[...]nels of limited choice


(Stewart's) points of precision: (of any act or story) what matters is the singularity of an angle of approach (a surprise contact, an opening onto some world's cocomposition, momentary flourishing of some capacity) [=/= a meaning]

shaken profusion in things =/= rush evaluative critique

so ordinary and problematic

so the idea of writing about “clean” started being interested in this website: https://www.politicalconcepts.org, and the desire to write a political entry point for them on the idea of clean in the 20th century

also after i moved to Brussels May 2016, the affect of dirty

to have a little talk or jam on the notion of “clean” and “clean body”

i have been scribbling on its metaphorology for a while, thinking with it about the 20th century political thinking, institutional thinking, criminology, xenophobia, morality, and many other things. it is a key term for me.

•difference and indifference regarding the foreign body and urbanism
•clean's stakes in architecture, toilet, the primordial element of architecture
•the clean body in Marx and its geneology in the left
•origins of morality in Freud
•xenophobia in crosscultural histories, Islam on hygiene and kofr's dirt
•Nazism and racial cleansing --> aesthetics & politics
•Victorian sanitation, sanitas
•pollution
•anality
•animality --> domestic life (Tehran, Brussels, Cologne,)
•metaphorology of ‘fesad’
•loose analogies of clean/dirt
•pure bodies (being threatened by violation of impurities)
•


readings:
-Koolhaas, toilet
-Sennett, Flesh and Stone
-Ashenburg, Dirt on Clean
-Serres, Malfeasance
-Ahmed, pure bodies
-Vom kleinen Maulwurf
-


in terrestrial ecosystems:
detritus
dead particulate organic material (as opposed to dissolved organic material). It typically includes the bodies or fragments of dead organisms as well as fecal material
typically colonized by communities of microorganisms which act to decompose (or remineralize) the material

...................................

(in clinic)
each method enacts an object of its own =/= approaching a single object in different ways

in 19th century Western philosophy, ontology was coined as a powerful word for the given and fixed collection of what there is
(Annemarie Mol)

ontologies ==> there is no longer a singular “it” to look at from different sides
ontologies are not exclusive, they allow for interferences, partial connections, sharing practices =/= mono-realist singularities

[*]politics: (is not one of otherness,) it is about fights; not between people (a politics of who) but between versions of reality (a politics of what)

the value of “what is,” what western philosophy calls “normativity” and its counterfactuals suggesting “what could be” (--> are different ontologies?)

yet ‘ontologies’ is ill-suited for talking about many things:
•ways in which goods and bads are performed in practices --> Xiri
•conjunction with pleasures, pains, ecstasies, fears, ideals, dreams, passions --> apass
•various shapes that processes may take:
◦causal chains
◦back-and-forth conversations
◦tinkering and caring
•theorizing how fingers taste
•what drugs afford to bodies and bodies do with drugs
•migrant ambitions and guarded borders
•garment factories on fire
•soy for Dutch pigs being grown in the Amazon
•(or when we give feedback to eachother in apass??)
•
--Annemarie--> we need to be able to play with other words (other than ontology) @Sina



*valuing
*facting

(let's learn and engage more in valuing, and not facting. not that things or practices “have value” but how they are valued, given value or worth to them)

valuing (when done as ritual nothing follows), might include variations of:
•measuring
•assessing
•appreciating
•qualifying
•tasting
•judging
•critiquing
•praising
•caring
•

***(more than aften) a mode of value developed ‘here’ is put to work ‘there’ [= generalization]
--Annemarie--> (pertinence of) ‘where questions’
(costs of) generalization ==>
•stabilizes what counts ==> silences subjects (<-- do it, but pay the cost)
•fosters proving, not improving
•offers managerial solution, not citizen satisfaction
•
•

(a modern sentence:) people tend to think that their quality of life depends on themselves, that means: what ‘you’ are going to do about ‘you being miserable’

the (good or bad) worlding of university's counter-fact-ism and functionalism

(Manning's mistake:) “evaluation or valuation techniques ==> boosting” (=/= tinkering*)
(in rehabilitation clinic) scale of independence to map the condition of a person --> a process in which valuing is transformed from a ‘tool for improving’ into a ‘tool for proving’

(enough food)
shifts from ‘want’ to ‘need’

counting calories (=/= enjoying food) --> orchestrate guilt (=/= satisfaction) --> limit oneself --> hide hunger
[*counting* (a protestant value?) has been a behavioral technique to produce self-conscious being, still a way of making responsible persons, “counting the number of times they were hit...” *rhetoric of counting (a socio-material practice) ==> civic world witness*]


rumors travel
facts travel
practices travel


clean city --> (19th century quest, classic goal of) hygiene

what do citizens value? <-- let's (take a step back and) ask that (@NRW cultural fund, governmentality Regierungsfähigkeit, the city of Cologne)
[this question is asked by people in certain socio-material practices with stakes in producing citizens, such as professional of cleanness municipal responsibility ==often==> citizens disappear]
-maybe we like the lively dandelions (repertoire of green) and messy weeds (repertoire of clean) that grow in the cracks

being happy with cleanliness
being happy with seeing people cleaning --> seeing municipal care

leanring ‘where question’ from Annemarie: if you are local that doesn't mean you are local --> ***the local is not obvious*** : the local does not explain itself in its own terms, it is rather explained in terms that have traveled from elsewhere --> this is not to isolate the local, this is not against *traveling of terms*, rather, an argument for specificity: to ask ****which terms from elsewhere are relevant here?**** @Tehran:
what at stake there
what effected here
(what it means in my village?)

traveling of knowledge =/= traveling of repertoires of speeking
functions of import and embedding (something from another time or place in your present argument)

*there is no empirical without language*
there is no local without travel

(@Xiri, Hoda, to urgently shift from who to what)
(from) ‘who question’ of politics: who gets to talk? (like “do women get a say?”) --to--> ‘what question’: “what is made of women?”

[metaphors of doing]
(neoliberal legacy of) isolated acting objects =/= complex global-local inequalities
historical traces of the acting in the image of the fighting muscular man throwing a spear [~-> Arash kamangir آرش کمانگیر ~/=? my play with the bow and arrow in apass;] =/= digestion, eating (as “doing something” that you cannot control), plants growing, smelling (is not acting?)

...................................

*assemblages*
-continuities require ‘work’ to constitute them as ‘well-formed assemblages’
-the emergence of a stable assemblage requires ‘translations’
-(we should) search out the catalysts, enablers or inhibitors of processes that interest us
-how varied and multiple qualities of agency unfold as effects in assemblages that encompass both human and nonhuman forms, and how these effects subsequently achieve particular outcomes for different parties

(organic food) market <==emerging== ideological desires of embedded entrepreneurs who innovate within dynamic material-semiotic systems

(Foad stressed that assemblages are characterized by the condition of) ‘te[...]