Bernard Stiegler

In the first two volumes of _Technics and Time_, Bernard Stiegler worked carefully through Heidegger's and Husserl's relationship to technics and technology. Here, in volume three, he turns his attention to the prolematic relationship to technics he finds in Kant's _Critique of Pure Reason_, particularly in the two versions of the Transcendental Deduction. Stiegler relates this problematic to the "cinematic nature" of time, which precedes cinema itself but reaches an apotheosis in it as the _exteriorization process_ of schema, through tertiary retentions and their mechanisms. The book focuses on the relationship between these themes and the "culture industry"— as defined by Adorno and Horkheimer—that has supplanted the educational institutions on which genuine cultural participation depends. This displacement, Stiegler says, has produced a malaise from which current global culture suffers. The result is potentially catastrophic.

_Acting Out _ is the first appearance in English of two short books published by Bernard Stiegler in 2003. In _How I Became a Philosopher_, he outlines his transformation during a five-year period of incarceration for armed robbery. Isolated from what had been his world, Stiegler began to conduct a kind of experiment in phenomenological research. Inspired by the Greek stoic Epictetus, Stiegler began to read, write, and discover his vocation, eventually studying philosophy in correspondence with Gérard Granel who was an important influence on a number of French philosophers, including Jacques Derrida, who was later Stiegler's teacher. The second book, _To Love, To Love Me, To Love Us_, is a powerful distillation of Stiegler's analysis of the contemporary world. He maintains that a growing loss of a sense of individual and collective existence leads to a decreased ability to love oneself, and, by extension, others. This predicament is viewed through a tragic event: in 2002, in Nanterre, France, Richard Durn, a local activist, stormed the city's town hall, shooting and killing eight people. Durn committed suicide the following day. The later publication of Durn's his journal revealed a man struggling with the feeling that he did not exist, for which he tried to compensate by committing an atrocity. For Stiegler, this exemplifies how love of self becomes pathological: a "me" assassinates an "us" with which it cannot identify.

_Disorientation_ is the first publication in English of the second volume of _Technics and Time_, in which French philosopher Bernard Stiegler engages in a close dialogue with Husserl, Derrida, and other philosophers who have devoted their energies to technics, such as Heidegger and Simondon.The author's broad intent is to respond to Western philosophy's historical exclusion of technics and techniques from its metaphysical questionings, and in so doing to rescue critical and philosophical thinking. For many years, Stiegler has explored the origins and philosophical, ethical, and political stakes of a global process he calls "the industrial temporalization of consciousness." Here, demonstrating that technology—including alphabetical writing—is memory, he argues that through new technologies of retention and inscription we have come to live in a world where time devours space, a disoriented world in which we have lost our bearings. Immersed in the multimedia of an over-connected world, with time and space as we know them abolished, we no longer find "cardinal points" to guide us and may even be led where we do not wish to go. We must therefore prepare to confront new spheres of ideological control and discover new possibilities in the digital environment.

What is a technical object? At the beginning of Western philosophy, Aristotle contrasted beings formed by nature, which had within themselves a beginning of movement and rest, and man-made objects, which did not have the source of their own production within themselves. This book, the first of three volumes, revises the Aristotelian argument and develops an innovative assessment whereby the technical object can be seen as having an essential, distinct temporality and dynamics of its own. The Aristotelian concept persisted, in one form or another, until Marx, who conceived of the possibility of an evolution of technics. Lodged between mechanics and biology, a technical entity became a complex of heterogeneous forces. In a parallel development, while industrialization was in the process of overthrowing the contemporary order of knowledge as well as contemporary social organization, technology was acquiring a new place in philosophical questioning. Philosophy was for the first time faced with a world in which technical expansion was so widespread that science was becoming more and more subject to the field of instrumentality, with its ends determined by the imperatives of economic struggle or war, and with its epistemic status changing accordingly. The power that emerged from this new relation was unleashed in the course of the two world wars. Working his way through the history of the Aristotelian assessment of technics, the author engages the ideas of a wide range of thinkers—Rousseau, Husserl, and Heidegger, the paleo-ontologist Leroi-Gourhan, the anthropologists Vernant and Detienne, the sociologists Weber and Habermas, and the systems analysts Maturana and Varela.

Half a century ago Adorno and Horkheimer argued, with great prescience, that our increasingly rationalized world was witnessing the emergence of a new kind of barbarism, thanks in part to the stultifying effects of the culture industries. What they could not foresee was that, with the digital revolution and the pervasive automation associated with it, the developments they had discerned would be greatly accentuated, giving rise to the loss of reason and to the loss of the reason for living. Individuals are now overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of digital information and the speed of digital flows, resulting in a kind of technological Wild West in which they find themselves increasingly powerless, driven by their lack of agency to the point of madness. How can we find a way out of this situation? In this major new book, Bernard Stiegler argues that we must first acknowledge our era as one of fundamental disruption and detachment. We are living in an absence of _epokhē_ in the philosophical sense, by which Stiegler means that we have lost our path of thinking and being. Weaving in powerful accounts from his own life story, including struggles with depression and time spent in prison, Stiegler calls for a new _epokhē_ based on public power. We must forge new circuits of meaning outside of the established algorithmic routes. For only then will forms of thinking and life be able to arise that restore meaning and aspiration to the individual. Concluding with a dialogue between Stiegler and Jean-Luc Nancy, this book will be of great interest to students and scholars in social and cultural theory, media and cultural studies, philosophy and the humanities generally.

Today’s question concerning technology involves asking about both the post-pandemic world and the post-data-economy world, in a situation where resentments and scapegoats are easily generated. We can no longer avoid integrating this question with that of entropy, but also with the specific question of anthropic entropy, and the way this has accompanied the rise of computation: it thus demands a new approach to theoretical computer science. While digital and network technologies initially seemed to offer new hopes for the reorganization of work (exemplified by the free software movement), the subsequent rise of smartphones and social networks seems to have turned these hopes into lost illusions: network effects and algorithmic platforms are hegemonic, and the changes brought by neoliberalism are being progressively intensified. Unless something utterly improbable happens, this dystopian tendency seems destined to continue. Could the pandemic bring the necessary break? Before asking this question, we should reflect on the meaning of the probable, the improbable and the unforeseen. Capitalism can be described as an epistēmē, whose operator is information, but also as an anti-epistēmē, because it installs generalized proletarianization. In other words, knowledge is destroyed and diversity systemically eliminated, and a new theoretical computer science must learn how to take the need for diversity functionally into account. Yuk Hui raises these questions through the notion of technodiversity, as a way of challenging the hegemony of a universal calculability prescribing arrangements between the technical system and the social and biological systems. Today, the computer is a cellular element in a global megamachine, and, from Hui’s perspective, it imposes this cosmotechnical question firstly because China cannot be reduced to the West. Already in the twentieth century, the culture industries tended to reduce reason to rationalization, raising the question of whether modernity is the generalization of the universal or its elimination. What lies behind this question is Leroi-Gourhan’s notion of universal technical tendencies. For Leroi-Gourhan, this question involves three kinds of milieus – interior, exterior and technical – and these are mutually diffracting, which means: there is never a milieu, but only milieus. We must further distinguish the production of technical organs (exosomatic exorganogenesis) from the production of those specifically concerned with memory (exomnesic exorganogenesis). The conditions of the expression of universal technical tendencies vary according to advances in exomemorization. Tendencies play out in an irreducible way with counter-tendencies, forming open dynamic systems. Today, platforms tend to eliminate this play, and this is why today’s state of fact inherently calls for the question of diversity. The challenge is to introduce new conditions for variability, reconstituting noodiversity. The exosomatic technical milieu is in excess over the interior milieu, connecting interior milieus together by traversing the common exterior milieu. Today, this traversal of the technical saturates the exterior milieu. Exomnesic exorganogenesis involves a meeting of three layers – the physiological, the nervous and the logical – where the second and third of these are what must be woven in new ways by a new theoretical computer science opening up new forms of différance between the understanding and reason.

This article explores the consequences for music of its entry into the machine-age of sound, which involves, among other things, the de-instrumentalization of the ears and the possibility of an analytical listening ushering in the invention of digital tools that allow for a new graphic projection of musical time. Referring to important texts, notably by Bartók and Adorno, on the consequences of analogue sound reproduction for listening habits, musical analysis and even for the concept of writing, it looks at the ways the science of music in general has been and will be transformed by its digitalization, and notably, by a new epoch of musicality.

