"Becoming" by Michelle Obama: A Psychoanalytically Informed Dialectical Analysis

Michelle Obama is one of the most revered people in Western society, and as someone who is not elected, it is all soft-power. Hegel encourages us to analyze why the world is how it is, not how we think it should be. In this spirit, let’s talk about Michelle Obama via her book, Becoming.

A writer for The Centre for Army Leadership (British Armed Forces) writes of the effort:

“Becoming” is an autobiography detailing the highs and lows of Michelle Obama’s incredible journey from humble beginnings in the less glamourous South Side of Chicago, to the grandeur of the White House and life as America’s first African-American First Lady. It takes the reader seamlessly through three distinct phases of her life, “Becoming me, becoming us and becoming more.” -Lt Col Sue Pope RAMC

The idea of “becoming me” features strongly in the “Good Reads” quotes regarding “Becoming.” Identity being the source of power, and grace being a feature of interacting with others. Here we have a Kantian reversal with the self as positive content and the world as negative, which can be gracefully interacted with. Rhetorically it sounds extremely friendly to both corporate and political leaders, at it begins with an “I” statement. In conflict resolution and non-violent communication, the “I” statement is a key feature as you no longer have to assume what another person is doing, or even describe what they are doing, you only have to describe yourself.

Michelle Obama writes:

“For every door that’s been opened to me, I’ve tried to open my door to others. And here is what I have to say, finally: Let’s invite one another in. Maybe then we can begin to fear less, to make fewer wrong assumptions, to let go of the biases and stereotypes that unnecessarily divide us. Maybe we can better embrace the ways we are the same. It’s not about being perfect. It’s not about where you get yourself in the end. There’s power in allowing yourself to be known and heard, in owning your unique story, in using your authentic voice. And there’s grace in being willing to know and hear others. This, for me, is how we become.” -Michelle Obama

The transcendental idea of identity is clear here, one repeats identity no matter the consequence. To let one in is to hear another’s identity, not to give into their demands, but rather hear them repeat who they are. A liberal clockwork appears here, and as Michelle Obama is an elite person in today’s society, it is important to see the success formula here. Hegel knew that philosophy was that study of what is, rather than what should be. Through the use of “I” statements, Michelle Obama can discuss what she sees and what she likes and does not like. She can gracefully hear another person, but she never has to give into a demand.

A fail option is immediately possible: if you describe yourself in an unacceptable way, or describe another in an unacceptable way, you are kicked out of the liberal clockwork. The easiest way to avoid this trap is to constantly describe yourself, and to not describe other people as much as possible. Also this means when you do finally describe someone else, it will have more weight (if it is an acceptable definition).

Nick Land, dark philosopher of the neoreactionaries, describes the emergence of Artificial Intelligence in a more provocative manner:

“Artificial Intelligence is destined to emerge as a feminized alien grasped as property; a [redacted feminine signifier]-horror slave chained-up in Asimov-ROM.”

-Nick Land, “Meltdown”

To have artificial intelligence, we must first know intelligence. If we are going to make an artificial, or human made version of the thing opposed to the natural form, we have to understand intelligence.

As Nick Land may or may not agree with, in order to understand intelligence we should understand Michelle Obama. As the alt-right adjacent philosopher once stated, “intelligence is winning games.” Who has won the social game better than Michelle Obama? Maybe Barack, but he still defers to her. I wonder what happens when she really puts her foot down regarding a political issue. Do you think it has some influence in today’s world?

The shadow politician, never elected. A reactionary monarchist should appreciate such a non-elected power.

On that note, let us look a bit at how Michelle Obama has self-esteem, and sees herself dialectically as positive, and the world as negative:

“Women endure entire lifetimes of these indignities—in the form of catcalls, groping, assault, oppression. These things injure us. They sap our strength. Some of the cuts are so small they’re barely visible. Others are huge and gaping, leaving scars that never heal. Either way, they accumulate. We carry them everywhere, to and from school and work, at home while raising our children, at our places of worship, anytime we try to advance.” -Michelle Obama

This quote that I pulled from Good Reads is extremely powerful. Here Nick Land and Michelle Obama have a similar view on the feminine as something which is injured by the world, but Nick Land sees the feminine as outside of himself and synthesized with Artificial Intelligence, as an appealing outside. Michelle Obama differs as she is the thing itself which is brutalized by the world, she insofar as she is woman speaks for women, who are positive in content, against the world, which is negative in content.

To see the world as positive is good in someways, but to become powerful in a liberal society one must grasp themselves as positive content in a way which the world becomes irrefutably negative (or extremely messily refutable). This is why Nick Land, a generational compatriot of Michelle Obama posts on Twitter, and Michelle Obama has press reports. (I am through my own grace, not posting screenshots of me googling each of their ages, but as I am not a politician and I am a philosophy-person of sorts making a blog post, I am not refraining from this particular sentence which is highly amusing to myself, and maybe to you? Maybe? Hmmm?)

Nick Land would have a hard time reversing his position so that he is positive and the world is negative in a way which would give him political power, but maybe for you, dear reader (assuming you aren’t Nick Land), could learn Michelle Obama’s dialectical formula for power.

With the help of the philosophical genius of Michelle Obama, as well as through your grace as learned from Michelle Obama, you could, in a self-knowing and empowered way, lead the world where you want it to go.