Immaterial Bodies: Affect, Embodiment, Mediation
Publication Year: 2012
How might we understand entanglements of the mind, brain, body and world? And how can we develop creative forms of experimentation to enact these entanglements?
In this unique contribution, Blackman focuses upon the affective capacities of bodies, human and non-human as well as addressing the challenges of the affective turn within social sciences. Fresh and convincing, this book uncovers the paradoxes and tensions in work in affect studies by focusing on practices and experiences, including voice hearing, suggestion, hypnosis, telepathy, the placebo effect, rhythm and related phenomena. Questioning the traditional idea of mind over matter, as well as discussing the danger of setting up a false distinction between the two, this book makes for an invaluable addition within cultural theory and the recent turn to affect.
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: The Subject of Affect: Bodies, Process, Becoming
- Chapter 2: The Crowd and the Problem of Personality
- Chapter 3: Mental Touch: Media Technologies and the Problem of Telepathy
- Chapter 4: The Re-Enchantment of Materialism: Affect and New Materialisms
- Chapter 5: Affect, Energy, Rhythm and Transmission
- Chapter 6: The Problem of Automatism: Divided Attention, Voice Hearing and Machinic Vision
- Chapter 7: Neuroscience: The Bicameral Mind and the Double Brain
Theory, Culture & Society[Page ii]
Theory, Culture & Society caters for the resurgence of interest in culture within contemporary social science and the humanities. Building on the heritage of classical social theory, the book series examines ways in which this tradition has been reshaped by a new generation of theorists. It also publishes theoretically informed analyses of everyday life, popular culture, and new intellectual movements.
EDITOR: Mike Featherstone, Nottingham Trent University
SERIES EDITORIAL BOARD
Roy Boyne, University of Durham
Nicholas Gane, University of York
Scott Lash, Goldsmiths College, University of London
Roland Robertson, University of Aberdeen
Couze Venn, Nottingham Trent University
THE TCS CENTRE
The Theory, Culture & Society book series, the journals Theory, Culture & Society and Body & Society, and related conference, seminar and postgraduate programmes operate from the TCS Centre at Nottingham Trent University.
For further details of the TCS Centre's activities please contact:
The TCS Centre
School of Arts and Humanities
Nottingham Trent University
Clifton Lane, Nottingham, NG11 8NS, UK
Recent volumes include:
The Body and Social Theory 3e
French Post-War Social Theory
The Domestic Economy of The Soul
Peer to Peer and The Music Industry
© Lisa Blackman 2012
First published 2012
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers.
SAGE Publications Ltd
1 Oliver's Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP
SAGE Publications Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
New Delhi 110 044
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd
3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub
Library of Congress Control Number: 2012931143
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Editor: Chris Rojek
Editorial assistant: Martine Jonsrud
Production editor: Katherine Haw
Copyeditor: Richard Leigh
Proofreader: Derek Markham
Marketing manager: Michael Ainsley
Cover design: Wendy Scott
Typeset by: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd
Printed in India at Replika Press Pvt Ltd
About the Author
The idea for this book started to take form in 2005 when I began reading the work of two key sociological figures of the twentieth century, Edward Ross and William McDougall, both considered foundational to the shaping of the discipline of social psychology. What preoccupied them and was part of the discursive field which circulated across the fields of psychology, sociology, philosophy, law, economics and literature was a focus on hypnotic suggestion and the potentialities and corresponding fears that accompanied this. This starting point reflects the exchanges that have been central to this book and without which it would never have been conceived. The inter-disciplinarity that was characteristic of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is one that I carry through today such that my own disciplinary location is far from settled. However, I have found an intellectual home at Goldsmiths, University of London in the Department of Media and Communications since 1994 and I thank all of my friends and colleagues at Goldsmiths for accepting my quirkiness and allowing me to pursue my interest in phenomena such as voice hearing, suggestion, affect, embodiment and subjectivity. I particularly want to thank Sara Ahmed, Sarah Kember, Joanna Zylinska and Julian Henriques for sharing ideas. To Julian I might add that you are a great support, have a remarkable generosity of spirit and are one of the very best interlocutors I could possibly ask for. I would like to thank all of my colleagues in the Department for making academic life more bearable especially Natalie Fenton, Angela McRobbie, Pasi Valiaho, Damian Owen-Board, Jacob Love and Rachel Moore. A big thanks to all those on the Q Corridor that were left behind when the Department relocated to NAB, including Gavin Butt, Nicole Wolf, Lyn Turner and Irit Roggof. I also want to thank Janet Harbord, a former Goldsmiths colleague for stimulating conversations in the early part of the book and friendship thereafter. My conversations and on-going collaborations with Couze Venn and Mike Featherstone have enriched my intellectual life. Thank you for inviting me into the fold and for trusting me with the editing of Body & Society. Thanks also to all those in the academy I have met and [Page viii]been extended by along the way, including Patricia Clough, Beverley Skeggs, Lynette Goddard, Anna Gibbs, Monica Greco, Vikki Bell, and all those feminist academics past and present who allow one to breathe a bit. Thanks to all my students who have allowed me to make my preoccupations relevant to their worlds and to Celia Jameson and Louise Chambers for camaraderie whilst teaching some of this material. A big thanks to Valerie Walkerdine for the conversations we had in Lanzarote one hot sunny August in 2006 where I started to first write two of the chapters of the book gazing out of an Artist's studio onto a view of an awe inspiring volcano. Sadly such scenes of wonder have not accompanied the writing of the latter chapters but since that time I have been lucky to meet the most wonderful partner, Isabel Waidner and it is to her that my biggest thanks go. She has been my best and most enthusiastic reader and the work and my whole being is all the better for it. This book is dedicated to her.
Preface[Page ix]Body and Affect Studies
Speed, movement, mobility, immateriality, fluidity, multiplicity and flows are all concepts that are profoundly reorganizing how the ontology of both subjectivity and corporeality are examined, understood and analysed within contemporary cultural theory. The solidity of the subject has dissolved into a concern with those processes, practices, sensations and affects that move through bodies in ways that are difficult to see, understand and investigate. The emphasis on immateriality over ideological and discursive processes is a call by some for an emancipatory politics of change. For others, this call for a paradigm shift across the humanities is undermining the capacity for ideological critique important for challenging inequities and oppressions. Cultural theory seems caught at a crossroads that is mirrored by the demands of advanced capitalism for rational subjects who are not swayed by social influences, at the same time as a suggestive realm is mobilized, created and orchestrated.
This set of circumstances is profoundly different from the concerns which inaugurated the ‘sociology of the body’ which took form during the 1980s and 1990s. The sociology of the body was characterized by a call for bodily matters to take up a central place within sociological theorizing. Since this ‘turn to corporeality’, there have been many revisions across the humanities of what the important elements of this orientation might be; this includes the foregrounding of difference, discipline, performativity, embodiment, movement, desire, kinaesthesia, the senses, and, increasingly within contemporary formulations, the posthuman, process, multiplicity, enactment, affect, life and immateriality. The latter concepts have played an important part in radically refiguring the body such that the idea that the body can be considered singular, natural or even distinctly human has been questioned in different ways. As I have argued in previous work, bodies are seen to always extend and connect to other bodies, human and non-human, to practices, techniques, [Page x]technologies and objects which produce different kinds of bodies and different ways, arguably, of enacting what it means to be human (see Blackman, 2008a).
The body is not therefore a ‘thing’ to retreat to, a material basis to explain how social processes take hold. The body has been extended to include species bodies, psychic bodies, machinic bodies, vitalist bodies and other-worldly bodies. These bodies do not conform to our expectations of clearly defined boundaries between the psychological, social, biological, ideological, economic, and technical, for example. If there is one guiding principle towards which work on the body and embodiment has moved, it is the assumption that what defines bodies is their capacity to affect and be affected. The focus upon the affective capacities of bodies, human and non-human, is extending the terrain of body studies in new and exciting directions. Although it is arguable whether such a focus will achieve the paradigm shift associated with the turn to discourse and the subsequent turn to the body within the humanities, some are proclaiming the ‘turn to affect’ as extending some of the trends that we find within body studies, directly and indirectly, in innovative ways (see Blackman, 2008a, for further discussion).
The field of body studies has proliferated since the 1980s and 1990s, now existing as a transdisciplinary locus of inquiry. Nondichotomous concepts for theorizing the body and embodiment have become central to theories and practices of art, architecture, science and technology, performance, medicine and so forth. Work on the body and embodiment has been recognized as increasingly important for the study of areas and practices which now recognize that sense-making cannot be confined to meaning, cognition or signification. Screen studies is an area where the analysis of embodied perception and sense-making is seen to be crucial to understanding how films ‘work’ (see Stacey and Suchman, 2012). Increasingly within television studies, the body's potential for mediation is foregrounded as an important aspect of understanding televisual consumption. This can be situated alongside the importance of embodiment for understanding our relationship to architecture, technology, performance, art and dance. When we add to this the importance of understanding issues perhaps seen as being more closely connected to corporeality, including our experience of medical technologies and practices such as transplantation or cosmetic surgery, and issues such as obesity and eating disorders which disclose the mediated nature of processes such as eating, studies of the body and embodiment provide an important link and focus across art, cultural and science studies.
[Page xi]The ‘turn to affect’ has become a focus for these debates to take form, particularly as they intersect with the question of how to understand the role of the body and embodiment within processes of subjectification. One focus of these debates, as many scholars have argued, is the limits of reason and rationality in understanding how power and ideological processes work. The view for some that power works ‘autonomically’, bypassing reason and criticality and seizing the body at the level of neural circuits, the nervous system, the endocrine system or other systems assumed to work independently of cognition, is an assumption that is already subject to critique. As I write this preface the historian of science Ruth Leys (2011a) has written a cogent account of some of the problems within affect studies and particularly with the view that affect is non-intentional. Affect relates to all those processes that are separate from meaning, belief or cognition and that occur at the level of autonomic, pre-conscious bodily reactions, responses and resonances. This separation is one that she argues produces a ‘materialist theory’ of the body and emotions and ignores the crucial question of how to theorize the body and embodiment in ways that do not set up a ‘false dichotomy between mind and matter’ (p. 457). This question is of course not new. The intersections and productive tensions that affect introduces to body studies and that already existing theories of the body and embodiment introduce to affect studies is one key focus of this book and will be examined in Chapter 1.
Leys (2011a) argues that what is needed to avoid the materialism of much of contemporary affect theory is what she terms a genealogy of anti-intentionalism. As we will see in Chapter 1, scholars within affect studies often link the emergence of humanities scholars’ interest in affect to the publication of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and Adam Frank's (1995) collection on the work of the American psychologist Silvan Tomkins. Tomkins was writing mainly in the 1960s, in the context of debates within psychology on the nature of emotions and whether emotions should be considered cognitive or primarily physiological in nature. Tomkins argued against cognitive appraisal theory, found in the work of the American psychologists Schacter and Singer for example, and argued that emotions were primarily inbuilt, hard-wired neurological responses that were separate and prior to cognition. Leys writes that the success of the anti-intentionalist paradigm within psychology at the time, represented by the work of Tomkins and later by the evolutionary psychologist, Paul Ekman, has become one of the accepted views of emotion that has become imported into affect studies. Leys (2011a) focuses particularly on the [Page xii]seminal work of Brian Massumi (2002a), and argues that Tomkins and Massumi share a commitment, implicitly or explicitly to what she terms the ‘Basic Emotions paradigm’ (p. 439). Leys laments the lack of attention paid by affect scholars to the conditions of possibility which led this paradigm to become authorized within psychology, and is one which she argues has been taken up within affect studies uncritically as a model for thinking affective processes. She argues that the importance of genealogy to understanding affect is important as the success of the anti-intentionalist paradigm is one that is both subject to critique and also has a relatively recent history, within and outside the psychological sciences.A Genealogy of Anti-Intentionalism
This book will intervene within these debates by taking seriously this genealogical call to respond to the supposed anti-intentionalism of affect. As Leys (2011a) argues, affect theorists have turned to the work of contemporary psychologists and neuroscientists to validate this view, as well as to a different archive of psychologists and philosophers writing at the turn of the last century, including William James, Henri Bergson and Gabriel Tarde, for example. The genealogy of anti-intentionalism that this book will write will be located within this archive, one that I primarily characterize as a ‘subliminal archive’. It is shaped by a diverse set of scientific and literary preoccupations with invisible animating forces. From the writings of James, Bergson and Tarde, the experiments in divided attention which took place at James's psychological laboratory at Harvard between a psychologist and the avant-garde literary writer Gertrude Stein, through to an interest in a seminal book written by the subliminal psychologist Frederic Myers (1903), Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death, there is a fascination with the concept of prosopopoeia; that is, how the inanimate can be animated, and how, rather than talk about singular entities, the human, for example, we might instead talk about aggregates of human and non-human actors and agencies.
The book will return to these nineteenth- and early twentieth-century debates which primarily concerned the nature of perception, selfhood and embodiment. These debates, which involved the emergent disciplines of psychology, sociology and physiology, as well as debates within the medical sciences and those made by lawyers and economists, often focused and centred upon experiences such as voice hearing, hypnotic suggestion, telepathy and related experiences. These phenomena were all seen to breach the boundaries between [Page xiii]the self and other, inside and outside, material and immaterial, human and non-human, and even dead and alive. These phenomena in the present are often viewed as irrational perceptions, or, in the case of hypnotic suggestion, as evidence that the person has lost their will and succumbed to the will of another. What all these experiences were seen to share was an ontology where the borders and boundaries between bodies, human and non-human, were considered porous and permeable, although this belief was often overlaid by a set of cultural fears and fantasies about being governed and controlled by imperceptible forces and agencies, which distribute agency between the self and other in asymmetrical ways (see Andriopoulos, 2008, for a discussion of this in relation to hypnotic suggestion).
Another interesting factor of the debates was their transdisciplinarity, with concepts, ideas and exchanges circulating across art, literature, medicine and science. One example of such exchange is found in the writings of the American psychologist and pragmatist philosopher, William James. The brother of the novelist Henry James, and son of Henry James Senior, William James originally trained as a medical doctor, before developing his interests in philosophy whilst being employed as a psychologist at Harvard University. James's interest in the humanities and sciences was not unusual; indeed, as we will see throughout the book, most influential scholars of the nineteenth century wrote on a range of eclectic subjects.
To take two examples pertinent to the book, Gabriel Tarde (1902, 1962), the French sociologist/psychologist, and Gustave Le Bon, the French loyalist and crowd psychologist, both wrote about a diverse range of subjects. This included treatises on areas as diverse as ‘tobacco, Arabian civilization, photography, socialism, education, and military psychology…, geography, archaeology, futurology and poetry’ (see Apfelbaum and McGuires, 1986: 33). This was partly because disciplinary boundaries were still very much in their infancy, but also, as I will argue throughout the book, because medical scientists, philosophers, novelists, physiologists, economists, artists and so on were all united in their interest in matters spiritual, psychic and psychopathological. That is, their understandings of embodiment, corporeality, perception, sensation, criminal responsibility, and allopathic medicine, to name some of the interests, were developed through terms and concepts that connected up studies of hypnotic trance, psychotic delusions and hallucinations with studies of mediumship, telepathy and related psychic phenomena. One of the key paradoxes of these debates that William James focused his attention on was what he termed ‘the problem of personality’. I will spend [Page xiv]some time in the next section outlining this problem as it will form a central genealogical focus of Immaterial Bodies.The Problem of Personality
William James is probably better known to contemporary readers for his poetic descriptions of consciousness as being akin to a stream – a flow of ideas, images, sensations and affects which are characterized primarily by movement. Hence the metaphor of the stream captures the fluidity and permeability of consciousness, which ripples, flows and ebbs rather than being housed by a singular unified bounded subject. The topology of subjectivity that James presents is one which views the human subject as being akin to a channel or conductor of thought, open and permeable to the other, invoking a sense of a shared collective consciousness, rather than one closed and located within atomized subjects. The ‘problem of personality’ in the nineteenth century was articulated as a particular problem of suggestive or affective communication. Interests in affective or suggestive communication were framed through a concern with how ideas, affects, beliefs, traditions and emotion could spread throughout populations with a rapidity that seemed to defy the action of logic or rationality. Philosophers such as Henri Bergson, the sociologist Gabriel Tarde, and William James all attempted to provide answers to this problem by arguing in different ways that what defined human sociality and subjectivity was the capacity of ‘ordinary suggestion’. The human subject was not self-contained, individualized, clearly bounded and separate from others, but rather the borders and boundaries between self and other were considered porous and permeable.
The invocation of a version of ‘immateriality’ to understand human subjectivity was primarily drawn from the aforementioned scholars’ interest in matters spiritual, psychic and psychopathological. They were all members of the Institute for Psychical Research and framed their understandings through terms and concepts that connected up studies of hypnotic trance, psychotic delusions and hallucinations with studies of mediumship, telepathy and related psychic phenomena. This trinity of scholars have also been resurrected by many contemporary cultural theorists who have refigured bodies as processes, defined by their capacity to affect and be affected (Despret, Massumi, Latour). As we have seen, the ‘turn to affect’ has been framed as a response to the problems of cultural inscription and discourse determinism which have been argued to show up the limits of work on text, language and discourse across the humanities. Discursive approaches are seen to have sidelined the [Page xv]body, emotion, affect and sensation in understanding communication processes. However, one key argument of Immaterial Bodies is that the paradox of personality that James identified is not resolved simply by moving to affect, unless we also engage with the parameters of the debates which concerned nineteenth- and early twentieth-century scholars. James, like many of his contemporaries, was also influenced by debates concerning the nature of will – how one could theorize and understand agency and self-determinism in the context of permeability and porousness between self and other. This paradox, which was captured by James's ‘problem of personality’, was far from resolved and entered into his musings on the nature of various concepts, such as habit and personality, and is one that I will argue resurfaces in an unacknowledged way in contemporary debates on affect and embodiment.
One way in which this paradox returns is in the thorny question of how to theorize the nature of the subject, or the complex ontologies of subjectivity that are being suggested by the renewed engagement across the humanities and social and natural sciences with affect, the non-representational and the immaterial. All of these concepts have been offered as terms which refer to registers of experience which are primarily trans-subjective (that is, they are not contained by bounded singularly human subjects), which introduce the noncognitive into our theorizing of perception, knowing and sense-making, and which demand collaborations across disciplinary boundaries in order to reinvent new ways of being human, and develop new concepts for exploring embodiment and experience. The concept of embodiment is one central to body studies which is, as we have seen, a transdisciplinary area of study which grew from the sociology of the body, and now involves work across a diverse range of arts, humanities and science-based disciplines (see Chapter 1).Art, Science and Humanities Research
The potential links and collaborations across cultural and science studies have of course not had an entirely amicable relationship. Once the subject of the infamous ‘science wars’ (Sokal and Bricmont, 1998), it is often forgotten that transdisciplinary collaborations are more common than such divisions might imagine or suggest. In a recent book written by the Australian psychologist Philip Bell (2010), which harks back to these wars, body studies and cultural studies become the subject of vehement attack. That a psychologist might be threatened by scholars from the humanities offering a revision of psychological concepts such as perception, habit and affect is perhaps [Page xvi]understandable, given the investment by psychology in retaining a truth value for the theories it produces. However, what is more surprising is the lack of attention given to the histories of transdisciplinary engagement across the humanities and sciences, which have become part of psychology's forgotten history of emergence. Indeed, this attack on the humanities becomes even more insidious in the context of the UK coalition government's attacks on and devaluation of arts and humanities research as having little economic impact or value. Indeed, the decision to remove or reduce funding for arts, humanities and social science research and teaching within the university sector assumes that there have always been clear divisions between the humanities and sciences. That through an act of ‘cleansing’ one can remove humanities research, reduced at best to the ‘social aspects’ of science, technology and medicine, and retain a purified notion of science as one that does not need the arts and humanities for its own development, innovation, creativity and success.
As many have argued, this rigid demarcation and division is one ideologically driven by marketization and privatization and shows an ignorance of how science and humanities research are informed and influence each other. Innovation and creativity do not come from the demands of the market; rather histories of scientific progress and creativity come as much from ‘paradigm shifts’ identified by Thomas Kuhn in the 1960s as the impact of cultural beliefs, ideas and concepts on the framing of scientific concerns and experimentation. One example of this in the context of the exchange between the psychological sciences and media cultures has been identified by Anna McCarthy (2009) in her examination of the exchanges which took place between the famous American experimental social psychologist, Stanley Milgram, and Allen Funt, the creator and producer of Candid Camera, one of the first reality TV programmes in the 1970s. Candid Camera employed hidden cameras and used simulation and deception in the form of ‘staged pranks’ for comedic value. The deception enacted on the unwitting participant would be revealed at the end of the prank by the invitation to ‘Smile, you're on Candid Camera’. McCarthy shows how Stanley Milgram turned to Funt's work as a model for his own forms of social psychological experimentation into the nature of conformity and obedience.
What is important to signal in this preface is that histories of exchange and collaboration are integral to scientific forms of experimentality, not simply an adjunct that can be removed and isolated without damaging the very innovation, creativity and critical thinking that enable scientific thinking to develop. The subject of transdisciplinary exchange is one that is at the heart of this book, and I hope [Page xvii]will act as a cautionary reminder to those who might think and act otherwise. Indeed, as Michel Foucault cogently taught us, histories of progress are never simply histories of the unfolding of some purist notion of scientific truth. Histories of the present are histories of how what we might be tempted to isolate as the ‘internal’ and external’ conditions which allow understanding to emerge can never be demarcated in this way. There is no ‘internal’ that can be isolated from the ‘external’ and in that respect the distribution and circulation of concepts, ideas, beliefs, understandings and forms of action within and across science, art and culture are integral to the emergence of knowledge practices such as science, medicine and those that might be more easily dismissed by some as of lesser value, namely culture and the arts. An understanding of past collaborations across such demarcations is crucial to understanding where and how we might invent new concepts for understanding who and what we are and, indeed, might be allowed to become.
One context of transdisciplinary engagement important for this book is one that coalesced around the ‘problem of affective transfer’ and the importance of spiritualist and psychic research for understanding problems common to emerging humanities-based and scientific disciplines during the late nineteenth to mid twentieth centuries. That is, from discussions of media technologies, such as early cinema, the radio and the printing press, through to discussions of crime, perception, hypnotic suggestion, psychopathology, instinct, habit, electricity, and communication systems such as the wireless and telegraphy, what was shared across knowledge practices, such as philosophy, science and medicine, was an understanding that sense-making, whether conducted by animals, spirits, machines or humans, occurred in registers which extended across time and space. This sense-making was considered difficult to see and articulate, and as thoroughly collapsing the boundaries between self and other, animate and inanimate, inside and outside, and human and non-human.
This observation is of course not new; many arguments have already been made regarding the importance of nineteenth-century spiritualist research for understandings of cinema as a hypnotic medium (Andriopoulos, 2008; Crary, 1990), or television as an ‘occult domestic phenomenon’ (Andriopoulos, 2005: 622; Sconce, 2000). Possibly less well known are the centrality of spiritualist arguments for understandings of habit, instinct and perception as they were shaped and formed as concepts during the emergence of the psychological sciences at the turn of the last century. Charles Bingham Newland, a biologist by training who exerted a profound influence on Edward McDougall, considered one of the founding figures of [Page xviii]American social psychology, published a book in 1916, What is Instinct? Some Thoughts on Telepathy and Subconsciousness in Animals (Bingham Newland, 1916). He used the analogy of the Marconi wireless system to understand the basis of instinctual behaviour amongst non-human species. The Marconi wireless system was ‘a material apparatus tuned to transmit and receive the intangible through space’ (p. 1). The focus on immaterial processes of communication, which he argued had been reduced to instinctual forces within physiology (located within different species nervous systems), obscured the way that the ‘seen and unseen are closely connected’ (p. 6).
The unseen or immaterial equated for Bingham Newland to an instinctive subconscious mind which was shared by a group and provided the conditions for the rapid, automatic, group behaviour which could be observed in nesting, migration, herding activity, stampedes, homing instincts, swarming and so forth. Thus, the kinds of foresight and sensing that might be found amongst insects, moths, flies, birds and fish (all the subject of Bingham Newland's book) were all evidence of the basis of instinctual behaviour within telepathic processes such as teleaesthesia. Teleaesthesia was defined as ‘perception at a distance or power of vision transcending time and space’ (Bingham Newland, 1916: 189). In other words, instincts were not simply hard-wired biological drives, to be understood by physiology, but represented complex systems of communication or affective transfer, which were shared, transmitted and co-constituted between members of species. Thus, the idea of telepathic rapport, or action at a distance, was a common way to understand communication processes, whether the discussion was focused on machines, animals, insects, humans or technologies. The idea of telepathic transfer largely became discredited, overtaken by an increasing focus on what were billed as more rational communication processes. These were represented in the psychological sciences by concepts such as the attitude (see Rose, 1985). However, arguably the cultural fantasies conveyed by telepathic transfer have refused to go away.Affect
Within the contemporary context of cultural theory, the ‘turn to affect’ is one arena within which such fantasies have arguably resurfaced. The primacy of affect as an important yet under-researched process and mechanism of subject formation is one that has provided the kind of common ontology linking the human with the natural sciences, that links affect back to both spiritualist research in the nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries, and to cybernetics research from [Page xix]the 1940s through to the 1970s (see Blackman, 2010a). Both spiritualist research and cybernetics provided occasions for the kind of inter-disciplinarity that is forming around the subject of affect within the present. The Macy conferences held between 1946 and 1953 brought together physicists, mathematicians, electrical engineers, physiologists, neurologists, experimental psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists and anthropologists to discuss a range of topics which were made intelligible through the development of the concept of information enshrined within information theory (Weiner, 1989).
Some hundred years previously, the subject of spiritualist research had also provided opportunities for cross-pollination and transdisciplinary collaboration in relation to the ‘problem of communication’. This context brought together scientists, engineers, anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, medical doctors, physicists, spiritualists and psychiatrists to discuss telepathy and its relevance for understanding communication processes. The problem of communication as it was presented by studies of telepathy was articulated through a concern with forms of communication that crossed borders and boundaries between the human and the non-human, the material and the ephemeral, the self and the not-self, and the living and the dead. The concept of telepathic rapport travelled across emergent disciplines, and also appeared within medical, legal and literary contexts which invoked communication as a largely intangible, immaterial process. These three contexts (spiritualism, cybernetics and contemporary media cultures) all provide important surfaces of emergence for examining corporeality in the present. Attending to this will extend our understandings of the subject of affect and embodiment, common to both contemporary research in the neurosciences and the humanities. This must do justice to what Stefan Andriopoulos (2005: 637) has termed the ‘half-hidden borrowings’ from spiritualist and psychic research that have largely been forgotten.Haunting(s)
Avery Gordon (2008) has invoked the concept of haunting as of important methodological significance for sociological theorizing. In the foreword to Gordon's book, Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination, Janice Radway concurs with Gordon's calls for a renewed attention in humanities research to how certain things, entities, processes or ideas have become ‘marginalised, excluded or repressed’ (Gordon, 2008: 4). Gordon shifts the focus on the ‘visible and the concrete’ characteristic of empiricist methodologies to those aspects of our ‘complex personhood’ (p. viii) that have been lost. In a [Page xx]reconfiguration of genealogical research shared by other feminist sociologists such as Vikki Bell (2007), Gordon makes an argument that disrupts the usual focus in Foucauldian genealogical study on historical discontinuities, arguing that what is missed in such methodological framings are those aspects of historical continuity that are passed and transmitted through silences, gaps, omissions, echoes and murmurs.
Vikki Bell uses the concept of lineage or intergenerationality to point towards what tends to be left out by genealogical analysis. She suggests that although we might uncover historical discontinuities between different epistemes, this approach wilfully denies, through its historical method, the way in which affects, trauma, forms of shame and so forth are communicated intergenerationally. Turning to critical race studies and Gilroy's illuminating work on diaspora, she re-establishes the importance in this context of exploring how this background of felt dispositions is commemorated and routed (Gilroy, 1993). She describes these as ‘those relations that are neither simply of identification nor of alterity, that is, those of genealogical connection’ (Bell, 2007: 33). This is about ‘generational carnal connection’ (Bell, 2007: 37), relationships and dispositions which are transmitted by mediums and practices other than the speaking subject: this might include film, television, photographs, fiction and less inscribed, more embodied practices of remembering (Connerton, 1989).
This focus on ‘hauntings’ and the concept of intergenerational transmission is important in two ways for this book. In a focus on the hauntings which pervade the shaping and emergence of the psychological sciences, I am interested in how specific concepts and phenomena such as habit, suggestion, voice hearing, instinct, will and affect became shaped and formed in specific ways. This shaping, as we will see throughout the book, took place in a context where spiritualist and psychic research was prominent, and although psychology was largely to reject such immaterial matters, it is haunted by the disavowals and refusals that have characterized its project. The genealogy at the heart of this book then shares with other genealogies of subjects that attempt to revise and offer what we might term a post-psychological reinvention of what psychology claims as its subject matter. This includes the important genealogical work of the Belgian anthropologist Vincianne Despret (2004a, 2004b) on affect and emotion, and of Ruth Leys (2000, 2007, 2010a, 2011a), the historian of science who has taken psychological matters such as trauma and, in a more contemporary context, affect and emotion as her focus.
This work is set alongside genealogical studies and cultural histories that take perception (Crary, 1990), will and inhibition (Smith, 1992), [Page xxi]distraction (Swanson, 2007), autonomy (Rose, 1999), the double brain (Harrington, 1987), the bicameral mind (Jaynes, 1976; McGilchrist, 2009), habit (Camic, 1986), and suggestion (Chertok and Stengers, 1992; Orr, 2006) as their focus. This transdisciplinary work, coming from disciplines as diverse as art history, anthropology, sociology, the neurosciences, philosophy and cultural studies, has also offered humanities scholars productive and inventive ways of theorizing and analysing embodiment. This work has contributed to an exchange and circulation of ideas that I hope my own work can extend, specifically in the context of contemporary debates in relation to affect and embodiment.Voices
In previous work, I undertook a genealogy of voice hearing (Blackman, 2001, 2007a), taking a phenomenon that has largely been specified, understood and acted upon within the psychological and psychiatric disciplines and approached largely as a sign of irrational perception. My own work in this area, in collaboration with the Hearing Voices Network, has helped problematize the view that voice hearing is merely a meaningless epiphenomenon of a disease process. The Hearing Voices Network, in conjunction with service users, professionals who are willing to listen, as well as scientists willing to concede that there is more to voice hearing than mapping the brain through imaging technologies and brain scans, have impacted upon the practice of psychiatry itself. It is now more common to find voice-hearing groups as part of outpatient psychiatric services, encouraging voice hearers to focus on their voices, listen to them and share them with other group members.
When I started my research on the phenomenon of voice hearing in the early 1990s in the UK, the view held by psychiatric professionals, which seemed absolutely intractable at the time, was that voices were simply signs of disease and that if you talk to the voice hearer about their voices you will simply be reinforcing their diseased and troubled reality (see Blackman, 2001, 2007a). I am glad to say that this view is no longer the predominant view of many psychiatric professionals, some of whom, led by the pioneering work of the Dutch psychiatrists Marius Romme and Sandra Escher, are now more open to exploring voices as communications. This has been consolidated in a co-edited book, Living with Voices: 50 Stories of Recovery (Romme et al., 2009), which brings together the views and practice of Romme and Escher with the accounts of service users, including Jacqui Dillon (the current Chair of the Hearing Voices [Page xxii]Network), and other psychological practitioners willing to listen to voice hearers. The arguments made in the book will be the subject of Chapter 6 – set alongside contemporary neuropsychological work, and that coming from more marginal areas of the psychological sciences. These are areas which are all challenging some of the dominant paradigms of brain research, which still approach voice hearing as a brain deficit to be mapped by brain-imaging techniques and scans (see Chapter 7).
The work I will explore reconfigures voice hearing as a different way of knowing; a form of communication that perhaps connects the voice hearer to alterity. This presumption has been inspirational for projects such as Grace Cho's (2008) beautiful and aptly haunting account of her own experience of the intergenerational transmission of memory. This project was undertaken within the discipline of cultural studies, and is situated within contemporary debates on affect that are taking form across the neurosciences and humanities. Cho takes the concept of voice hearing as a modality of knowing that cannot be reduced to irrationality or disease. Rather, such a modality of communication, she suggests, discloses our fundamental connectedness to each other; to our pasts, and even to past histories that cannot be known. These might be histories that are never or barely articulated, but importantly are communicated, albeit non-representationally, through silence and secrecy.
Cho's study is a way of linking up what Davoine and Guadilliere (2004) term histories beyond trauma. That is, connecting up those histories that have never be told, authorized or documented within official histories, such as the forgotten Korean War, with micro-histories of trauma and shame. Davoine and Guadilliere are analysts who have worked for over three decades with psychosis. Many analysts are reluctant to work with hallucinatory phenomena, preferring instead to work within the confines of language and ideation. Davoine and Guadilliere have pioneered work within studies of the intergenerational transmission of trauma, particularly approaching psychosis as an attempt to bring into existence a social trauma that has been foreclosed. This is an attempt to explore precisely those carnal generational connections that exist genealogically but which cannot be articulated. For Davoine and Guadilliere the subject is always a subject of history, even though those histories may have been cut out of what they call ‘the sanctioned social narrative’ (p. xii).
