pri nt arti cl e

publ i cati on feed

quick search Search
Edi tors Submi ssi ons
Home About Search Browse
What is a Political Subject?
Davide Tarizzo
* EDITING AND PUBLICATION BY 17, INSTITUTO DE ESTUDIOS CRTICOS
Volume 1, 2012
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/pc.12322227.0001.001
Permissions
Pour mexprimer comme il me vient, rien nest incompatible avec la vrit: on pisse, on crache dedans.
Cest un lieu de passage, ou pour mieux dire, dvacuation. [...] La vrit est seduction dabord, et pour
vous couillonner. Pour ne pas sy laisser prendre, il faut tre fort.
Jacques Lacan
To answer thi s questi on, whats a pol i ti cal subj ect?, we woul d need to grasp the preci se
meani ng of the two smal l words i t contai ns: pol i ti cal and subj ect. Thats the way phi l osophi cal
anal ysi s, si nce Socrates, woul d proceed. However, at l east i n thi s case, the opposi te mi ght be
true. Hence, i nstead of aski ng whats the pol i ti cal and whats the subj ect, I wi l l try to grasp
from the very begi nni ng the meani ng of the whol e: pol i ti cal subj ect. What i s i t? Maybe, once we
fi nd an answer to thi s questi on, i t wi l l be easi er to fi nd an answer to the other two.
As you wi l l noti ce, the general framework of my approach comes di rectl y from Lacan. For
i nstance, what i s a pol i ti cal subj ect? Taki ng seri ousl y the Lacani an noti on of the subj ect of
enunci ati on, I woul d say that a pol i ti cal subj ect i s si mpl y a we the subj ect of a pol i ti cal
enunci ati on. In modern ti mes, you dont have to l ook far away i n order to contempl ate the ri se
and the pul sati ons of a subj ect of thi s ki nd. Who doesnt remember the openi ng words of the
Ameri can Consti tuti on: We, the peopl e...? Heres an i nstance of pol i ti cal subj ect, of we, the
peopl e of the Uni ted States of Ameri ca, whi ch i s by the way a pol i ti cal subj ect sti l l perfectl y
al i ve, as everyone knows. Indeed, what I want to remark on i mmedi atel y i s that the pol i ti cal
subj ect must not be confounded wi th the consti tuent power. The exampl e of Ameri ca gi ves me
the opportuni ty of cl ari fyi ng thi s poi nt, whi ch i s of some i mportance.
Tradi ti onal l y, from Emmanuel -Joseph Si eys to Carl Schmi tt (i ncl udi ng, more recentl y, Antoni o
Negri and others) the consti tuent power has been concei ved as the pol i ti cal force, I dare say
the mysti cal force, whi ch hi des behi nd any j uri di cal outfi t named State. From thi s poi nt of vi ew,
the res publica i s al ways a knot, wherei n two stri ngs are ti ed together: the pol i ti cal and the
j uri di cal (jus publicum). As Schmi tt put i t i n hi s Verfassungslehre, the consti tuent power i s a
pol i ti cal Wi l l whose power or authori ty amounts to the capaci ty of taki ng the concrete,
foundati onal deci si on about the speci es and the form of i ts own pol i ti cal exi stence. [1] I wont
anal yze here thi s cruci al reference to the Wi l l , that represents the hard core of Schmi tts
deci si oni sm. Rather, Id l i ke to underl i ne that for hi m the consti tuent power i s nothi ng but the
condi ti on of exi stence of a State, namel y of a modern State. Wi thout the consti tuent power
there woul d be no State. And beyond the consti tuent power there i s si mpl y nothi ng. Therefore,
what I was cal l i ng a pol i ti cal subj ect (We, the peopl e) i s al ways caught by Schmi tt i n the
movement of a Consti tuti on, whi ch i s the foundati onal act of a modern State and remai ns i n hi s
vi ew the essenti al pol i ti cal act. One cant go further and beyond thi s pol i ti cal act, whi ch i s the
What is a Political Subject? 05/05/14
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/pc/12322227.0001.001/--what-is-a-political-subject?rgn=main;view=fulltext 1 / 8
pol i ti cal act par excel l ence of the pol i ti cal subj ect par excel l ence: the peopl e, the nati on (the
heart of any modern Nati on-State). The peopl e, the nati on, remai ns the pri mal cause of every
pol i ti cal event. [2]
The hi story of the Uni ted States al l ows us to l ook wel l beyond the consti tuent power. Indeed,
wel l before the Consti tuti on, the Ameri can peopl e, I woul d say Ameri ca as such, was al ready
born. Wi th the Decl arati on of Independence, i n 1776, a pol i ti cal subj ect was al ready i n pl ace
and al i ve so al i ve that i t coul d bear a tremendous war of i ndependence agai nst one of the
greatest powers on earth. Nonethel ess, i t woul d be a mi stake (pace Schmi tt) to descri be thi s
pol i ti cal subj ect as a nati on, al though i t was certai nl y a peopl e. In other words, we have to
