I think that my focusing question will be something like: What sorts of opportunities for agency, action, and resistance does the emergent formulation of surveilling society/control society/Empire generate, dissipate, or render illegible?

I think that this is a hard question to answer and will require a lot of initial framing of terms (What do you mean by the surveilling society/control society, empire?) before getting off the ground at all, but I would feel satisfied in at least treating the subject with some subtlety and coming away with a better sense of what’s at stake in resistance/action.

Some of the arguments that I will draw upon will include the Keenan piece about humanitarian action, Hardt and Negri’s formulation of Empire and control society (perhaps with a discussion of how it differs from Foucault’s notion of biopower), Rey Chow’s “The Force of Surfaces” (as it describes the defiant act of “exhibitionism” as an empowering gesture). I think it would be fruitful to discuss webcam usage or reality television to the extent that the decision to put oneself in front of the camera seems to be exactly that: a decision, and one that can feel empowering in certain contexts. This discussion will not be without some qualifications of these acts of individual agency and autonomy—Indeed there are ways to read theses as internalizations of control society’s desire for continuous surveillance, etc.

I would like to bring in some discussion of opengov or the bureau for inverse tech. as projects of resistance/action- critiques and possibilities for usefulness.

Well, I am sick and my eyes hurt from the computer screen so I am going to go shut them. Best weekends to all.

posted by Jackie at 10:48 PM

AIDS, Action, and Empire-

Today I was speaking with an AIDS activist/economist/women’s studies professor named Kiaran from Harvard about the work that she does interviewing folks that are part of anti-AIDS initiatives in parts of Africa (some areas with rates of infection of 40%), and I was struck by how relevant so many of our class themes have been to the situation of fighting diseases in other countries. For example, there is the question of when knowledge does/n’t lead to action and why. In this case, we were talking about condom usage (rationalist viewpoint: if we (NGO’s, westerners, etc.) just go educate these people, then they’ll wear them, then they won’t get AIDS) and how so many complex issues of power relations, customs, economic empowerment, etc. go into the ability to mediate safe sex/the decision to wear a condom. But also, she was talking about the way in which she has to present her footage of Africa/presentations about AIDS to Americans- she frames her discussions in such a way that people can see how they are invisibly connected (as in Empire- we are never outside of the network) to the ongoing crisis. This relates back to Keenan’s discussion of the humanitarian crisis with Bosnia- there is no simple correlation between knowledge/education/publicity and (even life-saving) action. Framing the discussion as a humanitarian crisis in this case as in the case of Bosnia, can also be similarly debilitating, as many of the roots/perpetuations of the AIDS crisis in Africa can be traced back to economic structures that developed because of apartheid and other western interventions into family structure (increase in migratory work as only job option, mine work, etc.).

Kiaran and I discussed Empire for a while and she expressed her fears that many of the NGO’s (the white Toyota SUV army, as she called them) were in fact, with the best intentions, perhaps creating more harm than good. In fact, there is a book out by a woman named Catherine Campbell about why AIDS activism in Africa has failed so miserably in some cases- rates of infection in certain areas have gone up despite “education” and prevention measures.

In some ways Kiaran’s project believes in a notion of the informed public, who, when given the right information will act upon it (she gives talks presenting her footage to all sorts of audiences-raising money, promoting awareness,etc), but in other ways it is very much aware that this information is always already mediated (by herself) and seeks to present it in a way that is both empowering and connective.

I thought this was an interesting example of someone in academia striving to perform some sort of urgently needed, non-innocent, humanitarian action.

posted by Jackie at 3:25 AM

From Nazli:

Today, I want to write about Peter Weibel since I am going to be using his text for the final paper as well. He really has described the shift of the pleasure principle of the voyeur, to see everything and the pleasure principle of the exhibitionist to show all, from the fates of private drives to social norms very well. They have transformed from individual-psychological criteria to social categories that have entered into everyday life. Rather than being punishment, surveillance has become a way of enjoyment in the present. The panoptic principle is felt neither as a threat nor punishment, but, rather, as amusement, liberation and pleasure. The act of observation has become to be entertaining for many people. And the reason of this pleasure might be the fact that seeing is usually conceptualized under the norms of sex. As Freud has stated, the very desire to know, rather than being innocent, was itself ultimately derived from an infantile desire to see, which had sexual origins.
I do not want to discuss all the points he makes but his example of the luggage passing through the X-ray at an airport was also very striking. It was seen as an object moving from invisibility to visibility. Since the natural human eye cannot see many realms of reality, they become visible only through special instruments. Thus do we really see the world itself or do we only see images that are created by instruments? If we see images, then everything comes down to correctly interpreting those images. Therefore an invisible reality can become visible in technical images, which is one of the characteristics of the post-modern world. “ When the world comes to us, although only as an image, it is half present and half absent, thus phantom-like.” I liked the way Weibel puts this. This also brings in the question of absolute security that is thought to be brought by absolute visibility. If there is no absolute visibility then can there be absolute security?

posted by whkc at 7:26 PM

From Nazli:

“Commons are features for all cultures,” says Lawrence Lessig in his essay “Internet Under Siege”. I totally agree with this and also think that it in a way brings together or combines all cultures. It is a common ground for everyone, from different cultures, races, ages and places. It is a very unique space that welcomes innovations since it is open and free. However these innovations should not attempt to wall off portions of this cyberspace. Are authorities aiming this because any place that is left to be free and flexible want to be controlled? Are we living in a society in which everything should be owned, controlled or surveilled? And where does the core of this desire come from? Is it the desire to be more powerful than others and have control over them? Do authorities feel threatened when they cannot see who is doing what and does the existence of a space in which they cannot regulate disciplines scares them? I find this article very intriguing and open to discussion.
posted by whkc at 7:25 PM