Thanks for getting in touch , it is always great to hear from fellow bloggers/scholars. I am currently half-way through my PhD. Programme, having finished my MA Thesis in 2006. In regards to the environment, I would agree that it is one of the most pressing issues for humanity and the intellectual community at large. The problem, I believe is that the issues have been hegemonised by the natural sciences, which holds that the problems, or at least solutions, are technological rather than aspects of human behaviour. The failure of theorists of human behaviour to critically consider environmental signals a much larger issue in regards to the status of environmental problems within capitalism.
Some years ago I had some hope that the discursive dislocations caused by environmental awareness would not only be wholly taken on by western society, but would also consequentially change the very contours of capitalist political economy. Now, however, embolden by the breakdown of my naivety, I have a firm belief that radical global environmental degradation will continue unabated under global capitalism, whatever form the latter takes. I hold this view for these reasons;
- The power of the empty signifier ‘sustainable development’ to take on the demands of the various threats to the system. Such is the flexibility and power of this signifier that it can be taken on to mean anything from energy efficiency, community economic programmes to sustainability increasing profits
- The ability of the capitalist system to turn threats into opportunities for further profit; witness the burgeoning ‘Green market’
- Ultimately there are two complementary demands behind these processes. The first is capitalism’s structural requirement to increase rates of profit. At the most essential level this can only mean increases in the levels of production and resource consumption. Equally, the primary structuration of the capitalist subject is one of commodity fetishism, or at least enjoyment of the consumption of commodities (whether this is a fetish is open for debate). These two complementary structures within the capitalist system forbid the thinking of environmentalism outside of the demands of capitalist political economy. By far the most obvious solution to environment problems is the reduction is levels of consumption. This, however, is an idea which is simply unable to be thought through fully. At some level Green political movements and the alike argue for a reduction in levels of consumption, but the consequences of this demand are not taken to the end. Under capitalism, a reduction in consumption levels can only result in recession, with the fall out disproportionally affecting the poor at both a local and global level.
- This brings me to my final reason: Capitalism thrives both by producing new commodities, but also by bringing them into new markets. That capitalism is thriving in the ‘developing world’, in particular India and China is a triumph in terms of bringing large sections of the population out of poverty, but in the long term can only be a tragedy; if the world is currently struggling to hold onto the resource demands of the western world, it cannot possibly support the same levels of consumption for India and China, nor can it allow for others to come out of poverty.
Thus, the capitalist system actually requires the presence of poverty at two levels; a reserve army of labour which maintains the integrity of the capitalist wage system (which I will not enter into here) and in terms of global resource consumption. In the medium to long term, if capitalism continues I can only forecast ongoing and increasingly desperate resource-based conflict, beyond that of currently seen for Oil, at both a base and ideological level.
Given these conclusions, then, it is little wonder that environmentalism cannot be thought outside of capitalist terms, given the radical consequences of this thought. Consequently, one cannot be surprised by the grip that market solutions have on both politicians and the population at large. They are, quite literally the only solution available under capitalism. And, to be fair, there is good to be seen in these solutions; both strictly market solutions like carbon trading or intra-capitalist technological developments such as energy efficient light-bulbs. At a certain level, they do bring about environmental improvements. The other side of the equation, the under-side which is of primary interest to those involved with psychoanalysis, is that these devices not only serve only to reinforce the capitalist logic of consumption, but their primary (if unconscious) purpose is to mediate against the dislocation of capitalist ideology by environmentalism.
That is why I agree with Zizek’s latest work on ecology (and I see this article on your blog). Here Zizek argues that environmentalism has lost all of its subversive sting (if it ever had any) and that it is only the divide between those included and those excluded from the system that can bring at decisive change to capitalism.
This is why, in regards to your enquiry on Zizek’s work on revolution, I have some solidarity with his idea that in these times we actually have no leg to stand on; all political attempts to rearticulate political economy can only end up being capitalist (as we see with most ‘Green’ political parties around the world – their policies may have an anti-capitalist edge, but they are quite happy to participate in capitalist democracy) or being pathetically ineffective, living in the past or not having any grip on political discourse. For this reason, under these conditions, Zizek argues that the thing to do is actually nothing – to resist the terms of the debate and to continually reveal the limits of the ideological matrix under which those terms are set. In these times, I see more value in this position than ‘revolution’, which operates as yet another fantasy position; all action is useless until the revolution. Holding to the goal of revolution, then, both prevents practical action whilst subduing the effects of the real within the current order.
Doing ‘nothing’ is a difficult position to hold. Not only does it appear to not offer any prospect of political change (and there is always some truth in appearance), but this strategy also does not allow any the holder any defence against the symptoms of the hegemonic horizon. And this is the great strength of the position – it forces us to both think outside of the square and take responsibility for those actions, there is by definition no support within the current order.
In this way it has some similarities to the Lacanian/Zizekian Act, which as you may be aware, is perhaps the most controversial part of Zizek’s work. I certainly agree with your concerns, although I can see the logic in Zizek’s argument. If capitalism has hegemonised hegemony, as he has put it, the only option is an Act(ion) that is outside of those co-ordinates. Certainly Zizek would argue against any notion that the consequences of an Act can be predicted or controlled. If we can name in advance the purpose or consequences of an Act, it is no longer an Act because it has support from the existing symbolic order. Politically and psychologically, the purpose of an Act is a radical break with the existing in which the subject takes total responsibility for the consequences.
I have never been comfortable with Zizek’s confluence of the Act with revolution, or indeed anti-capitalist politics. No doubt he would accuse me of being a liberal who wants ‘revolution without revolution’, but so be it. Nor have I supported the imperative of change for the sake of change, nor the imperative for contingency (as supported by Ernesto Laclau, both collaborator and enemy of Zizek, who has previously argued that the free society is one that is aware of the contingency of its formation) for the sake of contingency.
Where this leaves us in terms of political action, I am not sure, and this is the primary focus of my doctorate. I also find the question difficult in terms of my personal lifestyle. Despite my radical theoretical commitments, I find myself limited to typical moderate-liberal action; recycling, energy efficiency etc. And these things are fine on their own, provided they do not end up in a fantasy position of subduing environmental demand. Additionally, of course, I reduce my consumption as much as possible, although on a student budget this is a practical necessity as much as anything!
Increasingly I have been attracted by the arguments of Yahya Madra and Ceren Ozselcuk, writing out of the Rethinking Marxism journal (see my last couple of posts for a summary of their work) as an example of practical, positive (not positivising) action. Here they argue for the creation of a new space for political economy that does not enter into the logic of capitalism.
Essentially, I do think we have a responsibility to the shape of the future beyond the simple demand for change. If we are faced with a destructive form of political economy, our only alternative is for a form of political economy better suited to the dignity of the human condition. To me, hoping to destroy capitalism without any progressive purpose is hopelessly blind, whatever the theoretical calculations. Our responsibility than, is both to construct a new form and practice of political economy beyond capitalism and the ideological fantasy of communism. What shape this takes, I believe is currently an open question. Perhaps more importantly are the possibilities of breaking free from capitalism. Again, this remains an open question, with notably dimmer prospects.
Ultimately, in regards to environmentalism, I believe that the challenge for the intellectual and political community is twofold. The first step is to realise that this is human problem, caused by human behaviour and it is this behaviour which needs to alter, not to be supplemented by improved natural science. Once environmentalism becomes a problem for the humanities a further step needs to be taken in recognising that for the planet to resume flourishing, we cannot simply change behaviour within the system, but must change the system itself. How that change can come about, and in what form, is the challenge for the humanities.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Update, August 2008
The majority of my time since the last update has been spent writing an essay considering the relationship between class and capitalism in terms of the interaction between Marxist and psychoanalytic theory. I plan, taking into account several re-writes, that the content of this essay will make up the majority of the first major section of the thesis, originally planned to be ‘What is Capitalism?’. The move to class signalled a change in perspective; rather than attempting to represent or map capitalism, class is instead that which prevents capitalism from being, and the subsequent relations which result from this impossibility. Such a perspective is much more compatible with the epistemological assumptions of psychoanalytic research.
The essay was divided into three sections[i];
- A theoretical history of class after Marx
- Contemporary psychoanalytic perspectives on class
- A theory of the operation of class within contemporary capitalism
The first section proved straightforward, little more than a history lesson, although the narrative was specifically constructed to produce the context for the argumentation to follow. This research did allow me to understand the context for the issues I was considering, but will prove more useful for the introductory stages of the thesis.
The second section was the most troublesome. Here I was inspired by the conference I attended in LA, which was my first exposure to work which specifically focused on psychoanalysis and the economy. Much of this work is limited in its understanding of psychoanalysis and has not been much exposed to psychoanalytic critique, but I believe that it has allowed me to bring my work forward, particularly around class struggle.
In terms of psychoanalysis and class, I have constructed this debate as divided between two positions; Zizek and Yahya Madra/Ceren Ozselcuk[ii] from the Association for Economic and Social Analysis (AESA) group[iii]. The division rests upon an understanding of Lacan's maxim 'There is no sexual relationship'. Both consider that this maxim can be equally applied to class – ‘There is no class relationship’ – but differ in their interpretation of the statement.
For Madra and Ozselcuk, class exists – it is a process which involves the process of producing, distributing and appropriating surplus[iv] - but class relationships are impossible because there is no meta-language which would allow for a neutral approach to the class process. Nonetheless, class relationships do occur, based upon an ideological illusion which mitigates and includes the failure which haunts class, they just always fail. That is, capitalist class relationships are based upon a masculine logic whereby the formation of class relationships is reliant upon an exception[v]. This exception, like Freud’s primordial father from Totem and Taboo, operates at the top of the chain, not at the bottom, and is included within the symbolic matrix of ideology.
Madra and Ozselcuk include both capitalism and communism in this category – an ideological fantasy, based upon an exception element that is notionally outside of the class process yet controls its conditions of possibility. Within capitalism, this exception is the Board of Directors – the only entity within the capitalist enterprise, who does not contribute to, and battles for, control of surplus and the class process[vi]. Only the directors enjoy other people’s surplus without giving anything in return.
I have two problems with this argument. Firstly, within the logic of this argument, I believe that the location of the exception is misplaced. Rather than the Board of Directors (who supply strategic direction) I would argue that it is the shareholders who provide nothing but the conditions of possibility for the capitalist enterprise. My second objection is to the use of an ‘upper’ exception. If you can excuse the limitations of a spatial model, my previous understanding of non-identity had come either in the form of a ‘horizontal’ constitute outside or a ‘lower’ concrete universal. The former referring to the limitations which form the basis of a discourse, say Islam to Christianity, the latter to the exclusion which forms the discourse, third world poverty to first world wealth. Instead, I define the status of the Board of Directors/shareholders as that of a nodal point, or perhaps empty signifier. Whilst they provide a point of difference within the discourse (or rather the very instantiation of difference) this exception is very well accepted from within the discourse; the exception is not excluded from the horizon itself.
In my reading of sexuation, however, I have found that this is in the predominant understanding of exception within a masculine logic. My previous understanding of exception – that of the part with no part – is better understand as an exclusion from the field of understanding. For this reason, and for reasons I shall further elaborate once I move on to Zizek’s work, I decided that I needed to step away from my class essay and gather a greater understanding of sexuation, upon which the difference between Zizek and Madra/Ozselcuk rests. In particular I need to further develop my understanding of sexuation in relation to universality, which is at the forefront of my theoretical understanding. Of special interest is the relationship between sexuation and the concrete universal, the predominant usage of which appears to vary greatly from my present understanding.
At this stage of my research, it appears that differing understandings of sexual difference, in relation to class, is the central division, both theoretical and political, between Madra/ Ozselcuk and Zizek. This division is encapsulated in their differing readings of the maxim ‘there is no sexual/class relationship’. As I noted, for Madra/Ozselcuk, within capitalism class exists relationships do exist, but they always fail. This failure occurs within what they believe to be the hegemony of masculine logic in capitalist class relationships. Against this, Madra and Ozselcuk argue that we need a feminine logic of class, one which breaks with any fantasmatic blockage of the impossibility of class and institutes this impossibility as its founding moment. Under such a feminine logic no one entity would have exclusive rights to surplus, thus breaking with current and conventional understandings of both capitalism and communism. Thus class relationships would still be impossible, but under the feminine construction of this impossibility non-exploitative class relationships are possible. The (non) relationship would be non-exploitative because no entity has exclusive rights to surplus, in contrast to the constitutive exception of masculine class relationships[vii].
It is difficult to reconcile Madra and Ozselcuk’s understanding of non-exploitative class processes with Zizek’s conception of class, even though both start from the same moment in Lacan’s work. There is a certain structural similarity between Madra/Ozselcuk and Zizek, with the former citing Zizek as sharing the usage of the maxim ‘there is no class relationship’ and in considering class as a modality of the real[viii]. At times Zizek’s work on class does resemble Madra and Ozselcuk. He does contend that class struggle is the Real, an impossibility that cannot be instituted within capitalist ideology. Zizek’s main point is that class is the exclusion which founds the capitalist horizon, a determining cause by its very absence that inspires an infinite plurality of discursive responses, which could be read in defence of Madra and Ozselcuk’s understanding of class impossibility Although the latter do not consider this point specifically, it is commensurable within their research.
