political subjectivity

is characterized by the tolerance that informs one's self-formation. It moves away from the center to the left and the right. Just left of center is the activist, then the radical, the revolutionary, and finally the anarchist... on the other hand, moving to the right we have the patriot, the moral majority member, the reactionary, and finally the fascist.

Once this qualitative distinction has been established, we could go on to (provisionally) draw out a 'family tree' of modern political subjects based on the degree of tolerance that informs their self-formation, that is, on the extremes to which they are characteristically willing to go in support of, or in opposition to, the status quo. On the 'left,' moving further and further away from the center, we would find, respectively, the 'activist, the 'radical,' the 'revolutionary,' and finally, the 'anarchist.' On the 'right,' moving in the opposite direction from the center, we would find the 'patriot,' the 'moral majority member,' the 'reactionary,' and finally the 'fascist.' Not surprisingly perhaps is the fact that the farther we move toward either extreme of the political spectrum, the more intolerance we find informing the modes of political identity'

is that space where new domains come to be considered political and new political subjectivisations are born.

One should, of course, fully acknowledge the tremendous liberating impact of the postmodern politicisation of domains which were hitherto considered apolitical (feminism, gay and lesbian politics, ecology, ethnic and other so-called minority issues): the fact that these issues not only became perceived as inherently political, but also gave birth to new forms of political subjectivisation, this fact thoroughly reshaped our entire political and cultural landscape (zizek 'risk' : 164)

political subjectivity, n.Definitions

political subjectivity