What is this project at its core: thinking desire and agency with respect to the working-class within literature, where literature itself is a mediation, a symptom, a corollary and object of culture.

Thinking egress and the weird and eerie as modes of egress, after Luckhurst and Colquhoun’s respective work after Fisher, supports this examination. The reveries of the psychologically homelessness, the precarious subject and the formally homeless figures in Chapter One, and the everyday’ and partly staged ghost work examined   in Chapter Two underpin the  developed treatment of alternative working-class communities through a contemporary and retroactive lens in Chapter Three.

It reads Class as a psychoanalytic concept, as well as more conventionally socio-economic one- class as something  inexorable and contingency, something to be recognized, transformed, transformed through recognition-identifiable symptomatic; there are  multiple and contrary associations  in class – perhaps the disavowed master signifier the  internal contradictions- the sign under which politics must be waged, the thing which subsumes all political activity into variable interpolations: accepting or contesting what Pierre Bourdieu (1999) called ‘doxa’, making the social world appear self-evident and requiring no interpretation. I am using Fisher on spectrality and its relationship to popular modernism – reasserting in the wake of post  (after  Rudrum and Stavris).  Focusing on disappearance of the ‘post’ overlooks something important; persistence of the ‘modern’ (358) as ideology and the relationship between this and the speculative as well as cultural archaeology (the Benjaminian past-lost future) of Acid in his last work: in addition to this,  Luckhurst’s gloss of Fisher, Colquhoun’s insights into the valences of ‘egress’ after Fisher and the longer haunt[1], for instance Punter’s `Freudian history’. After Luckhurst, it ‘pick[s] up and run with the eerie that Fisher has theorized –  after Fisher post- Zizek which ’combines the tragic vision of Freud with a Marxist faith in the future’[2]. In this process will use Fisher and his interlocutors to clarify the weird  and eerie  as grounded in Zizekian and Deleuze- ontology ‘as is’ and phenomena and within written culture, modernism and itself otherwise within space of formal; critique, those sociologists (i.e. Katherine  Simpson   2021 on post-industrial communities, which sees spaces of ‘flatcapping’  or spectral invocation after the closure of the pits, including the residual use of idioms and conceptions of ‘pit-time’ ) with the explanation of residual behaviour. Utilizing empirical examples alongside psychoanalytic frameworks and conceptualizations of class autonomy or aristocracy allows the reading of differences or modes or virtualities emerging from weirdness around class experience itself as exceptional.

The acknowledged melancholia of 21st Century British deindustrialization post 1990s[8], corresponds to being addressed by culture (directly and mediated, partially, within ideological dissonance or cracks within speech positions) within texts as working-class subjects associated with a post-industrial ‘everyplace’ in addition to residual stories told within place-culture about itself- are broadly and unevenly ‘in common’.  Critiques surround also nostalgia with regards to specific temporalized sites and degrees of reproduction or osmosis, corresponding responding and blurred, as well as fabulated (as consequences of reproduction, or as modes of ‘productive’ nostalgia’: thus, in Berliner (2014), ‘endo-‘ and ‘exo-‘ forms of nostalgia[9].

As Roger Luckhurst (2017) [10] phrases it in his review in the LA Review of Books ‘The weird is a disturbing obtrusion of something from the outside in. It is the insidious intrusion, the confounding juxtaposition, the thing found in the wrong place’. Places are eerie as sites approached (discovered for the first time or anew). Alternative values are themselves weird: even enmeshed  in capitalism, this weird alterity emerges from the (radical, oppressed but not simply oppressed) past.  Weird then, is inside seen from an absolute ‘outside’  (framing it as weird) whilst eerie is tied up with presence (the failure of absence) where the ‘not’ is (like post-structural). The unknown eerie is a strange ‘at home’ in the overtly ‘other’. the eerie as the absence of ordinary agency becomes readable as transsubjectivity, or the ‘lost-future’ or the Event.    Because it rises up from the outside, and remains there, such resists simple hermeneutic interpretation from within the present logically (instead of speculatively, ‘magically’ as a synthesis of ‘is’ and ‘can be’ ). As I read it, framed in terms of capital and its uncanny, an activity might seem weird; a place eerie with the ghosts of ‘capital’ logic and the logic of  the alternative world- the ‘spirits of place’ –  whilst the  ‘weirdness’ within the territory of the action or the homely makes one consider it differently.  These bring about a quasi- theological moment, in Benjamin’s sense, a  revelation not just of alterity of lost futures but of the messianic which is the messianism of the collective rather than  single figure[ in theological terms ‘exposing these quasi-theological  forces of spirits[11] (after Marx’s phantamology or Gothic’, the move from the father, to mediation and sacrificial scapegoat, to the spirit or collective). In the outside space of industrial ruins or liminal ‘edgeland’, for instance, or the riot, is a theological time; individual moments crystallise the ambivalence- present  day violence and heroic struggle in a melancholic constellation, that inspires despair and insurrection alike. Moments are monads; formally this alienation and return echoes  homelessness as formulated through the haunt (as egress or withdrawal) . The delineation of potential content here thus functions in the sense of resurrecting  concrete possibilities as found within Benjamin’s radical  (non-orthodox) procedures of historiographies or archaeologies through the monad^[19], as well as Ernst  Bloch^[20] and  the sense of an immanent future^[21]. whilst the ‘weird’ can be read as discomforting new within the  same and the ‘eerie’ the glimpses of a future or lost familiar in the space of the ‘other’. These are all modalities of the haunt which exceed the ghost as lament to a future which never comes, or even a threnody in the sense of passing. Like the moments of crisis, the realization in Benjamin[12], the moment of eeriness or weirdness in Fisher, and the broad unheimlich, sees  haunting is coded as when something else, something different from before, seems like it must be done’ (Gordon 2008, xvi,) which includes a lost future’  (the past ‘could have been and can be otherwise’ (Gordon 2008, 57, cited by Bright 2021, 215) or the lost wreckage of history in Benjamin (with its ‘profane illumination’ that ‘things could have been and can be otherwise’) and ‘in Gordon’s words (2008, 57), the ‘utopian grace’ of a social haunting’ (223) . Such a ’ghost’ crops up as figure[5], in the context of  capitalist realism as such as well  as post-2008 crisis and acceleration of capital’s tendencies[6]

The openness of materiality is haunted or supplemented by a purposefulness- the object which lies within the parallax gaze, the class tradition and relation of production – which might appear as excess repression from a perspective ‘fleeing-class’ as opposed to traversing: fleeing here refers to modes of neoliberals aspirationalism as well as the ‘fleeing’ as disavowal which occurs within liberal universalistic politics which does not permit within itself the ‘ghost’. ‘Power to’ is modified by a horizon of object in which and between which such ‘power to’ becomes articulated. Egress through the ‘other’ in the familiar and the ‘strange familiar’ of the other – the Weird ‘veering’ or queering and the Eerie radical integration through the Gothic/class ‘popular modernist’ or ‘proletarian aristocratic’ counter-temporal counters-value genesis- archaeology of a lost or unthought possibility- occurs into the contained, carapace of the community and then out of its bounds into the future. Such a process nevertheless  positions that exit- whether through a subcultural heterotopic community space or to intervene in and dose the wider community – as grounded in class experience or a singularised, concretized universal where self- functions or class, class for society concentrically and retaining that spectral dimension rather than leaping towards the fantasy of an ‘all’.

Here is an Anti-individualism which is (working-class) aristocratic (after Fisher): like Eagleton on Wittgenstein’s anti-capitalist ‘distaste for the cult of the individual [where] one can feel the disdain of aristocratic Vienna for the stout burgher’ (2022)[14].  This anti-individualism is unpinned by the power of the collectivize expressed in positive Potenza as this moves from work to multiple ‘labour forms’, to the current, more stratified and diverse labour-forms now which require new conjunctions; it is this power-a post-Spinozean one of potentiality which Alcala derives from reading Negri – rather than the location of the contemporary novel in dereliction, that I take from Alcala  (2016), yet whilst retaining that same ‘loss’ within the critical lens or readerly (Mimesis 3, after Hartley 2017). Melancholy and class struggle, as with the  question Rose poses with regards to Sinclair’s negativity and ‘class’[15], are bonded within the memorial or psychogeographic act as forms of egress, rooted in a (re)memorialization -‘the hesitant openness to the past exhibited by  earlier avant-garde engagements further and into new territory’ and ‘chained to the politics of modernity’ as weight and carapace as well as -in the figure of the chain become carapace in Walkerdine’s Guattarian model of security and transition through ”object-play’ in all its saliences as the basis of counter-hegemony – being moved out of.

Ghost potentialities, across the Weird and the Eerie, then ‘do’, they are the basis upon which production stands: the object which produce multiple futures: they are what is grown out of them, but that branching item is nevertheless extant. The unconscious here is the unconscious object that is ‘externalized’ and then the ”unconscious’ virtualities  which are those external, shared and differentiated  potentialities relating to these same traces that is, an unconscious which is not reducible to ‘lack’ or to the oedipal struggle -after Deleuze but without what Fisher terms that Spinzoean vitalism. The object is like the organizing force: The organizing force here is never thought outside of what it organizes and the milieu within which it is organized.

Such hauntology is against synchronic ‘personalization ’- the inside/outside distinction blurred in the black-mirror (the negative of the negative) of capital’s colonization of the self – starting with the displacement from the commons and production of proletarianization. That is, the ‘collective’ of a post-Voloshinvian ‘voice animating the ‘psyche’. This is the first ghost, returning from a mythicised ‘resistant’ past, retroactively constituted at the level of political or political-aesthetic ritual.  Yet the ‘is’ and epistemological, as practically ‘perceived’ diverge; the communal addressed ‘other’[16], contains a disavowed excess which hauntology speaks to above the framing of ‘autonomism’ in its rudimentary regard.  Skeggs’ allusion to the ‘double-voiced’- the voice of immediate material concern and the ‘voice;’ which is fetish and history [ aleatory, in a sense] regarding items, is itself double-voiceable, replete with a melancholia for the missing properties of the object as well as secreted  hermetic dimensions applicable to the ‘community’. This too, then, is the dimension of the Weird and the Eerie as double-helix or the Möbius strip.

Working-class autonomism is understood through the work done around working-class value circuits by Beverly Skeggs, by the ‘carapace’ of specific alterities  in Walkerdine and Jiminez, and Walkerdine’s Guattarian (2014, 2016) notion of ‘holding;’ in which experimentation takes place. Such holding can be in egress as refusal, through spaces of enclosure, through refusals of neoliberal-time and similar modalities. Such autonomism – as encountered by the Study –  is that which lies in the face of a double consciousness- that of capitalist realism and its associated ‘desire forms’, and secondly, that of the acknowledgement of the power of the system as a real fiction or orientation out of which there is no full respite in the immediate future. The ontology of separateness is grounded in forma; melancholy but out of this insufficiency or compromised escape there emerge counter-dreams, egresses bound in or determined by this first core refusal, however contingent, of bourgeois values.

