Member 1740
13 entries
19700 views

 RSS
Contributor to projects:
The Total Library
Branding the Species
Immortal since Apr 21, 2008
Uplinks: 0, Generation 3
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • cyang’s projects
    Branding the Species
    Background: Voyager’s Interstellar record is a disk with encoded information that was attached to two space probes currently making their...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    The following are thumbnail versions of my bound book since the full size would not fit and would take too long to load. I apologize in advance for my bad photography skills.

    If you would really like to see the full unbound version click here

    Introduction
    How does one brand the human species? What is unique about a human being that separates it from other living organisms? How might the human species be examined by another intelligent life form? All of these questions and more are the basis for my project, which is an attempt to brand the human species starting with a human I know best, myself. My project is, therefore, in theory my best effort to capture my life and humanity in some sort of tangible material. Like all humankind, it is not perfect, nor is it by any way complete, as all humankind is subject to change and growth. Yet, it is a reflection of myself at this moment, written in my own hand, using my own photographs and my own thoughts. It is, simply put, an archive of my life complete with photos and self annotations. I am myself, but I am by far not an expert on the entirety of my life. This is showcased in my clueless thoughts and opinions about the early years of my life. I have all these photographs, but even photographs do not bring to memory my past experiences. This too then is part of being human. We have a memory, but not all experiences are available to us. They are perhaps not within our explicit memory, but more or less ingrained as inherent mechanisms within us that may cause us to react differently to certain situations over others.
    I did not, however, come to this conclusion by merely sitting at my desk and thinking. The culmination of all these ideas were nurtured from one single idea, “social control.” After contemplating the open-ended question of branding the human species, I was given to thoughts of past lectures in various classes about social control and the aspect of propaganda in both the mass media and education. This fascinated me and I decided that I wanted to focus on this aspect of humanity. However, after weeks of focusing on the “Societies of Control” by Deleuze and other related topics by Foucault in The Birth of the Clinic I realized that I was only trying to visualize Deleuze’s thoughts and not coming up with my own views about humanity. I was pretty much stuck in a rut and holding on for dear life to Deleuze’s statement about how humans are no longer individuals, but have become “dividuals.” While in this rut, I tried to give myself avenues of expression by attempting to break down the concept of being an individual by attempting to map out various areas where I was more of an individual or less of an individual, but even this was by no means perfect. Yet, it was through this step that I happened to stumble upon my final idea.
    After deciding to map out areas of my life where I was more of an individual and less of an individual, I was pressed upon to find images of myself to tie all these areas together. It was after gathering these photographs of myself that I realized exactly how I could express my humanity best. My photographs had more power than some beautifully organized chart about myself by way that they displayed my humanity in the mundane activities of life. This is where my answer lay all along as a simple, but powerful idea that had been there under my nose. I felt stupid for taking so long to get to that point, but I was relieved that I finally knew what I wanted to do and how I wanted to accomplish it. I then quickly changed my thinking and stopped bothering myself with the philosophical idea of whether or not I was an individual since it had been causing me to become too confused and lost.
    In conclusion, the following pages are thus a series of twenty-five photographs from various points in my life. I originally scanned in over eighty photos, but I narrowed them down to twenty-five by keeping at least one photograph from each photographed stage of my life and eliminating photographs that were too similar to the ones I had chosen to represent certain stages of my life. Over each photograph I overlaid a sheet of translucent paper where I made comments about the photograph, some are quite ridiculous, others are more emotional and tied to what I feel when I see that specific photograph. Yet, as I have
    previously stated, all these comments are by no means set in stone and I for one believe that if I were to take more time upon this project, perhaps more of what has been completed may be blacked out and rewritten.



































































































    Wed, Jun 11, 2008  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Branding the Species, The Total Library
      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Create synapse
     
    So... on the day we didn't have class we went to MOCA for the Lawrence Weiner exhibition. Brandon was the only one that brought a camera so we all used his to take pictures as proof that we were there. We had to be sneaky about it though because there were all these security people standing around. Hopefully there were no security cameras from above...















    Wed, Jun 11, 2008  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Branding the Species
      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    So, after printing out some of my photographs in color and trying them out with the overlay of translucent sheets, I decided that black and white is probably a better choice because I don't want the photographs and text to fight for attention.





















    As you can see, many of them are not finished and this is not exactly all of them. I think the biggest struggle is really finding the words to say when I really don't know who I was or what I thought about back then so many of my comments on my photographs are random comments about things I see in the photographs and what they remind me of. Every now and then there are anecdotes that I recall, but for the most part, I am just writing what comes to mind, which I suppose still shows some sense of who I am.
    Mon, Jun 2, 2008  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Branding the Species
      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    The following are my tests of overlapping of the translucent sheets for my final project. I have decided to create a book that kind of represents an archive of life, or specifically my life. Each of the translucent sheets will then represent different ways in which I interpret my photographs. The first layer will most likely be the most obvious layer, in which I identify people in the photo. The next layer is more about what people or objects in the photo remind me of. The third layer is then my interpretation of my photograph based on the following two layers. I printed out a proof copy of one of my pages in black and white to test the visibility of the photograph under the translucent sheets. The final prints will most likely be in color though.









    In terms of the text, I will most likely be writing directly onto the translucent sheets, but I'm still trying to figure out how to do so without overlapping my text.
    Tue, May 27, 2008  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Branding the Species
      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    When I look at the images of my past and the images from the present, I know there is a humanity to them, but how do I explain what they mean to me and how I relate to the rest of humanity?

    I find it hard to really grasp this and how I can truly lay this out and explain it. In many ways, I want to really just make scrapbook-like pages with these images and to add my own comments and thoughts below handwritten. Typefaces are great and all, but somehow I feel that the best way I can capture what I feel about this project is through scratches of text made with my own hand. Letters have always been something personal to me, something beautiful, something that brings inexplicable joy. I could care less if the text was illegible, as long as it was there, written by a person.

    I want in that sense to mix photos, handwritten comments and other media, perhaps sewing on tidbits here and there that link my life together. So I am considering scratching the 5 different posters idea and rather making a book of images that are overlaid with my own thoughts. There will be the period when I am a baby, dependent on my parents for life and comfort. Then there will be a period when I am a toddler, exploring, but still innocent and very tied to my parents. Following that will be my years as a child, not quite knowledgeable, but becoming less attached and more adventurous. Lastly, will be my adolescent/pre-teen years to now, which are predominantly years of finding identity and being more aware of the dangerous world we live in.

    I want to then, set it out as if it were a sketchbook of pictures mixed with text. In this way, it models humanity's ability to work with their hands and create things from gourmet food to intricate furniture, but the images will also be an expression of our growth both physically and emotionally. Our life is one of growing from innocence to maturity. When I look at these images, I see things in my younger self that I no longer see in myself, but there are also other things that I still see in myself. These lasting qualities then tie my pictures together and indicate that humanity changes and grows, but keeps on to certain aspects of life.
    Tue, May 27, 2008  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Branding the Species
      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    These are some thumbnails of photographs I was thinking of using in my posters, but I'm not exactly sure if these are enough images or if all of them really work well to show my humanity. I realized though that as I grew older, my expressions and composure became more forced and posed in photographs. Perhaps this is a reflection of my understanding of regulatory behavior or my awareness of myself and the importance of my appearance.







    Altogether though, after collecting these images from my photo albums, I realized that I may have to change the way I organize my posters and the content. Seeing these photographs from the perspective of branding humanity helped bring out to me my own stages from being more expressive in my photographs to being more controlled and less expressive in my photographs. I find that interesting and I think I'd like to explore that more and see how my images can themselves express the state from being less controlled by society to being more controlled by society, which creates the fine line between being an individual and not being an individual.
    Tue, May 20, 2008  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Branding the Species
      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Below are a series of images I found to be very "human" and I guess I want to add images like these of myself now and from when I was young to reinforce the humanity of my project.

    Thu, May 15, 2008  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Branding the Species
      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Since I keep referring to his ideas, I guess it would be best to post what I have been referring to.

    Society of Control

    Gilles Deleuze
    ( I. Historical / II. Logic / III. Program )


    I. Historical


    Foucault located the disciplinary societies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; they reach their height at the outset of the twentieth. They initiate the organization of vast spaces of enclosure. The individual never ceases passing from one closed environment to another, each having its own laws: first the family; then the school ("you are no longer in your family"); then the barracks ("you are no longer at school"); then the factory; from time to time the hospital; possibly the prison, the preeminent instance of the enclosed environment. It's the prison that serves as the analogical model: at the sight of some laborers, the heroine of Rossellini's Europa '51 could exclaim, "I thought I was seeing convicts."

    Foucault has brilliantly analyzed the ideal project of these environments of enclosure, particularly visible within the factory: to concentrate; to distribute in space; to order in time; to compose a productive force within the dimension of space-time whose effect will be greater than the sum of its component forces. But what Foucault recognized as well was the transience of this model: it succeeded that of the societies of sovereignty, the goal and functions of which were something quite different (to tax rather than to organize production, to rule on death rather than to administer life); the transition took place over time, and Napoleon seemed to effect the large-scale conversion from one society to the other. But in their turn the disciplines underwent a crisis to the benefit of new forces that were gradually instituted and which accelerated after World War II: a disciplinary society was what we already no longer were, what we had ceased to be.

    We are in a generalized crisis in relation to all the environments of enclosure—prison, hospital, factory, school, family. The family is an "interior," in crisis like all other interiors—scholarly, professional, etc. The administrations in charge never cease announcing supposedly necessary reforms: to reform schools, to reform industries, hospitals, the armed forces, prisons. But everyone knows that these institutions are finished, whatever the length of their expiration periods. It's only a matter of administering their last rites and of keeping people employed until the installation of the new forces knocking at the door. These are the societies of control, which are in the process of replacing disciplinary societies. "Control" is the name Burroughs proposes as a term for the new monster, one that Foucault recognizes as our immediate future. Paul Virilio also is continually analyzing the ultrarapid forms of free-floating control that replaced the old disciplines operating in the time frame of a closed system. There is no need to invoke the extraordinary pharmaceutical productions, the molecular engineering, the genetic manipulations, although these are slated to enter the new process. There is no need to ask which is the toughest regime, for it's within each of them that liberating and enslaving forces confront one another. For example, in the crisis of the hospital as environment of enclosure, neighborhood clinics, hospices, and day care could at first express new freedom, but they could participate as well in mechanisms of control that are equal to the harshest of confinements. There is no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons.


    II. Logic


    The different internments of spaces of enclosure through which the individual passes are independent variables: each time one is supposed to start from zero, and although a common language for all these places exists, it is analogical. One the other hand, the different control mechanisms are inseparable variations, forming a system of variable geometry the language of which is numerical (which doesn't necessarily mean binary). Enclosures are molds, distinct castings, but controls are a modulation, like a self-deforming cast that will continuously change from one moment to the other, or like a sieve whose mesh will transmute from point to point.

    This is obvious in the matter of salaries: the factory was a body that contained its internal forces at the level of equilibrium, the highest possible in terms of production, the lowest possible in terms of wages; but in a society of control, the corporation has replaced the factory, and the corporation is a spirit, a gas. Of course the factory was already familiar with the system of bonuses, but the corporation works more deeply to impose a modulation of each salary, in states of perpetual metastability that operate through challenges, contests, and highly comic group sessions. If the most idiotic television game shows are so successful, it's because they express the corporate situation with great precision. The factory constituted individuals as a single body to the double advantage of the boss who surveyed each element within the mass and the unions who mobilized a mass resistance; but the corporation constantly presents the brashest rivalry as a healthy form of emulation, an excellent motivational force that opposes individuals against one another and runs through each, dividing each within. The modulating principle of "salary according to merit" has not failed to tempt national education itself. Indeed, just as the corporation replaces the factory, perpetual training tends to replace the school, and continuous control to replace the examination. Which is the surest way of delivering the school over to the corporation.

