Changes

Psychoanalysis In the [[history]] of [[Marxism]], the reference to [[psychoanalysis]] played a precise strategic [[role]]: psychoanalysis was expected to "close the gap" by explaining why, despite the [[presence]] of "[[objective]]" [[conditions]] for the revolutionary transformation, individuals willingly persisted in their enslavement to the ruling [[ideology]] (i.e., why they desired their subordination and even found a [[perverse]] [[satisfaction]] in it). Why did the masses prefer the Fascist temptation to the [[Communist]] [[revolution]] in postthe 1930s? Why did they let themselves be lured into dull satisfaction by the Sirens of the late-marxism: The case [[capitalist]] "[[society]] of consumption" in the 1960s? In short, psychoanalysis functioned as an ambiguous (necessary but dangerous) pharmakon invoked in [[order]] to [[supplement]] the inherent insufficiency of Alain BadiouSlavoj Zizek.The South Atlantic Quarterly; Durham; Spring 1998the [[Marxist]] theoretic edifice.

In The [[author]] who has provided the history ultimate formulation of this critique of Marxism, the reference to psychoanalysis played a precise strategic role: psychoanalysis was expected to is [[Alain]] [[Badiou]]. He deserves special attention insofar as his "close the gappost-Marxism" by explaining why, despite has [[nothing]] whatsoever to do with the presence fashionable deconstructionist dismissal of the alleged Marxist "objective[[essentialism]]" conditions for ; on the revolutionary transformationcontrary, individuals willingly persisted he is unique in their enslavement to radically rejecting the ruling ideology (i.e.deconstructionist doxa as a new [[form]] of pseudo-[[thought]], why they desired their subordination and even found as a perverse satisfaction in it)contemporary version of sophism. Why did the masses prefer the Fascist temptation to the Communist revolution Since Badiou is not yet well-known in Anglo-American academia, the 1930s? Why did they let themselves basic outlines of his philosophy will be lured into dull satisfaction by the Sirens rehearsed here prior to offering a [[Lacanian]] response to his depiction of the late-capitalist "society limits of consumption" in the 1960s? In short, psychoanalysis functioned as an ambiguous (necessary but dangerous) pharmakon invoked in order to supplement the inherent insufficiency of the Marxist theoretic edifice.

TodayThe axis of Badiou's theoretic edifice is, howeveras the title of his main [[work]] indicates, the gap between [[Being]] and [[Event]].' "Being" stands for the positive [[ontological]] order accessible to [[Knowledge]], with for the apparent demise infinite multitude of Marxismthat which presents itself in our [[experience]], categorized by genus and [[species]] in [[terms]] of its properties. At bottom, as it were, lies the pure multiple, the entire not yet [[symbolically]] [[structured]] multitude of experience, that which is given; this multitude is not a multitude of Ones, since the counting has not yet taken [[place]]. What Badiou calls a "situation has changed" is any [[particular]] consistent multitude (e.g., [[French]] society, modern art): a situation is structured, and it is its [[structure]] which allows us to "count" it "as One." Here, however, the emerging post-Marxist first cracks in the ontological edifice of Being appear: in order for us to "count"radicalit " political philosophy as One," the reduplicatio proper to [[symbolization]] ([[symbolic]] inscription) of a rule insists situation must be at work, that psychoanalysis cannot provide access is, in order for a situation to be "counted as One," its structure must always already involve a metastructure which designates it as One. (The [[signified]] structure of the situation must be redoubled in [[the symbolic]] network of [[signifiers]].) When a situation is thus "counted as One," [[identified]] by its symbolic structure, we have the specific dimension "[[state]] of the situation." (Badiou plays here on the ambiguity of the term state-"state of things" versus "State" in the political[[sense]]; useful as it there is no "state of society" without a "State" in clarifying which the libidinal foundation structure of society is re-presented/redoubled.) This symbolic reduplicatio already involves the minimal [[dialectic]] of [[Void]] and [[Excess]]. The pure multiple of Being is not yet a multitude of Ones, since, as we have just seen, to have One the pure multiple must be "regressivecounted as One" phenomena (; from ethnic violence the standpoint of the state of a situation, the preceding multiple can only appear as nothing, so nothing is the "proper [[name]] of Being as Being" prior to its symbolization. "Void" has been the central [[category]] of [[ontology]] from Democritean atomism onward: "atoms" are nothing but the configurations of Void. The "apoliticalExcess" passivity correlative to this Void takes two forms. On the one hand, each state of things involves at least one excessive element which, though clearly belonging to the postmodern subjectsituation, is not "counted" by it, properly included in it (e.g., the "nonintegrated" rabble in a societal situation): this element is presented, psychoanalysis cannot account for but not re-presented. On the miraculous emergence [[other]] hand, there is an excess of an egalitarian democratic enthusiasmre-of an unconditional demand for presentation over presentation: the [[agency]] which brings [[about]] the passage from situation to its state (State in society) is always in excess relative to what Etienne Balibar called egaliberteit [[structures]]. For that reason, In contrast to the political use [[impossible]] [[liberal]] [[dream]] of psychoanalysis has always wound up in a justification State reduced to a service of failure[[civil society]], State [[power]] is necessarily "excessive, " that is, it never simply and transparently re-presents society, but [[acts]] as a violent [[intervention]] in an explanation of why things had to go wrongwhat it re-presents.

The author who has provided This, then, is the structure of Being. From [[time]] to time, however, in a wholly [[contingent]], unpredictable way, out of reach for the Knowledge of Being, an Event takes place which belongs to a wholly different dimension-that, precisely, of non-Being. Take, for example, French society in the late eighteenth century: what is accessible to Knowledge is the ultimate formulation state of society-its strata, [[economic]], political, and [[ideological]] fights, and so on; no Knowledge, however, enables us to predict or account for the properly unaccountable Event which consists in the so-called French Revolution. In this critique precise sense, an Event emerges ex nihilo. But the fact that it cannot be accounted for in the terms of psychoanalysis the situation does not mean that it is Alain Badiousimply an intervention from [[Outside]] or Beyond: it attaches itself, precisely, to the Void of every situation-to its inherent [[inconsistency]] and/or its Excess. He deserves special attention insofar as his The Event is the [[Truth]] of the situation, that which renders [[visible]]/readable what the "post-Marxism[[official]]" has nothing whatsoever state of the situation had to do with "[[repress]]," but it is also always localized, that is, the Truth is always the fashionable deconstructionist dismissal Truth of a specific situation. The French Revolution is the Event that renders visible/readable the excesses and inconsistencies, the alleged Marxist "essentialismlie,"of the ancien [[regime]]; and it is the truth of the ancien regime situation-what is localized, or attaches to it. An Event thus involves its own series of determinations: the Event itself; its denomination ("French Revolution" not being an objective-categorizing designation but part of the Event itself, the way its participants or adherents perceived and [[symbolized]] their [[activity]]); its ultimate [[Goal]] (the society of fully realized emancipation, of [[freedom]]-equality-fraternity); its "operator" (the political movements struggling for the Revolution); and, last but not least, its subject (the [[agent]] who, on behalf of the contraryTruth-Event, he is unique intervenes in radically rejecting the deconstructionist doxa as a new form historical multiple of pseudothe situation and discerns/identifies in it the [[signs]]-thoughteffects of the Event). What defines the subject is his fidelity to the Event: coming after the Event, as a contemporary version of sophismthe subject persists in discerning its traces within the situation. Since "Subject," for Badiou , is thus a finite contingent emergence: not yet well-known only is Truth not "[[subjective]]" in Anglo-American academiathe sense of being subordinated to the subject's whims, but the subject himself is "serving the basic outlines Truth" which transcends him; since he is never fully adequate to the infinite order of his philosophy will be rehearsed here prior Truth, the subject always has to offering operate within a Lacanian response to his depiction finite multiple of a situation in which he discerns the signs of Truth. Take, for example, [[Christianity]] (perhaps the example of the Truth-Event): the Event is [[Christ]]'s advent and [[death]]; its ultimate Goal is the Last Judgment (the Redemption); its "operator" in the multiple of the historical situation is the [[Church]]; and its "subject" is the [[corps]] of believers who intervene in their situation on behalf of the limits Truth-Event, searching for the signs of psychoanalysisGod in it.

The axis When Badiou speaks of Badiou"cette torsion symptomale de l's theoretic edifice is, as the title of his main work indicates, the gap between Being and Event.etre qu' est une verite dans le tissu toujours [[total]] des savoirs"Being" stands for the positive ontological order accessible to Knowledge, for the infinite multitude (this symptomal torsion of that being which presents itself in our experience, categorized by genus and species is a truth in terms of its properties. At bottom, as it were, lies the pure multiple, the not yet symbolically structured multitude always total [[texture]] of experienceknowledges), that which is given; this multitude is not a multitude 2 every term bears weight here. The texture of Ones, since the counting has not yet taken place. What Badiou calls a "situation" Knowledge is any particular consistent multitude (e.g.always by definition total, French society, modern art): a situation that is structured, and it is its structure which allows us to "count" it "as One." Here, however, for the first cracks in the ontological edifice Knowledge of Being appear: in order for us to "count" it "as One," the reduplicatio proper to symbolization there is no excess (symbolic inscription) of a situation must be at work, that is, in order for a situation to be "counted as One," its structure must always already involve a metastructure which designates it as One. (The signified structure 's excess or [[lack]] being visible only from the standpoint of the situation must be redoubled in the symbolic network of signifiersEvent).) When a situation is thus "counted as One," identified by its symbolic structure, we have From within the "state standpoint of the situation." (Badiou plays here on the ambiguity [[knowing]] servants of the term state-"state State, of thingscourse, " versus problems"Statecan be seen, but they are automatically reduced to local " in the political sense; there is no "state of societydifficulties" without a or contingent "Stateerrors" in which the structure of society : what Truth does is re-presented/redoubled.to render visible that (what Knowledge misperceives as) This symbolic reduplicatio already involves the minimal dialectic of Void marginal malfunctionings and Excess. The pure multiple points of Being is not yet failure are a multitude of Ones[[structural]] [[necessity]]. With [[regard]] to the ancien regime, sincefor example, as we have just seen, to have One what the pure multiple must be "counted as One"; from Truth-Event of the standpoint Revolution renders visible is that injustices are not marginal malfunctionings but effects of the state very structure of a situation, the preceding multiple can only appear as nothing[[system]], so nothing which is the "proper name of Being as Beingessentially " prior to its symbolizationcorrupt. "Void" has been Such an effect, when misperceived by the central category of ontology from Democritean atomism onward: system as a local "atomsabnormality," are nothing but condenses the configurations of Void. The [[global]] "Excessabnormality" correlative to this Void takes two forms. On the one hand, each state of things involves at least one excessive element which, though clearly belonging to the situation, is not "counted" by itsystem as such, properly included in it its entirety (e.g.what, in the "nonintegrated" rabble in a societal situation): this element is presented, but not reFreudo-presented. On the other handMarxian [[tradition]], there is an excess of re-presentation over presentation: the agency which brings about the passage from situation to its state (State in societycalled [[symptom]]) is always in excess relative to what it structures. In contrast to [[psychoanalytic]] terms, lapses, [[dreams]], compulsive [[formations]] and acts, and so forth, are "symptomal torsions" that render the impossible liberal dream Truth of a State reduced the given [[individual]] inaccessible to a service of civil societyKnowledge, State power is necessarily "excessivewhich sees [[them]] as mere malfinctionings; in Marxist terms," that an economic crisis is, it never simply and transparently re-presents society, but acts as such a violent intervention in what it re-presents"symptomal torsion."

ThisToday, then, is when even the structure of Being. From time most radical [[intellectual]] readily succumbs to time, however, in a wholly contingent, unpredictable way, out of reach for the Knowledge of Being, an Event takes place which belongs [[compulsion]] to a wholly different dimension-thatdistance himself from [[communism]], precisely, of non-Being. Take, for example, French society in the late eighteenth century: what is accessible it seems appropriate to Knowledge is reassert the state of society-its strata, economic, political, and ideological fights, and so on; no Knowledge, however, enables us to predict or account for the properly unaccountable Event which consists in the so-called French October Revolution. In this precise sense, an Event emerges ex nihilo. But the fact that it cannot be accounted for in the terms of the situation does not mean that it is simply an intervention from Outside or Beyond: it attaches itself, precisely, to the Void of every situationas a Truth-to its inherent inconsistency and/or its Excess. The Event is the Truth of the situation, that which renders visible/readable what defined against the opportunistic [[leftist]] "officialfools" state of the situation had to and [[conservative]] "repress,knaves." but it is That revolution also always localized, that is, allows us to clearly [[identify]] [[three]] ways to betray the event of Truth is always the Truth of : (I) a specific situation. The French Revolution is the Event that renders visible/readable the excesses and inconsistenciessimple [[disavowal]], the "liewith a corresponding attempt to follow old patterns as if nothing had happened," of the ancien regime; and as if it is were just a minor [[disturbance]] (the truth of the ancien regime situation-what is localized, or attaches to it. An Event thus involves its own series reaction of determinations: the Event itself; its denomination ("French Revolutionutilitarian" not being an objective-categorizing designation but part of the Event itself, the way its participants or adherents perceived and symbolized their activityliberal [[democracy]]); its ultimate Goal (2) the society [[false]] imitation of fully realized emancipation, the event of freedom-equality-fraternity); its "operator" Truth (the political movements struggling for Fascist staging of the Revolutionconservative revolution as a pseudo-event); and, last but not least, its subject (3) a direct ontologization of the agent who, on behalf event of the Truth-Event, intervenes in the historical multiple with its reduction to a new positive order of the situation and discerns/identifies in it the signs-effects of the EventBeing ([[Stalinism]]). What defines 3 One can clearly grasp here the subject is his fidelity to the Event: coming after the Event, the subject persists in discerning its traces within the situation. gap that separates Badiou's "Subject," for Badiou, is thus a finite contingent emergence: not only is Truth not "subjective" in from the sense deconstructionist [[notion]] of being subordinated to the subject's whims"multitude of truths" (or, rather, but the subject himself is "serving the Truthtruth-effects" which transcends him); since he for Badiou, truth is never fully adequate to the infinite order of Truthcontingent, the subject always has to operate within hinging as it does on a finite multiple [[concrete]] historical situation-of a situation in which he discerns it is the signs of Truthtruth. TakeNevertheless, for example, Christianity (perhaps the example of the Truth-Event): the Event is Christ's advent in every concrete and death; its ultimate Goal is the Last Judgment (the Redemption); its "operator" in the multiple of the contingent historical situation , there is the Church; one and its "subject" is only one Truth, which, once articulated, functions as the corps [[index]] of believers who intervene in their situation on behalf itself and of the Truth-Event, searching for [[falsity]] of the signs of God in field subverted by it.

When One of Badiou speaks of "cette torsion symptomale de l'etre qu'est une verite dans le tissu toujours total des savoirs" (this symptomal torsion s main theses is that the pure multiple [[lacks]] the dignity of being which is a truth in the always total texture proper [[object]] of knowledges)thought: from [[Stalin]] to [[Derrida]],2 every term bears weight here. The texture of Knowledge the [[philosophical]] common sense has always insisted on infinite complexity (everything is always by definition totalinterconnected, [[reality]] is so [[complex]] that it isaccessible to us only in approximations, for etc.); [[deconstruction]] is the Knowledge latest version of this commonsense motif of Being"infinite complexity." Advocates of "anti-essentialist" [[identity]] [[politics]], for example, tend to stress that there is no excess (a situation's excess or lack being visible "[[woman]] in general," only from the standpoint of the Event). From within the standpoint of the knowing servants of the StateWhite middle-[[class]] [[women]], Black single mothers, lesbians, of courseand so on and so forth, but such "problemsinsights" can should be seen, but they are automatically reduced to local rejected as banalities unworthy of being considered [[objects]] of thought. The problem for philosophical thought resides precisely in how the [[universality]] of "difficultieswoman" or contingent emerges from this "errorsinfinite": what Truth does is multitude, a problem that also enables one to render visible that rehabilitate the [[Hegelian]] [[distinction]] between bad (what Knowledge misperceives as"spurious") marginal malfunctionings and points of failure are a structural necessity. With regard [[true]] infinity: the first refers to the ancien regimecommonsense infinite complexity, for example, what while the second concerns the Truth-infinity of an Event of which transcends, precisely, the Revolution renders visible is that injustices are not marginal malfunctionings but effects "infinite complexity" of its context. A homologous distinction can be drawn between [[historicism]] and [[historicity]] proper: historicism refers to the very structure set of the systemcircumstances (economic, political, [[cultural]], which is essentially "corruptetc." Such an effect, when misperceived by the system as ) whose complex interactions allow us to account for a local "abnormalitygiven event," condenses while historicity proper involves the global "abnormality" specific [[temporality]] of the system as suchEvent and its aftermath, in the span between the Event and its entirety ultimate End (whatbetween Christ's death and the Last Judgment, in between the Freudo-Marxian tradition, is called symptom). In psychoanalytic terms, lapses, dreams, compulsive formations October Revolution and actscommunism, between falling in [[love]] and so forth, are "symptomal torsions" that render the Truth accomplished bliss of the given individual inaccessible to Knowledge, which sees them as mere malfinctionings; in Marxist terms, an economic crisis is such a "symptomal torsion[[living]] together)."

Today, when even Badiou is clearly and radically opposed to the most radical intellectual readily succumbs to postmodern anti-Platonic thrust whose basic dogma is that the compulsion to distance himself from communism, era when it seems appropriate was still possible to reassert the October Revolution as ground a political movement in a Truth-Event defined against the opportunistic leftist "fools" direct reference to some eternal metaphysical or [[transcendental]] truth is definitely over, and conservative "knaves." That revolution also allows us to clearly identify three ways to betray , the event experience of Truth: (I) our century having proved that such a simple disavowal, with reference to some metaphysical a corresponding attempt priori leads to follow old patterns as if nothing had happened, as if it were just a minor disturbance (the reaction of the catastrophic "utilitariantotalitarian" liberal democracy); (2) [[social]] consequences, the false imitation only solution is to accept that we live in a new era deprived of the event metaphysical [[certainties]], an era of Truth (the Fascist staging [[contingency]] and conjectures, and in a "society of the conservative revolution as risks" that renders politics a pseudo-event); and (3) a direct ontologization matter of the event phronesis, of Truthstrategic judgments and dialogue, with its reduction to a new positive order not of Being (Stalinism) applying fundamental cognitive insights.3 One can clearly grasp here the gap that separates What Badiou's "Truth" from is aiming for, against this postmodern doxa, is precisely the deconstructionist notion resuscitation of the "multitude politics of truths" (or, rather, "truth-effects"[[universal]]); for Badiou, truth is contingent, hinging as it does on a concrete historical situation-Truth in today's conditions of which it is the truthglobal contingency. NeverthelessHe would thus rehabilitate, in every concrete the current conditions of [[multiplicity]] and contingent historical situationcontingency, there not only philosophy but the properly meta-[[physical]] dimension: the infinite Truth is one "eternal" and only one Truth, which, once articulated, functions as meta relative to the index [[temporal]] [[process]] of itself and Being; it is a flash of [[Another]] Dimension which transcends the falsity positivity of the field subverted by itBeing.

One of Badiou's main theses However, an Event does not entail any ontological [[guarantee]]: its status is that the pure multiple lacks the dignity of the proper object of thought: radically undecidable; it cannot be reduced to (nor deduced or generated from Stalin to Derrida) a (previous) situation, since it emerges "out of Nothing" (the philosophical common sense has always insisted on infinite complexity (everything is interconnected, reality is so complex Nothing that it is accessible to us only in approximations, etc.); deconstruction is was the latest version ontological truth of this commonsense motif of "infinite complexityprevious situation)." Advocates of "anti-essentialist" identity politicsOn that account, for example, tend to stress that there is no "woman neutral [[gaze]] of Knowledge which could discern the Event in generalits effects. A Decision for the Event is always already here (i.e.," one can discern the signs of an Event in the situation only White middle-class womenfrom a previous Decision for Truth), Black single mothers, lesbians, and so on and so forth, but just as in Jansenist [[theology]] divine miracles are readable as such "insights" should be rejected as banalities unworthy of being considered objects of thoughtonly to those who have already opted for [[Faith]]. The problem for philosophical thought resides precisely A neutral historicist gaze will never see in how the universality French Revolution a series of traces of the Event called "woman" emerges from this "infiniteFrench Revolution," but merely a multitude, a problem that also enables one to rehabilitate of occurrences caught in the Hegelian distinction between bad network of social determinations ("spurious") and true infinity: the first refers to an [[external]] gaze, Love is only a succession of [[psychical]] and [[physiological]] states).4 The engaged [[observer]] perceives positive historical occurrences as parts of the commonsense infinite complexity, while Event of the second concerns French Revolution only insofar as he observes them from the infinity uniquely engaged standpoint of the Revolution. In Badiou's terms, an Event which transcends, precisely, is [[self]]-referential in that it includes its own designation: the symbolic designation "infinite complexityFrench Revolution" is part of its context. A homologous distinction can be drawn between historicism and historicity proper: historicism refers to the set of circumstances (economicdesignated [[content]] itself, politicalsince, culturalif we subtract this designation, etcthat content turns into a multitude of positive occurrences available to Knowledge.) whose complex interactions allow us to account for a given event, while historicity proper It is in this precise sense that an Event involves [[subjectivity]]: the specific temporality of engaged "subjective perspective" on the Event and its aftermath, the span between is part of the Event and its ultimate End (between Christ's death and the Last Judgment, between the October Revolution and communism, between falling in love and the accomplished bliss of living together)itself.

Badiou is clearly and radically opposed to The Marxist [[thesis]] that the postmodern anti-Platonic thrust whose basic dogma entire hitherto history is that the era when history of class [[struggle]] already presupposes such an engaged subjectivity, for it was still possible to ground a political movement in a direct reference to some eternal metaphysical or transcendental truth is definitely over, and, the experience only from its [[partial]] point of our century having proved view that the entire hitherto history appears as such a reference to some metaphysical a priori leads to catastrophic -only from this "totalitarianinterested" perspective can traces of the [[class struggle]] be discerned in the entire [[social consequencesedifice]], up to the only solution is highest cultural products. The answer to accept the obvious counterargument (that this very fact proves we live in are dealing with a new era deprived distorted view, not with the true state of metaphysical certaintiesthings) is that the allegedly "objective," "impartial" gaze is not neutral, an era but rather is the partial gaze of contingency and conjecturesthe winners, and of the ruling classes. (No wonder the [[rhetoric]] of [[right]]-wing historical revisionists includes so many constructions like "let's approach the topic of the [[Holocaust]] in a cool objective way," "society of riskslet's put it in context," and "let's look at the facts." that renders politics a matter ) A theorist of phronesisthe Communist revolution is not the one who, after establishing on the basis of strategic judgments objective study that the [[future]] belongs to the [[working]] class, decides to take its side and dialogueplace his bets on the winner; the engaged view permeates his [[theory]] from the very outset. Within the Marxist tradition, this notion that partiality is not a positive condition of Truth was most clearly articulated by Georg [[Lukacs]] in History and Class [[Consciousness]], as well as in a more messianic or proto-[[religious]] mode by Walter [[Benjamin]] in "Theses on the Philosophy of applying fundamental cognitive insightsHistory. What Badiou is aiming " The "truth," forthem, emerges when a [[victim]], against this postmodern doxafrom his catastrophic [[position]] in the [[present]], is precisely gains a sudden insight into the resuscitation entire [[past]] as a series of catastrophes leading up to the politics of (universal) Truth in todayvictim's conditions of global contingencycurrent predicament. He would thus rehabilitateSo, in the current conditions when we read a [[text]] of multiplicity and contingencyTruth, we should be careful not only philosophy but to confuse the properly meta-physical dimension: level of Knowledge with the infinite level of Truth is . In [[Marx]] himself, although he mainly used "[[proletariat]]" as a synonym for "the [[working class]]," one can nevertheless discern a clear tendency to conceive "eternalthe working class" and meta relative as a descriptive term belonging to the temporal process [[domain]] of Being; it is Knowledge (e.g., that class as the object of "neutral" sociological study, as a flash social stratum subdivided into components, etc.), whereas "proletariat" designates the operator of Another Dimension which transcends Truth, namely, the positivity engaged agent of Beingthe revolutionary struggle.

However, an An Event does not entail any ontological guarantee: is thus circular in the sense that its status [[identification]] is radically undecidable; it cannot be reduced to (nor deduced or generated possible only from) a (previous) situationthe standpoint of what Badiou calls "an [[interpreting]] intervention, since it emerges "out [[meaning]] the perspective of Nothingthose who accept the "wager" (the Nothing that was the ontological truth of this previous situation)such an Event [[exists]]. On that account, there An intervention is no neutral gaze any "procedure by means of Knowledge which could discern the Event in its effects. A Decision for the a multiple is recognized as Event is always already here (i.e." Moreover, one can discern the signs of an "it would remain forever doubtful if there had been any Event in at all, except for the situation only from a previous Decision for Truth)intervening one [l'intervenant], just as in Jansenist theology divine miracles are readable as such only who determined his belonging to those who have already opted for Faiththe situation. A neutral historicist gaze will never see in " 5 Fidelity to the French Revolution a series Event consists of traces continually attempting to [[traverse]] the field of Knowledge from the standpoint of Event called "French Revolution," but merely a multitude of occurrences caught intervening in it and searching for the network signs of social determinations (Truth. Thus the [[difference]] between Event and to an external gaze, Love its denomination: Event is only a succession of psychical and physiological states).4 The engaged observer perceives positive historical occurrences as parts of the Event of [[traumatic]] [[encounter]] with the French Revolution only insofar as he observes them from [[Real]] (Christ's death, the uniquely engaged standpoint historic shock of the Revolutiona revolution, etc. In Badiou's terms), an Event while its denomination is self-referential in that it includes its own designation: the symbolic designation "French Revolution" is part of the designated content itselfinscription into [[language]] ([[Christian]] [[doctrine]], sincerevolutionary consciousness, if we subtract this designationetc.). In Lacanese, that content turns into Event is [[objet]] a multitude of positive occurrences available to Knowledge. It , while denomination is in this precise sense the new [[signifier]] that an Event involves subjectivity: establishes what Rimbaud called the New Order-for Badiou, the new readability of the engaged "subjective perspective" situation on the Event is part basis of the Event itselfDecision.

The Marxist thesis that Badiou calls the language in which the entire hitherto history Truth-Event is purportedly denominated the history of class struggle already presupposes such an engaged subjectivity, for it "subject-language [[[langue]]-[[sujet]]]." This language is only meaningless from its partial point of view that the entire hitherto history appears as such-only from this "interested" perspective can traces standpoint of the class struggle be discerned in the entire social edificeKnowledge, up which judges propositions according to their referents within the highest cultural products. The answer domain of positive Being (or according to the obvious counterargument (that this very fact proves we are dealing with a distorted view, not proper functioning of [[speech]] within the established [[symbolic order]]). When confronted with the true state subject-language of things) is that the allegedly Christian redemption, revolutionary emancipation, or love, for example, Knowledge dismisses it all as empty phrases [[lacking]] any proper reference (i.e., as "objectivepolitical-messianic [[jargon]]," "impartialpoetic hermeticism," gaze is not neutral, but rather is the partial gaze of the winners, of the ruling classesetc.). (No wonder Imagine a man in love describing the rhetoric features of right-wing historical revisionists includes so many constructions like "let's approach the topic of the Holocaust in his [[beloved]] to a cool objective wayfriend who," "let's put it not being himself in contextlove with that particular person,will simply find this enthusiastic description meaningless-he will not get " and "let's look at the facts.point") A theorist of the Communist revolution is not the one whoit. In short, after establishing on subject-language involves the basis [[logic]] of objective study that the future belongs to the working classshibboleth, decides to take its side and place his bets on the winner; the engaged view permeates his theory of a difference which is visible only from the very outsetwithin. Within the Marxist traditionThis, however, this notion in no way means that partiality is not a positive condition of Truth was most clearly articulated by Georg Lukacs in History and Class Consciousnessgiven subject-language involves another, as well as in "deeper" reference to a more messianic or protohidden, true [[referent]]; it is rather that subject-religious mode by Walter Benjamin in language "Theses on the Philosophy of History.derails" The or "truth,unsettles" for them, emerges when a victim, from his catastrophic position in the present, gains a sudden insight into the entire past as a series standard use of catastrophes leading up to language on the victim's current predicament. So, when we read a text basis of Truth, we should be careful not to confuse its established [[meanings]] and leaves the level of Knowledge with the level of Truth. In Marx himself, although he mainly used reference "proletariat" as a synonym for "the working classempty," one can nevertheless discern but with a clear tendency to conceive "the working classwager" as a descriptive term belonging to that this Void will be filled when the domain of Knowledge (e.g.Goal is reached, that class is, when Truth actualizes itself as a new situation (the object reign of "neutral" sociological studyGod on Earth, as a social stratum subdivided into componentsthe emancipated society, etc.), whereas . The denomination of the Truth-Event is thus "proletariatempty" designates precisely insofar as it refers to the operator of Truth, namely, the engaged agent of the revolutionary struggle"fullness" yet to come.

An Event is thus circular From this brief description, one can already get a presentiment of what one may be tempted to term, in all naivete, the sense that its identification is possible only from the standpoint intuitive power of what Badiou calls "an interpreting intervention's notion of the subject," meaning which effectively describes the perspective experience each of those who accept the us has when fully engaged, subjectively, in some [[Cause]] that is "wagerour own." Isn't that such an Event exists. An intervention when, in those precious moments, I fully am a subject? And doesn't this very feature make it ideological? That is any "procedure by means to say, the first [[thing]] that strikes anyone versed in the history of which a multiple French Marxism is recognized as how uncannily close Badiou's notion of Truth-Eventcomes to [[Althusser]]'s notion of (ideological) [[interpellation]]." Moreover, "it would remain forever doubtful if there had been any Is the process Badiou describes as Truth-Event at all, except for not that of an individual interpellated into a subject by a Cause? Is the intervening one circular [[l'intervenantrelationship]]between Event and subject (i.e., the subject serving the Event, who determined his belonging which is itself only visible as such to an already engaged subject) not the situation." 5 Fidelity very circle of ideology? Prior to constraining the Event consists notion of continually attempting subject to traverse ideology, that is, [[identifying]] the field subject as such as ideological, Althusser briefly entertained the [[idea]] of Knowledge from subjectivity as comprising four modalities: the standpoint subject of Eventideology, the subject of intervening in it and searching for art, the signs subject of Truth. Thus the difference between Event [[unconscious]], and its denomination: Event is the traumatic encounter with the Real (Christsubject of [[science]]. Badiou's death, the historic shock four "generics of a revolutiontruth" (love, etc.), while its denomination is its inscription into language (Christian doctrineart, revolutionary consciousnessscience, etc.and politics). In Lacanese, Event is objet a, while denomination is would seem to clearly parallel these four modalities of subjectivity (with love corresponding to the [[subject of the new signifier that establishes what Rimbaud called unconscious]]-the New Orderfocus of psychoanalysis-for Badiouand politics, the new readability of course, to the situation on the basis subject of Decisionideology).

Badiou calls the language in which the Is this identity between Truth-Event is purportedly denominated and ideology not further confirmed by futur anterieur as the "subject-language [langue-sujet]." This language is meaningless from specific temporality of generic procedures? Starting with the standpoint denomination of Knowledgethe Event (Christ's death, the Revolution), which judges propositions according the generic procedure is to their referents within the domain [[search]] for signs of positive Being (or according to the proper functioning of speech within Event in the established symbolic order). When confronted multiple with a view to the subject-language of Christian redemptionultimate Goal, which will bring about [[full]] plenitude (Last Judgment, revolutionary emancipationcommunism, or love, for example, Knowledge dismisses it all as empty phrases lacking any proper reference (i.e., as "political-messianic jargon," "poetic hermeticism[[Mallarme]]," etc.le Livre). Imagine Generic procedures thus involve a man in love describing temporal loop: fidelity to the Event enables the historic multiple to be judged from the features standpoint of his beloved the plenitude to a friend whocome, not being himself in love with that particular person, will simply find this enthusiastic description meaningless-he will not get "but the point" arrival of it. In short, subject-language this plenitude already involves the logic subjective act of shibbolethDecision, of a difference which is visible only from withinor the Pascalian "wager. This" Take, howeverfor example, in no way means that a given subjectthe democratic-language involves another, "deeper" egalitarian political Event: its reference to the Democratic Revolution enables history to be read as a hiddencontinuous democratic struggle aimed at total emancipation, true referent; it so the present situation is rather that subject-language experienced as fundamentally "derailsdislocated" or "unsettlesout of joint" (the standard use corruption of language on the basis of its established meanings and leaves ancien regime, the reference "emptyclass society," but with the fallen terrestrial [[life]]) relative to the promise of a redeemed future. "wagerNow," that this Void will be filled when the Goal is reachedin subject-language, that is, when Truth actualizes itself as always a new situation (the reign time of God on Earth[[antagonism]], [[split]] between the emancipated society, etc.). The denomination corrupted "state of things" and the promise of Truth-Event is thus "empty" precisely insofar as it refers to the "fullness" yet to come.

From this brief descriptionBadiou defines as "generic" the multiple within a situation that has no particular properties, one can already get a presentiment the referent of what one may be tempted which would enable us to classify it as its subspecies; the generic multiple belongs to term, the situation but is not properly included in all naivete, it as its subspecies (the intuitive power of Badiou"rabble" in [[Hegel]]'s notion philosophy of the subjectright, for example). Of course, which effectively describes Badiou simultaneously mobilizes the experience each [[association]] of "generic" with "generating": this generic element is what enables us has when fully engaged, subjectively, to generate the propositions of the subject-language in some Cause which Truth resonates. Generic is thus a multiple element/part of the situation that is "our own." Isndoesn't fit into it, that whensticks out precisely insofar as it gives [[body]] (as it were) to the Being of the situation as such, in those precious momentssubverting the situation by directly embodying its universality. With regard to this point, I fully am a subject? And doesnisn't this very feature make it ideological? That is to say, the first thing significant that strikes anyone versed in the history of French Marxism is how uncannily close Badiou's notion ultimate example of Truth-the Event comes is [[religion]] (Christianity from [[Paul]] to Althusser's notion of (ideological[[Pascal]]) interpellation. Is , as the process Badiou describes as Trutharch-[[model]] of ideology, and that this Event , precisely, does not that fit any of his four generiques of an individual interpellated into a subject by a Cause? Is the circular relationship between Event and subject truth (i.e.love, art, the subject serving the Eventscience, which is and politics 6)? If we take Badiou's thought itself only visible as such to an already engaged subject) not the very circle a "situation" of Being, subdivided into four generics, however, doesn't religious ideologyoccupy precisely this generic place? Prior Isn't religion itself his "symptomal torsion," the element which belongs to constraining the notion domain of subject Truth without being one of its acknowledged parts or subspecies? This would seem to ideology, confirm that is, identifying the subject as such as Truth-Event consists in the elementary ideological, Althusser briefly entertained the idea gesture of interpellating individuals (parts of a "situation" of subjectivity as comprising four modalities: the subject Being) into [[subjects]] (bearers/followers of ideologyTruth). It is tempting to go one step further, the subject given that Badiou's paradigmatic example of artTruth-Event is not religion in general but Christianity in particular, the subject of religion centered on the unconscious, and the subject Event of science. BadiouChrist's four "generics of truth" advent and death. (loveAs was pointed out by [[Kierkegaard]], artChristianity inverts the standard metaphysical relationship between [[eternity]] and time, sciencewith eternity in a sense hinging on a temporal event, and politicsChrist.) would seem to clearly parallel these four modalities Perhaps, then, Badiou can also be read as the last great author in the French tradition of subjectivity [[Catholic]] dogmaticists that began with Pascal and [[Malebranche]] (with love corresponding suffice it to the subject [[recall]] that two of the unconscious-the focus of psychoanalysis-his key references are Pascal and [[Claudel]]). The parallel between revolutionary Marxism and politicsmessianic Christianity was a commonplace among liberal critics like Bertrand Russell, of coursewho dismissed Marxism as a secular messianic ideology; Badiou, by contrast (following a line from the later Engels to the subject of ideologyFredric [[Jameson]]), fully endorses this homology.

Is this identity between Badiou passionately [[defends]] Paul for having articulated the Christian Truth-Event and ideology not further confirmed by futur anterieur -Christ's Resurrection-as the specific temporality "universal [[singular]]" (a singular event which interpellates individuals into subjects universally, irrespective of generic procedures? Starting their [[race]], sex, social class, etc.), along with the denomination conditions of the Event (Christfidelity to it.'s deathOf course, Badiou is well aware that today, the Revolution)in our era of modern science, we are no longer inclined to accept as the generic procedure is to search for signs form of the Truth-Event in the multiple with a view to fable of the ultimate Goalmiraculous Resurrection, although the Truth-Event invariably designates the occurrence of something which will bring about full plenitude (Last Judgment, communismfrom within the horizon of the predominant order of Knowledge, or, for Mallarme, le Livreappears to be impossible (as [[witness]] the [[laughter]] with which Athenian [[philosophers]] greeted Paul's announcement of the Resurrection upon his arrival there). Generic procedures thus involve a temporal loop: fidelity to Today, any positing of the Truth-Event enables at the historic multiple to be judged from level of the standpoint of supernatural or the plenitude miraculous necessarily entails a [[regression]] to comeobscurantism, but since the arrival Event of Science is irrefutable and cannot be undone. Today, we can accept as Truth-Events (i.e., intrusions of this plenitude already involves the subjective act of Decisiontraumatic Real, or which shatters the Pascalian predominant symbolic texture) only those occurrences that take place in a [[universe]] compatible with [[scientific]] knowledge, even if they happen at its borders and place its presuppositions in question. The "wager.sites" Takeof the Event are now scientific discovery itself, for exampleas well as [[political act]], artistic invention, and psychoanalytic confrontation with Love. Apropos of Paul, Badiou tackles the democratic-egalitarian political Event: its reference problem of locating his position relative to the Democratic Revolution enables history four generics that generate effective truths. His solution is to be read propose Paul as a continuous democratic struggle aimed at total emancipation, so the present situation is experienced as fundamentally "dislocated" or "out antiphilosophical theoretician of joint" (the corruption [[formal]] conditions of the ancien regimetruth-procedure, since he provided the class society, first detailed articulation of how fidelity to a Truth-Event operates in its universal dimension: the fallen terrestrial lifeexcessive (surnumeraire) relative to the promise Real of a redeemed future. Truth-Event ("Now,Resurrection" in subject-language), is always a time emerging by means of antagonismgrace (i.e., split between it cannot be accounted for in terms of the corrupted constituents of the given situation), sets in motion-in those subjects who recognize themselves in its call-the militant "state work of thingsLove," and or the promise of struggle to propagate, with persistent fidelity, this Truthin its universal scope (i.e., as concerning everyone).

Badiou defines as So, although Paul's particular [[message]] may no longer be operative for us, the terms in which he formulated the operative mode of Christianity apply to every Truth-Event. Each Truth-Event leads to a kind of "genericResurrection," the multiple within a situation that has no particular propertiesis, the referent by means of which would enable us fidelity to classify it as and a labor of love on its subspecies; the generic multiple belongs behalf, one enters another dimension irreducible to a mere service des biens (the situation but is not properly included smooth running of affairs in it as its subspecies (the "rabble" in Hegel's philosophy domain of Being)-the dimension of rightImmortality, for example)of Life not encumbered by death. Of courseNevertheless, Badiou simultaneously mobilizes the association problem remains of "generic" with "generating": this generic element is what enables us to generate how it was possible for the propositions first and still most pertinent description of the subjectoperation of fidelity to a Truth-Event to occur apropos of a Truth-language in which Event that was a mere [[semblance]], not an effective Truth resonates. Generic From the Hegelian standpoint, there is thus a multiple element/part of deep necessity to this, confirmed by the situation fact that doesn't fit into it, that sticks out precisely insofar as it gives body (as it were) to the Being twentieth-century [[philosopher]] who provided the definitive description of the situation as suchan authentic political act ([[Heidegger]], subverting the situation in [[Sein]] und Zeit) got seduced by directly embodying its universality. With regard to this pointa fake political act, isn't it significant that Badiou's ultimate example of the Event is religion (Christianity from Paul to Pascal), as the archone which was not an effective Truth-model of ideology, and that this Event, precisely, does not fit any of his four generiques of truth (love, art, science, and politics 6[[Nazism]])? If we take Badiou's thought itself . So it is as a "situation" of Being, subdivided into four generics, however, doesn't religious ideology occupy precisely this generic place? Isn't religion itself his "symptomal torsion," the element which belongs to if rendering the domain of Truth without being one formal structure of its acknowledged parts or subspecies? This would seem fidelity to confirm that the Truth-Event consists in the elementary ideological gesture means doing so apropos of interpellating individuals (parts of a "situation" of Being) into subjects (bearers/followers of Truth)an Event which is merely its own semblance. It Perhaps the lesson in this is tempting to go one step further, given that more radical than it may appear: What if what Badiou's paradigmatic example of calls Truth-Event is , at its most radical, a purely formal act of decision, not religion only not grounded in general an effective Truth but Christianity in particular, ultimately indifferent to the religion centered on precise status (effective or fabulous) of the Truth-Event to which it refers? What if we are dealing here with a key component of Christ's advent and death. (As was pointed out by Kierkegaard, Christianity inverts the standard metaphysical relationship between eternity and timeTruth-Event, with eternity in a sense hinging on a temporal eventnotably, Christ.) Perhaps, then, Badiou can also be read as that true fidelity to the last great author Event is "dogmatic" in precisely the French tradition sense of Catholic dogmaticists that began with Pascal and Malebranche (suffice it to recall that two unconditional Faith, of his key references are Pascal and Claudel). The parallel between revolutionary Marxism and messianic Christianity was a commonplace among liberal critics like Bertrand Russellan attitude which, who dismissed Marxism as a secular messianic ideology; Badiounot needing any grounds, cannot be refuted by contrast (following a line from the later Engels to Fredric Jameson), fully endorses this homology.any argument?

Paradoxically, this topic of [[Pauline]] Christianity is crucial to Badiou passionately defends Paul for having articulated 's confrontation with psychoanalysis. In adamantly opposing the Christian Truth-Event-Christ's Resurrection-as to the death [[drive]], to what he repeatedly calls the "universal singularmorbid [[obsession]] with death," (a singular event which interpellates individuals into subjects universallyhe is at his weakest, irrespective succumbing to the temptation of their race, sex, social class, etc.), along with the conditions of fidelity to itnonthought.' Of course, It is indeed symptomatic that Badiou is well aware that today, in our era of modern science, we are no longer inclined compelled to accept as the form of the Truth-Event the fable of the miraculous Resurrection, although the Truth-Event invariably designates identify the occurrence of something whichliberaldemocratic service des biens, from within the horizon smooth running of things in the predominant order positivity of KnowledgeBeing where "nothing effectively happens, appears to be impossible (as witness " with the laughter "morbid obsession with which Athenian philosophers greeted Paul's announcement death." One can easily see the element of truth in this equation: the Resurrection upon his arrival there). Todaymere service des biens, any positing deprived of the dimension of Truth-Event at the level of the supernatural or the miraculous necessarily entails a regression and far from able to obscurantism, since function as the Event of Science "healthy" everyday life that is irrefutable and cannot be undone. Todaynot bothered by "eternal" questions, we can accept as Truth-Events (i.enecessarily regresses to nihilistic morbidity.In Christian terms, intrusions of the traumatic Real, which shatters the predominant symbolic texture) there is true Life only those occurrences that take place in a universe compatible with scientific knowledgeChrist, even if they happen at its borders and place its presuppositions in question. The "sites" of so life outside the Event are now scientific discovery itselfof Christ sooner or later turns into its opposite, as well as political acta morbid decadence; when one's life is dedicated to an excess of pleasures, artistic invention, and psychoanalytic confrontation with Lovethese very pleasures are sooner or later spoiled. Apropos of PaulAt the same time, Badiou tackles it is important to emphasize here what [[Lacan]] calls the [[space]] or distance [[between the problem of locating his position relative two deaths]]: in order to be able to the four generics that generate effective truths. His solution is open oneself up to propose Paul as the antiphilosophical theoretician of the formal conditions true life of the truth-procedureEternity, since he provided the first detailed articulation of how fidelity one's attachment to a Truth-Event operates in its universal dimension: the excessive (surnumeraire) Real of a Truth-Event ("Resurrectionthis"), emerging by means of grace (i.e., it cannot life must be accounted suspended for in terms entry into the domain of ate, the constituents of domain between the given situation)two deaths, sets in motion-in those subjects who recognize themselves in its call-the militant "work domain of Love,the " or the struggle to propagate, with persistent fidelity, this Truth in its universal scope (i.e., as concerning everyone)undead."

So, although Paul's particular message may no longer be operative for usThis point is worthy of a more detailed examination, since it condenses the terms gap that separates Badiou from Lacan and psychoanalysis in which he formulated the operative mode of Christianity apply to every Truth-Eventgeneral. Each Truth-Event leads to a kind Badiou, of "Resurrectioncourse," that is, well aware of the [[two Deaths]] (and two Lives) entailed by means the Pauline opposition of fidelity to it Life and a labor of love on its behalfDeath (or Spirit/Life vs. Flesh/Death), one enters another dimension irreducible that has nothing to a mere service des biens (do with the smooth running [[biological]] distinction between life and death as [[stages]] of affairs in the domain of Being)generation-corruption cycle, or with the dimension standard Platonic opposition of ImmortalitySoul and Body. For Paul, "Life" and "Death," Spirit and Flesh, designate two subjective stances, two ways of Life living one's life. This leads Badiou to [[interpret]] Christianity as radically dissociating Death and Resurrection: not only are they not encumbered by death. Neverthelessthe same, they are not even [[dialectically]] interconnected in the problem remains sense that the price of how it was possible for Eternal Life is the [[suffering]] which redeems our sins. For Badiou, Christ's death on the first crossGod's having had to become man and still most pertinent description of die (to suffer the operation fate of fidelity all flesh) in order to a Truthbe resurrected-Event simply signals that Eternal Life is accessible to occur apropos of a Truth-Event that was a mere semblancehumanity, not an effective Truth. From the Hegelian standpoint, there is a deep necessity to thisall men qua finite mortal beings, confirmed by the fact that the twentieth-century philosopher who provided the definitive description each of an authentic political act (Heidegger, in Sein und Zeit) got seduced us can be touched by a fake political act, that is, one which was not an effective Truth-Event (Nazism). So it is as if rendering the formal structure grace of fidelity to the Truth-Event means doing so apropos and enter the domain of an Event which is merely its own semblanceEternal Life. Perhaps the lesson in this Badiou is more radical than it may appearopenly anti-Hegelian here: What if what Badiou calls Truth-Event there is, at its most radical, a purely formal act no dialectic of decisionLife and Death, not only not grounded in an effective Truth but ultimately indifferent to the precise status (effective or fabulous) no emergence of the Truth-Event to which it refers? What if of Resurrection as the [[magic]] that turns negativity into positivity once we are dealing here fully ready to "tarry with a key component of the [[negative]]," to assume our [[mortality]] and suffering in its most radical form. This Truth-Eventis simply a radical New Beginning, accompanied by the violent, notablytraumatic, and contingent intrusion of Another Dimension that true fidelity to the Event is not "dogmaticmediated" in precisely by the sense domain of unconditional Faith, of an attitude which, not needing any grounds, cannot be refuted by any argument?terrestrial [[finitude]] and corruption.

ParadoxicallyOne must accordingly avoid the pitfalls of the morbid [[masochist]] [[morality]] which perceives suffering as inherently redeeming; this morality, this topic remaining within the confines of Pauline Christianity is crucial the Law (which [[demands]] that a price be paid for admission to Eternal Life), has thus not attained the level of properly Christian Love. As Badiou's confrontation with psychoanalysis. In adamantly opposing sees it, the Truth-Event to the is not Christ's death drivein itself, to what he repeatedly calls which just prepares the site for the Event (Resurrection) by asserting the "morbid obsession with deathidentity of God and Man," he that is at his weakest, succumbing if the infinite dimension of Immortal Truth is also accessible to a finite/mortal [[human]] being, then what ultimately matters is only the temptation Resurrection of the nonthought. It is indeed symptomatic [[dead]] (mortal/human) Christ because it signals that Badiou is compelled to identify every human being can be redeemed and can participate in the liberaldemocratic service des biens, Truth-Event. Therein resides the smooth running message of things in Christianity: the positivity of Being where "nothing effectively happens," with the Order of Cosmos regulated by its Laws, which is the domain of finitude and mortality, is not "morbid obsession with deathall there is." One can easily see (From the element standpoint of truth in this equation: the mere service des biensCosmos, deprived of the dimension [[totality]] of Truth and far from able to function as positive Being, we are just particular beings determined by our specific place in the "healthy" everyday life that is not bothered by "eternal" questions[[global order]], necessarily regresses with the Law ultimately another name for the Order of Cosmic Justice which allocates to nihilistic morbidityeach of us our [[proper place]]. In Christian terms) Rather, there is true Another Dimension, that of True Life only in ChristLove, so life outside the Event accessible to all of Christ sooner or later turns into its opposite, a morbid decadence; when one's life us through divine grace. Christian Revelation is dedicated to thus an excess example (the example) of pleasureshow we, human beings, these very pleasures are sooner or later spoiled. At not limited to the same positivity of Being, since from time to time, it is important in a contingent and unpredictable way, a Truth-Event can occur which opens up the possibility of our [[participation]] in Another Life by means of a persistent fidelity to that Event. The interesting thing to emphasize note here what Lacan calls is how Badiou inverts the space standard opposition of universal Law and accidental Grace (or distance between charisma), that is, the two deaths: in order idea that we are all subject to divine law, whereas only some of us can be able to open oneself up to the true life touched by grace and thus redeemed. In Badiou's [[reading]] of EternityPaul, one's attachment it is rather law (however "universal" it may appear to be) that is ultimately "thisparticularist" life must be suspended for entry into (a [[legal]] order always imposing specific duties and rights on us, as well as always defining a specific [[community]] at the domain expense of excluding members of ateother communities), the domain between the two deathswhile divine grace is truly universal (i.e., nonexclusionary), the domain available to all human beings regardless of the "undeadrace, sex, or social status."

This point is worthy of a more detailed examination, since it condenses Corresponding to the two lives (the gap that separates Badiou from Lacan finite biological life and psychoanalysis the Eternal Life of participation in general. Badiou, the Truth-Event of course, is well aware of the Resurrection) are two Deaths deaths: (and two Livesbiological) entailed by the Pauline opposition of Life death and Death (or Spirit/Life vs. Flesh/Death), one that has nothing to do with in the biological distinction between life and death as stages sense of going the generation-corruption cycle, or with "way of the standard Platonic flesh." How does Paul determine this opposition of Soul and Body. For Paul, "Life" and "Death," Spirit and Flesh, designate as two opposing subjective stances, two ways existential attitudes? Here we get to the crux of living oneBadiou's life. This leads Badiou argument, which also pertains to interpret Christianity as radically dissociating Death and Resurrection: not only are they not the samepsychoanalysis, they are not even dialectically interconnected in for the sense that the price opposition of Eternal Death and Life is overlaps with the suffering which redeems our sinsopposition of Law and Love. For BadiouPaul, Christ's death on the crossGod's having had to become man and die (succumbing to suffer the fate temptations of all the flesh) does not simply mean indulging in order to be resurrected-simply signals that Eternal Life is accessible to humanityunbridled worldly pursuits (of [[pleasure]], power, wealth, to all men qua finite mortal beingsetc.), that each heedless of us can be touched by the grace of Law (or [[moral]] prohibitions). On the contrary, his central tenet, elaborated in what is probably the Truth(deservedly) most famous passage in his Epistles (Romans 7:7-Event and enter the domain of Eternal Life. Badiou I8), is openly anti-Hegelian here: that there is was no dialectic Sin prior to or independent of Life and Deaththe Law, no emergence of that what preceded the Truth-Event of Resurrection as Law was the magic that turns negativity into positivity simple, innocent prelapsarian life once and forever lost to us mortal human beings. The universe in which we are fully ready to live, our "tarry with way of the negativeflesh," to assume our mortality is one in which Sin and Law, [[desire]] and suffering in its most radical form. This Truth-Event is simply a radical New Beginning[[prohibition]], accompanied by the violent, traumaticare inextricably twined, and contingent intrusion it is the very act of Another Dimension Prohibition that is not "mediated" by gives rise to the desire for its [[transgression]], or fixes our desire on the domain of terrestrial finitude and corruption.prohibited object:

