Periodizing With Control
Periodizing With Control by Seb Franklin This essay is guided by the following question: what kinds of critical possibilities become legible if one reads Gilles Deleuze’s conceptualization of control societies both as a work of periodization theory and as a theory of periodization? In other words, how might one read control in methodological terms? One of the motivations for this inquiry is Fredric Jameson’s observation that periodizing hypotheses “tend to obliterate difference and to project an idea of the historical period as massive homogeneity (bounded on either side by inexplicable chronological metamorphoses and punctuation marks” (1991, 3-4). Jameson’s solution to this problem is to conceive of the “cultural dominant” that replaces the concept of style within aesthetic analysis and that thus allows for “the presence and coexistence of a range of different, yet subordinate, features” (1991, 4). The features that Deleuze attributes to control suggest the possibility that this analytical rubric can be extended to the analysis of “dominant” features that occur not in spheres conventionally described in aesthetic (or stylistic) terms, such as architecture, literature, and visual art, but in material- discursive arrangements like governmentality, technology, and economics. A close reading of Deleuze’s theorization of control reveals those three threads to be knotted together in ways that both invite and are irreducible to historical breaks. Because of this, Deleuze’s writing on control societies points towards modes of historical analysis that can account for complex assemblages of epistemic abstractions and the concrete situations that undergird and (for worse and for better) exceed them. It is certainly the case that periodizing gestures appear to ground the essays “Having an Idea in Cinema” (1998; first delivered as a lecture at La Fémis in 1987) and “Postscript on Control Societies,” as well the conversation with Antonio Negri published as “Control and Becoming” (1995; first published in 1990). [1] Across these texts Deleuze names and sketches the contours of a sociopolitical and economic logic that diverges in important ways from the earlier regimes of sovereignty and discipline theorized by Michel Foucault. In the earliest of what one might call the control texts, ostensibly a commentary on the cinema of Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet, Deleuze itemizes the signature components of disciplinary societies—“the accumulation of structures of confinement” (prisons, hospitals, workshops, and schools)—in order to demarcate a period in which “we” were “entering into societies of control that are defined very differently” (1998, 17). These newer types of societies are signaled by a specific mode of social management: the age of control comes about when “those who look after our interests do not need or will no longer need structures of confinement,” with the result that the exemplary forms of social regulation begin to “spread out” (1998, 17-18). So, the dissolution of institutional spaces and the concomitant ‘spreading out’ of disciplinary power marks the first characteristic of control societies and, apparently, establishes their difference from arrangements centered on ‘classical’ sovereignty or disciplinary power. The exemplary diagram here is the highway system, in which “people can drive infinitely and ‘freely’ without being at all confined yet while still being perfectly controlled” (1998, 18). In “Control and Becoming” Deleuze once again speaks of the passage through sovereignty and discipline and the breakdown of the latter’s sites of confinement, but he adds a second valence in the form of a discussion of technology that is only hinted at in the earlier piece’s allusions to information and communication. In this conversation Deleuze again appears bound to the notion of the historical break: he suggests that sovereign societies correspond to “simple mechanical machines,” disciplinary societies to “thermodynamic machines,” and control societies to “cybernetic machines and computers” (1995a, 175). These two intertwined narratives—of distributed governmentality and technologies of computation—represent the two main vectors through which the concept of control has shaped subsequent critical writing. For example, one might read Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s concept of empire (2000) as emphasizing the former, and Alexander R. Galloway’s Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralization (2004) as privileging the latter, although in truth each addresses both technology and power in some ratio. Equally, one can identify commonalities between the lineaments of control societies and a still-growing body of periodizing concepts, both celebratory and critical, that do not mention Deleuze’s concept but that define a similar set of historical movements in more universal terms: the information age; digital culture; the network society;
Fwd: Who’s *really* backing Boris?
