Categories
#5: Love and Politics

Editorial

Why is this so important? The original premise: feminism as a means of “liberating” feminine subjectivity. The politics of love. Love and politics. But what is feminine subjectivity? And even more importantly, what is subjectivity at large? What is love? And how can they be connected? Is love limited to sweet intimacy, excluding any third party? The isolated community of two, lost to the world? Or maybe love is a movement that takes you beyond the boundaries of what seemed possible? The disjunctive union of two, asocial to the outer world, moving toward the horizon of the future, to resistence and struggle? Is the political dimension of love rooted in this disconnected excess?

Why is this so important? The original premise: feminism as a means of “liberating” feminine subjectivity. The politics of love. Love and politics. But what is feminine subjectivity? And even more importantly, what is subjectivity at large? What is love? And how can they be connected? Is love limited to sweet intimacy, excluding any third party? The isolated community of two, lost to the world? Or maybe love is a movement that takes you beyond the boundaries of what seemed possible? The disjunctive union of two, asocial to the outer world, moving toward the horizon of the future, to resistence and struggle? Is the political dimension of love rooted in this disconnected excess?

After all of our discussions on subjectivity, on the Other, on Nietzsche, on machismo, on ethics and psychoanalysis, repeated ad nauseum, we came to the conclusion that any subject – no matter whether masculine or feminine – can only be defined pragmatically as a social actor. She or he only becomes you or I (i.e. a subject) when she or he gets up off his-her ass and responds to the world, facing the political challenge of living with others. This response is unique. It is articulated through the specific modulations of its voice. Without our unique voices, you-I-we remain silent victims, but even more importantly, we are ultimately irresponsible: we are not engaging the world; we aren’t answering. It is only be raising our voices and facing other people politically that we can produce subjectivity. Without our voices, we will only be producing language, captured in an unanswerable web of secondary meanings, discourses of useless desire.

Irresponsibility (the inability to answer) is anti-subjective, even if it pretends to undertake the hazardous journey to subjectivity’s outer limits. Neither male excess (brawling madly, on a crash course toward breakdown) nor feminine Otherness (whispering silky, shimmering lunar) have anything to do with subjectivity. In the final analysis, their beauty is parenthetical, ultimately autistic, irresponsible. So let’s give it one more try: let’s try to talk about masculine and feminine voices, about feminism, about vulnerability and communism, and maybe, even about love. We’d be so happy if you would respond.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *