Our argument: the 1AC operates within grids of intelligibility, affixing the body to a state of gridlocked, identarian stasis that cannot account for the movement of energy and matter
---performance fails if it operates within grid of intelligible
---2NC gridlock DA – catching the body in a “structural freeze-frame”
---perm is multiplying a number by zero – if a number is our attempt at movement and zero represents the lack of movement in their positional FW
Massumi 02. Brian Massumi, professor of communications at the University of Montreal, Parables For the Virtual, pg. 2
"The Body." What is it to The Subject? Not the qualities of its moving experience. But, rather, in keeping with the extrinsic approach, its positioning. Ideological accounts of subject formation emphasize systemic structurings. The focus on the systemic had to be brought back down to earth in order to be able to integrate into the account the local cultural differences and the practices of resistance they may harbor. The concept of "positionality" was widely developed for this purpose. Signifying subject formation according to the dominant structure was often thought of in terms of "coding."Coding in turn came to be thoughtof in terms of positioning on a grid.The grid was conceived as an oppositional framework of culturally constructedsignifications: maleversus female, blackversus white, gay versus straight, and so on. A body corresponded to a "site" on the grid defined by an overlapping of one term from each pair. The body came to be defined by its pinning to the grid.Proponents of this model often cited its ability to link body-sites into a "geography" or culture that tempered the universalizing tendencies or ideology.
The sites, it is true, are multiple. But aren't they stillcombinatorial permutations on an overarching definitional framework? Aren't the possibilities for the entire gamut of cultural emplacements, including the "subversive" ones, precoded into the ideological master structure? Is the body as linked to a particular subject position anything more than a local embodiment of ideology? Where has the potential for change gone? How does a body perform its way out of a definitional framework that is not only responsible for its very "construction," but seems to prescript every possible signifying and countersignifyingmove as a selection from a repertoire or possible permutations on a limited set of predetermined terms? How can the grid itself change? How can what the system has pinpointedly determined flip over into a determining role capable of acting on the systemic level? The aim of the positionality model was to open a window on local resistance in the name of change. But the problem of changereturned with a vengeance. Because every body-subject was so determinately local, it was boxed into its site on the culture map. Gridlock.
The idea of positionality begins by subtracting movement from the picture. This catches the body in cultural freeze-frame.The point or explanatory departure is a pinpointing, a zero-point of stasis. When positioning of any kind comes a determining first, movement comes a problematic second. After all is signified and sited, there is the nagging problem of how to add movement back into the picture. But adding movement to stasis is about as easy as multiplying a number by zero and getting a positive product. Of course, a body occupying one position on the grid might succeed in making a move to occupy another position. In fact,certain normative progressions, such as that from child to adult, are coded in. But this doesn't change the fact that what defines the body is not the movement itself, only its beginning and endpoints. Movement is entirely subordinated to the positions it connects. These are predefined. Adding movement like this adds nothing at all. You just get two successive states: multiples of zero.
The very notion of movement as qualitative transformationis lacking.There is "displacement," but no transformation; it is as if the body simply leaps from one definition to the next. Since the positional model's definitional framework is punctual, it simply can't attribute a reality to the interval, whose crossing is a continuity (or nothing). The space of the crossing, the gaps between positionson the grid, falls into a theoretical no-body's land. Also lacking is the notion that if there is qualitative movement of the body, it as directly concerns sensings as significations. Add to this the fact that matter, bodily or otherwise, never figures into the account as such. Even though many of the approaches in question characterize themselves as materialisms, matter can only enter in indirectly: as mediated. Matter, movement, body, sensation. Multiple mediated miss.