Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Psychoanalysis is Truth
Psychoanalysis is Truth.................................................................................................................................................1 1NC Security (1/11)...................................................................................................................................................5 .......................................................................................................................................................................................5 1NC Security (2/11)...................................................................................................................................................6 1NC Security (3/11)...................................................................................................................................................7 ......................................................................................................................................................................................7 1NC Security (4/11)...................................................................................................................................................8 1NC Security (5/11)...................................................................................................................................................9 1NC Security (6/11).................................................................................................................................................10 1NC Security (7/11).................................................................................................................................................11 1NC Security (8/11).................................................................................................................................................12 1NC Security (9/11).................................................................................................................................................13 1NC Security (10/11)...............................................................................................................................................14 1NC Security (11/11)...............................................................................................................................................15 1NC Environment Shell (1/7)......................................................................................................................................16 1NC Environment Shell (3/7)......................................................................................................................................18 1NC Environment Shell (4/7)......................................................................................................................................19 1NC Environment Shell (5/7)......................................................................................................................................20 1NC Environment Shell (6/7)......................................................................................................................................21 1NC Environment Shell (7/7)......................................................................................................................................22 Security Lacan 2nc O/V: ............................................................................................................................................23 Security Link Wall.......................................................................................................................................................24 ...................................................................................................................................................................................24 Impact block - securitization.......................................................................................................................................25 2nc Environmental Lacan O/V: .................................................................................................................................26 Environment 2nc Links: .............................................................................................................................................27 Link - fantasy...............................................................................................................................................................28 Link utopia................................................................................................................................................................29 ...................................................................................................................................................................................30 Link utopia................................................................................................................................................................31 Link world vision......................................................................................................................................................32 Link representations.................................................................................................................................................33 Link representations.................................................................................................................................................34 Link Fiat....................................................................................................................................................................35 Link futurism............................................................................................................................................................36 ....................................................................................................................................................................................36 Link futurism............................................................................................................................................................37 Link futurism............................................................................................................................................................38 Link futurism............................................................................................................................................................39 ....................................................................................................................................................................................39 Link- State....................................................................................................................................................................40 Link state..................................................................................................................................................................41 Link scarcity.............................................................................................................................................................42
Page 2 of 157
Murray and Lux Goat F*cking Link identity..............................................................................................................................................................43 Link identity..............................................................................................................................................................44 ...................................................................................................................................................................................44 Link - identity..............................................................................................................................................................45 Link war representations..........................................................................................................................................46 Link Race..................................................................................................................................................................49 ....................................................................................................................................................................................49 Link - Race...................................................................................................................................................................50 .....................................................................................................................................................................................50 LinkRace..................................................................................................................................................................51 ....................................................................................................................................................................................51 LinkRace..................................................................................................................................................................52 ....................................................................................................................................................................................52 .....................................................................................................................................................................................52 LinkRace..................................................................................................................................................................53 LinkRace..................................................................................................................................................................54 .....................................................................................................................................................................................54 LinkRace..................................................................................................................................................................55 ....................................................................................................................................................................................55 LinkRace..................................................................................................................................................................56 LinkRace..................................................................................................................................................................57 LinkRace..................................................................................................................................................................58 LinkRace..................................................................................................................................................................59 LinkRace..................................................................................................................................................................60 LinkRace..................................................................................................................................................................61 LinkRace..................................................................................................................................................................62 LinkRace Discourse.................................................................................................................................................63 LinkProblem Solution.............................................................................................................................................64 ...................................................................................................................................................................................64 Link Reason..............................................................................................................................................................65 Link - War on Terror...................................................................................................................................................66 Link timeframe.........................................................................................................................................................67 Link liberation..........................................................................................................................................................68 Link - Ethics................................................................................................................................................................69 LinkEthics................................................................................................................................................................70 Link Ethics................................................................................................................................................................71 .....................................................................................................................................................................................71 Link Derrida..............................................................................................................................................................72 Link - Derrida..............................................................................................................................................................73 Link - obligation..........................................................................................................................................................76 .....................................................................................................................................................................................76 Link Obligation.........................................................................................................................................................77 Link util....................................................................................................................................................................78 ...................................................................................................................................................................................78 LinkCompassion......................................................................................................................................................79 .....................................................................................................................................................................................79
Page 3 of 157
Murray and Lux Goat F*cking ....................................................................................................................................................................................79 LinkGuilt/Harms......................................................................................................................................................80 .....................................................................................................................................................................................80 Link guilt..................................................................................................................................................................81 ....................................................................................................................................................................................81 Link ecology.............................................................................................................................................................82 LinkEcological Catastrophe....................................................................................................................................83 LinkEcological Catastrophe....................................................................................................................................84 LinkEnvironmental Ethics.......................................................................................................................................85 Link environmental discourse..................................................................................................................................86 ...................................................................................................................................................................................87 Link politicizing the environment............................................................................................................................88 Link environmental narratives.................................................................................................................................89 Link environmental apocalypse...............................................................................................................................90 .....................................................................................................................................................................................90 Link the other............................................................................................................................................................91 Link the other............................................................................................................................................................92 .....................................................................................................................................................................................92 Link omission...........................................................................................................................................................93 .....................................................................................................................................................................................93 Link - threats................................................................................................................................................................94 Link - historicism........................................................................................................................................................95 Impact - violence.........................................................................................................................................................96 Impact self regulation...............................................................................................................................................97 Impact - fascism...........................................................................................................................................................98 .....................................................................................................................................................................................98 Impact scapegoating.................................................................................................................................................99 Impact post politics.................................................................................................................................................100 Impact sham jouissance..........................................................................................................................................101 ...................................................................................................................................................................................101 Impact queer violence.............................................................................................................................................102 Impact death drive (1/3).........................................................................................................................................103 ..................................................................................................................................................................................103 Impact death drive (2/3).........................................................................................................................................104 ...................................................................................................................................................................................104 Impact death drive (3/3).........................................................................................................................................105 Impact death drive (4/4).........................................................................................................................................106 ..................................................................................................................................................................................106 Alternative: the aff can never access it.....................................................................................................................107 ...................................................................................................................................................................................107 Alternative: Shame....................................................................................................................................................108 Alternative do nothing............................................................................................................................................109 Alternative radical realignment (environment)......................................................................................................110 ..................................................................................................................................................................................111 AT: Link turn.............................................................................................................................................................112 AT Robinson..............................................................................................................................................................113
Page 4 of 157
Murray and Lux Goat F*cking AT: Robinson.............................................................................................................................................................114 AT: Ontology.............................................................................................................................................................115 AT: Radicality ..........................................................................................................................................................116 AT: State/ Realism inevitable....................................................................................................................................117 AT: Doesnt apply to the social.................................................................................................................................118 AT Permutation.........................................................................................................................................................119 AT: Permutation........................................................................................................................................................120 ..................................................................................................................................................................................120 AT: Permutation (environment)................................................................................................................................121 AT: Speaking for the other........................................................................................................................................124 Framework theory..................................................................................................................................................125 AT: Framework.........................................................................................................................................................126 AT: Framework.........................................................................................................................................................127 Framework - Shame...................................................................................................................................................128 Framework be the analyst......................................................................................................................................129 FrameworkThe Analyst.........................................................................................................................................130 FrameworkThe Analyst.........................................................................................................................................131 FrameworkThe Analyst.........................................................................................................................................132 ...................................................................................................................................................................................132 FrameworkThe Analyst.........................................................................................................................................133 FrameworkThe Analyst.........................................................................................................................................134 FrameworkThe Analyst.........................................................................................................................................135 Framework psychoanalysis good: political............................................................................................................136 Framework psychoanalysis good: gender..............................................................................................................137 Framework psychoanalytic terms..........................................................................................................................138 Framework symbolic order....................................................................................................................................139 Framework language..............................................................................................................................................140 .................................................................................................................................................................................140 AT: Pragmatism/ Rorty.............................................................................................................................................141 AT: Fantasies good/ alt solvency..............................................................................................................................142 AT: Lacan bad...........................................................................................................................................................143 AT: Foucault..............................................................................................................................................................144 Affirmative AT: lack..............................................................................................................................................145 ..................................................................................................................................................................................145 Affirmative AT: lack..............................................................................................................................................146 Affirmative AT: Fantasy........................................................................................................................................147 Affirmative AT: Fantasy........................................................................................................................................148 Affirmative AT: alternative....................................................................................................................................149 Affirmative AT: alternative....................................................................................................................................150 Affirmative - AT: session..........................................................................................................................................151 Affirmative - permutation..........................................................................................................................................152 Affirmative generic................................................................................................................................................153 Affirmative aff is better than the alt.......................................................................................................................154 Affirmative psychoanalysis = despotism...............................................................................................................155 Affirmative AT: Thomassen..................................................................................................................................156
with sensual perceptions and excitation by external reality? Take drugs which directly affect your brain! And if God does exist, then everything is permittedto those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, as the instruments of His will; clearly, a direct link to God justifies our violation of any merely human constraints and considerations (as in Stalinism, where the reference to the big Other of historical
Necessity justifies absolute ruthlessness). Todays hedonism combines pleasure with constraint: it is no longer the old notion of the right balance between pleasure and constraint, but a kind of pseudo-Hegelian immediate coincidence of opposites: action and reaction should coincide; the very thing that causes damage should already be the remedy. The ultimate example is arguably a chocolate laxative, available in the USA, with the paradoxical injunction: Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate! (that is, of the very thing that causes constipation). Do we not find here a weird version of Wagners famous Only the spear which caused the wound can heal it, from Parsifal? And is not a negative proof of the hegemony of this stance the fact that genuine unconstrained consumption (in all its
forms: drugs, free sex, smoking) is emerging as the main danger? The fight against such danger is one of the principal motivations of todays biopolitics . Solutions are desperately sought that would reproduce the paradox of the chocolate laxative. The main contender is safe sexa term which makes
us appreciate the truth of the old saying Isnt having sex with a condom like taking a shower with your raincoat on? The ultimate goal here would be, along the lines of decaffeinated coffee, to invent opium without opium: no wonder marijuana is so popular among liberals who want to legalize itit already is a kind of opium without opium. In his scathing remarks on Wagner, Nietzsche diagnosed Wagners decadence as consisting in a combination of asceticism and excessive morbid excitation: the excitation is false, artificial, morbid, hysterical, and the ensuing peace is also a fake, that of an almost medical tranquilization. This, for Nietzsche, was the universe of Parsifal, which embodied Wagners capitulation to the appeal of Christianity: the ultimate fake of Christianity is that it sustains its official message of inner peace and redemption by a morbid excitation, namely, a fixation on the suffering, mutilated corpse of Christ. The very term passion here is revealing in its ambiguity:
passion as suffering, passion as passionas if the only thing that can arouse passion is the sick spectacle of passive suffering. The key question, of course, is: can Saint Paul be reduced to mixture of morbid excitation and ascetic renunciation? Is not the Pauline agape precisely an attempt to break out of the morbid cycle of law and sin sustaining each other? More generally, what, exactly, is the status of the excess, the too-muchness (Eric Santner) of life with regard to itself? Is this excess generated only by the turn of life against itself, so that it actualizes itself only in the guise of the morbid undeadness of the sick passion? Or, in Lacanese: is the excess of jouissance over pleasure generated only through the reversal of the repression of desire into the desire for repression, of the renunciation of desire into the desire for renunciation, and so on? It is crucial to reject this version, and to assert some kind of primordial excess or too-muchness of life itself: human life never coincides with itself; to be fully alive means to be larger than life, and a morbid denial of life is not a denial of life itself, but, rather, the denial of this excess. How, then, are the two excesses related: the excess inherent to life itself, and the excess generated by the denial of life? Is it not that the excess generated by the denial of life is a kind of revenge, a return of the excess repressed by the denial of life? A state of emergency coinciding with the normal state is the political formula of this predicament: in todays antiterrorist politics, we find the same mixture of morbid excitation and tranquilization. The official aim of Homeland Security appeals to the US population in early 2003, intended to make them ready for a terrorist attack, was to calm people down: everything is under control, just follow the rules and carry on with your life. However, the very warning that people must be ready for a large-scale attack sustained the tension: the effort to keep the situation under control asserted the prospect of a catastrophe in a negative way. The aim was to get the population used to leading their daily lives under the threat of a looming catastrophe, and thus to introduce a kind of permanent state of emergency (since, let us not forget, we were informed in the fall of 2002 that the War on Terror will go on for decades, at least for our life-time). We should therefore interpret the different levels of the Alert Code (red, orange) as a state strategy to control the necessary level of excitation, and it is precisely through such a permanent state of emergency, in which we are interpellated to participate through our readiness, that the power asserts its hold over us. In The Others (Alejandro Amenabar, 2001), Nicole Kidman, a mother who lives with her two young children in a haunted house on Jersey Island,
discovers at the end that they are all ghosts: a couple of years before, she first strangled her children and then shot herself (it is the intruders who disturb their peace from time to time who are the real people, potential buyers interested in their house).The only interesting feature of this rather ineffective Sixth Sense-type final twist is the precise reason why Kidman returns as a ghost: she cannot assume her Medea-like actin a way, continuing to live as a ghost (who doesnt know that she is one) symbolizes her ethical compromise, her unreadiness to confront the terrible act constitutive of subjectivity. This reversal is not simply symmetrical: instead of ghosts disturbing real people, appearing to them, it is the real people who disturb the ghosts, appearing to them. Is it not like this when to paraphrase Saint Paulwe are not alive in our real lives? It is not that, in such a case, the promise of real life haunts us in a ghostlike form? Today we are like the anemic Greek philosophers who read Pauls words on the Resurrection with ironic laughter. The only Absolute acceptable within this horizon is a negative one: absolute Evil, whose
paradigmatic figure today is that of the Holocaust. The evocation of the Holocaust serves as a warning of what the ultimate result of the submission of Life to some higher Goal is.
with sensual perceptions and excitation by external reality? Take drugs which directly affect your brain! And if God does exist, then everything is permittedto those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, as the instruments of His will; clearly, a direct link to God justifies our violation of any merely human constraints and considerations (as in Stalinism, where the reference to the big Other of historical
Necessity justifies absolute ruthlessness). Todays hedonism combines pleasure with constraint: it is no longer the old notion of the right balance between pleasure and constraint, but a kind of pseudo-Hegelian immediate coincidence of opposites: action and reaction should coincide; the very thing that causes damage should already be the remedy. The ultimate example is arguably a chocolate laxative, available in the USA, with the paradoxical injunction: Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate! (that is, of the very thing that causes constipation). Do we not find here a weird version of Wagners famous Only the spear which caused the wound can heal it, from Parsifal? And is not a negative proof of the hegemony of this stance the fact that genuine unconstrained consumption (in all its
forms: drugs, free sex, smoking) is emerging as the main danger? The fight against such danger is one of the principal motivations of todays biopolitics . Solutions are desperately sought that would reproduce the paradox of the chocolate laxative. The main contender is safe sexa term which makes
us appreciate the truth of the old saying Isnt having sex with a condom like taking a shower with your raincoat on? The ultimate goal here would be, along the lines of decaffeinated coffee, to invent opium without opium: no wonder marijuana is so popular among liberals who want to legalize itit already is a kind of opium without opium. In his scathing remarks on Wagner, Nietzsche diagnosed Wagners decadence as consisting in a combination of asceticism and excessive morbid excitation: the excitation is false, artificial, morbid, hysterical, and the ensuing peace is also a fake, that of an almost medical tranquilization. This, for Nietzsche, was the universe of Parsifal, which embodied Wagners capitulation to the appeal of Christianity: the ultimate fake of Christianity is that it sustains its official message of inner peace and redemption by a morbid excitation, namely, a fixation on the suffering, mutilated corpse of Christ. The very term passion here is revealing in its ambiguity:
passion as suffering, passion as passionas if the only thing that can arouse passion is the sick spectacle of passive suffering. The key question, of course, is: can Saint Paul be reduced to mixture of morbid excitation and ascetic renunciation? Is not the Pauline agape precisely an attempt to break out of the morbid cycle of law and sin sustaining each other? More generally, what, exactly, is the status of the excess, the too-muchness (Eric Santner) of life with regard to itself? Is this excess generated only by the turn of life against itself, so that it actualizes itself only in the guise of the morbid undeadness of the sick passion? Or, in Lacanese: is the excess of jouissance over pleasure generated only through the reversal of the repression of desire into the desire for repression, of the renunciation of desire into the desire for renunciation, and so on? It is crucial to reject this version, and to assert some kind of primordial excess or too-muchness of life itself: human life never coincides with itself; to be fully alive means to be larger than life, and a morbid denial of life is not a denial of life itself, but, rather, the denial of this excess. How, then, are the two excesses related: the excess inherent to life itself, and the excess generated by the denial of life? Is it not that the excess generated by the denial of life is a kind of revenge, a return of the excess repressed by the denial of life? A state of emergency coinciding with the normal state is the political formula of this predicament: in todays antiterrorist politics, we find the same mixture of morbid excitation and tranquilization. The official aim of Homeland Security appeals to the US population in early 2003, intended to make them ready for a terrorist attack, was to calm people down: everything is under control, just follow the rules and carry on with your life. However, the very warning that people must be ready for a large-scale attack sustained the tension: the effort to keep the situation under control asserted the prospect of a catastrophe in a negative way. The aim was to get the population used to leading their daily lives under the threat of a looming catastrophe, and thus to introduce a kind of permanent state of emergency (since, let us not forget, we were informed in the fall of 2002 that the War on Terror will go on for decades, at least for our life-time). We should therefore interpret the different levels of the Alert Code (red, orange) as a state strategy to control the necessary level of excitation, and it is precisely through such a permanent state of emergency, in which we are interpellated to participate through our readiness, that the power asserts its hold over us. In The Others (Alejandro Amenabar, 2001), Nicole Kidman, a mother who lives with her two young children in a haunted house on Jersey Island,
discovers at the end that they are all ghosts: a couple of years before, she first strangled her children and then shot herself (it is the intruders who disturb their peace from time to time who are the real people, potential buyers interested in their house).The only interesting feature of this rather ineffective Sixth Sense-type final twist is the precise reason why Kidman returns as a ghost: she cannot assume her Medea-like actin a way, continuing to live as a ghost (who doesnt know that she is one) symbolizes her ethical compromise, her unreadiness to confront the terrible act constitutive of subjectivity. This reversal is not simply symmetrical: instead of ghosts disturbing real people, appearing to them, it is the real people who disturb the ghosts, appearing to them. Is it not like this when to paraphrase Saint Paulwe are not alive in our real lives? It is not that, in such a case, the promise of real life haunts us in a ghostlike form? Today we are like the anemic Greek philosophers who read Pauls words on the Resurrection with ironic laughter. The only Absolute acceptable within this horizon is a negative one: absolute Evil, whose
paradigmatic figure today is that of the Holocaust. The evocation of the Holocaust serves as a warning of what the ultimate result of the submission of Life to some higher Goal is.
2nc Lacan Security Alt: Extend the 1nc McGowan alternative, the affirmative is constructed as a choice between action or certain death. This symbolic choice is representative of the status quo reluctance to risk our own lives. Instead of continuing to live in the fear of chaos and disorder, the alternative opens up a new symbolic space for resistance that will break the hold of fantasy upon our thinking. This way we can challenge the influence held over us by the security that we dream of.
C. The affirmatives international framework ensures the protection of the United States at all costs one of those costs being massive pre-emptive strikes in order to dominate rising powers. Extend Daly the quest for dominance is a futile one because we refuse to engage in the opportunities for the fulfillment of our fantasies out of fear that they may not be as great as we imagined. Instead the global world order always keeps harmony at arms length to justify otherwise dangerous politics in the name of peace D. Extend Zizek - Focus on mere survival replicates bare life as we embrace an existence devoid of the minutia that creates happiness. Security drive society demands all of the life with none of the danger, engaging in a truncated life absent the engaging of real pleasure. They concede our value to life claims massive death is meaningless if the lives lost were only warm bodies without merit.
2nc Enviro Lacan Alt Extension: First extend the Mcgowan 2007 evidence, as of the 1ac the decision that is put before the judge is a forced choice, either the judge votes affirmative and saves the world from the doom of environmental collapse, or the judge votes negative and we are all doomed. This is the choice forced upon us by the ideology of the status quo. Only by doing something can we avoid certain doom. By voting negative the judge ignores this forced choice and breaks the hold of the symbolic order upon his(her) thinking. This radical realignment of the social coordinates totally changes the way that we as debaters, and as people relate to the post-political environment in which we exist. Now extend the final piece of 1nc Swyngedouw evidence. This evidence is specific to postpolitics in the context of the environment, only by radically realigning our mentality in terms of nature can new types of thought emerge that could break out of the dangerous cycles of apocalyptic terror that is entrenched in the status quo.
Link - fantasy
The affirmative creates a utopian vision of the world in which nature conforms to man and we can remedy global energy problems with a few dollars unfortunately this social harmony does not and can not ever exist for it is forever somewhere over the rainbow. This attempt at fantasy is simply an attempt to cover up the holes in society where nature cannot be controlled, or lack, ending in the extermination of those who interrupt the affirmatives strive for utopia.
STAVRAKAKIS VISITING FELLOW IN GOV'T, UNIV. OF ESSEX '99 Yannis, Lacan and the Political, pg. 63-5 SRM
What constantly emerges from this exposition is that when
harmony is not present it has to be somehow introduced in order for our reality to be coherent. It has to be introduced through a fantasmatic social construction. 19 One should not get the impression though that this is a mere philosophical discussion. In so far as our constructions of reality influence our behaviourand this is what they basically doour fixation on harmony has direct social and political consequences. Reality construction does not take place on a superstructural level. Reality is forced to conform to our constructions of it not only at the spiritual or the intellectual, but also at the material level. But why does it have to be forced to conform? This is due, for instance, to the gap between our harmonious fantasmatic constructions of nature and nature itself, between reality and the real. Our constructions of reality are so strong that nature has to conform to them and not they to nature; reality is conceived as mastering the real. But there is always a certain leftover, a disturbing element destabilising our constructions of nature. This has to be stigmatized, made into a scapegoat and exterminated. The more beatific and harmonious is a social fantasy the more this repressed destabilising element will be excluded from its symbolizationwithout, however, ever disappearing.
In this regard, a vignette from the history of nature conservation can be revealing. As is well known nature conservation was developed first in the United States; what is not so well known is that a major feature of the crusade for resource conservation was a deliberate campaign to destroy wild animalsone of the most efficient, well-organized, and well-financed such efforts in all of mans history (Worster, 1994:261). All this, although not solely attributable to it, was part of a progressive moralistic ideology which conceived of nature together with society as harbouring ruthless exploiters and criminals who should be banished from the land (Worster, 1994:265). The driving force behind this enterprise was clearly a particular ethically distinctive construction of nature articulated within the framework of a conservation ideology. According to this construction what was had to conform to what should be and what should be, that is to say nature without vermin (coyotes and other wild predators), was accepted as more naturalmore harmoniousthan what was: These conservationists were dedicated to reorganizing the natural economy in a way that would fulfil their own ideal vision of what nature should be like (Worster, 1994:266). This construction was accepted by the Roosevelt administration in the USA (1901-9) and led to the formation of an official programme to exterminate vermin. The job was given to a government agency, the Bureau of the Biological Survey (BBS) in the Department of Agriculture, and a ruthless war started (in 1907 alone, 1,700 wolves and 23,000 coyotes were killed in the National Parks and this policy continued and expanded for years) (Worster, 1994:263). What is this dialectic between the beatific fantasy of nature and the demonised vermin doing if not illustrating the Lacanian dialectic between the two sides of fantasy or between fantasy and symptom? Since we will explore
fantasy/symptom axis. As far as the promise of filling the lack in the Other is concerned, fantasy can be better understood in its relation to the Lacanian conception of the symptom; according to one possible reading, fantasy and symptom are two inter-implicated terms. It is the symptom that interrupts the consistency of the field of our constructions of reality, of the object of identification, by embodying the repressed jouissance, the destabilising part of nature excluded from its harmonious symbolisation. The symptom here is a real kernel of enjoyment; it is the repressed jouissance that returns and does not ever stop in imposing itself [on us] (Soler,
the first of these two Lacanian approaches to fantasy in Chapter 4, we will concentrate here on the
1991:214). If fantasy is the support that gives consistency to what we call reality (iek, 1989:49) on the other hand reality is always a symptom (iek, 1992). Here we are insisting on the late Lacanian conception of the symptom as sinthome. In this conception, a signifier is married to jouissance, a signifier is instituted in
the real, outside the signifying chain but at the same time internal to it. This paradoxical role of the symptom can help us understand the paradoxical role of fantasy. Fantasy gives discourse its consistency because it opposes the symptom (Ragland-Sullivan, 1991:16). Hence, if the symptom is an encounter with the real, with a traumatic point that resists symbolisation, and if the discursive has to arrest the real and repress jouissance in order to produce reality, then the negation of the real within fantasy can only be thought in terms of opposing, of stigmatising the symptom. This is then the relation between symptom and fantasy. The self-consistency of a symbolic construction of reality depends on the harmony instituted by fantasy. This fantasmatic harmony can only be sustained by the neutralisation of the symptom and of the real, by a negation of the generalised lack that crosses the field of the social. But how is this done? If social fantasy produces the self-consistency of a certain construction it can do so only by presenting the symptom as an alien, disturbing intrusion, and not as the point of eruption of the otherwise hidden truth of the existing social order (iek, 1991a:40). The social fantasy of a harmonious social or natural order can only be sustained if all the persisting disorders can be attributed to an alien intruder. To return to our example, the illusory character of our harmonious construction of nature is shown in the fact that there is a part of the real which escapes its schema and assumes a symptomatic form (vermin, etc.); in order for this fantasy to remain coherent, this real symptom has to be stigmatised and eliminated. It cannot be accepted as the excluded truth of nature; such a recognition would lead to a dislocation of the fantasy in question. When, however, the dependence of fantasy on the symptom is revealed, then the play the relationbetween the symptom and fantasy reveals itself as another mode of the play between the real and the symbolic/imaginary nexus producing reality.
Link utopia
Social lives, ontology, language, life these things all contain a fundamental lack that prevents their perfection. The subject, state and all other would be moral actors attempt to close this gap in symbolization, yet it always fails and causes us to forget that there is another politics and another way EDKINS SR. LECTURER, INT'L POLITICS @ UNIV. OF WALES-ABERYSTWYTH '3 Jenny, Trauma and the Memory of Politics, pg. 11-14 SRM
In the psychoanalytic account the subject is formed around a lack, and in the face of trauma. We become who we are by finding our place within the social order and family structures into which we are born. That social order is produced in symbolic terms, through language. Language does not just name things that are already there in the world. Language divides up the world in particular ways to produce for every social grouping what it calls 'reality'. Each language - each symbolic or social order has its own way of doing this. Crucially, none of these are complete; none of them can find a place for everything. This is a logical limitation, not a question of a symbolic or social order being insufficiently developed. Completeness or closure is impossible. There is always, inevitably, something that is missed out, something that cannot be symbolised, and this is one part of what psychoanalytic theory calls 'the real'. In its birth into the symbolic or social order, into language, the subject is formed around, and through a veiling of, that which cannot be symbolised the traumatic real. The real is traumatic, and has to be hidden or forgotten, because it is a threat to the imaginary completeness of the subject. The 'subject' only exists in as far as the person finds their place within the social or symbolic order. But no place that the person occupies as a mother, friend, consumer, activist can fully express what that person is. There is always something more. Again, this is not a question of people not fitting into the roles available for them and a call for more person-friendly societies. Nor does it concern multiple or fragmented identities in a postmodern world. It is a matter of a structural impossibility. If someone is, say, a political activist, there is always the immediate question of whether they are sufficiently involved to count as an activist: don't activists have to be more committed, to take part in more than just demonstrations, shouldn't they stand for office? On the other hand, are they perhaps more than an activist does that description do justice to what they are, to their role in the party? There is always an excess, a surplus, in one direction or the other. However, we choose on the whole to ignore this - to forget this impossibility, and to act as if completeness and closure were possible. We hide the traumatic real, and stick with the fantasy of what we call social reality. As I have argued elsewhere, the political is that which enjoins us not to forget the traumatic real but rather to acknowledge the constituted and provisional nature of what we call social reality. Politics refers to the sphere of activity and institutions that is called 'politics' as opposed to 'economics' or 'society'. Politics is part of what we call social reality. It exists within the agendas and frameworks that are already accepted within the social order. The political, in its 'properly traumatic dimension', on the other hand, concerns the real. It refers to events in which politics of the first sort and its institutions are brought into being. This can be the day-to-day production and reproduction of the social and symbolic order. This continual process has to take place; the social order is not natural, it doesn't exist unless it is produced continually. The political also takes place at moments when major upheavals occur that replace a preceding social and legal system and set up a new order in its place. At such points, the symbolism and ideology that concealed the fragile and contingent nature of authority collapse altogether and there is a brief interregnum before the new order imposes a different form of concealment. The way that time figures in the psychoanalytic account is interesting. A certain non-linearity is evident: time no longer moves unproblematically from past through present to future. In a sense, subjects only retrospectively become what they already are - they only ever will have been. And the social order too shares this retroactive constitution. The subject and the social order in which the subject finds a place are both in a continual process of becoming. Neither exists as a fixed entity in the present moment, as the common-sense view in western culture might lead us to expect. Both are always in the process of formation. This is because the two are so intimately related. The person is formed, not through a process of interaction with the social order (since that would mean thinking of the social as already there), but by imagining or supposing that the social order exists. This supposing by the individual is what brings the social into being. We have to imagine that others will respond to us before we speak, but it is only our speaking, of course, that enables them to respond. But supposing that the social exists does not only produce the social order, it also, simultaneously, brings the individual into existence too. When our speaking elicits a response, we recognise ourselves as subjects in that response. This recognition is belated when viewed through the lens of a linear temporality: it is not at the moment we decide to
speak that we see who we are, but only a moment later, when we get a response. The response tells us not who we are now, since we are no longer that - we have already changed. It tells us who we were, at the moment when we spoke. This is the sense in which we never are, we only ever will hazy been. Like the distant stars, whose past we know from the light that has taken millions of years to reach us but whose present we can only guess at, we can only know what we were, not what we are. And even that is also a guess, of course. In a similar way, when we listen to a sentence being spoken, we can predict what is being said, but we cannot be sure we were right until the sentence is completed and over. Some forms of speech - rhetoric and jokes for example - play on that unpredictability. The uncertainty and unpredictability that this involves can be unsettling. In the rational west, we tend to seek certainty and security above all. We don't like not knowing. So we pretend that we do. Or that if we don't we could, given sufficient scientific research effort and enough money. We forget the uncertainties involved and adopt a view that what we call social reality - which Slavoj Zizek calls social fantasy -- is basically knowable. We adopt an ontology a view of being and the nature of things - that depends on a progressive linear notion of time. Things can 'be' in our modern western sense only in the context of this temporality. They 'are' because they have a history in time, but they are at the same time separate from that history. But central to this solution to doubt is forgetting, as we have seen. The fantasy is only convincing if, once it has been put in place, we can forget that it is a fantasy. What we are forgetting some would say deliberately - is the real, that which cannot he symbolised, and that which is produced as an excess or surplus by any attempt at symbolisation. We do not remember the trauma that lies at the root of subjectivity, the lack or gap that remains, even within what we call social reality. This position leads to a depoliticisation. We forget that a complete, non-antagonistic society is impossible. We strive for completion and closure, often at any price. There are a number of ways in which this is done, according to Zizek.'' The first is communitarian attempts to produce a close homogeneous society arche-politics. Political struggle disappears because everyone agrees on everything. 'The second, most common in the liberal west, Zizek calls para-politics. Here the political is replaced by politics. Standardised competition takes place between accepted political parties according to pre-set rules, the prize being a turn at executive control of the state bureaucracy. Politics has become policing or managerial control. In the third metapolitics, political conflict is seen as a shadow theatre, with the important events taking place in another scene, that of economic processes. Politics should be cancelled when economic processes have worked themselves out (as scientific materialism predicts) and matters can he decided by rational debate and the collective will. Finally, we have ultra-politics, where political struggle becomes warfare, and the military are called in. There is no common ground for debate and politics is militarised. If we are to resist such attempts to 'gentrify' or depoliticise the political we have to recall the constituted, provisional and historically contingent nature of every social order, of every ontology. This position, which Zizek calls 'traversing the fantasy', 'tarrying with the negative' or fidelity to the ontological crack in the universe, is uncomfortable." It involves an acceptance of the lack of trauma at the centre of the subject and the non-existence of any complete, closed social order.
Link utopia
Utopia is not just an impossible dream of perfection, but even the concept that the violence of neoliberalism can be remedied within the psychosocial coordinates of capitalism through single actions is a utopian conception of politics. The only change can come through a radical reaction against the domination of capital. Slavoj Zizek, 2007 (The Market Mechanism for the Race of Devils)
One of the "proofs" of my practice of fetishist disavowal is the alleged "perverse paradox" of me rejecting utopias and then nonetheless claiming that today "it is more important than ever to hold this utopian place of the global alternative open"(142) - as if I did not repeatedly elaborate different meanings of utopia: utopia as simple imaginary impossibility (the utopia of a perfected harmonious social order without antagonisms, the consumerist utopia of today's capitalism), and utopia in the more radical sense of enacting what, within the framework of the existing social relations, appears as "impossible" - this second utopia is "a-topic" only with regard to these relations. Utopia as simple imaginary impossibility (the utopia of a perfected harmonious social order without antagonisms, the consumerist utopia of today's capitalism), is not utopia in the more radical sense of enacting what, within the framework of the existing social relations, appears as "impossible" - this second utopia is "a-topic" only with regard to these relations. The core of a Lacanian notion of utopia is: a vision of desire functioning without objet a and its twists and loops. It is utopian not only to think that one can reach the unencumbered full "incestuous" jouissance; it is no less utopian to think that one can renounce/sacrifice jouissance without this renunciation generating its own surplus-jouissance. In this sense, Marx's "scientific Socialism" itself has a clear utopian core. Marx perceived how capitalism unleashed the breath-taking dynamics of self-enhancing productivity - see his fascinated descriptions of how, in capitalism, "all things solid melt into thin air," of how capitalism is the greatest revolutionizer in the entire history of humanity; on the other hand, he also clearly perceived how this capitalist dynamics is propelled by its own inner obstacle or antagonism - the ultimate limit of capitalism (of the capitalist self-propelling productivity) is the Capital itself, i.e. the capitalist incessant development and revolutionizing of its own material conditions, the mad dance of its unconditional spiral of productivity, is ultimately nothing but a desperate flight forward to escape its own debilitating inherent contradiction. Marx's fundamental mistake was to conclude, from these insights, that a new, higher social order (Communism) is possible, an order that would not only maintain, but even raise to a higher degree and effectively fully release the potential of the self-increasing spiral of productivity which, in capitalism, on account of its inherent obstacle/contradiction, is again and again thwarted by socially destructive economic crises. In short, what Marx overlooked is that, to put it in the standard Derridean terms, this inherent obstacle/antagonism as the "condition of impossibility" of the full deployment of the productive forces is simultaneously its "condition of possibility": if we abolish the obstacle, the inherent contradiction of capitalism, we do not get the fully unleashed drive to productivity finally delivered of its impediment, but we lose precisely this productivity that seemed to be generated and simultaneously thwarted by capitalism - if we take away the obstacle, the very potential thwarted by this obstacle dissipates... (Therein would reside a possible Lacanian critique of Marx, focusing on the ambiguous overlapping between surplus-value and surplus-jouissance). - Furthermore, utopian is not only the conservative dream of regaining some idealized Past before the Fall; no less utopian is the liberal-pragmatic idea that one can solve problems gradually, one by one. John Caputo recently wrote: I would be perfectly happy if the far left politicians in the United States were able to reform the system by providing universal health care, effectively redistributing wealth more equitably with a revised IRS code, effectively restricting campaign financing, enfranchising all voters, treating migrant workers humanely, and effecting a multilateral foreign policy that would integrate American power within the international community, etc., i.e., intervene upon capitalism by means of serious and far-reaching reforms. /.../ If after doing all that Badiou and Zizek complained that some Monster called Capital still stalks us, I would be inclined to greet that Monster with a yawn.
Link representations
The affirmatives desire is one of the spectacle of representations to produce film like imaginary events destined to destroy us only via an over active imagination produced the objet a a false desire used to fill the lack. This refusal to engage in the horrific thing on the horizon instead pushing it away is the late capitalist dominions final suicidal attempt to retain the fantasy. Zizek 2001 (Slavoj. Professor. Philosophy. Institute for Sociology - Ljubljana. European Graduate School. On Belief. Pg. 31-32. Questia.) SRM
The logic of this succession is thus clear enough: we Start with the stable symbolic order; we proceed to the heroic suicidal attempts to break out of it; when the Order itself seems threatened, we provide the matrix of permutations which accounts for how the revolt itself is just the operator of the passage from one to another form of the social link; finally, we confront the society in which the revolt itself is rendered meaningless, since, in it, transgression itself is not only recuperated, but directly solicited by the system as the very form of its reproduction. To put it in Hegel's terms, the "truth" of the student's transgressive revolt against the Establishment is the emergence of a new establishment in which transgression is part of the game, solicited by the gadgets which organize our life, as the permanent dealing with excesses. Is, then, Lacan's ultimate result a conservative resignation, a kind of closure, or does this approach allow for a radical social change? The first thing to take note of is that the preceding paradigms do not simply disappear in those, which follow - they persist, casting a shadow on them. The late capitalist global market society is by no means characterized by the undisputed rule of the proliferating objets a: this very society is simultaneously haunted by the prospect of confronting the Thing in its different guises - no longer predominantly the nuclear catastrophe, but the multitude of other catastrophes that loom on the horizon (the ecological catastrophe, the prospect of an asteroid hitting the Earth, up to the micro level of some virus going crazy and destroying human life). Furthermore, as Miller himself deployed apropos of the notion of extimacy, and as Lacan himself predicted in the early 1970s, does not capitalist globalization give rise to the new racism focusing on the "theft of enjoyment," on the figure of the Other who either threatens to snatch from us the treasure of our "way of life," and/or itself possesses and displays an excessive jouissance that eludes our grasp? In short, the passage from the traumatic Thing to lichettes, to the "little bits of jouissance [which] set the tone for a lifestyle," never fully succeeds, the Thing continues to cast its shadow, so that what we have today is the proliferation of the lifestyle lichettes against the background of the ominous Thing, the catastrophe which threatens to destroy the precious balance of our various life styles This weakness of Miller's description of the paradigms of jouissance has a deeper ground. Today, in a time of continuous rapid changes, from the "digital revolution" to the retreat of old social forms, thought is more than ever exposed to the temptation of "losing its nerve," of precociously abandoning the old conceptual coordinates. The media constantly bombard us with the need to abandon the "old paradigms": if we are to survive, we have to change our most fundamental notions of what constitutes personal identity, society, environment, etc. New Age wisdom claims that we are entering a new "post-human" era; postmodern political thought tells us that we are entering post-industrial societies, in which the old categories of labor, collectivity, class, etc., are theoretical zombies, no longer applicable to the dynamics of modernization. The Third Way ideology and political practice is effectively THE model of this defeat, of this inability to recognize how the New is here to enable the Old to survive. Against this temptation, one should rather follow the unsurpassed model of Pascal and -ask the difficult question: how are we to remain faithful to the Old in the new conditions? ONLY in this way can we generate something effectively new.
Link representations
Representations of violent catastrophe arent attempts to access the Real theyre attempts to shield ourselves from it. Their preoccupation with catastrophic scenarios is an attempt to avoid the real of the political field. In psychological terms, they locate the real danger as the deranged rapist who the maternal father is tasked with protecting us from, while the real danger is the benign father himself. Slavoj Zizek, Professor of Sociology at the Institute for Sociology, Ljubljana University, 2000, The Fragile Absolute, p. 76-78
Another example from war can help us to clarify this point further. The ultimate lesson of the latest American military interventions, especially Operation Desert Fox against Iraq at the end of 1998, is that such operations signal a new era in military history battles in which the attacking force operates under the constraint that it can sustain no casualties. (The same point is repeated in every US discussion about military intervention abroad, from Somalia to ex-Yugoslavia one expects a guarantee that there will be no casualties.) This tendency to erase death itself from war should not, however, seduce us into endorsing the standard notion that war is rendered less traumatic if it is no longer experienced by the soldiers (or presented) as an actual encounter with another human being to be killed, but as an abstract activity in front of a screen or behind a gun far from the explosion, like guiding a missile on a warship hundreds of miles away from where it will hit its target. While such a procedure makes the soldier less guilty, it is open to question if it actually causes less anxiety this is one way to explain the strange fact that soldiers often fantasize about killing the enemy soldier in a face-to-face confrontation, looking him in the eyes before stabbing him with a bayonet (in a kind of military version of the sexual False Memory Syndrome, they even often remember such encounters when they never in fact took place). There is a long literary tradition of elevating such face-to-face encounters as an authentic war experience (see the writings of Ernst Junger, who praised them in his memoirs of the trench attacks in World War I). So what if the truly traumatic feature is not the awareness that I am killing another human being (to be obliterated through the dehumanization and objectivization of war into a technical procedure) but, on the contrary, this very objectivization, which then generates the need to supplement it by fantasies of authentic personal encounters with the enemy? It is thus not the fantasy of a purely aseptic war run as a video game behind computer screens that protects us from the reality of the face-to-face killing of another person; on the contrary, it is this fantasy of a face-to-face encounter with an enemy killed bloodily that we construct in order to escape the Real of the depersonalized war turned into an anonymous technological operation. So our thesis should be clear now: the cruel reality of war relates to the notion of the virtualized war with no casualties in precisely the same way as Festen relates to Benignis Lfe is Beautiful: in both cases, we are not dealing with the symbolic fiction (of virtual bloodless warfare, of protective narrative) concealing the Real of a senseless bloodbath or sexual violence in both cases it is, rather, this violence itself which already serves as a fantasized protective shield. Therein lies one of the fundamental lessons of psychoanalysis: the images of utter catastrophe, far from giving access to the Real, can function as a protective shield against the Real. In sex as well as in politics, we take refuge in catastrophic scenarios in order to avoid the actual deadlock. In short, the true horror is not the rapist Urvater against whom the benevolent maternal father protects us with his fantasy shield, but the benign maternal father himself the truly suffocating and psychosis-generating experience for the child would have been to have a father like Benigni, who, with his protective care, erases all traces of excessive surplus-enjoyment. It is as a desperate defence measure against this father that one fantasizes about the rapist father. And what if this is also the ultimate lesson of Schelling: that the horror of the ultimate Grand, this monstrous apparition with hundreds of hands, this vortex that threatens to swallow everything, is a lure, a defence against the abyss of the pure act? Another way to approach this same ambiguity and tension in the relationship between fantasy and the Real would be via Heideggers theme of errancy/untruth as the innermost feature of the event of truth itself. The very opening paragraph of John Salliss remarkable essay on the monstrosity of truth tackles this difficult point directly:
Link Fiat
The affs presumption of a free willing, fiating individual is a fantasy which covers over the operations of the drives which hold the subject together. Enjoyment is the fuel that powers the Self. Jodi Dean. Enjoyment as a Category of Political Thought.Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association, September, jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/files/aspa_05_enjoyment.doc 2005. Do not cite without permission
Thinking enjoyment in terms of fixity enables us to distinguish Zizeks account of subjectivity from other versions prominent in political theory. First, his subject is clearly not the same as the liberal subject in so far as there is no notion of consciously free and rational will. Rather, the Zizekian subject is an emptiness held in place by enjoyment. Second, for Zizek the subject is not properly understood in terms of the concept of subject-position or the individual as it is constructed within the terms of a given hegemonic formation (as a woman/mother, black/minority, etc). And, third, the subject is not the illusory container of a potentially infinite plasticity or capacity for creative self-fashioning. Instead, of either a subject position or an opportunity for re-creation, the subject is lack (in the structure, the other) marked by the limit point or nugget of an impossible enjoyment. Although this idea of the subject of lack might appear at first glance rather bizarre and unhelpful, it nonetheless affiliates well with notions congenial to thinkers convinced by critiques of a specific reading of the enlightenment subject such as those offered by Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud and extended in Foucauldian, feminist, and post-Nietzschean thought. Zizeks account of the subject shares with these views the rejection of a primary will, rationality, wholeness, and transparency. Similarly, it acknowledges the role of the unconscious, the body, and language, bringing these three elements together in its account of enjoyment as it limits and ruptures language and provides the object that is the very condition of the subject. As it emphases the object conditioning the subject, moreover, Zizeks discussion of enjoyment as a political factor draws our attention to a certain fixity on the part of the subject. Far from the malleable self-creating subject championed by consumer capital, the Zizekian subject finds itself in a place not of its choosing, attached to fantasies of which it remains unaware that nevertheless structure its relation to enjoyment thereby fastening it to the existing framework of domination.
Link futurism
Reproductive Futurism keeps us terroristically beholden to the Child. Life itself is deferred to a phantasmatic tomorrow as human freedom is sacrificed to the fascism of the baby's face. Furthermore, this ideology obligates us to identify and root out all those individualities and lifestyles which are perceived to threaten the endless repetition of the social order. Lee Edelman. No Future: Queer Theory and Death Drive. 2004 pp. 19-22 SRM
The Child, in the historical epoch of our current epistemological regime, is the figure for this compulsory investment in the misrecognition of figure. It takes its place on the social stage like every adorable Annie gathering her limitless funds of pluck to "stick out [her] chin/ And grin/ And say: 'Tomorrow!/ Tomorrow!/1 love ya/ Tomorrow/ You're always/ A day/ Away.' " 2 0 And lo and behold, as viewed through the prism of the tears that it always calls forth, the figure of this Child seems to shimmer with the iridescent promise of Noah's rainbow, serving like the rainbow as the pledge of a covenant that shields us against the persistent threat of apocalypse nowor later. Recall, for example, the end of Jonathan Demme's Philadelphia (1993), his filmic act of contrition for the homophobia some attributed to The Silence of the lambs (1991}. After Andrew Beckett (a man for all seasons, as portrayed by the saintly Tom Hanks), last seen on his deathbed in an oxygen mask that seems to allude to, or trope on, Hannibal Lecter's more memorable muzzle (see figures 1 and 2), has shuffled off this mortal coil to stand, as we are led to suppose, before a higher law, we find ourselves in, if not at, his wake surveying a room in his family home, now crowded with children and pregnant women whose reassuringly bulging bellies (see figure 3) displace the bulging basket (unseen) of the Hiv-positive gay man (unseen) from whom, the filmic text suggests, in a cinema {unlike the one in which we sit watching Philadelphia) not phobic about graphic representations of male-male sexual acts, Saint Thomas, a.k.a. Beckett, contracted the virus that cosegerous "lifestyles" on the Internet; the Child who might choose a provocative book from the shelves of the public library; the Child, in short, who might find an enjoyment that would nullify the figural value, itself imposed by adult desire, of the Child as unmarked by the adult's adulterating implication in desire itself; the Child, that is, made to image, for the satisfaction of adults, an Imaginary fullness that's considered to want, and therefore to want for, nothing. As Lauren Berlant argues forcefully at the outset of The Queen of America Goes to Washington City, "a nation made for adult citizens has been replaced by one imagined for fetuses and children."2 2 On every side, our enjoyment of liberty is eclipsed by the lengthening shadow of a Child whose freedom to develop undisturbed by encounters, or even by the threat of potential encounters, with an "otherness" of which its parents, its church, or the state do not approve, uncompromised by any possible access to what is painted as alien desire, terroristically holds us all in check and determines that political discourse conform to the logic of a narrative wherein history unfolds as the future envisioned for a Child who must never grow up. Not for nothing, after all, does the historical construction of the homosexual as distinctive social type overlap with the appearance of such literary creations as Tiny Tim, David Balfour, and Peter Pan, who enact, in an imperative most evident today in the uncannily intimate connection between Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort, a Symbolic resistance to the unmarried men (Scrooge, Uncle Ebenezer, Captain Hook) who embody, as Voldemort's name makes clear, a wish, a will, or a drive toward death that entails the destruction of the Child. That Child, immured in an innocence seen as continuously under seige, condenses a fantasy of vulnerability to the queerness of queer sexualities precisely insofar as that Child enshrines, in its form as sublimation, the very value for which queerness regularly finds itself condemned: an insistence on sameness that intends to restore an Imaginary past. The Child, that is, marks the fetishistic fixation of heteronormativity: an erotically charged investment in the rigid sameness of identity that is central to the compulsory narrative of reproductive futurism. And so, as the radical right maintains, the battle against queers is a life-and-death struggle for the future of a Child whose ruin is pursued by feminists, queers, and those who support the legal availability of abortion. Indeed, as the Army of God made clear in the bombmaking guide it produced for the assistance of its militantly "pro-life" members, its purpose was wholly congruent with the logic of reproductive futurism: to "disrupt and ultimately destroy Satan's power to kill our children, God's children.
Link futurism
The image of the Child works to restrict politics to the terms of Reproductive Futurism. This futurism condemns the queer subject to destruction and whitewashes all politics that act in the name of the unborn child. Lee Edelman. No Future: Queer Theory and Death Drive. 2004 pp. 2-3 SRM
But what helped him most in these public appeals on behalf of America's children was the social consensus that such an appeal is impossible to refuse. Indeed, though these public service announcements concluded with the sort of rhetorical flourish associated with hard-fought political campaigns ("We're fighting for the children. Whose side are you on?"), that rhetoric was intended to avow that this issue, like an ideological M6- bius strip, only permitted one side. Such "self-evident" one-sidedness the affirmation of a value so unquestioned, because so obviously unquestionable, as that of the Child whose innocence solicits our defenseis precisely, of course, what distinguishes public service announcements from the partisan discourse of political argumentation. But it is also, I suggest, what makes such announcements so oppressively political- political not in the partisan terms implied by the media consultant, but political in a far more insidious way: political insofar as the fantasy subtending the image of the Child invariably shapes the logic within which the political itself must be thought. That logic compels us, to the extent that we would register as politically responsible, to submit to the framing of political debateand, indeed, of the political fieldas defined by the terms of what this book describes as reproductive futurism: terms that impose an ideological limit on political discourse as such, preserving in the process the absolute privilege of heteronormativity by rendering unthinkable, by casting outside the political domain, the possibility of a queer resistance to this organizing principle of communal relations. For politics, however radical the means by which specific constituencies attempt to produce a more desirable social order, remains, at its core, conservative insofar as it works to affirm a structure, to authenticate social order, which it then intends to transmit to the future in the form of its inner Child. That Child remains the perpetual horizon of every acknowledged politics, the fantasmatic beneficiary of every political intervention. Even proponents of abortion rights, while promoting the freedom of women to control their own bodies through reproductive choice, recurrently frame their political struggle, mirroring their anti-abortion foes, as a "fight for our childrenfor our daughters and our sons," and thus as a fight for the future.2 What, in that case, would it signify not to be "fighting for the children"? How could one take the other "side," when taking any side at all necessarily constrains one to take the side of, by virtue of taking a side within, a political order that returns to the Child as the image of the future it intends? Impossibly, against all reason, my project stakes its claim to the very space that "politics" makes unthinkable: the space outside the framework within which politics as we know it appears and so outside the conflict of visions that share as their presupposition that the body politic must survive. Indeed, at the heart of my polemical engagement with the cultural text of politics and the politics of cultural texts lies a simple provocation: that queerness names the side of those not "fighting for the children," the side outside the consensus by which all politics confirms the absolute value of reproductive futurism. The ups and downs of political fortune may measure the social order's pulse, but queerness, by contrast, figures, outside and beyond its political symptoms, the place of the social order's death drive: a place, to be sure, of abjection expressed in the stigma, sometimes fatal, that follows from reading that figure literally, and hence a place from which liberal politics strivesand strives quite reasonably, given its unlimited faith in reasonto disassociate the queer. More radically, though, as I argue here, queerness attains its ethical value precisely insofar as it accedes to that place, accepting its figural status as resistance to the viability of the social while insisting on the inextricability of such resistance from every social structure.
Link futurism
Political actions taken in the name of a better tomorrow engender the politics of futurism where all actions are justified under the faceless child of the future generations. This ideology scapegoats and stigmatizes those who endanger our perfect envisionment of the far off world at large. Lee Edelmen, No Future: Queer Theory and Death Drive. 2004 pp. 112-113 SRM
Ignore for a moment what demands to be called the transparency of this appeal. Ignore, that is, how quickly the spiritualizing vision of parents "nourishing and growing . . . small bodies and . . . small souls" gives way to a rhetoric affirming instead the far more pragmatic (and politically imperative) investment in the "human capital . . . essential to the health and wealth of our nation." Ignore, by so doing, how the passage renominates those human "souls" as "capital" without yielding the fillip of Dickensian pathos that prompts us to "cherish" these "capital"- ized humans ("small" but, like the economy in current usage, capable of being grown) precisely insofar as they come to embody this thereby humanized "capital." Ignore all this and one's eyes might still pop to discover that only political intervention will "allow," and the verb is crucial here, "parents to cherish their children" so as to "ensure our collective future - or ensure, which comes to the same in the faith that properly fathers us all, that our present will always be mortgaged to a jantasmatic future in the name of the political "capital" that those children will thus have become. Near enough to the surface to challenge its status as merely implicit, but sufficiently buried to protect it from every attempt at explicitation, a globally destructive, child-hating force is posited in these linesa force so strong as to disallow parents the occasion to cherish their children, so profound in its virulence to the species as to put into doubt "our collective future"and posited the better to animate a familial unit so cheerfully mom-ified as to distract us from ever noticing how destructively it's been mummified. No need to trick out that force in the flamboyant garments of the pedophile, whose fault, as "everyone" knows, defaults, faute de mieux, to a fear of grown women and thus, whatever the sex of his object, condemns him for, and to, his failure to penetrate into the circle of heterosexual desire. No need to call it names, with the vulgar bluntness of the homophobe, whose language all too often is not the bluntest object at hand. Unnamed, it still carries the signature, whatever Hewlett and West may intend, of the crime that was named as not to be named ("inter christianos non nominandum") while maintaining the plausible deniability allowing disavowal of such a signature, should anyone try to decipher it, as having been forged by someone else. To be sure, the stigmatized other in general can endanger our idea of the future, conjuring the intolerable image of its spoliation or pollution, the specter of its being appropriated for unendurable ends; but one in particular is stigmatized as threatening an end to the future itself. That one remains always at hand to embody the force, which need never be specified, that prohibits America's parents, for example, from being able to cherish their children, since that one, as we know, intrudes on the collective reproduction of familialism by stealing, seducing, proselytizing, in short, by adulterating those children and putting in doubt the structuring fantasy that ensures "our collective future."
Link futurism
Future Link: Discourse of the future, reproduces the obsession with the children and causes us to forget the current problems of the status quo. Lee Edelman. No Future: Queer Theory and Death Drive. 2004 pp. 10-12
In its coercive universalization, however, the image of the Child, not to be confused with the lived experiences of any historical children, serves to regulate political discourseto prescribe what will count as political discourseby compelling such discourse to accede in advance to the reality of a collective future whose figurative status we are never permitted to acknowledge or address. From Delacroix's iconic image of Liberty leading us into a brave new world of revolutionary possibilityher bare breast making each spectator the unweaned Child to whom it's held out while the boy to her left, reproducing her posture, affirms the absolute logic of reproduction itselfto the revolutionary waif in the logo that miniaturizes the "politics" of Its Mis (summed up in its anthem to futurism, the "inspirational" "One Day More"), we are no more able to conceive of a politics without a fantasy of the future than we are able to conceive of a future without the figure of the Child. That figural Child alone embodies the citizen as an ideal, entitled to claim full rights to its future share in the nation's good, though always at the cost of limiting the rights "real" citizens are allowed. For the social order exists to preserve for this universalized subject, this fantasmatic Child, a notional freedom more highly valued than the actuality of freedom itself, which might, after all, put at risk the Child to whom such a freedom falls due. Hence, whatever refuses this mandate by which our political institutions compel the collective reproduction of the Child must appear as a threat not only to the organization of a given social order but also, and far more ominously, to social order as such, insofar as it threatens the logic of futurism on which meaning always depends. So, for example, when P. D. James, in her novel The Children of Men, imagines a future in which the human race has suffered a seemingly absolute loss of the capacity to reproduce, her narrator, Theodore Faron, not only attributes this reversal of biological fortune to the putative crisis of sexual values in late twentieth-century democracies "Pornography and sexual violence on film, on television, in books, in life had increased and became more explicit but less and less in the West we made love and bred children," he declaresbut also gives voice to the ideological truism that governs our investment in the Child as the obligatory token of futurity: "Without the hope of posterity, for our race if not for ourselves, without the assurance that we being dead yet live," he later observes, "all pleasures of the mind and senses sometimes seem to me no more than pathetic and crumbling defences shored up against our ruins."12 While this allusion to Eliot's "The Waste Land" may recall another of its wellknown lines, one for which we apparently have Eliot's wife, Vivian, to thank"What you get married for if you don't want children?" it also brings out the function of the child as the prop of the secular theology on which our social reality rests: the secular theology that shapes at once the meaning of our collective narratives and our collective narratives of meaning. Charged, after all, with the task of assuring "that we being dead yet live," the Child, as if by nature (more precisely, as the promise of a natural transcendence of the limits of nature itself), exudes the very pathos from which rhe narrator of The Children of Men recoils when he comes upon it in non reproductive "pleasures of the mind and senses." For the "pathetic" quality he projectively locates in nongenerative sexual enjoyment enjoyment that he views in the absence of futurity as empty, substitutive, pathologicalexposes the fetishistic figurations of the Child that the narrator pits against it as legible in terms identical to those for which enjoyment without "hope of posterity" is peremptorily dismissed: legible, that is, as nothing more than "pathetic and crumbling defences shored up against our ruins." How better to characterize the narrative project of The Children of Men itself, which ends, as anyone not born yesterday surely expects from the start, with the renewal of our barren and dying race through the miracle of birth? After all, as Walter Wangerin Jr., reviewing the book for the Neu? York Times, approvingly noted in a sentence delicately poised between description and performance of the novel's pro-procreative ideology; "If there is a baby, there is a future, there is redemption."1 3 If, however, there is no baby and, in consequence, no_future, then the blame must fall on the fatal lure of sterile, narcissistic enjoyments understood as inherently destructive of meaning and therefore as responsible for the undoing of social organization, collective reality, and, inevitably, life itself.
Link- State
The 1AC a guise for yet another form of state control over our lives. By trusting the state to save people, we give it an arena to create a state of emergency in which to prove its capabilities. This depoliticizes the decisions made involving aid, as they will always err in favor of the state. Edkins, Professor of International Politics at the University of Wales, 2003 [Jenny, Trauma and the Memory of Politics, 211-212]
One reason why the tale of the concentration camp survivor is so compelling is that although it is presented as a space of exception, the camp is nothing more than the coming to fruition of the horror contained in everyday existence under the sway of sovereign politics in the west. Thus our response to the camps is in part a recognition of our own predicament as participants in the reduction of life to bare life and politics to biopolitics. As Foucault reminds us `we are all governed and, to that extent, in solidarity'. But this is of no use if our invocation of the trope of humanitarian crisis repeats the metaphor that reinforces the very power that produces the humanitarian emergency in the first place. As Agamben puts it: It is almost as if, starting from a certain point, every decisive political event were double-sided: the spaces, the liberties, and the rights won by individuals in their conflicts with central powers always simultaneously prepared a tacit but increasing inscription of individuals' lives within the state order, thus offering a new and more dreadful foundation for the very sovereign power from which they wanted to liberate themselves. This double-sidedness, of course, recalls Jacques Derrida's double contradictory imperative where the question, for example, of whether and in what way to intervene in a humanitarian emergency is a dilemma that has to be resolved in any particular instance by a decision. Aid cannot be both offered and withheld: only one course of action can take place. But to seek general rules, applicable overall to aid organizations and their operations, is to duck the very question of the political that is inherently involved. Agamben's work enables us to analyze what is at stake in the politics of the decision. He elaborates how sovereign power operates through the state of emergency and how the very posing of the question through the trope of emergency is always already on the side of sovereignty. The implication of the argument in the final part of the chapter is that although the power of the sovereign state over the lives of its populations has been successfully challenged in the post-cold war period and the notion of humanitarian concern as overriding sovereignty widely accepted, this is not a liberation or an emancipation but merely the beginning of another and more authoritarian form of sovereign control over life. Just as the role of the revolution in the transition to modern state rule can be seen as an ironic strengthening of central authority, the role of humanitarian intervention can be seen as a tightening of a global structure of authority and control.
Link state
State sovereignty serves as a universal lens through which to view the world and conduct political life it constitutes a fantasy attempting to avoid confronting uncertainty, even to the point of violent imposition. Edkins, professor at Aberystwyth 2002 [Jenny The Subject of the Political Sovereignty and Subjectivity]
We have shown that the subject is of necessity incomplete, or impossible. It is always in process; it never fully comes to presence but is structured around a lack. This lack arises, first, from the gap between the real and the imaginary in the mirror phase and then from the gap between the imaginary and the symbolic, or social, during interpellation. Like the subject, the symbolic, or social, order is similarly constituted around a lack, one that in this case appears as a constitutive antagonism.11 This antagonism appears in a variety of guises in different social orders, but it is always there and cannot be removed. A society without antagonism cannot exist: social reality can never be complete or whole. However, for life to go on the lack must be concealed and the concealment hidden. This is accomplished by the production of social reality. In order for what we call social reality to be constituted, meaning has to be imposed. This is achieved through the "master signifier," a signifier that stands in the place of the constitutive lack or antagonism at the heart of the social order. Without such a signifier, the social order cannot constitute itself; the sliding of meaning cannot be arrested. This signifier is the embodiment of lack; it enables us to account for the gap between result and intention. The act of imposing meaning, halting the movement of free-floating signifiers, is an authoritative act, "a non-founded founding act of violence" that recalls the violence of the founding decision in the work of Jacques Derrida.12 At this moment, the symbolic order comes into being, the decision is taken, and the law is founded. The violence that is implicat ed in this process then disappears: in the history of what happened, what was brought into being with this foundational act is narrated as always already inevitable. Once the decision has been taken, the moment of decision disappears, though not entirely without trace. We are now in a position to suggest how sovereignty and subjectivity implicate each other. As we have seen, subjectivity can only exist, or rather, be constituted, in relation to a particular social or symbolic order. The social order itself is brought into existence, supposed or posited, in relation to a particular signifier, which covers the hole or lack in the-social or symbolic order and provides a nodal point around which meaning is articulated. In modernity, one of the signifiers that performs this function is sovereignty. The concept of sovereignty is central to discourse and the International. It informs conventional notions of what power might be: the relationship between sovereign and subject within the absolutist kingdom, or the sovereignty of a government over the lives of its citizens in the modern nation state. Sovereignty also plays a foundational role in discussions of international autonomy: the sovereign state is a bounded unit in the international system. This centrality testifies to its place as the master signifier around which a particular symbolic order is constituted "Sovereignty" as a master signifier is not free and autonomous here but stands implicated and embroiled in questions of "subjectivity." The authori ty of the master signifier derives only from its position in the social orderwhich itself derives only from the subjection of the subjects that evoke it. It is an impostor, in a sense: any signifier that found itself at the place of constitutive lack in the structure would dodivine providence, the invisible hand of the market, the objective logic of history, or the Jewish conspiracy, for example.i3 Sovereignty performs this task for the social reality that is taken to be modern politics. It conceals antagonism in a particular way and implicates particular subjectivities. For example, it produces politics as subjection and sovereignty as absolute. Within the legal authority it establishes, violence is concealed. That same violence is banished to the nonsoviereign realm of the international. The subjectivities it invokes (or rather, that invoke it) are the irresponsible camp followers of power insofar as they naturalize a particular social order. Their actions respond to what they suppose are the desires of authority.
Link scarcity
Human behavior is driven by desire. In a world of capital superabundance the only thing left to desire is a world of no scarcity. Unfortunately such a world cannot exist within the ideological coordinates of neoliberalism. Edkins, Lecturer in Politics at the University of Wales, 2000 [Jenny, Whose Hunger? Concepts of Famine, Practices of Aid p. 123-124]
Famine images, like the sexual images they parallel, embody the lack that must be concealed if the subject is to be constituted. Hunger as desire is at the root of the constitution of subjectivity. Famine itself can be read as a symptom: a point of overdetermination, of condensation of differentstrands of meaning. In that sense, there is a fantasy space reserved for it. I looked at the relation of famine and scarcity to market economics in chapter 2. To explore this further, I look at Zizek's account of the role of desire in late capitalism. For Zizek, late-capitalist liberal-democracy has an impasse at its heart centering around the role of desire. In Lacan's work desire is not something that can be satisfied as such. As Zizek expresses it, "desire is sustained by lack and therefore shuns its satisfaction, that is, the very thing for which it 'officially' strives." Desire is sustained by the unattainability of its object and by the gap between its official motivation and its actual function, which is to provide a way of accommodation with a primordial lack, a lack inherent in the human condition as such. In Lacan, an empirical object fills out the role of the primordially lost Thing and becomes the object-cause of desire. Whereas Freud might argue that the obstacles of convention that are put in place to prevent the attainment of the object of desirethe sexual object, for exampleserve to heighten desire, in Lacan's account these obstacles are there precisely to avoid the possibility of the discovery that the object is unattainable as such: "external hindrances that thwart our access to the object are there precisely to create the illusion that without them, the object would be directly accessiblewhat such hindrances thereby conceal is the inherent impossibility of attaining the object." In late capitalism, the immediate satisfaction of desire through superabundance, permissiveness, and accessibility of objects threatens to suffocate desire. We are approaching a position where for some of us the attainment of all possible empirical objects of desire is conceivable in practice. This will become even more so, Zizek claims, with the advent of so-called virtual reality. Superabundance threatens desire by supplying the means for its satisfaction; the function of the object-cause of desire is thwarted by this. Although officially desire exists to be satisfied, in Lacanian terms desire provides a means of transcending a primordial lack; it exists precisely because it has to be insatiable. By providing an impossible object, the impossibility of fulfillment itself is sublimated. However, this superabundance is not without its opposite: scarcity and deprivation . For Zizek, drawing on Hegel, universal abundance is impossible, since in capitalism "abundance itself produces deprivation." Excess and lack are structurally interdependent in a capitalist economy. The system produces both together. Some live in abundance and plenty while others live in scarcity and deprivation. Superabundance goes hand in hand with its opposite. This does not mean that notions of desire are irrelevant in the context of a world where for large numbers of people the necessities of life itselffood, water, shelter, and freedom from violenceare hard to come by. On the contrary, Zizek's account of notions of desire as a concealment of an inherent lack and the need to sustain desire in conditions of superabundance can help us to understand some of the paradoxes of responses to events such as famines and the sight of incredible suffering in these and other disasters. The object of "Ending Hunger" functions as just such an impos sible or unattainable object-cause of desire in the Lacanian sense. Here we have the irony of a desire sustained by the object of removing the very thingdeprivationthat is indissolubly linked with the superabundance that threatens desire. Rather than the question of "Why, when there is such an abundance of food, do so many people starve?" the question becomes "Why, when we are so well provided for with an abundance of everything we can possibly desire, do we desire the one thing we cannot have, that is, a world without others who are deprived?" At least part of the answer, I argue, can be found in the Lacanian account of desire. Not only do we desire the thing we cannot attain, but we put obstacles of convention in the way of attaining it. These obstacles are seen in arguments of developmentalists that portray famine as complex: it needs further research, we have to act carefully and take into account the feelings of those we want to help, and so on. Thus in famine we have an answer to Zizek's question: "So the big enigma is: how, through what kind of limitation of access, will capitalism succeed in reintroducing lack and scarcity into this saturation?" Lack and scarcity are reintroduced as someone else's lack and scarcityas hunger, the stranger that waits outside some other door. For those of us who live in an excess of abundance, desire becomes the (impos sible) desire for a world free from scarcity: a hunger for a world free from hunger.
