Four Essays on the Revolutionary Subject

I’ve got a new pamphlet coming out with Everyday Analysis called Four Essays on the Revolutionary Subject. It’s available for pre-order for £6 (roughly $7), and will ship internationally. If you order it, you get both an ebook and a print copy. The essays are meditations on this impasse we are in, where there is widespread, deep dissatisfaction with liberal democratic political institutions but an absence of inspiring alternatives. This produces many people who criticize our politics and desire change, but few who are genuinely revolutionary. There is fierce criticism, but a lack of meaningful political action, and this leaves us in a poor position to make effective political demands. I explore implications for institutions, like the universities and the army. I also think about citizenship. As our citizens become less able to meaningfully act, it becomes easier to blame them for the state of the country. They cannot deliver change, much less defend themselves against these charges. The pamphlet is available here:

https://everyday-analysis.sellfy.store/p/four-essays/

I’ve done a number of podcasts in connection with the release of my first book, The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy: The Way is Shut. I don’t generally bother my blog followers about podcasts, because readers and listeners are only sometimes the same people. But, seeing as I’m announcing new written work, I include a list of recent appearances below. Most of these episodes will be available wherever you listen to podcasts (iTunes, Spotify, Player FM, etc.):

Bungacast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeMzEp7BPBE

Popular Show: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/tps170-it-wont-work-benjamin-studebaker/id1536016949?i=1000626482488

Diet Soap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OobuZB1BLX4

New Books Network: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI6WcaG0nIE

Platypus Says: https://soundcloud.com/platypus-affiliated-society/ep61

The Lack: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-way-is-shut/id1561070699?i=1000615902614

Current Affairs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlSLUsrzJM8

Bad Faith: https://www.patreon.com/posts/episode-348-whos-98753296?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_fan&utm_content=join_link

ArtiFact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OobuZB1BLX4

Philosophy of Art and Science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ8R6_buY2o

Cyber Dandy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4STm87X4KM

Reviving Virtue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2L2g5olcZ0

Dain Fitzgerald: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAk1266b0A & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MD06A4_Gj4

Varn Vlog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIj7urKRKSM

Theory Underground: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj5AlkVMyug



Citizen-Eject

I have a new piece out for Sublation on the failure of liberal and left-wing conceptions of citizenship to adequately protect citizens from denationalization. Prominent recent cases include Shamima Begum in the UK and Suhayra Aden in Australia. Both liberal and left-wing accounts increasingly center individual agency, and this emphasis makes it easy for states to deny the role they’ve played in creating the conditions for terrorism and to concretize this denial in the form of denationalization. There are discussions of Althusser and especially Balibar, whose book Citizen Subject is referenced in the title. It’s available here, with no pay wall:

https://www.sublationmag.com/post/citizen-eject

Continue reading “Citizen-Eject”

The Left Must Stop Helping the Right Racialize the Concept of Citizenship

There are many lovely political concepts that have been distorted by the right. “Citizenship” is one such concept. Increasingly, the right hides behind it. Accuse the right of caring only about people of one ethnicity, race, religion, or culture, and the right will answer that it’s interested in protecting citizens, regardless of background. Of course, if you ask the right what makes someone deserving of citizenship, the right will often argue for jus sanguinis, the idea that citizenship is a matter of blood heritage. When citizenship is about blood, it becomes a thin cover for ethnic nationalism.

Unfortunately, the left has largely responded to this by simply dismissing all appeals to citizenship as ethno-nationalist, racist, or white supremacist. Instead of fighting to stop the right from appropriating the concept, the left has simply conceded it to them. This means that whenever right wing politicians argue about the importance of defending American citizens, all the left can do is shout “racism!” at them. Increasingly, the left calls for “open borders”, arguing that citizenship doesn’t matter at all. This concedes far too much to the right. The right is advancing a very poor conception of citizenship, and we are able to offer something much more compelling, if we merely try. Here, let me show you.

Continue reading “The Left Must Stop Helping the Right Racialize the Concept of Citizenship”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Seems Confused About Race

I have been increasingly concerned by the way Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) talks about race. I see two principal ways people discuss racism:

  1. The Citizenship Model–people who face racial discrimination are being treated as second class citizens on arbitrary grounds, and they are entitled to the same status as other people in our society. On this model, racial oppression is a failure to recognise that citizens are entitled to equal political standing. It denies the citizenship of people of color. People with this view often speak in a universalist language, because their emphasis is on what we all have in common as citizens. It’s a critique which erodes racial distinctions, emphasising common political standing across group categories.
  2. The Group Fetishist Model–people who face racial discrimination are subject peoples who are entitled to group self-determination and therefore to their own political arrangements, separate and distinct from whites and Europeans. On this model, racial oppression is the attempt to wrongfully subject distinct groups to the same institutions. People with this view speak in a particularist language, because their emphasis is on what is different about various groups of people. It’s a critique which reinforces racial distinctions, emphasising separateness.

These two models in turn proceed from different ways of understanding what politics is. For those on the citizenship model, it is our political status as citizens which unites us. The state structures our self-conception as a people. You see this in America in the commitment to the constitution–we think of ourselves as American insofar as we are all committed to a common political project. But for those on the group fetishist model, ethnic and racial groups are primordial and pre-exist political associations. We are united not by political standing but by cultural commitments–language, cuisine, religion, ideology, ethnicity, race, you name it. So whenever two or more distinct cultural groups exist under one political framework, the group fetishist alleges that one of those groups isn’t “independent” or “self-determining”, that there’s a subjugation relationship.

Ultimately, only the citizenship model can provide the conditions under which diverse people can live together. If we recognise each other as equal citizens, we don’t have to fuss about whether we speak the same language, worship the same gods, or look the same color. We can instead work together to ensure every person enjoys equal status and the distributive benefits that go along with that. Group fetishism kills unity. It breaks us up into ever smaller factions, and it makes it difficult for those factions to collaborate.

Initially, AOC appeared to be operating on the citizen model, but increasingly she’s been moving in the group fetishist direction. The result is a confused position on race. Let me show you what I mean…

Continue reading “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Seems Confused About Race”

How to Reframe Anti-Discrimination Politics to Overcome Division

A few readers asked a good question about yesterday’s post. The question boils down to something like this:

How can we talk about discrimination–about racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia–if we have to show conspicuous respect for the white working class? Some of them are racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic. How can we deal with them in a way that isn’t appeasement?

The people asking this question believe that we can’t fight discrimination while concurrently respecting the people who practice it. But this isn’t true–we can do both at once. Indeed, by respecting these people we can make our anti-discrimination advocacy more effective. Here’s how.

Continue reading “How to Reframe Anti-Discrimination Politics to Overcome Division”