Couldn’t we say that everything–even actions that aren’t directly traceable to a power relation between two people–is political? This is why I am inclined to side with hollowskin. it is meaningless to distinguish between the political/not political, just as in Althusser it’s meaningless to think of “ideology” or “not ideology” since everything is implicated within ideology. I’m very tired/hope I’m not rambling…

I would largely agree but perhaps for a different reason.

You ask:

“can this not include actions that aren’t directly traceable to a power relation between to people?”

while I ask:

“what actions exist that do not create an interaction between others, further to which what interaction can there be without power playing a part?”

So yes, I agree, that there is no distinction which is purposeful that can define an apolitical sphere, though perhaps coming from a slightly different direction on the matter.  Likewise I don’t think a comprehensive ideology can fail to comprehend this aspect of the totality.

Further to this an anti-ideology which deems things to not be within this political sphere, would in itself be an ideology creating an understanding of a political sphere.  It would be paradoxical.  Maybe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s