Well, at least Massumi decided to put down the thesaurus he attacked the introduction with. Once Massumi starts to tone down the adjectives and gets down to his theory, it almost starts to make sense. But for me to understand it, I am going to try and unpack what he is trying to say.
Intensity. Massumi uses this word a lot, and uses several different comparisons and descriptions to explain it. I have gathered the different quotes using intensity from chapter 1 together to hopefully gain some perspective on his meaning.
...the strength or duration of the image's effect could be called its intensity." (p24)
"Intensity is qualifiable as an emotional state, and that state is static - temporal and narrative noise. It is a state of suspense, potentially of disruption. It is like a temporal sink, a hole in time, as we conceive of it and narrativize it. It is not exactly passivity, because it is filled with motion, vibratory motion, resonation. (p26)
"Intensity is the unassimilable" (p27)
"For present purposes intensity be equated with affect." (p27)
"...emotion and affect -if affect is intenisty- follow different logics and pertain to different orders" (p27)
"Emotion is qualified intensity, the conventional, consensual point of insertion of intensity into semantically and semiotically formed progressions, into narrativizable action-reaction circuits, into function and meaning. It is intensity owned and recognized. It is crucial to theorize the difference between affect and emotion. If some have the impression that affect has waned, it is because affect is unqualified. As such it is not ownable or recognizable and is thus resistant to critique." (p28)
My interpretation from this is that he is using intensity as a way to separate the similar ideas of emotion and affect. For Massumi affect seems to be similar to emotion, but less definable. As he says, emotion is "intensity owned and recognized." He also says that "intensity should be equated with affect." But he also says that "emotion and affect... follow different logics" What I take all of this to mean is that intensity seems to be like a pie. A slice of the pie is emotion. It is the defined, and understood part of intensity. Affect is the rest of the pie. We feel its effects, but we do not understand them, and we do not have words for them.
Speaking of words lacking, Massumi mentions (I think, but I cannot seem to find where I read it) the lack of appropriate language or words to describe affect. So for a possible solution I propose: amotion.
Emotion. noun. (as defined by Merriam-Webster)
a: the affective aspect of consciousness.
b: a state of feeling
c: a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body
Amotion: noun. (as defined by me)
a: the affective aspect of sub-consciousness
b: an unfeeling state
c: a unconscious mental reaction subjectively unknowingly experienced in a way that cannot be described, because it is undefinable
Hey Roger,
ReplyDeleteGreat post; I like the way you offered your own definition of "amotion." I'm inclined to believe that Massumi would agree with your first and third definitions, but not your second. Affect isn't so much an unfeeling state as an indescribable state of feeling. To Massumi the difference between emotion and affect is that emotion registers on the grid because it can be consciously observed, described, and labeled with language, while affect is unconscious because it cannot be pinned down with language. In this sense, we lack the appropriate words to describe affects.
I have been thinking about my definition and I agree with you, Brian, that b: is incorrect. Also I wish I could have come up with a better word that amotion.
ReplyDelete