Phantasy, Technology, Critique

On Bernard Stiegler’s Pharmacology of the Imagination

Authors

  • Antonio Oraldi University of Lisbon

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15160/2282-5460/2921

Keywords:

Stiegler, Imagination, Technology, Externalization, Industrialization

Abstract

Bernard Stiegler’s philosophy of technology gives a central role to the imagination. Among the philosophers with whom he establishes a critical dialogue (Kant, Simondon, Adorno, Derrida), Husserl’s reflections on memory, imagination and phantasy count as decisive influences on Stiegler’s critique of the industrialized imagination in Technics and Time. This paper begins by briefly introducing Stiegler’s anthropological account of technics, in which technics is understood as an exteriorization of memory (1998). I will reconstruct how Stiegler’s critique of Husserl substantiates the role of technics as memory through the concept of tertiary retention, while his critique of Kant connects technical mediation with the schematic function of imagination. Next, I will examine Stiegler’s critique of the industrialization of the imagination as part of a cultural industry (2011). Although the politicization of the technologized imagination is not entirely new (Marcuse 1968), Stiegler’s account displays original elements. If technical objects and media function as supports for memory and imagination, then the imagination is not merely an internal, unconstrained, and individual faculty, but it is decisively formed in the interplay between subject and milieu with its associated power relations. Thus technology, for Stiegler, stands as a pharmakon – both cure and poison – of memory and imagination. I will argue that for social critique in the contemporary age, Stiegler’s notion of exteriorized imagination highlights the political stakes in the co-constitutive relation between imagination and technical media. Furthermore, the conception of imagination as a partly technical faculty also invites reflections on digital reality and developments in AI (Romele 2020; Wellner 2022a). Ultimately, this perspective provides a standpoint to view imagination as a transformative political faculty, which reflects the structure of desiring subjects in their movement toward the future.

References

Adorno, T. & Horkheimer, M. (2002). Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments. Engl. Trans. E. Jephcott, Stanford University Press.

Alves, P. (2019). Phenomenology of Fantasy and Fiction: Some Remarks Towards a Unified Account. Phainomenon, 29, 39-55 (http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/phainomenon-2019-0003).

Bradley, J. P. N. & Kennedy, D. (2019). Stiegler as philosopher of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52 (4), 332-336 (https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1676728).

Carreño Cobos, J. E. (2013). The Many Senses of Imagination and the Manifestation of Fiction: A View from Husserl’s Phenomenology of Phantasy. Husserl Studies, 29 (2), 143-162 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10743-012-9117-2).

Cavallaro, M. (2017). The Phenomenon of Ego-Splitting in Husserl’s Phenomenology of Pure Phantasy. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 48 (2), 162-177 (https://doi.org/10.1080/00071773.2016.1250436).

Crogan, P. (2010). Bernard Stiegler: Philosophy, Technics, and Activism. Cultural Politics, 6 (2), 133-156 (https://doi.org/10.2752/175174310X12672016548162).

De Preester H. (2021). Life Is What You Fill Your Attention With – The War for Attention and the Role of Digital Technology in the Work of Bernard Stiegler. Phenomenology and Mind 20, 102-116 (https://doi.org/10.17454/10.17454/pam-2010).

Drost, M. P. (1990). The Primacy of Perception in Husserl’s Theory of Imagining. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 50 (3), 569-582 (https://doi.org/10.2307/2108165).

Dufourcq, A. (2011). La dimension imaginaire du réel dans la philosophie de Husserl. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.

Gilmozzi, G. (2023). Tecno-logia, farmacologia e negantropologia. Note introduttive al pensiero di Bernard Stiegler. Lo Sguardo - rivista di filosofia. 36 (1), 353-371 (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11125139).

Hui, Y. (2016). On the Existence of Digital Objects. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Hui, Y. (2019). Recursivity and Contingency. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield International.

Husserl, E. (1991). Оп the Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Time (1893–1917) (Husserliana Collected Works 10). Eng. Trans. J. B. Brough. Dordrecht: Springer.

Husserl, E. (2005). Phantasy, Image Consciousness and Memory (Husserliana Collected Works 11). Engl. Trans. J. B. Brough. Dordrecht. Springer.

Johnson, C. (2013). The Prehistory of Technology: On the Contribution of Leroi-Gourhan. In Ch. Howells & G. Moore (eds). Stiegler and Technics (34-52). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Lemmens, P., & Hui, Y. (2017). Reframing the Technosphere: Peter Sloterdijk and Bernard Stiegler’s Anthropotechnological Diagnoses of the Anthropocene. Krisis. Journal for Contemporary Philosophy, 37 (2), 26-41. (https://krisis.eu/article/view/38844).

Liberati, N. (2022). Reflections on an Externalized Digital Imagination. Foundations of Science, 27 (2), 407-410 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09768-9).

Lindberg, S. (2020). Politics of Digital Learning—Thinking Education with Bernard Stiegler. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52 (4), 384-396 (https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1586531).

Marcuse, H. (1968). Philosophy and Critical Theory. In Negations: Essays in Critical Theory. Engl. Trans. J. Shapiro (134-157). Boston: Beacon Press.

Nony, A. (2024). Proletarianization of the Mind: A Media Theory of Artificial Intelligence after Simondon and Stiegler. Trópos. Rivista di Ermeneutica e Critica Filosofica, 16 (1), 116-136 (https://doi.org/10.13135/2036-542X/11056).

Roberts, B. (2006). Cinema as Mnemotechnics: Bernard Stiegler and the “Industrialization of Memory”. Angelaki, 11 (1), 55-63 (https://doi.org/10.1080/09697250600797864).

Romele, A. (2020). Digital Hermeneutics: Philosophical Investigations in New Media and Technologies. New York and London: Routledge.

Sloterdijk, P. (2014). You Must Change Your Life. On Anthropotechnics. Engl. Trans. W. Hoban. Cambridge-Malden: Polity.

Stiegler, B. (1986). Technologies de la mémoire et de l’imagination. Réseaux, 4 (16), 61-87.

Stiegler, B. (1998) Technics and Time, Vol. I: The Fault of Epimetheus. Engl. Trans. R. Beardsworth & G. Collins. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.

Stiegler, B. (2009). Technics and Time, Vol. II: Disorientation. Engl. Trans. S. F. Barker. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.

Stiegler, B. (2011). Technics and time, Vol. III: Cinematic Time and the Question of Malaise. Engl. Trans. S. F. Barker. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.

Stiegler, B. (2013). What Makes Life Worth Living: On Pharmacology. Engl. Trans. D. Ross. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Stiegler, B. (2014). Organology of Dreams and Archi-Cinema. The Nordic Journal of Aesthetics, 47, 7-37 (https://doi.org/10.7146/nja.v24i47.23053).

Stiegler, B. (2018). The Neganthropocene. Engl. Trans. D. Ross. London: Open Humanities Press.

Stiegler, B. (2021). Afterword: On Positive Pharmacology. In D. Ross. Psychopolitical Anaphylaxis: Steps towards a Metacosmics (357-368). London: Open Humanities Press.

Van Camp, N. (2009). Stiegler, Habermas and the Techno‐logical Condition of Man. Journal for Cultural Research. 13 (2), 125-141 (https://doi.org/10.1080/14797580902786473).

Wellner, G. (2022a). Digital Imagination: Ihde’s and Stiegler’s Concepts of Imagination. Foundations of Science, 27, 189-204 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09737-2).

Wellner, G. (2022b). Digital Imagination, Fantasy, AI Art. Foundations of Science, 27, 1445-1451 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09747-0).

Downloads

Published

2024-12-31

Issue

Section

TEMA