The politics of ordinary affect can be anything from the split second when police decide to shoot someone because he’s black and standing in a dark doorway and has something in his hand, to a moment when someone falls in love with someone else who’s just come into view. Obviously, the differences matter. The politics of any surge depends on where it might go. What happens. How it plays itself out and in whose hands.
We lack such a political concept of love, in my view, and our contemporary political vocabulary suffers from its absence. A political concept of love would, at the minimum, reorient our political discourses and practices in two important ways. First, it would challenge conventional conceptions that separate the logic of political interests from our affective lives and opposes political reason to the passions. A political concept of love would have to deploy at once reason and passion. Second, love is a motor of both transformation and duration or continuity. We lose ourselves in love and open the possibility of a new world, but at the same
time love constitutes powerful bonds that last.
Michael Hardt 2011 - For Love or Money in Cultural Anthropology 26(4):676-682