WhatisaPoliticalSubject?

DavideTarizzo
*EDITINGANDPUBLICATIONBY17,INSTITUTODEESTUDIOSCRTICOS
Volume1,2012
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/pc.12322227.0001.001[http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/pc.12322227.0001.001]
[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/]

Pourmexprimercommeilmevient,riennestincompatibleaveclavrit:onpisse,oncrachededans.Cestunlieude
passage,oupourmieuxdire,dvacuation.[...]Lavritestseductiondabord,etpourvouscouillonner.Pournepassy
laisserprendre,ilfauttrefort.
JacquesLacan

Toanswerthisquestion,whatsapoliticalsubject?,wewouldneedtograsptheprecisemeaningofthetwo
smallwordsitcontains:politicalandsubject.Thatsthewayphilosophicalanalysis,sinceSocrates,would
proceed.However,atleastinthiscase,theoppositemightbetrue.Hence,insteadofaskingwhatsthepolitical
andwhatsthesubject,Iwilltrytograspfromtheverybeginningthemeaningofthewhole:politicalsubject.
Whatisit?Maybe,oncewefindananswertothisquestion,itwillbeeasiertofindananswertotheothertwo.
Asyouwillnotice,thegeneralframeworkofmyapproachcomesdirectlyfromLacan.Forinstance,whatisa
politicalsubject?TakingseriouslytheLacaniannotionofthesubjectofenunciation,Iwouldsaythatapolitical
subjectissimplyawethesubjectofapoliticalenunciation.Inmoderntimes,youdonthavetolookfaraway
inordertocontemplatetheriseandthepulsationsofasubjectofthiskind.Whodoesntremembertheopening
wordsoftheAmericanConstitution:We,thepeople...?Heresaninstanceofpoliticalsubject,ofwe,the
peopleoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,whichisbythewayapoliticalsubjectstillperfectlyalive,aseveryone
knows.Indeed,whatIwanttoremarkonimmediatelyisthatthepoliticalsubjectmustnotbeconfoundedwith
theconstituentpower.TheexampleofAmericagivesmetheopportunityofclarifyingthispoint,whichisof
someimportance.
Traditionally,fromEmmanuelJosephSieystoCarlSchmitt(including,morerecently,AntonioNegriand
others)theconstituentpowerhasbeenconceivedasthepoliticalforce,Idaresaythemysticalforce,whichhides
behindanyjuridicaloutfitnamedState.Fromthispointofview,therespublicaisalwaysaknot,whereintwo
stringsaretiedtogether:thepoliticalandthejuridical(juspublicum).AsSchmittputitinhisVerfassungslehre,
theconstituentpowerisapoliticalWillwhosepowerorauthorityamountstothecapacityoftakingthe
concrete,foundationaldecisionaboutthespeciesandtheformofitsownpoliticalexistence. [1][#N1]Iwont
analyzeherethiscrucialreferencetotheWill,thatrepresentsthehardcoreofSchmittsdecisionism.Rather,Id
liketounderlinethatforhimtheconstituentpowerisnothingbuttheconditionofexistenceofaState,namelyof
amodernState.WithouttheconstituentpowertherewouldbenoState.Andbeyondtheconstituentpowerthere
issimplynothing.Therefore,whatIwascallingapoliticalsubject(We,thepeople)isalwayscaughtbySchmitt
inthemovementofaConstitution,whichisthefoundationalactofamodernStateandremainsinhisviewthe
essentialpoliticalact.Onecantgofurtherandbeyondthispoliticalact,whichisthepoliticalactparexcellenceof
thepoliticalsubjectparexcellence:thepeople,thenation(theheartofanymodernNationState).Thepeople,
thenation,remainstheprimalcauseofeverypoliticalevent. [2][#N2]
ThehistoryoftheUnitedStatesallowsustolookwellbeyondtheconstituentpower.Indeed,wellbeforethe
Constitution,theAmericanpeople,IwouldsayAmericaassuch,wasalreadyborn.WiththeDeclarationof
Independence,in1776,apoliticalsubjectwasalreadyinplaceandalivesoalivethatitcouldbearatremendous
warofindependenceagainstoneofthegreatestpowersonearth.Nonetheless,itwouldbeamistake(pace
