Radical events resist reduction to subjective self-recognition

Evidence

When I say ‘recognize’, it is a very schematical way of speaking. I recognize rather what comes to me only if I recognize nothing of which comes to me, and I should even add, only if I do not recognize myself recognizing that which comes to me. I no longer know if it comes to me or if it arrives at me, comes or arrives unto me, unto someone who knows and understands what he says when he pronounces the words ‘me’, ‘I’, or even ‘myself’ – let alone when he proclaims the ‘I-subject’ of a phrase or of whatever else that may be. What would you do with that? Is it in any way comprehensible for a subject or even reducible to any subjectivity? Does it still belong in a history of the ‘becoming-subject’? And most of all, what would you do with the fact that I don’t even believe of any future for myself and feel at the same time both faithful and radically amnesic? — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 122

Categorization

• XREF: The unhinging of ‘me’/‘I’ here resonates with the plastic subject Malabou theorizes — the self that is not identical to itself. — connects to: Political struggle generates historically emergent self-recognition of subjects — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2: Identity…, 234; Genuinely new phenomena resist recognition because people interpret them through familiar categories — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 48
• DEFINE: Derrida defines recognition negatively: genuine encounter with what comes requires not recognizing it, nor recognizing oneself recognizing.
• QUESTION: What does ‘radically amnesic but faithful’ mean for a plasticity of the subject — this seems to imply a memory-less receptivity rather than Hegelian recollection.

Broader Connections

• Political struggle generates historically emergent self-recognition of subjects #qualifies (0.82) — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2, 234