Stuart Elden (hi!) raises a question on his blog (though quickly): “I’ll be interested to see how this develops. I have read the book and found it very interesting, beautifully written and full of ideas. But I am not sure how it should impact on my own work in the history of ideas.”
I think this leads to a good question to turn to at some point in the cross-blog reading group on Vibrant Matter. Let’s face it: despite the years of self-deconstructive discourses, anti-methods, etc., it was relatively easy (too easy, since it often meant simplifying various authors, and really just becoming a parody of them) to figure out where to go with certain works. For example, when I read Foucault, I think two things (a) well, I have a lot more reading to do, and (b) I’ll soon be reading a paper to see if this is transferable to other regimes of truth. And the same with Badiou, Zizek, Irigaray…name a thinker and you get a sense of where others will go with it. But could you pick someone up and think, that’s a Bennettian?