Gothenburg N.B.
Ralo Mayer and Philipp Haupt


Gothenburg N.B.
Ralo Mayer and Philipp Haupt
The power & politics of information visualization.

Black Culture — White Nature
Rose Reitsamer
The musical traditions of white masculinity.

Allegories of Angelic Bodies
Mojca Puncer
Mind, body, cyborgs and angels in the land of new media technologies.

Time’s Dance: An exploration of trauma, time and memory
Nadine Boljkovac


Nostalgic Technology: Notes for an Off-modern Manifesto
Svetlana Boym
The aura of the error - the art of broken technology.

Dialoguing man and machine: Palindrome IMPG
pETER Purg
Bodies & space in a playground of people, words & numbers..

edit this banner
Lina Kovačević
Do-it-yourself online advertising.


Post-modal Reproduction of Power

On the 14th of January 2004, Robert Kilroy-Silk, an anchor on BBC’s morning talk show, published an article in Sunday Express titled “We Owe Arabs Nothing” with the statement: “Arab countries are not the brightest example of civilization because they don’t contribute enough to the well-being of the rest of the world.” The column also consisted of accusations the likes of: “Arabs are suicide bombers, people who amputate limbs and women oppressors.” Furious reactions by the Muslim Council of Britain denounced it as a “gratuitous anti-Arab rant” at the time when a series of debates on freedom of expression and political correctness started in the UK. The nature of these debates is what is interesting here, as they display an immanent democratic communication matrix. After BBC suspended Kilroy’s morning show, public opinion in Britain expressed high concerns about such a violation of freedom of expression (Sunday Express received 50 000 and the BBC 7 000 telephone calls). Such public concern about Kilroy’s obviously highly racist article is what is the most disturbing fact in this story.

The moral majority in the UK was not disturbed about racism expressed against “minorities” in their community, but because of the presumption that their community did not respect the democratic “freedom of expression” dogma, which functions only in cases when the dogma itself is not violated. If we refer to Etienne Balibar’s theory of metaracism which says that a priori accusation of individuals and groups is based on their cultural genealogies, a concept which perceives cultures as fixed identities where not only cooperation but also gaps among different cultures must stand firm, then we can argue that this was a clear case of metaracism and at the same time a deviation of its application. [1] The metaracist concept of racism (and to be clear, metaracism is racism) sees cultures without races as progressive (as it is the case in the UK) on one side, and as an exotic point thus simultaneously invoking apartheid as an extreme form of anti-racism (as is the case of Arab countries) on the other.

The British public was not furious because of the racist content of Kilroy’s article, but because the article revealed a subtext of collective narration based on intercultural rules-of-engagement of co-existence. After reactions to the article, Kilroy asserted that he did not address his thoughts toward “all” Arabs, but toward Arabic “non-democratic” states. This point does not mean that he just tried to pull himself out of his individual responsibility, but to present his position as a collective position where his own responsibility coincides with collective responsibility of the United Kingdom’s (English) moral majority. A perverse rhetorical game, which happens when the UK is involved in an adventure with one of the “exotic” countries in the Persian Gulf where (supposedly) forensic searches for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) has become not an Iraqi, but a British number one topic (among others).

Lacanian psychoanalysis connects phantasmatic constructions with the way people organize their enjoyment (jouissance) and the way desire surrounds some traumatic elements, which cannot be easily symbolized. In the phantasmatic structure around the homeland-country there is a nation, which cannot be easily symbolized. According to Lacan, the Real is a dimension, which is always lacked, but which also always emerges. This dimension appears, while avoiding symbolization, in a synchronic way. [2]

This is connected precisely with another moment as the article in question was originally released several months ago, but at that time no one reacted to it. In this context, Kilroy’s article played the role of denial-of-reality (or superimposition of the real over reality), which led the public sphere to the presumption that their national phantasm could be shaken, and at the same it invoked the territorial machine to start coding sequences in order that the public sphere protect its collective phantasm. What does this mean?

