NEW LAW :About two millennia before the Galactic Civil War , a rogue Jedi Knight turned away from the order and begun a new Sith cult


About two millennia before the Galactic Civil War , a rogue Jedi Knight turned away from the order and begun a new Sith cult. He believed that the real power of the ‘force’ came from the dark side. Other members of the order who shared this belief soon joined the fallen Jedi. More were recruited, and the Sith Order eventually grew to over fifty in numbers. They existed only to dominate and control

George Lucas, Star Wars.

In this paper we will consider what Hardt and Negri identify as ‘Empire.’ We will look at their theory that ‘Empire’ adopts the role of an antagonist opponent within the next generation of battles, brewing on the planet. Comparing Empire to Capitalism and the multitude to the Proletariat they, metaphorically speaking deliver; in spirit of Martin Luther , their thesis to the proverbial door of the world; nailing it there and awaiting the response that befalls them. The power behind these dual opponents exists as something which is beyond our own current subjective perspective of it. They claim it operates like ‘the force’ in Star Wars; through the institutional organisation of Empire, controlling, manipulating the multitude through crisis and conflict. This conflict exists through the creation of subjects and therefore subjectivities, separation and division of the subjects. The creation of subjects suggests a structure or institution which enables subjectivity to exist. I will argue against their theory; that we are witnessing a new ‘power’ which they call ‘Empire.’ I aim to convince the reader that this ‘power’ has always existed; it is not a new entity. Their theory of ‘Empire’ is an artificially constructed symbiotic antagonist; which is essential to facilitate the illusion of a created form of reality .We will discuss this by focussing on the first moment of the general apparatus of Empire; ‘inclusivity.’
We will look at historical evidence of artificially created institutions and separations by considering Machiavelli and Marx. I will identify where we can witness the artificially created separations of power and challenge the assertion that ‘Empire’ exists despite the differences within it. We will challenge the assumption that anything can be ‘sucked into’ ‘Empire.’ I will attack their argument of a separate ‘machine-like’ entity and argue instead for a natural and paradoxical entity that cannot be named or identified. We will look closely at artificial ‘subjectivity’ and discuss this by examining the structure of artificially created institutions. I will conclude that what we are witnessing is a change in our human subjective perspective of reality. A new script is being drafted. Hardt and Negri’s ‘Empire’ is a guise for a necessary phenomenon which is essential to our fabrication of a mythological type illusion of reality; subject to the subjective relationship with reality. In reference to my opening quote from the Science fiction trilogy Star Wars; this theme was based on Joseph Campbell’s work The Hero with a thousand faces an ideology which claims “that which is beyond even the concept of reality, that which transcends all thought. The myth puts you there all the time, gives you a line to connect with that mystery which you are.”

Creation of the Alpha; Subjectivity
We will undertake the project of considering the magnanimous inclusivity of the first moment; by firstly addressing an essential ingredient; subjectivity. We consider how subjectivity is created, how it exists and is used and how it is essential in the theory of the existence of ‘Empire’ and the creation of the narrative of conflict. “Subjectivity is not pre-given and original but at least to some degree formed in the field of social forces” For anything to become a subject, with a subjective perception there must first be a totality or whole. This whole can have no subjectivity, as it is not a subject of any institution. If the whole splits and separates into groups, then each of these groups or separations becomes an institution. Each part of the institution becomes a subject of the institution and is bestowed with ‘subjectivity.’ ‘Subjectivity’ is dependant on a crucial element in this hypothesis, which is separation, for without separation no subjectivity could exist.
Traditionally it was accepted that ‘subjectivity’ was bestowed only by institutions such as prisons, schools and the family, yet modern thinkers contemplate the realisation that subjectivity is being generated outside of the formal setting of these institutions and can now be seen everywhere. ‘Subjectivity’ is dependant on a crucial element in this hypothesise; separation. What has this got to do with ‘Empire’ one might ask? Hardt and Negri suggest that the conflict we see within institutions, which renders them ‘in crisis’ is a part of ‘Empires’ methodology of control. I disagree. They claim that “The Imperial society of control is tendentially everywhere the order of the day” Yes, if you look at all of life we see conflict but what makes this; the agenda of an Empire?
The self-referential paradoxical nature of reality is witnessed within all systems of organisations. There is firstly ‘inner’ conflict which operates within each individual being and this filters outward into collective self-referential paradox according to Michel Foucault when he describes ‘the foundations of discourse in ubiquitous power-constellations”. This can be seen in morals and ethics as the personal striving for a methodology of moral and ethical reasoning; how to make the ‘right’ decision .When considering if one is a ‘good’ person or a ‘bad’ person. The separation of the self from the self exists in the mystery which challenges humans to attribute a human being with a mysterious ‘soul’, a thing that cannot be ascribed to the living flesh of a body. This conflict operates independent of any external influence and yet the existence of this ‘conflict’ can have positive benefits. It perpetually challenges a person to challenge ones own identities as either a ‘separate’ human being or part of a collective or multitude known as the human race; containing the commonality of humanity . This paradox of conflicting subjectivities appears everywhere and can be useful according to Foucault. We can only perceive anything if we have ‘subjectivity’; therefore it is only with the creation of institutions within life which bestow subjectivity on us as subjects of that institution; that we could gain a ‘subjective’ insight into anything. The institutions themselves are artificially created according to Hardt and Negri and can only be created within and from something which was once ‘whole’.
This act of dividing can be seen everywhere. For example if we imagine a flange of baboons. Let us say for argument sake that there are 10,000 baboons all the same. Some of the baboons naturally divide into a group of family members. They form groups of organic hierarchal structure; parents, children, and siblings. The ‘whole’ is split into separate institutions. The baboons perceive themselves as separate from the other baboons, yet paradoxically they are still the totality of the flange of baboons.
Let us continue with this analogy but instead consider humans. If there are 6.67 Billion Human beings alive on this planet at the time of writing this paper (and we call them collectively the totality) and the perception of separation occurs then these humans separate into groups; the family, the community, the nation etc. Within each nation they split again into communities and within communities they split into other intuitions. They are still a part of the ‘totality’ or ‘Empire’ as termed by Hardt and Negri and yet they adopt the ‘subjectivity’ of the institutions to which they divide.
From this we can deduce that the act of separation creates institutions; which bestows ‘subjectivity’ on the subjects. ‘Subjectivity’ creates the perspective of conflicting opposites of perception for example; good and bad, legal and illegal, right and wrong and enemy and foe. Without separation there would be no perception of anything because everything would appear the same. Reality is perceived because of the separation and the creation of ‘subjectivity’. Reality is a constructed illusion or myth.

Hardt and Negri attempt, by using examples of Machiavelli, Spinoza and Marx to convince the reader that each of these philosophers were attempting to create a utopian civil order, one which would attempt to promote ‘order’ and not ‘chaos’, within the inside compartmentalisation of life. This was an attempt at altering the perception of the ‘totality’ by the components of the ‘totality.’ They suggest the project of achieving these utopias failed as they searched for new ideal constructions of reality, outside of the internal world. They succumb to the first falsification; the illusion of separation and the existence of an internal and external divide. There was no separation; only the perception of separation.
In order that we address the question of ‘how Empire utilises the apparatus’ I aim to consider the very existence of ‘Empire’ I will argue that ‘Empire’ is a constructed counterpart which is essential to the perception of reality. The creation of ‘Empire’ is inevitable as it is a dependant character; the bad guy, spectre, devil or terrorist necessary to support the realisation of the subjectivity which forms its counterpart. What then of the ‘Power’ behind Empire? My argument is that there is nothing new behind ‘Empire’. The ‘Empire’ they speak of has always existed; in the guise of ‘The Devil versus God, Capitalism versus Communism, Darth Varder versus Luke Skywalker and so on and so forth. The ‘power’ behind all of these characters is defined by some as divine, mystical, money and by some as ‘The Force’. This power has always existed and paradoxically can be both defined and not defined. Once the characters have been cast and the scene set, the battle commences with each party striving to take control over the ‘energy’ or ‘power.’ Logically the subjectivity of each of these is dependant on the separation of a whole which bestows the very existence of the subjectivity on its subjects. The ideology they suggest in the creation of ‘Empire’ mirrors these symbiotic relationships perfectly. Some argue that the energy behind Hardt and Negri’s ‘Empire’ has always been there, behind every aspect of our perception of reality. Some liken the theory to a “Theology of Power” or “city of God.”
The fundamental flaw in Hardt and Negri’s ideology is that it presupposes separation. They draw a narrative of a conflict between the ‘Empire’ versus the multitude. Just as in the Marxist ideology the narrative depicts the Bourgeoisie versus the Proletariat; Communism versus Capitalism the symbiotic relationships continue thorough out all of the facets of the reality we perceive. With the creation of the institutions of each of these parties (as we have already discussed) a separate subjectivity is bestowed on each party and the conflict becomes self-referential. Hardt and Negri’s Neo-Marxist ideology fails to convince me that it is a new form of energy. They perceive ‘Empire’ subjectively as a ‘bad’ thing in comparison to their perception of the multitude as a good thing. They cannot view Empire or multitude from any other viewpoint other than the subjectivity of the subjective perception they hold as members of the artificially created division that they call the multitude. They could perceive ‘Empire’ from the perspective of the whole if they disallowed the notion of difference and separation, annihilating both subjectivity and difference.

Within all of these institutions we can see antagonistic states of conflict which have become perceived as crisis. The crisis’s operating within the institutions such as prison have traditionally caused fear and alarm yet this antagonistic dichotomy itself causes the artificially constructed barriers to disintegrate, leaving a whole. One has only to imagine the destruction of the Berlin wall as an example of the barrier which separates the whole being de constructed and allowing Berlin to become the totality of itself once more. Institutions can be witnessed everywhere; the family unit, the local community, the government. If each institution bestows a form of ‘subjectivity’ on the subjects of the institution then we must question; what happened before the first institution was founded? Subjectivity could not exist without the institution .The institution can only exist if separation occurs, an action which determines the formation of a cluster of beings, grouping together like a flange of baboons. Subjectivity therefore is the product of separation. Subjectivity only exists in a state of separation and difference. If there was no separation; subjectivity would not exist. Nothing would be good or bad, legal or illegal. Everything within the totality would just ‘be.’
As with anything that has been constructed, it can be de constructed . Living as separate beings brings with it the notion of ‘preciousness’ as each of the separate beings fight for supremacy of their own subjectivity; formally legitimised within the fabric of the created reality by the epistemic system of law as ‘rights.’ The shift in the perception of reality is evident in the breakdown of the perception of separation even between species. The ‘right’ bestowed upon a human being, as an artificially created hierarchical supreme subjectivity separates the human race form other species… This artificial supremacy is now challenged; in light of the decision of the Anthony Bland case where the sanctity of life argument was critiqued and it was controversially held that; what defines life is consciousness. The manipulation and domination of bees as workers producing honey now posits fundamental questions.

Adopting a traditional stance Hardt and Negri perceive global counter-hegemonic insurgences as an indicator of a ‘them’ and ‘us’ divide. Not amongst species but within species. This artificially created mythology is embedded within the structures of our perspective of reality and Hardt and Negri fail to transcend it. They continue to adopt the traditional subjective perspective of separation. Seeking to identify the opposing antagonist they place the US at the top of the hierarchical structure of ‘Empire’, and place the multitude (which includes individual persons, groups, communities and nations) as its direct opponent or nemesis. The subjectivity of each of these fragments of the ‘totality’ organically generates a perceived enemy or opposite. This dualism is both enigmatic and symbiotic by nature of its properties. Each is juxtaposed on the other for its own legitimacy, for without the counter part the other ceases to exist, there could be no empire without the multitude. I emphasise ‘perceived’ to demonstrate that if the perception of the separation, in reality the myth of separation, is accepted and each separate ‘institution’ acts as an ‘archipelago of factories of subjectivity’ creating individual subjectivism s on their own subjects, then the creation of battles will be perpetual.
The Narrative
With a reflective consideration of political conflict and subjective participation in counter hegemonic activities which range from Che Guevara to the struggles of Italian workers, Hardt and Negri consider that changes in world politics and economics have contributed to the project of globalisation which moves increasing towards completion and a decline in sovereignty. This quite simply is a shift from perceptions of separation to perceptions of totality. The new paradigm, according to Hardt and Negri “is both system and hierarchy, centralized construction of norms and far-reaching production of legitimacy, spread out over world’s space.” Professor of Sociology Stanley Aronowitz speaks of the use of human rights as part of the effort of ‘Empire’ objective of creating a new world order through the project of globalisation.” The new world order is the deconstruction of separation and reconstruction of the totality.

“The innovation of human rights is not merely a fig leaf for the Imperium; it is part of an effort to create enforceable international law in which the institutions of ‘Empire’ take precedence over formerly sovereign states—in short, assume the role of world court as well as policeman. The interest of ‘Empire’ are also invoked in the economic arena, where it may be noted that the US President has been largely fashioned as a high-level trade representative for the transnational’s.”

They suggest that that there is evidence of a digression away from the traditional method of viewing life; they coin the phrase as a ‘paradigmatic place of modernity.’ I agree that we are witnessing a paradigm shift but question if; just because we no longer accept traditional methods of ideology or ontology of life, how it operates, how and why we live it; it does not logically follow that an independent, sinister and power thirsty monster exists; in the guise of some form of ‘Empire’. To perceive ‘Empire’ as a controlling monster suggests it is being viewed from the subjectivity of something other than itself. From the view point of something separate from itself. Just as Marx viewed capitalism as a ‘spectre’, Hardt and Negri demonise the phenomena; which is juxtaposed with their own identity as a part of the multitude.
In contrast to ‘Empire’ and acknowledging a paradigmatic shift in the perception of reality, a very different perspective is being offered to us by Michel Foucault ( post structuralism), Jurgen Habermas (critical theory) and Niklas Luhmann ( theory of Autopoiesis),each attempting to “replace the autonomous individual, not with supra-individual entities, but with communicative processes.” Foucault radically takes this argument even further and suggests “…the human individual is nothing but an ephemeral construction of an historically contingent power/discourse constellation, which dictates the episteme of a historical epoch” Luhmann on the other hand according to Gunther Teubner, “the human individual in society as a communicative artefact” Each of these theories if we accept them suggests that Hardt and Negri’s ‘Empire ’is ill-founded.
Insightfully, they suggest that this paradigm shift witnessed in society in the perspective of reality is post-modern by nature of its properties, “post-modernisms is what you have when the modern theory of social constructivism is taken to its extreme and all subjectivity is recognized as artificial.” The key word in this statement is ‘recognised’. To recognise something is to see it, acknowledge it and see something of oneself in it, denying any separation at all. Hardt and Negri use this recognition statement as a method of explaining the way in which humans have teleologically advanced in consciousness; an advancement which sees the illusion of the myth of separation, a form of awakening to the awareness that we now recognise the artificial construction of systems of artificial subjectivication. This subjectivity was artificially created by humans through the apparatus of organised institutions which began by the formation of groups and developed into families, communities and Nations. By separating from the totality and creating institutions we created separation and subordination. The creation of the prison created the subjectivity of the prisoner. The creation of the school created the subjectivity of the pupil. The separation and diving of the whole to separates creates subjectivity. A pupil can perceive their relationship to the school as a pupil. A prisoner can only view the prison from the eyes of a prisoner. These states of subjectivity are artificially created only by the creation of the institution. These subjectivities are artificial. A pupil will adopt another form of subjectivity when she returns home to the family institution. She will no longer see interaction in the life world as a ‘subjective’ or ‘pupil’ instead she will adopt the ‘subjectivity’ of a daughter, sister, mother, grandmother or member of the human race. These too are created subjectivities. At all times she is not a pupil, prisoner or family member. She is part of the ‘totality’ adopting the artificially created persona of a ‘subject’.
Where I disagree with Hardt and Negri is that their suggestion that society is changing to a system of imperial rule by the acknowledgement of the indistinguishably of the differentiation between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’. This has always been the case. There has never been an ‘inside’ or ‘outside’; only an artificially constructed narrative of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’. All that has changed is our own Human ‘subjective’ perception of this. Our human subjectivism originates in our hierarchical institution in which we humans perceive ourselves within an organised structured institution. The mythology is evident in the creation of society and religion. We placed our self at the top of an organisational structure; thus demoting animals, insects, plants, trees, minerals to the ranks of the workers. Here is the locus of class division and class struggles. Our own ‘subjectivity’ was artificially created by the perception of separation from the totality, which is unnameable. Hardt and Negri seem to refer to this as residing at the ‘core’ of ‘Empire’. I argue it also resides at the ‘core’ of the multitude. The traditional ideal of sovereignty rests on the artificial creation of a civil order, a distinct opposite of chaos. In Sovereignty what is indistinguishable is the space between ‘order’ and ‘chaos’ and the distinct divide between the two artificially created states. Early social theorists “from Hobbes to Rousseau, understand the civil order as a limited and interior space that is opposed or contrasted to the external order of nature” Hardt and Negri use examples of similar paradoxical contradictions in areas of modern academic study such as psychology and anthropology where contrasting drives, passions and instincts conflict with one another in a separate space than that of ‘nature’. If we are to accept that because these conflicts exist in our own subjective perception then must we accept that our own perception is tainted by the ‘Way in which we view our world? ’ Just because we perceive a distinction between the state of nature and the state of human consciousness does it logically follow that there is a distinction at all. I argue that it is only our perception which is influenced by our subjectivity which creates this distinction. When our perception changes and our subjectivity changes by the creation of a new institution then ‘we perceive things differently.’ Traditionally if one wanted to voice an opinion about society, in the political world; one would have to use the institutions created for the purpose of political discourse. Political unrest now takes place naturally in informal settings.

Political discourse occurs everywhere, from the kitchen table via the World Wide Web. The de-actualisation of politics is; according to Hardt and Negri evidence that society is now post-modern and within the clutches of imperial control. Whilst I agree that we are witnessing the beginning of a new form of political discourse, I again rest this on the perception we now have of life, our place within it and the way we interact with it. As we now perceive the narrative of politics as existing in the virtual space, the place somewhere between public and private then Hardt and Negri place politics within the grasp of the ‘core’ of ‘Empire’. I cannot see how they can argue this without justification.
The Script
If we were to assume the role of director and producer of a new film; which depicts conflict and bloody battle, we might choose to relocate our set from a private studio in London, to a studio viewed from the Archimedean Point looking down on the planet as our set. In this theory Law adopts the role of ‘the narrator’.
Hardt and Negri insist that the project of ‘Empire’ is to create a ‘totality’ or whole system of regulation. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union they attribute the global counter hegemonic insurgences as evidence of the existence of an organised institution ‘Empire’. These insurgences are found in conflicts over post-war labour struggles and national liberation movements together with the de-legitimisation of individual nation states and the formation of a supra-state. What they appear to be witnessing is counter hegemonic resistance; but resistance to what? This resistance, according to their theory is resistance to the ‘Empire’ and its project of annihilation.
Ironically Hardt and Negri also apportion qualities to the ‘Empire’ as antithesis of their own as artificially created members of the ‘multitude’. They claim that the entity has gained strength and has given rise to dominating, manipulating and controlling all aspects of life. This suggests that the multitude has no strength, is weak and is being dominated. These qualities are exact opposite from the qualities Hardt and Negri attribute to Empire. It controls, according to their theory; by using a complex structure of organisation; referred to by them as an apparatus. They claim that ‘Empire’ possesses multiple changing faces and topologies. One of these faces, they claim; is a liberal face. Does this sound Familiar? The original quote of an imperial order based upon the manipulation of ‘the force’ comes form the deconstruction of mythological interpretation of reality which led Campbell to write of The Hero with a thousand faces. Post-modern film-makers have used the formula devised by Campbell to create films such as Star Wars and The Matrix, each of them containing a narrative of conflicting parties struggling to dominate a type of ‘power.’ Hardt and Negri have cast the ‘multitude’ as the ‘goodies’ and the ‘US and Capitalism’ as the ‘darkness’, they strive for dominance over the ‘core’ of ‘Empire’
The illusionary nature of the perception of ‘Empire’ is that it possesses the illusion of the face of an institution offering freedom to the oppressed multitudes. This illusion rests on the first premise that the multitude lacks freedom. The perception within the multitude that there is a lack of freedom is created by the subjectivity of the subjects of the multitude. It was historical, created by the implementation of artificially created systems of organisation and institutions such as Rousseau’s Social Contract ; where a mass was divided into two opposing parties each contractually connected by a system of obligations and responsibilities to one another. The birth of two completing political subjectivities occurred. The separation and the separate subjectivities creating a form of conflict which would dominate the life world as it does in this post modern realisation of the perception of reality and thereafter, until the recognition of the artificial separation becomes apparent. I suggest that the paradigm shift is that perception of the artificial created separateness. This fits nicely with the notion of post-modernism as described by Hardt and Negri, “In a post modern world all phenomena and forces are artificial…”
They claim ‘Empire’ has an external boundary, yet insist that everything is contained within the boundary. “The boundary of the ‘Empire’ encompasses everything within it, with no exceptions.” They claim it is blind to differences and yet chooses to ignore differences. To be blind to differences suggests that it has no subjectivity .If Empire is a created subject of an institution it would have subjectivity and thus could not be blind to difference. Empire according to Hardt and Negri contains a space at its centre, which they term the ‘core.’ We have discussed this already and I have provided examples of other notions of this core as energy, force or divine power. Yet, radically Hardt and Negri ambitiously take their project even further by claiming that within the ‘core’ there is an absolute universal notion of what is ‘right.’ Let us consider then the subjectivity of ‘right’. Something can only be ‘right’ if it is viewed subjectively, in comparison to its opposite. For the ‘core’ to have a ‘subjective’ view it must be a ‘subject’ artificially created by an institutional organisation which bestows subjectivity on it. For an institution to exist there must be some greater ‘totality’ from which it is separated from; becoming an institution. Therefore either there can be no subjectivity within the ‘core’ and no possible notion of absolute right, or there must be an even higher ‘totality’ which separated and formed many ‘core’, each with their own subjectivities. If that is the case then the core would have a subjective view and could possess a form of absolute ‘right’. This is the absolute conundrum and enigma; there is no answer
They compare the ‘Empire’ to a black hole which sucks in everything within its vortex yet paradoxically they also compare it to the Statue of liberty “give me your poor…..” This dichotomy does not assist their argument. If the ‘Empire’ sees ‘no differences’ then ‘poor’ would not exist at all and the subjective description of anything would be of no interest to ‘Empire’. How can someone describe something as ‘poor’ without having experience of ‘rich’? One person’s poverty is another’s riches. These are subjective views which can only be held by the subjectivity bestowed on them by created institutions.
Hardt and Negri contradict their own argument here by claiming that the ‘Empire’ acknowledges the differences and chooses to ignore them. If everything is de facto, within ‘Empire’ and nothing can exist outside of ‘Empire’ why then would it see any differences at all and why would it be relevant to ‘Empire’; as everything just ‘is’ within ‘Empire’? There are several flaws to Hardt and Negri’s proposition. Firstly they argue that the Empire, has boundaries, “the Empire does not fortify its boundaries to push others away, but rather pulls them within its pacific order” then paradoxically they suggest that Empire encompasses everything. Where does it pull anything from? Logically therefore they must be arguing that ‘not everything’ is within the ‘Empire’ and some things can exist outside of its boundaries; if everything was already inside of the boundaries there would be nothing to pull inside. This is a dichotomy. Empire is therefore an artificially constructed symbiotic opponent necessary to legitimise the existence of the multitude.

Another flaw in their argument lies within the claim that ‘Empire’ is a “machine for universal integration, an open mouth with infinite appetite, inviting all to come peacefully within its domain” yet this statement again conflicts with itself. If ‘Empire’ is a machine, with the aim of integrating everything into a totality, then everything must not already be integrated. There must still exist the perception of an ‘outside’ and ‘inside’. If its purpose is to bring everything within it, then something must be outside of it. If its purpose is to integrate everything into a totality then it has to be able to subjectively differentiate between what exists within Empire and what exist outside of Empire. To be able to view differences one must perceive thing subjectively. To have subjectivity one must be a subject of an institutional organisation. Hardt and Negri do not argue that ‘Empire’ exists within a hierarchical organisation. They argue that it is the a priori organisation.
Next Generation
Hardt and Negri talk of the “passage to imperial society” suggesting that ‘Empire’ is just beginning to spread; like the underground vines or a computer virus which spreads throughout different computer systems. They claim that the source of ‘Empire’ adopts a consciousness which aims to complete the project of de-separatisation by global corruption or globalisation; and with it brings a quest for a new method of life, a new type of mythology. They compare this with Spinoza’s analogy of the separation of the sovereign from the subject or the head from the body, “if we cut off the tyrannical head off the social body, we will be left with the deformed corpse of society. What we need is to create a new social body” I agree that we need to create a new narrative, a script for the next generation, but reject Hardt and Negri’ s description of it.
Alternatively I offer as an argument that what we traditionally viewed as ‘political’ is a metamorphosis in our own perception, into something which now accessible to everyone, anywhere and at anytime. It is timeless, placeless and belongs to no-one. Foucault’s definition of discourse resembles these attributes as it is according to him, “anonymous, impersonal, intention-free chain of linguistic events.”
I agree with Habermas that the era of Liberal politics is at an end but I fail to accept Hardt and Negri’s argument that ‘Empire’ takes it place. In my opinion, what takes its place is a re-definition of politics. This re-definition is based on the re-evaluation of our own subjectivity and our place within the institutions we perceive ourselves as belonging to. If I see myself as a member of a club then I see my subjectivity in relation to the organisation of the club. If I perceive myself as a separate being from the members of another club then I cannot look upon matters subjectively. I would view any occurrences from an objective viewpoint only. What is required in this new post modern paradigm is a shift in the way we communicate through the systematic methodology of law, a self-reproductive social process which Teubner describes as an autopoietic system.
Omega; the End of History
The final example offered to prove the existence of ‘Empire’ is according to Hardt and Negri, “the end of history”. They emphasise the separate subjectivities, which facilitate conflict and war; in the historical definition of history. Frances Fukuyama, cited by Hardt and Negri suggests “that the era of major conflicts has come to an end: sovereign power will no longer confront its other and no longer face its outside, but rather will progressively expand its boundaries to envelope the entire globe as its proper domain.” When the project of Globalisation is completed then there will be only one territory, one power and one set of laws. War will cease. Property ownership will cease; as all will become a part of the ‘totality’. If we follow this argument through logically, if subjectivity only exists in a state of separation and differentiation then a metamorphoses towards globalisation or ‘totality’ would render ‘subjectivism’ as we know it now to be annihilated; and a new form of subjectivism bestowed on the subjects of the new institution. If an institution can only exist if separation occurs then no institution can be created in a totality, and we are left with the ultimate paradox or symbiotic relationship. No separation means there can be no institution and no institution means there can be no subjectivity; and therefore no separation.
The crisis we see around us, once viewed as a crisis against an external antagonist will continue, this is what we have previously discussed as paradoxically results of the perception of separation, but with internal antagonists within the totality as ‘Omni-crisis.’ As we have previously discussed these paradoxes exist not because of something outside of them, but because they are juxtaposed in existence and are co-dependant on one another for subjectivity. War only exists because of peace, good only exists because of bad, legal only exist because of illegal. If everything was legal and there was nothing illegal, then nothing would be legal it would just be.

In conclusion Hardt and Negri suggest that there is no longer a divide between ‘outside’ and ‘inside’, I argue that there has never been a divide, only the perception of a divide. They suggest that even though we are becoming more ‘whole’ in the way we relate to one another economically, politically, and privately, the way in which we perceive one another demonstrates that we possess individual subjectivities bestowed on us by our institutions, which were artificially created by us. If this is an illusion then there is only one totality. Hardt and Negri suggest that ‘Empire’ manages the paradoxical conflicts within the ‘totality’. I suggest that the conflicts just exist in our own subjective fable, created by our own totality of consciousness and not managed by the ‘Empire ’at all. The conflicts themselves are pieces of the totality and therefore are the ‘whole’ or ‘totality.’ The multitudes (individual beings in our current perception of them) as described by Hardt and Negri are each, like the conflicts, pieces of the totality. The ‘totality’ is conflicted with itself. The ‘totality’ is corrupted.
I will conclude my paper by suggesting that our collective and individual perspective of what it is to be human is changing. Our ‘subjectivity’ bestowed on us by traditional artificially constructed institutions such as civil society, sovereignty, personal sovereignty and autonomy are deconstructing. Politics is deconstructing and re-constructing in another form. The way we de-construct our public and private laws is changing. Law is producing new legal communications which communicate about the perception of; what it is to live. Law is the narrator. What is not changing, and this is fundamental to my argument and reflects my choice of opening quote from the Science Fiction film Star Wars; is the existence of a new entity called ‘Empire.’ It is an old enemy; one which has a thousand faces. There will always be an ‘empire.’

Hardt and Negri describe a natural phenomenon, a space or void which words cannot fully explain; a ‘thing’ which has been described by many in many different forms of language. It is the ‘power’ which lies within the core of their ‘Empire.’ I struggle with a name to place on this ‘power’ and therefore I will refer it simply as the use of the yin /yang symbol, which epitomises the concept of everything within everything else; 

Hardt and Negri’s ‘Empire’ operates as an institution and therefore bestows subjectivity on all of its subjects. Their argument defeats itself for; if there are no differences and no separations; then there can be no institution. If there is no institution there can be no ‘Empire’. Logically what exists is something which does not possess the hierarchical organisational structure of an institution. It is .

de-actualises ‘subjectivity’ all together. It sees no differences; for there are no differences. sees no separations; for there are no separations. Our Human perspective is not changing because of ‘Empire’, it is changing because we are acknowledging what we are by ‘nature’ which is .The narrative will continue and the characters will change but the battles will be fought infinitely, just as the sun rises and the sun sets.

Submitted to University of Glasgow
Law and Social Theory Honours paper 2009


Lawyers & The Hunter for Data October : A Legal Knowledge Engineering Series

Lawyers The Hunter for Data October : A Legal Knowledge Engineering Series


Data : It is everywhere yet it evades the radar of the knowledgable. Perhaps it wears an invisibility cloak or it has become acclimatized already. Never the less data has somehow managed to fool us.

The terms Big Data, Data harvest, Data management, data manipulation, Data storage, Data shed,: the list goes on and on.

Yet it is not something new at all. The diminishing buzzwords we all have become accustomed to in the 90’s and 00’s are being gradually replaced organically with a new set of terms circulating around our society and incorporating new terms such as algorithms, process management and data value.

Have you ever put your hand into a pair of jeans pocket and found a £10 note or $10 bill that suddenly brought a smile to your face on a cold October morning just before pay-day?

The value of that Data stored away by law firms over the last ten years or more has suddenly become just like that surprise October find .

It is not finding the data per se that has generated the frenzy but the methodology used in which the processing of the data can be managed and utilized by every member of a firm from the top-level managing partners down to the cleaners and porters.

I don’t buy into the term ‘Big Data’ which suggests a superior , standalone entity of data which dictates the way we function within organisation.

Within what I call “ Systems Function Data’ there are various methods of analyzing and using the large quantities of data we already hold, gather and extrapolate.

Ultimately it is about taking all of the data and simplifying it , reducing it to information that can be used by staff and customers to improve their decision-making process. Systems Function data exists already in every firm, what is occurring now are new innovative ways of making actionable steps to improve efficiency. So it’s actually about creating simple actionable information.

Interaction has begun , do you speak data?

A few key innovations have suddenly started to be able to interact with the Systems Function data stored already. The Cloud, mobile workplaces, specialized analytics and algorithms and data visualization techniques act as gatekeepers to our entrance to the language of ‘Systems Data’.

If we want to be able to put systems data to work for us, first we need to communicate with it using a language we can understand.

By studying the language of systems data we can communicate and use the data to create a more effective and informed decision-making process and, ultimately, higher quality, lower cost legal services.  All legal , business and personal decisions fundamentally depend upon the following simple questions:

  • What is happening? – A snap shot audit and Real-time visibility of the most critical indicators for your organization
  • Why is it happening? – The ability to look into current issues to understand what led to the results
  • What should we be doing? – The ability to determine road maps, goals and objectives, allocate resources, monitor them and evolve
  • What is likely to happen in the future? – Being able to monitor and analyze current and past performance to proactively address evolving trends and predict possible outcomes

As the language of Systems Function data evolves, so too the handling and use of this data adapts to the changes. It’s a new frontier for the legal profession and business in general and one which will encounter many turns and twists along the way.

It isn’t only about extracting the data it’s about being proactive rather than reactive with visualizing and creating innovative methods of determining what IS data.

The skills and experience of your team can be harvested too offering an accent to the language of the data creating a specialism in a specific area of practice.


Do your team speak ‘Data?’

Michelle l Hynes LL.B (Hons) DiPLP

Legal Process Engineer


follow me @legaleaglemhm




Top 50 Ways Lawyers are using twitter in 2014 – can you add to the list

Top 50 Ways Lawyers are using twitter in 2014– can you add to the list
What are ‘Lawyers’ really using twitter for?
Twitter; we know it’s there and we use it (each of us differently) but what trends are forming and how is the profession using it for business and for ‘law’?

Marketers tell us how to ‘check our companies social media policy’ and how to ‘gain followers’ and how to ‘communicate’ but what exactly are lawyers using twitter for.
As there does not seem to be a definition of ‘lawyer’ available I use the term ‘Lawyer’ in the loosest form of the word gathering into this group law students, jurists, writers of legal commentary ,practitioners, solicitors, advocates and barristers together with legal publications and paralegals. In fact, anyone who works in the legal field.

Here is a list of a 50 plus activities currently being undertaken by ‘Lawyers’ on twitter.

Communicating new skills for students and trainees
Discussing law
Legal education
Reputation building
Finding a law school
Recruiting new law students
Asking legal questions
Peer learning
Discussing legislation
Making referrals
Obtaining subscribers
Accessing legislation
Communicating with client
Obtaining funding
Securing traineeship
Letting off steam
Recruiting a new partner for firm
Connecting with colleagues
Promoting charitable events
Motivating staff
Providing ‘access to justice’
Collaboration across jurisdiction
Voicing one’s own opinion
Accessing global news
Accessing on-line journals
Finding Experts
Creating a ‘future’ of law
Discussing ‘The Bar’
Finding a Devil master
Finding a pupilage
discussing techniques of practice
exchanging views
sharing News
getting tips for traineeship interviews
links for blawgs
sharing ‘mooting’ tips
learning how to use ‘twitter’
learning how to use Linkedin and facebook
event publicising
Defrosting cold cases
correcting Grammar
arranging tweetups
Debating issues
Finding a trainee
Researching Firms
Publishing research
helping insomia
personal branding
Showing Lawyers as ‘Humans’

I am happy to add your activities to this list please tweet me @legaleaglemhm or email
Copyright 2011 Michelle Hynes All Rights Reserved


Michelle L Hynes LL.B (Hons) DipLP

Legal Process Engineer




The Top 5 Reasons Why I’m Not Following You on Twitter

The Top 5 Reasons Why I’m Not Following You on Twitter

1. You’re an egghead. Come on now who really wants to follow an egg !get your photo up

2. You don’t have a bio. Unless of course you are Brad pit or another well known celebrity the bio is your chance to tell me know you are. It only takes 5 minutes go to your profile and edit now .  When I’m looking for new accounts to follow, if you don’t have a bio, you’re not giving me much choice no bio no follow.

4. You don’t tweet enough. For me its not just about tweeting its about engaging. So come on engage.Even a hello will put you on my radar and on my favourites list (maybe) 

5. You tweet too much. NOPE …..there is no such thing. Let me know you are there.

My top 5 tips for you.

No eggs, no bio,no tweets = no follow

you can follow me on twitter@legaleaglemhm

Michelle Hynes LL.B (Hons) DipLp

Legal Process Engineer



New Lawyers need Law and VISION : here’s why

Guest Blog by Barry.Gross partner at Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP and @UKLegaleagle

This blog was encouraged/requested by LegalEagleMHM and is being co-hosted on her fantastic blog : Diary of a Diploma in Legal Practice student which contains many thought-provoking and inciteful blogs and the latest of which on “What makes a ‘great’ lawyer and do clients want ‘greatness’ or savings?” clearly shows someone thinking about the actual facts of the job.

Every six months we have a new intake of trainees. These trainees were generally signed up at least 2 years’ previously either in the September of their final year in University or immediately prior to their embarking on the CPE (commonly known as the Law Conversion). Every six months I find myself asking the same question:
“What do I expect from the new intake?”
You might think I am pretty daft constantly considering the same question but in reality I believe it actually reflects the constantly changing nature of the role lawyers perform. The graph above shows two important attributes that are required from lawyers today – legal knowledge and commercial acumen. Most law students probably believe (and I admit I am guessing to a certain extent) that legal knowledge is fundamental and that commercial acumen is a distant second. However, this is very wrong and here is why.

I am a transactional real estate lawyer. My clients do not care about the law they merely care not to fall foul of it, or if they do, to reduce the negative effects. My clients come to me with a vision, a transaction they wish to transact, and I am a facilitator seeking to turn their vision into reality. What matters to my client is getting the deal done. In order to be able to service them I must understand their commercial drivers, what it is they are trying to achieve. Without that understanding I cannot possibly enable them to achieve their vision. With that understanding I am more than merely a facilitator, I am someone who can help develop the vision and improve on it.

So does that mean that legal knowledge is not important? Absolutely not. I must know the potential pitfalls that could destroy my client’s vision but not so that I can then tell him all the issues but rather so that I can manage the transaction so that the vision is realised whilst avoiding the issues. Like the London cabbie – I tell him the destination and expect him to get me there in the swiftest, safest and cheapest way. Sometimes I might ask why he went a certain way but I do not want to hear from him a running commentary on why he did not go a different way.

Back to my fresh intake of trainees joining next week; which is more important – commerciality vs. legal knowledge. Well, when I started as a trainee in the 20th century(!) my first seat was with a senior property partner at Berwin Leighton called David Rhodes. On my first day David turned to me and said:
“Barry, you undoubtedly know more law than I do, but I know how to use it better”
This thought has remained with me throughout my career. Obviously David did know more law than me but that was not relevant. It is not knowing the law that is important but rather knowing how to use it.

I expect trainees to know the law in detail and, more importantly, how to be able to research and find out the law. I do not expect trainees to know instantly when the specific legal point can be disregarded as it does not affect the client’s vision. In fact, I would be very concerned if trainees and junior associates were not considering the full legal picture before telling me what they propose to advise the client. But that is where the commercial acumen comes in. I do expect my trainees to show they understand what the client’s vision is and how it is our role to deliver that vision whilst negotiating the legal minefield. They show this by telling me what advice they would give the client after going through the issues. Clients do not want academic papers; they want actionable advice. Only commercial awareness allows you to give actionable advice.

So which is more important. Both and a lawyer missing one or the other will eventually fail. A lawyer with a lack in the legal knowledge department will lose clients due to negligence. A lawyer with a lack in the commercial awareness department will lose clients due to failure to deliver the client’s vision swiftly, efficiently and safely; a bit like a bad cabbie.

Barry. Gross
You Can read Barry’s Blog here

(not connected to this ‘Eagle’ but with impeccable taste in twitter names)

Many Thanks to Barry these posts are very helpful to ‘new lawyers’

The 15 minute rule every savvy lawyer should know

WOW ! with now over 50,000 views on my blog, months of business projects, planning writing under my belt.I found myself re examining my blog.
I actually chuckled at some of the blog posts and thought , what drivel !!!!!

Its important to review your blog from time to time.It is crucial to re-examine your posts, sometimes re-post them and sometime actually delete or scrap posts that are out of date.
Keeping your blog freshly pressed is something we often over look.
Did you know that some people are finding your blog for the first time today. They are reading your posts written maybe three years ago – Do you want this to be the case?

Taking 15 minutes (when you have a coffee break to review your blog can make such a difference )

do it today 15 minutes

Follow me on twitter @legaleaglemhm

LIKE my page on Facebook (its a new one)

The 3 drivers of legal landscaping but what are they?

According to Prof Richard Susskind OBE there are 3 drivers of legal change which give rise to new roles within the legal profession.

1. Increased cost pressures placed upon law firms

2. Liberalisation and the emergence of Non-law firms providing legal services

3. The management of the effective use of technology in Law


These three weather conditions ( if you like the analogy of the legal profession encountering a storm of great magnitude) give rise to a new breed of legal professionals with deep and profound legal skills that bring a great value to their firm .

Susskind explains on US TV Bloomberg that the emerging roles of Legal Knowledge (Process) engineer, Legal Project manager and Legal Risk Manager will become keys roles in Law firms of the future. Perhaps these job titles will be tailored and tweaked to fit the individual firms my role is Legal Process Engineer at @Inksters. The fact remains that the stereo typical Rumpole of the Bailey lawyer is a thing of the past. A new identity of what makes a lawyer is being forged.

You can watch Susskind’s interview here


Michelle Hynes LL.B (Hons) DipLP

Lawyer & Legal Process Engineer

Pioneer and Legaleagle


What is Legal Process (Knowledge) Engineering ?

What is Legal Process (Knowledge) Engineering ?
Legal Process (Knowledge) Engineering is a role which has startled some, caused many a disgruntled look and made some lawyers stare blankly onto their desks.

On the other hand it has caused some to sit up and take notice, direct their attention from their writs and even pray that this newly created role might, just might be the ‘missing link’ to a new legal profession.

The role itself does not fit in with the traditional perception of ‘what it is to be a lawyer’.

No-one at law school mentioned it. Legal Knowledge Engineering ( our title has been tweaked to fit our firm) is a new term coined by Professor Richard Susskind OBE.

Richard Susskind is an author, speaker, and independent adviser to major professional firms and national governments, and holds law professorships at Gresham College in London and the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. His main area of expertise is the future of professional service, with particular reference to information technology. He has written and edited numerous books, including “The Future of Law” and “The End of Lawyers?”, and has written over 100 columns for The Times.

Professor Richard Susskind is regarded as a true guru of legal technology and visionary predictions for the future of the legal profession worldwide. He has challenged law firms to recognize the market pull towards commoditization of legal services and to source routine and repetitive tasks in a more efficient way, and has predicted changing roles for the legal profession and need for increased professionality and efficiency by combining business development with technology. He has even predicted that computerizing will come to replace some of the traditional work of lawyers in firms and that the new legal career Legal Knowledge Engineer will evolve to meet the new talent demands for lawyers with competence to combine legal knowledge with IT skills. By implementing automated document production to support standardisation, firms will be able to deliver the same quality legal services and yet maintain profit margins regardless of fee structure. However, it is important not to underestimate the level of competence and skills required to understand and implement business support tools, in particular IT solutions, in a way that really enables a law practice to benefit and leverage the business and knowledge resources.

The role of Legal Knowledge Engineer is a key position within the law firms of our future sitting somewhere within organisational charts along side partners, associates and general counsel. When implementing a document assembly tool, legal documents need to be converted and connected in the right way to maximise efficiency. This is not possible for someone from the IT department, who might not have the relevant legal knowledge – and could also be difficult for a lawyer who does not really understand the complexity and potential of the tool.

This observation has also been made by Professor Richard Susskind in his book The end of lawyers?: Susskind says “It is entirely misconceived to think, as many lawyers do, that work on standards and systems can be delegated to junior research or support lawyers. If a legal business is going to trade on the strength of outstanding standards and systems, then it will need outstanding lawyers involved in their design and development. These legal knowledge engineers will also be needed to undertake another central task: the basic analysis and decomposition of legal work that I claim will be required if legal work is to be multi-sourced effectively and responsibly.” It is therefore important for the legal profession to acknowledge the unique competencies required to combine legal knowledge and IT skills to build a business differentiator.

The Legal Knowledge Engineer or in our case the Legal Process Engineer is a role in its embryonic stages which will over the course of the next year draw influences from outside of the profession to equip us with a newly engineered model of practice which we envisage will make us ‘Fit for purpose’ for the future of law. Personally as a pioneering Legal Process Engineer I welcome the challenge to step precariously outside of the legal comfort zone , my own comfort zone and take that leap of faith that we can engineer a new legal landscape.

I have joined innovative & Award winning Law firm @Inksters with our visionary and Managing partner @Brianinkster at the helm.

Let our journey commence.

Michelle Hynes LL.B(Hons) DipLP follow on on twitter @legaleaglemhm

Legal Process Engineer

A New Breed of Lawyer is Born – Right Here In SCOTLAND @Inksters

Is the Scottish Legal Profession responding to market changes? Yes It is !

A new journey begins for me today as I take up my appointment with one of Scotland’s Leading Law firms as a new type of Lawyer.

Over the last 5 years we have seen many changes in the Legal profession and fears of the ‘end of the solicitor ‘due to the increase of high street legal providers challenges even the sole practitioner. Law Students shake as they leave Law School not knowing if they will even find a traineeship or job at the end of it. The changes in Billing , process and practice leave partners, associates and the profession as a whole in a precarious position.

In an innovative and pioneering step Brian Inkster has embraced head on.

My appointment as the new Legal Process Engineer at @Inksters is in itself unique in Scotland.

It is a new role within the Legal Profession and I am very honoured to have been appointed and bestowed with this challenge.

Brian Inkster said “Inksters have always been at the cutting edge of legal innovation. Having a dedicated Legal Process Engineer will see us systematizing all of our processes and in turn assisting efficiency, business growth and profitability. Michelle is ideal for this task and I am delighted that she is joining our growing legal team in Glasgow.”

Inksters have been expanding rapidly over the past year or so with a new larger Glasgow HQ and offices in Wick and Portree to add to their Inverness office.

You can follow me on twitter @legaleaglemhm

follow our firm @inksters

Michelle Hynes LL.B(Hons) DipLP

Legal Process Engineer


How to Use Twitter for Emerging Artists and Creatives

10 easy steps How to use twitter for the Creative industry including arts graduates,artist,poets,writers, photographers

Ok, so you have probably heard about twitter.

I originally posted this article in 2008 aimed specifically at the legal profession however my passion for art and creative industries has taken my path nicely down a bit of another road and I thought why not share some of this info with new emerging artists.s

You might even have a twitter account and follow celebrities I know I did 7 years ago.
Let me tell you why I started using twitter.

One evening as I was sat around the kitchen table chatting with family the conversation turned to ‘twitter’- a few hours later I headed home and logged on for the very first time and guess what? I was hooked.

It was very infectious and I headed straight home to have a look.

I set up my first twitter account @legaleaglehynes and I followed Nasa and the space station and a bunch of celebrities and used it primarily to pass the time whilst I was researching my dissertation.

I was in 4th year of my LL.B Law Degree Honours year at the University of Glasgow.

My dissertation was on the topic of Double Jeopardy and I was researching other jurisdictions such as Canada and Finland and looking at the roots of historical reform dating back to 2500BC.

Suddenly in a flash I thought ‘Hey other people might be on this twitter thing who can offer me help in other jurisdictions’. As an emerging artist you might see where I am going with this….stay with me.

Typing like mad I entered a search – Law and wow up popped lawyers. Great I thought and clicked follow. Every day I would search legal history ,double jeopardy,legal research, solicitors,law reform into searches and more and more appeared. Try it yourself type in Art,artist,painters,photography,poetry,writers

Then I realised that the ‘law’ people I followed would actually follow me back. The same goes with your profession .

I started to follow law schools, law students and hey presto legal research bounced off the page.

Ok so I now had followers and I had a bunch of people who I was following and from there I gathered legal research for my dissertation. Now in 2009 there were not many law firms actually using twitter so the links were not as frequent as now.

I kept the @legaleaglehynes account until April 2010 when I decided to start a brand new account focussing on building on my initial twitter skills I had learned.
@legaleaglemhm was born. I now have over 5000 followers one one account alone and another 10 twitter accounts for various interests such as @mypassion4paint which is my artist twitter account.( Go on follow me and I will follow you back)

Here are some tips for you if you are an Arts student or an emerging artist and want to start using twitter for your professional life TODAY.

1. Set up an account either in your own name or in the name of something relevant to your work. @mypassion4paint was my artist choice but your name would be good if its still available. I do wonder what Picasso would have made of twitter.

2. Do a search for ‘Arts, art collectors,art competitions,call for artists,writers or what ever your interest is in “

3. Follow other artists – you would like to either a) engage with /speak to /ask a question or if you are interested in what they might be talking about.

4. Dont just listen – when you see a tweet , respond to it, add your opinion its valid.
5. If you like a tweet or think that your followers might be interested Retweet it.
Set up your own list – Top tweeters, Upandcomingartists, myinfluences,
7. Remember a good Bio will have a link to your blog you do have one don’t you ? (set up a blog – wordpress is good but there are many) Don’t worry I will be posting an artist article on how to set up an art blog and website next so why not subscribe to this blog for updates.

8. Keep it real – if you intend to use the internet remember that everything is kept permanently on record.It can be a double-edged sword.
9.Have a look at people on twitter you like engaging with and look at who they follow – follow them too.

10. Its easy and if you get stuck – just post a tweet saying Help how do you …….. someone will be there and will reply.

Join Linked in too and then you can validate your twitter profile. Many people on twitter are un checkable , you can verify them if they have a Linkedin account and the groups on Linkedin mean you can have more fuller discussions
If you need any further advise or help then you can drop me an email at or tweet me at @legaleaglemhm  or @mypassion4paint Happy tweeting folks.
Here is a list of things artists are using twitter for :

Communicating new skills for art students
Discussing art history and trends
Reputation building
Finding an art  school
Recruiting new artists for shows
Asking  questions of established artists
Peer learning
Discussing methods and process
Making referrals
Obtaining subscribers
Accessing lists of exhibitions
Communicating with news clients for commissions
Obtaining funding
Securing funding
Letting off steam
Recruiting a new artis for a collective
Connecting with colleagues
Promoting charitable events
Motivating staff
Fund Raising
Collaboration across mediums, artists and writers
Voicing one’s own opinion
Accessing global news
Accessing on-line journals
Finding Experts
Creating a ‘future’ of Art
Discussing styles
Finding a printer
Finding a framer
discussing techniques of practice
exchanging views
sharing News
getting tips for exhibiting
exchanging links for blawgs
sharing tips
learning how to use ‘twitter’
learning how to use Linkedin and facebook




As you move through your career from being an Arts student to joining the world of a successful artist   you will find that the connections you make are really important. Don’t leave it till you graduate , do it now.

Michelle Hynes LL.B (Hons)DipLP Lawyer, artist,writer,poet

You can check out my art here