WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.001 --> 00:00:08.699 okay, thanks. I'm going to talk about 2 sociological viewpoints for modernity and the implication for our future. 2 00:00:09.020 --> 00:00:24.910 The first is that our society is increasingly dominated by one criterion, especially market economy and capitalism, and the other is that our society has differentiated into many sub parts. 3 00:00:24.940 --> 00:00:35.239 Critical theory basically belongs to the former, but has set some connection with the latter. So onearizing. These 2 views should be important for robbery in Greece. 4 00:00:35.910 --> 00:00:37.130 The first 5 00:00:37.150 --> 00:00:58.299 one was is that of the a typical one is that of the involvement of people into the capital society. And, on the other hand, Max Weber looked at that, especially with some way of rationalization as 6 00:00:58.710 --> 00:01:16.849 Marx is a view of the dominance of market. The economy and Weiba's view on rationalization were extended by look at into the theory of verification. And lastly, Max-hokheimer and Theodore Adono's notion of instrumental reason, echoed Weber's view of Mozart. 7 00:01:17.140 --> 00:01:29.230 How about that being one line of the soul that human life has been progressively strips of its substance formalized and made monotonous, and one dimension. 8 00:01:30.520 --> 00:01:45.050 on the other hand, series of differentiation includes such big names as the male dukeame or garb Gimmeel, and most recently tucked parsons. And because Zuma argued that 9 00:01:45.240 --> 00:01:53.510 the society has differentiated in the subsistence according to functional. 10 00:01:53.960 --> 00:01:54.990 and 11 00:01:55.080 --> 00:02:02.900 it was harbors who tackled a challenging task of unifying these 2 trends of view of our society. 12 00:02:03.030 --> 00:02:21.589 First he found that weaver and visited multiple ways of rationalization, and then he integrated it into his view, suggest functional social, where functional social subsystems are home to the instrumental reason, and. 13 00:02:21.780 --> 00:02:35.640 on the other hand, communicative reason comes from the view of the differentiation of reason which we're rapidly, fully analyzed. Together they constitute the view of the system and the life world 14 00:02:36.320 --> 00:02:54.840 to see the relation between them. my, I'd like to check out the view of the subsystems. I'll show you. This is a very, very famous fear of his and the 15 00:02:54.840 --> 00:03:06.379 A. Gil. Each designate the system, and the Allos showed their interaction. 16 00:03:06.740 --> 00:03:32.429 and the interaction interactions are actually a such label services, wages, consumer spending consumer goods and services. So this A is just a kind of companies or industry. And L means actually, the family or household 17 00:03:32.670 --> 00:03:41.099 husband's view of the systems look like that of a division of labor where each organization operates for some specific function. 18 00:03:41.960 --> 00:03:56.119 On the other hand, Lumen, due to the functional systems as not social bodies, but channels of communication. Roman wrote, the differentiation of the political system takes place, primary at the level of laws. 19 00:03:56.610 --> 00:03:58.420 in simple societies. 20 00:03:58.480 --> 00:04:17.600 He wrote, a person's behavior in one role provides ground for inferring what his behavior may be in another, but, on the contrary, in differentiated systems, that the execution of roles is regulated by the behavior among the all partners. 21 00:04:17.620 --> 00:04:31.419 It is made independent of whatever other laws of personal fuels. Zuma also regarded each individual to participate in not only one system, but much 22 00:04:31.540 --> 00:04:34.639 so. These are domains for all people 23 00:04:35.860 --> 00:04:46.750 compared with these figures harassment's view of the systems is quite in accordance with the 24 00:04:48.140 --> 00:05:05.139 to summarize a. The differentiation with rationality which have a must construct it from reconstructed from wherever's views looks quite compatible with Lumen's view of the functional subsystem. Both graphs the differentiation of networks of communication. 25 00:05:05.610 --> 00:05:08.100 B. On the other hand. 26 00:05:08.310 --> 00:05:13.590 cousins and harbours seem right about their picture of their current. 27 00:05:14.010 --> 00:05:15.759 The picture of the current society 28 00:05:15.810 --> 00:05:21.189 where bureaucracy and the industrial giants have tremendous power over controlling your life. 29 00:05:21.660 --> 00:05:23.930 My suggestion here that 30 00:05:23.950 --> 00:05:31.710 we regard a networks of communication are still in the infancy today and not fully differentiated. 31 00:05:32.060 --> 00:05:36.390 Instead, organizations are in charge of social functions. 32 00:05:36.850 --> 00:05:47.820 I I suggest, we call I my suggest, we call such current state pseudosystems a kind of transitional form 33 00:05:48.400 --> 00:06:03.510 in society with pseudo systems, politics, economy, science, etc., are divided by dominant organizations. On the other hand. On the contrary, society with differentiative systems. 34 00:06:03.580 --> 00:06:14.189 each system is democratized and open to all people. Roman's view of the differentiated society should be regarded not as the picture of the current society. 35 00:06:14.720 --> 00:06:27.349 If we, if we think to another view as a reality that might become an ideology. But it's not, but as an idea, a guiding principle for the future. 36 00:06:27.890 --> 00:06:38.520 Finally, to illustrate the necessity of this transition from pseudo-ystem to true systems. I like to take an example in the period of sociology, of science 37 00:06:39.600 --> 00:06:46.249 in 2,002 British sociologists of science, Harry Collins and Robert Evans 38 00:06:46.400 --> 00:06:48.100 wrote a paper. 39 00:06:48.300 --> 00:06:57.060 the third wave of social studies studies of expertise and experience. And it's packed. Ching controversy. 40 00:06:57.380 --> 00:07:05.320 according to what the hard we have means is that the first wave was the wave of positivism. 41 00:07:05.580 --> 00:07:18.539 you might all know about the policies and controversy, but That was characterized by the of optimistic view of science. 42 00:07:18.620 --> 00:07:28.349 and that fast wave was criticized by the second way, and it declared, science is open to society. 43 00:07:29.500 --> 00:07:43.739 On the contrary, the sad wave is now trying to identify the role of scientists in society. They argued that in the Saudi wave we need the studies of expertise and the experience 44 00:07:45.110 --> 00:07:58.820 they are discussing about this, how the way we brought about controversy because many people thought that they are going back to the fast way. 45 00:07:58.900 --> 00:08:00.600 But 46 00:08:01.000 --> 00:08:06.860 it was really not. It's not the case, because what they wanted was 47 00:08:06.880 --> 00:08:29.009 as such, Collins and events also discussing the way to reject technocacy, but value the expertise. They say, what we are asking for with the possibility that, unlike so many other professional institutions, science can escape from the erosion of its values in the face of the U. Victors, financial and political pressures. 48 00:08:29.050 --> 00:08:34.960 This is a reason why they emphasize the importance of experts. 49 00:08:35.810 --> 00:08:46.139 Now, from the point of view here Collins and Evans are writing that science should be protected against the imperatives of economy and politics. 50 00:08:46.460 --> 00:08:57.590 But independence of scientists is not enough. In that case science becomes a realm of scientific establishment, which is a kind of pseudo-system, I think. 51 00:08:57.720 --> 00:09:06.160 rather what we need is a tunnel for every citizen to participate in deciding who are the experts. 52 00:09:06.660 --> 00:09:12.090 This is the role of the scientific subsystem and its function for democratic society 53 00:09:13.260 --> 00:09:26.569 to conclude, and the differentiation we reason, which we by envisaged and Haram has developed is a prerequisite for the differentiation of social subsystems as a networks of communication. 54 00:09:27.150 --> 00:09:34.590 One reason is not differentiated. Organizational bodies, such as economics or political powers 55 00:09:34.750 --> 00:09:38.410 or scientific establishments, and dominate society. 56 00:09:38.700 --> 00:09:41.189 This is a reality of centralization 57 00:09:41.250 --> 00:09:44.470 which makes life more than us and one dimension. 58 00:09:44.730 --> 00:09:49.409 My suggestion is that we are now in the era of transition. 59 00:09:49.720 --> 00:09:54.209 We are now as a starting point for who we differentiated society. 60 00:09:54.550 --> 00:10:01.069 where each social network has its own channel of communication that is fully democratic. 61 00:10:02.140 --> 00:10:03.650 Thank you very much. 62 00:10:14.390 --> 00:10:23.220 We'll just do one last call out for you in the room in the house on the Internet 63 00:10:24.540 --> 00:10:29.449 one. So okay, we, we'll we'll move on to 64 00:10:30.320 --> 00:10:35.569 next presenter after Yuri in the program, and that's James Santos. 65 00:10:36.290 --> 00:10:43.619 He's going to offer a paper called Genealogy as imminent Critique of Forms of Life. So thank you. 66 00:10:50.590 --> 00:10:51.480 Yes. 67 00:10:56.410 --> 00:10:58.500 Let's say 2 books. Okay, thank you. 68 00:11:00.470 --> 00:11:04.000 Thank you so much for the presentation, Professor. 69 00:11:04.170 --> 00:11:08.629 genealogy as human, and criticism in terms of life is 70 00:11:08.780 --> 00:11:24.980 was my doctoral dissertation. So I'm presenting here as a paper, and I'm gonna try to make it as short as possible, and I'm probably gonna butcher it some part, so please forgive myself. 71 00:11:25.040 --> 00:11:34.829 So, as part of the results of my doctor research in the field of critical theory, I try to 72 00:11:34.920 --> 00:11:41.449 holds a royal Yaghe critics of forms of life with a particular proposal of a three-dimensional genealogy. 73 00:11:42.530 --> 00:12:03.760 So previously, there's a lot of attempts to bring geology within critical theory and a lot of reservations from a lot of critics. Critics and sometimes the critics are, are within the proposal of genealogy themselves, and they don't even realize 74 00:12:03.760 --> 00:12:21.090 so Hannah and the parasitic genealogy, and how the the with the critical theory of the genealogical provision was something that brought me to to this dissertation, because he refuses the potential of normative 75 00:12:21.090 --> 00:12:31.240 of the normative potential of genealogy, and that brought me to the idea that he was wrong. 76 00:12:31.640 --> 00:12:39.820 The professor, Amy Allen, in politics of ourselves, tries to combinate Foucault in Habermus, and she 77 00:12:40.560 --> 00:13:04.149 has a a ton of success and a ton of critics, and I am one of those, and because she kind of done a a little bit, dumps it down, both of it, both of them, and they lose their potential by themselves in the end of progress. She attempts to again to bring genealogy to critical theory with a combination of fuco and Adorno, and she 78 00:13:04.150 --> 00:13:31.359 focuses a little bit too much on one particular lecture of of of problems, of philosophy, of Adorno, which is a little bit the months to Utopian a little bit to respect with other, and she puts the normative heft on this talk of a durnal and loses a bit of the potential that she herself has puts on the genealogy project. So my idea is to invigorate genealogy without external normative justification. 79 00:13:31.360 --> 00:13:36.219 to build a project which is comprehensive, and even in its critique. 80 00:13:36.250 --> 00:13:53.909 and to overcome the reservation that genealogy can raise and build an emancipatory critical state scheme. So I'm pretty. I can not be sure, but I know that Foucault would disagree with my proposal, and I know that Raj Haji also disagrees with you. 81 00:13:54.640 --> 00:14:03.610 She wasn't my doctor dissertation defense. So okay, that's okay, then. so 82 00:14:03.720 --> 00:14:04.590 I 83 00:14:04.760 --> 00:14:18.430 try to build a genealogy from within Rajoy's work. And through this scheme that analytical scheme that Martin Csar has of a three-dimensional genealogy which is systematic, explanatory, and stylistic. 84 00:14:19.490 --> 00:14:31.510 His analytical scheme has, It does very. It does very good to genealogy, because it shows the peculiarities of the genealogical study. And it's comprehensive critical, potential. 85 00:14:31.980 --> 00:14:44.400 and critique of forms of life responds to normative questions and provides a developed form of imminent critique that fits the genealogy peculiarities to a certain point. 86 00:14:45.800 --> 00:14:54.229 So the first part, which is the conceptual part, the forms of life, part which it matches with a deal with a thematic 87 00:14:54.260 --> 00:15:14.729 I dimension, which is not. A probably not a coincidence. That also, Rajoy, I get track treats as teamatization of from top life, so forms of life can be categorized as sets of practices and orientations is to show manifestations and naturalization related to cultural and social reproductions of life. So it's very broad. 88 00:15:14.790 --> 00:15:43.770 and she has tried to build this concept as very particular, very hybrid and very. Try to escape from the liberalism and commentaryism of argument. She's trying to cast your question. Not only we should talk about values, but what values and what are they mean, and not if it is or is in justice. But what is is becoming of justice? 89 00:15:43.930 --> 00:16:05.340 So the it's interesting, because the the concept that is closest, and for from her life is culture, and she denies. And she says, Well, it is close, but it's not so. Forms of life aims to be a non a non-essentialized, non-substantialized alternative to the concept of culture, and has a hybrid character. 90 00:16:05.400 --> 00:16:17.080 So, and then my question is, how stable and how sufficient and comprehensive must a set of practice and beliefs to be qualified as a firm of life, also a question that she poses herself. So 91 00:16:17.320 --> 00:16:43.989 the answer that I get is that the results that realization, the forms of life as a concept needs an appropriate way of connecting to the empirical. And if the aims to give formal to a social critique. So that's us kind of misstep, or maybe overlook because we cannot define or connect a social critique with formula of life without some historicization or some 92 00:16:44.560 --> 00:16:47.859 so it doesn't have an empirical touch. 93 00:16:48.920 --> 00:16:59.169 And so the thematic dimension of genealogy, genealogy, genealogy, genealogical after effort, places a variety of moral practices, judgments, and beliefs into their historical. 94 00:16:59.310 --> 00:17:06.770 a social and cultural context, and therefore destroys any illusion about the naturalness or unity of the moral world. 95 00:17:07.050 --> 00:17:19.240 So the idea here is that the thematic mentioned really parallels with the aim of Rajeliegi, with with the concept of forms of life. So Foucault 96 00:17:19.240 --> 00:17:41.149 pushes to rescue the conditions of acceptability and the lines of rupture that mark the emergence of of a positivity in a given system. So the altar emphasize the singularities. This is a bit hazy point by Foucault, but I think that the singularities that, he says is the scope of Craig. The criticism of this positivities. 97 00:17:41.149 --> 00:17:50.260 and he gives examples. All the singularity is well, the partnership practices of the sixteenth, 70 centuries. So he's trying to 98 00:17:50.319 --> 00:18:04.839 build is trying to aim at something that gives grasp to this critical critical window, so the singularities are neither the incarnation of an essence nor the individualization of a species. So 99 00:18:04.870 --> 00:18:09.580 the singularities and the forms of life can be a bit a parallel. 100 00:18:10.939 --> 00:18:20.309 Then we have the proposal of Riley, which is tematizing a form of life as a form of life pushing against itself 101 00:18:20.850 --> 00:18:24.400 right? So to be 102 00:18:24.470 --> 00:18:37.740 to realize itself, that it's a from a form of life who have to retrace the conditions that made itself so she's trying to build to a reverse engineer the genealogical proposal. 103 00:18:39.200 --> 00:18:49.829 So as the second dimension is genealogy, as explanation was explanatory, so reframing genealogy and critical theory so like, I said, 104 00:18:49.860 --> 00:18:53.670 various authors have worked with that, and 105 00:18:53.800 --> 00:19:00.179 Koopman has tried to revamp Amy Allen's position. The Fukohabmus 106 00:19:00.370 --> 00:19:28.819 debate is very. It's famous. But let me talk briefly about the Ben is Allen debate, which is very interesting. So a Professor Allen defense, and criticizes the how it was interpretation of Foucault, which is, she says, that Hubble must not understand Foucault, and she says that the the death of man argument. It's kind of the decentralized, decentralized subject. 107 00:19:28.830 --> 00:19:49.459 So it's a it's a it's an attempt to pragmatize the critique of content. So so, of course, but in my my understanding, Professor Allen has, and in in the deal of progress you still have a very content type of genealogy. She does not see the Hegelian influence 108 00:19:49.460 --> 00:20:11.910 and the Hegelian inheritance in Foucault. So to give up few touch points with Foucault's work has some traces of historical reconstruction without being teleological. So it's very it's it's reminiscent of a sort of Hegelian attempt of critique. 109 00:20:11.910 --> 00:20:20.019 But a few touch points that bring this point a little bit together is the analysis of a campaign of the dispositive 110 00:20:20.020 --> 00:20:36.319 positivity. So augment has a a genealogical approach to the dispositive, and he traces back to a paper from Janipolit, which was was a master of Foucault, and he was his supervisor. 111 00:20:36.320 --> 00:20:55.770 and he was a Hegelian, and he was a big influence on Foucault's work since, because focal before creating the dispositive use of the term positivity, which it traces back to the positivity of religion of Christianity. I think, which is a paper or from Hego. 112 00:20:55.990 --> 00:21:05.329 So there's a a point. There's a process point, and there's a tight relationship so far, and 113 00:21:05.570 --> 00:21:24.260 the retrogressive foundation in Thomson's work on normativity in Hegel. So I I won't go too deep on Thomson's work on normal TV and Hegel, but he sees he tries to re reactualize the Critique of of Hegel, and in his sense. 114 00:21:24.300 --> 00:21:36.070 and it sees that this retrogressive foundation which is systematic. It's very much the core of the idea that Hegel is still actual. 115 00:21:36.440 --> 00:21:47.010 so fucose. sees freedom as a precondition and condition for the exercise of power in a systematic, retrogressive way. What does that mean? So 116 00:21:47.060 --> 00:22:03.910 like? Our colleague says, well, power is not necessarily evil or or bad. It's a, it's a relation, it's a relation, it's it's enacting. So the idea that freedom pre precedes power. 117 00:22:03.990 --> 00:22:15.779 It's in in itself a recognition, a normative positive of freedom, because where there isn't freedom, there's violence, and there's no power in violence. 118 00:22:16.030 --> 00:22:25.529 violence. It's not power, or it can be in some descriptions and some interpretations, but in that that one? No. So 119 00:22:25.600 --> 00:22:42.549 where Hegel sees in the law direct the realization of of the instance of freedom. So Foucault will see. The the failures, the continuous failures of these realizations of freedom! 120 00:22:42.810 --> 00:22:52.000 So he will hit those. those are differences of perspective, not very different concepts of analysis. 121 00:22:53.760 --> 00:23:14.569 So the eggs reappropriation of Hegel does not entail a necessary learning process. So a learning process is very important for a professor approach, because she's trying to build a history that is progressing and that it, that is, can be interpreted as rational. 122 00:23:14.680 --> 00:23:17.209 So, and 123 00:23:17.400 --> 00:23:23.899 however she understand that learning process are triggered by experience of failure and inadequacy. 124 00:23:23.950 --> 00:23:48.600 so the terminate negation is a mode of development and a mode of justification, or a mode of justification. As a mode of development. So the process of can the new be born from the old? It's it's very much implied on, implied and expressly defended in Professor Ziegi's project. 125 00:23:48.970 --> 00:24:09.990 So yeah, I guess even in critique comprises the development of critique and justification that coincides so a crucial factor in assessing the success of the way of life. It's whether the there's a room for reflection. So she's trying to develop as we try to solve these problems of this form of life are we reflecting upon the solutions that we are having? 126 00:24:10.040 --> 00:24:19.009 And how do we judge if a previous form of life is better than the next one. So yes, it's only retrospective. 127 00:24:19.210 --> 00:24:35.830 So that's my point that it fits genealogy. So so we so so the point that we have to realize is that we have to look back and see if the previous form of life was better or worse. So we are retracing back. We are recounting history in some way. 128 00:24:35.920 --> 00:24:55.829 So her project takes a form of her hermeneutic anticipation of a of a presumed solution of a desirable goal, and the strength of such anticipation can only be demonstrated retrospectively in the iterations of results of corresponding practical change. She has a trial and error format, an open dialect. 129 00:24:57.020 --> 00:24:57.720 Well. 130 00:24:57.910 --> 00:24:58.670 you see. 131 00:24:59.870 --> 00:25:00.530 Okay. 132 00:25:01.260 --> 00:25:09.090 yeah. I went too far. Jesus. No. What? What am I doing here? That just 133 00:25:09.410 --> 00:25:13.150 yeah, for sure should have saw that 134 00:25:15.150 --> 00:25:16.580 here. 135 00:25:16.970 --> 00:25:29.720 So. And but she's very clear, and say that in history setbacks are more likely. And in given Yaghi's proposition of criticism and justification, we can only be certain of what's going wrong. So 136 00:25:30.060 --> 00:25:39.029 that's the point where she herself tries to avoid the the of power during his her book. 137 00:25:39.050 --> 00:26:02.680 And then in the end, she says, and I quote, if we want to explore the preconditions of emancipation and collaborative self-determination, therefore we must understand the complicated relation between the power to shape the conditions of life, the lack of transparency in the after intractable complexity of interlink practices and attitudes. So that's my point that she's claiming for analysis of power. 138 00:26:02.680 --> 00:26:09.110 So with genealogy, with this planetary dimensional genealogy, Zar has 139 00:26:09.210 --> 00:26:30.299 on the line that Julia, the genealogist, reads history through power. So in it's for their terms, domination, violence, coercion, and sub subjection, exploitation, strategy. So this can be a view as not instances of power, or maybe subversions of power. 