<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div apple-content-edited="true"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div>Jodi Dean writes:<div><br></div><div>It's as if current thought is stuck in the binary already diagnosed by Schmitt: liberalism replaces politics with ethics and economics.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes, agreed, for the sake of this discussion. That is why Nicholas Kristoff's recent article on Global Women in the New York Times, to take just one example, reinscribes the ethical imperative of the ecnomics of white-mans burden and conscripts NYT's readers to save the women of the world from their law firm, advertising, and ok, programming and professing desks. Very close to what Spivak described in the British in India context as white men saving brown women from brown men, but here of course, white women, and "all Americans" can share in the indignation. Point is, that without a radical political-economic analysis, gendered violence can not be fully understood. There's much more to say on that, that should include the work of Marxists-Feminists like Maria Mies but I'l leave it to the side, for now.</div><div><br></div><div>As for Free Software, I am aware that there is much for me to learn on this topic and about this movement, and that your comments here, Jodi, are only the tip of a very large iceberg. At first glance, however, it is hard to see how even infinite access to programs written for computers, is going to overcome the separation/atomization/racism/nationalism/fascism/capitalism that sustains inequality -- because the programming runs deep. Unless, perhaps, the call for Free Software actually means Free Commodities. I think that part of the point of the discussion that Brian raised in an effort to periodize the commodity form is not simply to recognize that computers and software are the latest form that the commodity takes and that prior forms were characterized by a different set of functions, but rather that the commodity has all along been software -- an instrument of social programming with economic, informational, visual and affective components that simultaneously found a mesh with existing social machinery while driving innovation and enabling new practices. What's at stake then, would be in Ranciere's terms for the aesthetic, the "distribution of the sensible." It may seem obvious to say things this way, but to change the world we need new forms of sensibility. It is at this level where a truly liberatory programming makes something like intuitive sense to me. But this would involve recognize that not only is a browser software, but so too is music, DNA and a ham sandwich. Machines for the organization of the perceptible world.</div><div><br></div><div>Restructuring affect, creating community, generating movement by reprogramming at every level...; Hm, the role of the revolutionary meets that of the artist meets that of the hacker. Perhaps this is where the paradigm of cinema gives way to the paradigm of software (keeping in mind of course that without the intensive development of the sensorium by industrial capital and the challenges posed to it, the ground would not have been laid for modern computing.). However, the recognition that the world is composed of ambient programs, that require remediation in and by a struggle for both social justice and self-realization, is not that far from Vertov's intuition that the commodity itself had become an image organizing the visible world and that role of film was a struggle over the form of this organization. </div><div><br></div><div>Maybe we could say with only a slight trace of irony that the Matrix is in fact today's Man with a Movie Camera and recognize that there is within the film a small (if fatal) programming error -- the hero is not Neo, the One, but some as yet nameless entity that is the many, the multitude. And yet the struggle to instantiate this narrative element that used to occupy the identifiable place as leader of the revolution against the expropriation of the commons is still one of the real problems of our times. Isn't that the only point of our upcoming conference worth taking seriously, to sift through the findings to see if we can hit upon the platform(s) that will allow maximum freedom for the maximum number? My concern here is that the diversity of aspirations on a planetary scale far exceed the instruments of perception of a conference of this kind. The situation demands that we navigate carefully between knowing and openess, that we recognize that programming means listening and learning as well as speaking and writing. However, lest it seem that I have here fallen back into ethics and liberalism, let me insist that the products we make set out to do damage to the hegemonic powers of actually existing racial formations, gender, nation and property, among other reifications, -- for (to indulge in my own moment of strategic essentialism) these are to be recognized as among the programs of the enemy.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br></div><div>Jonathan Beller</div><div>Professor </div><div>Humanities and Media Studies</div><div>and Critical and Visual Studies</div><div>Pratt Institute</div><div><a href="mailto:jbeller@pratt.edu">jbeller@pratt.edu</a></div><div>718-636-3573 fax</div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Times" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; "><br></span></font></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Sep 7, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Dean, Jodi wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>Jonathan Beller writes:<br><br>We would not want to miss out here in the fact that such crises are also opportunities. The current instability of the capitalist system has been manifest, but where was/is the Marxist alternative? Personally I was deeply disappointed in my own/our degree of preparedness during the financial bailout. For a moment capitalism was threatening to off itself, to crumble under the weight of its own contradictions, contradictions that no amount of imaginary inflation could any longer sustain. And yet our imaginations have been so throughly colonized that the best the collectivity could come up with was to mortgage our own future in order to preserve the fundamental hierarchies amenable to bankers, hierarchies that sustain themselves through the ruthless exploitation of this, "our," planet.<br><br>This real failure on the part of the people, the masses, the multitudes, this world-historical failure, is a question not only for economists, but for cultural theorists, social justice activists, and all of us who would have the audacity to speculate against capitalist speculators. I know from my own experience that film studies people think that these kinds of cinematic questions are way beyond the purview of the field. <br><br><br>Where was/is the Marxist alternative? Perhaps one way to think about this problem is to think about the ways that critical theorists have participated in the attack on the state and on collective solutions/enterprises that enables neoliberalism. It seems to me that the supposition that individuals working alone can somehow network with one another and immanently produce a solution is pat of the problem. That is, the elision between Free Software and politics is the same as the elision between capitalism and democracy, an elision that brushes over antagonism (inequality/class struggle/exploitation). Analogous to this is the move to ethics, a move that similarly displaces attention to politics. It's as if current thought is stuck in the binary already diagnosed by Schmitt: liberalism replaces politics with ethics and economics.<br><br>Jodi<br><br>Jodi Dean<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>