>It's all very high-minded to talk about doing politics reasonably and
>factually, but it just won't stick. Politics is about collective
>identifications and interests, and those are formed not only out of
>rationality and self-interest but also out of irrational, affective,
>even erotic bonds. PR and advertising is about using appeals to the
>irrational, affective, and erotic to lie to and seduce people. But it
>works well because its practitioners understand how to do it well.
>
>What is "workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but
>your chains" but a soundbite with an emotional hook? It makes an
>appeal to collectivity and the longing for freedom. It's the
>conclusion of a brilliant piece of polemical prose that uses rational
>argument, but hot rhetoric too.
That reminds me of something Kelly wrote here a few weeks ago:
>the question is, William,
>how do you propose to get people to commit to themselves to something
>abstract, distant, big? [see anderson's imagined communities.] that's
>one way, the creation of some human community--heavily invested w/
>symbolism-- to which people see themselves as belonging. that has it's
>problems, does it not? so what's the alternative?
I think this is an absolutely crucial question to ask, especially considering the anemic state of the Left both here in the States and abroad.
To answer this question well requires a theorectical and historical analysis of the "extrarational" in both social/political movements and social/political movement (change). To avoid philosophical debates on the "extrarational", I think we can all agree you need to be motivated to participate in social/political change and motivation isn't solely based on rational reflection. Even if you believed that merely exercising your right to vote was enough, right now most people aren't even motivated enough to vote.
Anyone out there has pointers to such theorectical and historical analysis? On the theory side Doug mentions Zizek and Kelly quotes Batille; I'd add, among others, Frantz Fanon, the black revolutionary psychoanalyst. But I'm drawing much more of a blank on the historical side. Last week I read an essay by Homi Bhabha where he mentioned that the "Indian historian Veena Das demands a historiography of the subaltern that displaces the paradigm of social actions as defined by primarily by rational action" (in "Postcolonial Authority and Postmodern Guilt") Sounds intriguing -- anyone know of any works by the subaltern studies writers that fits the questions being asked here?
-- adam