self

<h2>self</h2>
Manuela Zechner
. 
. 
A question for any body: how to look at, after and beyond the self?
. 
.
Self- employment
You sit by your laptop. It’s your laptop proper, the printer also belongs to you. This space, with your body, your ideas, your laptop, printer, dictionary and headphones is your office. You’ve made your self into this office, through a kind of self-training. You’re employing and deploying what you call your ’self’.
In this strangely corporeal yet also abstract space, a lot of questions come up. Not the least because in there, production and consumption, employee and employer as well as self-realisation and self-regulation overlap. You’re checking your email and your email is checking you: did you meet the deadline, did you send the info, did you give your feedback? This fractured space of productivity is punctuated by moments in which ‘self’ surfaces in the form of a name or a logo, a token you use when picking up the phone, writing an email, sending off a CV. You feel quite privileged to be doing this, but you also get sick of your self, all the things it comes to represent as you employ it here and there.
In those moments (they occur with increasing frequency) you feel like pulling this whole self-business apart, with a gesture that isn’t going to click smoothly onto the chain of representations, some kind of invisible move out of that space you have constructed for yourself, come to signify and operate through, that haunting and uncanny office of yours. You’d like to get onto an old fashioned train, with no aim or project other than to find complicity somewhere, give a hand somewhere. Of course, you might as well organise something with other people in that case – perhaps you could invent a way of collaborating that does not involve networking as self-representation…
So you go to the other side of town and meet some people, introduce yourself briefly, ask questions, discuss and make tea, hoping to scatter yourself a little. A modest journey, but then you know that this space that haunts you is not bound to geography so much as to your own body (and its prostheses), hence it might not matter how far you go to make that move out of the office. Rather, you try to observe how you go, you try carefully to figure out what kind of movement might take you away from the sickening space of your self as entrepreneur. You need to do this together with other people of course – they live just across town, and they’re feeling similar to you – you all sense that there could be a convergence of movements. What you’re doing together is quite strange and intangible initially, yet exciting and promising – you find yourselves using new words, not using others anymore, perhaps even using a lot less words that usual, or not noticing their currency that much – it feels like that rhetorical register and alienating connectivity of your office fades away. You’re relieved and exhausted; finally you can sleep without dreaming about your emails.
‘Self – Help!’
Then, soon enough, something calls you forth to give this common activity a name – individually and collectively, you can’t help saying ‘project’ and then finding yourself say many other things that ultimately annoy you. A deep sense of regret surfaces as the whole movement starts to look more and more vitrified. You track back the first emails you sent to the others in the group, to get a sense of what this group was becoming. It’s not so simple to trace this back to specific events, it’s not like all of a sudden, someone called: ‘Hey you! Express yourself!’. It’s more like many such calls have come from all kinds of directions, from within as well as outside the group, in all kinds of formulations, amplitudes and tonalities. You realise that in any case, at some point the collectivity you worked with became a ‘self’ in all plasticity, sabotaging the voice and vocabulary that could allow you to ask what exactly that ‘self’ was meant to express or represent. No matter who exactly has been calling you (group members, curators, government officials, company representatives), there were moments when you responded to the calls, and entered into a regime of visibility and identification that you could hardly foresee.
There’s no way out of that game of interpellation, or of the subjective and material conditions that make us want and need to turn around with a ‘self’. It hardly makes sense to block our ears or stop answering the phone. Could we turn around all together when there is a call? And shout ‘buh!’ whilst administering a strange choreography? We do that sometimes, since it’s vital for us to let our movements fade into an absurd dance, to laugh and drop our credentials and compulsively smart attitudes. But then, we also need to survive, and ultimately we also do want to hold some kind of self towards the world, to present and sometimes even re-present some structure via which we can articulate our actions and feelings. Luckily, this self needn’t be in the first person singular, or in the singular altogether…
Our selves
It seems that self can function in various ways, as a relational device: it holds up autonomy one minute, gets caught up in individualism the other, then gets lost and anxious, losing any referent beyond the material body, or it goes from a nominal, identitarian self to a networked, autopoietical ‘self–‘ as prefix. If you trust your self to be stable, whether it’s in the singular or the plural, you’re bound to get sick. Self is like a mirror, you’d think it just reflects identity back at you, and sometimes that seems comfortably true, but then more often than not it throws you completely off track, because the mirror is dirty, or cracked, or crooked, or wears a suit, or shows an elephant, or shows nothing – and you know there’s no one to blame. Whether a single person or a group look into the mirror, the whole thing always looks strange. You don’t know how to look at it. No point feeling guilty or victimized of course. You’re obviously caught up in reflexivities that continually break your projected frame (‘me’/‘we’/‘they’) into pieces, fractured between different temporalities and ways of looking, and even more so since you call yourself a self-employing person or group. Self-employment is the strenuous employment of mirrors.
