Derridean monstrosity

Again taking this opportunity to explore something for my final paper, I'd like to take a pass at Derrida's idea of the monstrous future.

In Of Grammatology, Derrida posits that "the future can only be anticipated in the form of absolute danger. It is that which breaks absolutely with constituted normality and can only be proclaimed, presented, as a sort of monstrosity." Here he's talking about what can possibly exist beyond a structure other than our own Western metaphysics, our own (ethno/phal)logocentrism. He offers Of Grammatology as an answer to logocentrism, as a boundary-dwelling, fissure-expanding tool to glimpse the monstrous future. In my paper, I'll be suggesting that Harway's cyborg offers us a potential monstrosity for peering outside of the anthropocene. An abomination we're only beginning to be able to formulate.

I'm suggesting the cyborg is an unnatural amalgamation of many different parents, but most powerfully, of heteroglossia, hybridity, and (we'll see if I can stretch it this far or if I'm in desperate need of additional pages) some sort of (new) materialist ANT. However, the cyborg is more than the sum of her parts. To be anything other than a product and proliferation and continuation of the anthropocene, she has to be something else. She has to identify where her parents fall short...to identify their lack. Annnnnnddddd here we go with the supplement.

My introduction to the supplement was also via Of Grammatology. As is often the case with Derrida, some very helpful footnote information was what tipped me off: "In French, supplement means both "substitute" and "addition" Both senses are in play in this analysis, articulating a logic that describes the relation between language and the world." Made of the multifaceted, multivocal, boundary dwelling, chimeric heteroglossia and hybridity, the cyborg is very much those things, and then some. She is the thing they point at but cannot bring themselves to say. She is that which cannot be commanded or contained by the language they use to describe themselves, and for this reason, leads us out of the system/structure that organizes them. Looking back at Of Grammatology, Derrida's description of the supplement focuses on the transcendence of substitute/addition simultaneity of the supplement:

The play of substitution fills and marks a determined lack...We should begin by taking rigorous account of this being held within [prise] or this surprise: the writer writes in a language and in a logic whose proper system, laws, and life his discourse by definition cannot dominate absolutely. He uses them only by letting himself after a fashion and up to a point, be governed by the system. And the reading must always aim at a certain relationship, unperceived by the writer, between what he commands and what he does not command of the patterns of the language that he uses.

A supplemental cyborg is a fruition and surpassing of her primordial elements. It makes sense that she is the excess, that which cannot be commanded, and what can only exist outside of life as we know it.

Here's how I see this fitting in with the rest of my paper:

• Intro
• Define Anthropocene (necessarily unifying/centripetal/singular)
• Capitalscene, globalization-scene, etc
• Seeing beyond the limits of this reality is difficult, monstrous (Derrida quotes), but the monster is our future: The future is necessarily monstrous: the figure of the future, that which can only be surprising, that for which we are not prepared is heralded by species of monsters. . . .All experience open to the future is prepared or prepares itself to welcome the monstrous arrivant . . . This is the movement of culture.(Points...Interviews)
• Establish parent concepts as emulsifying agents of anthropocene: 
• Heteroglossia 
• Hybridity 
• New materialist interconnectivity ?
• Cyborg is not just a mixture of these things, but an addition to them (supplement)
• Close read Cyborg 
• Define as originary supplement/primordial substitution 
• Address critiques: Explain the critiques of militarized/technocratic/machinist/futurist cyborg as abomination, not at all different than mechanized anthropocene; not so much concerned with her physical description as her blatant heterogeneity (species, idea, gender, material, etc.)
• Conclusion 

And supposedly this should get me to 20 pages! Feeling pretty anxious about actually filling those pages, and setting off to do a ton of additional theory reading to bolster these arguments. If you see and holes/opportunities, let me know! If you think is a garbage argument, you should probably let me know that, too.