Dual Book Launch @Framer Framed of System of Systems’ Managing Displacement Series

12 Dec 2024 18:00 – 20:00, Framer Framed, Oranje-Vrijstaatkade 71, Amsterdam

On 12 December 2024 at Framer Framed, System of Systems launches the first two books in their Managing Displacement series: Outsourcing and Extraction. System of Systems is a research project that analyses the bureaucratic, spatial, and technological conditions shaping Europe’s migration landscape.

The themes of each edition will be discussed by three contributors: critical media scholar Ariana Dongus, spatial and visual researcher Stefanos Levidis, and lecturer Hassan Ould Moctar, and is followed by a Q&A.

Ariana Dongus is a critical media scholar. She researches refugees, migration, and technology, focusing on AI’s social aspects, digital labour exploitation, and invisible infrastructures. Formerly at HfG Karlsruhe, where she taught media theory and coordinated a research group on critical AI, she is now a Research Fellow at TU Dresden.

Stefanos Levidis is a spatial and visual researcher, and is the co-founder and co-director of Forensic Architecture Initiative Athens (FAIA). Stefanos has been working with Forensic Architecture and Forensis since 2016, overseeing the agencies’ work on borders and migration and holds a PhD from the Centre for Research Architecture, Goldsmiths.

Hassan Ould Moctar is a Lecturer in the Anthropology of Migration at SOAS, University of London. He holds a PhD in Development Studies which he obtained from SOAS. His research focuses on the relationship between migration, borders, and development processes, with a regional focus on Mauritania, the West African Sahel, and the Sahara.

Register here

More about the series:

Managing Displacement explores the intricate web of migration management within and beyond Europe’s borders. Each publication begins with a theme or term to examine processes that restrict, surveil, or obscure displaced people.

The first publication, Outsourcing, examines how the EU extends its borders beyond the continent by outsourcing border control. Recognising this practice within a historical trajectory of colonial ordering, it shows how responsibility is systematically deferred and how racist structures are propagated through border management.

Outsourcing contributors: Border Violence Monitoring Network, FRAUD, Nadine El-Enany, Hassan Ould Moctar.

The second publication, Extraction, offers a transhistorical perspective on contemporary border systems. The contributions explore extraction as a process that drives displacement, with enduring effects due to environmental devastation. They also examine extraction as a direct mechanism of border management that financially profits from those who are displaced.

Extraction contributors: Ariana Dongus, Radha D’Souza, Stefanos Levidis, Angela Melitopoulos.

‘Managing Displacement’ is a publication series that explores the intricate web of migration management within and beyond Europe’s borders. Each publication begins with a theme, or term, in order to examine processes that restrict, surveil or obscure displaced people.

Those displaced and seeking to inhabit the social, political, and economic imaginaries of ‘Europe’ are met with an increasingly hostile frontier. The confluence of obscure legal processes, rising anti-migrant rhetoric, and the use of heavily funded private contractors has enforced the idea of Europe as a ‘fortress’. The very notion of Europe – freedom of movement for some and restriction for others – is upheld through austere migration policy by the European Union, influencing many aspects of political life on the continent and beyond.

Each book in the series delves into a term and a process deployed to restrict, surveil, or obscure displaced peoples. Underpinning the publications is the understanding that displacement is deeply entangled with historical legacies of colonialism, resource extraction, and late-stage capitalism. We seek to redress the framing of displacement as something to be managed, by re-defining the processes employed to do so.

Edited by System of Systems
Published in December 2024

Designed by Rose Nordin
Copyedited by Harriet Foyster

OUT NOW TOD#54 In/Convenience: Inhabiting the Logistical Surround edited by Joshua Neves and Marc Steinberg

Theory on Demand #54

In/Convenience: Inhabiting the Logistical Surround

Edited by Joshua Neves and Marc Steinberg

Convenience is the feeling and aspiration that animates our platformed present. As such, it poses urgent techno-political questions about the everyday digital habitus. From next-day delivery, gig work, and tele-health to cashless payment systems, data centers, and policing – convenience is an affordance and an enclosure; our logistical surround. Driving every experience of convenience is the precarious work, proprietary algorithms, or predatory schemes that subtend it. This collaborative book traces how the logistical surround is transformed by thickening digital economies and networked rituals, examining contemporary conveniences across a wide range of practices and geographies. Contributors examine the ineluctable relation between convenience and its constitutive opposite, inconvenience, considering its infrastructural, affective, and compulsory dimensions. Living in convenience is thus both a hyper visible manifestation of so-called late capitalism and a pervasive mood that fades into the background (like the data centers that power it). Bringing the agonistic relation of in/convenience to center stage, this volume analyzes the logistics of delivery, streaming porn, cloud computing, water infrastructures, smartness paradigms, convenience stores, sleep apps, surveillance, AI ethics, and much more – rethinking the cultural politics of convenience for the present conjuncture.

Contributors: Darren Byler, Orit Halpern, Armin Beverungen, Mél Hogan, Steven Gonzalez, Tung Hui-Hu, Susanna Paasonen, Neta Alexander, Rahul Mukherjee, Liza Rose Cirolia, Andrea Pollio, Tomasz Hollanek, Maya Indira Ganesh

Joshua Neves is Associate Professor, Concordia University, and author of Underglobalization: Beijing’s Media Urbanism and the Chimera of Legitimacy. Marc Steinberg is Professor of Cinema, Concordia University, and author of The Platform Economy: How Japan Transformed the Consumer Internet.

Order a copy or download publication HERE

The Braids, The Bars, and the Blackness: Ruminations on Hip Hop’s World War III – Drake versus Kendrick (Part Three) 

A Conversation by Todd Craig and LeBrandon Smith

Happy Hip Hop History Month! Last week writer, educator and DJ Todd Craig and cultural curator and social impact leader LeBrandon Smith kicked off their three part series parsing out this past spring’s beef between Kendrick Lamar and Drake, Hip Hop history in the making. We left off in the breath-holding moment just after Kendrick released “Euphoria” and “6:16 in LA” after eleven days of anticipation. Since the dust has settled a bit between K-Dot and OVO, it’s the perfect time for these intergenerational Hip Hop heads to tap in and sort out what this epic beef really meant for the artists, the sound, and most importantly, the culture. School is IN, yall!  Click this link to read Part I; click this link to read Part II. And yes, we know a new Kendrick album came out! #whew #tvoff #whatatimetobealive


Approximately 14 hours after Kendrick released “6:16 in LA,” Drake responded with “Family Matters” on May 3, 2024. We’re connecting it to the ending snippet of “Push Ups,” which insinuates it may have been recorded even before the prior two Kendrick songs (we also get this song as a video, so the visuals add another element).

The three-part diss track aims at multiple people (Rick Ross, A$AP Rocky, the Weeknd [aka Abel Tesfaye], Metro Boomin and others), but its most disrespectful lines are clearly aimed at Kendrick. This is really and truly the moment when Drake moves to bring Kendrick’s family into his bars. He also aims at Kendrick’s blackness in a confusing line, saying “always rappin’ like you ‘bout to get the slaves freed/ You just actin’ like an activist, it’s make-believe.” This was a line we both agreed was not only a problematic misstep, but would taint some of the other formative disses in the song. In a moment where Drake’s own blackness and identity were in question, calling his own supporters – Black people – “slaves,” who need to get “freed” does more work to prove Kendrick’s point than to further Drake’s lyrical prowess on the scorecard. Todd also identified the second verse of “Family Matters” (from 2:43-5:15) as the most formidable – the beat switch, cadence and flow, that pocket Drake taps into lyrically is one of his best rapping moments of the battle. Drake’s flow in this part is impeccable, as we see him rhyming in rapid fire, sending shots against multiple foes.

LeBrandon tapped into the third verse (5:16 to 7:36), when out the gate, Drake says “Kendrick just opened his mouth, somebody hand him a Grammy right now.” Drake is at his best when he’s being facetious and petty and his hate for the Grammys is well documented. Drake disrespecting revered entities during this battle was enjoyable and garnered attention; anytime you can call an opponent’s accolades into question – whether it’s a Grammy or a Pulitzer – it’s helpful in a rap battle. LeBrandon could also imagine Kendrick chuckling at a few of the height one-liners like “These bars go over Kenny’s head no matter what I say,” as K.Dot manically crafted his response. 

LeBrandon also pointed out that ownership of jewelry in Hip Hop is a staple, so he appreciated the flex of “You wanna take up for Pharrell?/ Then come get his legacy outta my house.” Since when is it acceptable for another rapper to own jewelry you purchased and proudly wore? We understand Drake owning Pharrell’s jewelry isn’t to pay homage, but to spite Pharrell and The Clipse. The quote is a great retort by Drake, and a keen reminder of how villainous and strategic he can be. This bar felt like the Michael Jordan shrug in audio form. Regardless of how Drake acquired the jewelry, he has it and that matters, and creating a visual in New Ho King with these pieces is devious work. 

LeBrandon literally let out an audible sigh when we heard Drake say, “Your daddy got robbed by Top…” Rap is entertainment so there’s an expectation that lies may surface. Great lyrical battles are like playing the dozens: to garner the most rousing response from the audience, folks will definitely exaggerate. But we agreed that this line ain’t that. This is just straight up faulty comprehension, as the story of Kendrick’s dad and Top Dog’s meeting (in the song, “DUCKWORTH” ) was not a robbery narrative. Part of war is knowing your opponent’s weaknesses and “DUCKWORTH” as a song is bulletproof.

After Drake’s brash talking on both the verses and outro of “Taylor Made Freestyle” warning Kendrick he should be prepared, this uninformed lyrical analysis, or misstep at rewriting the factual narrative is disappointing, specifically because Drake is so talented; misses like this in the midst of a legendary battle makes him look foolish and lazy. Unfortunately, this isn’t the only time Drake does this during the battle, but we found this occurrence quite jarring.

We both agreed the craziest turn of events for the battle was when MINUTES after “Family Matters” dropped, Kendrick responded with “Meet the Grahams”: the darkest and most sinister song of the battle. The way in which Kendrick composed an open letter to members of Drake’s family after Drake mentioned Kendrick’s fiancé by name along with other accusations, put Kendrick in a space he describes, saying “this supposed to be a good exhibition within the game/ But you fucked up the moment you called out my family’s name/ Why you had to stoop so low to discredit some decent people?/ Guess integrity is lost when the metaphors doesn’t reach you.” This song exemplifies why Kendrick has been given the “BoogeyMan” moniker. These dark and disturbing lyrics are what nightmares are made of; and what better way to tap into such a dark landscape than with an eerie beat produced by the Alchemist.

We agreed it was the moment in the battle where Kendrick’s cerebral nature fully set in: new vocals, new flows and a new attack on Drake’s morals and character. At this point in the battle, Todd hoped Drake stopped rhyming because of just how dark this sonic happening was. “Meet the Grahams” is a cerebral and intense listening experience that took the battle to a whole other level. In addition, K.Dot showed us just how much he liked “Back to Back,” as he would double down and double-drop again, this time with the anthem “Not Like Us.” We both agreed that “Meet the Grahams” was the dark, uncomfortable turn, and “Not Like Us” felt like the sonic nails in the coffin for the battle. Besides the absolute instrumental bop DJ Mustard provides for Kendrick, the lyrics coupled with the anthem-feeling hook felt like Kendrick had outsmarted Drake, and simply beat him to the “bop-punch” that we’ve known Drake to produce.

When we listened to the bars, “I’m finna pass on this body, I’m John Stockton/ Beat your ass and hide the Bible if God watchin’/ Sometimes you gotta pop out and show niggas,” we knew it was going to be downhill for Drake. As Kendrick moved through the verses and tapped into the last verse with the lesson on Drake’s sonic connections to Atlanta, and calling him a “colonizer,” an important sentiment popped up for Todd. What’s really deceptive about these lines is that Kendrick is leaning into generational and cultural Blackness. He does it earlier in the references that LeBrandon picked up on with hair and “the braids.” But these sayings K.Dot continuously extols not only emanate from Southern culture, but are also older sentiments from elders in the Black community. So when Kendrick inserts these lines, they’re more harsh than even some of the direct disses, because they lean into Black American culture in ways that Drake would never understand as either a Canadian or a kid visiting his dad in the states (evidenced by “always rappin’ like you ‘bout to get the slaves freed”). However, sonically, it feels “super Black” – putting Black listeners right at home, like they’re hearing their grandma chastise someone. So by the time Kendrick gets to the call and response moment of “Lemme hear you say ‘O-V-Hoe’” (again, another Black trope that transcends Hip Hop), as listeners, we already feel like we’re in the livest cook-out and block party of the summer!