Cho's study will also form one of the bases of Chapter 6, and is an example of the second way in which the concept of ‘haunting’ is integral to the approach developed within this book. Haunting is [Page xxiii]both a methodological and analytic tool, as evidenced in the preceding discussion, but also refers in this book more explicitly to the phenomena which will form the subject of the book: suggestion, voice hearing and telepathy, as well as other experiences, such as the bicameral mind (Jaynes, 1976) which suggest some kind of transport, under particular conditions, between the self and other, inside and outside, and material and immaterial. The self is literally haunted by another; indeed, if the phenomena I examine are examples of haunting, this may be the normative ontology of the subject. These phenomena and the scientific and humanities-based research I will examine suggest a very different paradigm for understanding some of the ontologies of subjectivity being introduced by affect studies; this might include Karan Barad's relational ontology and Patricia Clough's quantum ontology, for example.The Double
In the afterword to the relaunch special issue of the journal Body & Society on affect, Clough (2010a) says that relational ontologies are problematic, and argues instead that quantum ontologies are more useful for imagining affective processes. Quantum ontologies are seen to ‘enact intra-actions that are not in the world, but are of the world’ (Parisi, 2004). This statement by Parisi is intended to show the focus of quantum ontologies on novelty based on singular events that can never be repeated again. What we have here is a reification of movement as the defining feature of becoming, whereas relational ontologies are seen to be too fixated on individuation – on the one rather than the many. This is akin to William James's focus on consciousness as a stream; what Parisi terms the ‘specious present’ acknowledging James's work. However, as I have argued throughout this preface, this focus on one aspect of James's theorizing obscures his simultaneous focus on the ‘problem of personality’; on how individuals live singularity in the face of multiplicity, or what I am also going to term, throughout the book, the problem of being ‘one yet many’ (see also Blackman, 2008b). This question has been framed in the present as the question of how we can be ‘more than one and less than many’, or how we can ‘hang together’ in light of the multiple possibilities of becoming that exist. The paradoxes and puzzles that this creates in offering a relational and processual account of corporeality and subjectivity are one of the focuses of this book.
This problem moves critique in a different direction to that which has perhaps become instantiated by Deleuzian perspectives – that is, [Page xxiv]particularly as they have been taken up by corporeal feminists such as Elizabeth Grosz and Rosi Braidotti in their calls for developing non-dualistic language and thought. The paradigm that will form the subject of this book is one that is very influenced by neuroscientific work on the double brain and bicameral mind. These are concepts linking work on the phenomena of suggestion, voice hearing and telepathy in the present (see Chapter 7). This work suggests that rather than reify either movement or individuation, we need to attend to that fact that we can be both one yet many, depending upon the different milieux that produce the possibility of experience. This more ecological approach to subjectivity recognizes the brain's capacity for both individuation and multiplicity, and is starting to challenge many of the assumptions that are entrenched across psychology, biology and the neurosciences. Work on the double brain has not been given much attention by humanities scholars, despite calls for more collaboration across the humanities and neurosciences.
This book will explore the importance of the paradigm of the double, rather than neuroscientific work on the double brain per se, for extending contemporary understandings of embodiment and affect. The paradigm of the double will take as its focus a number of key sites and surfaces of emergence for discussion. These are sites which are all marked by a transport or traffic between the self and other, material and immaterial, science and culture, and inside and outside. These sites include the crowd (Chapter 2), the séance and telepathy, particularly in the context of debates about emerging media technologies (Chapter 3), the clinical and therapeutic encounter (Chapters 4 and 5) and live performance and theatre (Chapter 5). What is important, the book will argue, is a re-engagement with what has been obscured, silenced and occluded in conceptions of immateriality that reduce the psychic to the body through understandings that privilege the brain or neurobiological body (see Cromby et al., 2011). This is a developing orthodoxy across cultural theory where the neurosciences and biological sciences have become authorized knowledge practices for validating the shift to affective bodies. The problems with this will be engaged through a genealogical analysis that will take this shift to affect as the subject of its inquiry (see Chapter 1).
There are many articles and a growing number of books engaging with this shift. These include a focus on the emancipatory potential and possible limits of affect, and calls for transdisciplinary work that creates a dialogue or conversation between the humanities and the sciences (particularly the life, neurological and psychological sciences). [Page xxv]This is the subject of Immaterial Bodies that it is hoped will offer a different way through these debates. I will ask what is being forgotten, silenced, erased and occluded in the contemporary turn to affect. It has become fairly commonplace for humanities scholars to draw on particular psychological concepts to theorize communication and cultural transmission, including perception, habit, memory, the senses and so forth. This book will explore what attending to experiences which always already open the subject to the other – suggestion, voice hearing and telepathy – might offer in the way of theorizing the thorny question of how we might understand the body's potential for mediation. This is set within the context of increasing evidence that suggests that bodies cannot be reduced to materiality and that the body's potential for psychic or psychological attunement – what I am terming ‘immateriality’ – is one that the turn to affect must adequately theorize.
Excerpt Credits[Page xxvi]
Excerpt from Laing, R.D. (1970) Knots, p83, reprinted with kind permission of the publishers Random House, United States and Routledge Taylor & Francis, United Kingdom.
Excerpt from BORN BAD (copyright © 2003 debbie tucker green) reprinted with permission of the publisher, Nick Hern Books: http://www.nickhernbooks.co.uk.
As I finish this book, work on affect is further intensifying, characterized by a volume of critique and counter-critique exploring the status of affect in the biocultural organization of perception (see Connolly, 2011a, 2011b; Leys, 2011c; Wetherell, 2012). My own contributions are largely to be qualified by what emerges from these debates. I hope that the genealogy written in this book can open the ambivalent duality that affect affords to further genealogical and critical inquiry. One direction is suggested by a recent commentary on the significance of the writings of the nineteenth-century sociologist Gabriel Tarde (see Candea, 2010). Andrew Barry extends Tarde's interest in hypnosis by refocusing attention on the importance of mediation in his writing. As we have seen throughout this book, Tarde, along with his contemporaries, such as James and Bergson, was interested in hypnotic suggestion as a possible ontology of the social. However, as Barry (2010) argues, Tarde's interest in hypnosis was also methodological. As well as using a model of hypnosis to understand processes of subjectification, he also saw in hypnosis a set of experimental procedures and practices for producing suggestion. As well as a possible ontology of the social, his interest in hypnosis was also technical. As Barry (2010: 182) argues: ‘Hypnosis did not merely record a process of suggestion and imitation; it produced the forms of inter-psychological relationship which Tarde wished to observe’.
This echoes the approach I have been developing throughout the book to what I have termed ‘threshold phenomena’. That is, our understanding of what comes to matter cannot be separated from the fundamental technicity of affectivity. Although one definition of bodies to come out of affect studies is the capacity of bodies to affect and be affected (see Chapter 1), the invocation of concepts such as flow to understand such processes is problematic. Flow implies some kind of continuous passage or movement which in some perspectives is equated to the realm of the virtual – that which is seen to exceed and exist as a pre-autonomic intensive remainder (see Chapters 1 and 3). Although this breaks down distinctions between the human and the non-human, there are problems with the status of subjectivity within these accounts. It is assumed that affect does not require a subject, whilst at the same time minimal theories of subjectivity are assumed, implicitly and explicitly, which require [Page 184]examination. One of these is the distinction made between affect and cognition, where affect is aligned to non-intentionality (see also Leys, 2011a).
As we saw in Chapter 1, there is a tension in accounts which wish to displace the centrality of the human, but rely on often unexamined assumptions about the place of the brain, nervous system and endocrine system, in the production and conduction of affective processes. The non-intentionality of affect is therefore seen to bypass cognition, and is located within forms of bodily affectivity, requiring rather materialist conceptions of affectivity in order to displace the subject; this might include mirror neurons and so forth (Thrift, 2010). Neuroscience becomes a privileged knowledge practice within such accounts in order to explain such processes. These unexamined assumptions point towards the importance of reinventing our concept of experimentation and not simply deploying positivist experiments from the neurosciences or the cognitive or psychological sciences in order to authorize affect (see also Callard and Papoulias, 2010). These problems will be examined in the next section where I want to engage with recent debates within critical neuroscience in order to frame my own engagement with brainhood. This will situate my discussion of the double brain and the concept of bicameral consciousness and my reasons for resurrecting this neglected archive. My focus will be on what questions, issues and research programmes a re-engagement with this archive opens up for the sciences and humanities.Neuroscience
With the rise in the popularity and standing of neuroscience, reflected by the increase in public engagement and funding, the interest in the brain and brainhood among scholars from the arts, social sciences and humanities is also increasing. The status of the neurosciences as having a unique purchase on the question of what it means to be human is also accompanied by the development of critique, particularly in the form of what has come to be known as ‘critical neuroscience’ (Choudhury et al., 2009). The prefix ‘critical’ in front of a scientific knowledge practice has a long history. One form of engagement is reflected by those within and sometimes outside the discipline of psychology, who align themselves with the project of ‘critical psychology’ (see Blackman et al., 2008). Critical psychology and neuroscience share a focus on developing critique of the methodologies used within both experimental psychology and the neurosciences [Page 185]for examining brainhood. I am using the term ‘brainhood’ following Fernando Vidal (2009), who draws parallels with the genealogical work on the psychological sciences carried out by the British sociologist Nikolas Rose. Rose (1999) developed the concept of the ‘autonomous self’ as a way of examining the normative image of personhood that became embedded and produced within psychology, which became central to strategies of governance and regulation such as neoliberalism (see also Henriques et al., 1984). Rose (2007) has more recently extended his genealogical analyses to the neurosciences, with his figurations of neurochemical and somatic selfhood. Similarly, Vidal uses the concept of the ‘cerebral self’ as an ‘anthropological figure’ (2009: 5) to emphasize the historical formation of the concepts and explanatory structures which are enacted within knowledge practices such as the neurosciences.
The impact of the ‘psychology’ of neoliberalism is one that has equally shaped the formation of the neurosciences. As Vidal (2009: 7) argues:
The individualism characteristic of western and westernized societies, the supreme value given to the individual as autonomous agent of choice and initiative, and the corresponding emphasis on interiority at the expense of social bonds and contexts, are sustained by the brain-hood ideology and reproduced by neurocultural discourses.
He argues that practices such as brain imaging which have become integral to most neuroscientific practice, evidence and experimentation, enact such an anthropological figure. What is important, he argues, is to challenge how neuroscience has taken form in the present. This requires a focus on the historical conditions of possibility which have led to the brain being considered an entity which can be mapped, isolated, measured and observed. That is, as a substance that can be separated from mind, body and world and primarily explained through neuronal or physicochemical processes. Despite the attachment of brain-imaging studies to mapping areas of the brain in terms of location and function, one of the emergent concepts of the brain to challenge such a rigid topography of the brain-as-entity has come from studies of brain imaging itself. As Vidal (2009: 19) cogently argues:
At the same time, these techniques confirm the anatomical, functional and developmental evidence that the brain is neither a mosaic of punctuate sites, nor a hard-wired collection of neuronal circuits, but an array of interconnected and parallel networks, highly plastic and capable of repairing itself.
