Plastic Reading

Author(s): ALEXANDER R. GALLOWAY

Source: NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction, Vol. 45, No. 1 (SPRING 2012), pp. 10-12
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23259556
Accessed: 12-03-2018 14:03 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction

This content downloaded from 81.194.22.198 on Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:03:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Forum: What Can Reading Do?

Plastic Reading
ALEXANDER R. GALLOWAY

Her coup, plasticity. Her unmooring, plasticity. Such is the essential t

tion in the work of Catherine Malabou: the universality of plasticity.
But what is plasticity? And what would it mean to say that the plastic
universal? On the one hand, the concept of the plastic—which she def
the vivid image of plastic explosive, as the capacity to give form and the cap
take form—refers to mutability, change, exchange, morphing, metamor
transformation. A fundamental concept for Malabou, plasticity finds co
the direct level of being. Yet on the other hand persists the universal, w
seem to contradict such permanent contingency. The universal typically
something relatively fixed for all time and in all places, such as an ess
remains or a transcendental. The irony is clear: the plastic as the univ
thing most associated with change is the thing that does not change. Her
is to assert the universality of plasticity.
Recall how G. W. F. Hegel, her greatest teacher, asserted the universal
idea. Recall how he asserted the universality of that thing which is in
transformation, so much in transformation that what results gains a sp
history. But if transformation is king, might one therefore be obligated to
logic all the way through, to assert that plasticity itself needs to change
is fond of these kinds of somersaults.) Might it be possible, thus, that the o
plasticity is the one that is changing into its opposite? In this way, Mal
a type of plasticity that, in its very ability to morph, morphs toward i
the universal.
Malabou tells a story in her book Plasticity at the Dusk of Writing. It is a story
about the end of writing; or rather, the evening, the dusk, the winter of writing. There
is a "historical tendency," she reminds us, proving again her good Hegelianism
(35). By this she means that our particular mode of being is one that is necessarily
predicated on history and historical change. Or to use the words of Fredric Jame
son, "we cannot not periodize" (29). Following Malabou's historical periodization,
one has arrived today at the end of writing. For Malabou, writing refers to the
graphic, to the sign, to inscription, or to the trace—any aspect of mediation hav
ing to do with fixity. In this she includes age-old techniques of writing as well as
everything up through structural linguistics and cybernetics (57). Even genetics
pertains to writing in Malabou's view, for it concerns the reading, recombination,
and writing of bioinformatic sequences; she does not privilege literature, nor for
that matter writing by hand.

This essay was first developed in a seminar at the Public School NYC on October 25,2010.

Novel: A Forum on Fiction 45:1 DOI 10.1215/00295132-1541297 © 2012 by Novel, Inc.

This content downloaded from 81.194.22.198 on Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:03:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 GALLOWAY | PLASTIC READING 11

But at some point in the second half of the twentieth century, the fixity of writ
ing began to give way to change or, again in her parlance, plasticity. "[T]oday we
must acknowledge that the power of the linguistic-graphic scheme is diminishing
and that it has entered a twilight for some time already. It now seems that plasticity
is slowly but surely establishing itself as the paradigmatic figure of organization
in general" (59). Fixity has given way to flux. Nothing can be written anymore,
for one is living in an era of endless fungibility. "It is therefore in the capacity of a
new pure historical image that plasticity, as a still uncertain, tremulous star, begins
to appear at the dusk of written form" (15). It is the new "style of an era," she says
of plastic writing (1). So plasticity is writing, but writing changed. The new graphi
cal mode is seen most vividly, suggests Malabou, in the cerebral plasticity of the
brain, and thus she provides evidence for why her interest in brain science cannot
be considered a mere appendage to her larger philosophical project.
This style, this plasticity, also produces its own form of reading. Plastic reading
is a kind of structural approach that aims to document the "structure of philoso
phy" that remains after a text has been subjected to certain analyses. Malabou's
structures are not essentialist in the sense of existing prior to the appearance of the
systems they describe. They only appear at the end, like a husk that remains. "By
'structure of philosophy,' I mean the form of philosophy after its destruction and
deconstruction. This means that structure is not a starting point here but rather an
outcome. Structure is the order and organization of philosophy once the concepts
of order and organization have themselves been deconstructed. In other words,
the structure of philosophy is metamorphosized metaphysics" (51). Structure is
the thing that remains. It is not the "truth" of the text, nor is it a "skeleton" that
holds the text together. Rather, it is a trace or fossil left behind by the text as it
changes. Structure is not a starting point, but an outcome. Plastic reading is thus
the reading that comes after deconstruction. This last point must be taken quite
literally: it comes "after" deconstruction in the sense that it comes historically after
the decades in which Derrida was active, but it also comes "after" deconstruction
in the sense that one must first apply the methodology of deconstruction to a text
in order to see its resulting plastic characteristics. The blank experience itself of
change noticed afterward—this is the plastic reading.
Consider a passage from Malabou's essay on structuralism, "The Genera
tion After": "To read, to comprehend a text can certainly consist, even today, in
withdrawing from it a structural kernel. But we know henceforth that this struc
ture is not original. It emerges from the text as a result, the result of its own
deconstruction. .. . The structure names then that which, in a text, survives its
own deconstruction.. .. This regenerative power of reading is what precisely I
label its plasticity" (541). In this sense, texts harbor a certain immunity, a certain
regenerative power that persists through the act of deconstruction, for this immu
nity shields and preserves the structure that remains. To return to Plasticity at the
Dusk of Writing, Malabou puts it in the following way: "The structure refers to the
form of the system without its presence, the form of the dialectic without its metaphysical
understanding. But this form is not a mere remainder. It relaunches itself beyond
destruction and deconstruction. It puts into play or sets off again that of which

This content downloaded from 81.194.22.198 on Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:03:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
12 NOVEL I SPRING 2012

it is the form" (53). To Malabou, plastic reading is neither traditional nor decon
structive. It is neither reactionary nor destructive. In a sense, it is agnostic to these
larger analytical forces. Once the dust clears and it becomes clear that the text has
changed, Malabou simply enters the fray and documents the change. This change
is the text in its plasticity. There is an almost clinical quality to Malabou's approach
to reading. She does not wish to "intervene" in a text like her poststructuralist fore
bears; neither does she wish to read it "straight." There will be those who perform
critique and those who do not. Malabou merely seeks to be a witness to this event
and reconstruct the metamorphosis taking place beyond it all. And in this sense,
is Malabou not our last living structuralist?

Works Cited

Jameson, Fredric. A Singular Modernity: Essay on the Ontology of the Present. New York:
2002.

Malabou, Catherine. "La generation d'apres." Fresh Theorie. Ed. Mark Alizart and Ch
tophe Kihm. Paris: Scheer, 2005. 539-53.

. Plasticity at the Dusk of Writing: Dialectic, Destruction, Deconstruction. Trans. Car

Shread. New York: Columbia UP, 2010.

This content downloaded from 81.194.22.198 on Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:03:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms