The Scroll Shadows of Electric Urbanism: Geometry of Alienation & Boredom
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13133/2532-6562/17869Keywords:
xenofeminism, Gilles Châtelet, screensAbstract
The geometry of the screen is pretty boring–rectangular. This article attempts to dissect and refashion the electric rectangles that consume so much of today’s visual field. Rather than static surfaces, I argue that the hand-held screens of smartphones host a geometrical underworld that allows urban interactions to be rethought. Electric platforms offer a new density–millions of interactions can take place in a few cm2 of a phone display. How are we seen and how do we hide at these scales? The nanoscopic aspect of electrons reshapes traditional modes of narrative visibility. The velocity of electricity renders today’s images semiotically stochastic. I explore these concerns by engaging the philosophy and aesthetics of xenofeminism along with Gilles Châtelet’s geometry, which conceives distance as a surface rather than a line. As a case study, I analyze the electric object “#xenofeminism” on Instagram. Geometry is useful in studying electric geographies because it is scale independent (geometry works at planetary or subatomic levels). Today’s screenscape induces alienation and boredom. I examine these affects to better appreciate xenofeminism’s “politics for alienation.”
References
Atalay S. (2006). «Indigenous archaeology as decolonizing practice». American Indian Quarterly, 30(3/4): 280-310.
Brenner N. (2001). «The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration». Progress in Human Geography, 25(4): 591–614.
Cassirer E. (2020 [1927]). The individual and the cosmos in renaissance philosophy. Brooklyn: Angelico Press.
Châtelet G. (2000). Figuring space: Philosophy, mathematics, and physics. Boston: Kluwer.
Châtelet G. (2014). To live and think like pigs: The incitement of envy and boredom in market democracies. Falmouth: Urbanomic.
Clarke B. (2001). Energy forms: Allegory and science in the era of classical thermodynamics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Cooper M. (2008). Life as surplus: Biotechnology and capitalism in the neoliberal era. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Cuboniks L. (2015). Xenofeminism: A politics for alienation. http://laboriacuboniks.net
Dean A. (2017). «Notes on Blacceleration». E-Flux Journal, (87).https://www.e-flux.com/journal/87/169402/notes-on- blacceleration/
Dick P. K. (1987). The minority report: And other classic stories. New York: Citadel Press.
Fox Keller E. (2017). «Worrying about Essentialism: From Feminist Theory to Epistemological Cultures». In Chemla K., Keller E. F. (eds.), Cultures without culturalism: the making of scientific knowledge. Durham: Duke University Press.
Edgerton S. Y. (2009). The mirror, the window, and the telescope: How renaissance linear perspective changed our vision of the universe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Federici S. (2004). Caliban and the witch: Women, the body and primitive accumulation. New York: Autonomedia.
Ferreira da Silva D. (2014). «Toward a black feminist poethics: The quest(ion) of blackness toward the end of the world». The Black Scholar, 44(2): 81-97.
Forrest-Thomson V. (2016). Poetic artifice: A theory of twentieth- century poetry. Bristol: Shearsman Books.
Friedman T. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
GeogheganB.D.(2019).«Anecologyofoperations:Vigilance,radar, and the birth of the computer screen». Representations, 147(1): 59-95.
Gibson W. (1984). Neuromancer. New York: Berkley.
Grosz E. (1994). Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Halberstam J. (2005). In a queer time and place: Transgender bodies, subcultural lives. New York: New York University Press.
Harvey D. (1989). The urban experience. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jackson Z. I. (2020). Becoming human: Matter and meaning in an antiblack world. New York: New York University Press.
Mackay R. and Avanessian A. (2014). #Accelerate: The accelerationist reader. Falmouth: Urbanomic.
Katz C. (2001). «Vagabond capitalism and the necessity of social reproduction». Antipode, 33(4): 709-728.
Levinas E. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Marston S. (2000). «The social construction of scale». Progress in Human Geography, 24(2): 219–242.
Mattern S. (2021). A city is not a computer: Other urban intelligences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
McLuhan M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Memmott T. and Heckman D. (2017). «Meme culture, alienation capital, and gestic play». Rhizomes, 32
Merry S. (2016). The seductions of quantification: Measuring human rights, gender violence, and sex trafficking. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mitropoulos A. (2012). Contract and contagion: From biopolitics to oikonomia. Brooklyn: Minor Compositions.
Montgomery L. (2020). «Indigenous alterity as archaeological praxis». In R. J. Crellin, C. N. Cipolla, L. M. Montgomery, O. J. T. Harris and S. V. Moore (Eds.), Archaeological theory in dialogue: Situating relationality, ontology, posthumanism, and indigenous paradigms (pp. 50-67) London: Routledge.
Murphet J. (2016). «Rosa plus Emma: Political pleasure and the enjoyment of reason». Filozofski Vestnik, 37(2), 201-212.
Negarestani R. (2018). Intelligence and spirit. Falmouth: Urbanomic.
Pinto A. T. (2019). «Capitalism with a Transhuman Face». Third Text, 33(3): 315-336.
Plant S. (1998). Zeros and ones: Digital women and the new technoculture. London: Fourth Estate.
Puar J. (2017). The right to maim: Debility, capacity, disability. Durham: Duke University Press.
Reed P. (2019). Xenofeminism and planetary orientation. Master Institute of Visual Cultures. Performative Defiance Lecture Series. https://youtu.be/3tzPn3poNyE.
Schwartz S. (2019). «Poetic metrics: Unfolding dissent in intensive space». ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 18(2): 265-284. His first book was published in December 2021 – An Archaeology of Temperature: Numerical Materials in the Capitalized Landscape (Routledge).
Sloterdijk P. (2011). Bubbles: Microspherology. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
Steyerl H. (2013). «Too much world: Is the internet dead?» E-Flux Journal, (49). https://www.e-flux.com/journal/49/60004/ too-much-world-is-the-internet-dead/
Susskind L. (1995). «The world as a hologram». Journal of Mathematical Physics, 36(11), 6377-6396.
Swyngedouw E. (1996). «Reconstructing citizenship: The re- scaling of the state and the new authoritarianism: Closing the Belgian mines». Urban Studies, 33: 1499–1521.
Verran H. (2001). Science and an African logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Winthereik B. R., Lutz P., Suchman L. and Verran H. (2011). «Attending to screens and screenness». STS Encounters, 4(2), 1-5.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Scott Schwartz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
NOTA DI COPYRIGHT
Proposta di licenza Creative Commons
1. Proposta per riviste Open Access
Gli autori che pubblicano su questa rivista accettano le seguenti condizioni:
Gli autori mantengono i diritti sulla loro opera e cedono alla rivista il diritto di prima pubblicazione dell'opera, contemporaneamente licenziata sotto una Licenza Creative Commons - Attribuzione che permette ad altri di condividere l'opera indicando la paternità intellettuale e la prima pubblicazione su questa rivista.
Gli autori possono aderire ad altri accordi di licenza non esclusiva per la distribuzione della versione dell'opera pubblicata (es. depositarla in un archivio istituzionale o pubblicarla in una monografia), a patto di indicare che la prima pubblicazione è avvenuta su questa rivista.
Gli autori possono diffondere la loro opera online (es. in repository istituzionali o nel loro sito web) prima e durante il processo di submission, poiché può portare a scambi produttivi e aumentare le citazioni dell'opera pubblicata (Vedi The Effect of Open Access).