One must accordingly avoid What then should we say? That the pitfalls of the morbid masochist morality which perceives suffering as inherently redeeming; this moralitylaw is sin? By no means! Yet, remaining within if it had not been for the confines of the Law (which demands that a price be paid for admission to Eternal Life)law, has thus I would not attained the level of properly Christian Lovehave known sin. As Badiou sees I would not have known what it, is to covet if the Truth-Event is law had not Christ's death in itselfsaid, which just prepares the site for the Event (Resurrection) by asserting the identity of God and Man"You shall not covet." But sin, that is, if seizing an opportunity in the infinite dimension of Immortal Truth is also accessible to a finite/mortal human beingcommandment, then what ultimately matters is only the Resurrection produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead (mortal/human) Christ because it signals that every human being can be redeemed and can participate in the Truth-Event. Therein resides I was once alive apart from the message of Christianity: the positivity of Beinglaw, but when the Order of Cosmos regulated by its Lawscommandment came, which is the domain of finitude sin revived and mortalityI died, is not "all there is." (From and the standpoint of Cosmos, of the totality of positive Being, we are just particular beings determined by our specific place in the global order, with the Law ultimately another name for the Order of Cosmic Justice which allocates very commandment that promised life proved to be death to each of us our proper placeme.) RatherFor sin, there is Another Dimension, that of True Life seizing an opportunity in Lovethe commandment, accessible to all of us [[deceived]] me and through divine graceit killed me…. I do not [[understand]] my own actions. Christian Revelation is thus an example (the example) of how we, human beings, are For I do not limited to the positivity of Beingdo what I [[want]], since from time to time, in a contingent and unpredictable way, a Truth-Event can occur which opens up but I do the possibility of our participation in Another Life by means of a persistent fidelity to that Eventvery thing I [[hate]]. The interesting thing to note here is how Badiou inverts the standard opposition of universal Law and accidental Grace (or charisma)Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that is, the idea that we are all subject to divine law, whereas only some of us can be touched by grace and thus redeemedis [[good]]. In Badiou's reading of Paul, But in fact it is rather law (however "universal" no longer I that do it may appear to be) , but sin that dwells within me. For I [[know]] that nothing good dwells within me, that is ultimately "particularist" (a legal order always imposing specific duties and rights on us, as well as always defining a specific community at the expense of excluding members of other communities), while divine grace in my flesh. I can will what is truly universal (i.e.right, nonexclusionary), available to all human beings regardless of race, sex, or social statusbut I cannot do it.

Corresponding to the two lives (the finite biological life and the Eternal Life The direct result of participation in the Truth-Event intervention of Resurrection) are two deaths: (biological) death and Death, in the sense of going the "way of the flesh." How does Paul determine this opposition of Life and Death as two opposing subjective, existential attitudes? Here we get Law is thus to [[divide]] the crux of Badiou's argumentsubject, which also pertains to psychoanalysisintroducing a morbid confusion between life and death, for between the opposition ([[conscious]]) obedience of Death and Life overlaps with the opposition of Law and Love. For Paul, succumbing to the temptations of (unconscious) desire for its transgression that is generated by the flesh does legal prohibition. It is not simply mean indulging in unbridled worldly pursuits (of pleasureme, power, wealththe subject, etc.), heedless of who transgresses the Law but (or moral prohibitionsnonsubjectivized). On the contrary"Sin" itself, his central tenet, elaborated in what is probably the (deservedly) most famous passage sinful impulses in his Epistles which I do not recognize myself and that I even hate. Because of this split, my (Romans 7:7-I8conscious)Self is ultimately experienced as "dead, is that there was no Sin prior to or independent " as deprived of the Lawliving impetus, that what preceded the Law was the simple, innocent prelapsarian while "life once and forever lost to us mortal human beings. The universe in which we live, our "way the ecstatic [[affirmation]] of living [[energy]], can only appear in the flesh,guise of " is one in which Sin and Law, desire and its prohibition, are inextricably twined, and it is the very act " of Prohibition that a transgression which gives rise to the a morbid sense of [[guilt]]. My actual life-impulse, my [[desire for its transgression, or fixes our desire ]] appears to me as an [[autonomous]] foreign automatism which insists on the prohibited object:and follows its own path regardless of my conscious Will and intentions.

What then should we say? That the law Paul's problem is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had thus not been for the lawstandard morbid [[moralistic]] one (how to crush my [[transgressive]] impulses, how finally to purify myself of sinful impulses) but its exact opposite: How can I would not have known sin. break out of this [[vicious cycle]] of Law and desire, of the Prohibition and its transgression, within which I can assert my [[passion]] for life only as its opposite, a morbid [[death drive]]? How would not have known what it is be possible for me to covet if the law had experience my "[[life drive]]" not saidas a foreign automatism, a blind "You shall not covet.compulsion to [[repeat]]" But sinwhich compels me to [[transgress]] the Law (with the unacknowledged complicity of the Law itself), but as a fully subjectivized, positive yes! Here, seizing an opportunity Paul (like Badiou) seems to fully endorse Hegel's point that there is [[Evil]] only in the commandmentgaze that perceives it, produced while it is the Law that not only opens up and sustains the domain of Sin, of sinful impulses to transgress its prohibitions, but also finds a perverse and morbid satisfaction in me making us feel [[guilty]] for such transgressions. The ultimate results of the Rule of Law are thus all kinds the well-known twists and paradoxes of covetousnessthe [[superego]]; since I can [[enjoy]] only what I feel guilty about, I can find [[enjoyment]] only, in (a self-reflective) turn, in [[feeling]] guilty, in punishing myself for sinful [[thoughts]], and so on and so forth. Apart from When Badiou speaks of the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from "morbid [[fascination]] of the lawdeath drive," therefore, he is not resorting to platitudes, but when articulating a specific Pauline reading of psychoanalytic notions to do with the commandment came, sin revived complex entanglement of Law and I dieddesire, this morbid intertwinement of life and death in which the "dead" [[letter]] of the Law perverts my very commandment that promised life proved to be -enjoyment, turning it into a fascination with death to me. For sin, seizing In this perverted universe the ascetic who whips himself on behalf of the Law [[enjoys]] himself more intensely than anyone who takes an opportunity innocent pleasure in the commandmentworldly delights, deceived me and through for it killed me…is not only the illicit sinful desires (i. I do not understand my own actionse. For I do not do what I want, but I do those that are against the Law) which Paul considers "the way of the flesh" (as opposed to "the way of the very thing I hateSpirit"). Now if I do "Flesh" includes both what I do not wantis against the Law and the excessive self-torturing, self-mortifying, I agree morbid fascination with the flesh that is begotten by the law is goodLaw. But in fact it is no longer I that do itAs Badiou emphasizes, Paul comes unexpectedly close here to his great detractor [[Nietzsche]], but sin whose problem was also that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within meof how we can break out of the vicious cycle of a morbid, that self-mortifying [[denial]] of Life: the Christian "way of the Spirit" isfor Nietzsche precisely the magic rupture, in my fleshthe New Beginning which delivers us from this morbidly debilitating deadlock and enables us to open ourselves to the Eternal Life of Love without Sin (i.e. I can will what is right, but I cannot do itwithout the Law and the guilt induced by the Law).

The direct result Here we have two divisions of the intervention subject, which are not to be confused. On the one hand, the subject of the Law is thus to divide the subject, introducing a morbid confusion [[divided]] between life and deathhis conscious ego, between which adheres to the (conscious) obedience letter of the Law , and the (unconscious) his decentered desire for its transgression that is generated by the legal prohibition. It is not me, whichoperating against the subject's conscious will, who transgresses the Law but (nonsubjectivized) "Sinautomatically"-compels him to " itselfdo what he hates, " to transgress the sinful impulses Law and indulge in which I do not recognize myself and that I even hateillicit [[jouissance]]. Because of this split, my (conscious) Self is ultimately experienced as "dead," as deprived of living impetus, while "lifeOn the other hand," we have the ecstatic affirmation more radical [[division]] between this entire domain of living energy, can only appear in the guise of "SinLaw/desire," of a the prohibition that generates its own transgression which gives rise to , and a morbid sense properly Christian Love, the New Beginning of guilt. My actual life-impulse, my desire, appears to me as an autonomous foreign automatism which insists on means breaking out of the deadlock of Law and follows its own path regardless of my conscious Will and intentionstransgression.

Paul's problem is thus not Where does the standard morbid moralistic one (how Lacanian "divided subject" stand in relation to crush my transgressive impulseseach of these divisions? At first glance, how finally the answer to purify myself of sinful impulses) but its exact opposite: How can I break out of this vicious cycle of Law question may appear to be simple and desire, of straightforward: psychoanalysis is the Prohibition and its transgression, within which I can assert my passion for life only as its opposite, a morbid death drive? How would it be possible for me theory that conceptualizes-brings to experience my "life drive" not as a foreign automatism, a blind "compulsion to repeat" which compels me to transgress the Law (with light-the unacknowledged complicity paradoxical structure of the Law itself), but as a fully subjectivized, positive yes! Here, Paul (like first division. Isn't Badiou) seems to fully endorse Hegel's point that there is Evil only in the gaze that perceives it, while it is the Law that not only opens up and sustains the domain of Sin, of sinful impulses to transgress its prohibitions, but also finds a perverse and morbid satisfaction in making us feel guilty for such transgressions. The ultimate results description of the Rule intertwinement of Law are thus all the well-known twists and paradoxes desire full of the superego; since I can enjoy only what I feel guilty about, I can find enjoyment only, in implicit (a self-reflectiveand even some [[explicit]]) turn, in feeling guilty, in punishing myself for sinful thoughts, and so on and so forth. When Badiou speaks references to or paraphrases of Lacan? Isn't the "morbid fascination ultimate domain of psychoanalysis the death drive," therefore, he is not resorting to platitudes, but articulating a specific Pauline reading intersection of psychoanalytic notions to do with the complex entanglement of (symbolic) Law and desire, this morbid intertwinement ? Isn't the multitude of life and death perverse satisfactions the form in which that very intersection is realized? Isn't the "dead" letter Lacanian division of the Law perverts my very life-enjoyment, turning it into a fascination with death. In this perverted universe subject one that concerns precisely the ascetic who whips himself on behalf of subject's relationship to the symbolic Law enjoys himself more intensely than anyone who takes an innocent pleasure in worldly delights? Furthermore, for it is not only the illicit sinful desires (i.e.isn't that ultimately confirmed by Lacan's [[Kant]] avec [[Sade]], those that are against the Law) in which Paul considers "the way Sadean universe of morbid [[perversion]] is posited as the flesh" (as opposed to truth"of the way most radical assertion of the Spirit"moral weight of symbolic Law in human history (Kantian [[ethics]]). "Flesh" includes both what is against the Law and ?8 However, the excessive self-torturing, self-mortifying, morbid fascination crucial question with the flesh that regard to psychoanalysis here is begotten by the Law. As Badiou emphasizes, Paul comes unexpectedly close here to his great detractor Nietzsche, whose problem was also that of how we can break out of whether it remains within the vicious cycle confines of a this morbid/masochistic obsession with death, self-mortifying denial this perverse intermingling of Life: and Death that characterizes the Christian "way dialectics of a prohibitory Law generating a transgressive desire. Perhaps the Spirit" best way to answer this question is for Nietzsche precisely to start with Lacan's own recourse to that same passage from Paul's Epistle to the magic rupture, Romans in elaborating the New Beginning which delivers us from this morbidly debilitating deadlock link between Law and enables us to open ourselves desire, where he refers to the Eternal Life availability of Love without Sin "the Thing" (i.e., without the Law and the guilt induced by impossible object of jouissance) via only the prohibitory Law)., as its transgression:

Here we have two divisions of Is the Law the subject, which are Thing? Certainly not to be confused. On Yet I can only know of the one hand, the subject Thing by means of the Law is divided between his conscious ego. In effect, which adheres I would not have had the idea to the letter of covet it if the Law, and his decentered desire, whichoperating against the subjecthadn's conscious will, t said: "automaticallyThou shalt not covet it."-compels him But the Thing finds a way by producing in me all kinds of covetousness thanks to "do what he hatesthe commandment," to transgress for without the Law and indulge in illicit jouissancethe Thing is dead. On But even without the other handLaw, we have I was once alive. But when the more radical division between this entire domain of commandment appeared, the Law/desireThing flared up, returned once again, I met my death. And for me, of the prohibition commandment that generates its own transgressionwas supposed to lead to life turned out to lead to death, for the Thing found a way and thanks to the commandment seduced me; through it I came to desire death. I believe that for a properly Christian Lovelittle while now some of you at least have begun to suspect that it is no longer I who have been [[speaking]]. In fact, with one small [[change]], namely, "Thing" for "sin," this is the New Beginning speech of which means breaking out [[Saint Paul]] on the subject of the deadlock of Law relations between the law and its transgressionsin in the Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 7, paragraph 7.

Where does The relationship between the Thing and the Lacanian "divided subject" stand Law could not be better defined than in relation to each of these divisions? At first glance, the answer to this question may appear to be simple and straightforward: psychoanalysis is the theory that conceptualizes-brings to light-the paradoxical structure of the first divisionterms…. Isn't Badiou's description of the intertwinement of Law and The [[dialectical]] relationship between desire full of implicit (and even some explicit) references to or paraphrases of Lacan? Isn't the ultimate domain of psychoanalysis the intersection of the (symbolic) Law and causes our desire? Isn't the multitude of perverse satisfactions the form to flare up only in which that very intersection is realized? Isn't the Lacanian division of the subject one that concerns precisely the subject's relationship relation to the symbolic Law? Furthermore, isn't that ultimately confirmed by Lacan's Kant avec Sade, in through which it becomes the Sadean universe of morbid perversion desire for death. It is posited as the "truth" only because of the most radical assertion of the moral weight of symbolic Law in human history (Kantian ethics)?8 Howeverthat sin . . . takes on an excessive, hyperbolic [[character]]. [[Freud]]'s discovery-the crucial question with regard to [[ethics of psychoanalysis here is whether ]]-does it remains within the confines of this morbid/masochistic obsession with death, this perverse intermingling of Life and Death that characterizes the dialectics of a prohibitory Law generating a transgressive desire. Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to start with Lacan's own recourse leave us clinging to that same passage from Paul's Epistle to the Romans in elaborating the link between Law and desire, where he refers to the availability of "the Thing" (the impossible object of jouissance) via only the prohibitory Law, as its transgression:dialectic?9

Is Crucial here is the concluding question, which clearly points toward there being, for Lacan, "a way of rediscovering the relationship to das [[Ding]] somewhere beyond the Law the Thing? Certainly not. Yet I can only know " The [[whole]] point of "the Thing by means ethics of psychoanalysis" is to formulate the Law. In effectpossibility of such a relationship, I which would not have had avoid the idea to covet it if the Law hadn't said: pitfalls of superegoic culpability and "Thou shalt not covet it.morbid" But enjoyment in sin, while also avoiding what Kant called Schwarmerei, the Thing finds a way obscurantist [[claim]] to give [[word]] to (and thus legitimize one's position by producing in me all kinds of covetousness thanks reference to the commandment) spiritual illumination, for without the Law or direct insight into the impossible Real Thing is dead. But even without the LawThe desire to which Lacan refers in his maxim of psychoanalytic ethics, I was once alive. But when the commandment appeared"ne pas ceder sur son desir" (not to compromise, the Thing flared upor give way on, returned once againone's desire), I met my death. And for meis no longer transgressive or, the commandment that was supposed to lead to life turned out to lead to deathconsequently, for the Thing found involved in a way and thanks to "morbid" dialectic with the commandment seduced meprohibitory Law; through it I came is rather one's own desire, to which one owes fidelity-desire death. I believe that for a little while now some elevated to the level of you at least have begun to suspect that it is no longer I who have been speaking[[ethical]] [[Duty]]. In fact, with one small change, namely, Thus "Thingne pas ceder sur son desir" for is ultimately another way of saying "sin,do your duty!" this is the speech of Saint Paul on the subject of the relations between the law and sin in the Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 7, paragraph 7.11

The relationship between It would thus be tempting to risk a Badiouan/Pauline reading of the end of psychoanalysis-which is to say, a New Beginning or symbolic "rebirth"-with the [[analysand]]'s subjectivity radically restructured such that the Thing and vicious cycle of the Law could not be better defined than in these terms…superego is suspended, [[left]] behind. The dialectical relationship between desire and (Doesn't Lacan himself drop many hints that the Law causes our desire to flare end of [[analysis]] opens up only in relation to the domain of [[Love beyond Law]], through which using the same Pauline terms as Badiou? 12) Nevertheless, Lacan's way is not that of Paul or Badiou: psychoanalysis is not "psychosynthesis"; it becomes does not posit a "new [[harmony]]," a new Truth-Event, but merely wipes the desire slate clean for deathit. It This "merely," however, should be put in quotation marks because it is only because Lacan's contention that, in this negative gesture of "wiping the Law slate clean," something (a Void) is confronted which is already "sutured" with the arrival of a new Truth-Event. For Lacan, negativity-a negative gesture of [[withdrawal]]-precedes any positive gesture of enthusiastic identification with a Cause, functioning as its condition of (im)possibility, that sin is, laying the ground or opening up the space for it, but simultaneously being obfuscated by it and undermining it. . . takes on an excessiveFor that reason, Lacan implicitly shifts the [[balance]] between Death and Resurrection toward Death, which at its most radical stands for not merely the passing of earthly life but the "night of the [[world]]," the self-withdrawal, hyperbolic character. Freud's discoverythe absolute contraction of subjectivity in which its very [[links]] with "reality" are severed-this is "wiping the ethics slate clean," which opens up the domain of psychoanalysisthe symbolic New Beginning and enables the emergence of the "new harmony" sustained by a newly emerged [[Master]]-does it leave us clinging to that dialectic?9Signifier.

Crucial here Here, Lacan parts company with Paul and Badiou: God not only is the concluding questiondead, which clearly points toward there beingbut was always already dead. After Freud, for Lacanone could not place one's faith in a Truth-Event, "since every such Event ultimately remains a semblance obfuscating a way prior Void whose [[Freudian]] name is death drive. So where Lacan differs from Badiou is in the determination of rediscovering the relationship to das Ding somewhere exact status of this domain beyond the Rule of Law." The whole point Like Badiou, Lacan delineates the contours of "a domain beyond the ethics Order of psychoanalysis" is to formulate Being, beyond the possibility politics of such a relationshipservice des biens, which would avoid beyond the pitfalls of superegoic culpability and "morbid" enjoyment in sinsuperegoic intersection of Law and its transgressive desire. However, while also avoiding what Kant called Schwarmereifor Lacan, the obscurantist claim to give word to (Freudian [[concept]] of death drive cannot be accounted for in terms of this intersection; the death drive is not the outcome of a morbid confusion of Life and thus legitimize one's position Death caused by reference to) spiritual illumination, or direct insight into the impossible Real Thingintervention of the symbolic Law. The desire to [[uncanny]] domain beyond the Order of Being is what Lacan calls the domain "between the two deaths," the preontological domain of monstrous [[spectral]] apparitions, which Lacan refers is "immortal" yet not in his maxim Badiou's sense of the immortality of psychoanalytic ethicsparticipating in Truth, but rather in the sense of what Lacan calls [[lamella]]-the monstrous "ne pas ceder sur son desirundead" object-[[libido]]. This domain, in which [[Oedipus]] (not to compromise, or give way onKing Lear, one's desireto take another exemplary [[case]])finds himself after the fall, when his symbolic destiny has been fulfilled, is no longer transgressive orfor Lacan "beyond the Law." In his reading of the Oedipus [[myth]], consequentlythe early Lacan was already focusing on what the standard version of the [[Oedipus complex]] leaves out of [[sight]]: the first [[figure]] of what is "beyond Oedipus, involved in a "morbid" dialectic which is Oedipus himself after he has fulfilled his destiny to the bitter end: the horrifying figure of [[Oedipus at Colonus]], that embittered old man with his thoroughly uncompromising attitude, cursing everyone around him. Doesn't this figure confront us with the prohibitory Law; it is rather oneinherent deadlock, the [[impossibility]] of jouissance, concealed by its Prohibition? Wasn's own desire, to which t Oedipus the one owes fidelity-desire elevated who transgressed the Prohibition and paid the price for it in having to assume this impossibility? Lacan exemplifies the level status of Oedipus at Colonus by comparison with that of ethical Dutythe unfortunate Mr. Thus "ne pas ceder sur son desir" Valdemar, the famous Poe character who, via [[hypnosis]], is ultimately another way put to death and then, reawakening, implores the observers of saying this horrible experiment: "do your dutyFor God's sake!-quick!-quick!-put me to [[sleep]]-or, quick!-waken me! quick!-I sAY TO YOU THAT I AM DEAD!" 11Upon being awakened, Mr. Valdemar, says Lacan,

It would thus be tempting to risk is no more than a Badiouan/Pauline reading of the end of psychoanalysis-disgusting liquefaction, something for which is to say, no language has a New Beginning or symbolic "rebirth"-with the analysand's subjectivity radically restructured such that the vicious cycle of the superego is suspended, left behind. (Doesn't Lacan himself drop many hints that the end of analysis opens up the domain of Love beyond Lawname, using the same Pauline terms as Badiou? 12) Nevertheless, Lacan's way is not that of Paul or Badiou: psychoanalysis is not "psychosynthesis"; it does not posit a "new harmonynaked apparition," a new Truth-Eventpure, but merely wipes the slate clean for it. This "merelysimple," howeverbrutal, should be put in quotation marks because of this figure which it is Lacan's contention thatimpossible to gaze at face on, which hovers in this negative gesture the background of "wiping all the slate cleanimaginings of human destiny," something (a Void) is confronted which is already "sutured" with the arrival of a new Truth-Event. For Lacanbeyond all qualification, negativity-a negative gesture of withdrawal-precedes any positive gesture of enthusiastic identification with a Cause, functioning as its condition of (im)possibility, that is, laying the ground or opening up the space and for it, but simultaneously being obfuscated by it and undermining it. For that reason, Lacan implicitly shifts the balance between Death and Resurrection toward Death, which at its most radical stands for not merely the passing of earthly life but the "night of the world," the self-withdrawalword carrion is completely inadequate, the absolute contraction [[complete]] collapse of subjectivity in which its very links with "reality" are severed-this species of swelling that is "wiping the slate clean," which opens up the domain of the symbolic New Beginning lifethe bubble bursts and enables the emergence of the "new harmony" sustained by a newly emerged Master-Signifierdissolves down into inanimate putrid liquid.

Here, Lacan parts company with Paul and Badiou: God not only is dead, but was always already dead. After Freud, one could not place one's faith in a Truth-Event, since every such Event ultimately remains a semblance obfuscating a prior Void whose Freudian name is death drive. So where Lacan differs from Badiou That is what happens in the determination case of the exact status of this domain beyond the Rule of LawOedipus. Like Badiou, Lacan delineates the contours of a domain beyond the Order of Being, beyond As everything right from the politics start of service des biens, beyond the "morbid" superegoic intersection of Law and its transgressive desire. However, for Lacan, the Freudian concept of death drive cannot be accounted for in terms of this intersection; the death drive is not the outcome of a morbid confusion of Life and Death caused by the intervention of the symbolic Law. The uncanny domain beyond the Order of Being is what Lacan calls the domain "between the two deaths," the preontological domain of monstrous spectral apparitions, which is "immortal" yet not in Badiou's sense of the immortality of participating in Truth, but rather in the sense of what Lacan calls lamella-the monstrous "undead" object-libido. This domain, in which Oedipus (or King Lear, [[tragedy]] goes to take another exemplary case) finds himself after the fall, when his symbolic destiny has been fulfilled, is for Lacan "beyond the Law." In his reading of the Oedipus mythshow, the early Lacan was already focusing on what the standard version of the Oedipus complex leaves out of sight: the first figure of what is "beyond Oedipus," which is Oedipus himself after he has fulfilled his destiny to the bitter end: nothing more than the horrifying figure scum of Oedipus at Colonus, that embittered old man with his thoroughly uncompromising attitude, cursing everyone around him. Doesn't this figure confront us with the inherent deadlock, the impossibility of jouissanceearth, concealed by its Prohibition? Wasn't Oedipus the one who transgressed the Prohibition and paid the price for it in having to assume this impossibility? Lacan exemplifies the status of Oedipus at Colonus by comparison with that of the unfortunate Mr. Valdemarrefuse, the famous Poe character whoresidue, via hypnosis, is put to death and then, reawakening, implores the observers a thing empty of this horrible experiment: "For God's sake!-quick!-quick!-put me to sleep-or, quick!-waken me! quick!-I sAY TO YOU THAT I AM DEAD!" Upon being awakened, Mrany plausible [[appearance]]. Valdemar, says Lacan,l3

The ultimate object of [[horror]] is this sudden emergence of the "life beyond death," of the undead-indestructible object, of Life deprived of any support in the symbolic order. This is no perhaps not unrelated to today's phenomenon of [[cyberspace]]: the more than our (experience of) reality is "virtualized"-changed into a disgusting liquefaction"[[screen]] phenomenon" or interface encounterthe more the "indivisible [[remainder]], something for " that which no language has resists integration into the interface, appears as the horrifying remainder of the undead Life. No wonder [[images]] of such a nameformless "undead" substance of Life abound in today's science [[fiction]]/horror narratives, from [[Alien]] on. Let us recall the naked apparition[[scene]] from Terry Gilliam's [[Brazil]] in which a waiter in a high-class restaurant recommends the daily specials to his customers ("Today, pureour tournedos is really special!"), simpleyet what they get is a dazzling color photo of the meal they've ordered on a stand above the plate, brutaland on the plate itself a loathsome excremental, pastelike lump. This split between the food's [[image]] and the real of this figure its formless excremental remainder perfectly exemplifies the disintegration of reality into an interface image, ghostlike and insubstantial, and the raw stuff of the remainder of [[the Real]]-our obsession with which it is impossible the price we have to gaze at face on, which hovers in pay for the background suspension of all the imaginings paternal Prohibition/Law that sustains and guarantees our access to reality. And, of human destinycourse, which Lacan's point is beyond all qualificationthat, and for which if one exploits to the [[limit]] the word carrion is completely inadequatepotentials opened up by our [[existence]] as parletres ("beings of language"), one sooner or later finds oneself in this horrifying in-between state, the complete collapse threatening possibility of this species which looms over each of swelling that is lifethe bubble bursts and dissolves down into inanimate putrid liquidus.

That This "indivisible remainder," this formless [[stain]] of the "little piece of the real" that "is " Oedipus after the fulfillment of his symbolic Destiny, is the direct embodiment of what happens in Lacan calls plus-de-[[jouir]], the "surplusenjoyment" or excess that cannot be accommodated by any symbolic [[idealization]]. In Lacan's use of the term, of course, there is a play upon the French ambiguity of "excess of enjoyment" versus "no longer any enjoyment"; on this model, it is tempting to [[speak]] here, apropos of this formless "indivisible remainder" that is Oedipus, of a case of Oedipusplus d'[[homme]]: "excessively human," he has lived, to the bitter end, the "[[human condition]]," realizing its most fundamental possibility, and, on that very account, he is in a way "no longer human," having turned into an "inhuman monster" bound by no human laws and considerations. As everything right from Lacan emphasizes, there are two main ways to cope with this "remainder": on the start one hand, traditional [[humanism]] disavows it, avoids confronting it, covers it up by means of idealizations (i.e., concealing it with noble images of Humanity); on the tragedy goes other hand, the ruthless and boundless capitalist [[economy]], as it were, puts this excess/remainder to use, manipulating it in order to keep its productive machinery in perpetual motion (as they usually put it-there being no desire, no depravity, too low to showexploit for capitalist profiteering). At this point, when Oedipus is nothing more than has been reduced to the "scum of humanity," we again encounter the earthambiguous relationship (or, in Hegelese, the refuse[[speculative identity]]) between the lowest and the highest, between the excremental scum and the residuesacred, for now, all of a thing empty of any plausible appearance.l3sudden, messengers from different cities appear and vie for Oedipus's favor, asking him to bless their hometowns with his presence, to which the embittered Oedipus responds with the famous lines:

The ultimate object of horror is this sudden emergence of the "life beyond death," of the undead-indestructible objectAm I to be counted as something according to some readings: as a man only now, of Life deprived of any support in the symbolic order. This is perhaps not unrelated when I am reduced to todaynothing when I am no longer human? Don's phenomenon t these lines expose the elementary [[matrix]] of cyberspacesubjectivity: the more our (experience of) reality is you become "virtualizedsomething"-changed into (you are accounted a "screen phenomenon" or interface encounterthe more subject) only after going through the "indivisible remainderzero-point," that which resists integration into the interface, appears as the horrifying remainder of the undead Life. No wonder images after being deprived of such a formless all those "undeadpathological" substance of Life abound (in today's science fiction/horror narratives, from Alien on. Let us recall the scene from Terry Gilliam's Brazil in which a waiter in a high-class restaurant recommends the daily specials to his customers ("TodayKantian sense of empirical, our tournedos is really special!"contingent), yet what they get is a dazzling color photo of the meal they've ordered on a stand above the plate, and on the plate itself a loathsome excremental, pastelike lump. This split between the food's image and the real of its formless excremental remainder perfectly exemplifies the disintegration of reality into an interface image, ghostlike and insubstantial, and the raw stuff of the remainder of the Real-our obsession with which is the price we have to pay for the suspension of the paternal Prohibition/Law features that sustains and guarantees our access to reality. And, of coursesupport your identity, Lacan's point is that, if one exploits thus being reduced to the limit the potentials opened up by our existence as parletres ("beings of languagenothing"), one sooner or later finds oneself in this horrifying in-between state"a Nothingness counted as Something, " which is the threatening possibility of which looms over each of usmost concise [[formula]] for subject.14

This "indivisible remainderWe are now in a position to precisely determine how much of a gap separates Badiou from Lacan. For Badiou, what psychoanalysis provides is insight into the morbid intertwining of Life and Death," this formless stain of Law and desire, insight into the "little piece [[obscenity]] of the realLaw itself as the " that truth"is" Oedipus after of the thought and the moral stance which limit themselves to the fulfillment Order of his symbolic DestinyBeing and its discriminatory Laws; as such, psychoanalysis cannot properly render thematic the domain beyond the Law, that is , the direct embodiment mode of operation of what Lacan calls plusfidelity to the Truth-de-jouirEvent. The psychoanalytic subject is the divided subject of the (symbolic) Law, not the "surplusenjoyment" or excess subject divided between Law (which regulates the Order of Being) and Love (as fidelity to the Truth-Event). (The [[logical]] consequence for Badiou is that cannot be accommodated psychoanalysis remains constrained by any symbolic idealization. In Lacan's use of the term, field of courseKnowledge, there is a play upon unable to approach the French ambiguity properly positive dimension of "excess Truth [[processes]]: in the case of enjoyment" versus "no longer any enjoyment"; on this modellove, psychoanalysis reduces it is tempting to speak here, apropos a sublimated expression of [[sexuality]]; in the cases of this formless "indivisible remainder" that is Oedipusboth science and art, psychoanalysis can only speak to the subjective libidinal conditions of a case scientific invention or a work of plus d'homme: "excessively human," he has livedart-such as that an [[artist]] or a [[scientist]] was driven by his unresolved Oedipus complex or [[latent]] [[homosexuality]], and so on-conditions which are ultimately irrelevant to the bitter endwork's truth dimension; in the case of politics, psychoanalysis can only conceive of collectivity against the "human condition," realizing its most fundamental possibility, background of a [[Totem]] and [[Taboo]] or [[Moses]] and [[Monotheism]] problematic of primordial crime andguilt, on that very account, he so is in unable to [[think]] a way militant "no longer human," having turned into an "inhuman monsterrevolutionary" collective that is not bound by no human laws and considerationsparental guilt, but rather freed by the positive force of Love. As ) For Lacan emphasizes, there on the other hand, the Truth-Event operates only against a background of [[traumatic encounter]] with the undead/monstrous Thing, and what are two main Badiou's four generiques if not four ways to cope of reinscribing the encounter with this the Real Thing into the symbolic texture? In art, beauty is "remainder": on the one handlast [[veil]] of the Monstrous, traditional humanism disavows it" while science, avoids confronting itfar from being just another symbolic [[narrative]], covers it up by means endeavors to formulate the structure of idealizations (i.e.the Real beneath the symbolic fiction; love, concealing it with noble images no longer merely the [[narcissistic]] screen obfuscating the truth of Humanity); on desire in the other handlater Lacan, is the ruthless way to "gentrify" and boundless capitalist economycome to terms with the traumatic drive, as it were, puts this excess/remainder while militant politics is a means of putting the terrific force of Negativity to use, manipulating it in order to keep its productive machinery in perpetual motion (as they usually put it-there being no desire, no depravity, too low to exploit for capitalist profiteering)restructuring our social affairs. At this point, when Oedipus has been reduced So Lacan is not a postmodern cultural relativist with respect to the "scum authenticity of humanity," we again encounter the ambiguous relationship (or, in HegeleseTruth-Event: there really is a difference between an authentic Truth-Event and its semblance, the speculative identity) between the lowest and it can be traced to the highest, between fact that in a Truth-Event the excremental scum and Void of the sacred, for nowdeath drive, all of a sudden, messengers from different cities appear and vie for Oedipus's favorradical negativity that momentarily suspends the Order of Being, asking him continues to bless their hometowns with his presence, to which the embittered Oedipus responds with the famous lines:resonate.

Am I to This difference between Badiou and Lacan turns precisely on the status of the subject: Badiou's main point is that the subject should not be counted as something according to some readings: as identified with the constitutive Void of the structure, since such an identification already ontologizes the subject, though in a man only nowpurely negative way, when I am reduced turning the subject into an entity that is consubstantial with the structure and thus belongs to nothing when I am no longer human? Don't these lines expose the elementary matrix order of subjectivity: you become the necessary and a priori ("something" (you are accounted no structure without a subject") only after going through . To this Lacanian ontologization of the zero-pointsubject, after being deprived of all those Badiou opposes its "pathologicalrarity" -the local-contingent-fragile-transient emergence of subjectivity. When a Truth-Event (contingently, unpredictably) occurs, a subject emerges and exercises fidelity to it by discerning its traces in a Situation the Kantian sense Truth of empiricalwhich is this Event.ls Lacan, contingent) features that support your identityhowever, thus being reduced to "nothing"-"introduces a Nothingness counted distinction between the subject and the gesture of [[subjectivization]] (or what Badiou describes as Somethingthe process of subjectivization," in which the subject's engagement with and fidelity to the Event occurs, versus subject as the negative gesture of breaking out of the constraints of Being that opens up the possibility of subjectivization). The subject prior to subjectivization is the most concise formula for subjectpure negativity of death drive prior to its [[reversal]] into identification with some new [[Master-Signifier]].14

We are now in a position to precisely determine how much of a gap separates Badiou from In Lacan. For Badiou, what psychoanalysis provides act is insight into a purely negative category, which (in Badiou's terms) stands for the morbid intertwining gesture of Life and Death, breaking out of Law and desire, insight into the obscenity constraints of Being, for the Law itself as the "truth" of the thought and the moral stance which limit themselves reference to the Order of Being and Void at its discriminatory Laws; as suchcore, psychoanalysis cannot properly render thematic prior to the domain beyond the Law, that isfilling in of this Void. In this precise sense, act involves the mode of operation dimension of death drive which grounds the decision (to exercise fidelity to the a Truth-Event), but it cannot be reduced to it. The psychoanalytic subject Lacanian death drive is the divided subject thus a kind of the (symbolic) Law"vanishing mediator" between [[Being and Event]], not the a "negative" gesture constitutive of subject divided between Law that is then obfuscated in "Being" (which regulates the Order of Beingestablished ontological order) and Love (as in fidelity to the Truth-Event). (The logical consequence for Badiou 16 One should insist here on the irreducibly vicious cycle of subjectivity: "the wound is that psychoanalysis remains constrained healed only by the field of Knowledgespear which smote it," that is, unable to approach the properly positive dimension of Truth processes: subject "is" the very gap filled in by the case gesture of lovesubjectivization. In short, psychoanalysis reduces it the Lacanian answer to a sublimated expression of sexuality; in the cases of both science question asked (and art, psychoanalysis can only speak to answered in the subjective libidinal conditions of a scientific invention or a work of art-negative) by such different philosophers as that an artist or a scientist was driven by his unresolved Oedipus complex or latent homosexualityAlthusser, Derrida, and so onBadiou-conditions Can the gap/opening/Void which are ultimately irrelevant to precedes the gesture of subjectivization still be called "subject"?-is an emphatic yes! The subject is at once the work's truth dimension; in ontological gap (the case "[[night of politics, psychoanalysis can only conceive the world]]" or [[madness]] of collectivity against radical self-withdrawal) and the background gesture of a Totem and Taboo subjectivization that closes, or Moses and Monotheism problematic heals up the wound of primordial crime and guilt, so that gap (in Lacanese: the gesture of the Master which establishes a new harmony). Subjectivity is unable to think a militant "revolutionary" collective name for this irreducible circularity, for a power that is does not bound by parental guiltfight an external, resisting force (say, but rather freed by the positive force inertia of Love.the given substantial order) For Lacanbut an obstacle that is absolutely inherent, on which ultimately "is" the subject itself." In other hand[[words]], the Truth-Event operates only against a background of traumatic encounter with the undead/monstrous Thing, and what are Badiousubject's four generiques if not four ways of reinscribing the encounter with the Real Thing into very endeavor to fill in the symbolic texture? In art, beauty Gap is precisely what both generates and sustains it. "Death drive" is thus the last veil constitutive obverse of every emphatic assertion of the Monstrous," while science, far from being just another symbolic narrative, endeavors Truth irreducible to formulate the structure positive order of the Real beneath the symbolic fiction; loveBeing, that is, no longer merely the narcissistic screen obfuscating the truth of desire in the later Lacan, is negative gesture which clears the way to "gentrify" and come to terms with for creative [[sublimation]]; the traumatic fact that sublimation presupposes death drive, while militant politics means that a [[sublime]] object by which we are enthusiastically transfixed is effectively a means "mask of putting death," a veil that covers over the terrific force of Negativity primordial ontological Void. (To will this [[sublime object]] effectively amounts to use in restructuring our social affairswilling a Nothingness, as Nietzsche would have put it. So Lacan is not a postmodern cultural relativist with respect to the authenticity of the Truth-Event: ) If there really is a difference between an authentic Truth-Event and its semblanceethicopolitical lesson to be learned from psychoanalysis, and it can be traced to consists of the fact insight that in a Truth-Event the Void great calamities of our century (from the Holocaust to the Stalinist desastre) resulted not from our succumbing to the death drivemorbid attraction of this Void but, of a radical negativity that momentarily suspends on the Order of Beingcontrary, continues from our endeavoring to avoid confronting it and to resonateimpose the direct rule of Truth and/or Goodness.

This difference between Badiou and Lacan turns precisely on The political consequences of reasserting psychoanalysis in the status face of the subject: Badiou's main point is that critique are the very opposite of the subject should not be identified with standard psychoanalytic skepticism about the constitutive Void final outcome of the structurerevolutionary process (i.e., since such an identification already ontologizes the subject, though revolutionary process has to go wrong and end up in a purely negative wayself-destructive fury because it is unaware of its own libidinal foundations, turning of the subject into an entity murderous [[aggressivity]] which sustains its [[idealism]], etc.). It is tempting to claim instead that Badiou's [[resistance]] to psychoanalysis is consubstantial with the structure and thus belongs to the order part of his hidden [[Kantianism]], on account of which he also ultimately opposes the necessary and full revolutionary passage a priori ("no structure without a subject")l'[[acte]]. To this Lacanian ontologization of the subjectThat is to say, although Badiou opposes its "rarity"is adamantly anti-the local-contingent-fragile-transient emergence of subjectivity. When a Truth-Event Kantian and, in his political stances, radically leftist (contingentlyrejecting not only parliamentary democracy outright, unpredictablybut also [[multiculturalism]] or "identity politics") occurs, at a subject emerges deeper level his distinction between the order of the positive Knowledge of Being and exercises fidelity to it by discerning its traces in a Situation the wholly different Truth of which is this -Eventremains Kantian.ls LacanWhen he emphasizes how, however, introduces a distinction between from the subject and the gesture standpoint of subjectivization Knowledge, there simply is no Event (or what Badiou describes i.e., that its traces can be discerned as signs only by those who are already engaged with the process of subjectivizationEvent), in which the subjectdoesn't he thereby echo Kant's engagement with and fidelity to the Event occurs, versus subject notion of signs as announcing the negative gesture of breaking out noumenal fact of freedom without positively proving it (e.g., the constraints of Being that opens up enthusiasm for the possibility of subjectivizationFrench Revolution). The subject prior to subjectivization is the pure negativity of death drive prior to its reversal into identification with some new Master-Signifier.?

In Lacan, act is What a purely negative category, which (true Leninist and an authentic political conservative have in Badiou's terms) stands for common is the gesture fact that they both reject what could be called liberalleftist "irresponsibility" (advocating grand projects of breaking [[solidarity]], freedom, etc., yet ducking out of the constraints of Beingwhen their price proves to be concrete and often cruel political measures); an authentic conservative, like a true Leninist, is not, however, for the reference afraid to the Void at its core, prior [[pass]] to the filling in of this Void. In this precise sense, act involves and bear all the dimension consequences, unpleasant as these may be, of death drive which grounds the decision (to exercise fidelity to realizing a Truth), but it cannot be reduced to itpolitical [[project]]. The Lacanian death drive is thus a kind of "vanishing mediator" between Being and EventKipling, a "negative" gesture constitutive of subject that is then obfuscated in "Being" for example (the established ontological orderwhom [[Brecht]] admired very much) , despised British [[Liberals]] who advocated freedom and in fidelity justice while silently counting on the Conservatives to do the necessary dirty work for them; the Event.16 One should insist here on same can be said of the irreducibly vicious cycle attitude of subjectivityliberal leftists (or "democratic Socialists") toward Leninist Communists: "democratic Socialists" reject the wound is healed only by the spear which smote it,social-democratic " that iscompromise, the subject "is" wanting a true revolution yet shirking the very gap filled in by price to be paid for it; they thus prefer to adopt the gesture attitude of subjectivizationa [[Beautiful Soul]] and keep their hands clean. In short, contrast to this false liberal-leftist position (pro-democracy for the Lacanian answer [[people]] so long as there are no [[secret]] police to the question asked (fight and answered in the negativeno [[threat]] to their academic privileges) by such different philosophers as Althusser, Derridaa Leninist is, like a conservative, and Badiou- Can authentic in the gap/opening/Void which precedes sense of fully assuming the gesture consequences of subjectivization still be called "subject"?-is an emphatic yes! The subject is at once the ontological gap (the "night his politics, of the world" or madness being fully aware of radical self-withdrawal) what it actually means to take power and exert it. Therein lies the gesture fatal weakness of subjectivization that closesthose who, like Badiou, or heals up rely on a proto-Kantian opposition between the wound positive order of, that gap Being (in Lacanese: the gesture or of the Master which establishes a new harmonyservice des biens). Subjectivity is a name for this irreducible circularityand the radical, unconditional demand for a power egaliberte that does not fight an external, resisting force (say, signals the inertia presence of the given substantial order) but Truth-Event-an obstacle opposition, that is absolutely inherent, which ultimately "is" between the subject itself." In other words, the subject's very endeavor to fill in the Gap is precisely what both generates global social order and sustains it. "Death drive" is thus the constitutive obverse dimension of every emphatic assertion universality proper, which cuts a line of [[separation]] into this global order-their unconditional demand for the Truth irreducible to remains at the positive order level of Being, that isa [[hysterical]] provocation directed at the Master, testing his limits ("Can he reject-or meet-our demands and still maintain the negative gesture which clears the way for creative sublimation; the fact that sublimation presupposes death drive means that a sublime object by which we are enthusiastically transfixed is effectively a appearance of omnipotence?"mask ). The [[test]] of death," a veil that covers over the primordial ontological Void. (To will this sublime object effectively amounts to willing a Nothingnesstrue revolutionary stance, as Nietzsche would have put it.) If there is an ethicopolitical lesson opposed to be learned from psychoanalysisthis [[game]] of hysterical provocation, it consists of is the insight that heroic readiness to endure the great calamities subversive undermining of our century (from the Holocaust to existing System as it undergoes conversion into the Stalinist desastre) resulted not from our succumbing [[principle]] of a new positive Order that can give body to the morbid attraction of this Void butnegativity-or, on the contraryin Badiou's terms, from our endeavoring to avoid confronting it and to impose the direct rule conversion of Truth and/or Goodnessinto Being.

The political consequences of reasserting psychoanalysis in the face of Badiou's critique are the very opposite of the standard psychoanalytic skepticism about the final outcome of the revolutionary process (i.e., the revolutionary process has to go wrong and end up in self-destructive fury because it is unaware of its own libidinal foundations, of the murderous aggressivity which sustains its idealism, etc.). It is tempting to claim instead that Badiou's resistance to psychoanalysis is part of his hidden Kantianism, on account of which he also ultimately opposes the full revolutionary passage a l'acte. That is to say, although Badiou is adamantly anti-Kantian and, in his political stances, radically leftist (rejecting not only parliamentary democracy outright, but also multiculturalism or "identity politics"), at a deeper level his distinction between the order of the positive Knowledge of Being and the wholly different Truth-Event remains Kantian. When he emphasizes how, from the standpoint of Knowledge, there simply is no Event (i.e., that its traces can be discerned as signs only by those who are already engaged with the Event), doesn't he thereby echo Kant's notion of signs as announcing the noumenal fact of freedom without positively proving it (e.g., the enthusiasm for the French Revolution)? What a true Leninist and an authentic political conservative have in common is the fact that they both reject what could be called liberalleftist "irresponsibility" (advocating grand projects of solidarity, freedom, etc., yet ducking out when their price proves to be concrete and often cruel political measures); an authentic conservative, like a true Leninist, is not, however, afraid to pass to the act and bear all the consequences, unpleasant as these may be, of realizing a political project. Kipling, for example (whom Brecht admired very much), despised British Liberals who advocated freedom and justice while silently counting on the Conservatives to do the necessary dirty work for them; the same can be said of the attitude of liberal leftists (or "democratic Socialists") toward Leninist Communists: "democratic Socialists" reject the social-democratic "compromise," wanting a true revolution yet shirking the price to be paid for it; they thus prefer to adopt the attitude of a Beautiful Soul and keep their hands clean. In contrast to this false liberal-leftist position (pro-democracy for the people so long as there are no secret police to fight and no threat to their academic privileges), a Leninist is, like a conservative, authentic in the sense of fully assuming the consequences of his politics, of being fully aware of what it actually means to take power and exert it. Therein lies the fatal weakness of those who, like Badiou, rely on a proto-Kantian opposition between the positive order of Being (or of the service des biens) and the radical, unconditional demand for egaliberte that signals the presence of the Truth-Event-an opposition, that is, between the global social order and the dimension of universality proper, which cuts a line of separation into this global order-their unconditional demand for the Truth remains at the level of a hysterical provocation directed at the Master, testing his limits ("Can he reject-or meet-our demands and still maintain the appearance of omnipotence?"). The test of the true revolutionary stance, as opposed to this game of hysterical provocation, is the heroic readiness to endure the subversive undermining of the existing System as it undergoes conversion into the principle of a new positive Order that can give body to this negativity-or, in Badiou's terms, the conversion of Truth into Being. [[Notes]]1 [[Alain Badiou]], L'etre et l'evenement ([[Paris]], I988).

3 Another Badiou example of Truth-Event, the atonal revolution in [[music ]] accomplished by the Second Viennese [[school ]] (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern), also exemplifies three ways to betray the event of Truth: (I) the traditionalists' dismissal of atonal music as an empty formal experiment, which allowed them to continue to compose in the old ways, as if nothing had happened; (2) the pseudo-modernist fake imitation of atonality; and (3) the tendency to change atonal music into a new positive tradition.

4 Perhaps therein resides the negative [[achievement ]] which brought such fame to Francois Furet: the de-event-ualization of the French Revolution, that is, adopting an external perspective toward it and thereby turning it into a succession of complex historical facts.

6 As Badiou perspicuously notes, these four domains of Truth-Event are increasingly [[displaced ]] in the [[public ]] [[discourse ]] of today by their non-evenemential fake doubles. We speak of "[[culture]]" instead of "art," of "sex" instead of "love," of "know-how" or "wisdom" instead of "science," of "management" (gestion) instead of "politics," and thereby reduce art to an expression/articulation of historically specific culture, and love to an ideologically dated form of sexuality, while science is dismissed as a falsely Westernuniversalized form of [[practical ]] knowledge equal to many forms of prescientific wisdom, and politics (with all the passion of struggle that this notion involves) as an immature ideological version or forerunner of the art of social management.

7 See Badiou's unpublished 1995/96 [[seminar]], "Saint Paul: La fondation de l'universalisme."

8 An irony worth noting here is [[Foucault]]'s conception of psychoanalysis as the last link in the [[chain ]] beginning with the Christian confessional mode of sexuality, which thereby links it to Law and guilt. However, Paul, the founding figure of Christianity, does exactly the opposite (at least on Badiou's reading) by endeavoring to break the morbid chain that links Law and desire.

9 [[Jacques Lacan]], "On the Moral Law" (1959), in [[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis ]] 1959-1960, Bk. 7 of [[The Seminar ]] of Jacques Lacan, ed. Jacques-Alain [[Miller]], trans. Dennis Porter (New York and [[London]], 1992 [1986]), 7I-84; quotation from 83-84.

11 The status of the reference to Kant here is another matter. Insofar as Kant is conceived as the philosopher of the Law in Badiou's Pauline sense, Lacan's concept of [[Kant avec Sade ]] retains its full validity, that is, the Kantian moral Law retains its status as a superego [[formation]], so its "truth" remains the Sadean universe of morbid perversion. However, there is another way to conceptualize the Kantian moral [[injunction ]] which delivers it from the superego's constraints; for a Lacanian approach to this "other Kant," see Alenka [[Zupancic]], Die Ethik des Realen ([[Vienna]], 1995).

12 For example, the very last [[sentence ]] of Lacan's Seminaire XI speaks of the "[[signification ]] of a limitless love [which] is outside the limits of the law"; Jacques Lacan, "In You More than You" (1964), in The Four Fundamental [[Concepts ]] of [[Psycho]]-Analysis, ed. [[Jacques-Alain Miller]], trans. Alan [[Sheridan ]] (New York and London, 1978 [1973] ), 263-76; quotation from 276.

13 Jacques Lacan, "[[Desire, Life and Death]]" (I955), in The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the [[Technique ]] of Psychoanalysis 1954-1955, Bk. 2 of Miller, ed., Seminar of Jacques Lacan, trans. [[Sylvana Tomaselli ]] (New York and London, 199I [1978]), 221-34; quotations from 23I-32.

14 The other famous quip of the embittered Oedipus is uttered in response to the claim by the Chorus that the greatest boon to mortal man is not to have been [[born ]] at all; the well-known comic rejoinder, quoted by Freud and referred to by Lacan ("Unfortunately, that happens to scarcely one in a hundred thousand"), has acquired new meaning today amidst the heated debate over abortion: Aren't aborted [[children ]] in a sense those who do succeed in not being born?

16 This difference between Lacan and Badiou also has certain implications for the appreciation of political events. The disintegration of [[East European ]] [[socialism ]] was not, for Badiou, a Truth-Event; apart from giving rise to a brief popular enthusiasm, the dissident fomentation never managed to transform itself into a [[stable ]] movement of followers consistently engaged in militant fidelity to the Event, but soon disintegrated such that what we have today is either the resurgence of vulgar liberal-parliamentarian [[capitalism ]] or the rise of racist/ethnic [[fundamentalism]]. However, if we accept the Lacanian distinction between the negative gesture of the act (saying no!) and its positive aftermath (i.e., locating the key dimension in the primordial negative gesture), then the process of socialism's disintegration can be said to have produced a true act nonetheless, in the guise of an enthusiastic mass movement of saying no! to the Communist regime for the sake of authentic solidarity-a negative gesture that counted more than its later, failed positivization did.

17 The first and still unsurpassed description of this [[paradox ]] was perhaps [[Fichte]]'s notion of Anstoss, the "obstacle/impetus" which sets in motion the subject's productive effort to "posit" objective reality; no longer the Kantian Thing-[[in-itself]]-an external stimulus affecting the subject from outside-the Anstoss is a kernel of contingency which is [[extimate]]: a foreign body in the very heart of the subject. Subjectivity is thus defined not by a struggle against the inertia of the opposing substantial order but by an absolutely inherent tension.

==Source==* [[Psychoanalysis in Post-Marxism: The Case of Alain Badiou]]. ''The South Atlantic Quarterly''. Durham; Spring 1998. Volume: 97, Issue: 2, Start Page: 235-261. Spring 1998. [[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:ZizekSlavoj Žižek]]