http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100151/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8s0He0560g Mindwalk through my prism Sonia: The clock did much more than that.

It became the model of the cosmos. And then they mistook the model for the real thing. People got the idea that nature was just a giant clock. Not a living organism, but a machine. Perhaps it is best to note first that what struck me most was how the scientific views of Sonia (and by expansion 'world system theory' as we see it) resonate well with the 'poststructuralism' of Foucault, Lyotard and Deleuze & Guattari as I read them. Especially the latter's Mille Plateaux (2004) parallels (to some extent). The book opposes a rhizomatic principle of organizing emphasizing flow, heterogeneity, disunity and antagonism with a hierarchical one, including a rejection of coding: defining what can't be fixed, making the concept simultaneously inadequate as dangerous. They apply the model to just about anything, from war to music. Sonia's discussion of atoms and particle patterns identifies atoms as not being solid although they are treated as so. Instead, the reason why everything doesn't fall through everything (with the recognition that atoms consists of vast regions of nothingsness) is principles of organization. 1 Thomas draws a parallel in music. However, Sonia and the filmmakers make some questionable choices, suggesting that we can learn more from Thomas precisely because he is not teaching. There's a tension between Sonia proclaimingscientists came to believe that all living things plants, animals, us - are nothing but machines. And that's the fallacy. It carried over into everything: arts, politics... (italics added) and her holistic worldview. She stresses the interconnectedness of all things in a system, collapsing the social in physics. But by this collapsing, she seemingly adopts a mechanistic position, carrying physics over into everything. The unity of the self is undermined by the large-scale renewal of cells and identity consists of a specific pattern of organization (DNA?). We only exist in relation to another; one action resonates throughout the social and physical fabric. Are we not, then, to a large extent, cogs in a machine, depending upon the movement of the previous cog? This seems to be a return to discredited 19th century thought, when enthusiasm over new discoveries and material innovations intoxicated people into the search for the fixed laws of the social. The social sciences were no different from the natural sciences. There was unity. However, due to repeated failures to grasp the social, the social sciences and the natural sciences were separated by insisting on human agency. Man is a participant that develops a strategy to counter that of the scientist (Lyotard, 1984: 57). Now Sonia again posits a unity of the sciences. First rejecting Cartesian thinking as no longer adequate, Sonia apparantly holds a mechanistic worldview. Science may not have reached 'the truth' in one go (Newton's atoms), if continued it will get ever-closer (particle physics). Therefore, those who do science (scientists) have something to
1 I must say I have trouble grasping how relations keep things in place, especially with regard to particles and atoms.

say. Sonia is treated, and treats herself (until Thomas's echoing words at the end commit her to embrace her daughter), as a prophet throughout the movie. Especially the image of her climbing back into Mount St. Michel after she, the oracle, has been consulted I (perhaps mistakenly) found laughable. While Lyotard (1984) wouldn't argue with (Sonia) that if something takes hold in science it spreads, he wouldn't see it as a necessarily good thing. Sonia herself critizes the belief that scientists who are so powerful also must be very wise. She sees people surrendering their responsibility and themselves to science. "Scientism is any rational[I have problems with this concept] belief in the truth of science. It's become a religion today. It's not a good religion, but it is a dominating religion. I believe it is right to stress the need to question if we want to have deliberation and counteract domination. There appears to be an artificial operation taking place: Sonia's science is differentiated as true in contrast with the science she rejects yet builds upon. In the end, I agree with Thomas: I feel just as reduced being called a system as I do being called a clock. Life's just just not condensable. If we use concepts (and I believe there's no escaping this), we have to be aware of their violent nature, violence towards whatever it is that is real. However, the damage has been done. The resistance by Thomas comes after Sonia having had the stage for most of the film, compounded by the original ignorance of Jack and his eventual semi-conversion to the new religion. I get it! Only the careful observer (I applaud myself now) can make sense of Thomas's existentialist words at the end. While Jack immediately raises his problems, Thomas chooses to remain silent and see where Sonia takes the argument, limiting himself to rejecting Jack's pleas for help to win the argument. Jack is mistaken if he thinks Thomas is swaying to Sonia's world view. It is only when he believes Sonia has little more to add or when the day and the conversation is coming to an end (the tide is coming) that he raises his objections, breaking the dialogue/monologue between Sonia and Jack. This willingness to listen to the Other and reluctance to speak your own views, at least so not to disrupt/direct the flow of this other is anti-dominating, remains open to arguments perceived as better, whilst remaining firm in defending personally held beliefs when these are judged to be relevant. I think Sonia explicitly stating that she prefers to remain in her ivory tower, although honest, is not the most desirable from the point of view of social justice. Surely, it is not dominating in a direct sense; it merely represents a looking down upon. But it is not libratory. Jack proposing her to get her hands dirty in state politics and her rejecting it can be seen as a false dichotomy: participating in power games or exodus.2 I agree with that we can't wait for everyone (to leave the system e.g.) in light of impending doom (climate change), but that this can be translated in non- to less-dominating action, depending on the willingness of others to accept a different way of acting. Concretely, I think of experimenting with alternative lifestyles and collectives. I love the idea of a politics of the impossible if it is conceived of as going beyond what is conventionally seen as possible (e.g. only the market works), as breaking inadequate discourse. Sonia's demand for a great political leader to bridge the gap, to inform, to allow us to feel responsibility? (italics added) is dangerous, although I agree with to inform if it means a
2 Although Sonia's motivations probably are more personal: she simply doesn't think of 'politics' as pleasant enough.

presenting of different points of view (not taking issue with the institution of politician itself). At the same time, she, not unlike Thomas, states that she first thought things through before speaking... What makes this relevant for the programme (Human Ecology: Culture, Power and Sustainability) as I have experienced it so far is that seemingly we are being (gently) indoctrinated into thinking in a world system point of view. While Ecology may necessarily mean system, interconnections and so on, these concepts have been coded in ways that are not obvious: the emphasis on structure, anthropology, the demand side of economics and self-interest are merely positions. In my opinion, and following Foucault, Culture should (also, and differently) be viewed as power/knowledge (1980), not as Wilk & Cligett (2007) do as what gives self-interest its form. In short, the course literature list so far has been one-directional Sonia-talk, while Thomas's position seems more wise to me. Thomas: A ceaseless flow of energy going through a multiplicity of patterns dissolving into one another. Sonia: That's physics! Thomas: No, that's poetry. jan References Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. 2004. A Thousand Plateaus Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: The Continuum Publishing Company. Foucault, M. and Gordon, C. ed. 1980. POWER/KNOWLEDGE: Selected Interviews & Other Writings 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books. Lyotard, J-F. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Wilk, R. R. and Cliggett, L. 2007. Economies and Cultures Foudations of Economic Anthropology. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.