Schmitt)todescribethispoliticalsubjectasanation,althoughitwascertainlyapeople.Inotherwords,we
havetodistinguishthepeople(populus)fromthenation.InAmerica,attheendofthe18thcentury,nonewould
havethoughtofthethirteenStatesandformercoloniesintermsofonenation.Nonewouldhavemadethisstep

forwardbeforetheFederalistPapers(AlexanderHamilton,JohnJay,JamesMadisonandsoon)andthegreat
publicdebateaboutfederalismthatspreadalloverthecountryintheaftermathofthelongwaragainstGreat
Britain.Yet,althoughAmericawasntanationatthattime,theAmericanpeoplewerealreadyapolitical
subject,thatisasubjectofapoliticalenunciation,whichwasnttheenunciationofaConstitution,butthe
enunciationofaDeclaration.Ifonetakesthisforgranted,allthemysteriesandparadoxesoftheconstituent
powerapowerthatwouldmagicallyexistbeforetheevent(Constitution)thatissupposedtodefineitsuddenly
fadeaway,simplyonaccountofthefactthatapoliticalsubjectdoesntneedtobethesubjectofaConstitution.A
politicalsubject,say,thesubjectofaDeclaration,canbeperfectlyinorderbeforeandwithoutbeingthesubject
ofaConstitution.Itwillbecomeeventuallysuchasubject,evenifitdoesntneedto.Thatswhywecanenlarge
thesetofourexamplestoincludeunderthelabelofthepoliticalsubject,notonlythenation,butalsothe
people,whichissomethingquitedifferent,or,togofurther,theclass(Marxism),therace(Social
Darwinism),thecivilsociety(LockeanLiberalism),themultitude(fromBaruchdeSpinozatotheremainsof
Italianoperaismo),andsoon.
Thenextquestionsare:howdoesapoliticalsubjectemerge?Bydoingwhat?Andaboveall:isitpossibleto
create,toestablishnewpoliticalsubjectsinourtimes?SinceIwontbeabletosayanythingmeaningfulnow
aboutthelatterquestion,whichwouldbringmetotalkaboutEurope(andwhatwewillhopefullycallonedaythe
Europeanpeople),letsmovetotheformerandmorebasicquestion,whichagainis:howdoesapoliticalsubject
emerge?
Firstofall,aftermydefinitionofthepoliticalsubjectasasubjectofenunciation,youwontbesurprisedbythe
followingdefinition,whichsoundslikeamereconsequence:anypoliticalactisaspeechact.Humanbeings,as
Lacanusedtosay,arespeechbeings(parltre),andthepoliticalspeechistheonethattiesustogetherintoa
singlepoliticalbody,intoasinglepoliticalcommunity.So,itisthankstospeechthatapoliticalsubjectemerges
andexists.
Now,speechacts,particularlyinthefieldofpolitics,candifferalotfromeachother.Thereareasmanykindsof
politicalsubjectsastherearekindsofpoliticalspeechacts.Needlesstosay,talkingaboutspeechacts,Imnot
thinkinghereofAustinsandSearlestheory,norofLacanstheoryoffourdiscourses,whichisquiteinteresting,
inmyview,butisalsofullofcontradictions.Rather,Imthinkingaboutsomethingelse,aconceptasplainasday,
thoughusuallyneglectedbyphilosophicalandpoliticalthinking.TheconceptIhaveinmindisthefollowingone:
tospeak,tobeabletospeak,forcefullyimpliesthatoneisabletolisten.Sayingthat,Imnotonlystatingthat
speechactsalwaysimplylistening,Imsayingmuchmorethanthis:listeningforothersliterallyenablesusto
speak(beforespeaking,childrenhavetogetintouchwiththeirmother...tongue).Inthatsense,listeningisthe
veryfirstspeechactofourlife,ofourpersonalhistory.And,heresthesuggestionthatIdliketointroduce:
listeningisalsothefirstspeechactofourpubliclife,ofourcollectivehistory,ofourpoliticalexistence.(Justa
shortparenthesistoemphasizethatlisteningis,perhaps,thehiddencoreofLacanianthought,thetheoryofthe
fourdiscoursesincluded.Indeed,Lacanhimselfdescribedmorethanoncetheanalyticdiscourseasaweirdact,
andaweirdart,oflistening.ThebigOther,definedbyhimastheplaceofspeech,issomethingthatwecan
onlylistenfor.)