    In the disciplinary societies one was always starting again (from school to the barracks, from the barracks to the factory), while in the societies of control one is never finished with anything—the corporation, the educational system, the armed services being metastable states coexisting in one and the same modulation, like a universal system of deformation. In The Trial, Kafka, who had already placed himself at the pivotal point between two types of social formation, described the most fearsome of judicial forms. The apparent acquittal of the disciplinary societies (between two incarcerations); and the limitless postponements of the societies of control (in continuous variation) are two very different modes of juridicial life, and if our law is hesitant, itself in crisis, it's because we are leaving one in order to enter the other. The disciplinary societies have two poles: the signature that designates the individual, and the number or administrative numeration that indicates his or her position within a mass. This is because the disciplines never saw any incompatibility between these two, and because at the same time power individualizes and masses together, that is, constitutes those over whom it exercises power into a body and molds the individuality of each member of that body. (Foucault saw the origin of this double charge in the pastoral power of the priest—the flock and each of its animals—but civil power moves in turn and by other means to make itself lay "priest.") In the societies of control, on the other hand, what is important is no longer either a signature or a number, but a code: the code is a password, while on the other hand disciplinary societies are regulated by watchwords (as much from the point of view of integration as from that of resistance). The numerical language of control is made of codes that mark access to information, or reject it. We no longer find ourselves dealing with the mass/individual pair. Individuals have become "dividuals," and masses, samples, data, markets, or "banks." Perhaps it is money that expresses the distinction between the two societies best, since discipline always referred back to minted money that locks gold as numerical standard, while control relates to floating rates of exchange, modulated according to a rate established by a set of standard currencies. The old monetary mole is the animal of the space of enclosure, but the serpent is that of the societies of control. We have passed from one animal to the other, from the mole to the serpent, in the system under which we live, but also in our manner of living and in our relations with others. The disciplinary man was a discontinuous producer of energy, but the man of control is undulatory, in orbit, in a continuous network. Everywhere surfing has already replaced the older sports.

    Types of machines are easily matched with each type of society—not that machines are determining, but because they express those social forms capable of generating them and using them. The old societies of sovereignty made use of simple machines—levers, pulleys, clocks; but the recent disciplinary societies equipped themselves with machines involving energy, with the passive danger of entropy and the active danger of sabotage; the societies of control operate with machines of a third type, computers, whose passive danger is jamming and whose active one is piracy or the introduction of viruses. This technological evolution must be, even more profoundly, a mutation of capitalism, an already well-known or familiar mutation that can be summed up as follows: nineteenth-century capitalism is a capitalism of concentration, for production and for property. It therefore erects a factory as a space of enclosure, the capitalist being the owner of the means of production but also, progressively, the owner of other spaces conceived through analogy (the worker's familial house, the school). As for markets, they are conquered sometimes by specialization, sometimes by colonization, sometimes by lowering the costs of production. But in the present situation, capitalism is no longer involved in production, which it often relegates to the Third World, even for the complex forms of textiles, metallurgy, or oil production. It's a capitalism of higher-order production. It no-longer buys raw materials and no longer sells the finished products: it buys the finished products or assembles parts. What it wants to sell is services but what it wants to buy is stocks. This is no longer a capitalism for production but for the product, which is to say, for being sold or marketed. Thus is essentially dispersive, and the factory has given way to the corporation. The family, the school, the army, the factory are no longer the distinct analogical spaces that converge towards an owner—state or private power—but coded figures—deformable and transformable—of a single corporation that now has only stockholders. Even art has left the spaces of enclosure in order to enter into the open circuits of the bank. The conquests of the market are made by grabbing control and no longer by disciplinary training, by fixing the exchange rate much more than by lowering costs, by transformation of the product more than by specialization of production. Corruption thereby gains a new power. Marketing has become the center or the "soul" of the corporation. We are taught that corporations have a soul, which is the most terrifying news in the world. The operation of markets is now the instrument of social control and forms the impudent breed of our masters. Control is short-term and of rapid rates of turnover, but also continuous and without limit, while discipline was of long duration, infinite and discontinuous. Man is no longer man enclosed, but man in debt. It is true that capitalism has retained as a constant the extreme poverty of three-quarters of humanity, too poor for debt, too numerous for confinement: control will not only have to deal with erosions of frontiers but with the explosions within shanty towns or ghettos.


    III. Program


    The conception of a control mechanism, giving the position of any element within an open environment at any given instant (whether animal in a reserve or human in a corporation, as with an electronic collar), is not necessarily one of science fiction. Felix Guattari has imagined a city where one would be able to leave one's apartment, one's street, one's neighborhood, thanks to one's (dividual) electronic card that raises a given barrier; but the card could just as easily be rejected on a given day or between certain hours; what counts is not the barrier but the computer that tracks each person's position—licit or illicit—and effects a universal modulation.

