Monday, September 15, 2008

The Healthy Body

This will all be wildly off topic, so apologies for those expecting commie kitsch, thoughts on Tacheles closing or a devastating analysis of the rise and rise of Die Linke! There are some nice ironic pictures about halfway through, so they're worth sticking around for....

I'm currently doing some research work for an academic looking at the water bottle as a modern thing, what it represents -- there's Latour, biopolitics, risk, neoliberal privatisation and many other theoretical bits floating around in the framing of the project. I don't get to touch most of that. I am just researching one specific campaign. I have managed, though, to spend a day or two reading Feher and Heller's 1994 slim book on biopolitics. (If you can't turn academic research jobs into explorations of pet topics/ideas/authors, what's the goddamn point?)

There's a clear sense in which this is a book written by people spooked by a far-reaching state. Presumably if you were in communist Hungary, saw 1956, had hopes crushed, academic positings withdrawn etc etc, this is something you'd be fairly careful about.

Nevertheless, they do a good job here of taking their longer view -- a fairly worked-through set of ideas about modernity's genesis and meanings (for them, in this context, it's an ongoing debate of life versus liberty) -- and marrying it to some contemporary analysis. So you get your Kant with some Rodney King race riots, your Hegel with some Andrea Dworkin and your Weber with anti-smoking campaigns.

It's this last point where we start to get crossover with the marketing of water bottles. I don't always fully agree with their positions, but they get in some cracking lines, paragraphs and, well, whole pages of analysis. Below is one of my favourites.
Since health politics demands that we force our sense of mortality into oblivion and continually remain fit labour machines, an odd version of the age-old dream of eternal youth also becomes one of ‘health’s’ metaphoric meanings. The politics of health runs a desperate race with time. It wants to bring time to a halt in order to raise the bodily state of the adolescent boy and girl to the pedestal of the ideal. The alliance of health politics with health industry makes this feature even more explicit.… Theoretically, one could expect at least an aesthetic yield from this exaggerated cult of youth, a new adoration of beauty. But the standards of youthfulness are technologically set; they aim at mass production. In the pursuit of health, biopolitics becomes unfaithful to the spirit of the post-modern. Instead of promoting ‘difference’—beauty as the mark of individuality—it promotes the production of ‘the healthy body’ en masse.
And just before this passage, they make a nice series of linkages between the stigma of being unhealthy, utilitarianism and the Protestant ethic.
He who commits ‘health crimes’ is ‘unreconstructed’ (a term of the re-education camps) and ‘contaminated’. Above all, he causes public expenditure (by the implied crime of eventually falling ill, being hospitalised, and perhaps even buried at public expense). Those who waste too much time discussing ‘progress,’ should rather compare the stone-hearted utilitarianism of health politics with medieval caritas. But the reference to ‘public expenditure,’ more than anything else, betrays that one of the major objectives of health politics is to restore the shattered Protestant work ethic to its abandoned central position, by reviving its neurotic self-discipline; its imperative to subject the individual to ‘public goals’ and the world of labour, as well as to Protestant work ethic’s inherent miserliness.

So the body -- our 'health' -- must be disciplined and punished. Health as a political metaphor can be seen, for them, in the various exhortations for the individual. Health, in such a setting
cannot be pursued without the binary of ‘friend and foe’. It is for this reason that the concept of ‘secondary smoking’ was created. It is not the general pollution of cities and the industrial environment, not AIDS, drugs, alcohol, the creeping back of tuberculosis (as well as other diseases which have never been mastered) that will cause our premature deaths but the results of Secondary Smoking. It is useless to waste time considering the ‘scientific basis’ of this inquisitorial concept. More important is to recognise its function. Our needs and habits no longer have a private character; we are directly responsible from them in front of the ‘public eye’. ‘Science’ has to be mobilised to ‘prove’ that in indulging in our particular health crime we endanger our fellow citizens, pollute (and thus abuse) our children, upset the mental peace of our neighbours, and contaminate the moral atmosphere. The conclusion is self-evident: either submit to the norm, or pay the penalty, perhaps la mort civile. This is what justifies sniffing the ‘secret smoker’ out of the toilet booth (as once the secret masturbator was sniffed out) and denouncing him without further delay or calling the guard to remove the perpetrator from the premises.…By and large the politics of health is successful insofar as it transplants a massive guilt feeling, the prerequisite for the victory of the course of ‘discipline and punish’, into the psyche of the individual. One sees on the same TV-set a host of young men and women who tell you that because they lost x pounds or kilos in their last diet, they no longer feel guilty.