Open Democracy launches down to earth campaign to expose leading Boris Johnson and Hunt. -- * please, don't other me * Jo van der Spek M2M v. Ostadestraat 49 1072SN Amsterdam http://schipholbrand.net Doorgestuurd bericht Van: "Peter Geoghegan, openDemocracy" support...@opendemocracy.net Aan: j...@xs4all.nl Datum: donderdag, 13 juni 2019, 08:44p.m. +02:00 Onderwerp: Who’s *really* backing Boris? >Most of us won’t have a say in who becomes PM, but at the very least we should >know who’s funding them. >Unsubscribe >View in your browser >Dear friend of openDemocracy, >The race to replace Theresa May is on. >Soon we’ll know who’s moving into Number 10. But will we know who’s >bankrolled them? >openDemocracy has just revealed that the two frontrunners, Boris Johnson and >Jeremy Hunt, have received £25,000 each from a prominent climate change >sceptic. >Boris is yet to disclose the donation. >We also know that Lynton Crosby’s controversial PR firm is running a vastly >expensive pro-Boris campaign – but no one will say who’s picking up the bill. >We’ve got tons of leads to chase down on this story, but not much time. Will >you help us keep digging? > >Yes, I'll donate to openDemocracy >openDemocracy exposed the tricks that made a mockery of the 2016 Brexit >referendum – including the law-breaking by Vote Leave, fronted by Boris. >Now we want citizens to have the facts before the next British prime minister >is chosen. >Hunt and Johnson have received over £100,000 in donations – that we know of – >in recent weeks, with more set to pour in before the final ballot. >Millionaire hedge-funders, CEOs, and lobbying firms are among those emptying >their pockets. >Most of us won’t have a say in who becomes PM, but at the very least we >should know who’s funding them. >With your support, we can: >- dig deep on who’s bankrolling all the candidates , so that citizens know >who the next PM is leaving the door of Number 10 open to >- uncover who’s funding the secretive, lavish pro-Boris lobbying operation, >run by Lynton Crosby’s controversial PR firm >- expose the backroom deals and horse-trading going on behind closed doors >Yes, I'll donate to openDemocracy > This isn’t just about Britain, or Boris. It’s vital that any candidate >running for office is transparent about their funding. >Whatever the outcome of the Tory leadership race, fixing the ongoing abuses of >our democracy will need committed, forensic investigation over many years. >Our work gets results: prompting law change, criminal investigations – and >our investigation into Brexit bankroller Aaron Banks just got nominated for >Private Eye’s prestigious Paul Foot journalism prize. >With your regular support, we can strengthen our network of investigative >journalists – tracing dark money flows and holding secretive political >backers to account, both now and for years to come. >Please give what you can today and together we can uncover the truth about >who’s shaping our politics. > >Thank you, > > >Peter Geoghegan , >Investigations Editor, openDemocracyUK >Read more: Revealed: Climate change denier makes big donations to Boris >Johnson and Jeremy Hunt >Click here to change your subscription. Read our privacy notice here . >The Print House >18 Ashwin Street >London , E8 3DL >United Kingdom > # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: less (net time) is more
Hi, I too have a desire for more "real life" contact & more "down to earth" activities - and, paradoxically, I express that in an email ;-) On Tue, 11 Jun 2019, panayotis antoniadis wrote: So, for me a possible future for mailing lists would be to simply make face-to-face contact an integral part of their main "communication protocol". as a follow-up to my first nettime-live meetup, that happened at HIP97 (hacking in progress, 1997, dutch hackers camping festival / conference), I suggest we take a dip in the lakes at CCC Camp 2019: https://events.ccc.de/2019/05/22/call-for-participation-chaos-communication-camp-2019/ I'll be there, in a quiet "village" dedicated to community-care, radical honesty, empathic resolution of conflicts & companionship: https://wiki.techinc.nl/CCC_Camp2019#interesting_for_Becha If you are willing to connect, contact me off list... Vesna hm i seem to post to nettime every two years ;-) https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-1504/msg00046.html https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-1711/msg00054.html -- community, cooperation, commons, squirrels // http://becha.home.xs4all.nl nature, anarchy, utopia, un-anthropocene // https://www.unciv.nl // @Ms_Multicolor # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; throws in the towel
Responses both to Richard, Adrian and Garnet - great points! (Hope this doesn't make things difficult!) I think that, taking a longer perspective, the key question we have to ask is whether the "Maker Movement" contains (or even could contain) potential genuinely to transform and empower localities. Relocalisation was one of the big sales pitches for the internet (remember all that breathless talk of working from home, and a new layer of prosperous digital artisans?) yet what we see, twenty five years later, is hyper-centralisation. Just as an example, we used to use the apartment above "Makers" for AirBNB. So British people, visiting us in Sheffield, could pay people in San Fransico for the right to transact with us. Partly in response, we've taken the step of scrapping the apartment, breaking through the ceiling of the shop, reinstituting the staircase, and opening up two more floors to local commerce, culture and micro-industry! But can we make that decision make sense? Are we just utopian silly-billies, prepared to waste our resources on subsidising local culture - or can we make it pay at least as much as we made from our previous activities? Only by fairly universal engagement can Making begin to address the sorts of global issues that posters like Adrian and Garnet have identified (resource usage, poor resource recovery, social inequalities, alienation...). And to get fairly universal engagement, it HAS TO PAY. Richard, you say "my point of view the greatest value of the maker movement has been an explosion of people making things that don't entirely make sense and that are not intended as commercial ventures. That's not an issue, that's the point." If we maintain that the quirky, fascinating, but ultimately unprofitable experiments are the core value of the Maker Movement, then be prepared to accept that it WILL wither and die - or rather, simply retreat into the world of hobbyists orbiting academic institutions. Throughout history there have been movements that have resulted in things that don't entirely make sense - it hasn't needed the Maker Movement to make that happen. Are you in danger of conflating the experimental excrescences of creative young people with what we're now calling "making" (that intersection of the physical and the digital that's made possible by affordable digital manufacturing equipment and dirt-cheap, programmable microelectronics)? I believe that the Maker Movement points to value an order of magnitude of greater - a contextual change, in which localities are transformed and empowered as they take on the skills, the engagement and the tools to make their own quirky, responsive and particular products and emergent cultures suitable for their own needs. But just because something is fairly universal, that STILL doesn't mean that it has potential to revitalise localities. This is where I have an issue with 3D Print. Take, as an analogy, inkjet printing. Inkjet printing is almost universal (who doesn't have one, two, or more inkjet printers languishing in their attic or office storeroom?) but the only jobs that this creates are manufacturing and selling Inkjets and Ink. Despite the ubiquitous distribution of hardware, the (often diabolically networked) software, combined with proprietary ink cartridges, means that all the profits are spirited away from where YOU live. The product of an Inkjet printer is good enough for you to frame and put on the mantelpiece (until it fades and you print out another one), but they probably aren't good enough to sell. These types of technology give you the illusion that you are a producer (of nice colour reproductions), when actually, you are a consumer (of ink). I think that 3D Printers currently have a similar economic effect - they're the end of the value chain. You can print out pirate space marines, (or marine space pirates, come to that) and use them for your tabletop battles, but that doesn't mean you can sell them legally, or at at a price that makes sense. You're the end of the value chain. On the other hand, you can feed laser cutters or CNCs with an incredibly wide range of materials, from a vast range of suppliers. And crucially, those materials have purposes OTHER THAN being fed into a laser cutter or CNC. If you also have a cheap planer-thicknesser, then almost any recovered wood product can be your raw material. These questions of microeconomics may get us away from the fascination of the amateur hackathon - and researchers may feel less immediately excited - but they matter for the shape of the bigger picture in the longer term. There's a whole other post - in fact, a whole thread - to be made about Making and Open Source. Is Open Source (as distinct from local, personal sharing) actually the thin end of the "globalised business as usual" wedge? I'll leave it for now. All the best, James = On 12/06/2019 17:35, Richard Sewell wrote: Jam
Re: The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; throws in the towel
Garnet, Tom and all Thanks for that contribution - it unfolds maker from a north American perspective and would be happy to hear about the historical connections. I'm always in ore of how North Americans share - whatever you want to make fix - deconstruct their is always an enthusiastic North American on youtube. Thanks also for Toms comments on class, squatting and free parties and sound systems. It has revived this conversation for me as I thought we would see the usual silence pregnant pause after the word class is mentioned. Without wanting to stray to far "The maker movement is somewhat significant in that it highlights how alienated contemporary western culture has become from the manual craft of building your own objects, and how wholly absorbed it has been enveloped in consumer culture. The maker movement works counter this alienation" I think Maker Magazine did little to address the implicit alienation involved in technical objects. In part because the genealogy of the alienation and technical objects problem reveals other politics. The implicit alienation involved in technology enslaving humans is a recurrent European theme in popular films “It is out there, it can’t be bargained with, it can’t be reasoned with, it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not stop…”(1984, Terminator) It appears in popular science Stephen Hawking “...automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining.” And appears in the weird and eerie machines of Boston Dynamics, a USA military funded robotics company, that has been working hard to propagandise an approach to robotics and marketing that encourages anthropomorphism in machines, that will eventually autonomously kill. This form of alienation finds its mirror in technology as slave, appendage, tool, agent of our will to order the material universe through an extension of skill, thought, sense. An important and vital part of this alienation is the notion of the slave found everywhere in technical master slave systems. A Slave in Classical Greece times was seen as techne and the slave masters of old thought they could replace the rebellious black bodies through technical process.(introduction of steam engines in sugar plantations) Both technology as slave or enslaver place technology outside of the consideration of it being treated as essentially human. Both forms have been described as implicit or explicit alienation by Gilbert Simondon in On the mode of Technical Objects and Lewis Mumford in Pentagon of Power tried to address this issue around the middle of last century. In different ways they both thought that this alienation would allow powerful groups to use technical forms to construct different versions of societies of control. What I'm trying inarticulately to say is that the interconnections of slavery and technical objects needs to be a theme of critical technical practice. Alienation can be sidestepped for now by considering technical objects as social cognition in the way that Hutchins see's it "Cognition in the Wild", or how we become collaborative with machines to make different organisms in a more then human world. On another note - concerning consumerism. Gong farmers, Nightmen, Dustman, sewage workers and refuse(d) collectors have worked tirelessly in the shadows of history struggling to get rid of dirt, seamlessly removing it to where it offers to be less threatening, toxic and polluting or at least they remove it from the eyes who inhabit the idealised urban scape - this also includes those gadgets that are readily discarded. Contemporary capitalisms waste can be thought of as an intentional part of the productive cycle of consumerism. (See Brookes Stevens 1968 -> planned obsolescence) Consumerism itself of course is a stand in for a system that allows individual identity to be formed and reformed by the products consumed. Waste disposal is what, invisibility makes the modern possible while banal fecal taboo's aid such a process to create a phycology that keeps waste and those who work it in the shadows. This excreting down stream so to speak, makes visible a clearing, a modern hygiene, enabling a separation of the ordered city (the new gadgets that make me me today) from chaotic nature, human from their animal selves. On a different note, I'm not sure what kind of penetration Rasberry Pi's made in north America but in my local area the Southend Linux Users Group ran Raspberry Jams which brought together critical makers, school age geeks, circuit board manufacturers. The gender and age mix was relatively good and they could have anything from 200 to 500 people in attendance - they were led by Derek Shaw (I can put you in touch if that useful) Anothe
