift into the top-left corner. This beautiful play—a chance encounter of two separate vectors—engendered the pandemonium that followed. The polyphony within the Olympiastadion succeeded in doing the impossible, rising to an even greater intensity. Every Bayern player—both on the field and on the bench—was now gunning for Makaay. Euphoria. They needed to touch the man who had just written history, the man who had just scored on Real Madrid. Makaay ran straight for the president of the club and embraced him. Prior to the match, he had told Makaay that would score against Real, this was a way of showing thanks. At this point, during the chaos of a goal, the referee allowed a substitution to be made. Pizarro would be making way for Santa Cruz. This didn’t matter though, Pizarro knew he had done his part. And the clock read 75:04, fifteen minutes away from history.

“One of the flagrant goals of post-structuralism—at least as exemplified through the work Deleuze and Guattari—is a desire to readdress and thereafter redress human subjectivity and agency. Desire, it would appear, is a chief concern of theirs. Fearful of imposed structures, they posit the rhizome as means of aiding and abetting the flow of desire; without perniciously directing, controlling or circumscribing it.26 Flow is important. Desire is a flow that exists a priori to the subject-object. Streaming, rushing, unfolding, developing—becoming. Within a movement of lines, it does happen, from time to time, that they might coalesce and culminate into producing something like the goal we have just seen; Makaay and his teammates were propelled by a flow of desire. Indeed, desire appears to be one of the most important elements of an individual’s existence. While desire is understood as being incredibly elusive in that it cannot be represented or completely grasped, it would seem that there are, and have been, persistent efforts to define and control it. For reasons such as these—and surely others—desire is one of the cornerstones of Gilles and Félix’s work; for them desire is sacrosanct,” Foucault being the first to speak after this cataclysmic moment.

“I cherish desire as well. It is central to both the individual and the group’s development. I have said that “symbols in turn depend upon and promote communication. The results of conjoint experience are considered and transmitted. Events cannot be passed from one to another, but meanings may be shared by means of signs. Want and impulses are then attached to common meanings. They are thereby transformed into desires and purposes, which, since they implicate a common or mutually understood meaning, present new ties, converting a conjoint activity into a community of interest and endeavor,””27 Dewey offered for consideration. He had never read any of Deleuze and Guattari’s work, so this was detective work; he listened closely for any points of commonality or difference, these fragments would yield an adumbrative—and hopefully working—map of their thought.

Many of the other interlocutors were now intensely following the game. With Bayern taking the lead, Real were given a new impetus to fight. These were tense moments. Somehow having the lead was far more stressful than working to get it. The game was in their hands and the multiplicity of songs and chants coming from the crowd buttressed it.