Fisher inverts  Nietzsche’s genetic fallacy, into non-levelling, cultivatory working-classhood and affirmative identification with its ‘rich cruelty’. as one form of negativity, inverting hierarchical ‘cruelty’ or bourgeois negativity. The bourgeois , as in Charlesworth asymmetrically lacks a knowledge but in principle  ‘ anyone with the ‘will and desire to acquire it’ in Fisher’s terms, this ‘nobility’ can access it  (2018, 274); working-class culture is ‘foreign to the levelling impulse’ and its valences hinge upon whether  ‘vindication’ inheres ‘’through status and authority’, or through more radical forms of working-classhood-grit or glam respectively. In Fisher’s formulation ‘ the ‘line of flight’ towards the proletarian collective body, and ‘ nu-earth’ (the earth that is modernism) is, notably ‘politically positive’ (2018, 274). Nu-earth functioned as an extension of the Mods’ hyper-artificiality’ in its most radical salvageable dimension, rather than the Rousseauism ‘rock’(275): the ‘protean’ here requires the ‘fantasy’ or the Zizekian shades; as with acid ‘s theorization is a ’ a ruthless de-naturalization of the body via decryption and chemical alteration’.  Fisher ‘s later work sublated this (recuperated) aspect of the hippie milieu around ‘acid’ alterity with the initial critique of the ‘anti-aristocratic’ pleasure-principle driven hippie, to illuminate (a) these more traditional working-class artifices and (b) to offer account of embodied, proletarian potentiality. The initial critique precipitates, however, enduring trajectory . 

In terms of literary representation Kirk’s ‘wistfulness’ and Charlesworth’s ostensible ethnographic fatalism of the class-subject is sublated through (as Gilfillan) a reading of the ‘hope within Charlesworth as well as the ‘literary; or fabulatory – the virtual and the contingent -within Kirk, as the same.  This I read as congruent with Fisher’s notion of the virtual, in relation to the ‘weird and eerie’- the egress of the excavated past, the exits of the present and the vision of the future.   That is, hauntology as an extension of Paul Gilfillan (2009)  terms in this regard the bringing forth the potentialities of English working class dasein and overcoming,  inherited alienations (2009, 261). This process is grounded in an encounter with ‘ the realism’ of the body and what it can do in potenza, together – rather than ‘flexibility’ (Fisher 2018) of neoliberalism’s thanatroplogy – which paradoxically, obliterating temporality in the abstract sense, brings temporality to the surface and re-temporalises the subject. Correspondingly,  the many adduced ‘small ‘triumphs of time over space’, in word toward the ‘triumph of space over time’ in which ‘what is won can be kept’ (2009, 250), is phantasmal by alienation in this initial insight or ‘hidden essence’ provided by form of literature or a political change or a moment in the everyday even prior to any development in hauntological mobilization. This mirrors Bourdieu’s habitual  class-based establishment of ‘mental distance’. What it suggests, materialized at a later stage or different mode- one of the literary or commemorative act, prior to memory – is innate potential for the working class comes to occupy this middle position  without becoming the ‘middle’ class in the conventional sense, precisely through a vantage point which exceeds sight and is characteristics as ontological but known through the ‘concrete universal’’. That is, set against the level of what Karel Kosík (1976) calls the ‘pseudo-concrete’[17].

THE STUDY FRAME

The time period in which the primary literary texts appear and with which they are concerned ideologically, if not always  chronologically – is post-2008: this is the (post) Crash-era where capital’s contradictions come into view, where austerity is presaged and then implemented where profits, in the UK, taxed cannot, through system and political will within that paradigm. This is the period where Capitalist Realism, Fisher’s notion, is  thrown into crisis and heightened. This is an era where ghosts of the past-communal ghost-come into sharper being, painful or jouissance or at the least uncanny in so far as they are proximal and far away- the ghosts of communal politics and political movements which disappear.

In practice, the project starts through formulating ‘homelessness’ in Chapter One as a three-part concept -alienation and recognition acceleration towards new version of work or community that reveal power and limitation amongst displaced working-class subjects who encounter forms of ‘alienation’, provisional new collectivities of the body and subalternity in figurative or analogous postcoloniality (for instance drawing upon the postcolonial tendency in Kelman’s class subjects after the WRG 2015 or Punter 2000) alongside the During’ subaltern to precariat’ thesis as an instance of that transformation of affect -and social ontology – Fisher’s work engages . In this Chapter is a provisional founding, through a  space of abjection or otherness or dereliction of a new community. The forms of egress functioning here correspond to similar, less overtly ‘destitute’ positions and modes of egress (after Fisher 2017 and glossed by Colquhoun 2020) as encounter or reverie mediated through labour, space and encounter with class-subjects (within and beyond the class community) in my second chapter.  

From Chapter One to Chapter Two it explores the  more radical forms of escape through nostalgia after Bonnett’s conception of the term or Calder Williams’ notion of the ‘salvaging’ from the ruins (itself readable after Benjamin) . This exit/salvage comes through in the wake of neoliberal destitution and consists of dissipation or expulsion- in the process of revival – of every excess dreamwork unduly contained or archaic rather than oppositional ‘past-future’. Such coordinates follow an examination in Chapter One of  how memory becomes mobilized in extremis to create crystallizations  of trauma and visions of new directionality (another work; another version of the ‘life’) . It deals with everyday space  with regards to the home and work using Skeggs and Tyler (Allen, Le Bas) and Walkerdine’ notion of carapace, liminal space with regards to heterotopic place practice using Edensor’s account of ruin and  temporally overlaid place practice, Bright’s ghost-box concept of generative engagement with mundane hauntings and Walkerdine’s psychoanalytic- spectralization of the Guattarian  creative act. In each case the ‘weirdness’ and familiarity, departure and reterritorialization in a suddenly Heimlich/unheimlich  draws upon Fisher, whilst the modalities of departure correspond to forms of egress or exit [discussed further below], from affect to inhabiting of repurposed (old) new spaces and conjunctures.

It examines politics here. Recurrently, the first ghost is the antineoliberal ‘in common’, of the union and its iterations. Forms of potential politics coalesce around friendship or solidarity in moments of glimmering amidst antagonism. Colquhoun’s radical friendship (2020) gloss on egress is useful here, allowing us to open up an insight into the nature of the commons as political community whereby ordinary attachment is superseded- this utopian dimension whereby one welcomes the unhomely in corresponds, I think, to power gathered together’ as Potenza (in Thorburn and Alcala[3] or Fisher’s own reference; or McManus -’Hegel’s well-known arguments about how quantitative change can eventually become so dramatic that it brings about qualitative transitions’ 2020) – and crucially, to Eagletonian or Badiouan Pauline notions of the holy spirit[4] as political community.

The post-Freudian formula of Superego which draws upon unconscious satisfaction, is in turn answered by suprasubjective  or transsubjective extimate institutional-practical change whereby desires find a new more consonant satisfaction despite the superego’s injunction’s particular form and the bribe (of anarchy) in concert with the threat of disorder ( violence or the violence of sudden withdrawal), that provokes the ‘rational’ response Chibber describes in his critique of the ideological critique (2022). What he calls “manageable forms” of resistance, by which he means individual rather than communal forms of resistance, thus guaranteeing the stability of the system), desymbolization, dereliction’s ends, their lives lead to craving, are encountered by these moments of residual and staged weirdness and eeriness . A negative prediction- that of restriction- is followed by dream of  a new set of coordinates: that is, of rules that in turn produce new capabilities. In that sense, powers of reality as opposed to the present dominant constitution of the real and the limits of its opposition.

The third Chapter sees ‘Acid’  or examinations of how communities take up this ghost, either to dwell with it- the ghost of failure, capital’s colonization- within their egressal space, or to over-positivise it and assert conjuncture without the ‘lack’ or haunting that comes with class. In either sense the community stands as an egressal assemblage but in the former case, this embrace of the melancholic, conversely- whether or not it is a priori or discovered through failure in a  kind of radical empiricism or praxis-sight akin to the ’sight’ produced by encounters in Chapter Two or Fisher’s popular modernism – produces a form of subjective desire in concert. This desire functions within but offers a respite from, and the illumination of future space outside of capitalism in its class experience; the latter, missing this temporality of dwelling as one which includes patience and resistance succumbs to a characterization from without as ‘fantasy’ and produces inordinate despair within its subjects, even as it too functions as a subsequent ghostly trace- residual and stageable or a ‘site’, material and conceptual for intervention – of the utopian. Spaces here include revisitations of the promise of the urban sixties modernist block, whereby the relationship is alternately ‘replacement ‘(as an self-occluded fidelity) or salvage of this built ‘popular modernist’ ideology after Hatherley: in these spaces are forms of autonomism equivalent to that practiced by older or more traditional working-class subjects whose same practices, as these earlier chapters have illustrated, also dwells within a certain performativity or fabulation. That is, a residual-craft which includes one’s relationship to the past as subject and object of speech in reminiscence. Once again, ordinary activity involves forms of  object-grounded, quasi-psychedelic ‘getting out of it’, where extimate consciousness of objects  is, for character and authorial ideology variably classed.

