Training is political 1

Part 1 – Training as Insurrection: A Poetics of the Body in TensionDesire is not a like. It’s a thunderclap.

Sometimes they say that explaining your approach is already betraying what you’re trying to do. Me, I tripped over the carpet of meaning. I wanted to talk about my work, and ended up with my head stuck between Simondon and a garter. I wanted to talk about meaning, to oppose codes, fixity, norms to the dynamic of free interpretation, to the possibility of producing subjectivity. A constant tension between the solid and the fluid, between the concrete of identity and the lava of desire.

What I do cannot be explained. It is something to be traversed.

I’m often asked to explain my approach. To make it readable, accessible, marketable, if possible. But explaining is already slowing down a storm to turn it into a PowerPoint. It’s translating a movement into dead language. What I do cannot be explained. It is something to be traversed. Something to be felt. Something that is sometimes suffered. It’s not a training protocol. It’s a crack. A fault line between gesture and thought, between body and world, between the intimate and the political.

I don’t work with goals. I work with intensities.

With what burns, overflows, what cannot be controlled. My work is not meant to please. It’s meant to shift things. To make them stumble.

Individuation: becoming a tension, not a role

Simondon said it better than I can: the individual is not a finished thing, it’s an ongoing process. Individuation is not about being someone. It’s the perpetual tension between what I am, what I am becoming, what I don’t yet know I can be. It’s the possibility of being traversed, affected, changed.

Refusing fixed identities

Traditional coaching loves fixed identities: “I am an athlete,” “I am disciplined,” “I am motivated.” It wants to mold them into a coherent, stable, productive image. But I want the opposite. I want us to escape ourselves. To lose ourselves in our own movements. To become our own dizziness.

Movement, relation, politics

Stiegler spoke of a psychic, collective, technical individuation. And in this mesh, meaning is formed in movement. What we do with our bodies, our tools, our relationships, is never neutral. It’s political. It’s aesthetic. It’s existential.

Every gesture as insurrection

I want every movement to be an insurrection. I want every breath, every friction of nylon against skin, every rustling of lace to be a political statement. Not to attract attention, but to resist erasure.

Intensifying time

And above all: to intensify time. To make every second as charged as an hour. Like when you adjust a stocking, when you fasten a garter, when you feel the constraint of clothing slow your walk and amplify every step. It’s not just a gesture; it’s a way of inhabiting time, of densifying it, of making it burn. A way of making every minute full, inhabited, exposed, precious. I seek that same intensity in training. For breath and sweat to be as dense as the wait before a slap or the friction of fabric. For the action itself to become the end. The moment, the place. Not the performance, but the saturation of the instant.

A mode of being, not an "alternative training style"

So no, I don’t offer an "alternative training style." I offer a mode of being. A way of reclaiming individuation through sensory, poetic, and critical experimentation. But for this gesture to have a chance to exist, we must understand what, today, pulls us away from it. What captures, diverts, digests our impulses before they even become movement.

And this is where capitalism begins to speak our language — and to devour our desire. continued in part 2