Breaking the Chains of Mechanic Enslavements: a Quest for a new Ethics

The linguistic turn in philosophy may have opened us new vistas on the self, the world and the other.  Structuralism may have dissolved into post-structuralism but we are still enslaved by language. We are still held captive by the logocentrim[1] of language. Derrida did raise the question of logocentrism but it seems that he also did not fully plunge out of it. Reduction of all meaning and semiologies to semantic content is a kind of logocentrism that is blinding us to the a-signifying semiologies that are being used today to enslave us.  We have a mix of signifying, symbolic and a-signifying semiotics. We have reduced semiotics to only signifying and symbolic signs. This is logocentric. Opening us to the domains of a-signifying semiologies, we open ourselves to the understanding of the machinic.   The attention to the a-signifying aspects assists us to overcome the imperialism of language and opens us to other non-linguistic, non-representational semiologies and their impact on us.  This study attempts to move from semiotic logic that produces meaning to pragmatics that produces existence and forms of life in our society. Hence, the question ‘what is it?’ becomes ‘what it does’.  This brings us to the un-nameable territory, the dark matter of our social life which all the same has a great impact on the way we become what we make of ourselves, our world and the other. The attention to this un-nameable territory opens closed worlds and open new creative ways of being in the world.

We turn our attention a-signification because power is exercised today through machines that directly organize the brain[2](in communication systems, information network, etc.,) and bodies (in surveillance systems and welfare activities).   Machinist mechanisms have stepped into our daily life. They assist our speaking, hearing, seeing, feeling and writing, etc.  The human and the non-human are being aligned in machinic assemblages.  Deleuze and Guattari indicate that we have entered societies of control.[3] The genetic revolution also opens ways of manipulating our DNA. Nanotechnology, cloning, synthetic biology, etc., spring benefits as well as raise questions as new forms of power get monopolised in few hands. The power/knowledge[4] equations have become radicalised and the power elite is steadily becoming invincible. These and other transformations have introduced new subjectivations and have radically transformed our ways of being in the world. We cannot make a foreclosure on these developments and Oedipalize letting them continue their reign and become the law of the father for our society.

This paper attempts to open us ways of understanding the changed and changing condition of humanity by moving beyond the logocentrisms of language and semiotics.  By opening us to the a-signifying semiologies, it tries to go beyond the logic of semiotics that produces meaning to pragmatics that produces existence and forms of life.  It is by following the pragmatics that produces existence and forms of life in our society, we might be enabled to produce politics of emancipation and embrace new salubrious ways of being in the world that will be a liberating mode of humanization. Hence, in the first part, we shall study a-signifying, non-representational semiotics and expose the machinic[5] enslavements of contemporary humans and explore how individuals  have become dividuals[6]  under the weight  of new knowledge and power equations that are generated in our society. The dividual does not stand against machines but has become contiguous with them.  To explore the plight of humans under the regime of machinic enslavements, we have to give up our logocentrisms of language and semiotics as well as   our attachment to anthropocentrisms of all shades and colour. In the second and the third sections of this study, we try to understand how mechanic enslavement activates  pre-personal pre-cognitive, pre-verbal forces ( desire, affect,  sense)  and entangles them with supra-personal forces (machinic, economic, political, linguistic) and multiply possibilities of enslavement. Finally, we try to seek new emancipative modes of being human in the world that will enable us to break the shackles of the chains of machinic enslavements that afflict our society.

 Understanding A-signifying Semiologies

Sign machines like money, economics, science, technology, nationalism, nation, caste, art, etc., functions to produce a-signifying semiolgies.[7] A-signifying semiologies work through sign-assemblages and resist the name and forms of language and hence can be decoded through its pragmatics.  Music or DNA for instance, are A-signifying semiologies. The combinations and permutations of their signs or basic units cannot be put into language but produce tremendous impacts on us both individually and collectively. These impacts become gate ways to open us to understand a-signifying semiolgies.

