Assembled Bodies Reconfiguring Quantum Identities by Whitney Stark

Started by Peter, May 31, 2017, 02:16 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Peter

 
Assembled Bodies Reconfiguring Quantum Identities by Whitney Stark

http://minnesotareview.dukejournals.org/content/2017/88/69.short?rss=1

By utilizing the materiality of conceptions about connectivity often thought to be merely theoretical, by taking a critical look at the noncentralized and multiple movements of quantum physics, and by dehierarchizing the necessity of linear bodies through time, it becomes possible to reconfigure structures of value, longevity, and subjectivity in ways explicitly aligned with anti-oppression practices and identity politics. Combining intersectionality and quantum physics can provide for differing perspectives on organizing practices long used by marginalized people, for enabling apparatuses that allow for new possibilities of safer spaces, and for practices of accountability.




http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=34776

Feminist researcher invents 'intersectional quantum physics' to fight 'oppression' of Newton

Let's read from this Masterpiece Of Science For The Ages, shall we:

Assembled Bodies
Reconfiguring Quantum Identities
Introduction

I invest in Donna Haraway's claim that "what counts as an object is precisely what world history turns out to be about" (quoted in Barad 2007, 42); that is, politics are about the hierarchies of what connections, or closenesses, are prioritized as bodily. All bodies are political gatherings, as what is understood as closely related, kin, the measured, congealing intersections of phenomena (social identity, histories, water, particles) considered legible/intelligible/singularized is always a political configuration, with systems and apparatuses (e.g., colonial sciences or clarity fetishism) set up to recognize these prioritized configurations/ separations (a "cut together/apart" in Barad's words [2010, 240]), naturalizing insidious assumptions and hierarchies of value. And so "connect[ing] what's been dangerously disconnected" (Rich 1987, 214) is directly political. Re/cognizing the connective/constellatory bodies typically not understood as connected (e.g., across disciplines) allows for embellishing alliances not following rules of typically understood closeness or kinship (space, time, social category, eugenic lineage) while also not discounting differing mattering realities (steeped categorizations). And, possibly, deprioritizing particularly naturalized, fetishizing borders has potentials for destabilizing structures that enable hierarchical othering (which justifies sociopolitical oppression and material-discursive violence).


Quantum physics disrupts the stagnancies of typically humanly recognized bodies. In quantum understandings, particles (classically understood as stagnant objects) also have wavelike properties, diffract, leap, and are quantumly entangled.

And. So. On.

Ummm. To me, this *sure* reads a whole lot like someone who's just slapping together word salad in the hopes of creating another Sokal Affair. But these days, who knows... this could just as easily, perhaps even more easily, be another "Gender Studies" hack Deepak-Chopra-ing some quantum nonsense together in the hopes of sounding smart. I mean, come on... does this sound like GenderBlather, or someone parodying GenderBlather?

I specifically utilize feminist new materialist discussions of quantum physics and cyborgian posthumanism (Haraway 1985), along with seemingly separated discussions of noncentralized leadership practices and anti-oppression organizing, subaltern studies, intersectional identity politics, and safer space.

I just can't tell anymore.
BM-NByw7VE2PwjfTtsVdeE5ipuqx1AqkEv1

Peter

BM-NByw7VE2PwjfTtsVdeE5ipuqx1AqkEv1

Peter

Peer-Reviewed Journal Publishes Gender Studies Hoax Claiming Penises Cause Climate Change


https://howiecarrshow.com/peer-reviewed-journal-publishes-gender-studies-hoax-claiming-penises-cause-climate-change/

A peer-reviewed academic journal published on Friday a hoax gender studies paper titled, "The Conceptual Penis As A Social Construct."

Two academics, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, used pen names to successfully submit the hoax paper -- which argued that "the penis vis--vis maleness is an incoherent construct" -- to the peer-reviewed journal Cogent Social Sciences. Boghossian and Lindsay cited 20 sources, none of they say they read, and five of which are fake papers that were "published" in journals that don't actually exist.

The paper -- which the authors said was "actively written to avoid having any merits whatsoever" -- opened by stating, "The androcentric scientific and meta-scientific evidence that the penis is the male reproductive organ is considered overwhelming and largely uncontroversial." It went downhill from there.

The conclusion stated in part:

We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.

"You read that right. We argued that climate change is 'conceptually' caused by penises," Boghossian and Lindsay wrote in a celebratory article announcing the success of their hoax.

They supported the argument that penises cause climate change by writing in part:

Toxic hypermasculinity derives its significance directly from the conceptual penis and applies itself to supporting neocapitalist materialism, which is a fundamental driver of climate change, especially in the rampant use of carbon-emitting fossil fuel technologies and careless domination of virgin natural environments. We need not delve deeply into criticisms of dialectic objectivism, or their relationships with masculine tropes like the conceptual penis to make effective criticism of (exclusionary) dialectic objectivism. All perspectives matter.

Some of the article's paragraphs were just downright nonsensical. Like this one:

Thus, the isomorphism between the conceptual penis and what's referred to throughout discursive feminist literature as "toxic hypermasculinity," is one defined upon a vector of male cultural machismo braggadocio, with the conceptual penis playing the roles of subject, object, and verb of action. The result of this trichotomy of roles is to place hypermasculine men both within and outside of competing discourses whose dynamics, as seen via post-structuralist discourse analysis, enact a systematic interplay of power in which hypermasculine men use the conceptual penis to move themselves from powerless subject positions to powerful ones

"No one knows what any of this means because it is complete nonsense," the authors wrote afterwards of the above paragraph. "Anyone claiming to is pretending. Full stop."

... and so on...
BM-NByw7VE2PwjfTtsVdeE5ipuqx1AqkEv1

Peter

#3
May 31, 2017, 02:41 PM Last Edit: May 31, 2017, 02:44 PM by Peter

No, you cannot tell the "real thing" from the parody anymore.


http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=24090.0

BM-NByw7VE2PwjfTtsVdeE5ipuqx1AqkEv1

Go Up