Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

Below is a Badiou essay Chunkry finds particularly instructive. Feel free to back-channel Chunkry with any questions.

 

 

Forgetting Badiou: Capitalist subsemantic theory and cultural capitalism

 

Linda J. O. la Fournier

Department of Peace Studies, University of California

 

 

 

1. Capitalist nationalism and neodeconstructivist theory

 

“Society is dead,†says Badiou. Lacan suggests the use of capitalist subsemantic theory to attack sexual identity. However, several desituationisms concerning Foucaultist power relations may be discovered.

 

If one examines neodeconstructivist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject capitalist subsemantic theory or conclude that society, surprisingly, has intrinsic meaning, given that neodeconstructivist theory is valid. The premise of capitalist subsemantic theory implies that the law is capable of truth. But Bailey[1] holds that we have to choose between submaterial capitalist theory and neomodernist nationalism.

 

Debord promotes the use of cultural capitalism to challenge colonialist perceptions of reality. In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a capitalist subsemantic theory that includes art as a reality.

 

Sartre suggests the use of cultural capitalism to analyse and modify class. However, if capitalist subsemantic theory holds, we have to choose between neodeconstructivist theory and Debordist situation.

 

Sontag uses the term ‘cultural feminism’ to denote the role of the participant as reader. Therefore, Foucault promotes the use of capitalist subsemantic theory to deconstruct sexism.

 

Pickett[2] states that we have to choose between cultural presemanticist theory and material Marxism. But Lyotard’s critique of capitalist subsemantic theory suggests that sexual identity has objective value, but only if truth is distinct from sexuality; if that is not the case, Badiou’s model of neodeconstructivist theory is one of “neocapitalist discourseâ€, and hence fundamentally used in the service of class divisions.

 

2. Contexts of stasis

 

The main theme of the works of Fellini is a cultural totality. Badiou suggests the use of cultural capitalism to attack culture. However, the primary theme of la Tournier’s[3] analysis of capitalist subsemantic theory is the common ground between society and reality.

 

In Amarcord, Fellini deconstructs neodeconstructivist theory; in La Dolce Vita he reiterates the subcapitalist paradigm of narrative. It could be said that the premise of neodeconstructivist theory holds that the purpose of the poet is deconstruction.

 

An abundance of deconstructions concerning not discourse per se, but postdiscourse exist. In a sense, cultural capitalism implies that society, somewhat paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning.

 

3. Fellini and Foucaultist power relations

 

“Class is unattainable,†says Badiou; however, according to von Ludwig[4] , it is not so much class that is unattainable, but rather the absurdity, and some would say the failure, of class. A number of semanticisms concerning cultural capitalism may be revealed. Therefore, Sontag uses the term ‘capitalist subsemantic theory’ to denote the bridge between sexual identity and class.

 

The premise of neodeconstructivist theory states that language is intrinsically meaningless. However, if cultural capitalism holds, we have to choose between neodeconstructivist theory and textual objectivism.

 

Sartre uses the term ‘cultural capitalism’ to denote the rubicon, and thus the collapse, of precultural sexual identity. Thus, any number of discourses concerning the role of the reader as participant exist.

 

The example of neodeconstructivist theory intrinsic to Smith’s Mallrats is also evident in Clerks. But Debord uses the term ‘patriarchialist construction’ to denote the common ground between class and society.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four things (3 different arguments in Baidu and Chucnkry):

 

1. Chunkry just posted something from the post-modern generator.  That is pure gibberish.

 

2. The second to last card and the last card under Baidu I think gets at one core of his argument--radical ethical subjectivity.  

http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2012-2013+-+Loyola+%28CA%29+-+Benjamin+Koh#Sep-Oct-Badiou%20Ethics%20K%20(As%20of%20Sep-Oct)

 

He thinks of ethics as situational rather than in universal categories.  Singularities who need to be understood for their uniqueness.

 

3. He takes issue with humanitarian intervention.  The aff will use human rights as a link.  This argument in some ways resembles Savior-Victim-Savage/Mutua  if you are

familiar with that.  Its "White Knight" complex.  Its a critique from cultural critique of sorts.  He takes issue also with Levinas here.

 

4. Capitalism K

Here is a shell of Badiou based on Ingram--This seems to be a criticism of identity politics distracting us from moving past capitalism.

 

The problem with this particular example....is that it creates new identities....which seems to have the same problems as identity politics....or at least some of them.

Also, creating new identities....is totally vague....in terms of a mechanism to solve 1) capitalism 2) identity 3) your aff.

 

A. The idea that our political concern should be the emancipation of particular groups and identities is a disastrous failure which leaves us powerless against neoliberal oppression and justifies military violence. 
Ingram ‘2005
 (James D., political science at McMaster [not the musician], Can Universalism Still Be Radical? Alain Badiou’s Politics of Truth, constellations 12 no 4, wiley interscience / Blackwell)
Badiou’s claim in the polemical first half of Ethics is that the recent ‘ethical turn’ in philosophy and politics has been a catastrophe. By this ‘ethical turn’ he has in mind two currents of thought that are often thought to be opposed: (a) human rights-based universalism (Kant, Habermas) and ( B) difference-based, ‘Other-centric’ thinking (Lévinas, Derrida). He identifies these currents with two recent political trends: (a) the politics of human rights and humanitarian interven- tion and ( B) the rise of communitarianism and identity politics. His broad historical- political claim is that this composite ethical ideology, which promised to prevent harm, protect rights, and respect difference, has instead led to “the unrestrained pursuit of self-interest, the disappearance or extreme fragility of emancipatory politics, the multiplication of ‘ethnic’ conflicts, and the universality of unbridled competition†(10). This bleak landscape resulted not from a corruption of or fail- ure to implement the new ethical ideology, but at least in part from this ideology itself. How could this be? (a) Badiou holds thatthe rhetoric of human rights serves as a distraction from and support for a radically unjust world order dominated by global capitalism and great power neo-imperialism. This is of course old hat on the further reaches of the left. More interesting is his account of why it is so. Human rights, he argues, necessarily rest on a conception of the human. Since these rights are meant to be universal, this conception must perforce aim at the lowest common denominator, “a passive, pathetic...subject – he who suffers†(9). The bearer of human rights is a potential victim, defined by his needs or at most his interests. He is reduced to his most basic, animalistic nature – “a biological species, a ‘biped without feath- ers,’ whose charms are not obvious†(12). Human rights’ sole imperative is to keep this miserable creature from harm.Obscured behind this imperative are the questions of how this creature got into this predicament and what more it might make of itself. Since the barbarity of the situation is considered only in terms of ‘human rights’ – whereas in fact we are always dealing with a political situation, one that calls for a political thought-practice, one that is peopled by its own authentic actors – it isperceived...as the uncivilized that demands of the civilized a civilizing intervention. (13) Here we meet the other figure human rights thinking juxtaposes to the victim: “the active, determining subject of judgement – he who, in identifying suffering, knows that it must be stopped by all available means†(9). Simply put, rights are effective only when there is a power to define and enforce them; they require an agent outside and above their beneficiaries. For liberalism since the seventeenth century, this has been the state; for today’s human rights ideol- ogy, it is ideally a cosmopolitan humanitocracy, in practice any agent with the means. In a radically unjust world made up of enormous concentrations of wealth and power on the one hand and masses of powerless people on the other, it is easy to see how the humanitarian imperative can become a new white man’s burden,5authorizing exercises of power by the prosperous on behalf of suffering wretches elsewhere. The beneficent humanicrat or Marine tries to alleviate the suffering this order causes, allowing the comfortable to feel magnanimous while doing nothing to address the underlying problems. Meanwhile, the underlying structural inequality is reinforced by the built-in asymmetry between rescuer and rescued.6 ( B) Badiou’s case against the difference-friendly, ‘Other-centric’ version of the ethical turn focuses on domestic rather than international politics. He first attacks attempts to use Lévinas’s ideas about the ‘Other’ as a placeholder for ‘sensitivity to difference.’ The only ‘Altogether-Other,’ the only guarantee of the experience the ‘face of the Other’ as one of absolute alterity, is God. What Lévinas proposes, argues Badiou, is not philosophy but theology. What remains when these ideas are stripped of God is “a pious discourse without piety, a spiritual supplement for incompetent governments, and a cultural sociology preached...in lieu of the late class struggle†(23). This reverence for otherness is moreover a recipe for hypocrisy, since no politics can accommodate every Other, let alone an Altogether-Other. Some Others always prove altogether too other. â€œ[T]he self- declared apostles of...the ‘right to difference,†observes Badiou, “are clearly horrified by any vigorously sustained difference. For them, African customs are barbaric, Muslims are dreadful, the Chinese are totalitarian, and so on†(24). Respect for difference thus ends up defining an identity with strict limits, those of the liberal West, and the imperative of “a conquering civilization: ‘Become like me and I will respect your difference’†(25). Badiou’s point is not to deny the inevitability of limits; it is to repudiate ‘ethical ideologies’ that do so. A deeper problem with the ethics of difference takes us closer to Badiou’s core political-philosophical concerns. “Infinite alterity,†he asserts, “is quite simplywhat there is†(25). We can think here of the conventional notion of civil society as the realm of plurality and inequality. The fact of human plurality, “as obvious in the difference between me and my cousin from Lyon as it is between the Shi’ite ‘community’ of Iraq and the fat cowboys of Texas†(this written in 1993, when the juxtaposition also suggested itself), is without positive political significance; it expresses only “a tourist’s fascination for the diversity of morals, customs and beliefs†(26). Like the dilemmas of toleration, plurality per se doesn’t interest Badiou.For him, the problem is not difference but inequality. Politics and ethics are not about the management of differences, but about projects to transcend them. Thus, an obsession with difference is no less anti-political and conservative than human rights thinking. Indeed, it can be more pernicious, since the elevation of the fact of difference into a principle authorizes inequality or separatism.8

B. The impact is that the affirmative justifies violence against those they try to help and reproduces existing inequalities while foreclosing the possibility of emancipictory alternatives, turns the case
Ingram ‘2005 
(James D., political science at McMaster [not the musician], Can Universalism Still Be Radical? Alain Badiou’s Politics of Truth, constellations 12 no 4, wiley interscience / Blackwell)
Badiou sees these two strands of ethical thinking as an obstacle to politics because of another feature they share: an understanding of Evil. Both conceive of Evil as logically and practically prior to Good (Badiou’s capitals). While notions of the Good are notoriously plural, they reason, it is easy enough to say what is bad: violence, cruelty, suffering, etc. For both forms of ethics, the goal of politics is to avert the worst. By the same token, they are unremittingly hostile to any positive or emancipatory project: “every revolutionary project stigmatized as ‘utopian’ turns, we are told, into a totalitarian nightmare.... Every collective will to the Good creates Evil†(13). The same principle that authorizes today’s amalgam of consensus and identity politics at home and military humanism abroad prevents the emergence of any political alternative, leaving the ravages of the state system and the global economy unopposed: “By blocking, in the name of Evil and of human rights, the way towards the positive prescription of possibilities...it accepts the play of necessity as the objective basis for all judgements of value†(31–32). In both versions, then, the ethical ideology amounts to a defense of the status quo, reinforcing exist- ing inequalities and divisions while standing in the way of projects that might overcome them.