    The socio-technological study of the mechanisms of control, grasped at their inception, would have to be categorical and to describe what is already in the process of substitution for the disciplinary sites of enclosure, whose crisis is everywhere proclaimed. It may be that older methods, borrowed from the former societies of sovereignty, will return to the fore, but with the necessary modifications. What counts is that we are at the beginning of something. In the prison system: the attempt to find penalties of "substitution," at least for petty crimes, and the use of electronic collars that force the convicted person to stay at home during certain hours. For the school system: continuous forms of control, and the effect on the school of perpetual training, the corresponding abandonment of all university research, the introduction of the "corporation" at all levels of schooling. For the hospital system: the new medicine "without doctor or patient" that singles out potential sick people and subjects at risk, which in no way attests to individuation—as they say—but substitutes for the individual or numerical body the code of a "dividual" material to be controlled. In the corporate system: new ways of handling money, profits, and humans that no longer pass through the old factory form. These are very small examples, but ones that will allow for better understanding of what is meant by the crisis of the institutions, which is to say, the progressive and dispersed installation of a new system of domination. One of the most important questions will concern the ineptitude of the unions: tied to the whole of their history of struggle against the disciplines or within the spaces of enclosure, will they be able to adapt themselves or will they give way to new forms of resistance against the societies of control? Can we already grasp the rough outlines of the coming forms, capable of threatening the joys of marketing? Many young people strangely boast of being "motivated"; they re-request apprenticeships and permanent training. It's up to them to discover what they're being made to serve, just as their elders discovered, not without difficulty, the telos of the disciplines. The coils of a serpent are even more complex that the burrows of a molehill.

    Reference:

    Deleuze, Gilles. "Society of Control." Negotiations. New York: Columbia University Press, 1972.
    Thu, May 15, 2008  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Branding the Species
      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Since I keep referring to his ideas, I guess it would be best to post what I have been referring to.

    Control and Becoming

    Gilles Deleuze in conversation with Antonio Negri

    Negri: The problem of politics seems to have always been present in your intellectual life. Your involvement in various movements (prisoners, homosexuals, Italian autonomists, Palestinians), on the one hand, and the constant problematizing of institutions, on the other, follow on from one another and interact with one another in your work, from the book on Hume through to the one on Foucault. What are the roots of this sustained concern with the question of politics, and how has it remained so persistent within your developing work? Why is the rela­tion between movement and institution always problematic?

    Deleuze: What I've been interested in are collective creations rather than rep­resentations. There's a whole order of movement in "institutions" that's independent of both laws and contracts. What I found in Hume was a very creative conception of institutions and law. I was initially more interested in law than politics. Even with Masoch and Sade what I liked was the thoroughly twisted conception of contracts in Masoch, and of institutions in Sade, as these come out in relation to sexuality. And in the present day, I see Francois Ewald's work to reestablish a phi­losophy of law as quite fundamental. What interests me isn't the law or laws1 (the former being an empty notion, the latter uncritical notions), nor even law or rights, but jurisprudence. It's jurisprudence, ultimately, that creates law, and we mustn't go on leaving this to judges. Writers ought to read law reports rather than the Civil Code. People are already thinking about establishing a system of law for modern biology; but everything in modern biology and the new situations it creates, the new courses of events it makes possible, is a matter for jurisprudence. We don't need an ethical committee of supposedly well-qualified wise men, but user-groups. This is where we move from law into politics. I, for my own part, made a sort of move into politics around May 68, as I came into contact with specific problems, through Guattari, through Foucault, through Elie Sambar. Anti-Oedipus was from beginning to end a book of political philosophy.

    Negri: You took the events of '68 to be the triumph of the Untimely, the dawn of counteractualization.2 Already in the years leading up to '68, in your work on Nietzsche and a bit later in Coldness and Cruelty, you 'd given a new mean­ing to politics—as possibility, event, singularity. You 'd found short-circuits where the future breaks through into the present, modifying institutions in its wake. But then after '68 you take a slightly different approach: nomadic thought always takes the temporal form of instantaneous counteractualization, while spatially only "minority becoming is universal." How should we understand this universality of the untimely?9

