health – Infrapolitical Reflections

There is always something ominous and shady that harbors the apparently simple narrative worlds of Jane Austen’s novels. It has been too long since I have read them thoroughly, so I have to take Julia Yost’s word for it, especially when it comes to her extensive citations and character judgments in her most recent book essay Jane Austen’s Darkness (Wiseblood 2024) solely dedicated to the British novelist. But Yost’ initial intuition – the vortex of her argumentative edifice – is to make Austen more than a critic of the modern social sphere. Departing from D.W. Harding’s “Regulated Hatred” (1940), for whom the the civility of the Social (its overcodification and transmutation of norms and values) means the regulation of averted passions, Austen’s darkness reveals that that moral order is already an artificial and fallen production of lesser evils. In the nascent historical epoch of the birth of the Social, the rhetorical order of the polis will translate the alleged ‘elemental topics’ of community life into the orderly scene of ongoing civilizational depredation, in which accumulation is just one of its avatars. Towards the end of her book, Yost cites Austen’s unfinished novel Sanditon as the height point of the end of the world of manners and sentiments into an “economy” that fulfills the “demand for everything” (Yost 65).

This is the moment in which the world will become the object solely justified by the movement of civilization itself. “Civilization, civilization, indeed”, says Mr. Parker in Sanditon. What is never clear in Austen’s work – and this is precisely the problem of the darkening hue that Yost wants to claim in her essay – is whether there civility of manners and sentiments proved insufficient for the civilizational force towards objectivation; or, rather, whether manners (and its Burkean ideal of the little platoon as corollary to modern liberal normative pressure) will become an indirect force within the new fabric of civil and state mediations. At any rate, this dialectical valance is an index of the dissonances of Austen’s social world, which allows us to see, in dialogic slow motion, the reduction of the taking place of the world into the transactional exchange of forms.

According to Yost there is a cure in Austen’s medical toolbox for the enduring the social disappearance of morality and conviction to elucidate the question of personal “spiritual fate”: marriage. Yost is emphatic: “Marriage is the heroine’s only defense against darkness and with one sparking exception, it is an uncertain one” (Yost 2). The institution of marriage in the wake of the nascent post-confessional state will be a regulatory intramural test by the forces of reaction, and it does not take reading Louis de Bonald’s treatise on divorce form 1801 to arrive at this conclusion. But the sacramental institution is not freed from its own internal contradictions; after all, marriage will only be a regulatory social practice within the stratified and regulated autonomous sphere of modern society.

The aspiration to elevate the moral sacramental praxis of the pre-confessional state will be staged within the topological arrangement of the social space in which domesticity becomes a site of potential imprisonment that, in the words of Austen’s Mansfield Park, “will deaden the sense of what was lost” (Yost 28). As Yost claims, domestic space during Asuten’s age becomes deleterious and of potential imprisonment. Topological closure entails that the outside is only possible through the inside (think of conditions for formal labor during classical industrialization), and that the inside has become become exteriority ordered by general process of rationalization and the liberation of the ego, as Theodor Adorno explains in his short “On the Problem of the Family” (1955). In fact, the historical social trend that Adorno identified as “[the transformation of the family] as a mere association of convenience, the more it loses those features of the ‘primary’ group which until recent developments were attributed to it as invariant” do not have to be circumscribed to the epochal crisis of the family in the zenith of Fordism; it is already in nuce in Austen’s desperate attempt to find a way to carve the depths of social domestication and biological maintenance.

For Yost, almost intuitively, marriage is a second-best (of course, she does not call it like this), because “poverty takes many forms; lack of a husband and children is one” (Yost 36). But can marriage absorbed by social totality provide an exit from the originary poverty of its anthropological decay? Even for Edmund Burke (as it was for De Bonald), domesticity is a triumph of anthropological freedom; but, only insofar as this anthropological condition accepts the decaying positioning of human existence both corporeality and linguistically. In other words, to speak of anthropological self-affirmation is already a retranslation of the oikos in an epoch in which the totalization of the “Social Man” will absolutely color the entire process of autonomization. In this sense, within the flashes of Austen’s world this color is oblique and hazily obscure. What does it mean to lose the appearance of the world once everything becomes legible, permissible, and exchangeable? Austen’s originality is to have been able to guide us in direction at a moment where everything was in the making.

Jane Austen’s Darkness is not only short but unpretentious; and, as part of lacking pretension theses here are rough and underdeveloped but they do carry weight. And some of them carry a lot of weight and durable resonances. This is the case towards the end where the “darkest” symptom of Austen’s scene of writing assigned to an effective degeneration of language that, according to Yost, paints Austen’s dark view of modernity: “Language genderates, as medical jargon makes a commercial purpose that folds itself healing purpose and the advertisement remedies become inexorable from the advertisement of maladies” (Yost 67). Yost here speaks almost in the register of Karl Marx writing in the pages of Rheinische Zeitung in 1842: “What is any illness except life that is hampered in its freedom? A perpetual physician would be an illness in which one would not even have the prospect of dying, but only of living. Let life die; death must not live”. The rise of the social figures of doctors and soldiers are expressive of the living body of the social fabric and its reduction into biopolitical administration. Yost plays with the idea that perhaps Austen’s last work is the revenge (this is perhaps too strong of a verb) against the expansion of the social mimicry induced by sentimental life (Yost 68). After all, the romantic subjective negation of the enlightenment shortcomings pays the price of arousing the vulgarity of competing feelings for the acceptance of social recognition.

This intuition unwrites the conceptual narrative regarding the taming of the passions and the privalining neutral space of diverging interests: the contract form of the new commerce society will tame passions while generalizing the social production of pain and circulation of hatred as sublation of the new. Thus the need to anesthetize language from its own capacity of the sayable; expiation will only take its form as either opinions or justifications. At this point, the sacralization of death and its unrestrained standardization will reasonably justify the condition for the overpowering of secular sacrificial history at that altar of abstraction (Progress, Growth, Freedom). Yost’s emphasis on Austen’s laughter as “salubrious” can be read as a comic exception from the stage of abstraction; the refusal of language to clog the imagination and the invisible into the codification of norms. In this distance, language embraces the pain of separation; and, like the laughter of the Thracian Woman, the incommunicable abandons the conceptual inertia of hostile protuberances of social life. And making way into the abyss clears up the heavy fog of darkness. At least a bit.

The collapse of the categorial and formal mediations proper to the foundations of modern politics open up a regime of adaptation as optimized administration. In a concrete sense the well-known Böckenförde formula comes to a closure as it is realized: the liberal secularized state draws its life from preconditions it can no longer guarantee. The fulfillment of secularization entails, paradoxically, a re-theologization of the separation between the species and the experience of the world already leaving behind the temporality of the saeculum. It is no coincidence that three excellent new books recently published and discussed – Conspiracionist Manifiesto (2022), The Politics of Immortality (2022) by Marten Björk, and Adapt! A New Political Imperative (2022) by Barbara Stiegler – share a common thread: the emergence of the regulatory system of adaptation in the wake of the end of political liberalism.

In other words, the marginalization of the logic of representation, the erasure of institutional mediations, and the depolitization of life (which also entails that everything becomes measurable to the value of the political) entails the intensification of a process of abstraction that is deployed on the surround of the human species itself, increasingly optimized given the contingent transformations and irruptions. The Conspiracionist Manifiesto goes as far as to claim that the current articulation of domination should be understood as a full restitution of the nineteenth century project of positivism as the integration of science and life. Comte and his followers, in fact, thought of positivism as a world religion concerning the reproduction of life whose aim was the general crafting of society as an plastic integral organism.

The acceleration of adaptation presupposes the triumph of immanence that was already exerting its force as an indirect power in the nineteenth century drift by romantic subjectivism and expansion of conditions for action in civil society. In the regime of adaptation, the realization of action, devoid of institutional justified reasons, becomes allocated in the processes of production fitted to the incessant demand for adaptation. It is obvious that the acceleration of immanence – first expressed in the subject’s will to power and now folded into the willing slave of adaptation – has intensified in the last years or so, coinciding with the pandemic event and the generic systematization of health understood as a set of coping techniques of behavior.

Already in the 1990s, in an unpublished lecture in Hannover, Ivan Illich described adaptation as an systematization of health: “Adaptation to the misanthropic genetic, climatic, chemical and cultural consequences of growth is now described as health. Neither the Galenic-Hippocratic representations of a humoral balance, nor the Enlightenment utopia of a right to “health and happiness”, nor any Vedic or Chinese concepts of well-being have anything to do with survival in a technical system” [1].

Insofar as it is concerned with the captive reproduction of life, the regime of adaptation puts to rest any believe in positive biopolitics or the community as exception to the social. Yes, this includes even the “community of friends” that Carlo Michelsteader, in his Il dialogo della salute thought as too much of a rhetorical illusion predicated on the exclusion of suffering and death: “In the friendly communities that emerge in light of common vanity, every one lives thanks to the death of those outside the community” [2]. In short, the regime of adaptation solicits nothing else than the task of coming to terms with the principle of the civil (truly the condition of state’s authority), which in even as far as in Roman law made possible the extraneous movement of the subjectum iuris as total equivalence. The predicament of the regime of adaptation – and its irreversible apparatus of administrative law – obliges us to imagine something other than civility (the principle from the Roman Empire to the modern to put it in Cooper Francis’ terms) but without sidestepping into the barbarism of ergonomic processes that are now at the center of what is understood as life. Barbarism and civility’s straight line now bends towards adaptation.

Notes

1. Ivan Illich. “Health as one’s own responsibility. No, thank you!”, Speech given in Hannover, Germany, September, 1990.

2. Carlo Michelstaedter. Il dialogo della salute e altri dialoghi (Adelphi, 1988).