I’m still reeling from last Tuesday’s election results and am trying to think of the questions that it raises going forward.  I don’t know that I have much that’s original to add, but here goes:

Big Money

First, and foremost, so much comes down to the role that corporate money plays in the democratic party.  6 million fewer democrats voted in this election than in 2012.  I think this lack of turnout has to be put in context.  To be sure, democrats had a candidate that had appalling favorability likings.  These are things that have to be taken seriously in the age of the politics of affect.  Democrats simply can’t run candidates on the basis of impressive resumes, but who fail to excite and hope to win.  This is the third time they’ve done this in recent history (Gore and Kerry before).

However, more importantly, this was an election that followed the ’08 financial collapse and the Occupy Wall Street protests.  While the stock market has recovered and jobs have slowly returned, people feel extreme economic precariousness, that they will never be able to retire, and that it is impossible to get ahead or send their children to college.  They are drowning in debt and are struggling to make ends meet every month.  The decision to run Clinton– and don’t kid yourselves, it was a foregone conclusion on the part of the party from the beginning –was nothing short of bizarre as she lacked credibility on all of these key issues.  Her husband had played a key role in deregulating business in the ways that led to the financial collapse, he played a key role in the trade agreements that destroyed jobs and livelihoods, she made hundreds of thousands of dollars giving speeches to Wall Street, pushed TPP, and had larger corporate campaign contributions than any other presidential candidate in history.  She could talk until she was blue in the face about the economy and many still would not trust her because of these things.

The democratic party finds itself in a very difficult position.  In order to run general elections these days, massive amounts of money are needed (though Trump put the lie to this axiom).  This means that they’re convinced they need these corporate campaign contributions.  However, if they take those contributions they can’t address the issues that bring voters to the polls because doing so in a meaningful way threatens the interests of the banks and corporations.  Take a close look at Clinton’s platform.  I defy you to find a single proposal that in any way significantly threatens the interests of big moneyed interests.  During the primaries and the general election I watched democratic partisans and true believers insist that big money doesn’t corrupt the political process.  Yet is it a mistake that there’s no aspect of her platform that significantly challenges the interests of banks, insurance companies, energy companies, private prisons, pharmaceutical companies, the growing educational industry (charter schools and testing companies), etc., etc., etc?  While clearly racism, Comey, and sexism all played key roles in Clinton’s loss, I think that the democratic party’s ability to meaningfully represent people in terms of their economic interests is what, more than anything, lost the election.

Manufacturing Disconsent

In a recent interview, Zizek draws on Chomsky’s concept of “manufacturing consent” with an interesting twist, to make the point that in our current age consent has disappeared.  By “manufactured consent” Zizek has in mind the shared reality that belongs to society.  In this respect, he shifts the Chomskyian meaning of the concept from propaganda to the construction of shared social reality.  In every community there’s a base of “facts” that go without question that form the horizon or ground for interactions among people.  One feature of a society or community is that there is something like a shared set of “facts” as to what is real; regardless of whether or these things really are facts or not.  People might disagree as to what is to be done about these things or what might be the best way to address them, but they don’t disagree, at least, that these things are real.  In other words, it is not just communication or shared symbols that define a society, but a shared world.

read on! (more…)

One of the things I’ve always appreciated about Harman’s work is his courage in trodding unusual grounds in the world of philosophy.  Who else makes Gasset a centerpiece of a theory of metaphor or digs up obscure, scholastic Aristotleans?  I’m very much looking forward to this one on Dante.

Water abstract

Water abstract

For anyone who’s interested, here is the English version of my article “For an Ethics of the Fold” (ethical bodies) to be published in the French journal Multitudes.  It’s mercifully short.  This marks a shift in my ontological thinking that is far richer.  I hope to develop it into a more robust ontology, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics, and perhaps even a theology (the last of which is strange for an atheist).  People keep asking me about Deleuze, Leibniz, and Merleau-Ponty in context of the concept of the fold I’m trying to develop.  I’m studiously avoiding all of this at the moment.  If it converges, great.  If it diverges, all the better.  For the moment, however, I need to avoid getting bogged down in scholarly engagements.  At any rate, be gentle!

Discourse compositeMichael Flower was kind enough to make me graphs to depict the universe of capitalism that I’ve been developing.  I’m still playing around with names for the additional three discourses I derive from Lacan’s discourse of the capitalist.  By a “universe of discourse” I mean the form that the social link or structure takes in a given society.  These universes can be thought as somewhat akin to a Foucaultian episteme, though more formal and abstract.  Foucault’s epistemes define what is visible, thinkable, and sayable within a given historical epoch.  These universes, by contrast, define the structuration of social relations and the deadlocks that attend these social relations.

