Rob Dyke on Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:51:56 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> The Ideology of Free Culture and the Grammar of Sabotage

"By slogan: in other words, by only learning the links, those keywords the
grasp of which is anyway sufficient to spell out your allegiances to a
certain ???movement??? (I don???t wish to use the word ???ideology??? here,
which is too loaded with negative meaning). Keywords such as alterity,
autonomy,biopower, bodies, communication, communism, corruption, desire,
deterritorialization, discipline, desertion, empire, exodus, hybridization,
immanence, multitude, etc. This listing is obviously not a complete one and
its compiling ??? in alphabetical order, no less ??? is not of my making:
the index at the end of the volume reflects a far from conventional choice,
including names and keywords. As such, it is yet another tool for the
hypertextual reading of the book (here???s a useful hint for all those who
should choose to use Empire ???by slogan???: in the index, the nested terms
are in effect also all the strategic keywords you need)."

Perhaps a filter/indicator/predictor of tendency towards / allegiances to a
certain movement?


(i)Maria Turchetto, The Empire Strikes Back: On Hardt and Negri, Historical
Materialism, volume 11:1 (23???36) ?? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2003,
Also available online ???

----- Original Message -----
From: Benjamin Geer <>
Sent: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:48:58 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: <nettime> The Ideology of Free Culture and the Grammar of Sabotage

On 30/01/2008, ruth weismann <> wrote:

> the idea of a dictionary of "standardized inter-bred vernacular" is
> very interesting! Just in general, concerning theory, I also quite
> sometimes have the feeling that certain expressions are just used but
> don't mean anything at all.

I think you can find this phenomenon in journalism, political speeches
and bureaucratic language as well as academic and activist language.
I think it happens when the writer really isn't interested in what
they're saying, doesn't know what they want to say, or isn't really
allowed to say anything, but wants it to sound important anyway.  I
call it "blahblah".  For a while now, I've thinking that there should
be a field of study devoted to it, and I've been imagining launching a
Journal of Blahblah Studies, which could publish articles with titles

#  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:
#  archive: contact: