The important thing is to know how to practice terraism. The practice of terraism is three-dimensional. First, there is an analytic dimension. Analytics consists of cartography. There is always a geography to worlds or regimes of attraction. This geography consists of how things are put together, the relations between elements, and the careful mapping of relations between elements. It is never the case that everything is related to everything else. This is why people starve to death. If everything were related to everything else then there would never be any hunger, any poverty, any lack of opportunity, any loneliness. Nothing, things are always selectively related and only interact along vector-paths. Because the anarchic heteroverse is material and only material, moreover, there can only ever be real connections between things. There can never be any action at a distance, but must always be some thread that allows two or more things interact. My voice needs wind to carry it and even then it can only travel so far before it is exhausted.
At any rate, because not everything is related to everything, there can never be cartography or geography, but only cartographies and geographies. Space-time is topological such that some entities relate and others do not. Here our language often misleads us. We think, for example, that because a place has a single name it constitutes a single cartography. Yet as Mieville has taught us in The City & The City something can appear to be a single cartography when, in fact, there is more than one distinct topological space, regime of attraction, or network present. This is why some people– the queer –can seem to be in a particular place, to occupy a particular place, while nonetheless being entirely outside of that regime of attraction altogether. The plight of the alien.
Without cartography nothing is possible. Every military leader knows this. You need to know how the nodes are related, what the supply lines are, what the channels of transmission are, and so on to act on these assemblages. Without that knowledge all is for naught. It is for this reason that semiotically driven modes of critique so often miss the boat. They treat the signifier as if it were everywhere, as if it pervaded the entire social field, forgetting that signifiers too are material things and thus must be transmitted throughout the world. Cartography or geography, it turns out, is the First Philosophy of political practice.
read on!
I hesitate to use the term, but perhaps the second dimension of terraism is deconstruction. Like Joseph K. in Kafka’s novels, we often find ourselves trapped in larger scale objects that use emissions for us in their own ongoing autopoiesis or self-reproduction. As so many of us experience under capitalism, this can be a tremendously oppressive and alienating state-of-affairs. Cartography gives us the map that allows for the possibility of deconstruction. Here deconstruction should be understood in a far more material sense than we often understand it. While textual deconstruction is, indeed, an indispensable form of terraism, opening up lines of flight by revealing the margins in networks of meanings, there is also material deconstruction as well. If you cut the phone lines the message cannot be sense. This is a deconstructive operation with respect to a particular regime of attraction. Marx was a great cartographer, showing us that the production of surplus-value is always a process, that it can only exist in process, such that if this process is interrupted or broken, value no longer exists. In other words, value is not intrinsic to the things valued, but only exists in the process. This opens the possibility of deconstructions. The Occupy Wall Street protesters, for example, might organize ten or twenty thousand people to withdraw all their money from the banks. This would interrupt the production of surplus-value through finance capital. I suspect were some action like this to be taken you’d encounter corporations and government far more willing to make concessions in the interest of the working and middle class. In any event, deconstruction is that dimension of terraism that severs “supply lines”, interrupting those energies and communications necessary for hyperobjects to continue their autopoiesis.
Alternatively, deconstruction can consist in the traversal of lines of flight in holey space. There is never a regime of attraction so total– as Luhmann and the structuralists sometimes seem to claim –that there is no path of escape. Because only matter and void exist, everything is porous. Not only are objects withdrawn such that they are never entirely reduced to elements of hyperobjects, but there are always gaps and opportunities within any regime of attraction. Recently we have seen this with the creative use of new communications technologies by rogue objects in various activist movements. We saw this in the use made of Twitter by the Egyptian revolutionaries during the Arab Spring. This allowed them to organize in ways that voice alone wouldn’t enable, while also transforming the events into a world spectacle, bringing international pressure to bear on the government. We see this in the use the Occupy Wall Street activists are making of the internet to get around the closure of mainstream media systems, allowing what is taken place to get out to the public and catalyzing further organizing. We see this in the way many marginalized thinkers and theorists make use of the blogosphere, circumventing university systems of journals, conferences, and institutions. These are all holes allowing for lines of flight.
The third dimension of terraism is composition. Composition is terraforming. To compose is to construct or build. Composition is the activity of building new geographies, new cartographies, where a separation of topologies takes place and different regimes of attraction are produced. The work of composition involves a variety of elements. There are affective components (in both the traditional sense of the term, and Spinoza’s), signifying components, images, bits of steel, paper, pulses of electricity over fiber optic cables, bits of programming, animals, microbes, houses, etc. The work of terraforming is always the building of new paths of interactivity and connectability, coupled with the formation of new elements or identities. It is what the part-no-part does when it has traced a line of flight. It is the creation of alternatives.
Each dimension of terraism has its own affective attunement and counter-attunement. Cartography, of course, is characterized by wonder and perplexity, while its counter-attunement is that of indifference and the sentiment that the way things are arranged is obvious and natural. Perhaps deconstruction is characterized by the affect of indignation, though in its better moments it’s characterized by humor. It’s counter-affect or counter-attunement would be the bureaucratic mania and sadistic relish in ensuring that parts do not step outside of their assigned role as elements. Finally, the affects that characterize composition are those of joy, sympathy, generosity, and fraternity. It is the gregarious activity of building new collectives with others and with allowing one’s self to become-other in working with others.
October 4, 2011 at 5:16 pm
For those interested–a movement that is in process of creating new local egalitarian social structure–and has gone international, & spread to more than 100 cities in a little over 2 weeks. Keeping a record of personal observations (Occupy________), with many links, on my blog. Am posting this on the Occupy Philadelphia FB page. Thanks, Levi! You give lifeblood to philosophical thinking!
October 4, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Gorgeous piece, which I plan to quote from often. I actually bring in “The City & The City” in my SR talk from The Public School!
October 4, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Very well put, Levi. I wrote a post of my own today titled “On Making a Difference.” If I had seen this first, I would have simply linked to it.
October 5, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Accidentally bumped in here. Great piece, marred only by this: “The Occupy Wall Street protesters, for example, might organize ten or twenty thousand people to withdraw all their money from the banks. ” That’s just stupid.
The difficulty of organizing anything like that far surpass the capabilities of the movement, and can you really make a bank run in the US with only twenty thousand people. It would only make a minor glitch in the daily workings of the banks. Twenty thousand on one small bank, yes maybe, but for Citibank it wouldn’t make much of a difference. And even if it did: Banks make money from debts, not deposits, so the lack of deposits wouldn’t make any difference to their profits. (Only neo-classic economists (and the politicians and economic journalists who believe in them) believe that the bank needs deposits to create debts. They don’t, they just need central banks. Read some Modern Monetary Theory if this is difficult to grasp)
To “interrupt the production of surplus-value through finance capital”, you need to sabotage debts.Think Robin Bank-style actions, like Enric Duran and Temps de Re-volts did in Spain.
October 5, 2011 at 4:32 pm
audunmb,
Regardless of whether that particular proposal is stupid (I politely disagree), the basic point remains: if you want to change these institutions you need to find some way to hit them where they live. Speech alone isn’t enough.
October 5, 2011 at 8:09 pm
This is a pleasant and illuminating treatise, and I enjoyed reading it. Everyone should strive to be a better terraist.
October 9, 2011 at 5:04 am
This is a great post, I wonder if the three dimensions described here could be superimposed upon Guattari’s three ecologies. I’m not sure if it would add too much, but I feel like there is some resonance there.
October 9, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Adunmb:
OCCUPY is building new social infrastructure. That’s not just ‘speech.’ It’s speech directed toward making communal decisions aimed both outward, and internally, by taking in everything of our immediate ‘environment,’ using, responding and discovering unforeseen possibilities. This is not theory. This is life.
Interesting… Police Chief Ramsey (Philly) now has each precinct shift begin with a reading of the 1st Amendment.