Salgado was standing on the right touchline near the center half. Real had a throw-in. He was surveying the field to choose who he’d throw to. As it happened, Figo sprinted forward offering him a target. Salgado recognized this and released at once. Figo, chesting the ball down and turning simultaneously, had decided he was going to run on goal. Demichelis wagered a slidetackle, but immediately realized that he shouldn’t of. Figo had been diving the entire game. He was just one of those players who would dive at the slightest moment of contact. If you do it from time to time it’s a tactic, but when you set out with the express goal of eliciting either free kicks or cards against your opponent it’s a strategy. And sure enough the referee called this one. Demichelis silently shook his head. Kovac glanced at him—they both knew that this was ridiculous. Figo was still on the ground clutching his ankle in ‘agony’; he often impressed himself with his acting abilities; it was consoling to know that he had other talents to draw upon after retirement. Beckham and Roberto Carlo were already conferring with one another about how they would execute this free kick. Bayern were only mildly nervous: first, the free kick was forty-five yards out; and second, Kahn was in nets. There was one reason to worry though, Beckham. He was widely considered to be the finest free kick taker in the world. A number of teams had seen score lines dramatically change as a result of his masterful strokes. Beckham had the uncanny ability of combining speed, movement and accuracy in every kick. Thus, not only would the keeper be troubled by the pinpoint and accelerated nature of the kick, but Beckham would curve the ball in such a way that it would belie its true trajectory. Everyone had taken their positions. Kahn yelled at his human-wall to move slightly to the right. Now they were ready. The referee surveyed the field one last time to ensure that everything was in order, and then blew the whistle to take the free kick. Both Beckham and Roberto Carlos began sprinting to the ball—teams often did this to confuse the keeper. Everyone waited for Roberto Carlos to run over the ball and let Beckham take it. Surprisingly Roberto Carlos made full contact—it was indeed he who would take this one. The human-wall jumped in unison, bracing themselves for impact. However, Roberto Carlos has chosen to shot low and to the right. The ball innocuously slipped underneath the coordinated leap. Though a little surprised, this was nothing that Kahn couldn’t handle; and so he dove low and to his left. But then in a moment of complete terror, Kahn saw their victory slip from his grasp. In diving he had extended his left arm for stability and had hoped to hug the ball with his right. Unfortunately, what occurred instead, was that he ended up deflecting the kick into his own net just underneath his left armpit. A solemn silence set upon the Olympiastadion; what had been a bastion of sound up until this point, was now a mute and precariously vulnerable structure. An Achilles’ heel had been found. It wasn’t his most powerful shot, but it nonetheless accomplished its task. Roberto Carlos, with his usual arrogance, nodded as he received thanks, hugs and pats from his teammates. Kahn was truly alone. No sympathy could change the fact that he had single-handedly let his team down. And the clock read 82:14.

“It would appear as though poststructuralist thought—especially in its awareness of aleatory
circumstances—affords a recognition of the erratic and irrational propensity that is part and parcel of being human. The subject is not always a rational one.” Foucault voiced, realizing that many of his colleagues were still in shock.

Sawchuk shaking her head as if to get out of a trance, glanced over at Longhurst who was still very much wrapped up the events that had just transpired. So Sawchuk chose to address the group instead.

“I find that Longhurst’s article leavens some of the themes that I have been reflecting upon for some time. It is this disavowal of the full gamut of human nature—specifically that which consists of the erratic, irrational, unclean, ‘in between’ spaces, etc. which are complicated and for that reason often avoided entirely. As Longhurst makes us realize, our body testifies to the fact that we leak, we are at times irrational, erratic, in between, in error, etc.,”28 she remarked.

“I sometimes believe that it is for reasons such as these, that has been a confluence between communications and biology research,” Foucault mused aloud. Sharp waited to see if he was going to continue that thought; when he didn’t, she began:

“It is particularly important to keep in mind when mapping out the power dynamics of any space, that the potential for resistance is always already present, it merely needs to be uncovered. Obviously this is easier said then done. It certainly appears as though much of that which is of concern within analyses of power is the illumination of or an attempt to limn—however adumbratively—its dynamics, networks and more precisely, the spaces in between. In fact, the elucidation of those spaces in between is often that which feminism is chiefly concerned with; for it is amid those spaces that the seed of resistance is planted; it is within and through those spaces—which potentially offer Cixousian sorties—that jouissance can manifest, circulate, and claim as one’s own. We have argued that it is truly in the “obscure corners, the hidden spaces in the alleys and forests away from the scaffold, where rebelliousness of all kinds—countless resistant thoughts and acts—could ferment.”29 With respect the Kahn’s mishap, his role and location—that is being the keeper in Bayern’s goal—underscores a duality of power, but one that is reversed. Power demonstrates itself in the saves that he makes, however, the ever present vulnerability of the goal reveals itself as well—especially in cases such as these. Power lends itself to both the oppressor and the oppressed in manifold ways. But the point is that power does lend itself.”

“Power is always lent to us; more than we know. We are always within its web. We are fulcrums of power. It acts upon us, and we in turn help it carry itself out,” Foucault added.

“Because of Kahn’s mishap, Bayern run the risk of breaking with their tradition,” remarked Bauman.

“What tradition is that? inquired Longhurst without taking her eyes off the field.

“Never having lost to Real at home,” offered Guattari.

“Accident and tradition as two dimensions of time are not contradictory, you know,”30 Massumi pointed out. He continued: “In fact, it might be argued that football clubs like Bayern and Real have—on numerous occasions—built their respective traditions upon accidental results.”

“Sorry to change the subject, but I was interested in talking about your concept of heterotopias before we conclude here,” Rousseau finally said, speaking to Foucault.

“Well, to speak effectively of heterotopias we would need a working example or a locus of inquiry,” responded Foucault.

“I find Les ailes des modes could be construed as a heterotopia of compensation. Why? Well, it is a site of aesthetic perfection, a space that is ordered, arranged and polished. A place whereby one can behold, move through and purchase equally aestheticized elements; it is a space where the seeing, circulating within and consumption of aesthetically perfected elements compensates for the fragmented, chaotic and incomplete nature of our lives and ourselves.31 It is a space that Benjamin would find very intriguing,” Massumi said thinking aloud.

“I think that works but I am not so sure that everyone here is familiar with this locus,” van Wyck responded.

“Okay I think I have it, the team’s locker room is somewhat like a heterotopia of deviation in that houses male forms of behaviour that—had they become manifest elsewhere—might be construed as deviant, homosexual, etc.” Rousseau offered unconfidently.

“This is a somewhat forced association in that I explicate heterotopias of deviation as “those in which individuals whose behavior is deviant in relation to the required mean or norm are placed,”32 soccer players are not as a rule placed and forced to live within such a site. Nevertheless, the fact the locker room affords unconventional forms of male interaction is a salient and interesting point. I should like to discuss it with you further later on,” Foucault responded, clearly intrigued.

Even two minutes into overtime, Bayern were still pressing forward in waves, hoping to recuperate the win. At this point Real were satiated with a draw, they knew that they had been lucky today. The score line indicated an ostensible parity between the two teams, but for those who had seen the match it was clear that Real had been completely outplayed.

“Well, I would like to thank everyone for their attendance and valuable participation. I believe we succeeded in effectively trying to understand each other and further flesh out one another’s thoughts. Have yourselves a good night.” Bauman concluded.

“Oh wait, I nearly forgot! For those of you who have not paid me yet—such as Michel…” Bauman began, realizing that he had already gone. “Where did he go?” a concerned Bauman asked.

And with the final whistle, the game ended 1-1. The primal accident had nearly been averted. In games such as these threat looms large. Threat is equivocal by nature. You can never really know what threat holds in store. Now that the threat had made good on itself, the impetus was set for the return leg in Madrid. The event of the accident had completely redefined Bayern’s second-leg strategy. They were no longer going to Madrid looking to keep the scores nil, nil. Now they had to score—earlier than later—if they wanted to advance to the next round. And, of course, the threat of Real getting the early goal was already in the minds of each Bayern player.

Turning towards Massumi and van Wyck, Virilio concluded: “Kahn’s accident, that moment of contingency, is in fact the catalyst for that which is about to follow. Thus, the die has been cast.”33

Bibliography

Bauman, Zygmunt. “Two Sources of Communalism.” Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Cambridge: Polity, 2001. pp. 58-73.

Butler, Judith. “Prohibition, Psychoanalysis and the Production of the Heterosexual Matrix.” Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge, 1990. pp. 35-78.

de Certeau, Michel. “Making-Do: Uses and Tactics.” Trans. Steven Rendall. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. pp. 29-42.

Deleuze, Gilles. “Letter to a Harsh Critic.” Trans. Martin Joughin. Negotiations. Ed. Martin Joughin. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995. pp. 3-12.

—. “Mediators.” Trans. Martin Joughin. Negotiations. Ed. Martin Joughin. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995. pp. 121-34.

—. “On Philosophy.” Trans. Martin Joughin. Negotiations. Ed. Martin Joughin. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995. pp. 135-55.

