I’ve had occasion to consider my politics.
Where did they start and where do they end? I always had opinions, of course, and anyone who uses the internet knows about the impossibility of debating perspectives over platforms designed to sell commodities, but I mean when did they cohere, take shape, begin to mean something persistent in a variety of contexts?
I think it was the first time I read Mille plateaux by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (1980; trans 1986 by Brian Massumi as A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia); this turned out to be a sequel to Capitalisme et schizophrénie. L’anti-Œdipe (1972; trans 1977 by Robert Hurley, Helen R Lane and Mark Seem as Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia). I often read things back-to-front or in the wrong order or in a half-arsed and incomplete manner, a product, I think, not only of the internet but of having learnt to read fairly late in childhood.
I barely understood what I was reading – it kept mentioning Hegel, and boy oh boy oh boy did Hegel defeat me – but I had an intensely novelistic reaction (I was a little hypomanic at the time) to its intertextual games and plurality of register and felt very strongly that this was a book that was describing me and the world I experienced much more accurately than the ponderous one-thing-after-another histories of western civilization I’d read before then. I went back and read it more carefully when I had calmed down and found that my thoughts accorded with my feelings.
I picked up Anti-Oedipus yesterday and found that Michel Foucault had summarised the contents of the book very clearly in its preface: I’ve had trouble comprehending Foucault’s writings on sexuality and madness but I love the clarity and intimacy of how he writes about Deleuze. Here is a transliteration of what Foucault calls the “essential principles” of the book:
- Free political action from all unitary and totalizing paranoia.
- Develop action, thought, and desires by proliferation, juxtaposition, and disjunction, and not by subdivision and pyramidal hierarchization.
- Withdraw allegiance from the old categories of the Negative (law, limit, castration, lack, lacuna), which Western thought has so long held sacred as a form of power and an access to reality. Prefer what is positive and multiple, difference over uniformity, flows over unities, mobile arrangements over systems. Believe that what is productive is not sedentary but nomadic.
- Do not think that one has to be sad in order to be militant, even though the thing one is fighting is abominable. It is the connection of desire to reality (and not its retreat into forms of representation) that possesses revolutionary force.
- Do not use thought to ground a political practice in Truth; nor political action to discredit, as mere speculation, a line of thought. Use political practice as an intensifier of thought, and analysis as a multiplier of the forms and domains for the intervention of political action.
- Do not demand of politics that it restore the “rights” of the individual, as philosophy has defined them. The individual is the product of power. What is needed is to “de-individualize” by means of multiplication and displacement, diverse combinations. The group must not be the organic bond uniting hierarchical individuals, but a constant generator of de-individualization.
- Do not become enamoured of power.
These are my politics.
The art in the main image is by Marc Ngui.