Quote of the Week: Alain Badiou
Today, the word ‘democracy is the principal organiser of consensus. It is a word that supposedly unites the collapse of the socialist States, the putative well-being enjoyed in our countries and the humanitarian crusades of the West.
In fact, the word ‘democracy’ concerns what I shall call authoritarian opinion. It is forbidden, as it were, not to be a democrat. More precisely, it stands to reason that humanity aspires to democracy, and any subjectivity suspected of not being democratic is regarded as pathological. At best it refers to a patient re-education, at worst to the right of military intervention by democratic paratroopers.
Thus democracy necessarily elicits the philosopher’s critical suspicion precisely insofar as it falls within the realm of public opinion and consensus. Since Plato, philosophy has stood for a rupture with opinion, and is meant to examine everything that is spontaneously considered as normal.
– Alain Badiou, Metapolitics. trans. Jason Barker (New York: Verso, 2006), 78.
Comments are closed.
Until recently, I too have had an aversion to “cave in” to democracy. But I never was able to kick the intuitive strength of its careful articulation. So, I have recently taken it up, albeit cautiously, in the Derridian sense of “democracy-to-come”.
There are values within the democratic system which I think are legitimate; however, when all things are put under the rule of “it must be like a democracy,” Badiou is quite correct; indeed, it becomes a tyranny.
I would also add to what he said: while a philosopher should show caution in accepting that which is proclaimed in common, and indeed, they often will, but because they first questioned it, they raise it up into a new level, and a new understanding, which makes it uncommon.
Democracy is the ‘liturgical dogma’ of secular humanism, and voting is its ‘eucharistic dogma’. To even, for one moment, whisper ‘I don’t vote’, is to find oneself almost entirely ostracized from any discussion of the matter. I think Badiou’s remark at least serves to remind us that democracy is an artifical system – a human construct, and not a gift of divine revelation.
I think Cavanaugh puts it best though; the state is a simulacrum Church, with its own stories of human origin, evil and salvation from evil. The democratic state is certainly not exonerated from this.
In fact, precisely because it draws so closely to many Christian values, the democratic state is all the more pernicious. As the last administration and the neoconservatives who sounded its cadence demonstrate, it can be so pernicious as to convince well-intentioned Christians that the enactment of liberal democracy is identical with the praxis of the Christian faith. Or at the very least, it is able to blind them to the inherent conflicts between state craft and Christian praxis.
Brendan
Clearly the American state has its own history which expresses itself in its mythology, as you point it — we founded the nation to expell the evil of the past, in order to rise up and create the New World Order, “democracy”, which is meant, in revolutionary spirit, to inspire the rest of the world to follow our example; any which do not, and remain relatively free, by that very nature, have shown the errors of our myth and must always be eliminated.
Henry,
A harsh, though very insightful, way of putting the United States’ need to ‘eliminate’ opposition. Although, that’s what Christ revealed to be the nature of all who try to show an entity the truth of itself, the truth of its darker side.
The American story simply is not Catholic (as in kata holos, universally particular) enough to enter into every story the way the Christian story does.
Brendan
Sadly, too many ignore this problem of the American tradition. Of course, what’s been said here is true not only for America, though, because of America’s role in the world right now, America should be highlighted as a primary example the problem of political utopianism.
“The American story simply is not Catholic (as in kata holos, universally particular) enough to enter into every story the way the Christian story does.”
What is meant by “the American story” here? What about analogical reasoning? Is everything to be judged and distorted through an univocal lens?
It could easily be argued that “the American story” has, in fact, been more compelling to more populations than the Catholic Church (if that is what is meant by “the Christian story”) has been during the post WWII period.
In the quote, Alain Badiou appears to connect the meaning of “democracy” with “authoritarian opinion.” There may be something to this, particularly when one considers how the term democracy has been used in recent years. But is that all there is to it? I hardly think so.
Take, for instance, the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Jacques Maritain, the Catholic Thomist and personalist philosopher, played a huge role in the drafting of that document. After reading it, can one still agree with Badiou that the central point about democracy flows out of a totalitarian urge? Hardly.
What strikes me about the UN Declaration is that it is rooted in a notion of the dignity of the human person. Throughout, reference is made to the person, not the individual. But if democracy is rooted in personal dignity, as that document indicates, it is hardly the case that democracy can be reduced to an authoritarian principle.
What is needed in America today, it seems to me, is a clear articulation of the nature of democracy, particularly as it is rooted in personal dignity, individual freedom, and human solidarity. Such a vision, to the extent that it is made manifest through the power of example, becomes an inspiration to the world’s populations — an inspiration that obviates the need to employ authoritarian measures for its propagation except as a means of defense.
At bottom, the flight to authoritarianism, which America has experienced in recent years, is more the result of a fundamental anti-intellectualism and confusion than it is to an integral weakness in democracy itself. Not all democracies are equal. Not every democratic expression in America reflects the heroic qualities of American democracy. In America as elsewhere, a viable democracy, not unlike the moral order itself, is contingent upon it being an affirmation of a well-grounded and coherent intellectual order. To the extent that it is not, there exists throughout the community a crisis of the intellect and of truth — and a concomitant crisis of the social, economic, and political order.
Whenever intellectual chaos reigns supreme, as it currently does, fanaticism tends to prosper. But fanaticism is no friend of a noble cause. And, by the same token, anti-intellectualism — to the extent that it is a force which corrupts the intellectual order — is no friend of democracy.
Gerald,
I think we agree that democracy should not be seen as univocal. What you describe are indeed great goods, which the democratic reforms of the past few centuries have helped bring about. We have seen, as a whole, the greater dignity of the human person, but I do not think this is necessarily a consequence of democracy (remember how democratic nations have done great evil, such as slavery or genocide, based upon the will of the majority). As a whole, though, I wanted to bring out from Badiou the idea that, as with all forms of government, one can see both the good and the bad, and no form is utopian. He brings about the unstated aspects about democracy, the undercurrents which we have seen come out within the last couple decades. Obviously, that is the context in which he stated this, and he is looking at the issue of “common will” in political action philosophically, but he is not addressing the other qualities often associated with democracies.
Henry,
It is unclear from the quote whether Badiou is critical of democracy itself or merely the use that can be of it. Perhaps you know.
There is a meme in the popular consciousness that democracies are morally superior. This, of course, is false. I believe Badiou is, in part, addressing that mindset.
People forget that Nazi Germany grew out of the Weimar Republic which was itself a fledgling democracy. Nazi Germany cannot be disengaged from that which came before it. Thus democracies are capable of nurturing and giving way to great evil. America is no exception.
Indeed, during the last eight years, American leadership has given the majority of the world’s populations a great headache — a 30mg Onycotin headache! Much of what was assumed about America has been shaken to the core.
Thankfully for the nation’s security, the blame has been laid squarely at the feet of the previous Administration rather than America itself. Yet, the world has been jaundiced by our behavior. Going forward, we must be careful to build the nation’s future on that awareness.
But aside from weaknesses, American democracy has great strengths. American democracy is unique. It is rooted not in history or traditions. Its fountainhead flows out of the notions of personal dignity, individual freedom, and human solidarity. These ideas, rooted as they are in fundamental human reality, are the bedrock of this nation. It is here that one finds the ground of American exceptionalism. But this exceptionalism can always be betrayed. We know that acutely today.
So to that extent I agree with Badiou. Democracies are as inclined as any system to betray their promise. Indeed, Abraham Lincoln called for “a new birth of freedom” to correct a wrong. A century and a half later, Obama called for “a another birth of freedom” to redress current imbalances. Betrayal of purpose is always in the shadows. But so are courage and fortitude. Thus political life is essentially dialectical.
