Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Two of the world’s best known Iranian artists, Marjane Satrapi, author of the graphic novel Persepolis and director of the Oscar-winning animated feature based on it, and leading filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf, have been presenting apparent “proof” at the European Parliament that Mousavi actually won the elections. This comes in the form of an internal memo allegedly written by Iran’s Interior Minister documenting the actual results.

The Independent’s Robert Fisk raises some questions about the letter’s authenticity, but acknowledges that “it divides the final vote between Mr Mousavi and Mr Karroubi in such a way that it would have forced a second run-off vote – scarcely something Mousavi’s camp would have wanted,” which helps lend it veracity. Unfortunately, he continues, “The letter may well join the thousands of documents, real and forged, that have shaped Iran’s recent history, the most memorable of which were the Irish passports upon which Messers Robert McFarlane and Oliver North travelled to Iran on behalf of the US government in 1986 to offer missiles for hostages.”

This is one of those situations where it’s not clear whom to believe, because the economy of trustworthiness is nebulous and a little impenetrable. It reminds me of Jodi Dean‘s account of conspiracy cultures in the US, Aliens in America, in which the public-sphere ideal has been so eroded that we are left with an ineradicable “undecidability” about fundamental definitions of reality. My operating hunch, or leap of faith, here is that intellectuals and especially artists who have demonstrated accountability to a complex view of the world (that’s the key) can help weave our way through political confusion. This is a kind of ‘cultural ecology’ argument where communicative/cultural complexity — in the form of pluralism, dialogism, openness to the many-sidedness of perception, and recognition of the ultimate unknowability/undecidability/uncontainability/inassimilability of things (that’s the Lacanian/Derridean/Buddhist piece) counts for something. My leap of faith, then, without knowing much about internal Iranian politics or culture, would be to follow artists like Makhmalbaf, Kiarostami, and others, and of course to mistrust systems that rely on police rule to crush resistance. Which makes me wonder: If an analogous situation erupted in the US or Canada, who would be the artists, writers, filmmakers, I would trust?

More interesting Iran stuff can be found at iran101.blogspot.com and in Columbia University’s Hamid Dabashi‘s perceptive analyses, such as this one and this (once you get through the latter’s somewhat over-the-top Israelophobia; aren’t Netanyahu/Lieberman and Khamenei/Ahmadinejad mirror images of a sort?).

more on Tehran

i31_19363371.jpg

Planomenology‘s Reid Kane has posted an extensive analysis of the Iranian events from a perspective informed by Zizek and Agamben, among others — the first I’ve seen in this vein, though I’m anticipating others like it in the left-philosophical blogosphere. The piece draws too much, for my taste, on a monolithic (Marxist) understanding of capital and defers too hastily to Zizek’s weaker moments (I’m being respectful here). Reza‘s comments (see below the article) provide some important correctives to the piece, as does Ali Alizadeh’s piece here. But the article makes some useful points on Foucault’s original engagement with the Iranian revolution, and especially on the possibilities opened up by the new media landscape. Reid also reminds us that Guatemalan unrest had previously been dubbed “the Twitter revolution.”

Continue Reading »

Mount Holyoke College political science professor Douglas Amy makes a good case for publishing online in this piece in today’s Inside Higher Ed. Amy is the author of three previous books, The Politics of Environmental Mediation (Columbia University Press, 1987), Behind the Ballot Box (Greenwood, 2000), and Real Choices/New Voices (Columbia U. Press, 2002). His latest book, Government is Good: An Unapologetic Defense of a Vital Institution, was published online a year and a half ago and has already found more readers — from over 50 countries — than his previous three books combined, gaining him more feedback and getting picked up by many online discussion groups. The web site is well organized and attractive, and the article includes some useful pointers on how to do it even better.

