Go, Jon, go! This all looks very interesting, so keep going and get it done.
Jeremy | 24 Apr, 2007 - 3:12 am | #

hey i really want to read this!! lo vas a publicar en castellano también?

che y como habrás notado me pase la semana con tu blog abierto como índice....
Ana | 25 Apr, 2007 - 6:56 pm | #

Thanks, Jezzer!

And Ana, bueno, si alguien me lo traduce...
Jon | Homepage | 26 Apr, 2007 - 8:22 pm | #

I can't wait, get it out!
Dany | 27 Apr, 2007 - 7:54 am | #

Thanks, Dany!
Jon | Homepage | 28 Apr, 2007 - 2:04 am | #

Love what I have read, some of it more than once and over the years. Looking forward to the bound form, great great. Congrats!
Gregory | 13 Dec, 2008 - 6:42 pm | #

Many thanks, Greg!
Jon | Homepage | 13 Dec, 2008 - 7:25 pm | #

It's been a while since I read stuff like this...is this your argument: "Or
perhaps the slippage between constituent and constituted power will remain an open if
unacknowledged wound throughout modernity." I get the whole point about the fiction of hegemony and how guha was usually (maybe always) right in terms of the subaltern. I only skimmed through the intro, so it seems that there is a great deal of story to tell of how the situation was radically different than the grand narrative...but I still don't get the overall point of this book. Is it that the idea of any kind of hegemony taking place at this time among these peoples is bullshit? It's a curious question as to when we and if we even today give consent? Like: did I consent to the war in Iraq since I paid for it through taxes. But your story is different and it would be nice for you to clearly state your position and subsequent intention for the book in the preface.... Please take all I say with a grain of salt, since I enjoy the blog from time to time. I should probably read the rest too...good luck!
samir | 22 Dec, 2008 - 5:06 pm | #

Hi, samir, and thanks for your interest. The notion of a slippage between constituent and constituted power (but also, for instance, between affect and emotion, habit and opinion) is indeed central to my argument.

And as I note in the introduction, "it is [the] mechanisms of reactionary conversion--of culture into state, affect into emotion, habit into opinion, multitude into people, constituent into constituted power--that are the ultimate interest of this book."

Meanwhile, yes, the argument is that the notion of "hegemony" is at best unhelpful, at worst "bullshit."
Jon | Homepage | 23 Dec, 2008 - 2:18 am | #