{"id":1291,"date":"2014-07-06T08:06:28","date_gmt":"2014-07-06T13:06:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/cthorne\/?p=1291"},"modified":"2014-07-06T08:06:28","modified_gmt":"2014-07-06T13:06:28","slug":"against-joy-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/cthorne\/articles\/against-joy-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Against Joy, Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"X<\/a><\/h5>\n
PART ONE IS HERE<\/a><\/h5>\n

This is the moment to return to Empire <\/i>and \u201cthe joy of being communist.\u201d Nietzsche, as the sole author of The Gay Science<\/i>, is something of an anomaly. All great comic acts work in pairs: Deleuze and Guattar\u00ed, Hardt and Negri\u2014these are our Gay Scientists, the zanies of this generation\u2019s theoretical vaudeville. If you want to figure out what gay science wants for you, you will have to reckon with Deleuze and company, because it is in their writing that gay science gets round to advancing an actual political program, though that last phrase may, in fact, be off the mark. Deleuzian thought, and especially the Deleuzian brand of Marxism, is perhaps the grandest utopian philosophy of its time, and this makes its political status unusually hard to parse. Deleuzian thought works by taking the preoccupations of the twentieth century\u2019s great critical theories\u2014the Frankfurt School or deconstruction\u2014and shifting them into an improbably affirmative mode. Everything that Adorno most wanted and thought he could not have\u2014everything that he mourned for as historically foreclosed and philosophically pie-in-the-sky\u2014Deleuze declares to be already at hand. Deleuze will teach us to think multiplicity, will show us that thought is after all fully adequate to the singular and the heterogeneous and the non-identical, that reification was never the problem we took it to be. He will teach us to think the union of subject and object\u2014will teach us, in fact, that they were never really apart. And he will teach us to think the union of desire and labor; what capitalism has put asunder, ontology will reunite. This utopianism, moreover, is frankly avowed. Deleuzian philosophy offers itself in the service of \u201ca new earth and a people that does not yet exist\u201d\u2014that\u2019s Deleuze writing alongside Guattari. And Negri continues in the same vein: In any proper understanding of politics is \u201cimplicit the idea that the past no longer explains the present, and that only the future will be able to do so.\u201d Any philosophy of the State\u2014and most philosophy, from this perspective, turns out to be philosophy of the State\u2014\u201cis a juridical doctrine that knows only the past: it is continually referring to time past, to consolidated strengths and to their inertia, to the tamed spirit.\u201d Radical thinking, by contrast, \u201calways refers to the future.\u201d To these remarks we might finally add the familiar observation that Hardt and Negri\u2019s Empire <\/i>refuses Left nostalgia in all its forms, all that downcast social-democratic hankering for the nation-state or the trade union or other institutions of a not-yet globalized world. It beckons to us from the communist yet-to-come.<\/p>\n

The great surprise of Deleuzian thought, then, is that it is completely fixated on the past. This is perhaps clearest in Deleuze\u2019s efforts to build a philosophical counter-canon: Spinoza, Hume, Sade, Nietzsche, Bergson; Negri has added Machiavelli and Marx to the list. When all is said and done, Deleuzians are unusually concerned with pedigree; they want us to know that their metaphysics comes with papers. But this historical fixation takes other, more complex forms, as well, and in order to make this point clear, it would help here to work out the modes of historicity that operate in Empire<\/i>, still the central and indispensable text of Deleuzian Marxism. I say \u201cmodes,\u201d in the plural, because Hardt and Negri\u2019s arguments unfold in several different historical registers at once, and there is no obvious way to bring these registers together.<\/p>\n

We can begin with the notion of historical repetition or the cycle. This is tricky: Marxist history-writing usually has more cycles than a washing machine, but Hardt and Negri\u2019s Deleuzian framework officially prohibits any such perceptions, the reason being that Deleuzian history is supposed to be an aleatory affair, mutation-prone, directionless, rambunctious. In his book Insurgencies<\/i>, then, Negri makes a point of washing his hands of historical recurrence: \u201cthe times of history are not those of a sentence, of an empty, suicidal repetition\u201d; and Empire<\/i>, likewise, devotes an entire sub-chapter to the polemic against cycles. <\/i>It\u2019s just that Hardt and Negri\u2019s declared commitments on this score are mostly at odds with the substance of their historical account. This is already apparent in the book\u2019s title, Empire<\/i>, which is pregnant with the weight of historical repetition, the sinking realization that our postcolonial world has defaulted on its prefix, that the imperial dead are walking again. And yet whatever cycles make themselves felt in Empire<\/i>, they aren\u2019t, finally, the familiar Marxist ones; there are no waves of boom-and-bust here, no rounds of uneven development, no long centuries. What Hardt and Negri have done, in effect, is borrowed a notion of history from Nietzsche and Heidegger: The past, on this scheme, is a matter of some single event\u2014some single catastrophe\u2014happening over and over again, but amplified each time, ramified through repetition. For Heidegger, history\u2019s key events have been the rise of Platonic philosophy, the rise of Latin Rome, the rise of Christianity, and the rise of industrial technology\u2014except these aren\u2019t really different events, but versions of the same event, the forgetting of Being. Nietzsche\u2019s roster reads much like Heidegger\u2019s\u2014history turns on the rise of philosophy, the rise of Christianity, the rise of the court nobility, the rise of the bourgeoisie\u2014and the one event or historical type that these all reduce back to is what we might call the negation of life.<\/p>\n

At this point it becomes necessary to have a look at \u201cthe multitude,\u201d which is Hardt and Negri\u2019s central concept. Roughly, \u201cthe multitude\u201d is Hardt and Negri\u2019s version of \u201cthe proletariat\u201d or simply \u201cthe people\u201d; it is the keyword for a democratic and communist politics. As such, it would seem yawningly remote from Nietzsche\u2019s writing or from Heidegger\u2019s. But \u201cthe multitude\u201d actually marks a novel attempt to combine Marx and Nietzsche. The most familiar attempts to absorb Nietzschean and Heideggerian arguments into Marxism\u2014I\u2019m thinking again of Adorno\u2014generally begin by jettisoning the proletariat as the subject of history; such is their overture to Nietzsche, their sacrifice. They work, if you like, by giving Marxist answers to Nietzschean and Heideggerian questions. (Who killed the free and creative individual? Capitalism did. What makes it impossible for us to care for, rather than to dominate, objects in the world? Capitalism does.) Hardt and Negri, in these terms, find an unlooked-for way of bringing the proletariat back into Marxist theory: They resurrect the working class via Nietzsche (and others), by making the proletariat the avatar of a vitalist ontology\u2014\u201cthe plural multitude of productive, creative subjectivities,\u201d Hardt and Negri call them, \u201cthe real productive force of our social world,\u201d united only its \u201cdesire for creativity and freedom,\u201d \u201cthe real ontological referent of philosophy\u201d even. In this Spinozist and Nietzschean guise, the proletariat can now resume its once hallowed position as the universal class\u2014not in the old Marxist sense in which the proletariat represented, or perhaps even messianically incarnated, the collective interests of humanity\u2014but in some new sense, for the simple reason that the multitude really is universal, as a matter of stipulation: Nobody is excluded from it. \u201cThe multitude,\u201d as a term, accomplishes conceptually what the classical proletariat was supposed to accomplish historically: It expands to swallow up all the other classes, leaving it a class without antitheses or others, without lumpens and peasants and bourgeoisies high and petty. The multitude is the human aggregate, but seen from a certain perspective, as dynamically producing the entirety of the social world, as the power that continually brings the world into being. Empire<\/i>, in this light, often reads like history-from-below raised to the level of metaphysics. It does not claim, in the manner of English Marxism, that if you look at the historical record, you will happen to notice that workers and women and the poor have helped make history. It gives an ontological version of that argument\u2014that the only way of properly understanding the world is to conceive of it as made and continually re-made by the combined efforts of its myriad inhabitants. And so anything that oppresses the multitude, anything that restricts its vitality or stifles its endless resourcefulness, is a negation of life, even a form of Seinsvergessenheit<\/i>. Exploitation and oppression are reclassified as ontological (and not just economic or political) transgressions. And that thing\u2014that agent of ontological oblivion\u2014is, as Hardt and Negri have it, identifiable: It is sovereignty, the founding of state institutions at the expense of the multitude. Sovereignty, understood now as the multitude\u2019s betrayal, is history\u2019s single event, its recurring disaster. Sovereignty came to pass when the absolutist state triumphed over Machiavellian humanism and has taken root again in each of the various great revolutions, in their failures as in their miscarried successes, and is taking form still at the World Bank and IMF. History is one long Thermidor, ever and again.<\/p>\n

Such, then, is one version of historical repetition as it shows up in Empire<\/i>, but there is another, this one connected to the half-familiar figure of Polybius, the ancient Greek historian of Rome. Hardt and Negri draw heavily on Polybius; he gets five indexed entries, several more unindexed references, a chapter heading and then again a sub-chapter heading\u2014all to himself. Polybius\u2019 signature argument was a theory of the mixed constitution, the notion that the best government would be one that combined all three of the classical constitutional forms\u2014government by the One, by the Few, and by the Many\u2014and it is for this idea that Hardt and Negri turn to him. But the theory of the mixed constitution strongly presupposes a theory of historical cycles, as well. Polybius held that any unmixed polity was fated to pass through a rondel of constitutional forms in both their benign and wicked versions: from the One to the Few to the Many, from monarchy to tyranny to aristocracy to oligarchy to democracy to anarchy, and then again, please, one more time from the top. The mixed constitution, in these terms, was meant to mobilize the political energies of all its members and thus to counter the entropy inherent in each unadulterated constitutional form. It offered itself as a path out of history, or at least a path out of the constitutional cycle, the one way of bringing stability to polities whose organic impulse was towards degeneration. The crucial point for our purposes is that nearly all of the canonical writing on empire\u2014I mean Gibbon and such, but now also Niall Ferguson and Hardt and Negri themselves\u2014is at least tacitly Polybian, activating a set of historical analogies or allusions or full-scale allegories, in which one empire, usually Rome, is meant to stand in for another, Britain or the U.S. or the global non-state that Hardt and Negri describe. Like Rome, Hardt and Negri write, the \u201cEmpire we find ourselves faced with today is also\u2014mutatis mutandis\u2014constituted by a functional equilibrium among\u2026three forms of power.\u201d What matters here is not the substance of the claim; I\u2019m really only interested in the word \u201calso<\/i>,\u201d which indicates the form of the argument, its historical parallelism. In a sentence whose terms are entirely Polybian (the \u201cthree forms of power\u201d), that \u201calso\u201d cannot help but trigger a perception of historical cycles, whose business it is to generate resemblances. \u201cWe are once again<\/i> in a genetic phase of power and its accumulation\u2026.\u201d<\/p>\n

At this point, a question poses itself. Hardt and Negri summon us against or beyond Empire. They want us to imagine Empire\u2019s end. So if empire, with or without its capital letter, is subject to historical repetition, then is the resistance to empire similarly cycle-bound? Are there historical models that anti-imperialists and communists can look to? Does communism have its own also\u2019s and once-again\u2019s? Hardt and Negri\u2019s answer is dictated by their Polybian frame. If Empire is Rome redux, then life after Empire will be a new Middle Age: \u201ca new nomad horde, a new race of barbarians, will arise to invade or evacuate Empire.\u201d Here, then, is a discovery: Hardt and Negri\u2019s writing is medievalist, no less than Nietzsche\u2019s, though theirs is a medievalism with the Christianity put back in: Empire<\/i>\u2019s very last paragraph holds out Francis of Assisi as the model of the communist militant. Nowhere is the connection between gay science and medievalism more striking than in this passage. What does gay science want from you? The \u201cjoy of being communist\u201d\u2014that phrase occurs in the last paragraph alongside Francis\u2014wants you to be a thirteenth-century monk. And these analogies are anything but slapdash or opportunistic; they have an elaborate conceptual underpinning. Reduced to its essentials, Hardt and Negri\u2019s writing is medievalist because of its hostility to sovereignty, to the state and state-like institutions. They are envisioning a society thoroughly decentralized, a sovereignty so scattered as no longer to deserve the name, and for European writers, the chief historical image of this society without sovereignty, whether avowed or not, is feudalism, though Empire<\/i>\u2019s most distinctive formulations, as above, push back beyond feudalism, looking for some zero degree of statelessness, a Europe of pre-feudal tribes. Hardt and Negri are the new Goths.<\/p>\n

There are other places we could look in the Deleuzian corpus for evidence of this medievalism\u2014to Deleuze\u2019s predilection for scholastic philosophy, for instance, which was made clear to you the day you had to look up the word \u201chaecceity\u201d; or to Eugene Holland\u2019s description of shizoanalysis as \u201ca return to alliance-based rather than filiation-based social relations\u201d; or to Hardt and Negri\u2019s general emphasis on exodus or escape\u2014what they call \u201csavage mobility\u201d\u2014which is redolent of medieval city air, the kind that sets peasants free. This last might seem like Deleuzian boilerplate, but is actual quite remarkable. Again and again throughout their trilogy, Hardt and Negri take their cues from E.P. Thompson and the early subaltern studies historians. That is, they seem to embrace a certain politicist version of Marxism for which all history turns on the balance of class forces (rather than on the magisterial unfolding of some ineluctable structural logic). But unlike these historians, Hardt and Negri mostly lack a concept of class struggle or conflict or contradiction. This is one of the most distinctive features of their philosophy, the way they revise those thinkers to whom they claim a debt. The multitude does not fight. It flees. The multitude remains the agent of history, to be sure, but only in its capacity for flight. Smack at the heart of Hardt and Negri\u2019s autonomia <\/i>is the notion that the struggle for communism cannot be a fight against capitalism<\/i>; it must be rather a simple getting-on with the business of living a different life\u2014though sooner or later someone is going to have to work out how Hardt and Negri\u2019s politics of escape is to be reconciled with their insistent claim that capitalism has completed its conquest of the globe, that \u201cthere is no more outside,\u201d since the possibility of mass exodus would seem to depend on the notion of inside-outside in a way that class struggle does not. Is desertion really desertion if, like the hapless cartoon convict who misdigs his tunnel, you merely end up in the next cell block over, one more version of the same place, just another of capitalism\u2019s antechambers?<\/p>\n

So much, at any rate, on the subject of historical cycles. What we must see now is that there is a second mode of historicity at work in Empire<\/i>, a progressive and even Hegelian theory of history, which is even more surprising than the cycles, since Deleuzian thought is, on the main, almost hysterically anti-Hegelian. The Deleuzian caricature of Hegel is quickly sketched: The Hegelian dialectic is incapable of accommodating genuine multiplicity; it is engineered, in fact, to reduce the manifold to sameness, which makes Hegel the homogenizing, speciously unifying philosopher of the state. More: Hegel is the philosopher of contradiction and negation, and gay science demands that we adopt instead a programmatically positive philosophy. And yet Empire <\/i>is Hegelian not despite Deleuze but because of him. Hardt and Negri\u2019s philosophy of history is not some deplorable lapse from Deleuze\u2019s anti-dialectical ontology, but that ontology\u2019s necessary outcome. Under the cover of a frantic anti-Hegelianism, the gay scientists smuggle back in everything that the critique of Hegel nominally seeks to abolish.<\/p>\n

This is going to take some explaining. Deleuzian philosophy involves a basic confusion of ontology and politics. It claims that all its arguments derive from an ontology of non-identity\u2014that multiplicity, in other words, is the basic stuff of world, that the way of the world is to be no particular way. We needn\u2019t get hung up on the details here; given enough time in the library, you can scissor-and-paste yourself any ontology you like. It is enough for us to know that the ontology of non-identity is supposed to yield an ethics or a politics; the notion here is that to hand yourself over to multiplicity is the only way to be in tune with the world\u2019s deepest ground, to vibrate with the sources of existence. This may seem straightforward enough, but only because I have been phrasing the matter casually. A moment\u2019s reflection uncovers only wreckage. Here\u2019s the sticking point: How exactly does Deleuzian thought pass from ontology to politics? How does it get from one to the other? If multiplicity and change are the most basic features of existence itself, then how are sameness and inertia even possible? And if sameness and inertia are not just undesirable but ontologically excluded, will it ever make sense to describe multiplicity as a political imperative or ethical norm? You cannot be said to defend something that was never in danger. Once you opt for an ontology of multiplicity, you give up the possibility of a politics of multiplicity. Multiplicity stops being something longed for but denied and becomes instead a simple existential datum, which need merely be harvested. An ontology of multiplicity betrays the principle of non-identity that it claims to promote, rendering the world identical with the philosopher\u2019s best description of it.<\/p>\n

An example will help. Consider again that slogan \u201cThere Is No More Outside,\u201d which turns out, in Empire<\/i>, to have a sub-chapter of its own. The argument here is one with which their project has become much associated: The opponents of capitalism must stop trying to imagine someplace outside of capitalism to which they can return. Capitalism has completed its conquest of the globe. There are no more backwaters or pre-capitalist Brigadoons. There may be something beyond<\/i> capitalism\u2014past it, out the other side\u2014but there is no longer and never again will be anything untransformed by it. The philosophical reference points are familiar here: Spinoza, mostly\u2014a theory of pure ontological immanence, to the effect that it has always been a philosophical mistake to think of the world as having an outside. The main business of these pages, in other words, is to extend Hardt and Negri\u2019s attack on sovereignty to an attack on the very concept<\/i> of the outside, since sovereignty\u2019s evils all go back to that basic couplet of inside and outside, such that any talk of \u201coutsides\u201d merely replicates everything that is worst about the state, its establishment of institutions that transcend (or claim to transcend) the productive life of the multitude. But then, in these same pages, Hardt and Negri cite Fredric Jameson to the effect that postmodernity is the new<\/i> condition of not having an outside. But how can you have Spinoza and Jameson side by side? It doesn\u2019t work, because one of them is making an ontological claim and the other is making a historical claim, and clearly we have to choose between the two. Something that is ontologically in the bag\u2014multiplicity, immanence\u2014cannot also be the product of history.<\/p>\n

Or perhaps it can\u2014but then that\u2019s where Hegel comes in. Deleuzian thought requires a marvelously old-fashioned theory of alienation; it depends on the notion that it is possible to be estranged from ontology, that what is most fundamental to the world can still be haphazardly at work within it. Hence Eugene Holland: \u201cDifference and multiplicity are what is given ontologically; they then get betrayed and distorted by operations\u2026that result in identity.\u201d Or Hardt and Negri: The society of control inflicts \u201calienation from the sense of life and the desire for creativity\u201d; it terminates in \u201cthe privation of being and production.\u201d We don\u2019t normally think of the Left Spinozists as having much patience for the young Marx, but on this point Hardt and Negri are content to defy Althusser: \u201cWe find ourselves being pulled back from exploitation to alienation, reversing the trajectory of Marx\u2019s thought.\u201d There is not much to take issue with here; it is pleasing, in fact, to see the ban lifted on a still useful concept, though the theory of alienation does call sharp attention to everything that is strangest about the Deleuzian account of the state, this singular, occult institution that is able to disrupt ontology itself, to deprive us of being or rend the very fabric of time.<\/p>\n

But Hardt and Negri\u2019s real path out of the Deleuzian conflation of ontology and politics is a Hegelian philosophy of history, in which what has latently been true of the world all along has nonetheless to become true in history, has to achieve its truth. The big surprise awaiting readers of Empire<\/i>\u2019s first sequel is Hardt and Negri\u2019s announcement that the multitude doesn\u2019t exist yet, that \u201cthe multitude needs a political project to bring it into existence,\u201d that we have to \u201cinvestigate what kind of political project can bring the multitude into being.\u201d One might have misheard them as saying that the multitude simply is or that it is the proper way of understanding all human aggregates. But the multitude is, in fact, only \u201cimplicit, \u2026 existing as a real potential.\u201d When his political program begins to collapse, the Spinozist helps himself to Aristotle after all. \u201cThe multitude \u2026 has a strange, double temporality: always-already and not-yet.\u201d Other instances of Deleuzian progressivism are easy enough to spot: in Hardt and Negri\u2019s notion of history as a one-way street\u2014a \u201cmarch of freedom and equality,\u201d no less\u2014in which the multitude, whose desire for liberation has already brought Empire into being, \u201cmust [now] push through Empire to come out the other side\u201d; in their Smithian celebration of capitalism as an enrichment of human capacities; or in Deleuze and Guattar\u00ed\u2019s own periodizing scheme, which divides historical societies up into \u201csavagery,\u201d \u201cdespotism,\u201d \u201ccapitalism\u201d\u2014and which would have seemed cutting-edge in Edinburgh in 1780. But the Hegelian philosophy of history, for which no single passage from Empire<\/i> can be adduced, is the book\u2019s secret and most powerful frame. Hegelian history cannot stand accused of being insufficiently Deleuzian. It is the culmination of Deleuzian thought\u2014or at least its rescue.<\/p>\n

But as ever in such matters, a philosophy, once disavowed, leaves only its worst features behind, its intellectual sludge….<\/p>\n

MORE SOON<\/p>\n

\"Cell<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

PART ONE IS HERE This is the moment to return to Empire and \u201cthe joy of being communist.\u201d Nietzsche, as the sole author of The Gay Science, is something of an anomaly. All great comic acts work in pairs: Deleuze … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":115,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,4033],"tags":[24251,23070,24252,24250,24244],"class_list":["post-1291","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles","category-critical-theory-and-philosophy","tag-antonio-negri","tag-gilles-deleuze","tag-hegel","tag-marxism","tag-michael-hardt"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/cthorne\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1291","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/cthorne\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/cthorne\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/cthorne\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/115"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/cthorne\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1291"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/cthorne\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1291\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1295,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/cthorne\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1291\/revisions\/1295"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/cthorne\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/cthorne\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/cthorne\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}