A-signifying Semiologies and the Economy of the Possible

A-signifying semiotics operates beyond subject/ object, sign/thing production/ representation divide.  It is not chained to significations and the subject. They rather slip past them but do not produce significations or representations.  They are more abstract modes of signification than language. A-signifying semiolgies can be traced in stock listings, currencies, corporate budgets, computer languages, scientific functions and equations as well as the a-signifying semiotics of art, music, etc. In a profoundly significant way, a-signifying regimes are assemblages where Humans, consciousness and language do not have priority. Strictly speaking there is no sign and we do not have the distinction between sign and the referent. The semiotic triangle has not place in it.[8]  Theoretical physics has touched a-signifying semiotics. Sub-atomic particles like quarks are more tendencies rather than particles. What they do become more significant than what they are.   May be the sub-atomic world of quantum physics might illumine why Guatarri refers to the basic units of a-signifying systems as power signs and sign-points.[9]  May be a consideration of the manner in which money operate in a capitalist society can further bring light on power-signs. Money from its very inception has been a medium of exchange.  But in a capitalist society money functions as capital, as credit. It does not simply become an exchange value of goods. Hence, it does not represent anything but anticipate it, create it and mould it.  This means power signs constitute an economy of the possible.  To understand the operation of the sign-points we may have to take the example of a micro-chip. The polarities of the iron oxide particles are converted when a magnetic strip is passed a reader equipped with appropriate computer program.  The signs in this context functions as an input and output of a machine giving orders and producing change in condition.  Thus, monetary signs or computer language act on things outside representational system and act directly on production flows which when understood may open an economy of possibilities.

The Diagrammatics of A-signifying Semiologies

A diagram is a semiotic system and a mode of writing that fulfils the conditions of a power-signs.  Guattari derives Diagrammatics  from Pierce ‘s  ‘Icons of relations’. Diagram is a category whose function is operational rather than representational. Diagrams can break through what Guattari calls ‘ontological curtain’ separating words and things, subject and object.[10]  Unlike language diagram operates in a machinic manner. By modelling a situation, it opens for an imagination of new scenarios that expand possibilities of creation and action.  Michel Foucault has also used diagram to capture Panoptican[11] which automatizes and dis-individualizes power. Thus, it is through a-signifying semiotics diagrams or machines speak to human. The architecture of the prison that Foucault calls Panopticon communicates the sense of being perpetually under the watch. Panopticon is a deterritorializing force. The prisoners cannot territorialize but are kept in a constant deterritorial mode. The power signs do not just communicates to humans but they speak to rest of the world as well and can be viewed as agents of partial discursivety. Without a-signifying systems, human life will become aphasic and incapable of apprehending the deterritorializing flows. Diagrams (like equations, designs, apparatuses, graphs, machines) come to accelerate or slow down, deconstruct or stabilize  deterritorializing processes that cannot be captured by language. These a-signifying semiologies produce deterritorializing process and without understanding a-signifying process our understanding of the deterritorializing process would be extremely myopic and limited.   This is why understanding of diagrammatics or a-signifying semiologies is fundamental to opt for emancipative ways of being human in the world. Even, if we cannot recognize these a-signifying semiologies, they work on us. Just like driving a car after sometime becomes instinctual and we become one with the machinic assemblage of the car and drive it through what Guattari calls ‘a state of wakeful dream’.[12] The a-signifying semiologies act on us in a machinic mode and we become one with the machinic assemblage where in we are de-individualised/ dividualised. These modes of smooth sailing on to the machinic assemblage returns to thought and consciousness of the individuated subject only when there is disturbance or obstacle. Thus, our instinctual driving of a car is disturbed by a threat of accident or disturbance that brings the conscious individuated subject only to modify the feedback relation with the machinic assemblage of the car and return  to  the molecularising driving mode described as a ‘state of wakeful awareness’.

Understanding the Operations of Mixed Semiotic Assemblages

Although we have drawn our attention to the A-signifying semiotics, we live with mixed semiotics which is constituted by signs which are at comes signifying, symbolic and a-signifying.  The signifying and symbolic signs are logocentric and as such can be reduced to language while a-signifying significations are non-logocetric  but are machinic and stay beyond language. The molecularising modes of machinic semiosis of a-signifying systems over power the symbolic and signifying semiotics.

 Understanding  Machinic Subjectivities

We have molecularising modes of machinic semiosis at work in aesthetic drive that does not demand cognition. A prayer presided by Indian priest is molecualrising and machinic as the devotes merge with the assemblage of the ritual without any demand for cognition. This shows that linguistic, communicational and cognitive models are suspended or deterritorialized. We can also find it in the way mans circulates in animistic societies.  Circulation of mana is demonstrated by Emile Durkheim.[13]  Mimetic desire taught by Rene Girard also works  on a contagion and not on linguistic, communicational or cognitive model.[14]  In all these cases the molecularising force of machinic semiotics dominates over the signifying and symbolic semiotics.  Under these conditions human choice, decision and exercise of freedom act in contagion with the machinic assemblages.  Humans under these conditions live machinic subjectivity which in parts escapes human awareness.  It takes us beyond cognitive semiotics produced by signifying and symbolic signs.  In this context the signifying semiologies hide and mask the fact that individuated subject is dividualised. This means signifying semiologies and their discourses has the force of ideology that Karl Marx taught us. They suspend and deterritorialise thinking and induce mutations in human subjectivities.  A-signifying semiologies along side affective and existential components contribute to production of subjectivity.  Subjective mutation is not produced by the linguistic and cognitive but by existential, pathic and affective aspects.[15] This means non-discursively is at the core of subjectivity. This is why it is also taught by some scholars that only from the a-signifying, un-nameable and incommunicable core that there can be language, narrative and signification.

