Share and Enjoy
Any CPPE-ers with a thing for Bataille or curious to know more about my ongoing collaboration with performance artists Goldin+Senneby, and who happen to be in London on Wednesday evening, might be interested in this:
I’ve just been asked to become one of the editors of the Journal Of Critical Globalisation Studies. It’s been around for five years, one issue a year, and has been chiefly aimed at/drawing from the IR/IPE community. The aim now is to increase the regularity (initially to two a year) and to diversify the disciplinary content to include such glories as, yes, you guessed it, critical management theory.
So, I will be pestering you all for articles, essays and, in particular, special issues on exciting globalisation-related themes. I hope the journal will develop into an obvious place for CPPE types to publish.
JCGS is properly peer-reviewed, and is fully open access. None of this ‘green/gold’ crapola: it’s open, free and online for anyone to download. One of the aims of the editorial team, in fact, is to propmote the journal as a model of what ‘real’ open access looks like while the publishers flail about trying to protect their paywalls and profits.
Looking forward to hearing from you…….
Fantastic blog post on the ‘Sound of Finance’.
Go here: http://soundstudiesblog.com/2013/04/22/the-noises-of-finance/
Why didn’t I think of that?!
I’m working on a project about the Pareto Principle (or 80/20 rule) in management and business studies. For this project, I’m trying to collect examples of the 80/20 rule. I’m hoping to show that 80% of the evidence supporting the Pareto Principle comes from 20% of the cases. If you come across any examples which posit the truth of the 80/20 rule please feel free to post them as comments on http://8020rules.wordpress.com/ or email me.
Do Cybernetics Dream of Digital Resistance?
A conversation between Maxigas & Stevphen on Brian Holmes’ Escape the Overcode
This is an exchange between Maxigas, from the Horizon Research Institute / Indymedia Hungary and Stevphen Shukaitis (from Essex, Autonomedia, and the CPPE). We discuss Brian Holmes’s Escape the Overcode in a series of emails, focusing on the ambiguity of cybernetic art and resistance, the conditions of knowledge production, innovation and cooptation.
The editors of Journal of Library Administration, published by Taylor & Francis (owned by Informa — who in 2009 upped sticks for the low-tax charms of Zug) have just resigned en masse, with one editor citing “a crisis of conscience about publishing in a journal that was not open access” following death of Aaron Swartz. I tip my hat to them…
In our ‘toxic’ paper ( http://hdl.handle.net/2381/27632 ) claiming a lack of interest in OS regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming we counted relevant papers in a sample of mainstream organisation studies journals, both orthodox and critical. By ‘mainstream’ we mean journals without a specific focus on environment, climate change, etc. – relevant to our theme because we were arguing that AGW ought to be a mainstream concern. We have since updated our original imprecise survey by looking at 2012 in our chosen journals –ASQ, JMS, Human Relations, Organization Studies, Organization, ephemera. These were selected as representing a cross section of organisation studies, from the generally functionalist/managerialist approaches, through relatively neutral and soft critical ones, to the hard critical approach.
In 2012 Organization Studies and ephemera each had relevant special issues on climate change, Human Relations published one paper. ASQ, JMS and Organization did not publish any.
In total there were c. 243 main articles during 2012 in our selected journals, of which 15, or c.6%, were concerned with climate change. However, not all address anthropogenic driven change, i.e. change we have caused and which we could do something about if we act quickly. Is this a sufficient level of interest in a problem so important and to which OS should be so relevant?
Yesterday I was putting the finishing touches to an introductory lecture on Descartes when I listened to a news item which now has me re-structuring it (the lecture) somewhat. Based upon a comparison of the skull structures of Neanderthals and Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs), a team of researchers have suggested that the development of higher cognitive functions within human beings has an environmentally demonstrable evolutionary base. An overview of the argument can be found here whereas the article itself can be read here.
This made me wonder whether the development of philosophical and scientific speculation could also be explained along similar lines, that is to say, that philosophy and science, as with non-sensory and non-perceptual cognitive functions, might also be explainable in terms of environmental challenges characteristic of a particular historical epoch. This is a question of time-scales, at least initially, so I did a little more reading. There is evidence of Neanderthal existence which dates back approximately a quarter of a million years – evidence of their existence ceases around 25,000 years ago. Thales lived around 2,700 years ago. Aristotle died around 2,300 years ago, The School of Athens was painted just over 500 years ago, Descartes died 363 years ago. It is often easy to think of Descartes, or Raphael, or Thales, as far distant predecessors yet they are extremely close relatives when compared to the Neanderthal. I composed a graph to give a sense for how large the gap is: DarwinianCartesianism
What can this graph be taken to mean? Does it mean that philosophy and science have had a minimal effect upon the evolution of the species? Or, on the other hand, does it underline the unfathomable intellectual progress that has been made by the species in a relatively minimal period of time?