Re: [-empyre-] Tactics and Strategies

[Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis@gmail.com>]

On Oct 14, 2006, at 7:51 PM, Danny Butt wrote:

> "That alteration comes from an increment of acts, collective and  
> diffuse, belonging to no single subject, and yet one effect of  
> these alterations is to make acting like a subject possible."

This is no adequate reply to the last few posts (glad to see  
everyone's posts!)... This quote above by Butler that Danny cites is  
really nice in that way of being familiar in thought but so concise.  
Those challenges to both the tactical and post-critical that Danny  
raises are perhaps, what i think is "at stake" for me:

> But when I  think of artists who have been mentioned (like deGeuzen  
> or General Idea) I also think of longer-duration platforms for  
> work, and the establishment of organisational networks and  
> identities that lead into longer-run questions of political change.  
> And I would say that the work of critique has a lot to offer here,  
> in understanding the relationship between external institutions/ 
> political processes and one's own sense about what is useful to  
> achieve. I mean, one's theoretical critique of a particular social  
> process (e.g war/militarism) may not always be what you want on a  
> bumper sticker, but to understand how oneself is implicated in war  
> and militarism might allow you to make better bumper stickers, and  
> also to develop a sustainable platform for generating bumper  
> stickers and other related works.

And Femke's caution against naturalizing/neutralizing (one of the  
biggest red flags for me in "post-critical" dialogues) adds to that:

> What is at stake... is difficult to answer, especially in general  
> terms. I think that to be able to critically engage with the world  
> around, it is important not to lose contact and that works both  
> ways. "It seems to involve a kind of opening up of "space" that  
> allows for politics to slip into our experience, and vice versa,  
> where it always already exists" you said, Ryan, and this kind of  
> slippage never happens automatically, however 'natural' it sounds.  
> You need to set yourself up for it, and I think much of our work is  
> an attempt to make that happen.

To combine Danny and Femke's statements (with my own lazy lenses), i  
think the stakes could be seen as how to set up that "space" of  
slippage sustainably (both economically, socially and politically).
Femke's account of Neurath is great! i knew only the intro history of  
the ISOTYPE, which is as you suggest, typically seen as being about  
efficiency and productivity. But it sounds like there is some really  
useful and interesting history and praxis there! If your talk is  
published (or can be made otherwise accessible), i hope you can share  
it!

To jump to Henry's post:
> There is nothing hallucinatory about the workplace. The individual  
> is not
> confined by a "symbolic order".
>
> Bullets are not symbolic. They are supersonic lumps of lead. The  
> individual in
> constrained by force and power. If the "symbolic order" is defied,  
> the bullets
> come out.

To be fair, i don't think CAE meant that the oppression of work was/ 
is a hallucination... they're hardly Baudrillardian in their claims  
about the power of the symbolic. And they certainly (especially now)  
would never claim that there are no repercussions for breaking rank  
with the symbolic order. But you'd have to read the full con/text to  
make an assessment yourself, as i just pulled a short statement out  
of it.
It is interesting that you go to the so bullet analogy (that's a  
popular one). As Jackie Stevens wrote about this in another context a  
while back:

"Indeed, many critiques of postfoundationalist views on language use  
life-threatening situations for their examples: 'There is an  
objective reality out there too, and it applies to social relations  
as well as to natural science. External reality is crucial when it  
comes to the ultimate resource, violence: when you shoot someone,  
that person dies regardless of whether he or she believes in  
ballistics or bullets.' But what about a Hitler rally, or Martin  
Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, not in contrast to the  
technological changes that made possible rapid industrialization and  
unemployment in Europe or the migrations of Blacks to the North, but  
in contrast to the metal on the microphones? Or consider the means of  
abortion clinic protests, where it is “mere words” being chanted and  
“mere photos” being displayed for purposes of changing life-and-death  
decisions at that moment. Is “Baby killer!”—made present in the world  
by the compression of air in a particular way—less potent than the  
dust on a heckler’s shoe?
Indeed, given the Humean problem of cause-effect relations, even the  
claim that “bullets kill” requires elaboration. Not all bullets kill,  
even those that hit the body. And if a bullet does precede death, is  
it really “the bullet” that has caused the death, or is it that this  
bullet entering the body caused blood to disburse and stop reaching  
the brain? But was this the point of death, or was it when the heart  
stopped beating? And if a “bullet” is this far away from being an  
immediate cause of death, then why be con- tent to say that “the  
bullet killed” the person, and not the one who fired the gun? But why  
stop here, and not, as some state prosecutors have done, observe that  
the gun manufacturer caused the death?62Or the bul- let maker? All  
this is to say a cause-effect framework does not logically enhance  
the status of “things” or diminish the relevance of “words” as  
catalysts."
For full text "Symbolic Matter"
http://www.jacquelinestevens.org/articlesessays.html

This is a whole other discussion, and one that i feel has already  
happened elsewhere... but i think this traditional distinction  
between the "symbolic" and the "real" raised by Henry introduces  
something into the mix for discussions about "stakes" both for  
critical theory and practice. And this is also a concern of Latour's  
(esp the representations of global warming).
i think this gets back to that idea of slippage Femke picked up on.  
And those concepts she introduced of 'auxiliary motives' or  
'provisional rules' would be interesting to discuss here as well. i  
think deGeuzen provides a lot to think about for the potential of all  
3 of these terms (and more of course!) :)
best,
r