di sti ngui sh the peopl e (populus) from the nati on. In Ameri ca, at the end of the 18 century, none
woul d have thought of the thi rteen States and former col oni es i n terms of one nati on. None
woul d have made thi s step forward before the Federalist Papers (Al exander Hami l ton, John Jay,
James Madi son and so on) and the great publ i c debate about federal i sm that spread al l over the
country i n the aftermath of the l ong war agai nst Great Bri tai n. Yet, al though Ameri ca wasnt a
nati on at that ti me, the Ameri can peopl e were al ready a pol i ti cal subj ect, that i s a subj ect of
a pol i ti cal enunci ati on, whi ch wasnt the enunci ati on of a Consti tuti on, but the enunci ati on of a
Decl arati on. If one takes thi s for granted, al l the mysteri es and paradoxes of the consti tuent
power a power that woul d magi cal l y exi st before the event (Consti tuti on) that i s supposed to
defi ne i t suddenl y fade away, si mpl y on account of the fact that a pol i ti cal subj ect doesnt
need to be the subj ect of a Consti tuti on. A pol i ti cal subj ect, say, the subj ect of a Decl arati on,
can be perfectl y i n order before and wi thout bei ng the subj ect of a Consti tuti on. It wi l l become
eventual l y such a subj ect, even i f i t doesnt need to. Thats why we can enl arge the set of our
exampl es to i ncl ude under the l abel of the pol i ti cal subj ect, not onl y the nati on, but al so the
peopl e, whi ch i s somethi ng qui te di fferent, or, to go further, the cl ass (Marxi sm), the race
(Soci al Darwi ni sm), the ci vi l soci ety (Lockean Li beral i sm), the mul ti tude (from Baruch de
Spi noza to the remai ns of Ital i an operaismo), and so on.
The next questi ons are: how does a pol i ti cal subj ect emerge? By doi ng what? And above al l : i s i t
possi bl e to create, to establ i sh new pol i ti cal subj ects i n our ti mes? Si nce I wont be abl e to say
anythi ng meani ngful now about the l atter questi on, whi ch woul d bri ng me to tal k about Europe
(and what we wi l l hopeful l y cal l one day the European peopl e), l ets move to the former and
more basi c questi on, whi ch agai n i s: how does a pol i ti cal subj ect emerge?
Fi rst of al l , after my defi ni ti on of the pol i ti cal subj ect as a subj ect of enunci ati on, you wont be
surpri sed by the fol l owi ng defi ni ti on, whi ch sounds l i ke a mere consequence: any pol i ti cal act i s
a speech act. Human bei ngs, as Lacan used to say, are speech beings (parltre), and the pol i ti cal
speech i s the one that ti es us together i nto a si ngl e pol i ti cal body, i nto a si ngl e pol i ti cal
communi ty. So, i t i s thanks to speech that a pol i ti cal subj ect emerges and exi sts.
Now, speech acts, parti cul arl y i n the fi el d of pol i ti cs, can di ffer a l ot from each other. There are
as many ki nds of pol i ti cal subj ects as there are ki nds of pol i ti cal speech acts. Needl ess to say,
tal ki ng about speech acts, Im not thi nki ng here of Austi ns and Searl es theory, nor of Lacans
theory of four di scourses, whi ch i s qui te i nteresti ng, i n my vi ew, but i s al so ful l of
contradi cti ons. Rather, Im thi nki ng about somethi ng el se, a concept as pl ai n as day, though
usual l y negl ected by phi l osophi cal and pol i ti cal thi nki ng. The concept I have i n mi nd i s the
fol l owi ng one: to speak, to be abl e to speak, forceful l y i mpl i es that one i s abl e to l i sten. Sayi ng
that, Im not onl y stati ng that speech acts al ways i mpl y l i steni ng, Im sayi ng much more than
thi s: l i steni ng for others l i teral l y enables us to speak (before speaki ng, chi l dren have to get i n
touch wi th thei r mother... tongue). In that sense, l i steni ng i s the very fi rst speech act of our
l i fe, of our personal hi story. And, heres the suggesti on that Id l i ke to i ntroduce: l i steni ng i s
al so the fi rst speech act of our publ i c l i fe, of our col l ecti ve hi story, of our pol i ti cal exi stence.
(Just a short parenthesi s to emphasi ze that l i steni ng i s, perhaps, the hi dden core of Lacani an
thought, the theory of the four di scourses i ncl uded. Indeed, Lacan hi msel f descri bed more than
once the anal yti c di scourse as a wei rd act, and a wei rd art, of l i steni ng. The bi g Other, defi ned
th
What is a Political Subject? 05/05/14
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/pc/12322227.0001.001/--what-is-a-political-subject?rgn=main;view=fulltext 2 / 8
by hi m as the pl ace of speech, i s somethi ng that we can onl y l i sten for.)
What coul d i t mean that l i steni ng i s, or maybe was once upon a ti me the fi rst of our pol i ti cal
acts, fi xi ng the borders of the fi rst pol i ti cal subj ects who i nhabi ted our hi stori cal worl d? To
fi gure out thi s ki nd of col l ecti ve experi ence, we need to make a strong effort of i magi nati on and
try to vi sual i ze what coul d be, i n anci ent ti mes, the experi ence of the sacred, whi ch was the
basi s of any pol i ti cal authori ty and the source of any soci al bond. The experi ence of the sacred
i s that of somethi ng whi ch remai ns separate from us, somethi ng that I woul d name the
Unavai l abl e. In l ati n, sacer, as many schol ars have repeated over ti me, means: to be excl uded
from human affai rs, to bel ong to another sphere of real i ty. One doesnt need to step further and
i denti fy the sacred wi th the di vi ne. What i s real l y at stake i n the sacred, or the Hol y, i s a sort of
border, di vi di ng i n two the worl d where we l i ve. On the one si de one can see us, the l i vi ng
bei ngs, the i nhabi tants of the vi si bl e worl d; on the other si de one can onl y l i sten for somethi ng
that sti l l regards us but i s i nvi si bl e and has to be kept far from us. The authori ty, so to speak, of
thi s border, the one who i s cal l ed to survey and to admi ni ster i t on behal f of the enti re
communi ty, i s the sacerdos (or anyone el se apt to pl ay thi s rol e).
What are the properti es of the sacred, that i s of the Unavai l abl e? I wi l l l i st bri efl y three of
them.
1. The sacred i s meani ngl ess i n the l i teral sense (remember the mana and the way Cl aude Lvi -
Strauss descri bed i t), yet i t refers to somethi ng whi ch l i es at the core of col l ecti ve l i fe. The
sacred has no defi ni te meani ng and thats the reason why i t i s radi cal l y Unavai l abl e: one
cannot master nor handl e i ts ri ddl e. The onl y way to keep i n touch wi th i t i s the l i steni ng, i .e.
a sort of passi ve attenti on to whatever comes from the reverse si de of the worl d.
2. Whi l e bei ng Unavai l abl e, the sacred has to do wi th the most i nti mate and profound i denti ty of
the communi ty as a whol e (and of each of i ts members, too).
3. Thi s sacred i denti ty l eaves i ts pri nts i n a ki nd of wri ti ng, that I woul d cal l the human
hi erogl yph (whi ch l i teral l y means: a sacred engravi ng, or i nscri pti on).
A coupl e of exampl es wi l l hel p me to expl ai n what al l these properti es are about. The fi rst
comes from the Jewi sh tradi ti on. As you mi ght know, Judai sm has a speci al predi l ecti on for
matters rel ated to the names of God, whi ch are many and di verse. Im not goi ng i nto the detai l s
(that you wi l l fi nd, for i nstance, i n Gershom Schol ems books). I j ust want to poi nt out that the
most i mportant and preci ous name of God, l ets say hi s proper name, I mean the tetragram (or
Tetragrammaton), i s the name that no one has the ri ght to pronounce. That means not onl y that
i t i s forbi dden to pronounce the tetragram, but al so that no one knows actual l y how to
pronounce i t. In other words, thi s name i s a wri ti ng wi thout pronounci ati on. Its a wri ti ng that i s
i mpossi bl e to grasp, to master. One cannot master the Master hi msel f, the Lord of the Worl d.
One can onl y l i sten for hi m, tryi ng to deci pher Hi s wri ti ng, wi thout heari ng Hi s voi ce. Therefore,
what i s forbi dden i n the Jewi sh tradi ti on i s not to pronounce Hi s name, as i t i s i mpossi bl e to do
so anyway. Rather, what i s forbi dden i s to struggl e agai nst thi s very i mpossi bi l i ty, whi ch i s at
once the i mpossi bi l i ty for human bei ngs to grasp, to master thei r nature, thei r i mage, thei r
bei ng. Indeed, as you surel y remember, the fi rst book of the Torah tol d us that man i s an i mage
of God. And God sai d, Let us make man i n our i mage, after our l i keness (Genesi s 1:26). So,
fi nal l y, at l east i n the Jewi sh tradi ti on, the sacred Name of God i s the wri ti ng of the
Unavai l abl e, whi ch means above al l that the man i s Unavai l abl e to hi msel f. Sacred i s the name
of the human i mage that remai ns Unavai l abl e to human bei ngs. Sacred i s our l i steni ng for
oursel ves.
A further exampl e wi l l be hel pful . Thi s ti me I wi l l take i t from the Roman tradi ti on. Perhaps, you
di dnt know thi s: the Romans were not Romans. Yet, none coul d deny i t, they were for centuri es
a strong pol i ti cal subj ect, knocki ng at the door of nei ghbours wi th al l thei r ri tual s of evocatio
and devotio, by whi ch, j ust before the fi nal assaul t, the l ocal dei ti es were cal l ed out of the
enemy ci ti es and were ki ndl y i nvi ted to expatri ate to Rome, where they woul d have found a
graci ous hospi tal i ty. Such was the power of names, i n anci ent ti mes. It was suffi ci ent to cal l a
dei ty or anythi ng el se by name to bel i eve that i t woul d have obeyed or reacted i n some way to
What is a Political Subject? 05/05/14
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/pc/12322227.0001.001/--what-is-a-political-subject?rgn=main;view=fulltext 3 / 8
the cal l . So, how di d the Romans manage to avoi d that the same coul d be done agai nst them,
pronounci ng the name of thei r guardi an dei ti es and forci ng them to l eave the ci ty? The answer
i s: by keepi ng thei r real name, the real name of thei r ci ty and the real name of thei r guardi an
dei ty, absol utel y secret. Many anci ent sources (from Pl i ni us to Macrobi us) gi ve us some hi nts of
thi s strange habi t. Not even the Romans knew thei r secret name. Wi th regard to i t, Macrobi us
speaks of occultissimis sacris. [3] The name of Rome was a hol y secret, sacred and hi dden from al l ,
to the poi nt that, apparentl y, there was j ust one person who knew i t, the pontifex maximus,who
used to l eave a wri tten vesti ge of that name for the benefi t of hi s successor, el ected pontifex
maximus onl y after the death of the former. Agai n, as i n the Jewi sh worl d, we face here a
parti cul ar structure, a parti cul ar way of shapi ng the i denti ty of the pol i ti cal communi ty, rooted
i n a name that had to be kept Unavai l abl e, or sacred. As a resul t, thi s secret name was
shadowed, i n both cases, by a ki nd of Unavai l abl e and separate wri ti ng. That hi erogl yph,
wherei n was engraved an ecl i pse of meani ng, was the nucl eus of the pol i ti cal , col l ecti ve
i denti ty.
Adopti ng once more a Lacani an defi ni ti on, I woul d cal l thi s sort of pol i ti cal subj ect a barred
subj ect, or a spl i t subj ect, i .e. a subj ect di vi ded from i tsel f by the l i steni ng for somethi ng,
namel y by the l i steni ng for a wri ti ng, that hi des and saves i ts i denti ty, keepi ng i t secl uded. (In
psychoanal ysi s thi s wri ti ng i s usual l y cal l ed a symptom).
I chose these two exampl es i n order to sketch bri efl y what fol l ows: the passage from the sacred
l i steni ng, concei ved as the fi rst pol i ti cal speech act, to another ki nd of speech act, that i s the
reveal i ng of the sacred, whi ch I woul d al so term, on several accounts, the cri si s of the sacred.
The name of thi s cri si s i s Chri sti ani ty a name whi ch i s very meani ngful , gi ven that Chri sti ani sm
i s al l about nami ng and meani ng. The reveal ed Name of God, as everybody knows, i s the Name
of the Father, the Name that reveal ed i tsel f comi ng through the Son, thanks to hi s Incarnati on,
by whi ch the Father meant Hi msel f as a true Father. To do so, to reveal Hi msel f, the Father had
no choi ce. He had to send to earth hi s Son, the Messi ah, that i s the Christos. To reveal hi s
Name, the Father had to pass, through the Son, the anci ent border of the sacred, the border
unti l then Unavai l abl e between the Name and the i denti ty, between the Wri ti ng and the
meani ng. Now, why i s thi s fami l y affai r between the Father and the Son, an affai r named
Chri sti ani ty, so i mportant for us, i f we seri ousl y want to anal yze the shapi ng and most of al l the
emergence of pol i ti cal subj ects?
Lets move back to my previ ous questi on: how does a pol i ti cal subj ect emerge? Wel l , the poi nt
i s that thi s questi on made no sense before Chri sti ani ty. As a matter of fact, whi l e putti ng forth
the questi on of pol i ti cal subj ect emergence, we are assumi ng the exi stence of a past ti me,
where thi s novel ty, thi s emergence had not yet occurred. However, thi s assumpti on of an al i en
past ti me wasnt current before the Advent, before the news and the event that the Christos
embodi es. Before then, no col l ecti ve i denti ty was threatened by a past ti me to be abandoned,
nor was, after al l , the very i dea of a new begi nni ng concei vabl e. Instead, the col l ecti ve
i denti ty was l i nked to a ki nd of absol ute begi nni ng, whi ch I woul d rather cal l an ori gi n, al ways
l ocated on the border of the sacred. Thi s ori gi n was l i ke a hol y ri ddl e, an eni gmati c wri ti ng
etched i n the reverse of the ri tual s, the myths and the overal l symbol i c order of the communi ty,
to whi ch any i dea of a break wi th the past was total l y unknown. Therefore, at that ti me, there
was no room for the emergence of a new begi nni ng. Before Chri sti ani ty, thi s emergence
wasnt an open pathway, peri od.
So, when we are aski ng how does a pol i ti cal subj ect emerge?, we are aski ng a Chri sti an
questi on. On thi s account, no one shoul d be surpri sed by the fact that to thi s questi on we wi l l
al ways answer, more or l ess, i n a Chri sti an way: a pol i ti cal subj ect emerges by the act of
nami ng, that i s by reveal i ng. Thi s i s true from St. Paul to Al ai n Badi ou. Thi s i s the Truth that
has been reveal ed by Chri sti ani sm and has been reveal ed l ater on by al l fol l owi ng revel ati ons.
