“fantasy parses ambivalence in such a way that the subject is not defeated by it.” (LB)
It is precisely this holding together of multiplicity and power—and of the different critical imperatives that follow from them—that leads to the productively ambivalent conundrum in much of Berlant’s work: the tension between ‘the productivity of never-mere-description beyond the fantasy of tying things down’ (Berlant, 2019b, p. 291) and the need for critical analyses of and alternatives to (extra)ordinary violence and precarity. Different people and projects will be differently drawn toward these imperatives; for us, it is appealing to remain with the questions that the conundrum of ambivalence open up rather than seeking their resolution, to stay a little longer in the realm of undecidability so as to not delimit a given affective relationship to an object, or not arrive at a settled point of (mis)recognition too early (Ruez & Cockayne, 2021). However, rather than inaction or indifference, maintaining such a position requires careful and uncertain work. This work is important precisely because of its (im)possibilities: we are never fully in control of our own psychic processes, the ‘we’ at work here is differentially and unevenly precarious, and the contingency of thinking and acting in common necessarily entails ambivalence. All of which are lessons that Berlant’s work can help us (un)learn. (Daniel Cockayne and Derek Ruez, Encountering Berlant part two.)
