Self-created Truths:Selfing versus Posing


Everyone knows the term swarm intelligence as a term for a form of collective intelligence, but few are familiar with drift compatibility as an alternative form of love. This term gives a vague idea of ​​how future generations could live together – with one another and with the fighting machines they have created. In “Pacific Rim”, a science fiction film, drift compatibility is the prerequisite for two people as a duo to be able to operate a giant robot: “the deeper you bond, the better you fight”. Before you synchronize yourself with the so-called “hunter”, you first have to mentally synchronize yourself with another person. If the other half dies in combat, you’re as good as dead. Nevertheless, the term is still very popular on Tumblr. Under the hashtag “drift compatible” you will find the following entry: “Drift Compatible is literally the coolest saying on the planet to me right now. It hits my feelings in all the right places, and thinking about it makes me so happy because I have my drift compatible person «.

In the drift compatibility, the transhuman merges with a posthuman thinking that is currently culminating in a new great narrative. We are talking about the »Anthropocene«. Dividing the history of the earth into different phases, the Anthropocene is understood as the phase in which humans contribute to the “creation” of the earth with dirt and waste. Based on this, this new approach is also able to reflect on how the world would look and function without humanity. The creation of the 21st century is quite ready to no longer see themselves as the crowning glory of creation. They humbly join the line of insects, monkeys, rock formations, bacteria, robots and trees. A successful relationship to the world of subjects no longer includes the pose as a representation of one’s own changeable, isolated self, which is absorbed in a situational aesthetic, but rather the selfie.

In genetic engineering, selfing stands for the crossing of a genotype with itself, but in the networked data flow it definitely stands for a connective form of self-creation. Even if it may seem inauthentic by old standards, selfing stands for a fantasy: create a new authentic self! So you have to slowly see the identity construction, which only works in social networks. Selfing is more than just creating a digital persona. The many photos that are posted on the net create a new truth in conjunction with the net. (The best example: the Canadian who simulated a trip around the world with selfies while she was sitting in her cold house.)

The difference between reality and fake disappears, fiction and non-fiction become one. At the same time, the digital reality, which generates its own truth, stands for the posthuman »entanglement«,  the alignment of computer science and organic science. Selfing is – and this is the main difference to posing – not discursive. While the posing still followed the logic of narration, and certainly a certain one historicity, selfing follows a seamless neo-Hegelian logic: Cosmos, I’m coming.

As great as the difference between posing and selfing is, they are connected by the fact that both are “types of businesslessness” in an Agamben sense, whereby Agamben attaches just as much importance to businesslessness to society as to the different types of production (Agamben 2015). With this thought by Agamben, the continuous production and reproduction of the self in contemporary culture can not only be explained, but even legitimized. If one regards posing and selfing in a Marxist sense as “types of businesslessness”, they could stand for the appearance of a classless society – because this is how Agamben’s train of thought goes on. But in the sense of the new capitalism, as described by Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello, it could be countered that the series of “selves” is the very latest economy. So business as usual.

I want to be adored: Posing

If there’s anything to pop, it’s the pose. But in the digital age, in which identity and representation are blurred, the question of the relevance of the pose arises. Hasn’t posing been replaced by selfing long ago? At first glance, the two forms don’t seem so different, after all, they are both »image-related self-thematizations« (Reichert 2015: 96). Both blur the line between inside and outside. Both have ethically questionable slogans, in the case of the pose: If you look good you are good, in the case of the selfie culture: You are beautiful, inside and out.

However, the pose can look back on a success story that selfing has not yet achieved: Pop made the pose something like a user-friendly second identity. While identity in the modern age as a form of self-understanding had to be elaborated or “achieved” through a structure of consciousness – place, time, memory – the pose was more easily accessible in pop modernism as a form of positioning oneself. Take a look, take part. (But do it properly, consider the pose as a homogeneous total work of art, otherwise it won’t work.) In conjunction with pop music and visual culture, the pose fully exploited the aspect of the person’s (sexual) attractiveness. With the pose, the pop song also became the medium whose focus was desire – on the part of the producers and the recipients. In this sense one can also say: Posing was something like courtship behavior, because as a mixture of fantasy and reality it was ideally suited to arouse interest. And for sure not a heterosexual one, if, for example, in glitter rock, according to Van M. Cagle, the fans in the mode of “posing” and “glaming up” (Van M. Cagle 2006: 294) appeared as androgynous, homosexual or bisexual personalities.

The pose offered the opportunity to counteract one’s own personality. In doing so, she opened up a somewhat weird-sounding identity construction, which James Brown put in a nutshell: “Be yourself, be different”. The narcissism of the small difference as a measure to promote identity – it made its big appearance in pop and in pose. Posing worked with codes, making it an integral part of what might be called the pop personality’s big show. There is no being without staging. Here the pose meets the posture of the dandy, as Agamben puts it: “Better the world spirit in the boudoir than the world spirit on horseback.” Archetypal dandy’s philosophy, Beau Brummels, preferred that of Hegel. But even the greatest joy in the subversive effect of the pose cannot hide the fact that the whole self-referential l’art pour l’art of the pose was also a little reactionary, stabilizing the system, based on a strange form of learning. In any case: not new. Because playing with the pose and the references only works if the viewer, the recipient, also understands the pose. The best example of a functioning communication between the pose-producer and the pose-recipient was Camp.

At the height of the pose, subculture was still a credible conception of the world – even pop was once a minority, at least in this country. But outside of the subcultural art area, the anti-avant-garde tendencies of the pose were already evident. In it, identity became not only narrative but also neo-liberal. Identity became something like a “useful fiction” through the staging. With its control of the moment, the pose was precisely the situational aesthetic that gave one a sense of manageability in the Anything Goes of postmodernism. Posing was therefore also the opposite of macro-politics, as micro-politics par excellence. As a form of representation of one’s own person in a society that is felt to be at most changeable in terms of symbolism, it stands precisely for the world spirit in the boudoir. You didn’t have to leave your comfort zone, act or be present in order to behave and to show poise. Diedrich Diederichsen once said that you are “all alone in society” when listening to pop music in your own bedroom and thus found an impressive image for the feeling that the pose also conveyed: you felt involved and integrated, especially in your position on the sidelines. Knowledge played a much bigger role in the pose than action. Action was out in the postmodern era.

The pose drew further legitimation from the idea of ​​the end of history with its theory of a “post-historical” person. Suddenly the pose no longer appeared as the hobby of a global leisure class, but as the only adequate attitude towards the world. In addition to the ennobled distance (the post-historical man no longer has an attitude), the fleeting, the ephemeral, the “fast and ephemeral” are added as indispensable. That made the pose not only the attitude of the pop and fashion fan, but also that of the consumer: I consume, therefore I am.

Regardless of its proximity to the aesthetics of goods and visual culture, the pose can also be described as an aesthetic tactic used by writers and intellectuals: There is none.

Writing without a pose is impossible – some also call it gesture. For a while, the pose was the chic little sister of style, always eager to completely replace it. One could argue that a literary identity can be achieved during the writing process by appropriating poses or by categorically rejecting other poses. This makes the pose a posteriori appear interesting and important for literary studies as well. The pose never denies its own story! On the contrary, it quotes and modifies them in a constant process. “Re-modeling” became a historiographic model in pop and in writing about pop.

Ultimately, the pose follows the (temporal) order of the real: “ça-a-été”, “It-was-so-was” (Barthes 1985: 87). In this sense, the pose works like the style, and in the style – at least that is what Walter Benjamin believed – the ideology of entire epochs can be read. As in Benjamin’s philosophy of history, the pose represents a kind of “flash” of the past in the present. In a certain way, it also has a photographic moment within it, where photography stands for presence, what is depicted for the past. Roland Barthes, on the other hand, also includes the peculiarities of the photographic apparatus. For him, photography also reflects, and here Barthes is more differentiated than Benjamin, the temporal tension between the real and the image.

However, even this tension cannot compensate for the pose’s greatest shortcoming: it is not alive. Rigid, silent and sterile – the pose turns the individual into something like an art form.

Craig Owens opposes this view. As a true postmodern, he enlivens the pose. According to him, in the object one becomes a subject. Using Lacan, he creates something like a new position for the pose, medially, between activity and passivity. With Owens, the pose becomes the subject-constituting one and that only works through a denial of the real or by using Derrida to declare the difference to be real. Owen’s theory once again reinforces the idea of ​​respect for the other and the rejection of a “reductive logic which assigns positionality in the scopic filed according to gender – woman as object, man as subject often he” look “” (Owens 1992: 215). The origin of this rejection of the reducing logic, however, is an instrument that has been somewhat forgotten with the interactive media: the gaze. Under the spell of video art in the early 1980s, Owen’s pose theory is actually a gaze theory; a reflection on how to look at others. In his attempt to break new ground and to shake the heteronormative worldview, Owens falls back on an old explanatory model: psychoanalysis. In my opinion, it is precisely here that he enters into a reterritorializing, as one could say with Deleuze, a connection with the thinking of European modernity. This could be because the pose as a masquerade and game is as old as the depictions of masked men on the terracotta vases of ancient Greece.

The pose was fixed and, one could propose this thesis, tended to be turned backwards. It was based on existing poses and represents a bridge between the past and the present. About this concept she is using the linear Associated with the time of the West, which always looks to history to explain the future. From antiquity to modern pop, the pose was a representative of the time fortress of the West, which, as Johannes Fabian explains in his classic “Time and The Other”, is always on the verge of being occupied by the time of the others. The “denial of coevalness” (“denial of coevalness”; Fabian 1983: 35), which is still in the pose and which constituted the West, is now well on the way to disappearing. Proactive selfing works in this direction. Not: one nation under one groove, but one world under the spell. The “spell” that is meant here is of course not magic, but the new materiality of the digital. It really managed to replace the ghost of western culture – the logos – with a new form of ephemeral materiality. The logos has to give up his interpretative sovereignty, technology steps in for him. The glocality of pop culture finds its way into globality with selfing.

The mind in computer science: Selfing

Of course, one could consider selfing as the way to step up posing, as its freestyle. Ultimately, Selfing takes up the generative aspect inherent in the performativity of the pose and sets it as absolute. But desire or morality no longer play a role in selfing. Neither does sex. And the traditional distinction between the presence and subjunctive modes does not apply here either. I am and I could be falling into one. There is no step back behind the phantasm when selfing. The logic of selfing follows the logic of the computer: generating. Selfing no longer needs the metaphysical connection between the signifier and the signified – the immateriality that selfing needs is of a different kind than the reality that it produces.

As the first universal machine, the computer has achieved two thing. First: The computer can be used for any task because it is programmable. In the morning you can calculate the path of a satellite and in the evening you can water the balcony plants through it. Second: With the universal machine you can find out something that is not yet – iterativity is omnipresent as a procedure in the computer. What counts in the new logic of digital culture are configuration, iteration and generation (in the sense of generating).

The post-structuralists ascribed similar properties to language. As a performative act, it also reaches into the future and at the same time repeats the past. Perception of the world, humanists believe to this day, is preprogrammed by the perspective inherent in language.

Selfing no longer needs language as a technique and thus also no longer needs the symbolic order of the father. Even without logos, there is a utopian potential in selfing, which is quite easy to name: Change is possible, personal as well as that of the species. One can change oneself just like the human species, the homo sapiens, can be changed. You just have to learn to rethink and accept that the old form of analytical thinking may be too restrictive and that it is about being open to be towards new styles of thinking targeting practical knowledge. There is already a new technical term for this: artistic research.

Selfies in Art

The selfie also finds its way into art in this way. Selfies are not exhibited under the title “The Art of Translation” in Moma for nothing (or celebrated as “Ego Update” in the NRW Forum in Düsseldorf) – they are among the new “ways of worldmaking” that not only involve art, but also political theory and philosophy.

The paradigm shift from discourse art to electronic entelechy is accompanied by a very human quality: curiosity. “Irreal spaces” (Nikolas Rose) are currently incredibly attractive because they allow a way of thinking and art that occupy new territory. Departure to new worlds – seldom has it been as possible as it is now. Or seldom did people think so strongly that it was possible. It is precisely this small difference that makes the big difference here, because it changes the way in which this new form of world creation is to be dealt with. Should one respond to this love of images with a neo-iconoclasm, has thinking in images already congealed into an ideology that one should oppose, or should one open one’s arms and welcome the new art of world making? The “yes to the modern world”, which Thomas Meinecke once described as a characteristic of 1980s pop, is presented anew today. The question: “Affirmation yes or no?” has remained the old one.

Because with the transition from posing to selfing, a moment of re-authentication and re-materialization is emerging. Much more physical (in the sense of corporeal) than the selfie, the pose with regard to the formation of the self was freer, yes, for me, also: crazier. While the pose was always masquerade and play, selfing tends to lead to a kind of identity construction. Be yourself, if only for a moment. Karen ann Donnachie wrote “Glimpses of authenticity” are selfies in the catalog for Ego Update. At the moment of creation, argues ann Donnachie, the selfie becomes an authentic image again. The search for authenticity is what made the cell phone so popular. (ann Donnachie 2015: 78).

However, I would definitely go a step further here and say: It is time – speed – and series that make something appear that can be reassembled a posteriori into something like a self. The number makes it. Repeat until the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The little “doppelgangers” that can be made in art supply stores with the help of a 3D printer these days go in a similar direction. You put a little self of yourself on the desk. And you put one in the network. The dandyism of the 20th century is being replaced by the “do it yourself” movement of the 21st century. To put it more generally: a certain form of realism is being replaced by a certain form of constructivism. It is only marginally about depicting oneself, but rather about redesigning oneself – and in association with others. It is difficult to control what comes out in the end – the principle of serendipity, i.e. of randomness supported by an algorithm, applies here: A horror for intellectuals and other control freaks of self-expression!

But that’s the way it is: Selfing is anything but fixed. On the contrary, it is procedural through and through. As a kind of businesslessness in which one produces something, it works excellently within the new capitalism with a network connection, which has also produced the new social type of the »Yuccie« (Young Urban Creative). With him it stands for “Affirmation 2.0” as a relationship to the world in which idealism and capitalism are not opposites. Selfing supports the »post-critical« (Edlinger 2015: 15) culture of the present and thus a subjectification resource, which cannot yet be exactly said how it will work out. As much as one can reject the ridiculous segregationism of taste in pop culture of the last 30 years, one should be irritated by a »dominant culture« in which criticism, (self) doubts and skepticism no longer belong. Writers and sociologists have long since recognized the equalizing aspect of this new culture: Pop in the sense of popular takes on totalitarian traits with the Internet. The selfie, as a diminutive of self, fits in with an ideology that no longer allows people to be at the center of a structure – this is where the new philosophies such as posthumanism take hold. The world without people: unimaginable for fans of posing, just a small step for selfing fans.


The romantics saw nature as a cipher, and slowly it seems as if the neo-romantics of the 21st century also see technology with its bit reds and singularities as a cipher for the otherwise inexpressible world secret of the future. Like trackers and tracking, which is not at all popular, selfies and selfing represent the change from the 20th to the 21st century. Everything that media theory of the 1990s wanted to believe – a translation of real life into the digital world – is actually only actually taking place now, 30 years later. Today we live in a »different system of positivities« (Foucault 2013: 29). A new form of society is emerging and this is not only characterized by copyright problems and data storage, but also by a triumphant advance of formal language into subject formation. The formal language, the programming language, which, in contrast to the concrete language, does not communicate directly, has managed to penetrate so deeply into the »temporal-specific identifications of successful and pathological world relationships or world relationships of subjects« (Rosa 2009: 33) that they become completely have changed.

Subject formation now actually falls into the realm of media art, and cipher-based epistemes are well on the way to superseding grammar. So there is, if you will, a re-enchantment of the world – the »break« as a constitutive part of the biography is erased by Photoshop.

However, this re-enchantment also leads to a form of anti-intellectualism – because even if one does not want to fall into cultural pessimism: the appropriation of the world through pictures or numbers means nothing else than: the technology nerds and the comic readers will seize power! Even if that is of course an exaggeration: the renaissance of mathematics cannot do without collateral damage. What was used to call critical intellectuality will suffer from this zeitgeist.

There are certainly philosophical-critical approaches to selfing: You could actually think it through again with the Hegelian dialectic or the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead or with Graham Harman, one of the best-known representatives of speculative realism. What no longer helps with selfing is the difference, the metonymic play of the signifier, the small shift that generates meaning and which led Derrida to the statement: There is no outside of the text. Selfing means the end of the dominance of a discursive culture. Ontology is coming back, but it is joining forces with New Materialism, in which there is no longer any separation between object and subject.

Away from the metonymic game of the signifier to the dialectic of independence and non-independence, that is where the journey is currently going. It is therefore not surprising that Slavoj Zizek is represented among the “newcomers”, the speculative realists, with a text on how one can still be a Hegelian in the present. (Zizek 2011: 202) With Hegel, as is well known, self-confidence in thinking is based on the fact that something else – the world spirit! – thinks through me. Hegel’s idea of ​​a world spirit that awakens in the finite consciousness of the individual to self-awareness – one can somehow discover in the dependency relationship of selfies, social networks and economic and political structures that go far beyond that, described very well by Ramon Reichert. This is not just about selfing, the whole new digital culture from tracking to selfing to big data and its catastrophe: the bit red, i.e. the resolution of data. The derivative element of digital culture, to which selfie and selfing belong, is shown not least in the fact that the interaction of selfies with platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr leads to the »development of specific rituals, norms and models of self-expression. «(Reichert 2015: 89).

Guiding principles of self-expression! Here you can see exactly how strongly critical (media) theory has focused on the immaterial and ephemeral (as an expression and function of undesirable power) in recent years. »Give me a model«, the song by the Slovenian band Laibach, on the other hand, was less learned analysis than much more polemical commentary in the 1980s.

Death of the Nation

Whatever the intention, this pop band was still about blood and soil and about the nation, and so an album by the band was not called “Birth of a Nation” for nothing. Thinking in terms of the “nation” unit finally seems to be a thing of the past – although this supranational thinking of the network is currently encountering the intrusion of the real in the form of thousands upon thousands of refugees. In the sense of Victor Turner, one could say: The liminoid moment of the nomad has been transformed back into the liminarity of people who are really on the run. The postcolonial discourse in which the nation was little more than a narrative – albeit one that could easily be passed on – would certainly have its difficulties. Homi K. Bhabha, for example, described mimicry in colonial discourse as the act by which the colonial subject is reproduced “as almost the same but not the same”. (Bhabha 2000, 124.) The difference creates something like a leeway. However, this leeway no longer exists in computer science. The generative does not need a role model. Design and action – these are the new constants. One could almost say: it has played out. It is not yet possible to say how this will affect tolerance towards those who think and live differently. Of course you can already say: The Pegida followers are probably not digital natives.

Because how do you actually achieve something like self-confidence through selfing? Self-confidence in the sense of a reinterpretation of Hegel’s master and servant chapter means: Only when dealing with the forms and ideas (master) does the servant subjectivity emerge (as that of individual physical, living persons in their actions and their everyday toil) out. So at least the German philosopher Pirmin Stekeler-Weithofer. According to him, self-statements determine self-confidence, whereby he takes the concept of self-statement quite broadly, the “flour trail in the supermarket” or the killing of one’s own father, as Oedipus becomes aware of with his father Laios, separate self-knowledge and self-assurance, but are both Self-statements. (Stekeler-Weithofer 2014: 73)

But does the selfie, as a »model of self-expression«, represent such a self-statement? Is the selfie the famous flour trail in the supermarket of trillion faces? I take pictures, therefore I am often quoted and therefore maybe not entirely wrong. The digital world spirit recognizes itself through me. However, selfing can also be viewed in terms of a speculative unity of concept and shape and thus ascribed a Hegelian absoluteness to it. The famous congruence of salary and term – is it to be found in “selfing” or not?

And what about freedom? Are you free or unfree when you post a selfie of yourself on social networks? The freedom of subjectivity, formed by inner sensation and outer sense – is it actually found in the process of “selfing”? Or is it just a reflection of it? And how free are you on the internet? According to Stekeler-Weithofer, “every animal living being” has a self-confidence in the Hegelian sense. It is precisely because of this that it is free in its freedom of movement and behavior. Once again: Are we, what the inner sensation, the outer sense and freedom of movement and behavior actually still free? Are we even becoming freer, since the digital world allows us to explore completely new mobility and scope for behavior? Or do we have to stop freaking out, as the new realists believe, since the anti-realistic position is not equipped to deal with the “real” problems, such as “the looming ecological catastrophe” and “the increasing infiltration of technology into the everyday world (including our own bodies). “(Bryant et al. 2011: 3)

Posthumanism /Please don’t wake me up

“Vivid perception of difference”, according to Fredric Jameson characteristic of the logic of postmodern culture, is no longer formative for our time. The self as a “reflexive project”, as Anthony Giddens once wrote, has become a self that no longer knows exactly where it ends and something else begins.

New digital identities are formed iteratively – no longer metonymically in a game of signifiers and displacement, but metamorphically. Twitter may promote 18th generation hash poetry, but a selfie will never become a book. But it can replace the book. Because practical identities – selfing doesn’t stand for anything else – no longer have any sense of self-reflection.

Because while the logic of the pose still corresponds to the logic of narration – and thus is perhaps also rooted in modernity, the logic of selfing corresponds to the logic of the image and thus to a rather radical true / false logic. (There are image laws based on the logic of relations!) At the same time, selfing stands for a philosophy that nobody is perfect. Or rather, that we need technical inventions to be perfect. The cultural logic behind selfing can be described as a process-oriented metamorphosis, a transformation of form, shape shifting. The transformation of shape has become the new paradigm – and this also explains why (visual) art is currently ahead in the attention economy, while music and literature obviously do not function as signs of the times. “Pop – Approaching a Present Phenomenon” was the title of my essay in the first issue of this magazine, but today I would say: Pop is still there, but it is increasingly losing its relevance. With economy, computer science and politics replacing culture as a model for explaining the world and cipher-based epistemes ending the literacy of the world, the present follows a different cultural logic. Politics instead of culture, numbers instead of signs, world instead of Liverpool: The change has begun and our generation will no longer see where it leads. For all its superficiality, pop was still tangible. Today, however, something is rolling towards us that can really be described as “immersion in the material”, as I wrote in my first essay in this issue four years ago.

Because if you take the thoroughly feminist-tinged new materialism seriously, you naturally end up with Donna Haraway and her cyborgs. Cyberfeminism’s “non-genre-based humanity” (Haraway 1995: 118) is nothing more than the de-hierarchization of “human / man” (ibid.) And thus Ecce Homo, perhaps even the entire species of Homo Sapiens. The posthumanists are calling for a radical change in human nature – actually reason enough to look again into earlier human designs. If, for example, Horkheimer and Adorno criticize the enlightenment as a fraud against the masses in the service of the present (Horkheimer / Adorno 1989: 57), and diagnose the delusion of thinking subjects as the main evil of humanity, then one can definitely say that in the 21st century the belief in rationality as delusion is no longer a problem.

On the contrary: the art business, new political movements and also the new narrative of the Anthropocene show that man in the 21st century is no longer defined by the Western form of critical thinking. Likewise, people no longer believe in the power of negation: What is circulating as “postcritical theory” in the academic world is the replacement of critical thinking with what could actually be called wishful thinking. A constructivist-scientific way of thinking that is no longer content with criticizing given conditions, but is designed to accompany practical identities in their development (whether this has something to do with gender and the strengthening of female thinking in art and science I can’t say here yet, but it could very well be that Latour’s thinking mutates from the thing into a pensé feminine.)

Reason is out, but so is delusion. A paradigm shift has definitely taken place, the logic of contemporary culture no longer exclusively follows the profit thinking of late capitalism. Rather, one could say that it is instructions for action that, in the form of algorithms, determine the logic of our culture more and more. In addition, the logic of scientific discovery changes the way we perceive reality. Material consequences are suddenly more important to understand the world than reflection and criticism: this is certainly a new form of materialism.

Selfing: This term, which comes from the selfie culture, has more to do with posthumanism, with a decadent attitude towards life and with a new epistemology than you might think. Because it stands for the new form of diffuse materialism that is currently shaping the zeitgeist. At the meta level, both posing and selfing can be described as attempts to change the self by thematizing the self. But while posing has a lot in common with a symbolic game, it is selfing that transports change. As the identity construction of the subject of the 21st century, selfing stands for a real paradigm shift: The subject in the process of the post-structuralists has turned into an activity – I would say that nowadays you subject yourself in one way or another in social networks. It is not uncommon for this process of subjectification to take place without the reflection that there is still an outside – and by this outside I do mean society. Hikikomori, the total flight from the world by young Japanese, is a particularly clear symptom of this form of social flight. At the same time, the subjectification in the net is obviously leading to something like a new form of responsibility towards the earth. The view of the earth from the satellite may encourage a split, which in turn leads to special attention. The sigh of “My God, why did you leave me” also had a certain sorrow effect for a while. Today it is not the fellow human being who forces attention, but the other world. That is probably the impact of globalism on culture – not as an economic or political, but as an anthropological meta-structure.

AGAMBEN, GIORGIO (2015): Europe must collapse, in: Die Zeit, No. 35, 27.08.2015, [http://www.zeit.
en/2015/35/giorgio-agamben-philosoph-europaoekonomie-kapitalismus-ausstieg (last accessed:

CAGLE, VAN M. (2006): Glitter Rock.
Context and Identity Politics, in Diedrich Diederichsen et al. (eds.): Golden Years. Materialien und Positionen zu queerer Subkultur und Avantgarde zwischen
1959 and 1974, Graz, pp. 283-296.

DIEDERICHSEN, DIEDRICH (2007): Alone with Society. What does pop music communicate? in: Christian Huck/Carsten. Zorn (eds.): The Popular of Society. Systems Theory and Popular Culture, Wiesbaden, pp. 322-334.

DONNACHIE, KAREN ANN (2015): Glimpses of Authenticity, in: Alain Bieber (ed.): Ego Update. The future
of digital identity, Altenburg.

EDLINGER, THOMAS (2015): Der wunde Punkt. On the Discomfort inof Criticism, Berlin.

EISMANN, SONJA (2015): the Wilderness. Posthuman Fashion, in Pop. Culture und Kritik, Issue 7, Fall 2015, pp. 48-55.

FABIAN, JOHANNES (2002) [1983]: Time and the Other. How Anthropology Makes Its Object, New York.

FOUCAULT, MICHEL (2013): The Order of Things, in:[he]: The Major Works, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 7-470.

HARAWAY, DONNA (1995): Monstrous Promises.Coyote stories on feminism and technoscience, Berlin.

HORKHEIMER, MAX/ADORNO, THEODOR W. (1989): Dialectic of Enlightenment. Philosophical Fragments, Leipzig.

OWENS, CRAIG.(1992): Posing, in Scott Bryson et al: Beyond Recognition. Representation, Power, and Culture. Craig Owens, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, pp. 201-217.

REICHERT, RAMON (2015): Selfie Culture. Collective Bildhandeln 2.0, in Pop. Culture and Criticism, issue 7,
Fall 2015, pp. 86-96

ROSA, HARTMUT (2009): Kritik der Zeitverhältnisse, in: Rahel Jaeggi/Tilo Wesche.
(eds.): What is Critique?, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 23-54.