Interesting reflection on “nomad” citizenship which has much in common with Feyerabend’s “free” citizenship. The discussion of the “transcendent model of organisation” of institutions is useful in articulating the shortcomings of Bruno Latour’s modes of existence project.
I’m planning to write what would be in effect a “last chapter” to be added to my book on Nomad Citizenship. In that book, I argue that nomad citizens should self-organize in groups that constitute alternatives to state citizenship, in order to participate in markets and other forms of exchange that constitute alternatives to capitalist markets. In this additional “chapter,” I propose ways that nomad citizens can intervene in existing institutions, in addition to forming nomad groups of their own. The aim, in other words, is to develop a political theory of the institution, drawing on both schizoanalysis and nomadology.
My point of departure will be Althusser – for despite fundamental agreement with him on some issues, Deleuze & Guattari vehemently rejected the notion of ideology – even the improved version Althusser developed in his famous essay on Ideological State Apparatuses. For Deleuze & Guattari such “apparatuses” or institutions belong…
View original post 532 more words