Virilio 7wS 1/8

Harvard 2012

***AFF ANSWERS

Virilio 7wS 2/8

Harvard 2012

SCIENCE TURN
Virilio miss s !" li# ra!i$% $a!&r o' ! ("$olo%) !"a! $"a$( s "&ma$i!)* His $ %a!iv do%ma!ism i%$or s !" im+or!a$( o' ! ("$olo%) 'or "&ma$i!)* , ll$ r- 200. critical theorist in the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, George Kneller Chair in the Philosophy of Education in the GSEI at UC
$%irilio, &ar, and 'echnology( ./0Folder,kell/1-ht)2 ,,34 So)e Critical Reflections*, illu)inations( the critical theory pro+ect, 5et I 6ant to argue in this study that %irilio

! "#ouglas, http(,,pages-gseis-ucla-edu,faculty,kellner,Illu)ina

has a fla6ed conception of technology that is e7cessi8ely one9sided and that )isses the e)ancipatory and de)ocrati:ing aspects of ne6 co)puter and )edia technologies - ;y argu)ent is that his 8ision of technology is o8erdeter)ined <y his intense focus on 6ar and )ilitary technology and that this optic dri8es hi) to predo)inantly negati8e and technopho<ic perspecti8es on technology per se- =o6e8er, precisely the one9sidedness and e7tre)ely critical discourse on 6ar and )ilitary technology , as 6ell as his reflections on 6ar, cine)a, technologies of representation and 8ision )achines, constitute so)e of the )ost 8alua<le aspects of his 6ork- Conse>uently, in the follo6ing pages I 6ill follo6 %irilio in pursuing 6hat he calls the ?riddle of technology? and interrogate his atte)pts to elucidate this conundru)- @o6here, ho6e8er, does %irilio directly theori:e technology in any syste)atic or sustained 6ay , although
reflections on it per)eate his analyses- 'hus, I 6ant to pro<e %irilioAs perspecti8es on technology to deter)ine the e7tent of his insight and use98alue, and to indicate 6hat I see as the li)itations of his perspecti8es- In this reading, %irilio

e)erges as one of the )a+or critics of 6ar, technology, and 8ision )achines in our ti)e, al<eit 6ith e7cessi8ely negati8e and e8en technopho<ic procli8itiesVirilio is s! + d i$ !" id a o' mili!ar) ! ("$olo%) !"a! is mir d i$ d)s!o+ia o' a((id $!s wi!"o&! (o$sid ri$% !" +osi!iv +ar!s o' ! ("$olo%)* , ll$ r- 200. critical theorist in the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, George Kneller Chair in the Philosophy of Education in the GSEI at UC
$%irilio, &ar, and 'echnology( ./0Folder,kell/1-ht)2 ,,34 So)e Critical Reflections*, illu)inations( the critical theory pro+ect, &ith the collapse of the So8iet Union and end of the Cold &ar, 6e are, as I argue <elo6, in a ne6 historical era 6hich

! "#ouglas, http(,,pages-gseis-ucla-edu,faculty,kellner,Illu)ina

%irilio has so far not ade>uately theori:ed- =e re)ains, in )y 8ie6, trapped in a )ode of technological deter)inis) and a perspecti8e on technology that e>uates technology 6ith )ilitary technology and pure 6ar - For %irilio, technology dri8es us, it i)pels us into ne6 )odes of speed and )otion, it carries us along predeter)ined tra+ectorie s- =e <elie8es that( the >uestion, ?Can 6e do
6ithout technologyB? cannot <e asked as such- &e are forced to e7pand the >uestion of technology not only to the su<stance produced, <ut also to the accident produced-

'he riddle of technology 6e 6ere talking a<out <efore is also the riddle of the accident? "%irilio and otringer C1DE( EC9E/2%irilio clai)s that e8ery technology in8ol8es its acco)panying accident( 6ith the in8ention of the ship, you get the ship 6reckF the plane <rings on plane crashesF the auto)o<ile, car accidents, and so on- For %irilio, the technocratic 8ision is thus one9sided and fla6ed in that it postulates a perfect technological syste), a sea)less cy<ernetic real) of instru)entality and control in 6hich all processes are deter)ined <y and follo6 technological la6s "3audrillard also, to so)e e7tent, reproduces this cy<ernetic and technological i)aginary in his 6ritingsF see Kellner C1D1<2- In the real 6orld, ho6e8er, accidents are part and parcel of technological syste)s, they e7pose its li)itations , they su<8ert idealistic 8isions of technology- !ccidents are conse>uently, in %irilioAs 8ie6, an
integral part of all )odes of transportation, industrial production, 6ar and )ilitary organi:ation, and other technological syste)s- =e suggests that in science a =all of !ccidents should <e put ne7t to each =all of ;achines( ?E8ery technology, e8ery science should choose its specific accident, and re8eal it as a product99not in a )oralistic, protectionist 6ay "safety first2, <ut rather as a product to <e Aepiste)o9technicallyA >uestioned- !t the end of the nineteenth century, )useu)s e7hi<ited )achines( at the end of the t6entieth century, I think 6e )ust grant the for)ati8e di)ensions of the accident its rightful place in a ne6 )useu)? "%irilio and otringer C1DE2-GHI

%irilio is fascinated as 6ell <y interruptions ranging fro) sleep to day drea)s to )aladies like picnolepsy or epilepsy to death itself "C11Ca and %irilio and otringer C1DE( EEff2- Interruption is also a properly cine)atic 8ision in 6hich ti)e and space are artificially parcelled and is close to the )icroscopic and frag)ented 8ision that yotard identifies 6ith ?the post)odern condition? "%irilio and otringer C1DE( EH2- For %irilio, the cine)a sho6s us that ?consciousness is an effect of )ontage? "%irilio and otringer C1DE(
EH2, that perception itself organi:es e7perience into discontinuous frag)ents, that 6e are a6are of o<+ects and e8ents in a highly discontinuous and frag)ented )ode-

Ev $ i' !" ) do$/! 0+li(i!l) r 1 (! ! ("$olo%)- !" ir ar%&m $! &$d rmi$ s +&#li( 'ai!" i$ ! (" RA2AN 2003 "%aradara+a, 3achelorAs and ;asterAs degrees in Physics and ;athe)atics fro) the Uni8ersity of Calcutta <efore doing his doctoral 6ork on the
@e7t there pro6ess to sho6

foundations of >uantu) )echanics at the Uni8ersity of Paris Glo<al Spiral, Jan /E, http(,,666-)etane7us-net,;aga:ine,!rticle#etail,ta<id,KD,id,C0KLD,#efault-asp72

are philosophical reasons for the anti9science )o8e)ents, for)ulated <y thinkers 6ho <ring their full logical that a fra)e6ork <ased on logic alone is untena<le- 'hey e7plore the fla6s in the foundations of scientific thinking, and >uestion scienceAs clai) to hold )onopoly for a correct interpretation of the natural 6orld- 'hese are interesting perspecti8es in the acade)ic arena, <ut 6hen they spill o8er to the general pu<lic and uproot the pu<licAs respect for science, they can cause serious da)age to the fra)e6ork of reason and rationality in 6hich science operates in its interpretation of the 6orld- &hen reason and rationality are de8alued or are e>uated 6ith unreason in our pursuit to e7plain the 6orld, superstition and )indless )agic can take o8er 6ith serious ad8erse i)pacts on society- Societies 6hich are persuaded that rationality can <e dispensed 6ith can do i))ense har) to their peoples- In this sense philosophical anti9science is perhaps the )ost dangerous of all -

Virilio 7wS Harvard 2012 ./8 W s"o&ld &s ! ("$olo%) !o r ma4 "&ma$i!)5solv s all o!" r im+a(!s 67STR72 2003 "@ick, M7ford Uni8ersity, Faculty of Philosophy, 'he Glo<al Spiral, Fe< H,
http(,,666-)etane7us-net,)aga:ine,ta<id,KD,id,C0KDL,#efault-asp72

'he prospect of posthu)anity is feared for at least t6o reasons- Mne is that the state of <eing posthu)an )ight in itself <e degrading, so that <y <eco)ing posthu)an 6e )ight <e har)ing oursel8es- !nother is that posthu)ans )ight pose a threat to $ordinary* hu)ans- "I shall set aside a third possi<le reason, that the de8elop)ent of posthu)ans )ight offend so)e supernatural <eing-2 'he )ost pro)inent
<ioethicist to focus on the first fear is eon Kass( ;ost of the gi8en <esto6als of nature ha8e their gi8en species9specified natures( they are each and all of a gi8en sort- Cockroaches and hu)ans are e>ually <esto6ed <ut differently natured- 'o turn a )an into a cockroachNas 6e donOt need Kafka to sho6 usN6ould <e dehu)ani:ing- 'o try to turn a )an into )ore than a )an )ight <e so as 6ell- &e need )ore than generali:ed appreciation for natureOs gifts- &e need a particular regard and respect for the special gift that is our o6n gi8en nature-H

