German: Wenn »Corona« der Name einer globalen Krise ist, dann kann dieser Name keinen Ausnahmezustand bezeichnen. Krisen sind nichts Außeralltägliches – und von der Welt kann sich nichts ausnehmen oder ausgenommen werden. Die Weltgesellschaft ist eine inklusive Umgebung, die alle ihre Grenzen untereinander vernetzt, die kein Außen mehr abtrennt und kein Innen mehr isoliert, die komplex und unsicher ist und von der es keinen Rückzug in Einfachheit und Sicherheit gibt – eine an Schärfe und Bitternis kaum zu unterschätzende Erkenntnis. Durch »Corona«, wird diese Erkenntnis anschaulich und begreiflich: als ein Hinweis auf die Implikationen vernetzter, inklusiver Globalität; als ein Problem, das Wahrnehmung und Beobachtung gleichermaßen herausfordert, weil es Ausdruck einer noch unverstandenen Krise ist.
Mit dem vorliegenden Sammelband bringen Markus Heidingsfelder und Maren Lehmann die Auseinandersetzung mit dieser Krise auf die Höhe der gesellschaftlichen Praxis. Konzipiert als ein Beobachtungsgeflecht unterschiedlicher Disziplinen und Perspektiven, vereint er gleichermaßen begriffliche Erklärungen wie situative Wahrnehmungen, die das eigene Nichtwissen – die individuelle Betroffenheit – als eine Formvariante des Problemverstehens ernst nehmen, anstatt es als dessen Vorform zu diskreditieren.
English: If “Corona” is the name of a global crisis, then this name cannot designate a state of exemption (‘Ausnahmezustand’). Crises are not something extra-ordinary – and nothing can be exempted or excluded from the world. The world society is an inclusive environment, which interlinks all its borders, which no longer separates any outside from any inside, which is complex and insecure, and from which there is no retreat into simplicity and security – an insight that can hardly be underestimated in its sharpness and bitterness. Through “Corona”, this insight becomes vivid and comprehensible: as an indication of the implications of networked, inclusive globality; as a problem that challenges perception and observation in equal measure, because it is the expression of a crisis that has not yet been understood.
Conceived as a network of observations from various disciplines and perspectives, this anthology by Markus Heidingsfelder and Maren Lehmann combines both conceptual explanations and situational perceptions that take one’s own lack of knowledge – individual consternation – seriously, instead of discrediting it as a preliminary form of understanding.
Inhalt/Table of contents:
Letters Against Separation
Liu Ding, Liu Qingshuo & Carol Yinghua Lu
Die große Überforderung
Die luftleitenden Anteile der Lunge
Seuchen am See
»Artists in Quarantine«: Die Kunstwelt und das Problem entleerter Heroik
Immer Ärger mit Corona – Skizze zu einer grassierenden Theatromanie
Corona und die pulsierende Gesellschaft
Systemic Integration and the Need for De-Integration in Pandemic Times
Global disease surveillance systems and cooperation in Covid-19: Lessons not learned
»Led by the Science«
Crisis Transitions in the World Risk Society
Verbotene und erlaubte Sozialformen
Fritz B. Simon
Covid-19 and governments: ›Emerging infectious diseases‹ and governance. Some preliminary thoughts
Fang Ying, Heiner Fangerau & Alfons Labisch
Chinas Kampf gegen Corona: Historische Erfahrungen, innen- und außenpolitische Implikationen
Das Virus der Anderen. Diskursive Ausschlussdynamiken und der neue Orientalismus im frühen Diskurs über Covid-19
Die Pandemie als Profilierungschance: Papst Franziskus, Donald Trump, Byung-chul Han und Corona
Prophetisches Wächteramt. Eine Erinnerung
Theologie im Schatten der Coronakrise
Wer hat Angst vor’m schwarzen Mann? Das »Infektionsgeschehen« als Spiel
Lachen über Covid-19? Psychologische Wege des Umgangs mit der Corona-Krise
Arist von Schlippe
Notstands-Staat als Staat der Zukunft? Die skandalöse und entscheidende Frage vom Rand der Pandemie
Liebe Kolleg*innen und Freund*innen,
wir – die theatrale subversion aus Dresden – freuen uns sehr, dass wir heute in Kooperation mit dem Leipziger Theatermacher und Programmierer Alexander Bauer das digitale Kunst- und Dokumentationsprojekt Archiv der lebenden Toten starten können.
Ihr findet das Archiv unter: https://lebende-tote.de
Das Archiv der lebenden Toten ist ein Ort der zukünftigen Erinnerung. Es sammelt Videobotschaften von Menschen, deren Leben in besonderem Maße durch die COVID-19-Pandemie bedroht ist. Hier können sie – für den Fall ihres Todes – ein digitales Vermächtnis hinterlassen. Das Archiv der lebenden Toten wird diese Zeugnisse für eine kommende Gesellschaft bewahren.
Das Archiv ist eine Online-Plattform, auf der die Videos unkompliziert erstellt und veröffentlicht werden können. Das Archiv der lebenden Toten funktioniert, wenn möglichst viele Menschen mitmachen. Wenn Du also selbst zu einer Corona-Risikogruppe gehörst, mach gerne mit! Wenn Du nicht dazu gehörst, aber Leute kennst, deren Erfahrungen/Meinungen/Geschichten geteilt/geäußert/erzählt werden sollten, informiere sie gerne über das Projekt oder – falls nötig – hilf ihnen sogar bei der Anfertigung eines Videovermächtnisses.
Um über das Projekt auf dem Laufenden zu bleiben, kannst Du uns auf folgenden Plattformen folgen:
Vielen Dank und mit den besten Grüßen,
Michael Neil McCrae
Künstlerische Leitung – theatrale subversion / Archiv der lebenden Toten
Dear friends, some hopefully enlightening news in these dark times:
I can finally show my new film AI IS THE ANSWER – WHAT WAS THE QUESTION, this Wednesday at UNDERDOX Filmfestival Munich. Very happy about it, since all other festivals refused this film.
Film starts at 6:30pm, but be aware, space is limited for the obvious reasons. I’m curious about discussing the question of how to show today’s late capitalism. Some thoughts about it here: https://youtu.be/6nGrHUY4yQE and here: https://medium.com/@christianvonborries/the-disappearance-of-society-in-the-algorithm-16995db01de3
Finally, here is a trailer: https://youtu.be/6nGrHUY4yQE and HKW Berlin will screen the film in April 2021, I’ll keep you updated. Whoever is interested in seeing the entire film, just drop me a line and I can provide a link.
I’m also happy to share with you my attempt to sing Schubert, Schumann and Eisler, intervowen with texts by Jelinek, Heine, Marx, Kafka and Heiner Mueller. Steirischer Herbst made it possible! https://www.paranoia-tv.com/en/program/content/196-episode-schuberts-despair
It was an honor to participate in a book by the great architect Anne Lacaton. “Qualities of Inhabiting” shows how political housing is, and it really is a rare example in this capitalist world: https://www.pro-qm.de/qualities-inhabiting-studio-anne-lacaton-lacaton-v
One more thing: Since, as you might know, the sudden death of David Graeber, people are gathering in his memory. Yesterday, in Berlin, in two very different settings:
I hope you are all well!
THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES
FACULTY OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES
UNIVERSITY OF MACAU
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
FACULTY OF ARTS AND LETTERS
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
THE CRISIS OF CRITICAL THEORY?
CRITICAL THEORY FROM AND BEYOND THE MARGINS
Critical theory is a Western, and distinctly European, intellectual tradition that drew its normative resources from the social and political events that transpired in Europe over the course of the 20th century. It is relevant to ask the question whether, as a critical-practical tradition, critical theory has anything to contribute outside the Western-European context, given the emergence of globalization and the issues that arose with it. For some, the Eurocentrism of critical theory is symptomatic of its very own crisis, one which challenges the universality of its normative claims, e.g., the abolition of social injustice. Is it possible for critical theory to overcome its Eurocentrism and, therefore, its own crisis?
The irony is that critical theory is only able to defend the universality of its normative claims when it is able to renew itself. If it is at all possible to renew critical theory, what does this renewal entail? The workshop will pursue these questions by expanding the scope of traditional critical theory, especially, but not exclusively, by drawing on critical perspectives on modern societies and emancipation movements that have originated in Asia.
While critical theory has asserted its role as the vanguard of protecting the interest of the oppressed, the pursuit of justice, and the abolition of domination and alienation in society, the question of who is the oppressed, what is justice, and who and what is dominated or alienated remains prevalent. The need to revise, re-align, and remap the trajectories of critical theory becomes an essential call to arms as we continue to experience injustice, domination, and oppression in new forms that displaces our traditional ideas of justice, domination, and oppression. From this vantage point, there is a need to move critical theory beyond the margins of its intended scope and look at the possibility where future discourses in critical theory can become juxtaposed in pursuit of its intended normative goals. There is a need to renew, revisit, and revise existing conceptions of social justice when its possibility entails contrary effects.
Morning session, 10:00am
“Critical Theory at the Margins”
Paolo A. Bolaños, University of Santo Tomas
“Filial Piety vs Critique of Blood Vengeance”
Lee Tingmien, University of Macau
“Critical Theory and Tradition”
Jovito V. Cariño, University of Santo Tomas
Moderator: Christine Tan, University of Santo Tomas
Early afternoon session, 01:15pm
“Profile Politics: A Critique of the ‘White Left’ (bai zuo ⽩左)”
Hans-Georg Moeller, University of Macau
“Critical Theory and Recognition”
Roland Theuas Pada, University of Santo Tomas
“Critical Theory and Revolution”
Raniel Reyes, University of Santo Tomas
Moderator: Ranier Abengaña, University of Santo Tomas
Late afternoon session, 04:00pm
“Critical Perspectives on National and Civilizational
Identities: Solidarity and Enthusiasm”
Daniel Sarafinas, University of Macau
“Free Fall: A Hegelian Critique of the Gambling Rabble”
Mario Wenning, University of Macau
Moderator: Anton Rennesland, University of Santo Tomas
24 OCTOBER 2020, SATURDAY | 10:00 AM TO 6:00 PM (UTC +8)
ZOOM MEETING-ID: 976 4344 1616 | PASSCODE: 241020
Dear friends, I would love to invite you for a little but special event, as my first retrospective show will open tomorrow (or today depending on when you will read this), Saturday the 26th of September, from 11-18 Uhr, at Kunstparterre in Munich, http://www.kunstparterre.de/. The show is titled Onehundredfortythousandandonehundredsixty hours later and will look back at and into 15 years of painting. If you can’t make the opening you can still see the show until the end of this year, every Thursday from 14-18 Uhr or by appointment. Also for this special occasion I developed in collaboration with Leon Klasen a new web based experience, which you can check out below via the link, regardless of your current location:
Harald, Carmen, Anna, Jin and me will be there.
Pic by Kalin Lindena
While Benni Gurn and I are still working on our John Cage documentary (Cage 64) – thanks to the pandemic – my friend Yui Onodera has already released the beautiful soundtrack that he created for it: “Ray”.
Yui is not only responsible for the soundtrack, I also visited him in Tokyo three years ago, where I conducted a series of interviews with him on how John Cage influenced his work. “Without Cage, I would probably not make any music at all,” he said. It was then when I introduced him to avantgarde legend Toshi Ichiyanagi, whom I had interviewed before – it was great to see the meeting of these two generations. I still remember the shy, respectful way in which Yui greeted Ichiyanagi – which was of course also ‘typically Japanese’: They did not exchange a lot of words, and they didn’t need to, their decent gestures said it all. One of the reasons why I love this country so much.
Here’s the photo we took afterwards.
Since then, Yui has made quite a career (and also collaborated with another musician whose work I like a lot, Robert Lippok; I was lucky to be in Karachi to record his fabulous session at Amin Gulgee’s place). Benni and I especially love the title track, “Ray” – we are very thankful to be able to feature it as the opening music for our film. It somehow reminds me of my favorite track from Wim Wender’s “Pina”, Jun Miyake’s “Lillies of the Valley” – to me, they are both on the same level, and they also share a few characteristics, for instance the subtle, hypnotic rhythm. Yui’s is more meditative, much slower, which works very well with our images – wait and see (hopefully we are finally done in 2022). Until then: Enjoy the music.
How has the pandemic affected ‘Internet lawmaking’?
There is undoubtedly a significant corona effect for virtual law, for the legal relations of digitality – and this becomes particularly manifest in the digital semi-public, semi-private spaces. Even before Corona, a rapidly growing percentage of communication took place online. Platforms that are formally private communication spaces have gained systemic importance for public discourse. They have become central communication platforms of a free and democratic society. The Internet has had a strong influence on our communicative practice. As the European Court of Human Rights already stated in 2015, the Internet is “one of the most important means by which individuals exercise their right to freedom to receive and impart information and ideas, as it provides […] essential tools for participating in activities and discussions on political issues and questions of general interest” (Cengiz vs. Turkey, 2015).
Can you name some of those effects?
Community building is increasingly taking place online today and Corona has accelerated this. Online communication spaces as communicative settings, in which discourse is relevant for democratic decision-making, but in which relationships are also created and cultivated – the private is political! – have enriched and partly replaced public spaces. This is a challenge for those states that still have the primary responsibility to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, both online and offline. New forms of mechanised power have emerged. Private actors have also gained power. Their domiciliary rights, their general terms and conditions are the primary yardstick for a large part of online communication. When platforms delete, they delete largely because of their domiciliary rights. Studies suggest that about 95% of all deletions are not carried out for reasons of “(state) law”, but because of private householder’s rights. There are, however, boundaries that were drawn before Corona, but which are particularly important in and after Corona. If by deleting their accounts or comments, users are deprived of “an essential opportunity to disseminate their political messages and to actively participate in the discourse with users of the social network” and their visibility is “considerably impaired”, especially in the context of elections, then platforms must take these users back online (according to the _Bundesverfassungsgericht’, the German Federal Constitutional Court, in its decision in the “III. way” case). Platforms must also treat users equally and may not arbitrarily delete them. The basic rights are partly applicable horizontally between platforms and users. Platforms therefore play an important role in the management and control of information during the pandemic. Chinese platforms cooperated significantly with government messaging (and message control), but US platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, which in the past had taken a “hands-off” approach to certain types of disinformation, also made a U-turn. Facebook, for example, deleted invitations to anti-blockade demonstrations, while Twitter (like other social media platforms) relied heavily on automated filtering.
As after Corona, there is no lack of applicable rules: from international law and regional integration law to state law, from community standards to general terms and conditions. But many users and some countries disregard the standards that are a prerequisite for meaningful communication. In addition to large-scale information operations using deliberate misinformation and artificial accounts (social bots), hate speech – from discrimination to Holocaust denial – also has a corrosive effect on lawful and ethically stable communication behaviour in online spaces.
Internet law expert PD Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) is head of the research programme “Regulatory Structures and the Emergence of Rules in Online Spaces” at the Leibniz Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut.