Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2014, volume 32, pages 4 – 11

doi:10.1068/d3201int

Guest editorial

Governing the resilient cityAddressing risks caused by global climate change, Mike Davis (2010) recently declared the city to be “its own solution”. While for Davis this meant investing in the city’s social infrastructure as a way to reduce vulnerability to climate change and erase its uneven geographies, it is the scale of his proposed solutions that now stands out. In the face of climate change, and the failure of international efforts to curb carbon emissions, the city is now viewed as the most pressing and promising site for anticipating and addressing uncertain futures. To the extent that we inhabit a ‘planetary urbanism’, in which the city is the site of metabolic exchanges that are global in reach and extent, the future of humanity is increasingly understood in terms of the city’s social organization and physical design.

Today Davis’s scalar arguments are something of a truism, as cities across the world experiment with new infrastructures and technologies designed to respond to a world of new threats that are simultaneously social, political, and environmental. In some cases these are merely thought experiments, such as the 2010 ‘Rising Currents’ exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, one among countless efforts to imagine and design the ‘resilient’ city (see Braun, this issue). In other cases these experiments are real-time responses to concrete events, as occurred during Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, events which placed in stark relief the differential vulnerability of cities, neighborhoods, and specific populations to unexpected adversity. At still other sites, such as the Grand Paris initiative launched by the former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, urban planners, philosophers, climate scientists, and architects are working together to design and implement concrete changes to urban form. In this ‘post-Kyoto’ Paris a cavalcade of green roofs, urban forests, techno-economic research clusters, and airports would be connected into a decentralized, seamless, and well-policed metropolitan fabric, stitched together by a high-speed automated super-metro whose construction is to begin later in 2014.(1) Perhaps more important than any one design, event, or plan has been the pervasive imagining of cities as integrated socioecological networks, intimately tied to global systems in a recursive process in which cities are understood as at once transformative agents and vulnerable subjects, a relationship played out in different ways across local and international divisions of labor, from New York City to Bombay.

Running through each design, plan, or experiment is not just the same presupposition—that cities are integrated and extended socioecological networks—but also the same problem: how to govern this totality. Through what modes of arranging and ordering urban life might resilience be achieved? What is this life that is imagined, and how is it to be constructed? How does one field events, such that urban life can carry on in a particular form? The papers in this theme issue all circle around a shared recognition that the question of the ‘resilient’, ‘sustainable’, or ‘ecological’ city is also, and significantly, a question of government.(2) But the perspectives and critical tools they bring to the question vary. Might it be that in the context of the Anthropocene—with its strange spatiotemporalities and novel sociotechnical and ecological risks—what government is, and how it works, is undergoing a marked transformation? Or do new practices and techniques merely represent the extension and deepening of existing modes of administering life? A common thesis is that while in the past,

(1) Ministère de l’Égalité des Territoires et du Logement, 2013, “Grand Paris”, http://www.territoires.gouv.fr/Grand-Paris(2) In this guest editorial, we understand resilience as a mode of governing the ‘ecological’ city.

Guest editorial 5

technologies of government sought to prevent this or that specific crisis, projecting a utopian future beyond all crises, today government evokes and seeks to manage an inherently volatile world in which crisis is ubiquitous and the disaster-to-come is inevitable. By this view, the ‘beyond’ is forever deferred, and crisis is no longer that which is to be warded off, eliminated, or overcome, but that which must be absorbed, attenuated, and survived. Indeed, for Giorgio Agamben (2011), administration (oikonomia) today enacts precisely this infinite deferral, wherein being is reduced to the indefinite extension of the present. From oyster farms designed to absorb storm surges to automatic sensors designed to respond to changing flows of people, information, or energy, administration seeks to continuously reorder systems so as to sustain them, in a movement that is as incessant as it is aimless. For others, including some of the authors in this theme issue, one of the defining aspects of resilience as a mode of government is not just the government of integrated and highly technologized socioecological systems, but government through such systems, such that it is no longer clear that government in any way seeks to produce subjects as it did before. Government, from this view, is as much about managing circulation and modulating flows as it is about molding individuals.