'ranshu)anists counter that natureOs gifts are so)eti)es poisoned and should not al6ays <e accepted- Cancer, )alaria, de)entia, aging, star8ation, unnecessary suffering, cogniti8e shortco)ings are all a)ong the presents that 6e 6isely refuse- Mur o6n species9specified natures are a rich source of )uch of the thoroughly unrespecta<le and unaccepta<leNsuscepti<ility for disease, )urder, rape, genocide, cheating, torture, racis)- 'he horrors of nature in general and of our o6n nature in particular are so 6ell docu)entedK that it is astonishing that so)e<ody as distinguished as eon Kass should still in this day and age <e
6e 6ould still <e picking lice off each otherOs <acks- Rather

te)pted to rely on the natural as a guide to 6hat is desira<le or nor)ati8ely right- &e should <e grateful that our ancestors 6ere not s6ept a6ay <y the Kassian senti)ent, or

than deferring to the natural order, transhu)anists )aintain that 6e can legiti)ately refor) oursel8es and our natures in accordance 6ith hu)ane 8alues and personal aspirations -

Cri!i8&i$% ! ("$olo%) #as d o$ !" so(ial 'or( s !"a! s&rro&$d i! s!ill amo&$!s !o !o!al r 1 (!io$ HU9HES 200: "Ja)es, Ph-#-, Pu<lic Policy Studies at 'rinity College, $#e)ocratic 'ranshu)anis) /-0,* ast ;od Jan /K,
http(,,666-changesurfer-co),!cad,#e)ocratic'ranshu)anis)-ht)2 First, left

uddis) inappropriately e>uates technologies 6ith the po6er relations around those technologies technologies open up ne6 possi<ilities for <oth e7panded li<erty and e>uality, +ust as they open ne6 opportunities for oppression and e7ploitation- Since the technologies 6ill )ost likely not <e stopped, de)ocrats need to engage 6ith the), articulate policies that )a7i)i:e social <enefits fro) the technologies, and find li<eratory uses for the technologies- If <iotechnology is to <e re+ected si)ply <ecause it is a product of capitalis), adopted in class society, then e8ery technology )ust <e re+ected- 'he )ission of the eft is to assert de)ocratic control and priorities o8er the de8elop)ent and i)ple)entation of technology- 3ut esta<lishing de)ocratic control o8er technological inno8ation is not the sa)e as uddis)- In fact, to the e7tent that ad8ocates for the de)ocratic control of technology do not guarantee <enefits fro) technology, and atte)pt to suppress technology altogether, they 6ill lose pu<lic support'echnologies do not deter)ine po6er relations, they )erely create ne6 terrains for organi:ing and struggle- ;ost ne6

Virilio/s ! ("$o+"o#ia do s$/! a++r (ia! !" +osi!iv +ar!s o' ! ("$olo%)- w"i(" s!o+s !" o+!imis!i( +ro%r ssio$ o' so(i !) , ll$ r- 200. critical theorist in the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, George Kneller Chair in the Philosophy of Education in the GSEI at UC ! "#ouglas, %irilio critici:es the discourses of technophilia, that 6ould cele<rate technology as sal8ation, that are totally positi8e 6ithout critical reser8ations, <ut he hi)self is e>ually one9sided, de8eloping a highly technopho<ic and negati8e discourse that fails to articulate any positi8e aspects or uses for ne6 technologies, clai)ing that negati8e and critical discourses like his o6n are necessary to counter the o8erly opti)istic and positi8e discourses- In a sense, this is true and +ustifies %irilioAs predo)inantly technopho<ic discourse, <ut raises >uestions concerning the ade>uacy of %irilioAs perspecti8es on technology as a 6hole and the e7tent to 6hich his 6ork is of use in theori:ing the ne6 technologies 6ith their )o)entous and dra)atic transfor)ation of e8ery aspect of our social and e8eryday lifehe has not really unra8elled the riddle of technology 6hich 6ould ha8e to interrogate its fascination, po6er, and co)ple7ity, and not +ust its negati8ity-

$%irilio, &ar, and 'echnology( So)e Critical Reflections*, illu)inations( the critical theory pro+ect, http(,,pages-gseis-ucla-edu,faculty,kellner,Illu)ina ./0Folder,kell/1-ht)2 ,,34 5et %irilio has ne8er really theori:ed technology per se, and uses the sa)e )odel and categories to analy:e 6ar technology to characteri:e ne6 infor)ation technology- 'hus,

Virilio 7wS ;/8

Harvard 2012

A<T 6A=/I2>ACT TURNS

Virilio/s !" or) is$/! %ro&$d d i$ r ali!) or "is!or)? "is $ %a!ivi!) i$ "is +"iloso+") (r a! s a '&!&r wi!"o&! "&ma$i!)* , ll$ r- 200. critical theorist in the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, George Kneller Chair in the Philosophy of Education in the GSEI at UC ! "#ouglas,
$%irilio, &ar, and 'echnology( ./0Folder,kell/1-ht)2 ,,34 So)e Critical Reflections*, illu)inations( the critical theory pro+ect,

http(,,pages-gseis-ucla-edu,faculty,kellner,Illu)ina

S"rill) ! ("$o+"o#i( a$d (o$sis! $!l) ")s! ri(al , %irilio de)oni:es )odern infor)ation and co))unication technologies, suggesting that they are do irrepara<le da)age to the hu)an <eing - So)eti)es o8er9the9 top rhetorical, as in the passage +ust cited, %irilioAs C110As co))ents on ne6 infor)ation technology suggest that he is deploying the sa)e )odel and )ethods to analy:e the ne6 technologies that he used for 6ar technology - =e speaks regularly of an ?infor)ation <o)<? that is set to
e7plode "C11Ha, C11H<, C11Hc, C11La, and C11L<2, e8oking the specter of ?a choking of the senses, a loss of control of reason of sorts? in a flood of infor)ation and attendant disinfor)ation- #eploying his earlier argu)ent concerning technology and the accident, %irilio argues that the infor)ation superhigh6ay is +ust 6aiting for a )a+or accident to happen "C11Ha and C11H<F C11La and C11L<2, 6hich 6ill <e a ne6 kind of glo<al accident, effecting the 6hole glo<e, ?the accidents of accidents? "Epicurus2( ?'he stock )arket collapse is )erely a slight prefiguration of it- @o<ody has seen this generali:ed accident yet- 3ut then 6atch out as you hear talk a<out the Afinancial <u<<leA in the econo)y( a 8ery significant )etaphor is used here, and it con+ures up 8isions of so)e kind of cloud, re)inding us of other clouds +ust as frightening as those of Cherno<yl---? "C11H<2- In a C11H inter8ie6 6ith Ger)an )edia theorist Friedrich Kittler "C11Hc2, titled ?'he infor)ation 3o)<,? %irilio dra6s an analogy <et6een the nuclear <o)< and the ?infor)ation <o)<,? talking a<out the dangers of ?fallout? and ?radiation? fro) <oth- In contrast to the )ore dialectical Kittler,

%irilio co)es off as e7ceedingly technopho<ic in this e7change and illicitly, in )y 8ie6, deploys an a)alga) of )ilitary and religious )etaphors to characteri:e the 6orld of the ne6 technologies - In one e7change, %irilio clai)s that ?a caste of technology9)onks is co)ing up in our ti)es,? and ?there e7ist )onasteries "of sorts 6hose goal it is to pa8e the 6ay for a "kind of2 Aci8ili:ationA that has nothing to do 6ith ci8ili:ation as 6e re)e)<er it-? 'hese )onks are a8atars of a ?technological funda)entalis)? and ?infor)ation )onotheis),? a 6orld98ie6 that replaces pre8ious hu)anist and religious 6orld8ie6s, displacing )an and god in fa8or of technology- G'his 6orld98ie6I co)es into <eing in a totally independent )anner fro) any contro8ersy- It is the outco)e of an intelligence 6ithout reflection or past- !nd 6ith it goes 6hat I think as the greatest danger "of all2, the derail)ent, the sliding do6n into the utopian, into a future 6ithout hu)ani ty- !nd that is 6hat 6orries )e- I <elie8e that 8iolence, nay hyper8iolence, springs out of this funda)entalis)- %irilio goes on to clai) that fallout fro) the ?infor)ation <o)<? 6ill <e as lethal for the socius as Mne 6onders, ho6e8er, if the discourse of ?sin,? ?e8il,? and ?funda)entalis)? is appropriate to characteri:e the effects and uses of ne6 technologies 6hich are, contrary to %irilio, hotly and 6idely de<ated, hardly )onolithic, and, in )y 8ie6, highly a)<iguous, )i7ing 6hat )ight <e appraised as positi8e and negati8e features and effectsthe infor)ation re8olution are guilty of ?sins in technical funda)entalis), of 6hich 6e 6itness the conse>uences, the e8il effects, today-?

nuclear <o)<s, destroying social )e)ory, relations, traditions, and co))unity 6ith an instantaneous o8erload of infor)ation- 'hus, the technological ?)onks? 6ho pro)ote

Virilio/s (ri!i8& o'' rs a o$ sid d (ri!i(al !" or) &$a#l !o &$d rs!a$d mod r$ ! ("$olo%) @ $o al! solv $() S! v $so$ 2 A Ph# in social sciences fro) Ca)<ridge Uni8ersity, professor of social sciences at the Uni8ersity of @ottingha), UK "@ick, $Understanding ;edia
what Virilio calls a political economy of speed is such that at times he sounds as though the only way of resisting the totalitarian ambitions of technology is through technological abstinence. The political trajectory of such a position is both conservative and reactionary. nlike say !astells" %irilioAs politics and social

Cultures( Social 'heory and ;ass Co))unication-* /00/2 ,,lf I. The most obvious limitation of Virilio's approach is his pronounced techno-phobia. To give one example amongst the many available in his work. The development of

theory fail to appreciate the 6ays in 6hich conte)porary society and culture has <een unaltera<ly transfor)ed <y the i)pact of ne6 technology- There is then a lingering sense within Virilio's writing of a possible return to a society with low levels of technological development. &hile such 8ie6s )ay indeed for) part of a resistance to certain features of contemporary media and social development, they can hardly <e e7pected to generate a sustaina<le political perspecti8e 6orking 6ithin the contradictions and a)<i8alences of the present. Indeed Virilio's position on the information society often comes close to the nco-#uddism described by !astells $%&&'b(. )ithin this %irilio )isses the opportunity to think )ore constructi8ely as to ho6 ne6 technologies )ight <eco)e utilised <y inclusi8e for)s of social de8elop)ent- That is" if a globally sustainable planetary economy is to become possible it will be built through the new information technologies" not their abolition. The main problem here being that %irilio offers an e7cessi8ely onesided 8ie6 of technology 6hich Asu<stitutes )oralising criti>ue for social analysis and political action ' $*cllner" +,,,(. The development of the media of mass
communications has gradually seen the decline of print as the dominant form of communication and the rise of an audio-visual domain. Virilio links the visualisation of the media into narratives of decline where our perceptions of reality are progressively undermined by a speed culture. -s I have indicated" %irilio tends to see progressi8e political possi<ilities in re8ersing

this process, 6ith hu)an populations <etter a<le to )ake contact 6ith others through face9to9face co))unication and print cultures- &hile there is )uch that could <e said on the superficiality of )uch 8isual culture and its progressi8e under)ing of literate cultures, such an analysis is too s6eeping- The popularisation of the media"
which has accompanied the rise of television and its increasingly visual nature of media cultures" has also made public cultures and associated debates open to a greater number of people.

&hile the 8isualisation of )edia cultures can indeed <e linked into narrati8es of control and sur8eillance in the 6ay that %irilio suggests, it can e>ually <e connected into a progressi8e de)ocra9tisation of e8eryday life- The visual

Virilio 7wS B/8

Harvard 2012

bias of much media and communication provides social movements with considerable opportunities to interrupt the flow of dominant media messages" by staging dramatic media events and engaging in image manipulation. )e can make a similar argument in respect of the development of the .et. -s /ahlgren $+,,%( has argued the partial displacement of hierarchical forms of information that the .et makes available confuses the boundaries between who is and who is not a journalist. )hile these arguments have been carried too far by some .et enthusiasts the possibilities that 'ordinary0 people have for constructing their own sites of images" information and discourse is greatly enhanced by the arrival of new media. 1eemingly these and other democratic possibilities are missed by a criti2ue which offers an overly one-sided view of new media technologies. 3-

%irilio, as I have indicated" seeks to )ake a positi8e 8irtue out of his pessi)istic reflections on ne6 )edia- 4is argument positions him firmly against those who would argue in favour of the potentially liberating promise of the web. 4owever 5ark 6oster $%&&1" %&&7" %&&8( argues that such reflections actually spell the ina<ility of critical theory to understand the significance of ne6 )edia- 'hat is, critical theory is o8er6hel)ingly concerned 6ith 6hether or not the )edia li)it or foster autono)ous social relations, rather than in8estigating the 6ays in 6hich )edia )ight constitute ne6 su<+ect positions- 9or 6oster $%&&:;+<( what is at stake is not the way new media help foster domination or resistance" but 'a broad and extensive change in the culture" in the way identities are structured'. That is virtual reality helps evoke new possibilities for the imagination given its e)phasis upon
play" simulation and discovery. The enthusiasm for the .et. then" is not an escape from reality" but from the dominant codes of modernity which sought to articulate a view of the subject as autonomous and rational. )ithin virtual com-munities subjects are able to explore the boundaries of different identity formations while pleasurably entering into previously unexplored imaginary worlds. It is new media's relatively decentralised structure that potentially turns everyone into a producer and a consumer of information that constitutes subjects as multiple and unstable. These possibilities dispense with the opposition between a 'real' and fictitious' community and enable participants to express themselves without the usual visual clues and markers. 1uch a siruation encourages the proliferation of local narratives" the experience of different realities and a diversity of knowledges. -gain if i t

is the unfixing of subject positions that excites 6oster it is the escape from reality that seems to bother Virilio. The problem being that such is the strength of Virilio's repudiation of new media he leaves unexplored the positions of those who have become its most enthusiastic advocates. .otable here is Virilto'sdismissal of cyberfeminism. The limitations of this particular mixture of theoretical and political concerns aside" Virilio argues that cyberfeminism is a dead-end" given that it seems to celebrate 'the replacement of emotions by electrical impulses' $-rmitagc. +,,,b; :% =. )hat is notable here is %irilioAs resistance to the idea that cy<ercultures could i)pact

upon )odern identity for)ations in 6ays 6hich are not al6ays reduci<le to hu)ans <eing in8aded <y the destructi8e logics of technology- Such a position, then, fails to engage 6ith the )ore a)<i8alent and )ore culturally co)ple7 features of identity politics in respect of the @et- <. 9inally" )issing fro) %irilioAs argu)ent is an account of the 6ay in 6hich ne6 )edia )ay <eco)e linked into the contestation of cultural identity- Virilio's analysis
offers a picture of human subjectivity increasingly limited and crippled by the impact of technology. 4ere there is a strong family resemblance between Virilio and a host of cultural critics who argue that humanistic sensibilities are currently under attack by a technologically determined present $>os?ak" %&'7(. 1uch perspectives offer specific narratives of decline" where more 'authentic' cultures are gradually replaced by technologically induced sensibilities. The development of what 6ostman $%&&3( calls a technopoly is ushered into place when common cultures arc progressively shaped by the re2uirements of technology. - technopoly displaces 2uestions of cultural value and 2uality by championing efficiency" objective measurement and 2uantity. Virilio's radicalness comes in taking these arguments further by suggesting such is technology's dominance over culture that it is actually pushing global societies ever closer to their own destruction. )ithout wishing to dismiss these perspectives out of hand" such viewpoints have a conservative bent and often underestimate the extent to which popular cultures are capable of sustaining a diverse range of tastes and sensibilities. Indeed" if we follow these critical points we might ask what is the social basis for technophobiar -ndrew >oss $%&&<( argues that technophobia amongst intellectuals and experts can be connected to a fear that the development of technology wilt erode their traditional status and store of cultural capital. This fear $which is

%irilio does not de)onstrate sufficient refle7i8ity in atte)pting to position his analysis 6ithin a 6ider social field- Put differently, 6e )ight argue that <ecause %irilio fails to consider ho6 his concerns can <e linked to a traditional kno6ledge class, he there<y neglects to analy:e different identity for)ations to his o6nnot without basis( is that the knowledge economy re2uires the creation of an obedient" instrumental and efficient knowledge class. )hile these arc important considerations.

Virilio/s !o!aliCi$% (ri!i(ism %iv s i$divid&als $o a% $() or +oli!i(s* 6) (ri!i8&i$% ! ("$olo%)Virilio is o$l) a doomsa) r !"a! is$/! o+ $ !o s !"a! i$'orma!io$ a$d s+ d is 4 ) !o !" (o$om) a$d !" mili!ar)* , ll$ r- 200. critical theorist in the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, George Kneller Chair in the Philosophy of Education in the GSEI at UC ! "#ouglas,
$%irilio, &ar, and 'echnology( ./0Folder,kell/1-ht)2 ,,34 So)e Critical Reflections*, illu)inations( the critical theory pro+ect,

http(,,pages-gseis-ucla-edu,faculty,kellner,Illu)ina

%irilio )isses a key co)ponent of the dra)a of technology in the present age and that is the titanic struggle <et6een national and international go8ern)ents and corporations to control the structure, flo6s, and content of the ne6 technologies in contrast to the struggle of indi8iduals and social groups to use the ne6 technologies for their o6n purposes and pro+ects- 'his optic posits technology as a contested terrain, as a field of struggle <et6een co)peting social groups and indi8iduals trying to use the ne6 technologies for their o6n pro+ects #espite his hu)anis), there is little agency or politics in %irilioAs conceptual uni8erse and he does not delineate the struggles <et6een 8arious social groups for the control of the ne6 technologies and the ne6 politics that they 6ill produce- Si)ply <y da)ning, de)oni:ing and conde)ning ne6 technologies, %irilio su<stitutes )oralistic criti>ue for social analysis and political action, reducing his analysis to a la)ent and +ere)iad rather than an ethical and political criti>ue la Ellul and his tradition of Catholic criti>ue of conte)porary ci8ili:ation, or critical social theory- %irilio has no theory of +ustice, no politics to counter, reconstruct, reappropriate, or transfor) technology, no counterforces that can oppose technology- 'hus, the increasing shrillness of his la)ent, the rising hysteria, and sense of futile i)potence&hile %irilioAs take on technology is e7cessi8ely negati8e and technopho<ic, his 6ork is still of i)portance in understanding the great transfor)ation currently under6ay- Clearly, speed and the instantaneity and si)ultaneity of infor)ation are )ore i)portant to the ne6 econo)y and )ilitary than e8er <efore, so %irilioAs reflections on speed, technology, politics, and culture are e7tre)ely rele8ant- 5et he see)s so far to ha8e inade>uately conceptuali:ed the enor)ous changes 6rought <y an infotain)ent society and the ad8ent of a ne6 kind of )ulti)edia infor)ation9entertain)ent technolog y- If )y hunch is correct, his 8ie6 of technology and speed is integrally structured <y his intense focus on 6ar and the

Virilio 7wS Harvard 2012 :/8 )ilitary, 6hile his entire )ode of thought is a for) of )ilitary9technological deter)inis) 6hich forces hi) not only to o8erlook the i)portant role of capital, <ut also the co)ple7 a)<iguities, the )i7ture of positi8e and negati8e features, of the ne6 technologies no6 proliferating and changing e8ery aspect of society and culture in the present era-

Virilio 7wS 7/8

Harvard 2012

INF7/S>EE= 977=
I$(r as s i$ i$'orma!io$ is %ood- i! o+ $s &+ s+a( s 'or +oli!i(s a$d so(ial i$! ra(!io$s 'or al! r$a!iv + rs+ (!iv s* T"is (r a! s a mor i$(l&siv (omm&$i!) !"a! wo&ld$/! # +ossi#l wi!" Virilio/s d mo$iCi$% (ri!i(ism* , ll$ r- 200. critical theorist in the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, George Kneller Chair in the Philosophy of Education in the GSEI at UC ! "#ouglas,
$%irilio, &ar, and 'echnology( ./0Folder,kell/1-ht)2 ,,34 3ut 6hile So)e Critical Reflections*, illu)inations( the critical theory pro+ect,

http(,,pages-gseis-ucla-edu,faculty,kellner,Illu)ina

there are still threats to 6orld peace and e8en hu)an sur8i8al fro) the dark forces of )ilitary capitalis), one of the surprising e8ents of the past decade is the e)ergence of a ne6 for) of ;icrosoft capitalis), of less lethal and )ore decentrali:ed ne6 technologies, of ne6 )odes of peaceful connection and co))unication- 'he pro+ect of this ne6 for) of technocapitalis) is the de8elop)ent of an infor)ation9 entertain)ent society that 6e )ight call the infotain)ent society and 6hich is so)eti)es descri<ed as the ?infor)ation superhigh6ay-? 'his for) of capitalis) is a softer capitalis), a less 8iolent and destructi8e one, a )ore ecological )ode of social organi:ation, <ased on )ore fle7i<le, s)aller9scale, and )ore ludic technologies-GKI 'he differences <et6een hard )ilitary capitalis) and a softer ;icrosoft capitalis) are e8ident in the transfor)ation of the co)puter fro) a top9do6n, highly centrali:ed, speciali:ed )achine controlled <y <ig organi:ations to the s)aller scale, )ore fle7i<le, and )ore ludic personal co)puter "see 'urkle C11K for ela<oration of this distinction2- ;oreo8er, the surprising de8elop)ent of the Internet opens up ne6 pu<lic spheres and the possi<ility of political inter8ention <y groups and indi8iduals e7cluded fro) political dialogue during the era of 3ig ;edia, controlled <y the state and giant corporations "for ela<oration of this argu)ent see Kellner C11H, C11K, and forthco)ing2- Mf course, ;icrosoft
capitalis) has its o6n dangers ranging fro) econo)ic 6orries a<out near9)onopoly control of econo)ic de8elop)ent through soft6are do)ination to the dangers of indi8iduals getting lost in the proliferating terrains of cy<erspace and the attendant decline of indi8idual autono)y and initiati8e, social relations and interaction, and co))unity- 5et the infotain)ent

society pro)ises )ore connections, interactions, co))unication, and ne6 for)s of co))unity- 'he pro+ect is in far too early stages to <e a<le to appropriately e8aluate so for no6 6e should rest content to a8oid the e7tre)es of technopho<ia 6hich 6ould re+ect the ne6 technologies out of hand as ne6 for)s of alienation or do)ination contrasted to technophilic cele<rations of the infor)ation superhigh6ay as the road to a co)putopia of infor)ation, entertain)ent, affluence, and de)ocracy-

Virilio 7wS 8/8

Harvard 2012

>ER2/A<T 6A=
Virilio/s ss $!ialiCi$% (ri!i(ism 'ails wi!"o&! a (o$$ (!io$ !o +oli!i(s* Wi!"o&! o+ $$ ss !o ! ("$olo%)- "is 'law d ass&m+!io$s ov rloo4 !" val& o' !" mili!ar) a$d i$$ova!io$ i$ ! ("$olo%)* , ll$ r- 200. critical theorist in the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, George Kneller Chair in the Philosophy of Education in the GSEI at UC ! "#ouglas,
$%irilio, &ar, and 'echnology( ./0Folder,kell/1-ht)2 ,,34 So)e Critical Reflections*, illu)inations( the critical theory pro+ect,

http(,,pages-gseis-ucla-edu,faculty,kellner,Illu)ina

3y esche6ing critical social theory, %irilio does not ha8e the resources to theori:e the co)ple7 relations <et6een capital, technology, the state, and )ilitary in the present age, su<stituting a highly elusi8e and e8ocati8e )ethod for syste)atic theoretical analysis and criti>ue- %irilio hi)self ackno6ledges his elusi8e and suggesti8e approach to
Foucault )ore than I like hi)? "%irilio and otringer C1DE( ED9E12- Indeed, %irilioAs

6riting, noting( ?I donAt <elie8e in e7planations- I <elie8e in suggestions, in the o<8ious >uality of the i)plicit- 3eing an ur<anist and architect, I a) too used to constructing clear syste)s, )achines that 6ork 6ell- I donAt <elie8e itAs 6ritingAs +o< to do the sa)e thing- I donAt like t6o9and9t6o9is9four9type 6riting- 'hatAs 6hy, finally, I respect

style is e7tre)ely telescopic, leaping fro) topic to topic 6ith alacrity, +u7taposing defuse ele)ents and the)es, proliferating i)ages, >uotes, and ideas 6hich rapidly follo6 each other, often o8er6hel)ing the reader and )aking it difficult to grasp the thrust of %irilioAs argu)ent- Mne could argue, in fact, that the speed 6hich %irilio so 6ell theori:es enters into the 8ery fa<ric and su<stance of his 6ritings- %irilioAs te7ts )o8e along

>uickly, they catch their topics on the run, they o8er6hel) 6ith detail, <ut rarely de8elop a topic in syste)atic and sustained fashion- =is style thus reflects his the)es 6ith speed, frag)entation, and co)ple7ity the 6arp and 6oof of his 6ork- Mne 6onders, ho6e8er, 6hether a critic of speed, 6ar, and technology should not occasionally slo6 do6n and )ore carefully and patiently delineate his theoretical position- 'o so)e e7tent, %irilio e7e)plifies &alter 3en+a)inAs theory of illu)inations and frag)ents, that constellations of ideas and i)ages could illu)inate specific pheno)ena and e8ents- ike 3en+a)in, %irilio circles his prey 6ith i)ages, >uotes, often startling and original ideas, and then >uickly )o8es on to his ne7t topic- %irilio <elie8es in the 8irtue of <reaks and interruptions, of gaps and a<sences, esche6ing syste)atic theori:ing- 3ut although %irilio pursues so)e of the sa)e the)es as 3en+a)in, deploys a si)ilar )ethod, and cites hi) fre>uently, there are )a+or differences- &hereas 3en+a)in "C1K12, in the spirit of 3recht, 6anted to ?refunction? ne6 technologies to )ake the) instru)ents of progressi8e social change and de8eloped political strategies to e7ploit the potentially progressi8e features of ne6 technologies, %irilio is relentless critical, esche6s de8eloping a technopolitics, and no6here speaks of using or refunctioning technology to ser8e positi8e ends- 'hus, %irilio

is highly one9sided and does not de8elop a dialectical conception of technology or a progressi8e technopolitics- So far, %irilio has produced no )aster oeu8re that 6ill pull together his ideas and perspecti8es, that 6ill pro8ide a synthetic o8er8ie6- =is long inter8ie6s 6ith Syl8ere otringer "C1DE2 and John !r)itrage "in this issue2 contain the <est o8er8ie6 of 6hat I take to <e his )ost 8alua<le 6ork, <ut it re)ains to <e seen 6hether he 6ill atte)pt to de8elop a critical theory of technology for the present age- In addition, as a critical philosopher, %irilio is >uite ascetic, ne8er articulating his nor)ati8e position fro) 6hich he carries on such a sustained and ferocious criti>ue of technolog y- =e see)s to assu)e so)ething like a religious hu)anis), that hu)an <eings are significant <y 8irtue of their capacity for speech, reason, )orality, political deli<eration and participation, and creati8e acti8ity, 6hile technology is seen as under)ining these hu)an capacities, taking o8er hu)an functions and rendering hu)ans su<ser8ient to technological rationality - 3ut %irilio hi)self does not ade>uately articulate the hu)anist or religious di)ension of his criti>ue and , as noted, descri<es hi)self as a )aterialist and a<stains fro) de8eloping the nor)ati8e perspecti8e fro) 6hich he carries out his criti>ue-