Critical Response II Affect and Intention : A Reply to

W. Connolly,R. Leys,W. Connolly,J. Ashton,T. Cronan,Michael Fried,W. B. Michaels,R. Pippin
Abstract:William Connolly is in error when he remarks that I begin my article with a discussion of scientific accounts that reduce the emotions to a few genetically wired categories and that I suggest that the cultural theorists who are interested in affect are driven in the same reductive direction (William E. Connolly, “The Complexity of Intention,” Critical Inquiry 37 [Summer 2011]: 792–99). Rather, I begin by considering certain theories of Brian Massumi and other cultural theorists including Connolly who, as I show, claim to be inspired by the work of Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, Baruch Spinoza, and other philosophers of nature and who accordingly attempt to distance themselves from a crude determinism and geneticism by recasting biology in dynamic, energistic, and nondeterministic terms that stress its unpredictable and potentially emancipatory qualities. That Connolly gets this wrong— he seems to think he is making an important point against me—is a telling sign. As I make clear, the aim of my article is to suggest the existence of a deeper affinity that ties together reductive psychologists and neuroscientists such as Silvan Tomkins, Paul Ekman, and Antonio Damasio and more philosophically inclined “affect theorists” such as Connolly: their shared,
What problem does this paper attempt to address?