man opening curtains in the morning

man opening curtains in the morning

A few days ago I suggested that psychoanalysis poses a fundamental challenge to Epicurean and Spinozist frameworks of ethics.  Some responded by pointing out that perhaps we can establish a consistency between psychoanalysis and Spinoza on the ground of inadequate ideas.  The symptom, says Lacan, is a sort of unknown knowledge.  As he remarks in The Other Side of Psychoanalysis, “…it is not certain that knowledge is known…” (30).  The symptom expresses a knowledge that is not known.  Drawing on Freud’s Studies on Hysteria, Jonathan Redmond gives a nice example of this in Ordinary Psychosis and the Body:

in…the case of Fraulein Elizabeth von R. shows how a conflict concerning the emergence of erotic ideas was pivotal in the development of conversion symptoms.  In this particular case, Freud states that Elizabeth’s conversion symptom– a localized pain to her right upper thigh –first developed when a series of ideas concerning her duty to care for her sick father conflicted with an erotic desire for another man.  Her self-reproach became a prelude for repression, which was subsequently the basis for her hysterical pain…  Localization of the hysterical conversion symptom to her right thigh correlates with the place her father would rest his foot when Elizabeth was bandaging his ankle during his convalescence; these memories provided the ‘content’ for the dissimulation of erotic wishes via the construction of the symptom.  (75)

Elizabeth’s symptom, her localized pain in her right thigh, embodied a “knowledge that was not known”.  That knowledge was knowledge of the desire or wish.  Her conscious self was unaware of the wish, but still that knowledge was there in the symptom.  As such, the symptom here is a sort of inadequate knowledge in Spinoza’s terminology.  As she engaged in the work of free association, bringing the knowledge expressed in this symptom to the fore, she gradually developed a more adequate knowledge of her desire.  This, in turn, is accompanied by a disappearance of the symptom.  The signifiers mutely expressed in the conversion symptom of the body are exchanged for signifiers in speech and as a consequence the symptom disappears.

read on!

(more…)

Perhaps it could be said that with the shift to the universe of the capitalist there is a generalized collapse of trust.  All institutions become suspect.  All experts are seen as harboring a disguised motive.  Climate scientists, for example, are seen as politicized, as making the claims that they make to get grant money or become famous or because they have a hatred of big business.  Doctors are seen as being in the pocket of big pharma.  Suspicion reigns supreme.  This is embodied in the second permutation of the universe of the capitalist:

S1/a —> $/S2

On the left-hand side of this discourse we see the relation S1/a; the master-signifier over the objet a.  In the position of “truth”, beneath the position of the agent, we find the objet a beneath the master.  Every S1, every master-signifier, every term of authority or group identification (such as mass movements organized around a signifier), is seen as harboring an obscene jouissance (a), or a disguised interest.  Recognition of this hidden interest behind every agency undermines trust in these movements, institutions, experts, and authorities.  One suspects, and not without reason in many instances, that these S1’s are animated by an aim or interest quite different than the one they explicitly articulate.  And with this collapse of trust at the heart of the social relation, we see that it becomes difficult to mobilize any action because one assumes, a priori, that one is being duped by S1.  Cynicism reigns supreme and we all become paralyzed.

We thus see, in this discourse, the discourse of the obscene master, S1 addressing the divided or alienated subject.  S2, knowledge, is the product of this strange social relation where suspicion reigns everywhere.  But what sort of knowledge?  A knowledge of the obscene supplement, the obscene jouissance (a), that animates our institutions, experts, authorities, governments, etc.  Everywhere ($), the alienated subject, seeks out the hidden jouissance behind S1 as the truth behind S1’s gestures.

discourse-of-the-capitalistI should probably wait to write this post until I can develop these points more, but I just want to get these thoughts down, no matter how abbreviated they are.  Notice something about the discourse of the capitalist (right) outlined by Lacan in his Milano discourse.  There is no point at which you see a direct relation between the S1 and S2 (S1 –> S2).  In each of the permutations of the universe of the capitalist that we can imagine, there is always a term that intervenes between the S1, the master-signifier, and S2 the battery of signifiers or knowledge.  Here are the additional three discourses we can derive from the discourse of the capitalist.

S1/a —> $/S2

a/S2 —> S1/$

S2/$ —> a/S1

fig6-4At some point I’ll provide commentary on these four discourses or what I call the universe of the capitalist.  Perhaps someone would be so kind, at some point, as to make me a schema such as this for the universe of the capitalist.  Of course, I still have to come up with names for the other three, though I suggested some possibilities in the article I wrote back in 2007.  For the moment, I just want to tarry with the significance of the fact that nowhere in this universe do we find the relation (S1 —> S2).  How does Lacan derive the elementary schema for the discourse of the master (left)?  “The signifier (S1) represents the subject ($) for another signifier (S2).  In the universe of the master we have a direct relationship between S1 and S2 (S1 –> S2) and for this reason we have a social structure where not only– for that society –there is a unified world, but also defined identities.  Even though identity is a sham in the universe of the master, there is still an S1 that sustains that sham.  Even though the idea of a unified world is an illusion because “the big Other does not exist”, there is still a “world” structured by S1, the master-signifier…  So much so that in the 17th century architectural theorists still believed that there were aesthetic truths that presided over design, that there was a correct way of doing it, and that one could be mistaken about these things and that it was possible to discover these principles and write treatises on them.

read on!

(more…)