ividual parts” (1932: 52). A social body becomes queer, becomes decadent, when the parts have “too much will,” compromising everything: the reproduction of the whole.
Do we notice this “too much” because of what we do not notice? Parts appear as full of will when they don’t support the reproduction of a whole. They are too expressive because of what they do not express. No wonder that the self-regard of heterosexuality can be concealed under the sign of the general will, because this particular will has already been given expression in the general will. Giving up a will that does not have a general expression is what allows you to inhabit the familiar, or to recede into the background. When willing “agrees” with what is generally willed, a part becomes part of a background. When willing does not agree, the will of the part is too full: willful. Willfulness might “come up” when an act of willing does not agree with what has receded. A queer phenomenology teaches us what or who recedes in the generalization of will.
And I have no doubt that: willful parts will keep coming up.
Bergson, Henri (2002).  “Frenzy, Mechanism and Mysticism” in John Mullarkey (ed). Bergson’s Key Writings. Continuum: London. 295-344.
Ellis, Havelock (1932). Views and Reviews. London: Desmond Harmsworth.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. (2003) . The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pascal, Blaise. (2003)  Pensées. Trans. W.F.Trotter. New York Dover Publications.
Poovey, Mary (1995). Making a social body: British cultural formation, 1830- 1864. University of Chicago Press.
Riley, Patrick (1988). The General Will Before Rousseau: The Transformation of the Divine into the Civic. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Robbins, Bruce (1993). The Servant’s Hand: English Fiction from Below. Durham: Duke University Press.