Whatcoulditmeanthatlisteningis,ormaybewasonceuponatimethefirstofourpoliticalacts,fixingthe
bordersofthefirstpoliticalsubjectswhoinhabitedourhistoricalworld?Tofigureoutthiskindofcollective
experience,weneedtomakeastrongeffortofimaginationandtrytovisualizewhatcouldbe,inancienttimes,
theexperienceofthesacred,whichwasthebasisofanypoliticalauthorityandthesourceofanysocialbond.
Theexperienceofthesacredisthatofsomethingwhichremainsseparatefromus,somethingthatIwouldname
theUnavailable.Inlatin,sacer,asmanyscholarshaverepeatedovertime,means:tobeexcludedfromhuman
affairs,tobelongtoanothersphereofreality.Onedoesntneedtostepfurtherandidentifythesacredwiththe
divine.Whatisreallyatstakeinthesacred,ortheHoly,isasortofborder,dividingintwotheworldwherewe
live.Ontheonesideonecanseeus,thelivingbeings,theinhabitantsofthevisibleworldontheothersideone
canonlylistenforsomethingthatstillregardsusbutisinvisibleandhastobekeptfarfromus.Theauthority,so
tospeak,ofthisborder,theonewhoiscalledtosurveyandtoadministeritonbehalfoftheentirecommunity,is
thesacerdos(oranyoneelseapttoplaythisrole).
Whatarethepropertiesofthesacred,thatisoftheUnavailable?Iwilllistbrieflythreeofthem.

1. Thesacredismeaninglessintheliteralsense(rememberthemanaandthewayClaudeLviStrauss
describedit),yetitreferstosomethingwhichliesatthecoreofcollectivelife.Thesacredhasnodefinite
meaningandthatsthereasonwhyitisradicallyUnavailable:onecannotmasternorhandleitsriddle.The
onlywaytokeepintouchwithitisthelistening,i.e.asortofpassiveattentiontowhatevercomesfromthe
reversesideoftheworld.
2. WhilebeingUnavailable,thesacredhastodowiththemostintimateandprofoundidentityofthe
communityasawhole(andofeachofitsmembers,too).
3. Thissacredidentityleavesitsprintsinakindofwriting,thatIwouldcallthehumanhieroglyph(which
literallymeans:asacredengraving,orinscription).
Acoupleofexampleswillhelpmetoexplainwhatallthesepropertiesareabout.ThefirstcomesfromtheJewish
tradition.Asyoumightknow,JudaismhasaspecialpredilectionformattersrelatedtothenamesofGod,which
aremanyanddiverse.Imnotgoingintothedetails(thatyouwillfind,forinstance,inGershomScholems
books).IjustwanttopointoutthatthemostimportantandpreciousnameofGod,letssayhispropername,I
meanthetetragram(orTetragrammaton),isthenamethatnoonehastherighttopronounce.Thatmeansnot
onlythatitisforbiddentopronouncethetetragram,butalsothatnooneknowsactuallyhowtopronounceit.In
otherwords,thisnameisawritingwithoutpronounciation.Itsawritingthatisimpossibletograsp,tomaster.
OnecannotmastertheMasterhimself,theLordoftheWorld.Onecanonlylistenforhim,tryingtodecipherHis
writing,withouthearingHisvoice.Therefore,whatisforbiddenintheJewishtraditionisnottopronounceHis
name,asitisimpossibletodosoanyway.Rather,whatisforbiddenistostruggleagainstthisveryimpossibility,
whichisatoncetheimpossibilityforhumanbeingstograsp,tomastertheirnature,theirimage,theirbeing.
Indeed,asyousurelyremember,thefirstbookoftheTorahtoldusthatmanisanimageofGod.AndGodsaid,
Letusmakemaninourimage,afterourlikeness(Genesis1:26).So,finally,atleastintheJewishtradition,the
sacredNameofGodisthewritingoftheUnavailable,whichmeansaboveallthatthemanisUnavailableto
himself.SacredisthenameofthehumanimagethatremainsUnavailabletohumanbeings.Sacredisour
listeningforourselves.
Afurtherexamplewillbehelpful.ThistimeIwilltakeitfromtheRomantradition.Perhaps,youdidntknow
this:theRomanswerenotRomans.Yet,nonecoulddenyit,theywereforcenturiesastrongpoliticalsubject,
knockingatthedoorofneighbourswithalltheirritualsofevocatioanddevotio,bywhich,justbeforethefinal
assault,thelocaldeitieswerecalledoutoftheenemycitiesandwerekindlyinvitedtoexpatriatetoRome,where
theywouldhavefoundagracioushospitality.Suchwasthepowerofnames,inancienttimes.Itwassufficientto
calladeityoranythingelsebynametobelievethatitwouldhaveobeyedorreactedinsomewaytothecall.So,
howdidtheRomansmanagetoavoidthatthesamecouldbedoneagainstthem,pronouncingthenameoftheir
guardiandeitiesandforcingthemtoleavethecity?Theansweris:bykeepingtheirrealname,therealnameof
theircityandtherealnameoftheirguardiandeity,absolutelysecret.Manyancientsources(fromPliniusto
Macrobius)giveussomehintsofthisstrangehabit.NoteventheRomansknewtheirsecretname.Withregardto
it,Macrobiusspeaksofoccultissimissacris. [3][#N3]ThenameofRomewasaholysecret,sacredandhiddenfrom
all,tothepointthat,apparently,therewasjustonepersonwhoknewit,thepontifexmaximus,whousedtoleave
awrittenvestigeofthatnameforthebenefitofhissuccessor,electedpontifexmaximusonlyafterthedeathof
theformer.Again,asintheJewishworld,wefacehereaparticularstructure,aparticularwayofshapingthe
identityofthepoliticalcommunity,rootedinanamethathadtobekeptUnavailable,orsacred.Asaresult,this
secretnamewasshadowed,inbothcases,byakindofUnavailableandseparatewriting.Thathieroglyph,
whereinwasengravedaneclipseofmeaning,wasthenucleusofthepolitical,collectiveidentity.
AdoptingoncemoreaLacaniandefinition,Iwouldcallthissortofpoliticalsubjectabarredsubject,orasplit
subject,i.e.asubjectdividedfromitselfbythelisteningforsomething,namelybythelisteningforawriting,that
hidesandsavesitsidentity,keepingitsecluded.(Inpsychoanalysisthiswritingisusuallycalledasymptom).
Ichosethesetwoexamplesinordertosketchbrieflywhatfollows:thepassagefromthesacredlistening,
conceivedasthefirstpoliticalspeechact,toanotherkindofspeechact,thatistherevealingofthesacred,whichI
wouldalsoterm,onseveralaccounts,thecrisisofthesacred.ThenameofthiscrisisisChristianityaname
whichisverymeaningful,giventhatChristianismisallaboutnamingandmeaning.TherevealedNameofGod,

aseverybodyknows,istheNameoftheFather,theNamethatrevealeditselfcomingthroughtheSon,thanksto
hisIncarnation,bywhichtheFathermeantHimselfasatrueFather.Todoso,torevealHimself,theFatherhad
nochoice.HehadtosendtoearthhisSon,theMessiah,thatistheChristos.TorevealhisName,theFatherhad
topass,throughtheSon,theancientborderofthesacred,theborderuntilthenUnavailablebetweentheName
andtheidentity,betweentheWritingandthemeaning.Now,whyisthisfamilyaffairbetweentheFatherandthe
Son,anaffairnamedChristianity,soimportantforus,ifweseriouslywanttoanalyzetheshapingandmostofall
theemergenceofpoliticalsubjects?
Letsmovebacktomypreviousquestion:howdoesapoliticalsubjectemerge?Well,thepointisthatthis
questionmadenosensebeforeChristianity.Asamatteroffact,whileputtingforththequestionofpolitical
subjectemergence,weareassumingtheexistenceofapasttime,wherethisnovelty,thisemergencehadnotyet
occurred.However,thisassumptionofanalienpasttimewasntcurrentbeforetheAdvent,beforethenewsand
theeventthattheChristosembodies.Beforethen,nocollectiveidentitywasthreatenedbyapasttimetobe
abandoned,norwas,afterall,theveryideaofanewbeginningconceivable.Instead,thecollectiveidentitywas
linkedtoakindofabsolutebeginning,whichIwouldrathercallanorigin,alwayslocatedontheborderofthe
sacred.Thisoriginwaslikeaholyriddle,anenigmaticwritingetchedinthereverseoftherituals,themythsand
theoverallsymbolicorderofthecommunity,towhichanyideaofabreakwiththepastwastotallyunknown.
Therefore,atthattime,therewasnoroomfortheemergenceofanewbeginning.BeforeChristianity,this
emergencewasntanopenpathway,period.
So,whenweareaskinghowdoesapoliticalsubjectemerge?,weareaskingaChristianquestion.Onthis
account,nooneshouldbesurprisedbythefactthattothisquestionwewillalwaysanswer,moreorless,ina
Christianway:apoliticalsubjectemergesbytheactofnaming,thatisbyrevealing.ThisistruefromSt.Paulto
AlainBadiou.ThisistheTruththathasbeenrevealedbyChristianismandhasbeenrevealedlateronbyall
followingrevelations.Thisistheapocalyptic(i.e.therevealing)Truthfromwhichwecanhardlyescape,stillnow,
andthisisthebridgethatcoversthehugegapbetweenusandtheUnavailable,betweenmodernandancient
times.
Oneoftheimmediateeffectsofthisapocalypticevent,thatistheChristiannamingandrevealingoftheTruth
whichfromnowonwillreplacetheUnavailable,isthewaraboutthetruemeaningofthenameofGod(i.e.the
truemeaningoftheTruth).LetscallitthewarintheNameoftheFather.Onecanthinkofitasanendlesswar
whosesparksarealreadyburningintheNameitself.
Inasense,allthehistoryofChristianityisahistoryofschismsandfightingrevelationsofthetruemeaningofthe
Name.Indeed,thestructureofschismiswhatmakestheultimatedifferencebetweentheancientworldandthe
Christianworld.Therewasnoschisminancienttimes.Itsconditionsofpossibilitydidnotexist.Forschismis
possibleonlyoncetheUnavailablebecomesavailableandmeaningful,sothatonecanhandleit,givevoicetoits
writing,andfinallyquarrelaboutitsmeaning.Therefore,ifChristianismisasynonymofschism,asitshistory
shows,itisnotsosimplybecauseofhistoricalcontingencies.Onthecontrary,schismwascontainedfromthe
beginningintheverystructureoftheChristianrevelation.TheChristianGodisschismaticbyitself.
EvidencesoftheschismaticandcriticalcharacteroftheChristianGodcanbefoundinoneofthemostdramatic
textofourphilosophicaltradition,DeTrinitatebySt.Augustine.Godisone,namelytheFatherofallcreatures,
butGodisalsothree,theFather,theSonandtheHolySpirit.WhythisschismintheheartofGod?Justtogivea
hintofthismillenarydebate,andputtingitroughly,ifGodistheFather,ifnamingandrevealinghimasaFather
hasatruemeaning,GodistheFatherinsaeculasaeculorumandwastheFatherevenbeforetheCreation.In
otherwords,ifheistrulytheFather,hemustbetheeternalFather,sothattheSontoo,theChristos,mustbe
eternalanddivine,sittingathisrightintheplenitudeoftimes.OneGod,twopersons(personae),saysSt.
Augustine.Aseverybodycaneasilyperceive,thisisnothingbutthestartofacriticalinquiryintothedepthsof
Truthwhichwillsoonbecomesocriticalthatitwillentailaradicalcritique,andaradicalcrisis,ofthesacred.Itis
difficult,ifnotimpossible,forSt.Augustine,asitwillbedifficultforanyoneelseafterhim,toavoid,oratleastto
restrain,theunsteadinessofthetruemeaningoftheNameofGod.AsLacansometimessaid,theTruthcorrupts
us.Frommypointofview,bymakingthatstatement,hejustwantedtoremarkthattheTruth,andwhatIwas
callingthepoliticalactofnamingandrevealing,willnevergetthesamestabilityofthepoliticalactoflistening.
OncewehavecrossedtheborderoftheUnavailable,makingittrueandmeaningful,itisthesymbolicorder,the

verygeometricalortopologicalframeworkofourspeechbeing,thatstartstotremble.Asaresult,weshiftslowly
intothediseaseofcivilization,thatis,intomodernity.
Then,whatismodernity?Firstofall,itsaresultoftheapocalypticeventofChristianityinfact,astheGerman
wordNeuzeitshows,modernityisbydefinitiontheemergenceofanewtime.Second,itsawaytostruggle
againstthetremblingthatChristianitycausesinthestructureofourcollectivelife.Third,itsapartialfailureto
accomplishthattask.Needlesstoremindyouofthesuccessesofpoliticalsecularizationinmoderntimes.Thanks
tothisprocess,wearespeakingnomoreofreligioussubjects,butofpoliticalsubjectsinthetruesenseofthe
word,whichisamodernsense.Moderntimesaretheonlypoliticaltimesstrictsensu,thatisasecularand
mundanesense.Nevertheless,whatswrongwithmodernity?Illmakeacoupleoffinalremarks,nottoanswer,
butrathertoelaborateonthisquestion.
