Political Ontogenesis(Through) Affects (Towards) Becoming (And) Immanent Critique Denis Petrina The statement that ontology has been at the very core of philosophy may seem a truism. Even more so when we consider that Aristotle granted ontology the status of "first philosophy" (58/149), which means that the latter should concern itself primarily with the study of being—haplos—as a very peculiar form of being: being as being or being in itself. This set a course for the subsequent development of philosophical thought: since ancient times, philosophers have mainly been preoccupied with the "distillation" of being, the removal of its intrinsic antinomies, id est, the purification of being. In this paper, I attempt to diverge from this established route and question this unquestionable philosophical ambition to speak of ontology as a singular and universal theory of being. When reading Aristotle, Sergei Prozorov insightfully notes that the equation "ontology = first philosophy" disguises a not so readily apparent unsettling commonality between ontology and what he terms "political anthropology" (Prozorov, World 105), or what we may call ideology. Interestingly, idea is an invisible yet strong link that ties philosophy and ideology together. Plato, the first post-Socratic philosopher, placed idea—an idea(l) form, contraposed with imperfect materiality—at the heart of his philosophical system. Viewed from this perspective, the idea component in ideology can be described as an underlying form that shapes, unites, and holds its components together. Thus, translated into philosophical terms, ideology is nothing but (an) ontology. This brief genealogical inquiry allows us to acquire a different viewpoint, from which we can look at ontology in at least two ways. On the one hand, ontology qua ideology (and vice versa) presupposes the contextual and subjective nature of ontology: ontology is always a correlative of the subject, or, placed in a political context, of a group of subjects. On the other hand, politics is elevated to ontological status, which results in the legitimation of a certain political context, of the interests of a certain group of subjects, and thus, ultimately, of a certain sociopolitical status quo. Even at this stage, the attempt to conceptualize [End Page 83] ontology as pure, devoid of any supplements being, appears as a highly ideological enterprise that remains (or at least pretends to be) unaware of its own political implications. This relation is symmetric: ontology is as much politically oriented as politics is oriented ontologically. "What is being?"—a seemingly philosophical question ontology raises might be easily translated into a normative one, that is: "What ought being to be?". If this question is perceived as pertaining to life, the normative question might easily become biopolitical: "What ought being not to be?". Thus, ontology, allied with politics, reveals itself as an inherently political apparatus that, in a classical biopolitical manner, governs being—however, not at its material level, as it occurs in the field of politics—but, instead at a conceptual-perceptual level. Here, we should take the descriptor "conceptual" in all its seriousness. Even though the conceptual framing is immaterial, its power is material, or, even more precisely, more than material. As Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari argue, not only is any concept composed of a variety of heterogeneous (both material and immaterial) components—but, more importantly, it has a totalizing power over its components too (Deleuze, Guattari, Philosophy 15–16). In a similar vein, Michel Foucault maintains that a contemporary neoliberal regime is characterized by its alarmingly biopolitical goal of governing both individuals and populations (Foucault, Sexuality 141) through both material and discursive, or conceptual, means. To phrase it metaphorically, this resembles a game of mirrors: ontology reflects politics—and politics reflects ontology. Brian Massumi, reacting to this alarming symptom of the neoliberal regime, has coined the term "ontopower," a portmanteau combining "ontology" and "power." Massumi maintains that ontopower has a dual aim: not only does it endeavor to administer being, but it also controls and governs opportunities of it (Massumi, Ontopower vii). The next chapter will explore this new configuration, topology, and operative logic of power in more detail. ontopower (i): biopower The starting point for Massumi's conceptual operationalization of ontopower is Foucault's theoretical framing of the neoliberal or, alternatively...
Read full abstract