Where do I fall into? Multitude or People?

Is he saying that common place is no more common place and there is not ‘people’ any more while “multitude” emerges? Is this radical transformation of the concept of public sphere from the traditional one articulated by Harbermas “to non-public public sphere and to a non-governmental public sphere, far from the myths and rituals of sovereignty”? Is Virno’s theory related with the experience Italians share, such as multiple fractions in regions, classes, and politics? Can his theory be applied to other historical, cultural, and political settings?

Virno seems to argue that everybody gets to be a thinker because they are obliged to think as one of multitude. Whether or not I agree with him, his idea is invoking and mind-blowing. I believe his theory is driving me to one of the forefronts of the changes we face. By the way, I have to ask myself: Do I see myself as being one of multitude? Do I find evidence of multitude existing? I think I can agree a bit with Virno because there seems to be some signs of multitude getting to work in network culture. To be sure, a variety set of chocolates is good because I can relish many different tastes. But Virno wants more than just smells and tastes. Can multitude become an upsetting power?

But I have to say from my observation, I could be wrong of course, that what I have noticed so far is that people, not multitude, are more likely engaged in collective activities driven by capitalism, sovereignty, and mass culture. This is probably why Virno and others suggest new ways of thinking. For now, I agree with him in saying “the notion of the multitude is extraordinarily rich in terms of allowing us to understand, to assess the modes of being of post-Ford subordinate labor, to understand some of the forms of behavior of that labor which at first sight seemed so enigmatic.”