I will eventually get to the question of the frame in Latin American Studies and in my own work, but first let me attempt to say something regarding the critique that we have not been able to thematize exploitation.
Sauri and Di Stefano (see below) say: “while infrapolitics offers a compelling means for a critique of domination that foregrounds the failure of every hegemonic articulation . . . by taking into account the excluded nonsubject, how might it lead to a transformation of a mode of production defined, above all, by exploitation?” Well, that is the one-million dollar question, as they say–which unfortunately can only have a trivial answer. It amounts to asking, for instance, how it would be possible for feminism, or for the civil rights movement, to put an end to capitalism. They continue: “How might we map the movement from the infrapolitical to politics itself.”
So, just to clear up a possible initial misunderstanding, the infrapolitical is always already in a relation to politics. That`s why they call it infrapolitics. Now, if we combine this latter question with the first, as we presumably are meant to do, the real question is not about mapping the movement from the infrapolitical to politics, but rather about mapping the movement from the infrapolitical to a revolution that would signal the end of exploitation. And, again, this is a question that can only have a trivial answer, as not even Marxism has an answer on its own terms (“how can we map the movement from Marxism to the end of exploitation?” “Well, it is for history to decide, it will only happen where there are mature global conditions, political voluntarism will not work, there cannot be socialism in one country, and so forth.”)
But perhaps, in the spirit of free discussion, just to continue to develop the idea, we could say that, if infrapolitics in general allows (if it is the name for the form of thought that can only allow) for reflection on the non-political underside of any political irruption, then not only is infrapolitics the very condition of any thematization of exploitation (as well as of exclusion), but it is also the condition of their reduction and tendential elimination (just as it can also be the condition of their intensification).
If politics is in every case, and necessarily, an enactment of the sacrificial structuration of history, as María Zambrano liked to say, then infrapolitics is the dimension of life where the end of sacrifice can be experienced liminally, potentially. To that precise extent infrapolitics is the hyperbolic condition of democracy. No democracy without infrapolitics, no infrapolitics without democracy!
I think infrapolitics has no problem with producing and, in fact, actively welcomes every critique of exploitation, every critique of exclusion. Its task is, furthermore, not to stop there, but also to examine the conditions of such critiques in order to radicalize them towards non-sacrificial structurations of political life. Which, on the other hand, we know will never obtain. This is, as far as I can see, the necessarily aporetic dimension of the relation infrapolitics-politics.