Link identity
Identity politics is impossible it is emblematic of the constitutive lack that is why identity politics is not politics but rather a constant search for utopia STAVRAKAKIS VISITING FELLOW IN GOV'T, UNIV. OF ESSEX '99 Yannis, Lacan and the Political, pg. 29 SRM
What are the implications of the constitutive alienation in the imaginary and the symbolic for a theory of subjective identity? The fullness of identity that the subject is seeking is impossible both in the imaginary and in the symbolic level. The subject is doomed to symbolise in order to constitute her- or himself as such, but this symbolisation cannot capture the totality and singularity of the real body, the close-circuit of the drives. Symbolisation, that is to say the pursuit of identity itself, introduces lack and makes identity ultimately impossible. For even the idea of identity to become possible its ultimate impossibility has to be instituted. Identity is possible only as a failed identity; it remains desirable exactly because it is essentially impossible. It is this constitutive impossibility that, by making full identity impossible, makes identification possible, if not necessary. Thus, it is rather misleading to speak of identities within a Lacanian framework. What we have is only attempts to construct a stable identity, either on the imaginary or the symbolic level, through the image or the signifier. The subject of lack emerges due to the failure of all these attempts. What we have then, if we want to be precise and accurate, is not identities but identifications, a series of failed identifications or rather a play between identification and its failure, a deeply political play. The concept of identification becomes crucial then for any understanding of the Lacanian conception of subjectivity; it was already crucial in Freudian theory. In Freud, identification emerges as a concept of major importance as it refers to the mechanism through which subjectivity is constituted. Identification refers to the psychological process whereby the subject assimilates an aspect, property or attribute of the other and is transformed, wholly or partially, after the model the other provides. It is by means of a series of identifications that the personality is constituted and specified (Laplanche and Pontalis, 1988:205). What Lacan adds to this picture is two qualifications. First of all the distinction between imaginary and symbolic identification, which clarifies a lot of ambiguities in Freuds account, and, second, the important emphasis on the idea that identification cannot result in a stable subjective identity: The ontic horizon of identification is that of ultimate failure; its ontological horizon that of impossibility. 19 Yet this is not, strictly speaking, a failure of identification, but a failure of identity, that is to say a failure to achieve identity through identification. It is, however, this same impossibility to achieve identity (substance) that makes identification (process) constitutive. This is not only true for the life of the child but for the life of the adult as well, something which reveals the relevance of the concept of identification for social and political analysis. Since the objects of identification in adult life include political ideologies and other socially constructed objects, the process of identification is revealed as constitutive of socio-political life. It is not identity which is constitutive but identification as such; instead of identity politics we should speak of identification politics.
Link identity
Claims to end the tyranny of a system are false. Identity is a constantly negative relationship, an attempt to murder an identity forced upon you, ending capitalism or rethinking paitrarchy are like the parents kiss to a childs injury-they make us feel better but do nothing about the underlying paradoxes of identity. Your very thesis is entrenched in a logic of perpetual failure. Serge Leclaire, psychoanalyst and instructor at the institute du psychoanalytic Paris, A Child Is Being Killed: On Primary Narcissism and the Death Drive, 1998, pg. 2-3 SRM
From where the analyst is sitting, what is at stake is the truth. There is no way out: reckoning with the absolute power of the infans, he must never stop perpetrating the murder of the child, even as he recognizes that he cannot carry it out. Psychoanalytic practice is based upon bringing to the fore the constant work of a power of deaththe death of the wonderful (or terrifying) child who, from generation to generation, bears witness to parents dreams and desires. There can be no life without killing that strange, original image in which everyones birth is inscribed It is an impossible but necessary murder, for there can be no life, no life of desire and creation, if we ever stop killing off the always returning wonderful child. The wonderful child is first of all the nostalgic gaze of the mother who made him into an object of extreme magnificence akin to the Child Jesus majesty, a light and jewel radiating forth absolute power. But he is already the forsaken one as well, lost in total dereliction, facing terror and death alone. In the extraordinary presence of the child in the flesh, the radiant image of the infant-king, stronger even than his cries or laughter and counterbalanced by the sorrow of the Pieta, compels attention. Through him shines the royal figure of our wishes, memories, hopes, and dreamsa fragile and hieratic figure representing, in the secret theater where destiny is played out, the first(or third-) person position from which the unconscious speaks. For each of us, the wonderful child is the unconscious, primordial representation in which, more densely than anywhere else, our wishes, nostalgia, and hopes come together. In the transparent reality of the child, the Real of all our desires can be seen, almost without a veil. We are fascinated and can neither look away nor grasp it. To give it up is to die, to no longer have a reason for living. But to pretend that we can hold on to it is to condemn ourselves not to live. There is for everyone, always, a child to kill. The loss of a representation of fullness, of motionless jouissance, must be relentlessly mourned and mourned. A light must be eclipsed so it can shine and spread out on a background of darkness. Whoever does not mourn, over and over, the loss of the wonderful child he might have been remains in limboin the milky light of a shadowless, hopeless waiting. But whoever believes he has won the battle against the figure of the tyrant once and for all cuts himself off from the sources of his creative spirit and thinks he is strong when he stubbornly resists the reign of jouissance.
Link - identity
The recognition of identity is an outlet for anxiety recognizing our being riveted to our identity not because of our own choice but because we are born into these positions. Joan Copjec in 2006 (Department of English, Comparative Literature, and Media Study at the University of Buffalo, where she is the Director of the Center for the Study of Psychoanalysis and Culture: Lacan: the silent partners; May 68, the Emotional Month) SRM
This discussion of the emergence of an 'immemorial past' within moments of anxiety permits me to observe an intuition that barely surfaces Levinas text, where the sentiment of 'being riveted' seems sometimes to relate to issues of race, ethnicity, and national identity. The immemorial act that shadows me and compels my anxiety also reawakens me to the fact that I was born into an identity that I did not choose, but which chose me. That this intuition does indeed subtly haunt the argument is verified when, in the first annotation to On Escape, Jacques Rolland reveals a striking similarity between the language of this text and an essay Levinas wrote in the same year, 1935. In 'The Religious Inspirations of the Alliance', Levinas wrote these sentences: "Hitlerism is the greatest trial...through which Judaism has to pass...The pathetic destiny of being Jewish becomes a fatality. One can no longer flee it. The Jew is ineluctably riveted to his Judaism.' And also these: a youth 'definitely attached to the sufferings and joys of the nation to which it belongs...discovers in the reality of Hitlerism all the gravity of being Jewish': 'In the barbarous and primitive symbol of race...Hitler recalled that one does not desert Judaism.'
[continues, no text omitted] Because Lacanian desire operates through a series of substitutions, there is a compatibility between the functioning of desire and logistical abstraction as they work together to locate targets of violence in modern warfare, despite how recalcitrant those targets may actually be to the meaning frames that direct the enemy-perceiving gaze. The operation of desire in a war works on the basis of a different process from that of an individual's search for erotic completion. It is connected to a national-level rather than individuallevel work on the production of a coherent self. As has already been suggested in the analysis of Clausewitz's duplicitous discourse, what is represented as a quest for accomplishing political and military objectives obfuscates a more fundamental, ontological quest, the attempt for the national subject at completion through the display of courage and the lack of inhibition against using force in a violent confrontation with an enemy. For a deeper appreciation of how desire complements the historically emerging, logistical narrative in which the enemy/object has been derealised, it is necessary to recognise that within the Lacanian view, desire is formed at the time when the subject first enters the realm of the symbolic. Residing as an infant in the domain of the imaginary, where there is no recognition of oneself as separate from others, the subject's entry into the symbolic is a dual alienation. First, it is a separation from the maternal source of satisfaction and, second, through becoming a named beings withal language, it is a loss of control over meaning and the bonds of affect; it amounts to a subjugation to the law of the signifier. The compensation for this alienation is of course the ability to participate in the domain of the symbolic, but it is also the birth of desire, which, given the unlawfulness of achieving the satisfactions longed for but lost, takes the form of a series of substitutions. It is the always-obscuring acts, based on the ways in which the subject is divided from itself, that impose significance on the objects of desire, and within the Lacanian model, these impositions follow the twists and turns of linguistic, figural mechanisms. More specifically, Lacan notes in one place, 'desire is metonymy, however funny people may find the idea'.' The metonymical structure of desire is displayed unambiguously in Bunuel's film when Conchita gets in bed with Fabert in a chastityprotecting undergarment tied tightly with little knots that he cannot undo. As he weeps in frustration, she names the various parts of her that he already possesses and expresses puzzlement that he is so resolute in his quest for the one part denied him. During the Gulf War, President Bush and many television commentators seemed caught in a similar signifying structure. What eluded final consummation in their case was not someone's maidenhead. It was Saddam Hussein's destruction. All the parts associated with him were possessed. Kuwait was freed, his army was routed, his 'weapons of mass destruction' largely eliminated. But as long as Saddam remained the ruling leader of Iraq, the 'victory in the desert' seemed empty. The narrative was left uncompleted. But perhaps 'Saddam Hussein' (the 'Hitler', the 'Arab fanatic', the 'ruthless dictator') needs to survive. Without him, there would remain no arch-enemy. Without Saddam Hussein, perhaps the US would not be .able to justify remaining so armed and alert. Indeed, this is precisely what Fabert says in response to his cousin, the arbiter/judge who asks why he doesn't just marry Conchita. Fabert says, Si je'epousais, je serais desarme.' (If Saddam had been destroyed or removed, no sense of fulfilment would have lasted because the conditions of possibility for producing desire would re-emerge. For example, of late in the United States there is a national debate over towards whom the reduced nuclear weapons arsenal ought to be aimed. National desire is searching for new dangerous objects). At this moment, at least, Fabert seems to understand much of what is driving his narrative, but there is also much evidence that the more fundamental part, remains obscure, for his story continually turns the incredible - e.g. encountering Conchita almost everywhere - into the credible. This is because the object of desire for Fabert (Mathieu for one Conchita and Mateo for another), like the enemy/object of violence for the United States, is in part a product of a damaged subjectivity in search of reestablishing a coherence as an effective and virile male entity. In the case of the United States, the damaged collective subjectivity (often called the 'Vietnam syndrome') is a result of a lost and muddled war in the recent past. In the case of Fabert his manly subjectivity is similarly uncertain. First, his wife of many years is recently deceased and he has had no substitute prior to his pursuit of Conchita. Second, he is a law-abiding, obviously well-established and well-off citizen and, in his pursuit of Conchita uses his spending power rather than his male strength (until the very end when driven to the limit with frustration). Meanwhile, all around him, he witnesses a series of acts of violence, car bombings, political assassinations, etc., apparently carried out by terrorist groups. At one point we overhear a radio report claiming that the bombings, which are randomly dispersed in his narrative, are attributed to coalitions of political groups that form the acronyms, PRIQUE and RUT.
[continues, no text omitted] The virile young terrorists, with which one version of Conchita seems to be associated, serve as an affront to Fabert, who cannnot show his potence (cannot use his prick). Similarly, the collective subjectivity of the US prior to the Gulf War (the Vietnam syndrome) and its leader's potence (the 'wimp factor') had been affronted by the violence of others not restricted by law-abiding inhibitions. Hence the increasingly frenzied complaints from the White House against terrorists (similar complaints issue from Fabert about the terrorist acts around him). Thus the comparisontwo levels of incomplete and increasingly provoked subjectivity in need of an episode of completion. But perhaps, major similarity that suggests the Gulf War is the similarity in the dynamics governing the meanings of the objects of attention. In Fabert's narrative, Conchita appears as both lack (as an elusive object ofdesire) and excess (she appears everywhere Fabert goes). At one point, Fabert's servant likens women to a sac d'excrement. Rather than simply a sexist disparagement, this can be read as reference to the object of desire's excess, of all that is imposed on it by a restless, driven subjectivity. Conchita flees Fabert's employ as a servant after his initial advances, and then he encounters her as a restaurant coatcheck person, as part of a youthful gang in Switzerland, as a flamenco dancer in Seville. She is excessive, inexplicably appearing everywhere. With each encounter, she seems to promise herself to Fabert and then does something extraordinary to frustrate him. Similarly, as the Gulf War progressed, Saddam's resistance capability was easily overcome, but the superiority in the air and the decisive land battle left Saddam where he was, a defiant leader of an Iraqi nation that was badly bruised but had never been completely possessed, never made to totally capitulate. What substitutes for a final and telling violence in the Gulf War, is a fitful and ambiguous attempt to force the object, Saddam, to comply with the law (the United Nations resolution). Within a Lacanian frame and, accordingly, in Bunuel's film, the relationship between the law and desire is complex. The law cannot still the operation of desire in the direction of seeking consummation may -even provoke it. In a telling episode, Fabert attempts to use the law, his cousin the judge, to send the object of desire away. His cousin uses his influence to have the police exile Conchita and her mother, sending them back to Spain. As the decree is read, we learn that Conchita is a name related to her official/legal name which is Concepcion, and that her mother's name is Encarnacion, deepening our suspicion that their existence and significance is largely a function of the work of the subject, Fabert, and his desire-driven imagination. Fabert decides to take an arbitrary trip to forget his frustration, but after he chooses Singapore by pointing to a map while blindfolded, he ends up travelling to Seville, where Conchita is. The arbitrary is always controlled at some level by desire. It is not wholly clear what the signifying elements are that turn Singapore (etymologically, 'Lion city') into Seville (etymologically, merely 'city'). Perhaps it is that the lion represents virility and reminds Fabert of his quest to consummate it. What energes most significantly is the need for a woman to complete the self for Fabert (in the way that the US needed an enemy and Bush needed to get tough for self-completion), and here again the law does not quiet desire; it seems only to inflame it. Moreover, the love or violent object is arbitrary inasmuch as it does not summon on the basis of what is intrinsic to it. It acquires its force from the signifying practices that erupt out of a subjectivity pursuing it, a subjectivity that lacks a reflective rapport with itself.
Link Race
The structure of racial discourse is totalizing and attempts to overcome difference and control what it means to be human Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 55-56 SRM
Guillaumins terms are useful not so much in distinguishing between premodern and contemporary notions of race, as she suggests, but rather in discerning the emergence of race through the self-splitting referred to earlier. Guillaumins failure to discern the notion of Whiteness as the organizing principle of Eurocentrism (as distinguished from banal ethnocentrisms) enables her to exonerate both ethnocentrism and aristocratism as not true racism. But proper attention to the crucial element of class at play in Whiteness reveals that it is not about aristocratism, but about the people the yolk, with precisely the sense of its own naturalness that Guillaumin disavows as an element in auto-referential systems. I would also suggest that the altero-referential system does not so much displace but is founded on the auto-referential notion of Whiteness. Thus the discourse of race as we understand it today is an effect of that internal splitting that we identified earlier as the cause of race. The structure of race is totalizing, and attempts to master and overcome all difference within its boundaries. The dichotomy of self and other is within Whiteness in the competition over who properly possesses Whiteness, or sovereign humanness. H. F. K. Gunthers (1927) classification along physiognomic lines is a part of the logical nucleus of racial visibility grounded in the narcissism of small differences that grounds racial visibility. Thus in Gunthers classification, other European races such as the Mediterranean can carry the Negro strain, or the Tartar may carry the Asiatic. The signifier Whiteness is about gaining a monopoly on the notion of humanness, and is not simply the displaceable or reversible pinnacle of the great chain of being.22 However, one must not forget that as the unconscious principle or the master signifier of the symbolic ordering of race, Whiteness also makes possible difference and racial inter-subjectivity. It orders, classifies, categorizes, demarcates and separates human beings on the basis of what is considered to be a natural and neutral epistemology. This knowledge is also the agency that produces and maintains differences through a series of socially instituted and legally enforced laws under the name of equality, multiculturalism, anti-discrimination, etc. Anti-racist legislations and practices, in other words, work ultimately in the service of race, which is inherently, unambiguously, structurally supremacist. The structure of race is deeply fissured, and that is discernible in the constitutive tension, or contradiction between its need to establish absolute differences, and its illegal desire to assert sameness. In fact, race establishes and preserves difference for the ultimate goal of sameness, in order to reproduce the desire for Whiteness. As Foucault might have put it, race separates in order to master. However, unlike the technologies of power that Foucault so painstakingly detailed, the analysis of race cannot be exhausted through its historicization. Race produces unconscious effects, and as a hybrid structure located somewhere between essence and construct, it determines the destiny of human bodies. It is our ethical and political task to figure out how destiny comes to be inscribed as anatomy, when that anatomy does not exist as such.
Link - Race
Securing whiteness and race is an impossibility-all forms of racial inquiries are doomed to failure Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 77-78 SRM
In conclusion, I suggest that we view Leggatt as the extimate object that provides the fantasy of overcoming castration and maintaining ones subject status in the symbolic. Leggatt positions himself beyond the law, as the extimate core of the law which exposes its lack. How, then, does Leggatt function as an objet a delivering recognition, or more properly as the pathological cure for the captain? Leggatts appointing himself beyond the Law is also very much in antinomy with the law, insofar as he almost successfully evacuates the Other when he drops off the side of the ship. The captain, in trying to ease Leggatts escape, steers his ship precariously close to the black hills of Koh-ring, thereby endangering his entire crew, the ship, and his command. Language, words, speech are all expunged at that moment when Leggatt drops into the sea: Such a hush had fallen on the ship that she might have been a bark of the dead floating slowly under the very gate of Erebus (402). The problem that insists upon us as readers is the question of how such an object, which Miller asserts is incompatible with the presence of the subject, insofar as the object cancels the subject, can provide a cure for the captain. It is inevitable that we read the story as the delineation of the impossible fantasy at the core of Whiteness. An important reason why this tale should be read as a fantasy, not of the captain as a character in the text, or of the implied author Conrad, but of the discourse of race itself, is that it is ultimately a fantasy about transgressing the law in relation to race. The storys construal of Archbold as the tenacious executor of the law also valorizes the mere juridical prohibition against racial domination into the moral law (the commandment against murder) that makes desire possible. Let us recall that the historical John Anderson, according to Lubbock, was permitted to escape by the kind hearted Captain Wallace, and that when he was finally captured his sentence was far from being commensurate with his crime. Thus when read by the traces of Whiteness, The secret sharer can be interpreted as a story about the successful reaching of the goal of Whiteness the jouissance of absolute mastery and fullness. While the inevitable failure of such a goal could produce anxiety, and the captain is often on the brink of such an affect, it is here presented as triumphant. Finally, as the thing that will fill up the lack in the law, Leggatt promises a fantasy of completion of almost psychotic fullness to the captain. Thus in the end, driven by Leggatts white hat the spot of light on the surface of the current the gaze of Whiteness saves the ship as it guarantees certainty to the captain. This time the captains yearning stare in seeking the objet a alights not on something expelled from the Other, but on something that is his very own: What was that thing? I recognised my own floppy hat. It must have fallen off his head and he didnt bother. Now I had what I wanted the saving mark for my eyes (403). The object has been fully (impossibly) introjected as his own, investing him with a certainty that no subject of the symbolic can properly have. The captains certainty is not to be confused with the imaginary sense of unity in overcoming ones fragmentation. Rather, it is the certainty of having Whiteness as the object of desire (of recognizing or fantasizing a lack in the symbolic order of race), of possessing it in and as his unconscious, that permits him to take up the command of his ship again with renewed vigor.
... ...
LinkRace
Race operates according to the empty Master Signifier of Whiteness and is sexed in such a way that it ensures domination, power, and the eradication of difference Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p.7-8 SRM
I am suggesting two things: first, the order of racial difference attempts to compensate for sexs failure in language; second, we must not therefore analogize race and sex on the sexual model of linguistic excess or contradiction. The signifier Whiteness tries to fill the constitutive lack of the sexed subject. It promises a totality, an overcoming of difference itself. For the subject of race, Whiteness represents complete mastery, self-sufficiency, and the jouissance of Oneness. This is why the order of racial difference must be distinguished from, but read in relation to, sexual difference. If sex is characterized by a missing signifier, race, on the contrary, is not and cannot be organized around such an absence a missing signifier that escapes or confounds language and inter-subjectivity. Race has an all-too-present master signifier Whiteness which offers the illegal enjoyment of absolute wholeness. Race, therefore, does not bear on the paradigm of failure or success of inter-subjectivity on the model of the sexual relation. The rationale of racial difference and its organization can be understood as a Hobbesian one. It is a social contract among potential adversaries secured to perpetuate singular claims to power and dominance, even as it seeks to contain the consequences of such singular interests. The shared insecurity of claiming absolute humanness, which is what race as a system manages, induces the social and legal validation of race as a discourse of neutral differences. In other words, race identity can have only one function it establishes differential relations among the races in order to constitute the logic of domination. Groups must be differentiated and related in order to make possible the claim to power and domination. Race identity is about the sense of ones exclusiveness, exceptionality and uniqueness. Put very simply, it is an identity that, if it is working at all, can only be about pride, being better, being the best. Race is inextricably caught up in a Hobbesian discourse of social contract, where personal (or particular) interest masquerades as public good. Sexual difference, on the other hand, cannot be founded upon such a logic. The values attached to male and female are historically contingent as feminists have long suggested, but power cannot be the ultimate cause of sexual difference. Racial difference, on the other hand, has no other reason to be but power, and yet it is not power in the sense of material and discursive agency that can be reduced to historical mappings. If such were the case, as many have assumed, then a historicist genealogy of the discursive construction of race would be in order: Foucault not Lacan, discourse analysis not psychoanalysis. But race organizes difference and elicits investment in its subjects because it promises access to being itself. It offers the prestige of being better and superior; it is the promise of being more human, more full, less lacking. The possibility of this enjoyment is at the core of race. But enjoyment or jouissance is, we may recall, pure unpleasure. The possibility of enjoyment held out by Whiteness is also horrific as it implies the annihilation of difference. The subject of race therefore typically resists race as mere social construction, even as it holds on to a notion of visible, phenotypal difference.
LinkRace
Race is set apart from history and conflict because of its physical demarcation differentiating it from other struggles and requiring a new venue of analysis Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 8 SRM
Visible difference in race has a contradictory function. If it protects against a lethal sameness, it also facilitates the possibility of that sameness through the fantasy of wholeness. Insofar as Whiteness dissimulates the object of desire, 10 any encounter with the historicity, the purely symbolic origin of the signifier, inevitably produces anxiety. It is necessary for race to seem more than its historical and cultural origin in order to aim at being. Race must therefore disavow or deny knowledge of its own historicity, or risk surrendering to the discourse of exceptionality, the possibility of wholeness and supremacy. Thus race secures itself through visibility. Psychoanalytically, we can perceive the object cause of racial anxiety as racial visibility, the so-called pre-discursive marks on the body (hair, skin, bone), which serve as the desiderata of race. In other words, the bodily mark, which (like sex) seems to be more than symbolic, serves as a powerful prophylactic against the anxiety of race as a discursive construction. We seem to need such a refuge in order to preserve the investment we make in the signifier of Whiteness. Thus race should not be reduced to racial visibility, which is the mistake made by some well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning advocates of a color blind society Racial visibility should be understood as that which secures the much deeper investment we have made in the racial categorization of human beings. It is a lock-and-key relation, and throwing away the key of visibility because it happens to open and close is not going to make the lock inoperable. By interrogating visibility we can ask what the lock is preserving, and why the capacity of visibility to secure an investment in identity also distinguishes race from other systems of difference such as caste, class, ethnicity, etc. These latter forms of group identity, insofar as they cannot be essentialized through bodily marks, can be easily historicized and textualized. Nothing prevents their deconstruction, whereas in the case of race, visibility maintains a bulwark against the historicity and historicization of race. (In fact, Brennan suggests that the egos era is characterized by a resistance to history) It is this function of visibility that renders cases of racial passing fraught and anxious.
LinkRace
Race as s system perpetuates itself on the basis of racial identification as a method to purge racism ignoring the broader desire for Whiteness. Such an investment of power relations leads to inevitable violence and disastrous politics. Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 8-9 SRM
My contention that the category of race is inherently a discourse of supremacy may seem inattentive to the advances that our legal systems and liberal social ideologies have made precisely in relation to racism and racist" practices. Modern civil society refuses to permit its subjects the enjoyment of supremacist rhetoric, the rhetoric of exceptionality, by distinguishing between race and racism. It draws this distinction between a supposed ontology (the study of physical or cultural differences) and an epistemology (discriminatory logic) in the name of preserving a semblance of inter-subjectivity Race, it suggests, is a neutral description of human difference; racism, it suggests, is the misappropriation of such difference. The liberal consensus is that we must do away with such ideological misappropriation, but that we must celebrate difference. It is understood as a baby and the bath water syndrome, in which the dirty water of racism must be eliminated, to reveal the cleansed and beloved fact of racial identity. This rather myopic perspective refuses to address the peculiar resiliency of race, the subjective investment in racial difference, and the hypervalorization of appearance. It dismisses these issues or trivializes them because race seems a historical inevitability. The logic is that people have been constituted for material and other reasons as black and white and that this has had powerful historical consequences for peoples thus constituted. Whether race exists or not, whether race and racism are artificial distinctions or not, racialization is a hard historical fact and a concrete instance of social reality We have no choice, according to this reasoning, but to inhabit our assigned racial positions. Not to do so is a form of idealism, and a groundless belief that power can be wished away In making this ostensibly pragmatic move, such social theorists effectively reify race. Lukacs, who elaborated Marxs notion of reification in relation to the commodity form in History and Class Consciousness, is worth recalling here: Its basis is that a relation between people takes on the character of a thing, and thus acquires a phantom objectivity, an autonmy that seems so strictly rational and all-embracing as to conceal every trace of its fundamental nature: the relation between people (1923: 89). To arrest analysis of race at the point where one discerns and marks its historical effects is to reproduce those very relations of power that one intends to oppose. It is to render race so objective that it is impossible to conceive human difference or inter-subjectivity anew. Modern civil society engages in such reification because ultimately its desire is to keep the dialectic between races alive. It must thus prohibit what it terms racism in order to prevent the annihilation not so much of the inferior races but of the system of race itself. This is how the system of desiring Whiteness perpetuates itself, even in the discourses that are most pragmatically aimed against racism. The resilience and endurability of race as a structure can thus be attributed to its denials and disavowals. On the one hand, it is never in the place that one expects it to be: it disavows its own historicity in order to hold out the promise of being to the subject the something more than symbolic a sense of wholeness, of exceptionality. On the other hand, as a social law, it must disavow this object in order to keep the system viable and to perpetuate the dialectic: the race for Whiteness. Exploring the structure of race requires a toleration of paradox, an appreciation of the fact that it is an inherently contradictory discourse, and a willingness to see beyond relations of power in order to mine the depth of subjective investment in it.
LinkRace
Utilizing the concept of race relations ensures a constant purification of the race Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 16-18 SRM
While both Appiah and Goldberg offer persuasive analyses of the (academic) discourse of race, as representatives of what are now entrenched positions on the race term, they fail to confront the fact that racial practice is not fully covered by racial theory There is a hiatus between racial theory and practice in that the two can function quite independently of each other. Thus to proceed as if an engagement with racial theory were to undermine the foundations of racial practice is to misrecognize the structure of the discourse of race. Etienne Balibar suggests that we regard shifts in doctrine and language [in race theory] as relatively incidental matters, given the fact that from the point of view of the victims of racist practice, these justifications simply lead to the same old acts (Balibar 1991: 18). This does not mean that race theory is irrelevant, or that we must focus entirely on racism and racist practice at the cost of ignoring its more institutionalized forms. Rather, as a first step, we must begin to
recognize the double-edged aspect of the rhetoric of race, where so-called theory and practice do not always coincide to produce the effect of causality. The inadequacy of critical race theory with reference to practice is most evident in relation to cases such as that of little Koen, with which I began. Interestingly, what is precisely at play in this case is nature and culture, or biology and the social
problems of inclusion and exclusion that Appiah and Goldberg focus on respectively. For instance, given Appiahs view that race evaporates with the exposure of races scientific or genetic fallibility, it is, interestingly enough, genetics itself which is at the heart of this little racial mistake. In his argument with the Dutch-African-American philosopher W E. B. Du Bois, Appiah demonstrates that race cannot be invoked, except through a specious use of genetics, to define the destiny of a so-called people, or to delineate group aspirations. However, what Koen as a Dutch-AfroCaribbean child seems to represent is precisely the relation between genes and destiny. At one level, we may say that at the age of eight months, he has already been disqualified to borrow at a bank. But more seriously, the irony of this particular case is that genetic theory here does not serve to discredit racial identity; rather, the DNA test establishes Koen as black boy (though born of a white mother). Admittedly, Koens parents are not suggesting that Koen is inherently incapable of borrowing at a bank, and neither is the DNA test a verification of race as much as of paternity; identity and destiny here are socially interpreted rather than genetically determined. However, the issue remains that destiny is not uncorrelated to genetics. And no amount of argumentation disarticulating the two will do away with the fact that because something is inherited as race, your life is predetermined for you. As the Dutch parents testify, most of us continue to harbor deep-seated notions of racial inheritance, despite its scientific untenability simply due to genetic theorys claims to heritabilty as such. Some of us, as committed social constructionists, may perhaps disclaim this notion because science tells us that the relation between genes and racial identity and destiny is not one of simple predication. DNA tests can establish parentage, but they cannot establish a trans-historical racial identity Nevertheless, the DNA test in this case does determine Koens racial identity (and his non-creditworthiness), though not directly The relation between genes and identity/destiny is no longer one of predication but implication. The notion of race as genetic inheritance can continue to be entertained when mediated by kinship relations: Koens father is a black man from Aruba. It is a question, it seems of the signifier, of the Name of the Father, which imparts not only sexual and familial identity, but also racial. Thus the signifier establishes race at the same moment that genetics establishes kinship, and it is this synchrony that enables the simultaneous articulation of genes and identity/destiny, though not causally None of this alters the fact that the bottom line in both arguments, whether that of predication or articulation, is of genetic inheritance. Thus I would affirm Appiahs argument that race is inextricably linked to inheritance. If we reduce the position of Du Bois and that of Koens father into simple propositions, we see their logical similarity: Black people (because they are born black) have an inherently valuable message for the world (as this message is a factor of their racial inheritance); and Black people (because they are born black) will always be poor (which is a factor of their social inheritance based on their racial identity). Both statements leave intact the implication of race as inheritance and destiny However, my skepticism is directed not at the contents of Appiahs argument but at its utility Appiahs impulse to undermine race by interrogating its scientific grounds is academically valuable, but it does not address the way in which race recoups inheritance through other rhetorical means, such as articulation with kinship and recourse to visibility It seems that, given the power of the notion of heritability as such, no amount of disputation with racial theory can dislodge the association one makes of race with inheritance. Race
will continue to be articulated with kinship, with ethnicity, with culture, in ways that will require repeated purges of its claims to inheritance. Theoretical expurgations may be useful at one level, but they do not undercut the emotional force of an ethnos that race so effectively and resiliently enables. I argue that this effect is made possible primarily through races ability to combine with narratives of the family and kinship in order to appear as a factor of inheritance. Race, then, derives its power not from socially constructed ideologies, but from the dynamic interplay between the family as a socially regulated institution, and biology as the site of essences and inheritances. In fact, the more one attempts to render race as merely a social construct, the more it contributes to the naturalization of that construct.
LinkRace
Race orients itself around the master signifier of Whiteness, which creates a constant exclusion Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 24-25 SRM
Thus the unconscious is to be conceived not so much as an individual construct as an entity that bridges the subject to the general economy of signification. In other words, the necessary insertion of the subject into language implies his/her subjection to the general or shared universe of signifiers, which must come to represent ones desire. The important point here is that insofar as language pre-exists each of us, the subject in his or her specificity can come into existence only by borrowing the signifiers of its desire from the Other.10 It follows then, that desire is always desire of the Other. Thus it becomes logically impossible to conceive of the atomized individual with an unconscious interior. On the contrary, in Lacan, the unconscious is outside rather than inside, in that it is the discourse of the Other, which is primarily meaningless, that produces subjective effects. Given this perspective of the subject in language, the discourse of race and so-called racial identity is necessarily a function of language that situates the subject as raced within an economy of linguistic difference and meaning. It follows that the analysis of race should not be confined to the level of the ego and the ego ideal with its attendant mechanisms such as identification and introjection (and/or incorporation) of an object. In Seminar I, Lacan insists that introjection is always accompanied by a symbolic denomination. Introjection is always introjection of the speech of the Other (83). Thus bodily identity as well as ones own historical identity is engendered by the symbolic. What we introject as race is a signifier, a certain structure of signification, a way of slicing the world, of making meaning and of representing difference, that has its own logic or law that invests us as subjects with a semblance of coherence. My argument is that Whiteness should be discerned as an unconscious signifier, one that generates a combinatory with its own set of inclusions and exclusions that determine the subject. To be a raced subject is to be subjected to the signifier Whiteness. The law of Whiteness establishes race as a neutral description of human difference. Thus, as a mode of ordering the world, the signifier Whiteness installs a system of racial difference that is unconsciously assimilated by all raced subjects as a factor of language, and thus as natural. In other words, Whiteness, as the inaugural term of difference, is the primary signifier of the symbolic order of race. In this sense, Whiteness is the transindividual aspect of the unconscious which subjects us all equally to the logic of race. The law of the symbolic order must be grasped in its dual function as the determinant of the structure of speech and as the inexorable term of prohibition. In fact, language depends upon prohibition or a logic of exclusion, which gets manifested as cultural organization through the taboo against incest. We must therefore understand the discourse of race as a law with a certain structure, or productive capacity to organize difference founded upon a prohibition or exclusion of some sort. (I will take up the interdictory aspect of the law in the section on the racial symbolic and the moral law.) Let us here follow, very briefly, Lacans thinking on the law as structuration in its pertinence to race."
LinkRace
Racial visibility and identity requires a certain type of racial being that denies universality of being Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 29-30 SRM
In the deployment of Lacans theory of the subject of the symbolic to the subject of race, it is necessary to inquire what the subject of race desires. Also, what kind of access does race, as a chain of signifiers that determines the symbolic subject, have to being, or that which is excluded by the chain? I will be suggesting that racial visibility is to be located precisely at this point of interrogation: it is the level at which race, or more properly its master signifier Whiteness aspires to being. The above questions suggest that the model of the subject as determined by a chain of signifiers is necessarily incomplete insofar as it cannot account for sexual difference or more properly for the body. More questions emerge: If the unconscious is structured like a language, then how is the body constituted? If sexual difference is merely a question of the signifier, how do we account for the bodys drives, or for sexuality that is often at odds with the logic of sexual difference? In relation to race, to stop with the account of the symbolic function of Whiteness would be too premature, for it does not address the issue of visibility, or the relation of the signifier to the visible body, which is, after all, the inaugural point of this inquiry. In order to take up in earnest the question of the body and of its constitution as raced, it is necessary to clarify the relation between the ego as body image and racial visibility. First, one must repudiate the notion that race is merely a process of specular identification, where a pre-discursive and preraced entity assumes a racial identity on the basis of certain familial others whose image it identifies with in a mirror relation. Such a notion is based on a simplified account of Lacans concept of the imaginary and the mirror stage. I undertake the following discussion of the imaginary for two reasons: to suggest that insofar as the symbolic underwrites the imaginary, race must be understood as a symbolic phenomenon. It is a logic of difference inaugurated by a signifier, Whiteness, that is grounded in the unconscious structured like a language. This signifier subjects us all equally to its law regardless of our identities as black, white, etc. Racial visibility is a remainder of this symbolic system. Second, the process of becoming racially visible is not coterminous with the organization of the ego or the acquisition of the body image. In other words, the visibility of the body does not necessarily have to be a racial visibility It is important that one disarticulate the two processes; otherwise racial visibility will seem to be an ontological necessity that is a universal verity of subjective existence as such.
