New Cities/New Soviets

October 29, 2005

becoming political

(D&G Pickles part IV)


Is it better to have an expansive or restricted definition of politics?


Consider the connections between Columbine and 9/11. Do you remember that Klebold and Harris planned to fly a plane into Manhattan?

Are these political acts, or merely political fantasies masking psychopathology?
Is there a meaningful difference?


------------


Deluze and Guatarri come down firmly on the side of an expansive definition. Micropolitics, they insist, is as important as macropolitics, sometimes more important. As if to prove this by extremity of insistence, they get so micro they need Freud to help explain it all.

Is the personal political? Is the sub-personal?

As D&G would have it, the only true politics occurs at a sub- or super-personal level. The personal, to them, is too domestic a concern.

How are we supposed to tell the difference between the sub- and super-personal? They would say that we can't, even with a political lense. All "desiring-machines," as they call them, operate by means of subconcious chains. Which is to say: the suture between the psychological and the political has no special priviledge over other sutures (e.g. those between two subconcious desire, those between two political desires).

I agree that there is no "iron-clad" distiction, but isn't the distinction worthwhile? Aren't the arguments about "politicising" or "personalizing" struggle relevant?

I am very suspicious of attempts to make all desires fair game within political groups. Doesn't this just devolve into personalized attacks, and worse, a crippling dilution of politics?


As I would have it, we have two filters for our problems: a personal and a political. They operate in quite different ways, and I think it helps to think of them as discreet.


------------


This is all to say: I endorse a restricted view of politics.

The personal is not political. (though the political may be personal)


According to this understanding, Klebold and Harris were not political. Because while an end to oneself (the personal) can be imagined as productive, an apocalyptic end of the political cannot (which is more or less what they imagined, as far as I can tell).


What does this about the 9/11 bombers?

Posted by Sam at October 29, 2005 10:19 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?