Blonde Redhead‘s latest album, Misery is a Butterfly, is utterly gorgeous. Minor keys, static rhythms, slow melodies, angular, dissolving riffs, Kazu Makino’s high-pitched, ethereal vocals: these all convey, not a message, but a mood. This is blank-affect music, rather than high-pitched-excitement music.
By “blank affect,” I don’t mean affectlessness, but almost the reverse: an affect, or an intensity, that is so strong as to be “without qualities,” without labels or narrative reference points. A pure state of feeling, rather than a state of feeling something (or other) in particular.
That is to say, Blonde Redhead doesn’t tell stories; rather, it envelops me, drawing me into a zone of “mere being” (reference both Giorgio Agamben and Wallace Stevens), a state of disillusioned, quiet agitation (only such a desperate oxymoron can point to how this music at once convulses and soothes me). Absorbed in the music, I float, rocked by gentle waves that nonetheless are the echoes, or the aftershocks, of ferocious churnings deep below.
Nothing really happens in this music, and nothing can happen. Not because I am safe within these sounds, but precisely because I am absolutely unsafe, because the disaster has already happened. The music of Blonde Redhead confirms and registers this disaster; it is subdued only because it comes afterwards, when the storm has already done its worst. I look through the emotional wreckage, pick up the scattered fragments of my heart, and feel at peace: not the resolute peace of a determination to rebuild, but the peace of knowing that such a rebuilding will never take place, the assurance that I will never get back anything of all that I have lost.
All this is gorgeous, rather than bleak. Melancholy has never been so seductive. Blonde Redhead’s music seduces me like a hot bath, a bath heated almost to the point of intolerable pain. I can barely force myself to get in, but once I am immersed, once I surrender myself, I am suffused by a kind of suffering that is indistinguishable from bliss.
Most of the reviews I have read of Misery is a Butterfly have emphasized how different this album is from Blonde Redhead’s earlier work: the harsh dissonance on the guitar is gone, the rhythms are more straightforward, and the basic guitar/drums/vocals setup (no bass) is supplemented by keyboards, horns, and (I think) strings. But to my mind, these differences don’t amount to much. The production may be more conventional than in the earlier albums, but the mood or affect hasn’t been changed: it has only been deepened, intensified, metamorphosed more fully into itself.
Blonde Redhead‘s latest album, Misery is a Butterfly, is utterly gorgeous. Minor keys, static rhythms, slow melodies, angular, dissolving riffs, Kazu Makino’s high-pitched, ethereal vocals: these all convey, not a message, but a mood. This is blank-affect music, rather than high-pitched-excitement music.
By “blank affect,” I don’t mean affectlessness, but almost the reverse: an affect, or an intensity, that is so strong as to be “without qualities,” without labels or narrative reference points. A pure state of feeling, rather than a state of feeling something (or other) in particular.
That is to say, Blonde Redhead doesn’t tell stories; rather, it envelops me, drawing me into a zone of “mere being” (reference both Giorgio Agamben and Wallace Stevens), a state of disillusioned, quiet agitation (only such a desperate oxymoron can point to how this music at once convulses and soothes me). Absorbed in the music, I float, rocked by gentle waves that nonetheless are the echoes, or the aftershocks, of ferocious churnings deep below.
Nothing really happens in this music, and nothing can happen. Not because I am safe within these sounds, but precisely because I am absolutely unsafe, because the disaster has already happened. The music of Blonde Redhead confirms and registers this disaster; it is subdued only because it comes afterwards, when the storm has already done its worst. I look through the emotional wreckage, pick up the scattered fragments of my heart, and feel at peace: not the resolute peace of a determination to rebuild, but the peace of knowing that such a rebuilding will never take place, the assurance that I will never get back anything of all that I have lost.
All this is gorgeous, rather than bleak. Melancholy has never been so seductive. Blonde Redhead’s music seduces me like a hot bath, a bath heated almost to the point of intolerable pain. I can barely force myself to get in, but once I am immersed, once I surrender myself, I am suffused by a kind of suffering that is indistinguishable from bliss.
Most of the reviews I have read of Misery is a Butterfly have emphasized how different this album is from Blonde Redhead’s earlier work: the harsh dissonance on the guitar is gone, the rhythms are more straightforward, and the basic guitar/drums/vocals setup (no bass) is supplemented by keyboards, horns, and (I think) strings. But to my mind, these differences don’t amount to much. The production may be more conventional than in the earlier albums, but the mood or affect hasn’t been changed: it has only been deepened, intensified, metamorphosed more fully into itself.
Another example of the silliness and naivete of sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, etc: “Physical beauty involves more than good looks,” according to a recent study.
Now, this is a revisionist study. Previous surveys have used the methodology of showing male undergraduates pictures of various women (and occasionally the reverse), asking them which ones they found the most attractive, measuring various body ratios of the objects deemed most attractive, and concluding that “physically attractive traits include high degrees of bilateral facial symmetries, such as eyes that are identical in shape and size, and waist-to-hip ratios of 0.7 for women and 0.9 for men.” From these findings it is further extrapolated that these ratios must be universally preferred in all human beings, regardless of cultural and individual differences, and therefore must be genetically hardwired for good adaptive reasons (which usually go back to saying that these ratios are indications of the most fertile mates).
The present study determines that this is wrong, or at least that it is not the entire picture:
“There is more to beauty than meets the stranger’s eye, according to results from three studies examining the influence of non-physical traits on people’s perception of physical attractiveness. The results, which show that people perceive physical appeal differently when they look at those they know versus strangers, are published in the recently released March issue of Evolution and Human Behavior.”
What this really means, of course, is that people judge people they know well differently from how they judge complete strangers whom they have not even met, but only encountered through photos that have been shown to them for a few seconds. Scarcely a startling finding.
What the researchers conclude, however, is that:
“the fitness value of potential social partners depends at least as much on non-physical traits — whether they are cooperative, dependable, brave, hardworking, intelligent and so on — as physical factors, such as smooth skin and symmetrical features,…It follows that non-physical factors should be included in the subconscious assessment of beauty.”
This illustrates the solipsistic and self-confirming nature of the whole research project. It is assumed a priori that whatever a study uncovers about human “preferences” or ideas or behavior must be adaptive, i.e. a direct product of natural selection. The “subconscious assessment of beauty” must correspond to what is actually (i.e. statistically) most advantageous to reproduction.
With these assumptions, it doesn’t matter how shoddy the methodology is, nor what is “discovered” (whether it is something banal and obvious, or something totally counter-intuitive); in any case, the results will be explained in terms of selective advantage; and at the same time, the theory of selective advantage will be taken to be strengthened by these “results.” The circularity is perfect: nothing can disconfirm the founding assumptions, and the most simplistic and/or inane “findings” can be validated as significant research.
Another example of the silliness and naivete of sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, etc: “Physical beauty involves more than good looks,” according to a recent study.
Now, this is a revisionist study. Previous surveys have used the methodology of showing male undergraduates pictures of various women (and occasionally the reverse), asking them which ones they found the most attractive, measuring various body ratios of the objects deemed most attractive, and concluding that “physically attractive traits include high degrees of bilateral facial symmetries, such as eyes that are identical in shape and size, and waist-to-hip ratios of 0.7 for women and 0.9 for men.” From these findings it is further extrapolated that these ratios must be universally preferred in all human beings, regardless of cultural and individual differences, and therefore must be genetically hardwired for good adaptive reasons (which usually go back to saying that these ratios are indications of the most fertile mates).
The present study determines that this is wrong, or at least that it is not the entire picture:
“There is more to beauty than meets the stranger’s eye, according to results from three studies examining the influence of non-physical traits on people’s perception of physical attractiveness. The results, which show that people perceive physical appeal differently when they look at those they know versus strangers, are published in the recently released March issue of Evolution and Human Behavior.”
What this really means, of course, is that people judge people they know well differently from how they judge complete strangers whom they have not even met, but only encountered through photos that have been shown to them for a few seconds. Scarcely a startling finding.
What the researchers conclude, however, is that:
“the fitness value of potential social partners depends at least as much on non-physical traits — whether they are cooperative, dependable, brave, hardworking, intelligent and so on — as physical factors, such as smooth skin and symmetrical features,…It follows that non-physical factors should be included in the subconscious assessment of beauty.”
This illustrates the solipsistic and self-confirming nature of the whole research project. It is assumed a priori that whatever a study uncovers about human “preferences” or ideas or behavior must be adaptive, i.e. a direct product of natural selection. The “subconscious assessment of beauty” must correspond to what is actually (i.e. statistically) most advantageous to reproduction.
With these assumptions, it doesn’t matter how shoddy the methodology is, nor what is “discovered” (whether it is something banal and obvious, or something totally counter-intuitive); in any case, the results will be explained in terms of selective advantage; and at the same time, the theory of selective advantage will be taken to be strengthened by these “results.” The circularity is perfect: nothing can disconfirm the founding assumptions, and the most simplistic and/or inane “findings” can be validated as significant research.
At the recommendation of filmbrain, I watched the Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs (2002), starring Tony Leung and Andy Lau, and directed by Andrew Lau and Alan Mak. And I’m glad I did.
Infernal Affairs is a crime thriller with a twist, or rather a pair of twists. Tony Leung is a cop working undercover as a gang member in a triad. Andy Lau is a member of the triad who has, conversely, infiltrated the police. They both report secretly to father figures: Leung to Lau’s chief in the police force, Lau to the boss of Leung’s triad. And they are both on the verge of cracking from the strain of their double roles. The film starts there, and continually ups the ante, as each of them is assigned to uncover the “mole” that each of them in fact is. The result is an elegant, stylish genre film, which gets its energy more from psychological tension than from shootouts and such.
Visually, Infernal Affairs is similar to — though not nearly as powerful as — Johnny To’s revisionist crime films. What makes the film is the acting, together with the tight plotting and scripting: without being metaphysically heavy, or having any sort of extra-generic pretensions, it manages to convey the sort of passionate intelligence and intensity that mainstream Hollywood (and apparently mainstream Hong Kong filmmaking as well) can’t be bothered to try for any more.
At the recommendation of filmbrain, I watched the Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs (2002), starring Tony Leung and Andy Lau, and directed by Andrew Lau and Alan Mak. And I’m glad I did.
Infernal Affairs is a crime thriller with a twist, or rather a pair of twists. Tony Leung is a cop working undercover as a gang member in a triad. Andy Lau is a member of the triad who has, conversely, infiltrated the police. They both report secretly to father figures: Leung to Lau’s chief in the police force, Lau to the boss of Leung’s triad. And they are both on the verge of cracking from the strain of their double roles. The film starts there, and continually ups the ante, as each of them is assigned to uncover the “mole” that each of them in fact is. The result is an elegant, stylish genre film, which gets its energy more from psychological tension than from shootouts and such.
Visually, Infernal Affairs is similar to — though not nearly as powerful as — Johnny To’s revisionist crime films. What makes the film is the acting, together with the tight plotting and scripting: without being metaphysically heavy, or having any sort of extra-generic pretensions, it manages to convey the sort of passionate intelligence and intensity that mainstream Hollywood (and apparently mainstream Hong Kong filmmaking as well) can’t be bothered to try for any more.
Songs of a Dead Dreamer is the first volume of short stories by Thomas Ligotti. (DJ Spooky later used the title for one of his finest albums).
I’m a bit embarrassed that I never encountered Ligotti’s work before now, because it is amazing. Ligotti specializes in short stories of horror (I don’t think he’s ever published a novel).
In a way, these stories are quite classical: in terms of imagery and content they are much closer to Lovecraft than to, say, Stephen King. As for their language, it is as gothic as Lovecraft’s, even though it is subtle, restrained and economical, where Lovecraft is always textually excessive. This may seem almost oxymoronic (how can something subtle and restrained be the slightest bit like Lovecraft?), but it is the best I can do. Put it this way: sentence by sentence and metaphor by metaphor, Ligotti’s language is heightened in much the same way that Lovecraft’s is. But where Lovecraft will typically write:
“Animal fury and orgiastic license here whipped themselves to demoniac heights by howls and squawking ecstasies that tore and reverberated through those nighted woods like pestilential tempests from the gulfs of hell”
(– which is admittedly one of my favorite sentences in the English language),
Ligotti tends rather towards a sort of hyperbolic understatement (to desperately use another oxymoron), e.g.:
“He is still kneeling before the coffin as his features begin to undergo the ravages of various, obviously conflicting, phases of feeling. Eyes, mouth, the whole facial structure is called upon to perform gruesome acrobatics of expression.”
These sentences describe extremity, but hold back from it at the same time.
Ligotti’s themes are aesthetic and metaphysical, and here he is nothing like Lovecraft. There are no Cthulhus, no fish-people from Innsmouth, in Ligotti’s universe; no Lovecraftian dread of the Other. But neither is Ligotti’s dread psycho-cultural, in the manner of King and most mainstream horror.
Ligotti’s horror rather points depressively inward, to a claustrophobic, suffocating zone, where there is no longer any outside or Other, but where equally there is no more self, no more identity, no more culture. Many of his stories are written in the first person, with rather fussy and self-conscious narrators; but these narrators (as well as the protagonists of the stories written in the third person) are unmade by a metamorphosis that empties them of themselves, gives them over to forces of chaos and entropy, but usually without granting them the release of complete dissolution. They do not come face to face with some ultimate reality, but rather with a sort of unreality that (sometimes slowly but surely, other times with a disturbing rapidity) corrodes away all foundations, all points of reference, all solidity, to leave behind a kind of photographic negative of what Giorgio Agamben calls whatever-being: something without qualities, without any distinguishing marks, but only the dread of (in)distinction itself:
“These screams, the ones from beyond the door at the top of the stairs, belong only to a dummy who now feels warm drops of blood sliding thickly over his lacquered cheeks, and who has been left — alone and alive — in the shadows of an abandoned loft.”
Ligotti’s stories are like little time bombs: they are creepy when you first read them, but their profounder effects of estrangement only become apparent later, when you reflect back on them, and find their contours troublingly difficult to grasp.
Horror is a genre that tends to be beset, more than others even, by uninteresting repetition. (Think how often Poe, or Lovecraft, or George Romero, has simply been imitated, time and time again). Against this general tendency, I think that Ligotti is the most original horror writer of the last twenty or thirty years (and perhaps longer). Only Kathe Koja, who apparently is no longer writing horror, even comes close in terms of originality).
I need to read more of Ligotti’s stories.
Songs of a Dead Dreamer is the first volume of short stories by Thomas Ligotti. (DJ Spooky later used the title for one of his finest albums).
I’m a bit embarrassed that I never encountered Ligotti’s work before now, because it is amazing. Ligotti specializes in short stories of horror (I don’t think he’s ever published a novel).
In a way, these stories are quite classical: in terms of imagery and content they are much closer to Lovecraft than to, say, Stephen King. As for their language, it is as gothic as Lovecraft’s, even though it is subtle, restrained and economical, where Lovecraft is always textually excessive. This may seem almost oxymoronic (how can something subtle and restrained be the slightest bit like Lovecraft?), but it is the best I can do. Put it this way: sentence by sentence and metaphor by metaphor, Ligotti’s language is heightened in much the same way that Lovecraft’s is. But where Lovecraft will typically write:
“Animal fury and orgiastic license here whipped themselves to demoniac heights by howls and squawking ecstasies that tore and reverberated through those nighted woods like pestilential tempests from the gulfs of hell”
(– which is admittedly one of my favorite sentences in the English language),
Ligotti tends rather towards a sort of hyperbolic understatement (to desperately use another oxymoron), e.g.:
“He is still kneeling before the coffin as his features begin to undergo the ravages of various, obviously conflicting, phases of feeling. Eyes, mouth, the whole facial structure is called upon to perform gruesome acrobatics of expression.”
These sentences describe extremity, but hold back from it at the same time.
Ligotti’s themes are aesthetic and metaphysical, and here he is nothing like Lovecraft. There are no Cthulhus, no fish-people from Innsmouth, in Ligotti’s universe; no Lovecraftian dread of the Other. But neither is Ligotti’s dread psycho-cultural, in the manner of King and most mainstream horror.
Ligotti’s horror rather points depressively inward, to a claustrophobic, suffocating zone, where there is no longer any outside or Other, but where equally there is no more self, no more identity, no more culture. Many of his stories are written in the first person, with rather fussy and self-conscious narrators; but these narrators (as well as the protagonists of the stories written in the third person) are unmade by a metamorphosis that empties them of themselves, gives them over to forces of chaos and entropy, but usually without granting them the release of complete dissolution. They do not come face to face with some ultimate reality, but rather with a sort of unreality that (sometimes slowly but surely, other times with a disturbing rapidity) corrodes away all foundations, all points of reference, all solidity, to leave behind a kind of photographic negative of what Giorgio Agamben calls whatever-being: something without qualities, without any distinguishing marks, but only the dread of (in)distinction itself:
“These screams, the ones from beyond the door at the top of the stairs, belong only to a dummy who now feels warm drops of blood sliding thickly over his lacquered cheeks, and who has been left — alone and alive — in the shadows of an abandoned loft.”
Ligotti’s stories are like little time bombs: they are creepy when you first read them, but their profounder effects of estrangement only become apparent later, when you reflect back on them, and find their contours troublingly difficult to grasp.
Horror is a genre that tends to be beset, more than others even, by uninteresting repetition. (Think how often Poe, or Lovecraft, or George Romero, has simply been imitated, time and time again). Against this general tendency, I think that Ligotti is the most original horror writer of the last twenty or thirty years (and perhaps longer). Only Kathe Koja, who apparently is no longer writing horror, even comes close in terms of originality).
I need to read more of Ligotti’s stories.
Alexander Galloway‘s Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralizationis a highly useful discussion of how power relations and ideological assumptions are built into the very formal structure of the Internet. Galloway is a professor of Media Ecology at NYU, as well as a net artist and former key figure at Rhizome, one of the key new media art sites on the Web. Galloway is one of a very few people who are equally well versed in poststructuralist cultural theory and computer programming, which makes him uniquely suited for the task accomplished in this book.
“Protocol,” in this context, is an underlying specification of code that helps to make the Net run; examples would include TCP-IP, HTML and HTTP, and DNS. Protocol doesn’t give the technical details of these specifications, so much as it surveys them on a meta-level, showing what kind of work they do, and what sort of effects this work has.
Basically, Galloway argues that such protocols are the way that control is exercised in our globalized “network society,” one where power is “distributed” laterally, rather than being hierarchically structured, stratified, and centralized, or even (merely) “decentralized.” A distributed network is a rhizome rather than a tree, in the terms of Deleuze and Guattari. Note that, although Deleuze and Guattari often seem to be praising the rhizome in opposition to hierarchical “arborescent” models, Deleuze also sees rhizomatic structures as key to the “society of control,” which increasingly replaces Foucault’s “disciplinary society” as the way in which power is exercised in our postmodern world. Galloway expands on this Deleuzian ambivalence. Protocol is what allows for the openness and many-to-many organization of the Net: this is because its underlying guidelines and mechanisms are open-source and indifferent to content. (A web page is formatted the same way, regardless of what words and images it contains). But Galloway points out that this is only one side of the picture: for protocol is also an extreme form of control, in the sense that it constrains and homogenizes all content: no matter what you say, you have to say it in the approved format (or else your statement will not be communicable or readable at all). “Standardization is the politically reactionary tactic,” Galloway writes, “that enables radical openness.” As a result, the Net is never simply “free”; it is always “a complex of interrelated currents and counter-currents,” which interact in “multiple, parallel, contradictory, and often unpredictable ways” (page 143).
Galloway goes through the establishment of protocol on various levels, from the technical (how code actually works to link computers together) to the institutional (how standards for the Net, and for computing devices in general, are actually established and adopted), and from the history of how the architecture of the Web was established, to the various subversive practices (by hackers, tactical media activists, net artists, and others) that test its limits and keep open the possibility of change.
Protocol is both thoughtful and informative; I have certain criticisms or disagreements, but I see these more as testimony to how thought-provoking the book is, than as flaws which would vitiate its impact.
Basically, I am not sure that Galloway addresses the question of how power works in the “society of control” as thoroughly, and especially as structurally, as he needs to do. On the one hand, he presents protocol as the locus of power in distributed networks; but on the other hand, he sharply differentiates such power from the power which comes from closed and proprietary “standards” such as those imposed by Microsoft, or those that currently govern the dissemination of so-called “intellectual property.” Of course Galloway notes that periodization is never closed or total, and that many “disciplinary” and earlier power formations coexist with those of the “society of control.” But I don’t think that things like Microsoft’s monopolies and “digital rights management” can thus be explained as resulting from the subsistence of older forms of power. Rather, it’s the same hardware and software technology, and the same Internet protocols, that generate both (for instance) P2P file sharing and the digital watermarking of files that allows their source to be traced, and restricts their dissemination. That is to say, though Galloway convinces me that “protocol” is one part of how power and control operate in the network, he doesn’t convince me that “protocol” is actually as central to such power and control as he tries to claim. The most insidious forms of power in the network, the ways that it both “incites, induces, seduces” us (to use Foucault’s words) and locates and tracks us, as well as the way that the “informatization” of everything is itself a kind of appropriation and control (as McKenzie Wark argues) — these are not sufficiently accounted for by Galloway’s discussions.
(To be fair, Galloway approaches a sense of all this on a few pages, when he notes that protocol doesn’t so much give us orders, as it puts us in a situation where we already want to obey such orders — pages 147 and 241 — but this is never sufficiently developed).
The result of Galloway’s failure to develop a sufficiently broad and deep conception of power and control in the network, is that when he discusses the forces of resistance to such power and control — as he does in the latter parts of the book — what we mostly get, disappointingly, is just a narrative of various conceptual art projects, some political and some formalist, by the likes of etoy, jodi.org, and RTMark, without the sort of broader theorization that we get in earlier parts of the book.
Still, Protocol is a book well worth reading, essential as a starting point for further considerations.
Alexander Galloway‘s Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralizationis a highly useful discussion of how power relations and ideological assumptions are built into the very formal structure of the Internet. Galloway is a professor of Media Ecology at NYU, as well as a net artist and former key figure at Rhizome, one of the key new media art sites on the Web. Galloway is one of a very few people who are equally well versed in poststructuralist cultural theory and computer programming, which makes him uniquely suited for the task accomplished in this book.
“Protocol,” in this context, is an underlying specification of code that helps to make the Net run; examples would include TCP-IP, HTML and HTTP, and DNS. Protocol doesn’t give the technical details of these specifications, so much as it surveys them on a meta-level, showing what kind of work they do, and what sort of effects this work has.
