<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks to everyone for a pretty amazing discussion so far. I’m
grateful for the invitation to participate and am happy to be in the company of
some intellectual friends.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’ve spent much of the day reading this month’s posts. Of
course, I was interrupted—by phone calls, meetings, and the whiny demands of my
dog to be taken out. She’s jealous of the time I spend in front of screens. If
she were a cat, she’d walk in front of it or on it. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Was my need to read everything first (and take notes and
formulate possible responses) compelled? Is compulsion the same as repetition
compulsion, or might it also orient toward something we might think of as a
completionist impulse (collecting, bookmarking, endless browsing, ordering and organizing,
academic rigor)? The many discussions about flow, its machine zone dark side,
and their relation to neoliberal techniques that manage both labor and
subjectification are apropos here. These days, temporalities of work and play
alike seem extended; there are stretched out times of desire and pleasure
(porn, gossipy phone calls, binge-watching Veep) entangled with equally
stretched and suspended, if more quotidian, labors (all those fucking emails). </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For years I have thought of my computer as a sex machine
demanding engagement in patterns of <span style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial">excitation-capital-frustration-excitation-capital
(I am glad that Mathew added Preciado to the discussion, someone I’ve found
enormously useful in thinking about desire and technology)</span>. And
obviously my computer is a labor siphon, too, endlessly addressing itself to
me, promising some other set of possibilities, like crossing everything off my to-do list, even while it exhausts me. If only I could put in just a little more time.
On the days I do put in that extra time (every day it seems), there’s the f.lux
app to make sure that I’m not too agitated by the emanations of blue light
constantly working on my body and its rhythms.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This activity, that is, this very post, had been planned (dozens
of scribbled iterations on notes or reminders on my digital to do lists);
deferred (I had to do that other thing to do first, and then that one, too);
and then it became immersive, or as Gordon Calleja put it, I became absorbed,
incorporated into what is still as much a virtual as a real dialogue, a
enactment of potential interactions as much as real ones. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Reading this, do you still feel lonely? What is calling to
you right now? Are you compelled, impelled, both? </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When I finish writing, a whole host of potential activities await:
27 tabs open across two browsers of things to read, or maybe I’ll just stream
some yoga from Yogaglo, or get in touch with the pot dealer and find someone
who just wants to engage in an emergent structure of feeling particular I’ve
recently encountered in social media like Yik Yak: “Netflix and cuddle.”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If this post seems somewhat elliptical or obtuse, my
apologies. Part of that has to do with the fact that my absorption in these
threads has created many resonances with my past and ongoing thinking about affect
and online sociality, as well with a concept I recently heard Jasbir Puar use
in a discussion of Israel/Palestine at the Affect Theory: Worldings, Tensions,
and Futures conference, where Natasha and I were also keynote speakers. “Computational
sovereignty” isn’t Puar’s concept—Richard Stallman and others have used it
before—but the ways computation is tied to violence, specifically to Israeli
practices of stunting and maiming Palestinians, struck a chord. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m interested in something similar in my new “Black Data”
project, which brings together queer of color critique with network culture
studies by examining histories of black queer fugitivity and contemporary queer
of color arts practices and media ecologies (quirky or opaque web series or out of the way Tumblrs, among other examples). Part of the theoretical and political salience of this
project involves thinking through things like data-based or algorithmic
discrimination. In other words, whose bodies become the targets for affect-modulating
games, apps, and other designed human computer interactions? Or, in what ways
might different people differentially targeted? Are some bodies
more apt to be compelled? And what happens when bodies are exhausted? Does the
cycle begin again? Does it always have to?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One of my upcoming talks will be about porn fasts, the
practice of breaking porn habits in the search of greater intimacy with oneself
or with others, a practice of self-making that has to do with subtraction, with
opting out. Anyone else thinking about compulsion and control in relation to
people going off the grid? </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Last spring, I had my students do a series of challenges
that were part of the WNYC podcast New Tech City (now Note to Self) series
“Bored and Brilliant.” Each day came with a new challenge—keep your phone in
your pocket rather than in your hand while walking about, delete your favorite
app, install an app to check the number of times you’ve picked your black
mirror up. The idea behind these exercises was that our constant engagements
(sensual tapping, scrolling, holding, caressing) of our computational
extensions prevent us from just spacing out or being bored, yet another set of
suspended temporalities that allow us to engage in certain forms of creative
problem solving or long term planning about the kinds of people we might want
to become. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All best,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Shaka</p>
</div>