Freie Universität Berlin

The semester progresses awfully quickly – we have now almost completed the second phase! This, of course, means that it is high time to decide what we will read in our last phase, which focuses on

The subject and technology

I have chosen this focus because I believe it covers an increasingly important aspect of our lives. Technologies of all kinds are all around us and their influence on our lives is much bigger than we care to admit. But what exactly is that influence? What chances as technology evolves? Although this is, as the selection of texts shows, not an entirely new question, political thinking about these issues is still too rare.

Here is an eclectic, alphabetic list of possible readings and session topics. At the end of the post, there is a link to the vote – and some questions regarding the seminar.

Badmington: Posthumanism

Posthumanism might – or might not – be something to look out for. It has been discussed as one of the conceptions that challenge modern notion of humanism and human nature. Badmington’s article places post-humanism in context to postmodern thought and would allow us to discuss the idea in relation to our earlier readings. I would welcome the opportunity to dive into something I haven’t worked on a lot.

Haraway: A Cyborg Manifesto

This text is somewhat of a classic in the area. Haraway connects feminist, socialist and technological ideas in order to come to a new idea of who we are/can be. It was written long before many of the technologies that we use every day became common place but already shows great insight into the possibilities digitization has created since the 1960ies. We may also find some unlikely parallels to the Zapatistas.

Heidegger: A Question Concerning Technology (requires two sessions!)

I have already said a lot on Heidegger. It is important to note, that technology here is not such restricted term, in fact, one of the major plot twists is Heidegger’s description of modernity in terms of the rise of technology. His concern is what this does to us as humans – and his prospect is bleak and not without hope at the same time. To take this all apart, we should spend at least two sessions on approaching Heidegger, but I have no doubt, that you will find it rewarding. Also, 20th century political thought seems to me to “breath” Heidegger, making this text in many ways fundamental, as it incorporates many on the main elements of Heidegger’s thought in one text. This, of course, is also what makes it a difficult text… [The link links to the whole book, we would only be reading the essay with the title!]

Latour: Power of Association

Latour is a sociologist and founding figure of what has become known as ANT (Actor-network-theory), a somewhat sidelined and – according to its proponents misnamed – strand of Science and Technology Studies. The innovation here, in short, lies in conceptualizing objects as actors and analyzing networks of actors, human and non-human, also called associations. This raises some interesting perspectives. The text I propose focuses on power and associations and may offer some interesting additions to the power debates we have already had in class.

Lupton: Quantified self

In her book, which only came out this year, Lupton looks at contemporary practices of self-tracking. As a sociologist she describes the ways in which people use these techniques and the purposes they associate with these uses. For us, this could be an interesting perspective, as we might consider these self-tracking techniques as potential examples of Foucauldian power mechanisms as well as of technologies of the self.

Turkle: Life on Screen

Simple, virtuality and identity would be the main subjects of this session. Turkle has been writing on the self and technology for at least thirty years, done very extensive, empirical research and had great influence on the debate. Also, she has changed her mind and that is always a quality to look out for.  This book focuses just our questions and we would be reading, of course, an excerpt and not the whole thing. If you want to see her and her most recent ideas, check out this video

VOTING

Please follow this link, answer two questions and then select THREE topics for the last sessions. (Heidegger will only be selected, if he comes first or second in this vote, as this text requires 2 sessions). This poll is open until Friday morning (June 17, 2016) and it is anonymous.

Comments on the selection and arguments for certain topics for your colleagues (so they vote your way!) are welcome in the comments section.

The movement called Zapatismo has a loaded symbolic significance in the context of global social movements. Somehow, this (largely unsuccessful) movement of indigenous people and failed Marxist revolutionaries in Mexico has inspired many an activist around the world (Khasnabish 2010). This is not, because the movement was so awfully effective or because their goals were so absolutely universal. I believe the reason is, that they captured what many felt needed to be done – to fight inequality and injustice through collective practices of the self.  Some argue, that in their approach new political spaces emerge and a new political culture is practiced (Dellacioppa 2009).

