The Vampire Has Wi-Fi Now

Capital still feeds.

Nations are still imagined.

Identities are now curated.

From factory smoke to fibre optics — theory is not past. It is present tense.

From Factory Smoke to Fibre Optics

Labourers we are —

white collar, blue collar,

calloused hands or flickering screens —

across centuries that refuse to rest.

From the nineteenth to the twenty-first,

Karl Marx rises again

through factory smoke and fibre optics:

“Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like,

only lives by sucking living labour…”

And somewhere in the glow

of our laptops at midnight,

we feel the bite.

The factory has changed its walls.

The vampire has learned new routes.

But the hunger remains.

Let us give theory

a pulse,

a tremor,

a lyric.

Here comes Jacques Derrida,

whispering that language

is never whole —

only traces,

only gaps,

only silences

stitched into the blankets

we call certainty.

Every word carries

its own undoing.

Culture.

Carved in temple stone,

painted on stage faces,

braided into rituals.

But even stone remembers erasures.

“Culture is a whole way of life,”

declares Raymond Williams

and so it is:

Kathakali’s painted gaze,

Margamkali’s circling grace,

Mangalamkali’s rhythm.

Sadya blooming on banana leaves,

biriyani fragrant with migrations,

kalluputtu rising like memory.

Dress.

Accent.

Makeup.

Education.

All of it — culture.

All of it — contested.

Nations shimmer like heat above asphalt.

“Nation is an imagined community,”

murmurs Benedict Anderson,

and we print ourselves into belonging.

From ink to television light

to pixel and algorithm,

the nation flickers

always mediated,

always rehearsed.

The 1990s arrived like thunder:

liberalisation,

walls collapsing,

red flags lowered,

borders redrawn.

Routes multiplied.

Homes shifted.

Identities packed and unpacked.

At the turn of the century,

Zygmunt Bauman spoke of "liquid modernity" ,

“Thrown into a vast open sea with no navigation charts,

the marker buoys sunk and barely visible,
we have only two choices:
to rejoice in the breathtaking vistas of discovery
or tremble in fear of drowning.”

bonds melting,

certainties dissolving,

solid futures turning fluid.

Now we scroll through

echo chambers of belonging,

tribes curated by algorithms,

flags waving inside glass screens.

Neo-liberal nationalisms bloom

in the glow of notifications.

Who am I?

Who are you?

Who are we?

Once declared autonomous,

stable, essential.

Now we speak of intersections,

of entanglements,

of bodies porous to history and species,

of selves reinvented

with every login.

From homo sapiens

to homo economicus

to homo authenticus

branding the self,

tracking the self,

curating the self.

Second-order selves emerge

simulated,

hyperreal,

hovering between flesh and data.

Labourers still

but now of attention,

of emotion,

of clicks.

Marx still speaks.

The vampire still feeds.

But we mutate.

Endless,

formless,

shapeless

a species in revision,

writing and rewriting itself

through theory,

through labour,

through language

that never fully closes.

When Politics Becomes Ritual: What Marx Warned Us About

When neoliberalism presents itself as inevitable and political parties demand loyalty over critique, Marx’s insistence on dialectics and self-criticism becomes deeply contemporary. Revolution, for him, was movement — not monument.

Marx Against Dogma: Why His Method Still Matters in 2026

Unmasking the Theology of the State

The moment one hears the name Karl Marx, certain concepts rush forward almost automatically — base and superstructure, economic relations of production, bourgeoisie and proletariat, alienation, ideology. Marx lived in the nineteenth century, yet his vocabulary continues to illuminate the twenty-first. The gig economy, data capitalism, platform monopolies, and neoliberal precarity still resonate uncannily with his analyses of labour, value, and power.

And yet, Marx is often reduced to a party label. His name is either defended as ideological inheritance or dismissed as an ideological threat. What frequently disappears in this polarization is the philosophical depth of his method — especially his radical opposition to political dogmatism.

If there is one thread that runs consistently through Marx’s work, it is this: revolutionary theory must never become sacred doctrine.

Marx’s War Against Doctrinairism

Against the Sacralization of Politics

In his 1843 letter to Arnold Ruge, Marx writes:

“In that case we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles.”
— Letter to Arnold Ruge

This is not merely rhetorical flourish. It is a methodological declaration.

Marx rejects the posture of the prophet who announces eternal truths. He refuses to replace religion with a new political catechism. Theory, for him, must emerge immanently — from contradictions already present within social life.

Revolution is not revelation.
It is historical unfolding.

Communism Is Not a Blueprint

Against Political Orthodoxy and Sacred Blueprints

This anti-dogmatic stance becomes even clearer in:

“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.”
— The German Ideology

Here Marx and Engels dismantle utopianism. Communism is not an architectural drawing of the future. It is not a fixed institutional arrangement waiting to be implemented. It is a process — a movement generated by material contradictions within capitalism itself.

This is historical materialism at its most powerful: transformation grows from within history, not from externally imposed ideals.

No Recipes for the Future

Revolution Beyond Political Theology

Marx sharpens this refusal of blueprint politics in the Preface to:

“I do not write recipes for the cook-shops of the future.”
— Capital, Volume I

The metaphor is striking. Marx will not play the political chef distributing ready-made formulas. His task is diagnostic, not prophetic. He analyzes capitalism’s internal logic and contradictions but refuses to dictate the institutional form of post-capitalist society.

This is profoundly anti-dogmatic.

Revolution Must Criticize Itself

Revolution Without Redemption Narratives

In:

“The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte” (1852)

Marx writes:

“Proletarian revolutions… constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course… deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts…”

Revolution, then, is not ritual repetition. It is self-reflexive. It returns to its own premises, corrects itself, begins anew.

In an age where many political formations equate criticism with betrayal, Marx’s insistence on internal critique appears remarkably contemporary. For him, self-criticism is not weakness; it is vitality.

Against Mechanical Formula

No Saints, No Scriptures, No Kneeling

Later commentators captured this spirit sharply. Clay Newlin described dogmatism as:

“A dogmatist mechanically applies formulas which were derived from definite conditions in a specific time and place, to other and vastly different circumstances… The rich and varied, ever-changing reality is forced into a straight jacket of ready-made axioms.”
— Clay Newlin, 1977

This diagnosis could easily describe contemporary ideological rigidity — across political spectrums.

Engels: Doctrine as Living Method

From Doctrine to Dialectics

Friedrich Engels reinforced this position:

“Our doctrine is not a dogma, but a guide to action.” (1910)

This statement emphasizes that Marxism is:

• Dialectical, not static

• Historical, not eternal

• Context-sensitive, not formulaic

To transform Marxism into ritual orthodoxy is to drain it of its “life blood” — dialectics, contradiction, movement.

Marx in the Neoliberal Present

Why does this matter in 2026?

Because neoliberalism itself often presents as inevitability.
Market logic is treated as natural law.
Technocratic governance claims neutrality.
Political parties demand loyalty over critique.

In such a climate, Marx’s anti-dogmatism becomes deeply relevant.

He teaches us that:

• No system is eternal.

• No ideology is beyond critique.

• No political formation should demand kneeling.

• No theory should freeze history.

Marx’s enduring power lies not in fixed slogans but in a method: immanent critique, dialectical thinking, historical sensitivity.

To read Marx philosophically rather than merely politically is to recover this living method.

And perhaps that is the most radical thing about him — not that he offered a finished doctrine, but that he refused to.

References

Lenin, V. I. “Certain Features of the Historical Development of Marxism.” 1910.

Marx, Karl. "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" (1852).
Marx, Karl. Capital, Volume I (1867).
Marx, Karl & Engels, Friedrich. The German Ideology (1846).
Marx, Karl. "Letter to Arnold Ruge" (1843).

Newlin, Clay. “Dogmatism: The Root of Opportunism in Our Movement” (1977).

All these references have been sourced from Marxists Internet Archive.

Curated Lives: Archaeology, Discipline, and Digital Selfhood in Contemporary Kerala

 

We often imagine the self as authentic, original, and self-made.
But what if we are not origins — but archives?

From competitive exams to political spectacle, from family silence to digital memory reminders, our identities are layered, disciplined, and continuously curated.

Drawing on Michel Foucault’s Archaeology, Discipline, and Technologies of the Self, this blog explores how power does not merely control us — it archives us.

You are not one story.
You are a stratified formation under revision.

The Human as an Assemblage of Archives: Archaeology, Discipline, and Technologies of the Self

Every human being is not a unified essence but an assemblage of archives.

Not metaphorically, but materially.

We are sedimented repositories of traces—genetic, familial, educational, political, cultural, ethical, digital—each archive layered through time, revised, overwritten, partially erased. The “self” is not a stable core but an ongoing archival process.