Toclarifymypointofviewinafewwords,IwouldsaythatmodernityisstillChristian,tooChristian.Modern
politicsisstillChristianpolitics,asitisstillapoliticsofTruth.TohaveatasteofthisTruth,readanyofthe
crucialpoliticaldocumentsofmodernity.Youwillalwaysfindthereferencetosomeselfevidenttruths,that
aresuddenlyrevealedtoacandidworldandarecalledbyname:thenameofanewpoliticalsubjectfor
instanceAmerica,sinceImquotingheretheDeclarationof1776,orFrance,or(althoughinadifferentmood)
class,race,civilsociety,multitude,andsoon.Onedoesntneedatalltothinkofthiskindofnewpolitical
subjectasanationoronepeople.EvenTheCommunistManifestoisanactofDeclarationbywhichamodern
politicalsubjectentersintothehistoricalarena.Andeventheworkingclassisatruepoliticaleventofmodern
times,withalltheprosandconsofitsTruththateachofusknows.
OneofthefirsttheoriesofthemodernpoliticalsubjecthasbeengivenbyThomasHobbesinhisDecive.What
ImcallinghereapoliticalsubjectiscalledbyhimacivilPerson.AsHobbesexplains,therearenatural
persons,humanbeings,buttherearealsocivilPersons,whicharecomposedofmorethanonenaturalperson.
However,noteverycivilPersonisatruepoliticalsubject.Tobeso,thecivilPersonmustembodyatthesame
timethesupremepoweroftheCity,i.e.ofthepoliticalcommunity.Thereinliesthedifferencebetween,say,a
privatecompanyandthecivilPersontowhicheveryothernaturalorcivilPersonmustobey.Now,whoisthat
civilPersonoftheCity,thatwecouldalsocallthepoliticalPerson?Whatisitsname?Theanswerisinteresting,
becauseitshowshowtheschismaticcharacteroftheChristiannamingandrevealingbecomestheschismatic,
almostrhizomatic,characterofmodernpoliticalsubject,inspiteofsecularization.
Hobbestheoryofpoliticalpower,atleastin1642,isakindofsecularizationofsomeparadoxesinherentinthe
theologicalTrinity.Tobeginwith,thisisatheoryofgeneration.AstheFather,thefirstpersonoftheTrinity,
givesbirthtothesecondandthirdpersons,beingtheSonandtheHolySpirit,sothefirstcivilPersongivesbirth
totheothertwo.InHobbesview,thispoliticalTrinityhidesbehindthethreepossibleformsofgovernment.The
NameofthefirstpoliticalpersonistheNameofthemodernpoliticalGod:thedemocraticpeople,who,by
sayingweandturningintoonesinglesubjectofenunciation,becomessomethingdifferentfromamere
multitude(whichisonthecontraryagatheringofmanyhumanbeings).OncethisGodhasnameditself,
Hobbesargues,itispossibletoshiftintotwoothernames,intotwootherincarnationsofthatfoundationalwe.
Indeed,thepeople,thefirstwe,canconvey(transferre)itspoliticalpersonalityeithertothearistocracy
ortothemonarch.Bydoingso,however,thepeoplewillnotexistanymore.Forthepeoplewillfadeaway
asacivilPerson,givingbirthtoanothercivilPerson.ThatswhyHobbescantellusthat,inmonarchyfor
instance,thekingisthepeople(thatmeans:thekingiswe,thekingistheonlyoneentitledtosaywe,the
kingistheonlypoliticalpersonalityonscene).Hence,aswiththeChristianGod,therearefinallythreepersons
foronesingleGod.ThetremblingstanceofChristianityopensontothetremblingstanceofthemodernpolitical
subject.We,thedemocraticpeople,isnotabletofixitstruemeaningandtoentrenchitsexistence.Asa
result,forHobbes,thebestpoliticaloptionwillnotbethepeople,buttheonlyOneabletofixandtorestrain
thecriticalmeaningofthepoliticalweanoptionwhichisnotasdemocraticandpopularaswecouldexpectat
first.Thebestpoliticaloptionwillbe,fromHobbespointofview,themonarch,theOnereallycapableof
establishingtheunityandidentityofthepoliticalsubject,callingitbyName.HisownName.
Whataretheconsequencesofthismodernnamingandrevealing,whichatonceisandisnotthesameasthe
Christiannamingandrevealing?Ishallconfinemyselftothreeofthem.