Development of the Self and A-signifying and Symbolic Semiotics

Linguistic theory and analytic philosophy forget pre-individual subjectivity. We have seen that pre-individual subjectivity is at the root of all modes of subjectivations. The infant has a world before acquiring mastery over language.  It manifests modes of perception, communication, and experience of the self and the world through a rich and differentiated semiosis.  Daniel Sterns, in his book, Interpersonal World of the Infant, presents three stages of the growing sense of self in a child. He enumerates, the emerging self, the sense of a core self and the sense of subjective self that precedes the sense of verbal self.[16]  The semiosis that operates at the pre-linguistic levels also operate in a parallel manner throughout the life of the individual alongside language and consciousness. The three first senses of self are shaped by mixed a-signifying and symbolic semiotics. Between birth and first two months sterns teaches that an infant experiences an emergent inter-personal link. He teaches that the infant experience an emergent self in three principle ways: amodal perception, categorical affects and vitality affects.  The abstract and amodal features of what happens to the infant are apprehended two different affective processes: categorical affects and vitality affects.  Categorical affects express anger, sadness, and joy while the vitality affects changes in metal states and intensity thresholds in its way of feeling. Dance, music, cinematic videos capture these   intensities and ways of feeling. These experiences form the core from which all leaning and creative acts in the life of a person. At the level of the emergent self, the infant is still not able to distinguish between the self and its other. It is with the development of the core self it develops this ability   to experience self and its other.  At this level, although the infant exhibits numerous abilities, it does  not reaches a cognitive integration of self and its other.  It is rather an integration of experience and memory without words.  Sterns identifies the period between two to six months as the period of development of core self. It is manifestation of abilities to smile, vocalizations directed to others, mutual gaze etc.  The subjective self emerges steadily when the infant realizes that it has ‘a mind’ and that experiences, affects and emotions are shareable (or un-shareable) and can be communicated without words because language is still not available. The infant already is attuned through the first and the second stage and is can shares it experience with gestures, postures, non-verbal actions. We may view it as symbolic semiotics.   It is necessary to the acquisition of language to become a verbal self and enter the semiotics of signification.

 Self and the Signifying, Symbolic and A-signifying Semiotics

The acquisition of langue is an important stage in the life of humanity. It leads to the emergence of the verbal self. The emergence of language is a gap between experienced as ‘lived’ and experienced as represented. Language chiefly enables us to represent our experience. Linguistic significations render our experiences more shareable. The verbal as well as the non-verbal symbolic and a-signifying semiotics can co-exist and expand our lived experience.  But lived experience may also be fractured and deterritorialized by language and pushed underground or repressed. At the same time langue and evoke and provoke that may transcend words.  This occurs when words function in poetic modes. Most of the time word in our everyday life fracture amodal experience and send it underground.  The three preverbal levels of self are not linear steps in the formation of verbal self but they remain independent centres   of semiotics and subjective productions in parallel with their own autonomy and semiotics.[17] Psychoanalysis although remains open to a-signifying semiologies puts them in conflict with signifying semiotics. Thus, desire, animality, instincts, drives, and spontaneity is put against social order, symbolic law, prohibitions expressed by language.  This is why these models are profoundly political. Guattari keeps them, not in opposition but in a rhizomatic parallelism where presents a machinic model of their operations. This machinic model can illumine pre-signifying semiotics operate in a post signifying world. The post-signifying world that we inhabit has brought back the semiosis of the primitive society in new modes of intensity.  Like the primitive societies the images, sounds, words, spoken and written, movements, colours, rhythms are set in parallel and are subjected to machinic assemblages. Signifying, symbolic and the A-signifying semiotics operating in a post-signifying world introduce ambiguity, instability into denotation and signification.  Expression has become polyvocal, multi-dimensional and multi-referential.

Understanding the Post-signifying World  

Our world has changed and our habitual ways of thinking our inadequate to cope with it.  The signifying subject is attacked by a-signifying semiologies. These regimes of a-signifying semiologies are creating our world in a significant way. This world as irrupted at the intersection of pre-verbal primitive, presignifying  and  the signifying regimes . Deleuze and Gauttari call it faciality machine. It is not reducible to significance and subjectification but is alongside and operates as their condition of possibility. Indeed, faciality machine delimit the condition of human experience (Thousand plateaus, p. 180) but unleashing polysimiosis into our society.

Politics of A-signifying Semiolgies

Signifying semiotics is just a fraction of much broader a-signifying semiologies. We have already disobeyed Wittgenstein that commanded silence where we cannot speak.[18]  We reached a post-signifying stage, where signification resists meaning articulate-able through language.  We require us to undertake Spinozist practice of ethology[19] that studies the capacity to affect and be affected to understand what post-signifying world is doing rather than what it is.  This is a turn to immanence in all its radical form. Here are we have to avoid objectivism and subjectivism. The former believes that sense can be found in the object that secret or emits the sign while the later things that it is in the subject.  The immanence that we are turning to is autopoietic[20] haecceity that stays beyond the subject/ object binary of epistemology. In other words a-signifying semiosis has its own autonomy.  Instead of referring to other signs, a-signifying signs work directly on real.  Signs both signifying and a-signifying order the world into being. They lead the immanent becoming(s) of the world.  This turn to the  a-signifying semiotics alongside signifying semiotics ( mixed semiotics) reveal how signifying semiotics aims to construct a subject, individual or I while the a-signifying semiotics aims at pr-subjective, pre-individual elements ( affects, emotions , perception) and render them function like the cog in the semiotic machine of capital, nationalism or even religion. The signifying and symbolic semiologies  allocates humans roles and functions in society . It shapes our subjectivity. The post-signification society has along with signifying systems has unleashed symbolic and a-signifying semiologies in our society. These semiologies are driven by affect and produce relations that cannot simply assign to an individual. In fact the individual becomes fragmented into a dividual and buddle into a machinic assemblage. The a-signifying  semiologies directly operate on our brains/ bodies producing affects, desires, emotion and perceptions. This is why there is not bridge of reason  and reflection. They operate directly on humans and trigger action, reaction, behaviour, attitude and posture. Thus, somehow  a-signifying semiologies not only alienate the human individual and ividualise him/her , but chain to machinic enslavements aroused by the affects and the emotion  those semiologies trigger  in him and her.  A-signifying semiotics is profoundly political. The machinic enslavements that they trigger chain us to deeper social enslavements introduced by signifying and symbolic semiologies. We become mindless social assemblage enjoying our machinic modes of being in the world.

Operations of Machinic Enslavements

A-Signification semiotics synchronises and modulates the pre-individual and pre-verbal elements of subjectivity by causing the affects, emotion and perception like elements in a machine. The post-signification world has led us to function like an input/output in semiotic machine like a television or internet that facilitates or block the transmission of information, communication or affects.  A-signifying semiotics does not recognize the individual or molar identities. These semiologies directly operate on the infrapersonal, infrasocial elements[21] thanks to the manipulation of the molecular economy of desire. The strength of these semiologies is that they can penetrate into the system of representations and significations by which the individuated subject recognize each other or are alienated from each other.  Thus, machinic enslavement is not the same thing as social subjection. If the latter appeals to the molar identities, the later manipulate molecular or the larvae selves.  The molecular has the pre-individual and the trans-individual dimensions. The individual under the molecularising regime becomes a dividual.  The a-signifying semiolgies do not speak; they set things into motion by directly connecting our brain and memories and activate the affective, the transitivist and transindividual relation. Thus both signifying, symbolic semiologies that form subjectivities, identities are put under the control of the a-signifying semiologies that control the mind, meaning and life in our society. The machinic enslavements redraw and reconfigure our public space and its modes expression where the dividuals are bundled into assemblages that serve the molar politics of identity that seem to be afflicting in an era of globalisation.  The politics today is not organised polis of the word and debate but has become a theatre of mindless crowds on the rampage. We have stepped into the societies of control. Foucaultian disciplinary societies have transformed into societies of control. Disciplinary societies employed moulding apparatus[22] and required signifying and symbolic semiologies. The society of control colonises the signifying and symbolic semiologies by placing us under the control of a-signifying semiologies. Societies of control work on modulation and not on techniques of moulding. Modulation is the manner in which a-signifying systems work. Just like the television modulates the electric waves, with its amplitudes and frequencies (signs without signification) to images, sounds, and words that carry meaning , a-signifying semiologies modulate and produce affects, emotions and perceptions that take control of our minds and bodies.

