Popular in Sociology

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Culture and Society

Carceral Entrapments: Views from the Prison/Street Interface in India

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Mahuya Bandyopadhya

Culture and Society

Pre-problem families: predictive analytics and the future as the present

University of Southampton Rosalind Edwards

Ethnicity and Racism

Were Muslim Barbarians Really Knocking On the Gates of Ontario?

University of Ottawa Natasha Bakht

Culture and Society

Poor People’s Survival Strategies

The University of Texas at Austin Javier Auyero

Ethnicity and Racism

Sociology of Whiteness

Arizona State University Monica McDermott

Ethnicity and Racism

Narratives of Harm and the case for detention abolition

Queen's University Sharry Aiken

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video is a discussion centered on the themes of labor, technology, and humanity, particularly focusing on the intellectual contributions of Andre Gorz and Bernard Stiegler.

1. **Commemoration of Gorz**: The motivation for the discussion stems from the ten-year anniversary of Gorz's death, reflecting on his insights into labor and technology, and the evolving precariousness of middle-class jobs due to advancements in AI.

2. **Gorz's Perspectives**: Gorz, rooted in a Marxist tradition, originally viewed technology's impact on labor as complex, suggesting it could liberate time for creative endeavors rather than solely diminishing workers' conditions. He criticized the intensive consumer economy that forces people to work more for the sake of consumption.

3. **Stiegler's Philosophical Approach**: Stiegler adds to this discourse by exploring the relationship between humanity and technology, navigating through the concept of "pharmacon" — the dual nature of technology as both cure and poison. He warns against a blind technological optimism that fails to account for the unforeseen consequences of such advancements.

4. **Critique of Accelerationism**: This video video critiques the idea of “accelerationism,” which advocates for technological solutions to existential challenges like climate change. Instead, Stiegler proposes a need for a balanced, ethical approach to technology, emphasizing slower, more thoughtful integration that supports community values, responsibility, and human needs.

5. **Call for Reflexivity**: A recurring theme is the importance of reflexivity — critically assessing how technology shapes our lives and relationships, preventing a loss of humanity amid technological reliance. Both philosophers share an emphasis on preserving creativity and community within a system that often prioritizes capital and technology over humanist values.

6. **Conclusion**: The discussion concludes with a cautionary perspective on our reliance on technology, highlighting the potential costs of inadequately reflecting on its effects on our identities, social relationships, and creative capacities. The call is for a more humane and responsible engagement with technological advancement.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.025 --> 00:01.805
The motivation, the primary motivation.

00:02.005 --> 00:05.285
'cause it, it was 10 years since, Andre Goz died,

00:05.285 --> 00:08.405
and we did a special edition of, a sociology journal

00:08.905 --> 00:09.965
to commemorate that.

00:10.585 --> 00:13.965
Um, but the intellectual, motivation for it, I guess was

00:13.965 --> 00:15.685
because, labor

00:15.745 --> 00:17.005
and labor studies study

00:17.005 --> 00:20.125
of work has become increasingly important in sociology now.

00:20.665 --> 00:25.365
Um, and that's been developed in, this idea of the, the,

00:25.385 --> 00:28.165
the precariat, the idea that, increasing numbers

00:28.165 --> 00:31.685
of the middle class are becoming threatened,

00:31.865 --> 00:35.605
in their employment, their status, their class, identity

00:35.865 --> 00:39.125
by the fact that their jobs are being increasingly taken

00:39.155 --> 00:43.285
over by, AI technologies, technologies, which,

00:43.945 --> 00:46.565
are threatening to rob them of their skills

00:46.625 --> 00:47.765
and their social position.

00:47.905 --> 00:50.805
So one of the motivations was to look into this,

00:51.585 --> 00:53.685
and of course, courts was one of the first people

00:55.225 --> 00:58.075
from a broadly Marxist tradition to, to, to try

00:58.075 --> 01:01.675
and look at how labor was being, affected

01:01.735 --> 01:05.875
by new technologies, particularly new, cybernetic

01:05.875 --> 01:07.035
and communi and,

01:07.275 --> 01:08.835
computer technologies in the

01:08.945 --> 01:10.435
late seventies and early eighties.

01:11.415 --> 01:15.355
Uh, and he came up with an idea which was, in a sense

01:16.125 --> 01:18.235
quite controversial to a lot Marxists,

01:18.235 --> 01:20.075
because he argued that actually

01:20.385 --> 01:24.915
what these technologies did wasn't simply to ruin the,

01:25.655 --> 01:27.435
the life chances of the working class.

01:27.465 --> 01:30.675
What it did was to open up a, a new possibility, which was,

01:31.255 --> 01:33.635
autonomously controlled labor.

01:34.135 --> 01:37.355
You know, the idea that it would freeing up more

01:37.355 --> 01:41.715
and more hours, that, were no longer necessary

01:41.975 --> 01:44.035
to produce the overall social product

01:44.135 --> 01:45.555
to satisfy social needs.

01:45.585 --> 01:48.835
Once machines could do that, there would be a surplus

01:48.835 --> 01:52.715
of time, that if it was organized properly,

01:52.715 --> 01:55.835
could encourage people to be more creative in their work.

01:56.615 --> 01:59.875
So the idea is that he had a, a kind of sense of culture

02:00.335 --> 02:04.275
and creativity as something that all human beings were,

02:04.275 --> 02:05.755
capable of expressing.

02:06.295 --> 02:09.915
Um, that under capitalism, the way work was organized was to

02:10.435 --> 02:13.875
artificially intensify, the necessity to work

02:14.015 --> 02:18.275
by a consumer economy that encourages us all to work as long

02:18.275 --> 02:19.955
as we can buy as much as we can.

02:20.135 --> 02:21.835
So the whole process of production

02:21.835 --> 02:23.275
and comp, construction

02:23.295 --> 02:26.035
and, consumption is artificially intensified.

02:26.855 --> 02:29.795
And he wanted to look outside that, that kind of,

02:30.115 --> 02:34.355
treadmill where everybody is trying to constantly earn more

02:34.355 --> 02:36.195
to, to consume more, to buy more,

02:36.195 --> 02:40.085
and to find, to find pleasure in objects

02:40.085 --> 02:42.925
and things, which for him, you know, from a a kind

02:42.925 --> 02:46.405
of spiritual point of view, you, that's something

02:46.405 --> 02:47.605
that you can never do.

02:48.085 --> 02:50.405
I mean, you are, you know, he was a Marxist in the sense

02:50.405 --> 02:52.845
that he thought that the seat of all human,

02:53.035 --> 02:55.565
true human satisfaction was creative work,

02:56.065 --> 02:58.245
people working together in communities

02:58.245 --> 02:59.925
that would give their work some sense

02:59.925 --> 03:02.605
of substantial meaning, some sense of substantial,

03:03.105 --> 03:05.365
as he called it, conviviality, an idea

03:05.365 --> 03:08.285
that we were working together towards collective goals

03:08.285 --> 03:09.485
that we all bought into.

03:09.635 --> 03:12.565
Yeah, Bernard Stelow was, a French philosopher.

03:12.585 --> 03:16.325
He was very, very much influenced by, Jacque,

03:17.585 --> 03:20.285
who was, you know, obviously associated with deconstruction.

03:21.345 --> 03:24.645
Uh, he has an interesting, biography.

03:25.065 --> 03:28.045
He, was briefly an armed robber

03:28.665 --> 03:31.485
and served time, for, for armed robbery.

03:32.185 --> 03:35.965
Uh, I, I thought that, you know, he is, he being,

03:36.105 --> 03:38.685
put in prison in the late seventies was

03:38.685 --> 03:42.885
because he had perform, he had performed this kind

03:42.885 --> 03:47.485
of armed robbery because he, it was in, it was

03:47.625 --> 03:50.285
as part of some kind of attempt to fund some kind

03:50.285 --> 03:52.445
of radical protest group, whatever.

03:52.585 --> 03:55.445
But he actually said he did it 'cause he liked it.

03:56.345 --> 03:59.365
It was something that he did derived a certain amount

03:59.365 --> 04:00.725
of pressure from him and found quite easy

04:00.815 --> 04:02.125
until they caught him.

04:02.945 --> 04:06.205
So, yeah, so he has got quite an interesting biography.

04:06.905 --> 04:08.445
Uh, he became a philosopher in prison.

04:08.865 --> 04:12.805
Um, that's where he, he had the time to kind

04:12.925 --> 04:17.365
of immerse himself as an autodidact into reading all this,

04:17.465 --> 04:19.885
you know, French philosophy, French literature, et cetera.

04:20.305 --> 04:23.605
And that's where he became, as he put it in a book

04:23.605 --> 04:25.285
that he called How I became a Philosopher.

04:25.305 --> 04:27.725
That's how he became a philosopher, having the time

04:28.865 --> 04:30.205
in prison to be able to do it.

04:31.065 --> 04:35.125
Um, his big idea is, is the relationship,

04:35.125 --> 04:38.365
is an interrogation of the relationship between,

04:39.285 --> 04:40.285
humanity and technology.

04:40.945 --> 04:42.565
Uh, and he interrogates it

04:42.565 --> 04:44.125
through this idea of the pharmacon.

04:44.665 --> 04:46.485
Um, and he takes this from Plato.

04:46.705 --> 04:51.365
Uh, it's this idea of, the Pharmacon a medicine

04:51.465 --> 04:53.965
as something which is both poison and cure.

04:55.025 --> 04:57.045
So there's an idea that technology has

04:57.045 --> 04:58.445
immense benefits for us.

04:58.505 --> 05:02.085
So he's not, he's not a kind of anti technological Luddite

05:02.105 --> 05:03.485
as indeed Gortz wasn't.

05:04.265 --> 05:07.045
But he does also try to suggest that in fact,

05:07.045 --> 05:10.565
there are certain, inevitable, costs

05:11.425 --> 05:14.085
to being integrated into this kind of,

05:14.085 --> 05:18.045
technological machinery that, that,

05:18.395 --> 05:20.365
late industrial society has become.

05:21.345 --> 05:26.045
Uh, and the, the, the costs that he talks about, is,

05:26.185 --> 05:29.245
is kind, are configured through this notion of spirit.

05:30.455 --> 05:33.395
And he has an idea of spirit that suggests

05:33.395 --> 05:36.195
that human beings, because of what we are,

05:36.225 --> 05:39.595
because of, we, we are this kind of strange amalgamation

05:39.595 --> 05:43.275
of intellect, intuition, passion, feeling,

05:43.585 --> 05:48.355
that are kind of radically, unpredictable

05:48.535 --> 05:51.035
and capable of all sorts of contingent acts,

05:51.045 --> 05:53.715
which are in some sense, sublime or wonderful.

05:54.425 --> 05:57.295
Because of that, there's always a, a danger

05:57.295 --> 05:59.895
that being integrated into these systems will mean

05:59.895 --> 06:01.055
that we lose these things.

06:01.435 --> 06:04.215
We lose this kind of spontaneity that we're capable of.

06:04.715 --> 06:07.655
And particularly in, again, this goes back to go's work,

06:07.655 --> 06:10.175
and particularly in kind of creative interaction

06:10.175 --> 06:13.175
with each other, you know, kind of, he insists

06:13.175 --> 06:14.455
that our relationships

06:14.455 --> 06:16.375
with other people are essentially artistic.

06:17.195 --> 06:20.375
You know, we invent, the provocations

06:20.375 --> 06:23.455
that others provide for us are a kind of a motivation

06:23.515 --> 06:27.945
for some kind of, creativity in our relations

06:27.965 --> 06:30.625
to those others who are always in a sense mysterious to us.

06:31.575 --> 06:33.755
And so this is an element, this is kind

06:33.755 --> 06:35.595
of spiritual element, is something that

06:35.595 --> 06:39.155
for him is infinitely worth as he puts it taken care of.

06:40.265 --> 06:43.125
But on the other hand, you, you know, what,

06:43.125 --> 06:45.845
what he wa he wants to suggest that why,

06:45.875 --> 06:48.925
that this is something we don't necessarily completely lose

06:48.995 --> 06:51.045
when we are integrated into these kind of,

06:51.145 --> 06:52.325
industrial systems.

06:52.985 --> 06:54.725
And indeed the soft technologies

06:54.755 --> 06:59.485
that have emerged in recent societies do offer us,

06:59.585 --> 07:02.165
the, the opportunity for new forms of creativity.

07:02.305 --> 07:05.325
You know, computer software, virtual systems, all that kind

07:05.325 --> 07:07.245
of stuff provides us with a new opportunity.

07:08.355 --> 07:12.565
It's just that these kinds of societies do have a tendency

07:12.625 --> 07:14.285
to, to capitalize everything.

07:15.305 --> 07:19.405
And, so he, his, his big concern over digital,

07:19.605 --> 07:22.285
technologies about cognitive capitalism

07:22.945 --> 07:24.325
is it gets flattened out.

07:24.545 --> 07:26.565
And it's all about capitalization.

07:26.755 --> 07:31.125
It's all about making sure that, for example, our,

07:31.265 --> 07:35.125
our desires are again, caught in that kind of consumerist,

07:35.825 --> 07:37.245
treadmill.

07:37.825 --> 07:40.205
And just to give a, you know, stupid example,

07:40.265 --> 07:42.725
and it's something that I, you know, always kind of try out,

07:43.265 --> 07:46.045
is that the algorithms that are involved in things like,

07:46.305 --> 07:50.745
Amazon, they, when you buy something,

07:50.935 --> 07:53.745
they always, there's always a whole kind of raft

07:53.745 --> 07:55.865
of other things that they think that you might want

07:55.865 --> 07:57.065
because you bought this thing.

07:58.005 --> 08:00.585
So our, our individual patterns of consumption,

08:00.725 --> 08:03.385
our desire is organized through these systems,

08:03.965 --> 08:06.785
and now they are so sensitive that they are able

08:07.525 --> 08:10.545
to tell if you are about to split up with your partner

08:10.615 --> 08:13.665
because of the way that the things that you start

08:13.665 --> 08:15.305
to consume at a particular time.

08:16.125 --> 08:18.305
And that, for him is an atrocity.

08:18.845 --> 08:21.145
The fact that these kind of spiritual relationships

08:22.175 --> 08:25.865
have become so, predictable, have become so,

08:26.425 --> 08:28.465
embedded in these kind of systems that, you know,

08:28.555 --> 08:30.465
we've almost lost our humanity

08:30.465 --> 08:32.465
through becoming embedded in this kind

08:32.465 --> 08:33.985
of repetitive technology.

08:34.285 --> 08:37.465
The ene is, is is something that, you know,

08:37.465 --> 08:40.265
obviously has this kind of fairly checkered past.

08:41.245 --> 08:44.385
Um, it, it's been presented as something which is a,

08:44.665 --> 08:47.705
a geological epoch in which human beings have, have kind,

08:47.705 --> 08:51.985
have come to occupy a place on, on earth

08:52.755 --> 08:55.160
where they are able increasingly to be able, able

08:55.160 --> 08:57.360
to control the geological, meteorological,

08:57.635 --> 08:59.325
atmospheric conditions in which we live.

08:59.325 --> 09:02.405
And there's this kind of idea, this kind of ridiculous idea

09:02.405 --> 09:03.485
of spaceship earth

09:04.755 --> 09:08.165
that is presented in things like the Epcot Center, you know,

09:08.165 --> 09:11.605
this idea that human beings have grown and developed,

09:11.625 --> 09:14.765
and now we're in this position of, of almost kind

09:14.765 --> 09:17.765
of domination over the, over the systems of the earth.

09:17.825 --> 09:19.205
And there's a, there's a certain kind

09:19.205 --> 09:20.645
of messianic element to that.

09:20.665 --> 09:23.725
You know, the idea is that something like,

09:24.835 --> 09:26.805
that we are fulfilling our destiny in the,

09:26.805 --> 09:28.205
in the Anthropocene age,

09:28.545 --> 09:31.725
and that the, the horizon of this is, is the ability

09:31.725 --> 09:34.565
that we will in the near future have to be able

09:34.565 --> 09:36.405
to overcome things like climate change,

09:37.115 --> 09:41.285
because the technological fixes that we will be capable of

09:41.985 --> 09:45.045
are such that we will be able to control the environment

09:45.425 --> 09:47.925
and stave off the worst, worst effects that threaten

09:47.925 --> 09:50.045
to make the planet uninhabitable force.

09:50.985 --> 09:53.285
And it's associated, it's become associated

09:53.285 --> 09:56.045
with this thing called accelerationism, which suggests that,

09:56.625 --> 09:58.285
if we want to survive, we have

09:58.285 --> 10:01.845
to invest massively in these kind of technological fixes,

10:01.845 --> 10:06.085
which will allow us, to overcome the, the very worst,

10:06.585 --> 10:09.925
case scenario of an uninhabitable plan.

10:10.555 --> 10:13.405
Alright? So, and that, as you say, is the kind of banal

10:13.945 --> 10:16.525
interpretation of what the, the Anthropocene is

10:16.525 --> 10:17.845
and the kind of gurus of it.

10:17.845 --> 10:22.245
People like Elon Musk who are, you know, who are always kind

10:22.245 --> 10:24.365
of pushing this agenda of we need

10:24.365 --> 10:26.405
to invest in these things in order to be able to,

10:27.385 --> 10:29.525
to ensure our survival in the future.

10:30.445 --> 10:32.865
So there's the, there's, that's, that's the kind of picture

10:32.865 --> 10:34.745
of it, this kind of technological fix

10:34.765 --> 10:36.545
that's the crudest idea of it.

10:37.325 --> 10:39.825
And in, in a sense, Stigler's idea

10:39.825 --> 10:41.865
of the neg Anthropocene is a strategy.

10:42.455 --> 10:45.785
It's, it's basically saying, okay, we need

10:45.845 --> 10:48.745
to actually have a, a kind of alternative to this.

10:49.495 --> 10:53.425
Whereby you have to understand that these kind

10:53.425 --> 10:56.985
of pure technological fixes always give rise to consequences

10:56.985 --> 10:58.145
that are unforeseen

10:58.565 --> 11:00.785
and consequences that end up being in Hume.

11:01.485 --> 11:04.705
You know, the, the idea is that we have to have,

11:04.765 --> 11:07.345
the solutions that we come up with have

11:07.345 --> 11:08.745
to be livable solutions.

11:09.295 --> 11:10.905
They have to be solutions in which,

11:11.715 --> 11:15.225
which human beings recover their idea of community,

11:15.895 --> 11:19.585
recover their idea of responsibility, recover their idea

11:19.585 --> 11:21.705
of sacrifice, which again, goes back

11:21.705 --> 11:22.825
to this notion of spirit.

11:23.645 --> 11:27.945
The the idea is that, you know, the Anthropocene,

11:27.945 --> 11:30.705
as it's been configured by the Accelerationist, suggests

11:30.705 --> 11:32.785
that the capitalist model is still a good one.

11:33.205 --> 11:36.985
And the radical individualism, is, is propounded by

11:36.985 --> 11:40.625
that kind of capitalist organization is compatible

11:40.655 --> 11:44.145
with solutions that allow us to,

11:44.715 --> 11:47.025
solve these problems that we're confronted with,

11:47.055 --> 11:49.025
like climate change through technologies.

11:49.915 --> 11:53.205
What Steigler is saying is actually that can't happen.

11:54.065 --> 11:56.965
We have to, we firstly, we don't know what the consequences

11:57.025 --> 11:58.405
of using these things will be.

11:59.025 --> 12:00.845
You know, they always have spinoff effects

12:00.845 --> 12:01.885
that we can't control

12:01.945 --> 12:04.565
and can't even think about at the moment.

12:04.985 --> 12:07.125
So what we need to have is a balance between

12:07.185 --> 12:08.645
how we use these technologies

12:09.595 --> 12:13.655
and a sense of ethical responsibility where we slow down,

12:14.435 --> 12:17.255
we slow down the kind of technological development,

12:18.105 --> 12:22.315
we slow down the rate of capitalization,

12:22.935 --> 12:25.435
we slow down the rate of compound interest,

12:25.935 --> 12:28.515
our ga our values and our goals begin to change.

12:29.215 --> 12:32.515
And it's that which brings us back to this idea about,

12:32.685 --> 12:36.395
about spirit, about the constitution of new communities,

12:36.495 --> 12:40.115
new values, new technologies, kind of trans valuation

12:40.135 --> 12:44.275
of all the kinds of, of, cultural ideals,

12:44.305 --> 12:48.155
consumption ideals, aesthetic ideals of, of late capitalism.

12:48.575 --> 12:51.795
And that's what he means by the neg anthrop, you know,

12:51.795 --> 12:54.235
this kind of reassertion of spirit in this kind

12:54.235 --> 12:58.315
of onward rush that suggests that actually the, the, the,

12:58.375 --> 13:01.035
the, the technological solution is just around the corner.

13:01.555 --> 13:03.755
I think his, his book, I mean, I, there's a,

13:03.755 --> 13:07.155
there's a little sort of anecdote in the article where,

13:07.345 --> 13:09.435
talk about how I was at university in the,

13:09.535 --> 13:10.635
in the early eighties,

13:10.775 --> 13:15.175
and there were, you know, people who were Marxists

13:15.315 --> 13:17.415
who were profoundly suspicious about this work

13:17.415 --> 13:20.495
because, you know, he's, he's given priority to the realm

13:20.495 --> 13:22.575
of culture and forms

13:22.575 --> 13:24.775
of work which aren't performed necessarily in the

13:24.775 --> 13:25.935
factory, in the workplace.

13:26.355 --> 13:28.415
You know, there's this kind of idea about a,

13:28.575 --> 13:32.895
a a much more kind of dispersed, localized cultures

13:33.555 --> 13:35.575
of, production and consumption,

13:35.755 --> 13:37.575
and not necessarily this kind

13:37.575 --> 13:40.175
of overarching proletarian revolution that,

13:40.175 --> 13:41.535
that Marx was talking about.

13:42.275 --> 13:44.215
So there was some kind of unease about it,

13:44.995 --> 13:48.815
but I th I, I think you a farewell to, to the working class,

13:48.815 --> 13:50.775
which is the book that he wrote in 1980,

13:51.595 --> 13:53.095
is a real turning point.

13:53.725 --> 13:55.625
Uh, and it's a turning point

13:55.625 --> 13:59.745
because the suggestion is that actually

14:02.435 --> 14:07.015
any society that does not collapse into the kind

14:07.015 --> 14:10.775
of Marxist dictatorships that existed in, well still exist

14:10.775 --> 14:11.815
to some degree in China,

14:11.915 --> 14:16.095
but also existed in, the Soviet Union has

14:16.095 --> 14:18.055
to have a principle of individuation,

14:18.105 --> 14:20.375
which is not completely subsumed under

14:20.375 --> 14:21.495
the interest of the state.

14:22.075 --> 14:24.975
And that's, that's his big, that's his big thing.

14:25.515 --> 14:28.415
The idea is that there has to be some recognition

14:29.035 --> 14:31.135
of the individual as somebody

14:31.275 --> 14:34.055
who has their own particular contribution to make,

14:34.675 --> 14:37.455
and which cannot be completely subsumed under any kind

14:37.455 --> 14:41.895
of political or economic program in the way that,

14:42.045 --> 14:45.775
Stalinism tried to do in the Soviet Union.

14:46.435 --> 14:49.295
And so there's, there, there's this idea that, you know,

14:49.485 --> 14:51.445
okay, there, there are these kind

14:51.445 --> 14:54.085
of material factors involved in production,

14:54.665 --> 14:57.885
but as soon as you get to a point where this kind of,

14:58.205 --> 15:02.605
computer and techno and cybernetic technologies allow,

15:02.865 --> 15:06.765
for the satisfaction of social need and the,

15:06.865 --> 15:09.405
and, the production of a surplus time

15:09.525 --> 15:12.725
where people can express those individual,

15:13.745 --> 15:15.175
those individual talents,

15:15.235 --> 15:18.095
but in a community whose, values

15:18.195 --> 15:21.375
and ideals are essentially collective and ecological,

15:22.015 --> 15:24.655
'cause obviously he makes this huge contribution to ecology

15:25.225 --> 15:27.655
where these communities are no longer wasteful,

15:27.715 --> 15:31.375
but are rather convivial, where there's kind of mutual help

15:31.385 --> 15:35.215
where people, try to refine their sensibility.

15:35.315 --> 15:38.055
So it's not all about more, more, more, more, more,

15:38.165 --> 15:39.335
what more can I have?

15:39.365 --> 15:40.855
What more can I purchase?

15:41.235 --> 15:45.535
But rather a kind of more, reflexive enjoyment.

15:45.755 --> 15:47.775
And that's, that's something that both Stiegler

15:47.775 --> 15:51.415
and Gortz share is this kind of refinement of sensibility.

15:52.395 --> 15:54.645
Then, you know, this is something which has

15:54.645 --> 15:55.965
to be a kind of positive.

15:56.545 --> 15:59.725
Um, this for me is something which is incredibly important.

16:00.995 --> 16:04.935
Um, and also there's an idea about, you know, tempering

16:05.985 --> 16:08.005
the kind of technological messianism

16:08.005 --> 16:11.085
that has become very much embedded in neoliberalism.

16:11.915 --> 16:13.535
You know, the idea that we can always,

16:13.725 --> 16:15.655
there's always a tech fix for something,

16:16.235 --> 16:18.935
and there's always a way of doing things that will allow us

16:18.955 --> 16:21.455
to, to kind of resolve all the difficulties we have

16:22.365 --> 16:25.655
without any notion of the, the kind of human ideals

16:25.655 --> 16:28.615
of sacrifice, about how we might live together,

16:28.955 --> 16:30.855
how we might reflect on things, how,

16:30.885 --> 16:32.575
what the purpose of our work is.

16:33.235 --> 16:35.255
And again, I think that's incredibly important

16:35.255 --> 16:37.655
because there is, you know, there is, there are crises

16:37.795 --> 16:40.415
of identity, there are existential crises of

16:40.955 --> 16:43.215
what's it all about, what's it all for?

16:44.335 --> 16:46.515
And I think the realization that's dawning on a lot

16:46.515 --> 16:48.635
of people now, especially in, you know, this kind of

16:48.825 --> 16:53.055
with the, with this kind of horizon of, of climate change,

16:53.475 --> 16:56.575
which has become so prevalent now,

16:56.635 --> 16:58.935
people are definitely thinking about that

16:59.075 --> 17:00.695
and how things might changed.

17:01.295 --> 17:05.575
I think the, where, where Stigler's account is,

17:07.275 --> 17:09.605
developed GOs go go's work.

17:09.765 --> 17:11.725
I mean, there's a, there's a moment.

17:12.445 --> 17:14.805
I mean, Gortz Gortz wrote a book very late on,

17:14.845 --> 17:17.085
I think it was 2008, called The Immaterial.

17:17.975 --> 17:22.355
And so there is a crossover, nobody really reads

17:22.355 --> 17:25.555
that book, but, there is a crossover.

17:26.215 --> 17:30.675
And the immaterial is, is all about how,

17:31.055 --> 17:34.435
it, it definitely expresses a profound anxiety about

17:34.585 --> 17:39.155
what these kind of accelerationist, techno,

17:39.535 --> 17:42.595
gurus are, are, are pushing with kind

17:42.595 --> 17:44.355
of AI systems and computer systems.

17:45.095 --> 17:46.875
And, you know, he engages with all them.

17:46.875 --> 17:50.755
There's a very famous one called, Ray Kurtz file,

17:51.335 --> 17:52.555
and he engages with him

17:52.655 --> 17:55.555
and Kurt Kurtz file's idea is that, there's,

17:55.555 --> 17:58.155
he wrote a book called The, the Singularity is near,

17:58.575 --> 18:03.035
and there's the point at which, AI systems will be able

18:03.035 --> 18:05.395
to start designing and making their own,

18:05.885 --> 18:08.555
their own instrumentalities their own machines.

18:08.575 --> 18:11.835
So the whole thing becomes, an intelligent system.

18:13.135 --> 18:15.955
And he, his argument is that it's actually quite close.

18:15.985 --> 18:17.835
This is this a lot closer than we think.

18:18.655 --> 18:21.675
And that, our status then will be to be looked

18:21.675 --> 18:24.555
after by these, these machines, you know,

18:24.655 --> 18:27.475
and that we might have be able to have the capacity to be,

18:27.575 --> 18:30.155
augmented physically and mentally in some ways,

18:30.295 --> 18:33.595
but really what our status then will be to be subservient

18:33.595 --> 18:36.515
to this kind of all knowing, singularity.

18:37.175 --> 18:40.435
And he is, you know, he's, he's kind of morally

18:40.435 --> 18:43.875
and ethically outraged by this, that this, this,

18:43.905 --> 18:45.995
this stupidity of this position.

18:45.995 --> 18:48.795
And one of the things that Stiegler talks about is the

18:48.795 --> 18:50.075
politics of stupidity.

18:50.135 --> 18:51.595
And it's one of the sources

18:51.655 --> 18:54.395
of this is this extreme technological optimism.

18:55.345 --> 18:57.765
And so, you know, that's, that's where, that's

18:57.765 --> 18:58.805
where Gortz gets to.

18:59.505 --> 19:04.395
Um, but Stiegler, what Stiegler does, I think, and,

19:04.455 --> 19:06.635
and perhaps this is because it's purely

19:06.655 --> 19:08.075
and simply a generational thing,

19:08.075 --> 19:09.715
because he's a generation younger

19:10.455 --> 19:12.555
and he has this kind of appreciation of

19:12.555 --> 19:14.235
where things are going technologically.

19:14.855 --> 19:18.355
He does see these systems as a pharmacon, the idea

19:18.355 --> 19:19.635
of poison and cure.

19:20.335 --> 19:23.075
And so there's an idea with him that it is possible

19:23.075 --> 19:25.795
that we can develop a kind of,

19:26.105 --> 19:28.835
more considered reflexive relation to technology.

19:29.615 --> 19:33.115
And, you know, the idea about virtual systems

19:33.375 --> 19:36.855
and this new aesthetics of,

19:36.855 --> 19:38.855
transhuman aesthetics, fine.

19:39.135 --> 19:41.535
I mean, he's saying, okay, okay, fine, we,

19:41.845 --> 19:43.655
this is a new realm of experience,

19:43.715 --> 19:44.935
but we have to be careful

19:45.685 --> 19:48.135
that we don't become these utterly displaced,

19:48.565 --> 19:52.055
disembodied virtualized, individuals

19:52.075 --> 19:55.685
who have lost this sense of the kind of,

19:55.955 --> 19:57.405
what kinds of beings we are.

19:58.105 --> 20:03.065
You know, this sensorium this, this capacity for the kind

20:03.065 --> 20:07.545
of, reflexive mediation of our own feelings,

20:07.545 --> 20:09.705
our sensibilities, things like love.

