dans la solitude des champs de coton

上個月吧（還是上上月？），看到伊莎貝拉阿言德的訪問，提到她答應寫Zorro的神奇過程。阿言德提到，在加州，如果她自己上街購物，看起來「不過是另一個拉丁裔女人」罷了。（這篇訪問應該是The Guardian上面的，不難找。）

我的朋友X有一次跟我聊到紐約居大不易，尤其是不容易找到好的neighbourhoods, 最怕的是有”amigos“住附近。 但是如果這些”amigos”是伊莎貝拉或賈西亞之類的，那他們還是”amigos”嗎？

一邊可以張掛賈西亞海報，一邊對著”amigos”進行種族歧視：賈西亞如果沒去騎摩托車，他就「不過是另一個拉丁裔男人」罷了。

以上是剪貼下面這幾段時漂進來的。以下才是重點。

這就是著名的（被超級濫用的）游牧主體：
（沒有人必須知道頁數吧？）
As opposed to the images of both the migrant and the exile, I want to emphasize that of the nomad. The nomad does not stand for homelessness, or compulsive displacement; it is rather a figuration for the kind of subject who has relinquished all idea, desire, or nostalgia for fixity. This figuration expresses the desire for an identity made of transitions, successive shifts, and coordinated changes, without and against an essential unity. (Braidotti, 1994)


作者繼續自述：
Deleuze is no Romantic. Nor is he prone to the theoretical orientalism that plagues so much of the deconstructivist generation. He does not suggest that ‘homelessness’ and “rootlessness’ are the new universal metaphors of our times. This level of generalization is not much help. What he does theorize, however, is a non-unitary yet politically engaged and ethically accountable nomadic subject. What Deleuze does attempt is to de-territorialize the fixity and scramble the unitary structure of the classical view of the subject. Nomadology stresses the need for a change of conceptual schemes altogether, an overcoming of the dialectic of majority/minority or master/slave. (Braidotti, 2002)

For the real-life minorities, however, the pattern is different: women, blacks, youth, post-colonial subjects, migrants, exiles and homeless may first need to go through a phase of ‘identity politics’ – of claiming a fixed location. His is both inevitable and necessary because, as I have often argues, you cannot give up something you have never had. Nor can you dispose nomadically of a subject-position that you have never controlled to begin with. The ‘Molar’ line – that of Being, identity, fixity and potestas – and the ‘Molecular’ line – that of becoming, nomadic subjectivity and potentia – are absolutely not the same. (ibid.)


Ps. Nadal也是拉丁裔…