Geopolitics of water paper online

The Ekers/Loftus paper on the geopolitics of water in Environment and Planning D: Society and Space has been posted online at globalpoliticsweblog. Not sure who is behind that blog or if they have per from sir!

Abstract. This paper develops an exchange between two important strands of research within contemporary human geography. One concerns the matter of socionatures; the other concerns the operation and establishment of power within liberal, capitalist social formations. Through mobilizing some of the recent writings on the political ecology of water, we seek to show how an engagement with Gramscian and Foucauldian work on power could be mutually beneficial for both areas of research. In so doing, we seek to mobilise some of the tensions, as well as the points of engagement, between Gramscian and Foucauldian approaches. Through opening up the ways in which water contributes to the survival of liberal capitalist formations and also to the production of distinctive subjectivities, this dialogue provides new inroads into the politics and praxis of everyday life.

Governmentality and UFOs?

Scott McLemee:

Lest anyone think this is the silly season, we turn with relief to the August issue of the journal Political Theory, where a major article finally addresses an issue too long ignored by candidates and scholars alike. “If academics’ first responsibility is to tell the truth,” write two political scientists, “then the truth is that after 60 years of modern UFOs, human beings still have no idea what they are, and are not even trying to find out. That should surprise and disturb us, and case doubt on the structure of rule that requires and sustains it.”

That argument boils down to a claim that UFO research has never achieved legitimacy because the very possibility of visitation by extraterrestrials poses too many problems for the implicit metaphysics of the nation-state.

Contemporary ideas about national sovereignty are quite thoroughly anthropocentric. That was not always the case. In the age of kings who ruled by divine right, the ultimate sovereign authority was embedded in God Himself. And if you lived in a community where shamans communicate regularly with bears or fish or the spirit of the mountain, then you would tend to think of nature itself as having, in effect, the franchise.

The modern sense of the nation-state rests on the assumption that politics is a strictly human process. Sovereignty – the ultimate authority to make decisions within a territory – is embodied in human agents.

Furthermore, a nation-state tends to develop mechanisms for keeping track of its own population – a series of institutions and bodies of knowledge devoted to monitoring the people who live within its borders, create its wealth, and obey its laws. (Or don’t, as the case may be.) The result is a grid of power and expertise sometimes designated by the rather unwieldy expression “governmentality,” coined by Michel Foucault.

McLemee points out that this is a contribution to the discipline of “agnotology” or the study of ignorance. The article (in the journal Political Theory) argues that the lack of knowledge about UFOs goes against the grain of this will to know.

Is this a weakness of governmentality (Foucault got it wrong), of governments (why is there no action to know?) or of UFO scholarship? The authors argue that our sovereignty is “anthropocentric” and therefore cannot encompass UFO research.

Foucault always said that there were disqualified knowledges that fail to rise to the level of science (he called them subjugated knowledges) that nevertheless trickle away in the background. From a government perspective therefore the will to know is not a totalising one.

As editor of a journal I wonder if I would have published this article? Well sure why not? The authors say in a rebuttal to some discussion that it went through 5 drafts and received 50 sets of comments (not sure what this means…obviously not 50 referees). The paper would surely generate interest.

Here’s something though that is more confusing:

Earlier versions of [our] paper in fact contained the beginnings of such a genealogy, but word limits and reviewers’ concerns that this section was too “sociological” for Political Theory, conspired to leave it on the editing room floor.

Genealogy is sociology? Now there’s a controversial suggestion!!

Foucault across the disciplines conference audio online

Earlier this year a conference on “Foucault across the disciplines” was held at Santa Cruz. Speakers included a pretty stellar cast of Foucault specialists and others who have drawn significantly on Foucault’s work including Ian Hacking, Paul Rabinow, Jana Sawicki, Arnold Davidson, and Donna Haraway working across a range of topics.

Here is the conference schedule with titles of presentations. Luckily for those who were unable to attend audio recordings are now available.

Program & Schedule

Saturday March 1
9:30-9:45: Introduction and Welcome
Colin Koopman, Conference Welcome
David Hoy, “Introduction: Foucault, Twenty-Five Years Later”

9:45-11:30: Panel: Foucault, Science, Media
Karen Barad, “Discontinuities, Phase Transitions, & Power Dynamics: When micro-physics goes nano”
Mark Poster, “Foucault, Deleuze, and New Media”
Donna Haraway, moderator

11:45-1:00: Address
Paul Rabinow, “Untimely & Inconsiderate Observations: Toward an Anthropology of Concepts, Practices and Venues”
James Clifford, moderator

1:00-2:00: Lunch Break

2:00-4:15: Panel: Foucault, Power, Politics
Hans Sluga, “Politics as Power Acting on Power”
Mark Bevir, “Anti-Foundational Approaches to Political Science”
James Ferguson, “Toward a Left Art of Government: From ‘Foucauldian Critique’ to Foucauldian Politics”
Vanita Seth, moderator

4:30-5:45: Address
Arnold Davidson, “In Praise of Counter-Conduct”
Teresa De Lauretis, moderator



Sunday March 2
9:30-11:15: Panel: Foucault, Discourse, Body
Mark Franko, “Archeological Choreographic Practices”
Hayden White, “Foucault Historian?”
Tyrus Miller, moderator

11:30-1:15: Panel: Foucault, Visuality, Truth
Catherine Soussloff, “Foucault and the Point of Painting”
Martin Jay, “Visual Parrhesia? Foucault and the Truth of the Gaze”
David Hoy, moderator

1:15-2:15: Lunch Break

2:15-3:45: Panel: Foucault, Subjectivity, Ethics
Jana Sawicki, “Foucault and Sexual Freedom: Why Embrace an Ethics of Pleasure?”
Amy Allen, “The Politics of Our Selves”
Carla Freccero, moderator

4:00-5:30: Address
Ian Hacking, “Déraison”
Paul Roth, moderator

(via Colin Koopman who organized the conference)

Foucault, science fiction and the “Bogdanov Affair”

This is the most obscure Foucault quote I know. In the late 1970s he was asked by a couple of sf researchers, Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff for his opinion on science fiction for a book they were doing (l’effet science-fiction, Éditions Robert Laffont, 1979).