The essence of America can be seen as a dialectical struggle for the future of personal dignity, individual freedom, and human solidarity. This defines, more than anything, who we are as a nation. Our focus is on the practical though our guidance is written in the stars. Our struggle is continuous and ongoing. It is a struggle we may win or lose.
As to the question whether democracy itself is the cause of what goodness we embody I would say no. Democracy in America can best be seen as the crucible in which our nation’s fundamental ideas are tempered and transformed into a living presence in our lives. In and of itself, democracy causes nothing. Nor is it a license that would permit “the end to justify the means.” Democracy is merely the “that in which” human progress or dissolution takes place.
Given all this, vigilance stands as the order of the day. Yet vigilance is contingent upon a firm grasp of the intellectual order and the wisdom to act prudently, “with malice toward none.” Apart from such ordering, vigilance easily devolves into vigilantism. Political vigilantism has long been a danger that attends America’s flirtation with ideological politics.
Like you and Badiou, I am concerned about the prominence of will in our society. Henry Kissinger argued that our defeat in Vietnam was due to a loss of will. Bush operated with the same assumption in Iraq. The “coalition of the willing” was not only an odd designation, but a troubling one too. There is a strong Neitzschean impulse at work in our politics. It is thoroughly detach from the intellectual order and almost invariably devoid of prudential judgment. This disengagement is a recipe for making highly flawed policy decisions. It also lends itself to the shrill spectacle staged by the self-righteous. But more than that it can drive the nation to places it are not go.
Gerald,
Badiou seems to be critical of both, but here, how it has been used in recent times. Which is what I brought it out for — not because everything he says I would agree with, but because I thought, in this instance, he was on to something. And the philosopher in me agrees with him as to the idea that we should question common opinion/common sense, not because it necessarily is wrong, but because it is often believed without critical reflection, and much can come out of such questioning.
As a side note, I have long been opposed to the National Endowment for Democracy for many of the reasons that Badiou seems to set forth. This doesn’t mean that I’m opposed to democracy by any means. But I don’t believe it to be fundamental in the way that personal dignity, individual freedom, and human solidarity are. Without being properly grounded, democracy is little more than a hollow vessel — a mechanism.
Gerald,
What is meant by “the American story” here? What about analogical reasoning? Is everything to be judged and distorted through an univocal lens?
No matter how one conceives the American Story (and, like all stories, it can only really be conceived analogically) it cannot diminish the fact that it will never be able to enter into every story the way that the Christian story does.
Only insofar as it aspires to open itself to the Christian story will it harness the capacity to enter into every story.
This is true of every institution that is humanly constructed. Thus, to the extent that human involvement shapes the Catholic church it too aspires to open itself more fully to the Christian story. I don’t think this is a very controversial statement: the Catholic Church is constituted precisely by its opening to the Christian story.
But here is precisely the point: the Catholic Church, while fully human is, like Christ, fully divine animated by the Holy Spirit.
No nation state will ever have this claim, so no nation state – not even the United States – will ever be Catholic enough to enter into every story.
It is odd, though, that one who so quickly decries the use of univocal thought finds it a perfectly acceptable way to interpret the Catholic Church. As you, Gerald, write:
It could easily be argued that “the American story” has, in fact, been more compelling to more populations than the Catholic Church (if that is what is meant by “the Christian story”) has been during the post WWII period.
First, it most certainly would not be an “easy” argument unless one approaches the matter univocally, reducing nuances to one’s own perspective. The result would yield a very superficial interpretation of the nature of the Catholic Church.
Second, if one were to argue the above position, one could only do so on the grounds of univocity. After all, one who champions analogical thinking ought to know that the Catholic Church can only be conceived analogically. Does one mean the CC as institution? As Mystical Communion? As Herald? Read Dulles’s Models of the Church, and it might help form that analogical urge you seem to exhibit.
Take, for instance, the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Jacques Maritain, the Catholic Thomist and personalist philosopher, played a huge role in the drafting of that document. After reading it, can one still agree with Badiou that the central point about democracy flows out of a totalitarian urge? Hardly.
