Skip navigation

Ranciere’s police = a form of othering, democracy thus becomes a mechanism for coping with otherness. Importantly, citizenship works through a logic of exclusivism. The inclusion of specific bodies in the narrow arena of citizenship often falls upon race and gender formations. As Ranciere writes, “It is the logic of the police to carry out a continuous privatisation of the universal” – privatisation too, works through an exclusionary ethic through an implicit form that “restricts the sphere of citizenship to a definite set of institutions/problems/agents/procedures”.

As the private becomes public; as the distinction between the two terms becomes increasingly blurred. In a biopolitical sense democracy is an instrument of control that compartmentalises and fragments people, therefore justifying violent, institutional acts of sexism and racism. The DREAM Act is an adequate demonstration of this, and also points to the notion that technology is said to be ‘dissolving’ the political.

I have seen other posts that put into question the efficacy and meaningfulness of online social activism, casting doubt over the purported puissance of DREAMers’ work and the possibility of actualising political change. I would offer the position that perhaps, according to Ranciere, the processes of standardised political action such as voting are simply the workings of the police. The exclusion of DREAMers from the categories of citizenship make public intrusions not just powerful, but necessary. The play on “coming out” is a performative act of high stakes; coming out as homosexual becomes symbolically paralleled with coming out as a non-citizen.

I thus found the description of DREAMers as ‘gothic subjects’ somewhat perplexing. There seems to be a misplaced reinforcement of their otherness in feeling the need to describe the nature of their experience as ‘gothic’ and thus somehow attached to weird notions of fear, attraction and excess… idk