The Myth of the Multitude (original) (raw)
Related papers
Debating Multitude" : Ten Notes
2005
The book »Multitude« 1 resumes the thinking process about the order of capitalism within »the era of armed globalization« (p. 231), perceived by its authors as post-modern, post-fordist and above all imperial and thus spatial, temporary and socially derestricted. This discussion was initiated by Michael Hardt and Toni Negri (H&N) in their book »Empire«, recently been published in Russian and still trading with Ebay for 10 $. An extensive dialogue with the authors arose on the subject of the book »Empire«, which in itself is one aspect of the Altermondialistas movement and the left's efforts to understand the development primarily of the political order of capitalism since 1989 and to develop a corresponding theoretical language. »Multitude« responds to reviews, it revises, sets new emphases, attempts definitions and makes suggestions of how to perceive the new role of violence and the military, and the subjects of emancipation taking shape in the new empire of global capitalism and why their political project is »absolute« democracy-all facets that hardly played any role in its predecessor »Empire«. (»Our primary aim is to work out the conceptual bases on which a new project of democracy can stand« [XVII]). These are the three central topics in the book, which with precautionary foresight states on its very first pages that it is a philosophical book and not one operating on sociological terrain or attempting like a political pamphlet an answer to the wellknown question of the »What is to be done?« At the same time, however, it aims to contribute to a »postsocialist and postliberal program« (220) and in »reinventing the Left« (220)-and thus-and this is the tricky bit, wishes to break »with the worn-out socialist tradition« (255). The book »Multitude« is perhaps less surprising and more pragmatic than »Empire«. It is quite obviously a text whose cadences aim to have a widespread effect. Fortunately it is called »Multitude« and not »Menge« (Masses) as was the concern following the translation of the first book in Germany. If we are to believe Francis Fukuyama's review in »Time« August 2004, it is also »at its core unreconstructedly Marxist« and presents us with an »extremely confused theory«. According to John Giuffo, the book is, irritatingly, also »excessively theoretical« and »ultimately unreasonable«. In short: »a whole book full of (…) content-less utterances« says Paul McLeary. Liberation, 18.11.2004 chooses to simply regard it as »revolutionary Lyricism«. Others, such as Günter Sandleben, have reacted impetuously and dogmatically. Reviews pointing out difficult passages and points worthy of criticism are an exception (Philipp Zarifian, Daniel Bensaid; Joachim Bischoff and Christoph Lieber in 12/04 supplement of the german magazine »Sozialismus«). A series of reactions to the book Multitude have been collected on the »Multitude« website (http://multitudes.samizdat.net/rubrique.php3?id\_ rubrique =497) and the one of the German Rosa Luxemburg Foundation (www.rosalux.de). 1-The Concept of Multitude has found wide resonance in the multifarious social and political movements in Europe and Latin-American. Early on in the book, areas for definition are opened up. Multitude is something different from the »people«, the »masses«, »crowds«, the »mob« or the »working class«. It is not united, but rather plural, multiple and active in its form. It is a multiplicity, consisting of differences and distinctions (99-100) and perpetually produces such differences (356). »The multitude is a multiplicity of all these singular differences« (XIV)-and, in contrast with the masses it does this perpetually. At the same time it is a monster, as it lacks a sovereign head.
From the Precariat to the Multitude
'Global Discourse: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Current Affairs and Applied Contemporary Thought' Vol. 3, Issue 3-4 pp.406-425, 2014
""Politics is always about nomination. It is about naming a political subjectivity and organizing politically around that name.– Simon Critchley (2007, 103) This paper situates Guy Standing’s recent work on ‘the precariat’ within a broader body of literature exploring processes of ‘precarisation’, at work and across the social field. It sets out the differential distribution of ‘precarity’ (including on the basis of gender, geography, status and sector) resulting from transformations in labour and the political economy, the rollback of social democracy and of ‘industrial citizenship’ (where these existed), as well as from processes of globalisation. The paper argues that, like many other works, Standing’s book, The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, de-couples its discussion of precarious, neoliberal labour and life from the explicitly utopian agenda of radical reform it ultimately proposes. Drawing on Kathi Weeks’ engagement with Ernst Bloch’s work, the paper suggest Standing’s utopianism remains abstract, detached from an analysis of the social forces, movements and struggles that might bring it into being. It makes use of Antonio Negri’s distinctive, heterodox interpretation of V.I. Lenin to provide a framework for theorising how concrete utopian projects of radical political transformation – which is to say, ‘realist’ or materialist ones – are extrapolated out of spontaneous struggles; the predominant ‘will’, ethics and structures of which are always largely determined by the social, political and economic context from which they emerge. It is shown how, on the basis of this approach, Negri (in his collaboration with Michael Hardt) has constructed the notion of ‘multitude’ as a potential model for political organisation today – apposite to the precarious reality described by Standing and others. They draw on Baruch Spinoza’s political philosophy – often counterposing it to that of Thomas Hobbes – to affirm the capacity for common political action and decision despite heterogeneity, and to ground political organisation in social conflict rather than contract. Finally, drawing on Alain Badiou’s distinction between ‘immediate’ and ‘historical uprisings’, the paper explores the degree to which a number of contemporary movements and struggles might have tentatively achieved what he calls ‘qualitative extension’ – establishing connections and a ground for common action across social spaces and strata – potentially setting in motion enduring projects of political organisation and constitution that resemble the multitude model.""
It has been over a decade since the publication of Michael Hardt and Antoni Negri’s widely read Empire, a book that claimed humanity had entered a qualitatively new era in the organization of power. How do critical sociological studies that also theorize global capitalism depart from or share affinities with Hardt and Negri’s Foucauldian-inspired notion of empire? The two most important shared insights is the notion of a new epoch in the history of world capitalism and the conceptualization of a global system that moves beyond the idea of U.S. imperialism solely as behind its fundamental structure. However, overpowering Hardt and Negri’s framework are some fundamental problems: the vague and nondialectical idea of multitude, the lack of the role of the state, their confusing and contradictory idea of constitutionalism, and a misapprehension of immaterial labor.