« Forests and trees | Main | networked practice »
September 08, 2005
Thoughts on Multitude (up to page 157)
I am finding Multitude to be an incredibly inspired and inspiring book. This is the main reason I have so many questions and concerns about what it is saying.
It seems to me that when Hardt refers to biopolitical production apart from that which is generated by the “state of exception”, inherent in and fundamental to this production of resistance is a shift in our way of thinking. If this is the case, I ask how can we move beyond our current, limited understanding of what is implied by the word “freedom”, for example. One could argue that, in light of the feebly contested reauthorization of the Patriot Act, there are many who will cling to a hollow concept, even as all evidence indicates that the rhetorical use of that concept has been misleading. Those who might see themselves within the multitude, instead remain comfortable within a culture of fear.
Although Hardt states that Multitude is not a utopian vision, it nonetheless seems a highly optimistic one. The greatest obstacle to this vision is not the spirit or content of the message, but discovering a viable way of disseminating the message. When we speak of Mao, for example, are we considering the intentions of the person, the little red book, or the less than desirable outcomes of the cultural revolution? My point is that any idea can be misunderstood or misused, especially when it is reduced to a buzz-word. I’m sure Hardt dreads the day “Multitude for Dummies” appears on bookstore shelves. Yet how else will an awareness of the possibility of Multitude reach people of drastically different educational backgrounds?
Unfortunately, the kind of distorted patriotism we see today is attributable, in part, to the work of immaterial laborers. There will always be forces which serve to create divisions between those who look to network outside of existing, conventional systems, forces which seek to prevent immaterial laborers from becoming aware of commonalities between them. Furthermore, immaterial laborers themselves will continue to do their part in perpetuating myths of exaggerated difference. Hardt points out that we begin to look at all social relations through the matrix of war when we live in a society which is perpetually engaged in war. Yet, there is also the historically transmitted presence of fear. Only effective education dispels irrational fear and replaces it with awareness.
How will networking become something different than the kind with which we are most familiar—that which occurs within the strata of class? After all, if i only put my words on-line to communicate my ideas, i have narrowed my audience significantly. If I use a broad vocabulary, i have narrowed it even further. I correlate education and class here because the two are so often closely related. The book Multitude will be discussed more among those who have the time and the ability to read it, for example.
Again, all of my statements here are based on the assumption that the project of the Multitude necessitates a shift in our way of thinking. Continuing with that assumption, are there those who would cynically attempt to exploit the project of Multitude, even while understanding its greater purpose? My cable internet provider comes to mind… Beyond accessibility, there is also the issue of choice. Will those who are comfortably enjoying the fruits of their investments ever make a decision to reacquaint themselves with what Hardt refers to as the poverty of labor?
Having posed these somewhat cynical questions, I am in agreement with most of what I have read thus far. The prospects for graphic designers within Multitude seem exciting. We have to carefully consider the role that we play, however, as Hardt proposes that “the subordinated are often the most creative agents of a linguistic community, developing new linguistic forms and mixtures and communicating them to the community as a whole”.
Posted by jonathan hyland at September 8, 2005 08:33 PM
Comments
jon, i wholeheartedly echo your feeling that "multitude" is a more enlightening (and therefore more exciting) read than, say, korten's book. one reason, i think, is hardt/negri's statement upfront that "we do not expect this book to answer the question, 'What is to be done?'." i find this more studious dissection of the issue not only more refreshing and inviting to my own line of thought (which, as it pertains specifically to design, is tangential, or subsect, to the general aim of the book).
however, because it retains a certain scholarly detachment, i don't necessarily find it 'optimistic' or utopian in its assessment. korten, to the contrary, was not only utopian, he was armed with numbered lists and simple diagrams about the exact mechanisms by which he advocates all of Human Society Fundamentally Should Change.
i think your example of "freedom" is an excellent one, but there are plenty in our own country (tho perhaps not in congress) who do not feel the Patriot Act represents real freedom; and certainly many more throughout the world who have a pluralism of differing ideas of freedom.
considering hardt/negri's wide definition of the who the "multitude" are, the authors seem to have left plenty of room for plurality of thought. we may even go a step further and surmise that those who are complicit in the definition of "freedom" outlined by the Patriot Act become, in effect, part of "Empire," if those two concepts are diametrically opposed. i suspect that prof. hardt may not, but this will be an interesting question to pose to him.
Posted by: jay at September 8, 2005 11:18 PM