[Page 186]The concept of brain plasticity is one that has taken form from the recognition of the influence of context on brain imaging. As Catherine Malabou (2008) has argued, localization of brain function, which has driven brain-imaging studies, is no longer considered a ‘rigid topography’ (see also Chapter 7). This has led to a delocalization of function with the acknowledgement that brain imaging also maps temporarily activated networks of neuronal connections. However, one of the problems with the confrontation of neuroscience by the plasticity of the brain itself is precisely how to incorporate this insight into experimental design and interpretation of findings. I will argue that this work foregrounds mind – matter relations, although the ‘neuronal’ is largely figured as a system separate from the ‘mental’, and to that extent reproduces many of the problems with the split between intentionality and non-intentionality that has characerized contemporary neuroscience (see also Leys, 2011b). The brain has largely been refigured as malleable potential rather than fixed entity, although the implications of this for brain – body – world relations have not yet been realized. Although brain plasticity is increasingly becoming one of the dominant concepts of the neurosciences, Malabou argues that this in itself has led to something of an impasse when considering just how to enact, understand and extend such a concept. In the next section I want to consider some of Malabou's arguments in more detail, particularly as they connect with some of the questions, issues and problems my own engagement with the double brain and bicameral consciousness has brought to the foreground.Another Plasticity
Catherine Malabou is primarily a philosopher, influenced by Derrida, Deleuze, Heidegger and also contemporary neuroscience. Her more recent work has engaged with the significance of the concept of brain plasticity for contemporary politics (2008, 2010). Her book, What Should We Do With Our Brain?, repeats a refrain that, she argues, carries the ambivalence at the heart of contemporary neuroscientific engagement with brain plasticity. The refrain, ‘the brain is a work, and we do not know it’ is returned to throughout the book. The repetition of this phrase, she argues, captures the failure of current neuroscientific conceptions of brain plasticity to animate the potential of this concept. She argues that this is because the neuroscientific community is tied to what she terms a specific ‘neuronal ideology’ (2008: 11). This ideology is one which she associates with [Page 187]neoliberal forms of capitalism which align plasticity to flexibility. Neuroplasticity challenges the understanding that the brain should be equated to a machine in terms of function and processing. The notion that the brain is a kind of command control centre is displaced by a number of concepts, including the concepts of network and flow, which refigure the brain as more adaptable and mobile, refigured as flexible process. However, Malabou argues that the concept of flexibility is governed by a number of presuppositions that need examining if plasticity is to do justice to the historicity of brainhood itself. She invites the reader to consider the question ‘What should we do so that consciousness of the brain does not purely and simply coincide with the spirit of capitalism?’ (2008: 12). It is this question that I would like to comment on in light of arguments made throughout my book. I want to argue that the continuities between the subliminal archive of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the rearticulation of similar problems, issues and questions within debates on the double brain and bicameral consciousness explored in the previous chapter, are important to displace the centrality of a particular version of plasticity-as-flexibility. This archive is part of neurology's forgotten history and enacts changing conceptions of brainhood which cannot be contained by the translation of plasticity into flexibility.
The ‘economy of flexibility’ (Malabou, 2008: 46) that governs neuroscientific discourse is one that circulates and appears across a range of sites and practices. Malabou specifically ties this to a discourse of management, aligning the model of the brain enacted within neuroscience to the ‘entrepreneur of flexible labour’ (p. 49). The shift in organizational development and management is captured by practices such as ‘change management’, which position the manager as a facilitator, enhancing or more commonly coaching employees to develop their capacities for adaptability and flexibility. The flexible employee is required to be lean, agile, constantly on the move and able to respond anew to changing organizational conditions. This is mimicked by a flatter organizational structure characterized as supple rather than as a fixed, centralized, hierarchical system. Malabou argues that the brain is modelled on such a formulation, equating plasticity to flexible adaptation naturalizing a logic which has become a neurological hegemony. In previous work I have explored how the logic underpinning the concept of brain plasticity is one also produced through the explanatory structures of computational neuroscience (see Blackman, 2005; see also Chapters 4 and 5). This includes the computational modelling and simulation of a variety of [Page 188]cognitive processes, including thinking and remembering by computer networks. These networks have been considered self-emergent and autonomous such that a concept of flexibility is an a priori structure built into the systems. These systems are seen to mimic brain activity reconceived as non-linear and polysemic. The brain is seen to be characterized by ‘dialogicity’ and enacts new forms of exclusion reproducing what Malabou (2008: 53) terms ‘an extremely normalizing vision of democracy’.The Dialogical Self
Malabou (2008) explores the forms of social exclusion which are enacted in relation to the imparting of dialogicity to the brain. Following Manuel Castel's (2002) book, From Manual Workers to Wage Laborers: Transformation of the Social Question, she explores how particular social groups, such as the long-term unemployed, are aligned to immobility, seen as lacking the (dialogical) skills to enact their own flexible adaptation. As many cultural theorists have shown, habit or avoidance of fixation has become the shadowy ‘other’ to the injunction of flexibility within neoliberal forms of governmentality (Bauman, 2000; Sennett and Cobb, 1988). The inability to enact the capacity to be ‘one yet many’ becomes a problem of information processing or dialogicity aligned to the mind viewed as an expression of brain. Malabou asks what ontology of selfhood underpins this conception of brain plasticity-as-flexibility. She argues that despite synaptic plasticity, what is integral to many neuroscientific theories which work with plasticity is the invocation of some kind of proto-self which is seen to orchestrate coherence. Thus approaches such as those of Damasio (see Chapter 4) impute a non-conscious self which permits ‘a synthesis of all the plastic processes at work in the brain’ (Malabou, 2008: 58). Thus mentalist and cognitivist conceptions of selfhood are at play in addressing the problem of personality, of how one can achieve coherence or unity in the face of multiplicity, for example. Malabou rightly argues that the mentalist conceptions of selfhood which lie in the background orchestrating unity are based on interpretations and analyses which are insufficiently developed. She equates them, such as in the work of Damasio, to psychological forms of Darwinism (Malabou, 2008: 65). As we can see, flexibility is not without limits, but ultimately these limits are based on ascribing psychological capacities and characteristics to a singularly bounded individual. The problem of the psychic or psychological lies in the background, haunting analyses which for many affect theorists have been offered [Page 189]as a possible model for explaining affective communication (see Chapters 1 and 4).The Future of Affect Studies
As I finish this book I do not want to argue that we should simply replace one ontology with another – relational with quantum, or neuronal with subliminal, for example (see Chapter 1). Georgie Born (2010), in her recent commentary on my engagement with Tarde (Blackman, 2007b), has rightly argued that we should be cautious in importing ontologies of personhood or life that claim to ‘know’ in some way who and what we are. She equates this to a form of ‘ontological projection’ (Born, 2010: 233), and argues for the importance of ethnographies which can access the ‘cosmologies of others’ (p. 232). I am not arguing that we replace rationality with suggestion, or anti-mimesis with mimesis. I want to be more circumspect in relation to the view that affect can be simply aligned with the non-cognitive. This split between affect and cognition has its own genealogies, to which I hope this book has partially contributed. I do, however, think that the challenges of concepts of the double brain and bicameral consciousness have not been fully realized within either the neurosciences or the humanities’ engagement with brainhood. I want to return to one of Mike Featherstone's (2010) questions explored in Chapter 1 about the distinction between mirror vision and movement vision. What is important to adequately theorize is how precisely subjects move between these different registers. This requires a different conception of embodiment which is neither fully open nor closed. One of the implications of the genealogy constituted within this book is the importance of refiguring bodily potentialities as thresholds which require mattering processes to take form. Thresholds introduce leaps, gaps, tensions, ruptures and conflicts to conceptions of change and transformation, avoiding the dangers of aligning plasticity to flexibility (see also Malabou, 2008). Thresholds also direct our attention to mediation, but, as I have argued throughout this book, mediation requires extension by the development of more creative and inventive approaches to experimentation. This is in contrast to simply authorizing approaches to the brain, mind, body and world which originate within positivist forms of experimentation characteristic of the psychological and neurosciences.
This is more than simply saying that any collaborative inquiry between the neurosciences and the humanities will be hampered by [Page 190]the problem of method (Cromby, 2007). Choudhury et al. (2009) have argued for the importance of reflexivity with a call to neuroscientists to critically examine their own scientific practices, forms of experimental design and the social contexts within which they work. They argue for the importance of historical contextualization in order to reflect on the paradigms, concepts and explanatory structures which have become imported into neuroscientific practice. As well as recognizing the importance of developing creative and critical forms of experimentation what becomes central to such research programmes and projects is collaboration across the sciences, arts and humanities. As these areas are separated out due to the funding of teaching and research across the university sector in the UK and elsewhere, the need for distributed forms of alliance which can model affect, embodiment and mediation in innovative ways is all the more urgent. As we have seen throughout this epilogue, the modelling of plasticity within the neurosciences and its import as a concept into affect studies is often tied to neoliberal conceptions of personhood (see also Blackman, 2010a). As many such as Claire Hemmings (2005) have argued, the current interest in affect is one which promises to emancipate the subject from social constraint, and thus to sideline theories and (paranoid) theorists who might wish to explore affect as an enduring mechanism of social reproduction. This oscillation between affect as openness and affect as regulation is reproduced in the ambivalent duality which characterizes what I have termed ‘threshold phenomena’.
As we have seen throughout this book, suggestion, voice hearing and other phenomena that might be characterized in this way enact both a subject's openness to the other, and a set of cultural fears and fantasies about possession or being governed by another's gaze. Andriopoulos (2008) has made a cogent argument as to why possession must be inserted into cultural histories of modernity. This is particularly so if we are to fully realize the importance of phenomena such as suggestion to modelling possible ontologies of the self and social. One interesting historical trajectory that work on the double has taken is in the work of Du Bois (1903), writing in the same context as William James and his contemporaries (see Chapter 6). As Paul Gilroy (1993) has argued, Du Bois developed the concepts of double consciousness to theorize the condition of being a colonial subject within modernity. As Gilroy (1993: 120) argues, black music became a ‘cipher for the ineffable, sublime, pre-discursive and anti-discursive elements in black expressive culture’. Thus black expressive [Page 191]culture was seen to transmit those elements which were produced out of the ambivalence and conflicts surrounding the colonial stereotype (see Bhabha, 2004). These include the ties and connections that bind intergenerationally and point towards the continuities that circulate across space and time. These are attachments that might not necessarily be spoken or easily articulated and yet are embodied in complex ways. Gilroy's (1993) illuminating work on diaspora re-establishes in this context the importance of exploring how this background of felt dispositions is commemorated and routed. As Vikki Bell (2007: 32) has argued, these are ‘those relations that are neither simply of identification nor of alterity, that is, those of genealogical connection’ (see also Blackman, 2011a, in relation to theorizing affect and performance).
As an alternative model of plasticity, concepts of the double brain and bicameral consciousness reintroduce ‘dialectical tension’ (Malabou, 2008: 82) into the politics of affect, and recognize the ambivalences at the heart of modernity. Rather than affect not needing a subject, my conclusion is that the turn to affect invites us to develop models of the psychic, psychological and subjectivity which extend our conceptions of mind, brain, body and world across space and time. This model must adequately deal with the enduring problem of how to theorize the relationships between mind and matter. The problem of personality is not over, neither has it been fully resolved in the current turn to affect. There is much work in body studies, on situated cognition (Suchman, 2007), the extended mind (Clark and Chalmers, 2008), and related perspectives, which have done much to distribute cognition across space. Cognition within such approaches is distributed between human and non-human agencies and actors and therefore taken out of a singularly bounded psychological subject. One question which might be asked of this work is how to think about affective relations which might be transmitted across time, and which are not so easy to map or model (see Manzotti, 2011). This for me is one of the important legacies of the subliminal archive that forms the central focus of this genealogy. The problem of ‘the one and the many’ and how to think this ambivalent duality is central to thinking about processes of subjectification within contemporary neoliberal forms of governmentality. This is the subject that affect requires. It is one of the unacknowledged conditions of possibility for some of the current work on affect and embodiment that promises to transform our conceptions of life, the body, the human and politics. This genealogy as yet cannot be written.
Bibliography[Page 192][Page 206]2005) Internationalizing Cultural Studies: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.and (1994) The Shell and the Kernel: Renewals of Psychoanalysis, Volume 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.and (2004) The Cultural Politics of Emotion. London and New York: Routledge.(2006) Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(2010) The Promise of Happiness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(2001) ‘Tarde intempestif’, Multitudes, 7 (December): 171–176. Translated as ‘The difference and repetition of Gabriel Tarde’, http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/csisp/papers/tarde/alliez.pdf (accessed October 2007). http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/mult.007.0171(1924) Social Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.(2005) ‘Psychic television’, Critical Inquiry, 31(3): 618–637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/430987(2008) Possessed: Hypnotic Crimes, Corporate Fiction and the Invention of Cinema. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226020570.001.0001(1999) Germinal Life: The Difference and Repetition of Deleuze. London and New York: Psychology Press.(2001) ‘Pure reserve: Deleuze, philosophy and immanence’, in M.Bryden (ed.), Deleuze and Religion. London and New York: Routledge.(1989) The Skin Ego. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.(1986) ‘Models of suggestive influence and the disqualification of the social crowd’, in C.F.Graumann and S.Moscovici (eds), Changing Conceptions of Crowd Mind and Behaviour. New York: Springer-Verlag.and (1958) The Theatre and Its Double. New York: Grove Weidenfeld.(1993) Batteries of Life: On the History of Things and their Perception in Modernity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1971) The Poetics of Reverie. Boston: Beacon Press.(2007) Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(1981) Distorting Mirrors: Visions of the Crowd in Late Nineteenth Century France. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.(2005) ‘Pharmaceutical matters. The invention of informed materials’, Theory, Culture & Society, 22(1): 51–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276405048433(2010) ‘Tarde's method: Between statistics and experimentation’, in M.Candea (ed.), The Social after Gabriel Tarde: Debates and Assessments. London and New York: Routledge.(1983) In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities: Or, the End of the Social and Other Essays. New York: Semiotext(e).(2000) Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1985) The Body Electric. New York: William Morrow and Co.and (2010) Confronting Theory: The Psychology of Cultural Studies. Chicago: Intellect, The University of Chicago Press.([Page 193]2007) Culture and Performance. The Challenge of Ethics, Politics and Feminist Theory. Oxford: Berg.(2002) ‘Cerebral activity associated with auditory verbal hallucinations: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study’, Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 27(2): 110–115., , and (1976) The Body Electric: Patterns of Western Individual Culture. London: Thames and Hudson.(1889) Essai Sur Les Donne′ s Imme′diates de la Conscience. Paris: Felix Alcan.(1911) Creative Evolution. London: Henry Holt and Co.(1920) Mind-Energy. Lectures and Essays. New York: H. Holt.(1935/1977) The Two Sources of Moral and Religion. London: Macmillan.(1946) The Creative Mind: An Introduction to Metaphysics. New York: Kensington Publishing Group.(2010) ‘Cruel optimism’, in M.Gregg and G.J.Seigworth (eds), The Affect Theory Reader. Durham. NC: Duke University Press.(2004) The Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge.(2001) Hearing Voices: Embodiment and Experience. London: Free Association Books.(2004) ‘Self-help, media cultures and the problem of female psychopathology’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 7(2): 241–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367549404042496(2005) ‘The dialogical self, flexibility and the cultural production of psychopathology’, Theory and Psychology, 15(2): 183–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354305051363(2006) ‘Inventing the psychological: Lifestyle magazines and the fiction of autonomous selfhood’, in J.Curran and D.Morley (eds), Media and Cultural Theory. London and New York: Routledge.(2007a) ‘Psychiatric cultures and bodies of resistance’, Body & Society, 13(2): 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X07077770(2007b) ‘Reinventing psychological matters: The importance of the suggestive realm of Tarde's ontology’, Economy and Society, 36(4): 574–596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085140701589455(2008a) The Body: The Key Concepts. London and New York: Berg.(2008b) ‘Affect, relationality and the problem of personality’, Theory, Culture & Society, 25(1): 27–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276407085157(2008c) ‘Is happiness contagious?’, New Formations63: 15–22.(2009) ‘The re-making of sexual kinds: Queer subjects and the limits of representation’, Journal of Lesbian Studies, 13(2): 122–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10894160802695312(2010a) ‘Embodying affect: Voice-hearing, telepathy, suggestion and modelling the non-conscious’, Body & Society, 16(1): 163–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X09354356(2010b) ‘Introduction: Bodily integrity’, Body & Society, 16(3): 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X10376150(2011a) ‘Affect, performance and queer subjectivities’, Cultural Studies, 25(2): 183–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2011.535986(2011b) ‘This is a matter of pride: The choir: Unsung town and community transformation’, in H.Wood and B.Skeggs (eds), Reality TV and Class. Basingstoke: BFI and Palgrave.(‘Habit and affect: A forgotten history’. Body & Society, special issue on habit (in press).(forthcoming)2010) ‘Technologies of mediation and the affective: A case study of the mediated environment of MediacityUK’, in D.Hauptmann and W.Neidich (eds), Cognitive Architecture: From Biopolitics to Noopolitics. Architecture and Mind in the Age of Communication and Information. Amsterdam: 010 Publishers.and (2010) ‘Affect’, Body & Society, 16(1): 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X09354558and ([Page 194]2001) Mass Hysteria: Critical Psychology and Media Studies. Basingstoke: Palgrave.and (2008) ‘Creating subjectivities’, Subjectivity, 22: 1–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/sub.2008.8, , , and (1923) Textbook of Psychiatry. London: Alien.(1963) Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. London: Ox Bow Press.(2006) My Stroke of Insight: A Brain Scientist's Personal Journey. http://Lulu.com.(2009) ‘Touch, time and technics: Levinas and the ethics of haptic communication’, Theory, Culture & Society, 26(2–3): 333–345.(2005) ‘Urban imitations: Tarde's sociology revisited’, Theory, Culture & Society, 22(3): 81–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276405053722(2006) ‘The exclusion of the crowd. The destiny of a sociological figure of the irrational’, European Journal of Social Theory, 9(1): 83–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368431006060464(2010) ‘On Tardean relations: Temporality and ethnography’, in M.Candea (ed.), The Social after Gabriel Tarde. London and New York: Routledge.(1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.(1990) Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion. London: Routledge.(2001) Metamorphoses: Towards a Materialist Theory of Becoming. Cambridge: Polity Press.(2006) Transpositions: On Nomadic Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.(2004) The Transmission of Affect. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.(2009) Psychology without Foundations: History, Philosophy and Psychosocial Theory. London: Sage.and (2001) ‘Introduction’, in M.Bryden (ed.), Deleuze and Religion. London and New York: Routledge.(1991) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality: With Two Lectures and an Interview with Michel Foucault. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226028811.001.0001, and (1990) ‘Sects and death’, in I.Stang (ed.), Three Fisted Tales of ‘Bob’. Ladylake, FL: Fireside.(1993) Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’. London: Routledge.(2010) ‘Biology's gift: Interrogating the turn to affect’, Body & Society, 16(1): 29–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X09355231and (1986) ‘The matter of habit’, American Journal of Sociology, 91(5): 1039–1087. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/228386(2009) ‘Rhythms of the suggestive unconscious’, Subjectivity, 26: 29–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/sub.2008.35(2010) ‘Telepathy and its vicissitudes: Freud, thought transference and the hidden lives of (the repressed and non-repressed) unconscious’, Subjectivity, 3: 402–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/sub.2010.22and (Candea, M. (ed.) (2010) The Social after Gabriel Tarde. London and New York: Routledge.2004) ‘Ambiguous Traces, Mishearing and Auditory Space’, in V.Erlmann (ed.) Hearing Cultures. Essays on Sound, Listening and Modernity. Oxford, New York: Berg.(2002) From Manual Workers to Wage Laborers: Transformation of the Social Question. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.([Page 195]1992) A Critique of Psychoanalytic Reason: Hypnosis as a Scientific Problem from Lavoisier to Lacan. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.and (2008) Haunting the Korean Diaspora: Shame, Secrecy, Silence and the Forgotten War. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(2009) ‘Critical neuroscience: Linking neuroscience and society through critical practice’, Biosocieties, 4: 61–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1745855209006437, and (1970) ESP, Seer and Psychics: What the Occult Really Is. New York: Crowell.(2008) Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action and Cognitive Extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333213.001.0001(2008) ‘The extended mind’, in A.Clark, Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action and Cognitive Extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333213.001.0001and (1994) Syncope: The Philosophy of Rapture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(2007) The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.with (2008) ‘The affective turn: Political economy and the biomediated body’, Theory, Culture & Society, 25(1): 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276407085156(2010a) ‘The affective turn: Political economy, biomedia and bodies’, in M.Gregg and G.J.Seigworth (eds), The Affect Theory Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(2010b) ‘Afterword: The future of affect studies’, Body & Society, 16(1): 222–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X09355302(Clough, P. and Wilse, C. (eds) (2011) Beyond Biopolitics: Essays on the Governance of Life and Death. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.2009) A Body Worth Defending: Immunity, Biopolitics and the Apotheosis of the Modern Body. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(2008) ‘The becoming of bodies. Girls, media effects, and body image’, Feminist Media Studies, 8(2): 163–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680770801980547(1989) How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628061(2002) Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed (Theory Out Of Bounds). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(2011a) A World of Becoming. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(2011b) ‘The complexity of intention’, Critical Inquiry, 37(4): 791–798. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/660993(2003) The Book of Skin. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.(2004) ‘Edison's teeth: Touching hearing’, in V.Ehlmann (ed.), Hearing Cultures: Essays on Sound, Listening and Modernity. New York: Berg.(1988) ‘On the dignity of tables’, Critical Inquiry, 14(4): 765–783. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/448465(1999) Suspensions of Perception: Attention, Spectacle and Modern Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(2007) ‘Integrating social science with neuroscience: Potentials and problems’, Biosocieties, 2: 149–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1745855207005224(2011) ‘Editorial: Neuroscience and subjectivity’, Subjectivity, 4(3): 215–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/sub.2011.13, and (2000) Advertising and Consumer Citizenship: Gender, Images and Rights. London and New York: Routledge.(2001) The Social Body: Habit, Identity, Desire. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446219867([Page 196]1994) ‘Words from the Holy People: A Case Study in Cultural Phenomenology’, in T.Csordas (ed.) Embodiment and Experience. The Existential Ground of Culture and Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(2008) ‘Intersubjectivity and intercorporeality’, Subjectivity, 22: 110–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/sub.2008.5(2001) ‘Knowing one's enemy: Deleuze, Artaud, and the problem of judgement’, in M.Bryden (ed.), Deleuze and Religion. London and New York: Routledge.(1994) Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. London: Putnam.(2000) The Feeling of What Happens: Body, Emotion and the Making of Consciousness. London: Vintage.(1909) On the Origin of Species. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(2004) History Beyond Trauma. New York: Other Press.and (2006) The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.(1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(1990) Logic of Sense. New York: Columbia University Press.(1994) Difference and Repetition. New York: Columbia University Press.(1983) Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.and (1986) ‘Julian Jaynes's software archaeology’, http://www.julianjaynes.org/pdf/dennett_jaynes-software-archeology.pdf.(2004a) ‘The body we care for: Figures of anthropo-zoo-genesis’, Body & Society, 10(2–3): 111–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X04042938(2004b) Our Emotional Make-up: Ethnopsychology and Selfhood. New York: Other Press.(1999) ‘Activation of Heschl's Gynos during auditory hallucinations’. Neuron, 22(3): 615–621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273%2800%2980715-1, , , , and (1998) ‘Emotional contagion and social judgement’, Journal of Motivation and Emotion, 22(3): 187–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022368805803(2006) A Voice and Nothing More. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1983) Managing the Mind. London: Tavistock.(1903) The Souls of Black Folk. Chicago: A.C. McClurg and Co.(1891) ‘Das automatische Schreiben’. Sphinx. 6, 11: 65–70, 152–160, 201–207.(2004) Hearing Cultures: Essays on Sound, Listening and Modernity. New York: Berg.(2006) Darwin and Facial Expression: A Century of Research in Review. Los Altos, CA: Malor Books.(1970) The Discovery of the Unconscious. New York: Basic Books.(2006) The Matrixial Borderspace. Theory out of Bounds, Volume 28. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(1995) ‘Psychical violence: Suggestion and the ethics of psychoanalysis’, unpublished MA dissertation, Kent University.(Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University (1909) (eds), Studies in History, Economics and Public Law. Volume 33. New York: Columbia University Press.2004) The Consuming Body. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446250648(1990/2007) Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446212424([Page 197]2010) ‘Body, image and affect in consumer culture’, Body & Society, 16(1): 193–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X09354357(1997) ‘Me and my shadows: On the accumulation of body images in Western society: Part 1’, Body & Society, 3(3): 1–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X97003003001(2003) Abnormal: Lectures at the College de France, 1974–1975. New York: Picador Press.(1990) ‘Bringing Bodies Back in: A Decade Review’Theory, Culture and Society, 7(1): 131–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026327690007001007(2010) Letting Stories Breathe: A Socio-Narratology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226260143.001.0001(2005) Inventive Life: Approaches to the New Vitalism. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446213377, and (1922) Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. New York: Boni and Liveright. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11327-000(2005) How the Body Shapes the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0199271941.001.0001(2001) ‘Riding: Embodying the centaur’, Body & Society, 70(4): 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X01007004001(1974) ‘The effects of noise on the performance of simultaneous interpreters: Accuracy of performance’, Acta Psychologica, 38: 159–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918%2874%2990031-6(2008) ‘Panic! Affect Contagion, Mimesis and Suggestion in the Social Field’. Cultural Studies Review, 14(2): 130–145.(2010) ‘After affect: Sympathy, synchrony, and mimetic communication’, in M.Gregg and G.J.Seigworth (eds), The Affect Theory Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.(1993) The Black Atlantic. Modernity and Double Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(2006) ‘William James on divine intimacy: Psychical research, cosmological realism and a circumscribed re-reading ofThe Varieties of Religious Experience’, History of the Human Science, 19(2): 1–21.(2007) Staging Black Feminisms: Identity, Politics, Performance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230801448(2001) ‘The scattering of time crystals: Deleuze, mysticism and cinema’, in M.Bryden (ed.), Deleuze and Religion. London and New York: Routledge.(1959) Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.(2008) Ghostly Matters: Haunting the Sociological Imagination. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(2009) Media Audiences: Television, Meaning, Emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748624171.001.0001(2001) Critical Social Psychology: An Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.and (1975) Trance, Art and Creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation, State University College.(1998) Illness as a Work of Thought: Foucauldian Perspective on Psychosomatics. London: Routledge.(1974) Ecstasy: A Way of Knowing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.(Gregg, M. and Seigworth, G.J. (eds) (2010) The Affect Theory Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.[Page 198]1984) Molecular Revolution: Psychiatry and Politics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1995) Chaosmosis: An Ethico-aesthetic Paradigm. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.(1998) Mad Travellers: Reflections on the Reality of Transient Mental Illness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1994) Emotional Contagion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., and (2005) ‘The answerability of memory: “Saving” Khmer classical dance’, in A.Abbas and J.N.Erni (eds), Internationalizing Cultural Studies: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.(2006) Bodies in Code: Interfaces with Digital Media. London and New York: Routledge.(1991) Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London and New York: Routledge.(2007) When Species Meet: Posthumanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(1987) Medicine, Mind and the Double Brain: A Study in Nineteenth Century Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(2006) ‘The many meanings of the placebo effect: Where they came from, why they matter’, Biosocieties, 1: 181–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1745855206050216(Hauptmann, D. and Neidich, W. (eds) (2010) Cognitive Architecture: From Biopolitics to Noopolitics. Architecture and Mind in the Age of Communication and Information. Amsterdam: 010 Publishers.1999) How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226321394.001.0001(2011) ‘Messages suppressed by culture do not cease to exist’, in A.Gallagher (ed.), Susan Hiller. London: Tate Publishing.(2005) ‘Invoking affect: Cultural theory and the ontological turn’, Cultural Studies, 19(5): 548–567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09502380500365473(2010) ‘The vibrations of affect and their propagation on a night out on Kingston's dancehall scene’, Body & Society, 16(1): 57–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X09354768(2011) Sonic Bodies: Reggae Sound Systems, Performance Techniques and Ways of Knowing. London and New York: Continuum.(1984) Changing the Subject: Psychology, Social Regulation and Subjectivity. London: Methuen., , , and (2007) Self-Transformations: Foucault, Ethics and Normalized Bodies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195310535.001.0001(2010) ‘Meeting with the microcosmos’, Environment and Planning D: Space and Society, 28: 36–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d2706wsc(1906) Self-Help. A Hundred Years Ago. London: Swan Sonnenschein.(Howes, D. (ed.) (2009) The Sixth Sense Reader. Oxford and New York: Berg.2008) ‘Conceptualising the maternal-fetal relationship in reproductive immunology’, in K.Kroker, P.M.H.Mazumdar and J. F.Keelan (eds), Crafting Immunity: Working Histories of Clinical Immunology. Aldershot: Ashgate.(1986) Foucault: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.(1961) ‘Tarde's Psychologie Economique: An unknown classic by a forgotten sociologist’, American Journal of Sociology, LXVI(6): 553–559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/223004([Page 199]1999) ‘Conation as an important factor of mind’. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/conation/conation.html (accessed 12 December 2011).(2010) The Shaking Woman or A History of My Nerves. New York: Henry Holt.(1961) The Doors of Perception and Heaven and Hell. Penguin: London.(2011) The Watch Man. Balnakiel. London: Film and Video Umbrella.(1890) The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Co.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11059-000(1902) Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. London and Bombay: Longmans, Green and Co.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10004-000(1991) Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(1935) Wish and Wisdom: Episodes in the Vagaries of Belief. New York: D. Appleton-Century.(1976) The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.(1999) ‘Machinic vision’, Critical Inquiry, 26: 27–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/448951(1967) Foundations of Social Psychology. New York: Wiley.and (2002) ‘The Hopi in me: The construction of a voice in the dialogical self from a cultural psychological perspective’, Theory and Psychology, 12: 161–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354302012002627(2001) Sarah Kane: Complete Plays. London: Methuen.(2008) Reality TV, Affect and Intimacy: Reality Matters. Basingstoke: Palgrave.(1977) ‘Julian Jaynes: Portrait of the psychologist as a maverick theorizer’. Psychology Today, 11.(1990) Discourse Networks 1800/1900. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.(1919) Dementia Praecox and Paraphrenia. Edinburgh: E. and S. Livingstone.(1989) ‘Gesture: Practice or communication?’, in T.Polhemus (ed.), Social Aspects of the Human Body. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1985) The Power of the Image: Essays on Representation and Sexuality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.(Kuijsten, M. (ed.) (2006) Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness: Julian Jaynes’ Bicameral Mind Theory Revisited. Henderson, NV: Julian Jaynes Society.2009) ‘Skin and self: Cultural theory and Anglo-American psychoanalysis’, Body & Society, 15(3): 3–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X09339099(1970) Knots. New York: Pantheon Books.(1985) Wisdom, Madness and Folly: The Making of a Psychiatrist 1927–1957. London: Macmillan.(2004) ‘Spiritualism and a mid-Victorian crisis of evidence’, Historical Journal, 47(4): 897–920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X04004030(1979) The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. New York: Norton.(1961) Ecstasy. London: Cresset Press.(2002) ‘Gabriel Tarde and the end of the social’, in P.Joyce (ed.), The Social in Question: New Bearings in History and the Social Sciences. London and New York: Routledge.([Page 200]2004) ‘How to talk about the body? The normative dimensions of science studies’, Body & Society, 10(2–3): 205–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X04042943(2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1968) High Priest. London: World Publishing.(1973) The Politics of Ecstasy. London: Granada Publishing.(2002) ‘The dialogical brain: Contributions of emotional neurobiology to understand the dialogical self’, Theory & Psychology, 12: 175–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354302012002628(1896) The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. London: T. Fisher Unwin.(1993) ‘Mead's voices: Imitation as foundation, or, the struggle against mimesis’, Critical Inquiry, 19(2): 277–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/448675(2000) Trauma: A Genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226477541.001.0001(2007) From Guilt to Shame: Auschwitz and After. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(2010a) ‘How did fear become a scientific object and what kind of object is it?’, Representations, 110(1): 66–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/rep.2010.110.1.66(2010b) ‘Navigating the Genealogies of Trauma, Guilt and Affect: An Interview with Ruth Leys’, University of Toronto Quarterly, 79(2): 656–679. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/utq.79.2.656(2011a) ‘The turn to affect: A critique’, Critical Inquiry, 37(3): 434–472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/659353(2011b) ‘On Catherine Malabou's “What Should We Do with Our Brain?,” June, http://nonsite.org.(2011c) ‘Affect and intention: A reply to William E. Connolly’, Critical Inquiry, 37: 799–805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/660994(1956) Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.and (1996) ‘Reason and necessity in the specification of the multiple self’. Occasional Paper No. 43, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.(2002) The Invention of Telepathy, 1870–1901. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1995) Prosthetic Culture: Photography, Memory and Identity. London and New York: Routledge.(2002) ‘Narrative structure in psychosis: Schizophrenia and disruptions in the dialogical self’, Theory & Psychology, 12: 207–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354302012002630and (2008) What Should We Do With Our Brain?New York: Fordham University Press.(2010) Plasticity at the Dusk of Writing: Dialectic, Destruction, Deconstruction. New York: Columbia University Press.(2007) Politics of Touch: Sense, Movement, Sovereignty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(2010) ‘Always more than one’, Body & Society, 16(1): 117–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X09354128(2011) ‘The spread mind: Seven steps to situated consciousness’, Journal of Cosmology, 14: 4526–4535.(1986) Origins of Sex: Three Billion Years of Genetic Recombination. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.and (1999) ‘The self as a dynamical system’, Non-linear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 3(4): 311–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021958829905(2010) ‘Microchimerism in the Mother(land): Blurring the borders of body and nation’, Body & Society, 16(3): 23–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X10373404([Page 201]2007) Bipolar Expeditions: Mania and Depression in American Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(2007) ‘Chinese pictograms and the bicameral mind’, The Jaynesian, 1(1): 8–10.and (1954) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.(2002a) Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(Massumi, B. (ed.) (2002b) A Shock to Thought: Expression after Deleuze and Guattari. London and New York: Routledge.2010) ‘The future birth of the affective fact: The political ontology of threat’, in M.Gregg and G.J.Seigworth (eds), The Affect Theory Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(1879) Pathology of the Mind. London: Macmillan and Co.