Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

1NC

The visibility of the affirmative recreates virulence through the


hyper-signification of the 1ac. The medium has become the
message. The 1acs politics of transparency internalizes
control through the panendoptikon, where individuals become
transparent to themselves. Reality only exists through hyperexpression and over-representation; the modern subject no
longer exists, rather an empty screen projecting a fake
sociality.
Baudrillard 2 ~ The violence of the image, http://www.egs.edu/faculty/jean-baudrillard/articles/the-violence-of-the-image/
This is the typical violence of information, of media, of images, of the
spectacular. Connected to a total visibility , a total elimination of secrecy.

Be it of a psychological or mental, or of a neurological, biolo-gical or genetic order - soon we shall discover the gene of revolt, the center of violence in the
brain, perhaps even the gene of resistance against genetic manipulation - biological brainwashing, brainstorming, brainlifting, with nothing left but

we should not speak of violence


anymore, but rather of virulence. Inasmuch that it does not work frontally, mechanically, but by contiguity, by
recycled, whitewashed lobotomized people as in Clockwork Orange. At this point

contamination, along chain reactions, breaking our secret immunities. And operating not just by a negative effect like the classical violence, but on the
contrary by an excess of the positive, just as a cancerous cell proliferates by metastasis, by restless reproduction and an excess of vitality.

That is the point in the controversy about the violence on the screens and
the impact of images on people's mind. The fact is that the medium itself has a
neutralizing power , counterbalancing the direct effect of the violence on
the imagination. I would say : the violence of the third type annihilates the violence of the first and second type - but at the price of a
more virulent intrusion in the deep cells of our mental world. The same as for anti-biotics : they eradicate the agents of disease by reducing the general
level of vitality.

When the medium becomes the message (MACLUHAN), then violence as a


medium becomes its own message , a messenger of itself. So the violence of
the message cannot be compared with the violence of the medium as
such, with the violence-emanating from the confusion between medium and
message . It is the same with viruses the virus also is information, but of a very special kind - it is medium, and
message, agent and action at the same time. That the very origine of its "virulence", of its uncontrollable
proliferation. In fact, in all actual biological, social or mental processes , virulence has
substituated violence . The traditional violence of alienation , power and
oppression has been superated by something more violent than violence
itself : the virality , the virulence. And while it was an historical or individual subject of violence, there is no
subject , no personal agent of virulence (of contamination, of chain reaction), and then no
possibility to confront it efficiently. The classical violence was still haunted
by the specter of the Evil, it was still visible. Virulence only transappears, it is of the
order of transparency

and its logic is that of the transparency of the Evil.

The image (and more generally the s re of information) is violent because what happens there is
the murder of the Real , the vanishing point of Reality. Everything must be seen, must be
visible , and the image is the site par excellence of this visibility . But at the same time it is
the site of its disappearance. And that something in it has disappeared, has returned to nowhere, makes the very fascination
of the image.

Particularly in the case of all professional of press-images which testify of


the real events . In making reality , even the most violent, emerge to the visible , it
makes the real substance disappear. I t is like the Myth of Eurydice : when Orpheus turns around to look at her,
she vanishes and returns to hell. That is why, the more exponential the marketing of images is
growing the more fantastically grows the indifference towards the real
world .

Finally,

the real world becomes a useless function , a collection of

phantom shapes and ghost events . We are not far from the silhouettes on the walls of the cave of Plato.
A wonderful model of this forced visibility is Big Brother and all similar programs, reality
shows, docusoaps etc.

Just there; where everything is given to be seen there is

nothing left to be seen . It is the mirror of platitude, of banality, of the zero


degree of everyday life. There is the place of a fake sociality , a virtual sociality where the Other is
desperately out of reach - this very fact illuminating perhaps the fundamental truth that the human being is
not a social being. Move over in all these scenarii the televisual public is mobilized as spectator and judged as become itself Big
Brother. The power of control and transvisuality has shifted to the silent
majorities themselves.
We are far beyond the panoptikon, where there was still a source of power
and visibility

it was so to say a panexoptikon -

things were made visible to an external eye,

here they are made transparent to themselves - a panendoptikon thus erasing the traces of control and making the operator himself
transparent. The power of control is internalized , and people are no more Lt victims of the
whereas

image :

they transform themselves into images - they only exist as screens, ;or in a

superficial dimension.

All that is visualized there, in the operation Big Brother, is pure virtual reality, a synthetic image of the
banality, producted : as in a computer. The equivalent of a ready-made - a given transcrition
of everyday life - which is itself already recycled by all current patterns.
Is there any sexual voyeurism ? Not at all. Almost no sexual scenery. But people dont want that, what they
secretly want to see is the spectacle of the banality ,which is from now our real pornography, own
true obscenity - that of the nullity,of insignificance and platitude (i.e. the extreme reverse of the
"There of the Cruelty"). But maybe in that scene lies a certain form of cruelty, at least of a virtual one. At the time when media and television are more
and more unable to give an image of the events of the world, then they discover the everyday life, the existential banality as the most criminal event, as

people are fascinated,


terrified and fascinated by this indifference of the Nothing-to-see, of the
Nothing-to-say, by the indifference of their own life, as of the zero degree
of living. The banality and the consumption of banality have now become an olympic discipline of our time - the last form of the experiences of
the most violent (in)actua-lity, as the very place of the Perfect Crime. And that it is, really. And

the limits.
In fact, this deals with the naive impulsion to be nothing, and to comfort oneself in this nothingness - sanctioned by the right to be nothing and to be
considered and respected as such. Something like a struggle for Nothing and for Virtual death - the perfect opposite to the basic anthropological postulat
of the struggle for life. At least it seems that we are all about to change our basic humanistic goals.

There are two ways of disappearing, of being nothing , (in the Integral Reality, everything must
logically want to disappear - automatic abreaction to the overdose of reality). Either to be hidden,and to insist on
the right not-to-be-seen (the actual defense of private life).Or one shifts to a delirious exhibitionism of his own platitude and
insignificance - ultimate protection against the servitude of being,and of being himself. Hence the absolute obligation to
be seen,to make oneself visible at any price. Everyone deals on both levels at the same time.
Then we are in the double bind - no t to be seen,and to be continously
visible . No ethics,no legislation can solve this dilemma,and the whole
current polemic about the right to information,all this polemic is useless .

Maximal information, maximal visibility are now part of the human rights (and of human duties all the same)
the destiny of the image is trapped between the unconditional right to
see and that, unconditional as well, not to be seen.
This means that people are deciferable at every moment . Overexposed to the light of
and

information , and addicted to their own image. Driven to express themselves at any time - selfexpression as the ultimate form of confession, as Faucauld said. To become an image, one has to give a visual object of his whole everyday life, of his

He-has to keep no secrets and to interact permanently.


a violence done to the deepest core, to the hard core of the individual. And
at the same-time to the language , because it also loses its symbolic
possibilities, of his feelings and desires.
Just here is the deepest violence,

originality - being nothing more than the operator of visibility .. It loses its
ironic dimersion, its conceptual distance, its autonomous dimension - where
language is more important than what it signifies. The image too is more important than what it
sneaks of . That we forget usually, again and again and that is a source of the violence done to the image.
Today everything takes the look of the image - then all pretend that the
real has disappeared under the pression and the profusion of images .. What is
totally neglected is that the image also disappears under the blow and the impact of
reality . The image is usually spoiled of its own existence as image,
deyoted to a shameful complicity with the real . The violence exercised by the image is largely
balanced by the violence done to the image - its exploitation as a pure vector of documen-tation,
of testimony, of message (including the message of misery and violence), its allegeance to morale, to
pedagogy, to politics, to publicity . Then the magic of the image, both as
fatal and as vital illusion, is fading away. The Byzantine Iconoclasts wanted to destroy images in order to
abolish meaning and the representation of God. Today we are still iconoclasts, but in an opposite way : we kill the images by
an overdose of meaning .
Borgs'fable on " The People of the Mirror :he gives the hypothesis that

behind each figure of resemblance and

representation there is a vanquished enemy , a defeated singularity, a dead object. And the Iconoclasts
clearly understood how icons were the best way of letting God disappear. (but perhaps God himself had chosen to disappear behind the images ? Nobody
knows). Anyway,today is no more the matter of God :

We disappear behind our images . No chance anymore that our

images are stolen from us, that we must give up our secrets - because we no longer have any. That is at the same time the sign of our ultimate morality
and of our total obscenity.

