This is really brilliant and interesting. Here are some initial thoughts — I am not sure about any of them (your other post on resilience is brilliant and helpful; I need to think more about that). Anyway, some initial responses:
4. My intention was for absolute subsumption to be a historical category rather than a logical category or category of the subject (so, this would be a difference from Kristeva and Butler). But, your remarks suggest that rather than there being something unique here it is a repetition or intensification of a logic already part of a certain “Western” modernity (with its specific binaries). It could be, maybe, that something is different with the economic materialization of the logic to the point of no return. Or, maybe the difference from Butler is that constitutive exclusion is also enabling, there is a positive dimension. So, there is a possibility for redeployment. But, with absolute subsumption (if this is term that can be a concept) there is no such possibility (no potential).
3. Your post on resilience answers this question with the analysis of the way rendering black women feminists as toxic empowers other positions, particularly in the dynamics of social media. What I wonder, though, is whether this version of toxicity is part of absolute subsumption. So, the ‘troll’ for example, is a figure who disrupts a media discussion, violates the norms. Others hate on the troll and put all the problems of the discussion onto the scroll. Trolls are considered toxic and to be eliminated even as they can also generate intensity and interaction in online discussions. So, this seems like a mediated production of toxicity that is rendered functional for communicative capitalism. I was also thinking about abandoned sites, dead links, ewaste, those things that have no re-use but are everywhere. I find it hard to associate this with people since people always have options of combining together in solidarity.
2. I link this to the proletariat as a concept because proletarianization refers to the way that capitalism produces a class of those who depend on selling themselves to survive. At the same time, there is a mistake here because I also want to think about ways to understand the proletarianized as still a source of revolutionary possibility. In other words, I want to see if there is a way that absolute subsumption produces the possibility of a subject who, because excreted and dumped by capitalism, is somehow or can somehow be now freed from capitalism. That formulation isn’t right, though the effort is to try to find something that isn’t put back into communicative capitalism. Anyway, I wouldn’t call this blackness but blackness makes the analysis more specific: why are the excremental places Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, large parts of Africa? But, to position people as utterly lacking in potential, particularly black people, has hideous resonance with white racist language, so I am uneasy about this.
1. The thing is, the power of black feminists isn’t subsumed in twitter wars. So, black feminists aren’t literally abandoned; they are demeaned and excluded online. I think you are right about the way an image is put to use. But what about the Real?