Militant Particularism and Global Ambition (Jason)

According to David Harvey, there is a tension between “Militant particularisms” embedded in place and the global socialist movement of which they are apart. He argues that multiple levels of “abstraction must be deployed if socialism is to break out of its local bonds and become a viable alternative to capitalism as a working mode of production and social relations” (73). Working-class politics on the shop floor might save jobs and protect livelihoods in the short term, Harvey concedes, but a global socialist movement united by abstract ideals is ultimately required to bring about the end of capitalism. “Militant particularisms” at the local level must work in tandem with abstract, universal ideals at the global level.

Harvey draws upon the work of Raymond Williams (particularly his novels whom are praised for their dialectical approach) to illustrate how questions of scale and loyalties complicate the politics of abstraction. Whereas working-class political action are embedded in place, the success of the socialist movement ultimately requires the circulation of ideas in space (even though they oftentimes arise from the “militant particularisms” embedded in place). Class-consciousness must necessarily transcend the local. Harvey argues that “the move from tangible solidarities understood as patterns of social life organized in affective and knowable communities to a move abstract set of conceptions that would have universal purchase involves a move from one level of abstraction –attached to place– to another level of abstractions capable of reaching out across space” (83-4). As Williams’ novels illustrate, complications and tensions inevitably rise as people attach particular loyalties to various scales of abstraction.

“Militant particularisms” provide the socialist movement a conservative edge in bringing attention to the fixed material bases (e.g. factories, shop floors) of class-solidarity embedded in particular places and communities. A contradiction thus arises in that livelihoods characterized by a strong attachment to place and community that exist at the local level around a particular capitalist production process (however oppressive working conditions might be) would cease to exist with the success of a global socialist movement. “The worry at the end of the road…” argues Harvey, “is that socialist parties will only succeed in undermining the social and political identities and loyalties that provide the seedbed of their own support” (92). Despite this contradiction, the success of the socialist project depends upon the urgent need to create constructive dialogue between different scales of abstraction.

Like socialism, Harvey contends that theory must incorporate varying levels of abstraction. Critical distance of abstraction must be complement within tangible, real-world particularisms in a continuous dialect. Indeed, critical social theory must match, if not surpass, the ability of capitalisms to react to a dynamic world. Harvey argues that “defining modes of communication and translation between different kinds and levels of abstraction” (93) is a critical start to this process. Global ambition must be complemented by “militant particularisms.”