The Politics of Affect

Abstract

How do we fashion a new political imaginary from fragmentary, diffuse and often antagonistic subjects, who may be united in principle against the exigencies of capitalism but diverge in practice, in terms of the sites, strategies and specific natures of their own oppression? To address this question I trace the dissonance between the approaches of Antonio Negri and Gilles Deleuze back to their divergent mobilizations of Spinoza’s affect and the role it plays in the ungrounding and reconstitution of the social body. This dissonance reveals a divergence in their projects, the way these political projects emerge as counter-actualizations, the means by which they are expressed, and the necessity (or not) of a particular kind of historical subject to their realization. Most significantly, it speaks to how we might engage difference and alterity within our own political projects, our collective creations. I conclude with a focus on the productive possibilities provided by Deleuze’s writings on the scream, as a vehicle to uncover new terrains of struggle and new possibilities for collectivity.

Happiness, Sadness and Government

“…This points towards the scope for affect theory (e.g. :Ruddick, 2010;Williams, 2010) to add further corrective and critical responses to this analysis of political subjectivity.…”

Stuck between the modern and the terrestrial: the indignation of the youth for climate movement

“…This understanding of affect is rooted in a specific interpretation of Spinoza's theory of affects that emphasizes the centrality of affect in human relations, and its constitutive role in meaning-making and imagination (e.g. Williams 2007;Ruddick 2010). In our societies marked by increasing affective explicitness and polarization (Wahl-Jorgensen 2019), affect is seen as the missing link to better understand the construction of beliefs, outlooks (Connolly 2005;Williams 2007;Wetherell 2012) and new subjectivities (Ruddick 2010, 29).…”

“…More broadly, scholars emphasize the important role played by affects in the articulation of political outlooks and worldviews (e.g. Marcus 2002;Williams 2007;Ruddick 2010;Ahmed 2004). In particular, the concept of 'imaginaries' (Taylor 2002) has gained increasing attention for being the site where affects and stories come to life and shed light on the broader struggles underpinning society (Van Wessel 2010; Levy and Spicer 2013).…”

“…I first situate the case of YfC against the ongoing struggle between the modern imaginary and the terrestrial (Latour 2018;Chakrabarty 2018;Charbonnier 2020;Citton and Rasmi 2020). I then explain the constitutive role played by affect in imaginaries and imagination (Wetherell 2012;Williams 2007;Ruddick 2010), reviewing in particular how this applies to the specific competition between the modern and the terrestrial. After that, I detail how indignation is ideally located to understand the articulation between affect and imagination, focusing specifically on its role as a talkative affect that intervenes in moments of bifurcation.…”

Constitutional Imaginaries and Legitimation: On Potentia, Potestas, and Auctoritas in Societal Constitutionalism

“…This modern perspective is often inspired by Spinoza's original distinction between potentia and potestas which was recently adopted by critical philosophy, especially by Gilles Deleuze and Antonio Negri 8 and their followers within critical political and legal theory. 9 In this context, the politics of privileging the state potestas is commonly contrasted to the progressive activism of potentia opening up new political possibilities and imaginaries of self-affirmation and self-determination. 10 The people and its community are heroically and tragically described as potentia trampled upon by the potestas of state repression.…”