Paranoid Authority's Marginalizing of the Micro-Political

The micro-political level is understood here as the segments of population into small units (the family and the friend circle for example) in which the political opinion and view is expressed. It is 'micro' both in the number of bodies involved in each political unit, and in the intensity of application of any political agenda as developed by these small groups. The family, for instance, may be, through the authority of the father, a communist family or a capitalist family, but ultimately, the political orientation of such a family does not really matter in the national political realm, because the family's access to the making or shaping of national political decisions is minimal. At the same time, the family seeks to continue to express its own political voice and orientation, as if it chooses to ignore the fact that it does not have as much of a political clout as a macro-political level (workers, women etc) identity. What, then, is the function of the micro-political?

The micro-political is about the authority of the father (which is the chief authority in democracy) while the macro-political is about the authority of the politician (which is the chief authority in fascism and other forms of authoritarianism).  Sometimes it is beneficial for the political parties to see politics expressed in the family level more, and sometime it is better if the politics is expressed at a more macro level, as workers or women. It is all about balancing authority, and moving authority along a scale of paranoid to non-paranoid (in our understanding, in Deleuze and Guattari's conception, the non-paranoid limit is 'schizophrenic'). Sometimes paranoid authority is more useful, and the desired political orientation is fascism. At other times, democracy is more desired, and so non-paranoid authority is also desired. In this way, we may begin to contextualize the role of micro-politics and equate it with non-paranoid authority.

The family (the micro-political) is quite evidently non-paranoid in its political participation. Its political participation is limited to views and opinions within the family enclosure, and the political usually takes a second priority to other worries and responsibilities. I will share my political opinions freely, for only my father and mother are listening...It depends, however, also on the intensity of political participation desired by the father. The father may be intensely drawn towards public debate regarding politics, in which case the family may be more political than not. However, there is another type of loyalty within the family which overshadows loyalty towards politics, and this may have to do with the authority of the mother. Her participation in the family has very less to do with politics, indeed, she is the representative that resists the political participation of the family. When the mother's anti-political authority over the family takes precedence, then the micro-political level gives way to the macro-political where the family no longer has a political orientation and participation. The children are drawn towards more macro-level political debate, but at the same time are overtly cautious and paranoid...I have to be careful about my political views, for I do not know who is listening...Therefore, the mother has a key role to play in the onset of paranoid macro-politics in the national level, and in the general manifestation of authoritarianism in politics. The mother must come to realize that politics and political participation within the family, that is, the conversion of the family space into Habermas' public sphere is healthy and positive in order to reduce paranoid authoritarianism.

But the mother is not directly to blame. It all begins when the politician begins to pose as a paternal, father-figure, which replaces the (democratic) authority of the real father for a 'better father' who is the politician himself. This father-like politician is a really ploy to inspire authoritarian fascism or authoritarian communism. And so we may begin to see why, in the discourse of 'divorces,' 'problem children,' and 'single parent households' in the US (which is moving towards fascism), we see a problematization of the real father rather than the mother. With this problematizing, the real father may be replaced by the political father, and the family as a healthy political unit may come to seem weak...and the politician begins speaking of the nation itself as a family, at the same time making the real family more and more depoliticized and crafting this depoliticization as development, prosperity etc. So, what is the way of countering this marginalizing of the micro-political family unit over the macro-political? In the case of the family, it means that the mother should be more political, and replace the real father as the voice of political expression within the family, leading the political debate within the family. The politician must not replace the father, but the mother should. But, the friend circle, because the bonds are not quite so strong, is more problematic and yields more easily to authoritarianism.