Information-Power: Teletechnology and the Ethics of Human–Animal Difference

  • Samrat Sengupta


Jacques Derrida in the book Echographies of Television invites us to train ourselves into the mechanics of televisuality. In case of reading a written text, we attempt often to be close to the originary intention of the text, thereby unconsciously trying to repeat the original. This kind of unconscious technicity, however, is much more foregrounded in the televisual where the spectator unknowingly remains haunted by the hidden modes of its construction. This paper through a reading of Jacques Derrida and Bernard Stiegler tries to show how and why this technicity has to be recognized and how it is unavoidable in the case of a televisualized object-image. The presentness is much more rooted in the televisual reproduction, though with the awareness that this must have been framed. I propose here that there is certain spectrality at the heart of the televisual that corresponds closely to the spectrality of the world order after the end of history and end of ideology epoch. The spectrality is insinuated to the perpetual presentness in terms of temporal and spatial omnipresence of an Empire around the globe which is all pervasive. In this context, the paper would talk about the enframing of man and notions of humanity—the human subject in terms of a new paradigm of power supplementing Foucault’s notion of biopower, which I would call information-power, which radically reorients the knowledge/power paradigm. It would also focus on a literary rethinking of the human–animal difference insinuated by the changing paradigm of power.


Information Network World Order Digital Network Disciplinary Power Subject Formation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Agamben, G. (2004). The open: Man and animal. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balibar, E. (1991). Citizen subject: In Who comes after the subject. In E. Cadava P. Connor & J.-L. Nancy (Eds.), (pp. 33–57). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Barthes, R. (1975). S/Z. London: Cape.Google Scholar
  6. Barthes, R. (1981). Camera lucida—reflections on photography. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  7. Barthes, R. (1986). The reality effect in the Rustle of language (pp. 141–148). New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  8. Bhattacharya, N. (2006). Lubdhak. Kolkata: Avijan Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1986). Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  11. Derrida, J. (1984). No apocalypse, not now (full speed ahead, seven missiles, seven sissives), diacritics, nuclear criticism. Summer. 14(2), 20–31.Google Scholar
  12. Derrida, J. (1988). Signature, even, context, In Limited Inc., 1–24. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Derrida, J. (2001). Writing and difference. [1978]. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Derrida, J. (2002). Of grammatology. [1976]. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd.Google Scholar
  15. Derrida, J. (2002). The Animal That Therefore I Am (More to Follow), In Critical Enquiry 28 (pp. 369–418).Google Scholar
  16. Derrida, J. (2005). Rogues: Two essays on reason. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Derrida, J., & Stiegler, B. (2002). Echographies of television: Filmed interviews. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  18. Eduardo, C. (1991). Who Comes After the Subject. In P. Connor J.-L. Nancy (Eds.), New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Esposito, R. (2008). Bios, biopolitics and philosophy. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  20. Foucault, F. (1990). The history of sexuality: an introduction (Vol. 1). London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  21. Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and Power. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings (pp. 109–133). New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  22. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. London: Vintage. Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the college de France, 1978–1979. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Gilles, D. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. Winter. 59, 2–7.Google Scholar
  25. Giovanna, B. (2003) Philosophy in a time of terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  27. Heidegger, M. (2008). The question concerning technology In Krell D. F. (Eds.), Martin heidegger: basic writings, (pp. 307–342). London: Harperperinnial Modern Thought.Google Scholar
  28. Nabarun, B. (2010). Ekta Lok o Ekta Kukur, In Mahajaner Ayna: A collection of bengali short stories, (pp. 27–29). Kolkata: Bhashabandhan Prakashani.Google Scholar
  29. Sengupta, S. (2012) Dog-story or how to write a parable of postcoloniality. In Sambalpur Studies in Literatures and Cultures: Identities, Inflections & Imperatives, Series— (Vol. 2, pp. 32–44).Google Scholar
  30. Sengupta, S. (2014) Autoimmunity and the irony of self-definition: Translating the economy of terror, In Sanglap: Journal of Literary and Cultural Inquiry, Issue: Terror and the Literary, ( Vol. I No. I).
  31. Spivak, G. C. (2008) Other Asias. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Spivak, G. C. (2012) An Aesthetic Education in the Era of Globalization. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Stiegler, B. (1994). Technics and time, 1: The fault of epimetheus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Stiegler, B. (2002). The Discrete Image In Echographies of Television: Filmed Interviews. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  35. Stiegler, B. (2009). Technics and time, 2: Disorientation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta and Kharagpur CollegeKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations