Political Culture

Before getting lured away by topicality in my last post, I was about to make a point about ‘pseudo’ politics.

An epigraph to start:

“A thought is sometimes beyond the thing that it binds itself to in the course of resisting it, and that is its freedom. Freedom follows on from the subject’s need to express itself. The need to let suffering speak is a condition of all truth. For suffering is objectivity impinging upon the subject. What the subject experiences as its most subjective thing, its self-expression, is mediated by objects.”

- Adorno, Negative Dialectics

And next, a hypothesis: politics in the 20th century has been organized around the development of methods for control of the mass. It hardly needs to be added that non-state actors such as international corporations are at least equally involved. Political common sense says that modern politics = mass politics.

Despite all the noise about social networking, the basic ends remain the same. It’s just that the object ‘mass’ is being obsolesced as a useful heuristic, as capital’s free access to bodies, minds, and information becomes deeper and more intimate. Everywhere we see continuing development toward a completely controllable sensory environment – the grand synthesis promised by digital, biotech, neuroscientific, and architectural innovations, a world where ‘environment’ finally stops being a sloppy metaphor and becomes both empirical thing and technocultural object, virtually equivalent to ‘society’ itself. Whether this dream is ever actually realized anywhere is beside the point — it is the general direction of capital investment, assimilating even humanity’s attempts to stave off its own self-destruction, and so other possible lines of development are a priori subordinate. Another world is improbable.

Democratic ideology, on the other hand, insists on a definition of political agency that contradicts this current. Its ideal world consists of discrete, independent entities that are self-directed and thus individually responsible for their actions, as well as the stability of their relationships with others. Institutions are made up of individual actors, and the whole self-similar structure works best when all its parts are formally in agreement, an outcome which is never assumed but must be painstakingly arrived at through processes of deliberation. As Marx argued, the brave new world of capitalist utopia relies on the individualist ethical structure provided by democratic institutions while steadily eroding their ideological foundation: ‘enlightened self-interest,’ or the link between self-determination and mutual support.

Most public debates in the U.S. are waged by advocates of these two sides: the defender of democracy vs. the prophet of the artificial paradise. I use democracy in the broadest possible sense here; despite their differences, most advocates of anarchism, libertarianism, and liberalism tend to rally around the theme of autonomy, of freedom from coercion by an oligarchical state apparatus or ‘runaway’ corporation. Ideal collectives are imagined to be local and ad hoc (“grassroots” to use the current lingo), formed around a single issue, such as the management of a co-op, or a defense of civil rights, their duration inversely proportional to size. Large scale changes to political structure is where agreement breaks down, but the range of opinion seems to be between a) regulating institutional excesses (the liberals) and b) somehow guaranteeing negative freedom, as in “life would be better if we didn’t have x corrupt institution and we could do y ourselves” (the radicals).

Indeed, the very notion of collective (like ‘community’) implies a sense of ‘naturalness,’ of intellectual and affective immediacy: a group of more or less equal individuals who can communicate with each other without the assistance of an unwieldy technical or institutional apparatus. There’s even something counterintuitive about applying it to national populations, social classes, consumer demographics, and victimized ‘minorities,’ which, despite the fact that states, think tanks, sociological studies, and Web 2.0 corporations can ‘map’ their individual members to an unprecedented degree of detail, can only be popularly conceived in terms of the consequences of their (mis)management by elites. The mass as future reward — cue sentimental fantasy of universal community — vs. the mass as imminent punishment — cue the unpredictable, threatening mob.

The mass demonstration is a primitive form of political mobilization that serves to reinforce the limits outlined above more often than it points beyond them. Yet it remains the most reliable means of popular political change, because it subverts institutional ‘decision-making’ routines with ‘spontaneous’ collective agency. It frees a population from its bureaucratic context, allowing a group that normally appears as a particularized ‘identity’ (African-Americans, anti-war activists, community members, etc.) to make a direct, ‘universal’ claim. This is why left-wing protests are not only repressed and mocked in the corporate media, but the very future of the tactic is coming under attack. One can imagine an eventual compromise in which mass demos are legitimized in the same way that voting is, once they can be cheaply dispersed without damage to life or property. Once again we would have the familiar dilemma of liberal reform: many more people would be allowed a voice in mainstream political discourse, but at the cost of their political independence and the future of an independent left.

Enter cultural politics. To pick out one consequence of postmodernism that superficially seems to bolster democratic ideology: a free-floating notion of ‘influence,’ detached from the authority to determine policy, the possession of economic assets, or common interest, is broadly accepted as the true basis of legitimate power (even liberal and conservative defenders of the Status Quo are unhappy when people say it lacks ‘popular support’). So ideologically ‘culture’ has a privileged position, if a quixotic one — the sphere of human activity where individual freedom can express itself freely, a kind of virtual democratic utopia where participants compete for the right to influence behavior in the other, more restricted (and therefore less ideal) spheres of modern society. Where their secret truths can be read, where the future of the whole can be divined. In practice, every message has to route through the culture industry, which means every message must become a commodity. The results are familiar: politicians are celebrities, politics is entertainment, every movement must be branded, etc.

But lest we float off into ’90s-style hyperreality, we should remember that Baudrillard did nothing more than describe the subjective experience of the first world petty bourgeois consumer. There never was an absolute split between culture and reality for a regime of simulation to erase (just like there wasn’t one between mind and body); that pantheon of mythical divisions is commodity culture’s chief ideological product. Like other media commodities, Baudrillard’s theory of the simulacrum persuades us to imagine the problem for which it is the (merely intellectual) solution. What we see instead is the disciplining of culture into one of the most progressive forces of production and accumulation, one that relies on fantasies like the simulacrum (or ‘immaterial labor’ in another discourse) to give it a false sense of consistency and inevitability. The difficult thing to come to terms with, and what makes certain empty figments of postmodernity so attractive, is that the idea of ‘culture’ we’re taught to mourn is already a fantasy. What Raymond Williams argued began as an ideologically overdetermined reaction to 19th century industrialization, today does not necessarily refer to a shared history, creed, ethnicity, national identity, sexual orientation, commodity preference, or any difference at all; it can finally be used as a sign of contentless authenticity, indicating not the right to exist, but the factual existence of something closed to theoretical questioning (though no less urgent for that): the culture of poverty, the culture of ownership, business culture, geek culture, cultural influence, the culture of success, the culture of intolerance.

These various ‘cultures’ are more like environments, bubble-like ‘spheres of influence.’ Instead of defining the conditions for kinds of agency, they assume only a single kind, addressing the individual as a consumer (not necessarily of the culture commodity in question but of ‘culture’ at large) presumed to have some vague degree of influence over cultural ‘style.’ The most obnoxious version of this is the idea that we as ‘smart shoppers’ (or ethical shoppers, most advocates try to convince you that they’re the same thing) have the power to reverse climate change. However, it’s no less realistic than the claim it’s usually set against, that we have the political power to stop climate change despite being non or semi-organized. Certainly ‘we’ in the form of the many activist, labor, community, and consumer organizations we are free to join, can take effective action against coal power plants, get people we agree with elected, and encourage whatever ‘green’ production processes CEOs think will still be profitable, but the idea of a bunch of protests and boycotts passing a climate policy adequate enough to stave off armageddon is as doomed as trying to convince Bush or Obama to leave Afghanistan ‘prematurely.’ Not only is it true that elected officials will only act in their constituency’s favor if pressured to do so, they can only be pressured to do what will allow them as a class to retain their privileges. And today, the needs of biological life and the needs of capital are rapidly, catastrophically diverging.

All impotence aside, as long as we’re obligated to think of ourselves as autonomous individuals, responsibility for the collective consequences of our individual actions is a necessary consequence. This is impossible as either a citizen or a consumer. So, we go crazy. Tightening the double bind, the rhetoric that accompanies political and economic disempowerment is one of increasing empowerment, though with any hint of antagonism censored. That society’s improvement hinges on all of humanity transforming themselves into ‘responsible individuals’ is the polar opposite of liberating. Now I don’t think this ‘politically empowering’ rhetoric of ethical responsibility can be entirely dispensed with, even if it is tied to our subjection by a false individualism. But I don’t think it’s any more or less a part of the spectacle than the ‘politically disempowering’ rhetoric of the masses. They are, in the poststructuralist jargon, just conduits for different technologies of control that are currently in the process of becoming interoperable. The people of the world are mobilized according to the latter, ‘objectified’ form as well as the former ‘subjective’ one, and the conditions of appearance of the mass, not just the networked individual, have to be mastered if they (who are we) are ever to move beyond it.

About these ads

14 Responses to “Political Culture”

  1. quantity of butchness Says:

    Oh man, the unhappiness! I did the best I could! It’s in your hands now! Oh law’, I cain’t even believe this about the waking up to Adorno, but that’s why I at least went ahead and read thus exciting, thought-provoking and tedious post with it many adornments by Qlipoth, so I could comment on the little worm-segment of Adorno you have placed here:

    “A thought is sometimes beyond the thing that it binds itself to in the course of resisting it, and that is its freedom. Freedom follows on from the subject’s need to express itself. The need to let suffering speak is a condition of all truth. For suffering is objectivity impinging upon the subject. What the subject experiences as its most subjective thing, its self-expression, is mediated by objects.”

    Now who’da evah thunk that this dried-up freak would write something that would give you the secret to The Perfect Day? And I even fucking read Negative Dialectics meself, although way back in 1999.

    To wit: “A thought is sometimes beyond the thing that it binds itself to in the course of resisting it, and that is its freedom.”

    And here I always thought it was the thing that remained free of the thought it couldn’t properly conjoin itself to. What liberation to know that it was just an obnoxious thought all along, and easy enough to carry around. Lighter that way.

    “The need to let suffering speak is a condition of all truth.”

    It is wonderful to know that Adorno can write as poorly as even the lowliest of bleugers. This is such a howler I just don’t know how I’m going to make myself miserable enough today, even if it’s false.

    “For suffering is objectivity impinging upon the subject. What the subject experiences as its most subjective thing, its self-expression, is mediated by objects.”

    Look. We all know some people have trouble with some of these arrangements, frankly I haven’t found that suffering is the only thing that comes via ‘object mediation’. Sometimes, too long a deprivation from ‘object mediation may better describe the dilemma. That’s why death is so seemingly unappealing. No objects AT ALL!

    “And today, the needs of biological life and the needs of capital are rapidly, catastrophically diverging.”

    Oh, gimme a break. I don’t think you know that. It’s always seemed like that, then they invent some way around it or we commit mass suicide, either of which solves the problem

    “All impotence aside, as long as we’re obligated to think of ourselves as autonomous individuals, responsibility for the collective consequences of our individual actions is a necessary consequence. This is impossible as either a citizen or a consumer. So, we go crazy.”

    Yes, you did! And blame it on the impotence! That’ll do it every time. Why, last night, as a consumer, I looked up Paris Hilton in wiki to see if they would put her ‘net worth’ in the article the way they did Martha Stewart’s. But the didn’t, and after being around Martha’s incredible HOTNESS last week, I was all set to hate Paris Hilton like a good leftist citizen, or at least ex-friend of lapsed leftist centrists. Instead, I unfortunately found out that her sense of humour had actually IMPROVED over the last 2 years! I had never even heard of the Bling Ring. God bless wiki…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bling_Ring

    Of all the victims of this group of obviously drugged-out idiots, only Ms. Hilton waited to call the police until after the FIFTH time she was robbed, thereby allowing individual prosperity to be enjoyed by her attackers for at least brief periods of time. And here even I had lost faith in her sense of humour! She probably didn’t even notice till some ruby or emerald was gone. And one of the faggits even put her high heels on, and paraded around Paris’s house! Yet another was so at ease that she enjoyed a visit to the Ladies’ Room. You see, Paris is like me: She will give the benefit of the doubt to almost anybody for a much longer time than small-minded people, if only because it postpones the need to be fully absorbed in a ‘felt frustration’ until somebody goes TOO FAR! I was very heartened by this unique sense of humour, and felt that the same kind of people who think that both Paris and I are ‘dumb’ are those who will end up in jail!

    “That society’s improvement hinges on all of humanity transforming themselves into ‘responsible individuals’ is the polar opposite of liberating.”

    Oh christ, but that was obviously going to be one of the steps along the way, as people became more drab and listless. Admit it, nobody, certainly not the left, wants conditions to ever noticeably improve, or they wouldn’t have an inaccesible thought to remind them of how their things really aren’t very free at all. Poor Theodor and his ‘culture industry’ impotence. Every time I think of his silly critique of the ‘light popular cinema’, I get an instant image of Doris Day and Rock Hudson movies.

  2. From here in Europe, if comments boxes on yours, Quilpoth’s and hundreds of other left-wing websites are to go by, the American left has it’s own ‘tea party’ – the kind where camp refrains, pseudo-ironic poses, fashion frippery and celeb pap-talk rules the roost. The kind where I make my excuses and leave, because any more talk of Madonna’s elbows, Karl Lagerfeld’s lips or Paris Hilton’s cocksucking technique is in danger of bringing the canapes back up. I guess I’m too macho to disco my way into the apocalypse.

    Meanwhile, rampant everything-phobes are dragging you (and the rest of the west) into a fascist third world state. You may think a camp quip can smirk you back to your respective hip villages, but Obama ain’t protecting anyone, honey.

  3. Oh, and as well as being the most turgid novelist I ever read, Susan Sontag was fulla shit on most subjects! Fabulous hair, though.

  4. Quantity of Butchness Says:

    I guess I’m too macho to disco my way into the apocalypse.

    I doubt it, but I couldn’t agree mo-ah about everything else you say.

    For example, I was at fault this morning for believing that Obama and canapes could smirk me back into my hip Village (well, I did come home after working ———- —. today), when what I really want most is to help others.

    To this end. I have decided to mend my ways, and stop reading about the laid-back habits toward police of Paris Hilton, and I will now spend all my time at the Wharfrat B.O. Bars and endless Bleug Till You Dreup at Lenin’s Tomb. That’ll cure any elitist, I daresay. You might enjoy some of the panel discussions on movies that are considered to ‘go beyond the American woman’ in their grasp of reality as understood only in certain backwater nations formerly owned by Soviets–this is currently thought to be ‘more honest’ a cultural endeavour than actual things that one such as myself has pointed out as living culture.

    Yeah, uh-huh about Ms. Sontag, her hair sucked, I saw it in person twice. Once she had to wear a wig because of the chemo she was doing at the time and she had it died for her skunk streak. You’re so much deeper with your choice of celeb-watching, now aren’t you?

    Just like Roger said at the end of the other thread, if people see something as disadvantageous to themselves, they are not usually going to be in favour of it, just because it is good ‘party line’ with the various hip bleugers and their disavowed Centrism, and wound-licking leftism that can’t find it to fuck. Now what this translates to in voting for ME has not necessarily yet had to be voting for Tea Party just because Obama’s end of the rainbow ain’t enuf.

    Probably don’t even know what a canape is.

  5. Miaow, rrrh, wooh… whatever. Here’s me thinking self-reflexive posing died with the election of Bush 2. Stuck between sanctimonious orientalism and lifestyle irony (two sides of the same ‘family issues’ made theatrical), it’s no surprise that the left’s chance as a ‘popular’ front is as remote as a good movie starring Gerald Butler. That, and the fact that it’s discourse is aimed at it’s tragically shrinking self.

    Call me sentimental, but living memory reminds of a time when ‘culture wars’ meant two assholes in an English Department falling out. Now it’s become a substitute for struggle – and those actually struggling just fail to be in on the joke. Goodbye left, goodbye world!

  6. Are wedge and quantity of butchness the same person?

  7. @abushri – not always.

  8. quantity of butchness Says:

    haha

  9. That would be ironic – but whenever I hear ‘irony’ these days, I reach for my revolver…

  10. I thought it might be a performance piece: aesthete versus Marxist.

  11. [...] Self-Criticism This is in part a response to commenters here, though the assumptions informing what I said there are elaborated upon in the following post. [...]

  12. vietnam airlines…

    [...]Political Culture « American Stranger[...]…

  13. Definitely believe that which you said. Your favorite reason
    appeared to be on the web the easiest thing to be aware
    of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while people consider worries that they plainly do not know about.
    You managed to hit the nail upon the top and also
    defined out the whole thing without having side-effects ,
    people could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more.
    Thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: