But there is really is a difference between the mystical dissolution of
subjectivity and the refusal of subjectivity conceived as refusal to answer
to interpellation. One could in fact say that they are dialectical opposites
of each other. In the mystical dissolution, one rids oneself of one's
subjectivity by becoming fully subjected, by answering the call without
any "reserve". Refusal of subjectivity, on the other hand, is a motion
towards fully "reserving" oneself, a refusal to be "in" anything or to be
spoken by anything. It is true that at the extreme of this refusal lies
a mystical dissolution into a kind of indifference or non-differentiation
or passive suffering, but that _is_ an extreme. And, perhaps equivalently,
there is the ever-present question of what it is that one is spoken by when
one refuses to be spoken by anything, and what it is that is "reserving"
oneself in the supposed absence of a subject. But ever-present questions
don't quite have the force that more contingent questions have.
-m
subjectivity and the refusal of subjectivity conceived as refusal to answer
to interpellation. One could in fact say that they are dialectical opposites
of each other. In the mystical dissolution, one rids oneself of one's
subjectivity by becoming fully subjected, by answering the call without
any "reserve". Refusal of subjectivity, on the other hand, is a motion
towards fully "reserving" oneself, a refusal to be "in" anything or to be
spoken by anything. It is true that at the extreme of this refusal lies
a mystical dissolution into a kind of indifference or non-differentiation
or passive suffering, but that _is_ an extreme. And, perhaps equivalently,
there is the ever-present question of what it is that one is spoken by when
one refuses to be spoken by anything, and what it is that is "reserving"
oneself in the supposed absence of a subject. But ever-present questions
don't quite have the force that more contingent questions have.
-m