By Orianomada – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6488461

The example is worth considering because it gives some indication of the complexities that lie in resisting. In way, the Zapatista movement playfully enacts, what postmodern theory so elegantly disguises in bloomy language. In the Zapatista movement we see what it means to use techniques of the body in order to induce change. We learn how appropriation is at once a struggle and transformative for both sides. And we may learn about the limits of the strategies.

Let’s consider techniques of the body. The Zapatistas have been called a leaderless movement – but nor for lack of leadership. In fact, a person called “Subcommandante Marcos”, is widely considered to be a significant face of the movement. But it is a face behind a mask and his (her?) real identity was long unknown. Subcommandante Marcos is the symbolic representation of leadership, of the voice of the Zaptistas and it has long since become irrelevant to find out more about the person. Marcos is a constructed person with features – such as the mask – that make sure he (she?) could be anyone. Indeed, this is a reflection of a central idea of the movement – that all struggles for justice are related and that the individuals behind them are merely the diverse representations of these struggles. In hiding the face and creating anonymity, the road to identification for many different actors is opened.

Let’s consider appropriation. The Zaptista movement of the 199oies emerged out of an encounter between indigenous people and (failed) Marxist revolutionaries. Two worlds of ideas came together and merged in an unexpected way to form not so much an ideology as more an ongoing process of re-appropriation. Furthermore, new issues were taken up and appropriated in the process, which were dominant in neither indigenous societies nor capitalism and its Marxist critique. Khasnabish shows this in relation to the participation of women (p. 74 ff.). The process of reappropriation did not just allow dominant ideas to mingle, it made room for new ideas.

Most striking to me is the how this came about. It begins with a simple (?) redefinition of the self:

“It fell to the lowest citizens of this country to raise their heads, with dignity. […] We cannot let ourselves be treated that way, and we have to try and construct a better world […] This is what we want. […] We have dignity, patriotism and we are demonstrating it.” (Subcommandante Marcos 2002 “Testimonies of the First Day”)

The Zapatistas decided to have dignity at the beginning of the struggle, they redefined themselves as acting subjects. They gained dignity by claiming it. It reminds me of a discussion on the 1989 revolution in East Germany a couple of years ago.

Plauen Oct. 30th, 1989

A participant asked one of the then-activists why they had suddenly begun to demonstrate, what had changed? And the activist said, that nothing had really changed, they had simply not been afraid anymore. She didn’t really know why the fear was gone, but it was and that changed everything. Should it be that easy? Maybe not. But it is worth debating, in how far the understanding of the self impacts the ability to act and if we cannot find ways in which this has had real life consequences.

Finally, the limits. Clearly, neither have the Zapatistas destroyed global capitalism nor has the East German revolution quite lead to the world people imagined. Should movements (and reconstructed selfs) be judged by how far they got? Or is it all about process? If so, how? Or can, maybe, resistance of this kind not ‘succeed’ in any obvious sense of the word? And what does that mean for resistance? A lot to do…..

Thank you all for a very intense double session last Friday! For those who could not be there, here is a recap of what we discussed in photographs:

And for the Appadurai, I tried to collect your explanations of the most important ideas in a very sophisticated graphical display. Judge for yourself:

At the very least, it is food for thought.

Second Writing Assignment

We also took some time to talk about the next writing assignment. In short, it is a free essay, that should be like the first but on a thesis/topic you pick yourself. It must reference texts we read in the second phase “The subject and the global” and you are strongly encouraged to use sources beyond the set readings of the course. The essay must also adhere to academic standards of referencing, although given time constraints I will go lightly on the “alls references must follow one format requirement” for this draft version. You can improve on that in the rework. The same goes for the length requirement – after the rework the essay should be about 2000-2500 words in length, but if you do not hit that mark yet, that’s fine.

As for the style, discussing a strong statement such as the ones I set for the first assignment will do the trick. Try to be bold, as this encourages argumentation and this is what I am looking for here. If you feel, that could best be achieved by a text format beyond the traditional academic essay – a story, an interview – you are invited to try this out. If it really fails, we will have time to fix this in the rework. If you have questions, please contact me. However, the best way is to think of the concrete problem you have and write it down for me (!), because that makes it easier for me to decide how best to assist you. And keep in mind, that you will have time to make improvements.

The final deadline is June 10, 2016 at 19:00!

Send an anonymized version of the paper as well one with your name on it!

There will be a writing session to discuss these texts as well. I have decided to go for the double blind peer review. I will write a little bit next week on the strength and weaknesses of such a process. Some organisational issues result. This is how I will address them:

• Everyone (also those who wrote a paper) must write a short review on ONE paper of approximately 200-250 words. It should answer the same questions as were posed for the first essay.
• These reports must be completed by June 16th and send to me in two versions, one with your name and one without. I will forward the anonymous version to the author.
• I will assign the papers to be commented on.
• You will be required to read at least that one paper and encouraged to read all.

Bayart (2004) and Appadurai (1996) may be read as attempts at grasping the ways in which the production of subjectivity takes place in the global age. Bayart talks about the practices of appropriation (p. 209) at work. They are a paradox, in that they affirm and deny the techniques of domination. These practices often find, according to Bayart, a realization in objects, i.e. merchandise, or spaces such as malls. Appadurai is quoted by Bayart as an example of an inherently optimistic view of the ways subjectivity is produced under conditions of globalization (p. 215). Modernity at Large is part of a debate that, indeed, was not primarily concerned with the darker aspects of globalization, made an effort to rehabilitate the concept of globalization as something that was more than mere increase of global commodity flows and financial interdependence. In chapter 9 of this essay collection Appadurai focuses on the ways in which local subjects are produced and produce locality, i.e. neighbourhoods. This production of locality underlies a similar paradox as Bayart’s practices of appropriation – neighbourhoods are context-providing as well as context-generative. They are produced by the practices of the subject.

Life in the minds of children by archanN CC-BY from Wikimedia Commons

A key role – and this goes for both texts – is played by something that Appadurai calls the “work of the imagination” (198). Appadurai details this further in an earlier chapter of his book. He introduces the work of the imagination as “a constitutive feature of modern subjectivity” (3) which in the past decades has become “a collective, social fact” (5). What does he mean by that? The ability to imagine is no longer just present in arts and myths, imagining is not merely a solitary and extraordinary activity but a prevalent and essential social skill. The modern world relies on imagination to reproduce itself – as the reality of the world is socially constructed. At the same time the relationship between ritualized and imaginative activities has become much more dynamic. The projective nature of imagination introduces a plurality of imagined worlds into the everyday life of ordinary people. The parallel existence of these multiple worlds is amplified by mass media and provokes resistance, irony, selectivity, and, in general, agency (7).

“The imagination is today a staging ground for action and not only escape.” (7)

Applying this argument to Bayart’s analysis provides an interesting perspective. Appropriation than appears as a creative activity in which the techniques of domination are translated into local and individual techniques of the body. Merchandise acquires meaning, places are created and maintained. In all these cases imagination is a collective, sometimes even social activity (211). I have argued, imagination as a social skill has some stabilizing and some dynamic potential. In the end, the active, conscious use of the imagination may infer radical change while the passive and uncreative use of it serves to reproduce the existing. What do you think? Does the idea of giving imagination such a central place make sense to you?

This is a little late (apologies!) but here is the promised doodle for this week’s reading. Just a short reminder: This week we will meet for a double session from 10:00 to 14:00. There will, of course, be one or maybe even two breaks in between, but not necessarily at 12:45-13:15. Feel free to bring a lunch, I will try to keep the atmosphere casual enough so noone has to starve their way through the debate.

We wil be discussing the texts by Bayart and Appadurai. Please read both. However, the Bayart is very long, so I ask you to read either the first or the second part of the chapter. Please let me know by registering in the doodle, which part you are planning to read. Any questions still open? Write me an e-mail, I’ll get back to you.

I will also write a little preparatory post on some questions raised by the texts. This will be available on Wednesday, so please come back to read 🙂 .