At the end of the chapter Thrift throws out a bunch of different ideas about how what an effective radical politics of affect might look like. Among the things he mentions:
- an emphasis on the politics of small things
- a combination of hope, but also a certain kind of agression
- the form of struggle as important in its own right
- understanding diversity as strength
- an understanding of the bio-politics of imitation
I'm interested in trying to think about whether we should understand Anonymous as a good example of the new kind of politics that Thrift calls for. In many ways, they seem to fit the bill. Anonymous uses aggressive strategies, focuses on small disputes and issues, and is constantly analyzing the organization of its operations in addition to its ends. Additionally, Anonymous had an excellent understanding of imitation and contagion. This can be seen in the use of the Guy Fawkes mask, but also in their ability to organize computers to work as zombies during DDOS attacks. But I also must admit that I'm still trying to conceptualize how the obsession for "lulz" can fit into this schema (I honestly feel kind of bad for Jessi Slaughter). I'd be interested to hear what other people in the class think.
Finally, I really liked Thrift's discussion of how political campaigns use technology to deploy affect. If this kind of stuff interests you, I suggest you look into the great battle that took place on November 6. No, I'm not talking about Obama and Romney; I'm talking about Narwhal and Orca, the codenames each campaign assigned to the supercomputer programs they relied upon to orchestrate their get out the vote efforts on election day. Apparently, Romney's Orca crashed pretty spectacularly, sending his entire campaign into pandemonium.
Check it out - http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57547183-38/why-romneys-orca-killer-app-beached-on-election-day/