In this brief essay Stiegler synthesizes his critical approach to Simondon’s philosophy of individuation. He states his debt toward Simondon’s concept of a systemic indeterminacy in the processes of transindividual individuation, and focusses on his underdeveloped intuition concerning the role played by technics in anthropogenic processes. Situating himself in the phenomenological lineage of Husserl through Derrida, Stiegler explains his own “pharmacological” understanding of “technical individuation” as, at the same time, the intrinsic condition of individuation and the inevitable risk of disindividuation defining the political as such. On this basis he critically extends Simondon’s understanding of religion and psychanalysis. This allows him to move beyond the political optimism implicit in Simondon’s “theoretical indecision” concerning the binding power of technical individuation yet relying on his very study of the question of individuation, which “is political through and through.”

Peu de philosophes contemporains choisissent de faire vivre leurs outils critiques grâce au terreau d'une association, d'un collectif. C'est le cas de Bernard Stiegler, qui a fondé Ars Industrialis en 2005. Le manifeste de l'association, Réenchanter le monde (Flammarion, 2005 ; 7400 ventes en Champs), devait connaître un grand retentissement. Depuis, les travaux et contributions fleurissent (de l'économiste André Gréau au comédien Robin Renucci, en passant par les spécialistes des digital studies), et Ars Industrialis franchit un cap en s'associant à des collectivités locales (Nantes) ou en nouant des partenariats internationaux (Grande-Bretagne, Allemagne). Cet ouvrage fournit une synthèse de tous ces travaux en proposant un vocabulaire philosophique à la fois ambitieux et accessible. Qu'est-ce le marketing - le psychopouvoir - et pourquoi est-il un des dangers majeurs de notre époque? En quoi la technique influence-t-elle des fonctions aussi capitales que la mémoire ou l'écriture? Quelle nouvelle vision de l'éducation devons-nous mettre à jour depuis l'avènement du numérique? Que sont la bêtise et l'intelligence? Comment aider la transformation de citoyens passifs et débordés en amateurs, acteurs et membres d'une communauté de goûts et de savoirs? Faire attention propose, dans ces courts essais-définitions, le manifeste d'une époque charnière qui voit définitivement s'éloigner le monde ancien, tout en souhaitant mettre les outils de l'extrême contemporain au service d'un nouvel humanisme.

In the aftermath of the First World War, the poet Paul Valéry wrote of a "crisis of spirit", brought about by the instrumentalization of knowledge and the destructive subordination of culture to profit. Recent events demonstrate all too clearly that the stock of mind, or spirit, continues to fall. The economy is toxically organized around the pursuit of short-term gain, supported by an infantilizing, dumbed-down media. Advertising technologies make relentless demands on our attention, reducing us to idiotic beasts, no longer capable of living. Spiralling rates of mental illness show that the fragile life of the mind is at breaking point. Underlying these multiple symptoms is consumer capitalism, which systematically immiserates those whom it purports to liberate. Returning to Marxʹs theory, Stiegler argues that consumerism marks a new stage in the history of proletarianization. It is no longer just labour that is exploited, pushed below the limits of subsistence, but the desire that is characteristic of human spirit. The cure to this malaise is to be found in what Stiegler calls a "pharmacology of the spirit". Here, pharmacology has nothing to do with the chemical supplements developed by the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmakon, defined as both cure and poison, refers to the technical objects through which we open ourselves to new futures, and thereby create the spirit that makes us human. By reference to a range of figures, from Socrates, Simondon and Derrida to the child psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott, Stiegler shows that technics are both the cause of our suffering and also what makes life worth living. -- Publisher description.

Le numérique bouleverse les savoirs, et depuis quelques années a émergé le concept de digital humanities (humanités numériques), paradigme à travers lequel les sciences de l’homme et de la société prennent acte de ce devenir. Cet ouvrage, qui s’inscrit évidemment dans cette dynamique, pose cependant en principe que les digital humanities ne sont qu’une dimension de ce qu’il faut appréhender plus largement comme les digital studies, lesquelles concernent toutes les formes de savoirs, théoriques aussi bien que pratiques. Il soutient autrement dit que le numérique constitue une mutation globale des savoirs sous toutes leurs formes (scientifiques, artistiques, politiques, sociaux au sens le plus large, pratiques dans tous les domaines) qui pose des questions épistémologiques fondamentales et radicalement nouvelles. Le contexte géopolitique de cette réflexion — qui a donné lieu à la constitution d’un réseau international par l’Institut de recherche et d’innovation (cf. digital-studies.org) — est l’émergence d’une industrie planétaire des savoirs pour laquelle l’Amérique du Nord tente de constituer ce que l’on appelle désormais un smart power.

In this important new book, the leading cultural theorist and philosopher Bernard Stiegler re-examines the relationship between politics and aesthetics in our contemporary hyperindustrial age. Stiegler argues that our epoch is characterized by the seizure of the symbolic by industrial technology, where aesthetics has become both theatre and weapon in an economic war. This has resulted in a ‘symbolic misery’ where conditioning substitutes for experience. In today’s control societies, aesthetic weapons play an essential role: audiovisual and digital technologies have become a means of controlling the conscious and unconscious rhythms of bodies and souls, of modulating the rhythms of consciousness and life. The notion of an aesthetic engagement, capable of founding a new communal sensibility and a genuine aesthetic community, has largely collapsed today. This is because the overwhelming majority of the population is now totally subjected to the aesthetic conditioning of marketing and therefore estranged from any experience of aesthetic inquiry. That part of the population that continues to experiment aesthetically has turned its back on those who live in the misery of this conditioning. Stiegler appeals to the art world to develop a political understanding of its role. In this volume he pays particular attention to cinema which occupies a unique position in the temporal war that is the cause of symbolic misery: at once industrial technology and art, cinema is the aesthetic experience that can combat conditioning on its own territory. This highly original work - the first in Stiegler’s Symbolic Misery series - will be of particular interest to students in film studies, media and cultural studies, literature and philosophy and will consolidate Stiegler’s reputation as one of the most original cultural theorists of our time.

La métamorphose numérique des savoirs et de l'enseignement constitue un enjeu majeur du 21e siècle et se place au premier rang des priorités des universités et des organismes de recherche. De nouvelles conditions de publication, de certification et d'éditorialisation se mettent en place. Des règles et des méthodes pédagogiques inédites forment un processus dynamique qui doit pousser les institutions académiques, l'industrie et le monde économique à coopérer au-delà de la modernisation de la pédagogie ou du développement de compétences nouvelles. Mais beaucoup d'initiatives apparaissent comme des tendances en vogue sujettes à tous les vents et contrevents médiatiques, et vite dépassées par la dernière nouveauté, à l'exemple des MOOC déjà remplacés par les SPOC. Bernard Steigler a fait appel aux meilleurs spécialistes mondiaux pour démontrer que ce n'est pas seulement la pédagogie qui est bouleversée mais ce sont les savoirs eux-mêmes, depuis la recherche de pointe jusqu'aux formes les plus élémentaires de l'enseignement. L'ouvrage dresse un panorama complet des technologies réflexives et contributives, analyse en profondeur le principe de gouvernementalité algorithmique considéré désormais comme "régime de vérité" et "tournant computationnel" de la société hyperindustrielle. Il propose une méthodologie novatrice de gestion de débats et de communautés, construite sur un autre modèle que celui des réseaux sociaux actuels. Cet ouvrage de référence pose les bases d'une nouvelle industrie éditoriale numérique et audiovisuelle.

Le chez-soi a toujours été travaillé par l'autre, et par l'hôte, et par la menace de l'expropriation. Il ne s'est constitué qu'à l'ombre de cette menace. Néanmoins, on assiste aujourd'hui à une expropriation nouvelle, à une déterritorialisation, à une délocalisation, une dissociation si radicales du politique et du local, du national, de l'Etat-national et du local, que la réponse, il faudrait dire la réaction, cela devient - je veux être chez moi, je veux être chez moi, je veux être chez moi enfin, avec les miens, auprès de mes proches. Cela n'est même pas une réponse d'ailleurs, ce n'est pas une réactivité secondaire qui vient en quelque sorte compenser, réagir après-coup, non, c'est le même mouvement. Il appartient à la constitution du propre et relève de cette loi d'ex-appropriation dont je parlais plus haut - pas d'appropriation sans possibilité d'expropriation, sans la confirmation de cette possibilité. Prenons l'exemple de la télévision. La télévision introduit dans le chez-moi l'ailleurs, et le mondial, à chaque instant. Je suis plus isolé, plus privatisé que jamais, avec chez moi l'intrusion en permanence, par moi désirée, de l'autre, de l'étranger, du lointain, de l'autre langue.