critical studies november 2017 volume 3 · mythologized in an elaborate oral and written tradition,...

Volume 3

November 2017

Interdisciplinary Journal of the Humanities

Critical Studies

1

CriticalStudiesJournalCriticalStudiesSchoolofHumanitiesUniversityofBrighton10-11PavilionParadeBrighton,UnitedKingdom,BN21RAEditorialBoardAfxentisAfxentiou,MeganArcher,LarsCornelissen,SamCutting,JaneFrancesDunlop,ViktoriaHuegel,TimHuzar,MelaynaLamb,HeatherMcKnight,KateNewby,AdamPhillips,GermanPrimera,AnnaIlonaRajala,IanSinclairExternalReviewersHarrietAtkinson,EmmaBell,CathyBergin,LorenzoBernini,PaulaBiglieri,BobBrecher,KathBrown,TomBunyard,TomClaes,MarkDevenney,IgnaasDevisch,RobinDunford,MartinPaulEve,JasonFinch,AlanFinlayson,LouiseFitzgerald,HannahFrith,TomFrost,RachelGillies,CharlotteHeath-Kelly,TomHickey,PaulJobling,HelenJohnson,KatherineJohnson,ClaudiaKappenberg,TheodoreKoulouris,AnthonyLeaker,AryaMadhavan,VickyMargree,PatriciaMcManus,SallyMiller,RoyonaMitra,ChrystieMyketiak,MichaelNeu,DarrenNewbury,HelenNicholson,MichaelO’Rourke,TanyaPalmer,LaraPerry,PaulReynolds,DanieleRugo,AnitaRupprecht,LeticiaSabsay,DarrowSchecter,YannisStavrakakis,MarthaTurland,ImogenTyler,NathanWidder,ClareWoodford,LindaWoodheadPublishedbytheCriticalStudiesResearchGroup,UniversityofBrighton,SchoolofHumanitiesAlsoavailableonlinewww.criticalstudies.orgAllenquiriesandsubmissionspleasecontactCriticalStudiesResearch@brighton.ac.ukPrintISSN:2055-141XOnlineISSN:2055-1428Coverimage:TheGalacticCentreabovetheEuropeanSouthernObservatory3.6-metretelescope.Credit:ESO/S.BrunierCriticalStudiesisaninterdisciplinaryjournalofthehumanities,dedicatedtocriticalstudiesbroadlyconstrued.Itisanannual,openaccess,peer-reviewedprintanddigitalpublication,coordinatedbytheCriticalStudiesResearchGroup,apostgraduatecommunitybasedinUniversityofBrighton’sSchoolofHumanities.

2

ContentsArticlesNetworkedMediaActionsasHacktions:RethinkingResistance(s)inMediaEcologiesAlbertoMicali….………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3DemocraticPotentialofCreativePoliticalProtestFuatGursozlu………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20South-SouthCooperation:ResistanceorContinuity?DiegoSebastiánCrescentino…………………………………………………………………………………….32BookReviewsClareWoodford,DisorientingDemocracy:PoliticsofEmancipation(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2017)LisaDisch………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..47RobinDunford,ThePoliticsofTransnationalPeasantStruggle:Resistance,RightsandDemocracy(LondonandNewYork:Rowman&LittlefieldInternational,2016)KatarinaKušić………………………………………………………………………………………………………...50

Micali–NetworkedMediaActionsasHacktions

3

NetworkedMediaActionsasHacktions:RethinkingResistance(s)inMediaEcologiesAlbertoMicaliSchoolofFilmandMedia,UniversityofLincolnamicali@lincoln.ac.ukDepartmentofCommunications,JohnCabotUniversityRomeamicali@johncabot.eduAbstractThisarticleattemptstorethinkanotionofresistanceforcontemporaryformsofdissentand opposition that are increasingly organised through digital media and networks.Applyingapost-humancompassonhacking,aprocessualreadingofthehackisimpliedtoproposeamovementtowardstheideaofhacktions.Hacktionsarenetworkedmediaactions that involve an aesthetic register of de-subjective creativity, aiming towardssystematicdisruptions:theactiveresistancesofamediaecologicaldysfunctionality.

We do not lack communication. On the contrary, we have toomuchofit.Welackcreation.Welackresistancetothepresent.

GillesDeleuzeandFélixGuattari1

0.Introduction,orthenecessarymovementsIn contemporary societies, digital networks have increasingly become a‘battlefield’where,followingtheemergenceofnovelpowerrelations,newformsofresistancehavecometothefore.Domination,disciplineandpower-overhavenot disappeared, but are aligned by new patterns of anticipatory control,governmentalityandmachinicenslavement.2Thesearepowermechanismsthattakeadvantageofthepervasivenessofmediatechnologies:whatmightbecalled,following Nigel Thrift and/or Katherine Hayles, a distributed technological

1GillesDeleuzeandFélixGuattari,What isPhilosophy?, transl.byH.TomlinsonandG.Burchell(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1994[1991]),108.2 On pre-emption see Greg Elemer and Andy Opel, “Surviving the Inevitable Future,” CulturalStudies, 20 (2006) 4-5: 477-492; and Richard Grusin, Premediation. Affect and mediality after9/11 (Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan, 2010). On algorithmic governmentality see AntonietteRouvroyandThomasBerns,“GouvernementalitéAlgorithmiqueetPerspectivesd’Émancipation,”Réseaux,177(2013)1:163-196;and“LeNouveauPouvoirStatistique,”Multitudes,40(2010)1:88-103.OnmachinicenslavementseeMaurizioLazzarato,SignsandMachines:CapitalismandtheProductionofSubjectivity(LosAngeles:Semiotext(e),2014).

CriticalStudies3

4

‘unconsciousness’ or ‘nonconsciousness’.3 In parallel, political dissent andoppositionhavebeenrethoughtandre-arranged inseveralways.Manya time,thisrearrangementdoesnotfollowthesimpleuseofmediaascommunicationaltools, insteaddeploying themas ‘weapons’,movingbeyondrepresentationandexploitingtheperformativityofmediaobjectsandprocesses.4Anexampleistheformsofdissentthatareorganisedunderthe‘Anonymous’moniker,whichtakeadvantage of the mass distribution and central position, in contemporarysocieties,ofdigitalmediaandnetworks,tocarryoutamultiplicityofpolitically-orientedmedia actions.5 Thesemedia formsdonot have communicative aims;theyareprocessesofmediationthatactonthedistributedmaterialityofdigitalnetworks, disrupting and challenging the hyper-connectivity whichcontemporaryformsofpower,manyatime,relyon.Itisnotwithinthescopeofthispapertoshedlightonandempiricallyexaminesuch forms of political dissent that are actualised through digital media andnetworks.Rather,IamgoingtofocusonsomeofthetheoreticalpremisesthatIargue are needed to conceptualise resistance in contemporary networkecologies. Theobjective is to speculativelypush towards the ideaofhacktions,whichIsuggestisakeyconceptualtooltothinkaboutresistancethroughdigitalmedia and networks, within the broader aim of advancing the study of thepoliticsofmediadissent.Thestartingpointwillbetheworldofhacking,andinparticular‘thehack’:thecornerstoneofhackerculture.However,Iwillcontendthat an approach to the cultures of hacking needs to take seriously inconsiderationthedevelopmentsofthefieldofpost-humanities,whichimplyananti-anthropocentric conception of culture. On such a line of argument, I willconcentrate the understanding of hacking beyond the field of computing,addressing the hack as a material intervention capable of reaching disruptivepoints of abstraction. The hack possesses a creational attitude that must beacknowledged in motion: in the processes it is capable of actualising. Theconceptualisationofmediaactionsofresistanceashacktionspreciselyseeks tocomprehend how hacking media practices can, or cannot, originate resistantdisruptions by processually and relationally involving human practitioners,mediaobjectsandpossiblematerialdysfunctionsamongstmany–whichmeansalways implyingnonlinear interactions andprocesses of co-emergence.Withinhacktions – I propose – resistance to domination implies active forces thatethologically entangle the materiality of various bodies, having an affectiveaesthetics that is capable of triggering certain tendencies of mediadisruptiveness.3SeeNigelThrift,KnowingCapitalism(London:Sage,2005)andKatherineN.Hayles“TraumasofCode,”CriticalInquiry,33(2006):136-157.4SeeAlbertoMicali, “Hacktivismand theHeterogeneityofResistance inDigitalCultures” (PhDdiss.,UniversityofLincoln,2016).5 See Gabriella E. Coleman,Hacker, Hoaxer,Whistleblower, Spy. TheMany Faces of Anonymous(London&NewYork:Verso,2014).


5

1.Movingfromthehack:aviewonpost-humanities

Mythologized in an elaborate oral and written tradition, theidealofthehacksuffusesthehackerculture.Itembodiessharedvalues and passions. And, of course, it is the centerpiece ofhackerrituals.

SherryTurkle6Tohackistoabstract.Toabstractistoproducetheplaneuponwhichdifferent thingsmayenter into relation. It is toproducethenamesandnumbers,thelocationsandtrajectoriesofthosethings. It is to produce kinds of relations, and relations ofrelations,intowhichthingsmayenter.

McKenzieWark7Hacker culture has been at the centre of intellectual and militant reflectionsduring the phase ofmass expansion of the internet.8 Particularly, between themillenniumturnandtheemergenceofcommercial,socialnetworkingplatforms,several scholarly publications focused on hacking as an ethical, practical andtheoretical opportunity to reimagine societal relationships and reorganise thesocial conflict within the networking paradigm.9 Many critical accountsaddressed their reflections to the political promises of digital networks,emphasisingthepoliticalpotentialofhacking.Withoutenteringintothedetailsof all these various positions, theirmain concernswith regard to the “idea ofhacker culture” have been summarised by Patrice Riemens.10 According toRiemens, hackers were often “[t]ransformed into role-models as effectiveresistancefightersagainst ‘thesystem’”:a leadingoppositional forcewithinso-called ‘digital resistance’.11 Nevertheless, the politics of hacking are far fromhomogeneous. As Gabriella Coleman points out, awide diversity characterises

6SherryTurkle,TheSecondSelf:ComputersandtheHumanSpirit,TwentiethAnniversaryEdition(Cambridge,MA&London:MITPress,2005[1984]),211.7 McKenzie Wark, A Hacker Manifesto (Cambridge: MA – London: Harvard University Press,2004),[083].8Aboutthehistoryoftheinternet,withinlongerhistoricallineages,Ifollowacommonlyadopteddivisioninthreemainperiods:afirstphaseinauguratedbythemilitarycomplex(fromArpanet,1969-1980/90), a second comprising research centres and telematics hobbyists (1980/90-2000), and a third of global diffusion and mass commercialisation (from 2000). See ManuelCastells,TheInternetGalaxy(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2001).9See for instancePekkaHimanen,TheHackerEthicand theSpiritof the InformationAge (NewYork: Random House, 2001), Johan Soderberg,Hacking Capitalism: The Free and Open SourceSoftwareMovement(London:Routledge,2008),andMcKenzieWark,AHackerManifesto.10PatriceRiemens,“SomeThoughtsOntheIdeaof‘HackerCulture’,”Anarchitexts:VoicesfromtheGlobalDigitalResistance,ed.J.Richardson(NewYork:Autonomedia,2003),327.11Ibid.,328.

CriticalStudies3

6

themultipleaspects,richnessandoftentimescontroversialpoliticsofhacking.12Furthermore, once the almost complete commercialisation of the internet hasbeenreached,the influencesofhackerculturesonthepoliticsofmediadissenthave not extinguished their course. Nowadays, countless phenomena ofresistance through digital media and networks still retain their connection tohacker culture, differentiating their forms of actualisation in a multiplicity ofarrangements.AninstancethatIhavestudiedthoroughlyelsewhereisthedigitalactionssuchasthosethataredeployedunderthe‘Anonymous’moniker,whichembracehackingmediapracticesandattitudes,bringingnovelresistancestothefore.13Despitethewidespreaddiffusionofsimilarformsofmediaopposition,theconceptualisation of a possible notion of resistance – an analytical tool thatwouldbeconstructive forstudyingandgraspingthecapabilityofphenomenonsuchasAnonymoustobepoliticallyeffective–isfarfrombeingmature.Thefirstquestionthatneedstobeadvancedrevolvesaroundtheideaofhackerculture, and follows the development of post-human thought.14 ‘Post-humanities’,infact,callsintoquestionthesameconceptionof‘hackerculture’asastandardsetofsocialpractices,community-basedritualsandhumanhabits.Asmaintainedbypost-humanpropositions,culturesarenotstrictlyahumanaffairand,thus,itismisleadingtostudythemasacomplexofsocialvariablesthatcanbeextractedorsubtracted toreduce theircomplexity.Culturalexpressionsarenotconstitutedviaananthropopoieticprocessthatclosesonitselfand,assuch,hackerculturecannotbeforeclosedinspecificinstrumentalrelationsthatdefinehuman-technological practices, or modes of practising with computingtechnologies.Inhisseminalstudyonhackerculture,TimJordanconcludesthathackingposesa“conceptualdifficulty”,whichdirectlyinvolvesthedeterminismsthatfor longtimeinfluencedthestudyofculture.15AccordingtoJordan,hackingimpliesatitshart a “dynamic andmutual determinationbetween society and technology”.16MovingfromJordan’ssuggestiontowardsthefieldofpost-humanities,itiskeytorecognise that determinisms are well rooted in humanist conceptions and,particularly, supportdichotomic readings (suchas theone that separatesnon-humananimals fromhumanones, the latter from technologies,ornature fromculture, as antinomic poles) – interpretations that intensely characterise

12 Gabriella E. Coleman, Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking (Princeton andOxford:PrincetonUniversityPress,2013).13SeeMicali,op.cit.14SeeKatherineN.Hayles,HowWeBecamePosthuman (Chicago&London:ChicagoUniversityPress, 1999); RobertoMarchesini,Post-Human. Verso nuovi modelli di esistenza (Turin: BollatiBoringhieri,2002);RosiBraidotti,ThePosthuman(Cambridge:PolityPress,2013).15TimJordan,Hacking(Cambridge:PolityPress,2008),134.16Ibid.,140.


7

anthropocentred epistemologies.17 The two determinisms that signed theprogressionofmediaandculturalstudiesduringthe1960sand’70scarriedonaperspectivegroundedondichotomies–eventhoughtheyfostereddiametricallyoppositepositions.18Whethersocietyisconceptualisedasshapingtechnologyor– conversely – the latter as influencing and modifying the social tissue,technologies are invariably characterisedasbeingdualistically somethingelse:‘separated’ technical objects, whose content can be analysed to assess theircultural impact – or, contrariwise, which instrumental prosthetic involvementcanbestudiedaspartoftheprogressionofthehuman-animal.Similarly,hackercultureshaveforlongtimebeendelimitedtodistinctsocialgroups,whichcouldbe examined by reflecting upon instrumental relationships to computingtechnologies.19Proceedingwithapost-humancompassonhacking,Isuggestthatattentionmustfirst be given to the hack in order to rethink the concept of resistance forcontemporary forms of digital media dissent. The hack, in fact, is a materialgestureusedbymanyscholarstoapproachhackingandthusstandsatthecoreof the relations between knowledge and technics.20 Hence, the hack seems toexpress the potential of relationality of human-technological assemblages:21 a17The term ‘humanism’delineatesa longandnot isolated lineof thought thatproceedsacrossthe longcourseofWesternmetaphysics.This linemoves from theancientGreeks (theSophistand Socratics in the Fifth Century BC) through the current that ismore often associatedwithItalian Renaissance (Fourteenth Century AC) and reaches modernity, when the contrastsbetweenappliedsciencesandreligionarose,strengtheningthetendencyofconsideringhumanrationalfacultiesastheleadingsourceofagency.AccordingtoRobertoMarchesini,itisthuskeytoapproachthehumanistparadigmasnotbeingmerelyaformofthoughtwhichemergedintheFourteenth Century, but a “disjunctive philosophical coordinate” – which still permeatescontemporary reflections. See RobertoMarchesini,Epifania Animale (Milan & Udine:Mimesis,2014),37.18Thewritingsoftwoleadingfiguresinthefieldofmediaandculturalstudiescantypifythetwopositions inquestion:RaymondWilliamsbeingrepresentativeof thesocalled ‘SocietyShapingTechnology’(SST)framework,andMarshallMcLuhanofthesocalled‘technologicaldeterminist’position.Theformer,beingchronologicallyatheoreticalresponsetothelatter,characterisestheleading trend in the discipline. Without entering into the detail of the many facets thatcharacterise theseperspectives, it ispossible todistinguishthat, for theSST framework,mediaand culture principally inheres in the social field; while, on the opposite, for the perspectivesleaded byMcLuhan, technology has its own capability to act on human society, conducing itsprogressionviatechnicalinnovations.SeeMartinLister,JonDovey,SethGiddings,IainGrantandKieran Kelly (eds.), New Media: A Critical Introduction, 2nd edition (London & New York:Routledge,2009),77-82;RaymondWilliams,Television:TechnologyandCulturalForm(London&New York: Routledge, 1974); Marshall McLuhan,Understanding Media: The extensions of man(Cambridge,MA&London:MITPress,1994[1964]).19 Anthropic self-referentiality is a common trait that traverses all the literature focusing onhackerculture.20 Many scholars uses the hack as an analytical entryway into the world of hacking; see forinstanceJordan,op.cit.;Turkle,op.cit;Wark,op.cit.21Iusetheword‘assemblage’hereasthisisconceptualisedbyGillesDeleuzeandFélixGuattari.Assemblagesarealways ‘machinic’,andareconceivedtoemphasisethesetofconnectionsthatexist between heterogeneous elements (bodies, expressions, objects etc.), which momentarilycometogether,originatingnovelfunctionsinensemble.Theuseofthisconceptishardlypossiblewithout referencing to thewhole theoreticalworkofDeleuzeandGuattari;however, since the

CriticalStudies3

8

‘machinic’ relationality that, being crucial to avoid anthropocentredcomprehensionsof culture,posits – conversely– emphasison conjunctionandreciprocalco-constitutionalityandco-emergence.According to Sherry Turkle, the hack is the “Holy Grail” of hacker culture: a“concept thatexists independentlyof thecomputer”.22The ‘hack’ still retainsasortof ‘primordial’senseinthecomputerunderground:acreativeandoriginalattempt to approach the technological object, ‘bending’ it towards newobjectives, and pushing it towards unforeseen, personal and specific-to-the-situation orientations.23 The ‘hack’ is characterised by the ingenuity of theexploration, aimed at shaping the use of the technological artefact, pushing itbeyonditslimitsfornovel,not-yet-thought-ofapplications,andforauseoutsidethelimitationspositedbyexistingrules.24Thus,itisamaterialre-appropriationaimed at unconventional, ‘heretical’ uses of technological apparatuses, via anabstractionoftheactualpossibilitiespertainingtothatspecifictechnology.Turklehas identified themost essential featuresof thehack. Inparticular, sheunderlines its aesthetic qualities, which are related to a ‘magic’ alluresurrounding it.25 This is an “aesthetics of technological transparency”, whichfocuses on knowledge and mastery to render what, at first glance, may beconsidered very complicated into a simple trick.26 Thus, the hack can besummarisedbyvarious,distinctivetraits.Itisanactionthatseemsverysimple,yet creates astonishment. Using means that are often considered ordinary ineverydaylife,itcanbesensational,almostspectacular.Itisasophisticatedact,amaterial gesture that requires a deep knowledge, not only of a singletechnologicaldevice,butalsoofthesysteminwhichitisactualised.Thismasteryoriginates in the application of the knowledge acquired by an accurate anddevotedstudyofthesysteminallitsparts.Finally,itinvolvesunorthodoxusesof

ontologicalmovementIamfollowingconformstoprocessualandrelationalaxes,Ipermitmyselftonotspecifyitsdevelopment.Similarly,thethematic,conceptualisationanddevelopmentofthe‘machine’isaphilosophicaltaskthatmovesthroughouttheentireworkofDeleuzeandGuattari.Thereisnotherethespacetofullydealwithit,butitmightbesaidthatthe‘machine’breakswiththeprostheticassumptionofthesubject-objectrelationbetweenthehuman-animalandhis/hertool; and it does this rupture through the recognitionof theprocesses involving the ‘territory’(seefootnote65below).Withinmachines,materialsaredeterritorialisedtoformnovel‘matters’,but these do not enter into prosthetic relations (as tools) with a supposed subject. See GillesDeleuzeandFélixGuattari,AThousandPlateaus:CapitalismandSchizophrenia,transl.B.Massumi(Minneapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota Press, 1987 [1980]); for critical accounts see JohnPhillips,“Agencement/Assemblage,”Theory,Culture&Society23(2006)2–3:108–109.22Turkle,op.cit.,207.23 In one of themost influential and referenced texts on hacker culture, Steven Levy narratesmany anecdotes that reveal the attitude towards curiosity and material applicationcharacterising thehack. See StevenLevy,Hackers:Heroes of theComputerRevolution (London:Penguin,2001[1984]).24Rulesthataretechnicalbut,incapitalistsociety,obviouslyalsolegal.25Turkle,op.cit.,208.26Ibid.


9

theapparatuses–pointingtowardsunpredictablepossibilities:virtualpointsofabstraction.It is precisely along these lines that the hack, as a material potency ofabstraction,isatthecentreoftheMarxianmediatheoryofMcKenzieWark,wholinks it to a particular conceptualisation of nature.27 “The hack expresses thenatureofnatureas itsdifference fromitself–orat least itsdifference fromitsrepresentation. The hack expresses the virtuality of nature and nature as thevirtuality of expression”.28 Wark builds his understanding of contemporarycultureonthehierarchicaloverlappingofthreedifferentnatures,aswellasonthecontinualhistoricalrealisationof theirvirtualabstractingcapabilities.Withregard to a secondnature, onebasedon labour as a formof emancipation forsurvival(themateriallifeasalreadypositedbyMarx),Warkoverlapstheideaofa “third nature”. This is a space of information and communication, whichcreates new necessities, instead of freeing human life from the needs alreadycreatedbyworkingunderthecapitalistrelation, intherepresentationscreatedbyasecond‘natural’classsociety.29Hacking, then, is central to whatWark characterises as the struggles of thirdnature. Hackers have, in fact, an interest “in a nature expressing the limitlessmultiplicity of things”.30 It is upon this multiple potential that the abstractingpotencyofthehackisbased.ThekeypoliticalpointforWarkisthatthehackislimitedviatheextensionofnewrulesimposedbyaburgeoningdominantclass.Thisisthevectoralclass,whichfollowsthecapitalistandthepastoralistclassesbefore it, originating novel exploiting conditions which lead (or can virtuallylead)toclassconflicts.Theseinnovativeformsofexploitationaresettledbythecontinualexpansionoftheinstitutionofpropertytoinvolveinformation.Hence,vectoralconflictsstillmovearoundthequestionofproperty,whichconsolidatesthemonopolisingclass rulesovernew forcesofproduction–and inparticularoverthehack.31Isuggestitisrelevanttomaintainthecentralpositionofthehack,asanappliedmaterialactthatiscapableofabstractingpotentials.However,Iputforward,thehack has to be posited less hierarchically and more ecologically within the‘natural’relationsoriginatedbyformsofpowersuchasthosethatemergewiththemassdistributionofdigitalnetworks.32Forthisreason,Ikeeptoonesidethe

27Wark, op. cit.; McKenzieWark,Telesthesia: Communication, Culture and Class, (Cambridge –Malden:MA:PolityPress,2012).28Wark,op.cit.,2004,140.29Wark,op.cit.,2004;2012.30Wark,op.cit.,2004,152.31Wark,op.cit.,2004;2012.32With ‘ecological’, I mean a perspective that implies scalar relationality beyond any form ofanthropocentrism, along the line that connects the ideas of Félix Guattari to more recent

CriticalStudies3

10

dialectic of class opposition (which still resonates in the proposal ofWark) infavourofamoreimmanentreadingofpoliticalfrontlines,whereresistancecanbecomeanactiveforceofmediaintervention.Thehackis,here,pushedtowardsthe differentiating multiplicity of hacktions, as networked media actions ofresistance.33Thehack,asdiscussed,presentsfeaturesoforiginality,creativeinventionandacertainrefusalofconstraint.Nevertheless,itstillmaintainsacertainpositionofhumanist ‘externality’ intopracticallyapproaching the technologicalapparatus.Its abstractive potency is surely a matter of invention, and this potency iscontingent,sinceitemergesfromthespecificsituationfacedbyitspractitioner–hence,immanently,involvinghumanandnon-humanbodies.However,thiskindof invention frequently becomeswhatmight be called a ‘beloved detachment’from the technological system itself, without being entangled in planes of co-relationality. More crucially, under the material abstractions of the hack, thetechnical machine is often bent by following a certain ‘personal’ taste. Thismeansthat thehackreachespointsofhighefficiency,even if thesepointswerenotassumedtobeinthesystemitself.Inthisway,thepotencyofcreation(theactive origination of new material relations, or its possibility), as well as theemergent, re-actualised instabilities, can easily give life to new stable powerformations, as the reorganisation of capitalist exploitation on global networkshashistoricallydemonstrated.My proposal is to qualify ‘hacktions’ asmedia actions of resistance by drivingthissortofontology,orbetter‘onto-epistem-ology’ofthehacktowardspointsofdeficiency; which means avoiding the shifts that also historically allowed itsreorganisationwithin ‘transparent’, efficient,machinic networks of cooptation.In an attempt to dispute the separation of ontology and epistemology, KarenBarad calls ‘onto-epistem-ology’ the possibility of “knowing” as “a materialpractice of engagement” occurring “as part of the world in its differentialbecoming”.34 To avoid falling back into humanist paradigms it is, in fact,necessary to overcome the binarisms that assume the object of knowledge as

developmentsof ‘mediaecologies’.SeeFélixGuattari,TheThreeEcologies, transl. I.Pindar&P.Sutton (London & New Brunswick: The Athlone Press, 2000 [1989]); Mattew Fuller, MediaEcologies:Materialist Energies in Art andTechnoculture (Cambridge,MA&London:MITPress,2005).33 The term ‘hacktion’ comes from Alexandra Samuel, who first introduced it, albeit withoutconceptualisingit.Inherstudy,ahacktionisjustanotherwordforpoliticallyorientedhacking,orhacktivist media actions. Samuel’s work has the value of moving the emphasis from humansubjects to themedia actions of resistance. However, this emphasis vanishes by following theattemptof foreclosing,reducingandselecting ‘hacktions’, rather than letting themtoexpressapotential multiplicity of media technological relations. See. AlexandraW. Samuel, “HacktivismandtheFutureofPoliticalParticipation”(PhDdiss.,HarvardUniversity,2004).34KarenBarad,MeetingtheUniverseHalfway:QuantumPhysicsandtheEntanglementofMatterandMeaning(Durham&London:DukeUniversityPress,2007),89.


11

separated from the process of knowing – or, similarly, as I have arguedelsewhere, theory form practice – equally acknowledging the heterogeneousplurality of becoming.35 Within her diffractive method of approaching culturebeyond the limits of humanist ‘reflexivity’, the entangled materiality ofproducing knowledge is for Barad inseparable from its relationalperformativity.36Thismeans,correspondingly,thatbypushingforwardthehack,Iamnotpresumingtobedetachedfromsuchamovement.Rather,Iattempttogenerate a difference, attempting to avoid a hierarchisation betweenwhat thehackisandhowitcanbecomprehended,sincetheorisingisalwaysanembodiedandmaterialpractice;anentangledparticleofdifferentialbecomings.Goingbacktothehackanditsprominencewithincontemporaryformsofdigitalmedia and network politics, it does not need to be detached from its creativeimagination, fromtherelationalaestheticsthat implyit.Rather,thehackneedsto be appraised within a broader processual philosophical perspective; anoutlookaccountingforwhatthehackmightbecome,thatis,byreconsideringitscapacityofactingasaprimer:atriggering,materialgesturethatcanbevirtuallycapable of activating a certain set of resistant tendencies. Media actions ofresistance,ashacktions,implythehack,butdifferentiatebyhavingthecapabilityofbecomingsomethingelse:avirtual setofemergentanddisruptiverelations.Forinstance,whenadatabaseisforcedtogainaccessthehackmightoriginateadata leak,whichisnotanunconditionalconsequence,havingaswellapoliticalpotential that is not acknowledgeable in advance. In certain cases – as ithappened for hacktions such as the leaks that were ‘deployed’ under theAnonymousmonikeragainstItalianpolicein2012–thehackbecamesomethingdifferent,leadingtodysfunctionalconcatenations:novelweaponsinthearsenalof digitalmedia resistances, a throttle in always-emergent hacktivistmachinesthat intervene in ongoing political struggles.37 The hack, as such, has to pointtowardsacertaindisruptivecriticality,towardsathoughtofresistancethatdoesnotopposepower face-to-face,but thatproliferates in continual contingencies,beyonddualist,ordualist-plus-one,dialecticalpositions.2.Actsofcreation|actsofresistance

Creating has always been something different fromcommunicating. What is important will be perhaps to create

35 See AlbertoMicali, “How to becomewarmachine, or... a low hacktivist (un)methodology inpieces,”NetworkingKnowledge9(2015)1:1-17.36Barad,op.cit.37 Here, I am referring to a leak that occurred the 22nd of October 2012 that exposed themodalities,andthecontrollingmechanisms,throughwhichItalianpolice(PoliziadiStato)usedto destabilise local struggles such as those of the NoTav movement. A more thoroughengagement with this and other examples, which can clarify the conceptualisation andapplicationoftheconceptofhacktions,canbefoundinMicali,op.cit.,2016.

CriticalStudies3

12

somevacuolesofnon-communication,someswitches,toescapefromcontrol.

GillesDeleuze38The concept of resistance does not seem to have a good reputation incontemporary cultural theory. It is a concept that is frequently over-used andabused,typicallyasthealteregoofpower.Inadualisticaccount,wherethereispower,resistance–whichopposes it–canalwaysbefound.Suchaconceptualtrend isoriented towardsanalysinganddescribing resistanceas a reactionarydisposition.Insuchaperspective,resistanceisatendencythat,byclosingonitsown defence, keeps its position rather than affirming itself. Additionally, indialectical reasoning, when resistance does assert itself, launching its decisiveattackagainstpower,itwillfinallyfailbytakingpower’splace,becomingitsown‘bogeyman’:thesame‘state’formitwaschallenging.Franco Berardi provides a ‘theoretical narration’ of his encounter with the(Deleuzo) Guattarian conceptual machine, which is more than a classic‘handbook’aboutthethoughtofFelixGuattari.39His‘tale’beginsbydealingwithdepression. This is a depression brought on by an increasing impossibility forconcepts to grasp the dispersive flow of a shared reality, which is in turnincreasingly dissolving under the attacks of schizophrenic capital. Havingexperienced first-hand themovement of 1977 in Bologna as the climax of theexplosionofacommunitarianandsubversive,proliferantdesire,the1980sandwhatfollowedwouldrevealfor‘Bifo’theimpossibilityofpolitical‘journeys’withanequalintensity.Thisisthedepressionofaninconceivablepoliticalresistance:

resistance is hopeless, because when you resist you are actuallydefendingconceptualconfigurationsthathavealreadylosttheirgripontheworld.Whenyouresist,youreplacedesirewithduty,andthiscannotworkifwebelieveinakindofcreationistprocess.Resistanceistheoppositeofcreationism.40

Berardipositsresistanceasagestureofdefensivereaction.Heregardsthisformofresistanceastheoppositeofcreation,thelatterbeingengagedwithanalways-active desire for new ‘encounters’. Hence, the matter here involves thepossibilityofthinkingaconceptofresistancebybeingawareofahistoricalandphilosophicalperspectivethatimpliesand/orfrequentlysuggeststheendofthisconcept,endowing itonlywithstaticandretrograde(im)possibilities,negating

38GillesDeleuze,Negotiations,transl.byM.Joughin(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1995[1972-1990]),175;translationmodified.39FrancoBerardi,FélixGuattari:Thought,FriendshipandVisionaryCartography (Basingstoke–NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2008).40Ibid.,13.


13

foritanyascriptionofcreativeinventiveness.Thisisaresistancethatisalwayscrushed;ontheonehandbyacontinualcaptureandrecapturebyapparatusesofpowerand,ontheotherhand,bya(hyper)criticalthoughtwhichunderlines–byamplifying–thereactionarynatureofresistantattitudes.With the objective of reactivating a concept of resistance with a view toemploying this fordigitalmediaactions, I suggest it isnecessary tooutline theactive character of the forces moving within hacktions. For this reason, I willproceedviaadiscussionofthe‘continental’readingofNietzsche.Moreover,itison the notion of ‘creativity’ that I propose the revitalisation of the concept ofresistancehastobebased.Eventhoughcreativitynowadaysisthebuzzwordparexcellence of capitalist culture, it must be detached from the subjective,individual state chosen for it by politicians, cultural managers andentrepreneurs, who regularly inaugurate new forms of capitalist exploitationaroundthisconcept.Firstofall,theconceptualisationofhacktionsmustconsiderhowsuchemergingprocessesofmediationarecapableofbeing–orbetter–‘becoming’resistantto,andnotsupportiveof,contemporaryformsofpower.Fromsuchaviewpoint,thequestionofresistancehasbeencentralforagroupofFrenchtheoristsworkingin the secondhalf of the last centuryon crucialquestionsabout subjectivationand power. The concept of resistance needs, then, to be questioned, involvingwhat has been already introduced: that is, how to practically think about it inordertorevitalisethisnotion.Inparticular,there-readingofFriedrichNietzschehasplayedacentralroleinthisbranchofcontinentalphilosophy.41Following the so-called ‘post-structuralist’ reading ofNietzsche, the concept ofresistancecanbereadfromtwooppositedirections.42Ontheonehand,thereisthenotionofresistancetodomination.This isanemancipatoryresistance,onethatdirectlyconcernsfreedom,andthepossibilitiesof liberationfromapowerover. On the other hand, resistance can also be the expression of this same

41 A summary of the various positions of the many post-structuralist theorists who re-approachedNietzscheanthoughtisbeyondthescopeofthisstudy.Instead,Iwilldealherewithvarious points of this French reading, with the aim of developing a conceptualisation ofresistancethatcanallowtheoutliningofnetworkedmediaactionsashacktions.Inparticular,Iwill focus on the work of Gilles Deleuze, which temporarily ‘opened’ the French reading ofNietzsche,andonvarioustextsandinterviewspresentintwocollectionsofhis(aloneandwithother interlocutors) writings. See Gilles Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy, transl. by H.Tomlinson (NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress, 1983 [1962]);Desert IslandandOtherTexts1953-1974, eds. D. Lapoujade, transl. byM. Taormina (Los Angeles&NewYork: Semiotext(e),2004[2002]);TwoRegimesofMadness:TextandInterviews1975-1995,eds.D.Lapoujade,transl.byA.HodgesandM.Taormina(LosAngeles&NewYork:Semiotext(e),2006[2003]).42 David C. Hoy, Critical Resistance: From Poststructuralism to Post-Critique (Cambridge, MA &London:MITPress,2004).

CriticalStudies3

14

domination.Thisistheresistantattempttostopandlimitanyliberatingefforts:thisistheresistanceofrepression.In the preface of the American edition of his translated book on Nietzsche,Deleuze identifies the key conceptual concern with the centrality of forces,somethinghelinkstotheaffectivethoughtofSpinoza.43DeleuzeemphasisesthatNietzsche“inventedatypologyof forceswhichdistinguishesactiveforces fromreactive forces (those which are acted on) and analyzes their variouscombinations”.44 For Deleuze, Nietzschean thought is a step forward into theaffective (and unknown) capacities of bodies as introduced by Spinoza.45Nietzsche’s thought recognises the presence of equally strong, but this timereacting,reactionaryforces.In these terms, the central question for resistance regards the ‘quality’, thedirection of the forces living and enacting its deployment and its embodieddisposition. This, using Nietzschean terminology, involves the ‘will to power’,‘potency’ or power to, that is the differential between the forces in action.FollowingDeleuze,since“anygiventhingreferstoastateofforces”,‘potency’isthe element that qualifies this as affirmative or negative: “affirmation” or“negation”.46Itisworthnotingthat‘affirmation’,inDeleuze’sowntakeonNietzsche,isnottheoppositeofnegation.Implyingthetwoasbeingextremesonthesamespectrumwouldmeanfallingonceagainintodialecticalthinking.Conversely,Deleuzedoesnot define affirmation through negation or opposition, but throughmultiplication, the joyful playing of differences, that is heterogeneity as thepotency of releasing and freeing forces. In summary, crucially for thecharacterisationofhacktionsasmediaformsofresistance,affirmationdoesnotimplyacceptancebutcreation. It is thiscreativeelement,asan infra-subjectiveone, which accompanies the deployment of media actions of resistance.However,beforegoingontodiscussthiscreativeaspect,itisvitaltostayfocusedon resistance in order to highlight what allows Nietzsche – according to theDeleuzianreading–todistinguishbetweenactiveandreactiveforces.This distinction is decisive, since it specifically involves a possiblecharacterisation, a posteriori, of resistance – avoiding, then, its normativepresupposition.Thedifferencebetweenthetwointroducedformsofresistanceresidespreciselyinthequalityoftheforcesthatpopulatethem.ForDeleuze,this

43Deleuze,op.cit.,2004.44Ibid.,204.45SeeGillesDeleuze,Cosapuòuncorpo?LezionisuSpinoza,3rded.,transl.byA.Pardi(Verona:OmbreCorte,2013).46Deleuze,op.cit.,2004,205.


15

‘ethological’issuedoesnotmeanthatthecharacteroftheformofresistancehasto be questioned with regard to its essence.47 Questioning the essence ofresistance would be enunciated as follow: ‘what’ is the form of resistance inquestion?Thisisaquestionthatdoesnotdealwiththedispositionoftheforcesat stake.On the contrary, thevalueof theNietzschean ‘image’of thought is itscapacity to do “awaywith all ‘personalist’ references”.48 This permits to avoidany essentialist questioning of the forms of resistance focusing on a ‘de-individualised’questionof“who”.49Thismeansthat“‘[w]ho’doesnotrefertoanindividual orperson, but to an event, to relational forces in apropositionor aphenomenon, as well as to a genetic relation that determines those forces”.50Therefore,todistinguishbetweenaresistanceto,andaresistanceofdomination,itwillberelevantconsidering the forces thatpopulateresistantmediaactions,recognising when the de-individual character of such forces is an active orreactivedisposition.David Hoy proposes a definition of resistance as being ‘critical’ – criticalresistance – to characterise a form of resistance that directly deals withcritique.51 Critique is, in fact, the central element recognised by Deleuze incommentingonNietzsche’sgenealogicalmethod.52Nietzscheancritiqueisnotareactive, negativemodeof inquiry: conversely it is an action, a positive, activegesture, which is counterposed (by differentiation, and not dualistically) toreactiveformssuchasresentmentorrevenge.

Critiqueisnotare-actionofre-sentimentbuttheactiveexpressionofan active mode of existence; attack and not revenge, the naturalaggression of away of being, the divinewickednesswithoutwhichperfection could not be imagined. This way of being is that of thephilosopher precisely because he intends to wield the differentialelementascriticandcreatorandthereforeasahammer.53

‘Critique’ is the crucial element for an active conceptualisation of resistance.However, I do not agreewithHoy’s shift into considering interpretation as anequally relevant matter for critique. Hoy draws together his theory of criticalresistance with recourse to Derridean deconstruction, identifying a non-universalnotionof interpretation inNietzsche.Although thisdebate isbeyondthescopeofthispaper,Ineverthelesssuggestthatcritique,accordingtoDeleuze,isalreadyfarfrombeingarational,‘interpretative’matter.Asregardsa‘modeof47Ibid.48Ibid.,206.49Ibid.50Ibid.51Hoy,op.cit.52Deleuze,op.cit.,1983.53Ibid.,3;emphasisintheoriginal.

CriticalStudies3

16

existence’,critiquedirectlyinvolvesanactivestateofforces,whichneedstobeunderstoodinaffectivemorethanrationalterms–butneverasanopposition.Inthis sense, I consider resistances (in plural) as being critical in proposing, orbetter ‘disposing’, a set of immanent relations that can be qualified as beingactiveinthepotencyoftheaffectivequalitiesthatare,andcanbe,activated.Hacktions need to be studied through their processuality, where the beingmateriallysituatedofhackingpracticeshas tobeconsideredaspartsofmediaresistances,whichmeanswithoutrigidlyseparatingthehackfromthepossibledisruption of hacktions: the hack has the capacity to becomehacktion(s). Thisdirectly implies an ‘ethological’ field of study, where resistances can beapproached through a de-individualised questioning of the forces at stake inmediainterventions.Indeed,thedistinction,betweenactiveandreactiveforces,permitstoavoidthepresumptiontooutliningmediaactionsapriori, throughauniversalist objectivity. For this reason, the revitalisation of the concept ofresistancethatIsuggesthastoimplicatecritique,asanactiverecognitionofthedispositionoftheforcespopulatinghacktions.Suchacriticalresistancedoesnotdeal with issues of representation or interpretation, being interested in therelations that might be activated by forms of opposition and dissent on anaffectiveregister.∞Ethical(andaesthetical)questions:becoming-cosmic,aconclusion

It might also be better here to speak of a proto-aestheticparadigm, to emphasise that we are not referring toinstitutionalisedart, to itsworksmanifested in thesocial field,buttoadimensionofcreationinanascentstate,perpetuallyinadvance of itself, its power of emergence subsuming thecontingency and hazards of activities that bring immaterialUniversesintobeing.Aresidualhorizonofdiscursivetime(timemarked by social clocks), a perpetual duration, escapes thealternative of remembering-forgetting and lives with astupefyingintensity,theaffectofterritorialisedsubjectivity.

FélixGuattari54Theactivedispositionofforcespopulatingresistance,asitemergedfromthelastsection,involvesafieldofcreation.Ihaveintroducedthisissuewithoutdetailingit by recognising the differentiating nature of affirmation in a context ofheterogenesis. This point needs to be specified here, permitting a cleareroutlining of hacktions as media actions of resistance in relation to creativity.

54 Félix Guattari, Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm, transl. by P. Bains and J. Pefanis(Indianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,1995[1992]);101-102.


17

Indeed, a crucial consideration regarding resistance in its critical and activedefinition involves ethical questions. According to both David Hoy and ToddMay,theethicalityofresistanceisakeyelementforapost-structuralistpositingofthisconcept.55Resistanceinfactinvolves,andisinconsonancewith,awiderframework that fosters ideas such as emancipation or freedom. Thisproblematisesthefactthatthesenotions–asemptyconstructs–canbecriticallyquestioned. For this reason, a discussion of the Guattarian ethico-aestheticparadigm is vital here. In addition, Félix Guattari’s paradigmatic positing ofethicalandaestheticalquestionsallowstomovetheargumentinthedirectionofcreativity, due to the emphasis he places on aesthetic ambits in theirexperimental and non-individual features: territories that are open to pluralprocessesofsemiotisation,havingthecapacitytoinvolve‘cosmic’forces.According to a rationalist critique, it is possible to question the normativevalidity of a notion of resistance in accordance with other concepts, such asfreedom or emancipation. From a rationalist perspective, for resistance to bevalid it has to follow ideals of justice or freedomwhich can be recognised asuniversallyaccepted– think, for instance, about the ideaofperpetualpeaceassuggested by Kant.56 Even though I have suggested a concept of resistance(s),this can be rationally attacked because of the fragile base of the normativecontentitmaymiss.Wemightcallthiscritiqueasthe‘rule’ofthemajority,thenormative guiding principle that aminoritarian thought attempts to smooth.57The fact is that – following Nietzsche and his readers – resistance does notinvoke any universalismhere. This iswhy it is important to regard resistancethrough what Guattari calls an ethico-aesthetic paradigm, one which candismantle any fascist, humanist and universalist reasoning, inclining insteadtowardstheideaofasortofcosmic,post-humanand‘affecting’creativity.Guattarian ‘ecosophy’ is characterised by its emphasis on the necessity ofparadigmsorientedtowardsethicalandaestheticaldimensions,whichcan‘care’about singularities in their exclusive, plural, continual and processual‘differentiation’.58 Such paradigms can in fact limit the becoming rigid ofsubjectivities, favouring conversely heterogeneous processes of subjectivation.Ananalogousparadigmisnotethicalinaccordancewithasuperiorrationality;itpoints,on thecontrary, to thenecessityofvirtuallysettingethical coordinates,55Hoy,op.cit.;ToddMay,ThePoliticalPhilosophyofPoststructuralistAnarchism(UniversityPark,PA:ThePennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1994).56 ImmanuelKant,ToPerpetualPeace:aPhilosophicalSketch (Indianapolis:HackettPublishing,2003[1795]).57 About the ‘minor’ see Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature,transl.byD.Polan(Minneapolis&London:UniversityOfMinnesotaPress,1986[1975]),esp.ch.3;GillesDeleuze&ClaireParnet,Dialogues,transl.byH.TomlinsonandB.Habberjam(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1987[1977]).58SeeGuattari,op.cit.,2000;andFelixGuattari,“Qu’est-cequel’ecosophie?”Terminal56(1991),22-23.

CriticalStudies3

18

frameworks that have yet to come and cannot be universally arranged. Thisconstitutes a sort of ‘moving’ ethic of the virtual, of the potency of essence inwhat, following Spinoza and his readers, is an ethological framework.59 ForGuattari,ethicsisaquestionofecologicalresponsibilityforthecosmos,withitsvital affective species of corporal and incorporeal constituents. This involvesaesthetic dimensions of creation, as a capacity to prompt active forces ofresistance.60Thedimensionofartisticcreationpossesses, in fact, forGuattari,residualsthatare distinctive of societies in which the processes of subjectivation werepolysemous,animistandtrans-individual.61These“societieswithoutwritingorstate”wereinfactcharacterisedbywhatmightbecalled‘territorialised’,or‘notdiscerning’ assemblages of various activities, such as economic, artistic, ritual,magic, religious or other activities.62Within such social contexts, the aestheticdimensionwas not a separate sphere of individual psychic formation. Artwasnot a specific activity, ‘separated from the context’, while forming part of theimmanentactingofthesocius–aconstituentpartofsocialrelationships.Thus,thecreativedimensionofartiscapableofrecallingthedimensionsthatGuattaricalls of non-structuralised, open and affective semiotisation.63 The aestheticambit therefore, being a field of affects, is an ambit in which foyers, nuclei orfires, of resistance endure. These are processual nuclei which can allow re-singularisations and heterogeneses, which are processes of opening towards‘possibles’, and not of what might be called ‘calcification’, standardisation or‘fascistisation’ as occurs under the enslavement of aesthesis to the capitalistSignifier – which for Guattari is a universal value that works as a semioticoperatoroverlifeflows.64ItiscrucialthattheseresistantfiresaretraversedbywhatGuattaridefinesasan“aestheticpuissanceof feeling”.65This is,again, thecreativepotencyasa‘powerto’thathasaprivileged–inthesenseofactiveandofpossible–position,preciselyduetoitscapabilityregardingvirtual,openandtransversalprocessualities.

59ReaderssuchasDeleuzeandGuattariaswellasNegriorBraidotti.See for instanceAntonioNegri, L’Anomalia Selvaggia: saggio su potere e potenza in Baruch Spinoza (Milan: Feltrinelli,1981);Braidotti,op.cit.60Guattari,op.cit.,1995;andGuattari,op.cit.,2000.61Iamusingthepasttensehere,butitiskeytonotethatGuattariisalwayscarefultounderlinenonlinear readings of history, since such processes re-emerge within different societies andnevercharacteriseadefinitehistoricalstage.62Guattari,op.cit.,1995,101.63Itmustbehighlightedthat,byfollowingGuattari, Iamalwaysimplyingacontextofsemioticpluralism.See,Ibid.;andLazzarato,op.cit.64 Guattari, op. cit., 1995; Félix Guattari, Capitale Mondiale Integrato (Verona: Ombre Corte,1997).65Guattari,op.cit.,1995,101.


19

Thisishowtheambitofcreationneedstobethoughtwithintheprocessualityofmediaactionsofresistance,whenthehackmightbecomeahacktion,via–whatfollowing Deleuze and Guattari might be called – its ‘deterritorialisation’ and‘reterritorialisation’ in disruptive contingencies.66 The territories thatrelationally compose and border the material, applied gesture of the hackprocessuallymovetooriginatenovelsetsofrelations,newterritories,whichwillbe disorderly and turbulent, rather than highly functional. I suggest the hackneeds tobe ‘reoriented’andpointedtowards ‘machinic’disruptions,movingtohacktions.Ifthisisnotdone(bothintheoryandpractice,beyondanydualism),the abstractions capable of being originated by media hacking practices willcomfortablyterminateinthewelcominghandsofapparatusesofcapture.Hence,creation cannot be assumed to be an individual state. Creation does in factconstantly re-emerge in processes that are trans-individual, plural and open.Creativityisnothuman:itiscosmological.Toconclude,then,networkedmediaactionsashacktionsareresistantsincetheyexpress the creative capability of ‘machinising’ certain affections, words,practices and/or involvements, transversally populated by active, and notreactive forces. Hacktions heretically resist the rationality of the state, whichwould label them as being irrational, criminal and immoral because of theirdistancefromtheliberalmajoritarianwayofdoingpoliticsviadigitalmediaandnetworks (post your profile badge, sign the petition, receive your weeklynewsletter). These networked media actions are emergent and dysfunctional,theyareblossomingevents,andtheirfieldofinterventioniswhat,withDeleuzeandGuattari, canbecalledamicropolitics ‘in-becoming’: aplaneofaction thatimplies subjectivation as a non-anthropocentred relational process. Creationtraverseshacktions,frommediahackingasamaterialpractice,toitsabstractivepotential;aresistantpotencythat iscapableofactivating linesthathaveyettocome, formingdisruptiveconditions thathavenotbeenalready thoughtofnorimagined:aheterogeneityofresistancesinmediaecologies.

66 These terms are correlative, and are conceived by Deleuze and Guattari in relation to thebroaderthematicofthe‘territory’,whichtraversesalltheirwork.Theconceptoftheterritoryisused in broader terms compared with its usage in Ethology and Ethnology. In the words ofGuattari: “Territory is synonymous with appropriation, subjectification closed in on itself. Aterritory can also be deterritorialised, i.e. open up, to be engaged in lines of flight, and evenbecome self-destructive. Reterritorialisation consists of an attempt to recompose a territoryengagedinaprocessofdeterritorialisation”.FélixGuattari,TheAnti-OedipusPapers,trans.byK.Gotman(NewYork:Semiotext(e),2006),421.

CriticalStudies3

20

DemocraticPotentialofCreativePoliticalProtestFuatGursozluLoyolaUniversityMarylandfgursozlu@loyola.eduAbstractFromCairotoOccupyWallStreet,fromIstanbulGeziParktoDANSprotestsinSofia,inrecent public spheremovementswehavewitnessed the emergenceof a newwaveofcreative protest. The surge of creative forms of political action brings to the fore thequestion of democratic potential of creative political protest. This paper explores inwhat ways creative protest could deepen democracy. I argue that creative politicalprotest nurtures democracy by generating a peaceful culture of resistance and byprovidingapeacefulwayofrespondingtopoliticsofintoleranceandpolarization.IntroductionWhen criticizing Milosevic had a high cost in Serbia, the student movementOtpor – meaning resistance – developed nonviolent resistance strategies thatkepthumorandsatireat theircore.Theyusedcreativenonviolentmethods tospread their message and to help the public overcome their fear of theauthoritarian regime. Otpor’s most famous prank was‘the smiling barrel.’Recognizing that laughter could trump fear, Otpor members drew Milosevic’sportrait on a barrel and took the barrel to the main pedestrian boulevard inBelgrade.Nexttothebarrel theyputasignthatread“smashhis face for justadinar”1.Manypassersby took theopportunity to smashMilosevic’s facewith abatandformedalinetotaketheirownswings.Peoplelaughedevenmorewhenthepolice,uponfailingtofindtheorganizersoftheprotest,decidedtoarrestthebarrel. The smiling barrel stunt received widespread media coverage andappearedonthecoverof twooppositionnewspapers.Otpor’screativepoliticalprotestshavebeenimmenselyinfluentialinencouragingthepublictoshowtheiroppositiontotheoppressivegovernmentinSerbia.2It was the creativity of the ‘smiling barrel’ thatmade Otpor’s protest possibleunder conditions of the authoritarian rule. Many political groups have usedcreative forms of protest to express their dissent and to contest the political

1SrdjaPopovic,BlueprintforRevolution(NewYork:SpiegelandGrau,2015),101.2Popovic,BlueprintforRevolution,100–102.

Gursozlu–DemocraticPotentialofCreativePoliticalProtest

21

order, especially when the cost of contestation was too high.3 It is not clear,however, what we should expect from creative political protest underdemocratic conditions. Do creative methods of political protest have anydemocraticvalue?Howdoescreativitychangethenatureofdemocraticpoliticalprotest?Shoulddemocratictheoriststakeseriouslycreativemethodsofpoliticalprotest?Thesurgeofcreativeformsofprotestbringstotheforethequestionofthedemocraticpotentialofcreativepoliticalprotest.Thesemethodsarepresentin the actions of the ‘Indignados’ in different European cities, various Occupyprotests in the United States, Istanbul Gezi Park protests in Turkey, DANSprotests in Bulgaria, and various other protest movements in Brazil, Canada,Greece,Ukraine,andVenezuela.Despite theirdifferences, theserecentpoliticalmovements have staged a new form of political action that has at its corecreativity. The use of humor, irony, artistic activism, and aesthetic politicalperformances has become widespread and changed activists’ routinizedrepertoireofpoliticalaction.What we have witnessed in the recent protest movements is an outburst ofcreativity and the emergence of a new wave of creative politics. Unlike theviolent political protests against institutions of global capitalism in the lastdecade such as the Seattle Protests in 1999, in the new political movementsprotestershaveturnedtopeacefulcreativemethodssuchashumorandpoliticalarttostagenovelformsofprotest.Thesecreativepoliticalperformancesexpressprotesters’ political message and vent their anger against the political andeconomic order. For instance, a thousand protestors in Hamburg staged amassive pillow fight to contest the declaration of parts of Hamburg “dangerzones” that gave the police arbitrary stop and search powers in the dangerzones.4 In Ferguson, Missouri residents protested police violence againstAfrican-Americansbysilentlyconfrontingthepoliceofficerswiththeirhandsupinair.‘Handsup,Don’tShoot’hasbecomebothasloganandasymbolicgestureof the Black LivesMattermovement. During pro-EU demonstrations in Kiev aprotesterinstalledapianopaintedinthecolorsoftheUkrainianflaginfrontofapolice lineandplayedChopintothepolicetoconveythepeaceful intentionsoftheprotesters.5In light of these growing creativemethodsofprotests, I askwhat the surgeofcreativepoliticsmeansfordemocracy.Iarguethatcreativepoliticalprotestcanplayanimportantroleinfosteringdemocraticcultureandnurturingdemocracy.3SteveCrawshawandJohnJackson,“TenEverydayActsofResistanceThatChangedtheWorld,”Yes Maganize!, accessed on 5 March 2017, http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/10-everyday-acts-of-resistance-that-changed-the-world.4“UStravelwarningforHamburgafterpolicecrackdown,”BBCWorldNewsReport,accessed15September2015,http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25651806.5FionaMacdonald,“ArtinUkraine:BulletsandBarricades,”BBCCulture,accessed15September2015,http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20140523-bullets-and-barricades.

CriticalStudies3

22

In section 1, I suggest that creativity in political protestenables democraticpoliticsbyencouragingnon-violence.Bypreventingthedegenerationofspaceofdemocraticpoliticstoaspaceofviolentconfrontation,creativepoliticalactionscreatethespacenecessary fordemocracyto function. Insection2, Iarguethatcreative forms of protest help adversaries overcome communicative barrierswhich undermine democratic engagement. In section 3, I explorewhethercreative protest could ease the political tension between contendingpartiesunderconditionsofpolarizedpolitics.I.CreativityandViolenceHannah Arendt describes the space of political action as ‘the space ofappearance’where one can be seen and heard.6Whenever people act throughspeech and action before an audience to bring out a change in the worldpeacefully, they transform the public space to a space of democratic politics.7Viewed democratically, public spaces ought to provide stages for all socialgroups–particularlythepowerlessandthosewithoutinstitutionalizedpower–wheretheycanpeacefullyvoicepoliticalclaimsandrendervisibleissuesignoredby the mass media and the society. A healthy democracy, Iris Young notes,encouragesdifferent social groups to express their political concerns in publicandviewscontestatoryandagonisticpoliticalactionswithpositive,orleastnon-negative, lens.8Existingdemocracies,however,areseldomhospitable topublicpoliticalprotest.Despite thewidespreadrecognitionof the right to freedomofassemblyandprotestasafundamentalhumanright,eveninsocietieswithalongtradition of liberal democracy there are untenable restrictions on the publicspace and political groups are discouraged fromexercisingtheir democraticrighttopeacefullyprotestinpublic.9AsLarryBogadrightlyobserves,inWesterndemocraciespublicspacesareincreasinglyprivatizedandregulated.Protestersare intimidated and “harassed with preemptive arrest, surveillance, andinfiltrations.”10 This widespread phenomenon has steadily weakened thedemocraticpotentialofpublicspaces.Characterizingcitizensaspassivepoliticalconsumers,whoshouldexpresstheirviews at the ballot box and let the political elite use political power, anddemocraticprotestersasapotential threattosecurityandorder, thedominant6HannahArendt,TheHumanCondition(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1998),199.7 Seyla Benhabib, “Models of Public Sphere: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition, and JürgenHabermas,” in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Craig Calhoun (Cambridge, MA: The MITPress,1992),78.8 See IrisMarionYoung, InclusionandDemocracy (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 2002), 52-121.9 See Larry Bogad, Tactical Performance: The Theory and Practice of Serious Play (New York:Routledge, 2016) and Ella Myers,Worldy Ethics: Democratic Politics and Care for the World(Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,2013).10Bogad,TacticalPerformance,148.


23

political culture tooeasilywarrants theuseofviolenceagainstprotestors.11 Inmostdemonstrations, thepolice look forexcusesto interveneanddispersetheprotest.12Tocontainprotesters,thepoliceregularlyuseintimidatingtacticsandaggressivepracticeswhichonlymakeviolentconfrontationmorelikely.13Overlyauthoritarianattitudeofthepoliceagainstnon-violentprotestersbringaboutafeelingof injusticeandasenseofunfairness.DonatellaDellaPortoargues thatwhatmakesviolentconfrontationevenmorelikelyandprotestmoreintenseisthe perceived external aggression “described by protesters as an act of waragainstapeacefulcommunity”;sheclaimsthisfeelingforces“thecommunitytojoin the front-line.”14 When protesters resist and insist on exercising theirdemocratic right to protest peacefully, the police use even more aggressivemethods such as firing smoke gas, tear gas, stun grenades, rubberbullets, andwatercannonsatprotesterstodispersethedemonstration.15Thepolice’suseofforce–andevenexcessiveforce–againstdemocraticprotestersischaracterizedas‘defensive’asthepoliceenforceorderwhereasprotesters’resistancetendstobe depicted as aggressive transgression of the public space. The result is thedegenerationofthesiteofdemocraticexpressionandcontestationintoasiteofviolentconfrontation.AsSrdjaPopovic,theleaderofSerbianstudentmovementOtpor,notes:“assoonasproteststurnintoaviolentconflict,itisakindofdefeat.Itislikechallenging[Mike] Tyson to a boxing match.” However, Popovic continues, “why not playchess with him instead? Our playing field is called creativity.”16 FollowingOtpor’s advice, Tahrir Square protesters communicated their commitment tononviolence by performing various creative peaceful actions such as shoutingpositive slogans, carrying roses, sweeping the square clean, andprotecting theshopsfromlooters.WhenCopticChristianscelebratedMass,theMuslimsformedacirclearoundthem;whiletheMuslimsprayed,theChristiansjoinedhandinacirclearoundtheMuslimstoprotectthem.17InSofia,refusingtoseethepoliceasanenemytheprotestershaveattemptedtocommunicatewiththembyreadingpoetry,playingmusic,andofferingwater.Peoplegatheredinlargenumbersafterwork during weekdays and on weekends to join the protests and to talk andsocialize. Families came with their babies and strollers, others brought theirdogs, andothersbikesand flowers.InbothSofiaandCairo,and inmanyother

11This ishowtheelitemodelofdemocracy,which is thedominantmodelofdemocracytoday,characterizes democratic citizens and political protesters. See Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism,Socialism,andDemocracy(NewYork:Harper,1942).12Myers,WorldyEthics,148andespeciallyfn26.13Bogad,TacticalPerformance,148and162.14DonatellaDellaPorta,“EventfulProtest,GlobalConflicts,”Distinktion:ScandinavianJournalofSocialTheory9(2008):19.15 Tina Rosenberg, “Revolution U,” Foreign Policy, accessed 21 October 2015,http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/02/17/revolution-u-2/.16Ibid.17Ibid.

CriticalStudies3

24

recentpoliticalmovements, theemergenceof apeaceful andplayful cultureofprotest served as a new source of democratic inspiration. The creativeperformancesof theprotesters fostereda festival like atmosphere and formedthe language of peaceful resistance. This ethos of democratic protesttransformedthenatureofprotestwhilecreatingnewpoliticalagencieswhoarecommittedtopeacefulpoliticalprotest.As recent political protests illustrate, when creativity undergirds a politicalmovement,itgeneratesapeacefulcultureofresistance.Bogadsuggeststhatsuchinnovative, playful, and artful responses “make protest more joyous forparticipantsfacingintimidationfromthepolice.”18Theprotesters’perceptionofthemselves–itselfshapedbythepeacefulcultureofprotest–encouragesthemto keep the protest non-violent. Creative political performances allow politicalprotesterstoreclaimthedemocraticmeaningofthepublicspacebyencouragingthem to express their views in a non-violent way even in the face ofpoliceviolence.The public space remains a peaceful site for democraticperformance, contestation, and expression. In that sense, creative politicalprotestmakespossibledemocraticpoliticalaction.II.NegativeReactionstoProtestInan idealdemocracy, theconcernsandclaimsofprotestersshouldbepartofthe democratic exchange and taken seriously by the public. Democraticengagement entails confrontation of competing positions accompanied by awillingness to listen and to make a good faith effort to understand the otherside.19 However, in existing democracies those who exercise their right toprotest peacefully in public are too often and too easily dismissed due to thenegative characterization of protest movements.20 When challenged, those inpositions of power turn to tactics of delegitimization by invoking existingstereotypes about protest and protesters. This in turn results in the mediareproducing derogatory perspectives on protesters. For instance, OccupyWallStreetprotestershavebeendescribedasan“unrulyself-destructivemass,”21andTahrir Square protesters have been called “thugs, vandals, looters, and

18Bogad,TacticalPerformance,167.19Therearevariousaccountsofdemocraticengagementadvancedbydifferentnormativemodelsof democracy (deliberative, participatory, agonistic, radical), but even the agonistic approach,which understands democratic engagement in terms of a non-violent confrontation betweencontendingparties,endorsestheprinciplethatoneshouldalwayslistentotheotherside.See,forinstance, Andrew Schaap, “Agonism in Divided Societies,” Philosophy and Social Criticism32(2006):269.20A similar viewofprotest and contestationalsopersists in contemporarydemocratic theory.Prioritizing consensusandunity,manydemocratic theoristsviewcontestationandagonismasdivisiveandthreatening.SeeIrisYoung,InclusionandDemocracy,chapters2and3.21 John Buell, “Occupy Wall Street’s Democratic Challenge,” Theory and Event 14 (2011Supplement),3.


25

terrorists.”22Manypeople reject the claimsof protesterswithout listening andtrying to understand their message simply because they do not like the wayprotesters voice their concerns and press their claims.23 Proponents of thecontested view tend to take a defensive attitude and dismiss the other’sperspectivewhenchallengedbypoliticalgroupsviewedas‘anarchists,’‘nihilists,’‘troublemakers,’ and so on. Thiswidespread negative attitude toward politicalprotestandprotestershindersdemocraticengagement.To be sure, from an Arendtian perspective, one can argue that the publicperceptionofprotestdoesnotmattersince theexperienceofactingpolitically,andnot theoutcomeofpoliticalaction, is thereal rewardofpoliticalactionastheactofprotestisanexerciseoffreedom.24Indeed,itisimportanttorecognizetheexpressivevalueofpoliticalactionandavoidreducingthevalueofpoliticalaction to its possible consequences.However, it is also important to recognizethatwhentheaimistocontestanunjustpolicy,ahegemonicnormoridentity,or‘thecommonsense,’ theoutcomeof thepoliticalprotestmatters.Although it isdifficulttotracetheconcreteeffectsofeachpoliticalprotest, itisreasonabletoclaim that the negative characterization of a protest is an effective way ofunderminingthecredibilityofapoliticalmovementandexcludingtheclaimsoftheprotestersfromthepoliticalpublicsphere.AsMarkWenmanpointsout,the“narration and coverage of particular events are never value-free and thejudgmentsarealreadybuiltintothenarration.”25Dependingontheframingofaprotest, protesters couldbe viewed as a destructiveunrulymobor a groupofpoliticalactivistsfightingforaworthycause.26Iftheformernarrativeprevails,itmarginalizes the movement, which diminishes the democratic power of theprotest. Thus, the protesters would struggle to get their views heard andinfluence the public debate. The issue is not that the public fails to see theprotesters,butitisthattheprotestisnarratedinsuchawaythatitisdifficultforthe public to view them as a legitimate group deserving a fair hearing. Theprotesters are seen, but they are not heard due to theway dominant politicalnarrativescharacterizethem.Howapoliticalprotestischaracterizedisespeciallyimportantwhentheissueatstakeis ‘politicsofbecoming.’ Inthe ‘politicsofbecoming’,asWilliamConnolly

22Egyptianactivistcollective‘ComradesfromCairo’,“FromTaksimandRiotoTahrir,thesmellofteargas,” Roar Magazine, accessed 15 August 2015, http://roarmag.org/2013/06/from-tahrir-and-rio-to-taksim-the-smell-of-teargas/.23 Mike E. Warren, “What Should We Expect from More Democracy?: Radically DemocraticResponses toPolitics,”PoliticalTheory24,no.2(1996),241-270,and IrisYoung, InclusionandDemocracy,chapter2.24SeeArendt,TheHumanCondition,chapter5.25MarkWenman,AgonisticDemocracy:ConstituentPowerintheEraofGlobalisation(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2013),275.26Onthesignificanceofframing,seeHankJohnstonandJohnA.Noakes,FramesofProtest:SocialMovementsandtheFramingPerspective(Lanham:MDLRowman&Littlefield2005)

CriticalStudies3

26

describes, new and unforeseen things come about and disturb the existingculturalandpoliticalterrain.Thisnewthingmaybeanewculturalidentitythatdisturbstheconstellationofexistingidentities,anewreligiousfaithorasourceofmoral inspiration,oranewrightwaiting tobeplacedon the listof rights.27Strugglestochallengeandmodifytheexistingculturalandpoliticalterraintendto generate unease since they disturb existing codes of identity, legitimacy,justice,goodness,orright.Whenchallengeddominantidentitiesfeelthreatened.Fear, resentment and hostility are typical reactions to the emergence of newsocial identities and the attempts to unsettle the existing cultural andpoliticalterrain.Thenewpoliticalmovementsencounterresistanceandarejudgedbytheold cultural codes thatmarginalize them.28 Thus, the tendency to characterizepolitical protesters in a derogatory fashion to undermine their legitimacy isalreadystronginthecaseofpoliticsofbecoming.Itisimportanttorecognizethattheuseofcreativityinpoliticalprotestcanmakeamoredemocraticengagementpossiblebychallengingthenegativenarrativesofprotest; this encourages thepublic toviewpeacefulprotestersas legitimatepolitical actors. For instance, the protesters inHamburg turned staged amasspillow fight in order to respond to the police’s characterization of them as‘violent radicals.’ By “using the softest object” to protest they undermined thecredibility of the police’s portrayal of the protest.29 Such creative strategiesplayedamajorroleinprovidingapositiveviewoftheprotestanddrawingtheattentionofthepublictothecreationofdangerzonesinthecity.30Similarly,GeziPark protesters turned to humor and satire to respond to their government’sattempts to characterize them as ‘marauders,’ ‘looters,’ and ‘drunkards.’Whenthe prime minister of Turkey called Gezi protestors a bunch of marauders(‘çapulcu’inTurkish),theyrespondedbyredefining‘çapulcu’asonewhofightsfor her rights and resists injustice in a peaceful and humorousmanner.31 Theprotesters adopted ‘çapulcu’ as their nickname: they greeted each other as‘çapulcu’; ‘çapulcusarecoming’and ‘everyday I’mchapulling’havebecome theslogans of the movement. The creative redefinition of this politicized wordtogether with many other creative and playful political performances have

27WilliamConnolly,WhyIAmNotaSecularist(Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2000),57.28 William Connolly, Ethos of Pluralization (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press,1995),xv.29 Three days after the pillow protest Hamburg police lifted the danger zone. “Hamburgprotesters prove to be peaceful by pillow fight,” Daily Sabah, accessed 15 September 2015,https://www.dailysabah.com/world/2014/01/11/hamburg-protesters-prove-to-be-peaceful-by-pillow-fight.30“‘DangerZones’inGermany'sHamburglifted,”AnadoluAgency,accessed15September2015,http://aa.com.tr/en/world/danger-zones-in-germanys-hamburg-lifted/190829.31 “‘Chapulling’: Turkish protesters spread the edgy word,” The Express Tribune with TheInternational New York Times, accessed 15 August 2015,http://tribune.com.pk/story/560640/chapulling-turkish-protesters-spread-the-edgy-word/.


27

provided a positive narrative of the protest. Recognizing the legitimacy of theGezimovementmanycitizenshavepaidattentiontothemessageoftheprotest.This is one of the reasons why a protest started by a small group ofenvironmental activists have snowballed into a nationwide movement andgeneratedinternationalsolidaritymovementsinseveralcitiesaroundtheglobe.Despite the already existing negative connotations associated with publicpolitical protest and the deliberate use of these negative connotations bypowerfulpoliticalactorstodelegitimizeprotestmovements,creativemethodsofprotest make it clear that there is a significant difference between irrationaldangerous extremists andpeaceful activistswhowant to voice their concerns,press their claims, and bring about a change. When protesterscommunicatetheirmessagebyplayingmusic,creatinghumorousslogans,readingbookstothepolice, throwing flowers at a phalanx of officers advancing towards them,andpaintingsidewalksstepsinrainbowcolors,theygenerateapositivenarrativeofthe protest. Creative, humorous acts and artistic performances can interruptwell-established scripts about political protest and open up room for positivecharacterization of political movements. Positive characterization of protestshiftstheattentionofthepublictothepoliticalmessageoftheprotesters.Whenperceived not as ‘violent radicals’, ‘anarchists’ or ‘trouble-makers’ but as‘concerned citizens’, protesters are more likely to be taken seriously by thepublic. As such, by offering an alternative narrative of political protest andcorrecting the public’s perception of the protesters, creative politicalperformancescanopenupaspacefordemocraticengagement.III.PoliticsofPolarizationOneofthemainproblemsofcontemporarydemocraciesisthepolarizedformofpoliticsthat“splitthepoliticalarenaintofactionalandinimicalgroups.”32Tobesure, adversarial struggle is always part of the democratic space given theconflictualandpluralisticnatureofdemocraticpolitics.AsChantalMoufferightlyindicates, a healthy dose of conflict and opposition is required for a vibrantdemocracy.33Mouffearguesthataconflictualviewoftheworld,characterizedbyopposedpoliticalpositionsthatpeoplecanidentifywith,allowscontestationandpolitical struggle to remainwithin the boundaries of liberal democracy.Whenpolitical outlets are provided for the expression of dissent and contestation,Mouffe claims, this leads to identificationwith formsof identities thatwill notconstructtheopponentasanenemy.34However,intheabsenceofademocratic

32 Nadia Urbinati, “Between Hegemony and Distrust,” Eurozine, accessed 4 August 2014,http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2014-03-14-urbinati-en.html.33ChantalMouffe,OnthePolitical(London:Verso,2006),21-25,andAgonistics(London:Verso,2013),7.34ChantalMouffe,DemocraticParadox(London:Verso,200),102-105,andAgonistics,5-9.

CriticalStudies3

28

ethos of engagement that contains agonistic confrontation politics maydeteriorate into a fight between factional loyalties and radicalized identities.Reactionarypositionsandapoliticsof intolerancecouldtakeover thespaceofdemocraticpolitics.Whena ‘rallyaroundtheflag’effectdominatesthepoliticallandscape, there is less room for respect, mutual understanding, andcompromise. Politics is reduced to a zero-sum struggle between like-mindedhomogenous militant groups who do not engage democratically. Within thiscontext, political protest might seem to escalate conflict and sharpen existingdivisions. Political protest can have an effect on the public if the public isreceptive and truly listening to the protesters. However, under conditions ofpolarizationthisreceptivityispreciselywhatislacking35andapoliticalprotestmaybeseenasademonstrationofpowerinthestreet,whichcanexacerbatethepolarization of the political discourse. Given the already deeply polarizedpoliticallandscape,politicalprotestcouldantagonizethosewhoareopposedtothe protesters’ views and could even encourage those who are sitting on thefencetosupporttheoppositeside.Despiteitsoppositionalnature,creativeformsofprotestcanopenupapositivepolitical space for democratic engagement and make democratic engagementpossibleeveninthefaceofdeeppartisanshipandpolarization.Creativepoliticalprotest can be an effective means for contesting a political position withoutinducingnegativeemotionalresponsesintheproponentsofthecontestedview.One form of creative protest that can tell a story without provoking theadversaryistheuseofhumorandirony.Humorousprotest–or‘laughtivism’asPopovic terms it – both makes people laugh and encourages them to think.36Bogad also emphasizes the role of humor and irony in gettingpeople to listenratherthanoutrightrejectingtheprotesters’views.Forinstance,recognizingthedemocratic power of humor and irony, hundreds of thousand of protesters inTahrir Square chanted together “where is my Kentucky Fried Chicken?” toexpress the absurdity of the claims advanced by the government controlledmainstream media that the protestors were all paid by foreign agents andofferedfreemealsfromKFC.37InGeziPark,theprotestorsusedthestencilofapenguinwearingagasmasktovoicetheircriticismoftheself-censorshipofthelocal media. This was a reference to CNN Turkey – a major news channel inTurkey and a franchise of CNN international – broadcasting a documentaryabout penguins during police attacks on protesters while CNN Internationalcoveredtheprotestlive.Someprotestershaverespondedbywearing“weareallpenguins”inscribedt-shirts.Theypaintedthestencilsofapenguinwearingagasmask on walls and streets of the city. In both Cairo and Istanbul, the use of

35RobertW.Glover, “RadicallyRethinkingCitizenship:Disaggregation,AgonisticPluralismandthePoliticsofImmigrationintheUnitedStates,”PoliticalStudies59(2011),221-225.36Popovic,BlueprintforRevolution,110-111.37Bogad,TacticalPerformance,280.


29

humor and irony helped protesters convey their message in a positive waywithoutantagonizingtheotherside.In addition to humor and irony, emotionally charged storytelling andperformance can be an effective means of communicating across differentlysituatedgroups.Thismodeofpoliticalcommunicationhasthecapacitytoreachtheadversaryat theaffective level, thereby loosening thegripof thedominantnarratives on one’s perception of the other. In doing so, it can overcome theaffective barriers that prevent the adversary from engaging with the other’sposition.For instance, to protest themurder of a protester, Egyptian activistsstagedasilenteventinvariouscitieswheretheystoodatarms-lengthfromeachother in order not to violate the Egyptian emergency law that severely limits‘gathering.’38 During 2014 protests in Venezuela, protesters planted mockcrosses, gravestones, and coffins on prominent avenues, which symbolize thecountry’shomicidevictims.39Inresponsetothedeathofa15yearoldboywhowasshotintheheadbyapolicetear-gascanisteronhiswaytobuybreadduringthe Gezi Park protests, the protesters staged a sit-in demonstration laying hisportraitsonthegroundbesidesloavesofbread.40Theaimoftheseprotestswasto reach the political adversary at an affective level and to evoke empathy inthosewhoareneutral.Elicitinganemotional response from thepublic softensthe cultural terrain, which can transform the political climate in a way thatmakespossiblelisteningandunderstandingtheconcernsoftheotherside.Consider, for instance, the performance of the ‘StandingMan.’41 TheGezi Parkprotests ended when the police forcibly cleared the park of the protesters,removed the tent city, and re-opened the park to the public. The countrywasdeeplypolarized.Undertheseconditions,aprotesterstagedacreativepoliticalperformance,whichopenedalittlecrackinthewallthatseparatedthetwosides.TheStandingMan,asthepopularmediadubbedhim,stoodstillinthemiddleoftheTaksimSquare–thebusiestsquareinIstanbul–formorethansixhours.Hemovedonlyoncetounbuttonhispantsincasethepolicewantedtostripsearchhim. The performance of the Standing Man created an ambiguous situation,whichrevealedthelimitsofthedominantnarrativeabouttheGeziprotest.The

38 Armando Salvatore, “New Media, the “Arab Spring,” and the Metamorphosis of the PublicSphere: Beyond Western Assumptions on Collective Agency and Democratic Politics,”Constellations20(2013):222.39 Girish Gupta, “Frommusic to nudity, Venezuela protesters get creative,”Reuters US Edition,accessed 15 September 2015, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/us-venezuela-protests-students-idUSKBN0DG1O520140430.40 “Erdogan’s heroes Police! Gezi protests victim teenager Berkin Elvan dead,”National Turk,accessed 15 September 2015, http://www.nationalturk.com/en/erdogans-heroes-police-gezi-protests-victim-teenager-berkin-elvan-dead-turkey-breaking-news-48255.41AndyCarvin,“The‘StandingMan’OfTurkey:ActOfQuietProtestGoesViral,”NPR,accessed28September 2015, http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/18/193183899/the-standing-man-of-turkey-act-of-quiet-protest-goes-viral.

CriticalStudies3

30

Standing Man was not violating any law since he was simply standing in thesquare,buthisperformancecountedaspoliticaldemonstrationinapublicspacewhich requires a permit. The democratic power of the StandingMan’s protestsprings fromhis creativity to explore this ambiguity: apeacefulprotesterwhocannot be defined by the dominant narrative generated by the state todelegitimize themovement. The StandingManwas a protester contesting thepowerofthestate,buthewasclearlynotanextremist,looterormarauderasthedominantnarrativeportrayedtheGezimovement.Fromtheperspectiveofthosewhowere against the Gezimovement hewas yet another Gezi protesterwhoshouldbeignoredandyethisprotestdidnotfitinanyoftheofficialscripts.Notonlywere thoseagainst theGeziprotests confused,but also thepolicedidnotknow whether they should arrest him or simply let him stand in the square.Moreover, once passersby recognized the political nature of the performance,several of them joined the protest. Within a couple of hours, the number ofpeoplestandingatTaksimSquarewentuptohundreds.ThesilentperformanceoftheStandingManhasinspiredsimilarprotestsacrossTurkeyandaroundtheworld.Itwasacreativeandpeacefulresponsetopoliceviolence,thepoliticsofintoleranceandpolarization.TheStandingManhasgainedthesympathyofthepublic and his creative political performance opened up a new space fordemocraticengagement.Evenunderconditionsofpolarization, creativepoliticalperformancescanhelpone come to terms with the fact that their political position may appearcontestable to others. By loosening the grip of thedominant narratives on thepublic’spoliticalconsciousness,creativemethodsofprotestcanallowonetoseetheother’spositionfromadifferentperspective,therebymakingunderstandingpossible.Inthatsense,creativepoliticalprotestcanhelppeopletorelatetotheother’s concerns andreveal one the validity of others’ particularperspectives.Recognizingthattheothermayhaveavalidviewwhenseenfromtheirperspectivemayencourageone toquestion andexamineher viewof thepoliticalopponent.Onemaybegintoseetheothernotasanenemywhoshouldbedestroyed,butasa legitimateadversarywhoshouldbetolerated.42Creativepolitical performances can make it possible to transcend the boundaries ofpolitical camps and closed identities and bridge the gap between “us” and“them.”Thisdoesnotmean that twosides reconcile, rather theyperceiveeachother as legitimate political opponents. The transformation of politicalantagonismintoagonism–apeacefulstrugglebetweenadversaries– iscrucialsince the latter introduces the possibility of negotiation and compromise ondemocraticterms.

42Mouffe,DemocraticParadox,102.


31

IV.ConclusionSeveralpoliticalgroupsinvariouscountrieshaveshiftedtheirprotestmethodsaway from anger and resentment toward a new form of creative and playfulpolitical activism.43 These groupshavediscovered the effectiveness of creativepolitical protest in drawing the attention of the public and conveying theirarguments. The creative methods employed in various recent protestmovementshaveshowedthatbyperformingdemocracycreatively,itispossibleto challenge dominant views without exacerbating conflict despite the policeviolence against protesters, the dominance of politics of intolerance, and theconfrontationalnatureofprotest.Tobesure,therecognitionoftheeffectivenessof creative methods of political protest may lead to the proliferation of suchmethods. To gain visibility and vocality, political groupsmayhave to comeupwithevenmorecreativepoliticalacts.Itisimportanttorecognizethedemocraticpotentialofcreativeprotestandtounderstandinwhatwayssuchperformancescandeependemocracy.Creativepoliticalprotestcandefusetheviolentpotentialofprotest.Itisameansforrespondingtopoliticsofintoleranceandpolarizationthathauntdemocracies.Thesecreativeresponsesprovideanalternativemodeofpolitical engagement, which are both peaceful and politically resonant.

43SeePopovic’sBlueprintforRevolutionandBogad’sTacticalPerformance forseveralexamplesofcreativeactivismfromaroundtheworld.

CriticalStudies3

32

South-SouthCooperation:ResistanceorContinuity?DiegoSebastiánCrescentinoUniversidadAutó[email protected] the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals, the resultantrestructuring of the traditional cooperation scheme was challenged by alternativemechanisms. These new relations offered new possibilities to previously relegatedactors, enhancing however certain inequalities and reproducing certain logics ofdomination.Thiswasshowninthenewgeopoliticsofdevelopmentposedbyemergingcountries,andtheroleofglobalplayeremulatedbyBrazilsince2003.Tothisend,thispaperexaminesBrazil'sforeignpolicy,payingattentiontoitsSouth-SouthCooperationwithAngola.Thisanalysisisaimedatopeningthetheoreticaldebateaboutwhetherornotthesenewmechanismsaretoolsofresistancetoliberalhegemony.IntroductionAftertheSecondWorldWar,thepursuittolegitimisetheestablishmentofanewworldorderledtotheemergenceofmechanismsaimedateliminatingstructuraldifferences between countries. Notably, the strengthening of the idea ofdevelopmentasa cognitive,discursiveandpolitical constructiongave rise toavertical mechanism of assistance between donor/developed/rich countries ontheonesideandreceivers/undeveloped/poorcountriesontheother,wherethelatterfollowedthepathlaidbytheformertoreachdevelopment.Withtheadventofthe21stcentury,thecomplexityofpolitical,economic,socialandfinancialprocessesledtoamulti-polarisationofinternationalrelationshandinhandwiththeexpansionofneoliberalglobalisation.Thegrowthofinequalitiesarising both at a political and economic level facilitated the emergence ofrelationshipsoutsidetraditionalinstitutions.Inthearchitectureofinternationalcooperation, the internal contradictions of the development discoursemarkedcertain limits to theprevailing institutions, againstwhichnew ideas raised theneedforalternativemechanismsofcooperation.Thus, South-South (SSC), Triangular (TC) and Decentralised Cooperation (DC)expressedaqualitative interest inabroaderandhorizontalcooperation,which

Crescentino–South-SouthCooperation

33

aimed to leave aside the contradictions of the traditional system. As aconsequence,agrowingoptimismarosefromtheacademiesoftheGlobalSouth,increasingthenumberofworksanalysingtheemergenceofthoseprocessesasapathtoredistributeinternationalpower.Thestrengtheningof“Southern”actors,theconsolidationofaGlobalSouthidentityandtheemergenceofmechanismsofSSCasanovercomingantithesisofthenorth-southcooperationeffectivelyledtoa qualitative expansion of traditional cooperation. However, these newstructures also reproduced certain relations of verticality and inequality. Thiswasshowninthenewgeopoliticsofdevelopmentposedbyemergingcountries.On this basis, the challenge has become to unravel the current south-southrelations models, understanding their mechanisms on the gear of theinternational system, as a break to the hegemonic and traditional donor-recipientbinomial.To thisend, Iwill integratedecolonialandpoststructuralisttheoriesinordertoanalyseBrazil'sforeignpolicy,payingspecialattentiontoitspromotionofSSCpolicies inLusophonecountriesofAfrica,specificallyAngola.This analysis,while not exhaustive, is aimed at opening the theoretical debateaboutwhetherornotthesenewparticipationmechanismsaretoolsofresistanceto(neo)liberalhegemony.The construction of hierarchies within the international cooperationschemeOverthepastdecades, insidethedisciplineofInternationalRelationstherehasbeen a rejuvenation from a set of critical perspectives assembled behind thediscussionaboutproducedbynon-Europeanepistemologies,1pursuingthiswayto repress the construction of alternative institutional structures to handlepolitical,socialandeconomicmechanismofpower.The formation and expansion of these narratives in the institutionalinternational arena served the strengthening of a binarisation of internationalrelations,hierarchisedaroundcategoriesofcountriesaccordingtotheirlevelofdevelopment or underdevelopment, charting a unique path to reach thiscondition—traced, of course, by the former. The foundation in 1960 of theOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and theestablishmentof theDevelopmentAssistanceCommittee (DAC) inside itaimedtomonitorandevaluatedevelopmentpolicies formembercountries,analysinganddeliveringrecommendationsforassistanceprogramstoeachland.TheDACwas thereby shaped into a legitimation mechanism for the formulation ofpolicies imposed by the previous colonial powers to their ex-colonies, in the

1SantiagoCastroGomez,Laposcolonialidadexplicadaalosniños(Bogotá:PontificiaUniversidaddelCauca,2005),26-27.

CriticalStudies3

34

context of post-World War II political decolonisation. Social sciences werethereforecrystallisedasastronglegitimisingmechanismforthesepoliciesintheAfrican,AsianandLatinAmericanStates.Moreover, the political, social and economic life of the recipients became thetarget of an unlimited set of programs and interventions evaluated andscientifically calculated by the sciences developed for this purpose.2 TheseinitiativeswereratifiedthereafterbymanyUnitedNationssummits,creatingasystemofinternationalcooperationthroughwhichitwouldsubsequentlycometosettletheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDG).Butsoon,theredirectionoffunds for development programs frommanymiddle-income countries to low-incomecountriesdeterminedbytheMDGstartedtofaceasharpcriticismfromthecountrieshithardest.Nevertheless,asaconsequenceoftheneoliberalcrisisinLatinAmerica,aseriesofprocesseshaveemergedthattranscendedtheparadigmofmodernity intwodifferent senses.From theepistemologicalperspective, on theonehand, ithasledtoadecreaseinthemasteryofmodernscience,promptinganopeninginsideSocialSciencestowardsalternativeformsofknowledge.Fromthesocio-politicalperspective, on the other hand, the emergence of new milestones incontemporarysocialmovementshasallowedhistoricallyinvisiblesectorsofthesociety to access to the circles of power.3 Meanwhile, the above-referredmarginalisation of alternative forms of construction of power and knowledgealsopromptedasetofnewprocessesofidentityconstruction,encompassedbytheideaoftheGlobalSouth.ThisnewmultidimensionalidentitymadereferencetoaphenomenonofcreationanddelimitationagainsttherulesimposedbytheGlobal North,4 not only denouncing the presence of unequal and inequitableinstitutional structures, but also seeking to build alternative mechanisms ofinternationalrelations,basedonasharedanddiversestructuralreality,andnoton the promise ofmoving towards a linear evolutionary path.5 Itwas definedthusasaconcept thatstarted fromthenegativity inoppositiontomodernandcolonialconstructionmechanismsofpower;butaboveall,ithaditsfoundationsinthepositiverecognitionofthesubalternconstructionsofpowerbasedonitscreativeskillstobuildanewworldorder.2ArturoEscobar,“PowerandVisibility:DevelopmentandtheInventionandManagementoftheThirdWorld”,CulturalAnthropology,3(1988),4:429-430.3 Boaventura Sousa Santos quoted in Arturo Escobar, “El ‘postdesarrollo’ como concepto ypráctica social”,Políticas de economía, ambiente y sociedad en tiempos de globalización, DanielMato (ed.), Emeshe Juhász-Mininberg (Caracas: Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales,UniversidadCentraldeVenezuela,2005),17-31.4 Siba Grovogui, “A Revolution Nonetheless: The Global South in International Relations”,TheGlobalSouth,5(2012),1:175–190.5MónicaHirtsch,Pasadoypresentedelacooperaciónnorte–surparaeldesarrollo(BuenosAires:DocumentosdeTrabajosobreCooperaciónSur-Sur,2009),121-122.


35

This deconstructive theorisation enabled, in turn, a revision of the officialreadings about international cooperation, making it possible to denounce thepresenceofa legitimisingdevelopmentdiscourse inside theofficialreadings. Itenabled us from a political perspective to acknowledge how the internationalarena had limited the state's possible paths, but it also showed from anepistemological point of view how academia had been limited to suitableepistemologies, creating a concept of development that legitimised theexpansionofunequalandverticalcooperationinstrumentsandmechanisms.Asaresult,GlobalSouthcountriespostulatedthefoundationofnewmechanismsof cooperation. Through these, they tried to alter the principles onwhich thedevelopmentaidindustryhadsettledasavehicleforpromotingadevelopmentmodel.Thisnewcounter-hegemonicpoliticalchallengethusbecameapropitiousspace to foster the articulation of joint actions between the members of theSouth. It looked forward to promote horizontal, equitable, consensualmechanisms of mutual benefit, respecting independence and nationalsovereignty. Thereby it sought to achieve greater bargaining power and topromote self-reliance and preservation of diversity and cultural identity,denouncinginturnitseternalmarginalisation.6UnravellingtheliberaldiscourseofanunambiguousdevelopmentpathIf the contributions of decolonial theorists enable us to acknowledge thepresenceoflegitimatingnarrativesaroundtheconceptofdevelopment,theonesof poststructuralist theorists open the door to understand “theways inwhichAsia, Africa and Latin America became defined as ‘underdeveloped’ andthereforeinneedofdevelopment”.7Toanswerthequestion,wehavetoinquirehowtheestablishedlegalstructuresenabledtheconstructionandreproductionofthecurrentinternationalrelations.Now as I previously expressed, themodelling of the narrative of developmentwas possible not only through the establishment of a system of internationalorganisations linked to an international common legal body that ensured itsreproduction, but also through its epistemological legitimation. The social andeconomic life of “underdeveloped” countries became the target of unavoidableintervention by technical specialists that were meant to ensure theirtransformation into “developed” countries, guaranteeing by doing so theirvoluntary monitoring. Equally important, however, was the production andcirculationoflegitimatingdiscourses.6BrunoAyllón,LacooperaciónSur-Sury triangular:¿Subversiónoadaptaciónde lacooperacióninternacional?(Quito,IAEN,2013),9-12.7Escobar,“El‘postdesarrollo’comoconceptoyprácticasocial”,18.

CriticalStudies3

36

Moreover,asFoucaultexpressed,power iseverywhere:diffusedandembodiedin discourse, knowledge and regimes of truth.8 This theorisation provides anopportunity for understanding how these discursive legitimations, formalinstitutionsandcoercivelawshidebehindrightsanddutiestheestablishmentofa normal social behaviour. The mechanisms of international socialisationpromote, this way, the disciplining of states and supranational institutions. Inthissense,developmentpolicieshavealwaysbeenlinkedtotherequirementofgood-governance, whereby international organisations generate “performancetechniques to assess, reward, or punish the behaviors of governments withregard to fields thatwere previously considered to fall within their sovereignjurisdiction”.9Butofcourse,thisgood-governanceconceptionhasonlymeanttobe dictated and justified from the “developed” countries, where Northerndominated institutions have had the right to define it and dictate the pathtowardsit,whilenon-NorthernStateshavebeenforcedtotakeresponsibilityforitsneverperfectimplementation.10Furthermore,theproductionandcirculationofthisdevelopmentdiscoursewascarried out through a double mechanism of professionalization (generation,diffusion and validation of knowledge) and institutionalisation (by using theknowledge produced to generate an institutional framework).11 Through theestablishment of this international network, discourses and techniques wereproducedandput intooperation for exercisingpowerwithin the internationalarena.Buttocompletethepuzzle,theFoucaultianconceptionofamicro-physicalpowerbroadensourunderstandingofhowitisalsothesamesubjectwho,inhisactions, reproduces these relationships of domination, normalising andmonitoringhimselfinhisinteresttodefendhisrightsandduties.Further,theexpansionofvaluesheldbythedevelopmentdiscourseenabledthenormalisation of a political and institutional behaviour through a network ofpartnerships that included intergovernmentalorganisations,non-governmentalorganisations, government authorities, sub-national agencies, and the civilsociety.Moreover, itsmolecular form of power enabled the configuration of ascaleofdevelopment-underdevelopment,wherebydifferenttaskswereallocatedto governments and societies according to their place on this scale. In thisregard, international socialisation not only served the interest of creating andimplementinginstitutions,butformedasortofinternationalgovernment,which

8MichelFoucault,DisciplineandPunish:TheBirthofthePrison (BuenosAires:SigloXXI,2008),33-34.9LauraZanotti,“GovernmentalizingthePost–ColdWarInternationalRegime:TheUNDebateonDemocratizationandGoodGovernance”,Alternatives30(2005),467.10 Jonathan Joseph, “Governmentality of What? Populations, States and InternationalOrganisations”,GlobalSociety23(2009),4,420.11Escobar,“PowerandVisibility”.


37

aimed to induce supranational institutions, governments and populations tobehaveinacertainway.12Following this line, Michael Merlingen mentions four distinct socialisationmechanisms13orpoliciesthatcouldactuallybequiteuseful inordertoanalysethe development scheme. The first one mentioned by the author is teaching,where socialisees act in accordance with the expectations of the socialiserbecause they think it is the right thing to do. This situation can be observedthrough the hegemonic crisis of the Brazilian agroexportmodel in 1930. Thisbackgroundgaverisetotheembracingofnational-developmentalismideas,thecentral axis of which remained on the transformation of the state for themodernisation of the national industry, along with a triangulation betweenforeign capital, national private initiative and state control of commodities.However, these (later-called) dependency theories engendered in the UN’sEconomicCommissionforLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean(ECLAC),stillreliedonateleologicalpathtoreach(economic)developmentbasedontheEuropeanexperience, and were therefore very closely linked to the contextual needs ofdevelopedcountries.Thesecondmechanism, intermediation, refers to socialisationasa cooperativeprocess inwhich no participant claims amonopoly on correct interpretationsandeverythingisbasedonestablishingconsensus.Thestructurationin1945oftheUnitedNations’GeneralAssemblyclaimedthisidealontheonehand,whileontheotherhandtheSecurityCouncil’sfivepermanentmembershad(andstillhave)therighttovetoanyresolution.ThisiscloselyrelatedtoMerlingen’sthirdmechanism,socialinfluence,wheresocialiseeschoosetoactinaccordancewiththe expectations of the socialiser to gain certain non-material benefits. Forexample,Brazil’sentrancetotheSecondWorldWarhelpedtostopthepressurescoming from the U.S. government towards all of the Latin Americandictatorships,whichalsoledthepostwarnewworldordertorecogniseBrazilasaregionalleader.And finally, through material induction, intergovernmental organisations usematerial incentives to inductstates into itswaysofbehaviour, leading themtoactaccordingtoopportunitiesorthreatsthataltertheirpoliticalrelations.Thisisprobablythemostvisibleexampleofnorth-southcooperation,wherepoliticalandeconomiccooperationhasalwaysbeentiedtoseveralconditions.Inbrief,thisinstitutionalisationperpetuatedthetraditionalhegemonicformsofpower,throughmechanismsthatpromotedhierarchicalandlinearrelationships12 Michael Merlingen, “Governmentality: Towards a Foucauldian Framework for the Study ofIGOs”,CooperationandConflict38(2003),4:363-36413Ibid.

CriticalStudies3

38

betweenstates.Thedevelopmentdiscoursegavelegitimacytotheestablishmentof common international standards to qualify, measure and prioritise states,correctingallpossibledeviations.Hence,developmentbecame

thegrandstrategy throughwhich the transformationof thenot-yet-too-rational Latin American/Third World subjectivity [was] to beachieved.(...)Thustheeffectoftheintroductionofdevelopmenthasto be seen not only in terms of its social and economic impact, butalso, and perhaps more importantly, in relation to the culturalmeaningsandpracticestheyupsetormodify.14

Butofcourse,resistanceisco-extensivewithpower,namelyassoonasthereisapower relation, there is a possibility of resistance.15 According to this logic,resisting the constructions would require not only a creative process payingattention to alternative formsof development but also a deconstructionof theexistingepistemicconstructions.Thewokengiant:Lula'sBrazilThe ideological shift in Latin American politics during the first years of thetwenty-first century, with the rise to power of “new left” governments, wasembraced by most of the leaders of the region as the “Twenty First CenturySocialism”. These new political currents were not isolated cases, but werestronglymutuallylinked,acquiringamarkedinter-andtransnationaldimension.ItwaswithinthisprocessthattheunionleaderLuisInacioLuladaSilvawonthepresidency of the Brazilian Republic in 2003. Now, while the main objectiveduring his government was to deepen social policies against worsening livingconditionsofBrazilianpopularclasses,Lulamaintainedaconservativeeconomicpolicy, continuing the liberal hegemonic cycle inaugurated by his predecessor.Thisway,thegovernmentalrhetoricraisedtheadvantagesofeconomicstabilityto achieve sustainable growth, while emphasizing the benefits that thisrepresented for popular sectors through the democratisation of the access toresources and the opening of channels for upward mobility. This promotedgreateradherencetothecompetitiveorderbythehandofthestate,allowingthesociocultural inclusion of the middle strata and the absorption of popularleaders.16

14Escobar,“PowerandVisibility”,438.15Foucault,DisciplineandPunish,33-34.16BrasilioSallumJr., “LaespecificidaddelgobiernodeLula.Hegemonía liberal,desarrollismoypopulismo”,NuevaSociedad217(2008),156-167.


39

From the perspective of productivity, the government took advantage of theinternational boom in commodity prices and boosted its global insertion as amajorsupplierofagrifoodsettlingthecountry'sgrowthoverthesurplusinthetradebalance.Withthismacroeconomicstability,confidenceintheinternationalmarket led to a sharp increase in foreign direct investment, transforming thecountryintothefirstreceiveratregionallevelandthefourthintheworld.Now,fromthepointofviewofdevelopment,theGrowthAccelerationPlan2007gaveamajorroletopublicinvestmentthroughthelegalconceptof'partnership'asacoordinatingmechanismbetween thepublicandprivate sectors.The intentionwas to restore the productivity of state-owned companies hand in hand withprivate companies, improving their competitiveness within the country andabroad.Consequently,investmentsininfrastructuredoubledbetween2003and2010 encouraging greater productivity and reducing regional and socialinequalities.17Moreover,itwaspreciselythiseconomicpolicywhichallowedtheformulationofa series of social policies that, in addition to generating a redistribution ofwealth,gaveaccesstotheeconomiccirclestolargecontingentsofthepopulation.Thus, from the social point of view itwas intended to address poor equitabledistribution of the benefits of growth from the previous decade through theimplementationofasetofuniversalprogramstoeradicateextremepovertyandhunger. These policies also included a large increase in budget expendituredevoted to education, where the investment in Social Sciences’ researchprogrammeswas essential to promote criticalmass to encourageBrazil’s owndeconstructionofdevelopmentstructures.All these factors enabled the country to start earning greater internationalrelevance, challenging the northern institutional structures within the stateframework from a subaltern and resistant southern identity. Its regionalleadership, the diversification of its trade through the promotion of bilateralrelations, the formation of trading blocswith countries from theGlobal South,and its role as a promoter of South-South Cooperation mechanisms, led it toexertanincreasingrolebothinLatinAmericaandglobally.Inadditiontothat,itspushintoancienttradealliancessuchasMERCOSUR,anditsfundamentalroleasa member of new political / economic conformations intended to serve as acounterbalancetotheinstitutionsoftheglobalnorthinamultipolarworld–asBRICS, IBSA and UNASUR – led Brazil to exert an unprecedented power ofinfluence. Its challenge was therefore to encourage transformations in theinternational system, and at the same time, to open up spaces to alternativepoliticalsubjects.

17CarlosEduardoSantosPinho, “Onacional-desenvolvimentismoeonovodesenvolvimentismonoBrasil:Expansãointerna,externaeodiscursosocial-democrata”,Achegas45(2012),18.

CriticalStudies3

40

Theglobalplayer’sworkhorse:BrazilianSouth-SouthCooperationAndso,contrarytomodelsofminimumstatewhichhadadvocatedinternationalfinancial institutions and developed powers over the previous decades, Lula'sactionsledBraziltogaincredibilityontheinternationalscenewithinthegood-government structure, cultivating a well-founded reputation in pacifism,international law and responsibility in fulfilling its obligations. These factorswere chased froma combativediscursive character showinganexplicitwill tochange the relations between developing countries and traditional powers. Inthis sense, the government focused on the diversification of the recipients ofBrazilian foreignpolicy,promotinga change in thegeographyof tradeand theformationofcoalitionsamongemergingcountries.18Fromtheperceptionthattheorthodoxeconomicpoliciesofthepreviousperiodhad been deeply harmful to the societies in a world arranged aroundasymmetrical rules that favored wealthy countries, South-South Cooperationwasrescuedaspartofapromisingfuturescenario.Basedonthis,theBraziliangoal became the pursuit of greater autonomy, prompting in turn amultipolarinternationalsystemandpreservingor increasingan independence thatwouldguaranteegrowthanddevelopment.This rhetoricwasessential in south-southrelations,positioningBrazilasoneoftheleadersoftheGlobalSouthinordertochallenge the rules of global governance. Brazilian foreign policy ran as aproducer and disseminator of an alternative model of cooperation fordevelopment,intendedtoleadthereductionofasymmetriesintheinternationalsystem, and allowing a change of status in the countries of the South fromreceivers to suppliers. Moreover, this construction sought to strengthen thecharacter of horizontal unconditional cooperation, not only differentiatingSouth-Southcooperationfromtraditional,butalsopostulating itasaneffectivesource,emphasisingthetiesofsolidarityamongdevelopingcountries.19As a consequence, their first step in this directionwas to demonstrate a deepcommitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), emphasising thattheycouldonlybeguaranteed through theeighthobjective: the formationofaglobalalliance.Theseproposalswereadoptedhandinhandwiththeseekingofpolitical alliances, strategic investments and the transfer of knowledge in avarietyofbasic sectors thatwerenot limited to thepoliticaland theeconomicareas. Following this line, throughout Lula’s administration, numerous18BrunoAyllón, “ContribucionesdeBrasilaldesarrollo internacional:coalicionesemergentesycooperaciónSur-Sur”,CIDOBd’afersinternacionals97-98(2012),190-192.19 Adriana Erthal Abdenur and João Marcos Rampini, “A cooperação brasileira para odesenvolvimentocomAngolaeMoçambique:umavisãocomparada”,Políticaexternabrasileira,cooperação sul-sul e negociações internacionais, Haroldo Ramanzini Júnior and Luis FernandoAyerbe(eds.)(SaoPaulo:CulturaAcadêmica,2005),89.


41

cooperationinitiativeswerecarriedoutunderthecoordinationoftheBrazilianCooperationAgency,focusedonincreasingnationalcapacitieswithasocialandeconomicimpact.TheseactivitieshadastheirtargetAfrica(48%oftheinitiativesin36beneficiarycountries),LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean(41%)andAsiaandtheMiddleEast(11%); and were carried out in the areas where Brazilian institutions haddeveloped technicalexpertise.Besides, theBrazilianactionwasalsosupportedby actions within the framework of TC initiatives with OECD countries andmultilateral organisations.But above all, the implementation anddeepeningofSouth-South Cooperation was raised as the Brazilian workhorse, opening itsexperiencesandknowledgetootherdevelopingcountries.Inthissense,theaxisof Brazilian foreign action was based on its claim as a regional leader and aglobalplayer,hopingthatthiscouldinturnbetranslatedintoanopeningofnewmarkets(aswellasnewopportunitiesfortheBrazilianprivatesector).Inthissense,thegrowingimportanceofthePALOP(theinterstateorganisationbetween African Countries of Portuguese Official Language), within thebackgroundoftheCommunityofPortuguese-SpeakingCountries(CPSC),wasthefirststepinitsexpansiontowardstherestofAfrica.Itsstrategicnatureservedasa guiding framework for the priorities of the Brazilian action in SSC, leadingthesecountriestoreceive74%ofBraziliantechnical,scientificandtechnologicalcooperationinAfricabetween2005and2009.Thisway,thePALOPbecamethemainbeneficiariesofBraziliancooperationinAfrica,withAngolaoneofthemostfavored(4%ofthetotal).A model of South-South Cooperation as resistance against traditionalhierarchies?Once the jewels of thePortugueseEmpire on the two continentswhere it hadspread its colonial expansion, Angola and Brazilmaintained bilateral relationsthroughout theirwhole history based on this common colonial and lusophoneidentity, becoming a fundamental pillar for the construction of the CPSC. Inaddition,since2003thiscommonidentitywasenhancedthroughtheircommonperipheral identification as members of the Global South. In this regard,supported by Brazilian international power and Angolan institutionalrestructuringaftera40-yearscivilwar,theleadersofbothcountriesoptedforaredefinition of their bilateral andmultilateral relations backed by the optionsopenedbynewcooperationmechanisms.Thisdeepeningof their relationsprovokedanunprecedented increaseof theirbilateral cooperation agreements, negotiations and actions in multilateralforums, leading in turn to a sharp increase of their projects over the period

CriticalStudies3

42

2003-2010. As a result, the consolidation of a broad set of bilateral andmultilateral agreements was carried out. Among the first, it is important tohighlightthetechnicalcooperationprotocolsonpublicandlocaladministration,environment,agricultureand livestock,oil,government finances;aswellasthecooperationprogramsonenvironmentaleducationandcultureandtheprojectsfor sustainable rural development. Fromamultilateral point of view, themostimportantinitiativesinwhichthetwocountriesinteractedweretheonesrelatedtothePALOP:theBrazil-AfricaPolitics,CooperationandTradeForum2003;theAfrica-SouthAmericaSummits2006and2009;andtheBrazil-AfricaDialogueonFoodSecurity,FamineFightingandRuralDevelopment2010.Thisbroadrangeofbi-andmultilateralagreementswerereachedthankstotheinterestshownbythegovernmentsofbothcountries,expressedthroughLula'sofficial visits toAngola in2003 and2007, and Santos' official visit toBrazil in2010. The declared objective of thesemeetingswas always thewill to expandanddiversifypoliticaldialogue,demonstratingastrongcommitment todeepencooperationbetweenbothcountries.In commercial terms, these agreements led to an exponential increase inrelations between the two countriesmultiplying by six their trading relationsbetween 2002 and 2008. Already in 2007, annual Angolan exports to Brazilreached 460 million dollars, becoming the third African country with moreexports to the South American country and the fourth largest importer of itsproducts inAfrica. The trade between the two countries resulted inUS $ 1.47billion in2009,wherebyUS$1.30billionwereBrazilianexports.Ontheotherhand,afterLula'striptoAngolain2007,theSouthAmericancountryestablisheda policy of credit lines that led to the signing of seven financial agreementsregistered in the areas of R&D, health, education, housing and energy. Threeyears later, theAngolanpresident's trip toBrazilallowed the increaseof theselinesofcreditfrom2to10billiondollars.ThisgrowingexchangebetweentwohistoricalpartnerswasseenasaclearexampletofollowinthefieldofbilateralrelationsofSSC,challengingtheverticalrelationsoftraditionalcooperationandproposinginsteadanalternativepathtocooperateintermsofequality.However, it is interesting to notice how the trade flows between Brazil andAngola were marked during the period by a strong asymmetry of the tradebalancefavorabletothefirstone,whoseactionwascharacterisedbyitsexporterstatus of manufactured products (71.3 % of the balance sheet total), and animporter status of commodities (71.3%, mainly oil and natural gas).20 ThisBraziliansurplusremainedunchangedalloverthisperiod,withtheexceptionof2008, when imports of Angolan oil into Brazil (and the sustained growth of

20Ibid.,99.


43

internationalcommodityprices)reversedthebalancewithoutalteringitsstatusasanexporterofmanufacturedproductsandacommoditiesimporter.South-South Cooperation, resistance with continuities or continuity withresistances?

Brazilisassumingitsgreatness,itsconditionofacountrythat,throughout life has been a recipient, and is now a donor.Wewanttohelpotherstogetdeveloped.

LuladaSilva,weeklyprogram,‘BreakfastwiththePresident’(July2010)

Beyond the readingsmadeby the governments and intellectuals committed tothe cause of the SSC, it is essential to examine the presence of continuities ofNorth-South cooperationwithin thesenewmechanisms. FromLula's arrival topower, Brazilian official rhetoric was critical of the lucrativemechanisms andinterests of traditional cooperation, positioning itself as apartner of the Souththrough the reinforcement of a ‘horizontal/of-mutual-interest/without-hierarchies’ systemof cooperation. Socialisationwas thiswayguaranteedby atheoreticallyegalitarianandcooperativeprocess,wherenoneoftheparticipantsclaimed amonopoly and everythingwas based on consensus (intermediation).This combative rhetoric committed to alternative mechanisms of cooperationwas shared by all emerging countries (SSC leaders), and in this wayinstitutionalised within the multilateral arena through several internationalforums.Nevertheless, the resulting dialectical positioning between a traditional,hierarchical and continuist cooperation of colonial ties, and an emancipatory,horizontal and resistant cooperation; led to the formulation of a misleadingdebatethathidthepresenceofcertaincontinuitieslegitimatedbythisrhetoric.As expressed, Brazil sought in the period 2003-2010 to differentiate itsproposalsoninternationalcooperationagainsttraditionalmechanisms,showinga deep commitment to the MDGs (teaching) as a path towards a necessaryreform of traditional cooperation. Through its political priorities, Lulaestablishedabroadsetofactionsaimedatpushingfortherenewalofmultipleinternationalinstitutions(mostlytheUNandIMF),headingforaninternationalbalanceofpowerwhereBrazilclaimedaroleofregionalleaderandglobalplayer(social influence). This way, Lula's administration pursued the creation of asymboliccapitalthatwouldallowBraziltobeperceivedasapartnerconcernedwiththewelfareofthesocietiesoftheGlobalSouthStates, thusfacilitatingnotonly its international insertion, but also its access to new markets and theinternationalisation of Brazilian companies (material induction). This symboliccapital was in turn supported by historical, social and cultural ties, which

CriticalStudies3

44

explains why Brazilian’s SSC was focused on its relations within the SouthAmericanregionandthePALOP.Thus, theofficialBraziliandiscoursehad itscorrelation inconceptual terms, inthe sense that while the OECD countries considered Official DevelopmentAssistance to all flows thathad25%concessionality (whichmeans thatonly aquarterofthefundsshouldbenonrefundable),theBrazilianCooperationAgencyinterpretedthatinBrazilianSSC,theflowshadtobedestinedin100%withoutconcessionalities (total nonreimbursable). Therefore, credits (even thosegrantedthroughofficialfinancialinstitutions)couldnotbecharacterisedassuch.This posed problems around the dichotomy between a narrow budget and alargevarietyofbiandmultilateralprojectstobecarriedout.Thiswasachievedthrough two channels: (a) the formulation of low-cost projects; and (b) thesearchforcooperatingpartners(TC).In this sense, while technical cooperation was manifested as an effective andinexpensiveinstrument,thesearchforpartnersconfrontedthegovernmentwithnewcontradictions.Ontheonehand,thearticulationofthecountrywithGlobalNorth countries jeopardised its identity as a cooperating country of the South.Butontheotherhand,thisTCallowedtheassociationwithatraditionaldonor(responsibleforthefinancialaid),yieldingtoBrazilthecontributionwithhumanand technical capital. Finally, one of the biggest shortcomings of Brazilian SSCwas administrative decentralisation. The Brazilian Cooperation Agency wascreatedin1987ascoordinatorofthereceptionofofficialdevelopmentaidflows.Thismeantthatitlackedthestableregulatoryframeworkneededtocoordinatethe policy formulation of a cooperating country, and the creation of ad-hocprocesses were always necessary. This situation contributed strongly to thepresenceoflargegapsinthescopeofprivateactivity.21In relation to the latter, the path taken by the official discourse regarding theaction of private capital was to remain silent, discretely promoting theinternationalisationofBrazilianmultinationalcompaniesthroughforeignpolicy.So,sincetheprivatesectorwasnotpartof theBrazilianState, itsactionswerenottiedtotheprinciplesoftheSSC,unleashingitsowninterests.Thus,throughthe expansion of their internationalisation opportunities, Brazilian companiessought to consolidate their presence in new foreignmarkets, reproducing thetraditional multinationals’ practices within the traditional mechanisms ofcooperation.

21CarlosMilaniyRubensDuarte, “Cooperaçãoparaodesenvolvimentoecooperaçãosul-sul:AperspectivadoBrasil”,Políticaexternabrasileira,RamanziniJúniorandFernandoAyerbe(eds.):65-71.


45

As a result, Brazilian SSC discourse has contributed to the restriction of analreadypresentlectureintraditionalcooperationmechanisms:theideathatthestate was the only recognisable actor responsible for the decision-makingprocess concerning cooperation policies. Against this perspective, a strongdeconstructivecriticofSSCshouldanalysethemultiplicityofactorstryingwithall themeans at its disposal to influence the foreign policies decisionmakingprocess. A decolonial theorisation should head towards a reading where thenational interest should no longer be seen as a single area defined by ahomogeneousstate,butasaresultofacomplexsetofinteractionsbetweentheinterestsofmultipleactorsthatconvergeintheformulationofforeignpolicies.22This theoretical widening might be a way to start deconstructing the stillhierarchical and linear state-centered concept of development. Theunderstanding reached through this multidimensionality of the phenomenonenablesustoanalysethemultiplicityoflogicsinvolvedinSSC,warningoverthenecessity to deepen the discussion on its study away from the ManicheanrhetoricalconceptionsbetweenSSCandtraditionalcooperation.ConclusionsItispossibletoconfirmthatthediversificationofactorsintheGlobalSouthandtheemergenceofmechanismsofSouth-Southcooperationhaveeffectivelyledtoa qualitative expansion of traditional cooperation in multidimensional terms.Hand in hand with the official rhetoric of countries in the Global South, theresulting processes have certainly transformed traditional cooperation andwidened it towards different actors. Nevertheless, there have also remainedserious continuities, reproducing the previous relationships of domination.Againstthis,dealingwiththestillstate-centredlectureofinternationalrelationsand its teleological development path should be one of the priorities of SSCtheoristsinordertoovercomeits limits.Thus,theacknowledgmentofnationalinterest understood as a result of a complex set of interactions between theinterests of multiple actors that come together in the formulation of foreignpoliciesisthefirststeptoepistemologicallydeconstructtraditionalcooperationmechanismsinparticular,andinternationalrelationsingeneral.Tothisend,theintegrationofthetwotheoreticalperspectivesanalysedcouldbeuseful,leadingto the acknowledgement of legitimating narratives hand in hand with thereproductionofthecurrentpowerrelationswithintheinternationalarena.This situation has been reflected in the geopolitics of development raised byBrazil in its role as a global player. In this sense, while promoting newfundamentalprojects,theenlargementprocessofBraziliancooperationinAfrica22 Michele Dolcetti, “La panacea agroenergética de Brasil. Promoción de agrocombustibles yCooperación Sur-Sur”, InstitutoUniversitario deDesarrollo y Cooperación IUDC-UCM 24 (2013),45-46.

CriticalStudies3

46

alsoresultedintheincreaseoftheBrazilianprivatesector,linkedtoitslucrativeinterests.Thissituationcreatedhugecontradictionsamongtheconceptionandobjectives of South-South Cooperation and the Brazilian goals of internationalintegration.Inthissense,despitefocusingonawiderconceptionofdevelopmentbased on a common identity and intended to transcend the teleological andverticallectureoftraditionalmechanisms,thisrhetoricmayhavehelpedtoopentheschemetolegitimatenewmechanismsofeconomicsubordinationwithintheGlobal South. Added to that, the recent institutional blow suffered by thegovernmentofDilmaRousseffandtheaccessiontopowerofmostconservativepolitical sectors have questioned the fragility of the Brazilian institutionalsystem, changing as well the focus of its foreign policy. The continuity of thepoliciesforBraziliancooperationinAfricais,therefore,apuzzletobesolved.

BookReviews

47

ClareWoodford,DisorientingDemocracy:PoliticsofEmancipation(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2017)LisaDischDepartmentofPoliticalScience,UniversityofMichiganldisch@umich.eduInthisimpassionedandeloquentbook,ClareWoodfordfocusesinadistinctivelypoliticalwayonthequestionoforder.Orderandorderingarecentralcategoriesof contemporarypolitical theory, and theorists likeMichel Foucault and JudithButler have made them central by way of the concepts governmentality andsubjectification.Fairornot,oneofthecriticismsthatisoftenraisedagainstbothofthesethinkersisthattheypresenttoototalizingaviewofpower.Woodford intervenes at precisely this point of criticism by focusing notprincipallyonthequestionofhoworderfunctionsinpoliticsbutonhowitcanbe disrupted. She asks, “how orders become more and less restrictive,” andproposes to consider “features of order that may make it more possible fordissent to be articulated and responded to without the need formass unrest,violenceandlossoflife”(6).Thesequestionsareresolutelypoliticalbecausesheasks about action and resistance in the midst of order, and because she asksspecificallyaboutactionnotviolence.JacquesRancièreisbothcompanionandmusetoWoodfordinthistask.Ratherthan offer another interpretation of his work, she undertakes to elaborateRancière’snotionof “dis-identification” into a full-blownpolitics ofdemocraticaction. This elaboration begins conceptually, with Woodford clarifying whatmakesdis-identificationdistinctive,andthenbyelucidating–again,conceptuallyatfirst–thetwopracticesthatitentails:“appropriation”and“subjectification.”Once having established this conceptual framework,Woodford undertakes theimportant political theoretic project to give specificity to the practice ofdissensus–arichlysuggestivetermthatRancièrehimselfdoesnotfullyredeem.She enlists the work of Stanley Cavell, Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler todevelop the differentmodes inwhich dissensusmight be enacted as away to“disruptwaysofbeing”(15).Dis-identificationisthemomentwhereapersonstopsseeingthemselvesinthetermsofthedominantorder.Ifthisseemseasy,itisnot.Termsofthedominantordergiveourlivespurposeandmeaningevenaswearesubordinatedtothem.

CriticalStudies3

48

In Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom (Chicago, 2005) Linda Zerillli makes apowerful argument against the “gender skepticism” of Judith Butler and theFrenchmaterialistfeminists,whosecriticaldenaturalizationofsexualdifferenceshe reads as a failed political project precisely because it calls for dis-identification. Zerilli cautions that however theoretically powerful genderskepticism may be, it is politically tone deaf to the ways in which so manywomen – even those who might be critics of sexual domination – identify aswomenandneedtobehailedaswomen.Woodford is well aware of just how much dis-identification potentially coststhosewhopractice it, recognizing itasa“challengeto theexistingcommunity”that “momentarily leaves those who dis-identify without a place” (33). Thecentraltaskofthisbookistoidentifysuchmoments,whichWoodfordcertainlydoes not expect to manifest in grand gestures and dramatic transformations.This is the power of her account. She offers a language in which to capturepracticesofdis-identificationonthescaleoftheeveryday.Shefindsthese,first,in “appropriation”, which can involve taking a space, taking a viewwhen youshouldbeworkingonandlookingatafloor,takingupatermthatwouldnotbeusedtorefertoyou.Appropriationinthissenseisnot“simplyamaterialtakingbutthetakingofa ‘way’”(31).Ifidentityorientsusinawayofbeing,thendis-identificationcannotprocedebydenyingthatway.Ifitistobepolitical(andnotmerelyskeptical),itmustindicateanotherwaytobe,ifonlymomentarily.Actsofappropriation open onto the second practice, subjectivation, which is themoment of emergenceof a newpolitical subjectwhono longer relates “to thedominantorderasasubordinate,”butacts“asanequalwho,inthatmoment,isinchargeofhis/herownactions”(32).Woodford puts this careful conceptual work to use as a theoretical frame forthinkingaboutoccupation,whichdespitebeingmuchcelebratedhasbeenlittleinterrogatedas tohowitworks to“enactdemocracy”(50).Woodforduseshertripartite conceptual scheme to more precisely theorize occupation, as“effect[ing] politics through bringing together appropriation, dis-identificationand subjectivation,” and also to criticize it.Whereas occupation has tended tofocus on taking space, Woodford suggests that it need not. She points toArgentinian “barter clubs” and debt cancellations schemes as practices that“appropriatethebehaviourofcreditorsandbrokers”but,astheyoccurwithouttakingoverthephysicalinstitutionalspaceofthoseactors,theymaynotregisteras disruptive (52). Drawing on her careful elucidation of appropriation,Woodford argues that highly visible and publicized disruptions that take overspace(likeOccupyWallStreetanditsspin-offs)mayshut“downactivity”butare“less able to demonstrate alternative ways of being, doing and saying thandisruptionthatproducesorcreates”(52).

BookReviews

49

ByexploringRancière’srelationshiptobothStanleyCavellandJacquesDerrida,Woodford elaborates practices that “could help to weaken our attachment towaysofdoingandsaying” (151). Inher final chapter, shebringsRancière intodialoguewithJudithButlertorecoverthepoliticalaspectsofButler’snotionofsubversion,whichButlermaywellhaveletfallinherturntotheorizethepsychiclifeofpowerandtoelaborateanethicalproject.DissatisfiedwithButler’sownresponsestosuchcriticsasNancyFraserandSeylaBenhabib,whohavearguedthatButlercannotaccount for thepossibilityof transformativepoliticalagency“without having to commit to an untenable notion of a volitional subject,”Woodford charges back onto this field of battle bearing Rancièrianreinforcements (165).Woodford astutely argues that with her theorization ofunintelligibility, Butler makes her conceptualization of subject-formation aclosedcircle.SeeminglylikeRancière,Butler“sketch[es]thesensorydomainasone of intelligibility versus unintelligibility, real versus unreal” (169). Yet, bymapping this distinction onto that which “structures whether or not one iscompelledtolivealiveableoranunliveablelife,”Butlerclosesthecircle.Butler’s“unintelligibility” isnotunintelligible inRancière’s senseof that “whichcannotbe identifiedonascaleofeithersenseornonsense”; it is“intelligibleas lesser,lacking, non-human, derisory or subordinated” (169). Put simply, Butler’sunintelligibility “is intelligible” after all and this is what makes her unable toelaborate the possibility of performativity to do precisely what Rancière sopowerfully offers: “force open the sensory order and create the possibility forreconfiguration”(170).AsWoodfordrightlynotes,herpost-2008projectwas launchedata timeof “agrowingsenseofoptimismandanticipation”(4).Thatit findspublicationatanunquiet moment, where political theorists and political actors struggle tounderstandandrespondtoright-wingauthoritarianismaroundtheglobe,makesit no less pertinent. This time, our time, lends to the words of her title –“disorientingdemocracy”–adualmeaning: theynameatonce thepracticesofhopethatshesoeloquentlytheorizesandthestateofquestioninginwhichmanyof us find ourselves as events test our faith that democracy breeds freedomratherthanitsopposite.

CriticalStudies3

50

RobinDunford,ThePoliticsofTransnationalPeasantStruggle:Resistance,RightsandDemocracy(London;NewYork:Rowman&LittlefieldInternational,2016)KatarinaKušićDepartmentofInternationalPolitics,[email protected] disappointments of contemporary political institutions are perhaps bestcapturedintheseemingemptinessofconceptssuchas“democracy”and“rights.”However, along with a loss of faith in these concepts, there is an emergingunderstandingthatalternativepoliticswillhavetobeborneoutofplace-basedstruggles. The discontents of both national democracies and internationalorganizations have led to a “re-localization” of resistance – not only in thepracticeofpolitics,butalsoineffortstogivethesestoriesofstruggleaplaceinacademic research. Hence even International Relations is now being re-populatedwith subjects experimentingwith radical politics –we are told thatdemocracyandrightshavetobepracticed,andstudied,bottom-up,forthemtohave anymeaning. This is amore thanwelcome development for a disciplinethathaslongoperatedonlevelsofanalysisdevoidofindividualstruggle.RobinDunford’sThePolitics ofTransnationalPeasant Struggle:Resistance,RightsandDemocracyoffersavaluablecontributiontothisproject:itdealswiththeoreticaldebates on resistance, democracy, and human rights by engaging with oneparticular struggle, that of the transnational peasant resistance. By setting tolearn from specific struggles without engaging in ethnographic fieldwork, thebookgoesbeyonditsexplicitgoalsandchallengesthescalesofbothpoliticalandacademicpractice.Whilethebookisorganizedaroundtheconceptsofresistance,democracy,andrights,italsooffersamuchneededintroductiontothecontemporaryindustrial,export-orientedmodelof foodandagricultureasasiteofbothoppressionandstruggleininternationalpolitics.Thesepoliticsoffoodarebestcapturedintheeight vignettes that open Chapter Two and take us on a world tour ofdispossession, local resistance, global governance negotiations, and eliteinvestment meetings. The vignettes capture the multiscalar nature ofinternational politics: they empirically track the dramas of food politics that

BookReviews

51

range fromMST1 activists shot at inBrazil in 1996, toUNnegotiations on theVoluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure. It is throughbeing attuned to these issues of scale that the book makes a twofoldcontribution: it empirically tracks the intersections of scales through makingvisiblespecificstrugglesthatarebothparticularanddemanduniversality,anditchallenges researchers to do the same through informing theoretical debateswithplace-basedpractices.With Chapter Two having set the stage by providing a background on thecontemporary industrial food system, Chapters Three through Six rework theconceptsthatmakethebook:resistance,rights,anddemocracy.Sincetheaimofthe book is to use transnational peasant resistance to inform abstract debatessurrounding resistance, rights, and democracy, each chapter is thus organizedaroundatheoreticaldebate intheopeningsection,andadiscussionofpeasantresistancethattranscendswhatseemtobeopposingviewsinthesetheoreticaldebates.Chapter Three shows how this agro-industrial capitalist food system ischallenged through local practices of peasant resistance that call for foodsovereignty.Thechapterissituatedwithinthedebatearoundthepossibilitiesofrevolutionary change after the breakdown of the ‘traditional’ left politics (44).Dunfordlooksattransnationalpeasantresistanceasanexampleofwhathecallsthe“leftartsofgovernment”thatprovideasolutionbetweencompetingcallsforthe restoration of a hierarchical party on the one hand, and anarchistcelebrations of pluralist, place-based alternatives on the other. It tracks theMST’s land occupations to see how they incite and facilitate local spaces ofresistance,howthesepracticeshaveextendedresistancetransnationallytoothergrassroots groups, andhow theyhave thus enabled thegroups toengagewithinternationalinstitutionsthatareusuallydevoidofsuchvoices(43-44).Itisthisinciting, facilitating, and engaging that explains how “particular, place-basedalternativesgobeyondprovidingisolatedpocketsofresistance[and]giverisetoabroader,counter-hegemonicmovementdemandingaglobalalternative.”(43)ChaptersFourandFiveusepeasantresistanceas“asitefromwhichtoreflectonthepolitics of human rights.” (77) Specifically, they focuson three critiquesofhuman rights, emphasizing that there is nothing inherently emancipatory ordominatoryaboutrights,butthatthischaracterofhumanrightsdependsonthecontextinwhichtheyareused.ThisleadsDunfordtoclaimthat“thepoliticsofhuman rights is itself a terrain of struggle.” (78) And it is these politics thatnavigatethenarrowroadbetweentwoopposingviewsofhumanrights:onethat

1BrazilianLandlessWorkersMovement–MovimentodosTrabalhadoresRuraisSemTerra.

CriticalStudies3

52

advocates stripping them to a supposedly universal core and spreading themaroundtheworld,andtheotheradvocatingleavingthemcompletelybehind.Chapters Four and Five deal with – indeed, criticize and go beyond – threecontemporary critiques of human rights. Chapter Four shows how the MST’sland occupations and Via Campesina’s transnational demands for foodsovereignty go beyond seeing human rights as anti-politics and the subjectsinvoking them as abjected victims. These two critiques are challenged byhighlightingpractices inwhichpeasants themselvespoliticallydemanded theirrights.ChapterFiveinturnshowshowthemeaningoffoodsovereigntyismadebygrassrootsactorsandcounterpoises the literatureon theglobaldiffusionofhuman rights ‘norms’ that focuses on elite agency and reads human rights ashaving some pre-existing universality. This addresses the third critique ofhuman rights asWest-centric and shows how their meaning does not alwaysemerge from Western experience but can be made through exchange anddialogue.Finally,ChapterSixreflectsupontheconceptofglobaldemocracy.Here,Dunfordcriticizestheideaofcosmopolitandemocracybypointingouthowitreproducescoloniality by universalizing a particular worldview, and imagining the globalelites who benefit from unequal structures as agents of change (143). Thechapter thereby shows how the contemporary democratic deficit cannot beresolvedeitherbyreturning to the idealof strongnationalgovernmentnorbystrengthening the power of international organizations (155). By focusing on“practices of collective emancipation and transnational connection” of thepeasantmovement,thechapterdemonstrateshowgrassrootsactorscanbecomeagents of democratic change (162). This acting on multiple scales allows theglobalityofdemocracypracticedbythepeasantmovementtoemerge“throughprocesses of transnational and intercultural dialogue” which are inevitablyplace-based,insteadofbeingpresupposedandthen“elevate[d]toaglobalscale.”(164)The book engages the scalarity of politics that oscillates between place-basedstruggles and their universal demands directly, claiming that “the local andtransnational arenot opposed.” (132) Food sovereigntypresents an ideal casestudy for this exploration because the struggle for it is at the same timeparticularanduniversal:itisinevitablybasedinspecifclocalesthatexperimentwithlanduseandgrowingfood,butitscontemporaryimaginationisinescapablyglobal as it understands that food sovereignty cannot existalongside the agro-industrial food regime that constantly undermines it ecologically andeconomically, butmust replace it globally. Sucha struggle, concernedwith themicrowhilemaintainingitsglobalvision,“operatessimultaneouslyasaformofplace-basedresistanceandasaformoftransnationalandglobalresistance,”and

BookReviews

53

its protagonists act on multiple scales simultaneously. It is this empiricalunpackingofscalethatDunford’sbookexcelsin,fromthevignettesthatopenittoitsconclusiononthepotentialsofglobaldemocracy.Yet thebookalso challenges the constitutionof scales in academic research. Itexplicitly contests epistemic coloniality by refusing to treat peasant actors ashaving only “‘local’ or ‘vernacular’ forms of knowledge and understanding.”(118) To do so, Dunford engages with peasants’ struggle through secondaryliterature and publications of peasant organizations themselves. The positivereading of transnational peasant struggles as offering a way out of multipletheoretical debatesmight seemoverly optimistic. And surely, the first critiquethat might be raised against such an account is that it is a case of Ortner’s“ethnographic refusal” so common in ethnographically thin resistance studies.Thechargeagainstsuchstudiesisthattheyaresanitizingpoliticsofresistancebyfocusingonlyontherelationshipbetweenthedominantandthesubordinate(inthis case, the industrial food regimeand thepeasants) anderasing thepoliticsamongthesubalternandthemanyhierarchiestheyoperatewithin.2Moreover,such ethnographic refusal results in thinning culture and subjectivity bypresupposing authenticity and coherence where there is complexity of“intentions,desires,fears,projects.”3While the book does not address the complexity of intentions and projects ofpeasantactivists,whatsetsitapartfromotheraccountsofresistanceandmovesitbeyondtheabovecritiqueisitsexplicitgoal.Instancesofethnographicrefusalareacknowledgedinthebook:theeffortstoincludevoicesofwomen,andyouthare glanced over, the indigenous attachment to land is seen as somethingculturally essential,4 and the multiplicity of subjectivities is recognized infootnotes that provide the caveat that the book’s reading is selective. Whatmakesthispermissibleistheexplicitpositioningofthebook:itisnotanattemptto“giveadefinitiveaccountofpracticeofpeasantresistance,”nortoprovide“aricher,more theoretically informed account […] that should then inform, fromthevantagepointofthetheoristdownward,theirstruggles”–itsgoalistotakepeasant resistance seriously and learn from it to inform debates arounddemocracy,rights,andresistance–debatesthatarenotofimmediateconcerntopeasants themselves (9-10). And in stating and doing this explicitly, the bookalsochallengesthescalesofacademicresearch.

2SherryB.Ortner,“ResistanceandtheProblemofEthnographicRefusal,”ComparativeStudiesinSocietyandHistory37(1995)1:179.3Ibid.,180,190.4Foradifferentaccountofattachmentstoland,seeTaniaLi,Land’sEnd:CapitalistRelationsonanIndigenousFrontier(Durham;London:DukeUniversityPress,2014).

CriticalStudies3

54

Withoutdoingfieldwork,Dunfordseriouslyengageswithpeasanttransnationalstruggles through accounts of organizations like MST and ethnographicliterature,andthustranscendstheboundsof‘theory’and‘field’thatweareusedto.Thebookshowsthatmeaningfulengagementispossiblewithoutsubscribingto themythof theanthropological field5–not just throughpayingattention totheworldofpoliticalpractice,butalsobymakingaconsciousefforttolearnfromit.Whileconcernedwithinformingtheoreticaldebates,thebookshowcasestheimportance of particular local struggles. Namely, they are productive in twoways.Firstly, if thereistobeaglobalemancipatoryproject, itsglobalityhastoemergethroughlocalpolitics insteadofbeingpresumedandboundupwithanepistemic coloniality that gives particular values a universalist veneer. Andsecondly,thelocalshouldalsobeproductiveofourtheories,regardlessofhowmuchwe(donot)engageinfieldwork.Tomakethesetwocrucialarguments,thetransnational peasant movement is used strategically: Dunford’s book ispolitically aligned with the peasant struggle without the hubris of trying toadvise it, and it is politically concernedwith introducing existing politics intoabstractdebatesonthepromisesofresistance,rights,anddemocracy.Dunfordisawarethebookmightbeof“littleconcerntopeasants”andthatanyattempts to provide “more sophisticated readings of their struggle” orrecommendations,wouldgoagainst thespiritof thebook.Assuch, thebook isreflectiveofitspositionanditsrelationtoitsobjectofstudy.Yet,itisitspositioninacademicdebatesonresistance,rights,anddemocracythatbringsoutitsmostimportantpoints:theproductivepowerofplace-basedstruggles,whichworkstochallenge the scales of both contemporary atomized political practice andneoliberalacademia.

5 For a discussion on 'the field,' see Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson, eds., AnthropologicalLocations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science (Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1997),especiallychapter1.

Print ISSN: 2055-141X Online ISSN: 2055-1428 Published by the Critical Studies Research Group based at the University of Brighton Pavilion Parade also available online www.criticalstudies.org.uk Contact: [email protected]

critical studies november 2017 volume 3 · mythologized in an elaborate oral and written tradition,...

Documents