It’s no wonder that realism has such a bad name. It has perpetually been ruined by political realism. Political realism has always been that despicable ideology whose name is necessity. It has always functioned at the behest of inegalitarian social arrangements, justifying one more way deny people their voice and to expropriate their goods. On the one hand it strives to regulate bodies in such a way that only some bodies are entitled to have a say, to govern, to rule, to lead, while others are relegated to silence and, above all, invisibility. Political realism is here a mechanism designed to render invisible voice and other social entities. The political realist always says “listen to those in the know”– usually oligarchs or servants of oligarchs –“they are naturally superior, they have your best interests at heart!” Speaking against the masters becomes pure folly. The voice of those that protest, that refuse the “wisdom” of the masters, is immediately coded as animal noise without reason that only “emotes”. We can think here of the difference between how the medical establishment treated hysterics before and after Freud. Prior to Freud, the hysteric was to be dismissed, to be denied voice, to be relegated to the irrational. After Freud the hysteric is to be listened to as articulating a wrong and a breach in the order of identifications. Political realism strives to silence the hysteric, claiming that their voice is no voice at all, that that voice comes from no place of knowledge or wisdom.
In this way, second, the political realist insures the smooth operation of exploitation and oppression. If the voice of the hysteric (the protester, the activist) is successfully silenced, then they never have a place in the process of deliberation. Their vantage need never enter into the calculus of forming ways of life, bodies, rankings, countings, etc. The oligarch and servant of the oligarch always claims that he knows what’s really best for such and such a body. That body, of course, is no longer consulted, nor is it allowed to participate in any way. Like the patients in older systems of psychiatry that are never consulted but which are subjected to everything from forced medication to electro-shock therapy to lobotomy, this part is everywhere regulated by the state, by the masters, by the oligarchs– and “for their own good” –without having any say in it. Political realism always strives for this refusal of voice. The voice of this uncounted part is reduced to mere emoting, ignorance, stupidity, lack of tactical understanding, etc., etc., etc. It’s infantalized and animalized. Of course, here the animal is the example par excellence of the voice denied voice; of the voice reduced to a grunt. The animal is what we all are within the statist framework of political realism. It is in this way that exploitation and oppression proceeds apace. The animal becomes entirely invisible, or rather reduced to a code that’s already managed by the regime of the oligarch… It is reduced to a voice that has always already spoken and been understood; which is to say that it has been reduced to what the oligarch believes the animal to be saying. As such, it is inapparent.
Yet the “animal” must still be convinced. This is the most despicable gesture of the political realist. The political realist naturalizes the contingent organization of the social order, perpetually arguing that this the only that can and does exist. By virtue of this effacement of the contingency of this order, by virtue of the naturalization of this order and the identities that populate it, the “animal” must accept austerity foisted on its back because the alternative is “worse”, the animal must accept second class status as a woman, a latino, a black person, a queer, a worker, etc., because the alternative is “worse”. The mechanism always consists in creating a false dilemma between catastrophe and exploitation and oppression. To avoid the former, the political realist hopes to persuade the animal to accept the latter. Of course, this deadlock only proceeds through the denial of voice to the animal, a voice which opens the possibility of different distributions of the social than those that currently reign.
Larval Subjects . 
July 26, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Is the hysterical political subject always a revolutionary, or is there something also to appreciate about what, say, fascists, neoliberals and other reactionaries say that’s not merely a reminder of how NOT like them we assume to be? Steve Almond made a interesting connection a couple years ago between the raving of “right-wing bestsellers” and Don Quixote and then this about Glenn Beck specifically: “The most striking aspect of Beck-as-narrator is his acute racial neuroses. It’s not just that he compares Joe the Plumber to Martin Luther King — heck, that’s meant to play for laughs. It’s his veritable obsession with slavery, specifically the likelihood that he (and his children and you, the reader, and your children) will be enslaved.”
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2009/09/12/rightwing_bestsellers
July 27, 2011 at 12:09 am
Joe, my position would be that all revolutionaries are hysteric, but not all hysterics are revolutionary. The dividing line, I think, is whether their discourse is egalitarian.
July 27, 2011 at 12:27 am
One aspect of political realism you don’t touch on, Levi, is how the oligarch is often represented not as naturally superior per se, but as a “superior political animal.” This latter characterization gets at something important. The oligarch needs to be perceived as an animal among animals, though an animal having earned superior status in some way, by virtue of some historical struggle.
Oligarchs and those working for oligarchs assuage the emotive potential energy of the animal wilderness by embodying this dual role of “the superior political animal” in the eyes of their captive audience. Trace an oligarch’s history back far enough — this is “the genealogy of the superior” — and you find a shared narrative of the oppressed animal successfully hacking some social order. As a campaign strategy in the 2008 Presidential election in America this was an important factor, the genealogy of the superior political animal.
Also, the oligarch and those who work for the oligarch presume that any oppressed voice that actually gains power would be subject to some enantiodromian rite of passage of the powerful. The oppressed becomes the superior being, on this view, through the struggle to re-distribute the social. Redistribution is always tinged with this enantiodromia, because the superior political being is viewed as a hypostasis in a particular social arrangement. The contingency of these social arrangements meets the visceral history of the oppressed inhabiting the role of the superior politcal animal through some taxing struggle. Oligarchs or those who work for oligarchs recall the experience of oppression and map this on to the landscape of their own dominion. They would like everyone to identify with this oppression, this landscape, and this feeling of having succeeded in redistribution. Existing social arrangements thus appear to be a record of the personalized violence of all political animals, and merely the “superior political animals” who in fact silence and oppress.
Thus, even oligarchs emote. They emote not as a gesture to the animals, but rather because the oligarch is precisely the “superior politcal animal.”
July 27, 2011 at 1:10 am
I’ll give myself away as a computer scientist, but this reminds me a Ted Nelson comment about certain discourses of necessity— reality demands something, or else maturity does, or else technological considerations do. Of course he was particularly concerned with the latter (as I tend to be), but they connect around a discourse of sorry-we’d-love-to-but-it’s-just-not-practical-you-see:
What’s interesting about this is that it doesn’t fall into the trap of calling anything that cares about technology a “technological determinism”, either— or anyone who cares about economics an “economic determinist”. I think they’re rather different moves, despite being unfortunately conflated. It can be a discursive trick to claim that technology or the laws of economics demand something, but the response is not to claim that technology and economics don’t exert effects on the world. The response is to ourselves dig into economics and technology and understand/use them ourselves rather than turning them over to “the guys who understand it”, who’ll tell us what we “must” do.
July 27, 2011 at 6:04 pm
In terms of the analyst/analysand relationship, I’ve always understood the “correct” understanding of psychoanalysis to be that the analyst isn’t the one who has the “answer” or the “right interpretation” of, say, the hysteric’s discourse, but that just in listening and ‘scientifically’ guiding that discourse along, that the “truth” of that discourse is self-realized/created by the analysand themselves. I guess I’m curious, one, if that is accurate; and two, if so, how that would map on to the relation of activist/leader. Perhaps the metaphor breaks down when pursued in this way. If the revolutionary is the hysteric, does that imply that they need someone to listen to them for them to start “making more sense,” or to actually know what they’re talking about and why?
Is there a way to construe the Tea Party in the House as revolutionary? Because the political realists (and in this case, I’d fall into this category) are saying “Grow up, we have to raise the debt ceiling, to not do so is nothing, there is no other option, etc.” Maybe in making those other leaders listen up to them, they will come around to what their truth really is? I hope this doesn’t spark too political of a discussion. My most general question is, “What makes revolutionaries hysterics?”
July 27, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Fragile,
Yes, your understanding of the analytic position is correct. As for the hysteric, a hysteric is basically any position of enunciation that challenges the legitimacy of a master, regime, authority, God, etc. The hysteric is the one that points out these institutions or figures are a sham based on a lie or that the emperor has no clothes.
July 28, 2011 at 6:12 am
Where are you getting this terminology from, out of curiosity? It seems that there are several uses of the term “realist” that are current in political thinking.
One sort of realist – the type we associate with people like Henry Kissinger and Carl Schmitt – is generally concerned less with necessity in any ordinary sense of the term and more with power and strategy. Realist political thinking in this sense is just about ensuring order and maintaining power relations. In advantageous situations, the political realist might look to increase his/her power/sphere of influence, but is often simply concerned with maintaining some level of equilibrium. And, I take it, the realist is a “realist” because, s/he claims, she is concerned with the real matter of politics – power – and she does not subordinate this concern to the normative demands of ethics. And, further, this position is generally not a “universalist” position, and certainly not a “universally emancipative” position; the idea is that being a realist means admitting to yourself that you’re always a partisan, however well-grounded your alliances might be. Now, I’ve said that this isn’t generally an “ideologically used” position, because this political realism is often the viewpoint of those WITH political power (or those seeking to get it by violent means), and is not acceptable to those who rule when stated so bluntly, and there is generally some OTHER ideology that is used to support it.
The other type of political realism that seems to have currency is that recently espoused by Raymond Geuss, and the late Bernard Williams. It shares in common with the former view the notion that politics and political thinking ought not be subordinated or constrained by pre-existing moral or ethical thinking. But it explicitly opposes itself to a certain sort of political philosophy (i.e. Rawls and Rawls-inspired thinking) that aims to provide a sort of moral blueprint for society and then to impose it; for this breed of political realist, politics and political thought is concerned with real agents in real historical situations such that what they do and how they do it, the rights they claim for themselves and the legitimation of power that they demand, are not a priori determined by any sort of ahistorical political thinking.
Now, I’m not saying that either of these are satisfactory political stances to adopt (though I find Bernard Williams’ writing enticing), but the terminology doesn’t seem to fit.
July 28, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Patrick,
In the United States the current administration and its supporters has been justifying its austerity measures and policies that funnel public wealth to the wealthist under the title “pragmatic realism” arguing that nothing else can be done without producing catastrophe.
July 29, 2011 at 3:37 am
Larval, I think you are a bit off with your characterization of the “current administration and its supporters,” unless you are referring to the Tea Party and not the Obama administration. Obama and his supporters have clearly been saying for the past two years that the Bush Tax cuts should expire and that taxes should be raised on the wealthiest, tax loopholes closed, etc. His supporters are disappointed that he is willing to put many “austerity measures” on the table (Medicare, pell grants, etc.). Obviously it is the Tea Party and the Republicans in general, then, who are arguing that no taxes be raised and that public wealth continue to be funneled to corporations and the wealthiest.
Although you are certainly not obligated to answer my questions, one aspect of my comment was ignored. I had asked if the Tea party republicans would fall under the rubric of “hysterics” and “revolutionaries” in the schema you had set up. I ask this because they are the ones about whom the political realists (Boehner, Reid, Obama, presumably) say,“Grow up, we have to raise the debt ceiling, you don’t know when to put politics aside and let political realities be dealt with, etc.” But in the Tea Party eyes, they are the ones trying to “abolish the state” more than any other group around these days, trying to “change the role of government.” Does that make them revolutionaries? In my eyes no easy answer would apply here. Precisely because they are asking for “changing business” and yet in effect standing for “business as usual” (minus government spending, I suppose). Does this mean that they don’t understand their own position in all this?
July 29, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Fragile,
I already answered the question in response to Something Completely Different. As for your argument about the political issues, nothing forces the administration to frame the issue in terms of budgets. He could have gotten up there and talked endlessly about jobs rather than budgets, painting them into a corner. It’s not as if he has a marginal voice.
July 29, 2011 at 1:15 pm
And Fragile, I should emphasize that I don’t wamt to have this political discussions. I’ve had enough of these discussions to know they don’t lead anywhere. All the arguments have been made on both sides. I simply don’t accept the premise of political realism that situations provide only one course of action.
July 31, 2011 at 12:11 am
“The contingency of these social arrangements meets the visceral history of the oppressed inhabiting the role of the superior politcal animal through some taxing struggle. Oligarchs or those who work for oligarchs recall the experience of oppression and map this on to the landscape of their own dominion. They would like everyone to identify with this oppression, this landscape, and this feeling of having succeeded in redistribution.”
Call me a reactionary fascist baby-eating political realist, but in what historical scenario has it EVER been otherwise? No civilization of any note in recorded history has been other than an oligarchy and no revolution has led to anything other than rotating elites. It seems suspect that only primitive and prehistoric civilizations have ever manifested ‘egalitarian’ arrangements.
“And Fragile, I should emphasize that I don’t wamt to have this political discussions. I’ve had enough of these discussions to know they don’t lead anywhere.”
Goddamnit! I had a huge reply to this post to start an arguement with you, but then I read that. :)
August 1, 2011 at 12:19 am
[…] to my critique of political realism from a few days ago, political realism is always an attempt to instantiate a closure of reality. […]
August 2, 2011 at 12:02 am
[…] subsequent post (here) then go on to critique political realism (“that despicable ideology whose name is […]
August 2, 2011 at 5:11 am
Larval, I’m not sure what “response to Something Completely Different” you are referring to.
The “one course of action,” that of political realism, is to raise the debt ceiling “like usual.” I was asking whether the Tea Party’s oppositional stance makes them revolutionary-hysteric in the schema you set out, that’s all. But you have just said that “all politics takes place outside of Washington,” so I guess I’ll assume your answer is no.
I’m also a bit puzzled that you think that “jobs” is the real discussion Obama should have engaged in. I think he should have instead used his platform to explain to the supporters of the Tea Party that they are misguided in their support of it, that the Tea Party in fact favors policies for the wealthy. He could have shown that (social issues aside), his policies favor them more than that of the TP. He could also have been more adamant about the benefits of “government spending” in the time of a recession (including job creation), instead of conceding, in effect, that it is all wasteful. Not to mention making the argument for tax revenues.
Lastly, I agree with you that situations don’t provide for only one course of action. But I think this applies to so-called “political discussions” as well–they don’t have to lead to the same place.
August 2, 2011 at 5:57 am
Tim,
I believe that revolutionary political engagement is necessarily egalitarian. The tea party is not egalitarian, therefore it is not revolutionary. They are certainly hysterics, however.
August 8, 2011 at 12:13 am
[…] The political realist always says “listen to those in the know”– usually oligarchs or servants of oligarchs –”they are naturally superior, they have your best interests at heart!” Speaking against the masters becomes pure folly. The voice of those that protest, that refuse the “wisdom” of the masters, is immediately coded as animal noise without reason that only “emotes”. We can think here of the difference between how the medical establishment treated hysterics before and after Freud. Prior to Freud, the hysteric was to be dismissed, to be denied voice, to be relegated to the irrational. After Freud the hysteric is to be listened to as articulating a wrong and a breach in the order of identifications. Political realism strives to silence the hysteric, claiming that their voice is no voice at all, that that voice comes from no place of knowledge or wisdom. Read more . . . […]
October 9, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Levi, My question relates to this sentence: “The mechanism always consists in creating a false dilemma between catastrophe and exploitation and oppression.”
I enjoy reading larval subjects, and am always intrigued by your concrete, historical examples to exemplify your arguments. Could you provide some historical context for/empirical examples of oppressive regimes creating this false dilemma? What examples of hyped up impending catastrophes have been used throughout the eras in American political history (off the top of my head, Condi Rice’s metaphor of mushroom cloud as “smoking gun,” and fear of the USSR during the cold war seem like they could fall into this category).
I appreciate any response,
Best,
ZCW