The politics of feelings

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn speaks to the crowd from the Pyramid stage at Glastonbury Festival, at Worthy Farm in Somerset. Yui Mok/Press Association. All rights reserved.

I saw the best minds of my
generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,

dragging themselves through
the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,

angel headed hipsters burning for
the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night,

Allen Ginsberg. Howl

Feelings have always played a role in politics. In many ways, politics
is the art of persuasion and reasonable arguments can only mobilize people to a
limited extent. In struggles, such as electoral disputes or a union organizing
a strike, one will find a complex mixture of rational arguments and sentiment-infused
discourses. No successful politician has ever managed to rise to the top solely
on cold argument.

Nonetheless, there are reasons to believe that the importance of
feelings in politics has reached a level seldom seen in modern history.

Put
together a group of middle-class well-meaning young people from the northern
hemisphere to discuss the recent events overcoming the world: xenophobia,
Brexit, Trump, feminism, the future of the European Union, capitalism, etc.,
and the relevance of the politics of feelings will immediately arise. Some have
called this emotional, well-meaning generation the “millennial” generation.
There has been a lot of discussion about the impact of this concept, commonly
found in marketing lingo. On the other hand, their influence has a mostly
negative connotation for some, as being too “soft”, and even “lazy”. This
article aspires to shed some light, beyond a judgmental view, on the millennial
generation, on how politics can and has adapted to its cultural context, and the
challenge it entails for us in struggling to defend a progressive political
view.

Team Syntegrity 2017, Barcelona. Cameron Thibos.There are
reasons to believe the millennial generation has an important revolutionary
potential. It is bizarre because one of the characteristics of this generation
is its deep immersion in consumer culture. However, to understand the way it
interacts with politics, one of the most important aspects to consider is its
main driver. Much like the epic hippie movement of the 60´s, the hunger for
profound, pure and radical connection with the “other” seems to be its main
motivation.

What
another generation sought in rock, hallucinogens, and new esotericism, this
generation craves and explores through the internet and pop culture. It is
ironic that when society seems to have achieved a level of connection like never
before, the hunger for connection has only grown.

The
politics of goodness

“An enemy
is someone who´s story we still have not heard” is the aphorism, made famous
and criticized by Slavoj Zizek, which sums up a certain value underpinning millennial
multiculturalism. For the last few decades, the issue of identity has defined
the debate in cultural politics. One could talk of two ways of understanding
the public sphere in the cultural politics of a liberal democracy: on the one
hand, a traditional view which emphasizes equality, and, on the other hand, a
view which emphasizes diversity.

The first
one, related to processes which gave birth to the modern nation state, intends
to consolidate and protect public space as one where citizens can integrate into
the community as equals. The relation of each citizen with the state is
individual. Every individual is king in his private space and an obedient
follower of the nation state in the public arena. The second one,
multiculturalism, adds complexity to this relationship by recognizing a series
of intermediate groupings, between the citizen and the state, which may adhere
to their own set of rules and conventions. A classic example of the tension
between these is the debate about the use of the burkha and other religious
symbols in public schools. While a liberal non-multicultural view would tend to
defend the equality with which every citizen integrates into the nation state
and, therefore, would forbid the expression of religion in public schools, a multicultural
view would defend the expression of religious diversity in schools, to make articulate
the different groups (religions) that form the national community.

Multiculturalism
itself tries to juggle this tense balance between an ideal of universal comprehension
of the other and a radical differentiation from that same other. Zizek cites
the case of Haiti as an example. As the young nation acquired its independence
it was infused with both a strong black identity, as recently emancipated
slaves gained their freedom and were ready to govern for the first time, as
well as the influx of the French Revolution liberal and universalist views. The
result materialized in the 1804 constitution which firstly defined Haiti as a
black republic and, subsequently, defined all inhabitants of Haiti as black, no
matter what the colour of their skin was.

