twitter
facebook twitter tumblr newsletter
 

Give the Gift of The New Inquiry

give-gift

Just in time for the present-giving part of the year, we’re introducing a new way to share The New Inquiry with your loved ones.

For $25, you can give 12 months’ worth of TNI Magazine to your iPad loving grandma, your mysterious coworker, or your listless college-aged child. In addition to the inherent joy of giving, with a TNI gift subscription, you get the satisfaction of knowing you’re supporting the writers, editors, and artists whose hard and underpaid work you see on our site every week. It’s like giving yourself a present.

Sign up for a one year gift subscription here.

From our hearth to yours,

The New Inquiry

p.s. If you’re in the giving spirit, consider throwing us a tax-deductible donation.

 

Call for Papers: Theorizing the Web 2015

callpapers2015-500

Theorizing the Web 2015

April 17–18  in New York City

Co-Sponsored by Verso Books, The New Inquiry, and Snapchat

Abstract submission deadline: 11:59 pm (EST), January 18, 2015

To theorize the web is to theorize the self, society, and the world. Although digital social technologies are relatively new, the web is hardly a “virtual reality” or a “new frontier”; rather, it is a deeply embedded part of our existing social world, which has been described in multiple traditions of social thought. Yet mainstream conversations about digital social technologies tend to emphasize the technological at the expense of the social and result in partial understandings of the web, disconnected from questions of power and social justice—and from public discourse. Useful, nuanced thinking about the web is too often hidden behind paywalls and academic jargon, while technology journalism too often fixates on stories of progress and personal triumph without examining underlying ideologies or structural conditions.

We began Theorizing the Web in 2011 to advance a new kind of conversation, to highlight novel ways of thinking about the web that are sharp and critical, yet also public and accessible. The event both interdisciplinary and nondisciplinary, meaning we feature the best conceptual work about the web from both inside and outside academia. We welcome presenters from a wide variety of backgrounds, including those who may not consider either “technology” or “theory” to be their primary area of expertise.

Now we are pleased to announce a call for papers for the fifth annual Theorizing the Web, to be held April 17 and 18, 2015, in New York City. Whether you’re an academic, an activist, a journalist, a technologist, an author, an artist, or none of the above, we invite you to submit a presentation abstract.

Continue Reading

 

Mexico after Ayotzinapa

zocalob-383

The disappearance of 43 students in Ayotzinapa, and the revolutionary movement that has followed in its wake, marks the end of Mexico’s sham “transition to democracy”

What happened in Iguala, Guerrero, on the night of September 26? According to the government’s initial story, just an incident, horrible but isolated and the product of local causes: a handful of individuals acted badly and precipitated, by action or negligence, the death of six citizens and the forced disappearance of 43 student from a rural teachers college in Ayotzinapa. In another, less restrictive narrative—articulated by scholars and columnists and adopted within days by the government itself—it was a structural failure: a catastrophe serious enough to reveal all at once the dysfunction of the Mexican state and the need for thorough institutional reforms. But it is a different, and far more radical, narrative that has been been lighting up the streets and social networks for almost three months: what happened that night was an event, one of those watersheds that somehow escapes the chain of cause and effect and derails the course of history. Not a localized episode but a rupture that reveals a new horizon and divides time in two. Not a malfunction to be fixed, but an explosion that heralds the end of this order and the dawn of another.

These are the three stories competing to explain the crimes in Iguala. It is not an empty dispute: the legitimacy of political actors and their practices depends largely on the way those facts are translated into symbolizations. The government is already using the first two stories to their advantage. Those of us who see September 26 as the twilight of one epoch—and the protests that followed as the first rays of another—have a duty to promote the third narrative until it becomes hegemonic. As Alain Badiou has noted so often, one of our tasks is to remain faithful to the event, to the things we saw and felt during the pivotal days, once things seem to have gone back to “normal.” Another is to rigorously continue the intellectual work demanded by the event: rethinking our past and our future after Ayotzinapa. Because there is now a before and after Ayotzinapa.

