File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2001/lyotard.0108, message 37


Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 10:31:25 -0100
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: What is Empire about?


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_n8HiZs8cIYxvbdsC0AmY9g)

  Steve,

  Thanks.  A detailed reply deserves a detailed response.  I'll try.



  Steve wrote:  
  All reading is intertextual... and considering that the text refuses to be 'standalone' I am mystified by the below statements.  

  **  1) I'm familiar with the intertextual approach set forth by various writers, and "refusal" , as in refusal of work, refusal to believe what the authority, (the State, the Boss, the Politicians, the Media) wants you to beleve) is a use of the term I was not familiar with, but think I  understand.  2) Which statements are mysterious?** 

  If as you state below you wish to make a reading that revolves around the 'Empie' text alone 

  ** The text alone contains the names of dozens of authors who have written many books. H&N use this method to present, illuminate, justify, their own ideas, the ideas that they decided to publish. Sometimes they quote directly from a reference, sometimes not. I don't think they suggested reading of referenced works is a pre-requisite to undrstanding Empire.**  

   - an intellectual method I think I disapprove of because of the impossibility of the practice - then I suggest you open up with a close textual reading of Section 4.3 'The multitude against the empire'.  Or alternatively perhaps section 3.4 'Postmodernization, or the informatisation of production'. However given that the latter is very much written against the grain of Lyotard's anti-historical approach, and I've used this and other related sections of the text continuously for the past year, I think the former is more useful as it presumes to state what they regard as a 'revolutionary subject'. 

  **O.K   I'll re-read 4.3.including these items that I noted in a previous post: 

  page 416 - Mass migrations have become necessary for production.
        -  What we need to grasp is how the multitude is organized and
           redefined as a positive political power.
  page 417 - Imperial capital does indeed attack the movements of the multitude
  with a tireless determination:  it patrols the seas and the borders; within each country it
  divides and segregates; and in the world of labor it reinforces the cleavages and borderlines of race, gender, language, culture, and so forth.  Even then, however, it must be careful not to restrict the productivity of the multitude too much because Empire too
  depends on this power.
  page 418  - What specific and concrete practices will animate this political
  project?  We cannot say at this point.   What we can see nonetheless is a
  first element of a political demand:  "global citizenship".
  page 419 -  Empire too depends on this power.
                - In modernity, reality was not conceivable except as measure, and                 measure in turn was not  conceivable except as a (real or formal) a priori that corralled being within a transcendent order
  421 - a social wage and a guaranteed income for all.
  422 - Knowledge has to become linguistic action and philosophy has to become a real "reappropriation of knowledge"  In other words knowledge and communication have to constitute life through struggle. 
  424 - the right to reappropriate.
  425 - the earthly city must demonstrate its power as an apparatus of the
  mythology of  the multitude. being-knowing-having power. 

  428 - a society in which the basis of power is defined by the expression of
  the needs of all.

  **And perhaps we should attempt a mutual understanding of "multitude", "production",  "subjectivities", "measure", "appropriation", and "re-appropriation".**

  If you don't want to write a summary or synthesis of the text then how do you want to advance?

  **After we explain our understanding of the most troublesome terms, we can summarize, with a chance of being understood.**

  Some initial thoughts below: 

  Consider the contents of the book - it is in four parts: Part 1 'The political constitution of the present, Part 2 Passages of soveriegnty, an inter-mezzo Counter-Empire, part three passages of production, part 4 the decline and fall of empire. 

  Actually the 'Empire'; text fits within the range of leftwing texts that discuss the current postmodern economy as being something with positive elements, but it does not have the statistical evidence to support itself,

  **.Agreed**

   Including most startling of all a new (maxist/hegalian) revolutionary subject... Perhaps equally interesting but without any actual supporting evidence is the notion of 'empire' itself - it is emphasized that the notion is not a metaphor but a political concept which demands 'a political approach' (xiv). The supporting evidence seems thin because you would assume that the nation-state was in some sense in retreat whereas the actual evidence suggests that this is not the case. Think of the problems the Kyoto agreement has with the Nation-states non-cooperative USA, the G8 conference with the meeting of the poor countries in Zanzibar... It is true that there is a vast lack of boundries for postmodern capitalism(xiv) however whilst capital has no territorial boundries what evidence is there that globalisation is threatening to suspend history? It does not re-create 'the end of history' but rather so they argue creates new forms of resistence... 

  **Agree in general, but we need to explore "new forms of resistance" - what is truly new is often difficult to recognize.**

  The initial three key points and rules of empire are: 1. Empire posits a regime that  encompasses the spatial totality, actually the entire civilised world (leaves out Afghanistan I would imagine) but no boundries limit its scope.

  **Afghanistan, like other warring countries doesn't fit now, but perhaps will in the future.**

   2. The concept presents itself not as an empire that originates from conquest, but rather as an order that suspends history (and proposes to be eternal, where does this piece of 'end of history' get justified from?).

  **You may not agree with my theory that "History" doesn't exist.. What does exist is narratives of past events recorded in books and other artifacts.  Persons who lived the events or read the narratives can, if memory serves, recall them.  So history, at that poin exists in living brain/bodies.  Incidentally, I like the "Empire's" emphasis on "minds and bodies", and that idea should help disabuse us of 19th century philosophy  which treats "History" as a mysterious, transcendent, non-human force, like the traditional panoply of gods and mystics that most post-modern thinkers consider fictitious.  Of course the gods and mystics are real to religious persons.  As real to them as living authors, TV and the Internet are for non-believers.** 

  Empire as a concept then is post-hegelian and by default anti-Kantian and very much against the sublime. 3. Empire operates at all points in the social register from the very highest down to the lowest points in the social world. As such it aims to rebuild human nature into its own requirements. 

  **To argue about Hegel and Kant I would have to read them, but if living authors have something to say to us, and use words of H&K to explain what they are trying to tell us, why not.  I didn't know they were against the sublime.**

  Is this a reasonable starting point....Hugh? Is this what you want? 

  **Yes, its reasonable.  After we post statements on our understanding of what the  authors' mean by multitude, subjectivity, production, measure, appropriation etc., it should be easy to summarize in one or  two thousand words.**. 

  thanks,

  Hugh 




--Boundary_(ID_n8HiZs8cIYxvbdsC0AmY9g)

HTML VERSION:

Steve,
 
Thanks.  A detailed reply deserves a detailed response.  I'll try.
 
 
 
Steve wrote: 

All reading is intertextual... and considering that the text refuses to be 'standalone' I am mystified by the below statements. 

**  1) I'm familiar with the intertextual approach set forth by various writers, and "refusal" , as in refusal of work, refusal to believe what the authority, (the State, the Boss, the Politicians, the Media) wants you to beleve) is a use of the term I was not familiar with, but think I  understand.  2) Which statements are mysterious?**

If as you state below you wish to make a reading that revolves around the 'Empie' text alone

** The text alone contains the names of dozens of authors who have written many books. H&N use this method to present, illuminate, justify, their own ideas, the ideas that they decided to publish. Sometimes they quote directly from a reference, sometimes not. I don't think they suggested reading of referenced works is a pre-requisite to undrstanding Empire.** 

 - an intellectual method I think I disapprove of because of the impossibility of the practice - then I suggest you open up with a close textual reading of Section 4.3 'The multitude against the empire'.  Or alternatively perhaps section 3.4 'Postmodernization, or the informatisation of production'. However given that the latter is very much written against the grain of Lyotard's anti-historical approach, and I've used this and other related sections of the text continuously for the past year, I think the former is more useful as it presumes to state what they regard as a 'revolutionary subject'.

