Infrapolitics is not a spatial metaphor for history any more than posthegemony is a temporal metaphor for political space. I am not sure supplementary conceptuality–something that would perhaps help us understand more and better, but also something that might retrospectively have become premature, in the absence of proper clarification of what is already on the table–is so necessary at this point (although why not? We’ll take the risk.) What we really need is a proper and nonreductive understanding of what is at stake through the very word infrapolitics. Over the last two months, in this blog, an attempt at mapping a territory of engagement has taken place that is still ongoing. But doing it in the blog, and in the context of an ongoing seminar that follows a proposed reading list, has very serious limitations. Those very limitations might be backlashing now. They are fostering potential misunderstandings that might derail the conversation (although I understand that there would be no conversation without misunderstandings). But they could become misunderstandings leading nowhere. This is presumably nobody’s fault but my own, although I attribute it to the medium. No doubt a more formal proposal regarding the understanding of infrapolitics that we have been developing is necessary, and no doubt it will come at some point. For now, we are simply on the way, which is all we can do.