Deleuze, Gilles and Claire Parnet. “A Conversation: What Is It? What Is It For?” Trans. B. Habberjam H. Tomlinson. Dialogues. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977. pp. 1-35.

Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. “Rhizome.” Trans. Brian Massumi. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. pp. 3-25.

Dewey, John. “The Development of American Pragmatism [1925].” The Essential Dewey: Pragmatism, Education, Democracy. Ed. Larry A. Hickman and Thomas M. Alexander. Vol. 1. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. pp. 3-13.

—. “The Search of the Great Community [1927].” The Essential Dewey: Pragmatism, Education, Democracy. Ed. Larry A. Hickman and Thomas M. Alexander. Vol. 1. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. pp. 293-306.

Foucault, Michel. “The Incitement to Discourse.” The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. Vol. I. New York: Vintage Books, 1990. pp. 17-35.

—. “Of Other Spaces.” Diacritics. Spring, (1986): 22-27.

—. The History of Sexuality: The Care of the Self. Vol. III. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986a.

Hutcheon, Linda. As Canadian as Possible… Under the Circumstances? Toronto: ECW Press & York University Press, 1990.

Longhurst, Robyn. “Corporeographies.” Bodies: Fluid Boundaries. New York: Routledge, 2001. pp. 9-32.

Massumi, Brian. “Everywhere You Want to Be: Introduction to Fear.” The Politics of Everyday Fear. Ed. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993. pp. 2-38.

Parker, Andrew. Performativity and Performance. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Payne, Michael. “Theoretical Beginnings: Introductions to Lacan, Derrida and Kristeva.” Reading Theory: An Introduction to Lacan, Derrida and Kristeva. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1993. pp. 1-25.

Razack, Sherene H. Looking White People in the Eye: Gender, Race, and Culture in Courtrooms and Classrooms. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.

Rousseau, Georges. “No Sex Please, We’re American: Erotophobia, Liberation, and Cultural History.” Cultural History after Foucault. Ed. John Neubauer. New York: Walter de Gruyter Inc., 1999. pp. 3-36.

Sawchuk, Kim. “Biotourism, Fantastic Voyage, and Sublime Inner Space.” Wild Science: Reading Feminism. Ed. Janine Marchessault and Kim Sawchuk. New York: Routledge, 2000. pp. 9-24.

Sedgwick, Eve. “Axiomatic.” The Cultural Studies Reader. Ed. Simon During. 2 ed. New York: Routledge, 1999. pp. 320-39.

Sharp, Joanne P., Paul Routledge, Chris Philo and Ronan Paddison. “Entanglements of Power: Geographies of Domination/Resistance.” Entanglements of Power: Geographies of Domination/Resistance. Ed. Sharp et al. London: Routledge, 2000. pp. 1-42.

Shaviro, Steve. “Appendix: Deleuze and Guattari’s Theory of Sexuality.” Out of Bounds: The Cinematic Body. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993. pp. 66-79.

van Wyck, Peter C. “Highway of the Atom: Decollection Along the Route.” Topia: A Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies 7 (2002).

Virilio, Paul. “The Primal Accident.” The Politics of Everyday Fear. Ed. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993. pp. 210-17.

Notes

1 The term an ecology of calm, stems from my conversation with Neil Balan, on March 2, 2004 at 10:41 am, on the corner of Girouard and Sherbrooke West, in which he offered this incredibly apposite description of Dr. Peter van Wyck.

2 Dewey, John. “The Search of the Great Community [1927].” The Essential Dewey: Pragmatism, Education, Democracy. Ed. Larry A. Hickman and Thomas M. Alexander. Vol. 1. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. pp.
299.

3 Bauman, Zygmunt. “Two Sources of Communalism.” Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Cambridge: Polity, 2001. pp. 60.

4 Virilio, Paul. “The Primal Accident.” The Politics of Everyday Fear. Ed. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993. pp. 215.

