LAUSR

This essay responds to Winfried Fluck’s review of The Limits of Critique (2015). While appreciating the care and attention with which Fluck reads my book, I do not see the book as displaying a “corporeal bias.” While it addresses the role of mood and disposition, it also stresses the importance of interpretation, thought, and meaning. I also clarify that The Limits of Critique is not an argument against routine as such—quite the opposite—but seeks to clarify the specific contradictions that arise from the routinization of critique. How does the status of critique change when the rhetoric of defamiliarization becomes all too familiar and a discourse of transgression and resistance is a required academic methodology?