recognized. It is crucial to theorize the difference between affect and emotion (28) [my emphasis]. In literary studies, and especially branches of literary study that draw on psychology, has a powerful genealogy from William James through Antonio “affect” Damasio, Silvan Tompkins, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and indeed Massumi himself. In such contexts, it makes sense to follow Massumi and maintain the distinction between affect and emotion. In contrast to the newly popular word is the older term “affect,” “emotion” that carries the baggage of sense” and all that this implies for what is often “common taken for granted and untheorised in literary and historical studies. The fact that studies” tend to focus on contemporary culture, rather than historical or “affect material underlines these temporal associations. Emotions tend to be aligned with traditional taxonomies such as the seven deadly sins, whereas affect is aligned with phenomenological and social inquiry. Massumi, as we saw above, registers affect as and emotion as intensity.” In such discussion, it is hard not to intensity, “qualified see emotion appearing somehow secondary, familiar, or taken-for-granted in comparison with the glamorous, newly discovered phenomenon. It sometimes seems, moreover, that those who insist on the difference between affect and emotion are attempting to move beyond the linguistic and discursive framing (or construction) of emotion. On the other hand, the affective turn is sometimes seen as the pursuing emphasis of poststructuralism and deconstruction on subjectivity, identity and the body. The term is at once, confusingly, both broader and more restricted “emotions” in range. Of all the terms it is probably the one that is used most often, across a wide
recognized. It is crucial to theorize the difference between affect and emotion (28) [my emphasis]. In literary studies, and especially branches of literary study that draw on psychology, “affect” has a powerful genealogy from William James through Antonio Damasio, Silvan Tompkins, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and indeed Massumi himself. In such contexts, it makes sense to follow Massumi and maintain the distinction between affect and emotion. In contrast to the newly popular word “affect,” “emotion” is the older term that carries the baggage of “common sense” and all that this implies for what is often taken for granted and untheorised in literary and historical studies. The fact that “affect studies” tend to focus on contemporary culture, rather than historical or material underlines these temporal associations. Emotions tend to be aligned with traditional taxonomies such as the seven deadly sins, whereas affect is aligned with phenomenological and social inquiry. Massumi, as we saw above, registers affect as intensity, and emotion as “qualified intensity.” In such discussion, it is hard not to see emotion appearing somehow secondary, familiar, or taken-for-granted in comparison with the glamorous, newly discovered phenomenon. It sometimes seems, moreover, that those who insist on the difference between affect and emotion are attempting to move beyond the linguistic and discursive framing (or construction) of emotion. On the other hand, the affective turn is sometimes seen as pursuing the emphasis of poststructuralism and deconstruction on subjectivity, identity and the body. The term “emotions” is at once, confusingly, both broader and more restricted in range. Of all the terms it is probably the one that is used most often, across a wide
trigg-exemplaria.docx