Hello Everyone,
Although
I am interested in the contrasts that Jullien elaborates in his text,
_The Propensity of Things_, I think what strikes me the most are the
moments when the Eastern/Western thought dichotomy tends to converge.
Although there are usually other factors working in consideration with
these rare connections, allowing the addition of contrast its
prevalence, I think it's also important to highlight these similarities,
as they might allow us a different track to understand and
arrive at some kind of electracal mode of thought.
The first time that I noted a
point of convergence was when Jullien discusses the "innovation" of the
Panopticon into the surveillance system of the West. Notably, he does
make sure to let us know that, while Western
thought did come to a conclusion about Surveillance similar to the
Chinese notion of Sovereignty, they arrived at this notion a lot later
than the Chinese had (56-7). Moreover, even though I accept Jullien's
statement when he says that the Panopticon functions
even if there is no guard inside, like the Chinese system, where "the
sovereign could continue to occupy 'his position' perfectly well even if
he left his palace," the Western Panopticon still
professes a visibility, I think, that I feel the Eastern Sovereignty has
occluded (56). I use, perhaps too naively about a place I
will not profess to know, an example of The Forbidden City. Upon initial
research, I note that though it did operate from the center of Beijing,
it was an immense palace of almost one-thousand
buildings that equality obscured the "guard" that the very-visible and
solitary Panopticon hinges its power on [there are two windows in the
circle of cells surrounding the Panopticon for a reason]. If the
Panopticon were to fall, so too would its power.
Despite these points of
contention, I still believe that the way-station that both modes of
thought arrive at are similar enough that they might enable us to
transport electracy, as a third rhetorical vehicle, to the
same station. These days, for instance and especially post-9/11, we have
seen an increase in the kind of Panoptic surveillance on the internet.
In fact, when teaching the Panopticon to students, utilizing the
internet as an example is helpful because it allows
for a visceral, immediate reaction that explains to them that feeling
they have of being watched. But I now think for a moment not about the
political implications of "being watched" that the post-9/11 era has
instilled in us [with various laws that allow for
that surveillance to occur], but instead on the more invisible - through
its apparent visibility - mode of surveillance that many internet users
have "accepted" as "just a part" of their internet experience:
Capitalism and, more broadly, the Economy (as mandated
and enforced by Search Engines that we depend on, like Google, Bing, or
whatever poison you choose [Yahooligans was the Gateway Search Engine of
my youth, for instance]).
As we use the internet, I
think right now of Facebook, the internet nudges us with ads that
reflect back what we are interested in [in Purchase/Commodity mode], so
much so that sometimes it appears to have the Clairvoyance
of a Chinese war strategist. I don't know if any one remembers this, but
years ago when someone made a search on Google the first link it gave
was whether you wanted to purchase an amount of [insert search word(s)
here]. So if I searched "The Revolutionary
War" Google would kindly let me know, in hyperlink form, that I could go
to whatever site if I wanted to purchase The Revolutionary War in bulk.
As Google worked on its Third eye, what it was doing became more and
more invisible to us, until we couldn't see
it no matter how opaque it was. Google still does this, but in a more
subtle-unsubtle way (go ahead and search something on Google,
it, at least, has a "storefront" for it if it doesn't literally
highlight it as the first result that comes up).
In that sense, the internet
operates on both modes of surveillance. On the one hand, we understand
that our work on the internet is being monitored [as I write this email,
certain words, at least, are being flagged
down for possible anti-government activity, like "anti-government" or
"9/11," (that's why our email drafts are constantly saved on servers --
it's nice, but it's also like when, during war, letters were read and
lines blacked out before it was sent, if it was
sent at all), and I see that as a way to filter/or not the kind of words
I use to write or the way I conduct any kind of research. On the other
hand, we have ways of surveillance in place so that we in no way, shape,
or form, feel like we can do anything about
how we are in most ways ruled by the internet economy and the archive of
facts it keeps on us. We are like the Fine-Beard, in a way.
How can we think about
Electracy as a metaphysics that aims to control, to persuade
or manipulate? Or does Electracy operate on a combination between the
two, on something totally new that's beside persuasion and manipulation.
These are my initial thoughts that I hope to continue thinking about as I
contemplate, plan, and write my blog posts, other emails, and future
projects. As of now, I believe I have written too much (or nothing at
all?).
Until next time,
Asmaa
P.S. As a side note, the
internet economy and the political one (that visibly aims to be
more Panoptically invisible) have, in that sense, followed a similar
historical timeline that the Eastern and Western modes have
taken, where the Eastern came first and the Western followed, long
after.
--------------------------------------------------------------Response
1) Good to include the Internet in our
considerations since it fills the Target slot of the CATTt (and blog as
tale). We are more or less assuming the Internet, or rather, Internet
Invention is our one "reading" invoking it. At the same time, we all
use it constantly so are "natives" of its "surround." The assignment
does not include a separate set of posts to inventory the relevant
features of the Internet, but they can and should be referenced in all
the categories (perhaps especially with Cinematics
as Analogy).
2) Your method advice is good also, to note similarity as well as
difference -- the very points of comparability between East and West,
even if they perform contrary or complementary versions of the feature.
We can think about "efficacy" as "style," for
example, and see that, as with surveillance, the West has taken a turn
more aligned with the Chinese decision and away from the Classical West
(even as the East swerves symmetrically towards the West). The insight
is that civilizations seem to overlap considerably
in potential, but actualize only some parts of what is available and
background others. 3) Jullien's insight about surveillance, and your point, are well-taken. The comparison is apparent in theories of ideology, which show that the Panopticon is a crude device indeed when compared with ideology. Foucault, as you know, explained the three forces at work in an episteme or set-up in our context: knowledge, power, subject. Societies are "disciplined," and at the end of his career he was most interested in how discipline is internalized and appropriated by individuals for themselves. Various French thinkers (Barthes, Bordieu et al), showed how ideology becomes second nature, is that which goes without saying, what Bordieu called habitus. That is the term Jullien used when he noted how absolute sovereignty becomes invisible by transforming into habitus. This form of control is not recent in the West, obviously. The challenge of any society as a political collective is how to get citizens to cooperate with order. Althusser talked about the difference between the police state apparatus and the ideological state apparatus. Ideology is far preferable in the sense that its violence is soft. The metaphysical question is the relation among necessity, freedom, and the manner of their interaction (covered in Kant's Critiques, for example).
No comments:
Post a Comment