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 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 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-Signifierlist 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 expensesreality, 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>

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 logicallyopenness 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 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]]