Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 19:43:47 +0100
Subject: Re: Sublime Empire - First section


Eric/all

I agree - with the below and think that the outline below is potentially deeply
interesting - I would be especially interested in following through on the
relationship between the late Lyotard - of the Inhuman and the issues of
Globalisation...

With regard to the 'dead white man'  - always keen, personally. on bringing into
the discussion the minor.. as well.

regards

sdv

Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote:

> Steve/Hugh,
>
> here again, fast, i hope to address this more completely in a couple
> days, am busy right now,
>
> but yes, overall I agree.  One of the uses of this site, I hope, over
> the next few months, would be to discuss more thoroughly the connection
> between empire and postmodern. I lean towards a reading that sees them
> as somewhat synonomous and think it would be useful to consider Lyotard
> in relation to Negri, Jameson and Harvey.
>
> Hugh has ranted for a long time now about dead white man and how we need
> to concern ourselves with vital, living processes.  Perhaps this is our
> chance.  What does the postmodern mean today? How do we derive a
> politics from it?
>
> I look forward to this ongoing discussion.
>
> BYW, I bought a copy of Empire, the melancholy nostalgia for wood pulp.
>
> Thanks for your generous offer to get these articles.
>
> eric
>
> steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com wrote:
> >
> > Eric/all
> > There are two different questions that need to be answered prior to the
> > questions of virtuality and the multitude that are discussed below.
> >
> > Firstly - is it accepted that the understanding and definition of the
> > post-modern that N&H raise is acceptable? Given their belief that the PM is
> > founded on a change in the economic? (This is of course in direct conflict
> > to Lyotard's perspective on the postmodern).
> >
> > Secondly - are they correct in defining a new form of sovereignty based on
> > global, supranational and national organisations? I'd refer you tp Hirst and
> > Thompson's 'Globalisation in Question'  which whilst not such an interesting
> > read does contain the numbers and statistics which Empire lacks. From H&T's
> > perspective the present US Gov is perfectly understandable as Globalisation
> > is functionally a way of supporting the (G8) local organisations and not
> > global organisations as such.
> >
> > For myself what makes Empire interesting is that it constitutes an attempt
> > to construct a radical philosophical statement on the globalisation question
> > which does not allow the neo-liberal economics to maintain their
> > intellectual ascendency as a result of the retreat into the terrain of the
> > local and the specific. The supposed 'end of history', which was the
> > neo-liberal equivilant of stating that the grand narrative of human
> > liberation was over, is over, but as a result larger questions have to be
> > addressed.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > sdv
> >
> > Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote:
> >
> > > Hugh/All:
> > >
> > > You have raised a number of questions regarding direct democracy versus
> > > global democracy; Who is the multitude?  Where and how, does it live?
> > > What does it produce? and the distinction between  "Virtuality" and
> > > "Possibility" made in "Empire"
> > >
> > > I don't think these questions can really be answered until the argument
> > > N&H are making is understood and rendered more explicit.  While I can't
> > > claim to have achieved that comprehension yet myself, I want to begin to
> > > discuss the argument more fully here. Writing, perhaps, as a way to
> > > understand more completely what I have already read.
> > >
> > > In my reading of "Empire" the book is making an elaborate argument with
> > > regard to what is actually a fairly straightforward thesis.  "Our basic
> > > hypothesis is that sovereignty has taken a new form, composed of a
> > > series of national and supranational organisms united under a single
> > > logic of rule. This new global form of sovereignty is what we call
> > > Empire."
> > >
> > > One can certainly question whether or not this new form of sovereignty
> > > is actually emerging and what if anything would constitute its single
> > > logic of rule. As the authors point out, one interpretation has been
> > > that the present order somehow rises spontaneously out of radically
> > > heterogeneous global forces.
> > >
> > > Although he is not mentioned directly, this appears to be a reference to
> > > Hayek and his conception of economics as a kind of spontaneous order.
> > > This is the basic argument neoliberalism is currently making.  No one
> > > can really control this economy. It should simply be let unfettered in
> > > order to work its magic and accomplish the most good for all.  The
> > > miracle of capitalism supercedes any local government. All attempts at
> > > intervention merely create unforeseen and disastrous effects.  The world
> > > is simply better off without them. The market is the true democracy
> > > because the people vote through the choices they make as consumers.
> > >
> > > Of course, this rhetoric tends to be contradicted by the various
> > > politics actually utilized by neoliberal groups in order to accomplish
> > > their agenda. The role of government is not eliminated, but merely
> > > altered to achieve elitist ends in a more global context.  Certainly, it
> > > can be argued that the unilateralism of George W. Bush and the
> > > Republican Party constitutes its own form of anti-globalism opposed to
> > > the emerging order as much as anything represented by the protesters at
> > > Genoa. The fact that only the latter have been targeted in this way is
> > > simply a reflection of the underlying bias of the media and its own
> > > implicit political ideology.
> > >
> > > One of great rewards "Empire" has already given me is that it thoroughly
> > > demolishes the premises of this kind of argument and show how its basic
> > > metaphysical assumptions are merely ridiculous.
> > >
> > > At the same time, however, the conventional positions of the Left hardly
> > > remain unscathed.  The doctrines of imperialism, conspiracy theory and
> > > the cynical attribution of power politics are shown to be at best myopic
> > > and at worst completely paranoid.
> > >
> > > The radical potential alternative "Empire" offers is this. If its thesis
> > > about the new form of sovereignty is true, then the current politics of
> > > both Left and Right become suspect. It opens the way for the emergence
> > > of a new politics that would reflect the new realities.
> > >
> > > This gives rise to another question that I will simply leave you with
> > > for now.  Is this new sovereignty a juridical formulation, a
> > > biopolitical machine or some monstrous hybrid of both? That is something
> > > I'd like to discuss further with you in another post
> > >
> > > eric