Conversation in class turned toward the autonomous actions of soldiers in the theater of conflict, the moment of actualizing orders from above does not happen because there is always deviance in two forms; intentional subversion and in reaction to contingencies. Can the soldiers, at this moment, be considered a multitude? They are after all operating as autonomous agents in the theater of battle, looking after their own self preservation.

My reply makes necessary the addition of the temporal dimension. At what moment are these soldiers multitudinous? Certainly they are not operating as a multitude while in training under the command of drill sergeants, while being mobilized to any particular theater of war. Rather, they become the multitude, or operate multitudinously, at the moment of deployment into battle and faced with Real war. Even here, when the quest for self-preservation is dominant, there is always centripetal energy attempting to draw them back into the chain of command, of hierarchy.

I am thinking here of the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. Tom Hanks is leaning against a metal barrier on the beach and experiences a lucid consciousness amidst the carnage of the D-Day landing. He is brought back by two soldiers screaming at him for orders on what to do next.

The moment has obvious links to the post below (On general intellect), but I am here more concerned with the temporality of a multitude. My project for this class will examine a recent Hindi film called Company whose subject is international and multinational Mumbai organized crime rings. One moment of interest is a perverse inversion of Tom Hank’s moment of lucidity.

As the crime ring, named Company (the irony is great), moves out of India and conducts its operations through communication technologies, some lower rung members become ambitious. One such fellow runs his mouth about the leaders’ absence and expressly calls for ‘those who do the work to take full profits.’ His comments are secretly tape recorded by a companion, given to the leaders who then execute him.

The moment is interesting for several reasons. First, the fellow felt dominated by and through the same communication networks, which under a different paradigm would be the means of the multitude. Second, the man’s push to become independent comes only after he has used the hierarchy to establish solid footing; again, the temporal specificity of a multitude, or even a drive toward multitude. Thirdly, the centripetal inertia of the hierarchy prevents, through its internal logic (one man snitches on another in order to move up in the hierarchy), the move toward a multitudinous organizational structure. Revolution, then, would be the only means to achieve the multitude. Fourthly, and most hypothetically, there seems to be an interesting interface between the multitude and Appadurai’s notion of scapes, particularly financescapes in this instance.

I can feel the presence of holes in my arguments, in my writing, but I can’t isolate them. That’s why I chose the blog diet; I’ve lost seven arguments in just five days and if I can do it, you can too!! Just call 1-800-ofu-ckme