mercoledì 23 ottobre 2013

Caroline Bassett: The Philosopher, the Socialite, the Engineers, and the Spy: 'Cybercultural' debates in 1964 @ King's College London, 27.Feb.2013


27th February 2013 
Caroline Bassett,
Reader in Media and Film, Sussex University
‘The Philosopher, the Socialite, the Engineers, and the Spy: 'Cybercultural' debates in 1964’


Cyberculture is said to have been invented sometime in the 1980s, but in New York in 1964,
an unlikely group of including computer scientists, engineers, philosophers, NAACP representatives, feminists, civil rights activists, government workers, Labor leaders, entrepreneurs, and at least one spy, assembled in New York City to debate 'cybercultural revolution' - and in particular the leisure society and the future of work. Amongst them was Hannah Arendt. This paper returns to the debate via interviews with the organizer and via Arendt's work on leisure. Exploring this nexus the intention is to supplement histories of digital culture focussing on the West Coast and Silicon Valley and the counter-culture by exploring the early responses of organized labour and critical thinkers to the prospect of a digital society.


Read more @ KCL

07.Nov.2013: VERNACULARS OF NEOLIBERALISM @ King's College, London



VErNACULARS OF NEOLIBERALISM



K2.31 (JKTL Nash Lecture Theatre): Strand Campus

Public Talk
07/11/2013 (18:00-20:30)

For queries contact institute-nastudies@kcl.ac.uk
Please register for this event. 
Registration URL
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/worldwide/initiatives/global/nas/news-and-events/events/Venaculars-of-Neoliberalism-form.aspx
Despite optimistic declarations to the contrary in the heady days of 2007-8, neoliberalism has survived the recent financial crisis. This event draws together speakers who look to difference social and cultural articulations of neoliberalism to explain it's hold. The incarnation of neoliberalism in different genres and vernaculars, the way that it speaks to, and produces, different subjectivities, will be the subject for this evening's debate. 

Speakers include: 
Jane Elliott, KCL
Ziad Elmarsafy, York
Paul Gilroy, KCL
Jeremy Gilbert, UEL
Followed by a reception. 
This event has been jointly organised by the Institute of North American Studies and the English Department. Read more @ KCL

Andrew Goodman: A thousand tiny interfac(ing)s: fertile acts of resistance @ www.andrewgoodman.com.au



A thousand tiny
interfac(ing)s: fertile acts of
resistance.

Andrew Goodman
Monash University Department of Fine Art, Melbourne, AUS. <andrew.goodman@monash.edu>


Abstract: This paper examines the process of interfacing between organic and technical objects and how this might be utilized as a tactic to promote invention within new media art events. Raphael Lozano-Hemmer’s Relational Architecture is examined in relation to concepts of parasitic action and folding to show how the work develops a complex ecology of relation through interfacing.


1. Introduction

These spaces between are more complicated than one might think...less a juncture under control than an adventure to be had. Michel Serres [1]

Philosopher Brian Massumi has argued that the interface is an unsustainable concept within a process-centered world. As a ‘privileged site of mediation’ within a system, he argues, [2] the idea of the interface as a prime site of creativity and interaction denies what in process philosophy might be seen as the relational nature of all entities. Massumi’s philosophical stance emphasizes the ‘primacy of processes of becoming over the states of being through which they pass’ [3], that is, the fact that any entities that are interfacing with each other are themselves composed of relations. As such, discrete interfaces are problematic in that they might be seen to imply a world inhabited by ideal, internally stable objects, between which interactions occur. The interface’s role, in such modes of thinking, is to rejoin entities that are by implication discrete, and the complexity of continued unfolding and relation to the dynamic virtual or potential is then greatly diminished.
There is indeed much to be critical of in the privileging of the interface. As Massumi notes, it can promote a naïve excitement in ‘the joy of connection’ and undifferentiated flows of information, an unquestioning, utopian promotion of ‘interface, for interfaces’ sake’ [4], that fits in perfectly with Capitalist models of circulation and surplus-value [5]. To this one might add the cybernetic conflation of biological and technical of which Simondon is so dismissive [6], which Massumi describes as the ‘industry philosophy’ [7]. This extension of the ‘prosthetic function’ of the interface, is utilized as a method of controlling, ‘a relay point in the dissemination of human ordering activity into space...transform[ing it] into a realm of expansion onto which the human projects itself’, with real difference erased as the body ‘disappears behind a techno-logical shield’ [8]. This subjectification of the technical object, Munster has pointedly termed ‘interfaciality’, a codification as face to face, rather than body to machine relation [9].
Nevertheless, the primary sticking point for any level of discussion of the interface within process philosophy remains that its distinctive identity relies on it being a privileged site of interaction within an otherwise inert representational system. In this paper I want to attempt to show some ways in which one might think through the process of interfacing as a creative force within an art event without succumbing to the type of static, representational models of which Massumi is justifiably critical.
To do this I am going to examine a particular incidence of interfacing that occurred in Raphael Lozano-Hemmer’ s work Re:Positioning Fear: Relational Architecture 3, (1997), in order to consider ways in which some unplanned interfacings between a public and the technical assemblages of the work helped to develop a greater level of both self organization and openness in the event. But, while I am certainly going to suggest in this paper that an interesting shift in agency in the work occurred, moving from those preconceived by the artist to a new shared and emergent agency developed through an interfacing of a public bringing their own intentions and tonalities to the event, I do not wish to overstate the uniqueness of the case. Certainly, as Lozano-Hemmer has said, the events were significant in his rethinking of the ways in which he staged further Relational architecture iterations [10], however this does not necessarily imply that the occurrences were particularly out of the ordinary for such large-scale interventions, which are necessarily always composed of multiple and often contradictory intentions and forces, and can potentially head in numerous directions, both predictable and surprising. Rather, the example provides an opportunity to consider some of the creative potential of interfacing and its ability to complicate the event. I want to use this work to rethink the place of the interface within the paradigm of process philosophy, and to put it to productive use as a differential tactic within an art process. Here I will propose that the interface might provide a logic of self-regulation capable of internally driving the creation of intensities of resonance or disturbance through connection.

Read more on PDF
  


Simon Choat: Politics, power and the state: a Marxist response to postanarchism @ Journal of Political Ideologies, Volume 18, Issue 3, 2013 - Published 14.Oct.2013


Simon Choat: Politics, power and the state: a Marxist response to postanarchism @ Journal of Political Ideologies, Volume 18, Issue 3, 2013 - Published 14.Oct.2013

Recent years have seen the development of a new form of anarchism. Under the label ‘postanarchism’, writers such as Todd May, Saul Newman and Lewis Call have sought to combine the insights of anarchism with those of recent Continental philosophy, in particular post-structuralism. A central but neglected element of postanarchist thought is its critique of Marxism. The main aim of this article is to counter the postanarchist dismissal of Marxism. It will: introduce the key ideas and arguments of postanarchism; locate its critique of Marxism, demonstrating its importance to the postanarchist project; and highlight weaknesses in the postanarchist critique of Marxism. It argues that the postanarchist portrayal of Marxism is reductive and misleading. Contrary to postanarchist claims, many post-structuralists have drawn inspiration from Marxism rather than rejecting it: as such, Marxism anticipates many of the post-structuralist-inflected ideas of postanarchism, in particular their approach to the state, power, subjectivity and politics. In addition, some Marxist criticisms of classical anarchism apply equally to postanarchism, thus raising questions to which postanarchists should respond.

Read more @ JPI

Read Simon Choat interview on Crowd, Power and Postdemocracy

lunedì 21 ottobre 2013

Diffusion Models of Cycles of Protest as a Theory of Social Movements by Pamela E. Oliver (University of Wisconsin) Daniel J. Myers (University of Notre Dame) @ www.ssc.wisc.edu (1998)



Diffusion Models of Cycles of Protest as a Theory of Social Movements 
Pamela E. Oliver (University of Wisconsin)
Daniel J. Myers (University of Notre Dame)
Read more on PDF


Paper prepared for presentation at the session on "Describing, Analyzing and Theorizing Social Movements" of Research Committee 48, Social Movements, Collective Action, and Social Change, at the Congress of the International Sociological Association, Montreal, July 30, 1998. 


This paper develops a theoretical framework for understanding social movements as interrelated sets of diffusion processes. It first explains why such a conception is broadly useful to scholars of social movements, and then gives some preliminary examples of such theorizing. A social movement can be understood as a complex set of many actions by many different collective actors all oriented toward some very broad issue or goal. These actions affect each other as actors respond to what others have done, and as they accumulate, they build into the broad phenomena we collect under the label “social movement.” This conception of a social movement is closely linked to the common recognition of cycles or waves of protest and collective violence. In particular, this conception recognizes that movement actors are affected by actions in other movements, not only their own, and that the dynamics of cycles of protest are driven by the interplay between dissidents and regimes, and between peaceful and disruptive forms of protest. This conception of social movements is closely related to much current thinking in the field and is also somewhat consistent with some of the social constructionist images of collective identities as emergent processes. By adding explicit diffusion concepts, we are able to formalize and mathematize many of our theoretical understandings, thus making it possible to create a coherent theoretical structure which can be linked to the wealth of new empirical data being collected on the time series of various kinds of violent and nonviolent events in a number of different nations. We are developing mathematical models of the diffusion of collective action in cycles or waves of protest, with a particular emphasis on the diffusion of collective violence and disruptive collective protest and the ways these are affected by cycles of non-disruptive protest, the formation and institutionalization of movement organizations, and the social control efforts of regimes. Multiple-equation models are being developed for expressing the interplay among different forms of action and between regimes and dissidents in such cases as the new social movements of Europe in 1975-1990. 

William Connolly - Neuropolitics @ University of Minnesota Press, 2002



A surprising exploration of connections between culture, neuroscience, and our experience of time. Read more @ UMP
By taking up recent research in neuroscience to explore the way brain activity is influenced by cultural conditions and stimuli such as film technique, Connolly is able to fashion a new perspective on our attempts to negotiate—and thrive—within a deeply pluralized society whose culture and economy continue to quicken.
Why would a political theorist venture into the nexus between neuroscience and film? According to William Connolly—whose new book is itself an eloquent answer—the combination exposes the ubiquitous role that technique plays in thinking, ethics, and politics. By taking up recent research in neuroscience to explore the way brain activity is influenced by cultural conditions and stimuli such as film technique, Connolly is able to fashion a new perspective on our attempts to negotiate-and thrive-within a deeply pluralized society whose culture and economy continue to quicken.
In Neuropolitics Connolly draws upon recent brain/body research to explore the creative potential of thinking, the layered character of culture, the cultivation of ethical sensibilities, and the critical role of technique in all three. He then shows how a series of films-including Vertigo, Five Easy Pieces, and Citizen Kane-enhances our appreciation of technique and contests the linear image of time now prevalent in cultural theory.
Connolly deftly brings these themes together to support an ethos of deep pluralism within the democratic state and a politics of citizen activism across states. His book is an original and rigorous study that attends to the creative possibilities of thinking in identity, culture, and ethics.
Contents
Preface
Chapter 1. The Body/Brain/Culture Network
Chapter 2. The Color of Perception
Chapter 3. Nature, Affect, Thinking...
Chapter 4. Techniques of Thought and Micropolitics
Chapter 5. Memory Traces, Mystical States, and Deep Pluralism
Chapter 6. Democracy and Time
Chapter 7. Eccentric Flows and Cosmopolitan Culture


Some excerpts from Introduction:



William E. Connolly is professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at The Johns Hopkins University.
Who else but Connolly could make brain research and film interpretation illuminate each other in this way? It’s a splendid set of moves and makes this book comparable to no other, not only in political theory, but in cultural theory, film studies, and psychology.
—
Wendy Brown, University of California, Berkeley
Connolly draws attention to the important role that technique, discipline, and 'arts of the self' can play in shaping political personae and culture. He brings together a novel assemblage of intellectual objects including new approaches to neurophysiology and contemporary cinema.
—
Paul Patton, University of New South Wales
Neuropolitics provides a much-needed stimulus to the pursuit of new scientific, ethical, and political ideals. Connolly has done a superb job in encouraging us to think beyond the mechanistic and cultural paradigms that have dominated Western scientific and social thought for so long.
—
Anthropological Theory
William Connolly has perhaps no equal when it comes to gathering insights from poststructuralism and postmodernism and giving them an affirmative momentum. Neuropolitics is an immensely creative contribution.
—
Perspectives on Politics
As well as going well beyond the array of disciplines on which political theorists usually draw, Neuropolitics is impressive in its ethical range.
—
Radical Philosophy
Neuropolitics is a sort of postsecular, democratic primer on asceticism for the twenty-first century, a theoretical and practical effort to bring ‘relational techniques of the self’ into the main currents of political theory. Neuropolitics is choreographed with exuberance and invention.
—
Journal of Religious Studies
He simplifies the political dimensions of his argument to such a degree that it becomes impressively sterile.
—
Mute