The territorial machine, according to Deleuze, [3] is a “megamachine” which has people as its component and which integrates and exteriorizes them to a certain institutional model on all levels of acting by coding fluxes of production and consumption into a nonhierarchical, omnipresent and (re)productional module. The code circulates, transforms, and reproduces messages and patterns of widely varying semantic and contextual richness.

Kilroy asked himself, “Besides oil, which has been found, produced and paid by the West, what are those countries contributing to civilization?” Thus, after several hundreds of years of British Empire (or other) capitalist exploitation of “exotic” countries, they are guilty again for not using something which is theirs. Nietzsche said that memory has to be created for a man; but a man who constituted himself with an active ability to forget has to create some other memories which will be collective: memory of words, not things, memory of signs, not consequences.

This is not just an illustration of social investment for the (re)implementation of the collective phantasm about the state of the Nation, but it is more an illustration of the way how two culturally different social groups fit themselves into the neo-capitalist model of the binary, programmed to exchange conflict contents.

Isomorphism of the Modal

Giorgio Agamben [4] claims that “global society” today consists of two poles, i.e. entities of life. The first is life with modality (modal-life), which exists in Western capitalist democratic states in the forms of life-which-chooses, life with style and consumer life. Life with style is, in (western) capitalist societies, life which exists as style only. The other form of life is bare-life, life as such, which exists in a much greater number in the so-called Third World countries. According to Agamben, the foundation of sovereignty is consequently based on a concept of bare-life, toward which sovereignty fulfills its role of being sovereign, because it can take or give life, citizen’s rights or style. Agamben contextualizes concepts of sovereignty in relation to these two life modalities and relations primarily based on the differentiations between them.

When Negri and Hardt argue [5] that following the reduction of the power of nation-states global capitalism has given birth to a new form of de-centralized sovereignty which produces life itself as a product, they directly refer to the concept of biopolitics; biopolitics is developed in relation to Michel Foucault’s biopower, as the power of the emerging governmental forces to create, manage, and control populations. What is important to make clear is that Western sovereignty approves of them mostly by conducting politics towards bare-life (and this is seen as a political measure), or insisting on differentiations between the two modes of life (which is seen as a cultural measure).

When Negri and Hardt argue [5] that following the reduction of the power of nation-states global capitalism has given birth to a new form of de-centralized sovereignty, which produces life itself as a product, they directly refer to the concept of biopolitics; biopolitics is developed in relation to Michel Foucault’s biopower, as the power of the emerging governmental forces to create, manage, and control populations. What is important to make clear is that Western sovereignty approves them mostly by conducting politics towards bare-life (and this is seen as a political measure), or insisting on differentiations between the two modes of life (which is seen as a cultural measure).

In a situation where the Western world finds itself in the rather peculiar situation of facing massive illegal migrations from Asia and Eastern Europe in the last several years, Agamben reminds us in “We Refugees” [6] that the West is confronted with a great number of refugees who, with reference to the neologism by Thomas Hammar, are in fact, denizens or denied citizens. On the other hand, Agamben says “citizens of the advanced industrialized states (both in the United States and in Europe) manifest, by their growing desertion of the codified instances of political participation, an evident tendency to transform themselves into denizens, into conformity with the well-known principle that substantial assimilation in the presence of formal differences exasperates hatred and intolerance, xenophobic reactions and defensive mobilizations will increase.”

These immigration groups change their geographical position for political or economic reasons, or, to paraphrase Kilroy, maybe because the West produces their oil. These transfers, however, are not finished when the position is changed, but start with cultural assimilation protocols at work in new environments.

Bare-life, according to Agamben, allows authority to get itself legitimate in time. Is not one of the most recent examples that of the Guantanamo prison or the case of torture of Iraqis in the Abu Ghraib prison? Besides the illegal practice of Guantanamo existence (“No one is guilty until proved opposite in a court of law”), what displays sovereignty is a model where bare-life gets not destroyed, but converted, exposed as a cultural practice of life-with-modality in cases where Western pop and heavy metal music allegedly has been used to torture prisoners and may serve as banal example or a display of the power of sovereignty where cultural practice is displayed as a weapon by exposing differentiation. “To exercise sovereignty is to exercise control over mortality and to define life as the deployment and manifestation of power,” writes Achille Mbembe in “Necropolitics”. [7] This is practically similar in urban, western environments where cultural mass media remodels human “quantities” from (racially) Third World countries (Rodney King case, 1992), or as in the most recent Kilroy case.

Differentiation in this case comes out of the accumulation and distribution of political/economic power, but how many differences are there really? Southeast Asia (paper tiger) countries while being exploited by/or being multinational corporations themselves at the same time exploit their own bare-life minorities (Indonesia towards East Timor, Turks towards Kurds, etc.). A way which does not only rearticulate the global capitalism matrix of expansion, but its own conflicts between (capitalistic) deterritorialisation and (national) reterritorialisation, building itself primarily in such a way as a future component of global sovereignty — global capitalism.

In so-called transitional societies, bare-life (non-modeled) life acknowledged the difference and started building itself through the concept of sovereignty, which will fit perfectly to the Western notion, and the practice of sovereignty. Post-socialist and former Eastern European societies perceive global capitalism not through future inequalities, class divisions, but with a willingness to prepare their states/economies to adopt global capitalism. European Union demands from transitional societies are seen as an implementation of several extremes, such as, for example, the implementation of an information society but with the false predisposition that it is a mere technological structure, followed by extreme economic imbalances, extreme class divisions, fascistic nationalistic regimes decoded as mere figures in endless political games with the following unequal distribution of knowledge to certain local social structures which conduct the whole process.

The biopolitical decodes itself in bivalent manners: firstly it “patches” its own linear progress toward modal civilizations by accepting a “non-repressive” democracy, but only as a countermeasure of the former “repressive” communism. Functioning as a fictional platform, which if read through postmodernist practices, works as the collective phantasm: the West should accept us, because we were oppressed by communism. The biopolitical nature of the “transitional” society lies in the way it profiles its own phantasmatic scenario of sovereignty. An intrinsic characterization of this process is not seen in the dichotomy between the First and Third Worlds, but in a hybrid fusion between cultural modalities focused on a construction of lifestyles. Cultural diversity is presented as mere cultural multiplication and capitalistic democracy is nothing else but a form of democratism, where freedom of choice is just a reducement of meaning and effect of choice. Non-modal life is thus assimilated by modal life, becoming nothing more than an auto-imputation of any (First-Third world) system that function as replication.

For an example of what is going on here, it is useful to use the computer gaming slang term “feature freeze,” which presents a halt in new features development, but nevertheless concentrates on fixing “bugs” of already accepted features, implying that the system “source code” is flawless (perfect). “Feature freeze” is the current socio-political state of “To-be-modeled societies” (of already modeled states) in the transitional second world.

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) as a Cultural Product

The Kilroy case’s tight connection to the Iraq crisis, where the position of UK forces in the Coalition is currently under great pressure, shows a connection with the entire case of the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction, which were allegedly the primary motive for engagement in the war in Iraq. For the British government, the loss of Iraqi lives does not present the main concern, but rather its main point is to secure or to find an alibi for the intervention. It presents British investments not for liberty (of Iraq), but for the preservation of lifestyles that would be endangered by a potential existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction. “The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he (Saddam Hussein) had a weapon,” U.S. President Bush said on NBC’s Meet the Press meeting (source, BBC, 08.02.04), after being challenged by interviewer Tim Russert that no weapons had been found. Mr. Bush added: “…what wasn’t wrong was the fact that he had the ability to make a weapon.” The National Security Strategy issued by the White House on September 20, 2002 expresses that the U.S. has the right to preemptive strikes against countries which do not already pose a clear threat to the U.S., but MIGHT pose such a threat in the foreseeable future.

