In 2004, Parisian philosopher Alain Badiou and the Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek provided opening comments for their face-to-face staged dialogue. Much in agreement, the two were very complimentary and ended by referring to the other as "comrade". This lack of debate was not a problem for Zizek, whose opening discussion was entitled "Philosophy is not a Dialogue". In it, he asserts, in agreement with Badiou that "philosophy is axiomatic." He said, "You're sitting in a cafe and someone challenges you: 'Come on, let's discuss that in depth!' The philosopher will immediately say, 'I'm sorry, I must leave,' and will make sure he disappears as quickly as possible." The reasons for this are perfectly in line with Badiou's opening comments, which are what I want to present here.
Badiou took time to outline what a philosopher does. In his theoretical work, he has developed a rich axiomatic theory to explain new developments in politics as well as human understanding and thought in general. His philosophy can be described as offering a theory of how 'the new' comes to be. His remarks opening up this dialogue with Zizek give a concise explanation of what his more technical books take pains to outline in overwhelming detail.
The philosophical act is to approach a point of undecidability and, through an inspired moment, assert a new axiom that no previous theory could comprehend. He gives as an example undocumented workers in France. The country, given its neoliberal, Capitalist Zeitgeist, is at pains to decide whether these workers are a part of the State or not. That is, of course they affect the cultural and economic landscape of France, but they are a 'part of no part.' While existing with the state borders and interacting with the French, they have no legal status. The same can be said of illegal immigrants in the United States. Neoliberal, Democractic Capitalism, as it exists in the US, cannot decide whether these economic and cultural contributors are a part or no part of the State. Badiou argues, "The term 'illegal immigrant' designates the uncertainty of valence, or the non-valence of valence: it designates people who are living here, but don't really belong here, and hence people can be thrown out of the country, people who can be exposed to the non-valence of the valence of their presence here as workers." You might have conservatives arguing to throw them out, or liberals arguing to bring them in, but neither will happen because its a game played within an institution whose founding ideology can not decide.
The philosophical act does not work within the State's axioms with its problem that is undecidable. The philosophical act is to assert a new axiom - to invent a new groundwork that can make this decision. When illegal French immigrants occupied a church in 2002, they were militantly asserting a new axiom. They worked outside the State's ideology and asserted their place in France. They demanded they become a part. They made a decision the State could never come to.
This was simultaneously a philosophical act in a political 'region'. Other 'regions' where the philosophical act is ripe are in love, art, and science.
To elaborate, Badiou makes the case that philosophers essentially create problems. He said, "...the philosopher intervenes when he finds, in the present, the signs that point to the need for a new problem, a new invention." When a philosophical act emerges, a new set of problems occur. This is because the philosophical act is universal (axioms are not regional or multicultural, but rather assertions - rules that apply to all). As such, they are incomplete. They will create their own undecidable points as they are developed.
We see here something essential about Badiou's concept of philosophy: it is positive. In contrast to post-modern philosophies that condone extreme sensitivity so as not to offend otherness - that is, setting limits - Badiou is interested in tearing down limits and creating new horizons.
Badiou is an outspoken critic of 'human rights', a 20th century phenomenon. His critique holds that neoliberal arguments for human rights are self-defeating because they are essentially negative. For fear of violating 'the other', any truly emancipatory, collective project is quickly abandoned. The fact that a debate ensues over whether or not female genital mutilation is permissible in certain societies, based on arguments for cultural relativism and respect for otherness, is responsible for the lack of mobilization around its eradication. It's become a point of undecidability according to 20th century human rights declarations. So, against its motivation to protect people, it has stifled emancipatory projects in light of multi-cultural sensibilities. This example demonstrates the negativity of the "universal human rights declaration". The philosophical act will be one that radically dismisses calls for human rights with a new axiom that decides and mandates collective action. A feature of this act is that it won't debate with an incommensurate theory. Thus Zizek's talk: "Philosophy is not a Dialogue."
We've come to fear such collective, egalitarian action because of the horrors of Stalinism. Badiou, in agreement with Zizek, argues that Stalinism was a failure, but it was founded on a positive push towards egalitarian reform. In another text, The Communist Hypothesis, Badiou asks of Stalinism: "Was it a complete failure? By which I mean: does it require us to abandon the hypothesis itself, and to renounce the whole problem of emancipation? Or was it merely a relative failure? Was it a failure because of the form it took or the path it explored? Was it a failure that simply proves that it was not the right way to resolve the initial problem?" The essence of communism was admirable and should not be forgotten or dismissed due to its manifestation. The essence, Badiou would say, was the universal kernel of Communism: egalitarian reform. We should learn from Stalin's errors and create something new that retains the same drive towards justice. This is far better, he maintains, than accepting a negative (limiting) foundation riddled with contradictions and critical points of undecidability.
The philosophical act, then, is not deciding between voting Republican or Democrat, but inventing a position that Republicans and Democrats can not possibly incorporate because it's so foreign to their institutional game. This is, for instance, what the Black Panthers did until they were eradicated by the US government who considered them the number one terrorist threat. A part of no part, they created their own schools and community kitchens and cultural norms. As incommensurate with the axioms of the State (axioms that upheld universal human rights except the right for particular groups to organize and become self-empowered), the US government handled them in the only way they could: through violence. This is the danger of the philosophical act.
No comments:
Post a Comment