October 20, 2011 at 4:26 pm
[…] collectives –then that change simply cannot come. This is what I have called political “terraism“: the practice of actually building and creating new assemblages of nonhumans coupled with […]
December 12, 2011 at 4:08 pm
[…] perturbations of the cosmos’): cartography, deconstruction and composition (click here for more details). While cartography and composition, political as they are, appear relatively […]
December 31, 2011 at 5:35 pm
[…] not have to be this way! There are countless other possible arrangements of objects. Levi’s terraism post provided a useful way for thinking through how objective reality can be mapped, deconstructed and […]
January 4, 2012 at 12:05 am
[…] objects such as human beings. At the core of their analysis– which, in my “terraism” I refer to as “cartography” –is the thesis that these smaller-scale entities, […]
January 5, 2012 at 2:57 am
[…] class relations, races, religions, etc.) are reproduced in the same way across time. The aim of terraism is to map these organizational patterns (cartography), devise strategies for undoing them […]
February 14, 2012 at 3:54 pm
[…] As I’ve argued elsewhere, critique is a necessary and indispensable moment of the practice of terraism, yet critique alone seems insufficient. We need construction as well. Might not construction be […]
May 5, 2012 at 1:44 am
[…] b) My reason for beginning with things is two-fold: First, I believe now, more than ever, we need to attend to the role that nonhuman things play in assemblages, the gravity they enact, and how they organize relations within assemblages. Here I’m entirely on the same page with Bennett and her meditations on garbage heaps, power lines, and omega-3 fatty acids. While I wish to retain the discoveries of the social constructivists and post-structuralists, I just don’t think we can adequately think climate issues, contemporary economy, etc., without thinking the role that nonhuman material entities play in organizing things. We need to overcome narcissus. Second, I begin with objects because I think that if we begin with the thesis that “things are related”, we won’t attend to what things are related in these assemblages because we’ll already have assumed that the relations are there. We won’t do what Michael and I have called “cartography“. […]
May 10, 2012 at 12:28 am
[…] Finally, third, the term “society” is just too monolithic. We tend to think of society as a “thing” that does things through “social forces” without specifying the mediators through which these things are done. The term “ecology”, by contrast, suggests inquiry into how things are actually assembled together (which also entails that the social and political theorist can no longer simply rely on texts to make pronouncements on the world). What are the elements that compose this particular homined ecology? This would require us to discern material-semiotic components or texts, but also buildings, roads, technologies, features of the “natural geography”, the different groups, the different institutions (corporations, businesses, governmental agencies, etc), food sources, energy sources, fences, domestic and wild animal life, microbes, etc. And, above all, we need to know how these things are related together, how they are assembled, what the tendencies of these assemblages are (virtual cartographies), and how these elements interact with one another. It is a massive project that requires a new sort of cartography. […]
May 29, 2012 at 4:56 pm
[…] is why, with my onticology, I have proposed a praxis called “terraism” as integral to political practice. Terraism has three dimensions to it: cartography, […]
June 11, 2012 at 2:19 pm
[…] more groups find that their practices, the particular techniques of terraforming (see Levi on this here) – or rather cosmo-forming – that they employ, are antagonistic, which is to say that one or […]
July 7, 2012 at 12:24 pm
[…] For those that are interested, here is the text for my final talk at Space Art Studios entitled “Denaturing Nature”: bryantdenaturingnaturespace2012. A video version of the talk should also be available online soon. After reading the paper, I also discussed my new project, Onto-Cartographies, with the audience. I’m pitching onto-cartography as a new sort of critical theory that explores the way in which space-time paths emerge from interactions among entities as well as signifying components. The idea is that entities and signs exercise what I call “gravity”, creating vectors or paths along which other entities must move. For example, major professional journals, conferences, and academic institutions previously exercised a gravity on thought and theory, limiting what could be heard and articulated by virtue of having to pass through these institutions to be transmitted elsewhere. With the rise of the internet and para-academia the structure of gravity has changed and it’s now possible for voices and thoughts to get a hearing that couldn’t before be readily heard. The key point is that space-time is not a fixed given, but rather is a heterogeneous multiplicity arising out of entities (what I now call “machines“) and signs that is constantly shifting and changing in the structure of its paths and attendant gravity. The practice of onto-cartography consists in mapping these assemblages and gravitational path so as to intervene in them and change them. I’ve referred to this practice as “terraism“. […]
December 13, 2012 at 4:32 am
[…] Not a debunking, not a critique, not a diagnosis of power, nor a persuasion. No, a simple deconstruction– in a very literal sense –of certain paths ordering social relations in a particular […]