Gerald, with all due respect, is this what passes as sound reasoning and clear thinking? In effect, the argument suggests that simply because Maritain had a hand in drafting the UN Declaration of human rights document, therefore Badiou’s claim (if indeed his claim is reducible to “the central point about democracy flows out of a totalitarian urge”) is somehow refuted. This is little more than ad hominem reasoning in a positive way. Have you ever read any Jacques Maritain?
Before invoking Maritain as a champion of state craft, I would highly recommend reading Cavanaugh’s Torture and the Eucharist where you’ll see how Maritain’s dualistic thinking contributed to the Chilean Totalitarian state.
What is needed in America today, it seems to me, is a clear articulation of the nature of democracy, particularly as it is rooted in personal dignity, individual freedom, and human solidarity. Such a vision, to the extent that it is made manifest through the power of example, becomes an inspiration to the world’s populations — an inspiration that obviates the need to employ authoritarian measures for its propagation except as a means of defense.
At bottom, the flight to authoritarianism, which America has experienced in recent years, is more the result of a fundamental anti-intellectualism and confusion than it is to an integral weakness in democracy itself. Not all democracies are equal. Not every democratic expression in America reflects the heroic qualities of American democracy. In America as elsewhere, a viable democracy, not unlike the moral order itself, is contingent upon it being an affirmation of a well-grounded and coherent intellectual order. To the extent that it is not, there exists throughout the community a crisis of the intellect and of truth — and a concomitant crisis of the social, economic, and political order.
I would agree with this insightful point.
Brendan,
First, I understand what you are trying to say, but it is a point made in the abstract — which was why I made my comment. Yes, the Christian story IS transcendentally superior to all stories and thus has the potential to satisfy the deepest inclinations of the human person. Fine. I agree.
But my point was to look at the concrete and historical. And at that level, it is hard to dispute that America has a huge claim on the consciousness of the world’s populations. Is it a bigger claim than that of the Church? In many respects, it is. It certainly has a greater claim in matters that reflect the here and now, i.e., the future of freedom, governance, human dignity, human rights, universal aspirations, etc. Despite eight years of tragic American leadership — and a calamity in the Middle East — the world’s populations Still haven’t turned against America. Now they are hopeful that the better part of America is back.
Does this mean that America has a story that is transcendentally superior to Christianity? No, I not saying that. But I’m suggesting that whether or not it does has little relevance to what Bidiou is saying. [“The American story simply is not Catholic (as in kata holos, universally particular) enough to enter into every story the way the Christian story does.”] Badiou is not saying that democracy deserves suspicion because it is not Catholic.
Second, I never appealed to Maritain’s authorship as an ad hominem refutation of Bidiou. I did mention Maritain as the author of the UN Declaration. But, I went on to say, “after reading it [the UN Declaration] can one still say with Badiou that the central point about democracy flows out of a totalitarian urge?” The force of my argument was contingent upon the persuasive power inherent in the principles laid out in the UN document. If I never mentioned Maritain my argument would have the same force.
As for Cavanaugh’s book, I’ve never read it. But I did manage to scan enough of it to spark my interest (between pages 175 to 195 — some pages were missing). I’ve read most of Maritain and Gilson, and am familiar with the differences between them. I’m also aware of the current discussion about the question of “rights” which is something I began to question almost forty years ago. In any event, I would hardly blame Maritain for what happened in Chile, despite having many friends who are no longer alive because of the politics down there.
One last point. In rereading your comment, I want to underscore one sentence which is very insightful: “precisely because it [democracy] draws so closely to many Christian values, the democratic state is all the more pernicious” … “it can be so pernicious as to convince well-intentioned Christians that the enactment of liberal democracy is identical with the praxis of the Christian faith …” I agree. On the other hand, the fact that it does draw upon so many fundamental principles is reason enough to struggle with the view to insuring that it will do so. We have to make what we have to be the best it can be.
Thanks for your comments. I believe this was a worthwhile exchange.