Feeds:
Posts
Comments

I created a (post-publication) “reader’s guide” for my last monograph, because it was really three (short) books in one and I didn’t think all readers would be equally interested in all three of them, so I figured a road-map would be helpful. My new book, The New Lives of Images, which Francesco Casetti rightly calls “two books in one,” doesn’t really need a reader’s guide because the Preface provides that. But for those who want an even quicker overview, here it is.

Book One (i.e., Part One) is theoretical and philosophical. It rethinks what “images” and “imagination” are through a process-semiotic lens (more on that in a moment). It provides a loosely historical typology of images and how humans have related to them — from the very beginning of imaging to the world of digital media. And it examines what’s at stake politically and ecologically with the latter.

Introducing the process-semiotic understanding of images and imagination takes some time, but here’s the nutshell version. “Imagination” is made of images by which we perceive and transform the world. And “images” are events of meaning-making mediated by things that bear some resemblance to — they look, sound, smell, taste, or feel like — other things that we have encountered before or elsewhere. Images, in other words, are not just those things that contain some depiction of something — photos, maps, sonic or musical gestures, and other kinds of objects. (And they also aren’t only visual.) They are the events in which those things connect us to other things and, in doing that, create meaning. By connecting the present to the past or the not-present, images weave the worlds in which we, meaning-dwelling beings, live. Images are supplemented by words and language, but in crucial respects images are more primary, and are therefore more important for us to understand.

Book Two is practical and empirical: it’s a critical-interpretive journey through a set of compelling imageries or “imaginaries” — artistic works (visual, audio-visual, musical, literary) that embody specific kinds of image-relations — which have to do, respectively, with the relationships between humans and the Earth (the “Anthroposcene”), humans and other animals (the “Therioscene”), and humans and our divinities (the “Theoscene”). The publisher’s description tells you some of the key artists I look at. They are chosen in order to highlight the creative edges of human thinking about these three “boundary zones.”

The upshot is that we live in the Mediocene, a time when images conveyed via digital media have become central to the ways we shape our world. The interpretive choices we make within that profusion of images will create the future that comes of it. If we don’t make appropriate choices — ones that recognize our embeddedness within an unstable and dynamic more-than-human world — our future prospects will be dim.

Review copies, comp teaching copies, and pre-orders are available now. The book will be out in September.

“Belief in this world” — which we might define as faith that this world and what we do in it is genuinely significant — was a paramount value for Gilles Deleuze, who thought that we are at risk of collectively losing such a belief.

Today, when the prospects for human flourishing are threatened from all sides (do I need to enumerate any examples?), and those for human existence itself appear to be diminishing rapidly, it seems difficult to either express or feel such a belief in this world. Beliefs in another world — one nourished either by religious imagination or by some science-fictional faith (in artificial intelligence, space travel, et al.) — beckon, as they have in the past.

On the understanding that action can be cheap, and that right action always starts from feeling, I sometimes ask myself a variation on the question “What would Jesus do?” I ask: what would Jesus feel? What would the Buddha feel? And the answer I give myself is: boundless love for this world. Love for every suffering, feeling being.

But then I wonder: was there not a certain nihilism in each of their responses to the world — in Jesus’s willingness to die for a cause, a cause known only to him at the time, and that in retrospect has led to a lot of confusion; and in Siddhartha Gautama’s desire to extinguish desire, to pierce its veil so as to escape it altogether? Whatever their motivations, a religion based on love of this world, and love of this universe, requires belief in this world, belief in the genuine sense of taking it to be real, the actual substance and (only) arena of our most deeply felt lives. And that’s, perhaps, where their followers have often failed.

Continue Reading »

I’m happy to share the news that both The New Lives of Images and Terra Invicta are now available for pre-order. The New Lives of Images: Digital Ecologies and Anthropocene Imaginaries in More-than-Human Worlds is a theoretically and empirically rich study of images, imagination, and the digital. It’s the fourth in a tetralogy of books on the ecology of imagination, and in many ways a direct follow-up to Ecologies of the Moving Image. Terra Invicta: Ukrainian Wartime Reimaginings for a Habitable Earth is an anthology that comes out of my Fulbright (Germany/Ukraine) work with 30+ Ukrainian scholars and artists. The book presents scholarly and creative writing (and visual art) embodying visions of what Ukrainians have been fighting for, within a global horizon of responses to the ecological crisis. More detailed descriptions are below.

Continue Reading »

The deadline is coming soon; please write to me if you need more time.

Call for Chapter Proposals: The Life-Cycle of Moving Images: Ecological Entanglements from Conception to Consumption and Beyond

We invite contributions for a forthcoming edited volume entitled The Life-Cycle of Moving Images: Ecological Entanglements from Conception to Consumption and Beyond, edited by Adrian Ivakhiv, Maria Boguszewicz, and Aitor Arruza Zuazo.

Continue Reading »

The horror story unfolding around us continues.