Texts relate classlessness either as positivisation- a commitment to transcendence now, or atomization- or the untenability of class struggle in which power lies in smaller subcultural identification. Yet external incident echoes internal (character-ideological) focalization as ambivalence – class is irreducible. That is, not just as one class alongside another but as asymmetrical antagonism.

The consciousness-raising monadic and assembled moments here are akin to that particular ‘acid’ practice in its varieties suggested within Fisher-and then  Gilbert and Plan C: at the kernel of Fisher’s critique is a melancholia that overcomes itself, whether in acts of fidelity to modernism, or to the overtly acidic, in a  sublation of the ‘positivising 68 tendency and its incorporation into class-fractured, hyper-capital  (from a critique of the spectacle to the raising of the spectacle), as with the classic use and overthrow of capital itself within Marxist teleology: ‘lack and a Deleuzean generativity  dwell in the same moment of the capitalist realist present as its opposition.

The Final section deals with the working-class figure as creating their own alternative zones of self-articulation, as well as negotiating their position within regional writing institutions: these selves are haunted by proletarian writers, proletarian modernism and popular modernism. It will then explore form in terms of (Fisherian popular) modernism in relation to Jameson’s mapping and ‘affect’ and ‘destiny’ antinomies of realism as corresponding with the ‘concrete abstract’ of the spectral -worlds to come – situating this briefly within the world-System and the Warwick Research’s Irrealism. Narratives, from irrealism to Gardiner (2010) discuss the mingling of high and low stances – with De Certeau[13] ‘black rock that resists assimilation’ (1984, 60)  and the abstract ‘high’ or ‘bird eye view’ of a Lefebvrian Marxism.

---

[1] Punter refers to `Freudian history’, from which, as from the uncon-scious, nothing ever goes away. “62), history itself as 2 spectralize the possibility of knowledge. (262)” of it- not just the haunt sought and the knowledge ‘waited for”(  in moments, I would suggest, which stretch out or are between  feeling and ideology, learning and unconscious)  but remains to haunt” – refuses “to be occulted”, in reference the apparent site of enlightened new beginnings, since” nothing that has once come into existence will have passed” (Freud, XXI, 7) (263), and 2 significance of which may only be revealed on the horizon of an unascertainable future. (Punter, 269).

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/12/terry-eagleton-trouble-in-paradise-absolute-recoil-zizek-review

[3] https://merionwest.com/2020/08/27/review-roger-scrutons-on-human-nature/ : like counting and then the antagonism; one may think the class that is constituted by coming together in numbers and forming relations –in Marx, of the emergent schism of human relations and the proletariat that joins itself together; Thompson- the aggregation of practices; Williams- the  coming together, and them detailing, taxonomzing of residual and emergent practices relating to this agglomeration:  Badiou is an adding together;  the Deleuzean potentiality that leads in Hardt/Negri and Negri’s potente]. ‘Hegel’s well-known arguments about how quantitative change can eventually become so dramatic that it brings about qualitative transitions. Just like if one adds enough grains of sand together it eventually becomes a heap, once a material being becomes sufficiently complex what it is cannot just be explained with reference to the constituent matter. This is especially important in explaining why it is that each individual understands himself as being more than just another idle collection of matter. Unlike rocks… beings see themselves as subjects who take an intentional position in relation to the world’.

[4] https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-fall-that-makes-us-like-god-part-ii/  Sept 2019

[5]  On Modernism, not to conflate Cubism and Surrealism, two schools of thought about art that are fundamentally at right angles to each other in technique, motivation, ideology, praxis. (Cubism is in a sense the reducto absurdum of impressionism, its still about surfaces, but its taken to extreme and non-representative lengths, Surrealism was about depths, meanings, dreams, etc, completely different concepts. you really shouldn’t be confused as to why you dont know about what came after

[6] The Real of late-capitalism, although not determinate to the point which left-melancholia has internalised ( as Fisher diagnoses) holds profound psychological sway over the subject in psychological precariat and self-marketisation   The left and class politics having to confront Political imaginaries of the past like Benjmainian Lost futures visible in language and architecture. Thereby analyses and praxis alike traffic in the labour of the negative as discussed by Traverso (2017) and in Fisher’s work.

[7]  Unless you can predict how the world is likely to behave, you can’t fulfil your powers and capabilities, which is the positive meaning of freedom. https://unherd.com/2022/03/vladimir-putins-war-on-chaos/

[8]  E.g. Kim Moody writes on “the 1990s increased global and domestic competition forced a consolidation of capital along rational industrial lines through massive merger movements, while tech-driven just-in-time systems linked workers in production and the movement of goods in capital’s new and highly vulnerable supply-chain gang”. 

[9] endo-nostalgia is a personal nostalgia for something that has occurred in one’s personal lifetime, which they themselves have experienced or lived through. For example, former members of mining communities pining for the working and social experience their previous occupations afforded. By contrast, they define exo-nostalgia as a more abstract force, which has not been personally experienced, its discursive and emotional features felt vicariously by those who have been detached from its direct effects.

[10] Conversely, re the uncanny -of a quality about the object in which this familiar object seems to have departed from itself; the ‘weird’-quality of an object amidst the terrain of the ordinary (that is, amidst the terrain of the quotidian, an element which twists it, so a new genre trope, or an object, which belies the comfort or homeless of a thing- this in the ‘weirdness’ of history itself , approached:;the ‘eerie’- that shock or  hint of the ‘familiar’ historically, in that which is relegated by time and forgetfulness to the terrain (geographically, spatially-culturally) of the other.

[11] Luckhurst:’the core insight reveals the eerie as the trace of an impenetrable agency without, or some unnerving non-subjective drive that compels our behaviors incomprehensibly from within.

[12] Ordinary affects’ that ‘come into view as habit of shock, resonance or impact’ (Stewart, 2007, 1), that ‘work not through “meanings” per se, but rather in the way that they pick up density and texture (221)

[13]Everyday life is the realm of the  ‘messy’, the impure, a ‘conjunction of habit, desire (28)

[14] ‘He could never decide whether he was a Brahmin or an Untouchable. He turned away from what he called the pure ice of the intellect to the “rough ground” of everyday existence. However abstruse the problems we set ourselves, their roots are to be found in our routine practice ….that I’m not sure they are so different, until you get to the frontier of metaphysics, where they of course part company rather radically. Until then I should have thought Spinoza would readily agree with Wittgenstein’s ideas about language’. https://unherd.com/2022/05/ludwig-wittgensteins-war-on-philosophy/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups%5B0%5D=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=66ad652a7b

[15] Rose: ‘Reading Sinclair one may wonder how  his melancholic concerns could be ever be compatible with the rhetoric of  class struggle. Such an incongruous mix is precisely what can be witnessed’ 

[16] As in the debate over consciousness- the other level ‘that the middle-class possess over the working-class – for Riley (2017) in Catalyst, extrapolating from   Bourdieu – as well as  Sawchuck describes around  CHAT – Cultural Historical Activity Theory (2006, 247) .

[17] Such an approach to class built on personal narratives recognizes the tension between specificity and generalization (23) where ‘ our individual stories are also always communal ones.” (Waller 2013, 5); or what Bright cites in Walkerdine and Studdert  (2021, 217) ‘a lived process of ‘linkages, actions, speech, affect, practices, grounded in communal interaction’ (Walkerdine and Studdert, 7).