1. IftheChristianGodwasschismatic,IwouldsaythatthemodernGod,thedemocraticpeople,isabit

morethanthis:itsrhizomatic.ForitisaGodwhoseNamenoonecandividefromthepeoplesVoice.
Therefore,everytimeanewVoicearises,thepeopleimmediatelygetanewName.Thisiswhat
Declarationisabout.Themodernpeoplecanbearwitnessoftheirexistenceonlybyvoicingit,bysaying
aloudwe,thepeople,arealive.AfterthelisteningfortheUnavailable,thenamingandrevealingofthe
trueNameofGod,heresthenthethirdpoliticalspeechact,theactthatqualifiesmodernity:thedeclaring
andvoicingofthetrueNameofthepeople,bythepeople,forthepeople.Asifsomeoneelsehadstolenthe
trueidentityofthesepeople,sothatitwasnecessarytorestoreit,toclaimitonceagain,byshoutingitatthe
restoftheworldwheneveritispossibletodoso.ThisstrangeandstrongconcurrenceoftheNameandthe
Voiceiswellknowninpsychoanalysis,whereitenjoysapeculiardefinition:paranoia.Followingthat
definition,wecouldconcludethatthemodernGodisnotjustschismatic,butratherparanoidbyitself.(A
suggestionthat,inmyopinion,Lacanwouldhavepeacefullyaccepted,albeitwithsomecaveats.)
2. Butwhy?WhyarethemodernpeopleentrappedintheirVoice,whichhasalwaystoberestoredastheirown
Voice?AdoptingHobbesterminology,becausethatstheonlywaytheycanavoidtheirsuddendissolution
inamultitudewithoutanycivilpersonality.Thedanger,infact,isalwaysthere.Hobbeshimselfstresses
thatthedemocraticpeople,whilenotgatheringinassembly,arenotpresenttothemselves.Theyceaseto
exist.Andthatspreciselytheirbigtrouble.Thatswhy,forHobbes,thepeoplearesoweakfroma
politicalpointofview.Fortheyhavetostruggledaybydaywiththeshadowofthemultitude,thatisthe
shadowofwhitheringaway,ofloosinganypoliticalorcivilpersonality,fallingintheblackholeoftheun
political.
3. Thus,themodernGod,thedemocraticpeople,isapoliticalsubjecthauntedbytheunpolitical.
Modernity,Schmittwouldhavenoticed,istherealmofasecretdepoliticizationofpubliclifeandpolitical
identities.Iwouldevendaresay,withoutbeingabletoqualifymystatementhere,thateverymodern
peopledefines,declares,voicesitspoliticalpersonalitypreciselyagainstthebackgroundofthe
unpolitical,shapingitsidentityonlybyfinding,everytime,anewwayoutofthisinescapabledanger.This
isthemotorofmoderntimes.Or,atleast,thisiswhatmakesmodernityanearthquakeallovertheworld,
abletoshakeeverypoliticalandcollectivepersonality,insideandoutsidethefrontiersofourcivilization.
ThisiswhatG.W.F.Hegeldescribed,bytheway,asthefuryofdestructiontypicalofmoderntimes.
Wehavetovoiceuntiringlywhoweare,becauseifwestopdoingso,weareabouttodisappear.Politics,or
thepolitical,isnothingbutthetechnicaldefinitionthatmodernityhasgivenofthisparadox.Politicsas
suchemergesonlyafterthatwearenomoreapttoliveandtorestinourexodusfromourselves.Itisthe
emptyplacewherewemirrorsourempty,thoughcontinuous,rhizomatic,paranoid,identification.
Politics,then,ishowmodernitytermsthetremblingofitscollectivepersonality,thatisofouridentity,always
lookingforitsachievement.Now,withoutsayinganythingmoreaboutthis,withoutevensayingasinglewordon
theEnlightenment(whichforMichelFoucault,andformetoo,isasynonymofmodernity),andwithoutsaying
anythingelseaboutthecrucialquestionofDeclaration,i.e.ofthepoliticalspeechactofdeclaringandvoicing,I
wouldliketoendbyturningabruptlytoanotherquestion:whatispsychoanalysisandwhatisitsrelationto
politics?
Psychoanalysis,asLacanconveyed,isapracticethataimsatteachingsomethingaboutusandourstrange
relationtoourselves.Sayingus,Idontmeanhumanbeingsingeneral,normankind(whichis,bytheway,a
specificandmodernpoliticalnotion).Imeanjustus:youandme,whoareabletosayweonlyagainstthe
backgroundofourcommonhistoryandourcriticalprovenance.PsychoanalysisisabouttheNameoftheFather,
thatrepresentsthosecommonroots,ourChristianroots.Andpsychoanalysisisdefinitelyaboutareductionof
thatName,schismaticifnotparanoid,tosomethingUnavailable.FollowingLacanandusingthenotionsthatIve
introducedhere,IwouldsaythatpsychoanalysisaimstobringbacktheNameoftheFather,thatisourtrue
Name,toitsorigin,thatisnotatrueorigin,butastructuralone:ourinvinciblelisteningforourselves.The
technicaldefinitionofthislistening,inpsychoanalyticalterms,istheunconscious.Thepuzzlingwritingofthis
listening,i.e.oftheunconscious,isthesymptom.Sothatwecouldalsosaythattheunconsciousandthe

symptomare,inmoderntimes,thefossilsoftheancientsacred.Byworkingwiththesefossils,bydiggingthem
up,psychoanalysisbringsusbacktoanexperiencethatispriortotheNameoftheFatherandisabletofreeus,at
leastforamoment,fromitstremblingeffect.(MaybeyourememberSigmundFreudspassionforarchaeology
andhiscabinet,fulloflittlesouvenirsoftheancientsacredcomingfromthepastcivilizationsandechoing,
apparently,thepastofeachofus.)
Thesearethemainteachingsofpsychoanalysis,inmyopinion.Ontheoneside,thereissomethinginourselves
thatisstrongerthanTruth:ourlisteningforwhatLacancalledthebigOther,ourexodusfromourselves,an
exoduswhichisthemostintimatecoreofourbeing.Ontheotherside,theregimeofTruthcannotputanendto
thisexodus,cannoterasethisUnavailablerelationtoourselvesthatweenacteveryday.Truth,asLacansaid,is
nothingbutthesisterofimpotence. [4][#N4]Onaccountoftheseteachings,canweimagineanewpolitical
subject,newtothepointthatitwontbeChristiananymore,newtothepointthatitwontbenewnor
impotentanymore?CanweimaginepoliticsbeyondTruth,politicsoftheUnavailable?Andwhatwouldbeits
hieroglyphnowadays?Whatcouldwelistenfor,aswelistenedonceforthesacred?Whatwouldbethecollective
symptom,orthesocialfossil,ofthesacredinourseculartimes?
Certainly,ifsomethingofthesortexists,wearealreadyenactingthelisteningforitnevertheless,wemustnot
quarreloveritstruemeaning,becausetheoverlappingofthesacredandtheTruthispreciselywhatweshould
avoidatanycost.Thus,letmesayjustaword:sacredtodayishumandignity,awordwithoutmeaning,thelast
trackoftheUnavailableinoursecularage.Wearestillwaitingforapoliticalsubjectthatmeasuresuptoits
riddle.Ourtask,asIunderstandit,istofindthewaytobringittoexistence,notbytellingitsTruth,norby
voicingitsName,butratherbyperformingitslistening.Letscallthisperformanceakindofsubtractive,
excentricevocatio.
Excessereomnesadytisarisquerelictis
di,quibusimperiumhocsteterat
[Goneforthareallthegodsbywhose
aid
thisrealmoncestoodandtheyhave
forsaken
theirshrinesandaltars]
Virgil

Notes
1. CarlSchmitt,Verfassungsrechtliche,Berlin,DunckerundHumbolt,1973,8.II.2. [#N1ptr1]
2. CarlSchmitt,op.cit.,8.II.2. [#N2ptr1]
3. AmbrosiusTheodosiusMacrobius,Saturnalia,USA,LoebClassicalLibrary,2011,III,9.1 [#N3ptr1]
4. JacquesLacan,SminaireXVII,NewYork,W.W.Norton&Co.,2006,ch.XII,p.3. [#N4ptr1]

WorksCited
Lacan,Jacques,SminaireXVII,NewYork,W.W.Norton&Co.,2006.
Macrobius,AmbrosiusT.,Saturnalia,USA,LoebClassicalLibrary,2011.
Schmitt,Carl,Verfassungsrechtliche,Berlin,DunckerundHumbolt,1973.
HostedbyMichiganPublishing,adivisionoftheUniversityofMichiganLibrary.
Formoreinformationpleasecontactmpubhelp@umich.edu.
OnlineISSN:20075227