Bernard Stiegler and Urban Space

In this contribution to our Reading and Resource Lists series, David Capener introduces a selection of texts by the philosopher Bernard Stiegler.

In the late 1970s Bernard Stiegler was arrested for armed robbery and imprisoned. Whilst on hunger strike he was given his own cell where, in solitude, he began to study philosophy until his release in 1983. By 1993, under the supervision of Jacques Derrida, he completed his PhD, which was published a year later as Volume One of the Technics and Time series. Stiegler went on to become one of the most influential philosophers of the twenty-first century.

In the later part of his career, Stiegler sought to ground his philosophy in the urban realm in a project in the Plaine Commune area of Greater Paris. Plaine Commune is an area where poverty affects one in three households and increased industrial automation has led to high levels of unemployment. While critical of the role that new technologies play such as invasive data gathering, Stiegler firmly believed that the same technologies could and should be implemented for social good, where wealth could be redistributed through what he called a “contributory economy”. He described this as a “borough-wide experimentation with a view to generating and supporting real social innovation opening the way to a new macro-economy where industrialists, financiers, universities, artists, governments and local politicians work in concert, and with the inhabitants… The objective is ultimately to set up an economy based on a “contributory income.”1Clément Morlat, Olivier Landau, Théo Sentis, Franck Cormerais, Anne Alombert, and Michał Krzykawski, “Contributory Economy, Territorial Capacitation Processes and New Accounting Methods,” in Bifurcate: ‘There is no Alternative,’ ed. Bernard Stiegler with the Internation collective (London: Open Humanities Press, 2021), 96.  In short, a contributory economy is one where wealth and skills are generated for the good of the local community — a kind of micro-economy facilitated by the very technologies that have helped to create unemployment.

Stiegler tried to make sense of the world by doing philosophy. Like Marx, for Stiegler the world must become philosophical and philosophy must become worldly.

The following reading list is designed to give you an introduction to some of the foundational concepts in Stiegler’s work. This is not an exhaustive list but one that seeks to show how Stiegler’s concepts might help us think through the production of space in our age of contemporary algorithmic technology.

Stiegler, Bernard. Taking Care of Youth and The Generations. Trans. Stephen Barker. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010

One of Stiegler’s foundational concepts that grounds all of his work in the urban is grammartization. This is a process that Stiegler, following Derrida and Sylvain Auroux, defines as the exteriorization of memory in the form of marks and traces — “the material spatialization of discourse’s temporality.”2Bernard Stiegler, Taking Care of the Youth and Generations, trans. Stephen Barker (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010), 145. Grammartization roots Stiegler’s thought in the urban because he understands the history of the city as a history of new forms of grammartization. For example, the invention of the alphabet is the condition of the possibility of the Greek city-state in that without the possibility to record, document and distribute the laws of urban life the city could not function.3Philosophising by Accident, Interviews with Elie During, trans and ed. Benoit Dillet (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017), 59.  In the same way, much of modern everyday life in the city could not function without forms of grammartization like the codes and algorithms that facilitate many of the technologies like camera phone technology that I give below. For Stiegler these kinds of endosomatic technologies produce new ways of being in the world because they act as forms of tertiary retention — a kind of memory that exists external to the human body but is constitutive of biological memory. For Stiegler this kind of external memory cannot be separated from biological memory. They are not two separate and distinct types of memory — they are memory. The following section introduces the concept of tertiary retention.

Stiegler, Bernard. Technics and Time: 3. Cinematic Time and the Question of Malaise. Trans. Stephen Barker. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011

 The concept of tertiary retention is another of Stiegler’s key concepts that is resolutely spatial. Stiegler is clear, “tertiary retention is … spatial”, and as such it can be argued that the city is both a memory support and is constitutive of memory. This is important in our age of contemporary algorithmic technology when digital technologies mediate our experience of the city and do so in ways that often operate below the threshold of human consciousness. 4Bernard Stiegler, Technics And Time 3 (Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ. Press, 2011) 73.

