it makes for an odd sort of book, this reenactment r and d. At one
level it is a demonstration of how one sort of case study within a feminist
transdisciplinary posthumanities might work. Reenactments are some-
times then an object for illustration, but never only that. To take reenact-
ments up seriously as dynamic relationalities, including the very coming
into being of a field named reenactment studies, requires all the recursive
paraphernalia of an emergent feminist transdisciplinary posthumanities.
Of course this book is not the way to do such a study: it is only one way.
But it is one way within an approach that values such work and traces out
this doubled coming into being.
Like many good (and bad) things, it could be some other way. And this
matters too. The extensive examination I do here does not suggest a
particular program of research or offer a template for proper method,
even if my concluding subtitle here might seem to promise this. But there
are intensively focused communities of practice who may properly bring
themselves into being around exactly such prescriptive projects producing
networks of association, standards, literatures, genealogies, or metrics.
Of these, I would myself consider most useful and ‘‘rigorous’’ the ones
exquisitely sensitive to their own horizon of possible resources and infra-
structures, local exigencies, and differential memberships. Ones that
understand Bateson’s joking around with ‘‘the map is not the territory’’—
understand that it includes as play, in the double consciousness of simula-
tion, both the communication ‘‘don’t mistake the representation for the
thing’’ and also the communication ‘‘don’t take the thing for everything it
Previous Page Next Page