Holert, Tom - Hidden Labor and the Delight of Otherness - Design and Post-Capitalist Politics

7/29/2019 Holert, Tom - Hidden Labor and the Delight of Otherness - Design and Post-Capitalist Politics

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/holert-tom-hidden-labor-and-the-delight-of-otherness-design-and-post-capitalist 1/9

Tom Holert

Hidden Laborand the Delight

of Otherness:Design andPost-CapitalistPolitics

1. Ritualistic NegativityOne of the most intriguing tasks of the themeand thesis of this issue of e-flux journal is theimagining and reframing of cultural andaesthetic practice in decidedly post-capitalistterms Ð that is, as embedded in and engenderedby processes of globally networked solidarity,diversity, cooperation, interdependence, and soforth. I would like to begin by supplementing the

notion of practice with the notion of design,which may provide the discussion with an initialspin. Of course, ÒdesignÓ is a contested term, andits meaning and function can differ dramatically.In this article, ÒdesignÓ will be taken to besynonymous with Òurban design,Ó though eventhis specification doesnÕt help much to reducethe problem of reference and cultural difference,as Òurban designÓ is deployed in highlyideological ways and is necessarily steered byvarying institutional interests.1 ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe very notion of Òdesign,Ó not to mention

the ideologies and machinations implied inÒdesignerly approaches to problem-solving aspotential disciplining force,Ó are mostquestionable.2 Moreover, the Òlogics of designÓare being mixed and modulated to transformsociety in heretofore-unknown ways. Accordingto Michael Hardt, ÒdesignÓ has become aÒgeneral nameÓ for post-Fordist types ofproduction, which is to say that nobody canclaim to be outside of design anymore. As Hardtargues, this marks Òa position of great potentialÓfor the immaterial laborer, and can also indicateÒa certain kind of critique and struggle that canbe waged from within.Ó3 Hence, the usualrebuttal of design (and urban design inparticular) to accusations of being a top-down,master-planning imposition of value-makingschemes of urbanity (justified as it may be) alsotends to freeze the critique in predictable anti-capitalist stances without looking for ways ofnegotiating differing visions of urban andcultural production pursued within the practiceitself.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊTwo feminist economists and geographerswho work and publish under the pen name J. K.

Gibson-Graham may offer a perspective thatgoes beyond well-rehearsed figures of critique,namely, those accusing design and itspractitioners of being complicit with capitalistcommodification and, ultimately, exploitation; orlooking at the neoliberal city in the only way thatseems viable and acceptable from and for aposition of the radical Left: as something to berelentlessly opposed, denounced, andscandalized.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊWhile there are certainly countless reasonsfor criticism, rejection, and disgust, one may also

agree with Adrian Lahoud Ð an architect andcritic from Sydney who maintains the (quite

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 1 7

Ñ j u n e - a u g u s t 2 0 1 0 T o m H o l e r t

H i d d e n L a b o r a n d

t h e D e l i g h t o f O t h e r n e s s : D e s i g n

a n d

P o

s t - C a p i t a l i s t P o l i t i c s

0 1 / 0 9

06.10.10 / 09:23:14 UTC



fantastic and tellingly titled) blog ÒPost-Traumatic UrbanismÓ Ð in his opinion that

Lists and examples of urban injustices likeuneven development, gentrification, andzero-tolerance policing make for anappropriate corrective to the historicalaccount of capitalist development but fallshort of any transformational consequence.

. . . By constraining political agency toaction within the confines of a givenpolitical landscape, we exclude thecontours and limits of this landscape as asite for political action. The system itselfmust be up for grabs.4

The relationship between micropolitics andradical politics, between on the one hand alongue durŽe practice of small steps, dispersedmoments of counter-hegemonic resistanceamounting to change, and, on the other, the

single decisive act Ð the ÒeventÓ so eloquentlyevoked by Alain Badiou, Slavoj Žižek, and othersÐ seems key. What is to be done to unchaincriticism from ritualistic negativity, from beingsimply the Òanti-Ó of capitalism or neoliberalism?The current dispensation connects thinking anddoing to the idea of fighting rather thanovercoming, of confronting the enemy directlyrather than rendering it obsolete. The ÒsystemitselfÓ must be up for grabs, indeed, but itssuspension may not necessarily come throughthe means and strategies proposed so far. Ê

2. Thinking Like a CraftsmanDedicated to the ideas of libertariancommunism, libcom.org is a website thatpursues the Òpolitical expression of the ever-present strands of co-operation and solidarity.ÓIn March 2009 a contributor posting under thealias ÒKambingÓ ventures the interesting thoughtthat Òthe artisanÓ may qualify as Òa ratherattractive concept for a post-capitalist subject Ðit certainly beats the bourgeois star artist orproletarianized designer as a way of organizingcreative activity.Ó However, ÒKambingÓ continues,

the concept of the artisan is at the same time

doomed as an attempt to overcomecapitalism, as it can be so easily drawnback into capitalist processes ofaccumulation and dispossession. This isprecisely the problem with a lot ofautonomist (and anarchist) strategies forresistance or ÒexodusÓ Ð including someforms of anarcho-syndicalism.5

This skepticism is only too familiar by now Ð any

candidate put forward for the new revolutionarysubject will be quickly rendered inappropriate,

deficient, co-optable. The reasons for such pre-emptive skepticism, popular even among themost hard-line autonomists, anarchists, oranarcho-syndicalists, are manifold. However, acentral argument for this co-optation is linked tothe awe-inspiring malleability and adaptability ofcapitalism as such, accompanied byrepresentative democracy, helpful in reducingpolitics Òto the negotiation of private interests,Ó

as Slavoj Žižek puts it in his discussion of whathe considers to be a symptomatic proximitybetween contemporary biopolitical capitalismand the post-operaist productivity of themultitude: ÒBut what if, in a parallax shift, weperceive the capitalist network itself as the trueexcess over the flow of the productivemultitude?Ó6

The Fable of the Hedgehog and the Hare.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe structure of the argument has been sothoroughly rehearsed in past decades that it has

assumed a somewhat mythical truth. Capitalismis the shape-shifting creature-beast alwaysalready ahead and above Ð regardless of whichrevolutionary force tries to overthrow or subvertit Ð as it continually vampirizes any signs ofresistance. It may be necessary to deploy theperceptual model of the parallax, as Žižek does,in order to maintain the structurally paranoiac Ðif absolutely legitimate Ð belief in capitalismÕsshrewdness, which sometimes seems toresemble the clever hedgehog family in theGrimmsÕ fairytale ÒThe Hare and the Hedgehog.Ó

Its remarkable ability to re-invent itself and stayalive even as the current full-fledged crisis in

0 2 / 0 9

06.10.10 / 09:23:15 UTC



Workers on a modern assembly line, Ford Mustang.

interlinked systems of state and corporatecapitalism turn capitalism-as-such into atranscendent miracle and/or metaphysical forcewith increasingly violent repercussions on theground, with its most recent turn being therecruitment of state and legal powers. Referringto Carlo VercelloneÕs 2006 book Capitalismocognitivo, Žižek points to how profit becomesrent in postindustrial capitalism.7 The more

capitalism behaves in Òde-regulatory, Ôanti-statal,Õ nomadic, deterritorializingÓ fashions, themore it Òrelies on increasingly authoritarianinterventions of the state and its legal and otherapparatuses.Ó8 While the Ògeneral intellectÓ inreality doesnÕt appear to be that ÒgeneralÓ orshared Ð with the products of the innumerableand increasingly dispersed multitudes becomingcopyrighted, commoditized, and legallyencapsulated as part of the accumulation ofwealth by way of ÒrentÓ Ð the unity of theproletariat has split into three parts, followingŽ

iž

ekÕs Hegelian idea of the future: white-collarÒintellectual laborers,Ó blue-collar Òold manualworking class,Ó and the Òoutcasts (theunemployed, those living in slums and otherinterstices of public space).Ó9 Any possibility ofsolidarity amongst these factions appears tohave been foreclosed, and in many respects the

separation seems absolute. The liberal-multicultural self-image of the cognitiveworkforce doesnÕt rhyme particularly well withthe populist, nationalist position of the ÒoldÓworking class, and both are further ostracized bythe unruliness, illegality, and poverty of theoutcasts who alienate white collar workers andblue collar workers alike, as they seem toindicate through their fate how imperiled their

remaining privileges of citizenship may be.ÊÊ ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊButŽižekÕs Hegelian triad of postindustrialproletarian factions is debatable. The identities(intellectual laborers, working class, outcasts)are much too unstable, much too fluid andtransient for a theorization of the(im)possibilities of overcoming capitalism. And itremains doubtful whether their insertion into thediscourse provides more than a paralysischaracterized by deadlock, tribal oppositions,and endless desolidarity.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn fact, these and other identities shift

according to (but also against) the self-transformation of capitalist institutions enabledby various neutralizations and recuperations.And these self-transformations entail wars ofposition, to use GramsciÕs term. As ChantalMouffe put it a few years ago in pre-9/11,pessimism-of-the-intellect/optimism-of-the-

0 3 / 0 9

06.10.10 / 09:23:16 UTC



will style: Òalthough it might become worse, itmight also become better.Ó10 Even Žižek Ð whohas always endorsed a strong idea of capitalism,evincing a certain obsession with the task ofproving capitalismÕs fascinating, horrifying, andstupefying superiority as one that could only beseriously challenged by a return to the Leninistact Ð is himself looking for other actors anddifferent processes now. Currently, his hope lies

with the hopeless, the people fooled andvictimized by Òthe whole drift of historyÓ Ð inother words, the very ÒoutcastsÓ from theproletarian triad mentioned above, those who areforced into improvisation, informality,clandestinity, as this is supposedly all they areleft with in a Òdesperate situation.Ó11 ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊTo rely on the desperation of others for oneÕsown idea of a successful insurrection is of coursedeeply romantic and utopian. Žižek may be rightin asserting that waiting for the Revolution to beundertaken by others has been the fundamental

error of too many leftists. However, would hecount himself or anyone in his vicinity to beÒdesperateÓ enough to act, especially in a spiritof voluntarism and experimentation that wouldeffectively dissolve the constraints of ÒfreedomÓas it is granted by neoliberalism?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe ÒartisanÓ evoked by ÒKambing,Ó thoughimmediately disregarded as allegedly ÒdoomedÓto fail in the face of capitalism like so manyothers, may be an interesting figure to reconsiderhere Ð less out of interest in revolutionarypolitics than in envisioning alternate ways oforganizing Òcreative activityÓ to replace and/orevade capitalist modes of production.Interestingly, ÒKambingÓ distinguishes theÒartisanÓ from the Òbourgeois star artistÓ and theÒproletarianized designer.Ó However, one mayalso imagine these distinct figures aligning Ðwith each other and with others beyondthemselves. These alignments or fusions woulddepend on an ability and willingness to recognizeand accept difference and diversity not only inoneÕs own social surroundings, but also withinoneself as a subject. To acknowledge the factthat one may simultaneously inhabit more than

one identity leads almost inevitably to co-operation with others that would go beyond themodel of the homogeneous community.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBut, in Capital, Marx is highly skeptical ofÒco-operationÓ as a way out of capitalism: ÒCo-operation ever constitutes the fundamental formof the capitalist mode of production.Ó Its power is

developed gratuitously whenever theworkmen are placed under given conditionsand it is capital that places them undersuch conditions. Because this power costs

capital nothing, and because, on the otherhand, the labourer himself does not

develop it before his labour belongs tocapital, it appears as a power with whichcapital is endowed by Nature Ð aproductive power that is immanent incapital.12

The very power of co-operation that Marx locatedat the center of the capitalist project hasbecome the keystone of post-operaist theories of

post-Fordism. They have observed that thevalue-increasing function of co-operation hasbecome increasingly tangible in a system basedon an essential superfluity of labor and thepermanence of unemployment, a system thatsimultaneously captures and exploits the veryÒpowerÓ of non-labor-based communality andcommunication. ÒSince social cooperationprecedes and exceeds the work process, post-Fordist labor is always, also, hidden labor ,Ó asPaolo Virno wrote in A Grammar of theMultitude.13 Defining hidden labor as Ònon-

remunerated lifeÓ in the very Òproduction timeÓ ofpost-Fordism that exceeds Òlabor time,Ó Virnoalso provides an opportunity to discuss un-accounted for, unpaid labor Ð exploitable andvalorized by capital as it is Ð as a realm ofpotential freedom and disobedience. Indeed, thepolitics of cooperation and communication(which include affective labor) operate at theheart of the post-operaist project, and themingled and sometimes dirty practices of suchcooperation between different factions ofcontemporary laborers are illustrated by one ofthe many examples of the hidden labor ofartisanry in Richard SennettÕs book TheCraftsman. Reflecting on the debilitating splitbetween head and hand that occurred whenarchitects and designers began to use computer-aided design (CAD) programs, Sennett postulatesthe need Òto think like craftsmen in making gooduse of technology,Ó and to consider the Òsharpsocial edgeÓ of such thinking. Thinking likecraftsmen could entail a certain kind of workthat one executes after the designers have leftthe building. Particularly interested in theparking garages of AtlantaÕs Peachtree Center,

Sennett noticed a specific, inconspicuous kind ofpost-factum cooperation between designers andartisans/craftsmen:

A standardized bumper had been installedat the end of each car stall. It looked sleek,but the lower edge of each bumper wassharp metal, liable to scratch cars orcalves. Some bumpers, though, had beenturned back, on site, for safety. Theirregularity of the turning showed that the

job had been done manually, the steel

smoothed and rounded wherever it mightbe unsafe to touch; the craftsman had

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 1 7




a n d

P o


0 4 / 0 9

06.10.10 / 09:23:17 UTC



thought for the architect.14

The labor of modifying and repairing the work ofothers is certainly not groundbreaking in termsof anti-capitalist struggle per se. However, thephysical skills, the attitude of care andcircumspection, the inscription of a hand thatperforms ÒresponsibleÓ gestures, and so forth,all engender a shared authorship Ð in this case a

cooperation between the absent architectÕsand/or construction companyÕs work and thesubsequent, careful labor of detecting andcorrecting the buildingÕs design problems. Thiscooperation is neither contractually negotiatednor socially expected, but instead results from aspecific situation in which a problem called for asolution. It is inseparable from local conditionsand constraints, and should not be taken as amodel for action. Yet, on other hand, it isintriguing, as it displays relationalities withinmaterial-social practices that usually remain

unnoticed, and whose resourcefulness is thusoverlooked.

Paris scene with a goldsmith's shop , detail of a miniature from "La Vie de StDenis", 1317. Biblioth•que Nationale, Paris.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn some respects SennettÕs concept ofÒthinking like craftsmenÓ resembles a definitionof ÒdesignÓ that Bruno Latour introduced thesame year The Craftsman was published.Speaking at a conference held by the DesignHistory Society in Cornwall, Latour differentiatedÒdesignÓ from the concepts of building orconstructing. The process of designing,

according to Latour, is marked by a certainsemantic modesty Ð it is always a retroactive,

never foundational, action, always re-design,and hence Òpost-Promethean.Ó Furthermore, theconcept of design emphasizes the dimension of(manual, technical) abilities, of Òskills,Ó whichsuggests a more cautious and precautionary (notdirectly tied to making and producing)engagement with problems on an increasinglylarger scale (as with climate change). Then, too,design as a practice that engenders meaning and

calls for interpretation thus tends to transformobjects into things Ð irreducible to their statusas facts or matter, being instead inhabited bycauses, issues, and, more generally, semioticskills. And finally, following Latour, design isinconceivable without an ethical dimension,without the distinction between good design andbad design Ð which also always renders designnegotiable and controvertible.15 Here, at this siteof dispute and negotiation, especially on anoccasion in which the activity of design is Òthewhole fabric of our earthly existence,Ó Latour

finds Òa completely new political territoryÓopening up.16

3. ÒWeak TheoryÓSuch a notion of politics, based on a specific, ifslightly idiosyncratic idea of design as a modestand moderating practice that follows rather thanleads, can now be linked to another project thatenvisions a Òpolitics of (economic) possibility.Ó J.K. Gibson-Graham, whose elaborate argumentdraws on a pioneering spirit of Òdisclosing newworldsÓ rather than flocking to the same subjectposition, take an approach that may initiallyappear overly optimistic in its rhizomatricy, butthat is well founded in fieldwork and actionresearch in the Pioneer Village in Massachusetts,the Asian Migrant Centre in Hong Kong, and theLatrobe Valley in Australia. They obviously knowwhat they are talking about when they refer tothe Òcultivation of subjectsÓ for theseÒcommunity enterprises and initiativesÓ of post-capitalist Ònew commons,Ó which are capable ofaffording an understanding and, even more, anenjoyment of difference, as well as Ònew ways ofÔbeing together.Õ Ó

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊJ. K. Gibson-GrahamÕs books, The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It) (1996) and APostcapitalist Politics (2006), are organizedaround what they call Òtechniques of ontologicalreframing (to produce the ground of possibility),rereading (to uncover or excavate the possible),and creativity (to generate actual possibilitieswhere none formerly existed).Ó17 Gibson-Grahambase their ideas, which are informed by, amongother schools of thought, feministpoststructuralism and queer theory, on strongnotions of un-thinking (avoiding notions such as

economic determinism), anti-essentialism(avoiding any understanding of causality), anti-

0 5 / 0 9

06.10.10 / 09:23:19 UTC



universalism, and anti-structure, all in order toconceptualize Òcontingent relationshipsÓ thatreplace Òinvariant logics.Ó By way of thissubstitution, Òthe economy loses its character asan asocial body in lawful motion and insteadbecomes a space of recognition andnegotiation.Ó18 ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊGibson-Graham use words that denote adeliberate weakness, pliability, and openness,

such as Òunderlaboring,Ó and the two intenselyadvocate a tolerance of Ònot-knowing.ÓContingency, difference, and differentiation lie atthe core of their thinking, as do the empiricismand materialism of actor-network theories andobject-oriented ontologies that offer a means ofdescribing and thinking through the unfoldinglogic within an object as a thing, but also as Òavery concrete process of eventuation, path-dependent and nonlinear,Ó thereby de-privilegingglobal systems under the auspices of emergenceand becoming.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAs they put it, ÒWith the aim of transformingÔimpossible into possible objects,Õ reading forabsences excavates what has been activelysuppressed or excluded, calling into question themarginalization and Ônon-credibilityÕ of thenondominant.Ó19 Underscoring the Òalwayspolitical process of creating the new,Ó Gibson-Graham consider politics to be Òa process oftransformation instituted by taking decisions onan ultimately undecideable terrainÓ Ð and theirown thought process as Òstarting in the space ofnonbeing that is the wellspring of becomingÓ; itis here that they discover the Òspace of politicsÓand its Òshadowy denizensÓ Ð the ÒsubjectÓ andÒplace.Ó20 Gibson-Graham are not nave, however,when it comes to theorizing the dynamics ofsubjection, the question of Òhow to understandthe subject as both powerfully constituted andconstrained by dominant discourses, yet alsoavailable to other possibilities of becoming.Ó21

But they call for an acknowledgment of thenecessity to withdraw from a Òtraditional [leftist]paranoid style of theorizingÓ that also bringsabout changes in the effects that give rise tosocial transformation and communal becoming,

a Òwonder as awareness of and delight ofothernessÓ combined with a Ògrowing recognitionthat the other is what makes self possible.Ó22

This bewildering and enjoyable ÒrecognitionÓdrives Gibson-GrahamÕs research, and their(pedagogical) vision of a post-capitalist politicsis inseparable from a belief in the possibility ofÒcultivating subjectsÓ Ð citizens for a different,community-based, cooperative economy. And incontradistinction to theorists such as Žižek orBadiou, Gibson-Graham actually speak ofindividual agency, of specific persons whose

subjectivities have registered the experiences ofcommunity economies and their particular

potentiality, embracing the weakness andmicrological scale of such fieldwork, also interms of theory.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊWriting in the vein of Eve KosofskySedgwick, Gibson-Graham suggest that

Weak theory can be strong politics Ð itopens up social options that would beinaccessible to a theorist intent on

eliminating surprise (by exploring theunknown rather than extending andconfirming the known). It widens theaffective possibilities of politics (whoknows what emotions will arise in anexperimental, only partly mapped space?)and allows for the possibility of maximizingpositive affect (something we all want todo, which means that participation inpolitics would not be limited to the stoicalcadre of the already politicized).23

Although Gibson-Graham do not address therealm of culture and cultural productionexplicitly, their thinking remains relevant to thequestion of how design can be approachedwithin the scope of a post-capitalist project.Even if aspects of their discourse appear familiarin the context of theories pertaining to art and tocultural production in general Ð and maytherefore lack the scandalizing or provocativeedge they purportedly have in the disciplines ofeconomics and geography Ð even savvy readerstrained in narratives of ÒbecomingÓ should gain asense of how politics can be framed differentlywith regard to predominant ÒprogressiveÓdiscourses of radical-democratic or neo-Maoistpersuasion. Moreover, Gibson-GrahamÕsattention to contingency and agency, tosingularity and a Òplace-based politics ofsubjectivationÓ can be enormously helpful inproviding a framework for approachingcooperative cultural production in a different wayÐ as a politics that boldly centers on the localand the particular without falling victim to aretrograde romanticism of the homogenouscommunity or the Òneighborhood.Ó As much as

Gibson-Graham are critically aware of thegovernmentality of the cooperative found in theÒthird wayÓ politics of 1990s neoliberalism (withtheir rhetoric of Òtrust,Ó Òmutual obligation,ÓÒreciprocityÓ), so should one be aware of themisuses of terms such as ÒparticipationÓ inurban government and design discourses.24

However, the capacity for Gibson-GrahamÕs path-dependent, de-disciplining, and place-specificmethodology to be extended towards cultural(discursive and material) practices of doing Ðsuch as design and craftsmanship (conceived

roughly along the lines of Sennett or Latour) Ðmake them vital for articulating a means of going

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 1 7




a n d

P o


0 6 / 0 9

06.10.10 / 09:23:20 UTC



beyond the failure of grand designs,demonstrated so drastically by the current crisisof large-scale state and economic institutions.Given that everyone is affected Ð if to differentdegrees (but much too often disastrously) Ð bythe neoliberal abolishment of everything, small-scale endeavors of solidarity, howevernetworked, that intentionally neglect or dismissthe disciplining effects of capital (and of anti-

capitalist politics as well), and that develophumble ways of altering and improving inheriteddesigns, do not appear to be the worst optionavailable at the moment.

Richard Latham, Hallicrafters T-54 7-inch (18cm) television, Designed in 1948 byRaymond LoewyÕs firm.

4. ParticipationWhat would be necessary to transform ÒdesignÓinto a discipline of un-disciplinary moves andmotions, into a practice of possibility and anarticulation of becoming? In ÒDesign and HumanValues,Ó a legendary Aspen design conferencethat took place in 1957, the American designerRichard Latham interrogated the ideas thatdesigners cater to and the kind of responsibilitythey should take:

As designers, we may properly assumeresponsibility for goodness and badness inthe work we create; we are called upon, and

entitled, to make value decisions. We arealso entitled to a pioneering spirit and adesire to see things change for the better;we need not assume that what is is alwaysinevitable or for the best. I believe thatchange, even for its own sake, can be agood thing. But I contend that, before wedare assume this right to judge and shapeother peopleÕs values, we had better firstexamine our own values and our ownmotives for wanting to exercise this controlover the lives of others. . . . We designers . .

. can begin to build a meaningful aestheticculture if we are willing to prepare

ourselves for a new learning experience,and we cannot learn unless weparticipate.25

Unless one simply dismisses these lines as old-school navel-gazing or as the exhortativesophistry of someone who made a good livingfrom the value systems of the design trade, thestatement conveys a surprising desire to open

the profession to the uncertainties andchallenges of a becoming. Terms such asÒchangeÓ and Òlearning experienceÓ can be readas a purposeful destabilization of the social andaesthetic contracts of the design profession.LathamÕs punch line, Òwe cannot learn unless weparticipate,Ó certainly suggested, in 1957, aparadigmatic re-orientation of the role andposition expected of the future designer.Interestingly, participation was not yetconsidered to be integral to a designerÕs orplannerÕs role, but only a means of improving

knowledge and experience: in order to learn, onehas to take part. Yet the question remains: whois invited to participate, and who is invitingthem? The desire to participate must notnecessarily meet recognition by others. You mayask whether you are allowed, but the questioncan be refuted. An inherent right to participatecannot be taken for granted by the designer,much less the non-expert citizen.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊSome parts of this essay were written for the

conference ÒDesign for the Post-Neoliberal City,Ó organized

by Jesko Fezer and Matthias Gšrlich for CivicCity/Design2Context, ZHdK, Zurich, March 12Ð13, 2010.

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 1 7




a n d

P o


0 7 / 0 9

06.10.10 / 09:23:21 UTC



Tom Holert is an art historian and cultural critic. Aformer editor of Texte zur Kunst and co-publisher ofSpex magazine, Holert currently lives in Berlin andteaches and conducts research in the Institute of ArtTheory and Cultural Studies at the Academy of FineArts Vienna. He contributes to journals andnewspapers such as Artforum, Texte zur Kunst,Camera Austria, Jungle World, and Der Standard.Among his recent publications are a book on migrationand tourism (Fliehkraft: Gesellschaft in Bewegung Ðvon Migranten und Touristen, with Mark Terkessidis), a

monograph on Marc Camille Chaimowicz' 1972installation "Celebration? Realife" (2007) and acollection of chapters on visual culture and politics(Regieren im Bildraum, 2008).

1Reading a syllabus such as theone penned by Richard Plunz,director of the Òurban designÓgraduate program at ColumbiaUniversity, New York, may givean idea of the nature of thesemantic and discursiveinvestments in play. ÒUrbanDesign is pursued as a criticalre-assessment of conventionalapproaches relative to questionsof site, program, infrastructure,and form-mass, as they have

been defined by urban designpractice during the past century.The Urban Design curriculum ispedagogically unique on the roleof architecture in the formationof a discourse on urbanism atthis moment of post-industrialdevelopment and indeed, ofpost-urban sensibility relative totraditional Euro-Americansettlement norms.Ó (UrbanDesign, Open House for GSAPPArchitecture Programs Ð MArch,MSAAD, MSAUD, ColumbiaUniversity, November 4, 2009).The expression Òpost-urbansensibilityÓ is intriguing, as itpoints to the possibility ofthinking beyond the discipline

which is advertising itself byusing it. Although the termÒpost-urbanÓ has developed avery specific meaning in thearchitectural and urbanistdebate of late, imagining aÒpostÓ of the ÒurbanÓ inhistorical and/or systematicterms could be considered invarious ways, for instance, aslooking for a different kind ofconceptualization of what theÒurbanÓ is and should be; or, as acall to overcome a specificimagination and representationof the ÒurbanÓ as well asovercoming the binarisms ofpublic and private, corporatismand street-level resistance,

revanchist fortification andinsurgent survival strategies, allcharacterizing key features ofthe ÒurbanÓ that have beenrehearsed for such a long time.

2See Juris Milestone, ÒDesign asPower: Paul Virilio and theGovernmentality of DesignExpertise,Ó in Culture, Theory &Critique 48, no. 2 (October 2007):175Ð198.

3See Michael Hardt andChristopher Hight, ÒDesigningCommonspaces: Riffing with

Michael Hardt on the Multitudeand Collective Intelligence,Ó in Architectural Design 76, no. 5(September/October 2006):70Ð73.

4Adrian Lahoud, review of UrbanPolitics Now: ReimaginingDemocracy in the Neoliberal City ,ed. BAVO (Gideon Boie andMatthias Pauwels) (Rotterdam:NAi, 2008), Post-TraumaticUrbanism.com, May 14, 2009,http://post-traumaticurbanism.com/?p=138.

5ÒKambing,Ó comment on

ÒAutonom(ous)(ist) Marxism ÐHalf baked anarcho-

syndicalism?,Ó libcom.org,comment posted June 5, 2009,http://libcom.org/forums/theory/autonomousist-marxism-half-baked-anarcho-syndicalism -01062009.

6Slavoj Žižek, First as Tragedy,Then as Farce (London and NewYork: Verso, 2009), 136, 141.

7Carlo Vercellone, Capitalismo

cognitivo: conoscenza e finanzanellÕepoca postfordista (Rome:Manifestolibri, 2006).

8Žižek, First as Tragedy , 145.

9Ibid., 147.

10Chantal Mouffe, ÒEvery Form ofArt Has a Political Dimension,Óinterview by Rosalyn Deutsche,Branden W. Joseph, and ThomasKeenan, Grey Room, no. 02,(Winter 2001): 118.

11

Žižek, First as Tragedy , 155.

12Karl Marx, Capital: The Processof Capitalist Production, trans.Samuel Moore and EdwardAveling, and ed. by FrederickEngels. Volume 1 of Capital: ACritique of Political Economy(London: Charles H. Kerr &Company, 1921), 365Ð6.

13Paolo Virno, A Grammar of theMultitude: For an Analysis of Contemporary Forms of Life,trans. Isabella Bertoletti, JamesCascaito, and Andrea Casson(New York: Semiotext(e), 2004),

103.

14Richard Sennett, The Craftsman(New Haven and London: YaleUniversity Press, 2008), 44.

15See Bruno Latour, ÒA CautiousPrometheus? A Few StepsToward a Philosophy of Design(with Special Attention to PeterSloterdijk),Ó keynote lecture atthe ÒNetwork of DesignÓ meetingheld by the Design HistorySociety in Falmouth, Cornwall,September 3, 2008, textavailable at http://www.bruno-

latour.fr/a rticles/article/112-DESIGN-C ORNWALL.pdf. Thisparagraph is partly cited fromTom Holert, ÒDesign andNervousness,Ó trans. GerritJackson, Texte zur Kunst 72(December 2008):108f.

16Ibid.

17J. K. Gibson-Graham, APostcapitalist Politics(Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 2006),xxixÐxxx.

18

Ibid, xxx.

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 1 7




a n d

P o


0 8 / 0 9

06.10.10 / 09:23:23 UTC



19Ibid, xxxii.

20Ibid., xxxiiÐxxxiii, xxxiii.

21Ibid., xxxvi.

22Ibid., 5, 20.

23Ibid., 205.

24Cf. ibid., 224.

25Richard Latham,ÒCommunication of ValuesThrough Design,Ó in The AspenPapers: Twenty Years of DesignTheory from the InternationalDesign Conference in Aspen, ed.Reyner Banham (London: PallMall Press, 1974), 91.

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 1 7




a n d

P o


0 9 / 0 9

06 10 10 / 09 23 23 UTC

Documents

Holert, Tom - Hidden Labor and the Delight of Otherness - Design and Post-Capitalist Politics