Kilroy obviously sees the UK’s Arab community as one which MIGHT present a threat in the foreseeable future, and so he finds it suitable to use the preemptive strike doctrine rhetorically. Such a doctrine, of course, creates a crisis, which implies a need for something like a War Machine to “solve” it. Deleuze and Guattari [8] sort out two different features of the War Machine, which functions immanently separated from the state and which has an extremely changeable notion of war. The first is that the war machine presents an assemblage of conditions under which the State possesses this machine. Secondly, it is a supplementary component which emerges and can be turned against the State or its phantasmatic reference field. A war itself is not the object of the War Machine, but it is just an extension of two points that allow a recent conceptualization of the role of democracy as an inter-state between a crisis whose invocation, banally said, comes from a crisis within the system when it lacks enemies. Bush said he thought that the biggest issue would be, “Who can properly use American power (War Machine) in a way to make the world a better place.” (Source BBC.co.uk, 08.02.04) The Iraqi crisis has developed into not only a key issue in the forthcoming U.S. presidential elections, but is the mirror of a future profile of social events not only in the Coalition states (the US and UK), but also in the rest of the world. If we refer to statements by Hans Blix, former UN chief weapons inspector, that “Britain and the US dramatized intelligence information to bolster the argument for the Iraq war” (Source BBC.co.uk, 08.02.04), besides being a lame component of a guilty ping-pong game, it plays its role of inducing mystification in the game around the intelligence community (meaning: nobody is guilty, and reading: everybody is guilty).

WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) will obviously continue to exist as a shadowy concept which will not only present an alibi for preemptive strike doctrines, but will shape the collective perceptions of the consistency of tools of “applied sovereignty”. Not because WMD does not exist, but on the contrary, because it has been found as a concept. Terry Eagleton claims that “the West is forced to universalize itself just in the moment when its culture starts to regress from inside, because of unhealthy alliance of postmodern skepticism and militant particularize where the term “subculture” becomes an unconsciousness denial of that split.” [9]

A TV show on VH1, televised via European MTV, called “Fabulous life of...” presents the newly fabulous lives of celebrities: “From their lifestyles filled with non-stop VIP treatment, endless entourages and $1000 dollar face cremes, to fleets of cars, massive estates and multi-million dollar wardrobes...”(as reported on the VH1.com official show info). Nothing new, nothing unexpected, especially judging the reactions on the VH1.com message board section where it has been suggested that the fabulous lives of “normal” people could also be produced. One interesting post says: “I am only 20 yrs old and I know that I want that lifestyle, the only thing is how you go about it and you have to be original!!!”

Thus, craving THAT lifestyle does not really correspond with being ORIGINAL, as ANY lifestyle is. The show itself functions as a beacon around which the celebration of modal and non-modal lives craving gathers. “According to the claim that the cycle of meaning has been drastically reduced, diminished and pulled to a level of question/answer, to a unit of information-bit, or that it is an extremely small amount of energy/information which gets back to its initial starting point means that the cycle describes only the long-lasting reactualisation of the same models.” (Jean Baudrillard in Simulaton and Reality [10] )

These thoughts can be used while making an analysis of the constructed lifestyle of pop singer Jennifer Lopez (“The Fabulous Life of Jennifer Lopez”) which signifies the form of a sign without reference, a sign that turns her into a J.Lo marketing product, a product that lives in her stead. Nevertheless, with a reference to Agamben, one can state that the Hispanic community, where she originated from, is experiencing her as a signifier of its own collective perception of a future lifestyle the community is going to achieve. This is confirmed also through Lopez’s single “I am still Jenny from the Block”, which recursively turns her into Jenny, a name for collective perception recognition. The Lopez lifestyle status, besides being banal (“It’s all about the fit”) does not have a problem with her ethnicity (http://www.mtv.com/onair/moviehouse/cameo/2/index3.jhtml).

J. Lo, upon being invited to contribute to the MOBO 2002 (Music Of Black Origin) album, stated that “her music is not of black origin” without even having been asked for reasons for her refusal (http://rapdirt.com/article2202.html). It is important to reflect how hip-hop culture’s musical roots which are located in the “non-modeled” (minority) culture and which has been posing some rather unpleasant questions (NWA band) to the white capitalistic oligarchy from the late eighties, has become just reproduction material, though a life with modality. Like Deleuze and Guattari would say, “Capitalism does not stop to corrupt its own tendencies toward which it goes, capitalism instaurates all kinds of residual, artificial, imaginary or symbolical territorialities. In that way it recodes components which get loose from abstract quantities what leads to one code or one axiomatic to social combinatory which in fact is communication of unconscious ones.” [11]

Music (or art) also figures as a multiplication of choices or styles, similar to the role of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) in “non” entertainment socio-political spheres. Constant informational flows of the “entertainment” industry provide hot spot topics, which appear and disappear in similar fashion, without any preferentiality or continuity (Millennium Bug, Ebola, missions on Mars, Sierra Leone...). Yet, the dramatization of the Iraq war post-event happenings is in fact de-dramatization, where WMD, even if it were to be physically found, is already transferred into the hyperreal domain as the potential signifier of not something hidden, but something which is displayed as such. Instead of The Fabulous Life of Normal People show, the Fabulous Life of WMD has already begun.

Free media

Returning to Agamben, it is said that modal life oppresses and tortures non-modal life as proof of its sovereignty, as a constant upgraded form of its own pervert social constitution or necrophantasm. When non-modal life is not only oppressed by the modal one, but masochistically by itself, what can be called post-modal, what this present? Kilroy, metaracism, J. Lo and WMD — what binds them all together?

In the first instance, the epistemological conceptualization of their later forms of multivalent co-existence. Most implications, repercussions and strategies here rely on a concept of sovereignty within modal civilization and on gaining individual integrity within the same civilization. Everything has its visual traces in the global info-communicational platform, or Infosphere, where the postmodal becomes metamodal. “Media does not regulate social relations as transmitters of content, but through their form and action which is not a relation of exploitation, but abstraction,” says Jean Baudrillard in Simulation and Reality [12] . Personality today has become “private” in the exact measure in which it realizes itself from abstract quantities and becomes concrete in becoming the abstract quantity itself, where quantities, not personalities are marked,” according to Deleuze and Guattari. [13]

Baudrillard claims that media are not co-efficients, but effectors of ideology (or at least concepts which are implied as such) according to the statement that ideology does not exist as a discourse of the ruling class until it is incorporated into media. It is right to claim that: “Corporations, consumers of economic intelligence, routinely advance the merging of editorial information with corporate public relations in the media. The interest of private capital is further supported by manipulating policy through a multitude of think-tanks which publish ideologically biased research or hidden agendas masked as independent academic work.” And further: “This logic of control over the information market is strongly opposed to the cultivation and formation of a public sphere, and the dysfunctionality of the communication markets generates crucial deficiencies in itself.” (http://darkmarkets.t0.or.at/concept.htm)

What about the public sphere? What about public interest? It is appropriate to reconsider the role of the public sphere not in a way which sees the public interest as a victim of it, but in a way which sees it as a component already in the post-modal machine, as meta-information in itself. Meta-information as an immanent appropriation of digital information means information about information. Also, meta-information could be defined as informational content of metadata, which is structural data about data. Here, information relies on content and data form, which is a shape through which information is dispersed.

Post-modal differentiation in the decentralized, non-hierarchical nature of the global info-sphere has multiple roles, a role everybody loves to love, a position where communication flow overloads not only stray fluxes of social libidinal investments, but makes any other social determinant incorporated just as a component of itself. In a post-modal socio-political context, modal life is not only the carrier of political and economic practices, but it is also a non-modal life, which is still not incorporated in networking society. Besides the concept of what Public Domain 2.0 should be, what should be its organic tissue, its generator?

