Verbatim 4.6

1ACThis is not a warIt's a conversation about what people really needFear is a poisonIt breeds violence and apathy and greedSo people occupy the streetsSo they can occupy the hearts of the fearful

This is not a warIt's a conversation about what people really need

We begin with the panoptical placation of a dystopian government from the words of George Orwell:War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. We advocate the analysis of the Orwellian Nightmare, the vision of a fascist, panoptical State Kellner, no date psychoanalytic professor at UCLA @ Pennsylvania State University, Fast Capitalism, Cultural Studies in Dark Times: Public Pedagogy and the Challenge of Neoliberalismhttps://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell13.htmOccasionally literary and philosophical metaphors and images enter the domain of popular discourse and consciousness. Images inUncle Tom's Cabinof humane and oppressed blacks contrasted to inhumane slave owners and overseers shaped many people's negative images of slavery. And in nineteenth century Russia, Chernyshevsky's novelWhat is to be Done?shaped a generation of young Russian's views of oppressive features of their society, including V.I. Lenin who took the question posed by Chernyshevsky's novel as the title of one of his early revolutionary treatises. In the twentieth century, George Orwell's vision of totalitarian society in his novel1984has had a major impact on how many people see, understand, and talk about contemporary social trends. {1} Subsequently, Herbert Marcuse's analyses and images of a "one-dimensional man" in a "one-dimensional society" shaped many young radicals' ways of seeing and experiencing life in advanced capitalist society during the 1960s and 1970s --though to a more limited extent and within more restricted circles than Orwell's writings which are among the most widely read and discussed works of the century.There are, in fact, both some striking differences and similarities between the visions of totalitarianism in contemporary industrial societies in the works of George Orwell and Herbert Marcuse. A contrast between Orwell and Marcuse seems useful at this point in time since they both offer insights that illuminate various features of the contemporary social and political world. In the light of the growth of repressive governments of the communist, fascist, and democratic capitalist systems in the contemporary epoch, it seems appropriate to re-read Orwell's novels and essays and Marcuse's writings since both contain concepts and analyses that provide sharp critiques of the mechanisms and power in institutions which practice socio-political domination and oppression. Moreover, both raise the question of the proper theoretical and political response toward current trends of social irrationality and domination, as well as the possibilities of emancipation.In this paper, I shall compare Orwell's and Marcuse's visions and critiques of totalitarian societies with current features of contemporary societies -- capitalist, fascist, and state communist --, and shall re-appraise the politics and ideological effects of Orwell's and Marcuse's thought. My arguments will suggest that political thinkers must be read historically and contextually, and that it is problematical to apply texts intended to criticize conditions of one epoch and society to another. Accordingly, I shall argue that Orwell's articles on totalitarianism and his widely discussed novel1984project an image of totalitarian societies which conceptualizes his experiences of fascism and Stalinism and his fears that the trends toward this type of totalitarianism would harden, intensify, and spread throughout the world.I shall refer to this vision of totalitarian domination as "Orwell's Nightmare." Against the many recent attempts to celebrate Orwell as a prophet who anticipated the fundamental trends of contemporary civilization, I shall argue that his vision of totalitarianism has limited application to neo-capitalist societies, and that the writings of Huxley and Marcuse provide more useful theoretical and political perspectives on contemporary capitalist societies. {2} Furthermore, I shall argue that Orwell's perspectives on the state, bureaucracy, and power are highly flawed and that the positions of Weber, Gramsci, and Foucault on these phenomena are preferrable. Consequently, I shall carry through a rather systematic reappraisal of Orwell as a political thinker and prophet while attempting to delineate the contributions and limitations of his political writings. Similarly, I shall interrogate the legacy of Herbert Marcuse's social and political theory and will appraise its contributions and limitations. At stake, therefore, is coming to terms in the present situation with the respective legacies for radical social theory and politics of two of the salient social critics of the twentieth century.

There are delineations between the types of knowledge. We need to pursue smooth space thinking, a type of thought that allows its subject to operate freely and removes the flawed ontological maps from our thought processes.Kingsworth and Hine 2009 (Paul Kingsworth add Dougald Hine wrote The Dark Mountain Manifesto and co-founded the Dark Mountain Project. Uncivilization)CEFSThe converse also applies. Those voices which tell other stories tend to be rooted in a sense of place. Think of John Bergers novels and essays from the Haute Savoie, or the depths explored by Alan Garner within a days walk of his birthplace in Cheshire. Think of Wendell Berry or WS Merwin, Mary Oliver or Cormac McCarthy. Those whose writings [15] approach the shores of the Uncivilized are those who know their place, in the physical sense, and who remain wary of the siren cries of metrovincial fashion and civilised excitement. If we name particular writers whose work embodies what we are arguing for, the aim is not to place them more prominently on the existing map of literary reputations. Rather, as Geoff Dyer has said of Berger, to take their work seriously is to redraw the maps altogether not only the map of literary reputations, but those by which we navigate all areas of life. Even here, we go carefully, for cartography itself is not a neutral activity. The drawing of maps is full of colonial echoes. The civilised eye seeks to view the world from above, as something we can stand over and survey. The Uncivilised writer knows the world is, rather, something we are enmeshed in a patchwork and a framework of places, experiences, sights, smells, sounds. Maps can lead, but can also mislead. Our maps must be the kind sketched in the dust with a stick, washed away by the next rain. They can be read only by those who ask to see them, and they cannot be bought.We do not advocate the gendered language of the previous card, and apologize for said infraction. Our bad.This division is the striation of previously smooth spaces. American citizens were striated via surveillance through ethno-managerialism, colonialism, and pacificationKundnani, no date Beginning in June 2013, a series of news articles based on whistle-blower Edward Snowdens collection of documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) took the world by storm. Over the course of a year, the Snowden...National security surveillance is as old as the bourgeois nation state, which from its very inception sets out to define the people associated with a particular territory, and by extension the non-peoples, i.e., populations to be excluded from that territory and seen as threats to the nation. Race, in modern times, becomes the main way that such threatsboth internal and externalare mediated; modern mechanisms of racial oppression and the modern state are born together. This is particularly true of settler-colonial projects, such as the United States, in which the goal was to territorially dispossess Indigenous nations and pacify the resistance that inevitably sprang up. In this section, we describe how the drive for territorial expansion and the formation of the early American state depended on an effective ideological erasure of those who peopled the land. Elaborate racial profiles, based on empirical observationthe precursor to more sophisticated surveillance mechanismswere thus devised to justify the dispossession of native peoples and the obliteration of those who resisted.The idea of the American nation as the land of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants enabled and justified the colonial-settler mission.5 Thus, when the US state was formed after the Revolutionary War, white supremacy was codified in the Constitution; the logical outcome of earlier settler-colonial systems of racial discrimination against African slaves and Indigenous populations.6 But the leaders of the newly formed state were not satisfied with the thirteen original colonies and set their sights on further expansion. In 1811, John Quincy Adams gave expression to this goal in the following way: The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs.7 This doctrine, which would later come to be known as manifest destiny animated the project of establishing the American nation across the continent. European settlers were the chosen people who would bring development through scientific knowledge, including state-organized ethnographic knowledge of the very people they were colonizing.8John Comaroffs description of this process in southern Africa serves equally to summarize the colonial states of North America: The discovery of dark, unknown lands, which were conceptually emptied of their peoples and cultures so that their wilderness might be brought properly to orderi.e., fixed and named and mappedby an officializing white gaze.9 Through, for example, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the United States sought to develop methods of identification, categorization, and enumeration that made the Indigenous population visible to the surveillance gaze as racial others. Surveillance that defined and demarcated according to officially constructed racial typologies enabled the colonial state to sort tribes according to whether they accepted the priorities of the settler-colonial mission (the good Indians) or resisted it (the bad Indians).10 In turn, an idea of the US nation itself was produced as a homeland of white, propertied men to be secured against racial others. No wonder, then, that the founding texts of the modern state invoke the Indigenous populations of America as bearers of the state of nature, to which the modern state is counterposedwitness Hobbess references to the the Savage people of America.11The earliest process of gathering systematic knowledge about the other by colonizers often began with trade and religious missionary work. In the early seventeenth century, trade in furs with the Native population of Quebec was accompanied by the missionary project. Jesuit Paul Le Jeune worked extensively with the Montagnais-Naskapi and maintained a detailed record of the people he hoped to convert and civilize.12 By studying and documenting where and how the savages lived, the nature of their relationships, their child-rearing habits, and the like, Le Juene derived a four-point program to change the behaviors of the Naskapi in order to bring them into line with French Jesuit morality. In addition to sedentarization, the establishment of chiefly authority, and the training and punishment of children, Le Juene sought to curtail the independence of Naskapi women and to impose a European family structure based on male authority and female subservience.13 The net result of such missionary work was to pave the way for the racial projects of colonization and/or integration into a colonial settler nation.By the nineteenth century, such informal techniques of surveillance began to be absorbed into government bureaucracy. In 1824, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun established the Office of Indian Affairs (later Bureau), which had as one of its tasks the mapping and counting of Native Americans. The key security question was whether to forcibly displace Native Americans beyond the colonial territory or incorporate them as colonized subjects; the former policy was implemented in 1830 when Congress passed the Indian Removal Act and President Jackson began to drive Indians to the west of the Mississippi River. Systematic surveillance became even more important after 1848, when Indian Affairs responsibility transferred from the Department of War to the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs sought to comprehensively map the Indigenous population as part of a civilizing project to change the savage into a civilized man, as a congressional committee put it. By the 1870s, Indians were the quantified objects of governmental intervention; resistance was subdued as much through rational techniques of racialized surveillance and a professional bureaucracy as through war.14 The assimilation of Indians became a comprehensive policy through the Code of Indian Offenses, which included bans on Indigenous cultural practices that had earlier been catalogued