PORTABLE FORMS AND THE POLITICS OF INFRASTRUCTURE ***** Jakobson, Benjamin, Hall, Star, Haraway, Mbembe, Spivak, Hartman, Merton, David, Bergson, Poincaré, Wilsdon · LAPIEZA LAB · Anto Lloveras · Socioplastics

A concept acquires force when it can travel without pretending to remain identical to itself. Translation, citation, classification, measurement and archival survival are not secondary episodes in the life of knowledge; they are the material operations through which knowledge becomes public, durable and actionable. Jakobson dismantles equivalence by showing that every translation reorganises signs within another code, while Benjamin makes this alteration the very condition of a work’s afterlife: what survives does so by entering a linguistic and historical relation that the original could not complete alone. Hall’s articulation extends the problem into politics, where unity is neither essential nor arbitrary but constructed through contingent connections capable of being made, maintained and broken. Together, these positions describe portability as composition rather than transport. A portable form is a relation condensed enough to move, yet open enough to be recomposed. Bergson’s critique of spatialised time indicates what is lost whenever duration is converted into stable units: movement becomes sequence, qualitative difference becomes measurable interval, and becoming is reorganised as a set of administrable states. Poincaré, however, shows why condensation remains indispensable. 

Happiness without Fetishes

The key idea: “happiness” is not a monolithic psychological state but a constellation of co-equal domains whose balance enables full and just lives. To reduce well-being to income, utility, or demand reveals more a methodological bias than a humanist understanding of development. Against this narrowing, the capability–functionings framework (Sen) and the architecture of Gross National Happiness (nine domains) reposition public policy in the arena where value truly takes shape: health, education, time, community, culture, governance, living standards, environment, and psychological well-being. Their strength is not utopian but pragmatic: to guide comparative decisions, eliminate suboptimal options, and maximise real freedoms to be and do what people value. This ecology of ends has a dual valence. Intrinsic: living without violence, learning with meaning, cultivating bonds and safeguarding the biosphere are valuable in themselves. Instrumental: domains mutually reinforce each other (e.g., quality education improves health, civic agency, and productivity; vibrant communities reduce conflict and transaction costs). The programmatic consequence is clear: composite metrics and public deliberation must govern — not “correlates” of self-reported satisfaction, easily manipulated or blind to unequal conversion of resources into capabilities. Success, not utopia, demands “joined-up” policies: values in curricula, school-based mindfulness, infrastructures of care, social time, and environmental custodianship, all assessed by cost-effectiveness and their impact on substantive freedoms. The outcome is not another index replacing judgement, but a framework to civilise the economy, reconciling prosperity with dignity and ecological limits.