Changes

- 09/25/2003 - <i>HOMO SACERL'envers de la [[psychanalyse]]</i> AS THE OBJECT OF THE DISCOURSE OF THE UNIVERSITY</b><br><br> , [[Seminar]] XVII (1969-1970) on the four [[discourses]], is [[Lacan]]'s response to the events of [[1968]] - its premise is best [[captured]] as his [[reversal]] of the well-known anti-[[structuralist]] graffiti from the [[Paris]] walls of 1968 "[[Structures]] do not walk on the streets!" - if anything, this Seminar endeavors to demonstrate how structures DO walk on the streets, i.e. how [[structural]] shifts CAN account for the [[social]] outbursts like that of the 1968. Instead of the one [[symbolic]] [[Order]] with its set of a priori rules which [[guarantee]] social [[cohesion]], we get the [[matrix]] of the passages from one to [[another]] [[discourse]]: Lacan's interest is focused on the passage from the discourse of the [[Master]] to the discourse of [[University]] as the hegemonic discourse in contemporary [[society]]. No wonder that the [[revolt]] was located at the universities: as such, it merely signaled the shift to the new forms of domination in which the [[scientific]] discourse serves legitimizes the relations of domination. Lacan's underlying premise is sceptic-[[conservative]] - Lacan's diagnosis is best captured by Slavoj Zizekhis famous retort to the student revolutionaries: "As [[hysterics]], you [[demand]] a new master. You will get it!" This passage can also be conceived in more general [[terms]], as the passage from the prerevolutionary <br><bri>ancien [[regime]]</fonti><font face=to the postrevolutionary new Master who does not [[want]] to admit that he is one, but proposes himself as a mere "servant"courierof the [[People]] — in [[Nietzsche]]'s terms, it is simply the passage from Master's [[ethics]] to [[slave]] [[morality]], and this fact, perhaps, enables us a new approach to Nietzsche: when Nietzsche scornfully dismisses " size=slave morality,"he is not attacking lower classes as such, but, rather, the new masters who are no longer ready to assume the title of the Master -0"><tt></tt></font><div align="justifyslave">is Nietzsche's term for a fake master. — How, then, more closely, are we to read the [[university discourse]]?

<font face=The university discourse is [[enunciated]] from the [[position]] of "courierneutral" size=[[Knowledge]]; it addresses the [[remainder]] of the [[real]] (say, in the [[case]] of pedagogical knowledge, the "-0raw, uncultivated [[child]]"><tt><i>L'envers de la psychanalyse</i>), Seminar XVII turning it into the [[subject]] (1969-1970$) on . The "[[truth]]" of the university discourse, hidden beneath the four discoursesbar, of course, is Lacan's response [[power]], i.e. the Master-[[Signifier]]: the constitutive lie of the university discourse is that it disavows its [[performative]] [[dimension]], presenting what effectively amounts to a [[political]] decision based on power as a simple insight into the events factual [[state]] of 1968 - its premise things. What one should avoid here is the Foucauldian misreading: the produced subject is best captured not simply the [[subjectivity]] which arises as his reversal the result of the welldisciplinary application of knowledge-known antipower, but its remainder, that which eludes the grasp of knowledge-structuralist graffiti from power. "Production" (the fourth term in [[The Matrix|the Paris walls matrix]] of 1968 "Structures do discourses) does not walk on stand simply for the result of the streets!discursive operation, but rather for its " - if anythingindivisible remainder, this Seminar endeavors to demonstrate how structures DO walk on " for the [[excess]] which resists [[being]] included in the streetsdiscursive network, i.e. how structural shifts CAN account for what the social outbursts like that of discourse itself produces as the 1968foreign [[body]] in its very heart. Instead of Perhaps the one symbolic Order with its set exemplary case of a priori rules which guarantee social cohesion, we get the matrix of the passages from one to another discourse: LacanMaster's interest is focused on the passage from position which underlies the university discourse of the Master to is the way in which medical discourse of University as the hegemonic discourse functions in contemporary society. No wonder that the revolt was located our everyday lives: at the universities: as suchsurface level, it merely signaled we are dealing with pure [[objective]] knowledge which desubjectivizes [[The Subject|the shift subject]]-[[patient]], reducing him to the new forms an [[object]] of domination in which the scientific discourse serves legitimizes the relations research, of domination. Lacan's underlying premise is sceptic-conservative - Lacan's diagnosis is best captured by his famous retort to the student revolutionaries: "As hystericsand [[treatment]]; however, you demand a new master. You will get beneath it!" This passage , one can also be conceived in more general termseasily discern a worried hystericized subject, obsessed with [[anxiety]], addressing the doctor as the passage his Master and asking for reassurance from the prerevolutionary <i>ancien regime</i> him. At a more common level, suffice it to [[recall]] the postrevolutionary new Master [[market]] expert who does not want to admit that he is oneadvocates strong budgetary measures (cutting [[welfare]] expenses, but proposes himself etc.) as a mere "servant" [[necessity]] imposed by his neutral expertise devoid of the People — in Nietzsche's terms, it is simply the passage from Master's ethics to slave morality, and this fact, perhaps, enables us a new approach to Nietzscheany [[ideological]] biases: when Nietzsche scornfully dismisses "slave morality," what he conceals is not attacking lower classes as such, but, rather, the new masters who are no longer ready to assume series of power-relations (from the title [[active]] [[role]] of state apparatuses to ideological beliefs) which sustain the Master - "slaveneutral" is Nietzsche's term for a fake masterfunctioning of the market [[mechanism]]. — How, then, more closely, are we to read the university discourse?<br><br>

In the University discourse, is not the upper level ($ — </tti>a</fonti>) that of [[biopolitics]] (in the [[sense]] deployed from [[Foucault]] to [[Agamben]])? Of the expert knowledge dealing with its object which is <centeri>a<font face=/i> - not [[subjects]], but individuals reduced to bare [[life]]? And does the lower not designate what [[Eric Santner]] called the "courier" size=crisis of investiture,"i.e., the [[impossibility]] of the subject to relate to S₁, to [[identify]] with a [[Master-0"Signifier]], to assume the imposed symbolic mandate?<ref>See Eric Santner, <tti>My Own Private [[Germany]]<img src="hsacer/i>, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1996.gif</ref> The key point is here that the expert rule of " alt=biopolitics"university discourse mathemeis grounded in and conditioned by the crisis of investiture; this crisis generated the " align=post-metaphysical"middlesurvivalist stance of the Last Men, which ends up in an anemic [[spectacle]] of life dragging on as its own shadow. It is within this horizon that one should appreciate today's growing [[rejection]] of [[death]] penalty: what one should be able to discern is the hidden " border=biopolitics"0which sustains this rejection. Those who assert the " height=sacredness of life,"52" vspace="1" width="85"><br>defending it against the [[threat]] of transcendent powers which parasitize on it, end up in a [[world]] in which, on behalf of its very [[official]] [[goal]] — long pleasurable life — all effective pleasures are prohibited or strictly controlled (smoking, drugs, food…). [[Spielberg]]'s <bri>Saving Private Ryan</tt></font></centeri>is the latest example of this survivalist attitude towards dying, with its "demystifying" presentation of war as a meaningless slaughter which [[nothing]] can really justify - as such, it provides the best possible justification for the Colin Powell's "no-casualties-on-our-side" military [[doctrine]].

<font face="courier" size="-0"><tt>The university discourse is enunciated from the position On today's market, we find a [[whole]] series of "neutral" Knowledge; it addresses the remainder products deprived of the real (say, in the case of pedagogical knowledgetheir malignant property: coffee without caffeine, the "rawcream without fat, uncultivated child"), turning it into the subject ($)beer without alcohol. The "truth" of the university discourse, hidden beneath the bar, of course, is power, i.e. And the Master-Signifier[[list]] goes on: the constitutive lie of the university discourse is that it disavows its performative dimension, presenting what effectively amounts to a political decision based on power as a simple insight into the factual state of things. What one should avoid here is the Foucauldian misreading: the produced subject is not simply the subjectivity which arises [[about]] [[virtual]] sex as the result of the disciplinary application of knowledge-power, but its remaindersex without sex, that which eludes the grasp Colin Powell doctrine of knowledge-power. "Production" warfare with no casualties (the fourth term in the matrix on our side, of discoursescourse) does not stand simply for as warfare without warfare, the result contemporary redefinition of the discursive operation, but rather for its "indivisible remainder," for the excess which resists being included in the discursive network, i.e. for what the discourse itself produces [[politics]] as the foreign body in its very heart. Perhaps the exemplary case art of the Masterexpert administration as politics without politics, up to today's position which underlies the university discourse is the way in which medical discourse functions in our everyday lives: at the surface level, we are dealing with pure objective knowledge which desubjectivizes the subject-patient, reducing him to tolerant [[liberal]] [[multiculturalism]] as an object [[experience]] of research, [[Other]] deprived of diagnosis and treatment; however, beneath it, one can easily discern a worried hystericized subject, obsessed with anxiety, addressing its [[Otherness]] (the doctor as his Master idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and asking for reassurance from him. At a more common level, suffice it has an ecologically sound holistic approach to recall the market expert who advocates strong budgetary measures (cutting welfare expenses[[reality]], etc.while features like wife beating remain out of sight…) as ? Virtual Reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a necessity imposed by his neutral expertise devoid product deprived of any ideological biasesits substance: what he conceals is the series of power-relations (from the active role of state apparatuses to ideological beliefs) which sustain the "neutral" functioning of the market mechanism.<br><br>In the University discourse, is not the upper level ($ — <i>a</i>) that it provides reality itself deprived of biopolitics (in the sense deployed from Foucault to Agamben)? Of the expert knowledge dealing with its object which is <i>a</i> - not subjectssubstance, but individuals reduced to bare life? And does the lower not designate what Eric Santner called the "crisis of investiture," i.e., the impossibility resisting hard kernel of [[the subject to relate to S₁, to identify with a MasterReal]] -Signifier, to assume in the imposed symbolic mandate?<a name="1x"></a><a href="#1"><font color="#e42033">¹</font></a> The key point is here that the expert rule of "biopolitics" is grounded in same way decaffeinated coffee smells and conditioned by tastes like the crisis of investiture; this crisis generated real coffee without being the "post-metaphysical" survivalist stance of the Last Men, which ends up in an anemic spectacle of life dragging on as its own shadow. It is within this horizon that one should appreciate today's growing rejection of death penalty: what real one should be able to discern is the hidden "biopolitics" which sustains this rejection. Those who assert the "sacredness of life," defending it against the threat of transcendent powers which parasitize on it, end up in a world in which, on behalf of its very official goal — long pleasurable life — all effective pleasures are prohibited or strictly controlled (smoking, drugs, food…). Spielberg's <i>Saving Private Ryan</i> Virtual Reality is the latest example of this survivalist attitude towards dying, with its "demystifying" presentation of war experienced as a meaningless slaughter which nothing can really justify - as such, it provides the best possible justification for the Colin Powell's "no-casualties-on-our-side" military doctrinereality without being one.<br><br>

On today's market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol... And the list goes on: what about virtual sex as sex without sex, the Colin Powell doctrine of warfare with no casualties (on our side, of course) as warfare without warfare, the contemporary redefinition of politics as the art of expert administration as politics without politics, up to today's tolerant liberal multiculturalism as an experience of Other deprived of its Otherness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically sound holistic approach to reality, while features like wife beating remain out of sight…)? Virtual Reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived of its substance, of the resisting hard kernel of the Real - in the same way decaffeinated coffee smells and tastes like the real coffee without being the real one, Virtual Reality is experienced as reality without being one. <br><br>Is this not the attitude of the hedonistic [[Last Man]]? Everything is permitted, you can [[enjoy ]] everything, BUT deprived of its substance which makes it dangerous. (This is also Last Man's [[revolution ]] — "[[revolution without revolution]].") Is this not one of the two versions of Lacan's anti-Dostoyevski motto "If God doesn't [[exist]], everything is prohibited"? (1) God is [[dead]], we live in a permissive [[universe]], you should strive for pleasures and [[happiness ]] — but, in order to have a life [[full ]] of happiness and pleasures, you should avoid dangerous excesses, so everything is prohibited if it is not deprived of its substance; (2) If God is dead, [[superego ]] enjoins you to enjoy, but every determinate [[enjoyment ]] is already a [[betrayal ]] of the unconditional one, so it should be prohibited. The nutritive version of this is to enjoy directly the [[Thing ]] Itself: why bother with coffee? Inject caffeine directly into your blood! Why bother with sensual perceptions and excitations by [[external ]] reality? Take drugs which directly [[affect ]] your brain! - And if there is God, then everything is permitted — to those who [[claim ]] to act directly on behalf of God, as the instruments of His will; clearly, a direct link to God justifies our violation of any "merely [[human]]" constraints and considerations (as in [[Stalinism]], where the reference to the [[big Other ]] of [[historical Necessity ]] justifies absolute ruthlessness).<br><br>Today's hedonism combines [[pleasure ]] with constraint — it is no longer the old [[notion ]] of the "[[right ]] measure" between pleasure and constraint, but a kind of pseudo-[[Hegelian ]] immediate coincidence of the opposites: [[action ]] and reaction should coincide, the very thing which causes damage should already be the [[medicine]]. The ultimate example of it is arguably a <i>chocolate laxative</i>, available in the US, with the paradoxical [[injunction ]] "Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate!", i.e., of the very thing which causes constipation. Do we not find here a weird version of [[Wagner]]'s famous "Only the spear which caused the wound can heal it" from <i>Parsifal</i>? And is not a [[negative ]] proof of the [[hegemony ]] of this stance the fact that [[true ]] unconstrained consumption (in all its main forms: drugs, free sex, smoking…) is emerging as the main [[danger]]? The fight against these dangers is one of the main investments of today's "biopolitics." Solutions are here desperately sought which would reproduce the [[paradox ]] of the chocolate laxative. The main contender is "safe sex" — a term which makes one appreciative of the truth of the old saying "Is having sex with a condom not like taking a shower with a raincoat on?". The ultimate goal would be here, along the lines of decaf coffee, to invent "opium without opium": no wonder marijuana is so popular among [[liberals ]] who want to legalize it — it already IS a kind of "opium without opium."<br><br>The structure of the "chocolate laxative," of a product containing the agent of its own containment, can be discerned throughout today's ideological landscape. There are two topics which determine today's liberal tolerant attitude towards Others: the respect of Otherness, openness towards it, AND the obsessive fear of harassment — in short, the Other is OK insofar as its presence is not intrusive, insofar as the Other is not really Other… A similar structure is clearly present in how we relate to capitalist profiteering: it is OK IF it is counteracted with charitable activities — first you amass billions, then you return (part of) them to the needy… And the same goes for war, for the emergent logic of humanitarian or pacifist militarism: war is OK insofar as it really serves to bring about peace, democracy, or to create conditions for distributing humanitarian help. And does the same not hold more and more even for democracy: it is OK if it is "rethought" to include torture and a permanent emergency state, if it is cleansed of its populist "excesses," and if the people are "mature" enough to live by it… <br><br>However, what we were describing what cannot but appear as two opposite ideological spaces: that of the reduction of humans to bare life, to <i>homo sacer</i> as the dispensable object of the expert caretaking knowledge; and that of the respect for the vulnerable Other brought to extreme, of the attitude of narcissistic subjectivity which experiences itself as vulnerable, constantly exposed to a multitude of potential "harassments." Is there a stronger contrast than the one between the respect for the Other's vulnerability and the reduction of the Other to "mere life" regulated by the administrative knowledge?<br><br>

But what if these two stances nonetheless rely on the same root, what if they are the two aspects The [[structure]] of one and the same underlying attitude"chocolate laxative, what if they coincide in what one is tempted to designate as the contemporary case of the Hegelian "infinite judgement" which asserts the identity of opposites? What the two poles share is precisely a product containing the underlying refusal [[agent]] of any higher Causesits own containment, the notion that the ultimate goal of our lives is life itselfcan be discerned throughout today's ideological landscape. Nowhere is the complicity of these There are two levels clearer as in topics which determine today's liberal tolerant attitude towards [[Others]]: the case respect of the opposition to death penalty — no wonderOtherness, since (violently putting another human being to) death is, quite logically[[openness]] towards it, AND the ultimate traumatic point obsessive [[fear]] of biopoliticsharassment — in short, the politics of the administration of life. To put it in Foucauldian terms, Other is OK insofar as its [[presence]] is the abolition of death penalty not part of a certain "biopolitics" which considers crime intrusive, insofar as the result of social, psychological, ideological, etc., circumstancesOther is not really Other… A similar structure is clearly [[present]] in how we relate to [[capitalist]] profiteering: the notion of the morally/legally responsible subject it is an ideological fiction whose function OK IF it is counteracted with charitable activities — first you amass billions, then you [[return]] (part of) [[them]] to cover up the network of power relationsneedy… And the same goes for war, individuals are not responsible for the crimes they commit, so they should not be punished? Is, however, the obverse emergent [[logic]] of this thesis not that those who control the circumstances control the people? No wonder the two strongest industrial complexes are today the military and the medical, that of destroying and that of prolonging life.<br><br>Superego humanitarian or pacifist militarism: war is thus not directly S₂; OK insofar as it is rather the S₁ of the S₂ itselfreally serves to bring about peace, [[democracy]], the dimension of an unconditional injunction that is inherent or to knowledge itselfcreate [[conditions]] for distributing humanitarian [[help]]. Recall And does the informations about health we are bombarded with all the timesame not hold more and more even for democracy: "Smoking it is dangerous! To much fat may cause a heart attack! Regular exercise leads to a longer life!" etc.etc. — OK if it is impossible not "rethought" to hear beneath include [[torture]] and a permanent emergency state, if it the unconditional injunction "You should enjoy a long and healthy life!"… What this means is that the discourse cleansed of the University is thoroughly mystifying, concealing its true foundationpopulist "excesses, obfuscating " and if the unfreedom on which it relies. <br><br>people are "mature" enough to live by it…

However, what we were describing what cannot but appear as two opposite ideological spaces: that of the reduction of [[humans]] to [[bare life]], to <a name="1"i>[[homo sacer]]</ai><as the dispensable object of the expert caretaking knowledge; and that of the respect for the vulnerable Other brought to extreme, of the attitude of [[narcissistic]] subjectivity which experiences itself as vulnerable, constantly exposed to a href=[[multitude]] of potential "#1xharassments."><font color=Is there a stronger contrast than the one between the respect for the Other's vulnerability and the reduction of the Other to "#e42033mere life">1. </font></a>See Eric Santner, <i>My Own Private Germany</i>, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1996.<br><br>regulated by the administrative knowledge?

But what if these two stances nonetheless rely on the same root, what if they are the two aspects of one and the same underlying attitude, what if they coincide in what one is tempted to designate as the contemporary case of the Hegelian "infinite judgement" which asserts the [[identity]] of opposites? What the two poles share is precisely the underlying [[refusal]] of any higher Causes, the notion that the ultimate goal of our lives is life itself. Nowhere is the complicity of these two levels clearer as in the case of the opposition to death penalty — no wonder, since (violently putting another human being to) death is, quite logically, the ultimate [[traumatic]] point of biopolitics, the politics of the administration of life. To put it in Foucauldian terms, is the abolition of death penalty not part of a certain "biopolitics" which considers crime as the result of social, [[psychological]], ideological, etc., circumstances: the notion of the morally/legally [[responsible]] subject is an ideological [[fiction]] whose function is to cover up the network of power relations, individuals are not responsible for the crimes they commit, so they should not be punished? Is, however, the obverse of this [[thesis]] not that those who [[control]] the circumstances control the people? No wonder the two strongest industrial [[complexes]] are today the military and the medical, that of destroying and that of prolonging life. [[SuperEgo|Superego]] is thus not directly S₂; it is rather the S₁ of the S₂ itself, the dimension of an unconditional injunction that is inherent to knowledge itself. Recall the informations about health we are bombarded with all the [[time]]: "Smoking is dangerous! To much fat may [[cause]] a heart attack! Regular exercise leads to a longer life!" etc.etc. — it is [[impossible]] not to hear beneath it the unconditional injunction "You should enjoy a long and healthy life!"… What this means is that the [[discourse of the University]] is thoroughly mystifying, concealing its true foundation, obfuscating the unfreedom on which it relies.  ==References==<references/> ==Source==* [[Homo Sacer as the Object of the Discourse of the University]]. 09/25/2003. <http://www.lacan.com/hsacer.htm>

[[Category:ZizekArticles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:Slavoj Žižek]]