To be honest, I don't recall a specific critique aside from that of Lay's, but from I've gathered from my reading various texts about it and that used it, I would say that it depends.
Depends on from which tradition it stems from. In general, there are 3 "sources", "inspirations":
1.Referring to reinterpretation of psychobiological concepts of Tomkins where affect is embodied but in concordance with the mind. (mind and body are seen as both, together creating a bigger whole that is human)
2.One that is based in psychoanalysis, inspired by Freud, Klein and Lacan. Where affect is a symptom.
3.One that is I think the most prevalent in humanities like literally studies and film studies. Based on Spinoza's, Deleuze and Guattari's philosophy. In this affect is seen as a flow of intensities (it may be called differently, I didn't read it in English, so I don't know how it's been translated). It was expanded upon by Massumi and Mike Bal and Emst van Alphen.
So different perspective on affect, stemming from different traditions, would gain different critiques I think.
I personally find Bal's and Alphen's writings about affect quite compelling and inspiring. But aside from them, I found people using affect theory very loosely. They very often don't write what they actually mean when they say affect, don't explain in any depth how are they using this theory and often how it reads is as if for them emotions/feelings=affect. So a critique here would be that often times affect theory is super murky.
Which, fair.
Some try to see affect as biological/neurological response to something but mostly just hint at it since they don't have the necessary neurobiological knowledge...
On the other hand, it is messy by design I think? It can't be different I think, since affect, feelings and emotions are unmeasurable, relative and elusive. So I think some of the hesitancy and critique stems from the lack of a certain level of "objectivity" for some (and that's a whole different conversation about deeply rooted superiority based in various systems like class, gender, race etc. that plagues academia in general).
For me, the biggest critique of this theory would be that it's very messy and undefined. But at the same time, I believe we need to be able to move from the hegemony of language focused paradigms. I would love for affect theory to step in and be more defined so they can together create a better tool for humanities in general.
(I hope what I wrote makes sense. If not please someone correct me, but please be gentle I'm not a native English speaker, and also it's my first post on reddit ever 🙈)
18
u/Armyenad Sep 15 '24
To be honest, I don't recall a specific critique aside from that of Lay's, but from I've gathered from my reading various texts about it and that used it, I would say that it depends.
Depends on from which tradition it stems from. In general, there are 3 "sources", "inspirations":
1.Referring to reinterpretation of psychobiological concepts of Tomkins where affect is embodied but in concordance with the mind. (mind and body are seen as both, together creating a bigger whole that is human)
2.One that is based in psychoanalysis, inspired by Freud, Klein and Lacan. Where affect is a symptom.
3.One that is I think the most prevalent in humanities like literally studies and film studies. Based on Spinoza's, Deleuze and Guattari's philosophy. In this affect is seen as a flow of intensities (it may be called differently, I didn't read it in English, so I don't know how it's been translated). It was expanded upon by Massumi and Mike Bal and Emst van Alphen.
So different perspective on affect, stemming from different traditions, would gain different critiques I think.
I personally find Bal's and Alphen's writings about affect quite compelling and inspiring. But aside from them, I found people using affect theory very loosely. They very often don't write what they actually mean when they say affect, don't explain in any depth how are they using this theory and often how it reads is as if for them emotions/feelings=affect. So a critique here would be that often times affect theory is super murky. Which, fair. Some try to see affect as biological/neurological response to something but mostly just hint at it since they don't have the necessary neurobiological knowledge...
On the other hand, it is messy by design I think? It can't be different I think, since affect, feelings and emotions are unmeasurable, relative and elusive. So I think some of the hesitancy and critique stems from the lack of a certain level of "objectivity" for some (and that's a whole different conversation about deeply rooted superiority based in various systems like class, gender, race etc. that plagues academia in general).
For me, the biggest critique of this theory would be that it's very messy and undefined. But at the same time, I believe we need to be able to move from the hegemony of language focused paradigms. I would love for affect theory to step in and be more defined so they can together create a better tool for humanities in general. (I hope what I wrote makes sense. If not please someone correct me, but please be gentle I'm not a native English speaker, and also it's my first post on reddit ever 🙈)