As I have already indicated on this blog more than once, Spinoza's formulation of subjection remains in some sense a guiding question for me.
"...the supreme mystery of despotism, its prop and stay, is to keep men in a state of deception, and with the specious title of religion to cloak the fear with which they must be held in check, so that they will fight for their servitude as if for salvation, and count it no shame but the highest honour, to spend their blood and lives for the glorification of one man…" --Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus 1670
So much so that I would be willing to agree with Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari when they repeated it three hundred years later.
"That is why the fundamental problem of political philosophy is still precisely the one that Spinoza saw so clearly, and that Wilhelm Reich rediscovered: “Why do men fight for their servitude as stubbornly as though it were their salvation?” --Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia 1972
However, I have begun to think that it is time to update the question, or at least change its formulation, it increasingly seems to me that in the current era it is not so much servitude that is fought for as salvation, but subjection that is fought for as rebellion, or misrecognized as rebellion.
In reframing the problem from salvation to rebellion I am in some sense shifting the focus from the religious nature of subjection, central to the TTP, towards a more inchoate political dimension. However, I am doing so within the terms of Spinoza's problem. First, and most broadly maintaining Spinoza's most important challenge to theories of subjection; namely, that subjection has to be understood as something that is passionately pursued rather than passively endured. Second, and more generally I am maintaining what could be called Spinoza's dialectic of obedience. On this point I am following Macherey's reading of the TTP .
What Does it Mean to Obey