    Deleuze: The thing is, I became more and more aware of the possibility of dis­tinguishing between becoming and history. It was Nietzsche who said that nothing important is ever free from a "nonhistorical cloud." This isn't to oppose eternal and historical, or contemplation and action: Nietzsche is talking about the way things happen, about events them­selves or becoming. What history grasps in an event is the way it's actu­alized in particular circumstances; the event's becoming is beyond the scope of history. History isn't experimental,3 it's just the set of more or less negative preconditions that make it possible to experi­ment with something beyond history. Without history the experi­mentation would remain indeterminate, lacking any initial condi­tions, but experimentation isn't historical. In a major philosophical work, Clio, Peguy explained that there are two ways of considering events, one being to follow the course of the event, gathering how it comes about historically, how it's prepared and then decomposes in history, while the other way is to go back into the event, to take one's place in it as in a becoming, to grow both young and old in it at once, going through all its components or singularities. Becoming isn't part of history; history amounts only the set of preconditions, however recent, that one leaves behind in order to "become," that is, to create something new. This is precisely what Nietzsche calls the Untimely. May 68 was a demonstration, an irruption, of a becoming in its pure state. It's fashionable these days to condemn the horrors of revolu­tion. It's nothing new; English Romanticism is permeated by reflec­tions on Cromwell very similar to present-day reflections on Stalin.4 They say revolutions turn out badly. But they're constantly confusing two different things, the way revolutions turn out historically and peo­ple's revolutionary becoming. These relate to two different sets of people. Men's only hope lies in a revolutionary becoming: the only way of casting off their shame or responding to what is intolerable.

    Negri: A Thousand Plateaus, which I regard as a major philosophical work, seems to me at the same time a catalogue of unsolved problems, most particularly in the field of political philosophy. Its pairs of contrasting terms—process and pro­ject, singularity and subject, composition and organization, lines of flight and apparatuses/strategies, micro and macro, and so on—all this not only remains forever open but it's constantly being reopened, through an amazing will to theorize, and with a violence reminiscent of heretical proclamations. I've nothing against such subversion, quite the reverse . . . But I seem sometimes to hear a tragic note, at points where it's not clear where the "war-machine" is going.

    Deleuze: I'm moved by what you say. I think Felix Guattari and I have remained Marxists, in our two different ways, perhaps, but both of us. You see, we think any political philosophy must turn on the analysis of capital­ism and the ways it has developed. What we find most interesting in Marx is his analysis of capitalism as an immanent system that's con­stantly overcoming its own limitations, and then coming up against them once more in a broader form, because its fundamental limit is Capital itself. A Thousand Plateaus sets out in many different direc­tions, but these are the three main ones: first, we think any society is defined not so much by its contradictions as by its lines of flight, it flees all over the place, and it's very interesting to try and follow the lines of flight taking shape at some particular moment or other. Look at Europe now, for instance: western politicians have spent a great deal of effort setting it all up, the technocrats have spent a lot of effort getting uniform administration and rules, but then on the one hand there may be surprises in store in the form of upsurges of young peo­ple, of women, that become possible simply because certain restric­tions are removed (with "untechnocratizable" consequences); and on the other hand it's rather comic when one considers that this Europe has already been completely superseded before being inaugurated, superseded by movements coming from the East. These are major lines of flight. There's another direction in A Thousand Plateaus, which amounts to considering not just lines of flight rather than con­tradictions, but minorities rather than classes. Then finally, a third direction, which amounts to finding a characterization of "war machines" that's nothing to do with war but to do with a particular way of occupying, taking up, space-time, or inventing new space-times: revolutionary movements (people don't take enough account, for instance, of how the PLO has had to invent a space-time in the Arab world), but artistic movements too, are war-machines in this sense.

    You say there's a certain tragic or melancholic tone in all this. I think I can see why. I was very struck by all the passages in Primo Levi where he explains that Nazi camps have given us "a shame at being human." Not, he says, that we're all responsible for Nazism, as some would have us believe, but that we've all been tainted by it: even the survivors of the camps had to make compromises with it, if only to sur­vive. There's the shame of there being men who became Nazis; the shame of being unable, not seeing how, to stop it; the shame of hav­ing compromised with it; there's the whole of what Primo Levi calls this "gray area." And we can feel shame at being human in utterly triv­ial situations, too: in the face of too great a vulgarization of thinking, in the face of tv entertainment, of a ministerial speech, of "jolly peo­ple" gossiping. This is one of the most powerful incentives toward phi­losophy, and it's what makes all philosophy political. In capitalism only one thing is universal, the market. There's no universal state, precisely because there's a universal market of which states are the centers, the trading floors. But the market's not universalizing, homogenizing, it's an extraordinary generator of both wealth and misery. A concern for human rights shouldn't lead us to extol the "joys" of the liberal capitalism of which they're an integral part. There's no democratic state that's not compromised to the very core by its part in generating human misery. What's so shameful is that we've no sure way of maintaining becomings, or still more of arousing them, even within ourselves. How any group will turn out, how it will fall back into history, presents a constant "concern."5 There's no longer any image of proletarians around of which it's just a matter of becoming conscious.