Thi s i s the apocal ypti c (i .e. the reveal i ng) Truth from whi ch we can hardl y escape, sti l l now, and
thi s i s the bri dge that covers the huge gap between us and the Unavai l abl e, between modern
What is a Political Subject? 05/05/14
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/pc/12322227.0001.001/--what-is-a-political-subject?rgn=main;view=fulltext 4 / 8
and anci ent ti mes.
One of the i mmedi ate effects of thi s apocal ypti c event, that i s the Chri sti an nami ng and
reveal i ng of the Truth whi ch from now on wi l l repl ace the Unavai l abl e, i s the war about the true
meani ng of the name of God (i .e. the true meani ng of the Truth). Lets cal l i t the war i n the
Name of the Father. One can thi nk of i t as an endl ess war whose sparks are al ready burni ng i n
the Name i tsel f.
In a sense, al l the hi story of Chri sti ani ty i s a hi story of schi sms and fi ghti ng revel ati ons of the
true meani ng of the Name. Indeed, the structure of schi sm i s what makes the ul ti mate
di fference between the anci ent worl d and the Chri sti an worl d. There was no schi sm i n anci ent
ti mes. Its condi ti ons of possi bi l i ty di d not exi st. For schi sm i s possi bl e onl y once the
Unavai l abl e becomes avai l abl e and meani ngful , so that one can handl e i t, gi ve voi ce to i ts
wri ti ng, and fi nal l y quarrel about i ts meani ng. Therefore, i f Chri sti ani sm i s a synonym of
schi sm, as i ts hi story shows, i t i s not so si mpl y because of hi stori cal conti ngenci es. On the
contrary, schi sm was contai ned from the begi nni ng i n the very structure of the Chri sti an
revel ati on. The Chri sti an God i s schi smati c by i tsel f.
Evi dences of the schi smati c and cri ti cal character of the Chri sti an God can be found i n one of
the most dramati c text of our phi l osophi cal tradi ti on, De Trinitate by St. Augusti ne. God i s one,
namel y the Father of al l creatures, but God i s al so three, the Father, the Son and the Hol y
Spi ri t. Why thi s schi sm i n the heart of God? Just to gi ve a hi nt of thi s mi l l enary debate, and
putti ng i t roughl y, i f God i s the Father, i f nami ng and reveal i ng hi m as a Father has a true
meani ng, God i s the Father in saecula saeculorum and was the Father even before the Creati on.
In other words, i f he i s trul y the Father, he must be the eternal Father, so that the Son too, the
Christos, must be eternal and di vi ne, si tti ng at hi s ri ght i n the pl eni tude of ti mes. One God, two
persons (personae), says St. Augusti ne. As everybody can easi l y percei ve, thi s i s nothi ng but
the start of a cri ti cal i nqui ry i nto the depths of Truth whi ch wi l l soon become so cri ti cal that i t
wi l l entai l a radi cal cri ti que, and a radi cal cri si s, of the sacred. It i s di ffi cul t, i f not i mpossi bl e,
for St. Augusti ne, as i t wi l l be di ffi cul t for anyone el se after hi m, to avoi d, or at l east to
restrai n, the unsteadi ness of the true meani ng of the Name of God. As Lacan someti mes sai d,
the Truth corrupts us. From my poi nt of vi ew, by maki ng that statement, he j ust wanted to
remark that the Truth, and what I was cal l i ng the pol i ti cal act of nami ng and reveal i ng, wi l l
never get the same stabi l i ty of the pol i ti cal act of l i steni ng. Once we have crossed the border of
the Unavai l abl e, maki ng i t true and meani ngful , i t i s the symbol i c order, the very geometri cal or
topol ogi cal framework of our speech being, that starts to trembl e. As a resul t, we shi ft sl owl y
i nto the di sease of ci vi l i zati on, that i s, i nto moderni ty.
Then, what i s moderni ty? Fi rst of al l , i ts a resul t of the apocal ypti c event of Chri sti ani ty; i n
fact, as the German word Neuzeit shows, moderni ty i s by defi ni ti on the emergence of a new
ti me. Second, i ts a way to struggl e agai nst the trembl i ng that Chri sti ani ty causes i n the
structure of our col l ecti ve l i fe. Thi rd, i ts a parti al fai l ure to accompl i sh that task. Needl ess to
remi nd you of the successes of pol i ti cal secul ari zati on i n modern ti mes. Thanks to thi s process,
we are speaki ng no more of rel i gi ous subj ects, but of pol i ti cal subj ects i n the true sense of the
word, whi ch i s a modern sense. Modern ti mes are the onl y pol i ti cal ti mes strict sensu, that i s a
secul ar and mundane sense. Neverthel ess, whats wrong wi th moderni ty? Il l make a coupl e of
fi nal remarks, not to answer, but rather to el aborate on thi s questi on.
To cl ari fy my poi nt of vi ew i n a few words, I woul d say that moderni ty i s sti l l Chri sti an, too
Chri sti an. Modern pol i ti cs i s sti l l Chri sti an pol i ti cs, as i t i s sti l l a pol i ti cs of Truth. To have a
taste of thi s Truth, read any of the cruci al pol i ti cal documents of moderni ty. You wi l l al ways
fi nd the reference to some sel f-evi dent truths, that are suddenl y reveal ed to a candi d worl d
and are cal l ed by name: the name of a new pol i ti cal subj ect for i nstance Ameri ca, si nce Im
quoti ng here the Decl arati on of 1776, or France, or (al though i n a di fferent mood) cl ass, race,
ci vi l soci ety, mul ti tude, and so on. One doesnt need at al l to thi nk of thi s ki nd of new
pol i ti cal subj ect as a nati on or one peopl e. Even The Communist Manifesto i s an act of
What is a Political Subject? 05/05/14
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/pc/12322227.0001.001/--what-is-a-political-subject?rgn=main;view=fulltext 5 / 8
Decl arati on by whi ch a modern pol i ti cal subj ect enters i nto the hi stori cal arena. And even the
worki ng cl ass i s a true pol i ti cal event of modern ti mes, wi th al l the pros and cons of i ts Truth
that each of us knows.
One of the fi rst theori es of the modern pol i ti cal subj ect has been gi ven by Thomas Hobbes i n hi s
De cive. What Im cal l i ng here a pol i ti cal subj ect i s cal l ed by hi m a ci vi l Person. As Hobbes
expl ai ns, there are natural persons, human bei ngs, but there are al so ci vi l Persons, whi ch are
composed of more than one natural person. However, not every ci vi l Person i s a true pol i ti cal
subj ect. To be so, the ci vi l Person must embody at the same ti me the supreme power of the
Ci ty, i .e. of the pol i ti cal communi ty. Therei n l i es the di fference between, say, a pri vate
company and the ci vi l Person to whi ch every other natural or ci vi l Person must obey. Now, who
i s that ci vi l Person of the Ci ty, that we coul d al so cal l the pol i ti cal Person? What i s i ts name?
The answer i s i nteresti ng, because i t shows how the schi smati c character of the Chri sti an
nami ng and reveal i ng becomes the schi smati c, al most rhi zomati c, character of modern pol i ti cal
subj ect, i n spi te of secul ari zati on.
Hobbes theory of pol i ti cal power, at l east i n 1642, i s a ki nd of secul ari zati on of some
paradoxes i nherent i n the theol ogi cal Tri ni ty. To begi n wi th, thi s i s a theory of generation. As
the Father, the fi rst person of the Tri ni ty, gi ves bi rth to the second and thi rd persons, bei ng the
Son and the Hol y Spi ri t, so the fi rst ci vi l Person gi ves bi rth to the other two. In Hobbes vi ew,
thi s pol i ti cal Tri ni ty hi des behi nd the three possi bl e forms of government. The Name of the fi rst
pol i ti cal person i s the Name of the modern pol i ti cal God: the democrati c peopl e, who, by
sayi ng we and turni ng i nto one si ngl e subj ect of enunci ati on, becomes somethi ng di fferent
from a mere mul ti tude (whi ch i s on the contrary a gatheri ng of many human bei ngs). Once
thi s God has named i tsel f, Hobbes argues, i t i s possi bl e to shi ft i nto two other names, i nto two
other i ncarnati ons of that foundati onal we. Indeed, the peopl e, the fi rst we, can convey
(transferre) i ts pol i ti cal personal i ty ei ther to the ari stocracy or to the monarch. By doi ng
so, however, the peopl e wi l l not exi st anymore. For the peopl e wi l l fade away as a ci vi l
Person, gi vi ng bi rth to another ci vi l Person. Thats why Hobbes can tel l us that, i n monarchy for
i nstance, the ki ng i s the peopl e (that means: the ki ng i s we, the ki ng i s the onl y one
enti tl ed to say we, the ki ng i s the onl y pol i ti cal personal i ty on scene). Hence, as wi th the
Chri sti an God, there are fi nal l y three persons for one si ngl e God. The trembl i ng stance of
Chri sti ani ty opens onto the trembl i ng stance of the modern pol i ti cal subj ect. We, the
democrati c peopl e, i s not abl e to fi x i ts true meani ng and to entrench i ts exi stence. As a
resul t, for Hobbes, the best pol i ti cal opti on wi l l not be the peopl e, but the onl y One abl e to
fi x and to restrai n the cri ti cal meani ng of the pol i ti cal we an opti on whi ch i s not as
democrati c and popul ar as we coul d expect at fi rst. The best pol i ti cal opti on wi l l be, from
Hobbes poi nt of vi ew, the monarch, the One real l y capabl e of establ i shi ng the uni ty and
i denti ty of the pol i ti cal subj ect, cal l i ng i t by Name. Hi s own Name.
What are the consequences of thi s modern nami ng and reveal i ng, whi ch at once i s and i s not the
same as the Chri sti an nami ng and reveal i ng? I shal l confi ne mysel f to three of them.
1. If the Chri sti an God was schi smati c, I woul d say that the modern God, the democrati c
peopl e, i s a bi t more than thi s: i ts rhi zomati c. For i t i s a God whose Name no one can
di vi de from the peopl es Voi ce. Therefore, every ti me a new Voi ce ari ses, the peopl e
i mmedi atel y get a new Name. Thi s i s what Decl arati on i s about. The modern peopl e can
bear wi tness of thei r exi stence onl y by voi ci ng i t, by sayi ng al oud we, the peopl e, are al i ve.
After the l i steni ng for the Unavai l abl e, the nami ng and reveal i ng of the true Name of God,
heres then the thi rd pol i ti cal speech act, the act that qual i fi es moderni ty: the decl ari ng and
voi ci ng of the true Name of the peopl e, by the peopl e, for the peopl e. As i f someone el se had
stol en the true i denti ty of these peopl e, so that i t was necessary to restore i t, to cl ai m i t
once agai n, by shouti ng i t at the rest of the worl d whenever i t i s possi bl e to do so. Thi s
strange and strong concurrence of the Name and the Voi ce i s wel l known i n psychoanal ysi s,
where i t enj oys a pecul i ar defi ni ti on: paranoi a. Fol l owi ng that defi ni ti on, we coul d concl ude
that the modern God i s not j ust schi smati c, but rather paranoi d by i tsel f. (A suggesti on that,
i n my opi ni on, Lacan woul d have peaceful l y accepted, al bei t wi th some caveats.)
What is a Political Subject? 05/05/14
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/pc/12322227.0001.001/--what-is-a-political-subject?rgn=main;view=fulltext 6 / 8
2. But why? Why are the modern peopl e entrapped i n thei r Voi ce, whi ch has al ways to be
restored as thei r own Voi ce? Adopti ng Hobbes termi nol ogy, because thats the onl y way they
can avoi d thei r sudden di ssol uti on i n a mul ti tude wi thout any ci vi l personal i ty. The danger,
i n fact, i s al ways there. Hobbes hi msel f stresses that the democrati c peopl e, whi l e not
gatheri ng i n assembl y, are not present to themsel ves. They cease to exi st. And thats
preci sel y thei r bi g troubl e. Thats why, for Hobbes, the peopl e are so weak from a pol i ti cal
poi nt of vi ew. For they have to struggl e day by day wi th the shadow of the mul ti tude, that
i s the shadow of whi theri ng away, of l oosi ng any pol i ti cal or ci vi l personal i ty, fal l i ng i n the
bl ack hol e of the un-pol i ti cal .
3. Thus, the modern God, the democrati c peopl e, i s a pol i ti cal subj ect haunted by the un-
pol i ti cal . Moderni ty, Schmi tt woul d have noti ced, i s the real m of a secret de-pol i ti ci zati on of
publ i c l i fe and pol i ti cal i denti ti es. I woul d even dare say, wi thout bei ng abl e to qual i fy my
statement here, that every modern peopl e defi nes, decl ares, voi ces i ts pol i ti cal
personal i ty preci sel y agai nst the background of the unpol i ti cal , shapi ng i ts i denti ty onl y by
fi ndi ng, every ti me, a new way out of thi s i nescapabl e danger. Thi s i s the motor of modern
ti mes. Or, at l east, thi s i s what makes moderni ty an earthquake al l over the worl d, abl e to
shake every pol i ti cal and col l ecti ve personal i ty, i nsi de and outsi de the fronti ers of our
ci vi l i zati on. Thi s i s what G. W. F. Hegel descri bed, by the way, as the fury of destructi on
typi cal of modern ti mes. We have to voi ce unti ri ngl y who we are, because i f we stop doi ng
so, we are about to di sappear. Pol i ti cs, or the pol i ti cal , i s nothi ng but the techni cal
defi ni ti on that moderni ty has gi ven of thi s paradox. Pol i ti cs as such emerges onl y after that
we are no more apt to l i ve and to rest i n our exodus from oursel ves. It i s the empty pl ace
where we mi rrors our empty, though conti nuous, rhi zomati c, paranoi d, i denti fi cati on.
Pol i ti cs, then, i s how moderni ty terms the trembl i ng of i ts col l ecti ve personal i ty, that i s of
our i denti ty, al ways l ooki ng for i ts achi evement. Now, wi thout sayi ng anythi ng more about
thi s, wi thout even sayi ng a si ngl e word on the Enl i ghtenment (whi ch for Mi chel Foucaul t, and
for me too, i s a synonym of moderni ty), and wi thout sayi ng anythi ng el se about the cruci al
questi on of Decl arati on, i .e. of the pol i ti cal speech act of decl ari ng and voi ci ng, I woul d l i ke to
end by turni ng abruptl y to another questi on: what i s psychoanal ysi s and what i s i ts rel ati on to
pol i ti cs?
Psychoanal ysi s, as Lacan conveyed, i s a practi ce that ai ms at teachi ng somethi ng about us and
our strange rel ati on to oursel ves. Sayi ng us, I dont mean human bei ngs i n general , nor
manki nd (whi ch i s, by the way, a speci fi c and modern pol i ti cal noti on). I mean j ust us: you and
me, who are abl e to say we onl y agai nst the background of our common hi story and our cri ti cal
provenance. Psychoanal ysi s i s about the Name of the Father, that represents those common
roots, our Chri sti an roots. And psychoanal ysi s i s defi ni tel y about a reducti on of that Name,
schi smati c i f not paranoi d, to somethi ng Unavai l abl e. Fol l owi ng Lacan and usi ng the noti ons
that Ive i ntroduced here, I woul d say that psychoanal ysi s ai ms to bri ng back the Name of the
Father, that i s our true Name, to i ts ori gi n, that i s not a true ori gi n, but a structural one:
our i nvi nci bl e l i steni ng for oursel ves. The techni cal defi ni ti on of thi s l i steni ng, i n
psychoanal yti cal terms, i s the unconsci ous. The puzzl i ng wri ti ng of thi s l i steni ng, i .e. of the
unconsci ous, i s the symptom. So that we coul d al so say that the unconsci ous and the symptom
are, i n modern ti mes, the fossi l s of the anci ent sacred. By worki ng wi th these fossi l s, by di ggi ng
them up, psychoanal ysi s bri ngs us back to an experi ence that i s pri or to the Name of the Father
and i s abl e to free us, at l east for a moment, from i ts trembl i ng effect. (Maybe you remember
Si gmund Freuds passi on for archaeol ogy and hi s cabi net, ful l of l i ttl e souveni rs of the anci ent
sacred comi ng from the past ci vi l i zati ons and echoi ng, apparentl y, the past of each of us.)
These are the mai n teachi ngs of psychoanal ysi s, i n my opi ni on. On the one si de, there i s
somethi ng i n oursel ves that i s stronger than Truth: our l i steni ng for what Lacan cal l ed the bi g
Other, our exodus from oursel ves, an exodus whi ch i s the most i nti mate core of our bei ng. On
the other si de, the regi me of Truth cannot put an end to thi s exodus, cannot erase thi s
Unavai l abl e rel ati on to oursel ves that we enact every day. Truth, as Lacan sai d, i s nothi ng but
the si ster of i mpotence. [4] On account of these teachi ngs, can we i magi ne a new pol i ti cal
subj ect, new to the poi nt that i t wont be Chri sti an anymore, new to the poi nt that i t wont
What is a Political Subject? 05/05/14
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/pc/12322227.0001.001/--what-is-a-political-subject?rgn=main;view=fulltext 7 / 8
be new nor i mpotent anymore? Can we i magi ne pol i ti cs beyond Truth, pol i ti cs of the
Unavai l abl e? And what woul d be i ts hi erogl yph nowadays? What coul d we l i sten for, as we
l i stened once for the sacred? What woul d be the col l ecti ve symptom, or the soci al fossi l , of the
sacred i n our secul ar ti mes?
Certai nl y, i f somethi ng of the sort exi sts, we are al ready enacti ng the l i steni ng for i t;
neverthel ess, we must not quarrel over i ts true meani ng, because the overl appi ng of the sacred
and the Truth i s preci sel y what we shoul d avoi d at any cost. Thus, l et me say j ust a word: sacred
today i s human di gni ty, a word wi thout meani ng, the l ast track of the Unavai l abl e i n our
secul ar age. We are sti l l wai ti ng for a pol i ti cal subj ect that measures up to i ts ri ddl e. Our task,
as I understand i t, i s to fi nd the way to bri ng i t to exi stence, not by tel l i ng i ts Truth, nor by
voi ci ng i ts Name, but rather by performi ng i ts l i steni ng. Lets cal l thi s performance a ki nd of
subtracti ve, excentri c evocatio.
Excessere omnes adytis arisque
relictis
di, quibus imperium hoc steterat
[Gone forth are all the gods by
whose aid
this realm once stood; and they
have forsaken
their shrines and altars]
Virgil
Notes
1. Carl Schmi tt, Verfassungsrechtliche, Berl i n, Duncker und Humbol t, 1973, 8. II. 2.
2. Carl Schmi tt, op. cit., 8. II. 2.
3. Ambrosi us Theodosi us Macrobi us, Saturnalia, USA, Loeb Cl assi cal Li brary, 2011, III, 9.1
4. Jacques Lacan, Sminaire XVII, New York, W. W. Norton & Co., 2006, ch. XII, p. 3.
Works Cited
Lacan, Jacques, Sminaire XVII, New York, W. W. Norton & Co., 2006.
Macrobi us, Ambrosi us T., Saturnalia, USA, Loeb Cl assi cal Li brary, 2011.
Schmi tt, Carl , Verfassungsrechtliche, Berl i n, Duncker und Humbol t, 1973.
TOP OF PAGE
Hosted by Michigan Publishing, a division of the University of Michigan Library.
For more information please contact mpub-help@umich.edu.
Online ISSN: 2007-5227
What is a Political Subject? 05/05/14
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/pc/12322227.0001.001/--what-is-a-political-subject?rgn=main;view=fulltext 8 / 8