Thinking about some of the things raised in the workshop I was part of yesterday for #AMRO22. There was a chunk towards the end when the audio feed was breaking up for me and I was wondering what that had to say.
The breaking-up of smooth ease was no-one human's direct fault, and yet there was something else happening. Friction, if you like, or a refusal of human needs amd desires as paramount.
There's something there, for me, in a more than human assemblage/agencement sense. [1/?]
The play (in the sense of play of light on water, playing out of processural inter and intra-actions) of refusal is always something which doesn't have to imply an active sense of resistance, or so-called activism (which exists beyond the narrow political sense).
We could argue that the human subject is an ableist-activist project, if we wanted.
So for me, the disruption of ease as *automatically paradigmatically desireable* is something to think of, particularly in terms of #disability [2/?]
This is not me saying "it's better that things are hard/difficult/inaccessible" but that these frictions, dis/eases, dis/abilities which produce friction have their own plays. their own "games" and "agendas".
When I (badly) tried to bring this up in terms of bugs yesterday, someone mentioned restriction, and as a #cripple (look up the etymology) that is literally what I am; the bentness, the crookedness is due to restriction of certain things and "abnormal" activity of others. [3/?]
But study (as per Moten and Harney) can be studying-with. So how do we study-with friction, dis/ease?. How do we study-with-dis? How do we learn to study-with-the bugs, to study-as-bugs. If the spaces we "collaborate" in or "collectivise" in have other presences (they do) how do they play out with us? [5/?]
How do we allow ourselves to be vulnerable to being studied-with? Not just in the sense of Radical Openness, but also playing with the idea of being studied-with-and through? That we could be moved by the studies of other presences, whether human or otherwise, without realising?
This has implications for ideas of possession (in all senses of the words) "author(ity)/ship" qualities, properties etc. NB: Study does not imply the necessity of human-like cognition, and that's important [6/7]
Nor is this inherently "mystical", such thinking includes all kind of levels - bacteriological, fungal, climatological, "psycholoical", cultural. Of course iy requires vulnerability and disruptions of assumptions about control, identity, intent etc. [7/7]
Cripistemologies and crip-ontologies are the unique knowlege frameworks and ontologies of disabled people - the wording we are part of, that we participating in, generating by inter-and intra-relating is not pathological. Or ather, it i*s* pathological to the human subject, pathological to that ideal.
I bring this up, because the concept of pathology-as-study of bugs (in sense of dis/ease) is usually assumed to be done with the goal of eradication, returning to ease/"health" etc. [4/?]