The Pentagon's New Imperial Cartography

I was very surprised of today topic. Because Barnett's book is interesting as an attempt to suggest a post cold war strategic mentality that has far reaching implications for both the American military and the global economy. Also, he clearly a man of the people engaged in nearly single handed attempt to remake the American military so that it can fulfill the American dream of an orderly and peaceful world in which all may pursue life, liberty, and happiness. This article that who control the global economy equal as the American military makes an excuse for they want to have the power and control the world. I read first time that got falling asleep and second time that I got through the text but did not understand. After a today class, I realized that was living inside a small box. Numbers want to have a power, and if they got the power then they want to continue to carry. They can be murder people who feel need to keep the power. It is very sad.

Limited Perspectives

Barnett's essay is focused on the interests of the Pentagon and the United States government. Though the globalization of democracy and capitalism is its preeminent desire, such a state is interested in using its military power to define how that will happen for the rest of the world. Barnett insists that that "the Gap" between states like the Iraq(Non-Integrating) and the United States(Core) is the "standard of living". What standard is this supposed to represent? Is it clean water and enough food? Does it include healthcare and education? Is this standard of living a right or an earned privilege?

Globalization is an interest of state entities like the Pentagon and the World Bank. Although I too rely on money to exchange for food and education, shelter, et al, Barnett wants me to believe that the violence committed by foreign entities are kept in the "non-integrating Gap" by the gallant efforts of the United States government in "exporting security". This means trading arms for cooperation/oil/democracy. Even Barnett knows that total peace is not possible under this globalization, but that national borders must give way to security. I must admit, my money is good only as long as the base of the American economy, this exporting of security, continues unabated. My interests in getting more money are ultimately founded on maintaining my own "standard of living". It is rooted in violence. Cooperation.

Oil will run out. American democracy is corrupt and not really democracy, it is representative. Cooperation is based upon the interests of a few decision making representatives. Those people who are suffering in Barnett's Gap are not offered any other assistance by the forces of the United States except when it reacts to "system perturbations". Politics does not function is these environments, especially when the policies of this globalizing force are antithetical to peace. "Fight fire with fire"? This is the true face of globalization.

Pentagon's New Map Version 1

Just click on the map

to magnify the image.

Pentagon's New Map Version 2

Just click on the map

to magnify the image.

Fragments on Surveillance and Biography.

Between 1975 and 1984, at a moment when political thought was going through a stagnant phase, the works of Michel Foucault came and got rid of the false concepts that were preventing it from moving forward. In a class from January 5th 1983, Foucault offers a summary of his strategy in two parts: Firstly, substitute a historical analysis of the techniques and procedures of governmentality for the history of dominations. Secondly, replace the theory of the subject and the history of subjectivity with the historical analysis of subjectivation and practices of the self. So, departing from a clear rejection of the empty universal formulas – law, sovereignty, general will, etc – that were monopolizing the theoretical attention given to politics going into a detailed analysis of governmental mechanisms and practices. Power not as a separate hypostasis but regarded as a set of relations. In the place of a transcendental subject, a punctual analysis of the processes of subjectivation.
Giorgio Agamben, ‘On Tiqqun.’


