Chapt e
r 29
SADIE PLANT
COMING ACROSS THE FUTURE
IRTUAL SEX HAS BEEN DEFINED AS.SAfC AS WCII AS fiIthT" ANd
Y
as the epitome of disembodied pleasure, contact-free sex without secre
"pof total autonomy. A safe environment free from the side-effects and cc
u ,or-r"
tions of actual intercourse: transmittable diseases, conceptions and abortions. and
sad obligations of emotional need. A closed circuit, a sealed elsewhere, a virruai
to be accessed at will.
If its technical research and development continues to be fuelled by such
hopes, there is also a sense in which cybersex seems anticlimatic before it ha.
tinged with disappointment in advance of the event'
But climax *ill ul*uyt miss the c1'bernetic point' which is less a summit
plateau. The peak experience is yesterdaY's ne\\-s. And as for the ease and sai-ctr
.yb".r"r,, sex in MOOs may have pitfalls of its own, but cybernetic sex and a]l fu
implies are about as cosy and containable as the virtual war of which it is alreadr- r
effect. C,vbersex heralds the disappearance of the human-machine interface, a xff
whi.h thioro,s the one-time individual into a pulsing network of su'itches which i-'
climactic, clean, nor secure. Anyone who believes that computer scleens melt c
produce a safe environment should read their cyberpunk,one more time: '"Thar'r
ih"." *ur, just the wires," Travis said. "Connecting them directly to each other. \lI
and blood, and piss, and shit. Just the way the hotel maid found them"' (Cadigan 1
27 s).
Even in the absence of fuli simstim, technical cybersex is well advanced: the
ware is fetishized, the so{tware is porn, and vast proportions of the telecommuni
system arc consumed by erotica. But these are merely the most. overt and
tle least interesting - examples of a generalized dcgeneration of 'natural' sex- ls
and wetr,vares collapse onto soft, far stranger mutations wrack the sexrtal -tcentsimulation of sex convcrges with the deregulation of the entire sexual economr
corrosion of its links with reproduction, and the collapse of its specificity: sex di
COMING ACROSS THE FUTURE 46L
intodrugs,tranceanddancepossession;anclrogynl"hermaphroditismandtranssexuscx' and what
alism becom" irl"."u'i"g1v perceptible; pataphiliail"al ".1q11"""1g' 1'":t
,the slorry. motion, of pl"urrr" and pain; ot' 5M already 'high-technolog,v
Foucault calls
cross-cut br'
prolif'erate. cvb"r,,"ti"' reveals an organism
sex, (califia tssza, tlsl
ol repliecoiogies
entirf
t,f"ction, and
inorganic life bacterial communicati"", "O"i
'having
be
to
is
it
w-hat
notions of
the most
Perversc
cating patterns which subvert cven
Climax
,
u.t,l io."' its hold on the pleasuredrome '
sex. Reproduction melts into replication
experience becomes a plateau'
distributes itself across the plane and the peak
Nou'it is lceding back into a past which
olnc".
The future ol sex never comes all at
immer
Relations u'ere already circuits in disguise;
sex itsell *,u. ,.rppor"d to reprorluce.
Sex was ne\rer uncommercialized, ancl pleasure
sion r,vas alrvays l"uJi.rg repriduction on.
with pain rvhich {inds its.solution with intensit'v'
$.as only ever one puri "i an-equation
depends on its ability to confine commuA1l this occurs'i, u *.orld *hor" stability
transmission' Lau's and genes
nication to tcrms of in<lividuated organisms' pairilintal
t y *'trl"h ah" Judco-christian tradition hands
share a one -\\.ay line, the unilateral iOrun
i" th" orl"-p":": f"*1ll-:j:lll
t::")}t
itself don'n through thc generations- This
by God, the high fashion supermodel' Perlecily
eYen Mother Nature *uf
"o.."ited
lormed,withoutwhommatterswoulclb".u,.ni.,ga*ok.H,-unismistheultimaterear
"th" i-ug" of God' The project: 'to
r-iew mirrorism, ancl the mirror still reflects
specularizeandtospeculate,;tosuperviseancloversee.GodandmanConlerseona
creation and procreclosed circuit of sources and ends, one
ancl the same, man to man.