    Negri: How can minority becoming be powerful? How can resistance become an insur­rection ? Reading you, I'm never sure how to answer such questions, even though I always find in your works an impetus that forces me to reformulate the questions theoretically and practically. And yet when I read what you 've written about the imagination, or on common notions in Spinoza, or when I follow your description in The Time-Image of the rise of revolutionary cine­ma in third-world countries, and with you grasp the passage from image into fabulation, into political praxis, I almost feel I've found an answer. . . Or am I mistaken ? Is there then, some way for the resistance of the oppressed to become effective, and for what's intolerable to be definitively removed? Is there some way for the mass of singularities and atoms that we all are to come forward as a constitutive power, or must we rather accept the juridical paradox that con­stitutive power can be defined only by constituted power?

    Deleuze: The difference between minorities and majorities isn't their size. A minority may be bigger than a majority. What defines the majority is a model you have to conform to: the average European adult male city-dweller, for example ... A minority, on the other hand, has no model, it's a becoming, a process. One might say the majority is nobody. Everybody's caught, one way or another, in a minority becoming that would lead them info unknown paths if they opted to follow it through. When a 'minority creates models for itself, it's because it wants to become a majority, and probably has to, to survive or prosper (to have a state, be recognized, establish its rights, for example). But its power comes from what it's managed to create, which to some extent goes into the model, but doesn't depend on it. A people is always a creative minority, and remains one even when it acquires a majority^ it can be both at once because the two things aren't lived out on the same plane. It's the greatest artists (rather than populist artists) who invoke a people, and find they "lack a people": Mallarme, Rimbaud, Klee, Berg. The Straubs in cinema. Artists can only invoke a people, their need for one goes to the very heart of what they're doing, it's not their job to create one, and they can't. Art is resistance: it resists death, slavery, infamy, shame. But a people can't worry about art. How is a people created, through what terrible suf­fering? When a people's created, it's through its own resources, but in away that links up with something in art (Garrel says there's a mass of terrible suffering in the Louvre, too) or links up art to what it lacked. Utopia isn't the right concept: it's more a question of a "tabulation" in which a people and art both share. We ought to take up Bergson's notion of tabulation and give it a political meaning.

    Negri: In your book on Foucault, and then again in your TV interview at INA,6 you suggest we should look in more detail at three kinds of power: sovereign power, disciplinary power, and above all the control of "communication " that's on the way to becoming hegemonic. On the one hand this third scenario relates to the most perfect form of domination, extending even to speech and imagination, but on the other hand any man, any minority, any singularity, is more than ever before potentially able to speak out and thereby recover a greater degree of freedom. In the Marxist Utopia of the Grundrisse, communism takes precise­ly the form of a transversal organization of free individuals built on a tech­nology that makes it possible. Is communism still a viable option? Maybe in a communication society it's less Utopian than it used to be?

