Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

1AC

This is not a war


It's a conversation about what people really need
Fear is a poison
It breeds violence and apathy and greed
So people occupy the streets
So they can occupy the hearts of the fearful
This is not a war
It'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 Neoliberalism
https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell13.htm

Occasionally literary and philosophical metaphors and images enter


the domain of popular discourse and consciousness. Images in Uncle
Tom's Cabin of 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 novel What 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 novel 1984 has 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 "onedimensional 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 novel 1984 project 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)CEFS

The 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

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.
said of Berger,

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 ethnomanagerialism, colonialism, and pacification

Kundnani, no date Beginning in June 2013, a series of news articles based on whistleblower 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 nonpeoples, 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.8
John 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.11
The 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 fourpoint 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 that
For 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.15
The 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)CEFS
It 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:
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

another regime, coexistent with the separation and

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
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

classical and less

from complex

assemblages that necessarily tie into molecular levels, from

microforma-tions already shaping

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
postures, attitudes, perceptions,

expectations, semiotic systems, etc.

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.
to be

Four errors concerning this molecular and supple segmentarity are

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 minority
Heleen 06 @ University of Amsterdam Surveillance From Jeremy Bentham to
Michel Foucault to Gilles Deleuze to blogs

Gilles Deleuze gives 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

2k10

Martin-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.pdf
Paul 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 society
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#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 postfascist War-Machine

We, 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 nomadwarriors engaged in resistance to control , war being only a consequence not
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 87


famous 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.61-62
Edited 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 Spinozaassemblage: 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 2k10
Martin-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-anOcean-final.pdf
This 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

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
that has constituted this presentation. As with South Africa, British

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 Neoliberalism
https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell13.htm

Orwell's 1984 is 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, 1984 has 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

read 1984 and Orwell's other popular fantasy Animal 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, 1984 is most appropriately read as
a critique of a specific form of state communism, namely Stalinism,
and not as a condemnation of socialism tout court. Orwell himself
explicitly stated after the publication of 1984 that: "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, because 1984 is 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 that 1984 be read as an attack on a quite specific
social formation: Stalinism.
Although 1984 can 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
reading 1984 as 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 of 1984 reproduce 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 for Animal Farm.
Consequently, I would propose that one way for the Left to read 1984, 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 of 1984.
1984 uses 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 in 1984 is
"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 thirtynine, 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 dismantlement
Kellner, no date psychoanalytic professor at UCLA @ Pennsylvania State

University, Fast Capitalism, Cultural Studies in Dark Times: Public Pedagogy and
the Challenge of Neoliberalism
https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell13.htm

To 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. In 1984,
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
supersede laissez-faire capitalism, 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 in 1984,


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, the end 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, in 1984 Orwell 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 a dialectics of
bureaucracy which 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
in 1984 tends 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
progress and/or oppression. Instead of simply seeing 1984 as 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 of 1984, 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 in 1984, nor have communist regimes monopolized
techniques of state terror, repression, and violence.
In fact, the vision of 1984 applies 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's 1984. 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 in 1984.

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 microfascist
Roberts 10 @ Brunel University Deleuze Studies . Volume 4, Issue 3, Page 356-380,
ISSN

1750-2241, 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 middleclass 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.