LIFE RIGHTS

2014 LUCY (13)

“Right(s) as a concept emerges in any arrangement triggered by a relationship of power (pouvoir) which concerns established ways of acting or being acted upon together with the affirmation of the multiplicity and the capacity of individual and collective bodies to affect and to be affected (puissance) by an event. RADICALLY THINKING rights, AS THINKING a life, AS THINKING LIFE RIGHTS, entail a jurisprudence of multiplicities for it is directed at accommodating multiple relations to transform the established ways of acting and being acted upon (Linda Stewart).”

JUST’IS’ & JUS’TEASE’ & JUST’EASE’ questions for “THE XF MANIFESTO”

These are questions not critique: 

What is justice?

What is injustice?

What is the relationship between justice and injustice? (either/or ..?)

Is justice a concept or possibly an affect or possibly a function and possible all of the above?

How do one ‘think and do’ justice?

Put differently, how do one think justice as a concept, function and affect with a plurality of meanings when ‘agencements’ of power are triggered, allowing one to call an established position into question?

Does it imply the overcoming of current knowledge apparatus where habit and memory serves to fuel justice with resentment and false consciousness (the idea that one is necessarily guilty)?

Does it calls for a politics of the affirmation of the multiplicity?

The Xenofeminism Manifesto

xeno

The Laboria Cuboniks collective released their manifesto, Xenofeminism: A Politics for Alienation, via their #FF Twitter account. Read it, (… while keeping in ‘mind’):

edce189c935e08d8a958dec9a143d70b

The following observations from the Manifesto, got me really excited: 

ZERO

XF seizes alienation as an impetus to generate new worlds (0x01).

XF seeks to strategically deploy existing technologies to re-engineer the world (0x02).

XF must be a rationalism (0x04).

INTERRUPT 

Global complexity opens us to urgent cognitive and ethical demands.Xenofeminism endeavours to face up to these obligations as collective agents capable of transitioning between multiple levels of political, material and conceptual organization (0x06).

We want to cultivate the exercise of positive freedom–freedom-to rather than simply freedom-from–and urge feminists to equip themselves with the skills to redeploy existing technologies and invent novel cognitive and material tools in the service of common ends (0x07).

TRAP

The malady of melancholia only compounds political inertia, and–under the guise of being realistic–relinquishes all hope of calibrating the world otherwise. It is against such maladies that XF innoculates (0x09).

XF is an affirmative creature on the offensive, fiercely insisting on the possibility of large-scale social change for all of our alien kin (0x0A).

These puritanical politics of shame–which fetishize oppression as if it were a blessing, and cloud the waters in moralistic frenzies–leave us cold. We want neither clean hands nor beautiful souls, neither virtue nor terror. We want superior forms of corruption (0x0C).

What requires reengineering are the memetic parasites arousing and coordinating behaviours in ways occluded by their hosts’ self-image; failing this, memes like ‘anonymity’, ‘ethics’, ‘social justice’ and ‘privilege-checking’ host social dynamisms at odds with the often-commendable intentions with which they’re taken up. The task of collective self-mastery requires a hyperstitional manipulation of desire’s puppet-strings, and deployment of semiotic operators over a terrain of highly networked cultural systems. The will will always be corrupted by the memes in which it traffics, but nothing prevents us from instrumentalizing this fact, and calibrating it in view of the ends it desires (0x0D).

PARITY

Xenofeminism is gender-abolitionist (0x0E).

The universal must be grasped as generic, which is to say, intersectional. Intersectionality is not the morcellation of collectives into a static fuzz of cross-referenced identities, but a political orientation that slices through every particular, refusing the crass pigeonholing of bodies (0x0F).

Xenofeminism seeks to be a mutable architecture that, like open source software, remains available for perpetual modification and enhancement following the navigational impulse of militant ethical reasoning. Open, however, does not mean undirected. The most durable systems in the world owe their stability to the way they train order to emerge as an ‘invisible hand’ from apparent spontaneity; or exploit the inertia of investment and sedimentation. We should not hesitate to learn from our adversaries or the successes and failures of history. With this in mind, XF seeks ways to seed an order that is equitable and just, injecting it into the geometry of freedoms these platforms afford (0x10).

ADJUST

The project of untangling what ought to be from what is, of dissociating freedom from fact, will from knowledge, is, indeed, an infinite task (0x12).

CARRY

Digital technologies are not separable from the material realities that underwrite them; they are connected so that each can be used to alter the other towards different ends. Rather than arguing for the primacy of the virtual over the material, or the material over the virtual, xenofeminism grasps points of power and powerlessness in both, to unfold this knowledge as effective interventions in our jointly composed reality (0x13).

With the potential to foreclose, restrict, or open up future social conditions, xenofeminists must become attuned to the language of architecture as a vocabulary for collective choreo-graphy–the coordinated writing of space (0x14).

From the street to the home, domestic space too must not escape our tentacles. So profoundly ingrained, domestic space has been deemed impossible to disembed, where the home as norm has been conflated with home as fact, as an un-remakeable given. Stultifying ‘domestic realism’ has no home on our horizon. Let us set sights on augmented homes of shared laboratories, of communal media and technical facilities. The home is ripe for spatial transformation as an integral component in any process of feminist futurity. But this cannot stop at the garden gates. We see too well that reinventions of family structure and domestic life are currently only possible at the cost of either withdrawing from the economic sphere–the way of the commune–or bearing its burdens manyfold–the way of the single parent. If we want to break the inertia that has kept the moribund figure of the nuclear family unit in place, which has stubbornly worked to isolate women from the public sphere, and men from the lives of their children, while penalizing those who stray from it, we must overhaul the material infrastructure and break the economic cycles that lock it in place. The task before us is twofold, and our vision necessarily stereoscopic: we must engineer an economy that liberates reproductive labour and family life, while building models of familiality free from the deadening grind of wage labour (0x15).