If consumers of corporate information products do not position themselves according to the ideological background of the information, if they position themselves in relation to the future space for their desired productions, are we then talking about the Infosphere as a transfer from organic to non-organic environments, as a post-modal cybernetic extent? Sleep, delirium, and lapse: discourse of the unconscious that has no other purpose — says Freud — but satisfaction (http://www.lacan.com/frameI5.htm). The recoding of libidinal fluxes is not merely an ideological question of repression or torture, but is before anything else a question of (mass)media culture matrixes. If, as the Japanese say, that war is the art of decoration of death, why then would post-modal cultural matrixes not be the art of decoration of life? A kind of social Feng Shui.

This is probably the right moment to raise the claim that it is not the mass media information producer’s tendency to constantly produce the same products (production of nothing), but the social construction itself consists of mimetic modal and non-modal lives which will continue to constantly (re)produce other vectors of post-modal culture and politics into a structure. This structure, a kind of superstructure, does not mark any ideological background behind post-modal mergers, nor is it a hierarchical structure that functions within the system; it is more a horizontal (superficial) production of a-synchronic-dead-end-micro systems of social libidinal investments. This delineates the superstructure as a casual linkage, which is not separate from its organic malfunction (social body), while entering the digital domain. The disability to referentially shape any context exists only when every COM sequence has been reduced to a mere pole of replication, making, in such a case, the very concept of communication lethal, or, at the very least, extremely alienating.

Weapons of Mass Consumption

In Washington DC in the year 2054 a special police unit called Precrime predicts and stops future crimes by arresting perpetrators before they commit a crime. This can all happen because three genetically engineered beings, called Precogs, and controlled by Precrime, can see the future. The storyline unfolds when the chief of Precrime, John Anderton (Tom Cruise), gets accused of a future crime, and while escaping (running) away from the system starts to research the origins of the project and the conspiracy behind it. The running away itself is illustrated visually with omnipresent biometric scans through units of small, mechanical spiders that check human ID through retina scans and with background scenes in which future consumerism is represented (something similar to Blade Runner). John Anderton discovers that Lamar (Max von Sydow), the powerful man-with-political-connections who started the project, is controlling the resources (Precogs) to cover up a murder he committed in the past, when he killed the mother of a key Precog (the female Agatha), in order to initiate the project itself. At the end of the movie, after revealing Lamar’s crime to the public, Anderton presents him with a dilemma, because if Lamar does not kill him, the Precogs are wrong and the system does not work properly; if Lamar kills him (Anderton), Lamar goes away, but in turn proves that the system works. Lamar commits suicide instead. On one hand, Anderton represents the constantly monitored citizens; on the other Lamar presents the foe from within who has committed a crime for the benefit of the community after all. He has been the one who was conducting surveillance.

Lamar presents a negative of modal (civilized) society which exercises surveillance on Anderton as an individual who fights and struggles for his lifestyle, even when passing through the personal trauma of losing his wife and child. Lamar converts more and more into a representative of the crimes of modal civilization (colonialism, racism, fascism) and becomes rejected by the structure itself (his influential friends are disgusted when they realize he has committed a crime). Lamar does not get arrested or killed, but commits suicide converting all modal crimes into an expression of redemption of modal civilization which symbolically welcomes non-modal civilization (the “small man” Anderton) into its own power structure. The Precogs (future gazers) can be seen as an upgraded form of the preemptive strike doctrine which will multiply itself in numerous sociopolitical forms.

Most illustrative in the movie are two concepts: the first is about citizens who can come and pay for electronic simulation of their most passionate (darkest) desires, while the second is about two policemen from Precrime named Resonance 913 and Resonance 914 and how they engage in the scanning of residential buildings. Resonance — a vibration of large amplitude in mechanical or electrical systems caused by a relatively small periodic stimulus of the same, or nearly the same period as is the natural vibration period system, comes as a perfect analogy of the meta-static co-existence of human quantities in the virtual domain. When a vibration of quantities is aligned with the resonance of the social body then a “quantity” gets coded with an ID (913) and has “pleasure as its object and desire is its natural manifestation.” [14] When a resonance gets supplementarily multiplied and interpolates with a resonance of other social quantities, it results either in the re-teritorrialization or search for other forms of libidinal investments or mobilizes in a new form of metaracism.

Thus it was not the phantasmatic structure of the nation which became “endangered” by compromised military engagement, but the hypercapitalistic structure which create(s)d even the nation; even more, this structure is not even endangered, but refreshed in such a way by a more direct expansion to new territories of consumption.

The correlation to a cyborg in this context could be found in Donna Haraway’s claim that: “A cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction,”r [15] or like one line in Minority Report says, “In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed is king.” Not only will cybernetic prosthetics of quantities get (un)real but their appropriate sociobiological systems will also start to exist in the multireal as (un)real. The way the hypercapitalistic social axiomatic fulfills its immanence is not just by expanding its borders (the Iraq war), but also by creating new ones (differentiation of the same) in other technologically determined domains where the extension of senses must come along with the extension of cultural-political modalities in all their symbiotic sociobiological forms. The postmodal that does not exist without collective cybernetic extensions is nothing more than the spectrum of dead ends of quantitative differentials of a superstructure which functions as nothing more than its own reaffirmation.


[1] Balibar, Ettiene, Wallerstein E., Is There a “Neo-Racism: Race, Nation, Class; Ambiguous Identities, (Verso, London 1991).

[2] Lacan, Jacques, Le Seminaire livre 3: Les psychoses, (Edition du Seuil, Paris 1981).

[3]  Deleuze, Gilles / Guattari, Felix, L’Anti-Oedipe, (Les Editions de Minuit, Paris 1972).

[4] Agamben, Giorgio, The Open: Man and Animal, (Stanford University Press, January 2004).

[5] Hardt, Michael / Negri, Antonio, Imperij, (Multimedijalni Institut, Arkzin, Zagreb, 2003, Hardt / Negri: Empire, Harvard University Press 2000).

[7] Mbembe, Achille, “Necropolitics,” translated by Libby Meintjes, in: http://www.uchicago.edu/research/jnl-pub-cult/current/mbembenecro.html

[8] Deleuze, Gilles / Guattari, Felix, “Evropski diskurs rata,” (Circulus, Beogradski krug, Beograd 1995); also Tractat on Nomadology: War Machine, Proposition IX, Libra Libera Zagreb, 09/2001.

[9] Eagleton, Terry, Ideja Kulture, (Naklada Jesenski i Turk, Zagreb, 2000). Eagleton, Terry, The Idea of Culture, (Blackwell Publishers, 2000).

[10] Baudrillard, Jean, Simulacija i zbilja, (Naklada Jesenski i Turk, Hrvatsko sociolosko drustvo, Zagreb 2001).

[11] Deleuze, Gilles / Guattari, Felix, Le Anti-Oedipe, (Les Editions de Minuit, Paris 1972).

[12] Baudrillard, Jean, Simulacija i zbilja, (Naklada Jesenski i Turk, Hrvatsko sociolosko drustvo, Zagreb 2001).

[13] Deleuze, Gilles / Guattari, Felix, L’Anti-Oedipe, (Les Editions de Minuit, Paris 1972).

[14] Baudrillard, Jean, Seduction, (CTHEORY BOOKS, 2001), http://www.ctheory.net

[15] Haraway, Donna, “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century,” in: Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, in: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html


Black Culture — White Nature
Rose Reitsamer


Allegories of Angelic Bodies
Mojca Puncer

Black Culture - White Nature
Rose Reitsamer

Radical machines against the techno-empire. From utopia to network
Matteo Pasquinelli

Post-modal Repro-duction of Power
Šefik Šeki Tatlić

Gothenburg N.B.
Ralo Mayer and Philipp Haupt

Hyper-textual coauthor in the age of neo-liberal consumerism
Hajrudin Hromadžić

Hypertext-(ual) conscious-ness. Literature (?) on new media
Katarina Peović Vuković