(2009) ‘Stanley Milgram, Allan Funt and me: Post-war social science and the “first wave” of reality TV’, in S.Murray and L.Ouellette (eds), Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture. New York: New York University Press.(1910) An Introduction to Social Psychology. London: Methuen.(2009) The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.(1992) Foucault and Feminism. Cambridge: Polity Press.(2001) Irresistible Dictation: Gertrude Stein and the Correlations of Writing and Science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.(2006) ‘Automaticity: A conceptual and theoretical analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, 132: 297–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.297and (1985) The Age of the Crowd: A Historical Treatise on Mass Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(Murphy, G. and Ballou, R.O. (eds) (1960) William James on Psychical Research. New York: Viking Press.1903) Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death, Volume 1. New York, London and Bombay: Longmans, Green and Co.(2000) Being Singular Plural. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.(2007) Listening. New York: Fordham University Press.(1916) What is Instinct? Some Thoughts on Telepathy and Subconsciousness in Animals. London: John Murray. http://dx.doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.54246(1990) Electrifying America: Social Meanings of a New Technology. 1800–1940. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.(2006) Panic Diaries: A Genealogy of Panic Disorder. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(1968) The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution. New York: Bantam.(1985) Ericksonian Hypnosis: A Handbook of Clinical Practice. New York: Irvington Publishers.(2004) Abstract Sex: Philosophy, Bio-technology and the Mutations of Desire. London: Continuum.(2003) ‘Spirits of Modernity: Alfred Wallace, Edward Taylor and the Visual Politics of Facts’, in B.Meyer and P.Pels (eds), Magic and Modernity: Interfaces of Revelation and Concealment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.(1999) Speaking into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication. Chicago: Chicago University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226922638.001.0001([Page 202]2005) ‘Introduction’, in A.Abbas and J.N.Erni (eds), Internationalizing Cultural Studies: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.(1987) Mind-Forg'd Manacles: A History of Madness in England from the Restoration to the Regency. London: Athlone Press.(2005) ‘The spirit(s) of science: Paradoxical positivism as religious discourse among spiritualists’, Science as Culture, 14(1): 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09505430500087705(1986) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage.and (2011) ‘The dancing body-subject: Merleau-Ponty's mirror stage in the dance studio’, Subjectivity, 4: 183–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/sub.2011.4(2006) Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality. New York: Pocket Books.(1929) ‘An investigation of a mind-reading horse’. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 23: 449–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0072225and (1983) War in the Nursery. London: Virago.(2009) ‘The Mesmerism investigation and the crisis of sensationist science’, in D.Howes (ed.), The Sixth Sense Reader. Oxford and New York: Berg.(1961) On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.(Romme, M. and Escher, S. (eds) (1993) Accepting Voices. London: Mind.2009) Living with Voices: 50 Stories of Recovery. Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books, in association with Birmingham City University., , , and (1985) The Psychological Complex: Psychology, Politics and Society in England, 1869–1939. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.(1990) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Routledge.(1996) Inventing Ourselves: Psychology, Power and Personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752179(1999) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self,(2nd edition. London: Free Association Books.2007) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the 21st Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1966) Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.(1909) Social Psychology: An Outline and Source Book. New York: Macmillan.(1980) Psychoanalysis Never Lets Go. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.(2011) ‘Do voices matter? Vocality, materiality, gender performativity’, Body & Society, 17(1): 31–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X10394669(2009) The Sartorialist. London: Penguin.(2006) ‘The poetics of communication’, in J.Curran and D.Morley (eds), Media and Cultural Theory. London and New York: Routledge.(1998) ‘The Voice from the Void. Wireless Modernity and the Distant Dead’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 1(2): 211–232.(2000) Haunted Media: Electronic Presence from Telegraphy to Television. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(1994) Tendencies. London and New York: Routledge.(1995) Shame and its Sisters: A Silvan Tomkins Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.and ([Page 203]2003) Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(2010) ‘An inventory of shimmers’, in M.Gregg and G.J.Seigworth (eds), The Affect Theory Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.and (1988) The Hidden Injuries of Class. New York: Random House Press.and (2008) The Five Senses: A Philosophy of Mingled Bodies. London: Continuum.(2009) The Corporeal Turn: An Interdisciplinary Reader. Exeter: Imprint Academic.(2011) ‘Embodied minds or mindful bodies: A question of fundamental, inherently inter-related aspects of animation’, Subjectivity, 4(4): 451–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/sub.2011.21(2003) The Body and Social Theory,(2nd edition. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/97814462154701898) The Psychology of Suggestion: A Research into the Subconscious Nature of Man and Society. New York: D. Appleton and Co.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10578-000(2006) In Yer Face Theatre: British Drama Today. London: Faber and Faber.(1992) ‘The genesis of the individual’, in J.Crary and S.Kwinter (eds), Incorporations. New York: Zone Books.(2005) L'Individuation à la lumière des notions de forme et d'information. Grenoble: Millon.(2008) ‘Oh goodness I am watching reality TV: How methods make class in audience research’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 11(1): 5–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367549407084961, and (2010) ‘Hand transplants and bodily integrity’, Body & Society, 16(3): 69–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X10373406and (1864) Self Help, With Illustrations of Character and Conduct. London: John Murray.(1992) Inhibition: History and Meaning in the Sciences of Mind and Brain. Berkeley: University of California Press.(2010) ‘Living a phantom limb: On the phenomenology of bodily integrity’, Body & Society, 16(3): 51–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X10373407(1998) Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. New York: Picador.and (1896) ‘Normal motor automatism’, Psychological Review, 3: 492–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0066163and (1976) ‘Skills of divided attention’, Cognition. 4: 215–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277%2876%2990018-4, , (2012) Special Issue on ‘Animation and Automation – The Liveliness and Labours of Bodies and Machines, Body & Society, 18(1) March. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X11431845and (1997) Power and Invention: Situating Science. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.(2008) ‘Experimenting with refrains: Subjectivity and the challenge of escaping modern dualism’, Subjectivity, 22: 38–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/sub.2008.6(2008) ‘A.N. Whitehead and subjectivity’, Subjectivity, 22: 90–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/sub.2008.4(1985) The Interpersonal World of the Infant. New York: Basic Books.(2003) The Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound Reproduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(1998) Techniques and Time: The Fault of Epimetheus No. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.(2007) Human Machine Reconfigurations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.([Page 204]1979) ‘“Personality” and the making of twentieth-century culture’, in J.Higham and P.Conkin (eds), New Directions in American Intellectual History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.(1985) Culture as History: The Transformation of American Society in the Twentieth Century. London: Pantheon.(2007) ‘Shattered into a multiplicity of warring functions: Synthesis, disintegration and distractibility’, Intellectual History Review, 17(3): 305–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17496970701622556(1902) Psychologie Économique. Paris: Felix Alcan.(1962) The Laws of Imitation, trans. R.Howell. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.(1969) On Communication and Social Influence. Chicago: Chicago University Press.(1993) Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses. London and New York: Routledge.(2002) ‘Introduction’, in W.James, Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. London and New York: Routledge.(Tenenbaum, G. and Ekland, R.C. (eds) (2007) Handbook of Sport Psychology. Oxford: R. C. Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/97811182700112004) Biomedia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(2005) The Global Genome: Biotechnology, Politics and Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(2010) After Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226793733.001.0001(2004) ‘Intensities of feeling: Towards a spatial politics of affect’, Geografiska Annaler, 86B(1): 55–76.(2007) Non-Representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. London and New York: Routledge.(2008) ‘I just don't know what got into me: Where is the subject?’, Subjectivity, 22: 82–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/sub.2008.1(2010) ‘Understanding the material practices of glamour’, in M.Gregg and G.J.Seigworth (eds), The Affect Theory Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(2009) ‘The erotics of telepathy: The British SPR's experiments in intimacy’, in D.Howes (ed.), The Sixth Sense Reader. Oxford and New York: Berg.(2003) ‘The new Tarde: Sociology after the end of the social’, Theory, Culture & Society, 20(5): 81–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02632764030205004(1872) Illustrations of the Influence of the Mind upon the Body: In Health and Disease. London: Churchill.(1892) Dictionary of Psychological Medicine, Volumes 1 and 2, A–H. London: Churchill.(1996) The Body and Society: Explorations in Social Theory,(2nd edition. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/97814462143292010) Mapping the Moving Image. Gesture, Thought and Cinema (circa 1900). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.(2010) ‘An interpersonal approach to emotion in social decision making: The emotions as social information model’, in M.P.Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 42. San Diego, CA: Academic Press., and (2010) ‘Individuation, relationality, affect: Rethinking the human in relation to the living’, Body & Society, 16(1): 129–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X09354770([Page 205]2009) ‘Brainhood, anthropological figure of modernity’, History of the Human Sciences, 22(1): 5–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0952695108099133(1903) Spiritualism. Is Communication with the Spirit World an Established Fact?London: Isbister and Co. Ltd.and (1990) Schoolgirl Fictions. London: Verso.(2010) ‘Communal beingness and affect: An exploration of trauma in an ex-industrial community’, Body & Society, 16(1): 91–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X09354127(2001) Growing Up Girl: Psychosocial Explanations of Gender and Class. Basingstoke: Palgrave., and (1997) ‘Ghosting the interface: Cyberspace and spiritualism’, Science as Culture, 6(3)8: 414–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09505439709526476(2011) ‘Physiognomy, reality television and the cosmetic gaze’, Body & Society, 17(4): 27–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X11410455and (1973) The Natural Mind. London: Jonathan Cape.(1989) Cybernetics: or, The Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1999) Body Images: Embodiment as Intercorporeality. London: Routledge.(2012) Affect and Emotion: A New Social Science Understanding. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446250945(1938) Modes of Thought. Free Press.(1979) Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Free Press.(2010) ‘Affective processes without a subject: Rethinking the relation between subjectivity and affect with Spinoza’, Subjectivity, 3(3), 245–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/sub.2010.15(1977) Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(2004) Psychosomatic: Feminism and the Neurological Body. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(2006) ‘The work of anti-depressants: Preliminary notes on how to build an alliance between feminism and psychopharmacology’, Biosocieties, 1: 125–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S174585520505012X(2010) Affect and Artificial Intelligence. Seattle: University of Washington Press.(2011) ‘Neurological Entanglements: SSRI's and Suicidal Ideation’, Subjectivity, 14(3): 277–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/sub.2011.12(2008) ‘Notes on ethical scenarios of self on British “reality” TV’, Feminist Media Studies, 4(2): 205–208.and (Wood, H. and Skeggs, B. (eds) (2011) Reality TV and Class. Basingstoke: BFI and Palgrave.2006) ‘Julian Jaynes: Introducing his life and thought’, in M.Kuijsten (ed.), Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness: Julian Jaynes’ Bicameral Mind Theory Revisited. Henderson, NV: Julian Jaynes Society, pp. 13–68.and (