A Political Ontology of the imagination is not concerned with reaching people among the "general public" but among people who have a clue already that something is wrong.
basically, a politics that directs itself to what works, what will appeal to the public, etc., sees itself as realist (what you were calling policy oriented or legislative?) and the Political Ontology of the Imagination is often accused of being unrealistic and utiopian. In Graeber's schema though, the former is a Political Ontology of Violence
(IIRC) because it takes the given order for granted, as insurmountable, etc. etc.
In turn, he gets at what you spoke of the other day, where a political onotology of violence cannot imagine life any other way. Human nature is X and will always be X. etc.
more anon.
<> The 23% <> <> ken hanly: . . .meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political <> consequences as a result of his policy in this election year. <> <> ******* <> <> Ken may well agree with what follows, which focuses on the implicit <> 'drive' <> of the post as written, without reference to its total context in his <> Blog. <> <> Why do "we" give a shit whether or not a particular fact or set of <> facts <> does or does not affect the electoral fortunes of the present <> Imperialist <> Leader? Who is "we" here: All those actively involved in resistance to <> the <> Empire of Capital (Ellen Meiksins Wood's phrase). We have no concern <> with <> anything involved in the 2012 presidential campaign. Rather, our <> primary <> focus must be double: a) Keeping the anti-war movement _nominally_ <> alive <> (thereby providing a center of attraction when again masses of <> semi-leftists <> are drawn to that movement, and (b) reaching out to those opposed to <> u.s. <> aggression but not active in the ongoing struggle. The second also <> involves <> deepening and expanding the understanding of those still active in our <> work, <> clarifying for them the fundamental commitment of DP leadership to the <> policy they opposed. We accomplish that, if at all, through the first <> focus, <> keeping visible the Movement, crafting actions & programs which hold <> together our ranks as well as reaching out to our _current_ <> constituency, <> those whose passive views might be amenable to activation! The outer <> limits <> of our concern, then (_at the present time_) are that 23%; with <> Obama's <> supporters we have no concern. <> <> And viewed in this light, 23% is a huge constituency for the left. How <> can <> we attract them (not by argument or "persuasion," utterly blunt tools) <> but <> by the creation of visible hope that their sentiments are not theirs <> alone, <> that there exists active opposition to neoliberalism that might grow; <> that <> their participation in that opposition might be significant. <> <> And the focus of this post on the 77% is therefore not only <> politically <> irrelevant, it is counter-productive in that irrelevance. It diffuses <> the <> thinking of anti-war activists. <> <> Carrol <> <> <> <> ___________________________________ <> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk <>
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)