From Politics to Biopolitics. . .

and Back
Slavoj Zizek
The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 103, Number 2/3, Spring/Summer
2004, pp. 501-521 (Article)
Published by Duke University Press
For additional information about this article
Access provided by Weber State University (4 Aug 2014 17:41 GMT)
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/saq/summary/v103/103.2zizek.html
Slavoj iek
From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back
In oui Westein tiadition, the exenplaiy case ol
a tiaunatic Real is the ]ewish Law. In the ]ewish
tiadition, the divine Mosaic Law is expeiienced
as sonething exteinally inposed, contingent,
and tiaunaticin shoit, as an inpossille[ieal
Thing that nakes the law. What is aigually the
ultinate scene ol ieligious-ideological inteipel-
lationthe pionouncenent ol the Decalogue on
Mount Sinaiis the veiy opposite ol sonething
that eneiges oiganically as the outcone ol the
path ol sell-knowing and sell-iealization. The
]udeo-Chiistian tiadition is thus to le stiictly
opposed to the New Age gnostic piollenatic ol
sell-iealization oi sell-lulllnent: when the Old
Testanent enoins you to love and iespect youi
neighloi, this does not ielei to youi inaginaiy
senllalle[doulle, lut to the neighloi qua tiau-
natic Thing. In contiast to the New Age attitude
that ultinately ieduces ny Othei[Neighloi to
ny niiioi inage oi to the neans on the path to
sell-iealization (like the ]ungian psychology in
which othei peisons aiound ne aie ultinately
ieduced to the exteinalizations[pioections ol
the dieient disavowed aspects ol ny peison-
ality), ]udaisn opens up a tiadition in which
an alien tiaunatic keinel loievei peisists in
The South Atlantic Quarterly o:z[, Spiing[Sunnei zooq.
Copyiight _ zooq ly Duke Univeisity Piess.
502 Slavoj iek
ny Neighloithe Neighloi ienains an ineit, inpenetialle, enignatic
piesence that hysteiicizes ne.
The ]ewish connandnent that piohilits inages ol God is the olveise ol
the statenent that ielating to ones neighloi is the only teiiain ol ieligious
piactice, ol wheie the divine dinension is piesent in oui livesno inages
ol God does not point towaid a gnostic expeiience ol the divine leyond oui
ieality, a divine that is leyond any inage, on the contiaiy, it designates a
kind ol ethical hic Rhodus, hic salta: You want to le ieligious? Okay, piove it
heie, in the woiks ol love, in the way you ielate to youi neighlois. . . . We
have heie a nice case ol the Hegelianieveisal ol ieexive deteininationinto
deteininate ieection: instead ol saying God is love, we should say Love
is divine (and, ol couise, the point is not to conceive ol this ieveisal as the
standaid hunanist platitude. It is loi this piecise ieason that Chiistianity,
lai lion standing loi a iegiession towaid an inage ol God, only diaws the
consequence ol the ]ewishiconoclasnthioughasseiting the identity ol God
and nan).
Il, then, the nodein topic ol hunan iights is ultinately giounded in this
]ewish notion ol the Neighloi as the alyss ol Otheiness, how did we ieach
the weiid contenpoiaiy negative link letween Decalogue (the tiaunati-
cally inposed divine Connandnents) and hunan iights? That is to say,
within oui postpolitical lileial-peinissive society, hunan iights aie ulti-
nately, in theii inneinost, sinply the iights to violate the Ten Connand-
nents. The iight to piivacythe iight to adulteiy, done in seciet, wheie
no one sees ne oi has the iight to piole into ny lile. The iight to pui-
sue happiness and to possess piivate piopeitythe iight to steal (to exploit
otheis). Fieedon ol the piess and ol the expiession ol opinionthe iight
to lie. The iight ol the liee citizens to possess weaponsthe iight to kill.
And, ultinately, lieedon ol ieligious leliel the iight to celeliate lalse
gods.
1
Ol couise, hunan iights do not diiectly condone the violation ol the
Connandnentsthe point is ust that they keep open a naiginal giay
zone, which should ienain out ol ieach ol (ieligious oi seculai) powei: in
this shady zone, I can violate the connandnents, and il the powei pioles
into it, catching ne with ny pants down and tiying to pievent ny viola-
tions, I can ciy, Assault on ny lasic hunan iightsl The point is thus that
it is stiuctuially inpossille, loi the Powei, to diaw a cleai line ol sepaia-
tion and pievent only the nisuse ol the Right, while not inliinging on
the piopei usethat is, the use that does not violate the Connandnents.
The ist step in this diiection was acconplished ly the Chiistian notion
From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back 503
ol giace. In Mozaits La Clemenza di Tito, ust leloie the nal paidon, Tito
hinsell is exaspeiated ly the piolileiation ol tieasons that ollige hin to
piolileiate acts ol clenency:
The veiy nonent that I alsolve one ciininal, I discovei anothei. [ . . . [
I lelieve the stais conspiie to ollige ne, in spite ol nysell, to lecone
ciuel. No: they shall not have this satislaction. My viitue has alieady
pledged itsell to continue the contest. Let us see, which is noie con-
stant, the tieacheiy ol otheis oi ny neicy. [ . . . [ Let it le known to
Rone that I an the sane and that I know all, alsolve eveiyone, and
loiget eveiything.
One can alnost heai Tito conplaining: Uno pei volta, pei caiital
Please, not so last, one altei the othei, in the line loi neicyl Living up to
his task, Tito loigets eveiyone, lut those whonhe paidons aie condenned
to ienenlei it loievei:
: It is tiue, you paidon ne, Enpeioi, lut ny heait will not
alsolve ne, it will lanent the eiioi until it no longei has nenoiy.
: The tiue iepentance ol which you aie capalle, is woith noie
than constant delity.
This couplet lion the nale lluits out the olscene seciet ol Clemenza: the
paidon does not ieally alolish the delt, it iathei nakes it innitewe aie
forever indelted to the peison who paidoned us. No wondei Tito pieleis
iepentance to delity: in delity to the Mastei, I lollow hin out ol iespect,
while in iepentance, what attaches ne to the Mastei is the innite indelille
guilt. In this, Tito is a thoioughly Chiistian nastei.
