All Blog Comments

Sinthome/Levi - Crisis and Change

Sinthome/Levi — Oct 6, 2008 11:57 AM

Excellent post, Nick. As it so happens, this is precisely the problem I'm grappling with for the paper I'm presenting this weekend and is, I believe, also the problem with the theoretical edifice surrounding Zizek and the universe of capitalism I shared with you. The problem, as I see it, is that socio-economic organizations such as "capitalism" get turned into monolithic *entities* that are everywhere and nowhere. In much the same way that the Law gets turned into a pure and empty form that can never be found, when we tilt *at* capitalism, the task of producing anything other than capitalism becomes impossible. We're left with this invisible giant that can never be localized or found and therefore we believe that change is impossible. I think there is a common root to the ineffectiveness of political models such as we find in Zizek and Badiou. In both Zizek and Badiou it is implicitly assumed that *structure* is an invariant set of constants defining anything that takes place within structure. Thus, just as language is a set of invariants defining the constraints of *speech*, just as language functions as a transcendent *form* governing all *instances* of speech, so too does social structure take on the appearance of being an invariant transcendent form governing all forms of action. As a result, action comes to be thought as something that only reproduces structure. Insofar as action, like speech, is thought as a mere instance of invariant social structure, the social and political theorist is led to focus on social structure to the detriment of action. After all, action is seen as being akin to speech and therefore as contributing nothing to our understanding of the social in itself and/or language. Consequently, both Zizek and Badiou are led to search for an empty space or void within structure that is not yet determined by the social edifice. Here we get an all or nothing proposition. Either we have an archimedian point completely undetermined by structure (the void, the real, etc) from which the entire structure can be transformed, or our action simply reproduces structure. The issue changes substantially, I think, when we begin to look at concrete assemblages and networks. To my thinking, Marx's form of analysis is already thoroughly inspired by network thinking. The maxim of his thought could be "no relation without a difference". The problem is that structuralist orientations begin with the *implicit* premise that beings can enter into relation without producing any sort of difference. What inspires Marx is the insight that in entering into relation, new formations come into being. Thus, for example, in the Communist Manifest Marx shows both how the proletariat is alienated in their labor conditions, but also how these labor conditions create a new set of values and a new type of human generating a new set of possibilities. Here he makes all sorts of observations both about how this generates new possible forms of social organization, but also how we are to understand things like machines being destroyed, loafing on the job, struggles against the owners, etc. The key point is that these phenomena arise *immanently* from within the social organization in question and as a function of the networks that are formed. Deleuze and Guattari formalize this structure. In "The Postulates of Linguistics" they already, in my view, surpass any structural approach to these questions in their distinction between machinic assemblages and collective assemblages. Unlike the structuralist that invariably presents culture or language as overdetermining everything else, machinic assemblages are networks of bodies that function according to their own principles and relations. Likewise, in collective assemblages language no longer functions as an abstract system of constants or invariants, but as a pragmatic system that intervenes in bodies in such a way as to transform their relations. For example, a death sentence. The machinic assemblage/collective assemblage abstract machine allows us to escape any sort of base/superstructure determinism, while also seeing how phenomena of change can emerge from networked relations and interactions between the form of content (machinic assemblages) and the form of expression (collective assemblages). In Marxist terms, it now becomes possible to see his thought as both a cartography of machinic assemblages but also as a speech act (a collective assemblage) that incorporeally functions to transform the bodies involved in the machinic assemblage into a revolutionary force (the *naming* of the proletariat). Through this naming of elements in the machinic assemblage, the people who are missing comes into being, allowing for a reconfiguration of the current social assemblage. Our question should be that of what values inhabit our situation today... What forms of resistance are arising *immanently* from within the networks organizing our social sphere. Enough for now. What pages are you getting the reference to Latour from?

Nick - Crisis and Change

Nick — Sep 30, 2008 10:31 AM

Seduction, as you phrase it, is definitely interesting in a theoretical sense in this crisis - hold the system to its own free market principles and let the banks fail! There's certainly an aspect in which fully conforming to this system effectively destroys it. Practically, though, I would think most people would be against such a plan. While the damage is mostly limited to the financial sector for the moment, it's inevitable that the freezing up of credit will eventually affect the 'real' economy too. I have no problems letting investment bankers and the financial types reap their own downfall, but the goal is to minimize the effects of that on innocent people. So I'm not sure Baudrillard is of much use in this case - the repercussions are simply too extensive.