This argument draws its conceptual force from Michel Foucault’s intellectual trajectory — from archaeology to discipline to technologies of the self.

I. The Archive: Conditions of Possibility

In The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault redefines the archive as:

“the general system of the formation and transformation of statements.”

The archive is not memory. It is not a warehouse of documents. It is the rule-governed system that determines:

• What can appear

• What can be said

• What can count as knowledge

• What must remain unsaid

Thus, the human subject is not simply located within archives — the subject is produced through archival rules.

Your genetic code is an archive of evolutionary inscription.
Your family is an archive of transmitted affect.
Your education is an archive of epistemic regulation.
Your politics is an archive of ideological positioning.

The self is not essence; it is stratification.

II. Discipline: The Body as Archive of Power

But archaeology alone is not enough. We must move to discipline.

In Discipline and Punish, Foucault shifts from discursive formations to embodied inscription. He famously describes the body as:

“the inscribed surface of events.”

Power does not merely prohibit; it produces. It disciplines.

Schools, prisons, hospitals, armies — these are not merely institutions. They are archival machines that:

• Classify

• Rank

• Monitor

• Normalize
  
  

The educational archive disciplines posture, handwriting, speech, ambition.

The resume becomes a disciplinary condensation — a curated archive shaped by norms of productivity.

Even silence becomes regulated. Even failure becomes archived.

The body remembers discipline.

Thus, the human archive is not only discursive — it is corporeal.

III. Technologies of the Self: Self-Archiving

Later, in Technologies of the Self, Foucault expands the analysis to practices through which individuals constitute themselves.

Technologies of the self include:

• Confession

• Self-examination

• Journaling

• Self-surveillance

• Ethical reflection
  
  

Here the subject becomes an active participant in self-archiving.

We curate our digital presence.
We edit our CV.
We manage our visibility.
We delete old posts.

We become archivists of ourselves.

But this curation is never free. It operates within disciplinary and archival constraints already established.

The self is edited within a regime of truth.

IV. Archaeology of Everyday Life

To think archaeologically is to ask:

• What rules made this identity possible?

• What exclusions structured this narrative?

• What silences are active here?
  
  

When a person switches language between home and office, archaeology reveals overlapping archives:

• Educational capital

• Familial intimacy

• Linguistic hierarchy
  
  

When a city is renamed, the national archive is re-edited.

When a history textbook is revised, a discursive formation is restructured.

When a protest hashtag is suppressed, the digital archive enforces invisibility.

These are not surface events.

They are archival reconfigurations.

V. The Digital Archive: Disciplinary Intensification

Digital platforms intensify Foucault’s insights.

They combine:

• Archaeology (rules of visibility)

• Discipline (metrics, tracking, normalization)

• Technologies of the self (self-curation, confession, display)
  
  

The “On this day…” reminder is algorithmic archaeology.
The follower count is disciplinary ranking.
The selfie is a technology of the self.

We become searchable assemblages.

The digital archive is dynamic, predictive, and profit-driven.

It both stabilizes and fragments the self.

VI. The Gaps: What Is Excluded

Foucault reminds us that discourse is structured by exclusion.

Every archive produces absence.

In families: political silence.
In nations: erased atrocities.
In caste systems: embodied hierarchies.

Caste, race, gender — these operate as structural archives that predefine the field of possibility.

Archaeology reveals not harmony but discontinuity.

The self trembles at the site of fissure.

VII. Against Essentialism

Across these works, Foucault dismantles the idea of origin and essence.

There is no authentic core beneath the archive.

There are only layers.

Discipline shapes the body.
Archive shapes discourse.
Technologies of the self shape ethical self-relation.

Identity is sedimentation.

Freedom is not escape from archives.

Freedom is the capacity to reconfigure them — to introduce new statements, alter disciplinary scripts, practice alternative technologies of the self.

Resistance is re-archiving.

VIII. The Human as Open File

The most radical implication of this Foucauldian arc is this:

The human is not a monument but an open file.

Always under revision.
Always within power.
Always capable of transformation.

To live is to inhabit:

• Archival conditions of possibility

• Disciplinary inscriptions of the body

• Technologies through which one shapes oneself
  
  

The self is not discovered.

It is continuously produced.

