Re: The Zombie Public – Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

[Eric Kluitenberg]

Hello Michael,

Let me try then to clarify my position a bit further.

First about the lockdowns. I have conceded already that the lockdowns were 
probably necessary / inevitable because of the care system being totally 
overburdened. So in the first phase of this pandemic (I consider where we are 
now still in the early phase of the pandemic) this was an immediate response. 
This should have been used mostly to prepare for what woud come next.

Already very early on science journalists writing for a wider non-expert 
audience (such as myself) were warning that the lockdown might only be a 
temporary solution to fend off the worst, and that most likely the moment they 
would be suspended infection rates would go up. A good source for me on 
research on the pandemic was Science News - their overview page of coverage of 
the crisis is here (but there are of course many more):
https://www.sciencenews.org/editors-picks/2019-novel-coronavirus-outbreak 


And it was I think this early assessment that made me think about how effective 
/ ineffective lockdowns might be:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-19-when-will-coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing-end
 


I did not state anywhere, nor do I hold to the position that "there is no 
possible protection against it, such as that provided by lowering the 
transmission rate through SIP and masking, etc..”  - quite the contrary, I have 
adhered quite strictly myself to social distancing, I think that a reliable 
vaccine is badly needed and should be made available in the public domain to be 
able to make it accessible to as wide a share of the global population as 
somehow possible and not be locked behind Intellectual Property walls.

Next to that I think much more needs to be done to find and distribute better 
treatment measures. We already see a global shortage now of Remdesivir, partly 
because the US bought up large stockpiles of the drug. I hear in reports that 
it is apparently helpful in the treatment of covid-19. 

But much more needs to be done to protect vulnerable sections of the 
population, also and even in a well-off country like The Netherlands, but think 
about less fortunate places in the global south  / the majority world, and what 
is needed there. All relevant medicinal drugs in the public domain would be a 
gigantic step forward there. We can pay the developers for their efforts and 
then make the results freely available to everyone - much like the system of 
open access publishing.

Now all that said, I was originally asked about my position towards the 
lockdown and I gave a concise answer to that question, despite the unpleasant 
tone of the message - only to be derided for using too many words… sorry, but I 
like nuance in the discussion so I’m now responding with as many words as I 
need.

This is not a ‘scientific’ treatise, I clearly marked it as a private opinion. 
So I’m asking to think through how we can get to a responsible end of the 
lockdowns and shift to strengthening our care system.

The point that the vaccine is not the ’silver bullet’ (several so called 
experts have already stated that broadly in various media reports) is not a 
made up fact, but a very real worry. Anti-bodies in former covid-19 patients 
have been shown to decline rapidly, which calls into question the possibility 
of developing a lasting immunity. At the same time we see there are already 
many mutations of the virus (as one would expect), but not all of them affect 
the effectiveness of the vaccines currently under development. However, it is 
likely that this will be the case in the (near) future. That would suggest that 
the vaccines need be tweaked regularly to deal with those mutations and 
possible changes in the virus’s behaviour - much like the annual flu vaccine. 
But we already know now that the virus keeps spreading also in the warmer 
season and therefore the urgency of this question is greater than with the flu.

I’m not inventing ‘facts’, but looking very real problems in the eye. Disagree 
with me, fine. Don’t say I’m inventing or fabricating. I’m trying to have an 
open and critical debate, so I welcome the critiques, but want to keep the 
discussion clear.

—— 

Then on the question of the ‘freedom of assembly’ – total freedom of assembly 
never existed and never will. That’s just not how power works. Also not in the 
most ‘democratic’ or ‘liberal’ societies around right now. As a ‘civil right’ 
(for lack of a better word) the right to a relative freedom of assembly has 
been severely curtailed because of the measures in response to the covid-19 
outbreak. Taking The Netherlands as a case, as I live here, there is still an 
allowance of demonstrations, but they need to ask permission to appear and must 
adhere to strict social distancing rules (1,5 meters 

Re: The Zombie Public – Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

[Michael Goldhaber]

Eric, in your diatribe  about openness, which seems to me quite silly and 
against the reality that perfectly legal assemblies have taken place, you also 
make a scientific statement of doubtful validity, that since the virus will 
continue to mutate there is no possible protection against it, such as that 
provided by lowering the transmission rate through SIP and masking, etc.. This 
is, as far as I can tell, a made-up fact. No decisions should be based on 
something that has simply not been clearly demonstrated about such a dangerous 
pathogen. 

Best,
Michael

> On Oct 8, 2020, at 4:04 PM, Eric Kluitenberg  wrote:
> 
> OK - hello lizvlx,
> 
> It was meanwhile pointed out to me whom I was talking to - pardon my 
> misconception about Uebermorgen, it was simply not clear to me who I was 
> talking to..
> 
> You are entirely justified to point out any issues in the text you do not 
> agree with. Thank you for that, it helps to see a broader context and any 
> possible misconceptions that might be there.
> 
> I have answered your questions as concise as I could in my previous mail - 
> nothing to add. You are supposing all kinds of things in my text and answers 
> that aren’t there. I leave it to the reader to make up their own mind.
> 
> -e.
> 
>> On 8 Oct 2020, at 23:53, lizvlx > > wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello ‘lizvix’ - don’t know who this is - the ‘Hans’ of Übermorgen?
>> 
>> Ahhh — Are you trying to be rude or are you really not aware that Ubermorgen 
>> consists not only of one man? I find that quite amusing :D - you are funny 
>> man.
>> 
>> So to clear that up, I am lizvlx, the lizvlx of Ubermorgen. 
>> 
>> Why do you use so many words! 
>> You are hard for me to understand.
>> 
>> Anyway.
>> 
>> Let me rephrase & comment (after all we do want to discuss this right):
>> 
>> 1. What do you mean the freedom of assembly has been suspended?
>> (Not true in Kenya, Nigeria, Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, USA, - I 
>> am only citing countries that are coming to my mind right now)
>> 
>> 2. How can you refer to “no particular” country - that is illogical when you 
>> are trying to make a point on legal issues which are always decided locally. 
>> There is a hge amount of democratic countries on this planet, on all 
>> continents. I am quite perplexed that you seem to think that a nice 
>> Eurocentric position will explain the Covid rules and changes in let’s say - 
>> Taiwan, Uganda or Columbia.
>> 
>> 3. Thank you for your answer to question 3 - even tho you really use many 
>> many words, but then, that is a male trait that maybe is to be not to made 
>> fun of.
>> Are you not concerned that your views on public health might come across as 
>> proto-fascist and medically-naive?
>> 
>> 4. Data - as much as I appreciate the academic thought on this - btw I 
>> usually use a Samsung, which unfortunately just broke down - but there is 
>> not A (1) corona app, but there are many. And they vary in their technology. 
>> But summa summarum, most are sharing less data then your average datamining 
>> gaming app. So from a programmer’s perspective I cannot see anything 
>> relevant added to the again huge data fields of the 21th century.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> lizvlx 
>> 
>> Ps: why are you talking about the weather? I don’t understand the relevance 
>> to your above points. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
 1. what do u mean by (mass) gatherings have been suspended? 
>>> 
>>> I wrote “The freedom of assembly has been suspended.” - under corona rules 
>>> virtually anywhere now only limited amounts of people are allowed to 
>>> assemble, which in effect means that this basic freedom is suspended. Mass 
>>> gatherings still happen, as I explained in some length in the piece, but 
>>> they are then in violation of these rules.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 2. What countries r u referring to?
>>> 
>>> Not any country in particular, but the countries that have or pretend to 
>>> have some form of basic ‘democratic’ or civic governance (neoliberal 
>>> phantasy or not). Probably we must assume that ‘democratic rights’ are 
>>> always under threat / pressure, but with the covid-19 crisis I feel there 
>>> is a qualitatively different situation. 
>>> 
 3. do u have an issue with a lockdown per se or is this coz u don’t think 
 the pandemic necessitates such a thing?
>>> 
>>> I am writing in the essay about the question of ‘public space’ and the 
>>> erosion of ‘publicness’ and ’the public’ not about the politics of the 
>>> lockdowns.
>>> 
>>> My private opinion, which is outside the scope of this essay, is that in 
>>> some initial stage of the pandemic the lockdowns were maybe necessary, 
>>> given the overburdened care system, but in essence they are 
>>> counter-productive. The virus will not go away, it will stay around like 
>>> the flu and mutate regularly. Thus any vaccine will need to be updated 
>>> regularly and we will have to get it like the flu shot, or even in a 
>>> cocktail, probably 

Re: The Zombie Public – Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

[Eric Kluitenberg]

OK - hello lizvlx,

It was meanwhile pointed out to me whom I was talking to - pardon my 
misconception about Uebermorgen, it was simply not clear to me who I was 
talking to..

You are entirely justified to point out any issues in the text you do not agree 
with. Thank you for that, it helps to see a broader context and any possible 
misconceptions that might be there.

I have answered your questions as concise as I could in my previous mail - 
nothing to add. You are supposing all kinds of things in my text and answers 
that aren’t there. I leave it to the reader to make up their own mind.

-e.

