Les femmes et la virologie

Ici j’aimerais avec ceux et celles que ça tente faire un peu le point sur les discours féministes sur la question des virus, de la contrainte des corps par l’industrie médicale, et des différents savoirs faire qui ont été annihilés au cours du temps par abus de pouvoir.

Je voudrais prendre pour point de départ l’interview de Glowczewski sur antivirus http://rybn.org/radioinformal/antivirus/
et son article dans Lundi Matin ou elle nous parle de Elisabeth Povinelli qui présente trois figures interconnectées : le désert, l’animisme et le virus qu’elle développe à partir de son engagement dans une communauté aborigène du littoral nord australien où elle produit des films comme membre du collectif Karrabing.

https://lundi.am/LE-DESERT-EN-EVEIL-de-Barbara-Glowczewski

J’aimerais ajouter à ces points de vue approches présentant la place de la recherche génétique, de l’eugénisme de la question de la sécurité et de la contamination à travers le travail de collectifa comme subrosa:
http://cyberfeminism.net/biopower-unlimited/

Mais aussi regarder de plus près les textes de Mona Chollet

1 Like

Aussi regarder notre relation aux espèces:

Françoise Barré-Sinoussi

Virologue, prix Nobel de médecine en 2008 pour sa découverte du VIH en 1983[1] et son lien avec le SIDA (prix partagé avec son chef à l’Institut Pasteur, le Pr Luc Montagné). Elle a dirigé l’unité Régulation des infections rétrovirales à l’Institut Pasteur à Paris jusqu’en 2016. Depuis le début de la crise du COVID-19, elle préside le Comité analyse recherche et expertise (CARE) qui conseille le gouvernement français sur les traitements et les tests contre le SARS-Cov2.

Dans son autobiographie du Nobel elle déclare :

Having completed my baccalauréat in 1966, I was initially undecided between medicine and biomedical sciences as the subject for my university studies. I finally decided to opt for an undergraduate degree at the Faculty of Sciences at the University of Paris. My choice was ultimately dictated by the pragmatic reasoning that a degree in Natural Sciences was shorter and less expensive than a degree in Medicine, and I was keen to not have to burden my family with unnecessary further expenses to support me during my studies.


  1. référence originale de l’article, les noms de femmes (8 sur 12 aut·eur·rice·s) sont mis en exergue: Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, Jean-Claude Chermann, Françoise Rey, Marie-Thérèse Nugeyre, Sophie Chamaret, Jacqueline Gruest, Charles Dauguet, Claudine Axler-Blin, Françoise Vézinet-Brun, Christine Rouzioux, Willy Rozenbaum et Luc Montagnier, « Isolation of a T-lymphotropic Retrovirus From a Patient at Risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) », Science , vol. 4599, no 220,‎ 20 mai 1983, p. 868-71 ↩︎

Continu - Virtuel - Dedans / Discontinu - Actuel - Dehors

Extrait de l’article de Lundi Matin par Barbara Glowczewski mentionné en ouverture de ce sujet.

J’ai montré ailleurs que l’ontologie aborigène semble changer selon le contexte, ce que les Warlpiri du désert théorisent comme un aller-retour nécessaire entre le « dessous/dedans » ( kanunju , le virtuel) et le « dessus/dehors » ( kankarlu , l’actuel). Par « dessous », dans le virtuel, l’ontologie warlpiri semble privilégier la continuité, mais par « dessus », dans l’actuel, l’ontologie valorise la discontinuité. Ce paradoxe de la tension ontologique entre continu et discontinu – qui est au cœur de tous les rituels des peuples du désert et aussi du Kimberley - est un aspect de ce que j’appelle le paradigme aborigène. Il me semble nécessaire de sortir des catégories ontologiques pour appréhender les processus d’hybridation divers que les peuples résistants inventent. Dans le cas australien on assiste à un « déploiement d’identités à polarités multiples, tensions et attracteurs, conjugaisons et disjonctions d’altérités dans un réseau dynamique et ouvert. »

Mesures temporaires / Démesure éternelle

Extrait d’une entrevue avec Edward Snowden sur ViceTV

Croyez-vous vraiment que lorsque la première vague, cette deuxième vague, la 16e vague du coronavirus seront un souvenir depuis longtemps oublié, ces capacités ne seront pas conservées ? Que ces ensembles de données ne seront pas conservés ? Quelle que soit la façon dont elle est utilisée, ce qui est construit, c’est l’architecture de l’oppression.[1]

Nécro-vitalisme, ou vampirisme capitaliste

Ainsi que j’espère clarifier, le Capitalisme entretient une relation unique au Désert, à l’Animiste et au Virus selon laquelle le Capitalisme voit ces choses comme détentrices d’un potentiel pour créer du profit ; c’est-à-dire, rien n’est inerte en soi, tout est vital du point de vue de la capitalisation et n’importe quoi peut devenir quelque chose de plus avec la bonne approche innovante. En effet les capitalistes peuvent ainsi être considérés comme les plus purs des Animistes. Cela dit, le capital industriel dépend de, et avec les États, police vigoureusement les séparations entre formes d’existence de sorte que certains existants peuvent devenir sujets à différentes sortes d’extraction. Ainsi même si les activistes et les universitaires mettent à niveau la relation entre la vie animale et parmi les objets (y compris les sujets humains), les États légifèrent aussi bien pour protéger les droits des entreprises et des corporations d’utiliser les animaux et les terres que pour criminaliser les tactiques de l’activisme écologiste et environnemental. En d’autres termes, comme le Virus se sert de, mais n’est pas ultimement tributaire de la différence entre le Vivant et le Non-Vivant, le Capital considère tous les modes d’existence comme s’ils étaient vitaux et impose que tous les modes d’existence ne soient pas les mêmes en terme d’extraction de valeur.[2]

Une sorte de manifeste crasse de l’analytique Karrabing [3]

  1. Les choses existent à travers un effort d’attention mutuelle. Cet effort n’est pas une vue de l’esprit mais relève de l’activité d’endurance.
  2. Les choses ne naissent pas ni ne meurent, toutefois elles peuvent se détourner les unes des autres et changer d’état.
  3. Lorsqu’elles se détournent les unes des autres, les entités retirent le soin qu’elles s’apportaient mutuellement. Donc la terre ne meurt pas. Mais la terre peut se détourner de certaines formes d’existence. Selon cette manière de penser, le Désert n’est pas ce en quoi la vie n’existe pas. Un Désert est l’endroit où une série d’entités ne prennent plus soin des sortes d’entités que sont les humains et donc procuré aux humains d’autres formes d’existence : os, momie, cendres et terreau.
  4. Nous devons dé-dramatiser la vie humaine car nous prenons carrément la responsabilité de ce que nous faisons. Ces dé-dramatisation et responsabilisation simultanées permettent de poser de nouvelles questions. Au lieu de la Vie ou de la Non-Vie, nous nous interrogerons sur quelles formations nous maintenons en existence ou nous éteignons.

  1. traduit par mes soins de l’original:

    Do you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the coronavirus is a long-forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? That these datasets will not be kept? No matter how it is being used, what’ is being built is the architecture of oppression.

    ↩︎
  2. traduit par mes soins :

    As I am hoping will become clear, Capitalism has a unique relation to the Desert, the Animist, and the Virus insofar as Capitalism sees all things as having the potential to create profit; that is, nothing is inherently inert, everything is vital from the point of view of capitalization, and anything can become something more with the right innovative angle. Indeed, capitalists can be said to be the purest of the Animists. This said, industrial capital depends on and, along with states, vigorously polices the separations between forms of existence so that certain kinds of existents can be subjected to different kinds of extractions. Thus even as activists and academics level the relation between animal life and among objects (including human subjects), states pass legislation both protecting the rights of businesses and corporations to use animals and lands and criminalizing tactics of ecological and environmental activism. In other words, like the Virus that takes advantage but is not ultimately wedded to the difference between Life and Nonlife, Capital views all modes of existence as if they were vital and demands that not all modes of existence are the same from the point of view of extraction of value.
    Geontologies, a requiem to late liberalism, Elizabeth A. Povinelli (2016)

    ↩︎
  3. traduit par mes soins :

    [A] sort of dirty manifesto to Karrabing analytics.

    1. Things exist through an effort of mutual attention. This effort is not in the mind but in the activity of endurance.
    2. Things are neither born nor die, though they can turn away from each other and change states.
    3. In turning away from each other, entities withdraw care for each other. Thus the earth is not dying. But the earth may be turning away from certain forms of existence. In this way of thinking the Desert is not that in which life does not exist. A Desert is where a series of entities have withdrawn care for the kinds of entities humans are and thus has made humans into another form of existence: bone, mummy, ash, soil.
    4. We must de-dramatize human life as we squarely take responsibility for what we are doing. This simultaneous de-dramatization and responsibilization may allow for opening new questions. Rather than Life and Nonlife, we will ask what formations we are keeping in existence or extinguishing?

    Geontologies, a requiem to late liberalism, Elizabeth A. Povinelli (2016)

    ↩︎
1 Like

La question du xenofeminisme est loin d’être claire intégrer l’alien est une perspective transformatrice sans aucun doute, mais comment qualifier l’Alien est la question. Intégrer la technoscience comme une pensée anthropophagique se fait depuis une approche située, il faut être capable de rejeter d’expulser les éléments toxiques ou de les assimiler pour s’immuniser. Comme avec le corona, il peut y avoir des résurgences avant d’atteindre une immunité.
Bien des pensées bien des cultures ont développées un pensée intégrée bien au delà du xenoféminisme, le technochamanisme promose plutôt de former une continuité depuis les connaissances partagées les technologies de communication transmises au cours de millénaires.

https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/appropriating-alien-critique-xenofeminism

“There is a widespread understanding of the continued problem of the ‘we’ of intersectional feminisms. Nevertheless, the opening paragraph of the XFM proposes: ‘We are all alienated – but have we ever been otherwise?’ (0x01). Although some nods are given (near the end, in section 0x14), which disaggregate the ‘we’ and ‘us’ used throughout, the implied shared subject position – which infers that ‘we’ are somehow all equally alienated – creates particular difficulties when attached to the accelerationist injunction to go for more not less alienation. We need to go through alienation to be free, we are told.”

“As Donna Haraway reminds us in The Cyborg Manifesto, ‘ White women, including socialist-feminists, discovered (that is, were forced kicking and screaming to notice) the non-innocence of the category “woman”.’29 Yet, pointing to this persistent Eurocentrism should not be confused with a plea for diversity, or to simply ‘include race’ in a rights-driven liberal version of identity politics. It is, however, a renewed call for attention to the dangers of glossing over the inequalities of race, gender, class, sexuality, ability and the real-existing politics of agency, which a presumed equivalence of oppression and in turn alienation evades. The ‘xeno’ of xenofeminism uses alienness univocally and performs the marginalised position of ‘being alienated’ whilst it elides the differences implicated in the dynamics of marginalisation.”

“In Land and Plant’s ‘Cyberpositive’ we witness an archetypical accelerationist gesture, which sees the authors reject the ‘moderate’ self-stabilising homeostasis of Norbert Wiener’s cybernetics, and instead advocate the heady excess and unknown instabilities of ‘cyberpositive processes’ and future catastrophe. We also see the idiosyncratic fusion between Marxist-Hegelian notions of alienation and cybernetic end-of-history disasterism, which typifies and prefigures the XFM: ‘Alienation used to diagnose the condition of a population becoming foreign to itself offering a prognosis that still promised recovery. All that is over. We are all foreigners now, no longer alienated but alien’.36 Where the essay states, ‘women and other aliens constitute an immensely disproportionate number of schizophrenics, frozen by tranquilizers and antischizophrenic drugs’, we likewise see xenofeminism prefigured by a skewed minoritarianism which romanticises (and flattens) the alterity of women, foreigners, and schizophrenics.”

“The XFM ’s lack of consideration of the historic whiteness of humanist and post-humanist discourses, and its silent continuation of a Landian heritage, make it clear that it has thus far failed to do this urgent work, even while it exuberantly reminds us that technology is certainly a central battleground for today’s feminisms. Effectively, for all of its laudable ambitions to be a ‘feminism of unprecedented cunning, scale, and vision’ (0x00), as long as race and class remain analytical add-ons – afterthoughts bolted on to the category of gender – and the constant racialised and classed sociopolitical relations of humanness and non-humanness are neglected as central to the construction of subjectivity (however negated), then xenofeminism will have serious obstacles to contend with.51 Its cyberpositive acceleration of alienation and tick-box intersectionality require robust elaboration to be recognised as the kind of difficult and sustained work that a proper renegotiation of the embattled terrain of feminist post-humanisms requires. In appropriating the alien, the contradictions of xenofeminism merely expose an inability to take seriously the real contemporary power dynamics of categorical humanness.”

1 Like

prendre soin à Pâques

Prendre soin à Pâques, c’est mettre un coup de Kärcher sur une tâche d’huile ?

1 Like

« Se siamo armate e addestrate siamo in grado di convincere gli uomini che anche noi abbiamo mani, piedi e un cuore come il loro; e anche se siamo delicate e tenere, ci sono uomini delicati che possono essere anche forti e uomini volgari e violenti che sono dei codardi. Le donne non hanno ancora capito che dovrebbero comportarsi così, in questo modo riuscirebbero a combattere fino alla morte; e per dimostrare che ciò è vero, sarò la prima ad agire, ergendomi a modello.[1] »

Au XVIème siècle, à son retour à Venise, Veronica Franco fut accusée en 1677 de sorcellerie et d’être responsable de l’épidémie de Peste qui avait ravagé la République libre. Elle se défendit lors de son procès face au tribunal de l’Inquisition et fut acquittée…[2]


  1. « Si nous étions armées et entraînées, nous serions capables de convaincre les hommes que nous aussi, nous avons des mains, des pieds et un cœur comme les leurs ; et même si nous sommes délicates et tendres, il y a des hommes délicats qui peuvent aussi être forts et des hommes vulgaires et violents qui sont des lâches. Les femmes n’ont pas encore compris qu’elles devaient se comporter de cette manière, afin de pouvoir se battre jusqu’à la mort ; et pour prouver que c’est vrai, je serai la première à agir, en donnant l’exemple. » ↩︎

  2. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronica_Franco#Citazione ↩︎

Elisabeth Povinelli

Geontologies a requiem to late liberalism
Duke University press

We globally are organizing in a relation to a rapidly spreading virus that confronts occident to its social organization in late capitalism, as we protect ourselves, from what we consider an exterior attack to our biosecurity, we risk losing essential values and freedom that make life worth living. This crisis is an occasion to asses values and more importantly it could bring us to unfold our thoughts to what we consider to be life in our societies. The Virus is not concerned by the life/non-life division it is a terrorist it is also the recognition of internal political other. In this context, reading Elisabeth Povinelli’s Geontology is enlighting, as she explains geontopower, the idea that what we call alive is defined by the power structures that we built and live under. Elisabeth Povinelli asks in Geontologies who decides what is considered life or not, she adresses the question from her position as part of an Aborigens group in Northern Australia, and does so through their movements in relation to late capitalism manifestations.

Humans did not create the actual capitalist relation to the world, rather it is certain forms of humanity that created it, but as Povinelli notes, as the future of humanity is put under pressure, it seems that ontology has reemerged as a prominent question. However the issue is not to state the relation between humans and non humans, but to include the power structures that manifest in this world.
Geontopower is a power of differentiation and control. Biopolitics has been a source of important critical thinking as Dona Haraway has stated the place of biopolitics in the formation of Postmodern bodies, Achille Mbembe explained Necropolitcs in colonialist control of bodies; today it late global capitalism and global organization are not adequate to protect physical and psychological needs of citizens, and the return to sovereignty does not appear as an option to understand late liberal power. Povinelli explains that the biopolitical management of indigenous is less compelling to her then the management of existence life birth etc… She pursues saying that our adhesion to the biopolitical is revealing a formation of geontological power.
Doing so she fosters 3 figures: The Desert The Animist and The virus all three situate the existence of a culture by asking what is at stake, and who determines the organization of a territory. We need to give up a universal rule for fair scheme and focus on local.

The limits of the conception of individual life now appear clearly, rather then limited body we could consider ourselves as nests of interrelated bacterias, and furthermore we are deeply related to non biological elements. Relational models are ecological by nature. However, the carbon imaginary is definitely what unites natural and social sciences into considering life, and triggers a fascination in the contemplation of it emergence. In reconsidering the difference between life and non-life, Povinelli asks if the source of life could be non-life that has the possibility to either bond to life or not.

It is not clear who decides of geontolongy and what are the conditions, even among aborigens themselves, and the way to get to an understanding of this situation is to is to set up a true intersectionality that allows to formulate problematics out from the existing scheme. The question is whether “Two Women Sitting Down” a sacred rock in northern Australia can be considered as a person, or if it is only a way to let aborigens be victim of an exploitation relation with capitalism, where aborigens can get a little immediate benefice while capitalism gets consolidated and long term benefice.

To aborigens and dreamers the relation to the inanimate world is active and made of permanent signs and manifestations, the task of humans who encounter manifestations (those can be any signs in the surroundings or in dreams) is not to understand the manifestations themselves but the relations. Understand how their variations within a location are an alteration of some regional mode, an existence that matters.
The purpose of understanding an arrangement is to seduce it bait it so that it continues to take care of the form arrangement that you (human) are in, if not you risk to turn into another kind of existence. Manifesting is a mode of care and securing the “sutu”, the relation.
Humans are rarely the only or most important existence engaged.

Current iterations of the ontological turn: speculative realism and materialism or object oriented ontology, frequently and aggressively drive towards the occlusion of the dynamics of social relation within a subsequent de-suturing of objects. The consequence of this is an unloosing of the socius from historical time accelerating into sheer prospective of cataclysm.

Furthermore, the understanding of the traditional is that it shouldn’t move in time it stays as it was in the past, but reality of existing animist practices is actual, it is a lively culture that exists and transforms itself throughout our shared history and in the actual.

While aborigens continue to live, use their relational landmarks and to interpret the world through dreams and traces, they are under attack from colonialists (virus, alcohol, extermination, police); in 1976 the indigenous land act was promulgated. In order to claim their rights they must prove that they are still natives, “archefossils”, frozen traces of the past with a certain type of totemic imagination, proving that they are indeed archaic a trace of something prior to the colonialism of settlement.

However the situation is that aborigens have adapted transform and resisted settler colonialism by observing interpreting and assimilating their forms of life.

encore une source:

https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/1261/ContagiousCultures-Carriers-and-the-Outbreak

COVID-19 Seminar #1: Professor Priscilla Wald, Duke University

Title: Contagion: COVID-19, the Outbreak Narrative, and Why We Need to Change the Story

Abstract: COVID-19 is the name of a pathogen—a disease-causing microbe—but if it is a “newly emerging infection,” it is also a newly emerging, though familiar, story: the latest version of “the outbreak narrative.” Accounts of newly surfacing diseases appeared in scientific publications and the mainstream media in the Global North with increasing frequency following the introduction of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the mid-1980s.
They put the vocabulary of disease outbreaks into circulation, and they introduced the concept of “emerging infections.” The repetition of particular phrases, images and story lines produced a formula that quickly became conventional as it formed the plot of the popular novels and films in the mid-1990s.
These stories have consequences. As they disseminate information, they affect survival rates and contagion routes. They promote or mitigate the stigmatizing of individuals, groups, populations, spaces and locales (regional and global), behaviors and lifestyles, and they change economies. They also influence how both scientists and the lay public understand the nature and consequences of infection, how we imagine the threat and why we react so fearfully, and which problems merit our attention and resources.

1 Like

Here we are, our social space has been preempted by a war rationale, and our solidarity spaces are enacted by official discourses about sacrifices to the benefice of a non-determined community.

Care and solidarity are not sacrifices, they are mutual relations at the basis of society, they enrich all participants. Advocating for a reevaluation of professions that are fundamental to society is important and does not preclude to acknowledge a political position that aims to clarify what we call our relation to the world, on the basis of caring practices, placing those at the heart of human organization, as they effectively always have been.

Organization is a strategy of alliances, it does not only engage humans, the construction of our systems happens across different species and all elements. Nonetheless current thinking of our relations to the non human do not always acknowledge its politics while, specific elements, like the virus, historically tend to be bothering. Elisabeth Povinelli explains the virus exists as a modality of the non-living to create alliances with the living (Povinelli 2018). She uses the virus as a figure in her Geontologies where she coins geontopower, as the capacity to define what is alive. Across her studies, she presents a relation to the world that engages many different physical states in different alliances, despite and across actual settler colonial domination and associated geontopower.

What form or geometry can those different alliances take? Many arguments have been held about their route within groups and the possible spheres of interference. Povinelli, in her “anthropology of the otherwise” presents them as embagged spaces, she reminds us that “all embagged spaces are the result of not merely two strings hanging from the end of an open, if concealed mouth, but many strings tying and retying the body and its contents.” [1] The question then becomes, are our organizations woven? And if so, where are the existing alliances and transformative spaces? More precisely should we be asking in which liminal spaces do we situate our collective apprenticeship during the past couple months? What forms of organization are happening that counter the crisis and rather than claiming resilience, offer perennial propositions and open paths for research.