The goal of the papers in this issue is to begin to map the logics and logistics of resilient or ecological urbanism—to outline resilient urbanism as a set of discourses, practices, architectural forms, regulations, laws, knowledges, technologies, and designs that together and in their relations form what Foucault called a dispositif or apparatus.(3) We will say more about this below, but wish to highlight from the start the centrality of the last two elements, technology and design, in emerging modes of government. Importantly, the goal in these papers is also to begin to imagine how such a dispositif might be inhabited, occupied, appropriated, or experimented with as part of a new politics of and for the Anthropocene. The analysis of any dispositif of government always runs the risk of overstating its coherence and effectivity, and overlooking its failures, gaps, and openings. Gilles Deleuze (1988) insisted that a dispositif be seen as a “multilinear ensemble”, composed of lines that are “subject to changes in direction, bifurcating and forked, and subject to drifting”. One must position oneself on these lines, he argued, attentive to their possibilities. Likewise, in his essay concluding this theme issue, Agamben asks whether today it has become necessary to imagine not a constituent power, but a destituent power that deactivates or profanes the dispositif—that renders its disparate elements and relations inoperative, opening them to ‘new possible use’. Amid the dispositifs of the ecological city, what might it mean to do so?

DispositifWhy do we use the concept dispositif? What is its specific power, and what does it enable us to see or imagine at this particular juncture?

Although the concept is often attributed to Michel Foucault, it has been taken up in different ways by subsequent writers, like Deleuze and Agamben, and these differences are evident in the papers that follow. Foucault (1980a) used the term to name the network of discourses, practices, and institutions, variable across space and time, by which life was governed. For Foucault, government did not emanate from an external source, or sovereign power, as something imposed ‘on’ life from the outside. Rather, it was immanent to the elements of these networks and the relations drawn between them—in and through them ‘life’ was at once known and made available to power. Government thus named a double operation, one in which life was administered and managed and, in the same movement, imagined and constructed as governable. Crucially, for Foucault, neither was there an essential or authentic life that existed prior to, or outside, the elements and relations of a particular dispositif, nor was the ‘life’ constructed one that followed a plan or intention set out in advance.

(3) Dispositif is often rendered in English as ‘apparatus’, especially in translations of Agamben’s recent work (eg, 2009).

6 Guest editorial

Indeed, we argue that the unique force and purchase of Foucault’s concept is best expressed in his understanding of government as a provisional or ad hoc arrangement that comes together in response to crises of one sort or another:

“ [a dispositif] has as its major function at a given historical moment that of responding to an urgent need. The dispositif thus has a dominant strategic function” (Foucault, 1980a, page 194).

Factory regimes, prison architecture, urban sanitation, street lighting, wide boulevards—each corresponded with and presupposed other actions and forces: insurrection, riots, disease, crime. Individually and together these governmental forms can be read as a history of attempts to manage and prevent crises, provisionally stitching together disparate knowledge, practices, and designs in order to cope with situations as they arose. As the papers in this theme issue show, government is not synonymous with order; instead, it names an ongoing activity or operation: to manage, to administer, to respond, to order. Like a centuries-long chess game, techniques of government are always forced and contingent, reordering an order that is always out of order. Only retrospectively do these moves appear to be part of a plan devised in advance.

Given Foucault’s emphasis, it should come as no surprise that Agamben (2009; 2011) has in recent work linked the concept dispositif (apparatus) directly to Martin Heidegger’s (1977) notion of Gestell—an ordering which did not cover over an essential or natural order, so much as install or effect order. For Agamben, this mode of ordering must be understood as fundamentally biopolitical insofar as it continuously produces and maintains a separation of ‘life’ from its form or use, placing it in a separate sphere as so much ‘stuff’ to be administered. What Agamben names ‘bare life’—similar to what Heidegger called ‘standing reserve’—is nothing other than this act of separation. Where Agamben differs from Foucault is in his extension of government to name a historical–metaphysical paradigm that stretches from the ancient Greeks to the present. Crucially, this is not to posit an ahistorical and continuous mode of governing from Aristotle to Karen Quinlan. Agamben, after all, is careful to acknowledge the historical and geographical nature of specific biopolitical regimes. Rather, it is to identify in government a key operation, always different in time and space, which separates life from its use and preserves it in its separation, reordering bodies, gestures, spaces, and affects to particular ends. For this reason government can be said to be devoid of any foundation in being: it names an operation, not a ground.

Whether this operation is enacted in the ecological city, and if enacted, how so, are questions explored in the papers that follow. In recent work, Agamben has underlined the central role played by technical objects and technological systems in the activity of government today, and this provides one part of the answer given by contributors to this issue. A computer, a cellphone, an electrical grid, each of these things carries and discloses a relation to the world; in each a history, a set of power relations, and a way of life are spoken. In a fashion similar to Bernard Stiegler (1998), Agamben inverts the ‘who’ and the ‘what’, such that technics becomes the ‘who’ to the ‘what’ of the human as much as, or more than, the inverse. Once we begin to use a cell phone, Agamben insists, we are in a new world in which what ‘life’ is, and what it can be, has been irrevocably changed, and in which subjectification works in new and different ways. This is precisely why Heidegger—a strong influence on both Stiegler and Agamben—argued so vigorously against an anthropological or instrumental understanding of technology. Technology is not something that we invent and employ as a means to an end: it shapes us as much as we shape it. With each device, and with each technological system, come new modes of ordering life.

Agamben’s emphasis on technology—on the question of technology—is part of what allows him to understand government in historical terms. In his expansion of the concept

Guest editorial 7

beyond Foucault’s work on hospitals, prisons, and schools to include everyday technical devices such as phones, computers, and the systems of which they are part, he evokes a shift toward a more contemporary mode of government, perhaps paralleling the shift registered by Deleuze from the spaces of enclosure that characterized discipline to the space of the open environment that characterizes ‘societies of control’. Whereas enclosure concentrated, distributed, and ordered subjects and objects so as to compose a productive force—the school, factory, and barracks being its paradigmatic forms—the projects underway to make cities resilient recalibrate subject and object into complex adaptive systems, ‘reuniting’ humans and nature in a cybernetic meshwork that is simultaneously technical, biological, and geophysical, and that is characterized above all else by communication in and across these domains. Is this not the mode of government proper to the Anthropocene? Insofar as we today inhabit a world in which political, technological, and ecological systems are seen to feed back into each other in a continuous, crisis-ridden manner, is not government precisely the administration of flows? Each paper takes up this proposition in a different way, but what is common to all is the idea that government today seeks to modulate flows and affects as much, or even more than, it seeks to produce subjects who understand and relate to themselves in a particular manner.(4)

While the authors of the following papers agree that the outlines of these forms of administration are clearly discernable in the ecological city, they agree less about their novelty. Recalling the late 19th-century writings of the Spanish engineer Ildfonso Cerdá, Ross Adams finds the current coupling of ecology and urbanization to be entirely consistent with early understandings of urbanization in terms of perpetual circulation. Indeed, insofar as urbanization is understood to immediately encompass the ‘rural’ (and vice versa), and insofar as it is characterized first and foremost by circulation, ecological urbanism proposes nothing other than reconstructing nature as urbanization, along with the need to simultaneously facilitate and govern its internal flows. For Cerdá, the dream of urbanization is that of the ‘pure interior’, in which nature must be made to circulate and by which nature comes to be seen as at once necessary and pathological to our existence. Ecological urbanization is thus at once presupposed by urbanization itself, and necessarily governed through an ‘immunological’ paradigm of administration that safeguards life from threats incubating within it.

In their papers Jennifer Gabrys and Bruce Braun see the resilient or ecological city as inaugurating a unique network of elements and relations, even if many elements are not themselves novel. Arguably, this is consistent with Foucault’s emphasis on a dispositif as the combination or gathering of disparate elements into a system of relation. Some of these elements are the result of responses to earlier crises, others are attempts to escape such orderings, and still others were previously coded as neither. For Gabrys, the networked life of ‘smart cities’ reveals a transformation in what Foucault (2008) called ‘environmental’ government. Looking in particular at MIT’s and Cisco’s joint Connected Sustainable Cities plan, she finds projected a cybernetic environment of ubiquitous computational feedback and communication, and new forms of governance that operate in and through the circulation and processing of real-time data. Far from homo economicus, the citizen is herein called upon as a ‘sensing node’ within an integrated city-wide system that combines infrastructure, information, and political participation and whose efficiency is ensured through the constant generation and reporting of actionable data. In this ‘biopolitics 2.0’, ‘citizen sensors’ log air pollution levels on their commute while devices coordinate their evening dinner, each participating as relays in the continuous maintenance of an efficient, intelligent urban system (4) Reflecting competing interpretations and political strategies, the (non)subject of these flows has been variously referred to as the Bloom (Tiqqun, 2012), dividual (Deleuze, 1995), ambividual (Gabrys, this issue), or, simply, dynamic system–environment coupling in the straightforward terms of cybernetics (Clarke and Hansen, 2009).

8 Guest editorial

(except of course, when it is not, and smart bikes end up in the creek). Through two vignettes, Braun shows resilient urbanism to draw together very different techniques that at first glance have very little in common: on the one hand, technologies that give real-time feedback and that operate on us even as we operate them, and on the other, the reimagining and redesign of the environment as ‘critical infrastructure’, perhaps echoing Cerdá’s 19th-century dream of the ‘pure interior’. For Braun, resilience as a mode of government draws diverse techniques into a system of relation, a new dispositif that is heterogenous and decentered, continuously incorporating elements that are not of its own design.

Destituent power? Deactivation, profanation, and ‘new use’What approach are we to take to this new dispositif? What tasks does it pose for thought? And what new spaces and opportunities does it open for politics?

We argue that a critical mistake is made whenever we imagine a dispositif as a coherent and unified totality. Or, when we evaluate a dispositif in moral terms as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Understood as a network of relations between elements, its forms of analysis are not critique, but investigation, mapping, and the vignette. About a dispositif we should ask: how does it work? (5) What operations does it perform? What kinds of life does it require and produce? Where are the cracks, the lines of fracture? How to make it not work? The point is not to situate ourselves outside its elements and relations in order to compile its atrocities one by one, nor to expose its repressions so as to peel them away and unveil a true life hidden beneath their orderings. There is no secret to be revealed, no foundation or ground that can be uncovered and returned to. Instead, we argue that the task of thought is to locate ourselves within this world, mapping it so as to get to know it, to construct other lines that, in their elaboration and connections, take the map with them. Like hackers, we must get to know the network from within and try to locate its exploits.

How then does it work and what are its effects? To dwell in the Anthropocene, to experiment with its indeterminate and often terrifying futures, is to seek answers to this question. One answer—a key one—is that as a mode of government, resilience works to restrict and blunt the political. That is, by positing a crisis-laden future, without end and without hope of redemption, the resilience dispositif paradoxically works to maintain the homogenous time of the present.(6) Likewise, if life is now seen as the nonpolitical—as merely that which must be governed so as to preserve and protect it—then the political can only appear to be outside of life, as a norm or law to be applied to life, as resistance in the name of a natural life, or as the awaiting of an unknown salvational event somewhere in the future. “The apocalypse reveals its own aim”, Deleuze wrote, “to disconnect us from the world and from ourselves” (1998, page 49; cf Swyngedouw, 2010).

The last paper, by Agamben, begins to chart a response to this condition. Based on a 2013 lecture in central France, it develops the notion of ‘destitution’ or ‘destituent power’. For Agamben, destituent power is not merely another name for existing concepts—use, profanation, deactivation, form-of-life, the Ungovernable—but rather what all of these have in common. For Agamben, echoing Walter Benjamin (1968), the classical definitions of revolution and politics remain fully caught within the ‘governmental machine’ and, no matter what their historical manifestation, are fated to reproduce its structure, in an eternal repetition (5) These are the questions motivating Foucault’s method described in the lectures at the Collège de France: “Let us not, therefore, ask why certain people want to dominate, what they seek, what is their overall strategy. Let us ask, instead, how things work at the level of on-going subjugation, at the level of those continuous and uninterrupted processes which subject our bodies, govern our gestures, dictate our behaviors, etc” (1980b, page 97).(6) Resilience, as a mode of government, can be said to operate as a katechon, continuously withholding and deferring the possibility of exiting the governmental paradigm entirely (Agamben, 2011; see also Schmitt, 2006; Taubes, 2009).