The example of the smartphone camera, in particular the iPhone 11 and subsequent versions, is useful as it foregrounds the way in which our perception and experience of everyday life is increasingly becoming governed by algorithmic technologies that operate below the threshold of human perception, complicating the relationship between the endo- and exosomatic and mediating our experience of everyday life by producing new supply chains of perception. The iPhone 13 and 13 Mini, iPhone 13 Pro and 13 Pro Max, iPad Mini (6th generation) and iPhone SE (3rd generation) all contain Apple’s 64-bit “neural processing unit”, the A15 Bionic chip.5“Apple A15 Bionic Powers iPhone 13 and iPad Mini,” Tom’s Hardware, https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/ipad-iphone-13-a15-bionic. Accessed May 5 2022.  The A15 chip is central to what Apple calls “Deep Fusion.”6“Deep Fusion: understanding the technology behind Apple iPhone 11’s new camera capabilities,” 91mobiles, https://www.91mobiles.com/hub/deep-fusion-understanding-the-technology-behind-apple-iphone-11s-new-camera-capabilities/. Accessed May 5, 2022. According to Apple, the chip can process “15.8 trillion operations per second.” For example, on the iPhone 11 (using the A13 Bionic chip) any image is not taken as one image but is rather a burst of nine shots. The nine shots comprise of “four fast exposure photos, four secondary photos and a single long exposure photo.”7“Deep Fusion: understanding the technology behind Apple iPhone 11’s new camera capabilities,” 91mobiles, https://www.91mobiles.com/hub/deep-fusion-understanding-the-technology-behind-apple-iphone-11s-new-camera-capabilities/. Accessed May 5, 2022. Using Deep Fusion the phone combines the images to produce the “best” image — “best” being an aesthetic category determined by Apple. Importantly, this process of real-time editing starts before the shutter button is pressed.

The first eight shots take place before the shutter is pressed. Once the shutter is pressed the iPhone takes one single long exposure shot (somewhere below 1/2 or 1/6th of a second). In the time it takes between the opening of the camera application and the final long exposure shot being taken the A13 chip has analysed 24 million pixels selecting the “best” individual pixels from each of the nine shots to produce a single image. The whole process takes about one second. The A13 chip uses its predictive algorithm to sort through each individual pixel to produce an image that has the “best contrast, level of sharpness, fidelity, dynamic range, colour accuracy, white balance, brightness … higher dynamic range, incredibly high levels of intricate details, excellent low light imaging, low levels of noise and … accuracy of colours.”8“Deep Fusion: understanding the technology behind Apple iPhone 11’s new camera capabilities,” 91mobiles, https://www.91mobiles.com/hub/deep-fusion-understanding-the-technology-behind-apple-iphone-11s-new-camera-capabilities/. Accessed May 5, 2022.

The iPhone camera is a kind of tertiary retention through which everyday life is mediated. It is a form of memory storage that is external to but constitutive of human memory. Other examples would be the iCal app on the iPhone, a Facebook timeline, or a Twitter feed. This third kind of memory that is exterior to the human body, and as such is spatial, aids the recall of specific memories — I no longer need to remember the meeting I have tomorrow because my calendar will remind me. What is important for Stiegler is that tertiary retention is constitutive of primary retention. Using the example of a turntable, Stiegler writes: “You only have to listen twice to the same melody to see that between the two auditions, consciousness (the ear, here) never hears the same thing … because the ear of the second audition has been affected by the first.”9Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 3. Cinematic Time and the Question of Malaise, trans. Stephen Barker (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011), 3.

That I can perceive the same melody twice (or look repeatedly at the same image on Instagram), but at each audition experience something different, means that my perception of the melody (or the image) is not constituted by primary retention but is in fact constituted by tertiary retention.10See Ben Roberts, “Cinema as Mnemotechnics: Bernard Stiegler and the Industrialization of Memory”,  Angelaki 11, no.1 (2006): 55–63. That tertiary retention devices are spatial and digital is of great significance for spatial production in our age of contemporary digital technology for it means that the possibility exists for their manipulation.11Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 3. Cinematic Time and the Question of Malaise, trans. Stephen Barker (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011), 73. The speed at which digital tertiary retention devices operate, the access they have on our immediate experiences — where we go, what we buy, what we think, what we like — and, their ability to record, remember and process events in real-time, changes our modes of being in everyday life. The selection process operating between secondary retentions and tertiary retentions is short-circuited.12Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 2. Disorientation, trans. Stephen Barker (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009), 116. It is important to note that Stiegler does not consider these forms of exterior memory as simply totems of memory that are used as memory aids, but rather as themselves constitutive of memory.

The digital exteriorization of memory is not new, but our contemporary technological condition has pushed it to a new stage.13Yuk Hui, “On the Synthesis of Social Memories,” in Memory in Motion Archives, Technology, and the Social, ed. Ina Blom, Trond Lundemo, and Eivind Røssaak (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2017), 315. “Spatiotemporal distance between those recalling and what is recalled is collapsed, and a memory is iteratively reterritorialized in the moments of its recollection, over-determining it with the metadata of capture, storage and retrieval.” This is the automatic-everyday where we are sold the myth that our digital prostheses are opening out a world of possibilities when in fact, according to a specific and ever-changing grid of algorithmic governance, they are closing it down. The automatic everyday is a process that simultaneously operates at multiple scales from the planetary to the urban to the neurological. At the scale of the urban the city has become the veil of secrecy that digital capitalism needs in order to survive, and the currency of this new city is attention.14Orit Halpern, Beautiful Data. A History of Vision and Reason since 1945 (Durham: Duke University Press, 2014) 3.

Stiegler, Bernard. Technics and Time: 1. The Fault of Epimetheus. Trans. Richard Beardsworth and George Collins. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998

All of Stiegler’s work is based on the foundational concept that the human is an invention of technology. The human does not just invent technology, but the human is itself an invention of technology — “the invention of the human is technics.”15Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 1. The Fault of Epimetheus, trans. Richard Beardsworth and George Collins (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 137. Bernard Stiegler, Philosophising by Accident, Interviews with Elie During, trans. and ed. Benoit Dillet (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017), 59. This again is a resolutely spatial idea, for technology (that which is external to the human and is therefore spatial) is co-constitutive with the human —without technology there could be no evolution of the human. This idea leads Stiegler to conclude that when we think about human bodies we must not only think about biological organs, but we must also consider technical organs. The human does not exist apart from both biological and technical organs. Thus, for Stiegler the human is a biological and a technical invention. and “technics is the condition of culture,” and culture shapes technics.16Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 1. The Fault of Epimetheus, trans. Richard Beardsworth and George Collins (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 137. Bernard Stiegler, Philosophising by Accident, Interviews with Elie During, trans. and ed. Benoit Dillet (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017), 59. The co-constitutive biological and technical organs of human evolution must always be thought in the context of society.

Technology can be both the poison and the cure, however. For Stiegler, the technological object must not be thought apart from the social, biological and psychic context in which it emerges,  is used and is produced. To do so would be to go against the fundamental basis of his philosophy: the co-constitutive nature of the human and technology. The human is an invention. The human does not just invent technology — “the invention of the human is technics;” “technics is the condition of culture.”17Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 1. The Fault of Epimetheus, trans. Richard Beardsworth and George Collins (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 137. Bernard Stiegler, Philosophising by Accident, Interviews with Elie During, trans. and ed. Benoit Dillet (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017), 59. Thus, when we think about the evolution of human bodies we must not only think about biological organs, but we must also consider technical organs. The human does not exist apart from both biological and technical organs and to think through the implications of technology is to consider both organs. These concepts come together in a way that more fully captures the processes at work in our age of algorithmic technology in the term infrasomatic, which is a way of thinking through how the body becomes a constitutive infrastructure as part of a wider network of technological networks. So, the concept of pharmakon cannot be thought apart from the endosomatic, exosomatic and now the infrasomatic and the multiple scales of the biological, social and psychic organs of society across which the toxicity of our technological age works. This kind of multi-scalar thinking Stiegler calls organological in that it is a way of thinking technological processes across three fundamental organs of society. Stiegler himself is clear that “pharmacology” and “general organology” are the two concepts through which he tries to think technics.18Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 1. The Fault of Epimetheus, trans. Richard Beardsworth and George Collins (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 9. To think technics pharmacologically is to think both the toxic and curative potential of technology. To do so organologically is to understand that one must not think the technical object in isolation from a multitude of other scales across which toxicity operates and to which a cure must be prescribed.

Stiegler, Bernard. “Power, Powerlessness, Thinking, and Future.” Los Angeles Review of Books, October 18, 2015
Stiegler, Bernard. “Symptomatology of the Month of January 2015 in France.” In Stiegler, The Neganthropocene (London: Open Humanities Press, 2018), 64–75.

Stiegler uses the concepts endosomatisation and exosomatisation to explain the relationship the human body has with technology. He argues that the human is not just made up of biological organs that are internal to the body but that we are also made up of technical organs which are external to the body. To develop the idea of the co-constitutive nature of the human Stiegler introduces two concepts — endosomatic and exosomatic. Biological organs that are internal to the body he calls endosomatic, and technical organs that are external to the body he calls exosomatic organs. This special relationship that the human has with exosomatic organs means that the human is essentially a technical being and to be human means to “exceed… the biological” — put simply, to be human is to be more than the sum of our biological organs.19Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 1. The Fault of Epimetheus, trans. Richard Beardsworth and George Collins (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 50. The importance for Stiegler of exceeding the biological for understanding the production of the human in our age of contemporary technology cannot be overstated. Following André Leroi-Gourhan, he argues that the evolution of the human is co-originary with technology. There is no human outside of this co-constitutive relationship. Based on the idea of the co-constitutive nature of the human and using his concepts of organology and pharmacology, Stiegler tries to understand the shifts in technology produced by these biological and technical organs.

Stiegler, Bernard. Technics and Time: 2. Disorientation. Trans. Stephen Barker Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009

Stiegler uses the concept of pharmakon to describe the way that our technological condition has the potential to be both a poison and a cure. What he means by this is that a technological prosthesis gives back that which it takes away, it is both the remedy and the sickness. Code in the form of an image recognition algorithm can be used to both detect cancer but can also have a racial bias when the same technology is deployed in facial recognition. Stiegler takes the idea of pharmakon from Plato, who in Phaedrus uses the act of writing to show how the technological prosthesis of a writing implement can be both poison and cure. For Plato, the writing implement removes the need for memory practice and is therefore a poison. However, writing is also a cure in that it is also a remedy to memory loss in that writing as a technological supplement extends the scope of memory by exteriorizing it through the act of writing. Writing gives but it also takes away — this is pharmakon. Just as a pharmacist dispenses a cure for an illness the very same cure, should it be incorrectly prescribed, or taken incorrectly can become a poison — inherent in the ingredients of the pill are both the poison and the cure. Our age is a pharmacological age, Stiegler argues, and to adequately understand the technological processes at work is to think pharmacologically — to find and prescribe a therapeutic by which we might be able to counter the potential toxicity of our technological age.

As I have explained above, “pharmacology” and “general organology” are the two concepts through which Stiegler tries to think technics.20Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 2. Disorientation, trans. Stephen Barker (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009), 9. The question for Stiegler is how one might be able to find the therapeutic potential of a given technology. Coupled with this is the understanding that the prescription of a therapeutics cannot be found in the technology alone but must be thought across the biological, psychic and social organs of society (organology). Ultimately, the question of pharmacology is a question of hope, a question of the extent to which in our co-evolution with technical supplements we might find new and better ways of being in the world. This is a question that I contend is of significance to architects as contemporary technological systems become increasingly entangled with everyday life, calling into question the extent to which a right to the city is possible. It is a question of how the practice of architecture might become pharmacological in our age of contemporary digital technology. The practice of architecture as a pharmacology will require adequate methodologies that are capable of understanding the multiple levels upon which contemporary algorithmic technologies operate — I propose that the work of Stiegler offers one such methodology.

Stiegler, Bernard. The Neganthropocene. Ed. and trans. Daniel Ross. London: Open Humanities Press, 2018

As Edgar Morin has shown, communication and information are central to the struggle against entropy, be that physical, biological, informational or anthropomorphic.21Edgar Morin, Method: Towards a Study of Humankind: The Nature of Nature, trans. J. L. Roland Bélanger (Lausanne: Peter Lang), 300. Ultimately this “is the challenge to find a performative response adequate to all the systemic challenges arising in the face of contemporary concrescence.”22Bernard Stiegler, The Neganthropocene, ed. and trans. Daniel Ross (London: Open Humanities Press, 2018), 31. This Stiegler calls neganthropology which as defined above can be understood as a methodology capable of thinking the problems “posed by exosomatic evolution,” that is by the production of bodies by technics.23Bernard Stiegler, Paolo Vignola, and Mitra Azar, “Introduction — Decarbonization and Deproletarianization: Gagner Sa Vie in the Twenty-First Century,” in Bifurcate: ‘There is no Alternative’, ed. Bernard Stiegler with the Internation collective (London: Open Humanities Press, 2021), 18-45. Neganthropology is therefore an “economy of the pharmakon” and as such is an organology and therefore seeks to understand the biological, social and technical organs of society and their entropic or negentropic possibilities.24Bernard Stiegler, “For a Neganthropology of Automatic Society,” in Machine, by Thomas Pringle, Gertrud Koch and Bernard Stiegler (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2019), 40. Neganthropology therefore precedes the prescription of anti-entropic ways of being where anti-entropic “is a tendency towards structuration, diversification and the production of novelty.”25“Glossary,” Internation, https://www.internation.world/glossary, Accessed March 29, 2022.

Stiegler also emphasises the spatial nature of neganthropology by stating that it is a geography, which is to say that it must be thought as the expenditure of energy in relation to a context and a place.26The idea of neganthropology as geography is mentioned by Stiegler in “Escaping the Anthropocene,” in Bernard Stiegler, The Neganthropocene, ed. and trans. Daniel Ross (London: Open Humanities Press, 2018), 54. It is also further developed in Giacomo Gilmozzi, Olivier Landau, Bernard Stiegler, David M. Berry, Sara Baranzoni, Pierre Clergue, and Anne Alombert , “Localities, Territories and Urbanities in the Age of Platforms and Faced with the Challenges of the Anthropocene Era ,” in Bifurcate: ‘There is no Alternative’, ed. Bernard Stiegler with the Internation collective (London: Open Humanities Press, 2021), 45–62. That neganthropology is a geography is important as it means that entropic and negentropic rhythms are always produced in relation to a locality, meaning that what takes place always has a place and always effects a place and is constitutive of the production of space. Neganthropology is also the right to city in that as a methodology it is attentive to the shifts in the biological, social and technical organs of society and the potential for the deferral of entropy and finding new ways to design worlds of justice, equity and hope in the face of the inevitable —the acceleration towards the heat death of the universe. While inevitable, Stiegler argues that through a negathropology, this can be delayed. If neganthropology is always a geography, it is a problem of the here and now and, as the condition of the possibility of urbanisation is alphabetical writing, which is a question of technics, then questions of how we might live towards the negentropic city are questions of grammatology — the extent to which the digital technologies of everyday life produce space and the extent to which the right to the performance of a negentropic city is possible are questions of rhythm.27Bernard Stiegler, Paolo Vignola, and Mitra Azar,  “Introduction — Decarbonization and Deproletarianization: Gagner Sa Vie in the Twenty-First Century,” in Bifurcate: ‘There is no Alternative’, ed. Bernard Stiegler with the Internation collective (London: Open Humanities Press, 2021), 8. Neganthropology is therefore a matter of thinking the urban which is a matter of grammartization. There is therefore a history of the urban which is a history of grammartization.

Bifurcate: ‘There is no Alternative’, ed. Bernard Stiegler with the Internation collective (London: Open Humanities Press, 2021)

Our age of contemporary technology is described by Rob Kitchen and Martin Dodge as “codespace”, which are spaces where “[s]oftware is … bound up in, and contributes to, complex discursive and material practices, relating to both living and non-living, which work across geographic scales and times to produce complex spatialities.”28Rob Kitchen and Martin Dodge, eds., Codespace, Software and Everyday Life (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011), 13. These new complex spatialities are being produced by what Keller Easterling calls “extrastatecraft”: the process by which “[s]ome of the most radical changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but in … spatial, infrastructural technologies.”29Keller Easterling, Extrastatecraft: The Power of Infrastructure Space (London: Verso, 2016) 15. Developing his concept of exosomatization, Stiegler introduces the idea of the exorganic city – a way by which we can think the changes that are taking place in the city in our age of contemporary algorithmic technology. Stiegler describes the city as an exorganic milieu — as being composed of infrastructures that operate simultaneously across multiple scales from the micro-biological to the planetary. The city, according to Stiegler, is made up of “aggregates and localizations of complex exorganisms within which simple exorganisms cooperate.”30Giacomo Gilmozzi, Olivier Landau, Bernard Stiegler, David M. Berry, Sara Baranzoni, Pierre Clergue, Anne Alombert, “Localities, Territories and Urbanities in the Age of Platforms and Faced with the Challenges of the Anthropocene Era,” in Bifurcate: ‘There is no Alternative’ ed. Bernard Stiegler with the Internation collective (London: Open Humanities Press, 2021), 67.  Stiegler applies the term exorganic to the city because the city cannot be thought apart from the technological infrastructures that produce it.  By milieu, Stiegler means (following Simondon) the external environment that produces individuals in which the individuals produce the external environment. These infrastructures include exorganic beings which include the human inhabitants of the city in that technological infrastructures “are not appendages added onto [humans] but rather constitute them as human individuals.”31Giacomo Gilmozzi, Olivier Landau, Bernard Stiegler, David M. Berry, Sara Baranzoni, Pierre Clergue, Anne Alombert, “Localities, Territories and Urbanities in the Age of Platforms and Faced with the Challenges of the Anthropocene Era,” in Bifurcate: ‘There is no Alternative’ ed. Bernard Stiegler with the Internation collective (London: Open Humanities Press, 2021), 67. Therefore, following Stiegler, the city must be understood as a network of biological and artificial organs that cannot be thought as separate from its inhabitants but is in fact constitutive of them. As such, it could be argued that the city must be understood as a complex multi-scalar entanglement of aggregates of complex exorganisms.32Giacomo Gilmozzi, Olivier Landau, Bernard Stiegler, David M. Berry, Sara Baranzoni, Pierre Clergue, Anne Alombert, “Localities, Territories and Urbanities in the Age of Platforms and Faced with the Challenges of the Anthropocene Era,” in Bifurcate: ‘There is no Alternative’ ed. Bernard Stiegler with the Internation collective (London: Open Humanities Press, 2021), 67.


The above are extracts from my forthcoming book Stiegler for Architects, which is part of the Thinkers for Architects series published by Routledge.

