File Name: hardt and negri multitude .zip
It is this relation I want to understand. If Empire is ontologically productive, what is meant by Empire? Empire is a condition all of us are located within, all individuals, institutions and states. Empire is meant to take account of a radical shift, a break, the emergence of something new. To put it another way, a form of domination will always produce a form of resistance. The U. So the first claim is the following: Empire is not to be confused with imperialism.
The sovereignty of nation-states has declined; not sovereignty itself. It has taken a global form, which Hardt and Negri call Empire. Further, the proletariat itself has evolved.
The first terrain of struggle is, from this point of view, the universal right to move, work and learn on the whole global surface. The revolution that we see is then not only within Empire but also through Empire. The second claim could be presented in question and answer form: if international law and institutions such as the U.
Radically enough, the Negrian reply is: in the constituent power of the multitude itself. Negri has written often about his debt to Foucault, sometimes with criticisms, and it seems worthwhile to quote a statement he made defending just such a concept of power. On the contrary, his conception has never been circular, and in his analysis the determinations of power have never been trapped in a game of neutralisation. In Foucault, there are always material determinations, concrete meanings: there is no development that is levelled onto an equilibrium, so there is no idealist schema of historical development.
The production of subjectivity in particular, however produced and determined by power, always develops resistances that open up through uncontainable dispositifs.
What the concept of Empire has contributed to this idea is a kind of immanence of struggles and power. Given that definition of Empire, what then characterises the multitude? The problem here is that class is supposed to be not only a universal but a universalizing concept. Rather, it embraces such a concept. In rationalist and idealist fashion, relations are understood as a difference between essence and appearance or phenomenon.
This amounts to an essentialist denial of singularity. In this sense, politics is already inseparably bound up with ontology.
They are the multitude, and it is in order to express them that such a concept is articulated. Once we define the name of the multitude against the concept of the people, bearing in mind that the multitude is a whole of singularities, we must translate that name in the perspective of the body and clarify the dispositif of a multitude of bodies.
When we consider bodies, we not only perceive that we are faced with a multitude of bodies, but we also understand that each body is a multitude.
Intersecting the multitude, crossing multitude with multitude, bodies become blended, mongrel, hybrid, transformed; they are like sea waves, in perennial movement and reciprocal transformation. There is no possibility for a body to be alone.
It could not even be imagined. So what kind of 4 I thank Yoshihiko Ichida for this remark. Further, the false premise of national anti-globalism is that the global entails homogenisation and the imposition of a unified identity, whereas the local preserves heterogeneity and difference. But organic nationalism is the wrong response to the artificial hypocrisy of nation-building. The multitude must be able to decide if, when and where it moves.
It must have the right also to stay still and enjoy one place rather than being forced to be constantly on the move. Capitalism preaches the free open market and maintains populations behind walls and borders. The thesis of Empire is unlike, and even opposed to, the concepts of imperialism and anti-imperialism.
Here we come to properly ontological terrain. If Empire was already characterised by the immanence of struggles, the concept of multitude stresses the involvement of our cognitive and affective capacities abilities, potentials in such struggles. Ontology normally means something like a theory, implicit or explicit, of what is real, of which entities are granted reality.
But Negri very quickly seeks to reserve this standard, common-sensical acceptance of the relation between these two terms. Politics is given immediately; it is a field of pure immanence. Empire forms on this superficial horizon where our bodies and minds are embedded.
The neutralisation of the transcendental imagination is thus the first sense in which the political in the imperial domain is ontological. Empire constitutes the ontological fabric in which all power relations are woven together Hardt and Negri We are within Empire and cannot escape it, but our bodies and minds are its substance as well.
Notice that ontology thus understood is not the ontology we always encounter in the philosophy textbooks. Of course, the latter is not usually described as political in any case. Constitutive ontology plays a key role as a technical term in Negri and Negri , but is not easy to define.
Whether in the form of repression or of resistance, the two are inseparable. A Cartesian metaphysics of the body could deny this possibility, as could a Kantian doctrine of personhood.
Or to put it in more familiar terms: we are in anti-humanist territory. Except that Negri here writing with Hardt shrewdly points out that the denial of a human essence in favour of our own intellectual capacity to make and remake ourselves, is both a key trait of Renaissance humanism and of twentieth-century anti-humanism.
The latter need not conflict with the revolutionary spirit of Renaissance humanism. Both projects are founded on an attack on transcendence. The transcendence of God is simply transferred to Man. Like God before it, this Man that stands separate from and above nature has no place in a philosophy of immanence. Like God, too, this transcendent figure of Man leads quickly to the imposition of social hierarchy and domination Hardt and Negri Or rather, what is an antihumanist or posthuman humanism?
Spinoza denounced any understanding of humanity as an imperium in imperio. In other words, he refused to accord any laws to human nature that were different from the laws of nature as a whole.
If we are to conceive Man as separate from nature, then Man does not exist. This recognition is precisely the death of Man Hardt and Negri The death of Man is not just a metaphysical event — a shift in definitions of who we are at an abstract level — but also a historico-political event. This resonates well with the analyses of biotechnology in Rose Negri is not trying to author an exotic brand of cognitive science, but to insist that our cognitive mental, cerebral, affective activity is itself political.