140 00:26:30.390 --> 00:26:37.549 These terms transform dissimilar in peaceful realm of historical facts into a dynamic field of social processes. 141 00:26:38.260 --> 00:27:06.909 So genealogy, with its planetary dimension, reads history through power, and it's related forms, and provides a better opportunity to demonstrate how our practices and institutions are really provisional and also problematic instances of freedom. So that's my point about the benefits or the idea that we, if we're talking about power precluding emancipation, we should deal with analysis that really focus on on that. 142 00:27:08.870 --> 00:27:25.810 So the geological project does not keep the determination of success of history at the forefront of its critical screen, because the analysis itself acknowledges an instance of freedom that is implied in the process of critique. 143 00:27:25.850 --> 00:27:49.520 so the genealogical product here benefits from the mode of development, justification. The terminate negation is still dealing with the spectral of an experiential process. The analyzed process of power close certain relevant experiences of freedom, and from the the deny the negation of such a experiences a process of transformation is so where the crisis of the old already contains the plantation for his productive succession. 144 00:27:49.850 --> 00:28:08.489 So the Genealogical Project rests on, on, on continuous analysis of the benefits in forms of life does not focus on Confucius sex. So sexes, successes of history, if we only know with certainty the unsatisfactory. This deficit in the failure, then building blocks for the future would benefit from more explanatory dimension. 145 00:28:08.710 --> 00:28:09.770 So 146 00:28:09.790 --> 00:28:22.259 and that's my point. I think that I was trying to convey in the questions prior. So we still, so far, we still have a two-dimensional formal criticism based on awareness of freedom of to act. So are we? So one. 147 00:28:22.310 --> 00:28:28.020 I reserve a critique. Well, yeah, everything is socially constructed, maybe, and we have 148 00:28:28.110 --> 00:28:31.560 enable chances to change. But we do not change that. 149 00:28:31.590 --> 00:28:41.780 And that's the problem. So does the truth really sell us free. So that's when I try to convey the third dimensional genealogy which is stylistic. 150 00:28:42.060 --> 00:28:47.830 And the relevance for this third dimension. It's coupled in his. 151 00:28:48.920 --> 00:29:02.489 It is tied with to with the diagnosis and set up for Emily'satory view from Rosa's diagnos of an accelerating society and a resonance depleted. societal tissue. 152 00:29:02.720 --> 00:29:13.450 So if we're talking about when a salary in society of late modern and we're just social processes, despite the why, the segregate acceleration and flexibility with the emergence of total contingency. 153 00:29:13.710 --> 00:29:26.079 And in spite of this, all of the options that we had, we still feel like in a hyper-accelerated started school, and the democratic process does not feel like it responds to ourselves. 154 00:29:26.330 --> 00:29:42.820 We are considering that we characterization of resonance seems imperative to be connected and to desire for resonant relationships. Then the third dimension of genealogy 155 00:29:43.150 --> 00:29:48.900 seems to be a path for trying to deal with this stuff. 156 00:29:49.490 --> 00:30:14.480 because, the writing style of a genealogy can lead to a moment of reflection can connect and affect people, allowing, allowing at least an opportunity for resonant relationships. So a genealogy is righted with metaphors, m metonomies. It's very literary in the in its way of telling it's 157 00:30:15.010 --> 00:30:17.860 It's argument. And it's 158 00:30:18.030 --> 00:30:48.210 it is particular on its sense that it's it's counting with an audience. It's expecting that someone is actually being affected by it. So the audience of a genealogy is invited on a journey into their own past to the journey of the past becomes readable to power relations that impact the prices. If a genealogy is successful. It give us time, affects us by transforming our relationship to our own accelerator lives, and can move us forward to act on it. 159 00:30:48.280 --> 00:30:56.230 to change the semi-enteclamatic future of accelerating society plagued by escalating rafide relationships. 160 00:30:56.680 --> 00:31:07.219 So this third dimension of genealogy provides the impact to transform subject. And yet it doesn't seem enough so does not only seems enough to 161 00:31:07.360 --> 00:31:23.609 make a genealogy, but the question brings us to the task of the genealogy is itself the the genealogy Co. Work cannot be locked within the academic academia walls. The work must be also outside of it, working with people on address, concrete concrete problems. 162 00:31:23.620 --> 00:31:29.839 sporting political action. Both parts are critical. So this is part of the 163 00:31:30.190 --> 00:31:41.250 Okay, I'm just finished. It's part of the the the part that I read most about foucos on experience. 164 00:31:41.330 --> 00:31:46.319 and that I tried to build on in my theoretical proposal. 165 00:31:47.650 --> 00:31:56.959 So the idea behind this work was to provide a genealogical approach within critical theory that could resolve the issues regarding the normative viability of such criticism. 166 00:31:57.030 --> 00:32:15.370 So I can see that how the the resistance of Professor Rahel, because I think I I try to demonstrate that this project enables the objectives of a critique of Forms of life, and still has an empirical and stylistic advantage. 167 00:32:15.550 --> 00:32:16.860 So. 168 00:32:17.580 --> 00:32:43.670 And that's a point that is very important for Professor Yaghi that the realization that there is not, and it won't be a form of life that represents an ideal actualization of freedom or completely healthy. Then that's the point of Rosa, or a completely healthy resonance relationship. And I hope this this realization makes us understand that the apparently negativistic analysis of genealogy provides the best chance to impact lives 169 00:32:43.700 --> 00:32:48.030 2 of those lost in the hyper-accelerated status quo. 170 00:32:48.250 --> 00:32:51.330 Thank you for your patience. 171 00:33:15.260 --> 00:33:31.210 This one. Probably our final speaker, Dmitri Ivano. we'll we'll speak about her. Mac Cruz's dialect of modernity in the perspective of post virtualization. 172 00:33:32.360 --> 00:33:45.539 Thank you. Good evening. It's a pleasure to present my view of prospects of critical here. Development. 173 00:33:46.440 --> 00:33:50.870 Mercury's works, I believe. 174 00:33:51.160 --> 00:33:57.939 revealed dialectics of majority the project of dialectical theory 175 00:33:58.270 --> 00:34:04.280 invented by a Hawkheimer was realized 176 00:34:04.770 --> 00:34:07.330 by Herbert Mercury. 177 00:34:07.660 --> 00:34:08.810 mostly 178 00:34:09.400 --> 00:34:13.110 unconsciously in 3 179 00:34:14.610 --> 00:34:25.760 major works by Mercury, resonant revolution, arison civilization, and one-dimensional men we can see some dialectical line 180 00:34:26.320 --> 00:34:28.400 repeat in Hegel and 181 00:34:28.500 --> 00:34:32.419 pattern. This is anthesis synthesis. 182 00:34:32.470 --> 00:34:34.460 Reason was 183 00:34:34.600 --> 00:34:42.910 a principal notion of freedom for Mercury during the night and twenties 184 00:34:43.000 --> 00:34:48.330 thees. Later he turned to anterism. 185 00:34:48.520 --> 00:34:55.590 irrational, natural drives. instantial. Which 186 00:34:56.870 --> 00:34:59.270 of people which 187 00:35:00.170 --> 00:35:12.850 would be able to destroy rational or hyper-rational order of industrial capitalism, organized capitalism, and 188 00:35:13.580 --> 00:35:17.200 by the 1960 S. Mercury 189 00:35:17.360 --> 00:35:25.590 combined ideas of rationality and irrationality in so-called post-technological rationality 190 00:35:25.600 --> 00:35:26.650 and 191 00:35:27.010 --> 00:35:37.039 an unintended result of 3 decades of Mercury's theorism. Is his discovery of general logic. 192 00:35:37.220 --> 00:35:40.539 of structural dynamic and capitalism. 193 00:35:41.490 --> 00:35:43.660 liberation movements 194 00:35:43.680 --> 00:35:49.829 turned into new forms of social control. The system observing 195 00:35:49.930 --> 00:36:00.080 a radical anti-system movements, ideas, Utopia get some recesses sources for 196 00:36:00.200 --> 00:36:08.889 it's development. So system, anti-system outsiders, if they are your Turkish, and then new forms 197 00:36:08.910 --> 00:36:18.890 of normativity, new forms of repressive sociality. She Institute that sociological 198 00:36:19.240 --> 00:36:24.150 aspect of the Hegelian intellectual paradigm. 199 00:36:24.160 --> 00:36:28.660 By the end of the twentieth century the concept of post-technological 200 00:36:28.750 --> 00:36:30.220 rationality 201 00:36:30.410 --> 00:36:42.670 became affirmative discourse for current post-industrial capitalism from a radical liberation Utopia, it turned into 202 00:36:43.240 --> 00:36:47.499 structures of reasoning and acting 203 00:36:47.640 --> 00:36:56.379 for capitalists, for managers, for people involved in production and consumption. 204 00:36:57.720 --> 00:36:58.870 To use 205 00:36:59.210 --> 00:37:09.289 this mercury and heritage. We can consider virtualization at the next after 206 00:37:09.490 --> 00:37:13.540 Merkus, in a movement towards 207 00:37:14.460 --> 00:37:27.720 new notion of freedom to new practices of freedom, virtualizing refined structures of late industrial society. Some marginal 208 00:37:27.910 --> 00:37:30.540 movements, outsiders 209 00:37:31.060 --> 00:37:33.180 avoided control 210 00:37:33.260 --> 00:37:37.040 of such refined structures, but 211 00:37:38.580 --> 00:37:39.830 in the 212 00:37:40.010 --> 00:37:43.640 in recent decades we can see cost 213 00:37:44.110 --> 00:37:46.740 technological rationality 214 00:37:47.000 --> 00:37:54.849 becoming oppressive tolerance structures and virtualization becoming 215 00:37:54.920 --> 00:37:56.590 new patterns. 216 00:37:56.860 --> 00:37:57.910 2. 217 00:37:58.050 --> 00:37:59.530 Push forward 218 00:37:59.870 --> 00:38:02.750 post-industrial society, and 219 00:38:03.090 --> 00:38:13.759 to make liberties, freedom, liberation, business projects, logic, driving, force of new alienation. So great refusal 220 00:38:14.100 --> 00:38:17.300 promoted by mercury was 221 00:38:20.250 --> 00:38:23.200 replaced by great escape 222 00:38:23.650 --> 00:38:30.449 and the conditions of virtualization. And now the next phase of the dialectical 223 00:38:30.510 --> 00:38:32.520 development is 224 00:38:32.580 --> 00:38:49.339 post virtualization. To avoid new alienating structures, structures of total digital control. Early Internet communities were about freedom and distance from institutions. Now 225 00:38:49.370 --> 00:38:54.949 that is, total absorption by new structures 226 00:38:56.370 --> 00:39:03.180 presented and developed on the digital platforms. So contemporary post-industrial 227 00:39:03.760 --> 00:39:06.390 capitalism exploits 228 00:39:06.440 --> 00:39:09.569 virtualization, logic and 229 00:39:10.210 --> 00:39:13.350 turn in to morality. 230 00:39:14.000 --> 00:39:19.230 Crude reality opposed to virtual 231 00:39:19.270 --> 00:39:21.330 images, to 232 00:39:22.730 --> 00:39:35.740 non-human digital communication can be considered as a next liberation. Logic from virtualization of society to Boston, virtualization can be seen as 233 00:39:37.420 --> 00:39:40.390 the next face of dialectical 234 00:39:40.610 --> 00:40:04.949 development, authenticity, revolt against virtuality is not political project. It's some micro, or maybe non-politics in everyday life. But we can see some small, sometimes microwaves, micro-movements composing that opposition 235 00:40:04.990 --> 00:40:09.300 to a virtualized capitalism 236 00:40:09.500 --> 00:40:10.660 so 237 00:40:11.690 --> 00:40:14.010 trying to 238 00:40:14.330 --> 00:40:21.270 make their life less alienated. People contribute to 239 00:40:21.280 --> 00:40:30.559 emergence of augmented majority. not post-modernity, not the end of modernity, but modernity, can be seen 240 00:40:30.760 --> 00:40:48.049 in some centers of globalization and virtualization. In the largest cities people really live globally, virtually there is intensive sociality instituted by networks and flows 241 00:40:48.580 --> 00:41:10.909 which are structures detached from institutions and interactions in the regime, face to face from real sociality, real sociality considered, analyzed and criticized during the nineteenth century and century by philosophers and sociologists 242 00:41:12.280 --> 00:41:17.200 creating structures which can be characterized as 243 00:41:17.530 --> 00:41:18.710 hybrid 244 00:41:18.930 --> 00:41:27.220 are mutually penetrated. We can use this metaphor of augmented reality 245 00:41:27.330 --> 00:41:31.150 and making this concept 246 00:41:31.270 --> 00:41:34.190 augmented majority relevant. 247 00:41:34.260 --> 00:41:36.219 augmented modernity. 248 00:41:36.990 --> 00:41:44.170 is concentrated in the super urban heiress in that most advanced 249 00:41:44.680 --> 00:41:51.149 segments of post-industrial networks, capitalism and 250 00:41:51.310 --> 00:41:53.940 around search 251 00:41:54.050 --> 00:41:57.110 points of access to networks and flows 252 00:41:57.320 --> 00:42:01.050 existed, majority can be detected. 253 00:42:01.360 --> 00:42:03.740 poor social life! 254 00:42:04.200 --> 00:42:15.020 A collapse of institutions of the mass, society, industrial society. Hello! 255 00:42:15.630 --> 00:42:27.779 Standards of living characterized that exhausted majority in small towns, in rural areas. And this is a fundamental gap. 256 00:42:28.000 --> 00:42:30.290 fundamental inequality 257 00:42:30.460 --> 00:42:47.370 Which can be used as a certain point of the future critical theory of society. On the pictures we can see 2 different regimes to different logics of human life 258 00:42:47.690 --> 00:42:48.830 in 259 00:42:50.020 --> 00:42:55.600 centers of augmented majority. This vibrant, intensive. 260 00:42:55.840 --> 00:42:57.980 maybe hyper-intensive. 261 00:42:58.050 --> 00:43:02.300 social, economic, political, and cultural, cultural life and 262 00:43:05.290 --> 00:43:06.640 destruction. 263 00:43:07.840 --> 00:43:12.129 degradation of social life in the 264 00:43:13.130 --> 00:43:16.120 previously 265 00:43:16.210 --> 00:43:18.570 developed industrial areas 266 00:43:19.480 --> 00:43:32.749 that is basic fundamental contradiction and inequality. But in the zones of existed majority we can find potential for protest. 267 00:43:33.020 --> 00:43:44.059 Sophisticated ideas. Utopia and alternative social forms can be found in the zones of augmented majority 268 00:43:44.350 --> 00:43:53.809 to unite them, to make sophisticated Utopia some weapon against 269 00:43:55.000 --> 00:44:03.740 destruction of sociality in the zones of exhausted modernity is the important task for critical theorizing. 270 00:44:03.870 --> 00:44:08.359 Mercury was absolutely genius, I believe. 271 00:44:08.540 --> 00:44:16.979 As, for example, Foucault and persons with Lumen. But he used 272 00:44:17.500 --> 00:44:25.610 that fundamental concept for critique technological irrationality. a modifying. He modified 273 00:44:25.920 --> 00:44:38.400 conception of instrumental reason developed by Hawkheimer and perfectly by a journal. But each concept refers to specific historical 274 00:44:39.010 --> 00:44:40.230 condition. 275 00:44:40.890 --> 00:44:51.309 We should reveal new rationality after instrumental reason characterize and single and simple, relatively simple tools 276 00:44:51.840 --> 00:44:56.309 to be instruments to manipulate 277 00:44:56.360 --> 00:44:59.249 these things with humans 278 00:44:59.260 --> 00:45:09.669 and technological rationality as rationality, organizing experience and activities of people 279 00:45:10.160 --> 00:45:12.149 deal in these systems 280 00:45:12.330 --> 00:45:20.540 in the advanced industrial society. Now, we need some concept. I call 281 00:45:20.690 --> 00:45:23.830 it algorithmical rationality. 282 00:45:24.000 --> 00:45:30.999 new dominance, new domination. Logic is not about systems, it's about networks. 283 00:45:31.070 --> 00:45:35.060 objects. 284 00:45:35.120 --> 00:45:38.590 dynamic objects are hybrid. 285 00:45:38.760 --> 00:45:41.240 networked, and 286 00:45:41.430 --> 00:45:44.009 existence as flows 287 00:45:44.360 --> 00:45:46.770 this blurred 288 00:45:46.910 --> 00:45:48.180 boundaries 289 00:45:48.630 --> 00:45:56.969 and man different objects, and among different concepts, representations, and so on. So 290 00:45:57.140 --> 00:46:02.970 algorithmical a rationality makes networks of objects 291 00:46:03.000 --> 00:46:16.919 functioning automatically without human subjectivity, without human subjectness. And there is a problem to be understood, and 292 00:46:17.390 --> 00:46:33.489 probably too solved by means of critical theorizing. So I see 2 main tasks for the next phase of critical theorizing to identify next liberation movement 293 00:46:34.350 --> 00:46:42.899 opposed to society driving by the algorithmical rationality. And one more task is 294 00:46:43.660 --> 00:46:46.139 to reveal ways of 295 00:46:46.400 --> 00:46:54.360 the next Liberation movement becoming a source for the newest form of social control and normativity. 296 00:46:54.560 --> 00:46:58.769 It looks erotic, but it's 297 00:46:58.850 --> 00:47:00.940 dialectical irony. 298 00:47:01.920 --> 00:47:13.250 The dynamic society makes our efforts, our attempts to liberate, to make our life less alienated 299 00:47:13.670 --> 00:47:15.820 the source for capitalism. 300 00:47:16.020 --> 00:47:21.330 capitalism, and liberation are too controversial 301 00:47:21.540 --> 00:47:25.130 of the same object. 302 00:47:25.830 --> 00:47:30.779 and to illustrate this idea, I used 303 00:47:31.050 --> 00:47:33.439 the old cover 304 00:47:33.510 --> 00:47:42.160 of the first edition of Mercury's book one dimensional name and that digit. 305 00:47:43.320 --> 00:47:47.749 but represented in the gravestone. 306 00:47:48.250 --> 00:47:51.989 And I am not sure you can read 307 00:47:52.130 --> 00:48:01.160 that German word by the that is really permanent task for critical the horizon 308 00:48:01.380 --> 00:48:10.189 we have to write a Mahan. We have to continue this permanent critique. 309 00:48:10.700 --> 00:48:11.890 permanent 310 00:48:12.000 --> 00:48:17.140 action of critical theorism that. So thank you very much. 311 00:48:23.330 --> 00:48:40.010 Okay, thank you very much, and we won't be let you go to the Casino. Are we going to continue the critique? So Who would like to start with the questions? I thought it worked well. Last in the last session, where they everyone came forward and and gave their questions and we bank them up. And then each of the respondents 312 00:48:40.100 --> 00:48:42.189 had a chance to then 313 00:48:42.700 --> 00:48:44.750 respond in turn. 314 00:48:45.520 --> 00:48:50.900 So we can just walk up to the front. And yeah, one at a time. 315 00:48:52.110 --> 00:48:58.660 You have the floor first. 316 00:48:59.570 --> 00:49:01.669 Thanks very much to all the presenters, too. 317 00:49:03.830 --> 00:49:31.469 Yeah, this has been 2 really awesome sessions. Thanks for organizing them. my name is Arian Hannah Meyer. I'm a critical theorist from Canada at Brandon University. My question is not a question. It's probably a refusal or a slight disagreement with you, James. not sure if you know my 2,019 book. where I've spelled out kind of my view of genealogy, but I think if I've understood your 318 00:49:31.470 --> 00:49:45.820 your view about needing a kind of external justification which I see your hermeneutic and analytic point. And I think that's great. the way that I've done this is actually, methodologically so kind of thinking about, and rather an internal kind of 319 00:49:45.820 --> 00:49:56.860 justification. For why we need to do this kind of genealogical work. And that's the the institutions themselves, even including ask the human sciences like sociology, medicine. 320 00:49:56.860 --> 00:50:20.249 We often have these promises, or we have, like these kind of Tediological goals, or of our institutions which fail, which you adequately point out. But it's that they already think like. This is what I think is what the internal kind of driving it's like. They already think that what they, that that this is what's good, but they're failing. And so, in a sense, it's like a justification to say, Hey, well, we can actually show you how and why it fails. 321 00:50:20.330 --> 00:50:25.980 And I think for me, that's why it's an internal justification or normative. 322 00:50:26.200 --> 00:50:33.999 Yeah, a normative justification rather than something that has to come externally. So yeah, just from within the discourse of the institution itself. 323 00:50:34.200 --> 00:50:38.210 Take that to the question. You're next. 324 00:50:45.850 --> 00:50:53.350 So I'm ken toakksa from Japan, and my question is also to J. 325 00:50:54.180 --> 00:50:55.750 Jamie Santos 326 00:50:55.790 --> 00:50:57.970 paper. And 327 00:50:59.970 --> 00:51:01.740 and hmm. 328 00:51:02.990 --> 00:51:09.470 I'm not the expert on critical theory. I'm not the expert on Google. So 329 00:51:09.730 --> 00:51:24.569 I might be missing your point. But I was wondering. And my my question is about the relationship between genealogy and writing history. 330 00:51:24.820 --> 00:51:53.409 And so my question is a little bit about from a methodological viewpoint. So I was wondering what what is the authentic genealogy, and in light of the fact that forms of life is actually so so my question is, 331 00:51:53.490 --> 00:52:23.120 can we consider genealogy as a single or plural form? and if we can. say that there is a kind of authentic genealogy or authentic ways of writing history, and what this is, what is a standard for the Orientic writing. So this is my question. 332 00:52:29.590 --> 00:52:30.380 So. 333 00:52:30.620 --> 00:52:40.639 okay, well, well, while the next question's coming. if people have, if people want to ask questions online. We'll give you an opportunity in in in a few moments. 334 00:52:41.740 --> 00:53:00.660 Okay, thank you very much. Everyone for for really interesting talks. I have one question for each. So to a Chido, I mean, I found really interesting the way that you used Lumen critically, so to speak, but to the notion of pseudosystems. and so I was wondering, how would you? 335 00:53:00.820 --> 00:53:26.420 okay, you look. I was wondering. how would you explain why a system is not a system, why? Why, something becomes a pseudo system, and and what I have in mind here I was wondering, you know, logics of inequality, production of inequality, exploitation. I mean, what does? What are the yeah. How? How does a system become a pseudo- system, or does not become yet a system? 