Interrupting the courtroom organism: screaming bodies, material affects and the theatre of cruelty

This article offers a method of reading the courtroom which produces an alternative mapping of the space. My method combines a reading of Antonin Artaud’s Theatre of Cruelty with a Deleuzian theoretical analysis. I suggest that this is a useful method since it allows examination of the spatial praxes of the courtroom which pulsate with a power to organize, terrorize and to judge. This method is also able to conceptualize the presence of ‘‘screaming’’ bodies and living matter which are appropriated to build, as well as feed the presence and functioning of the courtroom space, or organism. By using a method that articulates the cry of these bodies in the shadow of the organism, it becomes clear that this cry is both unwelcome and suppressed by the courtroom. The howl of anxious bodies enduring the process and space of the law can be materialized through interruptions to the courtroom, such as when bodies stand when they should not and when they speak when they should be silent. These vociferous actualizations of the scream serve only to feed the organism they seek to disturb, yet if the scream is listened to before it disrupts, the interruption becomes-imperceptible to the courtroom. Through my Artaudian/Deleuzian reading, I give a voice to the corporeal gasp that lingers before the cry, which is embedded within the embodied multiplicity from which it is possible to draw a creative line of flight. The creative momentum of this line of flight produces a sustainable interruption to the courtroom process, which instead of being consumed by the system, has the potential to produce new courtroom alignments. My text therefore offers an alternative reading of the courtroom, and in doing so also offers a refined understanding of how to productively ‘‘interrupt’’ the courtroom process.

The east of Suez decision

A witness seminar on Britain's decision to withdraw from East of Suez was held by the Institute of Contemporary British History at King's College London on 16 November 1990. It was introduced by a short paper by David Greenwood of the Centre for the Study of Defence Economics, University of Aberdeen. Those participating were Professor Lawrence Freedman (Chairman), David Greenwood, Sir Frank Cooper, C.W. Wright, Sir Patrick Nairne, Richard Hastie‐Smith, J.K. Wright, Sir Ewen Broadbent, Peter Hudson, Sir Robert Andrew, Sir George Leitch, Sir Arthur Drew, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, Lord Zuckerman, Lord Mayhew and Field Marshal Lord Carver. The Institute of Contemporary British History would like to record its thanks to BP for its sponsorship of this event.

The battle of Cable Street

This witness seminar on the events in the East End of London of 4 October 1936, traditionally known as the ‘Battle of Cable Street’, was held at the Institute of Historical Research on 1 May 1991. It was chaired by Professor Geoffrey Alderman and introduced by Noreen Branson. The participants were Sid Bailey (former member of the BUF), Dr David Cesarani, Tony Gilbert, Charlie Goodman, Joyce Goodman, Professor Colin Holmes, Frank Lesser, Kevin Morgan (biographer of Harry Pollitt), Phil Piratin (Communist MP for Mile End 1945–50), Michael Quill, Jack Shaw, Harold Smith, Ronald F. Webb (former member of the BUF) and Len Wise (former member of the BUF). Yvonne Kapp was unable to attend but she sent a short account of her recollections of the event and this has been included with this transcript.

Technology transfer in Britain: the case of monoclonal antibodies

In 1975 two Cambridge scientists published a short article in Nature which announced the discovery of monoclonal antibodies. The article concluded ‘Such cultures could be valuable for medical and industrial use’. The interest which developed by the end of the decade in the industrial and financial possibilities of the new prospects opening up in biotechnology was to throw the apparent ‘failure’ to follow‐up the potentialities of this discovery into a public prominence rarely achieved by scientific discoveries. By the time Mrs Thatcher came to power it had become a scandal, another example of Britain's apparent inability to exploit effectively the brilliance of its scientific base. It was to explore both the process of scientific discovery and the conditions in Cambridge which nurtured it, and the issues which this particular discovery raised in the area of technology transfer (and the changes of policy that ensued), that the Wellcome Trust's History of Twentieth Century Medicine Group and the Institute of Contemporary British History organised this special witness seminar. It was held at the Wellcome Trust in London on 24 September 1993. The seminar was chaired by Sir Christopher Booth and introduced by Dr Robert Bud of the Science Museum. Those participating included the two authors of the Nature article, Dr César Milstein and Dr Georges Köhler, who received a Nobel Prize for their research, Dr Basil Bard (National Research Development Corporation [NRDC] 1950–74), Sir James Gowans (Secretary of the Medical Research Council [MRC] 1977–87), Sir John Gray (Secretary of the MRC 1968–77), John Newell (BBC World Service science correspondent 1969–79), Dr David Owen (MRC), and Dr David Secher (Laboratory of Molecular Biology [LMB], Cambridge). There were also contributions from Dr Ita Askonas (former head of immunology at the National Institute for Medical Research), Dr John Galloway (former member of MRC headquarters staff), Dr David Tyrrell (former Director, MRC Common Cold Unit), Professor Miles Weatherall (head of Therapeutic Research Division, Wellcome Research Laboratories 1967–75), Dr Guil Winchester (post‐doctoral fellow, Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine), and Dr Peter Williams (former Director of the Wellcome Trust). The organisers would like to thank the Wellcome Trust for hosting and sponsoring the seminar. We would like to dedicate this publication to the memory of Georges Köhler, who sadly died in April 1995 before this could appear.