Foucault responded by letter on March 6, 1977:

Tenir un discours sur la science-fiction ne me séduit pas. D’elle je ne connais rien. Absolument rien. Il ne me vient–et ne me viendra jamais, je le pense–aucun discours.

Pretty clear you would have thought, but just to make sure the brothers called him up on November 20, 1977 and he repeated:

Vous savez, la science-fiction, je n’y connais rien. Absolument rien…Elle me laisse sans discours.

So what is this book that they were able to interview not just Foucault but many of the leading personalities of the day (Baudrillard, Hergé, Ionesco, Lacan, Alvin Toffler, Salador Dali and even Yves Saint Laurent)? Here is their intro as translated by Marc Angenot:

We will start with the following hypothesis: everybody has got something to say about SF, everybody is ready to formulate some implicit or explicit definition of the genre. This would even be a distinctive feature of SF as a cultural phenomenon. You cannot interview people in the street about serial music, Islamic mysticism, classical prosody vs. free verse, or Lacanian psychoanalysis: you are likely to get 2% of more or less relevant answers and 98% of serene indifference. I. and G. Bogdanoff were convinced that, with SF, although people do not necessarily read any, it would be different, that everyone — rich and destitute, widow and orphan, cleric and layman, fortunate and unlucky, the youth and the veteran, the worthy and the unworthy, the prophet and the deceiver, the cultured and the illiterate, the soldier and the civilian, the heathen and the believer, the jester and the philosopher, the justice and the outlaw, the philanthropist and the misanthrope, Romeo and Juliet, David and Jonathan, the sound and the furious — everyone in this society is ready to make some statement, even if it be totally irrelevant, about SF. To prove their point, the Bogdanoffs endeavored to interview whoever has got a name in contemporary Europe: the Pope, the King of Belgians, Lévi-Strauss, Georges Marchais, etc. The first two did not fail to answer but cautiously eluded the Bogdanoffs’ curiosity; the last two remained extremely vague. But for dozens of other celebrities the question “what do you think of SF” provoked an unhesitating response — adorned with all commonplaces, confusions and absurdities that one might expect. That is what the Bogdanoffs, social psychologists despite themselves, call “The Sci-Fi Effect.” They conclude that SF (the word if not the “thing”) is a “social revealer.” It discloses present hopes, fears, anguishes, contradictions. The Bogdanoffs’ book is at the same time a pleasant picaresque novel about two amateur interviewers and their victims, a dictionary of idées reçues in Flaubert’s style, and a serious and valuable attempt at elucidating the sociocultural position and image of SF.

More recently these guys (tv celebs in France) were the eponymous characters in the “Bogdanov Affair” which is a kind of reverse “Sokal Affair.” They published papers in scientific journals with a new theory explaining the Big Bang that some physicists say were a hoax and comprised of pseudoscientific jargon (see wikipedia entry for more on the “affair, including details of how the French wikipedia entry on them had possibly been edited by they themselves). (The brothers deny their papers were a hoax.)

After reading the abstracts of both theses, German physicist Max Niedermaier concluded that the papers were pseudoscientific, consisting of dense technical jargon written to sound scientific without having real content. In Niedermaier’s view, the Bogdanovs had tried to prove the existence of weaknesses within the peer-review system, much in the same fashion that physicist Alan Sokal had published a deliberately fraudulent paper in the humanities journal Social Text. On 22 October 2002, Niedermaier wrote an email to this effect which was then widely distributed. An eventual recipient, the American mathematical physicist John Baez, created a discussion thread on the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics.research titled “Physics bitten by reverse Alan Sokal hoax?”[12] which quickly grew to hundreds of posts in length. This verbal wrangle soon attracted worldwide attention, both in the physics community and in the international popular press. Following Niedermaier, the majority of the participants in the Usenet discussion thread created by Baez also voiced the assumption that the work was a deliberate hoax, which the Bogdanov brothers have continued to deny.

It’s a long involved story which admittedly isn’t relevant to Foucault but I find the connection amusing. The whole Affair is certainly good for raising questions about the peer review process, something which as an editor I can’t ignore.

New issue of Society and Space

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space – volume 26 issue 4.

Guest editorial: Pakistan—an ungovernable space?

Robina Mohammad

The Shock Doctrine: a discussion

Naomi Klein, Neil Smith

The technological metaphysics of planetary space: being in the age of globalization

Mikko Joronen

Foucault’s spatial combat

Peter Johnson

The work of policy: actor networks, governmentality, and local action on climate change in Portland, Oregon

Ted Rutland, Alex Aylett

Out of rubble: natural disaster and the materiality of the house

Justin Wilford

On inscriptions and ex-inscriptions: the production of immediacy in a home telecare service

Daniel López, Miquel Domènech

Inventing seed: the nature(s) of intellectual property in plants

Thom van Dooren

The power of water: developing dialogues between Foucault and Gramsci

Michael Ekers, Alex Loftus

Space and protest policing at international summits

Mike Zajko, Daniel Béland

Acts of genocide

Christian Abrahamsson, Nigel Eltringham, Bülent Diken and Gunnar Olsson

Reviews

Minca on Agamben: Il potere e la gloria

Garrett on Edensor: Industrial ruins: space, aesthetics and materiality

Via Stuart Elden