by ethnographic surveillance. Tim Rowse writes thatFor the U.S. government to extinguish Indian sovereignty, it had to be confident in its own. There is no doubting the strength of the sense of manifest destiny in the United States during the nineteenth-century, but as the new nation conquered and purchased, and filled the new territories with colonists, it had also to develop its administrative capacity to govern the added territories and peoples. U.S. sovereign power was not just a legal doctrine and a popular conviction; it was an administrative challenge and achievement that included acquiring, by the 1870s, the ability to conceive and measure an object called the Indian population.15The use of surveillance to produce a census of a colonized population was the first step to controlling it. Mahmood Mamdani refers to this as define and rule, a process in which, before managing a heterogeneous population, a colonial power must first set about defining it; to do so, the colonial state wielded the census not only as a way of acknowledging difference but also as a way of shaping, sometimes even creating, difference.16 The ethnic mapping and demographics unit programs practiced by US law enforcement agencies today in the name of counterterrorism are the inheritors of these colonial practices. Both then and now, state agencies use of demographic information to identify concentrations of ethnically defined populations in order to target surveillance resources and to identify kinship networks can be utilized for the purposes of political policing. Likewise, todays principles of counterinsurgency warfarewinning hearts and minds by dividing the insurgent from the nonresistantecho similar techniques applied in the nineteenth century at the settler frontier.The conceptual ordering in the striation of the population erects a fascist bureaucracy in the minds of the community that justifies violence from the macropolitcal.Deleuze & Guattari 80 (Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari A Thousand Plateaus pp. 214-215)CEFSIt is not sufficient to define bureaucracy by a rigid segmentarity with compartmentalization of contiguous offices, an office manager in each segment, and the corresponding centralization at the end of the hall or on top of the tower. For at the same time there is a whole bureaucratic segmentation, a suppleness of and communication between offices, a bureaucratic perversion, a permanent inventiveness or creativity practiced even against administrative regulations. If Kafka is the greatest theorist of bureaucracy, it is because he shows how, at a certain level (but which one? it is not localizable), the barriers between offices cease to be "a definite dividing line" and are immersed in a molecular medium (milieu) that dissolves them and simultaneously makes the office manager proliferate into microfigures impossible to recognize or identify, discernible only when they are centralizable: another regime, coexistent with the separation and totalization of the rigid segments.I0 We would even say that fascism implies a molecular regime that is distinct both from molar segments and their centralization. Doubtless, fascism invented the concept of the totalitarian State, but there is no reason to define fascism by a concept of its own devising: there are totalitarian States, of the Stalinist or military dictatorship type, that are not fascist. The concept of the totalitarian State applies only at the macropohtical level, to a rigid segmentarity and a particular mode of totalization and centralization. But fascism is inseparable from a proliferation of molecular focuses in interaction, which skip from point to point, before beginning to resonate together in the National Socialist State. Rural fascism and city or neighborhood fascism, youth fascism and war veteran's fascism, fascism of the Left and fascism of the Right, fascism of the couple, family, school, and office: every fascism is defined by a micro-black hole that stands on its own and communicates with the others, before resonating in a great, generalized central black hole.1 ' There is fascism when a war machine is installed in each hole, in every niche. Even after the National Socialist State had been established, microfascisms persisted that gave it unequaled ability to act upon the "masses." Daniel Guerin is correct to say that if Hitler took power, rather then taking over the German State administration, it was because from the beginning he had at his disposal microorganizations giving him "an unequaled, irreplaceable ability to penetrate every cell of society," in other words, a molecular and supple segmentarity, flows capable of suffusing every kind of cell. Conversely, if capitalism came to consider the fascist experience as catastrophic, if it preferred to ally itself with Stalinist totalitarianism, which from its point of view was much more sensible and manageable, it was because the egmentarity and centralization of the latter was more classical and less fluid. What makes fascism dangerous is its molecular or micropolitical power, for it is a mass movement: a cancerous body rather than a totalitarian organism. American film has often depicted these molecular focal points; band, gang, sect, family, town, neighborhood, vehicle fascisms spare no one. Only microfascism provides an answer to the global question: Why does desire desire its own repression, how can it desire its own repression? The masses certainly do not passively submit to power; nor do they "want" to be repressed, in a kind of masochistic hysteria; nor are they tricked by an ideological lure. Desire is never separable from complex assemblages that necessarily tie into molecular levels, from microforma-tions already shaping postures, attitudes, perceptions, expectations, semiotic systems, etc. Desire is never an undifferentiated instinctual energy, but itself results from a highly developed, engineered setup rich in interactions: a whole supple segmentarity that processes molecular energies and potentially gives desire a fascist determination. Leftist organizations will not be the last to secrete microfascisms. It's too easy to be antifascist on the molar level, and not even see the fascist inside you, the fascist you yourself sustain and nourish and cherish with molecules both personal and collective. Four errors concerning this molecular and supple segmentarity are to be avoided. The first is axiological and consists in believing that a little suppleness is enough to make things "better." But microfascisms are what make fascism so dangerous, and fine segmentations are as harmful as the most rigid of segments. The second is psychological, as if the molecular were in the realm of the imagination and applied only to the individual and interindividual. But there is just as much social-Real on one line as on the other. Third, the two forms are not simply distinguished by size, as a small form and a large form; although it is true that the molecular works in detail and operates in small groups, this does not mean that it is any less coextensive with the entire social field than molar organization. Finally, the qualitative difference between the two lines does not preclude their boosting or cutting into each other; there is always a proportional relation between the two, directly or inversely proportional. We present the States employment of the Orwellian Nightmare as a metaphor for the microfascist and the self.The panoptical view of surveillance placed more importance on some things than others, such as intermingling racism and State surveillance that allows more African Americans to be sentenced to prison or capital punishment than whites. This is a reflection of our ontological maps, our flawed way of interacting with knowledge, our self-dictation via the mental State that is microfascism. In striated space, according to Deleuze, people often decide the location, the endpoint, over actual knowledge. They commit to a set path, thereby striating knowledge.Deleuze expresses surveillance as a type of striated knowledge, controlled by an anti-nomadic minorityHeleen 06 @ University of Amsterdam Surveillance From Jeremy Bentham to Michel Foucault to Gilles Deleuze to blogs

