| OCR Text |
Show 329 dissertation has not always maintained a regularity in organization and arrangement. Each case study differed in organization and arrangement in order to potentially evoke a few shocks, tremors, and jolts that may have provoked readers to become corporation. We arrived here because we have learned that subjectivity is not something that can be captured, reduced, and essentially known by following rules: subjectivity is a networked relation. Thus, to read the corporate subject egologically would impose a foreign, and strictly humanist, structure of reason onto the unreasonable corporate subject. In Chapter 1 this multiple author posed three research questions that guided our cartography. 1) What are the networks of relations that produce and sustain the corporate subject? 2) What can the corporate subject teach us about rhetoric and argumentation? 3) What kind of subject is the corporation? Now that we have mapped a few close encounters of the corporate subject, what may we conclude? 1) What are the networks of relations that produce and sustain the corporate subject? There are numerous networks of relations that produce and sustain the corporate subject, and I mapped a few of them: the legal assemblage, the communal, and the visual. All three of these networks secure a fractal coherency that holds relations that bear corporate monstrosities. There are many more networks of corporate subjectivity, of course, and future research may wish to trace how corporations maintain subjectivity in political, economic, mnemonic, metabolic, or violent networks. Regardless, even though it is a sheer impossibility to entirely answer this question, we can say, in a roundabout way, that the networks of relations that secure and stabilize the corporate subject include any action that becomes associated with the concept of the corporation, especially through inscriptions. This includes, but is not |