336 00:53:26.770 --> 00:53:39.530 I'm not. Yeah. And then my question is connected to the fact that I'm not sure if Lumen. if Lumen himself, I mean the the Lumannian theory can account for that. So I would also like to hear you about this. 337 00:53:39.570 --> 00:54:08.959 So to to Demetrove. yeah, Dimitri, I'm sorry. so yeah, I would like to hear more about I I found really interesting as well. I wanna I like to hear you more about the algorithm rationality and the possibilities of liberation. So what would be the sorts of contradictions or tensions. So I want to hear you more about what? What what constitutes, I mean, what how this algorithm algorithm it? 338 00:54:08.960 --> 00:54:17.169 I don't know. Rationality is structured. What are the tensions, contradictions that allow for processes of liberation? 339 00:54:17.690 --> 00:54:31.009 And so to to to James. I yeah, really like your, your, your, your talk as well, and I and I see where where you're going. And so I had a question about I mean. 340 00:54:31.220 --> 00:55:01.790 forkorn. Yeah, but I rather I mean, I'm really interested in knowing whether I mean it's seen. This seems there's there's an element that does not seem to be present so much need, their Foucault or Yaghi, which is the notion of a capitalism as a system written by contradictions, and so on, and so forth. And so. I wonder if that has a place in in your proposal or not? Because also what I have in mind here, like in certain debates with Emiel, and she, 341 00:55:01.870 --> 00:55:20.969 very emphatically refutes a notion such as contradiction. And if I understood correctly, because precisely what she she wants to see reality in more plural terms, that she, it seems to her that contradiction would push towards some sort of from some form of totality. So I wonder how would that fit in your proposal. 342 00:55:24.750 --> 00:55:28.020 Are we able to last people on? I think 343 00:55:29.410 --> 00:55:30.420 so it 344 00:55:30.940 --> 00:55:37.129 if you're online and would like to ask a question, we can probably give you an opportunity. Now. 345 00:55:50.300 --> 00:56:01.260 it's just a quick question for Dimitri. yeah, I really liked also the notion of algorithmic rationality. And I think it really resonates like how they're just gonna be like running themselves. But they don't have a 346 00:56:01.490 --> 00:56:21.400 specific logic. There's just kind of doing their own stuff, and nobody understands how these new algorithms, especially the like the new AI stuff that is so creative. But but it's a it's a black box which is very similar to the quantum computers, which is like developing this technology that nobody understands the whole quantum 347 00:56:21.780 --> 00:56:26.850 entanglement. And we are capitalizing on it. But nobody knows how it actually works. 348 00:56:27.540 --> 00:56:34.359 so my question was, actually, no, that was just a comment on that. That was really interesting. But 349 00:56:34.900 --> 00:56:50.090 Why, you're only thinking of liberation in terms of or I. I got the feeling that liberation had to come from social movements or protests, or like that kind of the side of resistance. can it come also as a changing mindset of policy? 350 00:56:50.210 --> 00:56:53.359 I kind of get to that level from your perspective. 351 00:56:58.940 --> 00:57:07.190 I think that's all the questions maybe we'll take. We'll let the speakers maybe answer in the or do they present it? Maybe that would be the simplest. So do you want to go first? 352 00:57:07.540 --> 00:57:08.330 Yeah. 353 00:57:14.210 --> 00:57:30.069 Hi, thank you very much. Professor Brennan, for a very important question. And I'm I was contrasting the pseudo system with what woman described as a functional sub social functional subsystems 354 00:57:30.070 --> 00:57:47.099 such as the political system system, or the system will find out something like that. And if if as such, if society is fully differentiated. 355 00:57:47.130 --> 00:58:04.809 On the other hand, as I wrote in the slide, Lumann said, the differentiation of society is directly connected to the differentiation of roles. So I myself might have a multiple self. 356 00:58:04.880 --> 00:58:34.769 I have a many dimensions of myself. on one part I I'm connected to the political system. So I I myself think about that one should be not politically correct, and I do the political action. And, on the other hand, I I'm a kind of consumer work producer through the the economic system. And, on the other hand, I'm also a some. 357 00:58:34.770 --> 00:58:43.139 I have something to do with the scientific system. Whether I am a scientist or a woman 358 00:58:43.260 --> 00:59:02.999 even, I'm a Raymond. I have a scientific, basic scientific knowledge, and I can decide what is scientifically good for that. And also I might be a a family member. But in such kind of a state. In that 359 00:59:03.150 --> 00:59:04.020 Hui. 360 00:59:04.440 --> 00:59:13.259 my mindful self is established that society might be free, differentiated. 361 00:59:13.290 --> 00:59:27.899 But in the subtle system it's not maybe women. yeah, all women might be involved in households, and all 362 00:59:28.500 --> 00:59:45.529 and males are involved in the company, or as such, and the scientific community might be dominated by the scientific establishments. So this is what I wanted to do. 363 00:59:45.590 --> 00:59:59.760 Say about this distinction between the systems. And I'm sorry I I I was not so, Korea, about that the definition of the system. So 364 00:59:59.980 --> 01:00:01.260 just 365 01:00:01.630 --> 01:00:02.989 because I understood 366 01:00:03.770 --> 01:00:05.180 the question is, what? 367 01:00:16.590 --> 01:00:20.049 Sorry? Sorry. Sorry. 368 01:00:20.500 --> 01:00:24.360 what creates 369 01:00:25.610 --> 01:00:37.000 I'm thinking that historically. our society were once 370 01:00:37.030 --> 01:00:44.660 in a primitive state, and then changed into a 371 01:00:44.850 --> 01:00:54.510 state, and then we, our society, is now becoming started to differentiate. 372 01:00:54.640 --> 01:01:07.669 But it's not the fully differentiated. So this is the E of the system. I think so. If our reason 373 01:01:07.670 --> 01:01:29.689 is gradually differentiated in the future. So i, I can distinguish many, many aspects of the world. Then we can get rid of the 374 01:01:30.890 --> 01:01:31.830 okay. 375 01:01:43.100 --> 01:01:46.159 Thank you. Thank you for the questions. 376 01:01:46.710 --> 01:01:57.670 Professor, yeah, I did not catch her book. I'm going to. the the idea of the external justifications. More I more of 377 01:01:58.170 --> 01:02:22.619 the more on the production on the genealogy. that's my, that's my meaning of external the genealogy itself. Since the critique of the Crypto Normative Critique, it's so resilient until today. And it does not seem that you can build a genealogy, and for that sake. 378 01:02:22.830 --> 01:02:25.369 like the colleague says, there's 379 01:02:25.410 --> 01:02:29.110 very much shades of genealogy, everybody 380 01:02:29.300 --> 01:02:49.589 that can and will try to make their own, and sometimes they seem to lack and seem to not be. Worry about the normative point, about it, about the actual aim that Foucault itself 381 01:02:49.590 --> 01:03:13.369 had for genealogy. So that's the idea of the external morn of the idea of. I have to bring a door. No, so that I can have some substantial oh, I have to combine Habermas or genealogy. Doesn't. Seems to fit so l. Or a a need for a a company with something or an extrate 382 01:03:13.610 --> 01:03:31.909 just a absolutely just negating as a form of I'm A's emulatory critique. That that was the idea. I think you. I think your your point is fair. The the idea that the the people in institution are in view with the justification impetus 383 01:03:32.030 --> 01:03:58.010 about genealogy versus history. So that's an old and old argument genealogy doesn't write history as history. It's a for covid for itself has one. He has many interviews when his pressure in. And this points, and he itself has said once that well, maybe I'm fictionalizing. 384 01:03:58.450 --> 01:03:59.570 Maybe 385 01:03:59.780 --> 01:04:13.960 it doesn't. It doesn't have to be so. It it is based on historical. Narratives! But it does not aims itself to be history with the capital. H. 386 01:04:14.210 --> 01:04:21.839 So it's it's much more on a viewpoint, a standpoint. So we can grasp this 387 01:04:21.970 --> 01:04:27.749 these topics to change social practice. So there is no authentic way to make a genealogy. 388 01:04:27.900 --> 01:04:34.029 or, in my opinion, to write history. So there is no authentic way. 389 01:04:34.350 --> 01:04:36.629 So 390 01:04:37.290 --> 01:05:01.489 capitalism, critique and consolidation problem. So that's interesting. So yeah, professor Professor Rajel. she does touch on contradiction in her book. But she deals in the way that are and a problem solving idea she's trying to build that we when we this, the description of a problem has itself the solution. 391 01:05:01.490 --> 01:05:08.660 So when we are saying that the problem of the contribution of the capitalism is that we have 392 01:05:09.120 --> 01:05:10.970 people are free. 393 01:05:10.990 --> 01:05:15.949 but they, if they don't have money, so we are already solving. 394 01:05:16.180 --> 01:05:17.539 So we have 395 01:05:17.680 --> 01:05:32.980 the tools we just. We don't change. So she tries to delve into the ethical function of this problem, and she tries to build from with from that. 396 01:05:33.090 --> 01:05:43.860 And she mentioned this explicitly, that capitalism as a form of life is the main is is the main 397 01:05:43.960 --> 01:05:46.920 block 398 01:05:47.000 --> 01:05:55.099 this, try or trying to surpass this capitalist form of life that is trying to 399 01:05:55.450 --> 01:05:58.400 make make itself like invisible. 400 01:05:58.450 --> 01:06:15.769 So that's part of her point. So in she has, she mentioned this as that's an ever-present problem in her book, but for Co. Itself doesn't touch on capitalist points mostly for 401 01:06:16.240 --> 01:06:18.790 Foucault was 402 01:06:19.280 --> 01:06:26.159 in his in his time, and as the the 403 01:06:26.550 --> 01:06:54.649 political, the Pcf. The Communist party in France. ultimately, determinate the the topics for the academics, and Foucault was very much against that. So his avoidance of direct topics criticizing capitalism is very much acutely aware that he he does not. He does not want to be an otter ego for politics. 404 01:06:55.140 --> 01:07:21.499 but if we look deep into the the thematics of the critique of Modernity that he has, and on security territorial population, we can see that he has a very deep critique on the Lasse affair and the neoliberal approaches. They are coming. So yeah, he is acutely aware of the problem, and he tries to circle. 405 01:07:23.470 --> 01:07:26.460 Well, yeah, I I guess that's it right. 406 01:07:34.730 --> 01:07:39.990 Thank you for both questions actually 407 01:07:40.020 --> 01:08:07.760 about the same. And I think the most weak point in my presentation. First of all, you are right. Algorithmic rationality. Algorithmic is a grammatically correct word. But I consciously use this firm algorithmical algorithmic is it refers to algorithms to practices of their creation and 408 01:08:08.400 --> 01:08:23.370 the practices of use. Algorithmical is about logic. And it's about algorithm fetishisms. We can see everywhere today 409 01:08:23.760 --> 01:08:38.650 algorithmical rationality, a rationality presents and presented everything as chains of, and less chains of simple binary solutions. 410 01:08:38.880 --> 01:08:49.670 except a reject yes or no binary logic. Everywhere. It's primitive, but 411 01:08:51.160 --> 01:09:01.970 quantitatively, not qualitatively, quantitatively. Such logic is more powerful than our traditional logic. 412 01:09:01.970 --> 01:09:26.120 So how can we resist a struggle? First of all, struggling against physicization, against ideology, promoted by digital platforms, by it, corporations by 80 Gers and enthusiasts. 413 01:09:26.120 --> 01:09:40.599 secondly, we can in our everyday life to broke all these algorithmic, a logic, we can avoid 414 01:09:40.900 --> 01:10:04.730 participation in such chains, in networks. We can use or not use digital platforms to communicate more reality, return reality in our life, in our practices and combining, of course, this reality, this 415 01:10:05.270 --> 01:10:28.040 digital technologies, but used consciously, and violence of algorithms should be the central point in our critique of that phenomenon? The second question, comment and question about artificial intelligence. yes. 416 01:10:28.080 --> 01:10:30.160 neural networks. 417 01:10:30.520 --> 01:10:47.430 Using this this pattern of endless shades of simple binary solutions can be, or they look, very powerful. But actually, I think we can demonstrate 418 01:10:47.500 --> 01:10:53.800 artificial intelligence. Intelligence is more artificial than intelligence. 419 01:10:53.810 --> 01:11:07.240 It reflects their restricted logic and cultural and social horizon, of developers. 420 01:11:07.550 --> 01:11:21.830 of managers of it, specialists actually artificial intelligence. I see in all such solutions, socially. 421 01:11:22.350 --> 01:11:24.190 determined 422 01:11:24.400 --> 01:11:29.309 by social positions, by 423 01:11:29.490 --> 01:11:43.760 cultural belonging to culture, and that is also subject for critical theorizing and social movements of the previous 424 01:11:44.000 --> 01:11:48.549 periods of critical. The horizon and 425 01:11:48.580 --> 01:11:59.080 previous periods of a struggle for liberation, they should change their minds. There is no proletariat 426 01:11:59.240 --> 01:12:12.640 in our post-industrial world. and classical terms proposed by Marxists and neuromarxes. New social movements are not new at all. 427 01:12:12.780 --> 01:12:34.110 struggling against discrimination. We got positive discrimination as a new form of oppression, oppressive or repressive tolerance. If they use a Mercusian terminology. So we should by to Mahan 428 01:12:34.290 --> 01:12:43.029 we should renew our permanent critical, the horizon, we should 429 01:12:43.830 --> 01:12:52.329 restore our surgeon for new marginals, for new antisocial, a social 430 01:12:52.460 --> 01:13:01.930 non-sympathetic. groups, movements. They are the probable source 431 01:13:01.960 --> 01:13:06.410 for resistance and for critical theorea as an end. 432 01:13:06.510 --> 01:13:17.230 I I'd like to express my solidarity. The so called the an east version of critical the horizon. 433 01:13:17.510 --> 01:13:42.800 Mentally ill people, people excluded from Normal Social life. Could be Defended! Bright, really critical theorists, and they should be integrated, included in our process of critique. Thank you. 434 01:13:45.160 --> 01:14:11.870 I think that brings us to a close, but we should thank all of the presenters for the to the fascinating excellent And it was terrific that we're only 3 because it we generate a ha! That's really terrific discussion as well, after this. And what is it? 7, 30? What does the business meeting of the Concepts and Terminology Research Committee? And that will be held in the the other in the the can. 435 01:14:11.870 --> 01:14:21.610 in Room 107 in the convention Center building, and there there will be true vitamin happening. 436 01:14:21.940 --> 01:14:40.039 Look at the authentic vital market will occur there, and we'll rename the concepts and terminal. I will put a motion forward to rename the concepts and Terminology Research Committee to vitam up, and I think this is the the way forward. Yes. 437 01:14:40.070 --> 01:14:44.689 so they they will be square. 438 01:14:44.960 --> 01:14:55.000 Well, I didn't think on a Hannettian thing. We should really thank our assistance that we get there. Doesn't no one really, thanks to it all.