TPP2014 : Judith Butler, When gesture becomes event

On Abandoning

ICI Conference
November 2014
Maya Nitis & Elisa Santucci-Nitis
Link: On Sale - In Depth and on High

su Nietzsche

Genealogia della Morale
This was my old, very old dissertation... leider leider... in Italian.
Annata 2000-2001

Every prisoner is a political prisoner

Democracy Now, Nov. 2014: Russel Brand on Revolution

New review by JB of Derrida's "The Death Penalty", Vol. I

Judith Butler: "On Cruelty" from LRB

This review essay, close to the lecture Butler gave in Vienna in May, 2014--simultaneously broadcast into 4 overfilled university halls--makes a contribution to discussions among activists and intellectuals on the death penalty. One must be careful, for the argument is tortuous: a strong critique of theories and activism on the issue is first historically situated, before the author's own intervention unfolds. (This somewhat "classical" philosophical move which requires close reading is, however, not the preferred method of writing taught in mainstream academe. On the contrary, complexity is more often than not disparaged precisely by academic guardians of privilege.) 
Thus, while the first part of the essay insightfully articulates Derrida's criticism of death penalty abolitionists and activists more generally, Butler's own position is offered in the second half as a "rejoinder" to Derrida's "dialectical inversion." Surprisingly coupling Derrida with Angela Davis, a fascinating argument for abolitionism passes through the death drive, deflecting the age-old yet still repeated objection against justice on the basis of the inevitability of human aggression. 

                                                   Sample quotations/juicy bits: 

 "Presaging Lacan’s ‘Kant avec Sade’, Nietzsche seeks to expose the joyous cruelty of Kant’s morality."

"Just as Nietzsche found Kant’s categorical imperative to be soaked in blood, so Freud thought that the Christian dictum ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ was pretty much impossible to realise."

"The death drive leads us towards death, in a circuitous return to the inorganic that militates against a progressive sense of time, repeatedly taking apart the social relations we build and returning us to a state of quiescence."

"In the context of preserved social bonds, aggression can become agonism, or it can be strictly contained within the rules of a game: a sadomasochistic sexual scene, for example, or some other rule-bound activity."
--Be careful dears, this one is rich and tricky! Note that sadomasochism is an admirable example of preserving social bonds, and rules are used to play out aggression into dissolution!

"Ambivalence isn’t quite the same as hypocrisy."

"Rather, it is a matter of recognising that dependency fundamentally defines us: it is something I never quite outgrow, no matter how old and how individuated I may seem. And it isn’t that you and I are the same; rather, it is that we invariably lean towards and on each other, and it is impossible to think about either of us without the other. If I seek to preserve your life, it is not only because it is in my self-interest to do so, or because I have wagered that it will bring about better consequences for me. It is because I am already tied to you in a social bond without which this ‘I’ cannot be thought."

On My Chair

I sat at my desk, sharpening the pencil on the white page – that’s what you do when drawing ideas drowning them into you, waiting to consume the stones, in your mind in your kidneys, in your past, over the pages. When the story gets off, it spreads over pencil powder and the caresses with which, delicately, hastily, one covers the notebook with notes. I was doing this slow not doing, trapped in my own words, when she came next to my chair, grabbed it and turned my face face-to-face with hers. She asked me for a word, complaining I had drowned too many of those in my sorrow and not let one fly. I held my lips tight and pouted with scorn. She became even sweeter and told me to tell her but just a word: “I saw a word in your mouth!” – and smiled at me. I resisted a bit longer, then I opened my mouth breathing out and locked it again. I meant: it’s gone. She rebuked: “If a word had escaped it would have made a sound. Love, it’s still there.” 

