Defining Politics

So, my job given to me this summer was to really work out my definitions of large concepts: “capitalism,” “neoliberalism,” “culture,” and most importantly “politics.” This has proven to be a rather difficult feat considering that “politics” has become such a free-for-all word. I could define it according to scholarship on “identity politics” or criticism on contract theory and classical liberalism or theories of H/history. My major inclination is just to sum it up as govermental regulation, but this fails to engage any line of scholarship very much (it lacks the process of getting there, etc.).

In my studies over this summer, I have unfortunately come up against the fact that very few theorists actually define the word “politics” straightforwardly. Jameson does, although I question his consistency. The Saldivar brothers don’t. Anzaldua doesn’t. Perez-Torres completely alludes a definition. Foucault almost does (although I think it becomes something else before he’s able to just define it). Harvey does for the most part (although it is often coated with other people’s ideas). Carole Pateman assumes a definition without ever actually speaking to it. I could go on and on. The sad fact of the matter is I still don’t have a straight definition. It’s as though I’m incapable of actually defining the term along any lines. I keep simply producing bad sitcom one-liners. It’s completely frustrating.

Luckily Monty Python puts everything back into perspective:

~ by vinatabapeche on August 19, 2008.