A typical day (let’s say, yesterday) may include President Trump (1) again accusing Ukrainian president Zelensky of “starting” a war against Russia (after Trump’s attempted shakedown of that country for its resources, despite the fact that Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange for security guarantees from the U.S., U.K., and Russia that it ultimately never received, since Russia attacked it); (2) saying that CBS should be delicensed and heavily penalized for airing an interview with Zelensky and a segment on Greenland (because they appeared critical of his administration); (3) telling the president of El Salvador he’d like to send his “home-growns” (U.S. citizens he doesn’t like) to El Salvador’s growing Gulag-style prisons; and (4) announcing a cut of billions of dollars in funding from Harvard University because it did not submit to his administration’s demands that it immediately shut down all programming related to diversity, equity and inclusion, that it provide all its hiring and admissions data for audits by the Trumpists (sorted by race, national origin, performance on standardized tests, etc.) so that they can eliminate people who, e.g., aren’t conservative white men, and a list of several other demands that would amount to a federal takeover of the university. (All while using the “antisemitism” justification in the same way that Putin has been claiming that Ukraine under its Jewish-Ukrainian president must be “denazified.”)

Meanwhile, university libraries in some states are being ordered to delete research collections focused on “race relations” or “gender studies.” Federal funding for climate, weather, and ocean research is being eviscerated. The nonsensical tariff rollercoaster continues to jeopardize the livelihoods of farmers and business people who rely on predictable markets for their goods and their investments. And the list goes on.

I’ve been asked what I think we should do about all this. Here’s what I think.

Continue Reading »

The best context for thinking of yesterday’s “Hands Off!” protests, held across the United States and in cities around the world, is the one Rebecca Solnit gets at in her post of this morning on Meditations in an Emergency. It is the global context described here:

“Right now Ukrainians are fighting for their freedom; Bangladeshis and Syrians are figuring out what comes after toppling an authoritarian regime; huge crowds are protesting in the streets of Turkey, Hungary, Serbia, the Republic of Georgia; Chile is governed by a young president who rose to prominence in student protests against a right-wing regime. South Korea just impeached and deposed a president who attempted a coup; the dictatorial former president of the Philippines is under arrest by the International Criminal Court for his human rights abuses. Across the world, time and time again, civil society has taken history into its own hands and written a better ending to an authoritarian story. Now it’s our turn.”

Unlike what right-wing media will be spinning for its followers, the protests are not just “woke America” lashing back for the Trump administration’s “cultural” policies (abortion, immigration, DEI). They are part of a very broad, very global, and very much a people’s movement, one that’s not being led at all by political parties. (Democratic Party leadership has been hardly visible amidst the 1200+ protests held across the US yesterday). And the goals are shared across the world: they are freedom, democracy, human rights, and — while less visible in Solnit’s post, but audible in the calls for “hands off science,” “hands off our national parks,” etc. — ecology.

Continue Reading »

Two recent talks of mine just became available on YouTube. They are “The New Ecologies of Images: Ecomedia Ontology in the Capitalocene,” given in January at the Visual Ecologies conference in Strasbourg, and “Ecologies of the Multipolar Information Disorder: On Recent Elections, Current Wars (and Coups), and Climate Disasters to Come,” given last month at the Digital Democracies Institute at Simon Fraser University. The two overlap significantly — the first two-thirds of the latter are a slightly modified version of the former — so there’s no reason to watch both.

If you’re theory-averse — both take some time to present the theoretical framework I bring to studying images, including moving images (as in Ecologies of the Moving Image) and digital images (in the forthcoming The New Lives of Images) — you might want to just skip to the 28-minute mark of the second video. That’s where I focus in on the current political issues encompassed in the sub-title (and not so much on the climate disasters, which I’ve covered in other talks you can find on my web site, in the side-bar next to this post in Immanence, or through a YouTube search). It’s a bit of a précis of the thinking I’ve been sharing on this blog and working through in my writing of the book I had been calling Stormy Weather, up until William Connolly came out with a brilliant book of that title. I haven’t come up with an adequate replacement title yet, but pieces of it have also come out in my talks at the SFU Institute for the Humanities conferences on Fascist Neoliberalism and the Fate of Radical Democracy, last year, and on Apocalyptic Anxieties the previous year.

Here’s “Ecologies of the Multipolar Information Disorder”:

As a Canadian who has long valued this country’s differences from the United States, I’m as concerned as anyone about the Trump administration’s threats of annexation toward Canada. This is mostly for obvious reasons: threats of annexation against sovereign nations violate Article One of the United Nations charter, and these threats are being made in a context of an attempt to radically redraw global geopolitics in the direction of a more authoritarian, neo-imperial order. Trump’s imperial grasp should be curtailed, and the Canadian border is as good a place to do that as any.

I happen to be a US citizen as well, having lived there for most of a quarter-century, so my appreciation of some things about that country makes things a bit more complex.

But mostly I consider myself a citizen of a rapidly changing planet. It’s those changes that I study, write, and teach about. And because of them I believe we need to view these things not only through the prism of business-as-usual, but through a longer range view. That requires asking what kind of subdivision of governance responsibilities makes most sense on a fragile and rapidly altering planet.