The thing about the intersection between Foucault and social movements is I guess the period that leads to the Italian 'Hot Autumn' of 1966 and the ‘Movement of 77’― 'Autonomia' breaks from the workerist-Marxists (or ‘Operaismo’) and organizes an antagonistic social force within the realm of 'leisure time'― a leisure time that is begun to be recognized as to be just as regulated as 'work time'. And so sociology's (Daniel Bell's) obsession-with / mourning-of the cultural 'schizophrenic' tension between the hedonism necessary for consumption and the asceticism necessary for work. But for all its advances, the autonome project was a failure (in the sense that it didn't accomplish its stated goals, in the sense that it didn't last forever). And in its failure it revealed (again) that the disciplined individual subject perceives herself as always observed, and this perception shapes the actual tactics of a social movement. For the activist, any daily moment could become a point of rupture: the activist/anarchist preoccupation with 'prefiguration', moral behavior, 'being the change you want to see', etc. The activist is the beautiful soul in her own biography (not the sovereign's biography, but the emergence of the 'mass biography')― a trail of documents (birth certificates, vaccinations, certifications, report cards, degrees, citizenship papers, work papers, utility bills) records one’s movements and choices and appears to confirm such biography― when in fact communism/anarchy/whatever are propositions to become 'terrible'. (‘Men will not turn into angels: why should they?’ G. Dauve) The point is that in fact no one is watching― or rather, no one is watching meaningfully― the meaning/enchantment of the sovereign’s (or god’s) vertical surveillance is destroyed for the barren horizontalism of democratic/self surveillance. No such meaning/god could be brought down to democratic surveillance. And so when the literature students read Foucault to become evermore textual, and the art students obsess about the 'process' of making art 'collectively', etc, they hide themselves within the lie of the mass biography. The biography remains still sovereign and divine― decidedly not the mass individual; the pervading ideology is that it is mass. Where is rupture/god?    

Foucault and Discipline

Foucault reminds us that modern society and the foundations upon which it bases its maintenance is observation. This is carried out by the use of "hierarchical observation, normalizing judgement and their combination in a procedure that is specific to it, the examination(170)." As a student, I cannot, of course, forget that my abilities as a citizen are impacted by my ability to determine my own place in this process. I am examined continually by myself and others. Especially those who are waiting for me to leave the institution or by those who will assume a measure of control after I move to another area of normality.

The efforts I establish on behalf of my ability to adapt to being an observer and a follower of the discipline founded on the values of the past are a part of my life at Cal. This academic life is subsumed by moments in time, those decisive moments which may change said life in respect to the requirements placed. My student life is narrowed into a corner which has been inhabited before by other people. This shows that such behavior, where being placed into a corner is supposed to lead to reward, is a created by a decision to enable . It is created by my own willingness to subject myself to its limitations and to the exercise of discipline. This "normality" of behavior is both rewarding and threatening, yet holds a lot of potential for intellectual illumination. I think it is essential to understand that the contact with other students is a lot more valuable outside of these limitations. The critical power of recognition and dialogue does not threaten but instead enhances the potential of such distinct, disciplined systems to create social, moral and intellectual realms. Such realms exist in the mind. This bodes well for anyone willing to break down such simple boundaries, to challenge their "normality".

“Violence as Dignity”

J.M. Bernstein, Philosophy, The New School

Wednesday, March 16, 2011
5 p.m. | Geballe Room, 220 Stephens Hall | UC Berkeley

In an incident in Auschwitz, Jean Amery describes how, at a particular moment, he was forced to give "concrete form to my dignity by punching a human face." Bernstein's paper will interrogate the thesis, common to Amery and Frantz Fanon, that, as a consequence of the particular character of human embodiment, violent reprisal belongs to the grammar of human dignity.

J.M. Bernstein teaches philosophy at the New School for Social Research. His most recent book is Against Voluptuous Bodies: Late Modernism and the Meaning of Painting. He is now completing a work provisionally entitled Torture and Dignity.

Part of the Why War? Seminar Series.

Prelude to a Foucaultian Black Swan

A Million Dollar Wacquant

"In a half-coma, I keep hitting and breathing in synch, throwing a punch with every gulp of air I expel. I have the sensation of being mounted on a machinery of which I'm both the engine and a piece" (66).

"Theoretical mastery is of little help so long as the move is not inscribed within one's bodily schema; and it is only after it has been assimilated by the body in and through endless physical drills repeated ad nauseam that it becomes in turn fully intelligible to the intellect. There is indeed a comprehension of the body that goes beyond—and comes prior to—full visual and mental cognizance. Only the permanent carnal experimentation that is training, as a coherent complexus of 'incorporating practices,' can enable one to acquire this practical mastery of the practical rules of pugilism, which precisely satisfies the condition of dispensing with the need to constitute them as such in consciousness" (69).