ation.Thegotbrthandmultiplyfromu,hichpatriarchalculturetakesitscue.
uncertain
of the rvorld iru, ulr"uy. been subject to the
This immaculut"
"orr""ptiinclaims. But it is only now, as material intelligence begins
ties r,r,hich.rr.a.rU" utl put".r-rity
this trip, that the patriarchal confidence
to break through the smooth ib.^ul screens of
or not thev u'ere fakes' neither her
trick is undermined. He never rvill know u''hether
orgasmsnorhispaternity.Allthatis,nelvabouthisinsecurityisthatitnowbeginstcl
Matter doesn't bother asking: as selfbe felt. Horu do", God'k.rooo-he's the flather?
organizingProcessesattackfromu,ithin,it,snolongeraciuestion'butatacticalmatter,
a Lctile tuk"on'"r, a material event'
rvhich Iinallv usulPs
material complexity
cybernetics initiates the emergence of the
modcrn and authoriiarian, c,vbernetics collapses
the procreative line. Even at its most
thedistinctionbetweenmachinean<lorganism:NorbertWiener,ssystemsalreadvfunchard, soft, or w-et. The lusions of human and
tion regardless of r,vhether their *.ur", ui"
do more than contest the species' Lroundaries:
machines ol wi".l.'. wartime research
thevalsoreu'riter,,h*to'y''Biologicalorganisms"'becomebioticsl'stems'commu,ro"f,,tttlulntntal, ontological separatio"
nications devices like others. There ls
'l^:"'
1991:
lormal kno$.ledge of machine and organism,
t,"ti.
of technical and organic' {Harau'ay
human is rewritten as its past. By the
that regardlesS .or, ironically, because 1960s, it hacl become obuiou, to Mcluhan
out to be 'the sex organs of the
its ou,.n intentions, the human species had t.,r,,Jtl
.,
cyborg has no history, but that of the
of
machineworlcl'asthebeeofthepiantrvorl<l,enablingittofecundateandtoevolve
evernewforms,-1M"L.,hu'.1964:.56).Slaves,rvorkers,womenandrobotsweleneYer
mastely
they simply working for the boss' whose
alone in their cyborg roles. Nor r,vere
-Mur-,
u.as always a sham.
u^d his God *"r" t itul tut contingent'
and perhaps ultimately
dispensable,"o-pot""t'ofafuturemutationtheywerebuildingallthetime'
I
I
I
462 SADIE PLANT
Themodernorganismisalreadyareplicant,straight.off.thc'productionlineofa
,ia1,"s
i,ldiud.ra1 his place, ht: b:di: his disease and his
dorvn lor
<liscipline which
"u"h
dctermination
death, his ro.e1l-bcing'. Foucault',s disciplines extencl cven to the'ultimate
-'vhat happens
of
him,
of the indivi,lual, of u,hat characterire. him, o[ rvhat belongs to
to him'(Foucault 19'77:197). Alter this, organic antl sociai integrit,v sink
or sw-im
diverse techniques for
together. Mo<lernity is ma'kei b1' 'an explosioi of numerous and
thc beginu.f;i"ri,rg thc subjugation of bodies ur-rd ih" control ol populations, marking
,.irrg of'un
"ru
of:bio-po*'"." (Foucault 1978: 140), in w-hich'Western man \\'as
living rvorld, to ha'e a bodv,
g.uErully learning rvhat it meant to be a living species in a
existencc r'vas
conditions ol existence. . . For the first time in histor-v . . . biological
reflected in political existence' (Foucault 197E: 142)'
the male member.
Humanity tcnds torvard the organized bor1v, the body r'vith organ,
feminine as it is
The moclern human is drcssed in b1ue, as far from the red-blooded
in the mould of brotherpossible to be, gendercd and sexed in a u'orlcl still solidi{ied
on the wav to the
irood urrd patriliieal inheritance. The lemale bocl,'is_already discascd,
or belonging Iimits of lil'c, ."hile the p6allus functions as the badge of membership,
1o onc s scll-, societr.. species.
of
The male member functions as 'the most ideal, the most speculative element'
'it's
enougf^1o
say,
Guattari
and
this social and organic sccurit-v svstem. As Deleuze
lunutic,, and moleculcs laugh'(Deleuze and Guattari 1988:
make u'ome.r,
"hi1.lr".r,
bot:'
289): the phallus is'an imaginary point', the producl of 'power in its grip "i
1978:
(Foucault
ancl their materialitrv, their flrces, energies, sensations, and pleasures'
'the
submis155). But it's also L.orgh to guarantee*the constitution of arborescence,
sionof thelinetothepolnt'(d"le.,rcandGuattari 1988: 293). Arrdthepointisalw-als
to remember. Dismembering is not aliou''cd'
drops
This, as Donna Harau.aipoints out, is also the point at which female orgasm
most
Europe,
in
century
eighteenth
the
of
out of the picture: 'before the latter part
conception,'
lor
\vas
essential
sexual
pleasure
meclical rvriters assumed orgasmic f"-ul"
fiom
rvhereas nou, 'female orgasms came to seem eilher non-existent or pathological
surgeons
ccntury,
'the
nineteenth
late
the point of r.ierv of ,u"r*t".r, meclicine.' And by
them
removed the clitoris from some of their fcmaie paticnts as Part of reconstituting
almost
be
to
seemed
which
as properly I'cminine, unambiguously different from the male,
another species' (Hararvav 1991: 356).
Intensitv is gatherecl iogether in a single point' monoPt'"d.by the male l":b"l'
sexualit-v and femaie
an4 locaiizecl as Lrgas*. Alisexuality is mJ1e, u'rites Freud. Femalc
on the phallic
variations
impoverished
or
in
terms
orgasm are either" contradictions
possessed and
somcthing
too,are
They
have.
theme. Orgasms are u.hat these organisms
bodr',
organized
of
the
identitv
the
orvned, fuitioning to restore cquifibrium and secure
the organic intcgrity of thc Westcrn individual'
'\io-a.r's ["'ritut, are simply absent, masked, seu'n back up inside their "crack'"'
indeed to
Zero is discountecl anrl veile<i,'and 'one rvould have to dig dor'vn very deep
archaic
more
of a
cliscover beneath the traces of this civilization, this historl-, the vestiges
1985: 25)'
civilization that might give some cluc to u,-oman's sexuality' (lrigaray
distant
and
deep
the
in
lound
bc
to
Past, behind the
If there *"." ,r"h"u sexualitv
a
retrospeculation,
of
matter
a
be
alr'r,ays
u'ould
screcns of the specular, its .r.r"uithirrg
since
West
the
dominated
has
that
'the
logic
looking buck *,ith eyes programmed by
I
I
I
,
COMING ACROSS THE FUTURE 463
the time of the Grceks'. And it 'u,ould undoubtedly have a dilferent alphabet, a different
language. Woman's desire w-ould not be expcctcd to speak the same languagc as
man's' (lrigarav 1985: 25). Man is the one vl'ho relatcs his desire; his sex is the r.erv
narrative. Hers has been the stuff of his stories instead.
By the Iate trventieth centurv, 'orgasms on one's own terms'became the rallving crv
for a feminism increasingll, ar,vare of the extcnt to which female sexualitv had been
confined. 'Male orgasm harl signified self-containment and sclf-transcendence simultaneouslv, propertv in the self and transcendence of thc bodr, through reason and dcsirc,
autonomv and ccstasv', and thcre r'r.as a I'eeling that if \\'omen werc no longer 'pinned
ln the crack betu.een the normal and the pathological, multiply orgasmic, unmarked,
universal l.emales might Iind themselr,es posscssccl of reason, desire, citizenship, and indir.idualitv' (Hararvav 1991: 359).
Or does this result in a masculine mould for some 'female sexualit-v' r.vhich could
be running elsew-here? Foucault is scathing about the cxtent to u.hich such liberatory
inr.cstments underscore the subjcction they ostensiblv contest. And the orgasm as a key
to r"lf'-posscssion is hardiy r.vhere his interests lie: like Pat Califia, he is morc interested
in u.hat she ca1ls thc'SM orgasm', an intensity uncoupled lrom genital sex anrl engaged
onlv rvith the dismantling of selves. This is the cybersexualitv to r'vhich all sexuality
tcnds: a matter of careful engineering, thc setting of scencs, the per{'ection of touch;
the engineering of communicalion.
