Fisher popularised the use of Jacques Derrida's concept of hauntology to describe a pervasive sense in which contemporary culture is haunted by the "lost futures" of modernity, which failed to occur or were cancelled by postmodernity and neoliberalism.[28]
Fisher and others have drawn attention to the shift into post-Fordist economies in the late 1970s, which he argued has "gradually and systematically deprived artists of the resources necessary to produce the new".[29]
In contrast to the nostalgia and ironic pastiche of postmodern culture, Fisher defined hauntological art as exploring these impasses and representing a "refusal to give up on the desire for the future" and a "pining for a future that never arrived".[30][31][page needed]
Discussing the political relevance of the concept, Fisher wrote:[28]
At a time of political reaction and restoration, when cultural innovation has stalled and even gone backwards, when "power ... operates predictively as much as retrospectively" (Eshun 2003: 289), one function of hauntology is to keep insisting that there are futures beyond postmodernity's terminal time. When the present has given up on the future, we must listen for the relics of the future in the unactivated potentials of the past.
Cancel culture
Fisher was an early critic of call-out culture and in 2013 published a controversial essay titled "Exiting the Vampire Castle".[14][15]
He argued that call-out culture created a space "where solidarity is impossible, but guilt and fear are omnipresent". Fisher also argues that call-out culture reduces every political issue to criticizing the behaviour of individuals, instead of dealing with such political issues through collective action.
a) the system (process of dying) which generates the resources (living)
b) ignoring to RE (respond to) SOURCE (origin) by consenting to suggested ARTIFI'CIAL, adjective - "in opposition to natural" tempts one to ignore perceivable (natural).
c) new, néwos, now implies the perceivable, ever changing moment (um of motion) for those within.
The few suggest creationism (implies out of nothing) to tempt with "new", while those who consent are ignoring perceivable transmutation (implies out of everything), Hence, as temporary form (life) within ongoing flow (inception) it goes flow to form (inception); form within flow (life) and form to flow (death) aka transmutation of ingredient (living) out of base (process of dying) alchemy.
In short....wanting "new" tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to "now".
d) production cannot be deprived, the produced can lack self discernment, while ignoring to have access to everything produced...NATURE, noun [Latin from born, produced] .
Temporary (living) within ongoing (process of dying) needs to resist the want to hold onto...the few suggest outcomes (future) to tempt the many to want to hold onto the hope to gain (desire).
Meanwhile...temporary growth (living) within ongoing loss (process of dying) requires one to resist (need) temptation (want)...not wait for what temptation has in store down the line.
It's worse...choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law shapes everyone suggesting into a vampire being let into oneself by consenting.
Sleight of hand:
"Must be a reason why I'm king of my castle...Must be a reason why I'm free in my trapped soul"
"It started in my mind...Not limited by where I'm at in my life...Only I can ever change it up"