Paul Virilio

Virilio developed what he called the "war model" of the modern city and of human society in general and is the inventor of the term 'dromology', meaning the logic of speed that is the foundation of technological society. His major works include War and Cinema, Speed and Politics and The Information Bomb in which he argues, among many other things, that military projects and technologies drive history.[5] Like some other cultural theorists, he rejects labels - including 'cultural theorist' - yet he has been linked by others with post-structuralism and postmodernism. Some people describe Virilio's work as being positioned in the realm of the 'hypermodern'. He has repeatedly affirmed his links with phenomenology, for example, and offers humanist critiques of modernist art movements such as Futurism.[6] Throughout his books the political and theological themes of anarchism, pacifism and Catholicism reappear as central influences to his self-proclaimed 'marginal' approach to the question of technology. His work has been compared to that of Marshall McLuhan, Jean Baudrillard, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Ellul, and others. Virilio was also an urbanist. After having been a longtime resident of the city of Paris, he moved to La Rochelle.

Virilio's predictions about 'logistics of perception' - the use of images and information in war - (in War and Cinema, 1989) were so accurate that during the Gulf War he was invited to discuss his ideas with French military officers. Virilio argued that it was a 'world war in miniature'.

War and Cinema: The Logistics of Perception, a 1989 book by Paul Virilio, discusses the relationship between image and war technology. Drawing on a number of films and film directors, including Sergei Eisenstein, Francis Ford Coppola, D.W. Griffith, and Stanley Kubrick, Virilio presents an postmodern analysis of how the representational methods of photography and cinema have impacted modern and historical warfare.

Virilio believed that technology cannot exist without the potential for accidents. For example, Virilio argued that the invention of the locomotive also contained the invention of derailment.[7] He saw the Accident as a rather negative growth of social positivism and scientific progress. He believed the growth of technology, namely television, separates us directly from the events of real space and real time. In it he suggested we lose wisdom and sight of our immediate horizon and resort to the indirect horizon of our dissimulated environment. From this angle, the Accident can be mentally pictured as a sort of "fractal meteorite" whose impact is prepared in the propitious darkness, a landscape of events concealing future collisions. Aristotle claimed that "there is no science of the accident", but Virilio disagreed, pointing to the growing credibility of simulators designed to escape the accident— which he argued is an industry that is born from the unholy marriage of post-WW2 science and the military-industrial complex.

The first deterrence, nuclear deterrence, is presently being superseded by the second deterrence: a type of deterrence based on what I call 'the information bomb' associated with the new weaponry of information and communications technologies. Thus, in the very near future, and I stress this important point, it will no longer be war that is the continuation of politics by other means, it will be what I have dubbed 'the integral accident' that is the continuation of politics by other means.[8]

Virilio coined the term "dromology" (based on Dromos, an Ancient Greek noun for race or racetrack) to signify the "logic and impact of speed". Dromology is important when considering the structuring of society in relation to warfare and modern media, as the speed at which something happens may change its essential nature, and that which moves with speed quickly comes to dominate that which is slower. Hence the study of dromology "necessarily implies the study of the organisation of territory[, as whoever] controls the territory possesses it. Possession of territory is not primarily about laws and contracts, but first and foremost a matter of movement and circulation".[9]

In contemporary warfare, logistics does not just imply the movement of personnel, tanks, fuel and so on, but also the movement of images both to and from the battlefield. Virilio talked a lot about the creation of CNN and the concept of the newshound. The newshound will capture images which will then be sent to CNN, which may then be broadcast to the public. This movement of images can start a conflict (Virilio uses the example of the events following the broadcasting of the Rodney King footage).[10] The logistics of perception relates also to the televising of military maneuvers and the images of conflict that are watched not only by people at home, but also by the military personnel involved in the conflict. The 'field of battle' also exists as a 'field of perception'.

For Virilio, the transition from feudalism to capitalism was driven not primarily by the politics of wealth and production techniques but by the mechanics of war. Virilio argued that the traditional feudal fortified city disappeared because of the increasing sophistication of weapons and possibilities for warfare. For Virilio, the concept of siege warfare became rather a war of movement. In Speed and Politics, he argues that 'history progresses at the speed of its weapons systems'.[5]

Virilio uses the image of a gazelle running to escape a predator to emphasize the physical aspect of fear.

In an interview conducted by Bertrand Richard, Virilio articulated his concept of an administration of fear which governs contemporary life, together with a summary of his other philosophical views. The interview was later printed as a short book (2010)[11] and translated into English (2012).[12] Virilio chose the phrase in reference to the title of Graham Greene's novel The Ministry of Fear, a fictional account of the Blitz in London; Virilio himself had lived through the Blitzkrieg in France as a boy, a formative event which informed his philosophy.[13]

Based upon his experience as an urbanist, Virilio stresses that fear has not only a psychological aspect, but also a physical one which is closely related to speed. To underline the point, he cites Hannah Arendt's claim in The Origins of Totalitarianism that "Terror is the realization of the law of movement",[14] explaining that Arendt's use of the term "law of movement" refers to "the fact that there is no relationship to terror without a relationship to life and speed. Terror cuts to the quick: it is connected to life and quickness through technology". One can see this, he notes, in the image of a gazelle running to escape a lion.[15] For contemporary humanity, fear is also related to speed, which can be seen in scenarios such as a nuclear apocalypse or a stock market crash. Hypotheticals like these are governed by computers, which act at speeds that are not tractable for humans. Virilio also contends that perpetual, instantaneous communication via computers and the internet are disruptive to biological rhythms and historical seasonal patterns of life in human culture, producing both fear and misery. As an example, he cites an increase of suicides which occurred among France Télécom employees from 2009 to 2010. Virilio attributed the suicides to the organization's restructuring which required frequent relocation of employees and expectations of constant communication.[16]

Jean Baudrillard, while drawing on Virilio's works in 1985, eventually stated in 1988 that Virilio's analyses were out of date as "Speed is out!", stating that immobility has set in because "all trips have already taken place".[17]

A book-length criticism of Virilio's work to 2004 was written by Steve Redhead.[18] He observed:

His scattergun writing style is not always easy to follow, often provoking disorientation and dislocation at the very least. Insights, personal memories, detailed histories, major theoretical leaps and banalities sit side by side.[18]^: 137

He also notes that Virilio does not pass the grade in academic studies:

Reading Virilio thoroughly does leave the reader with the feeling of many dislocated, undeveloped ideas swirling around often at the level of great generality. The content is often not particularly logical if viewed from a conventional academic perspective in the human or social sciences.[18]^: 138

However, for Law and Popular Culture, Redhead concedes Virilio as a factor:

Paul Virilio's writing have long had a major role in the theoretical socio-legal studies subdiscipline of law and popular culture which has operated at the intersection of critical legal studies and cultural studies for over two decades.[18]^: 149

In 2014, Mark Lacy, an analyst of security, technology and global politics noted:

Virilio is unlikely to be read in the 'mainstream' of academia (although one might find his works on the reading lists of a military academy).[19]^: 10

Lacy credits Virilio with balancing the propaganda of progress against the management of fear at some cost:

Virilio draws on and develops points that are made by many critical thinkers from (predominantly) the twentieth century (most notably Walter Benjamin), assembling ideas in new contexts, creating a vision of the world through concepts and language that is often unsettling, a (re)description that makes the world feel strange and unfamiliar. Virilio's often alien-sounding concepts attempt to enable us to see the world anew, to view a world that is presented to us in terms of fear and progress as something alien (and alienating), to give a form to feelings and suspicions that remain vague, unclear, uncertain, out of place.[19]^: 17

Virilio was one of the many cultural theorists (and other postmodernists) criticized by physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont in 1997 for what they characterize as misunderstanding and misuse of science and mathematics.[20][21] Virilio's works are the subject of chapter 10 of Fashionable Nonsense. Their criticism consists of a series of quotes (often long) from Virilio's works, and then explanations of how Virilio confuses basic physics concepts and abuses scientific terminology, to the point of absurdity. In the authors' words:

The writings of Paul Virilio revolve principally around the themes of technology, communication, and speed. They contain a plethora of references to physics, particularly the theory of relativity. Though Virilio's sentences are slightly more meaningful than those of Deleuze-Guattari, what is presented as "science" is a mixture of monumental confusions and wild fantasies. Furthermore, his analogies between physics and social questions are the most arbitrary imaginable, when he does not simply become intoxicated with his own words. We confess our sympathy with many of Virilio's political and social views; but the cause is not, alas, helped by his pseudo-physics.[20]^: 169

A criticism of a passage often reads something like this:

Here Virilio mixes up velocity (vitesse) and acceleration, the two basic concepts of kinematics (the description of motion), which are introduced and carefully distinguished at the beginning of every introductory physics course.[221] Perhaps this confusion isn't worth stressing; but for a purported specialist in the philosophy of speed, it is nonetheless a bit surprising.[20]^: 170

They end their chapter with a long quote followed by this comment:

This paragraph — which in the French original is a single 193-word sentence, whose "poetry" is unfortunately not fully captured by the translation — is the most perfect example of diarrhea of the pen that we have ever encountered. And as far as we can see, it means precisely nothing.[20]^: 175