    Deleuze: We're definitely moving toward "control" societies that are no longer exactly disciplinary. Foucault's often taken as the theorist of discipli­nary societies and of their principal technology, confinement (not just in hospitals and prisons, but in schools, factories, and barracks). But he was actually one of the first to say that we're moving away from dis­ciplinary societies, we've already left them behind. We're moving toward control societies that no longer operate by confining people but through continuous control and instant communication. Bur­roughs was the first to address this. People are of course constantly talking about prisons, schools, hospitals: the institutions are breaking down. But they're breaking down because they're fighting a losing battle. New kinds of punishment, education, health care are being stealth­ily introduced. Open hospitals and teams providing home care have been around for some time. One can envisage education becoming less and less a closed site differentiated from the workspace as anoth­er closed site, but both disappearing and giving way to frightful con­tinual training, to continual monitoring7 of worker-schoolkids or bureaucrat-students. They try to present this as a reform of the school system, but it's really its dismantling. In a control-based system noth­ing's left alone for long. You yourself long ago suggested how work in Italy was being transformed by forms of part-time work done at home, which have spread since you wrote (and by new forms of circulation and distribution of products). One can of course see how each kind of society corresponds to a particular kind of machine—with simple mechanical machines corresponding to sovereign societies, thermo-dynamic machines to disciplinary societies, cybernetic machines and computers to control societies. But the machines don't explain any­thing, you have to analyze the collective arrangements of which the machines are just one component. Compared with the approaching forms of ceaseless control in open sites, we may come to see the harsh­est confinement as part of a wonderful happy past. The quest for "uni-versals of communication" ought to make us shudder. It's true that, even before control societies are fully in place, forms of delinquency or resistance (two different things) are also appearing. Computer pira­cy and viruses, for example, will replace strikes and what the nine­teenth century called "sabotage" ("clogging" the machinery) .8 You ask whether control or communication societies will lead to forms of resis­tance that might reopen the way for a communism understood as the "transversal organization of free individuals." Maybe, I don't know. But it would be nothing to do with minorities speaking out. Maybe speech and communication have been corrupted. They're thoroughly per­meated by money—and not by accident but by their very nature. We've got to hijack speech. Creating has always been something dif­ferent from communicating. The key thing may be to create vacuoles of noncommunication, circuit breakers, so we can elude control.

    Negri: In Foucault and in The Fold, processes of subjectification seem to be studied more closely than in some of your other works. The subject's the boundary of a continuous movement between an inside and outside. What are the political consequences of this conception of the subject^ If the subject can't be reduced to an externalized citizenship, can it invest citizenship with force and life? Can it make possible a new militant pragmatism, at once a pietas toward the world and a very radical construct. What politics can carry into history the splen­dor of events and subjectivity. How can we conceive a community that has real force but no base, that isn't a totality but is, as in Spinoza, absolute?

    Deleuze: It definitely makes sense to look at the various ways individuals and groups constitute themselves as subjects through processes of subjec-tification: what counts in such processes is the extent to which, as they take shape, they elude both established forms of knowledge and the dominant forms of power. Even if they in turn engender new forms of power or become assimilated into new forms of knowledge. For a while, though, they have a real rebellious spontaneity. This is nothing to do with going back to "the subject," that is, to something invested with duties, power, and knowledge. One might equally well speak of new kinds of event, rather than processes of subjectification: events that can't be explained by the situations that give rise to them, or into which they lead. They appear for a moment, and it's that moment that matters, it's the chance we must seize. Or we can simply talk about the brain: the brain's precisely this boundary of a continuous two-way movement between an Inside and Outside, this membrane between them. New cerebral pathways, new ways of thinking, aren't explicable in terms of microsurgery; it's for science, rather, to try and discover what might have happened in the brain for one to start thinking this way or that. I think subjectification, events, and brains are more or less the same thing. What we most lack is a belief in the world, we've quite lost the world, it's been taken from us. If you believe in the world you precipitate events, however inconspicuous, that elude control, you engender new space-times, however small their surface or volume. It's what you call pietas. Our ability to resist control, or our submission to it, has to be assessed at the level of our every move. We need both creativity and a people.

    Conversation with Toni Negri Futur Anterieur 1(Spring 1990), translated by Martin Joughin.

    Reference:

    Deleuze, Gilles. "Control and Becoming." Negotiations. New York: Columbia University Press, 1972.
    Thu, May 15, 2008  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Branding the Species
      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    While I attempt to map out my own life into words and images (hopefully later), I realize just how hard it is to convey an idea through text rather than through expression and movement of the body. Somehow, it seems easier to be rather than to express. Expression, or at least expression that is planned for dispersion, often involves critical thought and linked concepts, while being is just simply existing. In many ways I wonder if is there really a definite or somewhat similar standard that everyone lives by. Are the standards to which I am judging myself also just standards that I have obtained after my mind has filtered through it? Are the standards that we call standards not just opinions that have become slowly morphed into other things by the visual propaganda we are exposed to daily? I don't know, but I guess this is what I have to figure out for myself.
    Thu, May 15, 2008  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Branding the Species
      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
          Cancel