In what sense, then, is, or was, ‘masses’ a signifier of politics? To say that politics is ‘of the masses’ simply means that, unlike bourgeois administration, it sets itself the task of involving people’s consciousness in the process, and of taking directly into consideration the real lives of the dominated. In other words, ‘masses’, understood politically, far from gathering homogeneous crowds under some imaginary emblem, designated the infinity of intellectual and practical singularities demanded by and executed within every politics of justice. If bourgeois administration is not ‘of the masses’ it is not because it fails to gather people together — on the contrary, it is perfectly proficient at doing so when it needs to. It is because such administration, effective solely on the basis of power and the State, never concerns infinite singularity, either in its process or its aims. Administration, which is homogeneous to the state of the situation, deals with the parts, the subsets. By complete contrast, politics deals with the masses, because politics is unbound from the State, and diagonal to its parts. ‘Masses’ is therefore a signifier of extreme particularity, of the non-bond, and this is what makes it a political signifier.
Politics will always strive to deconstruct the bond, including the one within the mass movement, the better to detect those ramified divisions that attest to the mass-being of strictly political consciousness. Politics is a mass procedure because all singularity calls for it, and because its axiom, both straightforward and difficult, is that people think. Administration cares nothing for this, because it considers only the interests of parts. We can therefore say that politics is of the masses, not because it takes into account the ‘interests of the greatest number’, but because it is founded on the verifiable supposition that no one is enslaved, whether in thought or in deed, by the bond that results from those interests that are a mere function of one’s place.
Mass politics therefore grapples with the bound consistency of parts in order to undo its illusory hold and to deploy every affirmative singularity presented by the multiple on the edge of the void. It is through such singularities, whose latent void is articulated by the event, that politics constructs the new law that subtracts itself from the State’s authority.
people who defend the right of gay couples to raise children by being like “yeah at least it’s better than being raised by a SINGLE MOM UGH”
like can u not
statistically speaking, single parent families are more likely to be unsuccessful and harmful to the children, which is why it’s convincing to bring it up
however, i agree that it is rude and unfair to make that kind of prejudiced generalization about single mothers; this is not how this argument is supposed to be used.
somehow i think one should be able to stand up for the rights of one group without making an argument about how much better they are than another demonized, underserved group, statistics or no
it’s not even two different groups because there are plenty of gay women who are single mums
Speaking as someone who was raised by a single mom on welfare and who is now earning a PhD largely because she was so stridently dedicated to making sure I grew up and had a better life then she did, I just wanna say a big “fuck you” to the person who thought it was helpful to mention that “statistically speaking” single mothers are more likely to fuck up their kids. “Statistically speaking” this ideological nugget of shit is responsible for maintaining structural realities that continue to disadvantage single mothers and their children. WAGES FOR REPRODUCTIVE LABOUR.
This ^ a thousand times.