"My view is that radical practice should attend to this double session of representations rather reintroduce the individual subject through totalizing concepts of power and desire [as Foucault and Deleuze do]" (74).
|1st constellation||Re-presentation (darstelleng )||rhetoric as trope||class as a descriptive concept, class in a system||class consciousness|
|2nd constellation||Representation (vertreten)||rhetoric as persuasion||class as a transformative concept; thru' stubstitution/representative||transformation of consciousness|
critique of the Foucault-Deleuze conversation:
". . . the constitutive subject on at least two levels: the Subject of desire and power as an irreducible methodological presupposition; and the self-proximate, if not self-identical, subject of the oppressed. Further, the intellectuals, who are neither of these S/subjects, become transparent in the relay race, for they merely report on the nonrepresentedsubject and analyze (without analyzing) the workings of (the unnamed Subject irreducibly presupposed by) power and desire. (p. 74)
[here she shifts
to her focus of the Third-World Other]
. . . It is impossible for contemporary French intellectuals to imagine the kind of Power and Desire that would inhabit the unnamed subject of the Other of Europe."