Without the foolhardy endangerment of lives, can we stitch together the embryonic promises held before us by pharmaceutical 3D printing (‘Reactionware’), grassroots telemedical abortion clinics, gender hacktivist and DIY-HRT forums, and so on, to assemble a platform for free and open source medicine? (0x16).

The mesopolitical arena of xenofeminism’s universalist ambitions comprehends itself as a mobile and intricate network of transits between these polarities. As pragmatists, we invite contamination as a mutational driver between such frontiers (0x17).

OVERFLOW

How do we build a better semiotic parasite–one that arouses the desires we want to desire, that orchestrates not an autophagic orgy of indignity or rage, but an emancipatory and egalitarian community buttressed by new forms of unselfish solidarity and collective self-mastery? (0x18)

Xenofeminism is a platform, an incipient ambition to construct a new language for sexual politics–a language that seizes its own methods as materials to be reworked, and incrementally bootstraps itself into existence. We understand that the problems we face are systemic and interlocking, and that any chance of global success depends on infecting myriad skills and contexts with the logic of XF. Ours is a transformation of seeping, directed subsumption rather than rapid overthrow; it is a transformation of deliberate construction, seeking to submerge the white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy in a sea of procedures that soften its shell and dismantle its defenses, so as to build a new world from the scraps (0x19)

Xenofeminism indexes the desire to construct an alien future with a triumphant X on a mobile map. This X does not mark a destination. It is the insertion of a topological-keyframe for the formation of a new logic. In affirming a future untethered to the repetition of the present, we militate for ampliative capacities, for spaces of freedom with a richer geometry than the aisle, the assembly line, and the feed. We need new affordances of perception and action unblinkered by naturalised identities. In the name of feminism, ‘Nature’ shall no longer be a refuge of injustice, or a basis for any political justification whatsoever!

If nature is unjust, change nature! (0x1A)

Continue reading

Thinking rights beyond current knowledge apparatus, beyond institutionalisation and beyond the subject – doing jurisprudence

1498b65b6aa051c5c3a90bd5d544a3d1

Judicial adjudication within our current knowledge apparatus, affords individual and collective bodies an alternative and additional space in the event of a possible rights infringement, to challenge enacted laws, policy and the action of the sovereign. Although constitutionalism in modern liberal democracies has opened up a previous enclosed space for courts in the form of judicial adjudication to possibly creatively deal with rights alongside traditional forms of democratic participation, courts remain trapped within institutional boundaries when they rely on interpretative approaches, legal convention, legal culture, and legal history where courts often defer a situation of rights-infringement to the legislature or executive branches of government as a macro-political matter. As such the concept of human rights grounded in the notion of a supposed fixed identity and judicial interpretation grounded in presupposed values confines movement or change.

In this post I hope to illustrate that when rights are perceived beyond institutional expression, a supposed fixed identity (subject) and presupposed values, it may possibly be of assistance in identifying different ways of ‘becomings’ that goes beyond the majority standard.

Continue reading

The fuzzy borders between theory and praxis

The possibility of thinking law as thinking life

Deleuze in a conversation with Foucault, suggested that a new relationship between theory and practice is emerging. Deleuze explains the relationship between theory and practice was considered to be a process of totalisation where practice was either perceived as the application of theory or practice inspired the development of theory to oppose practice. Colebrook elaborates on the relationship between theory and practice in the context of law. Law is grounded in the ‘terror of the signifier’ and is still very much subjugated to the linguistic paradigm. This means that law assumes that life is ‘necessarily experienced as mediated or constituted through a symbolic system of language’. She argues that theory relates to law, because theory assumes that ‘there must be some lawful process through which such a world is constituted’ insofar ‘as we experience a world as having a certain being that is other than ourselves’.

Continue reading

Rosi Braidotti’s Case for Affirmation

Rosi Braidotti’s Case for Affirmation.

Why we need Spinoza! 

SpinCart14_brombacher-spinoza
via http://syntheticzero.net

picture via Ancientrails 

Artist Shoshannah Brombacher, Ph.D. 2007

Gilles-Deleuze-Quotes-5

Law as a mixed form of thinking

If Deleuze and Guattari parse out the potential for thinking into these three styles – art, science and philosophy – where would we place law? (Claire Colebrook ‘Legal theory after Deleuze’ in Rosi Braidotti, Claire Colebrook and Patrick Hanafin eds., Deleuze and Law, 2009, pp. 14-22).

Law is a mixed form of thinking philosophy, science and art. Law proceeds from philosophical concepts such as rights and justice but it also engages in scientific thinking for example posing questions as to what constitutes ‘a grievous and irremediable medical condition’. Furthermore, law also produces affects. The invalidation of prohibited physician assisted suicide in the Carter v Canada case, for example, produced affects such as sympathy and horror in not only the legal case but also through rights activism narratives (as illustrated below).

Continue reading