An example of an online publication that makes much more extensive use of the medium is Mackenzie Wark’s GAM3R 7H30RY; see the Chronicle of Higher Ed’s review of it. (Wark’s earlier Virtual Geography: Living with Global Media Events remains one of the best studies of the global media’s penetration into everyday life. It needs updating, though — and the current crisis in Iran begs for Wark’s treatment.)

There’s, of course, a lot more to be said about the promises and perils of digital scholarly publishing, with the question of peer review being a big issue for those who debate it. Kathleen Fitzsimmons’ piece from a few years ago gets at some of these issues, and there’s been much discussion over at Media Commons, if:book, and the HASTAC (Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology Advanced Collaboratory) and Academic Publishing in the Digital Age web sites.

i03_19377861.jpg

I’m sure I’m not the only one following these events with excited trepidation and a feeling of almost wanting to be there (but glad also to be watching it from afar). Which makes me wonder: what is it about revolutionary moments that fires the imagination and keeps us, or me at least, plugged into them like to a virtual intravenous drip? Is it personal — that I grew up in the 1970s feeling that I had missed the 1960s; or a desire to re-experience the feeling I had living in Ukraine for a year during the tremendous societal opening-up of 1989-90 as the Soviet Union began crumbling all around? Or is it that these events capture, and never satisfy, that constant generic craving of something — to fill that lack or gap or “basic fault” in human nature that modern social relations exacerbate and that consumer capitalism is so expert at fueling (well beyond anything the Buddha could have imagined)? (For all its evident shortcomings and overextensions, Morris Berman’s Coming to Our Senses: Body and Spirit in the Hidden History of the West remains one of my favorite articulations of that gap, a quasi-Foucauldian psychosomatic excavation of the ‘modern soul.’)

Or is it mainly a hope for change, that utopian ‘principle of hope’ Ernst Bloch‘ writes about, that makes us want to believe that things can change for the better — which is why conservatives, who don’t believe change will ever be for the better, reject the whole idea as childish and annoying? But can this one turn out any better than, say, Ukraine’s Orange Revolution of a few years ago? (A few things did improve after that one: media control was loosened dramatically, or at least decentralized among rival oligarchs, with arguably positive effects on the whole; and political options became more open and more imaginable. But the last few years have seen a constant, ongoing deflation of political spirit in Ukraine.) Will Iran’s ‘Green Revolution’ be messy and bloody (as it appears today) or will it triumph only to then dissipate into political machinations, co-opted like so many others? What’s the activists’ game plan for afterwards? For that matter, would I have been there alongside Foucault cheering on the students and clerics in the 1979 revolution, and how is this moment different from that one?

Understanding the dynamics of revolutionary or ‘open’ moments is important — which is part of what attracts me to the thinking of Deleuze, Guattari, DeLanda, William Connolly, Brian Massumi, Teresa Brennan, Nigel Thrift, and others for whom processes of “affective contagion” make up a crucial dimension of political change. In his summary of models of affective contagion (Non-Representational Theory, pp. 235ff.), Thrift describes an intensifying anxious obsessive-compulsive “time structure” in Western liberal-democratic polities, where “a growth in desengagement and detachment is paralleled by moments of high engagement and attachment” (p. 240), like this one unfolding in Iran.

Continue Reading »

Michael%20Pollan%20or%20Michel%20Foucault-%207A.jpg Michael%20Pollan%20or%20Michel%20Foucault-%207B.jpg action-ogm-mais-6.jpg

Shaka Freeman’s photo posts asking the question “Michael Pollan or Michel Foucault?” are hilarious, because the two Mickeys really do look alike and are sometimes difficult to tell apart. For the sake of a bit of entertaining triangulation, I’ve added Foucauldian ecologist and Greenpeace Canada activist Eric Darier to the mix.

But the site also subtly suggests that there may be a potentially powerful convergence between Pollan‘s insightful politics of food and Foucault’s incisive biopolitics that could help steer us in an appropriate direction throught the agrotechnoscientific minefields of the coming century. Perhaps Nikolas Rose’s The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century could be an initial meeting point – though one would have to add a chapter specifically on agro-industrial technologies to make it so. (Darier’s Discourses of the Environment would make a welcome supplement to that discussion.)

Thanks to Scu at Critical Animal for alerting me to these. His critique of Pollan’s and Donna Haraway’s biopolitics can be read here.

koblin1.jpg

Those links to some of the art pieces Andy Revkin has posted on Dot Earth could be easily missed on my previous post, so I’m posting them separately here.

Aaron Koblin’s “Flight Patterns” series animates airplane flight patterns over the United States:

Revkin has a brief interview with Koblin as well. I find that the upbeat electronica soundtrack (on the above YouTube video) trivializes the images, making them almost an advertisement for air flight and visualization technology; I would have used something more reflective (recall, for instance, Stars of the Lid’s Environmental Defense Fund NYC subway campaign “Polar Bears” piece). Compare it with the silent version here.

As an accompanying reading, I would suggest Barry Lopez’s hypnotic account of flying on air freighters around the world, “On the Wings of Commerce,” reprinted as “Flight” in About This Life.

Revkin’s “Happy Birthday, Earthrise” post commemorates the original Earthrise photograph. Reading Denis Cosgrove’s “Contested Global Visions,” Sheila Jasanoff’s “Image and Imagination,” or even Heidegger’s “The Age of the World Picture” could set up a little productive tension with these images.

Boe.jpg

Another thing I found interesting at the conference was a growing overlap between ASLE and what goes on under the rubric of “environmental communication.” (The COCE conference, incidentally, is at the end of this month.) The plenary on “New Publishing Environments: The Changing Landscape of Reading” was a particularly clear instance of this. It featured award-winning New York Times environment reporter, author, and blogger Andrew Revkin, with brief responses by Orion‘s Chip Blake and Milkweed‘s Daniel Slager. Revkin’s talk was a rich and upbeat summary of the possibilities of the new networked environment for environmental communication; Slager’s comments were a relatively downbeat assessment of the crisis of publishing and the perils of the digital era for reading and writing; and Blake’s comments were mainly a somewhat ambivalent report of the ways Orion, the magazine and the Society, are responding to the crisis. (David Suzuki, the Andy Revkin of a previous and more slow-media generation was in the audience and I wanted to ask him his thoughts about it all, but he left before I could get to him.)

Revkin focused much of his talk on his blog, Dot Earth, which really has become a ‘first stop’ source on all manner of environmental news. Revkin argued that as the news has gone digital, it has also gone global and interactive (his blog gets responses from all over the world, with rich conversations generated in the process), as well as contestable and dynamic (we’ve gone from Walter Cronkite’s “And that’s the way it is…” to a never-ending Deleuzo-Guattarian ellipsis “. . .”, and, a little less reassuringly, to a situation where, in his words, “For every Ph.D., there is an equal and opposite Ph.D.”). Stories, which according to Revkin take the form “Did you hear that…?”, will always be with us, but the storyteller, he suggested, will not be, or at least has become multiplied and fragmented (just as Foucault, Barthes, and others pointed out with their “death of the author” pronouncements, well, three or four decades ago). Both Blake and Slager supported this death of the book/author thesis with factoids about the vastly increased death rate of magazines — e.g., that 29 magazines of over 100,000 readers have gone under since March 2008 as a result of conglomeration, loss of advertising revenues, and increased production and distribution costs.

To a commenter’s suggestion — following up, I’m guessing, on Slager’s more doom-laden comments — that this somehow signifies the end of literary art and the blurring of the distinction between information and literary art, I would respond that literary art can and is making a transition to digital media, and that the blurring of information and art has always been with us — in fact, in other media (visual, audio, performative) it’s never really been there to start with. Or have I just been reading too much Latour, who would suggest that the dualities of orality and literacy, like those of science and politics, sacred and profane, and so on, are specifically modern distinctions, and that before/outside of modernity it’s all a big bundle of possibilities (his term is “plasma”) which get crafted into specific assemblages through the network-building of very particular cultural-ecological practices?

Revkin’s blog, like many blogs, is primarily informational, not artistic. But art there is, presented in innovative ways like this and this, and there’s no inherent reason why creative writing and the crafting of poetic, artistic, performative, and communicative worlds couldn’t be present in a digital medium. I like books, too — love them, have shelves of them climbing my walls — and for me Kindle and its soon-to-be-released competitors will never replace them physically and texturally. But skin, flesh, folds, bodies and limbs in motion (and in recline) carrying and holding objects made of things mixing felt and imaged beauty (like a good book cover) and symbolic meanings (squiggles on a page) will continue in other forms. Do we need to lament the decline of the book when there are so many rich possibilities, not to mention other obviously important tasks, staring us in the face? And as for magazines, they’re already online — not so much literally (though that’s true, too), but in their format, their particular mixture of columns, pages, image-text rhythms, and the rest.

A visit to Victoria’s (wonderful) Royal British Columbia Museum reminded me that even museums are learning from digital media; their organization mimics a great set of well crafted web pages, with links, simulations, hands-on object pieces, etc.

One of the more striking pieces there is a Nisga’a white man mask, with stubbly fur for facial hair, that seems to radiate a deathly, smallpox-carrying emptiness like a laser out of the hollow of its eyes. (The photo below doesn’t convey this nearly as well as the original.)

nisgaa%20white%20man%20mask.jpg

Intrigued by the number of times the name of Bruno Latour came up in conversations at the ASLE conference, I counted the mentions of different theorists and philosophers (i.e., not literary writers, artists, et al.) in the titles of conference papers and presentations. (Unfortunately, neither the program nor the conference website provides full abstracts. Note to conference organizers: these are useful to conference attendees and for reference purposes like this one.) Based on titles alone, by my count Latour and Maurice Merleau-Ponty had the highest number of mentions, with full sessions dedicated to them. Mentioned as well, but less frquently, were Agamben, Deleuze & Guattari, Derrida, Dewey, Appadurai, and Haraway, with an implicit nod or two to Heidegger.

But titles alone show a much greater focus on creative writers, which is what I would expect at a literature and environment conference. From just a very quick scan of paper and session titles, those receiving the most mentions were Wordsworth, Thoreau, Melville, Linda Hogan, Shakespeare, Gary Snyder, Leslie Marmon Silko, and Kim Stanley Robinson — which tells us that the same old sources (and a few younger ones, like Robinson’s) are continuing to generate productive scholarly conversations. That said, I would guess that the number of new writers, young writers, and non-North American and non-white writers continues to increase in proportion to the overall mix.

The most commonly focused-on topics included eco-poetics, animal studies, globalization, climate, area/regional themes (of various kinds), urban ecologies, film, islands (both because the conference was held on an island and because this was prominent in the call for papers), toxicity, environmental justice, rhetoric, and science. Most of these were mentioned in the call for papers, so none are particularly surprising, though the themes of animals/animality, film, and toxicity did impressively better than a glance at the CFP would have predicted. (I’ll have more to say on film in an upcoming post.) Longitudinal data spanning several conferences could give us a much more complete picture of the evolution of ASLE and of ecocriticism — which should be of interest to anyone thinking about the future of the latter (and a few responses to my previous blog on this topic, including from both of the plenarists discussed there, convince me that that is a topic of interest).

All in all, the conference was rich in words, readings, meetings, conversations, book exhibits, and presentations, all punctuated with wanders through the most beautiful ravine bordering a university campus I’ve ever encountered or even imagined possible (to which photos just don’t do justice).

There are rabbits all over the lawns of the University of Victoria campus. Like little furry grass-eating balls, they scurry forward a little from time to time but otherwise placidly chomp away at the lawns, oblivious to humans or anything else. Sometimes they just sit there, or lay themselves out and stare forward, cutely extending their forepaws. (And yes, they leave behind a carpet of little brown pellets as evidence of their grazing.) While I’m not sure what kind of rabbits they are, Vancouver Island does have European rabbits as well as Eastern cottontails, which are native to the eastern side of the continent but established themselves here after a 1964 release near Sooke.

Someone said yesterday, “there’s only so many rabbits a cougar can eat.” Vancouver Island is apparently a hotspot for cougar attacks. According to one study, of 53 documented North American mountain lion (cougar) attacks on people between 1890 and 1990, twenty, or about 38%, occurred here on this island off the coast of British Columbia. One explanation that’s been forwarded for this high concentration of attacks is that their common prey species – porcupine, opossum, coyote, bobcat, badger, and spotted and striped skunks – are absent or nearly absent here (or at least they were up to the 1980s). I guess they don’t hang around the campus much, but they do appear in the city from time to time: one found its way into the parking garage beneath the Empress Hotel, and there are occasional school closings after a cougar has been sighted in the neighborhood.

Which brings me to the ASLE conference, which, like all of these biennial gatherings, defines and redefines the field of literary and, to some (growing) extent, cultural ecocriticism. Each field has its rabbits, quietly plugging away at the grasses of its institutionalized lawns – analyzing poems and novels by this writer or that school of drama, a quiet luxury allowed us by our (in this case, mostly English lit) departments. And each field has its cougars, who appear from the surrounding hills, cast long sidewards glances over the territory, then send broad salvos to shake things up a bit now and again.

Okay, the metaphor has its limits. But some of the names that cropped up repeatedly at today’s plenary are a bit like those cougars, except that their presence is a bit more in evidence than the ones of Vancouver Island. I’m thinking of Dana Phillips, Tim Morton, Stacy Alaimo, Cate Sandilands (one of the plenary speakers) — the ones who bring in uninvited names like Judith Butler, Lacan and Zizek, Haraway and Latour, among others, to “queer” a field that began, in many respects, as an outright repudiation of culturalist “high theory.” Doing that alone is not difficult, and the field by now has plenty of Foucauldian, Harawayan, and Derridean readings of nature, but doing it well, in ways that helps redefine the field, requires a cougar-like crafty brilliance.

Today’s plenary on “Our Critical Challenges: What’s Next for Ecocriticism?” featured two speakers who define the field’s recent growth (if not its origins) rather well: Bath Spa University literary critic Greg Garrard and York University “recovering sociologist” and ecopolitical theorist Cate Sandilands. Both were asked to comment on each other’s work and to provide pointers for the future of the field, and here is where some profound and interesting theoretical differences emerged.

Continue Reading »

Another Thomas Berry quote worth spending a bit of time with:

“Acceptance of the challenging aspect of the natural world is a primary condition for creative intimacy with the natural world. Without this opaque or even threatening aspect of the universe we would lose our greatest source of creative energy. This opposing element is as necessary for us as is the weight of the atmosphere that surrounds us.” (The Great Work, p. 67)

Berry defines “the wild” as “the root of the authentic spontaneities of any being” (which sounds Deleuzian to me) and which is counterposed to a second constituent force in the universe, discipline or form. “The wild,” as my colleague Stephanie Kaza paraphrases in her review of The Great Work, “is the expansive force, the disciplined is the containing force, ‘bound into a single universe and expressed in every being in the universe’ (p. 52).”

I wonder how this dyadic understanding stacks up against the more monistic, Deleuzian-Spinozian (and Whiteheadian) views that see form-building, or morphogenesis, as part of the same process of spontaneous becoming (e.g. as developed by Manuel DeLanda in A New Philosophy of Society, Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy, and A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History). This could probably be boiled down into the question: can the two (the expansive and the containing, the Yin and the Yang) also be one (the Dao)? Is Deleuze/Guattari’s ‘desiring-production’ (connection, becoming, subjectivation) analogous to the Dao, as Deleuzian acupuncture theorist Mark Seem has suggested, with any perceived differences being only differences of emphasis — Deleuze focusing more on the open-ended possibilities of becoming, and Daoism focusing on the patterns by which that process of becoming works itself out in time and in space, territorializing and deterritorializing as it goes?

These are rhetorical questions, of course. It’s time to go hear what wisdom my friend Cate Sandilands and British lit crit Greg Garrard can impart about “Our Critical Challenges: What’s Next for Ecocriticism?” (I’m at the ASLE conference in Victoria, British Columbia. More on it soon.)

ThomasBerry.jpg

The tributes are starting to come in for Thomas Berry, Catholic ecotheologian (or “geologian,” as he sometimes referred to himself), scholar, and spiritual/deep ecological visionary, who passed away at age 94 yesterday. Berry is best known for books including The Dream of the Earth, The Universe Story (with physicist Brian Swimme), and The Great Work, in which he articulated the idea that the universe is not a collection of objects but a communion of subjects. Berry wrote:

“If the dynamics of the Universe from the beginning shaped the course of the heavens, lighted the sun, and formed the Earth, if this same dynamism brought forth the continents and the seas and atmosphere, if it awakened life in the primordial cell and then brought into being the unnumbered variety of living beings, and finally brought us into being and guided us safely through the turbulent centuries, there is reason to believe that this same guiding process is precisely what has awakened in us our present understanding of ourselves and our relation to this stupendous process. Sensitized to such guidance from the very structure and functioning of the Universe, we can have confidence in the future that awaits the human venture.”

A few of the more interesting tributes are from the National Catholic Reporter and Drew Dellinger, whose tribute to Thomas is shared on Gus DiZerega’s blog. But I’m sure there will be much more about him in the coming days.

Berry’s vision is completely in synch with the views I’ve described on this blog under the terms “immanentism,” “immanent naturalism,” et al. His passion and writing will continue to nourish many.

Tree.jpg

Now that I’ve taken the time to read the growing list of responses to Lessig’s post, I have to say that I’m much more impressed with the collective hive mind — the network of respondents he’s grown around himself — than with the Queen Bee (Lessig himself) on this matter. (That metaphor is not very rhizomic, I know.) Several respondents play variations on the same themes I argued in my post yesterday, i.e. that Lessig’s use of the word “socialism” is inaccurate, somewhat irresponsible, a little alarmist, and very ethnocentric. Lessig writes in reply that

“We all need to recognize (speaking now to the cross cultural crowd) that different political systems internalize the concepts differently. So I am criticizing an American writing in an American publication about his use of a term — ‘socialism.’ I don’t pretend to understand how well the use fits other cultures, or traditions. I am speaking to one of my own about my own tradition.”

To which Kelly replies that he’s not writing as an American but is “at this point half Chinese, and, as much as possible, a citizen of the world.” He could have added that Wired magazine is read all over the world, especially on-line, and that Lessig is, too. To his credit, Kelly sticks to his guns.

An interesting side-discussion seems to be emerging from Kelly’s challenge to “Give me a better word to describe the type of governance that is emerging”, with the issue being whether what is emerging from Wikipedia, etc., qualifies as governance at all. Of course it isn’t, but it could be considered part of a larger, more diffuse network of governance mechanisms that are evolving in fits and starts at every scale from the local to the national to the global, from peer pressure and the institutionalization of accepted practice to enforceable regulations. These are neither purely capitalist nor purely socialist. They, ideally, should have something to do with nested systems of collective monitoring and adaptive governance, with mixtures of rights and obligations, checks and balances, individual and collective forms of behavior, etc. And if there isn’t an accepted word to describe them, Kevin Kelly’s attempt to test at least one of them (socialism) for its appropriateness seems laudable. At the very least, it’s nice to see this discussion happening in a public forum where political philosophers aren’t huddled together in their own, mutually exclusive camps.

See Lessig’s “On “socialism,” Round II” for continuing discussion of these issues.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Skip to toolbar