krinein

krinein: fra critica e crisi. Tempi di crisi dividono le genti ed è compito dello spiritico critico riunire ciò che viene così diviso. Sia critica che crisi derivano etimologicamente dal greco krinein: giudicare, decidere. Questo pare suggerire che per giudicare occorre dividere come anche per decidere occorre dividere, tagliare (caedere: tagliare). Il verbo inglese to decide segue la medesima derivazione. Ma anche in tedesco decidere (entscheiden) ricalca la stessa matrice etimologica; infatti scheiden significa dividere. Il pensiero e la politica dividono allo stesso modo? Tempi critici pongono alcune persone contro altre, acuiscono ed inaspriscono le divergenze creando baratri fra gli individui. La logica dell’homo homini lupus viene esasperata sul principio della scarsità delle risorse, creando lotte intestine. Così l’organismo politico non può più digerire, crescere, metabolizzare e trasformarsi. Divide et impera pone la facoltà del giudizio (il dividere dello spirito critico) al servizio del comando, così vanificando l’acutezza, la perspicacia e l’intelligenza del singolo e del collettivo. La storia insegna che situazioni critiche in realtà uniscono le persone, e nel momento del bisogno vero pure i nemici più acerrimi si aiutano a vicenda perché la somma delle forze si traduce in una loro moltiplicazione esponenziale e quel che è impossibile per il singolo diviene fattibile per una forza collettiva. Eppure vediamo che molto spesso, e contro-intuitivamente, tempi di crisi dividono le persone. È la storia della moltiplicazione del pane e dei pesci soltanto rovesciata: se c’è un solo pezzo di pane foss’anche stantio tutti lottano contro tutti per questo misero pezzetto. È però evidente che non solo cento persone ma anche una sola persona morirà presto se davvero vi è un solo pezzetto di pane cui cibarsi e se non lavoriamo assieme alla produzione di altro grano. Ma i poteri prestabiliti usano questa consueta metafora per rovesciare gli uni contro gli altri e mantenere il proprio potere ben fermo. Vediamo oggi il maschilismo, il razzismo, la xenofobia, la transfobia, l’antisemitismo, l’omofobia, l’islamofobia... emergere sempre più violentemente nella nostra società. È certamente vero che quando il numero dei posti di lavoro si riduce, rassicura e rinforza precludere alle donne, agli omosessuali, ai/alle trans... una libera e paritaria concorrenza per tali occasioni. Questo è anche il motivo percui, specialmente in momenti di crisi, il sistema giuridico e sociale dovrebbe rafforzare il potere di difesa degli individui svantaggiati, ed è ancora più assurdo udir protestare che vi siano altre priorità. La difesa di coloro sulla linea di fondo è la priorità assoluta proprio quando “tutti” sono nei guai, perché alcuni soffriranno della crisi molto più rispetto ad altri. Questi sentimenti di odio e di disprezzo dell’“altro” legati a pregiudizi e fobie violente vengono espressi molto spesso non dai membri più abbienti della società, a meno che questi non svolgano una funzione politica o mediatica di specchio della realtà, o presunta tale, nel qual caso, in qualità di rappresentanti dell’opinione pubblica si sforzano di esprimere la massima vemenza contro gli emarginati ed oppressi, quando anche, paradossalmente, nel loro privato, ne provino una simpatia o ne possano persino talvolta far parte. Gli individui del ceto medio-alto, medio-basso e basso sono proprio coloro che molto spesso danno espressione a questa rabbia ed avversione verso “gli altri.” Molto spesso sono anche alcuni svantaggiati ad odiare gli altri, così per esempio gli omosessuali ad essere razzisti, i poveri ad essere xenofobi... Questo è appunto il fenomeno della lotta dei poveri per il singolo pezzo di pane: una lotta del tutto fantasmatica, al servizio di quei pochi che la promuovono e promulgano frabbricando un falso immaginario collettivo. Quei pochi, se non svolgono una funzione politica o mediatica, sono spesso del tutto scevri da questo odio: si limitano a non sentire, non vedere, non parlare e, soprattutto: non pensare. Infatti non occorre loro abbiano pregiudizi, anzi è bene che non ne manifestino, purché la società sia ben indottrinata al loro mantenimento (in stile fai-da-te, pagando persino di più per esser cool). Il compito del pensiero consiste nel re-introdurre, costantemente, un principio critico nel momento di crisi, per svelare le carte con le quali i pochi si giocano del nostro destino. Quando l’extracomunitario che vende accendini davanti al supermercato troverà un lavoro decente sarà anche il momento in cui la tipa lesbica della porta accanto potrà sposarsi, ci sarà una moschea in piazza e la paga mensile sarà più consistente per molti altri. Quando vediamo che vogliono dividerci è sempre più urgente unire le forze – e che il pezzo di pane azimo questa volta se lo becchino loro!

krinein: between critique and crisis. Times of crisis divide people and nations so that gathering what is divided in this way constitutes the main task of the critical spirit. Both critique and crisis etymologically derive from the Greek krinein: to judge, to decide. This seems to suggest that to judge one must divide the way one must split, cut, in order to decide (de-caedere: cut-off). The Italian verb decidere follows the same derivation. But also in German ‘to decide’ (entscheiden) reveals a similar etymological matrix; in fact scheiden means ‘to divide.’ Do thinking and politics divide in the same way? Critical times pose some people against others, intensify and exacerbate the differences by creating chasms between individuals. The logic of homo homini lupus is sharpened on the principle of scarcity of resources, creating intestinal strife. Thus the political body cannot digest, grow, metabolize and transform anymore. Divide et impera places the power of judgment (the dividing specific of the critical spirit) at the service of the command, thus negating individual and collective sharpness, insight and intelligence. History teaches that critical situations actually bring people together, and when in need even the most bitter enemies help each other because the sum of forces results in their exponential multiplication making feasible for a collective force what is impossible for the individual. Yet we see that very often, and counterintuitively, times of crisis divide people. It is the story of the multiplication of bread and fish just upside down: if there is only one piece of stale bread everyone fights against everyone for this wretched piece. However, it is evident that not only one hundred people but even one person will die soon if there is really only one piece of bread to feed on and if we do not work together to farm more grain. Yet the established powers use this metaphor to play everybody against everybody and maintain their power firmly. Today we see sexism, racism, xenophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, homophobia, Islamophobia ... emerge more and more violently in our society. It is certainly true that when the number of jobs is reduced, precluding women, homosexuals, trans… a free and equal competition for these chances reassures and strengthens many subjects. This is also the reason why, especially in times of crisis, legal system and social institutions should strengthen disadvantaged individuals’ empowerment, and it is even more absurd to hear some people complain that “there are other priorities.” The defense of those subjects on the bottom line is the top priority precisely when “everyone” is in trouble, because some suffer from the crisis much more than others. These feelings of hatred, contempt and disdain for the “others,” bound to prejudices and violent phobias, are very often expressed not by the more affluent members of society, unless they are filling a political or media role, mirroring alleged reality, in which case, as representatives of the public opinion, they strive to deliver the highest resentment against the marginalized and oppressed, also whenever paradoxically nurturing a secret sympathy for them in their private or even when they occasionally happen to be members of one of these groups of outcasts. Individuals in the upper-middle, lower-middle and lower classes are those who very often give expression to this anger and hatred towards “the others.” Very often some disadvantaged members of one group hate the other group, so for example it happens that homosexuals are racist, poor people might be xenophobic and so on. This is precisely the phenomenon of the struggle among the poor people for the single piece of bread: an entirely phantasmatic struggle, at the service of those few who promote and promulgate it fabricating a false imaginary. Those few, if they do not play a political or media role, are often entirely free from this hatred: they content themselves with not hearing, not seeing, not speaking and, above all, not thinking. In fact, they do not need prejudices, indeed it’s good if they manifest as less prejudices as possible, as long as society is well-indoctrinated to maintain them (DIY style: do it yourself, paying even more). The task of thinking is to re-introduce constantly a critical principle in moments of crisis, to reveal the cards with which the few play with our own destiny. The time when the immigrant who sells lighters in front of the supermarket will find a decent job will also be the time when the lesbian girl next door can marry, there will be a mosque in the square and the monthly pay will be more consistent for many others. When we see that they want to divide us, it is high time and all the more urgent to join our forces – and let’s leave to them that piece of unleavened bread this time!

I quattro mori

I quattro mori di Livorno...Leghorn-the-next-day!

What Video Kills Besides the Radio Star

I was washing dishes in my cousin's small temporary abode one Sunday night, when I heard something about the notion of time on the radio. I turned it up, despite objections, in a home tiny for 3 people, where each room is presided over by a big screen, as is increasingly the case in U.S. American habitats. The fragments I heard over the whining child, the passifying mother, the running tap, and the smooth clang of dishes, made me run to my computer to find the radio show discussing different realities of time: not just perceptions of it. This is a somewhat familiar and radically attractive subject for me, as the most recent lecture by my favorite philosopher is on the same topic (Judith Butler's “One Time Traverses Another”).

I listened to that one hour segment on time thrice: each time while doing something else, so loosing essential pieces, and enjoying repetition. Then I began to listen to other segments of the same program. I've always adored radio, which has helped me learn more than one language. But I hate the snippets of violence reports that often passes for news, so I've been shying away from spontaneous and arbitrary crime descriptions lately. Today, as I ate my dinner, jet-lagged after a flight across the Atlantic, I listened to the radio again, this time discussing another big subject close to me, philosophically: matter. And I noticed that I was doing something while listening that I do not do (nor does anyone else I know) while watching television or films: I was thinking.

Let's say that there could be several reasons for this. One of them might concern the difference of the sense of hearing compared to hearing and watching at the same time. Not only does video engage both senses since it consists of moving pictures, the speed is an added element that is likely to contribute to overwhelming the viewer and thus passifying us into the well-documented torpor induced by watching it. (Everyone is probably familiar with the evidence that shows slowing down of all vital signs, etc.)

I think that there is a direct connection here with a lack of thinking. Along with the slowing down of vital signs, thought itself seems to be slowed down, pushed out of the picture by the overabundance of stimulation that video increasingly strives to achieve since studies show that TV watchers and movie goers become equally more spellbound and placid when the images change faster and more drastically (hence the ever-increasing predominance of explosions and violence on screen, that doesn't so much make experienced watchers squirm in their seats, as plasters them in place, stultifying, and I would add stupefying, into eye-wide horror or suspense).

But if video is such a negatively impacting thought-killer (if not soul killer, which can also be argued from a secular perspective), and we reject overwhelming conspiracy hypothesis, why has its popularity risen to such a seemingly all-consuming level? Or, if the answers to this question are all too obvious, perhaps we better ask: is video really all bad?

20^th century philosopher Walter Benjamin thought that film was the new revolutionary art form, in the first decades of its birth. And no doubt, varying forms of what I have called “video,” as an umbrella term for film and television, can offer radically positive and inspiring—I'm searching for a noun here—thought? Yes, perhaps even that. Elisa Santucci-Nitis, a contemporary philosopher, points out that Benjamin did not simply reject oversimplifications like good or bad, he also wrote that it was technology that held the key to revolution that could bring real equality to people. So the value of technology in general, and video and radio specifically, certainly depends (not on how they are used but) on what we do with them.

In today's globalized society, especially in rich countries that have been called “overdeveloped societies,” video and commercialization have jointly taken the place of religion as social dominators. And video seems to work as a better passifyer than any drug, even if most things can be understood to work on the model of addiction, precisely because it pushes thought so far off screen...(which may be essential to the present modus operandi which depends on environmental devastaion and structural injustice).

But what I really wanted to talk about was: radio. And how in today's environment, some radio programs manage to offer serious nurturance for thought, not just junk food for escapist illusions. What if thinking were essentially dialogical, that is, what if unlike the assertions of most privileged philosophers, thinking is not a narcissistic activity conducted in the privacy of one's own mind, but rather requires a dialogue? At a time of increasing, often excruciating social isolation, radio could then sometimes offer that interlocutor, that other mind, in conversation with which our own thought can unfold. (And to what extent this thought would remain “our own” will have to remain an open question, at least for now.)

Oh, and the program I was talking about with segments that got me listening again is: Radiolab, which has been a delightful companion and inspiration for this fragment of thought about what else video might be killing besides that radio star we never even knew, and in all likelihood, for the better. (Who needs celebrities anyway, when one can think of real stars together?)

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91584-time/
 

Maya Nitis, PhD in Media and Communication

Berlin, January 2014