Guest editorial 9

that finds ever new ways to separate life from its form. Destituent power, which Agamben has only just begun to elaborate, locates the horizon of politics in the breaking out of this cycle, and breaking free of classical politics, with its restrictive binaries of inside–outside, negation–construction, life–politics.

Destituent power does not affirm one side of these pairs, nor does it seek merely to join them: rather it names a using of the world ‘as not’ that itself deactivates the governmental machine that produces and sustains them as separate in the first place. To destitute, or use, a dispositif is thus to neutralize its governmental operation, to return to common use what has been separated in it.(7) It is not the posing of a new law. Nor is it another word for negation. Even less is it the realization of a world that is already here, waiting to be uncovered and seized by the ‘multitude’. Against the denial of world effected by Gestell, it is instead the power ‘to world’—to be in the world, to have and form a world, to be in common with others, humans and nonhumans, to love, to struggle, to make history. Destituent power and profanation are not acts on the world, but the elaboration of worlds, putting to new use the ‘factical’ conditions into which we are thrown. Destitution is thus never a final form, but a form-of-life.

Critics are sure to find this approach too limited, too naïve, too anarchic, or too optimistic to address today’s problems and populations. It is certainly not the only approach being imagined, nor that to which all papers in this theme issue directly point. But the power of a ‘destituent’ power is not difficult to imagine, just as possible ways to use a dispositif are not difficult to identify. Consider the repurposing of schools, Federal Emergency Management Agency supplies, and streets into autonomous organizing centers, shared supply banks, and communal street kitchens in New York City neighborhoods devastated by Hurricane Sandy. Poststorm these efforts have been extolled and promoted, in a vision that portrays self-organizing neighborhoods and communities as ‘vital systems’ equally critical to the city’s resilience as the wetlands or 4G networks with which they are coupled.(8) Yet, perhaps as much as the occupied parks and squares of 2011, these post-Sandy moments also provided images of another life—a life in common—that illuminated, concretely and immediately, what it might take to construct pathways out of the governmental paradigm. In the Anthropocene there is neither reason nor sense in waiting for the next breakdown or catastrophic event: if government appears as an endless deferral of the end and of any hope of redemption, perhaps what Rebecca Solnit (2009) calls “paradise in hell” can be constructed not just in disasters, but anywhere, at any moment. If the function of resilience qua dispositif is ultimately to right a foundering ship—or, as cochair of the post-Sandy New York commission on long-term resilience put it, “to avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable” (Rodin, 2013)— might it be possible to use techniques gathered toward that end … as not? Might we take advantage, for example, of city-run community emergency response trainings,(9) not to help get the Stock Exchange back online, but to construct new collectives and elaborate new worlds that are not about sustaining the present order?

Four weeks after Sandy, invoking sanitation ordinances similar to those used to evict occupiers in Zuccotti Park, New York, Mayor Bloomberg called upon the NYPD to close remaining outdoor sites of relief organization. Bloomberg’s reaction to street kitchens that

(7) One does not ‘resist’ resilience, as Neocleous (2013) suggests; rather, its apparatuses must be profaned.(8) We disagree with those readings of resilience that see it as simply reproducing the ‘self-reliant’ and ‘adaptive’ subject of neoliberalism (Joseph, 2013; Neocleous, 2013). Insofar as it seeks to connect citizens to their neighbors, skills, and resources, resilience as a mode of government may paradoxically produce conditions for the dismantling of this subject.(9) NYC’s Office of Emergency Management runs a 10-week training program for groups to become Community Emergency Response Teams. http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/get_involved/cert.shtml

10 Guest editorial

continued on past the official ‘recovery period’ provided ample evidence of the threat these new territories posed, and evidence also of the fact that any form-of-life must become a force capable of enduring. If, as the resilience dispositif lays bare, government is the material ordering and conservation of a certain way of life, really exiting that paradigm—continuing on past the initial joyful days of an uprising or the spontaneous communal moments after a hurricane—may require the material organization of forms-of-life as forces, lest the need to go back to work leaves us hostage to an order upon which even our basic survival depends. At a larger scale, this could entail organizing profane existences and practices into a plane of consistency, one that does not reinstantiate government, but rather renders circulation ungovernable.(10) How might we do the latter, while warding off the former?

Citizen sensors, smart ovens, a global power grid, oyster farms to ring Manhattan, backyard beekeepers: working at the level of connection and circulation, the ecological city reconnects us to the world while denying our capacity ‘to world’. The papers that follow take this contradiction as their task: tracing the emergence and stitching together of new modes of ordering and administering life, investigating their functions and effects, and beginning to imagine lines of flight—new territories—within their varied techniques, knowledges, and designs. A response to the resilience dispositif may not be a new what, but an ethics or care for the how in every situation: how to deactivate the governmental aspect of any thing and open up new possibilities of use? What will we use, what will we leave idle, what will we destroy? How to take care of each other? How to remediate toxic soil? How to live in a flood zone? How to erase debt records, property deeds? How to ward off the separation of life from its form, and continue to do so? How to not just survive the Anthropocene, but dwell in it?

Stephanie Wakefield, Department of Earth and Environmental Science, City University of New York Graduate Center

Bruce Braun, Department of Geography, Environment, and Science, University of MinnesotaReferencesAdams R, 2014, “Natura Urbans, Natura Urbanat: ecological urbanism, circulation, and the

immunization of nature” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32 12–29Agamben, G, 2009, “What is an apparatus?” in What is an Apparatus? And Other Essays translated

by D Kishik, S Pedatella (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA) pp 1–24Agamben, G, 2011 The Kingdom and the Glory: For a Theological Genealogy of Economy and

Government (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA)Benjamin, W 1968 Illuminations (Harcourt, New York)Braun B, 2014, “A new urban dispositif? Governing life in an age of climate change” Environment

and Planning D: Society and Space 32 49–64Clarke B, M Hansen, 2009 Emergence and Embodiment: New Essays on Second-order Systems

Theory (Duke University Press, Durham, NC)Davis M, 2010, “Who will build the ark?” New Left Review 61 10–25Deleuze G, 1988, “What is a dispositif?”, in Michel Foucault, Philosopher Ed. T Armstrong

(Routledge, New York) pp 159–168Deleuze G, 1995, “Postscript on the control societies”, in Negotiations translated by M Joughin

(Columbia University Press, New York) 177–182Deleuze G, Guattari F, 1987 A Thousand Plateaus translated by B Massumi (University of

Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)Foucault M, 1980a “The confession of the flesh”, in Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and

Other Writings 1972–1977) Ed. C Gordon, translated by C Gordon, L Marshall, J Mepham, K Soper (Vintage, New York) pp 194–228

(10) Deleuze and Félix Guattari (1987, page 243) suggest something similar, noting that what matters is “the way in which decoded and deterritorialized flows boost one another, accelerate their shared escape and augment or stoke their quanta”.

Guest editorial 11

Foucault F, 1980b, “Two lectures (lecture one: 7 January 1976)”, in Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 Ed. C Gordon, translated by C Gordon, L Marshall, J Mepham, K Soper (Vintage, New York) pp 78–108

Foucault F, 2008 The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978–1979 translated by G Burchell (Palgrave Macmillan, New York)

Gabrys J, 2014, “Programming environments: environmentality and citizen sensing in the smart city” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32 30–48

Heidegger M, 1977, “The question concerning technology”, in The Question Concerning Technology translated by W Lovitt (Harper and Row, New York) pp 3–35

Joseph J, 2013, “Resilience as embedded neoliberalism: a governmentality approach” Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses 1 38–52

Neocleous M, 2013, “Resisting resilience” Radical Philosophy 178 2–7Rodin J, 2013, “Rebound: building a more resilient world” Huffington Post 23 January,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judith-rodin/rebound-building-a-more-r_b_2526870.htmlSchmitt C, 2006 The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of Jus Publicum Europaeum

translated by G L Ulmen (Telos Press, Candor, NY)Solnit R, 2009 A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster

(Viking, New York)Stiegler B, 1998 Technics and Time: The Fault of Epimetheus (Stanford University Press,

Stanford, CA)Swyngedouw E, 2010, “Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of climate

change” Theory, Culture and Society 27 213–232Taubes J, 2009 Occidental Eschatology translated by D Ratmoko (Stanford University Press,

Stanford, CA)Tiqqun, 2012 Theory of Bloom translated by R Hurley (LBC Books, Oakland, CA)