Slavoj Žižek speaks at the OWS open forum on 10/9/11

Graham Harman, Associate Provost for Research Administration and Professor of Philosophy at the American University in Cairo, Egypt of Object-Oriented Philosophy fame, has a brief post supporting Žižek’s assertion that the protestors not fall in love with themselves.

I personally, haven’t posted anything here regarding the occupy wall street protest except a bit on Archinect. Where they have a thread discussing/following the whole series of events.

One thing I am fascinated by is the concept of the human microphone. I have heard the term used in the context of the protests but didn’t have a clear sense of what it means. Watching the Žižek videos illustrates the concept perfectly.

For more information on the idea read Richard Kim of the Nation in We Are All Human Microphones Now. There Kim explains the tactical reasons for the deployment of the human microphone, “New York City requires a permit for “amplified sound” in public, something that the pointedly unpermitted Occupy Wall Street lacks. This means that microphones and speakers are banned from Liberty Plaza, and the NYPD has also been interpreting the law to include battery-powered bullhorns. Violators can be sentenced for up to thirty days in prison.

It seems a perfect example for contemporary Tactical Urbanism, reactive, low tech, and open sourced.

Finally, for some perspective on the human microphone and the possibilities for amplifying sound via the built environment versus that more low tech method see Nick Sowers The Revolution will not be Amplified


Paradox City, The Coming Contradiction and a Permanent Economic Emergency

I haven’t read New Left Review in a few months, maybe? Came across these three articles today. I posted Paradox City over at Archinect. In it Asef Bayat explores history of struggles to define Iran’s capital, along with the successive contests between elite projects and popular resistance that have shaped its spatial pattern. As he describes it, Tehran is the “Walled citadel of the Shahs, hub of petro-modernity and post-Islamist metropolis.

In the essay he explores the evolution of Tehran’s urban fabric from the time of the Shahs, through the Islamic Revolution, to the contemporary condition. Prior to the revolution:

The distinction between affluent north and poor south Tehran—between bala-ye shahr, the ‘upper city’, and pain-e shahr, the ‘lower city’—was unequivocally registered in the language and the popular imaginary. The dividing line between the two was formed by Shahreza Street—today Revolution Street, Khiaban-e Enqilab—the epicentre of Tehran’s political geography. A sociological ‘green line’, the street housed Tehran University campus, dozens of bookstores, and large bus terminals linking Tehran to the provinces. The street thus connected diverse social groups with key institutions and with the flow of knowledge and news. It was here that the first sparks of the 1979 revolution were lit by student demonstrations, before spreading rapidly across the city and then the country in just two years.

Bayat writes that following the revolution: “Tehran experienced dramatic physical expansion, mass migration and the deterioration of urban infrastructure and services. Even though little changed in terms of any enduring new ‘Islamic’ architecture, significant transformations took place in the social and political domains, giving rise to a paradoxical spatial order. The large public spaces and squares were virtually taken over by pro-regime vigilantes, who turned them into the enclosed or ‘interior’ spaces of their ‘ideological self’, at the expense of those whose modes of life and tastes did not conform.

Finally, Bayat chronicles how in response to the 2009 Green Movement, the Islamists have taken a number of steps to strengthen their control of Tehran and more generally urban areas at large. These include, moves to de-secularize public space, encourage the de-urbanization of Tehran along with other methods of control. He notes: “Whatever the outcome, the authorities’ course of action indicates that they too see Tehran’s post-Islamist urban order as subverting their religious-military mode of rule. To govern, they need to undo the city.

Yet, despite their efforts “The Islamic revolution has failed to reshape and re-structure Tehran in accordance with its ideology to the same depth or with the same intensity as the French Revolution did Paris and the Russian Revolution Moscow. Even today, Tehran looks more like Madrid or even Los Angeles than Qom, Riyadh or Cairo.

In The Coming Contradiction, Gopal Balakrishnan, examines Frederic Jameson’s ‘Valences of the Dialectics’. Balakrishnan writes: it is no “surprise that new material from Fredric Jameson offers yet another occasion to think about what it means to historicize“.

It includes mouthfuls like this: “In a climate of growing suspicion towards ‘totalization’, Jameson can be seen to have pulled off an improbable intellectual coup, establishing a broadly Hegelian-Marxist understanding of a widely, if inchoately, experienced postmodernism, while conjoining this mutation in the superstructure to a new phase of capitalist expansion and intensification.

He also defines Jameson’s use of dialectic, which Balakrishnan writes referred to an “orientation that continually translates this experience of finitude back into upsurges of transcendence, taking the form not of the solution of already existing problems, but rather of the generation of new problems out of the partial neutralization of old ones.

This passage in particular seems especially relevant within the context of contemporary digital-networked society. Balakrishnan writes: “The corollary of this conception is that the experiential is no longer what lies within a circumscribed phenomenological horizon around us but has become ever more scrambled by distant and even absent spaces, within a capitalist world-system opening up virtual possibilities of experience which are not straightforwardly present in our quotidian surroundings.

Balakrishnan concludes by offering some final thoughts on the lessons to be learned from this last work of Jameson. He contends: “But in the absence of any plausible scenario of system-wide economic renewal, it might soon no longer be true that the end of capitalism is less conceivable than the literal end of the world—the stark limit on thought and experience that Jameson once memorably identified as the transcendental statute of the postmodern condition. As more determinate forms of negation struggle to assert themselves—with whatever ultimate prospects of success—the need for a new term of totalization may soon become evident.

Finally, in A Permanent Economic Emergency, Slavoj Žižek describes the misery of today’s left. He points out; “there is no positive programmatic content to its demands, just a generalized refusal to compromise the existing welfare state. The utopia here is not a radical change of the system, but the idea that one can maintain a welfare state within the system. Here, again, one should not miss the grain of truth in the countervailing argument: if we remain within the confines of the global capitalist system, then measures to wring further sums from workers, students and pensioners are, effectively, necessary.” Yet, ultimately Žižek contends “the reply to every crisis should be more internationalist and universalist than the universality of global capital.” Or in Lacan’s phrasing “the impossible happens“…

Žižek on hope for the future and science…

For me, remember, apocalypse means revelation, not catastrophe.

The New Scientist interviews Slavoj Žižek on the Four Horsemen of the new apocalypse. While the realms of science and technology pose significant challenges, ecological and structural challenges are also undermining our environment and global capitalism. What are our chances of successfully navigating the future? Žižek goes on to say,

Despite your critique, you are positive about science?

I have a very naive Enlightenment fascination with it. I have total admiration for science.

Should philosophers be helping scientists?


Via Bruce Sterling’s Beyond the Beyond (here)