Mar+9th

March 9 Lecture Reminder: “Children of men” screening.

We have addressed so far manifestations of the political that are tied to questions of the image, or visibility.


 * What is the political**? It implies exercising the right to speak, to denounce, to make something visible. Or to contest what is made visible.

Questions of the image we have analyzed so far: as **propaganda**, which implies to enforce a one-sided view of a state of affairs as to appease public opinion. Today: we exist in a world in which multiple-sided views of the state of affairs coexist; and this is the opposite of totalitarianism; we call this democracy. And yet, already Susan Sontag said it in the seventies, that both a single sided view of truth and a multiple-sided vision of truth serve to appease public opinion. (And we will get to that… discussing today political correctness and the struggle to visibility as mechanisms of control by the creation of consensus –what is consensus –it is AGREEMENT? Opinion and the danger is: opinion for the sake that it is “Free”). Only the idea in itself of coexisting opinions creates consensus (agreement); **Opinion: as diagnose, as telling the future, as thinking about who will be the next imperial power**; it is not as important; but to ASK QUESTIONS. Not to express diagnoses (opinion for the sake that it is free; but to ask questions).

We asked the question of the image as claiming the status of the **real in documentary practice; in this case,** images as charged with empirical knowledge. They address us at the level of affect –something without an object that causes us fear and apprehension, paralyzes… while conveying information, shock and indignation. And, as we have talked about before, **images at the register of the real share with power the fact of addressing us through affect (by way of the rhetoric of threat and security)**. This form of control –through affect, is de-centralized. What does this mean? That it is not DIRECTLY imposed by those in power to the people. This form of power asserts a different form of control than **repression**, which is the “totalitarian” form of control which is centralized. (Genevieve’s concern at the Apartheid Week lecture at Ryerson).

Last week we addressed the question of the real as the **imagined**, as a threat, as undemocratic, as the construction of an imaginary enemy (Islam as the enemy of democracy: we saw that at stake here is a politics of economy; capital and oil, which are inextricable from the demonization of the Middle East, especially since the 1970s; Edward Said has a very important book about this called: //Covering Islam//, which precisely starts with the kidnapping of the Americans by the Iranian students). We did not have time to discuss this but Marjane Satrapi’s comic book and movie, but //Persepolis// recurs to autobiography and interpellates our imagination through drawings; animation.

This week, //V for Vendetta// takes us to the **symbolic**. Ryan posted in the web a few links leading to us to the symbols embedded in the film. What is the symbolic? (Going back to our Intro to Visual Studies class): ** Symbol/symbolic ** : a mode in which the signifier does // not // resemble the signified but which is fundamentally // arbitrary // or purely conventional - so that the relationship must be learnt: e.g. language in general (plus specific languages, alphabetical letters, punctuation marks, words, phrases and sentences), numbers, morse code, traffic lights, national flags. (THE OBJECT, the word, the sign IS CHARGED WITH A MEANING THAT IS FOREIGN TO IT).

à Why are we compelled to act? What are the motivations to be moved? Regarding political action, the movie does a series of interesting symbolic displacements. If revolutions in the past were fought in the name of ideas (or ideology), for the sake of an ideal world (and for the establishment of socialism –has anyone seen the Che movie? He acts in the name of //justice// and with the hope to rectify dispossession, to give everyone equal rights, beginning with medical care (he was a doctor); his struggle is based in //Marxist ideas// and in Cuba they instituted a Communist regime. It can be said that revolutions were fought in the name of ideas: The principle that all men are equal and should equally share what is common. Since the revolutions imploded, went corrupt and failed in the 1970s (In Colombia they became drug dealers; Africa: Various “Liberation” and “national” fronts or factions fighting for power based on ethnic and tribal divisions (this leads to genocide), we could evoke a slogan, spoken out by one of the characters in a movie by Godard: “To kill a man to defend an idea is not defend an idea, it is to kill a man.” And we would all agree… given the luxury of historical retrospection.
 * Outrage; being indignant, not being able to tolerate injustice.**

V talks about ideas at the beginning of the film saying: Ideas are important… and we should believe in ideas, and fight for them…

“V”… one of the most famous revolutionary slogans (Che Guevara): “Hasta la Victoria siempre!” “Until Victory”: V here is –Vendetta (revenge); V is not an anarchist but acts for the sake of personal revenge;

V: is a former activist is emprisoned in a concentration camp, Larkhill. What happened? Difference was eliminated, a right wing fundamentalist regime was established and its “enemies” were put into concentration camps (Muslims, Jews, blacks, homosexuals, communists) –The citizens are portrayed as spectators (always watching television)? Nuclear family, people in the pub: it is all white people); bioterrorist attack for which the state was responsible led to this repression… A gay woman is also in the concentration camp (effacement of difference);
 * In //V for Vendetta//, the desire for social change is brought by, not through ideas or an ideal world; or for establishing an anti-capitalist system, but by way of personal revenge.** As a subtext of the film we have the story of the count of Monte Cristo; a novel written by the French writer, Alexandre Dumas, which takes place at the beginning of the 19th century. Eve and V watch and comment the movie. Edmond Dantes was accused of being a traitor and a spy; he was a capitan of the army who comes to marry his fiancé but is then betrayed and emprisoned. After he is released, and nine years later, he puts into action a plan for revenge –he goes one of his enemies after the other. “Revenge is more important to him than love,” says Eve to V.

People become more and more unhappy and subversive in this system; the party leader kills the chancellor (not to topple power from below --right, following the logic of the Revolution; but what //V// does is to make power implode –to destruct itself from inside); he gives Evey the choice of sending the train through the underground that will bring down the parliament; (SPECTACLE and terrorist attacks as spectacle: Baudrillard; anarchy as spectacle –cultural jamming; power needs to implode); à What is anarchy? The destruction of symbolic power. Lawlesness. (Symbolic demolitions of the parliament; symbol of the destruction of the State and to substitute it with a new system); à V’s anarchist destruction is considered terrorism; like September 11th is an act of anarchy (Symbol of the World Trade Towers: American Hegemony and Capitalism, of Empire); Baudrillard described the 9/11th attack as a symbolic event with global stakes. How was it commented? It was condemned morally. (Baudrillard: it is not a moral issue; it is that hegemony and American power are unbearable) For Baudrillard, this was a symbolic strategy… a kind of redemption for the sake of the exploited and dispossessed. The intensification of power as the exacerbation of the will to destruct (and so for Baudrillard power is complicit with its own destruction); Baudrillard: The system itself created the objective conditions for this brutal action. –This is beyond Islam and the US; a fundamental antagonism that traverses the specter of the US through the specter of Islam… but it is about globalization. __War: has become the staging of spectacle__ (Golf war); à Baudrillard argued in this essay about 9/11 that the spirit of terrorism is never to attack the system in terms of power relations… and that terrorism displaces the struggle to the symbolic field: challenge, reversion… signals to the point when the system commits suicide. à Remember our discussion of mythical violence and divine violence: Mythical violence is the violence necessary to maintain a state (police; power relationsips; repression; surveillance). Divine violence: redemptive violence that topples the previous system of law to give leeway to a new one. à Terrorism is another category for Baudrillard: It is “symbolic” violence; it is not real but symbolic; it creates an “event”; it is spectacle.

à Anarchism dreams of a society without a state; neo-anarchism: a DISTANCE from the state. (Mediation between SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER: ignoring the gap between power and the people);

Media tycoon and television presenter (propaganda broadcaster); The paedophile priest (religion) A chemist doing chemical experiments with the prisoners; (health, biopolitics)
 * What is operating in the movie as well? The de-personalizations of power (as opposed to power being embodied by an evil dictator to be toppled); In //V for Vendetta//, the characters that //V// takes revenge against symbolize the networks of the diffusion of power:**

à November 5th: Commemoration; symbols are important for the collective; to hold the collective together (dangers of fascism); à Images within images in the film that are recognizable: mass graves in concentration camps in Germany (piles of dead bodies with their heads shaven); and visual references to Nazi rallies (Black and red with white are the colors of the ruling party, like the Nazis: they use a double cross as a symbol);

(Big Brother); mass surveillance, closed-circuit television on the citizens; yellow coded security system (like the one established by Bush’s regime);

Painting in the basement: “Coalition of the Willing, to Power” (Coalition of the Willing AND will to power –Nietzsche: Power is shaped by POWER RELATIONS (not imposed from the above); à The role of art is posited as “telling lies to uncover truths”; This idea that the task of art is to “unveil” truths is the Modernist conception of art. Now how do we think of art today? Why does not art have this function anymore? Because everything is uncovered; all the truths are out there, we live in a regime that claims transparency; where everything is knowable, visible and sayable. What is the role of art then? Since the seventies, it has had as the mandate to “speak truth to power”; founded on the ethics of recognition (identity politics, to give voice to those who previously did not have it; now remember that May ’68 theory and practice did away with mediation (delegates and the mechanism of representation). No intermediaries; artists speak on behalf of themselves; not on behalf of the “people” to come (their role as avant-garde intellectuals); and no delegates speaking in the name of workers. à To “speak truth to power” means also: to express indignation of the damages done to self and others; to denounce dispossession and to accuse capitalism. But we live in a transparent regime… so we speak out a “truth” that everyone knows… Where am I headed here? Today in the regime of transparency, everything is made visible –what is it that remains invisible? (Before, in totalitarian regimes is what EVERYONE knows but none talks about; today what is invisible is something that NONE knows). Is //V for Vendetta// close or far to us? (it is set in the future) What forms of power are manifested? Monarchy, Nazism, despotism, fascism and a regime of police, security and surveillance.

Another shift or displacement is evident in //V for Vendetta// in terms of the political subject. What is a “political subject”? It is the citizen-subject of an autonomous political sphere; the disciplined subject of civil society. In V-for vendetta, again, the citizen-subject is a television spectator.

Since the seventies, this citizen-subject after the Anglo-Saxon multicultural model both created and de-stabilized a civil subject struggling for visibility based on racial, ethnic, cultural and sexual identifications. Such identifications were posited as not fixed or determined a priori (because a fixed identification implies prejudice, “otherization”). Thus, we have fluid, hybrid and mobile subjectivities which we are free to choose –they are not based on norms or constraints or impositions.

This means that “symbolic identity” (sexual orientation, race, ethnicity); has ceased to be meaningless in the __society of control__ or the __police estate__ (In fascism, as we saw, difference is eliminated).

If in //V for Vendetta// difference is suppressed –by fascism, for the sake of the symbolic constitution of the state as //one people// (defined by territory –soil and blood), differently, in contemporary democracy, //difference// is what constitutes the state symbolically and thus difference is brought to the fore, made visible –now we have “imaginary identities” dissociated from the more accurate civilian subjects of neoliberal democracies, which are the CONSUMER and the CRIMINAL.

The CONSUMER and the CRIMINAL are not symbolic (we do not see ourselves like this); rather, as consumers we have a wide variety of opportunities to imagine ourselves… different lifestyles that we can try. Identity is vulnerable and shifting; stability is embodied in the ghost of the myth of success and of my capacity to enjoy: I can always have more, I can realize my dreams, be fit, be stylish; everyone wins and I can fulfill myself. I can make myself over. (TV SHOWS: about crimes and about make overs) à Extreme consumption and extreme enjoyment (jouissance: Zizek) are part of the neoliberal market. And “Freedom” is described as the freedom to make myself over, to fulfill myself, to realize my dream (**Rhetoric from the article from the exam**)

What is the other side of this? The criminal and the terrorist who embodies threat of losing our freedom; anxiety of loss, of missing out… anxiety to produce surplus value (work); anxiety to loose; anxiety of the Real of violence. This anxiety mobilizes NEOLIBERAL GOVERNAMENTALITY: as the police estate.

The Welfare state (what we have in Canada, combined with Neoliberalism) views crime as the result of dysfunctional institutions: education, family and socialization and job opportunities. The Welfare state thus tries to fix these “disasters” because they create crime. Within the neoliberal system: crime is imminient: It can erupt anywhere, anytime so POWER RESPONDS WITH vigilance, supervision, control and crime PREVENSION (Preventive wars as we will see next week). The job of the Neoliberal state is to assure public safety; it pursues a preventive job. (Circulation of goods, people and money) “Struggles against power” –for Foucault, have as the task to locate the different manifestations of power and power relations that are translated into de-centralized forms of control. (Fascism: power is centralized; neoliberal democracy: de-centralized)) à This means, how to think power beyond the traditional form of RULING. (Diffused, de-centralized) Power is asserted through: Police, discipline, sovereignty, security, control, surveillance. These forms of power are historical and woven into a complex interweaving mechanism of control today.


 * (Elements of both; hard to find fixed definitions because they are all implicated within each other) –they are slippery.**
 * Power is the knowledge of the state to administer knowledges (visibility) and and visualization.**
 * à Multicultural, tolerant Canda**: Its image stands at odds with the offshore program we discussed a few weeks ago; but then, none has heard about it.

What is **discipline**? To assert punishment; to execute as the symbolization of absolute power of the sovereign (after a crime has been committed). (Discipline has manifested in school, hospitals.. bureaucracy: Remember in Arna’s children? How children are educated through punishment: subjection and obedience. What is the difference between sovereignty and modern practices? Sovereign practices: affirm control over a territory and secure the loyalty of its objects in a static, centralized manner. Sovereign power works through: binary oppositions and prohibitions. Modern practices of power are **future-oriented, they operate under the logic of the maximization of resources and exercise MODERN BIOPOLITICAL PRACTICES. They work through normalization, prescription and risk-management (preemption).** What is BIOPOLITICS AND BIOETHICS? Differently, the police is concerned with SECURITY and it is thus worried about the future (prevention); the police administers RISK. (Risk or threat toward the state and toward the population). à We should distinguish: SOVEIGNTY, Discipline and GOVERNAMENTALITY. Sovergnty again: its rigid controls. Governmental (liberal) techniques do NOT PROHIBIT but incentivize certain economic activities (US subsidy of agricultural production… compete with Canada and Mexico: destroyed the economy). SOVEREIGN city planning: clear sight lines and monumental state architecture (to incite loyalty, patriotism). Security: to manage public health and other risks. One of its aspects is SURVEILLANCE; the other one is the police. municipal, administrative, planning and zoning, and eventually, environmental regulation.
 * Police Regime:** acts in the differentiation of space and time; proper to urbanization; was established since the 18th century. It is different from SOVEREIGN law because it can only prohibit and coerce (**Bully**).
 * Soverignty** is worried with the loyalty of its subjects and to suppress treason. (V for Vendetta: repression of the gay man; repression in art; repression of democratic expression; creation of loyalty through threat).
 * Soveringty**: Is central, it involves controlling a territory. **Pastoral power**: is concerned with SPACE (not territory) –focused on the flock… not to wander off: it is the shepherd who looks after the sheep, spiritually. The pastor sacrifices himself and that is why his sheep are indebted to him; the pastor also knows (confession) the virtues and vices of the sheeps: symbolic debt is established and thus obedience. **Foucault located the rebirth of pastoralism in the police estate: What I talked about capitalism’s injunction to enjoy… shaping the souls of the citizens and its capacity to do it.**
 * The aim of the police is to ensure the easy circulation of people, goods and wealth. It regulates and prevents for the sake of the internal order.** Urban space: is the site of police regulations (“Loitering” –hanging out in public space as a crime). The management of public space and transportation. contemporary urban planning tendencies and how gated communities (Orange County as the North American paradigm as well as Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Johannesburg, Buenos Aires, etc.) that host the world’s privileged affect the social tissue: by many accounts, such living configurations purport paranoia, isolation, the degree zero of public space, and fuel car culture to the detriment of more ecologically minded, collective transportation systems –again, all subject to the Neoliberal trends that are now imploding globally. It uses SURVEILLANCE as a mechanism of control and regulation.
 * Police: the efficiency of the movement of people, things and wealth; its form: they act on SPECIFIC GROUPS OF PEOPLES and specific activities, regulations and times (Vagrants, sellers, prostitutes);**

The right to DISAGREE (democracy) and police oppression: since the 1970s: tightening up of the police state; to assure the traffic of goods and money, etc. to ensure privatization and thus the flow of money and goods.
 * Images: From the G8 in 2007, 2008 and quotes and image from China during the Olympics.**

That the differentiated risks posed by capitalist labor, urban space, transportation, moral and social threats, and later, sites and substances identified as dangerous to public health were the main sites giving rise to police innovations is well known; __POLICE: as a rationality of governance, that articulates sovereignty with biopolitics and discipline__. Difference between police sovereignty and criminal PUNISHMENT; both are mechanisms of discipline: the public interest in prospreit, public health, and public order –with the concern to preserve and enhance state power. (Expropriation of a werehouse without adequate compensation… for the sake of the “public good”; gentrification). à Difference between the logic of soverengty and that of security pertaining a THEFT: Soverignty punishes it with criminal law; security considers the phenomeon of theft as a series of probable events and thus it prevents future thefts. à Security: becomes a rationality of governance when civilians think of themselves not as a collective, but as singular subjects and souls (Capitalism, individualism). Surveillance and discipline: to punish offenders with disciplinary techniques and to reform deviance. Institutions are temporary sites in which practices are tried out… experiments. à More and more: identification between LIBERAL POLITICAL ECONOMY, POWER, FREEDOM and STATE COERCION.
 * Police is different than PASTORAL power** and yet the police combines and synthesizes sovereignty and pastoral power. Police economy: de-regulations, intervention in markets, subsidies; business licencing as a form of police control. (INCLUDING MORAL ORDERING AIMS: ALL IN THE NAME OF THE PUBLIC GOOD).
 * Security**: Is future-oriented management of risk and threat. It is different from sovereignty. Security-logic argues that it is the necessary complement of liberty. The “securization of liberty.” Security and maintaining security as the job of the law. **Economic change and political unrest bring in new security needs**.

à What is the “STATE OF EXCEPTION”? (important for when we talk about “permanent war and bare life”. State of exception: EMERGENCY RULES (an exacerbation or intensification of the police; both preemptive and actual); called in by Bush (Level of threat);

CONSTANT VISBILITY; it reverses the principle of the dungeon; (to encolsoe, to deprive of light and to hide). Foucault discussed visibility as a trap. à Each individual, in his place, is securely confined to a cell from which he is seen from the front by the supervisor. à THe Panpticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. To arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it. BENTHAM: power should be visible and unverifiable. The Panopticon: is a machine for dissociating the see/being seen dyad: in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen, without ever seeing. In the central tower, one sees everything without ever being seen. à Panopticon: to reform prisoners, to treat patiens, to instruct schoolchildren..., to confine the insane, to supervise workers, to put beggars and idles to work. It is a type fo location of bodies in space, of distribution of individuals in relation to one another, of hierarchical organization, of disposition of centres and channels of power, of definition of the instruments and modes of intervention of power which can be implemented in hospitals, workshops, schools, prisons. à The panoptic schema makes any apparatus of power more intense: it assures its economy (in material, in personel, in time); it assures its efficacity by its preventative character, its continous functioning and its automatic mechanisms… aw ay of obtainin power. INTENSIFICATION OF POWER as a multiplicator of production. Panopticism: the whole region of irregular bodies, with their details, their multiple movements, their heterogeneous forces, their spatial relations; what are required are mechanisms that analyse distributions, gaps, series, combinations, and which use instruments that render visible, record, differentiate and compare: a physics of a relational and multiple power, which has as its maximum intensity not in the person of the king, but in the bodies that can be individualized by these relations. At the theoretical level Bentham defines another way of analyzing the social body and the power relations that traverse it; in terms of practice, he defines a procedure of subordination of bodies and forces that must increase the utility of power while dispensing with the need for the prince. Panopticism: is the principle whose object are not SOVERINGTY but DISCIPLINE. Transparent, circular cage; barracks, schools, workshops; In a society in which the principal elements The circuits of communication are the supports of an accumulation and a cerntralization of knowledge… Networks of visibilities… FOUCAULT dismissed spectacle: “Our society is not one of spectacle, but of surveillance; under the surface of images one invests bodies in depth.” SPECTACLE: a set of techniques for the management of bodies; the management of attention “for assuring the ordering of human multiplicities: to fix; an anti-nomadic technique”; partitioning… we could further the case that television furthers the panoptic technology (partition, individualization); SURVEILLANCE AND SPECTACLE ARE NOT OPPOSED TERMS, but collapsed onto one another in a more effective disciplinary apparatus. Recent developments have confirmed literally this overlapping model: television sets that contained advanced image recognition techniques in order to monitor and quantify the behavior, attentiveness and eye movement of the spectator. We said that the subject of capitalism is the social civilian with a fluid identity and free to choose her lifestyle… who exists within the system as CONSUMER and as CRIMINAL. Not as “worker.”

Citizens of city state republics (of Nation states) were the ‘many’ –who used their right to resist. What is the right to resist? Definition by Virno: “It consists in asserting the prerogatives of a sigular, of a local community, of a craft guild, against the central power –protecting its habits and forms of life already affirmed.” à A kind of violence for the sake of CONSERVATION. The right to protect something that already exists. à This is different, again from “anarchy” and “seizing power” (building or not a new State or system). à Virno defines the “right to resist” as the difence of plural, common experiences and forms of life. (as different also, from civil war: when the people turn against the state).
 * SHIFT: “Struggles against power” (beyond revolution as the container for social change)**

Virno talks about the post-fordist multitude that provokes the collapse of political representation: à This collapse happened for the sake of the control of the state (Delegates representing workers; artists, intellectuals speaking on behalf of the people).
 * The representational logic: went hand in hand with Fordism: Mass production and consumption; (before the 1960s); consumption, mass production and sustained economic growth. Fordism: the organization of production lines… engeneering in the process of production: standardized manufacturing processes. (easiness in making and repairing); increasing automatization;**

Offshoring and OUTSOURCING: hiring labor elsewhere: closer to the resources; factories outside of the industrialized countries seeking cheaper labor;
 * Taylorism: the worker is replaced with… psychological or emotional relationship to the workplace: creativity, imagination, and initiative.**

“Post-fordist multitude”: Not defined by class relations or the position they occupy in the process of production (i.e., “workers” and “bourgeoisie”); basically the middle class. Collapse of political representation and a non-representative democracy: “Speaking truth to power”;
 * After the seventies: post-fordist, or “flexible system of production): what is called “TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT”; workers without leaders… faster product life cycles, market differentiation.**

GENERAL INTELLECT: is what empowers the multitude, which is the appropriation and rearticulation of knowledge/power that is hijacked by the administrative apparatus of the State.

The MULTITUDE: is the same as the working class before. It is not the end of the working class (according to Virno); workers: manual labor; the multitude, cognitive or intellectual labor. “Freedom” or the potential to freedom is found in creativity and intellectual labor. THe “people” is a concept (like “working class”); and it implies: the citizens united against power. (Remember… as a mandate of artists: to speak on behalf of the “people” to come; the “people” carry the emancipatory potential). Now the concept of the “people” has been substituted by “the multitude.” (What they have in common is that both create surplus value. The “people” is gathered around a political party. The “multitude” organizes different; (spontaneously); Workers found it oppressive to define themselves by their own activity. Hardt and Negri’s claim is that the multitude is the new political subject and political alternative that grows within empire. Yet, I would dispute this view both on both theoretical and political grounds: theoretically, the analysis given in //Empire// at the ontological level risks retreating into the very anti-dialectical materialist ontology of substance that Marx rightly criticized in his early work. Politically, in my view Hardt and Negri’s approach makes the work of politics too systemic where both empire and multitude, that is, both capitalism and the resistance to capitalism, originate in the same ontological substance. It is rather rare for books to be refuted empirically, but I think this happened to //Empire// on September 11th, 2001. More generally, if we are doing politics, we cannot and should not pin our hopes on any ontology, whether a Marxian notion of species-being, a Spinozo-Deleuzianism of abundance, a Heideggero-Lacanianism of lack, or any version of what Stephen White has recently called ‘weak ontology’ in politics. On my view, politics is a disruption of the ontological domain and separate categories are required for its analysis and practice. There is and should be no transitivity between ontology and politics. //V for Vendetta//: Symbolizes the MULTITUDE: how? (anyone, everyone disrupt the order of the state); Hardt and Negri: The multitude is the “people” of empire; what the “working class” was to the nation state, and “revolutionaries” to anti-imperialism. The MULTITUDE: attempts to identify a shift in concepts of political theories and postmodernism; racism, identity and difference, networks of communication and control, paths of immigration. Biopwoer: the organization of social life from the interior; (power has command on “life”); empire is the “disappearance” of the enemy (We will see how this is countered… “permanet war”); no more class divisions… RESISTANCE: The will to be against; Multitude: a NEW MODEL OF RESISTANCE; new forms of struggle and subjectivity; (Hardt and NEgri): They develop and constitute their own projects; the multitude contains the potential to resist… it is inherently creative; it is a force that can destroy empire. It contains the potential for self-organization; cooperation, solidarity; Many problems with this concept: it cannot exist outside of power; it ignores the international division of labor; empowering through technology; and having “creativity” as its substance (like Late Capitalism –post-fordism).
 * Simon Critchley’s critique of the Multitude:**
 * Empire**: is a de-centralized and de-territorialising apparatus of rule that constantly expands its frontiers and thereby .. creates economic globalization; Who is the enemy? And where is the potential to act? The new “world order”; Decline of the soverginty nation-state; regulatory frameworks (Empire);