Re: new immanence

The multitude as it is defined by Hardt and Negri, is not really a return to a 
Hobbesian state of nature.  It is almost as if there are two different 
multitudes operating in _Empire_.  The first being the original multitude, 
that which has been changed once sovereignty defined itself as transcendent (I 
do not have the book on me right now so some of the details are not quite 
clear), and then there is the multitude that is constituted by the 
postmodernization of the modes of production.  Although forms of sovereignty 
try to restrain the original multitude that has never really ceased, it is a 
continual 'life force,' the postmodernization of capital, as it is portrayed 
by Hardt and Negri, is revolutionary in that it creates a global social 
formation that is beyond difference (of territory, of language, of the body, 
etc). Joszef's argument that Hardt and Negri's conception of the multitude is 
really the proletariat in new clothes is exactly right on, and this my point 
of frustration with this text.  I feel it is especially dangerous in that it 
erases difference, through its denial, which is a consistent and limited 
argument made by certain marxists.  Globalization presents a fantastical space 
that allows a reification of discarded and oppressive epistemologies.

That said, I find Ernesto Laclau's conception of equivalence particularly 
interesting in examining the movements against the war in Iraq. Laclau argues 
that the struggle for hegemony occurs when first the universal is called out 
as a particular, and then each particular articulation of resistance is 
recognized by other expressions of particularity through a chain of 
equivalence that creates the possibility for an opposing hegemony.  The acts 
of resistance that occurred over the weekend represents the possibility and 
necessity for a radical democracy through difference and particularity that is 
articulated on a universal horizon. The possibility and necessity of radical 
democracy was and will continue to be made visible by the many who 
participated in resisting those that use the name of universal 'good', when 
the are really interested in the continuation of their own particular, 
oppressive interest.

This was my first time contributing to the discussions on the listserv so far.
 I enjoy reading and hearing the debates.  Although I have a ton of work to do 
right now and am simply procrastinating, I could not resist an engagement with 
this thread.  
Erin Paszko


>===== Original Message From Diego Miranda <miranda@fas.harvard.edu> =====
>Interesting.  What I see in 'the multitude' is just a return to the
>Hobbesian state of nature.  That is to say, the people ceasing to be a
>crowd, and regaining, if only momentarily, their original sovereignty.
>This situation (insofar as it is actually happening) cannot be an
>equilibrium, however.
>
>Diego
>
>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Jozsef Borocz wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Threehegemons@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> |What is the difference between 'the multitude' and 'the working class'?
>> |And what is the difference between 'a new plane of immanence' and 
'socialist
>> |consciousness'? Seriously--I'm curious about how language changes and why.
>>
>> IMHO, Hardt & Negri's concept of the 'multitude' allows west EUropean and
>> north American subjectivity to continue to play a dominant role in the way 
in
>> which putatively global "left" conversation addresses (the possibility of)
>> global change, without having to face some tough questions regarding issues
>> of privilege and global class location, complicity in invisible exclusion,
>> the abandonment of the requirement of a deep, racially undivided, radical
>> sense of solidarity, and concealing a host of tacit, neverthe less all too
>> real, personal stakes in a politics of the status quo. 'Multitude' allows 
the
>> west European and north American "left" identity location to cover up its
>> material investment in the maintenance of the global order. It is
>> "solidarity" on white, northern, privileged "left" terms. In this sense, it
>> is an old hat, the oldest in fact.
>>
>> József Böröcz
>>
>>