The paper focuses on the questions of whether, to what extent, and in what ways the implications of the rapid development of artificial intelligence are changing the nature of one of the fundamental philosophical questions, “What does it (even) mean to understand?” It draws on two sources in particular: Hinton’s explanation of the technological development and functioning of deep neural networks and Nietzsche’s deconstruction of human understanding based on his key concept of “embodied errors.” In doing so, it reveals a series of unexpected parallels, relating in particular to the notion of micro- evolution and the function of error in the processes underlying “thinking” and “intelligence.” The paper therefore draws certain parallels and demarcation lines between human understanding and the “learning” procedures of digital neural networks. At the same time, it addresses the question of what it means for the interpretation of human understanding that, for the first time in history, understanding is faced with a real, existing antithesis, represented by intelligent systems which, although they do not understand, are capable of performing the tasks of understanding, and capable of replacing understanding.

In the early 1840s, Joseph Faber presented his invention “The Wonderful Talking Machine,” later known as Euphonia, which captivated and unsettled audiences alike. While its ability to imitate human speech in various languages represented a remarkable mechanical feat, its “uncanny” voice elicited unease. The paper examines the dynamic between Faber and his invention, drawing parallels with Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein and his “creature.” We focus on the status of artificial creation and the unsettling nature of imitation, emphasizing the general ambivalence towards automata in the 19th century. By exploring the encounter between creator and creation, we examine the complexity of their relation and the horror that emanates from the blurring of the boundaries between man and machine when an effect of “likeness in difference” takes place.

In this essay, digital hibridity stands for the perpetual availability of life as both labour and debt for capital, both in real life and online. At the heart of these reflections is the realization that the digital is a regime in which finance capital believes it is finally free from any dependency on social reproduction. With the move from value to price, from labor to debt, from revolution to disruption, and from avant-garde to speculation, the digital evolved as the material of capital and the totality of the social has been replaced by the tidal liquidity of finance; immaterial labor, touching images on the screen, the rhizomatic panopticon of the Internet, shock-work on social media, and cryptocurrencies are all examples of the ways in which the digital and financial shadow each other. This new regime entails a series of conversions that change the ways in which meaning is organized—from the point of production to the point of realization, from strikes to riots, from working class to surplus populations, from solidarity to conspiracy, and from organization to petty sovereignty.

Introduction by section editors Noit Banai and Marina Gržinić.

This article researches multidirectional memory and transnationality in recent examples of counter-monument practices in Austria’s capital city, Vienna, specifically in regard to fights against antisemitism, racist discrimination and anti-Romaism. How have multidirectional strategies shaped counter-mnemonic struggle? Additionally, to what extent are they influenced by transnationality? Three examples of counter-monument practices are discussed in parallel: (1) The protests against the “Lueger monument,” commemorating an antisemitic former mayor of Vienna; (2) the illegally installed Marcus Omofuma Stone, commemorating the racist police murder of a Nigerian asylum seeker in 1999; and, (3) the ongoing struggle to commemorate the Porajmos, the genocide of the Roma under Nazi rule, with a monument in Vienna. Seemingly unrelated to one another, each case constitutes a struggle between national, hegemonic, commemorative narratives, on the one hand, and agents of civil society that challenge these narratives, on the other. While none of the three examples constitutes an obvious case of multidirectional memory making, each of these struggles to counter racist, discriminatory pasts did generate a platform to speak about more than just one memory, also such that transcend national boundaries.

In the interview with Klaus Theweleit, Marina Gržinić focuses on two distinctive lines of discussion. The first is on the book Male Fantasies. The 50th anniversary of this influential psychoanalytic study on the psyche of male soldiers, specifically the Freikorps, who were paramilitary groups in post-World War One Germany, is approaching in 2027. The second is about violence in general, particularly in the context of historical violence, of which the events at Abu Ghraib in 2004 are an example. Theweleit’s analysis of violence, especially through the lens of his critical theory, provides a framework for understanding these events not just as isolated incidents but as manifestations of deeper socio-political and psychological currents. The interview examines many levels of Theweleit’s work and thinking from that moment until today, reflecting on and returning to instances of historical violence and their bearing on contemporary society.

The essay traces the legal, representative, and societal status of migrant Others in the “closed society” of the GDR (German Democratic Republic or East Germany) as an example of how Germany has been profiting from labor migration on both sides of the Wall. It outlines how, from German reunification to the present day, migration has been presented as a sudden and temporary problem that obscures a colonial and racist past and necropolitical present. The essay examines the process of social de-differentiation in the “state-domineered society” of the GDR and how social techniques of othering and ethnicization in the form of laws for foreigners fostered discrimination and racism against the “stranger” (Georg Simmel), especially the guest worker. Looking at the process of a “double transformation” in the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent reunification, the essay examines how overlapping processes of othering as the modern equivalent of the term “Orientalism” (Edward Said) have shaped and continue to shape reunified Germany. The process of “catching up with modernization” affects not only former migrants, second-generation descendants, refugees, and racialized citizens, but also the social group of East Germans who stood outside a Western-coded paradigm of normalcy. It asks to what extent the Federal Republic of Germany aimed at the integration of majority white East Germans during the reunification process to the detriment of migrant Others and how reunified Germany still fosters integration for the benefit of national economic interests and at the cost of migrant Others in Germany today. The essay reflects on the complicated transition from the notion of an ethnically homogeneous German nation, postulated since 1871 and long prevalent in terms of the principle of descent, to the contested self-image of reunified Germany as a country of immigration and its transformation into a post-migration society.

If AI is to emulate the language, mind, and work of humans, what remains of being human? One scenario is that humans are at risk of becoming robots of AI-powered systems, serving the interests of a few global corporations. We have already reached this stage of transformation. Given this predicament, the issues concerning the capacity of AI beyond the human should be addressed through a critique of AI ideology. Methodically, this would imply a shift in perspective, from the subject of AI to the function and deceptive power of its intelligent devices. Do they serve us or do we serve them? Here, it is important not to follow the standard approach to AI as the prospect of creating super- human intelligence, to avoid the trap of basing the critique on the discourse of AI ideology. The goal, rather, is to revive the strength of philosophical critique and reestablish a certain idealism.

Gender produces multiple discontents (unease, discomfort, embarrassment, irritation, annoyance) in society. With this straightforward thesis the author addresses the problem of gender—Butlerian “gender trouble”—as a form of cultural discontent or unease. During the ground-breaking and path-paving women’s, feminist, gay and lesbian movements, gender, then female gender, caused cultural irritation for the patriarchy of the then societies and continues to do so to this very day. However, with the recent transgender movement, this cultural unease about gender has taken on entirely new dimensions, including turning gender into an alarming issue, a threatening global specter and annoyingly omnipresent conflict not only in wider society but also in academia. These uneasy issues are here tackled in two ways, through the theory and practice of gender. The way subversive gender theory can trigger collective unease, even if it is falsely imposed, artificially induced, and manipulatively orchestrated, is shown using the example of the abuse of Judith Butler’s gender theory by polemicists in culture war debates surrounding gender and proponents and supporters of the anti-gender movement, clearly betraying their intention of harming communities of gender non-conforming people and those communities’ efforts towards social, political, and legal emancipation. The way transgressive gender practice can trigger relational discomfort in everyday interactions is illustrated through the author’s own “gender story” in the form of a short autoethnography of gender unease, to illustrate the problem of deep sex/gender binarism, essentialism, primordialism, perennialism, and naturalism permeating, completely spontaneously and unreflexively, all our thoughts, words, actions, relationships, institutions, and collectives.

In this paper, we explore the role of Slovenian in constituting non-normative genders. The poststructuralist turn in sociolinguistics brought with it new theoretical frameworks that questioned existing assumptions about seemingly natural social categories. Drawing on the perspective of queer linguistics that presents a fundamental challenge to the assumption that binary systems for categorizing gender and sexuality are natural, universal, and indisputable, we explore the extent to which grammatical gender both constrains and facilitates the realization of transgender and non-binary identities among speakers of Slovenian. In order to perform their non-normative genders, non-binary individuals use linguistic practices, such as the underscore, inverse gender markers, or blending feminine and masculine grammatical forms. Their social actions are both interposed by the social structure and can also lead to changes in it by decentring binary genders.1