Everyday Life — The Competitive Exam Aspirant in Kerala

Consider a young student in Kerala preparing for the PSC/UPSC/NET exam.

This single figure allows us to see archaeology, discipline, and technologies of the self working simultaneously.

Archaeology: The Conditions of Possibility

Archaeology asks:

• Why is the “government job” imagined as stability?

• Why does success equal rank?

• Why is merit equated with exam performance?
  
  

The aspirant’s world is structured by an archival system:

• The historical prestige of state employment in Kerala

• The cultural value of education as social mobility

• The bureaucratic structure of certification

• The discourse of “merit”
  
  

These are not natural truths. They are discursive formations.

The idea that one must “clear an exam” to become legitimate is not universal—it is historically produced.

Archaeology reveals:

• The exam is not just an assessment.
  It is a regime of truth.
  
  

The aspirant lives inside an archival field where rank = worth.

Discipline: The Regulated Body

Now move to discipline.

The aspirant’s body becomes:

• Timetabled

• Monitored

• Evaluated

• Compared
  
  

Daily schedule:

• 6 hours of study

• Mock tests

• Ranking lists

• Coaching centre evaluations
  
  

This is classic disciplinary power:

• Surveillance (test scores, peer comparison)

• Normalization (cut-off marks)

• Examination (constant assessment)
  
  

The body is trained to sit, memorize, concentrate, suppress distraction.

Even anxiety becomes internalized discipline.

The aspirant becomes what Foucault calls a “docile body.”

Technologies of the Self: Self-Optimization

But it does not stop there.

The aspirant voluntarily:

• Deletes Instagram

• Follows motivational channels

• Practices meditation

• Keeps productivity journals

• Listens to success podcasts

Now the student is not just disciplined externally.

They practice self-surveillance.

They curate themselves.

They confess weakness, track improvement, optimize habits.

This is technology of the self:

• The subject works on itself to become “worthy.”
  
  

The archive (merit discourse), discipline (exam system), and technology of self (self-improvement rituals) converge.

The student becomes an assemblage of:

• Educational archive

• Familial expectation archive

• Digital productivity archive

This is Foucauldian subject formation in everyday Kerala.

Contemporary Politics in Kerala — Social Media Political Spectacle

Consider how political events in Kerala are now live-streamed, hashtagged, and algorithmically circulated.

Take a large public rally or ideological campaign.

Archaeology: The Discursive Field of Politics

Archaeology asks:

• What makes “development” intelligible as political virtue?

• Why is “secularism” or “tradition” mobilized in specific plays?

• What discourses are historically sedimented in Kerala’s political consciousness.

Kerala has layered archives:

• Communist history

• Reform movements

• Gulf migration

• Literacy culture

• Secular rhetoric

These discursive formations define what can be said.

For example:
A speech invoking “development” draws from economic archive.
A speech invoking “tradition” draws from cultural archive.
A speech invoking “anti-fascism” draws from Left archive.

Archaeology reveals:
Politics operates within structured discursive limits.

Discipline: Metrics, Surveillance, and Visibility

Now consider digital politics.

Political actors are disciplined by:

• TRP ratings

• Engagement metrics

• Trending hashtags,

• Comment sections
  
  

The politician’s speech is measured by:

• Views

• Shares

• Algorithmic reach

Discipline is no longer just institutional — it is platform-based.

Visibility becomes normalization.

The political body is shaped by:

• Media optics

• Public scrutiny

• Online outrage
  
  

The leader learns how to stand, speak, perform for the camera.

This is disciplinary power mediated by digital infrastructure.

Technologies of the Self: Political Self-Fashioning

Finally, consider how leaders curate themselves.

They:

• Post carefully staged temple visits or secular gestures

• Share emotional narratives

• Craft an image of simplicity or strength

• Manage personal branding
  
  

The political subject becomes a self-project.

Politics becomes self-curation.

This is technology of the self operating in public.

The politician:

• Edits identity

• Performs authenticity

• Anticipates algorithmic visibility

The political archive is being constantly rewritten through digital self-fashioning.

References

Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans. A. M. 

Sheridan Smith. Routledge, 1972.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. 

Trans. Alan Sheridan. Vintage, 1977.

Foucault, Michel. "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History." The Foucault 

Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow, Pantheon Books, 1984.
Foucault, Michel. Technologies of the Self. In Technologies of the 

Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, edited by Luther H. Martin et al., University of Massachusetts Press, 1988.