[iDC] iDC Digest, Vol 55, Issue 31

[Jonathan Beller]

Thank you again, Alan, for your questions -- questions that require  
more than one person for answers, I think.
The works on cognitive capitalism that I like the most include Paolo  
Virno's Grammar of the Multitude and Christian Marazzi's Capital and  
Language: From the New Economy to the War Economy. My own work,  
particularly The Cinematic Mode of Production, approaches questions of  
cognition and utterance from a slightly different perspective than  
those of economics and politics, at least in the strict sense, namely,  
media history and practice -- issues, which in my own view, are  
inseparable from the oftentimes presumably larger questions of  
political economy. In each of the texts, although with differing  
emphasis, it seems to me that the question of the utterance is  
paramount -- where the semiotic field and digitization lays heavily  
upon all human activity, creative potential/sensual labor has  
practically become synonymous with human expression, and the politics  
of the production and reproduction of capitalist domination are at  
once omnipresent and inexorable. Additionally there are the early  
writings of Antonio Negri and the slew of books by Hardt and Negri  
that have much to say on these issues of social cooperation and  
subsumption. Perhaps others on this list might suggest more recent  
works or other works of interest.

If by chance you could suggest something on physics/mathematics/ 
computation relevant to the issues you raise I would be very grateful.

All best,
Jon






Jonathan Beller
Professor
Humanities and Media Studies
and Critical and Visual Studies
Pratt Institute
jbeller at pratt.edu
718-636-3573 fax








On Jul 19, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Alan Sondheim wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan, your response is brilliant - I mean that in all honesty,  
> some-
> thing to be pondered and thought and rethought. It raised nothing more
> than questions at my end, which I think to pose, not having answers,  
> or
> having ones that only 'work' for me.
>
> Is there a media theory, or media theories? Must a media theory be
> _responsive_ to anything in particular or at all? Does any theory  
> _have_
> to be anything in particular? Must a theory be 'critical of its  
> conditions
> of emergence'? Certainly relativity theory is, to take another  
> example but
> I can also see a certain wisdom in ignoring what might amount to a
> misreognition of historicity. I think a speaking subject carries a
> problematic of essentialism and authenticity, in general; in the  
> case of
> theorizing, it seems somehow 'stronger.' Need avatar or picture carry
> such? At times it seems to me an avatar is 'diacritical' or at best a
> floating signifier; this is an issue in relation to Scott's and  
> Patrick's
> considerations of labor in Second Life. (Perhaps in other words, is  
> the
> virtual virtual?) I'm drawn personally to considerations of  
> exploitation:
> what is going on, world-wide, is horrifying, and with all the theory  
> I've
> read (perhaps not enough), I do not understand it; at this point
> exploitation is so tied into networking on one hand and global  
> ecological
> issues on the other, that it's hard (for me) to get a handle on it.  
> The
> question here is - How do you teach these issues, in such a manner  
> that
> students or others in general are motivated? How do you avoid  
> coccooning
> on one hand and catatonia on the other? Re: The condition of  
> philosophy:
> How is this the condition of philosophy generally? There are also
> philosophies of withdrawal, of course, opening space for thought in
> environments that are inherently thoughtless. Is society hierarchical?
> Perhaps collocations, holarchic might be a better description? One  
> issue I
> try to deal with, which is literally alien to this discussion but  
> perhaps
> relevant (from a viewpoint deliberately cutting itself off) is that of
> contemporary physics/cosmology - I'm not referring to science as  
> ideology
> or the political economy of research (say the LHC), but the models
> emerging/competing - multiverse, noncommutative geometries, the
> holographic universe, string theory/branes, quantum and other logics,
> spinors, etc. - and the matheses related to this: how to make sense  
> of a
> world which, no matter which model subsumes the others, is alien to  
> such a
> degree that models are abstracted _without_ representation or  
> visualiza-
> tion? I wonder if a theory need even be experimentally testable;  
> certainly
> there are reasons to think otherwise - so that a certain kind of  
> founda-
> tion assumed all along (just as Kuhn's paradigm was assumed for  
> decades
> and is now questionable) might be just another chimera.
> In which case where does any theory of media reside? Certainly  
> within and
> without labor, but also within and without theories of perception  
> that, it
> seems to be, are themselves tottering - just as perception itself  
> might be
> considered tottering. (On another scale, what does it mean to  
> 'perceive
> Tweeter'? What is the 'labor of Tweeter'? Where is the 'intellectual  
> prop-
> erty of Tweeter'? I know these are the wrong questions - but then what
> does happen to the categories we're familiar with?)
> Can you say more about the 'theories of cognitive capitalism' and/or  
> point
> me to a source on this? It's of great interest. -
> Again, I want to thank you because your response is thought out in a
> manner that, for me, goes beyond this statement/text/whatever, and  
> applies
> to utterance in general.
>
> yours, Alan
>
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Jonathan Beller wrote:
>
>> I want to thank Alan for so directly and provocatively voicing his  
>> concerns
>> with respect to my statements about the imperatives of contemporary  
>> media
>> theory, concerns which clearly are his, but very likely not only  
>> his. In
>> response I would like to point out that although I suggested that  
>> what we are
>> here calling "theory" operates under imperatives to be of service  
>> to social
>> justice since its condition of possibility is social inequality --  
>> and if
>> theory is to be thought, then it necessarily must be critical of the
>> conditions of its emergence -- neither statements of this type nor my
>> utilization of my "own" subject position as one framework among  
>> others for
>> staging the drama and imperatives of this kind of endeavor is in  
>> itself
>> particularly essentialist or, for that matter, authentic. Would it  
>> make any
>> sense to say that an avatar is authentic, or that a picture is  
>> essentialist?
>>
>> Alan, as you note, the issues here are not trivial and I completely  
>> agree.
>> What I see happening in the language of your response to me is the
>> functioning of a set of linguistic subroutines that process/ 
>> interpret my
>> transmission along certain metaphysical lines. I did not say  
>> anything about
>> authenticity, you (as it were) however, recognized something in my  
>> message
>> that felt/meant like authenticity, and expressed ambivalence about  
>> this
>> perception: on the one hand you seem to have been drawn to some of  
>> the claims
>> regarding exploitation and theory's commitment to being relevant to  
>> that
>> problematic, on the other you were perhaps repulsed by what you may  
>> have felt
>> to be the repressive exclusion of the suggestion that theory had to  
>> be this
>> committed practice, whatever else it might be.
>>
>> In my conclusion to the letter you responded to, you can see that I  
>> placed
>> "rightfully," "belongs" and "global south" in quotation marks, as  
>> if to
>> acknowledge that these words invoked metaphysical concepts that  
>> only held if
>> one were aligned with the movement of my thought up to that point,  
>> and
>> furthermore that this movement was contingent. Putting these words in
>> quotation marks was itself a way of being open to other realities,  
>> as you
>> say, and an explicit recognition that what my transmission desired  
>> to cast as
>> a form of truth was (tragically?) not guaranteed -- indeed the  
>> proper role of
>> theory, who thought belongs to, and who are its constituents and
>> beneficiaries are among the questions being debated. The increasing
>> inadequacy of language itself to represent the world in which we  
>> live is, in
>> my view anyway, part of the problematic of media theory which must  
>> deal with
>> the onslaught of visuality -- a phenomenon which at once  
>> marginalizes the
>> traditional roles and capabilities of language and forces it to  
>> function
>> increasingly as images do. When, after invoking the contingencies  
>> above, I
>> asked "how to be adequate to such a reality?" -- a "reality" that  
>> includes
>> both the production and reproduction of hierarchical society and
>> capital-mediation in and through visuality -- and did not place  
>> "reality" in
>> quotation marks, that exclusion was a rhetorical (i might even say  
>> poetic)
>> choice on my part, an effort to produce the image of the ring of  
>> truth (a
>> sound, by the way), _as if_ the metaphysical questions about  
>> contingency
>> could be left behind. However the statement was less philosophical  
>> and more
>> performative at that point -- it being recognized of course that
>> performativity is (now) the condition of philosophy generally. The  
>> phrase was
>> meant to mark the ineffable yet necessary movement of the  
>> possibility of
>> justice. Thus I might call it a utopian gesture haunted by  
>> contingency, a
>> projection of a certain form of redemptive possibility that, to  
>> take things
>> too far, would be as beautiful as it is impossible -- the last  
>> flower in
>> Pan's Labyrinth. I'm not saying that my letter achieved anything  
>> like this
>> kind of movement (it really was not so carefully considered), but I  
>> am
>> endeavoring here to say something about method: To make the words  
>> line up to
>> produce the image of an actionable object is to strive to create "a  
>> natural
>> perspective that is and is not," to coin a phrase. It is to  
>> produce, even
>> momentarily, a full, desirable and pragmatic version of the world  
>> in an ocean
>> of competing images and contingent claims -- what Jameson called the
>> marketplace of ideas, but today is really just the marketplace in  
>> general.
>> There may be the illusion of authenticity and of metaphysical  
>> ground, but
>> there is nothing guaranteed about any of it.
>>
>> Having said all this, I recognize that my particular exercise of such
>> tactics, is not to everyone's taste. Like others, I do the best  
>> that I can,
>> to operate in a matrix of mediations, and navigate towards  
>> becomings that may
>> well be ultimately unfounded and unobtainable. Plying the myriad  
>> codes and
>> mediations today (what used to be called writing) is perhaps an  
>> experience of
>> what has been called post-representational democracy -- a movement  
>> through
>> the infinite claims of history to date. However, we have not left
>> representation behind entirely, even though we have a new set of  
>> terms that
>> would include affect, intensity, viscerality, visuality and others,  
>> that are
>> available as tools to calculate, measure, think, feel and  
>> strategize with.
>> This is where we work -- all of us, at least to some degree --  
>> isn't that
>> what the theories of cognitive capitalism point to? To write is to  
>> wager, it
>> is to make a prediction, which as Gramsci taught us, is in fact, a  
>> programme.
>>
>> Again, Alan, thanks for the opportunity to reflect on these issues.  
>> There is
>> implicit in what I said, some thoughts on the production of  
>> consciousness,
>> but I'll leave more explicit remarks on that topic for another time.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Jon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan Beller
>> Professor
>> Humanities and Media Studies
>> and Critical and Visual Studies
>> Pratt Institute
>> jbeller at pratt.edu
>> 718-636-3573 fax
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity  
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20090720/358b1d69/attachment-0001.htm