Animacies - Emily Ruehs

The first methodological point of interest to me was Chen’s interrogation of the word “animacy” in the introduction. I am still unclear as to how this word fits: is it her theoretical framework or her methodology (or, that ever confusing “both”)? On page four, she states that the “absence of consensus around its meaning leaves it open to both inquiry and resignification”, and this sentence led me to believe that the book was exploring the concept and linguistic idea in and of itself. Yet, as I read the material, it became clear (in a foggy way!) that animacy is perhaps a methodology: she gives life (power) to inhuman subjects in order to understand their racial/queer/political/etc . significance. For example, she studies the lead panic by showing how lead—and inanimate metal—is given racial and national significance “even as it can only lie in notionally peripheral relationship to biological life” (160). She makes the distinction that she isn’t “giving” life to objects but “remap[ping] live and dead zones away from those very terms, leveraging animacy toward a consideration of affect in its queered and raced formations” (11). I had a difficult time understanding this distinction, particularly because I didn’t fully understand her explanation of “affect,” but I believe that the difference is in a suggestion of agency versus” impact.” She describes affect as “something not necessarily corporeal and that it potentially engages many bodies at once… Affect inheres in the capacity to affect and be affected” (11).

In any case, I took away two methodological possibilities from this particular point. The first, is to apply this idea animacy to other subjects. So, in my case, I thought about the inanimate objects that have racial/national significance in the border crossing. I recalled an anthropological piece that I read in which the researcher analyzed the significance of water bottles and dark clothing, and I wondered if such items could be interrogated in terms of their affect: What racialized meaning do empty water bottles—or filled water bottles—have on the border? Could the wall on the border be analyzed from this methodology? Or, like the analysis of toys like Thomas the Tank Engine, are there objects on the border that are anthropomorphized and thus given “affect”? The second possibility is to take a step back even farther to look not at “animacy” but at the concept of using a “linguistic analysis” as a methodological starting point. For example, although I’m not exactly sure how this would unfold, I could use a linguistic analysis of the term “immigrant,” and use that as the basis for interrogating immigration politics.

Chen more explicitly talks about a “feral” approach and a “shifting archive” as methodological lenses. The idea of “moving ferally” between disciplines suggests that she is blurring disciplinary boundaries—I would love to hear an explanation from someone else who might have a better understanding of the disability scholars that she is referring to here.

My other question for the class: Although I look at “animacies” as methodology, I would like to hear how others understand the function of “animacy” in the reading. A theory? Methodology? Point of analysis?