Abstract
Abstract This essay responds to Winfried Fluck’s review of The Limits of Critique (2015). While appreciating the care and attention with which Fluck reads my book, I do not see the book as displaying a “corporeal bias.” While it addresses the role of mood and disposition, it also stresses the importance of interpretation, thought, and meaning. I also clarify that The Limits of Critique is not an argument against routine as such—quite the opposite—but seeks to clarify the specific contradictions that arise from the routinization of critique. How does the status of critique change when the rhetoric of defamiliarization becomes all too familiar and a discourse of transgression and resistance is a required academic methodology?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