mark - Crisis and Change

mark — Sep 30, 2008 9:58 AM

Thanks for the suggestion. Latour is someone I have only read from secondary reading. I have collected re-assembling the social from the library today. I’ll also look into DeLanda's critique of Latour. I think DeLanda feels Latour is guilty of linguistic idealism in some places. In terms of seduction, I use Baudrillard's concept because seduction is a (fatal) game that can implode from its own logic/rules. It is therefore sometimes better to (hyper)conform than resist, as conforming can push the 'system' to its limits. For example, a friend of mine was told that all emails of interest should be forwarded to other members of staff, which was an instruction given from the boss. He decided to forward the boss anything of remote interest and within a month the policy was stopped. In this sense conforming can function as a means of resisting and involves the 'art' of seduction.

Henry - Crisis and Change

Henry — Sep 29, 2008 6:43 PM

Exciting times. I have a feeling this crisis might bring about the sustained violence economy that once existed under the Mongolian empire, but then again, perhaps not.

Nick - Crisis and Change

Nick — Sep 27, 2008 9:22 AM

Re-assembling the Social is Latour's book and idea - I'd definitely recommend picking up a copy and checking it out. It goes along well with a lot of the ideas you like in DeLanda and Deleuze. One major aspect of the idea, though, is that any social inquiry necessarily creates its object too - not in the sense of linguistically or representationally constructing it, but in the sense of setting up certain conditions for *real* data to emerge. The same thing happens in sciences like physics - highly artificial laboratories are constructed to produce real data. As Latour will say, construction and realism aren't necessarily opposed. So re-assembling the social has, in part, to do with the idea that we - as social theorists - can re-assemble the social through studying it. I think catalysts are an important part of mapping (a vague term, I know) the social networks - implicitly, at least, that's what I was suggesting with finding the important nodes. These points are the specific areas where concerted action can produce disproportionate results - effects that cascade throughout the system. As for Baudrillard, I know virtually nothing about him, so I can't really comment on his theory of seduction.

Nick - Crisis and Change

Nick — Sep 27, 2008 9:17 AM

I'm not sure in precisely what way you think I'm presupposing reality, although as an avowed realist, I'm not sure it's a bad thing either. There is something independent of our thoughts and theory, and so there necessarily (for me) has to be a question of bringing theory back into concrete practice. Theory is not co-extensive or co-constitutive of reality (however we ultimately want to define those terms). I'm also unclear about what the exact problem is you see - the desire to change things? Or the division between theory and practice? If the former, I'm not sure that's politics at all then - it's a form of contemplative philosophy that merely acquiesces to the present world. The latter, on the other hand, suggests that theory is equivalent to practice. But that seems to me to rely upon making theory constitutive of reality - an idea which falls into all the problems that the speculative realists have been pointing out (most notably, the implicit denial of science's literal meaning). But I think the problem can be turned around too - what would Agamben have to say on the current crisis? How would he suggest using this moment of opportunity for leftist projects? (Those are honest questions, since I don't know Agamben's work particularly well.) My concern - and why I say that theory needs to find its worth in practical efficacy - is that too much continental political thought seems content with (sometimes implicitly) suggesting that a change in theory is a change in reality. I don't think that's the whole story though. The weakness of the leftist program is evidence of that, despite the expansion of the 'political' to every corner of social reality and the simultaneous surge in 'critical' theorizing.

Andre Dias - Crisis and Change

Andre Dias — Sep 26, 2008 6:52 PM

I havent yet read all your post, but arriving at this I must stop and make a point:
"For all the theoretical interest of these problems, however, the real worth of a social theory needs to be found in its practical efficacy. It seems to me that a real weakness of much leftist thought today lies in its insurmountable distance from real world dynamics - and hence its inability to bring about concrete change in the world."
No, it's not the "insurmountable distance" that's the problem. It's the other way around. The problem resides mostly in the need leftists have on the immediate effects of theory. It's part of the so called leftist "voluntarism", the will to transform the world according to some well established plan. Marx 11th thesis on Feuerbach said it, and leftists keep repeating it. Deleuze, fortunately, is quite far from that voluntarism, as the seminal text by François Zourabichvili on his politics proved it. And even Agamben, in a debate following a Bauman conference, completely dismissed a question established on the distinction between theory and practice. It's an error to presuppose reality, and that happens every time one talks about "practical efficacy".