It is
relevant to mention that the multicultural view, over recent decades,
especially since the 80´s, is linked to one cultural struggle in particular:
the rebellion against the hegemony of white, straight, first world, man. This is
in the context of important achievements by anticolonial and
anti-discrimination social movements. This struggle has been fought around
issues of symbolic violence executed upon non-hegemonic groups (women,
non-white, not straight, etc.). However, some have argued that behind the
“politically correct” effort of multiculturalism a dose of racism and first world
views imposition may lie. Possible evidence of this is the emergence of a
xenophobic, anti-Muslimism right, portraying themselves as defenders of gender
diversity (such as Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands). In any case, as Edward Said
so brilliantly showed in the case of western representation of the east, no
matter how good the intention might be, the representations of the other tend
to show more of one's intimate drives than the actual people being represented.
In this difficulty to “comprehend” the other lies the main difficulty of
millennial multiculturalism. Political correctness might be enough when what is
sought for is simple tolerance or peaceful existence, but it seems to
completely miss the point when what is looked for is a deep connection to that
other.

A good
example of this difficulty can be shown in pop culture through the Netflix
series Sense 8. In this science-fiction story, the “superpower” protagonists have a supernatural empathy within their group of eight people. Eight individuals,
distributed all over the world (Mexico, USA, England, South Korea, Kenya, India,
and Germany), represent human diversity, with special emphasis on LGBT
diversity. As these people discover, they belong to a species different from homo sapiens, the homo sensorium. They start to explore the implication of knowing
and feeling everything the other one does. In this millennial multiculturalist
utopia, a Mexican homosexual actor, a German jewellery thief, and an African
bus driver´s differences are mere superficial marks all of which enrich a
sublime interior encounter.

So one of
the main questions underlining the plot is how did homo sapiens overcome the empathetic apes, and gain control of
the world? The unsettling innuendo is that the answer lies in individualism,
egotism and the invisible hand – that is to say, capitalism. The reason this is
unsettling is that liberal multiculturalism, brought to its logical extreme,
seems to challenge the capitalist basis on which it originally formed and tend
towards a form of radical communitarianism. Paradoxically, the millenial
consumerist notion of instantaneous profound connection with each other, can eventually
subvert the faith in capitalism´s capability to bring forth truly
emancipatory identities. In that sense, it seems there is a revolutionary
potential in millennial multiculturalism. For those trying to build a political
platform, from the left and in the first world, this potential may be
crucial.

Brexit

There are
many reasons why Brexit won, but undoubtedly a lot of it had to do with the
incapability of traditional politics to engage with the youth. Young people,
even though overwhelmingly against Brexit, simply did not go to vote that day.
Traditional politics lacked that new grammar necessary to translate this hunger
for deep connection with its revolutionary potential.

This
draws a sharp contrast with what Jeremy Corbyn achieved in the last general
elections where youngsters voted in the masses. Again, there are many reason
for this, but perhaps Corbyn´s speech at Glastonbury may give us a hint of this
capability to engage with millennial youth and its revolutionary potential.

As Jeremy
Corbyn took his place in front of the thousands of young people who assisted
the festival (a festival originated back in the 60´s), among major pop icons
like Radio Head or Ed Sheeran, the Labour leader touched base on at least three
major issues in a ground-breaking speech.

Firstly,
politics are something close to everyone, or as he put it “Politics is actually
about everyday life. It’s about all of us, what we dream, what we want, and
what we want for everybody else”. In other words, a clear reference to the
politics of feeling, grounded in our day to day life, and the relationship
between individuals.

Secondly,
he made a clear call for multicultural inclusion, by appealing to the common
universal link between all human cultures: “When people across the world think
the same, cooperate the same, maybe in different languages, in different
faiths, in different cultures, peace is possible, and must be achieved”.

And,
finally, the truly millennial touch, the possibility of sublime connection with
the other:

"It's that sense of
unlocking the potential in all of us that I find so inspiring, and I'm inspired
by many poets and many people, and I think we should adopt a maxim in life,
that everyone we meet is unique, everyone we meet knows something we don't
know, is slightly different to us in some ways.

Don't see them as a threat,
don't see them as an enemy, see them as a source of knowledge, a source of
friendship, and a source of inspiration.”

The crowd hold up banners at the Pyramid stage as they wait for Jeremy Corbyn to appear on stage at Glastonbury Festival, 24 June, 2017. Yui Mok/Press Association. All rights reserved.However,
there is a limit to how much the politics of goodness on their own can fuel a
political project. It may be really hard for the progressive liberal to
comprehend, but it is perfectly possible for a national inhabitant to feel
absolutely empathetic with immigrants, and yet support Brexit if he believes it
will somehow improve his living conditions or those of his family or immediate
community.

In that
sense, perhaps there is something to learn from Haiti's experience, in their
notion of inclusive patriotism. Examples of this discourse are to be found in
the national popular thesis of Iñigo Errejon in Podemos, and certainly in the
proud French discourse both of Mélenchon and Macron. In these cases, nation state
identity is linked to a community that embraces differences. The Podemos notion
recognizes the internal national diversity of Spain while at the same time
reinvigorating the patriotic feeling which is perhaps paramount. This discourse
has another advantage, it opens the communication between the millennial views
and the more traditional sense of national communities. The future of
progressive politics, despite many progressives, seems to be patriotic, and
struggling with the far-right xenophobic nationalists for what the “nation state”
means. As Pablo Iglesias once put it: “the nation is, above all, our public hospitals,
and public schools”.

The
politics of anger

The politics of anger move. They tend to mobilize an important portion
of the population in very intense and short-lived movements. It is not a force
that can steadily push a project, but it is vital to understand key moments of
change in scenario. Basically, this type of politics can be summarized by the
notion of perceived injustice caused by someone. Someone, somewhere is having a
party to which we are not invited.

There is nothing inherently leftist in this feeling. In fact, these last
few years have seen the rise of proto-fascist movements feeding on it.

One could, therefore, make the distinction between two types of politics
of anger: one directed upwards, towards the elite, and one downwards, towards
the immigrant population. It is a dangerous explosion of energy that can shoot
any which way, and has become increasingly relevant in a set of decisive events
that have occurred in recent decades.

As the world came to be ruled by politicians defending the Third Way,
some started to dream of an ‘end to history’, where political discussions could
be reduced to minor administration of private interests, without any sort of
radical change horizon. Under the idea of achieving a limitless consensus,
traditional left and centre left parties implemented a pro market agenda even
more brutally than the right parties. These parties sought to overcome class
struggles, substituting left and right economics with wrong and right public
policies, and ended up enabling a huge financial market that hypertrophied
until, in 2008, it imploded.

For the first time in centuries, a generation was going to be poorer
than the generation that preceded it, with an important decline in middle income.
Those traditional blue-collar voters of the leftist parties started to turn
their back on the parties that had abandoned them. And they are angry.

The debacle of the Third Way parties, abandoned by their historical
voters, has left these parties incapable of containing the emergence of a neo-fascist
populism. Right-wing populism stands for the real malaise of blue collar workers
and points its finger at migrants, even poorer than those workers themselves,
as responsible for their sufferings. Where the second to last in line is forced
to struggle with the last in line, xenophobic fascism soon emerges. The true
parents of the emergence of this popular neofascism are the leaders of the Third
Way, who with their indifference and opportunism did not hesitate to sacrifice
the middle classes and the social tissue, suffocating any glimpse of social
organization and solidarity in attempts to resist their neoliberal reforms of
the 80´s and 90´s.

A clear example, few are more responsible for Donald Trump´s victory than
the Democrat establishment blocking Sanders´ alternative. This was another
example of the Third Way paladins, seduced by the promises of TTP or TTIP, who
were then surprised by its crashing fall when faced with the worker class
reaction. Those who disguise themselves in a discourse of responsibility, while
demolishing the democratic foundations of countries with their centre-wing
fundamentalism, are the ones responsible for delivering governments to
neofascism.

Bernie Sanders. Cliff Owen/AP/Press Association Images. All rights reserved.What then can the left do in such a scenario? How can we give an answer
to the mayhem of the radical free market without falling into xenophobic
frenzy? How to answer the suffocating nationalism of Trump or Brexit?

Part of the
answer must be the notion of inclusive patriotism already discussed in the
politics of goodness. However, this approach has a very limited effect. Right
wing nationalism feeds off an essentialist view of the nation. The nation under
this discourse does not require individuals with agency, socially constituted alongside
their networks and local communities. It is an identity plea which is nurtured
by the very lack of grassroots organization. What allows it to set the poor
local worker up against the poorer immigrant worker, is its refusal to recognize
the category of worker class uniting both.

Faced
with the growing consolidation of xenophobic nationalism, the alternative of
the left is to deepen democracy by recognizing and strengthening social
movements and citizenship in general, in the struggle against those few who
have benefited from their impoverishment.

There are
real reasons to be angry, but not towards the fellow worker. Both Trump and
Sanders had the same diagnosis: a small elite, whose interests were defended by
Third Way leaders behind both party lines, have enjoyed an increase in their
gains never seen before, while the middle classes suffered. The difference was
the answer they gave to this diagnosis. While Trump pointed his finger at
immigrants, Sanders called for fairer distribution of the wealth hoarded by the
élite.

The
lesson for the left, in terms of the politics of goodness, is the notion of
inclusive patriotism. In terms of the politics of anger, the lesson for the
left is the deepening of democracy, the importance of democratic tissue,
through the empowerment of social movements.

And once
again, something similar can be said of Corbyn´s campaign. He himself, in that
same Glastonbury speech put it like this:

“But what was even more
inspiring was the number of young people who got involved for the first time.
Because they were fed up with being denigrated, fed up with being told they
don’t matter. Fed up with being told they never participate, and utterly fed up
with being told that their generation was going to pay more to get less in
education, in health, in housing, in pensions and everything else.”

“…. Is it right that so
many people live in such poverty in a society surrounded by such riches? No, it
obviously is not. And is it right that European nationals living in this
country, making their contribution to our society, working in our hospitals,
schools and universities don’t know if they’re going to be allowed to remain here?
I say, they all must stay and they all must be part of our world and part of
our community, because what festivals are about, what this festival is about,
is coming together”.

Nonetheless,
the politics of anger remains a danger. On the one hand it is inherently
fleeting, but more importantly, it is a loaded gun that can shoot in many
directions. As Walter Benjamin said, in every emergence of fascism there is a
failed revolution. It is of the utmost importance that we are capable to
construct a movement beyond anger, to ensure that its fruits are not more
anger, but a more solid democracy.    

Screenshot.

The
politics of reason

The
politics of goodness and anger may seem opposites, but, in reality, they are
deeply related. They are both politics of exceptionality, politics of the
moment of outburst.  They have little to say about the more boring aspects
of politics-as-usual. The true opposite to both the politics of goodness and
anger are the politics of reason. And in these times when good old-fashioned
political reasoning is discredited, here is the case for its defence.

The left lives
in times of few certainties and many questions. Perhaps recognizing this should
be one of the main issues at hand. The lack of answers in the left is especially
clear in the question of “the day after”. As Zizek has put it, the left
has overcome some of the tendency to marginality which marked the 90´s, but is
still faced with few answers about how to approach the day after winning the
elections. One example of this is the case of Syriza, where inclusive
nationalism, attempting to defend popular sovereignty against the extreme austerity
measures imposed by the EU, and supported by a strong democratic basis, shown
by the referendum, was simply not enough.

Faced
with this void, is the only option for the left to defend liberal advances and
resign from its historical structural struggles? On the one hand, as the
contradiction between the egalitarian promise of democracy and market
instrumental logic becomes increasingly evident, it seems undeniable that the
left of our times must recognize and defend the basis of liberal democracy. But,
on the other hand, there can be no relinquishing of the horizon of a radically
different social order, if we are not to succumb to Third Way hypocritical
pragmatism.

In any
case, as Chantal Mouffe has stated, our socialism is becoming increasingly
similar to that (unfulfilled) promise of radical equality which underlines
democracy, while the defenders of the free market are becoming increasingly blunt
in their disregard for popular sovereignty and democratic standards.

To be yet
more explicit, I believe there is a case to be made not only for democracy, but
specifically for the democratic republic, to recover the republic for the left,
as the institutionalization of popular will. Certainly, the democratic republic
and the law are fundamental for the poor. The struggles of workers, all along
our history, as of all social struggles, are inscribed in the ink of law. As
Iglesias once stated, they are written in the blood of those who fought for the
recognition of those rights.

Law in the
service of majorities is one of the main weapons in the fight for a more
democratic society. The powerful need no rule of law: the only rule they need
is superior strength. There is still so much to defend from the Enlightenment and
modern values. There is something essential to be learned from the Spanish revolution
in the potential of republican ideals against the emergence of fascism. Faced
with the populist right nostalgia for the past, and the Third Way obsession
with renovation, our proposal should be for the future. We should, in the most
complex sense of the word, be for
development. Namely, faced by the market nation, we must defend the
citizenship nation. Not the one with the idealizing and sanctifying capital
“N”, but rather we should defend a modest and concrete nation that is born out
of grass roots organization and empowerment of civil society. Our nation is our
schools and hospitals. It is, to sum up, that nation of the welfare state
and the entrepreneurial state, beyond the exacerbation of tribal identity.

Ye are many – they are few

A lot has
been written about why different projects of the left have failed. The notion
of recuperating the modern values of the republic may help, but it is still a
vague notion.

Yes.
There is something to be said for the left learning from its many failures. But
perhaps the time has come to start thinking about possible victory and what
this would look like. Corbyn´s speech ends with the following quote from Percy
Bysshe Shelley’s ‘The Masque of Anarachy’: “Shake your chains to earth like
dew, which in sleep had fallen on you: ye are many – they are few!” Only by hope
turning plausible will the “many” eventually overcome the “few”. For the time
being, as we awkwardly try to find a way, let us know when to lead and when to
listen, when to feel, and when to reason.Is the
new left a space for radicalism or transversality? Is it a vindication of the
tradition of the left, or the emergence of new unprecedented forces and social
groups?

Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1819, by Alfred Clint. National Portrait Gallery. Some rights reserved.As
Errejon expressed, either of those categories of the adversaries are traps. The
only answer that can impregnate the playfield and give us any chance of victory
is “neither and both”. Opposite to what the populist right and the Third Way
pretend, there is no contradiction between deep and open democracy and
republican popular sovereignty. Those who have consolidated a low intensity democracy
with a huge concentration of power, are responsible for endangering the
republican rule of law. An inclusive nationalism, a deep and radical democracy,
and a republic which embodies popular sovereignty are some key ideas in that
struggle.

The time
has come to rethink and reshape our comfortable trenches. In times dominated by
the politics of feelings, we who believe in a different, more just, way of
organizing society must walk a thin line, recognizing the importance of
feelings, avoiding any temptation to intellectual disdain towards the millennial
generation, while still defending the values of the republic.

Up to a
point, it is a game of numbers. In order for the left to outnumber its
adversaries, broad alliances are needed. That is why an astute combination of the
politics of goodness and of anger, of discourse appealing to new millennials
and to traditional blue collar voters is necessary. This alliance seems to be
one of the challenges of our time. The other one is what to do the day after. And
that is a major challenge.