Swiping Left: What Marxism Tells us (or not)About Online Dating? (1)
Gills Deleuze defined the practice of philosophy as the creation of concepts. According to Crain: “It is worth taking a moment to consider what this implies. First and foremost, if philosophy involves the creation of concepts, then concepts are not given as a part of the universe, nor do they sit in some Platonic world of Ideas waiting to be discovered. Rather, they are invented, and perhaps later ossify into “common sense” ways of thinking about the world.”
The first thing that cross my mind in drafting these series is how to avoid a fatal mistake myself and others often fall into: looking for answers without identifying the question/problem. In understanding online dating, the conversation usually tends to be one about with or against. I suggest a departure from this place and therefore finding a proper framework(s) to work with. There is no single question here and I am afraid that the reader has to bear with me going through different yet interrelated ones. Some of them, for sure, organically emerge from others. How and where to locate online dating within the architecture of capitalism? What lessons or subjects matters we can learn from indulging in such analysis? What are the implications, if any, by subscribing and using such platforms?
We need to be critical against Marxism as introduced and cherished by the “zealous disciples” who managed-and still do- to transform even the most contingent thoughts into “immutable and sacred laws
There is a vital advantage in drawing a sort of a road map for this discussion. We will deal with certain subjects that may be presented as “facts” or given without detailed explanation or reasoning. For instance, some would put the conversation into online world versus real one. There is indeed a valid question to make as what constitute “real” here. By the same token, does our online world exist unconnectedly to the “real-human-physical” world? I will deal with detailing our set of questions later, but for now I will suggest to focus on our framework. In identifying myself as a Marxist, I often hesitate to do so, and when I do, I rather deliver incoherent series of disclaimers. One in particular is to be critical against Marxism as introduced and cherished by the “zealous disciples” who managed-and still do- to transform even the most contingent thoughts into “immutable and sacred laws.”[1] Therefore, while the frameworks I am suggesting are located within the Marxist fabric, some parts or the way I deal with those part –may-represent a critical re-thinking of Marxism itself. Necessarily, I am avoiding a biblical recourse to Marx, to stretch his thoughts beyond his shade. Marx indeed dealt with issues related to love, specifically heterosexual forms and in particular in examining marriage as an institution. As they will appear, there is ambiguous space and I am not buying interpreting it in favor of Marx or the lack of his knowledge to be incidental.
From there, four frameworks we are going to operate on after that: Foucault’s work on “disciplinary society”, Deleuze’s “societies of control”, “Badiou’s views on “chance-encounter” and the idea of “free of risk” love, and again Deleuze and Gutarri’s work on territorialization and deterritorialization. Those frameworks are intertwined: they deliver to us, when it comes to online dating, a way to understand the operationalization of these platforms not as an error or flaw, or a diversion from our human nature, but instead as said before “epitomizing” example for capitalism. Each one seperately will be unfolded in the light of our subject matter and later to be all examined holistically.
The observations I have on online dating in particular or romance in general sense in relation to Marxism has started few years ago. It took me one time looking at series of funny memes presenting Tinder profile with Marx’s name and caricature picture to invoke a deeper conversation about the issue. For over three years, using online apps has actually expose me not any dystopian reality of the cold, brutal networked world but the actual one we live in. We are the ones who created that world where we approach social interactions designed through algorithms. However, I want in advance to clarify I am not going to end this series with suggesting not to use them. As i said, this conversation is beyond the with or against frame.
How we can have reasonable discussion about that, to reflect on our life and the impact of capitalism without turning the conversation into a “the good old days”sort of-reactionary project that is not more than a defensive mechanism to cope with a failure of being part of the present?
I want to give an example of some issues I experienced or thought of during my use of these platforms. When i started to relate the use of online dating to my Marxism, I found myself dealing with couple of complex questions: when i use Tinder (an app i rarely use, for clear reasons), swipe left or right, what form of relations I deal with or construct? Am I a consumer, and if yes, what am I consuming? Am I a product, when I myself also got swiped? What economic basis we engage with in this market accordingly? In another instance, a friend of mine conveyed to me why she likes online dating: it is safe, I feel I can say whatever I want and explore things beforehand without being anxious of fears or risks about what would happen.” Another friend, contradicted her: It is risky, you don’t know what or who you are dealing with in real. It is risky because when you are invisible you can do whatever you want, say whatever, without fearing consequences.” Both points are extreme to each other and at the same time, very valid. They both share a critical point: risk. As I will examine Badiu’s work, this will come as to how we live in a world where randomness and incalculable way of living is not that tolerable. Needless to say, my experiences that I am going to share as well people i have encountered are all to be located contextually. There are indeed some patterns to be noticed. When people equate “flakiness” of people they meet online- and I used to claim the same- I ended up questioning if online apps to be blame solely for that?
