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 on
10:19 AM
|
Comments (0)
patience
Patience seems to come through specifics.
When you know what you are waiting for -- specifically -- you have something to feed yourself with while you wait.
Molly points out that this works in the other direction too: patience with the present is gained by knowing the specifics that brought that present into being.
Posted by Sam on
09:02 AM
|
Comments (0)
angry at an idea
reading cultivation of hatred
thinking about reactionary ideas --- social darwinism, etc., preposterous justifications for
cruel + idiotic social measures.
filled with impotent rage...these ideas are still presented as credible!
thought: wait. it is senseless to fight against an idea, or to serve an idea. this is the central observation of Marxism. the struggle is of class against class. serve the class which is the agent of historical change, and the ideas will follow this service.
serve not an idea, but your fellow man...
this goes precisely contrary to how I was raised. "I'm not angry at you, I'm angry at what you did." (as if expunging history was easier than resolving conflict!) how many times did I hear this sentiment? how precisely gagued is it to thwart anger and make you swallow it? there is no way to expunge history or to forcibly change another's mind. however, reality is right in front of us, and we can change society!
how to serve?
Posted by Sam on
08:38 AM
|
Comments (0)
Phase 2
all writing is based on writing
all life is based on life
where is the gap for progress?
Posted by Sam on
10:05 AM
|
Comments (0)