Gilles Deleuzegives his view on Michel Foucault analysis in his article: postscript on control societies, which has been written in 2002. This article can be seen as a continuance of Foucaults analysis. Deleuze does not really disagree with the Foucaultian theory; he just adds his own theory to the discussion. The Deleuzian theory also describes surveillance in which a minority observes a majority, but now the objective is not to educate, but to include and exclude. The Deleuzian surveillance describes a control society in which the minority decides who gets a password to enter a certain building, or a certain map on a server etc. So if you would like to enter the building or the map on the server you have to type in a certain password or use an electronic key. This password or key does not only make sure that only authorized persons can enter, it can also keep record of the people who have entered, how long they were in there, how often they visit etc. But also: it can keep records of whoever tried to enter and was not authorized to do so.

Striation is epistemological brainwashing that society commits us to. Just like in Orwells 1984, wherein Winston tries to reject his societys ontological thought map and attempted to navigate his own mind and knowledge and society as a romanticized nomad. However, his navigation was passive as the government gutted his voice and obliterated his hopes at individual navigation. We must be our own ontological navigators, navigating off nobodys map.

WE MUST EMBRACE THE PARADOX THAT EXISTS IN ACADEMIC SETTINGS HALL vice-chancellor @ University of Salford 2k10Martin-historical archaeologist; He was for a time President of the World Archaeological Congress and General Secretary of the South African Archaeological Society. He moved to UCT (University of Capetown) in 1983, where he led the Centre for African Studies and later became the Head of the Department of Archaeology. He was the inaugural Dean of Higher Education Development between 1999 and 2002; was deputy Vice-Chancellor at UCT for six years. Professor Hall is married with three children. His wife, Professor Brenda Cooper, is an academic specialising in post-colonial and African literature; There Was An Ocean; Professional Inaugural Lecture at University of Salford, September 29; http://www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/73628/There-Was-an-Ocean-final.pdfPaul Simons lyrics capture a paradox. And because paradoxes must, by definition, embody profound truth, this signals something interesting, worth exploring further. Change emerges from the unchanging. The predictability and solidity of mountains and oceans foreclose on our ability to alter our environment. But, at the same time, they also enable us to navigate the world around us, including our intellectual and emotional conceptualization of experience. The ability of universities to bring about change and to produce new knowledge rests on this paradox. Like the ocean, they are robust and survive as organizational forms. Like mountains, they are solidly built and steeped in traditions and processes that may appear, and sometimes are, arcane. They remain reassuringly familiar, founded in disciplines and systems of accreditation that persist stubbornly. But they are also sites of new ideas and opportunities, unstoppable in their motion, which are entwined with their traditions.

CHANGE emerges from the UNCHANGING; This years topic about curtailing surveillance can enable us to NAVIGATE the world around us, build on our INTELLECUTAL and EMOTIONAL conceptualization of experience; the metahphor of a panoptical state constantly surveying and dictating us allows us to comprehend the concept of the microfascist, the self-dictator within us. REASSURINGLY FAMILIAR, STUBBORN PERSISTENCE, universities are sites of new ideas and opportunities UNSTOPPABLE in their MOTION that are entwined with their traditions. The persistence of the institution of debate, constantly advocating things of import, enables it to be an outlet for change.

Nomads disrupt striation on the smoothness of the mind, attacking the mindset the state, a metaphor for societyHeckman 2(Davin Heckman, writer for Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge is an independent peer-reviewed online journal (ISSN 1555-9998) born at Bowling Green State University, "Gotta Catch 'em All": Capitalism, the War Machine, and the Pokmon Trainer, http://www.rhizomes.net/issue5/poke/glossary.html#nomad . This article may seem to be very odd, as the root deals heavily with Pokemon. The article seeks to connect multiple concepts.)Nomad: "Nomadism" is a way of life that exists outside of the organizational "State." The nomadic way of life is characterized by movement across space which exists in sharp contrast to the rigid and static boundaries of the State. Deleuze and Guattari explain: The nomad has a territory; he follows customary paths; he goes from one point to another; he is not ignorant of points (water points, dwelling points, assembly points, etc.). But the question is what in nomad life is a principle and what is only a consequence. To begin with, although the points determine paths, they are strictly subordinated to the paths they determine, the reverse happens with the sedentary. The water point is reached only in order to be left behind; every point is a relay and exists only as a relay. A path is always between two points, but the in-between has taken on all the consistency and enjoys both an autonomy and a direction of its own. The life of the nomad is the intermezzo. (380) The nomad, is thus, a way of being in the middle or between points. It is characterized by movement and change, and is unfettered by systems of organization. The goal of the nomad is only to continue to move within the "intermezzo."

We do not advocate the gendered language of the previous card, and apologize for said infraction. Our bad.

Thus we affirm that the all-seeing panopticon of domestic surveillance has striated the United States in a post-fascist War-MachineWe, as nomads, are part of the nomadic war machine, an assemblage that preserves this space as the space of freedom.Heckman 2(Davin Heckman, writer for Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge is an independent peer-reviewed online journal (ISSN 1555-9998) born at Bowling Green State University, "Gotta Catch 'em All": Capitalism, the War Machine, and the Pokmon Trainer, http://www.rhizomes.net/issue5/poke/glossary.html#warmachine . This article may seem to be very odd, as the root deals heavily with Pokemon. The article seeks to connect multiple concepts.)

WAR MACHINE: The "War Machine" is a tool of the nomad through which capture can be avoided and smooth space preserved. Rather than the military (which is a State appropriation of the war machine), the war machine is a collection of nomad-warriors engaged in resistance to control, war being only a consequencenot the intended object. The military on the other hand, is an organization formed by the State formed specifically to wage wars and immobilize adversaries (which are determined by the State): The question is therefore less the realization of war than the appropriation of the war machine. It is at the same time that the State apparatus appropriates the war machine, subordinates it to its "political" aims, and gives it war as its direct object. (D&G 420) Unlike the military, the war machine is not influenced by the economic and political concerns of the State. The war machine is a "grass roots" affair which bubbles up from common concerns for freedom to move, and as a result it is part and parcel of nomadic life.

Melancholy negates the will to act it makes us slaves of the powerful and uses our fears to exterminate difference. We must focus on the affects of nomadism to reject the salvation morality.Deleuze and Parnet 87famous philosopher, Professor of Philosophy at the Sorbonne, Dialogues II, European Perspectives, with Claire Parnet, freelance journalist, translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam, 2002 pgs.61-62Edited for gendered language.When Spinoza says 'The surprising thing is the body ... we do not yet know what a body is capable of ... ', he does not want to make the body a model, and the soul simply dependent on the body. He has a subtler task. He wants to demolish the pseudo-superiority of the soul over the body. There is the soul and the body and both express one and the same thing: an attribute of the body is also an expressed of the soul (for example, speed). Just as you do not know what a body is capable of, just as there are many things in the body that you do not know, so there are in the soul many things which go beyond your consciousness. This is the question: what is a body capable of? what affects are you capable of? Experiment, but you need a lot of prudence to experiment. We live in a world which is generally disagreeable, where not only people but the established powers have a stake in transmitting sad affects to us. Sadness, sad affects, are all those which reduce our power to act. The established powers need our sadness to make us slaves. The tyrant, the priest, the captors of souls need to persuade us that life is hard and a burden. The powers that be need to repress us no less than to make us anxious or, as Virilio says, to administer and organize our intimate little fears. The long, universal moan about life: the lack-to-be which is life ... In vain someone says, 'Let's dance'; we are not really very happy. In vain someone says, What misfortune death is'; for one would need to have lived to have something to lose. Those who are sick, in soul as in body, will not let go of us, the vampires, until they have transmitted to us their neurosis and their anxiety, their beloved castration, the resentment against life, filthy contagion. It is all a matter of blood. It is not easy to be a free man, to flee the plague, organize encounters, increase the power to act, to be moved by joy, to multiply the affects which express or encompass a maximum of affirmation. To make the body a power which is not reducible to the organism, to make thought a power which is not reducible to consciousness. Spinozas famous first principle (a single substance for all attributes) depends on this assemblage and not vice versa. There is a Spinoza-assemblage: soul and body, relationships and encounters, power to be affected, affects which realize this power, sadness and joy which qualify these affects. Here philosophy becomes the art of a functioning, of an assemblage. Spinoza, the man of encounters and becoming, the philosopher with the tick, Spinoza the imperceptible, always in the middle, always in flight although he does not shift much, a flight from the Jewish community, a flight from Powers, a flight from the sick and the malignant. He may be ill, he may himself die; he knows that death is neither the goal nor the end, but that, on the contrary, it is a case of passing his life to someone else. What Lawrence says about Whitmans continuous life is well suited to Spinoza: the Soul and the Body, the soul is neither above nor inside, it is with, it is on the road, exposed to all contacts, encounters, in the company of those who follow the same way, feel with them, seize the vibration of their soul and their body as they pass, the opposite of a morality of salvation, teaching to soul its life, not to save it.We do not advocate the gendered language of the previous card, and apologize for said infraction. Our bad.

OUR APPROACH IS KEY TO SOCIAL CHANGE. The University, academia, values intelligent debate. It is individuals who must listen and learn. It is individuals and intellectuals that cause spillover.HALL vice-chancellor @ University of Salford 2k10Martin-historical archaeologist; He was for a time President of the World Archaeological Congress and General Secretary of the South African Archaeological Society. He moved to UCT (University of Capetown) in 1983, where he led the Centre for African Studies and later became the Head of the Department of Archaeology. He was the inaugural Dean of Higher Education Development between 1999 and 2002; was deputy Vice-Chancellor at UCT for six years. Professor Hall is married with three children. His wife, Professor Brenda Cooper, is an academic specialising in post-colonial and African literature; There Was An Ocean; Professional Inaugural Lecture at University of Salford, September 29; http://www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/73628/There-Was-an-Ocean-final.pdfThis leads in turn to a final example of the ways in which formal legislation, which tends towards tradition, must be rendered malleable by lived experience in a recursive network of stable change. It is an example which brings us back to Cape Town, in the circulating system of references that has constituted this presentation. As with South Africa, British universities are subject to legislation that seeks to advance equality for defined equality strands, broadly the equivalent of designated groups in South African legislation. And, as with South Africa, there is a clear danger that legislation, which is a vital site for resistance to the Apartheid past, will remain at the formal level as an issue of compliance.Our Listen! strategy seeks to address this by taking a development approach to equality and diversity. The focus on listening evokes one of the founding values of the academy; a constant openness to new possibilities and a willingness to challenge and debate the status quo. Listening, in turn, leads to appropriate actions that advance respect for the values of diversity. This has been expressed by Judith Butler in her essay, Giving an Account on Oneself, our shared, invariable, and partial blindness about ourselves. Our knowledge of ourselves is inevitably incomplete. Opportunities come from creating spaces for new voices to be heard. For a university, where respect for new thinking and expression is a founding value, the virtue of listening is paramount. By taking a developmental approach, Listen! seeks the recognition of diversity and difference as educational assets, the protection and advancement of minority groups, and the provision of opportunities for all individuals to realize their full potential. Whether in Cape Town or Salford, the university with its enshrined rituals, customs, respect for debate and status, has the potential to drive the battle for social justice. I have suggested that these processes of institutional transformation can be analysed as the interplay between formal and substantive elements of making meaning, traced as circulating systems of references. But thickening and deepening this understanding of structures, both formal and substantive, at the end of a long swim and a big climb, it is individuals who have to listen and learn and change as part of their university education. This accounts for the slight, but crucial change in the sameness of the repetition of Paul Simons ballad: Once upon a time there was an ocean. But now its a mountain range. Something unstoppable set into motion. Nothing is different, but everythings changed. I figure that once upon a time I was an ocean. But now Im a mountain range. Something unstoppable set into motion. Nothing is different, but everythings changed.Our re-reading of Orwellian critique illuminates the perversions of bureaucratic fascism Kellner, no date psychoanalytic professor at UCLA @ Pennsylvania State University, Fast Capitalism, Cultural Studies in Dark Times: Public Pedagogy and the Challenge of Neoliberalismhttps://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell13.htm

Orwell's1984is surely one of the best known novels of the century. It projects a negative utopia, or dystopia, of a future totalitarian society which uses terror, surveillance, and a repressive bureaucracy to exert total power over the individual. The text has been widely adopted in high schools and colleges, no doubt in part to attempt to innoculate young people against the horrors of totalitarian communism. Indeed, from the 1940s to the present,1984has been used in the Cold War struggle against communism, and Orwell has been celebrated by many as a critic of the Red Menace. Conservatives thus primarily read1984and Orwell's other popular fantasyAnimal Farm(1946) as attacks on communism and use the texts to warn people against its evils.Orwell's reception and use by the Left, however, is more complicated. Whereas communists and some orthodox Marxists tended in the past to villify Orwell in the most blatant terms -a trend that continues to the present in some quarters of the Left -- Orwell also has been claimed by some on the democratic socialist Left as an exemplary political writer whose long-term principled and militant agitation against, particularly, British imperialism and for democratic socialism have been widely admired. {3} And since the 1960s, I would suspect that Orwell became attractive to the New Left because his bohemianism, individualism, and opposition to all forms of orthodoxy and totalitarianism tapped into these same tendencies within my generation.In the following reading, I shall propose ways that the democratic Left can use Orwell and shall also point to some of the limitations of his work. From this perspective,1984is most appropriately read as a critique of a specific form of state communism, namely Stalinism, and not as a condemnation of socialismtout court. Orwell himself explicitly stated after the publication of1984that: "My recent novel is not intended as an attack on socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions to which a centralized economy is liable and which have already been realized in Communism and Fascism." {4} But despite this disclaimer, because1984is such a powerful attack on state communism, there is a danger that it can be used by rightists to identify socialism with totalitarianism -- a chief ideological strategy of both liberals and conservatives throughout the Cold War epoch. Against this ideological reading, I would suggest that1984be read as an attack on a quite specific social formation: Stalinism.Although1984can easily be read as a more general attack on totalitarian government where the state controls all aspects of life (i.e. at the end of the novel, there is a detailed discussion of uses of totalitarian power in ways which suggest how any sort of oppressive totalitarian state could maintain their power indefinitely), the political allegory and the techniques described in the novel most readily suggest the social and political structure and the forms and techniques of domination actually employed by Soviet communism during the Stalin era. Moreover, Orwell himself invites reading1984as a critique of Stalinism, for clearly the political leader of his projected society, Big Brother, is modelled on Stalin, while the state's "enemy," Emmanuel Goldstein, is modelled on Trotsky. More crucially, the world and atmosphere of1984reproduce the world of the Soviet Union in the 1930s with its political trials, torture-extracted confessions, secret police, labor camps, Lysenkian science, rewriting of history, and cult of Stalin. Thus while some of the atmosphere and features of Orwell's dystopia were reminiscent of Hitler's and Mussolini's fascism, the infrastructure of the society derives most basically from Orwell's vision of Stalinism and critical views of the betrayal of the revolution in the Soviet Union -- which also provides the infrastructure forAnimal Farm.Consequently, I would propose that one way for the Left to read1984, which is the way that Orwell proposes that we read it, is to take it as a critique of Stalinism which points to the deformation of socialism in the Soviet Union and which presents a grim warning about the type of socialism that democratic socialists should definitely avoid. In this way, Orwell's critique can be used by democratic socialists to specify precisely what sort of socialism we do not want; i.e. a socialism based on terror, coercion, and surveillance with a repressive administrative bureaucracy, a lack of civil liberties, human rights and democracy, and a rather grey and depressing everyday life without diversity, freedom, or commodity comforts. From this perspective I shall now offer aspects of a (re)reading of1984.1984uses the form of the dystopic novel to present a nightmare vision of a future in which techniques of political terror and repression, coupled with propaganda and indoctrination, have created a totally administered society. {5} The society in1984is "totalitarian" in that a centralized party state and its bureaucratic apparatus totally controls every area of life from labor, to culture, to thought, to language, to sexuality and everyday life. The novel opens with evocations, frequently repeated that "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU." Then it quickly plunges the reader into an oppressive environment where omnipresent television sets not only incessantly broadcast government propaganda but actually serve as instruments of surveillance. Although television has not (yet) taken on such functions, Orwell presciently anticipated the centrality of television in the home and the use of the then most advanced media of communication as an instrument of indoctrination and social control --though, as I shall argue later, in fact, television actually performs quite different functions in contemporary capitalist societies.Orwell proceeds to sketch out the features of a totally oppressive society and plays on his readers' fears of powerlessness and own experiences of oppression. The social environment of the novel draws on Orwell's experiences of wartime London and uses the descriptive techniques of literary naturalism to produce images of a society of extreme material deprivation:"Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him. The hallway smelt of boiled cabbage and old rag mats....Winston made for the stairs. It was no use trying the lift. Even at the best of times it was seldom working and at present the electric current was cut off during daylight hours....The flat was seven flights up, and Winston, who was thirty-nine, and had a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times on the way" (1984, p. 5).The dismal environment, scarcity, and squalor makes one yearn for a society of abundance, health, and creature comforts. Moreover, the enforced conformity makes one yearn for political freedom and valorizes individuality, while the society of lies and propaganda positively valorize truth and honesty as an antidote to totalitarian indoctrination. Later in the novel, the suppression of family ties, romance, and love makes the reader yearn for these phenomena. This vision illustrates the theory, being developed at the time by Hannah Arendt and others, which conceptualizes totalitarian society as a society wherein the state controls every aspect of life without the mediation of opposing public or even private spheres. With this vision, Orwell positions the reader to perceive the totalitarian present and future hostilely, and positively affirms opposing values and institutions through representation of their negation in his totalitarian society.This Orwellian Nightmare articulates the regressive fascist bureaucracy, allowing dismantlementKellner, no date psychoanalytic professor at UCLA @ Pennsylvania State University, Fast Capitalism, Cultural Studies in Dark Times: Public Pedagogy and the Challenge of Neoliberalismhttps://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell13.htmTo begin, we might question whether Orwell provides an illuminating vision of state power and bureaucracy, or whether there are serious limitations in his political perspectives. In1984, Orwell tends to equate the bureaucratic phenomenon within totalitarian states with overt political repression and force per se generalizing, I believe, from Hitler's and Stalin's use of state terror. Orwell concluded in the early 1940s that transition to a centralized economy was inevitable and that this would inevitably centralize power in the hands of the state apparatus. In a key and little known 1941 article "Will Freedom Die With Capitalism?", Orwell wrote that: It is inevitable that the planned, centralised state should supersedelaissez-fairecapitalism, because the latter is as helpless against it in a serious struggle as the Abyssinians were against the Italian machine guns.... what is happening everywhere is the replacement of competitive societies in which the individual has absolute rights over his own property, by planned societies in which power is centralised." {7} A centralized government for Orwell inevitably meant more power for the state bureaucracy, and thus more state repression and terror. Unlike Max Weber, Orwell does not conceive of bureaucracy as containing its own dynamics, its own rationality, or its own contradictions. Consequently, especially in1984, Orwell reinforces the predominantly conservative-individualist vision that the state and bureaucracy per se are repressive and serve to concentrate power in a bureaucratic caste. {8} For Orwell, power and the will to power are depicted as the prime goal of a bureaucratic society and the primary motivation for party bureaucrats. Power is not a means but is an end in itself,theend or telos of at least the political elite's individual and societal behavior. Revolution, in this picture, is primarily a project of seizing power and establishing a new class of party bureaucrats whose primary goal is maintaining their own power. Now this vision of revolution, power, and bureaucracy is quite similar to major conservative ideologues (Nietzsche, Pareto, Michels, etc.) and fails to account for contradictions within the bureaucratic phenomenon. For Max Weber, by contrast, bureaucracy contained a certain amount of logic and rationality and was part of a process of rationalization and modernization which produced at least some social benefits and progress (i.e. rational calculation, predictability, law, governance by rules rather than force, etc.). In Orwell's vision, however, one gets the sense that human psychology and the nature of bureaucracy conspire to produce a completely oppressive bureaucratic structure whereby one group of individuals dominate others. This is the sense, I believe, conveyed by O'Brien's speech on power and bureaucracy that I quoted above and reproduces standard conservative discourses which fail to see any social rationality or use-value in the state and bureaucracy. In this regard, Orwell himself is at least partly responsible for his appropriation by conservatives. Now, to be sure, in1984Orwell was articulating a novelistic vision of bureaucracy as terroristic repression and was not developing a political theory of bureaucracy. However, in both his novels and essays he tends to equate a centralized economy with state terror and repression in his conception of totalitarian society. Whereas I would argue that such a synthetic view provides an accurate conceptual mapping of the types of repressive and terroristic totalitarianism associated with Nazism and Stalinism, I believe it would be an error to project, as conservatives tend to do, such a vision on the state, bureaucracy, and a planned economy as such, as if all centralized state forms were inherently repressive and totalitarian. As a corrective to one-sided and purely negative visions and conceptualizations, one might posit adialectics of bureaucracywhich sees both its rational and progressive and irrational and regressive features, the ways that it promotes both social rationality and irrationality, progress and regression. More historical and dialectical perspectives on bureaucracy would also analyze bureaucracies as parts of historically specific social systems so that capitalist bureaucracy, for instance, should be interpreted in terms of the social functions that it performs within various capitalist societies, whereas socialist bureaucracy should be analyzed in terms of its role and functions within specific socialist societies. Furthermore, although there have been many debates within contemporary Marxism (i.e in Lukacs, Gramsci, Habermas, Offe, Gouldner, Castoriadis, etc.) over the precise relation between capitalism and bureaucracy, or socialism and bureaucracy, the best of these theories specify contradictions or tensions between the state apparatus, its bureaucrats, and, in capitalist societies, economic elites, thus pointing to tensions between social system and bureaucracy, whereas Orwell in1984tends to collapse social system into state bureaucracy, assimilating civil society to the state. {9} Furthermore, one needs to work out analyses of the various relationships between bureaucracy and democracy which specifies how democratic participation can avoid the oppressive features of bureaucracy, as well as provide non-bureaucratic domains of social life where direct, participatory democracy replaces bureaucratic structures and organization completely (while other spheres of social life might require some form of bureaucracy). Orwell's nightmare, by contrast, completely eliminates democracy and shows bureaucratic domination run amok -- a useful warning, perhaps, against bureaucratic encroachment but one that does not provide useful perspectives for contemporary social theory. Moreover, Orwell equates state power with force and coercion per se, and makes it appear that bureaucracy is primarily a repressive and terroristic apparatus. Whereas this analysis provides a compellingly accurate picture of state terrorism -- either of the fascist sort or the Stalinist sort -- if taken as a model of the state and bureaucracy as such, it would cover over their contradictionary nature and functions in different historical situations, and the complex ways that the state, bureaucracy, and instrumental rationality can be vehicles of both social progressand/oroppression. Instead of simply seeing1984as an attack on a bureaucratic state per se (often used by conservatives to attack communism or even welfare state measures) one should thus see it as a warning about what might happen if a state bureaucracy is to run amok and completely eliminate the institutions of civil society, rule by law, balance and division of powers in the political sphere, and respect for individual rights and liberties. Moreover, equating bureaucracy with terroristic coercion undercuts the Gramscian distinction between force and hegemony, and fails to see that the state and bureaucracy can serve the interests of the ruling class, or party, without resorting to force to the extent that they do in Orwell's bureaucratic state. Distinguishing between different modes of socio-political control, Antonio Gramsci constrasted between force and domination (i.e. direct physical coercrion) and "hegemony" or "direction" (i.e. ideological manipulation or the manufacturing of consent). {10} Hegemony was produced by a combination of state propaganda and ideological control and the mediations of the family, religion, schooling, and, today, one would want to include the media, advertising, mass culture, etc. Following Gramsci, I would argue that bureaucracy functions more as an instrument of hegemony than force in contemporary technological societies in the so-called developed world. For its' functions of social domination revolve primarily, I would suggest, around its instrumental rationality, its ability to impose seeminging objective and "fair" rules and regulations on individuals, and its ability to provide a facade of objectivity and rationality for ruling elites and their managers and administrators. To be sure, the supposedly "developed" societies often practice social barbarism themselves and have bureaucracies which specialize in violently suppressing deviance. But in view of the collapse of the most repressive 20th century totalitarian states, one might conclude that excessively brutal bureaucracies generate their own opposition and that therefore a repressive state apparatus which functions by terror alone is inherently unstable and doomed to collapse. Surely the continued existence of the neo-Stalinist bureaucracy, for example, in the Soviet Union does not only owe its longeivity to pure repression and state terror but also must provide goods and services and engage in ideological indoctrination and not just brute force. A boot-in-the-face is surely one form of social control that repressive bureaucracies utilize, but whether it is the only or most certain to provide continuous stability for its regime is doubtful. {11} In any case, for Orwell bureacracy becomes the fate of the modern world in a very different sense from Weber. Weber's instrumental rationality and iron cage becomes a prison camp utilizing constant surveillance, force, torture, and brutality in Orwell's nightmare. Indeed, many such regimes have existed and do continue to exist after the publication of1984, so Orwell's vision continues to be relevant. But it is not clear that even totalitarian societies rely solely on terror and coercion to the extent suggested in1984, nor have communist regimes monopolized techniques of state terror, repression, and violence.In fact, the vision of1984applies most readily today to the quasi-fascist and dictatorial regimes that have been client states of the United States over the past few decades: the dictatorships of Latin America and Africa, the Phillipines, Iran, South Korea, etc. It has been the Shah of Iran, Marcos, Somoza, the 1970s military regime in Argentina, Pinochet, Duvalier, and others who have materialized Orwell's vision of a state whose power was based on terror, torture, and violence. Thus although features of such state terrorism are sometimes manifest in Communist and even capitalist societies, on the whole these societies, as I shall argue below, maintain their power in quite different ways than Orwell's vision suggests. Moreover, I believe that the military and war play a different role in the contemporary world than in Orwell's1984. His Oceania was engaged in constant warfare with Eastasia and/or Eurasia which kept the citizens in a constant state of mobilization and alert. Exploding bombs kept the citizens in an actual state of perpetual fear and the continuous warfare distracted them from thinking about the oppressiveness of their actual society. Since the advent of the atomic age, however, there have been no actual "hot" wars between the superpowers although the threat of nuclear anniliation hangs over our head like the sword of Damocles. Although military priorities play a primary role in shaping the economy and social system, this is accomplished with a minimum, though growing, amount of mobilization and actual warfare. And while our media often engage in campaigns which teach us to hate and fear our supposed "enemies" (the "evil Empire," or "terrorists"), there is nothing like the hate campaigns to which the citizens are subjected to on a daily basis in1984.Re-reading Orwell best curtails Deleuzian surveillance as Orwell acts as a schizoid nomad, abrasive to fascist territorialization through bureaucratic articulations; our minds will be enabled to combat the microfascistRoberts 10 @ Brunel University Deleuze Studies. Volume 4, Issue 3, Page 356-380, ISSN1750-2241, Available Online November 2010.George Orwell has often been accused of articulating a naive version of empiricism in his writings. Naive empiricism can be said to be based on the belief that an external objective world exists independently of us which can nevertheless be studied and observed by constructing atomistic theories of causality between objects in the world. However, by revisiting some of Orwell's most well-known writings, this paper argues that it makes more sense to place his empiricism within the contours of Deleuze's empiricist philosophy. By recourse to Deleuze's ideas the paper argues that far from being a naive empiricist Orwell in fact engages in a reflexive exploration of his virtual affects through the particular events he writes about. The assemblage that is George Orwell is thus comprised by a whole array of affects from this unique middle-class socialist as he crosses through particular events. Orwell subsequently acts as a schizoid nomad who transverses the affects of others. As a result Orwell takes flight from his own middle-class surroundings in order to reterritorialise his identity within the affects, habits and sensations of others. By becoming a schizoid nomad Orwell is able to construct a critical and passionate moral standpoint against forces of domination.