**O.K   I'll re-read 4.3.including these items that I noted in a previous post:

page 416 - Mass migrations have become necessary for production.
      -  What we need to grasp is how the multitude is organized and
         redefined as a positive political power.
page 417 - Imperial capital does indeed attack the movements of the multitude
with a tireless determination:  it patrols the seas and the borders; within each country it
divides and segregates; and in the world of labor it reinforces the cleavages and borderlines of race, gender, language, culture, and so forth.  Even then, however, it must be careful not to restrict the productivity of the multitude too much because Empire too
depends on this power.
page 418  - What specific and concrete practices will animate this political
project?  We cannot say at this point.   What we can see nonetheless is a
first element of a political demand:  "global citizenship".
page 419 -  Empire too depends on this power.
              - In modernity, reality was not conceivable except as measure, and                 measure in turn was not  conceivable except as a (real or formal) a priori that corralled being
within a transcendent order
421 - a social wage and a guaranteed income for all.
422 - Knowledge has to become linguistic action and philosophy has to become a real "reappropriation of knowledge"  In other words knowledge and communication have to constitute life through struggle.
424 - the right to reappropriate.
425 - the earthly city must demonstrate its power as an apparatus of the
mythology of  the multitude. being-knowing-having power.

428 - a society in which the basis of power is defined by the expression of
the needs of all.

**And perhaps we should attempt a mutual understanding of "multitude", "production",  "subjectivities", "measure", "appropriation", and "re-appropriation".**

If you don't want to write a summary or synthesis of the text then how do you want to advance?

**After we explain our understanding of the most troublesome terms, we can summarize, with a chance of being understood.**

Some initial thoughts below:

Consider the contents of the book - it is in four parts: Part 1 'The political constitution of the present, Part 2 Passages of soveriegnty, an inter-mezzo Counter-Empire, part three passages of production, part 4 the decline and fall of empire.

Actually the 'Empire'; text fits within the range of leftwing texts that discuss the current postmodern economy as being something with positive elements, but it does not have the statistical evidence to support itself,

**.Agreed**

 Including most startling of all a new (maxist/hegalian) revolutionary subject... Perhaps equally interesting but without any actual supporting evidence is the notion of 'empire' itself - it is emphasized that the notion is not a metaphor but a political concept which demands 'a political approach' (xiv). The supporting evidence seems thin because you would assume that the nation-state was in some sense in retreat whereas the actual evidence suggests that this is not the case. Think of the problems the Kyoto agreement has with the Nation-states non-cooperative USA, the G8 conference with the meeting of the poor countries in Zanzibar... It is true that there is a vast lack of boundries for postmodern capitalism(xiv) however whilst capital has no territorial boundries what evidence is there that globalisation is threatening to suspend history? It does not re-create 'the end of history' but rather so they argue creates new forms of resistence...

**Agree in general, but we need to explore "new forms of resistance" - what is truly new is often difficult to recognize.**

The initial three key points and rules of empire are: 1. Empire posits a regime that  encompasses the spatial totality, actually the entire civilised world (leaves out Afghanistan I would imagine) but no boundries limit its scope.

**Afghanistan, like other warring countries doesn't fit now, but perhaps will in the future.**

 2. The concept presents itself not as an empire that originates from conquest, but rather as an order that suspends history (and proposes to be eternal, where does this piece of 'end of history' get justified from?).

**You may not agree with my theory that "History" doesn't exist.. What does exist is narratives of past events recorded in books and other artifacts.  Persons who lived the events or read the narratives can, if memory serves, recall them.  So history, at that poin exists in living brain/bodies.  Incidentally, I like the "Empire's" emphasis on "minds and bodies", and that idea should help disabuse us of 19th century philosophy which treats "History" as a mysterious, transcendent, non-human force, like the traditional panoply of gods and mystics that most post-modern thinkers consider fictitious.  Of course the gods and mystics are real to religious persons.  As real to them as living authors, TV and the Internet are for non-believers.**

Empire as a concept then is post-hegelian and by default anti-Kantian and very much against the sublime. 3. Empire operates at all points in the social register from the very highest down to the lowest points in the social world. As such it aims to rebuild human nature into its own requirements.

**To argue about Hegel and Kant I would have to read them, but if living authors have something to say to us, and use words of H&K to explain what they are trying to tell us, why not.  I didn't know they were against the sublime.**

Is this a reasonable starting point....Hugh? Is this what you want?

**Yes, its reasonable.  After we post statements on our understanding of what the  authors' mean by multitude, subjectivity, production, measure, appropriation etc., it should be easy to summarize in one or two thousand words.**.

thanks,

Hugh

 

--Boundary_(ID_n8HiZs8cIYxvbdsC0AmY9g)--

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005