Where they differ is on sexuation. Although at times Zizek’s implicit[ix] class critiques appear to consider capitalist class relations to conform to a masculine logic, Zizek main contention is that class is already a feminine concept. The impossibility of the class relationship relates to the impossibility of any meta-language within which to discuss class because class is its own exception. If class is the exclusion which founds the symbolic order (under capitalism) than it acts as the exception for all other discourses – class is the exception that allows for our conception of race, democracy and shoe fetishes. It is this exception (making the discourse masculine) which allows for the formation of the concepts of race, democracy and indeed shoe fetishism. But class is also its own exception. For this reason, Zizek argues that class is a feminine non-all – it does not receive the same exceptional guarantee of other discourses. In this sense class ‘does not exist’.
I have always considered that statements such that ‘x doesn’t exist’ are typical Lacanian exaggerations. It is not that something doesn’t exist, it is only that it is lacking. For example ‘the Other doesn’t exist’. If we consider the other to be the symbolic order, then clearly it does exist, but not in complete form. It is like stating the one’s stamp collection does not exist because it does not contain ever possible stamp. From this perspective ‘does not exist’ can be read as ‘is incomplete’. Recently, however, I have begun to reconsider my opinion based on a different kind of reading. This reading is based on Lacan’s notion of ex-istance. As I understand it, ex-stance means that it is not so much that the object doesn’t exist in the sense that it is not there, but that the image of the concept it all its fullness does not exist. That class does not exist is not the same thing as ‘there is no such thing as ghosts’. Rather it states that the universal concept of class does not exist, no matter what particular attempts are made to fill it. In the masculine sense, object relationships are lacking because attempts are made to instantiate a particular to fill the universal
This is Zizek’s understanding of ‘there is no class relationship’. Because class is non-all, it is an impossible object that is beyond definition. One cannot research class in the same way as race or democracy. Instead, researchers can only consider the affects of class, in much the same way as they might consider the affects of the real or black holes.
An understanding of the presence of absence, or effect without (visible) cause is at the core of psychoanalysis. I am confused, however, with the implicitly distinction Zizek makes between class and the real. Class struggle, Zizek regularly reminds us, is a modality of the real. The real, however, is able to be symbolically defined. The analyst is able to understand the effects of the real and represent these effects into a formal concept of the real. The concept of the real does not extinguish the real, but it does give important insight into its affects.
Madra and Ozselcuk use a similar formal definition of class processes as an impossibility, but an impossibility that can be represented formally in its affects. Considering this gap between definitions of the real and Zizek’s reluctance to define class, which we have to assume is deliberate, we have to wonder what the difference is between the real and class as a modality of the real. If class is feminine, is the real also feminine, or is the real between the point, or rather the point itself, in terms of sexuation?
Perhaps I should expand upon my current knowledge of sexuation. As I understand it, the masculine and feminine are two different attempt at universalising the concept, both of which fails. Put another way, the masculine and feminine are two different attempts to symbolise the real. Where the masculine attempts to construct itself as all – everything is within the set, except the one that is not – the feminine is always non-all – there is nothing which cannot be included within the set. The point of failure for the masculine is the exception, for the feminine it is the inability of the set to finalise itself.
We see this in Kant’s ‘mathematical antinomy’ here Kant offers two equally valid perspectives on the universe; the universe is finite and the universe is infinite. The former, which attempts to close off the universe (in doing so producing an exception) is the masculine, whereas ‘the universe is infinite’ is the feminine non-all. The psychoanalytic point is that the symbolic is naturally non-all – it cannot be closed as a set (the focus on the incompleteness of the symbolic order has led to suggestions that Lacan is a post-structuralist) but the masculine subject through either ideological fantasy or the fundamental fantasy, depending on one’s perspective, prefers the illusion of completeness.
What these perspectives are then, is different responses to the Real. The Real of sexual difference however does not operate within the logics, but rather between them. Similar to Zizek’s work on the ‘Parallax Real’ the masculine and feminine logics are simply incommensurable; there is no possibility of translating between them. That is, any construction of sexual difference can only be caught up in sexual difference itself; there is no meta-language for mediating between them. Thus, Zizek’s sexual difference is not of the variety ‘Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus’, which implies that men and women have different symbolic universes. Zizek point is more radical than this; sexual difference means that not only are the masculine and feminine different configurations of the symbolic order, there is no point of translation between the two. There is no meta-language; sexual difference is that meta-language.
According to Zizek, the Real of sexual difference corresponds to the Real of class struggle. There is no way to mediate class struggle; class struggle is its own mediation. Just as one can consider the structure of responses to sexual difference – witness Zizek’s work on the masculine and feminine – one can consider actually existing class structures. Class struggle itself, however, cannot be considered as an object of research because it is its own exception – any attempt to define class struggle will come up against class struggle itself. In this sense class struggle and sexual difference are modalities of the Real, a kind of zero-level concept.
Of course, as with Zizek’s conceptions of the Real, the Real is not simply an a priori concept in the traditional sense of a positive determining factor. Rather it is the lack to which discourses respond. That is to say, class struggle is not ahistorical, but rather a historically contingent response to the Real. What Zizek is not clear on is whether class struggle exists only within a capitalist universe, or, as with Madra and Ozselcuk, class struggle is a fundamental impossibility in operation in all forms of economy. He is able to state that the central wager of Marxist theory is that class is the underlying antagonism of capitalism, but is not able to consider the conditions of possibility for class itself, unlike Marx who discussed in detail the possibilities of class relationships between feudalism, capitalism and communism.
To summarise the split between Madra/Ozselcuk and Zizek;
- Both consider there to be ‘no class relationship’ and class to be a modality of the real
- Madra and Ozselcuk define class as a formal process of the production, distribution and appropriation of surplus
- Madra and Ozselcuk consider class relationships to be impossible because of the impossibility of neutral position in relation to the class process
- However, they argue that class relationships do exist. Under capitalism these relations are formed under a masculine logic that produces an exception
- They argue for a non-fantasmatic approach to class under a feminine logic where no one entity has exclusive rights to surplus. They label this approach communism
- By contrast, Zizek contends that class is already a feminine concept
- Class is feminine because it is the underlying antagonism of all other discourses. As such it is the exception which constitutes these concepts, including itself
- Because class is non-all, it cannot be the positive object of research, although Zizek does make ‘class’ analyses in which he suggests that capitalism follows a masculine logic. At the same time, for Zizek any ideological critique is at the same time a class critique.
Spontaneously, I support Madra and Ozselcuk over Zizek, perhaps because they appear to produce a more viable political solution. But I have come to wonder whether this rests on my, and their, misreading of sexuation. I have really struggled to bring together Zizek and Madra/Ozselcuk on class and I think it is because they understand sexuation differing. This is why I have put on hold my essay and stopped to reflect on sexuation. Thoughts?
[i] In the thesis itself I plan to extend this essay to consider the positive relations (jouissance, ideological fantasy) that stem from the instantiation of class impossibility within capitalism. These relations revolve around the ideological triad liberal-democratic-multiculturalism and the underlying enjoyment of commodity fetishism, as well as the ‘circuit of capital’.
[ii] Madra and Ozselcuk primarily write together
[iii] This group publish primarily out of the Rethinking Marxism journal
[iv] As we shall see, the very act of defining class, let alone debating particular definitions of class, is perhaps the central political/theoretical division separating Zizek from Madra and Ozselcuk
[v] The distinction between an exception, which is accepted within the symbolic terms of the discourse and an exclusion, is vital to this understanding.
[vi] This perspective does not hold any distinction between necessary and surplus or direct/indirect labour
[vii] What I am primarily interested in is what happens to the exclusion which founds the masculine order (the reserve supply of workers) under a feminine logic
[viii] As far as I know Madra and Ozselcuk have not yet appeared on Zizek’s radar
[ix] Implicit in the sense that class is not specifically mentioned as in ‘In capitalism, class relations operate as...’ but dealing with subject matter traditionally linked with class; the proletariat, global slums etc
The essay was divided into three sections[i];
- A theoretical history of class after Marx
- Contemporary psychoanalytic perspectives on class
- A theory of the operation of class within contemporary capitalism
The first section proved straightforward, little more than a history lesson, although the narrative was specifically constructed to produce the context for the argumentation to follow. This research did allow me to understand the context for the issues I was considering, but will prove more useful for the introductory stages of the thesis.
The second section was the most troublesome. Here I was inspired by the conference I attended in LA, which was my first exposure to work which specifically focused on psychoanalysis and the economy. Much of this work is limited in its understanding of psychoanalysis and has not been much exposed to psychoanalytic critique, but I believe that it has allowed me to bring my work forward, particularly around class struggle.
In terms of psychoanalysis and class, I have constructed this debate as divided between two positions; Zizek and Yahya Madra/Ceren Ozselcuk[ii] from the Association for Economic and Social Analysis (AESA) group[iii]. The division rests upon an understanding of Lacan's maxim 'There is no sexual relationship'. Both consider that this maxim can be equally applied to class – ‘There is no class relationship’ – but differ in their interpretation of the statement.
For Madra and Ozselcuk, class exists – it is a process which involves the process of producing, distributing and appropriating surplus[iv] - but class relationships are impossible because there is no meta-language which would allow for a neutral approach to the class process. Nonetheless, class relationships do occur, based upon an ideological illusion which mitigates and includes the failure which haunts class, they just always fail. That is, capitalist class relationships are based upon a masculine logic whereby the formation of class relationships is reliant upon an exception[v]. This exception, like Freud’s primordial father from Totem and Taboo, operates at the top of the chain, not at the bottom, and is included within the symbolic matrix of ideology.
Madra and Ozselcuk include both capitalism and communism in this category – an ideological fantasy, based upon an exception element that is notionally outside of the class process yet controls its conditions of possibility. Within capitalism, this exception is the Board of Directors – the only entity within the capitalist enterprise, who does not contribute to, and battles for, control of surplus and the class process[vi]. Only the directors enjoy other people’s surplus without giving anything in return.
I have two problems with this argument. Firstly, within the logic of this argument, I believe that the location of the exception is misplaced. Rather than the Board of Directors (who supply strategic direction) I would argue that it is the shareholders who provide nothing but the conditions of possibility for the capitalist enterprise. My second objection is to the use of an ‘upper’ exception. If you can excuse the limitations of a spatial model, my previous understanding of non-identity had come either in the form of a ‘horizontal’ constitute outside or a ‘lower’ concrete universal. The former referring to the limitations which form the basis of a discourse, say Islam to Christianity, the latter to the exclusion which forms the discourse, third world poverty to first world wealth. Instead, I define the status of the Board of Directors/shareholders as that of a nodal point, or perhaps empty signifier. Whilst they provide a point of difference within the discourse (or rather the very instantiation of difference) this exception is very well accepted from within the discourse; the exception is not excluded from the horizon itself.
In my reading of sexuation, however, I have found that this is in the predominant understanding of exception within a masculine logic. My previous understanding of exception – that of the part with no part – is better understand as an exclusion from the field of understanding. For this reason, and for reasons I shall further elaborate once I move on to Zizek’s work, I decided that I needed to step away from my class essay and gather a greater understanding of sexuation, upon which the difference between Zizek and Madra/Ozselcuk rests. In particular I need to further develop my understanding of sexuation in relation to universality, which is at the forefront of my theoretical understanding. Of special interest is the relationship between sexuation and the concrete universal, the predominant usage of which appears to vary greatly from my present understanding.
At this stage of my research, it appears that differing understandings of sexual difference, in relation to class, is the central division, both theoretical and political, between Madra/ Ozselcuk and Zizek. This division is encapsulated in their differing readings of the maxim ‘there is no sexual/class relationship’. As I noted, for Madra/Ozselcuk, within capitalism class exists relationships do exist, but they always fail. This failure occurs within what they believe to be the hegemony of masculine logic in capitalist class relationships. Against this, Madra and Ozselcuk argue that we need a feminine logic of class, one which breaks with any fantasmatic blockage of the impossibility of class and institutes this impossibility as its founding moment. Under such a feminine logic no one entity would have exclusive rights to surplus, thus breaking with current and conventional understandings of both capitalism and communism. Thus class relationships would still be impossible, but under the feminine construction of this impossibility non-exploitative class relationships are possible. The (non) relationship would be non-exploitative because no entity has exclusive rights to surplus, in contrast to the constitutive exception of masculine class relationships[vii].
It is difficult to reconcile Madra and Ozselcuk’s understanding of non-exploitative class processes with Zizek’s conception of class, even though both start from the same moment in Lacan’s work. There is a certain structural similarity between Madra/Ozselcuk and Zizek, with the former citing Zizek as sharing the usage of the maxim ‘there is no class relationship’ and in considering class as a modality of the real[viii]. At times Zizek’s work on class does resemble Madra and Ozselcuk. He does contend that class struggle is the Real, an impossibility that cannot be instituted within capitalist ideology. Zizek’s main point is that class is the exclusion which founds the capitalist horizon, a determining cause by its very absence that inspires an infinite plurality of discursive responses, which could be read in defence of Madra and Ozselcuk’s understanding of class impossibility Although the latter do not consider this point specifically, it is commensurable within their research.
Where they differ is on sexuation. Although at times Zizek’s implicit[ix] class critiques appear to consider capitalist class relations to conform to a masculine logic, Zizek main contention is that class is already a feminine concept. The impossibility of the class relationship relates to the impossibility of any meta-language within which to discuss class because class is its own exception. If class is the exclusion which founds the symbolic order (under capitalism) than it acts as the exception for all other discourses – class is the exception that allows for our conception of race, democracy and shoe fetishes. It is this exception (making the discourse masculine) which allows for the formation of the concepts of race, democracy and indeed shoe fetishism. But class is also its own exception. For this reason, Zizek argues that class is a feminine non-all – it does not receive the same exceptional guarantee of other discourses. In this sense class ‘does not exist’.
I have always considered that statements such that ‘x doesn’t exist’ are typical Lacanian exaggerations. It is not that something doesn’t exist, it is only that it is lacking. For example ‘the Other doesn’t exist’. If we consider the other to be the symbolic order, then clearly it does exist, but not in complete form. It is like stating the one’s stamp collection does not exist because it does not contain ever possible stamp. From this perspective ‘does not exist’ can be read as ‘is incomplete’. Recently, however, I have begun to reconsider my opinion based on a different kind of reading. This reading is based on Lacan’s notion of ex-istance. As I understand it, ex-stance means that it is not so much that the object doesn’t exist in the sense that it is not there, but that the image of the concept it all its fullness does not exist. That class does not exist is not the same thing as ‘there is no such thing as ghosts’. Rather it states that the universal concept of class does not exist, no matter what particular attempts are made to fill it. In the masculine sense, object relationships are lacking because attempts are made to instantiate a particular to fill the universal
This is Zizek’s understanding of ‘there is no class relationship’. Because class is non-all, it is an impossible object that is beyond definition. One cannot research class in the same way as race or democracy. Instead, researchers can only consider the affects of class, in much the same way as they might consider the affects of the real or black holes.
An understanding of the presence of absence, or effect without (visible) cause is at the core of psychoanalysis. I am confused, however, with the implicitly distinction Zizek makes between class and the real. Class struggle, Zizek regularly reminds us, is a modality of the real. The real, however, is able to be symbolically defined. The analyst is able to understand the effects of the real and represent these effects into a formal concept of the real. The concept of the real does not extinguish the real, but it does give important insight into its affects.
Madra and Ozselcuk use a similar formal definition of class processes as an impossibility, but an impossibility that can be represented formally in its affects. Considering this gap between definitions of the real and Zizek’s reluctance to define class, which we have to assume is deliberate, we have to wonder what the difference is between the real and class as a modality of the real. If class is feminine, is the real also feminine, or is the real between the point, or rather the point itself, in terms of sexuation?
Perhaps I should expand upon my current knowledge of sexuation. As I understand it, the masculine and feminine are two different attempt at universalising the concept, both of which fails. Put another way, the masculine and feminine are two different attempts to symbolise the real. Where the masculine attempts to construct itself as all – everything is within the set, except the one that is not – the feminine is always non-all – there is nothing which cannot be included within the set. The point of failure for the masculine is the exception, for the feminine it is the inability of the set to finalise itself.
We see this in Kant’s ‘mathematical antinomy’ here Kant offers two equally valid perspectives on the universe; the universe is finite and the universe is infinite. The former, which attempts to close off the universe (in doing so producing an exception) is the masculine, whereas ‘the universe is infinite’ is the feminine non-all. The psychoanalytic point is that the symbolic is naturally non-all – it cannot be closed as a set (the focus on the incompleteness of the symbolic order has led to suggestions that Lacan is a post-structuralist) but the masculine subject through either ideological fantasy or the fundamental fantasy, depending on one’s perspective, prefers the illusion of completeness.
What these perspectives are then, is different responses to the Real. The Real of sexual difference however does not operate within the logics, but rather between them. Similar to Zizek’s work on the ‘Parallax Real’ the masculine and feminine logics are simply incommensurable; there is no possibility of translating between them. That is, any construction of sexual difference can only be caught up in sexual difference itself; there is no meta-language for mediating between them. Thus, Zizek’s sexual difference is not of the variety ‘Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus’, which implies that men and women have different symbolic universes. Zizek point is more radical than this; sexual difference means that not only are the masculine and feminine different configurations of the symbolic order, there is no point of translation between the two. There is no meta-language; sexual difference is that meta-language.
According to Zizek, the Real of sexual difference corresponds to the Real of class struggle. There is no way to mediate class struggle; class struggle is its own mediation. Just as one can consider the structure of responses to sexual difference – witness Zizek’s work on the masculine and feminine – one can consider actually existing class structures. Class struggle itself, however, cannot be considered as an object of research because it is its own exception – any attempt to define class struggle will come up against class struggle itself. In this sense class struggle and sexual difference are modalities of the Real, a kind of zero-level concept.
Of course, as with Zizek’s conceptions of the Real, the Real is not simply an a priori concept in the traditional sense of a positive determining factor. Rather it is the lack to which discourses respond. That is to say, class struggle is not ahistorical, but rather a historically contingent response to the Real. What Zizek is not clear on is whether class struggle exists only within a capitalist universe, or, as with Madra and Ozselcuk, class struggle is a fundamental impossibility in operation in all forms of economy. He is able to state that the central wager of Marxist theory is that class is the underlying antagonism of capitalism, but is not able to consider the conditions of possibility for class itself, unlike Marx who discussed in detail the possibilities of class relationships between feudalism, capitalism and communism.
To summarise the split between Madra/Ozselcuk and Zizek;
- Both consider there to be ‘no class relationship’ and class to be a modality of the real
- Madra and Ozselcuk define class as a formal process of the production, distribution and appropriation of surplus
- Madra and Ozselcuk consider class relationships to be impossible because of the impossibility of neutral position in relation to the class process
- However, they argue that class relationships do exist. Under capitalism these relations are formed under a masculine logic that produces an exception
- They argue for a non-fantasmatic approach to class under a feminine logic where no one entity has exclusive rights to surplus. They label this approach communism
- By contrast, Zizek contends that class is already a feminine concept
- Class is feminine because it is the underlying antagonism of all other discourses. As such it is the exception which constitutes these concepts, including itself
- Because class is non-all, it cannot be the positive object of research, although Zizek does make ‘class’ analyses in which he suggests that capitalism follows a masculine logic. At the same time, for Zizek any ideological critique is at the same time a class critique.
Spontaneously, I support Madra and Ozselcuk over Zizek, perhaps because they appear to produce a more viable political solution. But I have come to wonder whether this rests on my, and their, misreading of sexuation. I have really struggled to bring together Zizek and Madra/Ozselcuk on class and I think it is because they understand sexuation differing. This is why I have put on hold my essay and stopped to reflect on sexuation. Thoughts?
[i] In the thesis itself I plan to extend this essay to consider the positive relations (jouissance, ideological fantasy) that stem from the instantiation of class impossibility within capitalism. These relations revolve around the ideological triad liberal-democratic-multiculturalism and the underlying enjoyment of commodity fetishism, as well as the ‘circuit of capital’.
[ii] Madra and Ozselcuk primarily write together
[iii] This group publish primarily out of the Rethinking Marxism journal
[iv] As we shall see, the very act of defining class, let alone debating particular definitions of class, is perhaps the central political/theoretical division separating Zizek from Madra and Ozselcuk
[v] The distinction between an exception, which is accepted within the symbolic terms of the discourse and an exclusion, is vital to this understanding.
[vi] This perspective does not hold any distinction between necessary and surplus or direct/indirect labour
[vii] What I am primarily interested in is what happens to the exclusion which founds the masculine order (the reserve supply of workers) under a feminine logic
[viii] As far as I know Madra and Ozselcuk have not yet appeared on Zizek’s radar
[ix] Implicit in the sense that class is not specifically mentioned as in ‘In capitalism, class relations operate as...’ but dealing with subject matter traditionally linked with class; the proletariat, global slums etc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
