« conclusion to Uneconomics | Main | Speaking at UEL, 6th February »

November 06, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834587d3a69e2017ee4cf6c94970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Political Quarterly article published:

Comments

7 forgotton laws

Thanks in favor of sharing such a good idea, article is nice, thats why i have read it
entirely

pat kane

Fascinating William. But this quote:

"The neo- communitarian equivalent is less obviously intrusive, but ultimately far more pervasive. In place of a periodic audit of outcomes, we are witnessing the rise of a constant audit of behaviour of both individuals and complex adaptive systems. Such an audit cannot be gamed because it does not result in ‘scores’ or outputs. Its weakness lies more in the ambiguity of its findings. How much this style of government will be impeded by liberal norms surrounding privacy remains to be seen"

-- Reminds me of this quote:

"The disciplinary societies have two poles: the signature that designates the individual, and the number or administrative numeration that indicates his or her position within a mass. This is because the disciplines never saw any incompatibility between these two, and because at the same time power individualizes and masses together, that is, constitutes those over whom it exercises power into a body and molds the individuality of each member of that body. (Foucault saw the origin of this double charge in the pastoral power of the priest--the flock and each of its animals--but civil power moves in turn and by other means to make itself lay "priest.") In the societies of control, on the other hand, what is important is no longer either a signature or a number, but a code: the code is a password, while on the other hand disciplinary societies are regulated by watchwords (as much from the point of view of integration as from that of resistance). The numerical language of control is made of codes that mark access to information, or reject it. We no longer find ourselves dealing with the mass/individual pair. Individuals have become "dividuals," and masses, samples, data, markets, or "banks." Perhaps it is money that expresses the distinction between the two societies best, since discipline always referred back to minted money that locks gold as numerical standard, while control relates to floating rates of exchange, modulated according to a rate established by a set of standard currencies. The old monetary mole is the animal of the space of enclosure, but the serpent is that of the societies of control. We have passed from one animal to the other, from the mole to the serpent, in the system under which we live, but also in our manner of living and in our relations with others. The disciplinary man was a discontinuous producer of energy, but the man of control is undulatory, in orbit, in a continuous network."
http://www.n5m.org/n5m2/media/texts/deleuze.htm

BTW, cited you and "neo-communitarianism" in a lead review for Independent appearing next Saturday - hope it makes the cut. Best pk

Will Davies

Thanks, Pat. The Deleuze quote is interesting. He's always been just outside the scope of what I can cope with, theoretically, but I can see the resonance. I'll look out for the Indy review - what is the book?

The comments to this entry are closed.