Anaïs Nony

In this response to Simon Mills’ ‘General Technology, Judgement, and the Optative: Constructing the Technological Transcendental in Gilbert Simondon’, we engage with and contribute to the recent scholarship on transcendental perspectives in philosophy of technology. Reading Simondon alongside Stiegler, we argue that Stiegler’s atranscendental philosophy is often dismissed by a universalizing tendency that risks dogmatism. Drawing on Bataille’s general economy and Stiegler’s general organology, we propose a politicized, non-dogmatic approach to 'general technology' that attends to multiple worlds and transcendentals. We caution against solutionism and the fetishization of technical judgement, advocating instead for a pharmacology of liminal spaces that cultivates sensibility, openness, and the future of philosophy itself.

The Edinburgh Companion to Gilbert Simondon displays both the internal coherence of Simondon’s work and its innovative potential in a variety of research fields. The complexity of his philosophical enterprise is rigorously interpreted and made available to researchers that are keen to cross disciplinary boundaries and explore new appropriations of his research. Structured in four distinct sections, the volume hosts a collection of essays penned by scholars who have been working on and through Simondon for several years across different disciplines, including philosophy, psychology, politics, law, media, architecture, economy, and ecology. Topics covered range from individuation, technology, imagination and the transindividual to metastability and more.

In his new book, La société automatique, Bernard Stiegler departs from a philosophical tradition that opposes autonomy and automatization so as to position automatization at the core of biological, social, and technical forms of life. Responding to the rise of the digital—as the increasing automatization of processes of selection through computational means—Stiegler’s project challenges us to recognize contemporary life as automatic. This shift in approach inevitably recalibrates the ontogenetic grounds of contemporary culture, and necessitates a reconsideration of sociocultural practices from the standpoint of the digital modes of algorithmic existence that are enacted within our midst. Anaïs Nony: Thank you very much, Bernard Stiegler, for having me in Paris today, in your Institute for Research and Innovation. You just finished a new book titled La société automatique. Can you explain what you mean by “automatic society,” and especially that element of it that refers to the self, autos (αὐτός) in Greek? What does it mean to apply this concept to the social order? Bernard Stiegler: Thank you for these questions. First I must say that what I call automatic society is produced by the technology of automatism that is digital technology.

AI-powered technology can both promote accuracy and hide the standards of measurement and circulation of information. It can also produce models that are opaque and hard to access. As such, the new paradigm of AI asks to pounder about societal values and sets of priorities we want to promote, especially as these technologies are further deployed in times of warfare. The systemic tracking of people’s life and the opaqueness of the models designate a new paradigm in the formation of truth, as censorship is enabled on a new scale.

Noology is the technical life of ideology. It works at the formal and technical production of knowledge, rather than focusing on the content displayed by a specific system of thought. There are two reasons why the notion of noology must play a role in today’s critical and political debates. First, the concept of ideology has lost its relevance since its everyday meaning is far removed from the original meaning Karl Marx gave it; today ideology mainly means “political doctrine,” right-wing, left-wing, or the entire spectrum of shades between the two. Expressions such as “an ideology” or “ideologies” are used in critical analysis, while for Marx “ideology” has always come without any pronoun. Ideology now presents itself as an “inversion of causalities producing illusions.”1 The second reason has to do with the changes in the modes of production since the 1970s, and the rise of the post-Fordist economy, or “neoliberalism.” Since the 1970s, the end of ideologies has been proclaimed (epitomised by Daniel Bell). Given this context, noology critique demonstrates that the work of ideology in today’s economy plays out at an infrastructural level, in social organs that materially institutionalise thought and ideas, and not simply at the level of the immaterial culture of political parties and discourses (superstructure).

Prior to being a body present in time, the Other is a mountainous relief in the landscape of a common world, a perspective shape that the “I” chooses to welcome or not. This relief—if it has often been considered from the point of view of an authority deciding where It should stand—will become, we hope, the possible zone of an encounter. When this relief comes out of the ground and enters the world, when the Other becomes simultaneously something that feels and is felt, its expression opens up to become a zone of contact, a mobile and permeable layer of exchange. In this surrounding zone, the Other strips and exposes itself as evanescence. It is this unattainable geometric point that inscribes an atmospheric change by its presence: tempest, thunder, earthquake, but also heat, humidity, and evaporation. The Other is an organic sounding board reflecting our modes of being together. It is this person— per-sonare—through which the world resonates, who transforms, in the same fashion, the thermal sensations into energizing transfers, into dynamic emotions. A sensorial choice is always inscribed at the threshold of an encounter.

Ce numéro spécial de La Deleuziana est né d’une indignation à l’encontre de notre situation politique actuelle dans laquelle notre responsabilité d’êtres vivants partageant une planète commune est en proie à un manque cruel de soin à l’égard des autres. La notion de désir comme puissance de vie et force de création à la source de toute invention possible ainsi que de renouvellement de l’ordre établi s’est vite imposée à nous comme une nécessité théorique et pratique. Pourtant, le désir est ce qui aujourd’hui semble aller le moins de soi. Tantôt confisqué par une société de consommation à outrance, relayée par des slogans vulgaires et le jeu des rencontres en ligne, tantôt dévoré par un état généralisé de dépression et d’anxiété qui dégénère dans la passivité voire l’indifférence, le désir prend de plus en plus la forme des personnages beckettiens épuisés. Saisi par l’évidence de sa palpable inefficacité tant théorique que pratique, ce numéro se donne pour objectif de réinvestir la question du désir afin de renouveler la question du vivre ensemble. L’intention initiale était d’analyser l’évolution des pratiques théoriques sur le désir en philosophie contemporaine et en psychanalyse avec une attention particulière portée aux transformations subjectives collectives opérées par les nouvelles technologies numériques. Il s’agissait d’ouvrir la voie à une compréhension du désir qui ne soit plus conçu comme une image (le désir d’être et ses structures d’identifications), ni comme un objet (le désir d’avoir et ses structures d’objectification), mais comme un milieu (le désir et ses dynamiques de relation). En effet, à la suite de Deleuze, nous posons que le désir est intransitif : il ne s’agit pas du désir de quelque chose (génitif objectif), ni du désir de quelqu’un (génitif subjectif). Le désir est un processus qui possède une existence empirique autonome et se réalise dans des entités concrètes. Ce sont ces entités qui bouleversent les milieux du désir. La question devient de savoir ce que serait un milieu désiré, désirant et désirable afin de comprendre ce qui peuple nos modalités d'être au monde.

This book stands as a critique of racial capitalism and heteropatriarchy. Vergès, a Réunion-born independent scholar, defends a decolonial feminist approach to fight against the coloniality of power and advocates for a maroon political disobedience grounded in the possibility of futurity (38). Her book, soon to be translated in English, calls for a depatriarchalizing of revolutionary struggles (19) and questions the privilège de la blanchité (49) in the making of a civilizational feminism that continues to dismiss the experiences of racialized bodies today. Astonished by France's constant dismissal of slavery and colonialism in the contemporary understanding of its society, she poses that such avoidance is grounded in France's "passion pour les principes abstraits plutôt que pour l'étude des réalités" (52). While the first part of the book opens with the racialized figure of travailleuses domestiques, leading Vergès to critique the constant overlooking of indigenous struggle in imperial feminism, the second half of the book calls into question the fundamentalism of laïcité that subsequently develops against the background of a certain Orientalism centered around the white liberal elite. She highlights how "[l]es femmes racisées sont acceptées dans les rangs des féministes civilisationnelles à la condition qu'elles adhèrent à l'interprétation occidentale du droit des femmes" (79).

L’Autre, avant d’être un corps présent dans le temps, est d’abord un relief dans le paysage d’un monde commun, une forme perspective que le "je" choisit ou non de recevoir. Ce relief, s’il a longtemps été pensé depuis une autorité déterminant la place à laquelle et depuis laquelle l’Autre devait répondre, deviendra, on l’espère, l’espace possible d’une rencontre. Lorsque ce relief se présente au monde, lorsque l’Autre devient simultanément cette chose voyante et visible, son espace d’expression s’ouvre pour devenir un entourage, une enveloppe mobile et pénétrable.

Bernard Stiegler est né en philosophie comme l’on construit un édifice de sable à marée montante : toujours déjà un sacrifice. D’emblée l’expérience de la beauté et de sa perte. Son suicide marque la fin d’une vie qui n’aura eu de cesse de lutter contre les faux-semblants, les sur-codages, les symptômes accablant de vérités toutes faites. Pour quelqu’un qui, comme moi, a eu la chance de côtoyer Bernard, il est difficile de ne pas se rendre compte de la force qu’il nous laisse après son départ. Lui qui s’attela contre les effets de l’industrialisation de nos mémoires et de la synchronisation accélérée de nos consciences,1 lui qui lutta pour que l’âme soit l’axiome de nos politiques industrielles et digitales,2 lui qui pensa la transmission et l’adoption quand d’autres prônaient la transaction et l’adaptation. Bernard nous a quittés. Comme un marin quitte son navire. Seul.

The battlefield of the Anthropocene is a tragic one. It begins at the end. It emerges out of melancholy, in the locality of being not-dead-yet. As an Epoch dating the human impact on earth, the Anthropocene looks like a graveyard-to-come, one in which the story of humankind is writing its own epitaph in real time. The tragedy of our moment, or the tragic moment of our action means having to act despite knowing it is too late, searching for hope in the dark. This tragedy produces the sensation that humankind must necessarily face its own limits. And these limits are telling a story that is not a happy one: we cannot keep up with the pace of such an entropic boneyard. When it comes to the massive eradications of people and species, no one can justify the feelings of sympathy that proliferate against a back- ground of intellectual numbness. The battlefield of the Anthropocene is one that demands action.

Video-objects are often discussed in terms of their ability to reflect upon the speed of our narcissistic culture, but less acknowledged is video’s agency to perform electronic events outside of human experience. This article engages in scholarship interested in the space of video operations where lived and imagined, real and virtual phenomena are experienced at the threshold of perception. Bringing into this conversation a discussion of The Waves (2003), an interactive installation by video pioneer and media critic Thierry Kuntzel, the article moves away from the time/movement nexus grounded in a filmic understanding of the image to position video-memory as the emergence of a volume of time. Different from the time-image and movement-image of cinema, the volume-image of video defines a mode of engaging with multiple temporalities within the continuum of the video itself. Constituted progressively through layers of ever-changing signal processes, the volume-image of video technology is an open field, a transductive zone where multiple intensities create new representational rhythms, which disrupt the durational model of time so often attached to human experience.

La réalité ne suffit plus, il faut l’augmenter ! Tel un slogan qui sonnerait le glas de l’ennui, cette phrase s’inscrit au cœur du spectacle de la plasticienne américaine Claudia Hart, figure centrale des nouvelles expérimentations entre scène interactive, computer-art et performance aux États-Unis. Dans The Alices (Walking), un spectacle créé en collaboration avec le compositeur Edmond Campion et présenté pour la première fois en 2014 au Eyebeam Center for Art + Technology de New York, il s’agit de questionner les mutations du visuel et de l’écrit dans un monde de plus en plus perçu à travers le filtre des technologies digitales. Dans ce spectacle aux allures de défilé de mode, ces mutations prennent la forme de costumes « site internet » (website dresses). Cinq acteurs défilent sur le plateau et circulent entre porte-manteaux vides et chaises momentanément occupées par des spectateurs invités à venir décrypter les codes incrustés dans la matière plastique des costumes. Les spectateurs se connectent à une application via leur téléphone ou tablette et scannent les costumes lorsque les acteurs défilent devant eux. Ces costumes sont de formes sculpturales diverses, à géométrie et couleurs variables, dans lesquelles des codes informatiques ont été incrustés. Ces codes détiennent du contenu visuel (textes et images en mouvement) qui n’est accessible qu’à travers un écran programmé pour déchiffrer en réseau les codes numériques de ces robes du futur.