There is a deep misunderstanding of the process of meaning . Most images


photographs today

and

reflect the misery and the violence of human condition . But all

this affects us less and less, just because it is over signified . In order for
the meaning, for the message to affect us, the image has to exist on its
own , to impose its original language . In order for the real to be transferred to our imagination, or our
imagination transferred to the real, it must be a counter-transference
upon the image, and this countertransference has to be resoluted, worked through (in terms of psychoanalysis). Today we
see misery and violence becoming a leitmotiv of publicity just by the way
of images. Toscani for example is reintegrating sex and Aids, war and death into fashion. And why not ? Jubilating ad-images are no less obscene
than the pessimistic ones) But at one condition to show the violence of publicity itself,
the violence of fashion, the violence of the medium . What actually publishers are not able even to
try to do. However, fashion and high society are themselves a kind of spectacle of
death . The world's misery is quite so visible , quite so transparent in the line and the face of any topmodel as on the skeletal body of an african boy. The same cruelty is to be perceived everywhere, if one only knows how to look at it.

The 1AC is nothing more than the production and assimilation


of otherness. This creates a violent form of identification
whereby the other becomes an object of manipulation, another
commodity in the economy of symbolic exchange.
Baudrillard 02
/Jean, Screened Out, 51 56/
With modernity, we enter the age of the production of the Other. The aim
is no longer to kill the Other, devour it, seduce it, vie with it, love it or
hate it, but, in the first instance, to produce it . The Other is no longer an
object of passion, but an object of production. Perhaps, in its radical
otherness or its irreducible singularity, the Other has become dangerous or unbearable, and
its seductive power has to be exorcized? Or perhaps, quite simply, otherness and the dual
relation progressively disappear with the rise of individual values and the
destruction of symbolic ones? The fact remains that otherness does come to be in short supply and, ifwe are not to live otherness as destiny,
the other has to be produced imperatively as difference. This goes for the world as much as for the

body, sex and social relations. It is to escape the world as destiny, the body as destiny, sex (and the opposite sex) as destiny, that the production of the other as difference will be
invented. For example, sexual differ- ence: each sex with its anatomical and psychological characteristics, with its own desire and all the irresolvable consequences that ensue, including
the ideology ofsex and the Utopia of a difference based both in right and in nature. None of this has any meaning in seduction, where it is a question not of desire but of a game with
desire, and where it is a question not of the equality of the sexes or the alienation ofthe one by the other, since game-playing involves a perfect reciprocity ofpart- ners (not difference
and alienation, but otherness and complicity). Seduction is as far from hysteria as can be. Neither of the sexes projects its sexuality on to the other; the distances are given; otherness is
intact - it is the very condition of that higher illusion that is play with desire.

However, with the coming of the nineteenth century and Romanticism, a mas- culine hysteria comes into play and with it a change
in the sexual paradigm, which we must once again situate within the more general, universal framework of the change in the
paradigm of otherness.

In this hysterical phase, it was, so to speak, the femininity of man which projected itself on to woman and shaped her as an ideal figure in his image. In
Romantic love, the aim was not now to conquer the woman, to seduce her, but to
create her from the inside, to invent her, in some cases as achieved Utopian vision, as
idealized woman, in others as jemme jatale, as star - another hysterical, supernat- ural metaphor. The Romantic Eros can be credited
with having invented this ideal of harmony, of loving fusion, this ideal of an almost incestuous form of twin beings the woman as projective resurrection ofthe
same, who assumes her super- natural form only as ideal of the same, an artefact doomed henceforth to Vamour ox, in other words, to a pathos ofthe ideal resemblance ofbeings and

The whole mechanics ofthe erotic changes


meaning, for the erotic attraction which previously arose out of otherness, out of the strangeness of the Other, now finds
its stimulus in sameness - in similarity and resemblance. Auto-eroticism, incest? No. Rather a hypostasis of the Same. Of the same eyeing up the
sexes - a pathetic confusion which substitutes for the dual otherness of seduction.

other, investing itself in the other, alienating itselfin the other - but the other is only ever the ephemeral form ofa difference which brings me closer to me. This indeed is why, with

sexuality becomes connected with death: it is because it


becomes connected with incest and its destiny - even in banalized form (for we are no longer speaking ofmythic,
Romantic love and all its current spin-offs,

tragic incest here; with modern eroticism we are dealing with a secondary incestuous form - of the protection of the same in the image of the other - which amounts to a confusion and
corruption of all images).
We have here then, in the end, the invention of a femininity which renders woman superfluous.

The invention of a difference

which is merely a roundabout copulation with its double. And which, at


bottom, renders any encounter with otherness impossible

(it would be interesting to know

whether there was not any hysterical quid pro quo from the feminine in the construction of a virile, phallic mythology; feminism being one such example of the hystericization of the
mas- culine in woman, of the hysterical projection of her masculinity in the exact image ofthe hysterical projection by man ofhis femininity into a mythical image of woman).

However, there still remains a dissymmetry in this enforced assignment to dif- ference.
This is why I have contended, paradoxically, that man is more different from woman than woman is from man. I
mean that, within the framework ofsexual dif- ference, man is merely different, whereas in woman there remains
something ofthe radical otherness which precedes the debased status ofdifference.

in this process of extrapolation of the Same into the production of the


Other, of hysterical invention of the sexual other as twin sister or brother (if
the twin theme is so prominent today, that is because it reflects this mode oflibidinal cloning), the sexes become progressively
assimilated to each other. This develops from difference to lesser difference through
to the point of role-reversal and the vir- tual non-differentiation of the
sexes. And it ends up making sexuality a useless function. In cloning, for example, pointlessly sexed beings are going to be repro- duced, since sexuality is no longer needed for
In short,

their reproduction.

If the real woman seems to disappear in this hysterical invention ofthe


feminine (though she has other means ofresisting this), in this invention ofsexual difference, in which the masculine
occupies the privileged pole from the outset, and in which all the feminist struggles will merely reassert that
insoluble privilege or difference, we must recognize too that masculine desire also becomes entirely problematical since it is able only to
project itselfinto another in its image and, in this way, render itselfpurely speculative. So all the nonsense about the phallus and male sexual priv- ilege, etc. needs revising.

There is a kind of transcendent justice which means that, in this process ofsexual differentiation
which culminates inexorably in non- differentiation, the two sexes each lose as much of their singularity
and their otherness. This is the era ofthe Transsexual, in which all the
conflicts connected with this sexual difference carry on long after any real sexuality, any real alterity of the sexes,
has disappeared.
Each individual repeats on his or her own body this (successful?) takeover ofthe feminine by masculine projection hysteria. The body is identified
and appropriated as a self-projection, and no longer as otherness and
destiny. In the facial features, in sex, in sickness and death, identity is constantly being altered. You can do nothing about
that. It is destiny. But this is precisely what has to be warded off at all costs in the identification of the body, the individual appropriation of
the body, of your desire, your appearance, your image : plastic surgery on all fronts. For if
the body is no longer a site of otherness, of a dual relation, if it is a site
of identification, then you have urgently to reconcile yourselfwith it, to
repair it, perfect it, turn it into an ideal object . Everyone treats his/her body as man treats woman in the projective
he invests it as a fetish in a desperate attempt at selfidentification . The body becomes an object of autistic worship, of an
identification we have described:

almost incestuous manipulation . And it is the body's resemblance to its model which becomes a source oferoticism and unconsummated
self-seduction, insofar as it vir- tually excludes the Other and is the best means of excluding any seduction from elsewhere.
Many other things relate also to this production of the Other - a hysterical, spec- ulative production. Racism is one example, in its development throughout the modern era and its current

But the more we learn how


unfounded the genetic theory of race is, the more racism intensifies . This is
because we are dealing with an artificial construction of the Other, on the
basis of an erosion of the singularity of cultures (of their otherness one to another) and entry
into the fetish- istic system of difference. So long as there is otherness, alienness and a (possibly violent) dual relation, there
is no racism properly so called. That is to say, roughly, up to the eighteenth century, as anthropological accounts attest. Once this 'natural'
relation is lost, we enter upon an exponential relation with an artificial
Other. And there is nothing in our culture with which we can stamp out
racism, since the entire movement of that culture is towards a fanatical
differential construction of the Other, and a perpetual extrapolation ofthe
Same through the Other. Autistic cul- ture posing as altruism.
We talk of alienation. But the worst alienation is not being dispossessed
by the other, but being dispossessed of the other: it is having to produce
recrudescence. Logically, it ought to have declined with progress and the spread ofEnlightenment.

the other in the absence of the other, and so continually to be thrown


back on oneself and one's own image . If, today, we are condemned to our image (to cultivate our bodies, our 'looks', our
identities, our desires), this is not because ofalienation, but because ofthe end ofalienation and the virtual disappearance ofthe other, which is a much worse fate. In fact, the definition

This definitive short-circuiting


of the
other ushers in the era of transparency. Plastic surgery becomes
universal. And the surgery performed on the face and the body is merely
the symptom ofa more rad- ical surgery: that performed on otherness and
destiny.
ofalienation is to take oneselfas one's focus, as one's object of care, desire, suffering and communication.

What is the solution? There is no solution to this erotic trend within an entire culture; to this fascination, this whirl of denial of otherness, of all that is alien and negative; to this

All we can do is remind


ourselves that seduction lies in non-reconciliation with the other, in
preserving the alien status of the Other. One must not be reconciled with
foreclosing of evil and this reconciliation around the Same and its multiple figures: incest, autism, twinship, cloning.

oneself or with one's body. One must not be reconciled with the other,
one must not be reconciled with nature, one must not be reconciled with
the feminine

(that goes for women

2NC link- Cosmopolitanism


Cosmopolitanism is the formation of the viral Other, the final
amassing of difference into one huge melting pot. This
inevitably recreates racism in a more viral form.

*could also be answer to permutation (see proper use of otherness section)


Grace 2000Senior Lecturer in Feminist Studies @ University of Canterbury at
Christchurch (Victoria, 2000, Routledge, Baudrillards Challenge: A Feminist
Reading,
http://sociology.sunimc.net/htmledit/uploadfile/system/20100724/20100724151252
877.pdf, rmf)
As the biological bases of racism are exposed as pure fallacy in theoretical
and genetic terms, and as the principles of democracy have advanced
since the Enlightenment, racism should have declined. Logically, as
Baudrillard claims in his book The Perfect Crime (PC), this should have been
the case, yet he observes that as cultures become increasingly hybrid,
racism actually grows stronger (PC: 131 2). He analyses this contra-indication
in terms of the increasing fetishisation of difference and the loss of the
encounter with the Other , and in the erosion of the singularity of cultures
qua increasing simulation of differentiation. The relation within the order
of cultural difference is phobic, according to Baudrillard: a kind of reflex
that is fundamentally irrational in terms of the logic of the system. The
other is idealised, and: because it is an ideal other, this relationship is an
exponential one: nothing can stop it, since the whole trend of our culture
is towards a fanatically pursued differential construction, a perpetual
extrapolation of the same from the other. (PC: 132) Autistic culture by dint of
fake altruism, he adds, recapturing the cultural imperative of the western
hyperreal culture to recognise, value, liberate, and understand
difference. On the other hand, racism can equally result from the opposite
sentiment; that of a desperate attempt to manifest the other as an evil to be
overwhelmed. Either way, both the benevolence of the humanitarian and the
hatred of the racist seek out the other for reasons symptomatic of the
fetishisation of difference. As the increasingly cult-like dedication to
differences escalates with its concurrent impulse to increasing
homogeneity,4 another other emerges. Baudrillard comments on the
figure of the alien as a monstrous metaphor for the viral Other, which is,
in his words, the compound form of all the varieties of otherness done to
death by our system (TE: 130). I remember thinking recently how there must be
some significance to the outpouring of alien movies (on television especially) and
wondered if this was the final frontier of otherness to be done to death (what else
is left?). I recall also being disturbed, as I watched one such movie, to reflect on my
accepting without question the imperative of exterminating the aliens who (that?)
were going to invade and transform human society in evil ways. Baudrillard
emphasises that this metaphor of alien Other seizes on what he

describes as a viral and automatic form of racism that perpetuates itself


in a way that cannot be countered by a humanism of difference . Viral in
the sense of self-generating and invisibly infecting, reconstructing: a
virus of difference, played out through minute variations in the order of
signs. Such a form of monstrous otherness is also the product of what
Baudrillard calls an obsessional differentiation (TE: 130), emanating from
the compulsion of the self (same) to manifest signs of difference in the
form of the other . The problematic structure of this self( same )
other( different) dynamic , Baudrillard argues, demonstrates the weakness
of those dialectical theories of otherness which aspire to promote the
proper use of otherness (TE: 130). Racism, especially in its current viral and
immanent form, makes it clear that there is no such thing as the proper use
of difference. This point links again with my concerns about the
emptiness of feminist claims for the importance of irreducible differences
in the absence of a structural critique.

2NC link- University


The university is dead. The affirmatives attempt to use
educational spaces as a means of politics reproduces power
and regenerates the fiction of knowledge. Only by allowing the
university to rot can we inject death into the system.
Baudrillard 81 ~Jean, Simulacra and Simulation 1981, p. 143 - 146
The university is in ruins: nonfunctional in the social arenas of the
market and employment, lacking cultural substance or an end purpose of
knowledge . 143 Strictly speaking, there is no longer even any power: it is also in
ruins. Whence the impossibility of the return of the fires of 1968: of the return of putting in question knowledge
versus power itself - the explosive contradiction of knowledge and power (or the
revelation of their collusion, which comes to the same thing) in the
university, and, at the same time, through symbolic (rather than political)
contagion in the whole institutional and social order. Why sociologists? marked this
shift: the impasse of knowledge, the vertigo of nonknowledge (that is to say at once the absurdity and the
impossibility of accumulating value in the order of knowledge) turns like an absolute weapon against power itself, in
order to dismantle it according to the same vertiginous scenario of dispossession. This is the May 1968 effect.

Today it cannot be achieved since power itself, after knowledge, has taken
off, has become ungraspable - has dispossessed itself. In a now uncertain
institution, without knowledge content, without a power structure (except
for an archaic feudalism that turns a simulacrum of a machine whose
destiny escapes it and whose survival is as artificial as that of barracks
and theaters), offensive irruption is impossible . Only what precipitates
rotting, by accentuating the parodic, simulacral side of dying games of
knowledge and power, has meaning. A strike has exactly the opposite
effect. It regenerates the ideal of a possible university: the fiction of an
ascension on everyone's part to a culture that is unlocatable, and that no
longer has meaning . This ideal is substituted for the operation of the
university as its critical alternative, as its therapy. This fiction still dreams
of a permanency and democracy of knowledge. Besides, everywhere today
the Left plays this role: it is the justice of the Left that reinjects an idea of
justice, the necessity of logic and social morals into a rotten apparatus
that is coming undone, which is losing all conscience of its legitimacy and
renounces functioning almost of its own volition. It is the Left that secrets
and desperately reproduces power, because it wants power, and therefore
the Left believes in it and revives it precisely where the system puts an
end to it. The system puts an end one by one to all its axioms, to all its institutions, and realizes one by one all
the objectives of the historical and revolutionary Left that sees itself constrained to revive the wheels of capital 144
in order to lay seige to them one day: from private property to the small business, from the army to national

everything that is
disappearing, that the system itself, in its atrocity, certainly, but also in its
irreversible impulse, has liquidated, must be conserved. Whence the
grandeur, from puritan morality to petit bourgeois culture, justice at the university -

paradoxical but necessary inversion of all the terms of political analysis .


Power (or what takes its place) no longer believes in the university. It knows
fundamentally that it is only a zone for the shelter and surveillance of a whole class of a certain age, it therefore

Diplomas are worthless: why


would it refuse to award them, in any case it is ready to award them to
everybody; why this provocative politics, if not in order to crystallize
energies on a fictive stake (selection, work, diplomas, etc.), on an already dead and
rotting referential? By rotting, the university can still do a lot of damage
(rotting is a symbolic mechanism - not political but symbolic, therefore subversive for us). But for this to
has only to select - it will find its elite elsewhere, or by other means.

be the case it is necessary to start with this very rotting, and not to
dream of resurrection . It is necessary to transform this rotting into a
violent process, into violent death, through mockery and defiance,
through a multiplied simulation that would offer the ritual of the death of
the university as a model of decomposition to the whole of society, a
contagious model of the disaffection of a whole social structure, where
death would finally make its ravages, which the strike tries desperately to
avert, in complicity with the system, but succeeds, on top of it all, only in
transforming the university into a slow death, a delay that is not even the
possible site of a subversion, of an offensive reversion. That is what the events of
May 1968 produced. At a less advanced point in the process of the liquefaction of the university and of culture,

the students, far from wishing to save the furniture (revive the lost object,
in an ideal mode), retorted by confronting power with the challenge of the
total, immediate death of the institution, the challenge of a 145 deterritorialization even

more intense than the one that came from the system, and by summoning power to respond to this total derailment
of the institution of knowledge, to this total lack of a need to gather in a given place, this death desired in the end not the crisis of the university, that is not a challenge, on the contrary, it is the game of the system, but the death
of the university - to that challenge, power has not been able to respond, except by its own dissolution in return
(only for a moment maybe, but we saw it).