A Critique of The Theory of Bloom by Tiqqun: Power, Subjectivity, Difference, and Unbecoming
The Theory of Bloom is a theory of the crisis of the modern subject under late capitalism. It a theory of the nothing-subject, a theory that is totally flat, universalizing, devoid of nuance, reductive, and completely incapable of accounting for difference. It is a singular and homogeneous portrait of the modern Man theorized from a normative affective tonality characterized by boredom, emotional stiltedness, ennui, indifference, disempowerment, alienation, detachment, emptiness, etc etc. The theorized subject is ostensibly neutral and the theory pretends to depict a totally universal condition, yet the book is theorized completely from a masculine position. The book references such really cool dudes as Bataille, Joyce, Agamben, Valery, Benjamin, Adorno, Blanchot, Hegel, etc etc. It’s written in a seductive, aggrandizing tone that adds credence to its credibility. The text is from Tiqqun, a French political/philosophical journal that dissolved in 2001. The writing from Tiqqun is generally anonymous, too, which adds to the mystery of it all. But I guess it’s not so anonymous since it’s known that Julien Coupat (a business executive and son of a medical doctor?) is one of its founders.
Us Americans are always behind the times when it comes to French theory. Translations of the texts from Tiqqun have just begun to trickle in during the last couple years—over 10 years after they were written—but already the theory has reached a sort of hegemonic status among young radicals like myself. Generally, anarchists are the first to take in upon themselves to translate, format, print, and distribute the texts, mostly for free in the format of photocopied pamphlets and books. After bootlegged versions of Tiqqun texts How Is It To Be Done? and Introduction to Civil War circulated for a while, Semiotext(e) published an official version of the texts as well as other insurrectionist texts from France. I have no idea if Semiotext(e) or any other publisher will release an edition of the Theory of Bloom, but if you are interested in reading a bootleg version, you can download a PDF here.
The Crisis of the Modern Subject Under Late Capitalism
What is Bloom? Instead of speaking for Bloom, I will let Bloom speak for Himself.
“The Bloom is the masked Nothing. That is why it would be absurd to celebrate its apparition in history as the birth of a particular type of human: the man without quality is not a certain quality of man, but on the contrary man qua, the final realization of the generic human essence, which is precisely the loss of essence, pure exposition and disposal: larva.”
“…Bloom is compelled by its inner nothing.”
“Assuredly, the Bloom is, as the Spectacle tirelessly repeats, positively nothing.”
“Although we believe it to be alleviated, the essential anxiety remains as one and all are required to maintain a stringent neglect of self: the ignorance of that common power that became indescribable because of its anonymity. The Bloom is the name of that anonymity.”
“The Bloom does not experience a particular finitude or a determined separation, but the ontological finitude and separation, common to all men. As well, the Bloom is only alone in appearance: because it is not alone in being alone, all men have that solitude in common.”