Upcoming

I'll be in CT this weekend at the Association for Political Theory meeting at Wesleyan. I'm presenting some newish work, related to a developing project on drive. Here's a draft of the paper. Comments are welcome. Please don't cite it without checking with me; it's still a work in progress. Download ranciere_paper.doc

Comments

[Karlo]

Nice paper. What do you think of Chomsky's idea that democracy isn't a force acting against the system but rather the way that the current system of control perpetuates itself?

[Jodi]

Thanks, Karlo. I think he is right, but that matters are a bit more complicated. The Marxist view of the state, as I understand it, has two components. On the one hand, the state is an instrument of the ruling class to secure its interests. On the other hand, the state is a site of class conflict and so can be used (if occupied) against wealthy elites. Ideal visions of democracy, then, see the state as a vehicle for the rule of the people over wealthy elites. That's not what we have. And instead we have an ideology of democracy that either denies class conflict or makes democracy compatible with the rule of finance capital.

[Alex]

Seriously, what do you think of armed struggle or vaguardism? What do you think of the revolutionary struggle waged by the third world like for example the Philippines or North Korea? thanks

[Jodi]

As a general principle I think it's suicide to adopt a principle of non-violence or absolute opposition to armed struggle--that cedes all force to the state. That said, particular decisions for turning to violence depend are decisions to be made by those who find themselves needing to turn to violence--it's not for 'intellectuals' or outsiders to decide. Another level of decision: how do those outside a particular conflict support it? With arms? money? moral support? again, decisions that depend on a large number of specific conjunctural factors. So, in principle: yes, there is a role for armed struggle and vanguardism.

[Karlo]

I agree with the general observation that violence is often a sign of people's failure to organize. At the same time, it certainly has its role.

[hugh]

p. 4: "I will fail" -> "It will fail" (right?)
p. 6 "to undue" -> "to undo"
p. 7 "as affirmed" -> "has affirmed"
p. 25 "and eruption" -> "an eruption"

In my memory -- though maybe this has to do with what demos I've been to -- the response in the chant "What do we want?" has not been "democracy." When I think of a chant that refers to democracy, the one that occurs to me is "This is what democracy sounds like/looks like/etc."

This seems to fit the frame you provide less well. It a clearly confrontational naming of democracy (*this* is what democracy looks like, i.e., not the status quo). And it names a *present* democracy (people in the streets).

(To be clear, I'm just pointing out a place where I think your argument could be refined, not something of great significance to your argument as a whole. I don't know, perhaps that's not an especially useful thing to do.)

[Jodi]

thanks so much Hugh for the suggestions.

Your pt re 'this is what democracy looks like' is a good one--I'll need to think about that.

[Jodi]

Hugh--this is a preliminary note I'm adding to the piece. It's not adequate, but it will be a marker for further elaboration. Thanks again!

A reader on my blog counter with the claim that “this is what democracy looks like” is a more common protest chant. He argues that this is an assertion of a present democracy as disruption. I disagree. In the U.S. protests are not disruptive in the least. They are occasions for families to march together, for vendors to supply t-shirts and bumper stickers, for cops to photograph activist groups. They are licit and momentary, guarantees and supports of the system they ostensibly contest.

[telefunken]

The bit about Derrideans could be more clear. Maybe I'm a careless reader, but when I first read that paragraph I immediately thought, "She's blaming Derrida instead of those who appropriate deconstruction as a political strategy; something he warned against." You are careful to point out that "identity politics" is not the problem, but how it's appropriated (pg. 9), but you don't provide the same deference for Deconstruction.

Moreover, I think one of the interesting things about your examples of "Conservative" political achievements of the recent past, is that these achievements were argued for in the Left's own PC rhetoric. A hard pill to swallow, but it couldn't be more true.

I like the bit at the end, how protests today don't attempt to take power. In one sense, though, I think the major problem lies in the fact that the police have upped the ante. Seizing power today, I feel, would be for the protesters to no longer go limp when arrested but to resist arrest, personally or collectively, maybe even physically striking the police. But instead, the typical response is verbal, not physical, someone always shouts "make sure you get this on camera." The present "struggle" between cop and citizen is not even contested because its better to start preparing for the future lawsuit.

But the protesters aren't faced with many options here for physical violence. The latest Fall fashion of Cop Riot Gear attire is quite startling. The cops are basically asking the protesters to do that which is unimaginable in America: mass groups of people going to protests fully armed, leveling the playing field, so they can seize power from the police. Since realistically, militias are going to show up at a protest, the cops always win.

Essentially, I feel we are presented with an issue where the best form of political action here is not encouraging weapons to even out the playing field, but to take a step back, and temporarily retreat to the law. Hypothetically, if laws were passed that radically changed the "legal" police procedures for "riot control," protesters would be able to resist the police. Even at the level of abolishing tasers, or increasing the severity of punishment for cops who act beyond the law and beat protesters. These are goals I think the Left should collectively work towards, not as an end point and not as a reason to stigmatize violence, but as something that's better than it is now. Something that could create the conditions of possibility where resistance can once again take place on the streets, and can create a situation that demands attention, without resorting to "extreme" forms of physical violence. Unless this happens, I feel protests will just continue to be inept for seizing power.