Usually, ]udaisn is conceived as the ieligion ol the supeiego (ol nans
suloidination to the ealous, nighty, and seveie God), in contiast to the
Chiistian God ol Meicy and Loveone opposes the ]ewish iigoious ]us-
tice and the Chiistian Meicy, the inexplicalle gestuie ol undeseived pai-
don: we, hunans, weie loin in sin, we cannot evei iepay oui delts and
iedeen ouiselves thiough oui own actsoui only salvation lies in Gods
Meicy, in His supiene saciice. Howevei, in this veiy gestuie ol lieak-
ing the chain ol ]ustice thiough the inexplicalle act ol Meicy, ol paying
oui delt, Chiistianity inposes on us an even stiongei delt: we aie loievei
indelted to Chiist, we cannot evei iepay hin loi what he did loi us. The
Fieudian nane loi such an excessive piessuie that we cannot evei ienu-
neiate is, ol couise, supeiego. It is piecisely thiough not denanding lion
504 Slavoj iek
us the piice loi oui sins, thiough paying this piice loi us Hinsell, that the
Chiistian God ol Meicy estallishes itsell as the supiene supeiego agency:
I paid the highest piice loi youi sins, and you aie thus indelted to ne for-
ever. Is this God as the supeiego agency, whose veiy Meicy geneiates the
indelille guilt ol lelieveis, the ultinate hoiizonol Chiistianity? One should
eectively coiielate the unconditional guilt ol supeiego and the neicy ol
lovetwo guies ol excess, the excess ol guilt without piopoition to what I
eectively did, and the excess ol neicy without piopoitionto what I deseive
on account ol ny acts.
As such, the dispensation ol neicy is the nost ecient constituent ol
the exeicise ol powei. That is to say, Is the ielationship letween law (legal
ustice) and neicy ieally the one letween necessity and choice? Is it ieally
that one has to oley the law, while neicy is ly denition dispensed as a
liee and excessive act, as sonething that the agent ol neicy is liee to do oi
not to doneicy undei conpulsion is no neicy lut, at its lest, a tiavesty
ol neicy? What il, at a deepei level, the ielationship is the opposite one?
What il, withiegaid to law, we have the lieedonto choose (to oley oi violate
it)? While neicy is olligatoiy, we have to display itneicy is an unneces-
saiy excess that, as such, has to occui. (And does the law not always take
into account this lieedon ol ouis, not only ly punishing us loi its tians-
giession, lut ly pioviding escapes to leing punished ly its anliguity and
inconsistency?) Is it not that showing neicy is the only way loi a Mastei to
denonstiate his supialegal authoiity? Il a Mastei weie neiely to guaian-
tee the lull application ol the law, ol legal iegulations, he would le depiived
ol his authoiity and tuin into a neie guie ol knowledge, the agent ol the
discouise ol univeisity. (This is why even a gieat udge is a Mastei guie:
he always sonehow twists the law in its application ly way ol inteipieting
it cieatively.) This goes even loi Stalin hinsell, a guie we denitely do not
associate with neicy: one should nevei loiget that, as the (now-availalle)
ninutes ol the neetings ol the Politluio and Cential Connittee (CC) lion
the os denonstiate, Stalins diiect inteiventions, as a iule, displayed
neicy. When youngei CC nenleis, eagei to piove theii ievolutionaiy lei-
voi, denanded instant death penalty loi Bukhaiin, Stalin always inteivened
and said Patiencel His guilt is not yet piovenl oi sonething sinilai. Ol
couise this was a hypociitical attitudeStalin was well awaie that he hin-
sell geneiated the destiuctive leivoi, that the youngei nenleis weie eagei
to please hinlut, nonetheless, the appeaiance ol neicy is necessaiy heie.
We encountei the sane unity ol opposites in the new capitalist ethics,
wheie the iuthless puisuit ol piot is counteiacted ly chaiity: chaiity is,
From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back 505
today, pait ol the gane: it seives as a hunanitaiian nask hiding the undei-
lying econonic exploitation. In a supeiego llacknail ol gigantic piopoi-
tions, the developed countiies aie constantly helping the undeveloped
(with aid, ciedits, and so on), theiely avoiding the key issue, nanely, theii
complicity in and coiesponsilility loi the niseialle situation ol the unde-
veloped. Which discuisive shilt undeilies this new loin ol donination?
Lacan piovides the answei in Lenvers de la psychanalyse, his Seninai XVII
(6;o) on the loui discouises, Lacans iesponse to the events ol
68its pienise is lest captuied in his ieveisal ol the well-known anti-
stiuctuialist giati lion the Paiis walls ol 68, Stiuctuies do not walk
on the stieetslil anything, this seninai endeavois to denonstiate how
stiuctuies do walk on the stieets, that is, how stiuctuial shilts can account
loi the social outluists like that ol 68. Instead ol the one synlolic Oidei
with its set ol a piioii iules that guaiantee social cohesion, we get the natiix
ol the passages lion one to anothei discouise: Lacans inteiest is locused
on the passage lion the discouise ol the Mastei to the discouise ol the
univeisity as the hegenonic discouise in contenpoiaiy society. No won-
dei that the ievolt was located at the univeisities: as such, it neiely sig-
naled the shilt to the new loins ol donination in which the scientic dis-
couise seives to legitinize the ielations ol donination. Lacans undeilying
pienise is skeptic-conseivativeLacans diagnosis is lest captuied ly his
lanous ietoit to the student ievolutionaiies: As hysteiics, you denand a
new nastei. You will get itl This passage can also le conceived in noie
geneial teins, as the passage lion the pieievolutionaiy ancien igine to
the postievolutionaiy new Mastei who does not want to adnit that he is
one, lut pioposes hinsell as a neie seivant ol the Peoplein Nietzsches
teins, it is sinply the passage lion Masteis ethics to slave noiality, and
this lact, peihaps, enalles a new appioach to Nietzsche: when Nietzsche
scoinlully disnisses slave noiality, he is not attacking lowei classes as
such, lut, iathei, the new nasteis who aie no longei ieady to assune the
title ol the Masteislave is Nietzsches tein loi a lake nastei. How, then,
noie closely, aie we to iead the Univeisity Discouise?
S
2
ba

S
1
as
The Univeisity Discouise is enunciated lion the position ol neutial
Knowledge, it addiesses the ienaindei ol the ieal (say, in the case ol peda-
gogical knowledge, the iaw, uncultivated child), tuining it into the sul-
506 Slavoj iek
ect (s). The tiuth ol the Univeisity Discouise, hidden leneath the lai, ol
couise, is powei, that is, the Mastei-Signiei: the constitutive lie ol the Uni-
veisity Discouise is that it disavows its peiloinative dinension, piesenting
what eectively anounts to a political decision lased on powei as a sinple
insight into the lactual state ol things. What one should avoid heie is the
Foucauldiannisieading: the pioduced sulect is not sinply the sulectivity
that aiises as the iesult ol the disciplinaiy application ol knowledge-powei,
lut its ienaindei, that which eludes the giasp ol knowledge-powei. Pro-
duction (the louith tein in the natiix ol discouises) does not stand loi the
iesult ol the discuisive opeiation, lut iathei loi its indivisille ienaindei,
loi the excess that iesists leing included in the discuisive netwoikthat is,
loi what the discouise itsell pioduces as the loieign lody in its veiy heait.
Peihaps the exenplaiy case ol the Masteis position that undeilies the
Univeisity Discouise is the way inwhichnedical discouise lunctions inoui
eveiyday lives: at the suilace level, we aie dealing with puie olective knowl-
edge, which desulectivizes the sulect-patient, ieducing hin to an olect
ol ieseaich, ol diagnosis and tieatnent, howevei, leneath it, one can easily
discein a woiiied hysteiicized sulect, olsessed with anxiety, addiessing
the doctoi as his Mastei and asking loi ieassuiance lion hin. At a noie
connon level, suce it to iecall the naiket expeit who advocates stiong
ludgetaiy neasuies (cutting wellaie expenses, and the like.) as a necessity
inposed ly his neutial expeitise devoid ol any ideological liases: what he
conceals is the seiies ol powei ielations (lion the active iole ol state appa-
iatuses to ideological leliels) that sustain the neutial lunctioning ol the
naiket nechanisn.
In the Univeisity Discouise, is not the uppei level (sa) that ol lio-
politics (in the sense deployed lion Foucault to Aganlen)? Ol the expeit
knowledge dealing with its olect which is anot sulects, lut individuals
ieduced to laie lile? And does the lowei not designate what Eiic Santnei
called the ciisis ol investituiethe inpossilility ol the sulect to ielate to
S
1
, to identily witha Mastei-Signiei, to assune the inposed synlolic nan-
date?
2
The key point heie is that the expeit iule ol liopolitics is giounded
in and conditioned ly the ciisis ol investituie, this ciisis geneiated the
postnetaphysical suivivalist stance ol the Last Men, which ends up in an
anenic spectacle ol lile diagging on as its own shadow. It is within this
hoiizon that one should appieciate todays giowing ieection ol the death
penalty: what one should le alle to discein is the hidden liopolitics that
sustains this ieection. Those who asseit the saciedness ol lile, delend-
From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back 507
ing it against the thieat ol tianscendent poweis that paiasitize on it, end
up in a woild in which, on lehall ol its veiy ocial goallong pleasuialle
lileall eective pleasuies aie piohilited oi stiictly contiolled (snoking,
diugs, lood, etc.). Spielleigs Saving Private Ryan is the latest exanple ol
this suivivalist attitude towaid dying, with its denystilying piesentation
ol wai as a neaningless slaughtei whichnothing canieally ustilyas such,
it piovides the lest possille ustication loi Colin Powells no-casualties-
on-oui-side nilitaiy doctiine.
In todays naiket, we nd a whole seiies ol pioducts depiived ol theii
nalignant piopeity: coee without caeine, ciean without lat, leei with-
out alcohol. And the list goes on: what alout viitual sex as sex without sex,
the Colin Powell doctiine ol wai with no casualties (on oui side, ol couise)
as wai without wailaie, the contenpoiaiy iedenition ol politics as the ait
ol expeit adninistiation as politics without politics, up to todays toleiant
lileial nulticultuialisnas anexpeiience ol Othei depiived ol its Otheiness
(the idealized Othei who dances lascinating dances and has an ecologically
sound holistic appioach to ieality, while leatuies like wile-leating ienain
out ol sight)? Viitual Reality sinply geneializes this pioceduie ol oeiing
a pioduct depiived ol its sulstance: it piovides ieality itsell depiived ol its
sulstance, ol the iesisting haid keinel ol the Realin the sane way decal-
leinated coee snells and tastes like ieal coee without leing ieal, Viitual
Reality is expeiienced as ieality without leing one.
Is this not the attitude ol the hedonistic Last Man? Eveiything is pei-
nitted, you can enoy eveiything, but depiived ol the sulstance that nakes
it dangeious. (This is also the Last Mans ievolutionievolution without
ievolution.) Is this not one ol the two veisions ol Lacans anti-Dostoyevsky
notto, Il Goddoesnt exist, eveiything is piohilited: ) Godis dead, we live
in a peinissive univeise, you should stiive loi pleasuies and happiness
lut, in oidei to have a lile lull ol happiness and pleasuies, you should avoid
dangeious excesses, so eveiything is piohilited il it is not depiived ol its
sulstance, z) Il God is dead, supeiego enoins you to enoy, lut eveiy detei-
ninate enoynent is alieady a letiayal ol the unconditional one, so it should
le piohilited. The nutiitive veision ol this is to enoy diiectly the Thing
Itsell: Why lothei with coee? Inect caeine diiectly into youi lloodl Why
lothei with sensual peiceptions and excitations ly exteinal ieality? Take
diugs that diiectly aect youi liainl And il theie is God, then eveiything
is peinittedto those who clain to act diiectly on lehall ol God, as the
instiunents ol His will, cleaily, a diiect link to God usties oui violation ol
508 Slavoj iek
any neiely hunan constiaints and consideiations (as in Stalinisn, wheie
the ieleience to the lig Othei ol histoiical Necessity usties alsolute iuth-
lessness).
Todays hedonisnconlines pleasuie with constiaintit is no longei the
old notion ol the iight neasuie letween pleasuie and constiaint, lut a
kind ol pseudo-Hegelian innediate coincidence ol the opposites: action
and ieaction should coincide, the veiy thing that causes danage should
alieady le the nedicine. The ultinate exanple ol it is aigually a chocolate
laxative, availalle inthe United States, withthe paiadoxical inunctionto eat
more chocolatethe veiy thing that causes constipationto alleviate con-
stipation. Do we not nd heie a weiid veision ol Wagneis lanous Only
the speai which caused the wound can heal it lion Parsifal? And is not
a negative piool ol the hegenony ol this stance the lact that tiue uncon-
stiained consunption (in all its nain loins: diugs, sex, snoking, etc.) is
eneiging as the nain dangei? The ght against these dangeis is one ol the
nain investnents ol todays liopolitics. Solutions aie despeiately sought
that would iepioduce the paiadox ol the chocolate laxative. The nain con-
tendei is safe sex, a phiase that nakes one appieciate the tiuth ol the saying,
Is having sex with a condon not like taking a showei with a iaincoat on?
The ultinate goal heie would le along the lines ol decal coee, to invent
opiunwithout opiun: no wondei naiiuana is so populai anong lileials
who want to legalize itit alieady is a kind ol opiun without opiun.
The stiuctuie ol a pioduct containing the agent ol its own containnent
can le disceined thioughout todays ideological landscape. Theie aie two
topics that deteinine todays lileial toleiant attitude towaid Otheis: the
iespect ol Otheiness, openness towaid it, and the olsessive leai ol haiass-
nentin shoit, the Othei is okay insolai as its piesence is not intiusive,
insolai as the Othei is not ieally Othei. This is eneiging as the cential
hunan iight in late-capitalist society: the right not to be harassed, to le
kept at a sale distance lion otheis. A sinilai stiuctuie is cleaily piesent
in how we ielate to capitalist pioteeiing: it is okay if it is counteiacted
with chaiitalle activitiesist you anass lillions, thenyou ietuin(pait ol )
then to the needy. And the sane goes loi wai, loi the eneigeng logic ol
hunanitaiian oi pacist nilitaiisn: wai is okay insolai as it ieally seives
to liing alout peace, denociacy, oi to cieate conditions loi distiiluting
hunanitaiian help. And does not the sane hold tiue even loi denociacy
and hunan iights? It is okay il hunan iights aie iethought to include
toituie and a peinanent eneigency state, il denociacy is cleansed ol its
populist excesses.
