Excerpt from above video:
...Today's dialectic of master and slave means the totalization of Labor. As the entrepreneur of its' own self, the Neoliberal subject has no capacity for relationships with others that might be free of purpose. Nor do enterpreneurs know what purpose free friendship would even look like.
Originally, being free meant being among friends. 'Freedom' and 'Friendship' have the same root in Indo-European language. Fundamentally, Freedom signifies a relationship. A real feeling of Freedom occurs only in a fruitful relationship, when being with others brings happiness. But today's Neoliberal regime leads to utter isolation. As such, does not really free us at all. Accordingly, the question now is whether we need to redefine "freedom", to reinvent it, in order to escape from the fatal dialectic that is changing "Freedom" into "Coercion".
Neoliberalism represents a highly efficient, indeed, and intelligent system for exploiting Freedom. Everything that belongs to practices and expressive forms of Liberty, emotion, play, and communication comes to be exploited. It is inefficient to exploit people against their will. Our exploitation yield scant returns. Only when freedom is exploited, are returns maximized.
It is interesting to note that Marx also defines freedom in terms of a successful relationship to others. "Only in community with others, does each individual have the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions. Only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible".
From this perspective, being free means nothing other than self-realization with others. Freedom is synonymous with a working Community i.e.- a successful one. For Marx, individual Freedom represents "a ruse, a trick of capital". Free competition, which is based on the idea of individual Freedom, simply amounts to the "relation of capital to itself as another Capital, i.e.- the real conduct of capital as capital."
Capital reproduces by entering into relations with itself as another form of capital through free competition. It copulates with the other of itself by way of individual Freedom. Capital grows in as much as people engage in free competition. Hereby, individual Freedom amounts to servitude, in as much as capital lays hold of it, and uses it for its' own propagation. That is, capital exploits individual freedom in order to breed. "It is not the individuals who are set free by free competition, it is rather Capital which is set free.".
This has been chapter one of "Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and new technologies of power", written by Byung-Chul Han, translated by Eric Butler, written and read in 2024. I hadn't read this before, but I think I'm enjoying it, and I'll probably read more. Chapter 2 is called "Smart Power."---
...In our world we no longer work in order to satisfy our own needs, instead we work for capital. Capital generates needs of its own. Mistakenly, we perceive these needs as if they belonged to us. Capital therefore, represents a new kind of of transcendence which entails a new form of subjectivation. We are being expelled from the sphere of lived imminence, where life relates to life instead of subjugating itself to external ends.
Emancipation from a Transcendent order, that is, an order grounded in religious premises, is the Hallmark of modern politics. Only under modern conditions when transcendental means of justification no longer possess any validity, is a genuine Politics, the politicization of society as a whole, held to be possible. Now, norms of action are supposed to be subject to negotiation at every level. Transcendence will yield to discourse imminent to society itself. Society, the reasoning goes, can construct itself anew purely from within on the basis of imminent properties. However, such Freedom vanishes just as soon as capital achieves the status of being a new transcendency, a new master. When this occurs, politics lapses into servitude again. It becomes the handmaiden of capital.
Do we really want to be free? Didn't we invent God so we wouldn't have to be free? Before God, we are all debtors, guilty, schuldig (guilty). But debt guilt destroys Freedom. Today, politicians appeal to high debt rates to explain that their freedom to act is massively restricted. Free from debt, that is, wholly free, we would truly have to act. Perhaps we run up debts perpetually so we won't need to do so. That is, so we won't need to be free, or responsible. Don't our debts prove that we don't have the power to be free? Could it be that capital is a new god, making us guilty and debt ridden?
Again, Walter Benjamin held that capitalism is a religion. As he put it, capitalism represents the "first case of a cult that creates guilt, not atonement." Since there is no possibility of relieving debt and guilt, the state of unfreedom perpetuates itself. "A vast sense of guilt that is unable to find relief, seizes on the cult, not to atone for this guilt, but to make it Universal."
The Dictatorship of Transparency
Initially, the internet was celebrated as a medium of boundless liberty. Microsoft's early advertising slogan, "Where do you want to go today?", suggested unlimited freedom and mobility on the web. As it turned out, such Euphoria was an illusion. Today, unbounded freedom and communication are switching over into total control and surveillance. More and more, social media resembled a digital panoptica, keeping watch over the social realm and exploiting it mercilessly. We had just freed ourselves from the disciplinary panopticon, then we threw ourselves into a new, and even more efficient panopticon. Jeremy Bentham's panopticon isolated inmates from each other for disciplinary purposes, and prevented them from interacting. In contrast, the occupants of today's digital panopticon actively communicate with each other, and willingly expose themselves. That is, they collaborate in the digital panopticon operations.
Digital control society makes intensive use of Freedom. This can only occur thanks to voluntary selfillumination and self-exposure. Digital Big Brother outsources operations to inmates, as it were. Accordingly, data is not surrendered under duress, so much as offered out of an inner need. That is why the digital panopticon proves so efficient. Transparency is demanded in the name of the Freedom of Information too. In reality however, this amounts to nothing other than a neoliberal dispositive. It means turning everything inside-out by force, and transforming it into in-formation.
Under the immaterial mode of production that now prevails, more information, and more communication, mean more productivity, acceleration, and growth. Information represents a positive value. In as much as it lacks interiority, it can circulate independently, free from any and all context. Accordingly, the circulation of information admits acceleration at will, for purely arbitrary reasons. Secrets foreignness, and otherness represent impediments to unbounded communication. In the name of "transparency", they are to be eliminated.
Communication goes faster when it is smoothed out, that is, when thresholds, walls, and gaps are removed. This also means stripping people of interiority, which blocks and slows down communication. However, such emptying out of persons does not occur by violent means. Instead, it occurs as voluntary self-exposure. The negativity of otherness, or foreignness, is de-interiorized, and transformed into the positivity of communicable, and consumable difference, "Diversity". The dispositive of transparency affects utter exteriorization in order to accelerate at the circulation of information, and speed communication. Ultimately, openness facilitates unrestricted communication, whereas closedness, reserve, and interiority obstruct it.
The dispositive of transparency has the further consequence of promoting total Conformity. The economy of transparency seeks to suppress deviation. Total networking, total communication already has a leveling effect, per se. Its' effect is Conformity. It is as if everyone were watching over everyone else, even before Intelligence Agencies or Secret Services have stepped in to supervise and steer. Invisible moderators smooth out communication, and calibrate it to what is generally understood and accepted. Such primary intrinsic surveillance proves much more problematic than the secondary, extrinsic surveillance undertaken by secret services and spying agencies.
Neoliberalism makes citizens into consumers. The freedom of the citizen yields to the passivity of the consumer. As consumers, today's voters have no real interest in politics, in actively shaping the community. They possess neither the will, nor the ability to participate in communal political action. They react only passively to politics, grumbling and complaining as consumers do, about a commodity or service they do not like.
Politicians and parties follow this "logic of consumption", too. They have to "Deliver". In the process, they become nothing more than suppliers. Their task is to satisfy voters, who are consumers or customers. The transparency demanded of politicians today is anything but a political demand. Transparency is not called for in political decision-making processes. No consumer is interested in that. Instead, and above all, the imperative of transparency serves to expose or unmask politicians, to make them an item of scandal. The call for transparency presupposes occupying the position of a shocked spectator. It is not voiced by engaged citizens, so much as by passive onlookers. Participation now amounts to grievance and complaint. With that, the Society of transparency, inhabited by onlookers and consumers, has given rise to a spectator democracy.
An essential component of freedom is informational self-determination. The 1984 ruling on the census made by the German federal constitutional Court already declared "If citizens cannot know who knows what, when, and on what occasion about them, the right to informational self-determination is incompatible with social order, and the legal order facilitating the same."
That said, this ruling was made at a time when people commonly believed they were facing the State as an instance of domination, which wrested information from citizens against their will. Such a time is long passed. Today, we voluntarily expose ourselves without any external constraint at all, without an edict commanding us to do so, of our own free will. We put any, and all, conceivable information about ourselves on the internet without having the slightest idea who knows what, when, or on What occasion. This lack of control represents a crisis of freedom to be taken seriously. Indeed, given the data that people make available willy nilly, the very idea of protecting privacy, "datenschutz", is becoming obsolete.
Today, we are entering the age of digital psychopolitics. It means passing from passive surveillance, to active steering. As such, it is precipitating a further crisis of Freedom. Now, "free will" itself is at stake. Big Data is a highly efficient psychopolitical instrument that makes it possible to achieve comprehensive knowledge of the dynamics of social communication. This knowledge is knowledge, for the sake of domination and control. It facilitates intervention in the psyche, and enables influence to take place on a "pre-reflexive level". For human beings to be able to act freely, the future must be open. However, Big Data is making it possible to predict human behavior. This means that the future is becoming calculable and controllable.
Digital psychopolitics transforms the negativity of freely made decisions into the positivity of factual states. Indeed, persons are being positive-ized into "things" which can be quantified, measured, and steered. Needless to say, no "thing" can be free. But at the same time, "things" are more transparent then persons. Big Data has announced the end of the person who possesses "free will".
Every dispositive, every technology or technique of domination, brings forth characteristic devotional objects that are employed in order to subjugate. Such objects materialize and stabilize Dominion. "Devotion", and related words mean "submission" or "obedience".
Smartphones represent digital devotion. Indeed, they are the devotional objects of the digital period. As a subjectivation apparatus, the smartphone works like a rosary which, because of its' ready availability, represents a handheld device, too. Both the smartphone and the rosary serve the purpose of self-monitoring and control. Power operates more effectively when it delegates surveillance to discreet individuals. "Like" is the digital "amen" when we click, like we are bowing down to the order of domination. The smartphone is not just an effective surveillance apparatus, it is also a mobile confessional. Facebook is the church, the global synagogue, literally "Assembly of the Digital".
No comments:
Post a Comment