Towards an Ethics of Response to Societies of Control

The technologies that control our minds employ a-signification semiologies.  We have stepped into a society of control. An individuated subject is subjected to new mode of subjectivation that dividualize an individual and buddle him/her as a cog of a semiotic assemblage. The exchange of signs in a-signifying semiotics takes place at the speed of light and hence there is no time to assess their impacts besides, since they work on the dividualized individual, we cannot depend on ethics that is build on isolated triumphant subject. We need a new mode of thinking that would enable us to evolve an emancipative response to the despotic society of control.

Living Sympoiesis

We need a new way of thinking to develop a response-ability that is emancipative.  We are challenged the entangled nature of the subject seriously while develop an ethics to face a society of controlled ruled by a-signifying semiologies. Sympoiesis is the way open for us to generate our emancipative and salubrious ways of being human. It can inaugurate new symbiogenisis that can sow new ecological ways of being human in the world.[23]  This means Cartesian subject has no place in our world. We require thinking in attunement with our ecologies and atmosphere along with other humans as well as non-humans.  We need to commit ourselves to nurturing capacities that will enable us to cultivating ways that would make each other capable to respond to the society of control that is ruling us today.  To resist this society of control we need a new mode of thinking.  It is thinking with. The dividual individual has to assemble into a community with humans and the non-human. We have to adopt ecological thinking.  The imperial thinking of the isolated individual has led to the dividualization of the individual.  The dying individual can only be saved through an adoption of new salubrious ways of being humans with the world and not just by being in conflict with the world. Sympoiesis  is a harmonious and natural way of living on our planet earth. We cannot just live in the cocoon of culture, language and symbolic semiologies. This bubble can burst under the weight of the rampaging a-signifying semiologies. By launching ourselves in the web of the worlding of the world, we can resist the dividualizing forces of the society of control. It is only by living sympoiesis that we can resist getting machinic assemblages of the a-signfied semiologies. We cannot resist these dividualising forces individually.  We also require a counter- assemblage. The assemblage that we consciously choose as resistance to a-signifying semiologies  being counter-assemblage   has to adopt what is called tenatcular thinking that will also stay alert to the generation of affects, emotion and perception that a-signifying semiotics in us as individual or communities.

 Tentacular Thinking

Tentacular thinking has arrived from the biological sciences. It transcends the binary and monarchical logic of the fading epistemology. The term tentacle comes from Latin,  tentaculum which means feeler.  The verb tentare means to feel and to try. Tentacles immediately bring to our mind leggy organisms like spiders.  It has armed allies by which it process and gives feedback to its surroundings.  Tentacular thinking can weave our path in a world controlled by a-signifying semiologies.  The tentacular  arms of organism like spider pick us signals from the surrounding and designs its own response to them.  The tentacles has equipped it response-ability to meet the challenges of survival.  The tentacular thinking is thinking akin to the spider.  It is thinking that moves beyond the subject /object, knower and the Known dichotomies and embraces a webbed thinking. The tentacles of an organism like spider provide us the best analogy of complex thinking that we wish to adopt to respond to society of control that has evolved on the wings of a-signifying semiologies.  Tentacular thinking is open and always a work in progress.[24]  It is thinking with that takes partnership with human and non-human ecologies seriously. It is not disembodies thinking but thinks with the body. This is why affects and emotions also become central coordinates of thought. It moves between and beyond the aesthetic modes of thinking.  It gives up autopoietic thinking that we may derive from Descartes and embraces sympoietic thinking.  Tentacularity also moves beyond linearity and hierarchy. It is akin to what Deleuze and Guattari call rhizomatic thinking. It is not just thinking-with, it is becoming-with. It is thus ecology of practices. The societies of control employ modulation and not moulding as a means of excitation and thoughtless action.  This is why tentacular thinking with its tenacular antennas is important as it can attune us to the material signals that carry the a-signifying semiologies and assist us to develop response-abilities that are quick and salubrious.  We need these response-abilities to live with the trouble injected by the affects, and emotions that are stirred into us by a-signifying semiologies that use signifying and symbolic semiologies as meta-assemblages to serve vested interest. Tentacular thinking promises to equip us to evolve counter-assemblages that would emancipate us from the tyranny of signifying, symbolic as well as a-signifying signs.

