Skip navigation

While Thrift makes a periodizing argument, it is the body, the oldest “technology” that runs on code and yet the most analog object there is, that is situated as the agent of qualculation and of sensing the “changing domain” of “movement space.” For if it is not new quantities but qualities that are being produced, then it is only the body, or technologies that simulate the body’s affectedness, that can participate in the logic of quaculation. As such, we might characterize Thrift’s movement space as being governed by the logic of a sensing/feeling body. The following snippets of text, I believe, demonstrate this logic of the body:

 

“numbers are figured in multiple ways—usually as little ritual gestures, utterance and the use of appropriate prostheses—and are not easily reduced to a singular activity called ‘calcuation,’ . . . the use of numbers varies with context. It is also to say that the use of numbers is inevitably  partial, performative, distributed, and often integrated into other activites (for example, navigation, decoration, calendrics, religion) rather than understood as a discrete activity carried out for itself…. subjects may increasingly understand themselves as the subject and object of number and numerical calculation. . . more and more of the world is brought into this means of ordering through the operations of various forms of code and the ordering microorders that they generate”

 

Considering these passages, we might consider qualculation as an act of being moved in a plastic way. I think this is perhaps more specific than Thrift’s idea of flux, considering his periodizing goal. The philosopher Henri Bergson argued that after the mechanization of the cinematic apparatus culture became characterized by flux, of images, poses, instances (in line with the flow of images that creates cinema). Thrift argues for “a world of continuously flickering rotations and transformations and projections hove into view” that comes into being with cybernetics. He echoes what Bergson argued about the start of the 20th century but argues it for the 21st century. It is the way in which Thrift characterizes flux that makes his argument regarding movement-space specific to a period of cybernetics, to a media newer than cinema: “constantly changing their character in response to new events and which can communicate with each other in a kind of continuously diffracting spacial montage.”