Wednesday 30 September 2009

La Via Campesina

CALL FOR THE STRUGGLE AGAINST MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS, THE MAIN THREAT FOR PEASANT AND INDIGENOUS FAMILIES AND FOR HUMANITY.


16th of OCTOBER 2009, first day of international action

The transnational corporations are our common enemy; they constitute the present form of capital which exercises control over our economies.

In the rural areas we are witnessing a savage offensive by capital and by the transnational corporations on agriculture and natural resources. It is a privatisation war of plunder directed against peasants and indigenous people, a privatisation robbery of the land, biodiversity, water, seeds, production, and agribusiness trade.

We are talking not only about the agribusiness corporations but also about those companies involved in mineral extraction, monoculture tree plantations, big dams, those controlling the distribution markets, and in general, all of those which are involved in the expansion of the contaminating industries, and the dispute and appropriation of land, water and territory.



At a time when we the people are exercising our rights and resisting widespread plunder, or, when we are obliged to join the flow of emigration, the answer has been criminalisation, repression, political prisoners, murders, walls of shame and more military bases.

This is why we Via Campesina call for the struggle against multinational corporations in general and in particular against Cargill, Monsanto, Nestle, Syngenta, Wal Mart, which are threatening directly our farming communities and indigenous people. As part of the struggle for the coming years, we have declared war on transnational corporations.

Therefore we call upon all organisations integrating the international peasant movement, Via Campesina, our partners and friends, city workers and citizens in general to focus our rejection and discontent against MONSANTO and against GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOs) on this coming 16th of October.

With all the creativity of struggle of which we are capable, let's make our cry to the world heard;


MONSANTO OUT, NO TO GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOs)!

FOOD SOVEREIGNTY NOW!

GLOBALISE THE STRUGGLE, GLOBALISE THE HOPE

Foucault Studies, Issue 7

http://ej.lib.cbs.dk/index.php/foucault-studies/issue/current/showToc

New issue of the journal, Foucault Studies is ready on-line. Looking forward to read Sophie Fuggle's article. The abstract includes the following:

"...goes on to consider Agamben’s identification of an economic theology in contradistinction to Schmitt’s political theology and how Agamben’s discussion of collateral damage might be related to Foucault’s notion of security as developed in Security, Territory, Population. Finally, the article considers how Agamben links Foucault’s notion of ‘dispositif’ [apparatus] to an economic theology of government, calling for the development of counter-apparatuses in a similar way to Foucault’s call for ‘resistances.’

Friday 25 September 2009

Difference in Itself

At the Larval Subjects provided a note on Deleuze's notion of difference in itself. Difference and Repetition'ı okuduğum bu zamanda iyi geldi.


"...

Deleuze will claim that ontological difference is affirmative. Where a distinction is based on negation insofar as it compares one thing with another thing it is not, ontological difference is compared to nothing, but rather is the difference that it is.

This second point about the affirmative nature of difference becomes clearer a bit later when Deleuze provides examples to illustrate his point. As Deleuze writes, “…a temperature is not composed of other temperatures, or a speed of others speeds, …[rather]…each temperature is already a difference, and [those] differences are not composed of differences of the same order but implies series of heterogeneous terms” (237). These two examples, I believe, are absolutely crucial for understanding the concept of ontological difference. A temperature would still be exactly the temperature it is, regardless of whether there were any other temperatures to compare it to. It is a difference in itself, not in relation to something else. Likewise with speed. Difference is therefore not distinction, but rather the prior ground of distinction or that which precedes any and all distinction."

Deleuze'un speed ve temperature gibi örnekler kullanması benim kafamda Spinoza okumasının Deleuze'un ontolojik farkı anlarken ne kadar baskın olduğunu gösteriyor sanki. Speed ve temperature yeğinlikler (intensities) olarak anlaşılabilir. Fark, bir noktada yeğinlik derecelerindeki fark olarak ortaya çıkıyor. Deleuze'ün farkı qualitative ve quantitative gibi ayrımlara girmeden anlaması da felsefesini tanımlayan önemli noktalardan. Bunu söylemek önemli bence çünkü speed ve temperature bir taraftan da sürekli ölçüldükleri ölçüde dolaşıma giren şeyler. Ancak 'difference in itself' ölçülebilen ve ölçülemeyen fark ayrımının ötesine geçmeyi amaçlıyor. Daha kitabın başında iki kavramı anlatarak başlıyor. Qualitative alanda farkı ehlileştiren 'resemblance' ve quantitative alanda farkı ehlileştiren 'equivalences.'



Upcoming Book, John Protevi, The Political Affect

http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/P/protevi_political.html

"In Political Affect, Protevi investigates the relationship between the social and the somatic: how our bodies, minds, and social settings are intricately and intimately linked. Bringing together concepts from science, philosophy, and politics, he develops a perspective he calls political physiology to indicate that subjectivity is socially conditioned and sometimes bypassed in favor of a direct connection of the social and the somatic, as with the politically triggered basic emotions of rage and panic. Protevi’s treatment of affective cognition in social context breaks new theoretical ground, insisting that subjectivity be studied both in its embodied expression and in terms of the distribution of affective cognitive responses in a population."

from the Tarnac 9

http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/interview-with-julien-coupat/

Interview with Julien Coupat...

The way she makes the link between political action and philosophy is encouraging.

"

Q. You come from a very well-to-do background, which oriented you in another direction. . .

A. “There are plebes in all classes.” (Hegel).

Q. Why Tarnac?

A. Go there, you will understand. If you don’t, no one could explain it to you, I fear.

Q. Do you define yourself as an intellectual? A philosopher?

A. Philosophy was born like chatty grief from original wisdom. Plato already heard the words of Heraclitus as if they had escaped from a bygone world. In the era of diffused intellectuality, one can’t see what “the intellectual” might make specific, unless it is the expanse of the gap that separates the faculty of thinking from the aptitude for living. Intellectual and philosopher are, in truth, sad titles. But for whom exactly is it necessary to define oneself?

Q. Are you the author of The Coming Insurrection?

A. This is the most formidable aspect of these proceedings: a book integrally versed in the case histories of instructional manuals, in the interrogations in which one tries to make you say that you live just as described in The Coming Insurrection; that you protest[5] as The Coming Insurrection advocates; and that you sabotaged train lines to commemorate the Bolshevik coup d’Etat of October 1917. Because this idea is mentioned in The Coming Insurrection, its publisher was questioned by the anti-terrorist services.

In French memory, one hasn’t seen power become fearful of a book for a very long time. Instead, one had the custom of believing that as long as leftists were preoccupied with writing, at least they weren’t making revolution. Assuredly, times change. Serious history returns.

What founds the accusation of terrorism where we are concerned are suspicions about the coincidence of thought and life; what founds the accusation concerning the association of evil-doers is the suspicion that this coincidence couldn’t have been the result of individual heroism, but communal attention. Negatively, this means that one does not suspect any of those who sign their names to so many fierce critiques of the system of putting the least of their firm resolutions into practice; the insult is strong enough. Unfortunately, I am not the author of The Coming Insurrection, and this whole affair will end up convincing us of the essentially repressive [policiere] character of the author’s function.

On the other hand, I am a reader. Re-reading it, just last week, I better understood the hysterical bad temper that, from high up, motivates the State to hound its presumed authors. The scandal of the book is that all that figures in it is rigorously, catastrophically true and it does not cease to prove itself true, little by little, each day. Because what proves itself, under the outward appearance of this “economic crisis,” this “collapse of confidence,” and this “massive rejection of the ruling classes,” is indeed the end of a civilization, the implosion of a paradigm, namely, that of the government, which rules everything in the West — the relations of beings to themselves no less than to the political order, religion or the organization of business. At all levels of the present, there is a gigantic loss of mastery that no word-games [maraboutage] by the police will be able to remedy.

It is not by skewering us with prison terms, microscopic surveillance, judicial supervision and prohibitions upon communication because we might be the authors of these lucid findings that one will make what has been found disappear. The characteristic of truth is that it escapes, barely enunciated, from those who formulate it. Governments: it doesn’t accomplish anything if you send us to jail; quite the contrary.

Q. You’ve read Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault. Does this analysis still seem pertinent to you

A. The prison is indeed the dirty little secret of French society, the key to and not the margins of the most respectable social relations. What is concentrated in the prison is not a pile of wild barbarians, as it pleases some people to think, but in fact the ensemble of the disciplines that weave together so-called “normal” existence outside. Supervisors, the canteen, soccer games in the courtyard, one’s use of time, divisions, camaraderie, fights and ugly architecture: one has to have been in prison to take the full measure of the carceral in the school, the “innocent” schools of the Republic.

Envisioned from this impregnable angle, prison isn’t a pit [repaire] for society’s failures; instead, current society is a failed prison. The same organization of separations, the same administration of misery through shit,[6] TV, sports and porno reigns everywhere else, but much less methodically than in prison. To conclude: these high walls only hide from view this truth of explosive banality: there are lives and souls, entirely equal, who drag themselves along on both sides of the barbed wire, and because of it.

If one avidly tracks down the testimonies “from the inside” that finally expose the secrets that the prison conceals, it is done to better to hide the secret that the prison is: the secret of your servitude, you who are reputedly free, while its menace weighs invisibly on each of your gestures.

All of the virtuous indignation that surrounds the black hole [la noirceur] of French prisons and their suicide rates; all the crude counter-propaganda of the penal administrators who bring on camera the disciplinarians [des matons] devoted to the well-being of the detainees and the metal-plated directors who are concerned with the “meaning of the penalty”; in sum, all of the debate on the horror of incarceration and the necessity of humanizing detention is as old as the prison system itself. It is part of its efficacy, which permits the State to combine the terror that the prison must inspire with the hypocritical legal status of “civilized” punishment. The little system of prison-based spying, humiliation and violence [de ravage] that the French State uses more fanatically than any other State in Europe isn’t even scandalous. The State pays for it a hundred times over in the banlieus, and this, from all the evidence, is only a beginning: vengeance is the hygiene of the plebes. "



Friday 11 September 2009

Professional Sport and Compulsory Heterosexuality

"Extensive physical examinations of Semenya, who is just 18 and from a remote village in the country's far north, has shown the athlete is technically a hermaphrodite. Medical reports indicate she has no ovaries, but rather has internal male testes, which are producing large amounts of testosterone...

The presence of both male and female characteristics will come as a devastating blow to Semenya, who has fought off snide remarks about her masculine appearance for much of her life."


It's amazing how professional sport works to secure compulsory heterosexuality, which is constitutive of the social. Medicical discipline plays a crucial role, rendering the uncanny, into coded form. Medical knowledge labels Semenya as 'technically a hermaphrodite' and she has no place in professional sport, no more. The Semanya event, if we may name the whole thing as such, shows how professional sport requires bodies to be classifiable in heterosexual categories. It was her outlook which first troubled the global sport scence now are the test results.