“To move towards the mode of living that we like” (119) means to dismantle the general structure of contemporary oppression, to get beyond it, in order to reach a place where one always already is: what does it take? In the first place, a refusal, even if in the name of a preservation. A refusal of the choices that are offered, which are, as such, the very organization of the structure of oppression. We choose a general antagonism, which is, from the understanding of the commitment to war, which causes oppression, also a commitment against the commitment to war.
To think about the refusal we need study, over against institutional thought, and fugitivity, over against the actions of the settler.
This would lead to a revolution without politics. Politics are delusion, also part of the structure of oppression. We must, therefore, also cultivate a general antagonism to politics.
There is an outcast mass intellectuality of the undercommons, a general intellect that is always already fugitive. The structure of oppression (the ideological state apparatus, not just prisons, hospital, asylums, also universities, churches, NGOs) means to turn outcast intellectuality into deputized state agents.
In the university, for instance, there is a (fugitive or) subversive intellectual opposing the critical (or institutional) intellectual. The fugitive intellectual cultivates, through study, a prophetic organization. The critical intellectual is a policy maker. An oppressor.
The fugitive intellectual accepts a radical passion and passivity, which makes him or her unfit for subjection. The critical intellectual seeks subjection through policy. And agency.
The fugitive intellectual (but this is the intellectual of mass intellectuality, that is, everyone) remains in an exteriority, which is the non-place of the undercommons. That is his or her fugitivity. It is the infrapolitical field, where “wayward labor, surplus, waste” obtain.
The political field is the field of sequestration. It can only countenance what is sequestered and what is to be sequestered, ceaselessly so. By governance and policy, by deputized policy agents, which form the other “everyone.” Subtraction from sequestration is the attempt to dwell in the ontological difference.
Hence, fugitivity is a dwelling in the exception to the general equivalent. It is a break in/out of capitalist discourse.
Black study is a persistence in the refusal of sequestration. It seeks the prophetic organization of life against all manner of policy commands, against the night riders of the state of the situation. Hence against the imposition of consensus, the imposition not on selves but of selves. From the general antagonism of the social, which is the site of the ontological difference.
Fugitivity, explored and channeled through study and planning, is not only a refusal to be governed, it is also a refusal to govern. It stands against any imperative of submission, and against any command for participation (since “the participant is the deputy’s mirror image”).
One must choose: will you be the police or would you find an alternative relation to world? Provided you would want “to move towards the mode of living that [you] like.”
If “to work [to live] is to be asked, more and more, to do without thinking, to feel without emotion, to move without friction, to adapt without question, to translate without pause, to desire without purpose, to connect without interruption” (87), that is, if today’s choice is: “Logistical populations will be created to do without thinking, to feel without emotion, to move without friction, to adapt without question, to translate without pause, to connect without interruption, or they will be dismantled and disabled as bodies in the same way they are assembled, by what Patricia Clough calls population racism” (91), the imperative is:
1) to submit to the contemporary structure of oppression under those determinations.
2) to opt for prophetic, that is, infrapolitical life: “the prophet is the one who tells the brutal truth, who has the capacity to see the absolute brutality of the already existing and to point it out and to tell that truth, but also to see the other way, to see what it could be.”