Bourgeois imagination having been the means to re-humanize. Thus:
In conditions where the object takes precedence over human subjects, the imagined object - the art object - has been the particular instrument for retrieving the supremacy of the human over objects in general. Although its overall role has been to mediate between contradictory aspects of social reality, and thus it has served to reproduce 'active' objects and the de-activated people who actively made them, for as long as we are appreciating it, the art object reverses the subordination of people to things. But we only continue to appreciate it for as long as it shows us something new. And 'imagination' is what we call the artist's capacity to come up with a new object that can retain our interest. Thus the artistic imagination has been called upon to both reproduce the dynamic character of capitalist innovation, but also to reverse its dehumanising impact. Imagination brings the human back in; and its humanising effect is not confined to scenarios with active human beings featured in them. Humanization occurs even in the process of artistic, imaginative objectification.
But what of the imagination in a context where alienated subjectivity is the norm, rather than alienated objectification? If it is subjectively harder to be imaginative in these conditions, perhaps it is objectively so, also.
Saturday, 31 July 2010
Sunday, 11 July 2010
The Absence of Style in Politics
Stylization, 'aestheticisation',Tony Blair as an extension of Britain's pop culture - these were new trends in politics a decade ago, and the cause of considerable commentary.
Though in many respects what they are doing amounts to the extension of Blair, the Cameron-Clegg combination does not attract anything like the same attention to the way they are doing it. It is not noticeable; in the precise meaning of the word, it is not aesthetic.
Not that there is any more substance or ideological coherence to what they are doing; rather, the absence of these is longer noticeable.
This suggests that the stylization of politics was a temporary phase; a tacit acknowledgement of the lack of substance, articulated as concern with what is noticeable, i.e. aesthetic. In this way, the emptying out of politics went relatively unnoticed: acknowledged but not as such.
Today, the lack of substance needs no introduction. It is simply what we do, in all manner of fields far beyond the political.
Though in many respects what they are doing amounts to the extension of Blair, the Cameron-Clegg combination does not attract anything like the same attention to the way they are doing it. It is not noticeable; in the precise meaning of the word, it is not aesthetic.
Not that there is any more substance or ideological coherence to what they are doing; rather, the absence of these is longer noticeable.
This suggests that the stylization of politics was a temporary phase; a tacit acknowledgement of the lack of substance, articulated as concern with what is noticeable, i.e. aesthetic. In this way, the emptying out of politics went relatively unnoticed: acknowledged but not as such.
Today, the lack of substance needs no introduction. It is simply what we do, in all manner of fields far beyond the political.
Friday, 9 July 2010
We-Wii
An activity which is not the same as the original activity to which it refers; nor is it so distinct from the original activity, an abstraction designed to describe (stories, and games from chess to Space Invaders) or account for (journalism to social theory). This activity is neither a second order abstraction, nor does it contain the abstraction which spontaneously occurs in the originating process of capitalist production. Instead, it is a close approximation to the original, but without the material or the relations material to the originating process.
This is the Wii.
It also the world of work in much of the West, where people go through the motions of an original/originating process, but instead of creating new value they are moving things around (arms, legs, capital) in a facsimile of the labour process.
It has long been recognized that the games people played during Britain's industrial age, were an extension of the way they worked. The same is true today. We are to production what the Wii is to the games and other activities which it simulates.
This is the Wii.
It also the world of work in much of the West, where people go through the motions of an original/originating process, but instead of creating new value they are moving things around (arms, legs, capital) in a facsimile of the labour process.
It has long been recognized that the games people played during Britain's industrial age, were an extension of the way they worked. The same is true today. We are to production what the Wii is to the games and other activities which it simulates.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
Crime and Punishment
The story of Raoul Moat is oddly reassuring.
Though there has been death and injury (tragic for those personally involved), we know where we are with this drama. This is Harry Roberts, John Dillinger, even Jimmy Cagney.
Just as we on the outside can readily read into Raoul Moat, so the elements within his story seem to form a kind of staircase that runs up and down between everyday behaviour and petty frustrations, all the way to grand emotions and singular, all-or-nothing moments. In other words, in the very words of his story, the contrast between these two levels of human experience is formed into a continuum.
Compare this with last month's shooting spree by Derrick Bird. Apart from the horrifically high body count (Bird left 12 dead before he shot himself), the really disturbing thing about Bird's actions was the absence of narrative (various motives suggested, none sufficient). In this scenario, there was a small man and the big landscape that he lived in; and nothing but random killing to make them anywhere near commensurate.