This article reevaluates the historical conditions of the concomitant rise of computational systems and DNA-coding in the 1950s and addresses the implementation of behavioral psychology and cybernetic technologies of control after the Second World War. From this historical perspective, this article interrogates the intersectional relation that automatic systems of control share with models of segregation and structures of knowledge oppression. It engages with the work of French philosopher Gilbert Simondon and poses Simondon’s cybernetic theory as an opportunity to question systems of knowledge imposed on ontological domains. Finally, it reveals how cybernetics reproduces a model of cultural understanding based on exclusion/inclusion and addresses the difficulty of creating new critical paradigms from within the informational technologies of neo-colonial episteme. Too often, technologies of scientific knowledge such as machine learning and informational networks are used as alibi for the imple- mentation of neo-colonial values that dictate the epistemological trajectory of societies. Scientific projects that, for example, promote the testing of pharmaceuticals on individuals in third world countries privilege beings based on categorical understandings of race, class, gender, and ability. Such projects not only legitimize structural hierarchies among subjects, as seen in the use of cephalometric technologies in imperial systems of exploration; they also sustain the cultural framework of values that segregate collective beings on a global scale.

To speak about revolution, either as an event or as a concept, must appear presumptuous at a moment when racial discrimination, fascist politics, and the totalitarian war against women and minorities are amplified by a market economy based on systemic division. In the digital present, the systematization of division is magnified by newly algorithmic structures of machinic capitalism. In that context, the more the intellect aims to grasp the depth of revolutionary actions, the less the latter seem to make sense. In other words, both the failure and the promise of revolution have created a modern paradigm to address the political struggles of our times, one that is cyclically repeating itself to challenge the limits of humankind. And yet, one can always find reasons to interrogate the symptoms of revolutionary tragedies that proliferate against a background of intellectual numbness.

Responding to the power of algorithms to operate within our daily lives, this article proposes to think of our contemporary moment as that of a society of preemption. Preemption defines the action of taking away something before an opportunity emerges or is actualized. By coupling anticipatory algorithms and preemptive technologies—like the premeditation of future events prior to their occurrence, as exemplified in popular culture by Minority Report (Massumi, Hansen)—state apparatuses force upon their subjects a modality of control that forestalls behaviors according to a massive system of data-mining and digital profiling. In this society of preemption, data are not simply voluntary exteriorized onto technical supplements (Stiegler); they are extracted from individuals by devices that preempt events and program behavior. Such a society calls for a noopolitics of the milieu, a politics that focuses on the relation between psychic and collective individuals. Whereas noopolitics has mainly been understood as a pejorative term for the hegemonic operations of power on knowledge production (Lazzarato, Terranova, Hauptmann), this article proposes a more nuanced definition of noopolitics, reconceptualized from a power that controls to a power that operates on people’s memory, behaviors, and desire. Such a noopolitics takes place in a milieu (Canguilhem, Simondon) whose relational ontology and technicity now crucially address today’s society of preemption.

With the concept of the technical image, Flusser indicates a historical shift in the structure of Western society.1 Technical images, as found in photographs, films, videos, computer terminals, and television screens, designate images produced by an apparatus designed to create programmed information. Contrary to traditional images which carry significance through representation as seen in paintings, technical images are surfaces that operate according to “inverted vectors of meaning.”2 The meaning of a technical image is not found in what the image signifies but in what it projects. In other words, technical images are less about the representation of the world and more about modeling the subject’s relation to and vision of reality. As such, technical images are “instructional programs” designed to inculcate significance, shape behavior, and direct subjects on how to make sense of the world.3 The surfaces of technical images move away from a mimetic representation of the real to inscribe concepts as connotative, as opposed to denotative, forms of signification. However, traditional images and technical images are not entirely disconnected from one another. Together they shape the posthistorical phase of humanity, a phase in which humans’ relationship to reality is increasingly conditioned and modulated by embedded codification. This codification is produced by apparatuses that calculate probability. These apparatuses are opaque because they no longer require the knowledge of their operation by the subject that handles them. In other words: traditional images are “observations of objects,” while technical images are “computation of concepts.”4

To Stiegler’s notion of pansable (curable), one might also need to add that penser (to think) relates to the Latin penso, the frequentative of pendo, to hang, suspend. The pansable (that which can be healed) is as much the pensable (that which can be thought) and the suspensible (that which can be hung). Stiegler’s final act revealed that which was always already there: an unhealed pharmacological shadow that preceded him. While he entered philosophy with the argument of technics as the impensé (unthought) of continental philosophy, he concluded in a final acting out, an impansable (uncurable) that ended his life. He, who believed that life is about cultivating rêveries and protentions capable of promise. Protention means both a capacity to invent and an ability to project oneself into the future through the practice of imagination and desire. He, who pondered about the retentions we have and the various forms of memory they take, and how to make them become the true modes of being-in-the-world. I know now that his fatal transgression is as much an accident as a departure, an emotional ceasefire and a bifurcative ending. Somehow, he found a way to remain faithful to the originary beginning of his thinking in act.

This issue is devoted to a nootechnics of the digital, which defines the importance given to both life and thought in the technogenesis of objects (both artefac- tual and technical). If the ontogenesis once resided in the relation between form and matter, we are now moving toward the question of a nootechno- genesis that resides in the relation between noos and techné. Nootechnogene- sis does not separate the emergence of technics and life. Instead, it offers a mode for thinking about the genesis of both noos (intuition, intelligence, flair, intention) and techné (technique, craft, art) as the condition and the conse- quence of our cultural condition, of our ability to mediate and negotiate dif- ferent realms of reality. Nootechnics refers to the psycho-cultural practices of care and empowerment. It supposes the wiring of a transductive unity between beings and technical objects. This transductive unity is what allows noos and techné to operate in a relational mediation toward one another and to restructure the dynamic relations between elements within a system. For that matter, nootechnics refers to care and empowerment as structural oper- ations; they promote a relational ontology of mediation needed to implement changes.

In this book, the author explores how video-image technology shapes our psychic and social environments from an art historiographical perspective. We know media technology is dramatically shaping our political and epistemological landscape: this book foregrounds the emergence of performative video images as a key factor in the revaluation of culture and politics. Performative Images draws upon the work of video artists and activists in France between the 1970s and the early 2020s and focuses on significant practices with technology. Video art and video activism are analysed together in the book to revaluate key concepts in media studies and foreground a performative approach to the theory of image technology. The book engages works in visual culture, performance studies, digital studies, critical race theory, and feminist methodologies to account for the changes brought about by video technology in social and psychic life. Performative Images is about art and activists’ engagement in video technology—an engagement that unsettles the hegemonic narrative of dominant media, as well as the apparently politically neutral dimension of communication technology.

This article draws on Bernard Stiegler and Gilbert Simondon’s work to further interrogate the psychic, social, and political problems raised by the development of Artificial Intelligence. Stiegler’s political philosophy of time-consciousness reveals three concomitants urgencies: human memory is conditioned by industrial supplements that are increasingly disruptive, capitalism has produced an entropic condition where life on earth is threaten by toxic systems, the deployment of technologies of spirits has striped individuals of their psychic and collective individuation. I read media theory along with Simondon’s philosophy to elucidate the question of mediation in today’s reticulated AI-driven society.

In an interview conducted on October, 26 2015 at the FD13 Residency for the Arts in Saint- Paul, Minnesota, Adam Linder talks about choreography as being both a technology of presence and desire. Starting off with a reflection concerning the diverse languages he uses in his artwork, Linder quickly turns his attention to the complex relationships between body movements, abstraction, and diverse forms of codification. He underlines how cultural influences are shaping production of languages and their commodification, and describes the technics he deploys for the body to remain a central mode of expression. Recipient of the Mohn Prize for artistic excellence in 2016, Adam Linder is a choreographer and dancer based in Los Angeles and Berlin.