nanopolitics handbook - Minor Compositions

translate into product. As an a priori condition our activity required visibleand outlined indices, spaces and times for presentations, which did not comefrom the organic continuity of our process but from a duty that came from aninstitution and that was introduced into the group.We found ourselves facing the dilemma of whether to adopt or not, and inwhat way, ways of producing which we had tried to distance ourselves fromin the beginning. Without realising it, we opened a facebook account, we gaveourselves a name, logo, website, deadlines, we made records of photos andvideos and we developed a report of all that we produced. We searched foran opening, a connection to the outside, and along the way we created a setof paraphernalia that became tedious. It was from situations such as thesethat the dimension of the future began to appear in our activity: we began toproject, to envision ourselves in the future. We found ourselves inhabiting thethought of the project and of the strategy: doing things that later would allowus to do other things. New questions arose: To where did we want to ‘launch’ourselves? What was this entelechy of the future? Did we want to turn theprocess into A-Thing? Was every experience translatable into a project? Whatwould appear as the recognised and guaranteed channels for sharing thatknowledge and experience? What does one do when what is produced overflows,is boundless, when that production is not ‘translatable’ into a project?In this re-organisation of the body passing through institutionally establishedcircuits, we ourselves were becoming ‘instituted’ through its rhythms,lures, times, formats. In the face of this risk, and that of our name becomingcrystallised, a wave of upset shook us. Was this the crack that would lead todissolution?All groups tend towards the death that all living beings face as their destiny.But it is also possible to face the deadly found within forms of crystallisation,of durability or of silence around the micro-fascisms that may emerge. Thathateful way we did not want to be, but which we were being-doing, frightenedus. We gave ourselves to the task of seeing how and what was pushing us towardsa form of institutional relationship that appeared to be drawing straightlines through our many possible becomings. Thus we initiated a discursiveand practical questioning process around the visibility of what is producedand legitimate ways of knowing.Producing, a question of value and forms of composition 11At some point during the process of thinking, conversing and writing this articlebetween several of us, we imagined that this fourth section would be theplace for conclusions. Later, throughout the journey we realised that we were49