Notes

Notes
1 Clément Morlat, Olivier Landau, Théo Sentis, Franck Cormerais, Anne Alombert, and Michał Krzykawski, “Contributory Economy, Territorial Capacitation Processes and New Accounting Methods,” in Bifurcate: ‘There is no Alternative,’ ed. Bernard Stiegler with the Internation collective (London: Open Humanities Press, 2021), 96.
2 Bernard Stiegler, Taking Care of the Youth and Generations, trans. Stephen Barker (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010), 145.
3 Philosophising by Accident, Interviews with Elie During, trans and ed. Benoit Dillet (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017), 59.
4 Bernard Stiegler, Technics And Time 3 (Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ. Press, 2011) 73.
5 “Apple A15 Bionic Powers iPhone 13 and iPad Mini,” Tom’s Hardware, https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/ipad-iphone-13-a15-bionic. Accessed May 5 2022.
6, 7, 8 “Deep Fusion: understanding the technology behind Apple iPhone 11’s new camera capabilities,” 91mobiles, https://www.91mobiles.com/hub/deep-fusion-understanding-the-technology-behind-apple-iphone-11s-new-camera-capabilities/. Accessed May 5, 2022.
9 Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 3. Cinematic Time and the Question of Malaise, trans. Stephen Barker (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011), 3.
10 See Ben Roberts, “Cinema as Mnemotechnics: Bernard Stiegler and the Industrialization of Memory”,  Angelaki 11, no.1 (2006): 55–63.
11 Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 3. Cinematic Time and the Question of Malaise, trans. Stephen Barker (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011), 73.
12 Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 2. Disorientation, trans. Stephen Barker (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009), 116.
13 Yuk Hui, “On the Synthesis of Social Memories,” in Memory in Motion Archives, Technology, and the Social, ed. Ina Blom, Trond Lundemo, and Eivind Røssaak (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2017), 315.
14 Orit Halpern, Beautiful Data. A History of Vision and Reason since 1945 (Durham: Duke University Press, 2014) 3.
15, 16, 17 Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 1. The Fault of Epimetheus, trans. Richard Beardsworth and George Collins (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 137. Bernard Stiegler, Philosophising by Accident, Interviews with Elie During, trans. and ed. Benoit Dillet (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017), 59.
18 Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 1. The Fault of Epimetheus, trans. Richard Beardsworth and George Collins (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 9.
19 Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 1. The Fault of Epimetheus, trans. Richard Beardsworth and George Collins (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 50.
20 Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time: 2. Disorientation, trans. Stephen Barker (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009), 9.
21 Edgar Morin, Method: Towards a Study of Humankind: The Nature of Nature, trans. J. L. Roland Bélanger (Lausanne: Peter Lang), 300.
22 Bernard Stiegler, The Neganthropocene, ed. and trans. Daniel Ross (London: Open Humanities Press, 2018), 31.
23 Bernard Stiegler, Paolo Vignola, and Mitra Azar, “Introduction — Decarbonization and Deproletarianization: Gagner Sa Vie in the Twenty-First Century,” in Bifurcate: ‘There is no Alternative’, ed. Bernard Stiegler with the Internation collective (London: Open Humanities Press, 2021), 18-45.
24 Bernard Stiegler, “For a Neganthropology of Automatic Society,” in Machine, by Thomas Pringle, Gertrud Koch and Bernard Stiegler (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2019), 40.
25 “Glossary,” Internation, https://www.internation.world/glossary, Accessed March 29, 2022.
26 The idea of neganthropology as geography is mentioned by Stiegler in “Escaping the Anthropocene,” in Bernard Stiegler, The Neganthropocene, ed. and trans. Daniel Ross (London: Open Humanities Press, 2018), 54. It is also further developed in Giacomo Gilmozzi, Olivier Landau, Bernard Stiegler, David M. Berry, Sara Baranzoni, Pierre Clergue, and Anne Alombert , “Localities, Territories and Urbanities in the Age of Platforms and Faced with the Challenges of the Anthropocene Era ,” in Bifurcate: ‘There is no Alternative’, ed. Bernard Stiegler with the Internation collective (London: Open Humanities Press, 2021), 45–62.
27 Bernard Stiegler, Paolo Vignola, and Mitra Azar,  “Introduction — Decarbonization and Deproletarianization: Gagner Sa Vie in the Twenty-First Century,” in Bifurcate: ‘There is no Alternative’, ed. Bernard Stiegler with the Internation collective (London: Open Humanities Press, 2021), 8.
28 Rob Kitchen and Martin Dodge, eds., Codespace, Software and Everyday Life (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011), 13.
29 Keller Easterling, Extrastatecraft: The Power of Infrastructure Space (London: Verso, 2016) 15.
30, 31, 32 Giacomo Gilmozzi, Olivier Landau, Bernard Stiegler, David M. Berry, Sara Baranzoni, Pierre Clergue, Anne Alombert, “Localities, Territories and Urbanities in the Age of Platforms and Faced with the Challenges of the Anthropocene Era,” in Bifurcate: ‘There is no Alternative’ ed. Bernard Stiegler with the Internation collective (London: Open Humanities Press, 2021), 67.
Capener, David. "Bernard Stiegler and Urban Space." Mediapolis: A Journal of Cities and Culture 9, no. 1 (April 2024)
Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.