|
|
|
|
|
<!doctype html>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<html lang="en">
|
|
|
|
|
|
<head>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Required meta tags -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
<meta charset="utf-8">
|
|
|
|
|
|
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1, shrink-to-fit=no">
|
|
|
|
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="style.css"/>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Bootstrap CSS -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://stackpath.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/4.1.3/css/bootstrap.min.css" integrity="sha384-MCw98/SFnGE8fJT3GXwEOngsV7Zt27NXFoaoApmYm81iuXoPkFOJwJ8ERdknLPMO" crossorigin="anonymous">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<title>The Entreprecariat Reader - entrepreneurship</title>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="./css/style.css">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<script>
|
|
|
|
|
|
$(document).ready(function(){
|
|
|
|
|
|
$("#read-fakeit").click(function(){
|
|
|
|
|
|
$(".content").animate({right: '2000px',}, "slow");
|
|
|
|
|
|
$(".fakeit").show();
|
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
$("#read-fromautonomism").click(function(){
|
|
|
|
|
|
$(".content").animate({right: '2000px',}, "slow");
|
|
|
|
|
|
$(".fromautonomism").show();
|
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
</script>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<body>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="wrapper" >
|
|
|
|
|
|
<header>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<a href="./index.html"> The Entreprecariat Reader</a>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Table of contents</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</header>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="content" style="position:relative; background-color: white; height: 100vh;">
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!--<section>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h2>introduction</h2>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</section>-->
|
|
|
|
|
|
<section>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h2>Fake It Till You Make it - Genesis of the Entrepreneurial Precariat by Silvio Lorusso</h2>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="abstract">Silvio Lorusso narrates the perception of precariousness in relation to entrepreneurship through the different thoughts of writers, philosophers or social movements. “Fake it till you make it” is an expression that represents the existential crisis of the entreprecariat. Nobody assumes that is precariat because this could contradict the entrepreneur spirit. Even so in many countries movements have appeared claiming precarious situations such as San Precario, result of thirty years of policies in favour of companies and against workers. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<button id="read-fakeit" type="button" class="btn btn-outline-dark">Read</button>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<br>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<section>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h2>From Autonomism to Post-Autonomia: From Class Composition to a New Political Anthropology? by Joost de Bloois & Frans Willem Korsten</h2>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="abstract">This essay is a summary of the historical and ideological development of Post-Autonomia starting from the operaist and autonomist movements to its international situation. Where the beginning of the '80s signed the closure of the opening of an era of uncertainty and precarization, instead of a new horizon of self-valorization and autonomy, Post-Autonomia tries to resynthesize the old discourse and translate it to face to the new complexity of the relation between capitalism, state, multitude and subjectivity with the intent of delineate the role of the new non-subject in constant transformation. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<button id="read-fromautonomism" type="button" class="btn btn-outline-dark">Read</button>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="texts" >
|
|
|
|
|
|
<section class="fakeit" style="display: none; z-index: -1; margin-top: -750px;">
|
|
|
|
|
|
<section class="title">
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h1>Fake It Till You Make it – Genesis of the Entrepreneurial Precariat</h1>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h3>by Silvio Lorusso</h3>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<section class="synopsis">
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h4>Synopsis</h4>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<article>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Fake It Till You Make it - Genesis of the Entrepreneurial Precariat is an article by Silvio Lorusso, that narrate the perception of precariousness in relation to entrepreneurship through the different view that writers, philosophers or social movements have about it. First of all to describe the current situation, we need to understand Millenials as technology humans main characters of the digital revolution with a constant uncertain horizon. <br>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Based on the words of Michel Foucault's who introduced the expression "Entrepreneur of the self", Lorusso establish a link between this description of entrepreneur and the current 20-30 years old worker, who has oneself as the centre of gravity of their work instead of their companies. Moreover, we can classify socially the entrepreneur following the social pyramid that Joseph Schumpeter presented. He saw the entrepreneur as the top of the social pyramid because of its precious ability to innovate. This vision was inverted by Peter Drucker who defended that everyone is call to free enterprise if we want to accelerate the innovation. As a result of all these ideas the entreprecariat concept was born. <br>
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Fake it till you make it" is an expression that represents the existential crisis of the entreprecariat. And it can be understood from two different perspectives. On the one hand, as an entrepreneur concept is defined as the existence of a product in order to obtain the financing necessary for its realization but psychologically speaking it is just fake your happiness till you are happy. If you mix this two concepts you can obtain a continuos optimization individuals that assume the failures on themselves. <br>
|
|
|
|
|
|
In relation to the concept "class dysphoria" introduced by Raffaele Alberto Ventura we can understand that entreprecatiat need to show themself as a rich individual with opportunities. Nobody assumes that is precariat because this could contradict the entrepreneur spirit. Even so in many countries movements have appeared claiming precarious situations. <br>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, San Precario is described as a collective anonymous creation that emerged after thirty years of policies in favour of companies and against workers and which mission is still to be defined. Alex Foti, indicates three main objectives: urban power, climate justice and Universal Basic Income (UBI). <br>
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article conclude explained the possible paths for the future described as: "to replicate the mantra of precarized entrepreneurship or to try to collectively bring about an entrepreneurial precariat". </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</article>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<section class="original">
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h4>Original text</h4>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<article>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>At first glance, the main common denominator for the large demographic segment that goes by the name of Millennials is technology. Those born between 1980 and 2000 are the first to have fully experienced the digital revolution, and already nostalgically commemorate its beginnings. Yet there is another aspect that distinguishes this generation from the previous ones. While the baby boomers have been able to count on a stable career and Generation X has complained about the limitations, for Millennials, a path deprived of detours is unrealistic if not outdated. It’s the very idea of a career that falters against a shared horizon characterized by constant uncertainty. Those who are now twenty or thirty years old are intimately aware that the center of gravity of their professional identity is located within themselves, rather than in the companies with which they temporarily collaborate. They are the company itself or, to use Michel Foucault’s words, they act as “entrepreneurs of the self”. If we think of the abundant use of similar formulas to present themselves on Facebook, the expression used by the French philosopher in ’79 seems trivial today, and therefore prophetic. But what does it mean to be an entrepreneur without having a real company to manage? In his youth, Joseph Schumpeter, an influential Viennese economist, considered entrepreneurs to be a rare species that stands at the top of the social pyramid because of its precious ability to innovate. Starting from similar premises, management guru Peter Drucker argued that to accelerate innovation, society as a whole would have to become entrepreneurial, getting rid of that disincentive to progress that is the permanent job. Drucker’s vision is today a reality: in the face of widespread economic and employment insecurity, Schumpeter’s pyramid has been reversed. Everyone is called to free enterprise (even employees, as the concept of intrapreneursuggests). This is the general sense of what we can call, with a dose of irony and bitterness, entreprecariat. When the entrepreneurial spirit gets to the people, entrepreneurship becomes entrepreneurialism. A specific practice is sublimated in common sense and sometimes in a legendary state of nature. Bengali social entrepreneur Muhammad Yunus, a microcredit pioneer, is widely quoted for his claim that stated that “all human beings are entrepreneurs. When we lived in the caves, we were all self-employed”. While TV programs celebrating an entrepreneurial attitude abound (such as The Apprentice, Dragons’ Den or the latest Planet of the Apps) the cult of Silicon Valley and his CEO gains praise, with notorious vlogger Marco Montemagno sharing the myths and legends of industry giants with the Italian populace. However, entrepreneurial rhetoric presents us with a paradox: while framing on Zuckerberg, Musk and Mayer as the main players of their own kind, we tend to bend over backwards to emulate their characters and their habits, taking note of their weekly diet and the hours of sleep they get every night. Entrepreneurial devotion leads to a reckless self-help exercise. The relapses of this atmospheric pressure are measured psychologically, emotionally and affectively. “Fake it till you make it” is an expression that embodies the existential crisis of the entreprecariat. In a strictly entrepreneurial context, the motto is used when simulating the existence of a product in order to obtain the financing necessary for its realization. Conversely, in terms of pop psychology, the slogan suggests pretending to be happy until one is truly happy. By mixing the two meanings, individuals become an incomplete product in constant optimization that resorts to a conspicuous optimism to present themselves as autonomous to others and to themselves. All this with the risk that, admittedly being the master of their own destiny, the responsibility for their own failures falls only on themselves. So we meet the fashion designer who pays the rent making home deliveries or the unemployed individual who calls him
|
|
|
|
|
|
</article>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<section class="fromautonomism" style="display: none; z-index: -1; margin-top: -750px;">
|
|
|
|
|
|
<section class="title">
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h1>From Autonomism to Post-Autonomia: From Class Composition to a New Political Anthropology?</h1>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h3>by Joost de Bloois & Frans Willem Korsten</h3>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<section class="synopsis">
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h4>Synopsis</h4>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<article>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>In 1970 Autonomism exposed the new role of the state and the intimate working of biopolitics and surveillance in the Italian crisis context called 'years of lead', with the aim to put into practice self-evaluation and autonomy in the very moment of its historical disappearance from the core of the social factory' (Tronti), later neo-liberalism. At the end of the '70s and with the repression of autonomism in the early '80, the end of every possibility to implement the emancipatory ideal and the birth of a new series of suffering subjects was decreed. Here the debate from premonition of an anthropological mutation (Autonomism) moves on the research for a possible antidote through the direct confrontation with the complexity of the real (Post-Autonomism).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The analysis of the social condition in the new 'state of exception' (Agamben), is seen as the need to create a new social sphere outside of power (Berardi), in a reality in which a radical disjunction has occurred. Sometimes perceived as rupture (Morfino) or an ontological metamorphosis, that manifests itself in a general 'absence of memory and future' (Negri) that needs a search for continuity (Shukaitis). In this context the formation of a new subject is emerging. Assuming that the solution of the state to the crisis consists in reconstructing the system by reintegrating the antagonistic components (Negri), and that this process generates an ambiguity of values and an inability to develop a radical imagination (Shukaitis), arise the needs for awareness of such mechanisms, of how self-valorization is absorbed and twisted by the perversion of the state and capital (Berardi), and the need to avoid capitalist narratives of reappropriation. The focus then shifts to the role of 'cognitariat'. Where the bipolar logic, hyperactivity of work and consequent depression, characterizes the contemporary subject drained by the crisis and transformed into a non-subject opposed to its juridical person, the only solution is the autonomy of mental labour, capable of recombining the social elements in their perennial mutation according to a non-accumulative / non-competitive / non-aggressive principle (Berardi).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The analysis of the new subject is also articulated in its relationship with the multitude. Where the politicization of the processes of subjectification has generated branded and distorted subjects (Tiqqun), the work of the multitude is described as an animal body, embodying the 'animal spirit', feeding the parasitic economy of advanced capitalism. Here the redefinitions of the commons enable us to face this 'evil' nature of the multitude, and means recovering the productive animal force before its turned into the dark matter of capitalism.(Pasquinelli). This ambivalence of the multitude is also seen as the force of negation of language that radicalize aggression, and the reconfiguration of the political animal as a linguistic animal.The uncertainty introduced by the multitude, derives from the impossibility open to the world of leaving the natural state, and the self-government, against this ambivalence of language, is configured in the use of the ritual as a process of acknowledgment of the uncertainty, primal setting of the original hominid and not as something that should be removed(Virno).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In conclusion the discourse is addressed into an anthropological investigation, social and individual, as the main feature of Post-Autonomism, capable of criticize the different incarnations of the anthropological subject, to not be stuck in a 'common' as voluntary servitude and self-dictatorship. The reappropriation of the 'common' must first of all produce a drastic auto-critique and this lead to the necessity to rethink the character of academic knowledge production and the intellectual. Starting from the observation that universities are not anymore the avantguard of knowledge-production, is proposed the 'machinic intellectual', one-man, interface and resistor of the circuit in contraposition to the intellectual as representative of a large social cause(Bratich), and the critical use of academic disciplines to expose underground realities as cartography (Casa-Cortès, Cobarrubias). </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</article>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<section class="original">
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h4>Original text</h4>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<article>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>1. Absent memories, absent futures? As early as 1981, that is to say in the midst of government repression of the autonomist movement and its remains, Toni Negri writes the following: The class composition of the contemporary metropolitan subject has no memory because it has no work, because it does not want commanded labour, dialectical labour. It has no memory because only labour can construct for the proletariat a relation with past history. […] The existing memory of 1968 and of the decade that followed is now only that of the gravedigger… [….] Communist transition is absence of memory. 1 The quote addresses some of the key issues that we want to deal with in this introduction: the relation between labor and history, the ontological status of labor, the social formation and status of contemporary subjectivity in connection to the history of autonomist and post-autonomist thinking. The quote also testifies, with hindsight, of a certain historical irony. At the very moment when the Italian state seeks to actively repress the actuality of the autonomist movement, Negri declares that neither this repression nor the combative persistence of some of his former comrades makes sense, since “communist transition is the absence of memory”... Yet autonomist and operaist thought did have an afterlife. Especially over the past ten tot fifteen years the memory and resurgence of autonomist ideas and strategies in both activism and critical theory have been vital. In fact, the “class composition of the contemporary metropolitan subject” owes quite a bit to the relation with the recent past and the ways in which this past has been reworked and thought through by theorists like Negri himself, in their transition from the operaism/autonomism toward post-autonomist thinking. One only has to look at the syllabi in political and aesthetic theory to see how persistent autonomism’s memory in fact is. Toni Negri, Franco ‘Bifo’ Berardi, Maurizio Lazzarato, Christian Marazzi, and Paolo Virno have become household names for students and activists alike - although it is instructive to see who does not figure on this list, for instance the autonomist feminist Silvia Federici. ‘Postautonomism’, or at least the conceptual nebula that it refers to, has offered new readings of ‘bio-politics’, ‘precarity’, cognitive, affective and ‘immaterial labour’, the ‘social factory’, the ‘social subject’ and so on. Often it is packaged as ‘Italian thought’. However, as Stevphen Shukaitis writes: Over the recent years, there has been a veritable explosion of interest in the political current of Italian workerism, operaismo, more commonly referred to as autonomism. […] Despite this, attention paid to this development has almost inverted the workings of the radical imagination of autonomist politics. While the theoretical vocabulary and language of autonomist politics has proliferated like so many Brooklyn hipsters, fittingly enough, it has done so in a superficial manner. Paradoxically, the radical intent underlying autonomism has seemingly vanished. Rather than understanding capitalist development as having been determined by the movement of working class resistance, autonomist concepts have been used in ways that make capitalist development seem like a hermetically closed, self-directing process. (Shukaitis 2009, 32) The aim of this issue of Rethinking Marxism is to propose a different reading. That is to say, not to package post-autonomism as a supposedly uniform ‘Italian thought’ – or its twin ‘the Italian difference’ – since precisely the life and afterlife of autonomist thought demonstrates constant bifurcations and altercations, rupture upon rupture, palimpsest upon palimpsest. As the work of Steven Wright, Sergio Bianci, Guido Borio, Francesca Pozzi, Gigi Roggero and others shows, the history of (post- )autonomism has in fact many different temporalities. There is the shorter version, as written by Sergio Bianci and Lanfranco Caminiti, Marcello Tari and others. It spans the y
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Subjects in Formation: From ‘Social Worker’ to ‘Cognitariat’ For Shukaitis the actuality of autonomist thought lies precisely in it never having shunned the complexity of the strata of the real but in having forced us to confront these head on. Against the absence of memory, autonomism has, as Shukaitis calls it, “played the Marxist LP backwards” to reveal how “the social technologies and processes through which social insurgency and revolt are turned back against themselves and incorporated into founding and modifying regimes of accumulation and dispossession.” (2009, 39) If today we can indeed speak of a “crisis in the radical imagination” it is to the extent that it reflects “the inability or refusal to see the ways in which many of the horrors we rage against today are precisely the dreams of yesterday’s revolutionaries turned upside down.” (47) This in fact echoes the operaist Negri, who writes in 1977 in Domination and Sabotage: For capital there is no problem: […] the solution of the crisis consists in a restructuring of the system that will combat and reintegrate the antagonistic components of the proletariat within the project of political stabilization […] The continuing work of reinforcing the state-form – that is, of the imposition of the law of value (albeit in continuously modified form) - as a measure and a synthesis of stabilization and restructuring – has never faltered. (2005, 232- 233) If the power of the contemporary Crisis-State, as Negri calls it (238), lies in the fact that its content is nothing more than a continual restructuring to re-impose the law of value, that is as empty as it is efficacious and violent (because of this vacuity…), the practical and theoretical starting point remains not the abandonment but “the intensification of both the concept and the experiences of proletarian selfvalorization” (235). Or, as Berardi writes: “the process of the becoming autonomous of workers away from their disciplinary role has provoked a social earthquake which triggered capitalist deregulation” (2009, 76). The various experiments of operaist and autonomist workers’ self-valorization – and to a larger extent: of the advent throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s of a multiplicity of newfangled socio-political subjects – were not left unanswered. They were, in fact, met with the ever-increasing flexibilization and the fractalization of labour. One meaning of ‘post-autonomous’ for contemporary critical thought might include the awareness of the ambiguity and complexity of self-valorization, such as its appropriation, torsion and ultimate perversion by state and capital. With Berardi, we might say that “there is a close relationship between [the autonomist notion of] ‘refusal of work’, informatization of the factories, downsizing, outsourcing of jobs and the flexibilization of labour” (76). However, as Berardi also stresses (and omits to develop in his own writings), we should be cautious not to reduce this relationship to a simplistic narrative of cause and effect. Post-autonomous thought should avoid both the narrative of capitalist reappropriation of a supposed pure desire for self-valorization and the narrative of the fundamentally speculative character of such a desire as merely reflecting tendencies inherent to capitalism. What is not yet theorized enough is what happens between these two narratives: which institutions and apparatuses (re)produce, capture and thwart any such desire? Moreover, is ‘desire’ the most satisfactory category? Here, the ontological rift operated in Negri’s recent texts and Berardi’s techno-pathological mantra that “the self-organization of cognitive work is the only way to go beyond the psycho-pathic present” (82) are equally unsatisfactory. In part, we might argue that post-autonomous thought has resulted from the frictions that were inherent to the complex relationship between workerism/operaism proper and Autonomia as a movement that reunited a variety of socio-political claims and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Multitude and the Subject, Once More For the French collective Tiqqun autonomism’s legacy consists of having thought the possibility of the revolt of a non-subject within the frame of a “negative anthropology” that was aimed at politicizing processes of subjectivation (2010, 12). One way of reading these processes – that we may also call processes of ‘generation’ - is to show that they include residues of branded identity and distorted power effects; that they are an interweaving of histories, encounters, desires and biological constants. As just one example of the many ties between French and Italian thinking, Tiqqun’s ideas tie in with recent work by Paolo Virno on the profoundly ambivalent nature of constituent power. For Virno, what founds the constituent power of the multitude is a certain force of negation, which has its roots in “the risky instability of the human animal” that, being labeled “evil”, has traditionally served as the State’s most prominent excuse for the formation and maintenance of its sovereignty, allowing it, for example to distinguish between the reassuring stability of ‘the people’ versus the multitude (Virno 2008, 16). Considering and accepting the problematic, undefined and possibly dangerous temperament of the human animal that is “characterized by negation” (18), Virno writes about the multitude’s subject: “sometimes aggressive, sometimes united, prone to intelligent cooperation, but also to the war between fractions, being both the poison and the antidote, such is the multitude” (40). In radicalizing Aristotle’s thought on the issue, Virno contends that the political human animal is foremost a linguistic animal. Negation and the modality of the possible are the work of language, or the effects of our mode of existence as speaking bodies. More generally, as a non-substantial institution and “deprived of any limit whatsoever in its processes” (50), language is the institution that renders all other institutions possible. However, and pace Habermas (whom Virno defines as a “happy-go-lucky philosopher”…) language dangerous potential resides in the fact that the value of any linguistic element “consists in its not being x”. By means of this characteristic, language is able to radicalize aggression “beyond measure” (18) if only for its ability “to enunciate something like ‘this is not a man’” (20). The latter possibility is what Virno defines as “truly radical evil” that nevertheless shares “the same root as the good life” (21) since negation can also be infinitely redirected against itself. It mayalso concern the negation of murderous statements such as ‘this is not a man’ and therefore the opening toward collaborative life-forms. It is this political opening up toward a good life that gives us a radically different idea of potential than the one presented by Negri. For Virno, the multitude is a historico-natural category and as the ‘many’ it introduces “uncertainty into the public sphere, and also the undifferentiated potential of the [human] animal that, being deprived of an environmental niche, is open to the world.” (37) If the advent of the multitude marks the crisis of the modern, central state, this is because “the crisis derives from the impossibility of leaving the natural state.” (37) Consequently, according to Virno, the main question faced by the multitude is its self-government in the face of the disturbing ambivalence that characterizes the linguistic aspect of the human species (51 ). Since language also defines thought, Virno has recourse to ritual in order to outline a modus operandi for new means of self-government. The political here becomes therapeutic: Ritual fulfills a therapeutic function not because it erects a barrier against the crisis of presence, but because on the contrary, it goes back over each stage ofthe crisis and tries to overturn the traces of each of those stages. Ritual praxis upholds extreme danger, widens uncertainty and chaos, and returns to the p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Of Democratic Animals and Machinic Intellectuals: Post-Autonomism as Knowledge-Production. Virno and Pasquinelli’s emphasis on bio- and anthropopolitics (with their references to ritual and anthropogenesis) echoes Mario Tronti’s recent call that “There will be no genuine and effective critique of democracy without a profound anthropologicalinvestigation, a social anthropology but also and individual anthropology, taking ‘individual’ here too in the sense of the thought-practice of difference” (Tronti in Chieza and Toscano 102). For Tronti, today we witness the “epochal encounter between homo oeconomicous and homo democraticus” whose cross-breeding gives birth to this peculiar third political species: the ‘animal democraticum’ – the true “subject of the spirits of capitalism”, according to Tronti. In post-autonomous discourse this democratic animal gets different names, such as, most vociferously, ‘the Bloom’ in Tiqqun (see, for example, Tiqqun 2010). As we argued above, in particular in relation to Virno, it is the potential of a thoroughly novel political anthropology that underpins post-autonomist thought that may prove to be its most vital feature. Certainly, any alternative to what Tronti calls the “mass biopolitics” that goes under the name of democracy has to proceed from a far-reaching critique of the different incarnations of the anthropological subject. If not, we may say with Tronti, we remain hopelessly stuck in a system In which singularity is permitted for the private but denied to the public. The ‘common’ which is spoken of today is really that in-common which is already wholly taken over by this kind of self-dictatorship, this kind of tyranny over oneself which is the contemporary form of that brilliant idea: voluntary servitude. (Tronti in Chieza and Toscano 103) For Tronti it is only in escaping the web of ‘really existing democracy’ that we can imagine escaping ‘the very web of neo-liberal power’. If the anthropologicalconditions of democracy – that is to say: its implied definition and active configuration of what it means to be human, of the anthropos – are not put into crisis “the subject itself cannot manage any effective political maneuver in this situation, through an alternative network, for the sake of another historical break” (106). In this sense, the ‘post’ in post-autonomism refers to its ventures away from more narrowly defined issues of socio-economic relations (a move already prefigured in the passage from operaism to Autonomia) to the anthropological field of social relations per se. Thus conceived, post-autonomist thought raises the question of what kind of knowledge production this implies. Again, here, post-autonomism does not signify a break with 1970’s autonomism any more than Autonomia signified a break with operaism, but rather it rearticulates some of its key questions. In this case, that of knowledge production: to what extend does the ‘object’ of study – the workers’ condition - affect the means by which it is addressed? Or better still: how to reverse the hierarchy between object and subject, worker and researcher? Operaism privileged ‘militant research’, such as the workers’ inquiry that proceeds from the collective knowledge of the workers themselves as it was collected by researchers (such as Raniero Panzieri). How would such a militant – or holistic – research take shape today? As Toni Negri and Judith Revel write: “To re-appropriate the common, we must first of all produce a drastic critique of it.” (Negri and Revel in The Edu-Factory Collective, 175). In our particular context of knowledge production and cultural production this also implies a drastic institutional and emotional auto-critique. Not in the least, insofar the inflicted reality-checks of the past decade haven’t already done so, this means abandoning phantasies of the ‘cutting edge character’ of academic knowledge production. As Stevphen Shukaitis argues in Imaginal Machines, today, the university is an
|
|
|
|
|
|
</article>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Optional JavaScript -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- jQuery first, then Popper.js, then Bootstrap JS -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/popper.js/1.14.3/umd/popper.min.js" integrity="sha384-ZMP7rVo3mIykV+2+9J3UJ46jBk0WLaUAdn689aCwoqbBJiSnjAK/l8WvCWPIPm49" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<script src="https://stackpath.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/4.1.3/js/bootstrap.min.js" integrity="sha384-ChfqqxuZUCnJSK3+MXmPNIyE6ZbWh2IMqE241rYiqJxyMiZ6OW/JmZQ5stwEULTy" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</html>
|