These processes of transformation and self-transformation also, or in fact foundationally, concern the world of labour and technology. This consists. The multitude now has the capacity to take control of the new tools and became an operator of transformation. Not only because of a broad, politico-metaphysical claim about Empire and multitude as coextensive, but more concretely, because of transformations at the level of technology and labour itself.
Put rather broadly, The tool. We no longer need tools in order to transform nature. Language is the tool. Given this commonness, there is no longer a separation between brain and tool as two distinct entities. As for labour itself, what this implies is that technological innovations such as computers transform the production and circulation of commodities, including language, so they become completely integrated in capital: society itself, its communicative and cooperative dimension, is capital as such.
He suggests that, because of increasing use of automation and of developing networks of communication and transportation: [T]he production process has ceased to be a labour process in the sense of a process dominated by labour as its governing unity.
Labour appears rather as a conscious organ, scattered among the individual living workers at various points of the mechanical system; subsumed under the total process of the machinery itself, as itself only a link of the system, whose unity exists not in the living workers, but rather in the living active machinery, which confronts his individual, insignificant doings as a mighty organism ibid.
These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it ibid.
I can only indicate a few pistes de recherche. We have understood, I think, that ontology for Negri is something very different from a discourse on Being and beings.
All of these terms are radical, creative, or to use his own language, constitutive terms. To post-modernity Negri opposes the production of subjectivity. In order to designate it we need the old and new term element, in the same sense as this term was used to speak of water, air, earth and fire, i.
We are back at the Marxist emphasis on transformation. Nevertheless, one set of objections presented to Negri by Danilo Zolo, are useful to consider since they bring the concepts of Empire and multitude into sharper focus. Zolo makes a classic, and legitimate objection against Marxism, in three parts: i DIAMAT, and its claims to formulate scientific laws of the development of history; ii the 11 Thanks to Katja Diefenbach for pointing this out to me.
In Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri announced a new global paradigm that implied the shift from modern sovereignty to imperial sovereignty. Until now, they have developed a theoretical and political framework to account for the organization of multitude, a counter-Empire from below, to overcome the multiple and decentralized modes of domination characterizing Empire. This position has made it difficult to establish a deeper dialogue with other approaches like populism or left-populism by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, despite the relevant reflections and implications for populism contained in the work of Hardt and Negri. This article engages in a critical reading of populism from the Empire perspective where special focus is placed on the construction of incompatible dichotomies between globalization vs. After discussing tensions and issues to reconsider from both Empire and populist theory, the conclusion points to the application of a multi-scalar and intersectional approach to populism in order to enrich its conceptualization and solve some of its contradictions.
Multitude is a term for a group of people who cannot be classed under any other distinct category, except for their shared fact of existence. The term has a history of use reaching back to antiquity, but took on a strictly political concept when it was first used by Spinoza and reiterated by Machiavelli. The multitude is a concept of a population that has not entered into a social contract with a sovereign political body, such that individuals retain the capacity for political self-determination. A multitude typically is classified as a quantity exceeding For Hobbes the multitude was a rabble that needed to enact a social contract with a monarch, thus turning them from a multitude into a people.
Istanbul: Say Yayinlari, Paper, ytl 20, ISBN This edited volume purports to take up the concepts introduced by the Marxist political theorists Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri and to rethink various dimensions of world politics. Some of the contributions are more successful than others in fulfilling that promise.
To browse Academia. Skip to main content.
He was imprisoned on political charges from to and from to Between and , Negri lived in exile in Paris, where he continues to hold a university lectureship. Hardt and Negri re-introduce the concept of the "multitude"—taken from the seventeenth-century political philosophy of Hobbes, Spinoza, and others—in order to designate the collective subject that labors and struggles under Empire's global regime of exploitation. In exploring the transformations of art and culture in the age of Empire, the essay translated below touches on many of the central themes of Negri's recent work. A prime example of Negri's capacity for theoretical synthesis, the essay surveys the economic, political, and cultural developments of the past decades in order to trace them to the anthropological and ontological transformation that accompanies the transition from the system of Fordist nation-states to Empire. He is the German translator of Italian novelist and poet Nanni Balestrini. His critique of Antonio Negri's theory of post-Fordism is forthcoming in the online journal Ephemera.
There is a long tradition of modern critique dedicated to denouncing the dualisms of modernity. What has changed in the passage to the imperial world, however, is that the border no longer exists, and thus the modern critical strategy tends no longer to be effective. Hardt and Negri , p.
Теперь он уже бежал по узкому проходу. Шаги все приближались. Беккер оказался на прямом отрезке, когда вдруг улочка начала подниматься вверх, становясь все круче и круче. Он почувствовал боль в ногах и сбавил скорость. Дальше бежать было некуда.
И мы нашими совместными усилиями даже близко не подошли к математической функции меняющегося открытого текста. А вы хотите сказать, что какой-то панк с персональным компьютером придумал, как это сделать. Стратмор заговорил тише, явно желая ее успокоить: - Я бы не назвал этого парня панком. Но Сьюзан его не слушала. Она была убеждена, что должно найтись какое-то другое объяснение. Сбой.
Все повернулись вслед за. - Шифр-убийца? - переспросил Бринкерхофф. Джабба кивнул: - Да. Нужно ввести ключ, останавливающий червя. Все очень все .