I guess I really believe that sometimes a punch in the face, or a knee to the balls makes more of a productive/lasting impression than preparing for a future lawsuit. The problem is, you can't do that to a cop at a protest today without the risk of extensive jail time and/or being brutally beaten.

On a related note, I think one potentially missed opportunity for seizing power took place at the RNC protest in August. When the rock band Rage Against the Machine showed up, with **gasp** "bodyguards," the crowd should have been infuriated! What a sad display on the band's part. Why the hell did they need bodyguards? Would the bodyguards really attack protesters who got too close to the band? Were the bodyguards there to protect the band from the police? It's like saying, "I'm against the police, obviously, but I'm rich enough to hire my own police, and privatize my protection from the unruly mass, a privilege you will never be able to afford." I'm in shock that the crowd just stood there and took this, and couldn't see beyond blaming the Republicans, the State and its Apparatuses for the problems of today. I'm amazed nobody tried to attack the band. Power could have been seized here.

[Jodi]

thanks for the comment; I think your pt re Derrida is fair; the way I've written it is kinda a cheap shot rather than a proper analytical pt.

Your example about 'make sure you get this on camera' is great--I'll likely use it in a future version of the paper or bring it up in q and a.

[hugh]

You're welcome, Jodi, and have a great time at your conference! I would be interested to see the final version.

[Anonymous]

I came to your paper from the Ranciere blogspot. I agree with much of what you say about the dominant ideology of democracy, but one reason I am interested in Ranciere's work is because his theory of democracy has nothing in common with this ideology but the name. The significant thing about equality in Ranciere is that it is axiomatic. It is not an aim, a desire or a drive. And this axiom is, according to him, the definition of politics.

What is much less clear to me, is how you define politics. It sounds like you equate it with power rather than justice. Your polemic as far as I can tell is not political at all, but ethical. I hear you saying, Don't derive enjoyment from failure, try to take power. This may be a counterpoint to the melancholic left, but I don't think it departs from the dominant ideology.

[Mehmet Çagatay]

Hello Ms. Dean,

I downloaded your paper two weeks ago but I didn’t read it until last night. This is the most remarkable text on the concept of democracy that I’ve read since Badiou’s “Highly Speculative Reasoning on the Concept of Democracy”. For my part, I think contemporary ideological trap is not the process of de-politicization as such, seeing as the present rise of political consciousness among people. Last week I observed a strange scene at a café in a shopping center. There were three young women fervently discussing the major topics of the existing political debates in Turkey, terror, headscarf, Kemalism, Kurds, etc. It is strange as we suppose these girls usually exercise girl talk especially in a shopping center. But don’t let that scene deceive you, of course those were not a bunch of idiots discussing the fashion, celebrity news, boys, etc. but, they are a bunch of idiots dealing with “supposedly” vital political questions in the equivalent form. So, fashionable ideological massage of today is not that politics is a fantasy masking the scientific perception of things, but, the very massage is dealing with politics is an ethical imperative for being a good citizen and contrary to the common belief politics is easy. Every ordinary idiot should fool around with it as it only requires memorizing a handful of concepts, maxims and a few common denominators respected as universal virtues. As the result, people seem to take an interest in politics passionately but what politics? In Badiou’s terms, politics here is the act of imitating numerous “insignificant differences”, Kurds and Turks, Kemalists and Liberals, Muslims and secularists, etc, etc.

Your analysis of “politics without politics” and democracy is the object-cause of leftist desire is worth a rigorous consideration as it is an original approach to the deadlock of the Leftism. Once a friend of mine asked me about obsession and I defined it simply as the addiction without a substance. Maybe this metaphor is connected with your analysis that “democracy takes the form of a fantasy of politics without politics”.

Finally, I have to admit that I didn’t understand the remarks that you quoted from Ranciere about actuality, contingency, possibility and necessity and I decided to read Hegel again tonight:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl542.htm#HL2_542

I’m looking forward to read the final version of your paper.

[Jodi]

Mehmet, thanks for your comments--the idea of addiction without substance is terrific, really useful. Your gesture to Badiou made me think of Zizek's defense of Mao's defense of all sorts of seemingly secondary or non-essential struggles. I need to go back to his discussion (in In Defense of Lost Causes) at some point--my recollection is that it is counter to the Badiou position you mention and that it seems quite counter to his usual point.

Your example of the young women is troubling in the best way: what's a purist to do? be relieved that the women are really political? or be distressed that the form of their discussion remains the same regardless of the content (political catch phrases replacing commercial ones). One answer would say the commercial discussion reveals their true political position; another would say their political discussion reveals the truth of the commercialization of politics (I'm using commercial as a stand in here). Perhaps another answer would consider the way that each form is impure, stained and sustained by the other?

[hugh]

Hi Jodi--

I agree that demos, today, are not "disruptive". And I would agree that, in the not-so-distant past, demos have been disruptive, and were effective through being disruptive.

I want to think of disruption as an aesthetic tactic. A demonstration can function as a surrealist collage come to life. But, as with surrealist collage, one gets accustomed to the effects, and is no longer surprised.

But a demonstration could be effective (in a variety of ways) without being disruptive. The claim that "this is what democracy looks like" can be understood as a claim that the demonstration itself is an enactment of democracy.