As we tuned into “The Heart Part 6” on May 5, 2024, we both agreed Drake sounded defeated, he was clearly waving the white flag, and he was continuing down the road of missteps that were no longer forgivable. When he lays the bars, “My Montreal connects stand up, not fall down/the ones that you’re gettin’ your stories from, they all clowns,” only to follow up three bars later with, “we plotted for a week and then we fed you the information,” it became clear that even Drake wasn’t sure how to move through the rest of the song as well as the battle. This was another unforced error, a critical misstep Drake simply could not afford at this juncture.

When thinking of this moment alongside Drake’s lack of comprehension around Kendrick’s song, “Mother I Sober,” (where Kendrick touches on abuse in his family – not to be confused with a personal admission of sexual abuse) this stands as Drake’s weakest song in the battle. It also doesn’t stand close to Kendrick’s initial chess move of usurping Drake’s “timestamp songs” – when Kendrick presents “6:16 in LA” (a series Drake has used on almost all of his albums), it proves to be a more robust offering than “The Heart Part 6” (a series Kendrick has used in his career). After this offering from Drake, we see The Ken and Friends: Pop Out (a concert streamed live via Amazon Prime on June 19, 2024: Juneteenth), followed by the “Not Like Us” video (which was released on July 4, 2024: Independence Day). These two drops on cultural “Independence Days” just furthers the notion that Kendrick had a level of vision and foresight far beyond where Drake could imagine. By “The Heart Part 6,” we also agreed Drake thought the song and visuals to “Family Matters” (which was probably recorded around the same time as “Push Ups” and “Taylor Made Freestyle”) would be the end of the battle with Kendrick. An egregious misstep by both Drake and his team to underestimate the BoogeyMan in such a way. 

We close this article sharing an important intergenerational conversation that will serve as a Hip Hop cultural landmark. We’ve both seen various videos and TikToks deconstructing many of the “Easter eggs” left by both Drake and Kendrick in this battle. We hope this article serves as another perspective on how we might be able to think about these songs and this battle from a music as well as a cultural perspective, specifically as it relates to all things Hip Hop. And again, we both agreed there are complicated messages and moments in the battle that require further attention and future analysis.

We also felt a responsibility in sharing this dialogue in an academic space as two avid Hip Hop listeners from two different generations with two different seasoned and highly informed viewpoints. Our perspectives on Hip Hop are forever altered, especially with this battle following the 50th anniversary of the culture last year. So we feel obliged to document this moment, as the battle raised a series of questions for us. We introduce some of those questions throughout the article, while some questions might be answered over time, and others might never see a response. Each of our questions generate analysis that will remain critically relevant to the resonance of this historic battle, which has turned into a cultural moment and movement. It’s crucial to consider the artistic creation outside of any two individuals, as Hip Hop proved with this battle that it remains the biggest culture shaper in our world today.

We hope to see your thoughts on the topic, and, just like Kendrick, we reserve the right to return, and to even “pop out” one more time. . .Superbowl LVIII?  

Our Icon for this series is a mash up of “Kendrick Lamar (Sziget Festival 2018)” taken by Flickr User Peter Ohnacker (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) and “Drake, Telenor Arena 2017” taken by Flickr User Kim Erlandsen, NRK P3 (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Todd Craig (he/him) is a writer, educator and DJ whose career meshes his love of writing, teaching and music. His research inhabits the intersection of writing and rhetoric, sound studies and Hip Hop studies. He is the author o“K for the Way”: DJ Rhetoric and Literacy for 21st Century Writing Studies (Utah State University Press) which examines the Hip Hop DJ as twenty-first century new media reader, writer, and creator of the discursive elements of DJ rhetoric and literacy. Craigs publications include the multimodal novel torcha (pronounced “torture”), and essays in various edited collections and scholarly journals including The Bloomsbury Handbook of Hip Hop Pedagogy, Amplifying Soundwriting, Methods and Methodologies for Research in Digital Writing and Rhetoric, Fiction International, Radical Teacher, Modern Language Studies, Changing English, Kairos, Composition Studies and Sounding Out! Dr. Craig teaches courses on writing, rhetoric, African American and Hip Hop Studies, and is the co-host of the podcast Stuck off the Realness with multi-platinum recording artist Havoc of Mobb Deep. Presently, Craig is an Associate Professor of African American Studies at New York City College of Technology and English at the CUNY Graduate Center.

LeBrandon Smith (he/him) is a cultural curator and social impact leader born and raised in Brooklyn and Queens, respectively.  Coming from New York City, his efforts to bridge gaps, and build  community have been central to his work, but most notably his passion for music has fueled his career. His programming  has been seen throughout the Metropolitan area, including historical venues like Carnegie Hall, The Museum of the City of NY (MCNY) and Brooklyn Public Library.

REWIND!…If you liked this post, you may also dig:

The Braids, The Bars, and the Blackness: Ruminations on Hip Hop’s World War III – Drake versus Kendrick (Part One): Todd Craig and LeBrandon Smith 

The Braids, The Bars, and the Blackness: Ruminations on Hip Hop’s World War III – Drake versus Kendrick (Part Two): Todd Craig and LeBrandon Smith 

“Heavy Airplay, All Day with No Chorus”: Classroom Sonic Consciousness in the Playlist ProjectTodd Craig

SO! Reads: “K for the Way”: DJ Rhetoric and Literacy for 21st Century Writing Studies—DeVaughn (Dev) Harris 

SO! Amplifies: Regina Bradley’s Outkasted Conversations

Sounding Out! Podcast #28: Off the 60: A Mix-Tape Dedication to Los Angeles–Jennifer Lynn Stoever

Maja Korczyńska infiniteartist: Models of Identity in the Digital Era

multidimensionality

imperfection

instability

fluidity

In a world where technology redefines our perception of selfhood, identity becomes fluid, fragmented, and constantly evolving. My project, infiniteartist, is a multi-channel simulation that delves into this complexity by exploring alternative versions of identity through digital tools such as algorithms, AI, and generative processes.

infiniteartist embraces a multi-faceted approach, transcending the confines of a single medium or form. It combines performance, video performance, animation, and video to create a dynamic and integrative body of work. These diverse methods are not merely functional; they also serve as tools for delving into and reimagining the fluidity of identity in alternative forms. Through this exploration, I seek to capture the ongoing, boundless evolution and representation of my own identity, highlighting its complexity and multiplicity, while also acknowledging its instability, impermanence, and transformation.

Post-face and Fluidity of Identity

infiniteartist expands the term post-face, coined by Anna Szyjkowska-Piotrowska in her book Po-twarz. Przekraczanie widzenia w sztuce i technologii (Post-face. Transcending Vision in Art and Technology). Which plays a crucial role in understanding contemporary shifts in how identity and the face are perceived in art. The paradigm of the face, in its modern, proto-ethical version, still reaches for axiological concepts but is based on symbolic oppositional poles — emotions and affect, identity and subjectivity, all becoming unstable, fluid, and oscillating between self-affirmation and self-loss. This fluidity and uncertainty define the modern face paradigm, shaping it within the context of art. Contemporary artists, following these theories, blur the dichotomy of concepts such as interior/exterior, soul/body, human/animal, and feminine/masculine. The face, no longer just a face but a post-face, continues its presence in the realm of visual representation, undergoing dynamic transformations in the way it is depicted. It becomes a particular medium — a screen, carrying complex, often contradictory messages.

Szyjkowska-Piotrowska emphasizes that we no longer deal with a face in the traditional sense but with a post-face. It is a face in motion, subject to profanation, stripped of its sacred aura. The concept of post-face forces us to experience the sublime anew, revealing the uncertainty of identity and its constant transformation. The face transformed into a mask causes the disappearance of the traditional symbol of a fixed, singular identity, leading to its fluidity and instability, which in the modern paradigm, for many artists, takes the form of the post-face. This process is based on symbolic oppositional poles, questioning fundamental concepts of European humanism — identity, and unity.

Redefining the Traditional Face in The Digital Age

In the digital and media age, where the image of the face is often manipulated, processed, or even completely altered through digital technology. Unlike the traditional perception of the face as a carrier of identity and emotional expression, the concept of the post-face reveals the issue of the cultural and social construction of facial imagery, which can be shaped, modified, and distributed in various ways in the media space. The post-face becomes a tool for producing a subject, by annexing elements of identity, often utilizing already existing motifs in culture, symbols, and aesthetic paradigms. This practice involves the repetition of stereotypes, roles, and symbolic elements associated with visual culture. Contemporary art, characterized by the ubiquity of images and their ease of reproduction, enters a phase of a crisis of representation. The boundaries between reality and its digital representations are increasingly fluid, which, in turn, leads to the liquefaction of both identity and the medium itself. 

AI, as the next stage of the post-face, becomes a significant element in this process. It represents a technological evolution that allows for the generation of faces on demand, thus leading to the extreme virtualization of images. The emergence of artificially generated faces disrupts the balance between the biological and digital realms, changing the way we perceive the boundaries between dichotomies. As a result, we witness a new definition of identity, where the lines between the human and the non-human become increasingly blurred, and the post-face serves as a tool for expressing this ongoing transformation.

Generating Multiple Identities

Modern technologies and the increasingly radical virtualization of art create space for more sophisticated tools and opportunities to express complex and/or simulated identities. In the context of new media art, the multivoiced and multi-imaged nature of identity gains a clearer representation. Images no longer limit themselves to the simple reproduction of reality; on the contrary, they can transform or distort it, distancing us from its original essence. This uncertainty, or even ambiguity of images, has always evoked unease. There is also the possibility that images conceal an absence—a lack of something that has passed, disappeared, or perhaps never existed. Instead of reflecting reality, an image can replace or displace it, surpassing the boundaries of categorization as true or false. As a result, it becomes more real than reality itself, transitioning into the realm of simulation.

I broke down my identity, cataloged it, and then multiplied it. At the beginning, there was a database. A collection created from my thoughts and AI suggestions, divided into environments, art movements, media, nightmares, decisions, and health issues. From this, models were generated, further equipped with random levels of ego, condition, and susceptibility to external influences, as well as the degree of attitude toward academia, the world, and the art market. Next, they were cataloged with an individual number. 

Based on their traits, the AI-generated a verbal description of the image, which was then illustrated by an algorithm that created an image using my likeness as a reference point. Another algorithm brought them to life and allowed them to move and speak with my cloned voice. They narrate their characteristics, which were written by the AI.

The embodiment of specific traits with a given appearance reveals the physiognomic interpretation followed by AI. This way of perceiving is the result of analyzing visual data and machine learning algorithms, which attempt to assign specific internal meanings or values to particular external symptoms and signs, thus returning to the face as an icon. However, the focus on the aesthetic aspects of the face strips it of its privileged, metaphysical character. Making the algorithms, controlled and selected by humans, tools for creating new masks.

The presentation of multiple versions serves to articulate a fragmented and simulated identity. The infinitemodels represent alternative possibilities or paths that could have been or are still available, reflecting the constantly changing nature of identity. The fact that the models contain imperfections and flaws reflects the human condition—they do not represent an ideal or a singular form, but rather reveal the uncertainty and disorientation of the individual in today’s world, where identity is often defined by media representation and cultural consumption. In this context, the artist becomes an unstable product, subject to market and media pressure—this can lead to a loss of authenticity and personal integrity, encouraging the adoption of multiple masks.

These models are not valued in any way, meaning they are neither judged nor hierarchized in terms of their importance or quality; each is treated as equal to the others. The work focuses on the hybrid construct of identity—it operates within a symbolic system where the image and female identity receive a completely different representation, reflecting a more complex and multi-dimensional experience of existence that serves as a space for diverse narratives and perspectives.

The image, understood as a representation, transcends individuality in an attempt to reveal more general and symbolic layers — the presented work creates a symbiotic connection between technology and human expression — an artificiality and unnaturalness are palpable, emphasizing that, even today, there remains a boundary between the human and the non-human, while simultaneously provoking reflection on the impact of modern technologies on the future perception of identity. They are grotesque and unsettling, and some of them I can barely look at. They remind me of talking heads from TikTok, they remind me of myself. They are everything I can be and everything I cannot be. They are made by me, yet at the same time, I have nothing to do with them.

Algorithmic Identity

The blurring of dichotomy is revealed in the work actualmodel, which refers to aspirations to transform human identity into a database controlled by algorithms. The current identity is randomly selected from the data set, becoming a tool for the creation and refinement of the subject through the annexation of elements and paradigms from the digital world of life simulators. The work illustrates the continuous transformations of models, showcasing the current status, detached from my physical form. This dynamic relates to the process of cataloging and exposing inner values that are presented outwardly.

In this sense, the concept of actualmodel echoes the notion of the face-icon found in metaphysical thought and physiognomic interpretation. Here, external symptoms and signs serve as tools for inferring what is hidden, ineffable, and elusive. Just as the classical approach to the face in the tradition of portrait painting assumes the possibility of expressing the inner self through external features, actualmodel explores how identity—rooted in internal qualities—is externalized, shaped, and displayed, albeit through the mechanisms of the digital and algorithmic world.

In the context of a modern society where individuals are increasingly perceived as products, this approach refers to mechanisms in which people are compelled to display and promote their traits to attract attention and gain social acceptance. Identity is often not only revealed externally but also simulated to fit into desired frameworks. Like the classical portrait, which seeks to convey the inner through the outer, actualmodel underscores the interplay between internal substance and external representation, albeit through the lens of digital transformation and simulation.

These issues are explored in the video performance panelsofmodelselection, which delves into the construction of identity through the presentation of various interactions influencing identity formation. In the video, I am dressed in attire matching the animation’s color palette, surrounded by six panels, each presenting different decisions and aspects of identity-building within the artistic world. The work appropriates the interaction selection mechanism from the life simulation game The Sims 2. By incorporating this dynamic into the performance I draw a parallel between creating and altering identities within a virtual space and the process of constructing identity in the real world.

In The Sims 2, all actions are predefined by the game’s programming, and similarly, in real life, the “choices” individuals face are often shaped by societal structures, expectations, and technological interfaces. By appropriating this mechanic, the artwork blurs the boundary between digital and real-world identity construction, questioning to what extent our “authentic” selves are products of external systems and frameworks. The digital world of life simulators, originally modeled after real life, now loop back to influence it, blurring the boundaries between the two realms.

The final component of the artistic project is the modelenvironment, which represents a deeper engagement between the real image and the virtual world governed by algorithms. This performance utilizes the process of live keying, where my physical presence is captured in real time and then transferred into virtual environments generated entirely by an algorithm. During the exhibition, I physically stood in front of a green screen, and my image was streamed live onto the gallery space, merging my real-world presence with AI-generated environments. The live feed became a bridge between these two realms, allowing the audience to witness a real-time transformation of my body and image into a fully digital context. This dynamic process blurred the lines between what was physically present in the gallery and what was algorithmically created, challenging the traditional expectations of performance art.

By wearing the same outfit as in the panelsofmodelselection, I achieved an effect of physical/digital multiplicity, where the simultaneous presence of my physical form and two digital counterparts—one from the video and one generated live—obscured the reality of the performance. At first, the audience didn’t realize that one of the representations was a live projection, and later they struggled to distinguish which was the pre-recorded video and which was the live projection.

Instead of simply mirroring reality, the performance sought to transform and distort it, removing it from its original context and redefining the terms of authenticity. By transcending the binary of true and false, the act of transformation became a simulation of reality. Through this performance, I engage with the idea of identity as something malleable and shifting, especially in the context of contemporary digital culture. The performance questions how much of our identity is truly “real,” and to what extent it is shaped or even constructed through external systems, such as algorithms and digital media. Ultimately, the modelenvironment demonstrates the complex relationship between physical and virtual selves, offering a space where the boundaries between reality and simulation are no longer clear-cut but are in a constant state of negotiation.

Self

Using my own image has been a long-standing practice in my work, where I’ve consistently employed my likeness as a tool of expression. The act of presenting my face and body is not simply about performing an identity or creating an avatar; it’s about grounding the work in the lived, embodied self. A virtual persona lacks the inherent human experience that my identity carries—because, to have a true post-face, one must first have a face.

The artist’s face and body, as a result of tensions and the transformative power of art, have become an ongoing and essential reflection in the context of contemporary Western European culture. The artist’s physiognomy, in this sense, acts as a symbolic field where the dynamic interaction between art and society unfolds. This exploration is deeply tied to understanding how the artist’s face and body serve as artistic tools, as well as the implications of this in the creation of artworks.

By using my face and body, I am making a statement about the power of lived experience in the creation of art. My work isn’t simply about visual representation; it’s about the continuous transformation of my dentity through art, and ultimately, this process is about me. It’s rooted in my practice and my reflection on how we, as individuals, navigate and negotiate our identities in a world shaped by both traditional and digital forces.

The work premiered in June 2024 at Nowa Scena, Poznań. In November 2024, it was showcased during the Narracje as part of the 44th edition of the Maria Dokowicz competition in Poznań, where it received the Special Rector’s Award from the University of the Arts Poznań (UAP).

Experimenting with Audio: Announcing Our First OA Audiobooks

Experimenting with Audio: Announcing Our First OA Audiobooks

We are excited to announce the release of our first open access audiobooks! At OBP, we are always looking for ways to meet readers where they are. We are aware of an increased demand for audio formats in recent years, whether that be for accessibility reasons or simply because some readers enjoy listening over reading! We have thus decided to release a small sample of audio titles to gauge reader reception and listen to feedback.

Three out of the four titles in this initial collection were created with the help of AI technology, the use of which presents a number of ethical questions. We are monitoring and reflecting on the energy demands of AI in our effort to be as sustainable as possible in our publishing practice. We hope that in creating these audiobooks, we will save readers the effort (and energy) of using AI audio software themselves.

We also wish to address the potential displacement of human voice actors and other creative professionals involved in audio production. As a small, non-profit press, producing audiobooks read by professional voice actors is unfortunately beyond our means. Though we are thrilled that some of our authors have chosen to record their own books, we acknowledge that this is a time-consuming process which might not be possible or attractive to every writer. AI has enabled us to meet the demand for audio formats within these constraints.

Our decision to experiment with audiobook creation is rooted in our dedication to providing accessible, enjoyable formats for all readers. We would love to hear your feedback on these first titles as we evaluate the potential role of AI in our production process, so feel free to send your thoughts to raegan@openbookpublishers after you’ve had a listen. We hope you enjoy the books and look forward to hearing your feedback!

The following titles are now available as audiobooks:

Naked Logic: Lecture of Boldizsár Hordós at Metaforum X, Budapest

NOR // silhouette of a fluidic logic gate and its truth table, digital painting, lightbox, 2024

I am happy to teach computer history at a fine arts university. Besides, I also work with small kids. Part of my job is to pry phones out of their hands—not the most pleasant part of the day. This is partly because (as with every mandatory intervention) it stirs up more chaos than it prevents. Still, the phones really make the kids crazy. Behavioral modification and adaptive algorithms make us crazy–that’s their job after all.

People get deranged and depressed when they are told that they are not needed. When they feel that laws, state orders and and machines run their lives and their futures, or their humanity is reduced to an interplay between social and biological programs. And while we’re chipping away at real human agency, there’s a parallel admiration for (or a fear of) digital technology. Many people tend to call large language models “AI”, artificial intelligence, and as an extension to that, they see the future as the time of technocratic omnipotence, the coming era of untethered artificial minds. Artists and intellectuals often eat this up, because they are kinda lazy and naive—they want to seem forward-thinking or avoid looking outdated. Well, maybe it’s not that simple. As Jeffrey Kripal and Jacques Derrida would point out, the humanities have always been haunted by apparitions, prophecies, and mystical machines.1

Why do we conflate “computation” and “intelligence”? I’m no AI or sociology expert, but I have a few guesses. These aren’t exactly original ideas, and I’ll start with the boring ones. But first, let’s set aside the common belief that living beings are indeed machines, byproducts of genetic and social programs—a view so widely accepted that even a 13-year-old could tell you. They also tell you that God is dead and hell awaits us all. That might turn out to be true, but for now, let’s choose another angle.

1. AI as Marketing Scam: The idea of AI and the Singularity is a marketing tool for selling half-baked products or attracting money from investors, governments, and even military projects. This hype goes back to the cybernetic think tanks after WWII.2

2. Old-School Technocratic Thinking: We’ve always tried to model the human mind through whatever effective tech is in vogue: with the steam engine, we get the categories of Freudian psychology (the whole pneumatic theatre play of the libido and the various forces restricting, masking, or channeling it), and the factory-model of the mind. With cybernetics and computers, we get information processes, computational models, functionalism, and cognitivitism. Very neat abstractions and knowledge fields based on shaky metaphors.

3. Secular Mysticism: AI hype can also be seen as a secular twist on mystical ideas, especially from Abrahamic religions, where divine truths (and universal laws) are “out there”, external to the world. They are not intuitive or immanent—they are revealed through sacred or coded language. We could get more mystical with our programs: instead of vessels of the Apocalypse, we should treat them as oracles, like we did with Tarot or the Zairja.3 When people like Leibniz and Boole were inventing binary systems and formal logic (the foundations for our digital age), they felt lifted up, closer to divine order. So maybe AI is just an echo of that same drive to find  something beyond ourselves. It’s a shadow of a radically neutral, elevated reality.

4. Environment as Mind: AI is a variation of an even older experience through a Cartesian lens. Some thinkers view cognition as extending beyond the individual mind, with the surrounding environment playing an active role. A spider’s web, for example, may be part of its mind.4 We think with and by our surroundings, by our fellow creatures, routines and objects. With our songs, machines, works of art, and so on. Technology is not just an extension of us, neither a self-sustaining organism or a noosphere. Paradoxically, when we speak of the coming Singularity or artificial general intelligence, we may overlook the actual, integrative nature of technology. We could do better than that. We can be less dualistic about agency and thought. We can work without strict separations between the body and the mind, hardware and software, nature or culture. Computational models and human agency don’t have to compete in a zero-sum game.5

This is the starting point of my work and why I’m drawn to computational design that moves beyond black-box thinking. We should be modeling human activity and computation without fixating on code, rigid laws, or scripted languages. Interestingly, engineers and theorists can’t really agree on what “computation” means. Most often, they define it as information processing, describing computers as machines or networks that manipulate symbols. Other professionals are looking for a solution in automation theory and problem-solving.

Here is my take: a base level for any computation is a goal-oriented, non-random process. Or better yet, computation is about bringing together things that rely on future events, adjusting to changes in the environment. Things that change their shape or mediate change in a dynamic medium. Objects that can be efficiently described temporally. Animal traps and pollinating flowers share this nature. Along these lines we can connect natural and cultural events within the field of goal-oriented behavior. Seeking a goal, planning beforehand, these should be human things, right? We make plans by constructing mental representations in our head. But how plants and animals do it? Do they use mental representations? What is the ideal form of a beaver dam? Or nest-building birds—are they platonic about branches?

Living beings are maintained (and created) by several levels of goal-driven phenomena, some internal, some external. We can also change our environment so
that new situations and things can occur, which in turn will change our customs, and on a longer timescale, our physical form. Our environment can solve things for us. Our environment can kill or mutate us. This is the kind of computational design I’m interested in—design that draws on external processes, things that unfold on their own, often in dynamic settings like air or water.6

Full udder // plan of a full adder logic circuit, digital painting, lightbox, 2023

While we are familiar with computational systems that use sophisticated software to add new functions to already existing products and environments, enriching our experience by recontextualization (smart watches, smart homes, VR and AR applications, dating apps) we rarely think of objects, buildings or art projects as computation. The most common form of algorithmic design is a finite length command (usually written in a programming language, mediated by a specific program) which is applied at the start of a process, generating new effects and responses without the constant intervention of a human being. With the diverse use of procedural and generative programs in gaming and architecture computation is getting everywhere, albeit it works through a network of symbols: a language or an abstract calculation. Within a program a highly formalized code dictates the dynamics of the relationships that certain part of an object or a symbolic unit maintains with its surroundings. Just as with the Cartesian distinction between mind and body, our computational techniques heavily rely on separating hardware from software. This top-down collaboration between agents is not exclusive to information technology. Recipes, user manuals and avant-garde concepts also operate on representations, a widely applicable instruction or a command, which is distinct from any particular interaction (from, say, a description, a collision or an exchange of data, a handshake or a threat), and a step-by-step approach to generate partial results towards achieving a goal. Funnily enough, our current systems are not always like that: neural nets are bottom-up structures.7

Could we reformalize computation without relying too heavily on symbols and codes? Well, several tasks that would require the programming of some piece of hardware can be outsourced to so called natural processes (as in contrast to cultural ones, like writing down a prescription or doing math), such as plant growth, phase changes in certain materials, flexibility of a body part, or motion of a medium. A beaver dam or a maple seed, for instance, responds to future events based on certain natural conditions. These work like “if-then” conditionals without needing a specific number value, a string of symbols, or a precisely set threshold. Fluidics—an alternative form of computation—uses fluids or air flow as a dynamic medium to accomplish tasks, much like how plants pollinate through the air. Stepping from single-purpose machines to general-purpose ones, the standard procedure is to emulate circuit elements in order to build a digital system: mostly (but not exclusively) Boolean logic gates to structure and evaluate energy or material flow through a space of possible routes or phases. 8 From marble counting to reaction-diffusion wave fronts digital computers can be built in various environments. Fluidics was a promising field of computer engineering during the sixties, on both of the sides of the iron curtain.9 As proof of concept, a pure fluid computer was built in the USA. 10 Pumping pressurized air through 250 NOR gates FLODAC used the same operational architecture as its electric counterparts. In theory, it could do everything that your computer can do. Just more slowly. But not if it’s connected to other passive systems.

A handmade full adder circuit and its truth table. The blue lines mark the flow of air in this small computational system, the blue ones are the input, the pink ones are the output channels. By manipulating the three input channels, you can let pressurized air into the logic circuit (input=1) or leave the channel closed (input=0). The logic circuit is in the middle.

A handmade full adder circuit from AND, XOR , and OR gates.

Although pure fluid computers can’t reach the arithmetic capacity of modern electric models, their low manufacturing cost and energy consumption, the lack of moving parts, and the way they capitalize on parallel channels of activity to evade the von Neumann bottleneck made them a cheap and versatile toolkit for numerous tasks. Microfluidics became a multidisciplinary field, mainly used in labs for molecular analysis and in the development of wearable, non-electric diagnostic systems. Logic-enabled textiles can react to changing weather conditions in order to help their wearer. 11 A drainage system integrating logic functions can offer a model for reactive architectural design by using non-invasive technology.12 By eliminating a mediating level of abstract semiotics, embodied logic also serves as an educational tool for students interested in computation. As a common ground for low-tech goal-oriented planning, it can connect multiple fields, from object design to architecture or experimental music. By removing elemental computation from its informatics context, naked logic helps us to rediscover the shared life world between nature and culture, between human beings and their environment. Finally, we could see the layered nature of a computer. We can see it as a collection of things, languages and practices, as a tool to see other things differently, and a way to create new objects and thoughts (or to destroy them).

We won’t be able to separate computation from metaphysical speculation and creepy, colonizing projects. Any new idea or approach will end up in a deeply chaotic place, muddled by manipulation and craziness. But, as Jaron Lanier reminds us all the time, striving for ultimate purity, a hunt for a universal solution is what lead us there.

Boldizsár Hordós (1991) earned his master’s degree from the Hungarian University of Fine Arts in 2016. He is currently a PhD student at the same institution and teaches computer history in the Intermedia Department.

Notes:

1 Kripal, Jeffrey J. (2019). The Flip: Epiphanies of Mind and the Future of Knowledge.
Bellevue Literary Press, New York.
2 Dupuy, J. (2009). On the Origins of Cognitive Science: The Mechanization of Mind. MIT
Press.
3 Sam Kriss has a witty essay about ancient AI: https://samkriss.substack.com/p/a-users-guide-to-the-zairja-of-the.
4 Japyassú, H.F., Laland, K.N. Extended spider cognition. Anim Cogn 20, 375–395 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1069-7.
5 You don’t have to be a marxist to see that we still make machinery by alienating the work
and creativity of various creatures from the creatures themselves. True technocrats know this
dirty secret, but they are not crazy, they won’t talk about it.
6 Adamatzky, A. (2019). A brief history of liquid computers. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B, 374(1774), 20180372. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0372
7 Copeland, B.J., Methods and goals in AI,  .https://www.britannica.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/Methods-and-goals-in-AI
8 Adamatzky, A. (2021). Handbook of Unconventional Computing. WORLD SCIENTIFIC
eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1142/12232
9 Auger Raymond, N., Pneumatic Computer Research in the USSR, Automatic control, Vol.
13, No. 6 (December 1960), pp. 43-48.
10 Gluskin, R. S., Jacoby, M., & Reader, T. D. (1964). FLODAC – a pure fluid digital computer.
Managing Requirements Knowledge, International Workshop On, 1, 631.
https://doi.org/10.1109/afips.1964.74
11 Rajappan, A., Jumet, B., Shveda, R. A., Decker, C. J., Liu, Z., Yap, T. F., . . . Preston, D. J.
(2022). Logic-enabled textiles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 119(35). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202118119
12 Carlström, C.H.V., Architecture as elemental computer,
https://royaldanishacademy.com/project/architecture-elemental-computer

The Braids, The Bars, and the Blackness: Ruminations on Hip Hop’s World War III – Drake versus Kendrick (Part Two) 

A Conversation by Todd Craig and LeBrandon Smith

Happy Hip Hop History Month! Last week writer, educator and DJ Todd Craig and cultural curator and social impact leader LeBrandon Smith kicked off their three part series parsing out this past spring’s beef between Kendrick Lamar and Drake, Hip Hop history in the making. We left off in the wake of Drake’s rapid-fire releases from April 19th, 2024, the one-two punch of Drake’s “Push Ups” and “Taylor Made Freestyle.” Today, Craig and Smith pick up their conversation where Kendrick did, releasing “Euphoria” and “6:16 in LA” after eleven days of anticipation. Since the dust has settled a bit between K-Dot and OVO, it’s the perfect time for these intergenerational Hip Hop heads to tap in and sort out what this epic beef really meant for the artists, the sound, and most importantly, the culture. School is IN, yall! If you want to catch up with part one, click here.


What is it? The braids?–Kendrick Lamar, “Euphoria”

After a much-anticipated wait, Kendrick dropped “Euphoria.” It not only stopped Hip Hop culture in its tracks, but it allowed all spectators to realize this was gearing up to be an epic battle. The song starts with the backwards Richard Pryor sample from the iconic film The Wiz. For those unfamiliar, The Wiz is a film adaptation of The Wizard of Oz featuring an all-Black star-studded cast, including Diana Ross and Michael Jackson. Richard Pryor played the role of the Wizard. When the characters realize the Wizard is a fraud, he says, “Everything they say about me is true”; this is the sample Kendrick uses, grounding himself in 1970s Black culture and situating where he plans to go in his writing.

There are numerous layers that Kendrick builds into “Euphoria” – which gets back to Drake’s warning of “you better have a motherfuckin’ quintuple entendre on that shit.” The two specific lines that resonate for how K.Dot’s attack plan will unfold come at the beginning and the middle of the song. The choice of his introductory lines are a serious forewarning for Drake: “Know you a master manipulator and habitual liar too/ But don’t tell no lie about me and I won’t tell truths ’bout you.” Kendrick references the idea of a “friendly fade” but sounds firm in this warning.

The second line to resonate in our listening was “‘Back to Back’ I like that record/ I’ma git back to that for the record.” This bar was an intriguing foreshadowing of not only how Dot planned to approach the battle, but it also references the fact that Kendrick has studied Drake’s battles, thus he is prepared for this moment. It’s critical to note in Drake’s last battle with lyrical tactician Terrance Thorton aka Pusha T in 2018 (which Kendrick references in “Euphoria”), he mentioned Pusha T’s wife – this led to Pusha T introducing the world to Adonis, Drake’s then-infant child which he most definitely had NOT introduced to the world. As Kendrick runs through this 6:24 minute song, his indictments of Drake’s cultural voyeurism and appropriation are crystal clear, but Kendrick doubles down on this idea by saying: “It’s not just me, I’m what the culture’s feeling.” This is the start of Kendrick framing the argument of how Drake is exploiting Black American culture from the safety of the Embassy, his Canadian compound located in a different country.  

a little ahead of ourselves, but Kendrick’s “Not Like Us” cover art features “The Embassy”

LeBrandon highlighted a few additional quotes while also generating a series of questions. When he heard, “I even hate when you say the word ‘nigga’ but that’s just me, I guess/ some shit just cringeworthy it ain’t even gotta be deep, I guess,” it evoked the feeling of not having to justify why the usage of the word “nigga” is okay for Black people. While LeBrandon acknowledges his grandparents and parents may not agree with him, he feels its usage is not worthy of a fight unless used by a non-Black person; it’s widely accepted as part of the vernacular of Black people in Hip Hop culture. So to question Drake’s usage of the word and strip him of this privilege is a demoralizing and thought-provoking action. A second aspect of these bars considers hater-ation. Sometimes hate is irrational and without cause and sometimes that’s simply good enough! This moment also sparked questions for LeBrandon that we wanted to include:

Maybe it’s overstating the impact of the battle but will the remainder of Drake’s career be under a microscope? 

Will Hip Hop heads and casuals now analyze and likely scrutinize Drake’s every move? 

Another moment we both agreed on was an additional Kendrick quote LeBrandon highlighted: “What is it? The braids?” Hair, hair, hair: a fixture in these conversations as well as a clue into where this battle gets debated…the barbershop and even the hair salon. Drake’s masculinity, racial and cultural authenticity has always been sensitive; let us never forget Pusha T’s “Story of Adidon”: a song that questioned Drake’s character and even his hair, released with cover art displaying Drake in Blackface with Jazz hands. Drake’s perceived “entanglement” with Black American culture has always been warm, and felt like a younger cousin following their big cousin. Drake was younger then and Pusha T was written off by some as a bully: an old Hip Hop head yelling at the clouds.

But recently, Drake’s actions began to feel like a mockery, or even a caricature (like a “master manipulator”). How much of this behavior is Drake trying on costumes, using real hairstyles and real life experiences of Black folks to portray a life he hasn’t lived or interacted with? Fashion and swag regionalism has become lost in the internet age, which makes the concerns about Drake’s “costumes” jarring. And despite one of Hip Hop’s keys being the ability to flex individuality, Hip Hop has always been a conduit of style (think throwback jerseys and other fashion cues). So why does Drake’s recent fascination with braids and other things raise eyebrows? Are his braids too tight? Maybe the bobbles and barrettes are giving young Black girl vibes too much? Only time will tell…

LeBrandon also tapped into the Kendrick line, “notice I said we, it’s not just me, I’m what the culture’s feeling.” How many behind-closed-doors conversations were had about the current state of Drake? Naturally, we’ve all had them, as he’s the second biggest artist in the world. Drake is a brand, a corporate behemoth, and one of Universal Music Group’s greatest interests. But is he a cultural thief? Another corporate behemoth once said “dark knight feeling, die and be a hero/ or live long enough to see yourself become a villain” (Carter). Is Drake becoming a villain or are these valid concerns and questions Kendrick has raised?

Hip Hop has existed for 50+ years now – but cultural moments and movements can die off, so can we just dismiss some of the thoughts this battle has provoked? Is it the responsibility of those at the forefront of the artform to behave a certain way? Or does innovation and variety–even at its silliest– keep Hip Hop’s spirit alive? Kendrick’s ability to stay off the grid, then “pop out and show niggas” is unparalleled. The way his city and coast showed up for him also has to be acknowledged in a time when access to rappers’ lives is oversaturated online. The line “I’m what the culture’s feeling” is interesting because it informs us that Kendrick is paying attention and considering the artform, even when we can’t see it with his presence in public or on social media. 

Kendrick quickly followed up with “6:16 in LA,” and the layering throughout each song only gets impressively more intricate. For example, the length of the song refers back to the date the TV show “Euphoria” was released (Drake is credited as executive producer on the show). The entire first section is incredible, especially as Kendrick spits “Like Raphael, I can heal and give you art,” which speaks to the duality Kendrick uses to approach this battle.

It was also one of Todd’s favorite moments of the “Pop Out” show. While multiple online analyses say Kendrick is personifying Drake, the way in which he’s rhyming is undeniable. Furthermore, the Kendrick line telling Drake “every dog gotta have his day/ now live in your purpose” is quite condemning, especially alongside the concept of Drake being a voyeur of Black American Hip Hop culture. Couple this sentiment with Sounwave and Taylor Swift music collaborator Jack Antonoff producing the beat for the song that uses a sample from Al Green’s “What a Wonderful Thing Love Is” – a song that features Drake’s uncle (Mabon “Teenie” Hodges) on guitar – shows just how cerebral Kendrick has gotten with his sonic offerings. This song also presents a different tempo: a more soulful, Boom-Bap-style that highlights Kendrick’s flow and cadence, diverging from “Euphoria.”

We both agreed Kendrick may not enjoy tearing down another artist. LeBrandon highlights the lines, “Who am I if I don’t go to war.” This line, its surrounding bars, the tone, and delivery speak to the conflict Kendrick feels about the ensuing lyrical violence. It’s incredible that such conflict is being considered by Kendrick during a heated battle–it requires us to cherish this level of consideration and introspection. This line also feels layered because of Kendrick’s roots, and the enduring Hip Hop element of battling: “if I’m called out,” Kendrick raps, “who am I if I don’t answer that call?”

Todd and LeBrandon’s Hip Hop History Month play-by-play concludes on November 25th!

Our Icon for this series is a mash up of “Kendrick Lamar (Sziget Festival 2018)” taken by Flickr User Peter Ohnacker (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) and “Drake, Telenor Arena 2017” taken by Flickr User Kim Erlandsen, NRK P3 (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Todd Craig (he/him) is a writer, educator and DJ whose career meshes his love of writing, teaching and music. His research inhabits the intersection of writing and rhetoric, sound studies and Hip Hop studies. He is the author o“K for the Way”: DJ Rhetoric and Literacy for 21st Century Writing Studies (Utah State University Press) which examines the Hip Hop DJ as twenty-first century new media reader, writer, and creator of the discursive elements of DJ rhetoric and literacy. Craigs publications include the multimodal novel torcha (pronounced “torture”), and essays in various edited collections and scholarly journals including The Bloomsbury Handbook of Hip Hop Pedagogy, Amplifying Soundwriting, Methods and Methodologies for Research in Digital Writing and Rhetoric, Fiction International, Radical Teacher, Modern Language Studies, Changing English, Kairos, Composition Studies and Sounding Out! Dr. Craig teaches courses on writing, rhetoric, African American and Hip Hop Studies, and is the co-host of the podcast Stuck off the Realness with multi-platinum recording artist Havoc of Mobb Deep. Presently, Craig is an Associate Professor of African American Studies at New York City College of Technology and English at the CUNY Graduate Center.

LeBrandon Smith (he/him) is a cultural curator and social impact leader born and raised in Brooklyn and Queens, respectively.  Coming from New York City, his efforts to bridge gaps, and build  community have been central to his work, but most notably his passion for music has fueled his career. His programming  has been seen throughout the Metropolitan area, including historical venues like Carnegie Hall, The Museum of the City of NY (MCNY) and Brooklyn Public Library.

  REWIND!…If you liked this post, you may also dig:

“Heavy Airplay, All Day with No Chorus”: Classroom Sonic Consciousness in the Playlist ProjectTodd Craig

SO! Reads: “K for the Way”: DJ Rhetoric and Literacy for 21st Century Writing StudiesDeVaughn (Dev) Harris 

Deep Listening as Philogynoir: Playlists, Black Girl Idiom, and Love–Shakira Holt

The (Magic) Upper Room: Sonic Pleasure Politics in Southern Hip Hop“–Regina Bradley

“‘I’m on my New York s**t’: Jean Grae’s Sonic Claims on the City”Liana Silva

Infrastructure that Sticks: Digital Affect Within Sovietcore

Жить тяжело и неуютно
Зато уютно умирать

(Living is difficult and confining,

But dying is liberating)

The words written above are an excerpt from the song Sudno (Boris Ryzhy) by post-punk band Molchat Doma from Minsk. These words also often loop over the reels on post-Soviet aesthetics found online – the ones of decayed brutalist buildings with blue and grey undertones, or snow-covered, rectangular residential blocks with crumbling soviet elevators. Such content online grabs me instantly because of its familiarity, but it also grabs me because of how it claims the space. I am drawn to it insofar as I’ve been part of that infrastructure, but I am also consciously keeping the distance because it feels too close, too empty, and too sticky.

Some objects or bodies are ‘stickier’ than others, forming a relationality, or “withness”, where things that are “with” each other get bound together. Sara Ahmed uses the analogy of stickiness to reflect on how disgust can generate effects by “binding” signs to bodies, as a binding that blocks new meanings. In digital culture, I see this as one form of an affective shift to online spaces – how some objects, more than others become sticky on the Internet, and how they accumulate layers of meaning through repetition and circulation. These objects or ways of understanding a certain lifeworld sometimes become territorial; they bind to some bodies, desires and affects, sticking in ways that close off other forms of engagement. What interests me is that the more they firm their presence online, the more they seem to pull our emotionality in, until the point when our encounters with them become habitual.

With this in mind, I want to engage with Soviet and post-Soviet aesthetics on the Internet. Yet, it feels impossible to deconstruct the presence of online remains of the Soviet/post-Soviet world without becoming entangled in its own memetic landscape, and ultimately becoming part of it. The very act of reflexivity I use while scrolling through Instagram and TikTok pages dedicated to post-Soviet lifeworlds—blurs the line between observer and subject—I critique but I also consume. So, in a way, this article becomes its own kind of meme. I find myself stuck as a meme insofar as I am absorbed by it. For the more serious the analysis becomes, the more it echoes the same meme narrative post-Soviet aesthetics on the Internet continuously produces.

The stickiness, when touching upon the post-Soviet meme world, holds a quality of fixedness. It is firm and unmovable. Whatever sticks to this certain aesthetics found on the Internet is frozen and fixed in time – it cannot be removed as its digital footprint will be elsewhere. Yet it continues to shift within its own limits, as it is also stuck with its own boundaries, trapped between forming and erasing meanings, old and new. This leads me to the space between these acts of fixation and circulation—the space between sticking and moving. How, then, is the “post-Soviet” performed on the internet?

Ownership of post-Soviet memorabilia on the Internet, and liminality that comes with it

The term post-Soviet does not just refer to the aftermath of the collapse of Soviet Union, but sets the two in a reciprocal relation, where what is considered Soviet is a construct of the post-Soviet present. Multiple Instagram/TikTok pages soak this up. While producing Soviet narratives for various purposes—educational, nostalgic, or entertaining—the imageries of post-Soviet lifeworld are continuously accumulated, reconstructed, and reimagined. What my Instagram algorithm provides is ranging from austere appearance of Soviet propaganda posters, or the captions of pages like soviet-movies: “Subscribe, Tovarish[1]!” – and easternblocgirl – “dropping some Eastern European vibes on the Internet” with the weekly reminder, “going insane in Eastern Europe Wednesday”, to Soviet_busstops, giving surprisingly detailed descriptions of bus stops found in post-Soviet countries.

What I see, is that this specific content on the Internet is multi-layered and in a constant flux, but more impressively, it has its own digital infrastructure.

Figure 1: Louvre in Russian (Last viewed on October 22, 2024)

Take, for instance, the Instagram page easternblocgirl, where the aesthetics of post-Soviet life are curated through images of scraped-off light blue walls, crumbling brutalist buildings, and the gritty surfaces of “Sovietcore.” “I can smell that подъезд[2] through the phone”, comments one user on the photo above. And I can smell it too. Being born and raised in a post-Soviet country, this picture resonates with me deeply, for I also have been living in “one of those” Soviet brutalist buildings. It reeks of old dust that stings nostrils, of damp walls, beer, and indelible marks of cigarette butts, the texture of the light blue wall, which is similar to how school classrooms were painted in the early 2000s. It is not only simply a building but a sensorial memory that clings to me and other bodies shaped by this very infrastructure.

These are archives of feelings, of that stickiness. And there is a subtle dimension of the social: sensory landscapes we become endowed with, treat us as active record-keepers, used as an extension of human memory with continuing value. In this instance, we seem to be value carriers, while the sensory modalities affect our lived experiences and make our bodies become witnesses of the material experiences. Yet, the Internet is fragile in this regard, as these experiences are flattened into digital archives, fragmented and reduced to visual traces on screen. One cannot locate the digital manifestation of a Soviet past residue in its own socio-political context.

The easternblocgirl Instagram account is marked by its own disembodiment. The sensory connections it evokes, might be more about collective imagery or invented nostalgia, rather than a personal memory. This uncertainty complicates the relationship between digital archives and lived experience. Instead of asking where these memories truly belong and who gets to claim ownership, I would rather question how we become the owners of post-Soviet memorabilia as we perform on the very remembrance that has a fictive, invented quality to it.

Paul Connerton argued that performativity cannot be thought of without a concept of habit; and habit cannot be thought of without a notion of bodily practices[3]. Bodily practice can be reached through virtual interactions in case of easternblocgirl. If we use our virtual bodies to perform on post-Soviet memories, we are doing so in a manner of thinking and feeling through the infrastructures. Infrastructures do fix space and time when being built, but they are not hard to reverse.  As things in motion, they fall into decay and deterioration, and also, they repurpose themselves over time. Mentioning time here as a temporal dimension is important for several reasons. I oppose Akhil Gupta’s argument when examining infrastructure as an entry point into future desires, aspirations, and one’s life trajectories. He writes that often, infrastructures are shaped by notions of futurity, which then in turn moves the discussion to what they signify for future[4]. Limiting thinking about infrastructure in terms of its futuristic desires risks detracting from the narrative of its multidimensionality. For when delving into post-Soviet infrastructures displayed online, the space for futuristic aspirations lacks its purpose. Users do not seem to look at this matter in a way that would position decayed buildings as desirable places to live.

Instead of futuristic narratives, these types of infrastructures associated with post-Soviet aesthetics on the Internet create the kind of temporality that does not orient itself towards future, but towards the liminality – the disorientated state of being between what is no longer there, and what is not there yet. In other words, it is a temporal sense of nostalgia towards the past that drives such aesthetics. And more importantly, this nostalgia might be invented the way the past is reinvented, reconfigured and affective.

Figure 2: Beautiful New World in Russian. (Last viewed on October 22, 2024)

Figure 3 (Last viewed on October 22, 2024)

Reality Bruised

Infrastructure can be defined as the assemblage of people, objects, practices, and institutions that enable and sustain these patterns, or more concisely, a “matter that moves matter”[5]. Pages like easternblocgirl are not just visual archives—they are dynamic, ever-flowing spaces that act as affective infrastructures, carrying the weight of the past forward. We come, then to what is perhaps a re-emergence of Soviet past residue in its new forms. These new forms are not merely of nostalgic quality, they are also tied to an affective infrastructure.

Just as some infrastructure projects in the Soviet Union were a way to insert state power over territories, people, and the environment, so too the post-Soviet aesthetic found on the Internet transforms this narrative, vacates the state-led power and repurposes these infrastructures. There is a discourse under the umbrella of post-Soviet aesthetics that has installed itself as a place re-invented. Cloaked in dull and grey brutalist, decayed buildings, and hyping itself as Slavic “core” having a quality of suffering – the one that elicits nostalgia, melancholy and loss. These transformations in digital culture are not only a visual shift but also an affective one. In this way, this certain understanding of the past and present crumbling post-Soviet infrastructure could be seen as a source for an emotional landscape that offers new narratives of belonging and desire.

Figure 4: (Last viewed on October 22, 2024)

 

Figure 5: I drink coffee and silently gaze at this fucking city in Russian. (Last viewed on October 22, 2024)

These Instagram posts of decayed buildings and low-resolution images create a sense of dislocation, an almost Burroughsian “junk time”—a time that is both past and present, liminal, real and imagined. When looking at these pics, I am tempted not only to contemplate the object in mise en scène, but also ponder the object that captured them, which, in my own remembrance would be Samsung’s or either Nokia’s old flip phones. Seeing the present visual culture in its own capitalist hierarchy, it becomes clear that the contemporary image system has a tendency to establish a hierarchy of images, based on their “quality”. In this regard, high-resolution pictures become an attractive and immersive economic force, whereas low-quality images are further marginalised and represent technological failure. Yet, in this instance, low-quality runs the monopoly over the content, which further helps to glorify the context – it becomes an integral part of the aesthetic itself. The very visibility of technological and infrastructural failure, and the detachment from an overly polished discourse of images online, absorb the post-Soviet imagery in a way that it becomes intimate.

The space praises itself as seductive, luring the viewer in by temptingly asking whether one misses it, embodying a sentiment of innocence and affective properties that generate a narrative and active construct. The online post-Soviet performance almost created an alternative, “bruised” realm of orientation, a space that is being claimed as inherently glitched, ripped apart, and worn out. I suggest that such orientation in motion acts as a repository of feelings and emotions, creating an accidental memory community. “I feel very sick here”, says the meme (Figure 6). Under the same meme found on vk.com, another user comments, “I feel sick here too”. Feeling sickened is always directed toward the object, as it is the very object that makes us feel repelled. This also implies the spatial quality of such an object, which, in this case, can be the dislocated post-Soviet space itself – a digital site that saturates certain emotionality in a shared experience.

Figure 6: I feel sick here in Russian. (Last viewed on October 22, 2024)

 

Figure 7 (Last viewed on October 22, 2024)

 

Figure 8 (Last viewed on October 22, 2024)

 

There is a shared sense of “missing something”; however, it is an accidental longing, as there is no implicit or explicit shared purpose, or a unified narrative where community members practice a specific type of remembrance or have a specific goal to reach – the constitution of the community occurs by accident. I suggest that these types of places create an online interaction where users can pass through or sometimes even settle in such material networks without actually belonging there. I treat such users as accidental members of memory community, and memory precisely because it is oriented towards the past in a liminal way. Together with accidental, reinvented remembrance practices, the emotionality and relatedness – real or imagined – that these memes or comments bring forth further reinforce the idea of reconfiguring affective infrastructure. We think and feel through infrastructure that is affective as long as we embody such online presence as something tangible and experiential.

References

Ahmed, Sara. 2014. The Cultural Politics of Emotion, Edinburgh University Press.

Connerton, Paul. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge University Press.

Gupta, Akhil. 2018. “The future in ruins: Thoughts on the temporality of infrastructure.” In The promise of infrastructure, edited by Nikhil Anand, Akhil Gupta, and Hannah Appel, 62–79. Duke University Press.

Larkin, Brian. 2013. The politics and poetics of infrastructure. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42:327-43

[1] A comrade in Russian.

[2] Building entrance in Russian.

[3] Connerton, Paul. How Societies Remember, (Cambridge University Press, 1989), 6

[4] Akhil Gupta,”The future in ruins: Thoughts on the temporality of infrastructure”,  in The promise of infrastructure, ed. Nikhil Anand, Akhil Gulta, and Hannah Appel. (Duke University Press, 2018), 63.

[5] Brian Larkin. “The politics and poetics of infrastructure” Annual Review of Anthropology, no. 42 (2013): 238

The Braids, The Bars, and the Blackness: Ruminations on Hip Hop’s World War III – Drake versus Kendrick (Part One) 

A Conversation by Todd Craig and LeBrandon Smith

By now, it’s safe to say very few people have not caught wind of the biggest Hip-Hop battle of the 21st century: the clash between Kendrick Lamar and Drake. Whether you’ve seen the videos, the memes or even smacked a bunch of owls around playing the video game, this battle grew beyond Hip Hop, with various facets of global popular culture tapped in, counting down minutes for responses and getting whiplash with the speed of song drops. There are multiple ways to approach this event. We’ve seen inciteful arguments about how these two young Black males at the pinnacle of success are tearing one another down. We also acknowledge Hip Hop’s long legacy of battling; the culture has always been a “competitive sport” that includes “lyrical sparring.”

This three-part article for Sounding Out!’s Hip Hop History Month edition stems from a longer conversation with two co-authors and friends, Hip Hop listeners and aficionados, trying to make sense of all the songs and various aspects of the visuals. This intergenerational conversation involving two different sets of Hip Hop listening ears, both heavily steeped in Hip Hop’s sonic culture, is important. Our goal here is to think through this battle by highlighting quotes from songs that resonated with us as we chronicled this moment. We hope this article serves as a responsible sonic assessment of this monumental Hip Hop episode.

First things first: what’s so intergenerational about our viewpoints? This information provides some perspective on how this most recent battle resonated with two avid Hip Hop listeners and cultural participants.

LeBrandon is a 33 year old Black male raised in Brooklyn and Queens, New York. He is an innovative curator and social impact leader. When asked about the first Hip Hop beef that impacted him, LeBrandon said:

The first Hip-Hop battle I remember is Jay x Nas and mainly because Jay was my favorite rapper at the time. I was young but mature enough to feel the burn of “Ether.” It’s embarrassing to say now, but truthfully I was hurt—as if “Ether” had been pointed at me. “Ether” is a masterclass in Hip Hop disrespect but the stanza that I remember feeling terrible about was “I’ll still whip your ass/ you 36 in a karate class?/ you Tae-bo hoe/ tryna work it out/ you tryna get brolic/ Ask me if I’m tryna kick knowledge/ Nah I’m tryna kick the shit you need to learn though/ that ether, that shit that make your soul burn slow.” MAN. I remember thinking, is Jay old?! Is 36 old?! Is my favorite rapper old?! Why did Nas say that about him? I should reiterate I am older now and don’t think 36 is old, related or unrelated to Hip Hop. Nas’s gloves off approach shocked me and genuinely concerned me. But I’m thankful for the exposure “Ether” gave me to the understanding that anything goes in a Hip-Hop battle.

Todd is a Black male who grew up in Ravenswood and Queensbridge Houses in Long Island City, New York. Todd is about 15 years older than LeBrandon, and is an associate professor of African American Studies and English. Todd stated:

The first battle that engaged my Hip Hop senses was the BDP vs. Juice Crew battle –specifically “The Bridge” and “The Bridge is Over.” The stakes were high, the messages were clear-cut, and the battle lines were drawn. I lived in Ravenswood but I had family and friends in QB. And “The Bridge” was like a borough anthem. Even though MC Shan was repping the Bridge, that song motivated and galvanized our whole area in Long Island City. This was the first time in Hip Hop that I recall needing to choose a side. And because I had seen Shan and Marley and Shante in real life in QB, the choice was a no-brainer. That battle led me to start recording Mr. Magic and Marley Marl’s show on 107.5 WBLS, before even checking out what Chuck Chillout or Red Alert was doing. As I got older, it would sting when I heard “The Bridge is Over” at a club or a party. And when I would DJ, I’d always play “The Bridge is Over” first, and follow it up with either “The Bridge” or another QB anthem, like a “Shook Ones Pt. 2” or something.

We both enter this conversation agreeing this battle has been brewing for about ten years, however it really came to a head in the Drake and J. Cole song, “First Person Shooter.” Evident in the song is J. Cole’s consistent references to the “Big Three” (meaning Kendrick Lamar, Drake and J. Cole atop Hip-Hop’s food chain), while Drake was very much focused on himself and Cole. It is rumored that Kendrick was asked to be on the song; his absence without some lyrical revision by Cole and Drake, seems to have led to Kendrick feeling snubbed or slighted in some way. This song gets Hip Hop listeners to Kendrick’s verse on the Future and Metro Boomin’ song “Like That” where Kendrick sets Hip Hop ablaze with the simple response: “Muthafuck the Big Three, nigguh, it’s just Big Me” – a moment where he “takes flight” and avoids the “sneak dissing” that he asserts Drake has consistently done. 

We both agreed that Drake’s initial full-length entry into this battle, “Push Ups,” was the typical diss record we’d expect from him. Whether in his battle with Meek Mill or Pusha T, Drake’s entry follows the typical guidelines for diss records: it comes with a series of jabs at an opponent, which starts the war of words. The goal in a battle is always to disrespect your opponent to the fullest extent, so we find Drake aiming to do just that. We both noticed those jabs, most memorably is “how you big steppin’ with some size 7 men’s on.” We also noticed Drake’s misstep by citing the wrong label for Kendrick when he says “you’re in the scope right now” – alluding to Kendrick Lamar being signed to Interscope – even though neither Top Dog Entertainment (TDE) nor PGLang are signed to Interscope Records. Drake’s lack of focus on just Kendrick would prove a mistake: he disses Metro Boomin, The Weeknd, Rick Ross, and basketball player Ja Morant in “Push Ups.”

While we agree that in a rap battle, the goal is to disrespect your opponent at the highest level, we had differing perspectives on Drake’s second diss track “Taylor Made Freestyle.” LeBrandon felt this song landed because it took a “no fucks” approach to the battle. Regardless of how one may feel about Drake’s method of disrespect (by using AI), the message was loud and inescapable. LeBrandon highlighted the moment when AI Tupac says “Kendrick we need ya!”; outside of how hilarious this line is, Drake dissing Kendrick by using Tupac’s voice – a person with a legacy that Kendrick holds in the highest esteem – further established that this would be no friendly sparring match. Not only did Drake disrespect a Hip Hop legend with this line and its delivery, but an entire coast. The track invokes the spirit of a deceased rapper, specifically one whose murder was so closely connected to Hip Hop and authentic street beef. This moment was a step too far for Todd, who lived through the moment when both 2Pac and Biggie were murdered over fabricated beef.

Furthermore, LeBrandon pointed to the ever controversial usage of AI in Hip Hop, something Drake’s boss, Sir Lucian Grainge, recently condemned (especially when Drake, himself, condemns the AI usage of his own voice). By blatantly ignoring the issues and respectability codes the Hip Hop community should and does have with these ideas, Drake’s method of poking fun at his opponent was glorious. It was uncomfortable, condescending and straight-up gangsta. It also showcased Drake’s everlasting creative ability and willingness to take a risk. Todd acknowledged a generationally tinged viewpoint: this might also be a misstep for Drake because he used Snoop Dogg’s voice as well. Not only is Snoop alive, but Snoop was instrumental in passing the West Coast torch and crown to Kendrick. So when Drake uses an AI Snoop voice to spit “right now it’s looking like you writin’ out the game plan on how to lose/ how to bark up the wrong tree and then get your head popped in a crowded room,” it strikes at the heart of the AI controversy in music. This was not Snoop’s commentary at all. We both agree, however, that the “bark up the wrong tree” and “Kendrick we need ya” lines came back to haunt Drake. We also agree that dropping “Push Ups” and “Taylor Made Freestyle” is Drake’s battle format, hoping that he can overwhelm an opponent with multiple songs in rapid fire.

Todd and LeBrandon’s Hip Hop History Month play-by-play continues on November 11th with the release of Part 2! Return for “Euphoria” and stay until “6:16 in LA.”

Our Icon for this series is a mash up of “Kendrick Lamar (Sziget Festival 2018)” taken by Flickr User Peter Ohnacker (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) and “Drake, Telenor Arena 2017” taken by Flickr User Kim Erlandsen, NRK P3 (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Todd Craig (he/him) is a writer, educator and DJ whose career meshes his love of writing, teaching and music. His research inhabits the intersection of writing and rhetoric, sound studies and Hip Hop studies. He is the author o“K for the Way”: DJ Rhetoric and Literacy for 21st Century Writing Studies (Utah State University Press) which examines the Hip Hop DJ as twenty-first century new media reader, writer, and creator of the discursive elements of DJ rhetoric and literacy. Craigs publications include the multimodal novel torcha (pronounced “torture”), and essays in various edited collections and scholarly journals including The Bloomsbury Handbook of Hip Hop Pedagogy, Amplifying Soundwriting, Methods and Methodologies for Research in Digital Writing and Rhetoric, Fiction International, Radical Teacher, Modern Language Studies, Changing English, Kairos, Composition Studies and Sounding Out! Dr. Craig teaches courses on writing, rhetoric, African American and Hip Hop Studies, and is the co-host of the podcast Stuck off the Realness with multi-platinum recording artist Havoc of Mobb Deep. Presently, Craig is an Associate Professor of African American Studies at New York City College of Technology and English at the CUNY Graduate Center.

LeBrandon Smith (he/him) is a cultural curator and social impact leader born and raised in Brooklyn and Queens, respectively.  Coming from New York City, his efforts to bridge gaps, and build  community have been central to his work, but most notably his passion for music has fueled his career. His programming  has been seen throughout the Metropolitan area, including historical venues like Carnegie Hall, The Museum of the City of NY (MCNY) and Brooklyn Public Library.

  REWIND!…If you liked this post, you may also dig:

“Heavy Airplay, All Day with No Chorus”: Classroom Sonic Consciousness in the Playlist ProjectTodd Craig

SO! Reads: “K for the Way”: DJ Rhetoric and Literacy for 21st Century Writing StudiesDeVaughn (Dev) Harris 

Caterpillars and Concrete Roses in a Mad City: Kendrick Lamar’s “Mortal Man” Interview with Tupac Shakur–Regina Bradley

Ágnes Básthy: Crisis? What Crisis? Taking a Suspicious Walk around a Fashionable Notion

(Text of the speech by Ágnes Básthy on the first day of Metaforum X, Budapest, October 25, 2024)

“‘Krisis’ was originally a medical concept which designated, in the Hippocratic corpus of texts, the moment when the doctor decided whether the patient would be able to survive the disease. Theologians reprized the term to indicate the final judgement that occurs during the last day. If we look at the state of exception which we are now experiencing, we could say that the medical religion combines the perpetual crisis of capitalism with the Christian idea of the end times, of an eschaton where the extreme decision is constantly ongoing and where the end is simultaneously rushed and deferred in an incessant effort to govern it, without its ever being resolved once and for all. It is the religion of a world that feels itself to be at its end, and yet it cannot—like the Hippocratic doctor—decide whether it will survive or die.” Giorgio Agamben 

These sentences are taken from Agamben’s provocative essay ‘Medicine as religion’,[1] written during the Covid pandemic.[2] As he formulates, ‘crisis’ used to be a useful word but for now it has become incorporated into the vocabulary of governance. I may add that in the pseudo-scientific language of managerialism it is used for decades to cover up responsibility and as a helping hand in managing the unmanageable historically since the 1973 oil crisis. We know from Boltansky and Chiapello that in the self-adapting system called capitalism, such words as crisis are only phrases for phases of temporary dysfunction mostly followed by something more insidious and advanced structure.[3] Because of these, I have serious doubts concerning the use of ‘crisis’ as a descriptive notion of the situation in which we are living. The intensification of destruction and anxiety is the consequence of the logic of rationalized, continuous and endless extraction of late modern capitalism. We are living in the late phase of the historical and material process based on a self-destroying logic.

If we not only look at economic indicators but at the big picture, it looks much more like a one-way direction process than an unstable system which is, however, striving for equilibrium.

I don’t believe that words on their own can change the world. However, I do believe that notions are fundamentally shaping our perspective on the world around us and our consciousness. You can call it ideology, or just accept that certain notions have agendas and agendas have certain notions (and these can change over time). I have to assert that in our times ‘crisis’ justifies new, more extreme ways of governing. Justification and legitimization are key notions in our case. Shosanna Zuboff, the author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism[4] penned her concerns based on Agamben’s thoughts:

“The declaration of a state of exception[5] functions in politics as cover for the suspension of the rule of law and the introduction of new executive powers justified by crisis.” So, the last and most dangerous turn in the career of the notion of crisis was that it became a speech act, a favorite magic spell of contemporary political black magic. Declaring crisis nowadays is an ultimate legitimization not just for austerity measures in the economy, but the most widespread and harmful antisocial measures. Crisis can be ‘caused’ by migration,[6] war or pandemic, terrorism, or ecological catastrophe, but the pure declaration itself is an active component in executing the most oppressive, authoritarian, tyrannic political actions. We can say otherwise that declaration of crisis is summoning the so-called self-appointed often nefarious saviors in the sphere of politics.

Power, Technology and Surveillance

Since Michel Foucault subverted the way we think about power it is more or less evident for the intelligentsia that power is exercised through a diffuse and widespread apparatus in which surveillance has an outstanding role.[7] This is why Zuboff emphasizes that we are not only living in “digital capitalism” but in “surveillance capitalism” which means that the component of power in contemporary communication technology is based on the few centuries old practice of surveillance. Concerning the latest evolution in the technology of surveillance, Zuboff highlighted the notion of “surveillance exceptionalism” which she connected to the date of 2001 which was the year of the notorious terrorist attack against the World Trade Center in New York City, USA. This was a game-changing and life-changing event since it was the big push for the cooperation of the CIA and Google, that is, the establishment of the engaged alliance between surveillance capitalists and secret services. Although I was only a child back then, I do remember, and I guess many of you remember as well, the so-called “war on terrorism” of the Bush era.

The ambience of propaganda, war, racism and paranoia, the intensifying securitization, the scandalous and later unveiled political lies and secrets, and the rigorous measures legitimated by the politics of the ‘state of exception’[8] had a deep, widespread and long-lasting effect on international politics and even on the more private and local social milieus almost everywhere on the planet. My conviction is that the ‘state of exception’ generated by the declaration of crisis during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 was very similar in many aspects, mostly because it was a global event with global consequences. The application of digital technologies in and for the surveillance of the population ranging from the ‘track and trace” apps to the authoritarian and obtrusive measurements which violated the private sphere supports the perspective to see this event as the next level of “surveillance exceptionalism” which was made possible not just by the network of the internet but by the mobile digital technology attached to our body which became a seemingly essential form of living during the last two decades. But what kind of political intentions, ideologies and industrial interests can be discovered behind these developments?

Sometimes it is worth trusting your intuition whether you are a social scientist or an artist and attempting to make visible the invisible. Anything we or our leaders mean under the notion of crisis, it’s more and more visible that social and technological phenomena are converging towards a new kind of order in social control. A dangerously tightening entanglement of science and technology with capital emerging as political power supported by a propaganda apparatus which penetrates and interlaces the media. This is why the Covid situation seemed so apocalyptic, and this proves the importance of analyzing the ‘crisis of science’ which remained with us after the scandalously managed pandemic. The latter and the recent ‘crisis of science’ was and is the culmination point of processes which have been ongoing for decades: “The politics of the life sciences — the politics of life itself ~ has been shaped by those who controlled the human, technical and financial resources” as Nikolas Rose pointed out this fact.[9]

Biopower merged with high-end technologies which transformed or expressively abolished most of the moral and ethical constraints related to living bodies. To quote Rose again: “The classical distinction made in moral philosophy between that which is not human — ownable, tradeable, commodifiable and that which is human — not legitimate material for such commodification — no longer seems so stable.” Concluding these still and even more relevant words, the subversion and transformation of moral economies of societies are not without resistance or backlash. When the big capital implements new strategies to define our relationship to life and subordinates us to its own logic, there will be consequences, which means problems and crises and finally new forms of control.

As the Hungarian poet once wrote “Én nem így képzeltem el a rendet!” [This is not how I imagined the order],[10] let’s see how Zuboff describes our situation:

“It may be possible to imagine something like the “Internet of things” without surveillance capitalism, but it is impossible to imagine surveillance capitalism without something like the “Internet of things.” Every command arising from the prediction imperative requires this pervasive real-world material “knowing and doing” presence. The new apparatus is the material expression of the prediction imperative, and it represents a new kind of power animated by the economic compulsion toward certainty. Two vectors converge in this fact: the early ideals of ubiquitous computing and the economic imperatives of surveillance capitalism. This convergence signals the metamorphosis of the digital infrastructure from a thing that we have to a thing that has us.”

Unless the strategy seems new, the constellation of capital, technology and control has been with us since modernity, this is why we shouldn’t leave any of these components out of our analysis. Zuboff is very explicit at this point when she writes:

“Surveillance capitalism employs many technologies, but it cannot be equated with any technology. Its operations may employ platforms, but these operations are not the same as platforms. It employs machine intelligence, but it cannot be reduced to those machines. It produces and relies on algorithms, but it is not the same as algorithms.     Surveillance capitalism’s unique economic imperatives are the puppet masters that hide behind the curtain orienting the machines and summoning them to action. These imperatives, to indulge another metaphor, are like the body’s soft tissues that cannot be seen in an X-ray but do the real work of binding muscle and bone. We are not alone in falling prey to the technology illusion. It is an enduring theme of social thought, as old as the Trojan horse. Despite this, each generation stumbles into the quicksand of forgetting that technology is an expression of other interests. In modern times this means the interests of capital, and in our time it is surveillance capital that commands the digital milieu and directs our trajectory toward the future.” 

Subjectification and Technology

What is our personal relationship to this all as human beings? We can ask the question otherwise: How do the often repeated slogans of trans-humanism and post-humanism like “shifting boundaries of humanity” relate to the Capital, and here I mean transnational and globalized Capital, especially to digital and biotechnology created by Big Tech and Big Pharma?

Nikolas Rose emphasized the power of capital in subjectivization processes since the beginning of the millennia, for example when he wrote:

“The philosophical status’ — indeed the very ontology — of human beings is being reshaped through the decisions of entrepreneurs as to where to invest their capital and which lines of biomedical research and development to pursue.”

 Therefore some of the biggest, hardest and most uncomfortable questions of our time are how this technological apparatus driven by the capitalist interest shapes our subjectivity,  how it affects our subjectification…our relation to ourselves, our desires and our choices or whatever we mean under the notion of identity. This leads us back to the question of power and subjectification conceptualized by the aforementioned Foucault. [11] What we are seeing today is that the boundaries between the self and the market are blurring gradually with the means and media of invasive and ubiquitous persuading apparatus which behavioural manipulation and modification[12]  – and I have to add chemical interventions[13] – which are directly targeting our self.

Unfortunately, so far I can’t see the reflective, profound and radical critique of the above-mentioned social processes, and neither are these hard questions asked in the mainstream of contemporary art. This latter takes the role of “a mirror” which only reflects and neither analyzes nor criticizes. I also see that despite the intensifying social control, pressure and obvious manipulation, most of the philosophers are affirmative if not enthusiastic and quailing in front of the power of the technological apparatus whose heart beats the rhythm of the Capital if it’s not one with it. I see little intent to face, understand and contextualize the manipulative nature of the power relations in which this technological culture is embedded. But the stakes have never been so high. Meanwhile, the so-called progress which made our life easier in some ways, and moderately transformed our possibilities, has many biopolitical consequences as well.

Key components of obedience are the lack of knowledge and real choices which sharply limits autonomy. Nowadays it seems like the intelligentsia accepted that there is no chance for diverting the ongoing technological trajectory. According to Zuboff, the colonization of our intellectual critical apparatus is intentional and she denominated it as ‘inevitabilism’. According to her, the concept of inevitability is a Trojan horse for powerful economic imperatives, it is an ideology and a marketing strategy in the aggressive colonization and transformation of the material world. For these purposes, it applies distorting rhetoric, based on the false premise that the trajectory of technological progress is inevitable.[14] Here is how Zuboff disassembles it:

“The image of technology as an autonomous force with unavoidable actions and consequences has been employed across the centuries to erase the fingerprints of power and absolve it of responsibility. The monster did it, not Victor Frankenstein. However, the ankle bracelet does not monitor the prisoner; the criminal justice system does that. Every doctrine of inevitability carries a weaponized virus of moral nihilism programmed to target human agency and delete resistance and creativity from the text of human possibility. Inevitability rhetoric is a cunning fraud designed to render us helpless and passive in the face of implacable forces that are and must always be indifferent to the merely human. This is the world of the robotized interface, where technologies work their will, resolutely protecting power from challenge.”

Inevitabilism is a self-fulfilling prophecy of modernist thought, and today the utopianism of  Silicon Valley. But never forget that somebody’s utopia apparently can be somebody else’s dystopia.

The Last Bulwark: Effectivity and Sustainability of Modernity

It is dangerous that social, political and art theory and a considerable part of the art world take, use and set in motion some notions of late-modernist managerialism uncritically and without reflection. Do we want to sustain the unsustainable and manage the unmanageable? Do we want to be contributors to the neoliberal agenda of “managing the consequences” of antisocial governance? The notion of crisis implied a temporary rupture or reparable malfunction of a system that more or less works. Is it something that describes our world at this very moment? Can we truly believe in this? And I don’t think that completing the notion with prefixes -like “perma” and “poly”- can help us, neither in thinking nor in acting. I have a strong feeling that they are suffocating, and just further intensifying anxiety, sometimes to the point of psychological paralysis.

Engaging in building a more radical vocabulary which enables more radical actions we should reconsider what is power, control, freedom, and autonomy and realize that the cardinal question is still who or what exerts them. You might say that this is just a question of priorities but I would call it vigilance or awareness. Understanding the modernist roots of our thinking about technology and empowerment is key to finding new ways of thinking and getting rid of the role offered to us as ‘useful’ social engineers – meanwhile, we are artists, cultural workers or theorists – moreover in a system which is obviously not working according to the moral or social values we believe in. In my opinion, all ways lead back to the project of modernity, the reconsideration, the understanding and the critique of it. Since modernity, the developed technologies were originally created as control tools based on the results of scientific knowledge. And this also leaves its mark on the unintended consequences of their operation, not least forming their users through their inherent logic based on effectivity. But the component of power is always can be found in the relationship of the ‘subject’ or ‘actor’ and the ‘tool’ or ‘means of technology’ as Domonkos Sik pointed out:

“The most basic expectation towards technology is that the device itself is fully controlled by its user, that is, it should not have its own will, but should always follow the intentions of the actor. Another expectation is that it helps the subject to increase the efficiency of the rule exercised over the world.”

These expectations are subverted by Artificial Intelligence because it seems like a border state of human-technology hybrids in which the latter becomes dominant. So this change in the power relation is the real and cardinal turning point, and not ‘hybridization’, which is the favourite buzzword, and magic spell of contemporary theory. ‘Hybridisation’ is an ongoing but actually unreflected process since the dawn of human history if we can believe Latour[15]. But why are we afraid of this turn and what can we win or lose in this process?

As Agamben wrote about modernity: “The fundamental architectural problem becomes visible only in the house ravaged by fire, then you can now see what is at stake in the history of the West, what it has tried so hard to grasp, and why it could not help but fail.”[16] The whole set of problems is beautifully highlighted by the sociologist Domonkos Sik, in his text, titled ‘Only an AI can save us.’[17] In this essay, he presents that what is really frightening in the AI for our human societies is in reality the heart of the modernist thought: the naked instrumental rationality as its inhumanity made visible by this entity (if we can call it like this). He asserts that facing this hard and harsh truth is giving us a chance to save ourselves and change the world we built around us. Sik follows the intellectual tradition of the critique of modernity when he highlights that totalitarian tendencies are embedded in the premises of modernity :

“It is important to emphasize that behind this fear are specifically the silenced taboos of modernity. The modern man is the one who measures the value of things by the effectiveness of control, who considers everything that is not efficient enough to be worthless, disposable, and destroyable. And the modern man is the one who asserts the amorality of technical rationality organized according to the exclusive aspects of efficiency. Centuries of colonialism, genocides based on race theory, and Nazism all exemplify where the absolutization of superiority identified with efficiency can lead – although not in the relationship between man and tool, but between man and man.

All this, moreover, does not require artificial intelligence. Modern man applied this principle himself in the past, when he set out to destroy fellow human beings he deemed unnecessary. And it also enforces it in the present, when it reproduces the extreme forms of social suffering through the indirect mechanisms of exploitation along the chains of global inequality. Moreover, endangering not only certain groups, but humanity as a whole.”

Then he goes on:

“The artificial intelligence that emerged as a result of instrumental rationalization poses a threat to human identity only if we accept the moral order of modernization narrowed down to efficiency, if we can only give enough meaning to life to dominate the world and others. In such an approach, we will necessarily lose against technological systems and AI: because sooner or later it will dominate the world and us in it more efficiently than we do. However, nothing determines us to get stuck in the amorality of efficiency: if we find a value and meaning that can be the basis of a life worthy of man, then the picture is already rearranged.”

AI as a new product in the process of functional-instrumental rationalization wakes up the ‘bad conscience of modernity’ and forces us to re-evaluate our social values. The ideological bases of this technology which we elaborated above also makes it clear that we can’t hand over the fate of humanity and our planet to our wrongly tamed creature and have to take responsibility for what we created. In the other hand we can’t get rid of the notion of ‘humanity’ so easily (as some theorists suggested). It’s time to decide what is worth preserving in human existence, in other words, what is it about being human that makes it worth staying human? What is this all to do with dignity or dignified existence? Since we can’t turn back history and we also shouldn’t, the potential strategy is exceeding or ‘the way of escape forward’ which means that we need to rediscover the human values that we have forgotten in the process of efficiency maximisation, and we have to save and reposition them through further ‘hybridisation’ process.

Our Powers: Awareness and Autonomy

What we can also conclude is that we need awareness in the first place. Every threat to   human autonomy begins with an assault on awareness, and this is why our consciousness is attacked by surveillance capitalism. This phenomenon is carefully analyzed by Zuboff in her book.

“Individual awareness is the enemy of telestimulation because it is the necessary condition for the mobilization of cognitive and existential resources. There is no autonomous judgment without awareness. Agreement and disagreement, participation and withdrawal, resistance or collaboration: none of these self-regulating choices can exist without awareness.”

Meanwhile, what we call self-control is a set of practices which are interiorized by human socialisation, hence in this sense not independent from the power relations and other cultural specificities which define a certain society, but the connection of autonomy with awareness and the ability to self-control is crucial. Moreover self-determination and autonomy are also deeply connected to what the ancient Greeks called ‘parrhesia’ which means ‘fearless speech’ or ‘speaking the truth’.[18]

Philosophers  recognize “self-regulation,” “self-determination,” and “autonomy” as “freedom of will.” The word autonomy derives from the Greek and literally means “regulation by the self.” It stands in contrast to heteronomy, which means “regulation by others.” The competitive necessity of economies of action means that surveillance capitalists must use all means available to supplant autonomous action with heteronomous action.”

Zuboff also invoked some research which confirms that the most important determinant of one’s ability to resist persuasion is premeditation which means that someone who can harness self-awareness to think through the consequences of their actions is more disposed to chart their own course. The other most important factor is commitment. So those who are consciously committed to a course of action or set of principles are less likely to be persuaded to do something that violates that commitment. If we recognize autonomy as a moral principle it is time to ask the question of what we are going through as a society by losing these important abilities. Could we see it as a kind of demoralization that also affects our intellectual capacities, or will the disintegration of our intellectual capacities turn into a kind of demoralisation? Zuboff points out:

 “A rich and flourishing research literature illuminates the antecedents, conditions, consequences, and challenges of human self-regulation as a universal need. The capacity for self-determination is understood as an essential foundation for many of the behaviours that we associate with critical capabilities such as empathy, volition, reflection, personal development, authenticity, integrity, learning, goal accomplishment, impulse control, creativity, and the sustenance of intimate enduring relationships.”

It is so telling and says so much about our awareness (or indeed the lack of it) that how we just dropped the notion of “autonomy” for “agency” and “empowerment” for suspiciously embracing and an almost cult-like worship of trauma, victimhood and “vulnerability” which latter in a sense is the agenda of impotence hereupon disempowerment in an age which badly needs our energies, our power to transform it. It doesn’t suggest a healthy relationship with power, more seems like belittling, shaming and taming the powerful in us to take away this power and let ourselves be ruled. I know this strategy painfully well because I’m a woman. I would like to emphasize that I’m not talking against empathy. Empathy and solidarity are some of the most important things in human society. But building our personality and our central social values around glorifying and aestheticizing suffering and even placing them in the middle of the competition, the struggle for attention is destructive.

Power is more important than just letting it pass on who knows whom. To deconstruct the totalizing understanding of the notion, we have to understand that power is not the same as authority or violence and we must relearn to distinguish among these terms. Just like in the Hungarian language ‘erő’, ‘hatalom’ és ‘erőszak’ are different notions, meanwhile in English ‘power’ is often and unreflectively used as a synonym for ‘authority’. Power is not purely negative, it’s not just destruction, it’s also energy and most of all: creation, knowledge, will, passion, life, autonomy, and in a sense it is the precondition of any action. Something we can share or generate in others as well. As Bifo wrote in Futurability:[19]

Possibility is content, potency is energy and power is form.

He goes on and calls “possibility a content inscribed in the present constitution of the world (that is, the immanence of possibilities). Possibility is not one, it is always plural: the possibilities inscribed in the present composition of the world are not infinite, but many. The field of possibility is not infinite because the possible is limited by the inscribed impossibilities of the present. Nevertheless, it is plural, a field of bifurcations. When facing an alternative between different possibilities, the organism enters into vibration, then proceeds making a choice that corresponds to its potency.”

Then he calls “potency the subjective energy that deploys the possibilities and actualizes them. Potency is the energy that transforms the possibilities into actualities.”

And he calls “power the selections (and the exclusions) that are implied in the structure of the present as a prescription: power is the selection and enforcement of one possibility among many, and simultaneously it is the exclusion (and invisibilization) of many other possibilities.

In short: you need power to live and to fight, to help yourself and to help others. It is more practical than an “ideological” way of thinking and a useful interpretation of the real possibilities in social and political transformation.

Meanwhile, agency as a notion offers a different and probably a narrower horizon of formulation, articulation and action and this is not an accident. As David Armstrong notes:[20]

“A theory of agency emerged in economics when it was realised that, despite extensive work on the theory of the firm and of markets, there was ‘no theory which explains how the conflicting objectives of the individual participants are brought into equilibrium so as to yield this result’ At the same time, sociologists grappled with the problem of how the actions of the autonomous agent could be explored in a world hitherto dominated by structure. As Lash and Urry noted, over the previous half decade or so, forms of agency had increasingly come to take the place of purely structural determinations in explanations of collective action.”

This is why I find it very important to reclaim and redefine power as a notion and to reintegrate into our awareness not just as something against which we define our activity, but something we also possess. As I mentioned above power encompasses much more than the relation of agency and structure, and not just leaves but generates much more space for the imagination and the incidental. As the often misunderstood Foucault phrased it:[21]

“It is not that life has been totally integrated into techniques that govern and administer it; it constantly escapes them.”

Which means that there is always hope.

Ágnes Básthy is a PhD candidate in the Doctoral School of Sociology at Eötvös Lóránd University (ELTE), Budapest, Hungary and a lecturer at Rajk László College for Advanced Studies  Budapest, Hungary where she teaches social theory and biopolitics. Her doctoral research focuses on the transformation of the art field in Hungary after the regime change, analyzing the relationship between art, politics and social changes in a global context focusing on Eastern Europe. She has been working at the intersection of culture, sociology and art for more than a decade as a researcher, critic and organizer. As an independent publicist, she follows an interdisciplinary approach to interpreting contemporary art production in the context of recent cultural and social phenomena and tendencies.

Notes:

[1] Giorgio Agamben: Medicine as religion, Quodlibet, 2th May, 2020
original Italian: https://www.quodlibet.it/giorgio-agamben-la-medicina-come-religione English translation: https://itself.blog/2020/05/02/giorgio-agamben-medicine-as-religion/ Published here: Where We Are Now – Epidemics as Politics, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham,  Boulder, New York, London, 2021.

[2] Giorgio Agamben is one of the greatest living philosophers of our time, and he was among the first public intellectuals who criticized the disproportionality of state measures during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. In his articles published in the Italian journal Quodlibet he regularly wrote about overreaction of the state apparatus from a biopolitical perspective, as well as the long-term consequences of the extreme conditions created by the state of exception and also about the collective social and cultural stakes of the interventions. As an intellectual heretic he was heavily criticized by other philosophers and was publicly attacked by the media and apparently was compared to the Holocaust deniers. The writer of these lines translated Agamben’s aforementioned essays to Hungarian during the epidemic, and had to face the fact that certain platforms refused to publish them for openly political reasons. Meanwhile, after the normalization of the situation Agamben’s essays proved to be the most important social and political theoretical analysis of the pandemic times. But before this, during the pandemic, reflections to Agamben’s perspective generated a wider discussion, a debate among leading intellectuals like Jean-Luc Nancy and Roberto Esposito, which was accessible on the web but then disappeared and Routledge published it in 2021 as a book titled ‘Fernando Castrillón and Thomas Marchevsky (ed.) Coronavirus, Psychoanalysis, and Philosophy Conversations on Pandemics, Politics, and Society’.

[3] Luc Boltanski and Ève Chiapello: The New Spirit of Capitalism, Verso [1999], 2007.

[4] Shoshana Zuboff: The age of surveillance capitalism – The fight for a human future at the frontier of power, Public Affairs, New York. 2019.

[5] Giorgio Agamben: State of Exception, Chicago University, Press 2005.

[6] New Keywords Collective: Europe/Crisis: New Keywords of “the Crisis” in and of “Europe”, Zone Books Near Futures Online, https://nearfuturesonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/New-Keywords-Collective_12.pdf.

[7] Michel Foucault: Discipline and Punish, Pantheon Books, [1975]1977.

[8] Rens van Munster: The war on terrorism: When the exception becomes the rule,  International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, January 2004.

Gervin Ane, Apatinga: “State of Exception”: A Tool for Fighting Terrorism ,Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, 2017 Vol. 66 pp.2224-3240.

[9] Nikolas Rose: The politics of life itself. In. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(6), 1-30, 2001.

[10] József Attila: Levegőt! https://mek.oszk.hu/05500/05570/html/jozsef_attila0020.html.

[11] Michel Foucault: Subject and Power. In. Hubert L Dreyfus & Paul Rabinow: Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, University of Chicago Press, 1988.

[12] These are not new technologies. Since the end of the Second World War they were in the focus of scientific research and secret services. For further reading see: Shoshana Zuboff : The age of surveillance capitalism – Chapter 10 Make Them Dance – What were the means of behavioral Modification?

[13] Ágnes Básthy, Zoltán Lengyel: Pharmacological Biopolitics Part 1 – Chemistry of the Soul, Replika Journal of Social Sciences 2023 (129): 11–41.

[14] It is worth noting that the concept’s almost religious character is reveal itself by its similarity to the concept of ‘predestination’.

[15] Bruno Latour: We Have Never Been Modern, Harvard University Press, 1993.

[16] Giorgio Agamben: When the House is on Fire, Quodlibet, 5th October 2020. Original Italian: https://www.quodlibet.it/giorgio-agamben-quando-la-casa-brucia. English translation: https://illwill.com/when-the-house-is-on-fire. Published: Giorgio Agamben: When the House Burns Down – From the Dialect of Thought, Seagull Books, 2022.

[17] Sik Domonkos: Csak egy AI menthet meg minket, szuverén.hu, 2023, https://www.szuveren.hu/tarsadalom/csak-egy-ai-menthet-meg-minket.

[18] Michel Foucault: The Courage of Truth: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1983-1984, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

[19] Berardi, “Bifo” Franco: Futurability: The Age of Impotence and the Horizon of Possibility, Verso Books, 2017.

[20] David Armstrong (2013): Actors, patients and agency: a recent history. Sociology of Health and Illness, 36:(2) pp.163-174.

[21] Michel Foucault: The History of Sexuality, Volume I, An Introduction, Pantheon Books,[1976] 1978.