To reconstitute the discourse of cultural difference demands not simply a change of cultural contents . . . It requires a radical revision of the social temporality in which emergent histories may be written, the articulation of the ‘sign’ in which cultural identities may be inscribed.

The overall impact of the postmodern condition is that many other groups now share with black folks a sense of deep alienation, despair, uncertainty, loss of a sense of grounding, even if it is not informed by shared circumstance. Radical postmodernism calls attention to those sensibilities which are shared across the boundaries of class, gender, and race, and which could be fertile ground for the construction of empathy--ties that would promote recognition of common commitments and serve as a base for solidarity and coalition.

On the terrain of culture, one can participate in critical dialogue with the uneducated poor, the black underclass who are thinking about aesthetics. One can talk about what we are seeing, thinking, or listening to; a space is there for critical exchange. It's exciting to think, write, talk about, and create art that reflects passionate engagement with popular culture, because this may very well be "the" central future location of resistance struggle, a meeting place where new and radical happenings can occur."

Like the diffraction patterns illuminating the indefinite nature of boundaries - displaying shadows in “light” regions and bright spots in “dark” regions - relation of the social and the scientific.

The dumbwaiter, bound to slave labor, carries bottle after bottle up to Jefferson’s dining room. Its systemic properties tend to become visible only when the repetitions cease. If the wine ceases to appear, at some level and only for an instant, the entire apparatus of slavery comes into view. When you turn on the faucet and the water does not flow, the entire water system leaps into the cognitive field.

Inflammatory and disagreeing hostility towards people, places, and ideas. To separate things, pull them apart - and to do this without respect to where these people are situated in their physical locality, the place they may be developmentally and the ideas that they are working with in their personal histories.

A lens or perspective that accounts for the phenomenon of “trans*time” loosely understood as a timeline that can begin again, at a point in someone’s life. Due to the notion or idea of transitioning “from” -> “to”. For trans*gender individuals - linear ‘time’ as such, begins again and a new point in a trans*gender person’s life, rather than just beginning at birth. This idea accounts for the fact that a revision of a beginning point may be necessary, and this is a concept that is not limited to only trans*gender people however is rather marked by a moment when one’s life shifts directions. Moving to a new country, having a child or achieving a major academic success are a few examples.

In a feminist politic, thinking about how different bodies are differently privileged, the question of work is often something that is ignored. Sex work for differently gendered bodies of all kinds is a kind of work that statistics are gathered from: how many sex workers, what genders do they identify as, how are they treated? However when these statistics are pulled from their context – does it replicate a violence? How can researchers get to the importance of rooting their research from within a community that has welcomed them, and beyond this – making that community feel heard in relation to the academic research they wish to do?

Painting that engages more visceral registers by playfully disturbing stylistic conventions of mimesis + abstraction. These irresolute forms provide a vital means of representation, enabling the formal expression of “individual particularity w/o hardening into a sign or stereotype.”

What perspectives of continent affirming are we engaging with (intellectually and otherwise), and how can we move away from this as a constant mode of address. Can we create space for voices outside of American, Eurocentric, White, Upper class, Wealthy and elite perspectives? What defaults of this are we reverting to, without even knowing so?

Everyone is always saying we need a new language, and yes we do. However the newness must be built on something, this proposal is for this ‘newness’ to come out of the slipperiness of language and words. “She” is a different “She” for the many differently gendered mother(s) of our hearts. What other words can be slippery like all of our mothers wished they could be?

Working through the muck of immediacy. Must everything become written, recorded, affirmed, as it happens in the moment? Through distance we become alien to our subjectivity, but have we ever been otherwise? How can we use an alien position of our produced subject to make and generate new work and ideas. Do new ideas exist? Or do we further build on ones that are hovering around with further direction and clarity?

“Passing is effacement through the construction of a plausible history… passing means the denial of mixture.” - Sandy Stone, “The Empire Strikes Back” A Plausible History was a concept invented by medical professionals in the 1970’s that urged transgender individuals (at the time called transsexuals) to create a “plausible history” of their life history as a way to affirm their gender presentation at present - with stories from their invented past.

Constructed oppositional nodes that have been pre-arranged as the only positions from which discouse is possible all but guarantee that we [trans people] cannot speak. What are the kinds of binary structures that continue to oppress and create oppositions that one must choose - on the one hand, or the other; without introducing a third hand or perhaps a foot.

How can the radical openness of the body remain a possibility for bodies when the shear amount of input is completely overwhelming? An interdisciplinary + cross disciplinary field that looks at the potentials for connecting with asterisks-es, dashes [--], and well placed spaces to disrupt reading, thinking and observations about how matter, bodies and affiliations happen. Because of this necessarily intersectional field of study, no one axis of understanding an identity is prioritized or privileged. Can we think of bodies as being always already in between processes of making + becoming + undoing?

originating with Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela in the 1980’s – the ability of living systems, whether small like bacteria or large like mammals – to create themselves – to create a distinct boundary and yet still be amidst its milieu – therefore this process refers to the ability of a system to distinguish itself as such, and to regenerate & realize the network it produces – a kind of self produced, porous, coherence

By making gendered identities WORK – they become open to strategic deployment & occupation, by using RAGE as an axis of direction for the development and situated-ness of one’s political identity – subjects can be established in new modes with different codes of intelligibility + understanding – in this way the strategies used to READ one another (see: “reading glasses”) are de-normalized, de-stabilized and become productively unclear.

The idea that everyone should be a feminist. A feminism that suffers from tunnel vision because it has a hard time understanding why people would not want to be called feminists. This kind of feminism projects its predominantly middle class, straight and white problems onto all others and it focuses on lifestyle and labeling (especially things or people as feminist or not feminist) rather than driving uncomfortable radical change.

Embuing the world with a shitty maleness, thriving on riches and killing the brains of women since the 1920s, this person, also known as Daddy, is self-centered and seeks to maintain his image of fear/respect and status above all other things. Daddy’s love is conditional or not existent and he wants to keep his kids and wife as passive vegetables by keeping a cool distance and denying basic acceptance. Daddy is the very example of “Man” and a very boring, straight, lackluster American ideal. The effect fatherhood has on females is that they think they are inferior and want to be more male.

The condition of torture in which women are torn between an extreme need for male love and praise and the feeling of being a fake. This is the result of the repeated failure of achieving male love and praise as a way of lifting her out of her inferior social class. Also this is the pitiful condition of men because they are unable to love.

The type of relationship where party X is nourished and supported by party Y without necessarily choosing this. The author asserts that historically men engage in this kind of relationship feeding off and living from the tremendous labors and emotional energies of women in order to produce masterpieces, go about daily life, or participate in forming “Culture.” In this way culture is like a leech feeding off women, and the typical cliche that women are living off the economic powers of men is only half true.

As a part of the oppression-maintaining apparatus of romanticism, this BGRff signifies a process in which women's group awareness as a class is limited by an emphasis on the difference and special qualities of each woman's own, specific, individualized sexuality. The purpose of this individualization is to hide, from women, their general sexual exploitation, and to hide the man's real, stereotypical, shared perspective that all women are essentially sexually alike. The author describes locker room banter among men to illustrate this stereotypical perspective, as well as the statement "I love Blondes!" A statement like this may flatter some blonde women, because they might see their blondeness as an important quality of themselves now recognized by a man, rather than something arbitrary and shared with a large number of other people.

When in an equal and mutual relation, this is a condition of revelation of another self made willingly vulnerable to both parties. In its successful manifestation, it is the feeling or state in which the inner nature of a person is mingled and traded with the inner nature of another person. It is the kernel of women's oppression and practically the only thing women live for. The author asserts that men, do not take it seriously, deny their need for it and possibly can not even do it, while women are forced to do it. Thus this BGRff means something profoundly different for a man than it means for a woman. Because of historically determined sexual inequality, an unsuccessful, failed version of this condition is the norm between the sexes. For men, female's status as an inferior class or caste, compounded with early rejections from the mother and incest taboos, make it difficult for him to submit to it unless he undergoes a processes of idealization. This idealization is different from, but often confused by the man for this BGRff. Women become aware of how to produce this idealization because their existential and psychological fates depend on it. They need to give and receive this BGRff not only because their health and happiness is defined by it, but also to embetter their social status, and even to participate in culture at all. This is because they are only able to do so indirectly and vicariously through men. The awareness of this makes women insecure of their authenticity and makes them appear parasitical or devious. The sexual revolutions that happened from the 1920s through the 1960's failed to improve this BGRff for women and men. These so-called revolutions only increased sexual exploitation by normalizing the expectation that women provide sex without receiving the former social protections (resulting from idealization: like marriage or polite demeanor for example) nor the social rewards (status and recognition, namely). The "free this BGRff" of the 60's was thusly neither free nor this BGRff.