But, ultimately, is there at any rate a problem about online dating? How we can have reasonable discussion about that, to reflect on our life and the impact of capitalism without turning the conversation into a “the good old days”sort of-reactionary project that is not more than a defensive mechanism to cope with a failure of being part of the present? I can’t promise to answer that fully. I do, nonetheless, aim to put the conversation into the right direction: It is by far a conversation about us, as people, not the machine.
Un-Resurrecting Marx?
Marx’s romance with Freiin Johanna Bertha Julie Jenny von Westphalen “Jenny” is rather clear and well documented. From his numerous letters to or about her, I quote the following:
“Please give greetings from me to my sweet, wonderful Jenny. I have read her letter twelve times already, and always discover new delights in it. It is in every respect, including that of style, the most beautiful letter I can imagine being written by a woman.” Karl Marx’s Letter to his father, 10 November 1837
Beyond the personal, Marx wrote examining issues of love, romance, marriage and family in the course of his work:
“The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman. The relation of man to woman is the most genuine relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become his natural essence. The relationship also reveals the extent to which man’s need has become a human need: the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need.
… If you love without evoking love in return — if through the vital expression of yourself as a loving person you fail to become a loved person, then your love is impotent, it is a misfortune.” Private Property and Communism, 1844
What critical criticism fights against here is not merely love but everything living.
Love first really teaches a man to believe in the objective world outside himself. It not only makes man the object but the object a man. Love makes the beloved into an external object, a sensuous object which does not remain internal, hidden in the brain
The Holy Family, Karl Marx, 1845The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women. The Communist Manifesto, 1848
It is important to locate Marx in his specific historical place, as to what shaped his thoughts and not the transcending influence his thoughts has on the later generations. In that sense, Marx can never be seen as the feminist, queer theorist as we may expect. Arguably, Engels was the one who delved into further details in his book “The Origin of The Family, Private Property, and The State” which provides us with the “most comprehensive examination of gender roles in early Marxism.” Both, however, left most of those topics in ambiguous place, and many would diverge when it comes to interpreting the ambiguity.
The reductionist folks, those disciples we talked about, turn Marxism to be in irreconcilable place with feminism and queer theory. Tension remains between Marxism and both fields, yet significant intellectual and political contributions have taken place over the course of time, bringing all of them closer or to act within the same paradigm. Marx views on romance, love, and marriage are by far can be seen exclusively heterosexual and we may end up concluding their incompatibility with our modern views and eventually our topic. Nonetheless, the validity of Marx work as an analytical framework may remain valid in other aspects that we can relate to in our discussion.
Althusser has argued that we must not conflate Marx’s early Manuscripts with the scientific project of Das Kapital. He writes, “Marxism should not be simply a political doctrine, a ‘method’ of analysis and action, but also, over and above the rest, the theoretical domain of a fundamental investigation.” Engels himself was so frustrated by the absence in Das Capital: Volume II of Marx’s youthful fantasies that he initially told Friedrich Adolph Sorge: “The second volume will provoke great disappointment because it is purely scientific and does not contain much material for agitation.”
When I saw Marx’s meme above it triggered me how, for good or worst, an interest in Marx remain that can be part of a pop culture. There is something about our unchained urge to reinvent or resurrect Marx. At the heels of the financial crisis in 2008, the world turned to cherish Marx’s Das Kapital, many outlets wrote about “Marx’s return” in what felt almost a moment when Marxists could say loudly: “Yo! we told you so!”. It is indeed a valid recourse to Marx understanding of capital, yet in many instances such focus did not shed much light on elaborating Marx economic and philosophical project but rather Marx’s theologies and a general ethical critique of capitalism. When I think about it, I always imagine Marx upon his resurrection to our world running away from the circle of light he would have as a celebrated and find a library to continue working. He, for sure, would have a different set of priorities and questions than what we expect him to have. This a defense of Marx and at the same time, its not. In few blogs that tackled the same issue as here, the reference to Marx specifically felt off-point and serve nothing but again, a biblical recourse. Our issue has to be examined further, somewhere else but this should serve as an introductory point nonetheless.
There is a dangerous foregone conclusion in relation to radicals, Marx himself wasn’t safe from it. The presumption that the way radicalism shaped in the person has-always- to do with extreme situations, dictating a sort of resentment from the state to romance. “Lovelessness” in the words of bell hooks, is something many radicals and radical groups have been criticized for. This either by blocking genuine growth of “love” in broad sense, or just neglecting it. In both ways, misogyny, masculinity, toxic masculinity and other patriarchal forms shape such attitude. It is the inevitable conclusion for equating the question of “power” with masculinity, where “love” according to such logic has no place in the revolutionary practice/discourse. Such equation has lead to establish such issues as “a revolutionary never cry”, looking down at what they see as feminine, dismissing or invalidating queer radicals, this among so many other examples. Therefore, a proper discussion of issues of love and romance has not been properly cultivated. Needless to say, discussing online dating can be seen as a luxury that departs from the current overwhelming struggles.