I recently came across an edited interview with Bernard Stiegler published on the website of Philosophie Magazine (17/12/18) [a] in which Stiegler ties together a very brief reading of the ‘yellow vests’ phenomena with the experiments he has been leading in the creation of an ‘economy of contribution’ – a more-or-less as a ethico-political-economic response to the ‘Anthropocene’. It is important to note here that for Stiegler not only means the current global cultural/environmental/social crisis embodied in a new ‘epoch’ but also significantly means the apparently rapid changes in employment/work largely due to technology. I have translated conversations with Stiegler about this topic before and these might be helpful in fleshing out the argument translated below, especially:
Here, in a similar vein to the discussion of previous periods of civil unrest in France (see in particular the books: The Decadence of Industrial Democracy, Uncontrollable Societies of Disaffected Individuals and The Lost Spirit of Capitalism) Stiegler diagnoses a form of immiseration that comes from a loss of capacities that needs to be addressed through a form of therapeutic response. The ‘yellow vests’ movements are a symptom of a broader cultural-environmental-social ‘entropy’ that is ‘The Anthropocene’ needs to be addressed through a re-imagined industrial policy – to engage in what he terms a form of ‘negentropy’. having said all of this, what is important perhaps about this brief interview is that it locates pragmatic action by talking through what Stiegler and colleagues are doing in the Plaine Commune experiments (for more information follow the links above).
As I have previously observed, I still find it curious that underlying the apparent radicalism of re-thinking industrial strategy, acting together towards (political) therapeutic ends, is a strange sort of unflinching (dare-I-say even conservative) faith in the state and institutions. In particular, the model for the central strategy of ‘contributory income’ is the intermittent entertainment policy of the French government for subsidising freelance and somewhat precarious forms of work in the ‘creative industries’. I’m not criticising this, I think it merits greater discussion – not least because it is being trialed in Seine-Saint-Denis – but there’s something curious about this rather measured scheme being central to the strategy, given the almost apocalyptic and incredibly urgent tone of books like The Neganthropocene and Age of Disruption.
ADD. 24/01/19. I think I probably missed a final step to the thought expressed in the paragraph above: while the scheme for a ‘contributory income’ (based upon the intermittent scheme) currently underway in Plaine Commune is perhaps limited, and while the idea of such an income is, in-itself not especially ‘revolutionary’, perhaps I/we should see this as the beginning of a reorientation – the instigation of a different/new therapeutic ‘tendency’, in Steigler’s terminology – away from a competitive individualised economic rationale towards a collective means of flourishing together, whilst also acknowledging that we need to take some form of collective responsibility. In that vein, as others have pointed out, Stiegler’s ‘activist’ thought/activities take on a particular ethical/moral stance (in this way I have some sympathy with Alexander Galloway calling Stiegler a ‘moral philosopher’).
As usual I have included in square brackets original French, where I’m unsure of the translation, or clarifications. I have also maintained, in the Conversation piece, all of the original francophone hyperlinks unless there is a clear anglophone alternative.
I welcome comments or corrections!
Notes
a. The interview appears in a section entitled Gilets Jaune, et maintenant? – something like ‘Yellow vests, now what?’
For this thinker of technics, the “yellow vests” movement
highlights the desperate need for a new policy that would value work rather
than employment. Among his proposals is the widening of the government scheme
for irregular workers in the creative sector to everyone.
I
was struck by the rapid evolution of the “yellow vests” movement, by
the way it was presented and in which it was perceived. In the beginning, occupations
of roundabouts [and crossroads] were reminiscent of the Tea Party phenomenon in
the United States, which paved the way for Donald Trump’s election, and of Sarah
Palin’s astonishing statement: “I like the smell of exhaust emissions!”However, despite the
presence of the “ultra-right” which is of course very dangerous, the
rise of this movement has evolved positively – and very unexpectedly. Compared
with the “protest” scene, well-known in France for decades, the “yellow
vests” are obviously a very singular and very interesting event, beyond
its extreme ambiguities. Amongst the demands made by these leaderless demonstrators,
the proposal to create a deliberative assembly for ecological transition is
particularly illustrative of what fundamentally new emerging from this movement. This
is confirmed by the encouraging sign, which must be interpreted without being
under any illusions: the protest and climate march at a junction, in Bordeaux,
on the 8th of December.
When we listen to the “yellow
vests”, we hear the voices of people who are a bit lost, often living in
unbearable conditions but with the virtue of expressing and highlighting our contemporary
society’s limits and immense contradictions. In the face of this, the Macron
government seems unable to take the measure of the problems being raised. I
fear that the measures announced by the President on the 11th of December
resolve nothing and fix in place the movement for the longer term, precisely because
it expresses – at least symptomatically – the collective awareness of
the contemporary crisis. The political horizon throughout Europe is
not at all pleasant: the extreme right will probably draw the electoral benefits
of this anger, while failing to answer the questions legitimately posed by “yellow
vests” movement. This highlights the lack of a sense of history by
President Macron and his ministers, and equally underlines the vanity of those
who pretend to embody the left, who are just as incapable of making even the simplest
statement at the height of what is the first great social crisis characterised
by the Anthropocene.
For me, a “man of the
left”, the important question is what would be a leftist comprehensive industrial
policy to take up the challenges of the Anthropocene and automation – which is
to say, also addressing “Artificial Intelligence”. To confront
this question is to attempt to overcome what is not thought in Marxian
criticism, namely: entropy. All of the complex systems, both
biologically and socially, are doomed to differential loss – of energy,
biodiversity, interpretation of information – that leads to entropic chaos. The
concept of negentropy, taken from the works of Erwin Schrödinger,
refers to the ability of the living to postpone the loss of energy by differentiating
organically, creating islands and niches locally installing a “différance”
(as Derrida said) through which the future [l’avenir] is a bifurcation in an entropic
becoming [devenir entropique] in which everything is indifferent.
The fundamental point here is that,
while entropy is observed at the macroscopic level, negentropy only occurs
locally through energy conversion in all its forms – including libidinal energy.
Freud was, with Bergson, the first to understand this radical change in point
of view required by entropy. The “nationalist retreat” is a
symptomatic expression of the entropic explosion provoked by the globalization [that
is the] Anthropocene. This needs to be addressed by a new economic and
industrial policy that systematically values negentropy.
It is in response to such issues that the Institute of Research and Innovation and Ars Industrialis with Patrick Braouezec (President of the Plaine Commune public territorial establishment) are leading an experiment in Seine-Saint-Denis. In this district of 430,000 we are experimenting with putting in place a local economy of contribution, based upon a new macro-economy at the national level. Above all, this scheme values work rather than employment and aims to generalize the system of intermittent entertainment [added emphasis] [1]: The idea is to be able to guarantee people 70% of their most recent salary in the periods when they do not work, provided that within ten months they begin another freelance [intermittent] job. In the case of freelance [intermittent] performers, they must work for 507 hours, after which they have
“replenished their right” to a contributory income. We are
currently constructing workshops in the areas of child care, quality urban
food, construction and urban trades, the conversion of combustion vehicles into
clean vehicles, and so on. This experiment is supported by the Fondation
de France, Orange, Dassault Systèmes, Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations,
Societe Generale, Afnic Foundation and Emmanuel Faber, General Manager of
Danone. Every one of which are stakeholders in the search for a new conception
of industrial economy fully mobilized in the fight against the Anthropocene and
for the restoration of very-long-term economic solvency, based on investment, not
speculation. It is by taking bold initiatives of this kind that we will truly
respond to the “yellow vests”.
Notes
1. There is no direct translation for ‘intermittent entertainment’/ ‘intermittents du spectacle’ – this refers to state-subsidised freelance workers in the entertainments industry, an arrangement backed by long-standing legislation in France to support their native creative sectors.
Over on the 