In the light of Ayotzinapa, for example, Mexico’s recent past looks completely different. In theory, for the last twenty or thirty years the country has navigated a fortuitous “transition to democracy.” Guided by a series of now-iconic personalities, we have been carried from a closed authoritarian regime, with a single hegemonic party, to another one that is plural, open, democratic at last. Long before Ayotzinapa, everyday life revealed the strains in this theory and the limits of this “transition,” which did represent a political aperture but never came close to forging a viable, transparent, and inclusive democracy. Ayotzinapa has revealed something even more radical: not that the transition was insufficient, but that it never started. Look closer: what took place was a reform—more or less thorough, more or less effective—of the existing regime and not the transition to another. This is clear now that the PRI is back in power, Televisa still dominates the media, and neoliberal policies are intensified. Rather than the dismantling of one regime and the constitution of another, there was a kind of pact between the political class, the oligarchy, and the various entrenched interests to guarantee the modified continuity of the same political class, oligarchy, and entrenched interests. It’s not that the process was meaningless, just that it was much less profound than that its beneficiaries usually claim.

It follows that, contrary to some suggestions, the constellation of marches, actions, and protests that have followed the disappearance of the forty-three student-teachers is not a second wave of the transition. What we are living through is the transition—the possibility of a real transition. If the reformist campaign of the 1980s and 1990s in Mexico called for the democratization of institutions and mechanisms, the current multitude (a horizontal aggregation of singularities) has something bigger in its sights: the political class and the entrenched interests that have operated, currently operate, and intend to continue operating behind these mechanisms and institutions. In place of another negotiated reform, this multitude demands the suspension of the old agreements. In place of an accord which bargains certain changes for the persistence of the ruling class, they demand the recall of this class before anything else is decided. Not the reform of this regime but the constitution of another—this is the horizon that the event has disclosed.

Bureaucrats and columnists are already pressing the movement for clear demands and specific requests. Already certain academics, with the best of intentions, are proposing corrective measures and new government or citizen commissions that—whether they work or not—take for granted the endurance of the present regime. But for the multitude the state of emergency continues, and they remain, we might say, prediscursive and rightly refuse to fix a single negotiable agenda. Rather than translating itself into a discourse, the multitude spreads itself out again and again in a mass of desiring, irreducible, unassimilable bodies. This is the movement’s political logic: no deliberation—not yet—but permanent mobilization, which aims not to solve the crisis of this regime but to sharpen it. And this is exactly what is happening: each time the multitude erupts in the streets, the regime is shown to be more decrepit and authoritarian, stripped of the legitimacy it needs to justify the use of law enforcement. Anyway, why would the multitude negotiate with a regime that, after what happened in Iguala, they already consider obsolete?

There are those who insist that the demand for the president’s resignation is nothing but the whim of the most strident protestors, those who would have inflamed a “local incident” until it became a “coup.” The reality is the opposite: this demand—besides being democratic—is not a detour but the logical consequence of the political logic of the multitude, opposed, as we have seen, to the ruling class that has seized control of the state. Of course no one thinks the president’s resignation would be a panacea. It would not even be sufficient. It is scarcely the basic condition of the movement’s two principle objectives: unseating the political class and then calling them to account. Besides, whether or not Peña Nieto leaves office, a symbolic recall of authority has already occurred: for all who understand Ayotzinapa as an event—and there are millions of us—the president and his government are already the ancien régime. Even if for now they hang on and govern and repress, they are just the remnants of another time, already past, already obsolete.

Once the ancien régime is clearly a thing of the past, we will have to build a Mexico to come after Ayotzinapa—a Mexico in which, as a starting point, the conditions of possibility for another night like September 26 will not exist.

 

This Week in Art Crime

B45-RHHCQAABkwR

Clear Channel ad fixtures in the capital were hijacked by activists who opened the fixtures and inserted their own authentic-looking ads featuring the branding of the Metropolitan police.

The ads were designed by Strike! Magazine, although the publication denied responsibility for their distribution.

One ad, posted outside of New Scotland Yard, said: “You’re 28 times more likely to be stopped and searched in London if you don’t have white skin, because we’re still really racist.”

(via)

B40NiIEIMAA1SXB

Continue Reading