mark - Crisis and Change

mark — Sep 26, 2008 3:58 PM

excellent post. I am curious about the idea of re-assembling the social. I tend to argue that a return to what DeLanda's terms the concrete is necessary. If projects for transformation focus on too abstract concepts (e.g. human freedom) they end up usually becoming rarified essences. Maybe, the option is to focus on certain/actual circumstances that could function as catalysts for intensive processes that might transform the social. For example, this strategy would reject fighting against poverty, in the molar sense, and concentrate on actual/concrete examples of poverty, in the minor sense of the term. I doubt this type of politics is capable of offering any real theory of "revolution", but it does offer a practical means to actualize transformations in the social. In terms of the crisis of present capitalism. I am less likely to offer a theory of revolution at this moment. Maybe Baudrillard's concept of seduction is the most effective one here to think about. Instead of attempting to think about revolution it is more likely that capitalism could be seduced into its own collapse (although i doubt this will happen).

Nick - New Badiou Journal Issue

Nick — Sep 21, 2008 10:24 AM

I won't be at SPEP this year unfortunately, although I hope to go in the future. Definitely hope we can meet up sometime though!

Tzuchien - New Badiou Journal Issue

Tzuchien — Sep 20, 2008 7:45 PM

yea. I know. What is with this university affiliation thing anyway? In anycase, good luck, hope we can meet up chat sometime. I'll be at SPEP this year, will you?

The Vances - Reversing the Critical Turn, Part II: Laruelle

The Vances — Sep 19, 2008 3:07 AM

Neat Roger Ballen photo.

Nick - New Badiou Journal Issue

Nick — Sep 17, 2008 6:11 AM

Thanks Tzuchien. As for the university affiliation, I can only claim ignorance! I simply copied and pasted the list of authors and titles from an email the editor sent me.

Tzuchien - New Badiou Journal Issue

Tzuchien — Sep 17, 2008 2:51 AM

Congrats. Who says Tzuchien Tho is from University of Hong Kong?

Nick - A Critique of Populist Reason

Nick — Jul 20, 2008 3:18 PM

Thanks Jon - not sure if you noticed, but I actually have that link put up under my 'Recommended Links' to the right too! I've been really enjoying the PDFs and commentary you've posted on hegemony and multitude. Cheers!

Jon - A Critique of Populist Reason

Jon — Jul 20, 2008 3:13 PM

I go into similar territory in (far too much) detail here.

Nick - Artisinal Development and Institutions

Nick — Jul 17, 2008 12:14 PM

Thanks Dan! I'll have to check out that book. I found Rodrik's approach to be exciting for all the reasons you cite in your 1st paragraph. It seems to me that the sort of modest, experimental and local approach he advocates is an excellent method to grapple with the singularity of various situations - a way to admit the faultiness of universal laws, yet still be capable of working towards a plan for development. As far as arguing against universal laws and still being practical goes, Rodrik's work is a great example. And just to clarify the 'at the margins' example - it wasn't meant to imply that it only occurred in a small portion of the population; rather, 'at the margins' referred to the excess production produced *after* the quotas of the plan system were fulfilled. These extra goods were liberalized and sold at market prices, which led to a two-track system of pricing, and a way to introduce reforms without upsetting the local habits.

Dan Little - Artisinal Development and Institutions

Dan Little — Jul 17, 2008 10:25 AM

reat post, Nick. I really like the "artisanal/architectural" distinction you offer here -- this makes a lot of sense of the relationship between development theory and historical reality in developing countries. It emphasizes the contingency of economic development and the fundamental underpinning of the idea of there being alternative pathways of economic development. I'm not quite sure that I agree with the interpretation of the agricultural reforms in China as being "at the margin". I see the family responsibility system reforms as being very wide and deep in impact, leading to a substantial return to a family-based farming system. I particularly like Liz Perry and Christine Wong, The Political Economy of Reform in Post-Mao China, including especially Kathleen Hartford's essay.

Nick - Speculative Heresy

Nick — Jul 7, 2008 10:39 AM

That'd be fantastic! Definitely let us know when that's available. Cheers!

Jeestunautre - Speculative Heresy

Jeestunautre — Jul 7, 2008 3:23 AM

This is awesome. When we get the video and audio that is being made of the speculative realism panel at Rome, we'll be sure to let you know.

Taylor Adkins - Reversing the Critical Turn, Part II: Laruelle

Taylor Adkins — Jul 3, 2008 3:30 PM

Hey Nick, I just wanted to let you know that I added three more definitions to the site including: non-epistemology, material ontology and formal ontology. Congrats on getting your piece into Symposium, that's really awesome and I wish I could have been in the running with you! All the best, Taylor