It is not the org,v, but the orgasm that is or,cr. Not that the intensities once sought
through sex are disappcaring. Far from it: they havc onlv just bcgun. 'The apologia for
orgasm made bv the Reichians still seems to me to be a rvav of localizing possibilities
of pleasure in the sexual,' rvrites Foucault (Maccy 1994: 373). Climax is proper to
organic integrity; orgasm is rvhat organisms do: 'l dismembcred vour body. Our caressing
hands u.ere not gathering information or unco\rering secrets, thev u.ere tentacles of
mindless inr.ertcbrates; our bellies and flanks and thighs u,erc listing in a contact that
apprehends and holds onto nothlng. What our bodies did no one did' (Lingis 1994: 61).
Dismemlrermcnt: the 'l)ionvsian castration'. Counter-memory. Forget vn'hat it's for,
and lcarn u,hat it does. Don't concentrate on orgasm, the means bv.nhich sex remains
enslar.ed to telcologv and its reproduction: 'make of one's bodv a place fbr the procluction of extraordinarily polvmorphic pleasures, r'vhile simultaneouslv detaching it lrom a
lalorization of thc genitalia and particularly of the male genitalia' (Miller 1993 259).
Foucault experiments ',vith decompositions of the body, dismantling of the organism,
technical experiments rvith bondage ancl release , po\\:er and rcsistance in an S&M 'matter
of a multiplication and burgeoning of bodies' and 'a creation of anarchv rvithin thc bodv,
s'here its hierarchics, its localizations and designations, its organicitv, if vou rvill, is in
the process of disintegrating' (Miller 1993: 274).
Masochism poses a considerable threat to Freud's earlicr laith in thc pleasure prin
ciple. 'For if mental processes are gor.erned bv the pleasure principle in such a u.a]'that
their first aim is the avoidance of unpleasurc and the obtaining of pleasure, masochism
is incomprehcnsible.' ,q.nd if both 'pain and pleasurc can be not simplv .nr-arnings but
actually aims, the pleasure principle is paraiy,zed' (Freud 1984:413). But b1'the timc:
he u,rites The Economic Problem oJ' Masochism, Freud knor'r,s that masochism is not alrvavs
a reaction to saclistic control. Thc masochist is not simpiv the r.ictim cnsiaved bv masterv:
this is the 'macho bullshit' of a discourse rvhich admits nothing bevoncl subjcction, a
464 SADIE PLANT
perspecti\re which cannot accept anv other relation (or, rather, can accePt nothing but
relations). Masochism exceeds such relations with thc master; indeed it goes beyond ali
relations, no mattcr hou. far fiom the paternal they seem. It is not a question of recognition, but a matter of feeling: not a craving to be flattened, but an intensive desire for
communication, for contact, access, to be in touch. The masochist 'uses suffering as a
\lray of constituting a body rvithout organs and bringing fbrth a plane of consistcncy of
desire' (Deleuze and Guattari 1988:155).
'Stop con{using servitude u.ith dependence" u,rites Jean-Frangois Lyotard. Thc
'question of "passivity" is not thc question of slavcrv, the question of dependencY not
thc plea to bc dominated' (Lyotard i993: 260). Otheru.ise the circuits and connections
w,ill be brought back into relations of superiority and inferiority, subject and object,
domination and submission, activity and passivity . . . and these will becomc the frozen
polcs of an opposition u.hich caPtures thc loops and recouples their lines.
Drink me, eat me. USE ME. .
.
[W]hat does she u.ant, she rvho asks this, in the exasperation and aridity of
every piece of her body, the woman-orchestra? Does she want to become
her master's mistress and so forth? Come on! She \4'ants you to die u'ith her,
she desires that the cxclusive limits be pushed back, sr,r-eeping across all thc
tissues, the immcnse tactility, the tact of whatcver closcs up on itself u'ithout
becoming a box, and of whatever ceaselessly extends beyond itself without
bccoming a conquest.
