I'm new here and struggling with the concept of 'negative core'. This sounds so interesting I wish I understood it better. Is there a simple explanation for a novice like me?
Hi Erin, welcome! What 'negative core' refers to is that every identity (positive identity, like "Cadell" or "Erin") is ultimately incomplete or non-total, that there is a "negativity" to each identity, and that this negativity is not peripheral or marginal to the positivity of the identity, but the very heart of this identity (like for example, the fact that "Cadell" and "Erin" are finite-mortals). If you want to study the foundations of this idea, I would suggest checking out the Science of Logic, where Hegel grounds his attempt to update logic for the modern world, with the idea that all Beings are Being-Nothings, and that this is the door to true Becoming. What bringing the idea of a "negative core" into topics of sexuality or politics means is that we move away from the tendency of a reified affirmation of our current forms of identification. If you are interested to learn more, there are free videos on my YouTube channel that focus on both Science of Logic and Alenka's What Is Sex? As well as previous and upcoming courses on these topics. Hope that helps!
Thank you! That actually does help - I can tell I'm going to have to brush up on my philosophy lexicon a bit. I have never formally studied philosophy but one of my life dreams is to start a Parisian style salon (not hair, discussing philosophy in person) for people to discuss these kinds of ideas, rather than the inane politics we all get bogged down in. Love that you are actually doing this for real on substack!
Amazing! Leaves me with questions like. What does "a contradictory politics, that is a politics that recognizes a singular negativity at the core of our identities," look like? Where does it show up?
Off the bat I feel like such a politics would ("naturally"?) show up in communities that gather around loss (Rollins). Ironically Men/Woman's work? Christian maybe? What others? These are just the communities that gather around loss that I've been a part of, which show this contradictory politics.
Hi Lichtung, of course I don't have all the answers, and would certainly point towards Todd McGowan's work on "Emancipation After Hegel", which may even be thought of as a core treatise arguing for a contradictory politics, but I can say one thing that has become central for my thinking after teaching Science of Logic. That is the movement of identity from diversity to opposition to contradiction. I think that we should (1) become more reflexively aware of this movement of identity in our own social lives, and (2) start to teach how these dynamics unfold in the real time of our social movements. What this means is that whenever you have an initial diversity of identity, this initial diversity will always tend towards a discursive polarisation of the group identity itself, and this polarisation gives each individual members a key to a deeper self-contradiction. Ultimately I agree with you that this form of politics could only work under the idea of "communal lack/loss" since it requires the initial diversity of identities to undergo a fundamental transformation of self-identity. In short, we need people who are capable of building the destruction of their identity into the constructive political projects that they engage (as opposed to utopianising their identities).
I'm new here and struggling with the concept of 'negative core'. This sounds so interesting I wish I understood it better. Is there a simple explanation for a novice like me?
Hi Erin, welcome! What 'negative core' refers to is that every identity (positive identity, like "Cadell" or "Erin") is ultimately incomplete or non-total, that there is a "negativity" to each identity, and that this negativity is not peripheral or marginal to the positivity of the identity, but the very heart of this identity (like for example, the fact that "Cadell" and "Erin" are finite-mortals). If you want to study the foundations of this idea, I would suggest checking out the Science of Logic, where Hegel grounds his attempt to update logic for the modern world, with the idea that all Beings are Being-Nothings, and that this is the door to true Becoming. What bringing the idea of a "negative core" into topics of sexuality or politics means is that we move away from the tendency of a reified affirmation of our current forms of identification. If you are interested to learn more, there are free videos on my YouTube channel that focus on both Science of Logic and Alenka's What Is Sex? As well as previous and upcoming courses on these topics. Hope that helps!
Thank you! That actually does help - I can tell I'm going to have to brush up on my philosophy lexicon a bit. I have never formally studied philosophy but one of my life dreams is to start a Parisian style salon (not hair, discussing philosophy in person) for people to discuss these kinds of ideas, rather than the inane politics we all get bogged down in. Love that you are actually doing this for real on substack!
Amazing! Leaves me with questions like. What does "a contradictory politics, that is a politics that recognizes a singular negativity at the core of our identities," look like? Where does it show up?
Off the bat I feel like such a politics would ("naturally"?) show up in communities that gather around loss (Rollins). Ironically Men/Woman's work? Christian maybe? What others? These are just the communities that gather around loss that I've been a part of, which show this contradictory politics.
Hi Lichtung, of course I don't have all the answers, and would certainly point towards Todd McGowan's work on "Emancipation After Hegel", which may even be thought of as a core treatise arguing for a contradictory politics, but I can say one thing that has become central for my thinking after teaching Science of Logic. That is the movement of identity from diversity to opposition to contradiction. I think that we should (1) become more reflexively aware of this movement of identity in our own social lives, and (2) start to teach how these dynamics unfold in the real time of our social movements. What this means is that whenever you have an initial diversity of identity, this initial diversity will always tend towards a discursive polarisation of the group identity itself, and this polarisation gives each individual members a key to a deeper self-contradiction. Ultimately I agree with you that this form of politics could only work under the idea of "communal lack/loss" since it requires the initial diversity of identities to undergo a fundamental transformation of self-identity. In short, we need people who are capable of building the destruction of their identity into the constructive political projects that they engage (as opposed to utopianising their identities).