Gordon Hull

This paper situates the data privacy debate in the context of what I call the death of the data subject. My central claim is that concept of a rights-bearing data subject is being pulled in two contradictory directions at once, and that simultaneous attention to these is necessary to understand and resist the extractive practices of the data industry. Specifically, it is necessary to treat the problems facing the data subject structurally, rather than by narrowly attempting to vindicate its rights. On the one hand, the data industry argues that subjects of biometric identification lack legal standing to pursue claims in court, and Facebook recently denied that that its facial recognition software recognizes faces. On the other hand, industry takes consent to terms of service and arbitration clauses to create enforceable legal subject positions, while using promises of personalization to create a phenomenological subject that is unaware of the extent to which it is being manipulated. Data subjects thus have no legal existence when it is a matter of corporate liability, but legal accountability when it is a matter of their own liability. Successful reform should address the power asymmetries between individuals and data companies that enable this structural disempowerment.

This dissertation is a study of the nature and development of "modern" political thought, typical features of which include the "state of nature" and "social contract." Specifically, I argue that modern thought is constructive, which is to say that thinking is seen as, at least to some extent, generative of its objects. I focus primarily on Hobbes and Marx as liminal thinkers in the development of modern political thought. I begin with a discussion of the nature of construction in modern thought generally, and in Hobbes specifically. I then ground the claim that Hobbes's texts are originary for modern political thought in two ways. First, I show how many of the methodological principles explicitly adopted by Hobbes are implicitly assumed by Locke. Then, I differentiate Hobbesian metaphysical and epistemological assumptions from two alternate sets of assumptions which Hobbes viewed himself as opposing: Machiavellian virtu; and Christian, medieval neo-Platonism. I then read Hobbes's texts in their relation to Bacon's usage of construction and Hobbes's own development of the social contract. I then transition, via Hegel, to a study of Marx. After providing an account of Marx's early reaction to Hegel, I attempt to show that many of the objections Marx makes to Hegelianism are also made against modern political thought in general. I thus read sections of Marx's early works to illustrate his engagement with early modern thought, and to show how he characterizes this thought as a "despotism" because of its reliance on a "manufactured originary state." I then provide readings of Marx's dissertation critique of Democritus to develop more carefully what Marx means by an atomic or originary state; and of sections of the Holy Family to explore Marx's understanding of "history," and to show how that understanding differs from Hegel's. I conclude with an extended reading of sections of Marx's 1844 Manuscripts, in order to develop more fully his critique of modern political thought, and to sketch his early understanding of what an alternative way of thinking politics might incorporate

This paper is a study of the young Marx’s reception of Spinoza, centered around the 1841 notebooks Marx kept on Spinoza’s Theologico-Political Treatise. I argue that Marx’s own thought carries remarkable affinities with Spinoza’s. On the one hand, both thinkers are concerned to present questions of interpretation and reading as political questions and as essential to any understanding of human freedom. On the other hand, both thinkers are attempting to disclose theological structures masquerading as philosophy. Marx’s recuperation of Spinoza’s political works can then be seen as part of his more general engagement with Hegel and Hegelianism