Michael Hardt.

About Love 1/6

Michael Hardt is doing here a literature review of the concept of love as a political concept, declaring right from the beginning he does not have really a defined argument yet. He is trying to adapt this concept to some notions of democracy, and possibilities of pushing democracy forward His approach and the way he thinks and elaborates/articulates his thinking is clearly marxist and dialectical but this speech has interesting points.

How can love function as a political concept? He asks himself. He sketches his speech and divides it in three parts: The first one he will make a brief introduction, then in a central part he will speak about the proper and improper ways how love as functioned politically. And he will end speaking about the relation of love to evil What I want from Love ? I am interested in Love as a political concept. He addresses democracy : In the age of globalization how is democracy possible? I find myself continually stuck into a one man land s between sponteneiaty and dictatorship. Lenin: state and revolution: Our aim, is for a new kind of democracy, a democracy that goes beyond an election every four year. But we have to deal with the human nature as it is now. And the human nature now needs managers, supervisors, they need to be commanded(the Russian people). Lenin says that then, with the rule of a dictatorship, there will be a new type of people Zizek: a poem by Brech: Brech writes: Mainly the regime should just dissolve the people and elect a new one! Zizek writes: yes, that is exactly that! We need a new people! No mans land: spontaneiaty and dictatorship What needs do we have for collective transformation: His argument: Love could be a process and even a field of training for constructing a democratic society.

why not solidarity? And not love? its because Love extends beyond rationality. Love develops a different relationship between reason and the passions. A different kind of rationality. It seems to me that love as a political concept is not strictly a passion. Its rather a notion of reason that isnt excluyded from the passions. Why dont we talk about friendship: friendship is much easier than love. (people ask him). Love involves transformation. We loose ourselves in Love. In Love we become different. In friendship, there is not that transformative capacity. There is an interaction and union and solidarity that doesnt transform the humans involved. He traces the way Love (as a political concept) as been approached: Fundamentaly there is an identitary conception of love love as an identitary concept. Love of the same: family, neighbours Love of neighbour, love of difference Walt Whitman writes a lot about the love of the stranger The segregation of eros and agape Christian theology: Paul does not use the common word eros, but agap: desire eros/ servitude and unsecurity to the object of desire, and only agap, a truly free love, a love of giving: Freud says: libido results in everything: eros and agap are united, because agap is really subsumed under eros, and sublimated. The Pope says: agap and eros are united, they cannot be separated. Agape here subsumes eros Bel Hooks: any political movement has to be based on a love ethics: love in communities that sustains political action. Not individualistic or family love. Love of the neighbour: not as love of the same but love open to difference Investigation of intimacy Che Guevara t-shirts: love and politics. A letter that Che wrote in 1965: let me say with the risk of appearing ridiculous that the true revolutionaries are guided by strong feelings of love. () Our revolutionaries must idealize their love for the people.

The pain of living love as a love of the people. Love is emerging into divine unity There is no such thing as sexual relationship and love is impossible. We need to rather construct a love that preserves difference and multiplies difference. Lacan is here thinking about sexual difference. Argument against tolerance Pasolini- talking to people about love Foucault said: this film regards indifference to sexuality Deleuze and guattari Love as multiplicity and multiplicities (between yourself and the other) Love was distroyed as a political concept because it was love as charity/ love as somnething that happens to us/ love is a passion so it doesnt creates nothing- it segregates love in the private realm. Love as a productive concept love not as a passion, but as an action as an act of creation in a field of difference or even an act of differenciation Love of the same and love making the same, becoming the same. One would have to conceive . "it seems to me that really evil is also, often or always, (i'm not sure) an act of love but of love gone bad..." Love (5 characteristics) As an expansive social concept not exclusive to the same

Love as both the eros and agape personal and political Love as the love of differences experimenting with differences the affirmation of singularities The primacy of love is/has been: the Love of the poor as the singularity of poor . the poor as a subject 5 Love as a productive force Spinoza: Love is joy with the recognition of an external cause Joy is the increase of our power to think and act. Love is the increase of our power to think and act, with the recognition of an exterior cause Democracy is the space of the free interaction of differences. Love would be a kind of training ground for the creation of subjectivities for the creation of such a democracy. to stimulate dialog and responses to the idea of Political Love.