think domestically not politically

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Here is a clip from one of Barthe's essay on Fourier

Quote:

The area of Need is Politics, the area of Desire is what Fourier calls Domestics. Fourier has chosen Domestics over Politics, he has constructed a domestic utopia (but can a utopia be otherwise? can a utopia ever be political? isn't politics: every language less one, that of Desire? In May 1968, there was a proposal to one of the groups that were spontaneously formed at the Sorbonne to study Domestic Utopias - they were obviously thinking of Fourier; tow which the reply was made that the expression was too "studied" ergo "bourgeois", politics is what forecloses desire, save to achieve it in the form of neurosis: political neurosis or, more exactly: the neurosis of politicisizing.)

The "less one" language is Fourier's. But didn't Fourier have a point? The domestic, the family has been focused on by many as an object of study. But Fourier focused on the domestic as the locus of praxis.

The domestic / political is of course something akin to the private / public but I think thinking in terms of domestic/political opens up the realm of discourse a bit if for no other reason than the talk that employs terms "private" and "public" has already ossified into a cliche gridlock.

Marx considered the domestic realm to be determined by the mode of production and the mode of production as such is a political phenomenon. For example the bourgeois family unit is the result of, and held in place by the capitalist mode of production and not the other way around. So by this Marx limits discourse about social change ultimately to the public or political realm. For the Marxist the domestic is an illusion, a construction of the current mode of production. Class consciousness is a political consciousness first and a domestic consciousness, if at all, only second. Thus Marx spoke of revolution in terms of the political i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat and the eventual withering away of the state.

Fourier took a different approach. Fourier set aside the political completely and focused on the domestic. Fourier's phalansteries are domestic units rather than political classes. Both Marx and Fourier thought society was poorly organized but Fourier focused on the ways that the domestic organization represses and corrupts desire.

The praxis that stems from domestic or family consciousness is very different from the praxis that stems from political or class consciousness. One might even speak of a dialectic of the family. The family evolves. Our consciousness of what family means evolves.

For some the domestic is still just the bourgeois family unit (the nuclear family) but for others the domestic is more inclusive... family includes friends co-workers and neighbors that is to say "community" and community is closer to family than it is to class.

Here's the idea in bumper sticker form:

Think domestically not politically.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,201 • Replies: 1

No top replies

@Deckard,

Here's an attempt to make this thread more accessible.

Alcoholics Anonymous was founded in 1935 and the timing is very significant when one considers the fact that Prohibition was ended in 1933. The repeal of Prohibition represents the ultimate failure of the Temperance movement and AA represents its ghostly resurrection. The Temperance movement grew came of age in the 19th century. For the most part it was a religious movement as was the movement to liberate the slaves. Today there is no real Temperance movement accept AA and maybe organizations like MADD. After Prohibition, the temperance movement became apolitical. Yet this doesn't really constitute a total failure of the Temperance movement but rather a change of method into the realm of the apolitical, the private, the anonymous. AA seems to have reached a plateau of sorts but it is still a growing organization. What I am intrigued by is the movement from the political realm into the apolitical or domestic realm. To expand this theme consider the many NGOs devoted to various causes. True, many such organizations seek to influence legislation but at the same time the primary goal is usually to educate and inform and generally keep that particular movement alive. Freedom as a political concept and its antithesis within the political realm is legislation that restricts this freedom. The purpose of NGOs is to inform, to research, and when possible to win people over. The conspiracy theorist may claim that the Free Masons are behind the NGOs. Perhaps such nut-jobs would even see some masonic code in the 12 step program. It is true that the Masons are secret i.e. anonymous organization but it is just as true to say that it is an apolitical organization or domestic organization. But let us set aside the Masons because they are a little scary and just consider AA.

AA is certainly closer to a domestic organization than a political organization.

0 Replies

think domestically not politically

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know