From an ecological perspective, bioregional, or ecoregional, boundaries are much more sensible than the boundaries we’ve inherited from our colonial histories. Ecology should not necessarily trump culture, history, and identity (sorry for using the “t” word), but it should be factored into the ways we adapt to a world in which climate is destabilizing, setting off mounting migration pressures, and in which the infrastructure of everyday life will have to change radically or will suffer dramatically.

Continue Reading »

I highly recommend Antonia Juhasz’s Rolling Stone cover story “Is Trump’s ‘Minerals Deal’ a Fossil Fuel Shakedown?” In a Facebook post, Juhasz notes that Ukrainian president Zelensky “is on his way to Saudi Arabia next week, being forced into a corner by the unholy alliance of Putin and Trump and to sign an ‘extortionist’ ‘neocolonial plundering’ of Ukraine’s vast natural resource riches, giving Trump and Putin unprecedented control of fossil fuels and minerals.”

The winners of the war, it turns out, are intended to be none other than Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Big Oil. Juhasz writes:

Continue Reading »

It’s looking increasingly likely that the last 35 years or so will come to be seen as an Interregnum between two world orders: the Cold War order, which emerged from the ashes of World War Two, and whatever it is that is beginning to envelop us now. The question is whether what is enveloping us will become the new order, or if an alternative to it can be imagined into existence, and soon.

The first and second failures

The Cold War order pitted two global blocs — the liberal capitalist one led by the U.S. and its allies, and the ostensibly socialist one led by the Soviet Politburo in Moscow — against each other in a kind of “profoundly unstable stability,” a relationship of hostility tempered by the threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction. Ultimately that order fell apart due to the internal and external contradictions of the Socialist bloc. That bloc’s main internal contradiction was between the equality and prosperity it promised its people, and the authoritarianism of its centrally planned socialist economic practice, which failed to deliver that promise. Its main external threat was its western opponent, against whom it felt a need to build up a massive defense system that taxed its own capacities to the max. By 1991, the Socialist bloc seemed to have clearly lost that struggle, with liberal democracy (or democratic capitalism) triumphing.

The Interregnum has been a time when the seemingly victorious liberal democratic world was in a position to build a more lasting, relatively peaceable world. It had the means to do this — by strengthening the international order of sovereign nation-states, international agreements, and rule of law, and by skillfully addressing its own challenges. But now, in 2025, it seems clear that it has failed, and that this is due in part to its own central internal contradiction.

That contradiction is between the democracy and general prosperity it has promised and the capitalism it has harbored. For all of its productiveness, capitalism generates huge costs to its environment — which means to all of those people, lands, and ecological systems it treats as resources and not as equal partners. The costs eventually come to haunt it — in such forms as climate change and biospheric deterioration, as well as in the disgruntlement of those who don’t share in its benefits. They become both its external and its internal enemy.

Continue Reading »

I’m sharing an exchange between my son and ChatGPT, wherein he is asking the AI about whether bison ever lived in the northeastern United States. When he hones in on some confusing information, ChatGPT begins to respond in a way that seems calculated to please, and when he tells it its information is incorrect, ChatGPT happily corrects itself, in a repeated back-and-forth dance of apologies that is hilarious to follow.

The strategy seems to be: say anything that sounds reasonable, supporting it with data that looks believable. If your client pushes you, apologize and say something different. Treat any contradictions with a polite shrug and a deflection. Carry on.

Click below for the full exchange. Here are a few choice bits:

Continue Reading »

There’s a clear lesson for us in the mass firings of federal employees, carried out as part of an administrative coup led by the world’s wealthiest tech oligarch, in the country that had up till recently been seen as the paragon of stability and prosperity.

That lesson is that we are all dispensable now.

In the new order that’s being instituted, no one is secure anymore. Just as climate change has been making us all vulnerable in ways that had previously been limited to the victims of colonialism and extractive capitalism, the new tech order makes us all vulnerable to the dispossession of any security we thought we had — of our jobs, our homes, our communities.

The new order is an alliance between the world’s techno-industrial oligarchs and the authoritarian neo-imperialists who now lead the three most militarily powerful countries in the world (Trump, Xi, and Putin). It’s being ushered in, most obviously, by the Trump–Musk axis, with other tech lords playing along, since they have plenty to gain from it and too much to lose if they do not.

The alliance is hardly unified at the global level, and will likely be characterized by rivalry, if not military confrontation. But its goals are unified.

They are, first, to continue the scramble for valuable techno-industrial resources — including remaining fossil fuel reserves, newly critical “green tech” minerals (lithium, nickel, cobalt, copper, rare-earth minerals, et al.), control over the rapidly warming Arctic, and the new digital frontiers of artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, and whatever will come next.

And, second, to control the masses of humanity using those very technologies, through information warfare, opaque media algorithms, and the same artificial intelligence.

Continue Reading »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Skip to toolbar