Rizvana Bradley, The Vicissitudes of Touch: Annotations on the Haptic. 2020.

Sedgwick’s texture vs texxture: texxture demonstrates the history/material making of the object, whereas texture’s manufactured glosses may hide the facts of the object––tho, “no matter how high the gloss, there is no such thing as textural lack”––this becomes the privileged/interesting category over texxture’s “inescapable depth”
center of critique of Touching/Feeling’s inheritance of phenomenology: “for Sedgwick, the texturized valences of touch are implicated in, rather than a violent displacement from, the symbolic economy of the human.”

if the body is the point of view in phenomenology, what of those whose bodies have been stolen, taken apart (like Fanon’s)––what about touching for flesh (which Spillers makes come before the body)?
the body (as legal personhood/self-possession) is produced, Weheliye/Spillers notes, THROUGH “high crimes against the flesh”
“What of those whose skin is constantly resurfaced as depthless texxture, a texxture whose surficial inscriptions are read as proxies for the historicity that the over-glossed surface would seek to expunge?”

connection between Fanonian epidermalization to “the open secret alternately buried within and exposed upon the skin” (I’m thinking of the open secret of Spivak’s ethics)
* “Hapticality is a way of naming an analytics of touch that cannot be, let alone appear, within the onto-epistemological confines of the (moribund) world, a gesture with and towards the abyssal revolution and devolution of the sensorium to which black people have already been subject, an enfleshment of the “difference without separability”[44] that has been and will be the condition of possibility for “life in the ruins.”[45]”