Affective authoritarianism as joyful ‘oeuvre?’ Godly Subjects and Suburban Gladiators

Abstract

This paper presents the spatial experience of authoritarianism as a dynamic atmosphere with the seductive potential for radical joy. For Lefebvre (1996), joyful co-creation of space – an ‘oeuvre’ – was a vital facet of everyday urban life. As such, the paper challenges normative portrayals of authoritarianism as an inherently joyless, bleak and oppressive operation of power, and delves deeper into its variegated, contextually contingent and complex P/political spatialisations, conflicts and contradictions. Affect emerges as a productive lens through which to explore the complexities, range of emotions, identities and world-makings of authoritarian space, and its paradoxical capacity for joy. The paper draws from ethnographic reflections and spatial vignettes from three comparative experiences in different parts of the world: a mega-church service in suburban Singapore, and visits to two suburban hardcore gyms (in Northern England and Southeastern United States). These experiences are thematically framed as spaces of ‘Godly Subjects’ and ‘Gladiators’. They are spiritual, exhilarating spaces; spaces of radical possibilities. They are also inherently hierarchal, patriarchal, disciplined and oppressive. Thus, conjunctural subjectivities are affectively embodied in these spaces resulting in conflictual experiences. Though joyful, these are spaces of ‘cruel optimism’, where desire and aspiration are caught in a loop of un-achievability. Such is the contradictory nature of authoritarian power/space. However, whilst critical, the paper avoids an easy taxonomy of authoritarianism into clear binaries, framing it as both an open and closed socio-cultural-political space, and highlighting how and why more affective and spatialised readings of authoritarianism are needed across contextual cultural geographies at this moment.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.