(Lvotard 1993: 66)
Immense tactility, contact, the possibility of communication. Closure u'ithout the
box: as a circuit, a connection. 'What interests the practitioners of S&M is that the relationship is at the samc time regulated and open,'w'rites Foucault: it is a'mixture of
rules and openness'. Ceaselcss extension: the body hunting its orvn exit. Becoming 'that
which is not one'; becoming woman, u,-ho 'fr,rs sex or7ans just about ever)'rvhete'(Irigaray
1985: Ii). Is this r.hat it is to get out of the meat? Not simply to lear.e the body, but
to go further than the orgasm; to acccss the 'exultation of a kind of autonomy of its
smallest parts, of the smallest possibilities of a part of the bodr'".
'LIse me,' u.rites Lyotard, is 'a statement of vertiginous simplicity, it is not mystical,
but materialist. Let me be vour surface and your tissues, you maY be my orifices and
my palms and my membranes, rve could lose ourselr.es, leave thc power and the squalid
justification of the dialectic of redemption, u,e u,i1l be dead. And not: Iet me die by
your hand, as Masoch said' (Lyotard 1993: 65). This is the prostitute's
sado masochistic bond u'hich ends up making you suller 'something' {br vour
clients. This something has no name. It is beyond love and hate, bevond
feelings, a savage joy, mixed rvith shamc, the jov of submitting to and withstanding the blow of betronging to someone, and f-eeling oneself frecd lrom
libertv. This must exist in all women, in all couples, to a lesser degree
or unconsciously. I wouldn't realiy knou'hou' to explain it. It is a drug, it's
like having the impression that one is living onc's life several times over all
at once, r.r,ith an incredible intensity. The pimps themselves, inflicting these
punishments, experience this 'something.' I am sure of it.
(Lyotard 1993 63)
COMING ACROSS THE FUTURE 465
It is Foucault's 'something unnameablc', 'useless', outside of all the Programmes
of desire. It is the bodv made totally plastic bv pleasure: 'something that opens itself,
that tightens, that throbs, that beats, that gapes' (Miller 1993: 274).lt is, writes Freud,
'as tho-ugh the rvatchman over our mental life u.ere put out of action by a drug' (Freud
1984: 413).
'l stripped the rvill and the person liom vou like collars and-chains' (Lingis 1994:
61). Whai.e-airr. is machinic, inhuman, bevond emotion, bcrvond subjection: 'the illusion of having no choice, the thrill of being taken' (califia 1993a: 172']).
Pat Califii: 'He rvantecl . . . evervthing. Consumption. To be used, to be used up
compietely. To be absorbecl into her eyes, her mouth, her sex, to become part of her
substance' (Califia 1993b: 108).
Foucault describes those involvecl in S&M as 'inventing nsla' possibilities of
enter
pleasure with strange parts of their body . . . it's a kind of creation, a creative
of
plcasure'
desexualization
the
I
call
p.is", *.hich hu, or"o.r" of its main features u,-hat
bodies,'hc
intitt", 1993:263''. S&M is a'matter of a multiplication and burgeoningitsoflocalizations
.".it"r, 'a creation of anarchy within the body, wherc its hierarchics,
ancl rlesignations, its orgar-ti.ity, if you'r'viil is in the Process of disintcgrating' (ibid':
274;, rvf,ile'practices like fist-fucking are practices that one can call devirilizing, or
desexualizing. They are in fact extraordinar,v Jalstf cations of pleasute_' (ibid.: 269), pains
taken even t the point at rvhich thev too become 'sheer ecstas-v. Ncedles through the
flesh. Hot candlc wax dribbied over alligator clips. The most extraordinary Pressure on
muscles or connective tissue. The frontier between pain and pleasure has been crossed'
(ibid.: 266).
'Not even suff'ering on the one hand, pleasure on the other: this dichotomv belongs
to the order of the o.g:arric bod,V, of the supposed unilied instance' (Lyotard 1993:23)'_
Nor,v thcre is a plane ,"a lur]groro,r, plateau. The peaks and the troughs have converged
on a still sea, a silent o."J.r. They have fbund their limit and flattened out. Melting
point.