From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back 509
Howevei, what I an desciiling cannot lut appeai as two opposite ideo-
logical spaces: that ol the ieduction ol hunans to laie lile, to homo sacer
as the disponille olect ol the expeit caietaking knowledge, and that ol
the iespect loi the vulneialle Othei liought to an extiene, ol the attitude
ol naicissistic sulectivity that expeiiences itsell as vulneialle, constantly
exposed to a nultitude ol potential haiassnents. Is theie a stiongei con-
tiast than the one letween the iespect loi the Otheis vulneialility and
the ieduction ol the Othei to neie lile iegulated ly the adninistiative
knowledge?
But what il these two stances nonetheless iely on the sane ioot, what
il they aie the two aspects ol one and the sane undeilying attitude, what
il they coincide in what one is tenpted to designate as the contenpoiaiy
case ol the Hegelian innite udgenent, which asseits the identity ol
opposites? What the two poles shaie is piecisely the undeilying ielusal
ol any highei Causes, the notion that the ultinate goal ol oui lives is lile
itsell. Nowheie is the conplicity ol these two levels cleaiei as in the case
ol the opposition to the death penaltyno wondei, since (violently putting
anothei hunan leing to) death is, quite logically, the ultinate tiaunatic
point ol liopolitics, the politics ol the adninistiation ol lile. To put it in
Foucauldian teins, is the alolition ol the death penalty not pait ol a ceitain
liopolitics that consideis ciine as the iesult ol social, psychological, ideo-
logical, and like ciicunstances: the notion ol the noially[legally iespon-
sille sulect is an ideological ction whose lunction is to covei up the net-
woik ol powei ielations, individuals aie not iesponsille loi the ciines they
connit, so they should not le punished? Is, howevei, the olveise ol this
thesis not that those who contiol the ciicunstances contiol the people? No
wondei the two stiongest industiial conplexes today aie the nilitaiy and
the nedical, that ol destioying and that ol piolonging lile.
Supeiego is thus not diiectly S
2
, it is iathei the S
1
ol the S
2
itsell, the
dinension ol an unconditional inunction that is inheient to knowledge
itsell. Recall the nessages alout health we aie lonlaided with all the tine:
Snoking is dangeiousl Too nuch lat nay cause a heait attackl Regulai
exeicise leads to a longei lilel and so on, and so on. It is inpossille not
to heai leneath it the unconditional inunction, You should enoy a long
and healthy lilel What this neans is that the discouise ol the univeisity
is thoioughly nystilying, concealing its tiue loundation, olluscating the
unlieedon on which it ielies.
Within this hoiizon, the concept ol iadical, iiiepiesentalle Evil, le it
holocaust oi gulag, plays the cential iole, that ol the constitutive linit and
510 Slavoj iek
point ol ieleience ol todays piedoninant notion ol denociacy: democracy
neans avoiding the totalitaiian extiene, it is dened as a peinanent
stiuggle against the totalitaiian tenptation to close the gap, to (pietend
to) act on lehall ol the Thing Itsell. Iionically, it is thus as il one should
tuin aiound the well-known Augustinian notion ol Evil as having no posi-
tive sulstance oi loice ol its own, lut leing ust the alsence ol Good: Good
itsell is the alsence ol Evil, the distance towaid the Evil Thing.
It is this lileial llacknail ol disnissing eveiy iadical political act as
evil that one should thoioughly ieecteven when it is coated in Lacan-
ian colois, as is the case in Ioannis Staviakakiss iecent ciitical ieply to ny
ieading ol Antigone, which locuses on the dangei ol what he calls the also-
lutization ol the event, which then leads to a totalitaiian desastre. When
Staviakakis wiites that delity to an event can ouiish and avoid alsolu-
tization only as an indel delity, only within the lianewoik ol anothei
delity, delity to the openness ol the political space and to the awaieness
ol the constitutive inpossilility ol a nal sutuie ol the social, he theiely
suiieptitiously intioduces a dieience, which canle givendieient nanes,
letween the unconditional-ethical and the piagnatico-political: the oiigi-
nal lact is the lack, opening, which peitains to hunan nitude, and all posi-
tive acts always lall shoit ol this piinoidial lack, we have thus what Deiiida
calls the unconditional ethical inunction, inpossille to lulll, and positive
acts, inteiventions, whichienainstiategic inteiventions. One shouldevoke
two aigunents against this position:
Fiist, Acts in Lacans sense piecisely suspend this gapthey aie inpos-
sille not inthe sense ol inpossille to happen, lut inthe sense ol inpos-
sille that happened. This is why Antigone was ol inteiest to ne: hei act is
not a stiategic inteivention that naintains the gap towaid the inpossille
Voidit iathei tends to alsolutely enact the Inpossille. I an well awaie
ol the luie ol such an act, lut I clain that, in Lacans latei veisions ol the
act, this nonent ol nadness leyond stiategic inteivention ienains. In
this piecise sense, the notion ol act not only does not contiadict the lack
in the Othei, which, accoiding to Staviakakis, I neglect, it diiectly piesup-
poses it: it is only thiough an act that I eectively assune the lig Otheis
inexistence, that is, I enact the inpossille, nanely what appeais as inpos-
sille within the cooidinates ol the existing sociosynlolic oidei.
Second, theie are (also) political acts: politics cannot le ieduced to the
level ol stiategic-piagnatic inteiventions. Ina iadical political act, the oppo-
sitionletweena ciazy destiuctive gestuie anda stiategic political decision
From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back 511
nonentaiily lieaks downwhich is why it is theoietically and politically
wiong to oppose stiategic political acts, as iisky as they can le, to iadical
suicidal gestuies la Antigone, gestuies ol puie sell-destiuctive ethical
insistence with, appaiently, no political goal. The point is not sinply that,
once we aie thoioughly engaged in a political pioect, we aie ieady to put
eveiything at stake loi it, inclusive ol oui lives, lut, noie piecisely, that
only such an impossible gesture of pure expenditure can change the very coordi-
nates of what is strategically possible within a historical constellation. This is the
key point: an act is neithei a stiategic inteivention into the existing oidei,
noi its ciazy destiuctive negation, an act is an excessive, tiansstiategic,
inteivention that iedenes the iules and contouis ol the existing oidei.
So what alout the iepioach that Antigone not only iisks death oi sus-
pends synlolic oideiny deteinination ol a political actlut that she
actively stiives loi death, loi synlolic and ieal death, theiely displaying
a puiity ol desiie leyond any sociopolitical tiansloinative action? Fiist, is
Antigones act ieally outside politics, apolitical? Is not hei deance ol the
oidei ol the supiene powei (Cieon, who acts on lehall ol the connon
good) political, alleit in a negative way? Is not, in ceitain extiene ciicun-
stances, such apolitical deance on lehall ol decency oi old custons
even the veiy nodel ol heioic political iesistance? Second, hei gestuie is
not sinply puie desiie loi deathto do that, she could have diiectly killed
heisell and spaied the people aiound hei all the luss . . . heis was not a puie
synlolic stiiving loi death, lut an unconditional insistence on a paiticulai
synlolic iitual.
And this liings us to the key dilenna: the ieleience to denociacy in-
volves the ieection ol the iadical attenpts to step outside, to iisk a iadi-
cal lieak, to puisue the tiend ol sell-oiganized collectives in aieas out-
side the law. Aigually the gieatest liteiaiy nonunent to such a utopia
cones lion an unexpected souiceMaiio Vaigas Llosas The War of the
End of the World (8), the novel alout Canudos, an outlaw connunity
deep in the Biazilian lacklands that was hone to piostitutes, lieaks, leg-
gais, landits, and the nost wietched ol the pooi. Canudos, led ly an apoca-
lyptic piophet, was a utopian space without noney, piopeity, taxes, and
naiiiage. In 8;, it was destioyed ly the nilitaiy loices ol the Biazil-
ian goveinnent. The echoes ol Canudos aie cleaily disceinille in todays
favelas in Latin Aneiican negalopolises: Aie they, in sone sense, not the
ist lileiated teiiitoiies, the cells ol lutuial sell-oiganized societies? Aie
institutions like connunity kitchens not a nodel ol socialized connu-
512 Slavoj iek
nal local lile? The Canudos lileiated teiiitoiy in Bahia will ienain loi-
evei the nodel ol a lileiated space, ol an alteinative connunity that thoi-
oughly negates the existing state space. Eveiything is to le endoised heie,
up to the ieligious lanaticisn. It is as il, in such connunities, the Ben-
jaminian other side of the historical Progress, the defeated ones, acquires a space
of its own. Utopia existed heie loi a liiel peiiod ol tinethis is the only
way to account loi the iiiational, excessive, violence ol the destiuction ol
these connunities (in8; Biazil, all inhalitants ol Canudos, childienand
wonen included, weie slaughteied, as il the veiy nenoiy ol the possilility
ol lieedonhad to le eiasedand this ly a goveinnent that piesented itsell
as piogiessive lileial-denociatic-iepullican.) Until now, such connuni-
ties explodedliontine to tine as passing phenonena, a site ol eteinity that
inteiiupted the owol tenpoial piogiessone should have the couiage to
iecognize then in the wide span lion the ]esuit reduciones in eighteenth-
centuiy Paiaguay (liutally destioyed ly the oint action ol Spanish and Poi-
tuguese ainies) up to the settlenents contiolled ly Sendeio Luninoso in
os Peiu. Theie is a will to acconplish the leap ol laith and step out ol
the glolal ciicuit that is at woik heie, the will whose extiene and teiiily-
ing expiession is the well-known accident lion the Vietnan wai: altei the
United States Ainy occupied a local village, theii doctois vaccinated the
childien on theii lelt ain in oidei to denonstiate theii hunanitaiian caie,
when, a day latei, the village was ietaken ly the Vietcong, they cut o the
lelt ain ol all vaccinated childien. Although dicult to sustain as a liteial
nodel to lollow, this thoiough ieection ol the Eneny piecisely in its help-
ing hunanitaiian aspect, no nattei what the costs, has to le endoised
in its lasic intention. In a sinilai way, when Sendeio Luninoso took ovei
a village, they did not locus on killing the soldieis oi policenen stationed
theie, lut noie onthe UNoi U.S. agiicultuial consultants oi healthwoikeis
tiying to help the local peasantsaltei lectuiing then loi houis and then
loicing thento conless pullicly theii conplicity with inpeiialisn, the Sen-
deio Luninoso shot then. Biutal as this pioceduie was, it was sustained
ly the coiiect insight: they, not the police oi the ainy, weie the tiue dan-
gei, the eneny at its nost peidious, since they weie lying in the guise ol
tiuththe noie they weie innocent (they ieally tiied to help the peas-
ants), the noie they seived as a tool ol the United States. It is only such a
stiike against the eneny at his lest, at the point wheie the eneny indeed
helps us, that displays a tiue ievolutionaiy autonony and soveieignty (to
use this tein in its Bataillean neaning). Il one adopts the attitude ol let
From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back 513
us take lion the eneny what is good and ieect oi even ght against what
is lad, one is alieady caught in the lileial tiap ol hunanitaiian help.
Since today capitalisn denes and stiuctuies the totality ol the hunan
civilization, eveiy Connunist teiiitoiy was and isagain, in spite ol its
hoiiois and lailuiesa kind ol lileiated teiiitoiy, as Fied ]aneson put
it apiopos ol Cula. What we aie dealing with heie is the old stiuctuial
notion ol the gap letween the Space and the positive content that lls it in:
although, as to theii positive content, the Connunist iegines weie nostly
a disnal lailuie, geneiating teiioi and niseiy, at the sane tine they opened
up a ceitain space, the space ol utopian expectations, which, anong othei
things, enalled us to neasuie the lailuie ol the ieally existing Socialisn
itsell. (What the anti-Connunist dissidents as a iule tend to oveilook is
that the veiy space lion which they thenselves ciiticized and denounced
the eveiyday teiioi and niseiy was opened and sustained ly the Connu-
nist lieakthiough, ly its attenpt to escape the logic ol the Capital.) This
is how one should undeistand Alain Badious mieux vaut un desastre quun
desetre, so shocking loi the lileial sensitivity: lettei the woise Stalinist tei-
ioi than the nost lileial capitalist denociacy. Ol couise, the nonent one
conpaies the positive content ol the two, theWellaie State capitalist denoc-
iacy is inconpaially letteiwhat iedeens the Stalinist totalitaiianisn is
the loinal aspect, the space it opens up. Can one inagine a utopian point at
which this sulteiianean level ol the utopian Othei Space would unite with
the positive space ol noinal social lile? The key political question is heie:
Is theie in oui postnodein tine still a space loi such connunities? Aie
they linited to the undeveloped outskiits (favelas, ghettos), oi is a space loi
theneneiging in the veiy heait ol the postindustiial landscape? Can one
nake a wild wagei that the dynanics ol postnodein capitalisn with its
iise ol new eccentiic geek connunities piovides a new chance heie, that,
peihaps loi the ist tine in histoiy, the logic ol alteinative connunities
can le gialted onto the latest state ol technology?
