It is in this way that capital itself inserts its being into realms of which it has no business. But that is the way of capitalism as informed by colonialism: dominate everything; become the sole standard by which all must be judged. Just as European whiteness became the standard by way of colonization, so contemporary capital formations have divested themselves first of the working (uneducated) people who once formed a large portion of the manufacturing workforce and, second, of the mid-level intelligensia in the form of teachers and the professional middle-class. In other words, colonialism continues even in the U.S. of A. Right under our noses, the kind of enslavement and production of colonized subjects that happened in the eighteenth century continues. Yet, this is capitalism’s genius. Let’s not for a moment think the neoliberal world order is anything conscious, deliberate, or centrally controlled. Like racism, those who practice it are the first to disavow they have anything to do with it. The best neoliberals love poor people and work hard in their so-called name.
Yet, their policies are often further burdens. Just look at the so-called “progressive” indian policies that led to the Dawes Allotment Act. Sometimes what seems to be the logical conclusion ends in utter failure.
So, in this respect, the work here touches not only on the specifics of what we might call the techniques of decolonialization — the merging of theories of technical change, ala Simondon, with the problematics of attempting liberation and consciousness change in a vast array of people, most of whom can be seen as in-formed by colonialization and therefore becoming as colonial subjects, spreading European colonizations’ crystalline epistemological lattice — but also on the more traditional ontological territory of a cosmos spinning in irregular periodicity. Indeed, the two, I argue are linked. Much of what European colonization has offered is based on regularity, on the binaristic Hegelian dialectic of identity and the assumption of the cosmos as the clockwork of a vast automaton.
Yet the genius of this is belied as early as Plato in his Sophist. The comparison, one which Simondon himself alludes to as a kind of operation (Combes 9), is between the sophist and an angler or fisherman. Both the sophist and the angler are hunters of a certain sort, but Plato has Socrates and the stranger attempt to discern just what sort of hunter each might be based upon a fairly simple algorithm: what is the manner and object of the hunt? <<description?>> While it seems to Socrates and the stranger that the sophist, in her art of rhetoric, is found all over the place and in all manner of situations, and therefore in some interpretations a practitioner of a base or illegitimate art as also related in Gorgias, what they are assuming in their operation here is a sort of regular periodicity. That is, both manner and object are, in effect, unchanging. While it could be admitted that every individual fish or every individual lure differed slightly and the occasional environments demanded different sorts of activities and material, even resulting in different kinds of catches, the manner and objects are of a certain category whereby they are same enough.
However, seen through Simondon’s notion of individuation, even the same enough is not really enough. Yes, a mold in-forms clay such that they clay takes on the forms and defects of the mold, but does so really as an active subject rather than passive object. Moreover, each brick in its molding is individuated with some trapping and forming air bubbles, some the latent fingerprint of a handler, others the spiderweb cracks of having been heated too fast on one side. No two bricks are ever quite the same. They are, however, regular enough in their repetition that they can function in a further operation of combining with mortar to individuate a wall. Yet even this wall will be, at some level, entirely unlike any other wall built in the world.
Applied to its most general, the experience of the world is in its own becoming as it circles the sun, dances with its moon, wobbles on its axis, and gets pushed and pulled in its elliptical yet never exactly the same orbit twice. And indigenous thinking preserves this to a degree European thought does not. Where Europeans from at least the ancient Greeks, if not before, looked for absolute regularity, many indigenous tribes show a great propensity to see in terms of and to accept a more irregular periodicity. <<<examples>>> <<Lakota winds? Lakota cosmology in Taté’s lodge? Taku Skan Skan underlies much of the cosmology. Sometimes the spirits do not respond; it depends on what they think is best, not on perfect understanding>>
And this, curiously enough, is how our earth actually operates. Time, seasons, solstices, weather patterns, migrations — so many natural phenomena fail to run exactly according to regular time. There is always enough irregularity in the system to keep one alert. Moreover, that irregularity is itself periodical with just enough correlation between disparate events to accrue over decades or generations and to therefore become understood by people as having a real effect on the cycle, even if the exact mechanism is still not fully understood.
Perhaps then, there might be a change in phase not on the order of what exists today, but more on the order of individuation so that we take what exists as the future anterior for a new phase state. In this way, the icy lattice of colonialism and capitalism need not be attacked so much as encapsulated in a new patterning, like a crystal inside another — still there and seen, but immobilized.