My mother is the most precious thing I have in my life. Maria Arreola, my loving mother, risked her life in (YEAR SHE LEFT MEXICO) when she left my abusive father and migrated to the U.S. seeking safety for her children and herself.
Last night, Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), trespassed into to my home without a warrant and apprehended my mother. My brother, who was next door at a friends house, was also handcuffed and taken by ICE.
I can’t believe I am living this nightmare. I need your help! I cannot begin to imagine what my life would be without my mother. Right now your voice is the only thing that can help keep my family together.
We have to end this now. Help us keep this family together.
“The ‘true’ is always marked and informed by the ambivalence of the process of emergence itself, the productivity of meanings that construct counter-knowledges in medias res, in the very act of agonism, within the terms of a negotiation (rather than a negation) of oppositional and antagonistic elements…This is not to state the obvious, that there is no knowledge—political or otherwise—outside representation. It is to suggest that the dynamics of writing and textuality require us to rethink the logics of causality and determinacy through which we recognize the ‘political’ as a form of calculation and strategic action dedicated to social transformation.”
Homi Bhabha, The Commitment to Theory
I keep oscillating between being mildly amused and mildly surprised by Homi in this text.
i get it that you are a corporate spokesperson and, as such, can speak for that corporation and its board (maybe) and its money. but do i really think you speak for everyone that you employ or tangentially fund? of course not. because i am not an idiot. but this hyper investment in reviling or revering your product because your political stance is affective capitalism to a gd damn T and that politicians are eating there or not eating there and writing letters denouncing your plans for corporate expansion is a blurring of systems that ought to be separate—or at least try harder to not touch, and moreover people are losing their minds over people liking or not liking a damn sandwich. a. sandwich. like, people aren’t speaking about this. because the sandwich has become emblematic of a moral position on a social issue. but in the end it’s deferment and delay again. because we’re talking about the sandwich, and not that people are actually still really really piss poor at giving queer folks the basic dignity they deserve.
chick-fil-a is a foil. the same way oreo was a foil. it obscures the fundamental facts of the policy world we live in. and it works because affective capitalism works. because our affective energies have been sufficiently displaced so that we no longer see my life or someone else’s life, we simply see products that stand in for how i might feel in life were i to want to eat a sandwich.
“I have to - and that’s an unconditional injunction - I have to welcome the Other whoever he or she is unconditionally, without asking for a document, a name, a context, or a passport. That is the very first opening of my relation to the Other: to open my space, my home - my house, my language, my culture, my nation, my state, and myself. I don’t have to open it, because it is open, it is open before I make a decision about it: then I have to keep it open or try to keep it open unconditionally. But of course this unconditionality is a frightening thing, it’s scary. If we decide everyone will be able to enter my space, my house, my home, my city, my state, my language, and if we think what I think, namely that this is entering my space unconditionally may well be able to displace everything in my space, to upset, to undermine, to even destroy, then the worst may happen and I am open to this, the best and the worst”
So when I speak of a ‘democracy to come’, I don’t mean a future democracy, a new regime, a new organisation of nation-states (although this may be hoped for) but I mean this ‘to come’: the promise of an authentic democracy which is never embodied in what we call democracy. This is a way of going on criticising what is everywhere given today under the name of democracy in our societies. This doesn’t mean that ‘democracy to come’ will be simply a future democracy correcting or improving the actual conditions of the so-called democracies, it means first of all that this democracy we dream of is linked in its concept to a promise…That is why it is a more historical concept of the political - it’s the only concept of a regime or a political organisation in which history, that is the endless process of improvement and perfectibility, is inscribed in the concept…’to come’ means also not a future but that it has ‘to come’ as a promise, as a duty, that is ‘to come’ immediately. We don’t have to wait for future democracy to happen, to appear, we have to do right here and now what has to be done for it. That’s an injunction, an immediate injunction, no delay. Which doesn’t mean that it will take the form of a regime; but if we dissociate democracy from the name of a regime we can then give this name ‘democracy’ to any kind of experience in which there is equality, justice, equity, respect for the singularity of the Other at work, so to speak - then it’s democracy here and now; but of course this implies that we do not confine democracy to the political in the classical sense, or to the nation- state, or to citizenship.
We have today, for many reasons that we all know, to think of a democratic relationship not only with other citizens but also with non-citizens. That’s a modern experience; you know that between the wars, after the first World War, already there were in Europe - Hannah Arendt paid special attention to this - huge crowds of people not even in exile, not even deported but displaced persons who were not considered citizens…This non-citizenship of people we have to care for, to welcome, urges us, compels us, to think of a democratic relationship beyond the borders of the nation-state. That is the invention of new practices, new international law, the transformation of the sovereignty of the state. We all have examples of this situation today with what are called non- governmental interventions, everything which calls for interventions, for political initiatives, which should not depend on the sovereignty of the state, that is, finally, citizenship. In fact we know - that’s why the task is so enormous and endless - we know today that even within international organisations and institutions, the sovereignty of the state is a rule, and that in the name of international law some nation-states more powerful than others make the law. Not only because this international law is basically a European law in the tradition of Europe and law, but because these more powerful nation- states make the law, that is they in fact rule the international order. So, there are a number of urgent problems which require precisely this transformation of the concept of the political, of the concept of democracy, and of the concept of friendship.
Hey! I’m a Latino love your blog! It’s so amazing! I from Canada but I grew up in LA. Wanted to ask if you could recommend any blogs similar to yours? Like Latino empowerment, current issues, etc. Thanks! One Love!
*blush* Thank you! You’re amazing and you just made my Friday.
Anyway, I follow a lot of fantastic Latinos who blog politics and current issues. Here are my favorite Latino political babies:
Alright! That’s my list, and I highly encourage everyone to follow all of these blogs. Keep in mind that some of them are personal blogs besides being political, though. I also highly encourage commenting and reblogs of this post to get the word out and the adding of your favorite Latin@ bloggers. Hope this helps!
Dunno if I count as a “Latin@ blogger,” but this list is great.
“Do not assume that gender politics or feminist concerns come in neat packages easily legible to the trained eye. Instead, allow your research to expand your own view of what a “feminist politics” may be. It could be, for example, that protests against neoliberal market restructuring in Egypt are understood within a broad political framework that includes notions of gender justice. As Saba Mahmood and Lila Abu Lughod have taught us, liberal feminism’s assumptions as to what constitute “feminist politics” or “feminist causes” are at best flawed. At worst they are exercises in epistemological hegemony and the violent remaking of the world according to secular and neoliberal rights frameworks. Furthermore, do not assume that what we call the “feminist canon” is exhaustive or particular to western philosophy in that it is not constituted through a series of exclusions, hierarchies, and imperial histories. After all Simone de Beauvoir, who taught us all that a women is not born but made, also wrote in terms we now recognize as “Islamophobic” about women “under” Islam in Algeria at the time when Algeria was a French settler colony. This does not mean we should dismiss de Beauvoir, just as it would be too easy to condemn Hegel or Marx for their “views” on Africa. Rather, it is crucial to critically inhabit and navigate the reality that the western canon was, and is constituted through producing a series of “selves” and “others.””
This is something to keep in mind whether you’re the type of person Maya Mikdashi is talking about, or the kind of person on the opposite spectrum, i.e. people of color who are so willing to completely dismiss anyone who is part of the western canon.
Rick Santorum and Governor Luis Fortuño at La Fortaleza, the governor’s Mansion in San Juan on Wednesday. After the backlash regarding his English-language comments, Santorum tried to explain his stance. (Facebook.com/RickSantorum)
Rick Santorum on Wednesday became the first Republican presidential hopeful this election cycle to visit Puerto Rico ahead of the island commonwealth’s Sunday primary, but his stop thus far, rather than boost his support, has primarily sparked controversy and even spurned a key supporter.
This is for me the crucial problem and when you say, “well, it’s a long process, we will find it”, it’s just rhetorics. Of course it’s a long process … but your position is basically, if I’ve got it correctly, we cannot say anything, we will see what happens. I mean this is for me a little bit too risky … The big problem is: can we imagine another way of what Gramsci called the “new order” of things functioning normally in a different way.
But what you’re saying … the “new order” –– this is total eschatology.
No, because I’m not saying that this is the end of history.
No no, what you’re telling us is we have to know how paradise is. Before we know what paradise is we’re not going to make any attempt to get there. And what I’m saying is that it is much more important to try to get to paradise and once we get there we’ll work it out. Because your recipe and your advice all over the world to these movements, to people who are standing up and mobilizing and so on, is that before you have a full blueprint of how society is going to be after the change you should not do anything. Do a bit of protest, do a bit of hippydom here and hippydom there, and since you do not have your full constitutional order and party in place, forget it!
I never said this. What I said is, on the contrary, that if you just want to go to a paradise without knowing where you are going you can well end in hell.
Indeed, this is the chance you take. As [Walter] Benjamin said, the worst and best are very close to one another, but unless you aim for the best you don’t get anywhere.
Let me be concrete. I never spoke about what will be. Who knows what will be? … But my point is this one: I don’t think you can simply say how to get to paradise. Paradise is there. If there is a lesson to be drawn from the sad 20th century experience, it is that the germs of paradise must be already here in how we are organizing … and direct democracy is not enough …
You’re a very imaginative guy so use your imagination and give us some alternative …
… our focus should … be … on different forms of representation. There lies the true creative work. In normal times, you cannot have permanent activity [in terms of horizontal or direct democracy], you need representation, but you need a type of representation, maybe even less democratic, I don’t know.
I don’t think we disagree.
Yeah … can’t you see what worries me is that we will have a beautiful protest and then this protest will disappear and then all that will remain is that we will feel very well: what a nice time we had during the protest. Show me what will remain, show me what will remain as new institutional forms! And I agree with you, something probably will emerge. I’m not as pessimistic as I may sound here. Just let’s look at history and how people thought many things [were] not possible. Let’s not forget. Here we should even sincerely praise democracy itself: my God, up until modernity people thought the moment you don’t have a natural pretender to power, the moment you open up the field and admit the empty place of power, it’s catastrophe. The great triumph of democracy is that it turned this moment –– when the thrown is empty –– into the resource for the stability of the system. So things can be done. But I don’t want to terrorize people into this: oh give me a detailed blueprint! –– no! I just think that we should be very careful … . The people with their protests are not asking questions, they are an answer, but an opaque answer. What we intellectuals can do with our knowledge is not to provide answers, but to start to raise the right questions, so that the answer can only come from the people. The answer will be recognised as the answer if we provide the frame for the question to it. This is a much more modest model where nonetheless we intellectuals are crucial … I think, if anything, [given] the 20th Century fiascos, we intellectuals lost this arrogant right to say, “we have the answers, we show you the way” …
And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeoisie, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling, and buying.
But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeoisie about freedom is general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the nonexistence of any property for the immense majority of society.
From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
…But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.