The tension that mounts between identity and flexibility, one or another self, often brings about forms of anxiety and paranoia – we don’t trust our selves to hold up to much and that’s ok, yet we recognise that we are at a loss for ways of relating, starting to feel anxious. To be sure, we appreciate our flexibility – we’re not about to give up the fantastic mirrors in our cabinet, even if some of them are in parallel use for the office. We’d rather like to understand: how can we move in relation to these mirrors and get behind them from time to time, to turn them into a new direction and avoid the nausea of an endless repetition of the same scattered references?
In our subjective and everyday spaces as predominantly self-employed and self-employing persons, our lives and personalities are subsumed under a mode of productivity that can neither be grasped solely in terms of economics nor solely in terms of ethics. Our office is our self is our cabinet and vice versa, and this makes us feel alienated, even if it should make us feel good (people with laptops usually look quite content, or at least cool). Self-employing is not just a matter of having a business card, website or special tax number, or having all kinds of social skills that allow the employed self to be effective and visible. It’s not just a matter of doing what one wants, just being creative or inventing oneself an aesthetics of life either, happily considering oneself detached from the rest of reality in a luna park of self-referentiality. Nor does it boil down to an aspiration to purity via an ethical life. It’s not about utter misery, subtenancy and anemia either, or about bliss. It’s a bit of everything, all the time. We employ ourselves under conditions that are troublesome, but how did we get here?
Self-making
The self features in contemporary economic and subjective production in various ways. I will follow one of those in my account. Both as a concrete individual and as a term, the self increasingly becomes (economically) productive through being reflexively linked to other bodies in industrialised societies. This means that the factory’s assembly line or the isolating occupation of an office is replaced with cooperative and interactive work, where the self is connected and networked (in the context of a ‘social factory’) via flexible technologies, in open plan spaces with lots of input and output channels.
This connectivity of the self does not mean that stable, identitarian modes of self are not around anymore, or that they no longer provide a basis for normative images (nor is social ‘connectivity’ anything new). It’s not a question of flexibility replacing identity replacing subjection in a straightforward way. To consider the way in which our selves are configured and fit into larger economic and social processes opens onto a broad field of ambivalence. How can we find ways of looking at the context in which self is brought forth, in order to tune into the contingencies, reasons and strategies that are at play in a process of self-production? Not so that we can then judge those processes authentic or fake, but so that we may become more sensitive to the functionalities of self at different instances, to its crises and transformations…
Contemporary cultures and economies of self-government emerge parallel to broad changes in social and economic production, affecting the way we understand politics and the role of the state in determining our lives and work (1). In this development, control and management functions increasingly shift from the larger, centralized bodies to smaller entities such as organisations and individuals. Those smaller bodies now operate within a larger framework of self-government within which autonomy and individualism meet with much tension. 
In the spirit of governing people and things by making people and things govern themselves, liberalism sets up the self as a vital productive device. We are not being told what to do by a prince or even by a proper boss, rather we receive suggestions and support (and we support ourselves and do lots of auto-suggestion), we are being recorded (and recording ourselves), assessed (or assessing ourselves), empowered (and empowering ourselves), and invested in (…) so that, in a bizarre way, we come to realise ourselves as our own bosses and police (trained in aesthetics and design, we notice that there’s not much beauty to either of those roles). 
The more we are able to self-produce our aspirations, under a general gentle guidance of policy and advertisement, the less we need the the state or market to intervene directly, in the name of the powers it represents. Self-management and neo-liberalism go together, and make it very hard for us to figure out what to do with ourselves and what it might mean to be autonomous? We feel utterly implicated in our own management, not just structurally or materially, but above all, subjectively. We’d like to know when it is others that move us, and when it is ourselves. The problem may be that we think this is an easy differentiation to make – and maybe that we could figure out the difference between subjection and subjectivation by looking in the mirror. We may not find a categorical difference or perfect mirror image, but rather some ways of playing with the mirror, making spaces in which we can apply tactics of differentiation – flicking the mirror around for a second to escape identification.
Take cultural work for example – since this is where I (the first person and self), as well as this entry, chiefly sits. Of course there’s no homogeneous category of cultural or creative work, even if policy insists on that – yet there are some similarities between self-employed artists, designers, gallery assistants, writers, interns, and so forth. People in these kinds of functions tend to be tied to their computers as devices for self-representation, networking and self-(de)regulation. They tend to want to be autonomous and responsible, yet find their conditions for realising this rather precarious.
The Creative Industries, as policy framework for flexibilisation in the field of ‘culture’ (2), participates in the flourishing of a service-model of employment in which cooperation is increasingly important. Modes of production in neo-liberal societies increasingly depend on communications technologies and the social networks these bring forth. Networking is key for staying in the game and getting jobs. This changing paradigm of production (sometimes called post-Fordism) affects the social in various ways. Amongst other things, it produces entrepreneurial subjects that swerve from job to job, continuously in need of opportunities in order to survive, anxious about their future and exhausted by their present.
Self-employing, our home is our office most of the time, and our mobile phone as well as email account synchronises our work to surrounding rhythms of production. Our time is fragmented, cellularised (3), we cooperate and communicate all the time, and we have to know what we want out of our meetings; when having a coffee or talking on the phone, we have to mind our individual time (to make sure not to agree to do too many things for too little money, or to get to our next appointment in time). There is no space for collective time in the places we take our offices to (living room, corner café, park): we can’t really take time to discuss whether we should call what we are doing a ‘project’, or whether we even should or want to be doing projects.
Self–?
So how could we make space and time for a kind of collectivity that does not re-insert itself into a competitive and networked (formal or informal) market immediately? How can we employ and produce without deploying the kind of reflexivity that makes us into self-managing competitors? We have to find new ways of saying ‘we’ as much as new ways of saying ‘self’, probably. If there is no way of exiting our culture and economy of self, maybe we have to accept to work with the office format, so as to become political entrepreneurs and radical diplomats for instance… (4) we might find ways of operating differently in our office, say ‘self’ with some cunning and at the same time cultivate an openness to the indeterminacy of our processes of subjectivation. 
‘Self’ figures as a token notion in discourses that operate the post-Fordist paradigm, and gains currency both with the amplification of individualism (a nominal self) as well as with competitive cooperation (a connective self). For example, the prefix “self-“ has high currency within contemporary discourses around cultural production, sounding both strangely sexy as well as politicised (self-organisation, self-education, self-authorisation…). What effects does this self-prefix produce? Does it designate a body? If yes, what kind of body – a radically open (necessarily connective) or guardedly closed body (feeding back onto itself in a tight loop), a processing (embodying) body or a processed (embodied) body; or maybe any body? Can it designate a group, an organism, a city, a movement? Who is speaking through such a self-prefix? Take self-organisation: there can’t be a principle of identity regarding a body that is simultaneously organising and organised. The body that is referred to admittedly changes all the time, it can go from an ‘I’ to a ‘we’ back to an ‘I’ and so forth. We don’t need to rely on our status as individual entirely, nor dissolve this in a group entirely – when self-organising, we can shift according to our desires and doubts – the stuff that frames the mirrors.
But as much as the prefix ‘self-’ allows us to move between the individual and the collective, we soon find that the latter is somewhat restricted in an office context: in terms of our ethics as entrepreneurs, we encounter a limit. Whilst cooperating and self-regulating, we are often not meant to introduce the word ‘we’ unless we are representing our project or office to an outside or strengthening the team spirit. Reading Creative Industries policy reports, one may get the impression that cooperation is in fact synonymous with a kind of generalized competitiveness (‘aspiration’ and ‘innovation’ are key values) that casually goes with a hierarchical structure ultimately regulating it. It seems that ‘we’ is only good for saying ‘We love theater’, but not for saying ‘We are tired (of this theatre)’. If we start seriously saying “we” to each other, we might organise or join a union, not to mention question the position of our bosses… this will be particularly tricky when we are our own managers and perhaps even bosses. So how do we move a ‘self’ towards a ‘we’ and vice versa, carefully enough?
Care of the Self
To handle the self with care; to strategically point at a place that is singular, designate an impossible autonomous zone, to work on it and arrive at various temporary places of ‘self’ via conversations, friendships, collectivity, yet to keep moving and sometimes even to move in strange ways (secret dancing). To not be sure what one is pointing at yet, to allow new referents to emerge on the way to work and on the way to the bathroom: of course this will only work if our referents become shared with others. We can’t crack the ‘self’ without the ‘we’, and vice versa… Our reflexivity needs to allow us to become ever more vulnerable to others, in finding complicities through which we can share a voice and vocabulary for a while.
The vulnerability of that notion of the self, of our very bodies and subjective spaces, makes it necessary to find a balance between proliferating and stabilising, between reflexivity and opening. As a resonant device or interface, ‘self’ is a name which clothes things that want to be able to respond, a fine discursive tissue that envelops our curious and fragile hope for autonomy.
In the midst of these difficulties of relating to the self, can we maybe work on our capacities for connectivity in order to enable those non-profit complicities we crave? Beyond the assembly line of semiological production and the modes of competition we are so used to, can putting ‘self’ into chains (- – -) be paradoxically liberating? How might we learn to face absurdity together, and begin to care for ourselves otherwise (5) – through caring for each other?
Could we perhaps de-frame the self to a point where it dissipates and reveals its soft edges, as a notion as well as a body? How can we learn to attune the temporalities of our productive self to that of our body, not locking it in, but assigning it a somatic terrain that needs to be given account of, as changing yet constant frame of reference? 
 
Some kind of self that jumps registers, bodies, tissues, and trains in order to keep track of certain thoughts and desires, whilst undoing their effects in a next step. The verbal and hyphenated self may be the kind that gets (itself) lost (for example, on a train): sitting still yet moving, walking relative to many other movements yet with a sense of orientation, dealing with changes of direction, with delays and encounters, with others, always touching on something, as if there was no center or time to lose, always doubling up on its referents, ever canceling itself out in the process. Not a big move, but some sense of body that is attuned to a different sensitivity… Rehearsing self to a point of disintegration, whereby the word becomes the element of a strange rhythm, a tune ‘we’ move to…
footnotes:
(1) Foucault, M. (1978) ‘Governmentality’, in Burchell, G, C. Gordon and P. Miller. (eds.) Trans. Pasquino, P. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p.87 
(2) Guattari, F.; Rolnik, S. (2007) Micropolitiques. Paris: Les Empecheurs de Penser en Rond/Seuil, p. 23. 
(3) Berardi, F. (Bifo) (2003) ‘What is the meaning of autonomy today’, in Republicart, webjournal. [<a href="http://www.republicart.net/disc/realpublicspaces/berardi01_en.htm">http://www.republicart.net/disc/realpublicspace…</a>] 
(4) see for example Sanchez Cedillo, R. (2007) ‘Movements, Institutions, New Militancy’, in Transversal, webjournal. {<a href="http://eipcp.net/transversal/0707/sanchez/en">http://eipcp.net/transversal/0707/sanchez/en</a>] and the entry ‘Radical Diplomacy’, this volume. 
(5) Cf, for Example: Not the ascetic training of self-help (Victorian Industriousness) or the self wired up with a fitness or career machine, nor the ‘self’ that shifts and gets shifted around by airplane, in the same way capital flows between stock exchanges and over shop counters. 2008-12-13T16:44:26Z 48 true self

2008-12-13T16:45:59Z