I usually write about spirituality and psychology, venturing into politics here and there from those point of views. So reviewing a political book may seem different, but hang in there and trust me on this.
I’d heard about Anton Jäger’s book Hyperpolitics in a Guardian article about the same book and how it was becoming popular, especially on the left. I’d not heard of it at all, but after reading a description of the theories, I immediately ordered a copy after reading the article.
What’s it about? Simply, why things seem to be super-political and why nothing gets better and everything gets worse. It’s a hefty order for Jäger, who spells out his theories in less than 100 pages. Though he said the easiest way to describe himself would be a Marxist “even with all the baggage and connotations,” his book is hardly a work of a singular theory or theories. There’s something bigger here.
I’ll also spoil the “bigger.” He argues that you can measure our experiences in the 20th and 21st century by levels of Politicization and Institutionalization and that’s key to understanding our time in 2026, when I’m writing this. It breaks down like this:
- Early 20th century was Mass Politics – Politicized and Institutionalized. Unions, churches clubs, political groups, etc. were political and institutional, and part of people’s lives.
- In the later 20th Century to about 2008 we saw Post-politics – Decreased institutionalization and politicization. Ideas of the “End of History,” political parties as careers even more than they were. Technocracy. The start of endless discussions of how isolated we were.
- Antipolitics,the burn-it-all-down era of the early 21st century was political but not institutional. There was less lifestyle, no membership roles, etc. There was, I would note, astroturfing.
- Hyperpolitics is where we are now and it’s in the same area of Antipolitics, but is an age of outburst. Everything is political, but there’s no institutionalization, so nothing much gets done. The way I describe Jäger’s take is an age of outbursts, of tantrums.
It’s a simple model, but Jäger brings receipts. I can also say having lived through the decades he describes, his book fit my experiences uncomfortably well. When a book makes you rethink some 40 years of life and what you saw, it’s worth paying attention.
He also is more than willing to discuss failures of supposedly progressive and left-wing movements in these times. The same uncomfortable feeling is there when you see good ideas gone wrong or fade away. If there’s a flaw in his analysis of modern movements, he does miss that some things failed but did leave behind cultural infrastructure, albeit not so much a movement but the seeds of something longer-term.
Now we’ve got to try to rebuild thing. Jäger has some ideas. He has some skepticism. Ironically I think what his book spawned may be more important the book. You could sum up his ideas in a page or two, its what comes after that matters.
So is it worth it? Pretty much yes. So go read it, I’m pretty sure if you read my writing you’d want to read his.
However I promised this was relevant to my interest in philosophy and religion, and I think Jäger’s model also requires us to ask about the role of religion, philosophy, and spiritual practices. The value of cultural institutions is clear from his writing – in fact, no small amount of Hyperpolitics is things seeming to be glaringly obvious in retrospect. So where does that leave us in a time of hyperpolitical churches, diverse spiritual practices, and grifter Internet gurus?
I think that many of us who are “spiritually independent” – and that includes me – need to take a hard look if we and the world are better served by more spiritual organization and institutionalization. What are our practices if they aren’t connected to something larger? What is being missed? What spiritual progress will we make by getting our hands dirty?
Uncomfortable? Perhaps. But as noted, Jäger’s book produced a lot of discomfort for me, in a good way.
In my own interests in the history of Taoists and various Chinese philosophical groups, I confess to a longing for things I read about. Weirdo artists and mystics gathering in a grove to drink and discuss. Writers exchanging ideas and books and poems. Contentious but sincere mystic orders. Something institutional not necessarily in the way of a formal church but of connection and camaraderie and continuity. I think that longing for spiritual community does indicate something is missing – perhaps at least for me.
As of this writing, I am asking about community building, about connection. What can be built? What is there now (the area I live in has several multifaith and secular-minded groups)? It’s leading me to ask more questions. Jäger found something, and I’m going to see what he dug up.