I’m quickly grabbing two consecutive footnotes from my book, The State of Sovereignty, relating to the last post on noo-politics, just to back up the claims in a minor way:
[FN1] Arguing that “revolt…as return/turning back/displacement/change, constitutes the profound logic of a certain culture I would like to revive,” namely “European culture,” “and whose acuity seems quite threatened these days….The future, if it exists, depends on it” (Kristeva, Intimate Revolt, 4-5). Let’s be clear on the stakes: “In fact, if such a culture”—again, the “European culture of revolt”—“did not exist, life would become a life of death, that is, a life of physical and moral violence, barbarity” (Kristeva, Sense and Non-Sense of Revolt, 6-7). All this as we have become wholly organic, “an ensemble of organs” as “patrimonial subjects” incapable of critical thought (Ibid., 30). And thus we have here, in all its classical rigor, a functioning chain of dualisms: Europe and barbarity, living and dead, psyche and body, past and future that would found, in this noopolitics, a revolt that can revolt against anything but this cultural foundation.
[FN2] Stiegler writes, “Those acceding to irresponsibility cannot take its consequences seriously… They are stripped not merely of critical consciousness, but of consciousness itself: they become nothing more than a brain,” living in a “structural I-don’t-give-a-damnism” (Stiegler, Taking Care of Youth and Generations, 43). Steigler’s book, needless to say, is a work of political pedagogy, one that champions processes of individuation that “produc[e] unity in the social body [his emphasis], at the national (and perhaps—tomorrow, one might hope—European) level” (Ibid., 69).
The reference to “political pedagogy” is just a quick stab at a theme that coalesced in the last run-through of the manuscript, pulling together the use of lessons for propagating various forms of sovereignty.