After a much needed trip to the land of sunshine, I’m back in soggy Seattle. Our panels of Geophilosophy and the Planes of Urban Experience went really well- and we are really excited by the quality of the presentations. My paper, Plane of Immanence of a Fascist Regime: Google and its Mapping Empire, is located here. It’s currently without citations, but there is plenty of time for that as I work it into the dissertation. And besides, isn’t that what evernote is for?
As I was writing a paper last summer that looked at artist practices, it took a dark turn at the end. I began thinking about the enormous ‘latitude’ it seems like we have with Google’s tools, nearly all ‘free’ to use; but their service also dependent upon users to contribute to their larger project, ‘free activity’, as Holland would say. As we grow more dependent upon their tools (they are so smart! accurate!), we contribute to the structure that makes us dependent. Microfascism. Fascism, for D & G, is first evident in the molecular realm, where divisive, controlling behaviors play out on a variety of scales. It is when these microfascisms begin to really cohere into a larger formation that a fascist regime becomes possible.
Around the same time, my co-conspirator and I were contemplating organizing a panel on geophilosophy for the AAG- and we were looking for a conceptual framework that was broad enough to include both of our projects, while not so broad that it would lack any coherence. I was perusing A Thousand Plateaus to generate some ideas and thinking about planes and how they operate. We finally decided on ‘Planes of Urban Experience’ as a way to organize papers, which would allow different scales but also link them together. While Keith’s topic is a physical plane of organization, mine was virtual (not virtual in the Deleuzian sense), immaterial to some degree, but real just the same.
At the time I was thinking that Google best represented a fascist regime. I found plenty of textual support in ATP as I was browsing it, and it set me off on a path of thinking about Google’s dependence on users to help build a portion of their knowledge- either through countless hours of beta testing, the citizen cartographers that ‘unite’ to map the world, the need for them to maintain their status as the #1 search engine to continue to produce accurate results; this is solidified by enthusiastic users taking advantage of all of Google’s tools and applications that augment the internet experience- and increasingly wholly integrated across applications. One never needs to leave the Googleverse.
I’m currently working on that paper, while also working on a portion of my dissertation. Recently I ran across an outline of their company history, as told by them, and decided that I should build a spreadsheet that takes their milestones and makes that information more ‘accessible’ (compared to the 41 page pdf that resulted from printing their webpage) and ‘useful’, to use their jargon…. I’m about 3/4 through the timeline. What has become incredibly clear is how accurate that initial thought that I had last summer really was. To date, they are laying their own internet infrastructure in select places, powering free wi-fi, their mapping regime covers nearly every element of navigation, modal, temporal and spatial; they continue to invest in clean energy- large scale production as well as domestic systems, they are experimenting with countless environmental ‘stewardship’ models, they have the largest electric car charging infrastructure. That’s just the surface. They have become an important public service during natural disasters, providing communication and satellite imagery. They continue to acquire countless businesses to build models that continue to garner an enormous market share in which businesses rely on Google to make them visible; their positive ‘economic impact’ impact in the US economy was $64 billion in 2010, while also ‘matching’ up to $100 million to ‘jump-start’ the economy. They provide phone service via their email software, youtube is increasingly providing ‘live’ news features, they are willing to fund research that can provide news content in today’s ‘lean’ model. I’m not sure if there is any sector in the economy that they haven’t taken on to provide an alternative model.
Meanwhile, the State (used broadly) continues to take a backseat to much of their efforts. Many governments are too slow and unwieldy to perform and innovate like Google. Recently, some of their more controversial efforts have resulted in policy documents of ‘best practices’ that circumvent not only the court system, but also public participation. The current environment of legislative efforts is ineffective, not only at the State (US) level, but also globally- as each government has its own fractured guidelines. This prevents a clear mandate from taking shape- one that benefits all involved, rather than capitalist interests. Meanwhile, it seems clear that many governments tiptoe around Google’s practices, given that Google has increasingly absorbed the burden of providing many services, and most of them free of charge; a classic neoliberal argument if there ever was one. But it also feels fascistic, to recall the repeated rejoinder “why do we desire our own repression?” Continual concessions are made in favor of allowing Google to continue to ‘innovate’, so that it might make things ‘a little bit better’…. Instead of world peace through capitalistic ventures of the neoliberal order, Google is trumpeting data peace and the democratizing of information… of which they exert enormous control over the ways and means to search the information. How democratic is that? They want to refine my search results so that it continues to reinforce my existing habits. They even want me to personalize so that it can anticipate what I want. I don’t want that. I’m a fickle consumer! But boy, the accurate results and integrated tools are seductive…
While it would be easy to a default to a hyperbolic, deterministic argument here, it also feels almost accurate and fair to simply state that it appears that Google is perfectly poised to take over the world.
