Cavarero Adriana - Politicizing Theory

8/12/2019 Cavarero Adriana - Politicizing Theory

1/28

Politicizing TheoryAuthor(s): Adriana CavareroSource: Political Theory, Vol. 30, No. 4, What Is Political Theory? Special Issue: ThirtiethAnniversary (Aug., 2002), pp. 506-532Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3072619.

Accessed: 10/06/2014 10:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc.is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.2.106.118 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:00:36 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3072619?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3072619?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/28

POLITICIZING THEORYADRIANA AVAREROUniversityf Verona

1.The expressionpolitical heory s somethingf an oxymoron.tymo-logically, oth ermsrederived romncient reek. Political s an adjec-tive hatomes rom olis,which,ccordingoHannahArendt,is the rga-nization f thepeopleas it arises utof acting nd speaking ogether. 'tcorrespondsothehuman onditionf pluralitynasmuch s pluralitysspecificallyhe ondition.. of ll politicalife. 2Theory s derived romthenoun heoria, hich ignifiesontemplationnd pertainso thehumanexperiencef eeing, othe ield fvision.n tsPlatonic eclension, hich

was subsequentlyassed nto he ntireWesternradition,heoriasavisionof rue nduniversalbjects r deas idea iterallyignifiesthe isible )with he yesof themind nous).As Arendtoints ut, hisnoetic ype fvision s consideredyGreek hilosophyobe the ttitudehat haracterizesthe nly rulyreeway f ife: he ios heoretikos,ranslatednto atin sthevita ontemplativa.t sdistinguishedromhe ios olitikos,nLatin he itaactiva,which denoted xplicitlynly he ealm fhumanffairs,tressingthe ction, raxis, eeded o stablishnd ustaint. 3 hetraitsf heoryndpolitics rethereforepposed o one another.onsistingncontemplativethought,he irstntails solitaryhinker howithdrawsrom heworld fhuman luralityo enjoythe noeticvisionof desensitizedndthereforeabstractnduniversalbjects.The second s a shared nd relationalpacegeneratedy hewords nddeeds f pluralityfhuman eings.Given hatonlyaction s dependentn the constant resence f others, 4oliticsbelongs o heworldlyphere,lways articularnd ontingent,here luralinteractionroduces seriesofunpredictablenduncontrollablevents.Theory eals nstead ithhe olitaryision f notherworldly,bstract,ni-versal, nd,most fall,stable rder fobjects.Becauseof these pposingcharacteristics,heorynd politics re incompatible.he factthat heyPOLITICAL THEORY,Vol. 30 No.4,August 002 506-532? 2002SagePublications506

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/28

Cavarero POLITICIZINGTHEORY 507appear ogethernthe xpressionpoliticalheory,he abel of a scientificdisciplineracticednour niversities,epends,s Arendtuggests,nafor-midablemetaphysicalie that wes ts xistenceymptomaticallyo Plato.Thehistoryfpolitical heorynd hemortificationfthegenuine enseofpolitics eginwith hemythfthe ave,whichs atthe enter fPlato'sRepublic 514a-5 6e). There sa twofoldtinerarynthe ceneofthemyth:oneroute scends ndthe ther escends.With he scent, hephilosopherleaves he ave ofhumanffairso contemplatedeas, rrather eabandonstheuncontrollableorld f action o take efugenthe eassuring orld ftheory. ithhedescent,hephilosophereturnsothe pheref he olistoimpose heprinciples e hasderivedromhe bjects f theory:the deasbecome heunwavering,absolute' tandardsor oliticalndmoral ehav-iour. 5he ustpolis oftheRepublic onsistsna political rder uilt ponandgovernedy he rder f deas.Plato sexplicitn his egard:he hiloso-pher s a painter fconstitutionspolition ographos)who,once he hascleared is anvas f ny ffectivelyxisting eaturef he olis inthis ase,contemporarythens), esigns heustcity akings hismodel he deaofjustice econtemplatednhismind500e-50lc).Since twasdesignedy hephilosopher,hoalonecontemplatestheorein)deas, heustcityhasphi-losophers or tsrulers. hilosophersre na positiono order: oth n thesensethat hey onstructhepolitical rder nd n the ensethat hey iveorders oothers,heyommand.ortunately,heWesternraditionoes notinherithis latonic onvictionhat estows nphilosophershe cepterfcommand,ut tdoes nheritrom latothe anons fpolitical heorys aspecific isciplinehatpplies heprinciplesftheoriaopolitics.One could lso call tpolitical hilosophy,ut he ssuedoes not hange.Philosophy,or heWesternraditionhat eginswith lato,s theoresisarexcellence. heoria nd hilosophiaoincide. olitical hilosophyndpolit-icaltheory,rom oth netymologicalnd conceptualtandpoint,aise hesameoxymoronicroblem,he rux f which s always hefollowing:hecharacteristicsftheory,erived rom xperience ertainingo realmofsight, retransferred,s foundationalriteria,o theregisterfpolitics.Althoughtsprinciplesaction, olitics ecomes spherehatsconstructedandregulatedyprinciplesf vision.

In TheNobility f Sight, n essayofphenomenologicalerivationgreatlydmiredyHannahArendt,ansJonas emonstratesow he har-acteristicsf heoria epend nthe ypicallyreek rivilegingf he ense fsight.6ight erceives bjectshat re nfrontf he newho eesand re, orthemost art,haracterizedy permanencen pace nd ime. hey re ta-ble,enduring,resent.Moreover,ight erceives everal bjects imulta-neously,nd t ees them s distinctrom neanotherntheir iscreteiffer-



4/28

508 POLITICAL THEORY /August 002ence.Sight ertainsothe imensionf pace, nd real pace sa principleof co-temporaneous,iscrete luralityrrespectivef qualitative iffer-ences. 7 ight mplies, urthermore,n active osition f he ubject, honotonly anopen nd loseher yeswhen hewants obut s not ffectedy heobjects fher ision. bjects o not ook tthe ubject nd,most f ll, heydo not onstrainhe ubject o ook.Theobject hat see ispresentomewithoutrawing e nto tspresence. 8ight ecures,nother ords, posi-tion hats detached nduninvolved.heworld sthere,t svisible, utt sup touswhethere ook t tornot. eenfrom distance ith etachment,thingscquire nobjectivetatus f tabilityndpermanence,uaranteeingthe ealityfbeing spresence.The entire hilosophicalexicon,which incePlato onceives heoria sthe ontemplationfreal, asting,mmobile,nd ruentities,nsofarstheyarevisible r nasmuchstheyre deas, s foundednthe ffectfobjectiv-ity nd presence roduced ythisdetached aze.Thedecisive lementspresence; presence hat elongs oth o the patial imensiononcerningthe bject hat tands efore he ontemplatornd othe emporalimensionof an instantaneousow hat eeternalizes.ransferringhe xperiencefthe odily ye othat f hemind, heoriabsolutizeshe elf-containedir-cuit etweenhis ermanencef he bject nd henow f he aze.Frozennan mmobileresence, entalmages ome,nthis ashion,oconstitutehespecific pectacle ftheoria. ontraryo Derrida's laim,Westernmeta-physicssvideocentric,otphonocentric.9Along hese ines,HannahArendtemindssthat, ccordingoPythago-reandoctrine,ife s a festivalowhich hebestpeople omeas spectators(theatai).'0heoria ndpassion or iewing pectacleshare he ame exicalroot. ven heOlympic ods ove he pectacle f heworld.nHomer, heywatchwhat appens rombove nd, t imes, odown o arth oofferhem-selvesas a portentouspectacle or hemortals, horepay hemwith nastonishedtare. he lifeof thephilosopher,or hePythagoreanss forPlato,s the est ife recisely ecause, sbiostheoretikos,tfallswithinhecategoryfspectacles. heobjects f thephilosophicalpectacle renot,however,angible hings, ersons, vents, r evenportentouspparitions.They re nsteaddeas ontemplatedy hemindhat,ternalizednthenowof heirresence,eturnhe ivine rivilegef his ternityothe ontempla-tor. nvied ymortalreatures,he odswho njoy he pectaclef heworldare mmortal.hephilosophermitateshem nd urpasseshemy onquer-ing n expanded resent,he ruitf mmaterialisions,which uggestshatthe pheref houghts eternal.ternity,nderstoods a dimensionmmunetothemovementftemporality,hus ecomes hemark ftruth.



5/28

Cavarero POLITICIZINGTHEORY 509The pectacular ark f ruthindstsdefinitiveoundationn he latonicdoctrine f deas,but toriginatesnthe ttitudef the onicphilosophers.Struck ythe otalityfthings ppearingo their aze,orratheryaphysisthatpresents tselfas an all, they naugurate he spectacularandprelogocentrichase fphilosophy.eforeHeraclitusndParmenides,hi-losophers renot oncerned ith ogos.Astonished,hey dmire hemulti-formotalityfnature,nd hey ttemptogive single ame o tsprinciple:water,peiron, ir, toms. his stonishmenttill eaves racesnthework fPlato ndtheyoungAristotle;hey efer owonderingthaumazein)s theexperiencehat ives irthophilosophy. or hosewhoknow ow oviewit, he pectacle ftheworld s a beautifulrder, kosmos,hat apturesheonlooker's ttentionndprovokes onder.nthe hilosophyf he lassicalperiod,whichtransformshis wonder ntothecontemplationf noeticobjects,he uestionf rders shiftedromheworld f hysiso he egisterof heoria. heoria,nfact, egardsbjects hat re haracterizedy n order(kosmos, axis, armonia);norder,pecifically,hat inds bjects ogetherina totalitynd hus roposestselfsa system.To bind s egeinnGreek,a verb hat lso means to peak reciselyecausediscourses a connection

ofwords hat inds hem,netothe ther,na certainbjective rder,hats,inaccordance ith he ules f he ystemfsignificationecall anguage.Thus, ne can understandhy ogos-as themodern ranslationsfGreektexts ttest-can mean both discourse nd reason,both anguageandthought.owever,he ignificancef ogosfor he hilosophersf he lassi-calperiodies not nthe honic spect f pokenwords ornthe egisterfsignifiersut n he bjectiverder fmentalignifiedsthedeaiofPlato ndthenoemata fAristotle)ontemplatedytheoria. s the ntire istoryfphilosophyroclaims,espitehe arietyf ts uthorsnd he onflictsf tsfactions,hese ignifiedsnd, bviously,he rderhat rganizeshemmustbe clear and distinct.venscience, nderstoodnthemodern enseof theword,s convincedf his. he exicon fvision elates o heory hether eintend heory s metaphysicsr we intendt as science.Consequently,nspite f ourscrupulousffortsodistinguishisciplinarypecificitieshathave s theirbject olitics, he xymoronicroblemhat oncernsoliticaltheory egards ot nly olitical hilosophyut lsopolitical cience.

Certainly,ncontemporaryebates,his istinctionasprecisemethod-ological xplanations,nd tgoesbackto themoderneparationf scienceandphilosophy.hedisputever he egimef ruth,hich haracterizedhetwentiethenturynd which ontinuesoday, dopts cience s a true ndincontrovertibleodel fknowledge. hecanons f cience hus ecome hecriteriafmeasurementor erifyinghe cientificharacterf he iscursivetraditionhatWesternulture as handed ownunder hename fphiloso-



6/28


7/28

Cavarero POLITICIZINGTHEORY 511true, vident,table, nd ertain ith espectothe npredictablenduncer-tain,mobile nd contingent,orld f human ffairs. onsequently,s thePlatonicmyth fthe ave well llustrates,o save politics rom he npre-dictabilitynd ontingencyf ction,he ask fdiscoveringniversalrinci-plescapable fregulatingoliticswas entrustedotheoria. heprinciplesftheory ere henpplied opolitics. trippedf tsown haracteristics,hatis,ofplurality,ction, nd he irectnvolvementf gents,oliticswas con-ceived naccordancewith haracteristicsertainingo the olitaryxperi-enceofcontemplationnstead fthe elationalndplural ne of ction. neof hemost oteworthyesultssthat oliticsssubsumedy he entralrob-lem forder,rrather,tbecomes any orm f ction ecessaryokeepmentogethernanorderlyashion. '3his s evidentn thepolitical octrinefPlato'sRepublic. ontemplatingdeas, hephilosopherees howthey indthemselveso one anothernaccordancewith harmonicrder-in whicheachthing lays tspart-that orrespondso ustice dikaiosyne)443c-d,500c). Symptomatically,herefore,ithinhe latonic orizon,ustices notsimply n element forder, valueamong thers,tis order tself. hisexplainswhy heustpolis,constructednthe dea of ustice, eflectsheorder f deas.The celebrated ole ofanalogynthephilosophyfPlato,accordingo which heharmonyf the osmoscorrespondso that f thepolis nd he ndividualoul, s nomore han nhomage othe rder f deastaken rom heoria ndapplied oevery ther ealm f nquiry.This nherencefordero theoria, hich s the rux fthepolitical ro-posalof Plato'sRepublic,onstituteslastingnheritancehatwent n tocharacterizehe isciplinarytatus fpolitical heory.s the raditionttests,political heorydentifieshe uestionfpoliticswith he uestionforder.Authorsnd pochs et orthhe roblemndresolvet ndifferentays, uttheproblemtself ontinues o center n theessenceofpolitics s order.Hobbes ndLocke, ornstance,onstructinghe tate n the heoreticalic-tion fnaturalndividualsndthe ocialcontract,onothingut eturn,hespecificityfpolitics,nce gain, othe uestionforder.hey onfirmhatpolitical heory ecognizestsspecific bject n anorder-governablendpredictable,onvenientndreassuring,ust nd egitimate-thateutralizesthepotentiallyonflictiveisordernscribednthenaturalrprepoliticalconditionfhuman eings. he state fnature,nsofars it san mage fdisordern which olitical heorymposes remedy,nfact orrespondsothe pherefhuman ffairshat latoplaced tthe ackofthe ave.No dif-ferentlyhan heGreek hilosopher,odem olitical houghtontinuesothink fustice s order. book ikeJohn awls'sATheoryfJusticeffersproof fthis s,forRawls, ustice lways efersothe ormal imensionfrules ndprocedures.'4Order,he enuine bject ftheoria-ofphilosophy



8/28

512 POLITICAL THEORY /August 002and science-is affirmedythe ntire raditions thefundamentalssueofpolitics.gnoringhe xymoront ts ore, olitical heoryhus ancels heunpredictabilityfplural nteractionhatonstituteshe ropriumfpoliticsandreplacestwith hepredictabilityforder.

3.Thus, ccordingotradition,oliticalheoryonsistsn theorizingoli-tics, rrathernthe eductionfpolitics othe rinciplesf heoria.t seemsnecessary,herefore,ooverturnhis ssumptionnd ofinallyhink oliticaltheoryntermsfpoliticizingheory.t is not asy forpolitical heoryobreakwayfromhe onstitutiveharacteristicsftheoria. here s, nfact,somethingf paradoxn xpectinghat heory ould epudiateheoria. hepresent olitical risis-for hemost art, conceptual risis hat emon-strateshe bsolescence fthe ategoriesfthenation-Stateith espectothephenomenonfglobalization-can, owever,ncouragestoradicallyrethinkolitical heory. e do notneed ofind n alternativexpressionhat

names,na less compromisingashion,he egitimacyf a discipline hat,againstts wn radition,inallyecides othinkhe ropriumfpolitics.Weneed nstead o dedicate hework fthinking,r fone prefers,hework ftheory,o understandinghis roprium.o use a formulahats reminiscentofSpinoza, oliticssks obe studiedccordingo ts wnprinciplesnsofaras politicss a field fplural nteractionndhenceofcontingency.heseprinciples,xemplarilyllustratedyHannahArendt,ave odo with he lu-ralityfhuman eings nsofarstheyreunique eings atherhan ictitiousentitiesike he ndividualfmodernoliticaloctrine,nd hey avemost fall todo with relationalimensionf eciprocalependency,hichxposesas false he utonomynd elf-sufficiencyn which ndividualismnsists.political heoryhat reedtself rom he rejudicialharacteristicsf heoriawould hereforeave orenouncehe rimacyforder nd, onsequently,hedispositiono conceive niversal,omogenous,ndorderableubjects.Inthehistoryfpolitical hilosophy,oliticalrder nd he oliticalub-ject appear s coherentspects fthe ame onstruction.ach constructionofpoliticalrder s a given ormsalsoa constructionf ts ubject,rbetter,ofthe ne whom his orm onstructsnd ubjects o tself: subjecthats,notoriously,ale ndphallologocentric.or heustpolisofPlato, his ub-ject s substantiallyhephilosopher;or he olisofAristotle,s we read nhisPolitics,t s,more emocratically,an anthropos) ho,nsofarshe sarationalnimalzoon ogonhechon),s,for hat ery eason, politicalni-mal zoonpolitikon)1253a 1-18).The foundersf themodern octrinef



9/28

Cavarero POLITICIZING THEORY 513the tatensteadonceive fthe oliticalubjects anatomizedndividual,free ndequal.This spreciselyhe ndividualhattillworks s the unda-mentalategoryor he ontemporaryebate npolitics, oth or heposi-tions hat ocus n the ndividualndfor hose hat pposethem,itherycomplicatinghe ndividual ith he ostmodernersionffragmentedden-tity rbydrowningt ncommunitarianubstance.t remains everthelesstrue hat,rom heGreeksothe resentay, oeachpolitical orm onceivedbytheoria,hereorrespondssubject. oavoid he ll-too artesianoundofthe ermsubject, e could also saythat achpolitical ormmpliespolitical pproachothe uestionfontology.nother ords,ince olitics,howeverneunderstandst, oncernstself ith umaneings,achconcep-tionofpolitics aises heontological uestion,rrather,tpresupposespolitical ntology. he connections so tight hat, s GiorgioAgambenaffirms,ne could also saythereverses true: Eachontology annot utimplicate politics. '5Convincedf his loseconnection,annahArendtlaims hat he oliti-calontologyf heWesternraditions,fromtsGreek riginsnward, ani-festlyalse.Man,whom he elebrated ristotelianormulaefines s zoonlogonhechonnd oonpolitikon,ontradictshe asicprinciplesfpolitics:Man sa-political. olitics s born mongmen,nd iesthereforeecidedlyoutside fMan. 6Arendt eans ounderscorehe act hat,ince t ombinesandneutralizeshe luralityf ll men andallwomen,tmust eadded) nits oncept, ancannot epolitical ecause,withinhe orizonfMan, hereis no pluralitynd, onsequently,here re norelations.nthe ogicoftheOne,themirrormage f the ogicof theSame,there s noin-between,orelationalpace generatedy action.Andconsequentlyheres nopolitics.Thatwhich heWesternraditionalls politics s inreality modelofdepoliticizationhat, eginning ithAristotlend,evenmore o, Plato,expels he lural ndrelational imensionfpolitics;nfact,treacts othecontingentnd uncontrollableharacter f thisdimension. ccordingoArendt,ven hemodernorm fdemocracyspart fthis epoliticization.And npoint ffact,tcontinueso decline he ogic of theOnethroughnotionf he ndividualhat onsistsn he more r ess uccessfulepetitionofthe ame. '7 lthought llowsfor pluralismfopinionsnd he artiesthat epresenthem,hefundamentalexicon fequality egates luralityand, onsequently,olitics.It s importantostress hat heArendtianorizonfpluralityhould otbe confused ith he hemefpluralismddressedy he ranchf ontem-poraryhoughthat efendshe reedomf xpressionnd he espect or ul-tural ifferences.lurality,orArendt,s first f all a characteristicf thehuman ondition,he ncontrovertibleactof a fundamentalntology r, f



10/28

514 POLITICAL THEORY /August 002oneprefers,f radical henomenology.achhuman eing ppears oothersin such way hat obody s ever he ame s anyone lse whoever ived,lives rwill ive. 18rom irth,hich nnounceshe ewborns a new egin-ning, nward,achexistentppearss unique ndcapable fbeginningewthings.t spreciselyhis hat uman eings ave ncommon: niquenessnplurality,r ratherheuniquenesshat endershem lural ndthepluralitythat endershemnique.Rejectinghe oundationalnduniversalisticogicof the ubject ndanyother ictitiousntity onstructedythetradition,Arendtakes his ntologys her oint fdepartureor hinkingolitics. hethereforeefines olitics s thesphere fplural nteraction here withwords nddeedswe nserturselvesnto hehumanworld,nd hisnsertionis ike second irth,nwhichwe confirmnd ake pon urselveshenakedfact fouroriginal hysical ppearance. '9 ords nddeeds, oth ncludedintheArendtianategoryfaction, orrespondn fact o the bility, os-sessed nly ythehuman eing, oexpress isuniqueness,rrather,o dis-tinguish imself,o communicate imselfnd notmerely omething. 20Insofars it s the phere f ction, oliticsdoptsndfulfillshe ntologyfplural niqueness.ntraditionalolitical heory,heontologyffictitiousentities-man, he ndividual-isfunctionalo the entralityfthe ssueoforderr, ouseFoucault'serm,fdiscipline,nsofars it ssubjection,or-malization.n Arendtianolitical heory,he ntologyfplural niquenessinsteadgenerates conceptionf politics,which s intrinsicallyndis-ciplinable,haracterizedythefragilityndcontingencyfpluralnterac-tion, amely,ction splural ction,hats, s nteractionacts nto mediumwhereveryeaction ecomes chain eactionndwherevery rocesss thecauseofnewprocesses. '' hismeans hat oundlessnessndunpredictabil-ity re nherentopolitics.n Arendtianerms, olitics oes not onsist fforms hat ut ubjectsnorder y ubjectinghemo a norm ndexcludingthosewhodonotbelong-insofars theyonstitutehefigurefthe ther,thestranger,healien-within hisnormalization.olitics s a relationalspace-fromwhich o oneis excluded ecauseuniquenesss a substancewithoutualities-that penswhenuniqueexistentsommunicatehem-selves eciprocallyoone nother ithwords nddeeds nd loseswhen hisreciprocalommunicationeases.

Consequently,e cansaywithArendthatwhereverhis lural nique-ness snot laced nthe oregroundwherevert snotwelcomed, espected,setdown s a valueofprimarynd nalienablemportance)heres nopoli-tics.Politics,s envisionedythe radition,here rder resupposesndorganizes ictitiousntities,etrayshatwhich smost roperopolitics.nthis ense, otalitarianism,hich massed n the ampshuman eingswhowerekillable nsofars theywere lreadyeducedobare ife, hats,dehu-



11/28

Cavarero POLITICIZING THEORY 515manized ndividualsyreducinghem o the ealityf anautomaton,stheutmost egationfpolitics.Althought s not sbarbaricnd bsolute,heres, accordingoHannahArendt, negationfpoliticsn each oftheformsforganizationhat eepmen ogethern anorderlyashion ithouteaving oom orwhat he callsaction. t s, nfact,worthmentioninggain hat,n Arendtianerms,ction,beyond eing capacity or nitiative,s a relationalvent hat eneratesspacefor eciprocal elf-revelation.ithwords nddeeds,human eingscommunicateheirniquenessirstf ll, ctivelyndreciprocally,na fun-damentallyharedpace.They ommunicatehemselvesnsofars theyreunique ndplural. hey ommunicateheirncommensurabilitynasmuchsit s absolute ifference.his swhypolitics emands o be conceived otonly s a realm hat laces he alue funiquenessefore he raditionalssueof order ut hat argetsnyresidual orm forder-norms, ules, gree-ments-toguaranteehe peningffreepacesfor ction. n this iew,hen,political rder oes not oincidewith general orm fdisciplinehat eu-tralizes herisky, npredictable,ontingent,ndunrulyffects fpluralrelationality;ather,tbecomes hatwhich rotectsndguaranteeshe pacesopened ythis elationality.

4.Theamendmentfpolitical heoryroposedhus ar,n erms fpoliticiz-ing theoryather han heorizingolitics,makes xplicit eferenceo thepositionfHannahArendt,nd t dopts oth er ocabularynd onceptual

framework.t is,however, orth otinghat hough rendts thefirstodenouncehe raditionalubjectionfpoliticso he rinciplesf heoria,heis not lone nconceivingoliticsn erms f nontologyhatnsists n aplu-ralityfunique xistentsnrelationoone nother. efind similarositiontodayn the peculativehoughtfJean-Luc ancy.n his exicon,whichderives hename ndconceptfpluralityrom rendt,niquenessecomessingularityndrelation ecomes not. o democracy'smptyruthnd ub-jectivity'sxcessiveense, eopposes apoliticsf hencessantying pofsingularitiesith achother,ver achother,nd hroughachother, ithoutany nd otherhan he nchainmentf k)nots. 22uch a politics onsists,firstf ll, ntestifyinghatheressingularitynlywhere singularityiesitselfpwith theringularities. 23his s, herefore,politics hatoincidesimmediatelyithhe ntologicaltatus f he eing-in-commonf ingularexistents:ecause the ingulars primarilyach oneand,therefore,lsowith nd mong ll the thers.hesingularsaplural. 24ontraryoArendt,



12/28

516 POLITICAL THEORY/August 002whatNancy allspolitics oesnot hereforemply ction, hat s, tdoes notconsistn the nteractionfwords nddeeds, t s instead imply hewayofbeing, he undamentalntologicalonditionf ingularxistents ho re ncommon ecause hey ppear ooneanother. atherhan xhibithemselvesactively,heyrepassively xposed: being-in-commoneans hat ingularbeings re, represented,ppear nly nsofars they ppear ogethercum),are xposed, resentednd fferedoone nother. 25hepolitical, orNancy,correspondsreciselyothe nofthis eingn common. avoring,articu-larlyn essrecent orks,he ermcommunity,e nfact rounds oliticsnthewith, he mong, he n-which correspond,n theArendtianexicon, othen-between-thats, n nyword articlehat lludes othe riginalnto-logical elationnscribednthe luralityf ingular eings. hus, ccordingtothismeaning, olitics oesnot egard certain, istoricallyetermined,type frelation,not,rbond, uch s,fornstance,heAristotelianoinoniaor he ontractf he octrinesfnaturalaw, r,more enerally,he aw.Pol-itics s the ond: bond nscribedn he ntologicaltatus f ingularity,nso-far s singularityntails luralityndthereforehe elation,he ying p ofone o he ther. hethreeategorieshat roducene nothereciprocally-uniqueness,lurality,nd elation-determine,ccordingoNancy,he oin-cidence fontologyndpolitics.Thiscoincidences, precisely,bsolute.Although e conceives t, ikeArendt,n patial erms, ancy oesnot nderstandoliticss a space hatsproducedontextuallyy hewords nddeeds f gentsnd hus s an activescene hat asa local andtemporal imension. e understandst nsteadstherelationaliven f theontologicalondition.hisrelationalityasthecharacteristicsfa tyingnda spacinghat xtend hemselvessfaras theontologicalact fhuman lurality.olitics s already,tonceand mmedi-ately,he xistencefsingular eings, iedone to theother, ho share hecommonpaceof heir lurality.nd t s not nly olitics,nNancy's exts,that etsflattenednto ntology.very isciplinaryphere-ethical, oliti-cal, aesthetic,nosiological,nd o on-is infact ubstantiallyeducedo avariablef he erspectiveecliningndifferentays he ntologicalhemeoftheknot. hequestionhat raws n thevarious isciplinaryorizonsspreciselyhe mongnd hewith f singularityhats aplurality,r, oputtinArendtianerms,t s the n-betweenhat relates nd eparatesmen tthesame ime. 2 In the exicon fNancy, owever,his eparationecomessharing. xistence,nfact, is, onlyf t s shared. What inds stogether,thepolitical r the ommunity,s the ame hinghat hares s.Itshares sis,at the ametime,tsharestself. ymptomatically,his salsotrue f ogos.



13/28

Cavarero POLITICIZINGTHEORY 517The theme f ogos sobviously ot rrelevantothe raditionfpolitical

theory.he ogocentrismfpoliticssoneof hemostwell-knownspects fWesternulture. oncerninghis, necan, nfact, oint utthat he radi-tional orpus fpolitical heory egins,n classicalGreek hilosophy,ithtwovariantshat,mphasizingndifferentays he mbiguousmeaninghatthe ermogos has n theGreekanguage, elptoconstructwo xtremelyinfluential odels: ne ofPlatonicndthe ther fAristoteliannspiration.Both re ogocentricutwhilenthe ormerogos s dentifiedith systemof hought,nthe atterhegeneralmeaningf ogos s speechspreserved.With lato,nfact,ogoswinds p coinciding ith he rder f ignifieds,rrather,deas nsofarstheyre he isible nd ilentbjects ftheoria. ris-totle,nstead,wells nlogos nsofars itsignifiespeech, iscourse,an-guage, ndthus estressestscharacterfverbal ommunication.notherwords, ontraryoPlato,Aristotle oes notderive hecriteria fpoliticalorder irectlyrom heprinciplesftheoria; nstead, etakes hefictitiousentityMan from heoria nddefinestas a zoon ogonhechon hats,forthis eason, zoonpolitikon. ccordingo thePolitics fAristotle, anispolitical ecausehe speaks nd,moreprecisely,ecausehe signifies ithwords hatwhich sgood, seful, armful,ight,rwrongor he ommunity(koinonia),hats,becausehesignifieshevalues hat roducehe ommu-nitys order1253a 10-18).Onecanunderstand,herefore,hy he abelofneoaristotelianisms applied o thework fcontemporaryupportersfdemocracy,hounderstandoliticssdialogue,sanexchangefopinions,or, o use Habermas's erms,s communicativection.27ymptomatically,preciselyorher ttentionothepolitical ssence fspeech,Arendts alsosometimesumberedmong heneoaristotelians.

It s importantostress, owever,hat he ntrinsicolitical haracterfspeech oesnot onsist,orArendt,n ts unctionf xpressinghatwhich sgood, ight,seful,ndharmfulor he ommunityutnstead onsistsn heabilityoexpress ndcommunicateo othersheuniqueness fthe peaker.Speaking,achhuman eing ommunicatesimself,he rreplaceablehar-acter fhisuniqueness,he ncommensurabilityfhissingularndcontin-gentxistence.hus, heArendtianonceptionfpolitics unctionss a radi-cal critiqueoth fthePlatonic olitical heoryhatmphasizeshe oleoftheoria nd theAristoteliannethat nstead alorizes he oleof ogos. nother ords,he riginalityfArendt'sntology,hich oundstself nthepluralityf unique existents,ies in herproposalof a new,absolutelyantitraditional,ormulationf a political heory inally nderstoods apoliticizationftheory.As toNancy, espite isundoubtedlyntitraditionaltance, he bjectionraised ohis uggestionhatntologyndpolitics re mmediatelyoincident



14/28

518 POLITICAL THEORY/August 002surfaces gainwith egardo his reflectionsn logosas knot nd sharing.Glossing famous erse fHolderlin's- ever incewe are a dialogue -Nancy xplainshatweareourdialogue: weare his mong-us,hatslan-guage, ndreciprocally,anguagesthe mong-us. 28anguage itselfs theinsubstantialie 29 here hemeaning f spokenwords s only secondaryandconsequentffect f the ie tselfnsofar s it s theoriginalmeaning.Every thermeaning,very ther rocess f signification,resupposeshismeaning.ikeArendt,ancy hereforerivilegeshe elationalityf ayingwith espect otheuniversal orizon fthe aid. He can thus ffirmhat heeventfpoliticscould ecalled he eizure f peech, 30hich hould ot eunderstoodithersthe emocraticrinciplef he reedomf peech r sapluralityf multiple ills ompetingo define Sense. ' t s, nfact,hesingularntry-alwaysingular reciselyecauset sspoken y omeone-into he oncatenationfspeech,nto he egeinnsofars it s a bond.Thisconcatenationsindissoluble,eticular,nfinitelynterruptednd ied gain.Ittends towardhemost aked unctionf anguage,oward hat necallsitsphatic unction:hemaintenancef relationhatommunicatesosenseotherhan he elationtself. 32

Nancy'spolitics fthe eizure f speechdistances tself ignificantly,therefore,ot nly rom heHabermasian orizon fcommunicativethicsbut lso from heArendtianorizon hatnsists nthe ctive ndcontextualcharacterfrelationality,fthepoliticalubstance fspeechnsofars it sthe ommunicationfuniqueness.nNancy's iew, peech-thepracticefspeaking,fengagingndialogue, fcommunicating-islso reduced oaverbal iguref ying,hats,tothe iguref pure elationalityhat,nsofaras it s the undamentalntologicalondition,oesnot onsiderhe oncrete-ness f he ontextnddoesnotneed obeactualized.nother ords, ancyadopts heArendtianlaim that olitics onsists n therelation etweenunique xistents,uthe emptiest of its constitutiveharactersfpluralactionnd hus f nteractivepace.ForArendt,oliticss not imply rela-tion, s it s forNancy:t s a certainype frelationhat s interactivendcontextual.oputt nother ay, olitics,nderstoodn heArendtianense,does not oincidewith ntology;t s instead wayofactively esponding,thats,oftaking harge,withwords nddeeds, f the ntologicaltatus funiqueness, lurality,ndrelationality.Rescuing olitical heoryrom hemetaphysicalallacies f tsPlatonicfoundationnd tsAristotelianariant, rendtllowsus toradically efor-mulate he oncept fpolitical heorytself.nthis ubversionfpoliticaltheory,heoryndpoliticsake na newmeaninghrough politicizingftheory. heoryow oncernshevision f nontologyhat rees tself romthe raditionalrimacyffictitiousntities. olitics tresses hat his ntol-



15/28

Cavarero POLITICIZINGTHEORY 519ogy, ar romontradictinghe haractersf he lural pheref ction,on-cordswithhemndfindsn hem full ealization.his s, herefore,politi-cal theorynwhichhe isual eaturesf heoria onot erformhemeaningofpolitics.f nything,he pposite ccurs.What s at stake ere s apoliticsthat,nsofars it s the lural pheref ction nd hereforehe ealm f on-tingency,rientsheperspectiverom hich heoryregards ntology.

5.Given hat he raditionfpoliticalheory,pplyinghe rinciplesfthe-ory opolitics, as depoliticizedolitics, heproposal f a political heorythat inally oliticizes heoryan also beunderstoods a repoliticizationfpolitics. hisproposalmay ppearmore r ess nterestingrmethodologi-cally lausible ut,ike llproposalshatnvolve rethinkingfpoliticalhe-ory,trisks emainingmere peculativexercisef t snot onfrontediththeneeds f he resent.odeconstructhehistoryfpoliticalheory akessense nlyf he ategories sedfor his econstructionspire orespond o

the urrentrisis npolitics. ymptomatically,orHannahArendt,hiswastrue fterhe xperiencef otalitarianism.33nd t struegain or stodayinan epoch nwhichhe ategoriesfmodem oliticalhoughteem ncapa-ble,not nly f omprehending,ut ven fdescribingontemporarycenar-ios. What ashappened,ornstance,othe overeignnd erritorialtatentheera ofglobalization?Whathashappenedo thedisciplinaryower forder,spiringo ontrolndhomogenizendividuals,n he lay f heWeb?What ashappenedothe oncept f he nemynthe war gainst n nter-national errorismhat s omnipresent?hese and otheruestions,more rlesstragicndpressing,onothingut onfirmodayhe apid ecline f hepoliticalategoriesnwhichmodernityasfounded.hey roveobeobso-lete, umbersome,seless; hewords f script rittenor past poch.Oneperceives,t imeswith ismayndpainfulnxiety,hatoday newdisloca-tion fpowersinplay.Butpowertself,he entralemma f he ntire is-toryfpolitical hought,ow ssumes orms ndmodes hat he exicon fthe raditiono onger nows owtoexpress.

Weneed new oliticalexicon, conceptualityhat ejectshe ategoriesinscribedn thefamiliarndthus eassuring odel fthemodem tate.Asregards oliticalheory,t snot hereforematterfupdatinghe anons fitsdisciplinaryaradigms,fperfectinghemethodologicalremises,rofadjustinghe rgumentativerameworkorigorous rincipleshat uaranteetheircientificity.t s nsteadmatterf eizinghe pportunity,nscribednthepresentrisis,oradicallyethinkolitics, reeingtfromts raditional



16/28


17/28

Cavarero POLITICIZINGTHEORY 521convincing,specially owwhen he oliticalmodel ftheWest s at ts ri-sis. t s, fterll,preciselyhis uestionhat etermineshe oliticalharac-ter faction nasmuchs it s theplural isclosurefuniqueness.

Action nd peech re o closely elated ecause he rimordialnd pecificallyumanactmust t the ametime nswer o the uestionskedofevery ewcomer:Whoareyou? Thisdisclosure fwho omebodys, s implicitnboth iswords nd deeds.Inactingnd peaking, en howwho hey re, eveal ctivelyheirnique ersonalidentitiesnd husmake heirppearancenthehumanworld, hile heir hysicalden-titiesppearwithoutny ctivityf heir wn nthe nique hape f he ody nd oundof he oice.Thisdisclosuref who n ontradictiono what omebodys-his qual-ities, ifts, alents,ndshort-comings,hichhe maydisplay rhide-is implicitneverythingomebody ays nddoes. 5Thesphere fwhat-ness,ere xemplifiedyArendts personal ualitiesand alents,anbeusefullyxtendedothe uestionf ulturaldentities.sBonnieHonignotes,FromArendt'serspective,politicalommunityhatconstitutestself n the asisof prior,hared nd table dentityhreatensoclose the paceofpolitics,ohomogenizerrepresshe luralityndmulti-plicityhat olitical ction ostulates. 36heontologyf hewhodoesnot oawaywith ulturaldentitiesndcommunityelonging,ut t doeskeepthem romecominghe oundationfpolitics. hewho,nfact,nderscorestheprimaryalueofan existent ithoutualities,memberships,ulturalidentities.bove ll, politics,s an interactiveelation,s calledonto takeresponsibilityor his alue.Politics s thereforerelationalpace-contex-tual, ontingent,ndgroundless-thatpens verywhereor veryone.hepermitor ntrynto his pacedoesnot equiremembershipna group hatshares n dentity.dentity,nfact,must e eft ehindr ubordinatedothegenuine oliticalharacterfmere elation.t s thosewho represent,nso-far s they ctively xposethemselveso oneanother s existentslothedonlyntheirniqueness, hoproduceheocalpoliticalharacterf he on-text. esponding ithwords nddeeds othe truth fontology,he luralrelation ecides he ropriumfpolitics.Claiminghat he rincipalategoryf he oliticalsrelationalityhouldnot, owever,ppear s an arbitrarynd, ven ess, scandalous ct.Fromcertain oint fview, verythinghat he raditionallspoliticss infacttransfiguredr, etter,disfiguredorm f elation.lato alls tharmoniafideas: a just conjunctiononcerninghenoetic rder, hich unctionss acriterionor he onstructionf he est olis.Employinghe erm oinonia,Aristotlenderstandstboth sa naturalggregativerocessnd,most f ll,asthe pheref ommonmeanings.hecontractfnaturalawphilosophersrepresentsbond hat,ngiving irth o the tate, ountershe ackofrela-



18/28

522 POLITICAL THEORY /August 002tionshipnscribedn he ellum mniumontra mnesHobbes) r he oten-tially eaceful ut racticallyonflictingelationshipnscribednthe tate fnatureLocke).These re,however,ypes frelationshatre, recisely,is-figured:egatinghepluralityfuniquebeings,hey ail orecognize hatplural elationalityhat,s anontological iven,onstitutesheir erymatrix.These re, hats,figuresf ommunityhatmmunizehemselveso he on-tagion frelationality.herelation,nfact, ar rom rotecting,rdering,reassuring,r disciplining,xpresses hat niqueness ithoutualities hatbind achonetothe ther.t places hem face oface : t xhibitshenakedbond, otyet lad nculturalrotections,hat ach ime, ontextually,ocatesunique eingsnrelationo oneanother,nactinghem s plural.

6.Globalizations one of thenamesgiven o the urrentrisis fpolitics.One shouldnsteadall tdeterritorialization.rom certain,etussay tatic,point fview,he tates odaytill onserve heirerritorialimension,ell-

definedyborders:spacedeterminedypolitical nduridicalovereignty.From nother,etus call itdynamic, oint fview, t presentuchbordersneverthelessend odisappear:hehomogenizingrocess fglobalizationrenders hemnoperative,bsolete, uperfluous. s SeylaBenhabib,whoexploresndepthhedifferentidesof theproblem, otes, territorialitysfast ecomingnanachronisticelimitationfmaterial unctionsnd cul-turaldentities. 37nthe lobalizedworld,he patialmaginaryhanges ad-ically.38hemodem tate,nsofars it s aterritorialtate, ealswith ordersthat roduce n inside ndan outside. heglobalworld oesnothaveany outside, fnot ther lanetstill obeglobalizedndyet lready ym-bolically reglobalizedy he atelliteshatlluminateurnightsikemetal-licheavenly odies.Withinhehorizon fthe tate, istances enderomeStates lose and others emote.Within heglobalhorizon verythingsinstead ear nd simultaneous. odeled n theworld fbusinessthemar-ket, inance,he rademark, r, o use a term fNaomiKlein's, he ogo),globalizationravelsttelematicelocitiesn realmwithoutistances,im-its,orboundaries.39he simultaneousime f theglobalcontractspace,annihilatingtsdimensions.Ina much-debatedilm f1940, The Great ictator, harlieChaplinimpersonatesJewish arberwho,becauseofhis resemblanceoHitler,finds imselfnthe hoes f he ictator.nthemost amouscene, eplayswith he lobe: mprovisingsort ftotalitarianance, edribblesndrollsit.Thescene suseful or llustratinghedifferenceetweenotalitarianism



19/28

Cavarero POLITICIZING THEORY 523andglobalization.haplin/Hitler,ho ncarnateshenecessary iguref heheadof tatenthe otalitarianovement,onceives f heworldshis erri-toryfconquestndexpansion:here recountrieso annex ndborders olevel. n the nd, f he otalitarianar ucceeds, here illbe no more tatesofdifferentolors n theglobebut nly necolor-black,one magines-that overs llof he ands nthe urface.nstead,n he aseofglobalization,the tates renot onquerednd he ordersrenot eveled. hey implyreno onger ffective,lthoughheyemainodecoratehe urfacefour xist-ing globe.Territorialndsovereign,heStates till xist,we knowtheirnames ndborders, espeak f hemvery ay, ut he ower hats nplayin globalization o longerrests n sovereigntyr in anyother eatureinscribednterritory.ntheglobal ra that omesnot fter utbeyondheLeviathan,he onceptf overeigntyeems ohave xhaustedven ts ym-bolicreserve. sto he iguref he eadof tate,he lobalizing ower,venwith ts ctorsnplainview, oes not equiret, ust s itdoes not equirehewillful ndprojectiveubject. hispowerspervasive, iffuse,ecentered,reticular,nd mpersonal.tsmachine, ot y hance ssentiallyechnologi-cal, appears o run y tself.

Eluding ll univocal efinitions,hepower hats inplay nwhatHardtandNegri allthe apitalistmperialmachinefglobalizationlludes irstfall to a triumphfeconomyverpolitics.40Economy -this oo s an oldword fGreek rigin-is perhaps ot hemost dequate erm,utt erves osynthesizen nterlacementfheterogeneousnd omplex henomena,uchas themarket ithoutordersnd, deally, ithoutaws, he xtraterritorial-ity fthemultinationalorporations,he lectronicnstantaneousnessfthestockmarket,hemarketingf magenthe pectacularraof onsumerism,the islocationfthe roductiverocessesnthe outhernart ftheworld,theexploitationf labor n impoverishedountries,hepollution f theplanet,nd oforth.t sinsteadmore ifficultoday o ndicatendetail hevarious henomenahatwould ppear nderhe ubric fpolitics.nfact,nthe raofglobalization,hencongruousubstancef he erritorialtate lsorendershe oliticalexicon hatsfoundedn t bsolete. emocracy,qual-ity,iberty,ights,nd ll the ategorieshat elongo his exicon ecessarilypresupposeterritorialimension.itizenshiptselfmakes o sense utsidethisdimension. globalcitizenships unthinkable,nsofars it s a Statewithoutorders.Global s,not y hance, neologismrom he oint fview f raditionalpolitical iscourse, hich ffershe erm ational s anadjectivalorm fState,for omparison ith hesupranationalndthe nternational.hepolitical orizon fmodernityoesfrom he mallto the arge, romhenationalo he upranational,voiding owever,he isk fpassing rom or-



20/28

524 POLITICAL THEORY /August 002der oborderless:his ast erm eing, raditionally,othingther han naes-theticttributionor reasofgreat xpanse-thedesert, or xample-thatneverthelesselong o a State r aredivided etween tates. rom heper-spectivefa politics ounded n territorialovereignty,pace without or-derss nconceivable.eyond very orderheres always nothertate. hepoliticalmap fmodernityoesnot llowfor noman's and. Westernar-tography akes coherentystemf heworld: erhaps ipolar, ividedntothe wo locks hatntil he all f he erlinwallorganizedtates n lusters,butneverthelessoherent;hat s, egiblenaccordance ith ne ogiconly,that fthe erritoryounded yborders.To tell he ruth,certain ichotomousivisionfthe arth lso appearsin the anguage f globalization. he mostnotable igure istinguishesheNorth rom he outh ftheworld, escribinghem s areasof wealth ndpoverty.he mpliedmessage, erymuch nkeeping ith he piritfunifor-mityf he lobal, hat nfaithfulirrorfuniversalism,s thatwith ime heimpoverishedountries illalso becomewealthy r, s one says, mergefrom heir urrenttate funderdevelopment.4n themeantime,hey reexploitedsproductiveupplies fcheap abor. ymptomatically,his urnsout obeanopportunityor xportinghemodel f hemodem taten onesthatrefar wayfrom heWesternnesthat avebirth o t.Organizeds akind f ampfor he xploitationf lave abor,he actoriesf hempover-ished ones f heworld eed,nfact, centralized,ossibly trong,oliticalpower hatontrolshemnddisciplineshem.ncertainircumstancesndin someregions,he lobal conomy eeds overeigntates ndborders utnot emocraticovernments,r, oparaphrase eber,heegitimate onop-olyofforcewithouthe xtenuatingircumstancefdemocracy. differentneed egardsnsteadhe ole fbordersntheWest.Here, o far s the egula-tion f hemigratorylow sconcerned,he iewpointf he lobal conomydoesnot lways oincidewithhatf rigorouslyiberal nddemocraticol-itics. tdepends n the ircumstances.hemodel f he tatesrigid;hat fglobalizationendsobeelastic, prooted,ndmobile. hesuccess fglob-alization annot e separatedrom hemobilityfcommodity,apital, ndpeople. heStatescalled o dapttselfo hismobility.he urrentcenarioforeseeshat olitics,n he ourse f ts nevitableemise, illfindts aisond'etre gain n anadaptation,ncreasinglyessnegotiablendmore ervile,to thedictates feconomy.Thedecline f the erritorialtate ontinues, owever,speciallyntheWestwhere twas born. heextraterritorialityfglobalization eakensheform ndsubstance fthe erritorialtate. hisexplainswhy,n thedebateover he uestionfglobalization,he lobal s not pposed oterritoryut olocal.It concerns hewell-known,pparentlyaradoxical, henomenonf



21/28

Cavarero POLITICIZINGTHEORY 525the o-called local:theglobalizationfthemarketndtechnologieseesaresurrectionf dentityocalism hat ppeals o ethnic ndreligious oots.The identityegated ytheprocess fdeterritorializationf theglobal srediscovered ithinmythologizationf he erritorialistoryf ocalcom-munities. narrativehats,essentially,nti-State,rrather,ntimodern,performingslands hat spire oassert hemselvesxclusivelyndthus ofightneanother. lobalizationnd ocalization,hroughhedoublemove-ment f nclusionndexclusion,eem thereforeowork ogetheror hedefinitiveiquidationf he tate: he nebyfrustratinghe erritorialartog-raphyfsovereignty,he ther yemphasizinghe erritorialoots fcom-munitydentity.To respond o thecrisis of thepresent,voiding he resurrectionfpremodernythshatonstitutetsmost ncannyspect, twould eneces-sary othinkhe patialityf heocal ndifferenterms.42twould e neces-sary o thematizelocalitywithouterritory.headvent ftheglobal, re-ciselybecause it defeats he State's logic of territory,inally reesadeterritorializederspectiven ocality.hisdoes nothave obethoughtfas a smaller ortionfnational erritoryr evena transnationalregion.Most f ll, t s not zoneof heworld hatsunifiedy culture,religion,language,tradition,r belief. ocalitys neitherribal or ommunal.t sinstead place,withoutnyhomogenousrterritorialubstance,hat anarise ordisappearn anypart ftheglobe. t is therelationalpacethatHannahArendtallsprecisely olitics.thasbeennoted hat hiss a spacein which he erms fpolitical epresentationnd gencyremobilized,is-placed romheirocusofrigid nscriptionnto ategories,oncepts nddefi-nitions; space .. constantlye-enacted,e-told,e-narrated. 43

Whereverougo, youwillbe a polis, aysHannahArendt,uotingfamousentence hat emonstrates,n her pinion, ow hepolitical or heGreeks onsistsf he pace haties betweeneople ivingogetheror hispurpose, omatter here hey appen obe. 4'Thepolis,accordingotheArendtiannterpretation,s not hysicallyituatedna territory.t sinsteadthe paceofappearance,lways ndeverywhereapableofbeing nacted,where uman eings ctivelyhowwho heyre.Wecould hereforeeferothis olis as absolute ocality: absolute nsofar s it s freed romheterritorialityfplaceandfromhehistoricalimensionftime hatwecalltradition.bsoluteocality as neitherredefinedorders or, ven ess,fixed r acred orders.textendssfar s thenteractivepacegeneratedythosewho haret. t sa relationalpacethat appenswithhe vent fthisinteractionnd, ogetheritht,disappears.tsplace andtime rethereforecontingentndunpredictable.Whereverougo,youwillbea polis : wher-ever heres an interactivepacebetween niquebeings,whopreciselys



22/28

526 POLITICAL THEORY /August 002such isclose hemselvesoeachother,heres politics. olitics ertainsoalocalityhat onsists f he ppearancefunique xistentsntheirctiveelf-exhibition,hich salso a display f n ncommensurablelurality.ocalitydemands lurality.ndeed,ocalitys madeof the elationalontextf thispluralityhat pposes hevalueofuniquenesso the ssueof dentity.Thehorizon f ocalitys not he irect ruitf he lobalbut s what lob-alization,nsofars it sa deterritorializingndextraterritorialorce, llowstoday oopen.Toput t nother ay, ince he artographyfthe tates hatmakesof theworld coherentystem as exploded nd thetopographicparametershatmake heworld geographyf borders as imploded,heworld inallyresentstselfsa space vailable or he ontextualnd ontin-gent dvent f absoluteocality.mptied fcommunitarianubstancendunboundrom erritory,ocalityannow ake laceanyplace.Thisdoesnotmean hatocality,iketheknot f Nancy,s immediatelyverywhere,sthoughtwere global onditionfhuman luralityhat,or hat eryeason,is apoliticalommunity.ocalitys therend nly here here,n ny art ftheglobe,human eings ctivelyhow hat heirniquenesssthematerialgiven,fnot he bsolute alue, f their elation.o say t again n the an-guage fHannahArendt,ocalitysarelationalpacedoesnot oncern hatthosewho hare tarebutwho heyre.Freed,t ast, rom he artographyfnations,he olitics f ocalityro-hibits lacingulturaldentitieseforehe nrepeatableniquenessf veryhuman eing. aithfulo the ntologyfthewho,ocality utsuniquenesswithoutelongingnto lay ndentrustso tonly he enseofrelation.arfrom voking passivity,hismplies irstfall thepreliminaryctivityfstrippingway urWestern,astern,hristian, uslim, ewish,ay, etero-sexual,poor, ich, gnorant, ell-educated,ynical, appy, nhappy,ndevenguiltyr nnocenteing. hestrategyfa politicalheoryhat eflectson bsoluteocalityncludesnfact,s its reliminaryct, he econstructionofbelonging,hemarginalizationfqualities, hedepoliticizationf thewhat.What emains,ecause thasalways een here,s who reyou? s aquestion irectedowardyouwhoarehere :here,n the paceof ocality,contextualnd verywhereapable fbeing nacted, spaceopened y hisquestionn which hegoverningrinciplefpolitics,hats,the rimacyfthewhowithespecto he econdarytatusf hewhat,salreadytwork.Despite ppearances,his s not utopian oliticsr ven nethicsfgoodwill. tis instead hereconfigurationfa political heoryhat,nspiredyHannah rendt,ocates he enerativend ymbolicucleus fpoliticsn heontologyfplural niqueness. esidesofferingcritiquefglobalization,this oliticalheoryays debt o he raumaf he estructionhat he error-istattacks fSeptember1inflictednthevalues ndthe ecurityfthe



23/28


24/28


25/28

Cavarero POLITICIZINGTHEORY 529theWesternolitical istoryforder-facilitatesnstead he heoreticales-ture f ooking ownward.amely,tfacilitateshe esturef ookingtthecontingencyf nagencynwhich luralitys the isclosure f uniquenessthat resentstself s absolute,nclassifiable,ndnonorderableifference.This differenceppears s disordernd chaosonly rom heperspectivefthe raditionalbsessionwith rder. evertheless,rom wiser ointfview,it s a categoryhat nables hinkinghe nsubstantialealityf a politicalbond,capableofbeingenacted nywherend suppliedwith rule thataffirmshe rimacyf hewho.This nsubstantialondhasthemerit fneu-tralizingoth hewell-knownonflictingotentialitiesfthe dentityondandthenormalizingffectf socially onstructeddentities.The termidentity,entralnmanyontemporaryebates, as nfact,tleast, double cceptationhat oncerns ifferentreas fproblematization.On onehand, heres the roblemfcommunitydentity.hiskind f den-tity, henttakes n exclusionaryorm n the asisofreligionrethnicity,raisesnot o much heusualquestion,ypical f multiethnicocieties,f ademocraticafeguardfdifferences,ut atherhe uestionfpreservinghespirit fdemocracytselfgainst undamentalism.n the ther and,herestheproblem-focused nmainly ythepostmodernndpoststructuralisttheorieshatnsist n the erformativityf anguage-of he ariousociallyconstructeddentitieshat tabilize ndnaturalize,n ccordance ith hier-archical rder,hemeaningfbeingman,woman, eterosexual,omosex-ual, white, lack, ndso on. To this wofold eclinationf the uestion fidentityorrespondifferenttrategicpproaches. heapproach oncerningthe ase of ommunitydentitiesealswithomplexssues: n onehand, hecommunityond,when t s not xclusivend hereforenprincipleeconcil-able withuniversalism,s safeguarded;n theotherhand, he bond ofexclusionaryndfundamentalistommunities,nsofar s itcontrastsadi-callywith hedemocraticrinciplendthemodernolitical raditionftheWest,sopposed.Theapproachoncerninghe ocially onstructeddenti-tiesdealswith ssues f differentype: s it s well xemplifiedy he osi-tion fJudithutlermentionedbove, he mphasissputona subversivestrategyhat ttemptsomobilize, onfound,nd dismantlehenormativematrixf dentity.he nspiringrinciplef his ubversivetrategys there-fore kind fperpetualisorderingforder: erpetualecause t s ndebtedto theconstitutiveechanismf self-consolidationforder.Ancient ndalwaysnewprotagonistfthe cene, he ogicoforderhereforeecides hedynamicsf tsothers infiniteubversion.With espectothe wovariants-hereimplifiednthe xtreme-of hisproblematicramework,he maginationf bsoluteocality as the dvan-tage fhintingta theoreticalorizon hat ethinkshe ond, oth reeingt



26/28

530 POLITICAL THEORY /August 002from ny dentity-basedubstance nd opposing rderwithout aying hedebt o a perpetualubversion.he nteractiveelation hat espondso theontology fplural niqueness,nfact, onsistsn a bond hat oes nothaveeither foundationn dentityra disorderingim.There re, ndeed, ulesandprinciplesnscribedn his elation:he rimaryalue funiqueness ithrespecto ny ommunityelonging,hemultiplendhorizontaltructurefthebond, he ontingencyf tsarisingnddisappearingnanyplace,thebare xpositionf selfwithoutualitieswhodepends,nthematerialon-text f bsolute ocality,n every ther. heonly dentityermitted,n thiseconomyfpoliticalelation,s thereforehe nethatnecould all analtru-istic dentity.45heotherppears ereneithers an ntellectualategoryoras a collective ntity;nstead,talwayshas theface and theunrepeatablestory f someone.This s,afterll,the adical hallengef political heoryhat,bandon-ing he raditionalision ffictitiousntities,inally oliticizesheorynd,as Levinaswould ay, ompelst o ook n he ace f he ther.hepropriumofpolitics onsists reciselyn the egulativeanon fanagency hat oesnotbetrayhe rmlessbject fthis aze.

NOTES1. HannahArendt, heHumanConditionChicago:The UniversityfChicagoPress,1958),198.2. Ibid., .3. Ibid.,13.4. Ibid., 3.5. HannahArendt, etween ast ndFutureNew York: enguin, 977),110.6. Hans Jonas, he PhenomenonfLife Evanston,L: Northwesternniversityress,2001), 135-36.7. Ibid.,138.8. Ibid.,146.9. JacquesDerrida, peech ndPhenomena nd Other ssaysonHusserl'sTheory fSigns, rans. avid B. Allison Evanston,L: Northwesternniversityress,1973);see alsoAdriana avarero,RegardingheCave, rans. aulKottman, ui Parle10 1996): 1-20.10. HannahArendt,heLife f heMind New York:Harcourt race,1978), 3.11. bid.,129-51.12. Arendt,etween ast nd Future, 5.13. Arendt,heHumanCondition, 3.14.John awls,ATheoryfJusticeCambridge, A: Belknap ress fHarvard niversityPress, 971).15. GiorgioAgamben, IntroduzioneEmmanuel evinas, n Alcuneriflessioniullafilosofia ell'hitlerismoMacerata,taly:Quodlibet,996),14.



27/28


28/28

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	maja-podrovnik
View:	234 times
Download:	1 times

Cavarero Adriana - Politicizing Theory

Documents