Please forgive me for being so slow to report this sad news
Monday, 23 May 2011
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Community Without Propinquity?
Remember all those breathless predictions about how the aerotropolis (such as South Korea's New Songdo) will become the dominant organizing principle of urban living?:
"There will never be enough time in the day, but space is fungible; it can be overcome with speed. Karl Marx called it the “annihilation of space by time. Distance is less of an obstacle to daily life than it is a resriction on our ability to get things done, which we can measure by the time and effort involved in commuting from Point A to Point B. The sociologist Melvin Webber dubbed this idea “the elastic mile,” because our perception of just how far a mile is shrinks as we move faster, leading Amos Hawley to note that we tend to live our lives within a sixty minute radius from home. While that once meant a life maybe six miles wide,today it means a commute between Barcelona and London. And e-mail bound for customer service or colleagues in India is returned instantly".
From there, it is only a few short steps to J.G. Ballard's claim that "the airport will be the true city of the 21st century", which some might like to supplement with Virilio quotations. However, I'm more inclined to the view that much of this is hyperbole. The problem with a lot of futurists then, it seems, is that they have scant regard for human factors, including, as Rowan Moore's critical review points out,
"...the fear of planes falling on your head, or attachment to a place, or political manoeuvring, or the persistence of non-aeronautic networks, counteract that other human factor, the desire for eye-contact, which seems to drive the immense machinery of air travel".
As I've said in previous posts, another problem is that futurists are often funded by private consultancy firms eager to push their agendas onto the public. Keep this in mind next time you hear someone switch from extolling the virtues of the aerotropolis to an explanation of how universal replicators will eliminate food shortages, classism, and world poverty. As for biotech and nanotech, we are led to believe they will cause speciesism to disappear because we will be able to grow fur on our bodies. Similar claims have been made about how racism will become a thing of the past when we can change our skin colour at will, as supposedly will sexism and homophobia, once we have all become hermaphrodites.
Everyone knows or can easily guess what effect transhumanists think these technologies will have on ageism, so I won't go over that well-worn ground. So here's another, even more bizarre example instead. There are people such as David Levy who have naively suggested that the availability of artificial companions will relieve the suffering of millions of lonely people who cannot compete on the marriage/relationships market. This raises an obvious question: do they honestly believe, aside from the dubious sexual politics their position entails (as it seems to be predominantly males who are interested in this), that the purchase and maintenance of such a companion will enable them to escape from the market criteria that contributed to their dropping out of the "organic" relationships market in the first place? I remember watching a documentary on this subculture in which one guy attempted to justify his obsession with sexbots by saying, "they can't leave you because you do not have enough money". As well as acquainting himself with feminism, I recommend that he and those of a similar ilk take another look at Blade Runner's Tyrell Corporation for an instructive account of how and why we can expect cold, hard cash to remain a central determinant of relationships- irrespective of whether they are synthetic or human. If anything, all the availability of synthetic companions would mean, I suspect, for the average wage slave at least (i.e. most people), is sexual experiences that are only affordable on an episodic basis, as per the services that have been offered by ("organic", read: human) sex workers since time immemorial. Again, Blade Runner offers a more plausible glimpse of what the future is likely to hold in this respect, in the form of the character Pris (described in the film as "your basic pleasure model").
Things just aren't as simple then as, "can't find a friend? Well, go ahead and (literally!) make one". As the film also makes clear, once synthetics develop sentience, it is reasonable to expect them to demand more reciprocal relationships. You can already find some examples of where this might be leading. Just google "davecat" and then savor the irony of a self-proclaimed "sythetiks advocate" and sex-doll owner having to defend himself against historical comparisons with slave owners (davecat himself is African American). Remember that it was a slave revolt in Blade Runner, notwithstanding the fact that the replicants were all white, which brought them to Earth. Other than prostitutes then, the only means left for future Davecats to avoid negotiating intimacy on a more equitable basis would be to settle for cheaper, non-sentient alternatives, which have already been around for a long time. But it is hard to believe these would be acceptable either, given the frequent complaints about the lack of versimulitude associated with blow-up dolls and the like.
I've said too much here about this prurient topic--partly prompted by the fact that a couple of earlier postings on RealDolls continue to draw the most web traffic to this site and I'd like to dissuade any return visits by criticising the folly of this pastime-- so to avoid losing sight of the bigger picture, I'll try to sum things up with this salutary thought: any decent stakeholder driven society (as opposed to a shareholder driven society) has sufficient grounds for questioning the wisdom of investing in these dreams. One cannot opt out of propinquity simply by investing more in technoscience. And why would we want to do that anyway? Afterall, it appears highly unlikely that there could ever be universal access to such benefits (ahem!) because the state would surely have great difficulty footing the research and development bills. Corporations will therefore do their utmost to patent their discoveries to prevent cheaper generic alternatives from competing with their products.Like I said, the interests of shareholders are always their first priority.
Well, you can plainly see I'm sceptical about what the technophiles have to offer. But I'm no Luddite either. I'll keep an eye on this Wikipedia timeline to see how things pan out, and will fire the odd critical salvo into cyberspace whenever I feel the situation demands it:
"There will never be enough time in the day, but space is fungible; it can be overcome with speed. Karl Marx called it the “annihilation of space by time. Distance is less of an obstacle to daily life than it is a resriction on our ability to get things done, which we can measure by the time and effort involved in commuting from Point A to Point B. The sociologist Melvin Webber dubbed this idea “the elastic mile,” because our perception of just how far a mile is shrinks as we move faster, leading Amos Hawley to note that we tend to live our lives within a sixty minute radius from home. While that once meant a life maybe six miles wide,today it means a commute between Barcelona and London. And e-mail bound for customer service or colleagues in India is returned instantly".
From there, it is only a few short steps to J.G. Ballard's claim that "the airport will be the true city of the 21st century", which some might like to supplement with Virilio quotations. However, I'm more inclined to the view that much of this is hyperbole. The problem with a lot of futurists then, it seems, is that they have scant regard for human factors, including, as Rowan Moore's critical review points out,
"...the fear of planes falling on your head, or attachment to a place, or political manoeuvring, or the persistence of non-aeronautic networks, counteract that other human factor, the desire for eye-contact, which seems to drive the immense machinery of air travel".
As I've said in previous posts, another problem is that futurists are often funded by private consultancy firms eager to push their agendas onto the public. Keep this in mind next time you hear someone switch from extolling the virtues of the aerotropolis to an explanation of how universal replicators will eliminate food shortages, classism, and world poverty. As for biotech and nanotech, we are led to believe they will cause speciesism to disappear because we will be able to grow fur on our bodies. Similar claims have been made about how racism will become a thing of the past when we can change our skin colour at will, as supposedly will sexism and homophobia, once we have all become hermaphrodites.
Everyone knows or can easily guess what effect transhumanists think these technologies will have on ageism, so I won't go over that well-worn ground. So here's another, even more bizarre example instead. There are people such as David Levy who have naively suggested that the availability of artificial companions will relieve the suffering of millions of lonely people who cannot compete on the marriage/relationships market. This raises an obvious question: do they honestly believe, aside from the dubious sexual politics their position entails (as it seems to be predominantly males who are interested in this), that the purchase and maintenance of such a companion will enable them to escape from the market criteria that contributed to their dropping out of the "organic" relationships market in the first place? I remember watching a documentary on this subculture in which one guy attempted to justify his obsession with sexbots by saying, "they can't leave you because you do not have enough money". As well as acquainting himself with feminism, I recommend that he and those of a similar ilk take another look at Blade Runner's Tyrell Corporation for an instructive account of how and why we can expect cold, hard cash to remain a central determinant of relationships- irrespective of whether they are synthetic or human. If anything, all the availability of synthetic companions would mean, I suspect, for the average wage slave at least (i.e. most people), is sexual experiences that are only affordable on an episodic basis, as per the services that have been offered by ("organic", read: human) sex workers since time immemorial. Again, Blade Runner offers a more plausible glimpse of what the future is likely to hold in this respect, in the form of the character Pris (described in the film as "your basic pleasure model").
Things just aren't as simple then as, "can't find a friend? Well, go ahead and (literally!) make one". As the film also makes clear, once synthetics develop sentience, it is reasonable to expect them to demand more reciprocal relationships. You can already find some examples of where this might be leading. Just google "davecat" and then savor the irony of a self-proclaimed "sythetiks advocate" and sex-doll owner having to defend himself against historical comparisons with slave owners (davecat himself is African American). Remember that it was a slave revolt in Blade Runner, notwithstanding the fact that the replicants were all white, which brought them to Earth. Other than prostitutes then, the only means left for future Davecats to avoid negotiating intimacy on a more equitable basis would be to settle for cheaper, non-sentient alternatives, which have already been around for a long time. But it is hard to believe these would be acceptable either, given the frequent complaints about the lack of versimulitude associated with blow-up dolls and the like.
I've said too much here about this prurient topic--partly prompted by the fact that a couple of earlier postings on RealDolls continue to draw the most web traffic to this site and I'd like to dissuade any return visits by criticising the folly of this pastime-- so to avoid losing sight of the bigger picture, I'll try to sum things up with this salutary thought: any decent stakeholder driven society (as opposed to a shareholder driven society) has sufficient grounds for questioning the wisdom of investing in these dreams. One cannot opt out of propinquity simply by investing more in technoscience. And why would we want to do that anyway? Afterall, it appears highly unlikely that there could ever be universal access to such benefits (ahem!) because the state would surely have great difficulty footing the research and development bills. Corporations will therefore do their utmost to patent their discoveries to prevent cheaper generic alternatives from competing with their products.Like I said, the interests of shareholders are always their first priority.
Well, you can plainly see I'm sceptical about what the technophiles have to offer. But I'm no Luddite either. I'll keep an eye on this Wikipedia timeline to see how things pan out, and will fire the odd critical salvo into cyberspace whenever I feel the situation demands it:
List of future events (structured by topic)
Artificial intelligence and robotics
- Robots capable of manual labour tasks--
- 2015–2020 – every South Korean household will have a robot and many European, The Ministry of Information and Communication (South Korea), 2007[2]
- 2018 – robots will routinely carry out surgery, South Korea government 2007[2]
- 2022 – intelligent robots that sense their environment, make decisions, and learn are used in 30% of households and organizations – TechCast[3]
- 2030 – robots capable of performing at human level at most manual jobs Marshall Brain[4]
- 2034 – robots (home automation systems) performing most household tasks, Helen Greiner, Chairman of iRobot, 2004[5]
- Military robots
- Developments related to robotics from the Japan NISTEP[7] 2030 report:
- 2013–2014 – agricultural robots (AgRobots[8][9]).
- 2013–2017 – robots that care for the elderly
- 2017 – medical robots performing low-invasive surgery
- 2017–2019 – household robots with full use.
- 2019–2021 – Nanorobots
- 2021–2022 – Transhumanism
- Artificial intelligence
- 2019 – $1,000 computer will match the processing power of the human brain – Ray Kurzweil[10]
- 2020 – Artificial Intelligence reaches human levels – Arthur C. Clarke[11]
- 2045 – The Singularity (creation of the first ultraintelligent machine) occurs – Ray Kurzweil[12]
- 2050 – computer costing a few hundred pounds will have the capacity of the human mind – Hans Moravec[13]
- 2055 – $1,000 computer will match the processing power of all human brains on Earth – Ray Kurzweil[10]
[edit] Biology and medicine
- Visual prosthetics
- 2011 – digital devices with implantable parts (Joseph Reger, Fujitsu-Siemens Technology Director, 2007,[14])
- Use of animal organs for transplantation (xenotransplantation)
- 2010 – practical use of such animal donors in surgery (same source)
- Regenerative medicine
- Widespread use for most tissues and organs – 2020 (Federal Initiative for Regenerative Medicine)[15]
- 2014–2024 – (International Association of Biomedical Gerontology, 2004) – comprehensive functional rejuvenation of middle-aged mice[16]
- Cloning of dinosaurs
- 2023 – Arthur C. Clarke[11]
- Reverse engineering of human brain
- 2025 – Ray Kurzweil, 2005[17]
[edit] Communications
- All communications are IP-based
- 2014 – Paul Mockapetris, inventor of the DNS system, 2004[18]
[edit] Computing
- 10 petaFLOPS supercomputer (the amount required to simulate the human brain according to Kurzweil)
- 1 zettaFLOPS supercomputer
- 2032 – University of Notre Dame[21]
- User interface
- 2013 – voice control replace keyboard/mouse interface for 30% of routine tasks – TechCast[3]
- Video game graphics
- 2019-2024 - Photo-realism in video games - Epic Games' Founder, Technical Director, and CEO Tim Sweeney[22]
[edit] Culture and leisure
- Entertainment channels
- 2010 – 30% by value of U.S. music, movies, games, and other entertainment is sold online – TechCast[3]
- Virtual reality
- 2025 – full immersion virtual reality using direct input to the brain becomes available – Arthur C. Clarke[11]
- 2030 – virtual reality allows any type of interaction with anyone, regardless of physical proximity – Ray Kurzweil[10]
- Sport
[edit] Demographics
- World population exceeds 7 billion
- 2013 – U.S. Census Bureau[24]
- 2013 – United Nations[25]
- World population exceeds 8 billion
- 2026 – U.S. Census Bureau[24]
- 2028 – United Nations[25]
- World population exceeds 9 billion
- 2043 – U.S. Census Bureau[24]
- 2054 – United Nations[25]
- World population exceeds 10 billion
- 2183 – United Nations[25]
- Other demographic milestones
- 2020 – world average life expectancy of new-born child exceeds 70 years – World Resources Institute[26]
- 2030 – number of people aged 65 or older exceeds 1 billion – Ray Hammond[27]
- 2030 – new-born child in developed country has life expectancy of 130 years – Ray Hammond[27]
- 2045 – world average life expectancy of new-born child exceeds 75 years – World Resources Institute[26]
[edit] Energy
- Peak oil – global oil production peaks
- 2010 – Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas[28]
- 2011 – Colin Campbell, Oil Depletion Analysis Centre[29]
- 2013 – French government report[30]
- Other energy milestones
[edit] Environment
- Arctic shrinkage – arctic ice-free in summer
- 2013 – Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, U. S. Naval Postgraduate School[32]
- 2040 – National Center for Atmospheric Research[33]
- Arctic shrinkage – arctic ice-free all year
- 2020 – Ted Scambos, National Snow and Ice Center[34]
- Other environmental milestones
- 2098 – coral cover on Great Barrier Reef drops below 10% – Dr Eric Wolanski, James Cook University[35]
[edit] Nanotechnology
- Nanomachines in commercial use
- 2019 – nanotechnology is used in 30% of commercial products – TechCast[3]
- 2020 – nanomachines in soldier armor controlled by an on-board computer can change the properties of fabric from flexible to bullet-proof, treat wounds and filter out chemical and biological weapons, nanomuscle fibers can provide an exoskeleton. US Army, estimates from The Vision 2020 Future Warrior project, 2004
- Universal replicator is developed
- 2040 – Arthur C. Clarke[11]
[edit] Politics and economics
- International Politics
- 2012-onward - The United States of America lose the superpower status - Peter Dale Scott and Emmanuel Todd - After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order
- 2012-onward - The United States of America come defeated in the New Great Game thus marking a "New New World Order" - Idriss Aberkane [36]
- World economic growth
- 2015 - Brazil becomes the world's fifth largest economy, surpassing France, UK and Italy - Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva [37]
- 2025 – one billion dollar-millionaires worldwide – James Canton, The Extreme Future[38]
- 2027 – China's GDP exceeds that of United States – Goldman Sachs,[39] Price Waterhouse Coopers[40]
- 2032 – India's GDP exceeds that of Japan – National Intelligence Council[41]
[edit] Transportation
- Hybrid vehicles
- 2013 – hybrid powered cars make up 30% of the new car market – TechCast[3]
- Self-driving cars
- 2018 - Self-driving cars are commercially available - General Motors[42]
- 2030 – all cars travelling on major roads under control of satellite and roadside control systems – Ray Hammond[27]
[edit] Space
- Asteroid mining
- 2024 – Peter Diamandis, founder of Ansari X Prize, 2004[43]
- Human landing on Mars
- 2020 – MIT's Aeronautics and Astronautics department, 2005[44][45]
- 2021 – Arthur C. Clarke[11]
- 2025 – a permanent Mars colony, 4Frontiers, 2005[46]
- 2030 – TechCast[3]
- Near light speed travel
- 2095 – Arthur C. Clarke[11]
- Return to the Moon
- Space elevator
- 2020 – Bradley C. Edwards (head of Institute for Scientific Research), 2004[50]
- Space tourism and private spaceflight
- 2011 – space flights become available to the public – Arthur C. Clarke[11]
- 2013 – "space cruiser” takes a group of tourists outside of the Earth’s atmosphere – TechCast[3]
- 2024 – "many thousands of people being able to afford" visiting orbital hotels, Burt Rutan, 2004[51]
- Unmanned mission returns samples from Mars
- 2020 – NASA[52]
Top 12 areas for innovation through 2025
This list is part of research and consulting firm Social Technologies technology foresight project, published as an press release in 2007.[53]- Personalized medicine
- creation of an individual’s genome map for a retail price of less than $1,000
- correlation of specific genes and proteins with specific cancers, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and diabetes, which will allow both ** physicians and patients to anticipate, plan for, and mitigate, if not cure, DNA-based health challenges development of pharmaceuticals that treat gene-based diseases, replacing surgeries and chemotherapy
- Distributed energy
- advanced electric storage devices and batteries at all scales
- new power systems with source-switching flexibility
- Pervasive computing
- very simple and inexpensive computing devices with integrated wireless telephone and Internet capabilities (the worldwide $100 computer)
- the Semantic Web, enabled by Web data that automatically self-organizes based on its content, allowing search tools or software agents to identify the actual relevance of Web pages—not just find keywords on them
- intelligent interfaces, in some cases enabled by virtual reality
- Nanomaterials
- the function of nanomaterials will move from “passive” to “active” with the integration of nanoscale valves, switches, pumps, motors, and other components.
- Biomarkers for health
- individualized, private, and self-administered diagnostics for multiple physical parameters such as blood sugar, urine, C-reactive proteins, HDL, and LDL, as well as home diagnostic kits that detect early signs of diabetes, heart disease, and types of cancers
- personalized exercise equipment and regimens that deliver customized benefits (for weight control, blood pressure, blood sugar, etc.)
- advanced CAT scans, MRIs, and brain scans to identify disorders earlier and more accurately at less cost
- Biofuels
- high-energy (as measured in British thermal units, or Btu) blends of gasoline and diesel with biofuels (beyond the ethanol blends known today)
- biomass production of a methanol that can be used as a fuel for fuel cells
- new discoveries in plant genetics and biotechnologies specifically for energy content
- Advanced manufacturing
- advanced computer-aided design and control
- multiple variable and inexpensive sensors linked with computers
- expert systems and advanced pattern-recognition software for very tight quality control
- Universal water
- ultra-fine filters (probably from nanotechnology)
- new energy sources for desalination and purification, including hybrid systems that combine conventional and alternative power—especially solar power
- smart water-use technologies for agriculture and industry
- Carbon management
- effective “measure, monitor, and verify” systems
- affordable and effective carbon capture and storage technologies and systems for coal-burning power plants
- low to zero emission controls for transportation
- Engineered agriculture
- identification of specific genomes for desired growing and use qualities
- crop-produced pharmaceuticals and chemical feedstocks
- crops designed specifically for energy content and conversion
- Security and tracking
- completely autonomous security-camera systems with algorithms able to correctly interpret and identify all manner of human behavior
- multiple integrated sensors (including remote sensing)
- radio frequency (RF) tags for people and valuables
- Advanced transportation
- organized and coordinated personal transportation through wireless computer networks, information systems, and Internet access
- onboard sensors and computers for smart vehicles
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Open access is no cybertarian fantasy
I tip my hat to derridata for bringing this one to my attention. It's written by Toby Miller, who I've previously credited (in my "Melissa Gregg" post) for his work on "the well tempered self". Although he does not specifically refer to that here, it is easy to read between the lines, as I attempted to do, to see how that could specifically be applied to the "author function". Or, as he puts it this article, "Who can stay abreast of journals as forms of knowledge rather than personnel evaluation?" Another reason I find this issue so interesting is that I make my living researching, ghostwriting, and editing journal articles, along with the odd book, for the higher education sector.
The greed of publishers never ceases to amaze me. Afterall, what they are basically doing is "double dipping": the universities churn out the articles that are published in the journals, and then the university has to in effect "buy them back" by subscribing to the journals. This is why I've always supported open access. As Miller makes abundantly clear though, such a transition would require considerable institutional support. Like I also said, there could be some very good ramifications for independent scholars/bloggers, who are frustrated by the prohibitively expensive tollbooths that publishers have put on the information superhighway.
I'm a bit cynical too about smaller publishers, such as Zer0 Books, who appear to spend all of their time looking to turn the blogosphere into private intellectual real estate. A bit of skepticism seems in order in regard to their rhetoric. Do they really offer an alternative to the mainstream publishing model? From what I can see, their business model merely exploits Web 2.0 tools to discern "market trends" i.e. who is dominating the attention space, whereas the big publishers use more expensive and accurate bibliometrics, such as Web of Science. If offered no other choice, I'd still opt for the established academic publishers because at least you can be sure they attempt to offer a more rigorous form of quality control i.e. double blind peer review. In regard to the blogosphere/Zer0 Books model, I've never forgotten Cory Doctorow's argument that the authority of any Internet based data ranking will be inherently problematic because of a reliance on metadata standards. Doctorow offers a detailed argument as to why these standards should be regarded as "metacrap", which still holds up overall, even if we want to make more allowance for how information overload may be equally culpable as laziness, egocentrism, stupidity, and falsehood, in determining the meta-utopia. It appears that every argument in support of folksonomy as a form of democratization can be logically countered by Doctorow, insofar as metadata exerts a formative influence on which information is available to choose from. Hence, one must never make the mistake of conflating market populism with genuine democratic populism.
What we need then is a real alternative which combines the advantages of open access and quality control. I better go now though because I have some more projects to complete, but I hope to find time for blogging again soon.
The greed of publishers never ceases to amaze me. Afterall, what they are basically doing is "double dipping": the universities churn out the articles that are published in the journals, and then the university has to in effect "buy them back" by subscribing to the journals. This is why I've always supported open access. As Miller makes abundantly clear though, such a transition would require considerable institutional support. Like I also said, there could be some very good ramifications for independent scholars/bloggers, who are frustrated by the prohibitively expensive tollbooths that publishers have put on the information superhighway.
I'm a bit cynical too about smaller publishers, such as Zer0 Books, who appear to spend all of their time looking to turn the blogosphere into private intellectual real estate. A bit of skepticism seems in order in regard to their rhetoric. Do they really offer an alternative to the mainstream publishing model? From what I can see, their business model merely exploits Web 2.0 tools to discern "market trends" i.e. who is dominating the attention space, whereas the big publishers use more expensive and accurate bibliometrics, such as Web of Science. If offered no other choice, I'd still opt for the established academic publishers because at least you can be sure they attempt to offer a more rigorous form of quality control i.e. double blind peer review. In regard to the blogosphere/Zer0 Books model, I've never forgotten Cory Doctorow's argument that the authority of any Internet based data ranking will be inherently problematic because of a reliance on metadata standards. Doctorow offers a detailed argument as to why these standards should be regarded as "metacrap", which still holds up overall, even if we want to make more allowance for how information overload may be equally culpable as laziness, egocentrism, stupidity, and falsehood, in determining the meta-utopia. It appears that every argument in support of folksonomy as a form of democratization can be logically countered by Doctorow, insofar as metadata exerts a formative influence on which information is available to choose from. Hence, one must never make the mistake of conflating market populism with genuine democratic populism.
What we need then is a real alternative which combines the advantages of open access and quality control. I better go now though because I have some more projects to complete, but I hope to find time for blogging again soon.
Saturday, 7 May 2011
Why 'Star Wars' Is Secretly Terrifying for Women
Why 'Star Wars' Is Secretly Terrifying for Women -- powered by Cracked.com
Sunday, 1 May 2011
The Egocrat
Further to yesterday's post about the British Royal Family:
'according to lefort, the new trend, however, is again toward the display of the public official's person. the state now relies on its double in "the image of the people, which... remains indeterminate, but which nevertheless is susceptible of being determined, of being actualized on the level of phantasy as an image of the People-as-One." Public figures increasingly take on the function of concretizing that fantasmatic body image, or in other words, of actualizing the otherwise indeterminate image of the people. They embody what Lefort calls the "Egocrat," whose self-identical representativeness is perverse and unstable in a way that contrasts with the representative person of the feudal public sphere. "The prince condensed in his person the principle of power..., but he was supposed to obey a superior power... That does not seem to be the position of the Egocrat or of his substitutes, the bureaucratic leaders. The Egocrat coincides with himself, as society is supposed to coincide with itself.'
page 387-8.
in Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by craig calhoun. published by the MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England. 1992.
essay by michael warner. 'The Mass Public and the Mass Subject.'
'according to lefort, the new trend, however, is again toward the display of the public official's person. the state now relies on its double in "the image of the people, which... remains indeterminate, but which nevertheless is susceptible of being determined, of being actualized on the level of phantasy as an image of the People-as-One." Public figures increasingly take on the function of concretizing that fantasmatic body image, or in other words, of actualizing the otherwise indeterminate image of the people. They embody what Lefort calls the "Egocrat," whose self-identical representativeness is perverse and unstable in a way that contrasts with the representative person of the feudal public sphere. "The prince condensed in his person the principle of power..., but he was supposed to obey a superior power... That does not seem to be the position of the Egocrat or of his substitutes, the bureaucratic leaders. The Egocrat coincides with himself, as society is supposed to coincide with itself.'
page 387-8.
in Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by craig calhoun. published by the MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England. 1992.
essay by michael warner. 'The Mass Public and the Mass Subject.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
