ISSN 1751-8229 Volume 1.0 - Previously published work, webcasts etc.

pp 141- 185

There is Truth, and then there are truthsor, Slavoj iek as a Reader of lain !adioui
Adrian Johnston - ept o! "hilosoph#$ %ni&ersit# o! Ne' (e)i*o$ Al+u,uer,ue.

Introdu*tion To truly understand and fully appreciate ieks work requires familiarity with a formidably wide range of background material: modern philosophy from Descartes through Hegel, ar!ism and its comple! theoretical as well as practical legacy, large cross"sections of culture both high and popular, and, of course, #reudian"$acanian psychoanalytic thought% &n addition to these sources of intellectual inspiration, ieks te!ts of the past few years display a steadily increasing desire to entertain a sustained and detailed dialogue with the contemporary #rench philosopher 'lain (adiou% &n one of his earliest references to (adiou, iek applauds (adious declaration of war against the reign of the )new sophists,* namely, his denunciation of the relati+istic, anti"essentialist abandonment of strong notions of truth and uni+ersality common to so many current philosophical stances on both sides of the 'tlantic%, -onetheless, this engagement, at least as pursued by iek, is colored by a certain degree of ambi+alence% .n the one hand, in his efforts to delineate the contours of what constitutes a genuine $acanian ethico"political )act* /i%e%, a gesture that decisi+ely"yet" unpredictably breaks with the reality of a gi+en status quo and its 0ymbolic, socio"historical scaffolding12, iek celebrates (adious anti"dialectical opposition between being and e+ent,3 with iek defining the (adiouian e+ent as, )an inter+ention that cannot be accounted for in terms of its pre"e!isting 4ob5ecti+e conditions%*6 He enthusiastically speaks of (adiou as )the theorist of the 'ct%*7 .n the other hand, despite (adious solid ar!ist credentials, iek repeatedly accuses him, apropos the same distinction between being and e+ent, of

141

backsliding into a sort of 8antian idealism and thereby failing to remain faithful to a genuine materialist standpoint9 /interestingly, in What Is Philosophy?, Deleu:e and ;uattari insinuate something similar in the course of briefly making reference to (adiou<2% 0peaking of )(adious opposition between (eing and =+ent,* iek maintains that, )it is here that (adiou remains 4idealist%*> ?an one make sense of this +acillation, this willingness to fa+orably in+oke (adious central theoretical"conceptual opposition while simultaneously seeming to denounce it@ The critique of (adious alleged 8antianism hinges specifically upon what iek percei+es as the perpetuation of a rigid +ersion of the 8antian distinction between the )regulati+e* and the )constituti+e%* 'ccording to 8ant, there are two ways in which one can employ the ideas of reason /as opposed, of course, to the concepts of the understanding grounded in a relation to empirical intuitions2: These ideas can either be mistaken for references to really e!isting entities /i%e%, an illegitimate, baseless )hypostati:ation* of reasons ideas as constituti+e of an e!tra"ideational reality2 or they can be treated as ine+itable consequences of the workings of human cognition that, regardless, are nothing more than eternally unfulfilled hypotheses /i%e%, )as if* principles depri+ed of any true ontological weight, but always threatening to generate the decepti+e, beguiling phantasm of their ob5ecti+e e!istence2%A .ne of the central epistemological lessons of the Critique of Pure Reason is that human reason is continually tempted into allowing itself to fall prey to the alluring metaphysical illusions resulting from a hypostati:ation of the ideas of reason as constituti+e rather than regulati+e% The task of the first Critique is, therefore, to keep reason restrained within the )limits of possible e!perience* by forbidding any mo+e to ontologi:e ideas pointing beyond the spheres of intuition and the understanding% iek presents 8ants practical philosophy as, in part, an application of this epistemological distinction between the constituti+e and the regulati+e to ethical matters: The moral law, as epitomi:ed by the categorical imperati+e, is impossible for finite, flesh" and"blood human agents to obey perfectly or fulfill e!hausti+ely%,B This law functions in a regulati+e )as if* capacity, fore+er guiding the e!ercise of practical reason while nonetheless ne+er becoming entirely actuali:ed within the realm of human reality itself /thus purportedly upholding the strict separation of noumenal and phenomenal domains characteristic of 8ants philosophy2%,, ieks complaint is that, supposedly in contrast to $acan, (adiou tries to maintain an unbridgeable di+ision between the )Truth* /vrit2 emerging through its respecti+e e+entCpro+ocati+ely declaring himself a Dlatonist, (adiou affirms, against the dominant tendencies of twentieth century thought, that philosophical Truth per se is timeless and uni+ersal,1Cand the ostensibly interminable task, assigned to what (adiou terms the )sub5ect of the e+ent,* of re"inscribing the vrit to which its a sub5ect back within the ontological substantiality of being and its corresponding forms of knowledge,3C)#or (adiou,

142

fidelity to the =+ent in+ol+es the work of discerning its traces, the work which is by definition ne+er doneE in spite of all claims to the contrary, he thus relies on a kind of the 8antian regulati+e &dea, on the final end /the full con+ersion of the =+ent into (eing2 which one can only approach in an endless process%*,6 The finite material world, stuck within the corrupt defiles of temporality, is always found to be lacking or somehow less than the rarified dimension of e+ents and their infinite, eternal truths% &n other words, the material is inferior and subordinate with respect to the immaterial% How else ought one to construe those many moments when (adiou underscores that the e+ent is situated at the le+el of )non"being,* that the e+ent isnt included in being as such@,7 &n the foreword to the second edition of For they know not what they do /1BB12, iek +igorously presses home this critique of (adiou% 'fter conceding that $acan and (adiou share a belief in the e!istence of certain occurrences when, from apparently out of nowhere, a )radical cutFrupture* shatters the current symbolic order /i%e%, $acans act and (adious e+ent2,,9 iek delineates in detail his indictment of the lingering 8antianism haunting Ltre et lvne ent:

?an we imagine a more direct application of the 8antian distinction between constituti+e principles /a priori categories which directly constitute reality2 and regulati+e ideas, which should be applied to reality only in the as if mode /we should act as if reality is sustained by a teleological orderE as if there is a ;od and an immortal soul, etc%2@ Ghen (adiou asserts the 4unnameable as the resistance point of the Heal, the 4indi+isible remainder which pre+ents the 4forceful transformation that would conclude its work, this assertion is strictly correlati+e to the as if mode of the post"e+ental work of forcing the Heal: it is because of this remainder that the work of truth can ne+er lea+e this conditional mode behind%,<

iek continues, arguing that, )it is (adiou who is deeply 8antian in his gap between the 4eternity of, say, the idea of 5ustice, and the interminable work of forcing it into a situation*,> and that, )the gap which separates the pure multiplicity of the Heal from the appearing of a 4world whose co"ordinates are gi+en in a set of categories which predetermine its hori:on is the +ery gap which, in 8ant, separates the Thing"in"itself from our phenomenal realityCthat is, from the way things appear to us as ob5ects of our e!perience%*,A ;i+en ieks own a+owed fidelity to 8ant /or, at least, to certain aspects of 8antian thought2, the labeling of (adiou as a 8antian by iek sounds a bit like an instance of the pro+erbial pot calling the kettle black% 't first glance, its difficult to grasp e!actly why iek would ob5ect to lingering traces of 8antianism in (adious philosophy% &f (adiou really does maintain a rigid dichotomy between the truth of the e+ent qua regulati+e"noumenal, as an infinitely +anishing point guiding concrete acti+ity, +ersus being qua constituti+e"phenomenal, it seems that iek himself also preser+es the same sort of opposition apropos a theory of sub5ecti+ity% Ghat

143

renders (adious alleged recourse to this sort of dualism comparati+ely more ob5ectionable@ ore importantly, is he guilty as charged@ &f (adiou indeed still leans against an un5ustifiable idealism, then does his system actually need, for its e!planatory purposes, to be supplemented by a materialist"style $acanian psychoanalytic metapsychology@ &f so, what crucial analytic concepts are missing from (adious theoretical edifice, and what would be the consequences of reincorporating these concepts back within the register of (adiouian ontology@

"art -ne. /rom Spurious to 0enuine In!init# .ne could elegantly encapsulate the essence of (adious system as a consequent unfolding of the full ramifications contained in $acans pronouncement that )L!utre ne"iste pas* /)The big .ther does not e!ist*2,1B an unfolding e!ecuted according to a particular interpretation of the register of the Heal% The $acanian phrase )#rand !utre* is often synonymous with the notion of the )symbolic order* as the trans"indi+idual set of languages, institutions, codes, norms, and practices go+erning human reality, namely, as an omnipresent 0ymbolic framework of en+eloping mediation%1, This $I+i"0traussian sort of structure generates and organi:es, among other things, the forms of knowledge a+ailable to epistemological agents embedded within a socio"linguistic matri!% 'nd yet, especially after his lo+e affair with structuralism cools starting in the ,A9Bs, $acan repeatedly stresses that this symbolic order is necessarily lacking and incomplete, that the big .ther is constituti+ely )barred%*11 &n the opening lines from his ,A<6 tele+ised inter+iew, $acan declares, )theres no way, to say it all% 0aying it all is literally impossible: words fail% Jet its through this +ery impossibility that the truth holds onto the real%*13 0imply put, the 0ymbolic cannot e!haust the Heal% Ghat philosophical twist does (adiou impose on $acan here@ The foundational a!iom of (adiouian ontology can be worded in se+eral different ways: There is no set of all setsE There is no (eing of all beingsE The oneness of a global, complete totality isnt e+er finally to be foundC)if the uni+erse is concei+ed as the totality of beings, there is no uni+erse%*16 &n short, e+ery multiple is a multiple of multiples, and being qua being /ltre$en$tant$qutre2 is )pure multiplicity,* an infinity without an ultimate unifying wholeness, end, or unsurpassable limit%17 (luntly stated, )the .ne* /l%n2 does not e!ist%19 's Kason (arker e!plains in his o+er+iew of (adious philosophy, )The multiple is 4without one, e+en to the e!treme e!tent of being &arred from itself /to adopt the $acanian neologism2%*1< #or (adiou, the )death of ;od* trumpeted by nineteenth century philosophy obligates e+eryone thinking in the wake of this demise to abandon any type of intellectual recourse to a big .ther as a grand"yet"finite ).ne* or )'ll* /and, he +iews modern mathematics, especially set theory after ?antor, as the discursi+e domain in which philosophys ;od is

144

indeed put to rest once and for all with the precision of a cold, ruthless rational systematicity2%1> Hence, in place of the non"e!istent .ne there is the being of infinity% This infinity of being isnt disco+ered through obser+ation or e!perienceE the ontologist doesnt encounter an intuition of beings infinity in any direct, straightforward manner% 'ccording to (adiou, each and e+ery presented unity /i%e%, all e!perientially accessible beingsFentities2 is a subsequent result or outcome of a prior operation referred to as )counting"for"one* /'o pter$pour$un2%1A He proceeds to maintain that a consequence of this is that being qua being, as not sub5ected to the syntheses of counting /as before or beneath this operation2, is a pure, inconsistent multiplicityCbeing is )not .ne%* The inconsistency of the pure multiple cannot be presented as such% =!clusi+ely through the operation of counting"for"one is this inconsistent multiplicity rendered consistent% The consistency established vis$($vis counting is a necessary prerequisite for the genesis of accessible /re2presentations%3B (adiou likewise distinguishes between an )inconsistent multiplicity* and a )consistent multiplicity,* a before" and"after contrast established +ia the inter+ention of the operation of counting%3, He e+en hesitates to dub the former /i%e%, the inconsistent multiplicity of being prior to the count2 )multiple,* gi+en that the opposition between one and many /an opposition leading to multiplicity being thought of simply as many ones2 is itself a by"product of the type of cohesion brought about through counting% ?onsequently, )uncounted* being qua being may +ery well be neither one nor many31 /one might wonder how far remo+ed this hesitant reser+ation on (adious part is from the 8antian +iew that noumenal being an si'h cannot, in its absolute alterity with respect to cognition, be subsumed under such conceptualFideational aspects of the understanding as )quantity*2% &snt this counting"for"one 5ust the synthesi:ing acti+ity of the transcendental unity of apperception in+oked by another name@ Doesnt 8ant claim, in the )Transcendental Deduction,* that the unification of ob5ecti+ity is an apriori possibility condition for the presentation of any ob5ects whatsoe+er@33 #urthermore, isnt (adious non"e!istent .ne, into whose phantom guise being is transubstantiated through the operation of counting, 5ust as immaterial and insubstantial as the sort of sub5ecti+ity e!tolled by +arious types of idealism@ How would (adiou respond to the ob+ious question /a question indicating the difficulty of effortlessly a+oiding fundamental idealist theses2 regarding e!actly who or what does the counting responsible for rendering the inaccessible in"itself of beings pure multiple inconsistency in the form of a presentable consistent multiplicity@ &f the answer amounts to attributing to being itself the initiation of its own self" limiting count"for"one, one might ask why it would be prompted to sunder itself in this specific fashion% -onetheless, contrary to the sometimes 8antian undertones of $acans remarks about the Heal as an )impossibility* intrinsically antithetical to representational depictionC$acan occasionally flirts with a notion of the Heal as a noumenality comparable to 8ants )in# an

145

si'h*+C(adiou would argue that the Heal of being in and of itself, as an infinite series of multiplicities without end, is a result of its potentially ine!haustible 0ymbolic density% &n other words, one of the reasons why one cannot )say it all* /for both $acan and (adiou, the saying of the truth is always a )half"saying* L i$direM372, a reason why knowledge of being remains fore+er incomplete, isnt due to the e!istence of special aspects of being with the supposed property of an inherent resistance to representation% &nstead, the infinite facets of being entail that knowledge can represent being in an infinite number of +arying configurations /thus leading to the o+erloading effect of signifying superabundance identified earlier +ia the 0chelling"inspired recasting of the #reudian dream"na+elCsee section three, chapter twel+e2% &n (adious account, the e!cess of being o+er knowledge /dis2appears as a )+oid* /vide2 within the )state of the situation*39 established by a gi+en epistemological order% Ghat )counts* for the symbolic order of knowledge are the finite entities established on the basis of its own +arious and sundry conceptual criteria%3< 'ny yet, since the infinity of being in+ariably o+erflows the limited and limiting strictures of epistemological strategies of representational containment, knowledge, as $acan puts it, )holds onto the real* of being precisely"yet"parado!ically through its +ery omissions% (adiou e!presses this same idea in establishing an equi+alence between e!cesses of being and +oids in knowledge /although, it merits mentioning that (adiou admits the con+erse as well, namely, that epistemological representation is sometimes in e!cess of ontological presentation within a gi+en situation2%3> He also e!plicitly interprets the $acanian Heal as a 0ymbolic impasse%3A ?onsequently, (adious manner of furthering these select $acanian themes amounts to contending that the big .ther of the symbolic order /as the order responsible for the knowledge establishing specific states of situations2 is barred and incomplete by +irtue of its conditioned dependency on an ontological Heal whose infinite comple!ityFinconsistency, as an immanent, immediate gi+en /and not, following 8ant, as a transcendent absence2, nonetheless continually e+ades being captured within the net of a fi!ed cluster of conceptual sets%6B .n se+eral occasions, $acan adamantly insists on the importance of distinguishing between )knowledge* /savoir2 and )truth* /vrit2%6, This distinction is also crucial for (adiou%61 &n highlighting the gap that fore+er separates the Heal of being from the 0ymbolic of knowledgeCas 5ust shown, this dehiscence isnt at all comparable to 8ants dichotomies between ontology and epistemology as well as between the noumenal and the phenomenal C(adiou denies the possibility of e+er reaching )absolute knowledge* as an encyclopedia" style closure wherein representational structures achie+e an infinitude perfectly isomorphic with that e!hibited by being% Drior to Ltre et lvne ent, in ,horie du su-et, (adiou formulates this position thus:

146

lunivers est fer . total. et il y a de lindistin#ua&le stri't. 'ar vous nave/ pas. dans lunivers. asse/ de no s propres pour distin#uer ses parties0 1u &ien on peut tou-ours distin#uer. ais alors lunivers ne fait pas tout. il y a de le"'2s. par quoi vous faites advenir du no propre au$del( du tout suppos0 Lunivers 'ontient tou-ours plus de 'hoses quil ne peut en no er selon 'es 'hoses e0 )e l( son ine"isten'e%63

;i+en the ine+itable and irreducible e!cess of the ontological o+er the epistemological, a (adiouian e+ent can be defined, in much too concise a fashion, as an occurrence that re+eals, in a unique and particularly pronounced fashion, a certain instance of a discrepancy between the order of knowledge and the domain of being proper% 's (adiou puts it in his study of 0aint Daul, an e+ent is a happening that, in relation to the language of an established system of knowledge, )puts lan#ua#e into deadlo'k%*66 Thus, following (adiou, one could say that an e+ent points out a specific )hole* /trou2 in the fabric of a gi+en state of knowledgeE an e+ent re+eals groupings of )singular multiplicities* sustaining a gi+en situation without, for all that, being e!plicitly included in this same situation as counted elements%67 =+ents come to display how ontological surpluses /as the e!cess of beings infinite multiplicities o+er finite systems of representations2 subsist as egregious elisions at the epistemological le+el%69 (adiouian )Truth"with"a"capital"T,* as opposed to knowledge and its )+eridicalities* /i%e%, (adious )vridi'it* as a fact or claim legitimi:ed on the basis of a present epistemological order, as a piece of information +ouched for within the encyclopedia of e!tant knowledge6<2, is precisely this hole in knowledge6>C)The encyclopedia is a dimension of knowledge, not of truth, the latter creating a hole in knowledge%*6A iek latches onto the (adiouian conception of vrit as the telltale sign of a backsliding into 8ants old distinctionsC)(adious 8antianism is discernible precisely in the way he limits the scope of the TruthN TruthN can e!ist only as the infinite, incessant effort to discern in the situation the traces of the Truth"=+ent, e!actly homologous with the 8antian infinite ethical effort%*7B Ondoubtedly, ieks moti+ations for re5ecting this aspect of a 8antianism supposedly discernable in (adious thought are Hegelian in inspiration% The )8antian infinite ethical effort* would be, from a Hegelian perspecti+e, a specific manifestation of what Hegel refers to as )bad* or )spurious infinity*7,C)0omething becomes an otherE this other is itself somewhatE therefore it likewise becomes an other, and so on ad infinitu %*71 Hegel then introduces his definition of the spurious infinite:

This Infinity is the wrong or negati+e infinity: it is only a negation of a finite: but the finite rises again the same as e+er, and is ne+er got rid of and absorbed% &n other words, this infinite only e!presses the ou#ht$ to$&e elimination of the finite% The progression to infinity ne+er gets further than a statement of the contradiction in+ol+ed in the finite, +i:% that it is somewhat as well as somewhat else% &t sets up with endless iteration the alteration between these two terms, each of which calls up the other%73
147

Oltimately, bad infinity is simply an infinite regression, a 0isyphean task of attempting to reach the infinite through the endlessly reiterated gesture of monotonously adding one more element to a finite series of preceding elements% ;enuine infinity cannot be acquired through finite succession% -o quantity of additional elements in the series /i%e%, what Hegel calls the )somewhat*2 will e+er break through the barrier fore+er separating finite particularity from infinite uni+ersality% &n the most ob+ious e!ample, counting from one to infinity is an infinite labor% Howe+er, such a labor, as inherently incapable of achie+ing its endConly its failure is infiniteCis, in Hegels +iew, )bad* or )spurious%* &n this same section of the Lo#i', Hegel proceeds to chide the practical philosophies of 8ant and #ichte for ha+ing gotten stuck in this unproducti+e limboC)The infinity of reflection here discussed is only an atte pt to reach the true infinity, a wretched neither"one"thing"nor"anotherN This stage was ne+er passed by the systems of 8ant and #ichte, so far as ethics are concerned%*76 8ants talk of )the road of endless progress towards holiness*77 as a mo+ement that )is impossible of e!ecution in any gi+en time*79 certainly in+ites this reading% 8ant indeed concei+es of the infinite as a separate transcendence from which the finite is permanently barred% 8antian infinity )e!ists* only in fictions of a future fore+er 5ust beyond the +isible hori:on% 's iek himself surmises, perhaps the best 8antian reply to this Hegelian line of criticism is nonchalantly to say )0o what@* and shrug it off as of little consequence%7< Ghy shouldnt one portray, for e!ample, moral progress toward a )holiness* prescribed by reason /or, in (adious case, the process of inscribing a truth back within the situation of being2 as an infinite task@ iek answers by claiming that Hegels crucial mo+e here is, as elsewhere, the elegantly simple ontologi:ation of 8ants schema% &n so doing, )3e#els 'ritique si ply openly states and assu es the parado"es 'onstitutive of 4ants position%*7> &n other words, whereas the 8antian metaphysics of morals sometimes speaks of innerworldly human morality as a matter of pursuing a perpetually deferred perfection infinitely receding as eternally ( venir, the Hegelian position, according to iek, is to maintain that the full accomplishment of morality in the present is nothing other than the disruption of phenomenal reality by the gap between finite immanence and infinite transcendence% #or 8ant, the infinite, here identified in terms of the pure moral law and its ethical ideals as totally and flawlessly actuali:ed, e!ists, at least for the human agent, in a pro5ected time always yet"to"come% #or the iekian Hegel, the 8antian dehiscence between noumena and phenomena, as sustained in the immediate gi+en"ness of the concrete present, is itself the true reality of practical )infinity%* &n this conte!t, the salient difference is that between, on the one hand, infinity as a permanently deferred possibility in the future /i%e%, )bad* or )spurious* infinity2, and, on the other hand, infinity as a gi+en actuality in the presence of the present /i%e%, )good* or )genuine* infinity2% iek distinguishes between 8ant and Hegel precisely

148

along this subtle fault line, and he unambiguously situates (adiou on the side of the former% This particular critical strategy with respect to (adiou neglects some of the most basic features of (adious system% (adiouian infinity is diametrically opposed to the )bad infinity* that Hegel attributes to 8antian practical philosophy% The whole point of (adious ontology is that infinity is always" already here, on the +ery surface of presentation as the sole ground/lessness2 of e!istence, rather than functioning as some sort of ephemeral fullness"yet"to"come ho+ering perpetually out of reach on a future hori:on /with (adiou likewise contending that contemporary thought must conduct itself under the 5urisdiction of a seculari:ation of infinity as the brute banality of being2%7A The fundamental thesis of (adiouian ontology is the proposition that being qua being is an infinite multiplicity admitting neither, at its base, indi+isible atomistic constituents nor, at its summit, a unified, encompassing totalityC)il ny a que du prsente du sa#it ulti e ent du vide. et non de l%n0 )ieu est ultiple infini. qui ultiple infini. et lunique point darrt de 'ette prsentation ne prsente rien0 Il ort. au 'oeur de la prsentation%*9B

's obser+ed, this ontological a!iom sharply separates (adiou from 8ant /the abo+e e!ample of this break being that, according to (adiou, ontologys irreducibility to epistemology is due to the presentation of beings infinite multiplicity e!ceeding, instead of withdrawing as absent from, the finite limits of knowledge and its representations2% 0ub5ecti+ity, for instance, isnt stuck, as in the metaphysics of morals, endlessly chasing after the infinite qua a regulati+e ideal that absolutely resists being incarnated in the present% iek frequently portrays 8ant as a key inno+ati+e founder of the now"familiar philosophical theme of the finitude of the sub5ect%9, The actuality of sub5ecti+ity amounts to its e!periential confinement to an inconsistent and incomplete phenomenal reality% -oumenal rationality, in its apparent consistency and completeness, is merely a pro5ection emanating from the frame of this flawed, finite perspecti+e% That is to say, for ieks 8ant, the accomplished infinite /whether theoretical or practical2, defined simply as an e!it from the limits constituti+e of e!perience, is a spectral absence generated by the acti+ities of the finite sub5ect% .n a certain le+el, (adiou in+erts this 8antian theme% The infinite isnt an ( venir lure arising from within the confines of finite sub5ecti+ity and its circumstancesE it isnt a by"product of a foundational, unsurpassable finitude% .n the contrary, the finite sub5ect is, according to (adiou, a subsidiary component or moment of the infinite91C)' sub5ect isN this finite point through which, in its infinite being, truth itself passes%*93 .nce again, the term vrit returns as the cru! of the discussion% .ne point in particular must be made as clear as possible before proceeding any further: &n (adious work, there are grounds for carefully distinguishing between Truth"as" place and truths"as"+eridicalities"to"come /i%e%, Truth +ersus truths2, with (adious notion of )forcing* /for5a#e2 e!plaining the link between these two poles96 /e+en if (adiou himself
149

doesnt carefully draw out such a set of distinctions in an open and deliberate manner, he arguably ought to considering his o+erall pro5ect2% &n fact, clarifying (adious position in response to ieks critique requires superimposing a tripartite distinction between Truth"as" place, truths"as"+eridicalities"to"come, and truth"processes onto the (adiouian system /the third con5oining the first two as the locale of their intersection2% .ne cannot ignore the fact that (adiou sometimes e!plicitly distinguishes between a )formal concept of Truth* /i%e%, the philosophical notion of Truth as an eternally possible operation2 and the plurality of determinate truths resulting from (adious four )generic procedures* /i%e%, science, art, politics, and lo+e2%97 (adiou remarks, )La 'at#orie philosophique de 6rit est par elle$ e +ide% 7lle op2re. ais ne prsente rien%*99 He then insists that, )la 'at#orie de 6rit8 nest l#iti e quautant que la 'at#orie est vide. par'e quelle nest quune opration%*9< Truth"as"place /i%e%, the space of vrit2 is simply the eternal gap, the fore+er open rift, between, on the one hand, the epistemologically indigestible infinity of entities and relations bequeathed /by +irtue of the absence of limiting boundaries that would presumably be established by an e!istent .ne"'ll2 to the structures of knowledge, and, on the other hand, any possible states of knowledge as finite representational configurations or locali:ed constellations of being/s2C(adiou identifies the constraints of knowledge /savoir2 as responsible for rendering the situations in which being presents itself as finite%9> There will always be +oids in knowledge, since an e!hausti+e rendering of beings infinite multiplicity is, according to (adiou, necessarily impossible9AC)the infinite part of the situation can ne+er be presented in itself as infinite%*<B Hence, gi+en the manner in which (adiou opposes vrit to savoir, the perpetual surplus of being o+er knowledge guarantees that the space of Truth" as"place cannot e+er, in principle, be eliminated or foreclosed% 0imply put, there is always more to say% &n $acanian parlance, the half"saying of vrit is ne+er finished% 't this 5uncture, the problem with ieks accusations regarding a (adiouian re+i+ification of the 8antian )infinite labor* on the basis of a rigid separation of the regulati+e /i%e%, what ought to be as an unending task2 from the constituti+e /i%e%, what is as )less than* the demanding ideal2 becomes apparent% Truth"as"place is eternal because, according to both $acan and (adiou, the rift between finite 0ymbolic knowledge and the Heal of infinite being cannot e+er be sealed% This gap is an immanent, irreducible feature inhering within any and e+ery determinate mode of knowledge% =!pressed differently, (adiou contends that this internal incompleteness of knowledge is a result of the sub5ects immediate immersion in the infinite that foundationally precedes it as its ontological groundE being qua being, as necessarily not".ne, cannot e+er, in principle, be unified /i%e%, counted"for"one2 and thereby made the ob5ect of a total and complete form of knowledge% This (adiouian rift between Truth and knowledge certainly isnt indicati+e of a distance between the finite here"and"now and a continually receding, fore+er deferred infinitude ( la the )bad infinity* of the 8antian

150

dichotomy condemning phenomenal reality perpetually to stri+e in +ain after the +anishing point of regulati+e idealityC)nous ha&itions linfinie 'o e notre s-our a&solu ent plat%*<, The infinitude and timelessness of (adiouian Truth, in the sense of a structurally determined place, isnt a strictly normati+e or prescripti+e principle akin to 8ants regulati+e ideal, but, rather, the descripti+e actuality of that which always"already e!ists in the presentC)Gith (adiouN the infinite ceases to be the limit of the concei+able, of the humanCof the finiteC to become the +ery medium of all e!istence /including possible e!istence2%*<1 #urthermore, in commenting upon $acans theory of se!ual difference as formulated in the nineteenth and twentieth seminars, (adiou obser+es that he and $acan part company on the question concerning the ontological status of infinity: #or $acan, infinity is a ficti+e, mythic construct incapable of supporting any 5udgment of e!istenceC$acan +iews e+ery infinity as )bad* in the Hegelian senseCwhereas, for (adiou, infinity is nothing other than the fundamental actuality of being qua being%<3 Ghat about the other senses of vrit, both as +eridicalities"to"come and, additionally, as certain processes@ (adiou remarks that, )truth is a process, and not an illumination%*<6 That is to say, in (adious system, vrit also refers to the dynamics enabling changes to be produced in states of situated knowledge% The acti+ity of )forcing* /for5a#e2, which could also here be dubbed )truth"as"process,* follows in the wake of an e+ent ha+ing un+eiled a +oid in knowledge due to the ine+itable absence of some pre+iously unaccounted for /or, as (adiou would say, uncounted2 e!cess% The sub5ect of an e+ent makes a decision to name this +oid, this point of e!clusion in the fabric of e!tant knowledge%<7 Thereafter, this sub5ect, by +irtue of what (adiou designates its )fidelity* or )faithfulness* to the e+ent bringing it into e!istence, engages in a +ariety of concrete inter+entions and practices aimed at changing the state of its situation under the influence of a specific truth /( la a locali:ed +oid in knowledge2 emerging through the sub5ects founding e+entC)& shall call 4truth /a truth2 the real process of a fidelity to an e+ent: that which this fidelity produ'es in the situation%*<9 (adiou subsequently obser+es that, )' truth punches a 4hole in knowledges, it is heterogeneous to them, but it is also the sole known source of new knowledges% Ge shall say that the truth for'es knowledges%*<< Truths"as"+eridicalities"to"come, as different from Truth"as"place, arent special sorts of epistemological contents elusi+ely fleeing from e+ery attempt to apprehend them% -or are these truths /noumenal2 entities transcending concrete empirical reality% &nstead, under the heading of the for5a#e of vrit effectuated under the aegis of a su-et du vne ent, (adiou groups together the +arious imaginable operations for bringing about changes in knowledge through the appeal to those points where e!clusions from pre+ious epistemological regimes become +isible through the flash of illumination pro+ided by an e+ent% &n the course of elucidating the concept of for5a#e, (adiou clearly posits an intimate

151

relation between truth and knowledgeC)Ce 'on'ept8 -e le soutiens du no sur 'e qui est.

de forPage8 Il

sa#it du point o9 une vrit. si ina'heve soit$elle. autorise des anti'ipations de savoir. non ais sur ce qui aura ItI si la +IritI +ient Q son achR+ement*<> /speaking of the notion of a )strategy,* a notion that appears to be a precursor of the later concept of for5a#e, in his two"part ,A>7 article ):i" proprits de la vrit,* he insists that, )%ne strat#ie ni#nore pas le savoir*<A and that, )la diale'tique de la vrit et de la vridi'it nest pas enti2re ent uette*>BCthat is to say, there is indeed an effecti+e rapport between truth and knowledge, despite the former being subtracted from and irreducible to the latter2% .nce a hole in knowledge is re+ealed in this fashion, the militant sub5ect who remains faithful to a gi+en e+ent labors to transform the epistemological terrain of the present state of the situation by introducing new names for these omissions in this status quo, by putting marks of the truth"e+ent into circulation%>, 'lthough (adiou talks about how the strategic labor of forcing stemming from a truth"e+ent requires deposing knowledge,>1 this doesnt mean that (adiouian truths are utterly unrelated to /as absolutely subtracted from2 all forms of knowledgeE rather, truths require 5ettisoning old structures of knowledge in fa+or of struggling radically to reshape these +ery structures so as to institute new forms of knowledge% 'nd, (adiou describes uni+ersal truths as coming to be through a dialectical process in which +irtually infinite procedures branching out from the loci of e+ents are locally instantiated by the sub5ects of such truth"e+entsC)La diale'tique 'entrale de luniversel est8 'elle du lo'al. 'o e su-et. et du #lo&al. 'o e pro'dure infinie%*>3

The terms deri+ed from the e+ent and its naming by the sub5ect of the e+ent can, in certain circumstances, be added to knowledge as supplements or new components% Truths" as"+eridicalities"to"come should be defined as those features of a truth"e+ent that e+entually, in the future, get inscribed back within the frame of knowledge as accepted +eridicalities /i%e%, as +alidated or legitimated facts, propositions, 5udgments, etc%2% ' sub5ect of an e+ent sei:es a particular manifestation of a dehiscence within knowledgeCthis indestructible incompleteness in general is Truth"as"placeCand forcefully struggles to insert that which announces itself through an e+ent into the field of knowledge, thereby modifying this +ery field in the process /at one point, (adiou proposes, along these lines, that vrit becomes legibleFreadable retroacti+ely in the form of savoir;+2% 's Stienne (alibar notes, (adiou, )obliges us to gi+e the name 4sub5ect to the operator of the forcing that reduces truth /vrit2 to +eridicity, or e+ent to knowledge%*>7 ?onsequently, although Truth"as"place fore+er marks an emptiness that cannot be purged from the intermingling of being and knowledgeCthe space of vrit intrinsically resists inscription within or suturing to the reality dwelling at the sometimes +olatile, unstable intersection of being and knowledgeCthe specific contours of truths as locali:ed +oids in a gi+en field of knowledge can be /and indeed are2 transformed into +eridicalities +ia the processes of forcing operated by sub5ects of e+ents%>9 (adious

152

theory of the truth"e+ent aims to delineate the ahistorical motor, specified in terms of the +oids in the epistemological order made ine+itable by the gap between being and knowledge Cthis gap is the space of vritCof the ongoing historical metamorphoses of knowledge% 0imilarly, (alibar insightfully obser+es that, for (adiou, )historicity* is yet another term designating the fundamental, eternal incompleteness of knowledgeC)Historicity is basicallyN the heterogeneous association of a determinate knowledge and a name for the truth, which demonstrates precisely the infinite or radical incompletion of that knowledge%*>< .r, as #ranPois Gahl notes apropos (adiou, )il ny a pas de lan#ue 'o pl2te%*>> &f the truths of e+ents could not, in principle, be forced into e+entually becoming +eridicalities added to knowledge, then (adiou would admittedly be quite +ulnerable to the iekian accusation that he treats vrit as a transcendent regulati+e ideal% 'nd yet, (adious thought mo+es in precisely the opposite direction:

Na sub5ect generates names whose referents are in the future anterior% 0uch names will ha+e been assigned referents or meanings when the situation will ha+e come to be in which the indiscernible, which is only represented /or included2, is finally presented, as a truth of the former situation%>A

The forcing acti+ities of sub5ects of e+ents, sub5ects that are faithful to named truths, makes it possible for certain truths, as discrete, locali:ed +oids within an epistemological present, later to achie+e entry into the domain of accepted knowledge% ' 8antian regulati+e ideal in+ol+es something that it is impossible to instantiate, some element that is necessarily lacking within situated realityE this sort of ideal is always and in+ariably absent% ?on+ersely, (adiouian truths ha+e, in the mode of the futur antrieur, the potential e+entually to become fulfilled, that is, to gain )referents* or )meanings* in a new, subsequent epistemological state of affairs% Truths can pass o+er from absence to presence, from e!clusion to inclusion% &n these same +ein, the argument could easily be made that, when (adiou refers to particular truths /in addition to the general philosophical category of Truth2 as )infinite,*AB the temptation to read this as an endorsement of a conception of truths as transcendent, otherworldly, quasi"noumenal etherealities must decisi+ely be resisted% (adious qualification of truths as infinite refers to /phrased in $acanese2 their potential 0ymbolic density, not their disembodied detachment from the world in the mode of rarified, empty formalities categorically opposed to representational actuali:ation% The militant sub5ect of the truth" e+ent is unable, from within the finitude of hisFher local perspecti+e, to predict the indefinitely large number of ways in which a particular truth can and will be inscribed into unforeseeable orders of knowledges"yet"to"come%A, =+en within a present epistemological regime, sub5ects are at pains to measure accurately the full consequences that flow from the forcing of a truth

153

into the +ast, comple! representational matrices surrounding these same sub5ectsC)the set of actors of a generic procedure, of a truth procedure, are clearly ignorant, unknowing, of what it is%*A1 The re+erberations of the +arious registers of knowledge in response to a truth, the resonations ringing out from an act of forcing, are too numerous and multi"faceted to be assessed accurately by a single ear alone% &n short, the number of +eridical ramifications of a truth is )infinite* /qua non"finiteFinnumerable2 insofar as the +ery essence of a specific truth is partially dependent upon the open"ended structure of the future anterior, namely, upon the richness of a truths actual as well as potential +eridicalities% &n the course of pro+iding what at first sounds like a straightforward e!egetical account of (adious system and its terminology, iek ad+ances what can now be recogni:ed as a loaded definition of (adiouian truth% He argues that, )the infinite Truth is 4eternal and eta$ with regard to the temporal process of (eingE it is a flash of another dimension transcending the positi+ity of (eing%*A3 0ince iek, in the opening phases of his reading of (adiou, posits that vrit is a meta"le+el feature of )another dimension* occasionally glimpsed within e!periential reality, the charge of 8antian idealism articulated at the end of the same chapter of ,he ,i'klish :u&-e't /)The Dolitics of Truth, or, 'lain (adiou as a Header of 0aint Daul*2 comes as no surprise% This talk of separate dimensions already ser+es to color (adiou in a slightly 8antian hue% The problem with ieks interpretation is that, in somewhat decepti+ely contrasting the dimensions of fleeting, ephemeral truth with fluctuating, tangible being, he ignores the multiple dimensions internal to the (adiouian conception of vrit itself% Truth" as"place is the eternally unsuturable +oid subsisting, as an inherent structural feature, between the uncountable infinitude of being and the finitude of knowledge /the latter relying upon the )finiti:ation* of infinite being effectuated through counting"for"one2, with knowledge being immanent to the single plane of being itself% &n other words, for (adiou, there is no second ontological dimension such as a noumenal (eyondC)nous pouvons d-( dire. nous. ha&itants du s-our infini de la ,erre. que tout est i'i. tou-ours i'i8 I'i est le lieu du devenir des vrits0 I'i nous so es infinis%*A6 #or this +ery reason, (adiou +ehemently denies that he indulges in any sort of idealismC)To be an idealist you ha+e to distinguish between thought and matter, transcendence and immanence, the high and the low, pure thought and empirical thought% -one of these distinctions function in the system & propose%*A7 Truth"as" place is the timeless catalyst for the temporal unfolding of epistemological orders% (ut, by contrast, truths"as"+eridicalities"to"comeCthe forcing of specific truths by faithful sub5ects of e+ents transforms todays gi+en truths into the new knowledge of tomorrows +eridicalitiesC are holes in +arious symbolic orders that ha+e a chance to be filled if and when these orders undergo alteration /thus gi+ing the lie to the allegations of a co+ert reliance upon a 8antian constituti+e"+ersus"regulati+e opposition2% 's (adiou protests, )& concei+e of a truth not as a pregi+en transcendent norm, in the name of which we are supposed to act, but as a

154

produ'tion%*A9 He unequi+ocally declares that, )& am absolutely immanentistC& am con+inced that if there is truth, it isnt something transcendent, its in the situation%*A< .r, as he emphasi:es elsewhere, )la +IritIN est. 'o e rsultat sin#ulier. vrit de la situation%*A> 0imilarly, Deter Hallward notes that the +oids of (adiouian truths are in+ariably locali:ed within specific constellations of knowledge, that these blanks are immanent to e!tant encyclopedic structures%AA Howe+er, one would be 5ustified in asking (adiou whether +eridicalities that once were truths within a prior epistemological order are also, in their own way, as timeless and uni+ersal as Truth qua the eternal gap between being and knowledge% &s (adiou interested in offering a theory in which the initial emergence of timeless truths is located within the diachronic confines of historical temporality@ &s the general theme at stake here the immanent temporal genesis of the thereafter timelessly transcendent, or something else altogether@ (adiou sometimes hints that these sorts of motifs are, in fact, his real philosophical concernC)' truth is what within time e!ceeds time%*,BB 'long related lines, it merits inquiring after the notion of knowledge% (adious definition of vrit /as well as of e+ent2 is ob+iously parasitic with respect to the distinction between being and knowledge%,B, 0o, where does knowledge come from@ Ghat spurs the /re2presentational reduplication of being@ iek claims that both 8ant and (adiou lea+e these enigmas unresol+edC)The basic problem remains unsol+ed both by 8ant and by (adiou: how does the gap between the pure multiplicity of being and its appearance in the multitude of worlds arise@ 3ow does &ein# appear to itself?*,B1 The strength of ieks reading of (adiou resides not in his critique of the latters supposed 8antian idealism, but in forcing (adious system to confront the necessity of thinking through the preconditions of the truth"e+ent /rather than complacently assuming that )it happens*2%

"art 1'o. 2ni3mati* 4edupli*ations -ear the end of a splendid essay on (adiou, Hallward enumerates a series of questions thus far left hanging in (adious still unfolding oeuvre% Hallward obser+es that, )knowledge must be retained in relation to truth% The truth comes to be as the truth of a specific situation%*,B3 Hence, truths, as locali:ed +oids in gi+en /re2presentational configurations, remain distinct from +eridicalities only so long as knowledge is always" already present beforehand:

To accept the specificity of the +oid"in"occasionCa specific +oidC, then, is to accept at least some kind of 4knowledge or relation as transcendental to (adious system as a whole% 8nowledge would thus be transcendental to ontology itself% Howe+er, acceptance of the transcendental aspect of a specific knowledge would undercut his

155

critique of knowledge as the mere result of a construction, as 4added in order to be e+entually subtracted%,B6

=+idently, (adiou, as also charged by iek, uncritically assumes the pre"e!istence of epistemological frameworks, remaining silent regarding how andFor why knowledge emerges from being in the first place% During an inter+iew with Hallward in ,AA<, (adiou mentions this +ery criticism and concedes that this problem is something he is still in the process of sol+ing to his own satisfaction%,B7 The potential solution sketched in this inter+iew clearly foreshadows the content of the fourteenth and final chapter /)Ltre et lappara<tre*2 of the ,AA> book Court trait dontolo#ie transitoire%,B9 How does (adiou account there for the 0ymbolic reduplication of being by knowledge@ (adiou, in relation to the )?opernican re+olution* of 8ant /( la the transcendental idealism underpinning the 8antian account of knowledge2, initiates a ?opernican counter" re+olution of sorts% 'gainst 8ant, he argues that the conceptually e!pressible relations between phenomena /i%e%, appearances2 immanently arise out of being, instead of originating from within the de"ontologi:ed confines of an understanding buried at the idealist core of transcendental sub5ecti+ity% (adiou sets out to 5ustify this position in a demonstration that can be broken down schematically into fi+e interconnected steps% #irst, being per se, in and of itself in the singular, doesnt e!ist, since the key principle of (adious ontology stipulates that only multiplicities e!ist /to the detriment of any totality2%,B< (adiou repeatedly insists that set theory, assuming mathematics to be the most direct e!pression of the Heal /with ample contemporary 5ustification on this point2,,B> necessitates siding with the antitheses of 8ants first two antinomies of pure reason% This leads automatically to the second assertion: =ach and e+ery ontological in+estigation is entirely local, in other words, limited to engaging with particular, determinate beings instead of a grand whole,BA /in the absence of any cosmic ontological .ne"'ll L%n$,outM, being is always presentationally locali:ed,,B2% &n the third step here, (adiou adds some specificity to the preceding second claim in stating that all being, as pure multiplicity, is necessarily a )being"there* /tre$l(2 C),out tre est tre$l(= voil( lessen'e de lappara<tre%*,,, He refers to the specific sites of beings always"locali:ed incarnations as )situations*,,1 /as he puts it elsewhere, )tre. 'est appartenir ( une situation*,,32% #ourth, these situations shape those beings encountered as appearances% These appearances are, in fact, the fundamental essence of the being"there of being%,,6 Therefore, fifth and finally, appearing is an inherent determination of beings nature as beingC)Lappara<tre est une dter ination intrins2que de l tre%*,,7 #urthermore, appearanceCthe notion of an appearance in+ol+es differential determination /i%e%, appearances acquire epistemological +alues through relations with other appearances2C ine+itably and in+ariably points toward an impossible, non"e!istent totality of being as the

156

largest encompassing set of all possible relations between beings"as"appearances /consequently, human reason is haunted by a )transcendental illusion* of unified wholeness despite the e+ident absence of any such unity2% #or (adiou, one of the most important results of this e!ercise is that logic and its categories, insofar as logical structures are defined as relations obtaining between appearances, arent to be +iewed from a 8antian perspecti+e as part of a sub5ect"centered order somehow mysteriously )preceding* /in an apriori mode2 the immediate manifestation of appearances themsel+es%,,9 (adiou is careful to note that his crucial ontological principle /i%e%, the .ne does not e!ist2, as the first premise in this argumentati+e sequence, is an internally generated product of formali:ed mathematical reason itself%,,< That is to say, it has nothing to do either with the in+ocation of an inaccessible, otherworldly domain or with arbitrary assertions about presumed limits to the powers of rationality%,,> ?ommenting on this same chapter of Court trait dontolo#ie transitoire, iek aptly obser+es that the standard philosophical fla+or of the distinction between being and appearance is decisi+ely altered by (adiou% Typically, being is portrayed as concrete, tangible, and substantial, as opposed to the fleeting and ephemeral character of /sometimes illusory2 appearances /for 8ant too, ob5ects"as"appearances lack the same ontological heft supposedly possessed by things"in"themsel+es2% &n the (adiouian uni+erse, by contrast, being qua being is a weightless abstraction best captured by the pure formality of mathematics, whereas appearances within specific situations are left to carry the quotidian weight of e!perienced e!istence%,,A 'ssuming that knowledge is constructed on the basis of appearances and the conceptual relations immanent to them, (adiou could perhaps go so far as to assert that hes able to deduce the e!istence of knowledge from the internal dynamics of his ontology as delineated pre+iously in Ltre et lvne ent% oreo+er, this deduction, as (adiou himself underscores, requires no idealist"style recourse to the constituting acti+ities of a transcendental sub5ect inter+ening within the order of beingC)Il ne dpend dau'un su-et quon prsupposerait dans sa 'onstitution0 Ltant$ ultiple nappara<t pas pour un su-et0 Il est &ien plut>t de lessen'e de ltant dappara<tre%*,1B -either knowledge nor sub5ecti+ity lay claim to originally transcendent roles in (adious system% 8nowledge, as the conceptually organi:ed interconnections amongst multitudes of appearances, isnt the result of the apriori operations of a pre"gi+en epistemological )&,* but, rather, a domain of structure immanent to ltre$en$tant$qutre and within which the knowing self participates merely as a subsidiary fold or inflection% This is precisely the place where a series of problems appear% Headers of (adiou who disagree with each other /for e!ample, Hallward and ?ritchley2 at least concur apropos one theme in (adious oeuvre: #or (adiou, one becomes a sub5ect at decisi+e moments% &n other words, sub5ecti+ity emerges through particular processes, instead of functioning as an innate element of all possible situations%,1, Through a critical

157

reading of $acan,

anfred #rank argues that any and e+ery genetic theory of the sub5ect, of

sub5ecti+ity as a becoming, is doomed to failure by +irtue of an una+oidable, +icious circularity% #rom #ranks perspecti+e, these sorts of /what he designates as2 #rench )neostructuralist* approaches are dri+en to conceal this failure +ia a specious sleight"of"hand in which, so to speak, the rabbit they seemingly pull out of the hat e" nihilo is the one they co+ertly put there beforehand,11 /see also section one, chapter one2% How does this critique work, and what rele+ance does it ha+e with respect to (adiou in particular@ (adiou posits that a sub5ect proper only arises when an e+ent calls forth a form of sub5ecti+ity specific to that e+ents truthC)& call 4sub5ect the bearer Lle supportM of a fidelity, the one who bears a process of truth% The sub5ect, therefore, in no way pre"e!ists the process% He is absolutely none!istent in the situation 4before the e+ent% Ge might say that the process of truth indu'es a sub5ect%*,13 #rank argues, in opposition to what he takes to be the position of thinkers such as 'lthusser and $acan, that phenomena like recognition and interpellation occur e!clusi+ely on condition that a kind of sub5ecti+ity always"already e!ists as that which performs the gesture of recogni:ing itself or of taking the stance of respondent to the interpellating call of the .ther /iek points out that (adious manner of linking sub5ect and e+ent is uncannily close to 'lthussers theory of ideological interpellation,162% #or #rank, without assuming the effecti+e e!istence of sentient, self"reflecti+e sub5ecti+ity as an un" deri+ed, primordial gi+en /and not as a genetic result or by"product2, one is powerless to e!plain e!actly who or what performs the creati+e act supposedly generating sub5ecti+ity% 'lmost certainly, he would raise this same ob5ection against (adiou: ' truth"e+ent cannot, in reality, found sub5ecti+ity, since there must first be a sub5ect who discerns the truth"e+ent and makes a decision to submit to its in5unction through faithful practices of for5a#e% &f, following (adiou, one refuses to label the indi+idual prior to interpellation by a truth"e+ent a sub5ect proper, then what ought one to designate a human being as potentially"but"not"yet" actually caught up in e+ental /vne entiel2 processes@ .n se+eral occasions, (adiou contrasts animality and human sub5ecti+ity, with the e+ent ser+ing to establish the boundary between these two%,17 's ?ritchley notes, )#or (adiou, we are simply the sort of animals who are claimed by circumstances to &e'o e a sub5ect%*,19 (adiou e!plains himself thus:

$et us say that a su&-e't, which goes beyond the animal /although the animal remains its sole foundation LsupportM2 needs something to ha+e happened, something that cannot be reduced to its ordinary inscription in 4what there is% $et us call this supple ent an event, and let us distinguish multiple"being, where it is not a matter of truth /but only of opinions2, from the e+ent, which compels us to decide a new way of being%,1<

158

Gho or what is this )us* that can )decide a new way of being@* Ghat is it in human beings that animals lack@ .r, as $acanian psychoanalysis would ha+e it, what is it that human beings lack that other animals possess@ &n other words, what resides within the nature or constitution of humanity that allows for recepti+ity to the happening of e+ents@ 'nimals arent the only creatures mired in the brute immediacy of )what there is*Chuman beings too, when simply operating within the confines of a particular state of the situation, are less than full sub5ects /perhaps one would do well here to retrie+e an 'ristotelian notion of )rational animality* as the missing third term to be placed between (adious two poles of animality and sub5ecti+ity2% 's early as se+eral select lectures from the late ,A<Bs /found in ,horie du su-et2, (adiou pro+ides some specifics concerning his conception of sub5ecti+ity% He speaks of the )sub5ect"effect* /effet$su-et2Cthroughout his intellectual itinerary, (adiou consistently maintains that the sub5ect is an effect, an effect of the truth"e+entCas necessarily in+ol+ing both )sub5ectification* /su&-e'tivation2 and a )sub5ecti+e process* /pro'2s su&-e'tif2% 0ub5ectification is the disruption of a gi+en order by something in e!cess of that status quo, while a sub5ecti+e process is defined as the labor of re"inscribing this pre+iously e!cluded e!cess back within the situational space%,1> &n Ltre et lvne ent, (adiou alludes to the notion of sub5ectification in declaring that, )Li passe de ltre8 est en vrit la passe du :u-et%*,1A $ater, during the course of his discussion concerning 0aint Daul, (adiou stipulates that, )an e+ental rupture always constitutes its sub5ect in the di+ided form of a 4notN but%*,3B Gith reference to the earlier ,horie du su-et /in which (adiou also mentions the role of the )no* in the genesis of sub5ecti+ity proper,3,2, the )no* here is correlati+e to the moment of sub5ectification as the negati+e withdrawal from a particular situations way of configuring being +ia knowledge, and the )but* signals the task of for5a#e characteri:ing a sub5ecti+e process%,31 &n short, the )no* of sub5ectification marks the emergence of the sub5ect itself%,33 The faithful, militant struggle of the sub5ecti+e process is left in the wake of this originary gesture of negation% Ghere is the difficulty in this@ Ghat remains to be e!plained in response to something like anfred #ranks charge of +icious circularity@

' short statement from Ltre et lvne ent betrays the problem at stakeC)li passe de ltre est le point o9 un :u-et se 'onvoque lui$ e ( de'ider%*,36 ' surreptitious double" sense to the term )sub5ect* seems to ha+e crept in here: The sub5ect is simultaneously that which decides on an e+ent as well as being that which is generated as a product of the e+ent,37 /this problematic equi+ocation is similarly re+ealed by the fact that the (adiouian e+ent is always and necessarily double, ha+ing to happen twice before it could be said e+en to ha+e happened onceCthe second e+ent, retroacti+ely producing the first e+ent, is the groundless, arbitrary, e" nihilo moment of decision when the choice is made to )inter+ene* in a situation by naming the first e+ent as a proper e+ent per se,392% &n other words, (adiouian

159

sub5ecti+ity seems to function as both cause and effect of the truth"e+ent%,3< 's in the case of counting"for"one, the question of e!actly who or what inter+enes and thereby names the first e+ent is left hanging: Gho or what makes such a decision to name, if sub5ecti+ity doesnt arise until after this decision generates its subsequent consequences and re+erberations@ 'lthough ieks indictment of (adiou as a closet 8antian idealist arguably misses the mark, he nonetheless accurately percei+es the need to break this circular deadlock in (adious system% That is to say, iek insightfully identifies (adious failure to specify precisely what, in the +ery moment that gi+es birth to both the truth"e+ent and its sub5ect, makes possible the founding negati+e withdrawal from the positi+e order of gi+en, e!tant situations /i%e%, the sub5ectifying )no*2% Ghat underpins the uniquely human capacity to negate )what there is* in fa+or of an unconditional fidelity to an )!* internally e!cluded within a situational field@ &f this power of negati+ity by itself isnt to be identified as the sub5ect per se, then what is it and from where does it come@ (alibar appears to be raising similar queries when, regarding (adious contention that the decision for the naming of the e+ent pa+es the way for the militant fidelity of the sub5ecti+e process, he asks, )at what moment, to what e!tent, and in accordance with what sub5ecti+e modality, does generic fidelity, which has become the operator that founds the uni+ersalN come to be dependent on a proper name@*,3> iek contends that, apropos these troubling issues, (adious system requires supplementation by certain resources found in $acanian psychoanalytic metapsychology% (adiou refuses to identify the eternal +oid of Truth"as"place with the sub5ect% #rom his perspecti+e, to do so would be tantamount to confusing a timeless, anonymous feature of ontologically determined structure with the specifically local inflections of e!istence qualified as properly sub5ecti+e%,3A Ghats more, (adiou fears that any association of the sub5ect with the order of being would risk eliminating the possibility of the sub5ect participating in the non" being of the e+ent% iek takes great care to emphasi:e that the link between +oid and sub5ect is the cru! of the difference between (adiou and $acan:

Nthe $acanian answer to the question asked /and answered in a negati+e way2 by such different philosophers as 'lthusser, Derrida, and (adiouC 4?an the gap, the opening, the Toid which precedes the gesture of sub5ecti+i:ation, still be called 4sub5ect@Cis an emphatic 4JesUC the sub5ect is both at the same time, the ontological gap /the 4night of the world, the madness of radical self"withdrawal2 as well as the gesture of sub5ecti+i:ation which, by means of a short circuit between the Oni+ersal and the Darticular, heals the wound of this gapN,6B

iek continues:

160

N$acan insists on the primacy of the /negati+e2 a't o+er the /positi+e2 establishment of a 4new harmony +ia the inter+ention of some new aster"0ignifierN This difference between (adiou and $acan concerns precisely the status of the sub5ect: (adious main point is to a+oid identifying the sub5ect with the constituti+e Toid of the structure Csuch an identification already 4ontologi:es the sub5ect, albeit in a purely negati+e wayCthat is, it turns the sub5ect into an entity consubstantial with the structure, an entity that belongs to the order of what is necessary and a priori /4no structure without a sub5ect2% To this $acanian ontologi:ation of the sub5ect, (adiou opposes its 4rarity, the local"contingent"fragile"passing emergence of sub5ecti+ityN #or (adiouN the sub5ect is consubstantial with a contingent act of DecisionE while $acan introduces the distinction between the sub5ect and the gesture of sub5ecti+i:ation: what (adiou and $aclau describe is the process of sub5ecti+i:ationCthe emphatic engagement, the assumption of fidelity to the =+entN while the sub5ect is the negati+e gesture of breaking out of the constraints of (eing that opens up the space of possible sub5ecti+i:ation%,6,

(adiou and $acan are perfect in+ersions of each other regarding how they each cast the distinction between the terms )sub5ect* and )sub5ectification%* (adiou treats sub5ectification as the founding negati+ity of a not"quite"yet"sub5ect /i%e%, an e!cessi+e inconsistency in a gi+en situation2 that comes to produce a sub5ect, with this thus"produced sub5ect defined as a positi+e set of fidelity procedures in relation to the content of a particular truth"e+ent% ?on+ersely, $acan, according to iek, treats the sub5ect as the +oid of an irreducible negati+ity in response to which all forms of sub5ectification /qua determinate incarnations ( la )suturings* to specific e+ents and their truths2 are partially failed attempts at domestication% ?onsequently, as can be seen abo+e, iek accuses (adiou of confusing a description of the process of sub5ectification with an analysis of the sub5ect itself% ieks critique of (adiou as a 8antian falls flat in part due to the distinction between types of vrit discernable in the (adiouian system% Howe+er, this other layer of ieks critical engagement with (adiou currently under discussion calls for de+eloping a distinction, absent in (adious te!ts, between separate senses of the term )+oid%* &ncarnate +oids within human nature /for e!ample, +oids as internal to the libidinal economy2 should be distinguished from an inhuman, structural +oid as a uni+ersal feature of ontology%,61 iek could be construed as pleading for the preser+ation of a difference between +oid"as"sub5ect Cwhile addressing (adious work, iek insists upon the equi+alence between sub5ecti+ity and the death dri+e /,odestrie&2Cand +oid"as"place /i%e%, the irreducible gap between being and knowledge pre+iously labeled )Truth"as"place*2% The $acanian +oid"as"sub5ect /V2 functions, in this argument, not only as the possibility condition for the human indi+idual being recepti+e to the disruption of the reigning order by the ad+ent of a truth"e+ent /i%e%, as the power of the (adiouian )no* of sub5ectification that clears the ground for something other than e!tant knowledges2, but also as the reason why, against (adiou, one cannot fully collapse the sub5ect back into the series of innerworldly procedures and practices of concrete fidelity% The negati+ity of this )barred 0* is, at one and the same time, both a
161

condition of possibility as well as a condition of impossibility for the sub5ects positi+e identification with the cause of a truth"e+ent:

Nit is $acans contention that, in this negati+e gesture of 4wiping the slate clean, something /a +oid2 is confronted which is already 4sutured with the arri+al of a new Truth"=+ent% #or $acan, negati+ity, a negati+e gesture of withdrawal, precedes any positi+e gesture of enthusiastic identification with a ?ause: negati+ity functions as the condition of /im2possibility of the enthusiastic identificationCthat is to say, it lays the ground, opens up the space for it, but is simultaneously obfuscated by it and undermines it%,63

The irony of iek accusing (adiou of 8antianism presently reaches its peak: The +ision of the sub5ect shared by 8ant and his ;erman idealist successors, clothed in $acanian terminology, is mobili:ed against (adiou% 'lthough iek thinks misreads $acan
,66

anfred #rank clumsily

/see section one, chapter one2, there is nonetheless common ground

between iek and #rank in that neither belie+es that one simply can con5ure the sub5ect completely e" nihilo out of, for instance, an e+ent aloneC)strictly speaking, indi+iduals do not 4become sub5ects, they 4always"already are sub5ects%*,67 'nd, both of them refer to late modern ;erman philosophies of sub5ecti+ity when raising this ob5ection /iek e!plicitly uses Hegels )night of the world* phrase in this critical reading of (adiou2% 0omething other than a mere impasse in knowledge or the symbolic order, this impasse being really 5ust as structural and inhumanly anonymous as the ontological +oid with which (adiou refuses to identify the sub5ect, must be posited as a prior element conditioning the sort of sub5ecti+ity delineated by (adiou% iek proceeds to assert that the death dri+e is, at least from a $acanian point of +iew, the sub5ect itself as the power of negati+ity% He claims that this is the hidden, disa+owed lynchpin of (adious foundational distinction between being and e+entC)The $acanian death dri+e /a category (adiou adamantly opposes2 isN a kind of 4+anishing mediator between (eing and =+ent: there is a 4negati+e gesture constituti+e of the sub5ect which is then obfuscated in 4(eing /the established ontological order2 and in fidelity to the =+ent%*,69 (adiou allegedly e!cludes this negati+e mediator from his systemC)there is simply no place for the #reudian death dri+e in (adious pair of (eing and =+ent%*,6< Ghat accounts for this e!clusion@ #urthermore, when (adiou, in ,horie du su-et, designates the sub5ect"effect as the parado!ical unity"in"contradiction of sub5ectification /i%e%, the negati+e gesture of withdrawal2 and the sub5ecti+e process /i%e%, the positi+e procedure of forcing2,,6> isnt this another way of articulating the $acanian notion of sub5ecti+ity mobili:ed by iek in his critique@ Does (adiou change his mind on this point after ,horie du su-et, subsequently e!cluding /in later te!ts such as Ltre et lvne ent2 negati+ity from this account@ 0imilarly, what about those moments when $acan speaks of the sub5ect as tied to a dynamic
162

of )temporal pulsation@*,6A ;i+en this, would he really ob5ect to (adious assertions regarding the )rarity* of sub5ecti+ity qua occurrence@ &n response to ieks assertions, (adiou would likely ha+e strong reser+ations about introducing the psychoanalytic concept of ,rie& into his theoretical apparatus% To begin with, the omnipresence of libidinal causality in the analytic depiction of the psyche threatens to foreclose the possibility of the e+ent as a radical rupture or discontinuity in the fabric of history% Doesnt #reuds infamous psychical determinism portray each and e+ery stage of ontogenetic /and e+en phylogenetic2 de+elopment as shaped by forces ine+itably establishing an unbroken thread of continuity between past and present@ Onder the sway of the dri+es relentless demands for repetition as well as the perpetual returns of the repressed, how can the e+ent, as the unpredictable irruption of the -ew that entirely breaks with its prior temporal background and historical coordinates, e+en be thought at all@ Dsychoanalysis, in its more deterministic modesCthis determinism is always, ultimately, grounded on the theory of the dri+es as the rudiments of the libidinal economyCoperates as a genealogy of the singular sub5ect, an archaeology unearthing the strata connecting the multiple tiers of the mind /(runo (osteels, a (adiouian theorist attacked by iek in the 1BB1 foreword to the second edition of For they know not what they do, claims that (adious ,horie du su-et, with its dialectical materialist emphasis on the sub5ects refle!i+e )topological contortions* in relation to a malleable Heal, seeks to a+oid the deterministic closure of models based on )structural causality,* such as those ostensibly espoused by #reudian"$acanian psychoanalytic metapsychology,7B2% (adiou insists that philosophy, in order to re+itali:e itself, must break with the +arious forms of genealogical historicism holding sway since Hegel and -iet:sche,7,C)?e propose darra'her la philosophie ( 'et i pratif #nalo#ique%*,71 The )genealogical imperati+e* of #reudian analysis would likewise be a danger to a+oid from this perspecti+e% ' second (adiouian ob5ection to embracing the death dri+e in particular would be that this concept is too closely allied to the philosophical thematic of finitude, too pro!imate to, among other notions, Heideggerian (eing"towards"death% &n characteri:ing the sub5ect of the truth"e+ent as a finite moment of an infinite process, (adiou is stringently opposed to post"8antian philosophys dogmatic insistence that sub5ecti+ity is wholly and completely reducible to an essentially limited, mortal status%,73 The (adiouian sub5ect carries within itself /whether it knows it or not2 the infinities of truths, rather than being e!pelled from these spaces of vrit by +irtue of condemnation to the prison"house of epistemological finitude%,76 'nd, on se+eral occasions, (adiou remarks that death, usually taken to be the ultimate emblem of humanitys finitude, is simply a feature of animality, instead of being a mark of sub5ecti+ity proper%,77 #reuds depictions of the ,odestrie& seemingly wed it, in a manner consistent with
163

(adious likely suspicions, to the fact of finitude% #reud treats it as the most profound symptom of the human indi+iduals embodied /hence mortal2 condition, going so far as to discern its machinations across the broad spectrum of li+ing beings /in fact, #reud draws a degree of inspiration for this idea from studies of single"celled organisms2% Onder the influence of a somatically dictated program, the dri+es stri+e toward an inorganic state%,79 How could one not interpret this as a psychoanalytic endorsement of philosophies of sub5ecti+e finitude@ iek accomplishes a complete re+ersal of this standard reading of the death dri+e% The blind insistence of ,rie& that #reud attributes to the ,odestrie& isnt, according to iek, a manifestation of mortal finitude% .n the contrary, this compulsi+e repetiti+eness is best compared to an undead, immortal re+enant that permanently haunts the psyche%,7< Dri+es, epitomi:ed through the e+ocati+e figure of the ,odestrie&,,7> pay no heed whatsoe+er to the passage of time% They endlessly reiterate their demands for the pure repetition of contingent past contents fro:en into thereafter necessary forms:

This notion of a spectral undead e!istence also allows us to account for the fundamental parado! of the #reudianF$acanian death dri+e: like the 8ierkegaardian sickness unto death, the death dri+e is not the mark of human finitude, but its +ery opposite, the name for 4eternal /spectral2 life, the inde! of a dimension in human e!istence that persists for e+er, beyond our physical death, and of which we can ne+er rid oursel+es% Nfor $acan, the death dri+e is precisely the ultimate #reudian name for the dimension traditional metaphysics designated as that of i ortalityCfor a dri+e, a 4thrust, which persists beyond the /biological2 cycle of generation and corruption, beyond the 4way of all flesh%,7A

The instincts of animals generally tend to obey the natural rhythms of biological organisms automatically attuned to the en+ironment% Dri+es, by contrast, are compulsi+e forces entirely di+orced from these sorts of organically regulated periods and phases, blindly insisting upon an indefinite sequence of reiterations of a gi+en state of affairs% Otterly neglecting the condition of their )mortal coils,* a neglect licensed by an unconscious ignorance of mortality,,9B dri+es make no e!ceptions for the )weakness of the flesh*Cthe indi+iduals finitude is of no concern whatsoe+er%,9, ,rie& is a ra+enous, insatiable parasite% 'lthough deri+ing its li+ing force from the body, it nonetheless pushes this same body toward death in its uncompromising, unconditional pursuit of -ouissan'e%,91 0o, rather than ser+ing as yet another indication of the human beings finite animal condition /to be contrasted with (adiouian sub5ecti+itys rapport with the infinite2, the iekian ,odestrie& is an incarnate manifestation of an )immortality* that breaks with natures material cycles of generation and corruptionC)as #reud emphasi:es repeatedly, there is no notion or representation of death in the un'ons'ious: the #reudian ,odestrie& has absolutely nothing to do with the Heideggerian :ein$/u $,ode% Dri+e is immortal, eternal, 4undead%*,93

164

&n his chapter on (adiou in ,he ,i'klish :u&-e't, iek indulges in a somewhat strange equi+ocation between the sub5ect and the death dri+e /see also section three, chapter thirteen2% Ghether or not $acan himself actually endorses such an equi+alenceFidentity between these two terms is open to question% Howe+er, elsewhere, iek makes the more intuiti+e obser+ation that ,rie& is a transitional, borderline function halfway between raw animality and full"fledged sub5ecti+ityC)The mysterious intermediate status of dri+e resides in the fact that, while we are -.T J=T dealing with the sub5ectN we are also -. $.-;=H dealing with the immediate self"enclosure of a biological organism%*,96 This formulation is especially effecti+e in showing why $acans +ersion of the #reudian concept of ,rie& would be e!tremely useful for (adiou% #irst of all, gi+en #reuds stipulation that dri+es, unlike instincts, are )ob5ectless*Cdri+es do not come pre"wired in terms of some naturally ordained orientation toward specific sorts of entities and beha+iors,97Cthis e!plains why human beings arent totally soldered in place to e!tant situations and states of situations /an e!planation crucial for (adious system2% The inborn negati+ity of dri+es, the fact that )human nature* is always"already out"of"5oint with the brute gi+en"ness of )what there is,* is a +ital precondition clearing the ground for engagements with e+ents% 0econdly, the ability of dri+es to operate )beyond the pleasure principle* /this being #reuds point about the ,odestrie&2 do+etails perfectly with a central cluster of notions in (adious corpus% Onlike the utilitarian cost"benefit calculations at work in the negotiated e!changes between the pleasure principle and the reality principle, dri+es in and of themsel+es, decoupled from this mediating dynamic between principles, are not sub5ect to blackmail by the empirical circumstances of the status quo% Gith great rhetorical energy, (adiou frequently highlights a passion intimately in+ol+ed in the labor of for5a#eC)The sub5ecti+e process of a truth is one and the same thing as the lo+e of that truth%*,99 He emphasi:es that the forcing effectuated by the sub5ect of the truth" e+ent is dri+en by )fidelity,* )faithfulness,* )militancy,* and )lo+e%*,9< Ghat are these terms if not so many different names for that dimension of the human transcending, in its unnatural e!cessi+eness, the ordered run of things /i%e%, (adious )ser+ice of goods* Lservi'e des &iensM,9>2@ Ghat, within the core of humanitys +ery being, agitates and pro+okes a dissatisfaction with reigning states of affairs, with the stabili:ing, soporific equilibrium between being and knowledge@ Ghat empowers and compels indi+iduals to sacrifice their delicate well"being for the sake of amorous, political, scientific, or artistic causes@ iek makes a con+incing case for the /re2introduction of a psychoanalytic conception of the material nature of the Heal /as epitomi:ed by dri+e theory2 within (adious system on the basis of these queriesC)how does the gap open up within the absolute closure of the Heal, within which elements of the Heal can appear@ Ghy the need for the pure multitude to be re"presented in a 0tate@N &s it not that there already has to be some tensionFantagonism

165

that is operati+e within the pure multitude of (eing itself@*,9A (adiou ought to be confronted when he says, )?onsidered in terms of its mere nature alone, the human animal must be lumped in the same category as its biological companions%*,<B Kust as the e+ent could be described /in iekian parlance2 as )in being more than being itself,* so too is ,rie&, as both the negati+e power of withdrawal from the world as well as the positi+e force underpinning the capacity for sub5ecti+e commitment, )in human nature more than human nature itself%* (adious entire system orients itself around a set of points of subtraction: beings withdrawal, as inconsistent multiplicity, from the consistent multiplicities of situationsE the e+ents intrusi+e disruption, both unanticipated and unpredictable, of the present state of affairsE the sub5ects breaking, achie+ed through its decision to relate to its founding e+ent as a proper e+ent, with its human animality, with its petty indi+iduality as an entity specified by a stateE the truths puncturing of holes in knowledge by confronting knowledge with that for which it cannot and will not account% &n his sweeping study of (adious entire corpus, Hallward obser+es that this subtracti+e approach is a double"edged sword% .n the one hand, it epitomi:es the startling originality and seducti+e strength of a philosophy that dares to reaffirm a robust notion of uni+ersal and ahistorical truth in an era of 5aded postmodern relati+ism /(adiou sees sophistical anti"philosophys linguistic constructi+ism holding sway on both sides of the 'tlantic2% .n the other hand, its in danger of rationali:ing an irrationally stubborn refusal to think through and e!plain both the prior conditions for e+ental sequences /as a pre"e+ental dimension2 as well as the details in+ol+ed in bringing the ramifications of such sequences to bear on e!istent relational structures /as a post"e+ental dimension2% -ear the end of his introduction, Hallward states:

This dliaison underlies both the e!traordinary ambition of (adious philosophy, its unflinching determination, and its own peculiar difficultyCthe difficulty it has in describing any possible relation between truth and knowledge, any dialectic linking sub5ect and ob5ect% Hather than seek to transform relations, to con+ert oppressi+e relations into liberating relations, (adiou seeks subtraction from the relational tout 'ourt% 0o long as it works within the element of this subtraction, (adious philosophy fore+er risks its restriction to the empty realm of prescription pure and simple%,<,

's Hallward points out repeatedly, the (adiouian subtracti+e conception of truthCtruth is heralded by an e+ent and forcefully e!tended in its implications by a militantly faithful sub5ect Cstipulates that although e+ents are always situated in e+ental sites /i%e%, conte!tually specific socio"historical configurations in which e+ents first come to light2, the truths to which e+ents gi+e rise rupture and transcend the continuums in which their e+ental sites are embedded% (adiou, in his efforts to philosophi:e the -ew as suchChe identifies this task as the central concern consistently at the core of all his philosophical endea+ors,<1Cseeks to demonstrate how ahistorical uni+ersality immanently emerges out of historical particularity
166

and subsequently e!plodes the frame of this same particularityC)The singularly true retrospecti+ely eliminates the merely specific circumstances of its ad+ent%*,<3 .r, )Truth is what happens in history, but as a subtraction from history%*,<6 (adiou con+incingly demolishes the untenable presumption that truth is socio"historically relati+e 5ust because its genesis is associated with a particular socio"historical locale /as a gi+en situational state and its encyclopedia of knowledge2% &n $acanian"iekian parlance, e+ental sites, as socio" historical locales, contain within themsel+es )something in them more than them%* (adiou describes the e+ental site as )that which would diagonally cross the opposition of immanence and transcendence*,<7 /in the course of touching on topics rele+ant for an understanding of the (adiouian site, ?arsten 0trathausen notes that, )truths always take shape within a gi+en state of the situation% They are both local and uni+ersal at the same time*,<92% The ad+ent of a truth"e+ent /along with the form of sub5ecti+ity it engenders2 erupts in a sudden flash within the structured regularities of an established order% 'nd yet, this immanently produced break cannot and must not, (adiou argues, be dialectically reincorporatedFreintegrated back into the consistent continuity with which it has definiti+ely and decisi+ely broken /doing so entails failing to recogni:e the e+ent as an e+ent per se, since, according to (adious definition of e+ent, an e+ent is something so new that it confounds attempts to understand its import in terms of the old coordinates of the situational state of its e+ental site2%,<< The truth"e+ent subtracts itself from its surrounding socio" historical situation, 5ust as the sub5ect"of"the"e+ent, engaged in the work of forcing the e+ents truth, subtracts itself from the mediating matri! of established ob5ects and forms of knowledge in which the indi+idual supporting this sub5ecti+ity 5ust so happens to be located%,<> Hallward suggests that (adious subtracti+e approach to truth, despite its +arious merits, risks remaining strictly prescripti+e% (adiou writes as though hes describing what truth is, but Hallward indicates that subtraction is more an ideal, an imperati+e guiding how one ought to situate oneself as the sub5ect of a truth"e+ent: The e+ent ought to be recogni:ed as utterly irreducible to its conte!t of emergenceE The truth ought to be treated as fundamentally incommensurate with e!tant knowledgeE The sub5ect ought to operate independently of the contingent characteristics of the all"too"human indi+idual% #rom Hallwards perspecti+e, (adiou limits the power of his system by refusing to discuss the detailed dynamics through which, for instance, the truth of an e+ent comes to be placed in relation to the encyclopedia of established knowledge% Howe+er, (adious notion of forcing and the related distinction between truth /vrit2 and +eridicality /vridi'it2Cas e!plained, +eridicalities are new elements of knowledge yet"to"come, alterations in the situational encyclopedia brought about by +irtue of a sub5ecti+e forcing of an e+ental truthCat least hint at the una+oidable necessity of positing some sort of relation between truth and knowledge

167

/savoir2% 0imilarly, it would be interesting and worthwhile, in e+aluating Hallwards criticisms here, to go back and e!amine the relationship between (adious ,A>1 ,horie du su-et /in which (adiou deploys a series of dialectical dynamics2 and his ,A>> Ltre et lvne ent /in which non"relational, anti"dialectical models predominate2% How much from ,horie du su-et is really renounced in the subsequent system@ &n the course of his critical assessment, Hallward offers a way out of this danger of adhering to a too subtracti+ely purified ideal of truth: differentiating between the )specified* /as whate+er is determined by its situational milieu2 and the )specific* /as something particular to a gi+en situational milieu, but, nonetheless, not wholly determined by it2% Hallward contends that )(adious system* is go+erned by a strict dichotomy between )state" dri+en operations of inclusion or classification, and truth"dri+en operations of separation or subtraction%*,<A He then argues that this is, essentially, a false dilemma: (eing specific to a state of a situation /i%e%, included within a situational states network of relations2 need not automatically entail, as (adiou sometimes seems to assume, being specified by this inclusion /i%e%, dominated and controlled by a )state*2% (ut, at the same time, Hallward also acknowledges that (adious conception of truth is )firmly situation specific*,>B and that the e+ental site, linked to the +oid of being subsisting within each and e+ery situation, always has an )edge* as a region of contact with its specific situation /hence (adious insistence that truths are immanent to situations,,>, that they are )anonymous and unnameable local beings*,>12% Derhaps Hallward can be construed as saying that (adious anti"relational, subtracti+e thought both e!plicitly re5ects and, all the while, implicitly presupposes something along the lines of the distinction between the specific and the specified% The bulk of Hallwards criticisms deal with the post"e+ental dimension of the problems with (adious de+aluation of relationality /i%e%, queries concerning how the disrupti+e consequences of the truth"e+ent are brought back into producti+e connections with situations and their states2% Howe+er, (adiou is plagued by difficulties at the pre"e+ental le+el too% &n fact, these difficulties might well be the most serious shortcomings of his philosophy% Hallward again reminds readers that, for (adiou, )Truth subtracts itself from the circumstances in which it is produced, be they social, psychological, or cogniti+e%*,>3 0imply put, if something is uni+ersally and truly true, then it cannot be reduced to the mere background against which it surfaces /this being why, for instance, all the myriad +arieties of ad ho ine arguments, seeking to de"legitimi:e a truth by pointing to its positional locus of articulationFproduction, are fallacious2% Ghats more, according to (adiou, the empirically delineable features of human beings are incidental with regard to their potential status as sub5ects faithful to truths% This blanket dismissal of the rele+ance of )human nature* in a theory of sub5ecti+ity is quite unsatisfactory:

168

N(adious firm dissociation of the process of sub5ecti+ation from its enabling 4natural or 4psychological conditions may do more to simplify our understanding of that process than e!plain it% He defines the human in terms of our e!ceptional 4capacity for thought, but shows little interest in the origin and nature of that capacityN -o amount of insistence upon the e!ceptional or nonnatural status of the sub5ect, howe+er, accounts for or 5ustifies dismissal of the nature of that being which is uniquely able to &e'o e e!ceptional, any more than it helps us understand how and why certain indi+iduals actually become sub5ects%,>6

?orrelati+e to the dichotomy between inclusion and subtraction, (adiou posits a sharp binary di+ision between, on the one hand, the indi+idual /i%e%, the human animal, a creature shaped and specified by +arious situational elements2, and, on the other hand, the sub5ect /i%e%, an agency e!ceeding the mere indi+idual, transcending the empirical features of the human animal2% The indi+idual is included in a situation, whereas the sub5ect subtracts itself from its situation% The indi+idual isnt always"already a sub5ectE sub5ecti+ity is con5ured into effecti+e e!istence through the indi+idual being, as it were, interpellated by an e+ent and its truth% #or (adiou, indi+iduals become sub5ects, and, as he describes it, sub5ecti+ity is something occasional and momentaryCin short, the sub5ect is )rare,* something literally e!tra"ordinary% 'nd yet, (adious philosophy fails to furnish any account whatsoe+er of human nature, a nature that (adiou dismisses as irrele+ant to e+ental sub5ecti+ity qua subtracted from situated innerworldly indi+iduality% Thus, a ma5or question, one that insistently demands a response, is left unanswered: Ghat is it about human nature that makes indi+iduals intrinsically capable of /at least potentially2 becoming sub5ects@ any, including iek, Hallward, 0imon ?ritchley, and Daniel (ensaWd, ha+e forcefully posed this perturbing problem%,>7 There has to be something in the constitution of indi+iduals that sustains the possibility of heeding the summons of truth"e+ents% &f, in terms of other aspects of his system, (adiou allows for, broadly speaking, the immanent genesis of the transcendent /i%e%, the e+ent arises out of an e+ental site, trans"historical truth arises out of the defiles of history, etc%2, then why not similarly de+elop an account of human nature that e!plains how it is that this nature contains within itself the potentiality to transcend itself@ Ghat is it within the indi+idual that enables this indi+idual to step outside of himFher"self in responding to an e+ent@ Hallward remarks that (adious )philosophy effecti+ely proscribes thought from considering the produ'tion of an e+ent%*,>9 (adiou pronounces a prohibition against all attempts at e!plaining the preconditions and enabling circumstances precipitating e+ents% ?onsequently, in refusing to spell out the particular features of human nature making possible the production of sub5ectification"effects, (adiou is at least being consistent% Howe+er, the prescripti+e in5unction of subtraction /subtract the e+ent from situations, subtract the truth from knowledges, subtract the sub5ect from ob5ects2 both hobbles and eclipses the necessary"yet"neglected task of, at a minimum, e!plaining how and why humanity is able, from time to time, to inhabit those infinite planes opened up by
169

e+ents% Ghat mediates between the e+ental site and the e+ent@ Ghat mediates between the indi+idual and the sub5ect@ (adiou remains silent%

5on*lusion &n forging a theory of the e+ent, (adiou attempts to assign specific socio"historical conte!ts their appropriate place without, in the process, falling back into historicisms conte!tual determinism%,>< (adiou is clear: 'lthough e+ents open the infinite +istas of truths, they dont descend upon mundane reality from some other, hea+enly realm% =+ery e+ent has a specific )site%* That is to say, e+ery e+ent arises within particular, innerworldly configurations% -onetheless, although the e!istence of a gi+en site is a condition for the happening of an e+ent, its occurrence cannot be reduced to a mere e!tension of trends stemming from the situated site itself,>> /otherwise, it wouldnt qualify as an e+ent qua e+ent, as a true break2C)The e+ent is both situatedCit is the e+ent of this or that situationCand supple entaryE thus absolutely detached from, or unrelated to, all the rules of the situation%*,>A Thus, (adiou re5ects any kind of determinism that would threaten to reduce all possible occurrences to permutations of an ultimately consistent historical continuum /psychoanalytic employments of the notion of the libidinal economy sometimes might seem to flirt with precisely this sort of reduction2%,AB &n Ltre et lvne ent, he isolates the e+ents site as the finite point of genesis for an infinite processC)lontolo#ie ense &liste affir e que. si &ien entendu la prsentation peut tre infinie8 elle est 'ependent tou-ours arque de finitude quant Q son origine0 Cest 'ette finitude qui est i'i e"isten'e dun site. au &ord du vide. histori'it%*,A, =lsewhere, in :aint Paul, he remarks, )although the e+ent depends on its site in its &ein#, it must be independent of it in its truth effe'ts%*,A1 The e+ent is a )pure beginning*,A3 that arises within the defiles of, so to speak, impure continuance% 't this 5uncture, two tra5ectories running back"and"forth between the finite and the infinite become +isible% .n the one hand, (adiou endea+ors to describe how the always" gi+en infinity of being distills itself into the finitude of limited constellations of knowledge, with truths ser+ing as reminders of the ne+er"se+ered links to this ontological plane% .n the other hand, in tying e+ents to the immanence of a circumscribed, locali:ed site, (adiou traces the emergence of the infinite back to a finite originary locus% Thus, knowledge is the becoming finite of infinite being, whereas, in an in+erse fashion, the truths of e+ents are e!cluded elements embedded within finite sites /themsel+es determined by states of situations2 becoming infinite% 'lthough ieks way of labeling (adiou as a 8antian idealist misinterprets the first dynamic /i%e%, the becoming finite of the infinite2, his in+ocation of the #reudian"$acanian ,odestrie& 5ustifiably demonstrates the need for a supplementary, mediating third factor, situated between the poles of the (adiouian dualism between

170

animality and sub5ecti+ity, in order e+en for there to be the +ery occurrence of the second dynamic /i%e%, the becoming infinite of the finite2% &n (adious terminology, one could say that iek introduces dri+es as elements of a finite site that, by +irtue of their internal negati+ity, make possible a militant forcing that transcends the parameters of this same site itself% ;i+en its role in the preceding discussions, it merits asking e!actly what is entailed by 8ants transcendental idealism% Taken in its most traditional and restricti+e sense, it in+ol+es positing that the synthesi:ing acti+ities of the thinking sub5ect are constituti+e for e!periential reality and its correspondingly possible forms of knowledge /(adiou construes 8ants transcendentalism in this narrow fashion,A62% 0tressing 8ants idealism amounts to underscoring the part that the mind plays in generating an epistemologically accessible world% Howe+er, a broader interpretation of the 8antian position is licensed by an emphasis on his transcendentalism /rather than on his idealism2: Transcendental idealism is interested in in+estigating those features of sub5ecti+e constitution, intellectual or otherwise /one might argue that psychoanalytic metapsychology, including dri+e theory, fits into this kind of transcendental pro5ect2, that make possible /human2 reality itself, that ser+e as necessary preconditions for things taking shape as they do% &n this light, perhaps ieks criticism of (adiou should be re+ersed: (adiou is not enough of a transcendentalist% He neglects to stipulate why the finite folds of being that human beings are dont remain idiotically immersed in )what there is%* He doesnt say, in any e+ident or straightforward way, how sub5ectification in response to the interpellation of a truth"e+ent is possible in the first place% &f (adiou does indeed, as iek maintains, ha+e )8ant trouble,* it isnt too much transcendental philosophy, but, quite possibly, too little% Howe+er, pursuing the route opening up here through the interaction between (adiou and iek entails embarking upon an e!tremely ambitious philosophical program: the de+elopment of a transcendental materialism /i%e%, an account of what, within the material ground of human being, makes possible the sub5ect qua rupture with this same ground2 forged through an alliance between philosophy and psychoanalysis%

Addendum &n a recently published essay /)Linvesti#ation trans'endentale*2, (adiou foreshadows some of the theses to be deployed in his upcoming sequel to Ltre et lvne ent /the sequel being entitled Lo#iques des ondes2% &n this short pre+iew, (adiou argues in fa+or of a notion of the transcendental in which its status is decoupled from its pre+ious dependence upon /idealist2 sub5ecti+ity% He contends that the transcendental consists of a locali:ed set of possibility conditions /perhaps appealing here to something like a non"uni+ersal notion of the apriori2 for appearances and their logical relations inherently internal to specific

171

situations themsel+es /(adiou both implicitly and e!plicitly appeals to the Hegelian concept of concrete uni+ersality in connection with this recasting of the notion of the transcendental as a particular element immanent to a realityFworld that simultaneously structures the other elements of this same realityFworld,A7Csee also section three2% 0imply put, (adiou seeks to di+orce the transcendental from sub5ecti+ity,A9: 'n ine!tricable, transcendental rapport between )logic* and )appearance* holds immanently within situations /the triad )logic*")appearance*")situation* constituting, for (adiou, a )world*2 prior to the superfluous inter+ention of any sort of idealist sub5ect%,A< &n the (adiouian +iew, sub5ecti+ity is a subsequent by"product coming after /as a residual effect or component inflection2 the inter+ention of those transcendental elementsFfunctions constituti+e of a gi+en situations world% The coherence of a )world,* as a sphere within which sub5ects can come to be qua sub5ects, is generated by the transcendental /and, there are a multitude of transcendental regimes, rather than, as with 8ant, one form of the transcendental,A>2% (adious ostensible departure from the 8antian sense of the transcendental is a bluff, an empty semantic shell game% Throughout almost the entirety of the Critique of Pure Reason, 8ant abstains from speaking of )the sub5ect* or )sub5ecti+ity* in his delineation of the conditions of possibility for e!perience and its correlati+e forms of legitimate knowledge% ' 8antian could reply nonchalantly to (adiou along the lines of, )#ine, the term 4sub5ect wont be used as somehow equi+alent to the configuration of transcendental conditions for reality% 0o what@ The essential framework of the critical system still stands, remaining serenely unaffected by this merely terminological concession%* 'nd, 8ant may be e+en more radical than (adiou here% ore often than not, criticisms of 8ants )idealist sub5ect* fall into the trap of what a committed 8antian transcendental idealist could easily and con+incingly condemn as crude metaphorical )picture thinking*: The )Transcendental 'esthetic* of the first Critique clearly stipulates that spatiality is confined to being solely one of the two )pure forms of intuition%*,AA Hence, accusations that 8ant ultimately relies upon a simplistic idealist insideFoutside dichotomy /i%e%, e!perience is somehow )in* a sub5ect rather than being )out there* beyond the closed circle of cognition2 is, from a 8antian perspecti+e, a cheap"and" easy criticism ultimately reliant upon a simplistic, unrefined category mistake% That is to say, such a critique betrays the fact that the critics ha+e yet to make the leap from picture thinking sorts of depictions of sub5ecti+ity /for instance, the Innenwelt of the sub5ect +ersus the % welt of being2C8ant might note that the sub5ect cannot be en+isioned in this way, namely, according to criteria implicitly or e!plicitly deri+ed from the limited domain of intuition Cto a transcendental le+el in which the +ery question of )inside or outside* /i%e%, the spatial )where@*2 with respect to sub5ecti+ity is simply irrele+ant% The 8antian sub5ect is not spatially locali:able, whether literally or, as with most criticisms of it, figurati+ely% Droperly en+isioning this form of sub5ecti+ity demands dispensing with the prosthetic crutch of +isual metaphors%

172

Gith (adiou, one is in danger of being left with a tacit maintenance of the transcendental sub5ect of 8ants theoretical philosophy /)counting for one,* from Ltre et lvne ent, and the transcendental framework of )worlds,* from Lo#iques des ondes, both re+ealing (adious disa+owed, co+ert allegiance to certain central theses of the first Critique2 without, unfortunately, this sub5ecti+ity retaining its powers for inter+ention ( la 8ants practical philosophy% &n emphasi:ing the )post"e+ental* status of the sub5ect, (adiou denies it a role in precipitating the e+ent prior to its occurrenceC)the obligation to be a sub5ect doesnt ha+e any meaning, for the following reason: The possibility of becoming a sub5ect does not depend on us%*1BB &n short, through his peculiar )theory of the sub5ect,* (adiou could be said to fail doubly: He fails both to )o+ercome* or lea+e behind 8ants theoretical philosophy as well as to preser+e the, so to speak, pre"e+ental forcing powers of spontaneous autonomy as delineated in 8ants practical philosophyCone is reminded of $acans )%%%ou pire* or /to cite one of ieks fa+orite snippets2 0talins )both are worseU* &f one is going to remain within the 8antian critical framework, at least one usually gets to reap the )practical* benefits of ha+ing a sub5ect endowed with a transcendental freedom allowing it to /as (adiou might phrase it2 force e+ents into occurring prior to their actual occurrence% 't least the sub5ect of 8ants metaphysics of morals isnt, as is the case with (adious notions of the sub5ect"of"the"e+ent and forcing, confined to an e!istence that arises e!clusi+ely in the subsequent wake of an always"prior and anonymous e+ental )7s #i&t*1B, /itself strikingly akin to the religious notion of a miracle2% To risk a formulation in psychoanalytic parlance, (adious philosophy remains unconsciously attached to an )impotent* or )castrated* 8antian sub5ect, a sub5ecti+ity whose synthesi:ing acti+ities /thinly +eiled in different 5argoni:ed costumes such as )counting* and the )+oid*2 are able to generate and sustain situations, although, sadly enough, unable to cataly:e the emergence of transformati+e e+ents% 'gain, if anything, (adiou isnt 8antian enough% #or all his robust, militant sounding rhetoric about the post"e+ental labor of forcing /a discourse with a tone that re+els in a sort of macho heroism of the truthCboth ?ritchley1B1 and Deter Dews1B3 ha+e pointed out this stylistic resonance, and (adiou himself doesnt shy away from proclaiming himself to be in fa+or of the )grandeur* of a certain philosophical )heroism*1B62, (adiou clips the wings of sub5ecti+ity, rendering it incapable of fomenting change by precipitating e+ents through +olitional, acti+e forms of concrete, engaged pra"is /e+en if this latter possibility is admitted, (adiouian thought deliberately refuses to furnish the conceptual resources needed to grasp theoretically the pre"conditions under which e+ents take place at allCe+ents always transpire in the past tense, and forcing only begins its work after an e+ent2% To an analytically trained ear, (adious rhetorical bluster may e+en sound like an o+ercompensation effecti+ely operating so as to conceal, behind its fiery faPade, the passi+e and powerless position of always being sub5ected to e+ents apr2s$'oup,

173

after"the"fact of their unforeseeable, ine!plicable, and miraculous occurrence% Derhaps all one can do is thank ;od for being deli+ered from the burden of the 8antian curse%

2ndnotes. i% The paper was first published in @ReA$turn= ! ?ournal of La'anian :tudies, +ol% 1, 0pring 1BB7, pp% >7",6, ,% iek ,AA3: 6E (adiou ,AA1: 9B% 1% $acan ,A9< 3% iek ,AAAa: ,1>",1A% 6% iek 1BB,a: ,,<% 7% iek 1BB1a: ,B,",B1% 9% iek1BB,a: ,3<% <% Deleu:e and ;uattari ,AA6: ,7,",71% >% iek 1BB,b: <7% A% 8ant ,A97: 769"76<% ,B% 8ant ,AA3: ><% ,,% iek 1BB1b: l!!!i+% ,1% (adiou 1BBBa: 9B, 96"97E (arker 1BB1: 6% ,3% (adiou ,A>>: 63B"63,, 69A"6<BE iek 1BB6: ,B7",B9, ,B<% ,6% iek 1BB,c: ,17% ,7% (adiou ,A>>: 1B7, 1,,"1,1E (adiou ,AA>: 79"7<E (arker 1BB1: 9<, <7, >6E Hallward,AA>: A6"A7% ,9% iek 1BB1b: l!!!iii% ,<% iek 1BB1b: l!!!iii"l!!!i+% ,>% iek 1BB1b: l!!!i+% ,A% iek 1BB1b: l!!!+% 1B% $acan ,A9AE iek ,AA9: ,3<% 1,% $acan ,A>>: 166E $acan ,AA3: 3<"3>, 1>A% 11% $acan ,AA>: ,3,%

174

13% $acan ,AAB: 3% 16% (adiou 1BB6: ,<>% 17% (adiou ,A>1: 131"133E (adiou ,A>>: 37"39, 79E (adiou ,AA>: 1>"3B% 19% (adiou ,A>>: 3,"31% 1<% (arker 1BB1: 7A% 1>% 'lain (adiou, )Philosophie et ath atique,* Conditions, pg% ,<7E 'lain (adiou, ) athematics and Dhilosophy: The ;rand 0tyle and the $ittle 0tyle,* ,heoreti'al Writin#s, pg% ,>E (adiou ,AA6: >9E Hallward 1BBB: 1<"1>% 1A% (adiou ,A>>: ,BA% 3B% (adiou ,A>>: 97% 3,% (adiou ,A>>: 33% 31% (adiou ,A>>: 31% 33% 8ant,A97: ,3<",3>, ,79",7<% 36% $acan,AA1: 7<, 91"93E $acan ,A<7: unpublished typescript% 37% $acan ,A<,aE (adiou ,A>7a: 7>% 39% (adiou ,A>>: ,,,% 3<% (adiou ,A>>: ,B6",B7% 3>% (adiou,AA6: ><% 3A% (adiou ,AA>b: ,16% 6B% (adiou ,A>>: ,,, 7>% 6,% $acan ,A99: >9>E $acan ,AA,: 7<"7>E $acan ,A<,b 61% (adiou ,A>>: 39AE (adiou ,AA,a: ,3<% 63% (adiou ,A>1: 137% 66% (adiou 1BB3: 69% 67% XupanYiY 1BB,: 1A"3B% 69% iek ,AAAa: ,1A% 6<% (adiou ,A>>: 63>"63A, 79,% 6>% (adiou ,A>7b: ,13E (adiou 1BB,: <B% 6A% (adiou ,AAA: 3<% 7B% iek ,AAAa: ,99%
175

7,% iek,AAAa: ,<B% 71% Hegel ,A<7: ,3<% 73% Hegel ,A<7: ,3<% 76% Hegel ,A<7: ,3>% 77% 8ant ,A9B: 61% 79% 8ant ,A9B: 9B% 7<% iek ,AAAa: >9% 7>% iek ,AAAa: >9% 7A% (adiou ,AAB: 91, ,,BE (adiou, )Philosophie et ) athematics and Dhilosophy,* pg% ,A 9B% (adiou, )Philosophie et ath atique,* pg% ,<< ath atique,* pg% ,<9E (adiou,

9,% iek 1BB1b: 1,9"1,<E iek ,AA6: ,><E iek 1BB,a: 1B7, 1BA% 91% (adiou ,AAB: 63"66E (adiou 1BBBa: >,, >A"AB% 93% (adiou ,AA,b: 17% 96% (adiou ,A>>: 66,% 97% 'lain (adiou, )Confren'e sur la soustra'tion,* Conditions, pg% ,>>E #ink ,AA9: ,,% 99% (adiou ,AA1: 99% 9<% (adiou ,AA1: <,% 9>% (adiou ,A>7a: 61% 9A% (adiou ,A>1: 1<A% <B% ;illespie ,AA9a: A% <,% (adiou ,AA>a: 11% <1% Hallward ,AA>: AB% <3% (adiou, ):u-et et Infini,* Conditions, pg% 1A7"1A9, 3B,"3B3 <6% (adiou 1BB3: ,7% <7% (adiou ,A>>: 679, 69A"6<BE (adiou ,AA>c: >>% <9% (adiou 1BB,: 61% <<% (adiou 1BB,: <B% <>% 'lain (adiou, )La vrit= for5a#e et inno a&le,* Conditions, pg% 1B9

176

<A% (adiou ,A>7a: 71% >B% (adiou ,A>7b: ,1>% >,% (adiou ,A>>: 667E Hallward ,AA>: A9% >1% (adiou ,A>7a: 6A, 7,% >3% (adiou 1BBBb: ,,% >6% (adiou ,AA>d: 33% >7% (alibar 1BB1: 13% >9% (adiou ,A>7: ,37E Hallward ,AA>: ,B3",B6% ><% (alibar 1BB1: 17% >>% #ranPois Gahl, )Le soustra'tif,* in (adiou, Conditions, pg% 13 >A% (adiou ,AA,b: 3,% AB% (adiou ,AA>c: ><% A,% (adiou ,AA,b: 1A"3B% A1% (adiou ,AA>b: ,11% A3% iek ,AAAa: ,31% A6% (adiou ,AA>a: 13% A7% (adiou ,AA6: ,13% A9% (adiou ,AA>b: ,11% A<% (adiou ,AA6: ><% A>% (adiou ,A>7a: 61% AA% Hallward 1BB3: 1<1E Hallward 1BB7: ,A% ,BB% (adiou ,AA6: ><% ,B,% (adiou ,AA6: ,,9% ,B1% iek 1BB1b: l!!!+% ,B3% Hallward ,AA>: ,B7% ,B6% Hallward, );eneric 0o+ereignty,* pg% ,B7 ,B7% (adiou ,AA>b: ,3B% ,B9% (adiou ,AA>b: ,3B",3,% ,B<% (adiou ,AA>a: ,AB%
177

,B>% (adiou ,AA>b: ,1<",1>% ,BA% (adiou ,AA>a: ,AB% ,,B% (adiou 1BBBc: 1A>% ,,,% (adiou ,AA>a: ,A,% ,,1% (adiou,AA>a: ,A,% ,,3% (adiou 1BBBc: 1A9% ,,6% (adiou ,AA>a: ,A,",A1 ,,7% (adiou ,AA>a: ,A1% ,,9% (adiou ,AA>aE ,A1",A3% ,,<% (adiou ,AA>a: ,A6% ,,>% Kohnston 1BB1 ,,A% iek 1BBB: ,>,% ,1B% (adiou ,AA>a: ,A1% ,1,% Hallward ,AA>: ><E Hallward 1BBB: 1>E ?ritchley 1BBB: 1,"11% ,11% #rank ,A>A: 3,3"3,6% ,13% (adiou 1BB,: 63% ,16% iek ,AAAa: ,67% ,17% (adiou ,AA>b: ,1>",1A% ,19% ?ritchley 1BBB: 1,% ,1<% (adiou 1BB,: 6,% ,1>% (adiou ,A>1: 1>B, 1A3% ,1A% (adiou ,A>>: 69A% ,3B% (adiou 1BB3: 93"96% ,3,% (adiou ,A>1: 1>A% ,31% (adiou 1BB3: 93"96% ,33% (adiou ,AA,b: 1>E iek ,AA<: A1% ,36% (adiou ,A>>: 69A% ,37% 'lain (adiou, )Dhilosophy and Truth,* Infinite ,hou#ht, pg% 91 ,39% (adiou ,A>>: 119, 11<"11>%
178

,3<% ?ritchley 1BBB: 11"13% ,3>% (alibar 1BB1: 19% ,3A% (adiou ,A>>: 61A, 6<1E (adiou ,AA,b: 19E 'lain (adiou, )Dhilosophy and Dsychoanalysis,* Infinite ,hou#ht, pg% ><E ;illespie ,AA9b: 9B% ,6B% iek ,AAAa: ,7A% ,6,% iek ,AAAa: ,7A",9B% ,61% 'drian Kohnston, )-othing is not always no"one: /a2Toiding $o+e,* Filo/ofski 6estnik= ,he Bothin#@nessACLe rienC)as Bi'hts Led% 'lenka XupanYiYM, +ol% 19, no% 1, pg% 9> ,63% iek ,AAAa: ,73",76% ,66% iek ,AA>: pg% 1<,% ,67% iek ,AA6: 9B% ,69% iek ,AAAa: ,9B% ,6<% iek ,AAAa: ,9A% ,6>% (adiou ,A>1: 1A3, 1A9, 3B,% ,6A% $acan ,A<<: 1B<E $acan ,AA7: 19<"19>% ,7B% (osteels 1BB,: 11>E (osteels 1BB1a: ,<9",<<, ,>B",>,, ,>1",>3% ,7,% (adiou ,AA1: 7<"7>, 7>"7A% ,71% (adiou ,AA1: 7A% ,73% (adiou ,AA1: 99E (adiou ,AA>a: 1,"11E (adiou 1BBBc: 1A9% ,76% 'lain (adiou, ).ntology and Dolitics: 'n &nter+iew with 'lain (adiou,* Infinite ,hou#ht, pg% ,>1",>3 ,77% iek 1BB,a: <A% ,79% :7 ,>: 39, 3>"3AE :7 ,A: 6B"6,% ,7<% iek ,AAAa: 99E iek 1BB,c: ,B6E iek 1BB1c: ,B9",B<% ,7>% :7 ,>: 77"79, 7<% ,7A% iek ,AAAa: 1A3"1A6% ,9B% :7 ,6: 1>A% ,9,% iek ,AA<: 3B"3,E iek 1BB,d: ,B3% ,91% iek ,A>A: 6"7E iek ,AAAb: 1,,% ,93% iek ,AA<E >A%

179

,96% iek 1BB,d: A9% ,97% :7 <: ,37",39, ,6>: :7 ,6: ,11",13% ,99% (adiou 1BB3: A1% ,9<% (adiou 1BB3: ><, >>">A% ,9>% (adiou ,A>1: 31<% ,9A% iek 1BB1b: l!!!+% ,<B% (adiou 1BB,: 7>% ,<,% Hallward 1BB3: !!!iii% ,<1% (adiou 1BB7a: 171"173% ,<3% Hallward 1BB3: 3<% ,<6% Hallward 1BB3: 7B% ,<7% (adiou 1BB7a: 176% ,<9% 0trathausen 1BB7: 1<9% ,<<% (adiou, )Dhilosophy and Truth,* pg% 9, ,<>% (adiou ,AA>d: 3<% ,<A% Hallward 1BB3: 1<6% ,>B% Hallward 1BB3: 1<1% ,>,% (adiou ,A>7a: 3A% ,>1% (adiou ,A>7b: ,63% ,>3% Hallward 1BB3: 17B% ,>6% Hallward 1BB3: 1>6"1>7% ,>7% Hallward 1BB3: 6,,E ?ritchley 1BB7: 3BBE (ensaWd 1BB6: A>% ,>9% Hallward 1BB3: 3<,% ,><% (osteels 1BB1b: 1>>% ,>>% (adiou ,A>7a: 67% ,>A% (adiou 1BB,: 9>% ,AB% (adiou ,A>>: 1BB% ,A,% (adiou ,A>>: 1B>% ,A1% (adiou 1BB3: 13%
180

,A3% (adiou 1BB3: 6A% ,A6% 'lain (adiou, )Linvesti#ation trans'endentale,* !lain Dadiou= Penser le ,,E (adiou:,AA>b: ,3B% ,A7% (adiou 1BBBc: 1AAE (adiou1BBBb: ,3E (adiou 1BB7b: 9<% ,A9% 'lain (adiou, )The Transcendental,* ,heoreti'al Writin#s, pg% 1B, ,A<% (adiou, )Linvesti#ation trans'endentale,* pg% A, ,B, ,,",1 ,A>% (adiou, )The Transcendental,* pg% ,AA ,AA% 8ant ,A97: <,, <1% EFF0 (adiou 1BB,F1BB1 EFG0 archart 1BB7: ,,6% ultiple, pg%

1B1% ?ritchley 1BBB: 1<% 1B3% Dews 1BB1: 39"3<% 1B6% (adiou, ).n =+il*

4e!eren*es. (adiou, '% /,A>12 ,horie du su-et, Daris: Sditions du 0euil% (adiou, '% /,A>7a2 4:i" proprits de la vrit, 1rni'ar?, no% 31, pp% 7>% (adiou, '% /,A>7b2 4:i" proprits de la vrit II, 1rni'ar?, no% 33, 'pril"Kune ,A>7, pp% ,13% (adiou, '% /,A>>2 Ltre et lvne ent, Daris: Sditions du 0euil% (adiou, '% /,AAB2 Le Bo &re et les no &res, Daris: Sditions du 0euil% (adiou, '% /,AA,a2 4La'an et Platon= Le philosophes Daris: Sditions 'lbin ichel% ath2 e est$il une ide?, La'an ave' les

(adiou, '% /,AA,b2 4.n a #inally .b5ectless 0ub5ect Who Co es !fter the :u&-e't? -ew Jork: Houtledge, pp% 17% (adiou, '% /,AA12 4Le @reAtour de la philosophie elle"mZme, Conditions, Daris: Sditions du 0euil% (adiou, '% /,AA62 4(eing by -umbers: $auren 0edofsky talks with 'lain (adiou, !rtforu International, +ol% 33, no% 1, pp% >9% (adiou, '% /,AA>a2 Court trait dontolo#ie transitoire, Daris: Sditions du 0euil% (adiou, '% /,AA>b2 4Dolitics and Dhilosophy: 'n &nter+iew with 'lain (adiou /with Deter Hallward2, !n#elaki, +ol% 3, no% 3, pp% ,16% (adiou, '% /,AA>c2 Petit anuel dinesthtique, Daris: Sditions du 0euil%
181

(adiou, '% /,AA>d2 !&r# de

tapolitique, Daris: Sditions du 0euil%

(adiou, '% /,AAA2 Hanifesto for Philosophy 'lbany: 0tate Oni+ersity of -ew Jork Dress% (adiou, '% /1BBBa2 )eleu/e= ,he Cla or of Dein# Dress% inneapolis: Oni+ersity of innesota

(adiou, '% /1BBBb2 43uit th2ses sur luniversel, %niversel. sin#ulier. su-et, Daris: 8imI% (adiou, '% /1BBBc2 4Le"isten'e et la ort, Philosopher ,E= Les Interro#ations 'onte poraines. atriau" pour un ensei#ne ent Daris: #ayard% (adiou, '% /1BB,2 7thi's= !n 7ssay on the %nderstandin# of 7vil $ondon: Terso% (adiou, '0 /1BB,F1BB12 I1n 7vil= !n Interview with !lain Dadiou @with Christoph Co" and Holly WhalenA. Ca&inet. no0 J. www0'a&inet a#a/ine0or#CissuesCJCalain&adiou0php0 (adiou, '% /1BB32 :aint Paul= ,he Foundation of %niversalis Dress% 0tanford: 0tanford Oni+ersity

(adiou, '% /1BB62 4-otes Toward a Thinking of 'ppearance, ,heoreti'al Writin#s $ondon: ?ontinuum, pp% ,<>% (adiou, '% /1BB7a2 4?an ?hange (e Thought@: ' Dialogue with 'lain (adiou /with (runo (osteels2, !lain Dadiou= Philosophy and Its Conditions 'lbany: 0tate Oni+ersity of -ew Jork Dress, pp% 171"173% (adiou, '% /1BB7b2 4The 'd+enture of #rench Dhilosophy, Bew Left Review, no% 37, pp% 9<% (alibar, S% /1BB12 44The history of truth: 'lain (adiou in #rench Dhilosophy Radi'al Philosophy, no% ,,7, pp% 13% (arker, K% /1BB12 !lain Dadiou= ! Criti'al Introdu'tion, $ondon: Dluto Dress% (ensaWd, D% /1BB62 4'lain (adiou and the iracle of the =+ent, ,hink !#ain= !lain Dadiou and the Future of Philosophy $ondon: ?ontinuum, pp% A>% (osteels, (% /1BB,2 4'lain (adious Theory of the 0ub5ect: The Hecommencement of Dialectical aterialism@ /Dart .ne2, Pli= ,he Warwi'k ?ournal of Philosophy, no% ,1, pp% 11>% (osteels, (% /1BB1a2 4'lain (adious Theory of the 0ub5ect: The Hecommencement of Dialectical aterialism@ /Dart Two2, Pli= ,he Warwi'k ?ournal of Philosophy, no% ,3, pg% ,<9" ,<<, ,>B",>,, ,>1",>3% (osteels, (% /1BB1b2 46rit et for5a#e= Dadiou ave' 3eide##er et La'an, !lain Dadiou= Penser le ultipleK!'tes du Colloque de Dordeau"0 ?ritchley, 0% /1BBB2 4Demanding 'ppro+al: .n the =thics of 'lain (adiou, Radi'al Philosophy% -o% ,BB, pp% 1,"11% ?ritchley, 0% /1BB72 4*#ault lines*: 0imon ?ritchley in Discussion on 'lain (adiou Poly#raph, no% ,<, pp% 3BB% Deleu:e, ;% and ;uattari, #% /,AA62 What Is Philosophy? -ew Jork: ?olumbia Oni+ersity Dress%

182

Dews, D% /1BB12 4Oncategorical &mperati+es: 'dorno, (adiou, and the =thical Turn, Radi'al Philosophy, no% ,,,, pp% 39"3<% #ink, (% /,AA92 4'lain (adiou, % &r@aA= ! ?ournal of the %n'ons'iousKDadiou0 #rank, % /,A>A2 What Is Beostru'turalis ? inneapolis: Oni+ersity of innesota Dress%

;illespie, 0% /,AA9a2 40ubtracti+e, % &r@aA= ! ?ournal of the %n'ons'iousKDadiou0 ;illespie, 0% /,AA9b2 4Hegel Onsutured: 'n 'ddendum to (adiou, % &r@aA= ! ?ournal of the %n'ons'iousKDadiou, pp% 9B% Hallward, D% /,AA>2 4;eneric 0o+ereignty: The Dhilosophy of 'lain (adiou, !n#elaki, +ol% 3, no% 3, pp% A6"A7% Hallward, D% /1BBB2 4=thics without .thers: ' Heply to ?ritchley on (adious =thics, Radi'al Philosophy, no% ,B1, pp% 1<"1>% Hallward, D% /1BB32 Dadiou= ! :u&-e't to ,ruth, inneapolis: Oni+ersity of innesota Dress%

Hallward, D% /1BB72 4Depending on &nconsistency: (adious 'nswer to the );uiding [uestion of 'll ?ontemporary Dhilosophy,* Poly#raph, no% ,<, pp% ,A% Hegel, ;%G%#% /,A<72 Lo#i'= Part 1ne of the 7n'y'lopedia of the Philosophi'al :'ien'es .!ford: .!ford Oni+ersity Dress% Kohnston, '% /1BB12 4?onfronting the -ew 0ophists: ' He+iew of Kason (arkers !lain Dadiou, ,heory and 7vent, +ol% 9, no% 1, http:FFmuse%5hu%eduF5ournalsFtheory\and\e+ent F +BB9F9%15ohnston%html% 8ant, &% /,A9B2 Reli#ion within the Li its of Reason !lone -ew Jork: Harper ] How, Dublishers% 8ant, &% /,A972 Critique of Pure Reason -ew Jork: 0aint artins Dress%

8ant, &% /,AA32 Critique of Pra'ti'al Reason -ew Kersey: Drentice"Hall, &nc% $acan, K% /,A992 4La s'ien'e et la vrit, L'rits, Daris: Sditions du 0euil% $acan, K% /,A9<2 Le : inaire de ?a'ques La'an. Livre M6= La'te psy'hanalytique. GNOP$ GNO; Lunpublished typescriptM, session of -o+ember ,7th, ,A9<% $acan, K% /,A9A2 Le : inaire de ?a'ques La'an. Livre M6I= )un !utre ( lautre. GNO;$ GNON Lunpublished typescriptM, session of #ebruary ,1th, ,A9A% $acan, K% /,A<,a2 Le : inaire de ?a'ques La'an. Livre M6III= )un dis'ours qui ne serait pas du se &lant. GNPG Lunpublished typescriptM, session of Kanuary ,3th, ,A<,% $acan, K% /,A<,b2 Le : inaire de ?a'ques La'an. Livre MIM= Le savoir du psy'hanalyste. GNPG$GNPE Lunpublished typescriptM, session of -o+ember 6th, ,A<,% $acan, K% /,A<72 Le : inaire de ?a'ques La'an. Livre MMII= R0:0I0. GNP+$GNPJ Lunpublished typescriptM, session of arch ,>th, ,A<7% $acan, K% /,A<<2 ,he :e inar of ?a'ques La'an. Dook MI= ,he Four Funda ental Con'epts of Psy'ho$!nalysis. GNO+, -ew Jork: G%G% -orton and ?ompany%

183

$acan, K% /,A>>a2 ,he :e inar of ?a'ques La'an. Dook II= ,he 7#o in Freuds ,heory and in the ,e'hnique of Psy'hoanalysis. GNJ+$GNJJ -ew Jork: G%G% -orton and ?ompany% $acan, K% /,AA>b2 ,he :e inar of ?a'ques La'an. Dook MM= 7n'ore. GNPE$GNP* -ew Jork: G%G% -orton and ?ompany% $acan, K% /,AAB2 4Tele+ision ,elevisionC! Challen#e to the Psy'hoanalyti' 7sta&lish ent -ew Jork: G%G% -orton and ?ompany, pp% 3% $acan, K% /,AA,2 Le : inaire de ?a'ques La'an. Livre M6II= Lenvers de la psy'hanalyse. GNON$GNPF Daris: Sditions du 0euil% $acan, K% /,AA12 ,he :e inar of ?a'ques La'an. Dook 6II= ,he 7thi's of Psy'hoanalysis. GNJN$GNOF -ew Jork: G%G% -orton and ?ompany% $acan, K% /,AA32 ,he :e inar of ?a'ques La'an. Dook III= ,he Psy'hoses. GNJJ$GNJO -ew Jork: G%G% -orton and ?ompany% $acan, K% /,AA72 4Dosition of the Onconscious Readin# :e inar MI= La'ans Four Funda ental Con'epts of Psy'hoanalysis 'lbany: 0tate Oni+ersity of -ew Jork Dress, pp% 19<"19>% archart, .%/1BB72 IBothin# &ut a ,ruth= !lain Dadious IPhilosophy of Politi's and the Left 3eide##erians. Poly#raph0 0trathausen, ?% /1BB72 4The (adiou"=+ent, Poly#raph, no% ,<, pp% 1<9% iek, 0% /,A>A2 ,he :u&li e 1&-e't of Ideolo#y, $ondon: Terso% iek, 0% /,AA32 ,arryin# with the Be#ative= 4ant. 3e#el. and the Critique of Ideolo#y, Durham: Duke Oni+ersity Dress% iek, 0% /,AA62 ,he Hetastases of 7n-oy ent= :i" 7ssays on Wo an and Causality, $ondon: Terso% iek, 0% /,AA92 ,he Indivisi&le Re ainder !n 7ssay on :'hellin# and Related Hatters, $ondon: Terso% iek, 0% /,AA<2 ,he Pla#ue of Fantasies, $ondon: Terso% iek, 0% /,AA>2 4The ?artesian 0ub5ect +ersus the ?artesian Theater, Co#ito and the %n'ons'ious Durham: Duke Oni+ersity Dress% iek, 0% /,AAAa2 ,he ,i'klish :u&-e't= ,he !&sent Centre of Politi'al 1ntolo#y, $ondon: Terso% iek, 0% /,AAAb2 4Death and the $td%, pp% 1,,% aiden, ,he QiRek Reader .!ford: (lackwell Dublishers

iek, 0% /1BBB2 4Dostface: ;eorg $uk^cs as the Dhilosopher of $eninism, in ;eorg $uk^cs, ! )efense of 3istory of Class Cons'iousness= ,ailis and the )iale'ti' $ondon: Terso, pp% ,>,% iek, 0% /1BB,a2 )id :o e&ody :ay ,otalitarianis ?= Five Interventions in the @HisAuse of a Botion, $ondon: Terso% iek, 0% /1BB,b2 Repeatin# Lenin, Xagreb: 'rk:in%
184

iek, 0% /1BB,c2 1n Delief, -ew Jork: Houtledge% iek, 0% /1BB,d2 4Il ny a pas de rapport reli#ieu", La'anian Ink0 iek, 0% /1BB1a2 Wel'o e to the )esert of the RealS= Five 7ssays on :epte &er GG and Related )ates, $ondon: Terso% iek, 0% /1BB1b2 4#oreword to the 0econd =dition: =n5oyment within the $imits of Heason 'lone, For they know not what they do= 7n-oy ent as a politi'al fa'tor, $ondon: Terso /second edition2, pp% l!!!i+% iek, 0% /1BB1c2 4*& do not order my dreams,* 1peras :e'ond )eath, -ew Jork: Houtledge, pp% ,B9",B<% iek, 0% /1BB62 1r#ans without Dodies= 1n )eleu/e and Consequen'es, -ew Jork: Houtledge% XupanYiY, '% /1BB,2 )as Reale einer Illusion= 4ant und La'an, (aden"(aden: 0uhrkamp%

185