Add new comment

I did my best to read this through in good faith, but the pretense of Bey opting for words like "politicality" didn't make it easy. I can appreciate the effort to decouple blackness from melanin count, highlighting Spillers' definition of a practiced "philosophical disobedience" akin to anarchy. Where they loose me is their cake-and-eat-it-too effort to reconcile the dilemma of the collective (give yourself up for the collective's sake) vs individual (in the liberal sense: the falsehood of being separate atomically out of relation with ecology) with an "insistence on [both] collectivity and agential singularity." How to be a singular agent for maintaining the collective isn't entirely clear to me here.

This isn't surprising since the draw to become part of an "assemblage, or swarm, or ensemble," or herd larger and more powerful than yourself is the starting point of collectivism. Even when Bey and other leftists seem to recognize the authoritarian dead end this path leads time and again, they can never get away from the temptation and insistence on "we" and "us." Even though they make grasps at it at times, I don't think they will ever arrive at or be comfortable with radical individuality: recognizing (not too far off from some of Bey's points) that coming together through difference over sameness is interesting and important, that the individual (not divisible) cannot be divided into separate parts and categorizes, and you can have relationships without the musts and sacrifices of collectivism and the empty idealistic platitudes of community.