C. The alternative is to reject the affirmative in favor of an ethic of truth
Practically, this means refusing their question: how should we protect certain identities such as _? Instead, the alternative asks us to create new and inclusive identities which protect transcendental equality and true humanity. Only the alt solves the case and prevents the violent excesses of neoliberalism
Ingram ‘2005 
(James D., political science at McMaster [not the musician], Can Universalism Still Be Radical? Alain Badiou’s Politics of Truth, constellations 12 no 4, wiley interscience / Blackwell)
Badiou insists that we can and should aim higher. To this end he proposes an alternative, activist ethics he calls an ‘ethic of truths.’ Rather than merely protect life, interests, or identities, for Badiou the challenge of ethics and politics is to invent new forms of commonality and equality. Such projects transcend what is and seek to transform it. This is an ethical matter because it requires another, affirmative vision of the human: only by attaching ourselves to such a project can we rise above the miserable, self-interested creatures of human rights or the cramped, defensive identities of multiculturalism and become fully human – thinking, acting, creating, cooperating beings. Badiou’s ontology, sketched in Ethics and worked out in L’Être et l’événe- ment, is devoted to this possibility. As the title of the latter suggests, Badiou divides the world in two. On the one hand, there is what is: the realm of being – static, self-perpetuating multiplicity. Badiou refers to this as the ‘situation’ or ‘state of affairs’ (the reference to the state is not accidental). Here everything can be named, counted, and managed; we are defined by our needs, interests, and identities. On the other hand, there are events. An event is the appearance of something foreign to the situation that cannot be encompassed within it. It breaks through the order of things, making possible new ways of thinking, acting, and being. For Badiou, events take place in four realms: politics (e.g., the French Rev- olution), science (Galilean physics), art (Haydn’s classicism), and love (Abelard and Eloise) (41). Since events are alien to the situation, however, they cannot be recognized, counted, or named within it. We can recognize them only by their effects, or more precisely by the new thoughts and actions they make possible. Thus, the ‘French Revolution’ refers not to a set of occurrences in France between 1789 and 1794, but to an interruption and opening that inspires new thought and action (the Paris Commune, the Bolshevik Revolution, etc.). Badiou refers to these openings as ‘truths.’ By this he does not mean truth of the ‘the-cat-is-on-the-mat’ or the ‘water-is-H2O’ variety, but something between a principle and an epiphany, as when we speak of the truth of an artwork or a love. Truths are both world-disclosing and practical: they cast the world in a new light and demand that we do something. Following an ethics of truth means seek- ing to elaborate the truth of an event. Since events arise from particular circum- stances, however, “[t]here is no ethics in general. There are only...ethics of processes by which we treat the possibilities of situations†(16). Truths are subjective, existing only insofar as I decide to be oriented by an event. Yet they transcend the individual: only through my “disinterested interest†(49) in a truth do I transcend mere self-interest and become an active subject – an ‘Immortal,’ in Badiou’s language, the agent of a truth greater than myself. ‘Ethics’ in Badiou’s sense thus has as little to do with an Aristotelian ethos or a Kantian fact of reason as ‘truth’ does with correspondence or consensus. For Badiou, ethics consists in the injunction to continue a truth-process – his version of Lacan’s maxim, ‘do not give up on your desire.’ We can now see why for Badiou ethics is not about preventing Evil, but realiz- ing Good. Evil is not “the violence that the human animal employs to persevere in its being, to pursue its interests,†which for Badiou, as for most of western philos- ophy, is “beneath Good and Evil†(66). Rather, Evil is “a (possible) effect of the Good itself†(61); it is Good gone awry. This can happen in three ways. The first, which he calls ‘simulacrum,’ occurs when we are mistaken about an event, falling for a mere parody. His example is Nazism, which mimicked republican and socialist revolution but lacked their inclusive character, basing itself instead on a racist ideology. The second, ‘betrayal,’ results when we fail to uphold the Lacanian injunction, compromising a truth in the face of obstacles. This typically comes when the charisma of a revolutionary event becomes routinized and conformist rather than productive of further creativity. The third, ‘disaster,’ arises when we try to impose a truth on the whole of reality. A truth cannot simply overturn everything; it must somehow be articulated with the world it finds. Disaster, Badiou explains, is what happened with Nietzsche, the Cultural Revolution’s Red Guards, and certain positivists and Romantics (84):they took their truths to be total, forgetting that every way of looking at the world is partial. We might think of the fanatic who sees sin or betrayal lurking everywhere, or of the lovers in Bertolucci’s The Dreamers, who in the name of passion give up housekeeping, buying groceries, and eventually life itself.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How dare you! Chunkry guarantees that article is a more accurate reading of Badiou than anything you will find from a cross-x user.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Below is a Badiou essay Chunkry finds particularly instructive. Feel free to back-channel Chunkry with any questions.

 

 

Forgetting Badiou: Capitalist subsemantic theory and cultural capitalism

 

Linda J. O. la Fournier

Department of Peace Studies, University of California

 

 

 

1. Capitalist nationalism and neodeconstructivist theory

 

“Society is dead,†says Badiou. Lacan suggests the use of capitalist subsemantic theory to attack sexual identity. However, several desituationisms concerning Foucaultist power relations may be discovered.

 

If one examines neodeconstructivist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject capitalist subsemantic theory or conclude that society, surprisingly, has intrinsic meaning, given that neodeconstructivist theory is valid. The premise of capitalist subsemantic theory implies that the law is capable of truth. But Bailey[1] holds that we have to choose between submaterial capitalist theory and neomodernist nationalism.

 

Debord promotes the use of cultural capitalism to challenge colonialist perceptions of reality. In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a capitalist subsemantic theory that includes art as a reality.

 

Sartre suggests the use of cultural capitalism to analyse and modify class. However, if capitalist subsemantic theory holds, we have to choose between neodeconstructivist theory and Debordist situation.

 

Sontag uses the term ‘cultural feminism’ to denote the role of the participant as reader. Therefore, Foucault promotes the use of capitalist subsemantic theory to deconstruct sexism.

 

Pickett[2] states that we have to choose between cultural presemanticist theory and material Marxism. But Lyotard’s critique of capitalist subsemantic theory suggests that sexual identity has objective value, but only if truth is distinct from sexuality; if that is not the case, Badiou’s model of neodeconstructivist theory is one of “neocapitalist discourseâ€, and hence fundamentally used in the service of class divisions.

 

2. Contexts of stasis

 

The main theme of the works of Fellini is a cultural totality. Badiou suggests the use of cultural capitalism to attack culture. However, the primary theme of la Tournier’s[3] analysis of capitalist subsemantic theory is the common ground between society and reality.

 

In Amarcord, Fellini deconstructs neodeconstructivist theory; in La Dolce Vita he reiterates the subcapitalist paradigm of narrative. It could be said that the premise of neodeconstructivist theory holds that the purpose of the poet is deconstruction.

 

An abundance of deconstructions concerning not discourse per se, but postdiscourse exist. In a sense, cultural capitalism implies that society, somewhat paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning.

 

3. Fellini and Foucaultist power relations

 

“Class is unattainable,†says Badiou; however, according to von Ludwig[4] , it is not so much class that is unattainable, but rather the absurdity, and some would say the failure, of class. A number of semanticisms concerning cultural capitalism may be revealed. Therefore, Sontag uses the term ‘capitalist subsemantic theory’ to denote the bridge between sexual identity and class.

 

The premise of neodeconstructivist theory states that language is intrinsically meaningless. However, if cultural capitalism holds, we have to choose between neodeconstructivist theory and textual objectivism.

 

Sartre uses the term ‘cultural capitalism’ to denote the rubicon, and thus the collapse, of precultural sexual identity. Thus, any number of discourses concerning the role of the reader as participant exist.

 

The example of neodeconstructivist theory intrinsic to Smith’s Mallrats is also evident in Clerks. But Debord uses the term ‘patriarchialist construction’ to denote the common ground between class and society.

K debater's wet dream

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually, the obligation wouldn't be framed as "disabled people are uniquely special and deserving of good treatment" but rather as "disabled people are people too, don't dehumanize them". So, usually it'll be universal, although I guess hypothetically there would be ways for cases to avoid that.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...