This is a philosophically oriented project that is based on the question of what might happen if sociology were to follow Tarde rather than Durkheim, or at least, if sociology were to take Tarde's critique of Durkheim seriously. We try to show that it would acquire a different kind of 'ontology' (in want of a better word) and it would be able to side step a number of problematic dilemmas that are the legacy of over 200 year of modernist philosophy, most notably the double act of epistemology and ideology critique, identity thinking as well as a number of dualities such as that of subject/object, words/things, structure/practice and matter/event.

Decolonialization has now become imperative for developing an immanent critique of capitalism and modernity. The risk with fashionable theoretical imperatives, however, is that they actually work as distractions from what actually matters. Decolonial thinking is too often promoted as conversion therapy, treating the colonial mind set that produces, for example, racism and misogyny, as an individual pathology in need of re-educating. To avoid treating the colonial mind set as an anachronistic, individual pathology we need to retain a focus on that which engenders this particular framework of epistemic practices rather than its symptoms. To do so, we focus on the notion of “spatial justice” as a particular, controversial framework for the organization of the political. Whereas most legal concepts of spatial justice highlight the primacy of territoriality as that which constitutes the contrast between “communitas” and “immunitas” (Esposito) and enables the formation of the state of exception (Agamben), non-western as well as non-imperial conceptions of spatial justice focus on conviviality (Illich) and hospitality, which highlights the primacy of place. Whereas the first is pivotal to, for example, the nexus of extraction and abstraction which governs the capitalist mode of production and the nation state war apparatus, the second is pivotal to understanding ecological resilience under post-apocalyptic conditions.

The ongoing ecological catastrophe affecting our planet can no longer be treated as some kind of afterthought within the western­ metaphysical tradition and modern technoscience in particular. It can also not be treated as a merely intellectual issue to be contained within the ivory towers of academic philosophy. This international reading group is an attempt to come to terms with the fundamental challenges posed by what – despite its massive shortcomings - has been widely referred to as “the Anthropocene”. Its starting point is a radical and fundamental rejection of all forms of political and philosophical idealism. It is for that reason, that we want to limit our focus to debates within the broad field of Historical Materialism, however without restricting ourselves in advance to one specific trajectory. Deploying Felix Guattari’s Three Ecologies framework, we want to explore the realms of planet and states, collectives as well as what in modern thought is known as the (in)dividual. The main advantage of this framework is that it enables us to focus on interconnectedness rather than separate levels of analysis.

A superficial glance at climate science suggests that the main focus of concern for global warming is the vast amount of energy that is required to sustain industrial capitalism and its built in need for growth and capital accumulation. Yet at the same time, energy has played a relatively marginal role in most analyses of – for example – colonialism, modernity and warfare. Even histories of science and technology seem more often than not less interested in the conditions of, for example, the steam engine revolution or the development of electricity. Perhaps the most telling example of this is that most analyses of digitalization seem completely oblivious to its complete dependence on energy resources, often pretending that digital technologies have a negligible ecological impact.

In Capital, Marx addressed the pivotal role of energy with the concept of “metabolic rift” and this will be the starting point of this reading group. The seminar will take place every fortnight over zoom to maximize international participation.

coming soon

coming soon

coming soon

In this ongoing project, I want to bring back some initial conceptual framing, which was part of a publication on Epidemic Space dating back to 2005, to tie together a series of theoretical trajectories that at that time were for me still very disconnected, perhaps simply because I was too young to consider all the empirical and logical traces of the theoretical crime scene that I was confronted with. I want to do so by simply arguing that epidemic space is primarily conceivable as a consequence of epidemiology, in a similar way, as for example public space is a consequence of law and the market (as the space of commerce) is a consequence of economics. It is however important to remember that these spaces are all layers of the same mode of abstraction (also referred to as real abstraction) that goes by different names: the western metaphysical tradition, capitalism, western colonial imperialism, extractionism, patriarchy, etcetera. Forgetting this abstraction, will inevitable deplete epidemic space of its critical potential, which is exactly what happened during the Covid Pandemic.

The original concept of Risk Society, which was developed by Ulrich Beck in the earlier part of the 1980s, lacks both the theoretical depth to engage with the epistemic practices that stem from the mode of abstraction of imperial-industrial capitalism as well as the empirical rigour to empirically engage with actual technoscientific practices of abstraction, such as those of epidemiology. Epidemic mind-sets develop through topological renderings through which places become “intelligible”, both in terms of indexicality (genesis) as well as vortexicality (contagion). This project is thus part of a broader sociological platform that considers the question whether and how the concept of Risk Society should be upgraded (i.e. as the Risk Society 2.0), or perhaps simply abandoned once and for all.

Apocalypse Culture is no longer a vague dystopian imaginary on the margins of the modern geopolitical order, it has rooted itself within the infrastructure of the neoliberal hegemony. The electoral success of mostly opportunistic political populism shows, that instead of merely downplaying the apocalyptic warning signs - which has been the main strategy deployed by neoliberalism for the last 50 years - there seems to be much more political capital in embracing and cultivating the desire for an acceleration of the destruction of the world as we know it. Whereas there are differences in how this desire manifests itself, most of it is packaged as merely a denial of the gloomy future prospects facing planet earth, especially in relation to the dramatic loss of biodiversity, and a deliberate carelessness about the future for the sake of short term self-interests.

Fermented by a radically eroding lack of trust in the existing national and international institutions that have consolidated a neo liberal order over the last five decades, a new national-identitarian-totalitarian ethos has emerged that openly rejects the very idea of a common humanity, let alone a shared planetary existence. Being good social liberals, many academics have continued to mix sociological and political analyses with normative standpoints rejecting this ethos and subsequently found themselves entangled in so called “culture wars” that have placed them under the suspicion of indoctrinating their students with “woke ideology”. Most of these academics, however, seem to fail to understand the apocalyptic sensibilities with which people have been persuaded to believe, that reclaiming “their” homeland provides the necessary solutions to help overcome their increasingly precarious predicament. This is because their philosophical orientation has become blind to the dialectics at the heart of Historical Materialism, in particular those focusing on class and labour. In this project, I will empirically develop Achille Mbembe’s concept of necropolitics alongside Paul Virilio’s concept of endocolonization as twinned logical consequences of global capitalism and explain why this nexus may help us understand the intricate connections between neoliberalism and the necropolitical desires (e.g. climate change denial as a “death cult”) at the heart of resurgent nationalisms that are framed as reclaiming the homeland.