Our brief history of capitalist subjectivity begins with its hybrid bourgeois form. Hybridity is the attribute of a mode of capitalism in which capital subsumes labour 'formally' rather than 'really' (Marx 1 976a: Appendix) . It is the characteristic of an emergent capitalism in which work is carried on in artisanal rather than proletarian mode; a capitalism, therefore , whose identi­ fying 'law' , i . e . the law of value, is retarded and limited in its motion and scope by the presence of consequential pre-capitalist relations and practices and the underdevelopment or absence of those later innovations and inven­ tions (mechanization, money, bureaucracy, railway, telegraph, etc . ) which would eventually enable the subsumption of individual and intersubjective intentionality and activity under a 'system' , thereby effecting the unintelli­ gibility of the world (at the level of common sense) and rendering sociability optional rather than imperative . 1

Formal subsumption did not have the power to dissolve the anaclitic­ kinesthetic rationality of artisanal making, which remained consequential for the reproduction of everyday life. Yet it demanded, through the civilizing differentiations of which Norbert Elias speaks , a new mode of intelligibility which would eventually emerge as science but which, for the moment, constituted a novel form of sensus communis. What enabled this mode of intel­ ligibility was the hybridity which maintained a balance between sensuous and non-sensuous presencing and between personal and impersonal social relations , or, between involvement and detachment. As I shall argue (largely though not wholly following Habermas) this balance, along with a novel mode of ownership of 'means of production' , constituted a novel form of cultural parenting which nurtured individual bourgeois relative autonomy. It is in order to mark the presence and absence of this balance that I want to make a distinction between bourgeois and capitalist. Unlike the bourgeois, capitalists approximate to the subjectivity sketched in by Marx in On the jewish Question ( 1 994) . Unlike capitalists, the bourgeois were capable of a class-specific sociability which also had a public character. Or, they were capable of a public-spirited manifestation of social love .2