Basically, Galloway argues that such protocols are the way that control is exercised in our globalized “network society,” one where power is “distributed” laterally, rather than being hierarchically structured, stratified, and centralized, or even (merely) “decentralized.” A distributed network is a rhizome rather than a tree, in the terms of Deleuze and Guattari. Note that, although Deleuze and Guattari often seem to be praising the rhizome in opposition to hierarchical “arborescent” models, Deleuze also sees rhizomatic structures as key to the “society of control,” which increasingly replaces Foucault’s “disciplinary society” as the way in which power is exercised in our postmodern world. Galloway expands on this Deleuzian ambivalence. Protocol is what allows for the openness and many-to-many organization of the Net: this is because its underlying guidelines and mechanisms are open-source and indifferent to content. (A web page is formatted the same way, regardless of what words and images it contains). But Galloway points out that this is only one side of the picture: for protocol is also an extreme form of control, in the sense that it constrains and homogenizes all content: no matter what you say, you have to say it in the approved format (or else your statement will not be communicable or readable at all). “Standardization is the politically reactionary tactic,” Galloway writes, “that enables radical openness.” As a result, the Net is never simply “free”; it is always “a complex of interrelated currents and counter-currents,” which interact in “multiple, parallel, contradictory, and often unpredictable ways” (page 143).
Galloway goes through the establishment of protocol on various levels, from the technical (how code actually works to link computers together) to the institutional (how standards for the Net, and for computing devices in general, are actually established and adopted), and from the history of how the architecture of the Web was established, to the various subversive practices (by hackers, tactical media activists, net artists, and others) that test its limits and keep open the possibility of change.
Protocol is both thoughtful and informative; I have certain criticisms or disagreements, but I see these more as testimony to how thought-provoking the book is, than as flaws which would vitiate its impact.
Basically, I am not sure that Galloway addresses the question of how power works in the “society of control” as thoroughly, and especially as structurally, as he needs to do. On the one hand, he presents protocol as the locus of power in distributed networks; but on the other hand, he sharply differentiates such power from the power which comes from closed and proprietary “standards” such as those imposed by Microsoft, or those that currently govern the dissemination of so-called “intellectual property.” Of course Galloway notes that periodization is never closed or total, and that many “disciplinary” and earlier power formations coexist with those of the “society of control.” But I don’t think that things like Microsoft’s monopolies and “digital rights management” can thus be explained as resulting from the subsistence of older forms of power. Rather, it’s the same hardware and software technology, and the same Internet protocols, that generate both (for instance) P2P file sharing and the digital watermarking of files that allows their source to be traced, and restricts their dissemination. That is to say, though Galloway convinces me that “protocol” is one part of how power and control operate in the network, he doesn’t convince me that “protocol” is actually as central to such power and control as he tries to claim. The most insidious forms of power in the network, the ways that it both “incites, induces, seduces” us (to use Foucault’s words) and locates and tracks us, as well as the way that the “informatization” of everything is itself a kind of appropriation and control (as McKenzie Wark argues) — these are not sufficiently accounted for by Galloway’s discussions.
(To be fair, Galloway approaches a sense of all this on a few pages, when he notes that protocol doesn’t so much give us orders, as it puts us in a situation where we already want to obey such orders — pages 147 and 241 — but this is never sufficiently developed).
The result of Galloway’s failure to develop a sufficiently broad and deep conception of power and control in the network, is that when he discusses the forces of resistance to such power and control — as he does in the latter parts of the book — what we mostly get, disappointingly, is just a narrative of various conceptual art projects, some political and some formalist, by the likes of etoy, jodi.org, and RTMark, without the sort of broader theorization that we get in earlier parts of the book.
Still, Protocol is a book well worth reading, essential as a starting point for further considerations.
Eli Roth”s Cabin Fever doesn’t break any new ground in horror, but it’s a shrewd and effective little film, combining dread about infection and bodily fluids with clever revisionist takes on many genre cliches. You’ve got your five young people trapped in the woods, far away from civilization (they are all quite disagreeable college-student types, from the loutish frat boy to the sensitive trixie), and your surrounding community of “rednecks” (all played, unlike the college kids, so as to upend the usual stereotypes). Many horror films are really about a small group, some sort of recognizable microcosm of society, and what happens to its members when placed under conditions of extreme stress. But the small group in Cabin Fever is so atomized, its members so utterly selfish — each of them regarding others only as sources of potential profit or danger, and ready to betray lovers or long-term friends at the drop of a hat, if that is what ‘looking out for number one’ seems to require — that they barely constitute a “society” at all; they are instead the reductio ad absurdum of post-Reagan Homo economicus.
Eli Roth”s Cabin Fever doesn’t break any new ground in horror, but it’s a shrewd and effective little film, combining dread about infection and bodily fluids with clever revisionist takes on many genre cliches. You’ve got your five young people trapped in the woods, far away from civilization (they are all quite disagreeable college-student types, from the loutish frat boy to the sensitive trixie), and your surrounding community of “rednecks” (all played, unlike the college kids, so as to upend the usual stereotypes). Many horror films are really about a small group, some sort of recognizable microcosm of society, and what happens to its members when placed under conditions of extreme stress. But the small group in Cabin Fever is so atomized, its members so utterly selfish — each of them regarding others only as sources of potential profit or danger, and ready to betray lovers or long-term friends at the drop of a hat, if that is what ‘looking out for number one’ seems to require — that they barely constitute a “society” at all; they are instead the reductio ad absurdum of post-Reagan Homo economicus.
Ernest Dickerson’s Never Die Alone, from the novel by the great Donald Goines, is a first-rate genre picture. DMX is ice cold charismatic as “King” David, a nasty, sadistic drug dealer who is shot dead just as he is about to repent and seek redemption. The direction is taut and concise, with economical naration, a complex temporal scheme, powerful (but carefully restrained) use of noir lighting and tilts and odd angles, and violent action sequences which pack a punch without being dwelt on (a la Mel Gibson) or inflated (a la Quentin Tarantino). On the evidence of not only this film, but all his work, Dickerson seems to me every bit the peer and equal of Don Siegel and Walter Hill, as far as action genre directors are concerned.
But of course, there’s more to Never Die Alone than just a genre picture. Because of Dickerson’s ambitions as a director; because of what it means to bring Donald Goines to film; and, subsuming both of the above, because this is an African American themed film.
Never Die Alone, to a certain extent, tries to have things both ways. It solicits (male) viewers with its gangsta cool at the same time that it claims to provide an edifying lesson on how wrongdoing and crime don’t pay.
Now in fact the film’s less guilty of this than many other films are, not to mention hip hop lyrics; overall, it’s a pretty grim movie, and its relentless speed doesn’t allow any time to revel either in bloodshed or in the glories of acquiring “money and pussy,” the only two things that matter according to one ganglord character. I really didn’t see this film as selling a minstrelized version of ghetto pimp cool blackness to white suburban kids, the way so many commercial enterprises do these days. (This is probably the reason for its relatively poor box office showing).
Indeed, the relation of the black/ghetto story to its white voyeurs and consumers is explicitly, and rather oddly, taken up within the film itself; David Arquette plays Paul, a white guy, a writer, who’s slumming (as his bourgeois black girlfriend tells him in no uncertain terms) in Harlem, ostensibly to find material for the novel he hopes to write. He gets this material. in the form of audio tapes that King David leaves behind. The film starts with DMX/David narrating from the grave; its flashbacks to his earlier career are motivated by Paul’s listening to the tapes. And the film’s penultimate scene has Paul producing the novel Never Die Alone, that was actually written by Donald Goines, and of which we are now watching the cinematic adaptation. Paul is told by the publisher that it’s too incredible a story to be believed; the irony resonates, even as genre conditions are fulfilled. While the film never quite resolves just what sort of jouissance Paul gets from witnessing (and identifying with, from a position of safety) King David’s career, we can’t doubt that something fairly unpleasant is at work here.
Nonetheless, there is one crucial respect in which the film treads on dubious ground, and does revel in its own nastiness. Its treatment of its protagonist’s misogyny is unpleasantly double-edged. The only thing that DMX’s nearly affectless character seems to get off on is reducing strong women (and especially strong black women) to abject misery and dependency, by hooking them on heroin and then cutting off the supply (and finally killing them, with a deliberately doctored dose). And although this is thematized (with an additional Oedipal twist) as the main reason why King David is brought low, this doesn’t negate a certain pleasure that the film takes in the process (i.e., that it proposes for the delectation of the viewer).
I suppose all this is not unfaithful to Donald Goines, a writer certainly not free of conventional misogyny, but whose power comes from his relentlessly horrific and dystopian view of the life of pimping and drug dealing in the ghetto. (The only exception to this downbeat vision being the black power fantasies of his final four “Kenyatta” novels). Goines, like hip hop artists of the 1990s and since, gained a cult following on the razor’s edge between proclaiming coolness and unsparingly “keeping it real”; but his negativity has never been matched by Biggie, Tupac, or anybody else. This is probably why so few films have been made from his novels, despite the way their genre aspects and ghetto settings seem to cry out for cinematic treatment. (I’ve never seen Crime Partners, the only one ever made prior to Never Die Alone, but it sounds like a stinker, and unfaithful to the novel to boot). Adapting Goines to the screen is much more difficult than it might at first appear to be; and though Dickerson hasn’t entirely succeeded in capturing the full measure of Goines’ bleak and disturbing vision — at once naturalistic and almost apocalyptic — he’s at least gone beyond blaxploitation cliches to make a largely compelling film.
Ernest Dickerson’s Never Die Alone, from the novel by the great Donald Goines, is a first-rate genre picture. DMX is ice cold charismatic as “King” David, a nasty, sadistic drug dealer who is shot dead just as he is about to repent and seek redemption. The direction is taut and concise, with economical naration, a complex temporal scheme, powerful (but carefully restrained) use of noir lighting and tilts and odd angles, and violent action sequences which pack a punch without being dwelt on (a la Mel Gibson) or inflated (a la Quentin Tarantino). On the evidence of not only this film, but all his work, Dickerson seems to me every bit the peer and equal of Don Siegel and Walter Hill, as far as action genre directors are concerned.
But of course, there’s more to Never Die Alone than just a genre picture. Because of Dickerson’s ambitions as a director; because of what it means to bring Donald Goines to film; and, subsuming both of the above, because this is an African American themed film.
Never Die Alone, to a certain extent, tries to have things both ways. It solicits (male) viewers with its gangsta cool at the same time that it claims to provide an edifying lesson on how wrongdoing and crime don’t pay.
Now in fact the film’s less guilty of this than many other films are, not to mention hip hop lyrics; overall, it’s a pretty grim movie, and its relentless speed doesn’t allow any time to revel either in bloodshed or in the glories of acquiring “money and pussy,” the only two things that matter according to one ganglord character. I really didn’t see this film as selling a minstrelized version of ghetto pimp cool blackness to white suburban kids, the way so many commercial enterprises do these days. (This is probably the reason for its relatively poor box office showing).
Indeed, the relation of the black/ghetto story to its white voyeurs and consumers is explicitly, and rather oddly, taken up within the film itself; David Arquette plays Paul, a white guy, a writer, who’s slumming (as his bourgeois black girlfriend tells him in no uncertain terms) in Harlem, ostensibly to find material for the novel he hopes to write. He gets this material. in the form of audio tapes that King David leaves behind. The film starts with DMX/David narrating from the grave; its flashbacks to his earlier career are motivated by Paul’s listening to the tapes. And the film’s penultimate scene has Paul producing the novel Never Die Alone, that was actually written by Donald Goines, and of which we are now watching the cinematic adaptation. Paul is told by the publisher that it’s too incredible a story to be believed; the irony resonates, even as genre conditions are fulfilled. While the film never quite resolves just what sort of jouissance Paul gets from witnessing (and identifying with, from a position of safety) King David’s career, we can’t doubt that something fairly unpleasant is at work here.
Nonetheless, there is one crucial respect in which the film treads on dubious ground, and does revel in its own nastiness. Its treatment of its protagonist’s misogyny is unpleasantly double-edged. The only thing that DMX’s nearly affectless character seems to get off on is reducing strong women (and especially strong black women) to abject misery and dependency, by hooking them on heroin and then cutting off the supply (and finally killing them, with a deliberately doctored dose). And although this is thematized (with an additional Oedipal twist) as the main reason why King David is brought low, this doesn’t negate a certain pleasure that the film takes in the process (i.e., that it proposes for the delectation of the viewer).
I suppose all this is not unfaithful to Donald Goines, a writer certainly not free of conventional misogyny, but whose power comes from his relentlessly horrific and dystopian view of the life of pimping and drug dealing in the ghetto. (The only exception to this downbeat vision being the black power fantasies of his final four “Kenyatta” novels). Goines, like hip hop artists of the 1990s and since, gained a cult following on the razor’s edge between proclaiming coolness and unsparingly “keeping it real”; but his negativity has never been matched by Biggie, Tupac, or anybody else. This is probably why so few films have been made from his novels, despite the way their genre aspects and ghetto settings seem to cry out for cinematic treatment. (I’ve never seen Crime Partners, the only one ever made prior to Never Die Alone, but it sounds like a stinker, and unfaithful to the novel to boot). Adapting Goines to the screen is much more difficult than it might at first appear to be; and though Dickerson hasn’t entirely succeeded in capturing the full measure of Goines’ bleak and disturbing vision — at once naturalistic and almost apocalyptic — he’s at least gone beyond blaxploitation cliches to make a largely compelling film.
Negri on Negri is a book of interviews that gives a gentle introduction to Toni Negri’s thought. It’s worth reading because Negri is one of the few contemporary thinkers who is really trying to work out radical alternatives to our current regime of postmodernity and globalization. Negri and Michael Hardt’s book Empire is clearly one of the key texts of the new century, something that anyone interested in political change needs to come to terms with — even if I find much of it problematic.
Negri on Negri is a much “lighter” book than Empire, but that makes it good as an introduction. Negri goes into his life and political career — his work as a political activist in Italy, the disturbances at the time of the Red Brigades, with whom he had a certain sympathy but which he was falsely accused of supporting and even masterminding, his years in jail, his years in exile in France, his ultimate return to Italy and more time in jail. This all provides a background to a thought that remains, in spite of everything, incredibly cheerful and optimistic.
Negri’s current thought is grounded in the changes that the world has gone through in the last thirty years or so: changes from industrial capitalism to a “knowledge economy,” and from the Cold War to a global marketplace, in which corporations have become more powerful than nation-states. In this new economy, traditional distinctions of place and time, between physical and intellectual labor, and indeed between labor and leisure, have pretty much disappeared. This metamorphosis is what doomed the radical movements — left of the Communist Party — to which Negri devoted his life in the 1960s and 1970s.
For Negri, traditional Marxism, with its traditional notion of the “working class,” no longer makes any sense under these changed conditions. But this does not mean that he capitulates to the idea that the worldwide capitalist marketplace is the ultimate horizon of possibility, the only thinkable social arrangement. Instead, Negri seeks to reinvent Marxism for these changed conditions, for the changed (but still quite horrible) new configurations of capitalism.
Basically, Negri argues that capitalist “production” is no longer a specific category or specific portion of society. It is no longer the “base,” in comparison to which everything else would be a mere “superstructure.” Rather, capitalist production is everything and everywhere — and quite directly so. It’s brain power as well as machinery, leisure time as well as work time, recreation as well as reproduction, inner thoughts as well as outer actions.
This is the situation foreseen by Adorno and his colleagues in the Frankfurt School, who presaged a state of society in which all independence would be exterminated, and everything would be subjected to the “laws” of capitalism, commodification, and instrumental reason.
But the situation that Adorno viewed with unalloyed horror is seen by Negri as a source of hope — seen with an almost insane optimism. For Negri, such a condition means that oppression is really in its last extremity: if globalized, informational capitalism seems to have appropriated everything, with no remainder, it’s because this “everything” is now something that we are all directly involved in, and that we can therefore reappropriate. Indeed, for Negri, the conditions have never been so propitious. Capitalism’s own mechanisms and technologies have made the overcoming of alienation, and of scarcity, possible for the very first time. Negri thus rejects the forms and categories of old-fashioned Marxism, in order the better to establish Marxism’s oldest utopian premise and promise, that of universal “communism.” Global capitalist oppression has ironically created the conditions for global freedom to be almost within our grasp.
Now, all this is so wildly, insanely optimistic that I don’t believe it for a second. Nonetheless, I can’t help finding Negri’s ideas beautiful and inspiring. For they rest on a sense of life as a joyous, ongoing process of creation and collaboration, of what Negri calls the “common,” or “the liberty of being-together”: the amassing of multiple “singularities” without them ever fusing into a fixed identity. These pages are filled with paeans (I can’t believe that I am actually using this word) to “the pleasure of singularity” (149), or to “the moment when the arrow of Being is shot, the moment of opening, the invention of Being on the edge of time. We live at each instant on this margin of Being that is endlessly being constructed” (104). I feel enlivened by Negri’s celebration of singularity, plurality, invention, and imagination, even if I am unable to share his materialist and (post)humanist faith.
I can’t remember who it was who said that the great thing about Negri was how he countered the self-deluding voluntarism of Gramsci’s “pessmism of the intellect, optimism of the will” with an attitude of “optimism of the intellect,” even in the face of an inevitable (given the history of how revolutions have been defeated, or turned into something worse when they succeeded) “pessimism of the will.”
Negri on Negri is a book of interviews that gives a gentle introduction to Toni Negri’s thought. It’s worth reading because Negri is one of the few contemporary thinkers who is really trying to work out radical alternatives to our current regime of postmodernity and globalization. Negri and Michael Hardt’s book Empire is clearly one of the key texts of the new century, something that anyone interested in political change needs to come to terms with — even if I find much of it problematic.
Negri on Negri is a much “lighter” book than Empire, but that makes it good as an introduction. Negri goes into his life and political career — his work as a political activist in Italy, the disturbances at the time of the Red Brigades, with whom he had a certain sympathy but which he was falsely accused of supporting and even masterminding, his years in jail, his years in exile in France, his ultimate return to Italy and more time in jail. This all provides a background to a thought that remains, in spite of everything, incredibly cheerful and optimistic.
Negri’s current thought is grounded in the changes that the world has gone through in the last thirty years or so: changes from industrial capitalism to a “knowledge economy,” and from the Cold War to a global marketplace, in which corporations have become more powerful than nation-states. In this new economy, traditional distinctions of place and time, between physical and intellectual labor, and indeed between labor and leisure, have pretty much disappeared. This metamorphosis is what doomed the radical movements — left of the Communist Party — to which Negri devoted his life in the 1960s and 1970s.
For Negri, traditional Marxism, with its traditional notion of the “working class,” no longer makes any sense under these changed conditions. But this does not mean that he capitulates to the idea that the worldwide capitalist marketplace is the ultimate horizon of possibility, the only thinkable social arrangement. Instead, Negri seeks to reinvent Marxism for these changed conditions, for the changed (but still quite horrible) new configurations of capitalism.
Basically, Negri argues that capitalist “production” is no longer a specific category or specific portion of society. It is no longer the “base,” in comparison to which everything else would be a mere “superstructure.” Rather, capitalist production is everything and everywhere — and quite directly so. It’s brain power as well as machinery, leisure time as well as work time, recreation as well as reproduction, inner thoughts as well as outer actions.
This is the situation foreseen by Adorno and his colleagues in the Frankfurt School, who presaged a state of society in which all independence would be exterminated, and everything would be subjected to the “laws” of capitalism, commodification, and instrumental reason.
But the situation that Adorno viewed with unalloyed horror is seen by Negri as a source of hope — seen with an almost insane optimism. For Negri, such a condition means that oppression is really in its last extremity: if globalized, informational capitalism seems to have appropriated everything, with no remainder, it’s because this “everything” is now something that we are all directly involved in, and that we can therefore reappropriate. Indeed, for Negri, the conditions have never been so propitious. Capitalism’s own mechanisms and technologies have made the overcoming of alienation, and of scarcity, possible for the very first time. Negri thus rejects the forms and categories of old-fashioned Marxism, in order the better to establish Marxism’s oldest utopian premise and promise, that of universal “communism.” Global capitalist oppression has ironically created the conditions for global freedom to be almost within our grasp.
Now, all this is so wildly, insanely optimistic that I don’t believe it for a second. Nonetheless, I can’t help finding Negri’s ideas beautiful and inspiring. For they rest on a sense of life as a joyous, ongoing process of creation and collaboration, of what Negri calls the “common,” or “the liberty of being-together”: the amassing of multiple “singularities” without them ever fusing into a fixed identity. These pages are filled with paeans (I can’t believe that I am actually using this word) to “the pleasure of singularity” (149), or to “the moment when the arrow of Being is shot, the moment of opening, the invention of Being on the edge of time. We live at each instant on this margin of Being that is endlessly being constructed” (104). I feel enlivened by Negri’s celebration of singularity, plurality, invention, and imagination, even if I am unable to share his materialist and (post)humanist faith.
I can’t remember who it was who said that the great thing about Negri was how he countered the self-deluding voluntarism of Gramsci’s “pessmism of the intellect, optimism of the will” with an attitude of “optimism of the intellect,” even in the face of an inevitable (given the history of how revolutions have been defeated, or turned into something worse when they succeeded) “pessimism of the will.”
Rhythm Science is the new, and first, book by Paul D. Miller, aka DJ Spooky That Subliminal Kid.
DJ Spooky’s albums (Songs of a Dead Dreamer, Viral Sonata) and mixtapes (Under the Influence, Modern Mantra) are powerfully sharp and complex works. What’s great about these CDs is how they manage to be, at the same time, wildly eclectic and yet tightly focused and singular. Miller/Spooky is on the cutting edge of true, radical hybridity: his work is about citation/sampling/cutting-up as tools of innovation and metamorphosis.
Spooky’s music thus stands as a sharp reproach both to the superstitious reverence for “roots” (which usually means white people idolizing and exhuming a long-ago musical form pioneered by people of color, while ignoring or scorning what said people of color are doing now, in the present) and to the shallow, faux rainbow hybridity that corporations love (We Are the World, United Colors of Benetton). In contrast to both these trends (which have more in common than either of them would want to admit) DJ Spooky insists on making it new: breaking with modernist forms and categories, embracing the flux of postmodern commodity culture, is the only way to be true to that radical modernist imperative.
Rhythm Science, the book, is Miller/Spooky’s explication of, and meditation upon, his artistic methods and goals. The book’s motto could be the sentence of Emerson’s that is quoted on page 68: “It is as difficult to appropriate the thoughts of others as it is to invent.” Miller doesn’t make a linear, philosophical argument, so much as he mixes theory, history, anecdote, autobiography and scientific research, all of these flowing in and out and free associating from one page to the next.
What Rhythm Science really is, is a manifesto: the first important avant-garde artistic manifesto of the twenty-first century. It’s a utopian book, in that it focuses, with hope, on the maximal potentialities of the remix in postmodern, network culture. I find it bracing and refreshing, because of how it provides a corrective to my own tendencies to be pessimistic about how those potentialities will most likely be captured, co-opted, and crushed by giant corporations before they have had a chance even to blossom. In his writing as in his music, Paul Miller works to “keep hope alive,” something we desperately need right now, in these horrendous times of George W. Bush and Mel Gibson.
The design of the Rhythm Science book also needs to be mentioned, because it is both innovative and beautiful. The book is designed to mimic both a vinyl record and a CD, with a hole in the center; pages of collage (abstract images, vector graphics, and quotations sampled from the text) alternate with pages of actual text, and the pages themselves differ in texture, sometimes rough and sometimes smooth. There’s also a CD that comes along with the book, in which Spooky/Miller mixes electronic sounds with voice recordings of great modernist authors (Tzara, Artaud, Joyce, and Stein, among others).
As an object, therefore, the book eschews linearity and embraces the audio-tactile aesthetic that Marshall McLuhan identified with electronic media. And this design itself really is something new, rather than being (as too many recent hip media projects have tended to be) an imitation of the style that Marshall McLuhan pioneered in the 1960s in collaboration with Quentin Fiore (in books like The Medium is the Massage).
Rhythm Science is the new, and first, book by Paul D. Miller, aka DJ Spooky That Subliminal Kid.
DJ Spooky’s albums (Songs of a Dead Dreamer, Viral Sonata) and mixtapes (Under the Influence, Modern Mantra) are powerfully sharp and complex works. What’s great about these CDs is how they manage to be, at the same time, wildly eclectic and yet tightly focused and singular. Miller/Spooky is on the cutting edge of true, radical hybridity: his work is about citation/sampling/cutting-up as tools of innovation and metamorphosis.
Spooky’s music thus stands as a sharp reproach both to the superstitious reverence for “roots” (which usually means white people idolizing and exhuming a long-ago musical form pioneered by people of color, while ignoring or scorning what said people of color are doing now, in the present) and to the shallow, faux rainbow hybridity that corporations love (We Are the World, United Colors of Benetton). In contrast to both these trends (which have more in common than either of them would want to admit) DJ Spooky insists on making it new: breaking with modernist forms and categories, embracing the flux of postmodern commodity culture, is the only way to be true to that radical modernist imperative.
Rhythm Science, the book, is Miller/Spooky’s explication of, and meditation upon, his artistic methods and goals. The book’s motto could be the sentence of Emerson’s that is quoted on page 68: “It is as difficult to appropriate the thoughts of others as it is to invent.” Miller doesn’t make a linear, philosophical argument, so much as he mixes theory, history, anecdote, autobiography and scientific research, all of these flowing in and out and free associating from one page to the next.
What Rhythm Science really is, is a manifesto: the first important avant-garde artistic manifesto of the twenty-first century. It’s a utopian book, in that it focuses, with hope, on the maximal potentialities of the remix in postmodern, network culture. I find it bracing and refreshing, because of how it provides a corrective to my own tendencies to be pessimistic about how those potentialities will most likely be captured, co-opted, and crushed by giant corporations before they have had a chance even to blossom. In his writing as in his music, Paul Miller works to “keep hope alive,” something we desperately need right now, in these horrendous times of George W. Bush and Mel Gibson.
The design of the Rhythm Science book also needs to be mentioned, because it is both innovative and beautiful. The book is designed to mimic both a vinyl record and a CD, with a hole in the center; pages of collage (abstract images, vector graphics, and quotations sampled from the text) alternate with pages of actual text, and the pages themselves differ in texture, sometimes rough and sometimes smooth. There’s also a CD that comes along with the book, in which Spooky/Miller mixes electronic sounds with voice recordings of great modernist authors (Tzara, Artaud, Joyce, and Stein, among others).
As an object, therefore, the book eschews linearity and embraces the audio-tactile aesthetic that Marshall McLuhan identified with electronic media. And this design itself really is something new, rather than being (as too many recent hip media projects have tended to be) an imitation of the style that Marshall McLuhan pioneered in the 1960s in collaboration with Quentin Fiore (in books like The Medium is the Massage).
Wider Than the Sky is Gerald Edelman‘s summary/overview of his work on the neural basis of consciousness. (Parts of this work have been explained, in greater detail, in a number of Edelman’s earlier books; the ones I have previously read are Bright Air, Brilliant Fire and The Remembered Present).
Edelman has a peculiar position in neuroscience, from what I have been able to gather: he is disliked by many because of his egocentric insistence on reinventing the wheel. That is to say, he insists so unilaterally on his own theories that he ignores work by others that in many ways is parallel to his, and that his own work would benefit by communicating with.
Be that as it may, Edelman offers an interesting and plausible (albeit largely unproven) theory about how consciousness is generated, and how it works, in the brain. His basic thesis is the hypothesis of “neural Darwinism”: he argues that both the growth and “wiring” of neurons during fetal and childhood development, and the activation of neurons in memory and in response to the environment are governed by a process analogous to Darwinian natural selection. (Edelman previously won the Nobel Prize for his work showing that such selection mechanisms were at work in the mammalian immune system, as populations of antibodies mutate and grow in response to infections). Groups of neurons are selected on the basis of their effectiveness in responding to multiple stimuli from the outside world, and in classifying and responding to these stimuli in terms of categories derived from previous, remembered experiences (what Edelman calls “value-category memory”). Consciousness arises as a result of “reentry”, a kind of hyper-feedback among groups of neurons allowing for coordination among, and unification of, what would otherwise be disconnected percepts. (Edelman defines reentry as “the dynamic ongoing process of recursive signaling across massively parallel reciprocal fibers…” Such a process “allows coherent and synchronous events to emerge in the brain.” These events are the contents of consciousness, and processes of reentry explain how consciousness can be both unified, and yet extremely diverse and continually changing).
There are many more details, involving such things attention, emotion, and the difference between “primary consciousness,” which presumably all mammals and birds have, and “higher-order consciousness” (or what I would call reflexive consciousness, or self-consciousness) which only really emerges with language (though Edelman allows for the possibility that cruder, emergent versions of it may exist among the great apes).
A lot of this would seem to be speculation; a lot of it isn’t really experimentally grounded (at least so far), and some of it may in fact not be ‘scientific’ at all, because not empirically testable or falsifiable.
But to my mind, this is not necessarily a deficiency. Though Edelman throughout expresses his admiration for, and frequent agreement with, the psychology of William James, he begins the book by disclaiming any metaphysical intent, and by expressing puzzlement over James’ claim that, when consciousness finally is explained, “the necessities of the case will make [these explanations] ‘metaphysical'” (Edelman quoting James in his Preface, page xii).
It seems to me that, even in spite of himself, Edelman proves James right, by giving a theory of consciousness that is to some extent unavoidably metaphysical. Edelman shies away from such a term because he insists, rightly, that in any explanation of consciousness “principles of physics must be strictly obeyed and that the world defined by physics is causally closed. No spooky forces that contravene thermodynamics can be included” (page 114). –But I think that James himself would have entirely accepted this qualification, and that what he meant by “metaphysical” is something else. A theory of consciousness can’t help being “metaphysical,” because it’s impossible to “translate” between first-person phenomenal sensation, and third-person, scientifically objective observation. The point, precisely, is to do “metaphysical” justice to first-person consciousness, without thereby positing its objective existence as a phenomenon in the world (which would mean believing in “spooky forces” like “spirit” or “mind energy” or something else extra-physical).
Edelman’s theory of consciousness is “metaphysical” in what I consider the good, Jamesian sense, because his way of finessing the difference between observable-from-outside neural states and inside-only conscious feeling is to reject both those theories that would give causal efficacy to consciousness and will and those theories that dismiss consciousness as “merely” epiphenomenal. In effect, Edelman is saying that consciousness is indeed epiphenomenal rather than actually causal, but that there is nothing “mere” about such epiphenomenality. This latter because consciousness is “entailed” by neural processes that are themselves causal (which could perhaps be read — though I am unsure that this is right — as a weak version of Spinoza’s mind/body parallelism).
So far I’ve left out what is perhaps the most important part of Edelman’s theory: the assertion that neural processes are massively “degenerate” (a better word, in terms of vocabularies that I am familiar with, would be “redundant”). (Edelman defines “degeneracy” as “the ability of different structures to carry out the same function or yield the same output”). This is something that does seem to be empirically valid (different neural pathways can result in the same emotion or memory or other conscious perception; if one particular brain system or sub-system breaks down, another one can ‘cover’ for it or adaptively take its place), and that is logically coherent with (and indeed necessitated by) the assumption of “neural Darwinism” (if mind states are the result of statistical selection among large populations of neurons, then there cannot be one and only one uniquely privileged pathway to generate a given result).
What’s crucial here is that, if we accept the “degeneracy”/redundancy of the brain operating by this sort of “selection,” then “much of cognitive science is ill-founded” (page 111): the brain does not operate algorithmically (as Daniel Dennett claims), or by a process of computation analogous to what goes on in digital computers. Thought is not a process of taking symbolic representations and performing calculations, or logical operations, upon them. There is no “language of thought” (page 105), of which actual language would merely be a “translation.”
Thus, though Edelman shows no signs of being aware of the anti-representationalist arguments in recent continental philosophy and “theory”, he comes to many of the same conclusions, in opposition to the reigning (in American psychology and computer science, at least) ideology of cognitivism. And he does this by being a better Darwinian than all those loudly and explicitly Darwinian “evolutionary psychologists” who are so willfully dismissive of neuroscience.
Wider Than the Sky is Gerald Edelman‘s summary/overview of his work on the neural basis of consciousness. (Parts of this work have been explained, in greater detail, in a number of Edelman’s earlier books; the ones I have previously read are Bright Air, Brilliant Fire and The Remembered Present).
Edelman has a peculiar position in neuroscience, from what I have been able to gather: he is disliked by many because of his egocentric insistence on reinventing the wheel. That is to say, he insists so unilaterally on his own theories that he ignores work by others that in many ways is parallel to his, and that his own work would benefit by communicating with.
Be that as it may, Edelman offers an interesting and plausible (albeit largely unproven) theory about how consciousness is generated, and how it works, in the brain. His basic thesis is the hypothesis of “neural Darwinism”: he argues that both the growth and “wiring” of neurons during fetal and childhood development, and the activation of neurons in memory and in response to the environment are governed by a process analogous to Darwinian natural selection. (Edelman previously won the Nobel Prize for his work showing that such selection mechanisms were at work in the mammalian immune system, as populations of antibodies mutate and grow in response to infections). Groups of neurons are selected on the basis of their effectiveness in responding to multiple stimuli from the outside world, and in classifying and responding to these stimuli in terms of categories derived from previous, remembered experiences (what Edelman calls “value-category memory”). Consciousness arises as a result of “reentry”, a kind of hyper-feedback among groups of neurons allowing for coordination among, and unification of, what would otherwise be disconnected percepts. (Edelman defines reentry as “the dynamic ongoing process of recursive signaling across massively parallel reciprocal fibers…” Such a process “allows coherent and synchronous events to emerge in the brain.” These events are the contents of consciousness, and processes of reentry explain how consciousness can be both unified, and yet extremely diverse and continually changing).
There are many more details, involving such things attention, emotion, and the difference between “primary consciousness,” which presumably all mammals and birds have, and “higher-order consciousness” (or what I would call reflexive consciousness, or self-consciousness) which only really emerges with language (though Edelman allows for the possibility that cruder, emergent versions of it may exist among the great apes).
A lot of this would seem to be speculation; a lot of it isn’t really experimentally grounded (at least so far), and some of it may in fact not be ‘scientific’ at all, because not empirically testable or falsifiable.
But to my mind, this is not necessarily a deficiency. Though Edelman throughout expresses his admiration for, and frequent agreement with, the psychology of William James, he begins the book by disclaiming any metaphysical intent, and by expressing puzzlement over James’ claim that, when consciousness finally is explained, “the necessities of the case will make [these explanations] ‘metaphysical'” (Edelman quoting James in his Preface, page xii).
It seems to me that, even in spite of himself, Edelman proves James right, by giving a theory of consciousness that is to some extent unavoidably metaphysical. Edelman shies away from such a term because he insists, rightly, that in any explanation of consciousness “principles of physics must be strictly obeyed and that the world defined by physics is causally closed. No spooky forces that contravene thermodynamics can be included” (page 114). –But I think that James himself would have entirely accepted this qualification, and that what he meant by “metaphysical” is something else. A theory of consciousness can’t help being “metaphysical,” because it’s impossible to “translate” between first-person phenomenal sensation, and third-person, scientifically objective observation. The point, precisely, is to do “metaphysical” justice to first-person consciousness, without thereby positing its objective existence as a phenomenon in the world (which would mean believing in “spooky forces” like “spirit” or “mind energy” or something else extra-physical).
Edelman’s theory of consciousness is “metaphysical” in what I consider the good, Jamesian sense, because his way of finessing the difference between observable-from-outside neural states and inside-only conscious feeling is to reject both those theories that would give causal efficacy to consciousness and will and those theories that dismiss consciousness as “merely” epiphenomenal. In effect, Edelman is saying that consciousness is indeed epiphenomenal rather than actually causal, but that there is nothing “mere” about such epiphenomenality. This latter because consciousness is “entailed” by neural processes that are themselves causal (which could perhaps be read — though I am unsure that this is right — as a weak version of Spinoza’s mind/body parallelism).
So far I’ve left out what is perhaps the most important part of Edelman’s theory: the assertion that neural processes are massively “degenerate” (a better word, in terms of vocabularies that I am familiar with, would be “redundant”). (Edelman defines “degeneracy” as “the ability of different structures to carry out the same function or yield the same output”). This is something that does seem to be empirically valid (different neural pathways can result in the same emotion or memory or other conscious perception; if one particular brain system or sub-system breaks down, another one can ‘cover’ for it or adaptively take its place), and that is logically coherent with (and indeed necessitated by) the assumption of “neural Darwinism” (if mind states are the result of statistical selection among large populations of neurons, then there cannot be one and only one uniquely privileged pathway to generate a given result).
What’s crucial here is that, if we accept the “degeneracy”/redundancy of the brain operating by this sort of “selection,” then “much of cognitive science is ill-founded” (page 111): the brain does not operate algorithmically (as Daniel Dennett claims), or by a process of computation analogous to what goes on in digital computers. Thought is not a process of taking symbolic representations and performing calculations, or logical operations, upon them. There is no “language of thought” (page 105), of which actual language would merely be a “translation.”
Thus, though Edelman shows no signs of being aware of the anti-representationalist arguments in recent continental philosophy and “theory”, he comes to many of the same conclusions, in opposition to the reigning (in American psychology and computer science, at least) ideology of cognitivism. And he does this by being a better Darwinian than all those loudly and explicitly Darwinian “evolutionary psychologists” who are so willfully dismissive of neuroscience.