Reading their lives like books, Raoul Moat's violent behaviour seems like the almost understandable continuation of his personality, now extended to a new level; whereas Bird appears to have flipped from one dimension into an entirely different one. Jekyll and Hyde, but without the potion, or any other potent explanation.
The Derrick Bird scenario is the more unsettling because in it we can see a representation of our everyday lives and their (our) estrangement from anything big enough to make them worthwhile on a world scale. But if we have no stairway to heaven, are we already in hell? Or some sort of limbo? Shaking our heads in horrified anticipation, we come away from watching the Bird episode wondering whether we, too, will find ourselves committing an arbitrary atrocity in order to connect our lives to the wider dimension we know they ought to have.
Though there has been death and injury (tragic for those personally involved), we know where we are with this drama. This is Harry Roberts, John Dillinger, even Jimmy Cagney.
Just as we on the outside can readily read into Raoul Moat, so the elements within his story seem to form a kind of staircase that runs up and down between everyday behaviour and petty frustrations, all the way to grand emotions and singular, all-or-nothing moments. In other words, in the very words of his story, the contrast between these two levels of human experience is formed into a continuum.
Compare this with last month's shooting spree by Derrick Bird. Apart from the horrifically high body count (Bird left 12 dead before he shot himself), the really disturbing thing about Bird's actions was the absence of narrative (various motives suggested, none sufficient). In this scenario, there was a small man and the big landscape that he lived in; and nothing but random killing to make them anywhere near commensurate.
Reading their lives like books, Raoul Moat's violent behaviour seems like the almost understandable continuation of his personality, now extended to a new level; whereas Bird appears to have flipped from one dimension into an entirely different one. Jekyll and Hyde, but without the potion, or any other potent explanation.
The Derrick Bird scenario is the more unsettling because in it we can see a representation of our everyday lives and their (our) estrangement from anything big enough to make them worthwhile on a world scale. But if we have no stairway to heaven, are we already in hell? Or some sort of limbo? Shaking our heads in horrified anticipation, we come away from watching the Bird episode wondering whether we, too, will find ourselves committing an arbitrary atrocity in order to connect our lives to the wider dimension we know they ought to have.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
The Point Is To Interpret, Right Now
Comrades,
(I know, but what else shall I call you?)
'The philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point is to change it.'
But what chance of change, when there is no satisfactory interpretation? Hence no sufficient rationale for making change.
Right now, interpretation is required.
And this is my notebook for interpreting what is going on, right now, as it happens; as a philosopher.
So what does this mean: 'as a philosopher'?
The philosopher's interpretation, as I see it, and as I see the need for it, is the logical reconstruction of current events in their relation to underlying social relations; or, and this is the original point, perhaps in their relation to the absence of underlying social relations.
It is my supposition that the Western way of life now has only a vicarious connection to the general relations between producers as expressed in the products of their labour. Until recently, these were the underpinning of our interpersonal relations. Today we continue to associate, but with only an indirect relation to the societal relations of production. The latter also continue to exist, but they are now largely displaced from the West and increasingly centralised in the East.
In the advanced capitalist nations of the first half of the 20th century, ideology was a material force; in the second half, the absence of ideology was also a material force. Now, in the early decades of the 21st century, the absence of material is a force peculiar to the West.
The point of this notebook is to identify the impact of this absence as it makes itself felt in current events; conversely, to interpet events in the light of what isn't there.
(I know, but what else shall I call you?)
'The philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point is to change it.'
But what chance of change, when there is no satisfactory interpretation? Hence no sufficient rationale for making change.
Right now, interpretation is required.
And this is my notebook for interpreting what is going on, right now, as it happens; as a philosopher.
So what does this mean: 'as a philosopher'?
The philosopher's interpretation, as I see it, and as I see the need for it, is the logical reconstruction of current events in their relation to underlying social relations; or, and this is the original point, perhaps in their relation to the absence of underlying social relations.
It is my supposition that the Western way of life now has only a vicarious connection to the general relations between producers as expressed in the products of their labour. Until recently, these were the underpinning of our interpersonal relations. Today we continue to associate, but with only an indirect relation to the societal relations of production. The latter also continue to exist, but they are now largely displaced from the West and increasingly centralised in the East.
In the advanced capitalist nations of the first half of the 20th century, ideology was a material force; in the second half, the absence of ideology was also a material force. Now, in the early decades of the 21st century, the absence of material is a force peculiar to the West.
The point of this notebook is to identify the impact of this absence as it makes itself felt in current events; conversely, to interpet events in the light of what isn't there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)