5 These insights come from our fourth week’s discussion (Narratives of Failure and Crisis) which was chaired by Dr. Peter van Wyck.

6 Sharp, Joanne P., Paul Routledge, Chris Philo and Ronan Paddison. “Entanglements of Power: Geographies of Domination/Resistance.” Entanglements of Power: Geographies of Domination/Resistance. Ed. Sharp et al. London: Routledge, 2000. pp. 18.

7 Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: The Care of the Self. Vol. III. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986a, pp. 89.

8 Dewey, John. “The Development of American Pragmatism [1925].” The Essential Dewey: Pragmatism, Education, Democracy. Ed. Larry A. Hickman and Thomas M. Alexander. Vol. 1. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. pp. 12.

9 de Certeau, Michel. “Making-Do: Uses and Tactics.” Trans. Steven Rendall. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. pp. 36.

10 Ibid. pp. 37.

11 Ibid. pp. 38-39.

12 Sharp, Joanne P., Paul Routledge, Chris Philo and Ronan Paddison. “Entanglements of Power: Geographies of Domination/Resistance.” Entanglements of Power: Geographies of Domination/Resistance. Ed. Sharp et al. London: Routledge, 2000. pp. 3.

13 Ibid, pp. 22.

14 Longhurst, Robyn. “Corporeographies.” Bodies: Fluid Boundaries. New York: Routledge, 2001. pp. 23.

15 Shaviro, Steve. “Appendix: Deleuze and Guattari’s Theory of Sexuality.” Out of Bounds: The Cinematic Body. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993. pp. 77.

16 Ibid, pp. 78.

17 This critique has to be credited to Heather Neville, who pointed it out to both Neil Balan and I during our discussion of week two’s readings (Gettin’ in the Groove: The Structures of Sexual).

18 Longhurst, Robyn. “Corporeographies.” Bodies: Fluid Boundaries. New York: Routledge, 2001. pp. 23.

19 Ibid, pp. 23.

20 Sawchuk, Kim. “Biotourism, Fantastic Voyage, and Sublime Inner Space.” Wild Science: Reading Feminism. Ed. Janine Marchessault and Kim Sawchuk. New York: Routledge, 2000. pp. 21.

21 Ibid, pp. 24.

22 Razack, Sherene H. Looking White People in the Eye: Gender, Race, and Culture in Courtrooms and Classrooms. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998. pp. 24.

23 Ibid, pp. 28.

24 Sharp, Joanne P., Paul Routledge, Chris Philo and Ronan Paddison. “Entanglements of Power: Geographies of Domination/Resistance.” Entanglements of Power: Geographies of Domination/Resistance. Ed. Sharp et al. London: Routledge, 2000. pp. 24.

25 Ibid, pp. 27.

26 Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. “Rhizome.” Trans. Brian Massumi. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. pp. 14.

27 Dewey, John. “The Search of the Great Community [1927].” The Essential Dewey: Pragmatism, Education, Democracy. Ed. Larry A. Hickman and Thomas M. Alexander. Vol. 1. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. pp. 296.

28 Longhurst, Robyn. “Corporeographies.” Bodies: Fluid Boundaries. New York: Routledge, 2001. pp. 30.

29 Sharp, Joanne P., Paul Routledge, Chris Philo and Ronan Paddison. “Entanglements of Power: Geographies of Domination/Resistance.” Entanglements of Power: Geographies of Domination/Resistance. Ed. Sharp et al. London: Routledge, 2000. pp. 13.

30 Massumi, Brian. “Everywhere You Want to Be: Introduction to Fear.” The Politics of Everyday Fear. Ed. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993. pp. 7.

31 Foucault, Michel. “Of Other Spaces.” Diacritics. Spring, (1986): 27.

32 Ibid, pp. 25.

33 Virilio, Paul. “The Primal Accident.” The Politics of Everyday Fear. Ed. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993. pp. 217.

tags:   

[ originally posted on Wednesday, May 12th, 2004 at 11:54 am and is filed under Christian, Everything. ]