The Ticklish Subject confronts Deconstructionists and Habermasians, cognitive scientists and Heideggerians, feminists an
401 76 36MB
English Pages 408 [414] Year 2000
A series
Wo
es
war,
from
soll ich werden
~
WO
ES WAR
Verso
edited
Where
by Slavoj Zizek
I shall
it was,
into
come
being
—
is Freud’s
is in itself
an act of knowledge Enlightenment goal of possible to pursue this goal today, in the conditions New of pragmatic-relativist late capitalism? If ‘it? today is the twin rule what ‘shall come into being’ in its Sophists and New Age obscurantists, of place? The premiss of the series is that the explosive combination a tradition detonates Lacanian dynamic freepsychoanalysis and Marxist of the circuit of us dom that enables to question the very presuppositions Capital.
liberation.
that
of
of the
version
Is it still
In
Slavoj Zizek, Jeremy Bentham,
The
the
series:
same
of Enjoyment: Six Essays on Panopticon Writings. Edited and
Metastases The
and
Woman
introduced
Causality
by
Miran
Bozovic
Slavoj Zizek,
The
Remainder:
Indivisible
An
Essay
on
Schelling
and
Related
Matters
Alain lated
The Sultan’s
Grosrichard, Liz
by Slavoj Zizek,
Heron The
and
Court:
introduced
Plague of Fantasies
(Per)Versions of Love
Renata
Salecl,
Alenka
Zupan¢i¢,
European by Mladen
and
Hate
Forthcoming: Alain
Badiou,
Ethics
Ethics
of the
Real:
Kani,
Lacan
Fantasies
Dolar
of
the East.
Trans-
The
Ticklish
Subject The
Absent
Centre
of
Political Ontology
———-_g&____—
SLAVOJ ZIZEK
Vv VERSO London
«+
New York
First published © Slavoj
Paperback
The
by Verso
Zizek
first published © Slavoj Zizek 2000 All rights reserved
edition
moral
rights
UK:
6 Meard
of the
author
1999
1999 2000
by Verso
have
asserted
been
Verso 180 Varick
US:
Verso
WIV 3HR Street, London Street, New York, NY 10014-4606
is the
imprint ISBN
catalogue
Library A
catalog
for
record
record
of for
this
book
Books
in Publication
is available
from
Data
the
British
Congress Cataloging-in-Publication this
book
is available
from
Typeset by SetSystems Ltd, Saffron by Biddles Ltd, Guildford
Printed
Left
1-85984-291-7
Library Cataloguing
British
A
of New
the
Data
Library
Walden, and
Library
of
Essex
King’s Lynn
Congress
Contents
A
Introduction:
PartI 1
The
The
—
Imagination
= The
3
II
Is
Subject —
of
with
Madness
The
—
with
Kant
Did
and
Being
Transcendental
David
Violence
Lynch
—
The
The —
The
—
than
The
—
Dialectical
Speculative Identity Forced
Hegelian
‘Rather a
70
Negation’?
3, 4, 5
—
-
Towards
Choice
—
nothing...’
want
Materialist
of Substance
‘Concrete ‘Include
—
me
of Grace
Theory
125
Split Universality of Truth,
Alain
or,
—
Lacanian
St Paul
Badiou and
Truth-Event...-—...
Ideology The
Heidegger
Subject
‘Negation
The Politics The
Monstrous
~
Why
—
Trouble
The
—
Passage through
Ticklish
Hegelian
Universality’
Part
(Dis)Engagement
The
—
Anamorphosis
out!’
Martin
or,
Acosmism
What
and
~T
Imagination,
Unfinished?
Remain
Kant’s
2
World’
©
Political
Imagination of
_
of Kant
Heideggerian Time
Academia...
Western
Haunting
of Transcendental
Reader
a
of the
‘Night
The Deadlock as
Is
Spectre
with
Subject
Badiou -
The
Its —
Master
as
a
Reader
of St
Undecidability the
Between or
the
-
Two
Analyst?
127
Paul Truth Deaths
and ~
Political
Subjectivization and
Badiou,
Balibar,
Enter
the
Those
Who
(Mis)
Passionate
Why -
a
Subjection
Subversion
Is Not
Resistance
the
to
Melancholic
Double-Bind
Masochistic
Deception
Whither
Fathers
Three
Risk
Society
Good
Index
-
~
—
—
The
From
Law
Embracing
The
—
the
Act
Destitution
Butler
of Freud
Reader
a
as
Ideological Interpellation
—
the
Fantasy’
of Sexual
Difference
‘Traversing Real Desire
Drive
to
and
...
The
~
—
Back
Oedipus?
The
Real
Act
of
The
—
of the
—-
—
a
Universals
Three
Judith
—
Is There
Suspension
or,
Ideas
the
Not
-
Subjective
to
Symptoms
Its Disavowals
Identification
(Dis)Attachments,
From
Society
Leftist
of Excremental
Perversion
The
—
For
—
and
Post-Politics
—
Its
Ideas
Ruling
Political
Eurocentrism?
From
Til
Are
Appearance
Multiculturalism
Ambiguity
The
-
and
Hegemony
-
Why
-
Rule? of
Progressive
-art
Ranciére
Subject
Uses
Its Vicissitudes
~
The
and
It’s
the
—
The
Demise
Its Enemies
Political
Empty
Law
—
of The
Economy, —
From
Symbolic Efficiency Unbehagen
Stupid!
Phallus
to
—
the
in
the
Returns Act
—
—
The
Risk in
the
Beyond
the
Introduction:
A
the
...
a
(who
of the
spectre
alliance
holy wants
to
approach) sian subject
and
is
Cartesian to
from
the need
subject.
exorcize
this
All academic
the
spectre:
supersede the ‘Cartesian paradigm’ the postmodern deconstructionist a
discursive
isms); the Habermasian
fiction, theorist
effect
an
‘traverse’
the
horizon
modern
of
Age
towards
a
entercd
obscurantist
holistic
new
(who insists
discursive
monological subjectivity of the thought Heideggerian proponent to
have
powers New
(for whom the Carteof decentred textual mechan-
of communication
Cartesian
to
Haunting
Academia...
Western
into
Is
Spectre
a
shift
intersubjectivity)
and
of
on
Being (who stresses subjectivity culminating
the in
the to (who endeavours cognitive scientist ravaging nihilism); is no of the Self, just a prove unique scene empirically that there pandemonium of competing forces) and the Deep Ecologist (who blames mechanicist for providing the philosophical founCartesian materialism for the ruthless dation exploitation of nature); the critical (post-)Marxist that of the bourgeois thinking subject is insists the (who illusory freedom the rooted in class and feminist division) (who emphasizes that the in fact a male sexless is is Where allegedly cogito patriarchal formation). the academic has not orientation which been accused its of by opponents not yet properly disowning the Cartesian heritage? And which has not hurled back the branding reproach of Cartesian subjectivity against its more ‘radical’ critics, as well as its ‘reactionary’ adversaries? Two things result from this: current
1,
Cartesian
powers
as
subjectivity continues powerful and still
a
to
active
be
acknowledged by
intellectual
tradition.
all academic
Rawarasvar
Rana
-
It is
2.
face
high
cies, and with This
time
of the
the book
that
whole
the
Vee
of Cartesian
partisans
world,
publish
this
of the
tale nursery philosophical manifesto meet
thus
endeavours
their
subjectivity should,
views, their
Spectre
of Cartesian
the
aims,
of Cartesian
subjectivity
their
in the
tenden-
subjectivity itself.
subject, whose rejection pact struggling parties of today’s academia: all these orientations are although officially involved in a deadly battle versus versus (Habermasians deconstructionists; cognitive scientists New Age obscurantists in their of the ...), they are all united rejection Cartesian is not to return in to the subject. The point, of course, cogito the this notion has dominated modern guise in which thought (the selfthinking subject), but to bring to light its forgotten obverse, transparent the excessive, unacknowledged kernel of the cogito, which is far from the Self. The three parts of the book focus pacifying image of the transparent on today’s three main fields in which subjectivity is at stake: the tradition of German Idealism; post-Althusserian political philosophy; the ‘deconstructionist’ shift from Subject to the problematic of multiple subjectand with a positions subjectivizations.' Each part starts chapter on a crucial author an whose work represents exemplary critique of Cartesian a second then the deals with vicissitudes of the subjectivity; chapter fundamental notion that underlies the preceding chapter (subjectivity in German Idealism; political subjectivization; the ‘Oedipus complex’ as the of the emergence of the subject).? psychoanalytic account Part I begins with a detailed to confrontation with Heidegger’s endeavour traverse the horizon Cartesian and the of modern Again again, subjectivity. inherent logic of their philosophical project compelled the authentic certain a of excessive moment philosophers of subjectivity to articulate ‘madness’ inherent to cogito, which to they then immediately endeavoured Evil in Kant, ‘renormalize’ the (the diabolical ‘night of the world’ in of Hegel, etc.). And the problem with Heidegger is that his notion for this inherent modern it simply cxcess subjectivity does not account of cogifo on does not ‘cover’ that aspect of which account Lacan claims that is of the the Unconscious. fatal is flaw cogito subject Heidegger’s of his discernible in the failure in of Kant: his focus on clearly reading transcendental the of imagination, Heidegger misses key dimension its which is another name imagination: disruptive, anti-synthetic aspect, for the this failure also casts new abyss of freedom; light on the old of Nazi after this So, confrontation, question Heideggcr’s engagement. the second endeavours to claborate the status of chapter subjectivity in forms
the
silent
to
reassert
of
all
Cartesian
the
—
PENIKRUUUULLON
Hegel, focusing and
the
the
on
reflexive
turn
link
between
that
the
characterizes
3
philosophical notion of reflexivity the (hysterical) subject of the
Unconscious. Part
who, later,
II contains in
via
one
a
way criticism
or
systematic
with
confrontation
took Althusser another, of Althusser, developed
the their
as
their
four
philosophers
starting
point,
but
of
theory political hegemony, Balibar’s theory of égaliberté, Ranciére’s theory of mésentente, Badiou’s theory of subjectivity as fidelity to the Truth-Event. The first chapter focuses on Badiou’s to formuattempt late a ‘politics of truth’ that could undermine today’s deconstructionist and/or postmodernist stance, with a special emphasis on his pathbreaking to reading of St Paul. Although I am in solidarity with Badiou’s attempt reassert the dimension of universality as the true opposite of capitalist of Lacan that is, his thesis that psychoaglobalism, I reject his criticism is not able to the of a new foundation nalysis provide political practice. The next tackle the chapter analyses the ways in which the four authors stance liberal-democratic which is the predominant ‘post-political’ political mode of today’s global capitalism, each of them deploying his own of political subjectivization. version HI deals Part with those of today’s ‘postmodern’ tendencies political of the (transcendental) thought which, against the spectre Subject, endeavour to assert the liberating proliferation of the multiple forms of one subjectivity feminine, gay, ethnic. According to this orientation, should abandon the impossible goal of global social transformation and, on the diverse of asserting one’s forms instead, focus attention particular subjectivity in our complex and dispersed postmodern universe, in which cultural more than socioeconomic that is recognition matters struggle to in which cultural studies have the of say, replaced critique political The most of these theeconomy. representative and persuasive version is multiculturalist ories, whose practical expression ‘identity politics’, is of So the formation. first gender Judith Buuler’s performative theory in a detailed confrontation with Butler’s *chapter of this part engages which make work, focusing on those of its aspects possible a productive of ‘passionate attachdialogue with Lacanian psychoanalysis (her notions ments’ and the reflexive turn constitutive of subjectivity). The last chapter then the key issue of ‘Oedipus today’: is the so-called directly confronts of the subject through Oedipal mode of subjectivization (the emergence the integration of the symbolic prohibition embodied in the paternal in decline? And if what is Law) today really so, replacing it? In a cona
Laclau’s
subjectivity:
theory
own
of
—
—
...
—
frontation
with
the
proponents
of the
‘second
modernization’
(Giddens,
4
THE
Beck), enment’:
it argues for the continuous far from simply liberating
the
tradition,
that
we
SUBJECT of the
actuality us
in
from
the
the
mode
‘dialectic
of Enlightpatriarchal functioning of the
of
witnessing today engenders
are
of
constraints
its
own
new
risks
book
is philosophical in its basic tenor, it is first and foremost engaged political intervention, addressing the burning question of how are to reformulate a leftist, anti-capitalist political project in our era of
an we
this
shift
unprecedented
symbolic order and dangers. While
TICKLISH
culturalism. of
One
of the
photos
indigenous tribe
1997
of
from
was
that
undoubtedly
Borneo
water
in
effect,
the
of members
carrying plastic bags to their habitat, the ridiculous put gigantic destroying of their modest effort matched the horror of seeing their inadequacy by entire life-world to the gigantic disappear. According newspaper reports, cloud of smoke the entire area of northern Indonesia, covering Malaysia and the southern nature itself, its normal Philippines derailed cycle bees were unable to darkness, (because of the continuous accomplish their of plants). Here an we have part in the biological reproduction Real of global Capital perturbing the very example of the unconditional the reference to global Capital is here, since reality of nature necessary the fires were not simply the result of the ‘greed’ of local wood merchants and farmers Indonesian state officials (and of corrupt allowing it), but some
fires
out
which
were
—
also
of
drought the
the did
El Nino
fact
that
not
end
effect
because in
the
of rains
the which
El
Nino
regularily quench
extraordinary such
fires, and
is
global. catastrophe thus gives body to the Real of our time: the thrust of Capital which ruthlessly disregards and destroys particular life-worlds, threatening the very survival of humanity. What, however, are the implications of this catastrophe? Are we dealing merely with the logic of thrust of the modern Capital, or is this logic just the predominant of technological domination over and exploitation of productivist attitude nature? Or furthermore, is this very technological exploitation the ultimate the realization of the expression, deepest potential of modern Cartesian itself? The author’s answer to this dilemma is the subjectivity of ‘Not for the Cartesian guilty!’ emphatic plea subject. This
her careful editing of regularly catches me with repetitions ingly discerns In
for Verso, Gillian Beaumont my manuscripts her gaze unerrmy (intellectual) pants down: in the line of thought, moronic inconsistencies
INTRODUCTION the
of
false argumentation, education, general
lack
of
how
can
I not
has
every
reason
and
changes
a
classic
to
ashamed, hate
of the
me
to
and I
and
mention
thus
hate
her?
bombard
constantly that
references the
I
that
awkwardness On her
the with
display of
other
late
my
style hand,
..
she
insertions
her
manuscript, easily imagine possessing and piercing it in the evenings with a gigantic ncedle. mutual as hatred, they would have put it in the good old days of Hollywood, signals the beginning of a beautiful friendship, so I
voodoo
This
feel
attributions not
5
dedicate
doll
this
of
book
so
can
me
to
her.
Notes 1, For a detailed confrontation with the critical rejection of the Cartesian subjectivity in the Cartesian in cognitive sciences, see Slavoj Zizek, ‘The Cartesian Theatre’, Subject versus Cogitoand the Unconsrious, ed. Slavoj Zizek, Durham, NC: Duke University Press 1998. 2. Interestingly to the enough, the three parts also correspond geographic triad of tradition: German French Idealism, German/French/Anglo-American political philosophy, studies. Anglo-American cultural
PART
The
‘Night
I
of the
World’
The
Deadlock
of Transcendental
Imagination, as
One
of
from
Derrida
the
of
Jameson, philosophy: Heidegger in
to
features
Fredric
to
Heidegger's referred
Reader
a
enigmatic
Martin
or,
noncommittal
a
of Kant
‘progressive’ postmodernist thought, lies in its ambiguous relationship to
way,
is
the
authority; yet, simultaneously, an unease, full endorsement of his position, as if a us that something must be fundamentally we are not (yet) in a position to determine do
risk
Spirit!),
a
full
the
confrontation
result
is,
with
rule,
Heidegger
treated
with refers
never
kind
of
wrong what
Heidegger ambiguous;
often
respect,
to
undisputed fully explicated, prevents invisible prohibition tells with Heidegger, although
one
way
due
this
an
when
is. Even
(as Derrida
does
endeavours
authors in
the
On
gain a distance from Heidegger while somchow staying on his path (Heidegger still remains a Presence, philosopher of Origins and authentic although he did the most to ‘deconstruct’ the metaphysical logic of Origins ...). On the other of the two extreme hand, those who adopt one positions, and either in a desperate attempt at a engage politically ‘progressive’ of Heidegger Schtirmann’s ‘anarchic’ read(like Reiner appropriation a or ing?) or propose thorough rejection of his thought (like Adorno? be convincingly dismissed as Lyotard*), can dealing with a simplified image of Heidegger that does not live up to his own philosophical of this deadlock of the deconstrucstringency. The ethico-political roots reference tionist to Heidegger were perhaps best formulated by Derrida in his interview with Jean-Luc Nancy: I believe of
the
concept
in the act
of
force
as
and
a
the
necessity (and
by which Heidegger subject still too marked
substitutes
by
the
one
in
therefore a
traits
certain of
a
certain
being
irreversibility) of
concept the
to
as
Dasemn
vorhanden,
for and
a
10
THE
hence
TICKLISH
of
SUBJECT
and
insufficiently questioned in its ontologThe time and of this displacement ical structure space opened up a gap, a marked the essential gap, they left fragile, or recalled ontological fragility of, the ethical, of democracy and of every juridical, and political foundations by
interpretation
an
time,
...
discourse
that
one
can
that
those
National
to
oppose
and
Socialism
in all its forms
(the ‘worst’
might have thought of opposing). were and remain These foundations a essentially sealed within philosophy of can the subject. One quickly perceive the question, which might also be the take into account the necessity of the existential task: can one analytic and what it shatters in the subject and towards an [can one] turn ethics, a politics (are these words still appropriate?), indeed an ‘other’ democracy (would it still be a democracy?), in any case towards another type of responsibility that safeguards that I think the ‘worst’: ago I very quickly called against what a moment number of us who are there are a certain working for just this, and it can only take place by way of a long and slow trajectory.” or
ones,
Heidegger
others
...
That
deadlock:
terrible
is the
if
endorses
one
‘deconstruc-
Heidegger’s
the metaphysics of subjectivity, does one not thus undermine democratic resistance to the very possibility of a philosophically grounded of the twentieth horrors this totalitarian answer to century? Habermas’s and he also pathetic ‘Yes!’, and, for that reason, question is a definitive and Horkheimer’s Dialectic opposed Adorno’s of Enlightenment, a book to in a way not of which the roots locates totally dissimilar Heidegger in the basic the ‘totalitarian’ horrors project of Western Enlightenment. would retort that one cannot Heideggerians, of course, simply oppose tion’
of
the
—
—
democratic
‘truth’ are a
subjectivity of the
former
that
—
effectively grounded somewhat simplified
by
engagement:
wholly The
the
of the
freed
excess,
since
the
latter
is the
like ‘totalitarianism’ say, since phenomena in modern to put it in subjectivity. (This is how —
way
—
that
transcendental
reference
‘totalitarian’
is to
fact
ambiguity
same
its
to
also
Heidegger himself explains his brief the project of Being and Time was not approach.) seems
to
determine
Lacan’s
own
Nazi
yet
(often
Heidegger, oscillating between appropriation as of some for key Heidegger terms providing the sought-after foundation in his last years psychoanalysis, and a series of dismissive passing remarks references to (like the one qualifying his earlier Heidegger as purely external and didactic). Against the background of this imbroglio, our inconsistent)
thesis of of to
will
be
that
Lacan
to
succeeds
where
Habermas
subject’, including Dieter Henrich, fail: the the problematic of subjectivity in German Idealism of a notion of subjectivity that delineate contours the
and
other
Lacanian
enables does
not
‘defenders
(re)reading us not only fit the
frame
THE
of
DEADLOCK
notion
Heidegger’s
also
to
locate
cal edifice, cal
roots
OF
the
up of his
to
of the
point the
Nazi
take
us
nihilism
of the
inherent
to
failure
of
question
of
modern
subjectivity, but Heidegger's philosophithe eventual philosophi-
engagement.
Political
(Dis)Engagement
starting point Nietzsche’s critique of Wagner: appropriated by Heidegger as the paradigmatic rejection as
to
like
are
Life,
the
ressentiment
of
the
In
comical
cultures, his
will:
thwarted
and figures who converted their lack of life-asserting creativity, into (Does not Nictzsche’s diagnosis also hold come’ the Cartesian paradigm of domination attitude of renouncing anthropocentrism, ancient
this
our
critique was all critiques of subjectivism that remain within the horizon criticisms of the subjectivity (say, of the liberal-democratic excess of subjectivity). Nietzsche possessed an unerring enabled him to the sage who preaches the discern, behind Will
11
IMAGINATION
inherent
often-discussed
Heideggerian Let
TRANSCENDENTAL
elevated the for
pose
of
of
Cartesian
‘totalitarian’ instinct
denial
Schopenhauer
that of
the
and
his
their of
impotent envy, resigned wisdom.
to ‘overtoday’s attempts of a new holistic by means of humbly learning from
etc.?) of
‘overcoming’ metaphysics, Heidegger fully endorses this Nietzschean dismissal of quick and from easy exits metaphysics: the only real way to break the metaphysical closure is to ‘pass through it’ in its most the pain of metaphysical nihilism at dangerous form, to cndure its most which means that one should extreme, reject as futile all false mad vicious to suspend the sedatives, all direct attempts cycle of modern of a return technology by means to premodern traditional Wisdom (from Christianity to Oriental thought), all attempts to _reducethe threat of modern technology to the effect of some ontic socialwrong (capitalist ‘mechanicist exploitation, patriarchal domination, paradigm’ . .). These are not the true attempts only ineffectual: problem with them is that, on a further. An dceper level, they incite the evil they are fighting cven excellent it we reduce example here is the ecological crisis: the moment to disturbances provoked by our excessive technological exploitation of we the that solution is to rely again on nature, silently already surmise new technological innovations: ‘green’ technology, more efficient and global in its control resources.... Every concrete of natural processes and human to and project to change technology in order ecological concern improve project
.
12
TICKLISH
THE
the
of
state
natural
our
of the very source For Heidegger,
devalued
as
relying
the
on
trouble. the
around
us
in
problem is not ecological crisis in (hole catastrophe possible global caps, etc.), but the technological mode
true
including a layer, melting of the ice entities
is thus
surroundings
dimension, to
SUBJECT
—
this
crisis
true
will confront
us
its the
of
more
even
ontic ozone
relating radically
if the
does that is, if humankind expected catastrophe does not occur; in technologically ‘mastering’ the critical succeed situation. For that the standard to reason, Heidegger also denies philosophical relevance between liberal problematic of the tension ‘open’ and ‘closed’ societies, the ‘normal’ between functioning of the democratic capitalist system, with its respect for human rights and freedoms, and its (Fascist or Communist) ‘excesses’. the effort to totalitarian Implicitly, at least, Heidegger devalues constrain the system its ‘human to maintain face’, to compel it to respect the basic rules of democracy and freedom, solidarto provide for human as an the excess from ity, to prevent its sliding into totalitarian escape ...
—
—
truth
inner
the
system
efforts
to
of
half-hearted
within
remain
signifier ‘hysteria’
the
Bolsheviks, the
need
One in
the
who
dismissed
for
democratic
i
becomes
the
keep
its horizon,
the about
that
perceptible the system in check are
should modern
recall
values, lines,
here
‘radical’
‘hysterics’
as
such
in
the
excesses:
worst
the
key strategic political discourse,
their
opponents threat
totalitarian
who to
such way role
up
to
of to
groaned humanity,
libcralHeidegger also denounces humanitarian face’ as demands for ‘capitalism with a human the unwillthe epochal truth in all its unbearable ingness to confront radicality. The is absolutely pertinent: what Heidegger shares parallel with the Bolsheviks and
so
with
revolutionary
in its
excess
is not
a
Here,
that
—
simple
the necessary
the
Along
on.
Marxists is
to
aberration
outcome
however,
same
is the
say, for of
notion
Heidegger, the
of its inner
that
the
as
well
system's as
for
truth
Marxists,
emerges Fascism
‘normal’
development of capitalism but dynamics. arise: on closer it soon inspection,
complications clear that Heidegger’s argumentative becomes On the strategy is twofold. for democracy and human one hand, he rejects every concern rights as a purely ontic affair unworthy of proper philosophical ontological questionto the same with they all amount ing democracy, Fascism, Communism, regard to the epochal Destiny of the West; on the other hand, his that he is not_convinced that democracy is the political form insistence best suits the essence of technology’ none the less suggests which that is another there better political form which suits this gntological ¢essence it in the Fascist ‘total for some time, Heidegger thought he had found —
—
DEADLOCK
THE
OF
TRANSCENDENTAL
13
IMAGINATION
(but,
mobilization’
in Communism, which significantly, never always as Americanism of remains for him epochally the same .). Heidegger, . of course, emphasizes again and again how the ontological dimension as an ontic Nazism is not to be equated with Nazism ideologico-political from An Introduction to Metaphysics, for order; in the well-known passage example, he repudiates the Nazi biologist race ideology as something that totally misses the ‘inner greatness’ of the Nazi movement, which lies in man between modern and technology.’ None the less, the the encounter that fact remains Heidegger never speaks of the ‘inner greatness’ of, if liberal as democracy democracy is just that, a superficial say, liberal with no of assuming one’s world-view underlying dimension epochal .
—
*
Destiny... Apropos
of
this
precise
I
point,
I
myself Heideggerian
into
run
first
my
trouble
with
was Heidegger (since began my first published book on Heidegger and language). When, in my youth, I was bombarded by Communist the official philosophers’ stories of Heidegger’s Nazi engageon the side of the ment, cold; I was definitely more they left me rather of aware Yugoslav Heideggerians. All of a sudden, however, I became how these were Yugoslav Heideggerians thing doing exactly the same to with respect the Yugoslav ideology of self-management as Heidegger himself did with respect to Nazism: in ex-Yugoslavia, Heideggerians enterthe same tained Socialist selfambiguously assertive relationship towards the official in their management, ideology of the Communist regime of self-management was the very essence of modern eyes, the essence which is why the philosophical notion of selfmanagement suits the man, of our ontological essence epoch, while the standard political ideology of the regime misses this ‘inner greatness’ of selfmanagement . Heidegthus eternally in search of a ontic that political are gerians positive, as
a
—
-
.
come closest
to. the
would leads ' Anevitably post factum, Tetroactively, i As Heidegger himself to
(which, of
error
|
.
ie
Truth about
are
condemned
the
line
to
be
interest
on
not
of
truth, ontological epochal
after
the
disastrous
put it, those
to
err
separation
underestimated
at
the
between is that
closest
came
level
ontic
the
of
outcome
who
ontic
always
is
course,
.
.
.
err
a
strategy
only acknowledged one’s engagement). to
about
and
syste which
the
what?
ontological. philosopher who
very difference
ontological Precisely paradox
The
focused
his
again and of conferring again against the ontological dignity Qn some ontic content (God as the highestEntity, for example) fell into the trap of conferring on Nazism the ontological dignity of suiting the essence of modern man. The standard defence of Heidegger against the the
enigma
of
ontological metaphysicalmistake
—-
who
warned
‘
—
14
THE
his
of
Nazi
TICKLISH
past consists
SUBJECT of
points: not only was his Nazi a (a ‘stupidity [Dummheit]’, as Heidegengagement simple personal error his philosophical to ger himself put it) in no way inherently related is that it is Heidegger’s own project; the main counter-argument philosus to discern the true of modern ophy that enables epochal roots unthought here is the hidden totalitarianism. However, what remains the ontological indifference between towards concrete social complicity in so far as they all belong to systems (capitalism, Fascism, Communism), the same horizon of modern technology, and the secret privileging of a concrete with sociopolitical model (Nazism with Heidegger, Communism some ‘Heideggerian Marxists’) as closer to the ontological truth of our epoch. Here one should avoid the trap that caught Heidegger's defenders, who dismissed as a Heidegger's Nazi engagement simple anomaly, a fall into the ontic contradiction teaches to his thought, which [evel, in blatant to us not confuse with ontic choices (as we have ontological horizon when he demonstrates how, on already seen, Heidegger is at his strongest a and so on, level, ecological, conservative, deeper structural oppositions to the universe modern of technology in the are already embedded horizon of what to they purport reject: the ecological critique of the ‘environtechnological exploitation of nature ultimately leads to a more in the Nazi mentally sound’ technology, ctc.). Heidegger did not engage political project ‘in spite of’ his ontological philosophical approach, but this engagement not was his ‘beneath’ it; philosophical level becauseof on the contrary, if one is to understand Heidegger, the key point is to reproach
two
t
-
the grasp complicity elevation above ontic
(in Hegelese:
‘speculative identity’) the passionate ‘ontic’
and
concerns
between Nazi
the
political
engagement, One
can
criticizes
Nazi
something hold
over
the
towards
beneath
more us
behalf
on
repeats
distance
inner
an
racism
he
movement,
that trap ideological
the
see
now
by
means
does
so
‘inner In
other
itself
turns
because
away the
greatness’,
but
words,
through
what
direct
the
‘inner
true
very insistence So where is the active
Nazi
movement
legitimized awareness
he
Heidegger: greatness’ of the Nazi
-
from
he
when
elementary ideological gesture of maintaining the ideological text of claiming that there is it, a non-ideological kernel: its ideology exerts
of this
is not ‘merely’ ideological. Heidegger
of
caught
that
trap? in
engagement did itself
expected of its
not
with
from
‘inner
it
Cause
the
When
the
the
Nazi
inadequate was
that
greatness’.
to
disappointed he
movement,
the
maintain
adhere
we
level
of
its
(racial) idcology.
it should
And
the
legitimize problem
THE
DEADLOCK
OF
TRANSCENDENTAL
15
IMAGINATION
L
this
in
; wht
lies
i
refer
|
however, recognize
hs
f
"
its
to
is
political
a
foundation
historico-ontological
is
will
that
movement
This
possible.
directly
expectation,
itself
in
profoundly metaphysical, in so far as it fails to that the the direct of separating ideological legitimization gap from its ‘inner greatness’ (its historico-ontological essence) a movement its is constitutive, a positive condition To use the terms of ‘functioning’. of seen eoe the later Heidegger, ontological insight necessarily entails ontic blindness c
~
that
expectation
very
.
.
.
:
.
.
:
.
.
and
and
error,
ontic
level,
(In this that, far
one
sense,
from
scientific
vice
versa
is
the
other
In
in
say,
what
words,
order
to
be
‘effective’
—
as
if
of
the
the
doesn’t the
moment
would
seems
its
acknowledge
we
activity.
think’
very
accept
the
at
one’s
of
Heidegger that
political engagement
blindness
constitutive
to
disregard the ontological horizon Heidegger emphasizes that ‘science this inability is being its limitation,
concrete
a
is
must
progress.)
endorse
that
—
and
motor
of
unable
to
necessary, the gap
from ontic ontological horizon engageis depreciated, loses its authentic ment, any ontic engagement dignity. Another of the same from aspect problem is the passage ready-at-hand to present-at-hand in Being and Time. Heidegger takes as the starting point the active immersion in its surroundings of a finite engaged agent who relates to it as to something the impassive objects around ready-at-hand; perception of objects as present-at-hand arises gradually from this engagement when in different is therefore and a things ‘malfunction’ ways, is that the derivative mode of presence. Heidcegger’s point, of course,
separating
awareness
wee
description proper ontological abandon
the
modern
Cartesian
the
things:
that
the
all other
‘On
closer
fact
them
engaged of
the
way
Dasein
duality of values
exploits
that
modes
the
present: -at-hand
subject encounters projects his aims, and of
of
however,
andfacts:
accordingly, of
the
“objects
immersion
presence
is in
in the
objects the
are
on to
the which
falsifies world
world
the is
derived
has
notion
that
he
then
proper
primordial, trom
to
state
and
it.
somewhat picture becomes blurred and more complex. The problem with Being and Time is how to the series of pairs of oppositions: authentic existence’ versus £o-ordinate das“Man; anxiety versus in worldly activity; true immersion philosophical traditional the thought versus ontology; dispersed modern society versus The People assuming its historic Destiny.... pairs in this series do not simply overlap: when a premodern artisan or farmer, following his traditional in his daily involvement with way of life, is immersed ready-athand objects that are included in his world, is definitely this immersion not the same in as the das Man of the modern is (This why, city-dweller. his notorious ‘Why should we remain in the province?’, Heidegger himself
examination,
16
THE
reports
that
when
in
Berlin,
he
was
SUBJECT whether
uncertain
to
accept
the
invitation
to
go who
hard-working local farmer, just silently shook his head Heidegger immediately accepted this as the answer to his predicament.) authentic Is it not, therefore, that, in contrast to these two the authentic involvement opposed modes of immersion with the ready-at-hand and the modern letting oneself go with the flow of das Man there are also two opposed modes of acquiring a distance: the us from shattering existential experience of anxiety, which extraneates to
teach
he
TICKLISH
asked
his friend,
a
—-
~
—
the
traditional
of the
in
immersion
neutral
observer
who,
way of if from
our as
the
life, and outside,
theoretical
perceives
the
distance world
in
as if this tension ‘authentic’ between the ‘representations’? It seems immersion of ‘being-in-the-world’ and its suspension in anxiety is redoubled by the ‘inauthentic’ pair of das Man and traditional metaphysical in everyday life beontology. So we have four positions: the tension tween authentic ‘being-in-the-world’ and das Man, as well as the tension of extracting between the wo modes ourselves from the everyday run of things, authentic existential resoluteness and the traditional metadoes this give us a kind not of Heideggerian semiotic physical ontology square? in the Heidegger is not interested (Hegelian) problem of legitimizing that regulate our in the everyday life-world: norms immersion he oscillates between direct in daily life and the abyss of the (pre-reflexive) immersion of encountering ‘absolute (his version disintegration of this framework of how our negativity’).° He is acutely aware everyday life is grounded on some into a how, although we are fragile decision irreducibly thrown this does not mean that we are contingent situation, simply determined the original human condition is that of by it, caught in it like an animal: and in the daily being out of joint, of abyss and excess, any involvement life habitat relies on an act of resolute of it. Daily habitat and acceptance excess are not itself is ‘chosen’ in an ‘excessimply opposed:, the habitat sive’ gesture of groundless decision. This act of violent imposition is the the alternative of fully fitting into a life“third term’ ‘that undermines —
—
‘world
context
violent
and of
gesture
not
yet ‘stabilized’
the
observing
of abstract
breaking in
Reason,
the
but
decontextualized out
of the
position remains
Reason:
finite
context,
of neutral a
kind
of
it consists
the
gesture
it
in
which
is
universality characteristic ‘universality-in-becoming’,
The dimension Kierkegaardese. ‘specifically human’ neither that of the engaged agent caught in the finite life-world nor that of universal Reason exempted from the life-world, but between the two. discord, the ‘vanishing mediator’,
put
the
in
is
of to
thus
context,
the
very
DEADLOCK
THE
Heidegger’s
co-ordinates
[geworfen], problematic
here into
is not
thought
level,
the
enables
the
out:
authentic
into
the
uses
individual
the
authentic
‘The
possibility
notion and
as
its members
to
thrown
of
choose
may
is of
act
into
its
mode
Geworfenheit, Entwurf, the relationship
the individual
choice;
but
then,
a
contingent situation from destiny. Heidegger passes its
hero
is
—
of existence
notion
that
of
has
repetition:
been
the
—
existentially in unmistakably Kierke-
grounded
background here community is grounded the
is
a
is
The
repeat
of
~
‘always only mine’,
by means of the possibility of existence
a
What
On
level
societal
the
Christian
has
being
choose~assume
must
Dasein
true
authentic
tost.!°
whose
one.
which
death,
is thrown
of
then
levels
collective
an
in
determined
resoluteness.’!!
anticipatory gaardian: a their
my future
repetition
that
with
encounter
to
the
and
and
of’
sense
he
which
disorientated
Heidegger
individual
project
to
me
community it which within
the
in
freely
fact
assumed
that
each
of
by Christ,
hero.
This an
act
a
of
‘thrown
the
from
passage
his
collective
fate,’
act
of
projection’
decision,
anticipatory
chooses
‘freely in
situation
himself,
‘makes
subject
finite
a
is also
in
the
the
contingent situation, on two one’s choosing way, of authentically
‘thrownness’, act
that
is
imposition]Ent-Wurf, indicates
of which —
finds
he
which
in
of
17
IMAGINATION
of violent
act
fantasy by means
the
acquires
TRANSCENDENTAL
this
for
name
fundamental
the
OF
to
a
human
anticipatory
achieves
of the an
authentic of
community decision
individual
qua
mode
People repetition a
who,
Dasein of
being,
which of
also, a
past
its historial Destiny, is not phenomencpossibility, authentically assumes (societal) logically grounded in an adequate way. The medium of collective to be missing being-there is not properly deployed: what Heidegger seems is simply that which Hegel designated as ‘objective Spirit’, the symbolic of symbolic mandates, and so on, big Other, the ‘objectified’ domain no the premodern is not yel the ‘impersonal’ das Man, but also longer "which in a traditional This illegitimate short circuit way of life. ‘immersion of Heidegger's ‘Fascist and collective level is at the root 4, individual . temptation’; at this point, the implicit politicization of Bemg and Time is at the modern does not the opposition between anonymous strongest: its ," society of das Man, with people busy following their everyday and the People authentically assuming its Destiny, resonpreoccupations, ate modern ‘Americanized’ with the the decadent opposition between ‘authentic’ of frenetic false civilization activity and the conservative
Between
dispersed
This
it?
to
response
is not
coinciding
with
to
claim authentic
that
Heidegger’s notion anticipatory projection
historical
of
is
not
an
repetition as exemplary case
18
THE
of
analysis. The historicity proper
key point
TICKLISH
SUBJECT be
in
missed
Heidegger's analysis is the interconnection of the three temporal extases time: when he speaks of ‘thrown projection’, this does not simply mean that a finite its options; that that limits agent finds itself in a situation then analyses the potentialities allowed for by this finite situation, by the possibility which chooses and assumes best fits its interests condition, it as its project. The has a primacy: to be able point is that the future discern the possibilitics opened up by the tradition into which an agent must in a project thrown, one already acknowledge one’s engagement that
say,,the
to
is
(and thus For
to
of
actualizes)that
fully
this
movement
not
in the
Heidegger’s ‘decision’,
reason,
it were,
repetition, it repeats. which as
of of
it its
to
is —
retroactively reveals.
precise
sense
of
anticipa-
resoluteness
of a forced choice. the [Ent-Schlossenheit], has the status is not in the usual a ‘free choice’ decision qua repetition Heideggcrian sense of the term. of freely choosing between alternative (Such a notion
tory
it as belonging to possibilities is utterly foreign to Heidegger; he dismisses liberal Rather, it is fundamentally individualism.) superficial Americanized the choice of ‘freely assuming’ one’s imposed destiny. This paradox, if one of choice, is to avoid the vulgar libcral of freedom notion necessary indicates the theological problematic of predestination and Grace: a true a of objects leaving my between series decision/choice (not a choice choice of which subjective position intact, but the fundamental by means "I ‘choose that I assume a of ‘letting myself’) presupposes passive attitude in short, free choice and Grace ave strictly equivalent, or, myself be chosen’ as Deleuze put it, we really choose only when we are chosen: ‘Ne choisil effectivement bien, ne choisit que celui qui est choisi.’'? To dispel the notion that we are dealing here with an obscurantisttheological problematic, let us evoke a more telling leftist example of a as a proletarian class interpellation: when subject recognizes himself and identifies with the proletarian revolutionary, when he freely assumes he recognizes himself task of revolution, as being chosen by History to notion of accomplish this task. In general, the Althusserian ideological of ‘forced choice’ of which interpellation involves the situation by means of the act of freely out the subject emerges the inevitable that choosing is that she/ is, in which she/he given the freedom of choice on condition he makes the when an individual is addressed right choice: by an is ‘invited to interpellation, she/he play a role in such a way that the to have invitation appears alrcady been answered by the subject before it was time the invitation could be refused’. proposed, but at the same Therein lies the ideological act of recognition, in which I recognize myself —
—
is aa)
~
=
~“
~ ~~
~
f
9
te
wy
DEADLOCK
THE
OF
TRANSCENDENTAL
‘always-already’ that as which I the X, I freely assume/choose
as as
accused
am I say, as a free
crime
fact
a
and
absolute
an
decision:
about
Hegelian point
nice
void, that
I
that
every
I
myself,
X.
When,
presuppose myself
acts.
Laclau, Judith
it is not
decision
recognizing myself
always-already was
defend
to agree agent legally responsible for my her Internet discussion with Ernesto
In
in
of
in
interpellated:
am
19
IMAGINATION
is
only
that
Butler
made
decision
no
contextualized,
is
a
is taken
decision-in-
a
| themselves: context,butcontexts in
are
some
produced by decisions,
ways
decision-making. in which
There
...
is first
the
that
is, there
decision
to
[on what kinds of differences given polity] will be made, and then there is the a
differences
The
decision
as
is
mark
certain
a or
delimit
ought not marking off
the
context
in
be included
to
of
redoubling
kinds
of certain
a
of
inadmissible.
here
undecidability
is radical:
reach
‘pure’ context prior to a decision; every context is ‘always-already’ retroactively constituted to do something, which are always at (as with reasons by a decision least minimally retroactively posited by the_act of decisionthey ground we to decide do reasons to believe believe become once convincing only to us, not vice versa). Another aspect of this same point is that not only is “there no decision without exclusion (ice. every decision precludes a series of possibilities), but also the act of decision itself is made possible by some kind of exclusion: in order for us to become something must be excluded beings which make decisions. Is not the Lacanian notion of ‘forced choice’ a way to explain this which paradox? Does not the primordial ‘exclusion’ grounds decision that the choice (i.e. choice) indicate is, at a certain radically fundamental that I have a (free) choice that I make level, forced only on condition the proper choice so encounters a that, at this level, one paradoxical choice which I am told what I must choose overlaps with its meta-choice: freely.... Far from being a sign of ‘pathological (or politically “totalitaris precisely what the psychotic choice’ ian”) distortion’, this level of ‘forced ‘all Position lacks: the psychotic subject acts as if he has a trulyfree choice the way along’. we dismiss So, before Heidegger’s description of anticipatory decision as freely assuming one’s destiny as a coded description of a conservative can
one
never
a
—
o
—
—-
_pseudo-revolution, we
assertion
Jameson's
neo-conservative endorses
the
that
should a
truce
communitarian conservative
criticism
for
stop
a
moment
Leftist
is in
a
than
he is
to
of
liberal
and
closer way much a liberal democrat:
democracy
Fredric
recall
and
to
today’s he fully
agrees
with
20
THE
the
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
practically everything except the essential, except a sometimes the less, changes everything. As for which, none tiny feature choice as a Heidegger’s notion of authentic repetition, the parallel with in his ‘Theses as Benjamin’s notion of revolution repetition, elucidated on the is striking: here is also, revolution Philosophy of History’, the hidden conceptualized as a repetition that realizes possibility of the view of the past (the one that perceives the past not past, so that a proper as a closed set of facts but as open, as involving a possibility that failed, or was repressed, in its actuality) opens only from the standpoint of an agent The in its attempt to revolution, engaged in a present situation. present the liberate all failed working class, also retroactively redeems past conservative
at
attempts
on
liberation
—
that
is to
the
of view
point suddenly
say,
engaged in a revolutionary project objectivist/positivist historiography, constrained tion blind to: the hidden potentialities of liberation the
victorious Read
an
march
in this
anticipatory
and
freedom,
free
choice
way, the decision of
—
of the
does
net
of
appropriation
assuming
enacts
one’s
involve
makes to
a
visible
facticity, that
present
were
agent
what is
the
defini-
by
crushed
by
repetition
in
of domination.
forces
that
of
a
the
past through
its
this identification project Destiny as the highest (albeit simple Nietzschean point that a
of
~
fate
forced) even
the
neutral
the present of some description of the past serves purposes here on insist the opposition between power-political project. One must the appropriation of the past from the standpoint of those who rule (the narrative of past history as the evolution leading to and legitimating their of that its which, in the past, remained triumph) and the appropriation utopian and failed (‘repressed’) potentiality. What Heidegger’s description lacks is thus to put it in a direct and somewhat crude way insight into the radically antagonistic nature of every hitherto communal way of most
—
—
life.
Heidegger’s ontology is thus in fact ‘political’ (to refer to the title of on Bourdieu’s book to break Heidegger): his endeavour through traditional as the key to the ‘sense of being’ man’s ontology, and to assert to decision of which he actively assumes his adopt a ‘project’ by means historical ‘thrownness’ into a finite locates the historico-political situation, act of decision in the very heart of ontology itself: the very choice of the form historical of Dasein is in a sense in an ‘political’, it consists abyssal decision not Thus the grounded in any universal ontological structure. standard Habermasian liberal which locates the source of argumentation in his rejecdecisionism, Heidegger’s Fascist temptation in his ‘irrational’ tion of any universal rational-normative criteria for political activity,
OF
DEADLOCK
THE
the
misses
this
what
point:
‘completely is simply
“Igecisionism
TRANSCENDENTAL
criticism
“way, Heidegger's step towards ts
rejects
the
of
the basic condition
Nazi
21
IMAGINATION
proto-Fascist
as
In
perverted
a
political. therefore ‘step in
engagement
was
the
a
right
and fully assuming the conseadmitting openly ‘direction’, lack of ontological of the of the of human guarantee, abyss “quences Badiou .. freedom:” as Alain put it, in Heidegger’s eyes the Nazi ‘revolution’ from the authentic formally indistinguishable politico-historical - was to put it in another "“event’. Or way Heidegger’s political engagement a
—
-
"was \
a
kind
"he refused
:
of
a l’acte
passage
to
the
to
go
the
in
in the
end
that
Real
bears
Symbolic
to
—
witness think
out
the
to
the
fact
that
theoretical
breakthrough in Being and Time. story about Heidegger is that he accomplished his Kehre of how the original project of Being and Time (turn) after becoming aware to back transcendental ‘leads subjectivism: owing to the unreflected be ~“gemainder of subjectivistii*(décisionism, etc.), Heidegger let himself '
of his
consequences The standard
‘
his
into
seduced
Nazi
'
of
he
how
had
‘burnt
he became when, however, his fingers’ with it, he cleared up the remainders
engagement;
aware
of
gubjectivism and developed the idea of the historical-epochal character is a One is tempted to invert this standard of Being itself. story: there between _kind of ‘vanishing mediator’ Heidegger I and Heidegger I, a that is, subjectivity coinciding with its opposite position of radicalized “reduced to between an the the empty gesture, impossible intersection of Being (the event decisionism’ of Heidegger I and his late ‘fatalism’ ‘takes place’ in man, who serves as its shepherd .). Far from being the Nazi _ consequence’ of this radicalized subjectivity,Heidegger’s to avoid it.... In other words, what agement was a desperate attempt later dismissed as the remainder of subjectivist transcenwental to. have stuck approach in Being and Time is what he should .
...
‘
—
..
'
practical Tesleser
‘Heidegger’ ‘ot transcendental s
"
the
ultimate
failure
subjectivity, but thinking out all its
Jauicy, gipoliticalexpression before
‘but, rather,
of the
its
uty’
‘nihilist,
that
he
stuck
remained
this
abandoned
inherent
in
the
horizon
horizon
possibilities. Nazism was
all
too
not
a
potential of modern subjecto avoid this desperate attempt
demoniac
opposite:
exact
he
that
not
is
a
tential.
This
logic of
“from Schelling the almost
the to
‘missing the
unbearable
Frankfurt tension
Schelling’slate philosophy, this unbearable sion that was
tension, most
link’
is often
present
School.
In
of his
which
but
productive
in
the
the
Weltalter
follows
in the
the
wrong way in it. We encounter
case
drafts,
of
history of thought, Schelling, we have
their
ultimate
failure;
Weltalter, effectively resolves —
by losing the
same
the
very
dimen-
procedure
of
22
THE
‘false
resolution’
Horkheimer’s
‘dialectic
defeating project, resolve
the
in
a
introducing
a
kind
a
production and Schelling, who dissolves
dimensions, with the is
project relates The latter Enlightenment’.
tension
distinction,
between
distinction that
Heidegger's
resolution
of
late
inherent
the
SUBJECT
Habermas’s
way of
gigantic failure;
unbearable
the
TICKLISH
and, again, what ‘dialectic
of
the
of
‘division
of
interaction
to
Adorno’s is
also
Habermas of
a
does
Enlightenment’ between
labour’,
(in
and
the
selfis
to
by two
strict
homology of the the tension Weltalter by introducing ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ philosophy). Our point an analogous false ‘thought of Being’ enacts deadlock of the original project of Being and symbolic
a
Time.!®
Why
Did
Being
and
Time
Remain
Unfinished?
Heidegger’s Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics’? crucial here? Let us recall the simple fact that Berng and Time, as we know it, is a fragment: what Heidegger of published as the book consists of the first two sections the first part; the project proved impossible to realize, came and what out
Why
of
is
this
failure,
what
(to
use
good
old
structuralist jargon)
filled
in the
lack
the abundance of missing final part of Being and Time, was Our Kehre. is not Heidegger’s writings after the famous point, of course, version of Being and Time. the impediment simply to imagine the finished that closer the situOn examination, stopped Heidegger was inherent. ation is more at least at manuscript level complex. On the one hand the entire project of Being and Time was accomplished: not only do we have Kant and the Problem the first of Metaphysics, which encompasses section of the projected Part at lectures I, but Heidegger's Marburg in 1927 (published later as The Basic Problems of Phenomenology) do loosely cover of the precisely the remaining sections original Being and Tine of the question of being; the Cartesian project (time as the horizon cogito and the Aristotelian two and conception of time as the planned sections three of the second part), so that, if we put these three published volumes of the entire version together, we do get a rough realized Being and Time more project. Furthermore, perhaps even enigmatic is the fact that even the although the published version of Being and Time does not cover complete first part of the entire project, but only its first two sections horizon for (section three, the exposition of time as the transcendental the question of being, is missing), it somehow strikes us as ‘complete’, as an organic Whole, as if nothing is really missing. What we are dealing of
the
—
—
THE
thus
is
OF
TRANSCENDENTAL
23
IMAGINATION
the
notion of ‘closure’ that opposite of the standard the with conceals or ‘sutures’ persisting openness (inconclusiveness): as if Heidegger’s insistence that the published Being and Time, it is rather the fact that the book is closed, finished. book is just a fragment conceals but strike us as artificially The concluding chapters (on historicity) cannot a added, as if to add to the closure hastily concocted attempt to designate dimension forms of historicity), for which there another (that of collective is no proper place in the original project... .!8 to cover the entire Part I of the If the published Being and Time were justify this perception of wholeoriginal project, one could still somchow ness. (We did get the entire ‘systematic’ part; what is missing is merely the of-the three in the history ‘historic’ part, the interpretation key moments whose Kant radicalized of Western Descartes, Aristotle, mctaphysics is Heidegger's of Dasein.) Obviously, the inherent analytic “own ‘repetition’ the barrier the project, already the of preventing completion impediment, leave the last section of Part I. If we aside the problem of nonaffects two (lecture notes) covering the remaining publication of the texts of Part to do with II (does it have something the enigmatic status sections that of imagination in Aristotle, as demonstrated by Castoriadlis, the status or with the same explodes the ontological edifice? implicit anti-ontological of the Cartesian thrust of the ‘night of cogito as the first announcement the world’?), the enigma is: why was Heidegger unable to accomplish his of Being? The standard, very systematic exploration of time as the horizon
with
here
DEADLOCK
—
‘official’
approach
known:
is well
answer
of
and
Being
—
Time
it
because was
still
became
clear
him
to
that
the
metaphysical/transcendental,
too
‘methodological’, in proceeding from Dasein to the question of Being, instead of directly approaching of Being as that the temporal Disclosure if sustains status of Dasein what the all entities. But unique among which there was another kind another of abyss, that deadlock, Heidegger to encountered at and withdrew from this point? We therefore want —
argue against became aware
—
the
‘official’
version
of
(that impcdiment
this
Heidegger
project of Being and Time was still caught in the transcendental-subjectivist procedure of first establishing the ‘conditions of possibility’ of the what sense of Being via the of Dasein): analysis the in his pursuit of Being and Time was Heidegger actually encountered imaginabyssof radicalsubjectivityannounced in Kantian transcendental from this abyss into his thought of the historicity of ation, and he recoiled of how
the
Being. This
been
criticism
made
by,
of among
Heidegger others,
does Cornelius
not
seem
at
Castoriadis,
all
new:
who
it
has
argues
already that
the
>
|
24
THE
Kantian
notion
SUBJECT
(as that which undermines is announced the Cosmos) (III, 7 and 8), where Aristotle
of
unique
of De Anima
passage soul
think
standard
the
imagination ontological image of
‘closed’
does
TICKLISH
in
already claims:
a
‘never
into a phantasm’, and develops this further kind of ‘Aristotelian Schematism’ notion of a triangle say, (every abstract has to be accompanied in our thought by a sensible, although not we of a triangle, we have when think bodily, phantasmic representation in our mind an even announces image of a concrete triangle).!° Aristotle the Kantian notion as of time the unsurpassable horizon of our experience when he asserts: ‘it is not time what is not possible to think without in time’(On without Memory, 449-50) finding a kind of figuration in forever’. Castorsomething temporal; for example, that which ‘endures the
without
—
~-
—
-
iadis
this notion opposes otherwise prevails both in
of
imagination
De Anima
and
the
to
in
the
standard
entire
which
one
subsequent
meta-
this radical notion of imagination is neither physical tradition: passivethat is to say, it cannot be properly placed receptive nor conceptual a of ontologically, since it indicates gap in the very ontological edifice thus scems in his claim: Being. Castoriadis fully justified —
with
respect
‘bottomless
ation, Kant.
it is A
new
imagination any of unsettles
Castoriadis
the
‘recoiling’ Heidegger imputes to Kant when faced with the abyss’ opened up by the discovery of the transcendental imaginwho in effect ‘recoils’ after Heidegger himself writing his book on of the question of the forgetting, covering-over, and effacement to
intervenes,
for
no
his
subsequent writings; for every ontology (and
further there for
is every
of
question will a suppression of what ‘thinking of Being’).”°
traces
the
be
this
found
in
question
draws
also
from this: it is Heidegger’s political consequences of recoiling from the abyss of imagination that justifies his acceptance the closure, while the abyss of imagination political provides ‘totalitarian’
philosophical
foundation
for
the
democratic opening
-
the
notion
of
society as grounded in a collective act of historical imagination: ‘A full imagination is possible only if it goes hand in recognition of the radical with the discovery of the other dimension hand of the radical imaginary, the social-historical of ontological imaginary, instituting society as source creation notion of deploying itself as history.’?' However, Castoriadis’s within the existentialist horizon of man the being as imagination remains in the act who of imagination projects his ‘essence’ transcending all positive Being. So, before we pass the final judgement on it, it would be of imagination in Kant appropriate to take a closer look at the contours himself.
of transcendental
The mystery it
that
fact
TRANSCENDENTAL
OF
DEADLOCK
THE
be
cannot
properly
‘Phenomenal and/or ambiguity. impasse freedom
web subjects,
‘that, as :goumenal dimension. “‘moumenalentity, clear
blurs
this can
direct
man
as
‘WiseAdaptation the
‘access
Man's
question
domain,
if
happen Things in themselves:
to
to
is
as
us
a
What
.
conse-
to
were
say: in a ‘Of the
to
entitled
Vocation’,
Practical
His
to
would
of what
free;
transcendental
and/or
Faculties
phenomena
agent...
That
Cognitive
of
catastrophic sphere: if this
freedom
moral
free
a
turn
noumenal
the
to
fact
antinomies
the
into
noumenal
the
to
their
lose
of
we
the
not
into_lifcless puppets. wpontaneity; they Reason of his Critique of Practical mysteriously subchapter he
transcen-
indicates
all
say, since entity, is
is to
insight
own
access
that
~
phenomenal act can morally
a
as
would
answers
of
conceives
self-originating agents) the dynamic Kant solves
way, be true
is Kant’s
picture
our
free,
are
however,
men
“happen,
in
entities,
we
In
‘"yquences would of
here
couple of a deadly
our
"Yeason: bothpropositions linked, man, causally ‘are this
he
hand,
one
the
to
the
in
as phenomenal as_noumenal: (‘spontaneity’) freedom while of causal connections, (the
in the
‘grecaught moral
the
On
regard caught
is
lies
spontaneity
qua
with
himself
Kant
Noumenal.
and
‘gental
imagination located
25
IMAGINATION
gain
to
were
we
.
.
of
instead
and
inclinations
gradually before
our
from
fear, actions, on in the
long life
and
Thus
alone
which
eyes as his
where,
as
found
in
cessible
the
oumenal, but
in
gap
the
that
precisely
am
blinded
of its
unaware
to
the
so
the
at
would
now,
everything
truc
causality
done
The
moral
worth
world
depends
the
be
of
of man,
conduct
The
all.
unceasingly
would
of
even
so
changed into mere gesticulate well but
be
would
itsclf
spontaneity far as the the
fact
that
it breaks —
that
noumenal which
up
is,
neither
—
and,
two
Subject
determines
in
cannot
in
thus
a
sense
sphere is phenomenal a
way,
nor
precedes reduced
be
not
to
although it is to which causality of
Freedom, the
chain
although causes
is
noumenal
transcendental
that
phenomenal (i.e. although all phenomena are submitted) effect
is
separates
not
an
exist
show,
and/or
which so
means
person
subject. ‘This in-between,
fis’ subject,
them Substance —
the
and
duty.
stand
figures.”
henomenal:it occursonly to
from
none
not
it
as
the
freedom
ranscendental
would
puppet
a
in
hope,
to
law
the
to
conforming
of the
worth
the
remained
nature
be
from
done
wisdom,
of supreme
would
actions
most
be
awful
in their
eternity
disposition moral strength majesty would
defeats,
some
wage with of mind may be
has
moral
the
now
after
which,
eyes.... few would
mechanism, mo
in God
won,
which
conflict
the
it cannot
be reduced
(I ‘feel free’ only because is also my ‘free’ acts) —
to
I not
26
THE
but
noumenal, the
with
spontaneity why”* Kant his efforts
And
with
deadlock,
of
got involved
in
ontological
exact
series
a
it
to
Kant’s
freedom/
explains
of inconsistencies
transcendental
of
status
the
finitude
of
unwillingness the
draw
to
to
access
the
linking
from
quences
the
direct
subject’s
locating transcendental couple phenomenal/noumenal
loss, and
a
the
of
case
mystery of transcendental imagination the mystery of this abyss of freedom. that he clearly perceived was great achievement
Heidegger’s tian
the
the
to
determine
to
spontaneity. coincides
such
SUBJECT
impossibility
regard
at
was
in
vanish
This
order.
noumenal
in
would
TICKLISH
all
transcendental
ultimately this the
Kanconse-
subject: Kant’s he interprets proof that the
the moment ‘regression’ into traditional metaphysics occurs the spontaneity of transcendental the as apperception side which is not consubject has a noumenal subject to the causal straints of the Kantian binding all phenomena. The finitude subject does to not amount the standard of the unreliable and sceptical assertion delusive character of human the knowledge (man can never penetrate to mystery of the highest reality, since his knowledge is limited ephemeral sensible a much more radical stance: the very .); it involves phenomena ..
dimension
which,
from
the
within
horizon
his
of
finite
temporal
cxperi-
the
of the inaccessible noumenal subject as the trace of finitude it designates the Beyond, is already marked by the horizon way the noumenal Beyond appears to the subject within his finite temporal ence,
to
appears
-
experience. The
radical
porality
and
on
the
consequence eternity is that of the
modification the
split
true
is
temporal and/or down the itself
middle
the
way
the
Supreme consistent
of the
noumenal
way
designates the
way noumenal
although sense
longer between sensible experience)
designates
course,
of
a
as
a
an
noumenal
noumenal
object
the
between
relationship
phenomenal the
and
itself,
entity of
our
in the
entity rational entity
Being;
supreme God qua
Supreme
object
of sensible
an
the
in
of
tem-
eternity: a specific
as
that
means
domain rather, it
of
(the
noumenal,
runs
the
guise of the split between In-itself appears to the subject and its ‘impossible’ Inreference to the subject. God, the court, without gives body to the Idea of the highest Good, of
noumenal finite
a
for
no
phrase, tout Being Who
sans
this
mode temporality is not a deficient is ‘eternity itself that has to be conceived subject’s temporal (self-)experience. This
it
contrary,
of all
or,
mode
put
Being can temporal
conceive
cannot
temporal (man)
to
(one
has it never
in
to
—
that
itself
to
phenomenological be a phenomenon it is
in
a
it
is, it designates
represent
experience,
it
However,
experience).
of ‘For-us'
of
none
the
the terms,
in
the
less
a
DEADLOCK
THE
in
‘phenomenon’ .
entity
an
only
as
ness
and/or
the
closely,
this
.too
a
OF
TRANSCENDENTAL
radical
more
which
to
appears
sublime
meaningful
is
with being endowed Perhaps, if we approach
of
quality
that
something
finite
a
freedom.
for
capacity
of
sense
27
IMAGINATION
Goodness
supreme
consciousthe
divinity into
turns
an
Monstrosity. aversion to Here, Cassirer’s Heidegger is fully justified in his ferocious in 1929.%* Cassirer Davos debate reading of Kant during their famous the contrasts of the human condition (at this temporal finitude simply whose behaviour can be level, human beings are empirical entities of causal sets of man links) with the freedom explained by different qua the ethical agent: in its symbolic activity, humanity gradually constructs of values and meanings that cannot be reduced to (or explained universe excruciating
: '
_
via ‘
reference
a
universe
of Values
modern
version
and
corruption, which, although in itself
.
;
and
breaks
that
distinction,
Heidegger
exist
not
and
the
of
.
Of
and
a
finitude
demonstrates
‘immortal’ beings ;
gap
between
4
Cassirer,
fact
¢ {i human
f
can
and
is thercfore:
existence,
One
do
so
being
the
and can
who
is able
to
is the
it
specific
existence
—
human
for
allows
the
to
his
a
it,
a
dimension
life-world,
finitude
activity, since, key question,
structure
the
of
of
emergence
Heidegger clearly, now, why the
see
in
say,
life, of generation
of
actual
relate
in symbolic engage Value disappears. The
that
is to
is
capacity as ‘symbolic animal’, man and temporality.... Against this how the ‘immortality’ and ‘eternity’ to the level of Meanings, irreducible emerge only as part of the existence
not
what
circuit
into
is the
symbolic activity that
this
—
In his
, ofthe symbolic system of Values given positive facts, * ;,,
interrelations
Ideas:
comes
outside
‘eternal’.
confines
empirically finite mortal
man’s
dynamic
and
their
and
eternal
the
of
through
it docs
transcends
facts
of
realm
from
‘immortal’
of
Meanings posited by
Plato’s
of
different
dimension
domain
the
to)
focuses
on
for
such:
as
them,
the
unanswered
by
lemporality ~
that
meaning
of is
transcendental
of imagination lies in the fact that it unique character as an (of man undermines the opposition between receptivity/finitude the in caught being phenomenal causal nctwork) and spontanempirical as a free of bearcr eity (i.e. the selforiginating activity of man agent, noumenal freedom): imagination is simultaneously receptive and positing, ‘passive’ (in it, we are affected by sensible images) and ‘active’ (the subject himself is selffreely gives birth to these images, so that this affection affection). And Heidegger's emphasis is on how spontancity itself can be conceived of passive element only through this unity with an irreducible
imagination:
28
that
receptivity in
succeed
noumenal
rid
deadlock
noumenal:
of
The Our
subject
to
were
to the gaining direct access very ‘spontaneity’ of his existin his misreading (or condensed
and the
is thus
the
spontaneity of transcendental spontaneity is precisely something
of
transcendental
be conceived
lose
would
the
if
finitude:
receptivity
of Kant
identification)
SUBJECT
human
of
he
itself,
The
false
characterizes
getting in
ence....
,
TICKLISH
THE
freedom that
as
cannot
noumenal.
as
Trouble
with
step should
be
of the
Transcendental
focus
Imagination
fundamental
ambiguity of Kant’s notion of imagination. As is well known, Kant the distinguishes between of the activity understanding [synthesis intellectualis] and the synthetic of the manifold of sensuous intuition which, while also absolutely synthesis ‘spontaneous’ (productive, free, not subject to empirical laws of associathe less remains at the level of intuition, tion), none bringing the sensuous manifold together without already involving the activity of Understanding this sccond synthesis is the transcendental synthesis of imagination. In and discussing this distinction, interpreters usually focus on the dense of the Transcenambiguous last section of Chapter 1 of the First Division dental or CatLogic (‘Of the Pure Conceptions of the Understanding, of joining egories’), which, after defining synthesis as ‘the process different to cach and of comprehending their other, representations diversity in one cognition’,?° goes on to claim that synthesis is: next
to
the
on
of
—
the
mere
operation
the
soul,
without
working of which conceptions is a cognition, in the In
this
way,
we
which we
imagination we
should
seldom
are
function
of the
proper
meaning
obtain
a
—
have
a
blind no
But
understanding, of
the
three-step
function
indispensable cognition whatever,
conscious.
even
but
by
to
reduce
but
this
of which
means
of
of
the
synthesis we
attain
to to
term.?*
that
process
brings
us
cognition
to
proper: The
first
thing
which
must
be
given
to
us
in
order
to
achieve
the
@
priori
cognition of all objects, is the diversity of the pure intuition; the synthesis of this of the imagination is the second; but this gives, as yet, no diversity by means furnish cognition. The conceptions which give unity to this pure synthesis the third requisite for the cognition of an object, and these conceptions are given by the understanding.” ...
DEADLOCK
THE
OF
TRANSCENDENTAL
29
IMAGINATION
However, in
far
‘pure synthesis, represented generally, gives us the . the ambiguity is clearly discernpure conception of the understanding’,* the mere is ‘synthesis, generally speaking operation of imagini with as a after capacity Understanding “yation’,?° is it that has already done its work, or ‘pure synthesis, generally, gives us the pure conception of the understandthe is mercly the application that of imagination of so synthesis ing’, on a more of lower, primitive, prepower understanding synthetic pthe Jevel? Or, to put it in the terms of genus and species: is the force ognitive ultimate ‘of imagination the impenetrable mystery of transcendental sponthe root of subjectivity, the encompassing genus out of which or is the as its discursive understanding cognitive specification, “ grows with imagination as a kind of itself, understanding genus encompassing on to the lower level of cast understanding retroactively by «shadow to the or, Yintuition put it in Hegelese, is the synthesis of imagination ‘for ‘as in ‘Initself’ of a force such’, itself’, posited ‘amderdeveloped The should point of Heidegger’s reading is that onc dimension at /determine the synthesis of imagination as the fundamental should thus be which the root of discursive understanding, analysed Kant recoiled from sindependently of the categories of Understanding this radical imagination to a mere step, and reduced mediating force intuition and the the of sensuous manifold pure cognitive ;between of Understanding. activity thetic are to this approach, we tempted to emphasize a different ne Tn contrast of imagination a the fact that Kant’s notion silently passes over obsessed as he is with of the feature imagination: ‘negative’ the dispersed manifold 4 ndeavour to synthesize, to bring together given n intuition, the opposite power of imagination Kant over in silence passes later namely, imagination qua the ‘activity of by Hegel so
as
‘ible:
...
secondary intervening
|magination {represented “taneity, —
“Understanding?
—
Vaspect:
iyerucial
—
ened igdissolution’, Sonly organic which
as
a
of
part
treats
as
some
a
separate Whole.
Understanding
entity what This negative
has
effective
power
Imagination, as is clear if we read The first, less known, is from from Hegel together. ' Jenaer Realphilosophie, about the ‘night of the world’: and
The
human
its
simplicity None belongs that
nature,
night
all
an
to
exists
around
his
also
comprises
crucial
passages
manuscripts
of
everything in night, this empty nothing, that contains images, of which unending wealth of many representations, of This him are not or which present. night, the interior is in here self phantasmagorical representations, pure white there another a here shoots it, in which bloody head
being —
two
existence
is this
-
-
—
—-
30
THE
TICKLISH
here
ghastly apparition, suddenly sight of this night when one becomes
What
SUBJECT
before
looks
it, and
just beings in
human
One
disappears.
so
the
into
—
eye
catches
night
a
that
awful.”
better
description could one offer of the power of imagination in its negative, disruptive, decomposing aspect, that as the power disperses continuous of ‘partial objects’, spectral multitude reality into a confused apparitions of what in reality is effective only as part of a larger organism? Ultimately, imagination stands for the capacity of our mind to dismember what immediate a not common perception puts together, to ‘abstract’ notion but a certain feature from other To ‘imagine’ means features. to imagine a partial object without its body, a colour without shape, a shape without a another white there body: ‘here a bloody head ghastly apparition’. This ‘night of the world’ is thus transcendental imagination at its most the unrestrained elementary and violent reign of the violence of imagination, of its “empty freedom’ which dissolves every objective link, every connection grounded in the thing itself: ‘For itselfis here the arbitrary to tear them without freedom up the images and to reconnect any constraint.’*! The other passage universally known, often quoted and is from the Preface to the Phenomenology: interpreted -
—
-
—
—
To at
break
idea
an
least
do
not
immediate which
up into its original have of the form of the
property themselves
are
and
non-actual
concrete
does
divide
is
self-moving. The activity ing, the most astonishing circle
together, is ishing about
that
remains
an
immediate it. But
it, what
is bound
existence
of its
the we
negative; want
to
the
Understanding
not
the
but
rather
when,
is dead
in
positive,
the utter
which
separate
energy
of
its
— of
thought,
the
the
that
from
what
others,
power. moments
nothing
aston-
circumscribes
should
tremendous
pure ‘I’. Death, the most dreadful,
it is
Understandits
holds has
is the
this
freedom
the because
absolute
the
which
with
context
is thus
attain
an
of power if that is what
and to hold non-actuality, is of all things requires the greatest strength. Lacking strength, Beauty hates
what
that
a
in
only
of
substance,
detached
what
only
work
the
thoughts
at
non-actual,
rather
or
therefore
such,
as
and
power
this
fast
life
accident
is
something
like
one
arrives
But
it
which
constitute
only
sure,
for
of powers,
relationship,
rather
determinations.
into
and,
its moments,
to
but
moment;
is the
mightiest
is actual
it is the
call
and
inert
itself
of dissolution
an
and
own
make
self-enclosed
that
and
and
essential
itself, and
return
given idea, analysis, to be
fixed, an
is to
the
This
familiar,
separated
The
self.
elements
for
shrinks life
that
of her
asking from
death
endures
its eyes
and
it and
to
the
it cannot
keeps itself.
negative,
do.
itself itself
maintains
it finds
dismemberment, closes
what
It is this as
when
But
untouched in it. It
power, we
say
the
life
of
Spirit
is
by devastation, wins its truth only not as something of something that
“i wy.
nothing
Understanding of
‘falsity’,
a*; of
the
undermining
the
3]
IMAGINATION
ages*? hea pre-discursive
not
a
term
of
abstract
would
one
power
in the
but
speculative Reason,
expect,
world,
as
infinite
the
power
of
and
precise
in
immersion
confused
of the
as
treating as separate what naturally belongs description of the basic negative gesture of ‘pre-synthetic imagination’, its destructive power organic, unity? So, although the two quoted passopposite phenomena (the first of the pre-rational/
—
speak
ft
then,
mightiest
every
to
seem
second
not,
tearing apart
risk
us
as
Is this
together. let
is false, and
or
Hegel praises
Here,
if
TRANSCENDENTAL
having done with it, turn away and pass on to something else; on the contrary, Spirit is this power only by looking the negative it. This in the face, and tarrying with tarrying with the negative is the magical with what we is identical it into being. This power that converts earlier power called the Subject... .% it is
>
OF
DEADLOCK
THE
awe
discursive
the purely subjective Interior; Understanding, which decom-
the
activity of unity into
are detached of organic elements), they ‘depth’ ie of powers’, the to the both refer read ‘mightiest together: of disrupting the unity of the Real, violenuy installing the domain power of the term. The radical sense of phenomena in the most of membra disconnected in and which dismembered of the self’, ‘pure if ‘night’ is the and most elevanish, ‘phantasmagorical representations’ appear iSe ‘an of which of the of means manifestation negativity power by I mentary what is bound and from what cir cumscribes detached it, such, accident as of its with is actual only in its context others, attain[s] an cxistence
poses every i be to ‘thus
: fe {
disjecta,
‘
fy .
b
...
y
i
i
own
and
rates
the
freedom’.
separate
a
of ‘transcendental
notion
}connect omable sensible root
all
of
subjective
Kant,
in
his
Critique of
Pure
Reason,
elabo-
mysterious, unfath‘spontaneous’ capacity to as
the
imagination’ activity, as
a
of sensible rational synthesis precedes impressions # | data through a priori categorics. What if, in the two quoted passages, : of the more obverse i is indicating a kind of even synthetic mysterious Hegel of more an even primordial power ‘pre-synthetic imagin‘imagination, of dismemberout of their elements context, ation’, of tearing apart sensible be of an Whole? It would therefore immediate the organic experience th ing " 60 hasty to identify this ‘night of the world’ with the Void of the mystic ‘the its exact that it is, rather, primordial opposite, expericnce: designates, the of which balance and self-contrast by means ig Bang, the violent out of the Void of which inner peace mystics speak are perturbed, thrown of
that
joint. If
there
from
the
is
truth
some
abyss
of
in
Heidegger's imagination, his retreat
contention
thus
that concerns,
Kant
above
retreated
all, his
32
THE
refusal
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
bring to light Imagination in its negative/disruptive aspect, as the force of tearing the continuous of intuition fabric apart. Kant is too of intuition is directly quick in automatically assuming that the multitude to given, so that the bulk of the subject’s activity is then constrained bringing this multitude together, to organizing it into an interconnected the most Whole, from primitive synthesis of imagination, through the synthetic activity of the categories of Understanding, up to the regulative the impossible task of uniting our Idea of Reason, entire experience of the universe into a rational What Kant organic structure. neglects is the fact that the primordial form of imagination is the exact opposite of this tear us to the texture of reality synthetic activity: imagination enables as effectively existing something that is merely a component apart, to treat of a living Whole. How, then, does the opposition between imagination and understandof disrupting relate to that between synthesis and analysis (in the sense the This ing, decomposing, primordial immediate unity of intuition)? relation can as be conceived can determine working both ways: one to
imagination perception decomposed, imagination
as
of
the
spontaneous
unified
objects
synthesis and
of
processes,
the
manifold
sensuous
which
are
then
into
torn
a
apart,
analysed by discursive understanding; or one can determine the primordial as of decomposition, of tearing-apart, power while the role of understanding is then to bring together these membra Whole. In both the continuity between cases, disjecta into a new rational imagination and understanding is disrupted: there is an inherent antagonism between the two it is cither Understanding that heals the wound inflicted by imagination, synthesizing its membra disjecta, or Understanding tears the spontaneous mortifies, synthetic unity of imagination into bits and pieces. At this point, a naive question is quite appropriate: which of the two of the two relations, is more fundamental? The underlying structure axes, of course, is that of a vicious here, cycle or mutual implication: ‘the can be healed wound it’ that is to say, only by the spear that inflicted that the the multitude to endeavours synthesis of imagination bring of imagination is already the result itself, of its disruptive power. together mutual the less gives precedence This to the implication none ‘negative’, not disruptive aspect of imagination only for the obvious common-sense —
—
—
that
reason
space radical
for
endeavour
elements the
reason:
of
endeavour
first
must
be
dismembered
in
order
to
open but for
up
a bring them together again, of the because the finitude, subject’s irreducible ‘synthesis’ is always minimally ‘violent’ and disruptive.
to
the
more
very That
con
DEADLOCK
THE
OF
TRANSCENDENTAL
33
IMAGINATION
to unity the subject endeavours impose on the sensuous multitude via its synthetic activity is always erratic, eccentric, unbalanced, ‘unsound’, something that is externally and violently imposed on to the a subtersimple impassive act of discerning the inherent multitude, never between connections the membra disjecta. In this precise sense, _ranean on an act of ‘repression’, and therefore every synthetic unity is based some indivisible remainder: it imposes as unifying feature some "generates & moment that ‘breaches the symmetry’. This is what, in the *ynilateral’ of cinematic EFisenstein’s of ‘intellectual art, concept “ domain montage’ < seems to aim at: intellectual activity brings together bits and pieces torn of imagination from their the context, power proper violently recomby “ a new them into that to an unity gives birth unexpected new « posing
is
to
say,
the
i.
*
meaning. Kant’s
break
with
the
previous rationalist/empiricist problematic can be located this thus to precisely: in conwast problematic, he no longer worked accepts some pre-synthetic zero-ground elements upon by our there is no neutral elementary stuff (like elementary sensory in Locke) is then ‘ideas’ which our mind that the is, composed by * ts always-already at work, even in our most activity of our mind with elementary contact ‘reality’.*! The pre-synthetic Real, its pure, notnot ‘multitude’ a minimum of transcenyet synthesized by »yet-fashioned sfricto be is, sensu, i magination, impossible. a level that must ‘gdental but can never Our ‘retroactively presupposed, actually be encountered. " y(Hegelian) point, however, is that this mythical/impossible starting point. ipthe presupposition of imagination, is already the product, the result, of the imagination’s disruptive activity. In short, the mythic, inaccessible jzero-level of pure multitude not yet affected/fashioned by imagination is A but pure imagination itself, imagination at its most violent, as the
3 .
‘ ‘mind synthetic —
—
‘nothing of
are
the
the
of
of Inertia ractivitydisrupting continuity ‘the“nightof the world’, the ‘unruliness’ of the
the
subject's
as
freedom
which
violently explodes
membra
disjecta. It is ircle of imagination, ge imagination, ¢°synthetic '
its purest
and
most
thus since the
violent,
crucial the ‘stuff’
to
reality
into
‘close
the
zero-level
very on
which
imagination
in
a
presymboli
dispersed
circle’:
we
never
abyssal
floating exit
of
the
mythic presupposition of it works, is imagination itself at its negative, disruptive aspect.*”
34
THE
The
TICKLISH
object, is
individual it
to
name-giving entity is born out is
the
‘must
be
to
I.’*° be
to
slate
return
the
being.
to
the
name
Consequently,what out
the
of the
I’,
this
become
existence,
external;
‘born
the
as
into
Through
power.... of the
clean
also
enter
that, for the object with
pre-ontological: logos, emerges only when
Word,
this innerness
as
in mind
of
world’
the
of
‘night
self
pure
itself
oppose
language
bear
the
of
Madness
Passage through
Hegel explicitly posits this symbolic order, the universe inwardness
SUBJECT
one
an
This
object
as
should
it is necessary, of reality in
so entirety of the I’ by passing through the ‘night of the far as it is not yet ‘born out world’. as a This, finally, brings us to madness philosophical notion inherent to of subjectivity. Schelling’s basic the very concept insight as the medium of rational Word, the subject whereby, prior to its assertion is the lack of being’, the violent pure ‘night of the Self’, the ‘infinite that negates itself also forms gesture of contraction every being outside of Hegel’s notion of madness: the core when madness Hegel determines withdrawal as from the actual world, the closing of the soul into itself, its the cutting-off of its links with external ‘contraction’, reality, he all too of this withdrawal as a quickly conceives ‘regression’ to the level of the ‘animal soul’ still embedded in its natural surroundings and determined by the rhythm of nature (night and day, etc.). Does not this withdrawal, the contrary, designate the severing of the links with on the Umwelt, the of the end in its immediate natural subject’s immersion surroundings; is it not, and as of ‘humanization’? Was not such, the founding gesture this withdrawal-into-self in his universal doubt accomplished by Descartes and reduction to cogitoe,which, as Derrida pointed out in his ‘Cogito and the History of Madness’,*’ also involves a of passage through the moment
as
to
were,
start
a
—
to
erase
—
—
radical Here
madness? we
be
must
careful
not
to
miss
the
way Hegel’s break in the reversal of
with
the
can be discerned tradition the Enlightenment very metaphor of the subject: the subject is no longer the Light of Reason Traopposed to the non-transparent, impenetrable Stuff (of Nature,
dition
...);
his
Light
very core, of Logos, is absolute
utter
madness
wander
gesture standard
in
which
the
that
gesture
negativity,
the
up the space ‘night of the world’, the apparitions of ‘partial
opens
for
the
point of objects’
phantasmagorical is no aimlessly. Consequently, there subjectivity without of withdrawal; that is why Hegel is fully justified in inverting is possible: question of how the fall-regrcssion into madness
this
the the
THE
OF
DEADLOCK
TRANSCENDENTAL
IMAGINATION
35
real question is, rather, how the subject is able to climb out of madness and reach ‘normality’. That is to say: the withdrawal-into-self,the cuttingto the is followed by the of the links environs, construction of a
offbolic universe “formation,destined which
abana
the
subject projects
to
on
reality
as
a
to
pre-symbolic diate, Daniel Paul of
analysis
the subject for the loss of reality, the most which recompenses of paranoiac construction as the definition subject’s attempt of his universe? himself of the disintegration lies in the fact In short, the ontological necessity of ‘madness’
possible
natural The
to
directly
pass
lite-world
‘vanishing
‘normal’
to
the
purely ‘animal subjectivity dwelling in
from
between
mediator’
from
withdrawal
of
for the loss of the immeus recompense Real, However, as Freud himself asserted in his Schreber, is not the manufacturing of a substitute-formation,
,
not
kind
reality
the
which
two
its
is the
‘mad’
the
space radical
up
opens
soul’
succinct to
that
immersed
it is in its
universe.
symbolic
of radical
gesture for
cure
its
symbolic ambiguity of the objectively true.’ simultaneously
Hegel already emphasized the ‘What I think, the product of my thought, is statement is a speculative proposition This statement that expresses of the madman the ‘lowest’, the erratic attitude caught in his selFenclosed unable to to relate of universe, reality, and the ‘highest’, the truth in speculative idealism, the identity of thought and being. If, therefore, this precise sense Lacan as normality itself is a mode, a put it between subspecies of psychosis that is, if the difference ‘normality’ and (re)constitution.
—
—
—
madness
‘between
is
the
inherent
to
madness
—
‘mad’
construction
of
‘mediated’
form
(paranoiac) reality consist? of
madness?
of
what,
construction Is
Or,
then, and
does the
this
difference
‘normal’
‘normality’ ultimately merely as Schelling put it, is normal
(social) a
more
Reason
merely ‘regulated madness’? Does not a ‘here shoots Hegel's brief description bloody head, there another white chime ghastly apparition’ perfectly with Lacan's notion of the ‘dismembered body’ [le corps morcelé|? What Hegel calls the ‘night of the world’ of partial drives) (the phantasmagorical, pre-symbolic domain is an undeniable of the subject’s most radical component self-experience, celebrated others, by Hieronymus Bosch’s exemplified, among paintings. In a way, the entire on of the the traces psychoanalytic experience focuses traumatic from into our this ‘night of the world’ passage ‘daily’ universe of logos.The tension the narrative between form and the ‘death drive’, as the withdrawal-into-self of the subject, is thus constitutive the missing link that has to be presupposed if we are to from account for the passage ‘natural’ to ‘symbolic’ surroundings. —
-
36
THE
The
direct,
TICKLISH
key point
is thus
that
that
cannot
account
one
narrative:
has
something which
ing mediator’,
to
the
between
Nature
‘nature’
continuous
a
the
two,
Culture
nor
‘culture’
to
a
not
evolutionary kind
this
~
is
of ‘vanish-
In-between
is
all
in
silently presupposed
from passage for it within
intervene
is neither
SUBJECT
We are not idealists: evolutionary narratives. this In-between is not the spark of logos magically conferred on Homo sapiens, enabling him to form his supplementary virtual symbolic surroundings, but precisely something that, although it is also no longer is not nature, yet logos, and has to be ‘repressed’ by logos the Freudian name for this In-between, of course, is the death drive. Speaking of this it is interesting to note how philosophical narratives of the In-between, ‘birth of man’ are a in such moment always compelled to presuppose human is no (pre)history when (what will become) man longer a mere animal and simultaneously not yet a ‘being of language’, bound by of thoroughly symbolic Law; a moment ‘perverted’, ‘denaturalized’, ‘derailed’ nature is not which In his pedagogical writings, yet culture. Kant animal needs in emphasized that the human disciplinary pressure —
order
tame
to
human
an
nature
one’s
own
animal
—
will,
needs
ness’,
cost a
the
not
a
‘unruliness’ uncanny wild, unconstrained what
Master
animal
it may. to
in
him:
of
to
seems
propensity
Because
discipline
nature
that
this
to
be
insist
inherent
stubbornly
‘unruliness’
discipline targets
in on
the
human
this
‘unruli-
man:
is
man from aside discipline which prevents being turned by his animal must impulses from hurnanity, his appointed end. Discipline, for instance, restrain him from venturing wildly and rashly into danger. Discipline, thus, is man’s unruliness. natural The merely negative, its action being to counteract is instruction. positive part of education Unruliness consists in independence of law. By discipline men are placed in and subjection to the laws of mankind, This, brought to feel their constraint. must be accomplished early. Children, however, for instance, are first sent to with the object of their learning something, but rather school, not so much that used to sitting still and they may become doing exactly as they are told. The love of freedom is naturally so strong in man once that when he has accustomed to freedom, he will sacrifice grown everything for its sake. Owing
It
...
...
to
his
natural
roughness
love
smoothed
of freedom
down;
it is necessary that man with their animals,
should instinct
have
his
natural
renders
this
unnecessary.™ text: from the Foucauldian Everything is in this marvellous disciplinary micro-practice as preceding any positive instruction, Althusserian equation of the free subject with his subjection to
motif to
the
of the Law.
tg DEADLOCK
THE
Kant
pand,
seems
his excessive
but
nature
love
far
of
freedom,
animal
instincts
which goes beyond obeying dimension another, properly noumenal
suspends man's causality. The story of
culture,
of
the
Law
moral
pleasure-seekingpropensities moral
the
natural
man’s the
and
Law
‘unruliness’
accustomed
grown
threatens he
Basis
the
in
section
‘The
entitled
this
in
—
standard
will
our
the
on
‘unruliness’, ‘unruliness’, dimension of natural of
story
nature
natural
of moral
side
Law
his
well-being (since sacrifice everything for
including his well-being!). In Hegel’s Lectures History, a similar role is played by the reference Hegel deals with ‘negroes’ before history proper China),
natural
‘pathological’ the struggle is between contrary, ‘unruliness’, and, in this struggle,
rather,
are,
freedom,
to
the
on
violent that
the
not
constraining
—
unnatural
propensities of
excess
is thus
morality
his
a violently emerges, phenomenal network
in the
enchainment
that
versus
37
IMAGINATION
on the one ambiguity is no less discernible: to conceive discipline as the procedure that makes the the hold of natural free, delivering it from instincts; on clear that what discipline targets is not directly man’s
animal human it is the other,
animal
TRANSCENDENTAL
fundamental
its
However,
OF
Natural
on
to
against ‘has
man
its
sake’,
Philosophy of World ‘negrocs’: significantly, the
(which
Context
with
starts
ancient
the
Geographical spirit in its ‘state
or
History’: ‘negroes’ stand for the human of nature’; as simulchildren, they are described perverted, monstrous that is to say, living in the taneously naive and extwemely corrupted of innocence cruel and, precisely as such, the most prelapsarian state and barbarians; part of nature yet thoroughly denaturalized; ruthlessly of World
—
manipulating fied by raging In
a
closer
natural
of
one
spontaneity the
primitive mindlessly
forces;
reading,
transcendental
forms
through
nature
Sublime:
should to
these
its
sorcery, yet brave cowards. the
link
point forms
of
simultancously
problem
failure
.
terri-
.*"
.
of
imagination
announced
the
in
as
two
of precisely the two modes imagination’s failure to accomplish its synthetic activity. Jacob Rogozinski drew attention to the way a kind of elementary violence is already at work in pure in the most reason, clementary synthesis of imagination (memory, retention, temporality). That is to say: what Kant fails to appreciate is the extent to which this synthesis constitutive of ‘normal’ in an reality is unheard-of and most fundamental sense simultaneously already ‘violent’, in so far as it consists in an order imposed by the subject’s synthetic activity on the heterogeneous disarray of impressions.“ Let us add that this violence of synthesis is perhaps the more to already an answer two
are
-
-
fundamental
ity
of
violence
experience
apart.
of
dismemberment, If the
synthesis
of of
tearing the imagination
natural were
continuto
succeed
38
THE
without
a
we
gap,
auto-affection.
However,
gets caught in first, in
*
would
obtain
SUBJECT
inherent
in
that
the
is
these
two
of the
cases
preceding
violence
encounter
the
the
exact
alism
question Idealism
sible
Law
of
matrix
locus
at
idealism
and
that
up’
with
the
subject
reveals
the
of
the of
which
is
bombarded,
its violent
in
the
to
the
run
of
that
mathematical the
subject
emerges transcendental and
antagonism
is discernible
primacy gives priority transcends
violence
the
in
as
the
as
a
a
nature;
(moral) Law the (moral)
violent
intrusion
auto-affection
kind
of
of
itself, imagination dynamic antinomies.
the the
two
the
thus
we
This
(philosophical) philosophy: it concerns
relationship between dynamic antinomy, to
his
to
answer
between
Kant’s
synof
magnitude
of the way, through the intervention another that of the noumenal: dimension,
necessarily experienced by self-sufficient disturbing the smooth imagination. In
which
sublime:
mathematical
‘catch
it
apprehension
external
an
announces
Law
self-enclosed
between
imbalance
comprehension, thetic comprehension is not able to the apprehended perceptions with and it is this very failure of synthesis then,
and
the
way, through the which generates
and
«
self-sufficient
perfect
synthesis of imagination necessarily fails; ways: inconsistency in two different
an
an
TICKLISH
is
materithe
antinomies.
way the suprasenthe phenomenal
suspends from the outside causal chain: from this perspective, phenomenal inconsistency is merely the way in which the noumenal itself into the phenomBeyond inscribes enal domain. in contrast, Materialism, gives priority to mathematical the antinomy, to the inherent inconsistency of the phenomenal domain: ultimate outcome of mathematical of an ‘inconantinomy is the domain sistent that lacks the All’, of a multitude ontological consistency of ‘reality’. From this perspective, the dynamic antinomy itself appears as an to resolve the inherent deadlock of mathematical attempt antinomy by of two distinct orders, the phenomenal transposing it into the coexistence and the noumenal. In other words, mathematical (i.e. the antinomy inherent or failure collapse of imagination) ‘dissolves’ phenomenal reality in the direction of the monstrous Real, while dynamic antinomy transcends of the symbolic Law it ‘saves phenomenal reality in the direction of the phenomphenomena’ by providing a kind of external guarantee and/or
—
enal
domain.*!
As Lenin an
incessant,
had
already emphasized, repetitive tracing of the
the
history
difference
of
philosophy
between
consists
materialism
of
and
DFADLOCK
THE
idealism; what not
loes
OF
has
one
where
run
TRANSCENDENTAL
add
to
is that,
would
one
39
IMAGINATION
as
line
this
rule,
a
of
it to
obviously expect
demarcation
run
the
often,
—
hinges on how we decide between seemingly secondary ‘alternatives. According to the predominant philosophical cliché, the last is to be sought in his insistence on the vestige of Kant’s materialism that Other forever resists in being dissolved Thing-in-itself, the external (self) positing.Thus Fichte, in his rejecthe subject’s activity of reflexive that is to say, in his notion of the tion of the Kantian Thing-in-itself of the the eliminates last trace act of absolute subject's selfpositing materialism from Kant’s edifice, opening up the way for Hegel’s ‘panlogiof the absolute of all reality to an externalization cist’ reduction subject’s self-mediation notional Contrary to this predominant cliché, incorconsists, rather, in by Lenin himself, Kant’s ‘materialism’ rectly sustained antinomy, and in conceiving dynamic asserting the primacy of mathematical to ‘save phenomena’ antinomy as secondary, as an attempt through the choice
materialist
—
—
...
Law
noumenal In
other
as
imagination
to
make
—
noumenal
the the
attempt
between
the
noumenal
imagination
between how
the
the
its
the
the
the
greatest
ultimate
failure
noumenal
eludes
noumenal
ie.
-
of
its
scope
inability
lesson fill
to —
the
of the
fails,
gap that
so
negative way, of imagination). the greatest effort failure, ‘imagination’ is already a
gap and that gesture opens up and the phenomenal.
violent
the
phenomenal dimension only in
even
in
—
lies
(therein
and
effort
imagined
noumenal
which
locate
present
represent and
experience
the
for
name
to
that
as
this
to
dimension
reveal
can
via its failure,
exception.
only too easy to and, simultaneously,
Sublime:
Prior
constitutive
it is
words,
of
their
and
a
sustains
the
truce
problem
The
very
gap
is not
separating the two but, rather, how this gap came to emerge in the first place. Thus Heidegger was right, in a way, in his emphasis on transcendental of the constituimagination as preceding and grounding the dimension and tive categories of Understanding, for this same priority holds even the Sublime the impossible scheme of the Ideas as of Reason. The gesture to
to
be
bridge
according
witness
dimension its extreme,
in of
a
not
here
that,
to
in its
in the
is
simply
which
negative
Reason.
already concealed, is
gap
accomplished
notion, bear
the
way
Rather,
invert
to
sublime to
and/or
phenomena,
another it is the
dimension, other
approaching the Monstrous, ‘gentrified’, by the Ideas experience
schematize/temporalize
the
of the
Sublime,
suprasensible
way
that
the an
of Reason.
In
imagination
standard
very failure, of the noumcnal
round:
indicates
dimension
the
displace by their
Sublime,
abyss other fails
of Reason;
in
which
is
words,
it
properly rather,
to
it
40
THE
is
the
that
Ideas
regulative endeavour
secondary announced
of
SUBJECT
Reason
cover
failure
ultimately nothing but the abyss of the Monstrous imagination.
are
up, to sustain of transcendental
to
in the
TICKLISH
a
here the distinction point further, one should introduce between scheme and symbol: scheme sensible offers a direct, presentation of a notion of Understanding; while a symbol retains a distance, merely indicating something beyond it. The persistence in time is thus an adequate scheme of the category of substance; while Beauty, a beautiful as the ‘symbol of the Good’, that Kant puts it a is, not object, is of the Good as Idea of Reason, an scheme, but a symbolic representation not a of Understanding. And category things become complicated here To
this
clarify
-
with
the
is closer tize’
—
the
Sublime: to
the
the Idea
Sublime
scheme, of
is
it stands
Reason.
not
for
that
succeeds
the
Sublime
of
effort
an
it
However,
of a scheme schematism, of this success-in-failure,
of the
symbol
a
is
a
through
Good;
in
so,
imagination case
strange its very
involves
a
to
of
failure.
strange
way, it ‘schemaa
a
failed
Because of
mixture
pleasure and pain: it is a pleasure provided by the very experience of of imagination, of the painful gap between pain, of the painful failure and comprehension, Do we not encounter here apprehension again the Freudian/Lacanian paradox of jouissance ‘beyond the pleasure principle’, as be experienced of das Ding which can pleasure-in-pain only in a whose contours can be discerned negative way only negatively, as the of an contours invisible void? Similarly, is not the (moral) Law itself a sublime the of Thing, in so far as it also elicits painful sentiment of self-debasement, with mixed a profound satisfaction that humiliation, the subject has done his duty? What we approach in the first, negative, painful time of the experience of the Sublime is what Kant refers to as the ‘chaotic aggregate’, as as a cruel mother not ‘stepmotherly nature’, nature subject to any Law. As Rogozinski has demonstrated, this notion of ‘chaotic aggregate’ as das role as ‘diabolical Evil’ in the Ungeheure (the Monstrous) plays the same a Kantian ethics: hypothesis necessarily evoked but then instantly revoked, This reference ‘domesticated’, to the feminine is by no means accidental As is well known, and neutral. in his Analytics of the Sublime in the of all statements the Critique ofJudgement Kant evokes as the most sublime ‘I am all Nature): inscription on the temple of Isis (the divine Mother —
—
that
is, that
and
that
will
be, and no the temporal description clearly indicates, in can
its
was
impossible totality, never
be
accessible
with to
our
Nature
finite
mortal
will
ever
raise
my veil.’ As with Nature
dealing here as the totality of phenomena experience. A couple of years we
are
which
later,
DEADLOCK
THE
retend to
literally,
Here,
the
veil:
is
Law.
We
what
is
of
in
of what
the
veil
refer
and
to
thus
two
There
far
(mathematical)
2. The
to
shift
of
of
type the
pain
into
horror
Law
—
the
to
that
of
the
it
is, it involves
masculine
option
the
extreme
noumenal other
Of
modes
two
—
the
in
the of
here
on
monstrosity of our imagination, of the
way round, ‘the last veil
and
The
and
articulate
antino-
the
antinomies,
Sublime
is also
how, beneath
there
is the
feminine
moral
monstrosity
Law.
dimension
Kant
two
of
phenomena,
moral is
the
where the
we
chaotic
moral
Or
-
fails
the
endeavours
Violence to
move
of
of
to
convey materialist in
itsclf,
Law
is
accent:
aggregate
still
which Law?
put
the
the quality, covering the Monstrous’, finite ‘gentrified’, domesticated) way we, subjects, (and endure) the unimaginable Thing?
So when
Sublime
Law.
aware
from
two
of
types
of the
become
shift
these
generating the first principle of the (dynamic) type of
moral
experience of
‘magic’
second
of the
with
of the
the
‘feminine’
the
we
aggregate the
the
but
be drawn:
to
and
...
ourselves.’42
course,
corresponding
to
when
occurs
chaotic
Again, everything hinges idealist
the
principle
pleasure
in
phenomena
Law.
conclusions
multitude,
‘masculine’
implicitly sexualized; the
of
totality
two
antinomies
chaotic
pure
antinomies
the
secret
to
twist
as ‘one of appears is the paternal moral
implicitly, did already sexualize linked the totality of phenomena
he
as
monstrous
are
with
or
of whom
Law
albeit
himself,
so
the noumenal
is behind
4]
Nature)
true
the
reason.
1. Kant
Mother
her
in front
moral
the
dealing here not beyond phenomena,
(mathematical/dynamic), mies
than
(the primordial
woman
Goddess
hidden
other
none
are
yersions
the
‘The
IMAGINATION
polemics against those who want the veil, Kant gives a masculine
beneath
(Lacan): Names-of-the-Father’
the
just
his
Master’,
knees,
our
on
TRANSCENDENTAL
secret
behind
secret
fall
we
the
reveal
to
the
Great
‘Your
in
however,
OF
its
in
—
the
phenomena the
proper
option
—is
very
it
sublime
(already minimally are
able
to
perceive
Imagination
beyond
the
domain
of
imagination
for human Ideas as what accounts suprasensible Rational as a ‘retreat’ from the abyss of dignity, Heidegger interprets this move imagination. Heidegger is right in so far as Kant is in effect wying to is in a system whose status of Rational Ideas ground imagination to
42
THE
noumenal.
is this
But
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
the
of selfonly way to break out of the closure affection that constitutes synthetic imagination? What if it is the very insistence on of the synthetic imagination as the unsurpassable horizon of being which, by retaining us within the closure appearance/disclosure of temporal auto-affection, screens the abyss of the unimaginable which is not eo of noumena? That is to say: when ipso the metaphysical dimension Kant claims the minimal that, without synthesis of transcendental imaginwould be no of the term, ation, there ‘phenomena’ in the proper sense that is to say, less than a dream’, only ‘a blind play of representations, does he not ‘chaotic thereby evoke the monstrous aggregate’, the ‘not-yetforms the world’, the pre-ontological chera, which background of the experience of the Sublime? The experience of the Sublime reaches the very border of this ‘chaotic in order to retreat from it into the suprasensible aggregate’ of the senses dimension of the noumenal Law. Is not the Monstrous which is explicitly rendered thematic in the dialectics of the in the Sublime third Critique thus aesthetics in already at work at the very heart of the transcendental the first (in its synthetic Critague? Is not the transcendental imagination function) already a defence against this chaotic aggregate? Are not the of partial objects mentioned spectral appearances by Hegel in the quoted about the ‘night of the world’ passage precisely such a pre-synthetic, prewhich is ‘less than a dream’? ontological ‘blind play of representations’, The of the Kantian Sublime is that another wager synthesis, not that of the ontological synthesis accomplished of by the temporal self-affection transcendental can save us from this imagination, abyss of the failure of
imagination. The
violence
of
of imagination barded
with
imagination all its powers
imagination
itself
images by Reason and
then
(our of
senses
extreme
in
the are
Sublime stretched
chaos),
(which compels fail
our
as
is twofold: to
well
their as
faculty
it is the utmost
the
violence
violence and
bomdone
to
of
imagination to exert is unable to comprehend itself, in the guise of the [Zusamcomprehension
miserably, since it in Reason). Every imagination is already violent tension between apprehension [Auffassung] and can never menfassung]: the second fully catch up with the first. Consea between the quently, temporality itself, ‘as such’, involves gap and the apprehension of the dispersed multitude synthetic act of the of the unity of this multitude. Our comprehension faculty of imagination fails to achieve this unity when the object is too large that is, in the case of the ‘mathematical sublime’: ‘there is not enough time’, there are too units for us to accomplish thcir many synthesis. This ‘not-enough-time’ is to
—
DEADLOCK
THE
OF
TRANSCENDENTAL
43
IMAGINATION
of time that secondary deficiency, it appertains to the very notion is not js, ‘there is time’ only in so far as ‘there enough time’, temporality as such is sustained by the gap between apprehension and comprehension: to close this gap and fully to comprehend the apprehended a being able multitude would be a noumenal archetypus intellectus no longer constrained of This limitations violence of the of the temporality. synthesis by compreis then followed of the synthesis of retention hension by the violence a
not
—
endeavours
‘which
to
the
counteract
flow
of
time,
what
retain
to
runs
the
resist
temporal drainage. (of regarding this twofold gap and/or violence Rogozinski’s conclusion over the flow of time) is comprehension over apprehension, of retention that time itself and the transcendental imagination in its synthetic activity are not since the second of auto-affection directly the same, already exerts on the pure without this violence, a violence temporal dispersal reality its minimal itself would not retain ontological consistency. Transcendental thus schematism designates the procedure by which, already at the level of pre-discursive, purely intuitive the temporal experience, pure preto the synthetic temporal dispersal is violently subordinated synthetic form is the activity of the subject, whose definitive application of the discursive to intuition. Schematism categories of Understanding forges our in which temporal experience into a homogeneous linear succession to
away,
—
past
and
and
announces
from
future
subordinated
are
the is
future):
the
to
what
transcendental
Sublime, of
the
on
precisely
contrary,
the
marks
the
moment
retains
schematism
paradox of creatio In schematized can time, nothing really new always-already there, and merely deploys its thinking
(which
present
at
the
prevents
past us
nihilo.
ex
everything is potential.” The something emerges accounted for by
emerge inherent which
—
that cannot be something new reference to the pre-existing network of circumstances. We are dealing here with another of a radical temporality, the temporality of freedom, in the chain of (natural and/or When, for social) causality.... rupture occur in politics? When, example, does the experience of the Sublime sheet of ‘against their better judgement’, people disregard the balance at that moment, profits and losses and ‘risk freedom’; something that, out
Nothing
literally, cannot ulously an
Event In
be
‘accounted
‘becomes that
so
far
is
able
freedom
as
one
—
as
for’
in
the
terms
possible’... .44 The feeling of momentarily suspends the network
freedom here
to
‘conceived
of
the of
‘circumstances’
Sublime
mirac-
is aroused
by
symbolic causality. is the proper name for this suspension of causality, of throw a new light on the Hegelian definition notion of subjective necessity’: the consequent
44
THE
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
idealism
of necessity as compels us to invert this thesis and to conceive tenet of Kant’s tran(ultimately nothing but) conceived freedom. The central scendental idealism is that it is the subject’s ‘spontaneous’ (i.e. radically flow of free) act of transcendental apperception that changes the confused sensations into laws. This ‘reality’, which obeys necessary point is even clearer in moral philosophy: when Kant claims that moral Law is the ratio is he not freedom, cognoscendi of our transcendental literally saying that freedom? That is to say: the only way for us to get necessity is conceived to
know
(to
conceive
of)
of the moral pressure the compulsion of our
our
freedom
is via
the
Law, of its necessity, which
fact
of
enjoins
the us
to
unbearable act
against
pathological impulses. At the most general level, one should posit that ‘necessity’ (the symbolic necessity that regulates our lives) relies on the abyssal free act of the subject, on his contingent confusion into a new decision, on the point de capiton that magically turns Order. Is not this freedom, which is not of yet caught in the cobweb necessity, the abyss of the ‘night of the world’? For
this
reason,
Fichte’s
radicalization
of
Kant
is
consistent,
notjust
a
subjectivist eccentricity. Fichte was the first philosopher to focus on the uncanny contingency at the very heart of subjectivity: the Fichtean subject is not the overblown Ego Ego as the absolute Origin of all reality, but a finite forever subject thrown, caught, in a contingent social situation eluding mastery.** The Anstoss, the primordial impulse that sets in motion the and self-determination of the gradual self-limitation initially void external subject, is not merely a mechanical impulse; it also indicates another as the chalsubject who, in the abyss of its freedom, functions lenge [Aufforderung] compelling me to limit/specify my freedom, that is, to from abstract to concrete accomplish the passage egotist freedom freedom within the rational ethical universe perhaps this intersubjective Aufforderung is not merely the secondary specification of the Anstoss, but its exemplary original case. It is important to bear in mind the two primary meanings of Anstoss in German: check, obstacle, hindrance, something that resists the boundless expansion of our striving; and an impetus, a stimulus, something that incites our the absolute I posits activity. Ansfoss is not simply the obstacle to itself in order to stimulate its activity so that, by overcoming the self its creative like the games the proverbial posited obstacle, it asserts power, new perverted ascetic saint plays with himself by inventing ever temptations and then, in successfully resisting them, confirming his strength. If the Kantian Ding an sich corresponds to the Freudian—Lacanian Thing, to Anstoss is closer objet petit a, to the primordial foreign body that ‘sticks =
—
~
THE
DEADLOCK
jn the
throat’
Fichte
himself
wauses
the
OF
of the
subject,
defines
subject
divide
to
of the
‘the midst
of
without
Anstoss,
into
the
the
the
the
collision
non-I.
Anstoss
knock, the
absolute
I: there
that
of the
encounter
is
the
does
Anstoss
to
not
the
come
itself,
incom-
but
every
Warum.’*®
_Anstoss
contrast
I
and
...
In clear
in
no
‘the I is supposed to encounter ‘contingency The is thus to acknowledge ‘the presence, within point ‘itself’. of absolute otherness, ‘of a realm of irreducible contingency rose, Ultimately, not just Angelus Silesius’s —
‘prehensibility. whatsoever ist ohne
Real
subject without of irreducible facticity and something foreign within
element
an
45
Splits it up: foreign body that subject and the finite thus designates the
absolute
empty
the
with
of desire
non-assimilable
hazardous
of
ideality
the
by
IMAGINATION
object-cause
as
limited
‘run-in’, the
the
to
Anstoss
‘determinatesubject, ‘moment
TRANSCENDENTAL
Kantian from
noumenal
outside,
the
it
Ding is stricto
that
affects
of the
core
senses,
ex-timate.
sensu
very assimilable foreign body subject emphasizes, the paradox of Anstoss lies in the fact that it ‘purely subjective’ and not produced by the activity of the not ‘purely subjective’, if it were already the non-I, part at
our
—
Fichte
as
is
a
non-
himself
simultaneously
I. 1f Anstoss
were
of
objectivity, we ‘would fall back into ‘dogmatism’ that is to say, Anstoss would effectively no a amount to more than of the Kantian shadowy remainder Ding an thus bear witness to Fichte's sich, and would inconsequentiality (the usual of Fichte); if Anstoss criticism were simply subjective, it would present a case of the subject’s hollow reach playing with itself, and we would never the level of objective reality that is, Fichte would effectively be a solipsist criticism of his philosophy). The crucial {another common point is that Anstoss sets in motion the constitution of ‘reality’: at the beginning is the J with the non-assimilable pure foreign body at its heart; the subject constitutes towards the Real of the formless reality by assuming a distance of objectivity.*7 Anstoss, and conferring on it the structure If Kant’s Anstoss, what is the difference Ding an sich is not Fichte’s ~
—
between
them?
that
something Kant’s some
Ding
that
which
resistance
sich and
but
the
stands which
is
the
€ncounters
in
what is ‘out
there
is
not
the
abyss
—
to
put
of
with
it in another
Fichte’s
announces
an
confused
noumenal
Or
the
way Anstoss?
‘transcendental
—
where One
object’,
do
we
should
which
find
in
Kant
not
confuse
(contrary
to
in Kant himself) is not found misleading formulations of objectivity, of ‘nothingness’, the void of horizon of form against the (finite) subject, the minimal not yet any positive determinate object that the subject
world
—
Kant
opposing itself the Thing, it
the
German
expression Dawider, to us, standing against us’. This Dawider the of does not to the dimension point uses
46
THE
unimaginable; it is, on objectivity within which
the
TICKLISH
contrary,
was
Reason;
so
the
a we
philosopher are
now
the
very
particular objects
The Fichte
SUBJECT
also
in
a
to
appear
a
of openness towards finite subject.
Monstrous
the
of
horizon
primacy position to
of
practical how
show
our
over
theoretical
reading
of Kant
approach to the ethical problematic. In his Kant and the Problem to think the moral Law of Metaphysics, Heidegger endeavours itself that is, the problematic of practical Reason according to the of the synthesis of imagination same model as as the pure auto-affection, and unity of activity (spontaneity) passivity (receptivity): in his moral himself to a Law that is not external but experience, the subject submits posited by himself, so that being affected by the Call of moral Law is the affects
Kantian
~
ultimate izes
-
form
of selfatfection
—
in it,
as
well
as
in
the
Law
that
character-
and receptivity coincide. This is subjectivity, autonomy the origin of all the paradoxes of Heidegger’s reading: Heidegger first reduces of the subject, then temporality and Law to pure self-affection for this very reason because within the rejects them they remain constraints of subjectivity. In short, the Heidegger himself generates ‘subjectivist’ reading of Kant to which he then refers in rejecting him... . of Kant’s Heidegger’s devaluation practical philosophy in his Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics belongs in the long line of critics, from Heinrich Heine and Feuerbach to Adorno and Horkheimer in Dialectic of Enlightenthe Critique of Practical Reason as Kant’s ment, who dismiss betrayal of the subversive anti-metaphysical potential of his Critique of Pure Reason: in his ethical freedom and moral Law as that on account thought, Kant asserts the finite of which to subject (man) is not constrained phenomenal that is, as a window on the purely rational noumenal domain, experience time: of meta-physics. The beyond or outside literally the domain price Kant pays for this is that he has to limit the scope, the grounding role, of transcendental of temporalization: the imagination and its movement and moral Law is nof rooted in temporal selfexperience of freedom affection. cause of this ‘regression’ According to Heidegger, the ultimate into the metaphysical opposition between lies in temporal and eternal Kant’s of time as the linear succession of moments metaphysical notion under the domination of the present: so, although Kant is compelled to invoke in his notion of the subject gua moral temporal determinations the infinite agent (morality involves temporal progress; only a finite being autonomous
—
—
THE
DEADLOCK
iawelling time
i in
table outside domain lmoreoriginal, Is there
no
time
‘of Conscience?
-eriteria Call
(Gall
is not
‘from
make
of
between
Kant’s
notion
authentic
subject in the
of
to
the
this
Voice
identify
authentic
sense:
voice
of
the
of
a
another,
and
choice.
(The location
of
this
Heidegger emphasizes,
as
heart
very
extasis
to
Heidegger’s Call of Conscience is usually is purely formal, it tells providing any concrete
Call
without
Lacanian
the
as
duty
choice
ultimately
something pointing
ethical
of
he is
Duty, etc.),
only as eternity), not temporality.
decisionism:
it is the
since
of
divine
Agent;
that
emerges
it
comes
from it of
Dasein, reminding
Heidegger links this Call of Conscience as an a formal feature priori (existential) concrete determinate act guilt about some
unique potentiality.) of guilt, conceived
‘the motif
non-act
the
Call
freedom
mode
47
IMAGINATION
pronounced/uttered by another Daseinor but is simultaneously outside, something
own
Dasein
an
is ex-timate
Nowhere, its
formal
its
enabling
this
link
the
by
(to noumenal
Heidegger’s
for
‘criticized Dasein to
of
fact
non-linear actual
TRANSCENDENTAL
be affected
the
conceive
to
{
can
OF
such;
as
but
it is not
the
a
expression
the
of
formal
that
act
the
in
of
case
to
of or
Dasein,
and thrownness, and at the same time its anticipatoryowing to its finitude the future, projecting opening towards potentiality always and a priori of Dasein’s determinate existence. The usual outstrips the actualization the Protestant notion of Sin as point here is that Heidegger ‘secularizes consubstantial with human existence as such’, depriving it of its positive theological foundation by redefining it in a purely formal way. the less be defended here: this criticism is no Heidegger should none better criticism that the Marxist narrative of grounded than the standard the Communist revolution leading to the classless society is a secularized version of the religious narrative of Fall and the Salvation; in both cases, we turn the criticism around and claim why shouldn’t that the latter, allegedly ‘secularized’ version of provides the truce version which the religious narrative is merely a mystified and naive anticipation? do not these of Guilt and Call of Furthermore, Heideggerian notions Conscience tradition that stretches rely on the paradigmatically modern
answer
from
should
be:
Kantian
ethics
to
the
say: the first thing to note Conscience and universalized same
coin:
it
is
precisely
strict
Freudian
is
that
Guilt because
the are
notion
of
strictly identical,
Dasein
that
it
can
never
is consubstantial
of Kant’s says
two
receives
never
that
That
superego?
character
formal
injunction from the Call of Conscience accomplishing its proper duty that Guilt we are dealing with here is a reformulation is also tautologically empty: it tive, which —
of
the
is
the
Call
sides
of
any be with
to
of
the
positive sure
of
it. What
categorical imperasubject should
do
48
THE
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
duty without specifying what this duty is, and thus shifts the burden of of duty wholly on to the subject. determining the content Heidegger was thus fully justified when, a couple of years later (in his 1930 course on the essence of human freedom), he indulged in a brief to Kant’s save Reason the attempt Critique of Practical by interpreting of Being and Time, as the Call of Kantian moral imperative in the terms his
that
Conscience
the
Maz, into does
it:
shatters
and
inauthentic
Kantian
ontic
practical
from
us
transports
morality of provides
reason
immersion
our
‘this
is how
it is
das
done, how the
into
glimpse
a
into
one
of
abyss
freedom
of traditional metabeyond (or, rather, beneath) the constraints to the Reason is physical ontology. This reference Critique of Practical an founded on accurate ethical revolution, insight into Kant’s radical which breaks with the metaphysical ethics of Supreme Good and just as from the abyss of the unimaginable Monstrosity Heidegger retreated lurking in the Kantian problematic of transcendental imagination, so he —
also
retreated
from
formalism’
From
Kant. its
discernible
Monstrosity
after
when,
for
role
the
Kehre, he
his
the
mid-1930s
in
it is the
onwards,
‘ethical
Kantian
reserved
longer
no
the
exceptional
an
of the
Event
Truth
of
which
law/measure provides the historial/epochal of what, in our as ethical everyday experience, can count injunction, Kant to a figure in the line stretching from is thereby reduced Plato’s Idea of Supreme Good (which already subordinates Being to Supreme Good) to nihilistic the modern babble about ‘values’; he even lays the ground for
Being,
the
(dis)closure,
modern
from
turn
the
notion
Being itself to the subjectivist on ‘objective’ reality, so that the
line
first
to
moral
Law
ethical mined
Will
the
assert
that
wills
thesis
any
thus
Kant’s
this
Law
to
any
Will:
roots
of
is
of
beings impose provides a key link in
towards
in all its
order
human
revolution
to
values.
nihilism.
The
Kant
the
goals,
self-posited:when
content
in Freud's is
the
in An Introduction
crucial
subversive
truly
assertion
practical
what demonstrated, Sublime/Monstrous:
gone
the
his
of
lineage culminating
Beauty directly
lie
denies
positive
on
Will
the
in
Will
was
basically of
autonomy
my will
the the
follows
its Call,
of
Kantian
tiseif*
revolution,
by
the
as
that
nihilism
modern
to
therein
means
ultimately Heidegger
his
Platonism
ztself, and
wills
it
from
ethical
inherent
as
of ‘values’
notion
his
Good
of
of
(it
is upon
invention here
of
is
ignores
Monstrous
(most
the
barred/empty,
as
this
philosophy
Heidegger to
Law
potential feature
that
the
starting
deter-
not
Lacan
grounds
point in the psychoanalysis). As Rogozinski
the the
as
fate
of
Sublime
evidently
Metaphysics): Beauty
in
is the
the —
his
triad that
Beautiful/ is, he
links
reading of Antimode of apparition
DEADLOCK
THE
‘of the
OF
it
designates allegiance to
Monstrous;
our ‘that shatters derails our immersion
Sublime
the
is
‘Jineage revolution: _ethical of
the
TRANSCENDENTAL
directly Supreme
the
das Man
in
linked
if the
—
modalities
everyday
(the way ‘it the
to
Good
the
of
one
IMAGINATION
to
Beautiful
insertion
Kant
as
the
This
Kant
the
of
it, the
that
—
is,
passing
in
dismissal
put
Truth-Event
things
done’). of
Heidegger’s is,
of
run
is
of
49
it
over
Platonic
the
Kantian of
symbol
the
of the ethical Law. precisely the failed schemé to the Monstrous The stakes in Heidegger's direct linking of the Beautiful the disappearance of the Sublime thus higher than are they may seem: is the obverse of his ignorance of the in Heidegger's reading of Kant motif of the pure form of Law; the fact that the Kantian Kantian moral the status of the Monstrous. Law is ‘empty’, a pure form, radically affects
Good, then
Sublime
the
is
How? of
Heidegger, Uncanny,
das
first
chorus):
to
great
thematizes
course,
Unheimliche,
as
in his
of
language, his
for
earth, throws
as
the
well
the as
natural He
Monstrous
the
translates
detailed
Metaphysics, he deploys
nature,
he
the
of
contours
the
violence
course
of
‘daemonic’
of this
reading
the of
events
insists
(or
chorus
rather,
from in An
the
Antigone’s Introduction
overpowering violence man who, by dwelling ‘off the rails’ and exploits the ‘out-ofjoint’ character
of in it
repeatedly on of man: not only is his fight against/with the powers of nature ‘derailing’; the very institution of polis, of a communal as an order, is characterized act So Heidegof violent imposition, as grounded in an abyssal decision. that every is ger is well aware dwelling in the familiar everyday universe act of resolutely grounded in a vielent/monstrous deciding/assuming is primordially ‘out of joint’, the very imposition one’s fate: that since man of a ‘home site of dwelling, polis, is unheimlich, [heim]’, of a communal on an deed. The problem is that this domain of excessive/violent reposes own
Unheimliches
purposes.
remains
for
him
the
very
domain
of
the
disclosure
of
histori-
cal
shape of being, of a world, grounded in impenetrable earth, in which earth man between (natural surroundhistorically dwells, of the tension ings) and the shape of man’s communal being. And, in so far as the the precise can see particular shape of historical being is ‘beauty’, one in which, for are cosense Heidegger, Beauty and the Monstrous dependent. The
Kantian/Lacanian
Monstrous,
however,
involves
another
dimen-
of a historical not-yet-worldly, ontological, the disclosure of the destiny of being, but a pre-ontological universe shape of communal ‘night of the world’ in which partial objects wander in a state preceding any synthesis, like that in Hieronymus Bosch’s paintings (which are strictly
sion:
a
dimension
50
THE
correlative the
up This
of modern emergence subjectivity). Kant himself opens of this uncanny pre-ontological spectrality, of the ‘undead’
domain with
domain
other
the
negative and infinite judgement.” ‘underground’ as the dark, lower
between
old, premodern order
cosmic
global
stricto
something In
his distinction
is not
the
of
strata
SUBJECT
the
to
apparitions,
TICKLISH
in
which
entities
monstrous
but
dwell,
acosmic.
sensu
what
Heidegger misses is the radical anti-ontological of Kant’s (or, rather, anti-cosmological) thrust philosophy: against the neo-Kantian historico-culturalist or epistemological misreading of Kant, Heidegger is justified in emphasizing how Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason of a new and provides the foundation ontology of finitude temporality; what he misses is that the antinomies of pure reason generated by Kant’s insistence on the subject’s finitude undermine the very notion of cosmos as a whole of the as a universe, meaningful hermeneutic totality of to surroundings, as a life-world in which a historical people dwells. Or words,
—
put it in yet another dimension of the
what
Heidegger misses is the suspension of the as the (being-in-the-)world, psychotic self-withdrawal, ultimate radical dimension of subjectivity, as (im) possibility,as the most that against which the violent the synthetic imposition of a (New) Order Event of Historical Disclosure of Being is the defence. And this which brings us back to the problematic of the Sublime the Kantian notion of the Heidegger left out in his reading of Kant: way
—
—
—
Sublime
is
strictly
correlative
to
designates
the
inability
of
closure
the
horizon
necessary
of
conceptualized
strous
aggregate
of
incompatible
by stepmotherly with
obverse
the
this
failure
Kant nature
Monstrous
in
its to
it
ontology/cosmology; imagination to bring about
transcendental for
of
the
notion
of
a
cosmos.
The
different
the
the
thus
of which
guises (from diabolical Evil) is Heidegger speaks:
the
Mon-
chaotic
wholly
it is almost
historical imposition of a new shape Being; namely, the very gesture of the suspension of the dimension is empty/sublime World-Disclosure. And the ethical Law precisely in is the abyss of the far as its “primordially repressed’ content ‘night of not of a spontaneity world’, the Monstrous yet bound by any Law the
exact
of
the
violent
—
Freudian
terms:
of death
drive.
of of so
the in
THE
DEADLOCK
OF
TRANSCENDENTAL
Kant Kant’s a
of the
notion ‘third
specific
stricto
with
David
transcendental
pre-ontological.
In
Lynch
constitution
which
domain’,
of
reality phenomenal nor
is neither
51
IMAGINATION
Derridean
thus
opens
up but
noumenal
could
designate it as it would be too quick and inappropriate to terms, spectrality; in Lacanian ‘designate it as fantasy since, for Lacan, fantasy is on the side of reality the that is, it sustains subject’s ‘sense of reality’: when the phantasmic frame disintegrates, the subject undergoes a ‘loss of reality’ and starts to with no firm perceive reality as an ‘unreal’ nightmarish universe ontologthis nightmarish universe is not ical foundation; ‘pure fantasy’ but, on the _
sensu
terms,
we
—
that
contrary,
which
remains
is
of reality after reality
deprived of
its
in
support
fantasy. when
So
in which
universe
masked
of
the
Schumann's ball
Carnival
intercourse where
one
—
with
between never
knows
its
‘real
‘regression’ to a dreamlike people’ is replaced by a kind
what
mask
laughing crazily at us: a machine, (undoubtedly the most horrifying) simply the
itself
sets
—
to
who
or a
‘real’
double
Unheimliche, what we fantasy’ but, rather, the unique artistic
‘universe
beneath
slimy life-substance,
Hoffmann’s
music
is hidden
of pure decomposition of the
obtain
the
of
is not
rendering
or
mask
the of the
fantasy-frame. The characters musically depicted in like the ghastly apparitions strolling along the main Carnival are street of Oslo in Munch’s famous painting, pale-faced and with a frail, but strangely intense source of light within their eyes (signalling gaze as object replacing the looking eye): desubjectivized living dead, frail spectres deprived of material their substance. It is against this background that one should notion of ‘traversing (going through) the fantasy’: approach the Lacanian ‘traversing the fantasy’ precisely does not designate what this term suggests to a common-sensical approach: ‘getting rid of the fantasies, of illusionary which distort our view of reality, and prejudices and misperceptions, In ‘traversing finally learning to accept reality the way it actually is...’. the fantasy’ we do not learn to suspend our phantasmagorical productions —
on
more
the
radically,
transformation
we
contrary, in
into
all
the
identify with the work of our ‘imagination’ even its inconsistency that is to to its say, prior to our access phantasmic frame that guarantees ~
reality.) At
this
‘zero-level’,
impossible to endure, of subjectivity, confronted by a multitude which, precisely, are exemplifications of the
we
of
only the pure void spectral ‘partial objects’ have
Lacanian
lamella,
the
undead
52
THE
object-libido.™=Or
to
—
put
the
pre-subjective noumenal ‘birth of subjectivity’, of that replaces reality with ins of
for
the
‘immortal’
Reason
is not
SUBJECT
it in yet another Real itself, but
drive the death way the impossible moment —
the
negative gesture membra disjecta, with
libido.
the
TICKLISH
The
noumenal,
but
this
nor
of the
of contraction/withdrawal a
of organs as standconcealed by the Ideas
series
Real
monstrous
is
primordial
space transcendental
of
‘wild’
prefreedom/
of synthetic imagination, the impossible domain to spontaneity at its purest, prior to its subordination any selfimposed ‘extreme’ Law, the domain glimpsed momentarily in various points of to the Surrealists. This post-Renaissance art, from Hieronymus Bosch domain is imaginary, but not yet the Imaginary qua specular identification of the subject with a fixed image, that is, prior to the imaginary identifi-
cation is
the
formative
as
assertion
of the
phenomenal reality ‘vanishing mediator’ its
conclusion,
human
freedom ‘run
imagination It is only at
absolute
subject’s -
there
guise
another of
which
and
between
the
if
his line
of
thought to one to has direct between animality and presuppose, to subordinated Law, the monstrosity of a pre-synthetic amok’, generating spectral apparitions of partial objects. level that, in the guise of the partial libido-objects, we the of the to void pure impossible object correlative spontaneity: these partial objects (‘here a bloody head white ghastly apparition’) are the impossible forms in the the itself subject gua absolute spontaneity ‘encounters two:
one
brings
objects’.
among As
this the
encounter
of
not
of Kant ego. So the great implicit achievement the between transcendentally constituted gap the transcendent but of the noumenal domain,
for
Lacan,
it
is
often
noted
that
identification
his
classic
account
of
imaginary horrifying
the gap to be filled by it, the already presupposes a experience of dispersed ‘organs without body’, of le corps morcelé, of its membra it is at this level that we encounter disjecta freely floating around the death drive at its most radical. of And, again, it is this dimension preand from which phantasmic pre-synthetic imagination Heidegger when he abandoned retreated the idea of maintaining Kant as the central in his development of the analytic of Dasein. Furtherpoint of reference the same movement should be repeated at the level of intersubjecmore, tivity: the Heideggerian Mit-Sein, the fact that Dasein’s being-in-the-world always-already relates to other Daseins, is not the primary phenomenon. is a relationship to another Prior to it, there subject who is not yet but one who situation, properly ‘subjectivized’, a partner in a discursive the ‘neighbour’ as the ex-timate remains foreign body absolutely close to us.°> For Freud and Lacan, of ‘neighbour’ is definitely one of the names —
THE
DEADLOCK
OF
Ungeheure, of the ‘Oedipalization’, the
Monstrous:
das
the
precisely ing it Today,
into
a
the
who is
artist
first
film,
traumatic At
this
ago and
could
say
experience the point
dominates
is
the
noise the
that
that
rule
of
in
the
paternal
is
Law,
transform-
communication.
imagination
in its monstrous
release
of
process
discursive
of with
the
otherness,
Lynch. After the began to circulate
viewer's
caused
a
of Eraserhead,
to
for
account
hearing
inaudible
voice
of unease,
feeling film
feature needed
its
which
no
one
can
and
distinguish this inaudible psychotic hallucination: not only presupposed
that
This
nausea.
Looking back on length film was such to
invent
the
explanations
film’s
although
was
over
it now, an
one
intense even
...
ten
to
noises.™'
produces material real—impossiblein the Lacanian us
even
in
Eraserhead.
was
Lynch’s first audio-visually that people
of
frequency drone mind. People said
subconscious
of the
name
ultra-low
an
David
of this
status
nausea),
rumored
was
affected
inaudible,
less
it
time,
soundtrack
The
obsessed
rumour
strange
stake
monstrous
horizon
is David
at
impact:
the
years
a
the
actually
pre-ontologicaldimension his
this
‘gentrifying’ within
partner
is
the
of
53
IMAGINATION
what
establishment
of
process
TRANSCENDENTAL
voice
from
perceive, but which effects (feelings of sense
the
voice
the
of
that
term.
is the
none unease
It is crucial
the
and to
object of the in psychosis (paranoia), the ‘impossible’ voice is to to exist and exert its effectiveness; the subject voice is found actually purports to hear it. Another example of the same use a small (unexpectedly, perhaps) in hunting: as is well known, hunters metallic to reach whistle their dogs; owing to its high frequency, only dogs can hear it and react to it which, of course, gives rise to the persistent myth that we humans unknowingly also hear this whistle (beneath the threshold of conscious and obey it a perception) perfect example of the paranoid notion that can humans be controlled byinvisible/imperceptible media. This notion is given a direct critico-ideological twist in John Carpenter’s film underrated They Live (1988), in which a lonely dritter arrives in Los Angeles and discovers that our consumerist society is dominated by aliens, whose human visible are disguises and subliminal advertising messages only through special glasses: when we put these glasses on, we can perceive all around us injunctions (‘Buy this!’, ‘Turn into this store!’, etc.) which we otherwise notice and of them. obey without being aware Again, the charm of this idea lies in its very naivety: as if the surplus of an ideological mechanism over its visible on another, presence. is itself materialized —
...
54
THE
invisible
level,
ideology’. At the
.
with
that,
so
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
special glasses
we
on,
literally ‘see
can
.%
.
level
speech itself, a gap forever separates what one is tempted to call proto-speech or ‘speech-in-itself’ from ‘speech-for-itself’, explicit symbolic registration. For example, today’s sex psychologists tell us that even before a to go to bed couple explicitly state their intention together, at the level of innuendos, everything is already decided body language, exchange of glances.... The trap to be avoided here is the precipitate ontologization of this ‘speech-in-itself’, as if speech in fact pre-exists itself as a kind of fully-constituted as if this ‘speech ‘speech before speech’ la lettre’ actually exists avant as more fundamental, another, fully constituted language, reducing normal, ‘explicit’ language to its secondary surface before reflex, so that things are already truly decided they are explicitly spoken about. What one should always bear in mind against this of
—
delusion
is that
this
only when its proof of this
scope is the
confer
a
other is fact
that
virtual:
remains
proto-speech sealed, posited
in
such,
as
it becomes
Word.
explicit
actual
The
best
this
proto-language is irreducibly ambiguous and it is ‘pregnant undecidable: with meaning’, but with a kind of unspecified free-floating meaning waiting for the actual symbolization to it
on
Ottoline
Lady
forever
explicit
the
read
this
‘already
I knew
then
from passage knew that he
retroactive;
its
with
her
been in love
with
her.
in
all
the
history of philosophy, ontological, not-yet-symbolized Plato
the texture
who,
in
late
instant
I
truth.’°° as
effect
futur
first
to
of
to
I
loved
“Good
thought
this
from
proto-speech know
you
his
gap the till
I
God, what
And
again, it is wrong to if, deep in himself, Russell of
antérieur
without
precisely
to
always-already that
—
knowing approach
relations
was
is
strictly
is to say, Russell he will it; rather,
this none
uncanny other
pre-
than
dialogue Timaeus, feels compelled to prea kind of all determinate of matrix-receptacle forms suppose governed by its own contingent rules [chora] it is crucial not to identify this chora too matter [/yle]. However, it was the great break hastily with the Aristotelian to outline Idealism the precise contours of this prethrough of German of the spectral Real, which ontological dimension precedes and eludes of reality (in contrast the ontological constitution to the standard cliché himself,
his
a
time
the
not
this of
of
‘I did
For-itself
her’:
is that
refers
domain
the
was
to
loved
love
not
it
In-itself
temporality
recalls
ambiguous
of
and
from his letter passage the of circumstances
Russell
—
I said?”
In
he
Bertrand
her,
to
scparates
act
have
have
which
in
famous
a
symbolic assumption: for one myself telling you so
heard
was
love
of
In
spin....
Morrell,
declaration that
definitive
—
THE
DEADLOCK
which
according to of all reality
OF
German
the
TRANSCENDENTAL
Idealists
the
pleaded
of the
55
IMAGINATION
reduction
‘pan-logicist’
Notion’s
self-mediation). Kant was the this crack in the ontological edifice of reality: if (what we ‘first to detect is not as) reality’ simply given ‘out there’, waiting to ‘objective ‘experience ‘be composite constituted perceived by the subject, but an artificial that is, through the act of -through the subject’s active participation then the question crops transcendental or later: synthesis up sooner of the is the status X that what uncanny precedes the transcendentally constituted account of this reality? F.WJ. Schelling gave the most detailed to
product
—
-
X
his
in
of
notion
the
domain
yet God’: of ‘drives’, the
Ground
of Reason
Himself
in
is
the
Ground the
not
of
‘divine
pre-logical
that
gesture
very
Existence
of
can
its
the
Real
forever
withdrawal...
to be utterly appear foreign to Hegel's less Hegel himself who provided its
quoted space there
of
‘the
the
fram
passage
night
another
of
the
of
madness’, be
never
-
that
obscure
in
‘in
God
pre-ontological the
remains
elusive
grasped ‘as such’, merely glimpsed .57 Although this dimension may ‘absolute most
which
it
idealism’,
poignant fenaer Realphilosophie: is not world’,
which
that
‘here
shoots
neverthe-
was
in
description the a
the
pre-ontological bloody head
—
white
ghastly apparition, suddenly here before it, and just so description of Lynch’s universe? disappears’, the most succinct This is best discerned pre-ontological dimension through the crucial into Hegelian gesture of transposing epistemological limitation ontological fault. That is to say: all Hegel does is, in a way, to supplement Kant’s of well-known motto the transcendental of reality (‘the constitution of possibility of our conditions the time knowledge are at the same of possibility of the object of our conditions knowledge’) by its negative of our the limitation knowledge (its failure to grasp the Whole of Being, the way our and knowledge gets inexorably entangled in contradictions is simuitaneously the limitation of the very object of our inconsistencies) knowledge, that is, the gaps and voids in our knowledge of reality are simultaneously the gaps and voids in the ‘real’ ontological edifice itself. It that here may scem Hegel is the very opposite of Kant: does he not, in to clear contrast Kant’s assertion that it is impossible to conceive of the universe as a Whole, deploy the last and most ambitious global ontological of the totality of Being? This edifice impression, however, is misleading: —
what
it
dialectical
fails
to
take
note
is the process deadlock. In
of
is
the
interplay
the
way between
the course ontological that subject is compelled to assume with regard to reality signals the more
of the
‘motor’
innermost
obstacle
epistemological a
dialectical
reflexive
insufficiency of radical insufficiency
of
his of
turn,
the
and the
knowledge reality itself
56
THE
(see the standard
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
‘critique of ideology’, whose basic view of social premiss its that the ‘inadequacy’ of the ideologically distorted reality is not a simple epistemological mistake, but simultaneously signals the much more troubling fact that something must be terribly wrong with our social reality itself only a society which is ‘wrong’ in itself generates a is very precise: not of itself). Hegel’s point here ‘wrong’ awareness only do the inherent of our inconsistencies and contradictions knowledge not it from prevent functioning as ‘true’ knowledge of reality, but there is of ‘hard external ‘reality’ (in the most usual sense reality’ as opposed to ‘mere is alienated of the Notion notions’) only in so far as the domain from radical itself, split, traversed deadlock, caught in some by some debilitating inconsistency. To get an let us recall the vortex, approximate idea of this dialectical classic notions of light: light as opposition of the two mutually exclusive the ‘solution’ of composed of particles and light as consisting of waves this oppotime) transposes quantum physics (light is both at the same into the ‘thing itself’, with the necessary sition result that ‘objective reality’ itself loses its full ontological status that it turns into something that is is ultimately whose status ontologically incomplete, composed of entities Marxist
notion
of the
-
—
—
virtual.
Or
while
think
reading
have
can
‘You
—
fool
can
shelves
mind.
What,
the
same
all the
fully constituted: is meaningless the
—
for
goes
people
some
fooled?
himself
point, And
Isn’t
and
what
if such
a
‘sutures’
same
line)
which
persists
‘reality’? What
this
radical
to
cover
up
our
so
sense, an
if
of
the
social
that
in
simply
him’ and
ambiguity
ask
to
maintain
did
the
not
level
of
of the
and
time,
all
people
are or
other
did
of
is bound
that to
the who
Lincoln
enigma wanted
some
people
some
make
‘it sounded and
the
the
to
really Lincoln
witty good’? a
signifier (here:
same
the
inconclusiveness
signified content pertains also reality is ‘symbolically constructed’ order
exactly
Abraham
because the
Conan
reality itself
‘What
signifier (what Lacan called the ontological gap? conceal
empty and
one
fundamental
the
the level
at
call
consistency,
in which
situation
he
when
on
—
the
this
to
most
—
the
ask
to
probable solution of the ambiguity aware phrase ‘imposed itself on
the not
was
if it is wrong
however,
What,
minds
simply
if
however,
our
to
writer
fool all people all the time, but you cannot is logically that does it mean there ambiguous: someone always be fooled, or that on every occasion
mean?’
has
least
at
it
the
on
his
flat,
in
reconstruct
we
the
time’ be
famous
were
of it in
precise symbolic meaning, of
Holmes’s
there
idea
a
Lincoln’s
way the universe is full of ‘holes’, not
Sherlock
books
many
the
novel
a
describes
Doyle how
of
to
appearance
what
we
also
in
of
its
Master-Signifier)
THE
So the
DEADLOCK
that
OF
forever
TRANSCENDENTAL
the
57
IMAGINATION
domain
of
(symbolically mediated, Ei.e.ontologically constituted) reality from the elusive and spectral real that it is crucial: what psychoanalysis calls ‘fantasy’ is the endeavour precedes this gap by (mis)perceiving the pre-ontological Real as ‘to close simply ‘more level of reality on to the fundamental’, fantasy projects another, of constituted in the Christian Real the form (as reality ;pre-ontological of another, The great merit is that of reality). Lynch suprasensible ‘notion this properly metaphysical temptation to close the gap between resists the these pre-ontological phenomena and the level of reality. Apart from his of the Real : primaryvisual procedure for conveying the spectral dimension “(the excessive close-up on the depicted object, which renders it unreal), focus on non-localizable the way Lynch plays with uncanny ‘one should The of The Elephant Man, for example, is ‘sounds. nightmare sequence that seems to accompanied by a strange vibrating noise transgress it is as if, in this noise, from exterior: the the border separating interior gap
separates
—
extreme
of
the
with
externality bodily interior,
coincidence
substance, the
of
with
Lacanian On
the
the
of
rhythm of
core
externality
notion Ievel
the
very
the
of
coincides
machine
a
of
a
with
the
intimacy
utmost
of the
palpitating heart. Does not the subject’s being, of his/her offer a perfect illustration machine,
of
this lifeof
ex-timacy?
speech, perhaps
the
best
illustration
of
this
is the
gap
with the Emperor, the Lynch’s Dune when, in his confrontation into space guild representative utters unintelligible whispers transformed articulate in Lacanian speech only by passing through a microphone of the big Other. In Twin Peaks as well, the terms, through the medium dwarf in the Red Lodge speaks an distorted incomprehensible, English, here rendered intelligible only with the help of subtitles, which assume the role of the microphone, that is, the medium In of the big Other. both cases, Lynch reveals the gap that forever separates pre-ontological of the Real’, from the fully constituted proto-speech, this ‘murmur logos. This feature of dialectical-materialist brings us to the fundamental ‘in forever event an ontology: the minimal separates gap, the delay, which itself’ from its symbolic inscription/registration; this gap can be discerned in its different guises from quantum physics (according to which an event ‘becomes itself’, is fully actualized, only through its registration in its of it) to that is, the moment its surroundings ‘take note’ surroundings take’ in the the procedure of ‘double classic (the Hollywood comedies victim of a fraud first perceives the event or the statement or an accident of its which means him even with unaware to irony, calmly, catastrophe scene
in
—
...
~
consequences;
then,
after
a
minimal
time
lapse
all
of
a
sudden
he
58
THE
shudders unmarried
the
starts
the
minimal
gap
apropos
not
fully
gap between of the notion the
gift;
a
In-itself of
the
the
charm
of
the
the
two
in
situation
hangs in the air, the meaning, to precipitate itself search
the
of
it pronounced, disappointment,
abortion.
paradox is most
approach well
is
the
became a
itself the
will it
charm
is
silence
magic mutual
their
of
towards which
points
Word, it
be
once
yet
—
necessarily brings
—
erotic with
‘pregnant’ for
wait
to
broken
is
attraction,
to
seems
name
lost,
known,
of
details
of reach
out
chaos
gargantuan
that
a
difference
theory
about
every
birth
of
feature
of
dialectical
chaos
in
the
Word,
the
Word
is
the
effect
of
meaning
to
is
an
led
in data
the
out
radically
to
final
too
physics a
the
cursory features
close
approach. of the imperfection of repetitively processed by
data,
same
generates)
even
cxceedingly
born
was
the
(or
materialism
theory and quantum ‘postmodernism’):
call
we
detailed,
a
difference in
key
reveals to
when apparatus: computer program, aware
the
clearly perceptible what perhaps, defines
ignorant
remain
towards
measuring same
the
situation
fully fits,
never
this
...
{and which, which
Word
described
as
assured
already
are
partners
Derrida
For-itself,
before
just
tension
which
his
long as a gift is not recognized, it ‘is’ it is recognized, it is no longer a pure gift, the cycle of exchange. Another exemplary an emerging love relationship: we all know
in
tension
and
gift:
moment
already caught be
This
upon learning that first calmly remarks
-
it is
in
who,
-
would
be
father
daughter is pregnant, ‘OK, big deal?’, and only later, after a couple of seconds, turns pale to shout in Hegelese ...), What we are dealing with here is
and
case
like
—-
SUBJECT
innocent
the
what’s
since
stiffens
or
TICKLISH
different
small
outcome....
to
results,
be noted The
same
can
As
the the
scientists
produce paradox is
of quantum towards operative in the very foundation physics: the distance the ‘thing itself” (the constitutive imprecision of our measuring, that is, the barrier of ‘complementarity’ which us from prevents simultaneously measurings) is part of the ‘thing itself’, not merely accomplishing different our that for is, in order (what we perceive as) epistemological defect: of its features have to remain ‘reality’ to appear, some ‘unspecified’ . the of quantum Is not the level gap between potentialities and the confers moment of ‘registration’ which actuality on it homologous in a take’ to the gap between the event itself way to the logic of ‘double of his daughter’s (a father being informed pregnancy) and its symthe moment when the process bolic registration ‘appears to itself’, is here is the difference between this importance registered? Of crucial notion of ‘symbolic registration’ dialectical-materialist which, ‘after the —
—
THE
:
DEADLOCK
confers
fact’,
esse =
actuality
percipt:
the
after
a
minimal
gap
separating
it from
TRANSCENDENTAL
the
fact
in
and
delay the
remains
In-itself
of the
it is part of the ‘thing itself’, as its ontological status only by means
such,
realize
IMAGINATION
question, (symbolic) registration,
on
of
act
comes
as
OF
and
the
the
‘second
forever
59
idealist
equation
take’,
incomplete,
always a
cursory,
registered process yet precisely if the ‘thing’ in question can fully of a minimal delay with regard —
itself.
to
The
paradox thus lies in the fact that ‘false’ appearance is comprised within the ‘thing itself’. And, incidentally, therein lies the dialectical ‘unity of essence and appearance’ completely missed by the textbook platitudes on how ‘essence must appear’, and so on: the approximate ‘view from afar’ which ignores all the details and limits itself to the ‘mere appearance’, is nearer the ‘essence’ than a close the ‘essence’ of a thing thus gaze; itself of the ‘false’ paradoxically constitutes through the very removal from the Real in its immediacy.** We thus have three eleappearance not and its appearing: is reality, within ments, first, there it, only essence there is the ‘interface’-screen of appearances; finally, on this screen, ‘essence’ The catch is thus that is literally the appears. appearance of the essence that is, the only place for the appearing/emerging essence to dwell. The standard Idealist reduction of reality as such, in its of some hidden Essence falls short here: entirety, to the mere appearance within the domain of ‘reality’ itself, a line must be drawn which separates ‘raw’ reality from the screen Essence of reality through which the hidden ~
so that if appears, which very ‘essence’
we
take
away
appears
this
in it...
this
abyss
of
vantage
domain,
ity
the
of
lifeless
a
dismissed
as
than
one
Scene free
of
agent
puppet
the
if
Kant
Remember
we no
because
where
see
gain
to
were
his
wonder
of his
this
direct
‘recoils’ to
answer
to
access
vision
insight
from
the of
into
a
the
the
the
quesnoumenal who
man
monstros-
divine
commentators
what
clearly
imagination.
happen to us Things-in-themselves:
lose
we
Acosmism
can
would
to
into
turns
one
transcendental
of what
tion
point,
of appearance,
.
Kant’s From
medium
an
the Being-in-itself provokes such an unease among on Kant or in silence (usually, it is either passed over is no less uncanny, out-of-place body): what Kant delivers is tempted to call the Kantian the Other fantasy, fundamental
freedom, is turned
of
the into
a
spontaneous lifeless
free
puppet
agent, at
the
the mercy
Scene of
a
in which
perverse
the
God.
60 Its
of
lesson,
phantasmic manipulated
by
fantasy
itself
-
to
would
turn
moment
the
consistency
Is the
able?
of radical
the
us?
determining That
with
is
the
the to
To
ontological the
say:
But
the
totally
prohibition
of
direct
domain
should
what
to
fundamental phantasmic
our
this
into
of the
put
is this
from
obstacle
an
to
would
deprive
it
it in
into today’s terms, conclusion really unavoidof freedom
that far
so
of
us
freedom:
transcendental
of
basically only in us
save
with
misrecognition,
is
close
too
this
he
Real, but
comes
or,
free
mistake
which
reformulated:
be
core
machines’.
we
in
noumenal
automata
Are
Scene
without
agent
existence.
of consciousness
status
again displace ness
‘thinking
of his
forms
lifeless
determinism?
causes
dition.
that
free
noumenail
the
the
active
Kantian
should
subject
to
access
into
into
the
the
short,
not
the
us
computers,
In
no
Other
this
is
us
SUBJECT is
domain
‘spontaneity’
very
there
Other.
So, for Kant, direct the
is that
noumenal
he loses
core,
the
inaccessible
remain
TICKLISIL
without
support,
the
to
access
course,
THE
this a
as
in
fail
we
to
a
system
recognize
predicament, we should positive ontological conof
identification
epistemological
(self-)conscious-
obstacle,
is
that
it
‘cosmological’ notion order of being: in such a fully constituted positive ‘chain of being’ there no is, of course, place for the subject, so the of subjectivity can dimension be conceived of only as something strictly co-dependent with the epistemological misrecognition of the true positivity of being. Consequently, the only way to account effectively for the status of (self-)consciousness assert the ontological incompleteness of is to ‘reality’itself: there is ‘reality’ only in so far as there is an ontological gap, a that a crack, at its very heart excess, is, a traumatic foreign body that cannot be integrated it. This into of the brings us back to the notion ‘night of the world’: in this momentary suspension of the positive order of reality, we confront the ontological gap because of which ‘reality’ is never a of being. It is only this complete, self-enclused, positive order from selfexperience of the psychotic withdrawal reality, of the absolute for the which accounts contraction, mysterious ‘fact’ of transcendental that is actually ‘spontaneous’, whose for a freedom (self-)consciousness spontaneity is not an effect of misrecognition of some ‘objective’ process. Only at this level are we able to appreciate Hegel’s breathtaking far achievement: from Kant’s criticism to regressing from pre-critical structure of the cosmos, metaphysics expressing the rational Hegel fully stealthily (re)introduces of reality as a positive
standard,
premodern,
—-
—
accepts
logical
(and draws antinomies
ontologically fully
the —
there
consequences is
constituted
no
from)
‘cosmos’,
the
the
result notion
very
positive totality
is
of Kantian of
inconsistent.
cosmo-
cosmos
as
On
the that
THE
account,
direct into
a
DEADLOCK
TRANSCENDENTAL
OF
Hegel also rejects Kant’s insight into the monstrosity lifeless
have
puppet:
such
a
vision
vision of the
61
IMAGINATION
of
a
man
because
who,
of
his
divine
Being-in-itself, would turn is meaningless and inconsistent, since, the ontologically secretly reintroduces
already pointed out, it divine totality: a world conceived fully constituted only as Substance, not also as Subject. For Hegel, the fantasy of such a transformation of man a lifeless of the monstrous Will into divine (or whim), puppet-instrument as it may from horrible the true already signals the retreat appear, of the ‘night of the monstrosity, which is that of the abyss of freedom, What world’. this fantasy by demonstrating Hegel does is thus to ‘traverse’ its function of filling in the pre-ontological abyss of freedom that is, by into a reconstituting the positive Scene in which the subject is inserted order. positive noumenal That is our ultimate from difference answer Rogozinski: in the different to the question ‘What lies beyond the synthetic imagination? What is this ultimate abyss?’. Rogozinski is in search of a non-violent, pre-synthetic, between pre-imaginative unity-in-diversity, of a ‘secret connection things’, a utopian Secret Harmony beyond phenomenal causal links, a mysterious Life of the Universe as the non-violent temporal-spatial unity of pure Kant in his last years diversity, the enigma that bothered (Opus Posthuour mum). From perspective, however, this Secret Harmony is precisely the temptation to be resisted: the problem for us is how we are to conceive of the founding gesture the negative of subjectivity, the ‘passive violence’, act of (not yet imagination, self-withdrawal into the but) abstraction, is the This ‘abstraction’ ‘night of the world’. abyss concealed by the of ontological synthesis: by the transcendental imagination constitutive of transcenreality as such, it is the point of the mysterious emergence dental ‘spontaneity’. The problem with Heidegger, therefore, is that he limits the analysis of schematism to transcendental analytics (to Understanding, to the categorof ies constitutive of reality), neglecting to consider how the problematic schematism Kant in the Critique of Judgement, where conceives re-emerges of the Sublime precisely as an attempt to schematize the Ideas of Reason the Sublime with themselves: us with the failure confronts of imagination, that which remains and it is here forever and a priori un-imaginable is it that we encounter the the In void of short, subject gua negativity. of the limitation of Heidegger's precisely because analysis of schematism the excessive to transcendental to address analytics that he is unable dimension of subjectivity, its inherent madness. last in the From our is the with thus, perspective, problem Heidegger as
we
—
—
—
62
THE
analysis,
TICKLISH
the
following one: the subjectivity its inherent
Cartesian
Evil’
(‘diabolical
in
SUBJECT
Lacanian
enables
reading
the
between
tension
to
us
unearth of
moment
in
excess
the
and the ‘night of the world’ in Hegel...) this excess. subsequent attempt to gentrify-domesticate-normalize Again and again, post-Cartesian philosophers are compelled, by the inherent a certain excessive logic of their philosophical project, to articulate moment of ‘madness’ inherent to cogito, which they then immediately endeavour to ‘renormalize’. And the problem with Heidegger is that his notion of modern for this inherent to account subjectivity does not seem excess. In short, this notion simply does not ‘cover’ that aspect of cogito that leads Lacan to claim that cogito is the subject of the unconscious. Or to the paradoxical achievement of put it in yet another way
Kant,
—-
—
which
Lacan,
unnoticed passes of psychoanalysis,
usually
the
very behalf ‘decontextualized’ rationalist
on
notion
even
his
among
he
the
to
returns
is
advocates, Modern
that,
Age,
of
subject. That is to say: one of the clichés of today’s American of Heidegger is to emphasize appropriation how he, along with Wittgenstein, Merleau-Ponty, and others, elaborated the conceptual framework that enables us to get rid of the rationalist of subject as an autonomous notion from the world, agent who, excluded in a computer-like data provided by the senses processes way. Heidegger’s notion of ‘being-in-the-world’ indicates our irreducible and unsurpassable in a concrete ‘embeddedness’ and ultimately contingent we are life-world: always-already in the world, engaged in an existential project against a our and forever remains the background that eludes grasp opaque as horizon into which we are ‘thrown’ finite to beings. And it is customary consciousness and the Unconscious interpret the opposition between lines: the disembodied consciousalong the same Ego stands for rational whereas
ness,
ground that it, caught in
‘Unconscious’
the can
we
the
in
life-context
the
embedded; machine
life-world;
of the
joint’, crack
that
unprecedented
an
‘Unconscious’ and
which
in
‘Unconscious’ its
follows
it stands
for
in discord that
with
synonymous since we master,
are
the
back-
opaque
of
always-already part
it.
opposite: the Freudian the structurally necessary of
fully
never
however,
Lacan,
is
makes
‘heing-in-the-world’.
with the
has
irreducible we,
claims gesture, nothing whatsoever the
to
exact
do
always-already engaged agents,
is,
rather,
the
contextualized
subject’s primordial
disembodied demands far
situation: stance
as
with
background,
the
path irrespective of the the rational subject in so its
of
opaqueness
the
are
rational
of the it is
the
subject’s originally ‘out
‘Unconscious’
something
other
is
than
THE
In
this
DEADLOCK
one
way,
also
can
phenomenological its
OF
TRANSCENDENTAL
provide of how
problem
life-world
a
IMAGINATION
the
solution
unexpected
new,
subject
disengage
can
63 to
the
itself
old
from
and
rational (mis)perceive itself as a disembodied occur there is from the very agent: this disengagement can only because outset into its lifesomething in the subject that resists its full inclusion world and this ‘something’, of course, is the unconscious context, as the which psychic machine disregards the requirements of the ‘reality prinbetween our immersion in the ciple’. This shows how, in the tension world as engaged agents and the momentary collapse of this immersion in anxiety, there is no The place for the Unconscious. paradox is that once we throw out the Cartesian rational we subject of selfconsciousness, concrete
lose
the
Unconscious. this
Perhaps embracing
is also
Being
the
and
of truth
moment
Time
in
his
in
Husserl's
insistence
resistance
against
that
Heidegger misses the transcendental stance of phenomenological proper epoké and ultimately as a Dasein again conccives worldly entity: although this reproach stricto sensu misses its mark, it does the of how, in express apprehension of being-in-the-world, the that Heidegger’s notion point of ‘madness’ characterizes the Cartesian of the subjectivity, the self-withdrawal cogito into itself, the eclipse of the world, It is well known how disappears. around the famous Kantian statement that the great Heidegger turned scandal of philosophy is that the passage from our of representations was not For Heidegger, the objects to objects themselves properly proven. is that this passage true scandal is perceived as a problem at all, since the of Dasein fundamental situation as being-in-the-world, as always-already the very formulation of such a engaged with objects, renders ‘problem’ meaningless. From our perspective, however, the ‘passage’ (i.e. the subas an ject’s entry into the world, his or her constitution agent engaged in reality, into which is thrown) is not she/he only a legitimate problem, the problem of psychoanalysis.» but even In to read short, I intend —
...
Freud’s
‘the
that
statement
Unconscious
ground of Heidegger's thesis on temporality as the experience of Being: precisely in so far status
of
the
ontological’. in of
Unconscious
(drive)
The
pre-ontological which the void of subjectivity ‘partial objects’, bombarded
What
we
encounter
here
is the
is
(as
is the
Lacan
domain
is confronted
with
time’
is outside
ontological it is
as
put
it
of the
by the apparitions
these
domain
the
of
pure,
against
back-
the horizon
of
‘outside
time’, the in Seminar Xf) ‘pre-
‘night of the world’ spectral proto-reality
radical
of
le corps morceleé.
fantasy
as
pre-
temporal spatiality. Husserl’s
distinction
between
eidefic
and
phenomenologico-transcendental
64
THE
is
reduction
crucial
transcendental
here:
reduction,
the
existential
TICKLISH
SUBJECT lost
is
the
in
phenomenologicois retained, it is the entire flow of phenomena that changes instead towards them stance (objects and phenomena as indicating entities nothing
only subject’s of accepting the flow of of things) that states exist ‘in themselves’, out reduction ‘derealizes’ them, phenomenological non-substantial pure phenomenal flow (a shift versions
some
of
notion
Heidegger’s
of
Dasein
there is
that
them
the
as
close
to
is lost
in
world’.
the
in
the
world,
perhaps reality
from
‘being [thrown]
as
the
in
accepting
‘disconnection’
This
Buddhism).
-
the
On
reducphenomenologico-transcendental tion transcendental to be the very opposite of the Kantian may appear dimension of a priori conditions there is of expcrience), (the dimension none the less an unexpected link with Kant. In his unpublished manuon the Kantian Paul de Man focused script “Kant’s Materialism’, problem-
other
hand,
Sublime
of the
alic
Kant’'s
Husserl’s
although
looking
the
as
world
the
at
locus
just
radical
formalism
that
entertains
radical
formalism
that
animates
sublime
is what
To
it in
put
is called
of Kant’s as
sees
no
notion
thus
claim
located
be
to
fills
in
the
determines the
the
terms,
it
with
objects supplement materialism
are
ical
Chain
embraces),
constituted
talk
dealing of
of
about with
the
two
world
within
the
absolute, the
...
dynamics
in a
the
the
of
Sublime
of
world,
our
network
complex life-world.
De
of
of
the
(in materialism,
idealism
posits
another:
of
Kant’s
and
and
generates
a
which
is
which
content
materialism
Einbildungskraft
an
meanings materialism
content
formal
with
paradoxical
priori as well as the level of the practical their passive contemplation. One a
involves
dealing
Man’s
according to which positive and determinate
some
opposed to this paradox with of imagination,
we
notion
while
form,
in
judgment
an
semiosis
or
thesis
frame
as
ontologically we
of
formal
empty
reference
experience
our
standard
level
the
of
texture
the
on
the
content
When
the
counters
ihn sieht] is
man
materialism.
Heidegger's
forms
[wie of
aesthetic
suspension of our engagement objects as ‘ready-athand’, caught in which
it
one
the
uses
materialism:
is
irreducible
to
engagement is
tempted ultimately
precedes
to
the
every
reality. world
the
distinct as
the
which
we
should,
of course,
bear
in
mind
that
of it:
(1) the traditional metaphys‘Great totality of all entities, the ordered
notions
occupies a specific place as one of the beings; (2) the properly Heideggerian phenomenologically grounded nouon horizon of the disclosure of the world as the finite of being, of the Dasein offer to a historical that projects its future themselves way entities Being’,
man
THE
the
against when
tool of
world
a
interconnected
an
of
into
situation,
concrete
a
distant
historical
and
significations
social
(So
past say, a but the fact that —
its age as such mode of the disclosure
historical
a
65
IMAGINATION
of
of
being, that
practices)
is
no
‘ours’.
when
claim
we
undermined
the
claim
limited
this
(of
texture
longer directly Now
being thrown an object from the makes it ‘past’ is not
what
—-
TRANSCENDENTAL
of
background
trace
a
OF
encounter
we
medieval it is
DEADLOCK
that
of
(ontological validity the
to
his
in
Kant,
traditional
antinomies notion
the)
of
of
pure
the
world,
the
the
of
metaphysical notion is effectively beyond
reason,
is not
world
as
the of horizon (which totality of all entities does not the notion of transcendental possibile experience)? Furthermore, horizon (as opposed to noumenal transcendence) alrcady point towards the Heideggerian notion of the world as the finite of historical horizon the of being, if only we disclosure it of its Cartesian purge physicalist connotations (categories of understanding as the conceptual framework of the scientific of natural, comprehension of representations present-athand it into the of meaning horizon of a finite objects) and transpose add another notion of the world to engaged agent? Perhaps one should the list: the premodern but not ‘anthropocentric’, yet subjective view of the world as the finite ordered ‘Great Chain of Being’ with Earth cosmos, the
stars
above,
the
deeper meaning, today in various properly modern,
and
so
Although
the
in
it
centre,
should
notion
world
of
disclosed
to
the
world of
it does: of
scious,
that
Of
motifs
of
in
Dasein
his
never
Life-World
experience
and
drive,
world Time
the
a
can
is that
so
does to
be
name
shattered any
concrete
world
atoms,
arc
Freud
is
as
precisely engaged
one’s
the
is
way
of
notion the
as
finite
is wager the Uncon-
Our
engaged agent?
by
for
the
of
affect
not
an
on,
into
gap
destruction
Kantian
designated
Heidegger’s
Being and
contingent
that
of pure reason of entities
introduces
course,
immersion
and
phenomenological-transcendental meaning determining how entities
of
dimension
death
the
dimension world.
then,
disclosure
the
of void
the
from
radically
universe’
a
(reasserted
cosmos
differs
to
agent.
mean,
the
witness
the
with
horizon
via antinomies
horizon that
finite
a
also
bears
order
ordered
‘silent
meaningless
confused a
this
approaches)
infinite
as
all this
Does
‘holistic’
be
not
on.
whose
universe
that
of
the
pre-ontological
the
in
immersion
engaged
‘anxiety’: one world-experience
of the is
the
agent’s central
ultimately
an to animal, threat; in contrast always under in its determinate fully fits its surroundings; its immersion is always precarious, and can be undermined by a sudden of its fragility and contingency. The key question, therefore,
and,
as
such,
66
THE
how
is:
does
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
this
which of extraneates anxiety, experience shattering Dasein to its immersion to in its contingent the way of life, relate experience of the ‘night of the world’, of the point of madness, of radical of self-withdrawal, of subjectivity? as the founding gesture contraction, How does the Heideggerian the relate to Freudian being-towards-death In contrast drive? death to to some identify them (found in attempts Lacan’s work of the their insist on should radical early 1950s}, one lamella, the ‘immorincompatibility: ‘death drive’ designates the ‘undead’ of drive tal’ insistence that precedes the ontological disclosure of Being, whose finitude confronts a human being in the experience of ‘being-
towards-death’.
Notes 1. See
De
Jacques Derrida,
2, See Reiner Press 1987. 3. See Theodor
Schtirmann, W.
Uesprit. Heideggeret la question, Paris: Galilée 1987. Heidegger on Being and Acting, Bloomington: Indiana
University
The
Adorno,
New Left Books 1973. Jargon of Authenticity, London: 4. See Jean-Francois Lyotard, Heidegger et ‘les Juifs’,Paris: Galilée 1988. of the Subject: An Interview with Jacques Derrida’, “Eating Well”, or the Calculation in Who Comes After the and Jean-Luc Nancy, New Cadava, Peter Connor Subject, ed. Eduardo York: Routledge 1991, p. 104. 6. When, in his Spieyel interview, Heidegger was asked which political system is best to modern not accommodated ‘I am convinced that it is democtechnology, he answered: racy’ (The Heidegger Controversy:A Critwal Reader, ed. Richard Wollin, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
1993, p. 104). 7.
‘The
Socialism
works
that
have
...
whatever
nothing the
(namely
movement
being peddled
are
to
between
encounter
about
nowadays
with
do
the
the
as
inner
truth and
global technology
of
philosophy and
greatness modern man).’
National of this
(Martin 1997, p. 199.)
Metaphysics,New Haven, CT: Yale University Press and 8, With to the coupling of Stalinism Fascism, Heidegger silently grants respect him at this point, I differ from and follow Alain Badiou (see Alain priority to Fascism J. that despite the horrors Paris: who claims Hatier on its Badiou, committed 1993), Ethique, behalf was (or, rather, on behalf of the specific form of these horrors), Stalinist Communism Revolution); while Fascism was a pseudo(of the October inherently related to a Truth-Event a lie in the event, guise of authenticity. See Chapter 2 of Slavoj Zizek, The Plague of Fantasies, Introduction
An
Heidegger,
to
—-
Verso 1997. London: 9. See Robert Pippin,
Idealism
Modernism,
as
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
1997, pp. 395~414. 10, 11, t2,
I draw
here
on
a
always is a example, simple exchange: |
the
other
the
woman
in
the
Eric
Santner.
Martin Heidegger, Being and Time,Albany, NY: SUNY Press 1996, p. 437. Gilles Deleuze, /mage-temps,Paris: Editions de Minuit 1985, p. 232. To put it in another a it involves a meta-choice; not. for Prostitution, is choice to choose
choice
way:
with
conversation
case
involves
hand,
much of
mor
marriage
two
levels:
(maintains for
a
money,
pays a woman for having sex in traditional marriage, with man
man
her one
as
his can
wife)
in order
say that
the
not
husband
to
or
with her. Marriage, on as he pays breadwinner, have to pay her (for sex). So, pays
the
wife
in
order
that
THE
she
should
DEADLOCK
sell
giving herself prostitute to if
more
14. York:
with
have
in another
Mark
Poster,
sex
TRANSCENDENTAL
but also Yet another
body
of love.
out
sex
doesn’t
her
appease 13.
him
have
one
her
only
not
to
OF
soul
her
“Theses
on
the
‘non-musical’,
she
to
whom
prostitute
with
Jameson was already bang on target in 1933, far from ger’s open political engagement only sympathetic public gesture. also
should
be
pretend
is not
take
introducing
into
here
account
difficult of their
new
the
technical
his
a
that
she
is
one
pays
a
to
and
pay
claim
even
has
one
p. 81. in Mhonmations,
controversial
presenting level
say that onc has
satisfied,
Polity Press 1995, Philosophy of History’,
Fredric
One
should
way, with generous gifts). The Second Media Age,Cambridge:
Walter Benjamin, Schocken Books 1969.
16.
she
it would
put
one’s wife is a her, whereas with her (since in this case
See
15.
that
-
to
way
67
IMAGINATION
to
New
that
Heidegdeplorable anomaly, is his
of
style: Heidegger distinctions, coining new
1
is
‘technical’,
depriving concrete while etc.; ethically connoted categories engagement, Heidegger II is for poetic mediations, ‘musical’, abandoning strict conceptual distinctions replacing long systematic development of the line of thought (simply recall the use of paragraphs in Being and Time) with short, circular One should, of course, focus attention on poetic ruminations. what is excluded in both terms of this alternative: they are both ‘deadly serious’, one in a terms to deal with compulsory technical way, piling up newly coined conceptual distinctions: in poetic surrender the other to the mystery of Destiny. What is missing in both cases is jay/ul feature of Nietzsche’s bow thoroughly and zrony, the very fundamental style. (Remember the obviously Heidegger misses profound irony and ambiguity of Nietzsche's seemingly brutal in The Case of Wagner when he praises this rejection as crucial rejection of Wagner ~—
Nietzsche’s as maturation 1%, See Martin Heidegger,
for
Indiana
On
unfinished volume what
was
obserse further
than
the
establishment
19.
Cornelius
20.
Kant
the Problem
and
af
of Metaphysics, Bloomington: University
See
(October
of
the
that founding principles of their edifice the same grounding and/o1 introductory text. ‘The Castoriadis, Discovery of the Imagination’, Constellaions, —
is, who 1,
vol.
1994).
22.
Ibid., pp. 185-6. Thid., p. 212. Immanuel Kant,
23.
As Robert
24,
See
21.
thinker.)
more
(re)wrote
2
a
be interesting to of elaborate the general level, it would concept (whose first philosophical projects, from the early Hegel to Michel Foucault of the History of Sexuality announces a from global project fundamentally different later II and is the III); this non-accomplishment actually published as volumes of the procedure of those philosophers (from Fichte to Husserl) who never got a
repeatedly no,
—
1997.
Press
18.
terms,
Critique of Practical
Reason, New York:
Macmillan
in Chapter 1 of Adealism demonstrated Davos Disputation’, in Heidegger, Kant
Pippin ‘Appendix V:
as
1956, pp.
152-3.
Modernism. and
the Problem
of Metaphysics,
193-207.
pp.
25.
Immanuel
26.
Ibid.
27.
Ibid.
28.
Ibid.
29.
Ibid.
30.
G.W.F.
1974, p. SUNY
31. 32.
Press 33.
Kant,
Critzque of Pure Reason,
London:
p. 78.
Ullstein Hegel, ‘Jenacr Realphilosophie’. in Frithe politische Systeme,Frankfurt: 204; translation quoted, from Donald Phillip Verene, Hegel's Recollection, Albany, NY:
Press
1985, pp. 7-8.
Hegel, ‘Jenacr Realphilosophie’, pp. 204-5. GW.F. Hegel, Phenomenologyof Spirit, rans. 1977, pp. To
Everyman’s Library 1988,
which
;
A.V.
Miller,
Oxford:
18-19. I
myself
have
referred
repeatedly
in almost
all
my books.
Oxford
University
68
THE
On
34.
this
Analecta
crucial
point,
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
Zdravko
see
transcendentale
Automaton
Kobe,
1, Ljubljana:
1995.
of course, we are repeating the reversal that Hegel accomplishes apropos Kant’s of our Thing-in-itself: this pure presupposition subjective positing/mediation, this external Thing which affects us, but that is not yet worked through by the subject's reflexive activity, actually curns out to be its exact opposite: something purely posited, the result of the 35.
Here,
—
—
effort
utmost
way,
the
ation
at
of
mental
pre-synthetic its
abstraction, real
a
pure of
presupposition
Thing-of-thought [Gedankending}. In imagination is already the product
the
of
same
imagin-
purest.
36.
Hegel, ‘Jenaer Realphilosophie’, p. 206; trans. quoted from Verene, p. 8. 37. See Jacques Derrida, ‘Cogito and the History of Madness’, in Writing and Difference, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1978. 38. Kant on Education, London: & Co. 1899, pp. 3-5. Kegan Paul, French, Trubner 39. See G.W.F. Reason in Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of World History, Introduction: History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1975, pp. 176-90. 40. See Jacob Rogozinski, Kanten, Paris: Editions Kimé 1996, pp. 124-30. For
41.
Lacan’s
43.
detailed
more
NC:
from
Quoted
great achievement of the Absolute was to
of
come’,
not
just
One
is
Event of the 45,
in
as
the
network See
break
Present:
contours
of
the
what
deficient
tempted
mode to
emergence
of
causes.
Daniel
Breazeadale,
was
it is the
here
a
Ibid., p. 100.
A7.
What
imposes
itself
of Past, Present of the Kantian
makes never
notion
thematic,
connection
here
and
Future
or
Checkmate?
On
Classical German pp. 87-114.
cannot
the
notion
Negative,
as
the
three
very ‘to
Finitude
of the
Philosophy,ed.
the
Truth-
of the
be accounted
the Fichtean parallel between the primordial relationship between
is
the
with temporal schematisin, in the guise of the abyss of
Badiou’s
with
something New that (See Chapter 3 below.) ‘Check
With
since it is past from the present, of a Future that will always remain
of
the Self in Subject. Goncephons of Sturma, Albany, N¥: SUNY Press 1995,
46.
Slavoj Zizek, Tarying
and
Present.
The Modern
Dieter
notion
constraints
the
establish
unforeseen
existing
of
antinomies
Kantian
118.
that to
the
between
of
Schelling
Past
a
2
Schelling’s
time; complementary a
connection
Chapter
see
of
of the
the
are
beginning 44,
non-All,
The
Real,
of the
account
University Press 1993. Rogozinski, Kanien, p-
Duke
‘ages’ its predominance the
of
paradoxes
Durham, 42.
a
Karl
for
in
Fichtean
Self’,
Ameriks
Anstoss
terms
and
and
the
fch [Urich] and the schema of the its narcissistic balance, setting im motion object, the foreign body in its midst, which disturbs of this inner the long process of the gradual expulsion and striucturation snag, through we which (see Chapter 3 of objective reality’ is constituted experience as) ‘external, Freudian-Lacanian
(what
Slavoj Zizek, Enjoy Your Symptom!,New York: Routledge 1993), ‘subterranean’ 48. Rogozinski opposes to this reading another tendency in Kant himself, that not according to which the Kantian categorical imperative stands for a Call of Otherness of the (a temporality that breaks the constraints only involves its own temporality of finitude linear succession of ‘nows’, since it is the temporality of the Events of Freedom, of ruptures that ex nihilo), but is also a Law no longer grounded in a With like the Court's emerge enigmatic Law in Katka's Tries, the moral imperative is a Law that ‘wants nothing from you’. affairs lies the ultimate In this fundamental mdifferencetowards human enigma of the Law. to Metaphysics,pp. 146-65. 49. See Heidegger, Introduction An 50. See Chapter 3 of Zizek, Tanying With the Negative. in defending the thesis 51. So one should be very careful that the fact that feminine its fundamental subjectivity finds it easier to break the hold of fantasy, to ‘traverse’ fantasy, women that entertain than masculine towards the universe of symbolic subjectivity means of cynical distance the attitude semblances/fictions (‘I know that the phallus, symbolic and the onh semblance, is the Real of joussance thing that counts phallic power, is a mere —
THE
the
well-known
cliché
symbolic fictions, and
the
are
OF
DEADLOCK
true
about
ideals,
TRANSCENDENTAL
women
and
values,
desublimated
subjects
as
focus
support
on
who
hard
of sublime
69
IMAGINATION
facts
~
‘see
easily
can
sex,
power
semblances):
-
...
such
the
through’ a
that
really
of
spell count,
does cynical distance
‘traversing the fantasy’, since it implicitly reduces fantasy to the veil ofillusions to reality ‘as it really is’. In contrast to the conclusion that imposes itself distorting our access with false evidence, one should insist that the cynical subject is the one who is leas! delivered from the hold of fantasy. 52. For this notion of lamella, see Jacques Lacan, The Four Fundamental Conceptsof Psycho1979, pp. 197-8. Analysis, New York: Norton 53. See, again, Chapter 3 of Zizek, Tarrying With the Negative. 54. Yuji Konno, ‘Noise Floats, Night Falls’, in David Lynch: Pamtings ond Drawings, Tokyo: of Contemporary Art 1991, p. 23. Tokyo Museum 55, Of course, the question remains to what extent this paranoid is quite notion open Justified in the case of subliminal advertising. 56. Quoted from R.W. Clark, Phe Life of Berirand Weidenfeld & Nicolson Russell, London: not
amount
to
1975, p. 176. 57, and
For
a
Related 58.
59.
account,
Matters, London:
The
grandeur subject.
detailed
same
holds
for
suddenly changes
see
Slavoj Zizek,
Verso the
into
The indivisible
this
—
An
Essay on Schelling
1996.
Kantian the
moral
Law:
horrifying abyss
to reread standpoint, it is crucial in Husserliana, synthesis’, published after his death eludes from which, that is, Heidegger Heidegger not in a philosophical project exclusively immersed See Edmund Husserl, through of Being and Time... iana, vol. XI, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff 1966,
From
Remamder.
if
one
of the Husseil’s
gets
too
close
to
Thing threatening late
manuscripts
it, its sublime to
swallow
on
the
“passive
this that domain pointing towards retreated. Perhaps the later Husserl was rendered obsolete by the great breakAnalysen zur passrven Synthesis, Husserlas
2
The
Hegelian
What Wilson’s
Colin
Is
of the
ing chapter
variations
makes
and
(‘right-brain awareness’), and
rational
dissection
the
for
praise
magic
‘it
evolution
technological of
science on
—
itself,
in its
direction
the
‘dance
Here,
synthesis
of of
It
the
of
was
in its conclud-
intuitive,
encompassing rhythm of reality
self-consciousness
to
state
knowledge too pleasant,
two
of
halves
the
and
achievements
radical
towards holistic
the
self-snblation dominated
relaxed,
usual
the
story
author and human
of
rational
by
lost
of how
modern
quantum physics, and of the mechanistic view a
hidden
the
wisdom’,
—
by
its
for
confronted
are
high
advan-
enormous
too
‘recovering
achievements
universe
had
necessary active attitude
we
(the
the
was
more
course,
all his
After
consciousness,
it
lost
the
opposes
underlying knowledge of
so
of New
‘recovering
the
collective
series
pattern
so
in
of
life’).
however, occur?
the
type
Today,
most
of
‘ancient’
communal’;?
this
modern
already points
the
be
to
reuniting it with
combining
ancient
of
from escape domination.
to
endless
reality (‘left-brain awareness’).
powers
tended
achievements
the
modern
the
although this essentially limited.
was
prospect
of
theme
subtitle),
directly
that
acknowledges tages,
(the book’s
experience
us
in the
one
the
on
Subject
Negation’?
Sphinx,
types of knowledge:
two
which
one,
te the
warld’
ancient
of
‘Negation
From Atlantis
Age airport pocketbook wisdom
Ticklish
Wilson’s Wilson
is
book
takes
unexpected enough to reject an
intelligent directly premodern one, according
turn:
both
how
will
this
predominant the to which views: the history of the a mere and we should ‘rationalist West’ was aberration, to simply return the old wisdom; the pseudo-Hegelian and notion of a ‘synthesis’ that the balance between the two spiritual would somehow maintain principles, enabling us to keep the best of both worlds: to regain the lost Unity while based on its loss (technical indimaintaining the achievements progress, vidualist dynamics, etc.). Against both these versions, Wilson emphasizes
THE
that
the
HEGELIAN
the
next
stage, rationalist/individualist Western Western
about
a
this
locates
its
to
of shared
the
next
longed-for
has
been
happening it’
what
decline
(the last
somehow
emerge
and
wisdom,
European forgetting
Old the
in human universe
for
the
3,500 of
with
unavoidable
the the
ancient
‘dance
So
conclusion
arose
of
a
within
this
imagination: and level
new
Western
also
brought
if
develop
we
of
collective
conclusion
surprising
the
is that
It
3500
is
Now all
years.
have
we
do
to
book)?
in
If
is that
from
individuation
the
that
the
out
the
Fall
enabled
of
The
Bc?
of ancicnt
which
modern
the
itself,
fateful
maintain
to
us
these
2000
achievement
cultures
take
we
is, around
highest
short,
which
life’.
the
the step beyond the alienaevolution, a Whole, as ‘has already happened.
~
wisdom
of
imagination,
violent
new,
force
to
years ago of Egypt, the
the
of
of
—
Kingdom rise
and
lead
in the
sentence
consciousness of
past
the
in
will
it
the
happened
of the
contact
limitation
source
imagination.
step and
nature
recognise So
its
utmost,
consciousness, from
the
principle of selfconsciousness breathtaking rise in our capacity
capacity
tion
must
71
SUBJECT
of
overcoming stance,
He
stance.
TICKLISH
direct
a
the
literally,
statements
of the Fall (the forgetting of the ancient wisdom) coincides with its exact opposite, with the longed-for next step in evolution. Here have the properly Hegelian matrix we the of development: Fall is already in itself its own the wound is already in itself self-sublation; moment
healing, so that the perception ultimately a misperception, an effect have to do is to accomplish the move its
that
own
of
we
our
dealing with the skewed perspective
all
—-
In-itself
from
Fall
are
to
For-itself:
is we
change already
to
is perspective and recognize how the longed-for reversal operative in what is going on. The inner from one is not that logic of the movement stage to another from to one the opposite extreme, and their then to extreme, higher of the first. is, rather, unity; the second passage simply the radicalization The problem with the ‘Western attitude’ mechanistic that it torgotis not our
holistic repressed the ancient thoroughly enough: it continued from
stance) of
course,
the
the from
catastrophic
from
the
itself
the
In
Fall
not
perspective of this perspective world
which
by undoing
longed-for liberation. States of Injury,* Wendy
dialectical
oppressed
process to their
when
she
oppression
perceive
to
the
old
the
its
the
the
‘after
but
refers
in
to
did
(of discursive wisdom’; and
‘ancient cannot
the
Fall’.
but
appear
We
rise
recognizing the
emphasizes how the is that they imagine a
same
first
world
it
with
break
not
universe
universe
new
effects,
Brown
it
new
of
one,
about
comes
that
but
Wisdom,
in
logic reaction
as
again
the
Fall
of
the
of
the
simply deprived
72
THE
the
Other
without
men;
without
capitalists...
of
that
it
the
on
the
way the African-American
The
a
mistake that
contrary, of
them
on
world the
an
Other
radical
it is not
imagine
women
—
attitude
is
instead
of
position (that of a worker, ...) is ‘mediated’ (there by the Other a without capitalist organizing the production process, etc.), is to get rid of the oppressive Other, has substantially one of one’s own the content position, That is also the fatal flaw
identity
historicization: burden wants
those
of
survive
to
as
worker
a
way their Mead—Malinowski
known
ing in the negation’:
South
‘free
want
sexuality
anxiety’ proceed
the
account
own
who
and
guilt
its
without
a
the
in
Pacific
examine
to a
woman,
is
worker
no
that
so
to
an
if
one
transform
of
delivered
of
precipitate the Oedipal
way as they also
the
worker
fail
to
same
capitalist;
position is ‘mediated’ by the myth of the free, non-inhibited
own
it is ‘too
merely changing
it fails
enough:
world
a
that
not
world
a
whites; workers
without
of such
annihilate
to
wants
SUBJECT
oppression
African-Americans
that
radical’, it, but,
exerts
TICKLISH
Other.
who
take
into
The
well-
sexuality reign-
exemplary case of such an ‘abstract it the spatio—historical Other of ‘primitive the socielies’ in our own historical fantasy of a ‘free sexuality’ rooted In this way, it is not context. ‘historical’ enough: it remains caught in the of one’s co-ordinates own historical horizon precisely in its attempt to in short, Otherness imagine a ‘radical’ antiOedipus is the ultimate provides merely projects into
an
-
Oedipal myth. This matrix
tells
mistake is
...
that
not
of passage of A negates the
process it
must
symbolic
religion first
crucial:
a
of
a
lot about loss
from
state
the
Hegelian ‘negation
and
its
recuperation,
A to
state
position of A followed by another
be
space is first
subverted
separates
us
the
the
to
common
subverted in
the
in name
has
to
negation’: simply that of
its a
first, immediate
‘negation’ symbolic confines, so
while
remaining within its negation, which then negates the very A and its immediate negation (the reign of a the guise of a theological heresy; capitalism is of the ‘reign of Labour’). Here the gap that
negated system's system
B: the
but
of
die
‘real’ twice.
death The
from
only
time
its
‘symbolic’ Marx
uses
death the
is
term
of the ‘expropriation of expro‘negation of negation’ in Capital, apropos priators’ in socialism, he has in mind precisely such a two-stage process. The (mythical) starting point is the state in which producers own their means the process of production; in the first stage, of expropriation takes place within the frame of the private ownership of the means of production, which of the majoritv amounts means that the expropriation the appropriato of the ownership of the means tion and concentration of production in a small class are (of capitalists); in the second stage, these exproprtators
THE
themselves
What
...
itself, in realization who
modes
of its
of
that
‘deterritorialization’ The of
proceeded in of criticizing
failure
regime
it did
Hegelian’:
The
stages.
socialism,
true
not
the
not
private
in
Marx’s
is
ownership
capitalism
eyes,
the two point of passage between capitalism lives off the incomplete point was later made by Deleuze, a
same
limit
a
poses
Hegelian triad also against Party rule;
struggle three
of
the
to
forces
very
of
unleashes)
of the
dissident
the
(the
capitalism
it itself
matrix
same
as
production:
project
own
emphasized
very form here is that,
is conceived
73
SUBJECT
the
interest
is of
ats very notion,
‘stable’
TICKLISH
since
expropriated,
abolished.
more
HEGELIAN
first
the
in
was
of its
name
true
socialist
take
into
the
structured in
Slovenia,
stage
of inherent values:
own
This
democracy!’ the
account
the
“What
have
we
criticism
the
that
fact
experience this struggle opposition, is
‘preexisting regime’s was
signalled the insufficiency of this notion itself); the regime’s answer to for this reason, this criticism was, strictly speaking, correct: it was Soul abstract; it displayed the position of the Beautiful unable to perccive in the reality it criticizes the only historically possible realization of the ideals it advocates against this reality. The moment the opposition accepted this truth, it passed to the next, the space of autonomous ‘civil society’ consecond stage: to construct ceived of as external to the sphere of political power. Now the attitude was: we we outside do not want the autonomous just want space power, in which the domain of political power can our we articulate artistic, civil criticize on and reflect its rights, spiritual, and so on, interests, power without the limitations, endeavouring to supplant it. Again, of course, criticism of this attitude towards ("Your indifference regime’s fundamental is false and hypocritical what you are really after is power’) was power realize
to
its notion
-
our
the
and
correct,
and,
courage
clean,
that
we
did
of
instead not
want
with agree power’s we? Why should shouldn't
cally In
the
two
thus
was
stage
that
hypocritically asserting
power, criticism: it be
we
stages,
last, third, to
reserved
encounter
reverse
“Yes, for the
our
we
do
to
you?’ split between
hands
our
position want
summon
and
power,
up were
emphatiand why
knowledge
and
was was false, yet there regime’s proponents while some truth in their the criticism, opposition was hypocritical (although this hypocrisy was conditioned by the constraints imposed by in the hypocrisy of its opposition the regime itself, so that the regime third received the of tn the the truth about its own discourse); falsity stage, hypocrisy was finally on the side of the regime itself. That is to say: the after when were the dissidents that they power, finally acknowledged
truth:
the
first
the
to
passage
position
of
the
74
THE
liberal, ‘civilized’
them
for
a
brutal
for
lust
power
enunciated by pure hypocrisy, since it was those who in fact did (still) hold absolute The other key feature power. was that what actually mattered the form itself. as in the first two stages was
—
the
for
the
of
which
the
content,
(much
criticism
SUBJECT
criticized
Party members
this
of course,
TICKLISH
was
it
time
the
was
then
of the
criticism
positive
of
rejection
into
the
hands
existing power was irrelevant reforms the emerging market the of the Party hardliners)
played directly whole that criticism was the fact point was its place of enunciation, formulated civil society, from outside. In the next stage, that of autonomous this outside became was only ‘for itself’, that is, the key dimension again in the purely formal, that of limiting the power to the political domain restricted
of the
sense
Only
terrn.
in
—
third
the
stage
did
form
and
content
coincide.
The a
logic
lover
the if
‘third
‘In
itself’,
liaison
sense,
discontent
this
but
partner, the
for
the
was new
in
the fact
external
no
the
cause
liaison became
the
did
discontent
was
in the
itself’,
the
break;
such
turned
into
abandoned is it
which
the
is
lover
a
new
that
awareness
a new So, only through encountering partner. is a ‘negative magnitude’, partner giving body to the precisely as such, however, she/he relationship
over,
if this discontent is to necessary The In-itself itself. from passage repetition: when a thing becomes
the
merely serve was already
encountered the
not
situations,
person liaison which
lover
When
nobody, that
was
third
the
before
over
‘for
this
the
of
account
here.
for
In
reason? on
or
partner, to
traumatic
always
who caused person learns there that partner
person’
dropped his/her erstwhile a as pretext, giving body there?
it is
is crucial
For-itself
to
third
the
dropped him/her
infamous
In-itself
partner,
about
however,
worse,
partner the
learn
to
from
passage
drops his/her
subject even
of the
in
the
—
become
‘for
For-itself
itself’, thus
if it is
involves
to
the
a
is
actualize
logic of ‘for itself’, nothing actually changes in it already was what in itself.® it; it just repeatedly asserts (‘re-marks’) ‘Negation of negation’ is thus nothing but repetition at its purest: in the first move, a certain gesture is accomplished and fails; then, in the second this is simply repeated. Reason same is nothing the but move, gesture that repetition of Understanding deprives it of the excess baggage of suprasensible irrational Beyond, just as Christ is not opposed to Adam but Adam. mercly the second is best captured The self-referentiality of this passage by W.C. Fields’s which provides his own version of Hegel’s dictum that the great one-liner secrets of the Egyptians were also for the Egyptians themselves: secrets you can deceive only a crook; that is, your deception will succeed only if it to
THE
mobilizes
HEGELIAN
TICKLISH
and
own manipulates the victim’s paradox is confirmed by every successful properly is to depict for the prospective victim a quick fortune in a semi-legal way, so that
offer
of
turn
Aim into
deceiving
external
a
third
a
sucker
reflection
does
party, to
or,
...
the
victim
propensity swindler: the
the
it in
cheat.
to
the
the
of
aroused
catch
true
Hegelese,
your
do
it
making by your that
the
—
This
to
way
opportunity victim,
notice
not
put
75
SUBJECT
will
crook’s
reflective deteralready an inherent of the mination victim himself. In my ‘negation’ deception of the nonexistent third victim I effectively ‘negate myself’, the deceiver himself is deceived of the ‘redemption of (in a kind of mocking reversal the redeemer’ from Wagner’s Parsifal). works: it counts on This, then, is how the Hegelian ‘cunning of Reason’ the egotistic/deceitful that is to say, the Hegelian impetuses in its victims in History’ is like the proverbial American ‘Reason con-artist who swindles his victims There by manipulating their own sneaky features. definitely is a kind of poetic justice in this reversal: the subject, as it were, reccives
-
on
is
—
—-
—
from is
the
swindler
the
not
victim
rather,
but, the
the
reversal
same
his
own
the
of
victim
in its true/inverted message dark external machinations
his
of
moral
support
the
of
Yet
—~
that
true
is, he
swindler
another
example of is provided by the way the outright moralization ofpolitics in the no less radical up in its very opposite: politicization who directly translate the political antagonism in which
necessarily ends of morals. Those they participate into moral honesty against corruption)
political
crookedness.
form
instrumentalization
assessments
X because
own
are
sooner
of the
to
the
he
is
(the
terms
actual
or
struggle of Good later compelled
domain necds
of morals:
to
their
political
of
morally good’ imperceptibly
and to
Evil, of their
subordinate
drifts
the
perform struggle into
—
‘I
"X must
good because I support him’. Analogously, the leftist direct politicization of sexuality (‘the personal is political’, that is, the notion of sexuality as the arena for the political power struggle) unavoidably changes into the sexualization of politics (the direct grounding of political oppression be
in
the
fact
of sexual
difference,
the
Age
version
of
between
Feminine
New
and
which
sooner
transformation
Masculine
Principles
or
of -
later
politics .
.).
ends into
up the
in
some
struggle
106
THE
The last
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
Dialectical
Anamorphosis
the Hegel's behest to conceive ‘not Absolute the exact also as Subject’ denotes to mean (the absolute Subject’s ‘swallowing’ opposite of what it seems the entire content substantial integrating through its activity of mediation): does not Hegel’s Phenomenologyof Spirit tell us again and again the same to realize his of the subject's endeavour story of the repeated failure project in social Substance, to impose his vision on the social universe the story of how the ‘big Other’, the social substance, again and again thwarts his project and turns it upside-down? Lacan can thus be at least for his slip in confounding two partially excused separate ‘figures of consciousness’ from Phenomenology (the ‘Law of the Heart’ and the “Beautiful Soul’); what they share is the same matrix more which, perhaps even the than condenses the basic ‘Unhappy Consciousness’, operation of to assert his particular Phenomenology:in both cases, the subject endeavours is the righteous attitude, but the actual social perception of his attitude The
examples clearly display only as Substance, but
two
how
—
—
—
of
his
opposite subject’s righteousness
self-perception equals crime. An obvious imposes counter-argument we still are phenomenological process, exact
in his
caught
narcissistic
limited
frame,
for
~
itself
and
the
social
here:
in
the
with
dealing therefore
the
Substance,
a
has
course
of
subject
who
the is
the
price universal for it by his ultimate demise; the actual subject emerges only at is no the end of the process, and but truly longer opposed to substance it.... The properly Hegelian answer to this is that criticism encompasses the Hegelian subject is nothing there simply is no such ‘absolute subject’, since of unilateral but the very movement self-deception, of the hubris of positing oneself in one’s exclusive particularity, which necessarily turns against itself
this
that
aspect but
ends
and
movement
posits
itself
this to
return
alienation,
as self-negation. ‘Substance Subject’ means precisely of self&deception, by means of which a particular as the universal to Substance principle, is not external
the
reason,
identity but
Hegelian
which
the
very
follows revenge the first
subject’s presumption: against the social Substance substantial but
the
pay
of it.
constitutive For
in
to
balance), revenge
of the
and
the
Substance
‘negation of negation’ the painful experience of
the
negation
(in his
decentred consists
‘criminal’
in act
is
not
the
magic
splitting and Other against the the subject’s move of
which
disturbs
the
subsequent ‘negation of negation’ is nothing (for instance, in psychoanalysis, ‘negation’
THE
HEGELIAN
TICKLISH
77
SUBJECT
the
is
of some substantial subject’s repression into the unconscious of his being, while the ‘negation of negation’ is the return content of the Soul: repressed). To refer again to the well-worn example of the Beautiful Soul’s critical attitude towards its social sur‘negation’ is the Beautiful roundings, and the ‘negation of negation’ is the insight into how the Soul itself and thus Beautiful the depends on fully participates in to reject. ‘Negation of wicked universe it purports negation’ presupposes no displacement or magic reversal; it simply signals the unavoidable of the subject’s teleological activity. For that thwartedness insistreason, -
ence
the
on
splitting
-
way in which negation of negation also not be followed by the ‘return
can
also
can
to
fail,
how
on
Self’, therefore
misses
negation is the very logical matrix of the that is to say, a negation without failure of the subject’s project relating negation would be precisely the successful realization subject’s teleological activity. mark:
the
of
negation
necessary its self-
—
This most to
tive
of
via reference to aspect could also be clarified in cinema: important aspects of David Lynch’s revolution
the
crucial
entire
history the
organizes the
hero
in which
of cinema,
narrative
(in space whose voice-over
himself, to
future
imagined but
action
which,
for
film noir, comments
place (the
hero
with
is contemporaneous
in
addition,
remembering
the
event
does
not
past
events
which
on
one
in
the
of contrast
subjective perspecexample, the perspective on the action), Lynch In Dune, he applies a
present
the
on
mentary
the
of
dominant
one
multiple points of view. by many critics as a recourse procedure (unfairly dismissed of using a multiple naivety bordering on the ridiculous) endeavours
the
to
non-filmic
a
voice-over from
speak in
a
it comments,
coman
flashback),
expressing
does not subject’s doubts, anxieties, and so on. The hero’s voice-over but is itself embedded the depicted situation, is a part of it, encompass in in it. the subject’s engagement it, expresses as No that this strikes wonder, then, procedure today's spectator to it is uncannily close another ridiculous staple Hollywood gesture: a on hears or sees when screen something which takes him aback person his etc.), his gaze usually stiffens, he inclines (as stupid, unbelievable, head slightly and looks directly into the camera, accompanying it with the
—
‘What?’
or
similar
some
this
gesture
the
case
is
in
as
a
J Love
the
of
rule
Lucy.
context
and
if the
—
accompanied This
actors’
registration: momentarily perturbed; narrative
remark
idiotic
direct the
assumes
scene
by
gesture
the
as
it
a
their extracts
were,
position
regularly
laughter, as was signals the rcflexive in
of
an
series,
television
canned
immersion
actor,
in
occurs
moment
narrative
from
himself observer
is
reality of
his
the own
78
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
In both in Dune and in J Love Lucy, this apparently cases, predicament. innocent of the standard the very foundation ontoprocedure threatens a logical edifice; it inscribes subjective point of view into the very heart of the opposition between ‘objective reality’. In other words, it undermines naive the objectivism and transcendental subjectivism: we have neither of subjective ‘objective reality’ that is given in advance, with a multitude its transcendental views of it, nor counterperspectives providing distorted and constitutes the whole of point, the unified Subject who encompasses reality; what we have is the paradox of multiple subjects who are included in reality, embedded in it, and whose the perspectives on reality are none of it. What less constitutive is the ambiguous Lynch is striving to illustrate of subjective illusion and uncanny status which, precisely as an illusion (a distorted view of reality), constitutes from reality: if we subtract reality the illusory perspective on it, we lose reality itself, On a philosophical distinction allows us to level, this delicate grasp idcalism. learned the lesson Hegel's break with Kantian Hegel, of course, of Kant’s transcendental idealism (there is no reality prior to a subject’s to elevate the ‘positing’ activity); however, he refused subject into a ...
neutral-universal
who
constitutes
reality. To put it in Kanwhile he admitted tian terms: that there is no the subject, reality without Hegel insisted that subjectivity is inherently ‘pathological’ (biased, limited to a distorting, unbalanced perspective on the Whole). Hegel’s achievement was thus to combine, in an unprecedented way, the ontologically constitutive character of the subject’s activity with the subject’s irreducible pathological bias: are when these two features as thought together, conceived co-dependent, of a pathological bias constitutive we obtain the notion of ‘reality’itself. The
agent
Lacanian
this
for
name
of course,
anamorphosis.
in
in
directly
What
pathological bias does anamorphosis
constitutive
of
reality is,
to, say, actually amount A part of the perceived in Holbein’s Ambassadors? scene is distorted in its proper such a it acquires contours way that only from the specific when we viewpoint from which the remaining reality is blurred: clearly perceive the stain as a skull, and thus reach the point of ‘the Spirit is a We thus aware bone’, the rest of reality is no longer discernible. become our that reality already involves in the scene gaze, that this gaze is included we are already ‘regards us’ in the precise sensc observing, that this scene
which, from
‘man but
the
the
none
standard
reality
Kafka’s
country’. less
Idealist as
The
such, the
Trial, One
crucial
notion whole
of
of
the
Law
again discern
can
gap of
door
the
that
forever
the
separates
‘subjective constitution’ it, is ‘anamorphotic’
in
is there
only for the tiny, imperceptible, Lacan
(according the general
from to
the which
sense
of
THE
HEGELIAN
TICKLISH
79
SUBJECT
“being there’ only for the subject’s gaze): Lacan’s notion of the blind spot in reality introduces anamorphic distortion into reality itself. The fact that reality is there for the subject only must be inscribed in reality this stain stands for the gaze of the itself in the guise of an anamorphic stain Other, for the gaze qua object. In other words, the anamorphic stain corrects the standard ‘subjective idealism’ by rendering the gap between the the cye and gaze: the perceiving subject is always-already gazed at from a point that eludes his eyes. esse
=
of
percipi,
—
3, 4,5 The
Hegelian
the
triadic
form
that
of ‘Substance
notion
it is
the
of
as
dialectical
Subject’ process:
is
as
‘the
a
rule
identified
Substance
is
with
Subject’
selfdeveloping entity, externalizing itself, positing its and then In contrast to this comOtherness, reuniting itself with it.... could assert that the actual dimension of subjectivity is monplace, one discernible precisely in the deadlocks of triplicity, in those places where and proposes a form of quadruplicity, even of quintuplicHegel oscillates of triad, that is, the infamous ity. How pertinent, then, is the form tripartite ‘rhythm’ of the Hegelian process? Although they may appear means
purely formal ately confront lian
in us
the
a
the
worst
with
sense
the
of the
innermost
term,
tension
these
considerations
and
instability
of
immedi-
of the
Hege-
subjectivity. Let us take as the the from starting point the well-known passage of his greater concluding ‘methodological’ remarks Logic, in which Hegel himself of a moment speaks of triplicity or quadruplicity: the middle between the starting immediacy and the concluding mediated process, that is to say, the moment be counted of negalion can twice, immediacy as immediate as self-relating negation and/or negation, so that the entire consists of three In his philosophy of nature, or four moments. process to Hegel seems give a positive ontological grounding to this formal alternative when he asserts that the basic form of the spirit is triplicity and that of nature is quadruplicity: since is the kingdom of externality, nature each in of the logical moments has to acquire separated positive existence and it. (In so far as, in Hegel’s standard male-dominated perspective, man woman are related is even as culture and one nature, tempted to claim the that of quadruplicity to nature Hegel’s allocation points towards ‘feminine’ traditional and opposition of 3 and 4 as the ‘masculine’ numbers in oriental thought.’) as
system
—
system
—
80
TICKLISH
THE
There
much
another,
is, however,
SUBJECT substantial
more
and
pertinent kingdom of
logic of quadruplicity, The Idea, the the act of to of ‘God determinations, prior conceptual as in be negated in two ways: in the guise of Nature as well can Creation’, of the the guise of the finite is the immediate Nature negation Spirit. for the Idea in its indifferent Idea; it stands spatial externality. Quite its distinct from it is the finite Spirit, active subjectivity, which asserts infinite itself to the Universal, disturbing its organic right and opposes to its egotism; this of the Whole balance, subordinating the interest of Fall to (in contrast negation is self-related, it is ‘Evil’, the moment it is that is Nature’s of this The second innocence). negation paradox the
radical,
more
the
of
exemplification Logic, of pure
of
moment
infinite
pain,
to Reconciliation: closer very reason, the Fall from Totality is self-related,
the
longing
idea
is that
of
the
for
the
finite
is
nature’, to Hésle,
the
as
man’s
as
four
and
the
spirit, the
moment,
Nature
The
logical Idea, to
itself’
in
ethical and
the
Self,
in
as
present Hésle’s follow
reconciled:
are
nature’.®
‘return
between
reconciliation
then
should
that
for
finite
Vittorio
‘objective’ Spirit,
moments:
fourth
it is also
Totality....
‘second
its abstract
in Nature,
Nature,
the
of the
case
such,
as
which
finite
and
nature
intersubjective Sittlichkeif thus be composed of could to
lost
than
other
of
opposed
the
with
none
moments,
externalization
posited
of Reconciliation
moment
spirit
divided
two
reunification
the
in
since,
but,
self-alienation;
that
which the
entire
the
totality system
its immediate finite
Substance,
subject ‘second
finite
Spirit. According against quadruplicity hinges on his intersubjectivity as opposed to the
Triad on Hegel’s insistence failure properly to grasp the logic of movement towards the Object. monadic Subject and its dialectical between different These Hegel’s oscillation problems overdetermine overall of his Logic, as well as between different correlations structures between Logic itself and the Realphilosophie. In his Logic, the triadic articulation of Being—Essence-Notion overlaps strangely with the dyadic split into ‘objective logic’ (Being and Essence) and the ‘subjective logic’ of
the
dialectical moment
Notion
—
process of split,
emphasizing
how
in
clear
in
which
subjectivity
negativity, games
to
contrast
loss.
For
‘alternative
with
the comes
overall
articulation
second
Hésle, who histories’,
and is
with
stands
of
the
for
the
quite justified
possible
in
different
deeply productive, the symptomatic weak that betrays the problematic of ‘subjecnature point, the point of failure of the entire tive logic’ as the concluding moment Logic, is the passage its first part to ‘objectivity’, which throws us back to structures which from of Essence to the (causal mechanisms), properly belong to the domain versions
of
Hegel’s system,
are
THE
HEGELIAN
TICKLISH
81
SUBJECT
(chemism, organism) or to the philosophy of finite philosophy of Nature spirit (external teleology). Hegel has to accomplish this gesture of ‘exterinto nalizing’ the subjective logic proper objectivity, so that he can then as the third moment the absolute Idea, the synthesis of subjective propose logic with objectivity. thus have been much It would more consistent to posit ‘subjective logic’ (notion—judgement-syllogism) as the second part of an overall triadic strucand to add to ‘subjective logic’ proper ture, (the first part of the logic of the Notion) a third logic, a synthesis of ‘objective’ logic (which describes of pre-subjective reality from categorial structure Being through Essence, of Actuality, of Substance as its causa sui and concluding in the notion into the catepassage subject) and of ‘subjective’ logic (which describes of the finite subject’s reasoning it is precisely here that gorial structure of traditional we find the content ‘logic’). This third logic would describe as the the categorial structure of ‘second of spiritual Substance nature’, —
of
unity
objective
and
subjective intersubjectivity.
moment
the
define
tempted to add, in an as anachronistic in so far as Lacan the symbolic order defines prolepsis neither objective nor subjective, but precisely as the order of intersubjecfor this third tivity, is not the perfect candidate logic of intersubjectivity the psychoanalytic ‘logic of the signifier’ that deploys the strange structure the to of the subject's relationship the Other qua his symbolic Substance, in which with other he interacts subjects? Do we not already possess space of domains and guises: the logical fragments of this logic in a multitude of atomic in its structure structure physics, which includes subjectivity (the the from position of the observer, passage quantum virtuality to actual the existence); already displays an imternal ‘autopoiesis’ of life, which teleology; Lacan’s notion of ‘logical time’; up to Hegel’s own intersubjecthe of Crime tive dialectic (against the ethical Substance) and its Pardon, with the estranged Community, in which HaberCriminal’s reconciliation discerned of the intersubjective mas the model communicational process?
categorial
of
structure
And
is, it would
that
-
-
one
is
-
However, is
Substance
and
finite
nature
that
have
effectively
Spirit:
and
balance
still
we
is it
‘second’?
the
be
to
the Is
not
a
gap the
reconciliation
forever
‘second
whether
of
question
accomplished that
not
the
face
between
—
the
‘first’ of
state
precarious cither by an external Earth) or by humanity’s a
destroyed at any moment, contingency (the proverbial comet hitting the self-destruction through war or ecological catastrophe? the object of psychoanalysis precisely this gap between not the insecure nature position of a human subject who, can
social Nature
between
persists nature’
the
is
Furthermore, first after
and
second
losing
his
82
THE
Freud
the
insists
to
a
for
name
feel
fully
der Kultur, nature
that
core
the
nature:
SUBJECT
never
second
is thus
second
Hegelian
can
Unbehagen in
There
his
nature,
first
from
osis...)?
of
das
called
passage with
first
in the
footing
TICKLISH
Freudian
it is ‘abstract
the
can
resists
at
the
in
ease
different
the
subject's (psychosis, neur-
full
subject’s this
for
name
the
in
negativity’ (or,
reconciliation
kernel
is
more
Hegel, the ‘night of the world’). Is this not necessity of war which, from time to time, must regain the taste for abstract negativity and shake in the concrete totality of the social Substance qua
young on the
subject
to
immersion
what
the
way
wrong
go
second:
drive, the
poetic terms why Hegel allow
the
off
his
his
‘second
full
nature’? of this
Because
the
overall
Logic should, rather, have been of quadruple. ‘objective logic’ (describing the categorial structures of pre-subjective reality) and ‘subjective logic’ (describing the structure the finite to subject’s reasoning, from notion syllogism) should be followed (since the intersubjecby ‘intersubjective logic’, and, furthermore tive
Substance
between
first
gap,
still
and
does
second
intersubjective logic
is the
fill
not
desire, while absolute And in fact, at the conclusion of
between
the
Idea
describe
the
central
of
the
the
nature),
logic logic is
paradox of passivity (contemplation Good) is for the subject to
itself gap between ‘absolute logic’. In
the
of
the of
True
of
structure
and
his
Idea
the
the
True)
grasp
the
objectivity,
Lacanian
terms,
signifier dealing with the structure logic of the Real, the logic of drive. for a synthesis Logic, in his search
the
of drive:
and
and
of
the
Good, of the
solution
Hegel tension
activity (effort
to
to
seems
between realize
the
fact
that, in his ethical effort, impossible Ideal, but is realizing
he
is
somestriving in vain to realize an thing that is already actual through his very repeated efforts to realize it. Is this not defined the paradox later between by Lacan in his distinction the drive’s true aim is realized aim and goal (the drive’s in its very repeated its goal)? failure to realize With regard to the relationship between Logic itself and Realphilosophie, Hésle again points out how their parallel is never perfect and stable: in the standard form of Hegel’s system (Logic~Nature-Spirit), the triad of in the mere Logic (Being-Essence—-Notion) is not adequately reflected Reaiduality of Realphilosophie (Nature—Spirit); if, however, we transform finite Spirit phalosophieinto the triad of Nature objective/naturalized of the system is no longer a triad, but becomes Spirit, the overall structure the overall the perfect triad, but without quadruple. So we have either Logic and Realphilosophie, or the perfect triadic parallel, parallel between but with the overall dyadic split between Logic and Reatphilosophie..
not
—
—
.
THE
And in
—1
further
am
additional
an
‘return
discerned
of
add
to
the
the
notion
reductionist
failure
of
Hegel
reconciliation
Nature
from
83
SUBJECT
this
—
screw,
Idea
the
of
his
in
TICKLISH
tempted
turn
itself’
to
HEGELIAN
with
of
Nature
to
accomplish,
the
itself,
Spirit
gua also be
can
of
sexuality. That is to say, Hegel conceives the ‘culturalization’ of sexuality as its simple ‘sublation’ into the civilized, socio-symbolic form of marriage. Hegel treats sexuality in his natural as a mere foundation and presupposition of philosophy of nature human in the spiritual society, in which natural copulation is ‘sublated’ link of marriage, biological procreation is ‘sublated’ in symbolic descendancy marked by the family Name, and so on. Although Hegel is, of well aware that this ‘sublation’ also affects and course, changes the form of satisfying natural needs of (copulation is preceded by the process it is usually done in the missionary position and not a tergo, as seduction; with the way this symbolicanimals, etc.), he leaves out of consideration cultural
but
‘sublation’
somehow
love, the
affects
ultimate it
ground; cycle of
need
The
point
they
in
subordinate
sexual
a
that
passion
natural
satisfying obsession
itself, is disconnected
lethal
a
in
of
like
courtly
its natural
from
beyond
persists
needs,
natural
the
its satisfaction.
is not
able
are
into
form
substance:
very
aim, satisfaction
and
of course,
(or,
their
changes
the
only changes
not
only
humans
that
incomparably elevate sexuality
an
to
their
life
have cruel
more
into
in
sex
a
than
way) absolute
an
cultivated
more
but
animals,
Aim
way that
which
to
they
ignore this change of the biological need to copulate into sexual drive as a properly ‘metaphysical and Isolde: where, in Hegel’s system, is the passion’. Let us take Tristan place for this deadly passion, for this will to drown oneself in the night of of symbolic obligations the daily universe for jouissance, to leave behind entire
Hegal
-
to
seems
—
this
unconditional
drive
is neither
which
this
to passion strives suspend the obligations, etc.), it clearly has nothing
Nature
instinct,
—
rather, so that,
it
the
paradoxically,
Culture
that
enables
passion,
and
to
in their
involves
us
to
escape
mast
it
is the
Culture domain to
of
do
with
radical
the
Culture a
return
deadly
balance
another
of
vortex
symbolic instinctual
to
of to
recourse
Although (of
perversion
very
regain the pacifying natural To put it in yet symbolized form.
Nature?
nor
this
the the
natural order
of
‘unnatural’
of instinctual
needs
Hegel leaves of consideration out that is the fact ‘there is no relationship’: culture not form on a cultivated only confers sexuality, but thoroughly derails it, so that the only way for a human being to be able to ‘do it’, to enjoy it, is to rely on some ‘perverse’ idiosyncratic phantasmic scenario way: what sexual
—
the
ultimate
human
perversion
is that
so-called
‘natural’
instinctual
sexual
84
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT kind
satisfaction needs a cultural prosthesis, some remain operative. It is only at this level, in the sexual impetus itself, that we obtain and
Nature
the the
actual
to
of
‘reconciliation’
of
Culture.”
these
Along bipartite
of symbolic crutch, in order ‘perverse’ culturalization
lines, of
structure
which
into
two
parts
the
‘synchronous’
‘historical’
also
can
one
the
for
account
‘secret’
the
of
actual
Hegel’s Phenomenology:the logical counterpart of Phenomenology evidently the development
triad
the
to
falls and
Consciousness~Selfconsciousness—Reason
the
(i.e. Absolute
triad
—
Spirit-Religion—Philosophy Knowing) is the duality in early Hegel (up to the Jena years) of Logic and Metaphysics as the two parts of ‘pure’ philosophy, which is then followed by Realphilosophie (corresponding to the later philosophy of Nature and of Spirit). The distinction between fits the distinction Logic and Metaphysics proper between Reason, to which only the finite reality caught subjective reflexive in the in
network far
so
beyond being, remains
is
no
as
it grasps
all
reflexive
of
Finite
these
the
—
finite
and
This
intuition...).
human
Spirit itself
the
Absolute
is
it
the
but
nothing is not
course,
of
movement
selfsublation
beyond reflection, but insight, the distinction
Once
conceivable
ial network
that
determines
every
What
have
here
paradigmatic
is the
of
distinction,
and
Hegel’ when he accepted that there reflexive oppositions and contradictions
Hegel gained this Logic and Metaphysics had to collapse: Logic with ‘Metaphysics’, with the philosophical science we
the
‘became
determinations;
itself.
reflection
and
with) the Absolute directly identifies oppositions (of subject and object, of thought
itself
reason
accessible,
is
(or, rather,
Schellingian: Hegel Absolute beyond or above
of the of
of relations/mediations
—
itself
of the
form of
case
had
to
be
absolute between
identified
inherent
categor-
of
reality. dialectical ‘progress’:
we
reflexive oppositions, with reasonLogic (dealing with external ing as opposed to its object, Being) to Metaphysics (directly describing not the structure of the Absolute) by any kind of ‘progress’, of a major transmutation of Logic, but of how what we by becoming aware as a mere to tools, introductory organon, preparatory step, (mis)perceived to that our the Absolute is, Metaphysics proper grasping already
pass
from
—
—
the
describes
Absolute the domain
actually of
aware
This overcome
is
of the
structure
precisely in so far as we continue of our finite reflectedreasoning, the
overcome
how
this
Hegel’s the
reflection
fundamental
external
to
reflection
is
an
Absolute
of
Kant:
Understanding,
the grasp and beyond
to be
grasped we by simply becoming
reflection
is inherent
criticism of
words, we fail to presuppose that, above
there
of external
limitation
external
other
In
Absolute.
to not
the that
but that
Absolute Kant
he still
—
itself. fails
thinks
to
HEGELIAN
THE
that
there
TICKLISH
85
SUBJECT
Beyond which eludes its grasp. What Kant does not see is that his Critique of Pure Reason, as the critical ‘prolegomena’ to a future metaphysics, already is the only possible metaphysics. is the distinction between Overlapping with this distinction ‘Logic’ in the (traditional of organon, Aristotelian) sense providing the conceptual of reality (the rules of tools that help us to grasp the ontological structure of Notions of judgement our formation and forms and reasoning), and the ontological structure): the first ‘Metaphysics’ (which directly describes the triad of Phenomenology remains at level of ‘Logic’, providing the of the different modes phenomenal sequence whereby the finite, isolated triad the directly describes subject can grasp society, while the second of the actual historical phenomenal sequence shapes/figurations of the Absolute itself. (The ‘logic’ of the early Hegel thus loosely fits the first Hegel’s ‘subjective logic’, which follows the ‘objective’ part of the mature of pre-subjective reality.) In this logic deploying the ontological structure one can that Hegel’s Phenomenology with justification argue precise sense, that its structure of the is a work of passage still betrays traces early with the ‘mad of reflexivity, of dance’ Hegel, especially in its fascination dialectic reversals, as the (still) introductory prelude to the System proper, with its satisfied speculative selfdeployment. In other words, Phenomenology of its role is not yet ‘truly Hegelian’ precisely in so far as it still conceives ‘introduction’ as of the to the that System proper (although simul that is the source of its ultimate unresolved taneously as its first part ambiguity). is not For that of another, Hegel, Reason ‘higher’ capacity than ‘abstract’ Understanding; what defines Understanding is the very illusion domain that, beyond it, there is another (either the ineffable Mystical or is
some
—
—
Reason)
standing
which to
cludes
Reason,
its one
discursive
grasp.
does
have
not
to
get from anything, but,
short, add
to
Underon
the
is Understanding Hegel calls ‘Reason’ that there is something Beyond it. This is why, itself, bereft of the illusion between in the direct choice Understanding and Reason, one has first to not in order to choose Understanding: play the stupid game of self itself, to posit external subject first has to alienate blinding (the absolute this alienareality as independent of itself, in order to supersede/sublate but for the simple tion by way of recognizing in it its own product...), reason that there is nothing outside or beyond Understanding. First, we choosc we choose Understanding again, move, Understanding; then, in the second that there the illusion to it (i-e. without only without anything in addition if this is another, it, even “higher’ ‘higher’ capacity beyond or beneath
contrary,
to
subtract
something:
what
In
86
THE
capacity illusion
is
called
that
there
Reason)
TICKLISH
—
and
SUBJECT this
Understanding,
deprived
the
of
is
something beyond it, is Reason. This enables us to throw some new light on the age-old question of the Kant and Hegel. Today’s Kantians’ most relationship between convincing answer to of Kant (as exemplified, say, in his detailed Hegel’s criticism of the inconsistencies examination in the and displacements discernible ‘moral view of the world’ in Phenomenology of Spirit) is a simple: so what? What as inconsistencies (the fact that Kant’s moral theory Hegel criticizes posits the necessity of ethical activity, while simultaneously making a true ethical act impossible to accomplish, etc.) is precisely the paradox of the authentic Kantian The to this would be: position.... Hegelian answer but Kant is not able to acknowledge, to state true, openly, these paradoxes that of his philosophical edifice; and, far from provide the very core Kant
(say,
remained
‘in
the
that is able ‘higher’ capacity of Reason to move and phenomenal, of beyond the Kantian opposites of noumenal freedom and necessity, etc.), /egel’s critique simply openly states and assumes the paradoxes constitutive the of Kant’s position. It is enough to mention Fssence and its Appearing: Kant, of course, relationship between ‘mplicEssence itly’ already knows that the noumenal beyond phenomenal reality is not has to appear within In-itself, but somehow simply a transcendent this very reality (see his well-known as a example of enthusiasm sign of noumenal Freedom: in the enthusiasm Revolugencrated by the French tion in enlightened all around observers Freedom Europe, noumenal act which, as it were, appeared as the belief in the possibility of a historical starts ex nihtlo which suspends the chain of causal dependencics and realizes this ultimate with however, freedom); identity of the noumenal
adding anything
to
—
the
appearance
itself?
for
that possible explicitly to state within rupture phenomenal reality, sion which appears within phenomenal not
The
So,
Speculative Identity Hésle’s
basic
—
noumenal
the
of
criticism
Kant
within
his
Freedom
premonition
is of
it
edifice,
nothing
another
was
but
a
dimen-
reality.!!
Substance of
and
Subject
Hegel: Hegel misses the need between for the second Reconciliation Nature and Spirit (gua Nature its externality), because returned into itself from he fails to deploy all the the movement of the fact that of ErJnnerung (internalizaconsequences is merely given as of the of what tion is external, necessary-contingent) to the of of externalization, strictly correlative opposite movement to
return
to
THE
renewed
HEGELIAN
‘naturalization’.
TICKLISH
Hegel,
87
SUBJECT
who
always emphasizes the aspect of Erto itself’ from the externality of Nature, Innerung, of the Spirit’s ‘return not does the opposite movement of extersufficiently take into account the fact that the Spirit which nalization ‘returns to itself from Nature’ is still the finite Spirit abstractly opposed to Nature, and should as such, in of the screw, dialectical turn be again reconciled with Nature. yet another It seems, none the less that Hoésle misses here the proper Hegelian —
...
move
in
which
‘abstract’
internalization
is
(withdrawal
is another
the
Interior
of
the assertion of the thought) accompanied by aspect meaningless externality abstractly opposed to the subject. The classical is that of the Roman political example, of course, Empire, in which the from the Sittlichkeit of the Greek subject withdraws polis into abstract inner freedom its right in the guise of and, for that very reason, externality asserts the state power of the Empire experienced by the subject as an external —
in which
he
of
to
—
longer recognizes his ethical substance. most of course, is elementary form of the Spirit’s externalization, language. as Hegel emphasizes again and again, our inner experience can the traces shed of external and acquire the form senses of a pure thought in a meaningless sign we think only only by again becoming externalized in words, in language. The same in general: customs form goes for customs the necessary And the same background, the space of our social freedom. itself, for the positive order of Sittéchkeit, the goes for the social Substance Lacanian ‘second nature’: ‘big Other’, which is precisely our ‘objective naturalization externalization.'” and/or spirit’, the spirit’s renewed In an approach to Hegel which, with its emphasis on historical dialectic the only aspect of Hegel worth as saving, is the very opposite of Hésle’s Charles to systematic reconstruction, Taylor also endeavours deploy the inner of the Idea. inconsistency of the Hegelian logic of externalization it posits According to Taylor,'* the Hegelian Spirit has two embodiments: its presupposition, its conditions of existence, and it expresses itself in its In the case of the Absolute bodily exterior. Spirit, the two embodiments of man coincide, while in the case qua finite being, the two are forever that is to say, man is always embedded in a set of conditions separated of existence which he cannot an ever into transform fully ‘internalize’, is always an there element of contingent expression of his subjectivity externality which persists. The first association is Schelling: the point of Schelhere, of course, power The
no
—
—
-
ling’s
distinction
Ground
is that
conditions
of
between the
gap existence
Divine that
holds
forever
also
Existence
separates for
the
and
its
insurmountable from
expression Absolute Subject,
external for
God
88
THE
Himself remain
-
an
‘vanishing This
icism.
by
the
have
they
found
were
Himself
mediator’
Other.
chosen and
create
a
this
set
reason,
Idealism
absolute
Idealism
to
from
the
beginning
history,
but
not
from
statement
men
in
For
between
passage
SUBJECT
is embedded
impenetrable
famous
how
about
God
TICKLISH
themselves
imposed
—
on
they them.
historicism
out
create
Here
of conditions
forever
Schelling is the enigmatic and post-Hegelian historis perhaps best expressed of Marx’s
of
nothing history in there
which
is
a
Eighteenth or
in the
Brumaire
conditions
the
conditions
clear
contrast
which with
(a
certain
Idea acts as image of) Hegelian Idealism, in which the absolute the Subject that posits its entire and thus actualizes itself only out content of itself, relying on no external that is, it is contingent presuppositions not bound of temporality-contingency-—finitude. However, by the confines what comes in between absolute and is Idealism post-Idealist historicism the unique position of Schelling as the ‘vanishing mediator’: Schelling the Absolute retains as Subject (i.e. he speaks of God, not of man), but he none the less applies to Him the fundamental postulate of temporality— is that God created contingency—finitude,so that what he ultimately asserts of nothing the universe, but not out He it in the created conditions which were found and imposed on Him of course, are (these ‘conditions’, —
—
the is
unfathomable not
Real
of the
Ground
of God,
that
which
in
God
Himself
yet God).!4
he redoubles here is that the notion of subject into Taylor’s mistake human and subjectivity (finite, caught in the gap between presupposition called ‘Absolute expression) and a spectral monster Subject’, the Spirit as or, [ Geist], God Taylor calls it (in a thoroughly un-Hegelian fashion) is the ‘cosmic mere ‘vehicle’ of the (self-)consciousness spirit’, whose finite human two subject. We thus finish with a split between subjects, the infinite absolute of the Subject and the finite human subject, instead the infinite Substance properly dialectical speculative identity between and the Subject as the agent of finitude/appearance/split ‘Substance is the that Subject’ means split which separates Subject from Substance, In-itself from the inaccessible to beyond phenomenal reality, is inherent the In other Substance itself. words, the key point is to read Hegel’s as is Subject’ not a direct assertion of identity, but proposition ‘Substance an as example (perhaps the example) of ‘infinite judgement’, like ‘the that the The Substance (the ultimate point is not Spirit is a bone’. the Absolute) is not a foundation of all entides, pre-subjective Ground but a Subject, an which agent of self-differentiation, posits its otherness so on: and then for the nonit, and reappropriates ‘Subject’ stands of phenomenalization, substantial ‘illusion’, agency appearance, split, ~
—
THE
finitude, means
‘to
‘as such’
of is
is inherent In
TICKLISH
the
Absolute
relative, to
contrast
the to
their
itself.
caught
in
There
is
self-division,
8&9
SUBJECT
Understanding, and so on, and to conceive and precisely that split, phenomenalization, life
the
HEGELIAN
no
Substance
forth,
so
‘absolute
and
it is
as
inherent
are
Subject’ such
Subject
as
that
—
the
subject Subject
Substance. this
speculative identity
of
Substance
and
Subject, the redoubling of subjects,
the identity thus involves an to which accident (‘vehicle’) of the again reduces subjectivity proper who substantial Absolute, of an Other speaks ‘through’ finite human the notion of a false, pseudo-Hegelian subjects. This also opens up in which its Subject (‘cosmic spirit’) posits its externaldialectical process itself from to regain its integrity on a itself, in order ity, alienates higher at work level: the misleading presupposition here is that the Subject of is somehow the process not given from the outset, engendered by the very of the Substance’s splitting. process Another the same way to make point is with regard to the two different of the subject confronted with the unfathways of reading the situation omable excess cludes his reflexive of a Thing which symbolic grasp. The ‘substantialist’ it is simply to claim that our (finite subject's) way to read capacity to grasp the Object we are confronting always and a priori us: there is something in the object that forever resists surpasses being translated into our (the point about the ‘preponderconceptual network ance of the objective’ made in his Negative Dialectics). regularly by Adorno of
notion
Of
what
what,
however,
is ‘in
divect
does
this
excess
consist?
if what
What
eludes
our
grasp,
the
than the object itself’, are the traces of what, object more in past history, this ‘object’ (say, a historical situation the subject endeavours to but a failed to do so? To grasp analyse) might have become, historical ‘in its becoming’ situation (as Kierkegaard would have put it) is not to (‘the way things actually perceive it as a positive set of features in it the traces of failed are’), but to discern ‘emancipatory’ attempts at liberation. of (Here I am, of course, alluding to Walter Benjamin’s notion the revolutionary gaze which perceives the actual revolutionary act as the redemptive repetition of past failed emancipatory attempts.) In this case, our of the eludes however, the ‘preponderance objective’, that which our of its positive content over grasp in the Thing, is no longer the excess of its lack, that is, the traces cognitive capacities but, on the contrary, in its positive existence: the October to grasp failures, the absences inscribed
Revolution
‘in its
to discern becoming’ means tory potential that was simultaneously aroused is not actuality. Consequently, this excess/lack
the and
the
tremendous
by its historical
crushed
part
emancipa-
of
the
‘objective’
90
THE
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
subject's cognitive capacities: rather it consists of the traces of the subject himself (his crushed hopes and desires) in the in the object, so that what is properly ‘unfathomable’ object is the kernel of the subject’s of the innermost objective counterpart/correlative that
is in
own
desire.
of
excess
the
The These
Choice
provide a clue to the Hegelian ‘abstract’ universality, Hege! was the
and
properly modern At the beginning, which with
Forced
paradoxes
‘concrete’
himself
Hegelian
he
born
was
away it and
from
notion
first
between the
elaborate
to
through secondary identification.
in a particular life-form subject is immersed (family, local community); the only way for him to his primordial ‘organic’ community, to cut his
the
himself
assert
of individualization
opposition
as
is
individual’,
‘autonomous
an
to
shift
into tear
links his
of his allegiance, to recognize the substance being in is universal and, simultaneously another, secondary community, which no sustained ‘artificial’; by the longer ‘spontaneous’ but ‘mediated,’ free local community; activity of independent subjects (nation versus sense profession in the modern job in a large anonymous company an versus the between and_ his apprentice ‘personalized’ relationship the traacademic the master-artisan; community of knowledge versus to a ditional wisdom to etc., passed from generation generation; up mother who relies child-care manuals than on more on parental advice). This does involve a shift from not primary to secondary identification what direct loss of primary identifications: happens is that primary identifications as undergo a kind of transubstantiation; they start to function the form of appearance of the universal secondary identification (say, of my family, I thereby contribute to precisely by being a good member the proper Therein lies the Hegelian functioning of my nation-state). and ‘concrete’ difference between ‘abstract’ universality: the universal ‘abstract’ in so far as remains it is directly secondary identification that is, in so opposed to the particular forms of primary identification far as it compels the subject to renounce it his primary identifications; becomes ‘concrete’ when it reintegrates transprimary identifications, modes of of into the the secondary appearance forming them
fundamental
—
—
—
identification. This
discernible
tension in
between the
‘abstract’
precarious
social
and status
‘concrete’ of
the
universality early
Christian
is
clearly
Church:
THE
the
on
there
hand,
one
HEGELIAN
the
was
way of
order;
the
with social
existing feudal
it
Christian,
duty
of
On
first
abstract
serious
attempts
as
that
so
the
existing
threat
to
reconcile
to
of space the social
Christianity participate in
could
you
saw
place in it (as a servant, peasant, a good Christian accomplishing only seen as compatible with being a specific way of fulfilling the universal
a
Christian.
a
things
approach,
philosophy, Sollen, that
unconditional
posed a
which
groups
-
not
was
radical with
domination, remain
the
attitude the
were
perceived
even
the
seem
is Kant
Universal
‘ought
potential demand,
thus
universality
which
terrorist/subversive mine
role
of abstract
philosopher Kant’s
and
social
was
thus
determinate
your
lord...)
being a
of
structure
detcrminate
your
there
hand,
life, occupy
artisan,
in
other
the
on
and
9]
SUBJECT of
zealotry
Christian
combining the te predominant social relations, no
TICKLISH
whose
-
be’
and
(and,
in
and
the
Universal
power
of
the
unambiguous: Kant’s
Fichte}:
steps,
moral
(the to
clear
as Law) functions which, as such, possesses
stands
negativity
for
an
the a
impossible
is destined
/
under-
to
of abstract/negative totality; against this tradition universality opposed to its particular content, Hegel emphasizes how true in the of concrete series determinations universality is actualized perceived to by the abstract point of view of Understanding as the obstacle full the realization of the Universal moral (say, the universal Duty is becomes of particular wealth actualized, effective, through the concrete human as passions and strivings devalued by Kant ‘pathological’ any
concrete
obstacles). However,
not things really so simple? In order of the opposition between properly Hegelian flavour crete it with another universality, one should ‘crossbreed’ between positive Universality as a mere impassive/neutral are
coexistence
of its
particular
defined
what
all
‘mute
the
misread and
abstract
opposition, of
that
of the
medium
universality’
con-
a
species
and species have in common), in its actual of which is individuality, the assertion existence, as to the particular concrete totality unique and irreducible he is inserted. into which In Kierkegaardese, this difference is the one the positive Being of the Universal between and universality-in-becoming: the obverse of the Universal as the pacifying neutral medium/container of its particular content is the Universal as the power of negativity that undermines the fixity of every particular this and constellation, power into existence comes in the guise of the individual’s absolute egotist selfof his negation of all determinate dimension The content. contraction, actual (or, in Hegelese, ‘for itself’) only by ‘entering Universality becomes
by Universality the subject
members
(the
content
to
of
the
92
TICKLISH
THE
existence’
into
that
universal,
as
into
by entering
content,
SUBJECT itself
is, by opposing
to
all its
with
‘negative relationship’
a
its
particular particular
content.
With
ity, leads the
regard
this
the
to
opposition between only way towards
that
means
through universal
the
full
of the
assertion
negates
its
it is the
‘mute
and
abstract
the
a
radical
entire
Universal-
concrete
‘concrete’
truly universality of which negativity by means content: despite misleading
particular container of the universality’ of the neutral content which is the form of abstract predominant particular universality. In other is to ‘concrete’ words, the only way for a Universality to become medium of its particular and to content, stop being a neutralabstract its particular subspecies.What include itself among this means is that, paradox‘concrete ically, the first step towards universality’ is the radical negation of the entire particular content: only through such a negation does the appearances,
Universal
become
gain existencc,
visible
‘as
such’.
Here
let
us
recall
Hegel's analysis of phrenology, which closes the chapter on ‘Observing Reason’ in his Phenomenology:Hegel resorts to an explicit phallic metaphor in order to the of two the explain opposition possible readings of the ‘the is a bone’ ‘reductionist’ (the vulgar-materialist Spirit proposition the of our skull and determines the reading shape actually directly of our features mind and the speculative reading the spirit is strong —
—
enough
to
‘sublate’
it
its
assert
that
—
is
—
with
identity
to
the
even
say,
the most
utterly utterly inert
most
inert stuff
stuff, cannot
and
to
escape
the
Spirit’s power of mediation). The vulgar-materialist reading is like the while the approach which sees in the phallus only the organ of urination, in it the much speculative reading is also able to discern higher function of insemination (i.e. precisely ‘conception’ as the biological anticipation of concept). On elemena first approach, we are dealing here with the well-known of Aufhebung (‘sublation’): tary movement you must go through the lowest in order once more to reach the highest, the lost totality (you must lose the immediate of the ‘night of the world’ in reality in the self-contraction order to regain it as ‘posited’, mediated by the symbolic activity of the renounce the immediate and submit subject; you must organic Whole to the of abstract in order to yourself mortifying activity Understanding the lost at a ‘mediated’ as of the level, regain higher, totality totality Reason). standard
This
move
criticism:
otic
selfcontraction
for
abstract
thus yes, and
to
seems
of
course
its
dismemberment,
offer
itself
as
an
ideal
the
horror
target of the
of the
Hegel recognizes psychof reality’, yes, he acknowledges the need but only as a step, a detour on the trium-
‘loss
THE
HEGELIAN
phant path which, according us
back
such The
the
which
depth
about
consciousness and
inexorable
dialectical
the
low
forth
Spirit brings what
which,
combines
from
within
it lets
A close
level
the
of
reading
of
this
contrast
to
the
but
be the
fulfilment
infinitejudgement
that
urination.’
as
clear
it
the
would
of the
behaves
makes
and
—
infinite,
consciousness
picture-thinking
—
it remain
infinite judgement,gua
at
is that
only as far as its ignorance of this the same it really is saying, are conjunction of the in the living being, Nature when it naively expresses of the with the fulfilment, highest organ generation, where
the organ of its of urination, The organ of life that comprehends itself; the remains
leads
necessity, contention
...
consciousness
picture-thinking high
the
93
Our organic Whole. of Hegel's argumentation: point
the
misses
reading
a
to
SUBJECT
reconstituted
the
to
TICKLISH
that
Hegel’s point is not sees only urination, has to choose insemination. The the proper speculative attitude paradox the direct choice of insemination is that is the infallible way to mass it: it is not that is to say, one has to possible to choose the ‘true meaning’ directly choice true the the (of urination): begin by making ‘wrong’ speculative (or meaning emerges only through repeated reading, as the after-effect by-product) of the first, ‘wrong’ reading.!” that,
in
passage
mind
vulgar empiricist
which
—
The
same
for
goes
universality’ to premodern
of
social
life, in which ethical
the
life-world
direct
choice
the
of
end
in
‘concrete
only regression right of subjectivity the as the fundamental feature of modernity. Since subject-citizen of a modern state can no in some longer accept his immersion particular a social role that confers on him determinate place within the organic state social the only way to the rational Wholc, totality of the modern of revolutionary Terror: one should leads ruthlessly through the horror tear of premodern organic ‘concrete up the constraints universality’, and in its assert the infinite of abstract fully right subjectivity negativity. In other the of famous words, point Hegel’s deservedly analysis of the in obvious Terror his is not the rather insight revolutionary Phenomenology direct assertion into how the revolutionary project involved the unilateral of abstract as Universal and was such doomed to Reason, perish in selfit destructive since was unable to the fury, organize transposition of its into social order; a concrete stable and differentiated revolutionary energy revolof fact that is the the rather, enigma Hegel’s point, why, despite in a Terror was historical we have to deadlock, utionary pass through it order wrong
to
particular organic society a
the
attain were
the
modern
which
rational
denies
state....
late-nineteenth-century
can
the
a
infinite
We
conservative
can
now
see
British
hcre
how
Hegelians
94
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
(Bradley and others), who interpreted the social logic of Hegel’s concrete of each with his/ individual universality as demanding the identification the defined and hierarchical of the global her specific post within Whole social notion of subjectivity this, precisely, is what the modern body precludes. In other the Absolute not words, ‘to conceive only as Substance, but also as means that when we are confronted with the radical Subject’ choice between the organic Whole and the ‘madness’ of the unilateral feature which throws the Whole out of joint and into damaging imbal~
this
ance,
has
choose
to
has
Body
and
‘madness’
unilateral
a
choice
forced the
against
of social
demands
the
rational his
moral
the
social
concrete
choose
to
State.'?
opposition
life-world this
Moralitdt,
concrete
that
and
freedom is
the
The
slate,
as
the
it were,
holds
same
between
his
of
one
say,
when social force
can
individual.
the
for
subject’s
for the
the
act
new
couple
immersion
abstract
individualist/universal universe; in this choice, of the individual who, on behalf
inherited
is, the
one
between
absolutely indispensable negativity which under-
an
radical
of
cleared
order; the
abstract Terror
outburst
modern
for
Moralitdt.
opposition to
this
—
of
the
and
revolutionary
established
old
order
Sittlichkeit/
Order
the
monstrosity of ‘vanishing mediator’
mined
is to
So organic Whole. premodern organic
-
the
the
that
—
between the by the choice the destructive revolutionary Terror which unleashes negativity, one has to choose Terror only in this way terrain for the new reconciliation post-revolutionary
The
has
of
structure
the
abstract
create
in
the
is confronted
one
of
choice
one
of
the determinate larger universality, undermines positive order of mores which defines his society (Socrates versus the concrete totality of the Greek the concrete city; Christ versus totality of Jews). Hegel is fully aware that the in which this abstract positive form universality gains actual a
existence
is that
of
extreme
violence:
the
obverse
of
the
inner
peace
of
that is to Universality is the destructive fury towards all particular content, say, the universality ‘in becoming’ is the very opposite of the peaceful of all particular content neutral medium only in this way can universality become ‘for itself’; only in this way can ‘progress’ take place. can One thus the moment when precisely determine ‘Hegel became when he renounced the vision of the organic aesthetic/Greek Hegel’: only social of Sittlichkeit found its most articulate (which totality expression in the posthumously published System der Sittlichkeit a text which [1802-03], towards what was later as the definitely points developed ‘organic’ protoFascist of society) notion that is to say, when he corporate-organicist became that the only path to true concrete is that in fully aware totality —
-
THE
direct
every
subject able
in
‘becomes
tive’ the to
choice
HEGELIAN
between
choose
to
abstract
abstract
Christ’s
of
this
sense,
it
ambiguous: wound
the
of
a
thus
of individual
he
mores
‘reconciliation’ of
renounces
as
a
solution
remains
utterly
split (the healing
a
reconciliation
freedom.
turn
the
is, when
of Greek
With
this
with
regard
to
of
the
split
politics,
as
is
one
myth of the young ‘revolutionin his later years, betrayed his subversive origins and the state became philosopher praising the existing order as the embodiment of Reason, as the ‘actually existing God’: it was the young rather, whose from Hegel ‘revolutionary’ project today’s perspective, at least announced the Fascist ‘aestheticization of the political,’ the establishment of a new modern organic Order that abolishes individuality; while ‘Hegel became his insistence on the of the unavoidable assertion Hegel’ through ‘infinite of the individual’ how on the road to ‘concrete universalright of ‘abstract ity’ leads only through the full assertion negativity’. Another to discern this from way passage pre-Hegelian Hegel to ‘Hegel who became Hegel’ is via a small but significant change in the social structure. In System der Sittlichkeit, society is subdivided into three estates, each of stance: the peasantry with the attitude involving a specific ethical into the boursubstance; pre-reflexive thrust, immersion entrepreneurs, attitude of individual geois class, with their reflected competition and achievement (civil society proper, industry, exchange); the aristocracy, the universal runs class, which political life and goes to war, ready to risk their lives when necessary. Significantly, after Hegel ‘became Hegel’, the univerin sal class is no longer the aristocracy (as landlords, they are included the peasantry), but the enlightened state The bureaucracy. key point of this is that not the but now, change only aristocracy everybody, any
tempted to ary’ Hegel who,
around
that
version
new
the mature Hegelian designates the reconciliation social body), as well as the
price
necessary
to
when,
—
emergence
nostalgic hope of a return the problems of modernity.
the
95
SUBJECT
Whole, the negativity and a concrete negativity. This shift is most clearly detectin his appreciation of Christianity: Hegel young Hegel's oscillation the disruptive ‘abstractly negaHegel’ when he fully endorses has
skandalon
In
TICKLISH
standard
—
-
-
individual
from
the
negativity, determinate becomes
his
any risk
content, a
universal
specific place
abstract/absolute reduces
him
to
class, of
can
death is
be mobilized which
longer right/obligation
within
no
the
social
and
dissolves the of
body, negativity: no individual his particular place within
has all
privilege every
to
of
a
specific
citizen.
Above
citizen
thus
social
war:
absolute
attachments
every is completely the
to
go
fixed
a
but
beyond participates in and
delimited
edifice."
to
class,
by
what
96
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
from his Introduction to why, in the passage Phenomenology in hails 1, (not Reason!), its Chapter Hegel Understanding length quoted to as infinite power disrupt any organic link, to treat separated what originally belongs together and has actual existence only as part of its concrete context: here name for what we have ‘Understanding’ is another called ‘pre-synthetic imagination’, for imagination’s power to dissipate that precedes the synthesis of imagination any organic Whole, the power whose highest expression is /ogos (as Heidegger liked to point out, in old ‘to collect, to Greek, legetn also means gather’). This is why those who advocate the subject’s willing submission and to of his/her acceptance the within concrete of the as substantial Order are place proper totality far from as could be: the cxistence of the involves Hegel very subjectivity
This
is
at
choice
‘false’, ‘abstract’ which
gesture
why?
such
Because
tial, such itself
This tion
all
to
thus
involves of
moment
The
Order.
the
the
that
fear
negativity
mediation
is thus
the
particular
violent
it out of
mortification
actualization
‘too
something on no good the only way for
this tears
Whole
‘as
insubstan-
and
(‘I
reason
the
it
want
Universal
to
content.
such,’ in contradistinc-
unilateral
of its
of balance:
out
trivial
Universal
‘unilateral’
excessive
an
based
of the
content,
is,
of the
all determinate
which
feature,
that
of
of
determinate
‘abstract’
some
choice
“for itself’, against into the existence
entry
—
Order
arbitrary utter caprice it!’), is, paradoxically,
I want
assert
Evil, of Crime harmonious
an
exercise
an
because
of
the
throws
of
endorsement life-context
concrete
and
the
of Life, is the organic Whole the balanced substantial Subject against will gencrate a movement Hegelian dialectical
of
the into of dialectical circle strong’ to be reinserted the that fact ‘Substance is [also to be deeply misplaced: of as] Subject’ means conceived that this explosion of the organic Unity is what always happens in the course of the dialectical and the new process, ‘mediated’ afterwards in no way signals a return ‘at a Unity which comes in the newly reinstated ‘mediated’ higher level’ to the lost initial Unity totality, we are dealing with a substantially different Unity, a Unity grounded on the disruptive power of negativity, a Unity in which this negativity itself —-
positive
assumes
Perhaps Logic, the the ~
absolute
that
this
existence. is the
tension
Idea:
is to say,
itself
Life
through the particular moments, the
selfmovement
source
of
between
Life
in Life, is
a
the
the and
Particular
unresolved
process
the
Knowledge is still submerged as
dynamic system
incessant
in which
of the
the
emerging
two
ends
Hegel’s paradigms of
in the
Universal
Universal
reproduces
and
passing off of perpetual dynamics
system kept alive by the very of its constituents; however, such a
that
tension
a
system,
in
its of
which
THE
the
Universal
is the
wealth
of its
of the
HEGELIAN
Power
that
TICKLISH
expresses
97
SUBJECT itself
in the
incessant
production
remains a particular moments, ‘dynamized substance’, not it does In Taylor’s terms yet involve subjectivity proper. (not quite adequate), we are dealing here with the opposition between the ‘expressui that (Life as a causa sivist’/productive aspect of the Absolute reproduces and ‘expresses’ itself through the infinite of the generation process and corruption of its moments) and its ‘cognitive’ aspect (the Absolute that actualizes itself only through its full selfknowledge) how are we to —
reconcile
the
two?
paradox is that activity is on the side of Substance (the ‘expressivist’ generative Power) and passivity on the side of Subject (the what takes place): subject gua consciousness ‘passively’ takes into account Substance is praxis, active while is intervention; theoria, Subject passive intuition. What we have here is the opposition of Sein and Sollen, of the and True the Good; however, to the standard contrary way of conceptualof Substance versus izing this opposition (the Spinozan passive intuition the Fichtean active Subject who spontaneously and autonomously posits the entire in a crisscross the four terms objective content), Hegel connects is on the side of the way: expressive productivity Spinozan Substance which permanently realizes the Good by actively shaping reality; while the attitude is that of Knowing the Subject endeavSubject’s fundamental to establish what is True, to discern ours the contours of objectivity. a German solution as is of a Idealist, course, Hegel’s knowledge which is ‘spontaneous,’ that is, in itsclf a praxis generative of its object, but noi in the (Fichtean) of a knowledge directly sense of ‘intellectual intuition’, in the somewhat Kantian weaker productive of its objects, and not even of knowledge as transcendentally is sense constitutive of its objects. One even at tempted to say that Hegel opts for precisely the opposite solution: the level of substantial content, ‘everything has already taken place’, so that knowledge merely takes it into account that is to say, it is a purely formal act which the of state registers things; precisely as such, however as the purely formal is of ‘in itself’ what gesture ‘taking into account’ there is actualiand about the knowledge already ‘performative’, brings of the Absolute. zation So we are not of the dealing with a new version in Union which the with the mystical activity of subject’s activity overlaps the Absolute~God as the itself in which the subject experiences himself ‘vehicle of the Absolute’ {in his greatest activity he is passive, since it is the Absohute who is effectively active through him); such a mystical Union the summit remains of Schelling’s ‘dynamized Spinozism’. Hegel’s point in my greatest! passivity, I am already active is, rather, the opposite one: —that The
first
—
—
—
—
—
—
98
TICKLISH
THE
is
to
say,
‘secedes’,
very passive ‘withdrawal’ ‘splits off’ from its object,
the
off ‘the
itself
flow is its
this
non-act
the
self-enclosed The
SUBJECT
of
things’, assuming highest act, the infinite Whole
by means acquires the
of a
of
stance
the
thought violently tears
‘external
an
observer’,
introduces
which
Power
which
distance,
a
gap into
of Substance. confronts
in the
opposition between ‘positing’ beginning of Book II of is ‘ontological’, it conceptualizes the Hegel’s Logic. Positing reflection as that Essence the productive/generative power ‘posits’ the wealth of external in contrast, is ‘epistemological’, it stands reflection, appearances; for the subject’s reflexive penetration of the object of knowledge for his effort to the veil of phenomena, the contours of their discern, behind structure The deadfundamental (their Essence).'° underlying rational lock of the entire ‘logic of Essence’ is that these two aspects, the ‘ontologno ical’ and the never be fully synchronized: ‘epistemological’, can either solution can resolve the oscillation between the two the poles is reduced to appearance something that is ‘merely subjective’ (‘the of things is an In Itself, what I can Essence inaccessible contemplate is their illusive or the Essence becomes itself mercly subjectivappearance’), is ultimately the ized Essence construct, (‘the hidden subject’s rational the result of his conceptual work’ just think of contemporary subparticle in which the of reality have the status of a highly last constituents physics, of rational we never abstract that shall hypothesis presupposition a pure outside the theorctical encounter network, in our everyday experience). is resolved not of external reflection Again, this tension by the inclusion into the overall of the structure Absolute’s self-positing activity, as a of split and externality, but by the opposite assertion mediating moment of the direct of the ‘externality’ of reflection itself ‘ontological’ status ‘as such’ every positive and determinate ontological entity can emerge is ‘external to itself’, in so far as a gap only in so far as the Absolute its full actualization.”° prevents ontological problem
same
and
‘external’
us
reflection
guise
of
the
the
from
—
—
—
—
—
‘Concrete We
can
tal’
in the
is
not
structure
now
see
strict
in what Kantian
merely formal, it
describes.
Hegel’s Logic is
the
Universality’
precise
sense
sense
that
but What
inherent
—
Hegel’s logic is, in what
constitutive sets
tension
in
of motion in
the
its notional
reality itself, the status
‘transcenden-
remains
sense
whose
dialectical of
every
network
categorial progress
in
determinate
/
limited
THE
HEGELIAN
each
concept
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
99
is
simultaneously necessary (i.e. indispensreality, its underlying ontological structure) and the moment we impossible (i.e. self-refuting, inconsistent: fully and conseit to reality, it turns into its opposite). and/or ‘apply’ disintegrates quently able
This
category:
if
we
are
notional
conceive
to
tension/‘contradiction’
is
the
simultaneously
ultimate
Spiri-
‘reality’ itself: far from signalling the failure of our thought the inherent to is reality, inconsistency of our notional grasp apparatus the ultimate proof that our thought is not merely a logical game we play, to reach is able but reality itself, expressing its inherent structuring principle. accounts for this paradoxical overlapping of necessity and What imposthe notion of the selfrelating sibility is, of course, Universality grounded in its constitutive coins exception. Why are five-cent larger than ten-cent volume coins; why this exception to the general rule according to which value? Karel van follows het Reve, the famous Dutch linguist, literary of psychoanalysis and deconstruction, scientist and Popperian criticist has the logic of rule formulated and its exception in the guise of what he of symbolic rules, ironically calls ‘Reve’s Conjecture’:*! in the domain of falsification has to be inverted that is to say, far from Popper's logic the the one has to search for rule, exception falsifying confirms it. Besides from a multitude of enumerating examples symbolic, rule-regulated, tus
movens
of
—
activities
often one;
is
(in chess,
have
we
fundamental
the
an
ctc.), needed
universal
of
logic exceptional lower Reve
in
rule
focuses
order that
to
which
as
the
exception,
possible
reveal
(and
otherwise
follow:
a
overrule
can
in
grammar, thus to make ‘A rule
cannot
a
that
move
card
in
moves;
that
combination
linguistics:
on
we
rocade
other
games, the
particular us
is
highest exception
sensitive exist
violates
there
if there
the
to) is
no
distinguish itself.'?? These exceptions are as so-called due deponentia, ‘irrational’ irregularities the influence of some to either neighbouring foreign language or to of earlier remainders linguistic forms. In Latin, for example, when a verb in -or, it usually designates a passive form: ends form /audo is ‘I praise’, and so on faudor ‘] am however, surprisingly, doguor is not ‘Iam praised’, ‘T but speak’! spoken’ ‘forIn Hegelese, such if rules are to become exceptions are necessary be not a natural ‘in-itself’ that are to if themselves’, is, merely they for account to ‘noted’, perceived ‘as such’.?* For this reason, any attempt of neighthese violations exceptions and/or by invoking the influence such or forms of the insufficient: same is bouring tongues past tongue for order in connections are causal accurate’; undoubtedly ‘historically exception against usually dismissed
it
can
—
—
THE
1UU
SUBJECT
become effective,however, they have to fulfil ‘remainders present system (as with the unfortunate
them
to
in the
in the
evoked
past’
Socialist
the
of
TICKLISH
role
ex-Communist
and
countries
of the
—
and
three
main
particular
content.
are
its
it will
that
prospect
There
not
were
1. The
standard
not
all the
for
excuse
did
not
—
reveal
which the
its basic can
serve
immanent
need
bourgeois
society
utilitarian as
woes
necessary that very stance,
the
proof of
danger
and
failure:
occur.?4
versions
notion
an
of the
play a the inconsistency of by here: bourgeois utilitarian
kept alive Socialist present). Examples abound an needs aristocracy as the exception to and so on; up to erection (of the penis), of sign of potency precisely on account in
as
‘remainders’
if these
as
present;
inherent
some
of the
between
relationship
the
Universal
of neutral
to its particuuniversality, indifferent neutral thinking substance, common to all humans, and as indifferent to such the gender, philosophical foundation of the political equality of the sexes. From this perspective, the fact that, in descriptions of cogite in modern philosophy, one actually a finds of male features is predominance ultimately an inconsistency due to historical circumstances: with Descartes, Kant, Hegel, and others, cogifo an remained ‘unfinished its were not consequences project’; thought out to the end. like for Malebranche, (When post-Cartesians example, cannot think repeated that women clearly and are much more susceptible than men to the impressions of their senses, they were simply following the prejudices of the social reality of their times.)
lar
the
content:
The
2.
standard
which
not
nance
of
discerns
certain
male
ences
male
cogito is the
Marxist
only
upper-class claims
Cartesian
or
beneath features
patriarchal
that —
the very gesture the form of abstract
inherently ‘masculine’, since tion
and
manipulation,
difference
the
of
different
modes
Universal
and
3.
There
Laclau:*°
in, that
the
the
universality it defines
that
so
as
the
difference
sexual
species functioning
of
such
modern
the of
the
human very
~
is
not
male does
but
gender-neutral, attitude
of domina-
only
not
stand
for
but
involves
two
relationship
between
the
genus,
Particular.
is, however, the
but, in its strongest version, even of universalization, of obliterating particular differ-
individual’),
two
the
of
critico-ideological ‘symptomatic’ reading, the universality of cogito the predomi for the white (‘cogite effectively stands
Universal
is, hegemonized
a
third
is empty,
by
some
elaborated in detail by Ernesto precisely as such always-already filled that acts contingent, particular content
version, yet
THE
its stand-in
HEGELIAN
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
101
in short, each Universal is the battleground on which the particular contents fight for hegemony. (If cogito silently this is not an eternal fact inscribed privileges men as opposed to women, but something that can in its very nature, be changed through hegemonic between this third version and the first is that struggle.) The distinction as
of
multitude
third
the
version
allows
neutral
effectively define
—
features
any
for
and,
which
result
accepting this particular substantial
third
In
itself.
That
is to
Universal
is that
contents,
but
in
itself, the
position, by paradox
the
say:
the
the
of
neutral
to
is
insist
which
up
its
all
be
never
the
absolutely the
contingent
absolutely the
on
empty. in
cut
the
establishes
Hegelian
notion
of
multitude
of
particular
particular particular
some
can
Universal
a
proper of the
frame
in
is
Universal
would
(we
specics
Universal
of
means
which
humans
should
one
content
it is not
the
inherently divisive, splitting itself in the guise of always asserts embody it directly, excluding
Universal
claims
of
content —
all
to
common
Universal
all its
to
common
are
modality): all positive of hegemonic struggle
same
the
of
content
no
such,
as
other
the the
content:
which
content
content
merely
as
particular. What, radical element
its
plays
violin
music
to
concerto
(the Classical
‘stages’ struggle
his
Sinfonia
yet allowed
Mozart’s his
wonder
no
concertante, to
assume
with
dealing proper),
are
the
concerto,
Sibelius,
to
—
a
violin
it
an
a
of
the
actual
its
particular
forms
from
Men-
It
a
bit
of
is a
compared piece for violin
kind
of animal
a
to
his
and
concerto
piano
violin
with
is
is not
orchestra, not
least
(at
with
(the
against the ‘concerting’ mode,
or
already deeply failure
and
role
in
‘concrete
concertos
concept. are
strange
autonomous
symphony
an
its ‘species’ etc.), but conccive to determine, to give a form to,
concertos
is
as
into
simply
Romantic
high standards, his most popular which
it
treat
we
great
—
against —
way, do subdivide
not
many attempts grasp the very universality
that
concertos)
what
in
do
to
with
significant
the
Tchaikovsky
so
measured
we
violin
via as
when,
—
When
universality’? delssohn
‘concrete such a universality’, if it involves of a Whole in which each organic articulation unique, particular but irreplaceable part? Perhaps a could be of some help here; let us take the concept of
Hegelian
if it is not
—
reference a
is
then, cut
so a
we
violin
concerto
The that
violin,
instrument its
for
reason
the
interaction
and
this much
probably
expression between
lies than
more
of
violin
in
the
the
subjectivity: and
fact,
piano, a
orchestra,
emphasized is
concerto
thus
the
ultimate for
solo
by Adorno, musical violin,
provides perhaps
with the
102 musical
ultimate
violin
concerto,
accused,
not
in
movement
in short,
the
SUBJECT what
express
and
universe
not
was
occurred
balance
between
violin
disturbed
Idealism
German
Mozart’s
Substance;
only with however, things again unfairly, of accentuating an excessively repetitive
is
Substance,
his
which
subjectivity,
to
Subject
that
fact
the
endeavour
between
interaction to
TICKLISH
THE
that
yet became the
radical
of
With rather
main
bears
failure
Beethoven.
called
the
witness
assertion
of
Beethoven’s
one
he
problematic:
melodic
line
in
was
the
first
on musical kitsch way that borders and orchestra, between Subject and
—
the
The subjective excess. proper to this excess is then of counterpoint (again the one) violin concerto which was as the ‘concerto Brahms, quite appropriately characterized against the violin’: it is the massive symphonic weight of the orchestra which ultimately engulfs the solo voice of the violin, fighting and squashof the the elements ing its expressive thrust, reducing it to one among symphonic texture. Perhaps the last link in this development was Barték’s ‘concerto for orchestra’ with no single instru(that is, only for orchestra, ment to stand out as the bearer of a solo voice), a true being allowed
already
to
counterpoint formula
rate
of
his of the
bereft
gradually
Schumann’s slide
by
‘concert into
support
without
madness, in the
order). What all these examples have a case of the universal just particular not
orchestra’ i.e.
‘big Other’, in
into the
most
accu-
psychotic
seclusion
substantial
symbolic
is that
common
concept
(the
each
of ‘violin
of
them
is
but
concerto’,
to hammer out a desperate attempt position with regard to the very is ‘disturbed’ universality of this concept: each time, this universal concept in a specific way thrown off by the excessive disavowed, turned around, a has been violin emphasis on one of its poles. In short, there never concerto that its concept’ a (a dialogue engendering fully ‘realized and reconciliation between violin and orchestra, Subproductive tension time some invisible hindrance the ject and Substance): every prevents hindrance (This inherent concept’s fulfilment. preventing the immediate a
—
of the
actualization we
have
sequence universal
the
for
the
Lacanian
Here
Real.)
or a example of Hegelian ‘concrete universality’: a process of particular attempts that do not simply exemplify the neutral notion but the struggle with it, give a specific twist to it is thus fully engaged in the process of its particular exemplifithat is to say, these particular cases in a way, decide the fate of the
itself.”
notion those
notion
it will
name
an
universal To
is another
—
Universal
cation;
concept
come
who
still
remember
of overdetermination as
no
surprise
Althusser’s
elaboration
of
key category of the Marxist dialectic, Althusser’s polemics against Hegel’s notion
as
that
the
anti-Hegelian
THE
of
universality
HEGELIAN
is misdirected:
TICKLISH
the
feature
103
SUBJECT that
Althusser
emphasized as the of overdetermination main characteristic (in each particular constellation, the universality in question is ‘overdetermined’, given a specific flavour or conditions that is to say, in the spin, by the unique set of concrete Marxist encounter the dialectic, the exception is the rule, we never appropri—
ate
embodiment
of
of
Hegelian concrete concrete universality
universality as such) universality. So
is the it
is
fundamental
very
feature
enough to claim that is articulated into a texture of particular constelin which a lations, of situations specific content hegemonizes the universal should also bear in mind that all these notion; one particular exemplifiof the universality in question cations are branded by the sign of their ultimate failure: each of the historical is figures of the violin concerto above all the failure to actualize the ‘notion’ of the violin concerto fully and the adequately. The Hegelian ‘concrete universality’ thus involves Real of some central as impossibility: universality is ‘concrete’, structured a texture of particular figurations, precisely because it is forever prevented from This is why acquiring a figure that would be adequate to its notion. —as is always one of its own Hegel puts it the Universal genus species: there is universality only in so far as there is a gap, of the a hole, in the midst of the particular content universality in question, that is, in so far as. the species of a genus, there is always one among species missing: namely, the species that would adequately embody the genus itself. not
—
‘Rather The
notion
‘abstract’) attachment’;
that choice
this
best in the
than
illustrates course
thoroughly
want
the of
a
nothing...’ necessity
dialectical
of
a
‘false’
is that process notion is operative
(‘unilateral’, of ‘stubborn
throughout for the pathological hand, it stands Hegel’s Phenomenology. On the one attachment to some .) (interest, particular content object, pleasure scorned by the moralistic judging conscience. Hegel is far from simply such an attachment: he emphasizes again and condemning again that is the ontological a priori of an act such an attachment —the hero’s (active socioof the of which he disturbs the balance subject’s) act by means his ethical of mores is and by totality always necessarily experienced community as a crime. On the other hand, a far more perilous ‘stubborn attachment’ is that of the inactive pathologijudging subject who remains of them, to his abstract moral standards and, on behalf cally attached abstract to condemns act as criminal: a such stubborn clinging every ambiguous
.
.
104
moral active
THE
standards,
which
subjectivity,
is the
TICKLISH
could ultimate
legitimize
us
to
pass
judgement
on
every
of Evil.
form
‘stubparticularity and universalism, describes attachment’ born simultaneously the subject’s clinging to his which he is not to under ethnic abandon identity, ready any particular to abstract and a direct reference circumstances, universality as that which the same, the unchangeable stable in the universal remains framework The change of all particular content. properly dialectical paradox, of is that if the subject is to extract himself from the substantial course, of his particular ethnic content totality, he can do so only by clinging to For some that ‘stubreason, radically contingent idiosyncratic content. born attachment’ is simultaneously the resistance to change—-mediation— universalization and the very operator of this change: when, irrespective | stubbornly attach of circumstances, accidental myself to some particular I am feature to which bound by no inner necessity, this ‘pathological’ attachment enables me to disengage myself from immersion in my particular life-context. That is what Hegel calls the ‘infinite right of subjectivity’: to risk everything, my entire for substantial the sake of some content, that matters more to me than trifling, idiosyncratic feature anything else. The paradox, therefore, lies in the fact that I can arrive at the Universalfor-itself to some attachment only through a stubborn contingent particuwhich lar content, functions as a as ‘negative magnitude’, something in itself whose wholly indifferent meaning resides entirely in the fact that it gives body to the subject’s arbitrary will (‘I want I want this because it!’, and the more the more trifling this content, my will is asserted . .). This is in itself contingent and unimportant: a idiosyncratic feature, of course, of void, of nothingness metonymy willing this X is a way of ‘willing Nothingness’. The immediate attachment’ as the opposite of ‘stubborn supreme selfwill is, of course, expression of the subject’s obstinate discipline. The of the formative of discipline notion power (precisely in its ‘traumatic’ dimension of obeying a blind ritual) was crucial meaningless ‘mechanical’ of subjectivity. In his Gymnasialreden, delivered tor the Hegelian notion at he was the end of the school head of the Nuremberg year when Gymnaon the drill in military sium, Hegel insisted necessity of mechanical The status of Latin is of special service, and on learning Latin. strange interest: the lingua franca of the West? why did Latin, not Greek, become is the mythical ‘language of origins’, endowed Greek with full meaning; a while Latin is ‘mechanical’, in which second-hand, language of imitation of meaning was the original wealth lost (as Heidegger emphasizes again As for
the
tension
between
SUBJECT
ethnic
.
—
THE
and
again)
the
universal
—
so
HEGELIAN
it is all the
medium
TICKLISH
that
significant
more
of Western
105
SUBJECT
Latin,
not
Greek,
became
civilization.27
Why? drill, the capacity to obey meaningmeaningful autonomous spiritual
merely that this mechanical less rules, provides the ground for later first learn, of grammar to, the rules activity (one must get accustomed and social etiquette, in order to be able to indulge freely in ‘higher’ creative [ aufgehoben]’, reduced activity) and is thus subsequently ‘sublated a mere invisible for a higher activity. The to Ground crucial point is, It is
not
that
rather, substantial
without
this
radical
externalization,
this
sacrifice
of
all inner
the
embedded in his Subsubject remains and cannot as the true stance, emerge pure self-relating negativity drill resides in the radical speculative meaning of the meaningless external of all ‘inner’ abandonment substantial content of my spiritual life; it is that I emerge as the pure only through such an abandonment subject of no to in any rooted enunciation, longer attached any positive order, So, like Foucault, particular life-world. Hegel insists on a close link between discipline and subjectivization, although he gives it a slightly different twist: the subject produced by disciplinary practices is not ‘the soul the prison of the body’, but as if I may risk this formulation precisely a soulless subject, a subject deprived of the depth of his ‘soul’.?* to Hegel’s point is thus the very opposite of what is usually attributed him: the ‘mechanical’ activity of meaningless drill and blind obedience can never be fully sublated into the ‘higher’ spiritual exercise of Sense
spiritual
content,
—
—
-
—
not
because
contrary, to
into
his
of
the
precisely substantial
irreducible to
guarantee the
content:
Spiritual content ing) would cqual the far as meaningless
remainder
(in
of material
inertia
but,
the
of the subject with autonomy of mechanical complete ‘sublation’
Lacanese:
of
the
symbolic
machine
into
on
the
regard drill Mean-
in Substance. In so subject’s complete immersion mechanical drill compels the subject to distance from himself the subject has {rom to time time content, every substantial to be shaken out of his sclf-complacent immersion in the substantial with the void of pure totality of Meaning, and confronted negativity he considers that, according to Hegel, is the role of war, which necessary and destruction precisely in so far as it involves a meaningless sacrifice that undermincs the complacency of our And, again, Hegel daily routine. has to be supplemented here with Lacan: what makes the subject endure this meaningless drill of self-discipline is the surplus-enjoyment produced by it. In other words, the supplement of meaningless drill to the spiritual other than the supplement of objet petit a to the field of totality is none ‘semantic no to the was fact that Meaning: it bears witness Hegcl —
106 he
that
idealist’,
rely
on
relation
and
ground
SUBJECT how
the
itself
in
remainder’
This
exercise.
of
aware
‘indivisible
an
mechanical
well
was
closure
achieve
never
to
TICKLISH
THE
is
a
of
very domain selfreferential
of
Meaning circle
jouissance provided the
also, par excellenre,
can
it has
—
by
blind
of
religion ‘highest’ example case
in
of philosophical reasoning: is not prayer the to satisfaction mechanical-repetitive activity destined provide its own that as is, enjoyment Hegel himself emphasizes in his Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion? The of disciplinary practices over Fouadvantage of Hegel’s account is that cault’s Hegel, as it were, provides the transcendental genesis of discipline by answering the question: how and why does (that which will become) the subject (the Althusserian ‘individual’) willingly subject itself to the formative discipline of Power? How and why does it let itself be to
—
—
caught
in
Master:
it?
Hegel’s
since
of course, existence is
answer,
is the
fear
of Death,
the
absolute
subject to natural corruption, and I cannot since get rid of the body and thoroughly negate it, the only thing do is embody negativity: instead I can of directly negating my body, I live as the permanent mormy bodily existence negativization, subordination, tification, disciplining, of the body... . The life of formative discipline what Hegel calls Bildung is thus an endeavour to neutralize the excessive — in me, life-substance to live my actual life as if I am already dead, to ward my
bodily
-
off
desire
which
‘makes
feel
me
who
is
effectively oppresses negativity of Death, the
absolute
the
who
of
obsessional the
able
which
when
moment to
become
actually dies, the
neurotic
obsessional
the
his
me
is confronted
The
ultimately Master
organizes
—
his
of
positive figure a
this entire
stand-in
for
explains
the
life
the
will
as
the the
Master
radical
deadlock
of
expectation then finally be
die, so that he will to Master ‘enjoy life’; when the obsessional’s his death is, of course, exactly the opposite: with the void of Death, the absolute Master,
Master
fully alive, impact of
alive’.
the actual Master. lurking beneath What Hegel already hints is how this renunciat, and Lacan elaborates, ation of the body, of bodily pleasures, produces a pleasure of its own which is precisely what Lacan calls surplus-enjoyment. The fundamental libidinal is that when some ‘perversion’ of the human economy pleasurable activity is prohibited and ‘repressed’, we do not simply get a life of strict to obedience the Law deprived of all pleasures the exercise of the Law itself becomes that so the prohibitory activity libidinally cathected, itself provides a pleasure of its own. Apropos of the ascetic, for example, mortification of his body becomes a Hegel emphasizes how his endless source of perverse excessive of libidinal enjoyment: the very renunciation was
—
—
THE
satisfaction
‘bribe’
becomes
which
HEGELIAN
autonomous
an
makes
TICKLISH
the
of
source
servant
accept
107
SUBJECT
his
satisfaction,
and
this
is the
servitude.”
The
key problem is thus the uncanny possibility of the dialectical of negating the body into embodied reversal negation, of repressing a libidinal satisfaction from this very act of urge into obtaining libidinal repression. This
repudiation investment it
is that
mystery
masochism.
only
detach
original ‘detachability’ of this original possibility of one object to another, is, to
account
in
On
the
for
itself
this
erotic
the
erotic
of course,
denial
violent
very eroticized?
direct
its
from
the
nihilistic
the
can
become
activity opposing
very
how
satisfaction
erotic
not
the
to
of
of
denial
How but
goal,
libidinal
can
shift
even
and
from
name for this goal? The Freudian impulse from its ‘natural’ object, for from impulse shifting its attachment
other
none
of
the
than
death will
assertive
drive.
In
order
life, Nietzsche,
to
the
the well-known distinction Genealogy of Morals, introduced between not hatred of willing at all and willing Nothing itself: nihilistic life is ‘a revolt fundamental against the most presuppositions of life; yet it is and a will! remains rather than want even wants nothing, man nothingness.’*” Here one should recall that Lacan (who otherwise ignores distinction in his definition of Nietzsche) implicitly refers to the same the anorexic hysterical anorexia: subject does not simply refuse food and not eat; rather, she eats Nothing itself. For Lacan, human desire (in contrast to animal to instinct) is always, constitutively, mediated by reference Nothingness: the true object-cause of desire (as opposed to the objects that satisfy our a needs) is, by definition, ‘metonymy of lack’, a stand-in for Nothingness. (Which is why, for Lacan, objet petit a as the object-cause of desire is the originally lost object: it is not only that we desire it in so far as it is lost this object is nothing but a loss positivized.)*! So we are back at the problematic of ‘stubborn it is since attachment’, detachabilabsolutely crucial to bear in mind the co-dependence between content and excessive attachment to a particular ity from any determinate to is all other such an object that makes us indifferent objects object what Lacan, following Kant, calls ‘negative magnitude’, that is, an object ...
~
—
which,
in its very
positive presence,
acts
as
a
stand-in
the
for
of Noth-
void
ingness (or for the abyss of the impossible Thing), so that wanting this what to it come particular object, maintaining one’s ‘stubborn attachment’ may, 1s the very concrete form of ‘wanting Nothingness’. Excess and lack of attachment thus
stricto
sensu
coincide,
conungent object is the rather pathetic example, Isolde
(and
vice
versa)
since
excessive of
attachment lethal
dis-attachment:
very operator Tristan’s unconditional, was
the
very
form
to
excessive of
his
a
particular to
attachment
dis-attachment,
take
a
to
of
108 his
(A beautiful
as
the
on
what
company:
and
world
death
of
image
into
immersion is
Nothing-
standard
a
feature
of
this
Nietzsche
of human
structure
Nietzsche
what the
Freud
tion
is
death
to
contended
ready
to
about
the
—
risk
be
it
everything.
sublimation
sublimation:
Will
it
rather,
love, of
radical
that
to
this
drives, from
the
precise
instinct
to
death
satisfac-
Nothing-
to
opposition
to
of
structure
the
drive
any the self-
‘passionately attached’ for which we politics it is meaningless to
to
overcome
-
sense,
drive
since
the
stupid
to
or
counter-
very basic other words,
attachment formal
part
the In
of
nihilistic
become
to
self-contended
mere
very
us
knowledge
art,
dimension
direct
is
as
instincts.
stubborn a
other,
gesture
conceive
a
enables
order In
over
the
on
‘nihilistic’
natural
to
merely
not
Nothingness life-rhythm, in
Cause
some
is
attachment;
life-asserting reference
drive
Lacan
Lacan
‘nihilistic’
the
by
the
and
is the
of the
excess
and
as
opposed
as
accept
mediated
always
The
ness.
drive
the
Freud
denounces
cannot
that
fact
and
hand,
one
life-asserting instincts,
act
of
the
the
as
woman
how
see
can
Nietzsche
~
with
of sublimaparadox perfectly fits Lacan’s notion of some the elevation as particular positive object to ‘the dignity of to an Thing’: the subject becomes excessively attached object in so far to for function as a stand-in this object starts Nothingness. Here,
One the
links
SUBJECT
phantasmic space.)
male tion
TICKLISH
of all his
cutting-off
ness.
THE
as
drive
such
involves
when,
the
instead
are
talk
structure
of
aiming would is brought about directly at the goal satisfy us, satisfaction by the void, by repeatedly missing the object which is the circulating around stand-in for the central void. So, when a series of positive a subject desires objects, the thing to do is to distinguish between objects which are actually as desired particular objects, and the object which is desired as the standin for as a Nothingness: which functions ‘negative magnitude’ in the Kantian
sense
we
of the
pass that
term.
‘Include As
for
this
Nietzschean
difference
me
between
out!’
‘willing nothing
(not willing
anything at all)’ and ‘willing Nothingness itself’, onc should read it against the background of Lacan’s elaborated of Ernst Kris’s distinction, apropos case of of plagiarism, between ‘pathological’ self-accusation ‘stealing of “not nothing (in the simple sense stealing anything”)’ and ‘stealing an intellectual obsessed with the Nothingness itself’: when the patient notion that he is constantly stealing ideas from his colleagues is proved —
—
|
THE
by
the
analyst (Kris) that
in
not,
TICKLISH
reality,
to
109
SUBJECT
have
stolen
this
anything,
does
not
What the patient is actually simply innocent. stealing is ‘nothing’ anorexic is not as an just simply eating nothing (in the itself, sense of ‘not eating anything’) but, rather, eating Nothingness itself. so often referred What, exactly, do these Darian to, mean? passages, Leader® to another linked this case in which a the patient evokes anecdote of a man suspected by his employer of stealing something: as he leaves the he works is factory where every evening, his wheelbarrow searched nothing is found, until at last it is understood systematically that he is stealing wheelbarrows themselves. lines, as Along the same Lacan with the emphasizes, when Kris’s patient displays his obsession ‘pathological’ feeling of plagiarizing, the crucial point is not to take this at face self-accusation to prove to the value, and endeavour patient that in what the patient reality he is not stealing anything from his colleagues {as well as his analyst) fails to see is that ‘the real plagiarism is in the form of the object itself, in the fact that for this man something can only have a value if ic belongs to someone else’:** the patient’s apprehension that is stolen conceals the everything he possesses profound satisfaction he derives from the very fact of not having anything that truly Jouissance that is truly ‘his’. belongs to him On the level of desire, this attitude of stealing means desire is that an (I desire always the desirc of the Other, never immediately ‘mine’ so the only way for me object only in so far as it is desired by the Other) authentically to ‘desire’ is to reject all positive objects of desire, and desire of this term, Nothingness itself (again, in all the senses up to desiring that human specific form of Nothingness which is desire itself ~ for this reason, desire is always desire to to be the object of the Other's desire, desire can a Will desire). Again, we can easily see the homology with Nietzsche: be a ‘Will to Will’, a willing which wants willing itself, only in so far as it is a Will which of this form actively wills Nothingness. (Another well-known reversal is the characterization of Romantic lovers as actually being in love
yet prove
he
HEGELIAN
is
...
-
...
—
—
—
~
—
with
not
the
Crucial form
itself
beloved
here
person,
is the
self-reflexive
is counted
nothing, just as of stolen goods)
to
but
among steal
the
with
Love
by
turn
its elements:
wheelbarrow
itself.) of which
means
to
Will
itself
steal
the
—
order:
it is included
as
the
very
point
at
which
(symbolic) is
itself
Will
to
Will
very form-—container void which potentially
(the
Nothingness itself (the contains stolen goods). This ‘nothing’ ultimately stands itself that is, it is the empty signifier without signified, the subject. Thus the subject is not directly included is to
the
for
the
which in
signification
subject
represents
the
breaks
symbolic down.
110 famous
Goldwyn’s
Sam
TICKLISH
THE
business
able
SUBJECT he
when
retort
‘Include
proposition,
with
confronted
was
out!’,
me
perfectly
an
unacceptthis
expresses
the
symbolic order, the signifier which and direct exclusion: inclusion direct between ‘reprethe ‘signifier is the the subject for other sents empty signifier, signifiers’ of (in the without guise of) which signified’, the signifier by means in this signifier, the as is counted (the something’ ‘nothing subject) his very is not included into the network; rather, subject simply signifier’s is no there from exclusion it (signalled by the fact that signified to this in it, marked, registered by it. signifier) is ‘included’ intermediate
the
of
status
subject’s relationship
to
—
This
often
also
is the
situation
quoted the
‘subject
of
that
is
including himself) Thus
sustains
reflexivity the subject
have
‘I
well-known
childish
brothers,
Ernest,
three
‘myself’, designates the series (as ‘myself’),
in
—
of the
the
term,
included
absent
(as the
that
as
Lacan:
by
third
myself’ simultaneously —
same
to
the
this
say,
between
gap
the
the
is
from
it
brothers,
‘includes
of
subject
and
subject
three
has
precisely,
term,
Paul
way the and excluded
who
enunciation’
the
nonsense
out’.
me
enunciation
to take the old statement/enunciated: not know who that ‘I do notorious the Freudian says: patient example the is: why in nof but it was mother!’, was, cnigma dream] my my [person In other him? to did he deny something that words, nobody suggested
and
when
the
of
—
—
the
real
enunciated all
content,
the
—
(like
of
message real
the
patient’s
but
in
when
who,
a
person vehemently defends when
himself, the
was
in’
the
at
obsessional’s
attitude?
obsessional —
one
that
is,
to
calls
motion,
a
with
That
attitude.
achieve
in
the
intersubjective play, a ‘catalyst’: the substance process
of
reaction
chemical
in any way. From my personal of one of my bencvolent consequences in which fricnd’s in a room apartment
affected
patients;
close
to
this
room
was
most
the
another
role
speeds
without
itself
experience, interventions. my friend, room
in
he The
defend fact
of it: it tells
(theft).
succinct
definition
is the
of what, up,
goal
invisible
or
in even
that
should
content
say: what of a pure
position which
the
to
is to
relations,
does
already
which
out’
‘included
than
why
-
wheelbarrow
the
regard out’, provides the
me
To
it!’
at
message
theft,
accusing him?).
of
like
all is thus
of
him
its
uttered this
delivering
in
not
was
message
of
steal
lies
mother!’
my this
accusing
thinking
element
subjective
not
rather
content
lot, providing the crucial This formula, ‘include the
‘I did even
delivered
was
message ‘excluded
be
nobody
is
nobody
himself:
not
was
very fact that in the very act
the
consists
message
‘It
us
a
of of
the
mediator
chemistry, sets
in
changing or being I recall the catastrophic I was sleeping in a his an analyst, received which another analyst
THE
also received the
to
analyst
room
and
book
the
bookshelves
in the
package
into
which
did
table
this
where
middle
in
his
chest.
a
book
friend
I found
whose
in
entered
him, just threw
for
had
patient
break
short
place already
go
to
enter can
one
—
back
between
in its
his
to
only a thought he
the
toilet,
my
room
while
was
the
having
was
the
her
and
lover, kills the
stumbles
who
committed also
the
wrongly
cations
the
on
crime,
later
arises
intervened
that
assumes
the
from in
towards
which
intervene
in
the
situation), who
elements
of the
In
Sleeping with
sadistic
husband
efforts
to
track
minutes
heard
noises
the
the
jealous instead. that
film
husband
to
mistress
of
is
strives:
mode
properly
the
other
be
his
lover
hand,
complihas
agent
idcal
unattainable
to
Blood
(the wife)
another
the
-
latter
kill
unexpected
that
then,
the
on
he
acts
the
Afterwards,
wife, set
a
—
his
over
excellent
his
the
time
table,
thought
story,
put
same
the
on
I
(since have
the
at
control
the
passed
must
book
the
its proper the book was
three
brothers’
traces; did it
the
never
this
in
himself
the
unawareness
in
the
to
‘included’
of
‘out’, of an counted, included,
(to
invisible among
situation. the
and her
is
or
he
told
by
neurotic
but
that
losing
Coen
This,
obsessional
mediator/intercessor the
couple’s
situation....
the a
lover
her
noticed
remembered
thinks its
back
not
that
himself
erases
by
I had
analyst
book
had
and
husband
and
that
analyst already waiting
two
just thrown
husband
dead
he
clearly
analyst
this
I arrived,
the
put
convinced he
the
breakdown.
a
he
and
room,
the
then
place,
nervous
by
before
when
Something similar happens in the Simple. the private investigator, hired wife
returned
and
friend
proper a
my noticed
place,
my
its
have
to
shelf! Only
ago he had hallucinations
to whom my friend, losing his mind....
even
shock
in
to
proper
from
back
and
again
the
to
the
so
its
into
gap in resist
a
unable
so,
in
saw
the
patient was table. Immediately after I left, analyst used the opportunity of
the
on
imagine his proper place on
short
that
book
late
was
out), so he was since However,
there.
book
the
visits
two
and
in
tiptoed the
to
he
since
and,
room
my
I also
learned
sleeping. Just
was
that
me
tiptoed silently was doing this, I
I
back
be
to
told
briefly
I
room,
-
was
I returned
voices
belong there; obviously fitted
table
I
room
since
11]
day,
not
book
the
on
of the
While
compulsive temptation, I put the book Later I uptoed out of the apartment. doing this, by simply putting an object the analyst from caused the adjacent room The
SUBJECT
package there;
a
receiving patients
was
put the
on
leave
to
apartment
TICKLISH
So once,
patients.
other
a
HEGELIAN
Enemy, Julia assumes
down,
a
the
Roberts
new
husband
escapes
identity locates
in
a
her
from
her
small
Iowa
blind
old
pathological town;
mother
in
his
and
THE
TICKLISH
nursing
home
112
her
in
approaches her daughter’s of the
aware
Julia
Roberts
Julia his
—
revenge
is
is
‘includes
he
Julia Roberts,
to
poses
as
her
on
against his fury as a by including himself
order
and the
uses
of
means
himself
into
the
tracking
as
what
to
very her
he
who, to
wants
warn
from
her
protect
of those
scries
out’
to
revealing
detective
police
a
tracks,
thus in
her
trap
pathological killer,
a
husband
The
revenge.
he
husband
husband
her
in
—
him,
to
the
that
that
merciless
his
whereabouts
fact
Roberts
a
SUBJECT
effort
to
down
and
trying
protect
taking
to
protect is....
effectively
A
the to probably the best solution which ‘couldn’t occur’, subgenre of the ‘locked-room mystery’ (a murder since it took place in a hermetically isolated place), in which John Dickson Carr is the who discovers the very person specialized: the murderer he starts murder Murder!’, shouting ‘Murder! inducing the person to be murdered to unlock the door and then quickly murdering of his room,
similar
inversion
is
what
provides
—
him
since
-
the
murderer Aim...
nobody suspects the
series
thief
of the
the
of
set
In
himself
these
the
for
the
suspects
here
again,
trying to shouting
‘Catch
or
the
cases,
does as
wheelbarrow
the
prevent
which
itself crime.
inscribes
simply
not
of
dangerous murderer,
‘mean
such, represents We
is ‘included
(This logic,
thief!’
a
mistake
including
—
therefore
the
the
murder, out’
himself
from is that
of course,
from
out
crucial
here:
elements
is
an
in
engaged
the
between
and
series
im the
the
the
empty
its very formal rather, it ‘means
is
element
series
of
effort
to
‘impossible’ form
empty series
the
their
in
(of the
‘subjectivized’ —
that
is,
an
principle: this element Nothingness itself’ and,
reflection, of the self-referential turn that is consubstantial reflexive with subjectivity. Repression first as to regulate desires an considered ‘illicit’ by the predomattempt emerges inant socio-symbolic order, however, this power of repression can maintain itself in the psychic economy only if it is sustained by the desire for regulation if, that is, the very formal activity of regulation/repression/ are
at
the
link
include
to
is, those the
is that
concerned
series
nothing’; subject.
back
that
Again,
in the
those
they forget
—
inscription of subjectivity into ‘signifier without signified’) is one when and only when of its element
crime.
the
‘discovered’
murderer
the
the
solve
who
one
potential thieves.)
both
search solve
of those
the
was
mystery
of
—
subjection of
becomes libidinal
libidinally satisfaction.
invested
and
This
satisfaction
turns
into
an
autonomous
provided by the very for regulation, regulatory activity, this desire plays exactly the same role as the wheelbarrow in the story quoted by Leader: structural we can the subject endeavours to closely inspect all the desires regulate, but we source
THE
get the key the
out’
This the
the
to
desire
113
SUBJECT stance
only
if
‘include
we
.
is
reversal
its
hysteria at satisfying a desire
of
impossibility unsatisfied
remain
TICKLISH
specific mode of his subjective regulation itself...
for
reflexive
HEGELIAN
thus
(and
into
into
turn
the
desire
for
‘reflected’
a
the
elementary:
most
desire,
reversal
of
the
desire
to
a
‘desire
to
of Kant’s desire’). Perhaps that is the limitation philosophy: not in its as formalism such but, rather, in the fact that Kant was not able and/or ready to count/include the form into content, as part of the content. On a first that, precisely, Kant was able to do so: is not the approach, it may seem
fact
in
that,
moral
the
form of moral Law can act the motive, the motivational as force, of practical activity the key point of his ethical introduce the Hegelian theory? Here, however, one should distinction ‘in itself’ betwecn and ‘for itself’: does Kant accomplish this itself) in itself, not yet for step (of ‘including out’ the form into content that is, he is not all the consequences of this iself ready to embrace mysterious
a
agent,
pure
—
‘inclusion
out’
‘pure form’,
the
of
form
into
and
content,
continues
form
treat
to
as
(which is why, in his opposed to its content he constantly ‘regresses’ to the standard notion of a man formulations, the universal Call of Duty and the wealth of pathological split between egolistic impulses). In a way, Hegel is much closer to Kant than he may to be: what often creates a difference between the two is the barcly appear perceptible gap that separates the In-itself from the For-itself.
abstractly
Towards
Materialist
a
Theory
of
Grace
‘concrete
universality’ is thus much more paradoxical than it it has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of aesthetic may appear: out’ the very excess and/or organic totality, since it reflexively ‘includes forever the irreducible and gap that spoils such a totality ultimately Hegelian
—
unaccountable and
the
For
this
authors to
but,
One
an
endeavour form
new
authors
rather,
of
Schmitt’s
abyssal
true
act
of
to
is the
very
its terrain
between
excess,
of
‘concrete
politico-philosophical heirs of of modernity rectify the excesses
organic who
and
series
a
exception,
the
reason,
constitutive Carl
of its
who
some
between
gap
substantial endorse
Order
the
(like
the
the
Whole
universality’. Hegel are not via the
return
communitarians)
political logic of the excess is of course, Order. The exemplary case, every established decisionist claim that the rule of law ultimately hinges on of violence (violent imposition) grounded only in itself:
fully
114
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
this act refers in order to which to legitimize itself is positive statute this act itself.*4 self-referentially posited by The basic paradox of Schmitt’s position is that his very polemics against formalism liberal-democratic inexorably get caught in the formalist trap. the Schmitt targets utilitarian-enlightened grounding of the political in norms or some presupposed set of neutral-universal strategic rules which the of individual interests (should) regulate (either in the guise interplay of legal normativism fa Kelsen, or in the guise of economic ulilitarian4d order to the ism): it is not possible to pass directly from a pure normative of social life the mediator between the two is an act actuality necessary of Will, a decision, in which a certain order itself, grounded only imposes or rules). Any normative order, legal hermeneutics (reading of abstract taken in itself, remains stuck in abstract it cannot formalism; bridge the
every
-
gap that Schmitt’s
separates
decision
for
it from
argumentation
actual the
—
formal
principle of order as such. arbitrary, dependent on the principle of order, contingency order
is
—
its concrete
conservativism, alism:
modern
lesson
of the
content,
which
over
its
of the
and
bridges primarily the
but The
concrete
the
content
Sovereign's will,
the
of
Dass-Sein That
sharply distinguishes even
—
which
Was-Sein.
conservativism, dissolution
However
decision
order,
concrete
some
life.
is the
it from than
more
traditional
set
of
Order, main
every
this
is the
is
gap decision of
left has feature
kind
liberalism, values and/or
not
for
the to
of
core
this
a
the
imposed historical
priority
over
of modern of traditionassumes
the
authorities
is no which could be presupposed as longer any positive content of reference. was the first (Hobbes universally accepted frame between the principle of order and explicitly to posit this distinction any concrete The order.) paradox thus lies in the fact that the only way to formalism is to revert to decisionist formalism legal normative oppose there is no way of escaping formalism within the horizon of modernity. And does not this gap also provide the implicit political background for of the universal and its constitutive Lacan’s logic exception? It is easy to translate Schmitt's into Lacanese: what liberalism critique of liberalism is the constitutive role of the misrecognizes exceptional/excessive MasterThis to reference Lacan also enables us to account for the Signifier. of Schmitt’s notion of it stands simulnecessary ambiguity exception: of the Real that (of the pure contingency taneously for the intrusion the universe of and tor the of the automaton) perturbs symbolic gesture foundation in the norm) Sovereign who (violently, without symbolic order: in Lacanese, it stands for objet petit a imposes a symbolic normative as well as for S,, the Master-Significr.
—
there
the
—
THE
This
double
calls
accordance
in
that
is,
not
hate
and
sisters
26).
Do
with
all human
his
father
—
ethical’?
The
of social
life)
his
his
even
yes, not
we
and
with
life
here
universe
~
and
he
my
to
comes
be
cannot
Christ's
and
me
his
ethical
disciple’(Luke14: the
(sores,
norms
does
brothers of
‘religious suspension
own
in
superiors
disobey them,
children,
of established
is reasserted,
hate
to
their
respect
‘If anyone his wife and
mother,
own
encounter
and
them:
discernible
clearly
and
obey
customs
links
is
act
to
115
SUBJECT
foundational
followers
established
cut
to
his
on
TICKLISH
the
of
nature
Christ
religion:
HEGELIAN
the
substance
but
only in so far as it is ‘mediated’ by Christ's the we have to of radical first, authority: accomplish gesture negativity and that is most to we it us; later, back, but as reject everything precious get an it a (the expression of Christ’s will, mediated by way Sovereign relates to the same a positive laws involves paradox: Sovereign compels us to laws precisely in so far as he is the point of the suspension of respect laws). When but
Law,
Christ
mercly of
ambiguity undermines of
the
ments)
What
matters
radical the
on
is
act
Law.
The
properly
from
its
of
decision
is
the
this
In
notion
not
into the
precise
of
modern
have
its
such,
Old to
Schmitt’s
in
asserting the positive content. and
the
of
this
—
this
is
why,
make
true
~
crazy in
is thus
the
of
free
abyssal is the
perception its
a
exception the
that
is
Religious is
support
is ‘Modern’
of
religion
the
lose
we
of
of
paradox
religion
once
of
the
involves
him,
while
Law
(Command-
this
for
full
the
act
gap between what really
(or ‘ordering’, order). The paradox (which independent positive ‘conservative is thus that the innermost modernism’) grounds so-called of asserted modernism is in the of its possibility guise opposite, apparent of the return to an unconditional be grounded in authority that cannot of is the God God positive reasons. Consequently, the properly modern of line a kind of Schmittian the who draws predestination, politician Us and Friends and the Delivered Them, Enemies, separation between and the Damned, by means of a purely formal, abyssal act of decision, without (since they any grounds in the actual properties and acts of concerned humans act
of
as
the
independent
fits
ethical,
Ways
the
Law
Old
the Fulfilment
Is the
the
which
notion
What
fulfilling
simultaneously
independence
content
of
‘Love what
belief
is
the
‘fulfilment’
act
very
sense,
universe
undermine
to
come
read
to
by Kierkegaard, traditional
disruption Impossible we
of
did
13: 10): love accomplishes this very accomplishment
the
modern:
has
supplement:
elaborated
was
gesture
decision
the
a
the
he
one
authority.
but
at, of
that
it,
Derridean
(Romans
aims
involves
violent
the
its direct
Law’
suspension authority eminently wager tradition.
claims fulfil
to
determinate
content
116
born). in deeds; earthly good not
were
the
is, he is
saved
not
deeds
good
The
(in his
by elementary triangle to
be
equal
be otherwise.
triangle
cannot
be
ernist’
assertion
ready
to
be
to
of
accept without
decree,
the
identification
God
holds
for
the a
a
which
the
laws.
man.
God
The
memoirs
to
be
the
emphatically Egoist who
of
Nature, of
cruel
and
paid
if the
universe
Daniel
loves
the
God Paul
not
Himself
is
more
than
of
laws
that
land,
proverbial and
miss
are
with
as
rain
leaving
brick
from
criminal
a
offender
the
order fate
or hypocrite, and happiness of worthless
of
of
the
of
structure
the is
individuals
virtuous
be
governed by simple universal uncannily close to the God in the
a our
the
to
order
—
barren
on
the
than and
return
that
person
worst
to
is thus
Schreber:
‘understand’
with
undeserved
of
Philosophy a
universal
fall
can or
not
absolute
Good.*®
happen
virtuous
a
hit
also
the
does
follows
nearby dry;
‘mod-
necessity followed by a only is Nature gigantic obeys simple laws; the same
not
well
may
true
was
harmonious
Supreme
Why? Because, more the simplicity values
Malebranchian of
It
the
‘On
rational
distribution
this he
‘a certain
entailed
the
in its movement,
head can
his
with
Grace:
to
laws
field
Grace
—
universe:
price
blind
hit
can
virtuous
individuals, entire
Nature
cultivated
walking nearby miss
coincides
individuals.
the
obeying
since
is
asserted,
once
Reason,
way rational
the
this
that
opposed
world
it in no
with
God
which, itself, whose
towards
carefully
roof,
in
the
gap,
most
angles of a they could three angles
that
willed
sign
asserted
the
of
who
the
of
from a
was
knew
this
how
over
put
rejection
Truth
from
Grace
indifferent
which,
(as Leibniz
mechanism
Cartesian
Will
begins by extending acts
of
Ground
of
in which
His
in
he
shift
becomes
right angles
two
proof
of
primacy
this
premodern Malebranche
it is because
best
ultimate
reason’
however,
universe
he
because
to
deed
that
—
accomplishes
apropos the three
will
not
provided by Malebranche,
Descartes’): the
The
the
as
did
act
is the
decisionism
Objections),
‘God
he
here a
voluntarist
Six
necessarily equal is
denicd,
this
contrary,
otherwise.’
be
cannot
the
On
Crucial
predestination,
the
divine
good deeds,
...
right angles
two
inscrutable
did
or
of
truths:
to
the
is saved.
to
Reply
mathematical
an
through
he
because
Protestant
best
is rich
he
salvation depends on predestination, earthly ambiguous sign of the fact that
Catholicism, of
at
the
from
Descartes
and
logic
perspective predestined divine decision. of epistemological version
of the
a
traditional
because
is rich
or
sign:
to
not
In
(wealth) are already redeemed
is
SUBJECT
the
fortunes
subject
act
even
yet
and
deeds
of
TICKLISH
THE
cruel
and
individual His
creatures
indifferent secrets
and and
God
dreams, whose
who an
blind
THE
Will
universal
HEGELIAN
TICKLISH
without
inevitably,
117
SUBJECT
qualms, tramples
any
down
individual
flowers: The
rains the
on
fallow
be
both
the
in
arrival son’
only work
is
that
God
only
son
afraid
not
fastened
is the such, Christ the Father, Christ
but
since
and
he
Son
his
a
dispenses
Grace
the
finite
by
choices
with
his
following
than
sight the
in
in
will,
particular
God
to
his As
the
merits, soul, he acts
human
a
of
individual
to
of
that
universe’.*”
contrast
regard
horizon
his gave if this
world,
Maleinversion, conclusion morbid,
order
Grace:
of
he
the
of
Christ.
this
From
re-establish
cause
is constrained
makes
son’.
love
sake
by
that
world, to
the
delivered
be
only logical, more agreeable
to
occasional
the God
of
For
place?
to
albeit
had
cross
first
world
loved his
the
the
in the
so
from
‘never the
to
world
unworthy
draw
to
Father
the
be
inseparable
not
were
branche
would
sea.**
is, for
‘God
inverts ‘It
into
the
that
order,
Malebranche
Here
in the
and
create
in
-
—
deserts
God
did
Why, then, Christ's
in our hearts, thus find nothing in our grace efficacy just as the general laws which govern the the dispositions of the places where it rains. For whether or whether they be cultivated, it rains indifferently in all
their
based
grounds
places,
diffuse
determine not
are
which
laws
general
wills which
and
is
to
prone
mistakes. thus Malebranche Cartesian gives a theological twist to the standard for occasionalism: is not him, occasionalism epistemological only or (we do not see bodies, ‘we primarily a theory of perception and volition see all things in God’; our is not mind capable of directly moving even but the smallest also the of soul Salvation, since the human body), theory of
Christ
persons. Nature
is the
occasional
Here
Malebranche if
in which, in
explain
processes accordance with
as
well
effective them.
In
of
while
Christ
the
avoid all
men
selection
be
extremes:
(in
contrast
the
is universal; world, God sent sin
we
acts
touched
two
of
a
of Grace with
homology X,
event
particular
to
the
domain
need
of
laws
that
who
will
general prior particular events X event general laws, generate general laws of particular existences that only through the texture a similar sustains the general laws way, God the Father
actualize
acutally
distribution
on
to
become
Grace,
relies
are
regulate physical which,
the
of
cause
few
all His
by
as
of
texture
its occasional
Grace.**
In
the
this
Fall,
before
the
deserve
Son, Christ,
Fall); to so
be
Malebranche did
that
plan
endeavours to
advocates
because
lost,
determines
and
cause
way, God
which
Calvinism,
to
men
the
—
before
—
as
we
and
it is Christ
to
predestination
of Adam’s in
provide
to
Grace
order alone
Fall, to
who
redeem can
—
however, the
furnish
THE
118 Grace
for
occasion
the
and,
human
be
to
such,
as
TICKLISH
Christ’s soul However, his limitations; thoughts
distributed. human
to
prone
SUBJECT was were
desires’ with regard to people he encountered; ‘accompanied by certain and he was so perplexed intrigued by some, repelled by others Grace or it to a it distributed sinner from unevenly, giving withholding
he
—
a
virtuous
person, So Malebranche
is unable
God's
virtue:
avoid
to
the
will
universal
general operates according to simple Cartesian perspective, necessarily appear unjust
and
tainted
Malebranche
God
who
Grace
denies
particularity, my but
God
a
Christ,
prayer; because
the who
of
with
acts
the
on
of his
notion other
human
laws
a
does
hand,
limitations
his
level
will
with
act
in
individual
indifference.
mind
help
to
to
volonté
a
in
me
me,
my
answer
particulier, irregular
of Grace
distribution
and
distributes
an
cruel
by has
Grace
and
from
which,
particular
a
between
discrepancy a
on
is
and
this not Does unjust, pathologically twisted.... bring us back to with Hegel, to his thesis on how abstract universality coincides arbitrary the and subjectivity? The relationship between general laws of Grace Christ’s is that of speculative identity. abstract causes particular occasional in the guise of their general laws realize themselves opposite, in continwhims of a as in the gent particular subject’s (Christ’s) disposition civil of the in the which universal market, Hegelian society anonymous law realizes itself through the contingent interaction of subjective particu—
lar
interests.” A
of
dantly
to
God
Christ, all
created
redeemed were
course,
all —
ariscs
question
arrival
had
men
the
why through
through quick to
God His
for
be damned
put
from
would
that
—
On
is,
The
this
that
so
‘we
Grace
générale?
Glory
the
that
so
able
was
be
would
be of
Malebranche,
had
we
the
abun-
Narcissism:
world
conclusion:
uncanny redeem
to
if
saved,
and
and
of His the of
unavoidable
Fall
directly
account
opponents
Christ
all
Adam’s
through
distribute
sacrifice.
draw it:
detour
not
volonté
His
Christ's to
this
why
docs
world
Bossuet
as
or,
men
here:
of them
some
.*°
Saviour’
no
This
series of strange reversals of the paradox is the key to Malebranche’s clichés: Adam established had to fall, corruption was necessary theological in order to arrival make Christ's possible; at no time was God happier than when He was Christ’s In what, observing suffering on the Gross. ...
then, ism?
Malebranche
of content, are
us;
the
consists
are
is
not
everything
mechanisms; we
of freedom
role
God
completely
afraid
within to
is decided
prompts ruled
by
draw ‘en
us,
the
the nous
radical sans
produces
motives.
confines
The
of strict
occasional-
conclusion:
nous’*!
feelings margin of
—
that
and
the
at
is
to
say,
we
in
movements
freedom
level
lies
only
THE
in
the
subject's capacity
motive its
freedom
—
consent
is the
and
ourselves,
withhold
to
in
happens
is radical
answer
TICKLISH
consistent:
soul
freedom?
(human)
The
This
to
or
a
to
suspend or to give interesting perceptions’ .*?
follow
rest.’
at
from
consent
has,
‘Nothing....
ourselves
put
of
his
grant
the
naturally act
an
119
SUBJECT
or
‘which
power which
motives,
to
then,
What, stop
HEGELIAN
‘an
is
Malebranche’s
only thing immanent
do
we
is
which
act
‘an act which docs nothing produces nothing physical in our substances’, makes the general cause do Freedom and which as our [God] nothing’.*! to motives is consent is thus purely reflexive: decided effectively everything nous sans Is not en the subject merely provides his formal consent. nous, of freedom to the of an the this reduction ‘truth’ ‘nothing’ empty gesture of the Hegelian Absolute Subject?
Nates
Colin
.
OOIbid., .
See
.
5.
wife
the for
stall
the
active
the
second
in which
shouldn't
do
6.
For are
the
London:
Virgin
sexually instigating
in
CA
1997.
Books
University Press provided by the two good old pre-feminist days,
the
‘J don’t
third
phases, one simply
partners
man’s
or
usually the it tonight,
was
to
do
again
use
let’s
so
should
a
do
insert
that
agree
advances
1970s, when
it
want
1990s, however, women ‘ve got a headache,
two
is
liberated sex,
1996, p. 36.
Stanford
:
triad’
husband’s
In the advances:
and the
In
sex.
reject
to
role
woman’s
a
and
headache!’
a
negativity
there
Sphinx,
of Injury, Stanford, ‘Hegelian
headache
therapeutic 1980s and the opposite purpose:
between
the
notorious
supposed
was
got
play
to to
excuse
the
between
I've
women
of
matrix
relationship darling,
Slates
Wendy Brown,
The
subdued
to
p. 352. p. 354.
.
wm
From Adlanits
Wilson,
NeIbid.,
who
man
in
the
the
sexually ‘Not tonight, acceptable for
used
the
same
In Pve got a headache!’ but as an headache argument, it (to refresh mc)!" (Perhaps,
another
since
with:
it became
shifts
they
brief
both
of
stage
have
a
absolute
headache,
the;
it...)
this
la thaversée
reason,
du
fantasme
traversées, ancl analysis proper
two
first
is the
which
sustained
existence,
breakdown
of
psychoanalytic in the
is double
treatment
‘in between
distance
the
two
—
that
is,
fraversées’.
the
phantasmic support of the analysand’s everyday psychoanalysis: something must go awry, the with of his everyday life must pattern disintegrate, otherwise analysis remains empty chatter if this no radical The point of preliminary talks is to establish subjective consequences. for rea] analysis is fulfilled. Then one works towards elementary condition ‘going through’ the fantasy. This gap is, again, the gap between In-itself and For-itself: the first traversing is is ‘For-itselt’. ‘In-itself’, and only the second 7. However, the oscillation is not only that between triplicity or quadruplicity: historical dialectics often seems to point towards quintuplicity. In Hegel’s Phenomenology,the ideal triad substantiof Western the world of immediate ethical history would be the Greek Stithchkeit in the medieval universe, culminating in modein ality and organic unity its alienation
The
baversée
m
fills
his demand
to
enter
—
—
and
utilitarianism, the
modern
alienation,
the
rational and
from
final
reconciliation
State; however, utter
alienation
of the
in each to
of the
ethical two
reconciliation)
Substance passages an
with
free
individuality unity to
(from substantial
uncanny
intermediate
moment
in its
THE
120
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
there alienation is the Roman substantia] Greek between intervenes: unity and medieval ethical substantial individualism of abstract (in which, although the Greek unity is the Romans did not of their real Aas not yet occurred yet conceive aJready lost, alienation of the transcendent utilitarian civil society and reflection a mere as world Deity); between
epoch
—
is the brief State there the traumatic rational Freedom, the modern epoch of Absolute of the Revolution Terror (which already supersedes alienation, but in an immediate way, and true of bringing about ends selfdestructive reconciliation, thus, instead up in utter fury). The interesting point is that a homologous shift of triplicity to quincuplicity via the intrusion
of the two intermediate stages scems of pre-class tribal society, ‘alienated’
also
disturb
to
class
standard
historical
materialist
and
socialism.
‘authentic’
Vittorio der Suljektivitdt und Hoésle, Hegels System: Der Idealismus Frlersubjektivitdt,vols 1 and 2, Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag 1988. 9. Another indicator of Hegel's failure seems to be the way he treats 8.
See
‘Anthropology’: madness world’
the which
to to
he
reduces
regression
the
‘animal
to
return
we
withdrawal
in
from
the
soul’, missing
psychosis
is
not
the
negation, suspension, of the living being’s immersion 408 in Hegel’s Philosophyof Mind, Oxford: Clarendon 10.
triad
approaching post-class socialist pre-class wibal society and classic slave despotic Stalinist State between capitalism
between society: ‘Oriental Despotism’ intervenes society, then reintervenes again in the guise of the
and
the
societies,
social
das
Problem
madness
der
in
his
that
universe
characterizes the obvious point that the ‘night of the animal universe the radical rather bit, in its natural surroundings. See para. Press 1992.
public
of the Catholic Church against contraception (according to to animal thus fornication) higher goal of procreation, is reduced obviously misses the point: is it not precisely sex in the service of procreation i.e. biological that is animal? Is it not that sexual reproduction specifically human activity can detach itself from its ‘natural’ Or, to put it in male-chauvinist goal and turn ints an end-tn-itself? terms: is it possible to imagine the opposition ‘whore’ between and ‘mother’ the animal in From universe? the standpoint of nature, ‘Spirit’ designates a meaningless expenditure, a that is, an imstinct thwarted as to its ‘natural’ zielgehemmlesinstinct goal, and thereby canght in the endless of drive. If repetitive movement - as Lacan emphasized again and again the not symbolic gesture par excellence is an empty and/or interrupted gesture, a gesture meant to be accomplished, then itself by cutting its links with the natural sexuality ‘humanizes’ movement of procreation. 11. The trickiest is the procedure in interpreting great texts of the philosophical tradition precise positioning of a thesis ar notion which the author ferociously rejects: at these points, the question to be asked is always ‘Is the author notion, or is he simply rejecting another’s actually introducing this idea in the very guise of its rejection?’. Take Kant’s rejection of the notion of ‘diabolical Evil’ into moral (Evil elevated Duty, i.e. accomplished not out of but just ‘for its own the sake’): is not Kant here rejecting a notion ‘pathological’ motivation, conceptual space for which was opened up anty by his own philosophical system that is to say, is he not the unbearable of Ais own excess, consequence, battling with the innermost philosophy? (Lo make an unexpected comparison, is he not behaving a little bit like the proverbial wife who accuses her husband’s best friend of making advances to her, thereby betraying her own desire for him?) One of the disavowed sexual matrixes of ‘progress’ in the history of and philosophy is that a later philosopher, a pupil of the first one, openly assumes fully his teacher articulates the notion which in the actually introduced guise of polemical case with his as was the with of to in relation Kant. evil, rejection Schelling, theory 12. This externality of the symbolicorder should furthermore be opposed to the externality of the peu de réalté, of an asinine in which the big Other itself must positive element embody to itself in order acquire full actuality: ‘the Spirit is a bone’, the State as a tational totality becomes in the body of the Monarch, and so on. actual The tole of the King (Monarch) in rational is thus what State Hegel’s Edgar Allan Poe called the ‘imp of perversity’: when a in wholly obliterating the criminal succeeds traces of his crime when there are no which
The
standard
deprived
sex,
argument
of the
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
THE
HEGELIAN
TICKLISH
121
SUBJECT
‘returns of the repressed’, no ‘clues’ that of the Other betray the presence of crime that when Scene is, when he is in no danger of being discovered, the camouflage the criminal works perfectly feels an irresistible of rationalization urge to display his crime deed. Is it not the same with the publicly, to shout out the truth about his horrible
symptomatic
—
—
Hegelian
monarchy? Just when the social edifice attains the accomplished rationality perfectly organized State, this rationality is paid for by the necessity to supplement it by the thoroughly ‘irrational’ element of the hereditary monarch to posit at its head who is (i.e. due to his biological descendency), what he is ‘in culture’, in immediately,in his nature of his symbolic title. terms 13. See Charles Taylor, Hegel,Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press 1975, p. 92. 14. Reeall the standard as ‘a relative one is a genius’ cynical designation of someone that allows levels of amplification. In the same genius or not; ‘genius’ is not an attribute way, of the
deduction of
a
-
—
—
God
Schelling qualifies His
absolute is power 15. G.W.F. Hegel,
He ‘relatively Absolute’: the less qualified, limited Phenomenologyof Spirit, Oxford:
the translatar he in which
the
accompanying footnote, Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature ar
and
spitting,
the
on
other,
reach
is the
the
for two the Soviet Union all the blame for the Communist ‘But exclamation nothing will Rabinovitch
ever!’, reach
the
17.
true
To
Hegel, antagonistic forever
18. tnes
struggle, threatens
Perhaps
of
the
and
crimes
will
war
every
problem
be
“That’s wrang
is the
1977,
and
hand,
one
of
Phrenology
the
to
eating, drinking
Spirit’,
in
put
choice
in
on
that on
Supposing
the
Jews,’To
reason!’
antagonism
versus
the
to
and
the
Here
to emigrate disintegrates,
bureaucrat’s
state
Socialism
Union!
order
‘insemination’),
who wants Rabinovitch. if the socialist order
us,
Soviet
wrong
reach
to
second
my
first
the
is here
to
the
only
also,
stay for to
way
reason.
of —
return
every of
the
of differences:
structure
positive social structure the antagonistic logic
is based
—
of
‘Us
on
an
Them’
versus
of differences.
structure
with
Press
attention
make
to
I fear
in the
change
ever
terms Laclau’s differences
Ernesto
system
every
same
order
times
‘First,
reasons:
answers:
is via the
reason
put itin
for
which
calmly
in
Socialist
from
joke
from
but
p. 210. In from passage the identity: ‘In many animals parts in the animal organization,
lowest on the
necessity
‘urination’
(to choose
Creator,
in Him.
1994.
this
between
parallel
result Russian
proper of
structure
clear
a
Verso
and
yet God
University
draws
with the mouth.’ all done to Mladen Dolar; see “The
are
I owe this precise point Subject, ed. Joan Copjec, London:
There
the
the
16.
the
Oxford
(A.V. Miller) asserts
Master
by what
genitals, the highest and just as speech and kissing,
of excretion and intimately connected:
organs
absolute is not
is the
as
none
this
triadic
articulation
of
the
social
edifice
is that
Hegel
order three different synchronous global principles of social organization: (1) the premodern peasant/feudal principle, which, in feudalism, structures the whole of society (artisans themselves are organized into guilds and estates, they do not function in a free market; State power itself is paternalistic, involving a naive pre-reflexive trust of its subjects in the King’s divine right to rule); (2) the modern market-liberal principle the way peasant of civil society, which life functions also determines (with agriculture itself of industrial (the State organized as a branch production) and the political superstructure the ‘night watchman’ reduced to a ‘police state’, guaranteeing the legal and police/political conditions of civil life): (3) the planned state-socialist logic in which the State bureaucracy, as the universal to the entire run class, also endeavours production, including agriculture as the biggest effort of Stalinism, the supreme (no wonder expression of this tendency, was to crush the peasantry, with its naive-trusting pre-reflexive attitude). Can these thice into a complete and stable ‘syllogism principles be effectively ‘mediated’ of Society’? The problem is that each of them is split from in an antagonistic within, involved the properly political dimension: tension that introduces the archaic organic order can turn to
compress
into
a
Fascist populist violence against “Them’; liberalism and an activist of égaliberié state stance faire attitude Do selforganization. guise of grass-roots spontaneous into
is
split
between
socialism not
these
generates three
a
conservative a
reaction
principles
lazssezin
therefore
the
122
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
principle: that, precisely, of the political as such, of social of the articulated destabilization social body, a principle which, forms of ‘spontaneous’ or ‘direct’ from time to time, finds expression in different democracy at the end of World War I, or democratic (like workers’ councils in the revolutionary turmoil in the disintegration of Socialism)? For a more detailed ‘forums’ account of of this notion need
involve)
(or
the
fourth
a
of democratic
antagonism,
political,
4 below.
Chapter
see
should
19. One
bear
in mind
that all categories of reflection to directly involve reference and essence between exists knowing subject: say, the difference appearance only for the is directly accessible, who then endeavours gaze of the subject to whom only the appearance the underlying essence to penetrate hidden beneath the veil. See Taylor, Hegel, pp. 257-9. 20. This point is also crucial for the proper that separates understanding of the difference committed to Hegel from Schelling: as long as Hegel remained Schelling’s critique of Kantian-Fichtean as it were backed insemination subjectivism, he against urination, that choice of the concrete is, the direct totality against the abstract subjective division. Hegel ‘became he became aware that choice between Hegel’ the moment every Totality and abstract subjectivity which disbands Totality’s concrete organic link is ultimately a forced in which the subject is compelled 10 choose choice himself—that is, the ‘unilateral’ disruptive which ‘is’ the subject. violence 21. See Karel van het Reve, ‘Reves Vermutung’, in Dr Freud and Sherlack Holmes, Hamburg: Fischer Verlag 1994, pp. 140-51. the
~
22.
[bid.,
23.
Lacan
between
p. 149. has
the
24, Another two
after
the
bliss
25.
a
of
their
the
disturbing
See
Ernesto
bond
in
mind
when
its constitutive
and
he
features;
rather,
correlation
the
posits
exception.
a to the decision couple come relationship? Usually, the decision and deliberation, finally ascertain
character
life,
common
of how
—
of trial
and
order
same
does
asseited
period
needs
respective
the
function’
how
example: symbolically
partners,
conflict the very
of
something ‘phallic
universal
permanent, of their
—
after
to
is the
small
some
to
marry, taken
enter
harmonious
the
nature
that
conflict
a
when
not
disturbs
the
become aware of the insignificance of this partners them is infinitely stronger than this annoyance. It is thus forces me to become aware of the depth of my attachment.
between
detail
which
Laclau,
Verso 1996. Emancypation(s), London: of this vertiginous abyss in which the Universal is caught Perhaps the best formulation in the Hegelian dialectical is provided byJean-Luc Nancy in his Hegel. Lingiietude du process 1997. négatif, Paris: Hachette 27. See Renata Salecl, The Spozlsof Freedom, London: Routledge 1994, p. 136. 28. Within the domain of language, Hegel makes the same of his notion point by means of ‘mechanical memory’. See Chapter 2 of Slavoj Zizek, The Metastases of Enjoyment, London:
26.
Verso 1994. 29, Judith
labour, the
Butler
Hegel
sacrificial
claims
abandons
renunciation
its
that
when
dialectical is false
in
he
deals
with
far
the
which
subversion,
of
structure
would
consist
sacrificial
religious in
pointing
out
how
it
of its own, a produces a satisfaction pleasurethe content via in-pain (or, to put it in Lacanian terms, undermining of the enunciated reference to its position of enunciation: I inflict pain on myself, but at the level of the I experience this pain as excessively pleasurable). Accordsubjective position of enunciation are ing to Butler, in the case of sacrificial 1eligious labour, pain and satisfaction externally inflict it on myself, is not the direct opposed; what makes me endure pain, or even perverse so
satisfaction I get out of it, but the belief that I will be satisfaction compensated, the more
Judith Butler,
The
this, however, the
Beyond
future 30.
in is
a
as
the
more
I will
I suffer
here,
get, in the
Psychic Life of Power, Stanford, CA: Stanford fact Hegel's position? Is not Hegel well aware mere mask for the pleasure I derive here
on
this
Beyond, after
University that
and
the now
earth,
Press
the
promised pleasure of from imagining this
reward?
Friednch
Nietzsche,
On
the ( renedlogyof Morals, New
York:
more
death.
(See 1997, p. 44.) Is
my
Vintage 1989,
p.
163.
THE
31.
And
is this
HEGELIAN
connected
not
TICKLISH
the
to
distinction
logical
123
SUBJECT between
external
and
negation? The basic procedure of Stalinist paranoia was to read external negation towards the people's indifference (not wanting to do it) constructing Socialism active plotting against it (wanting not to do it, i.e. opposing it). One can thus of
space
the
death
32.
See
Darian
MA:
MIT
Press
See
external
and
Lovers
Make
When
It Gets
Political
Theology:Four Chapters on
the
read as that the between
negation,
internal
Late, London:
Faber
& Faber
Conceptof Sovereignty,Cambridge,
1988.
Miran
‘Malebranche’s
Bozovic,
Cogito and
in
Eden’,
Promises
Leader,
See
35.
between
gap
actively wanting Nothingness.
Ibid., p. 56. Carl Schmitt,
34,
very
was
say
internal internal:
49-66.
1997, pp. 33.
is this
drive
and
wanting nothing
as
the
Unconscious,
Occasionalism,
in
Philosophy
or,
Slavoj Zizek, Durham,
ed.
NC:
Duke
the
Garden
University
of Press
1998.
36.
pp.
Nicolas
Treatise
Malebranche,
on
Nature
and
Grace, Oxford:
Clarendon
Press
1992,
140-41. 37. Nicolas
Traité de morale, Paris: Garnicr-Flammarion Malebranche, 1995, p. 41, use of the term 38, Malebranche’s ‘occasionalism’ is thus highly idiosyneratic in that it combines this meaning (the need for a particular cause to law) supplement the universal with a different the two meaning which refers to the (lack of a direct) relationship between is no since there substances: direct connection hetween since a body and soul hody cannot —
a soul (and vice versa), the upon when I think about raising my hand, my hand an occasional case, general will. In this second
directl,
does order
have
not
(my
‘bodily’
other
40.
on
intentions
between
two
actually cause
general laws in order to and thoughts): the divine series totally independent
goes
between
up)
(say,
the
intention
my
with
connect
raise
to
other
general laws of particwar
(the fact
two
that
guaranteed by God's
be
inust
objects
also
have
the
events,
to
my of the sustain
‘mental’
hand) same
the
and
series.
One
See
be attentive here to the implicit dialectic is merely potential, ‘prelapsarian’, Universal and the contingently distributed particular Grace.
should
exception: the in the guise of souls
rely only
to
co-ordination 39.
co-ordination
act
also
Fenclon’s
perish’ (‘Réfutations
Chez Lefevre 41. Nicolas
1835, ch. 36), Malebranche, Malebranche,
42,
Nicolas
43.
Ibid., p. 431.
44.
Ibid.
version:
du
‘it
is
precisely du
systéme
Pére
la
because
we
of
have
sur
Recherche
de la vérité, Paris:
métaphysique,Paris: Galerie
a
in
Malebranche’,
Entretiens
the
it realizes
Saviour
Gtuves
Vrin de
its Universal and itself via the Fall, that so many de Fenelon, Paris:
1984, p. 117. 1991, p. 428.
la Sorbonne
PART
The
II
Split Universality
3
The
Politics
Badiou
as
of Truth, a
Reader
or,
Alain
of St Paul
beginning is the negation of that which begins with it’! Schelling’s statement applies perfectly to the itinerary of the four contemporary and then elaborated political philosophers who began as Althusserians distinctive from their their own position by distancing themselves starting of course, that immediately spring to mind of those are, point. The cases Etienne Balibar and Jacques Ranciére. Back in the 1960s, Balibar was Althusser’s favoured pupil and privileged in is sustained all his work the last decade, however, collaborator; by a the of avoidance of (and silence name kind ‘Althusser’ about) (signifithe title ‘Taés-toi, Althusser?: bears ‘Shut cantly, his key essay on Althusser a In commemorative silent], [remain Althusser!’). revealing essay, up Balibar describes the last phase of Althusscr’s theoretical activity (even mental health problems) as a systematic pursuit prior to his unfortunate was of (or exercise as if Althusser in) self-destruction, caught in the vortex of a systematic undermining and subverting of his own previous theoretiof the Althusserian cal propositions. Against the background of this debris to theoretical Balibar formulate his own edifice, painfully endeavours way, often position, not always in a fully consistent combining the standard Althusserian references to archAlthusser’s (Spinoza) with references of the in recent enemies Balibar’s (note growing importance Hegel essays). who also began as Ranciére, (with a contribution a strict Althusserian Lire le Capital), then La to (in lecon d’Althusser), accomplished a violent him to follow his own of which enabled distancing, path, focusing gesture on what he perceived as the main of Althusser’s thought: negative aspect on his theoreticist the gap forever elitism, his insistence separating the of of scientific from that universe (mis)recognition cognition ideological ‘The
in
which
-
the
common
masses
are
immersed.
Against
this
stance,
which
TICKLISH
THE
128
SUBJECT
to the truth know about ‘speak for’ the masses, and to the elaborate contours of again again of subjectivization in which the those magic, violently poetic moments their claim to speak for themselves, excluded (‘lower classes’) put forward a change in the to effect global perception of the social space so that their claims have a legitimate place in it.
theoreticians
allows
In
a
was
still
plays and
kind
mediated
more
Badiou.
Alain
a
way,
the
first
book
Laclau’s role
also
same
holds
Laclau
Ernesto
and
Ideology in Marxist Theory) of ideological interpellation development, especially in Hegemony
in
it); his further Strategy (written with Chantal
‘postmodernist’
for
and
(Politics (the notion
Althusserian
strongly central
Socialist of
to
endeavours
Ranciére
them,
could
Mouffe),
‘deconstructionist’
be
read
of the
a
as
Althus-
displacement serian edifice: the distinction between science and ideology collapses, since the notion of ideology is universalized as the struggle for hegemony that rends the very heart of every social formation, accounting for its forever and, fragile identity simultaneously, preventing its closure; the notion of the as the of subject is reconceptualized very operator hegemony. Finally, there is the strange case of Alain Badiou. Is not Badiou also intimately related to Althusser, not only on the level of his personal intellectual of the Lacano—Althusserian biography (he began as a member was legendary Cahiers pour U’Analysegroup in the 1960s; his first booklet Théorie series) but also on the inherent theoretical published in Althusser’s level: his opposition of knowledge (related to the positive order of Being) the and truth to Event that in from the void the midst of (related springs to seems reverse the Althusserian of science and being) opposition ideology: Badiou’s ‘knowledge’ is closer to (a positivist notion of) science, his description of the Truth-Event while bears an uncanny resemblance to Althusserian ‘ideological interpellation’. or
The The
axis
indicates
of Badiou’s -
the
gap
Truth-Event...
theoretical between
order
edifice
Being
accessible
is and
—
the
as
Event.?
title
of
‘Being’ the
for
his
work
main
stands
for
the
positive ontological Knowledge, of what tude ‘presents itself? in our experience, categorized in genuses and in accordance with its species properties. According to Badiou, the his first paradoxionly proper science of Being-as-Being is mathematics to
infinite
multi-
—
cal
conclusion
ontology:
is thus
ontology
to
is
insist
on
mathematical
the
gap
that
science,
separates not
philosophy philosophy,
from which
THE
involves
the
different
a
At
Being. not
the
yet
yet taken
society; structure
the to
first
allows
cracks
in
[the
order
a us
the
a
calls
art...)
that
to
multitude
of
always-already signified structure
a
be
edifice
to
be
of
the
that
situation
must
as
a
situation as
not
for
appear:
its
One’, it
structure
as
redoubled
one
in
us
the
to proper be at work:
must
designates be
has
(French
and it is its structured, One’. Here, however,
Being already ‘reduplication’
‘counted
metastructure
of
is
multitude
of
the
One’,
as
counting
consistent
‘situation’; a situation ‘count [the situation]
situation a
since
‘Ones’,
particular
any
(symbolic inscription) for
129
provides an elaborated analysis of presentation of the pure multiple, multitude of experience, that which is
ontological
situation]
TRUTH
is the
structured not
Badiou
modern
symbolization is,
is
OF
Badiou
it were,
as
symbolically
place.
‘count
in
dimension.
bottom,
multitude
this
given;
POLITICS
that must
the
(ie.
the
symbolic is thus ‘counted as One’, identisignifiers). When a situation fied by its symbolic structure, we the ‘state of the have situation’. Here Badiou is playing on the ambiguity of the term state: of things’ as ‘state well as State there is no ‘state of society’ without (in the political sense) a ‘state’ in which the structure of society is re-presented/ redoubled. This symbolic redupiicatio already involves the minimal of Void dialectic and Excess. The of Ones, pure multiple of Being is not yet a multitude to have be since, as we have just seen, One, the pure multiple must ‘counted as from the of the state of a the One’; situation, standpoint as preceding multiple can only appear nothing, so nothing is the ‘proper of Being as Being’ prior to its symbolization. The Void name is the central of from Democritus’ atomism onwards: ‘atoms’ are category ontology correlative to this Void nothing but configurations of the Void. The excess two forms. takes On the one of things involves at least hand, each state one excessive element which, although it clearly belongs to the situation, is not ‘counted’ in it (the ‘non-integrated’ rabble by it, properly included in a social is presented, but not situation, etc.): this element re-presented. On the other is the excess of re-presentation over hand, there presentathe agency tion: that brings about the passage from situation to its state State with regard to what it structures: (State in society) is always in excess is it never and ‘excessive’, power necessarily simply transparently rethe liberal dream of a to state reduced presents society (the impossible service of civil society), but acts as it rea violent in what intervention network
of
—
presents. This, then,
is the structure of Being. From wholly contingent, unpredictable way, out Being, an Event takes place that belongs to
time of a
to
reach
wholly
time, for different
however,
in
Knowledge dimension
a
of
130 -
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
precisely, of non-Being. Let us take of society, its the state eighteenth century: and so are accessible conflicts, on, ideological us to predict of Knowledge will enable amount
French
that,
unaccountable the
Event
situation,
called
Event
emerges this does
the
ex
nihilo:
not
mean
be
cannot
that
it is
the
late
political,
knowledge. However, no for the properly account In this precise sense, Revolution’.
‘French
if it
in
society economic,
strata, to
or
accounted
simply
for
in
of the
terms
Outside
from
intervention
an
it attaches itself precisely to the Void of every situation, to its Beyond — is the Truth its excess. The Event inherent of the inconsistency and/or makes situation that had to visible/legible what the ‘official’ situation but it is also localized that is to the Truth is ‘repress’, always say, always the Truth The for example, is French Revolution, of a specific situation. the Event which makes and inconsistencies, visible/legible the excesses the and it is the Truth ‘lie’, of the ancien of the ancien régime, régime or
—
attached
localized,
situation,
determinations:
the
it. An
to
Event
thus
Event
involves
its
itself;
its
series
own
of
‘French
(the
naming designation objective categorizing but part of the Event itself, the way its followers perceived and symbolized their activity); its ultimate Goal of freedom—equality— (the society of fully realized emancipation, fraternity); its ‘operator’ (the political movements struggling for the Revolution’
is
not
an
last
and, Revolution, the Truth-Event, discerns/identifies
but in
is his
subject persists
in
it
its
least,
not
intervenes
subject,
historical
the
signs—effects Event:
the
multiple
of
the
the
multiple the
of
who,
agent
situation
What
Event.
behalf
on
of the
of and
defines
the
Event
and
discerns
the
the
fedeléty subject after within his situation. discerning its traces The subject is thus, for Badiou, a finite not contingent emergence: only is Truth not of being subordinated to his whims, ‘subjective’ in the sense the Truth’ but the subject himself ‘serves that transcends him; he is never of Truth, order since the subject always has fully adequate to the infinite to
to
in
within
operate
signs
of Truth.
of the
Christian
Event): the of
Last
the
believers
comes
the
a
finite
make
To
is Christ’s
Judgement, who
a
in which
situation
crucial
point clear, religion (which perhaps provides
Event
historical
this
the
final
intervene
searching in it for signs fall passionately in love, this Event and following Today, however, when
in
its
Redemption;
is the
situation
and
incarnation
their
of God. ] become
Church; situation
its on
let the
death;
he
its
ultimate
of
in
the
example
of
example
‘operator’ ‘subject’ is behalf
the
take
us
the
the
a
Truth-.
Goal
is
multiple corpus
of
Truth-Event,
to take the example of love: when ‘subjectivized’ by remaining faithful
(Or,
it in my life.) even the most
radical
intellectual
succumbs
I to
to
POLITICS
THE
the compulsion appropriate to defined against The
October
distance
to
the
also
TRUTH
from
October
131
Communism,
Revolution
leftist
opportunistic
Revolution the
himself
the
reassert
OF
allows
as
‘fools’
and
seems
more
of
conservative
Truth
‘knaves’.
three
identify clearly
to
us
it
Event
an
of
ways
Truth-Fvent:
simple disavowal, the attempt to follow old as if nothing had disturbance patterns happened, just a minor (the of ‘utilitarian’ liberal reaction of the Event of democracy); false imitation Truth revolution as a (the Fascist staging of the conservative pseudoevent); and a direct ‘ontologicization’ of the Event of Truth, its reduction to a new positive order of being (Stalinism).* Here one can readily grasp betraying
the
that
gap
radical
opposition
the
to
Truth
‘truth-effects’). it
situation;
the
is
from
notion
is
of
deconstructionist
of
this
it
one
spoken
of the
subverted
field
out,
as
the
on
but and
truths’
in
only
one
(or,
rather,
historical
concrete
a
his
and
concrete
every Truth
which,
once
of itself and of the falsity by it. When Badiou of being which is a speaks of ‘this symptomal torsion truth in the always-total texture of knowledges’,* every term has its weight. The texture of Knowledge is, by definition, that is, for always total excess and lack of a situation are Knowledge of Being, there is no excess; visible from the the of not from the Event, only standpoint standpoint of the knowing servants of the State. From within this standpoint, of course, one sees to ‘local’, mar‘problems’, but they are automatically reduced to errors what is to Truth does reveal that difficulties, ginal contingent (what Knowledge misperceives as) marginal malfunctionings and points of failure are a structural for the Event is thus the necessity. Crucial of an elevation into a transcendental limitation. With empirical obstacle reveals is how injustices regard to the ancien régime, what the Truth-Event are not of the marginal malfunctionings but pertain to the very structure is in its essence, as such, ‘corrupt’. Such an entity which, system which misperceived by the system as a local ‘abnormality’, effectively condenses the global ‘abnormality’ of the system as such, in its entirety is what, in
articulated,
functions
is
of
hinges
situation,
there
situation
fictionalism:
‘multitude
a
contingent,
truth
historical
contingent
Badiou
separates
index
-
~
—
—
the
Freudo—Marxian
lapses, dreams, torsions’
edge, crisis
is such
tradition,
make sees a
Here
Badiou
Platonic
thrust
formations
compulsive
that which
is called
accessible them
as
‘symptomal is clearly whose
basic
the
mere
and
the
symptom:
acts,
and
so
in on,
psychoanalysis, ‘symptomal
are
inaccessible
subject’s Truth, malfunctionings;
in
Marxism,
to
Knowl-
economic
torsion’. and
radically opposed dogma is that the era
to
the
when
postmodern antistill possible was
it
THE
132
TICKLISH
political movement metaphysical or transcendental to
our
base
on
a
century
proves
that
such
SUBJECT direct
a
truth a
is
reference
reference
definitely to
some
to
some
eternal
the
experience of metaphysical a priori
over:
social For this consequences. only to catastrophic ‘totalitarian’ is in a new era solution to that we live the reason, accept deprived of only and in an era of conjectures, in a contingency metaphysical certainties, of is a matter of ‘risk society’ in which politics phronesis, strategic judgeof applying fundamental ments and dialogue, not cognitive insights. What Badiou is aiming at, against this postmodern doxa, is precisely the in today’s conditions of the politics of (universal) of resuscitation Truth the Thus in modern conditions Badiou rehabilitates, global contingency. of multiplicity and contingency, not only philosophy but the properly dimension: the infinite with Truth is ‘eternal’ and metameta-physical dimension regard to the temporal process of Being; it is a flash of another transcending the positivity of Being. The latest of the disavowal version of Truth is provided by the New Age Cartesian opposition to the hubris of so-called subjectivity and its mechanicist dominating attitude nature. towards According to the New Age cliché, the original sin of modern Western civilization (as, indeed, of the JudaeoChristian is man’s hubris, his arrogant tradition) assumption that he the central in the that universe he is endowed and/or occupies place with the divine to and dominate all other right beings exploit them for his profit. This disturbs the balance of cosmic Audbris, which rightful sooner or later that forces Nature to balance: re-establish powers, today’s ecological, social and psychic crisis is interpreted as the universe’s justified to answer man’s thus lies in the shift of presumption. Our only solution the global paradigm, in adopting the new we holistic attitude in which our will constrained of humbly assume place in the global Order Being. In contrast this cliché, one to should the excess assert of subjectivity (what Hegel called the ‘night of the world’) as the only hope of redempin the excess of subjectivity as such, tion: true evil lies not but in its in its into some reinscription ‘ontologization’, global cosmic framework. cruelty is ontologically ‘covered’ Already in de Sade, excessive by the the ‘Supreme Being of Evil’; both order of Nature as Nazism and Stalinism to involved some the reference of Being (in the of case global Order the dialectical of of the movement Stalinism, matter). organization True is thus the very opposite of the acceptance of the hubris arrogance of subjectivity: it lies in false humility that is to say, it emerges when the to and act on Global behalf of the Cosmic Order, subject pretends speak can
lead
...
...
-
THE
posing
as
entire
its humble
Western
reference
to
pagan Idealism that
OF
instrument.
stance
order
POLITICS
a
higher
of
Cosmos
In
contrast
anti-global:
was
Truth
TRUTH
this
to
does
only
not
which
133
into
cuts
false humility, the Christianity involve
and
disturbs
the
old
in
Plato’s expressed profound Wisdoms; even itself can be qualified as the first clear elaboration of the idea global cosmic ‘Chain of Being’ is not ‘all there is’, that there is Order of (of Ideas) which suspends the validity of the Order
the
another
Being. One
of Badiou’s
the
of
theses
great
is that
of
the
from
object thought: common sense has always insisted on is so interconnected; reality complex approximations ...). Badiou implicitly as
proper
the
latest
version
this
of
pure Stalin
infinite
that
lacks
multiple
complexity it is accessible
condemns
the
dignity philosophical (everything is to us only in
Derrida,
to
deconstructionism
motif
of
itself
infinite
complexity. of ‘anti-essentialist’ Among the advocates postmodern identity politics, for the insistence that there is no ‘woman in example, one often encounters black women, general’, there are only white middle-class single mothers, unworlesbians, and so on. One should reject such ‘insights’ as banalities thy of being objects of thought. The problem of philosophical thought lies precisely in how the of this out universality of ‘woman’ emerges endless multitude. one can also rehabilitate the Hegelian difference Thus, between bad (spurious) and proper infinity: the first refers to commonsense infinite the second concerns the infinity of an Event, complexity; the ‘infinite In which, precisely, transcends complexity’ of its context. one can between historicism and historicexactly the same way distinguish historicism refers to the set of economic, ity proper: political, cultural, and so on, circumstances whose interaction allows us to account complex for the Event to be involves the specific explained, while historicity proper the span between the Event temporality of the Event and its aftermath, and its final End Christ's death and the Last Judgement, (between between Revolution and between Communism, falling in love and the .). accomplished bliss of living together from the standard Perhaps the gap separating Badiou postmodern deconstructionist theorists is political ultimately created by the fact that common-sense
.
the
latter
failed
enthusiastic of the
a
within
remain
is
encounter:
with
encounter
positive empirical short
universal
the the
not
circuit
between
Void?
In
it,
Event a we
.
confines
of
ultimate the with
Real
momentarily
a
lesson
every pathetic delusive semblance
positive succumb
element to
and the
of
wisdom
pessimistic
Thing,
it, is
contingent
the
deconstructionist
that
the
every
identification sustained the
illusion
by
preceding that
the
TICKLISH
THE
134 of
promise Derrida,
democracy
is
no
is
is
to
the
draw
deconstructionists
this,
from
actually realized longer merely 4 venir
Fullness
impossible
SUBJECT
the
maintain
ethico-political duty impossibility and every positive content enthusiasm to the fully to succumb with the Event redemptive Promise deconstructionist enthusiastic
aspect
insight
that
terror,
the
goes enthusiasm
moment
It
the
of
hand
inevitably
the Void
giving body hasty identification that is always ‘to the
with
to
Revolution
the
into
turns
it
its
that of
is, a
never
positive In
its
in
opposite,
central
come’.
this
utopian
melancholic
conservative
it into
transpose
of the -
the
into
the
worst
positive
struc-
reality.
Badiou
that
seem
may
in
actually arrived; that the principal
to
for
endeavour
of social
turing principle also
we
hand
between
paraphrase
to
has
conclusion
gap
admiration
stance,
that,
—
but
désastre
remains
within
this
does
framework:
he
not
of the
revolutionary temptation to confound the Truth-Event of Being: of the attempt with the order to ‘ontologize’ into the Truth of Being? However, ontological principle of the order things are more complex: Badiou’s position is that although the universal has the status of a semblance, from time Order to time, in a contingent can a ‘miracle’ and unpredictable way, happen in the guise of a Truththat a Event deservedly shames postmodernist sceptic. What he has in is a very precise political experience. For example, in France, mind during first in the the Mitterrand early 1980s, all well-meaning government were of Justice Robert Leftists Badinter’s intensceptical about Minister and introduce tion to abolish the death other reforms penalty progressive Their stance was of the penal code. we ‘Yes, of course him; but is support the situation yet ripe for it? Will the people, terrified by the rising crime be willing to swallow it? Isn’t this a case of idealistic rate, obstinacy that our and do us more can harm than only weaken government, good?’. Badinter simply ignored the catastrophic predictions of the opinion polls, with the surprising result and persisted it was the that, all of a sudden, of the who their minds to and started changed people majority support against
warn
—
him.
Italy in the mid 1970s, when there was a the Communists who, private, the Left, even the to of course, divorce were about the supported right sceptical the of that were not mature outcome, majority people fearing yet enough, that they would be frightened by the intense Catholic propaganda depictand mothers, and so on. children To the great surprise of ing abandoned A similar
referendum
happened
event on
divorce.
in
In
—
—
everyone, and the
however,
Right,
since
the a
referendum considerable
was
a
majority
great of
setback
60 per
for cent
the voted
Church for
the
THE
divorce.
Events
Events
belying
POLITICS
TRUTH
135
do occur in politics, and they are ‘post-ideological realism’: they are not enthusiastic outbursts momentary occasionally disturbing the usual run of things, only to be followed depressive/conformist/ utilitarian by an inexorable ‘the disillusionment sobering morning after’; on the contrary, of Truth in the overall structure of deception and they are the moment lure. The lesson fundamental of postmodernist politics is that there is no that that the Truth-Event is a passing, Event, ‘nothing really happens’, short a false identification to be sooner or later circuit, illusory dispelled the at reassertion of difference the of the best, or, by fleeting promise towards we maintain a which have to disRedemption-to-come, proper tance in order to avoid catastrophic ‘totalitarian’ consequences; against this structural is fully justified in insisting that to use scepticism, Badiou the term with its full theological weight do happen. ° miracles
right
to
authentic
like
OF
this
shameful
—
—
.
and
...
We
can
now
the
see
undecidable
from
of
things’. An possible only
from
intervention’®
if, that
or
put it
to
—
the
—
of
act
naming century accept
an
he
event
can
the
intervention
recognized
as
an
as
be
the
from
a
includes
chaotic
as
—
for
‘it will
so
the
the
remain
intervenor
that
ontological
it is ‘state
identification
its
calls
Badiou
is
‘an
interpreting subjectively engaged position, in the designated situation in
events
identified
of the
sense
what
‘wager’ that such an ‘every procedure by
event’?
all, except
at
the
itself:
System,
of
—
those defines
standpoint one speaks if one formally is,
is ‘undecidable’:
Truth-Event
in
circular
the
more
eighteenth who
the of the
standpoint is thus
Event
Undecidability
in which
sense
the
Its
.
France
exists.
Event
the
at
Badiou
of which
means
end
Revolution’
‘French
a
doubtful
forever
[/%ntervenant]
who
of
the
only for formally muluple is if there
decided
was
that
situation’.* Fidelity to the Event designates the traversing the field of knowledge from the standpoint of Event, intervening in it, searching for the signs of Truth. Along these Badiou also the Pauline triad of lines, Faith, Hope and Love: interprets Faith is faith in the Event that the belief Event Christ’s (the rising from the dead took is the the final reconciliathat really place); Hope hope tion announced the Event Last will (the by Judgement) actually occur; Love is the for to that the this is, long and patient struggle happen,
belonged
continuous
to
effort
the
of
—
—
arduous Badiou
work calls
to
the
assert
one’s
language
fidelity that
to
the
endeavours
Event. to
name
the
Truth-Event
the
TICKLISH
THE
136
SUBJECT
language is meaningless from the standpoint of within judges propositions with regard to their referent Knowledge, of positive being (or with regard to the proper the domain functioning of when the subject-language established the within order): symbolic speech redemption, revolutionary emancipation, love, and so speaks of Christian all this as empty on, Knowledge dismisses phrases lacking any proper referent etc.). Let us (‘political-messianic jargon’, ‘poetic hermeticism’, in love describing the features of his beloved to his imagine a person who is not in love with the same will simply the friend, friend: person, find this enthusiastic description meaningless; he will not get ‘the point’ of it... .In short, subject-language involves the logic of the shibboleth, of is from a which visible from without. difference within, not This, only involves in no that the subject-language however, another, way means to a hidden true content: reference it is, rather, that the subject‘deeper’ or the standard use its ‘unsettles’ of language with language, ‘derails’ leaves with the established and the reference meanings, ‘empty’ ‘wager’ This ‘subject-language’.
which
—
that
this
actualizes
void
will
itself
as
a
far
it refers
as
filled
to
the
the
when
situation
new
The
pated society...). so
be
is
Goal
(God’s kingdom
naming
of the
fullness
yet
to
when
reached,
Truth-Event
is
Truth
the
earth;
on
emanciin
‘empty’ precisely
come.
thus means that an Event does not undecidability of the Event it cannot to be reduced (or deduced, any ontological guarantee: it emerges ‘out of nothing’ (the generated from) a (previous) Situation: the which was truth of this ontological previous situation). Thus Nothing The
possess
there
is
effects:
gaze of knowledge that is always-already here
neutral
no
Decision
a
signs of an Event in the Situation just as in Jansenist theology, in
only
those
to
have
who
in the
see gaze will never called the ‘French
in
the
succession
a
was
the
negative
did
not
his
Revolution, into
a
main in
succession
French
Revolution
of
impact of
a
that
derive an
and
from
to
an
physiological brought such his
of of
perspective specific historical
occurrences perceives positive historical to the extent the French Revolution that only of Revolution as standpoint unique engaged
observer
—
Event
caught
Francois
to
of the it and
towards
parts
he observes
of
the
them
puts it,
this
Furet: French
turning it engaged
The
facts?)
is
Love
gaze,
(Perhaps
fame
Badiou
such
of the
external
as
Truth,
historicist
traces
states....
its
the
as
occurrences
de-eventualization
external
complex
series
multitude
for
legible
neutral
A
in
Event
discern
Decision are
Faith. a
the can
one
miracles
for
determinations;
psychic
achievement
adopting
merely
discern
is,
previous
a
divine
decided
social
that
from
which
already
Revolution’, of
network
merely
only
could —
Event from
an
Event
of
the is
THE
self-referential
in
‘French
tion we
subtract
of
positive
Event
The
and
this
itself.”
is crucial
Let
the
state not
is to
highest
in
The
culture.
content
into
turns
multitude
a
knowledge. In this precise sense, engaged ‘subjective perspective’ on to
take
us
the
the
thesis
already
this
slant
does
of
the
to
all
engaged
presupposes the whole
edifice,
obvious
can
up
an
the
knowledge) history is
that
standpoint
social
entire
answer
thesis
Marxist
‘interested’
this
only from class struggle
of the
designation: the symbolic designaitself, since, if designated content
own
struggle: this say, only from
such;
as
of the very
that
—
137
veracity (the accuracy-adequacy
here.
class
of
history subjectivity
TRUTH
described
the
is part of the Event difference between
appear
its
available
subjectivity:
OF
of the
is part designation, the
occurrences
Truth
traces
i includes
Revolution’
involves
Event
that
POLITICS
of
the
to
history discern
one
products (this
counter-argument view, not with
the true dealing with a distorted of things) is that it is the allegedly ‘objective’, ‘impartial’ gaze that is in fact neutral but already partial that is, the gaze of the winners, of the motto of nght-wing historical revisionruling classes. (No wonder is ‘Let's in a cool, objective way; approach the topic of the Holocaust fact
that
proves
are
we
—
the ists let’s
it
put
in
Communist
its
objective study take
its
from
theory Within obstacle
is
future
to
bet
on
the
winner:
his
of
the
the
engaged
view
permeates
to
outset.
very Marxist
but
the facts...’) A theorist of who, after establishing by means belongs to the working class, decides
inspect
someone
the
the
the
not
that
and
side
let’s
context,
revolution
this
tradition,
notion
of
of Truth
condition
partiality
as
not
only
not
an
articulated
clearly positive by Georg Lukacs in his early work History and Class Consciousness, and in a more directly messianic, proto-religious mode by Walter Benjamin in ‘Theses on a the Philosophy of History’: ‘truth’ when victim, emerges from his present catastrophic position, gains a sudden insight into the entire past as a series of catastrophes that led to his current predicament. to
So, when
we
level
of
the Marx
himself
normally, conceive
one
a
read
a
text
on
with
Truth,
Knowledge used ‘proletariat’ can
none
the
less
we
level
the as
should of
be
Truth.
in
careful For
his
work
not
to
confuse
example, although
with
synonymous
discern
most
was
‘the a
clear
working class’ tendency to
working class’ as a descriptive term belonging to the domain sociological study, a social stratum Knowledge (the object of ‘neutral’ subdivided into whereas etc.); components, ‘proletariat’ designates the of Truth, that is, the engaged agent of the revolutionary struggle. operator the of the status Furthermore, pure multiple and its Void is also it ‘now’, since undecidable we never and purely ‘intermediary’: encounter of
‘the
138
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
retroactively, through the act of Decision we of which already pass over it. For of itself as the Decision for example, Nazism as a pseudo-Event conceives social Harmony and Order against the Chaos of modern liberal-Jewishclass-warfare however, modern society society never perceives itself in as it first the (or ‘disperson fundamentally ‘chaotic’, perceives ‘chaos’ or a limited, a as order’ ‘degeneration’) contingent deadlock, temporary modern crisis society appears as fundamentally ‘chaotic’ only from the that is, once for Order, is already the Decision standpoint of the Decision One should the retroactive made. therefore resist illusion according to into the which Decision the follows open undecidability of the insight it is only the Decision that situation: itself the previous State as reveals it is
always recognized
that
dissolves
it
such
as
that
~
is, by
means
—
-
Prior
‘undecidable’. its
in
from
is
definition
Situation to
and
—
the
by
The
utely
coincides
with
another:
prior
horizon, (what an undecidable,
(or, the
will
to
Void
of
it, the
to
takes
that
revolutionary
thus
absol-
it up.
separating
closure
one
closed; that
has
that
terms,
that
in
place
no
For
threatens
the
of
State
its as
the
is
‘supernumerary’ ); the very previous established political
such,
as
Chaos.
turmoil
of
domain
new
(again) opens
line
is assumed
undecidable
as
this
is, from within as skandalon, necessarily appears
mathematical
place
Situation
was
Event
and
the
inhabit
we
invisible
intrusion
of
constitutive
say, undecidability of the global System. After
(retroactively)
an
Situation the
it in
put
that
gesture
the
become)
appears
Order, the dislocation,
the
is enclosed
which
Void
is reduced
to
the
closes/decides
chaotic
Event
Situation
is
a
that
is thus
once
that
Situation
a
the
horizon,
invisible;
~
gesture
Event
Situation
inhabit
we
this
marginal disturbance undecidability is over, since
Decision,
from
within
as
appears
Truth.
The
Decision,
to
horizon;
an
overthrow
to
it is
a
chaotic
viewpoint of the Revolution, ancien régime itself is a name for disorder, for an impenetrable and ultimately ‘irrational’ to is clearly opposed ethics of the Derridean despotism. Here Badiou to the Event in its unpredictable openness alterity: such an emphasis on while
unpredictable Alterity of
a
us
in
the is the
truly How
are
semblance?
was
way a
an
the
as
we
to
draw
between Event
pseudo-Event
and
horizon
defer
or
semblance line
demarcation
a
compelled and
to
the
the
remains
block
oscillation
indefinite
Truth
relates
to
another
Badiou
not
ultimate
only
serves
‘postmodernist’ Event, not just Is
opposition the
and
Situation,
the
from
its
Decision
‘how
of the
rely
whose
Revolution
Again, was
do
we
Event
true
a
here Truth
—
confines it involves
know
this
Event?’
between
semblance?
Situation October
to
of
the
within
the
on
the
a
its
‘metaphysical’ answer
it articulates: an
and
authentic
involves Nazism
Event,
THE
because
the
only
capitalist order, order.
capitalist all
We
takes
(in
The
fundamental,
most
they
in
sign joins him,
the
everyone,
is impressed by by pseudo-intellectuals
Berlin,
Fosse’s inn
country the
of
course
a
its emotional
the
Bob
of to
the
save
their
at
so
impact.
.
Berlin: starts
should
This
..
to
boy sing a a
Germans
give
the
on;
crowd
gradually nightlifers from
decadent
of
group
Cabaret, which
near
song)
which
Fatherland, them, and
belongs including to
Situation in contrast
foundations,
from
the
the
of
same’.
small
a
139
to precisely in order ‘to change things so that,
scene
in
about
song
those
the
in
learn
we
tomorrow
and
famous
TRUTH
foundations
very
was
remain
early 1930s, as
elegiac that
the
to
strategy
can
the
the
uniform,
sorrowful a
Nazi
remember
place Nazi
related
OF
effectively undermining staged a pseudo-Event
which
Nazism,
latter
POLITICS
is often
scene
evoked
when
they ‘finally grasped what Nazism was One is tempted to add that they are about, how it worked’. it is not the pathos of patriotic engageright, but for the wrong reasons: ment as such that is ‘Fascist’. What the actually prepares ground for Fascism is the very liberal of every form of suspicion and denunciation of devotion unconditional to a Cause, as potentially ‘totaliengagement, tarian’ fanaticism that is to say, the problem lies in the very complicity of incapacitating of the atmosphere cynical decadent self-enjoyment with as
moment
-
the
Fascist
Order
this
puts
the
fact
end
an
that
Decision other
In
is
the
not
to
that
the
is
end
an
put
of
impotence,
‘Event’
Nazi
which
words,
rhetoric
decadent
to
the
effectively unable this precise sense
the
Chaos.
machine
ideological that
with
Event,
into
to
Decision
but
etc.),
the
about such
as
aestheticized
on
—
theatre,
decadent
reaction
common
false
is
(re)introducc
to
purports what
the
(of the a
the
contrary faked
crippling impasse. the
to
Nazi
Nazi Event
song from is how our
—
event
It is in Cabaret
is right for the wrong reasons: what it fails to perceive former cabaret about and _ sexual cynical pleasure in decadent songs money the that made us background promiscuity created susceptible to the impact of the Nazi song. Event and its naming So how are an related? Badiou rejects Kant’s of the Event of the French the Revolution, reading reading which locates the crucial effect of the Revolution in the sublime feeling of enthusiasm in Paris that the revolutionary events set in motion in passive observers not across involved in the event and then itself, Europe, directly opposes
this
sublime
Reason
readily often
and
effect (the Freedom)
concedes served
as
assertion to
the
that
horrible
the
catalyst
of
our
belief of
in
the
grim reality things took place for
the
outburst
the
in France: of
progress
the
of
itself
Revolution the
lowest
man’s
(Kant
Revolution destructive
THE
TICKLISH
mob).
Badiou
140
wild
the
of
passions
aestheticization
of the
Revolution
observers
hand
in
goes revolutionaries
from
Sublime
the
between a
distance
proper
with
(Do
and
the
Evil, figure of monstrous directly involved in it?) Against this Kantian celebration the
Badiou
ers,
is Truth a
insists
itself
in
first
for
is
Event
itself; does
once
the
it too
approach
of the
its agents
here
actual
the
tension
effect
sublime
themselves,
for
not
Kant’s
turns
passive
on
the
external
get
observ-
Truth-Event
observers.
is
position
and
closely
Truth-Event:
of the
appears into
of enthusiasm
cause
an
by passive
[das Ungeheure]: what
we
immanence
such
the
for
loathing encounter
again
Sublime
it may appear that Truth of an Event a
approach,
here:
the
on
not
that
distance
safe
a
utmost
Monstrous
be
to
from
the
we
the
remarks
sarcastically
admired
hand
themselves.
SUBJECT
On
‘Lacanian’
more
with regard to the depend on the mode of its inscription into the big Other (personified here by enlightened public opinion), which is always, a Is not what is properly unthinkable priori, deferred? precisely a Truth that would directly know itself as Truth? Is not the delay of comprehension constitutive lies the lesson: the of Owl (therein Hegelian materialist Minerva flies if a Truth-Event is radically only at dusk)? Furthermore, how are we to distinguish Truth Is it not from its simulacrum? immanent, the reference to the decentred Other enables us to draw this that only big not
decentred
priori
it not
distinction? Badiou the
way
arose:
to
Event
its dément in
the
less
situation,
Revolution
remains
an
a
crum,
disavowal
the
not
in
way
it relates
to
the
‘void’
of
trauma
situation
bears that witness to gaze discern that Truth in only
the
of
the
class
Event
of which
out
so
while
Truth far
as
of
to
struggle.
...
it
emerged.
the
Event,
it is the
has
simulacrum
gaze
no
proper
Leninist
is
The in
place
As for
this
as
the
the
simula-
a
difference
its
of the
of
October
struggle’
movement
itself, but
it
it is attached
the
‘class
the
Nazi
in
of which
that
the
reason,
the
distinction out
situation;
symptomatic element it belongs to it, while
of its situation,
qualities
‘situation’
of the
For this symptom. Event, since it relates
of the
inherent
the
to
although
the
torsion
of the
the
to
this
for
criterion
precise
a
conditions,
out
emerges
disavows
symptomatic
its
to
surnuméraire.
Event
an
provides
relates
Event
true
a
place
the
none an
—
lies in
the
external
to gaze is able individuals who
already engaged on its behalf: there is no neutral enlightened public is discernible opinion to be impressed by the Event, since Truth only for the potential members of the new of for their ‘believers’, Community engaged gaze. In this way, we can and engagement: paradoxically retain both distance are
THE
in the
of
case
the
‘after Event.
of
into
the
There
of
the
Lacanese, establishes
entire
the
when
a
difference
TRUTH
141
(Crucifixion) to
between with
the
the
becomes
constitution
held
together Event
an
Real
(Christ’s
a
of
Truth-Event the
group
of
by fidelity to and its naming:
the an
death; the historic
etc.), while its naming is the inscription of the Event language (Christian doctrine, revolutionary consciousness). In
revolution; an
Event
what
is
objet petit
Rimbaud on
Decision
a,
while
the
New
is the
signifier that readability of the (in the Marxist revolutionary perspective, the a of class history struggle, of defeated
calls
Truth this
Event it leads
encounter
prior history becomes emancipatory striving).
From
OF
engaged Community
traumatic
based
situation
is,
is thus
is the
shock
that
fact’,
believers, Event
Christianity,
POLITICS
and
naming
Order,
the
new
new
Ideology
brief of what description one can already get a presentiment of Badiou’s tempted to call, in all naivety, the intuitive power notion of the subject: it effectively describes the experience each of us has when he or she is subjectively fully engaged in some Cause which is ‘his or her own’: in those I not am precious moments, ‘fully a subject’? But does not this very feature make it ideologicaP That is to say, the first thing that strikes the eye of anyone who is versed in the history of French Marxism is how Badiou’s notion of the Truth-Event is uncannily close to Althusser’s notion of ideological is it not interpellation. Furthermore, ultimate significant that Badiou’s example of the Event is religion (Christiof ideology, and that this anity from St Paul to Pascal) as the prototype he event, precisely, does not fit any of the four génériques of the event enumerates (love, art, science, politics)?!” of Being, So, perhaps, if we take Badiou’s thought itself as a ‘situation’ subdivided into four génériques, (Christian) religion itself is his ‘symptomal that belongs to the domain of Truth without torsion’, the element being one of its acknowledged parts or subspecies? This seems that to indicate the Truth-Event consists in the elementary ideological gesture of interpelof Being) into lating individuals (parts of a ‘situation’ subjects (bearers/ followers of Truth). the One is tempted to a go even step further: of the Truth-Event is not in paradigmatic example general only religion arrival on the Event of Christ's but, specifically, Christian religion centred inverts and death had out, (as Kierkegaard Christianity already pointed the standard Eternity and Time: in a metaphysical relationship between one
is
THE
142
way, Eternity itself hinges can also be read as Badiou Catholic that
recall
in
a
as
great author
Pascal
liberal
among secularized
line
Paul
the
as
social
one
into
and
class...) here
course, can
form
Badiou
the
order
who
into
Badiou’s
the
fable
Truth-Event
miracle
of
—
Today,
traumatic
Real
knowledge, tions
the
—
the
political love.
That
that
the
within
as
accept
they of
act,
artistic
the
the
does
horizon
at
is irreducible
Truth-Event,
as
a
its borders
Event
today
invention,
the
are
the
Christ's
the
Truth-
regression be
cannot
intrusion
symbolic compatible and question
universe
of
and
the
as
designate the the predomilaughter with
of
predominant
in
place move
the
‘sites’
of Science
event
shatters
take if
even
with which
can
which
occurrences
the
since one
of St
Christ's
Resurrection
Truth-Event
the
from
which,
the
of
Although
something
undone.
a
dismissed
defence
passionate
Christian
of
obscurantism,
was
Engels
Knowledge, appears impossible (think of the the which Greek philosophers greeted St Paul’s assertion Resurrection on his visit to Athens), of today, any location at Event the icvel of supernatural miracles entails necessarily nant
the
years
Christianity
Russell,
only
that interpelsingular’ (a singular event of their race, sex, subjects universally, irrespectively the of the followers’ conditions to Of it."" fidelity is well aware that today, in our era of modern science,
Truth-Event. of
occurrence
by the
For
Claudel).
of
need
(we
religious ideology, Badiou, to Fredric Jameson),
later
the
perhaps
tradition
‘universal
longer accept
no
of
the
as
—
individuals
French
Messianic
Bertrand
So
Christ). on
and
and
of Messianic
from
articulated
who
one
Resurrection lates
Pascal
like
(following this homology. fully endorses This reading is further confirmed a
of
in the
Malebranche
and
critics
version
contrast
Event
temporal
last
the
are key references revolutionary Marxism
topic
Marxism
SUBJECT
of his
two
between
common
the
on
from
dogmaticists
parallel
TICKLISH
of the
texture, only with scientific
its presupposidiscovery itself,
scientific
confrontation
psychoanalytic
...
is
the
endeavours
problem to
with
resuscitate
Graham the
Greene’s
Christian
drama version
The of
Potting Shed, shattering
the
impact of the impossible Real: the life of the family of a great positivist effort his whole to philosopher who dedicated fighting religious superstitions is thoroughly shattered an his son, the object unexpected miracle: by of the philosopher's is ill and love, greatest mortally already proclaimed dead of what, when, miraculously, he is brought back to life by means be anything but a direct of Divine intervention Grace. evidently, cannot The story is told in retrospect from the standpoint of a family friend who, after the philosopher’s his biography and is puzzled by an death, writes
THE
POLITICS
OF
TRUTH
143
enigma in the latter’s life: why, a couple of years before his death, did the philosopher suddenly stop writing; why did he lose his will to live, as if his life was suddenly deprived of meaning, and enter a period of resignation, passively awaiting his death? Interviewing the surviving family members, he soon is a dark discovers that there to talk family secret nobody wants one of the breaks down and confesses about, until, finally, to him family that the shattering secret is the miraculous resuscitation of the philoswhich rendered his entire theoretical work, his lifelong opher’s son, as it such a is, engagement, meaningless. Intriguing story cannot us effectively engage today. tackles the problem of locating his Apropos of St Paul, Badiou position with regard to the four that effective truths génériques (science, generate that is, with regard to the fact that (today, at least) politics, art, love) event of Resurrection, cannot be counted Christianity, based on a fabulous as an cffective but merely as its semblance. His proposed Truth-Event, solution is that St Paul is the anti-philosophical theoretician of the formal conditions of the ftruth-procedure, what he provides is the first detailed of how articulation in its universal fidelity to a Truth-Event operates ...
—
the
dimension: that
tion’) the
of
who
constituents
universal
scope,
message formulates
is
on
its
biens,
the
cannot
in
its
the
call,
with
disseminate,
mode
operative
for
enters
one
smooth
of
every
another
to
that
is,
this
Truth
in
its
Paul’s
particular
do
to
a possess leads
of
Love
service
mere
Being,
he
which
every Truth-Event it and a labour of
subjects
Love’,
religion
domain
terms
of
in
irreducible
in the
the
the
terms
very
Truth-Event:
in
in
motion,
Christian
(‘Resurrec-
for
‘work
the
dimension
of affairs
Truth-Event
fidelity, although St
through fidelity
—
running
militant
us,
the
in
sets
So
concerning everyone. longer opcrative for
a
accounted
persistent
as
no
behalf, to
the
of
be
(ie. given situation)
as relevant scope of ‘Resurrection,’
kind
a
Grace
themselves
the
universal to
of
recognize struggle to
the
by
emerges
Real
surnuméraire
excessive,
the
des
domain
of
None the less, the Immortality, of Life unencumbered by death.... of how it for remains was the first and still most problem possible of the mode of of the to a Truthoperation pertinent description fidelity
Event
to
actual
Truth.
From
the
occur
a
fact
of
a
Truth-Event
that
that
is
a
mere
semblance,
not
an
deep necessity in this, confirmed century philosopher who provided the definitive an authentic political act (Heidegger in Being and Time) was political act that was undoubtedly a fake, not an actual
Hegelian standpoint
by description of seduced by a Truth-Event
apropos
in
(Nazism).
there
is
a
the
our
So
it
is
as
if, if
one
is
to
express
the
formal
of
structure
is
that
Event
at
its most
an
actual
an
than
to
within
‘rabble’
(the
the
Badiou
calls
as
What
if
Truth-Event
it
of apropos of all this
lesson the
an
is
Truth-Event
of precise sense ask for good reasons by any ‘argumentation’?
line
of argument:
that
has
Badiou
what
if the
true
unconditional and
here
dealing
are
we —
in the
situation
is,
as
or
with
fidelity of
Faith, for
which,
defines
on
that
‘generic’
very the
reference
to particular properties, the classify ‘generic’ multiple subspecies: but is not in it as its subspecies situation, properly included in Hegel’s philosophy of law, for example). A multiple a
such.
it
to
us
of the element/part is generic precisely situation
to?
of the
refuted
enable
the
to
it refers
not
main
our
would
belongs
does
be
cannot
So, back
multiple
do
to
Perhaps
if what
what
has
one
semblance.
it appears:
which
attitude
which
Truth-Event,
own
key component is ‘dogmatic’
Event
reason,
its
Truth-Event
of the
inherent the
the
to
SUBJECT
of decision, act not radical, a purely formal only not based truth, but ultimately indifferent to the precise status (actual
fictitious) to
fidelity merely
radical
more
an
TICKLISH
THE
144
situation
no
as
which
in
so
It
subverts
far
as
its
does
fit into
not
it
it, which
sticks
out,
being of the embodying its classification of generic love), does not religious
directly gives body the situation by directly to
the
own universality. And, with regard to Badiou’s procedures in four species (politics, art, science, of them, ideology occupy precisely this generic place? It is none yet precisely as such it gives body to the generic as such.!? Is not this identity of the Truth-Event and ideology further confirmed by futur antérieur as the specific temporality of generic procedures? Starting from the naming of the Event (Christ’s death, Revolution), generic for its signs in the multitude with a view to the final procedure searches or, goal that will bring full plenitude (the Last Judgement, Communism, in Mallarmé, é Livre). Generic procedures thus involve a temporal loop: them to judge the historic fidelity to the Event enables multiple from the of to but the arrival of this come, standpoint plenitude plenitude already involves the subjective act of Decision in Pascalian, the ‘wager’ on it. or, —
thus
close
what
Are
we
the
democratic-egalitarian
Laclau describes as hegemony? Let us take to the Democratic political Event: reference Revolution enables us to read history as a continuous democratic struggle situation is experienced as aiming at total emancipation; the present fundamentally ‘dislocated’, ‘out of joint’ (the corruption of the ancien not
régime, class society, redeemed
antagonism, Truth.
future.
split
to
fallen For
between
terrestrial the
life) with
language-subject, the
corrupt
‘state
of
the promise of always a time things’ and the promise
regard ‘now’
to
is
a
of
of
THE
So, again, is
not
POLITICS
Badiou’s
OF
notion
of
the
TRUTH
145
Truth-Event
uncannily close to (ideological) interpellation? Isn't the process Badiou is describing that of an individual interpellated into a subject by a Cause? in order to describe the formal structure of fidelity to the (Significantly, he uses the same as Althusser in his Truth-Event, example description of the process of interpellation.) Is not the circular relationship between the Event and the subject (the subject serves the Event in his fidelity, but the Event itself is visible as such only to an already engaged subject) the very circle of ideology? Prior to the notion of the constraining subject to to Althusser ideology identifying the subject as such as ideological entertained for a short time the idea of the four modalities of subjectivity: the ideological subject, the subject in art, the subject of the Unconscious, the subject of science. Is there not a clear Badiou’s four parallel between
Althusser's
notion
of
—
—
of generics of truth (love, art, science, politics) and these four modalities subjectivity (where love corresponds to the subject of the Unconscious, the to the topic of psychoanalysis, and politics, of course, subject of ideology)? The paradox is thus that Badiou’s opposition of knowledge and truth seems 10 turn Althusser’s exactly around opposition of ideology and science: ‘non-authentic’ to the knowledge is limited positive order of to its structural while the void, to its symptomal torsion; Being, blind Truth that authentic into a engaged subjectivizes provides insight
situation.
St Paul
According Christianity When
he
to
a
deep
is also
Badiou
crucial
adamantly the
opposes
albeit
—
with
unexpected Badiou’s
for
the
opposes
Truth-Event
Badiou
to
the
—
logic,
confrontation
‘morbid death
the with
obsession
drive,
and
topic of Pauline psychoanalysis.
with so
on,
death’, he
when
is at
his
succumbing to the temptation of the non-thought. It is symptomatic that Badiou is compelled to identify the liberal-democratic service des biens, the smooth of in the of where ‘nothing running things positivity Being obsession with death’. actually happens’, with the ‘morbid Although one can of truth in this equation (mere service des biens, easily see the element as of the dimension of far from Truth, deprived being able to function not bothered ‘eternal’ life, ‘healthy’ everyday by questions, necessarily into nihilistic as Christians would regresses morbidity put it, there is true later or Life only in Christ, and life outside sooner the Event of Christ
weakest,
—
turns
into
its
opposite,
a
morbid
decadence;
when
we
dedicate
our
life
to
TICKLISH
THE
146 excessive
none
between
the two
able
to
up ‘this’
to
the
two
deaths,
point
is
worthy
between
that
sooner
are
life
the of
life
the
to
and
of
the
of the
from
spoiled),
space in order has
one
domain
one
distance
or
terms,
Eternity,
true
detailed
more
Badiou
the
Christian
enter
domain
later
or
calls
Lacan
what
on
put it in Badiou’s
to
oneself
pleasures
very here
insist
deaths:
open attachment
This
less
the
should
one’s
these
pleasures,
SUBJECT
ate, the
of
be
to
suspend
to
domain
‘undead’. it condenses
since
examination, and
Lacan
psychoanalysis in general. opposition of two deaths (and when St Paul Life and Death two Lives): opposes (Spirit is Life, while Flesh brings Death), this opposition of Life and Death has nothing to do death as with the biological opposition of life and parts of the cycle of or with the standard and Platonic corruption, generation opposition of Soul and Body: for St Paul, ‘Life’ and ‘Death’, Spirit and Flesh, designate life. So when two two St Paul speaks ways to live one’s subjective stances, the
gap
Death
of has
separates
and
nothing
do
of
which
into
lite
God
Grace
of
Badiou
is
in
Death,
the
our
sins.
leads
Life
men
the
as
to man
is that finite
Truth-Event
mortal and
sense
of
the
to
Death
there
price death
eternal
Life
is
this
use
suffering the
on
Truth
is
being.
The
of
us
domain
can
of
dialectics
the
in of
Cross
something message the
fate
of
accessible
something
cach
no
the
(to
(to suffer
is
the
provides
interconnected the
this
—
specific interpreResurrection: they
a
and
Christ’s
beings: enter
openly anti-Hegelian:
attitudes’
every human and to die
Eternal
Christ
in
but, rather,
dialectically by paying
Badiou, man’, that
became
resurrect
Life
Badiou
For
became
to
death
dissociates
even
eternal
had to
all
not
to
eternal
‘existential
life, accessible
human
to
are
the
and
fundamental
‘God
in order
humanity, the
from
that
that
fact
access us
to
flesh)
they
gaining
redeems
immanent
Here
rising
biological
two
same,
simply signals
by
of
anachronistically). This Christianity which radically
the
not
sense
to
—
the
aware
term
of
tation
all
with
the
of
modern
of the
well
Resurrection to
co-ordinates
are
is also
of course,
Badiou,
be touched Eternal of
Life
Life.
and
of Resurrection
Truth-Event
emerging as the are fully ready to ‘tarry suffering at its most
negativity into positivity when we our mortality and negative’, to assume is simply a radically New Beginning; it designates radical. The Truth-Event intrusion and contingent of another the violent, traumatic dimension not terrestrial finitude the domain of ‘mediated’ and by corruption. One must thus avoid the pitfalls of the morbid masochist morality that as this remains within inherently redeeming: perceives suffering morality from us the confines of the Law (which demands for the admission a price
magic with
to
reversal
of
the
Eternal
Life), and
is thus
not
yet
at
the
level
of
the
properly
Christian
THE
notion
of Love.
Event,
it
As Badiou
simply identity of
the
Immortal is
signalling
only
the
that
each
Man
the
-—
to
TRUTH
fact
the
being
that
is
that
the
finite
be
in itself
not
by asserting
infinite
dimension
of
what
mortal;
ultimately (i.e. human-mortal) Christ,
redeemed
and
can
the
enter
Truth-Event.
in the
is, participate
the Truth-
(Resurrection)
dead
can
147
death Event
human
a
of
human
Life,
the
for
Resurrection
of Eternal
domain
site
accessible
is also
OF
puts it, Christ’s the
prepares God and
Truth
matters
POLITICS
Christianity: the positivity of Being, the of finitude regulated by its Laws, which is the domain of the of the and the cosmos, standpoint mortality (from totality of determined we are our by merely particular beings positive Being, specific the Law is ultimately another name for the place in the global order his or to each of us which allocates her Order of cosmic Justice, proper the dimension of dimension, place), is not ‘all there is’; there is another to all of us True Life in Love, accessible through Divine Grace, so that we Revelation is thus an example (although in it. Christian can all participate to beings, are not constrained probably the example) of how we, human time to the positivity of Being; of how, from time, in a contingent and can occur that the up to us opens unpredictable way, a Truth-Event Life in Another faithful to the of by remaining possibility participating Therein
Order
the
lies
of the
of
message
cosmos
—
Truth-Event. around
The
thing
interesting
standard
the
to
Law
Badiou
how
is
note
the
of
here
and
universal
turns
Grace
(or opposition particular, the idea that we are all subjected to the universal of us are touched Divine Law, whereas by Grace, and can thus only some of St on the contrary, it is Law in Badiou’s be redeemed: Paul, reading it may is ultimately itself ‘universal’ as which, ‘particularist’ (a appear, legal order always imposes specific duties and rights on us, it is always a of excluding the Law defining a specific community at the expense while Divine Grace is truly members of other ethnic, etc., communities), that is, non-exclusive, universal, independently of addressing all humans
charisma)
their We
as
race,
also
have in
we
to
of touch
and
status,
the
lives,
the
Truth-Event the
the Life
‘way and
the
of
biological
of
all
Death
as
death How
the
two
Badiou’s the
Badiou, of Law
does
not
life
Resurrection.
flesh’.
of
crux
psychoanalysis: the opposition overlaps the temptations of the flesh with
on.
biological
for
concerns
so
finite
two
deaths:
two
succumbing opposition Here
social
sex,
thus
participating are
as
and
and
the
infinite
Death
does
St Paul
the
in
existential
argument,
which
opposition
simply
For mean
of
St Paul,
of
sense
this
determine
subjective,
Love.
there
Correspondingly, and
of
Life
attitudes? also
Death
directly and
Life
succumbing
indulging
in unbridled
to
148
THE
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
(the search for pleasures, power, wealth .) irrespecmoral (of prohibitions). On the contrary, his central tenet, in what is probably the (deservedly) most famous passage in
terrestrial
conquests
tive of the
Law
elaborated
.
.
7, in the Epistle to the Romans, is that there writings, Chapter 7, verse Sin prior to or independent of the Law: what comes before it is a innocent lost to life forever us mortal human simple prelapsarian beings. we live in, our ‘way of all flesh’, is the universe The universe in which Sin and Law, desire and its prohibition, are intertwined: it is the inextricably of act Prohibition that rise to the desire for its very gives transgression, that is, fixes our desire on the prohibited object: his
is
no
then
What been
for
is to
covet
should the
if the
in
opportunity Apart from the
the
the
promised
commandment,
it is
my if
Now
dwells
lies
be
to
I that
do
in
to
I do
not
do
not
what
of
I want,
but
the
when
commandment
an
opportunity
me....
I
I do
law is
it an
covetousness.
law, but
very
killed
not
what
sin, seizing
the
seizing
it
that
I agree
kinds
the
sin,
known
But
from
and
through
want,
all
apart
For
me.
and
have
not
covet.’
me
I died,
Yet, if it had
means!
no
not
alive
once
death
For
I do
shall
and
me
actions.
within
was
revived
deceived
By
I would
produces I
dead.
proved
do what
I
‘You
said,
sin
is sin?
known sin,
commandment,
own
longer
no
good do
life
law
the have
not
came,
that
That
not
had
law sin
the
understand
the
in
do
not
very thing But in fact
good.
it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot
me,
it.!*
This
of
passage, of the
part needs
the
order
it in
St Paul
fires
But
if
is
This
abounds
why
‘Let
a
redeem stumbled
say
good do
us
definition God
not
that
so
of
closet us
inflict his
some
so
short
wrath
with its
generates
the
whole
is how
to
in
the us?
on
of
justice But
...
I still us
should
we
say)
say?
we
through my falsehood as being condemned that
it
3: 5-8,
if
by saying
the
since
Romans
what
God,
this
of
avoid
wansgression,
For
glory, why am people slander
that
good
circuit
who
pervert His
all
in
context:
struggles
Law.
as
of
flesh’) because
may the
or
God
[from it]’ is the
come
perverse about our
brings
sacrifice, through so as to fall’, that is, did
‘way of
its
God’s a
sinner?
‘Let
us
do
may come’?
evil
the
to
(as
that
confirm
to
serves
to
in
seen
St Paul
example, desperate questions:
of
barrage
injustice unjust
our
truthfulness And
a
itself
assert
to
off
God
That
evil
be
must
course,
Epistle, problem perversion, that is, of a Law
trap of
the
law
commandment
I hate.
say?
we
law, I would
—
we
to
quote
stumble needed
our
position. fall
so
that
11: 11
(become
involved
as
part
this
He
Romans Fall
succinct
most
Does
—
make
may ‘have in
of His
then
they
Sin, in
plan
of
THE
ultimate
‘Should
abound?’ in
If this
Redemption?
question Sin
that
entire
6:
is
God
break
to
is how
to
play
in
it is
only
then
the
order
as
part
vicious
149
are,
sin
His
of this
out
TRUTH
things to
is affirmative:
1)
enable
we
effort
OF
continue
we
(Romans
POLITICS
answer
that
and
precisely by
our
Saviour.
the
may
indulging
But
in which
cycle
the
to
grace
St Paul’s
prohibitive
its transgression and support each other. generate statement that Philosophical Notebooks, Lenin made the well-known who aims at really understanding Marx’s everyone Capital should read the He then whole of Hegel’s Logic in detail. did it himself, supplementing of ‘sics’ and like: quotes from Hegel with hundreds marginal comments ‘The first part of this sentence an contains dialectical ingenious insight; the second A task awaiting true Lacanian part is theological rubbish! Law
and
In his
dialectical
materialists
is to
who text
for
volume
Lacanian
a
same
with
gesture
of Romans
and
Corinthians
detail:
in
Theological Notebooks, with
of ‘sie’ and comments by hundreds provides the deepest insight into "4 just theological rubbish!’ So, back to the long quote
like:
‘The
Paul, since, Ecrits should
accompanied this
of
part
while
wait
cannot
one
quotes
first
ethics,
Lacanian
St
Lacan’s
really understanding
at
of
the
repeat
aims
again, everyone read the entire
the
sentence
second
is
part
..
of
intervention
morbid
the
between
confusion obedience
(conscious)
to
the
transgress
life the
the
by
gression generated who
is thus
Law
I
death: and
the the
result
direct
subject subject is
and
divided
desire
(unconscious) It is
the
for
itself,
a
between its
I, the
not
‘Sin’
of
introduces
trans-
subject,
the
sinful
I even hate. recognize myself, and which Because of this split, my (conscious) Self is ultimately experienced as of affirmation ‘dead’, as deprived of living impetus; while ‘life’, ecstatic living energy, can appear only in the guise of ‘Sin’, of a transgression that sense of guilt. My actual gives rise to a morbid life-impulse, my desire, as a to me that persists in following its path appears foreign automatism St Paul’s Will and intentions. problem is independently of my conscious in
impulses
thus
the
not
impulses, opposite: of
the
how
finally can
as
a
foreign
would
to
its
in
the
automatism,
of this
out
and
it be
moralistic
one
of
purify myself
I break
Prohibition
How
not
morbid
standard
how
living passions only drive?
do
and Law
the
Romans: it divides
legal prohibition itself. it is non-subjectivized
Law,
which
from
that
transgression, guise of their
possible as
vicious
a
for
blind
me
(how sinful
cycle within
crush
to
of
the
which
transgressive its
but
urges),
Law I
can
and assert
morbid
exact
desire, my death
opposite, experience my lifeimpulse ‘compulsion to repeat’ making to
as
a
not me
150
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
unacknowledged complicity of the Law itself, but as a fully subjectivized, positive ‘Yes!’ to my Life? seem St Paul and Badiou Here fully to endorse Hegel’s point that there that for the is Evil only perceives something as Evil: it is the Law itself gaze the domain of Sin, of sinful to that not only opens up and sustains urges finds a and morbid but also satisfaction in it, perverse transgress making it. The ultimate result of the rule of the Law thus us feel guilty about twists and paradoxes of the superego: of all the well-known I can consists about which if feel means in self-reflexive it, that, guilty enjoy only I a I can take find turn, pleasure in feeling guilty; I can enjoyment in and for sinful so on. So when Badiou thoughts; punishing myself speaks of
the
the
Law, with
the
transgress
‘morbid
of
fascination
the
death
and
drive’,
but
he
forth,
so
is
not
‘Pauline’
general platitudes, referring very precise he uses: the entire psychoanalytic notions complex entanof Law and desire not illicit sinful desires that go against only the in which the Law, but this morbid intertwining of life and death letter of the Law perverts ‘dead’ of life itself, changing it my enjoyment into a fascination with death; this perverted universe in which the ascetic who on behalf of the Law enjoys more flagellates himself intensely than the person who takes innocent is what St pleasure in earthly delights Paul of as ‘the the Flesh’ as way designates opposed to ‘the way of the Spirit’: ‘Flesh’ is not flesh as opposed to the Law, but flesh as an excessive fascination selftorturing, mortifying morbid begotten by the Law (sec Romans 5: 20: ‘law came that the trespass in, with the result multiplied’). As Badiou emphasizes, here St Paul is unexpectedly close to his great detractor the Nietzsche, whose problem was also how to break away from vicious denial of Life: for him the cycle of the self-mortifying morbid Christian ‘way of the Spirit’ is precisely the magic break, the New us from this debilitating morbid deadlock and Beginning that delivers resorting reading glement
to
to
a
of the
—
—
enables Law
himself
thing
to
us
and
open
ourselves
guilt
the
Law
in
advance
the
has
answered
the
to
induces).
Dostoevsky’s
is
for
Eternal
infamous
believer,
the
prohibitions precisely in which to
the
fact
(which
that
he then
does
not
do
the
without
Love it
there
is
precisely since
believer is certain
—
that
is
St
(i.e. Paul
no God, everythere is the God of
is
suspended. things
Sin if
as
to
say,
For is
desire
a
based
the
Law
Christian not
on
generate transgressive indulge attitude of Love, things) but in the positive, affirmative meaningless the accomplishment of acts which bear witness I am not force: free, but still dominated by an external
these
renders fact
that
of
words, ‘If
St Paul,
permitted!’ Love, everything is permitted to the Christian which acts regulates and prohibits certain —
Life
other
In
to
THE
*“All
things lawful
are
7: 12
things
prohibited transgression marriage’: Do
Thus
husband
her
husband
she
marries In
same
sinful
our
fruit
for
held
us
become
the
law’,
death.
a
that
which
we
On
the
his
conscious
have
conscious
prohibition Law
and
the
its
its
from
died
have
fruit
for
the
law,
which,
while
man
the
the
law
through
has
been
While
were
at
we
work
from
embrace
law, and
if
in
dead
to
of
body from the
members
our
law.
the
raised
living
were
in
the
Love,
of
the
flesh, bear
to
that
which
adheres ‘do
to
this its
New
On
entire
to
the
should
subject
the
letter
of
not
of the
the
‘automatically’, against what the
‘die
to
the
passions, by undergo the second, symbolic big Other, the symbolic Law lives. So the crucial point is
to
of
division
thus
aroused
suspension of the regulated our of the subject’ which the
should
one
‘sinful
has
one
operating
between
transgression.
another from
who
God.
cycle
put it,
jouzssance.
a
with
is free
to
him
to
discharged
and
which
illicit
lives
adulteress.
an
vicious
have
we
marks
if she
and
generating
which
and
7: 1-6)
will, compels him in
Law
am
dies, she
another,
are
we
‘divisions
Ego,
division
of Love
now
the
fio
not
you
by
Christian
true
hand,
indulge
radical
But
desire
is
‘Nothing
as
the
of
things
Corinthians
provoking ‘analogy
very
I
adulteress
to
bear
may aroused
involves
one
decentred
and
we
is
belong
may
—
husband
friends,
dominated
that
a
for
also
universe
“All
a
an
she
up have would
hitherto
translated
the in
sisters
if her
But
break
As Lacan
death,
be called
my
passions,
to
is often
with
on
captive. (Romans
To
law’.
you that
in order
and
man,
way,
that
so
dead
will
is alive.
another
the
Christ,
me’
law is
she
Accordingly,
things are beneficial. by anything.’ (I
for
articulated
151
speaking to those who know only during that person’s lifetime? binding person woman is bound as by the law to her husband long as he lives; dies, she is discharged from the law concerning the husband.
the
married
a
all
not
be dominated
rupture
clearly
most
TRUTH
not
lawful This
know, brothers
that
—
if her
but
is
OF
me”, but
I will
are
me’!)
to
not
you law
the
for
for me”, but
‘All
—
lawful
are
POLITICS
he
be confused. Law
Law, the
between and
his
subject's
the Law hates’, to transgress hand, we have the more of the of the Law/desire,
other
domain
transgression, and the properly Christian Beginning, breaking out of the deadlock
way of
TICKLISH
THE
152
Between the
SUBJECT
the
Deaths
Two
‘divided
Lacanian
subject’ adopt towards these two is simple and may appear straightforward: is the that theory conceptualizes, brings into daylight, the psychoanalysis of the first division. Is not Badiou’s description of paradoxical structure of Law and desire full of implicit (sometimes the intertwining even expreferences to and of Lacan? Is domain not the ultimate licit) paraphrases between the symbolic Law and desire? of psychoanalysis the connection Is
What
does
stance
multitude
the
not
that
It
divisions?
of
division
the
relationship
Lacan's
the
ironic
psychoanalysis while
mode least
at
—
between
and
which the
same
and
Law
Is the
Law
of the
Law.
said:
‘Thou
kinds
of
Thing
the In
my
is
dead.
it
from
not
I would
it.’ But
for
me,
to
Yet I
have
the
had
the
his
in
the
and
guilt, figure of morbid
the
for
psychoaof
this
intermingling the prohibitory
Lacan
the
best
way
himself
also
of
link
elaboration the
of
Christian
confines
Perhaps
as
Thing
only
can
finds
commandment, the
Law,
flared
commandment
know
idea
the
Thing
the
without the
point
that
the
the
break
to
the
fact
ethics)?
the
impossible object its wansgression.
as
full:
not.
not
covet
even
the in
Paul
Sadeian assertion
Law
to
crucial
Thing prohibitory Law,
referring
thanks But
St to
confir-
the
founding
perverse dialectics of
the
subject’s
conceives
with
began
transgression?
with
the
radical
Foucault
the
Lacanian
ultimate
most
within of
the
its
start
to
only via quoted
appeared, And
for
Thing? Certainly effect,
shalt
is
death.
be
covetousness
commandment
that
the
death,
characterizes
desire
desire,
should
passage
that
remain
with
passage
joutssance accessible
This
link
which
history (Kantian
is
.) However,
..
psychoanalysis
question
the
on
between
here
the
not
the
of
human
in
the
directly posits
‘truth’
the
in
obsession
Death
this
chain
desire.
does
generates
answer
focuses
of
is:
and
that
final
is
Sade’, which
avec
in
not
precisely
concerns
Furthermore,
sexuality, irreducibly linking in Badiou’s St Paul, the reading the exact opposite: he endeavours
masochistic
Life
to
that
form Is
of
Law
here
‘morbid’
Law
Law?
very
—
does
Christianity,
nalysis
the
as
confessional
of
division
‘Kant
the
realized?
is
perversion as the weight of symbolic Law point not to be missed
moral
(The
link
desire
of morbid
universe
of
subject the symbolic
answer
satisfactions
perverse Law and
the
to
of this
mation
of
between
connection
the
I
was
to a
of the
Thing by
it if the
covet
way by producing for without the
in
alive.
when
once
up, returned that was
once
supposed
But
again, to
means
hadn't
Law
me
and
lead
all
the
Law
the I met to
life
THE
turned
out
lead
to
commandment it is
death,
to
seduced
I believe
that
that
for
POLITICS
me;
little
while
now
have
been
longer namely, “Thing’ for ‘sin’, between
relations
The than
the
causes
an
—
came
found to
way and death.
a
desire
thanks
to
the
of you at least have begun to suspect speaking. In fact, with one small
speech sin
between
does
desire
crucial
it
terms.
the
The
...
desire
our
excessive,
analysis The
in these
the
it becomes on
the
Thing it I
153
some
is the
law and
relationship
defined Law
the
this
TRUTH
in the
of Saint
change,
Paul
Epistle
on
the
to
the
subject of the Romans, Chapter 7,
7.
paragraph ...
the
through
I who
a
no
for
OF
to
for
flare
death.
up It is
hyperbolic character. leave us clinging to
Thing
and
dialectical
only only
Law
in relation
because
Freud’s that
the
could
relationship the
to
of the
discovery
better
desire
and
Law, through which
Law —
be
not
between
the
that ethics
sin
takes
...
of
psycho-
dialectic!
that, for phrase, which clearly indicates the to das discovering relationship Ding somewhere the whole beyond the Law’!® point of the ethics of psychoanalysis is to formulate the possibility of a relationship the pitfalls of that avoids the superego for the ‘morbid’ inculpation that accounts enjoyment of sin, while simultaneously avoiding what Kant called Schwéirmerei, the obscurantist claim to give voice to (and thus to legitimize one’s position by a reference a direct to) a spiritual illumination, insight into the impossible Real Thing. When his maxim Lacan formulates of psychoanalytic ethics, ‘ne pas céder sur that ‘don’t son désir, is, compromise, don’t give way on the here is no desire involved desire’, your longer the transgressive desire the and thus in a ‘morbid’ involved generated by prohibitory Law, dialectic with it is fidelity to one’s is the Law; rather, desire itself that elevated to the level of ethical so that ‘ne désir is céder sur son duty, pas another of ‘Do ultimately duty!’!” way saying your It would therefore be tempting to risk a Badiouian—Pauline reading of it as a New Beginning, a symbolic the end of psychoanalysis, determining ‘rebirth’ the radical of the analysand’s subjectivity in such restructuring the vicious a is suspended, left behind. way that cycle of the superego Does not Lacan of hints that the end of analysis himself provide a number to of Lave beyond Law, using the very Pauline terms opens up the domain Lacan,
there
thing
here
is ‘a way
is the
last
of
—
—
which
Badiou
refers?
Nevertheless,
Lacan’s
way
is
Badiou:
not
that
of
St
Paul
or
psychoanalysis is not ‘psychosynthesis’; it does not already posi a ‘new harmony’, a new it as it were Truth-Event; merely wipes the slate clean for one. this should be However, ‘merely’ put in quotation marks, because it is Lacan’s in this contention that, negative gesture of ‘wiping is already which the slate is confronted clean’, something (a void) —
-
154
TICKLISH
THE
with
identification
(im) possibility ground, opens undermines
this
For
it.
and
identification
it, but
for
space
up
negativity,
that
—
condition
of Death:
favour
the
of
say, it
is to
the
lays by it and
the
balance
‘Death’
what
a
of enthusi-
simultaneously obfuscated Lacan implicitly changes in
is not
Lacan,
is
reason,
Resurrection
radical
For
precedes any positive gesture the as negativity functions
Cause:
a
Truth-Event.
new
enthusiastic
of the
Death
between
a
withdrawal,
of
negative gesture astic
of
arrival
the
with
‘sutured’
SUBJECT
stands
the passing the absolute contraction of ‘night of the world’, the self-withdrawal, subjectivity, the severing of its links with ‘reality’ this is the ‘wiping the slate clean’ that opens of the symbolic New Beginning, of up the domain of the “New the emergence Harmony’ sustained by a newly emerged Master-Signifier. with St Paul and Badiou: God not Here, Lacan parts company only is but always-already was dead that is to say, after one cannot Freud, a directly have faith in a Truth-Event; every such Event ultimately remains a semblance Void whose Freudian is name death obfuscating preceding for
its
at
most
merely
of
earthly life, but
—
—
drive.
differs
Lacan
So
the
Being, beyond the
however, in
the
the
morbid
symbolic is what
Freudian
Law.
For
he calls
the
domain
of monstrous
yet not Truth,
in
‘undead’ This
but
the in
Lacan,
the
domain
of
and
its
the
death
the
and
drive
caused domain
uncanny “between
the
the
sense
of
of
what
the
Lacan
two
the
is the
by beyond deaths’, domain
immortality calls
the
desire. be
lamella,
not
super-
For
Lacan,
accounted the
the
for of
outcome
intervention
of the of
Order
Being pre-ontological
the
that of
exact
say: like of Order
‘morbid’
the
cannot
drive’
is to
beyond
beyond transgressive
‘death
Death
sense
a
the
of
That
Law.
domain
of
spectral apparitions,
Badiouian
determination the
des biens,
Law
of Life
of
service
connection:
confusion
the
rule
contours
of
topic
of this
terms
in
the
the
politics between
connection
ego
Badiou
beyond
delineates
Badiou
Lacan,
from
domain
this
of
status
is ‘immortal’,
participating
of
the
in
monstrous
object-libido."* in
domain,
plary casc) fulfilled, is
which
finds for
himself
Lacan
the
Oedipus after
the
(or King Lear, to his Fall, when
domain
the
take
another
exem-
symbolic destiny Law’.
That
is
is
proper ‘beyond say: on Oedipus myth, the early Lacan already focuses what the usual version of the ‘Oedipus complex’ leaves out: the first figure of what is ‘beyond Oedipus’, which is Oedipus himself after he has fulfilled his destiny to the bitter end, the horrifying figure of Oedipus at Colonnus, this embittered old man with his thoroughly uncompromising attitude, around him.... Does not this figure of Oedipus at cursing everyone in
his
reading
of
the
to
THE
Colonnus
confront
with
us
by jouissance, concealed gressed the Prohibition impossibility? To illustrate it to
compares the
via
TO
—1SAY
is
no
a
name,
YOU
inherent
the
he
the
not
the
and
horrible
sleep
who
one
trans-
DEAD!’ When
he
waken
is awakened,
‘For
God’s
me!
quick!
Mr Valdemar:
which
disgusting liquefaction, something for apparition, pure, simple, brutal,
story,
reawakened,
experiment: -
this Lacan
famous
then
quick!
or,
—
of
impossibility
in Poe’s
death
to
put
to
me
Valdemar
Mr
is
observe
put
155
deadlock, Was
unfortunate
—
TRUTH
paid the price by having to assume position of Oedipus at Colonnus,
the
I AM
THAT
than
and
who
~
OF
Prohibition?
hypnosis,
imploring the people sake! quick! quick! —
the
its
of the
that
who,
person
POLITICS
language has figure which is in the hovers impossible to gaze at face on, which background of all the imaginings of human destiny, which is beyond all qualification, and for which the word carrion is completely inadequate, the complete collapse of this species of swelling that is life the bubble bursts and dissolves down into inanimate putrid liquid. That is what happens in the case of Oedipus. As everything right from the start of the tragedy goes to show, Oedipus is nothing more than the scum of the earth, the refuse, the residue, a thing empty of any plausible appearance.!” more
the
a
naked
of
no
this
—
that
It is clear
we
the
sudden
emergence by Lacan
of
of support
in
theorized
here
dealing
are
deaths’,
and
symbolic
the
‘life
this
domain
the
the
uluimate
‘in
later
of
horror
(in
undead-indestructible
the
the
between
object
death’
beyond the
famella,
as
with
real:
two
the
is
Seminar
XI
object,
Life
is connectcd
order.
This, perhaps, deprived symbolic our today’s phenomenon of cyberspace: the more (experience of) is a into encountered ‘virtualized’, reality screen-phenomenon changed on an the more the ‘indivisible remainder’ that resists interface, being of the as remainder integrated into the interface appears horrifying undead Life no wonder ‘undead’ substance images of such a formless of Life abound in today’s science-fiction from Alien on. horror narratives, with
-
Let I
recall
us
have
meal
on
the
the
Real
a
stand
his their
above
the
disintegration
its of
formless
reality
the
customers
is
tournedos
is
plate,
and
this
split
the
Gilliam’s
the
Brazil, in
waiter
a
best
colour
dazzling the plate
on
between remnant
ghostlike,
the
to
which
high-class
a
suggestions really special!’, etc.). Yet
choice
excremental into
Terry which
in
scene
paste-like limp:* of
from
scene
the to
our
excremental, and
—
(‘Today, get on making
menu
customers
the
referred recommends
restaurant
day’s
well-known
the
often
from
the
what
the
photograph
itself
image
a
of
loathsome, of
the
food
exemplifies perfectly substanceless
appearance
suspension access
our
the
exploits language’), state
the
—
raw
the
of
is
the
remainder
price
the
to
reality.
And
of
potentials opened sooner
later
or
of
to
sustains is
existence
this
occurrence
as
in this
Real
pay
and
the
—-
for
the
guarantees
that
if
fully parlétres (‘beings of
point
our
up by finds oneself
possibility
threatening
Lacan’s
course,
the
of
have
we
that
paternal Prohibition/Law
of
one
SUBJECT
stuff
remainder
this
with
obsession
the
and
interface
an
on
TICKLISH
THE
156
horrifying looms
one
in-between
over
cach
of
us.
‘indivisible
This
this formless
remainder’,
piece of the Oedipus symbolic Destiny, is direct embodiment of what Lacan calls the plus-de-jouir, the ‘surplusbe accounted that cannot for by any symbolic enjoyment’, the excess the term When Lacan uses idealization. plus-dejouir, he is, of course, expression (‘excess of enjoyment’ playing on the ambiguity of the French ‘no as well as is longer any enjoyment’); following this model, one remainder’ that is ‘indivisible tempted to speak here of this formless of his Destiny as a case of plus d’homme he Oedipus after the fulfilment he has lived the ‘human is ‘excessively human’, condition’ to the bitter fundamental for that end, realizing its most possibility; and, very reason, and turns he is in a way ‘no longer human’, into an ‘inhuman monster’, laws human or bound no Lacan considerations.... As by emphasizes, Real’
that
‘is’
after
the
fulfilment
stain
of
of the
‘little
his
—
traditional coping with this ‘remainder’: it up with idealizations, confronting it, covers hand, the concealing it with noble images of Humanity; on the other ruthless and boundless to capitalist economy puts this excess/remainder use, manipulating it in order to keep its productive machinery in perpetual motion (as one usually puts it, there is no desire, no depravity, too low to be exploited for capitalist profiteering). At this point, when to the of humanity’, we ‘scum Oedipus is reduced encounter the in (or, ambiguous relationship again Hegelese, the specuthe lowest and between the lative the excreidentity) highest, between there
mental
main
two
arc
disavows
humanism
and
of
ways
it, avoids
the
sacred:
after
his
utter dejection, all of a sudden, Oedipus’s favours, asking him to with his presence, hometown to which the embittered Oedipus line: ‘Am I to be counted with the famous answers as something [accordto ing to some readings: as a man] only now, when I am reduced nothing {when I am no longer human]?’ Does not this line reveal the elementary of subjectivity: you become matrix as a ‘something’ (you are counted after going through the zero-point, after being deprived of subject) only sense all the ‘pathological’ (in the Kantian of empirical, contingent) scum
messengers bless their
from
different
cities
vie
for
THE
that
features
support
‘barred’
Lacanian One
could
modern
of
Erasmus
and
fell
notion the
that
man
final
the
as
others
man
157 reduced
to
‘nothing’
concise
most
formula
‘a
~
of
the
the
highest
the
of
point
that
evolution
the
in
the
of
as
appear
a
is the
man
has
subjectivity creature
the
is, in
but
cannot
antihumanist: humanist cel-
great
Renaissance that
creation’,
statement
Modern
first
the
in
Luther
famous
anus. as
of
the
was
not
‘crown whom
(to
God’s
of
thus
is the
Luther
Martin
is announced
in Luther’s
of
out
TRUTH
subject (s).?!
say
but, rather,
and
identity, Something’
as
subjectivity
ebration
OF
your
counted
Nothingness
POLITICS
‘barbarian’), that
do
to
Chain
of
with
the
Being’, as subjectivity
modern
universe:
of
excrement
nothing
‘Great
tradition
when the emerges the from ‘order of
as ‘out of joint’, as excluded subject perceives himself For that things’, from the positive order of entities. the ontic reason, equivalent of the modern subject is inherently excrethe notion mental: there is no subjectivity proper without that at a different from am a another I mere level, perspective, piece of shit. For Marx, the of working-class subjectivity is stricdy co-dependent on the fact emergence that the worker is compelled the very substance of his being (his to sell creative that the is, to reduce power) as a commodity on the market the core to an the of his that can treasure, agalma, precious being, object be bought for money: is no subjectivity without the reduction there of the subject's positive-substantial being to a disposable ‘piece of shit’. In this between case of correlation Cartesian subjectivity and its excremental we are not objectal counterpart, dealing merely with an example of what Foucault called the empirico-transcendental couple that charactcrizes modern the subject of anthropology, but rather, with the split between the and the of enunciated:* enunciation the if the Cartesian subject to the he is at level of the must be reduced enunciation, subject emerge to of the excrement at the level of the ‘almost-nothing’ disposable —
enunciated
content.
What
Badiou
fact
that,
the
Traitor
if
among
the
was
Christianity
precisely
because from
engaged with productive —
than
his
person
he the
the
The as
did
is, in —
account
—
Institution,
an
not
Christ
however, order had
for to
in
his
be
a
that
summarized
takes
St
the
Paul
its
personally
order
those for
universal
betrayed.
...
in
was
formulate
of
of
by the Judas
place metaphoric substitution
of
case
Christ
deadlock
best
St Paul
to
know
be
can
iconography, apostles key point is
initiatory
Master;
that
into
twelve
one,
establish excluded
take
not
Christian
there
ever
does
the
in
—
who this
a
as were
to
position Truth,
universal
such
he
was
personally
distance
to
become
to
mattcr
more
message To put
it another
way:
TICKLISH
THE
158 any idiot
making
heaven
thought, and it idiosyncratic Christ-Event
is the
then,
ontological gap cal undecidability, Truth or directly
the
from
the
act, the decision by means to the Truth-Event given multitude the
of
subject
the
to
form
with the strictly correlative with particular ontologifact that it is not possible to derive Hegemony given positive ontological set: the ‘subject’ is we the positivity of the of which pass from
the
status
walking on water or as Hegel put it, is perform it, that is, to of universal thought.
Subject
relies
on
and
the
and/or the
is
subject
universal
the
with
St Paul
into
The
here?
subject
between
like
miracle,
true
took
Lacanian
The
What,
the
—
universal
the
translate
miracles
simple stupid
from
down
fall
of the
that
about
bring
can
food
SUBJECT
—
to
Kantian
Hegemony.
This
precarious
anti-cosmological insight
that
it needs so the ontologically not fully constituted, of supplement of the subject’s contingent gesture to obtain a semblance for the gap of freedom ontological consistency. ‘Subject’ is not a name and contingency that infringes upon the positive ontological order, active is the in its interstices; rather, ‘subject’ contingency that grounds the very whose the selfthat is, order, positive ontological ‘vanishing mediator’ multitude into transforms the chaotic the effacing gesture pre-ontological of a positive ‘objective’ order of reality. In this precise sense, semblance every ontology is ‘political’: based on a disavowed contingent ‘subjective’ of the of decision.** So Kant act was right: the very idea of the universe, in itself, has to be rejected as a exists All of reality, as a totality which that is to say, what looks like an paralogism epistemological limitation of fact to we are our that forever Capacity grasp reality (the perceiving reality finite is the from our temporal standpoint) positive ontological condition of is
reality
‘non-all’,
—
itself.
reality
however,
Here, as
the
act,
ontological ‘the
wound the
‘js’
Laclau,
the
gap, and is healed
of
no
etc.).
In
short,
and
a
which insist
the
fatal
irreducible
the
trap of conceiving
afterwards
the
filled
Lacanian
negative way) by Badiou
on
the
intervenes
in order
vicious
to
subject
fill in
the’
of
subjectivity: smote it’, that is, the subject subjectivization (which, in cycle
only by the spear which in by the gesture of a new hegemony; which, in Ranciére, gives voice to the fidelity to the Truth-Event; part’; which, in Badiou, assumes
very gap establishes
‘part in
avoid
should
one
gesture,
—
‘Can
the
such
gap,
to
answer
different the
the
question
philosophers
opening,
the
Void
asked as
(and
answered
Althusser,
Derrida
which
precedes
the
THE
of
the
the
the
world’,
of
and
the
gesture
159
“subject”?’ is time, the ontological of
the
short
a
wound
establishes
this
of ‘new
a
as
between
The
gap. drive’
‘death
assertion
that
gesture
clears
tion
presupposes transfixed by covers
will
it: to
That
—
of the
subject:
and
emphatic negative
that
sublima-
a
Lacan
veil
that
have
put
a
would
Nothingness. insists
establishment
the
on
of
‘new
a
some
of
of the
Truth-Event.
positive difference
facets
thal
words,
sustains
death’,
willing
Badiou:
other
enthusiastically
are
Nictzsche to
obstacle
an
every the
fact
of
the
(positive) new Master-Signifier; while for (ethical negativity catastrophes) are ‘betrayal’ of (or infidelity to, or denial
of
versions
as
the
over
intervention
many
and
Lacan
act
we
‘mask
a
Univer-
Bcing:
The
when
that
means
of
of
sublimation.
object, this object is ontological Void object effectively amounts
different so
This
the
positive order
creative
drive
(negative) the
the
the
of)
the via
to
for
obverse
constitutive the
to
between
difference
of
Badiou, reduced
space the death
sublime
is the
the
primordial
this
primacy harmony’
a
sublime
a
the
up
thus
is
irreducible
of Truth
gesture
the
is a ‘Subjectiwity’ fight an external
for this irreducible circularity, for a power which does not order), but resistingforce (say, the inertia of the given substantial is absolutely inherent, which ‘is’ the ultimately subject itself°* In the subject’s very endeavour to fill in the gap retroactively generates
of
the
(in Lacanese:
gap
harmony’).
name
this
‘Yes!’
(the ‘night
gap well
as
circuit
emphatic
an
—
self-withdrawal)
means
heals which
Master
TRUTH
be called
same
by
Particular,
of the
OF
of radical
madness
subjectivization which,
sal
still
subjectivization, subject is both at the
gesture -
POLITICS
Badiou
between
Badiou’s
of
Void
constitutive
main
and is
point
the
structure
albeit
Lacan
-
precisely the status identifying the subject with an identification already
concerns
avoid
to
such
that is, it turns ‘ontologizes’ subject, purely negative way into an the an consubstantial with structure, entity entity that subject the of a to order what is structure and (‘no belongs necessary priori without a subject’). To this Lacanian of the subject, Badiou ontologization of subits ‘rarity’, the local-contingent-fragile-passing opposes emergence takes jectivity: when, in a contingent and unpredictable way, a Truth-Event place, a subject is there to exert fidelity to the Event by discerning its the
in
a
—
the
traces
Laclau, while
to
a
the
Lacan
whose
Situation
subject
Truth
introduces
the
what
of
this
is consubstantial
with
distinction Badiou
is.2° For
Event a
contingent
between
and
Badiou,
Laclau
the
act
as
of
well
subject
describe
as
for
Decision;
is the
and
the
process subjectivization: the emphatic engagement, the assumption of fidelity subjectivization the Event (or, in Laclau, the emphatic gesture of identifying empty
gesture of
in
—
160
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
that hegemonizes it}, while the particular content universality with some of Being subject is the negative gesture of breaking out of the constraints that opens up the space of possible subjectivization. the subject prior to subjectivization is the pure In Lacanese, negativity drive the identification into with of the death some prior to its reversal Or to it another in is new Lacan’s not Master-Signifier.?’ put way point that the subject is inscribed into the very ontological structure of the as its constitutive universe void, but that ‘seéyect’designates the contingency of the very ontological order of being. ‘Subject’ does not an Act that sustains open of Being: ‘subject’ is the contingent-excessive up a hole in the full order the very universal of Being. The opposition order gesture that constitutes the subject qua ontological foundation between of the order of Being and the subject gua contingent is therefore false: the particular emergence is the that sustains the universal subject contingent emergence/act very of Being. The order hubris subject is not simply the excessive through a which disturbs the global order of Being by positing particular element a itself as its centre; the subject is, rather, the particular element that sustains the very universal frame. paradox of a particular element Lacan’s notion of the act as real is thus and opposed to both Laclau In Lacan, Badiou. act is a purely negative category: to put it in Badiou’s it stands for the gesture of breaking out of the constraints of Being, terms, for the reference to the Void at to its core, this Void. In this prier filling act the involves the of dimension death drive sense, that precise grounds a decision to in a (to accomplish a hegemonic identification; engage —
-
—
fidelity drive
—-
to a Truth), but Badiou (a category
reduced
be
cannot
it.
to
The
Lacanian
death
adamantly opposcs) is thus again a kind of between there is a ‘negative’ ‘vanishing mediator’ Being and Event: constitutive of the in ‘Being’ (the gesture subject which is then obfuscated established and in to the Event. order) ontological fidelity minimal
This between
the
the
the
have
we
on
those
with not
the
death
figure
from of
at
of
analysis
in the
excluded
drive
state
the
Oedipus
of its
filling which
aspects,
already scen, limitexperiences
Lacan’s
herself
two
between
gesture
of
positive gesture
between as
distance
negative
the in
the
of
which
the
its purest,
prior
Antigone
focused
the
symbolic
domain???
Colonnus
drive
in
inseparable
are
whole
‘in between
at
death
and
sublimation,
and suspension-withdrawal-contraction distinction void, is not just a theoretical
two
who,
Lacan’s
finds
subject
reversal
its
to
on
the
deaths’, Is this
after
actual
our
effort
is
himself into
reduced
sublimation.
to
similar
fulfilling
his
focused
confronted
when
moment
not
experience:
precisely
a
to
she
Is finds
living death, the
uncanny
destiny,
is also
THE
reduced
‘less
to
than
nothing’,
themselves the
entering madness’.
(and,
and its
on
obsession
that the
‘beyond the
as
ing
Truth-Event:
and
it opens always threatens
excess
Classic
limit,
What
Good.
and
mask
True
is
edifice
symbolic that
that
is the
the
that
is
is
and to
the
the
undermine
consc-
many is this
domain
In
to
of
short,
triad
of embrac-
act
the
Truth-Event,
is
Evil, that Real,
around
domain
their
to
of the
horror
Void a
Beautiful
notions
‘diabolical’
disgusting
central
there
of
the
True,
three
mask
of the
the
for
of the
these
push
is the
Ugly,
mask
woven.
is
creative
space
it.
the
on
Good
of the
the
sustains
does
Lacan
demonstrating
Beautiful
the
so
Truth-Event),
(im) possibilityof the up
is focused
onto-theology
the
violent
a
of the
condition
constitutive
yet its
merely
are
the
his
contemporary etc.) and his
(the Holocaust,
Evil
(of
adherence
in
the
and
‘inhuman
ale,
reach,
who
human the death drive being encounters experience, and pays the price by undergoto an excremental by being reduced ‘subjective destitution’, is Lacan’s that this is the irreducible / point limit-experience
radical
a
Shake-
of human
limit
remainder.
ing
of
(from
proto-Platonic his
of
Good
which
in
Good’,
utmost
a
embodiment
called
was
his
for
Evil’
facets
of the
betrayal
the
figures
beyond polemics against
‘radical
different
the
of the
quences
other
Greek,
level, quite justified)
depoliticized
161
stain,
and
pays the price what remains
Good:
own
with
insistence
formless
a
these
void, which, in ancient
Badiou
the
TRUTH
are Sygne de Coufontaine) figures trespassing the limit of ‘humanity’
this
domain
Here,
Truth
to
Claudel’s
to
in
OF
to
All
horror?
unspeakable speare’s King Lear some
find
POLITICS
which the
‘beyond
every Good’
simply everyday ‘pathological’ villainy, but the constitutive of the Good source of its itself, the terrifying ambiguous there is a domain that is not ‘beyond the Beautiful’ power; simply the ugliness of ordinary everyday objects, but the constitutive background of the Horror veiled the of Beauty; itself, Beauty by fascinating presence is a domain there Truth’ that is not the ‘beyond simply everyday domain of lies, deceptions and the place in falsities, but the Void that sustains not
background
which
there
one
is
to
the
morbid
the
to
and/or
great
désastre)
attraction
endeavour Truth
how
Stalinist
this
of
avoid
that symbolic fictions of psychoanalysis,
lesson
ethico-political
into
insight
formulate
only
can
an
calamities are
not
Beyond but,
confronting
Goodness.
of
the
it and
our
century
result
of
the
on
to
contrary, the
the
the
in
consists
(from
our
impose
it
If
‘truths’.
call
we
Holocaust the
succumbing
to
result
of
our
of
the
the dircct
rule
162
TICKLISH
THE
Master
The We
in
now
are
separates
insight into an insight
from
the
morbid
Laws;
discriminatory the
matic
domain the
provide
to
for
Lacan:
Analyst?
Law
itself
the
beyond
Truth-Event
that
Law,
the
that
gap
the
as
and
of Law
Death,
the
to
of
is
psychoanalysis provides
and
of Life
such, psychoanalysis
as
definition
precise
a
Badiou, what
themselves
limit
that
stance
the
or
intertwining obscenity of the
the
into
moral
and
position
a
Badiou
SUBJECT
‘uwuth’
of the
of
Order
is, the
mode
of
the
thought and
Being render
properly
cannot
desire, its the-
of
operation is
the
divided
fidelity psychoanalytic subject Law (which subject of the (symbolic) Law, not the subject divided between the of Love Order and the to (as fidelity Truth-Event). regulates Being) The logical consequence of this is that psychoanalysis, for Badiou, remains to the field of Knowledge, unable constrained the properly to approach of Truth-processes: in the case of love, psychoanalysis positive dimension reduces it to a sublimated of science expression of sexuality; in the case well as art, as psychoanalysis can only provide the subjective libidinal to
conditions
of
irrelevant his
to
—
scientific
a
their
invention
or
truth-dimension
work
a
that
—
which
of art,
artist
an
or
a
ultimately
are
scientist
driven
was
unresolved
Oedipus complex or latent homosexuality, and so on; in the case of politics, psychoanalysis can of collectivity only conceive the Totem and of the Taboo or Moses and Monotheism against background of and crime and so unable to conceive on, guilt, problematic primordial a militant that is bound ot ‘revolutionary’ collective by parental guilt but by the positive force of Love. the other For Lacan, on can hand, a Truth-Event operate only against the with the undead/monstrous encounter background of the traumatic Thing. what are Badiou’s four génériques art, science, love, politics if not four ways with the Real of reinscribing the encounter Thing on to the symbolic texture? In art, beauty is ‘the last veil of the Monstrous’; far from being is science the another endeavour to formulate the narrative, just symbolic by
—
of
structure
love
is
Real
the
desire, but the way drive; finally, militant
Negativity in postmodernist an
the
authentic fact
that
order
politics is to
Truth-Event a
the
and
a
way of
restructure
our
there
relativist: and
Truth-Event
its
the
to
terms
putting social
to
definitely void
use
affairs.
semblance, of
later the
obfuscating
screen come
the
for
symbolic fiction;
narcissistic
‘gentrify’
to
cultural
in
the
beneath
longer merely
no
~
and
the
...
ts
a
this
death
Lacan, truth
with
the
traumatic
the
terrific
force
So
Lacan
is
difference
of a
between
difference
drive,
not
of
lies of
radical
in
POLITICS
THE
negativity, to
a
that
gap
OF
TRUTH
Order
the
momentarily suspends
163 of
Being,
continues
resonate.
This
brings
dismisses
the
death’
to
the
to
problem
of human
Freudian
equal properly
that
back
topic to
man
us
and
‘death thus
finitude,
drive’,
meta-physical kingdom and allows
the
as
reduced
to
human
of
from
a
dimension
morbid
finitude: obsession
animal
mere
that
when
Heideggerian —
with as
elevates
Badiou
‘being-towardsthe
what
makes
blindness
to
the
beyond ‘gain immortality’ by participating in a Truth-Event his theoretical a involves gesture ‘regression’ to ‘nonthought’, to a naive traditional (pre-critical, pre-Kantian) opposition of two orders of positive Being; the immortality of the Truth(the finitude blind to how the very space for the specific ‘immorEvent) that remains is opened tality’ in which human beings can participate in the Truth-Event and the possibility of up by man’s unique relationship to his finitude death. As Heidegger in his polemics against conclusively demonstrated Cassirer’s neo-Kantian Kant’s of that is Kant, great philosophical reading revolution: it is the very finitude of the transcendental subject as constitu tive of ‘objective reality’ that out of the allows Kant to break frame of to the traditional the of cosmos as notion the ordered metaphysics, reject Whole of Being: to posit that the order of Being, the field of transcendencannot be coherently tally constituted reality, is in itself non-totalizable, to finite is attached thought of as a Whole, since its existence subjectivity; the transcendental thus as a third spontaneity of freedom emerges In-itself.*? domain, neither phenomenal rewlity nor the noumenal The key point is that the ‘immortality’ of which Lacan speaks (that of the ‘undead’ the that ‘is’ can lamella, libido) object emerge only within animal
him
man
to
—
the
horizon
of human
Void, the
finitude, hole
in
as
the
a
formation of
that
stands
for
and
fills
the
the
fact
ontological reality opened up by that reality is transcendentally constituted by the finite transcendental not but finite we infinite, subject. (If the transcendental subject were would be dealing not with transcendental but with constitution ‘intellectual intuition’ that directly creates with an intuition what it perceives: a Divine prerogative of the infinite Being.) So the point is not to deny the mode of ‘immortality’ (that of participating in a Truthspecifically haman Event irreducible to the constrained sustaining a dimension positive order of Being), but to bear in mind how this ‘immortality’ is based the on of human For the mode finitude. Kant the finitude of himself, specific is transcendental not a limitation freedom and of his transcendensubject tal spontaneity, but its positive condition: to if a human gain subject were direct free to the access from a noumenal he would domain, change ~
texture
subject the
TICKLISH
THE
164 into
confronted
directly
puppet
with
and
dominated
by
Power.
Divine
against Badiou,
short,
In
lifeless
a
awesome
SUBJECT
being does the act as something that
should
one
(or Event) appear be
cannot
that
only
traumatic
a
named
directly: being destined
finite
between
insist as
to
finite/mortal
a
of the
intrusion
it is the
very
that
fact
Real, is
man
the
and
mortality (a perish) capacity split to which bears witness to participate in the Eternity of the Truth-Event the fact that we are dealing with a finite/mortal To a truly infinite / being. immortal directly symbolized, the being, the act would be transparent, Real would with the Symbolic coincide that is, in Badiou’s terms, naming would be directly inscribed coincide into, would with, the Event itself, to
—
which
lose
thus
would
its traumatic
character
the
as
of the
intrusion
Real
be named). Or to put it in yet another (what cannot never be fully subjectivized, integrated into the act (Event) can the way symbolic universe, preciscly in so far as the subject who is its agent is a finite/mortal entity. Is not a further proof of this point the fact that, for is always the Truth of a specific contingent Truth Badiou, situation, is thus attached to it: eternity/immortality always eternity/immortality of the given finite, condition? or specific contingent situation from can Badiou Lacan also be Perhaps the gap that finally separates of the difference between formulated in terms the Hysteric and the that
is innomable
—
—
Master. how
is interested
Badiou
accomplishes Event
into
fidelity those
the
formulate
to
this
who
how
Event
—
that
fascinated
remain
how
to
retain
symbolic
fidelity
framework
to
that
the
Truth-Event,
guarantees
and
the
unique singularity of the based on gesture of a lasting symbolic edifice is to say, he is opposed to the false poetics of by the ineffable singularity of the Event and the Event as already a betrayal. For this reason,
fidelity,
constitutive
the the
to
in
universal to
transmute
naming of the Master the figure of the Master: is the one who names the Event de who, by producing a new point capiton, Master-Signifier, to the new Event. Lacan, reconfigures the symbolic field via the reference takes the side of in contrast, the Freud, who, following Hysteric precisely, who, that is, questions and challenges the Master’s naming of the Event on behalf of her very fidelity to the Event, insists on the gap between the Event and its symbolization/naming between (in Lacanese, objet petit a and the Master-Signifier). The Hysteric’s question is simply: ‘Why is that name the name of the Event?’ of 1997/98, Badiou elaborated the When, in his unpublished course consider
every elevates
Badiou
—
~
four
the
possible fourth
term
subjective to
the
stances
triad
of
towards
the
he
Truth-Event,
Master/Hysteric/ University
the
added
as
position
of
THE
the
Mystic. The Master symbolic fidelity, the Master’s
of the
pretends is to
gesture
TRUTH
and
to
name,
the
act
change
the
act
continuity Hysteric act, insisting
165
thus that
—
into
and
into directly translate defining feature new Master-Signifier, to
is, the
a
of the
consequences the maintains
the
Master,
OF
of
dimension
the
guarantee the
POLITICS
Event.
In
contrast
to
of division ambiguous attitude towards the on the simultaneous necessity and impossibility of its symbolization: there was an (ultimate failure) Event, but each the Event its true of traumatic that symbolization already betrays impact is to say, the Hysteric reacts of the to each Event with a ‘ce symbolization —
nest of
pas ca’, that’s
University
first
place
of the normal
the
of
part
who
Master,
wants
aims
an
without series
any of
The
symbolic he
to
to
of perverse of chain
the
on
contrast
the
of
Badiou
neuronal
For
which
the
be
explained
in
contrast
away the
to
and
Event that
gap
the
its
forever
University discourse by explaining them away nothing but the result of a
of the if the
discourse:
ctc.).
Mystic, latter
is the
which
wants
to
isolate
exact
the
their
founding Event, the Mystic the network of its symbolic consequences: ineffability of the Event, and disregards its symbolic the Mystic, what matters is the bliss of one’s immersion the entire obliterates symbolic reality. Lacan, however,
Badiou,
to
reduce
to
the the
on
agent in
consequences,
(‘Love? It’s network!’,
from
can
words,
insists
is that
adds
University
that
consequences
Event
consequences the Event from
isolate
who
wants
between
continuity
(symbolic)
he
other
in
things; the
in your
attitude
consequences. in the Event, in
its
field
of them, the perverse the event of an act
knowledge, thing
Hysteric,
the
was
another
just of
from
occurrences
insists
of
ensure
the
reference
fourth
obverse
wants
Event
‘suturing’
at
to run
to
and
consequences,
separates
act
there
that
chain
both
to
contrast
disavows his
with
~-
consequences as
it. In
not
discourse
adds
the
as
the
and
fourth
term
discourse
to
of
the the
triad
of
Master, for
him, Hysteric University pervert analyst: of the in isolated is the immersed his/her mysticism psychotic position (a social link) at all. So the jouissance and, as such, not a discourse edifice entire consistency of Lacan’s hinges on the fact that a fourth discursive position is possible, which is not that of a Master, that of the the Hysteric, or that of the University. This position, while maintaining gap
between
and,
instead
the
symbolization, avoids the hysterical trap the vicious failure, cycle of permanent affirms this gap as positive and productive: it asserts the Real of the Event as the ‘generator’, the generating core to be encircled repeatedly by the subject’s symbolic productivity. The of this reassertion of psychoanalysis in the political consequences of
Event
and
being caught
its
in
166
TICKLISH
THE
critique psychoanalytic scepticism end
and
wrong
libidinal
own
about
(the well-known
process
idealism’,
in
up
etc.):
the
of
the
tempted
are
the
revolutionary
self-destructive
a
of
outcome
because
fury
it is
aggressivity
claim,
that
rather,
revolutionary
him
leads
Badiou
to
that
go its
of sustains
Badiou’s
is part of his hidden which Kantianism, the full a l’acte. revolutionary passage oppose
to
has
unaware
psychoanalysis
to
standard
process
murderous to
the
of
opposite
very
final ‘the
of
story
foundations, we
the
constitute
Badiou’s
of
face
SUBJECT
its
resistance
ultimately
also
That
say:
is
to
and, in his political stances, adamantly anti-Kantian leftist not (rejecting outright only parliamentary democracy, but also multiculturalist ‘identity politics’), at a deeper level his distinction the order of the positive Knowledge of Being and between the wholly different Truth-Event remains Kantian: when he emphasizes how, from the standpoint of Knowledge, there how, that is, the simply is no Event traces of the Event can be discerned as signs only by those who are already in support of the Event he not involved does thereby repeat Kant’s
although radically
is
-
—
notion of signs that announce the noumenal fact of freedom without for the French Revolution)? positively proving it (like enthusiasm Badiou’s inconsistent Real as pure multiple is Lacan’s pas-toui, that
which
‘state
a
consistent
of
situation’
a
unifies,
that
inscribes,
that
X
for,
accounts
the
into
turns
a
transcendental
Kantian
precedes of the pure synthesis. The transformation multiple into the state of things to Kant’s transcendental corresponds synthesis constituting reality. The order of reality, in Kant, is threatened/limited in two ways:*! by ‘mathematical antinomies’ that is, by the inherent failure of transcendental and apprehension synthesis, the gap between comprehension, the delay and the former between the latter (in Badiou, the ontological Void and of presentation the correlative excess over that threatens re-presentation of a state of the normal and by ‘dynamic antinomies” functioning things) of an that is, by the intervention order of noumenal entirely different structure,
—
—
—
ethical
Goals
Kant,
and
excess
situation,
can
exist
the
traces
infinite
situation,
only of
less
the
space
for
effort. up
And
Truth-Event).
freedom
ontological order?*? discernible precisely in
opened
Truth it
is universal
cannot
name
the
by
up
the
he
way
and
necessary Whole of the
as
When in the
Truth
catastrophe
pretends
to
of Stalinism
in
the
the
the
truth
Maoist
of
but
situation,
grasp/name or
limits
the
incessant effort to in the discern infinite, Truth-Event, exactly homologous with the
the
end
the
(in Badiou, the
the
as
ethical we
is
although
none
not
of the
Kantianism
of Truth:
is
Badiou,
inconsistency
Badiou’s scope a
in
as
Freedom
rational
of
well
as
situation Kantian
the
entire Cultural
POLITICS
THE
with
Revolution,
their
OF
surplus, for Badiou, precisely defined in community politics, sexual Lacanian perspective, however, in a ‘fundamental fantasy’
forever
authentic
in
the
Lacan, Real
of
one
can
does intervene
authentic
this
in
its
‘truth
the
has
fiction
a
in
is what
the
an
for
its
Here the
naming
stick
truth
to
in
eludes
a
Lacan’s
is condemned
Real
innomable
the
as
between
and
should
act
znnomable.
distinction
fiction’:
a
the
the
-
discontinuity,
of as
is,
Truth:
From
on,
ultimately
one
of
naming of jouissance, and put it succinctly
to
Lacanian
This
rage.
situation,
a
is structured
core
is
reason,
far
so
so
negative dimension,
of
structure
precisely
and
resists
—
in
‘generics’
love,
So
the
see
that
in
four
that
core.
naming,
an
remain
the
is, it is the
this
‘object’ preceding the crucial weight of act as object, as a negative gesture this For positive Truth-procedure. thesis
of
core
that
itself
act
each
destructive named
being
joutssance
—
act
resists
in
167
‘totalitarian’
thoroughgoing which
that
innomable
TRUTH
to
its grasp.
Notes
1,
VII,
make
the
atonal
Event:
1 éhe
Bacliou,
3. To
this
them
to
of
continue
imitation
modernist
also.
Here,
dismissal
traditionalists’
let
to
mention
us
du
Seuil
another
of
have
atonal
three
ways
revolution
as
in the
compose
the
and
of
atonality;
et
Uevenement, p. 25.
old
the
by
accomplished
we
the
Schelling, Stuttgart:
Editions
Paris:
Lévénement, in music
revolution
berg, Berg, Webern). allows
et
logic clearer,
KFA.
ed.
Werke,
Samiliche
Schelling,
FW.
p. 600. 2. Alain
ways,
tendency
to
vol.
1856-61,
1988. Badiou’s
Second
of
Cotta
examples
Viennese
this
betraying
School
Event
of Truth-
(Schoenthe
of Truth:
experiment, which if nothing had as happened; the pseudochange atonal music into a new positive an
empty
formal
tradition. 4.
Badiou,
5.
In
Live
studies’ practice of ‘cultural to socio-symbolic products: able or ready to confront
inherent
but
Truth, Badiou,
7.
Ibid..
8. Ibid.,
L?tre
a
or
As Badiou
of art,
‘wiscom'
lévénement,
point.
one
for
cultural
studies
of Event
of historical
is the
notion
all-encompassing is that they are works
philosophical
o1
a
the
in
circumstances,
terms
to
an
and
approach no longer of
their of
object
p. 202.
and
more
also
can
perspicaciously
public discourse, instead
of
scientific
product interpretation. to
suspension
name
p. 224. p. 29.
9. Up to performative.
10.
feature
religious, them
of this
predominant
basic
the
reduce
et
the
as
anthropologico-psychoanalytic 6.
indication
main
the
theory, perhaps
notes,
specific culture, Western, falsely
love
of
science: to
universalized
an
these
Knowledge
four
replaced by
more
instead
of ‘administration’ instead
that
say
of
politics,
fake of
‘sex’
while
constative,
of the
domains their
is
doubles: instead
Truth
is
are today, in speak of ‘culture’
Truth-Event we
of
love, of ‘know-how’
of histoncally a as is dismissed form of sexuality; science ideological dated of form of practical knowledge on an equal footing with farms art
is reduced
to
an
expression/aruculation
TICKLISH
THE
168 reduced
to
11.
Alain
See
Of
this
tn which
TN:
Nashville,
Truth
7:
Romans
14.
passion
Badiou simultaneously mobilizes us ‘generic’ element that enables
course,
ing’: it is language 13.
Paul.
Sait
Badiou,
the
that
struggle
or
this
notion
or of the art of social version forerunner La fondation de Vuniversalisme, Paris: Presses
ideological
7
the to
is
involves)
gestion. .
Universitaires
1997.
de France 12.
immature
an
all
politics (with
wisdom;
pre-scientific
SUBJECT
of ‘generic’ with ‘generatassociation ‘generate’ propositions of the subject-
resonates.
7:
18 (quoted Nelson Publishers St Paul's fundamental to
The
from
Thomas
Holy
Bible:
New Revised
Standard
Version,
1990).
to problem was that of the appropriate discourse: St Paul has break with Greek Christian to universalism, philosophical as well is still the predominant as with Jewish prophetic obscurantism, which mode of the Gospels. Here, however, one should perhaps complicate the picture
For
Badiou,
authentic
assert
sophistry discursive
little: maybe Christ’s maybe they are there
parables in the Gospels are precisely to perplex and frustrate meaning in them; maybe the well-known
a
discern ‘Let
clear
a
[or,
accept
anyone
obscure
as
it is also transtated: for a deeper search
subversive
more
the
from
statement
this
understand]
than who
disciples who
they appear; unable
are
Matthew
can’
is
—
to
to
19:
12
be
read
—
signal that the meaning is misleading; maybe they are to be to an parable of the Door of the Law in Kafka’s Trial, submitted exasperating literal reading by the priest, a reading that yields no deeper meaning. So maybe these of the old Jewish prophetic discourse its but, rather, parables are not the remainder immanent And, incidentally, isn’t it striking that this ‘Let anyone mocking subversion, accept this who can’ is pronounced Here is the full by Christ regarding the problem of castration? ‘Not can this it 15 quote: everyone arrepi/understand teaching, but only those 10 whom who have been so and there from are eunuchs who have birth, given. For there are eunuchs been made eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. by others, and there are eunuchs Let this who can’ 19: 11-12). What is ultimately (Matthew anyone accept/understand in its different modalities. ungraspable, beyond comprehension, is the fact of castration 15. Jacques Lacan, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, London: Routledge 1992, pp. 83-4. literally, taken
a
as
the
like
16.
Ibid.,
17.
Another
conceived Sade’
p. 84. of
as
its
retains
problem heve is the philosopher full validity that
the
is
constraints.
1997.) See Jacques Lacan,
18.
19.
Lacan,
Jacques
Psychoanalysis,New 20.
This
that
is
‘scheme
pure
of
Law
as
remains
that
is
avec
of
a
However,
perversion.
injunction which delivers The Plague of Fantastes,
Concepts of Psycho-Analysis,New
Kant
‘Kant
York:
it
from
London: Norton
in
this
dimensions The claims
York:
The Semmar, Book I: The Norton 1991, pp. 231-2.
Ego
in Fread’s
Theory and
in
the
Technique of
what
.
of
interconnection third: when 21.
moral
far
so
Lacan’s
Brazil is psychotic, since it involves the disappearance of the Symbolic as the psychotic torsion of the happens in it is what Lacan describes symbolic communication: symbolic reality falls apart into, on the one side, the the pure the excrement and, on the other, Imaginary of the substanceless image. . (SeeJacques Lacan, ‘On a Question Preliminary to Any Possible
say,
L’ of Real
Treatment
which
in
sense,
from
scene
to
hallucinatory place
moral
Slavoj Zizek,
Kant:
of morbid
universe
Kantian of
to
Pauline Kantian
of the
Fundamental
The Four
reference
Badiou’s
Sadeian
the HI
the
197-8.
1979, pp.
—
(See Appendix
in
status
is the
its ‘truth’
superego-formation, there another way of conceptualizing superego Verso
Law
is, the
—
that
so
of
status
of the
Ecrits: Psychosis’ dissolution ,
scene
in
is the
A Selection, of
the
New
York:
Borromean
Norton
knot
1977.) In short, what takes in the in which, intricate
the three each dimenstons, couple of them is linked through the the other two efficiency of the Symbolic is suspended, the link between (Imaginary and Real) that sustains our ‘sense of reality’ is cut. other famous quip of the embittered by the Chorus, Oedipus is pronounced that the greatest boon human granted to a mortal being is not to be born at between
the
THE
all; the well-known
comic
nately, that happens in
of the
midst
the
who
those
did
22,
See
23.
That
heated
the
1s
in
debate
hundred
a
and
169 referred
thousand’)
about
abortion: are born? Ecnits: A Selection, p. 300. task of today’s critique of ideology:
succeed in
Lacan,
TRUTH
OF
quoted by Freud
rejoinder scarcely one
to
to
takes on the aborted
not
a
by Lacan (‘Unfortunew meaning today, children
in
sense
a
being
not
‘reified’
its
ontological order, excessive ‘subjective’ act. 24. Perhaps the first and a
POLITICS
disavowed
stll
bencath
unearth,
to
foundation:
‘political’
any semblance
how
it
hinges
of
on
some
unsurpassed description of this paradox was provided by ‘obstacle/impetus’ that sets in motion the subject’s productive effort of ‘positing’ objective reality: this Anséoss is no longer the Kantian Thing-in-itself an external stimulus but a core of contingency that is exaffecting the subject from outside a timate: not foreign bady at the very heart of the subject. Subjectivity is thus defined by a order. but by an absolutely inherent struggle against the inertia of the opposed substantial tension. (See Chapter 1 above.) 25. Consequently, there is simply no place for the Freudian death drive in Badiou’'s pain of Being and Event: the death drive of the ‘service of the certainly interrupts the economy des Goods [service biens}’, the principle of the smooth running of affairs, which is the highest pohtical principle of the Order of Being; on the other hand, Badiou is certainly right to of the Truth-Event disavows the death drive... emphasize that the emergence . In short. the death drive is the point that undermines Badiou's proto-Kantian ontological dualism between the Order of Truth: of Being and the Event it is a kind of ‘vanishing mediator’ between the two; it opens up a gap in the positivity of Being, a suspension in its smooth functioning, and —
Fichte’s
notion
~
of Anstoss, the
—
-
it is this
26.
gap Alain
27.
In
that
can
Badiou,
later
be filled
L @tre
et
by
the
TiuthEvent.
Lévénement, pp. 472-4.
his
makes the same implicit polemics against Laclau and Lacan, Ranciéie point as of the incompleteness of the social emphasizes that politics is not a consequence there is no ontological guarantee or of politics in the a foundation subject prion Void of one looks in vain for the Being, in the subject as constitutive Lack/Finitude/Incompleteness; of possibility’ of politics. The ‘condition order of ‘police’ (the philosophico-transcendental positive order of Being) is in itself full, there are no holes in it; it is only the political act itself’ and itself, the gesture of political subjectivization, that adds to it the ‘distance towards La meésentente, Paris: Galilée (see Jacques Ranciére, 1995, dislodges its self-identity Badiou:
he
—
...
pp. 43-67). The Lacanian
failing is
to
political from itself
put of never a
short,
time
to
by
Being or complete
(disavowed) This
28.
Socialism
difference
dissident
was
of
ferment
of
between
a
political Truth-Event:
did
not
patiently engaged in we have today is either
the
of racist act
as
in
the
a
ethnic
have
(disavowal
politics
—
is not
succeed militant
the
fundamentalism.
return
Lacan
a
of
gesture
the
order
of the
the
such,
as
police. which
gesture
of the
Badiou,
also the
from
However,
negative gesture of saying ‘No!’. and then primordial negative gesture,
if
we
its
the
—
(pre-political)
thoroughly
Badiou
For
of the
political. for the precise consequences disintegration of Eastern European the to a brief popular enthusiasm, has
giving rise in transforming itself into a stable movement fidelity to the Event, but soon disintegrated, to vulgar liberal parliamentary capitalism or
apart
of
Master,
to Or Master. gap in the order itself: the fact that the social subject is social being itself is always-already based on
excessive
some)
consequence subject with
and
events.
excessive
‘gentrification’, the positivization, of the properly the full positivity of the police order perturbed of political intervention subjectivity: this positivity
politicization and,
concrete
not
not
the
fetishizes
Ranciére
the
on
of the social selfidentical means that
and
gesture
appreciation
the
on
way non-coincidence
do
—
here
relies
heterogeneous
rehes
always-already it in yet another
itself
Lack
we
the
be that
would
order
political
In
excess.
time
this
how
for the
stand-in
a
this
to
answer
recognize
accept
the
Lacanian
distinction
positive aftermath, locating of disintegration process
of followers so
the
that
what
advocacy
between
the
key
did
none
dimension the
the less
produce
a
regime failed
its later
29, enters
death:
The to
give
of
the
enthusiastic
mass movement of saying ‘Not’ solidarity; this negative gesture counted
authentic
between
‘in
him
of course, is more the two deaths’
Antigone,
domain
the
of
guise
behalf
on
SUBJECT to
the
more
positivization.
of
case
the
in
art
true
Communist than
TICKLISH
THE
170
a
rite
funeral
proper
complex, since she puts her life at stake and preciselyin order to prevent her brother's second
that
will
his
secure
in
eternalization
the
symbolic
order.
30. Another freedom
as
problem
is
Again,
32.
Kantianism quintessential Kantian
in the
Chapter
Badiou’s
Badiou, the ultimate that is, a situation is
essence
undermines needs
an
directed its
enemy
often
Kant
shrank
from
his
discovery, identifying
own
1] above.
31.
see
that
(see Chapter | above).
noumenal
no
also
can
be
discerned of
goal of longer redoubled against the State;
finctioning in order
~
to
in the
way his in our
political project gets caught approach to the Ideal: for without presence representation, State; however, the political act itself in its
‘spurious infinity’ political activity is to achieve paradox
so
assert
it needs oneself
in
it
its is a
an
intervention
pre-existing
by fighting
it.
into State
in
the the
existing same
sense
State
that
that one
4
Political
and
Subjectivization Its Vicissitudes
As
Fredric
emphasized, the triad provides a logical matrix
has
Jameson
often
Modernism—Postmodernism
applied readings
to
ity),
modern
of
postmodern Does
differences).
the
not
the
hold
for
others), the (modern) ern) ‘dispersionists’(Lyotard
and
What
others)?
version of pre-political ethics: of the political, some in a closed community ruled by a traditional ground politics in a proceduralist a priori of
the
so
ethical
Wrong
alternative Each
and
position universal
who
its
The
own.
position
is
enunciation: of
a
closed
(their
conceals
universalists’
Evil
or
committed
political project.' the three positions
of
paradox of society their ated
be
main
premod-
play
today’s
three
all
they there
and
of
no
appearances main
philoso(Taylor and the (postmod-
share
is
ironic
is
a
reduction
politics proper
values; universalists (or distributive) violent, ‘dispersionists’ condemn politics as unifying, totalitarian, and assume critics who the position of ethical reveal on, (or voice)
ethics; and
to
doubt
of
of the
the
positions:
three
return
communitarians (traditionalist) wniversalists and (Rawls, Habermas),
phico-political
also
can
Judaeo-Christianmodern-
hermeneutics
(the Nietzsche same
the
of
decadent
Traditionalism— that
clearly
are
(the Nietzsche
against
Nietzsche
(the and
self-probing), and
values
warrior
There
content.
traditional
of Nietzsche:
aristocratic
ern
historical
particular
a
Ranciére
Balibar,
Badiou,
the
a priori faked, they themselves
community,
mistake
thus
communitarians’
is thus
particular problem is that
their the kernel their
set
of
discursive
by politics,
without
engaging
in
an
involves
a pragmatic (performative) problem is that in today’s global enuncimarked by a split between do not speak from the particular is already position of enunciation
opposite of
his
universalism
of
that
of
the
universalist,
alleged universality). is
always
too
The
narrow,
172
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
the (it represses grounded in an exception, in a gesture of exclusion allow it to even be not And properly formulated). finally, différend, does too all-inclusive: the opposite problem of ‘dispersionists’ is that they are their of multitude to ethics how do we pass from ‘ontological’ assertion
(of diversity, tolerance Three
the
on
Is
formulated
kind
a
that is, each of positions split position in question:
them
—
Badiou,
(Alain
philosophers
have
three
of inherent be said
can
to
of the
inherent
Badiou
not
political
JacquesRanciére)
and
of these
self-criticism
¢
French
contemporary
Etienne Balibar focus
.}??
..
the
anti-ccommunitarian
communitarian?
he
Does
not
the notion of community, a split split between positive in the order of communities etc.), and grounded Being (nation-state, the ‘impossible’ community-to-come grounded in fidelity to the Truthin Christ or the revolutionary Event, like the community of believers one is to the add, (or, community tempted psychoanalytic community)? introduce
e
Is
universality
accepts
focuses
the
on
Hegelese)
an
demand
the
between
the
political
interventions
should
name
exception
this
to
(who works
with
unsurpassable warfare the
series:
for
the
of
ruling rebellion
of
added
and
triad,
(in
concretely universal
the
whose
kind
a
gap
politique/police) and give word to le tort
Schmittian’
statements
are
Ranciére
space), universal
of
police/ constitutive
Laclau
Ernesto
Laclau
it into A series
between
la
political/police against the this
to
antagonism,
of
the
By elaborating
calls
order
the
it?
included,
‘anti-Schmittian
hegemony. the
this
not
he
as
none
between
itself
betwcen
Lyotardian?
are
the
politics,
undermine
(what he
perturb
who
far
so
but
infinite/unconditional to
order
Mouffe).
edifices
universal
the
inscribes
he
ing, the theoretical homology. Against reconciliation
and threatens
mode
be
the
universal,
anti-Lyotardian
Chantal
status
conflict,
struggle
order
in
of
concrete
a
which
comprehensible opts for a political political order.
horizon in
split
and
those
to
not
fourth
inherent
in
Habermasian,
ultimate
positive global
(to the Wrong,
A
the
as
égaliberté which
of
Ranciére
Is not
anti-Habermasian
abstract
universal
structured
*
the
Balibar
not
less
in
a
acknowledges the fundamental, of fetishizing it in a heroic yet instead the symbolic as the political logic of of
Laclau
obvious and
differences
Badiou
Hegelian
vision
of the
Universal
and
Particular
are
‘concrete
notwithstandunited
by
universal’,
(or between
deep
a
of the
Being
and
POLITICAL
which
Event),
asserting
a
enclosed
is
still
consistency the
discernible
clearly and
constitutive
between
gap the
AND
SUBJECTIVIZATION
of the
in
irreducible and
the
173
VICISSITUDES
Marx, that
gap edifice:
ontological
Particular
ITS
both
they
start
undermines
by
the
self-
for
Laclau, this gap is the Universal, which necessitates
empty
the diffcrential structure operation of hegemony (or the gap between of the positive social order the logic of differences and properly political antagonism, which involves the logic of equivalence); for Badiou, it is the gap between Being and Event (between the order of Being structure, state of situation, knowledge and the event of Truth, Truth as Event). In both cases, the problem is how to break out of the selfenclosed field of ontology as a description of the positive universe; in both the cases, dimension which undermines the closure of ontology has an ‘ethical’ —
--
—-
character
—
of
it
the
concerns
the
of
act
contingent
decision
the
against
back-
of
‘undecidable’
Being; consequently, both authors endeavour to post-Cartesian mode of sudjectivity which cuts its links with ontology and hinges on a contingent act of decision. Both authors to a accomplish the return proto-Kantian formalism: both elaborate a they quasi-transcendental theory (of ideological which is destined to serve as the a hegemony or of Truth), priori framework for contingent occurrences of or Truth, hegemony empirical In both character of the theory is linked, cases, however, this formal by a kind of half-acknowledged umbilical and limited cord, to a concrete and practice (in Laclau, the post-Marxist politico-historical constellation of the multitude of emancipatory in strategy struggles for recognition; the anti-State on Badiou, ‘marginal’ revolutionary politics in factories, ground
multiplicity conceptualize a new,
etc.). campuses, The same goes
for
obvious
is the
paradigm
other
the
authors.
two
the
In
rebellion
‘spontaneous’
his
of Ranciére,
case
of the
proletarian
masses
(not the mythical Marxian proletariat as the Subject of History, but actual of textile and other workers, working women artisans, groups exploited
‘ordinary’ people) who reject the police frame defining place and, in a violent politico-poetic gesture, take the floor, for
themselves.
Balibar
his
problem
decency: dialogue that
reason,
1960s
in
which Balibar
we
is
is can
resists
the
are
our
anti-State as
a
role
the
on we
articulate
of the State (the notion initiatives) and emphasizes the tor
focused
more
how, today,
for
rhetorics
the
of
maintain
demand
mechanism of
universe
to
of
of
State
their
a
‘proper to speak ‘civility’, even start
the
space
of
rights;
for
civic
human New
Left
of the
‘oppression’ of pcople’s as the (possible) guaran-
of the
All
of civic discussion. space these authors oscillate between
proposing
a
neutral
formal
frame
174
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
the
political field, without implying any prevalence given to a particular leftist was in the work already clearly discernible as the point of reference for most of these of Michel Foucault, who serves of Power is presented as a neutral tool that describes his notion authors: field of existing power structures and the way the entire resistances to to a detached Foucault liked himself as them functions. present positivist, the activity of passionmechanisms that underlie laying bare the common avoid the ately opposed political agents; on the other hand, one cannot that Foucault is on somehow the of the side passionately impression of in the those who are of machinery caught ‘oppressed’, ‘discipline and aims to them and the chance to to enable them utter, punishment’, give to ‘speak for not to start themselves’... Do we find, on a different level, the same tension in Laclau? Laclau’s notion of hegemony describes the of ideological ‘cement’ binds universal mechanism which any social body that can together, a notion analyse all possible sociopolitical orders, from to Fascism liberal the less none democracy; on the other hand, Laclau a determinate advocates political option, ‘radical democracy’ .* the working de parti, and prise specific political practice. This tension
of
describes
that
the
.
and
Hegemony So
let
to
the
series:
philosophy echoes
with
cases,
that
is
to
is
problems finds for
the
Laclau,
features
that
political
decision
So what
Socialist the
is
‘typical’
sustains
hegemony? in
of the
are
its
Those
well
theoretical
aware
as
the
in
course, a
the relies
a
philosophical
to
free
practical philosophical of
of
edifice:
still the
closed
remember
the
good key played by the truly progressive Socialist role
freedom
society;
ontology ontologically positive rely on prevailing hegemony.
who
as
act
problem a
both
mirror
is denounced
contingent
of
thesis in
and
grasp
solution
establishment
traditional
thread:
to
on
this
Laclau
common
‘world-view’)
ultimate
the
Marx,
(mis)perceive that
of
endeavours
the
revolutionary
breakdown
Realism
from
that
cases
For
the
with the exception today ‘the realm of of politics begins’* strangely theoretical to interpretation
begin that
is nevertheless
there
both
in
in
we
realm
Although,
approach
practice.
its solution
the
passage
is’ (what Marx called to itself, unbeknown
say,
and
proposition
and
the
on
meaning,
adequately ‘what something which, —
end
an
theorctical
any
whose
transformation.
different
a
to
thesis
Symptoms
materialists,
proper
Laclau,
comes
Marx’s
revolutionary has
like
proceed
us
Its
reveals an
old
while
how
ethico-
days
notion
literature
of of
POLITICAL
SUBJECTIVIZATION
AND
ITS
should
depict ‘typical’ heroes in ‘typical’ situations. example, presented a predominantly bleak picture a
accused
not
were
distorted
simply
reflection
of
of
lying the accusation social reality by focusing -
which
were sad ‘typical’, on were which focusing phenomena the expressing deeper underlying
not
were
remainders
175
VICISSITUDES
Writers
who,
Soviet
for
reality
that
they provided phenomena which
was on
of
the
of
the
of
instead
past,
of ‘typical’ in the precise sense historical of the progress tendency towards A novel Communism. which Socialist presented a new type of man who dedicated his life to the happiness of all the of course, people, not depicted a minority phenomenon (the majority of the people were like but none the a less which to us enabled that), yet phenomenon identify the truly progressive forces active in the social situation. as this notion Ridiculous of the ‘typical’ may sound, there is a grain of truth in it it lies in the fact that cach apparently universal ideological notion is always hegemonized which colours by some particular content its very universality and accounts for its efficiency. In the present rejection of the social welfare system by the New Right in the USA, for example, ~
the
notion very universal the more contaminated by
African-American
social
of
is
single silently and
system
representation
of the
mothers is wrong
notion:
welfare
as
with
particular ‘typical’ of the The
it....
as
last
single
goes
single notion
universal
samc
a
resort,
‘the
of
case
is
inefficient
notorious
the
in
were,
the
~
of
conccived
what
welfare
present
if social
as
black
welfare,
universal
the
concrete
mother, for
programme black mother’
of
for
every
always has to look for the particular content which accounts for the specific efficiency of an ideological notion. In the case of the Moral Majority campaign against abortion, for example, a the ‘typical’ case is the exact opposite of the (jobless) black mother: to successful and sexually promiscuous career woman who gives priority her professional life over her ‘natural’ (in assignment of motherhood blatant contradiction to the facts, which tell us that the great majority of
ideological
abortions
occur
This
specific of
‘typical’ mic terms,
empty our
battles
in lower-class
‘twist’, universal
background/support it plays the role universal
a
of
families
the
is the
notion, of of
the
a
notion
mere
won
or
lost.
To
go
back
children). which
clement
of
is
fantasy,
ideological
‘transcendental
As
several
content
universal
such, this experience’. insignificant illustration which will particular content
are
with
particular
into
notion
‘actual
means
level
the
one
schematism’,
promulgated as of the phantas-
notion
—
in
translating
Kant's the
directly relates and applies to phantasmic specification is by no this it is on or exemplification: that as count ideological ‘typical’ the to our example of abortion:
which
176
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
‘typical’ the economically
case of abortion in a large lower-class to with another child, the perspective cope family unable changes radically... ° is thus a sinthome in the strict Lacanian ‘Single unemployed mother’ at all the a knot, which lines of the predominant sense: a point ideological to family values, the rejection of the welfare (the return argumentation
moment
perceive
we
and
state
‘untie’
‘uncontrolled’
its
this
to
fundamental the
is
see
the
medical
but
claims
now
in what
the
symptom:
is
latter
that
adolescent
is
a
is
When
in
not
social of
symptom
some
say,
only
cure
when
sciences,
the
global
to
more
claims,
one
should
we
is
crisis
of
attack the implication is that one should problem ‘at its root’, by directly addressing problems of the family, employment, etc., not only by punishing the offenders.) The sinthome, in a ‘mere is not contrast, symptom’, but that which holds together the one if itself’ unties it, the ‘thing itself’ ‘thing disintegrates. For that does cure reason, psychoanalysis actually by addressing the sinthome.... in what it clear This example makes sense from a ‘the universal results in which constitutive the of a transforms negation particular identity split this as such’:® the identity into the symbol of identity and fullness within the Particular Universal when some emerges particular content
values
and
work
violence
of
sign
a
level.
taking place the implication is that attack its causes directly. (Or,
we
edifice
ideological psychoanalytic sinthome
another
on
if
reason,
entire
the
sense
that
For
meet.
symptom,
a
symptom,
one
can
process
fever
spending, etc.) efficiency of its
the
sinthome, We
suspended. be opposed that
as
the
ethic,
the
-
starts
the
to
function
universal
stand-in
the
as
for
the
absent
Universal
is to
that
-
say,
in the
the
operative only through split particular. A couple on of years focused as the single mothers ago, the English yellow press to source of all the evils of modern from the crisis society, budget juvenile in this ideological space, the universality of the ‘modern delinquency social the Evil’ was operative only through split of the figure of ‘single is
—
mother’
itself
into
social
‘modern
between
the
stand-in
(i.e. the
hegemony),
in
its
Evil’.
and
Universal the
fact
the
of
existence is
signifier: ‘Politics possible itself society can only represent ers.’
only content
Since in
doesn’t
‘society the guise of an the struggle —
for
is the
the
this
Universal the
through its
the
as
the
ultimate
which of
a
always
is the
for
the
this
of functions
link
relies
constitutive
production
an
on
its
as
political struggle
unity can signifier hegemonized by content
stand-in
character
content outcome
because
exist’,
empty
contingent
particular
link
this
that
the
to
itself
and
particularity
Owing
for
empty
impossibility of of empty signifibe some
symbolized particular
political struggle.
In
other
POLITICAL
words, politics exists for
the
the
series
the
latter
‘circulates’
failure
in
the
always determinate,
constitution
the
infamous
that
and
the
involves every particular formation in Hegelese, that Particular or,
gap
that
example
State:
with
about
brings
of the
‘Hegelian
determinate
its
there
(universal)
dialectical
its is
and
negativ-
notion
—
a
particular
a
that
Let
the
between
gap
and
dissolution? between
aims
negation’
-
coincides
never
sense:
of all determination.®
if
Universal
of
notion
our
fact
at
anti-Hegelian
negation’ in the Hegelian positivity of the concrete
apparent
are
his
the
formation
very
that
is that
however,
precisely the
the
on
the
of
contents
formulation
‘determinate
with out
comes
through
ity depends
What,
here
dealing
not
are
while
177
‘society doesn’t exist’: politics is the struggle the signifier which represents impossibility phrase ‘the politics of the signifier’ is thus fully signifier as such is political and, vice versa, there is order of the signifier. The space of politics is the of ‘ordinary’ signifiers (S,) and the empty Master-
Signifier (S,). The only thing to add to Laclau’s twist is perhaps, all too sudden: We
VICISSITUDES
empty
Society. The worn-out justified: the order of no politics outside the between
ITS
because
of the
content
of
gap
AND
SUBJECTIVIZATION
it is this
take
us
of the
notion
the State
always gap Hegel’s point here, however, is not that, in the course of history, positively existing, of the teleological process actual states are gradually approaching their notion, until finally, in the modern post-revolutionary state, actuality and notion overlap. Hegel’s with point, rather, is that the deficiency of actually existing, positive states in an inherent is grounded regard to their notion deficiency of the very and
its
notion it should
particular
of
the be
actualizations;
State;
thus
reformulated
of social
a
relations
the
split
is inherent
as
the
split
and
the
series
between
to
the the
of irreducible
notion State
of
qua
the the
State
—
rational
antagonisms which, on the the this level from notion, already totality of fully actualizing prevent itself the account of which State and civil society on (the split between as unity of the State is ultimately always experienced by individuals ‘imposed from outside’, so that individual fully ‘themsubjects are never selves’ in the State, are never able fully to identify the Will of the State with their own). Again, Hegel’s point here is not that the State which would is impossible it is possible; the catch is, rather, fully fit its notion that it zs no longer a State, but a religious community. What one should change of is the notion of the State that is, the very standard itself by means which one the deficiency of actual states. measures The struggle for ideologico-political hegemony is thus always the
totality
~
—
178
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
that are appropriation of the terms ‘spontaneously’ experias No wonder the transcending political boundaries. ‘apolitical’, of the strongest dissident name force in the former Eastern opposition was Solidarity: a signifier of the impossible fullness of European countries there was one. It was as if, in those couple of years, what society if ever Laclau calls the logic of equivalence was brought almost to its extreme: in power’ served ‘Communists as the embodiment of non-society, of decay and corruption, magically uniting everyone against themselves, including for
struggle
enced
as
disaffected of
‘honest
individuals for
Catholic
farmers,
interests them
their
synonymous
censorship; bureaucracy their
on
Conservative to
the
obstacle
an
the
to
workers
but, behalf,
even
saw
worse,
in their
unbridled
themselves humiliated name;
on
the
border
very
which
them
accused
business-orientated
activity;
capitalist
for
the
which
dis-
atheists;
modernization
intellectuals,
Communism
was
with
not
oppressive and stupid only exploited by the Party
by claims that finally, disillusioned
perceived the regime as the betrayal of ‘true all these between political alliance divergent positions was possible only under the banner it were,
amoral
were
of violent
force
own
master;
their
and way of life; for the artists in their everyday experience the
nationalists
Soviet
Communists
Church,
they represented
rupted
done
in
saw
the
Communists’.
Polish
betraying
separates
Socialism’. and of
a
the
this
had old
been Leftists
The
impossible potentially antagonistic signifier which stood, as political from the pre-
for this role: it was political, and ‘solidarity’ was the perfect candidate politically operative as designating the ‘simple’ and ‘fundamental’ unity of human beings which should link them beyond all political differences. when this magic moment of universal Now, however, solidarity is over, the signifier which, in some is emerging as the post-Socialist countries, of what the Laclau calls ‘absent fullness’ of is signifier society honesty: it forms the focus of the spontaneous of ideology ‘ordinary people’ caught in the economic-social turbulence in which of hopes of a new fullness should follow the of Socialism were Society which collapse cruelly and ex betrayed, so that in their eyes, the ‘old guard’ (ex-Communists) dissidents who entered the ranks of power joined in exploiting them even more
than
battle
for
before under the banner of democracy and freedom. The is now focused on the particular content hegemony, of course, which will give a spin to this signifier: what does ‘honesty’ mean? For a it means moral and religious values, conservalive, returning to traditional as well as purging the social of the old regime; for body of the remainders a to rapid privatization; Leftist, social justice and resistance and so forth. The same measure to land the for Church, returning example is thus ...
—
—
POLITICAL
‘honest’
AND
SUBJECTIVIZATION the
ITS
179
VICISSITUDES
the leftist from standpoint and ‘dishonest’ to accommodate standpoint position silently (re)defines ‘honesty’ it to its own ideologico-political position. It would be wrong, however, to claim that the conflict is ultimately about different meanings of the term what in is that each position lost this ‘semantic clarification’ ‘honesty’: gets claims that their honesty is the only ‘true’ honesty. the struggle is not simply a to inherent a it is between different contents, struggle struggle particular from
the
conservative
each
—
itself."
Universal
content displacing another is readability: in a concrete fullness of post-Socialism, ‘honesty’ as the significr of the absent situation the makes which of Society will be hegemonized by the particular content ‘readable’ more convincingly everyday experience of engaged individuals which enables them more effectively to organize their life-experience neutral a into a consistent narrative. Of course, ‘readability’ is not the after fact the it on that, criterion, depends ideological struggle: the of of the narrative in the standard early Germany collapse bourgeois unable the was to account for 1930s, which global crisis, Nazi antithe than ‘more Semitism rendered this crisis convincingly readable’ of series a of result narrative is the contingent socialist-revolutionary this overdetermined factors. ‘readability’ Or, to put it in another way: a multitude does not imply a simple relationship of competition between of narratives/descriptions and the extra-discursive reality, where the narrative which is most ‘adequate’ with regard to reality wins: the relationship is circular and self-relating: the narrative already predetermines what we shall experience as ‘reality’. One is tempted to propose a thinking of Laclau’s way of simultaneously which within the frame notion of ideological universality as empty, as Marxist classic the different and contents for particular fight hegemony, notion of (privileging a particular ideological universality as ‘false’ the Both of them into the constitutive interest). gap between play bring
So how
as
a
does
stand-in
a
for
particular
the
in
succeed
content
Universal?
Laclau’s
answer
~-
Universal is the
and gap
particular it is the
gap
the
between
the that
content
gap between
within
the
albeit
Particular,
the
absent acts
as
a
which
a
content
involve
the for
content
the
of a
this gap way. For Laclau, and a contingent Universal for Marx, this absent fullness;
different of
stand-in
(particular)
‘official’
edged presuppositions,
in
fullness
set
of
the
Universal,
Universal
and
its
that
is, the
unacknowl-
of exclusions.
Let us take the classic example of human rights. The the particular reading can convincingly demonstrate the specific bourgeois ideological spin to the notion
Marxist content
of
symptomal
which human
gives
rights:
180
THE
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
rights are in fact the right of white, male, private owners as well as exchange freely on the market, exploit workers and women, domination...’ at this exert least, tendentially, political approach the hidden of the very considers ‘pathological’ spin to be constitutive of the Universal. of the universal form form Against this quick dismissal itself as ideological (concealing an unacknowledged particular content), insists on the gap between Laclau the empty universality and its determin‘universal
human
to
—
the
content:
ate
and
its
link
between
the
empty
universal
is
of
notion
that
original particular
content
—
is
‘human
contingent say, the ‘human to function as an formulated, they were rights’ started content could be contested and widened empty signifier whose concrete what about the human members of nonchildren, rights of women, white .? Each of these races, criminals, madmen supplementary gestures does not of human domains simply apply the notion rights to ever new can also vote, own (women, blacks property, actively participate in public life, etc.), but retroactively redefines the very notion of human rights. Let us recall the gist of Marx’s notion of exploitation: exploitation is not to Marx’s is not that are workers simply opposed justice point because are not the value of full their work. The exploited they paid central notion of ‘surplus-value’ is that a worker is exploited thesis of Marx’s even when he is ‘fully paid’ exploitation is thus not opposed to the ‘just’ equivalent exchange; it functions, rather, as its point of inherent exception there is one commodity (the workforce) which is exploited precisely it is ‘paid its full value’. when is that (The further point not to be missed the production of this excess is strictly equivalent to the universalization of the exchange-function: the moment the exchange-function is universalized that is, the moment it becomes the structuring principle of the whole of economic life the exception since at this point the emerges, workforce itself becomes a on the market. Marx in commodity exchanged
rights’
to
moment
-
..
...
~
—
—
-
effect
announces
here
constitutive
the
Lacanian The
notion
basic
of the
Universal
which
of
involves
exception.) premiss symptomal reading is thus universality necessarily gives rise to a particular ‘exwhich element precisely as an inherent, necessary product of the process designated by the universality simultaneously undermines it: the symptom is an the Universal example which subverts whose example it is.!° The the empty of particular gap between signifier and the multitude contents in the for to function as the which, fight hegemony, endeavour of this absent representatives fullness, is thus reflected within the Particular the particular itself, in the guise of the gap that separates hegemonic a
that
every ideological timate’ element, to an
—
-
POLITICAL
of
content
AND
SUBJECTIVIZATION from
ideological universality (say, separates the bourgeois notion from the exchange between capital and that involves exploitation precisely in an
it
We
should
therefore
consider
ITS
the
of
and
‘just
far
so
undermines
exchange’ particular exchange
the
it is
as
18]
equivalent
as
just
not
that
symptom
workforce
three,
VICISSITUDES
and
‘just’
levels:
two,
‘equivalent’). the
Uni-
empty
versal
which (‘justice’), the particular content hegemonizes the empty Universal (‘just and equivalent exchange’), and the individual, the symptomatic excess which undermines this hegemonic content (exchange between capital and workforce). One can see immediately in what sense the individual is the dialectical and Particular: the unity of Universal individual to the gap between (the symptomatic excess) bears witness the Universal and the Particular: to the fact that the Universal is always ‘false’ in its concrete existence (hegemonized by some particular content
which
involves
Let
of
series
a
make
us
the
Skinner
ago, Quentin traditional liberal
exclusions). from
point pointed
same
and
yet another that
out
radical
Marxist
a
about
than ‘political’ involves more the sphere of the political is
the
decisions
administration
which
intimate outside
(sexual)
the of
the
contrary,
scope. What
word both
antagonism, In
the
realist
discovered, content.
the
social
the in
the
In
the
there
struggle of it
—
that
nominalist
a
to
the
conferring in
simply account,
both
the out
conflict of
our
nominal
simply
are
different
on
it
of
them,
is
‘thing
itself’.
between
a
notion
arises
to
the be
different
misperception
struggle again
it
to
account,
parties
two
that
so
close
of the very heart of the universal
content
it arises
theory,
different
the
is
content
nominalist
the
conflict;
the
on,
philosophical struggle for
how
The
come.
disappears
true
is
by
so
‘true’
a
true
a
are
and
and this
is
measure
can
sense,
into
is,
there
problem
different what
is
we
real
no
for
account
reaching not only
-
economy,
standard
account,
have
inscribed
struggle
account,
and
a
to
liberal,
intimate,
most
Both
a
term
political pervades
‘private’,
unearthed
whole is
miss,
accounts
be
to
content,
there
term:
‘political’
the
fail
realist
the the
the
to
decision.
the of
affairs
even
of course,
‘apolitical’,
political
reduces
readings
erroneous
true
of
of the
using the
this
to
access
theories
definitions
the
According political
science,
art,
‘nominalist’,
scope term.'! For
public
the
of
specific sphere
a
of
radical, the
of the
different on
and
to
gain
we
also
Marxist
lives, from
our
‘realist’ notion
once
the
something as disavowed political
Universal.
the
For
of
perception grounded in a
very
versions,
but
interests,
its scope. sphere of
every
the
concern
to
years between
the
that
of
meaning
restricted
Some
perspective. possible discussion
a
out
of the of
an
TICKLISH
THE
182
is thus
and
epistemological confusion,
SUBJECT neutralized
What
of
of the
into
gets lost
a
in both
peaceful
meanings. plurality that struggle for hegemony (for the particular content for the universality of the political) as the stand-in function Real which cannot be further the ultimate grounded in some tence
coexis-
is the
cases
fact will
which
the
is
groundless: ontological
structure.
Here, to
be
which
position, of the
involve
to
endeavours of the
scope political character
how
demonstrate
to
is
the
has
of
again that if the Marxist’s operation symptomal reading of the liberal’s
add
should
however, one effective, it has
‘political’ something which, to
disavow
the to
—
to
liberal’s
exclude
constriction
violently the own definition —
the liberal’s
according how political; and, furthermore, this very exclusion of something from the political is a political gesture par of ‘private family excellence. The standard example: the liberal definition relations life’ as apolitical naturalizes and/or changes into hierarchical in human grounded in pre-political psychological attitudes, in differences in a priori cultural and so on a whole set of relations constants, nature, on of subordination that and exclusion actually depend political power of the
should
term,
the
enter
of the
scope
—
~
relations.
Enter How
this process subjectivity enter ‘subject’ is the very agent the which sutures hegemony
of
—
Laclau’s
similar the
(in
stances
hegemony between
of
an
factual
Order),
of
is not
subject
substantial
a
that
decision/choice
of
they
are
the
none
universalization?
For
accomplishes the operation to a particular content. the subject seems to be very agent
but
emerges
is not
less
grounded in any separated by different
‘deconstruction’. is deconstructive
move
in
act
Universal
notions
Badiou’s the
cases,
of
towards
Laclau’s matrix
both
course
pre-given
and
hegemonic
which
the
Although in
Subject
does
Laclau, of
the
the
course
—
of which
ideology: hegemony and
that the
involves
is
why, for him, subject emerges a
kind
of
structural
Particular
the
Universal,
~
the
operation of clementary short
circuit
fragility of every of hegemonic operation is grounded in the ultimately ‘illusory’ character this short it, that is, circuit; the task of theory is preciscly to ‘deconstruct’ to demonstrate is inherently unstable, how every hegemonic identification the of a in outcome short, for Laclau, contingent every struggle a hegemonic operation is ultimately ‘ideological’. For Badiou, in contrast, the
and
the is the
POLITICAL
Truth-Event of
the
is that
between
tension
emergence love of
which the
of its Truth.
be
cannot
overdetermined
intricate,
an
AND
SUBJECTIVIZATION
texture
of
Necessity Badiou
For is
Plato),
ITS
183
VICISSITUDES
reduced ‘deconstructed’, of ‘traces’; here Badiou situation
global
a
and
(in his anti-Platonic of
of
to
the
contingent
mode, the
effect
an
introduces
despite his of Being,
order
Necessity category veracity, or not. So if, against the inherently contingent, it can occur of deconstructionist and/or postmodern politics ‘undecidability’ and Badiou to paraphrase Saint-Just’s well-known comment on ‘semblance’, as a wants to as a factor’ (ruth (re)assert polilical ‘happiness political the that he wants to return to factor, this does not mean premodern neutral order of Truth. For Badiou, eternal grounding of politics in some Truth itself is a theologico-political notion: theological in so far as religious revelation is the unavowed of the Truth-Event; paradigm of his notion to be of a neutral Truth is not a state political because perceived by means a of but matter intuition, (ultimately political) engagement. Consequently, for Badiou, that disrupts the of Truth subjectivization designates the event of the hegemonic the existing social closure and/or ideological domain of for the of subjectivizaedifice Order while Laclau, (the Being); gesture of establishing a (new) hegemony, and is as such tion is the very gesture the elementary gesture of ideology.'” In a way, to between everything seems hinge on the relationship Knowledge and Truth. Badiou limits Knowledge to a positive encyclopaeof Truth dic grasp of Being which as is, as such, blind to the dimension Event: Knowledge knows only veracity (adequation), net Truth, which is sense of subjectivism, but a linked to ‘subjective’ (not in the standard in a way transcends which the subject, since ‘wager’, to a decision/choice the subject himself/herself is nothing but the activity of pursuing the while
Truth
a
is
—
—-
of
consequences it is
tion’,
that
so
ethico-political ‘domesticated’
Badiou within
from
the
terms), Event, the
a
the
Institution
We
knowledge?'* global
of
Badiou, of
order
of any Order ‘normalization’
not
of
precisely also
an
Event while
see
is
always a founding Event
is sedimented
order
unearth
Event
always lurks
the
which
gap
rare
(to put
‘sedimentation’
relies
the
Event on
a
separates
it in
of
of
(the behind
occurrence
(for example, the
from
already
‘ontologiza-
the
contingent
Laclau
for
is itself a
now
a
its
Event,
an
dimension
scandalous can
to
every
Truth-Event,
a
presupposes of
that
however,
fact,
a
Knowledge is
Being;
Being
Order
it
of ‘sedimentation’
whose
decision) for
of
analysis
positive ontological political decision. every
field
of
task
Laclau:
Is
Decision).
socially operative ultimately a kind
concrete,
since
the
Badiou’s some
Christ,
disavowed
past
Church
say) ethico-
as —
184
Laclau is
to
Badiou
the
ultimate
is
different
content,
share
The
constitutive
Universal
gap
particular in
succeeds
temporary
and
contingent stand-in the universality
the
here a
and
paradoxical logic lack
constitutive be
supplied by
of
the
if this
impossible
joint’,
is not
never
one
should
Particular the
presuppose
the is
to
fullness
hegemonic forever split
to
the
of
object,
fill
that
the
Do
this
and
the of
this
Univer-
positive
but
gap, function
every remains a
between
its
we
not
particu-
encounter
impossible,sustained that
empty signifier) is, by a constitutive
Universal
is
of
notion
devoid
...?
up for the lack, to overcome What if, beyond (or, rather, the fullness of a Foundation, but
‘out
by can
of
however,
What,
fact? not
all
central
make
to
ultimate
strive
That
Kant.
to
behind
Particular
priori empty,
a
that
any positive with respect
desire
the
lurks
Laclau’s
it represents.... of desire as constitutively
(the absent
joint’
between
exerting
reference
that
of
contents
that
content
hidden
a
horizon
full; it is
never
particular lar
SUBJECT
philosophical question
formalism.
is the
hegemony the
nevertheless
and
say, of Kantian
that
sal:
TICKLISH
THE
the
‘out
beneath) the
of
it,
opposite
active will to disrupe (It was of striving: an uncanny Hegel who, apropos instead of about the how, emphasized Understanding, complaining how Understanding replaces abstract, negative quality of Understanding, the immediate fullness of life with should dry abstract categories, one the infinite of that is of praise power Understanding capable tearing asunder what what belongs together in nature, positing as separate remains in reality joined together.) And is not the Freudian name for this will to disrupt the death drive? In contrast active to desire, which strives to the Universal and the Particular regain the impossible balance between that is, for a particular content that would fill the gap between itself and the Universal drive thus the gap between the actively wills and sustains -
~
Universal
and
the
Particular.
Why Are Ruling Our
Ideas
Not
the
Ideas
of Those
Who
Rule?
is thus that the ruling ideology, in order to be operative, in which the exploited/dominated incorporate a series of features majority will be able to recognize its authentic longings.'* In short, every hegemonic universality has to incorporate at least two particular contents: the ‘authentic’ and its ‘distortion’ of popular content by the relations domination and Fascist exploitation. Of course ideology ‘manipulates’ authentic popular longing for a true community and social solidarity fierce and it ‘distorts’ the against competition exploitation; of course
has
conclusion
to
POLITICAL
of this
expression relations achieve
of this
AND
SUBJECTIVIZATION
longing
social
domination
effect,
however,
order
in
and it
legitimize exploitation.
to
the
none
ITS
less
has
185
VICISSITUDES
the
continuation
In
order
to
to
of
be
incorporate
able
the to
authentic
of some popular longing. Ideological hegemony is thus not the case particular content directly filling in the void of the empty Universal; the very form of ideological universality bears witness to the rather, the ‘popular’ content (at least) two particular contents: struggle between expressing the secret majority, and the specific longings of the dominated of domination. content of the forces expressing the interests is tempted to refer One here Freudian distinction to the between the latent desire dream-thought and the unconscious expressed in a dream:
the
two
are
inscribes
not
the
same,
since
the
unconscious
desire
articulates
itself,
of the through the very ‘working-through’, translation, latent In the same dream-thought into the explicit text of a dream. way, there is nothing ‘Fascist’ (‘reactionary’, etc.) in the ‘latent dream-thought’ of the Fascist community and social ideology (the longing for authentic for the propérly Fascist character of the solidarity, etc.); what accounts Fascist ideology is the way this ‘latent dream-thought’ is transformed/ elaborated into the explicit ideological by the ideological ‘dream-work’ text which continues to of exploitation and legitimize social relations domination. And is it not the same with today’s right-wing populism? Are not liberal critics too quick in dismissing the very values populism refers to as inherently or ‘fundamentalist’ ‘proto-Fascist’? present Non-ideology (what Fredric Jameson calls the utopian moment in the most even atrocious ideology) is thus absolutely indispensable: in a of appearance, the formal distortion/ way, ideology is nothing but the form to the worst displacement, of non-ideology. To return imaginable case was not Nazi anti-Semitism grounded in the utopian longing for an authentic community life, in the fullyjustified rejection of the irrationality of capitalist exploitation, and so on? Our point, again, is that it is the longing for authentic theoretically and politically wrong to condemn it as a ‘totalitarian community life as such as ‘proto-Fascist’, to denounce fantasy’ to search for the possible ‘roots’ of Fascism in this very longing mistake of the liberal-individualist (the standard critique of Fascism): the of this longing is to be fully asserted. non-ideological utopian character
itself,
—
—
the way this longing is ‘ideological’ is its articulation, of capitalist the legitimization of a very specific notion functionalized as of financial the predominance exploitation (the result of Jewishinfluence, over ‘partnership’ ‘productive’ capital, which tends towards a harmonious
What
makes
it
186
THE
and
workers...) course).
with
Crucial
for
TICKLISH
how
successful
to
SUBJECT it
overcome
ideology
(by getting
is thus
the
motifs
that
tension
rid
of the
within
Jews,
of
its
particular belong ‘oppressed’ and those which belong to the ‘oppressors’: ruling ideas are never directly of the ruling class. the ideas Let us take what is arguably the ultimate how did it the become example, Christianity ruling ideology? By incorporating a series of motifs and aspirations of the oppressed (truth is the side on of the and suffering and humiliated; power corrupts...) them in such a that became with the rearticulating way they compatible of relations domination. And the same holds even for Fascism. existing The fundamental of Fascism is that between ideological contradiction the corporatist-organic aestheticized vision organicism and mechanicism: of the Social mobilization, Body and the extreme ‘technologization’, destruction, wiping-out, of the last vestiges of ‘organic’ communities local selfmanagement (families, universities, traditions) at the level of the actual In Fascism, the aestheti‘micro-practices’ of the power exercise. cized organicist corporate ideology is thus the very form of an unprecedented of society which technological mobilization disrupts ‘organic’ links.’ This enables us to avoid the liberal-multiculturalist paradox trap of condemning call for a return to cvery organic (ethnic, etc.) links as Fascism of is, rather, a specific combination ‘proto-Fascist’: what defines drive and the to ruthless modernization. To organicist corporatism put it in yet another actual encounters eleFascism, one way: in every always a
the
between
content
themes
and
to
the
—
which
ments
make
removal
from
Fascism
tour
certain of
its
us
elements
inconsistent
this
—
court.
say: ‘This of leftist
distance
‘Fascism’,
formal
principle displacement by
is
towards in
its
of distortion a
yet full-blown
not
traditions
or —
of
Fascism; there are in it’; however,
still this
the
is phantom of ‘pure’ Fascism practice, is nothing but a social antagonism, a certain logic
ideology
combination
liberalism and
and
condensation
the
fact
of
inconsistent
atutudes.
The
sents
distortion
same
in
its
itself
as
which,
‘non-class’:
is discernible
in
‘subjective’ self-perception, a
the
class
is the
notorious
that,
explicitly
‘middle
class’
today, conceives which
the of
is
themselves
—
class
and
pre-
precisely the society which and religious
strata of allegedly hard-working middle not only by their allegiance to firm moral but of standards, by a double opposition to both ‘extremes’ rich on the Space non-patriotic ‘deracinated’ corporations excluded poor immigrants and ghetto-members on the other. dle class’ grounds its identity in the exclusion of both extremes
define
only
the one
The
social
side; ‘mid-
which,
POLITICAL
when
they
the
same
that
and
‘real’
its very of Left
into
the
‘left-wing
and
position the
as
doesn’t
exist’
(Laclau)
the
that
the
itself
society and
of
it in
in
the
behalf
on
rule.
class
longer
be
of
the
is, in
—
intersec-
antagonism
the
healthy social immigrants), presents
of
In
other
the
fact
Leftists
words, that
the
‘Society bemoan
usually
struggle is as a rule blurred, of rightist populism, which people, while in fact advocating this constant displacement and is the ‘class struggle’: a class
of the
However,
harmonious
antagonism
case
(class) division
of
‘right-
class’
class
the
in
ideological perception
terms,
no
corrode
disavowal
of
impossible
poles
intruding of Society.
line
a
both
which
the be
the
is thus
‘middle
of
its
at
class’
extremes
the
denial
it, Society does exist.
blatantly
who
two
fetish,
a
the
would
Laclau’s
it would
is
the
of
of division
speaking
as
in which
direct
in
—
most
-
of those
‘falsification’
form
very
line
falsified
interests
class’
corporations and common ground
is the
presents
lie, the
‘extremes’
neutral
the
embodied
of antisocial
class’
fact
the
antagonism’ ‘middle
in Stalinism:
by expelling
‘middle
displaced,
between
Right which,
body (multinational itself
of the
very
‘middle
the
terms,
‘class
us
187
VICISSITUDES
notion
deviation’
the
ITS
give
Party line
true
existence,
psychoanalytic tion
lie of the
of the
deviation’
wing in
constitutive
as
AND
directly counterposed,
are
The
purest.
SUBJECTIVIZATION
of the
would
antagonism
but
impossible/real,
class
with
structure
a
division
was
pure
to put or, struggle be thereby fully symbolized; structural simple differential no
—
feature.
The
Political
Its
and
Disavowals
the notion of hegemony expresses of the elementary structure we of are condemned to shifts within the space ideological domination, is it to or at its least hegemony, very possible suspend temporarily,
If, then,
—
mechanism? and
that
Ranciére’s
Jacques it
the
constitutes
even
very
—
is that
claim
such
of
core
a
subversion
politics,
of
a
does
occur,
political
proper
event.
What, for Ranciére, time, appeared
first
with
no
only
demanded
who
exerted
firmly
that social
included
oligarchy
in
and
Greece
voice —
wanted
the
that
be
the
is, they voice on
more,
an
not
which,
phenomenon the
members
hierarchical
heard
their
public sphere, even aristocracy —
when
in
place
their
control and
A
politics proper?!’
determined
tort] they suffered, as
is
in Ancient
social
against those in only protested to
be
heard,
for
of demos
to
edifice)
the
(those not
those power, the wrong [/e be
equal footing with they, the excluded,
recognized the those
ruling with
THE
188
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
the social as the edifice, presented themselves place within the the for Whole of for the true stand-ins, Society, representatives, the “nothing”, not counted in the order the are Universality (‘we we are All others who stand for their against only people, particular designates the tension privileged interest’). In short, political conflict the structured between social body in which each part has its place, and this order ‘the part of no part’ which unsettles on account of the empty of of what Balibar calls the universality principle égaliberté, principled thus gua equality of all men speaking beings. Politics proper always no
fixed
-
—
—
involves
a
kind
of short
circuit
between
the
Universal
and
the
Particular:
as the standsingulier universel, a singular which appears in for the Universal, functional order of reladestabilizing the ‘natural’ in the tions social of the with the body. This identification non-part Whole, of the part of society with no properly defined place within it (or subordinated resisting the allocated place within it) with the Universal, is the elementary gesture of politicization, discernible in all great democratic events from the French Revolution which le état proclaimed troisiéme (in itself identical to the Nation as the such, against aristocracy and the to the of demise Socialism dissident (in which clergy) ex-European ‘forums’ themselves of the entire proclaimed representative society against the Party nomenklatura). In this precise sense, the basic politics and democracy are synonymous: aim of antidemocratic is and was politics always and by definition depoliticization that is, the unconditional demand that ‘things should go back to normal’, with each individual And, doing his or her particular job. as Ranciére the is proves against Habermas, political struggle proper not a debate therefore rational between but the multiple interests, and struggle for one’s voice to be heard recognized as the voice of a when the from the Greek demos to Polish ‘excluded’, legitimate partner: workers, protested against the ruling elite (aristocracy or nomenklatura), the true were stakes not (for higher wages, only their explicit demands better and etc.), but their very right to be heard working conditions, in Poland, the nomenklatura recognized as an equal partner in the debate lost the moment it had to accept Solidarity as an equal partner. These sudden of politics proper intrusions undermine Ranciére’s order of police, the established social in which order each part is properly accounted for. Ranciére, of course, emphasizes how the line of separation between and contested: in the Marxist police and politics is always blurred can be as tradition, read the say, ‘proletariat’ subjectivization of the ‘part of no part’ elevating its test of universality and, injustice into the ultimate
the
paradox
of
a
—
...
—
POLITICAL
AND
SUBJECTIVIZATION
ITS
VICISSITUDES
which will bring about simultaneously, as the operator of a post-political rational Sometimes the shift society.’7 be to can a matter of a police only change from
indefinite
article,
Communist
like
the
East
in the
last
German
crowds
of the
the from
the
189
establishment
politics definite
proper to the
demonstrating against
GDR:
the
first
‘We are they shouted the people!’ [Wir sind das Volk!’], thereby performing the gesture of politicization at its purest they, the excluded counter-revolutionary ‘scum’ of the official Whole of the People, with no proper place in the official more with titles like (or, ‘counter-revolutionaries’, space precisely, only at best ‘victims of bourgeois propaganda’ reserved for ‘hooligans’, or to stand for the people, for ‘all’; a couple of days later, them), claimed however, the slogan changed into ‘We are a/one people!’ [‘Wir sind ein of the momentary authentic Volk!’], clearly signalling the closure political the of the democratic opening, reappropriation impetus by the thrust towards the reunification of Germany, which meant rejoining Western Germany’s liberal-capitalist police/political order. In Japan, the of untouchables caste is called the burakumin: those
regime
days
-
—
who
are
involved
gravediggers)
and
Even
the
in
—
in are
with
contact
sometimes
dead
(butchers, leatherworkers,
flesh
referred
even
to
when
as
eta
(‘much
filth’).
no ‘enlightened’ present, they longer openly are not do despised, they silently ignored only companies still avoid or children to them, hiring them, parents allowing their marry under the of correct’ not but, ‘politically pretence offending them, one prefers to ignore the issue. However, the crucial point, and the proof of the pre-political (or, rather, non-political) ‘corporate’ functioning of are heard on their Japanese society, is the fact that although voices behalf could mention the and dead Sue Sumii (we simply great recently the The River with No Bridge, used who, in her impressive series of novels reference to burakumin to entire the of the expose meaninglessness Japanese caste hierarchy significantly, her primordial traumatic experi-
now,
are
—
—
ence
was
honour
the
shock
when,
the
as
relative
a
child, of
she
hers
witnessed scratched
in
order
toilet
used
how, the
to
by relic), piece of his shit as a sacred the burakumin did not actively politicize their destiny, did not constitute their as that of singulier universel, claiming that, position precisely as the of no stand for the of true Japanese ‘part part’, they universality society... 18 There is a series of disavowals of this political moment, of the proper of conflict: logic political the
Emperor, visiting Emperor
a
to
preserve
a
190 °
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
arche-politics. ‘communitarian’ attempts organically structured homogeneous void in which the political moment—event
define
to
social
that
space can
traditional
a
close,
allows
for
no
emerge;
¢
it into para-politics. the attempt to depoliticize politics (to translate it into a police logic): one accepts political conflict, but reformulates competition, within the representational space, between acknowledged parties/agents, for the (temporary) occupation of the place of executive power;’*
¢
Marxist
(or Utopian buf
asserted, on
Another
Scene
of
tion
things’
‘true’
of
goal
mate
Socialist)
in which
(of economic
politics
a
of
its
whose
events
processes)
is thus
‘administration
the
within
meta-politics. political
shadow-theatre
a
as
people’
into
rational
fully self-transparent
the order
the
fourth form, the most cunning and radical version (not mentioned by Ranciére), is what I am tempted
the
attempt
the
direct
between
‘Us’ for
ground
class
than
What
to
have
and
in
all
of
‘Them’,
symbolic struggle, the
conflict radical
these
ulti-
transforma-
‘administration
of
disavowal
of the to
call
Will,”
ultra-politics:
the
depoliticize
militarization
the
out;
of collective
the
e
fully place is
proper
played
are
selfcancellation,
is
conflict
conflict via by bringing it to an extreme by reformulating it as the war politics our there is no common Enemy, where it is deeply symptomatic that, rather Right speaks of class (or sexual) warfare.”
four
—
—
is thus
an to attempt gentrify the political: something emerged in Ancient Greece under the name of demos demanding its rights, and, from the very beginning from Plato’s revival of (i.e. Republic) to the recent liberal was an to ‘political philosophy’, ‘political philosophy’ attempt of the the to disavow and/or suspend destabilizing potential political, another: a a return to way or regulate it im one bringing about presocial the rules of and so political body, fixing political competition,
we
properly
traumatic
dimension
cases
of
the
forth.*?
‘Political
philosophy’
‘defence-formation’, reference
the
and
is
thus,
perhaps
in
its
all
its
different
typology
could
forms, be
a
kind
established
of via
different modalities of defence traumatic against some however, that psychoanalysis, psychoanalysis. It may seem, the psychoanalytic approach to politics, also involves the reduction of the That is to say, when one proper political dimension. approaches politics one on Freud’s through the psychoanalytic network, usually focuses elaboration of the notion of the ‘crowd’ of the and the apropos Army
experience
to
in
POLITICAL
Church.
This
AND
SUBJECTIVIZATION
however,
approach,
ITS
191
VICISSITUDES
are provoke justified criticism: precisely examples of the disavewal of the proper political dimension, that is, the two forms of social organization in which deliberation and decision the logic of collective on public affairs the political space is replaced by a clear hierarchical which defines chain of command? Is this not a that is unable proof by negation psychoanalysis the properly politicul space: the only form of ‘sociability’ it can to define of the political? articulate is the ‘totalitarian’ distortion/obfuscation to when she emphasized Hannah Arendt seemed point in this direction
not
the
the
distinction
Army
and
the
to
seems
Church
between
and the mere exercise power direct authority non-political
of
political
violence:
(social)
by an order organizations that is not of command politically grounded authority (Army, Church, [Gewait], not of political Power school) represent examples of violence in the strict of the term. it would be productive to scnse Herc, however, the distinction the public symbolic Law and its obscene introduce between of the obscene of double-supplement supplement:** the notion superego no Power Power that there is Power without violence. always has to rely implies on an obscene stain of violence; political space is never ‘pure’, but always by
run
—
—
Of course, the ‘pre-political’ violence. one and violence is of relationship political power pre-political of mutual not is violence the only necessary supplement implication: itself is always-already at the root of every power, (political) power The apparently ‘non-political’ relationship of violence. accepted violence and in the Army, the the direct Church, relationship of subordination of family, and other ‘non-political’ social forms is in itself the ‘reification’ a certain a critical analysis should ethico-political struggle and decision that ‘non-’ or discern the hidden sustains all these ‘prepolitical process the In is the human englobing political’ relationships. society, political of some structuring principle, so that every neutralization partial content as is a excellence. political gesture par ‘non-political’ involves
kind
some
of
reliance
on
between
—
The Within
these
interesting
four
and
(Mis)Uses
disavowals
of
the
politically pertinent
of
Appearance
political is the
case
moment
of
the
proper,
most
in which
meta-politics,
—
the place terms of Lacan’s matrix of the four discourses ‘agent’ is occupied by knowledge. Marx presented his position as that of ‘scientificmaterialism’; that is, meta-politics is a politics which legitimizes of its knowledge (it is itself by a direct reference to the scientific status to
put it in the
of the
—
TICKLISH
THE
192
SUBJECT
meta-politics to draw a line of distinction politico-ideological illusions and the Party on intervention knowledge of actual socioeconomic basing its historical of producprocesses). This knowledge (of class society and the relations in Marxism) tion suspends the classic opposition of Sein and Sollen, of Being and the Ought, of what Is and the ethical Ideal: the ethical Ideal which the revolutionary subject strives is directly grounded in (or towards coincides the ‘disinterested’ scientific with) ‘objective’, knowledge of this
knowledge
social
violence,
which
enables
immersed
those
between
—
processes since
in
this this
in
coincidence way
opens
which
acts
a
up
space against the
run
for
‘totalitarian’
elementary
most
of ethical
decency can be legitimized as grounded in the (insight of the ‘bourgeois into) historical Necessity (the mass killing of members that class’ is justified by the scientific this class is insight already in itself ‘condemned to disappear’, past its ‘progressive role’, etc.).
norms
That ous
—
is the
dimension
of
totalitarianism: in
grounded attempt coincidence
the
to
their realize of
the
the
between
difference
standard
strictly adhering of the
terrorism
strict this
adherence ideal
purest
the
to
ethical
Jacobins in to
directly,
idealism
with
the
famous
in
destructive
the to
the
ideal
impose the
most
and
Ideal, French of
murder-
even
~
modern
Revolution
was
égaliberté in their on to reality; this —
it
destructive
violence,
of
his Phenomenology, analysed already by Hegel chapter cannot totalitarianism. What the explain twentieth-century Jacobins lacked to was the refcrence ‘scientific’ objective/neutral knowledge of history of unconditional It is only the Leninist legitimizing their exercise power, revolutionary, not the Jacobin, who thus occupies the properly perverted of historical position of the pure instrument Necessity made accessible by of scientific means knowledge.*4 Lefort’s Here Ranciére Claude follows insight into how the space for totalitarianism was invention’ itself: (Communist) opened by ‘democratic is an of totalitarianism inherent democratic we First, perversion logic.”® who grounds his authority in some have the logic of the traditional Master transcendent reason visible with (Divine Right, etc.); what then becomes ‘democratic invention’ is the gap that separates the positive person of the Master from the with place he occupies in the symbolic network ‘democratic the place of Power is posited as originally empty, invention’, occupied only temporarily and in a contingent way by different subjects. In other evident that becomes words, it now (to quote Marx) people do not treat he is a king in himself; he is a king somebody as a king because because and as as him as one. treat takes Totalitarianism into long people account this rupture the ‘democratic invention’: the accomplished by -
POLITICAL
totalitarian as
Master
treat
you
AND
SUBJECTIVIZATION
me
the
fully accepts one’
as
that
—
is
of
logic
ITS
‘I
193
VICISSITUDES
Master
a
am
in
only
so
far
no reference say, his position involves he emphatically tells his the contrary, from all my strength derives you; I am
to
transcendent
ground, on nothing; I lose my of your deepest strivings; the moment only the embodiment from this derives .. His entire lost roots in you, I am legitimacy position . he ‘modestly’ diminishes and of the People: the more of pure servant that he he the more his instrumentalizes role, emphasizes merely who are the the strivings of the People themselves, and realizes expresses he and untouchable since more becomes, true the Master, all-powerful on attack on the People themselves, is effectively an on him any attack into actual individis thus “The their innermost split People’ longings. and the People of human and all kinds uals (prone to treason weaknesses) These three embodied in the Master. Master, logics (that of the traditional of the democratic regulated fight for the empty place of Power, of the of politics disavowal of the modes three fit the totalitarian Master) within the functions Master the traditional conceptualized by Ranciére: that the involves is, of arche-politics; democracy gentripara-politics, space in regulated fication of politics proper agonism (the rules of elections Master is possible and representative democracy, etc.); the totalitarian of within the meta-politics. only space Fascist Master and the Communist between Perhaps the distinction in the fact that resides despite all the talk about racial science, and so is not on the innermost meta-political but ultra-political: logic of Fascism its ‘purest’ (the at in politics. Stalinism is a warrior the Fascist Master more much is a paradoxical period of great purges in the late 1930s) of the alleged betrayal of the phenomenon than the Trotskyite narratives to
some
followers:
‘In
myself,
I
am
.
...
—
—
authentic
revolution
Stalinism,
rather,
functions
as
revolutionary the
Leader
who is
unable
of the a
inherent
is driven to
to
to
have
us
believe:
Class
radical
after this
tension
between
itself
effective
the
‘irrational’ into
a
‘point so
Class:
potentially involves (‘bootstrap’) cycle of Terror but also the highest entire ‘ordinary’ population of the the One, Stalin himself) (with exception threat of liquidation.
of
is to
and
the
nomenkla-
the
that the
everyone, nomenklatura was
say: what
(revolutionary)
nomenklatura
new
purges, New
That
death.
Stalin’s
moment,
repeated
stabilize
like
would
nomenklatura
(self-relating) negativity that point the ‘authentic’ between mediator’ ‘vanishing of late 1910s/early 1920s and the stabilization
New
Stalinist
this
new
of
of
into
is the
madness’,
the
the
kind
phase
nomenklatura
characterizes
tura
a
by is
self-enhancing not only the
under
-
everyone
permanent
194
TICKLISH
THE
led
is thus
One
(and thereby the bulk
nomenklatura end
the
with
of the
ridiculous
the
celebration
‘real’
Stalin
his
the
the
of
figure
and
so
gain
late
1930s,
coincided
moment
of
the
fight against in the
power)
this
in
offered
lost
‘real’
Purges (ironically, public adulation greatest genius of mankind, somehow compensated by
the
as
in fact
of his
Great
increase
was power the nomenklatura
What
Stalin
that
believe
to
SUBJECT
in
if the
as
on,
with
his
Stalin, loss
of
symbolic
power. that of the
role
comparable to deprived of actual executive power his at has to share of the least, (or, equals, members inner senior of not to could himself such a course, circle); Stalin, resign his and Doctors’ role, Plot, symbolic post-World-War-II activity (the Jewish the to etc.) betrays his effort planned anti-Semitic purge, regain real an effort which unsuccessful. So, in the last power, ultimately remained of the nomenklatura years of his life, with the resistance growing, Stalin was more and more isolated as a madman whose words no paranoiac longer his words possessed direct performative efficiency (say, his accusations constituuional
monarch
a
was
the
dots
who
i’s, but it with
is
-
of
‘acted
Stalin of
being
and
and
claimed
up
last
the
the
of
Communist
nomenklatura)
Party
Comrade
that
had
and
been
Stalin
were
no
attended
by Kaganovich speech, Molotov simply
speech, accused English spies; after Stalin’s his
in
Stalin,
traitors
members
senior
In
upon’.
(in 1952),
stood
the
against
treason
longer
congress
Molotov
was
remained
and
he
wrong, Bolsheviks
since
Revolution
left
and
the and, good the two party delegates present, nothing happened. men accused retained their senior posts something that would have been of years before. unthinkable a couple Also with regard to actual social of the change, or ‘cut in the substance social body’, the true was revolution not the October but the Revolution,
Kaganovich always the
of
amazement
to
—
—
collectivization of
stance
relations) which
social
maintain
this
revolution
was
of
a
which
late
1920s
substance’
deeply
the
which
(the into
fundamental
the
same.
It
thoroughly inherited
most
form
of
to
For
the
—
of
and
relations), fabric.?6
Fascist
precisely
to
the
order
to
on
in
the of
a
really change’, production)
of
collectivization
dismembered
perturbing
sub-
other
revolution,
reason,
semblance
the
and
family power
that
‘nothing capitalist relations was only the forced
social
the
executive
would
subverted
of
rather,
or
—
that
network
fundamental
similar
was
revolution
a so
network
relations.
social
event,
place
new
relations
of
fake took
it
a
October
intricate
respect
social
network
change things (i.e. the basically remain —
this
The
1920s.
merely imposed
network
existing
late
body (the
in
intact;
also
the
of the
Fascist
radical so
of
the and
that
would
the
‘social
cutting
POLITICAL
Let
SUBJECTIVIZATION
however,
return,
us
of the
ambiguity
Ranciére’s
to
Marxist
AND
notion
of
ITS
basic
the
‘gap’
VICISSITUDES
emphasis between
195 the
on
formal
radical
democracy
(human
rights, political freedom, etc.) and the economic reality of One can read this gap between the exploitation and domination. “appearance’ of equality-freedom and the social reality of economic, cultural, and other differences either in the standard ‘symptomatic’ way (the form of universal freedom and rights, equality, democracy is simply a necessary but illusory form of expression of its concrete social content, the universe of exploitation and class domination), in the much or more subversive sense of a tension in which the ‘appearance’ of éguliberté,precisely, is not a ‘mere appearance’ but evinces an effectivity of its own, which allows it to in
set
the
motion
relations
by
way too?
vote
women
concern?,
Why
One
etc.)
as
such,
the
the an
the
The
distinction
here.”
The
reality
of
between
to
conditions the
use
it
rcducing
appearance
and
the
longer clearly distinguishable of appearance political as the domain
class
and
other
distinctions,
socio-economic
(Why shouldn't of public political
be old
Lévi-Straussian a
of its
of
no
as
actual
of égaliberté is appearance actual own efficiency
properly cynical temptation a different conceals actuality. simulacrum
here
of
‘politicization’.
working
tempted
possesses
rearticulation
progressive
shouldn’t
is
‘symbolic efficiency’: which,
of
process their
of
that
to
fiction
should
resist
illusion
that
one
~
a
mere
notion
postmodern from
the
Real
(opposed
is, of society
as
term
symbolic
the
to
the
of
is crucial
social
articulated
social
with the postmodern notion that we body) has nothing in common in which simulacra entering the era of universalized reality itself becomes double. The indistinguishable from its simulated nostalgic longing for the authentic experience of being lost in the deluge of simulacra in Virilio), as well as the postmodern assertion of the Brave (detectable New World of universalized simulacra as the sign that we are finally rid the of obsession with authentic getting metaphysical Being (detectable are
in ance:
Vattimo), what
both
miss
gets lost
in
non-simulated
Real,
the
distinction
today’s ‘plague but
between
simulacrum
of simulations’ To
is it
in
not
and
the Lacanian
appear-
firm,
true,
appearance itself put is symbolic (fiction), imaginary (illusion), while appearance when the specific dimension of symbolic appearance to disintegrate, starts the Imaginary and the Real become more and more indistinguishable. The key to today’s universe of simulacra, in which the Real is less and of less distinguishable from its imaginary simulation, lies in the retreat of appearance this domain ‘symbolic efficiency’. In sociopolitical terms, from other than that of politics as distinct (of symbolic fiction) is none simulacrum
is
terms:
196
THE
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
is ‘appearance’ in so far as a (or included/excluded Body part it protests) symbolizes its position as that of a in a way against which other that it for stands the parts, universality of Wrong, claiming, against are we with in to the ‘reality’ here contrast appearance dealing égaliberié. social old The of of the structured conservative motto body. ‘keeping up twist today: it no longer stands for the appearances’ thus takes a new ‘wisdom’ according to which it is better not to disturb the rules of social etiquette too much, since social chaos might ensue. Today, the effort to for the effort to maintain the stands, rather, ‘keep up appearances’ the of the properly political space against onslaught postmodern allsocial with its multitude of identities.** embracing body, particular This is also how one dictum from his has to read Hegel’s famous is ‘the In a Suprasensible Phenomenology: appearance qua appearance’. sentimental to a child him God’s a answer what face is like, asking priest answers encounters a that whenever the child human face irradiating this face belongs to, he catches a benevolence and goodness, whoever of this sentimental! The truth glimpse of His face. platitude is that the as a Suprasensible (God's face) is discernible fleeting appearmomentary, the ‘grimace’ of an earthly face. It is this dimension of ‘appearance’ ance, a transubstantiating piece of reality into something which, for a brief the suprasensible Eternity that is missing in the logic irradiates moment, of the simulacrum: in the simulacrum, which becomes indistinguishable from the Real, everything is here, and no dimension other, transcendent it. Here we are at the Kantian back effectively ‘appears’ in/through famous in Kant’s problematic of the sublime: reading of the enthusiasm in evoked the Revolution by the French enlightened public around events functioned a the as Europe, revolutionary sign through which the dimension of a of trans-phenomenal free Freedom, society, appeared. the not domain of thus is ‘Appearance’ simply phenomena, but those in which noumenal dimension another, ‘magic moments’ momentarily some in (‘shines through’) ‘appears’ empirical/contingent phenomenon. So back to Hegel: ‘the Suprasensible is appearance gua appearance’ does not is not a that the Suprasensible simply mean positive entity beyond of negativity which makes phenomena, but the inherent power appearance an that that is not in itself is, something ‘merely appearance’, fully to of selfsublation. actual, but condemned It also perish in the process means that the Suprasensible is effective selfreflected, only as redoubled, self-related the into existence in the Suprasensible comes appearance: the
social not
body
subdivided
into
included
in the
Whole
...
—
parts.
There
of the
Social
POLITICAL
of
guise
SUBJECTIVIZATION
is also
That
standard insist
is not
but,
simulacra,
the
can
generate
also
introduce
Real,
the
cyberspace
Dimension
VICISSITUDES
197
which
the
reality’,
order
in
the
appearance. So
in
order
reality but
correlative
distinction,
the
is dissolved
undermines
VR
between of
‘sense a
which
contrary,
distinction a
within
‘reality’,
on
that
fear on
ITS
of appearances qua phenomena. problem with cyberspace and virtual
the
threatens
VR
Another
of
an appearance normal order
standard
AND
of
appearance
phenomenal
reality
and
the
within
short,
one
should
reality,
and the
not to
the itself
the
Real
interrupts reality (VR):
what
multiplicity
of
to
it is
not enough (claiming that
impossible Real); one one between reality -
the
its the
counter
distinction
to
VR
should and
the
between
(of Another Dimension) ‘magic’ appearances here between two distinguish couples of which are be to in the not confused opposites single opposition absolutely of appearance versus reality: the couple of reality and its simulacrum, and the couple of the Real and appearance. The Real is a grimace of reality: in which of a deadly rage face the Real say, a disgustingly contorted In this sense, the is an Real itself an transpires/appears. appearance, elusive semblance whose is discernible in the fleeting presence/absence and discontinuities of the of reality. The truc gaps phenomenal order is thus between two in VR) coincide (the opposition reality/simulacrum and Real/appearance. In more should detail, one distinguish four levels In
it.
of appearance: *
in
appearance
sentation/image although, of
—
here
the of
of ‘illusion’, the false/distorted simple sense reprereality (‘things are not what they seem’ platitudes) a
course,
between
appearance transcendentally constituted
further qua mere order
order transcendentally constituted to the opposed Thing-in-itself;
distinction
needs
to
be
introduced
subjective illusion (distorting the of reality) and appearance qua the of phenomenal reality itself, which
is *
the
in
that is, in Hegclese, symbolic fiction, order of customs and titles appearance say, symbolic if we (‘the honourablejudge’, etc.) which is ‘merely an appearance’ disturb it, however, social reality itself disintegrates;
appearance
as
sense
of
essential:
the
—
*
in
appearance
the
signs indicating that there is something phenomenal reality), that is, the appearthe Suprasensible exists only in so far as it is ‘there that the indeterminate (as presentiment phenomenal reality’); sense
beyond (directly accessible ance of the Suprasensible: appears
as
something
such beneath
of
THE
198 ‘fundamental
the
of
cal notion
midst
of
beneath The
only here fantasy’,
it is
finally (and
*
TICKLISH
what
encounter
we
well
as
the
as
radical
most
psychoanalysis calls phenomenologi-
the appearance which fills the void in the which the fact that, conceals appearance there is nothing to conceal.
‘phenomena’),
reality, that is, the phenomena, with
problem
that
SUBJECT
Kant
the
is that
he
tends
the
confuse
to
last
levels.
two
That
paradox to be accepted is that the realm of noumenal of the as such Freedom, (as noumenal) Supreme Good, appears only the phenomenal from of finite the perspective subject: in itself, if we get too close to Real.... Here it, it changes into the monstrous Heidegger on was the right track with his insistence on temporality as the ultimate is
to
the
say,
unsurpassable horizon, meaning only within exactly the same way, distinction
between
immersion
in
that
is, of eternity
the
temporal
what
Kant
is
a
of
fully
not
of) noumenal
distinction
a
as
experience was
(our experience
phenomena
itself
finite
to
how
is
and
in
the
temporal temporal
finite
our
has
subject:
of
aware
freedom
internal
which
category a
experience.
Post-Politics
Today, however, we are dealing with another the political, postmodern post-politics, which the political, trying to contain it and pacify but much more it, so effectively ‘forecloses’ ethnic
violence,
their
‘irrational’
denegation of longer merely ‘represses’ ‘returns of the repressed’, the postmodern forms of no are character, longer
the that
excessive
of the repressed’ but, rather, a case of represent (from the Symbolic) which, as we know from Lacan, returns
‘returns
simple foreclosed the
with
of the
form no
Real.
the in
In
of global ideological visions embodpost-politics, the conflict ied in different which for is compete parties power replaced by the collaboration of enlightened technocrats (economists, public opinion
and
specialists...) of
interests,
universal
consensus.
ideological necessary concrete
The
Tony
a
compromise Post-politics
divisions
needs
Blair’s
reached
and
formula
in
thus
confront
knowledge
and
free
demands
into
account.
that
expresses of characterization
the New
deliberation of
paradox Labour
as
of
negotiation
a
more
or
less
need
to
leave
old
with
the
issues,
new
of
process
the
guise emphasizes the
and
behind
the
via
multiculturalists; is
expert best
liberal
that
armed takes
post-politics the
‘Radical
people’s is
perhaps
Centre’:
in
POLITICAL
the
old
was
reserved
days
Centre
of
in the
guise
of
doesn’t
matter
catches
mice’:
that
size
moderate:
of the
in
the
whatever
ideas’?
The
is, of which the
that
advocates
without
that
act
the
is its
the
from is
that
1960s:
work. Itis
here
from
the
actually to empha-
like
the
that
apply ‘good
encounter
we
‘administration
of
‘It
it
any prejudice and And what are these
of
existing sociopoli-
is not simply someexisting relations, but determines how things work. To
(intervention)
act
within
the
What
usually formulated
Labour
proper framework
within
standards,
USA) ‘radical’
matters
origins.
ideas
political
political
old
moderation’.
the
of New
ideas
remains
well
works
in
what
white;
or
course, a
the
by
‘radical
as
politics
good (ideological)
separates
relations:
thing that something
of
take
their
answer
gap that social matters’ the
measured
199
qualification ‘radical’ extreme Right. The
the
ideological divides’, Deng Xiaoping’s motto
vein,
same
VICISSITUDES
the for
or
nonsense
is red
cat
a
should
them,
ITS
‘old
paraphrase
a
if
one
same
(or Bill Clinton's
Labour
abandonment
radical
Left
extreme
is the
Centre’
New
makes
the
for
by definition,
was,
AND
‘ideological’ political division,
either
‘Radical
term
tical
SUBJECTIVIZATION
framework
of
changes the
proper the
very framework that are ‘ideas that work’ means one thal in good accepts the (global capitalist) constellation that determines what works or (if, for example, one spends too much money on education healthcare, that ‘doesn’t it infringes on too much the conditions of work’, since One can also it in terms the well-known of capitalist profitability). put of politics as the definition ‘art of the possible’: authentic politics is, the exact rather, opposite, that is, the art of the impossible—it changes the of what is considered very parameters ‘possible’ in the existing
that
ideas
say advance
constellation.** this
When
dimension
political (the space wrong/injustice done the
Real,
in
the
of
guise
the
of
to
of
which
in
(consensually
alist
tolerant
needs
established)
humanitarianism:
the
erly ‘regulated’ is the indivisible democratic political struggle into tiation
and
multiculturalist
ing class’ demanding its multiplicity of particular for {the dwindling need
manual
in symbolic racism’ racism; ‘postmodern of of the post-political suspension to a mere police-agent servicing
of
the
returns
market
forces
whose the
of
multicultur-
and
status
is
never
of the
Instead
or
workers,
we
get,
groups,
etc.)
propof
transformation
post-political procedure
rights, strata
protest
this
‘foreigner’
policing. social
the
can
the
from
remainder
universal
the
excluded
of
forms
as the ultimate emerges consequence the political, the reduction of the State
the
effectively precluded,
the
foreclosed
them) new
is
impossible
litigation
of
political subject on
each
and,
the
on
hand,
one
its
with the
the
nego‘workthe
problems other,
the
TICKLISH
THE
200
immigrant,
from
prevented
more
ever
SUBJECT
politicizing
his
of
predicament
exclusion.”
today it is the (political) boldly changing the very rules of accomplishing Right what is considered acceptable-admissible in the sphere of public discourse: the way Reaganism and Thatcherism from legitimized the debate about and social workers’ benefits, up to the gradual legitimizacurtailing rights about Nazism in revisionist of the ‘open debate’ tion historiography a la that is, cannot Nolte worse, (was it really so bad? Was not Communism obvious
The
that
be
Nazism does
act
not
disturbs
also
dimension, Fascist
Event,
the
understood
a
changes. do
we
is,
it in
on
level
contrary,
(that
change of
so
the
rules
and not
the
is thus
to
the
Lacan,
the
pass
criterion
conceal of
it
symbolic space; concerning this crucial
here,
the
of
case
of
fact
that,
the
a
act.
pseudothe
on
production), to
answer
will
nothing really the question: what really change? Or -
the
of
true
a
of the
that, ultimately, nothing libidinal
for
paradigmatic
relations
Here,
Leninism-—Stalinism?). distinction:
the
destined of the
Revolution
Fascist to
the turmoil
spectacular
The
have
to
further
a
—
‘Revolution’ of
reaction
a
introduce
to
is that
acts,
only retroactively change the underlying fantasy Fascism emphatically docs
fundamental
most
as
it is crucial
however,
here
counter-argument
is
far
economy ideological space the the fantasy that underlies and sustains disturbing/‘traversing’ revolution to the social Fascist edifice, ideological merely brings capitalist of ‘normal’ the ‘inherent the light phantasmic transgression’ bourgeois (the set of implicit racist, sexist, etc., ‘prejudices’ that ideological situation the activity of individuals in it, although they are not effectively determine publicly recognized). is that we are One of today’s common wisdoms entering a new medieval in New World Order the of the the grain of truth in this society guise the New World as in medieval is that is Order, times, global, comparison for a new but not since it strives universal, global order with each part in its allocated of liberalism today throws together place. A typical advocate their workers’ and rights right-wing insistence protests against reducing on he to the Western cultural fidelity heritage: perceives both as pitiful have no in today’s remainders of the ‘age of ideology’ which relevance the two resistances to However, post-ideological universe. globalization follow totally incompatible logics: the Right insists on a particular communal identity (ethnos or habitat) threatened by the onslaught of globalizato
put
terms
—
from
—
tion;
while
politicization, from
within
for of
the
the
Left,
the
dimension
under
articulating ‘impossible’ universal existing space of World Order).
threat demands
is
that
of
(‘impossible’
POLITICAL
Here
world
should
one
(not only
SUBJECTIVIZATION
in
the
market,
oppose of
sense
but
also
global point of reference State sovereignty, from in parts the name cludes
of the for
the
world the
dimension
in
globalization and global capitalism, the
sense
for
human
trade
where
AND
of the
restrictions
ITS
VICISSITUDES
universalization: the
establishment
assertion
201
globalization of
a
global
of
‘humanity’ as rights, legitimizing the violation to
direct
global human rights emerging post-political logic of universality that appears
the of
military interventions, violated) is precisely which progressively prein politicization proper. are
The
the process of paradox is that there is no Universal proper without political litigation, of the ‘part of no part’, of an out-ofjoint entity itself as the stand-in for the Universal. presenting/manifesting One should link Ranciére’s of post-politics to the notion notion of non-functional of contemporary excessive, life, procruelty as a feature from ‘fundamenposed by Balibar:*! a cruelty whose manifestations range talist’ racist and/or outbursts of religious slaughter to the ‘senseless’ violence and the homeless in our by adolescents megalopolises, a violence one is tempted to call Id¢Evil, a violence or grounded in no utilitarian reason. All talk the about work from us, or ideological foreigners stealing the threat to our Western should not deceive us: values, they represent under closer it soon becomes clear that this talk provides a examination, rather Thc answer we superficial secondary rationalization. ultimately obtain from a skinhead is that it makes him fecl good to beat up disturbs him.... What we encounter here foreigners, that their presence is indeed and motivated /d¢Evil, that is, Evil structured by the most in the relationship between the Ego and jouissance, elementary imbalance the tension between by pleasure and the foreign body of jowissance at the of it. Id-Evil thus stages the most very heart elementary ‘short circuit’ in the subject’s relationship to the primordially missing object-cause of his desire: what ‘bothers’ us in the ‘other’ (Jew, Japanese, African, Turk . .) is that he appears to a the enjoy privileged relationship to the object other either the us from snatched it possesses object-treasure, having away (which is why we don’t have it), or he poses a threat to our possession of the object.” What one should here, again, is the Hegelian ‘infinite suggest judgement’ asserting the speculative identity of these ‘useless’ and ‘excessive’ outbursts of violence, which display nothing but a pure and naked (‘nonof Otherness, and the post-political multiculturalist sublimated’) hatred OF universe of tolerance of difference, in which nobody is excluded. I sense used the term usual in its which, ‘non-sublimated’ course, havejust in this case, stands for the exact opposite of its strict psychoanalytic .
—
THE
202
TICKLISH
what
SUBJECT
takes
place in the focusing of our hatred on (officially tolerated) Other is the very mechal its most of sublimation anism elementary: the all-encompassing nature Concrete for everybody at of the post-political Universality which accounts this multiculturalist the level of symbolic inclusion, vision-and-practice of leaves as the only (‘all equal, all different’), ‘unity in difference’ open, mark the to the of Difference, way proto-sublimatory gesture elevating a Other the into ‘absolute Otherness’ (of race, sex, religion .) contingent to of the impossible Thing, the ultimate our threat this Thing identity if we must be annihilated Therein which are to survive. lies the properly ‘concrete univerHegelian paradox: the final arrival of the truly rational the of abolition ‘mature’ the universe of the sality antagonisms, of different coincides with its radical negotiated coexistence groups of violence. opposite, with thoroughly contingent outbursts rule is that (the direct Hegel’s fundamental ‘objective’ excess reign of abstract universality which imposes its law ‘mechanically’, with complete disregard for the concerned subject caught in its web) is always supplethe mented excess of (the irregular, arbitrary exercise by ‘subjective’ An excellent illustration of this is whims). interdependence provided by who of Balibar,* distinguishes two opposite but complementary modes violence: the ‘ultra-objective’ (‘structural’) excessive violence that is inherent in the social conditions of global capitalism (the ‘automatic’ creation and dispensable individuals, of excluded the homeless from to the unemof newly emerging ethnic and/ ployed), and the ‘ultra-subjective’ violence or This ‘excessive’ and racist) ‘fundamentalisms’. religious (in short: involves its own mode of knowledge, that of impo‘groundless’ violence back tent to our cynical reflection example of /dEvil, of a skinhead when he is for his beating up foreigners: really pressed for the reasons and if he is capable of minimal theoretical he will violence, reflection, start to social talk like and social workers, suddenly sociologists psycholosocial gists, quoting diminished mobility, rising insecurity, the disintegration of paternal authority, the lack of maternal love in his early childhood In short, he will provide the more or less precise psychosociological account of his acts to so dear enlightened liberals eager to ‘understand’ violent youth as tragic victims of their social and familial conditions. Here the standard of the efficiency of the ‘critique enlightened formula of ideology’ from Plato onwards (‘They’re doing it because they don’t know what is, knowledge in itself is liberating; when they’re doing’ that the what he is doing, he will no erring subject reflects upon longer be around: the violent skinhead ‘knows doing it) is turned very well what in short, meaning some representative —
the
of
..
—
-
—
—
-.
—
POLITICAL
he’s
but
doing, knowledge
into,
the
lence
gets
would
have
intact.
who,
with
The
universal’
attempt
to
this
‘in fact
this
disregard
effectively
constrain
the
violence).
Nowhere
is
African-Americans: the
of
symbolically efficient praxis disintegrates
this
form
true
excessive
ideologico-
no
reflection
that
cynically impotent the
of
vio-
Lacan
as
him
and
thoroughly ‘dysfunctional’ violence of
implicit support
a
standard
and
(when ‘the rights of man’ are right of white property-owning males’, rules implicit underlying set of unwritten of is met outbursts universality rights by stronger
they
fact
than
were
formally American
of
in
entitled
the
the
ideologi-
here
contrast
the
successful.
the
this
his
enlightened excessive
between
is
of
roots
the
in short,
—
communication
skinhead, the
as
although
life
social
smile,
inverted,
the
point
crucial
is
but
on
serves
notion
really
The
explains perplexed journalist, ‘understanding’ forms
intolerant
the
that
ironic
in its
between
violence
universal
at
study,
distinction
obscene
message this
it,
put
guise
203
VICISSITUDES
the
to
bent
the
In an
behaviour
own
of his
‘object’
cal
acts
multiculturalist his
doing it’.34 subject’s actual
the
in
subject’s
reflecting skinhead senselessly violent tolerant
nevertheless
ITS
‘irrational’ violence with hand, excessive on the external and, other, impotent
one
foundation
political leaves
he’s
embedded
the
on
AND
SUBJECTIVIZATION
of
case
‘not
any that of
the
participate
to
the
in
old
political by being pararacism political democratic prevented their actual participation by silently and (via verbal enforcing their exclusion physical threats, etc.). The answer to this standard was the exclusion-from-the-Universal appropriate associated with the name Luther of Martin great Civil Rights movement the that enacted King: it suspended the implicit obscene supplement actual
mere
citizens,
it of course, equality the of easy gesture gain support large majority as dumb white liberal dismissing opponents upper—«ww—>—aeassee s_— eso
5
Passionate
(Dis)Attachments,
Butler
Judith
Why of
One
Sade’
is
the
key
of
Freudian
Unconscious.
perversions
‘emphasized by sis
—
not
Freud
perversion
to
are
sooner
This
denial
himself, offer
—
be
a
drawn
Michel
like
who,
potential
Is Not
Perversion
conclusions
those
that
Reader
a
as
way
that into
of Freud
Subversion from
the
or
for
later
theme
advocate
Foucault, is
or,
led
to
the
of
Unconscious: Lacan
the
avec
subversive
denial
theoretically grounded psychoanalysis, hysteria
the
‘Kant
the
in
aud
of the
the
fact,
psycho-
Unconscious
is
repeatedly perversions. Following Freud, while attitude, hysteria is always a socially constructive to the predominant and threatening much subversive more hegemony. It don’t realize the is the seem that situation perverts opposite: openly may about? and practise what hysterics only secretly dream Or, with regard to do hysterics not the Master: mercly provoke the Master in an ambiguous to to an the Master to in effect, amounts appeal addressed way which, while morc assert and his authority actually strongly, perverts again the Master's undermine position? (This is how one usually understands This very fact, that perversion is the negative of neurosis.) Freud’s thesis Unconscious: the us with the paradox of the Freudian however, confronts scenarios we of the secret does Unconscious not consist daydream perverse about and (in so far as we remain hysterics) shirk from realizing, while (‘act out’) perverts heroically ‘do it’. When we do this, when we realize our secret fantasies, everything is disclosed, yet the Unconscious perverse is somehow missed why? is not the secret the Freudian Unconscious Because phantasmic content, of the translation/ in between, in the process but something that intervenes of the dream text into the content of the secret transposition phantasmic is that which, (or the hysterical symptom). The Unconscious precisely, is not
that
accessible
perversion
via
is
~
insisted
248
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
the pervert is acting out: the perphantasmic scenarios about what obfuscates the vert, gap, certainty brings enjoyment, of the the ‘burning question’, the stumbling block, that ‘is’ the core is thus the ‘inherent The pervert Unconscious. transgressor’ par excellence. that sustain he brings to light, stages, the secret fantasies the practises while the discourse, predominant public hysterical position precisely are those secret fantasies ‘really 7’. displays doubt about whether perverse is not the desires and symbetween secret Hysteria simply battleground bolic prohibitions; it also, and above the gnawing doubt all, articulates whether secret desires what whether our really contain they promise In to on other really inability enjoy symbolic prohibitions. hinges only the he knows the because words, pervert precludes the Unconscious answer about (to what brings jouissance, to the Other); he has no doubts while the hysteric doubts that it; his position is unshakeable; is, her and constitutive What position is that of an eternal (self-)questioning:
obfuscated by
the
his
with
—
—
does
the
This
Other
from
want
me?
What
am
I for
the
Other?.
..
of
perversion and hysteria is especially pertinent today, of the in our era of Oedipus’, when of ‘decline the paradigmatic mode the is no Law the into subjectivity subject integrated paternal longer but the ‘polymorphously through symbolic castration, perverse’ subject injunction to enjoy. The question of how we are following the superego to hystericize the subject caught in the closed loop of perversion (how we are to inculcate the dimension of lack and questioning in him) becomes more the subject of late capitalist urgent in view of today’s political scene: market relations is perverse, while the ‘democratic subject’ (the mode of subjectivity implied by the modern democracy) is inherently hysterical citizen correlative to the empty (the abstract place of Power). In other the between the mechawords, relationship bourgeois caught up in market nisms and the citoyen engaged in the universal political sphere is, in its the between subjective economy, relationship perversion and hysteria. So when Ranciére calls our he is aiming precisely at this age ‘post-political’, shift in political discourse (the social link) from hysteria to perversion: mode of administering social affairs, the ‘post-politics’ is the perverse mode dimension. deprived of the ‘hystericized’ universal/out-ofjoint One often hears the claim that today hysteria is no longer sexualized but of
opposition
is, rather, the
to
wound
of
be located
being. However, we victimized subject entertains our
the
wound,
in
so
far
in the
traumatic
some
as
he
domain violence
of non-sexualized
that
cuts
into
victimization, the
very
soul
of
dealing with hysteria only in so far as the an of fascination towards ambiguous attitude takes secretly ‘perverse’ pleasure in it, in so far
are
the
as
of
source
very
this
for
ypame
and
‘ghatterrifies
sexualization:
the
less stick
And
us.
the
none
the
this
lations
father
of her
and
Mr
complicates the issue directly qualify homosexuality heterosexual how
rather:
the
is
as
fact What
universe?
symbolic
In
thesis
is another
pain
situation is sexualized, should words, one other
on
sexual
fundamentally
the
paradigmatic
the
Dora,
being victimized that
is
further
the
by
a
should
one
of
case
manipu-
definitely that
practice question to
sexual
other
(or any
‘perversion’. of homosexuality subjective attitude
norm)
the
object
the
loop.
about
the
K?
What
the
in
pleasure
there,
Freud’s
of
face
the
in
of
excess
it is
hysteria: hysteria, continually complaining character
hysteria is precisely
-
fascination
perverse Freudian
old
wasn’t
of
magnetism
moment
‘pame the subject is caught in the to
a
ambivalent
repels
for
exerts
pain of
stance
249
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
The
is,
subject’s definitely is
There
i
sustains
asked
be the
into
inscribed
not
violates
sadist or pretending to possess homosexuality (the masochist but there is also the to about Other); what provides jowissance knowledge the enigma confront order to for it in a hysterical homosexuality (opting a
perverse
of ‘What so
sexual
I for
am
So, for
on.
What
Other?
the
there
Lacan,
is
the
does
Other
straight) (perverse, hysterical, psychotic). even of coprophagy extreme case (eating excrement): not necessarily ‘perverse’, since it can well be inscribed practice
symbolic
that
—
is
to
say, and
hysterical provocation shit
in order
still
love
object? partner’s he
gets function of
the
Let
economy
economy
to
when
me
It
also
can
shit in as
he
as
touch
sees
function
the
can
perversion
function
questioning with regard me doing it? Will as psychotic if,
God,
Divine
if the of
receives
subject, the
Other's
to
the
take
us
such
a
into
a
Other’s
desire
abandon
he
of
what
desire:
the
practice is hysterical
element
an
as
Other's
of the
miraculous
with
well
I stand
how
test
it
of
forms
between
subjective ‘pathological’
the
and
(gay, lesbian,
me)?’, and
(from
want
correlation
direct
no
the
if I eat —
me
will as
he
his
finally his the subject identifies that by swallowing it so substance,
His
while
say,
energy.
doing it,
desire
Or,
of
assumes
(if he does
course,
the it in
it
can
position order
to
object-instrument generate enjoyment in his partner). one how, when note to On a more general level, it is interesting their as describes new phenomena, one a rule overlooks ‘radical’ predominantor perverse hysterical functioning and prefers the allegedly more psychotic functioning. Say, in the case of cyberspace, we arc bombarded the possiwith interpretations which emphasize how cyberspace opens up and with of permanent reshaping of bility polymorphous perverse playing a one’s involves or how it regression to the psychotic symbolic identity,
250 immersion
incestuous us,
depriving
us
be
however, are
TICKLISH
THE
argued
confronted
permanent What
into
of the
the
Screen
capacity
that
the
of
maternal
distance
is still I stand
—
It want
me?
What
Thing and
of all of
reaction
that with
of
that
swallows
reflection. us
It can, when
we
of
hysterical perplexity, to
respect
this
anonymous
playing with me?’ With regard to this crucial between opposition hysteria and perversion, note it is important to that Adorno’s Philosophy of the New Music, that the of of dialectical the ‘class analysis masterpiece struggle in music’, resorts to the clinical of, categories precisely, hysteria and perversion in to the opposition of the two order elaborate fundamental tendencies in modern music, designated by the names Schoenberg and Stravinsky: of an cxtreme Schoenberg’s ‘progressive’ music displays the clear features to traumatic while encounters); hysterical tension (anxiety-laden reactions Stravinsky, in his pastiche-like traversing of all possible musical styles, of perversion, that the is, of renouncing displays no less clear features of subjectivity-:proper, of adopting the stance dimension of exploiting the with no real with polymorphous multitude, subjective engagement any clement or mode. specific to And one is tempted to give this opposition a philosophical twist this fidelity to the truth claim that of hysteria against the pervert’s false transgression is what led Lacan, in the last years of his teaching, to claim pathetically: ‘I rebel against philosophy [Je m'‘insurge contre la philosophie].’ be asked Apropos of this gencral claim, the Leninist question should immediately: which (singular) philosophy did Lacan have in mind; which for philosophy ‘as such’? philosophy was, for him, a stand-in Following a to the fact that suggestion by Francois Regnault (who draws attention in 1975, in the wake of the publication Lacan this statement made of Antifire, far Oedipus), one could argue that the philosophy actually under from for some traditional is none other standing Hegelian metaphysics, than that of Gilles Deleuze, a of if ever philosopher globalized perversion there was one. That is to say, is not of Deleuze’s critique ‘Oedipal’ of the psychoanalysis an exemplary case perverse rejection of hysteria? an Against the hysterical subject who maintains ambiguous attitude towards symbolic authority (like the psychoanalyst who acknowledges the of ‘repression’, but none the less claims that pathological consequences of cultural since outside ‘repression’ is the condition progress, symbolic authority there is only the psychotic void), the pervert bravely goes 10 the limit in undermining the very foundations of symbolic authority and fully the flux for endorsing multiple productivity of pre-symbolic libidinal Other?
from
the
common
cyberspace questioning: ‘How do does
as
symbolic
most
with
SUBJECT
game
is it
...
—
...
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
of course,
Lacan, very
subversive other
In
this
of
model
the
‘anti-Oedipal’ be
to
trap
radicalization
that
for
Lacan,
words, of all
questioning
radicalization
avoided
fits the the
at
of
251
any
the
model
existing power constellation philosopher’s ‘radicality’, is the
presuppositions,
model
is the
psychoanalysis
cost:
of the
false
false
of
perfectly. his
fearless
transgressive
radicality. Foucault,
For
between
ship
a
and
prohibition
immanence:
if
philosopher
perverse and
resistance
that
is, the
desire
there
ever
is
circular,
was
one,
the
and
one
of
relation-
absolute and
(counter-power) presuppose genthat categorize prohibitive measures them. desires and regulate illicit effectively generate Simply recall the of the Christian in his detailed ascetic who, figure early proverbial to be avoided, since they provoke sexual description of situations temptaworks tions, displays an extraordinary (of knowledge of how seduction how a simple smile, a glance, a defensive gesture of the hands, a demand for help, can innuendo .). The problem herc is that, after carry a sexual insisting that the disciplinary power mechanisms produce the very object on which is their force (the subject is not only that which they exert the of this but himself as the oppressed by power emerges product power other
each
erate
—
very
..
oppression) The
—
described
man
for
us,
whom
we
invited
are
free, is already in himself
to
the
4 [assujettissement] much more profound than himself. ‘soul’ inhabits him and brings him which is itself a factor in the to existence, is the effect exercises over the body. The soul and instrumastery that power ment ofa political autonomy; the soul is the prison of the body.’
effect
of
it
as
subjection
a
tacitly acknowledges that this absolute enough to ground effective resistance to power, a not be ‘part of the game’ but the would allow the subject to assume him from a that position exempts mode of from disciplinary/confessional power practised early Christianity to psychoanalysis. Foucault such an exception in thought that he located for the the ‘use and ‘care notions of the of Antiquity: Antique pleasures’ —
is
Self’ of
do
Foucault
if
of
continuity
not
himself
resistance
is not power resistance that would to
yet involve
reference in
to
Foucault’s
universal
a
last
Antiquity deployed the fantasy of a discipline which,
mic,
needs
no
sexuality. resistance, which
reference In
his
resorts was
books
even
in
its
break to
out
the
self-fashioned,
of
myth not
the of a
state
sensu
ascetic
most
image
phantasversion,
pleasures without cycle of power and
of
vicious a
the
However,
is stricto
symbolic Law/Prohibition to
attempt
Foucault
discipline
the
to
Law.
two
‘before
procedure
the
Fall’
imposed by
in
the
252
TICKLISH
THE
universal
culpabilizing the
encounters
modality, a kind of non-repressed Christian
in
texts
order.
moral correlate
of
South a
to
this
In
mechanisms
disciplinary
same
SUBJECT
Malinowski-Mead’s
wonder
sexuality. No totally differs
Pacific which
way books
phantasmic Beyond, one later, only in a different mythical description
as
from
Foucault his
usual
reads
practice
preof
the standard are much closer to academic reading: his last two of In of Self in preideas’. other Foucault’s the words, description ‘history is the Romantic-naive Christian Antiquity necessary supplement to his of after the where relations Fall, power and cynical description power resistance overlap." and Volume I of The History of Sexuality, So when, in Discipline and Punish Foucault endlessly varies the theme of power as productive, with respect well as power over to political and educational as power sexuality, when he emphasizes again and of the nineteenth again how, in the course to century, ‘repressive’ attempts categorize, discipline, etc. sexuality, far from constraining and limiting their object, ‘natural’ sexuality, in fact as the ultimate produced it and Ied to its proliferation (sex was affirmed the of of human is he in a way, reference, not, ‘secret’, point activity), the thesis on how into a transcendent reflexive asserting Hegelian probing In-itself X that seems forever to its elude produces the very inaccessible final be made of can the (This grasp? point very clearly apropos mysterious ‘dark continent’ of Feminine Sexuality allegedly eluding the grasp of this mysterious is not patriarchal discourse: Beyond the very product of Is not male fantasy?) male discourse? Feminine Mystery the ultimate As for disciplining and controlling, Foucault's point is not only how the to and subdue is already their want control effect object these measures and criminal measures their own forms of criminal (legal engender transgression, ctc.): the very subject who resists these disciplinary measures of hearts, and tries to elude their branded by them, grasp is, in his heart formed them. Foucault’s ultimate would have been the by example workers’ for movement the ‘liberation of work’: as nineteenth-century libertarian like Paul criticisms to Laziness had early Lafargue’s Right already himself was liberated the product of pointed out, the Worker who wanted disciplinary ethics, that is, in his very attempt to get rid of the domination of Capital, he wanted to establish himself as the disciplined worker who works for himself, who is fully his own master (and thus loses the right to
resist,
since
Resistance
he are
Power
without
eludes
its
resist
cannot
Resistance
grasp);
there
in
(in order is
no
deadly
a
to
Resistance
this
On
himself...).
effectively caught
function, without
level,
embrace:
mutual Power
Power
needs
(Power
Power there
and is
no
X which
an
is
already
(DIS)ATYTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
of that very kernel formative hold of Power). the resists
on
behalf
of
which
the
953
oppressed
subject
is thus
nothing more misguided than to argue that Foucault, in to History of Sexuality, opens up the way for individuals the mechanisms are in: rearticulate-resignify-displace power they caught lies in his the whole point and strength of his forceful argumentation to power are the matrix claim that resistances generated by very they seem In other the of his notion of to words, point ‘biopower’ is oppose. account of how to give an mechanisms can disciplinary power precisely individuals individual bodies and constitute directly, by penetrating dypassproblematic of how ing the level of ‘subjectivization’ (that is, the whole individuals ideologically subjectivize their predicament, how they relate to of existence). It is therefore conditions their meaningless, in a way, to him for not his whole criticize rendering this subjectivization thematic: for social discipline and subordination, point is that if one is to account has to bypass it! Later, however I] of his History one (starting from Volume to this very ostracized of Sexuality), he is compelied to return topic of how individuals their how condition, subjectivize subjectivization: they to it to how they are not relate terms, or, put it in Althusserian only individuals but also interpellated caught in disciplinary state apparatuses, subjects. relate to How, then, does Foucault Hegel? According to Judith Butler,* the difference the two is that Hegel does not between take the proliferating in Hegel, formative effect of disciplinatory activity into account: disciplining simply works on the body that is presupposed as an In-itself, given as and its immehuman nature, part of inert gradually ‘sublates’/mediates themselves diacy; while Foucault emphasizes how disciplining mechanisms to and set in motion a wild suppress proliferation of what they endeavour rise to new forms of sexual of the sexuality gives regulate: very ‘repression’ the antibe missing in Foucault, to pleasure... .> However, what seems self-referential the dialectician is excellence, properly Hegelian par precisely turn in the relationship between sexuality and its disciplinatory control: new forms of sexuality not only does confessional sclf-probing unearth the confessional activity itself becomes sexualized, gives rise to a satisfaction of its that it represses, libido but own: to the ‘The repressive law is not external the repressive law represses that becomes a to the extent repression libidinal activity.’® Take politically correct probing into hate speech and sexual harassfalls is not ment: which this effort the trap into only that it makes us and aware forms of (and thus and layers of humiliation generates) new There
Volume
1 of his
—-
-
254
THE
harassment
(we learn
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
that
‘fat’, ‘stupid’, ‘shortsighted’ are to be replaced by ‘weight-challenged’, etc.); the catch is, rather, that this censoring activity itself, by a kind of devilish dialectical to reversal, starts to censor and fight is it not participate in what it purports immediately evident how, in designating somebody as ‘mentally challenged’ instead of ‘stupid’, an ironic distance can always creep in and give rise to an excess of humiliating one adds insult to aggressivity injury, as it were, by the dimension supplementary polite patronizing (it is well known that aggressivity coated in politeness can be much more painful than directly abusive is heightened by the additional words, since violence contrast between the and the polite surface form aggressive content ...). In short, what Foucault’s account of the discourses that discipline and regulate sexuality leaves out of consideration is the process of which the power by means mechanism itself becomes that eroticized, is, contaminated by what it endeavours to ‘repress’. It is not enough to claim that the ascetic Christian subject who, in order to fight temptation, enumerates and categorizes the various forms of temptation, actually proliferates the object he tries to ...
—
~
combat: in
the
order
to
inflicting The
point is, rather, to resist temptation
wounds
paradox
of how
finds
sexual
is that
the:
the
ascetic
who
in
pleasure
flagellates
this
very
there
is
of
act
himself.
on
work
at
conceive
here
fact
very
that
pre-
no
one could existing positive Body in which ontologically ground our resistance to mechanisms makes disciplinary power effective resistance possible. That is to say: the standard Habermasian argument against Foucault and ‘post-structuralists’ in general is that since they deny any normative standard from the contingent historical exempt context, they are unable to resistance to the ground edifice. The existing power Foucauldian is that the ‘repressive’ counter-argument mechdisciplinary
anisms
themselves a
gencrate Feminine
open
surplus Essence
feminine
(from
writing)
chal
its
Eternal
ground
reference upon
the
none
which
Feminine women’s
the
in
resistance, the to
masculine
confirms
discursive
they
as
to
some
contemporary
more
resistance
less
far
so
reference the
to
masculine
femininity
the
as
machine
works
resistance is simply the resistance of the pre-symbolic foundation symbolic working-through. If, however, one posits that the patriarendeavour to contain and categorize forms femininity itself generates
resistance,
longer the
the to
for
space
object. Although
here
to
of
the
up their
seems
symbolic order, this pre-given foundation ~
in
resistance
active
one on
principle
for a feminine opens resistance up a space behalf of the foundation but underlying in excess over the force,
oppressive
that resistance
is
no as
_
the
avoid
To :
formation what
tion:
lacks
againstthe awareness
the
only
transformed siricto
active
to
assert
its
will
political
to
aware-
identity forcefully is this
domination
colonialist
to
anti-colonialist
—
oppressor
ethnic
is selfenclosed and
assert
national
colonialist
the
domina-
national
one’s liberation
move-
generated by say, it oppression; about the shift ethnic selffrom oppression brings passive to the will to awareness modern grounded in mythical tradition eminently one’s ethnic assert One is tempted identity in the form of a nation-state. the will to gain political independence to say that from the colonizer in the guise of a new is the ultimate independent nation-state proof that the ethnic is thoroughly colonized group integrated into the ideological of the We universe colonizer. are dealing here with the contradiction the enunciated between content and the position of enunciation: for as ments
are
sensu
the
that
is
to
which
is this
_
resist
to
reaction
a
as
into
the
identity against
domination will
strong
Other;
recall
example of sexuality, however, let us colonialist to identity through resistance
colonialist
precedes
which
‘ness,
standard
national
of
255
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
enunciated
ceives
itself
the
content,
anti-colonialist
movement,
of
course,
con-
one’s
cultural, pre-colonial roots, asserting but the very form of this assertion independence from the colonizer is already taken over from the colonizer: of Western it is the form nationstate no in wonder the which India, political autonomy Congress Party led to independence, was liberals and by organized instigated English by Indian intellectuals hold Does not the same for the studying at Oxford. as
to
return
a
as
etc.,
—
—
multitude the
ex-Soviet
of quests Union?
struggle against the
traditional
national
sovereignty Chechens
Although
Russian the
of
outcome
for
domination,
today’s effect
modernizing society. is thus tempted process by means
Chechen
the among their evoke form
ol this
the
Russian
of
cthnic
groups
of
hundred-year-old struggle is clearly colonization
of
emphasize that Hegel was well oppressive power itself the form is this in of resistance not generates very paradox contained of how the that notion of the is, Hegel’s activity positing presuppositions, of the does not merely elaborate presupposed positing-mediating the very core of its immediate-natural Ground, but thoroughly transforms endeavour to return to Chechens is which identity? The very In-itself which already mediated-posited bv the process of modernization, deprived Against Butler, of the
aware
one
retroactive
to
of which
—
them
of their
This
ized gesture
to
ethnic
roots.
argumentation repeat of
the
resisting
may
appear
European it
-
however,
condemning the colonof the very by means pattern to it give precisely the possible
Eurocentrist,
imperalist it is also
256 That
opposite reading. we
a
the
in
Eurocentrism of
TICKLISH
THE
say: if
is to
reference
to
SUBJECT
ground
we
resistance
imperialist previous identity, resisting modernization,
our
kernel
some
automatically adopt the position of a victim passive object on which imperialist procedures
conceive
resistance
our
as
an
that
excess
to
ethnic
of
results
work.
If, however,
from
the
we
brutal
way
our disturbed previous selfenclosed identity, our imperialist intervention becomes much since we can that our is claim resistance stronger, position in the inherent of the that the dynamics grounded imperialist system the imperialist system itself, through its inherent antagonism, activates will that its forces about demise. situation here is (The bring strictly if woman is ‘a resistance: homologous to that of how to ground feminine of man’, the locus at which the inherent the of symptom antagonisms this in no way constrains the scope of patriarchal symbolic order emerge, feminist resistance but provides it with an even stronger detonating force.) Or to the premiss according to which way put it in yet another —
—
~
resistance
to
the
that
sense
in
edifice) is
co-opted
itself
no
producing system
way
the
conclusion
in
the
eternal
set
in
that
is
the
through the
resistance,
motion
a
that
game effect of
which:leads
process
the
(in power
resistance
every
with
Power
plays proliferation, antagonism
inherent
very
edifice
power of
dynamic
draw
us
the
to
inherent
to
of
excess
immanent
the
included
obliges
key point well
and
by
generated
advance,
an
may
is
it
in
the
—
is inherent
power
its
to
of of
a
ultimate
own
downfall.’ It
the draw
that
from
itself,
the
such
that
seems
fact
a
notion
of
antagonism
is what
is generated every resistance (‘posited’) this absolute inherence of resistance to
that
conclusion
resistance
Foucault
by
the
Power,
lacks: he
from
edifice
Power
to
seems
co-opted in advance, that it cannot the system that is, he precludes the possibility that seriously undermine the system itself, on account of its inherent inconsistency, may give birth to a force whose excess it is no able to master and which thus longer detonates its unity, its capacity to reproduce itself. In short, Foucault does not consider the possibility of an effect so escaping, outgrowing its cause, that although it emerges as a form of resistance to power and is as such to it, it can and explode it. (The philosophiabsolutely inherent outgrow cal point to be made here is that this is the fundamental feature of the is
—
dialectical-materialist be
can
reverse
which it:
what
notion
of
the
Foucauldian
always-already if the
price
notion
contains to
be
its
paid
the
‘effect’: than
ontologically ‘higher’
its
effect
cause.)
can
One
‘outdo’
its cause;
is thus
tempted
of an all-encompassing power transgression, that which allegedly is that
the
power
mechanism
cannot
it
edifice
eludes even
to
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
control itself,but In
other so
not
much
has
rely on an obscene protuberance effectively eludes the controlling
to
what
words:
external
the
which
supplement And this is why Foucault the subject is by definition obscene
reversal
257
of the
at
grasp
In-itself
it
tries
sustains
its
operation.’ appropriate notion
lacks in
the
excess
dominate
to
its very heart? of Power is
but,
rather,
the
own
and
its cause,
over
of
the
subject:
such
it emerges sexualization of
as
of
sexuality into the theorinsufficiency of Foucault's repressive can in the way, in his early History of Madness, be discerned etical edifice two he is already oscillating between radically opposed views: the view that is not a that exists in itself and is only madness simply phenomenon secondarily the object of discourses, but is itselfthe product of a multitude about of (medical, legal, biological itself; and the opposite .) discourses one should ‘liberate’ madness from the hold view, according to which it by these exerted over and ‘let madness itself speak’. discourses, with
the
the
repression
themselves.
measures
.
This
.
4
Ideological The
here: while as she takes Judith Butler is of special interest the Foucauldian account as of subjectivization starting point subjecthe less through performative disciplinatory practices, she none work
of
perceives
the
her tion
Interpellation
aforementioned
in
flaws
Foucault’s
and
edifice,
endeavours
to a series and of other theoretical by reference concepts notion of ideological edifices, from Hegel via psychoanalysis to Althusser’s of subjectivity, combining all these references interpellation as constitutive in a way which the to as is far from eclectic monstrosity usually referred ‘creative synthesis’. In her reading of the Hegelian dialectics of lord and bondsman, Butler focuses on the hidden contract between the two: ‘the imperative to the bondsman consists in the following formulation: you be my body for me, but do not let me know that the body that is my body’."” The you are to
supplement
disavowal his
own
it
the
on
body,
he
the
of
part poses
as
a
lord
double:
is thus
disembodied
desire
body; secondly, the bondsman that he acts merely as the lord’s body and act as if the bondsman’s bodily labouring for the lord but is his autonomous .1! This structure activity. man
to
act
as
his
.
self-effacing) disavowal relationship between
also man
and
.
the
expresses woman:
in
a
compels
has an
the
autonomous
is not
agent,
imposed
on
fact as
him
(and thereby
of double
move,
bondsthe
disavow
to
patriarchal first
disavows
lord
the
first, and
of
matrix
woman
is
the
posited
TICKLISH
THE
258
SUBJECT
shadow, hysteriprojection/reflection of man, his insubstantial able to the moral stature of a fully but never really acquire cally imitating of a self-identical this status mere reflecconstituted subjectivity; however, to and the woman a be disavowed with false has itself tion provided as if acts as she within the of she does autonomy, logic patriarchy on of her own autonomous account submissive, logic (women are ‘by nature’ compassionate, self-sacrificing ..). The paradox not to be missed here is mere
a
as
.
bondsman
the
that
(mis)
perceives
goes
for
woman
when
herself, of
fantasy, openly
the
as
the
of
of her
form
‘feminine’
a
that
admitted
of
assertion
is
Other’s
fantasy
reason,
feminine
of
man
agent;
servitude
is
the
more
and
the
he same
(mis)perceive
to
‘I do
male
far
embodiment
the
as
—
true
autonomy
proclaim openly:
to
servant,
submissive-compassionate way, as an the Weiningerian ontological denigra-
‘symptom’
mere
the
more
autonomous
an
of hysterical imitation and fully accepted,
statement
The
in
For a
as
that
as
ultimate
acts
agent. woman
direct
the
she
autonomous
tion
position
-
all
is
(servant)
his
subjectivity subversive
more
the
perhaps
—
in
exist
not
of male
is, when
—
than ultimate
myself,
I
it is
false
the
feminist
merely
am
the
embodied’.
holds
for
the subject and the Insrelationship between Institution not reduces the subbureaucratic/symbolic only its to but also wants the to disavow the fact that ject mouthpiece, subject he is merely its mouthpiece as and to act an autonomous (pretend to) a with a human touch and personality, not just a faceless agent person bureaucrat. The point, of course, is not only that such an autonomization it involves is doubly false, since a double is but also that there disavowal, to no to the Institution as the ultimate subject prior (prior language of institution): subjectivity is produced as the void in the very submission same
titution:
the
the
—
the
life-substance
would
it
Real
the
of
have
the
to
Institution.
the
If, then
-
as
Althusser the
put perception that, prior interpellation, subject is precisely the effect and always-already there proof of successful of a subject prior assertion to interpellation, does not the Lacanian the illusion that repeat interpellation/subjectivization very ideological —
to
is
Althusser
endeavours
critical
same
‘cannot
be
Other’,
is
of
its
ceive
argument
inasmuch
preciscly
reduced the
not
ultimate
myself
to
thesis
‘not
in
~
I
as
success? as
denounce?
to
a
so
Or
far
perceive puppet, on
An
to
—
but
take
ideological myself as a ‘full an
instrument
interpellation’s interpellation
only that,’
to
as
a
another
human of
necessary succeeds
‘complex
person
of
aspect
identification
the
succeeds
person’
who
ideological big the very sign precisely when I persome
failure
who, among
other
things, is also is jdentification
in
—
the
the
is not
identification
short,
distance
imaginary
of its
sign
very
however,
Lacan,
For
that the
ATTACHMENTS
(DIS)
PASSIONATE
towards
symbolic
success.
dimension
of
subjectivity
imaginary wealth/texture
that
eludes
symbolic experiences which symbolic identity:
of
‘
towards illusory distance my is of some subject’ (s) ‘empty’ not in the sense of a void’ in the sense of but, rather, psychologico-existential‘experience of self-relating negativity which a eludes the domain a dimension of priori yécu, of lived experience. The old story of the prince who disguises himself a stable as boy to seduce the princess, his bride, in order to be sure that for his title, is thus not she loves him for what he really is, not appropriate the distinction we are to mark dealing with here: the Lacanian subject qua which the title constitutes 5 is neither the my symbolic identity nor phantasmic object, that ‘something in me’ beyond my symbolic identities me which makes desire. worthy of the Other's A funny thing happened theatre: a half-educated recently in a Slovene nouveau riche was late for the performance and to tried reach his seat half an hour into the show; quite accidentally, at that very moment, the actor on the stage had to the is ‘Who pronounce, phrase: pathetically, silence?’ the who nouveau did not feel riche, disturbing my poor quite at home in the theatre, out of guilt for being late, recognized himself as the addressee of this that he this is, phrase interpreted phrase as
allows
to
me
assume
an
‘barred
Lacanian
the
"
259
—
—
the
outburst
front
row
Sorry
I
of the
and
—
late,
was
theoretical
actor’s
the
in
misunderstanding nition, the
an
of
act
addressee Does
‘big
not
Other’
today,
at
of
work;
falling
which
this
of
is
interpellation the our
such: is
whenever call
is X.
theatre!’ that
recognize
we
such
of
is
The
similar
a
minimum
a
the
in
a
recognition always misrecogby boastfully assuming the place of
really
however,
ours.
also
gap, the symbolic institution?
than
as
is
event
there
Other,
the
name
a
ridicule
into
not
unfortunate
‘My
to
way
in the
commotion
hear:
to
everyone down the on
ridiculous
defincs call
sudden
of the
for
broke
car
my of this
‘misunderstanding’
because
loudly,
but
point
ourselves
rage
answered
..
.
indicate
individuals,
an
That
excess
is to
say:
on
the
is it not
of the
side a
fact
without
that
interpellated of it: our for the big Other by a series being aware identity is constituted of digitalized informational ...) files we are (medical, police, educational our (determines of, so that interpellation functions mostly not even aware of recognition place and activity in the social space) without anv gesture the problem on is not the part of the subject concerned. This, however, his is of Althusser problem, interpellation; addressing with the notion more
ever,
we,
as
are
even
TICKLISH
THE
260
SUBJECT
themselves subjectivize subjectivizaiion: how do individuals do they experience themselves as subjects? If I am of it, this simply a state file without into secret inscribed being aware concern more doesn’t my subjectivity. Much interesting is the opposite the subject recognizes himself in the call of an Other which in which case, in Call of exist’ the God: Althusser’s ‘doesn’t say, point is that my recognition in the interpellative call of the Other is performative in the sense that, in the very gesture of recognition, it constitutes (or ‘posits’) this ‘exists’ so far Other God in as believers as big recognize themselves the and His Stalinist exerts his Call; hearing (dis)obeying politician power as in so far as he recognizes himself interpellated by the big Other of the History, serving its Progress; a democratic politician who ‘serves the which constitutes the reference to (People) people’ agency legitimizes his activity. databases that in the circulate If, then, today, in the guise of detailed what we effectively are for the big corporate cyberspace and determine of the power Other structure’? that is, how our symbolic identity is constructed and we are in this sense even ‘interpellated’ by institutions aware of one should this without nevertheless insist that it, being ‘objective of the fact interpellation’ actually affects my subjectivity only by means that I myself am well aware of how, outside the grasp of my knowledge, databases which circulate determine my symbolic identity in the eyes of the social ‘big Other’. of the that awareness fact ‘the truth is out that on me files there’, My very even if they are circulate none the less which, factually ‘inaccurate’, is what performatively determine my socio-symbolic status, gives rise to the mode of subjectivization of characteristic specific proto-paranoiac me as a to and today’s subject: it constitutes subject inherently related hassled in which, by an elusive piece of database beyond my reach, ‘my fate is writ large’. their
of
is that
rather,
how
condition,
—
—
—
—
Resistance
From The
political
how
is it
focus
of Butler’s
theoretical
to
the
endeavour
possible not only actually to resist, or displace the existing socio-symbolic network which predetermines the space within which
but
She
of
is well
simply Power
and is also
aware,
of
course,
identified
directly supported
by
that as
the
the
unconscious
Act
site
is the
also
to
old
(the Lacanian the
subject this
Unconscious:
‘passionate
can
resistance
the
leftist
undermine
‘big Other’) only exist?! be
cannot
existing
attachments’
one:
and/
order —
attach-
of
that
ments
if
publicly non-acknowledged
they
fulfil
to
are
role:
their
unconscious
If the
less
is any
scious
the
of
the
of
think
us
If
subject?
kind
what
uncon-
cultural
attachment
an
of
other
the
pervade
find
we
what
to
that
that
relations
power
the
injunction,
makes
unconscious,
such
of
case
is
Power
level
the
by
language
What
to
is
resistance
unconscious
the
precisely
inherent
becomes
the
attachments’
‘passionate
reflexive
of
eroticization
mechanisms and procedures themselves: power of the the very performance compulsive ritual
in
regulatory
obsessional
an
destined
of libidinal
that
ritual, illicit
keep
to
It is thus
satisfaction.
bay temptation in the relationship between the ‘reflexivity’ involved regulatory power are sexuality, the way repressive regulatory procedures themselves and function as a source of libidinal satisfaction, nally invested at
‘masochistic’
dard
reflexive of
notion
tions.
The
be
to
thatr!!
outstanding
sustain
structured
normative
given
a
attachment?
an
is the
signifiers than subjection at wrought from
from
escapes it form
does
injunction
The
remain
must
261
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
the
as
Unconscious
is the
which
turn,
the
of social
the
with
problem
unaccounted
remains
‘internalization’
second
Unconscious
source
into
norms
of
resistance
is that
site
of
resistance
which
if
even
forever
this
the
in
stan-
psychic prohibi-
identification
quick
site
for
and libidi-
concede
we
the
prevents
of
the
that
the
smooth
that the subis, that interpellation functioning of power mechanisms, is always ultimately ject’s recognition in his/her allotted symbolic place do anything to alter or incomplete, failed, ‘does such resistance expand the dominant In injunctions or interpellations of subject formation?’ short: establishes the incomplete character of any effort ‘[t]his resistance to but it remains unable to produce a subject by disciplinary means, terms of productive power’,'® rearticulate the dominant —
—
That
Lacan
is
a
rearticulate
to
constitute
to
indicated
by
imaginary
in
the
criticism
the
of the
discursive
sexed
lines, is,
even
as
‘that
symbolic symbolic realizvery opposition,
full
in
her,
to
the
of
its
then,
that
the
imaginary
constitution is, symbolic Unconqualifies the Lacanian
which
identity coherently
slips and gaps language’.'* Against
the it
Lacanian, —
she
according
misrecognition asserts
‘For
that
Lacan:
it thwarts
and
it
on
terms:
its
of
imaginary
although
depends
signifies the impossibility of identity.”'’ Along these scious itself as imaginary, symbolic
the
to
resistance,
nevertheless
unable
Buter’s
of
resistance
such
structure;
ation,
kernel
the
reduces
—
thwarts and
that
characterize
this
background,
any
effort
of
the
fully, an unconscious the workings of the it is then possible to
in Lacan,
that,
claim law
TICKLISH
THE
262 its
anterior,
quo.
In
first
thing
in
status
resistance
‘psychic symbolic
such
the
presumes and, in that
form
resistance
view,
a
SUBJECT
contributes
sense,
doomed
appears
of the
continuation
to
its
perpetual
to
defeat.’ The
opposed to
to
of the
uses
here
note
etc.), the other
power,
resistance
patient's the
is that
Butler
‘resistance’:
term
the
clinical
the
resistance
mcaning of his dreams, etc.). as ‘imaginary’, he has in
symbolic
network
toms,
radical
which
rearticulation
determines
of
the
his
notion
conflate
socio-critical
radically
two
(resistance operative in psychoanalysis (the
use
acknowledging
to
to
seems
is the
one
Lacan
mind
the
his
of
symp-
effectively determines misrecognition of other
the
On
us.
truth
unconscious
When
use
hand,
for
the
Lacan,
is altogether symbolic Order capiton (the ‘quilting point’ or is about: when a new the point de capilon emerges, is not only displaced, its very structuring principle the opposition between Lacan tempted to reverse as and Foucault elaborated resistance to (Lacan constrains by Butler of imaginary thwarting, while Foucault, who has a more pluralistic notion discourse a as heterogeneous field of multiple practices, allows for a more and it is Foucault who rearticulation): thorough symbolic subversion
possible this is what the Master-Signifier) socio-symbolic field changes. One is thus —
insists the
the
on
means
of
Lacan
who
resistance even
immanence
possibility
scrves
an
of
a
predominant of
of resistance
radical
de
point
to
Power,
while
the
entire
rearticulation
of
Lacan
leaves
symbolic
open field by
passage through ‘symbolic death’. In short, it is between conceptualize the distinction imaginary that reasserts the symbolic status (false transgression quo and a as of its Functioning) and actual positive condition symbolic act proper, allows us
rearticulation
via
this
the
a
to
intervention
Only point de capiton
level
Butler
possible.
on
become
and
if
—
the
we
act
of
take as
real
Butler’s
the
into
Real
of
does
—
matrix
a
of
an
the
account
act.
Lacanian
meaningful social
notions
dialogue
of
with
(as well as is that of a forced choice: in order to exist at all Lacan’s) (within the one to has the fundamental the alienation, socio-symbolic space) accept definition of one’s existence in the terms of the ‘big Other’, the predominant
structure
of
the
socio-symbolic
As
existence
she
is
quick to add, (what perceives as) the Lacanian view according to which the symbolic Order is a given that can be effectively transgressed only if the subject pays the price of psychotic so that on the onc hand we have false imaginary resistance exclusion; to the symbolic Norm on the with the full and, other, psychotic breakdown, however,
this
should
not
constrain
us
space. to
she
(DIS)ATTACIIMENTS
PASSIONATE
of alienation
263
in the
(the goal of psychoanalytic symbolic Order only option. to this Lacanian Butler opposes fixity of the Symbolic the Hegelian of presupposing and positing: not dialectics only is the symbolic Order as the sole milieu of the always-already presupposed subject’s social this Order itself exists, is reproduced, only in so far as subjects existence; in it and, via repeated performative recognize themselves gestures, again their and again assume this, of course, places in it opens up the of our possibility of changing the symbolic contours socio-symbolic existence by way of its parodically displaced performative enactings. That is of Butler's anti-Kantianism: she rejects the Lacanian the thrust symbolic a of the transcendental framework which fixes the priori as a new version of our co-ordinates existence in advance, leaving no space for the retroactive So when, in a key displacement of these presupposed conditions. acceptance treatment)
the
as
‘realistic’
—
Butler
passage, What
would
‘social
asks it
for the
mean
existence’? kind
some
of in
pursued,
—
If such
death,
order
the
be
than
undone be
its continued
without
the
into
falling
death
risked,
transformation
to
open
other
something
cannot
nevertheless
and
expose
conditions
desire
to
existence
existence
can
to
subject an
courted
hold
or
of
social
persistence? The subject is compelled to repeat of a domain by produced, but the repetition establishes fails to reinstate the norm ‘in the right way,’ one becomes risk, for if one subject to further one feels the prevailing conditions of existence threatened. sanction, And without a in its current how yet, repetition that risks life organization might we begin to imagine the contingency of that organization, and performaof the conditions of lifez”’ tively reconfigure the contours on power the norms
which
of life’s
it is
—
—
the
Lacanian
continued to
risk
a
precisely how Lacan elementary form of which
relies
symbolic Is
this
effectively power some
of kind
for
rules not
risks
the
of
the
its
City
of death’
which
ethical
to
act,
fall
the
the
something
other
‘into
kind
is ‘courted
death
performative
act
or
Freudian as on
powcr
some
than of
pursued’, death
irreducible
drive
to
indicates as
‘speech set pre-established
the
a
its
death’, the
act’ of
norms.
whole her
desire
reconceptualized
and/or the
‘to thus
and
existence”’,
by means
gesture
clear:
is
answer
“social
—
embodied
Lacan's
of
point
entire
social in
the
(i.e. sustaining
socio-symbolic space}. taking the risk of such
For a
Lacan,
momentary
reading of Antigone Antigone defying the socio-symbolic ruler (Creon), thereby ‘falling into a from the symbolic death, exclusion
existence,
there
is
no
ethical
‘suspension
of the
act
without proper of the Other’,
big
264
THE
TICKLISH
that
guarantees
SUBJECT the
subject’s identity: an authentic that is no longer ‘covered Lacan all possible versions of this entering pursues the deaths’: not ‘between two domain the only Antigone after her expulsion, but also Oedipus at Colonnus, King Lear, Poe’s Mr Valdemar, Claudel’s Coufontaine their so and on, trilogy up to Sygne from that found in is all themselves this domain of common they predicament death and in which of the the undead, life’, causality ‘beyond symbolic Fate is suspended. One should criticize Butler for conflating this act in its radical dimension with the performative of one’s condition reconfiguration symbolic not the same via its repetitive displacements: the two are that is to say, maintain a mere one should the crucial distinction between ‘performative a subversive the remains within reconfiguration’, displacement which conducts an internal war of hegemonic field and, as it were, guerrilla of the hegemonic field against itself, and the much turning the terms more radical act of a thorough of the entire field which reconfiguration the very conditions of socially sustained redefines performativity. It is thus herself Butler who ends up in a position of allowing precisely for marginal discourse who remains con‘reconfigurations’ of the predominant of ‘inherent strained to a position which as a needs transgression’, point the Other of reference in the guise of a predominant discourse that can be only marginally displaced or transgressed.”! the Lacanian From standpoint, Butler is thus simultaneously too optimistic and too hand she overestimates the pessimistic. On the one subversive of the Other potential of disturbing the functioning big such through the practices of performative reconfiguration/displacement: to subvert, since the very practices ultimately support what they intend of such field even ‘transgressions’ is already taken into account, engenof the big Other what Lacan calls ‘the dered, by the hegemonic form are and their codified big Other’ symbolic norms transgressions. The in a vast set of symbolic matrix embodied Oedipal order, this gargantuan and rituals is a much too rooted institutions, ideological practices, deeply and ‘substantial’ entity to be effectively undermined by the marginal of performative gestures displacement. On the other hand, Butler does not allow for the radical of the gesture thorough restructuring of the hegemonic symbolic order in its totality. socio-symbolic network act occurs only when up’ by the big Other.
the
subject
risks
a
gesture
—
—
—
—
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
the
‘Traversing Is it
possible Butler
also
to
undermine
calls
the
most
Fantasy’ fundamental
attachments’?
‘passionate primordial ‘passionate attachments’ subject’s being hinges is, of course, of to subjectivization’ constitutive
what
The
which
on
265
level
Lacanian
the
very
of
subjection,
name
for
consistency The
the
of
the
‘attachment
fundamental fantasy. other than the subject is thus none in which ‘masochist’ scene the subject ‘makes/sees himself primordial fa douleur thus d'exister, and suffering’, that is, assumes provides the to his being (like Freud’s of support minimum primordially repressed is beating me’ in the triad of ‘A child term ‘Father is being middle beaten’). This fundamental fantasy is thoroughly inter-passive*? in it, a of passive suffering scene (subjection) is staged which simultaneously the subject’s being sustains sustains and threatens which this being only far as it remains in so forecloscd this (primordially repressed). From a new to the recent artistic perspective, approach opens up practices of the
—
sadomasochistic foreclosure
is
is performance: undone? ultimately
the
assuming/staging
of
attachments’
more
is far
displacement
or
The
difference
of this
between
it
not
In
phantasmic subversive
a
other scene
than
the
fact
chat, words, of
in
primordial
dialectic
this
them,
what
if
the
very
open
‘passionate
rearticulation
and/
scene?
Butler
and
Lacan
is that
for
Butler,
the
primor-
dial
of the repression (foreclosure) equals the foreclosure primordial while for Lacan the fundamental fantasy (the ‘passionate attachment’, stuff are made a formation of) is already afiller, ‘primordial attachments’ It is which on this covers a certain here, very point at which up gap/void. and Lacan is almost the difference between Buder imperceptible, that we Butler them. encounter the ultimate that separates again interprets gap in a protothe subject’s presuppositions as these ‘primordial attachments’ on the counts and therefore of the sense term, subject’s ability Hegelian these being, to presuppositions of his/her dialectically to rearticulate ‘will remain and them: the identity subject’s always reconfigure/displace an forever rooted in its injury as long as it remains identity, but it does and unsettle the imply that the possibilities of resignification will rework which to subject formation subjection without passionate attachment When and re-formation cannot succeed’.** with subjects are confronted an a forced choice in which injurious interpellation amounts rejecting the threat of nonexistence, to not when, under existing at all they are, into as it were, blackmailed identifying with the imposed emotionally —
—
-
266
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
it is nevertheless possible for symbolic identity (‘nigger’, ‘bitch’, etc.) to recontextualize to make it work for this to them it, identity, displace turn it its mode of to other against hegemonic functioning, purposes, since repetitive resymbolic identity retains its hold only by its incessant enacting. —
What
here
does
Lacan
is to
identified
are
Butler:
introduce
a
between
distinction
in
the
that
two
terms
the fundamental fantasy and the that subject’s being, symbolic identification support to the trauma of the phantasmic ‘passionate is already a symbolic response in a forced The attachment’. choice, when symbolic identity we assume relies in on the diswe ourselves recognize ideological interpellation, that its ultiof the phantasmic ‘passionate attachment’ serves as avowal mate (In army life, for example, such a ‘passionate attachment’ support. has to be disavowed if it is to is provided by the homosexual link which distinction between remain symbolic operative.*!) This leads to a further or on the fundamental variations rearticulations, fantasy that do not is beating me’ on its hold ‘Father (like the variations actually undermine ‘A child and the in Freuci’s is being beaten’ fantasy), possible ‘traversing’ the ultimate towards, the very fundamental of, gaining a distance fantasy aim of psychoanalytic treatment is for the subject to undo the ultimate the consistency of his/her that guarantees ‘passionate attachment’ being, to undergo what Lacan calls ‘subjective destitution’. At its most and thus scene of the to the fundamental, primordial ‘passionate attachment’ is can be fundamental not ‘dialecticizable’: it traversed. fantasy only Clint of films Eastwood’s ‘Dirty Harry’ series provides an exemplary case of the fantasy: in the first of the dialectical reconfiguration/variation film, the masochist fantasy is almost directly acknowledged in all its if Eastwood it looks as selfambiguity, while in subsequent instalments and correct criticism the consciously accepted politically displaced fantasy in all these to acceptable ‘progressive’ flavour give the story a more the same however, reconfigurations, fundamental fantasy remains operative. all due for the With respect political efficiency of such reconfigurations, thus do not disturb the hard phantasmic core, but even sustain they really that
as
serves
of the
ultimate
—
—
it.
in
And,
politics, the
very
contrast
it is
possible
identification: as
it
to
fundamental
phantasmic core This compels far
to
is
more
to
redefine the
is wager radical
such
that
gesture
gestures
and
even
which
of
also
in
‘traversing’ this
disturb
acts.
authentic
because not
accomplish only fantasy a
-
are us
Lacan’s
Butler,
the
passionate
openly admitted,
in
very fundamental is attachment so
far
as
we
notion
of
(social)
operative only
maintain
our
in
distance
so
holds
what
267
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
together is not the directly shared object but, rather, its exact opposite: mode of disidenlification, of delegating the members’ hatred or the shared whem or love hate. The Christian love to another agent through they community, for instance, is held together by the shared delegation of selected individuals their belief to some (saints, priests, maybe only Christ The function of symbolic alone) who are ‘supposed to really believe’. is thus the very opposite of direct in (or fusion immersion identification it is to maintain the proper distance with) the object of identification: as the object (for this the Church Institution towards reason, always towards it,
of identification
mode
perceived cation
and
where
a
zealots
community
a
the
with
as
its
same
ultimate
enemies:
because
their
of
direct
identifi-
the distance they threatcn through which the religious maintains institution itself). Another example: if, in a love melodrama all of a sudden to perceive that depicting a couple making love, we were the couple is actually having sex in a snuff we become aware movie, (or if. that the victim is actually being tortured to death), this thoroughly ruins identification with the narrative ‘the proper reality. From my youth, I the Polish remember Pharaoh in which there is a scene (1960), spectacle
belief,
horse
is sacrificed:
actually being
was
identification for
‘real
with life’:
our
disidentificalion other
when
stabbed the
to
of
sense
And
reality
we
‘repress’
our
is
when
noticed
spectator, this
bv lances,
narrative....
(for example,
people,
I, the
death
the
always we
sustained in
awareness
by
the
horse
obstructed
is that
point
engage of how
that
instantly
the a
my
same
goes of
minimum
with
communication
they
sweat,
and
defecate
urinate). Butler ation: an
is
a two-level right to emphasize that subjectivity involves opera to attachment’, primordial ‘passionate submission/subjection that distance and its denial Other, is, the gaining of a minimal a
—
towards
it which
primordial the
condition
opens
‘passionate of
up the attachmenv
(im)possibility
space of
freedom
of
is thus
freedom
—
to
put and
and it in
The
autonomy. Derridan
resistance:
terms
there
is
—
no
assert itself only as the subjectivity can can never be fully ‘suba towards its ground which distance and politically crucial lated’. the less theoretically to However, it is none the distinguish between primordial phantasmic ‘passionate attachment’ to that the subject is compelled to repress/disavow in order gain socioto this and very socio-symbolic order, which symbolic existence, subjection the with a determinate (a place of symbolic ‘mandate’ provides subject the While two cannot interpellatory recognition/identification). simply be as and ‘bad’ identification can (the very socio-symbolic opposed ‘good’
subjectivity gaining of
outside
it,
that
is,
TICKLISH
THE
268 itself
sustain
if it maintains
only
SUBJECT
non-acknowledged phantasmic supaccording to different logics. between This confusion and sociophantasmic ‘passionate attachments’ identification also accounts for the that fact symbolic surprisingly uses Butler the couple of superego and ego ideal in a naive pre-Lacanian as the agency that measures the gap between the way, defining superego actual and the ideal is the to emulate, subject’s ego ego subject supposed and finds the subject guilty of failure in this endeavour. it not Would be more to much follow Lacan and insist on the productive opposition between the two terms on the fact that the guilt materialized in the exerted the on the is not as pressure subject by superego straightforward as it may seem: it is not the guilt caused of the by the failed emulation fundamental ego ideal, but the more guilt of accepting the ego ideal (the in the first socially determined symbolic role) as the ideal to be followed desire fundamental (the primorplace, and thus of betraying one’s more dial ‘passionate attachment’, as Butler would have put it)? If one follows can thus account for the basic paradox of the superego, which Lacan, one port), they
nevertheless
a
function
-
-
—
lies
in
more
the
fact
guilty
| I
ideal,
ego
phantasmic
that
am
the
in
am
pay for determined to
the
fundamental
the
entering place within
So what
is superego who is simply
the
is that,
orders
in
the
following betraying
of
other
In
of
the
guilty
-
attachment’.
‘passionate guilt,
of his
betrayal
point guilty
effect
‘irrational’
some
I follow
more
Lacan's
—
far
words,
superego manipulates ‘passionate attachment’ socio-symbolic space,
the
ego ideal, the of the demands
my fundamental from feeding
subject’s price assuming the
as
and
off
actual he
had
a
pre-
it. its
opposition to the symbolic Law? The parental ‘repressive’ in the mode of symbolic authority tells a “You must child: go to Grandma’s birthday party and behave nicely, even if you're bored to death I don’t care how you feel, just do it!’ The in tells the child: contrast, figure, superego ‘Although you know how much Grandma would like to see should visit her you, you only if you want to if should at home!’ The trick lies not, really you stay superego figure
in
—
—
in
this
false
actually
a
‘You
must
and,
furthermore,
visit
enjoy doing
ship
“We
the
lovers should lines
however be
have
to
The
married
my
course:
glad
sister ‘Not
which,
as
stronger
feel!’, but
‘You
do il!’
—
the
order visit
must
knows, —
is
only
not
Grandma,
orders superego you the strained relation-
goes for couple: when same
child
every
even
an
you
do.
to a
or
visit
is, of
choice,
involves
must
you you
free
a
that
Grandma,
what
between
partner: between
of
appearance forced choice
a
spouse
only if you really want only must you agree
says
to!’, the to
visit
to
to
his
order
my sister,
but
a
as
not
do
must
you
favour
unfortunate the
-
it
gladly, me!’
to
offer
of as
has
will, for your lies
actual
free
says: ‘No!’ How you say that! that don’t you you
choice
could
done
sister
my poor
pleasure, happens if the own
what
in
is: “How
to
and
Double-Bind
Melancholic
The
free
this
an
then
answer
What
cruel!
so
own
proof
the
predictable spouse’s
you be like her?’ can
of your
The
takes
partner
269
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
supplement her early ‘conof the ‘positive’ account of (masculine or sexual formation feminine) identity, which draws on the of mourning and mechanism Freudian melancholy. She relies here on and repression: distinction between foreclosure the old Freudian represof which a sion is an act performed by the subject, an act by means subject (who is already there as an agent) represses part of his psychic content, foreclosure is a negative of exclusion which while gesture grounds the a on which the of the subject, very consistency subject’s identity gesture be ‘assumed’ by the subject, since such an hinges: this gesture cannot assumption would involve the subject’s disintegration. foreclosure to Butler links this primordial and constitutive homosexuattachment to Sameness of the passionate (to ality: it is the foreclosure if the subject is to the parent of the same has to be sacrificed sex) which enter and acquire an identity in it. the space of the socio-symbolic Order of the This leads to the subject, including the melancholy constitutive the primordial reflexive turn which defines represses subjectivity: one In
recent
criticism
attachment
in
a
into
Butler
years,
structionist’
—
gesture ‘love
that of
to
is, —
‘loves
one
primordially objects its very simplicity: Freud the way to overcome object
insists
identities?
with Is not
terms
result
incest:
the
lost
(gays). that
object:
‘normal’
love
the
Butler’s result
this
heterosexual
by identifying
to
who
those
not
the
is
loss
then, around
turns
remind
one
of
melancholy
the in
impeccable of
a
libidinal
of this loss is apropos also hold for our sexual —
identity the with
parent;
love’
logic
of
melancholy does
same-sex
‘hate
this
...
the
a
the
result
lost
of
success-
object of who refuses is the one while the homosexual sex, fully to come to cling to the lost object? Butler’s with this loss, and continues is not Foreclosure is thus that the primordial the prohibition the predominance the prohibition of incest already presupposes
fully overcoming same
the
to
proper, hate’ to
the
—
identification
hate
to
starts
reversal of love
lost
to
psychoanalysis by
one
reflexive
hate’
endeavoured
has
of
the to
first of of
270
TICKLISH
THE
heterosexual
the
the
sex),
The
oedipal plished, that enforced tion
and
this
in this
the
sense,
for
homosexuality,
not never
that
homosexual
the
place through
it presumes
been
already
homosexual
and
the
to
the
same
radical
excluded
posited as something which
of
the
from
been
prohibi-
is thus
sex
sense
accom-
has
incest
on
the
attachments
has
desire
the presupposes heterosexualization of desire.”
prohibition
primordial ‘passionate attachment’ in only repressed but foreclosed since it was existed, positively
The
of
parent
attachment:
that heterosexual presumes distinction heterosexual between
the
the
is for
into
came
conflict
...;
on
itself
norm
homosexual
of the
wish
(the repressed incestuous
norm
opposite
foreclosure
SUBJECT
"To
start:
very
remain
within
the
unacknowledged as desires which heterosexuality, they are not merely constituted and are emerge subsequently become prohibited; rather, these desires and proscribed from the start.’ So, paradoxically, it is the very excessive which if we take into account the compulsive ‘straight’ identification extent
nor-
mative
—
fact
identification
that, for Freud, lost
the
of
object
relies
demonstrates
—
the
on
melancholic
the
that
incorporation attachment
primordial
was
homosexual: this
In
the
‘never’
loved
‘never’
loved
Here
Butler is
man
for
and
to
etc.), it is
for) that
the
is the
is the striculy straight strictly straight man....
the
appropriates, assumes grieved; the straight grieved.?”
‘never’
involved
get
for
not
melancholic
cites,
‘never’
seems
anima, sameness.
his
but
for
(the
desire
in
kind
a
it is
—
of
not
for)
difference
what
about
the
we
have
here
the
which
sameness
she
4 lenvers:
forecloses
a
(animus
counterpart
which
he
man
woman
Jungianism
feminine
complementary
sameness
becomes
straight
the
of)
status
woman
and
woman,
The
‘represses’ desire
(the Butler
However, fact, quoted by herself, to the compulsive male identification, remaining attached who being put in the ‘passive’ position of femininity as the one
fears
desires cholic
as
and
lesbian
melancholic
(mimes,
longing
difference,
to
male
gay
becomes
man
‘truest’
the
sense,
‘truest’
give an
(another)
not
~
would he
the
as
latter, one object (a man),
an
afraid
is
her.
another
force
if, in the
be.
never
wants
desire
What
man?
incorporation: up desiring object what one
therefore under
in
man,
he
woman
will
...
of
...
man.
to
He
Indeed, That
prohibition,
is the
become
he
will
be
will to
not
was
first
case,
caught identify
desire,
incorporate
of
one
(a woman):
wouldn't
refusal
the
in
then,
obverse
what
becomes
that
a
the
melan-
compelled desires
one
man
‘wants
the
dead
being
her:
with sacrifice
and
her,
he
of desire
homosexuality
as
an
(DIS)
PASSIONATE
271
ATTACHMENTS
the key ambiguity of jdentification with masculinity.’"**Here we encounter an charBuder’s argument, ambiguity which also affects the inconclusive her of discussion of transsexual ‘acter important drag dressing: her definioscillates ‘tion of the foreclosed primordial ‘passionate attachment’ two which is one man desires another between subjective positions from -
desires
jt that
one
woman
desired
another
subjective positon of a woman this ambiguity later in upon it follow
Does
a
This
(desiring
conditions
of course,
question,
‘second
a a
when
text,
defence
choice.
is rhetorical
that
In
he desires
another
constitutive
of
of a
that
—
because,
Neil love
passionate black thus
difference
—
a
the
who
man
already
established
normativity) but, precisely, normative symbolization, Butler
is
right
in
in sexuation
opposing is the
as
loss
as
the of
that
since
that
in
fear
man
man
central
enigma
symbolic
difference
which
other
forever
sex
man?
which
(the
eludes notion notion
Let
have
we
heterosexual
a
a
the
affair: as
loss
becoming Is it only
being by) another in
that
foreclosure
her’?
Platonic—Jungian the
the
if
as
mean
primordial
of
another
the
the
a
film as
would
terms
dead
a
disposition,
this
desired
desires
posit
to
ual
involved
be
structured
men,
productive as
caught (and
feminine
a
why does
Crying Game,
two
is
clearly opts for the she, in the quoted passage,
indicate
defined
words,
be
desire The
between
not
other
In
he would
Dil
be
[he]
Jordan’s
more
all this
not
cannot
‘wouldn't
transsexual seems
Does
subjectivity
such,
as
recall
us
man?
why
woman;
touches
is, Butler
however,
case,
attachment?
homosexual
a
herself
asks:
desire?””
why does another man with identify desiring assuming a man ‘wouldn’t be caught dead being her’, -
my the
words,
Butler
man)? she
my
of incorporation against assuming
if
that
alterity
or
or
a
is
is that
or
Of
way
ness
other
In
be
to
one one desires a is desiring from a masculine woman, to the disposition retroactively attributed desiring position retaining heterosexuality as the way of understanding the separate-
disposition, as
that
man?
desires
one
melancholic
man,
the
that
or
man,
the
another
to
a
another
identification
attachment
foreclosed
as
by (and desiring)
masculine
straight
man
It
woman.
a
that
of
sexual
(heterosexthe
grasp
that
the
which
of
loss
opens
androgynous myths of the two halves, and masculine, in a complete human being): it is wrong joined ‘to assume from that we only and always lose the other for the outset sex, in the melancholic it is as often often bind of having the case that we are i? lost our In short, own sex what in order, paradoxically, to become the is that the obstacle or Platonic—Jungian myth fails to take into account up the feminine
path
to
various
obscurantist
272 strictly inherent,
is
loss
TICKLISH
THE
become
SUBJECT the
external:
not
the
is not
loss
renunciation
a
has
woman
to
in
assume
of
masculinity but, paradoxically, the loss of something which, precisely, forever prevents her from ‘femininity’ is a masquerade, a mask supplefully becoming a woman to become a woman. Or to a failure terms menting put it in Laclau’s difference sexual is the Real of an antagonism, not the Symbolic of a is not differential the opposition allocating opposition: sexual difference to each of the two sexes its positive identity defined in opposition to the order
to
one
—
=
other
(so that
sex
Loss
common
is
man
of
is
man
which
and
not, is
woman
vice
it’ holds
even
for
more
sexual
difference:
sexual
versa),
fully positions
never
a
—
that
For
become
is what
woman
account
‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ fully a man of coping with this inherent obstacle/loss. the paradox of ‘having lost our reason,
never
modes
two
on
~
own
what
has
a
and
merely
are
order
in
sex one
but
woman
to
lose
to
in
difference
established set of symbolic gua the complementary roles of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ is sexual difference itself This dialectical gua impossible/real. paradox of how an entity can berome X only in so far as it has to renounce directly the gap between being X is precisely what Lacan calls ‘symbolic castration’: the symbolic place and the element which fills it, the gap on account of which an element its can in the structure in far as it so ?s not fill place only directly this place. bestseller Men are from Mars, Women are Although the title of the recent to provide a version of Lacan’s ‘there is no sexual from Venus may appear the two sexes, (no complementary relationship’ relationship between since they are made of different, incompatible stuff), what Lacan has in mind is completely men different. and women are not incompatible are because ‘from different simply they planets’, each involving a different and so on, but precisely because is an inextricable there psychic economy, link between them to that is because antagonistic say, they are from the same which as it from within. In other is, were, words, the planet split mistake of the Men are from Mars, Women Venus version of ‘there is are from no sexual it is that conceives of each the of two sexes as a relationship’ fully constituted positive entity, which is given independently of the other sex and is, as such, ‘out of sync’ with it. Lacan, on the contrary, grounds the impossibility of sexual relationship in the fact that the identity of each of the two sexes is hampered from within by the antagonistic relationship order
to
assume
oppositions
that
define
the
—
to
the
other
relationship’ me,
but
sex
not
because
which
because it is foo
prevents the
its
other
close to me,
full sex
the
actualization. is
too
foreign
far
‘There
away, intruder
is
no
sexual
totally strange at
the
very
to
heart
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
obstacle
inherent
itself’: ‘man’ is that herself as a woman, ‘woman’ materializes when as
claim
we
this
man,
of
notion
achieve the
is
that,
that
means
‘becoming
the
her
functions
sexes
sex
can
never
is
fully
realize
vice
versa,
self-identity; and, man’s
a
man,
difference
is
of
Difference
self-fulfilment.
already
lose
first
must
one
‘fully
never
inscribed
into
So
oneself
the very
man’,
a
Real when
key problem: loss
of
two
other
woman
prevents
become
to
sexual
which
of the
the
feminine
obstacle
in order
which
of
account
on
of which
account
on
The This
each
(impossible) identity. Consequently,
of my as the
273
in
Sexual Butler
difference
sexual
rejects psychic lives’
as
‘the
she disputes the primary guarantor that ‘all and loss be to that traced back structur[can] premiss separation of the other sex which we loss as this sexed ing by emerge being in the she sexual the difference with heterosexual world’,*! silently equates symbolic norm determining what it is to be a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’, while for Lacan sexual difference is real precisely in the sense that it can never be properly symbolized, transposed/translated into a symbolic norm which fixes the subject’s sexual ‘there is no such identity thing as a sexual When Lacan claims sexual difference is ‘real’, that relationship’. he is therefore far from a historical form of sexuation contingent elevating our
when
-
—
into
transhistorical
a
dained
place
in
heterosexual
exiled
into
claim
sexual
difference
~
impossible
to
it is
not
spite of
the
normative
failure
of
sexual is the
not
that
a
we
have fact
difference ultimate
homosexuals, of sexual to
point
of reference
proper woman,
preoryou
are
symbolic domain’): the claim that it is ‘impossible’ In other symbolic norm.
a
and
fetishists, its
or
the
the as
difference
impose
your
occupy man cither
as
psychotic abyss is ‘real’ equals symbolize, to formulate
words,
difference
do
order,
outside
excluded, that
(‘if you
norm
the
—
norm;
which
that
is, it
is
anchors
other
not
the
in
perverts
proofs
as
that
of
the
sexual
contingent
of the gap which on account sexuality; it is, on the contrary, the determinate difference and sexual forever the real of persists between that we have the multitude of of heterosexual forms symbolic norms ‘perverse’ forms of sexuality. That is also the problem with the accusation that sexual difference involves ‘binary logic’: in so far as sexual difference is real/impossible, it is precisely not ‘binary’ but, again, that because of of sexual which of it (every translation difference every ‘binary’ account
drifting
of
274
THE
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
reason versus active emotion, opposed symbolic features: fails. .) always Butler So when complains that ‘it’s a hell of a thing to live in the world called the impossible real being being called the traumatic, the unthinkanswer is that, in a sense, able, the psychotic’,®? the Lacanian everyone is ‘outside’ those who think are ‘inside’ are, they really precisely, psychotics. In short, Lacan’s well-known dictum is according to which a madman not only a beggar who thinks he is a king but also a king who thinks he is a king (ie. who perceives his symbolic mandate ‘king’ as directly of the grounded in the real of his being) applies also to his assertion is the one who, from impossibility of the sexual relationship: a madman the fact that ‘there is no sexual that relationship’, draws the conclusion the sexual act he thereby (the act of copulation) is impossible in reality confuses the of the of symbolic void (the absence symbolic ‘formula’ sexual that the order is, he confuses relationship) with a gap in reality of ‘words’ and the order of ‘things’, which, precisely, is the most elemenand succinct definition of psychosis.** tary So when Lacan the Real with what Freud calls ‘psychic reality’, equates this ‘psychic reality’ is not the inner life of dreams, wishes, simply psychic and so on, as to external but the hard core of opposed perceived reality, which are real in the precise sense primordial ‘passionate attachments’, of resisting the movement of symbolization dialectical mediation: and/or
into
couple passive
a
versus
of ..
-
...
—
—
the
with ‘interexpression ‘psychical reality’ itself is not simply synonymous basic sense that it ‘psvchological domain’, etc. If taken in the most has for Freud, this a nucleus within that domain which is expression denotes and which is alone in being truly ‘real’ as heterogeneous and resistant compared with the majority of psychical phenomena.*! ...
nal
In
world’,
what
then,
does
the
Ocdipus complex touch on the Real? Let us question: what do Hegel and psychoanalysis have in common when it comes to the notion of subject? For both of them, the ‘free’ subject, integrated into the symbolic network of mutual recognition, is the result of a process in which traumatic cuts, ‘repressions’, and the not power struggle intervene, something primordially given. Thus both aim at a kind of ‘meta-transcendental’ of accounting for the very gesture frame. genesis of the a priori transcendental Every ‘historicization’, every the passage from the pre-symbolic X to symbolization, has to ‘re-enact’ history. Apropos of Oedipus, for example, it is easy to play the game of and to demonstrate how the historicization, is Oedipal constellation embedded in a specific patriarchal it requires a far greater effort context; answer
sense,
this
via
another
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
“pfthought ycomplex,
in
discern,
to
of the
one
the
historical
very
of the
re-enactments
275 of
contingency which
gap
opens
the
Oedipus
the
up
horizon
‘of historicity. fe
In her
‘whenshe ‘fsocial
recent
more
accepts
construction that
“directly
of
a
indicates
{difference
to concede this point, writings, Butler herself seems between sexual difference and the key distinction of gender’: the status of sexual difference is not sexual rather, contingent socio-symbolic formation; the which lies in between, no enigmatic domain
the
Jongerbiology and ppointhere wouldthe
be
‘the
symbolization.
which
:
sustains
modes
its
of
yet the
not
sexuality symbolize
the
between
gap
of
space
emphasize
to
this
Real
and
In
Our
is the
‘cut’
of
the
course,
it is the
nature,
and
very multitude
contingent
yes,
by
construction,
in-between
the
short:
determined
is not
socio-symbolic
how
of we
way of
outcome
a
this
struggle; however,
contingent socio-symbolic power very the Real and its contingent symbolization, this very gap between be sustained must is the by a cut, and ‘symbolic castration’ symbolization, name for this cut. So ‘symbolic castration’ Lacanian is not the ultimate which somehow limits the free flow of the point of symbolic reference of multitude on the it is which the symbolizations: contrary, very gesture _ the of space contingent symbolizations.” sustains, keeps open, of Butler’s account of sexual differSo, to recapitulate: the attraction ence is that it possible to see it makes the apparently ‘natural’ of state of the sexual as result ‘natural’ the difference) things (psychic acceptance of a redoubled of repressing the ‘pathological’ process ‘passionate to the attachment’ same sex. The with is: if we agree however, it, problem that the entry into sexuality is paid symbolic Law that regulates human
complex
,
_
of
Space
-—
for
by
fundamental
a
is this
renunciation, When
attachment?
Same-sex
Butler
crucial
the
the
of the
part
body
which
texture),
her
for
a
such
destroyed, construction
subject of
takes
organ
place;
it is
Does
this
imaginary
undead
must
and
of
mode
the
be
sublimation,
if
already,
loss.
of constitutive
is formed.’*’
lamella, of the This
in
kind
in
preserved
not
(i.e. not remainder, bodily
is: ‘This
subject a
is
unsublimated?’
remains answer
in
which
body
The
a
destruction
not
bring
included I would
on
close
her
the
there
symbolic survives
suggest,
is not
the
site
a
occasion
to
the
that
the
of
part
been
always, having
not
body
some
in
the
of
‘Is
question
"
some
that
in fact
renunciation
asks
on
which
a
of
which
a
Lacanian
notion
organ-without-body? called
precedes
the
‘unreal,’
subjective
in
the
sense
it conditions,
being
unreal
in direct
is contact
not
the with
276 real....
the
This
My being
that
when
lamella is
lose
sexes
when
origins
difference:
as
a
sexual
of
myth
a
what
the
lost
the
half, complementary this object is marked by
that the
of the
sameness
‘same
yet marked socioeconomic
libido
by
not
In
Real
of
cut one
That
age. circulation
two
but a
but,
lose
sexes
Sameness
—
is to
of sexual
is
both
presents
his
to
object. this
be
One
One
Sameness
asexual
mythical
is
not
is
not
could
say
Sameness,
‘difference.**
tempted
say,
order
in
however, the
precisely
which
myth (in Symposium) on bear in mind the key
third
asexual
an
himself
Lacan
should
one
is
that
rather,
Plato’s
sex,’ but, rather, the
terms,
our
par and
libido
non-symbolized
with
is lost
that
living being
a
of sex.*”
sexuation,
symbolic on
of
part
straits
feminine
nor
difference,
Lacan,
for
‘is’ the
that
enter
the
the
through
masculine
they
of lamella
notion the
neither
-
SUBJECT here
represents
produced
organ-without-body
‘asexual’
the
TICKLISH
THE
that
claim
to
itself
Capital
describes
Marx
when
the
is
self-
mad
Capital, whose solipsistic path of self-fecundation in today’s meta-reflexive reaches its apogee speculations on futures, it is far too simplistic to claim that the spectre of this self-engendering monster which its path regardless of any human or environmental concern pursues is an ideological abstraction, should never this and one forget that behind abstraction there are real people and natural objects on whose productive is based, and on it which capacities and resources Capital’s circulation feeds like a gigantic parasite. The problem is that this ‘abstraction’ is not of social it is (financial speculator’s) misperception only in our reality of the material ‘real’ in the precise sense of determining the structure of populations, social themselves: strata the fate of whole and processes sometimes of whole be decided the can countries, by ‘solipsistic’ speculative dance of Capital, which its goal of profitability in a benign pursues to how its movement social indifference will affect we reality. Here encounter the Lacanian difference between reality and the Real: ‘reality’ is the social in interaction and in the reality of the actual people involved while the Real is the inexorable ‘abstract’ productive processes, spectral what goes on in social reality. logic of Capital which determines enhancing
of
—
This recurrent a
Kantian
symbolic
reference
criticisms
the
to
Real
of Lacan
way, asserts universe is
an
a
also
enables
structured, So
a
void
is Lacan
which
to
us
according to which priori ‘transcendental’
answer
is
he
void can
around
then
be
kind
of
who, in the
which filled
by
structuralist
contingent positive object.*° actually Kantian, asserting the ontological priority of the symbolic order its places (claiming, elements which contingent material occupy a
the
of
one
formalist
a
over
say,
the that
a
‘real’
the
father
between
tion is
precisely
nothing but a contingent bearer of the purely formal of symbolic prohibition)? What blurs this clear distincempty symbolic form and its contingent positive content
the the
Reaé
the
its content, -
is
function
structural
stain
a
which
‘indivisible
materiality which,
and
symbolic frame, through which the empty succinct
most
‘Kantian
the
it
‘colours’
the
by
formal
This
frame
is also
within of
of form
a
form of
its
of
part
particular point within its content. paradox of a kind of ‘pathological sense of innerworldly contingency) of the
kind
symbolic
as
and
(what
which
it
of
part
we
priori’: element
is anchored
which
frame
which
content
it
forms
appears
is attached with
dealing pathological
that
in
the
are a
cord
umbilical
provides usually perceives as)
since
content,
What a
a
content
one
very transcendental-formal of possibility, of the a
to
on
‘pathological’ contingent allegedly neutral universality of
of the
between
frame
empty
some
functions
subversion
or
condition
is enframed
thus
framework
the
formalism’: the
of
circuit
rejection
horizon,
within
short
This
content.
the
sutures
remainder’
it were,
as
the its
277
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
to
here
a
is the
(in the Kantian the
sustains
consistency
occurs.
the
of the Lacanian sinthome as possible definitions that sustains a the contingent formation priori universal frame. In this precise sense, the Lacanian sinthome is a ‘knot’: a whose is existence as particular innerworldly phenomenon experienced one touches it or approaches it too however, the moment contingent entire universe that is, the and, with it, our closely, this ‘knot unravels which we very place from speak and perceive reality disintegrates; we our feet.... literally lose the ground from beneath Perhaps the best illustration is the patriarchal melodramatic theme of ‘going in through the wrong door’ into the pocket of her (the wife who accidentally reaches husband’s love letter, thus jacket and finds his confidential ruining her entire a is to much in which raised its sciencefamily life), higher power fiction version the door and witness the (you accidentally open wrong secret the there is of no need to involved However, aliens). meeting get in such eccentricities; simply think of the elementary case of the fragile
real:
the
one
pathological
—
—
balance
(ask
of a
a
certain
situation
in
question,
which
is
one
perform
a
formally
certain
allowed
act),
but
to
do
is
none
something the
less
rule unwritten if one expected not to do it, as if some prohibited it explodes. actually does it, the whole situation the line of separation between Apropos of this point, we can elaborate Marx and the standard ‘bourgeois’ sociologists of modernity who emphasize the universal features of post-traditional life (the modern individual is no longer directly immersed in a particular tradition, but experiences —
278
TICKLISH
THE
himself free
as
to
universal
a
in
caught
agent
way of life; he
his
choose
SUBJECT
reflexivity reflected life:
in
ways
of
who
teach
than
in
a
is
how
us
his
to
break
to
more
a
of
out
supported
true
the
‘holistic’
spontaneous
are
very attempts discover our
to
relationship
‘spontaneous’ activities Nowhere is this paradox of
most
manuals.
return
and
context
reflected
a
desperate attempts
and
modernity tragicomic way, these
specialists There
evident
more
entertains in
life-world, relying even (sexuality, leisure) on ‘how-to-do-it’ his
towards
particular
contingent
a
thus
by
host
of
Self...
.
a
spontaneous
also
than the scientific probably nothing more growing of food’: it takes to be science able to subtract the harmful ‘organic high of industrial effects a is thus kind of agriculture. ‘Organic agriculture’ the of third link in the first triad whose two Hegelian ‘negation negation’, links are pre-industrial ‘natural’ agriculture and its negation/mediation, industrialized to to an nature, agriculture: it is a return organic way of is ‘mediated’ doing things; but this very return by science. Standard of this sociologists of modernity conceive ‘reflexivity’ as a universal
quasi-transcendental in
different
domains
way the traditional
(and
racy
of
principle
inherent
authority
and
the
as
of the
forms
organic individual’s
inidatory ted by the
wisdom
school
multitude
available
of
incarnations, as
a
the
into
adds
however,
to
up
conceived
moulds
system;
in
art
the
Frankfurt of
same
universal
this
a
shape,
crucial
—
particular
And
are
we
content not
is the
dealing
legality and replacement of traditional scientific knowledge transmit-
of
artist’s
freedom ‘instrumental
priori,
social
with
in
layers
is
life
is
universe
the
same
do
not
one
exceptional the
by
not
the
various
is thus
life. for
screw:
the
entertain
all
are
it is attached
itself
an
‘constitutes’,
of social
of the
turn
from its
Reason’)
they
which
choose
which
form
a
different
frame;
to
‘Reflexivity’ (or
on.
of social
there
more
domain
the
supplementary
particular ‘empirical’ domains relationship towards this universal positive stuff formed by it innerworldly particular content reflexivity is grounded, to which by which the frame of this form
the
ethical
process; external
School’s a
the
predominance over
in the
as
so
historical
all
this
the and
‘styles’;
kind
to
as
democon
formal
morality; in learning forms by the reflected
inner
the
economy market relations
into
formal insistence
as
production meres
modern
in
sake);
in a specific replacement of
the
as
formalist
the
‘alienated’
communal
politics by
structure
own
traditional
of
split
its
itself
expresses
in
counterpoint, for
commodification
of
life:
social
authoritarian
organic its
which
feature
of
of
cases
a
Marx, him, same
passive
‘pathological’,
form universal of very a kind of umbilical cord,
enframed;
for
Marx,
of
course,
of
commodity exchange.*” of paradox in the case
the
(DIS)
PASSIONATE
notion
Lacanian
of
279
ATTACHMENTS
fantasy (objet petit
phantasmic object) as a relationship? Precisely supplement of a complementary ‘because there is no universal symbolic form(ula) the two sexes, them has to ‘relationship between any relationship between ‘be supplemented by a ‘pathological’ particular scenario, a kind of phan‘tasmic crutch which can sustain only our ‘having actual sex with another ‘person’ if the knot of the fantasy is dissolved, the subject loses his/her that Lacan universal capacity to engage in sexual activity. So the criticism should be turned back on its perpetrators it js a proto-Kantian formalist constructionists’ who are all too in an impeccably ‘formalist’: is the ‘social the contingent of symbolization Kantian as way, they presuppose space do and not ask meta-transcendental simply given, Hegel’s key post-Kantian of ‘question: how does this very space of historicity, of the multitude the
to
nonexistence
a
qua sexual
the
of
-
—
of
modes
contingent
Masochistic Butler’s
elaboration
lost
object
the
ill-fated what
norms:
ive
in
turn
by
the
of
fact
this
of
(the pressure power but vanishes, is lost; and of conscience’, itself: In
the
the
This
reversal
who
identifies
and
fabulation
subject)
which
gives
the
external
this
law
fails
perspective,
inner
birth
subject
in
the
Kant, with
the
to
internal
as
emerges
in the
Law
in
mind
mere
(Call
of
mode
of
face
of)
the
Conscience)
in order to to appear, compensate the external liberation from pressure
whom
psyche.
of
autonomy,
namely,
between
moral the
internalization
or
.
its
power,
universal
tension
extension
the
subjection, the
space
for
one
moral
of
philosopher
certain
a
reflex-
subject, external simply internalized guise of the ‘voice
of regulatory instrument paradoxically, through this withdrawal of the psyche as a speaking topos.”
autonomy
law, the
is the
the
the
in
social
imposed
the
voice,
subjection to feven the humiliation Law. The key point here is to bear forms of this Law: far from being a external
of
the
avoid
to
us
misses
is not
is internalized
the
the
externally
emergence
the
regulation,
and
is embodied
this
loss
of
with
allows
which
‘internalization’
the
on
this
explicit
has become voice, power the subject is produced,
dissimulation
in
exerts
identification
model
of
internalization
of
absence
notion
which, it
melancholic
of
theoretical
‘internalization’
simplistic
means
a
the
of
notion
Deception
logic
provides
itself?!
sustain
symbolization,
two
of
emerges
when
the
its
absence,
In
for
of
norms
embodied
.
280
TICKLISH
THE
social
in one’s
submission
cal to
(in the Enlightenment
conditioning
unconditional
the
to
SUBJECT
vein)
Call
inner
of
is
external
between
identi-
strictly
That
Conscience.
and
is
social regulations reality and the Real: social regulations can still be justified (or pretend to be justified) by objective requirements of social of the ‘reality principle’); while coexistence (they belong to the domain of the moral Law is unconditional, the demand brooking no excuse to say: the opposition moral Law is that between
internal
—
‘You
because
can,
traumatic
and
and
norms
to
invert
the
inner
precisely
norms
whom
towards
one
have
to
moral
an
to
ex-timate
while
social
reason,
moral
is thus
Law
tempted go relationship between ‘external’ what if the subject invents external
escape have
maintain
can
One
that
For
to
is a
the
Law: to
easier
put
it.
possible,
it.
disrupts more
order
it much
Isn’t
than
that once
in
Kant
as
coexistence
peaceful
injunction
further
Law?
you
make
regulations
must!’,
the
external
an
minimal
a
Master,
unbearable
a
Master
pressure who
distance
and
a
stranger,
step social social
moral
of the
be
can
a
duped,
private space, foreign body in the very
of Power definition (the agency being? Doesn’t the minimal the force the as its pressure that exerts on him experienced by subject his his from the Outside, inclinations, opposing thwarting goals) rely of the ex-timate inherent precisely on this externalization compulsion of the which is ‘in you more than Law, of that yourself’? This tension
heart
of one’s
external
between
subversive moral
inner
ive
to
stance),
the
or
suspension
‘internalize’ of
so-called
creates
the
inner
Law, which
can
of
opposing public authority is neglected by Foucault. point is that this subjection to
(say,
Again, the crucial not simply ‘extend’ which
and
norms
effects
external
external ‘free
inner
pressure,
space’. what
of
pressure; the to This
also
the
inner
rather,
rise
give
behalf
on
to
of
one’s
Law
does
it is correlat-
withdrawal-into-self
leads
us
back
the
to
problematic fundamental fantasy: fantasy stages is the scene of constitutive that sustains the precisely submission/subjection This ‘inner freedom’. attachment’ that subject’s primordial ‘passionate of passive submission is, the scene staged in the fundamental fantasy in the strict, narrow must clinical be distinguished from masochism sense: as it was elaborated in detail this masochism siricto sensu by Deleuze,” the
fundamental
—
—
attitude of disavowal towards already involves an intricate Oedipal symbolic reality. The masochist’s suffering does not perverse enjoyment of pain as such, but is thoroughly in its exquisite spectacle (masquerade) of torture pleasure —
humiliation the
attentive
to
which
guard
the of the
masochist
subject
superego.
In
short,
submits clinical
itself,
the
frame
attest
to
the and serves
masochism
of some
service
of
pain, of to dupe is
a
way
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
for
the
for
it
subject to attain by the superego
the
pleasure by accepting in
advance
—
punishment required spectacle of punishment
faked
the
281
the underlying Real of pleasure. demonstrate of moral the standard scene masochism: the picture Just everyday masochistic subject often finds it deeply satisfying to imagine that a person he is deeply attached will wrongly accuse him of some to whom misdeed similar of mistaken act the satisfaction ‘er accomplish some is accusation; the future in which scene the beloved who by other, imagining provided has unknowingly injured him, will deeply regret his unjust accusation. the masochist’s in masochistic theatre: It is the same his passivity conceals the scene who arranges and tells the domina activity (he is the director his active what to do to him); his moral pain barely conceals pleasure in the other. Such an the moral intricate scene can victory that humiliates a take place only within space already organized by the symbolic order:
‘serves to
,
.
.
.
.
.
on
the
be
raised
between
contrart
the
masochist
and
his
(domina).
master
crucial
The in
relies
theatre
masochistic
there
is
deception subject
a
provides
the
his existence
in
—
work
at
short,
to
serve
with
here
the its
The
deceive? this
on
the
concerns
fantasy: whom
fundamental
the
of
submission
and
suffering
to
question
masochism
the
deceptive
of this
Lacanian
level
too:
the
of
being,
it
minimum
role
does
deception of
scene
answer
fundamental
is that
fantasy
for support is “Look, I suffer, therefore I
gcsture
serves
as
a
participate in the positive order of being.’ It is thus not guilt is at stake in the fundamental itself which and/or pleasure, but existencé fantasy, and it is precisely this deception of the fundamental fantasy that to dispel: by the act of ‘traversing the fantasy’ serves traversing the fantasy, the subject accepts the void of his nonexistence. I exist,
am,
A nice of
a
I
Lacanian
country
example which
in
one’s
of masochistic
head
is cut
is that
deception off
if
one
of the
citizen
says publicly that is to be cut off,
the
that his head this stupid; if this subject dreams has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of death dream wish, etc., it his king is that the subject thinks that is, the simply means stupid of the masks predicament suffering pleasure of attacking the dignity of the king... 44 Here, pain and suffering are clearly the masquerade in the destined to service of pleasure, dupe superego censorship. Such astrategy of deception, however, in which a scene of pain and suffering is put in of the pleasure of deceiving the superego, the service can function only
king
is
—
on
the
subject
basis
of
engages
a
more
in
‘sadomasochistic’
fundamental
fantasizing
about
being exposed
stance to
in which
the
passive painful
282
TICKLISH
THE
experiences and is pain itself as the source Along these lines, the
thus
in
generated detailed
masochism same
the
on
three
fantasy (1: “My father being ‘I am beaten being by my father’; 3: the
on
they
crucial
both
are
final,
conscious
while
the
the
by
child
properly phantasmic phase was never
the
‘A child
that
for
very
beginning (here primordial ‘passionate
we
be
never
can
is to
one
this
not
case,
another So
for
child,
the
but
the
passage
found
in
the
as
the
the
of
I
is
hate’;
2:
Laplanche the
second:
secret
real can
event as
the
weatment,
was
the
of
case
focuses
such
second
foreclosed
from
foreclosed
same-sex
Real
by
which
has
is
which
the
beaten
from father the
by
it
the
it
reason,
the
but
subject), presupposed fantasy: ‘... what or subtending it: in
to
of the
phase
this
for
on);
assumed
fantasy
being
‘A child
‘primordially repressed’.
derived
in
scene
his
In
whom
of some memory his brother), and
final, conscious but
fantasy
from
the
all
are
genesis of the being beaten’); however,
is
(i.e. subjectively
the memory the actual
the
but
Butler
reconstructed
account
repressed is not
is
perfect
a
attachment’
remembered
simply retroactively if
have
Freudian child
being beaten’), phase and
reason,
consciously imagined,
is,
around’.*°
first
beating psychoanalytic
This
very
is
the
repressed
of
course
and,
the the
about ‘fantas-
turn, that
—-
‘turning
phases of is beating
fantasy (‘A child
(the parent
the
in
of
ideas
inward
coincide
is, they represent
phase phase is simply
remembered
be
the
of
first
witnessed
that
old classic
reflexive
all
between
difference
unconscious,
the
gesture
beaten’
insists
deceptive strategy,
any
Laplanche’s
and the
commentary
reread in which
and
one
outside
accept,
satisfaction.*®
fantasy
sexualization
ization’,
to
should
one
seduction
primal
ready
of libidinal
SUBJECT
be
would
have
beaten
father’.*”
outward-directed
initial,
aggressivity (satisfacbeating him/ the to foreclosed scene in which the her) phantasmic subject imagines the role of the first phase is being beaten by the parent is crucial himself that of the proverbial ‘grain of sand’, the little piece of reality (a scene in reality by the child), which witnessed the triggers phantasmic formation of a scene that provides the co-ordinates of the primordial ‘passionate attachment’. Again, what is primordially repressed and, as such, forever inaccessible to subjectivization (since subjectivization itself relies on this is the second repression) phase. Several things occur simultaneously in the passage from the first phase to the second: tion
child
another
beating
or
observing
a
parent
-
*
as
Freud
properly
himself sexualized
emphasizes, —
that
only
is, the
in
passage
the
second from
phase is the situation phase 1 to phase 2 is the
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
from
passage
pre-sexual aggressivity
to
properly
283
sexualized
‘pleasure
in
pain’; sexualization
this
e
is
about
fantasize
being
an
agent
‘inner’
an
scene
furthermore,
e
which and
its
I
pain,
the
.-.
fascinates
for
its
at
or
point
least
the
is that
‘sentence’
it, make around
this
content,
these
sexualization of
three
scene
of
a
stages
situation
being subjected impassive, impotent to
an
features
within
humiliation observer.
strictly consubstantial: equals phantasmization, which equals assumand pain: impotence, humiliation are
of
process of the
reflexive
me;
passive position the position of
passive position
content
the
that
a
radical,
most
ing
as
assume
crucial
The
with the reflexive of strictly consubstantial gesture of actually attacking another human being I of submission and pain; instead of it, I imagine a scene in real interaction, I become an impassive observer of
instead
‘introjection’:
is
turning-around is not to be thought of only at the level fantasy, but in the very movement of fantasmatization. The not content only or even necessarily to give a reflexive
of the
it enter
fantasy; into
which
upon oneself, the indissoluble
scious
is confirmed."
it is also
oneself
as
and
oneself:
to
above
fantasy.
aggress between bond
To such
fantasy
all
to
reflect
fantasize is the as
such,
the
moment
of the shift to
is
to
turn
of autoerotism,
sexuality,
to
the
internalize
action,
aggression
at
and
the
it in
uncon-
The
turn is thus not point of the reflexive simply a symmetrical reversal an external aggressivity (destroying/attacking object) into being attacked by an external object; rather, it lies in the act of ‘internalizing’ of one’s Thus passivity, actively imagining the scene impassive submission. in fantasizing, the clear-cut opposition of activity and passivity is subverted: in ‘internalizing’ a scene of being beaten by another, I immobilize myself in a double sense of active in reality, I assume the passive (instead being stance of a fascinated in observer who merely imagines/fantasizes a scene he participates; within which the very content of this scene, I imagine and pain) myself in a passive, immobile position of suffering humiliation active however, precisely this double passivity presupposes my engage-
of
-
ment
which, external
—
that in
say, the accomplishment of a reflexive autoerotic an external way, I myself, not outflow of energy, activity, the spontaneous is to
an
turn
agent, and
means
of
thwart
my
by
‘dominate
of fantasizing. Apropos reality by the outburst of his definition of drive (as opposed to instinct), this point Lacan made a involves nicely by emphasizing how drive always and by definition
myself’, replacing activity
in
TICKLISH
THE
284
of
position of ‘se faire...’, voyeuristic tendency to another,
to
expose
SUBJECT
see
nor
oneself
to
the
’
oneself...
‘making
scopic drive tendency
.°:
exhibitionistic
another’s
be
‘middle
the
but
eyes,
is neither to
voice’,
satisfaction ‘making oneself visible’, deriving submission. of one’s own passive actively sustaining the scene standpoint, this primordial gesture of quently, from the Lacanian of
attitude
is the
matization’
this
imagination’, itself
disengage matization’
into
‘primordial
scene’
of sexual
the
remains
The
this?
child
is
exposed herself
of, that
she
her
I
Other
who
fact
words, thus
acts
tempted
site
primordial
caressing,
she
is basis
whose
with
whose to
here
of sexualization
whose
standard
rituals
were
also
the holds
victimized
and of
only
is
platitudes it is the
if
for
we
his
of
of
with
the and
acts
that
him.
One
monuments,
impenetrable Egyptians themselves:
primordial
presuppose the scene whom
secrets
seduction that is
it is
he is
of the
that
the
the
big
encounter
unaware, to
Other’
dictum
for
secrets
scene
child
he
is inaccessible
famous
their
master
a
that
fully aware is beyond
inconsistency,
the
meaning
tenor
Hegel’s
of
construction
original the observing and/or
of
actually
not
libidinal
true
repeat
is
Other’s
the
of
when
of the
discourse
is the
to
in
observes
he
say, what
into
scene
child’s:
the
not
the
encounter
some
which
Unconscious
is the
this
in
here,
Unconscious,
is
the
at
symbolize, integrate coitus, being submitted
Unconscious
[parental] Other he emits signals
that
whole
us) is
situation
cannot
the
Egyptians (the meaning of our modern Western gaze) the
of
one
he
taken
is the
that
some
maternal
‘the
parents and
sexuality
quite literally, beyond subject/master of my speech, since speaks through me, and so on: the primordial
the
performs
(parent’s)
scene
sexualized
encountered
dictum
not
am
Unconscious that
(every
true
a
in
from
be
to
how
child
a
the
connotation
human
that
gap
which
him,
to
‘fantas-
as
scene
sexual
something that goes beyond fondling him a satisfaction
does
Lacan’s
about
the
this
in
excessive
to
derives
grasp. therefore
to
adult’s
the
Mother
is
is
It
Unconscious is
seduction,
of reflexive
gesture
meaning (observing parental caressing, etc.). Where, however,
maternal
excessive
all
him.
of
this
mysterious
some
possess
impenetrable
universe
subject
surrroundings. seduction
originate: in the fact that caught impotent observer,
Unconscious
the
which to
the
original psychoanalysis: a child impotently witnessing to or (from gestures being himself submitted
of
Kant
‘transcendental
as
enables
that
the
of
theory
a
adults)
impenetrable point
in its
to
Conse-
‘fantas-
of what
mystery
refers
of freedom
its immersion
interaction,
other
or
ultimate
Idealism
work, Laplanche elaborated
in his
Later
of German
abyssal capacity
from
the
and
birthplace
very tradition
entire
the
and
the
from
libidinal
of
a
by
seen
as
to
the
only impenctrable not
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
and
enigmatic
that
he is
active
—
adult
the
baffles
what
witnessing
a
observing/victimized child is obviously impenetrable that they, too, ‘don’t
which
scene
themselves
perpetrators
285 is the
also
know
—
fact
to
the
what
they’re doing’. This
constellation
(mentioned
above)
also
enables
that
‘there
to
us
is
no
throw sexual
new light on relationship’:
Lacan’s
claim
if the
enigma the side of the only on child, in his (mis)perceptionas something mysterious of what, for the parents themand selves, is a thoroughly natural unproblematic activity, then there sexual definitely would be a ‘normal’ relationship. However, the worn-out phrase ‘deep inside every adult, there is a child who is still alive’ is not if it is properly without as understood foundation, meaning that even when the proverbial two consenting adults in ‘normal and healthy’ engage in the privacy of their sex alone in there: bedroom, they are never quite there is always a ‘fantasmatized’ child’s a gaze observing them, gaze on account of which their usually ‘internalized’ activity is ultimately Or to put it in yet another the point impenetrable to themselves. way of primordial of the scene seduction is not that adults accidentally infringe the with a child, disturbing his fragile balance upon display of their the point, rather, is that the child’s jouissance gaze is included, comprefrom the of adult hended, very beginning in the situation parental like Kafka’s sexuality, rather parable of the Door of the Law: just as the from the country man at the discovers end that the scene of the majestic to of entrance the the Law was palace staged only for his gazc, the parental sexual display, far from unintentionally disturbing the child’s is in a equilibrium, way ‘there only for the child’s gaze’. Is not the ultimate of that paradisiacal fantasy parents copulating in front of their child, who observes them and makes comments? We are thus dealing with the structure of a temporal loop: there is sexuality not only because of a gap between adult sexuality and the child's unprepared gaze traumatized by its display, but because this child’s to sustain adult perplexity continues sexual activity itself.*? This paradox also explains the blind spot of the of sexual harassment: there is no sex without an element of ‘harassment’ topic the (of perplexed gaze violently shocked, traumatized, by the uncanny of what character is going on). The protest against sexual harassment, against violently imposed sex, is thus ultimately the protest against sex as such: if one subtracts from the sexual interplay its painfully traumatic the remaindcr is no character, simply longer sexual. ‘Mature’ sex between of the proverbial consenting element adults, deprived of the traumatic and
confusion
to
were
be
—
—
—
—
—
286
shocking imposition, coupling. From my youth, I used
dren
recite
to
hero
whose
was
(which,
of course,
without
a
tries
TICKLISH
THE
to
/ is
escape
him
obscene
each
to
desexuwalized, turned
definition
remember
other,
rhyming
songs ridiculous
of
songs
into
mechanic
five-year-old chilsexual exploits
mythical anonymous ‘cowboy’. One of these songs in Slovene) went as follows: ‘The cowboy rhymes only a woman a tree. behind / However, when she screwing and
naked
glimpse of] her
by
a
hat
childhood
is
SUBJECT
runs away / he for ass.’ The charm if —
a
brief
we
may
moment
put
sees
it that
[catches way
a
of this
—
perspective, there is nothing in of the act this act what especially exciting speaks for itself copulation; of catching sight of a woman’s is truly exciting, rather, is the brief moment .5? And, of course, naked ass... this childish is my point is that song view, which depicts copulation as basically right: contrary to the standard the most moment of sexual insist exciting, climactic activity, one should in the first place and be able that, in order for the subject to be aroused the act of copulation, some to perform must particular ‘partial’ element fascinate him case of this song, the brief as, in the (or her) glance of is no the naked ass. ‘There sexual that there is relationship’ also means no of the of direct act which would representation copulation immediately be supported us ‘turn a on’, that sexuality must by partial jouissances a touch there or which in fact sustain it. the here, glance squeeze Again, song
lies
the
in
fact
that,
in
its
—
—
—
—
answer
to
the
obvious
criticism
that
it
is children
who
have
no
proper
of the act of copulation itself that is, their horizon representation to like sexuality is limited experiences catching a glance of another is that, at a certain children person’s ass phantasmic level, we remain and never and mature really ‘grow up’, in so far as, for a truly grown-up ~
of
—
there
...
able
would
be
sexual
in so far, that is, as he or relationship without the of phantasmic support copulate ‘directly’, some a scene involving partial object.) Is not the supreme of such a case that sustains the particular feature the blonde hair in sexual Hitchcock’s impossible curling relationship in the barn towards the end of the film, Vertigo?When, in the love scene Scottie embraces refashioned into the dead Madeleine, passionately Judy during their famous 360-degree kiss, he stops kissing her just long enough to steal a look at her himself that the hair, as if to reassure newly blonde which makes her into the object of desire is still there. particular feature Here the opposition between the vortex that threatens to swallow Scottie (the ‘vertigo’ of the title, the deadly Thing) and the curl of the blonde hair that imitates the vertigo of the Thing, but in a miniaturized,
person, she was
to
a
—
This
gentrified form.
deadly Thing, serving livable relationship with Welles’s
Orson of
interest
is the
curl
film
objetpetit
its stand-in
as
287
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
it without
Story, based
it
the
condenses
thus
enabling being swallowed by it.
The Immortal
because
which
a
and
focuses
a
novel, is
Blixen’s
Karen
on
impossibleentertain
to
us
the
only ambiguous relationship out the wants to act myth and reality: the rich old merchant of a rich old husband sailors’ mythic narrative who pays a young sailor to to his an heir spend the night with his young wife, and thus procure he wants, as it were, to close wealth the gap between and myth reality, who will finally be able that is, to produce a sailor to this mythic relate as narrative of something that actually happened to him (the attempt, not
on
between
—
fails:
course,
him
sailor
the
tell
to
the
phantasmic staging of on a curtain, brightly merchant
and
sits
their
conditions. lovers the
silent
In
ridiculous
and
is
other
somehow thus
that
stantiating
listens
ultimately a mythic their
authentic
miserable
that
real-life
is
the
as
its
the very that
situation,
of
miracle
the
each in
other
transub-
authentic
an
two
about
forget in
succeed
they
material
that
not
get immersed
love-encounter; into
Gaze
it is the
say,
transcends
occurs
encounter,
situation
Third
is to
couple making love between a paid sailor
that
event
miserable
of their
the
to
miracle
the
the
That
encounter
into
conditions
have
we
relationship.
who
words,
an
here
—
an
transcend
produce
love
sexual
witness
what
aged prostitute
an
happened interesting is the of lovemaking: behind a half-transparent bed, the couple are making love, while the old in a deep armchair in the darkness nearby, More
him).
scenc
of
act
induce
will
of money
amount
no
to
of the
guarantee
of the presence transubstantiates
and
lit
halfconcealed
overhears
ultimate
that
announces
what
anyone
love-
that they are doing it for a precisely because they are aware the two lovers behave as if silent witness, that they are ‘realizing a myth’ but in another are no miserable real actors/agents they people, longer intruding in an intimate person’s dream. The silent witness, far from It is a standard cliché situation and spoiling it, is its key constituent. that, is Welles’s ultimate and austere as The Immortal exercise it is, Story simple encounter
—
in
self-reflection
making (played, Welles and
himself
here: is the
about
old
the
The
as
the
between
Laplanche,
very reflexive the transformation
drive turn
who
merchant
old
Welles
by perhaps observing the
director
merchant
difference
for
that
—
of course,
—
Lacan
is the
cliché
should
this
is the
scene
and
with
into
phantasmic
of instinct
into
of
love-
stand-in
for
scene
obvious
be turned
stand-in
Laplanche
is consubstantial
the
stages
himself)
for
the
around, spectator.
is nevertheless
fantasy
—
that
‘internalization’
drive; for Lacan,
crucial is to
which on
the
say,
it
brings contrary,
288
TICKLISH
THE
does
What
this
drive
beyond fantasy mean? light on this key Perhaps one could claim for Lacan the while that, also, ‘birthplace’ of point: experience with the impenetrable psychoanalysis is the child’s traumatic the calm of his psychic ‘dark spot’ of the Other's jouissance which disturbs determines Lacan to the homeostasis, fantasy as an answer enigma of this ‘dark spot’ (designated, in his ‘graph of desire’, by the question Che vuoi? want from ‘What does the Other me? What [as an object] am I for the The drive for his would then Other, desire?’5*}). pre-phantasmic designate to of exposing oneself the ‘dark of the the stance Other’s spot’ enigma Thus without for Lacan filling it with a phantasmic answer. fantasy is a there
is
drive
SUBJECT
a
beyond fantasy.
allows
difference
another
throw
to
us
some
—
...
minimal
‘defence-formation’,
Here, keit
should
one
a
return
of
(helplessness/distress)
that
‘distress’
this
the
Freudian
levels:
purely organic helplessness (the satisfy his/her most elementary needs, as the traumatic perplexity which occurs to the position of a helpless witness other
or
parents
helpless, without the enigma of sexual
gestures
human’ of the
feeds this
is the
adults, Other’s
overlapping
of
satisfies
a
way parent while the child the
So, back
to
he
mystery Butler:
the
when
two
child’s
child
the
interplay and
when
he
is thrown between
is
into
his/her
the
himself: she
or
child
by mysterious ‘becoming
symbolize
the
Crucial
for
levels
implicit ‘sexualization' (say, when the mother
bodily
to
—
the
needs
him
the
is
is confronted
witnessing.
excessively and of scxual jouissance). the crucial question concerns
caressing
noted different
less
inability to survive, to parents’ help), as well
the
sexual
be
to
the
none
child’s
small without
original Hilflosig-
feature
but
unable is
of the
first
adult(s)
jouissance,
innuendos
and
a
excess
between
or
‘cognitive mapping’, the
The
infant.
what?
—
notion
interconnected
two
covers
stratagem
the
to
elude
to
child the
detects
in
philosophical
name origina] and constitutive Hilflosigkeit: is it not another for the gap of the primordial dis-attachment that wiggers the need for the In other words, what if phantasmic primordial ‘passionate attachment’? we turn the around and conceive of the obstacle which perspective from the infant into its of this environment, prevents fully fitting original for the very abyss name ‘outofjoint’, also in its positive aspect, as another of freedom, for that of ‘disconnecting’ which liberates a gesture subject from its direct immersion in its surroundings? Or to put it in yet another ‘blackmailed’ into passively submitting true, the subject is, as it were, way to some form of primordial ‘passionate attachment’, of this, since, outside he simply does not exist this nonexistence is not however, directly the absence of existence, but a certain or in void the order of being gap
of this
status
—
—
—
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
‘is’
which
the
provide for negativity
itself.
subject minimum
a
The
of
need
for
‘passionate
that
being implies
989
the
attachment’
subject
environprimordial gesture of dis-attachment ment already there. Fantasy is thus a defence-formation against the of the loss of (the support in) being, primordial abyss of dis-attachment, ‘is’ the subject itself. At this precise point, then, Butler which should be of the is not the subject emergence strictly equivalent to supplemented: the of of sense submission to some attachment’, (in ‘passionate subjection of the for to since attachment’ take Other), “passionate place the figure the be there. if that ‘is’ must this is already subject already Only gap gap we there can explain how it is possible for the subject to escape the hold of the fundamental fantasy. also link this opposition of attachment One could and dis-attachment to the old Freudian metapsychological opposition of life and death drive: in defines them the The Ego and the Id, Freud himself as opposition —
the
to
‘abstract
qua from its
—
is
between
the
disunity.
Dis-attachment
of
forces
of
gesture
immersed
in
the
is thus
of
dis-investment,
the
world,
death
throws
which
and
the
and
connection/unity
‘derailment’
ontological
the
of
the
of
it
the
as
primordial
effect
of
disturbs
the
Mother, compelling the the gap, tion/distance:
child
Prohibition
that
primordial;
it is the
the
effect
jouissance
pleasure
and
this
that
negative
throws encounter
avoid of of
dyad the
enter
the
the
of
drive, Law
a
to
child
and
his/her
of
symbolic castra‘dismembered body’,
the
disturbs
tendency
(future)
subject with jouissance.* the temptation to the paternal Law/
dimension of
death
being
counter-move
the
the
intrusion
smooth
unlike
balance
of
is
some
of
the
the
paternal imaginary is an attempt to mirror-image gentrify/stabilize never should gap. One forget that, for Lacan, the Oedipal paternal of is ultimately in the service of the ‘pleasure principle’ it is the agency
identification Law
the
this
joint,
from
is the
intervention
incestuous
gesture
of
attachment
experience of
excessive/traumatic
principle,
the
to
disconnection/
‘contraction’/withdrawal
this
conceive
of
its purest, the of Being ‘out
at
order
In the last resort, negative gesture. is itself: what none other than Hbido disruption ‘out of joint’ is none other than the traumatic should Apropos of this primordial gap, one to
forces
drive
with
the
—
not
—
of pacification—normalization which, far from disturbing the balance condithe minimal the impossible’, bringing about pleasure, ‘stabilizes tions for the tolerable of subjects. (Misreadings like this sustain coexistence to the temptation to write a kind of negative introduction Lacan, taking the starting point a false cliché about as him, and then describing his actual position through its rectification. Apart from the above-mentioned
290
TICKLISH
THE
cliché
the
on
the
are
Law
paternal
clichés
the
on
as
piece
SUBJECT
the of
introduces
that
agency wood in
the
the
Fort—-Da
Mother’s
presence/absence; on ‘empty speech’ jouissance féminine as the mystical abyss outside subject’s look which confines gaze as the male
as
game inauthentic
gap,
there
signifying
as
babble; symbolic domain;
the
to
woman
the
role
of
on on
its
object; etc.)
From critical
Our
remarks
basic
insight
of
the
into
Desire on
the
Butler
profound
to
Drive
..
are
based
link
between
and
.
on
a —
Back full
even
endorsement the
of
ultimate
her
identity
or of reflexivity: reflexivity in the modes strict of subjecnegative self-relating, which is constitutive of German Idealism from Kant to tivity in the tradition Hegel (the fact recent Robert emphasized especially by, among interpreters, Pippin: in its to its the relates to Other, itself, that is, relating subject always-already consciousness is always-already self-consciousness), and reflexivity in the of the reflexive turn that defines the of psychoanalytic sense gesture reversal of the of desire into the (the ‘primordial repression’ regulation for regulation, desire turn is already clearly discernetc.).°4 This reflexive ible in what is arguably the paradigmatic narrative of the defence against excessive jouissance, that of Ulysses meeting the Sirens; the order he gives his sailors tie me hard in hurtful bonds, prior to the meeting is: ‘You must to hold me fast in position upright against the mast, with the ropes’ ends fastened around it; but if I supplicate you and implore you to set me free, then you must tie me fast with even more lashings.’*> The order to ‘tie me hard in hurtful bonds’ is clearly excessive in the context of Circe’s instructions: we from as a defence the excessive pass bonding against of the Sirens’ to itself as the source of erotic jouissance song bonding —
two
philosophical
aspects
sense
of
satisfaction.
This
the less assumes different modalities not reflexivity none only between philosophy and psychoanalysis, but also within psychoanalysis itself: the reflexivity of drive we have focused on in this chapter is not the same as the hysterical reflexivity of desire we discussed in Chapter 2 (ie. the fact that of the hysteria is defined by the reversal impossibility to to satisfy desire into the desire etc.). How keep desire itself unsatisfied, are these two reflexivities related? The opposition here is between perversion and hysteria: if desire ‘as such’ is hysterical, drive ‘as such’ is perverse. That is to say, hysteria and perversion are caught in a kind of closed -
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
within
deadly loop reaction
which
each
its
Drive
the
of
defines
two
the
can
be
99] conceived
of
the
as
masochistic
of the opposite. parameters of the fundamental primordial ‘passionate attachment’, fantasy which of being to the subject; subjectivity then guarantees the minimum proper the of this primordial emerges through hysterical disavowal ‘passionate attachment’ the position of the through the subject’s refusal to assume of the Other's the object-instrument jowissance hysterical subject incesbasic his/her santly questions question is ‘What am I for position (his/her am I the the Other? what Other I am?’). So not only can Why says desire be conceived of as the disavowal of the fundamental hysterical the endorsed itself fantasy by pervert, perversion (assuming the position of the object~instrument of the Other’s jouissance) can also be conceived of as the escape into to me avoid the self-objectivization which enables deadlock of the radical uncertainty of what I am as an object the pervert, knows what, as an object, he is for the Other. by definition, Desire and drive are clearly opposed with respect to the way they relate to joutssance. For with jeuissance is not Lacan, the trouble only that it is our eludes unattainable, but, even always-already lost, that it forever grasp, that one can never rid that its stain on for ever that is more, of it, drags get the point of Lacan’s of the renunciation concept surplus-enjoyment: very of jouissance brings about a of jouissance. Desire stands remainder/surplus in which we for the economy whatever hold of is ‘never the it’, object get ‘Real that which the is forever to attain but which Thing’, subject trying eludes him again and again, while drive stands for the opposite economy, within which the stain of jouissance always accompanies our acts. This also m the desire explains the difference reflexivity of drive and desire: the postponement of the encounreflexively desires its own unsatisfaction, ter with joutssance of the reflexivity of desire is that is, the basic formula to turn the of into nondesire the desire for impossibility satisfying to
—
—
—
—
—
drive,
satisfaction; with
the
stain
of
on
the
contrary,
satisfaction)
the
finds
satisfaction movement
very
in
(i.e. besmirches
destined
to
‘repress’
satisfaction.
What, drive? first
then,
A look
is at
drive, especially in
Wagnerian the
heroes
its most can
be
radical of
some
form,
help
that here:
of the
death
from
their
paradigmatic they possessed by an and redempunconditional peace passion for dying, for finding ultimate in the tion in death. Their time past they predicament is that at some have committed some unspeakable evil deed, so that they are condemned to to pay for it not by death, but by being condemned a life of eternal their fulfil to symbolic suffering, of helplessly wandering around, unable case,
Flying Dutchman,
are
292
longing
to
die,
to
the very oppositeof fate horrible the
wandering Wagnerian is therefore
drive.
Tristan
makes
him
he
can
(the standard
it is
dying, of being
in Act
III
desperate
so
to
die.
The
of the
is not
is the
of
a
Wotan, the
because he
—
dreads
Tristan,
of his fear
he
Isolde, awaits
of
that that
lover) but, rather,
is
contrary, life itself,
for
dying
Amfortas) of the
clutches
anxiously is not
their
in
repetitive cycle of passing-away of the
final
from
lie
not
the
on
eternal
endless
The
that, without
longing
prospect
the
Dutchman,
fact
he
drive,
‘undead’
liberation
desperate
does
precisely
death
the
caught in guilt and pain.
eternal
complaint
It
the
for
name
a
of their
moment
here?
drive
peace
in
SUBJECT
in death:
(the death
hero
condemned
that
find
around the
death
is the
Where
function.
is
TICKLISH
THE
of
death
dying:
what
die and
cannot
her
arrival
without
so
Isolde
life without
of endless
her....
which, gives us a clue to the paradigmatic Wagnerian song, at precisely, is the complaint [Klage] of the hero, expressing his horror to alife of eternal to around or being condemned suffering, wandering monster, living as the ‘undead’ longing for peace in death (from its first example, the Dutchman’s great introductory monologue, to the lament of the and two the dying Tristan great complaints of the suffering Amfortas). Although there is no great complaint by Wotan, Briinnhilde’s final farewell to him direction: ‘Ruhe, ruhe, du Gott!’ points in the same the gold is returned when to the is finally allowed to die in Rhine, Wotan standard The which the ‘contrapeace. commentary emphasizes alleged diction’ in the plot of the Ring (why do the gods still perish, although their debt is paid, that is, the gold is returned to the Rhine? Wasn’t this of the gods’ downfall?) therefore the point: misses unpaid debt the cause the unpaid debt, the ‘original sin’ of disturbing the natural equilibrium, is what from prevents Wotan dying he can die and find peace only after he settles One can also see his debt. and why Tannhduser Lohengrin are not lack a truly Wagnerian operas:5* they proper Wagnerian hero. Tannhauser is ‘too between common’, simply split pure spiritual love (for of earthly erotic Elisabeth) and the excess enjoyment (provided by to renounce Venus}, unable earthly pleasures while longing to get rid of on the is ‘too a divine creature them, Lohengrin, celestial’, contrary, This
—
—
—
longing to live like a common him absolutely. Neither of to condemned Wagnerian hero, suffering.5” (artist)
will
So strict
trust
do Wagnerian heroes Kierkegaardian sense
suffer of
the
the the
from term.
mortal
with
two
is in the
‘undead’
‘sickness In
his
faithful
a
existence
unto
notion
of
a
of
death’, of
who
woman
position
but
‘sickness
proper cternal in
the unto
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
293
the standard Kierkegaard inverted despair of the individual who is is the that death the end, that there is no Beyond certainty split the to believe eternal and desire that death of is not life, unquenchable is another with its the last thing: that there life, promise of redemption unto death’ involves bliss: Kierkegaard’s ‘sickness and eternal the opposite knows death is not the who that of the that he has end, subject paradox
death’,
between
immortal
an
(the necessity and salvation), there
is
for
disappear to
eternal
demand that
knows
he
who
immortality, not death, to is analogous the
shift
from
desire
drive:
to
which
that
and
death
of
do
is the
one
desire
the we
him.
upon
die,
to
mentioned,
desperately eludes
his that
end,
horror.
ultimate
just
fact
for
to
he is condemned
it, since
becomes
this
work
exerting its pressure desperately wants
cannot
reversal
demands
pleasures
believe
individual
the
but
ever,
life:
this way Lacanian
to
wants
unconditional here
have
we
aesthetic
vain
desperatcly
exorbitant
the
face
cannot
abandon
to
divine
no
So
...
but
soul,
strives
In to
to
a
the
achieve
it; while
drive, on the object not the impossibility of contrary, opposite impossibility it. but the of rd of attaining jouissance, impossibility getting to jouissance. whatever The lesson of drive is that we are condemned we do, in our most get rid of it; even jouissance will stick to it; we shall never the very effort to renounce to it, it will contaminate thorough endeavour who perversely enjoys flagellating himself). get rid of it (like the ascetic a of contemporary to involve And the prospect genetic technology seems it of horror: raises the not terrifying prospect homologous Kierkegaardian death, but of immortality. That is to say: what makes genetic manipulation so is not only that it will be possible to objectivize our existence uncanny | I will be confronted the formula with of what entirely (in the genome, of will function as the ultimate version ‘objectively am’, that is, a genome ‘Thou art atsi’ the old Indian ‘Ta twam that!’) but also mystical formula immortal and indestructible, that, in a way, I will become endlessly me through cloreproducible, with my doubles popping up all around is that of drives: of asexual immortality through ning.’ Again, this domain That is to endless point to be made say: the crucial repetitive cloning. to sexual here is to oppose reproduction: genetic cloning genetic cloning as the the end of sexual difference signals impossible/real which struc
jouissance,
ultimate
its
involves
forever
the
—
~
tures
which
spectral paradox sickness
lives,
our
dwell
we
undead of unto
the
and, as
such, also the end of the symbolic universe finite, mortal beings-of-language. This notion
in
as
existence
also
allows
us
to
account
like death drive: Freudian/Lacanian mark is not the drive death, the death
for the
of
of
a
fundamental Kierkegaardian
the
human
finitude,
294
TICKLISH
THE
the
its very opposite, in human dimension
but
death, We
and
of which
can
now
for
Heidegger:
can
we
the
Lacan,
the
rid
never
what
in
(spectral) life’, the index of a persists for ever, beyond our physical
that
existence
see
‘eternal
for
name
SUBJECT
ourselves.
precise
is
is
Lacan
sense
drive
death
precisely
be
to
the
opposed
ultimate
to
Freudian
traditional
dimension
metaphysics designated as that of for a drive, a ‘thrust’, which immortality persists beyond the (biological) of and the ‘way of all flesh’. In other corruption, generation beyond cycle ‘dead’ functions in exactly the drive, the concept words, in the death in the Freudian same unheimlich, as coinciding with its way as ‘heimlich of what horror negation: the ‘death drive’ designates the dimension for
name
—
calls
fiction
the
‘undead’, death.
persists beyond
edifice:
theoretical the
achieve
of it. Lacan’s
Hegelian
to
remainder’ How
Miller*?
of
assertion
bad
‘from
worse’: of
true
a
the
assertion
jouissance
is sexual
which
treatment:
an
always
introduce
to
psychoanalytic fantasy, ‘not all’ to easier acquire
of
related
difference
endeavours
forever
eludes
persists for ‘bad infinity’ is positive infinity
to
answer
that
which
jouissance
life
that
‘infinity’ compatible with the Lacanian ‘spurious (bad) infinity’ of endlessly striving
Ideal
or
indestructible
immortal,
strange,
is the
the
not
Goal
of
infinity
worse
rid
final
a
This
even
sticks
to
sexual
this
our
thus
grasp,
since
ever,
we
but
Idea,
of
infinity everything
‘undead’
difference
gesture
of
‘indivisible
do....
we
drive?
Jacques-Alain
the
into
get
pseudo-
a an
to
even
an never
idealist
worse
to
can
the
not
of the
but
conclusion
with
identified
of
their
fully caught in it, this is why, for them, it is a distance towards a as it; while men, fantasy, to traverse rule, come up against a condensed phantasmic kernel, a ‘fundamental of jouissance that to unable symptom’, the basic formula they are so that all they can do is accept it as an imposed necessity. In renounce, and ‘identification as feminine, short, ‘traversing the fantasy’ is conceived with the symptom’ as masculine.” Miller ible !
in
tackles
this
of
the
limite
their
in he
so
is
being
tension
another
focuses
not
are
unresolved
solution
apparole’,°' where
women
of on
between his
Lacan’s
obscure
and
desire
conferences,
drive
‘Le
claim
discern-
monologue de pas-de-dialogue
‘le
dans
Linterprétation, par ov s’assure le réel’, Miller reads this ‘lackas the apparatus of l’apparole, the speech that functions of communicating some jouissance, no longer as the means meaning; apparole does not involve intersubjectivity, not even as the empty big Other that is present when we speak in an ‘interior monologue’, trying to clarify our not even as the of thoughts; jouis-sense hurting the Other in the core of his/her as case is the with it involves a being, injurious speech a
sa
of-dialogue’
as
~
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
self-enclosed
radically
assertion
995
of
jouissance of empty (meaningless) parole what lalangue is to le langage.) In so far as, in l’apparole, we thus are dealing with an idiotic-happy of the apparatus which circuit produces jowissance, is this not the very definition of drive? How, then, does interpretation limit this self-enclosed the of Real? circuit dimension the The Real here is the by introducing impossible, the impossibility of sexual relationship: the happy babble of Vapparoleis asexual; as such, it does not involve any experience of the Real that is, of some traumatic inherent Limit. qua impossible Interpretation
speech. (In short,
l’apparole is to
la
—
therefore
must
babble
‘sober’
the
down
subject
from
blissful
his
immersion
in
the impossible Real l’apparole, and compel! him to confront of the human condition. here not as unlimInterpretation is conceived is new to read a a ited/infinite (‘there text’) but, on the always way the very gesture as of introducing a limit to the unconstrained contrary, of The with this play V'apparole.... problem reading is that it identifies with the the unconstrained of Vapparole reign ‘pleasure principle’ which of the Real. In this case, however, l’apparole could precludes the dimension not be identified with drive, since drive involves the Real of the compulsion to repeat that is by definition ‘beyond the pleasure principle’. The problem Miller is struggling with is the central one in late Lacan: the (Oedipus) complex of Law/ after penetrating beneath desire, of desire in to ‘dark the continent’ of drive and grounded prohibition, enigmatic in its satisfaction the circuit of how do we repeated jouissance, a Limit, and thus return to the of prohibition/Law, domain (re)introduce communication here solution is of/and meaning? The only consistent that of ‘primary narcissism’ version Vapparole (the Lacanian prior to the introduction of the is symbolic Law) is not ‘primordial’; that there this, precisely, is what something which (logically, at least) precedes it we have called the violence of pre-synthetic imagination, which is not to the
of
—
be
identified
drive
is
with
the
ultimate
the
blissful
circuit
matrix
of
selfaffection,
of
evokes as (Lacan himself lips kissing themselves of drive ‘se faire...’ drive; his very formula affection); while pre-synthetic imagination is the ~
affection:
it stands
‘violence’
of
drive.
of self-satisfied
self-atfective
This
circuit
of
circulation
perfect figure of self already evokes very opposite of selfthe
~
for a kind of ontological ‘Big Bang’, for the primordial and enclosure, breaking out of the immersion exploding the closed the of Life into circuit, free-floating tearing apart any unity multiplicity of spectral and monstrous ‘partial objects’. its ambiguities. Even Lacan’s own position on this point is not without at the text but crucial His ‘official’ stance is best exemplified by the short
of his
is the
that he
to
abandon
himself
and
philosophical
mystical tzsche,
same’,
which
leads
the
to
(sustained
Christian
the
driver
of
circuit
from
accept
way:
Analyst’:*? analytic cure, by fantasy) to drive? Is of the
end
the
selfenclosed
traditions,
this
drive
traversed
of the
circuit
Different
mysticism
Nie-
to
‘eternal
return
in
not
there
desire:
to
fundamental
our
this
and
the
satisfaction
from
shift
have
we
desire
from
of the
Desire
the
to
reaching a Goal but in the very path in that Lacan, is, it, repeatedly missing the Goal.... that ‘going through the fantasy’ is not strictly equivalent
find
insists
however,
Trieb
he reaches
when
to
advocate
to
seem
of the
SUBJECT
Freudian
Ecrits, ‘From the analysand to do is, when he ‘regresses’
end what
to
TICKLISH
THE
296
is
fantasy,
desire
a
is the desire
of course,
remains
that
desire
a
after
even
sustained
not
the
by
the
not
a
desire
analyst subjective position of of someone who has undergone the analyst, the desire ‘subjective destituof tion’ and accepted the role of the excremental abject, desire delivered more than that ‘there is something in me the phantasmic notion myself’, desire. This makes me a secret treasure which worthy of the Other’s ‘the I after have big Other's fully assumed unique desire is what, even fantasy,
become
to
but
analyst,
an
nonexistence’
that
—
semblance drive’s
desire,
is,
circuit
and
thus
that
tentative
the
return
some
coexistence
What is
tion
the of
caught in caught
is
the the Law
starts
a
desire’ a
the in
kind web
the to
of
function
way to break Other's demand which
makes
the
of
the
lose
desire
sight
how
fact
by
A a
as
out
is via
[ull
the of
sign the
the
of
the
deadlock intervention
satisfaction
the fact
of
any
‘big to...
makes for
reading of
the
none
we
of
an
is
analyst is Lacan’s the fantasy, and
instinctual that
of
communal
that,
close
mere
analyst
absence
means
montage
less
collective
Lacan, the
drive
intervenof
elements
Lacan’s
which
body getting instinctual
need
this object that satisfies (M)Other’s love; consequently,
that
means
the
of
again
which,
emerges. drive is
do
how
that
of is the of
‘necessary by-product’ of the symbolic order. The web
of the
traversed
have
we
a
‘subject supposed
desire
big Other’, big Other
out
desire
signifier’s
only
the
not
shows of
after
of
foundation
symbolic Law,
as
emerges
form
of the
is
self-enclosure
the
in
The
the
words,
question:
also
‘primordial’, of
‘graph
need
the
to
should
one
not
order
symbolic
myself
effect
other
In
‘nonexistence
(new) possible?
to
immersing
transferential
enjoy]’.
answer
the
that
the
debilitating in the the analytic community to it is supposed make possible a
the
avoids
accepted
fact
of
fits
sustain
supposed phantasmic support; [know, believe,
the
which
satisfaction.
its
to
Other’
desire
from
me
prevents
—
the
—
the
to subject’s enslavement symbolic Prohibition/ forever impossible. All the
the
of
of
of desire
the
(DIS)
PASSIONATE
well-known
you unless that’s because
I
love
most
give if
not
(and
Drive,
to
in
engendered ‘Don’t
is defined
by
give
me
this
ce
this
from
way,
what
I
ask
‘I can’t you
n'est pas ga: that
aim
is to
sustain
itself
the
other
hand,
stands
desire,
as
for
the
in
for, is, its
its state
paradoxical
the
very it: the around of
on
are
up’
997
subject, forever prevented from achieving his Goal his find satisfaction desire), can nevertheless in fully satisfying circular movement of repeatedly missing its object, of circulating
possibility the
that
—
you desire
ultimate
and
elementary
of non-satisfaction.** thus
of desire
paradoxes
ATTACHMENTS
constitutive
gap circular
of desire
is thus
closed;
the
self-cnclosed
infinite
repetitive replaces striving. In this drive since at its sense, most elemenequals jouissance, jouissance is, precise in a that is, tary, ‘pleasure pain’, perverted pleasure provided by the very of experience repeatedly missing one’s goal. painful The fact that drive is a ‘by-product’ is also to be taken also in the precise has acquired in the meaning this term contemporary theory of rational loop
action:
attitude,
a
movement
in contrast
drive
is
to
desire,
which
can
something in which which persists in
be characterized
as
an
intentional
the
subject is caught, a kind of its repetitive movement. For that acephalous force of one can ethical motto as the reason, propose psychoanalysis the famous ne son désir, ‘don’t pas céder sur compromise your desire’; while the ‘don’t motto, complementary compromise your drive’, is meaningless, since it is superfluous: the problem with drive is not how not to betray it of its inert its loop, the hold over but, rather, how to break us... power For the same Lacan reason, speaks of the ‘desire of the analyst’, never of the ‘drive of the analyst’: in so far as the analyst is defined by a certain that of ‘subjective destitution’ the specificity of his subjective attitude Drive is preposition can be determined only at the level of desire. it not the name is one can subjective/acephalous, ofa subjective attitude: an attitude ‘towards drive. only assume this problem is the problem of different In religious terms, heresies. The Church Christian social institution as functions as the guareffectively a of human antee thrive under the desire, which can only protection of the far from paternal Law (the Name-ofthe-Father): prohibiting bodily endeavours to regulate In its long them, passions (sexuality), the Church history, it has also developed a series of strategies for ‘domesticating’ the of jouissance which excess cannot be contained in the paternal Law (say, the option opened up to women become in a to nuns and thus engage of the Cathar jouissance feminine of mystical experiences). The achievement this heresy (fhe heresy if ever there was one) was precisely to undermine of role role the Church in sexual regulating strategic pleasure (the .
—
—
298
TICKLISH
THE
is, to take disregard for the body literally, chastity (since, as the Cathars put it, every is incestuous).®” The paradox, of course, is that this radical of sexual pleasure not only does not deprive the subject of to even amplifies it (the ascetic mystic has an access
emphasized by Foucault) to preach and practise reunion
sexual
renunciation
joutssance, jouissance pleasure).
SUBJECT
but
that
is
true
much
is the
That
that
—
intense
more
than
between
connection
the the
usual
sexual
standard and
Cathar
courtly heresy pleasure within the confines is totally prohibited, of the Law, this prohibition of the of amor this structure final sexual unification, interruptus prolonged ad love in birth to in which desire shifts into drive courtly infinitum, gives is provided by the very indefinite of the which satisfaction postponement that would sexual union Christian crusadbring about ‘actual’ satisfaction. ers in a way, right in their were therefore, against the Cathars suspicion that of earthly pleasures among renunciation the Cathars was the ascetic intense deeply ambiguous, since it engendered a much more jouissance that undermined the very regulating power of the paternal symbolic Law. love:
instead
when,
allowed
of
being bodily sexuality
sexual
—
Our
ultimate
another. desire
deduce
result
the
circular
of
that
desire
that
and
as
other. a
from
a
way, of
by-product the
for
drive
of
involve
two
simply
drive.
drive
—
one
the
nor
is
What
if,
desire,
of
circuit
presuppose
is not
Drive
are the two ways of avoiding in subject: by finding satisfaction drive or, alternatively, by opening up the lost object of desire? These two
and of
search
drive, in
and the
deadlock
the
‘is’ the
movement
metonymic
desire from
emerges shrinking back
desire
consequently, negativity
of
that one
that
self-satisfaction
of
loop
is thus
result cannot
one
the
repetitive unending
the
—
ways
different
that
thoroughly
of of
notions
theoretical
about eulogies have been written the notorious desire’ (the subject divided/thwarted by the of negativity caught in the the Void eternal symbolic Law/Prohibition, ‘I search for its lost object-cause am a saying desiring subject’ equals saying ‘I am the lack, the gap, in the order of Being’ ...), it is perhaps time on the much more to focus mysterious subjectivity brought about by Since
subjectivity.
enough ‘subject of
—
the
circular Lacan’s
drive
involves
active
all’
into
is
Other,
not
but
oneself-scen.
apropos
of drive.
movement
fundamental
doxa
kind
a
of
is clear
passive mode: say, in into around the simply turned into the more ambiguous middle choice:
at
the
level
of of
enough,
as
have
we
seen:
not a of the turn, simple reversal the scopic drive, the desire ‘to see it
the
(This reversal of
drive
about
selfreflexive
desire the
proclivity
way of into drive
subject
se
to
be
seen
faire voir,
can
of desire,
also
there
be
of
by the makingspecified
is choice
—
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
inclusive
of
while
go
we
the
fundamental the
to
on
choice
forced
level of drive
when
that
—
the
999
is, the
subject chooses,
of choice
act
is inverted
into
faive choisir, ‘making-oneself-chosen’, as in predestination, in which the religious subject does not simply choose God, but ‘makes himself chosen’ to put it another the only but crucial and highest by Him. Or way I am freedom to choose the inevitable, granted in drive is the freedom will happen to me in any case.) my Destiny, what freely to embrace what if kind this of does reversal of desire However, any subjectivity Two series into drive involve?® of cinematic and/or literary examples are the paradox of drive: perhaps best suited to illustrate se
—
—
~
~
—
of the
That
¢
past
the
or
+
eludes
his
ible’
entity
into
the
future
where
—
the
express
his
witness
encounters
until
examples ingredient
of
crucial
resonates
as
a
the
—
purpose
Future, let
Lynch’s Real
that
us
into
the
mysterious entity that it occurs to him that this ‘impossthe subject travels opposite case of engendering himself, or into the —
In
order
recall
David
is
universe
persists
(the subject travels certain
a
death...).
own
to the
Back
fiction
science
he
gaze again and again, is the subject himself, or
like
which
in
time-loop
future
past with to
—
and
avoid
to
the
standard
Lost
Lynch’s Highway. A a phrase, signifying chain, returns a kind of basic always a
—
formula
flow of time: that suspends and cuts the linear across in Dune, it awake’, in Twin Peaks, “The owls are not what they sleeper must in Lost Highway, to fuck’; and, of course, seem’, in Blue Velvet, ‘Daddy wants the phrase which contains the first and the last spoken words in the film, is dead’, ‘Dick Laurent anouncing the death of the obscene paternal the narrative of the film takes place in the entire figure (Mr Eddy) At the beginning, two these moments. Fred, suspension of time between these the hero, hears in his house; at the end, words on the interphone just before running away, he himself speaks them into the interphone
is ‘The
-
—
so
have
we
a
understood In
circular
by the
short,
the
situation
encountering
himself, as
novels
where
the
earlier
time....
Do
not
we
which,
at
cipherable
film
is
in
the
hero,
have
beginning, but persistent
bombards
him
patient
is able
from to
a
a
hero
himself on
famous
back
-
this
then,
at
message
is heard
pronouncing impossibility in time-warp scene
this
the
in
time, the
the the as
in
one
by
his
own,
to
science-fiction in
an
in
psychoanalysis, obscure, which, as it
of the
conclusion
not
message. the hero
some —
symptom
of
but
himself
encounters
is troubled
patient
message
which
message
like
situation
the
outside;
assume
first
based
travelling
here
the
the
then
hero,
whole
—
indewere,
treatment,
pronounce
it in
the the
TICKLISH
THE
300
SUBJECT
singular? The temporal loop that person the very loop of psychoanalytic treatment
first thus
detour,
to
return
we
he
when
symptom
that comes message ancient of traumas, past’
future
in
which,
mentioned
symptom
transposes
us
from
Madeleine
in
her
Madeleine
the
of
the
present
Mission
the
to
the
to
That
from
of
whose
narrative
the
in the
in
which,
the
indicates
first
the
violently thrown examples like Frankenstein
presented
to
into
Ais
Wes
Craven’s
us
the
as
perspective
~
that
Horror
sented
in the
first
of the
part
of
a
this
in
Thing,
is, he is allowed
supreme the standpoint
into
novel),
(the
Alien
When
sudden
perspective
very
to
tell
his
Stranger Calls, also, the
of film
as
pathological absolute
a
not
sudden
story.”!
thrown
—
is
Monster
of the
are
compulsive
Otherness
spectators, Recall
all of
side we
is
Thing. the
thrown
are
Perhaps, Scottie
way
the
we,
Alien
after
which, we
the
at
illustrates
we (the subject horrifying object point with which
moment,
~
into
are
kissing
itself.
the
is
story
into
barn
perfectly into
some told) confront ...}, presented as the (Alien Thing, Monster, Murderer is possible no all of a sudden, identification however,
viewpoint
old
the
folded
them
Scottie
—
present,
is temporal loop, the way its movement then, the ‘vertigo’ of the film’s title ultimately caught up in drive’s endless loop.)
from
couple
refashioned
past
from
leap
above-
behind
background
kissing Judy
suicidal
the
sense,
embracing
the
drive’s
e
from
expect,
(In this
—
back
signal
a
the ‘deeply (Subject’s) future —from the the psychoanalytic treatment,
of
room
then
is like
the
Scottie
—
her
and
-
would
one
the
of
structure
symptom
passionately
hotel]
before
just
Freudian
of which
course
ordinary
herself
Bautista
the
another
realized.”
be
Highway is a long perspective. In his after
which,
temporalloop
from
work
will
shot
360-degree Vertigo, in
Hitchcock’s
as
but the
through
this
of
the
nof,
a
meaning
Juan
that
emphasizes
buried
bearing
this
invokes
in
from
starting point
our
Lacan
Seminar,
first
very
Lost
structures
all
In
of
a
killer to
premention
the Mother is constructed as the Psycho, in which, after shots (like the killing of the detective horrifying Thing, we are, in some Arbogast), viewing the action from its perspective.” In all these cases, the inaccessible/ traumatic Thing-beyond-representation itself becomes ‘subjectivized’: this subjectivization does not ‘humanize’ the Thing, demonstrating that what we is in fact thought was a Monster an the Thing retains its unbearable Otherordinary, vulnerable person it is as such that it subjectivizes itself. of ness, Or, to put it in the terms
Hitchcock’s
—
vision: my
the
desire
Thing
is first
circulates,
as
constructed the
blind
as
spot
the I want
inaccessible to
see
X around
but
which
simultaneously
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
dread
and
drive,
I
avoid seeing, too strong for (the subject) ‘make myself seen’
Again,
do
variation
beneath
which,
is
spacecraft three
into
come
true,
the
your
Lacan
to
this
on
us
materialize
to
as
it
Sphere is,
in the
showed
the
none
less
chapter
the
and
of a sphere imaginary level, the of
presence to
access
a
the
in
lack
that
fact
foreclosure
of
and/or
it
And,
excess.
an
from
of
and
for
them its title:
dedicated exerted
self-contained
perfectly, that the
the
on
would
signal
since
paradoxically,
castration,
can
make
to
fascination
cut
for
gradually
spacecraft
attention
expresses of a
castration,
by the cut ontological
is conditioned
reality
sphere, far ontological:
lies
floor it
Transference
on
in
gigantic
a
ocean
starts
deserves
of his Seminar
Pacific,
penetrate of the
de la sphére’”*), the (‘La dérision very theme by the untouchable, impenetrable, self-enclosed
form
the
your them... .”
JéMachine,
Sphere (1997),
on
middle fears
worst
impossible Thing
the
who
the
in
Sphere
turn,
see.
so-called
of
there
sat
scientists
it knows
towards
reflexive
to
Levinson’s
midst
having
three
mysterious mind:
Uninteresting as
The
to
the
shift
a
unacknowledged fantasies Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris)?
Barry
in
surface
ocean
years.
is
the
in
this
of the
our
Planet
in —
want
of
example theme
theme
suddenly discovered,
that
reach
ultimate
this
on
the
hundred
discover
the
science-fiction
The Forbidden
Wilcox’s
latest
I didn’t
object-Thing
directly materializes
that
Fred
(from
find
in the
mechanism
The
traumatic
not
we
‘is’ ourselves
that a
It, the
myself as
Isee
my eyes; then, as the Thing
301
of
status
our
this
is stricto sensu perfection, embodying preto us the as Sphere-Thing appears something which, in cinematic one could terms, designate as a blurred object, an object that is This is nicely out of focus.” definition, by conveyed in Levinson’s a priori, film, in which the Sphere is perfectly round yet simultaneously somehow consists alive, undulating and vibrating, as if its surface of the infinity of waves.
microscopic The
coincidence
of
perfectly the
time,
existence.
perfect of
the
Hoffman American the
is thus
Sphere at so
the
of
surface
overall
calm
and
it is simultaneously peace, that it is impossible to fix
As mirror
like
global,
such,
the
that
does
subject’s character
Sphere not
fundamental
angrily
is
in its Tarkovsky’s Solaris-Ocean mobility although it is extremely agitated, scintillating all
infinite
it,
nothing
to
—
mirror/materialize fantasies. When, rebukes
because mathematician) to others, Jackson retorts sphere
Samucl he
does
hold
get in
itself
reality in
Jackson not
angrily:
of it in a
-
want
“But
the
pure but
its
positive
medium,
only
film,
the
the
a
Real
Dustin
(playing the Africanto divulge what is in you
also
have
been
in
know
it! You
well
very what
but
nothing
about
something
behind
is
of
be
to we
is
to
say:
Hegel's the suprasensible Beyond: ‘It is which is supposed to conceal
curtain
that
which
bear
there
puts
nothing
sphere!’ That
the
in
nothing
content
order
there
it is crucial
is
so-called
in
much
as
SUBJECT
himself
the
the
there
world,
ourselves,
there
subject
behind
that
inner
that
the
formulation
classic manifest
the
TICKLISH
THE
302
unless
seen
quote
go behind there may
we
that
as
see,
may
to
or,
—
it
be
be seen.’
can
mind
that precisely as Real, as the imposThing, the Sphere is an entity of pure semblance, an entity that is ‘in itself’ anamorphically distorted, an undulating, scintillating, out-of-focus as surface such, it is the perfect concealing (or sustained by) Nothing
So
to
in
sible
—
neutral the
medium
notion
be
to
of
located
his
for
to
Freud
the our
formulate
desire
that
—
is,
there
reason,
in front
a
of her
intends
to
coffee?’
of
the
way
it,
as
house seduce:
“Well,
that
and
its
in
the
late
in
the
the
evening, to
wishes
be stuck
in
determinate
a
wish
we
for
able
are
will
or
the
object
from
girl ‘No
Brassed the
says
to
into
my
to
for
~
precisely
desire....
offer
come
to
The
table...).
undesirable,
scene
you care drink coffee....'
three
only remaining
the
true
to
is
wishes
incommensurability
wish
we more
—
is
‘Would
I don’t
to
the
explicit
seduction
nice
on
our
desire
the
use
how
realized
three
should
of
what
actualizes
evoke
to
of
formulation
the
horrible
nothing more inexorably
that
they
nose
actually truly desire
never
directly
theme
sausage
wish; then
in
never
we
is
Thing the only reason, immediately retract she
that
desire
true
is
it clear
makes
are
fairy-tale a fairy grants
from back the sausage this theme is, of course,
subject’s
desires
whom
to
a
Sphere also our
old
wishes
the
demand:
than
wife
get
between
the
peasant
sausage; the stupidity of such
beneath
that
(the his
a
insight
—
Thing lineage of
for
nose
wish
in which
or
the
in
analysed by wishes
Zone
a
fantasies.
fundamental
for
For
that
and
then
Off, when, whom
miner
place
for
a
cup
I haven’t
problem,
got
any!’?7 Thus for
the
the
coincidence
Thing:
the
kernel, than the ourselves, staging with
the
intellect games
is
Thing the
with
whose
us
it
brings
us
distance
if
we
to
are
Otherness,
the
it
phantasmic
because
rationale too
sustain
is
remains
close the
to
our
it is
limited
what,
proximity our
Otherness
an
of
core
our
absolute
‘ourselves’,
more —
Thing thus fails not infinitely surpassing
with
alterity
even
Unconscious
because its very
of utter
own
which
being.
The
is crucial
inaccessible ‘is’
directly
communication
too alien, the harbinger of an abilities, playing some perverse
forever in
outside
ourselves, of
our
must
grasp, remain universe.
consistency symbolic Thing generates spectral phenomena that obey our
but at
a
In our
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
innermost
strings, And
of
my
whims:
idiosyncratic it is ourselves, is not
the
being
with
himself,
who,
himself
is
ultimate the
if there
is
that
thinks’
a
Thing example of this ultimate externality
search
in
the
‘the
the
of
In
perpetrator?
this
who
puppet-master in
coincidence of
precise
the
pulls
heart.
our
of the
the
of his
murderer
303
Alien
father,
Thing Oedipus discovers
one
sense,
kernel
very
that
claim
can
he that
Freud’s term of drive’, is deeply Triebschicksale, the ‘destinies/vicissitudes ‘drive’ zs ultimately another name justified, even tautological: the Freudian for ‘Destiny’, for the reversal through which the circle of Destiny accomplishes/closes itself (when Destiny catches up with Oedipus, he is confronted with the fact that he is the monster he is looking for). And in to order home how this dimension of with the Destiny overlaps bring theme of a tragic science-fiction temporal loop, recall the standard scientist
who
travels
retroactively
into
the
change
{when it is already too (the present catastrophe) present through his retroactive he wanted
to
the
from
undo
very
—
his In
outset.
those
versed
is the
in
order
but
same,
intervention
intervention
reality the agent wanted catastrophic reality. To
past
intervene
to
(undo) the catastrophic aware late}, he becomes
this to
in
present;
it and of
only that
not
thus
sudden
a
the
result
Ais very
attempt to change the the past produced the very catastrophe included
was
properly bring about
that
in
all
turns
the
in
dialectical out
be
to
of
course
the
reversal,
the
things
alternative
very
present
of drive Hegelian philosophy, these two features identification of the subject pitiless and inexorable with the inaccessible of sustains the space Thing whose lack or withdrawal desire evoke cannot but two fundamental of the features Hegelian dialectical does not process: Hegel reiterate again and again how the dialectical structure of a loop (the subject of displays the circular process the process, the absolute is not in but is generated Idea, advance, given the itself in a short so, circuit, the final by process paradoxical temporal Result causes its own causes); and, furtherretroactively itself, generates how the basic matrix of the dialectical is that of the subject's more, process of its absolute Otherness (recall the stanself-recognition in the In-tself dard figure of Hegel according to which I have to recognize my own its
in
temporal loop;
—
the
—
—
substance Does
in the
this
mean
that seems to resist and thwart very force my that ‘drive’ is inherently metaphysical, that
the
elementary matrix recognition in Otherness? closed loop of teleology that
sets
it in motion.
of
the
Yes, is
It may
closed but
with
circle a
twist:
minimally displaced appear
that
of
drive
teleology it
on
is the
is
as
account
if,
endeavour). it
in
provides of
self-
drive,
this
and of the
paradigmatic
failure case
of
domain
the
within
the
as
suggest,
in
function
to
start
its
movement
repetitive
relies
less
the
none
as
satisfaction.
own
self-affection
drive’s
X that
inaccessible
far
as
|
And
back
—
the
as
of
lesson
the
very that
or
He
It
or
actually We
can
the
most
moment
clear
and
in
|
am
—
is not
structure
in
already of
aware
my
on
to
same
of
Selbstthere
‘myself’ only
in
dimension,
in
so
(transcendent) (Kant)? So the it is the of
aware
am
myself, only
noumenal
the
that
Kant
is that
I
self-presence:
is the
repetition
Idealism
self-consciousness
transcendental
myself’
drive’s
the
myself in my noumenal (the Thing) that thinks’
self-transparence opposite I am compelled to turn reflexively ‘encounter
is
to
of full
never
—
fundamental
Is it not
inaccessible
‘Il
grasp German
to
the
in
sel{-consciousness,
ultimately
am
dimension, basic
its
eludes
discernible
is transcendental
The
failure. drive
of
this
of selfconsciousness?
Beurusstsein,
constitutive
constitutive
consti-
a
forever
failure.
repetition of a failure clearly
One
reversal-into-self
reflexive
this
towards purposeful activity (activity directed to achieve make we it, the gestures goal, that brings as in as its own a aim, itself, something goal of the satisfaction, This closed loop of circular circular in its own satisfaction that finds loop, thus the goal we were to achieve the failure on aiming at: some on relies it is never radically fully self-enclosed, in
way towards
the
itself
himself
Lacan
not
drive, lips kissing themselves?
of
reversal
the
does
seen,
fundamental,
a
on
of
engagement
our
goal),
some
relies
definition
succinct
when,
the have
that
however,
mind,
drive
of
tutive
as
—
metaphor
supreme
in
bear
should
of Sameness
subject’s body affecting
of we
auto-affection,
of
circle
closed
the
SUBJECT
TICKLISH
THE
304
so
as
far
the
very
myself, I
as
can
Thing
I
am.”
pinpoint
now
the
opposition
between
the
subject
of desire
and
the grounded missing Objectconstitutive surplus that is grounded ina constitutive Cause), the of some to say, in the excessive Thing that is inherently ‘imposspresence be here, in our not ible’ and should reality the Thing which, of present heterosexual ‘fatal standard The the is itself, course, subject ultimately desire of male is that scene attraction’ by a captivated and fascinated is desubjectivized, caught in the selfa woman deadly jouissance feminine: she exerts enclosed cycle of acephalous drive, ignorant of the fascination makes which her on and it is precisely this self-sufficient man, ignorance of is this of scene, course, irresistible; the paradigmatic mythical example What this the Sirens’ that of Ulysses captivated by pure jouis-sense. song, subjectivized? happens, however, when the Woman-Thing herself becomes of all: the moment inversion This, perhaps, is the most mysterious libidinal the
subject
of
drive:
while
the
(it ex-sists in so subject of drive is
lack
subject
far
as
of
it is in search
in
is
desire
of the
—
-
(DIS)
PASSIONATE
which
ATTAGHMENTS
305
the
‘impossible’ Thing subjectivizes itself. In his short essay on the Sirens’, Franz Kafka his accomplished such a reversal: is in that was fact so absorbed in himself, in his own Ulysses point longing, that he did not notice that the Sirens did not sing, but just stared at him, transfixed And his by image.” again, the crucial point here is that this is not reversal symmetrical: the subjectivity of the subjectivized Sirens is not the same the as transfixed subjectivity of the male desire by the of the irresistible look When desire Woman-Thing. subjectivizes itself, when it is subjectively assumed, the flow of words is set in motion, since the subject is finally able to acknowledge it, to integrate it into its symbolic universe; when drive subjectivizes itself, when the subject sees itself as the dreadful Thing, this other subjectivization is, on the contrary, signalled by the sudden onset of silence —the idiotic babble of joutssance is interrupted, the subject disengages itself from its flow. The subjectivization of drive is this very withdrawal, this pulling away from the Thing that I myself am, this realization that the Monster out there is myself. The subject of drive is thus related to the subject of desire, as Oedipus at Colonnus is related to the ‘standard’ Oedipus who unknowingly killed his father and married his mother: he is the subject who got back his own from the Other and was his act, that is, to message compelled to assume himself as the Evil he was for. Was this recognition identify Thing looking reason for him to blind himself? It is here that sexual difference enough is to be taken into account: a woman is more able to endure this perhaps identification of the core of one’s with the Evil In the being Thing. a Louvre, couple of yards to the left of the Mona Lisa, inconspicuous much more acclaimed Salome is brought the among paintings, is Luini’s at
the
head
‘Silence
of John
Leonardo series
of
the
Baptist.
in Milan,
Bernardino
sentimentalized
Luini
(1480-1532),
Leonardo’s
style:
he
of
follower
a
is known
for
his
of
somewhat portraits of the Virgin Mary, painted as a beautiful, is that Salome is drawn herself dreamy figure. The surprise of his ‘Salome’ in the same as his the moment style Virgin Marys: although depicted is abhorrent is on head and the (Salome brought John’s painting a platter, is dominated and John’s, against the dark by the two heads, Salome’s the is on Salome’s face is far from ecstatic. She background), expression not on the verge of embracing the head and kissing it wildly the finally obtained partial object (a strict equivalent to the ‘bloody head here’ in the passage mentioned quoted froma Hegel’s Jenaer Realphilosophie). Her —
expression
is rather
melancholic,
now unspecified distant point for, the finally obtained object
constrained, that
-
is
not
she
has
‘swallowed’
her
got
gaze what but
fixed she
on was
some
asking
merely encircled,
306 indifferent.
rendered to
TICKLISH
THE
the
Perhaps this painting of the unique moment
...
of the
depiction
SUBJECT is the
closest
one
of
emergence
can
the
get
subject
of drive.
Notes Paris: Agalma 1997. Vintage 1979, p. 30. Here Foucault us to specify Althusser's of interpellation as the process enables definition which transforms into subjects: these individuals whose status remains mysterious individuals unspecified in the objects and the product of disciplinary micro-practices; they are Althusser are the bodily on which ‘stuff’ these practices work. In other words, interpellation is to the subject what individuals are to the disciplinary micro-practices. in the above 3. Of course, criticism we have focused on the specific Foucauldian notion of power and resistance from I of History of Sexuality: in Discipline and Punish and Volume these two of Power remains confined to the books, the notion procedure of disciplinethat took confession—contro! shape in early Christianity. When, in his later interviews, Foucault he imperceptibly changes the terrain and speaks about power and counter-power, to kind of Niewschean moves a is everywhere and general ontology of power: power everything; it is the very air we breathe, the very stuff of our lives. This general ontology of also involves a different notion of subject as the ‘fold’ of power; this subject is no power from the repressive power, is effectively longer the Self which, while waiting to be liberated constituted by it. 4. Judith Butler, The Psychic Life of Power, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press 1997, 1.
Francois Regnault, Conférencesd’esthétiquelacanienne,
2.
Michel
Discipline and Punish,
Foucault,
New
York:
p- 43. 5. Is not this the Lacanian bodily excess generated by the disciplinatory mechanisms into account, then, not correlative plus-de-joun? Is the fact that Hegel does not take this excess to the fact, emphasized by Lacan, that Hegel misses the surplus-enjoyment which keeps the in the position of servitude? servant 6. Butler, The Psychic Life of Power, p. 49. made 7, Marx the same its end not because of point about capitalism: it will meet it from of pre-capitalist tradition, resistance to external forces but because of its ultimate and its own restrain inherent as Marx inability to master antagonism put it, the limit of that still elude its control capitalism is Capital itself, not the islands of resistance (sexuality, -
old
nature, 8.
On
cultural
traditions).
of Power, see Chapters 1 and 2 of 1997. 9. Is this oscillation not discernible also in Foucault’s shifting from one to its opposite: from fascination with the Iranian to Revolution immersion lifestyle of the San Francisco gay community? 10. Butler, The Psychic Life ofPower, p. 47.
Plague
11.
this
obscene of Fantasies, London:
Do
we
fetishism? First, which embodies
commodity as
if money 12. This
Polity 13,
Press
as
not a
here
encounter
is in itself
has
Slavoj Zizek,
The
Verso
is
commodity
social its direct
point
supplement
then
relations; material
a universal already
the
deprived
been
property,
double
same
of its this
of social
network as
if
disavowal
a
equivalent. made by Mark
commodity Poster
in
in
as
and
bodily autonomy
a
Marxian is
certain
The Second
in
reduced
relations has
political
Media
the
extreme
radical
commodity to
a
medium
projected value
into
in itself,
a
or
Age, Cambridge:
1995.
Significantly,
Butler
identifies
‘subject’
with
the
symbolic position occupied
within
this
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
the
she
while
space,
the
reserves
‘psyche’
term
in the resists being included The PsychicLife of Power, p. 88.
individual, 14, Butler, 15.
Ibid.
16.
Ibid., p. 89.
for the larger unity symbolic space.
17. Ibid., pp. 96-7. Butler 18. Ibid., p.97. Here ‘the Other’s discourse’, that is, is structured
Unconscious
‘the
Lacan;
they the
imaginary
resistance
ego, which
is the
symbolic
the
concern
therefore
obverse to the
exact
of
agency
307
also
encompassing what,
in
the Unconscious Lacan, for whom is blatantly contradicts isn't Lacan’s best-known symbolic, nol imaginary single line like a language’? ‘Shps and gaps’ are thoroughly symbolic for The situation is (mis)functioning of the signifying network. —
Butler
of what
claims:
it is
Unconscious
the
not
symbolic Law; on the contrary, the imaginary misrecognition of
it is
and
which the
consciousness,
resistance
to
the
is the
conscious
unconscious
Law!
19. Ibid., p. 98. Ibid., pp. 28-9.
20. 21.
only
Is this
the
also
not
the
as
problem of
transgression
‘marginal’ homosexual position, which and thus needs, predominant norm, Witness Butler’s obviously exaggerated
of the
heterosexual
the
functions relies
on,
insistence presupposition? involves the loss of one’s on how homosexuality is an experience which, for most individuals, act is still an unheard-of traumatic identity, as if to imagine oneself engaged in a homosexual experienced by queers when they are threatened experience today; witness the uneasiness of being simply and indifferently accepted, not by censorship, but by the permissive attitude somehow no subversion as if they are deprived of their longer experienced as a traumatic this
norm
its inherent
as
—
subversive
sting. 22, For an explanation 23.
.
of this term, see Chapter PsychicLife of Power, p. 105. Chapter 2 of Zizek, The Plague of Fantasies.
24,
See The
standard
changing its own ground against which
we
3 of
Zizek,
The
Plague ofFantasies,
The
Butler,
25.
..
which
it
and
measure
notion
Lacanian
discursive
an
occurs:
value
of
the
(pre)conditions,
focuses
the
on
gesture
on which ‘big Other’ ‘miraculously’ changes
act
proper activity; that
our
act
the
with
is, it is synonymous
it
the what
of
retroactively the
relies,
back-
standard
very
Nietzsche
by called
In this precise sense, an involves choice Worst ‘transvaluation of values’. act [/& the choice of (what, within the situation, when as) the Worst pie)’: the act occurs appears of what is good or bad. In politics, for example, the usual form changes the very standards of the pragmatic liberal centrists’ complaint is that one should not be too radical and go too what far in advocating gay rights or minority rights or should take into account ; that one one accomplishes an majority opinion is still able to swallow, and sa on; in such a context, a when makes considers act one catastrophic precisely what the pragmatic centrist proper this gesture choice of the ‘impossible’, and when miraculously affects the frame of what is considered ‘acceptable’, However, the later Lacan goes a step further and locates the act at an more radical even level, that of disturbing the very fundamental fantasy as the ultimate framework of our world-experience. The Psychic Life of Power, p. 135. 26. Butler, the
of
‘the
...
27. 28.
31.
Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,
32.
See
29,
30.
London:
33, sexual
pp.
147, 146-7.
pp.
137~8.
p. 165. p. 166.
p. 165. Butler’s
interview
with
Routledge 1966, p. 83. Another way of putting act
is incestuous.
Peter
it is that
Osborne for
the
in
A
psychotic,
Critical
as
for
Sense, ed. the
Cathar
Peter
Osborne,
heretics,
every
308 34,
TICKLISH
THE
and
J. Laplanche
The
J.-B. Pontalis,
SUBJECT Language of Psychoanalysis,London:
Karnac
1988,
p- 315. 35,
is thus somehow the exact opposite of the well-known pathological Symbolic castration phenomenon of a person who feels a limb he no longer has (like the proverbial soldier who still feels the pain in the leg he lost in battle): symboliccastration designates, rather, the state does not feel (or rather, one more in which precisely, one does not manipulate freely and master) the organ (penis) one actually still possesses. 36. Butler, The PsychicLife of Power, p. 92. in Reading Seminar ‘Positions of the Unconscious’, 37. Jacques Lacan, XI, ed. Richard Bruce Fink and Maire Jaanus, Albany, NY: SUNY Press 1995, p. 274. Feldstein, of the body is not 38. Incidentally, in psychoanalysis the status merely ‘psychosomatic’, treated of the inscription of some that is, the body is not merely as the medium symbolic hysteria: although psychoanalysis rejects a direct bodily impasse, as in the case of conversion of the of constraints (such an approach reduces psychic troubles psychoanalysis to causality it none the less insists on how a pathological the medical order), psychic process always Real of some functions as refers to the which the proverbial grain of organic disturbance, sand triggering the process of the crystallization of the symptom. When I have a violent the tooth itself soon becomes the object of narcissistic libidinal investment: [ suck toothache, it with my tongue, touch and inspect it with my fingers, look at it with the aid of it, encircle in short, itself into the of a the pain of the toothache turns source mirror, and so on of a man Ferenczi case whose lines, Sandér jouissance. Along the same reported the extreme .
..
—
had
testicle
be
to
removed
because
of
dangerous
a
infection:
this
removal
(‘real’ castration)
life to actualized, gave a second triggered the onslaught of paranoia, since it resuscitated fantasies like often (the same cancer). In cases long-dormant homosexual goes for rectal of paranoia lies not in the subject’s inability to sustain the loss of his virility, these, the cause of his phallic male to sustain is, rather, the confrontation posture; what he is in fact unable with his fundamental passive fantasy, which forms the ‘primordially repressed’ (foreclosed) of his subjective identity, and was ‘other scene’ all of a sudden actualized in his very physical Assoun, reality. See Paul-Laurent Corps ed Symptéme, vol. 1b: Clinique du Corps, Paris: Anthropos —
—
1997, pp. 34-43. 39. critical
This criticism notion that
Oedipal 40,
mode
It
this
in detail
idea
41.
is
with the usually coupled with the opposite criticism: the content, by a specific historical patriarchal a priori of human history. elevating it into a transcendental is
branded
too
Sohn-Rethel,
a
‘fellow-traveller’
of the
commodity subjectivity. See Alfred
transcendental
Suhrkamp
formalism
of socialization, Alfred
was
of
Lacan
form
as
the
Sohn-Rethel,
of the secret
Frankfurt
School, of the
generator
Geistige
und
who
described
form
universal
korpertiche Arbeit,
of
Frankfurt:
1970. his
of Lacan,
a Staten specific version of this point (see proposes Hopkins University Press 1995). According to Staten, into Lacan inscribes himself the Platonic-Christian all positivelineage which devalues empirical objects subjected to the cycle of generation and corruption: for Lacan, as for Plato, which finite semblance/lure positive object is a mere every betrays the truth of desire. Lacan's merit consists in the fact that he brings this Platonic rejection of all finite material objects as worthy of love to its truth, concealed by Plato: finite empirical objects are not beneath or Models for) their eternal fragile copies of (o1 stand-ins beyond them there is nothing, that is, they are place-holders of a primordial Void, of Nothingness. To put it in Nietzsche’s thus of the metaphysical longing for Lacan reveals the nihilistic essence terms, eternal Objects beyond the earthly cycle of generation and corruption: the desire for these Objects is the desire for Nothingness, that is, these Objects are metaphors of Death. Here Staten Lacan of the impossibility of the authentic reduces to a postmodern advocate encounter with a Thing: no positive object ever void adequately fills in or fits the structural
Evos in
In
criticism
Mourning, Baltimore,
Henry
MD:Johns
—
which
sustains
repeated
desire; all experience of ce
we
nest
ever
pas
are
get ca.
...
furtive What
semblances, is
missing
here
so
we
is the
are
condemned
obverse
of this
to
the
logic
of
the
Void
primordial
which
be
never
can
filled
excessive, surnuméraire object for which for Lacan, desire is effectively sustained by of
by
is the
Real
of
excessive
an
an
there
an
contrary,
309
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
is
Void
a
olject which
adequate object: the correlative no place in the symbolic structure.
which
remains
can
be filled,
never
forever
out
Zone
1991,
of
libido,
notion
If,
in search
joint,
the
on
of its
‘proper place’. 42.
Butler,
43.
See In
44.
The
Gilles
otherwise
an
[Zizek]
does
not
Bator’.
Now
let
openly
to
philosophy - if this simply means
Bator,
is flawed.
45,
a
detailed
more
chism,
that
is, the masochism
the
act
and
realize
the
other
clinical
to
an
claimed:
the
am
attachment
to
‘if he of Ulan
bishop
is unable
me,
serious
some
his
the
(hysterical) the
a
University Press 47. Quoted Masorhism,
hand
one
in
an
of such be
secret
in
‘externalize’
to
interaction
daydreaming masochistic
catastrophic:
Death
distinguish further properly perverse
actual
masochistic
secret
content
also
the is able
who
subject scenario
masochistic
when
—
of
should
one
the
on
subject in reality, the result can disintegration of his self-identity. 46. See Jean Laplanche, Life and
48.
who, due
noticed
[Lecercle]
faults in my about this disciple fantasizes Lecercle dressed up that he thinks my knowledge of contemporary
masochism:
hand,
its actualization
on
has
elaboration,
of
the
I
knowledge of as the bishop philosophy
...
In
modes
the
he
that
York:
book, Jean-Jacques Lecetcle
philosophy,
of mine
follower
a
himself
to
my first
contemporary
imagine
us
Cruelty,New of
review
about
197-8.
pp.
and
Coldness
critical
know
admit
contemporary of Ulan
PsychicLife of Power, Deleuze,
from
between
his
with
which
fantasy, another
humiliation
Psychoanatysy, Baltimore,
MD:
two
maso-
to
pass
subject;
is unable
daydreamings utter
the
‘contractual’
to
to on
endure
is imposed and shame
on
to
Johns Hopkins
1976.
from
Jean Laplanche, ‘Aggressiveness and Sadomasochism’, Margaret A.F. Hanly, New York: New York University Press
ed.
in Essential
Papers
1995, p. 122.
Ibid.
Does also provide the elementary matrix not this constellation of the problematic of (religious) predestinatton? When the child asks himself “Why was I born? Why did they want me?’, one cannot satisfy him by simply answering: ‘Because we loved you and wanted to have you’ How could my parents love me when I did not yet exist? Is it not that they have to love me in shost, predestine my fate) and then create Protestant (or hate me me, just as the God decides the fate of a human being prior to his birth? 50. Incidentally, why is the cowboy without a hat? Apart from in Slovene, the fact that, ‘without a hat’ as the reason for this enigmatic rhymes with ‘is fucking’, one could propose feature a non1s considered that, in the perspective of male children, fucking a woman oneself manly, subservient activity by doing it, one humiliates by ‘servicing’ the woman, and it is this humiliating aspect, this loss of male dignity, that is signalled by losing one’s hat. of the ass 1s thus Seeing the woman’s perceived as a kind of revenge for her humiliation
49.
—
—
man:
it’s
now
her
turn
to
pay for naked
enticing
him
to
fuck
her...
in exactly the same way as Freud’s the from his article the ‘glance on the nose’ on tells us where fetishism, mistake of the fetishist is correlative to the mistake of the standard pervert lies: this mistake heterosexual stance that dismisses partial objects as mere foreplays to the ‘real thing’ (the that sexual act itself). From the correct insight that there is no (direct) sexual relationship all we have as supports of our enjoyment are fetishistic partial objects that fill the void of the 51.
famous
This
glimpse example of
at
the
ass,
which
is
to
be read
—
the fetishist draws the mistaken that these conclusion partial impossible sexual relationship to the objects are directly the ‘thing itself’, that one can get rid of the reference impossible the act to maintain sexual and stick to the partial objects themselves. is thus The solution our tension between the void of the sexual and that the support objects relationship partial the less rely on enjoyment: although all we have are these partial objects/scenes, they none the void of the the tension to act with the absent sexual the reference they presuppose (impossible) act. —
—
310
TICKLISH
THE
52.
See
‘The
Jacques Lacan,
Ecrits: A Selection,
York:
New
Norton
SUBJECT of the
Subversion 1977.
and
Subject
Dialectics
the
of Desire’,
in
be very productive to link the Freudian Hilflosighet to the Kantian notion especially the dynamic Sublime, which also expresses something like the the scene of a man of primordial seduction: reduced to a particle of dust scene with are of nature enormous powers playing, yet observing this fascinating spectacle from isn’t this the the safety of a minimal distance, and thus enjoying it as a passive observer to an satisfaction provided by the fact that I observe myself reduced impotent particle of to a helpiess element overwhelmed dust, that I see myself reduced by gigantic forces beyond my comprehension? 54, This topic of reflexivity is already announced and formulated in Butler’s first book, her excellent essay on Hegel Subjects of Desire (New York: Columbia University Press 1987). trans. 55. The Odysseyof Homer, XII, 160-64, New Richmond York: Lattimore, Harper 53.
of the Kantian whom
It would
also
Sublime,
-
1991. 56.
See
Michael
57. A further
Wagner,London:
Tanner,
opposition
Flamingo 1997,
made
be
here
between
ultimate
Wagnerian laments, their opposition concems relation to the Oedipal triangulation. different Tristun reproduces the standard Oedipal who situation from the paternal figure of man, belongs to another (stealing Isolde, a woman as Lévi-Strauss Claude the underlying structure of Parsifal pointed out King Mark), while of Oedipus. In Parsifal, the lament is and-Oedipal, the reversal is performed by the paternal by Parsifal. In Tristan, the dignified Mark forgives Tristan figure of Amfortas, finally delivered in Parsifal, the ‘asexual’ end for his transgressive passion, while at the Parsifal, this young from the painful consequences of his transgressive ‘pure fool’, delivers the paternal Amfortas to be seduced sin (allowing himself by Kundry). This reversal, this displacement of the stain son of transgression from to father, is what makes Pursifal a properly modern work of art, the traditional leaving behind Oedipal problematic of the son transgressing the paternal prohibition, rebelling against paternal authority. 58. On a much more modest level of everyday life, the same horror is often encountered with a PC; what remains so who works about a PC is not only that, due by anyone uncanny of
that
the
dying
Tristan
can
and
that
of Amfortas
in
~
to
a
virus
or
this
-
—
malfunction,
some
two
Parsifal
we
lose
can
inadvertently
or
the
erase
of hours
result
and
once written days of work, but also the opposite prospect: you have something and it is it: as we all know, even if you registered in your PC, it is practically impossible really to erase do apply the delete function to some the text in the computer; it is just that it is remains text, for that reason, have the function no undelete, which gives you computers longer registered of recovering the text a fair chance A simple PC thus contains a kind you stupidly deleted. of ‘undead’ of deleted texts which continue to lead a nevertheless spectral domain shadowy the two existence ‘between but still there, waiting to be recovered. deaths’, officially deleted horror That is the ultimate of the digital universe: in it, everything remains forever inscribed; it is practically impossible really to get rid of, to erase, a text... 59. See Jacques-Alain Miller, ‘Des semblants dans la relation entre les sexes’, La Cause freudienne 36, Paris 1997, pp. 7-15. —
.
60.
Miller
Here
to
seems
pp- 7-18. 62. See Editions du _
63.
Ecrits: 64.
See
Jacques Lacan, Seuil
‘Du
“Trieb”
notion
the
renounce
jouissance beyondfantasy, which persists even the to a fantasy, and to reduce symptom to jouissance, subject’s access 61. Jacques-Alain Miller, ‘Le monologue de
when
of
the
‘condensed’ de
au
traverses
of
kernel
I’ apparole', La
Freud
as
symptom
subject
désir
Cause
du
sinthome, the knot fundamental his/her
fantasy
that
psychanalyste’,
the
regulates
freudienne 34, in
Paris
of
1996,
Ecvits,Paris:
1966, pp. 851-4.
Jacques Lacan,
‘The
Subversion
of
the
Subject
the
Dialectics
of Desire’,
I want’
expresses
very
and
in
A Selection.
Jenny
Holzer’s
famous
truism
‘Protect
me
from
what
precisely
(DIS)ATTACHMENTS
PASSIONATE
fundamental be read
the It
myself
on
—
me
-
left
woman,
from
herself
fact
in
that
in
this
desires what ‘Protect me case,
by
the
patnarchal
in the
fact
that desire
from
the
excessive
me
dominate’ a
she
that
alienated, on
that
be protected indicating the
as
way,
to
wisdom
involved
‘Protect
as
able
not
am
chauvinist she must
so
ambiguity either
can
men
is
311
always
the
desire
self-destructive ironic reference
that
of the
desire
in
Other. that I
me
to the standard is, as an male herself, gets caught in self-destructive fury, so that male or in a more domination; radical by benevolent desire is radically today’s patriarchal society woman’s expect her to desire, that she desires to be desired, and
to
from
I want’
what
order
socio-symbolic
I want
‘What
means
that
tells
me
what
to
is
already imposed
desire,
the
so
first
of
condition
is that I break desire and my liberation up the vicious cycle of my alienated learn to formulate in an autonomous is that this my desire way.’ The problem, of course, second ‘heteronomous’ alienated desire reading implies a rather naive opposition between and truly autonomous what if desire as desire such is ‘desire of the other’, so that there is of ‘] demand of you to refuse what ultimately no way to break out of the hysterical deadlock I demand of you, because that is not if’? 65, Even if drive is thus conceived a as can still secondary by-product of desire, one that desire maintain is a defence as a against drive: the paradox is that desire functions defence against its own product, against its own ‘pathological’ outgrowth, that is, against the movement. circular provided by drive’s selfenclosed 66. See Jon Elster, Sour Grapes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1982. 67. According to Cathar world was created teaching, our terrestrial by the Devil, thar is, the Creator we know who, at the beginning of the Bible, forms the world who says (the one ‘Let there the Devil himself. be light!’, etc.) is none than other 68. See Chapter XIV of Jacques Lacan, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis, New York: Norton 1979, 69. Here I draw on Alenka Zupan¢i¢’s unpublished paper, ‘La subjectivation sans sujet’. we 70. *...what in the return of the repressed is the effaced see signal of something which its integration only takes on its value in the future, through its symbolic realization, ~
suffocating jouissance
into
the
New
York:
71.
of the
Norton
subject’ (The 1988, p. 159). the
Concerning
culture, to
history
film
that the
of the
sequel
ultimate
Seminar
to
of the
example
Alien, Ridley Scott his Alen,
ofJacques
he would
tell
Monstrous in
mentions
the
Lacan,
an
story
Book I: Freud’s
Thing
interview from
the
that
Papers
on
Technique,
in contemporary if he were to be
Alien’s
popular allowed
perspective.
analysis of this subjectivization of the Thing in Psycho, see Slavoj Zizek, in Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Lacan (But Were Afraid Lo Ask Hitchcock), ed. Slavoj Zizek, London: Verso 1993. 73, Although it may appear difficult to imagine a more film than different Levinson’s own not the two films none the less connected? Is not Wag the Dog from the same year, are the Sphere the Zone in which, we enter once it, the tail itself (our phantasmic shadows) are our wags the dog (our Selves that supposed to control personalities)? Wag the Dog, the the media story of the public relations specialists who concoct spectacle of a war with Albania 72.
For
a
‘Hitchcock's
order
in
involved
pure
closer
Universe’,
to
distract
just
weeks
public before
phantasmic semblance,
from
attention his
re-election,
with
the
way
the
and
sexual
scandal
Sphere thus both phantasmic semblance
in
which
deal can
the
with
shape
the our
President
power
got of the
(experience
of) reality itself. 74,
Jacques Lacan, Le Séminaire, livre VII: Le transfert, Paris: Seuil 1991, pp. 97-116. We find a rough equivalent to it in Woody Allen’s Deconstructing Harry, in which Robin Williams who is, as it were, plays the character ontologically a blob, blurred, out of focus: his are of focus not contours out only for the subject who looks at him, not only when he is part of the generally blurred when he stands background they are also blurred among people can whom we perceive quite clearly. This idea (unfortunately a hapax, a notion that can in is no fact be used only once) of a person who is in himself for whom there anamorphic, clear (even when he himself looks at his proper perspective that would make his contours 75,
—
SUBJECT
TICKLISH
THE
512
but adequate way, the Lacanian in a naive reality itself. Oxford University Press 1977, p. 103. Hegel’sPhenomenologyof Sprit, Oxford: it into common the purity of its insight by retranslating 77. Unfortunately, Sphere mars for them, even that since decide heroes the three the at end, wisdom: surviving New Age to the the contact with (i.e. civilized opportunity humans, Sphere three highly educated led to such fears and dreams) (self-) their innermost into translate reality, to materialize, to for them forget (erase from their memories) their entire destructive results, it is better not ts enough for such a device. of the yet spiritually mature humanity Sphere experience thesis conservative that, in our the thus film is the of resigned ultimate The message if we did secrets too deep into our innermost imperfect state, it is better not to penetrate forces. destructive so, we might unleash tremendous . NC: Duke University 78. See Chapter 1 of Stavoj Zizek, Tarning With the Negative,Durham,
hands,
they appear
notion 76.
of
a
stain
blurred
him), expresses,
to
of
constitutive
—
—
..
Press
79,
1993. Sce Franz
George
Steinei of this
Kafka, and
‘The
Robert
Silence
of the
Sirens’,
Salecl, ‘The reading and the Unconscious, Durham, ed., Zizek, Cogito Slavoj Kafka
text,
in Homer:
A Collection
Fagles, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall see
Renata
of Silence NC: Duke
of Critical Essays, ed. 1963.
For
Feminine University Press the
a
Lacanian
jouissance, 1998.
in
6
Whither
Oedipus?
The From
Three
Fathers
the
early days of his Complexesfamiliaux,' Lacan focused on the the Oedipus complex itself, as well as of its discoveryby Freud. In the modern bourgeois nuclear family, the two functions of the father which were in different previously separated, that is, embodied people the (the pacifying Ego Ideal, point of ideal identification, and the ferocious the agent of cruel superego, prohibition; the symbolic function
historicityof
of
and
totem
the
(The previous the
father
of
a
aware
child
is
that
the
merely separated ous rivalry with the
conditions
for
time,
same
Oedipus’ of the
the
thus, this
united
are
in
the
stone
or
real father the
modern
an was
father
animal from
its
was
that more
and
a
erupted more
the
the
same
person. for
accounts
thought
spirit:
by
the
functions
that
the
father; unification
family,
the
in
creative of to
the
smeared
created
figures late
by
subsequent of
of
psychic
mark
of
the
at
‘crisis
authority as
nineteenth the
they
ambigu-
The
individualism:
the
true
were aborigines
‘real’
symbolic function.) emerged with the
figure, which bourgeois nuclear Western dynamic
of investiture’
who
or
and
one
two
inseminated
it sowed the seeds however, with (or, more generally, regard
‘crisis
that
taboo),
of
mother
in
symbolic authority and
a
the
functions
two
of
personification ‘stupidity’ of some aborigines
apparent
well
horror
separate
of
such,
century’): obscenity
as it were, undermined from within. Lacan’s is point, of course, identity is the ‘truth’ of the Oedipus complex: it can ‘function normally’ and accomplish its job of the child’s integration into the suciosymbolic order only in so far as this identity remains the concealed moment it is posited as such, the figure of paternal authority potentially turns into an obscene word is Luder) in whom jouisseur (the German a ‘humiliated impotence and excessive father’ caught in rage coincide, imaginary rivalry with his son. Here we have the paradigmatic case of a properly historical dialectic: —
314
THE
precisely
critics
historicist
able
Freud
because
to
of
TICKLISH
‘the
was
The
other
are
tired
never
which
feature,
of
the
as
-
repeating
invisible
remains of
times’
Victorian
his
of
son
psychoanalysis
its universal
express
SUBJECT
many he
-
was
in its ‘normal’
of
crisis as the only universality is, of that of Marx, who articulated the universal course, logic of the historical development of humanity on the basis of his analysis of capitalism as the excessive (imbalanced) system of production. Capitalism is a contingent
functioning. historical
formation
monstrous a
kind
cycle entire In
thus
of ‘freak
example
great
which
moment
allows
whose
of
for
very ‘normal’ social system
of incessant
already
lematic
is permanent dislocation, caught in the vicious superego
—
establishes
the
connection
into
state
history’, expansion yet precisely preceding ‘normal’ history.* his early theory of the historicity of a
state
insight
an
it is the
such,
as
the
‘truth’
of the
Oedipus complex, Lacan the psychoanalytic prob-
between
of
of the Oedipus as the elementary form of ‘socialization’, into the and the standard socioorder, subject's integration symbolic individualist psychological fopoi on how modernity is characterized by on how, in modern societies, competitiveness subjects are no longer in (and identified with) the particular social place into fully immersed which in principle, at least move born, but can they were freely —
—
between
different
ual
relates
who
he is
to
and do
his
The
this
social
—
of the
‘way of
which,
fundamental
status
~
emergence
particular
identified
directly
not
circumstances; birth
‘roles’.
that
life’
modern
as
to
is, depends
experience
that
(sex, religion, wealth, innermost
‘abstract’
on
the
a
of
the
same
person
Another Other’
any
concern
aspect qua
the
of the
‘real
father’
of this duality symbolic order,
described
is the the
intersubjective communication price for entering its circuit,
the
—
crucial
anonymous and induces and
the
of my
relies
determine
not
fully, my identity of the functioning of the Oedipus complex: on the unification of paternal authority (Ego Ideal and the prohibitive superego) in not
which
contingent
particularities do
etc.)
set
individ-
with
something
on
mutation
me
the
in two one
sides and
above.
distinction
between
circuitry which an
irreducible
the
‘big
mediates
‘alienation’
subject’s ‘impossible’ relationwhich is not but the ship to an Otherness yet the symbolic big Other Other the Real The is one should that not qua Thing. point identify this Real Thing too with the incestuous of desire rendered hastily object inaccessible the maternal this by symbolic prohibition (i.e. Thing); Thing is, rather, Father himself, namely, the obscene Father-jouissance prior to his murder and subsequent elevation into the agency of symbolic authority This is why, on the level of mythical narrative, (Name-of-the-Father). as
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
felt
Freud
the
compulsion that
mythical narrative, [T&T]) is
the
—
lesson
of
of this
to
315
supplement the Oedipal myth with another (in Totem and Taboo ‘primordial father’ myth is the exact obverse of that of Oedipus; having to deal with the father who intervenes
the
say, here, far from the Third, the agent who prevents as direct contact so sustains the illusion that his annihilation (and object that
to
this
object), Oedipal wish)
to
it is the
killing gives rise
with
the
would
incestuous
give
of the
us
free
Father-Thing (the of the which to symbolic prohibition (the dead returns as father his Name). And what occurs in today’s much-decried ‘decline of Oedipus’ (decline of paternal symbolic authority) is precisely return of figures which the function according to the logic of the to the paternal ‘primordial father’, from ‘totalitarian’ political Leaders harasser sexual the why? When ‘pacifying’ symbolic authority is susof desire, its pended, the only way to avoid the debilitating deadlock inherent of its inaccessibility in a impossibility, is to locate the cause despotic figure which stands for the primordial jouisseur. we cannot enjoy because he appropriates all enjoyment. . We can now in what, the shift crucial from see, precisely, consists to T@’T: in the the the incest Oedipus ‘Oedipus complex’, parricide (and with the mother) has the status of the unconscious desire we, ordinary about our (male) subjects, all dream it, since the paternal figure prevents to the access maternal disturbs our with while it; object, Oedipus symbiosis himself is the exceptional figure, the One who actually did i. In T&T, on the contrary, the parricide is not the object of our dreams, the goal of our unconscious wish it is, as Freud emphasizes again and again, a prehistoric fact which is an of the father ‘really had to happen’: the murder event which had to take place in reality in order for the passage from animal state to Culture to take place. Or to put it in yet another way in the standard Oedipus myth, Oedipus is the exception who did what we all merely dream about (kill his father, etc.); while in T&’T we all did it, and this universally shared crime In short, grounded human community. the its traumatic event is not we dream about, entertaining something future but never and via its thus, prospect, really happens postponement, access
sealization
—
.
.
—
—
—
-
...
the
sustains
of
state
symbolic distance/ traumatic we
are
within
the
outcome
are
prohibition
the
order
we
to
is
(since
incestuous
is, rather,
event
So how
Culture
of the
consummation
not
link
that
what
the
with defines
realization the the
always-already
of
of
universe had
to
wish,
this
would
mother,
happen
i.e.
the
abolish
the
Culture);
the
the
moment
of Culture.
explain that, although we the longed-for incestuous
did
actually union?
kill the
There,
father, in
this
316 the
prevents
our
dead
father,
of the
T&T
accounts
for
from
direct
the
incestuous
who, after
father
the
embodiment
the
the
to
access
SUBJECT
T@’T:
of
thesis
central
lies
what
paradox,
as
TICKLISH
THE
his
the
brutal
force
object,
death,
of
bearer is
returns
prohibition, living but the
the
not
his
as
structural
that
Name,
What
Law/Prohibition.
symbolic
is thus
actual
the
is, of
matrix
the
of
the
necessity parricide: of symbolic authority, of the prohibitory Law, is always grounded in a (disavowed) act of primordial That is the dialectic of ‘You can crime. that you love me prove only by me’: the father is elevated into the venerated betraying symbol of Law This problematic also opens only after his betrayal and murder. up the of but not the the Other’s: ‘the father vagaries ignorance subject’s, big is dead, but he is not aware of it’, that is, he doesn’t know that his loving have followers (always-already) betrayed him. On the other hand, this means that the father ‘really thinks that he is a father’, that his authority emanates not directly from his person, merely from the empty symbolic place he occupies and/or fills. What the faithful follower should conceal the paternal figure of the Leader from is precisely this gap between the Leader in the immediacy of his personality and the symbolic place he passage
rule
the
to
~
of which father is occupies, the gap on account qua effective person and ridiculous of is the here, course, utterly impotent (exemplary figure of King Lear, who was confronted violently with this betrayal and the ensuing unmasking of his impotence deprived of his symbolic title, he is reduced to a raging old impotent fool). The heretic legend according to which Christ himself ordered Judas to betray him (or at least, let him —
know this
his wishes
necessity
fame,
lies the
between
of the
lines
the
ultimate
The
.
.)
is therefore
Great
Man
well
which
founded:
alone
Michael
de Valera
results
to
deal
demands: tion
him
force
the
thus
the
as
a
of war,
state
his
did
not
want
would
government of the
Republic,
that
this
six
Ulster
the
sovereign
over
is, the
recognition
this this
concede
and of
key
renuncia-
British
Ireland). (Collins) to
was
two
the
the
and thus also over Commonwealth, order to retain his charisma, he had to manipulate another the freedom concluding the deal, reserving for himself as
conclude
it, because
publicly (he
never
counties
in the
necessity of necessity of catastrophic
the
for
public responsibility impotence, his limitation,
status
the
yet he
full
take
British
separate
of Ireland
a
display
to
that
aware
to
and
himself,
would well
return
his
assure
Collins and Eamon relationship Irish illustrates another fight independence aspect of In De Valera’s was that he saw 1921, betrayal. problem a deal with the British as well as concluding government, for
of the
in
there,
can
of Power.
mystery between
.
of the
betrayal
disavow
King In into it
publicly, while his
of
later
charisma and
Collins
other
assumed
this
have
role
of
mising pragmatic ‘You might risma: to
head
dark
the
of
utionary
the
the
its terms
Irish
enables is
trap
delegation, ‘I may
is thus
the
delegation of
and
Master
the to
he
subject retain his
wrote
after
signingthe
after
semblance say of
to
London that
nego-
he
whose
readily compro-
messianic
he
treaty
cha-
had he
agreed
said, with
death-warrant.’® signed my actual
have
then
who
leader
pragmatic
reversed:
exploits
the
to
the
heard
was
tragedywas
Collins’s
sprung,’>
while
in this way,
~
himself
Valera
‘vanishing mediator’,
post-revolutionary who
De
scapegoats’.4
say the
London
idealist
(De Valera)
saved. of
stance
premonition:
cliché
be
members
“We must
tiations:
silently accepting
would
317
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
passionate nationalist
it is the
the
betrays
The
the
betrays
revol-
idealist
realist, pragmatic
the
true
founding figure.’ there is still possible? In the T&T matrix, father returnsomething missing: it is not enough to have the murdered in order for this prohibition ing as the agency of symbolic prohibition be sustained to be effectual, to exert its power, by a it must actually the further and last act of for This the positive Willing. insight paved way
How,
however,
is this
reversal
—
Freudian
[MM],
variation in
which
the
on
we
are
Oedipal matrix, also dealing
the with
iP Moses
one
and
Monotheism
paternal figures; this T&’T: here, the two figures Father-Jouissance and the sve
as the one in duality, however, is not the same are not the pre-symbolic obscene/non-castrated (the Name-ofthebearer of symbolic authority (dead) father qua the Father), but the old Egyptian Moses, the one who imposed monotheism the who dispensed with old polytheistic superstitions and introduced rational Order, notion of a universe determined and ruled by a unique and the Semitic than Jehovah (Yahweh), other Moses, who is actually none the jealous God who displays vengeful rage when Hé feels betrayed by His the matrix of T&T yet again: the father people. In short, M&M reverses obscene is not the who is ‘betrayed’ and killed his followers/sons by who embodies father but the ‘rational’ primordial Father-jouissance very rational the unified symbolic authority, the figure which personifies structure of the universe preprimordial obscene Instead the of [/ogos]. of in the guise of its Name, symbolic father returning after his murder symbolic authority, we now have the symbolic authority [logos] betrayed, of the killed by his followers/sons, and then returning in the guise jealous and unforgiving superego rage.® It is figure of God full of murderous that we reach of the only here, after this second reversal Oedipal matrix, of God Philosophers the well-known Pascalian distinction the between rational the with structure of logos, identified (God qua the universal —
318
THE
of
structure
the
and
hate, Predestination).
TICKLISH
and
universe)
God
the
of
‘dark
inscrutable
the
SUBJECT God
Theologists (the of capricious
God’
of love
‘irrational’
as the obscene Again, the crucial point is that this God is not the same in contrast to the primordial Father-Jouisseur. primordial father endowed with a knowledgeof jouissance, the fundamental feature of this uncompromising God is that He says ‘No!’ to jouissance —this is a God possessed by ferocious of ‘I ignorance (‘la férece ignorance de Yahvé®), by an attitude to refuse to know, I do not want hear, anything about your dirty and secret the universe of traditional ways of jowissance’; a God who banishes
sexualized
wisdom,
ultimate
the
jouissance, sexual and
God He
of
between
existence
which
in
the
and
is still
I
He
as
—
asking
us
orders
is
God
doing to
do
—
or,
above
prohibiting
or
ultimately grounded is the
God
rational
of pure of
to
us
an
in which
the
for
do:
‘It is
Will, of the
order
global logos, a He does. anything In the history of philosophy, this any
(as with
Divine
God crack
His
the
for
essence;
medieval
that
reason,
quidditas (‘I am concerns for logos, the reasons His injunctions, for what He is
all in what
in
the
‘principles’ (Yin and Yang, Light is the proto-existentialist God of anachronistically Sartre’s definition
precisely,
more
of
This
not
is
semblance
female
and
Heaven).
am’), but also and
a
and (the symbolic order) regulated by some underlying
to apply to Him with His essence simply coincide of St Thomas Aquinas), but precedes His speaks in tautologies, not only concerning
does
—
what
the
there Other
big
macrocosm
male
Earth
Darkness,
what
this
universe
notion
tension
whose man
a
between
harmony
the so
inexorable because
in
of
His
say it is sol’. In short, abyss that lies beyond
does the
insistence
I
capricious who
own
not
global
Will
have
to
rational first
account
edifice
for
of
appears opened up by F.W.J. Schelling to whom we owe the most piercing descriptions of this horrifying abyss of Will. Schelling opposed the Will to the ‘principle of sufficient reason’: it pure Willing is always self-identical, relies only on its own ‘I want act it because I want it!’. In his descriptions, radiating an awesome poetic beauty, Schelling emphasizes how ordinary when a whose behaviour people are horrified they encounter person such an Will: unconditional there is displays something fascinating, properly hypnotic, about it; one is as if bewitched by it. Schelling’s emphasis on the abyss of pure Willing, of course, targets Hegel’s alleged ‘panto is that the Hegelian universal logicism’: what Schelling wants prove is in itself it is a of logical system impotent system pure potentialities and, Duns
macrocosm
Scotus; but
it
was
was
-
..
—
.
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
as
such, in need
to
actualize This
of the
‘irrational’
supplementary
of pure
act
Will
in order
itself.
God
is the
the intervention Seminar
319
on
God
who
His
speaks to
voice is crucial
of
here.
the
Anxiety (from 1960-61),
about
the
l’acte
a
followers/sons,
As Lacan
put
voice
His
to
it in his actual
(the
the
of
‘people’ unpublished ‘speech act’) its ‘symbolic -
brings passage signifying network, it is nonsensical, efficiency’. This voice is inherently meaningless even; a which to God’s malicious and negative gesture just gives expression vengeful anger (all meaning is already there in the symbolic order which our structures the universe), but it is precisely as such that it actualizes structural it into an of Sense." purely meaning, transforming experience is another This, of course, way of saying that through this uttering of the Voice which manifests His Will, God sudbjectivizesHimself. The old Egyptian Moses One of logos, betrayed and killed by his people was the all-inclusive the rational substantial of the universe, structure the ‘writing’ accessible —
to
those
who
all-exclusive
know One
how of
read
to
the
Book
‘Great
of
Nature’,
yet the
not
who
Will on imposes His unconditional His creation. is that this And, again, the crucial point not to be missed is not the preGod, although alogical, ‘capricious’, vengeful, ‘irrational’, the agent of symbolic ‘primordial’ Father-Jouissance but, on the contrary, a ‘ferocious carried of the prohibition by ignorance’ ways of jouissance. The paradox one has to bear in mind here is that this God of groundless ‘irrational’ is the God of His who, by means Willing and ferocious rage of the old sexualized Prohibition, Wisdom, accomplishes the destruction and thus opens for the de-sexualized ‘abstract’ up the space knowledge of modern science: there is ‘objective’ scientific knowledge (in the modern, of the term) only if the universe of scientific knowlpost-Cartesian sense ‘irrational’ edge itself is supplemented and sustained by this excessive In short, Descartes’s ‘voluntarism’ figure of the ‘real father’. (see his infamous are
no
necessary and medieval
edge precisely subjectivity of own
that
statement
eternal
truths
obverse
His
subjectivity
eternal
2
+
2 would
directly
of modern
knowledge because
scientific was
not
it lacked
‘irrational’
pure rational
be
5 if such
consubstantial
Nature;
Divine
Nature) scientific
this
of
He
element
excessive in
‘is’
this
‘irrational’
for space notion
the
moment
the that
there is
the
God
knowlgua
the
‘God’
Aristotle,
nothing
—
Aristotelian
Premodern
knowledge.
Will
yet ‘objective’ rational
Willing:
Things. The further paradox is that paternal figure also opens up the modernity, up to the deconstructionist contingent socio-symbolic formation:
God’s
were
with
but
the
God
entire our
this
directly equals logical Order of the prohibitory as development of
identity is a prohibitory figure
sexual
TICKLISH
THE
5ZU
recedes, This
gap from
back
are
we
the
separates
if
to
count
as
which
not
are
the
has
which
says is the
there
completely
the
today.
in
grounded
tautological
some
because
I say it is so!’.!! In short, of God’s Will, of His contingent
so
abyss
the
even
the
symbolic Law/Prohibition of symbolic rules, if it is
domain
be
to
‘It is
sustains
of the
of
notion
misunderstand
to
authority rules’:
such,
actually authority beyond rules, beyond divine Reason Decision
we
proper
‘regulation by
mere
Jungian neo-obscurantist archetypes which thrives
the
eternal
is crucial
paradox
that
into
feminine
and
masculine
SUBJECT
Eternal
Truths.
Above
and
for modern this same reflexive freedom, up the space opens up the space for modern tragedy. In political terms, the between classical tragedy and modern tragedy is the difference
beyond
gap also difference
opening
between
éerror.!? The traditional hero sacrifices tyranny and (modern) for the Cause; he resists of the Tyrant and accomhimself the pressure plishes his Duty, cost what it may; as such, he is appreciated, his sacrifice
(traditional)
confers
him
on
Tradition
tragedy
when
sacrifice
this
Sygne, fidelity her
to
who
is
than
her
lies
life, she
and
herself’, of her
We
sacrifice
of
compelled to betray her Sygne does not sacrifice than
thus
is inscribed
act
followed.
logic
very
his
aura,
be
to
Thing itself; therein
more
more
example the
God.
to
sublime
a
an
as
the
of
register
domain
of modern
the
for
Thing compels us predicament of Paul Claudel’s
the faith
in order
her
sacrifices
survives
in
the
enter
as
a
to
empirical precisely that shell
mere
her
prove life for her
of
absolute
what
which
to
matters
is ‘in former
her
self,
the domain of the monstrosity of agalma we thereby enter our the heroism, when fidelity to the Cause compels us to transgress threshold of our ‘humanity’. fs it not proof of the highest, most absolute faith to eternal that, for the love of God, I am ready to lose, to expose
deprived
of
certainty
one’s
Perhaps
the
which terror
who
is
since
predicament victims horrible
of
that of
Cause he
—
has accounts
the
hero
provided by
aware
ideological life,
the
learns
finally
It is easy eternal
Soul
great
the
the
the
Stalinist
positivity
victim
Stalinist
forsaken
already for
the
Stalinist
beyond description,
was
cannot
it
for
the
trials
life with
the
worse
is it
much
victim
is
ethical
his
life
into
a
tragic
dimension
of the
—
victim
someone
mirage,
and
outside
the
simple
Communist
although
(from Bukharin
properly
not
ideological retreat
that
impression show
this an
simple
a
how
predicament tyranny) from the
to
victim:
of
-
of this
(his resistance
Communism
one’s
sacrifice
to
one’s
very soul for God! ultimate historical illustration
separates —
becomes
itself?
thereby redeeming
sacrifice
gap of
Soul
my eternal
damnation, to
—
ethical
Cause. the to
fate
This of
the
Slansky) was is missing
-
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
is,
they were simultaneously more that
confer
would
Antigone
like
her
use
comical:
the
as
serve
this,
model
reduce
we
the
maintains
Antigone
tyranny.
tragic heroes, but something more they were deprived of the fate its properly tragic dimension.
not
their
on
cannot
321
the
the
ritual
for
resistance
Stalinist
terror
reference
her
Stalinist
just big
the
to
and
to
to
horrible
deceased
and
very dignity that For that reason, if we power: version of
another
Other's
desire
(to
brother
accomplish symbolic bury properly) the reference as which, precisely, opposed to the tyrant’s (pseudo-)Law is lacking in the Stalinist show trials. In humiliating the victim, the Stalinist terror which could confer sublime deprives him of the very dimension he ‘loses his threshold, beauty on him: the victim goes beyond a certain to a dignity’ and is reduced pure subject bereft of agalma, ‘destitute’, ~
unable
to
Thus
attitude and
from
outside;
that
gap gap
its
that
separates
positive Prohibitions ian suspension of tragedy? The ethical horrible
God
is
tragic,
beyond
what
is
to
-
or
act
also
whereas the
not
involve
in
the
its
terms
from
a
ethical
bymobilizing project itself,
ethical
of decision Does
Ethical
between
the
within,
from Cause qua real it in put politico-legal
the
of
(symbolic)
hero
domain
or
undermines
of the
gap
Cause
pure Commandments.
and
the
that it from
inherent
ethical
(values, etc.)
of
the
the
the
the
life.
corruption
it undermines
utmost
separates
of his of
power
rather,
dimension
symbolic the
to
narrative
the
is not
exploiting
the
the
recompose
terror
the
-
God
Kierkegaardbeyond
move
the
knight
of Faith
two
deaths,
since
dwells
he
in
(is ready
of his objetpetit a (in the case Kierkegaard’s point is not that Abraham is forced to choose between his duty to God and his duty to humanity (such a choice remains simply tragic), but that he has to choose between the two facets of duty to God, and thereby the two facets of God Himself: God as universal of (the system symbolic norms) and God as the of absolute that of the Universal. point singularity suspends the dimension For this precise reason, Derrida’s of reading (Kierkegaard’s reading of) Abraham’s in Donner la where Abraham’s he interprets mort,’ gesture sacrifice not as a but as all of us which hyperbolic exception something ethical perform again and again, every day, in our most common experito seems to fall short. ence, According to Derrida, every time we choose we individual, obey a duty to some neglect forget our duty to all others I if is wholly other) {since tout autre esi tout autre, every other person if I attend to my own the children of other men; children, I sacrifice help
to) sacrifice(s)
his
Abraham,
precious
most
In
son).
other
to
him,
words,
—
-
—
to
feed
What
and
gets
clothe lost
in
this other this
reduction
person, of
I abandon
Abraham’s
other
and
others,
predicament
to
a
so
kind
on.
of
322 Heideggerian constitutive all its possibilities is the deadlock
ham’s
does
he has
(God),
autre
for
God, he has
him
to love. The
Symbolic
what
this very
One
‘agent
Real,
see
the he
access
Demise
why
Lacan
of castration’:
disavowal
to
that,
on
beloved
earthly
of his
behalf
tout
Love
between
symbolicedifice
the the
—
only
to
way
of faith
and is to
prove your faith
the
betray
of
Symbolic Efficiency
calls this prohibiting God the ‘real father’ as is another name for the gap symbolic castration and jowissance, for the fact that the two can never can also see in what sense precise perversion the
fundamental
(symbolic) knowledge
jouissance to
—that
transform
is,
put it
to
in
that more
illusion enables
of the
him
contemporary
to
pervert
regulate
terms,
the
activity into an instrumental purposeorientated activity that can be projected and executed according to a welldefined of paternal plan. So when, today, one speaks of the decline authority, it is thzs father, the father of the uncompromising ‘No!’, who is in the absence of his prohibitory ‘No!’, new forms of effectively in retreat; the phantasmic harmony between and jouissance can the symbolic order this return thrive again to the substantial notion of Reason-as-Life at the of the ‘real father’ is what the so-called New expense prohibitory Age ‘holistic’ attitude is ultimately about or macrocosm itself as a (the Earth indicate is that living entity).'* What these deadlocks today, in a sense, ‘the big Other no but in what sense? One be very should longer exists’ to. In a way, it is specific about what this nonexistence actually amounts the same with the big Other as it is with God according to Lacan (it is not that God is dead God was the very beginning, only He dead from today, didn’t know it... .): it never existed in the first place, that is, the nonexistence of the big Other is ultimately equivalent to the fact that the big Other is the symbolicorder, of symbolic fictions the order which on a level operate different from that of direct material the only causality. (In this sense, subject for whom the big Other does exist is the psychotic, the one who
pervert's
is
autre,
fact
most
ultimate
the very religion grounded in his faith orders in faith itself; it is the split between inherent
of castration: a
possesses dream
the
his
of the
what
of faith
The
big Other ‘synchronized’. One
is that
in
tout
behalf
on
Abra-
predicament:
orders you to love.
the
enacts
his
the act
faith
now
can
between
be
is thus
split and
unconditional
pure,
the
sacrifice
to
that,
another
sacrifice
to
fact
use/actualize
never
can
of this
nature
lie in the
not
which
Dasein
of
guilt
SUBJECT
self-referential
(his son) but, rather,
companion
the
TICKLISH
THE
sexual
—
—
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
direct
attributes the
of
trust, In
material
Other’
big
is
of
credence, the
of
one
logic
of the
reality
mandate.
what
do
others
films, believe,
individual
of
‘nonexistence
belief,
say ‘at face value’. Groucho Marx,
mask-mandate
symbolic
This
the
short,
notion
of
of
symbolic in
caught
a
lie,
your eyes or my words?’ perfectly the functioning of the
you
expresses
the
the
to
Brothers’
Marx
in which
order,
direct
taking
In
words.)
to
correlative
‘Whom
angrily: apparently absurd
answers
bolic
efficacy
strictly
323
who
this
wears
involves
matters
the
mask
symthe
than
more
and/or
This
this
assumes
of fetishistic disavowal: ‘I functioning know well that are the I see them this is a [that very things way person but none the less I treat him with since he corrupt weakling], respect, wears the insignia of a judge, so that when he speaks, it is the Law itself which his words, not speaks through him.’ So, in a way, I actually believe that is to say, I believe in Another of pure my eyes Space (the domain more than the reality of its spokesmen. symbolic authority) which matters The cynical reduction to reality therefore falls short: when a judge speaks, structure
—
there
is in
a
Law)
than
in
oneself
Lacan
is
themselves believe
their
fiction
one
eyes
structures
The
same
gap
neighbours: secrete
we
excrement,
for
Frank
Anne
Although
we
nevertheless
assertion
human and
the
of the
judge point. This
the
—
non-dupes errent’:
and
symbolic deception/fiction who
What
most.
if
limits
one
is
paradox
who
those
of
Institution
the
do
let
not
continue
who
to
‘believes
cynic efficiency of the symbolic fiction, the way this our experience of reality. is at work in our most intimate relationship with our behave as if we do not know that they also smell bad, and so on a minimum of idealization, of fetishizing of
the
sublime
to
American
ones
err
know
that the belief
belief
in
the
of
a
Stalinist victims
same
who
the
that
ultimate
against Jews
and of
goodness in
World
of
appalling thing, we who heroically
an
Frank
War
from
Union?
Soviet
witch-hunt
support
Anne
the
in
disavowal
same
discernible
gesture
was
McCarthy
the
not
believed
Communism of the
as
does
idealizing
Communists
in Communism
is the
perpetrated
And
coexistence.
our
beauty
admire
for
mankind II:
the
who, what
Union.
Soviet in
in
diaries,
her
of
the
such
an
spite
makes in
the
truly goodness of mankind; it is the very gap between regime) sublime to will active the that factual evidence is, against it, overwhelming lies the most the actual state of things. Perhaps therein elementary of
belief
character
disavow
the
‘les
of
is the
basis
persisted in their The logic here expresses horrors
his
words
(the
person misses
—
is the
disavowal, account
in
the
words the
simply
one
with
at
are
misses
eyes’
his of
reality
sees,
aiming caught
be
his
only
direct
what
to
what
in
truth
more
way the
(in the
of the
essential
Soviet
324
THE
it and his
In
suggests to
the
gap naked
that
girl,
his
which
led
immediate
search, smaller,
to
form
article
the
accept
Real
behind
fetishism,
on
for
responsible
in
its
idiocy,
he
continues
to
his
believe
to
Paul-Laurent
Assoun'é
different
approaches
two
penis interprets it
expect
that
would
invisible
the
in the
a
as
the
(and accept ‘word’,
eyes believe
to
girl superficial lure,
a
for
their
this
so
gap
will
later;
the
to sees
a
that
fact
the
well,
as
account
to
it.
—
perception, hypotheses
almost
is
not
him
to
World
my eyes tell me and the symbolic fiction visible from the invisible. When a small boy
chooses
different);
are
fiction,
the
separates he
refusal
difference what
SUBJECT
for Another
of Freud’s
sexual
between
gap
girls
search
to
reading that
this
in
meta-physicalgesture: disavow
TICKLISH
symbolic
he disavows and
starts
(girls it
to
have
a
penis; penis grow of a boy’s disavowal propels him in the direction in Another World beneath the ‘spontaneous metaphysician’, a believer visible facts. The girl, on the contrary, “believes her eyes’, she accepts the fact that she does not set of options is opened ‘it’, so a different possess to her, from the notorious (a ‘penis envy’ and the search for substitutes the cynical attitude to of a fundamental distrust towards the child, ete.) symbolic order (what if male phallic power is a mere semblance?). In the history of philosophy, there are three great anecdotal examples of ‘believe the my words, not your eyes’: Diogenes the Cynic, who refuted Eleatic thesis that there is no movement a and walk, by simply taking the Master then, as Hegel emphasizes, beat his pupil who applauded off...)
in
—
cut
was
the
short,
—
that
is, believed
his
genes’ point was that eyes tell you’, does not
than
more
eyes such
a
count
direct
the
words
reference
in
to
philosophy argumentation, the
~
of
(Dio-
argumentation experience, to ‘what
the
task
of
your is to
philosophy
of truth or untruth of what we demonstrate, by means the medieval monks who discussed how see); story of scholastic many teeth a then at the shocked donkey has, and were proposal by a younger
member
of their
that
should
outside their simply go to astall that there are finally, story Hegel insisting only the Sun even after the discovery of the ninth. eight planets around Today, with the new digitalized technologies enabling perfectly faked Virtual documentary images, not to mention Reality, the injunction ‘Believe not the fascination of your my words (argumentation), eyes!’ is more That is to say, the logic of ‘Whom do you pertinent than ever. house
and
believe, the
less
your
group
eyes
or
of
my words?’
{I believe]’ symbolic fiction and that efficient symbolic fiction ...
they
the
count;
—
—
that
function
can
of
the
of
the
is, of ‘I know in
two
different
very
well, but
ways, In the
imaginary simulacrum. judge wearing his insignia,
none
that
of
the
case
of
the
‘I know
very
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
that
well
this
is
325
the less treat him weakling, but I none Other [I that] symbolic big speaks through him’: I disavow what my eyes tell me, and choose to believe the symbolic fiction. In the case of the simulacrum of virtual on the ‘I know very well reality, contrary, that what I see is an illusion generated by digital machinery, but I none the less agree to immerse myself in it, to behave as if I believe it’ here, I what my (symbolic) knowledge tells me, and choose disavow to believe my eyes only. In the do you history of modern philosophy, the logic of ‘Whom as
if
person
believe
a
corrupt
the
—
believe, alism’s this us
central is
tenet to
believe
sensations
to
explain
mortal act
to
perceive
believe
is:
why
on
the
When
fall
necessarily our
true
of the
Malebranche
his words, did God create
senses?
Fall
not
thus
their
eyes, universe
the
Male-
in
explanation things directly,
is moral:
of
from
the
moral
regain
our
tyranny
activity, the
lost
would
we
free of for
will our our
Goodness.
such
enigma
that if
were
we
rational
senses;
struggle Thus
that to
has we,
objects to
God
love
he that
a
way sensible
and
convince
to
central
illusion
account
and
endeavours
the
the
to
prey
His of
state
through instinct, not on gained through liberation would be no place for our consequences delineates
in
expression
not
mind.
our
to
humans,
directly
its strongest
only is there no sensible proof for occasiontenet (according to which God is the only causal agent), even directly contrary to all sensible experience, which leads that external senses, objects act directly on our causing
in
his readers
found
my words?’
your eyes or occasionalism:
branche’s
be able
invincibly, insight is, there undo
the
Malebranche
the contours of the philosophical position which explains epistemological limitation (the fact that man’s knowledge is limited to of things is out of his reach) phenomena, that the true state by reference to moral a grounds: only being marked by such an epistemological limitation can be a moral the as being, that is, can acquire Goodness result of free decision and inner This attitude struggle against temptation. Platonic (later adopted by Kant) runs directly against the standard of of our and Goodness is the (evil equation Knowledge consequence to be know the truth and continue ignorance, that is to say, one cannot we bad, since the more know, the closer we are to being good): a certain radical of our ignorance is the positive condition being moral. So what is symbolic efficiency? We all know the old, worn-out joke about the madman who thought he was a grain of corn; after finally being cured and institution and sent home, he returned immediately to the mental I was and his ‘I met a on the road, hen explained panic to the doctor: what’s ‘But afraid it would cat mc!’ To the doctor’s exclamation surprised
man’s
326
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
but a human problem now? You know you’re not a grain of corn a the madman be swallowed answered: can’t who ‘Yes, I by hen!’, being hen?’ a of but does the This know I’m no corn, grain story, longer level of factual at the nonsensical reality, where you are either a grain or if one feature that not, is absolutely sensible replaces ‘a grain’ with some not Do similar all the time determines my symbolicidentity. things happen levels of bureaucracy? Say a high-level office in our dealings with different and gives me complies with my demand a higher title; however, it takes to and reach some time for the decree be properly executed the lowerwhich takes care of the from this level administration benefits actually we all know the frustration title (higher salary, etc.) caused a lower by who casts a we confront bureaucrat him with and glance at the decree been retorts about this indifferently: ‘Sorry, I haven’t properly informed Isn’t this a bit like telling you: new measure yet, so I can’t help you...’. ‘Sorry, to us you’re still a grain of corn, not yet a human being’? In short, at which a measure there is a certain or a decree mysterious moment actually becomes operative, registered by the big Other of the symbolic the
...
—
institution.
The
character
mysterious
funny thing when
a
lady
from
that
the
his
number
bringing
her
to
administrative
her),
bad
broke she
so
moment
the
her
of
Juck
the
—
house
election
her
a
asked
the
the
tore
storm
candidate
for the
to
be
illustrated
got this
new
a
13, but 23) was due number,
started
off, neighbours kind
so
by
campaign approached by an elderly help. She was convinced standard
house
roof
be
in Slovenia,
misfortunes
reorganization,
in,
was
(not
moment
best
can
last
of the
street
some
this
happened during ruling political party local constituency, asking him
member
(burglars
of
that
to
as
to
afflict
began
her
to
annoy with the
arrange
for the number to be made municipal authorities changed. The candidate to the a didn’t she do it alone? didn’t lady: why simple suggestion Why she simply repaint or replace the plate with the street number herself by, for example, adding another number or letter or 23A instead of 231 (say, ‘Oh, I tried that a couple of weeks ago; I 23)? The old lady answered: 23A, but it myself replaced the old plate with a new one with the number
didn’t
work
done
in this
This,
then, of
concerned
the
my
bad
properly, by
duped mum
—
the
luck
is still
relevant
way is the Lacanian is what symbolic
‘reification’
individuals,
symbolic institution,
with
state
big Other, efficiency is of
account
on
to
know must
some
also
can’t
me; you institution.”
which fact
the
‘it
it, it has which
symbolic
about: it
in
cheat
The
is
order
know/‘register’
it not to
this
to
be
be
cannot
institution.
concerns
the
enough for be operative fact
if the
minius, -
all
‘it’,
perfor-
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
mative
of consequences can be embodied
course,
Himself.
that
That
of the
is
in
say: do old
to
unfortunate
direct
are
the not
we
to
ensue.
of
the
gaze encounter
with
lady
have
but
it
stating
if God
who
do
with
days
on
practise
not
ovulation?
no
read
cannot
‘it’, of
big Other, God same problem as
the
Catholics
only
As
this
Ultimately absolute
exactly
those
intercourse
contraception Whom do they cheat in this way? and know that they really want to with no in mind? The offspring
327
their
thoughts pleasure of it, Church has always been extremely sensitive this gap between about mere existence and its proper inscripchildren who died before were not tion/registration: being christened allowed to be buried on consecrated since were not properly ground, they into the community of believers. effiyet properly inscribed ‘Symbolic the point at which, when the Other of the symbolic ciency’ thus concerns institution
word
confronts or
dismissing The
notion
with
me
factual
testimony
of
blockbuster
to
be a
used
the
Postmans,
quite
consistent
Postino
is not
a
Postman. In
film
and
the
period subtitle
—
blockbuster,
This
gap
can,
a
do
of
believe, my hesitation,
you without
word
box the
then
of money;
big production, receipts
with
office.
regard
So, with
failure
Postman
with
as
a
it earned
also
course,
the
1970s
that
abound screen
in
In
the
late
to
says
1980s, however,
Devil!’
the
is,
—
as
it started
the
such
a
prospect film, of the
to
two
it is Costner, failed blockbuster, while Il
the ‘Fuck
Kevin
lot
a
generate subtitles,
the
of
that
functioned
term
box-office
the
on
lot
a
example naming,
of
more
money droll
rather as
a
rule,
Hollywood you
up
undertran-
films
your
than conse-
of
the
ass!’, the
something similarly moderdown came censorship barriers in Yugoslavia, while became more restrained Hollywood (perhaps slightly under the influence of Reagan-era Moral Majority pressures), the translato as if to take for the tors, revenge long years of repression, started on screen overtranslate the vulgar expressions a character say, when down uttered a simple ‘Go to hell!’, the subtitle read: ‘Screw your mother her throat!’, or something similar. the that To put it in philosophical terms: symbolic inscription means the for there us, In-itself, the way a thing actually is, is already very ate.
‘Go
big
The
character
read:
a
although
the
say, when in Slovene
as
and
at
designate
to
‘Whom
Other’s
earned
made
I! Postino
Yugoslavia of vulgar expressions
quences. slated
Italian
a
mere
of my
which
huge publicity campaign can later actually fail
course,
The
describe
to
of
the
eyes.'” provides an excellent positive being in the order in the big Other. First, the
the
redoubling of the order of of the symbolic inscription a direct description of a film of
the
for
sex
choice
the
choose
I
eyes?’,
your the
have
the
when
all
—
.
.
.
or
328
THE
Take
observers.
the
Teresa.
According charities, was basking of
SUBJECT
celebrities
cliché,
Diana, attention,
in media
the
the
of
dead
two
the
to
dissemination
TICKLISH
Princess
even
details
innermost
Diana she
when
and
Mother
engaged in her carefully manipulating mediatic of her private life (her secret was
biography); while Mother Teresa, a true saint, the media silently doing job outside limelight, in the slums of Calcutta.... hellish The problem with this opposition, however, is that we all knew about Mother Teresa silently doing her work outside the focus this, precisely, is what she was famous for; this image of her of the media created heads of state and had a by the media is why she was received by state funeral.... So the very opposition between Diana on a shopping Teresa spree with her new boyfriend and Mother taking care of mortally ill beggars in her Calcutta grey hospital is a mediatic opposition par patronage
Morton
charitable
her
was
—
excellence. the
Here is crucial
gap between reality and the the gap on account of which Let me the recent mention
—
contingent. the
USA
flouts
as
years ago, in detective
required
Absolute
it
like
was
Power
honesty to
With
every
social
the
hippie
era,
nevertheless
crucial
moment
accommodate
shift
in
the
the
change.
which
of
system
it
a
was
the
longer
no
woman.
a
gay,
like
is
...
is crucial:
matter
the
presidency simply ‘like this
was
a
the
matters,
still all film
been the
symbolic prohibition,
longer
no
has
system
...
look
could
ruthless
to
that
mean
the
should
one
businessmen
itself
1960s,
but
murderer,
a
not
President
of
shift,
at
the
a
of
couple
a
It
of
trend
had made itself, but not for itself. If one have 1950s, the ideological impact would
the
be
is
even
unthinkable.
cripple, prohibition doesn’t
the
does
be
President
1600): this
at
quite recently: in
could
the
portray
in
the
in
after
accommodated
but
this
to
been
sometime
he
who This
...
until have
who,
series
President
a
traumatic;
personal
would
noble
a
its charisma.
like
in force
was
this
trend
(Absolute Power, Murder
figure: apperception that
have
can
time’:
in
that like
TV
a
be
to
the
too
film
a
sudden
you retains
murderer
prohibition
a
This
brutal
a
order of its symbolic registration symbolic registration is ultimately
wear
system
restructures
conditions
this
jeans, This
profiteers. the
for
crucial be
symbolic change: and
bearded, of
moment
its
rules
by incorporating
so
change in
order
the
on,
is the to
originally the underlying story beneath disintegration of the Hayes Code of self-censorship in Hollywood within a brief in the 1960s, all of a sudden, span ‘everything became possible’, the taboos were to falling almost day by day (explicit references drugs, to the sexual to racial act, to homosexuality, tension, up to the sympathetic subversive
moment.
new
This,
then,
is the
true
-
portrayal of Communists); nothing really changed. which
Communism,
gradually
the
the
system, The
did
and
Monica
the
Other
radical
it;
lied
all know
we
Clinton
support
the
have
we
this
as
long
as
here
So
he
be
can
this
—
the big something lying when he
words,
other
In
assumed
believing be
to
in his
taken
efficiency lie
Clinton's
as
that) Monica
woman’,
the
of
long
as
is
itself
element
key
was
somehow
paradox
the
concealed of
paradox
‘that
with
affair
conviction,
inner
lied
ideological statement. perceived/registered keep up appearances
sexual
his
denied
he
sincerely, with it lie, very seriously taking seriously, since it designates
Lewinsky,
strengthen
to
Although (they
him.
less, they support
when
when
lie, of lying sincerely. Take Bill (or at least surmise) that they
the
of
order
the
Lewinsky: we
the
none
than
alleviations: order
in
constraints
the
intact:
flexible
more
big gaze.... there its purest. The majority of people believe was Clinton believe that the two of them; they
between Clinton
such
ease
to
Other’s
at
denied
afford
to
much
disintegrated.
is thus
it; nevertheless
from
tried
system
Other
big
Clinton
capitalism
survived
system’
‘the
less,
is
unable
was
Gorbachev
the
none
Here
329
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
quite of is
an
not
long as it is possible for him to the very fact that we all (of presidential ‘dignity’), further a as serves is ground for the know lying (or presume) that he the public’s awareness does not him identification with only public's that he is lying, and that there actually was something going on between it even actively boosts him and Monica Lewinsky, not hurt his popularity, is sustained charisma by the it. One should never forget that the Leader's that of common may seem ‘humanity’) very features (signs of weakness, and was brought to its to undermine it. This tension deftly manipulated
by
big Other,
the
as
—
by
extreme
Hitler:
his
in
he
large crowds,
regularly hysterical acting out, frustrated a spoilt child by these very not again, immediately gratified the Leader’s impassioned dignity contradict
speeches
in
of
front
in
of
engaging staged the act of ‘losing his cool’, helplessly shouting and waving his hands, like
a
—
the
fact
that
his demands
features
which
sustained
the
All these affects
the
was
not
still
seemed
with
attitude
grain
a
it?]’
—
in
Now,
corn.
shy and inhibited community in which
he
the
let
who,
man
The
short,
registered by of
bearing
adopts
in
the
on
madman
poor
very well that he believed
‘I know
of
know
him.
fundamental
paradoxes subject’s symbolic identity.
yet been a
to
identification
crowd's
have
adopted the the big Other had
are
I
a
am
that
the
screen
persona
met
but
man,
a
hen
[does
...
change in identity the big Other he
big Other, that for us imagine a rather common cyberspace, participates the
cyberspace
way who
of
a
case
in
a
of
virtual
promiscuous
a
330
THE
his stance,
woman;
shy, modest promiscuous
TICKLISH
is that
of course,
SUBJECT of ‘I know
shouldn’t
very well
I
I
am
in
really just posing as
a
a why briefly indulge I in could never do real life?’ woman, doing things are however, things really so simple and straightforward? What if this real-life in his man’s (the Self he adopts, the way he behaves persona is a kind of secondary ‘defence-formation’, an actual social interaction) as in order to he a mask or at his true adopts ‘repress’ bay identity keep of his phantasmic identity, which lies in being ‘inner Self’, the hard core he can a and for which find an outlet only in his promiscuous woman, or in virtual sexual private daydreaming anonymous community games? In Seminar mentions the old Chinese XI, Lacan paradox of Tchuang-Tze, after who awakens dreaming that he is a butterfly, and then asks himself: ‘How do I know I am not a butterfly who is now dreaming that he is a the same man?’ Does not hold for our is shy virtual community member: he not in fact a promiscuous woman dreaming that she is an inhibited
guy,
so
-
man?
The that
temptation
we
do
not
to
possess or less
be avoided any
here
ultimate
is the
fixed
easy
‘postmodern’
conclusion
socio-symbolic identity, but inconsistent
multitude
are
of
Selves, freely, among a partial aspect of my personality, without any unifying agent guaranteeing the ultimate consistency of this ‘pandemonium’. The Lacanian hypothesis of the big Other involves the claim that all these different are not partial identifications equivalent in their symbolic status: there is one level at which symbolic efficiency sets in, a level which that of ‘reality’ as determines my socio-symbolic position. This level is not Lacan’s opposed to the play of my imagination point is not that, behind the multiplicity of phantasmic identities, of some there is a hard core ‘real are with a we but a fiction Self’; which, for dealing symbolic fiction, that have nature, nothing to do with its inherent contingent reasons is the sociosocially operative, structures possesses performative power of the same symbolic reality in which I participate. The status person, can inclusive of his/her ‘real’ in an features, very entirely different appear the modality of his/her light the moment relationship to the big Other
drifting, each
more
of them
an
displaying
—
—
changes. So the
problem today is not that subjects are more dispersed than they in the alleged good old days of the self-identical Ego; the fact that ‘the big Other no longer exists’ implies, rather, that the symbolic fiction which confers a on one level of my identity, performative status which will of acts determining my display ‘symbolic efficiency’, is no the longer fully operative. Perhaps supreme example of this shift is pro-
were
before,
vided
the
by
331
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
in
trends
the belief Christianity. Christianity proper is the highest religious expression of the power as of symbolic fiction the medium of universality: the death of the ‘real’ is ‘sublated’ Christ in the Holy Spirit, that is, in the spiritual community This authentic of believers. kernel of Christianity, first articulated by St is under attack the Paul, in the guise of the New Age today: danger comes Gnostic/dualist the Resurrection to a meta(mis)reading, which reduces of the ‘inner’ soul. What is lost phor spiritual growth of the individual tenet of Christianity, already emphasized by thereby is the very central Hegel: the break with the Old Testament logic of Sin and Punishment, that is, the belief in the miracle of Grace which retroactively ‘undoes’ our sins. This is the news’ of the New the miracle Testament: of past ‘good ex the creatio life ‘from nthilo, of a New Beginning, of starting a new is feasible nothing’, is possible. (Creatio ex nihilo, of course, only within a of a new fiction which symbolic universe, as the establishment symbolic erases the past one.) And the crucial point is that this New Beginning is its impetus must come from outside; possible only through Divine Grace in Christ’s
recent
Resurrection
—
—
—
the
it is
not
and
elevate
result
of man’s
soul
his/her
inner
effort
to
overcome
his/her
limitations
above
in this precise interests; egotistic material the Christian New is sense, properly absolutely incompatible Beginning with the pagan Gnostic problematic of the ‘purification of the soul’, So what is actually at stake in recent New Age pop-Gnostic endeavours to reassert a kind of ‘Christ’s secret the beneath official Pauline teaching’ dogma is the effort to undo the ‘Event-Christ’, reducing it to a continuation of the preceding Gnostic lineage. Another important aspect of this Gnostic (mis)reading of Christianity is the growing obsession of popular pseudo-science with the mystery of Christ’s (from his alleged marriage with alleged tomb and/or progeny like The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail or The bestsellers Mary Magdalene) Tomb of God, which focus on the region around Rennes-le-Chateau in the south of France, into a narrative the coherent Grail myth, weaving large : these endeavour to supnarratives Cathars, Templars, Freemasons plant the diminishing power of the symbolicfiction of the Holy Spirit (the community of believers) with the bodily Real of Christ and/or his descendants. And again, the fact that Christ left his body or bodily descendants —
...
behind tive
message
allegedly from
the
serves
of undermining purpose Christ’s body was not
of Resurrection: of
Jesus
lies
obedience
in
was
lost
with
promoting to
the
written
the
‘the
of
Christian—Pauline
narra-
‘the
actually resurrected;
Resurrection’.'®
path
word’:!®
the
This
self-determination,
redemption
results
distinct
as
from
true
message’
‘true
the
soul’s
332
THE
inner
journey,
soul
from
not
is
‘Resurrection’ its
journey
of/in
the
SUBJECT
of
act
an
be
to
TICKLISH
the
as
that
outside; renewal/rebirth from
pardon coming
understood
inner
is, the
of
of this self-purification. Although the advocates their as the promote unearthing of the discovery and subversive heretic secret as the Church Institution, long repressed by one could counter this claim with the question: what if this very unearthing of the ‘Secret’ is in the service of ‘undoing’, of getting rid of the truly subversive core of Christian traumatic, teaching, the skandalon of Resurrection and the retroactive of that is, the unique character sins forgiveness on
‘return
of
Real’
—
of the
Event
These
of Resurrection?
reversals
attained
that
signal
much
a
radical
the
today,
Other’s
big
dimension:
what
has
nonexistence
undermined
is
increasingly symbolic trust which persists against all sceptical data. Perhaps the most eye-catching facet of this new status of the nonexistence of the big Other is the to decide destined sprouting of ‘committees’ upon the so-called ethical dilemmas which technological develcrop up when not opments ever-increasingly affect our life-world:° only cyberspace but also domains as diverse as the one medicine on and biogenetics hand, and the rules of sexual conduct and the protection of human rights on is
the
precisely
the
more
us other, confront since conduct,
of reference In
all
that these
sooner
say,
dispelled
a
physics;
tum
whether of
(if the
is, for
radical
diehard
orthodox
sincerely did not mean The point, of course, offender the
it is the are
order
and
of
regulate
That
is the
expressions:
it
experienced
both the
it
as
this
Other
grey
a
be
irreducible
zone
whose
tends
such
a
to
believe
harassment,
then
tends
is
that
—
mist
then
the
to
be
cannot
should
it
was...), (if he be acquitted . .). .
in
‘decides’
open;
a
victim
accused
and
is structural
network
ultimately
complaining the
one
or
statement,
harassment
he
undecidability
is, by definition,
dubious
believe
to
(the symbolic which
proper
harassment
of sexual
case
with
harassment,
Other
embedded)
big
to
liberal
is that
big
as
of
we rule. Here single universal the ‘uncertainty principle’ of quanstructural difficulty in determining
some
priori
a
to
a
rules
basic
big Other, any symbolic point unproblematic moral anchor.
seems
in
Confronted
speech.
correct’
able, since
differend ourselves
example, a was actually
comment
of
and
safe
a
the
invent
to
form
any as
the find
we
there
victim a
serve
need
of application of counterpoint
kind
hate
‘politically while
the
some
racist
would
later
by
encounter
lack
we
domains,
or
the
with
ethical
which on
nobody
unavoidvictim
meaning, can
and and
dominate
its effects.
problem when
one
with
replacing aggressive with ‘politically correct’ ‘short-sighted’ with ‘visually challenged’,
replaces
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
be
never
can
one
effects
this
that
sure
ing inasmuch cally correct’ language we
it is masked
as
strategy
actually speak involve
that
effects
especially
a
committee
rules
of
The
the
the
conscious So in
formulate,
new generate humiliat-
more
of this
resistance of
regulation
relations.
power
not
the
mistake
underestimates
it to
will all
offensiveness,
benevolence,
as
that
is
itself
replacement
ironic
patronizing and/or
of
333
resolye
to
the
‘politiof
the
its
effects, deadlock,
ultimately arbitrary way, same with medicine and precise does an and even what desirable point acceptable genetic biogenetics (at turn into unacceptable manipulation?), in the experiment or intervention human what does the of universal (at point rights protection application into an of the victim’s values?), in rights turn imposition of Western mores sexual (what is the proper, non-patriarchal procedure of seducthe obvious case of cyberspace (what is the status tion?), not to mention in a virtual of sexual harassment community? How does one distinguish convenes
one
the
here
in
caught legitimate
decisions
their
the
in
knowledge (which, yet possess
and
mortally only meaningful solution); ethical
non-scientific
scientific
inherent
to
abortion,
the in
most
tells
us
they try
advanced that
a
foetus
the
to
to
scientific does
pain; which, beyond which euthanasia hand, they have to evoke direct and posit a limitation
other
order
the
committees
hand,
one
in
threshold
on
criterion
of these
work the
on
experience
the
defines
ill person,
of
case
self-awareness
The
cycle:
reference
by
an
the
is
‘deeds’?).
vicious
symptomal
a
It
and
words’
‘mere
between
is
to
conduct....
not
of
case
a
is the some
to
drive.
to this need to invent confuse specific rules phronesis that is, with the insight, formulated norms to concrete by Aristotle, into how direct application of universal the is not situations possible there is always a need to take into account this norm the In to universal situation. the ‘twist’ by specific given at our we do have standard case, disposal some universally accepted of our choices ‘sacred’ Text which (say, the Bible in provides the horizon so the of that the Christian tradition), problem ‘interpretation’ is to
The
with
here
key point
the
is not
need
standard
of
—
—
the
reactualize this
Text
Text
still
tradition
of
us’
‘speaks which point of reference and of radically open (re)invention
presupposed ‘rules
to
be
to
without norms.
—
is
Or
followed’,
gically adapting myself
-
I
today, missing, so unending
situation,
new
we
are
a
presuppose situation by
thrown
of
a
some —
when
reflected
imposing
how
discover
into
a
(re)negotiation
symbolic
semblance
to
universally accepted
this
precisely that
put it in Hegelese
to
already to
each it is
the
even
in
certain
process and
preceding set I speak about attitude rules
of
the
of strateon
myself
334
THE
what
TICKLISH
is what Hegel adopting such an attitude of my as true Substance the ‘objective Spirit’ is which as there the on individuals which being always-already ground thrive, although it is kept alive only through the incessant activity of those individuals. So when the proponents of virtual community enthusiastically the challenge that cyberspace poses describe to our capacity for ethical for testing new rules of participation in all aspects of virtual invention, community life, we should always bear in mind that these (re)invented rules to supplant the lack of a fundamental Law/Prohibition: they endeavour for narcissistic provide the viable frame of interaction post-Oedipal subis supplanted jects. It is as if the lack of the big Other by ‘ethical as committees’ so ‘small on the substitute to which many big Others’ his and which he to receive from subject transposes responsibility expects
(and others)
called
a
—
social
formula
in
Substance, the
that
It is crucial
authority
gets lost
SUBJECT
will resolve to
and
his
distinguish
the
deadlock.
between
standard
this
decline that
of the
Oedipal gap its symbolic place/function to be an impostor, unable
of the father from person rea] father out always turns
symbolic paternal
forever
his
separates —
the
fact
actually to the problem
the
real
that
the
live
up
As is well known, there lies of the symbolic mandate. is the ‘humiliated that father’, hysteric: the central figure of his universe with the signs of the real father’s weakness and failure, is, he is obsessed and criticizes him incessantly for not living up to his symbolic mandate beneath the hysteric’s rebellion and challenge to paternal authority there is thus a hidden call for a renewed paternal authority, for a father who would a be ‘true father’ and really adequately embody his symbolic mandate. of the father Today, however, it is the very symbolic function which is increasingly undermined that is, which is losing its performative a father is no efficiency; for that reason, longer perceived as one’s Ego of symbolic authority, Ideal, the (more or less failed, inadequate) bearer but as one’s ideal ego, imaginary competitor with the result that subjects never that we are with in their individuals really ‘grow up’, dealing today to
—
—
—
thirties
and
‘immature’
who
forties
adolescents
competing
The The
fundamental
committees’
society’.”” The
Risk
deadlock is
the
remain,
focus
paradigmatic
in
Society embodied of
the
of
terms
with
their
and
Its
in the
their
psychic
economy,
fathers.”!
Enemies existence
of different
‘ethical
recently popular theory of the examples of risks to which this theory
‘risk refers
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
global warming, the danger of using nuclear
hole
are
in
the
335
mad
layer,
ozone
the
the
disease,
cow
the plants energy, of to consequences application genetics agriculture, All these cases and so on. to as ‘low exemplify what are usually referred high consequence’ risks: no one knows how great the risks probability the probability of the global catastrophe is small are; however, if the it will be really terminal. us that catastrophe does occur, Biologists warn the increased use of chemicals in our food and drugs can make the not because human race extinct of a direct ecological catastrophe, but this outcome seems simply by rendering us infertile improbable, yet it as
power the
unforeseen
of
source
of
—
—
—
be
would are
catastrophic.
so-called
technological ural
The
risks’:
‘manufactured and
scientific
radically responsibility by letting nature balance. these
It is also
threats
are,
absurd for
to
the
that
they
it
most
to
part,
diagnostic tools of science. of ecological All today’s notions layer to fertility,
how
fertilizers
and
chemical
result
is
no
find a
New
way
Age
invisible,
threat, food scientific
economic,
which
possible to
disrupt
re-establish
from
the
hole are
the
the
against science,
turn
nat-
elude
to
lost since
the
without
undetectable,
additives
threats
new
human
nature,
longer a
these
from
into
itself
resort
is that
feature
interventions
so
processes
crucial
next
the
in
threatening of
the
ozone our
strictly dependent insight (usually Although the effects of the ‘hole in the ozone layer’ are their causal to this ‘hole’ is a reference observable, explanation through there the scientific is no observable ‘hole’ there in hypothesis: directly up sky. These risks are thus generated by a kind of self-reflexive loop, that is, risks (like a gigantic comet they are not external falling on Earth) but the outcome of individuals’ endeavunforeseen technological and scientific lives our to control their and increase their productivity. Perhaps the new reversal of which a example of the dialectical by means supreme scientific instead of over our domination insight, simply magnifying new risks and uncertainties is provided by the prospect nature, generates or will not two, that, in a decade only be able to identify an genetics but even individual’s inheritance, complete genetic manipulate individual to the effect desired results and genes technologically changes (to eradicate a and so on). Far from cancer, resulting in total tendency towards self-objectivization predictability and certainty, however, this very radical I will be able in which, in the guise of the genetic formula, (the situation radical more even to what I ‘objectively am’) will confront generate of such knowledge effects uncertainties about what the actual psychosocial of freedom of the notions and its applications will be. (What will become advanced
on
are
kind).
most
336
TICKLISH
THE
and
will be the
What
responsibility? genes?) This conjunction
SUBJECT unforeseen
of
consequences
meddling
with
standard
of low
probability
Aristotelian
and
high both
of
makes
consequence
the
virtually impossavoiding strategy ible: it is as if it is impossible today to assume rational a moderate position between scaremongering (ecologists who depict an impending universal catastrophe) and covering up (downplaying the dangers). The downplaying strategy can always emphasize the fact that scaremongering at best takes as certain conclusions which are not fully grounded in scientific is fully justified observations; while the scaremongering strategy, of course, in retorting that once full it is possible to predict the catastrophe with is it late. The that will too be, by definition, certainty, problem already there is no or other objective scientific way to acquire certainty about existence and extent: it is not of exploitative corporations simply a matter or the government agencies downplaying dangers there is in fact no way to establish and speculators the extent of the risk with certainty; scientists themselves we are are unable final bombarded to the answer; provide if it views. What which reverse daily by new discoveries previous common turns out that fat really prevents cancer? What if global warming is actually the result of a natural even more carbon pump cycle, and we should dioxide into the atmosphere? extremes
—
There
is
a
mongering don’t
ing,
priori
and
no
For
example, the
extremes,
‘excess’
of
let’s
“Don’t
of
procrastination
results’. yet have conclusive the logic of ‘let us avoid both
the
between
measure
proper indecisive
the
of
apropos careless
scare-
panic,
global
further
we
warm-
emission
of quick shutting-down of thousands and factories, proceed gradually’ is clearly meaningless.?* Again, this of ‘complexity’, but of reflexivity: impenetrability is not simply a matter the new and impenetrability (the radical uncertainty as to the opaqueness of
dioxide
carbon
ultimate
puppets
well
as
consequences the hands
in
of of
Necessity, the Market); is in charge’, that there the strings opaqueness
the
as
actions)
our
is
the
due
not
transcendent
some
the
to
global it is due
the
that
fact
Power
(Fate, fact
we
are
Historical
that
‘nobody pulling in the very fact that is grounded today’s society is thoroughly ‘reflexive’, or Tradition that there is no Nature providing a firm foundation on which one can impetuses rely, that even our innermost and more {sexual orientation, etc.) are more experienced as something to be chosen. how to proceed in sexual How to feed and educate a child, on
is
no
contrary,
such
no
power,
to
‘Other
of
the
Other’
—
how seduction, these spheres
and are
what
to
increasingly
eat,
how
‘colonized’
to
relax
and
amuse
by reflexivity,
oneself that
—
all
is, experi-
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
enced
something to be learned reflexivity in today’s art
as
is
limited
not
what
as
art?
Of course, itself
a
his
the
have
chain
-
forced I
am
free
it
his
already society, however,
standard
ultimate
curator?
to
His
role
is
to
what
lies
the
in
S,): there
level
but
we
gap the
and
reasons
of
an
What
about
choose
which
less
on
condition
have
‘colours’
who
only in
radical:
speaks, that
to
these
believer
more
Lacan
one
knowl-
encounter
we
much
something
which no
of decision
comprehensible
are ...
is
act
of the
think
just
between act
the
always retroactively belief
are
artist
positive
none
when
time:
—
we
ultimate
the
short,
exhibition
an —
of selection.
the
on
believe.
choice
art
S, and
all the
decision
for
reasons
decided
in which
of
global radically ‘indecidable’,; outcome
this
in
is;
art
between
risk
of the
situation
the
the
not
visit
we
of
works
activity society
risk the
there gap was chain of reasons,
a
When
choice.
of what
curator, of
they support that
aware
opposite
is
in
that
who
the
Is upon. role of the
—
this
contemporary of
the
knows’
decide.
those
notion
but
situation
so
dead
directly observing
curator’s deadlock
the
is well
crucial
is the curator’s
decision, between dilemma (in Lacanese:
‘really
reasons
say:
and
edge,
grounds
see
not
producer
the
resolves
is to
and we
thus
is the
knowledge who
what
ultimate
The
decided
the
through his selection, he (re)defines today’s art exhibitions display objects approach, have nothing to do with art, so animals why is this to be perceived
~
traditional
excrement
are
the
not
That
the
for
Because
today, observing
selection
mere
today.
least
at
we
is
to
human
to
up
is
art
which,
and
of
example
337
that
I make
to
the the
is, the
to do is to accomplish the the only thing left for me pretending to accomplish freely what is in any case risk society, we are dealing with imposed on me.* In the contemporary is and different: the ‘free’ choice is, for this very really something entirely conas we find ourselves even more reason, frustrating experienced that will fundato decide matters the of about in having stantly position in knowledge. mentally affect our lives, but without a proper foundation with regard is Beck calls the ‘second What Ulrich thus, Enlightenment’ ‘first exact of the aim of the the reversal to this crucial Enlightenpoint, would lose a decisions to bring about ment’: society in which fundamental character and become their ‘irrational’ fully grounded in good reasons (in a correct insight into the state of things): the ‘second Enlightenment’ which decisions of making crucial imposes on each of us the burden in without foundation Knowledge very survival any proper may affect our and so on, all the expert committees, government panels and ethical and are to conceal this radical there uncertainty. Again, far openness as this from being experienced compulsion to decide freely is liberating,
right choice, empty
gesture
so
that
of
-
—
338
TICKLISH
THE
experienced reversal
of
SUBJECT obscene
anxiety-provoking predestination: I am held
forced
as
an
make
gamble,
accountable
without
kind
a
the
of
ironic
of
which
decisions
for
I
The
situation.
proper knowledge enjoyed by the subject of the ‘risk society’ is not the of someone who can freedom freely choose his destiny, but the anxietyof freedom someone who is constantly compelled to make provoking decisions without aware of their There is no guaranbeing consequences. tee that the democratic of crucial the active decisions, politicization involvement of thousands of concerned will necessarily individuals, of decisions, and thus effectively lessen improve the quality and accuracy the risks is tempted to evoke the answer here one of a devout Catholic to the atheist liberal criticism that they, Catholics, are so stupid as to believe in the infallibility of the Pope: “We Catholics at least believe in the of one and one does not infallibility only person; democracy rely on a much more that notion the of the risky majority people, millions of them,
was
to
of decision
freedom
—
infallible?’
are
The of
thus
subject
not
haunted
by
endanger when
finds
the
himself what
knowing
even
that
prospect
and
me
in
I have
I
everyone it is already too late.
he
is
I will
learn
of of:
guilty
being guilty
I
truth
the
forever
am
decisions
made
already
love, but
Here
situation
Kafkaesque
a
(if anything)
will
which
only
-
if
ever
recall the figure of Forrest Gump, (the perfect ‘vanishing mediator’, very opposite of the Master who symbolically registers an event one by nominating it, by inscribing it into the big Other): Gump is presented as the innocent bystander who, what he in a sets motion shift of does, by simply doing unknowingly historic to play football, and inadverproportions. When he visits Berlin the wall, he thereby starts the process which tently throws the ball across in brings down the wall; when he visits Washington and is given a room the Watergate complex, he notices some strange things going on in the rooms across the yard in the middle of the night, calls the guard, and sets
—
let
that
in
the
motion
the
ultimate
notion moves
In
of
in
metaphor society’ aim, ultimate
precise
does
a
at
situation
are
of
which
the
comes
the
permanent
world
after around
foundation
we
is this
—
proponents are
forced
and
us,
and
the
‘risk
society’ involve point would be the Giddens that today we —
and we
the
make
to
obvious
Nature
not
of
grasp?
our
notion
downfall the
which which
in
beyond
the
Nixon’s
in
situation
big Other? The most again and again by Beck
with
engagement as
effects
way
the
of the
emphasized a society
Nature
culminated
‘risk
whose what
which
events
for
nonexistence ~
us
the
can
resource
Tradition: no
in
our
the
fact live
active
longer rely either on of our activity (there
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
339
is
always the danger that our activity will disrupt and disturb the stable as the substantial form of cycle of natural reproduction), or on Tradition customs that predetermine our the break lives. However, is more radical. of all traditional links is the standard theme of Although the dissolution nineteenth-century capitalist modernization, repeatedly described by Marx (the ‘all that is solid melts into air’ theme), the whole point of Marx’s dissolution of all traditional forms, analysis is that this unheard-of far from in individuals about a which run their lives bringing society collectively and freely, engenders its own form of anonymous Destiny in the guise of market relations. On the one does involve hand, the market a fundamental dimension of risk: it is an impenetrable mechanism which in a wholly unpredictable the effort of an honest worker can, way, ruin and make a sleazy speculator rich nobody knows what the final outcome of speculation will be. However, although our acts can have unforeseen still persists that and unintended the notion consequences, they are coof the ordinated the hand infamous ‘invisible the basic market’, by of each of free-market us his/her pursues premiss ideology: particular —
and
interests, In
this
social The
Other, the
under
ultimate the
of the
within
establishment
of Fate of
the
idea,
social -
confines
be
can
—
the
‘first
interaction
acts,
of
global survives
as
the
the
welfarc. as
the
mysterious
balance.
is that
that
is
Other
big our
this
figure
is, the
superseded,
‘collective
of the
and
intentions
the
of course,
Substance
humanity’s
clash
participate by
re-establishes
Marxist
control
this
conflicting
of Reason’,
all
we
somehow
form
modern
and
‘cunning
alienated
of
result acts
in which
that agency fundamental
the
remained the
of
notion
Substance
spectral
as
the
of individual
multiplicity
of the
anonymous and social life
intellect’.
modernization’,
In
big
market
brought
this
way, Marx which at aimed
society regulated by the ‘collective its perverted realization this project found in actually intellect’; no wonder the which extreme existing Socialism, despite uncertainty of an individual’s fate, at least in the times of paranoiac political purges was perhaps the most radical the that to attempt suspend uncertainty pertains to Real Socialism’s (modest) appeal is best exemcapitalist modernization. Milosevic’s Socialist plified by the election slogan of Slobodan Party in the first ‘free’ is no elections in ‘With there Serbia: us, uncertainty!’ although life was poor and drab, there was no need to worry about the was existence future; everyone’s modest guaranteed; the Party took care of everything that were made is, all decisions Despite their by Them. the the less for none half-consciously trusted contempt regime, people on there was relied believed that ‘Them’, ‘Them’, somebody holding all of
a self-transparent ~
-
—-
—
340
and
reins
the
Other.
the
the
country
greyness broad
of streets
I know
of everything. There was care actually a perverse kind of responsibility on possibility of shifting the burden In her report on a voyage through post-Communist Poland, desolate of her youth, Eva Hoffman relates how the infamous with depressing concrete the socialist environs, buildings on without posters or neon lights, looked different, even more
this
in 1990:
oppressive,
with
SUBJECT
taking
in
of liberation to
TICKLISH
THE
this
which
I
grayness; one
used
even
and
up here,
grew
to
love
it,
which
as
sank
of the
part
the
into
and
mood
bones
with
a
weather
comforting
I so much more desolate than before? melancholy. Why, then, does it seem I’m looking at it with different without the protective filters of antennae, for the system, which even was the justification, the explanation for so much: was not the gray. Indeed, the drabness Their a matter partly doing, only of now this neighbourhood what economics but of deliberate puritanism just is it is, bareness stripped of significance.”
guess
.
..
in we have is the perversely liberating of alienation here aspect (the ordinary actually existing Socialism: reality was not really ‘ours’ people’s), it belonged to Them (the Party nomenklatura); its greyness bore witness to Their oppressive rule and, paradoxically, this made it much easier to endure life; jokes could be told about everyday troubles, about the lack of ordinary objects like soap and toilet although we paper the material of these at suffered the troubles, consequences jokes were from an Their we told them liberated Now, expense, exempt, position. with Them we are out of power, suddenly and violently compelled to it is no assume this What drab longer Theirs, it is ours.... greyness: is no happens today, with the ‘postmodern’ risk society, is that there
What
—
‘Invisible
Hand’
properly kept, the Not
Last
only
whose
the
establishes
balance; no
do
we
not
no
Other
know
mechanism
will
acts
our
global properly ‘postmodern’ spoke of the ‘strategies even
Other
no
fictional
Judgement,
blind
mechanism,
what
Place
be our
acts
without
will
located in
the
from
which,
the
fact
of
the
big
subject’
that
Power
accounts
Other
of
perspective
amount —
re-
are
accounted
and
interactions
our
somehow
be,
may which
in
properly
regulating nonexistence
in
it
as
Scene
to,
this means.
in its
for.
there
is what
is
the
Foucault
reproduction the exact here we have almost opposite: subjects caught in the of their dominatacts, but no global strategy unpredictable consequences who are still caught in the ing and regulating their interplay. Individuals traditional modernist paradigm are desperately looking for another which one could into the agency legitimately elevate position of the -
uses
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
would somehow our Know, and which guarantee the scientific committees, community itself, government the secret invisible of Master up to the paranoiac big Other,
Subject Supposed authority, conspiracy
theories.
So what
endorse
the
is wrong with nonexistence
simultaneously
too
the
of the
modernization’
‘second
agency,
social
relating
to
our
fundamental
forces
organization, sexual identity, of
status
it
is
my
first-wave
modernization
of these
cation
theorists
of
two
the
other
on
as
a
to
‘common
intellect’),
of
and
rational of
a
of contemporary of these risks.
roots
Marxism,
outdated
idea can
ways nevertheless
feature
psychoanalysis
the
human
society logic on the very hand, in conceiving of
socioeconomic
light;
of
intimate
risk
universal
society as (the fight of the
notions
most
societal
new
risk
the
Unconscious the
up
theory emerging
concrete
that
contention
by
impenetrable controlled by
the
old the
to
of the
uncertainty
dismissed
on,
subjectivity,
life, this theory obfuscates And
the
of the
impact
manufactured
so
transform
to
us
and
the
underestimates and
theory of the risk society? Does it not fully big Other, and draw all ethico-political this? The problem is that, paradoxically, this theory is specific and too general: with all its emphasis on how
from
consequences
risk
to
ethical
choice:
the
341
a
as
of
expressions
rule the
bring the self-transparent society to
agency
contribute
to
a
critical
clarifi-
points.
The
Unbehagen
Risk
Society
the disintegration of theory which bemoans stability and wisdom, locating in them the of modern our cause neuroses and compelling us to discover roots in old wisdom archaic or profound selfknowledge (the Jungian version), nor of reflexive another version modern just knowledge teaching us how to and the of our master innermost secrets what penetrate psychic life focuses its in the unexon, consists, rather, psychoanalysis proper object, of the disintegration of traditional structures that pected consequences life. Why does of paternal authority and the decline regulated libidinal fixed social and gender roles generate new instead of opening anxieties, New World of individuals ‘care of the up a Brave engaged in the creative Self’ and enjoying the perpetual process of shifting and reshaping their fluid What multiple identities? psychoanalysis can do is to focus on the Unbehagen in the risk society: on the new anxieties generated by the risk result of the tension the which cannot be as dismissed or society, simply
Psychoanalysis the
old
modes
is
of
neither
in the
a
traditional
-
342
THE
between
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
the
subjects’ sticking to the old notions of personal responsifixed gender roles and the family structure) and situation of fluid, shifting identities the new and choices. What the advent of the ‘risk society’ affects is not or simply Tradition other reliable some symbolic frame of reference, but the symbolic Institution itself in the much more fundamental sense of the functioning of the symbolic order: with the advent of the risk society, the performative dimension of symbolic trust and commitment is potentially undermined. The problem with theorists of the risk society is thus that they underestimate the radical character of this change: with all their insistence on how, in today’s risk society, reflexivity is universalized, so that Nature and Tradition no in talk all their the about ‘second exist, longer Enlightenment’ of the first wave of modermidoing away with the naive certainties the subject’s fundamental mode of subjectivity: zation, they leave intact their the modern and reflect subject remains subject, able to reason gap
and
bility
freely,
identity (like
decide
to
the
is
error
and
reason
postmodern they
and
and
on,
etc.)
to
pessimists
who
come
the
the
in
risk
the
of
subject
world
new
of the
that,
so
of norms,
set
feminists
who
with
on.
Here,
their
old
In
what
short,
if it is
not
conclusion
catastrophic what
standards;
the
the away with the basic form of
expect
intact.
themselves
society
so
do
Oedipus complex (the subject
survive to
and to
want
nevertheless the
generated by
it is theorists
fact
his/her
of
decide,
measure
reflexive
that
as
Oedipus complex, subjectivity that was to
select
and
on
same
if,
the
on
free
the
because
contrary,
who
unproblematically rely on conditions of the disintegration of symbolic Trust, the the survives somehow, Enlightenment inexplicably,
intact?
This
disintegration of the big Other is the direct result of universalized like ‘trust’ all rely on a minimum of non-reflected reflexivity: notions of the Institution acceptance symbolic ultimately, trust always involves a I simply take leap of faith: when I trust somebody, I trust him because —
him
his
at
‘I trust
say
you,’
word, you
involves for
reasons
the
and
disintegration revival
plea of
group is
for
not
because same
against, of
that
rational I have
paradox
Trust
desperate appeal to responsibility, of the burden
point
unable
sex
to
be
made
to
to
cope
against
of
with this
assume
not
trust
him.
reflection,
to
rise
of
a
US
To trust
up the of this
Christian
‘the
Promise-Keepers’: their again their symbolic mandate against the weak and hysterical of
stresses
only
to
me
‘Having weighed father.’ Symptomatic
recent
itself
decision, the
is
my
is the
to
men
upon
obey
tell rational
statement
calls
quite adequately
a
female
the
as
I decided
fundamental
which
reasons
decided,
that
contemporary we
are
dealing
life. with
The the
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
conservative
terical that
but
patriarchal reinscription
women
the
is
kept
versus
whose
men
way in which
this
very
sexual
difference (weak hystheir Bond), again become explicit emphasis on promises to be
Word
already part of a hysterical in this public ritualized
reasserted
of the
343
should
economy as
way,
—
trust
a
it were,
which
has
undermines
be
to
its
own
credentials. The
and
parents
slavery
in
denied with sible
into
This
family.
our
full
regard for
of risk
of global society theory to take all the consequences is clearly discernible in its treatment of the theory is right to emphasize how the relationship between children in the traditional family was the last bastion of legal Western societies: a of society minors were large stratum and and in a retained slave status responsibility autonomy,
inability
reflexivization
—
to
their
treated
account
their
their (who controlled modernization,
parents With
acts).
lives
reflexive
and
—
were
children
responthemselves
of choice (in divorce responsible subjects with freedom to influence on the decision which of the they are allowed two parents they will live with; they can start a court procedure against their parents if they feel that their human rights have been violated; etc.) in short, but notion, parenthood is no longer a natural-substantial in a way politicized; it turns becomes into another domain of reflexive choice. is not the obverse of this reflexivization of family However, in which the family loses its character of immediate-substantial relations, members not are autonomous entity whose subjects, the progressive which were Yfamilialization’ of public professional life itself? Institutions supas an to the as antidote posed to function family start to function surrogate to families, allowing us somehow prolong our family dependence and even universities immaturity: schools increasingly assume therapeutic functions; corporations provide a new family home, and so on. The standard situation in which, after the period of education and dependI am allowed to the adult enter universe of and ency, maturity responsias a child I am bility is thus doubly turned around: already recognized as a mature is proand, responsible being; simultaneously, my childhood that I am to never is, longed indefinitely, really compelled ‘grow up’, since all the institutions the family function ersatz which follow as families, endeavours. providing caring surroundings for my Narcissistic . are
as
procedures,
-—
—
—
.
In return
uals
based
order to
who on
to
grasp
all the
consequences of family, civil
Hegel’s triad enjoy their reflexive the
public sphere
distinction of civil
freedom)
between
society,
a
.
to have would shift, one of individsociety (free interaction
the
distinction
of this
is
Hegel’s construction private sphere of family and and
State:
which
is
vanishing
today,
the in
so
344
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
life itself becomes politicized, is turning into part of the the other on hand, domain; public professional life becomes public that of a large is, subjects participate in it as members ‘familialized’, far
as
family
family, not as responsible patriarchal authority and feminists
continue
dependency authority. It the
that was
1930s, who
arise
Max drew
the
claim;
to
individuals.
‘mature’
from
the
problem,
the
Horkheimer, attention
So the problem here struggle against it, as
emancipatory
is the
rather,
decline very in his study
new
is not most
of
forms
of on
patriarchal symbolic authority and family in
the
of the ambiguous consequences gradual disintegration of paternal authority in modern capitalist society: far from of authoritarian being simply the elementary cell and generator the modern nuclear was personalities, family simultaneously the structure that the ‘autonomous’ critical the generated subject able to confront social order on account of ethical so his/her convictions, predominant that the immediate result of the disintegration of paternal authority is also the rise of what ‘other-orientated’ sociologists call the conformist personality.° Today, with the shift towards the narcissistic personality, this is even and has entered a new process stronger, phase. With regard to the ‘postmodern’ constellation (or to what the theorists of the
risk
society call the
reflexive
to
characteristic
modernization
second
of the
second
modernity and/or Enlightenment perhaps emphasis on how they are opposed to postmodernism is to be read as a disavowal of their unacknowledged proximity to it?’), in which patriarchy is fatally undermined, so that the subject experiences himself as freed from constraints, any traditional symbolic Prohilacking any internalized on bition, bent experimenting with his life and on pursuing his lifeto raise the momentous project, and so on, we have therefore question of the disavowed the new which reflexive ‘passionate attachments’ support freedom of the subject delivered from the constraints of Nature and/or Tradition: what if the disintegration of the public (‘patriarchal’) symbolic disavowed authority is paid for (or counterbalanced) by an even stronger to subjection, as other ‘passionate attachment’ among phenomena the lesbian the where the growth of sado-maso relationship between couples two women the strict follows and matrix Master/Slave severely enacted seems to indicate: the one who gives the orders is the ‘top’, the one who the ‘top’ one has to go obeys is the ‘bottom’, and in order to become of apprenticeship. While it is wrong to read through an arduous process this ‘top/bottom’ duality as a with the (male) sign of direct ‘identification to of aggressor’, it is no less wrong perceive it as a parodic imitation of domination; relations we are the with patriarchal dealing, rather, —
-
their
overinsistent
—
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
genuine paradox of the freely provides a deep libidinal
chosen
which
345
Master/Slave
form
of
coexistence
satisfaction.
the
we standard situation is reversed: no longer have the public regulation, subverted hierarchy, repression and severe by secret of liberating transgression acts Master (as when we laugh at our pompous privately, behind his back); on the contrary, we have public social relations free and equal individuals, the ‘passionate attachment’ where to among extreme form of strictly regulated domination and some submission the secret of libidinal becomes the satisfaction, transgressive source obscene to of the freedom and equality. The supplement public sphere of Master/Slave rigidly codified relationship turns up as the very form in a all ‘inherent of in which of forms transgression’ subjects living society of the free choice life are of a lifestyle. And this experienced as a matter is reversal of the paradoxical topic psychoanalysis: psychoanalysis proper with the severe deals not authoritarian father who forbids you to enjoy,
Thus
of
Order
but
the
with
or
resistance
secret
father
obscene
impotent
you
frigid against
who
much
the
enjoins you to enjoy, and thus renders is not effectively. The Unconscious is the prohibitive Law Law; the Unconscious more
itself.
So
the
of
answer
of
reflexivization
substance
reflexive
tion;
the
psychoanalysis lives
our
called is
answer
the
theorists
of
the
subject.
This
Freudian free
subject there
are
hysteria, the
fied;
the for
desire in
choose
to numerous
the
and
of
‘repressive’ regulation ‘masochistic’
turn,
the
none
which
resists
mode
of
the
less
some
reflexive
of
the
this
on
satisfying the
neurosis, of
society topos is
reflexivity the
global premediathat
is of
society, reflexivity very reflexivity spoils the game of the postmodern reshape his identity. As we have already seen,
nonsatisfaction,
obsessional
there
another
risk
variations
impossibility
risk
the
Unconscious
emphasize
to
neglected by
to
that
is not
desire
we
desire are
into
at
core
reflexivity in psychoanalysis: in is reflexively inverted into
desire to
maintain
dealing the
desire the
with
desire
for
itself reversal
regulation
unsatisof —
the this
the through which repressive regulatory of invested and a source are function as procedures themselves libidinally libidinal function: satisfaction, provides the key to how power mechanisms remain regulatory power mechanisms operative only in so far as they are to ‘repress’. secretly sustained by the very element they endeavour reflexivity of our Perhaps the ultimate example of the universalized loss of symbolic lives (and thereby of the retreat of the the big Other, is most a known to efficiency) phenomenon psychoanalysts today: the of psychogrowing inefficiency psychoanalytic interpretation. Traditional reflexive
346
TICKLISH
THE
analysis
still relied
on
a
substantial
SUBJECT notion
of the
the
‘dark
Unconscious
‘decentred’
as
the
Substance
non-
of the
reflected continent’, impenetrable subject’s being to be arduously penetrated, reflected, mediated, by interof the Unconscious (from pretation. Today, however, the formations to have lost dreams their innocence: the hysterical symptoms) definitely ‘free associations’ of a typical educated for consist the most analysand part to provide a psychoanalytic of attempts explanation of their disturbances, one so that is quite justified in saying that we have not only Jungian, Lacanian of the but symptoms Kleinian, interpretations symptoms, are which themselves that is, whose Jungian, Kleinian, Lacanian involves to reference some reality implicit psychoanalytic theory. The unfortunate result of this global reflexivization of interpretation (everythe Unconscious is, of thing becomes interpretation, interprets itself...) that the analyst’s mterpretation loses its performative course, ‘symbolic efficiency’ and leaves the symptom intact in its idiotic jouéssance. In other is similar to the paradox words, what happens in psychoanalytic treatment skinhead who, when really pressed to give (already noted) of a neo-Nazi the reasons for his violence, to talk like social workers, suddenly starts and social diminished social sociologists psychologists, quoting mobility, rising insecurity, the disintegration of paternal authority, lack of maternal ...
...
,
when the big Other of our early childhood gua the substance the of and its inherent reflection being disintegrates, unity practice and its impotent, inefficient disintegrates into raw violence interpretation. This is also one of the necessary obverses impotence of interpretation of the universalized it is as if our reflexivity hailed by risk society theorists: reflexive can flourish power only in so far as it draws its strength from and relies on some minimal which ‘pre-reflexive’ substantial support its grasp, eludes so that its universalization is paid for by its inefficiency, that is, by the paradoxical re-emergence of the brute Real of ‘irrational’ and insensitive to reflexive violence, impermeable interpretation. And the of the tragedy is that, faced with this deadlock inefficiency of their even some interventions, interpretative psychoanalysts who otherwise resist the obvious false solution of abandoning the domain of psychoana!and in or ysis proper taking refuge biochemistry body training are tempted to take the direct way of the Real: they emphasize that since the love
in his
-
social
Unconscious is act
the and act
is instead
already of the
its
own
interpretation,
all the
psychoanalyst
can
do
patient acting (say, producing actes manqués) and analyst interpreting the patient’s acts, we get a patient interpreting his analyst introducing a cut into this flow of interpretation with an (say, of closing the session) .”¥ —
so,
So, in of the
of the
terms
second
Frankfurt
Habermas’s
Habermas.
is
modernity
their
fundamental
School,
the
that
between
again
crucial
347
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
break
notion
choice
with
we
facing
are
apropos and
Adorno/Horkheimer
Adorno
and
Horkheimer
is to
the
of
dialectic of Enlightenment: for political regimes or the so-called life are of modern alienation ultimately generated not by the inherent of the very project of modernity and Enlightenment, dialectics but by its realization nonconsequent they bear witness to the fact that modernity remained an unfinished Adorno and Horkheimer project. In contrast, old Hegelian and Marxist faithful to the remain dialectical procedure of the excess that occurs in the realization of some reading troubling global as the at which the truth of the entire project symptomal point project the only way to reach the truth of some notion or emerges: project is to
reject
Habermas,
like
phenomena
totalitarian
~
focus
where
on
this
project
It’s As
for
the
went
Political
the
socioeconomic
constellation, comment;”® what matters
that?)
but
the
very
fact
Economy, Stupid!
that
certain
factual
—
figure
if the
of
that Bill
(is
accuracy started
to
with
go is
Gates
Gates
function
the
worthy of really like as
an
icon,
phantasmic correspond to the ‘true’ Gates, they are all the more of the underlying phantasmic indicative structure. Gates is not he is only no longer the patriarchal Father—Master, also no longer the corporate Big Brother running a rigid bureaucratic of empire, dwelling on the inaccessible top floor, guarded by a host secretaries and deputees. He is, rather, a kind of Kittle brother. his very functions as monstrous ordinariness the indication of its opposite, of some dimension so that it can no uncanny public in the longer be rendered here, most guise of some violently, is symbolic title. What we encounter the deadlock and the of the Double who is simultaneously like ourselves of indicative of an monstrous dimension harbinger uncanny, properly this is the way title-pages, drawings or photomontages Gates: as an present the less implies a wholly different ordinary guy, whose devious smile none threatof monstrosity beyond representation which underlying dimension ens to it is also a crucial shatter his ordinary-guy image.*° In this respect, feature of Gates-as-icon who made that he is (perceived as) the ex-hacker it one all its subversive/ should confer on the term ‘hacker’ marginal / filling
some
slot
public image is not
a
domination
of
relations
the
‘postmodern’ some
wrong.
features
do
not
—
—
anti-establishment
connotations
of
those
who
want
to
disturb
the
smooth
348
bureaucratic
functioning of large the underlying notion taken
has
who
Bill
In
eccentric
figure,
door.
next
who
here
it is the
ordinariness the
The he
that
did
guy
Bill
of
movies
out
what
who
Gates
that
this
is
a
characterized
is thus
human traditional
not
of Bill
icon
an
Maoist
is
Gates
with
supernatural clumsy guy (Superclumsy bespectacled journalist): by this kind of split.*! The order the emphasis the same as
of
the
of
features
Master
always imperfect, marked by impede his symbolic authority,
was
the
in
endowed
still
is no longer ordinary guy
the
of
control
confused,
common,
is
charade
obverse
hero
the
of
was
proto-Communist
a
encounter
we
Genius
ridiculous the
be
to
in
total
for
aims
Evil
this or
this
Gates,
theme
ordinary
fact
Bond
everyday life a ordinary existence
bad
so-called
Master. —
his
in
the
of the
turns
the
phantasmic level, marginal hooligan respectable chairman. ugly guy, thus coincides
a
as
up
the
At
subversive
a
average Evil Genius who
of
case
words, of
his
in
man,
on
other
In
but
powers,
the
himself
extravagantly
up
Evil Genius
is
Gates
Brother,
figure James
dressed
reversal
of
kind
old
in
-—
the
needed; a
In
uniform
grey
the
contains
lives.
our
dresses
Little
the
SUBJECT
corporations.
is that
here
and
over
Gates,
and
with
of
TICKLISH
THE
traditional lived
never
failure
some
but
patriarchal his
up
to
or
weakness
served
mandate —
not
its
only support, the purely formal function bringing home the constitutive gap between of symbolic authority and the empirical individual who occupies its post. In contrast to this gap, Bill Gates’s ordinariness points to a different of authority, that notion of the obscene that in the superego operates not
even
as
Real. old
diligent dwarves (usually night, while people are their from asleep, emerge hiding-place and accomplish their work (put the house in order, cook the meals...) so that when people wake up in This the morning, they find their work done. theme magically persists Richard work who in their through Wagner’s Rhinegold (the Nibelungs the dwarf Alberich) driven to caves, underground by their cruel master, Fritz industrial workers live and Lang’s Metropolis, in which the enslaved work the earth’s surface to deep beneath produce wealth for the ruling of ‘underground’ slaves dominated capitalists. This matrix by a manipulative evil Master brings us back to the old duality of the two modes of the Evil Magician who and the secret Master, the public symbolic Master the and does his work the actually pulls strings during night: are not the two Bills who now run the USA, Clinton and Gates, the ultimate exemplifications of this with the duality? When subject is endowed symbolic that is to say, authority, he acts as an appendix to his symbolic title There
controlled
is
an
by
an
European fairy-tale theme magician) who during
evil
of
the
~
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
349
which big Other, the symbolic Institution, of a who may be judge, previous example
it is the our
but
person,
moment
words
the
are
the
of the
he puts on Law itself. On
(whose paradigmatic
the
is
case
his robe the
and
other
the
to
is the
then,
This,
corrupt his words
insignia,
the
‘invisible’ of
the
recall
Master
‘Jew who,
social
life) is a kind in shadow, irradiating
act
Bill Gates
the
from
of a
how
icon:
of the
disintegration the-Father, gives common
—
this very reason Evil Genius.
—
In
Lacanian
of
feature
be drawn
to
of
and
patriarchal symbolic authority, of the Name-ofto a new rise figure of the Master who is simultaneously our our fellow-creature, peer, for imaginary double, and with of the endowed another dimension phantasmically
the
our
conclusion
other
figure
public eye, pulls the strings double of public authority: he has to uncanny phantonrlike, spectral omnipotence.” invisible
miserable
hand,
anti-Semitic
him:
through
acts a
the
terms:
identification
of the
suspension that
of
Ego Ideal,
reduction
is, the
of the
the
Master
to symbolic its to the ideal rise to monstrous obverse, imaginary necessarily gives lives. In our superego figure of the omnipotent Evil Genius who controls this figure, the imaginary (semblance) and the real (of paranoia) overlap, owing to the suspension of the proper symbolic efficiency. The point of insisting that we are dealing with Bill Gates as an icon is that it would be mystifying to elevate of Evil the ‘real’ Gates into a kind Genius who us all. to achieve masterminds a control over global plot an
—
-
Here, fact
than
more
dialectic
it is crucial
ever,
of fetishization:
to
the
remember
of relations
‘reification’
the
lesson
between
of
Marxist
the
people (the
that
between the form of phantasmagorical ‘relations they assume things’) is always redoubled by the by the apparently opposite process false ‘personalization’ (‘psychologization’) of what are in fact objective social It was in the 1930s that the first generation of Frankfurt processes. —
School
theoreticians
global individual
market
itself
success
the
-
attention
started
producer’s
his of control
out
drew
relations
notion
to exert
to
failure
or
of
a
how their
—
at
full
dependent
charismatic
the
very
moment
when
making the cycles totally genius’ reasserted
domination, on
‘business
market
or failure capitalist ideology’, attributing the success ne sais which he possesses.” mysterious je quoi of And does not the same hold even more today, when the abstraction book The market relations that run lives is brought to an extreme? our market is overflowing with psychological manuals advising us on how to how to outdo our in short, making our or succeed, competitor partner success on our ‘attitude’. dependent proper in formula: Marx’s famous is tempted to reverse So, in a way, one
of
a
in
‘spontaneous
businessman
to
some
—
350
THE
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
capitalism, the objectivemarket ‘relations between things’ tend to phantasmagorical form ofpseudo-personalized ‘relations between people’. No, Bill Gates is no genius, good or bad, he is just an opportunist who the moment knew how to seize and, as such, the result of the capitalist run amok. The is ‘How did Gates not do it?’ but ‘How is question system is wrong the capitalist system what with it, that an individual structured, achieve can such disproportionate power?’ A phenomenon like that of Bill Gates thus seems to indicate its own once we are solution: dealing with a gigantic global network or formally owned by a single individual corporation, is it not a fact that ownership becomes, in a way, irrelevant to its functioning (there is no longer any worthwhile competition; profit is guaranteed), so that it becomes possible simply to cut off this head and the entire to socialize without network greatly disturbing its functioning? Does not such act an to a purely formal amount conversion that simply de of the collective what, brings together facto, already belongs together individuals and the global communicational network are all they using contemporary the
assume
—
—
and
which
This
thus
substance
already brings us risk society theory:
towards Is it
not
and
precisely
the
uncontrolled
that,
many to
and
the
to
the
domain of
use
second it
way
risks
and
of
a
private corporation then generating
a
the
the
in
that
fact
owned
corporations
logical
innovations
taking Thus us
to
~
leave
as
in
the
the
the
the
all
despite old
long-term
health
the
talk
about
so
on,
behind
which
present
chances
global
of
of
the decisions
their of
survival,
productive about
—
use
kind
among invention
democratic cata-
of risk
rooted
driving privately
scientific
and
techno-
without
production) such activity
‘second
actually
the
on
environ-
modernity’ which compels and Right, of capitalism
of Left is not
in which
decisions
the
conclusion
—
fundamental
be
to
which
affect
can
in
a
towards
orientation
all,
us
kind
a
drawn outside
private corporations
lies only solution in moving process
the
the
one
of
unforeseen is
of
conditions
itself?
dilemmas
global situation, are public political control making up to our socialization
a
this
not
and
effects
of
narrow
domain
is not
profitability
course
of humankind
ideological
and
socialism,
versus
that
well
as
their
pursue
(or simply expand of
account
ment,
to
a
the
the
in
spectre is
However, consequences. the logic of market and
strophic long-term
capitalism.
indicates
generated:
simply scientific-technological without proper public
control,
distance
of
reality
of ‘risk’ are
technology
new
critical
our
the
‘risk’, which
of
case
is that
of
aspect
its notion
science
lives?
social
approaches
in which
paradigmatic ‘as such’,
by
use
debate
of their
examination,
defined
risk
but
closer
on
The
capitalism? put
the
forms
of
even
direct
society of
how
in to
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
and
351
productive capacities at the disposal of society would of the people affected by the entire collective by such Theorists of the risk society often evoke decisions? the need to counteract the reign of the ‘depoliticized’ global market with a move towards radical state repoliticization,which will take crucial decisions away from planners develop
and
use
be made
somehow
and
experts
concerned
put them
themselves
into
hands
the
the
(through
broad
the
of
individuals
revitalization
of
and
active
groups
citizenship, of putting in
however, they stop short public debate, and so on) the basics of the relations and very anonymous question logic of market itself which more and more as the global capitalism, imposes today Real ‘neutral’ all as more and more and, such, accepted by parties depoliticized.*4 Two recent English films, both stories about the traumatic disintcgration of old-style working-class male identity, express two opposing versions of this deadlock of depoliticization. Brassed Off focuses on the relationship between ‘real’ political struggle (the miners’ struggle against threatened of technological pit closures legitimized in terms progress) and the idealized symbolic expression of the miners’ community, their brass band. At first, the two to be aspects seem opposed: to the miners caught up in the struggle for cconomic matters!’ attitude of survival, the ‘Only music their old bandmaster of cancer looks like a vain fetishized dying lung insistence on the empty symbolic form deprived of its social substance. Once the miners lose their political struggle, however, the ‘Music matters’ their insistence on comattitude, playing and participating in a national into a defiant act of asserting petition, turns symbolic gesture, a proper one as of them there’s no fidelity to their political struggle puts it, when In short, the act occurs when hope, there are only principles to follow. —
—
...
we
reach
on
the
this
crisscross form
empty
whatever
the
none
—
accusing the working-class well
worth Full
The
Lights final
becomes
happens...)
Struggle against life). The miners’ pear
of levels, rather, short circuit itself continue (we'll playing in or,
~
for
closures,
community
sign
the
of
fidelity
continuation
belongs
to
less, it is precisely here
miners
a
tradition
that
one
the
to
insistence
brass
our
of the
miners’
way
condemned
should
one
of
band,
(to the
content
to
avoid
of
disapof
the
trap male-chauvinist
standing for the old reactionary is here discernible way of life: the principle of community be left to the enemy. fighting for, and should by no means like Dead Poets Society or City Monty, our second example, is —
of
climactic
Monty’
the
the
that
so
appearance
those moment
films ~—
in the
whose in
this
entire
the
case,
striptease
narrative
club.
five Their
line
unemployed final
gesture
its
towards
moves
men’s —
‘full
‘going
to
end’, revealing their
the
in
although
—
TICKLISH
THE
352
the
a
thing:
same
way to
the
the
to
hall
packed
of Brassed
that
of the
acceptance
that
-
involves
The
loss.
heroism
which
act
an
Off—ultimately
to
amounts
final
of the
persisting in the symbolic form disintegrates but, on the the perspective of the male of accepting what, from contrary, workingas the ultimate but appear class ethic, cannot humiliation: readily giving false male bit of dialogue near the away dignity. (Recall the famous of the heroes when one says that after seeing women beginning, urinating in a standing position, he finally understands that they are lost; that their men’s time is over.) The dimension of their tragicomic predicament lies in the fact that the carnivalesque spectacle (of stripping) is performed not but by ordinary decent by the usual well-endowed striptease dancers and shy middle-aged men who are not their heroism beautiful definitely is that that their they agree to perform the act, although they are aware is not the physical appearance appropriate to it. This gap between of the performers confers performance and the obvious inappropriateness on the act its properly sublime dimension from the vulgar amusement a kind of stripping, their act becomes of spiritual exercise in abandoning false is their them, ex-foreman, among pride. (Although the oldest to their that he has a new he informed, show, just prior job, got in
gesture
The
in
(playing
the
Full
penises opposite to
SUBJECT
is
Monty
not
of
its social
band) when
substance
—
—
—
—
nevertheless
decides
to
the
is thus
not
of
show of
matter
What Brassed
join his merely
in
mates to
earn
the
act
the
much-needed
of
out
fidelity:
the
money,
point but
a
principle.)
Off and
modes
bear
should
one
of
that
of
in
The Full
however,
mind,
Monty, with
are
the
the
is acts
that
both
of losers
loss:
acts, —
that
that
of
is to
say,
insisting on the no hope, only principles remain’); heroically renouncing the last vestiges of false narcissistic is grotesquely dignity and accomplishing the act for which one is in a And the sad this our situation is that, inadequate. thing way, today: Marxist of the notion that today, after the breakdown capitalism itself that will destroy it in the guise of the proletariat, none the force generates of the critics of those of capitalism, none who so describe convincingly the into which the so-called of globalization is deadly vortex process notion of how can we drawing us, has any well-defined get rid of to the old notions capitalism. In short, Iam not preaching a simple return of class struggle and socialist revolution: the question of how it is really the global capitalist system is not a rhetorical one possible to undermine it is not at least not in the foreseeable future. maybe really possible, two
empty
—
form
as
coming to fidelity to
terms
the
lost
content
catastrophic (“When
there’s
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
there
So
two
attitudes:
either
353 Left
today’s
in nostalgically engages those of revolutionary or those of welfare state reformist Social Democracy, dismissCommunism ing all talk of new postmodern society as empty fashionable prattle that the harsh obfuscates reality of today’s capitalism; or it accepts global capitalism as ‘the only game in town’, and follows the double tactics of possible welfare state will be promising the employees that the maximum and the employers that the rules of the maintained, (global capitalist) and the demands employees’ ‘irrational’ game will be fully respected in effect to So, in today’s leftist be firmly censored. politics, we seem to the choice between the ‘solid’ reduced orthodox attitude of proudly, of principle, sticking to the old or out Social (Communist Democratic) we know its has and the New time Labour ‘radical tune, although passed, are
ritualistic
the
attitude
centre’ last
the
of
historical
the
of
the
going
proper demise
opponent
Democracy The big the
of
of
vestiges
victim
thus
incantation
old
formulas,
‘full
Monty’
leftist
be
in
stripping, getting rid of, the Paradoxically, the ultimate
discourse....
of Really Existing most of throughout
Socialism
radical
economy
of today’s past-political age of depoliticization of the sphere
functions into
(the
need
the
to
its
reformist
of
decisions, of religious, sexual,
and
so
ethnic
on,
and
‘end
the
great Social
of
will
sphere discussion
remain
other
limited
the
is as
way
accepted
long
is
accepted, leading to to
is
ideology’
economy:
welfare, etc.) things. However,
simple insight objective depoliticization of the economic talk about active citizenship, about public collective
the
of
social
cut
state
fundamental
issues
thus
was
century,
our
itself. news
a
sible
it
the
as
as
this
all
the
respon‘cultural’
without way-of-life differences, that long-term decisions affect us all are In short, the only way effectively to bring about made. a would ensue from society in which risky long-term decisions public debate is some of radical of Capital’s kind limitation involving all concerned the of the to social subordination of control freedom, process production if the the radical is to the That say: problem repoliticization of economy. with of social affairs’) is that it today’s post-politics (‘administration the increasingly undermines political act, this possibility of a proper to the undermining is directly due to the depoliticization of economics, as neutral common of Capital and market mechanisms tools/ acceptance procedures to be exploited. attain the properly We can now see why today’s post-politics cannot it of universality: because silenuy precludes the sphere political dimension of global capitalist market of economy from politicization. The domain
actually encroaching
~
upon
the
level
at
which
354
THE
is the
relations
Other
TICKLISH
Scene
of the
SUBJECT so-called
repoliticization of civil society by partisans ‘identity politics’ and other postmodern of politicization: forms all the talk about new forms of politics bursting out all over, focused on issues particular (gay rights, ecology, ethnic all this incessant minorities...), activity of fluid, shifting identities, of building multiple ad hoc coalitions, and so on, has something inauthentic about the obsessional neurotic who talks all it, and ultimately resembles the time and is otherwise active in order to ensure frantically precisely that something what matters will not be that it will disturbed, really remain immobilized.“ of celebrating the new freedoms and So, instead about the ‘second it is much more responsibilities brought by modernity’, crucial to focus on what remains the same in this global fluidity and as the very motor of this fluidity: the inexorable reflexivity, on what serves of Capital is the figure of the big logic of Capital. The spectral presence Other which not embodionly remains operative when all the traditional ments of the symbolic big Other this disintegrate, but even directly causes with the abyss of their freedom disintegration: far from being confronted that is, laden with the burden of responsibility that cannot be alleviated the or Nature by helping hand of Tradition today’s subject is perhaps more than ever caught in an inexorable compulsion that effectively runs the
advocated
of
—
—
—
—
his life. The
the
history
is that,
‘reformed’
1990s?
of them return many This very return offers
entered
more,
to
to
the
capitalism. That is to their privileged
today? Due (mostly members once ran), they
of the are
the
erase
old
Eastern were
do say: what links with the
foremost
brief
active
civil
first free
proof
to
of their
ex-Communist
European the
via
power ultimate
nomenklatura
and
first traces
with
experience
the
in
Communists
did
Why fact
of
irony
countries,
learn
to
this
elections
that
these
in states
ex-Communists
lesson. the
mid
have stand
in
for
newly emerging capitalists ‘privatizing’ the companies they the party of big Capital; further-
but
none
the
less
rather
rule
traumatic
politically society, they ferociously from active civil society quick deideologization, a retreat into the very two features engagement passive, apolitical consumerism which characterize So dissidents are astonished contemporary capitalism. to discover that they played the role of ‘vanishing mediators’ on the way from socialism to capitalism, in which the same class as before rules under a new to claim that the ex-Communists’ return guise. It is therefore wrong to power shows how people are disappointed by capitalism and long for the old socialist in a kind of Hegelian ‘negation of negation’, it security is only with the ex-Communists’ return to that socialism was power advocate
as
a
—
~
a
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
effectively negated as ‘disappointment should
We
is
with thus
for
which
the
reassert
the
today, emphasizing
the
say, what
to
capitalism’
enthusiasm
ethico-political ism.°°
that
—
355
fact
there
is
old
(mis)perceive
political analysts
is in
disappointment place in ‘normal’
no
Marxist
of
critique
with
the
capital-
‘reification’:
depoliticized ‘objective’ economic of ideological passions is ideology is always self-referential,
logic against the predominant allegedly that is, it always ideological form, since itself a distance towards an Other defines dismissed and through as For that reason denounced because the ‘ideological’.*” precise depoliticized economy is the disavowed ‘fundamental fantasy’ of postmodern politics a properly political act would necessarily entail the repoliticization of the within a as an acf only in so far economy: given situation, a gesture counts ‘outdated’
forms
—
-
it disturbs
as
In
depoliticization, serious political force Pen
market
in
moderate
today’s
as
this
of the
its fundamental
(‘traverses’)
far
so
is the
we
witnessing
are
which
Wall
fantasy. Blair
from a
to
Clinton,
reversal
strange
fully accepts the only
of roles:
to question the unrestrained rule in the USA; Le Right (Buchanan reacted negatively to a fall in the
continues
populist
When
France).
Left,
extreme
Street
to make the obvious unemployment rate, only point that what is for is not what is for the good Capital obviously good majority of the was Buchanan. In contrast to the old wisdom population according to which the extreme what the moderate Right openly says Right secretly dare say in public (the open of racism, of the assertion thinks, but doesn’t need for strong of “Western values’, authority and the cultural hegemony therefore in which the extreme etc.), we are approaching a situation dare Right openly says what the moderate Left secretly thinks, but doesn’t of Capital). say in public (the necessity to curb the freedom One should also not militias often forget that today’s rightist survivalist look like a caricaturized version of the extreme militant leftist splinter of the 1960s: in both cases we antiare groups dealing with radical institutional that the ultimate State is the is, logic enemy repressive the threatens (the FBI, the Army, the judicial system) which apparatus and the is as a survival, group’s very group organized tight disciplined
the
one
—
body
in
point
to
unified
social
difficult
order this
ebratcd
by
a
as
Marx.
to
like
strong
withstand Pierre ‘social
this
pressure.
The
exact
counter-
the idea who defends Bourdieu, the minimum state’, guaranteeing
of
from
the
a
of
against the onslaught of globalization: it is Leftist a radical sees raising irony when one corrosive global power of Capital, so fervently cel-
welfare
abstain
barriers against
able
Leftist
a
Europe rights and to
be
to
is
So, again, it is
as
if the
roles
are
reversed
today:
Leftists
356
THE
State
strong
a
support
last
SUBJECT of
guarantee the
demonize
Rightists
and
social and
State
its
civil
liberties as
apparatuses
machine.
terrorist
ultimate
the
the
as
while
against Capital;
TICKLISH
should fully acknowledge the tremendous liberating hitherto postmodern politicization of domains which were considered apolitical (feminism, gay and lesbian politics, ecology, ethnic so-called and other minority issues): the fact that these issues not only became perceived as inherently political but also gave birth to new forms of political subjectivization thoroughly reshaped our entire political and cultural landscape. So the point is not to play down this tremendous
Of
one
course,
of the
impact
advance
of the
in favour
the
generates
return
to
today is the main obstacle on .) demands ecological focus.
In
more
but
precisely
the
reuniting
the
features and
to
for
raised
the
a
If the
of
communicative
of
interactive
conditions
and
so
for
the
demands.
on,
kind
some
of
prospect
of
Gates.
political subjectivto the primacy of the by postmodern forms
of politicization of concentrating quasior single individual corporation,
necessity hands
(feminist,
very
of
create
ecological,
‘irrational’
Bill
or
issues
order
in
feminist,
the
the
in
multitude
video
of the
overtly
monopolistic power Rupert Murdoch of
of
of
the
is
like
tion
am
the
of
postmodern forms pleading for a ‘return
detriment
indicator
economy
realization
which
the
realization
effective
A further
the
I
short,
economy’ not to of politicization,
economic
depoliticization of the economy Moral Majority ideology, which
its
the
to
..
ization
the
of so-called
version
new
some
point is, rather, that populist New Right with
the
essentialism;
decade
next
media
in
a
brings the unificasingle apparatus
TV, video-
computer,
and
audio-
CD
in becomplayer, and if Microsoft actually succeeds owner of the this new universal medium, ing quasi-monopolistic of its controlling not only the language used in it but also the conditions in which a application, then we obviously approach the absurd situation from will in effect the basic single agent, exempt public control, dominate
phone,
communicational
than since
This
any government. the digital language
constructed
that
owns
will enable and
tions
also
of
structure
thus
by programmers, installing in it
it
it
to
bring
control our
their
assert
give
we
rise
to
a
us,
lives
our
opens shall is it
some or
a
up all
and
will
prospect
use
will
possible special secret not
which
virus
communication
ownership of our similar paradox
thus, in
the
to
a
halt?
of
the
none
to
way, be stronger paranoiac scenarios: a
less
imagine
be man-made,
the
corporation
program ingredient the corporation can When
biogenetic
genes through patenting of owning the innermost
which
trigger,
corpora-
them, parts
they of
our
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
that
body,
so
aware
of it.
owned
already
are
we
by
357 without
corporation
a
being
even
confronting is thus that both the communicational genetic language we are made of will be owned controlled a and (or even by corporations corporation) out of public the private control. Again, does not the very absurdity of this prospect the of base and of our communication control very public reproduction, of our as social the very network being impose a kind of socialization In other the of is not the so-called the only solution? words, impact revolution on information capitalism the ultimate exemplification of the thesis of that ‘at a certain old Marxian their stage development, the into with material forces of come conflict the existing productive society of production, or what is but a legal expression of the same relations with the property relations within which thing they have been at work Do not we hitherto’?** the two phenomena have mentioned (the unpremade dictable of decisions global consequences by private companies; the the media individuals or absurdity of ‘owning’ a person’s genome patent one should use for communication), to which add at least the antagonism contained in the notion of owning (scientific) knowledge(since knowledge that is by nature neutral to its propagation, out is, it is not worn by its and universal has resort to to use), explain why today’s capitalism spread sustain the and more to more absurd in the strategics economy of scarcity The
we
prospect
network
are
and
use
we
the
—
-
—
-
and
property
inventing alized
market
ever
thus
and
sphere of information,
the
of
modes
new
In
information)?
‘global village’ signal on the logic
based
demon
preventing
does
short,
within
contain
to
relations
the
not
the
end of market
of
scarcity),
it
the
frame
free
copying of the
(which the
in
of
private (say, by
unleashed
prospect
relations least
at
the has
of
digit-
informational
by definition, digitalized
are
of
sphere
information? After
that
foreign East
demise
to
us
in
Japan;
while
Asia,
attention
ethnic
or
the the
after
now,
is
in
will
group of
productivity
West:
ultimate
the
of Socialism,
nation
combining
terms, was
the
another
the a
focusing
beat
fear the
of Western
West
on
its
capitalism with a form object of fear
1970s, the
short
interlude and
more
of more
of social and
fascination on
capitalism is capitalist
own
China
mores
fascination
with as
Souththe
next
combining capitalism with the Communist political structure. ultimately give rise to purely phantasmic formations, like the image of China surpassing the West in productivity while retaining its one is tempted to authoritarian sociopolitical structure designate this mode ‘Asiatic of the combination phantasmic capitalist production’. superpower, Such fears
-
358
Against pay
these
fears,
price
for
the social
of
TICKLISH
THE
or later, emphasize that China will, sooner of in new forms development capitalism of combining and instability: the ‘winning formula’ is doomed Asiatic ‘closed’ ethical life-world community
should
one
the
unrest
SUBJECT
unbridled
capitalism with the old formula than ever, one should reassert Marx’s to explode. Now, more limit of capitalism is Capital itself! the the that danger to Western not from from the Chinese or some other outside, capitalism comes liberal monster beating us at our own game while depriving us of Western of colonizing but from the inherent limit of its own individualism, process ever new (not only geographic but also cultural, psychic, etc.) domains, substantial of eroding the last resistant spheres of non-reflected being, kind of implosion, when which has to end in some Capital will no longer have
substantial
any
Marx’s kind
of
Capital metaphor pre-reflexive ‘natural in
inventors
art,
outside
content
of
as
in order
reproduce itself —when the thoroughly universal, the whole Another sign which points Adorno
on.*”
should
One
this
in
its
on
itself, when
some
domains
of
and
blood,
own
take
it needs
thus
becomes
reflexivity
is threatened.
system
Horkheimer
and
feed
feed
to
closes
circle
to
what
to
vampire-like entity literally: productivity’ (talents in different
etc.)
science,
itself
a
direction
called
is
the
how, in the
Kulturindustrie,
of
sphere
desubstantializa-
has reached a level that production process Even in system high art, the global implosion. recent for exhibitions in which is fashion permitted’ and can ‘everything as an art to mutilated animal bodies, betrays this desperate object, up pass in its circuit the need of cultural and include even Capital to colonize most and pathological strata of human extreme subjectivity. Paradoxically and not without the first musical trend which was in a way irony ‘fabricated’, exploited for a short time and very soon forgotten, since it
and/or
tion
of the
reflexivity
the
threatens
with
whole
-
—
the
lacked like
the
substance
musical
of the
rock
early which
and
survive
to
Beatles
and
attain
the
Rolling Stones,
marked
the
was
of
status
‘classics’
other
none
intrusion
than
violent
of
punk, simultaneously strongest in a kind of mocking working-class protest into mainstream pop culture of the Hegelian infinite version judgement, in which opposites directly ~
coincide,
the
commercial of
itself,
raw
energy
with
no
need
subsequently exploited, swamp by pulling himself Do and
we
less
of social
not
to
encounter
follow
a
for
like up the
coherent
some
Baron
by same
coincided
protest
prefabrication which,
his
as
it were,
‘natural hairs. in
.
.
the
level
new
of
the
object
to
emerge
and
be
saving himself
from
the
talent’
Mtnchhausen own
with
creates
it sells
out
.
logic politics, global programme
where
but,
the
rather,
point to
is less
try
to
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
by
guess,
of
in
domain,
Anglo-Saxon and
less
are
opinion polls, the theory, doesn’t
means
Even
that?
themselves
involved short
writing
follow
to
anxiety
less to
the
latest
theorists
soon
as
risk
or
inherent
that
mode
of
crucial
of the
part
trend
point
is
tend
academic
‘second
fundamental
relevant
lesson
today:
reflexive
of
it bears
to
that
people the
to
of its form
an
the
forms
which
theorists
cultural
content:
of
latest
reflexivity, the
is what
Uncon-
that
simply
very be the
—
are
multicultural-
oppose
not
the
This
social
the
of is also
of the
a
reflexive
Real
in the
Dialectic
directly praise
modernization
restraining
of consideration.”
out
Returns The
the
constructionism
is out;
account
in
Left.
modernity,’
leave
to
is
thus
supposed
are
—
on
is discernible
what
work,
psychoanalysis,
latest
society theory
them in
society?4° Theorists
social
on
rediscover
is insufficient
functioning of or European
society
so
The
offer
studies
mostly display their (in feminism, for example,
radical
and
solution...).
commodification
American
risk
false
a
studies
cultural
which
trends
realized
perspicacious gender as performatively enacted, getting tired of it, so they start to scious; in postcolonial studies, the ism
for
‘interventions’
theoretical
and
people want’,
hold
same
the very theory of the risk in substantial theoretical
for
or
the
‘what
359
on as
the
theorists advent
of
of
the
therefore
is
of Enlightenment
what
the
risk
‘second
society
stil] and
Enlighten-
ment’.
with Apropos of this second Enlightenment, subjects delivered from the the and/or Tradition, weight of Nature question of their unconscious must be raised the so-called ‘passionate attachments’ again ‘dark neo-racisms, etc.) phenomena’ (burgeoning fundamentalisms, this ‘second which accompany as modernity’ can in no way be dismissed as will remainders of the that simple regressive phenomena, simply past —
vanish
when
imposed
individuals them
on
Proponents of
‘Kant
avec
utilitarian sex:
sex
exempt be made
what attitude
by
‘second
Sade’
arises
of
is
from
the
that
a
cruelty
utilitarian
called
civil
was
hitherto
to
phenomenon
utilitarian
part of the
Hegel
freedom
modernity.” Enlightenment’ praise again. Sade’s achievement
instrumentalization
longer
no
full
and
_ responsibility
second
of the
logic
the
assume
the
rules
society.
With
reserved
the
confined
Kant
—
was
intimate
very to
the
the
so
to
question
extend relations
the of
private sphere,
public professional life; it must also of equivalent exchange that structure second the so-called modernity, the for public as opposed to private life
of
360
THE
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
of accepting it as (reflexivity, the right to choose one’s way of life instead has also the most intimate penetrated imposed by tradition, etc.) private no of wonder the of this is the increase in sexuality price step sphere that ‘sadistic’ as the domain of contract and practices stage sexuality mutual exploitation. And it is precisely at this point that we can see how two criticisms of risk society theory our that it is simultaneously too the key risk-generating factor in the specificity general (avoiding locating of the capitalist market economy) and too particular (not taking into -
—
the
account
way
subjectivity) dification
—
of
the
nonexistence
converge: intimate
of
it is the
very
the
big Other ‘specific’ logic
the
affects
of reflexive
of
status commo-
spheres which, in the way it affects subjectivity, undermines the standard free autonomous figure of the modern subject.” One should therefore of the process that leads from reject the narrative the to (or second patriarchal Oedipal order postmodern modernity) what this narrative obliterates are the new multiple contingent identities: of domination forms of Oedipus’ itself; for this generated by the ‘decline those who continue to locate the enemy in Oedipus are reason, obliged to insist on how postmedernity remains an unfinished project, on how to lead its subterranean life and prevents us Oedipal patriarchy continues from the full of indirealizing potential postmodern self-fashioning to break with the Oedipal viduality. This properly hysterical endeavour mislocates the it lies not in the of the past, remainders but past danger: in the obscene need for domination and subjection engendered by the new In other words, today ‘post-Oedipal’ forms of subjectivity themselves. are we than the shift from the witnessing a shift no less radical premodern patriarchal order directly legitimized by the sexualized cosmology as the two cosmic (Masculine and Feminine principles) to the modern the abstract-universal of man; notion patriarchal order that introduced is always the case as with such one should be careful to ruptures, very avoid the trap of measuring the new standards the old such against blindness leads to either catastrophic visions of total disintegration (the vision of the emerging society as that of proto-psychotic narcissists of trust and lacking any notion obligation) or to a no less false celebration of the new for post-Oedipal subjectivity that fails to account the new forms of domination emerging from postmodern subjectivity —
itself.
What
disavowed
psychoanalysis ‘supplement’
of Nature none
other
and than
Tradition: the
enables
us
of the
reflexive
as
subject
Lacan
to
do
is
subject
put it, the
of modern
science.
to
focus
on
from
freed
subject Let
us
of
this the
obscene, constraints
psychoanalysis begin
with
the
is
so-
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
‘culture
361
of
complaint’,** with its underlying logic of ressentiment. far of the big Other, the subject cheerfully assuming the nonexistence the Other for its failure blames and/or impotence, as if the Other is guilty the big of the fact that it doesn’t exist, that is, as if impotence is no excuse is responsible for the very fact that it wasn’t able Other to do anything: the subject’s structure is ‘narcissistic’, the more the more he puts the on the big Other, and thus asserts blame his dependence on it. The basic of the ‘culture of complaint’ is a call, addressed feature to the big Other, and put things right (to compensate to intervene the damaged sexual or ethnic this is to be done is a how, matter etc.) minority, exactly, again for various ethico-legal ‘committees’. The of the ‘culture of complaint’ is its legalistic twist, specific feature the endeavour to translate the complaint into the legal obligation of the Other for what? For the (usually the State) to indemnify me very unfathomable lack makes me surplus-enjoyment I am deprived of, whose feel underprivileged. Is not the ‘culture of complaint’ therefore today’s version of hysteria, of the hysterical impossible demand addressed to the a demand that actually wants to be rejected, since the subject grounds Other, existence in his/her his/her complaint: ‘I am in so far as I make the Other for of underminand/or responsible guilty of my misery’? Instead the of the the Other, ing position complaining underprivileged address themselves to it: by translating their demand into the terms of legalistic complaint, they confirm the Other in its position in the very gesture of attacking it. There is an insurmountable this logic of complaint and gap between the true ‘radical’ of complaining to (‘revolutionary’) act which, instead the Other and that is, displacing the need to act on expecting it to act to it and suspends the existing legal frame accomplishes the act itself of complaint’ is correlative to sado-mase Consequently, this ‘culture practices of self-mutilation: they form the two opposed but complemenof the disturbed to the Law, relating tary aspects relationship towards each other as do hysteria and perversion. The sado-maso acts out practice the phantasmic scenarios which (of humiliation, victimization...) rape, traumatize the hysterical subject. What makes this passage from hysteria to Law and perversion possible is the change in the relationship between which jouissance. for the hysterical subject, the Law is still the agency to jouissance (so he can the obscene about prohibits access only fantasize beneath the figure of the Law); while for the pervert, jouissance hidden the Law emanates from the very figure that embodies jouissance (so he can of the role of this instrument as the obscene Other directly assume called
from
—
—
-
—
—
jouissance)
*°
362
THE
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
in the nonexistence of the big paradoxical result of the mutation of the growing collapse of symbolic efficiency is thus the versions of a big Other that actually exists, in the proliferation of different belief in the big Other The which Real, not merely as a symbolic fiction.
The
Other
-
in the
exists for
-
this
Real
is, of
reason,
the
course,
features
two
succinct
definition of paranoia; today’s ideological stance paranoiac fantasy are strictly co-
most
which
characterize
and full reliance on cynical distance the who, while displaying typical subject today is the one dependent: distrust of restraint in cynical any public ideology, indulges without fantasies about and excessive forms of threats, paranoiac conspiracies, of the Other. the The distrust Other of order of (the enjoyment big the it refusal to ‘take relies on the fictions}, symbolic subject’s seriously’, —
—
belief
that
there
powerful agent visible, public This
big
Power
that
when
of the
the
order
should
we
in
the
of
part
that —
the
acts
strings’
and
a
secret,
runs
the
of
‘Other
the
look
the
for
the
theme
politics
and
ideology
narratives
as
the
‘end
well
of
of
(‘the struggle
of
impasse
recent
narratives’:
great
in literature
as
of the
consistency
life).
of
roots
the
of
all-
the
structure. power Other’ in the
the
social
regulates
and
behind
of the
of
meta-guarantee that
invisible show:
invisible
obscene,
part
is, of
global, all-encompassing
that
Other’,
is another
agent
(the symbolic
narrativization, era,
‘Other there
the
sense,
Other
It is here
our
an
hidden
other,
Lacanian
is
actually ‘pulls
and
in
cinema
liberal
democracy longer possible, only way to achieve of global ‘cognitive mapping’ is through the paranoiac a kind narrative of a ‘conspiracy theory’. It is all too simplistic to dismiss conspiracy narratives as the paranoiac of the infamous ‘middle classes’ proto-Fascist reaction feel threatened which of modernization: by the process they function, as a kind of floating signifier can which be appropriated rather, by different obtain them to a minimal political options, enabling cognitive not but also mapping only by right-wing populism and fundamentalism, the liberal centre of and left(the ‘mystery’ by Kennedy’s assassination*’) orientations the old of the obsession American Left with the (recall wing notion that some is with mysterious government agency experimenting nerve would gases which give them the power to regulate the behaviour ~
with
totalitarianism’,
etc.)
no
the
seem
—
of the
population).
Another
version
guise
of the
New
from
Mars,
women
of
the
Other’s
Age Jungian are
from
in
return
resexualization
the
Real of
is discernible
the
universe
in
(‘men
according to this, there archetypal identity which provides a Venus’):
underlying, deeply anchored safe haven in the flurry of contemporary
confusion
of roles
and
is
kind
the are an
of
identities;
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
this
from
in
difficulty
perspective, overcoming
balance
turbed
with
it
is
crisis
but
roles,
the
not
dis-
the
emphasis on the malefemale-compassionate aspect. anti-Cartesian and anti-patriarchal bias
its the
today’s sexual
puts excessive the
neglecting
rewrites
fixed
of
who
shares
tendency
feminism,
of
origin
tradition
man,
aspect,
this
Although
the
in modern
rational-conscious
ultimate
the
363
feminist
of agenda into a reassertion archetypal repressed competitive male mechanistic A further universe. of the real Other version is the figure of the father as sexual harasser of his young the focal of so-called False daughters, point as the of Memory Syndrome: here, also, the suspended father agent that of a symbolic fiction is, the embodiment symbolic authority
feminine
in
roots
our
-
~
‘returns
those
the
in who
advocate
harassment uble
Real’
by
such
causes
the
father
of fact
of
families,
is
merely
not
fantasy, but a ‘really happened’
and
Freud’s
obstinacy comparable murder of the ‘primordial prehistory). to
is the
controversy
of childhood
rememoration
mixture
majority
(what
sexual
fantasized
contention
that
abuses
of sexual
least, an indissolplain fact, something which, in the in
the
less
no
father’
as
or,
at
daughter's obstinate real
a
childhood
insistence event
in
an
—
on
the
humanity's
‘
It is easy
to
discern
here
the
link
False
anxiety: the subject
between is
False
Memory Syndrome that
and
enables
Memory Syndrome symptomatic escape anxiety by taking refuge in the antagonistic relationThat is to say: one bear in should ship with the parental Other-harasser. mind that for Lacan, and in contrast to the Freudian doxa, anxiety does not when the object-cause of desire we is lost (as when emerge speak of ‘castration-anxiety’, usually expressing the fear that the male subject will be deprived of his virile member, or of birth even anxiety expressing the fear of being separated from the mother) on the contrary, anxiety when the desire is too of (and signals that) close, emerges object-cause formation
a
to
-
when
and
if
here: appreciate Lacan’s finesse a determifear has to which according nate object (of which we are afraid), while anxiety is a disposition that lacks any positive/determinate for Lacan it is object serving as its cause, fear to without is a which, contrary actually misleading appearances, in
we
to
contrast
come
the
too
standard
near
it, We
can
notion
determinate
object-cause (when I have a dog phobia, say, I do not fear but the irrepresentable ‘abstract’ void behind him); while it is the very overproximity anxiety does have a determinate object-cause of this object that triggered it... .° To get this point clear, we in mind have to bear once more that in the Lacanian the desire is Other's desire: the perspective ultimately the
dog
as
such,
—
364
THE
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
of desire
is ultimately not ‘What do I really want?’, but really want from me? What, as an object, am I I myself (the subject), as the object-cause of the myself for the Other?’ Other’s desire, am the object whose overproximity triggers anxiety: that I am to when the position of the object reduced is, anxiety emerges of False lines, in the case exchanged/used by the Other. Along the same Memory Syndrome, the antagonistic relationship with the parental enables me harasser to avoid anxiety generated by the fact that I am the direct (incestuous) object of parental desire; that I desire myself as such. last example: in his unpublished One paper ‘Ideology and its Paradraws attention to the of doxes’, Glyn Daly topic ‘cracking the code’ in from New today's popular ideology, Age pseudo-scientific attempts to use to crack some sort code which of fundamental computer technology gives to the of access future Bible the code code, (the destiny humanity contained in the Egyptian pyramids of .) up to the paradigmatic scene in which the hero like often, the heroine, (or, more cyberspace thrillers Bullock Sandra in The Net), hunched a over computer, frantically works
question-enigma does
‘What
the
Other
—
.
time
against
to
government to
attempt Code
or
severe
that
Order the
‘Access
bears
strings
witness
of
to
chaotic
our
The
the
and
Law
much more of the big Other assertion another, uncanny of the subjects however, in the allegedly ‘liberating’ notion
rules
the
Kant’s
of their
coexistence
access
life?
Yet
(re)invent
gain
workings of a secret freedom and democracy, or not a represent desperate that is, to posit some secret of some which presence Agent
social
Empty
Denied’ the
(say, about involved in a plot against Does this topic crime). the big Other’s existence,
reassert
actually pulls
of
information
agency
equally
some
obstacle
the
overcome
ultra-secret
the
to
.
without
any
is
discernible,
compelledto in
guarantee
some
ethical
philosophy can already serve as its paradigmatic In Coldness and Cruelty, Deleuze provides an unsurpassable formulaof Kant’s radically new conception of the moral Law:
meta-norm, case.
tion .
the
law the
is
no
Good
longer regarded itself
is made
as
dependent
on
the
Good,
but
on
the
that the law depend on the law. This means no in some longer has its foundation higher principle from which it would derive its authority, but that it is selfgrounded and valid solely by virtue of its own form.... LAW as an ultimate Kant, by establishing THE ground or dimension modern to principle, added an essential thought: the object of the
contrary,
to
WHITHER
is
law
definition
by
unknowable
and
elusive.
by its pure form, without substance knows nor can is such that no one where of
It defines
known.
itself
one
know
where
transgression without
knowing
defined
as
already guilty, and
is
one
what
guilt and punishment do not tell us indeterminacy equalled only by the
of
LAW,
of any determination whatsoever, what it is. It operates without making
Even
state
a
THE
Clearly
...
object
or
of
bounds
the
oversteps
Oedipus.
it in
realm
a
365
OEDIPUS?
they what
as
are,
the
law
in the
of
specificity
extreme
case
is, but leave the
punishment.” Kantian
The
Law
is thus
empirical of ethical
adequacy of
promise
neutral-universal bears we
know
of
with
the
Law
motives. Kafka
the
and
Sein
(what this
although know)
incarnations.
Law
The
about that
of
is
—
is
notion
of
a
(the fact
forever
gap is thus
Law
of
the
himself
separates
(and
the Law
it —
specificity
pathological culminates
in in
since, its in
situation
a
the
in accordance
Law) precedes in
the
as
not
contents; of our acts
the
which
knows
never
criteria
‘totalitarianism’:
political
Law, he
a
for
have
we
modern
Dass-Sein
content
accounts
random
is
form
empirical the
a
the
functions
This
come.
to
meets
actually acted hidden guided by some
the
there
applied
Law, rather,
to
is), the subject finds
Law
this
what
if
is,
been
not
its
Law,
knows
he
of the
content
announces
experience
the
of
case
content
of different
that
one,
have
thus
the
form
if this
(never)
determinate
right
and
Kant
form
empty of the
if the
is the
acts
our
empty
plurality persisting uncertainty
the
to
an
ascertain
to
content
mould
witness
never
the
—
absent
an
merely
not
order
in
content
a
which,
priori
from
its
Was-
cannot
positive
guilty: priori, in his very existence, guilty without knowing what he is guilty of (and guilty for that very .°! reason), infringing the law without knowing its exact regulations. What we have here, for the first time in the history of philosophy, is the assertion of the Law the without as unconscious: experience of Form content is always the index of a repressed content the more intensely the subject sticks the repressed to traumatic the empty form, the more subject
a
..
—
becomes.
content
The
the is
gap
rules
easily
that
of his
separates ethical
discernible:
Foucault which
the this
he has
from
universal
rule
rule
simply means shape his
ethical
to
for
Kant
they
assert
that
this
to
ethical
that
version
judgement
judgement (in which, particular situation, one
a
unique
the
subject project with very
subject reinventing Foucauldian
postmodern
both
each
in
of the
version
the
of aesthetic
structure
universal
ent(al)} Law; while
Kantian
although
ultimately displays the of simply applying a (re)invent
this
conduct
absence
concrete
into
is thrown no
support
of Law
—
in
instead has
to
situation),
for
situation
in
a
in any transcendthe specific sense
366 of
TICKLISH
THE
determinate
a
sensible
the
injunction that
we
and
their
of
set
positive
unbearable do
to
universal
norms
the
moral
of
pressure
one’s
the
from
Duty. So,
the
encounter
SUBJECT
underlying Law/Prohibition: fails positive universal symbolic norms Law
its most
at
tional
of the
nature
The
would
is
violate
entailed
Law, but
To
Law
here
emphasized moral
be
invented of
set
qua
Law:
lies
in the
its most
at
precise
fundamen-
accomplish some positive act prohibition to confuse symbolic prescription and/or
to
positive positive
the
that
means
of
set
any
—
to
the
self-referential
the
‘impossible’ Law with any prohibition, that is, to claim for law ultimately, the Prohibition
rules
—
by prohibition
the
not
the
more
pure empty perspective, it is here
when
to
the
the
remain
be
to
between
only
all the
the
qua
do we encounter the appear its aspect of the Real of an uncondi-
in
Law
paradox
Prohibition
tal, this Prohibition that
the
radical,
injunction.
Law
Lacanian
distinction
crucial
renders
—
the
norms
place of
of the
status
the Law
itself must
empty. put
regulating
it in
classic
the
‘care
Freudian of
in
terms:
Self’
the
Foucault, ‘use
his
in
we
rules
of
set
a
get
of
pleasures’ (in short, a reasonable application of the ‘pleasure principle’); while in Kant, the of an rules follows comes from the (re)invention injunction which the Foucauldian/Deleuzian ‘beyond of the pleasure principle’. Of course, answer to this would be that Kant is ultimately the victim of a perspective leads illusion which him to the radical of immanence (mis)perceive ethical norms the norms (the fact that the subject has to invent regulating his conduct and on his own autonomously, at his own expense responsibility, with no big Other to take the blame for it) as its exact opposite: as a radical of an the existence inscrutable transcendence, presupposing transcendent
Other
which
simultaneously prohibiting do
big
but
Duy,
our
is....
The
Other’s
disavowal Foucault’s
forever
Freudian
us
access
to
us
is that
Call
the Unconscious:
rejection
of the
of
the
such
fact
thorough rejection psychoanalytic terms, the other lying Law is none
gap than
between the
rules
Law
qua
follow
and
the
a
its unconditional
under
injunction,
compulsion to clearly knowing what this Duty we
are
a
(the translation relies immanence)
solution
which
psychoanalytic Freudian
we
—
into
Duty
the
of
a
with it
from
prevented
answer
inscrutable
of
terrorizes
usually
goes of
account
If
self-invented
gap between unconscious:
rules
involves
also
read
we
and
the is that
unnoticed
sexuality
Unconscious.
of the on
Kant
their
in
under-
(consciously preconscious) the basic lesson of psycho-
is, at its most radical, analysis is that the Unconscious ‘repressed’ desires but the fundamental Law itself. So even in the case of a narcissistic subject dedicated
not
the
wealth
of
illicit
to
the
‘care
of the
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
Self’, his ‘use of pleasures’
injunction
superego
guilt
which
when
he
according to most activity point
—
towards
intense
sexual
the
by the
is not
—
unconscious
ultimate
unconditional
the feeling of fails in his pursuit of pleasure? Does not opinion polls people find less and less
proof
—
in sexual
attraction ence
is sustained
enjoy
him
haunts
that
the fact
to
367
this
in
direction?
pleasure
This
indiffer-
uncanny with
starkly
contrasts
the
official
ideology of our postmodern society as bent on instant gratification and dedicates his life to pleasure-seeking: today’s subject pleasure and gets so involved in the activities deeply preparatory (jogging, massaging, tanning, and lotions of the official Goal of ...) that the attraction applying cream fades In of the course a brief stroll his efforts away. along Christopher Street
in
or
nary
Chelsea, into
energy
What
under
jouissance
desired/
the
who
The
of
which
social
revolves.
this
(From
harasser’
looks
like
a paternal able to Once fully enjoy ‘it’.) again task successfully: the direct injunction the to way to hinder subject’s access
its
that
is
life
our
is the
is still
Prohibition
explicit lesson
permanent
failure.
‘sexual
effective
more
network
‘repressive’
around
accomplished the
than
transgression. intense
of someone
much
a
point figure of
in
obviously living
ultimate
post-Oedipal ‘permissive’ societies, as ‘passionate attachment’,
our
foundational
focal
has
superego
‘Enjoy!’ is enjoyment
in
of gays putting extraordithe dreadful of prospect
with
yet
of their
today,
the
even
the
shadow the
as
prohibited
perspective, nostalgic image
pleasure,
to
the
is undermined
sexual
obsessed
body-building,
dedicated
getting old, anxiety and
hundreds
encounters
one
which
narcissistic
prohibitions,
the
sustains ‘care
for
space
Self’,
ultimate
the
is
the
of
its
the
not
of
enemy
sexual
The experiences. utopia of a new post-psychoanalytic subjectivity engaged in the pursuit of new idiosyncratic bodily pleasures to its opposite: what we are beyond sexuality has reverted getting instead is disinterested
boredom
—
and
it
pain (sado-masochistic practices) intense experience of pleasure. In
which other —
its
the
of Seminar very last page a viable, may be established necessitates the intervention
of that
realization,
then,
known
medium
that
the
the
paternal
retreat
of
malfunctioning As Darian
happen
Leader ‘out
as
there’
of
the
the
that
seems
sexual
is the
the
claims
temperate
relation
(where
of
‘any
shelter sex
one
to
the in
to
the
this is what psychoanalysis teaches us paternal metaphor’>? far from hindering
Law
—
of the
truth
dwells:
aliens
No wonder, the Law, entails indifference. sexual of
conditions.
its
guarantees
big Other,
symbolic
sexuality and the rise pointed out,®* the fact that, the
that
Xf, Lacan
of
intervention
only remaining path
‘normal’ has
direct
in
X Files,
threatening
so
many us,
things etc.)
is
368
THE
strictly two
correlative
fact
that
(Gillian Anderson
heroes
them.
between
the
between
the
to
TICKLISH
multitude
of
and
The
SUBJECT
nothing happens ‘down here’, between David Duchovny) is no that there paternal Law (which would make —
suspended two heroes possible) ‘returns in ‘undead’ spectral apparitions
nary lives. This disintegration
of
hand,
symbolic prohibitive
ideals
(of social
paternal norms
the
the sex sex
Real’, in the guise of the
which
intervene
in
ordi-
our
authority has two facets. On the one increasingly replaced by imaginary
are
of
bodily fitness ...); on the other, the lack of of ferocious symbolic prohibition supplemented by the re-emergence So have we a who is who narcissistic superego figures. subject extremely a as threat to his perceives everything potential precarious imaginary balance of the logic of victim; every contact with (take the universalization another human is a as if threat: other the experienced being potential smokes, if he casts a covetous person glance at me, he is already hurting me); far from allowing him to float freely in his undisturbed balance, this narcissistic self-enclosure leaves the subject to the (not so) however, mercies of the superego tender injunction to enjoy. So-called a kind of direct ‘postmodern’ subjectivity thus involves ‘superthe the caused lack of the proper egoization’ of imaginary Ideal, by symbolic here are the hackers— Prohibition; paradigmatic ‘postmodern’ these eccentrics hired to programmers, extravagant by large corporations their hobbies in an informal environment. are pursue programming They under the injunction to be what they are, to follow their innermost to of dress and behaviour idiosyncrasies, allowed ignore social norms of each other’s (they obey only some elementary rules of polite tolerance to realize a kind of proto-Socialist idiosyncrasies); they thus seem utopia of overcoming the opposition between alienated business, where you earn and the for pleasure at private hobby-activity that you pursue money, In weekends. is their which is hobby, why they spend long a way, theirjob hours at weekends in their the computer screen: when workplace behind one is paid for indulging in one’s the is result that one is hobby, exposed to a superego than that of the good old pressure incomparably stronger ‘Protestant work ethic’. Therein lies the unbearable paradox of this the tension is no postmodern ‘disalienation’: longer between my innermost that does not idiosyncratic creative impulses and the Institution success,
is
-
them
appreciate the
targets
is for
wants
to
of
injunction
superego
useless
or
precisely them
the
this
core
moment
crush a
of I
them
in
order
to
‘normalize’
me:
what
like Microsoft postmodern corporation I became my idiosyncratic creativity start losing this ‘imp of perversity’, the —
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
I lose
moment a
‘normal’
strange
alliance
like my
‘imp
of
‘countercultural’
my
between
perversity’,
the and
of the
retreat
on
consequences: the induces sensual
Other
big the
one
we
rebellious the
From The
subversive What
subject.
mature
has
hand,
to
two
this
to
need
for
violence
in the
start
with
of my
core
behave
to
here
is thus
a
personality,
corporation.
Phallus thus
dealing
subversive
external
and
edge
are
the
Real
Act
interconnected, failure
subject cling increasingly us spectacles which bombard today the
369
of
the
albeit
opposed,
symbolic
imaginary simulacra,
to
from of the
all sides; on body itself
the
fiction to
other,
the it
the
triggers (piercing flesh, inserting prosthetic supplements into the body). How does this relate to the structure of castration as of the condition bodily violence In our and symbolic empowerment? popular narratives myths, from a Robocop to Stephen Hawking, a person becomes supernaturally powerful hero only after traumatic accident or illness being the victim of some which his body: Robocop becomes the perfect machineliterally shatters his body cop when is artificially recomposed and supplemented after an almost deadly accident; Hawking’s insight into ‘the mind of God’ is clearly correlated to his crippling illness.... The standard analyses of Robocop endeavour to a elements oppose ‘progressive’ cyborg which suspends the distinction between human and a machine and ‘regressive’ elements the obvious of his metal ‘phallic’, aggressive-penetrating nature equipwhich serves as a prosthesis to his mutilated ment, body; these analyses, sense is the however, miss the point. what is ‘phallic’ in the strict Lacanian of the artificial-mechanical very structure prosthesis that supplements the wound to our the body, since phallus itself qua signifier is such a its bearer at the traumatic prosthesis, empowering price of some —
—
~
mutilation. Here it is crucial to maintain the distinction between the phallus as signified (the ‘meaning of the phallus’) and the phallic signifier. the phallic signified is the part of jowissance integrated into the paternal symbolic order (phallus as the symbol of virility, penetrating power, the force of etc.); while the phallus as signifier stands for fertility and insemination, the price the male the ‘meaning of subject has to pay if he is to assume the phallus’, its signified. Lacan specifies this ‘meaning of the phallus’ as the ‘imaginary’ number 1), an ‘impossible’ number (the square root of whose value can never be positivized, but which none the less ‘functions’: —
370
THE
‘the
encounter
we
meaning feel
enthusiastically
TICKLISH
of the
that
SUBJECT
phallus’ when,
‘this
is i,
the
real
of some apropos the true thing,
notion,
meaning’, able to explain what, precisely, this meaning is. Say, although we are never in a political discourse, the Master-Signifier (Our Nation) is this kind of of meaning, that empty signifier which stands for the impossible fullness that its content is impossible to is, its meaning is ‘imaginary’ in the sense of the Nation to define in what the positivize when you ask a member will always be: ‘I can’t answer identity of his Nation consists, his ultimate feel it, it’s i, what our lives are say, you must really about’. . So why is it necessary, in our ‘wound of postmodern age, for the castration’ to inscribe itself again into the body, as a wound in its very flesh? In the good old times of modern had no subjectivity, an individual
we
-
.
need
sacrifice
to
ordeal
of
risking
the
sacrifice
all
positive
flesh
the
content.**
‘loss
of
film, deals
Slovene
ethnic
turmoils
of
between
Slovenia
origin,
(circumcision, .) in order
a
with
is,
This
loss’
that
the
to
symbolic
a
renunciation
defines of
fate
married
a
to
..
that
purely symbolic,
was
Serb
recent
his
life, tattooing
substantial
of
structure
of
part one’s
a
the
ritualized
initiatory gain symbolic status:
act
of renunciation
of
the
displays precise tragedy. Yanez,-a in the Yugoslav Army of woman, caught in the
modern
officer
an
.
Macedonian
the
disintegration of Yugoslavia: when the conflict erupts the Yugoslav Army, and proclaiming independence which to endeavoured within keep Slovenia Yugoslavia, the officer sacrifices his particular (Slovene) ethnic that of roots, is, the very substance his being, for fidelity to the universal Cause (Yugoslav unity), only to later that the discover sad reality of this universal he Cause, for which sacrificed to him is the and most, everything that mattered corrupt Milosevic at so, deprived Serbia of the nationalist regime of Slobodan the end, we see the hero alone and drunk, totally at a loss. . —
.
A similar
double
of thing, the very substance to confront being compelled constitutive
of
sacrifice the
it as
for
well
to some as
being,
our
the
for
Crucial
first
of
.
sacrificing and
Cause,
this
Cause this
everythen
itself
is
—
subjectivity.» Today, however, no longer to be operative, since subjects their particular substantial identity, unwilling to universal Cause so-called (this is what ‘identity
the
search
for
ethnic
of
here
of
universal
some
vacuousness
had again symbolic castration in the guise of some horrifying mutilation symbolic empowerment? cut
~
double
move-
seems
stick
increasingly politics’,
modern
renunciation
of
ment
of renunciation
movement
is the
difference
between
‘roots’, to
be as
the
are
about)
~
so
inscribed
on
to
the
of
the
price
traditional
is this
why
the
body, subject's
(premodern)
cut
in the
body (circumcision, etc.) superficially alike
may be
two
look
like
their
inherent
which
reality
‘return
to
libidinal
the
and that
—
the
postmodern cut:°° although the although the postmodern cut may procedures of marking the body’ with postmodernism, as opposed
is,
premodern
-
economies
may look like the return these forms are already
371
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
are
—
the
of
archaic
premodern
but
forms,
in
colonized
‘mediated’,
by modernity, so that when postmodernism signals the moment modernity no longer has to use them forms, but can fight traditional directly today’s astrologist or fundamentalist preacher, in his very mode of activity, is already marked of modernity is the appearance of by modernity. One of the definitions the ‘natural’ naked within the and nudism other body symbolic space: of the celebration forms of nakedness not as part of secret initiatory in rituals (as transgressive premodern pagan societies), but as finding are pleasure in asserting the ‘innocent’ body beauty of one’s natural distinctly modern phenomena.>” Here one has to repeat the gesture of accomplished by Hegel apropos the sudden as rise of nature the topos in seventeenth-century art: precisely the Spirit has returned because to itself, that is, is able to grasp itself and no nature as the medium of its symbolic directly longer needs becomes as it is in itself, expression, nature perceptible in its innocence, as of a beautiful a not as object contemplation, symbol of spiritual same when the the modern lines, struggle, along subject ‘internalizes’ into the ‘loss of a loss’, the body no longer has to bear symbolic castration —
-
—
the
burden
of
castration
is thus
and
free
redeemed,
object of pleasure and beauty. This appearance the to naked body is strictly correlative imposition in detail Foucault: procedures described by Michel the body is no longer marked, modernity, when becomes the object of strict disciplinary regulations an
to
be
of
the
of
celebrated
the
with
as
unmutilated
disciplinary
the
advent
of
upon,
it
inscribed destined
make
to
it
fit. We can thus distinguish four stages in the logic of the ‘cut in the body’. I am’, First, in pre-Judaean pagan tribal societies, ‘I am marked, therefore that is, the cut in my body (tattoo, etc.) stands for my inscription into the
socio-symbolic a
member ‘a
sion,
of cut
correlative not
you:
to
am
exceptional
end
—
all
it I
outside
society. cuts’,
any the cut
prohibition gashes in your
nothing,
for
flesh
19:
‘internalized’,
the
comes
is, the
of the
(Leviticus LORD’ is itself
am
Then
that
the
to
make I
a
space human
like
more
an
Jewish logic
animal of
exceptional/negative
pagan the
multitude dead
or
of tattoo
28).°* Finally, with there
are
no
cuts.
cut
strictly
‘You
cuts:
any
than
circumci-
marks
shall
upon
Christianity, Where,
then,
this lies
372
the
between
difference
the
TICKLISH
THE
it in
put
direction
from
somewhat the Real
opposite direction, cut
flesh,
from the
inscribe
to
was
mark
to
premodern
mutilation
body (tattooing, piercing, the postmodern ‘neo-tribal’ To
SUBJECT
of
plethora
of ways
organs...)
and
cut in the body? the traditional simplified terms: the Symbolic,while the postmodern
the
its inclusion
the Real.
Symbolic to form
symbolic
to
on
the
into
The
fourth
cut
ran
cut
runs
of the
aim
flesh,
raw
one’s
shape
to
the
stage, in
traditional
‘gentrify’
to
its
the
in the
raw
it; the
aim big Other, subjection to the is, rather, practices of bodily mutilation to guarantee, to give access of the to, existence’, the ‘pain minimum of the bodily Real in the universe of symbolic simulacra. In of today’s ‘postmodern’ cut other in the body is to words, the function not serve as the mark of symbolic castration as its exact but, rather, to the resistance to submission the opposite: designate body's against a socio-symbolic Law. When girl has her ears, cheeks and vaginal lips of submission is not one of the but one pierced with rings, the message ‘defiance of the flesh’: she changes what, in a traditional socicty, was the of submission mode to the of Tradition its into symbolic big Other opposite, into the idiosyncratic display of her individuality. to Only in this way is reflexivization thoroughly global: when put it in it ‘remains itself in its that when is, otherness’, (what was by Hegelese its starts to function as its as in previously) very opposite expression in which a faked return to traditional architecture, postmodern styles individuality. The old motto displays the fancies of reflexive plus ¢a change, plus c'est la méme chose should be supplemented by its opposite, plus c'est la méme chose, plus ¢a change. the sign of this radical historical change is the fact that the very features that once defined patriarchal sexual economy are to stay, since allowed in a new they now function way. Simply recall of ‘Rule Girls’:’ the phenomenon we are apparently dealing with an to
of
postmodern opposite one
sado-maso
—
—
~
—
re-establish
attempt
to
have
make
to
elusive
object
attracted
to,
set
of
opposite,
of seduction
and
display although
never
that
rules.
So
the of
order
here and
‘postmodern’
to
with
the as
reflexive
(women to
retain
interest the
the
of these
content
of
in
old
chased
are
the
status
and of
they
man
‘rules’
is, for
rules
the are
all
the
regulating subjective position of enunciation thoroughly ‘postmodern’ emancitheir pleasure, reflexively adopt adoption of a past procedure is
the
enhance
again serves
the
that
seduction,
dealing
are
in
as
same
is,
active
an
etc.); however,
‘transubstantiated’ of
rules
inaccessible,
practical purposes, ‘patriarchal’ process differs radically: we pated subjects who, a
old
the
themselves
the
means
freedom.
of
expression
of
its
very
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
373
This
brings us to what one is tempted to call the antinomy of postmodindividuality: the injunction to ‘be yourself’, to disregard the pressure and achieve self-realization of your surroundings by fully asserting your sooner or later upon the paradox that unique creative potential, stumbles from if you are left with completely isolated your surroundings, you are nothing whatsoever, with a void of idiocy pure and simple. The inherent of ‘Be your true Self!’ is therefore the injunction obverse to cultivate in accordance with the refashioning, permanent postmodern postulate of in short, the subject’s indefinite extreme individualization plasticity to reverts its opposite, to the ultimate leading identity crisis: subjects themselves as with no unsure, experience radically ‘proper face’, changing one from since what is behind the mask is imposed mask to another, a void are to fill in ultimately nothing, horrifying they frantically trying with their more and more compulsive activity or by shifting between or of dressing, meant to accentuate their idiosyncratic hobbies ways individual individualization identity. Here we can see how extreme (the true endeavour to be to one’s Self outside imposed fixed socio-symbolic to roles) tends overlap with its opposite, with the uncanny, anxietyis this not the ultimate provoking feeling of the loss of one’s identity of Lacan’s confirmation a minimum of insight into how one can achieve and ‘be oneself’ the fundamental alienation in identity only by accepting the symbolic network? The paradoxical result of out-and-out narcissistic hedonism is thus that in the thorough reflexivity of enjoyment itself is increasingly externalized: our that is to lives, any direct appeal to our experience is invalidated direct say, I no longer trust experience, but expect the Other to my own tell me how about the conversation I really feel, as in the anecdote between two ‘Tell me how behaviourists: what about I feel today.’ ‘Good me?’ More of my innermost precisely, this direct externalization experiern
...
—
—
—
ence
point external
is much
more
is not
simply reality, not
uncanny that what
than counts
the
usual
behaviourist
is the
way
I behave
reduction: in
the
observable
to the behaviourist feelings; in contrast reduction of inner I do retain but these feelings self-experience, my feelings, themselves are externalized. The ultimate however, paradox of individuation, is that this complete dependence on others I am what am only through I with others obsession with (see the postmodern my relations quality the opposite effect of drug dependence, in ‘relationships’) generates which I am dependent not on another subject but on a drug that directly provides excessive jouissance. Is not the dust of heroin or crack the ultimate figure of surplus-enjoyment: an object on which I am hooked, which
my
inner
—
~
374
THE
threatens
swallow
to
big Other, that is, the drug therefore This antinomy
me
all the
Is
formulated
I wear,
the
intersubjective relationships) and the and cuts). The key point here is again these two identity’ between opposites:
of Lacan’s the
formula
antinomy
roles
Real
suspends the relationship to
user’s
drug
as
of
that
jouissance the
not
exemplification
be
masks
excessive
links?
ultimate also
can
SUBJECT
the
in
up
symbolic
(of the
simulacrum
TICKLISH
I
play
in
s—a?
between
the
the
of game violence
(of traumatic
bodily Hegelian ‘speculative the price of the global reign of simulacra is extreme violence to the Real. bodily (Long ago, Lacan the formula for this coincidence of opposites: when provided paradoxical the is falls into the Real.) So symbolic efficiency suspended, Imaginary how are we to break out of this vicious to cycle? Any attempt to return is and can lead clearly self-defeating, Oedipal symbolic authority only to ridiculous like those of the What is needed is spectacles Promise-Keepers. the assertion of a Real which, instead of being caught in the vicious cycle with its imaginary the dimension of the (re)introduces counterpart, the Imaginary; in short, what is needed is an act impossibility that shatters as the authentic act that involves opposed to mere activity disturbing to
the
assert
—
the
(‘traversing’)
fantasy. subject is ‘active’ (especially when he is driven into frenetic hyperactivity), the question to be asked is: what is the underlying fantasy as sustaining this activity? The act opposed to activity occurs only when this phantasmic itself is disturbed. In this act background precise sense, for Lacan is on the side of the object gua real as opposed to signifier (to ‘speech act’): we can perform speech acts only in so far as we, have Whenever
a
—
accepted the fundamental phantasmic support necessary act
real
as
support. least
in the
correlate of
this
contrary, who
is
As
can
the
standard
to
the
division, the
act
a
the
act
in
its
the
author—agent a foreign body, an repels me, so that ~
of the
sense
subject, always failed,
traumatic
subjectivize it,
never
authentic intruder if and
fuche it
that
be
of this without
opposed
‘alienated’
but
not
in
as
the the
that, because so
divides
own’,
I
phantasmic subject, at subject: the
any the
to
sense
and
which
‘his
and while
divided the
displaced, is that
assume
act
is
on
-
the
the subject on
as posit himself definition always by
accomplish simultaneously attracts/fascinates
which when
to
order
order,
symbolic
nihilo,
ex
is also
divided is
the
functioning
occurs
object
as
in
the
for
Lacanian is
act
act
alienation
which
event
an
such,
-
I
come
too
close
to
it, this
leads
its
and to
my
If there is a subject to the act, it is not the subject aphanisis, sclf-erasure. of subjectivization, of integrating the act into the universe of symbolic integration and recognition, of assuming the act as ‘my own’, but, rather,
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
375
which
‘acephalous’ subject through
the
act takes place as that designates the level at which the fundamental divisions and displacements usually associated with the ‘Lacanian subject’ (the split between the subject of the enunciation and the subject of the enunciated/statement, the subject’s ‘decentrewith ment’ to the regard symbolic big Other; etc.) are momentarily in the the act, suspended subject, as Lacan puts it, posits himself as his own and is no longer determined cause, by the decentred object-cause. For that Kant’s of how a direct reason, description insight into the and God) would deprive us of our freedom Thing in itself (the noumenal turn us into lifeless if we subtract from it the scenic puppets imagery it to the essential (fascination with the Divine Majesty) and reduce (an turmoil entity performing what it does ‘automatically’, without any inner and struggle), paradoxically fits the description of the (ethical) act perfectly this act is precisely something which unexpectedly ‘just occurs’, an uncanny which is ‘in
him
than
more
himself’.
The
thus
act
—
—
it is
an
(after
able
was
authentic
act,
do
it
to
authentic with
a
which
occurrence an
that, the
act,
reduction
problematic of perspective involved is
accept
and
lies
In
close
that the
in
the
have
we
criticism
coincide
also
every
presuppose
that
there
in
this the
infinitum
an
act
ized’, that
is, accomplished with cal’ motivations); and, since one
in
of
out
there
can
passivity,
is
difficult
so
noumenal
that
and
the
reach;
our
acts,
are
of the
notion
of the
unity is
Kant
they
true
do occur,
Will
Kant’s it is
sure
what
takes
mistake
adequately
(a Will free be
never
is thus act, Lacan noumenal and the
precisely
accomplished. only in so far as pure
I an
its gestures. radical shift of
what
which
in
is
a
in
them.
that
implicit
act
is
that with
terms
how
that,
utmost
the
accept
act
is forever
claimed ad
to
of finitude:
true
awareness
to
come
authentic
an
the
is thus
the
itself
agent know
blindly performs
us
notion
that
with
who
compels
I don’t
paradox
coincides
modern
fact
Hegel, phenomenal adjourned time
thus
act
of Kant who
to
The
its
surprises
‘Even
always
automaton
opposite to
is
freedom
the
in
dimensions
phenomenal trauma
the
the
not
most)
even
just happened!’).
lifeless
a
(and
reaction
my
highest to
The
to
also
that
of any
what
place was
to
‘subjectiv“‘pathologiI did
was
in
is (i-e. since there prompted by the moral Law as its sole motive always a lurking suspicion that I accomplished a moral act in order to find act turns into of my peers, etc.), the moral pleasure in the esteem on this saints earth), something which in fact never happens (there are no but can asymptotic only be posited as the final point of an infinite that is, in order for that reason, approach of the purification of the soul
fact
-
none
the
less
to
guarantee
the
ultimate
possibility
of the
act,
Kant
had
to
376
TICKLISH
THE
SUBJECT
postulate of the immortality of the soul (which, as can be to its effectively amounts very opposite, to the Sadeian fantasy of the immortality of the bedy®!) only in such a way can one hope that after endless one will reach of the point approximation, being able to accomplish a true moral act. his
propose
shown,
—
The
assumes
level
of the
it is
~
of its
act’
is the
unable of
sudden,
inexplicably cowardly
views,
The
paradox
‘intentional’ nevertheless —
‘I
the
in
usual
this
ation
is
that
all
is that
of
this
of
always we
thus
sense
of
yet I
Lacanian of
and
of
stand
Bruno,
after
condition
of
level
for none
of
the
irreducible
that
man’s
transparency, overcoming that absolute/unconditional
the
act
presumption displacement,
his
constitutive acts
it of
long history
a
stick
to
enables
us
to
finitude,
of
how
also
ultimate
and
is
a
what
his
to
fact
in
is
of
all
cost
of
term
notion of
lack
finitude,
etc.)
that although it is not consciously willing it, it is which its agent is fully responsible the less fully free in doing it.’ the
in
the
am
firm,
decided
unexpectedly lies
a
course,
is
as
the
compromises,
to
of
source
that
and
he
can
‘act
like
division.
do
with
our
situ-
not
lack, situation
the
corollary and this
overcome
God’,
in
the
a
to
answer
in
so
our
totalitarian
Lacan’s but
occur,
break
constitutive
a
do is
catastrophes
of
Giordano
act
ethics
that
‘on
is not
agent
displaced being caught this lack, the fact that heroically assume an thrown into being impenetrable finite context;® can
ethics,
other
himself,
something
as
deconstructionist
the
resolves
retreats,
of the
otherwise,
Consequently, the
the
pathological motivations,
manoeuvring
how
and
accepted do
cannot
of to
was
attacks
—
unpleasantly surprised by the ‘crazy thing he to terms with it. This, incidentally, fully to come heroic acts: somebody who, for a long time, has
even
this, precisely,
—
not
‘on
is
life
opportunistic
an
may rather
and
structure
done’,
usual
does
agent
act
its
presuppose
that
inevitable,
authentic
an —
of all
purified
even
he himself
that
self-evidence
his will
(with
only possible,
act’, that
is thus
criticism
misleading
on
not
hasjust led
of Lacan’s
point
Kant
total this
(idealist)
self-transparent gesture performed by a subject with a pure Will them on the as a fully intends they occur, contrary, totally a miraculous event which our shatters lives. To put it unpredictable tuche, in somewhat is present pathetic terms, this is how the ‘divine’ dimension in our modalities of ethical relate lives, and the different betrayal precisely to the different the true source of Evil is ways of betraying the act-event:
guise
a
who
not
-
a
divine
finite
mortal
miracles
occur
should
reread
who
man
and
acts
reduces
like
but
God,
himself
to
a
just
man
who
another
denies finite
that mortal
being. One
Lacan’s
matrix
of
the
four
discourses
as
the
three
377
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
of
modes
to these of the (analyst’s) act; coming to terms with the trauma of the three one add the should act, fourth, strategies of disavowal act the choice of the involves properly psychotic one: since an authentic Worse, since it is by definition catastrophic (for the existing discursive universe), let us then directly provoke a catastrophe and the act will occur somehow act of trying to (therein lies the desperate ‘terrorist’ the masses ‘sober’ lulled into the RAF in the ideological sleep, from of the to 1970s the this While Germany early Unabomber). temptation of course, be resisted, one should no less firmly resist the opposite must, modalities of dissociating the from its act temptation of the different inherent ‘catastrophic’ consequences. In so far as the political act par excellence is a revolution, two opposing to separate the noble Idea of the strategies arise here: one can endeavour Revolution from its abominable of the reality (recall Kant’s celebration sublime Revolution evoked in the enlightened feeling the French public all over Europe, which goes hand in hand with utter disdain for the reality of the revolutionary events or one can idealize the authentic themselves), its regrettable later but unavoidable revolutionary act itself, and bemoan betrayal (recall the nostalgia of Trotskyite and other radical Leftists for the with workers’ councils early days of the Revolution, popping up that the Thermidor, is, the later ‘spontaneously’ everywhere, against ...
ossification
of
the
Revolution
into
all these
a
hierarchical
new
should
structure).
state
unconditional
need temptations, to endorse the act fully in all its consequences. Fidelity is not fidelity to the principles betrayed by the contingent facticity of their actualization, but fidelity to the of the entailed by the full actualization consequences the act, of what precedes (revolutionary) principles. Within the horizon the act always and by definition a as change ‘from Bad to Worse’ appears usual criticism of revolutionaries: conservatives {the against yes, the situ-
Against
ation
the
is act
one
bad, but is
fully
to
your
solution this
assume
is
means
that
there
is
act
the
none
our
unleashes
heroism
proper
of
the
being. So,
Good
the less
in every authentic of act, in its gesture the game’, inclusive of the very basic
proper political foundations of
The
...).
worse
even
the
on
Worse.
Beyond This
insist
something inherently ‘terroristic’ thoroughly redefining the ‘rules self-identity of its perpetrator of
force
when
of
—
a
negativity
Leftist
is
that
accused
shatters of
the
laying
very the
a
378
THE
and
the
for
ground
Stalinist
benevolent
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
Maoist
or
he
proposals,
his
through
terror
should
learn
otherwise
avoid
to
the
sincere
liberal
trap of himself
at face value and then accepting this accusation trying to defend not Socialism will be democratic, by pleading guilty (‘Our respecting human rights, dignity, happiness; there will be no universal obligatory Liberal ultimate no, horizon; Party Line...’): Democracy is not our as it may sound, the horrible uneasy experience of the Stalinist political terror should not lead us into abandoning the principle of terror itself one should search even more for the terror’. Is the stringently ‘good structure of a true act of liberation that of a not, political by definition, —
forced
choice
German
"You
In
an
It
free
individuals
to
of France,
the
choose
to
‘terroristic’?
such,
as
on
occupation are
choose
and,
called
Resistance
join implicit
between
and
us
ranks the
If you choose collaboration, you authentic choice of freedom, I choose
Brecht
in
who,
what
French the
actively oppose appeal was
of its
but
Germans’,
renounce
the
1940,
and
structure
us!
Bertolt
in
When, its
your very I know I have
‘You
not
must
freedom!’ to
do.
his
Taken ‘learning’ play The Measure (1930), fully deployed this ‘terroristic’ potential of the act, defining the act the readiness as to one’s (‘second accept thorough self-obliteration the who the then death’): revolutionaries, youth joins endangers them through his humanist compassion for the suffering workers, agrees to be thrown into a where his body will disintegrate, with no trace of him pit left behind.“! is endangered the of remainder Here, the revolution by naive that is, by perceiving other not as humanity people only figures in the class struggle but also, and primarily, as suffering human beings. on one’s direct sentiments of compassion, Brecht Against this reliance offers the ‘excremental’ of the revolutionary subject with identification was
—
the
terror
the
need
needed for
from gone of the filth In to
his
write
its
the
which
famous a
of the
kill
enemies
human
the
erase
ultimate that
room
had
you short
dialectical
betrayal the
to own
revolution of
last
traces
of
self-obliteration:
has to
been
“Who
cleaned!
Would
thus
accepting
you? Stinking,
are
that
you
were
the
be last
remove!’®
play
Mauser
rebuttal
of
on
itself,
terror
account
revolution,
Miller endeavoured (1970°°), Heiner this confronting figure of the of humanist compassion (‘I cannot
Brecht, because
I
also
see
in
them
ignorant
bcings, helpless victims caught in the historical process’) with the opposing figure of the revolutionary executioner who identifies with the excessively with his brutal work (instead of executing enemies that his murderous work is the painful but necessary impassivity, aware measure destined to necessary bring about a state in which killing will no suffering
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
be
longer
he elevates necessary, into an end-in-itself,
revolution
the
379
destruction
of
the
enemies
of
the
in the destructive finding fulfilment orgy At the end of the as such). play, it is thus the revolutionary executioner a into turned killing machine, not the compassionate humanist, who is of the revolution the and condemned to execution enemy proclaimed by Far from the Party Chorus. simply undermining The Measure Taken with its dialectical of the counter-example, however, the execution revolutionary himself executioner in Mauser a offers perfect example of the ‘last of the had to be removed’. filth which A revolution is achieved (not betrayed)
when
it ‘eats
that
its
the children’, words, the ultimate
own
other
In
motion.
simple devotion willingly accepting the of
executioner
be
to
achieve
and
the
fidelity of ‘vanishing
role
was
revolutionary to
executed
its ultimate
that
excess
(as the
is
but,
rather,
that
of
mediator’, that
so
it in
set
stance
Revolution
‘traitor’)
to
necessary ethical
the
the
not
of
excessive
Revolution
can
goal.
More
the executioner himself is not executed precisely, in Mauser as an end-inenjoying his killing on behalf of the Revolution kind of pseudo-Bataillean itself; he is not caught in some orgy of (self-) the point is, rather, that he wants to ‘kill the dead themselves destruction; to obliterate the dead from historical to again’, totally memory, disperse their very bodies, to make them so that the new disappear completely, age will start from the zero-point, with a clean slate in short, to bring about what the ‘second death’. Lacan, following Sade, called Paradoxically, revolutionaries in Brecht’s The however, it is precisely this that the three Measure Taken aim their at: comrade must not his be killed, young only must of it must be left, his very disappearance disappear, no trace annihilation must be total the young comrade ‘must disappear, and ask their to comradc totally’.“?7 So when the three revolutionaries young him self this total say ‘Yes!’ to his fate, they want freely to endorse
simply
for
—
—
that
obliteration, Measure
is
Taken
with
struggling
enemies to
the
of the
picture’.
does)
the
taking
care
the
victim
Measure
take
thcir
is
not
Taken, young
in
annihilation,
the
total
on scene
friend
the
to
also,
to
can
no
the
reminiscent their
the
a
pietd,
they
problem
The
of
aspect
Brecht
death’,
‘second
are
victim
burden
revolution: of
arms,
the
of
the
revolutionary himself: ‘erase himself totally from (as Muller longer oppose
the
of
the
is
of the
death’,
one
obliteration of
This
task
fully assuming
behalf
in
itself.
horrible
‘second
own
total
dead, a
Mauser.
reason,
destructive is killed
in Muller’s
his
that
of the
death
but
endorse For
second
covered the
is not
revolution,
and
accept
is, his
that
when, the
the
to
the
of
three
carrying
at
the
respectful once
killing, end
of
The
comrades gently towards the
him
380
TICKLISH
THE
will throw
they are precisely effecting his disappearance disappearance itself. a third So is there humanist way between hysterical shirking the act and with the act, or are we caught in the vicious the perverse overidentification cycle of violence in which the very revolutionary attempt to break radically with the past reproduces its worst features? lies Muller’s Therein displacewith the ment regard to Brecht: revolutionary act of self-obliteration preached by Brecht doesn’t work; the revolutionary negation of the past so that gets caught in the loop of repeating what it negates, history to be dominated appears by a deadly compulsion to repeat. The third way advocated by the Party Chorus in Mauser involves a nice paradox: you can a distance towards maintain your act of revolutionary violence (killing the enemies of the revolution) in so far as you conceive of yourself as the that is, in so far as you identify yourself as instrument of the big Other, whom the the one through big Other itself History directly acts. This between direct overidentification which act the violent (in opposition turns into the (self-)destructive and identifying orgy as an end-in-itself) oneself as the instrument of the big Other of History (in which the violent precipice they total
into
SUBJECT
him
that
—
the
obliteration,
is,
of his
.
-
looks
act
itself,
of
means
far
necessary),
ways of should
two act
the
like be
longer
the
eschewing be
not
confused
‘end-in-itself”
it isan
in which
being exhaustive, the
in the
sense
ethical
(self-)destructive it is
that
such
will
acts
no
the
designates precisely
of the
dimension
proper with
.
—
conditions
creating
from
.
act. as
orgy of any
deprived
the
While
end-in-
an
guarantee
‘authorized (an act is, by definition, big Other only by itself’, precludes any self-instrumentalization, any justification through reference to some if there is a lesson to figure of the big Other). Furthermore, in
the
learned
psychoanalysis, it is that ultimately coincide:
from
instrumentalization
oneself
(positing violence
pervert’s big Other in
his
order
claim
to
—
is
it in
put
Hegelian his
opposite: jouissance
the
he
and
be-
self-
self-instrumentalization
big Other)
accomplishing is
overidentification
perverse
of the
he
exact
conceal
acts
as
becomes
necessarily
terms, the
staging
the
fiction
derives
from
the
the
‘truth’
of the
destructive
of the of
instrument
big
the
Other
orgy
of
acts.
is Evil
So where
opposed to
he
that
is its to
instrument
end-in-itself
an
as
the
as
direct
it
the
CNN
first
today? the
table) as
-
irrelevant:
justice,
The
as
predominant
fundamentalist Clinton
answer,
round
standards obstructs
answers,
is Satan
what
long
(as
overtly evil,
not
as
ideological and
one
it matter
the
economy
space liberal one.
provides two According
at a recently claimed moral subtly corroding our if one lies, commits perjury, is booming ...? From. this
someone
but
does
the
|
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
the
perspective, violence
but
society
where
look
not
moral
true
the
subtle
things just
horrible
of
moral
it lulls
in
the
-
into
us
direct
a
anchors
smoothly
run
that
all,
at
is not
catastrophe
loss
381
outburst
affluent
an
horror
of
Evil
it does
is that
life of
meaningless
a
cruel
of
consumerist
pleasures.
short, for a conservative Clinton is in a way worse fundamentalist, Hitler Hitler, because (Nazism) was an Evil directly experienced
In
and
provoking
into
moral
lassitude
Although
this
Le Pen
liberal stance,
discern Hitler’s
because
with class
the
who
to
do
that
These
event
same
thirty-six-year-old her fourteen-year-old
which
is still
sex
condemned
by
affair) as well molestation). The
that
beholder, thus
category, not
Evil
conservative for
drawn
are
the
Moral
as
and
the for
the
of
one
social
authentic
gaze
today's
gaze
Majority
the
in
that
point
of view
conservatives
this
very
position, in
all attitudes used
and
condemn
to
the
recent
great
(as (as
an a
liberals
stories
this
affair
of
the
reflected
a
Evil in its opponent. the very righteous
all around?
multiculturalist
opposed
two as
sexual
eye of the all around,
the
Evil
Evil
in was
illegitimate child
of
is in
Evil
affair
love
obscene case
observes
corruption
love
passionate
a
which
its
fundamentalist
a
Mary Kay Letourneau, for
that
tolerant
and
itself
Good
be
today: each conservative, ultimately defines that wrongly projects/ perceives perceives moral
illusion this
to
on,
confirmation
multiculturalist
is, they forced
transgression:
motto
Democrats,
Truth.
also of
case
imprisoned pupil,
to
double
a
that
better
were
liberal
of so
and
Majority fundamentalists liberals by politically correct
it lies
liberal
stances,
and
censor,
sometimes
can
often-quoted Hegelian
found
Social
attitude
Moral as
and
old
linked
Nazis
the
stood,
we
of Goodness
recall
—
with
Party, even
is the
prohibit, frame
versions
‘evil’
as
where
Evil
aspect:
fit his
not
or
last
the
schoolteacher
Is
we
.
parliamentary ultimate reality). In contrast the figure of Evil in the
extirpate,
opposed
two
of
‘the
as
fanatical
endeavours
Communist
regime
knew
we
locates
version
practices
German
get rid
to
fundamentalist,
has
sleaze
of it...
appear
parliamentary
struggle
liberal
the
Clinton’s
aware
I have
as
them, at least class
working
accept
for
bourgeois
may
that,
true
takeover: the
the
with
being
even
utterly foreign to a leftist liberal already noted, even today’s leftist a relief at in the USA or experience strange figures like Buchanan in France: who openly breaks here, at least, we have someone the consensus stalemate and, by passionately advocating a repulsive us in an authentic enables to engage political struggle (it is easy to in this stance the repetition of the old leftist stance of apropos
liberals
than
while
outrage, without
attitude
is it not
stance,
the
moral
than
such
as
tolerance
Is
not
Evil
which,
382 a
THE
condemns
priori,
and
exclusive Evil As
knot
define
we
as
this
of
Again, it is the interweaving
mutual
the
in
ethics
in
only
way the ethical
a
act.° the
beyond The
—
enables
of
Good
and
act
‘beyond
not
the
Good
proper Good
by
between
Evil, of
knot later
and
it.
our
some
Evil
—
the
the domain
of
involves
definition
Evil’, but
and
is
in
diabolical
or
as
to
us
perceives
or
sooner
up radical
with
ethical
an
that
simply
Good. that
fact
Mary Kay
put it, Good’
the
end
we
disjunction
a
As Lacan
‘beyond
move
enforce
is to
engaged struggle act
who eye of the beholder of the Good, this Gordian
very terms
to be ‘radical’, fate, and, if we want fascination delusive, falsely Romantic out
and
sides
taking
totalitarian?
reflectively residing
long
SUBJECT
passionate
every
potentially
Gordian
the
cut
TICKLISH
acts
should
act,
one
fate
of sexual
still
are
In
Letourneau.
locate love.
possible today
order
it within
Today,
the
discern
to
is demonstrated
the
by of
contours
co-ordinates
the
global opposition
true
between
that
the
of
case
Mary Kay’s
determine
the
and
reflexivization
new
and New immediacy is that between sexuality under the regime of science ultimately lead to the end of sexuality proper, Age spontancity. Both terms of sexual direct scientific-medical intervention passion. The first option is best into sexuality exemplified by the notorious Viagra, the potency the in a purely capacity of male erection pill that promises to restore all with biochemical way, bypassing psychological inhibitions. problems of Viagra if it actually fulfils What will be the psychic effects its promise? a who claim that feminism unleashed threat To those to masculinity was attack (men’s selfconfidence seriously undermined by being under all the time from who wanted to be liberated from emancipated women the initiative in sexual and retain and contact, patriarchal domination, full sexual satisfaction from their male simultaneously demanded partners) Viagra opens up an easy way out of this stressful predicament: men no longer have to worry; they know they will be able to perform properly. On the other can claim that Viagra finally deprives male hand, feminists and thus in of its effect makes men mystique, equal to women... potency can this second it is that however, the least one say against argument the male functions: what confers a potency actually actually simplifies way mythical status on it is the threat of impotence. In the male sexual psychic of impotence, the ever-present shadow the threat that, in the economy, —
—
sexual
next
definition Let erection is the
me
encounter,
of what
recall
male
here
my
my
depends entirely lightest object in the
will
penis
description
own on
refuse
to
is crucial
erect
the
to
very
is.
potency me,
world?
on
The
my
of mind
penis,
the
paradox
of
erection:
(as the joke goes: because
1
is the
‘What
only
one
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
that
be raised
can
which
I
that
a
ultimately of willpower
erection
the
and
control
...).
To
ification
and
rationalization:
control
put it in the
(if it
presumption,
universe
authentic
no
will achieve
escapes
arrogance
thought!’),
mere
have
amount
man’s
by
—
383
yet it is I
that
am
is
simultaneously that in the right mood, why, for St Augustine, the is the Divine punishment
of my will for his desire of the
terms
erection
is
to
become
Adornian one
of
critique the
last
although problem The
do
can
at
conscious
beyond for
it
will, but
because
control
—
that
decides
of commod-
unfathomable erection
on
for
remainders
be thoroughly something that cannot rational-instrumental This minimal through procedures. gap that it is never who can ‘me’, Self, directly my freely decide on is crucial: a elicits a certain attraction and sexually potent man he
no
fact
of the
master
spontaneity,
because
over
not
of
mastered —
the
fact
erection
—
not
envy X which
presents
—
no
him.
crucial
point here is to distinguish between penis (the erectile phallus (the signifier of potency, of symbolic authority, dimension that confers symbolic, not biological authority and/ or potency) on me. Just as (as we have noted) a judge, who may be a worthless individual in himself, exerts he puts on authority the moment the insignia that confer his legal authority on the moment he no him, for since it is the Law itself that himself, longer simply speaks only speaks as male’s functions a through him, the individual potency sign that another is active symbolic dimension through him: the ‘phallus’ designates the symbolic support of which confers on my penis the dimension Because ‘castration of this distinction, for Lacan, proper potency. anxiety’ has nothing do with to the fear of losing one’s penis: what makes us is the the of the threat that anxious, rather, phallic signifier will authority ultimate be revealed as a is the fraud. For this reason, agent of Viagra but he is castration: if a man the his swallows functions, penis pill, the man who is of the dimension of deprived phallic symbolic potency but without a a able to copulate thanks man with to a is penis Viagra phallus. into So can we something that really imagine how changing erection intervention can be achieved (by through a direct medical-mechanical maletaking a pill) will affect sexual economy? To put it in somewhat of being notion chauvinist what will remain of a woman's terms: organ of the
and
itself)
~
—
—
attractive erection
psychic somehow
to or
a
its
attitude similar
properly
effectively arousing him? Furthermore, what lets us know absence of signal which a kind is: turning erection into a mechanically man,
to
is
of
being deprived
of the
capacity
to
our
state
not
true
is achievable how will feel pain —
384
a
male
THE
subject get
dissatisfaction
simple sign cious with
man
his
know
what
impotence?
is that
when
his
find
resistance
or
of
to
TICKLISH
The
lust
true
attitude
outlet,
an
standard
takes
what
SUBJECT
over
when
is? In what it
designation he
thinks
not
when
his
is of
will his
forms
deprived of the a sexually vora-
with
his
head
head
but
penis happens, however, to the dimension to as that of completely? Will not access usually referred ‘emotional be and hindered? It further, intelligence’ perhaps decisively, is easy to celebrate the fact that we will no longer have to battle with our that hidden fears and inhibitions will no longer be psychological traumas, able to our sexual these hidden fears and however, impede capacity; inhibitions not will will, for that very reason, disappear they persist on what Freud called the ‘Other Scene’, being deprived merely of their main more violent outlet, waiting to explode in what will probably be a much and into a (self-)destructive way. Ultimately, this turning of erection mechanical procedure will simply desexualize the act of copulation. At the opposite end of the spectrum, New Age wisdom seems to offer a however, what does it actually offer us? Let way out of this predicament me turn to its ultimate popular version, James Redfield’s mega-bestseller The Celestine Prophecy. According to The Celestine Prophecy, the first ‘new insight’ that will open the path to humanity’s ‘spiritual awakening’ is the awareness that there are no since our contingent encounters: psychic which energy participates in the Energy of the universe, secretly determines the course of things, contingent external encounters always carry a addressed to to our concrete as an us, situation; message they occur answer to our needs and questions (for example, if I am bothered by a certain a problem and then something unexpected happens long-~ this accident forgotten friend visits me; something goes wrong at work a relevant to We thus find certainly contains my problem). message ourselves in a universe in which has a everything meaning, in a protoin which this is discernible in the psychotic universe meaning very of the and what is of interest are the conseReal, contingency special of all this for intersubjectivity. According to The Celestine quences Prophecy, we are caught today in a false competition with our fellow human beings, of this seeking in them what we lack, projecting into them our fantasies lack, depending on them; and since ultimate harmony is impossible, since the other never is irreducible. provides what we are looking for, tension After spiritual renewal, however, we shall learn to find in ourselves what we were seeking in vain in others (one’s male or female complement): each human a Platonic of exclubeing will become complete being, delivered sive dependence on another of the (leader or love partner), delivered —-
takes
-
—
-
—
over
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
need
draw
partnership
from When him/her. energy with another human being, he
attachment
to
to
the
other:
his
he endeavours
message; to his
inner
own
obverse
passionate
attachment
of
New to
the
in the
novels
mysterious
where
someone’s
tries
to
have
known,
kill
him
that
the
of
the
the
life
the
of
position
embodies
the
end
of
the
self-sufficient
a
subject, merely
a
relevant
are
encounter
we
elevation:
emergence
his
detective
some
messages Here
growth.... Age spiritualist
Other-partner is no longer message concerning himself. In psychoanalysis, we also encounter the is unaware that he message: subject to
him
other
the
a subject enters beyond a passionate only a vehicle for some
is thus
and
Other,
free
truly
a
is for
partner
discern
evolution
necessary whom
to
385
some
bearer
bearer
all of
the
a
of
a
in
as
message,
is threatened
ego of a
sudden,
knows
somcobviously subject partakes in some prohibited knowledge which the secret could put a top Mafia figure in prison); the key here is that, the subject is completely unaware what this knowledge is, he knows only that he knows know. This position, something he shouldn’t however, is the very opposite of the New Age ideology perception of the Other as the bearer of some which is relevant in psychoto me: message the is not the reader of a but the bearer analysis, subject (potential) addressed to the Other and in inaccessible therefore, message principle, to the subject himself. Back to Redfield: the allegedly highest insight of my point is that spiritual wisdom overlaps with our most common everyday experience. If we take Redfield’s of spiritual maturity description of the ideal state literally, it already holds for late capitalist commercialized everyday interpersonal experience, in which passions proper disappear, in which the Other is no longer an unfathomable abyss concealing and announcing that which is ‘in me more than myself’, but the bearer for the of messages self-sufficient consumerist New an are not even us subject. Agers giving ideal spiritual supplement to commercialized are giving everyday life; they us the spiritualized/ mystified version of this commercialized everyday life
a
he
thing (say, point
agent
shouldn’t
—
..
itself...
.
What, the New
is the
of this predicament? Are way out oscillation between scientific depressing
then,
rather
between
Age wisdom,
still is
a
out
way
Viagra
is demonstrated
defining this unique passionate an fail to underage boy cannot one
.
dared
to
defend
the
ethical
by love strike
and the
The
the
dignity
to
and
objectivization Prophecy? That there of Mary Kay. The ridicule
Celestine of
case
affair
condemned
we
as
eye; of her
the none
act
case
the in
of
a
woman
less,
public,
raping
practically two
no
patterns
386
THE
TICKLISH
SUBJECT
her reaction either as evil, fully emerged: one simply condemned of duty and decency in responsible for forgetting the elementary sense letting herself go and engaging in an affair with a sixth-grade schoolboy; or like her defence one took lawyer refuge in psychiatric mumbo her ill person, her as an case, jumbo, medicalizing treating describing her a new term as from disorder’ for (a ‘bipolar suffering manic-depressive she is in one of her manic of fits, she is simply not aware states). When the danger she is getting into or as her lawyer put it, repeating the worst anti-feminist cliché ‘The only person to whom Mary Kay poses any she is the greatest threat is herself to herself’ (one is tempted to danger — add here: defence like who with needs a that, lawyers prosecution?). Dr the who these ‘evaluated’ lines, Moore, Julie Mary Along psychiatrist Kay, insisted emphatically that Mary Kay’s problem ‘is not psychological, but medical’, to be treated ‘For her behaviour: by drugs that will stabilize uncomfortable to Mary Kay, morality begins with a pill.’ It was rather listen to who brutally medicalized this doctor Mary Kay's passion, deprivthat she claimed ing her of the dignity of an authentic subjective stance: when not be Mary Kay talks about her love for the boy she simply should taken from heaven, disconnected seriously she is transported into some the demands and obligations of her social surroundings. of ‘bipolar disorder’ The notion popularized by two Oprah Winfrey its basic shows is interesting: claim is that a person suffering from this disorder stil] knows the difference between and still knows right wrong, what is right and good for her a rule, as but when are, women), (patients she is in a manic state she goes ahead and makes impulsive decisions, which is. tells her what suspending her capacity of rational judgement of the right and good for her. Is not such a suspension, however, one of the notion constituents of the authentic act of being truly in love? Crucial was here unconditional Mary Kay’s compulsion to accomplish knew she well was her Good: own her passion was very something against she too was all aware social that, strong; simply fully beyond obligations, of her being was the very core at stake in it... . This predicament allows us to act and knowledge. Oedipus didn’t specify the relationship between know what he was doing (killing his own father), yet he did it; Hamlet knew what he had to do, which is why he procrastinated and was unable to accomplish the act. of
—
—
—
-
—
—
...
There
Claudel’s of
je
sais
horrible
is, however,
Sygne bien,
de
mais
reality
third
a
Coufontaine
quand
of what
méme
she
was
that
position,
his
from
—Sygne about
to
of
drama
-
among The
fully knew, was do (bringing
others
Hostage, fully aware ruin
to
her
—
a
Paul
version
of, the eternal
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
soul), yet she did it. (Does is
not
her
the
not
simply duped by femmefatale, will end in total catastrophe, that
he goes
ahead
and
Sygne coincides Sygne’s act stands
himself
commits
the
with
hold
same
the
also
but
fully
she
will
the
for
his liaison
him
betray fact
hero, who
noir
that
aware
The
her?)
to
formula
387
that
with
nevertheless
—
this
formula
of
of
not deceive us: cynicism should for the radical opposite of cynicism. We are thus of Hegelian speculative judgement: with dealing here with the structure the statement which in two can be read opposite ways, as the lowest cynicism (‘I know that what I am about to do is the lowest depravity, but what the hell, who cares, I'll just do it.. .’) and the highest tragic split (‘I am of the catastrophic of what I am about to fully aware consequences do, but I can’t help it, it’s my unconditional duty to do it, so I'll go on
with A
it...’). German
recent
between
gap this
‘Pll
do
of my act’ the bottom
in order
—
act
I’m
well
this
—
aware
the
counteract
to
man
the
about
conclusion:
if you
are
this
cigarettes deftly manipulates suspension of knowledge in the of
the
effect
catastrophic of
the
act,
consequences
obligatory warning
on the (a variation every cigarette advertisement for your health’): the image of an may be dangerous smoking is accompanied by the words ‘The More You
suggesting know
Davidoff
and
of
‘Smoking enced
although
it,
for
poster
knowledge
truly daring,
then
the
at
theme
experiKnow’,
more
you
the
demonstrate dangers of smoking, the more you should defiance that is, by your by taking the risk and continuing to smoke for your own refusing to give up smoking for reasons concerning care survival. This is the logical counterpart advertisement to the obsession with health and longevity that characterizes individual. today's narcissistic And does not this formula of the tragic split also perfectly express Mary Kay’s predicament? liberal This, then, is the sad reality of our late capitalist tolerant society: the very capacity to act is brutally medicalized, outburst treated as a manic within the pattern of ‘bipolar disorder’, and as such to be submitted to —
...
biochemical
treatment
liberal-democratic dissidence
as
explained in
the
sentence
mental
a
that
was
her
middle of
not
we
to
disorder in
(the
Moscow)? has
here
encounter
the
No
old
Soviet
practice wonder,
—
—
our
centred
then,
Western,
own,
the
on
that
to
the
infamous
part lover
her fact
the
of
lawyer
(the her
diagnose
to
attempts
Mary Kay undergo therapy being found with transgression which led the night after her release, from six years in prison as resulting to
second of
over
do
counterpart
Institute
Scherbsky sentence
—
in
even a
car
outrageous that
in the
THE
533
TICKLISH
this
days immediately preceding scribed
medication
SUBJECT she
encounter
given
not
was
her
pre-
regularly).
Oprah Winfrey herself,
dedicated
who
of her
shows
Mary Kay, of ‘bipolar right reject as a personality’ as legal prattle, yet she rejected it for the wrong reason excuse to avoid her fundamental of simple allowing Mary Kay gut and not behaving irresponsibly. Although Oprah pretended to be neutral to take to Mary Kay’s love all the time in a mockingly sides, she referred distantiated she was and love’, (‘what etc.), way thought finally passionately voiced the surprised question of her peers, of her husband, of the socalled decent common ‘How could she have done not it, people: thinking about the catastrophic consequences of her act? How could she not only and renounce, put at risk, but effectively abandon everything that formed the very substance of her life her her family, with three children, professional career?’ Is not such a suspension of the ‘principle of sufficient of the act? Undoubtedly the most reason(s)’, however, the very definition was the pressure of her when, at the trial, under depressive moment in tears, that she knew she was surroundings, Mary Kay conceded, doing a moment of ethical something that was legally and morally wrong of ‘compromising one’s desire’ if ever there betrayal in the precise sense was one. In other words, her guwi/tat that point lay precisely in renouncing her passion. When she later reasserted her unconditional fidelity to her love (stating with dignity that she had learned to remain true and faithful to herself), we have a clear case of someone who, after almost succumbing to the of her surroundings, overcomes her guilt and regains her pressure ethical composure by deciding not to compromiseher desire. The ultimate false argument against Mary Kay evoked by a psychologist on the Oprah show was that of gender symmetry: let us imagine the ‘Lolita’ case of a who opposite thirty-four-year-old male teacher gets involved with a thirteen-year-old his it is not true that in this girl, pupil case we would insist much more unambiguously on his guilt and responsiThis is not bility? argument misleading and wrong only for the same reason that the argumentation of those who affirmative action oppose (helping underprivileged minorities) on the grounds that it is a case of at
was
her
here:
worst
she
one
the
to
was
to
talk
—
—
—
—
—
inverted the its
racism
is wrong
.).7° On
versa...
absolute own
external
a
(the radical
idiosyncrasy,
inherent
to
of the
normativity
standard
application
more
a
that
single
would case,
on
fact
is
level,
one
ethical
that
act
which
‘makes
enable
us
its ethical
men
should
to
rape insist
such proper it right’; there ~
decide status.
in
not
women, on
the
involves
act
an
advance,
vice
uniqueness, is
neutral
no
by
a
simple
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER So
of ‘between
notion ultimate
aspect
deaths’
two
choice
is
the
death
of
is that
lesson
ultimate
our
directly
one
drive
is
the
example enjoyment. A supreme film provided by Charles Russell's of
story
weak
a
and
by mysterious
peers a
essential
to
of the
mask, is the
mask:
the
with
presented
as
‘real
in
life’,
a
as
is
excited)
is
of
domain death
no
(or sex),
I
nitely;
by
any
from
body
his head
the
‘eternal
life’
can
be
were
on
the
he
there
in which
bodily
which
when
spectral phantas-
the
of
(faces
bullets
he
of
of
entering
physical laws my
the
acquiring
when
the
(dodging
spit a I fall from high building. spread-eagled -)reassemble myself and walk away compulsive:even is inherently This universe out
can
from
out
possession
hero
plasticity
the
bearing he totally
puts on him, he is able to bullets, dancing and
takes
the
on
remainder’
before
hero,
cartoon-watcher:
his
are
to
on
Valdemar
Mr
of
far
he puts details
corpse, mask’ after
‘indivisible
the
again by
a
this
perversion,of
which
in
superego
is thrown of
that
‘undead’,
of
and
again
like
tongue
first
when powers A series of
death,
is that TV
€y¢s and
unconstrained
constrained
longer
and
he becomes
short,
in
—
it
cartoon his
laughing madly, sticking mic
from
compulsive
a
mask,
wooden
green
behave,
humiliated
slime
formless
a
the
The
superego compulsion is with Jim Carey (1994), the
who acquires extraordinary found on a city beach. mask
story when he is resuscitated crucial feature Real. Another
Poe’s
Mask,
The
Lacanian drives’:
drives.
stupidity
idiotic
the mask When story’s background. remains decaying slimy the it sticks to the of the ‘person behind what remains
seashore, identifies
death
two
indestructible this
death
two
the
to
witness
old
the
between
of
the
supplement
‘between
bank teller,
ordinary
women,
should
we
with
the
389
is
surface
shot
into
no
indefi-
stretched me;
after
I
simply
pavement,
-
resist
its
the
which force
light
spell.
hero,
(dozens focused
Suffice
wearing
of cars, on
it to
him
recall perhaps his
green on
to
spotlights version
a
get out stage,
of
those
who
supreme
observe
scene
it cannot
of the
film
in
is cornered
mask,
helicopters): as
the
a
by a large police the of this impasse he treats dance to sing and and starts
seductive
Latino
—
the
song Hollywood musical and sing as to move also start its they spell; resist policemen are unable to (a young policewoman if they are part of a musical-number choreography but she of the mask, the power back is shedding tears, visibly fighting in a hero the and popular songjoins to its spell the less succumbs none of this inherent here is the stupidity Crucial number and-dance ...), the in is of us each inexplicable caught compulsion: it stands for the way resist to unable we are whistling some when as of idiotic jouissance, spell This us. is compulsion is haunting melody vulgar popular song whose a
crazy
390
THE
ex-timate:
properly realizing
‘When
moment:
want.’
of obstacles
control
for
away, in
me
I
me
caught
am
than
more
dead’, be
of
a
to
‘do
in
a
in
far
so
of
hold
I
—
way intentions:
—
the
mask
—
us
imposing
the
simply I
able
is
am
obstacle
the
whim
of
dead
object effectively that
itself
on
us
—
is
the
on
to
exert
makes
obstacle
this
—
not
I
anything
relies
moment at
do
can
fundamental
some
on
puts it in
no
compulsion,
its
it
falls
‘something alive
comes
of
a
the
‘living lesson
of our fundamental fantasy, the kernel of jouissance?™ Thing, a machine On the other hand, against this stupid superego injunction to enjoy which and of our universe increasingly dominates regulates the perverse the death the late capitalist experience, drive very opposite designates the desperate endeavour to escape the clutches of the ‘undead’ gesture, eternal fate of being caught in the endless life, the horrible repetitive of our cycle of jouissance. The death drive does not relate to the finitude but designates the endeavour to contingent temporal existence, escape that traditional as that of immortality, the dimension metaphysics described life that persists beyond death. a thin, the indestructible It is often almost line which these two modalities of the death separates imperceptible which drive: our to the blind to separates yielding compulsion repeat and more more intense pleasures, as exemplified by the adolescent transfixed from the thoroughly different by the video game on the screen, experience of traversing the fantasy. So we not the two deaths, as Lacan only dwell between put it, but our choice is directly the one ultimate between the two death drives: the only rid of the drive to death of get way stupid superego enjoyment is to the death in its disruptive dimension of traversing embrace drive the can One beat the drive death death the drive itself so, fantasy. only by choice is between bad and worse. And the same again, the ultimate goes for the properly Freudian ethical stance. The superego injunction ‘Enjoy!’ is ultimately supported Master. ‘Du by some figure of the ‘totalitarian’ of fat-free meat darfst! / You may!’, the logo on a brand products in succinct formula of how the ‘totalitarian’ Germany, provides the most Master That to one should is the standard operates. reject say: explanation of today’s new reaction fundamentalisms as a against the anxiety of excessive freedom in our late capitalist ‘permissive’ liberal society, offering to
being,
is itself
from
such
this a
that
our
I want’
the
automaton
in
doing nothing but a desperate
yet
himself control
I lose
of
When
us,
outside, hero
thus
as
anything
demoniac
myself’.
monstrous
drawn
on,
oneself’
the realization
to
by taking possession
the the
as
—
mask
over
myself only
over
impossible
the
I put
‘Having
absence
whims
control
SUBJECT
from
imposed
innermost
our
TICKLISH
our
monstrous
—
:
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
391
anchor
firm
by providing strong prohibitions individuals into the totalitarian ‘escaping from freedom’ order is profoundly misleading. One should also reject the standard Freudo—Marxist us
a
which
the
so-called
in
totalitarian
thesis
authoritarian
the
according
to
is the
(Fascist) subject
to
the
totalitarian
totalitarian
the
Master
although, our orders, compelling us to renounce pleasures and to for some higher Duty, his actual injunction, discernible of his explicit words, is exactly the opposite the call on
surface,
Master
is crucial
also
here:
imposes sacrifice
to
severe
ourselves the
between
—
and
about
of closed
the individual who finds personality’ structure: compulsively obeying authority, repressing spontaneous fearing insecurity and irresponsibility, and so on. The shift
urges, the traditional
from
of the
cliché
haven
‘authoritarian
satisfaction sexual
foundation
libidinal
this
—
lines
unconstrained
unrestrained
transgression. Far from imposing on us a firm set of the totalitarian Master is the obeyed unconditionally, that that is to say, his secret agency suspends (moral) punishment to regulate social life injunction is: You may!: the prohibitions that seem and of a minimum are guarantee decency ultimately worthless, just a device to keep the at common while to kill, allowed people bay, you are rape and plunder the Enemy, let yourself go and excessively enjoy, violate in so far as you follow Me, Obedience to ordinary moral prohibitions is thus the Master the operator that allows to you reject or transgress everyday moral rules: all the obscene dirty things you were dreaming of, all that to renounce when subordinated you had you yourself to the traditional now allowed to indulge in patriarchal symbolic Law you are them without like the fat-free which German meat punishment, exactly standards
to
be
—
...
—
without
you may eat Itis here, What
however,
any risk that we
ethics
psychoanalytic basic
some
You mustn’t!,
unconditionally neighbour! space!). The
some
of
its versions, its inclusive in biogenetic enginecring
recent
of
risk ethnic should
ism’
processes! a
violent
Do
last, fatal
this
totalitarian
trap or
the
try
of
‘No
the
sacred
may!
limitation
is
not to
of
intimate
be
your
fantasy
trespassing!’
ecologico-humanist cloning! Do not tamper violate
avoided.
be
dignity
twist
to
to
You
prohibition
(self)limitation,
and
not
...
the
and autonomy violently upon his/her
encroach
not
ethical
health.
(Respect
stance
natural
your encounter
to opposes fundamental
respected
Do
to
(Do
not
too
much
democratic
in
all
engage with
rules
and
social
and mores of other upheaval! Respect the customs is ultimately incompatible with psychoanalysis. One communities!) of fighting ‘totalitarianreject the usual liberal—conservative game
with
a
reference
to
some
firm
set
of
ethnical
standards
whose
392
TICKLISH
THE
is
abandonment
supposed
lead
to
SUBJECT
because Gulag did not occur human decency and ‘set free the beast realization give rein to the unconstrained the
So
once
—
what
worse;
may!
and
more,
for
Freudian
is another,
the
ethics
even
last
time
their
of
the
You
may!,
a
basic
and
rules
of
themselves
letting
murderous
impulses.
is between
choice
‘bad’
the
Holocaust
the
themselves’,
in
—
to
opposes radical
more
the
catastrophe: no, people forgot about to
bad
superego Scilicet (‘You
and
of
version
You
allowed
are
yearbook edited by Lacan in the early 1970s) no vouched for by any figure of the Master. Lacan’s maxim ‘Do not longer desire!’ the pragmatic paradox of orderfully endorses compromise your to...’
—
the
of the
it exhorts
be free:
to
ing you
title
to
you
dare.
Notes
1.
Les
Lacan,
Jacques
la formation
dans
complexes familiaux
Vindividu
de
(1938),
Paris:
University
Press
1984.
Navarin
2. See
Eric
Santner,
My
however,
that
Quwn Prrvate
Germany, Princeton,
Princeton
NJ:
1996. Is it not,
3. of
the
Oedipus
after
Lacan
complex,
this later
of the crisis of the reformulated
description (in the
1950s)
empirical-social form Oedipus as a kind of
of concrete historical and inscribed circumstances independent language (the Oedipal paternal prohibition merely exemplifies the of jowissance, inherent to the symbolic order as such ...)? In a strictly as resolves the ‘empirical’ crisis of Marxism the tool for homologous gesture, Louis Althusser social theoretical edifice concrete with no analysis by transforming it into a formal-structural
formal-transcendental
frame
the very structure loss, the prohibition
of
into
link
direct
crisis the
by
to
recourse
determinate to the
Lacan
late 4,
Tim
5.
Ibid.
historical
content.
prion symbolic
a
this criticism
What formal
fails
order)
(of resolving to
take
into
an
‘empirical’ is that,
account
in
of the
with a vengeance. 1970s, historicity returns Pat Coogan, De Valera, London: Arrow Books 1995, p. 249.
6. Ibid., p. 278. 7. The usual comparison
with the couple Robespierre— of the couple De Valera—Collins to win the then is battles, having him sacrificed) (Robespierre leaving Danton therefore deeply misleading: it was, rather, Collins himself who was a kind of combined Danton/Robespierre, while De Valera was closer to a Napoleonic figure. Two quotes throw a clear light on their relationship in the crucial phase of negotiating with the British and then official government signing the Treaty in 1921. The first, from De Valera’s his reasons for not to himself going to London biography, approved by himself, describes the negotiations, but insisting on a team conclude headed by Collins: De Valera Danton
believed
should
it be
vital
was
kept
arrangements to necessary to be left out.
this
at
untouched
which
keep
the
(quoted
it
stage
that
the
and
that
it should
Head from
of the
not
Republic [i.c. compromised plenipotentiaries
be
for our necessary of State and the symbol untouched Coogan, De Valera, p. 247)
might
be
symbol
Collins’s main for not going to London to negotiate was argument this self-appointed position of the ‘living symbol of the Republic’
and
-
De Valera in
that
to
any sense make was
himself!]
by
...
why
any it was he asked
completely different his point was:
from
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
in
England mysterious, spouight of which
Iam
in
as
active
Ireland,
the
menace,
elusive,
London
a
made,
Michael
and
conference
The
of the
glamour
Collins
unknown,
393
legend
existed.
unaccountable. will be discovered
quickly legendary figure
will
be
It
...
pictured Bring me
the
as
into
a
the of
clay
common
from
(quoted
gone.
me
ibid.,
p. 248) De Valera
Collins
factual reasons concerning their respective negotiating process, but, rather, to the damage the fact of in the negotiations might do to their properly mythical symbolic De Valera status: fears the loss of his status as the symbol of the Republic, which must not be tarnished of dirty negotiations involving necessary business by any mundane compromises; while Collins fears the loss of his status as the invisible Agent, whose spectral omnipotence once he is brought into dwindles daylight and shown to be just another ordinary guy. What we in Lacanese encounter is the opposition between here, of course, S, and objetpetit a, the symbolic Master between sustained of his public insignia and its spectral by the charisma the mysterious object which, on the contrary, exerts its power double, only as half-seen, never fully present in daylight. 8. For a concise description of these shifts, see Michel Lapevre, Au-delé du complexe 1997, d’Chdipe,Paris: Anthropos-Economica 9. The title of Chapter 9 of Jacques Lacan, Le Séminaire, livre XVH: Lienvers de la psychanalyse,Paris: Editions du Seuil 1991. 10. For a more detailed of this distinction, account see Chapter 2 of Slavoj Zizek, The
abilities,
and
referring
are
the
not
intricacies
and
dangers participating
or
to
any
of the
—
Indivisible
London:
Remainder,
For
Ll.
this
reason,
there
are
to
the
normalize
Catholic bothered by the so
the
way obsessional
you do Church
explicit rules,
1996,
Verso
the
exactly opposed: the the symbvlic Law/Prohibition, rules
—
obsessional
follows its
the
his rules
unbearable
traumatic
not
have
has
always
and
in order
to
pacify the injunction
Law
(if you
unconditional of
excess
about worry been skilful
to
hysteric
the in
the
the
ambiguous
manipulating
relate
pervert
sense of sin, the priest prescribes you a set of procedures so which, once them, good deeds, and so on you have accomplished (and follows) rules in order guilt feeling); while the pervert establishes that there is no underlying Law in his psychic universe, that is, his rules —
many
the
is, for
him,
clear
and
the
of your conscience in this way: if you
pressure rules
many deliver
—
serve
of
you as
Jacques Lacan, Le Séminazre, lure VII: Le transfert, Paris: Editions du Seuil la mort, Paris: See Jacques Derrida, Donner Galilée 1995, 14. A sign of how even is not the Church resistant to this shift in the fundamental the recent on the grass-roots pressures Pope to elevate Mary to the status 12.
—
are
prayers,
conceal
to
fact of ersatzlaw.
of
impact
that
—
follow
is
rules
to
traumatic
See
the
kind
a
1991.
13,
are
redemptrix: third
one
millennium
mortals,
to
gain
the
Pope
to
by proclaiming
a
expects divine
mercy
is via
make
Catholic
the
Church
viable
that the dogma which asserts plea to Mary Mary serves
our
—
for
only as
the
way
our
attitude of
co-
post-paternal for
us,
mediator;
sinful if we
convince
her, she will speak in our favour to Christ, her son. for Hegel, of course, brought this meta-physical search to the point of self-reference: him, ‘the suprasensible is appearance as appearance’, that World beneath is, the Other is precisely something which appearance appears, it is the appearance that there is Another World world. beyond the phenomenal sensible 16. See PaulLaurent La Voix ef le Regard, vol. 1, Paris: Assoun, Anthropos-Economica 15,
1995, pp. 64 17, That bed
with
another
protestations 18.
1997,
ff.
is also
Richard p. 433.
the man
of innocence
Andrews
of
measure
(or woman), —
and
over
Paul
love:
true
even
when
I catch
my
give preference to his (or her) words the hard, stupid fact perceived by my eyes. Schellenberger, The Tomb of God. London:
in
red-handed,
partner
|
-
..
the
verbal
-
Warner
Books
394
TICKLISH
THE
19.
Ibid.,
20.
See
SUBJECT
p. 428.
Jacques-Alain
and
Miller
Eric
‘L’Autre Laurent, Paris, pp. 7-20.
35 (1997), freudienne
in La Cause
d’éthique’,
qui
n’existe
et
pas
comités
ses
Collapse of the Father Function and interesting feature of this suspension the of paternal symbolic authority: in so far as paternal authority is the ‘relay’ that enables subject’s entry into the symbolic universe, is not today’s ‘regression’ from language to modes of communication that combine language with other types of signs (say, the replacement of we instead of writing orders, writing with iconic signs: when we deal with a computer, on to the appropriate iconic sign) also an increasingly operate by merely clicking the mouse index of the suspension of paternal authority? Beck's classic Risk Society:Towards a New 22. See Ulrich Modernity, London: Sage 1992; and Anthony Giddens’s, The ConsequencesofModernity,Cambridge: Polity Press 1990. For a popular of this theory, see The Politics of the Risk Society,ed. Jane Franklin, overview Oxford: Polity 21.
Paul
its Effects
Gender
‘The paper another
unpublished attention
Roles’) drew
to
1998.
Press
23.
this
For
what
the
enough
not
the
reason,
very
characterizes
commands
the
in
the
anxiety generated by is precisely the absence
superego and/or
guilty. The problem with positive rule to be followed: but
his
Verhaeghe (see
on
risk of
much;
too
one whatever does, is that its command
superego the Other
is that
society
of
‘proper measure’ the
result never
can
issuing the injunction demands is.... what, exactly, this demand
—
a
superego:
one
obeys
is wrong and be translated
something
one
its is
into
from
a
us,
position to guess the Prime in Slovenia Minister between gesture? There is tension and the President of the republic: the latter, although the constitution reduces to his role wants to play a larger role with effective So when, recently, it was protocol functions, power. the clear that Slovene representative at the meeting of European leaders organized by the President told that wrote Jacques Chirac would be the Prime Minister, journalists were Chirac a letter explaining that since, unfortunately, he was unable to be at the summit, the would This is the empty gesture Prime Minister take his place.... at its purest: although it we
acted
is
What
as
empty
that
the
Prime
if the
fact
that
President’s the
the
fact
that
Eva Hoffman, Max
26, See Continuum
Minister
should
Prime
Minister
the not
defeat
turn
to
withdraw) 25,
decision
—
way
a
an
clear
was
never
are
24,
to
into
victory
went
Into
Horkheimer,
let
to
-
but
the
Minister result
of one’s
—
free
decision
(to
New
York:_
case.
Minerva
and
‘Authority
into
the President from the resulted his take his place. This is
Slovenia,
represent
‘natural’, Prime
the
transform
go in any History, London:
to
not
was
instead,
cannot
one
Exit
and,
go
France
to
go
the
1993. in
Family’,
Critical
Theory,
1995.
in no way entails that the difference between the theory of postmodanother name for the theory of the second modernity is merely nominal, same two phenomenon; what we are dealing with here, rather, is the inherent split between of postmodernity that are fundamentally incompatible notions operative today: on the one hand, the idea that postmodernity brings to an end the logic of modernity, deploying all its no wonder of postmodempotential (Fredric Jameson's version many of his determinations with those of the second ity coincide modernity); on the other, the idea that postmodernity of modernization the basic feature new form (rational negates reflexivity) in favour of some of immediacy (the New Age holistic attitude or some other version of the ‘post-Cartesian it is interesting how recent this context, on discussions paradigm’). Within globalization in its different again brought into focus the topic of modernization aspects (globalized the of the last traditional dissolution social links we are .): reflexivity, becoming increaswas that ingly aware ‘postmodernism’ just an endeavour to come to terms with accelerated modernizaton. Do not the events in all spheres of life, from turbulent economic and cultural of the most intimate how we still ‘globalization’ to the reflexivization domains, demonstrate
This, of
27.
course,
the
and
ernism
—
.
have 28.
to
learn In
La
to
fin
cope de
with
the
real
shock
.
of modernization?
Uinterprétation (available
on
the
Internet),
Jacques-Alain
Miller
tried
to
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
395
resolve
this deadlock by situating the analyst at the level of pre-symbolic jouis-sense, meaningflow gibber, something like the rhizomatic of Joyce’s Finnegans Wake. This reference to Joyce is significant in so far as Joyce is the paradigmatic case of the reflexiveartist: his works, to their interpretation but take their specifically /innegans Wake, are not simply external in advance, into dialogue with them. and enter Since possible interpretations into account the interpretation or theoretical to ‘frame’ its object, explanation of a work of art endeavours one can dialectics say that thisJoyceian provides another example of how the frame is always less
inchided
in is a part of the framed content: the theory about the work is comprised in about itself. So, instead work; the work is a kind of pre-emptive strike at possible theories of the S, of interpretation (the chain of Knowledge) adding itself to the S, of the interpreted signifier, elucidating its meaning, we have in Finnegans Wake a gigantic, polymorphous S, which not only resists being subordinated to the interpretive S,, but in a way swallows it (its Is this really, however, interpretations) in advance into its own mad dance of jouis-sense. -
—
the
...
the
only way out? of interpretation Thing? 29. the
Here
ideas
Verso
Does
not
this
with
the
immersion
I draw
extensive
on
expressed
solution
in this
in
the
discussions
chapter;
see
bad
go from
merely
nightmare with
Renata
Renata
Salecl,
of
to
the
Salecl,
worse,
the
replacing
delirium
pre-symbolic/pre-discursive to
whom
(Per)Versions of Love
I also and
owe
a
lot
of
Hate, London:
1998.
30.
1960s
In the
bikini from
a
able
to
Gates,
slightly the
see
whose
and
1970s, it
was
possible
to
buy soft-porn postcards with a girl clad in a postcard a little bit or looked at it magically disappeared, and one was something similar about the image of Bill a slightly different perspective, magically
moved the dress; when one proper different perspective, however, the dress
wearing
or
a
girl’s benevolent
naked
body features,
-
is there viewed
not
from
threatening dimension? was in Bryan Singer's excellent film The Usual already discernible turns out to be none Suspects (1995), in which the invisible-omnipotent Master-Criminal other than the clumsy, frightened Kevin Spacey character. 32. See Slavoj Zizek, ‘“I Hear You with My Eyes”; or, The Invisible in Gaze and Master’, Voice as Love Objects, Durham, NC: Duke University Press 1996. 33. Adorno of psychology as ‘science’, with the pointed out how the very emergence individual’s to the of impersonal predominance psyche as its ‘object’, is strictly correlative relations in economic and political life. 34. Among the advocates of risk society politics, it is popular to point out, as a sign that we are other than George Soros, moving into a new era ‘beyond Left and Right’, how none of financial the very embodiment to the insight that the unrestrained rule speculation, came of the market a and thus has to be totalitarianism, presents danger greater than Communist is this insight really constrained however, through some sociopolitical measures enough? Should we not of celebrating this fact, ask ourselves if this does not prove the rather, instead contrary: namely, that the new politics ‘beyond Left and Right’ does not really pose a threat to the reign of Capital? 35. The to the answer level of the logic of question ‘Why do we privilege the economic other cultural Capital over spheres of socio-symbolic life (political processes, production, ethnic tensions in that it neglects the radical .)? Is this privileging not essentialist plurality of social life, the fact that its multiple levels cannot be conceived as depending on the crucial tole of one of the we clear: of course are agencies?’ is therefore dealing today with the proliferation of multiple forms of politicization (not only the standard fight for democracy and social justice, but also all the new forms of feminist, homosexual, ecological, ethnic minority, etc., political agents); however, the very space for this proliferation of multiplicity is sustained by the recent stage in the development of capitalism, that is, by its post-nationstate of the last vestiges of ‘privacy’ and substantial globalization and reflexive colonization for example, is strictly correlative to the fact that, in immediacy. Contemporary feminism, acquire 31.
a
and
sinister
This
tendency
~
..
396
THE
SUBJECT
family and sexual life itself as something that belongs aware Retroactively, one thus becomes
has
decades,
recent
thus
TICKLISH
36.
‘dissidence’
become
‘colonized’
by
market
the sphere of free choices. of how deeply the phenomenon
to
experienced
logic,
is
and
of so-called
in the socialist embedded in its very utopian ‘moralism’
to which ideological framework; of the extent ‘dissidence’, (preaching social solidarity, ethical responsibility, ethical core of socialism: will note etc.), provided the disavowed perhaps one day historians in which that in the same sense that the true Hegel claimed spiritual result of the was the true Peloponnesian War, its spiritual End, is Thucydides’ book about it ‘dissidence’ spiritual result of actually existing Socialism... in Mapping Ideology,London: 37. See Slavoj Zizek, ‘Introduction’, Verso 1995. 38. Karl Marx, ‘Preface to A Critique of Political Economy’, im Selected Writings, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1977, p. 389. 39, Among today’s Marxists, it is Fredric Jameson who has most consistently emphasized was
-
—
.
this aspect. 40. At least of
a
critic
concerning assuming the in cultural
cultural safe
studies
studies,
I
of
an
position
speak
here
external
it were, ‘include Milner (see Le salatre
not
from
observer,
a
condescending
but
as
position who
someone
has
I, participated myself 41. According to Jean-Claude de Vidéal, Paris: Seuil 1997), the same the status of today’s new reflexivity determines ruling class, the ‘salaried bourgeoisie’: the criterion of the ruling class is no longer primarily property, but more and more the fact of belonging to the circle of those who are acknowledged as ‘experts’ (managers, state and are for this reason administrators, lawyers, academics, journalists, doctors, artists...) than Milner’s paid more average wage-earners. point is that, contrary to misleading appearances of university diplomas, etc.), this belonging to the circle (sustained by the vast network of experts is ultimately not grounded in any ‘actual’ qualifications, but is the result of the of which some sociopolitical struggle in the course professional strata gain entry into the privileged ‘salaried bourgeoisie’: we are dealing here with the closed circle of self-reference, that if you generate the impression that you should be paid more is, you are paid more (a TV news is paid much more than presenter atop scientist whose inventions can change the whole
—
as
out’...
.
industrial
a as landscape). In short, what Marx evoked paradoxical exception (the value instead of merely expressing it, like the price itself determines his singing has such a opera singer who is not paid so highly because great value, but is valuable because he is so highly paid) is the rule today. perceived as more 42. It is interesting to note how here theorists of the second modernity follow Habermas, who also tends to dismiss alienation not as of results phenomena like Fascism or economic the inherent but as proofs that Enlightenment trends of Enlightenment, is still an ‘unfinished to similar that of defunct Socialist project’ a strategy somewhat regimes, which put all the blame for the present woes on the ‘remainders of the (bourgeois or feudal) past’. 48. To put it another the double way: the theory of second modernity obliterates impossibility and/or antagonistic split: on the one hand, the antagonistic complicity between and violent returns of substantial the progressive reflexivization identity that characterizes reflexive freedom and the body politic; on the other, the antagonistic complicity between need for subjection that characterizes ‘irrational’ the ‘postmodern’ subject. 44. See Robert Oxford Hughes, Culture of Complaini, Oxford: University Press 1993. 45. The shift from traditional Left to ‘postmodern’ Left is as a rule described by the motto ‘from redistribution to recognition’: the traditional Social-Democratic Left aimed at the redistribution of wealth social and on of the behalf power exploited-powerlessunderprivileged; while today’s ‘postmodern’ Left puts in the foreground the multculturalist fight for the recognition of a particular (ethnic, lifestyle, sexual orientation, .) religious group identity. What, however, if they both participate in the same logic of ressentiment, indicated/concealed by the common prefix ‘re-'? What if they both victimize the underprivileged/ excluded, endeavouring to culpabilize the ruling/wealthy and demanding restitution from them? dose of old-fashioned Marxist is criticism Consequently, what if a certain
strange
case
in
which
-
...
..
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
46.
The
what
here:
appropriate production
which
if
our
focus
should
masochistic self-inflicted in hysteria the aim is
from
change
distribution thus wound
and
‘inequitable’
causes
397 redistribution
to
the
very mode
of
recognition? different
in hysteria and in purpose myself in order to conceal of castration the fact that the wound is already there); while in perversion I wound myself in order to disavow thefailure/lack of castration (i.e. 1 do it to impose the semblance of a Law). 47. Exemplary here is Oliver Stone’s meta-nationalist in JFK. Stone is the foremost in parallel with Balibar’s ‘meta-racism’ Hollywood today; I use the term ‘meta-nationalism’ in terms of its very opposite, of the fear of (the contemporary paradox of racism formulated ‘one should Tacist outbursts: to racist viokeep ethnic groups apart in order prevent to lence seems undermine ...'): Stone great American ideologico-political myths, but he does it in a ‘patriotic’ way, so that on a deeper level his very subversion reasserts American patriotism as an ideological attitude. 48, The outstanding example of a left-liberal conspiracy movie is Barracuda (1978), with ‘turn its ingenious additional of the screw’ on the standard natural disaster formula: why do and other fish suddenly start to in an idyllic American sharks attack swimmers town resort? out that the whole It turns city was an illegal experimental site for a mysterious government agency injecting the water supply with an untested drug that raises the aggression level (the of raising the combativeness of the American goal of the experiment is to develop means of the flower-power 1960s), and the fishes’ population after the demoralizing influence aggressivity was caused by the water dumped in the sea. a in this direction X Files goes even step further by inverting the standard ideological operation of exchanging all our social and psychic fears (of foreigners, of big business, of of the force of raw other for the attacking animal races, nature...) (shark, ants, birds...) for the supernatural monster who comes to or embody all of them: in X Files, it is the State which is presented as a kind Conspiracy the dark Other Power behind the public power of general equivalent hidden behind of ‘supernatural’ the multitude threats (werewolves, extraterrestrials is exchanged for the alienated .), that is, the series of supernatural horrors Social Thing. 49. For that reason, but a reaction that occurs when anxiety is clinically not a symptom, the formation the subject's symptom that allowed him or her to maintain a distance proper towards the traumatic to function: at that when the moment, object-Thing dissolves, ceases and of his symptom is thus subject is deprived of the buffer-role directly exposed to the Thing, anxiety emerges to signal this overproximity of the Thing. 50. Gilles Deleuze, Coldness and Cruelty, New York: Zone 1991, pp. 82-3. 51. According to the standard of modernity, what distinguishes it from even the narrative universal of premodern most versions Law (Christianity, Judaism, etc.) is that the individual a reflected not there is supposed to entertain Norms are relationship towards ethical norms. not simply to be accepted; the subject has to measure only his acts against them, but also the that legitimizes that is, how they fit the higher meta-rule themselves, adequacy of these norms use: are the norms and women their themselves all men Do they treat truly universal? aspirations’, and equally and with dignity? Do they allow free expression of their innermost reflexive a free forth. so This standard narrative gives us a subject who is able to entertain norm has to pass the judgement he decides to follow every relationship towards every norm
perversion:
disavow
to
serves
a
castration
(I
wound
~
~
.
.
—
—
—
—
—
of his this
autonomous
reflexive
What
reason.
distance of any
towards
Habermas ethical
of is the obverse however, in silence, Deleuze: above the quote by expressed to that it is actually the right norm be sure
passes
norms
from
I follow, I can norm never since, apropos situation follow, the subject is caught in a difficult without as to what these any external guarantee
freedom
from
the
immediate
submission
to
guilt. 52.
Jacques Lacan,
1977, p. 276.
The Four
Fundamental
over
of norms
universal
knowing are. norms
...
that there There without
are is
this
nomms
follow,
to
reflexive modern of situation prion
no
New Concepts of Psycho-Analysis,
a
York:
Norton
398
THE
53.
See
Darian
Was
it
Leader,
TICKLISH
Promises
Lovers
SUBJECT
Make
When
Gets Late, London:
It
Faber
& Faber
1997. 54.
those
...]f
St Paul
not
who
outwardly, Jew who is not
literal.
55.
For
be
emphasized
uncircumcised
are
uncircumcision
who
regarded
nor
is
one
inwardly,
true
keep
difference the
circumcision?
as
circumcision and
this
real
requirements For
...
something circumcision
in Romans
external is
a
2: 26-97 of
the
law, will
their
not
is not a person Jew who is and physical. Rather, a person
a
of the
matter
heart
—
it
is
one
is
a
and
spiritual
more detailed movement of the ‘sacrifice of a description of this double Chapter 2 of Slavoj Zizek, The Indivisible Remainder. 56. Here I draw again on Renata Salec]; see Salecl, (Per) of Love and Hate. Versions 57. Here one should between the sado-maso emphasize the difference practices of selfand mutilation the practices of tattooing and other versions of inscription on the bodily surface: the naked skin and its covering up by tattooing involves the relationship between clothes that is to say, the problem of tattooing is how to transform the naked skin itself into clothing, how to close the gap between the two; so that even while we are we are naked
sacrifice’,
a
see
—
in into
a
the other on hand, the sado-maso way already dressed; the surface of the skin, revealing the raw flesh beneath. is the notion of the naked body, of the bare surface
practice What
of
self-mutilation
is threatened
cuts
in
both
of the skin: either by direct it up, or by opening up access which cover to the ‘raw flesh’ beneath; in shart, what we get if we put the vo practices together is a body which, when it is actually is no longer a naked undressed, body but a mass of raw flesh. 58. Against this background, one can well understand why, in his (unpublished) Seminar on Lacan is definitely Anxiety (1962/63), emphasizes that the Jewish practice of circumcision not a version of castration seems to (as a vulgar and naive line of association imply) but, cases
symbolic inscriptions
its exact is not that of a traumatic cut, but that of opposite: the effect of circumcision the enables pacification, that is, circumcision subject to find its allocated place in the symbolic order. 59. Analysed by Renata Salect in (Per) of Love and Hate. Versions 60. The triad of premodern absence of cut, and the postmodern return cut, the modern to the cut thus effectively forms of Hegelian triad a kind of the ‘negation of negation’ not in the sense that in postmodernity we return to the cut at an allegedly higher level, but in a much more in premodern precise sense: society the cut in the body performs the subject’s (the big Other); in modern inscription into the symbolic order society we have the big Other that is operative without the cut that is, the subject inscribes itself into the big Other without of the bodily cut the mediation (as was already the case in Christianity, the cut is internalizedin postmodern society, on the contrary, spiritualized into an inner gesture of renunciation); we have the cul, but without the by Other. 1 is thus only in postmodern society that the loss of the big Other in it, we return to (the substantial the symbolic order) is fully consummated: feature the first phase (there is again a cut in the body), but this cut that characterizes now stands for the exact that is to say, it signals not the inscription opposite of the first phase into the big Other, but its radical nonexistence. 61. See Alenka Zupanéié, ‘The Subject of the Law’, in SIC 2, ed. Slavoj Zizek, Durham, NC: Duke University Press 1998. 62. For this reason, Lacan is to be strictly opposed to the recently fashionable ‘postsecular’ trend of giving theology a deconstructionist spin, reasserting the Divine as the
rather,
—
—
—
dimension
of
deconstruction’. 63. See the 64.
For
a
unfathomable
the end
detailed
of
Chapter reading
Enjoy Your Symptom!,New
York:
Otherness,
as
the
‘undeconstructible
condition
of
3 above. of
Brecht’s
Routledge
The Measure
1993.
Taken,
see
Chapter
5 of
Slavoj Zizek,
OEDIPUS?
WHITHER
399
65.
Bertolt ‘The Measure Brecht, Taken’, in The Jewish Wife and Other Short Plays, New Grove Press 1965, p. 97. 66. See Heiner Miiller, ‘Mauser’, in Revolutionssticke, Stuttgart: Reclam 1995, 67. Brecht, ‘The Measure Taken’, p. 106. 68. This the Good and ethical act also allows us to resolve the disjunction between Evil’ (Evil elevated to the status of following impasse: if we accept the notion of ‘diabolical the Kantian ethical duty, that is, accomplished for the sake of principle, not for any then, does this parallel with the Good hold? Can there pathological profit), to what extent, also be a ‘voice of Evil Consciousness’ rendering us guilty when we did not do our duty to radical Evil? Can we also feel guilty for net accomplishing a horrible crime? The problem
York:
disappears problematic 69.
For
the moment we cut the the link between of Good (and Evil as its shadow-supplement). a close The Hostage, see reading of Claudel’s
ethical
domain
Zizek,
2 of
Chapter
proper
and
the
The Indivisible
Remainder. 70.
A detailed
be
may
excused this
pinpoint novel
first
was
discerns
published,
with
problems
the
in Lolita
the
of
appeal young boy
distribution
a ‘nymphet’, a girl nymphet resides in
a
than
more
as
a
a
with
Mary Kay
with a fictional which is also, even
Nabokov’'s
Lolita
one) immediately more
than
it
was
(if I
helps
us
when
to
the
times remember the politically correct latest cinema Humbert version), Humbert who is fotenteally a woman: nine and fourteen of her form indefiniteness she resembles a So while treated her Mary Kay, the woman, Lolita case she is for Humbert Humbert a
our
-
of the between
the
mature
very
—
woman.
in
partner,
grown-up
of
case
case
in
unacceptable
American
much
lover
young
of the
analysis
comparative
for comparing a ‘real-life’ difference: in Lolita (a story
the
as Humbert fantasy, the product of his solipsistic imagination puts it in the novel: ‘What I had fanciful creation, another, madly possessed was not she, but my own Lolita. ...’ As a result, their relationship is teasing-exploitative, cruel on both sides (she is a cruel child towards her to the abused him; he reduces object of his masturbatory solipsistic to the sincere imagination), in contrast passion between Mary Kay and her young lover.
masturbatory
71.
-
Another
cliché
nice
about
mask
back
actual
‘the into
the
behaviour
‘growing efficiency ‘on in effect
elements trust’
—
him
treat
of
the
film
behind person he is able sea,
mature’:
our
we
feature
real
in as
the
is that, mask’:
in
its
it avoids
dénouement,
the
standard
although, at the end, the hero throws the to do so precisely in so far as he incorporates into his of what he was its spell. Therein lies doing when he was under not in simply discarding masks, but in accepting their symbolic a court of law, when a judge puts on Ais mask (his official insignia), if he is under the spell of the symbolic Institution now of Law which
speaks through him... . However, it would be wrong to conclude from this that the mask is just a more ‘primitive’ version of symbolic efficiency, of the hold exerted upon us by symbolic a distinction between the proper authority; it is crucial to maintain symbolic authority which ‘totemic’ operates on astrictly ‘metaphomnc’ level and the obscene literality of the mask. No when in the wonder the hero, he is wearing the mask, often animal’s face: assumes an animals phantasmic space of cartoons, (Tom, Jerry, etc.) are perceived precisely as humans animal’s skin is in which an scene wearing animal masks and/or clothing (take the standard and what appears it is ordinary human beneath scratched, skin). a case To paraphrase in effect of what The Mask presents with is thus us Lévi-Strauss, is inopera‘totemism mask which animal today’, of the phantasmic efficiency of the totemic tive in today’s public social a when the hero confronts the psychologist who wrote space: bestseller on the hero's masks, the psychologist calmly answers questions to the effect that we all wear masks only in the metaphoric meaning of the term; in one of the crucial scenes of the
film, which is
really carved
ridiculous
spell.
then
magical object wood; the magical
...
a
way,
the
wild
follows,
the
when
he
—
effect
gestures
fails
hero
puts to
tries
the
occur,
he is able
to
to
mask so
him
convince
on,
that
however, the
hero
perform gracefully
that
in
his
it remains is reduced
when
he
case a
to
the
mask
dead
piece of imitating, in a
is under
the
mask’s
Absolute Power (film) 328 Theodor Adorno, break with Habermas
fidelity
89 Negative Dialectics
Louis
3,
158-9
interpellation ideological 258, 260 others
on
influence
141,
145,
Badiou,
907, 213, 232-3 202 excessive violence 213 levels of universality
égaliberté188,
324
three
Bartok,
134
Empire
Roman
Being and Truth-Event
211
128-35,
237-8
102
Béla
338 Beck, Ulvich 4, 337, 102 van Ludwig Beethoven,
Being and
Time
(Heidegger)
closure/ openness 15-18 dualities Husserl’s criticism
99-4 63-4
Walter
Christianity 145-51
3, 201 127
Etienne
anti-HabermasianHabermasian
172
the
into
Event
of the
Althusser
and
communitarian anti-communitarian
beyond
182-4 of Truth-Event transformation 157-8 universal
Balibar,
383
Alain and
America
psychoanalysis153-4
172-3
Robert
Badinter,
209
Substance
the
and
civility 173
Paul-Laurent
Augustine
to
135-41
24
phronesis St
158-9
subject?
undecidability
127-8, 232
333
Assoun,
the
subjectivity
Aristotle De Anima
is the
gap
141-5
Truth-Event 128
of Althusser
St Paul
191
Hannah
the
influence
return
102 overdetermination 963-4 (Sophocles) Antigone
Arendt,
3, 159-64 164,
Master/Hysteric/University164-5
250
Music Philosophyof the New 358 Kudturindustrie sphere of 101-2 yiolin versus piano
Althusser,
Truth-Event
the
ideology and
359
10, 46,
Horkheimer)
to
166-7
347
of Enlightenment(with
Dialectic
Lacan
with
differences
Good and
161
psychoanalysis
Benjamin,
as revolution revolutionary
n
repetitio gaze
89
20
10, 21
402
INDEX
Walter
Benjamin, ‘Theses
of
Philosophy
287
Karen
Bossuet,JacquesBénigne Pierre
Bourdieu,
Coidness
Simple 111 and Cruelty (Deleuze)
Collins,
Michael
118
schematizes
Bertolt
236
Wendy of Injury 71-2
Brown, States
Bruno,
Patrick
Buchanan,
Daly, Glyn ‘Ideology
376
Giordano
210, 215, 221, 355,
381
Butler,
Judith
3
decision
on
Hegel
19 Foucault
and
253
and melancholy mechanism homosexuality 269-73, 279 265-9, passionate attachments
De Anima
and
De
Gaulle,
de
Man,
Charles
subjectivity Cabaret
(film) Capital (Marx)
and
Kant’s
materialism Eamon
Gilles
They Live Cassirer,
sexuality 257-9
masochism
Class
199
sacrifice
Descartes’s
withdrawal-into-self
the
On
34 238
heauntology gift 56
Spirit 9 René
Descartes,
Reply to the
32]-2
9-10
of
notion
pure
72-3
158-9
Abraham’s
Heidegger ontology versus
139
Six
spectre
Objections116 of the
Cartesian
subject
1-2
27
Castoriadis, Cornelius Kant, Heidegger and
universality the
abyss
of
imagination 23-4 Prophecy (Redfield) 384-5 Struggles in France (Marx) 217
The Celestine
209
280
on
53-4
Ernst
73, 250
Gruelty 364-5
and
deterritorialization
274-5
negation Carpenter,John negation
64
316-17
Deng Xiaoping Derrida, Jacques
of
226
de Valera, Coldness
282,
364
24
Paul
Deleuze,
queer struggle 225 resistance 260-64 difference
its Paradoxes’
(Aristotle)
288-9
sexual
40
61-2
378-80
Taken
The Measure
Reason
Critique of Practical Reason (Kant) 25 Critique of Pure Reason (Kant) 31 anti-metaphysical potential 46-50 The Crying Game (film) 271
155
(film)
Brecht,
364-5
316-17
Critique ofJudgement (Kant)
355
Brahams,Johannes 102 Brassed Off (film) 302, 351-2 Brazil
brothers
Blood
Blood
52
380-81
Satan
Coen
Simple (film) 111 Blue Velvet (film) 299 Bosch, Hieronymus 35, 49-50,
199, 329
Bill
Clinton, as
320
Hostage 386-7
The
History’ 137 Blair, Tony 198 Blixen,
Paul
Claudel,
(cont.)
the
on
of
voluntarism
withdrawal-into-self Dialectic
cogito 100
319 34
of Enlightenment (Adorno
Horkheimer)
10, 46, 359
and
403
INDEX
of Wales
Princess
Diana,
the
328
Diogenes Discipline and Punish Dostoevsky, Fyodor Doyle, Arthur Conan
(Foucault) 56
Scotus,Johannes318
Ego and the Id (Freud) 289 (Marx) Eighteenth Brumaire of history 88 creation Eisenstein, Sergei 33 The Elephant Man (film) 57 The
(film) 53
/Anstoss
The Forbidden
44—5
Planet
301
(film)
resistance
of
use
Frank, Freud,
to
262
power
and
251-4 power without subject 340
pleasures
drive
The first
and
The Full
Bill
356 icor
Genius
Brother/Evil
338
Anthony 3-4, ‘Terry
Giddens,
155
207
Samuel
Goldwyn,
110
Mikhail
Gorbachev,
329
Gray,John Men
Greene,
Women
from Mars,
are
Venus
are
from
272
Graham
Potting Shed 142-3 Gulag Archipelago (Solzhenitsyn) Gymnasialreden (Hegel) 104 The
229
163, 294
Heidegger’s subjectivity Hammett,
303
unconscious
Horkheimer
nature
infant
82 288
The Maltese
accepts
10
Dashiell Falcon
205-6
205
Hegel, Georg W. F. abstract universality
the Id 289
of the
171, 172 and
Adorno
347
35
and
with
Havel, Vaclav
second
helplessness
351~2
Monty (film)
break
185
Ego and
Sphinx (Wilson)
70-71
Habermas,Jiirgen81,
36, 65-6,
Destiny/drive dream-thoughts desires
the
to
366
323
Anne
Sigmund analysis of Schreber death
Atlantis
Brazil
disciplinary procedure 371 Discipline and Punish 252 The History of Madness 257 The History of Sexuality 252-4 174 point of reference of perversions 247 potential sexuality strategies
302
162, 315-17
247-8
Unconscious From
tales
fairy
Taboo
Goebbels,Joseph
Michel
Foucault,
and
Gilliam, 139
Cabaret
Totem
347-50
Bob
Fosse,
wishes’
Little
74
W.C.
Fields,
282~3
‘three
Gates,
Gottlieb
Johann subjectivity
162, 317-18
and
sexualization
266
Fichte,
52~3
and Monotheism
Moses
mourning
Duns
Eraserhead
252
melancholy 269, 270 of the primordial father 363 murder Oedipus complex 313-18 pleasure principle 366 psychic reality 274
150
(film) 56, 77-8, 299
Clint
otherness
monstrous
Dune
Eastwood,
249
hysteria
Cynic 324
Kant’s
acosmos
118
60-61
404
INDEX
Hegel, Georg W. F. (cont.) concrete universality 98-103, 201-2 criticism of Kant's Beyond 84-6 curtain
the
over
inner
world
302
determinate negation 177 eight planets 324 epistemology versus ontology evil
55~6
150
family
and
conceived the
inchiding
necessity 43-4
form
in the
content
on
the
Philosophyof Religion
on
the
Philosophyof the
106
phallic metaphor 92 Phenomenologyof Spirit 30-31,
33-5,
76,
238-9
Substance
sexuality 83-4,
62
subjectivity
and
Lillian
222
Dieter
10
and
History The
Consciousness
Class
and
History of Madness
255
10
(Lukacs)
231 103-8
103
subject 76, 79,
Suprasensible’s face 196 symbolic expression 371 System der Sittlichkeit 94-5 192
universality-in-becoming90-98
(Foucault)
257
253
attachment
subjectivity 78,
totalitarianism
thought
137 resistance
substance
46-50
postmodern
totalitarianism
Hellman, Henrich,
quadruple logic 79~82 recommended by Lenin 149 between relationships logic and metaphysics 82-6 90 secondary identification secrets of the Egyptians 284-5
stubborn
to
subjectivity 1, 2~3,
96
politics 233-4,
as
of Metaphysics
9-11
55
Self
Monstrous
257-8
bondsman
the Problem
29, 31, 46
relation
negation of negation 72-7 night of the world 2, 29-30,
power
and
22-8, the
Logic 96
and
world-experience
decision and choice 16, 18-20 with Fascism 11-21 engagement An Introduction to Metaphysics 13, 48
World
37
84-6,
of of
contingency
Kant
and
Time
65-6
113
lord
143
22-4
as
Lectures
Martin
61-2 analysis of schematism analytic of Dasein 52 Being and Time 10, 15-18 being-towards-death 163 closure / openness of Being and
Gymnasialreden 104
Lectures
Strategy (Laciau
128
Mouffe)
Heidegger,
343
freedom
Socialist
Hegemonyand
The
History of Sexuality (Foucault) 252-4
Vertigo 286,
300
Hitler, Adolf 381-2 114 Hobbes, Thomas Hoffman, Eva 340 E.T.A. 51 Hoffmann, Max Horkheimer, break
86-90
Alfred
Hitchcock,
with
Dialectic
Adorno)
sphere Hosle, The
Habermas
347
of
family structure of Enlightenment (with
consequences
10, 46, 359
of Kulturindustrie
Vittorio
82, 86-7
Hostage (Claudel)
386-7
358
344
405
INDEX
of
criticism
and
nature
Edmund
Husserl,
Being
Lucy (television) 77-8 (Daly) ‘Ideology and its Paradoxes’ The Immortal Story (film) 287 to Metaphysics An Introduction (Heidegger) 13, 49
The
331-2
reinterpretations 130, 142, 146
The
Kaganovich, Kant,
305
Sirens’
Moiseyevich
194
and
Badiou
2
the
158
46~50, 165-7
French
Hegel’s
Heidegger
imagination of Metaphysics (Heidegger) 22-8, 29, the Problem
aims
139-40
including
the
a
of
form
the
in
content
113 materialism
and
metaphysical
idealism
notion
of the
37-8 world
64-6 Law
40-41,
115, 141-2 of
side
on
modernity
292-3
death
of
duty
321
Luther
Martin
203
236
108-9
Jacques and goals
of drives
and
distortion
anamorphic
82
identity 373-5
and
reality
78-9
Beyond 84-6 abyss imagination of
and
F. 229
Spren
unto
facets
two
Lacan,
25
22-8
364-6
41-3
of
and
59-61
fantasy
criticism
publicity 175
schematism
transcendental
Kris, Ernst
Revolution
fundamental
of
principle
alienation
evil
375-6
acts
44-6
Kipling, Rudyard
Critique ofJudgement 40 Critique of Practical Reason Critique of Pure Reason 31
moral
ethical
235
KingJr,
91
universality
anti-cosmos
359
211-12
Immanuel
abstract
praises
304
self-consciousness
sickness
Lazar
61-2
Reason
Kierkegaard, Christianity
78
Trial
238-9
come
Enlightenment
Kennedy,John
Kafka, Franz of the
198
phenomenal to
31, 46
G. 270, 271
‘Silence
second
Kant
Crying Game 271 Carl
276-7
Real
schematizes
violence
Neil
Jordan,
the
116-19
of Grace
view
Truth-Event
Ideals
transcendental
Christ
modern
political
struggle of subjectivity
171, 185
Malebranche’s
Jung,
364
19-20
Leftists
true
Jesus
and
noumenal
I Love
Fredric
163
metaphysics imagination 28-33
of
notion
Jameson,
36-7
culture
non-traditional
Time 63-4
and
44, 46, 279-80,
authentic
acts
375-6
big Other 87, 288, 314-15, 330 butterfly dreams the
death
drive
desire
and
differences
160-61,
291, 293-4,
with
Badiou
160-61, 283-4, 293—4, 304, 390
Evil 382 and
390
fantasy 295-9
drives
fantasy
330
reality
51
3, 159-64
287-8, 291,
406
INDEX
Hegemonyand
Lacan,Jacques(cont) of sexual
forms
the
four
practice fantasy
identification
influence
and
symbolic
265-9
Politics
76
and
de la
dérision
democracy readability 179
logic
of the
sphére’ 81
281-2 159
Master-Signifier 114, 154, matrix
of the
of
nearness
191
discourses
four
otherness
monstrous
52-3
sexual
107~—8
mode
phallus 369-70, 383 the Real 166-7, 276-7
Claude
Lenin,
Vladimir
Butler’s
criticism
273-9
difference
two space between St Paul 149, 152-4
deaths
146, 152-5
symbolic
castration
Truth-Event
162
of
voice
Heidegger
gap Particular
Hegelian
159~60
322
Letourneau,
consequences and idealism
Hegel
236
37-8
149
Mary Kay 381, 382,
10-11
100-101, Universal
Barry Sphere301 Lewinsky, Monica
329
Abraham
56
Lincoln,
°
Vargas
hooligans 205 Logic (Hegel) 96 quadruple logic Lost Highway (film)
158, 172-3 and
299-300
is brought the head ofJohn Baptist 305 Lukacs, Georg History and Class Consciousness
137
negation 177
79-82
Bernardino
Salome
179-80 determinate
Levinson,
Luini,
319
Ernesto between
‘
Hych
the
Llosa, Mario
subject and subjectivization subject’s life-world 62 surplus-enjoyment 105, 106
the
World
192
recommends 250-51
261-4
Laclau,
Lefort,
accepting
Philosophy of the 37
385-8 and
use
the
(Hegel)
212
resistance
on
materialism
against philosophy
221
215, 355, 381 109, 217, 367-8
Darian
Lectures
the
rebirth
282, 284, 287
Pen, Jean-Marie210,
35
normality Oedipus complex 289-90, 313-14 paternal Law 367 perversion versus hysteria 247-8 a
252
Christopher
Leader,
285-6
relationship of
sexual
Lasch, Le
negative magnitude
rebels
subjectivity Lafargue, Paul Right to Laziness Lang, Fritz Metropolis348 Jean Laplanche,
of desire
object-cause
363-4
no
272
difference
sexual
182-4
signifier
masochism
301-2
163
154-5,
Theory
174
radical
258-9 lamella
128
equivalence 178 and Ideologyin Marxist
128
Hegel interpellation/subjectivization ‘La
Strategy (with
of Althusser
of
logic
Soctalist
128
Mouffe)
376-7
discourses
fundamental
249
Luther,
Martin
157
the
407
INDEX
David
Lynch, The
Mauser(Miller) 378-80 Joseph 323 McCarthy,
56, 77-8
Dune
Elephant
Eraserhead
57
Man
Margaret 72, 252 Taken (Brecht) 378-80 are from Mars, Women are from (Gray) 272
Mead,
53
The Measure
Lost
Highway 299-300 pre-ontological phenomena reality 56 Twin Peaks
(film) 389-90
The Mask
55
Men
and
Metropolis(film) 348 Miller, Jacques-Alain
56
Lyotard,Jean-Francois
171, 172
Nicolas
Grace
Moore,
Bronislaw
The Maltese
72, 252 205-6 (Hammett)
Falcon
Zedong
of
of
outcome
Mozart,
Wolfgang Amadeus
Miller,
Heiner
The Net
On the
349
(Adorno)
of Wagner 10 Genealogy of Morals 107,
St Paul
readings Will
abstract
universality
100
meta-politics 190, 191-2 negation of negation 72-3 proletariat and working class 137 47 religious narrative and the sociologists 277-8 superseding the market 339 from theory to revolution 174 universalism workers
as
226
commodity
157
On
the
and
modern
the
St Paul
postmodern
171
109
Genealogy of Morals
107, On
108
150
225 masculine
89
364
Friedrich
traditional,
Hegel reading 149 276 ideological abstraction of the proletariat living contradiction essential
as
(film)
Nietzsche, criticism and
101-2
378-80
Mauser
Negative Dialectics
capitalism
Strategy (with
128
Laclau)
12
fetishization
(Freud) 162,
Socialist
Hegemony and
179-82 an
54
Ottoline
Monotheism
Chantal
Mouffe,
Capital as vampire 358 Class Struggles in France 217 dismissed by Russel] 142 and creation Brumaire Eighteenth history 88 equivalence 231 the exception is the rule 103 exploitation and human rights as
Lady
317-18 323
Karl
Fascism
194
Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Dr Julie 386
and
Moses
339, 370
Slobodan
Morrell,
219
Groucho
Marx, Marx,
Molotov,
116-19
Malinowski, Mao
100, 325
294-5
difference
sexual
Milosevic,
Malebranche,
Venus
(Nietzsche)
108
Spirit (Derrida)
9
331
Christianity
and
psychoanalysis
145-51 link
between
Law
and
Truth-Event
142, 143
universalism
226
desire
152-4
INDEX
408
Reve, Karel
(film) 267
Pharaoh
Phenomenologyof Spirit (Hegel) 30-31, 76, 84-6 92-3
phallic metaphor
103
attachment
stubborn
192
totalitarianism
declaration
Russell,
Paul
Pippin,
Robert
290
Timaeus
Good
and
Politics
389-90
155
Marxist
Theory
night pure
142-3
Arnold
‘Silence
Reiner
195
exploitation
230, 232~3,
235,
universality Dan
207
171
Redfield,
173
378
totalitarianism
193-4
States
of Injury (Brown) Stravinksy, Igor 250
71-2
Sumii, Sue
Prophecy 384-5
Regnault, Francois 250 Reply to Six Objections (Descartes)
320-21
trials
terrors
James
The Celestine
132
repression 227 show
228
Rawls,John
Rather,
111-12
Sophocles
Stalin, Joseph masses
192
totalitarianism
(Kafka) 305
Antigone 263-4 Sphere (film) 301-2
237-8
politics 187-8, 207 post-politics 201, 248 of proletarian rebellion
9
Sirens’
Quentin 181 with the Enemy (film) Sleeping Solaris (film) 301 Solzhenitsyn, Alexander Gulag trilogy 229
234
structure
of the
Skinner,
anti-Lyotardian Lyotardian 172 democracy and gap between
police
250
51
Carnival
127-8
economic
34
318-19
Daniel Paul 116 Schreber, Robert 102 Schumann,
Ranciére,Jacques3, 158
mésentente
87-8
113-16
Carl
Schoenberg,
Schtirmann, Althusser
Self
of the
Willing
Schmitt,
99
I! Postino
and
21-2, 97,
55
of Existence
Ground
(film) 327 The Postman (film) 327 The Potting Shed (Greene)
von
Ground
and
Existence
Divine
128
(Laclau) Popper, Karl
WJ.
127
48
Ideologyin
Friedrich
Schelling,
54
Edgar Allan
Poe,
54
Sade, Marquis de 359
27, 133
Ideas
Supreme
Ottoline
Charlies
221
Plato
eternal
189
142
Lady
to
The Mask
250
99
Rhinegold (Wagner) 348 Right to Laziness (Lafargue) 252 The River with No Bridge (Sumii) Jacob 37, 40, 43, 48 Rogozinski, beyond the abyss 61 Russell, Bertrand
understanding 96 Philosophical Notebooks (Lenin) 149 Philosophy of the New Music (Adorno) Piccone,
het
van
The River 116
with No
Systemder Sittlichkeit
Bridge 189 (Hegel) 94-5
409
INDEX
Tarkovsky, Taylor,
Charles
87-8, 171
Teresa,
Mother
328
‘Theses
the
Philosophy (Benjamin) 137 TheyLive (film) 53-4 on
Timaeus
(Plato)
of
54
Taboo (Freud) 162 Oedipus complex 315-17
The Trial Peaks
(Kafka) 78 (television)
Under Fire (film)
222
History’
Watch
Welles,
on
the Rhine
Story 287
Fred
The Forbidden
Wilson,
(film) 222-3
Orson
The Immortal
From 56
10, 291-2
Wagner, Richard Rhinegold 348
Wilcox,
Totem and
Twin
300
Vertigo(film) 286-7,
Andrei
301
Solaris
Planet
Atlantis
to the
Winfrey, Oprah 386, Yanez
301
Colin
(film) 370
Sphinx 70-71 388