David Garcia wrote:
>  A questioner towards the end of the discussion asked if Cramer and Nagle 
> could talk more about affect and affective politics.. more about the 
> emergence of movements and how sub-cultural energies today mobilised. Which 
> the questioner added is  ?also a question of power that is able to legitimise 
> these subcultural sentiments in ways that enable them to enter into the 
> political mainstream.. I?d like you to address the strategies, sentiments 
> within subcultural politics. It was a very good point but sadly it arose to 
> close to the end.. Perhaps we can take up this challenge here?

Thanks to David for taking the time to transcribe and comment on this dense 
discussion. Together with Daphne Dragona, I was responsible for organising this 
and felt that the atmosphere during the event was one of great attention and 
sense of urgency in terms of the audience wanting to have more of a say. Due to 
time constraints and two very talkative speakers, this didn't happen as much as 
it should have but it's nice to see the discussion continuing here. Since I was 
the one asking the question David mentions at the end, I can't but to help to 
step in and elaborate on this further. While I agree that one should not 
ascribe intrinsically progressive values to subcultures, I think it is 
important to situate the rise of the academic study and idealisation of 
subcultures in a historical context. Adorno and Horkheimer in all glory but 
what the British culture studies approach did was to take pop culture seriously 
as a thrust against the idealisation of high culture. One might say that th
 is was snobbish academic appropriation of popular and working class cultural 
movements - but today the impact of this can also be seen in how academia has 
become more accessible to many, where being in a subculture and researching it 
at the same time might even be a viable option.
Also this question of being in a subculture needs to be better addressed as I 
felt that Florian and Angela were in their critique of the cultural studies 
take on subcultures, actually themselves committing the mistake of taking 
subcultures too literally, while in fact the Birmingham school and co. would 
not essentialize subcultures to the degree that I felt was being done here. As 
if a subculture does exist in almost a static way, easily recognized by its 
symbolic language and styles, rather than something that is always transitory 
and, especially in the digital age, can be plugged in and out to at will. This 
is for me where the affective aspect come in, as I believe there are much more 
subcultural sentiments being circulated today without people behind them 
assuming a 1:1 identity with them. But this doesn't make them harmless of 
course, and actually creates a public sphere even more prone to manipulation 
through those who can indeed legitimise certain views over others as well as a
 scribing power to a form of quantified affect, where opinions with more 
followers, more data etc increasingly looks like valid knowledge. To just start 
addressing some of the "challenge" that David mentioned...

best,
Kristoffer

PS. David ends saying that this discussion is not posted prominently on the 
transmediale website: in fact it is not more or less prominently posted than 
any other event of the recent festival since we didn't yet publish anything on 
specific events or even yet publish the videos. so for now, the audio 
documentation is there in a database structure like all the other events.




#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Reply via email to