> On 8 Oct 2020, at 23:53, lizvlx  wrote:
> 
>> Hello ‘lizvix’ - don’t know who this is - the ‘Hans’ of Übermorgen?
> 
> Ahhh — Are you trying to be rude or are you really not aware that Ubermorgen 
> consists not only of one man? I find that quite amusing :D - you are funny 
> man.
> 
> So to clear that up, I am lizvlx, the lizvlx of Ubermorgen. 
> 
> Why do you use so many words! 
> You are hard for me to understand.
> 
> Anyway.
> 
> Let me rephrase & comment (after all we do want to discuss this right):
> 
> 1. What do you mean the freedom of assembly has been suspended?
> (Not true in Kenya, Nigeria, Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, USA, - I 
> am only citing countries that are coming to my mind right now)
> 
> 2. How can you refer to “no particular” country - that is illogical when you 
> are trying to make a point on legal issues which are always decided locally. 
> There is a hge amount of democratic countries on this planet, on all 
> continents. I am quite perplexed that you seem to think that a nice 
> Eurocentric position will explain the Covid rules and changes in let’s say - 
> Taiwan, Uganda or Columbia.
> 
> 3. Thank you for your answer to question 3 - even tho you really use many 
> many words, but then, that is a male trait that maybe is to be not to made 
> fun of.
> Are you not concerned that your views on public health might come across as 
> proto-fascist and medically-naive?
> 
> 4. Data - as much as I appreciate the academic thought on this - btw I 
> usually use a Samsung, which unfortunately just broke down - but there is not 
> A (1) corona app, but there are many. And they vary in their technology. But 
> summa summarum, most are sharing less data then your average datamining 
> gaming app. So from a programmer’s perspective I cannot see anything relevant 
> added to the again huge data fields of the 21th century.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> lizvlx 
> 
> Ps: why are you talking about the weather? I don’t understand the relevance 
> to your above points. 
> 
> 
> 
>>> 1. what do u mean by (mass) gatherings have been suspended? 
>> 
>> I wrote “The freedom of assembly has been suspended.” - under corona rules 
>> virtually anywhere now only limited amounts of people are allowed to 
>> assemble, which in effect means that this basic freedom is suspended. Mass 
>> gatherings still happen, as I explained in some length in the piece, but 
>> they are then in violation of these rules.
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 2. What countries r u referring to?
>> 
>> Not any country in particular, but the countries that have or pretend to 
>> have some form of basic ‘democratic’ or civic governance (neoliberal 
>> phantasy or not). Probably we must assume that ‘democratic rights’ are 
>> always under threat / pressure, but with the covid-19 crisis I feel there is 
>> a qualitatively different situation. 
>> 
>>> 3. do u have an issue with a lockdown per se or is this coz u don’t think 
>>> the pandemic necessitates such a thing?
>> 
>> I am writing in the essay about the question of ‘public space’ and the 
>> erosion of ‘publicness’ and ’the public’ not about the politics of the 
>> lockdowns.
>> 
>> My private opinion, which is outside the scope of this essay, is that in 
>> some initial stage of the pandemic the lockdowns were maybe necessary, given 
>> the overburdened care system, but in essence they are counter-productive. 
>> The virus will not go away, it will stay around like the flu and mutate 
>> regularly. Thus any vaccine will need to be updated regularly and we will 
>> have to get it like the flu shot, or even in a cocktail, probably annually.
>> 
>> It is necessary to build up a certain measure of biological resistance in 
>> the general population, but this can only be done in a responsible way by 
>> radically extending the care system to protect vulnerable sections of the 
>> population - and the main argument against that is staggering costs - so the 
>> lockdown has been the preferred option. Problem is once you end it the virus 
>> starts circulating like before again, which is what we now see.
>> 
>> Hoping that a vaccine is the silver bullet is to me exactly that: hope and 
>> as a Russian saying says so beautifully: Hope dies last.
>> 
>>> 4. what specifically doch deem privacy infringing with corona apps as most 
>>> either collect a lotta less data than Facebook or don’t collect any data on 

Re: The Zombie Public – Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

[lizvlx]

> Hello ‘lizvix’ - don’t know who this is - the ‘Hans’ of Übermorgen?

Ahhh — Are you trying to be rude or are you really not aware that Ubermorgen 
consists not only of one man? I find that quite amusing :D - you are funny man.

So to clear that up, I am lizvlx, the lizvlx of Ubermorgen. 

Why do you use so many words! 
You are hard for me to understand.

Anyway.

Let me rephrase & comment (after all we do want to discuss this right):

1. What do you mean the freedom of assembly has been suspended?
(Not true in Kenya, Nigeria, Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, USA, - I am 
only citing countries that are coming to my mind right now)

2. How can you refer to “no particular” country - that is illogical when you 
are trying to make a point on legal issues which are always decided locally. 
There is a hge amount of democratic countries on this planet, on all 
continents. I am quite perplexed that you seem to think that a nice Eurocentric 
position will explain the Covid rules and changes in let’s say - Taiwan, Uganda 
or Columbia.

3. Thank you for your answer to question 3 - even tho you really use many many 
words, but then, that is a male trait that maybe is to be not to made fun of.
Are you not concerned that your views on public health might come across as 
proto-fascist and medically-naive?

4. Data - as much as I appreciate the academic thought on this - btw I usually 
use a Samsung, which unfortunately just broke down - but there is not A (1) 
corona app, but there are many. And they vary in their technology. But summa 
summarum, most are sharing less data then your average datamining gaming app. 
So from a programmer’s perspective I cannot see anything relevant added to the 
again huge data fields of the 21th century.

Cheers

lizvlx 

Ps: why are you talking about the weather? I don’t understand the relevance to 
your above points. 



>> 1. what do u mean by (mass) gatherings have been suspended? 
> 
> I wrote “The freedom of assembly has been suspended.” - under corona rules 
> virtually anywhere now only limited amounts of people are allowed to 
> assemble, which in effect means that this basic freedom is suspended. Mass 
> gatherings still happen, as I explained in some length in the piece, but they 
> are then in violation of these rules.


> 
>> 2. What countries r u referring to?
> 
> Not any country in particular, but the countries that have or pretend to have 
> some form of basic ‘democratic’ or civic governance (neoliberal phantasy or 
> not). Probably we must assume that ‘democratic rights’ are always under 
> threat / pressure, but with the covid-19 crisis I feel there is a 
> qualitatively different situation. 
> 
>> 3. do u have an issue with a lockdown per se or is this coz u don’t think 
>> the pandemic necessitates such a thing?
> 
> I am writing in the essay about the question of ‘public space’ and the 
> erosion of ‘publicness’ and ’the public’ not about the politics of the 
> lockdowns.
> 
> My private opinion, which is outside the scope of this essay, is that in some 
> initial stage of the pandemic the lockdowns were maybe necessary, given the 
> overburdened care system, but in essence they are counter-productive. The 
> virus will not go away, it will stay around like the flu and mutate 
> regularly. Thus any vaccine will need to be updated regularly and we will 
> have to get it like the flu shot, or even in a cocktail, probably annually.
> 
> It is necessary to build up a certain measure of biological resistance in the 
> general population, but this can only be done in a responsible way by 
> radically extending the care system to protect vulnerable sections of the 
> population - and the main argument against that is staggering costs - so the 
> lockdown has been the preferred option. Problem is once you end it the virus 
> starts circulating like before again, which is what we now see.
> 
> Hoping that a vaccine is the silver bullet is to me exactly that: hope and as 
> a Russian saying says so beautifully: Hope dies last.
> 
>> 4. what specifically doch deem privacy infringing with corona apps as most 
>> either collect a lotta less data than Facebook or don’t collect any data on 
>> a central server? Which app r u referring to?
> 
> That is the misconception I’m trying to address with this text. The app seems 
> not so bad in comparison to all the other data draining techniques from the 
> social media swamp, or simply from mobile / ‘smart’ phone users (i.e. more or 
> less all of us, you replied from an iphone and I use that thing as well - 
> though not for mailing lists..).
> 
> It is the correlation of data from all these apps, the integration into the 
> operating systems as a default, in combination with the radical expansion of 
> somatic sensing technologies built into these mobile / wearable devices that 
> creates an unprecedented level of scrutiny wherever we take these devices, 
> i.e. that thing formerly designated as ‘public space’, but this 

Re: The Zombie Public – Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

[Eric Kluitenberg]

Thank you Brian for these great comments reflecting the US situation right now.

And yes the situation in the US is markedly different than on the old continent.

There’s many things to say, but a few quick responses to what you write:

First of all the whole concept of affect space was never intended as describing 
a benign condition. It started with wondering how the so-called ‘movement(s) of 
the squares’ were simultaneously so incredibly successful at mobilising people 
and yet politically so inefficacious? So basically, why didn’t these massive 
mobilisations result in substantive political change?

The ‘right’ has indeed come into this affect space very powerfully as you 
write, and it has not been a pleasant experience for most of us. The experience 
of Arab populations has been beyond description - particularly if we think 
about what was dubbed back in 2011 the Syrian cyber revolution - see f.i. this 
archived classic that at the time fronted the Guardian website without any 
substantive critique: 
http://www.tacticalmediafiles.net/videos/4582/Syria_s-cyber-revolution 
 
What happened next defied belief and understanding and persists as an absolute 
tragedy, perhaps even an 'absolute negativity’, till this day.. 

Crucial to understand is also that when we began exploring this idea of affect 
space collectively in The Netherlands, so roughly from 2015 onwards, we still 
assumed that this was a speculative notion that might capture some of the 
contradictory dynamics we were seeing around us - only to find out that the 
security industries right here in The Netherlands, most notably ATOS networks 
and the Dutch Institute for Technology, Safety and Security, were implementing 
all the ideas we were proposing ‘speculatively’ into a public space and crowd 
control platform – though they were obviously not using that name and those 
terms for it. In a session at Het Nieuwe Instituut the head of global business 
development of ATOS outlined this work and our jaws were on the floor… The 
(Re-)Designing Affect Space text was an attempt to absorb what we had learned 
there. 
 
Now this observation of yours is particularly concerning:

> I think the concept of Affect Space is brilliant. It describes contemporary 
> social experience very well. However, from my perspective in Chicago there is 
> only one problem. It describes a nightmare with no end in sight.


This and the preceding paragraph in your response indeed sounds like a complete 
nightmare. And I agree the end is not yet in sight.

In Europe it seems that for now some of the structures of deliberation still 
persist and are able to counter some of these dynamics of affect space. Massumi 
observed about the relation of affect and language that it is twofold: 
resonance and interference. Some language (such as the permanent campaign 
language of Trump) is designed to resonate with affect, while other forms of 
language interfere with affect, lock us in cognitive processes that curtail the 
free flow of affect. So we are not entirely helplessly at the mercy of these 
massive flows of affect, but it does require a conscious ‘design’ effort to 
counter those forces.

Occupy Wall Street was surfing the waves of affect too much, and assumed too 
quickly that mobilisations of massive crowds would translate more or less 
automatically into political change - but they did not. Of course the activist 
groups knew exactly why they were in the streets and squares, but the large 
bubble around them (Massumi also refused to call them ‘publics’ when I had the 
chance to talk briefly with him) followed other rules.

The political right has unfortunately better understood how to bend these 
forces to strategic aims..

Then on your last question:

> Can European democracies withstand the surging pressures of Affect Space?

That remains to be seen. I am not overly confident, nor overly pessimistic. One 
thing that a crisis like covid-19 can do is engender new forms of solidarity, 
following these waves of aggression and desperation, and perhaps new forms of 
‘care. I found myself lecturing about this in the video-conf environment to 
students for the first time in my life about the notion of ‘care’. The care of 
self, including our somatic condition (of course building on Foucault’s 
technologies of the self and so on), and the care of others - particularly the 
only hopeful political figure of recent times, the commons and its expanding 
discussion. That just seemed right and necessary now, where before I would have 
stopped at ’sovereignty’ maybe...

So take care and let’s hope our dystopian scenarios exceed the actual course of 
things.

take care,
Eric

> On 6 Oct 2020, at 20:14, Brian Holmes  wrote:
> 
> Greetings Eric -
> 
> Congratulations on a significant piece of writing. You really have followed a 
> public research trajectory. It is great to see this all put together, both 
> 

Re: The Zombie Public – Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

[Brian Holmes]

Greetings Eric -

Congratulations on a significant piece of writing. You really have followed
a public research trajectory. It is great to see this all put together,
both retrospectively and prospectively, in a short essay.

On a quick read I see two big gaps between experiences in the US and what
you recount.

First, the notion of Affect Space does describe the BLM protests perfectly,
especially the somatic deficit. With the outpouring of micro-media
expressions, millions felt compelled to join the marches. But the problem
arising from all that has not been surveillant control. Nor has it mainly
been traditional police repression, though there has been way too much of
that. Rather, the right wing of civil society has come into this affect
space very powerfully, flooding the networked media, shaping the public
events toward violence (agents provocateurs) and then agitating the threat
of armed conflict (militias). Police have openly cast off their official
role of civil servants to act in a partisan manner, as fascists, on the
streets. The President has used Twitter like an individual seizing state
power for his own wholly narcissistic purposes, and creating an impressive
somatic yearning among his followers, who have frequently come out to
experience armed togetherness. The leadership capacity of BLM, which had
such great potential, has basically collapsed because their appeal to
defund the police could not immediately be made political -- it's an
all-or-nothing demand that has tremendous aspirational meaning, but as yet,
no feasibility. All of this was foretold during the presidential primaries.
Biden became the candidate of the center-left because mainstream Black
people feared Bernie would lose, or set off more conflict. Affect space has
not been kind to us. It turns out that the other whom you long to meet in
the street might actually long to kill you. Of course, affect space was not
very kind to Arab populations either...

Second, most of us never experienced any real lockdown in the form of a
prohibition against leaving the house or the neighborhood, although I think
there was a curfew in NYC for a while. Sure, in Chicago there were moves to
break up soccer games in the park, but nowhere was there any question of
prohibiting political assembly. What we have experienced, to the contrary,
is the problem of our fellow citizens' freedom... their incessant demands
for freedom... freedom to move about unhindered, freedom to run a business
whatever the consequences, freedom to shoot, freedom to drill for oil,
freedom to pollute, all symbolized and enacted by the freedom not to wear a
mask. What emerges most prominently from this experience is a huge deficit
in the social contract. Our problem is not a lack of freedom. It is a lack
of responsibility. The center-left attributes this lack entirely to the
right, but in fact, it has been the mainstay of the whole society since the
development of the networked communications system. Just recall the slogans.

Perhaps the questions of surveillance and state control will return
powerfully to the fore later on. For sure these are serious questions. But
right now, there is basically no contact tracing happening, except within
certain corporations. What the Covid crisis in the US has revealed is a
more fundamental split in society - not between freedom and control, but
between vastly different understandings of how free people organize
themselves as a collectivity. Under the pressure of events and of the
emotions they generate, these understanding remain inchoate, practically
inexpressible, and so they devolve into repetition compulsions that are
very far from democratic. To be sure, there is a lot of intense activity
happening behind the scenes right now, in preparation to resist what many
of us see as a highly probable and extended attempt at a coup to block the
transfer of power after election day. Additionally, there is a lot of work
continuing, both officially and in intensive groups, to make the BLM
demands render more tangible results. This undercurrent could have major
effects next year, and I don't know anyone who has given up on it. What
remains to be seen - the crucial interim - is how all that will look during
the next big occupations of public space, which are likely to happen next
month.

I think the concept of Affect Space is brilliant. It describes contemporary
social experience very well. However, from my perspective in Chicago there
is only one problem. It describes a nightmare with no end in sight.

What does this US experience mean for Europe, and more specifically the
Netherlands? To what extent have the great European civil wars of the
twentieth century put to rest the collective passions of reciprocal
aggression? Is there any dark side to individual freedom on the Old
Continent? Can European democracies withstand the surging pressures of
Affect Space?

As an old friend I am sure you will understand that what I offer is not a
polemic. It's an 

Re: The Zombie Public – Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

[Eric Kluitenberg]

Hello ‘lizvix’ - don’t know who this is - the ‘Hans’ of Übermorgen?

Anyway a few answers  / corrections on your questions:

> On 6 Oct 2020, at 16:47, lizvlx  wrote:
> 
> Hi there 
> 
> A few questions- I don’t want to misunderstand yr text
> 
> 1. what do u mean by (mass) gatherings have been suspended? 

I wrote “The freedom of assembly has been suspended.” - under corona rules 
virtually anywhere now only limited amounts of people are allowed to assemble, 
which in effect means that this basic freedom is suspended. Mass gatherings 
still happen, as I explained in some length in the piece, but they are then in 
violation of these rules.

> 2. What countries r u referring to?

Not any country in particular, but the countries that have or pretend to have 
some form of basic ‘democratic’ or civic governance (neoliberal phantasy or 
not). Probably we must assume that ‘democratic rights’ are always under threat 
/ pressure, but with the covid-19 crisis I feel there is a qualitatively 
different situation. 

> 3. do u have an issue with a lockdown per se or is this coz u don’t think the 
> pandemic necessitates such a thing?

I am writing in the essay about the question of ‘public space’ and the erosion 
of ‘publicness’ and ’the public’ not about the politics of the lockdowns.

My private opinion, which is outside the scope of this essay, is that in some 
initial stage of the pandemic the lockdowns were maybe necessary, given the 
overburdened care system, but in essence they are counter-productive. The virus 
will not go away, it will stay around like the flu and mutate regularly. Thus 
any vaccine will need to be updated regularly and we will have to get it like 
the flu shot, or even in a cocktail, probably annually.

It is necessary to build up a certain measure of biological resistance in the 
general population, but this can only be done in a responsible way by radically 
extending the care system to protect vulnerable sections of the population - 
and the main argument against that is staggering costs - so the lockdown has 
been the preferred option. Problem is once you end it the virus starts 
circulating like before again, which is what we now see.

Hoping that a vaccine is the silver bullet is to me exactly that: hope and as a 
Russian saying says so beautifully: Hope dies last.

> 4. what specifically doch deem privacy infringing with corona apps as most 
> either collect a lotta less data than Facebook or don’t collect any data on a 
> central server? Which app r u referring to?

That is the misconception I’m trying to address with this text. The app seems 
not so bad in comparison to all the other data draining techniques from the 
social media swamp, or simply from mobile / ‘smart’ phone users (i.e. more or 
less all of us, you replied from an iphone and I use that thing as well - 
though not for mailing lists..).

It is the correlation of data from all these apps, the integration into the 
operating systems as a default, in combination with the radical expansion of 
somatic sensing technologies built into these mobile / wearable devices that 
creates an unprecedented level of scrutiny wherever we take these devices, i.e. 
that thing formerly designated as ‘public space’, but this condition is exactly 
what renders the necessary conditions for publicness null and void. I find that 
a troubling situation and I think it needs to be reversed. 

> 5. again, what parts of the world r u thinking of when u wrote this text?

I answered that question already.

Enjoy the evening! 
(though weather here in NL is terrible at the moment, maybe it is better 
wherever you are..?)

-Eric


> CHEERS! LIZ! Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 06.10.2020, at 13:31, Eric Kluitenberg  wrote:
>> 
>> dear nettimers, please note:
>> 
>> This for me rather unusually opinionated text has just been published on the 
>> Open! platform. The essay explores the insistent somatic turn in 
>> technologically enabled scrutiny of public spaces and its acceleration in 
>> response to the COVID-19 crisis. It argues that the very core of public 
>> space and the public domain is under threat as it is anonymity that allows a 
>> collection of individuals to transform into 'a public', One of the most 
>> vital corner stones of open and democratic civic governance is thus under 
>> imminent threat. 
>> 
>> An edited and slightly shortened version of this text has been published on 
>> the Open! platform for art, culture and the public domain (September 18, 
>> 2020), and can be found here: https://www.onlineopen.org/the-zombie-public 
>> 
>> ––
>> 
>> The Zombie Public
>> 
>> Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.
>> 
>> Our media channels have been flooded with projections about possible 
>> futures, with or without ‘the virus’. [1] Not surprising given the 
>> unprecedented 2020 lockdown across large parts of the planet. In both 
>> dystopian and utopian accounts, as well as more 

Re: The Zombie Public – Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

[lizvlx]

Hi there 

A few questions- I don’t want to misunderstand yr text

1. what do u mean by (mass) gatherings have been suspended? 

2. What countries r u referring to?

3. do u have an issue with a lockdown per se or is this coz u don’t think the 
pandemic necessitates such a thing?

4. what specifically doch deem privacy infringing with corona apps as most 
either collect a lotta less data than Facebook or don’t collect any data on a 
central server? Which app r u referring to?

5. again, what parts of the world r u thinking of when u wrote this text?

CHEERS! LIZ! Vote!







Sent from my iPhone

> On 06.10.2020, at 13:31, Eric Kluitenberg  wrote:
> 
> dear nettimers, please note:
> 
> This for me rather unusually opinionated text has just been published on the 
> Open! platform. The essay explores the insistent somatic turn in 
> technologically enabled scrutiny of public spaces and its acceleration in 
> response to the COVID-19 crisis. It argues that the very core of public space 
> and the public domain is under threat as it is anonymity that allows a 
> collection of individuals to transform into 'a public', One of the most vital 
> corner stones of open and democratic civic governance is thus under imminent 
> threat. 
> 
> An edited and slightly shortened version of this text has been published on 
> the Open! platform for art, culture and the public domain (September 18, 
> 2020), and can be found here: https://www.onlineopen.org/the-zombie-public 
> 
> ––
> 
> The Zombie Public
> 
> Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.
> 
> Our media channels have been flooded with projections about possible futures, 
> with or without ‘the virus’. [1] Not surprising given the unprecedented 2020 
> lockdown across large parts of the planet. In both dystopian and utopian 
> accounts, as well as more level-headed attempts at taking stock and 
> extrapolating future scenarios, a recurrent motive is the attempt to describe 
> a possible future in definite terms based on a set of extreme contingencies 
> that essentially preclude a clear judgement – given the tide of uncertainties 
> such predictions are up against. Rather than simply writing these accounts 
> off as nonsensical they should be understood as what they are, ideological 
> projections that attempt to shape rather than predict possible futures. As 
> such traditional questions can then be asked: Who is ‘shaping’? Under what 
> prerogative? In service of which ideological a-priori? Serving which material 
> (political / economic) interests?
> 
> Any critical reader can fill in this ‘questionnaire’ for themselves, and 
> answers will undoubtedly overlap and to some extent be predictable. It may, 
> however, yet be more productive to shift away from these predicted 
> (contingent) futures altogether and focus instead on that what has already 
> happened. We can then ask ourselves the question what can be done right now 
> to thwart the ‘shapers’ endeavours? How can we open up this contingent future 
> to the public interest, that is to say to that which concerns us all and 
> which should be subject of an open, critical, and truly public debate, rather 
> than the object of flawed and illegitimate attempts at social engineering.  
> Another way of stating the same would be to say, let’s trace the associations 
> of all the agents involved in determining these contingent futures (human and 
> non-human), and try to establish the most beneficial forms of living together 
> in a continuous feedback loop of ‘composing the good common world’ (Latour, 
> 2004). [2]
> 
> Given the complexity of this question it is clear that such an undertaking 
> needs to be a collective effort, comprised of an infinite assemblage of 
> individual actions, not necessarily at all points coherent, nor even 
> commensurable. Rather, it involves an explication of an unending succession 
> of ‘matters of concern’ that bring us together exactly because they divide us 
> (Latour, 2005). As such this essay is not an attempt at (another) 
> comprehensive analysis. I will focus here on an interrogation of the shifting 
> spatial dynamics and regimes of urban space, as they pertain in particular to 
> a specific ‘matter of concern’; the demise of public space and the 
> zombie-status of ‘the public’ that still tries to inhabit this ‘disassembled’ 
> space. The shifting spatial dynamics I am referring to have been underway for 
> a long time, but have been greatly intensified and accelerated by the spread 
> of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the (state and corporate) policy responses 
> towards the ‘global pandemic’.
> 
> The shifting spatial dynamics and the potentially lethal effects they have, 
> amplifying the demise of public space, result from the increasing 
> entanglement of physical (urban) space, digital networks, and the biological 
> body, and the ways in which these dynamics are operationalised politically. 
> In the context of Open! we have 

The Zombie Public – Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

[Eric Kluitenberg]

dear nettimers, please note:
 
This for me rather unusually opinionated text has just been published on the 
Open! platform. The essay explores the insistent somatic turn in 
technologically enabled scrutiny of public spaces and its acceleration in 
response to the COVID-19 crisis. It argues that the very core of public space 
and the public domain is under threat as it is anonymity that allows a 
collection of individuals to transform into 'a public', One of the most vital 
corner stones of open and democratic civic governance is thus under imminent 
threat. 

An edited and slightly shortened version of this text has been published on the 
Open! platform for art, culture and the public domain (September 18, 2020), and 
can be found here: https://www.onlineopen.org/the-zombie-public 

––

The Zombie Public

Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

Our media channels have been flooded with projections about possible futures, 
with or without ‘the virus’. [1] Not surprising given the unprecedented 2020 
lockdown across large parts of the planet. In both dystopian and utopian 
accounts, as well as more level-headed attempts at taking stock and 
extrapolating future scenarios, a recurrent motive is the attempt to describe a 
possible future in definite terms based on a set of extreme contingencies that 
essentially preclude a clear judgement – given the tide of uncertainties such 
predictions are up against. Rather than simply writing these accounts off as 
nonsensical they should be understood as what they are, ideological projections 
that attempt to shape rather than predict possible futures. As such traditional 
questions can then be asked: Who is ‘shaping’? Under what prerogative? In 
service of which ideological a-priori? Serving which material (political / 
economic) interests?

Any critical reader can fill in this ‘questionnaire’ for themselves, and 
answers will undoubtedly overlap and to some extent be predictable. It may, 
however, yet be more productive to shift away from these predicted (contingent) 
futures altogether and focus instead on that what has already happened. We can 
then ask ourselves the question what can be done right now to thwart the 
‘shapers’ endeavours? How can we open up this contingent future to the public 
interest, that is to say to that which concerns us all and which should be 
subject of an open, critical, and truly public debate, rather than the object 
of flawed and illegitimate attempts at social engineering.  Another way of 
stating the same would be to say, let’s trace the associations of all the 
agents involved in determining these contingent futures (human and non-human), 
and try to establish the most beneficial forms of living together in a 
continuous feedback loop of ‘composing the good common world’ (Latour, 2004). 
[2]

Given the complexity of this question it is clear that such an undertaking 
needs to be a collective effort, comprised of an infinite assemblage of 
individual actions, not necessarily at all points coherent, nor even 
commensurable. Rather, it involves an explication of an unending succession of 
‘matters of concern’ that bring us together exactly because they divide us 
(Latour, 2005). As such this essay is not an attempt at (another) comprehensive 
analysis. I will focus here on an interrogation of the shifting spatial 
dynamics and regimes of urban space, as they pertain in particular to a 
specific ‘matter of concern’; the demise of public space and the zombie-status 
of ‘the public’ that still tries to inhabit this ‘disassembled’ space. The 
shifting spatial dynamics I am referring to have been underway for a long time, 
but have been greatly intensified and accelerated by the spread of the 
SARS-CoV-2 virus and the (state and corporate) policy responses towards the 
‘global pandemic’.

The shifting spatial dynamics and the potentially lethal effects they have, 
amplifying the demise of public space, result from the increasing entanglement 
of physical (urban) space, digital networks, and the biological body, and the 
ways in which these dynamics are operationalised politically. In the context of 
Open! we have already investigated different aspects of this dynamic in depth, 
mostly through our successive engagements with the emerging ‘techno-sensuous 
spatial order’ of Affect Space.[3] But what must be emphasised more decidedly 
here is the increasing shift towards the somatic, the tendency to bind the 
biological body ever more tightly into this emerging spatial order, which also 
connects this exploration more or less directly to the current Open! research 
on touch and feel in the digital age.
 
The lockdown in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic might seem 
at first to contradict everything that we had so far theorised about Affect 
Space. One of our crucial areas of attention had been the increased 
densification of urban public spaces as they become overlaid with mobile media