They're not just about verification but about moving together in the absence of normative worlds.Learning to archive, footnote, and risk parataxis(the implied relations among juxtaposed but unlike things) is to step to one side of normativerationality, and so learning how to make these chances, and how to be open to learning from them, involves risking an attachmentto the way things might link unpredictably. It's hard to manage being politically engaged and genuinely open to perturbing material, which is to say that it's hard not to be efficientin separating the structure from its noise.JC: Can we, engaged as we are in the university, and thus the institution, hope to be able to teach such preparedness? I think there's a singularity to the moment of political activism, with all its excitement, disappointment, state and (inter-)personal tension, which is unable to enter the seminar room.LB: The moment of political action is as long as we make it. As for the university– it can only produce contradictions, I think. We teach critical thinking and transformative modes of attention and empiricism, and
we credentialize. We need to teach unpreparednessas much as preparedness. There are all sorts of things wecan do in the seminar room to distribute opportunities for curating knowledge and cultivating the event of the encounter with eachother's minds, and astonishing things can happen. At the same time, I am the teacher and I have a different responsibility than everyone else, and different tasks, and there is no dissolving the hierarchies. What there is is multiplying the relations, diluting the hierarchies, the norms and normative attachments and fantasies, which tasks, by the way, are not always welcomed by students. SometimesI think we fancy students areless normative than they often are.JC: So often the institutional hierarchies are the normative attachments to which students are keen to keep hold! This is a difficult line to walk, between attempting to dilute the hierarchies of an institutional context while not reproducing the blindness that those in power – us, in this instance – have the privilege to adopt towards the power they assert over others. Feminism has taught us this much. As you say, the context produces contradictions; in this case, that the power structure facilitates a space for the discussion of the dissolution of its power. But we shouldn't mistake this for actual dissolution. What practical pedagogic strategies or textual encounters might allow us to develop students’ awareness of the institutional structures exerting their control over us and them and the effects such structures have? Is it the case that there are concrete ways we can move towards diluting hierarchies, multiplying relations, and highlighting our (and their) attachments and fantasies of attachment or are these always embedded in responding to the moment of teaching, the specificity of the seminar room?