Michael Eng

Reviewed: The Obsessions of Georges Bataille: Community and Communication, edited by Andrew J. Mitchell and Jason Kemp Winfree, State University of New York Press, 2009, 232pp., pb. $24.95. ISBN-13: 9781438428246. This review analyzes the extent to which The Obsessions of Georges Bataille: Community and Communication, edited by Andrew J. Mitchell and Jason Kemp Winfree, may contribute to recent treatments of sensibility and affect in critical thought. After first posing the question of why community appeared to recede from the critical attention it received in the 1990s, my discussion then assesses the ways the volume’s essays argue collectively for a renewed engagement with community via the work of Bataille. I attempt to show how Mitchell’s and Winfree’s volume provides an important provocation to recover the exigency of community at a time when popular appeals to community remain no less spectacular, inflated, and cynical than they were at the height of its engagement by critical thought. The essay concludes with a suggestion of how Bataille’s work can intervene in what Fredric Jameson has called the post-09/11 manufacturing of affect

Transversality occupies a central place in Guattari's thought, appearing in his early writings on institutional analysis and on through to his final work, Chaosmosis. Transversality is thus particularly pertinent to understanding Guattari's critique of semiocapitalism and his goal of re-imagining forms of institutional subjectivisation as a way to free the unconscious from structures of lack and the desire for punishment, the very structures upon which capitalism relies for its reproduction. If there is one institution that has taken advantage of semiocapitalism's ability to mask its role in the reproduction of capitalist subjectivity, however, it is the contemporary neoliberal University. This essay thus brings transversality to bear upon the question of the University in semiocapitalism, focusing on the discourses that speak in defence of the humanities. Though defences of the humanities are intended to argue for the humanities’ usefulness in contemporary society, transversality exposes such discourses as the speech of a ‘subjugated group’ whose only effect is to reinforce existing structures of lack and punishment.