Erased Lynchings

Ken Gonzales-Day's Erased Lynchings in preparation for our visit to MOMA.

Violence and Sustenance

Violence on the human body is something that seems to be a common part of existence. The objective and subjective violence which Zizek introduced us to are incorporated into the life of any member of the human race. It is important, however, to remember the contexts in which the body finds itself. It is easy to react to common themes, crime and the chaotic nature of life, by inducing fear through reactive appraisals. Therefore, it is essential to an understanding of our state as perceptive students of violence to evaluate those areas where a certain measure of control exists. For those who sell their bodies for money, for those who place themselves into physically harmful situations, we may measure the limits of such interactions. I believe and have experienced a modicum of such bodily resolve. Boxers place themselves and their perception into the fray continually. In Wacquant’s piece, “The Street and the Ring”, one may consider such a life. Life outside of the ring is chaotic and uncertain, especially in the area where Wacquant did his research. Inside, it is tightly measured and considered. This dichotomy relies on a close and personal relationship between the boxer and the manager. It seems an essential component to personal development, especially when contending with the uncertainties of life, to embrace an honest approach to discipline, but more importantly, to these supportive relationships. Otherwise, one may simply be trying to beat down a brick wall of uncertainty their entire life, perpetuating and sustaining an unnecessarily “violent” inner life.

When "Accounts" Go Viral

What are the ethical implications of "accounts" to violence that then become fodder for viral music videos like the one above? Why was the original narrative not treated more seriously? Why does the utterance, "I was attacked by some idiot in the projects," become the stuff of comical hodgepodge such that this video peaked at 89 on the Billboard Hot 100? What is being misrecognized here?

For More: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPAeXI5rN9E&feature=related

Theory and the Self

To begin to unravel symbolic violence, please see this clip starting at Start at 6:03. We might also watch this clip in class. Here Bourdieu clearly delineates the psycho-somatic implications of symbolic violence that renders this theoretical concept more than "mere rhetorical usage" (Collins 24).

This video, from an interesting documentary on a wide variety of philosophical topics titled "Examined Life", addresses aspects of Butler's writing in "Against Ethical Violence": The systemization of interaction; the conception that an individual must facilitate their own 'narrativization' to interact with another person; why the body is a part of this collective rhetoric. This segment also seems to support the insights into address which Butler reflects upon when she writes, "...if there is an ethic to the address, and if judgment, including legal judgment, is one form of address, then the ethical value of judgment will be conditioned by the form of address it takes (Butler 46)." In other words, the value attributed to any interaction is based upon the type of interaction taking place. This seems intuitive, though it is important to recognize how abstract the notion of legality is when encountering someone in need or in danger. This interaction, fashioned by value and the form of judgment-potential, is what we must see as tentative and foreign to reactions of violence in response.

'To Bring an Oeuvre to Life'

I call misrecognition the fact of recognizing a violence which is wielded precisely inasmuch as one does not perceive it as such. / What I put under the term of ‘recognition’, then, is the set of fundamental, prereflexive assumptions that social agents engage by the mere fact of taking the world for granted, of accepting the world as it is, and of finding it natural because their mind is constructed according to cognitive structures that are issued out of the very structures of the world. What I understand by misrecognition certainly does not fall under the category of influence; I never talk of influence. It is not a logic of ‘communicative interaction’ where some make propaganda aimed at others that is operative here. It is much more powerful and insidious than that: being born in a social world, we accept a whole range of postulates, axioms, which go without saying and require no inculcating. This is why the analysis of the doxic [doxa: common belief] acceptance of the world, due to the immediate agreement of objective structures and cognitive structures, is the true foundation of a realistic theory of domination and politics. Of all forms of ‘hidden persuasion’, the most implacable is the one exerted, quite simply, by the order of things…

Pierre Bourdieu and Loic Wacquant, Symbolic Violence

Just a series of tentative, if not naive questions here:

What do we do with ‘misrecognition’ vis a vis personal behavior? To know there is plenty of misrecognition and to act accordingly? To believe we can interrupt or intervene it by individual behavior is to invite waves of anxiety, isolation, depression— and then the building of subcultures around these behaviors, anxiety, isolation, depression— is this a cost ‘we’ ask one another to pay? This, in a heroic-- but always limited-- attempt to spare one another the costs of daily life? Is that what 'politics' is? A kind of intervention that rests on a 'consciousness' or language? I will have to borrow from some one that kind of youth; I could only hope they would never foreclose.