20:09.925 --> 20:13.625
You know, the idea of the, the encounter, the unexpectedness

20:14.205 --> 20:16.905
of the love encounter that occurs between individuals.

20:17.295 --> 20:18.505
Well, you know, you can,

20:18.605 --> 20:20.665
you can certainly envisage a time in which,

20:21.365 --> 20:23.865
in which there's a complete eraser of that.

20:24.405 --> 20:26.345
And you think about things like dating sites,

20:26.845 --> 20:29.785
you think about things like having people flashing up images

20:29.845 --> 20:31.065
of themselves on phone.

20:31.605 --> 20:33.945
And that's, again, that's something which is possibly a

20:34.185 --> 20:36.745
complete eraser of those kind of relationships.

20:37.605 --> 20:40.225
So I think that's, again, I think that's probably the,

20:40.325 --> 20:43.625
that's, that's the kind of, that's what Steve direct adds

20:43.625 --> 20:45.425
to this kind of board scene analysis.

20:46.745 --> 20:48.045
Brilliant. So far. Finish.

20:48.045 --> 20:50.045
Now last question's, a takeaway message.

20:50.105 --> 20:51.765
Can you wrap up with your conclusions?

20:53.155 --> 20:57.805
Okay. Um, I, I remember there was a, I went

20:57.805 --> 20:59.285
to a conference about Stiegler once,

20:59.385 --> 21:01.725
and there was a grad student there who I vaguely knew

21:01.785 --> 21:05.685
who said, well, all, all Sigler is,

21:05.745 --> 21:08.445
is an avuncular warning to slow down.

21:09.705 --> 21:11.835
Um, I think,

21:12.175 --> 21:15.235
and this is, this is the thing that I was come out of

21:15.325 --> 21:17.595
after having read him for 10 years

21:17.615 --> 21:20.115
and written a book about him, and God knows what else.

21:20.975 --> 21:25.425
The, the, basically there are things

21:25.615 --> 21:27.705
that technology will be able to do

21:27.705 --> 21:29.185
that we can't even imagine.

21:30.085 --> 21:34.025
And there will come a point fairly soon where it will be,

21:34.025 --> 21:36.025
and we may even have reached it, I don't know.

21:36.785 --> 21:39.605
But there will come a point where it will be impossible

21:40.185 --> 21:44.805
to stop it because our whole sensibility would've been

21:44.805 --> 21:48.045
shaped by it, and we would've become so dependent upon it

21:48.045 --> 21:49.845
that we won't even know the extent

21:49.845 --> 21:51.325
to which we are dependent upon.

21:52.485 --> 21:57.025
And I, I, I think that to just see that his, just

21:57.025 --> 22:01.905
to see his position as a kind of conservatism that is just,

22:02.125 --> 22:06.385
you know, in the past, something that we can dismiss him

22:06.645 --> 22:08.985
as part of a generation that didn't have the kind

22:08.985 --> 22:11.225
of technological, facility

22:11.255 --> 22:13.105
that new generations have is wrong.

22:13.815 --> 22:17.475
Uh, it's not a wild kind of reactionary reaction.

22:17.475 --> 22:18.675
It's a considered reaction.

22:19.375 --> 22:21.115
And I think that's, if there's anything

22:21.115 --> 22:23.555
that we can take from him, that's what it should be

22:24.055 --> 22:26.515
to think about, you know, the loss of humanity

22:27.255 --> 22:30.395
and the price that you pay for not thinking about

22:30.615 --> 22:32.955
how these kind of technologies affect us

22:33.295 --> 22:35.675
and the fact that we cannot entirely predict that

22:35.675 --> 22:38.955
what they will do, in the, in the short

22:38.955 --> 22:40.115
to medium term future.

00:00 - The motivation, the primary motivation. 'cause it, it was 10 years since, Andre Goz died, and we did a special edition of, a sociology journal to commemorate that. but the intellectual, motivation for it, I guess was because, labor

00:15 - and labor studies study of work has become increasingly important in sociology now. and that's been developed in, this idea of the, the, the precariat, the idea that, increasing numbers of the middle class are becoming threatened, in their employment, their status, their class, identity by the fact that their jobs are being increasingly taken over by, AI technologies, technologies, which, are threatening to rob them of their skills and their social position.

00:47 - So one of the motivations was to look into this, and of course, courts was one of the first people from a broadly Marxist tradition to, to, to try and look at how labor was being, affected by new technologies, particularly new, cybernetic and communi and, computer technologies in the late seventies and early eighties. and he came up with an idea which was, in a sense quite controversial to a lot Marxists,

01:18 - because he argued that actually what these technologies did wasn't simply to ruin the, the life chances of the working class. What it did was to open up a, a new possibility, which was, autonomously controlled labor. You know, the idea that it would freeing up more and more hours, that, were no longer necessary to produce the overall social product to satisfy social needs. Once machines could do that, there would be a surplus

01:48 - of time, that if it was organized properly, could encourage people to be more creative in their work. So the idea is that he had a, a kind of sense of culture and creativity as something that all human beings were, capable of expressing. that under capitalism, the way work was organized was to artificially intensify, the necessity to work by a consumer economy that encourages us all to work as long as we can buy as much as we can. So the whole process of production

02:21 - and comp, construction and, consumption is artificially intensified. And he wanted to look outside that, that kind of, treadmill where everybody is trying to constantly earn more to, to consume more, to buy more, and to find, to find pleasure in objects and things, which for him, you know, from a a kind of spiritual point of view, you, that's something that you can never do. I mean, you are, you know, he was a Marxist in the sense

02:50 - that he thought that the seat of all human, true human satisfaction was creative work, people working together in communities that would give their work some sense of substantial meaning, some sense of substantial, as he called it, conviviality, an idea that we were working together towards collective goals that we all bought into. Yeah, Bernard Stelow was, a French philosopher. He was very, very much influenced by, Jacque,

03:17 - who was, you know, obviously associated with deconstruction. he has an interesting, biography. He, was briefly an armed robber and served time, for, for armed robbery. I, I thought that, you know, he is, he being, put in prison in the late seventies was because he had perform, he had performed this kind of armed robbery because he, it was in, it was as part of some kind of attempt to fund some kind of radical protest group, whatever.

03:52 - But he actually said he did it 'cause he liked it. It was something that he did derived a certain amount of pressure from him and found quite easy until they caught him. So, yeah, so he has got quite an interesting biography. he became a philosopher in prison. that's where he, he had the time to kind of immerse himself as an autodidact into reading all this, you know, French philosophy, French literature, et cetera. And that's where he became, as he put it in a book

04:23 - that he called How I became a Philosopher. That's how he became a philosopher, having the time in prison to be able to do it. his big idea is, is the relationship, is an interrogation of the relationship between, humanity and technology. and he interrogates it through this idea of the pharmacon. and he takes this from Plato. it's this idea of, the Pharmacon a medicine

04:51 - as something which is both poison and cure. So there's an idea that technology has immense benefits for us. So he's not, he's not a kind of anti technological Luddite as indeed Gortz wasn't. But he does also try to suggest that in fact, there are certain, inevitable, costs to being integrated into this kind of, technological machinery that, that, late industrial society has become.

05:21 - and the, the, the costs that he talks about, is, is kind, are configured through this notion of spirit. And he has an idea of spirit that suggests that human beings, because of what we are, because of, we, we are this kind of strange amalgamation of intellect, intuition, passion, feeling, that are kind of radically, unpredictable and capable of all sorts of contingent acts, which are in some sense, sublime or wonderful. Because of that, there's always a, a danger

05:57 - that being integrated into these systems will mean that we lose these things. We lose this kind of spontaneity that we're capable of. And particularly in, again, this goes back to go's work, and particularly in kind of creative interaction with each other, you know, kind of, he insists that our relationships with other people are essentially artistic. You know, we invent, the provocations that others provide for us are a kind of a motivation

06:23 - for some kind of, creativity in our relations to those others who are always in a sense mysterious to us. And so this is an element, this is kind of spiritual element, is something that for him is infinitely worth as he puts it taken care of. But on the other hand, you, you know, what, what he wa he wants to suggest that why, that this is something we don't necessarily completely lose when we are integrated into these kind of, industrial systems.

06:52 - And indeed the soft technologies that have emerged in recent societies do offer us, the, the opportunity for new forms of creativity. You know, computer software, virtual systems, all that kind of stuff provides us with a new opportunity. It's just that these kinds of societies do have a tendency to, to capitalize everything. And, so he, his, his big concern over digital, technologies about cognitive capitalism is it gets flattened out.

07:24 - And it's all about capitalization. It's all about making sure that, for example, our, our desires are again, caught in that kind of consumerist, treadmill. And just to give a, you know, stupid example, and it's something that I, you know, always kind of try out, is that the algorithms that are involved in things like, Amazon, they, when you buy something, they always, there's always a whole kind of raft of other things that they think that you might want

07:55 - because you bought this thing. So our, our individual patterns of consumption, our desire is organized through these systems, and now they are so sensitive that they are able to tell if you are about to split up with your partner because of the way that the things that you start to consume at a particular time. And that, for him is an atrocity. The fact that these kind of spiritual relationships have become so, predictable, have become so,

08:26 - embedded in these kind of systems that, you know, we've almost lost our humanity through becoming embedded in this kind of repetitive technology. The ene is, is is something that, you know, obviously has this kind of fairly checkered past. it, it's been presented as something which is a, a geological epoch in which human beings have, have kind, have come to occupy a place on, on earth where they are able increasingly to be able, able

08:55 - to control the geological, meteorological, atmospheric conditions in which we live. And there's this kind of idea, this kind of ridiculous idea of spaceship earth that is presented in things like the Epcot Center, you know, this idea that human beings have grown and developed, and now we're in this position of, of almost kind of domination over the, over the systems of the earth. And there's a, there's a certain kind of messianic element to that.

09:20 - You know, the idea is that something like, that we are fulfilling our destiny in the, in the Anthropocene age, and that the, the horizon of this is, is the ability that we will in the near future have to be able to overcome things like climate change, because the technological fixes that we will be capable of are such that we will be able to control the environment and stave off the worst, worst effects that threaten to make the planet uninhabitable force.

09:50 - And it's associated, it's become associated with this thing called accelerationism, which suggests that, if we want to survive, we have to invest massively in these kind of technological fixes, which will allow us, to overcome the, the very worst, case scenario of an uninhabitable plan. Alright? So, and that, as you say, is the kind of banal interpretation of what the, the Anthropocene is and the kind of gurus of it. People like Elon Musk who are, you know, who are always kind

10:22 - of pushing this agenda of we need to invest in these things in order to be able to, to ensure our survival in the future. So there's the, there's, that's, that's the kind of picture of it, this kind of technological fix that's the crudest idea of it. And in, in a sense, Stigler's idea of the neg Anthropocene is a strategy. It's, it's basically saying, okay, we need to actually have a, a kind of alternative to this.

10:49 - Whereby you have to understand that these kind of pure technological fixes always give rise to consequences that are unforeseen and consequences that end up being in Hume. You know, the, the idea is that we have to have, the solutions that we come up with have to be livable solutions. They have to be solutions in which, which human beings recover their idea of community, recover their idea of responsibility, recover their idea

11:19 - of sacrifice, which again, goes back to this notion of spirit. The the idea is that, you know, the Anthropocene, as it's been configured by the Accelerationist, suggests that the capitalist model is still a good one. And the radical individualism, is, is propounded by that kind of capitalist organization is compatible with solutions that allow us to, solve these problems that we're confronted with, like climate change through technologies.

11:49 - What Steigler is saying is actually that can't happen. We have to, we firstly, we don't know what the consequences of using these things will be. You know, they always have spinoff effects that we can't control and can't even think about at the moment. So what we need to have is a balance between how we use these technologies and a sense of ethical responsibility where we slow down, we slow down the kind of technological development,

12:18 - we slow down the rate of capitalization, we slow down the rate of compound interest, our ga our values and our goals begin to change. And it's that which brings us back to this idea about, about spirit, about the constitution of new communities, new values, new technologies, kind of trans valuation of all the kinds of, of, cultural ideals, consumption ideals, aesthetic ideals of, of late capitalism. And that's what he means by the neg anthrop, you know, this kind of reassertion of spirit in this kind

12:54 - of onward rush that suggests that actually the, the, the, the, the technological solution is just around the corner. I think his, his book, I mean, I, there's a, there's a little sort of anecdote in the article where, talk about how I was at university in the, in the early eighties, and there were, you know, people who were Marxists who were profoundly suspicious about this work because, you know, he's, he's given priority to the realm of culture and forms

13:22 - of work which aren't performed necessarily in the factory, in the workplace. You know, there's this kind of idea about a, a a much more kind of dispersed, localized cultures of, production and consumption, and not necessarily this kind of overarching proletarian revolution that, that Marx was talking about. So there was some kind of unease about it, but I th I, I think you a farewell to, to the working class,

13:48 - which is the book that he wrote in 1980, is a real turning point. and it's a turning point because the suggestion is that actually any society that does not collapse into the kind of Marxist dictatorships that existed in, well still exist to some degree in China, but also existed in, the Soviet Union has to have a principle of individuation, which is not completely subsumed under

14:20 - the interest of the state. And that's, that's his big, that's his big thing. The idea is that there has to be some recognition of the individual as somebody who has their own particular contribution to make, and which cannot be completely subsumed under any kind of political or economic program in the way that, Stalinism tried to do in the Soviet Union. And so there's, there, there's this idea that, you know, okay, there, there are these kind

14:51 - of material factors involved in production, but as soon as you get to a point where this kind of, computer and techno and cybernetic technologies allow, for the satisfaction of social need and the, and, the production of a surplus time where people can express those individual, those individual talents, but in a community whose, values and ideals are essentially collective and ecological, 'cause obviously he makes this huge contribution to ecology

15:25 - where these communities are no longer wasteful, but are rather convivial, where there's kind of mutual help where people, try to refine their sensibility. So it's not all about more, more, more, more, more, what more can I have? What more can I purchase? But rather a kind of more, reflexive enjoyment. And that's, that's something that both Stiegler and Gortz share is this kind of refinement of sensibility. Then, you know, this is something which has

15:54 - to be a kind of positive. this for me is something which is incredibly important. and also there's an idea about, you know, tempering the kind of technological messianism that has become very much embedded in neoliberalism. You know, the idea that we can always, there's always a tech fix for something, and there's always a way of doing things that will allow us to, to kind of resolve all the difficulties we have without any notion of the, the kind of human ideals

16:25 - of sacrifice, about how we might live together, how we might reflect on things, how, what the purpose of our work is. And again, I think that's incredibly important because there is, you know, there is, there are crises of identity, there are existential crises of what's it all about, what's it all for? And I think the realization that's dawning on a lot of people now, especially in, you know, this kind of with the, with this kind of horizon of, of climate change,

16:53 - which has become so prevalent now, people are definitely thinking about that and how things might changed. I think the, where, where Stigler's account is, developed GOs go go's work. I mean, there's a, there's a moment. I mean, Gortz Gortz wrote a book very late on, I think it was 2008, called The Immaterial. And so there is a crossover, nobody really reads that book, but, there is a crossover.

17:26 - And the immaterial is, is all about how, it, it definitely expresses a profound anxiety about what these kind of accelerationist, techno, gurus are, are, are pushing with kind of AI systems and computer systems. And, you know, he engages with all them. There's a very famous one called, Ray Kurtz file, and he engages with him and Kurt Kurtz file's idea is that, there's, he wrote a book called The, the Singularity is near,

17:58 - and there's the point at which, AI systems will be able to start designing and making their own, their own instrumentalities their own machines. So the whole thing becomes, an intelligent system. And he, his argument is that it's actually quite close. This is this a lot closer than we think. And that, our status then will be to be looked after by these, these machines, you know, and that we might have be able to have the capacity to be, augmented physically and mentally in some ways,

18:30 - but really what our status then will be to be subservient to this kind of all knowing, singularity. And he is, you know, he's, he's kind of morally and ethically outraged by this, that this, this, this stupidity of this position. And one of the things that Stiegler talks about is the politics of stupidity. And it's one of the sources of this is this extreme technological optimism. And so, you know, that's, that's where, that's

18:57 - where Gortz gets to. but Stiegler, what Stiegler does, I think, and, and perhaps this is because it's purely and simply a generational thing, because he's a generation younger and he has this kind of appreciation of where things are going technologically. He does see these systems as a pharmacon, the idea of poison and cure. And so there's an idea with him that it is possible

19:23 - that we can develop a kind of, more considered reflexive relation to technology. And, you know, the idea about virtual systems and this new aesthetics of, transhuman aesthetics, fine. I mean, he's saying, okay, okay, fine, we, this is a new realm of experience, but we have to be careful that we don't become these utterly displaced, disembodied virtualized, individuals

19:52 - who have lost this sense of the kind of, what kinds of beings we are. You know, this sensorium this, this capacity for the kind of, reflexive mediation of our own feelings, our sensibilities, things like love. You know, the idea of the, the encounter, the unexpectedness of the love encounter that occurs between individuals. Well, you know, you can, you can certainly envisage a time in which, in which there's a complete eraser of that.

20:24 - And you think about things like dating sites, you think about things like having people flashing up images of themselves on phone. And that's, again, that's something which is possibly a complete eraser of those kind of relationships. So I think that's, again, I think that's probably the, that's, that's the kind of, that's what Steve direct adds to this kind of board scene analysis. Brilliant. So far. Finish. Now last question's, a takeaway message.

20:50 - Can you wrap up with your conclusions? Okay. I, I remember there was a, I went to a conference about Stiegler once, and there was a grad student there who I vaguely knew who said, well, all, all Sigler is, is an avuncular warning to slow down. I think, and this is, this is the thing that I was come out of after having read him for 10 years and written a book about him, and God knows what else.

21:20 - The, the, basically there are things that technology will be able to do that we can't even imagine. And there will come a point fairly soon where it will be, and we may even have reached it, I don't know. But there will come a point where it will be impossible to stop it because our whole sensibility would've been shaped by it, and we would've become so dependent upon it that we won't even know the extent to which we are dependent upon.

21:52 - And I, I, I think that to just see that his, just to see his position as a kind of conservatism that is just, you know, in the past, something that we can dismiss him as part of a generation that didn't have the kind of technological, facility that new generations have is wrong. it's not a wild kind of reactionary reaction. It's a considered reaction. And I think that's, if there's anything that we can take from him, that's what it should be

22:24 - to think about, you know, the loss of humanity and the price that you pay for not thinking about how these kind of technologies affect us and the fact that we cannot entirely predict that what they will do, in the, in the short to medium term future.

Faculti AI can make mistakes