Alain Badiou

[revol68]

Infact i'd go so far to say that an ethnic nationalism constitutes more of an "event" within modern western capitalism than liberal civic nationalism, it atleast makes demands that are outside the demands and the possibilities of contemporary capitalism or atleast would constitute much more of a reconfiguration of the political landscape.

 

[kopelgep]

The formalisation of situation, event, subject etc is all on the basis of his ontology, which in turn rests upon a form of set theory. The example "all people in France are French" is Badiou's own, it relates to his quest for full recognition of the sans papiers (illegal immigrants) within France. Also remember that a Truth, for Badiou anyway, is not reducible to veracity, or to linguistic construction. It is a gamble, a wager, which has to be forced upon the situation in question. He is not helped especially by choosing words as everyday as "event" and "truth", then deploying them in a terribly specific manner...

I agree with you that ethnic nationalism is an event with significant consequences for western capitalism. But Badiou's concept wouldn't even recognize that (its not universalisable for a start). This is why his theory is useful only within a very limited set of sequences, and has nothing to say about 99% of human reality. It lets him conceptualise revolutionary egalitarian politics, avant garde artistic movements, certain scientific processes etc, but not much else. This is why I find it interesting but of limited utility, ultimately.

 

[revol68]

The formalisation of situation, event, subject etc is all on the basis of his ontology, which in turn rests upon a form of set theory. The example "all people in France are French" is Badiou's own, it relates to his quest for full recognition of the sans papiers (illegal immigrants) within France.

I agree with you that ethnic nationalism is an event with signifcant consequences for western capitalism. But Badiou's concept wouldn't even recognize that (its not universalisable for a start). This is why his theory is useful only within a very limited set of sequences, and has nothing to say about 99% of human reality.

How can Badiou's theory be useful and have something to say about full recognition of sans papiers but irrelevant to say the expulsion of all non whites, which within contemporary capitalism would be much more dramatic, creating massive changes in the economic and political landscape? I mean 'universiability' is hardly the difference, as the definition of what constitutes France is hardly universal or stable and again demanding equal rights for all inhabitants of France says nothing about those outside it (infact it implies their inequality by excluding such consideration), just like ethnic nationalism demands equal treatment for all 'whites' but says nothing about equality for all non whites (infact it implies the opposite). Does Badiou see 'France' as more real and universal than 'whiteness', isn't that simply liberal nationalism and not real universalism ie internationalism.

The other problem I can't get past is the fact that his concept of fidelity is post event which of course begs the question of what fidelity/s produced such event in the first place, again his approach seems to hit the same problem of epistme breaks in Foucualt's work, namely an inability to explain the epistme break that gave birth to the current epistme.

 

[kopelgep]

How can Badiou's theory be useful and have something to say about full recognition of sans papiers but irrelevant to say the expulsion of all non whites, which within contemporary capitalism would be much more dramatic, creating massive changes in the economic and political landscape? I mean 'universiability' is hardly the difference, as the definition of what constitutes France is hardly universal or stable and again demanding equal rights for all inhabitants of France says nothing about those outside it (infact it implies their inequality by excluding such consideration), just like ethnic nationalism demands equal treatment for all 'whites' but says nothing about equality for all non whites (infact it implies the opposite). Does Badiou see 'France' as more real and universal than 'whiteness', isn't that simply liberal nationalism and not real universalism ie internationalism.

The other problem I can't get past is the fact that his concept of fidelity is post event which of course begs the question of what fidelity/s produced such event in the first place, again his approach seems to hit the same problem of epistme breaks in Foucualt's work, namely an inability to explain the epistme break that gave birth to the current epistme.

I think regarding the sans papiers the maxim is based on basic egalitarian principles, the fact that it refers to a nation state certainly implies no degree of liberalism or nationalism on Badiou's own part, it is merely the contingent fact of the organisational system in which he is campaigning.

The structuralism issue is a sticky one- Foucault certainly didn't resolve it, for Badiou himself it is a little more complicated- a situation is not global for a start, unlike a Foucauldian Episteme-- there is an outside (ie- other situations). A situation is just a way of counting or structuring something, a way of presenting being. So in politics, Badiou believes, the true nature of being is egalitarian, indeed generic. But political situations under western capitalism say tend to structure and count the individuals within them in partial ways- for example occluding or not presenting within a given situational structure certain undesirables, marginal groups etc. It is precisely here "on the edge of the void" that events are likely to occur, due to the weaknesses in the regime of presentation, of ordering a situation.

 

[revol68]

the fact that it refers to a nation state certainly implies no degree of liberalism or nationalism on Badiou's own part, it is merely the contingent fact of the organisational system in which he is campaigning.

Surely the acceptance of that organisational system (the nation state) as a contigent fact is exactly an act of infidelity to the truth of universalism, that is the embodiment of 'being' and represents the pathetic apoliticalism of late capitalism which is about administration of things within a given system rather politics which questions the system itself.

 

[revol68]

But political situations under western capitalism say tend to structure and count the individuals within them in partial ways- for example occluding or not presenting within a given situational structure certain undesirables, marginal groups etc. It is precisely here "on the edge of the void" that events are likely to occur, due to the weaknesses in the regime of presentation, of ordering a situation.

Or Maoism for philosopy students.

What if the weaknesses don't exist on the edges, on those bits that are marginalised, what if the fault line runs right through the everyday world of being, what if the everyday world of 'being' rests on a constant conflict that at once drives it and threatens it, namely class struggle? What if all this talk of 'events' distinct from everyday existance only serves to fill in the trenches and battlelines that run through our 'everyday', serving to smooth the edges of 'being'?

 

[kopelgep]

Surely the acceptance of that organisational system (the nation state) as a contigent fact is exactly an act of infidelity to the truth of universalism, that is the embodiment of 'being' and represents the pathetic apoliticalism of late capitalism which is about administration of things within a given system rather politics which questions the system itself.

That is exactly what Badiou is getting at though, (in general at least).

Further in terms of what counts for nothing in a political situation structured by capitalism, well of course it is proletarian humanity which is exactly that...

 

[kopelgep]

Or Maoism for philosopy students.

What if the weaknesses don't exist on the edges, on those bits that are marginalised, what if the fault line runs right through the everyday world of being, what if the everyday world of 'being' rests on a constant conflict that at once drives it and threatens it, namely class struggle?

Yes this is obviously pretty Maoist. Badiou is about as Maoist as you can get (or post-Maoist now, but Maoism informs his thought as closely as set theoretical mathematics does).

Ofcourse the major fault line is precisely the proletariat, the weakness hidden in plain sight.

But again, at the level of being, there is no relation, only sets-- but the kind of being he talks about is the barest being possible, the most minimal, with no account given to what is merely that is is Or at least this is what Badiou claims- this lack of a properly relational ontology is an undoubted (perhaps critical) weakness.

 

[kopelgep]

What if all this talk of 'events' distinct from everyday existance only serves to fill in the trenches and battlelines that run through our 'everyday', serving to smooth the edges of 'being'?

You need to grasp the formalisations at play though- events are not necessarily distinct from everyday existence, not at all. It is at the level of ontology, the discourse of being, that they are exta-ontological, and only then from the persepective of the structuring operations within a given situation.

 

[revol68]

That is exactly what Badiou is getting at though, (in general at least).

Further in terms of what counts for nothing in a political situation structured by capitalism, well of course it is proletarian humanity which is exactly that...

But that's simply not true, proletarians do not count for nothing, they are central to capitalism.

And yes I know Badiou rants about the apoliticism of western democracies and the fact 'politics' has been reduced to management. My point is that the issue of sans papiers, whilst not something to be ignored or dismissed, is not one that brings into question the parameters of liberal capitalism.

 

[revol68]

You need to grasp the formalisations at play though- events are not necessarily distinct from everyday existence, not at all. It is at the level of ontology, the discourse of being, that they are exta-ontological, and only then from the persepective of the structuring operations within a given situation.

Okay then give me an example of an event and an example of a non event, then tell me how one constitutes the possibility of a new subjectivity and the other doesn't.

For a philosopher so concerned with the absence of politics, he seems entirely absent of any himself.

 

[revol68]

But again, at the level of being, there is no relation, only sets-- but the kind of being he talks about is the barest being possible, the most minimal, with no account given to what is merely that is is Or at least this is what Badiou claims- this lack of a properly relational ontology is an undoubted (perhaps critical) weakness.

This sort of being seems like the most ahistorical nonsense this side of the social contract. What is a being stripped of all relations, how is one even possible? It's an absurd abstraction that stands in contradiction to the basics of marxism, or indeed any materialist understanding of history.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

I find Badiou's work very difficult to understand with the exception of his short book on St Paul which is a masterpiece and contains really vivid and charged writing. Badiou is wont to adopt semi-religious language that appeals to me, ie "I remain faithful to the Event of October 1917"

 

[Jonti]

Okay then give me an example of an event and an example of a non event, then tell me how one constitutes the possibility of a new subjectivity and the other doesn't.

For a philosopher so concerned with the absence of politics, he seems entirely absent of any himself.

This seems to be the killer issue for Badiou's project. If we can't characterise "the event" in some other words (like, say "it involves the introduction/creation of new information in the situation"), or at least point to examples of it so that a person can taste its nature for themselves, then the theory is just words. The rubber never meets the road.

 

[revol68]

"I remain faithful to the Event of October 1917"

If Badiou can make statements like this it would sugggest he has some operational definition of an 'Event' he can place within history, it does seem entirely arbitrary though, not to mention pretty useless in it's vagueness.