Working Out Scheper-Hughes

Here are the questions we might want to consider to conclude our conversation about Death without Weeping: As given in the chapter we are reading, does everyday violence lean toward physical violence or structural violence? What does everyday violence look like (pg. 230)? What does the body have to do with violence, bodies worth living, bodies that matter, bodies worth grieving? How might the traffick in children be understood as a form of violence (pg. 239-246)? How can the hospital be understood as a Foucaultian “institution of violence” (pg. 246-249)?

Moldova Confessions

This video features Nancy Scheper-Hughes discussing organ commodification. The man from Moldova also provides a revealing demonstration of Butler's ethical violence. We might consider how Dan Rather's questions are constructing a narrative of victimhood that ends with "Is there anything else that you want to say, anything else that you want to know about this," as if the man's experiences can be tied into a bow and settled in a slogan against organ trafficking. He breaks down. Finally, you might note that the "scar" on his body does the work of giving empirical evidence of his experience.

Favelas

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/11/28/brazil.rio.violence/index.html?eref=edition#

It is interesting to note how incidents like this, on behalf of the military, legitimize the methods of the police. It is assumed that the drug dealers are playing by their own rules instead of adapting to and exploiting a corrupt system. The impoverished people they supposedly prey on do have rights to security, though this "crackdown" comes as a result of the international press and their interest in showcasing the powers of states.

Statement from Vets for Peace on Egypt

Hi folks!

Again, I am mostly just practicing my blogging here in this post and getting familiar with this
format. I recommend everyone check out the Statement from Veterans for Peace, entitled

"Regarding current events in Northern Africa", dated January 31st, 2011.

Please go to their website if you are interested in this statement. You can view it at
www.veteransforpeace.org

Yours in the struggle for a better world,
dogwood

Definitions of Violence(s) For Our Time

Subjective Violence: the most visible violence performed by clearly identifiable agents.

Objective Violence: violence inherent in the “normal” state of things. It is “invisible since it sustains the very zero-level standard against which we perceive something as subjectively violent.”

There are two types of Objective Violence:
Symbolic Violence: violence embodied in language and its forms, which Heideggar called “our house of being.”
Systemic Violence: violence as a consequence of the smooth functioning of our economic and political systems.

Physical or interpersonal violence is defined here as the violation of the self by an Other. This violence, what Bourgois calls intimate dimensions of violence, is “directly” (my quotations) physical, emotional, and/or psychological.

Everyday Violence: “Everyday violence encompasses the implicit, legitimate, and routinized forms of violence inherent in particular social, economic, and political formulations.”

Structural Violence: “Such suffering is structured by historically given (and often economically driven) processes and forces that conspire—whether through routine, ritual, or, as is more commonly the case, these hard surfaces [of suffering itself]—to constrain agency.”

Symbolic violence: “Symbolic violence, to put it tersely and simply as possible, is the violence which is exercised upon a social agent with his or her complicity.”

Ethical Violence: the linguistic-ontological-social demand “that we manifest and maintain self-identity at all times and require others to do the same.” This ethical violence is symptomatic in the requirement for narratives of the self to be given in tight form, in a straight line, with coherence and cohesion and conclusion.

To be sure, you will come across a few more type of violence: psychological, political, cartographic, spatial, disciplinary, etc. We will not define them here, but if you find a violence hobbyhorse, we can always add the term to our constellation of concepts.