The nain loinol such alteinative connunities in the twentieth centuiy
weie so-called councils (soviets)(alnost) eveiylody in the West loved
then, up to lileials like Hannah Aiendt who peiceived in thenthe echo ol
the old Gieek lile ol polis. Thioughout the age ol the Really Existing Social-
isn (RES), the seciet hope ol denociatic socialists was the diiect denoc-
iacy ol the soviets, the local councils as the loin ol sell-oiganization ol
the people, and it is deeply synptonatic how, with the decline ol RES,
this enancipatoiy shadow that haunted it all the tine also disappeaied. Is
514 Slavoj iek
this not the ultinate conination ol the lact that the council veision ol
denociatic socialisn was ust a spectial doulle ol the luieauciatic RES,
its inheient tiansgiession with no sulstantial positive content ol its own,
unalle to seive as the peinanent lasic oiganizing piinciple ol a society?
What loth RES and council denociacy shaied is the leliel in the possi-
lility ol a sell-tianspaient oiganizationol society that would pieclude politi-
cal alienation (state appaiatuses, institutionalized iules ol political lile,
legal oidei, police, and so onand is the lasic expeiience ol the end ol RES
not piecisely the ieection ol this shared leatuie, the iesigned postnodein
acceptance ol the lact that society is a conplex netwoik ol sulsystens,
which is why a ceitain level ol alienation is constitutive ol social lile, so
that a totally sell-tianspaient society is a utopia withtotalitaiianpotentials?
3
(In this sense, it is Haleinas who is postnodein, in contiast to Adoino
who, in spite ol all his political conpionises, to the end ienained attached
to a iadically utopian vision ol ievolutionaiy iedenption.)
Aie, howevei, things ieally so sinple? Fiist, diiect denociacy is not only
still alive in nany places like favelas, it is even leing ieinvented and
given a new loost ly the iise ol the postindustiial digital cultuie (do the
desciiptions ol the newtiilal connunities ol conputei hackeis not olten
evoke the logic ol councils denociacy?). Second, the awaieness that poli-
tics is a conplex gane in which a ceitain level ol institutional alienation
is iiieducille should not lead us to ignoie the lact that theie is still a line
ol sepaiation that divides those who aie in lion those who aie out,
excluded lion the space ol the polistheie aie citizens, and theie is the
spectei ol homo sacer haunting thenall. In othei woids, even the conplex
contenpoiaiy societies still iely on the lasic divide letween included and
excluded. The lashionalle notion ol nultitude is insucient piecisely
insolai as it cuts acioss this divide: theie is a nultitude within the systen
and the nultitude ol those excluded, and to sinply enconpass then within
the scope ol the sane notion anounts to the sane olscenity as equating
staivation with dieting. And those excluded do not sinply dwell in a psy-
chotic nonstiuctuied Outsidethey have (and aie loiced into) theii own
sell-oiganization, one ol the nanes (and piactices) ol which was piecisely
the council denociacy.
But should we still call it denociacy? At this point, it is ciucial to avoid
what one cannot lut call the denociatic tiap. Many iadical leltists accept
the legalistic logic ol tianscendental guaiantee: they ielei to denociacy
as the ultinate guaiantee ol those who aie awaie that theie is no guaiantee.
From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back 515
That is to say, since no political act can clain a diiect loundation in sone
tianscendent guie ol the lig Othei (ol the we aie ust instiunents ol a
highei Necessity oi Will type), since eveiy such act involves the iisk ol a
contingent decision, nolody has the iight to inpose his choice on otheis
which neans that eveiy collective choice has to le denociatically legiti-
nized. Fion this peispective, denociacy is not so nuch the guaiantee ol
the iight choice as a kind ol oppoitunistic insuiance against possille lail-
uie: il things tuin out wiong, I can always say we aie all iesponsille. Conse-
quently, this last ieluge nust le diopped, one should lully assune the iisk.
The only adequate positionis the one advocatedalieady ly Lukacs inhis His-
tory and Class Consciousness: denociatic stiuggle should not le letishized,
it is one ol the loins ol stiuggle, and its choice should le deteinined ly a
glolal stiategic assessnent ol ciicunstances, not ly its ostensilly supeiioi
intiinsic value. Like the Lacanian analyst, a political agent has to connit
acts that can only le authoiized ly hinsell, loi which theie is no exteinal
guaiantee.
An authentic political act can le, as to its loin, a denociatic one as
well as a nondenociatic one. Theie aie sone elections oi ieleienduns in
which the inpossille happensiecall, decades ago in Italy, a ieleiendun
on divoice wheie, to the gieat suipiise also ol the Lelt which distiusted
the people, the piodivoice side convincingly won, so that even the Lelt,
piivately skeptical, was ashaned ol its distiust. (Theie weie elenents ol
the event even in the unexpected ist electoial victoiy ol Fiancois Mitte-
iand.) It is only in such cases that one is ustied in saying that, leyond
and alove the neie nuneial naoiity, people eectively have spoken in a
sulstantial sense ol the tein. On the othei hand, an authentic act ol popu-
lai will can also occui in the loin ol a violent ievolution, ol a piogies-
sive nilitaiy dictatoiship, and so on. In this piecise sense, Khiushchevs
6speech denouncing Stalins ciines was a tiue political actas Willian
Taulnan put it, altei this speech, the Soviet iegine nevei lully iecoveied,
and neithei did he.
4
Althoughthe oppoitunist notives loi this daiing nove
aie plain enough, theie was cleaily noie than neie calculation to it, a kind
ol ieckless excess that cannot le accounted loi ly stiategic ieasoning. Altei
this speech, things weie nevei the sane again, the lundanental dogna ol
the inlallille leadeiship was undeinined, so no wondei that, as a ieaction
to the speech, the entiie nonenklatuia sank into tenpoiaiy paialysis.
The piesent ciisis thus conpels us to iethink denociacy itsell as todays
Mastei-Signiei. Denociacy is not neiely the powei ol, ly, and loi the
516 Slavoj iek
people. It is not enough ust to clain that, in denociacy, the will and
inteiests (the two in no way autonatically coincide) ol the laige naoiity
deteinine the state decisions. Democracyin the way this tein is used
todayconceins, alove all, loinal legalisn: its nininal denition is the
unconditional adheience to a ceitain set ol loinal iules which guaian-
tee that antagonisns aie lully alsoiled into the agonistic gane. Democ-
racy neans that, whatevei electoial nanipulation took place, eveiy political
agent will unconditionally iespect the iesults. In this sense, the U.S. piesi-
dential elections ol zooo weie eectively denociatic: in spite ol olvious
electoial nanipulations, and ol the patent neaninglessness ol the lact that
a couple hundied Floiidian voices will deteinine who will le piesident,
the Denociatic candidate accepted his deleat. In the weeks ol unceitainty
altei the elections, Bill Clintonnade anappiopiiate aceilic connent: The
Aneiican people have spoken, we ust dont know what they said. This
connent should le taken noie seiiously than it was neant: even now, we
dont know itand, nayle, lecause theie was no sulstantial nessage
lehind the iesult at all.
Those old enough still ienenlei the loiing attenpts ol denociatic
Socialists to oppose to the niseialle RES the vision ol authentic social-
isnto such attenpts, the standaid Hegelian answei is quite sucient:
the lailuie ol ieality to live up to its notion always leais witness to the inhei-
ent weakness ol this notion itsell. But why should the sane also not hold
loi denociacy itsell ? Is it also not all too sinple to oppose to the ieally-
existing lileial capitalo-denociacy a noie tiue iadical denociacy?
Inteiestingly enough, theie is at least one case in which loinal deno-
ciats thenselves (oi, at least, a sulstantial pait ol then) would toleiate the
suspension ol denociacy: What il the loinally liee elections aie won ly
an antidenociatic paity whose platloin pionises the alolition ol loinal
denociacy? (This did happen, anong othei places, in Algeiia a couple ol
yeais ago.) In such a case, nany a denociat would concede that the people
weie not yet natuie enough to le allowed denociacy, and that sone kind
ol enlightened despotisn whose ain will le to educate the naoiity into
piopei denociats is pieleialle. Aciucial conponent ol any populisnis also
the disnissal ol the loinal denociatic pioceduie: evenil these iules aie still
iespected, it is always nade cleai that they do not piovide the ciucial legiti-
nacy to political agentspopulisn iathei evokes the diiect pathetic link
letween the chaiisnatic leadeiship and the ciowd, veiied thiough pleli-
scites and nass gatheiings. Consequently, it seens politically nuch noie
From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back 517
pioductive and theoietically nuch noie adequate to linit denociacy to
the tianslation ol antagonisn into agonisn: while denociacy acknowl-
edges the iiieducille pluiality ol inteiests, ideologies, naiiatives, and the
like, it excludes those who, as we put it, ieect the denociatic iules ol the
ganelileial denociats aie quite iight in claining that populisnis inhei-
ently antidenociatic.
This is the sense in which one should iendei piollenatic denociacy:
Why should the Lelt always and unconditionally iespect the loinal deno-
ciatic iules ol the gane? Why should it not, in sone ciicunstances, at
least, put in question the legitinacy ol the outcone ol a loinal denociatic
pioceduie? All denociatic leltists veneiate Rosa Luxenlouigs lanous
Fieedonis lieedonloi those who think dieiently. Peihaps, the tine has
cone to shilt the accent liondieiently to think: Fieedonis lieedon
loi those who think dieientlyonly loi those who really think, even il dil-
leiently, not loi those who ust llindly (unthinkingly) act out theii opinions.
In his lanous shoit poen The Solution lion (pullished in 6),
Beitolt Biecht nocks the aiiogance ol the Connunist nonenklatuia when
laced with the woikeis ievolt:
Altei the upiising ol the ;th ]une
The Secietaiy ol the Wiiteis Union
Had leaets distiiluted in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had loileited the condence ol the goveinnent
And could win it lack only
By iedoulled eoits.
Would it not le easiei
In that case loi the goveinnent
To dissolve the people and elect anothei?
5
Howevei, this poen is not only politically oppoitunistic, the olveise ol
his lettei ol solidaiity with the East Geinan Connunist iegine pullished
in Neues Deutschlandto put it liutally, Biecht wanted to covei loth his
anks, to pioless his suppoit loi the iegine as well as to hint at his solidaiity
with the woikeis, so that whoevei wins, he will le on the winning side
lut also sinply wrong in the theoietico-political sense: one should liavely
adnit that it eectively is a dutythe duty evenol a ievolutionaiy paity
to dissolve the people and elect anothei, that is, to liing alout the tian-
sulstantiation ol the old oppoitunistic people (the ineit ciowd) into a
518 Slavoj iek
ievolutionaiy lody awaie ol its histoiical task. Fai lion leing an easy task,
to dissolve the people and elect anothei is the nost dicult ol then all.
What this neans is that one should gathei the couiage to question iadically
todays piedoninant attitude ol antiauthoiitaiian toleiance. It was, suipiis-
ingly, Beinaid Willians who, in his peispicuous ieading ol David Manets
Oleanna, outlined the linits ol this attitude:
A conplaint constantly nade ly the lenale chaiactei is that she has
nade saciices to cone to college, in oidei to leain sonething, to le
told things that she did not know, lut that she has leen oeied only
a leelle peinissiveness. She conplains that hei teachei . . . does not
contiol oi diiect hei enough: he does not tell hei what to lelieve, oi
even, peihaps, what to ask. He does not exeicise authoiity. At the sane
tine, she conplains that he exeicises powei ovei hei. This night seen
to le a nuddle on hei pait, oi the playwiights, lut it is not. The nale
chaiactei has powei ovei hei (he can decide what giade she gets), lut
ust lecause he lacks authoiity, this powei is neie powei, in pait gen-
dei powei.
6
Powei appeais (is expeiienced) as such at the veiy point wheie it is no
longei coveied ly authoiity. Theie aie, howevei, luithei conplications to
Willianss view. Fiist, authoiity is not sinply a diiect piopeity ol the nas-
tei guie, lut an eect ol the social ielationship letween the nastei and
his sulects: even il the nastei ienains the sane, it nay happen, lecause
ol the change in the sociosynlolic eld, that his position is no longei pei-
ceived as legitinate authoiity, lut as neie illegitinate powei (is such a
shilt not the nost elenentaiy gestuie ol leninisn: nale authoiity is all
ol a sudden unnasked as neie powei?). The lesson ol all ievolutions lion
;8 to 8 is that such a disintegiation ol authoiity, its tiansloination
into ailitiaiy powei, always piecedes the ievolutionaiy outlieak. Wheie
Willians is iight is in his enphasis on how the veiy peinissiveness ol the
powei-guie, its iestiaining lionexeicising authoiity ly diiecting, contiol-
ling, his sulect, enalles authoiity appeais as illegitinate powei. Theiein
iesides the vicious cycle ol todays acadenia: the noie piolessois ienounce
authoiitaiian active teaching, inposing knowledge and values, the noie
they aie expeiienced as guies ol powei. And, as eveiy paient knows, the
sane goes loi paiental education: a lathei who exeits tiue tiansleiential
authoiity will nevei le expeiienced as oppiessiveit is, on the contiaiy, a
lathei who tiies to le peinissive, who does not want to inpose on his chil-
From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back 519
dien his views and values, lut allows then to discovei theii own way, that
is denounced as exeiting powei, as leing oppiessive.