Conclusion

In a scenario where we do not have ready to hand fix to the tyranny unleashed by a-signifying semiologies that have taken control over signifying, symbolic semiologies  in our society and reduced us to dividuals that can  be manipulated by the affects, emotions and perception, we have proposed a tentacular thinking that can lead to the formation of counter-assemblages that flowers into sympoiesis.

[1] Nial Lucy, A Derrida Dictionary (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004) 16.

[2] Books are recommended on Amazon, personalised radio stations like Pandora on i-phone are ways in which a-signifying systems organize our brains to act within limited options that are offered to us. Besides, predictive analytics analyses big data and proposes how individual are likely to behave to specific stimuli opening us to manipulation and control without our knowledge. Future is said belong to what is described as algorithmic Governmentality. This does not mean that there are no benefits of big data analytics. Most benefits are said to be in the field of medicine can personalize and reduce costs of treatment. But all this depends how intimate data is accessed and used. Big data conglomerates seem to be set to become new power/knowledge storehouse of power in our world.  Big data  is about surveillance over individuals and is chiefly serving the Governments and Business.

[3] Deleuze “ Postscript on society of control”, https://cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf accessed on 25/11/2019.

[4] Michael Foucault, Power/ Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings:1972-1977, Ed. Collin Gordon, Trans. Collin Gordan, Leo Marshal et al  (New York; Pantheon Books 1980).

[5] Guattari teaches that our unconscious is machinic.  It stresses that the unconscious is not merely populated with images and words. It is populated with all kinds of mechanisms that lead it to produce and reproduce images and words. Felix Guattari, The Machinic Unconscious, Trans. Taylor Adkins ( Los Angeles: Semiotext(e),2011) 10

[6] Deleuze “Postscript on society of control”, https://cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf accessed on 25/11/2019.  Gerald Raunig develops the genealogy of  the concept of dividuum and develops a philosophy of dividuality to respond to  contemporary modes of production and life forms.  It has led to new modes of self division. Fortunately, within dividuality, Raunig locates a new kind of resistance or con/division. It refers to the movement of con-forming in the most diverse single things but also affirms their separation at the same time. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/7030/1951 accessed on 30/11/2019.

 

[7] Today the biosphere is merging with the mechanosphere. Machinic ecology is embedded with technomateriality and is transforming our subjectivity and social practices. Signs have begun to work like machines producing a-signifying semiologies.  Felix Gauttari presents three ecologies: the social ecology. Metal ecology and environmental ecology which are relational and transversal whose eco-logic provides possibilities of resistance that opens us to the other, the strange and the foreigner.

[8] Signifier, signified and referent forms the semiotic triangle.

[9] Maurizio Lazzarato , Signs and Machines: Capitalism and the Production of Subjectivity, Trans., Joshua David Jordan ( Los Angeles: Semiotictext(e), 2014), 84.

[10] Maurizio Lazzarato , Signs and Machines: Capitalism and the Production of Subjectivity, 87.

[11] Today the internet of things is amplifying the surveillance capacities leading to the creation of vast data of our life.  Google’s Brillo AND Apple’s Home Kit can connect washishing machine to television or air conditioner. From Smart watches to GPS footwear, human bodies have come under the gaze of digital power. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/23/panopticon-digital-surveillance-jeremy-bentham accessed on  27 /12/2019.

[12] Maurizio Lazzarato , Signs and Machines: Capitalism and the Production of Subjectivity, 89.

[13] http://culturalstudiesnow.blogspot.com/2012/03/emile-durkheim-genesis-of-notion-of.html accessed on 27/12/2019.

[14] https://violenceandreligion.com/mimetic-theory/ accessed on 27/12/2019

 

[15] Maurizio Lazzarato , Signs and Machines: Capitalism and the Production of Subjectivity,  101.

[16] Daniel. N. Stern, The Interpersonal World of the Infant: a View from Psychoanalysis and Developmental Psychology ( Londan: Karnak Books, 1998), 3-138.

[17] Ibid, 106.

[18] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/ accessed on 27/12/2019.

[19] Maurizio Lazzarato , Signs and Machines: Capitalism and the Production of Subjectivity, 200.

[20] Ibid, 206.

[21] Ibid , 77.

[22]  Deleuze “ Postscript on society of control”, https://cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf accessed on 25/11/2019.

[23] Donna J. Haraway, Staying with the Trouble:  Making Kin in the Chthulucene (Durham: Duke University Press, 1916), 58-98.

[24] Ibid, 30-57.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GREETINGS

Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.

- Fr Victor Ferrao