LinkRace
Racial signifiers do not operate in an equivocal relationship with one another-Whiteness creates a hierarchy that leads to domination Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 35-36 SRM
It is important that we not mistake the moment of the constitution of the bodily ego as the necessary moment when the body becomes racially visible. To do so would not be a sufficient departure from the erroneous belief that race is purely a question of misrecognition or identification with a mirror image. We would merely have added the factor of the racial signifier to the account of the mirror stage. There is no doubt that one can be constituted as a subject with a unified bodily ego without necessarily identifying with a racial signifier, or seeing oneself as racially marked. (The large point here is that race is not like sex. Not all are subject to the racial signifier.) We only have to consider the numerous accounts from literature and autobiography that enact the scene of becoming racially visible to oneself Besides Fanon, who speaks of discovering that he is black during his first visit to France, there is Stuart Hall, who in Minimal selves says that for many Jamaicans like himself, Black is an identity which had to be learned and could only be learned in a certain moment (1996b: 116). This process of introjecting the signifier is repeated by other characters such as Janie in Zora Neal Hurstons Their Eyes Were Watching God, James Weldon Johnsons protagonist in Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man, and by Oulaudah Equiano in his autobiographical narrative. There are doubtless numerous other examples that one could cite. The fact that the secondariness of race seems to apply only to so-called people of color, and that there are rare, or virtually no instances of a so-called white person discovering his or her race may lead to several specious speculations such as: black people identify with whites as the latter are more powerful and define the norm. Such misidentification on the part of blacks leads to trauma when they discover the reality of their blackness (Fanons thesis). Other problematic views might be that white people impose an identity upon those they have colonized in order to justify their dominance, or whites have no race or race consciousness; whites are not racially embodied, and this is an index of their transparency and power, etc. While some of these propositions might make some ideological sense, all of these conclusions nevertheless presume the pre-existence of black and white as if these were natural and neutrally descriptive terms. I would suggest that the difference among black, brown, red, yellow and white rests on the position of each signifier in the signifying chain in its relation to the master signifier, which engenders racial looking through a particular process of anxiety. Perhaps the more effective ideological stance may be not to raise race consciousness among so-called whites, as scholars in Whiteness studies suggest, but to trouble the relation of the subject to the master signifier. One must throw into doubt the security and belief in ones identity, not promote more fulsome claims to such identity.
LinkRace
Race functions purely in the symbolic excluding undergirding factors of identification and a continual fear of moral law Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 41-42 SRM
Insofar as the racial law is purely symbolic, to be a raced subject is to be symbolically determined. The racial symbolical cannot be said to be missing a signifier. Rather it supplies a master signifier (Whiteness) that appears in the place of the object of desire (that must remain absent for desire to be possible). Insofar as it is purely symbolical, the racial law cannot in itself bespeak the subjects, or more properly the bodys, potential for that Other jouissance, which emerges at the site of a lackin the symbolic order. The law of race is not lacking; it supplies its own guarantee by equating Whiteness with being. Thus the doubled aspect of the moral law that makes possible an enjoyment even as it forbids it in the name of the good should not be thought as having a parallel in the law of race; rather the racial symbolic calculates its success, as we shall see shortly, upon the doubleness of the moral law. Also, racial law does not have the moral authority of the incest taboo. Its good, expressible only as purity, and eugenic health, cannot lend itself to the structure of the categorical imperative that characterizes the moral law. The good or the morality of race does not so much slide into its opposite, as itself being subject to continual interrogation as a good. The law of race is groundless, without a foundation of truth, but it is not indeterminate. Thus we can say that the moral law, insofar as it can provide no guarantee of its meaning, indexes the radical indeterminacy of the subject, while the racial law in its function as social or symbolic determinacy (Whiteness is its guarantee) is necessarily groundless (a function of citation) but not indeterminate. We can deconstruct race as performativity, but not sex. The moral law given its own lack renders sex unknowable. Finally, it is in its bearing on kinship that the racial symbolic discloses its parasitic dependence upon the moral law. The prohibition of miscegenation must be understood not as a law that resembles the incest taboo, but rather as one that threatens it. The law of race undoes the moral law. In the racial realm, the taboo against incest plays no role, as those racially other can never be admitted or acknowledged within the family structure. In slave regimes, particularly the type that prevailed in North America, slave women, we may recall, were fair game for their owners. The master could cohabit with his slaves, and the children he bred upon his slaves, with absolute impunity. The strict separation between those who were kin (racially similar people) versus slaves (racially dissimilar people) rendered the incest taboo void ci propos the latter group. The slave owner could play out his fantasy of the primal father of the original horde whose murder Freud posits at the origin of the moral law. Thus the racial symbolic, and the taboo of miscegenation make incest, or the time before the moral law possible even as it upholds the law at another level. If the incest taboo dictates who one may or may not cohabit with or marry, it presupposes the boundaries of the family, whereas the racial symbolic intervenes at a more fundamental level and presents a selected view of the family which considerably limits the effectivity of the moral law. The threat that miscegenation poses to the moral law explains the horror and fear that Levi-Strauss alludes to as one of the inducements to collective vengeance. All raced subjects have cause to fear miscegenation as it could render the moral law inoperative.
LinkRace
Race is founded by the basis and interrelationship to whiteness which is sexed and cannot be basis for a stable desire of the Other Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 45-46 SRM
How does race articulate itself with sex? How does it produce extra-symbolic effects? I would suggest that race aims for the body in its otherness15 by disavowing its own historicity. For what the racial symbolic promises the subject is precisely access to being. Whiteness offers a totality, a fullness that masquerades as being. Thus for the raced subject, to encounter the historicity of Whiteness is particularly anxiety-producing. In other words, the cause of the raced subject is its own disavowed historicity. I refer not so much to the fact that race is historicizable (that it has at its origin some historical, cultural or social cause) but rather to the phenomenon of its Historicity (which is the delimitation of race as a regulative norm at the expense of its natural universality) that radically exposes the subject to its own linguistic limit. To encounter ones subjectivity as an effect of language, and not as an enigma, is anxiety-producing not because one is reduced to a construct (what would that really mean experientially?) but because it implies the foreclosure of desire and the possibility of being. It is to discover that the law of racial difference is not attached to the Real. What the raced subject encounters, in a given moment of anxiety, is the law as purely symbolical. This is to confront the utter groundlessness of the law of racial difference, to discover that the question of ones being is not resolved by Whiteness, but that Whiteness is merely a signifier that masquerades as being and thereby blocks access to lack. To pose the question of being in relation to race is to face that there is not one. It is here that we must situate social and juridical laws against discrimination as well. Like the prohibition against miscegenation, our legal prohibitions, couched in the language of respect for difference, ultimately serve to protect the paradox of Whiteness. The paradox is that Whiteness attempts to signify the unsignifiable, i.e. humanness, in order to preserve our subjective investment in race. The Other of race, in short, is not lacking; there is no hole where being could be promising ]ouissance. All of race is expressed and captured by language. Thus the raced subject experiences anxiety, which is a consequence of encountering the lack of a lack. It is as if the jigsaw puzzle were complete, but there were still a piece left over for which there is no place. Anxiety is an affect, according to Lacan, that appears when there is no possibility of desire, when there is a lack of a lack. For the raced subject, the anxiety experienced by its encounter with historicity produces an object. Anxiety, Lacan maintains, is not without an object .. the object petit a is what falls from the subject in anxiety. It is precisely the same object that I delineated as the cause of desire. For the subject, there is substituted, for anxiety which does not decieive, what is to function by way of the object petit a (Television: 82). The objet a that race produces is a lethal object, its own disavowed historicity, produced out of the lack of a lack a phobic object that tries to make the barred Other, the desire of the symbolic, exist. This phobic objet a I suggest is localized as the pre-discursive mark on the surface of the body. The effect of nature that race produces emerges from its anxiety, its disavowal of its own historicity. This is the peculiarity of race which is neither in the Real, like sex, nor wholly discursive, like class or ethnicity To recapitulate: race has no Other jouissance, no lack, no barred Other. Its symbolical origin, however, does not render it simply historical for it relies for its effectivity on a phobic object that exceeds biological and historical explanations of identity. What this means is that one encounters the limits of ones subjectivity as an effect of language, and the question of being as not so much that which escapes articulation, but as one that is extinguished or foreclosed. Thus what the study of race offers to psychoanalysis is a view of historicity that is not only about the ungraspable, non-signifiable limit, but about the horrific confrontation of the subject with its own signifying totality, the anxiety of suffering the recognition that there is no enigma to racial difference or to the raced subject. Thus what we see repeatedly in cases of racial anxiety is the attempt to constitute that enigma through an object that has no real consistency. An analysis of the prohibitions of miscegenation and incest reveals the intricate entwinement of race and sex as a struggle waged in the subject for a desire that can never be its own.
LinkRace
Racial jokes are indicative of the way Whiteness functions to suppress race by creating antagonistic relationships between people of different races Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 91-92 SRM
In other words, hostile jokes substitute for the violence that is forbidden expression in a homogeneous, civil society, just as obscene jokes substitute for the spontaneous touching that is also forbidden by moral law. Thus jokes which thrive on symbolic and legal interdiction are only possible, in Freuds view, when the joker, victim, and listener share the same nationality or race, whereas with a foreign people there is no necessity to displace the aggression into a joke; we permit ourselves to express it physically.3 Thus, in Freuds seemingly narrow conception of hostile jokes, racist jokes, whether in a modern sovereign state or in colonialism, become redundant if not actually impossible. Thus, on the subject of anti-Semitic jokes, for instance, Freud is quite perfunctory: The jokes made about Jews by foreigners are for the most part brutal comic stories in which a joke is made unnecessary by the fact that Jews are regarded by foreigners as comic figures (111). The peculiar disavowal of the racist joker (he implies that there is no such person, as there are no racist jokes, per se), or more properly the comedian as a foreigner(!), once again nullifies the existence of racist jokes per Se. But there are racist jokes that are not merely comic stories. There is enough wordplay in racist jokes to qualify them technically as jokes and not comic stories. A cursory glance at a popular collection of jokes such as Blanche Knotts Truly Tasteless Jokes VI (1985) proves that one can make hostile jokes about foreigners, and that racial or cultural difference within a given society is no hindrance to joking either. Freuds peculiar blind spot with regard to this brand of hostile jokes pertains to his inability to conceive of (or acknowledge) a multiracial society. Thus we have to resituate the function of aggression and its relation to jokes in the disparate contexts of a modern multiracial society and in colonialism. A study of racist jokes in a multiracial society should not be undertaken as a sociological inquiry into race relations. Christie Davies (1990) and Elliot Oring (1992) have usefully criticized attempts to read ethnic jokes as crude indicators of social relations and levels of hostility against specific groups, as founded on inaccurate and inconsistent assumptions. While their arguments are generally persuasive in that they wish to preserve the spontaneity of the joking relationship, the debate itself is largely misconceived insofar as it focuses on the content of jokes rather than on the mechanism of joking, which reveals how Whiteness functions. Assertions to the effect that jokes are responsible for or innocent of racial oppression displace the emphasis from the jokes unconscious dependence on the prohibition of the law to intentionality and the conscious deployment of the joke as insult. (Indeed, to debate this issue is perhaps to be deflected by the comic and to miss the joke.) Such a deflection would considerably impoverish an understanding of how variations in the dialectical pressure of aggression and inhibition (from which the joke originates) produce differing joke situations, which are indicative of shifts in the working order of race as common sense.
LinkRace
Race relies on rigid signifiers which require rigid historical practices to constitute their identity. However, the way race is articulated always relies on certain bodily features which attempt to create a basis for contingent identity. This denies the historicization of race and dooms both politics and identification. Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 155 SRM
What kind of an identity statement is Maggie is black? I have cited Kripkes thesis regarding names as rigid designators, and we have extended that thesis to race designators such as black and white to suggest that these nouns also function as names, insofar as they merely determine reference without recourse to qualitative descriptions that may serve as criteria for identity Like proper names, black and white have no meaning, and neither is their reference determined through a cluster of concepts such that they are true in all situations. Race identity, then, is not contingent; it is necessary, even essential, insofar as it is a rigid designation without qualitative criteria that can be true in all situations . We have further extended the absence of the signified in this notion of the signifier to Lacans notion of identity, particularly in relation to the place of woman in sexual difference, as something that exceeds the symbolic. If the signified is a symbolic construct, it is precisely in its absence or failure that identity is made possible. With reference to woman and sexual difference, this is the excluded possibility of jouissance, the lack in the Other, that determines the subject of desire as such. However, racial identity insofar as it is entirely symbolic has no bearing on the lack in the Other. Thus the absence of the signified here does not mean that the symbolic has failed; it is rather that it has succeeded too well. There is no question of mapping racial difference onto the graph of sexual difference. Black, white, etc. are rigid designators, and whatever qualities or signifieds we may attempt to attach to them will be determined by history. This does not mean that racial identity is contingent; it is so only if we think of identity in qualitative terms. And as Kripke says, everyone knows that there are contingent identities. Racial identity is necessary in that it rigidly designates a referent without need of qualitative properties. To return to the context of the story, what does it mean to say that Maggie is black? What effect does it have, especially in relation to the fact that such reference is precisely refused, by the narrator, for Twyla and Roberta? I have suggested that one of the effects of such narrative reticence is to exemplify racial names as rigid designators without qualitative properties. Therefore trying to decode the narrative to read one of the other characters as black or white is to elide the fundamental proposition of the story: racial signifiers do not mean anything in the strong sense of having no sense. Therefore, what is the effect of Robertas fixing of Maggie as black, given that Twyla was unaware of Maggies identity as black?
The practices of the Third Reich are the consequences of racial visibility Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 38 SRM
When the signifier of race, Whiteness, positions itself in the place of the minus phi as the object of desire, that is when its historicity is most apparent and productive of anxiety. This is because Whiteness, by attempting to signify that which is excluded in subject constitution, the more-than-symbolic aspect of the subject the fact that he/she is not entirely determined by the symbolic or the imaginary produces anxiety. There is a lack of a lack as it appears in that place that should have remained empty. It is a false door opening not onto a nowhere, but to an all-too-concrete wall. This anxiety then produces the uncanny object of race, the arbitrary marks on the body, namely hair, skin and bone. These marks then are properly the desiderata of race; they serve the function of the objet a. Uncanny and phobic, they make desire possible again by producing lack on another level. The difference between the visible body as an ego function, and the visible body as a function of Whiteness or racialization, can be understood as the difference between seeing and being seen. The subject of the imaginary is constituted as seeing by the signifier, whereas the subject of race is constituted as seen, the subject of the gaze, through a certain logic of the signifier. If racial identity is produced by the signifier, racial visibility is produced as a remainder, a phobic object, in order, paradoxically, to give consistency to the signifier. Racial visibility is always a function of anxiety, but ones place in the chain may determine what form that anxiety may take. Consider for instance, the Third Reich, where the system of race is installed as the promise of being. The lethal result is, of course, the policy of anti-Semitism that finds its locus in that most anxious regime of visibility that finds its object in minute and arbitrary bodily marks. By providing a psychical account of the regime of visibility, I suggest that we view the logic of antiSemitism not as a racist aberration of difference, but as the kernel of all racial practice as a mode of looking. 14
LinkRace
Racial identification results in stereotyping and the creation of loving-hating relationships that invariably collapse into violent regimes Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 143-144 SRM
We must ask what consequence race names as rigid designators have for the psychoanalytic examination of race identity. I suggest that insofar as race identity, unlike sexual identity, has no bearing on the real, such rigid designation is better understood not as an indication of the failure of the symbolic (a symptom that escapes meaning or the possibility of interpretation), which would be the Lacanian translation of rigid designation, but of its agency. Black and white and other racial signifiers do not fail to signify properties (as the woman does in her position as objet a or the symptom); they perform the only function they can: they designate rigidly this or that individual (everything is what it is and not another thing). Does this mean that race names as rigid designators cannot be translated into Lacanian terms, that they have no psychoanalytic valence? That race names are rigid designators is, first of all, a counterintuitive claim. If we consider how and why racial signifiers are used in everyday speech, we encounter not only the ideological production of specific racial content (usually referred to as stereotypes), but the fraught status of the racial referent as such. One points with a word black man, white woman but this pointing cannot be innocent in the sense that it merely establishes reference as in: no other than Nixon might have been Nixon (Kripke 1982: 48). The pointing in this case involves the whole regime of racial visibility which, as I have been delineating it, is founded on a certain anxiety This relation between racial naming as meaning, or the description of properties, and racial naming as reference, or pure designation, is not one of misreading the logical functioning of names; rather, I suggest that racial naming as referring to properties (or the stereotype) acts as an envelope, a cover for the anxiety of racial reference which literally means nothing. (This is the very definition of the stereotype as a form of discourse that attempts to produce meaning where none is possible.) There is something anxiety-producing about the fullness of the signifier/referent relation that bypasses the signified, or the concept, that would properly produce meaning and thus desire. This anxious relation between the racial signifier as rigid designation and the racial signifier as a cluster of concepts founded on anxiety is brilliantly disclosed in the only short story ever written by Toni Morrison, Recitatif. In the following, I read the storys technique as a working out of the Kripkean logic of naming in relation to the Lacanian gloss on rigid designators as a certain writing which indicates the failure, or the limit, of the symbolic. I choose this text for its singular meditation on names, rigid and non-rigid, and its device of refusing to deploy the racial name for significant purposes. This story, which is about love between women as much as it is about race, demands that we read identity as a gendered and raced phenomenon simultaneously. The contrapuntal relation, which I have been arguing for thus far, between race and sexual difference is sharply thematized in this narrative, with reference to a set of relations that will be delineated among naming, the body, knowledge, racial ambiguity, love and hatred. I shall be arguing that the import or the force of rigid designation in relation to race serves not so much to point up the impossibility of language founded on the impasse of sexual difference, but the anxiety of reference inherent in racial visibility as meaningless designation. In Recitatif, both these themes of rigid designation as an impossible writing, and as anxious reference are braided together as unconscious knowledge, or an ignorant knowing. To expand on Morrisons musical metaphor: I read the story as possessing the structure of an antiphony, where there is a responsive alternation between racial anxiety and the impasse of sexual difference. Approaching the referent involves a recitatif with the impossibility of language, and when the impasse of language seems most insistent, then the referent performs an encore. The keynote being the letter of love figured as an emptiness, a nothing to know. The two themes are reconciled only in that space of hateloving, where the (w)hole of identity forms a paradoxical ground for what Lacan calls true love.
LinkRace Discourse
The affirmatives discourse is like a racist joke it engages in a forum for discursive colonialism Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 89-90 SRM
This notion of the joke as principally dissident and of the comic as reproductive of power relations, then, explains why there seems to be a predominance of comedy in colonialism and why jokes can become deeply suspect. It is a commonplace to observe that jokes and wordplay are never tolerated by totalitarian regimes, primarily because linguistic ambivalence may expose the hollow absolutism of regimes based on political and psychological repression. But jokes are not simply subversive, that is, they are not always the weapons of the weak against the strong. According to Freud, jokes can thrive only when and where there is an inhibition or repression of instincts, and insofar as tendentious jokes are concerned, it is the inhibition of aggression that fuels the witticism. However, there is the species of joke called the racist joke, whose relationship to aggression is rather more complex than Freud seems to acknowledge. Insofar as they are extreme examples of tendentious jokes, racist jokes reveal in greater detail the way in which they are determined by a certain attitude to aggression its inhibition and its expression within a particular society A brief examination of aggression in jokes in general, and in racist jokes in particular, will serve the purpose of situating in a precise fashion the all-important function of ambivalence and aggression for the uncanny joke, which is characteristic of the scenario of colonialism.
Attempts to utilize the state reinforce the problematic aspects of identity politics-reifying the racial viewpoint that ignores broader systems of oppression Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks, assistant professor of English at Boston College, Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian analysis of race, 2000, p. 158 SRM
In presenting my hypothesis to various interlocutors in formal and informal settings, I have been asked how my theory of race as a symbolic system sustained by a regime of visibility translates into social policy. How does it affect our thinking about affirmative action, about anti-discrimination legislations, about those particularly powerful modes of political mobilization that have aggregated around identity? It is sophisticated and easy to be dismissive of identity politics because it seems naive and essentialist. But the immeasurable weightiness of, say, the black power movement or the womens rights movement in pushing back the forces of exploitation and resuscitating devalued cultures through the redefinition of identity must give us pause. Identity politics works. However, the argument of this book is that it also ultimately serves to reinforce the very system that is the source of the symptoms that such politics confines itself to addressing. It is race itself that must be dismantled as a regime of looking. We cannot aim at this goal by merely formulating new social policies. In fact, my theory is anti-policy for two reasons: first, any attempt to address race systematically through policy, and by that I mean state policy, will inevitably end up reifying race. Second, the only effective intervention can be cultural, at the grassroots level. Such intervention can and should work, sometimes in tandem and at others in tension with state policy, but the project of dismantling the regime of race cannot be given over to the state. Gramsci speaks of the necessity of trans forming the cultural into the political; where race is concerned, it is imperative that we turn what is now political, an issue of group interests, into the cultural, an issue of social practice.
LinkProblem Solution
The attitude of restoring agency and living life good enough ensures continued oppression of other bodies in our image-we continually succumb to the temptation to graft identity onto bodies in order to fulfill our own narcissitic fantasy constructions. Kaja Silverman, professor of rhetoric at the university of California-berkeley, The Threshold of the Visible World, 1996, p. 4-5
SRM One cannot characterize this motility of the look as agency since it resists our conscious attempts to direct it. Here again, we need the assistance of aesthetic texts, which can intervene where we cannot. Such texts abound in visual and rhetorical images which, even before being psychically worked over, have the formal and libidinal properties of highly charged unconscious memories. They are consequently capable of moving immediately to a privileged site within the unconscious. At the same time, they are available to conscious scrutiny and interrogation. For the most part, representational practice works through such mnemic implants to confirm dominant values. However, implicit in their exterior derivation is the possibility for each of us of having psychic access to what does not belong to usof remembering other peoples memories. And through these borrowed memories, we can accede psychically to pains, pleasures, and struggles which are far removed not only from our own, but from what normative representation validates, as well. In Chapter 2 of The Threshold c/the Visible World, I argue at length that all of our attempts personally to approximate the ideal end in failure, and leave us in a relation of fatal aggressivity toward others. I oppose to this vain narcissistic quest the active gift of love, or the provisional conferral of ideality upon socially devalued bodies. However, I do not indicate in that chapter how the subject is psychically to negotiate his or her resulting apprehension of lack or distance from the ideal. It might seem that the only alternative to self-idealization is a determined self-revulsion. However, in the closing pages of this book, I am led by a series of important images toward a concept with which it would seem possible to dismantle the binary opposition of ideality and abjectionthe notion of the good enough. In so doing, I return to the topic with which I began: love. However, whereas I am initially concerned with the terms under which we might idealize and so identify with bodies which we would otherwise reject, I am by the end more concerned with the conditions under which we might ethically love ourselves. The good enough is a paradigm through which ideals can be simultaneously lived and deconstructed. To live an ideal in the mode of the good enough is, first of all, to dissolve it into its tropesto grasp its fundamentally figural status. Equally important, it is to understand that those tropes are only ever partially fulfillable. Finally, to embrace the principle of the good enough is to realize that ones partial and tropological approximation of the ideal counts most when circumstances most conspire against it. Once again, these are lessons that we can perhaps only learn from visual texts, since they have the power to reeducate the look. We can only accede narcissistically to the principle of the good enough after we have been taught to exercise it in relation to other bodies, and here the image is all-important.
Link Reason
Modern claims of reason are the feeble attempts to control language, action and thought, to create them as universally manageable, grounded and understandable. But within this quest the picture of the rational, conscious, autonomous individual has vanished. In its place, is a form of subjectivity that is bound up with the social or symbolic order. Edkins, professor at Aberystwyth 2002 [Jenny The Subject of the Political Sovereignty and Subjectivity]
Toward the end of this part of Chapter 1, before we outline the contribution subsequent chapters will make, we pursue the entanglement of sovereignty and subjectivity further and pose the question of whether there is an alternative to sovereignty. Does the political as such necessarily involve sovereignty as a nodal point, or can other signifiers take its place, leading to alternative structures of authority? More radically, perhaps, is it possible to talk of politics without the fixity such an authorizing concept imposes? We conclude by arguing that it is only without a "sovereign" that a rethinking of the political is possible. The Cartesian subject was produced in response to a sense of loss and a search for certainty amid the confusion of a newly decentered post-Copernican world. The resolution of doubt for Rene Descartes was to be found in rational, conscious thought. Since then, as Richard Ashley reminds us, "modem discourse has invoked the heroic figure of reasoning man who is himself the origin of language, the maker of history, and the source of meaning in the world. . . . Reasoning man . . . is the modern sovereign."3 The challenge to this notion of sovereign subjectivity has occurred through a series of decenterings that have successively loosened its anchorages in language, action, and thought. The first decentering contested the concept of language as no more than a medium for the expression of thought. Ferdinand de Saussure contended that rather than linguistic signs being produced by the allocation of names to preexisting objects, the association of signifier and signified that they embodied produced objects at the same time as naming them.4 Language constituted the world in particular ways. More significantly for the present discussion, since signifier and signified were arbitrary, meaning arose only from the linguistic system as a whole, and words acquired their value through associations. Language as system, however, preexists, and hence is beyond the control of, the speaker. In addition, words spoken are not determined in their meaning, since meaning arises from associations that vary with the context and the listener.5 In an important sense, then, we do not speak language; language speaks us. The sense that language was out of control, and that thoughts could not be "expressed" as such, was only the first challenge. The next was to thought itself, with the notion of the unconscious.6 If it was necessary to posit the existence of a realm of thinking that was not only unconscious (and hence inaccessible) but that operated in an entirely different manner from that of consciousness, then the picture of reason as central to subjectivity was shattered. The status of thought as originary was also contested by the view that social being precedes and to an extent at least determines consciousness.? The whole edifice of philosophy and political thought was argued to be no more than a superstructure resting on the foundations of an economic base defined by its mode of production. Political ideas and aspirations were seen as reflecting and constrained by, rather than leading to, economic and social change. The subject was not in charge of history but subjected to (and by) historical processes. After these several decenterings, what is left? The picture of the rational, conscious, autonomous individual has vanished. In its place, what we have is a subjectivity that is bound up with the social or symbolic order. The constitution of the subject and the social order seem to implicate each other. This leads to the picture of the poststructuralist subject as not only a decentered subject but an incomplete, impossible subject that only ever will have been.8 How does this relate to our contention that subjectivity and sovereignty depend upon and contain each other and that this is a fiercely political relationship? Before we can address this question, we need to elaborate how the impossible, split subjectivities we describe are constituted, thus giving an account of how the social order is posited and how sovereignty as a nodal point is crucial in this process.
Link timeframe
Much like the CTU agents of Foxs 24, The ethic of urgency implicit in the ____ assures the duty to our country mentality and an ethic that allows torture, and terrorism to thrive. Slavoj Zizek January 27, 2006 (Jack Bauer and the Ethics of Urgency, philosopher and psychoanalyst, is a senior researcher at the Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities, in Essen, Germany.) SRM
This brings up a crucial question: What does this all-pervasive sense of urgency mean ethically? The pressure of events is so overbearing, the stakes are so high, that they necessitate a suspension of ordinary ethical concerns. After all, displaying moral qualms when the lives of millions are at stake plays into the hands of the enemy. CTU agents act in a shadowy, space outside the law, doing things that simply have to be done in order to save society from the terrorist threat. This includes not only torturing terrorists when they are caught, but torturing CTU members or their closest relatives when they are suspected of terrorist links. In the fourth season, among those tortured were the secretary of defenses son-in-law and his own son (both with the secretarys full knowledge and support), as well as a female member of CTU, wrongly suspected of passing information to the terrorists. (After the torture, when new data confirms her innocence, she is asked to return to work. And since this is an emergency and every person is needed, she accepts!) The CTU agents not only treat terrorist suspects in this wayafter all, they are dealing with the ticking bomb situation evoked by Alan Dershowitz to justify torture in his book, Why Terrorism Worksthey also treat themselves as expendable, ready to lay down their colleagues or their own lives if this will help prevent the terrorist act.
This duty to our country mentality through the ethic of urgency is the ethic that allowed the agents of the holocaust to continue their job worry free. Without this ethic the next great tragedy can never be carried out. Slavoj Zizek January 27, 2006 (Jack Bauer and the Ethics of Urgency, philosopher and psychoanalyst, is a senior researcher at the Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities, in Essen, Germany.) SRM
This is the dilemma for those in power: How to obtain Kurtz without Kurtzs pathology? How to get people to do the necessary dirty job without turning them into monsters? SS chief Heinrich Himmler faced the same dilemma. When confronted with the task of liquidating the Jews of Europe, Himmler adopted the heroic attitude of Somebody has to do the dirty job, so lets do it! It is easy to do a noble thing for ones country, up to sacrificing ones life for it. It is much more difficult to commit a crime for ones country. In Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt provided a precise description of how the Nazi executioners endured the horrible acts they performed. Most of them were not simply evil; they were well aware that their actions brought humiliation, suffering and death to their victims. Their way out of this predicament was that, instead of saying: What horrible things I did to people!, the murderers would be able to say: What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders! In this way, they were able to turn around the logic of resisting temptation: Their ethical effort was directed toward the task of resisting the temptation not to murder, torture and humiliate. Thus, the very violation of spontaneous ethical instincts of pity and compassion was turned into the proof of ethical grandeur: Doing ones duty meant assuming the heavy burden of inflicting pain on others.
Link liberation
Politics of liberation are utter suicide it is a fantasy to believe these politics will be accepted when the truth is that radical backlash from both the left and right will ensue Lee Edelmen, No Future: Queer Theory and Death Drive. 2004 pp. 27-8 SRM
By denying our identification with the negativity of this drive, and hence our disident.ificar.ion from the promise of futurity, those of us inhabiting the place of the queer may be able to cast off that queerness and enter the properly political sphere, but only by shifting the figural burden of queerness to someone else. The structural position of queerness, after all, and the need to fill it remain. By choosing to accept that position, however, by assuming the "truth" of our queer capacity to figure the undoing of the Symbolic, and of the Symbolic subject as well, we might undertake the impossible project of imagining an oppositional political stance exempt from the imperative to reproduce the politics of signification (the politics aimed at closing the gap opened up by the signifier itself), which can only return us, by way of the Child, to the politics of reproduction. For the liberal's view of society, which seems to accord the queer a place, endorses no more than the conservative right's the queerness of resistance to futurism and thus the queerness of the queer. While the right wing imagines the elimination of queers (or of the need to confront their existence), the left would eliminate queerness by shining the cool light of reason upon it, hoping thereby to expose it as merely a mode of sexual expression free of the all-pervasive coloring, the determining fantasy formation, by means of which it can seem to portend, and not for the right alone, the undoing of the social order and its cynosure, the Child. Queerness thus comes to mean nothing for both: for the right wing the nothingness always at war with the positivity of civil society; for the left, nothing more than a sexual practice in need of demystification .
So long as we remain obedient to the faceless child, any attempt at liberation is doomed to failure Lee Edelmen, No Future: Queer Theory and Death Drive. 2004 pp. 25-6 SRM
Bound up with the first of these death drives is the figure of the Child, enacting a logic of repetition that fixes identity through identification with the future of the social order. Bound up with the second is the figure of the queer, embodying that order's traumatic encounter with its own inescapable failure, its encounter with the illusion of the future as suture to bind the constitutive wound of the subject's subjection to the signifier, which divides it, paradoxically, both from and into itself. In the preface to Homoaraphesis I wrote that the signifier "gay," understood "as a figure for the textuality, the rhetoricity, of the sexual . . . designates the gap or incoherence that every discourse of 'sexuality' or 'sexual identity' would master."3 0 Extending that claim, I now suggest that queer sexualities, inextricable from the emergence of the subject in the Symbolic, mark the place of the gap in which the Symbolic confronts what its discourse is incapable of knowing, which is also the place of a jouissance from which it can never escape. As a figure for what it can neither fully articulate nor acknowledge, the queer may provide the Symbolic with a sort of necessary reassurance by seeming to give a name to what, as Real, remains unnameable. But repudiations of that figural identity, reflecting a liberal faith in the abstract universality of the subject, though better enabling the extension of rights to those who are still denied them, must similarly reassure by attesting to the seamless coherence of the Symbolic whose dominant narrative would thus supersede the corrosive force of queer irony. If the queer's abjectified difference, that is, secures normativity's identity, the queer's disavowal of that difference affirms normativity's singular truth. For every refusal of the figural status to which queers are distinctively called reproduces the triumph of narrative as the allcaorization of irony, as the logic of a temporality that always serves to "straighten" it out, and thus proclaims the universality of reproductive futurism. Such refusals perform, despite themselves, subservience to the law that effectively imposes politics as the only game in town, exacting as the price of admission the subject's (hetero)normalization, which is accomplished, regardless of sexual practice or sexual "orientation," through compulsory abjuration of the future-negating queer.
Link - Ethics
Ethics is impossible the attempt to create a rational world of good/evil dichotomies is doomed to failure and this failure manifests itself in the endless murder that history has seen as the consequence of ethics STAVRAKAKIS VISITING FELLOW IN GOV'T, UNIV. OF ESSEX '99, Yannis, Lacan and the Political, pg. 129 SRM
In Lacans view, the sphere of the good erects a strong wall across the path of our desirethe first barrier that we have to deal with (VII:230). Lacans central question is: what lies beyond this barrier, beyond the historical frontier of the good? This is the central question that guides the argumentation in The Ethics of Psychoanalysis. What lies beyond the successive conceptions of the good, beyond the ways of traditional ethical thinking, is their ultimate failure, their inability to master the central impossibility, the constitutive lack around which human experience is organised. In fact, this impossibility exercises a structural causality over the history of ethical thought. Its intolerable character causes the attempts of ethical thought to eliminate it. But this elimination entails the danger of turning good to evil, utopia to dystopia: the world of the good is historically revealed to be the world of evilas epitomized not only by the famous reversibility of Kant with Sade but also by the unending murders under the reign of the politics of happiness (Lacoue-Labarthe, 1997:58). On the other hand, the irreducible character of this impossibility shows the limits of all these attempts. The name of this impossibility in Lacan is, of course, the real.
Commonplace ethics is the ethics of desiring an other that doesnt exist-one who constantly tries to try again and again to transform an other into the big Other that governs the construction of a field of symbolic meaning-only a challenge to this pathology can reorient our relationships to ethics Alenka Zupancic, intellectual monster guru and researcher at the Institute of Philosophy in the Slovene Academy of Sciences at Ljubljana, Ethics of the Real: Kant, Lacan, 2000, pg. 165-166 SRM
One can understand ethics as a pursuit of the desire of the Other, as a hunt for or an attempt to figure out the desire of the Other before one moves into action. Here, however, the subject not only has to guess the desire of the Other, but also and above all to see to it that the Other has a desire in the first place. The subject, of course, will never be capable of satisfying the demands of the Other. It is precisely this series of failures (thats not it, try again, make another effort that maintains the Other as the one who knows what It wants: if It doesnt want this, It apparently wants something else, and knows very well what this something else is. The guilt that the subject experiences for not having done what was demanded (for not having found the right answer to the enigma of the desire of the Other) and the self-accusations that follow from it aim at making the Other forget that It doesnt exist. The subject knows very well that the Other doesnt exist; this is, even, the only real certitude she has. Yet nothing changes if we tell such a subject: You are torturing yourself for nothing. The Other that terrifies you so much does not exist, since the subject is torturing herself precisely because the Other does not exist. The certainty that the Other does not exist takes away from the subject every other certainty (about what one has to do, how one is supposed to act or respond to things.. .), and the erection of the law of the superego gives the subject at least access to a negative certainty (the thats not it), to some criterion or compass for her actions. The subject who does not know whether what she wants to do (or is doing) is right or wrong, whether it is pathological or not, whether it is really it or just a pretence such a subject finds in the superego a sort of 'practical guide that at least gives her the clue that the best of all possible actions is always the one that makes you suffer the most. Thus the subject acts; she can even act (and suffer) persistently; yet all this activity can only maintain the subject in a state of suffering in a state of passivity vis-a-vis the all-powerful Other. In relation to this, we should mention yet another version of this path of passivity, which consists in trying to extort from the Other the 'right answer. Here, the subject wants the Other to choose for him. For such a subject, the Other always appears in the form of some other person. One could say that this subject aims at elevating some small other to the rank of the (big) Other. The subject spends his life imposing choices upon others, reminding them that they are free individuals who must know what they really want. To take an example: in the case of a love affair that does not suit him any more, such a subject will never break it up, be will delegate this decision to the other. He will play the honest one, he will admit that he is cheating, that he is indeed weak and that apparently he is not tip to a real relation ship. He will tell the other: 'There, these are the facts, this is how I am, Im laying myself bare before you what more can I do? and now its your turn to make a decision, to make your choice. And if this other decides to leave, she leaves precisely as the (big) Other. We might even say that all the activity of such a subject is leading towards this scene of a miraculous metamorphosis of the other into the Other (who knows what she wants or does not want, and acts accordingly).
..
LinkEthics
Ethics is always posited as an obstruction to our desire-it is the interruption that we all must realize to change our life-this understanding of ethics lacks the fundamental insight of the Lacanian Real that something is inevitably excluded from our symbolic construction of reality. The ethics of the affirmative is a basis for a return to the traditional values that both enable the politics of extremists and fantatics and the depoliticization of postmodern identity claims Alenka Zupancic, intellectual monster guru and researcher at the Institute of Philosophy in the Slovene Academy of Sciences at Ljubljana, Ethics of the Real: Kant, Lacan, 2000, pg. 4-5 SRM
These two reference points are the basic themes of this book, which-by means of a reading of Kant, Lacan and several works of literature seeks to outline the countours of what I would like to call an ethics of the Real. An ethics of the Real is not an ethics oriented towards the Real, but an attempt to rethink ethics by recognizing and acknowledging the dimension of the Real (in the Lacanian sense of the term) as it is already operative in ethics. The term ethics is often taken to refer to a set of norms which restrict or bridle desire which aim to keep our conduct (or, say, the conduct of science) free of all excess. Yet this understanding of ethics fails to acknowledge that ethics is by nature excessive, that excess is a component of ethics which cannot simply be eliminated without ethics itself losing all meaning. In relation to the smooth course of events, life as governed by the reality principle, ethics always appears as something excessive, as a disturbing interruption. But the question remains of the cause I am following in this theoretical attempt at an ethics of the Real. In Lacanian terms, the decline of the discourse of the master, Lacans understanding of the advent of modernity, forces the discourse of ethics into an impasse. The ethical maxim behind the discourse of the master is perhaps best formulated in the famous verse from Juvenal: Summum crede nefas animam praeferre pudori, et propter vitam vivendi perdere causas [Count it the greatest of all sins to prefer life to honour, and to lose, for the sake of living, all that makes life worth living]. Another version of this credo might be found in Paul Claudel: Sadder than to lose ones life is it to lose ones reason for living. In Kant with Sade Lacan proposes his own translation of this ethical motto: Desire, what is called desire, suffices to make life have no sense in playing a coward.0 Modernity, it seems, offered no alternative to the discourse of the master, besides the feeble maxim: The worst thing one can lose is ones own life. This maxim lacks both conceptual force and the power to mobilize. This lack, in turn, is part of what makes political discourses that proclaim a return to traditional values so seductive; it also accounts for much of the fascinated horror evoked by extremists and fanatics, who want nothing more than to die for their cause. This book is an attempt to provide a conceptual framework for an ethics which refuses to be an ethics based on the discourse of the master, but which equally refuses the unsatisfactory option of a (post)modern ethics based on the reduction of the ultimate horizon of the ethical to ones own life.
Ethics result in conservatism and the preservation of the status quo. Jackson, Dept. of English, Wayne St. Univ, 2007. [Ken, The Great Temptation of Religion: Why Badiou has been so important to iek IJZS
Vol. 1 no. 2]
The reason our attention to ethics can be considered an ideology is two-fold. First, much of the academic world and, in particular, the academic left does not recognize its attention to the other as ethics as such and, indeed, recoils from the notion that they are engaged in primarily ethical pursuits. They are even more horrified when presented with the notion that this ethics, our ethics, is connected somehow to religion. We are, in short, ethically interpellated subjects that can not see our own ideological constitution clearly. Second, as the remarks from iek quoted above suggest, our ethics actually functions in a conservative fashion, preserving the neoliberal status quo under the guise of challenging hierarchical power structures. As Badiou puts it, the price paid by ethics is a stodgy conservatism. The ethical conception of man, besides the fact that its foundation is either biological (images of victims) or Western (the self-satisfaction of the armed benefactor), prohibits every broad, positive vision of possibilities.what ethics legitimates, is in fact the conservation by the socalled West of what it possesses (2001: 24). We respect the other Badiou points out, but only inasmuch as that other conforms to our vision: Respect for differences, of course? But on the condition that the different be parliamentary-democratic, pro freemarket economics, in favour of freedom of opinion, feminism, the environment(2001: 24). For this reason Badiou shockingly proposes that the whole ethical predication based upon recognition of the other should be purely and simply abandoned (2001: 25).
Link Ethics
Meaningful ethical or political action is impossible as long as the master-signifier of sovereignty remains unchallenged. Edkins, professor at Aberystwyth 2002 [Jenny The Subject of the Political Sovereignty and Subjectivity] \A symbolic order centered on sovereignty is not the only (im)possible solution; we could imagine other social realities. However, once sovereignty is in place, an ethical-political challenge in the name of an alternative becomes illegitimate. This difficulty arises because sovereignty as a master signifier conceals its status as will have been, constituting the social order as always already. As such, sovereign as a political referent persists and endures almost as if it were an inevitable and unavoidable _part of politics. Indeed, it functions to define politics in a particular way such that sovereignty is the oily referent by which one can understand the political. We will question this by asking whether another politics is possible, one that does not invoke sovereignty or an alternative master signifier. Arguably, without a master signifier either the social order nor the subject are possible. If this is accepted, emancipation as such becomes impossible. Liberation is always to come. Revolution is a joyous but impossible moment, a singularity outside time, where repressive authority has been overthrown and a new order has yet to be reimposed. There was such a moment during the revolutions at the end of the cold war in Europe, with "rebels waving the national flag with the red star, the communist symbol, cut out, so that instead of the symbol standing for the organizing principle of national life, there was nothing but a hole in its centre." Zizek raises the prospect of "tarrying with the negative," although the logic of his Lacanian position would repudiate that possibility. Derrida, in a parallel attempt to find a way of being outside the dichotomized violence of logocentrism, suggests an endless process of decisioning.I54" Both of these would be a way of engaging with the political and returning to an ethicsin Derrida's case an ethics of responsibility, and for Zizek an ethics of the real. Examining how an ethics of the real might operate leads to some interesting conclusions about the role of sovereignty in preempting such a move. As a master signifier, sovereignty has precisely the task of preventing the emergence of an ethics of the real. The imposition of meaning, which is what the master signifier accomplishes, forecloses ethical possibility,)
Link Derrida
Derridas undecidability degenerates into empty formalism and guilt. Our psychoanalytic emphasis is necessary to investigate how affects are structured through language in the first place and are therefor insufficient to ground ethical action which requires subjective responsibility. Jason Glynos, Department of Government, University of Essex. Thinking the Ethics of the Political in the Context of a Postfoundational World:From an Ethics of Desire to an Ethics of the Drive.Theory & Event Volume 4, Issue 4, 2000
The question I want to ask here is whether this line of inquiry opened up by Derrida can pushed yet further. And I want to suggest that Lacanian psychoanalysis furnishes us with one way to conceive such a possibility. One can start with the question, Why? Why should one take guilt or lack of good conscience as the index of having adopted an ethical stance? Why not ride the worm of doubt a while longer -- at
least long enough to doubt doubt itself? That is to say, to put into question the doubt that finds itself in thrall of guilt or lack of good conscience. Might there be another way to view lack of good conscience other than as the upstanding sibling of a truly ethical stance in the face of undecidability? If we held a different theory of guilt, might we not, just possibly, come to a different conclusion? Namely, that guilt is the accomplice to something other than ethical authenticity? At the very least, it is possible to question whether guilt or lack of good conscience should function as an index of an ethical stance to the lack in the big Other. Guilt, in other words, can also be
seen to be in need of an explanation, or subjected to a more thorough investigation -- one that does not restrict it to the certainty of a decision's exclusionary effects, of, as Derrida puts it, knowing or at least suspecting that a properly ethical stance toward the moment of the political is always going to be "to the detriment of an other; of one nation to the detriment of another nation, of one family to the detriment of another family, of my friends to the detriment of other friends or non-friends, etc."[18] Of course, the way I have outlined this ethic of deconstruction resonates with Kant's discussion of the feeling of 'respect' for the moral law. This feeling of 'respect' coincides with the irreducible doubt, anxiety even, that riddles such a political decision : is it 'really' moral (in other words, have I actually acted
only from the moral law rather than simply in accordance with it?), is it 'really' just (in other words, is not my decision always contaminated with a residue of injustice?), etc.? But what if the true enigma is not why a 'pure' ethical act appears impossible but why the drive to make such an impossible act does not cease to persist, especially if we are inclined to accept the Freudian view, that superegoic guilt has a tendency to feed on itself. Of course, I do not want to imply that Derrida himself attaches even remotely the same level of significance to guilt in its relation to ethics that I do. It is a reading. At the very least it can be taken as a hint or intuition he expresses in this regard. Either way, it allows me a convenient entry point to introduce a Lacanian perspective on what I am calling the ethics of the political.
Why turn to Lacanian psychoanalysis in investigating this question of ethics? One reason for bothering might simply be to point to Lacan's repeated insistence that the status of the subject as such is ethical. This, at least, might arouse curiosity. It is perhaps the most fundamental and central concern of Lacanian psychoanalysis to deal with the question of ethics -- and this on a practical, even daily basis. And it should be obvious by now that the kind of ethics that Lacanian psychoanalysis is concerned to elucidate is not the positive ethics familiar to us in the form of an externalised positive code of professional ethics. It is not about what rules the profession should subscribe to, or about how to motivate compliance with them. No doubt, this serves an important social function, but this is definitely not what the ethics of psychoanalysis aims at. Rather, the ethics of psychoanalysis is concerned with the question of how to orient the sessions themselves, of how to orient interventions given the dynamic nature of an analysand's discourse. In short, how can one think the end of psychoanalysis if we exclude orientations based on the positively defined Good of the patient or the Good of society? Another reason for looking to Lacanian psychoanalysis in search for insights on the question of ethics concerns the high importance placed upon language and the unconscious as structured like a language. This emphasis on the importance of language has consequences regarding guilt, and regarding affects generally. One insight this generates is the idea that affects deceive. Many take Lacan to privilege language at the expense of affects. This view,
however, is based on a misunderstanding. Think, for example, of affects such as anger, jealousy, sympathy, depression, etc. Lacan's point is essentially the Freudian point that affects are structured and shaped by the symbolic order, by the language and meanings that language conveys. Change the
meaning, and the affect changes, transforms itself, sometimes into its very opposite. This is the work of the unconscious: metaphor and metonymy; or condensation and displacement. In short, language affects affects. Which means that affects -- and this includes guilt -- are as fluid as the signifying elements that structure them. One important consequence of this is that they cannot serve as reliable reference points when considering the ethical authenticity of an act or decision -- at least from a particular psychoanalytic point of view.
But again: How more precisely can a Lacanian intervention here be better understood? In the remaining part of the paper I will begin exploring what one such possibility might look like. And for this I rely on the work of Slavoj Zizek, who opposes what he calls an ethics of the drive to an ethics of desire. Lacan's motto 'Don't give
way to your desire' is meant to capture the type of ethics I have described thus far. That is to say, the kind of ethics that bows before the awesome emptiness of the formal law, that accepts the simultaneous absence of guarantees and the call to make a decision nevertheless. The Law of desire for Lacan is governed by the fact that desire is always the desire of the symbolic Other. And the big Other's desire is founded on the big Other's lack, the symbolic order's structural openness. 'Don't give way to your desire' means: stay true to the senselessness of the master signifier, thereby keeping alive, by way of a reminder, the responsibility with which you should assume your each and every concrete identity and action. This conception of ethics is an ethics of keeping the infinite metonymy of desire alive.
Link - Derrida
Despite Derridas attempt to embed levinas-style ethics within the empirical world of politics, it retains all the trappings of abrahamic religiosity thusly reifing the power relations that allow for the domination of the other Jackson, Dept. of English, Wayne St. Univ, 2007. [Ken, The Great Temptation of Religion: Why Badiou has been so important to iek IJZS
Vol. 1 no. 2]
Derridas very different (from Badiou) fascination with Levinasian religious gestures was particularly visible in his later years, a matter evidenced institutionally by the attention he garnered from the countrys theology and religious studies departments. The efforts of Levinas suggested to Derrida a certain messianism, a way to stay open to the other yet to come, the infinite, the other of Being that haunts philosophy, without conceding philosophy to the traditional, religious messianisms and without conceding the Levinasian desire to stay open to the other strictly to the ream of the religious at least as we traditionally understand the term. It is ultimately Derridas efforts to explicate how this was possible that led Badiou to St. Paul and, as suggested, it was St. Paul that led iek to Badiou. In 1992, in between the publication of Badious Being and Event and his 1997 St. Paul book, Derrida published Donner la mort in Lethique du don, Jacques Derrida et la pensee du don. The work was translated in 1995 as The Gift of Death and is largely an extended reading of Soren Kierkegaards Fear and Trembling, itself, of course, the most famous and influential modern interpretation of Genesis 22 an increasingly important text in our times in that it ultimately unites Judaism, Christianity, and Islam around the common figure of Abram/Abraham/Ibrahim. As Derrida hinted as long ago as 1967, Fear and Trembling can be read as an attempt on Kierkegaards part to stay open to the other, the absolute other, in the figure of certain Abraham. Kierkegaard locates in the Genesis 22 description of Abraham a figure who eludes the ethical, which is to say the universal of Hegelian thought. For Hegel, identity and difference, self and other, pass into one another, and thus ultimately there is no difference, there is no other no justified incommensurability -- in his dialectical logic. In Abraham, Kierkegaard identifies a figure who responds to the absolutely other in a way that suspends the Hegelian ethical or universal (for Kierkegaard the two are the same thing) if only for an instant. In other words, he locates in Genesis 22 a rupture or cut in Hegels ontological framework, a teleological suspension of the ethical. Derrida, in turn, identifies a messianic structure in Kierkegaards philosophical gesture, a messianic structure that may determine, but is not equivalent to, the traditional messianisms. For Abraham to respond to Gods demand to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham must kill Isaac without believing he will get anything in return salvation, for example. Abraham must move towards the absolute other, God, without any sense of a deal having been struck. The exchange relationship implied in any reading that emphasizes obedience for salvation also implies some level of equality and thus negates the otherness of the absolute other, the distinction of divine from human. To distinguish Abrahams aneconomic movement from the economy of sacrifice or exchange, Derrida identifies in Kierkegaard the figure of the gift. The gift is the impossible, the instant when the economic circle of exchange is interrupted and Abraham gives death (or almost gives death) without expecting anything from God in return. The gift identifies that which is not an exchange, that which stands outside even a sacrificial economy that which is absolutely other. The Abrahamic gift thus suggests a way to think the religious without the religions, pointing simultaneously to a founding messianic gesture for all three monotheisms that is not specific to one tradition and a potential obliteration of differences something other yet to come. The to come is critical here, particularly as it works its way into Derridas more explicitly political writings like Spectres de Marx (1993) where he begins talking about a democracy to come, a concept and phrase that still draws the comic ire of iek. Like Kierkegaard, Derrida is above all else interested in keeping the possibility of the impossible open. However, Derrida does not simply dispense with a general obligation toward others to fulfill the obligation toward the absolute Other (God), the tout autre. Instead he seeks to "weaken the distinction" between the other individual and the absolutely Other. Derrida admires Kierkegaard's reading of the Abraham story in its insistence on the difficult sacrificing of general ethics, but he is more truly tracing and refining the work of Levinas who, again, insists on the ethical, the call of the other as manifested in (other) individuals. The call Abraham hears to sacrifice Isaac is not from some extraordinary other, but something we all confront everyday when we protect our own children at the expense of others, an infinite number of others whom we, in some sense, sacrifice. To put this another way, in this impossible contradictory instant Derrida seeks to find a relationship between religious obligation and everyday ethical obligation, an absolute obligation and a calculated, rational one. Quite simply, like Badiou, Derrida seeks to confront the problem of divine alterity in Levinass other and, quite provocatively, he does this by juxtaposing Levinas to Kierkegaard. The Derridean hope, I would suggest, is that if one positions Levinas next to Kierkegaard the transdescendence or materialist aspects of the Levinasian position becomes more distinct to critics who would dismiss him as simply religious.
[continues, no text omitted] Indeed, when Derrida begins talking about a democracy to come he is trying to maintain the very same Abrahamic relation between the absolute and the everyday, the impossibly an-economic and the calculated or rational, the idealist and the materialist. Rather than simply expose or demystify the gap between an ideal democracy and neo-liberal democracies as they actually exist, Derrida wants to concentrate on the failure of the actual to achieve the ideal; not unlike iek, he wants to concentrate on the gap between the ideal and the factual because this failure and this gap characterizes A priori and by definition, all democracies, including the oldest and the most stable of so-called Western democracies. At stake here is the very concept of democracy as concept of a promise that can only arise in such a diastema (failure, inadequation, disjunction, disadjustment, being out of joint [here Derrida employs Hamlet]). That is why we always propose to speak of a democracy to come, not of a future democracy in the future present, not even of a regulating idea, in the Kantian sense, or of utopia at least to the extent that their inaccessibility would still retain the temporal form of a future present, of a future modality of the living present. [Even beyond the regulating idea in its classic form, the idea, if that is still what it is, of democracy to come, its idea as event of a pledged injunction that orders one to summon the very thing that will never present itself in the form of full presence, is the opening of this gap between an infinite promise (always untenable at least for the reason that it calls for the infinite respect of the singularity and infinite alterity of the other as much as for the respect of the countable, calculable, subjectal equality between anonymous singularities) and the determined, necessary, but also necessarily inadequate forms of what has to be measured against this promise. (1994: 64-65) Derrida suggests that his democracy to come, then, involves a spirit of Marxism, a desire for justice. To this extent, the effectivity or actuality of the democratic promise, like that of the communist promise, will always keep within it, and it must do so, this absolutely undetermined messianic hope at its heart, this eschatological relation to the to come of an event and of singularity, of an alterity that cannot be anticipated. (1994: 65) In some sense, for those who know Derrida, this is a reworking of differance in a specifically political context. But like differance, Derridas democracy to come was destined to be interpreted, despite his continual rebuttals, as deferral, lateness, delay, postponement and thus politically it suggested, at best, quietism, at worst, complicity.5 There has been some rapprochement between and Derrida and Marxism in the making, a rapprochement that became more explicit with his death (as such things tend to go) in 2005. Badiou, for example, in a recent talk titled as Homage to Derrida, talks of Derrida not as the messianic, waiting for something other, at odds with materialist thought figure that many know, but as someone captivated by the problem of inexistence as the extreme of existence. Similarly, in the opening pages of TheParallax View, iek is even willing to concede some relationship between his notion of addressing the gap as such and Derridean differance. Since I have written many pages in which I struggle with the work of Jacques Derrida, now when the Derridean fashion is fading away is perhaps the moment to honor his memory by pointing out the proximity of this minimal difference to what he called differance, this neologism whose very notoriety obfuscates its unprecedented materialist potential. (2006: 11) But like any rapprochement, this one is complicated, partial at best. In discussing his rapprochement with Derridean thought iek ultimately offers this line of distinction: This reappraisal [of difference] is intended to draw an even stronger line of demarcation from the usual gang of democracy-to-come deconstructionist-postsecular- Levinasian-respect-for-Otherness suspects. So . . .as usual, I would like to point out that, as usual (and, as usual, several sensitive people I like will look huffy), the democracy-to-come delegation has not been invited. If, however, a resolute democrat-to-come manages to slip in, he or she, should be warned that a number of cruel traps have been set here and there throughout the book. (2006: 11) One is never quite sure what to do with this brand of iekian humor. The problem, again, is that even Derridas materialist refinements of Levinas were not sufficient for Badiou (or later iek). In the figure of Abraham and the messianic openness of democracy to-come there lingered a hint of the absolute Other, the deified rather than thoroughly laicized infinite. Even more, in the figure of Abraham the common patriarch of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam there was the hint of the universalism of the one, a totality of Being to come, a totality of Being that had once been accessible somehow and would be again. In presenting St. Paul in the context of Being and Event, then, Badiou made a decisive cut between the Abrahamic Levinasian crowd and himself. In the figure of Paul Badiou quite simply identifies the most striking contrast possible to Derridas Abraham, a distinctive gesture of immanence to counter Derridas messianic openness. The historical Paul argues Abrahams covenant with God has been supplanted by the resurrection of Christ. In so arguing, he helps invent the tradition of Christian typology, the practice of reading the Hebrew Bible as only a foregrounding for what happens in the Christian New Testament. That is, Paul marks not a relation to Abraham, but a point of non-relation, absolute difference. Paul is an apostle, not a prophet, announcing that the event has already come not that it is perennially to- come. Indeed, for Paul, a certain notion of Judaism never was at all. Badiou knows this biblical scholarship well.
[continues, no text omitted] On can detects notes of the forthcoming Paul book in Being and Event. There Badiou suggests that not only is Levinass path of thought religious, it is somewhat ironically a religious path of thought that always ultimately follows a certain Christian route: From the point of view of experience, this path consecrates itself to mystical annihilation; an annihilation in which, on the basis of the interruption of all presentative situations, and at the end of a negative spiritual exercise, a Presence is gained, presence which is exactly that of the being of the One as non-being, thus the annulment of all functions of the count of One (2005: 26). Badiou begins to suggest here that the Levinasian Jewish openness to the other will always lead to some Christian presence or immanence. The Other (God) never stays sufficiently Other; he always becomes some version of the same or self (man). Here we need to tread carefully because we risk occluding the larger discussion with the ancient divide between Jew and Christian. Badiou is not criticizing Judaism or the role Judaism played in Levinass intellectual life. He is, again, illustrating the Great Temptation of philosophical ontologies and, in particular, the fundamental flaw of beginning thought with a deified notion of the infinite. Badious materialist point, again, is that there is no one, there is no God, and certainly no other (again, only a masquerade for God); there is only a multiple without one, an infinite multiplicity with which we somehow need to come to terms -- mathematical terms. Consequently, the sooner we give up altogether on The Great Temptation of religion to stay open to the other and the suggestion of non or otherwise than Being the better off we will be. Thus he begins to foreground in Being and Event the way in which the other always moves from the transcendent beyond of Being to the imminent. Infinite multiplicity is what there and is there is nothing else (other) and there never has been anything else (other).
Link - obligation
Talk of obligation conflates our desire creating the ethic of debt towards the Other and the constant need to take action in order to fulfill our guilty conscience. Joan Copjec in 2006 (Department of English, Comparative Literature, and Media Study at the University of Buffalo, where she is the Director of the Center for the Study of Psychoanalysis and Culture: Lacan: the silent partners; May 68, the Emotional Month) SRM
We were pursuing hints in Levinas's text that the sentiment of being riveted was connected to the question of race, and all those forms of identity which are ours by virtue of birth rather than choice. This connection is suggested in relation to a specific characterization of anxiety or being riveted as the feeling of being burdened by a 'non-remittable obligation'. From this sentiment to that of being weighed down by an inexpiable debt is a short step, but to take it without being aware of the distance traversed leads to the inappropriate conflation of originary and moral anxiety. That Levinas makes the error of too quickly conflating the experience of being riveted with experiences of culpability and debt proves nothing so much as the effectiveness of the superego, of guilt, in the modern world. Why should our admittedly infrangible attachment to that which precedes us and drenches our enjoyment in its indelible colors be characterized as a guilty one? There is no good reason for It; but If the equation of the past with guilt and debt is endemic to modern thought, it is because the superegoic evasion or recoil from anxiety retains so much influence over thought, up to and including Freud's. Critiquing the familiar Freudian myth of the murder of the primordial father by sons who try to, atone for their crime by reinstating him in an idealized form (as all-loving and loved by all), Lacan disentangles guilt from originary anxiety, and prepares the way for an alternative escape from the latter.
Link Obligation
The Affirmatives moral imperative constitutes a totalitarian paralysis and continuity of conservative politics which replicate your case harms. Stavrakakis, Prof Psychoanalysis @ U Essex, 03 [Yannis , parallax, 2003, vol. 9, no. 2, 5671 Re-Activating the Democratic Revolution: The Politics of Transformation Beyond Reoccupation and Conformism]
This brings us to the whole discussion around the ethical turn in contemporary political philosophy. Even if one concludes that radical democracy can be a viable and fruitful project for a politics of transformation, what about the prioritization of ethics within recent radical democratic discourse? For example, at a fairly superficial level, it seems as if Zizek questions the importance of ethics in this field, and thus would also seem to question the deployment of the radical democratic attitude at the ethical level. Consider, for example, his outright condemnation of the ethical turn in political philosophy: The return to ethics in todays political philosophy shamefully exploits the horrors of Gulag or Holocaust as the ultimate bogey for blackmailing us into renouncing all serious radical engagement.60 Surely, however, this cannot be a rejection of ethics in toto. Even if only because Zizek himself has devoted a considerable part of his work elaborating the ethics of psychoanalysis in the Lacanian tradition.61 It follows then that it must be a particular form of ethical discourse that constitutes his target. The same is true of Alain Badious argument, to which we will now turn. Badious target is a particular type of ethics, of ethical ideology, which uses a discourse of human rights and humanitarianism in order to silence alternative thought and politics and legitimize the capitalist order. This is an ethics premised on the principle that good is what intervenes visibly against an Evil that is identifiable a priori.62 What Badiou points to here, is what appears as a strange inversion; here the Good is derived from the Evil and not the other way round.63 The result of such an inversion is significant for the theory and politics of transformation: If the ethical consensus is founded on the recognition of Evil, it follows that every effort to unite people around a positive idea of the Good, let alone identify Man with projects of this kind, becomes in fact the real source of evil itself. Such is the accusation so often repeated over the last fifteen years: every revolutionary project stigmatized as utopian turns, we are told, into totalitarian nightmare. Every will to inscribe an idea of justice or equality turns bad. Every collective will to the Good creates Evil [] In reality, the price paid by ethics is a stodgy conservatism.64 This ethic, which is revealed as nothing but a mindless catechism, a miserable moralism,65 is an ethics that can have no relation to a transformative political agenda. 66 This ethics is presented in Badious argument as a distortion of a real ethic of truths, which attempts to restore the logical priority of Good over Evil. Badious ethic of truths is an ethics related to the idea of the event, a category central for his whole philosophical and political apparatus. To put it briefly, the event here refers to a real break which destabilizes a given discursive articulation, a pre-existing order.
Link util
Utilitarian calculus is inherently egoistic and driven by desire their claims to utility are a ridiculous attempt to claim the world owes them for their mere presence Alenka Zupancic, intellectual monster guru and researcher at the Institute of Philosophy in the Slovene Academy of Sciences at Ljubljana, Ethics of the Real: Kant, Lacan, 2000, pg. x-xi SRM
In short, the utilitarian circle even the most refined one, in which my obedience to ethical norms is grounded not only in an egotistic calculus but in the satisfaction brought about by the awareness that I will contribute to the well-being of the whole of humankind is never squared; one always has to add an x, the unknown remainder, which, of course, is the Lacanian objet petit a, the object-cause of desire. In this precise sense, for Lacan, ethics is ultimately the ethics of desire that is to say, the Kantian moral law is the imperative of desire. In other words, what Lacan accomplishes, in an inherent radicalization of the Kantian project, is a kind of critique of pure desire: in contrast to Kant, for whom our capacity to desire is thoroughly pathological (since, as he repeatedly stresses, there is no a priori link between an empirical object and the pleasure this object generates in the subject), Lacan claims that there is a pure faculty of desire, since desire does have a non-pathological, a priori object-cause this object, of course, is what Lacan calls objet petit a. Even the most egotistically calculated exchange of favours has to rely on a first move which cannot be explained in these terms, in some grounding gesture of giving, of the primordial gift (as Derrida would have put it) which cannot be accounted for in the terms of future benefits.
LinkCompassion
The ethics of caring and compassion are ultimately a secreted attempt to produce a unified pure subjectthis is the case in Welcome To Sarajevo-when a Bosnian mother gives her daughter to an English Journalist and the child later looses her culture the Goal of the Serbs ethnic cleansing is complete the destruction of the Bosnian Culture-thus the implicit command of caring is change from what you are in a radical project to annihilate difference in capitalist humanitarianism Alenka Zupancic, intellectual monster guru and researcher at the Institute of Philosophy in the Slovene Academy of Sciences at Ljubljana, Ethics of the Real: Kant, Lacan, 2000, pg. Xii SRM
So how are we to break out of this vicious intertwining of the Good and its obscene supplement? Let us recall the final scene of the first big Hollywood production about the Bosnian war, Welcome to Sarajevo, a film that was a failure (and, incidentally, a film that Alenka Zupancic hates intensely!). In this scene, shot with minimal pathos, the broken-down Bosnian mother renounces her beloved daughter: she signs the paper which gives full custody of her daughter to the English journalist who wants to adopt her. The supreme act of maternal love is here identified as precisely the Brechtian gesture of renouncing the maternal link of conceding that, in comfortable English surroundings, her daughter will fare much better than in war-torn Bosnia. When she watches the video of her daughter playing with other children in an English garden, she immediately understands that her daughter is happy in England; when, in their last phone conversation, her daughter at first even pretends that she no longer understands Bosnian, the mother, as it were, gets the message. This scene should also be read as a critical comment on the Western humanitarian approach, revealing its ethical ambiguity: it gives a different twist to the simple narrative of a good English journalist who just wants to save a Bosnian child from her war-torn country, fighting Serbian terrorists as well as the Bosnian state bureaucracy for which the evacuation of children is capitulation and betrayal (i.e. doing the job of ethnic cleansing for the Serbs). With its final twist, the film becomes a reflexive critical comment on what it purports to be up to that point: a humanitarian tale of a journalist doing his ethical duty by saving one person (a child) from the Bosnian war inferno in a way, the Bosnian official who claims that evacuation is capitulation was right: such humanitarian acts ultimately only add insult to injury by depriving Bosnians of their offspring. ... So, in the final confrontation between the journalist and the mother, it is the mother who accomplishes the ethical gesture against the journalist, whose very humanitarian and caring behaviour is ultimately unethical.
...
LinkGuilt/Harms
The affirmative reveals the structure of desire through an immediate guilt for the acts this reveals an underlying desire for the very thing they profess sorrow for-this repression reveals the underlying pressure of freedom and possibility that carries with it the possibility of a new ethics that can arrest the destruction of desire Alenka Zupancic, intellectual monster guru and researcher at the Institute of Philosophy in the Slovene Academy of Sciences at Ljubljana, Ethics of the Real: Kant, Lacan, 2000, pg. 26-27 SRM
In order to clarify this point, we would do well to take a look at the findings of psychoanalysis. Cases of irrational guilt are quite common in psychoanalysis cases where the subject feels guilty of something which was, strictly speaking, beyond her control. For instance, a subjects friend dies in a car accident and the subject, who was nowhere near the site of the accident, is nevertheless tormented by guilt. Such cases are usually explained on the level of 'desire and guilt: the subject in question had an unconscious desire for her friends death, which she could not admit, and so the actual death of this friend gives rise to feelings of guilt. However, there is yet another, even more interesting level of guilt that needs to be considered. As Jacques-Alain Miller pointed out in one of his lectures, there are many patients who not only suffer a variety of symptoms (including feelings of guilt) but feel guilty because of this very suffering. One might say that they feel guilty because of the guilt they feel. They feel guilty not simply because of their unconscious desires but, so to speak, because of the very frame which sustains this kind of psychological causality. It is as if they felt responsible for the very institution of the psychological causality which, once in place, they cannot but submit to, to be carried along by. With this we are approaching the notion of guilt as it figures in Kants account of freedom. The guilt that is at issue here is not the guilt we experience because of something we may or may not have done (or desired to have done). Instead it involves something like a glimpse of another possibility or, to put it in different terms, the experience of the pressure of freedom. As a first approximation, we might say that guilt is the way in which the subject originally participates in freedom, and it is precisely at this point that we encounter the division or split which is constitutive of the ethical subject, the division expressed in I couldnt have done anything else, but still, I am guilty. Freedom manifests itself in this split of the subject. The crucial point here is that freedom is not incompatible with the fact that 'I couldn't do anything else, and that I was carried along by the stream of natural necessity. Paradoxically, it is at the very moment when the subject is conscious of being carried along by the stream of natural necessity that she also becomes aware of her freedom. It is often noted that the Kantian conception of freedom has 'absurd consequences. For instance, if only autonomous actions are free, then I can be neither guilty nor responsible for my immoral actions, since they are always heteronomous. However, nothing could be further from Kants position on freedom and subjectivity As we have already seen, the paradox his reflections force us to confront is strictly opposed to this: ultimately, I am guilty even if things were beyond my control, even if I truly could not have done anything else. Yet at this point we should push the discussion a little further in order to account for how these two apparently opposite conclusions seem to follow from Kants view how Kants argument leads in two apparently mutually exclusive directions. On the one hand, Kant seems persistent in his attempt to persuade us that none of our actions is really free; that we can never establish with certainty the nonexistence of pathological motives affecting our actions; that so-called inner or 'psychological motives are really just another form of (natural) causality. On the other hand, he never tires of stressing, with equal persistence, that we are responsible for all our actions, that there is no excuse for our immoral acts; that we cannot appeal to any kind of necessity as a way of justifying such actions in brief, that we always act as free subjects.
Link guilt
The superego imposes guilt upon the subject-this guilt must be dealt with by continuing to strive on desirehence the imposition of rules and regulations produces the exact opposite of its desire effect-only the ethical act of following through on the superegos impositions can arrest this colonialist desire gone out of control Alenka Zupancic, intellectual monster guru and researcher at the Institute of Philosophy in the Slovene Academy of Sciences at Ljubljana, Ethics of the Real: Kant, Lacan, 2000, pg. xi SRM
The further consequence of this key breakthrough is that the ethical act proper should be distinguished from the Ego-Ideal (the Law of the public Good) as well as from the superego, its obscene supplement. For Lacan, the superego is not the moral agency, since the guilt it imposes on the subject is precisely the unmistakable sign that the subject has compromised his duty to follow his desire. To take a perhaps unexpected example from politics: the splitting into Ego-Ideal and superego can be discerned in the fundamental paradox of ex-Yugoslav selfmanagement Socialism: all the time, the official ideology exhorted people actively to participate in the process of self-management, to master the conditions of their life outside the alienated Party and state structures; the official media deplored peoples indifference, escape into privacy, and so on however, it was precisely such an event, a true self-managed articulation and organization of peoples interests, which the regime feared most. A whole series of unwritten markers thus delivered between the lines the injunction that the official exhortation was not to be taken too literally; that a cynical attitude towards the official ideology was what the regime actually wanted the greatest catastrophe for the regime would be if its own ideology were to be taken too seriously, and realized by its subjects. And on a different level, does not the same go for the classic imperialist-colonialist exhortation which urged the colonized to become like their civilized oppressors? Was this injunction not undermined from within by a wise acknowledgement that the colonized people are mysteriously and irreducibly other that, however hard they try, they will never succeed? This unwritten superego injunction which undermines the official ideological stance makes it clear in what sense, in contrast to the notorious right to difference to maintain ones specific cultural identity one should, rather, assert the right to Sameness as the fundamental right of the oppressed: like ex-Yugoslav self management, the colonialist oppressor also fears above all the realization of its own official ideological request.
Link ecology
Ecological discourse is not neutral the notion of fact in ecology is laughable as all rhetoric is inherently skewed Biro, 2006 (Andrew Biro holds a Canada Research Chair in Political Ecology, and is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Acadia University, in Wolfville, NS, Canada; Human Needs and the Crisis of the Subject, MUSE) SRM
In some ways, we might argue that there are clear connections between these two developments: that a mediatized society (not to mention one that is increasingly urbanized, with a highly specialized and increasingly globalized division of labour, and so on) creates a sort of bubble-like existence, serving to alienate people both from the natural world and from the ecological consequences of their actions.3 No doubt there is some truth to this. At the same time, however, this mediated world has an ontological logic of its own. Rather than simply being seen as the obstacle to the realization of a less alienated form of existence, the sheer density of presence of new communications media in our society have served to highlight the problematic of mediation in its broadest sense, including language and even conceptual thought itself, as a structural feature of any form of recognizably human experience. What is constantly rediscovered in our mediated society that we deal in representations of reality rather than directly with reality itself is a feature (which still might be termed one of "alienation from nature") that always existed. And from this vantage point, contemporary sociopolitical challenges, whatever specific content they might take, because they are necessarily mediated, need to be constructed as sociopolitical challenges, rather than simply posited as such. There can be no value-neutral description of facts: the postmodern condition, as Jean-Francois Lyotard famously diagnosed it, is one of "incredulity toward metanarratives."4 Thus, "ecological crisis," on this line of reasoning, can only exist through its discursive construction, and cannot simply be read off the facts of nature themselves.
LinkEcological Catastrophe
Their visions of the natural apocalypse are nothing more then a lesson in the sublime-always incomplete and structured by jouissance-we constantly desire external destruction to invoke the destruction intrinsic within our desire Alenka Zupancic, intellectual monster guru and researcher at the Institute of Philosophy in the Slovene Academy of Sciences at Ljubljana, Ethics of the Real: Kant, Lacan, 2000, pg. 155-157 SRM
At this point another question demands an answer. The sublime is often said to lie at the edge of the ridiculous. Quite frequently we encounter formulations like It is sublime or ridiculous, depending on how we look at it+~ As we have already seen with the episode from the film The Meaning of Life, it is enough to he a disinterested observer of someone overwhelmed by the feeling of the sublime for this very feeling to he transformed immediately into a farce. How, then, do we account for this convergence of opposites? Simply enough: what is sublime from the point of view of the superego is ridiculous from the point of view of the ego. The feeling of the sublime, however, consists not only in its indication of the proximity of a Thing (that is threatening to the subject); it is at the same time a way to avoid actually encountering it. That is to say, it is the very inflation of the superego that plays the crucial role in the strategy of avoiding the Thing [das Ding], the death drive in its pure state, even though this inflation itself can lead straight to death. (Kant, as we saw, claims that the subject in this state is ready to give up property, health and even life.) In his own way, Kant also comes to the point where moral agency emerges in the element of the sublime. He does so while he is dealing with the problem of universality. The discussion in question concerns the fact that even though the sublime and the beautiful as aesthetic categories can never attain the universality of law, there is nevertheless a kind of universality that can be attributed to them, a universality other than the universality of law. It is upon this paradoxical universality that the notion of Urteilskraft (the power of judgement) is based. When we are judging an aesthetic phenomenon, we do not, according to Kant, postulate everyones agreement rather, we require agreement from everyone. 30 It is the judgement itself (for instance, this image is beautiful) that constitutes its own universality. Better yet, in our judgement we constitute the 'universe within which this judgement is universally valid. Yet by thus requiring agreement from everyone, we are forced to rely on something else, and this something else is, in the case of the sublime, precisely moral agency: [A judgement about the sublime] has its foundation in human nature: in something that, along with common sense, we may require and demand of everyone, namely, the predisposition to the feeling for (practical) ideas, i.e. to moral feeling.3 In this passage we can already detect the superegoic face of the moral law in the predisposition ... to moral feeling. As we shall see, this face of the moral law gradually attains a great deal more importance. At this point, we may wonder: what exactly is the relation between what the subject sees in front of her (a hurricane, for instance) and what she then discovers in herself (a still greater force)? What is it that makes the first evoke the second? Our thesis is that in the Kantian perspective, a confrontation with something that is terrifying in itself (to take Kants own example: hurricanes with all the devastation they leave behind) strikes the subject as a kind of bodying forth of the cruel, unbridled and menacing superego the real or reverse side of the moral law (in us), of the superego as the place of jouissance. The destructive power of natural phenomena is already familiar to the subject, so the devastating force above me easily evokes a devastating force within me. The feeling of the sublime develops through this metonymy. It is clear that the devastating force within me cannot really refer to the moral law in the strict sense, but it corresponds very well to the agency of the superego, that is, to the law equipped with the gaze and voice which can make even the boldest sinner tremble. We are now in a position to spell out the major difference between the beautiful and the sublime. Kant defines the beautiful in terms of purposiveness without purpose. Beauty always has the form of purposiveness, yet it never actually has a purpose a concept to which it corresponds. This is why craft objects can never be judged truly beautiful their function or usefulness gets in the way. Things of beauty, On the other hand, have no purpose outside themselves, yet they are structured as if they had one. Beauty is possible only if it is fortuitous, if it serves no antecedently given purpose. This is why, for Kant, the examples par excellence of the heautiful are natural formations. What makes a natural formation (a crystal form, for example) beautiful, however, is the fact that it gives us the impression of a knowledge on the part of Nature. We get the feeling that Nature knows what it is doing, that there is some significance or sense in what it is doing, even though we are well aware that this is not the case. The simplest definition of beauty is thus that it is a sense-ful fonn which draws its fascination from the fact that we know this form is entirely coincidental, contingent, or unintentional. The sublime, on the other hand, is explicitly a senseless form; it is more of an incarnation of chaos (the eruption of a volcano, a turbulent ocean, a stormy night. . .). It appears as pure excess, as the eruption of an inexplicable jouissance, as pure waste. In other words, if the beautiful is characterized as the place where Nature knows, the sublime is the place where Nature enjoys. It is precisely this jouissance of the Other, a jonissance that does not serve any (real or apparent) purpose, that is so fascinating about the sublime.
LinkEcological Catastrophe
Watching ecological catastrophe is the process of distancing ourselves from ourselves this produce the sublime feeling where we are safe in the distance wrapped in the blanket of ideology we come to accept our own powerlessness relative to the given situation this window of fantasy impairs our ability to tear at the very fabric of social reality necessary for violent constructions of nature to exist in the first place Alenka Zupancic, intellectual monster guru and researcher at the Institute of Philosophy in the Slovene Academy of Sciences at Ljubljana, Ethics of the Real: Kant, Lacan, 2000, pg. 158 SRM
Nature, we ourselves have to be somewhere safe, out of immediate danger. Watching a hurricane from a distance is sublime. If a hurricane destroys the house where we are sheltering, however, we will not see this as sublime; we will feel nothing hut horror and fear. In order for the feeling of the sublime to emerge, our (sensible) powerlessness and mortality have to he staged down there somewhere, in such a way that we can observe them quietly. The necessary condition of the feeling of the sublime is that we watch the hurricane through the window; this is nothing other than what Lacan calls the window of fantasy: thunderclouds piling tip in the sky and moving about accompanied by lightning and thundcrclaps, volcanoes with all their destructive power, hurricanes with all the devastation they leave behind . . compared to the might of any of these, our ability to resist becomes an insignificant trifle. Yet the sight of them becomes all the more attractive the more fearful it is, provided we are in a safe place. Thus it is as if, through the window, I were observing myself being reduced to an insignificant trifle, a toy in the hands of forces enormously more powerful than myself. Here we can discern Kants fundamental fantasy the pathos of apathy, which is the reverse side of the autonomous and active subject, and in which the subject is entirely passive, an inert matter given over to the enjoyment of the Law. This constellation where we are at one and the same time inside and outside, where we are both an insignificant trifle, a grain of sand toyed with by enormous forces, and the observer of this spectacle is closely connected to the change that the feeling of respect undergoes in Kantian theory. This is because, as we have already seen, what in late Kant provokes the feeling of respect is the fact that the subject watches herself being subjected to the law that she watches herself being humiliated and terrified by it.
LinkEnvironmental Ethics
The ethical act is a necessary evil since it transgresses every notion of the good-this idea of the good is inevitably portrayed in an ideological manner that expresses the true ethical dilemmas of our time that repress the considerations of an ethics of the Real such a position sets the tone for a non-political end Alenka Zupancic, intellectual monster guru and researcher at the Institute of Philosophy in the Slovene Academy of Sciences at Ljubljana, Ethics of the Real: Kant, Lacan, 2000, pg. 95-96 SRM
This is why we propose to maintain the concept of the act developed by Kant, and to link it to the thematic of overstepping of boundaries, of transgression, to the question of evil. It is a matter of acknowledging the fact that any (ethical) act, precisely in so far as it is an act, is necessarily evil. We must specify, however, what is meant here by evil. This is the evil that belongs to the very structure of the act, to the fact that the latter always implies a transgression, a change in what is. It is not a matter of some empirical evil, it is the very logic of the act which is denounced as radically evil in every ideology. The fundamental ideological gesture consists in providing an image for this structural evil. The gap opened by an act (i.e. the unfamiliar, out-of-place effect of an act) is immediately linked in this ideological gesture to an image. As a rule this is an image of suffering, which is then displayed to the public alongside this question: Is this what you want? And this question already implies the answer: It would be impossible, inhuman, for you to want this! Here we have to insist on theoretical rigour, and separate this (usually fascinating) image exhibited by ideology from the real source of uneasiness from the evil which is not an undesired, secondary effect of the good but belongs, on the contrary, to its essence. We could even say that the ethical ideology struggles against evil because this ideology is hostile to the good, to the logic of the act as such. We could go even further here: the current saturation of the social field by ethical dilemmas (bioethics, environmental ethics, cultural ethics, medical ethics . . .) is strictly correlative to the repression of ethics, that is, to an incapacity to think ethics in its dimension of the Real, an incapacity to conceive of ethics other than simply as a set of restrictions intended to prevent greater evil. This constellation is related to yet another aspect of modern society: to the depression which seems to have became the social illness of our time and to set the tone of the resigned attitude of the (post)modern man of the end of history. In relation to this, it would be interesting to reaffirm Lacans thesis according to which depression isnt a state of the soul, it is simply a moral failing, as Dante, and even Spinoza, said: a sin, which means a moral weakness.15 It is against this moral weakness or cowardice [lachete morale] that we must affirm the ethical dimension proper.
[continues, no text omitted] Anthony Giddens (1991; 1994; 1998) has also been a key intellectual interlocutor of this post-political consensus. He argues that globalised modernity has brought in its wake all manner of uncertainties as a result of humans proliferating interventions in nature and in social life, resulting in an explosive growth of all sorts of environmental and life-related issues. The ensuing life politics is about the challenges that face collective humanity (Giddens, 1994: 10). What is required now, in a context of greater uncertainty but also with enhanced individual autonomy to make choices, is to generate active trust achieved through a dialogic democracy. Such dialogic mode is exactly the consensual politics Jacques defines as post-democratic (Rancire, 1995; 2005b). As Chantal Mouffe (2005: 45) maintains, [a]ctive trust implies a reflexive engagement of lay people with expert systems instead of their reliance on expert authority. Bruno Latour, in his politics of nature, of course equally calls for such new truly democratic cosmo-political constitution through which both human and non-human actants enter in a new public sphere, where matters of fact are turned into matters of concern, articulated and brought together through heterogeneous and flat networks of related and relationally constituted human/non-human assemblages (Latour, 2004; 2005). Nothing is fixed, sure, or given, everything continuously in doubt, negotiated, brought into the political field. Political space is not a contingent space where that what has no name is brought into the discussion, is give a name, and is counted, but rather things and people are hailed to become part of the consensual dialogue, of the dialogic community. The question remains of course of who does what sort of hailing. Thinking about true and false, doubt and certainty, right or wrong, friend or foe, would no longer be possible, the advent of a truly cosmopolitan order in a truly cosmopolitical (Stengers, 2003) constitution looms around the corner as the genuine possibility in the new modernity. In the domain of the environment, climate change, biodiversity preservation, sustainable socio-technical environmental entanglements and the like exemplify the emergence of this new post-political configuration: they are an unexpected and unplanned by-product of modernization, they affect the way we do things, and, in turn, a new politics emerges to deal with them. This liberal cosmpolitical inclusive politics suggested by Beck and his fellow-travellers as a radical answer to unbridled and unchecked neo-liberal capitalist globalisation, of course, is predicated upon three assumptions: a) The social and ecological problems caused by modernity/capitalism are external side-effects; they are not an inherent and integral part of the de-territorialised and re-territorialised relations of global neo-liberal capitalism. That is why we speak of the excluded or the poor, and not about social power relations that produce wealth and poverty, or empowerment and disempowerment. A strictly populist politics emerges here; one that elevates the interest of the people, nature, or the environment to the level of the universal rather than aspiring to universalise the claims of particular natures, environments, or social groups or classes. b) These side-effects are posited as global, universal, and threatening: they are a total threat, of apocalyptic nightmarish proportions. The enemy or the target of concern is thereby of course continuously externalised. The enemy is always vague, ambiguous, and ultimately vacant, empty and unnamed (CO2, gene pools, desertification, etc). They can be managed through a consensual dialogical politics. Demands become depoliticised or rather radical politics is not about demands but about things.
In the mean time, other natures keep wrecking havoc around the world. The Tsunami disaster comes readily to mind, as do the endless forest fires that blazed through Spain in the summer of 2005 during the countrys driest summer since records started, killing dozens of people and scorching the land; HIV continues its genocidal march through Sub-Saharan Africa, summer heat waves killed thousands of people prematurely in 2004 in France. In 2006, Europeans watched anxiously the nomadic wanderings of the avian flue virus and waits, almost
stoically, for the moment it will pass more easily from birds to humans. While all this is going on, South Koreas leading bio-tech scientist, Hwang Woo Suk proudly presented, in August 2005, the Seoul National University Puppy (SNUPPY) to the global press as the first cloned dog (a Labrador) while a few months later, in December 2005, this science hero was forced to withdraw a paper on human stem cells from Science after accusations of intellectual fraud (later confirmed, prompting his resignation and wounding South-Koreas great biotech dream). In the UK, male life expectancy between the best and worst areas is now more than 11 years and the gap is widening with life expectancy actually falling (for the first time since the second world war) in some areasi. Tuberculosis is endemic again in East London, obesity is rapidly becoming the most seriously lethal socio-ecological condition in our fat cities (Marvin and Medd, 2006), and, as the ultimate cynical gesture, nuclear energy
is again celebrated and iconized by many elites, among whom Tony Blair, as the worlds saviour, the ultimate response to the climatic calamities promised by continuing carbon accumulation in our atmosphere while satisfying our insatiable taste for energy. This great variety of examples all testify to the blurring of boundaries between the human and the artificial, the technological and the natural, the non-human and the cyborg-human; they certainly also suggest that there are all manner of natures out there. While some of the above examples promise sustainable forms of development, others seem to stray further away from what might be labelled as sustainable. At first glance, Frankenstein meat, cyborg waters and stem cell research are exemplary cases of possibly sustainable ways of dealing with apparently important socio-environmental problems while solving significant social problems (animal ethics and food supply on the one hand, dwindling freshwater resources or unsustainable body metabolisms on the other). Sustainable processes are sought for around the world and solutions for our precarious environmental condition are feverishly developed. Sustainability, so it seems, is in the making, even for vegetarians. Meanwhile, as some of the other examples attest, socio-environmental processes keep on wrecking havoc in many places around the world. Responsible scientists, environmentalists of a variety of ideological stripes and colours, together with a growing number of world leaders and politicians, keep on spreading apocalyptic and dystopian messages about the clear and present danger of pending environmental catastrophes that will be unleashed if we refrain from immediate and determined action. Particularly the threat of global warming is framed in apocalyptic terms if the atmospheric accumulation of CO2 (which is of course the classic side effect of the accumulation of capital in the troposphere) continues unheeded. Table 1 collects a sample of some of the most graphic recent doomsday media headlines on the theme. The world as we know it will come to a premature end (or be seriously mangled) unless we urgently reverse, stop, or at least slow down global warming and return the climate to its status quo ante. Political and regulatory technologies (such as the Kyoto Protocol) and CO2 reducing techno-machinery (like hybrid cars) are developed that would, so the hope goes, stop the threatening evolution and return the earths temperature to its benevolent earlier condition. From this perspective, sustainability is predicated upon a return, if we can, to a perceived global climatologic equilibrium situation that would permit a sustainable continuation of the present worlds way of life.
Link omission
Failure to account for the lack dooms their politics to failure and replicates violence STAVRAKAKIS VISITING FELLOW IN GOV'T, UNIV. OF ESSEX '99, Yannis, Lacan and the Political, pg. 102-103 SRM
It could be argued that the roots of both demonisation and utopian thinking can be traced back to the shift from a cyclical to a unilinear representation of history (Cohn, 1993a:227). 6 However, we will start our reading of Cohns work by going back to Roman civilisation. As Cohn claims, a profound demonising tendency is discernible in Ancient Rome: within the imperium, the Romans accused the Christians of cannibalism and the Jews were accused by Greeks of ritual murder and cannibalism. Yet in the ancient Roman world, although Judaism was regarded as a bizarre religion, it was nevertheless a religio licita, a religion that was officially recognised. Things were different with the newly formed Christian sect. In fact the Christian Eucharist could easily be interpreted as cannibalistic (Cohn, 1993b:8). In almost all their ways Christians ignored or even negated the fundamental convictions by which the pagan Graeco-Roman world lived. It is not at all surprising then that to the Romans they looked like a bunch of conspirators plotting to destroy society. Towards the end of the second century, according to Tertullian, it was taken as a given that the Christians are the cause of every public catastrophe, every disaster that hits the populace. If the Tiber floods or the Nile fails to, if there is a drought or an earthquake, a famine or a plague, the cry goes up at once: Throw the Christians to the Lions!. (Tertullian in Cohn, 1993b:14) This defamation of Christians that led to their exclusion from the boundaries of humanity and to their relentless persecution is a pattern that was repeated many times in later centuries, when both the persecutors and the persecuted were Christians (Cohn, 1993b:15). Bogomiles, Waldensians, the Fraticelli movement and the Catharsall the groups appearing in Umberto Ecos fascinating books, especially in The Name of the Rosewere later on persecuted within a similar discursive context. The same happened with the demonisation of Christians, the fantasy that led to the great witch-hunt. Again, the conditions of possibility for this demonisation can be accurately defined. First, some kind of misfortune or catastrophe had to occur, and second, there had to be someone who could be singled out as the cause of this misfortune (Cohn, 1993b:226). In Cohns view then, social dislocation and unrest, on the one hand, and millenarian exaltation, on the other, do overlap. When segments of the poor population were mesmerised by a prophet, their understandable desire to improve their living conditions became transfused with fantasies of a future community reborn into innocence through a final, apocalyptic massacre. The evil onesvariously identified with the Jews, the clergy or the richwere to be exterminated; after which the Saintsi.e. the poor in questionwould set up their kingdom, a realm without suffering or sin. (Cohn, 1993c:14-15) It was at times of acute dislocation and disorientation that this demonising tendency was more present. When people were faced with a situation totally alien to their experience of normality, when they were faced with unfamiliar hazards dislocating their constructions of realitywhen they encountered the realthe collective flight into the world of demonology could occur more easily (ibid.: 87). The same applies to the emergence of millenarian fantasies. The vast majority of revolutionary millenarian outbreaks takes place against a background of disaster. Cohn refers to the plagues that generated the first Crusade and the flagellant movements of 1260, 1348-9, 1391 and 1400, the famines that preluded the first and second Crusade, the pseudo-Baldwin movement and other millenarian outbreaks and, of course, the Black Death that precipitated a whole wave of millenarian excitement (ibid.: 282). 7
Link - threats
Threats are constructed the modern state creates fantasies to cover up the impossibility of security EDKINS SR. LECTURER, INT'L POLITICS @ UNIV. OF WALES-ABERYSTWYTH '3 Jenny, Security, cosmology, Copenhagen, Contemporary Politics, v. 9, no. 4, ebsco SRM
When a security issue arises, what is happening is not that external threats are being recognized or new dangers assessed. It is something quite different that is taking place. The inherent insecurity in the object concernedgenerally the stateis being concealed. When something is impossible, one way of concealing that impossibility is to shift the blame somewhere else. During the Cold War, state insecurity in the west was blamed on the Soviet Union. The west would have been secure but for the Soviet threat. The impossibility of security appears contingent. If only we can get rid of the current impediment, we can achieve a secure world. Another example, of course, is the rush to the discourse of security after 11 September. The events of that day made very clear the impossibility of providing complete security for people and state institutions on the US mainland. But rather than admit that impossibility as structural, and work within it, the state moved immediately to declare war. The war is again supposed to produce what has always been and will remain an impossible fiction: security
Link - historicism
Historicization is an attempt to cure universalist tendencies which obliterate essentialism and collapse into sexualized violence Charles Shepherdson, Luce fellow at Claremont graduate school, Supposing the Subject, 1994, p. 165-166 SRM
Having distinguished between the historicist construction of subjectivity and the psychoanalytic constitution of the subject, by reference to the terms role and imperative, we must consider one final point. We have suggested that current accounts of the social construction of subjectivity replace sexual difference with the category of gendered subjectivity, thereby confusing two different conceptions of the subject, while remaining bound to a specifically historicist conception of history, one that avoids the question of the body, and particularly the question of sexed embodiment, treating subjectivity as a historical invention. According to the historicist view, however, any reference to sexual difference will be taken as an appeal to naturalism. Any reference to terms such as imperative, or the law, or embodiment will be regarded as a return to the ahistorical category of sex a natural category which must then be resisted or denounced. But the psychoanalytic emphasis on sexual difference is not a return to nature, nor is it a refusal of history, as the distinction between the instinct and the drive should already indicate. To speak of embodiment and sexual difference as something other than a social construction is immediately to invite, in todays context, the misunderstanding that the body is being construed as a biological fact, and that psychoanalysis amounts to a return to that essentialism of which it has so often been accused. But it is precisely this opposition between biology and history, nature and culture, essentialism and historicism, that psychoanalysis rejects. It should be recognized that phenomenology, too, begins by rejecting precisely this conceptual framework.6 In this respect, the appeal to historicism, as a cure for the universalist tendencies of the tradition, remains bound to a conceptual network that psychoanalysis does not support. When commentators debate whether psychoanalysis is genuinely historical or just another essentialism, one has a clear indication that the most basic theoretical challenge of psychoanalysis has been obliterated. Our final point is therefore clear: if the contemporary discussions of sexual difference still tend to be split between two concepts, sex and gender (the biological argument and the argument for social construction), we may say that current discussions are strictly preFreudian. This is the great enigma, but also the theoretical interest, of psychoanalysis: what Freud calls sexuality is neither sex nor gender. As we shall see, one consequence is that the body, from the point of view of psychoanalysis, is neither a natural fact nor a cultural construction. One can see why French psychoanalytical feminism has had such a difficult and conflicted reception in the United States, where it is acclaimed as an argument on behalf of the symbolic or historical character of gender, and simultaneously denounced as another form of biological essentialism. Both views amount to a confusion whereby the question of sexuality is either collapsed into the historicist argument or rejected for its purportedly biological determinism. In both cases, and whether it is affirmed or repudiated, the psychoanalytical dimension of this work is avoided, and the entire question of sexuality is displaced into a familiar paradigm, governed by the terms sex and gender, which are themselves inscribed in an opposition betweennature and culture inherited from the nineteenth century. It is this entire configuration that psychoanalysis contests.
Impact - violence
This is not an empty theoretical gesture toward ontological violence. The logic of reproductive futurism literally compels us to constantly identify new threats to the eternal reproduction of the ordered polity. REAL VIOLENCE is visited upon these queers who must be eliminated lest they endanger the Child and the future for which this celebrity stands. Lee Edelman. No Future: Queer Theory and Death Drive. 2004 pp. 115-7 SRM
On October 12, 1998the evening of the death of Matthew Shepard, a twenty-one-year-old gay man then enrolled at the University of Wyoming who was lured from a bar by two straight men and taken in the dark to a deserted spot where he was savagely beaten, pistol-whipped, and then tied to a wooden fence and abandoned to the brutal cold of the night (from which he would not be rescued until some eighteen hours later, when he was discovered, already comatose, by a bicyclist who thought the limp, bloody body lashed to a post was a scarecrow)on that evening of Matthew Shepard's death a hospital spokesman, "voice choked with emotion," made the following statement to the national press: "Matthew's mother said to me, 'Please tell everybody who's listening to go home and give your kids a hug and don't let a day go by without telling them you love them.'" These words of a grieving mother, widely reported on the news, produced a mimetic outpouring of grief from people across the country, just as they had from the spokesman whose own voice choked as he pronounced them. But these words, which even on the occasion of a gay man's murder defined the proper mourners as those who had children to go home to and hug, specified the mourning it encouraged as mourning for a threatened familial futuritya threat that might, for many, take the form of Matthew Shepard's death, but a threat that must also, for others, take the opposite form: of Shepard's life.5 Thus, even as mourners gathered to pray at the bier of a mother's slain child, others arrived at his funeral to condemn a "lifestyle" that made Matthew Shepard, for them, a dangerous bird of prey. An article printed in the New York Times speculated that the symbolic significance, for the killers, of leaving his body strung up on a fence might be traced to "the Old West practice of nailing a dead coyote to a ranch fence as a warning to future intruders."6 The bicyclist who mistook him for a scarecrow, then, would not have been far from the mark; for his killers, by posing Shepard's body this way, could be understood to be crowing about the lengths to which they would go to scare away other birds of his feather: birds that may seem to be more or less tame flighty, to be sure, and prone to a narcissistic preening of their plumage; amusing enough when confined to the space of a popular film like The Birdcage (1996) or when, outside the movies, caged in the ghettos that make them available for ethnographic display or the closets that enact a pervasive desire to make them all disappear but birds that the cognoscenti perceive as never harmless at all.7 For whatever apparent difference in species may dupe the untrained eye, inveterate bird-watchers always discern the tell-tale mark that brands each one a chicken-hawk first and last. In an atmosphere all atwitter with the cries that echo between those who merely watch and those who hunt such birds, what matter who killed Cock Robin? The logic of sinthomosexuality justifies that violent fate in advance by insisting that what such a cock had been robbing was always, in some sense, a cradle. And that cradle must endlessly rock, we've been told, even if the rhythm it rocks to beats out, with every blow of the beating delivered to Matthew Shepard's skull, a counterpoint to the melody's sacred hymn to the meaning of life. That meaning, continuously affirmed as it is both in and as cultural narrative, nonetheless never can rest secure and, in consequence, never can rest. The compulsive need for its repetition, for the drumbeat by which it pounds into our heads (and not always, though not infrequently, by pounding in a Matthew Shepard's) that the cradle bears always the meaning of futurity and the futurity of meaning, testifies to something exceeding the meaning it means thereby to assure: to a death drive that carries, on full-fledged wings, into the inner sanctum of meaning, into the reproductive mandate inherent in the logic of futurism itself, the burden of the radically negative force that sinthomosexuality names.
Impact - fascism
Ceding politics to the name of the future justifies the worst forms of fascist control Lee Edelman. No Future: Queer Theory and Death Drive. 2004 pp. 148-152 SRM
Cathy, Eppie, Tiny Tim, the constandy multiplying children of Eve with the hopes that get put in their outstretched hands and the dreams that get read in their always wide eyes: dare we see, in the end that's forbidden to be one, this endless line of childrena genetic line, a narrative line, stretched out to the crack of doomas itself the nightmare of history from which we're helpless to awake? For these "innocent" children, who blind us to futurism's implication in the blindness of the drive, reproduce a collective fantasyone that touches, in refusing the negativity it opposes to the nature these children affirm, the depths of that negativity in the violence that informs the refusal itself. Doesn't Benjamin, in his "Conversations with Brecht," seem to recognize something similar when he recalls his response to Brecht's telling him that life, despite Hitler, goes on, there will always be children. . . . But then, still as an argument for the inclusion of the "Children's Songs" in the Poems jrom Exile, something else asserted itself, which Brecht expressed as he stood before me in the grass, with a passion he seldom shows. "In the fight against them nothing must be omitted. Their intentions are not trivial. They are planning for the next thirty thousand years. Monstrous. Monstrous crimes. They stop at nothing. They hit out at everything. Every cell flinches under their blows. That is why not one of us can be forgotten. They deform the baby in the mother's womb. We must under no circumstances leave out the children." While he spoke I felt a force acting on me that was equal to that of fascism; I mean a power that has its source no less deep in history than fascism.48 Its sources in history no less deep because not different from those of fascism, this "force" that acts on Benjamin, this unidentified "power," might well be seen as what I've called "the fascism of the baby's face," which subjects us to its sovereign authority as the figure of politics itself (of politics, that is, in its radical form as reproductive futurism), whatever the face a particular politics gives that baby to wearAryan or multicultural, that of the thirty-thousand-year Reich or of an ever expanding horizon of democratic inclusivity. Which is not to say that the difference of those political programs makes no difference, but rather that both, as political programs, are programmed to reify difference and thus to secure, in the form of the future, the order of the same. And this, as we saw in North by Northwest, occasions the emergence of history through the dialectic of desire, producing a remporalization that generates, like the "structure of allegory" according to de Man, narrative as the constant movement of and toward intelligibility.44
Impact scapegoating
Futurism ensures violence and scapegoating are inevitable Lee Edelman. No Future: Queer Theory and Death Drive. 2004 pp. 153-154 SRM
In what he called a "monotonous low hum," whose drone might recall the "monotonous response" of Silas Marner's loom, in the "strange artificial" sound that brings Hitchcock's film to its "useless" "finish," we hear, if not the siren song, then the birdcall of futurity. The engine revs; the machine purrs on; the family drives through danger; and something implacable, life-negating, inimical to "our" children, works to reduce the empire of meaning to the static of an electric buzz. We, the sinthomosexuals who figure the death drive of the social, must accept that we will be vilified as the agents of that threat. But "they," the defenders of futurity, buzzed by negating our negativity, are themselves, however unknowingly, its secret agents too, reacting, in the name of the future, in the name of humanity, in the name of life, to the threat of the death drive we figure with the violent rush of a jouissance, which only returns them, ironically, to the death drive in spite of themselves. Futurism makes sinthomosexuals, not humans, of us all. We shouldn't dismiss as coincidence, then, that the catchphrase best expressing our current captivity to futurism's logic and serving as a bridge between left and right in the American political scene, is one that sinthomosexuals, like Hitchcock's birds, could endorse as well: "Leave no child behind." In repeating it, though, sinthomosexuals bring out what's "impossible, inhuman" within it: a haunting, destructive excess bound up with its pious sentimentality, an overdetermination that betrays the place of the kernel of irony that futurism tries to allegorize as narrative, as history. The political regime of futurism, unable to escape what it abjects, negates it as the negation of meaning, of the Child, and of the future the Child portends. Attempting to evade the insistent Real always surging in its blood, it lovingly rocks the cradle of life to the drumbeat of the endless blows it aims at sinthomosexuals. Somewhere, someone else will be savagely beaten and left to diesacrificed to a future whose beat goes on, like a pulse or a heartand another corpse will be left like a mangled scarecrow to frighten the birds who are gathering now, who are beating their wings, and who, like the drive, keep on coming.
traditionalist (those stuck in the past who refuse to accept the inevitability of the new global neo-liberal order) or the fundamentalist. The only way to deal with them is by sheer violence, by suspending their humanitarian and democratic rights. The post-political relies on either including all in a consensual pluralist order and on excluding radically those who posit themselves outside the consensus. For them, as Agamben (20005) argues, the law is suspended; they are literally put outside the law and treated as extremists and terrorists.
health care benefits to the adults that some children become, Law lent his voice to the mortifying mantra of a communal jouissance that depends on the fetishization of the Child at the expense of whatever such fetishization must inescapably queer. Some seven years later,
after Law had resigned for his failure to protect Catholic children from sexual assault by pedophile priests, Pope John Paul II returned to this theme, condemning staterecognized same-sex unions as parodic versions of authentic families, "based on individual egoism" rather than genuine love. Justifying that condemnation, he observed,
"Such a 'caricature' has no future and cannot give future to any society."3 2 Queers must respond to the violent force of such constant provocations not only by insisting on our equal right to the social order's prerogatives, not only by avowing our capacity to promote that order's coherence and integrity, but also by saying explicitly what Law and the Pope and the whole of the Symbolic order for which they stand hear anyway in each and every expression or manifestation of queer sexuality: Fuck the social order and the Child in whose name we're collectively terrorized; fuck Annie; fuck the waif from Les Mis; fuck the poor, innocent kid on the Net; fuck Laws both with capital Is and with small; fuck the whole network of Symbolic relations and the future that serves as its prop. We might like to believe that with patience, with work, with generous contributions to lobbying groups or generous participation in activist groups or generous doses of legal sawy and elecroral sophistication, the future will hold a place for usa place at the political table that won't have to come at the cost of the places we seek in the bed or the bar or the baths. But there are no queers in that future as there can be no future for queers, chosen as they are to bear the bad tidings that there can be no future at all: that the future, as Annie's hymn to the hope of "Tomorrow" understands, is "always) A day/ Away." Like the lovers on Keats's Grecian urn, forever "near the goal" of a union they'll never in fact achieve, we're held in thrall bya future continually deferred by time itself, constrained to pursue the dream of a day when today and tomorrow are one. That future is nothing but kid stuff, reborn each day to screen out the grave that gapes from within the lifeless letter, luring us into, ensnaring us in, reality's gossamer web. Those queered by the social order that projects its death drive onto them are no doubt positioned to recognize the structuring fantasy that so defines them. But they're positioned as well to recognize the irreducibilty of that fantasy and the cost of construing it as contingent to the logic of social organization as such. Acceding to this figural identification with the undoing of identity, which is also to say with the disarticulation of social and Symbolic form, might well be described, in John Brenkman's words, as "politically self-destructive."3 3 But politics (as the social elaboration of reality) and the self (as mere prosthesis maintaining the future for the figural Child), are what queerness, again as figure, necessarily destroysnecessarily insofar as this "self" is the agent of reproductive futurism and this "politics" the means of its promulgation as the order of social reality. But perhaps, as Lacan's engagement with Antigone in Seminar 7 suggests, political self-destruction inheres in the only act that counts as
one: the act of resisting enslavement to the future in the name of having a life. If the fate of the queer is to figure the fate that cuts the thread of futurity, if the jouissance, the corrosive enjoyment, intrinsic to queer (non)identity annihilates the fetishistic jouissance that works to consolidate identity by allowing reality to coagulate around its ritual reproduction, then the only oppositional status to which our queerness could ever lead would depend on our taking seriously the
place of the death drive we're called on to figure and insisting, against the cult of the Child and the political order it enforces, that we, as Guy Hocquenghem made clear, are "not the signifier of what might become a new form of 'social organisation,' " that we do not intend a new politics, a better society, a brighter tomorrow, since all of these fantasies reproduce the past, through displacement, in the form of the future. We choose, instead, not to choose the Child, as disciplinary image of the Imaginary past or as site of a projective identification with an always impossible future. The queerness we propose, in Hocquenghem's words, "is unaware of the passing of generations as stages on the road to better living. It knows nothing about 'sacrifice now for the sake of future generations' . . . [it] knows that civilisation alone is mortal."3 4 Even more: it delights in that mortality as the negation of everything that would define itself, moralistically, as pro-life. It is we who must bury the subject in the tomb-like hollow of the signifier, pronouncing at last the words for which we're condemned should we speak them or not: that we are the advocates of abortion; that the Child as futurity's emblem must die; that the future is mere repetition and just as lethal as the past. Our queerness has nothing to offer a Symbolic that lives by denying that nothingness except an insistence on the haunting excess that this nothingness entails, an insistence on the negativity that pierces the fantasy screen of futurity, shattering narrative temporality with irony's always explosive force. And so what is queerest about us, queerest within us, and queerest despite us is this willingness to insist intransitivelyto insist that the future stop here.
Alternative: Shame
The concept of anxiety splits itself into two emotions: guilt, as per the anxiety of the affirmative, and shame. We can coerce the judge to sign the ballot because we feel guilty of what will happen were the affirmative not to be passed. Our alternative asks you to instead reflect upon the 1AC and feel shame. Shame cannot be avoided nor can it cannot be balanced. When one feels shame there is no option but to abandon that which the shame is directed to. Much like the government in Washington, as another faceless senator in congress, the affirmative produces guilt to achieve an end vis--vis a violent aggression towards reality Joan Copjec in 2006 (Department of English, Comparative Literature, and Media Study at the University of Buffalo, where she is the Director of the Center for the Study of Psychoanalysis and Culture: Lacan: the silent partners; May 68, the Emotional Month) SRM
It is only against this background that Lacans call to shame makes any sense. His is a recommendation not for a renewed prudishness but, on the contrary, for relinquishing our satisfaction with a shame jouissance in favor of the real thing. The real thing jouissance can never be dutified, controlled, regimented; rather, it catches us by surprise, like a sudden, uncontrollable blush on the check. It is not possible here, in this brief conclusion, to do justice to the concept of shame, as I am doing elsewhere. I do not want, however, to end quite so abruptly as Lacan ends his seminar, so I will say a few more words only. Alain Badiou has identified a dominant trait of the last century as its passion for the Real, its frenzied desire to remove every barrier that frustrates our contact with the Real. If this has a familiar ring, it is because a similar diagnosis was proffered by Nietzsche, who complained that our age was one in which we sought to see through everything. Nietzsche further characterized this passion as a lack of reverence or discretion, a tactless desire to touch, lick, and finger everything. The passion for the Real treats every surface as an exterior to be penetrated, a battier to be transgressed, or a veil to be removed. The violence of this passion insists in each penetration, transgression, and removal, which is only exacerbated by the fact that each arrives on the other side, only to find that the Real has fled behind another barrier. It is hard not to recognize in this logic subtending the University Discourse as Lacan presents it in Seminar XVII. Nor is it difficult to see, in this contest, that the antidote of shame which Lacan proposes also follows Nietzsches leads, in addition to Freuds. Shame is, as Freud put it, a mental dam against the aggressive instinct or the destructive passion for the Real. Unlike guilt, shame does not seek to penetrate surfaces or tear away veils; rather, it seeks comfort in them, hides itself in them as in a safe haven. Our relationships to the surface change in shame, as compared to guilt; we become fascinated with its maze-like intricacies, its richness and profundity. This is where Lacans hontology, his suturing of ontology and shame, comes in, as if in answer to Levinas. Shame is not a failed flight from being, but a flight into being, where being the being of surfaces, of social existence is viewed as that which protects us from the ravages of anxiety, which risk drowning us in its borderless enigma. Unlike the flight or transformation of guilt, however, shame does not sacrifice jouissances opacity, which is finally what keeps it real. True jouissance never reveals itself to us, it remains ever veiled. But instead of inhibiting us, this opacity now gives us that distance from ourselves and our world that allows us creatively to alter both; it gives us, in other words, a privacy, an interiority unbreachable even by ourselves.
Alternative do nothing
The alternative is to do nothing, rather than simply rejecting the affirmative, we need to align ourselves with queer negativity rather than take a stance for the sake of promoting a set of social values, we must accept the value of our position for the sake of the position. Lee Edelman. No Future: Queer Theory and Death Drive. 2004 pp. 4-6
Rather than rejecting, with liberal discourse, this ascription of negativity to the queer, we might, as I argue, do better to consider accepting and even embracing it. Not in the hope of forging thereby some more perfect social ordersuch a hope, after all, would only reproduce the constraining mandate of futurism, just as any such order would equally occasion the negativity of the queerbut rather to refuse the insistence of hope itself as affirmation, which is always affirmation of an order whose refusal will register as unthinkable, irresponsible, inhumane. And the trump card of affirmation? Always the question: If not this, what? Always the demand to translate the insistence, the pulsive force, of negativity into some determinate stance or "position" whose determination would thus negate it: always the imperative to immure it in some stable and positive form. When I argue, then, that we might do well to attempt what is surely impossibleto withdraw our allegiance, however compulsory, from a reality based on the Ponzi scheme of reproductive futurismI do not intend to propose some "good" that will thereby be assured. To the contrary, I mean to insist that nothing, and certainly not what we call the "good," can ever have any assurance at all in the order of the Symbolic. Abjuring fidelity to a futurism that's always purchased at our expense, though bound, as Symbolic subjects consigned to figure the Symbolic's undoing, to the necessary contradiction of trying to turn its intelligibility against itself, we might rather, figuratively, cast our vote for "none of the above," for the primacy of a constant no in response to the law of the Symbolic, which would echo that law's foundational act, its self constituting negation. The structuring optimism of politics to which the order of meaning commits us, installing as it does the perpetual hope of reaching meaning through signification, is always, I would argue, a negation of this primal, constitutive, and negative act. And the various positivities produced in its wake by the logic of political hope depend on the mathematical illusion that negated negations might somehow escape, and not redouble, such negativity. My polemic thus stakes its fortunes on a truly hopeless wager: that taking the Symbolic's negativity to the very letter of the law, that attending to the persistence of something internal to reason that reason refuses, that turning the force of queerness against all subjects, however queer, can afford an access to the puissance that at once defines and negates us. Or better: can expose the constancy, the inescapability, of such access to jouissance in the social order itself, even if that order can access its constant access to jouissance only in the process of abjecting that constancy of access onto the queer. In contrast to what Theodor Adorno describes as the "grimness with which a man clings to himself, as to the immediately sure and substantial," the queerness of which I speak would deliberately sever us from ourselves, from the assurance, that is, of knowing ourselves and hence of knowing our "good."4 Such queerness proposes, in place of the good, something I want to call "better," though it promises, in more than one sense of the phrase, absolutely nothing. I connect this something better with Lacan's characterization of what he calls "truth," where truth does not assure happiness, or even, as Lacan makes clear, the good.5 Instead, it names only the insistent particularity of the subject, impossible fully to articulate and "tending] toward the real."6 Lacan, therefore, can write of this truth: The quality that best characterizes it is that of being the true Wunsch, which was at the origin of an aberrant or atypical behavior. We encounter this Wunsch with its particular, irreducible character as a modification that presupposes no other form of normalization than that of an experience of pleasure or of pain, but of a final experience from whence it springs and is subsequently preserved in the depths of the subject in anirreducible form. The Wunsch does not have the character of a universal law but, on the contrary, of the most particular of lawseven if it is universal that this particularity is to be found in every human being.7 Truth, like queerness, irreducibly linked to the "aberrant or atypical," to what chafes against "normalization," finds its value not in a good susceptible to generalization, but only in the stubborn particularity that voids every notion of a general good. The embrace of queer negativity, then, can have no justification if justification requires it to reinforce some positive social value; its value, instead, resides in its challenge to value as defined by the social, and thus in its radical challenge to the very value of the social itself.
[continues, no text omitted] Those who deny the realities of a dangerous climate change are blinded radicals that put themselves outside the legitimate social (symbolic) order. The same fundamentalist label is of course also put on those who argue that dealing with climate change requires a fundamental reorganisation of the hegemonic neo-liberal-capitalist order. The consensual times we are currently living in have thus eliminated a genuine political space of disagreement. However, consensus does not equal peace or absence of fundamental conflict (Rancire, 2005a: 8). Under a post-political condition, [e]verything is politicised, can be discussed, but only in a non-committal way and as a non-conflict. Absolute and irreversible choices are kept away; politics becomes something one can do without making decisions that divide and separate. When pluralism becomes an end in itself, real politics is pushed to other arenas (Diken and Laustsen, 2004: 7), in the present case to street rebellion and protest, and terrorist tactics (cfr animal lib movement in the UK). Difficulties and problems, such as environmental concerns that are generally staged and accepted as problematic need to be dealt with through compromise, managerial and technical arrangement, and the production of consensus. Consensus means that whatever your personal commitments, interests and values may be, you perceive the same things, you give them the same name. But there is no contest on what appears, on what is given in a situation and as a situation (Rancire, 2003; 4). The key feature of consensus is the annulment of dissensus .. the end of politics (Rancire, 2001; 32). The most utopian alternative to capitalism left to our disposal is to develop post-political alternatives to creating a more just and sustainable society, since it would not make any economic sense not to do so. Of course, this post-political world eludes choice and freedom (other than those tolerated by the consensus). And in the absence of real politicization of particulars, the only position of real dissent is that of either the traditionalist (those stuck in the past who refuse to accept the inevitability of the new global neo-liberal order) or the fundamentalist. The only way to deal with them is by sheer violence, by suspending their humanitarian and democratic rights. The post-political relies on either including all in a consensual pluralist order and on excluding radically those who posit themselves outside the consensus. For them, as Agamben (20005) argues, the law is suspended; they are literally put outside the law and treated as extremists and terrorists. The environment and debates over the environment and nature are not only perfect expressions of such a post-political order, but in fact, the mobilisation of environmental issues is one of the key arenas through which this post-political consensus becomes constructed, when politics proper is progressively replaced by expert social administration (iek, 2005: 117). The fact that Bush does not want to play ball on the climate change theme is indeed seen by both the political elites in Europe and by the environmentalists as a serious threat to the post-political consensus. That is why both political elites and opposition groups label him as a radical conservative. Bill Clinton, of course, embodied the post-political consensus in a much more sophisticated and articulated manner, not to speak of his unfortunate successor, Al Gore, who recently resurfaced as a newborn climate change warrior (The Independent, 22 May 2006). The post-political environmental consensus, therefore, is one that is radically reactionary, one that forestalls the articulation of divergent, conflicting, and alternative trajectories of future socio-environmental possibilities and of human-human and human-nature articulations and assemblages. It holds on to a harmonious view of nature that can be recaptured while re-producing if not solidifying a liberal-capitalist order for which there seems to be no alternative. Much of the sustainability argument has evacuated the politics of the possible, the radical contestation of alternative future socio-environmental possibilities and socio-natural arrangements, and silences the radical antagonisms and conflicts that are constitutive of our socio-natural orders by externalising conflict. In climate change, for example, the conflict is posed as one of society versus CO2. In fact, the sustainable future desired by sustainablity pundits has no name. While alternative futures in the past were named and counted (for example, communism, socialism, anarchism, libertarianism, liberalism), the desired sustainable environmental future has no name and no process, only a state or condition. This is as exemplified by the following apocalyptic warning in which the celebrated quote from Marxs Communist Manifesto and its invocation of the the spectre of communism that is haunting the world (once the celebrated name of hope for liberation) is replaced by the spectre of Armageddon: A specter is haunting the entire world: but it is not that of communism. .. Climate change - no more, no less than natures payback for what we are doing to our precious planet - is day by day now revealing itself. Not only in a welter of devastating scientific data and analysis but in the repeated extreme weather conditions to which we are all, directly or indirectly, regular observers, and, increasingly, victims (Levene, 2005).
Climate Change is of course not a politics, let only a political programme or socio-environmental project; it is pure negation, the negativity of the political; one we can all concur with, around which a consensus can be built, but which eludes conflict, evacuates the very political moment. By doing so, it does not translate Marxs dictum for the contemporary period, but turns it into its radical travesty.
AT Robinson
Recognition of the constitutive lack spurs a radical democracy beyond the pitfalls of postmodernism and utopianism your arguments about the conservatism of Lacanian politics are wrong STAVRAKAKIS VISITING FELLOW IN GOV'T, UNIV. OF ESSEX '99, Yannis, Lacan and the Political, pg. 119-121 SRM
Similarly, the radicality and political importance of the Lacanian critique depends on its ability to keep its distance from fantasmatic politics, from politics in the traditional sense; which is not the same as saying that psychoanalysis is apolitical: in fact, it becomes political precisely by being critical of traditional politics, exactly because, as argued in the previous chapter, the political is located beyond the utopian or quasi-utopian sedimentations of political reality. One final point before concluding our argumentation in this chapter. There is a question which seems to remains open. It is the following: if we resist the reoccupation put forward by Homer and others does that mean that we accept the supposed political impotence of psychoanalytic political theory? Assuming that psychoanalytically inspired political theory is based on the recognition of the political as an encounter with the real (although he doesnt formulate it in exactly these terms), Rustin argues that it seems likely that a politics constructed largely on this principle will generate paranoid-schizoid states of mind as its normal psychic condition. If we prioritise the negative what kind of progressive political or social project can be built if the positivethat is concepts, theories, norms and consistent techniquesis to be refused as innately inauthentic? (Rustin, 1995:241-3). Political impotence seems to be the logical outcome. Homers argument seems finally vindicated. Yet this conclusion is accurate only if we identify progressive political action with traditional fantasmatic utopian politics. This is, however, a reductionist move par excellence. This idea, and Homers whole argumentative construction, is based on the foreclosure of another political possibility which is clearly situated beyond any reoccupations and is consistent with psychoanalytic theory instead of deforming it. This is the possibility of a post-fantasmatic or less-fantasmatic politics. The best example is democratic politics. It is true that democracy is an essentially contested term and that the struggle for a final decontestation of its meaning constitutes a fundamental characteristic of modern societies. It is also true that in the past these attempts at decontestation were articulated within an essentialist, foundationalist framework, that is to say, democracy was conceived as a natural law, a natural right, or even as something guaranteed by divine providence. Today, in our postmodern terrain, these foundations are no longer valid. Yet democracy did not share the fate of its various foundations. This is because democracy cannot be reduced to any of these fantasmatic positive contents. As John Keane, among others, has put it, democracy is not based on or guided by a certain positive, foundational, normative principle (Keane, 1995:167). On the contrary, democracy is based on the recognition of the fact that no such principle can claim to be truly universal, on the fact that no symbolic social construct can ever claim to master the impossible real. Democracy entails the acceptance of antagonism, in other words, the recognition of the fact that the social will always be structured around a real impossibility which cannot be sutured. Instead of attempting this impossible suture of the social entailed in every utopian or quasi-utopian discourse, democracy envisages a social field which is unified by the recognition of its own constitutive impossibility. As Chaitin points out, democracy provides a concrete example of what we would call a post-fantasmatic or less-fantasmatic politics: most significant [in terms of Lacans importance for literary, ethical and cultural theory and political praxis], perhaps, is the new light his analysis of the interaction of the universal and the particular has begun to shed on the question of maintaining a democratic social order which can safeguard universal human rights while protecting the difference of competing political and ethnic groups. (Chaitin, 1996:11) Thus, a whole political project, the project of radical democracy, is based not on the futile fantasmatic suture of the lack in the Other but on the recognition of its own irreducibility. 20 And this is a political possibility totally neglected by Homer. 21 Today, it seems that we have the chance to overcome or limit the consequences of traditional fantasmatic politics. In that sense, the collapse of utopian politics should not be the source of resentment, disappointment or even nostalgia for a supposedly lost harmony. On the contrary, it is a development that enhances the prospects for radicalising modern democracy. But this cannot be done for as long as the ethics of harmony are still hegemonic. What we need is a new ethical framework. This cannot be an ethics of harmony aspiring to realise a fantasy construction; it can only be an ethics that is articulated around the recognition of the ultimate impossibility of such an idea and follows this recognition up to its politicaland, in fact, democratic consequences. In the next chapter I will try to show that Lacanian theory is absolutely crucial in such an undertaking. Not only because some Lacanian societies tend to be more democratic than other psychoanalytic institutions (the cole Freudienne de Paris was, in certain of its aspects, an extremely democratic society) nor because psychoanalysis is stigmatised or banned in almost all anti-democratic regimes. Beyond these superfluous approaches, Lacanian ethics can offer a non-fantasmatic grounding for radical democracy.
AT: Robinson
Robinson is an epic fail the politics that bases itself upon a solid foundation is one that inevitably loses its revolutionary and radical status instead we must constantly engage in interruption NEWMAN PF POLISCI @ UNIV. OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA '4 Saul, Interrogating the Master: Lacan and Radical Politics Psychoanalysis, Culture, & Society, 2004, 9, (298314) SRM
So it would appear that the event that can intervene in the transitional spaces between discourses is always potentially dangerous, and that this would only seem to confirm Lacans original warning about radical politics that it will inevitably end up invoking a new master. However, one could suggest here that rather than succumbing to the temptation to pass to the act, immediately seeking to reinscribe the political event within the discourse of the master as a way of stabilizing the revolution, perhaps instead one could remain faithful to its constitutive openness and its radically contingent possibilities. This would imply a radical political ethics of suspension and indeterminacy that refuses to be grounded in a concrete ontological order. Indeed, we might refer here to an anarchic politico-ethical position, one that distinguishes itself from classical anarchism by rejecting the ontological ground, essentialist identities and utopian structures that it is founded upon. Schurmann (1987, p 10) characterizes an-anarchic action as action without a why? that is, action that is not grounded in absolute rationalist principles. In a similar way, we might characterize Lacanian ananarchic action as action without a master in other words, action that no longer invokes the master, instead remaining open to the indeterminacy of the political situation.
Robinsons characterization of Lacan is based on a flawed assumption of conservatism and imbedded in misreading Thomassen 2004 (Lesse, British Journal of Politics & International Relations, Volume 6 Page 558 - November 2004, Lacanian
Political Theory: A Reply to Robinson) SRM According to Robinson, Lacanian political theory is inherently conservative. Such assertions are only possible if we believe in the possibility of opposing exclusion to a situation of non-exclusion, which is exactly what post-structuralists have challenged. Moreover, the post-structuralist (and Lacanian) view does not necessarily preclude the removal of any concrete exclusion. On the contrary, the acknowledgement of the constitutivity of exclusion shifts the focus from exclusion versus non-exclusion to the question of which exclusions we can and want to live with. Nothing in the post-structuralist (and Lacanian) view thus precludes a progressive politics. There are similar problems with Robinson's characterization of iek's 'nihilistic variety of Lacanianism':, according to Robinson, 'reflects an underlying conservatism apparent in even the most radical-seeming versions of Lacanianism' (p. 268). Again, the constitutivity of exclusion and violence does not necessarily mean that 'the new world cannot be better than the old' (p. 268). The alternative to guaranteed progress is not necessarily conservatism or nihilism, and the impossibility of a perfect society does not exclude attempts at improvementwith the proviso that what counts, as improvement cannot be established according to some transcendental yardstick.
AT: Ontology
This is a new link ontology reacts to the lack in a different way it still does not acknowledge it, instead it engages in endless study this is the wrong course, we must come to terms with the constitutive lack Edkins, Professor of International Politics, University of Wales, 1999, Jenny, Poststructuralism & International Relations pg. 141 SRM
To enact a repoliticization requires an acceptance of the impossibility of ontological fullness. 87 This ontological paradox appears in theoretical physics, where two complementary properties of a subatomic particle are mutually exclusiveit is only possible to know one or the other to the necessary degree of accuracy. This notion of complementarity is reflected in the way the subject is forced to choose and accept a certain fundamental loss or impossibility in a Lacanian act. 88 As iek puts it, My reflective awareness of all the circumstances which condition my act can never lead me to act: it cannot explain the fact of the act itself. By endlessly weighing the reasons for and against, I never manage to actat a certain point I must decide to 'strike out blindly.' 89 The act has to take place without justification, without foundation in knowledge, without guarantee or legitimacy. It cannot be grounded in ontology; it is this crack that gives rise to ethics: There is ethicsthat is to say, an injunction which cannot be grounded in ontologyin so far as there is a crack in the ontological edifice of the universe: at its most elementary, ethics designates fidelity to this crack.
AT: Radicality
The affirmatives discourse of redemption and dissent does not create a radical break with the ontology of the state, but rather functions as business as usual. Much like the student led protests of may 68, the affirmative, composed of two unruly high school students, has tried to escape the state only to play right into its hands. Be aware, because the affirmatives call for a new master may very well be answered Joan Copjec in 2006 (Department of English, Comparative Literature, and Media Study at the University of Buffalo, where she is the Director of the Center for the Study of Psychoanalysis and Culture: Lacan: the silent partners; May 68, the Emotional Month) SRM
Emotions ran high in Paris in May '68, particularly among students in the universities. Sensing the peril of ignoring the groundswell of emotion, faculty responded immediately, but variously. Some conservative old fossils attempted to quash the rebellion, while more liberal-minded, avuncular types 'took to the barricades', casting their lot with the student radicals. Both camps permitted themselves a little more passion than usual, precisely because 'usual' seemed to have evaporated in the hurly-burly of dissent. In the upheaval, everything seemed to have been turned upside down and inside out, including reason, which - suddenly agitated - became clouded with roily sediment. Less cool-headed and clear, reason became crimson-faced. The response of Jacques Lacan did not fit, however, into either camp. Aligning himself neither against nor on the side of the student radicals, he simply accused them of not being radical enough, of behaving like unwitting flunkies of the university against which they imagined themselves to be in revolt. Detecting in their cries a plea for a new Master, he warned that they were on the verge of getting one. The monitory finger he held in their faces assumed the form of a year-long seminar, Seminaire XVII: L'envers de la psychanalyse [The Underside (or Reverse) of PsychoanalysisJ.1 In this seminar Lacan maintained that although the students wanted to believe they were abandoning the university for the streets, the university was not so easily abandoned; it had already begun to take them over - as well as the streets. Which is why even certain elements of their revolt reflected academic business as usual.
Once the new symbolic order is in place, the contingencies that gave rise to it are obliteratedthey disappearand a new version of social reality is established. The role of ideology here is to conceal the illegitimate, unfounded nature of what we call social reality, what iek calls social fantasy. Ideology supports the principle of legitimacy upon which the new state is founded and conceals its impossibility. It does this in part by defining politics as a subsystem of the social order and obliterating the politicalits unfounded founding moment: 'Politics' as 'subsystem,' as a separate sphere of society, represents within society its own forgotten foundation, its genesis in a violent abyssal actit represents, within the social space, what must fall out if this space is to constitute itself. 40 Or as iek expresses it more provocatively, Politics as subsystem is a metaphor of the political subject, of the Political as subject. 41 In other words, it is politics, viewed as one of the subsystems of all the systems that go to make up the social order, that enables us to escape or forget the lack of the political and the absence of the possibility of any political action. We are confined by this process to activity within the boundaries set by existing social and international orders, and our criticism is restricted to the technical arrangements that make up the politics within which we exist as subjects of the state. The political subject and the international subject, too, are safely caged and their teeth pulled.
This is where the notion of ideology as social fantasy, which I discuss in detail in Chapter 6, comes in.
AT Permutation
The perm is net worse the inclusion of their method into our alternative prevents radical criticism MCGOWAN PF CRIT. THEORY @ U. VERMONT '4, Todd, The End of Dissatisfaction?: Jacques Lacan and the Emerging Society of Enjoyment, pg. 5-6 SRM
AT: Permutation
Absolute rejection is key to prevent the kernel of the problem from proliferating STAVRAKAKIS VISITING FELLOW IN GOV'T, UNIV. OF ESSEX '99, Yannis, Lacan and the Political, pg. 14-15 SRM
Simply put, the Lacanian conception of subjectivity is called to remedy the shortcomings or supplementthis term is not used here in its strictest Derridean sense, although a deconstructionist flavour is not entirely absentpoststructuralism, social theory, cultural criticism, theory of ideology, etc. But isnt such a move a reductionist move par excellence? Although our own approach, as it will be developed in the following chapters, is clearly located beyond a logic of supplementation, it would be unfair to consider the Lacanian subject as the point of an unacceptable reduction. This would be the case only if the Lacanian notion of subjectivity was a simple reproduction of an essentialist subject, of a subject articulated around a single positive essence which is transparent to itself and fully representable in theoretical discourse. But this essentialist subject, the subject of the humanist philosophical tradition, the Cartesian subject, or even the Marxist reductionist subject whose essence is identified with her or his class interests, is exactly what has to be questioned and has been questioned; it cannot be part of the solution because it forms part of the initial problem. The Lacanian subject is clearly located beyond such an essentialist, simplistic notion of subjectivity. Not only is Lacan obviously the most distant from those who operate with essentialist categories or simplistic notions of psychic cause or origin (Barrett, 1991:107), but the Lacanian subject is radically opposing and transcending all these tendencies without, however, throwing away the baby together with the bath water, that is to say, the locus of the subject together with its essentialist formulations.
[continues, no text omitted] Sixth, no proper names are assigned to a post-political populist politics (Badiou, 2005a). Post-political populism is associated with a politics of not naming in the sense of giving a definite or proper name to its domain or field of action. Only vague concepts like climate change policy, biodiversity policy or a vacuous sustainable policy replaces the proper names of politics. These proper names, according to Rancire (1995) (see also Badiou (2005b)) are what constitutes a genuine democracy, that is a space where the unnamed, the uncounted, and, consequently, un-symbolised become named and counted. Consider, for example, how class struggle in the 19th and 20th century was exactly about naming the proletariat, its counting, symbolisation and consequent entry into the techno-machinery of the state. Seventh, populism becomes expressed in particular demands (get rid of immigrants, reduce CO2) that remain particular and foreclose universalisation as a positive socio-environmental project. In other words, the environmental problem does not posit a positive and named socio-environmental situation, an embodied vision, a desire that awaits its realisation, a fiction to be realised. In that sense, populist tactics do not solve problems, they are moved around. Consider, for example, the current argument over how the nuclear option is again portrayed as a possible sustainable energy future and as an alternative to deal both with CO2 emissions and peakoil. It hardly arouses the passions for what sort of better society might arise from this. In sum, post-political post-democracy rests, in its environmental guise, on the following foundations. First, the social and ecological problems caused by modernity/capitalism are external side-effects; they are not an inherent and integral part of the relations of gobal neo-liberal capitalism. Second, a strictly populist politics emerges here; one that elevates the interest of an imaginary the People, Nature, or the environment to the level of the universal rather than aspiring to universalise the claims of particular socio-natures, environments, or social groups or classes. Third, these side-effects are constituted as global, universal, and threatening: they are a total threat. Fourth, the enemy or the target of concern is thereby of course continuously externalised and disembodied. The enemy is always vague, ambiguous, unnamed and uncounted, and ultimately empty. Fifth, the target of concern can be managed through a consensual dialogical politics and, consequently, demands become depoliticised.
This speaking for Others serves to ultimately reinscribe a hierarchy of civilizations triggering racism and imperialism, which ultimately overwhelms their attempts at improving the condition of the Other
Linda Alcoff, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University, The Problem of Speaking for Others, Cultural Critique, No. 20, Winter 1991-92, p. 5-32, UK: Fisher SRM 4. Here is my central point. In order to evaluate attempts to speak for others in particular instances, we need to analyze the probable or actual effects of the words on the discursive and material context. One cannot simply look at the location of the speaker or her credentials to speak, nor can one look merely at the propositional content of the speech; one must also look at where the speech goes and what it does there. Looking merely at the content of a set of claims without looking at effects of the claims cannot produce an adequate or even meaningful evaluation of them, partly because the notion of a content separate from effects does not hold up. The content of the claim, or its meaning, emerges in interaction between words and hearers within a very specific historical situation. Given this, we have to pay careful attention to the discursive arrangement in order to understand the full meaning of any given discursive event. For example, in a situation where a well-meaning First World person is speaking for a person or group in the Third World, the very discursive arrangement may reinscribe the "hierarchy of civilizations" view where the United States lands squarely at the top. This effect occurs because the speaker is positioned as authoritative and empowered, as the knowledgeable subject, while the group in the Third World is reduced, merely because of the structure of the speaking practice, to an object and victim that must be championed from afar, thus disempowered. Though the speaker may be trying to materially improve the situation of some lesser-privileged group, the effects of her discourse is to reinforce racist, imperialist conceptions and perhaps also to further silence the lesser-privileged group's own ability to speak and be heard. 14 This shows us why it is so important to reconceptualize discourse, as Foucault recommends, as an event, which includes speaker, words, hearers, location, language, and so on.
Framework theory
Aff must defend against all arguments that link and all competing advocacies. In the context of our kritik, they have to defend their ontological assumptions and our micropolitical alternative Resolved is to reduce through mental analysis Random House Unabridged Dictionary 2006
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolved)
Resolve: 1.To come to a definite or earnest decision about; determine (to do something): I have resolved that I shall live to the full. 2.to separate into constituent or
elementary parts; break up; cause or disintegrate (usually fol. by into). 3.to reduce or convert by, or as by, breaking up or disintegration (usually fol. by to or into). 4.to convert or transform by any process (often used reflexively).
The colon focuses the readers attention on what to follow, and as a result, you should use it to introduce an idea that somehow completes the introductory idea. Thats Peck 96. The resolution doesn't have a tone associated with it so it's not a normative statement first and foremost, instead it's a question and it's your job to find an ethical position relative to it Best limits there are an infinite amount of incentive counterplans which the affirmative can never predict, but there are only a finite amount of philosophical alternatives. Not abusive - fairness is a product of time spent under the assumption that debate is a certain way, as long as there is evidence on both sides, the debate becomes fair because people will adapt to the new assumptions of debate. Their framework is based on a false distinction there is no difference between political assumptions and ontological assumptions. Their framework arbitrarily excludes arguments they dont want to debate. Our framework is more real world we dont have a magic wand to pass legislation because fiat is illusory. The way that you determine your knowledge is more important then asking what we should do. Education outweighs fairness a. Its the reason we debate nobody joined debate thinking wow, those arguments are predictable, or holy shit, this activity is so fair its scary, people debate because the activity is interesting and politically useful b. Fairness is only an internal link to education more fair debate is only good because it allows for more education, if we win their education is stupid theres no reason to keep debate fair c. If we win our impact turns to their framework then it proves that participating in debate destroys the potential for political agency and produces fascism means that even if everyone quit debate in our framework, it would be better than their framework
AT: Framework
This is a major link - their framework arguments are used to justify exclusion in the name of an ideal realm of policy and discussion STAVRAKAKIS VISITING FELLOW IN GOV'T, UNIV. OF ESSEX '3, Yannis, Re-activating the Democratic Revolution: The Politics of Transformation Beyond Reoccupation and Conformism Parallax, v. 9, no. 2, ebsco SRM
Three further points are crucial here. First, the passage into a post-democratic terrain results in part, from the gradual colonization of democratic politics by the consumerist logic of advertising discourse. In a post-democratic regime, while elections continue to exist and can change governments, public electoral debate becomes a tightly controlled spectacle, managed by rival teams of professionals expert in the techniques of persuasion, and considering a small range of issues selected by those teams.25 Second, this colonization is what turns the market, at least in the form it takes in late capitalism (which is not the only possible form), from an ally to an adversary of democracy. As long as the utopian revolutionary option was still considered alive, the other two options of responding to negativity we have discussed, (the spirit of the democratic revolution and so-called free market liberalism) were more or less seen as distinct but allied in their fight against the spectre of revolutionary utopia and its excesses. As soon as this spectre collapsed the alliance was dissolved. Capitalist consumerism started colonizing democratic institutions in an unprecedented rhythm and crucially at a global scale, producing the hybrid of consumerist postdemocracy. If modern existing democracies have always involved the paradoxical articulation of individual liberty and pluralism, on the one hand, and popular sovereignty and equality on the second, as well as a continuous yet productive struggle between these two dimensions what Mouffe calls the democratic paradox26 then these recent developments threaten to re-signify democracy in a way that would make it synonymous with a post-democratic free market liberalism or liberal capitalism. Third, by adopting a quasi-utopian dynamic which domesticates rather than attempting to eliminate negativity and lack, consumerist post-democracy manages to avoid the extreme disasters caused by utopian reoccupations. Hence what Zizek calls without any irony the great achievements of liberal capitalism: probably, never in human history have so many people enjoyed such a degree of freedom and material standard of living as in todays developed Western countries.27 Indeed, even if one can argue that capitalism harms human beings, this is carried out through neglect rather than through terror. Compared to the personal will of a dictator, the structural violence of market forces appears benign.28 This picture is, of course, revealed as partial and limited, especially if one takes into account the various forms of collateral damage produced by consumerist post-democracy. As Alain Badiou has pointed out, Terror is [still] wielded against what is and should not be: the impoverished planet, the distant rebel, the non-Western and the immigrant nomad driven by radical abandonment towards affluent metropolises.29 Nevertheless, it constitutes a (partial) reality with hegemonic appeal, a horizon sustained by the hegemony of an administration of desire with seemingly unlimited resources.
AT: Framework
The affirmatives focus on mega-spheres of action and what the state can do to eliminate all harm eclipses questions of what we would do if we were simply ourselves, divorcing our own place in this violence and eliminating our ability to question the social fantasy. The impact is mental deputy politics. Kappeler 95 (Susanne, The Will to Violence: The politics of personal behavior, Pg. 10-11) SRM
Yet our insight that indeed we are not responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us into thinking that therefore we have no responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgment, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our own sphere of action. In particular, it seems to absolve us from having to try to see any relation between our own actions and those events, or to recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own personal decisions. It not only shows that we participate in what Beck calls 'organized irresponsibility', upholding the apparent lack of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally, and also individually organized separate competences. It also proves the phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major power mongers, For we tend to think that we cannot 'do' anything, say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation because we are not where the major decisions are made. Which is why many of those not yet entirely disillusioned with politics tend to engage in a form of mental deputy politics, in the style of 'what would I do if I were the general, the prime minister, the president, the foreign minister or the minister of defense?' Since we seem to regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, and since our political analyses tend to dwell there first of all, any question of what I would do if I were indeed myself tends to peter out in the comparative insignificance of having what is perceived as 'virtually no possibilities': what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own action I obviously desire the range of action of a general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN - finding expression in ever more prevalent formulations like 'I want to stop this war', 'I want military intervention', 'I want to stop this backlash', or 'I want a moral revolution. 'We are this war', however, even if we do not command the troops or participate in co-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our non-comprehension': our willed refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring innocently to drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the advantages these offer. And we 'are' the war in our 'unconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the 'fact that you have a yellow form for refugees and I don't'- our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for ourselves and one for refugees, one of our own and one for the 'others.' We share in the responsibility for this war and its violence in the way we let them grow inside us, that is, in the way we shape 'our feelings, our relationships, our values' according: to the structures and the values of war and violence.
Framework - Shame
The call for shame meets the race to the middle we interact with the states lack of shame by rejecting their faulty jouissance. Jodi Dean in 2006 (psychoanalyst, probably something in Sussex, a writer for Long Sunday, her article is titled For Shame written April 15, 2006) SRM
Joan Copjec's discussion of shame in the new collection, Lacan: The Silent Partners provides an valuable counterpoint to Taylor's remarks. I. Here is part of the article from the WSWS: Finally, Harry Taylor, seated in the balcony, was called on. He spoke slowly and soberly. You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that, he told Bush. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, youd like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my own behalf. You are Bush interrupted him, facetiously, Im not your favorite guy. Go ahead. Go on, whats your question? Taylor continued, Okay, I dont have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that Iin my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate, and Some in the audience booed. Bush intervened, benevolently, No, wait a seclet him speak. Taylor went on, in the same deliberate fashion, And I would hopeI feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself. Taylor voices his own shame and in confronting Bush with this hopes to incite a sense of shame in the President. The President refuses--or is pathologically unable to feel any shame at all.II. Copjec's chapter on shame, anxiety, and affect, "May '68, The Emotional Month,' begins by recounting Lacan's plea that his students display some shame. She writes: The final aim of psychoanalysis, it turns out, is the production of shame. In fact, the analyst should herself provoke shame, be an agent of it. Thus, Copjec traces the topic of shame in Lacan's writing and finds that Shame marks not the social link as such, but that particular link which analysis is intent on forging. Indeed, For Lacan, shame is the subject's ethical relation towards being, his own and the other's. Avoiding shame is precipitated by superego, that is, by a transformation of anxiety into guilt and the accompanying provision of a sham jouissance (with this I've far too briefly encapsulated a more intricate argument--it involves in part the unbearableness of anxiety, an interesting discussion of the university discourse, and a critique of Levinas that is beyond the discussion I want to introduce here). At any rate, Copjec writes: Lacan's call to shame What anxiety exposes as ungraspable or unclaimable jouissance is that which the guilty shamelessly grasp for in the obsequious respect they pay to a past sacralized as their future. The feverish pursuit of this future ... is the poor substitute...the guilty acceptance in the place of the real sweetness of jouissance. She concludes that should thus be understood in terms of a call to relinquish our attachment to a sham jouissance. Shame is not a failed flight from being, but a flight into being, where being--the being of surfaces, of social existence--is viewed as that which protects us from the ravages of anxiety ... Unlike the flight or transformation of guilt, however, shame does not sacrifice jouissance's opacity, which is finally what 'keeps it real' ... But instead of inhibiting us, this opacity now gives us that distance from ourselves and our world that allows us creatively to alter both; it gives us, in other words, a privacy, an interiority unreachable even by ourselves. Harry Taylor attempts to induce in Bush a sense of shame. This attempt is an attempt to establish a different kind of social link, one that is more ethical, more in keeping with Bush's rhetoric regarding freedom. It is remarkable that Taylor confronts his own shame, taking responsibility for his position as a citizen within a country whose electoral procedures led to Bush. He doesn't simply blame the President. Nor does he engage him with a question. That is, he doesn't carry on the pretense of some kind of democratic deliberation--having already articulated the very factual reasons that democracy is clearly the wrong word for the politics that goes on in the US today. Instead, Taylor rejects the faulty jouissance offered by the President--and eagerly lapped up by the crowd and the msm as is described in the WSWS article--indicating the possibility of something more than what we have, something that was promised, something gestured to rhetorically, but missing nonetheless. The crudeness, the obscene, stupid cruelties of Bushs remarks are indications of his shamelessness. He has no interiority to speak of, to speak from, or to fasten a speaking that would not grasp for the horrifying future we see unfolding before us. We should take seriously the words spoken to Senator Joe McCarthy: "have you no shame sir, have you no shame?" But, what do we do when the answer is, "No--I have none"?
FrameworkThe Analyst
Engaging in the role of the analyst can displace social fantasy and begin to challenge stable notions of truth Shoshana Felman, professor of comparative studies at Yale university, Jacques Lacan and the Adventure of Insight: Psychoanalysis in Contemporary Culture, 1987, p. 43-44
In what sense, then, does the second scene in Poes tale, while repeating the first scene, nonetheless differ from it? In the sense, precisely, that the second scene, through the repetition, allows for an understanding, for an analysis of the first. This analysis through repetition is to become, in Lacans ingenious reading, no less than an allegory of psychoanalysis. The intervention of Dupin, who restores the letter to the queen, is thus compared to the intervention of the analyst, who rids the patient of the symptom. The analysts effectiveness, however, does not spring from his intellectual strength butinsists Lacanfrom his position in the repetitive structure. By virtue of his occupying the third positionthat is, the locus of the unconscious of the subject as a place of substitution of letter for letter (of signifier for signifier)the analyst, through transference, allows at once for a repetition of the trauma and for a symbolic substitution, and thus effects the dramas denouement . It is instructive to compare Lacans study of the psychoanalytical repetition compulsion in Poes text to Marie Bonapartes study of Poes repetition compulsion through his text. Although the two analysts study the same author and focus on the same psychoanalytic concept, their approaches are strikingly different. To the extent that Bonapartes study of Poe has become a classic, a model of applied psychoanalysis, I would like, in pointing out the differences in Lacans approach, to suggest the way in which those differences at once put in question the traditional approach and offer an alternative to it. i. What does a repetition compulsion repeat? Interpretation of difference as opposed to interpretation of identity. For Marie Bonaparte, what is compulsively repeated through the variety of Poes texts is the same unconscious fantasy: Poes sadonecrophiliac desire for his dead mother. For Lacan, what is repeated in the text is not the content of a fantasy but the symbolic displacement of a signifier through the insistence of a signifying chain; repetition is not of sameness but of difference, not of independent terms or of analogous themes but of a structure of differential interrelationships, in which what returns is always other. Thus, the triangular structure repeats itself only through the difference of the characters who successively come to occupy the three positions; its structural significance is perceived only through this difference. Likewise, the significance of the letter is situated in its displacement, that is, in its repetitive movements toward a different place. And the second scene, being, for Lacan, an allegory of analysis, is important not just in that it repeats the first scene, but in the way this repetition (like the transferential repetition of a psychoanalytical experience) makes a difference: brings about a solution to the problem. Thus, whereas Bonaparte analyzes repetition as the insistence of identity, for Lacan any possible insight into the reality of the unconscious is contingent on a perception of repetition, not as a confirmation of identity, but as the insistence of the indelibility of a difference. z. An analysis of the signifier as opposed to an analysis of the signified. In the light of Lacans reading of Poes tale as itself an allegory of the psychoanalytic reading, it might be illuminating to define the difference in approach between Lacan and Bonaparte in terms of the story. If the purloined letter can be said to be a sign of the unconscious, for Bonaparte the analysts task is to uncover the letters content, which she believesas do the policeto be hidden somewhere in the real, in some secret biographical depth. For Lacan, on the other hand, the analysts task is not to read the letters hidden referential content, but to situate the superficial indication of its textual movement, to analyze the paradoxically invisible symbolic evidence of its displacement, its structural insistence, in a signifying chain. There is such a thing, writes Poe, as being too profound. Truth is not always in a well. In fact, as regards the most important knowledge, I do believe she is invariably superficial.18 Espousing Poes insight, Lacan makes the principle of symbolic evidence the guideline for an analysis not of the signified but of the signifierfor an analysis of the unconscious (the repressed) not as hidden but on the contrary as exposedin languagethrough a significant (rhetorical) displacement.
FrameworkThe Analyst
Analytic analysis of signifiers can reveal alternative textual modes of representation that can solve for unconscious violence Shoshana Felman, professor of comparative studies at Yale university, Jacques Lacan and the Adventure of Insight: Psychoanalysis in Contemporary Culture, 1987, p. 44-45
This analysis of the signifier, the model of which can be found in Freuds interpretation of dreams, is nonetheless a radical reversal of the traditional expectations involved in the common psychoanalytical approach to literature and its invariable search for hidden meanings. Indeed, not only is Lacans reading of The Purloined Letter subversive of the traditional model of psychoanalytic reading: it is, in general, a type of reading that is methodologically unprecedented in the history of literary criticism. The history of reading has accustomed us to the assumptionusually unquestionedthat reading is finding meaning, that interpretation can dwell only on the meaningful. Lacans analysis of the signifier opens up a radically new assumption, an assumption that is an insightful logical and methodological consequence of Freuds discovery: that what can be read (and perhaps what should be read) is not just meaning but the lack of meaning; that significance lies not just in consciousness but, specifically, in its disruption; that the signifier can be analyzed in its effects without its signified being known; that the lack of meaningthe discontinuity in conscious understandingcan and should be interpreted as such, without necessarily being transformed into meaning. Lets take a look, writes Lacan: We shall find illumination in what at first seems to obscure matters: the fact that the tale leaves us in virtually total ignorance of the sender, no less than of the contents, of the letter. (p. 57) The signifier is not functional. . . . We might even admit that the letter has an entirely different (if no more urgent) meaning for the Queen than the one understood by the Minister. The sequence of events would not be noticeably affected, not even if it were strictly incomprehensible to an uninformed reader. (p. 56) But that this is the very effect of the unconscious in the precise sense that we teach that the unconscious means that man is inhabited by the signifier. (p. 66) Thus, for Lacan, what is analytical par excellence is not (as is the case for Bonaparte) the readable but the unreadable and the effects of the unreadable. What calls for analysis is the insistence of the unreadable in the text.
Psychoanalysis can be a method of crafting new knowledge and challenging violent conceptions of subjectivity Shoshana Felman, professor of comparative studies at Yale university, Jacques Lacan and the Adventure of Insight: Psychoanalysis in Contemporary Culture, 1987, p. 76
Psychoanalysis is a pedagogical experience. As a process that gives access to new knowledge previously denied to consciousness, it affords what might be called a lesson in cognition (and in miscognition), an epistemological instruction. Psychoanalysis institutes in this way a unique and original mode of learning: original not only in its procedures but in the fact that it gives access to information unavailable through any other mode of learningunprecedented information, hitherto unlearnable. We learnt, writes Freud, a quantity of things which could not have been learnt except through analysis (SE 22.147). This new mode of investigation and learning has, however, a very different temporality from the conventional linearcumulative and progressive temporality of learning, as it has traditionally been conceived by pedagogical theory and practice. Proceeding not through linear progression but through breakthroughs, leaps, discontinuities, regressions, and deferred action, the analytic learning process puts in question the traditional pedagogical belief in intellectual perfectibility, the progressist view of learning as a simple one-way road from ignorance to knowledge. It is in effect the very concept of both ignorance and knowledgethe understanding of what to know and not to know may really meanthat psychoanalysis has modified, renewed. And it is precisely the originality of this renewal which is central to Lacans thought, to Lacans specific way of understanding the cultural, pedagogical and epistemological revolution implied by the discovery of the unconscious.
FrameworkThe Analyst
Analysis investigates the basis for homogenous individual identity-it is a reflexive position which challenges violent relationships between self and other Shoshana Felman, professor of comparative studies at Yale university, Jacques Lacan and the Adventure of Insight: Psychoanalysis in Contemporary Culture, 1987, p. 60-61
What Lacan thus brings to light is the fact that what Freud s inaugural stephis constitutive procedureinaugurates and later institutes is a new and unprecedented mode of reflexivityof the process through which something turns back upon itself: a new mode of reflexivity that necessarily incorporates a passage through the Other, not as a reflection of the self but as a radical difference from the self, a radical difference to which, paradoxically, the very movement of reflexivity is addressed; a reflexivity whose self-reference, whose process of turning back upon itself, is not based on symmetry but on asymmetry: asymmetry between the self departed from and the self returned to; asymmetry between the turn and the return; a reflexivity, therefore, which, passing through the Other, returns to itself without quite being able to rejoin itself; a reflexivity which is thus untotalizable, that is, irreducibly dialogic, and in which what is returned to the self from the Other is, paradoxically, the ignorance or the forgetfulness of its own message; a reflexivity, therefore, which is a new mode of cognition or information gathering whereby Ignorance itself becomes structurally informative, in an asymmetrically reflexive dialogue in which the interlocutors through languageinform each other of what they do not know. What Lacan also points out for the first time is the way in which this new Freudian mode of reflexivity differs from the traditional humanistic mode of reflexivity, from the classical psychological and philosophical epistemology of self-reflection. Self-reflection, the traditional fundamental principle of consciousness and of conscious thought, is what Lacan traces back to the mirror stage, to the symmetrical dual structure of the Imaginary. Self-reflection is always a mirror reflection, that is, the illusory functioning of symmetrical reflexivity, of reasoning by the illusory principle of symmetry between self and self as well as between self and other; a symmetry that subsumes all difference within a delusion of a unified and homogenous individual identity. But the new Freudian mode of reflexivity precisely shifts, displaces, and unsettles the very boundaries between self and other, subverting by the same token the symmetry that founds their dichotomy, their clear-cut opposition to each other. By shifting and undercutting the clear-cut polarities between subject and object, self and other, inside and outside, analyst and analysand, consciousness and the unconscious, the new Freudian reflexivity substitutes for all traditional binary, symmetrical conceptual oppositions that is, substitutes for the very foundations of Western metaphysicsa new mode of interfering heterogeneity. This new reflexive modeinstituted by Freuds way of listening to the discourse of the hysteric and which Lacan will call the inmixture of the subjects (E 4i5)divides the subjects differently, in such a way that they are neither entirely distinguished, separate from each other, nor, correlatively, entirely totalizable but, rather, interfering from within and in one another.
FrameworkThe Analyst
The analytic process can detach textual knowledge from its social production Shoshana Felman, professor of comparative studies at Yale university, Jacques Lacan and the Adventure of Insight: Psychoanalysis in Contemporary Culture, 1987, p. 81
In anaylsis, what sets in motion the psychoanalytical apprenticeship is the peculiar pedagogical structure of the analytic situation. The analysand speaks to the analyst, whom he endows with the authority of the one who possesses knowledgeknowledge of what is precisely lacking in the analysands own knowledge. The analyst, however, knows nothing of the sort. His only competence, insists Lacan, lies in what I would call textual knowledge, so as to oppose it to the referential notion which only masks it (Scilicet zi). Textual knowledgethe very stuff the literature teacher is supposed to deal inis knowledge of the functioning of language, of symbolic structures, of the signifier, knowledge at once derived fromand directed toward interpretation. But such knowledge cannot be acquired (or possessed) once and for all: each case, each text, has its own specific, singular symbolic functioning and requires a different interpretation. The analysts, says Lacan, are those who share this knowledge only at the price, on the condition of their not being able to exchange it (Scilicet 59). Analytic (textual) knowledge cannot be exchanged, it has to be usedand used in each case differently, according to the singularity of the case, according to the specificity of the text. Textual or analytic knowledge is, in other words, that peculiarly specific knowledge which, unlike any commodity, is subsumed by its use value, having no exchange value whatsoever. Analysis thus has no use for ready-made interpretations, for knowledge given in advance. Lacan insists on the insistence with which Freud recommends to us to approach each new case as if we had never learnt anything from his first interpretations (Scilicet zo). What the analyst must know, concludes Lacan, is how to ignore what he knows.
FrameworkThe Analyst
Only the analytic space can reveal the non-spoken elements of desire-such methods of speaking of the repressed can begin to fracture the ordering engendered in social fantasy Serge Leclaire, psychoanalyst and instructor at the institute du psychoanalytic Paris, A Child Is Being Killed: On Primary Narcissism and the Death Drive, 1998, pg. 58-59
I dont believe in the neutralizing illusion of the impassive mask and in this instance find no need to defend myself against what could be construed as seduction. Analytical listening implies bring ing into play the spot of silence that is the place of transference. What is given there is the space for an act of real intelligence in terms of the logic of exclusion, a passage beyond the web of representatives, a way of passing through the mirror. The analysts presence, kindness, neutrality, and silence are merely inadequate or approximate ways of marking this point of no resistance to which his own analysis must at least have brought him, with no turning back. Whether we call this, paradoxically, conscious awareness or describe it as the advent of the subject or the recognition of castration, what we can absolutely demand of an analyst is a knowledge of what speaking means, what decisive shadows words can hide, and how they can show the subject crossing their web. To have experienced it is to discover, in repeated phantasies, their forever new grains of origin. It is to set free what is locked up in our knowledge; in dealing with our analysands, to recognize without holding back what cuts to the quickin short, nothing less than to take account of the unaccountable, to perpetrate the death of the word-image and to undermine the all-powerful unconscious representative. These are necessary operations through which the (re)birth of the subject can be realized. Words are prey to the universal work of repression in which every family unit, group, or social order takes part, and they never stop reverting to muteness. Only by giving the most vigilant attention to questioning the unconscious representative, and above all by calling into question the tyrannical primary narcissistic representative, can speaking be kept alive. Here another side of the killing-the-child phantasy is revealed: by naming the child infans, the discourse of repression pounces on the fact that he does not use words, so it can make of him, unfairly, the one who does not speak. It is true that it would be convenient for princes, parents, and teachers of all sorts if each subject were only to repeat faithfully what he is told and if the child did not disturb the order of repression by speaking the truth. Be quiet, you dont know what youre saying is what the so-called analyst repeats in his own way when he orders magisterially, Speak, I know what you are saying! And yet, well before a child can put words together, he speaks and lays bare what speaking means, in an orgy of jubilation and rage, smiles and cries. The little interloper must be made to behave, to look, precisely like the picture of good behavior:5 a first killing perpetrated well-meaningly and in good conscience and whose result (the very image of a nonspeaking infans or rehearing parrot) will constantly have to be killed in order to retrieve what it represents through its fascinating image, in renewed power and engendering force.
FrameworkThe Analyst
Psychoanalysis challenges the stable notion of the subject and its interaction with death Shoshana Felman, professor of comparative studies at Yale university, Jacques Lacan and the Adventure of Insight: Psychoanalysis in Contemporary Culture, 1987, p. 139-140
What, then, is psychoanalysis if not precisely a life usage of the death instincta practical, productive use of the compulsion to repeat, through a replaying of the symbolic meaning of the death that the subject has repeatedly experienced, and through a recognition and assumption of the meaning of this death (separation, loss) as a symbolic means of the subjects coming to terms not with death but, paradoxically, with life? The game is already played, the dice are already thrown, with this one exception, that we can take them once more in our hand and throw them once again (S 11.256). This is what a practical psychoanalysis is all about. And this is what Freud tells us in his later speculative narrative, which seeks its way beyond the pleasure principle, beyond his earlier discovery of wish fulfillment, beyond his earlier wish-fulfilling way of dreaming Sophocles. The Oedipus complex, says Lacan in one of those suggestive, richly understated statements (pronounced in an unpublished seminar), the Oedipus complex isa dream of Freuds. This apparently transparent sentence is in effect a complex restatement of the way psychoanalysis is staked in the discovery that The Interpretation of Dreams narrates: a complex restatement both of Freuds discovery of the theory of wish fulfillment as the meaning of dreams and of Freuds discovery of the narrative of Oedipus as validating the discovery of the theory. It was through his self-analysis, out of his own dream about his father which revealed to Freud his own Oedipal complexity, that Freud retrieved the founding, psychoanalytic meaning of the literary Oedipus. The Oedipus complex is a dream of Freuds. Now a dream (to a psychoanalyst, at least) is not the opposite of truth; but neither is it truth that can be taken literally, at face value. A dream is what demands interpretation. And interpretation is what goes beyond the dream, even if interpretation is itself nothing more than another dream, that is, not a theory, but still another (free-associated) narrative, another metaphorical account of the discourse of the Other.
Framework language
Language has a dialectic relationship which mediates social relations of domination Slavoj Zizek, researcher at the institute for sociology at Ljubljana, The Sublime Object of Ideology, 1989, pg. 212
Ernesto Laclau was quite right to remark that it is language which is, in an unheardof sense, a Stalinist phenomenon' The Stalinist ritual, the empty flattery which holds together the community, the neutral voice, totally freed of all psychological remnants, which pronounces the confessions in the staged political processes they realize, in the purest form to date, a dimension which is probably essential to language as such. There is no need to revert to the pre-Socratic foundation if we want to penetrate the origins of language; the History of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) is more than sufficient. Where can the subject who is thus emptied find his objective correlative? The Hegelian answer is: in Wealth, in money obtained in exchange for flattery. The proposition Wealth is the Self repeats at this level the proposition The Spirit is a bone: in both cases we are dealing with a proposition which is at first sight absurd, nonsensical, with an equation the terms of which are incompatible; in both cases we encounter the same logical structure of passage: the subject, totally lost in the medium of language (language of gestures and gtimaces; language of flattery), finds his objective counterpart in the inertia of a non-language object (skull, money). The paradox, the patent nonsense of money this inert, external, passive object that we can hold in our hands and manipulate serving as the immediate embodiment of Self, is no more difficult to accept than the proposition that the skull embodies the immediate effectivity of the Spirit. The difference between the two propositions is determined solely by the difference in the starting point of the respective dialectical movement: if we start from language reduced to gestures and grimaces of the body, the objective counterpart to the subject is what at this level presents the total inertia the skullbone; but if we conceive language as the medium of the social relations of domination, its objective counterpart is of course wealth as the embodiment,
AT: Foucault
Foucault misreads Lacan your critique misunderstands psychoanalysis Slavoj Zizek, professor of philosophy at university of Ljubljana, The Indivisible Remainder: An Essay on Schelling and Related Matters, 1996, pg. 1-2
One can see here how Lacan (and, indeed, Freud) belies Foucaults insertion of psychoanalysis in the line of development that begins with the Christian practice of confession his assumption that in the course of the psychoanalytic cure the subjectanalysand discloses, probes into, brings to light, the truth about himself hidden deep in his unconscious: what the subject encounters in the
unfathomed depths of him- or herself is, on the contrary, a primordial lie. Psychoanalysis therefore emphasizes the obverse of Vaiclav Havels famous dissident motto life in truth: the natural state of the human animal is to live in a lie. Freuds uncanny encounter condenses, as it were, two closely connected Lacanian theses: the Master is unconscious, hidden in the infernal world, and he is an obscene impostor the
version of the father is always a pere-version. In short, the lesson for the Ideologiekritik is that there is no Herrschaft which is not supported by some phantasmic enjoyment.
Lacan and Foucault are describing the same phenomena-they utilize the same basis to discuss events-there is no link to your criticism Slavoj Zizek, professor of philosophy at university of Ljubljana, The Indivisible Remainder: An Essay on Schelling and Related Matters, 1996, pg. 106-107
In order to gain an apprehension of what is effectively at stake in this Hegelian reversal of the reversal, one should relate it to the key alternative of the contemporary poststructuralist debate, epitomized by the couple AithusserFoucault. The very proximity of the Althusserian notion of Ideological State Apparatuses to the Foucauldian notion of the micro-practices of power renders visible the gap that separates them: in both cases, we are dealing with a drill which compels the subject directly, bypassing the level of Meaning; the crucial difference resides in the fact that in Althusser the big Other the transferential relationship to the ideological Subject is always-already here; whereas the whole point of the Foucauldian micro-physics of power is to demonstrate that Power doesnt exist (in strict analogy to Lacans Woman doesnt exist) there is no Power, only a dispersed, plural, non-all network of local practices lacking reference to a central totalizing agency. We must be careful here not to miss the elegant paradox of Foucault: when he asserts that Power doesnt exist that power relations form a feminine, non-all, nontotalizable collection he thereby undertakes to apply to the domain of power relations the conceptual apparatus usually activated to account for the very absence of power in a network of relations to put it succinctly, he treats power as non-power (within the traditional approach, at least, the imposition of the One as the exception which totalizes the dispersed collection of relations is the very definition of Power). In short, Foucault strives to accomplish in the domain of power relations what the Lacanian notion of lalangue (language) accomplished in the domain of language: to delineate the contours of a non-all complex network of contingent and inconsistent procedures not yet caught in the logic of totalization-through castration, that is, through the exception of One the One (the Lacanian big Other) is merely a secondary spectre which should be deduced from the immanent functioning of micro-practices. This is why as a careful reading of The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucaults discourse on method, makes clear Foucault is not a structuralist: the Foucauldian episteme is not a formal differential system, a structure whose terms are defined through their negative relationship to all other terms (identity as a bundle of differences), but a collection of contingent singularities, of the rules of their emergence and disappearance in contrast to the structuralists strict conceptual realism, Foucault is a radical conceptual nominalist. In short, Foucaults problem is: how are we to conceive the rule of the emergence of singular events which is not yet a law (in the precise sense of the formal structure of differential mediations)?
The Lack isnt real desire is not lacking needs rather needs are derived FROM desire Holland 1999 (Eugene, Associate Professor of French and Comparative Literature at the Ohio State University; Deleuze and Guatarris Anti-Oedipus and introduction to Schitzoanalysis) Pg 62 SRM
Desire does not lack anything....[For] the objective being of desire is the Real in and of itself....Desire is not bolstered by needs, but rather the contrary; needs are derived from desire: they are counter-products within the real that desire produces. Lack is a countereffect of desire; it is deposited, distributed, vacuolized within [the] real[when social] organization deprives desire of its objective being. (267/345) Desire is not based on some primordial lack; nor does it derive from needs: it is instead socially organized anti-production that superimposes needs and lack on productive desire. Without the application of this corrective to psychoanalysis (and Western psychology in general), as Deleuze and Guattari put it, all resignations are justified in advance (74/88). The point of comparing various modes of social-production is to understand the conditions under which, and the different ways in which, anti-production introjects needs and/or lack into desiring-production.
Lack and desire based on the law destroy productive desire and becomes the ethics of fascism and totalitarianism Deleuze and Guattari 1972 (Gilles and Felix; Anti-Oedipus) 111-112 SRM
From the moment lack is reintroduced into desire, all of desiring-production is crushed, reduced to being no more than the production of fantasy; but the sign does not produce fantasies, it is a production of the real and a position of desire within reality. From the moment desire is welded again to the law-we needn't point out what is known since time began: that there is no desire without law-the eternal operation of eternal repression recommences, the operation that closes around the unconscious the circle of prohibition and transgression, white mass and black mass; but the sign of desire is never a sign of the law, it is a sign of strength (puissance). And who would dare use the term "law" for, the fact that desire situates and develops its strength, and that wherever It IS, it causes flows to move and substances to be intersected ("I am careful not to speak of chemical laws, the word has a moral aftertaste")? From the moment desire is made to depend on the signifier, it is put back under the yoke of a despotism whose effect is castration, there where one recognizes the stroke of the signifier itself; but the sign of desire is never signifying, it exists in the thousands of productive breaks-flows that never allow themselves to be signified within the unary stroke of castration. It is always a point-sign of many dimensions, polyvocity as the basis for a punctual semiology.
Affirmative - permutation
Affirmative generic
Lacanian theory is a faade: the lack isnt real and the Real isnt impossible the claims of Lacan make sense only in the world of the conscious during therapeutic sessions. This also makes the perm impossible because DnG operate in the framework of the living apposed to the perspective of consciousness taken by Lacan. Holland 1999 (Eugene, Associate Professor of French and Comparative Literature at the Ohio State University; Deleuze and Guatarris Anti-Oedipus and introduction to Schitzoanalysis) Pg 53 SRM
But there is a third and far more important reason for bisecting the L-schema; it involves the Symbolic and Imaginary diagonals and their impact on the nature of the relations mapped in the top half of the diagram. We mentioned above that Lacans Symbolic and Imaginary form an illegitimately exclusive disjunction (of the closed form: either this or that) because of his exclusion of the Real, because he declares the real to be impossible (27/35). But the Real can be impossible only from the perspective of consciousness. Insofar as consciousness is defined linguistically, as purely differential, and the Real is defined correlatively as pure substantiality, the Real is indeed impossible for consciousness. But it cannot be impossible for life. From the perspective of living beings, the Real is not only not impossible, it is in fact absolutely necessary. This is the fundamental difference separating Deleuze and Guattari from Lacan: he (for perfectly understandable pragmatic reasons: as a training analyst) takes the perspective of consciousness, and the talking cure; they, following Marx and Nietzsche, take the perspective of life, and the production of life. From this perspective, the original top half of the schema (the relation designated by < ---- > represents simply the desiring-production of the Real, inasmuch as the objective being of desire is the Real in and of itself (267/34). Thus Lacans admirable theory of desire appears to have two poles: one related to the object small-a as a desiring-machine, which defines desire in terms of a real productionand the other related to the great Other as a signifier, which reintroduces[the] notion of lack. (27n./34n.) It is the productiveconstitutive relation of desire to the Real that always forms the point of departure for schizoanalysis, against which to measure the superimposition of lack by social forces. (And these social forces do not always amount to the Oedipus but rather vary historically, as we shall see in the next chapter.) Several important consequences follow. For one thing, the partial-objects relations constitutive of the Real are not just inevitable, as I suggested above, but fundamental: even if they are not always accessible to consciousness and never fully or accurately attain representation, the operations of the connective synthesis of production form the basis of human existence for schizoanalysis (in much the same way that will-to-power does for Nietzsche44). The productive relations linking desire with the Real are not impossible or lacking: it is rather consciousness that is incomplete or lacking or impossible with respect to them. Desire actively produces the Real; consciousness merely re-constructs it in representations, and it is these representations that are lacking with respect to the activity of desiring-production.
138). It is therefore imperative to construct new exclusions and new frontiers, to generate the needed passions to produce social unity (Mouffe 1993, 6). Ethics is thus to emanate from and be oriented to the state (1993, 131). The Hobbesian implications of radical democracy are even clearer in an earlier piece by ErnestoLaclau and Lilian Zac (1994), where Hobbes is directly invoked and social order is presented as a primary, transcendent good which should trump specific concerns. Such Hobbesianism is in contradiction with a belief in contingency, because the state is given an extra-contingent, transcendental significance as the expression of an ontological necessity, as if it is itself above contingency. It is precisely this endorsement of arbitrary state power, which produces the switch from an attempt to overcome social exclusion to a more restricted discussion about which exclusions we can and want to live with. It should be recalled that, for Mouffe, the we of such a discussion is itself constructed by an arbitrary decision, and indeed, is defined by the exclusions it embraces. I maintain that this altered perspective is conservative because of the way an unjust and oppressive state is rendered inevitable and thus something to be accepted. Since a just, non-oppressive state is dismissed as a totalitarian fantasy, and since a stateless society would be a foreclosure of the moment of decision, this conclusion is a necessary outcome of Mouffes work. The discursive effects are clearly conservative, because they blunt the force of opposition to oppression. In particular, the unconditional intolerability of oppression or injustice for its victims is something, which cannot be articulated as a basis of transformative politics, because exclusion is taken to be an ontological necessity. Since Mouffes theory logically implies that state violence, exclusion, injustice and oppression are in and of themselves unobjectionable, it removes a major basis for transformative politics and places barriers in the way of emancipatory claims. It also means a transformed, radical-democratic world can only be marginally better than the present, because the problems of the present would either be unresolved or merely displaced in the form of new, equally violent exclusions.