The paiadox to le lully endoised heie is that the only way to eectively
alolish powei ielations leads thiough lieely accepted ielations ol authoiity:
the nodel ol a liee collective is not a gioup ol lileitines indulging in theii
pleasuies, lut the extienely disciplined ievolutionaiy collective. The in-
unction that holds togethei such a collective is lest encapsulated ly the
logical loin ol doulle negation (piohilition), which, piecisely, is not the
sane as the diiect positive asseition. Towaid the end ol Biechts Die Mass-
nahme, the Foui Agitatois declaie:
It is a terrible thing to kill.
But not only otheis would we kill, lut ouiselves too il need le
Since only loice can altei this
Muideious woild, as
Eveiy living cieatuie knows.
It is still, we said
Not given to us not to kill.
7
The text does not say we aie allowed to kill, lut it is still not peinitted
(an adequate paiaphiase ol vergnnen) to us not to killoi, sinply, it is still
prohibited to us not to kill. Biechts piecision is heie adniialle: the doulle
negation is ciucial. It is allowed to kill would anount to sinple innoial
peinissivity, it is oideied to kill would tiansloinkilling into an olscene-
peiveise supeiego inunction that is the tiuth ol the ist veision (as Lacan
put it, the peinitted jouissance inexoially tuined into a piesciiled one). The
only coiiect way is thus the ieveisal ol the lillical piohilition, the piohili-
tion not to kill, which goes to the end, to the anti-Antigonean piohilition to
piovide loi the piopei luneial iitual: the young coniade has to vanish, and
vanish entiielythat is, his disappeaiance (death) itsell should disappeai,
should not leave any (synlolic) tiaces. This iadical stance is the logical con-
clusion ol the sell-eiasuie ol the ievolutionaiy agent who is denied not only
pullic iecognition, lut even posthunous iecognition altei his death, in the
Piaise ol Illegal Activity, the Contiol Choius sings:
Speaking, lut
Without letiaying the speakei.
Winning, lut
Without letiaying the winnei.
520 Slavoj iek
Dying, lut
Without declaiing the death.
Who would not do a lot loi lane? Who
Would do as nuch loi silence?
8
This is ievolutionaiy activity peiloined lion the stance ol sulective des-
titution: not authentically displaying ones position ol enunciation, lut
eiasing onesell lehind the enunciated, in an act without sulect. What the
innoital Maitha Aigeiich said alout hei piano playing (I love piano play-
ing, I ust hate to le a pianist) also goes loi the ievolutionaiy: he loves the
ievolution, lut hates to le a ievolutionaiy.
Beinaid Willians can again le ol sone help heie, when he elaloiates
what loievei sepaiates must lion ought: Ought is ielated to must as best is
ielated to only.
9
We aiiive at what we nust do altei a long and anxious con-
sideiation ol alteinatives, and can have that leliel while ienaining uncei-
tain alout it, and still veiy cleaily seeing the poweilul neiits ol alteinative
couises.
10
This dieience letween must and ought also ielies on tenpo-
iality: we can iepioach sonelody loi not having done what he ought to
have done, while we cannot say to soneone You nust have done it il he
did not do itwe use the expiession You nust have done it to console
sonelody who did a thing he lound distastelul (like Do not llane youisell,
even il you loved hin, you nust have punished hinl), while the standaid
use ol the expiession You ought to have done it inplies, on the contiaiy,
that you did not do it.
This ieleience to a nust also opens up the space ol nanipulation, like
when a laigaining paitnei oi outiight llacknailei says that, deploially,
this leaves hinwith no alteinative to taking an unpleasant actionand, we
nay add, like the iuthless Stalinist who cannot lut engage in teiioi. The
lalsity ol this position iesides in the lact that, when we nust do sone-
thing, it is not only that, within the linits that oui situation sets to delil-
eiation, we cannot do otheiwise lut this: the chaiactei ol a peison is not
only ievealed in that he does what he nust, lut also in the location ol those
linits, and in the veiy lact that one can deteinine, sonetines thiough
delileiation itsell, that one cannot do ceitain things, and nust do otheis.
11
And one is iesponsille loi ones chaiactei, loi the choice ol cooidinates
that pievent ne lion doing sone things and inpel ne to do otheis. This
liings us to the Lacanian notion ol act: in an act, I piecisely iedene the
veiy cooidinates ol what I cannot and nust do.
From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back 521
Must and ought thus ielate as the Real and the Synlolic: the Real ol a
diive whose inunction cannot le avoided (which is why Lacan says that
the status ol a diive is ethical), the Ought as a synlolic ideal caught in the
dialectic ol desiie (il you ought not to do sonething, this veiy piohilition
geneiates the desiie to do it). When you nust do sonething, it neans
you have no choice lut to do it, even il is teiiille: in Wagneis Die Walkure,
Wotan is coineied ly Fiicka and he nust (cannot lut) allowthe nuidei
ol Siegnund, although his heait lleeds loi hin, he nust (cannot lut)
punish Biunhilde, his deaiest child, the enlodinent ol his own inneinost
stiiving. And, incidentally, the sane goes loi Wagneis Tristan und Isolde,
the Bayieuth staging ol which was Muelleis last gieat theatiical achieve-
nent: they must, they cannot but, indulge in theii passion, even il this goes
against theii Sollen, theii social olligations. In Wotans loiced exeicise ol
punishnent, Wagnei encounteis heie the paiadox ol the killing with pieta
at woik lion the Talnud (which calls us to dispense ]ustice with Love) to
Biechts two key Lehrstuecke, Der Jasager and Die Massnahme, in which the
young coniade is killed ly his conpanions with loving tendeiness. And
this is what today, in oui tine in which the alstiact hunanitaiian ieection
ol violence is acconpanied ly its olscene doulle, the anonynous killing
without pieta, we need noie than evei.
Notes
I owe this point to Ken Rinehaid, UCLA.
z See Eiic Santnei, My Own Private Germany (Piinceton: Piinceton Univeisity Piess,
6), z6.
Foi a cleai aiticulation ol this stance, see Maitin ]ay, No Powei to the Soviets, in his
Cultural Semantics (Anheist: Univeisity ol Massachusetts Piess, 8).
q Willian Taulnan, Khrushchev: The Man and His Era (London: Fiee Piess, zoo), q.
Beitolt Biecht, Gedichte in einem Band (Fiankluit: Suhikanp, 8z), ooo.
6 Beinaid Willians, Truth and Truthfulness (Piinceton: Piinceton Univeisity Piess, zooz),
;8.
; Beitolt Biecht, Collected Plays: Three (London: Methuen, ;), 8;.
8 Biecht, Collected Plays, 68.
Willians, Truth and Truthfulness, z.
o Ilid., z6.
Ilid., o.