[Entanglements] in the affective or aesthetic form of capture and captivation […] tend to be experiences of becoming sensorially overtaken and overpowered that bear the persistent constitutive markings of hierarchical distinctions (such as domination and submission). When politically progressive intellectuals think the democratization, indistinction, and liberalization of social boundaries, in a kind of conceptual fluidity between art and the everyday, between the modern and the primitive, between the West and the East, and so forth, they typically run up against some populations embodied states of captivity, including the intangible but phenomenologically registered effects of enchantment, subordination, unevenness, vulnerability, desperation, servitude, and deprivation of existential autonomy — in short, all the basic issues of terror and freedom, and (often sadomasochistic) pleasure and pain that, in refracted manners, surface in art and fiction. […]
Entanglements: the linkages and enmeshments that keep things apart; the voidings and uncoverings that hold things together. […So] many scenes of entanglements […] in which perhaps even the roughest crossings can be approached with a sense of innovation and creativity, and the most painful entanglements understood, if somewhat counterintuitively, as evolving states of freedom.
Don’t hurt ‘em: Rey Chow, Entanglements, or Transmedial Thinking About Capture (Durham: Duke, 2012), 11-12. Emphasis in the original.
bolding mine. i like to think of entanglements, like trauma, as potentially liberating. (in fact i would rather think entanglements than trauma.)