In matters of water bottles and marketing, these healthy bodies are linked to healthy Nature. Drinking from those bottles, we undertake an ethic of care for the self/body -- health politics -- and for Nature -- environmental politics. We forego the less healthy choice -- sugary soft drinks, fattening milk, stimulant coffee -- in order to move closer to nature and purity, away from contamination and stigma/shame/guilt.

Following a kind of Weberian line, I wonder if this didn't represent re-enchantment of the water bottle: its messages and attachments are to connect [re-connect?] the consumer-as-body to nature, purity, clarity, a kind of singularity of nature, both universal (nature, the earth, the body) and particular (my body, my environment, my world). The tap is non-unique, anonymous, tracked by bureaucracy and water bills, immobile because owned by all. The bottle is unique, specific, instantly locatable and mobile.

(Pics via Flickr and Healthy Living Tip [?])

Friday, September 12, 2008

Polska posters

As if in some visual exercise of dialectics, Polish artists seem to take a Polish appreciation of illustration play it off against Hollywood film and come out with some genius synthesis. This Well Medicated post attests to as much, fifty times over. A Polish aesthetics for Hollywood?





Thursday, August 14, 2008

Symposiasts, unite!

A break in the roaring silence. Fans will know that I have been busy elsewhere - jumping roundabouts and swinging on hurdles for University bureaucracy, teaching psychoanalysis to 17 year olds and laying awake at night thinking about the dissertationy things that I can't find the time to think about at any other point. The upshot of this is that new content will appear here, forthwith. Promise.

Nevertheless, the reason for this break in the static is to give later-than-late notice of a symposium at the University of Melbourne tomorrow. It takes on/up/over/aim at the topic of May '68. I paste below the official circular sent to me late today. (Breaking news!) I had thought of preparing a presentation on the (overwhelming) tinges of nostalgia in the remembrance of May '68. As it was, time got the better of me, and the topic seemed a fair stretch from my Easterly homepatch. Much too occidental a concern for me to dally with.

All are welcome to listen to the papers, and enjoy the provocation and opportunity to talk about revolting students!

The order of speakers is not yet confirmed, so if you wish to disregard the rest of us and only come to hear your favourite, I am afraid you will have to await a further update, or contact your pet directly.

Following the program is the general outline of the nature and intentions of the symposium.

Provocations of '68
A Social Theory Postgraduate Symposium


Friday 15th August
Multi-function Room, 1888 Building
The University of Melbourne
10am – 4pm

Welcome
9:30 - 10:00 am
Coffee and Tea in the Multifunction Room

Foreword
Assoc/Prof. John Rundell - 1968 and Social Theory

Session 1
10 – 12:00 am
Bryan Cooke - Cassius at the Carnival, or How much light does it take to be invisible?

Yoni Molad - The concept of the Situation in Guy Debord's 'Society of the Spectacle'

Thea Potter - Les Cadres: from Revolution to Evolution

Sergio Mariscal - On Other '68s: Prague, Berlin and Mexico City

Session 2
1:00 – 2:30 pm
Stefan Siemsen - Intellectual Labour - Then and Now

James Field - Beyond the Barricades

Michael Ashcroft - Althusser and 1968

Afternoon Tea
2:30 – 3:00 pm

Roundtable discussion
3:00 – 4:00 pm
Moderated by Dr. John Cash

Afterword
Professor Ghassan Hage - Closing Remarks: The Meanings of 1968

Abstract/invitation/summary/prelude/outline/intentions
May ’68 stands as a loadstone to the imagination. With forty years hindsight interpretations of the significance of the events, the demands, the causes and consequences continue to provoke debate and the taking up of positions not only on the past but also on our current situation. Beyond the question of what ’68 was, taking a standpoint on ’68 entails the engagement with the content of ideology, practice and social change and its continuity or discontinuity with the present.

The events of ’68 were formative for a generation of French intellectuals that have become canonical. The responses of theorists and philosophers who observed and participated in the events of ‘68 acted (and still act) as a litmus test of their political positions. But ‘68 should not be seen only as a battle of intellectuals, particularly since the events were perhaps unprecedented to many of the thinkers that we associate with that time, challenging and provoking them to rethink positions towards both capitalist and socialist modernity.

And the social action of ’68 was not confined only to France or to a student uprising. In the Americas as much as in Europe movements contested the legitimacy of social life, of domination political and economic, of the ubiquity of state violence and the one dimensionality of work.

The intention of this symposium is to gather together for a day of presentations and discussion on the social, cultural and philosophical legacy of May ’68, to examine the debates around what happened, but also what was demanded, what were the causes, and what is the legacy of a failed revolution or a cultural watershed or a social movement.
(Pic via marcuse.org)

Monday, June 16, 2008

The main thing...

There is the issue of nostalgia culture’s place in the constitution of social identities and groups, and, by implication, the question of the ‘politics of nostalgia’: the question, that is, of the meanings and significance of the view(s) of the past offered by nostalgia culture. What [Radstone's] survey [of critical 'nostalgia' literature] does reveal is that debates concerning the politics of nostalgia require analyses of nostalgia culture that differentiate between its varieties, and that attend to the specificities of nostalgia culture’s representations of the past, its strategies of address and its appeal.
- Susannah Radstone, The Sexual Politics of Time: Confession, Nostalgia, Memory, 2007, p129. Emphasis mine.

Radstone names here one of the fundamental impulses in my work: to draw apart this simplistic 'ostalgie' concept, to name its parts, to precisely call it by different names, to notice different species, different attenuations, different imperatives. The journalistic variety of 'ostalgie' - wherein Good Bye Lenin! is posited as being the same as Trabant fan clubs or a post-unification justification of the Berlin Wall - pays little attention to these qualitative differences. The reportage does, of course, vary from the "oh, look at this backward whimsy" to the "hark! Communists among us!" varieties, but greater subtlety than this seems a lost hope.

(Until the emergence of my dissertation, when all will be right again in the world.)

(Pic via DHM)

Friday, June 6, 2008

Radstone

Brit academic Susannah Radstone visited Melbourne University last year. She has visited Australia multiple times, with research for her most recent book supported by ANU. Her works in the various corners of memory research are consistently some of the best writings in this field - an sometimes disappointing endlessly frustrating field. A serious, engaged and clear thinker, her writing arrives at deceptively simple conclusions. This masks the way she can clear away obfuscation and confusion. To wit:
We also need all the time to be asking whether there are inassimilable or incommensurable aspects to memory, and if so how they can be understood. In other words, we need to attend not only to the articulation of memory by the discourses and institutions of the public sphere, but also to the absences, gaps and slips produced by such articulations—absences that might beg questions concerning both memory’s incommensurability or untranslatability and questions of power, politics and recognition.…Without this dual focus, studies of memory will share with approaches grounded in identity politics a limited view of the processes, practices and institutions through which experience or memory make their mark and are made. Understandings of memory, that is, whether personal, social, collective or cultural, cannot be derived from experience and memory alone.
Which might sound self-evident, but you'd probably be amazed how much work on memory misses this dimension. Radstone has written elsewhere about what she notices as the impact of the 'ethical turn' in discussions of memory.
Antze and Lambek have pointed out that the contemporary emphasis on individual trauma and the recovery of personal memories of victimhood might be conceived of as ‘a triumph over the political… Here historical trauma is displaced by individual drama’. As Antze and Lambek go on to suggest, the current politics of memory and its associated culture of victimhood draw attention away from collective forces and issues, and produce a shift from collective obligations and modes of accountability to narratives of individual suffering and accusations of individual blame. Within this memory culture, a focus by memory studies on individual narratives of remembered suffering may be contributing to what Richard Sennett, deploying as yet unproblematised oppositional terms, described as people ‘working out in terms of personal feelings public matters which properly can be dealt with only through codes of impersonal meaning.’ Memory studies too, that is, with its focus on questions of personal suffering and individual testimony, may be viewed as contributing to what Sennett sees as ‘the erosion of the delicate balance between the public and the private.’
In discussing nostalgia, it is easy to slip into such an ultimately unsatisfactory stress on the individual. But retaining the dual focus Radstone outlines in the first excerpt (above) helps to guard against this.

(Quotes taken from Radstone's "Reconceiving Binaries: the Limits of Memory," History Workshop Journal, 59)
(Pic via Flickr.)