The AAG schedule is finally up-
My co-conspirator and I organized two panels “Geophilosophy and the Planes of Urban Experience” for the meeting. We are really excited about the breadth of the panels- and are looking forward to helping Deleuze and Guattari’s work make more inroads into Geography. The sessions can be viewed here, my contribution here.
and very much looking forward to returning to LA and taking in some of that sunshine.
In contemporary urban studies and geography there is an increasing desire to conceptualize the built environment as both a result of forces that produce, extend, and reconfigure it in countless ways, and as a social and spatial framework that hosts and affects these same forces. Working within the Spinozistic ontology that takes “relations of movement and rest” as the only constant, Deleuze and Guattari offer an explication of these intensities and lines of force that construct any given milieu, enter into complex and often ephemeral assemblages that operate according to their own logic, and produce what they call a ‘plane of immanence’ and a ‘plane of organization’. In A Thousand Plateaus, these planes form the conceptual poles between which both thought and the physical and social constructions that constitute our everyday urban reality are actualized. For example, a private developer undertaking a large-scale urban redevelopment project could assemble a particular set of discourses around sustainability, luxury living, and the creative economy that occur in everyday discussions (on the plane of immanence). In doing so, a new plane of organization is formed, and as the development proceeds, new urban forms and subjectivities that use these forms are produced.
The movement that exists between these planes follows from Spinoza’s parallelism, which claims that both thought and extension comprise bodies; for Deleuze and Guattari, the plane of immanence includes elements that have the characteristics of thought – constantly changing singularities that link up and form new, ephemeral assemblages – while the plane of organization is much less nimble and dynamic. The overlapping planes work in concert; however, the mapping of thought and extension do not necessarily sync up. From an urban studies perspective, thought is defined by the discourses that initiate movement between the planes, while extension becomes concrete world that results from the thought that accompanies it. Various intensities enter into urban assemblages, populate thought as ‘concepts’, and are manifested in the physical world as geographies that are managed and ordered to varying degrees. This session explores how these conceptual poles might provide powerful tools for understanding the urban in late capitalism if we want to understand “how it works” rather than “what it means.”
We hope to investigate the potential of the resonances that exist between the two planes, as a means to understand the ways in which the built environment is perpetually changing, and how we as researchers and practitioners might alter its trajectory. We welcome submissions that explore the physical construction of these planes, the ‘image of thought’ of the 21st century, the disconnects that take place between these parallel planes, as well as the various acts immanent to the plane itself, such as:
deterritorialization/reterritorialization – radical rethinking of existing strategies for urban development or resistance to it
abstract machines – the ways in which language used to describe cities urban topics is normalized, co-opted, or redefined
lines of intensity – various social movements across the planes that have the potential to open up or foreclose possibilities for new assemblages and alternative futures
micro-fascisms – instances of everyday social and spatial practices that reinforce particular planes of organization and inhibit movements toward an increasingly open, equal, and democratic society
subjectification – exploring the shifting ways in which people identify with particular areas of the city, either consciously or unconsciously
changing affective states – investigating how we are materially changed by our interactions in and with urban environments
the continuous movement between smooth and striated space – studies of the tension between cultivating spaces of difference and the top down management of space
Please send abstracts of up to 250 words by October 15th to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please follow the abstract guidelines for the AAG, and include PIN if already registered. Notifications will be sent by October 20th. Registration for the AAG must be completed by October 24th, 2012.
Cheryl Gilge and Keith Harris
Ph. D. Program of the Built Environment
College of Built Environments
University of Washington