Update

My question is ultimately a sociological one; I am investigating the production of shared social life (universality). Through the use of psychoanalytic theory, my research to date has focused on the exclusions which are necessary for the constitution and maintenance of an abstract capitalist universal imagery. So far my focus has been on the manner in which hegemony is maintained through ideological construction of exceptions. In particular I have considered the role of enjoyment in stabilising the relationship between identity and non-identity.

More specifically, in seeking to understand the maintenance of universality, I have theorised (without coming to a definite conclusion) around the opportunities that exist for producing political change. Change has been considered at two levels, political alterations which revise the hegemonic balance and more radical change which undermines the fundamental basis of the social.

The latter notion of change has been my predominant focus. Revisionist change is relatively common place. In contrast, radical change is literally an impossible task. This impossibility conditions are produced by the stabilising role of ideology in its treatment of exceptions. Within a universalising discourse there are always multiple points of difference/antagonism. These points can be defined as follows;
- Constitutive outside; that which is external. Excluded and re-produced as a threat.
- The non-operative inside; Discursive elements within a discourse that may contradict the central demands of the abstract universal, yet do not compete for the place of universality. These demands may be articulated in a reduced form within capitalism or more simply lie under the radar. If they attempt to battle for the place of universality they will most likely be represented as a threat and produced as a constitutive outside.
- Symptoms; points of anxiety within the universal. Symptoms are evidence of the necessary exclusions that are internal to the universal.
- The concrete universal; Necessary exclusion upon which the discourse is based, yet cannot be acknowledged within the universal.

The role of ideology is to maintain and stabilise these threats. Predominately this occurs by including the elements within the universalising discourse (reproduced as congruent within the abstract universal) or excluding and positivising the demand as a threat. Green ideology is an example of this process. Capitalism has dealt with Green ideology either by including it within the marketplace (‘sustainable development’) or externalising it as a threat (‘luddites’ and ‘watermelons’).

This interpretation is not at all new; it formed the basis for my Masterate research, where I went into more detail around the operation of ideology. Nevertheless, I find it important to remind myself of the fundamental direction of my research. This year I have attempted to extend this approach to a sustained analysis of capitalism, which in my opinion is lacking from the literature.

My primary task has been to consider the ontological status of capitalism. There are three predominant positions within the theoretical literature;
- Capitalism is a hegemonic discourse
- Capitalism is a ‘master’ hegemonic discourse
- Capitalism is the symbolic Real.

My research so far has suggested that capitalism is not just a hegemonic discourse, rather it grounds the very place of hegemony, for the reasons I have outlined above. That is capitalism has hegemonised the place of hegemony and appears to have a response prepared for every threat to the system. Following this, we should not focus on the contingent battle for hegemony, but rather the exclusions which have produced the very conditions of universalisation.

Whether capitalism is the symbolic Real or more simply a master form of hegemony is a more complex issue. Analytically, I am not sure that there is much difference between the positions. Both suggest that it is capital that dominated the symbolic realm. Capital as the symbolic Real suggests that there is nothing outside of capital. As I have noted earlier, this is not the case, the symbolic realm is riddled with various points of difference, antagonism and anxiety. This does not rule out capitalism as the Real. Rather it puts the focus on the relationship between the terms ‘symbolic’ and ‘Real’. The symbolic Real is that which provides the background for all symbolisation, whether that symbolisation strictly fits with the symbolic Real is not overly important. What is structurally significant is that each discourse inherits a position within the symbolic Real, which determines in the last instance. Additionally, labelling capital as the symbolic Real has a strong affective demand which emphasises its dominance.

As a consequence of the ontological status of capital, no alternative positive political position can be constructed to ‘complete’ with capital for the place of hegemony. Such positivisations will only serve to maintain the place of capital. Instead, what is required to produce the kind of fundamental change which would displace capital as the place of universalisation is a form of critique which changes the relationship between the universal and its exception. This occurs through two mechanisms, one stemming from the increasing salience of the exception (e.g. climate change) and the other from a destabilisation of the process of ideology which deals with these exceptions.

The form of critique can be labelled ‘ethical’. Such a critique requires a strong, concrete knowledge of the discourse at the centre of critique. In this thesis, I plan to both establish such knowledge of capitalism and extend my grasp of ethical critique, particularly in terms of identity and non-identity within capitalism and its relationship to enjoyment. The central tools I will use for this task are Psychoanalysis and Marxism. This will involve a through knowledge of both discourse as well as the various forms of articulation that have occurred between them.