This entry was posted on February 12, 2008 at 10:57 pm and is filed under agamben. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
[...] One recurrent problem encountered by this theoretical tradition, however, is the problem of agency. Much of the theory is an attempt to account for the divergent particularities of power relations under capitalism (or ‘empire’), and it is difficult to see where or rather how there is room for collective projects except for the forms of ’swarming’ and ‘networked resistance’ that we discussed in class so far. This is a major problem. I think as an ontology of specificity (of that which shapes bodies, subjects, and inter-subjectivity, thus community, at the micro level), the theory works in a descriptive sense, but it also undermines more collective understandings of politics through its refusal of older forms of commonality. Or, rather, theory does not seem to be being used to enrich our understandings of actually-existing forms of commonality besides generic notions of the ‘multitude.’ Isn’t there room here for using this theory for unpacking, but also in some ways affirming, the forms of commonality present in classic categories of social thought at the level of organization or at the level of identity beyond just very generic instances of ‘multitute’: ie, at level of the ‘party,’ the ‘collective,’ the ‘movement,’ or the ‘indigenous,’ ‘the worker,’ ‘women,’ ‘queer,’ or even perhaps ’species’ (but that is perhaps getting too generic, and indeed some of the theory is focused on unpacking notions about ‘forms of life‘)? [...]
[...] One recurrent problem encountered by this theoretical tradition, however, is the problem of agency. Much of the theory is an attempt to account for the divergent particularities of power relations under capitalism (or ‘empire’), and it is difficult to see where or rather how there is room for collective projects except for the forms of ’swarming’ and ‘networked resistance’ that we discussed in class so far. This is a major problem. I think as an ontology of specificity (of that which shapes bodies, subjects, and inter-subjectivity, thus community, at the micro level), the theory works in a descriptive sense, but it also undermines more collective understandings of politics through its refusal of older forms of commonality. Or, rather, the theory does not seem to be being used to enrich our understandings of actually-existing forms of commonality besides generic notions of the ‘multitude.’ Isn’t there room here for using this theory for unpacking, but also in some ways affirming, the forms of commonality present in classic categories of social thought at the level of organization or at the level of identity beyond just very generic instances of ‘multitude’: ie, at level of the ‘party,’ the ‘collective,’ the ‘movement,’ or the ‘indigenous,’ ‘the worker,’ ‘women,’ ‘queer,’ or even perhaps ’species’ (but that is perhaps getting too generic, and indeed some of the theory is focused on unpacking notions about ‘forms of life‘)? [...]
[...] own contribution to an older political discourse by evolving existing concepts such as the “form-of-life” or the “whatever singularity,” in addition to developing new ones such as the [...]
October 16, 2008 at 8:24 pm |
[...] One recurrent problem encountered by this theoretical tradition, however, is the problem of agency. Much of the theory is an attempt to account for the divergent particularities of power relations under capitalism (or ‘empire’), and it is difficult to see where or rather how there is room for collective projects except for the forms of ’swarming’ and ‘networked resistance’ that we discussed in class so far. This is a major problem. I think as an ontology of specificity (of that which shapes bodies, subjects, and inter-subjectivity, thus community, at the micro level), the theory works in a descriptive sense, but it also undermines more collective understandings of politics through its refusal of older forms of commonality. Or, rather, theory does not seem to be being used to enrich our understandings of actually-existing forms of commonality besides generic notions of the ‘multitude.’ Isn’t there room here for using this theory for unpacking, but also in some ways affirming, the forms of commonality present in classic categories of social thought at the level of organization or at the level of identity beyond just very generic instances of ‘multitute’: ie, at level of the ‘party,’ the ‘collective,’ the ‘movement,’ or the ‘indigenous,’ ‘the worker,’ ‘women,’ ‘queer,’ or even perhaps ’species’ (but that is perhaps getting too generic, and indeed some of the theory is focused on unpacking notions about ‘forms of life‘)? [...]
March 30, 2009 at 10:28 pm |
[...] One recurrent problem encountered by this theoretical tradition, however, is the problem of agency. Much of the theory is an attempt to account for the divergent particularities of power relations under capitalism (or ‘empire’), and it is difficult to see where or rather how there is room for collective projects except for the forms of ’swarming’ and ‘networked resistance’ that we discussed in class so far. This is a major problem. I think as an ontology of specificity (of that which shapes bodies, subjects, and inter-subjectivity, thus community, at the micro level), the theory works in a descriptive sense, but it also undermines more collective understandings of politics through its refusal of older forms of commonality. Or, rather, the theory does not seem to be being used to enrich our understandings of actually-existing forms of commonality besides generic notions of the ‘multitude.’ Isn’t there room here for using this theory for unpacking, but also in some ways affirming, the forms of commonality present in classic categories of social thought at the level of organization or at the level of identity beyond just very generic instances of ‘multitude’: ie, at level of the ‘party,’ the ‘collective,’ the ‘movement,’ or the ‘indigenous,’ ‘the worker,’ ‘women,’ ‘queer,’ or even perhaps ’species’ (but that is perhaps getting too generic, and indeed some of the theory is focused on unpacking notions about ‘forms of life‘)? [...]
March 31, 2009 at 9:47 am |
very interested about “netwrked resistance”, please add links when you can
January 18, 2010 at 8:47 am |
классный у вас блог, мне очень нравится
October 25, 2010 at 8:04 pm |
[...] own contribution to an older political discourse by evolving existing concepts such as the “form-of-life” or the “whatever singularity,” in addition to developing new ones such as the [...]