An important theme in feminist rhetoric and epistemology is affinity. Hence, in departing from mainstream epistemology, Haraway argues for “affinity, not identification” (“CM” 155). She states that because the partial self is stitched together imperfectly, it is “able to join [or articulate] with another without claiming to be another” (“SK” 193). The difference between these two principles, in a linguistic context, is that in affinity there are always semiotic gaps--the articulation is imperfect--whereas with identification the bond between signifier and signified is complete and total. Hayles’s principle of “relationality” is also premised on the existence of gaps (“FM” 8). Relationality, unlike complete identification, leaves gaps, or spaces for new connections and affiliations, as well as the flexibility to disengage from current connections. Relational bonds, or links, can be easily broken and reassembled in new ways. By contrast, complete identification without gaps is static and totalizing. Relationality, in other words, is founded on affinity rather than identification.