David Bowie’s Hauntology

I’ve just had my paper accepted for the conference Uncanny Media in Utrecht, August 7-9. Below is the abstract, so I guess I’ll be posting more on music, gothic and hauntology at some point.

David Bowie’s now-defunct rock-opera trilogy’s first installment 1. Outside is filled with uncanny mediations of rock music’s chameleon. The inner sleeve booklet is titled The Diary of Nathan Adler, or the Ritual Art-Murder of Baby Grace Blue: A non-linear Gothic Drama Hyper-Cycle. Behind this long-winded title, is the story of a murder, narrated by several characters through both text, music and images.

Bowie, however, is the narrator of all these different voices, using technology to distort his voice into these different characters as separate entities. His voice and presence haunts the entire album in uncanny forms, just as all images in the booklet are distorted images of Bowie himself, made into uncanny doubles. The story begins with the murder of Baby Grace Blue, who is enacted by Bowie himself. Symbolically, Bowie is murdered by himself, while Baby Grace haunts the entire album’s Gothic and labyrinthine structure.

My paper will focus on the mediated double of David Bowie, his ventriloquist voice and simulacral presence as character, creator and ghost. I will problematize the notion of an outside to the album, focussing on what can be termed the album’s hauntological status.

Posted in Music | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Soft Machines and the Design of Perception

This weekend, I was at a succesful conference in Copenhagen, on the subject of “The Word Becoming Flesh”. It was organized by Circle 4 at Nordisk Sommer Universitet. I’m posting my talk here, after the cut. Right here, however, are the slides.

Read More »

Posted in Culture | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Celebrity Pastiche

It is this relationship between the old and new celebrity icons which is interesting. There is no parodic thrust to any of these shoots, but rather a desire to recreate, perhaps even channel or ressurect, the old icons. Margaret Rose refers to pastiche as reviving things from the past, without parody’s incongruous structure or comic effect (Rose, Parody). This seems to be a perfect description of these shoots, which also overlaps with Gerard Genette’s understanding of pastiche as imitative (Genette, Palimpsests).

Working from Genette’s definition, Linda Hutcheon points to the fact that pastiche functions as the desire for similarity rather than difference. (Hutcheon, A Theory of Parody). This is perfectly clear in the different shoots, as their main purpose is to draw a parallel between the new celebrity and the old, establishing a connection meant to increase the celebrity capital of the new icon.

Posted in Culture | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

FOAW

This blog is finally back, after far too long a hiatus. I want to follow up on a recommendation given to me by my once-collegue Camelia Elias; why share my thoughts freely here on my blog? I once wrote about why I blog, and some answers can be found there. However, there is another reason why I feel it is vital to share academic (or any other kind of) work. I will call this FOAW - free open academic work, obviously modeled after the acronym FOSS - free open source software. Free open source software is a concept mixed by two schools of thought, free software and open source software. Although there are differences, the basic ideal can be seen as the need for providing full and unlimited access to the code of a piece of software, and the right to study and modify said source. While free generally means free as in beer, the significant meaning is free as in speech.

Similar for free open academic work, which is what I’ll be discussing here. It is standard and proper practice for academics to present their sources and discuss agreements and disagreements in the open. What is generally not shared, are works in progress, course notes and similar academic bread-and-butter work. Some of the reasons for this is obvious and understandable: works in progress are not finished and may contain embarrassing mistakes, unclear rubbish and stuff that borders on plaigiarism if released because quotes haven’t been fully worked through. Course notes may be incomprehensible to others and include material that is copyright protected and cannot be shared publicly.

However, there are other less worthy reasons for doing the same things: a fear that people will steal your material, reduce your worth as teacher because others steal your ideas for groundbreaking courses, etc. In other words, we are dealing with a concern about academic capital: our research and our teaching (to a lesser extent) is what sell us to universities, provide us with research grants and get our conference papers accepted. A very understandable concern then arises that if we share our work, our value is decreased and we will lose our positions, grants and conference attendance. This view corresponds completely to typical, capitalist exchange.

Put in Althusserian terms, by reproducing academic labor power there is also a reproduction of submission to ruling ideology. An academic who does not share his or her work steps into this trap of submitting to an ISA which reduces academic thinking to a commodity like any other. Lack of sharing means viewing creative thinking and critical thinking as a commodity that can only be produced by the academic laborer, but still a commodity.

However, unlike regular commodities that are consumed, creative and critical thinking grows rather than diminishes when shared; they are not spread too thin, but instead (hopefully) inspire others to generate more creative and critical thinking. My argument is therefore a call for FOAW - free open academic work - which will not reduce academic capital, but instead produce more. As an academic who shares, it becomes possible to be a “bad subject” who rejects the ISA which reduces academic work to fixed-value commodities. I don’t agree with this view, and so will share my work. I don’t believe that this will create a perfect, ideal world, for there are also negative sides to sharing, which I need to think more carefully about. For now, let this stand as a call to more academic sharing - either in blogging form or any other.

Posted in Theory | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Subject and Ideology

Louis Althusser, in his essay “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” (which is available online here), argues for an interconnection between the subject and ideology. It is also here that he develops his basic argument for interpellation. The following is a brief discussion of this, but I’m not trying to be particularly innovative or say anything revolutionary. Just trying to wrap my head around his concepts.

Althusser is trying to work out the concept of reproduction, and how people accept the dominant order of the culture and society they live in. Much of what Althusser develops here, is later expanded by people such as Raymond Williams and Pierre Bourdieu. Reproduction, for Althusser as for Marx, is the necessary condition of production to take place. As Althusser states

To put this more scientifically, I shall say that the reproduction of labour power requires not only a reproduction of its skills, but also, at the same time, a reproduction of its submission to the rules of the established order, i.e. a reproduction of submission to the ruling ideology for the workers, and a reproduction of the ability to manipulate the ruling ideology correctly for the agents of exploitation and repression, so that they, too, will provide for the domination of the ruling class ‘in words’.

In other words, it is necessary to submit to the ruling ideology in order to be a “good worker”, and necessary to manipulate the ruling ideology in order to be a “good capitalist”. Ideology is for Althusser intimately tied up with skills and know-how, and he goes on to argue that it is not possible to learn one without the other:

I believe that the Ideological State Apparatus which has been installed in the dominant position in mature capitalist social formations as a result of a violent political and ideological class struggle against the old dominant Ideological State Apparatus, is the educational ideological apparatus.

Subjection - being subjected to (and a subject to) dominant ideology - is part of the educational system, which forms one example of what Althusser terms Ideological State Apparatus (ISA). The ISA is part of the State Apparatus, but does not function like the typical Repressive State Apparatus - ie. violence from police or military - but functions through ideology first, and violence later. In the case of the educational system, punishments only arrive if one does not follow the rules, but it is far more insidious in the way it encourages proper behavior by awarding good grades for those who follow the rules.

ISAs thus work mostly invisibly throughout society, and their work is done by ideolog, which is to say a particular way of addressing persons. Althusser begins by defining ideology in conjunction with Marx: “ideology is the system of the ideas and representations which dominate the mind of a man or a social group.” However, Althusser moves on from this definition to a much more complex, and much more interesting.

First of all, Althusser does away with the notion that ideology is located in society merely as a set of ideas. What makes ideology so pervasive, is the fact that it is material. He reverses the typical notion of saying that ideology leads to ritual practices, and instead argues that it is in fact the ritual practices which create and embody ideology in material actions:

I shall therefore say that, where only a single subject (such and such an individual) is concerned, the existence of the ideas of his belief is material in that his ideas are his material actions inserted into material practices governed by material rituals which are themselves defined by the material ideological apparatus from which derive the ideas of that subject.

It is here that interpellation emerges, from the way the individual is made into a subject by ideology:

all ideology hails or interpellates concrete individuals as concrete subjects, by the functioning of the category of the subject. This is a proposition which entails that we distinguish for the moment between concrete individuals on the one hand and concrete subjects on the other, although at this level concrete subjects only exist insofar as they are supported by a concrete individual. I shall then suggest that ideology ‘acts’ or ‘functions’ in such a way that it ‘recruits’ subjects among the individuals (it recruits them all), or ‘transforms’ the individuals into subjects (it transforms them all) by that very precise operation which I have called interpellation

Interpellation of the subject is thus exactly ideology, which is also what prompts Althusser to say that there is no outside to ideology, and at the same time there is no outside ideology.

What is sometimes misunderstood about Althusser, is the notion that there is no escape from the interpellation of ideology and the subject position offered. This is not exactly true, as Althusser states that when we act according to ideology and performs the material actions required of us, we are ‘good subjects’. However, it is possible to be a ‘bad subject’ which is of course to not perform ideology. They require the intervention of one of the detachments of the (Repressive) State Apparatus; military, police, etc.

While this seems to me obviously true, it also seems that this is one place where the ISA can take action just as much as the RSA. While the police will stop bad subjects who protest against capitalist ideology, such as in the WTO ‘riots’, there are plenty of cases where the ISA simply functions as ideological repression, such as generating the beliefs that sex before marriage is a sin, or that people with tattoos are criminals or whatever might be considered strictly legal but not within ruling ideology. Because of this, I will investigate the case of bad subjects in further posts.

Posted in Theory | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments