I think the fundamental difference between Tigrenoche’s position and my own is in how we define value. Perhaps this moves us towards transcritiques initial question of “what is politics?” TN mentions the inability of anarchists or other small politically radical activist groups to have an important impact on “creeping authoritarianism and inequality.” In emphasizing the importance of aesthetics and identity for politics I am also questioning how authoritarianism and inequality are defined. Tigrenoche states, “It sounds a little too close to saying that striking some kind of radical pose and feeling good about yourself for doing so is more important than actually accomplishing anything; image over substance and all that.” In fact this is exactly what I am saying, although not necessarily that one is more or less important than the other, but that feeling good about yourself is accomplishing something. Just as working at a job that pays a living wage can improve a person’s mental well being, so can being accepted by one’s peers. If our notion of value is expanded to include the ability to construct a desirable identity or a meaningful life, then the purpose of political action must also be expanded.
Tigrenoche mentions the evangelical right, and I think that this is an excellent example of the successful linking of identity and politics. To be an evangelical is to construct a definite identity that is positively evaluated within a particular community. It is an identity that is closely related to consumer practices surrounding clothing, music, choice of neighborhood, housing, and food. In this sense, The Evangelical is similar to The Anarchist in that for both politics and lifestyle are inseparable.
The question is often raised of why the working class votes against their economic interests. In the United States this seems to frequently be the case among poor, rural or suburban whites. I would argue that no one votes against their interests, they simply define their interests differently. It is more important for the evangelical to have the peace of mind that comes with peer acceptance and success in the afterlife than to have a living wage or health insurance. Differences in values are often overstated, and this was particularly common after the ’04 election with all of the blue state/red state talk. Understanding the political differences between the left and the right as based in different systems of values is no better than analyzing the war on terror as a clash of civilizations. Rather, my argument here is that the political action of evangelicals is inseparable from a desire to feel good about one’s self, and attaining that desire represents a real accomplishment that cannot simply be explained away as ideology or false consciousness.
Returning to the Tigrenoche’s continual defense of the democratic party, I welcome a more in depth discussion of actual policy, particularly foreign policy. However I think this is only half of the discussion and we must also consider the sort of identities formed through participation in party politics. If, as I have argued, the Democratic party works to continually transform Progressive Obamas into Nationwide, Long-Beard, Sleeping Bag Era ZZ Top Obamas then we certainly need to question if this is the type of meaningful life that we wish to be producing. Because of the need to appeal to a broader audience macro level politics is inevitably problematic. I may enjoy dancing to a disco remix of sleeping bag, but I can be no more sincere in my appreciation for this experience than I can in my committment to party politics.
On earlier discussions of the aestheticization of politics, my notion of the term aestheticize here probably fits more closely with the dictionary definition of “beautify” and “decorate” that A mentions in a comment on transcritiques “ambiguous politics.” I welcome a more thorough discussion of Marx, Benjamin, and others (I think David Harvey deals with these issues in a relatively clear manner), but really all I am saying is that participation in politics is in part an attempt to beautify one’s life. That beauty comes both from changing laws and changing one’s identity. Neither should be prioritized over the other. In this sense, to acknowledge the aesthetic dimension of politics is to take identity seriously. This not only refers to identities directly produced through political action (anarchists and democrats), but the manner in which policy impacts one’s ability to construct an identity (for example, forest management may prevent people from becoming loggers).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The way Benjamin is using 'aesthetics' in its correlation with politics (a relation he sees as ending in war, which is cause for later discussion), has little to do with beauty, but perhaps more to do with decorum. It is literally about politics having a face, an imagistic presence with a certain set of guidelines in the production and dissemination of that presence. I was looking at some circa 1930s German propaganda today - both pro and anti Nazi - and it is clear there is a set 'aesthetic' of montage and caricature through which these politics presented themselves.
