Comments on: Cartography of Excess

By: Brian Holmes

Brian Holmes — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 21:33:06 +0000

So far, I only managed to seriously read We Have Never Been Human, and that was a long time ago. Plus quite a few articles. It seems to me Latour has a machinic perspective, he understands that human intentionality is bound up with the purposes and inertia of things, especially technical objects, it’s posthumanist in that sense and therefore useful. But you have to introduce some other logic of decision and emancipation. Otherwise you have only a scholarly and, at best, technocratic analysis. Does Latour fall into that dead end? I would have to read more. Let the (anti) Latourians speak.

best, Brian

By: someone from pre-drift gondwanaland

someone from pre-drift gondwanaland — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:34:59 +0000

apropos Latour, would love to read more of your take on him, and ANT (and its latent techno-fetishistic tendencies?) – and also the peculiar popularity of Latour in the Design world.

in case, you have already written extensively on him, apologies for not doing my homework. but well, taking some comfort in the improvisational nature of the blog

best
A
bangalore

By: Brian Holmes

Brian Holmes — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:32:13 +0000

Indeed. That kind of tracing of networks is exactly what the work of Bureau d’Etudes – and the evolution of society – has led me to over the last ten years. And your article looks very interesting, thanks, I will read it. Paging through it I notice Latour and Callon. I have often encountered their work along the way, sometimes quite usefully. When, however, on a panel I was moderating about telecommunications networks, Latour used some concept of “oligopolies” (I forget exactly his concept) while steadfastly refusing (even when pressed) to consider the economic and political meaning of the word “oligopoly” in the telecommunications market, well… I started to wonder if maybe his “tracing of networks” was set up to lead *away* from some of the key questions that face us in the early 21st century? Questions of power, not to say domination?

By: CA

CA — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:34:44 +0000

Maybe this can be read as an appeal to some real network tracing, because it could be a powerful tool: http://www.scribd.com/doc/85760369/Rumpala-Knowledge-and-Praxis-of-Networks-as-a-Political-Project-21st-Century-Society1

By: Brian Holmes

Brian Holmes — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:24:42 +0000

Hi Diana -

Of course I know Alex Jones. The problem is, he’s a right-wing critic of the American state, or more precisely, a right-wing splinter. These people (like Ron Paul) tend to believe that what’s wrong is the very idea of a state. In the US they are called libertarians. One can share some of their critique, but the world they envision is a Darwinian, dog-eat-dog sort of place. There are lots of them now, with the rise of the Tea party. Just check out Alex Jones on Wikipedia, you will learn some interesting things. What’s more, these people have been systematically instrumentalized by corporate interests in order to gain support for budget-cutting and dismantling of any kind of welfare state. They are like the evil twin of contemporary anarchists, the bad reflection in the mirror. In that sense one can learn something from them, it can be an occasion for a useful self-critique. However it’s a bit painful and don’t be surprised if there are a long string of comments following yours…

bet,Brian

By: diana recagno

diana recagno — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:47:15 +0000

Hi Brian,
Maybe you already know about a site, I consider Interesting…
Triggered by the post you recommended me.

prisonplanet…

I could go thru it just a bit last night, I will go on…
tavistock-systems psychodynamics- mass brain washing techniques
forum.prisonplanet.com
SRI intl-
Bateson-Margaret Mead. (members of Tavistock)
etc…
Hugs from Rosario,
Diana.