The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology [New Ed] 1859842917, 9788190583220

The Ticklish Subject confronts Deconstructionists and Habermasians, cognitive scientists and Heideggerians, feminists an

401 76 36MB

English Pages 408 [414] Year 2000

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology [New Ed]
 1859842917, 9788190583220

Citation preview

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