The issue with this aestheticization today, is that the 'aesthetic' is more difficult to discern. It is much easier to codify/historicize a political aesthetic of the past. Yet, I think now the public is steadily (at least since Nixon's foul up) more aware of the aestheticizing of politics. John Stewart is obviously the great proponent of this - he and his staff are clearly aware of the aesthetic of politics-meets-newchannel and are able to exploit it. But beyond the newschannel - to the literal presentation of the face of each of these new Presidential candidates - discerning their aesthetic is a difficult, but necessary task. The curious case of Obama is the current hyper-reproduction of a very postive, and attractive aesthetic via the internet, both by Obama, Inc, and from elsewhere. I think this social engagement with his aesthetic is part of his appeal - but does that engagement disavow the inauthentic nature of a media facade?
I'm not convinced that it's any more difficult to discern the aesthetic dimension of politics today. Certainly, the ways in which politicians can put a face on their campaigns, policies, etc. has changed, what with the internet, cable tv, and so on. So there are some interesting new aspects of politics for us to think about. But the aesthetic element, almost by definition, will always be in our face. As far as I can tell, politicians are still kissing babies and taking the obvious shots at their opponents. But for our discussions here it probably doesn't matter if we agree on whether it is more or less difficult to recognize the aesthetic element of politics today, though I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on it.
You are right, DM, about the importance of people being able to partially form a self-image out of their politics. That's marketing 101--it's the same way that Nike sells their shoes, or Ford their cars. No political party can get by without it. I've always felt uneasy with this kind of marketing, however, especially when it comes to important things like the governing of cities, states, and nations. When people get their self-identity from a political party in the same way that people get their identity from being a fan of a particular sports team, I get scared.
GM: "literally about politics having a face"... politics literally has a face? Sorry, just messin' with you.
Various points/questions:
You write: "In emphasizing the importance of aesthetics and identity for politics I am also questioning how authoritarianism and inequality are defined."
Ok, how do you define them? I think that the definitions are pretty straightforward (will give mine if you want). What do you have in mind?
You write: "The Evangelical is similar to The Anarchist in that for both politics and lifestyle are inseparable."
Ok, but what's important is perhaps the biggest difference: Evangelicals do things like This a key quote being "What were once institutions designed to protect students from the secular world have become launching pads that prepare students to radically change it." And anarchists do what exactly? It looks like a key feature of the Bush legacy will be a seriously weakened and unpopular Republican party. That's good; but these people think long term and are committed to achieving their goals at the national level. They'll be back, just like so many of the veterans of Watergate and Iran-Contra are working for Bush now. Saying one is only interested in politics at the local level, that the "macro" state or national level is just too "mediated" or "problematic" is to unilaterally disarm. And I think you give up a lot of your right to complain about what happens at the macro level, like invading Iraq, if you do so.
This: "I would argue that no one votes against their interests, they simply define their interests differently. It is more important for the evangelical to have the peace of mind that comes with peer acceptance and success in the afterlife than to have a living wage or health insurance." I completely agree with. I hate the false consciousness arguments.
Not so sure about this, though: "Understanding the political differences between the left and the right as based in different systems of values is no better than analyzing the war on terror as a clash of civilizations."
I'll fully grant you the value of the aesthetic dimension to politics that you describe (might post more on that if I've got the time), but do we have any other basis besides this on which to evaluate political action (at any level)? If both the anarchist and the evangelical have created identities for themselves that make them feel good, how do you judge who's right? Why be a leftist, rather than an evangelical? That's where the issue of values comes back in, which is kinda also the discussion I was trying to start with my "means and ends" post. I'm still not sure what the motivating values of the other folks posting here are--why do any of you care about politics, however defined? Why are we blogging about this and not something else?
This: "If, as I have argued, the Democratic party works to continually transform Progressive Obamas into Nationwide, Long-Beard, Sleeping Bag Era ZZ Top Obamas then we certainly need to question if this is the type of meaningful life that we wish to be producing."
Well, not being a ZZ Top buff I'm not sure I fully get the analogy, but...But this makes me want to stick up for Obama some, though I do have real questions about him, as I've mentioned before. I just don't know if this is fair, since at this point we still don't know how Obama will turn out--if he's even the nominee, let alone becomes president. You believe that the process of the national campaign/election will automatically leech out whatever progressive potential Obama possessed. Maybe, but maybe not. As I said earlier, I can easily imagine Obama being another cautious, centrist Clinton; I could also see him being a bold, visionary FDR. Again, Bush has so tarnished the Republican brand at this point that a I think there's a decent shot of a Dem getting elected on a seriously progressive platform since people are so ready for a different direction. On the other hand, the next president may be seriously constrained in what they can accomplish due to the huge mess that Bush will leave them to clean up. Anyways, who knows? I'm not ready to prejudge things at this stage, and I think there's reason for some cautious optimism.
On defining inequality, I don't see how it is possible to acknowledge that politics has an aesthetic dimension and still argue that inequality is simple. If we are going to discuss values and ends and means then I don't think a simple definition of inequality is adequate. The example of poor rural evangelicals who have their man in the white house and are going to heaven is a perfect example of the complexity of inequality.
As Tigrenoche notes once we acknowledge that anarchists and evangelicals are constructing an identity through political activity, we must move towards a way of evaluating those different identities. From a marxist perspective to talk about the aestheticization of politics in relation to a particular regime has been a sort of polemical attack - like calling someone an imperialist or a fascist (as Greenmedallion notes the nazis were famous political aestheticizers). It almost sounds like Tigrenoche is taking a marxist position and arguing for a capital "P" Politics that is about "real" issues that we all understand. There is certainly alot about the political that we all recognize as politics. Minimum wage, Supreme court appointees, and invading Iran all fit within the language game we call politics. I am suggesting that we expand that game by acknowledging the importance of aesthetics for political activity, and then rather than simple dismiss aesthetics as relativist or superficial we move towards a way of evaluating political lifestyles. This would involve constructing an argument for why involvement in the Democratic Party enables the production of an identity that is more appealing than being an evangelical, an anarchist, or an apathetic academic.
Actually not Sandra posting, but I can't seem to log out/log back in now without erasing the post.
Still not seeing what the problem with a pretty straightforward definition of inequality is, or why aesthetics comes into play when defining it. Explain please...
This: "The example of poor rural evangelicals who have their man in the white house and are going to heaven is a perfect example of the complexity of inequality." is a pretty weak example. One, it's not that the poor rural couple probably wouldn't like to be less poor, that they don't worry about their health care coverage...they may have prioritized their religious identity in '04, and maybe still do, but their lives could still be measurably improved by increasing their economic status and security. I don't care if they agree with my politics or not, I want to improve their condition because society as a whole benefits by increasing people's material security and decreasing inequality--an immediate beneficiary possibly being said poor rural couple's children, who don't have any say in who gets elected, but may get to live a longer, healthier life as a result.
Also, this assumes a sort of permanance to this identity that of course doesn't exist; it's entirely possible that these folks could be persuaded to change or prioritize other values next time; one of the big failings of the Democrats, especially throughout the '90s when the Clinton/DLC faction were in the ascendant, was to largely ditch the economic populism side of their traditional platform. For a lot of the recent past Democrats just weren't really offering anything to people like this. That's changed quite a lot lately. This is also where someone like Obama could potentially have a huge effect--the dude's got major charisma and incredible oratorial skills. If anyone could convince folks on the right to stop hating on the gays and try voting dem for a change, it's him (though the race issue does complicate this quite a bit).
Speaking of which, I'd be curious to hear what you think of the role of charisma, image and rhetorical skills in electoral politics given your interest in the aesthetic dimension.
Also--I'll have more to say on this: " This would involve constructing an argument for why involvement in the Democratic Party enables the production of an identity that is more appealing than being an evangelical, an anarchist, or an apathetic academic." later, but for now, just wanted to say that one of the biggest arguments against the evangelical identity is that it's based to a large degree on denying other people--especially gays and women--the right to create an identity for themselves. The rightwing or conservative identity in general seeks to limit for others the right to create a fulfilling identity that it claims for itself. This is a contradiction that doesn't exist for any of the others mentioned above, not that people are ever totally consistent.
Post a Comment