[-empyre-] Catching up with Matrixial Encounters in Contrapunto

[Eduardo Navas <eduardo@navasse.net>]

Hello Empyreans,

I have been meaning to write and it is not until now that I get a chance.  I
will respond to various comments throughout this post.

First I will reply to McKenzie's post, which was in large part a response to
my questions regarding his last book.

Many members already questioned McKenzie's comment on Negri and Deleuze vs.
Butler and Bhabha.  Being familiar with the different camps of thought
currently active, my question was directly related to such divisions. And
because McKenzie proposed a "liminal" position for the hacker, I immediately
thought of the possible contradiction in relation to post-colonials like
Bhabha who are critiqued by theorists who side with McKenzie (H&N).  As it
stands, I did not receive an answer to my question on the possible
contradiction of a liminal space according to a post-hegelian position
following H&N's thesis in Empire.    Let it be clear that I stand critical
of a Hacker Manifesto, especially after reading McKenzie's analogy with the
Samurai, even if such example is considered following Kurosawa's film, Seven
Samurai.  The film has, unfortunately, become exotic; it is looked at as
"great culture" coming from Japan.  This also may expose the apparent
romanticization of the Hacker, which was previously proposed by Saul Ostrow.
We can always say that exoticism can be constructive when exercised with
self-reflexivity, but not when it can be used as a form of abstraction to
generalize a subject's cultural position in order to propose progressive
thought from a particular power position.  Here I cite the Marxist
deconstructivist Gayatri Spivak on the problem of the exotic:

"If one looks at the history of post-Enlightenment theory, the major problem
has been the problem of autobiography: how subjective structures can, in
fact, give objective truth.  During these same centuries, the Native
Informant, who  was found in these other places, his stuff was
unquestioningly treated as the objective evidence for the founding of
so-called sciences like ethnography, ethno-linguistics, comparative
religion, and so on.  So that, once again, the theoretical problems only
relate to the person who knows.  The person who knows has all of the
problems of selfhood.  The person who is known, somehow seems not to have a
problematic self.  These days it is the same kind of agenda that is at work.
Only the dominant self can be problematic; the self of the Other is
authentic without a problem, naturally available to all kinds of
complications.  This is very Frightening."

Gayatri Spivak, "Questions on Multiculturalism," The Post-Colonial Critic
(New York: Routledge, 1990), 66.

The example of the Samurai is not too far from the position proposed above
by Spivak.  Here the fictional"informants" (the Samurai) show us how they
can side with the working classes to lead them to freedom.  We (those
brought up under Western thought) can see this "objectively" in the film
because it is happening in another culture, and the fact that the film was
made by a native (Kurosawa), who is the real-life informant supported with
Cultural Insiderism, complicates the analogy even more.

Regardless of this criticism, I do think the Hacker Manifesto serves a
specific purpose.  It allows for others to define themselves for or against
a particular political position--that of the post-hegelians (which is
actually quite diverse on its own, I believe). I do think the hacker's
liminal position, as proposed by McKenzie offers the possibility for a
dialectical analysis which might let the argument's contradictions become
the seeds (to use Hegel's own term) for those who actually question
McKenzie's book in later publishings.

In any case, Spivak's quote is my bridge to the issues brought up by Raul,
Heidi, Saul, Andres, and Renee as well as others--so many at this point,
forgive me if I forgot someone.

Spivak's quote deals with the problem of autobiography. I believe this is in
part at play with Raul's position, when he constantly proposes his personal
experience to explain the complex limitations of new media culture in
particular Latin American countries: Cuba/Mexico, in his case.  I agree with
Heidi's criticism that he should not be too quick to speak for others and
that resistance should not be related to a "tech- free
unpolluted corner."  I disagree with Raul's perception of technology,
further, unlike him, I believe that we cannot proclaim the culture of "our
ancestors."  That time is gone.  Latin America after its decolonization
process was left with pluralities which are not yet fully understood because
the culture keeps changing based on its turbulent past.  The differences
throughout the countries expose a consistent hybridity, alterity and
constant renegotiation of differences not only of ethnicities, gender but
also classes that cannot be dealt with by allegorizing a past that cannot be
brought back.  Such allegorical position perpetrates the ideology of the
informant as explained by Spivak in the above quote.  An informant that
constantly struggles in writing and rewriting his/her own biography.  We
must become pro-active by embracing emerging technologies and extend them as
much as possible to those who may not have access to them.  Such
technologies can be considered as efficient tools to attain knowledge--not
education (Here I agree with McKenzie's book and his position on the
institutionalization of knowledge as "education".)  And here I would even
use the term "hack":  We must hack the system to make it progressive within
the multiculturalism we are experiencing.  New technologies can be used
progressively, they do not have to be considered pollution.

It may be here where the likes of Lacan and his analysis of the gaze may
become useful.  I, by no means, am an expert on psychoanalysis, but I do
hope others can connect such theory with the matrixial encounters, and
Contra-puntos so far mentioned.  Given that Deleuze is already part of this
dialogue with McKenzie's participation, I am sure visiting the possibilities
of a Lacanian/Freudian reading for a better future would open the argument
further.  Those who may not know what I mean by this, should look up the
book Anti-Oedipus by Deleuze and Guatarri, where Freud is heavily critiqued.

And with that I leave you.   Thank you for having me this month.  It has
been a pleasure.  I thank Raul for his support throughout the years, as he
knows our disagreements have made us closer if anything.  I thank Christina
McPhee for inviting me to participate in this discussion.  I look forward to
reading further postings; unfortunately, I will not be able to keep
responding.  I am very short on time at the moment.  This is the main reason
why I regret not having been more active during the last few days.

Many thanks to Empyre--truly an exceptional list.

Eduardo Navas