'We don't know- r,vhat a body can clo.' Which is yet another reason whv 'u'e have to
devices, strip it an'ay
get rid of sexuality' (Macev 1994: 3731, lear,e the bodl'to its own
and security rvhich
self-protection
of
lrom its formal controls, disable its mechanisms
bind intensity to pieasure and reproduction'
'That there are other *urr, oth". procedures than masochism, and certainly better
for them'
ones, is beside the point; it is e.rough ihut for some this procedure is suitable
(Deleuze and Guattari 1988: 55). Whatever it takes to access the plane. Necessity trashes
prohibition. The algebra of need; the diagram of speed'
Foucault rvas in no doubt that certain drugs rivalled the 'intense pleasures' of sexual
experimentation. Of the drugs of the 1990s, Ecstasy and crack have both been described
as'better than sex', while r=peed atd Prozac tend to anorgasmic effect' All engineer-
'certain
ings of the bodv have some iremical comPonent. Felix Guattari points out that
'the body
urr'o.""i", ,u.1o-uro"histic etc. syndromes function as auto-addictions' because
itself secretes its endorphines ivhich, you know, are filty times more active than the
morphines' (Guattari tlsl, zo1. If orgasm localizes pleasure,.'things like yeilow- pil1s
body become.s
or. .L"uirr" allorv you to explode at-rd ,liffrse it throughout the body; the
the overall ,it" oi u,, olr".ull plcasure' (Macey 1.994: 3731. This is the plane on w-hich
it lbrgets itself, omits to be one.
466 SADIE PLAN'I
outoforder'Anditrtoacontrolrvhich.insteadofactingremainsonguard,a
these more subtle
with commo"pr"."^,"'rity a'-ttl all"ows
yet
never breaks apart'
to th" th."r.i*lLairg"n". and
and rari6e<1 contacts, uu."Jao*r,
control u-hich blocks contact
,o"Hro
can
'kin<r of order or apparent progression
These 'begin
""""1''"t''
r'r'hich is
("":i';; and Guattari 1'988: 277)'
-vegetable' or mineral; becomings-
Jf"'i."i,.I;.ush the rractal scales, a i,, ,'hi"h r've 6nd
be established ior the
:""-,""iff;";;i"g
u,ith ancl pu* th'ot'gh;"J'";g.'loman'.
alreadv a matter of 'becoming
thiitl; bect'ming-animal'
p"r,r.i"ri Fibers leaJus' (ibid' 2721
,,,,rt.ortu. ot u, ki.,d,l;":";;;;
in more \\rays
than one.
It is bv a process ol. rleliberation that
itself lrom its ou''n
the bodl beqins to uncoupie
and self-control' Meat
,.1f-"p-Jssesio'o'-"
"o'"'o1
anct externat urtt orttll,l'i;';"';i;;;"4
learns.
of restoring past infor.
u.hich is alu.ays a question
That is not a matter of education,
and the remembering of
origin"';;"t;J"i""'
tt also the abanclonment of truth
tbtg"tti"g;h".P'"';;;r"i
oi
u
p'o""-"
i,
rt
in order to
authorit,v.
la is 'necessarv to diq deeply
Wf.rl"
,"in"rlai
.f
but not
and the clismemberm""i
to''tlttg""l f.,' t""f' uttt ""h u'i ittt"itigible
exploring
show how things are historically
from
far
is
exists
th"'cns" thui'to think ofu'hat
necessary reason,, it i;;i;
future instead' 'Let us make
mation, the.recoliection of some
b"lrrned to the
..At what Can we pla,v, and how can
all the possible rpu""J. att"rrtiol, ^ort
out of th^e question:
an incontrovertible challenge
,,'
in consensual
cyberspace scene, thc uitimate
of
T::::,X,-i-"';:";"lyl1f;"lii:"'ff]
'b"."':;';i:;'-t(-, r'*'" the pou'er' at any hour
thinks'
he
r'voulcl,
It
hailucinations.
.^* all the comforts and all the possibilities
day or night, to "";;'; fi"." "q.rtpp:U
t U()A"l'' o']t"'tangihlc and lugitire' tMiller
that one mighr imagin"' ula to 't""t,'1.!;'"
lav cleopatra'
Burroughs.cnthusc-s,'tou can
lqq]: 26+). Not simplv'hccaure, a. william or Aph?oditc..toy.,.j" g't ["cl"d bv Pan'
Hcten of rroy, r.i,lPilJ;"";;O.d;;r.
rT hen you prcss
f,l-r"f l. Rnything rou like likes you
;;"*";"r;
Apoll,,
Chrisr,
Jc:us
,h" brttonr' iBurroughs I 98 5: 861'
u"i u" optional object of desire'
Press cyborg,
Youmaketheconnections,accessthezone.WhateveravatarYouselecttbryour
lo"k' ot'' but a repli;"""*i"g rybotg as u'-el1' Some humancyborg
scene, You cannot ;';
vou become rvill
the
state-of y"J;;;;;;"t'"'t'
the
on
Depending
stirs.
cant
connected to vour
extensir,l", -or" or less clirectlv
and
sop-histicated
less
or
be more
abstraction and the phase
more or t"" t'ooitla'"p ; '*lou'n
central nervous
whatever it is'
'r'f"-'
space in rvhich you are both
drau,n out. But ia *itt be post-human'
ttr..Tl:;ii ":]J::,:"T"J:-r?;illll;,". bath-houses:.'you meet men there who
are to you as you ,."."
ifr"-, nothing il;;Jy
;ith which combinations and produc-
tionsofpleasurearepossibie.Youceasetobeirnprisonedinyoulownface,invour
(Miller, 1993: 264)'
own past, in your own identitv'
{iee nor
ol fr"" choice. Deliberation is neither
)o.,"
i
;:;;"-;;;
There is
constituted in
". lik. ih" Tuo, nrr,l
unthinkable to an authority
but
determined,
"qrutiy
bullshjt'
termsof'mastersanclslaves,theautonomo,,u,d.theautomata,rlcrminationandsubmiswhat Lyotard calls the 'macho
sion, ones and others, ones and
twos.. ;;;h ";"
COMING ACROSS THE FUTURE 467
of a discourse which admits nothing beyond subjection, a perspective which cannot
accept any other relation (or, rather, can accept nothing but relations).
Once you knou. it's a video game, it gets much harder to plav along.
0riginally published in J. Broadhurst Dixon and E. Cassidy (eds) (1998) Virtual Futures: Cyberotics,
Technology and Post-human Pragmatism, London: Routledge.
References
Artaud, A. (1955) Artaud Anthologv, J. Hirschman (ed.), San Francisco: City Lights.
Burroughs, W. (1985) The Adding l'lachine, London: John Calder.
Cadigan, P. (1991) Synners, London: Grafton.
Calilra, P. (1993a)'Poner exchange', in T. Woodward (ed.) Ifie Best oJ Skin 7ro, Neu'York:
Masquerade Books.
(1993b) Mehing Point, Boston: Alyson Publications.
Deleuze. G. and Guattari, F. (1988) A Thousand Plateaus, trans. B. Massumi, Minneapolis: Unir.ersity
of Minnesota Press.
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish, London: Pelican.
(7978) History oJ Sexuality. vol. 1, Neu' York: Pantheon Books.
Freud, S. (1984) 'Beyond the pleasure principle', in On Metapsychologlr, Lontlon: Pclican Freud Library.
Guattari, F. (1989) 'Une "R6volution moleculaire"', in J. M Henieu er al. (eds) L'Esprit des drogues,
Paris: Editions Autrement.
Hararvay, D. (1991) Srmians, Cyborgs and Women, London: Free Association BooksIrigaray, L. (1985) Ifiis Ser Whtch ts Not One, New York: Cornell Univcrsity PressLingis, A. (1994) 'Carnlval in Rio', Vulvamorphia, Lusitania 6.
Lyotard, J. F. (1993) Libidjnal Economy, trans. I.H. Grant, London: Athlone.
Macey, D. (199+) The Lives d l'lichel Foucauh, London: Vintage.
Mcluhan, M. (1964) IJnderstanding Media: The Extensions oJ Man, London: Sphere Books.
Miller, J. (993) The Passion oJ Mlchel Foucauh, London: Harper Collins.