From past experience and exchanges (to be explained) we can maybe pull out a few possibilities:

  • Knowledge sharing infrastructures, DETAILS
  • Trust and solidarity, DETAILS
  • TransBorder experiences. DETAILS

In the past couple months, relations did recompose themselves as we globally unite around this on line map presenting an absolute number of deaths, country by country, while each one of us in our own gaze considered this information distilled to us in an unreal fashion. But, relations also recomposed along our on-line communities, and an many important initiatives started and hopefully will last. In my gaze it felt that despite the almost omnipresent governmental presence, human networks recomposed themselves along the course of confinement along the lines of a solidarity network, not only because we benevolently provided necessary goods for each-other, but also because we shared opinions, information, and a lot of imaginations along the modalities of our existing independent infrastructures, trusting each other, across borders. These, like everything that happened, did not emerge now out of nowhere, those networks and their infrastructure existed before, they were intertwined and tied within the organization of liberal societies, in different forms and flux within our groups and though individuals.

Since this month of march, enclosed in our living spaces we join our different flux in a possible tentative to recombine information, apparently experts think this can be accounted for, and the famous imperial study models that drove many political decision counted that confinement augmented the contacts between people living in a same family by 25% increasing by as much the chances of contamination (they did not say what happened if people sharing the house were not from the same family), I do not know what kind of relational scheme they choose to get to this conclusion, but I am certain I do not feel any correspondence with it.

As physical flux recombines in our houses exacerbating existing hierarchies inequities, social constraints, as well as giving the occasion to some of us to confirm the richness of our differences and their life choices grounds new network organization exacerbate our need to share practices of care, maybe the virus can help us identify some models.

  • Transmission or Contamination

“We are the Virus”, this meme circulated a lot over the past weeks, signifying: we are the ones who are a nuisance (in this case to ecology). Strangely enough to me it had a completely different connotation, in the XXth century, I remember a group of friends calling themselves “Les Virus” considering the possibilities to contaminate what they considered a society full of prejudice. Virus was a metaphor for the possibilities to transmit ideas across immunity borders of social structures. How did the metaphor of the virus transformed from penetrating into a system into transfering social responsibility to the individual who becomes responsible of the national well being. What type of agent transformed our relation to health in an individual responsibility detached from existing social organization. An agential cut (Barad 2007) in this systematic individualisation would be to rework our notions towards transmission of care, information and support rather than cutting contamination.

By these affirmations we continue to consider ourselves outsiders from the social and ecological systems we build. Indeed just like the virus, we, occidentals, will not be eliminated, even if access to an easy lifestyle is already constrained to an always smaller number of people, it seems it continues to adopt and promote the same protectionist discourse that promotes borders instead of solidarity. And where “contamination is definitely part of the equation.” [2]

In the current situation we have been observing transmission routes and developing barriers to protect us from contamination, what would then be the other geometries and invisibility relational organizations that have been efficient in the past 2 months.

  • Mutation

Following the mutating virus we could seek for the liminality of those mutations, where did we transform to the point that we accept to let our loved ones die alone because laws and regulations force us to do so. Where is it that while help and care are reliable infrastructures that prevent us collectively from contamination, we keep constrained by rules and regulations that only enforce separation and abandonment. The geometry of the relation marks the necessity of differentiated strategies to maintain our humanity and to continue accessing to different agencies.

This transformation started at a moment when many places in the world felt on the turning point as demonstrations were gaining traction with so many people involved. When suddenly our solidarity networks mutated like all of us it feels they have both relocalized and focused on the immediate needs of practical local solidarity and emergency needs, and created resonances accrossborders as strategies repeated everywhere. Maybe it is now the moment to look for new forms might be emerging that can help redefine our possibilities to address geontopower (Povinelli 2018) following the mutations provoked by the virus.

The sanitary discourse presents a unified corporeal view of our society where each identified atomic individual is equally responsible for the transmission of diseases. On the contrary, experiencing the world resembles more to interrelated intra-acting phenomenas that constantly reconfigure relations and individuals iteratively (Barad 2007). The formations that provide care are equally transformative and this has been seized by aparatuses that feedback to different communities, such as autonomous networks and resistance organisations.


  1. Elisabeth Povinelli Routes/Worlds in e-flux ·27 sept 2011 https://www.e-flux.com/journal/27/67991/routes-worlds/ ↩︎

  2. Other Geometries Femke Snelting in Endings and new Becomings https://networkcultures.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/TheEternalNetwork.pdf ↩︎

Hybrid & Fragile Aesthetics  |  ParticipateEngageCooperate