How environments speak: everyday mobilities, impersonal speech and the geographies of commentary

Abstract

This paper examines commentary as a mode of speaking that has not received sufficient attention by social and cultural geographers. In contrast to a representational understanding of commentary, where commentary is the expert interpretation of an environment, this paper develops a more passive understanding of commentary where the commentator is a figure through which the affective, material forces that constitute environments become expressed. Based on qualitative fieldwork in Sydney, Australia, the paper examines three modes of everyday commentary related to commuting. The commentaries of reportage, anecdote and autoventriloquy each demonstrate in different ways how the affective, material environments of commuting become spoken. The paper shows, first, how commentary is a constitutive rather than derivative aspect of the experience of commuting. Second, it shows that commentary is an expression of affective, material environments, rather than either the willed self-expression of the speaker, or the manifestation of socially and historically contingent discourses. Third, it shows that commentary can both close down and draw out specific affective, material environments. Fourth, it shows how commentary modulates the powers of existence in the zone of the commute, transforming the affective possibilities immanent to different situations. Comment les environnements parlent: déplacements quotidiens, discours impersonnel et les géographies de commentaireCet article examine le commentaire en tant que mode d'expression qui n'a pas rec u d'attention suffisante de la part des géographes sociaux et culturels. En contraste avec une perception représentative du commentaire, où le commentaire est l'interprétation experte d'un environnement, cet article développe une compréhension plus passive du commentaire, où le commentateur est une figure à travers qui s'expriment les forces affectives et matérielles que constituent les environnements. Basé sur un travail qualitatif sur le terrain à Sydney, en Australie, l'article examine trois modes de commentaire quotidien en rapport avec le déplacement pendulaire. Les commentaires de reportage, anecdote et autoventriloquie démontrent tous de différentes fac ons comment s'expriment les environnements affectifs et matériels du déplacement pendulaire. L'article démontre comment d'abord, le commentaire est un aspect constitutif plutô t que dérivatif de l'expérience de déplacement pendulaire. Deuxièmement, il démontre que le commentaire est une expression des environnements affectifs et matériels plutôt que soit, l'auto-expression voulue du locuteur ou soit, la manifestation de discours socialement et historiquement contingents. Troisième-ment, il démontre que le commentaire peut à la fois fermer ou encourager des environnements spécifiques affectifs ou matériels. Quatrièmement, il démontre que le commentaire module les pouvoirs d'existence dans la zone de déplacement pendulaire, transformant les possibilités affectives immanentes à diverses situations.Mots-clés: mobilités; vie quotidienne...

The affective life of semiotics

“…Speech is viewed here as expressing something affective despite of itself, as it were. Bissell's (2015) and McCormack's (2013) engagements with commentary and Massumi's (2012) discussion of digital art veer into a similar direction. These authors are interested in how the rhythm of digital messages "carries the force of the phrase, above and beyond its structure and meaning" (Massumi, 2012:42), or how the speech of commentary is "revealing of [...] the affective, material forces of our environments" (Bissell, 2015:149).…”

“…9 In a similar vein, but perhaps more interestingly, several authors also invoke Massumi's (2002a:76) notion of affective "modulation" (e.g. Anderson, 2014;Bissell, 2015;McCormack, 2013). Derek McCormack moreover draws on Michel Serres to frame commentating as "semiconducting the materialist energies of moving bodies" (2013:14).…”

“…It is further worth noting that several authors, including Bissell (2015), Crouch (2001), Kanngieser (2011), Laurier (2010, Massumi (2012), McCormack (2013 and Thrift (2000), have also situated their discussions within the field of performative approaches in the wake of Charles Austin, Mikhail Bakhtin or Judith Butler, viewing linguistic representation itself as part of dialogic and non-representational practices. My own approach is indebted to such performa-tive and practice-based understandings of language.…”

“…In fact, authors like Thrift (1996Thrift ( , 2000 or McCormack (2003:502) have themselves long called for viewing representations as performative and processual practices. 2 In addition, recent publications display a lively interest in the role of linguistic features like commentary, narrative, everyday speech, writing, silence, rhythm or the voice within affective and morethan-representational scenarios (see Bissell, 2015;Dewsbury, 2014;Kanngieser, 2011;Kleres, 2011;Laurier, 2010;McCormack, 2013). David Bissell (2015), for instance has explicitly situated his analysis within the renewed interest in geographies of speech (see Brickell, 2013).…”

“…2 In addition, recent publications display a lively interest in the role of linguistic features like commentary, narrative, everyday speech, writing, silence, rhythm or the voice within affective and morethan-representational scenarios (see Bissell, 2015;Dewsbury, 2014;Kanngieser, 2011;Kleres, 2011;Laurier, 2010;McCormack, 2013). David Bissell (2015), for instance has explicitly situated his analysis within the renewed interest in geographies of speech (see Brickell, 2013). And Brian Massumi, who has been attributed a central role in the "rubbishing of discourse", has offered refined elaborations on language's relations to other levels of experience (Massumi, 2012).…”