ISSN 1751- 8229

Volume Two, Number Four

ieks New Universe of Discourse:
Politics and te Discourse of te
!a"italist
#evi $% &r'ant ( !ollin !olle)e, Te*as, U+,%
Truth punches a hole in knowledge.
~J. Lacan
-% Towards a Formal Difference in Discourse &etween iek and #acan
If the originality of ieks contribution to psychoanalytic theory is to be distinguished from the
thought of Jacques Lacan, this should be done at the leel of form rather than content.
!lthough iek makes significant contributions to psychoanalytic thought at the leel of content
through the deployment of ne" concepts such as interpassiity, the con#unction of Lacan "ith
the analysis of popular culture, political theory, $ar%, &erman Idealism, and 'nlightment
rationality, the singularity of ieks thought "ith respect to Lacanian theory can be most isibly
discerned at the leel of the formal structure of discourse "ith "hich his theoretical and political
praxis stries to engage and respond. In ieks own self-understanding of his pro#ect, his
thought occupies the position of the discourse of the analyst, striing to affect a separation of
1
the master(signifier and objet a, so as to contribute to an opening of reolutionary emancipatory
possibilities for both thought and engaged political praxis in response to capitalism as the
uniersal hori)on of our historical present *+i)ek ,--.a/.
0
!s he remarks in the documentary
iek!, iek does not see his role as one of proiding the formula or ans"er to the question of
"hat is to be done in response to capitalism, but rather of thro"ing this question back at those
that ask it, those that e%pect an ans"er, reframing the nature of the questions and modes of
political engagement that inhabit our current political field of possibilities.
,

1he issue, then, is not one of choosing among the arious possibilities currently
aailable in the symbolic, but rather of introducing entirely ne" possibilities into this field. !s
iek puts it in his brief introduction to $ao, 23in a radical reolution, people not only 4reali)e
their old *emancipatory, etc./ dreams5 rather they hae to reinent their ery modes of
dreaming6 *iek ,--78 ,9/. :ere reolution cannot simply be situated at the leel of the
material, of shifts in conditions of production, but must also be situated at the leel of the cultural
or symbolic. ;ithout these shifts in the symbolic, "e remain tied to particular conditions of
production and po"er, simply reproducing them in another form. !t the leel of form, "e
replace one master "ith another master, leaing the structure as "e found it. <onsequently,
iek remarks that,
1here are, roughly speaking, t"o philosophical approaches to an
antagonistic constellation of either=or8 either one opts for one pole against
the other *&ood against 'il, freedom against oppression, morality
against hedonism, etc./, or one adopts a 4deeper attitude of emphasi)ing
the complicity of the opposites, and of adocating a proper measure or
their unity. !lthough :egels dialectic seems a ersion of the second
approach *the 4synthesis of opposites/, he opts for an unheard(of third
ersion8 the "ay to resole the deadlock is to engage oneself neither in
fighting for the 4good side against the 4bad one, nor in trying to bring them
together in a balanced 4synthesis, but in opting for the bad side of the
initial either=or. >f course, this 4choice of the "orst fails, but in this failure
it undermines the entire field of alternaties and thus enables us to
oercome its terms *iek ,--78 0,/.
1he point here is that the either=or alternatie offered by these alternaties is an ideological trap
characteri)ed by "hat Lacan called a 2forced el of alienation68 2?our money or your life@6 >ur
immediate instinct is to choose the &ood, freedom, and morality. ;ho, after all, "ould side "ith
'il, oppression, and hedonismA :o"eer, "hat this false alternatie masks is that oppression
and 'il lie on the side of the good choice, the obious choice. In short, the choice itself
functions to reinforce the reigning ideology and the "ay in "hich that ideology functions as a
2
lure for our desire, leading us to "ill, as Beleu)e and &uattari put it, our o"n oppression and
slaery. In choosing the 2bad choice6, the aim is not to choose hedonism, eil, and,
oppression(( the choice of hedonism, for e%ample, turns out to be impossible due to the death
drie and our subordination to the La" or the signifier ((but rather to affect 23the inherent
decentering of the interpreted te%t, "hich brings to light its 2unthought,6 its disao"ed
presuppositions and consequences6 *iek ,--.b8 i%/. :ere the te%t "ould be the symbolic field
"e inhabit in contemporary capitalism. 1he disao"ed presuppositions and consequences
"ould be the manner in "hich the 2good choice6 itself functions to reinforce this system of po"er
and oppression. 1he actiity of decentering these disao"ed presuppositions "ould open the
space of ne" possibilities "here an act might be possible. !s iek remarks, 23in an act, I
precisely redefine the ery coordinates of "hat I cannot and must do6 *Ibid8 9C/. Do long as
these coordinates are defined for me, my action, my praxis, simply reinforces the coordinates of
the reigning ideology.
In the forced choice "e are gien the illusion of a free choice and of making a free
choice, "ithout genuinely haing a choice at all. 1he choice "as already decided from the
outset. Eut "hy is this detour through short circuiting the alternaties of a false choice, of a
choice that is already ideological in its essence, a necessary detour for any political praxisA
1his question can be ans"ered by recourse to Lacan. !s Lacan remarks in The Other Side of
s!choanal!sis,
3the idea that kno"ledge can make a "hole is, if I may say so, immanent
to the political as such3. 1he imaginary idea of the "hole that is gien by
the body, as dra"ing on the good form of satisfaction, on "hat, ultimately,
forms a sphere, has al"ays been used in politics by the party of political
preaching *Lacan ,--78 F0/.
;e can readily discern this idea of the political in Glatos "epublic, "here the polis is conceied
as an organic totality akin to the organic body, "here all members hae their properly assigned
functional place, producing a harmonious organic social structure "here the elements
composing this social structure are also best able to find personal satisfaction. 1he dream here
is one "here personal and collectie satisfaction are co(terminus "ith one another "ithout any
loss or sacrifice. Hnder this organic model, Glato is able to plot four 2pathological6 forms of
social organi)ation(( the timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny (("here social disorder
results from disequilibrium produced by the interention of an e%cessie and unchecked desire
issuing from one element of the social system and thereby disrupting the collectie. Insofar as
3
the ideological conception of the political is premised on the idea of a harmonious "hole, it is
necessarily grounded on a bifurcated structure of fantasy.
In order to understand #ust "hy the imaginary idea of a harmonious organic totality is
grounded on a bifurcated structure of fantasy, it is necessary to situate ho" antagonism is
understood "ithin this conception of the political. In the conte%t of the imaginary conception of
the political, antagonism is understood as an accidental feature of the social, rather than
constitutie structure of social relations. >n the one hand, harmonious organic totality "ithout
antagonism is understood to be a possibilit! for social structures. >n the other hand, any
antagonism unsettling the social formation is understood to be something that, in principle,
could be remo#ed and as something that besets the system from the outside. Ior e%ample, the
desires that unsettle the social realm in the case of timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and
tyranny are not intrinsic or structural features of the social as such, but are pathalogical
disruptions produced by unbalanced desires that could be remoed thereby producing a
harmonious social "orld.
F
Ey contrast, one of ieks fundamental claims is that antagonism is
not an accidental feature of the social, but rather a structural feature of the social as such.
iek articulates the reason for this ery nicely in The arallax $iew "hen he obseres that,
3a system of pure differentiality *a system totally defined by the
differential structure of its elements, "ith no antagonism and=or
impossibility traersing it/ "ould lead to a pure equialence of all its
elements(( they are all equialent "ith regard to the oid of the >utside5
and, at the other e%treme, a system of radical antagonism "ith no
structure at all, #ust the pure opposition of Hs and 1hem, "ould coincide
"ith a naturali)ed difference bet"een Hs and 1hem as the positiely
e%isting opposed species3 ;hat "e need to do is to take a step further
from this e%ternal opposition *or mutual reliance/ into direct internali)ed
oerlapping, "hich means8 not only does on pole, "hen abstracted from
the other and thus brought to the e%treme, coincide "ith its opposite, but
there is no %primordial& dualit! of poles in the first place' onl! the inherent
gap of the One. 'quialence is primordially not the opposite of difference5
equialence emerges only because no system of differences can eer
complete itself, it 2is6 a structural effect of incompleteness. 1he tension
bet"een immanence and transcendence is thus secondary "ith regard to
the gap "ithin immanence itself8 2transcendence6 is a kind of perspectie
illusion, the "ay "e *mis/perceie the gap=discord that inheres to
immanence itself. In the same "ay, the tension bet"een the Dame and
the >ther is secondary "ith regard to the noncoincidence of the Dame
"ith itself *iek ,--.b8 FJ/.
1he key point to dra" from this passage is that 0/ eery system is necessarily structurall!
incomplete, and ,/ that any >ne differs not simply from others, but differs first and foremost
4
from itself. >n the one hand, if the >ne, for e%ample a mark or signifier, must necessarily differ
from itself, if it can neer attain coincidence or equialence "ith itself, then this is because the
mark can only function as a mark insofar as it differs from its place of inscription. Kumbers, for
e%ample, could not count things "ere they not simultaneously identical to themseles and
different from themseles. Ior, if they did not contain difference "ithin themseles, ho" "ould it
be possible for them to stand for something else. Dimilarly, signifiers could not signify, but
"ould themseles become dumb, mute, sonorous objects as in the case of psychosis if they did
not simultaneously differ from themseles. 1he net result of this is that an! identity or >ne
necessarily contains a gap or discord "ithin it that preents it from attaining identity "ith itself.
If, by contrast, no system of differences can attain completeness, then this is by irtue of
that property of the signifier such that the signifier can neer signify itself *Lacan 0C..8 Deminar
of 0. Ko./. In order to signify, eery signifier must necessarily refer to another signifier. !s
such, the signifiers that belong to the set of signifiers hae the property of being sets that do not
belong to themseles, thereby fulfilling the requirements of Lussells parado% pertaining to the
set of all sets that are not members of themseles. ;ere the signifier to signify itself, then it
"ould iolate this principle prohibiting self(membership. ;ere this set not to contain itself, it
"ould again cease to be the set of all such sets. 1he consequence is that there can be no
complete set of signifiers.
1he consequence of these t"o features of the signifier is that antagonism is a structural
feature of any social organi)ation. !ntagonism is not an accidental feature that disturbs social
organi)ation from the outside, but is instead intrinsic to the organi)ation itself. 1he organic
totality is al"ays already >ther to itself, and identity al"ays already differs from itself. If, then,
the idea of the political premised on the idea of an imaginary organic "hole or totality is
necessarily grounded on fantasy, then this is because fantasy comes to coer oer this
traumatic antagonism, this structural impossibility of unification and self(identity, at the heart of
social structures as a constitutie feature of these structures by transforming a constitutie
"ound into an accidental "ound. Gut other"ise, fantasy transforms a lack into a loss. ! lack is
an ineradicable absence that can neer be surmounted, "hile loss implies the possibility that "e
both once had something and that "e can regain that thing. Iantasy functions as a
supplement, surmounting this gap or deadlock at the heart of identity and the >ne5 first, by
proiding a schema of harmonious totality that "e either once had in the case of nostalgic
political discourses about the decline and fall of ciili)ation, or by proposing a utopian future5
second, by proposing a cause for the disturbances preenting harmonious totality8 the Je"s,
terrorists, single "elfare mothers, blacks, gangs, :olly"ood, etc *for a more detailed treatment
5
of this logic, see Eryant forthcoming/. !s such, the sub#ect in the grips of this structure of
fantasy ends up tilting at "indmills, failing to get at the 2real6 of antagonism. If, then, a detour
through the coordinates of the symbolic is necessary, if it is necessary to 2decenter6 these
disao"ed presuppositions and consequences, then this is because "e must be brought before
the constitutie structure of antagonism premised on the 2not(all6 of the social. It is only then
that non(self(defeating political engagement becomes possible. iek, along "ith thinkers like
Eadiou, Laclau, and Lanciere can be seen as proposing a politics grounded in the not(all, the
non(e%istence of the >ne, the Leal, as opposed to one based on the idea of imaginary
"holeness.
Eut "hat does any of this hae to do "ith the form of the discourse or set of social
relations "ith "hich iek engagesA ;hile there is a kernel of truth in ieks self(
characteri)ation of his theoretico(politico praxis in terms of the discourse of the analyst reealing
the castration at "ork beneath the discourse of the master and uniersity, the letter of his te%t
suggests something quite different. Indeed, the letter of his te%t een suggests a critique of the
releance of Lacans four discourses to our contemporary historical moment. '%pressing this
point in 2:egelese6, it could be said that iek in-himself is quite different than iek as he is
for-himself. !s Lacan remarks, 23it is not at all self(eident that all kno"ledge, by irtue of
being kno"n, is kno"n as kno"ledge6 *Lacan ,--78 F-/. In this conte%t, iek 2for(himself6
"ould be the commentary he gies on his o"n pro#ect, ho" he understands that pro#ect, and
ho" he articulates "hat it is that he is doing. Gut differently, this "ould be iek as he is
conscious of himself and his "ork. Ey contrast, the letter of ieks te%t, "hat that te%t is in-
itself, "ould be the kno"ledge at "ork in this te%t that is kno"n "ithout being kno"n as
kno"ledge. ;hat comes into relief in reading iek in this "ay is that his thought profoundly
deepens and e%pands the "ork of Lacan. $ore specifically, ieks thought, as I "ill try to sho"
later, does not inhabit the discourse of the analyst at all(( nor any of the other three discourses
e%plored by Lacan *see Merhaeghe 0CCC8 CN(00J/ (( but rather, is a ery precise cartography of
an entirely ne" unierse of discourse
9
, that stries to uncoer the structures goerning the ne"
discourses that populate this ne" unierse of discourse, their constitutie deadlocks, and ho" it
might be possible to politically engage this unierse of social relations. >n the one hand, iek
can be understood as tracing the consequences of the collapse of the unierse of mastery
e%plored by Lacan in his four discourses.
N
>n the other hand, iek can thus be understood as
engaging the form of social relations that hae emerged in the shado" of this unierse of
discourse8 the discourse of the capitalist, the discourse of bio(po"er, the discourse of
6
immaterial labor, and the discourse or form of social relation to "hich ieks o"n te%t belongs,
the discourse of critical theory.
.% Te Discourse of te !a"italist: Production and !onsum"tion
In his address to the Hniersity of $ilan in Italy *Lacan 0C7,8 ./, Lacan introduced a fifth
discourse in addition to the four discourses first put forth in Deminar OMII, The Other Side of
s!choanal!sis. 1he fifth discourse introduced by Lacan is there referred to as the 2discourse of
the capitalist6, and is found by inerting the position of truth and the agent in the discourse of the
master8
Discourse of te !a"italist
Impossibility
P Q D,
R((( ((((S
D0 == a
Impotence
.
1he argument of this paper is that ieks political and philosophical pro#ect is characteri)ed by
an engagement "ith the unierse of discourse follo"ing from the discourse of the capitalist,
rather than the discourse of mastery e%plored by Lacan. Dince iek himself no"here, to my
kno"ledge, mentions the discourse of the capitalist in these precise structural terms, this thesis
is to be established through the structure of ieks o"n te%ts and interpretations of social,
cultural, and political formations. I leae it to readers to determine "hether this organi)ation of
ieks politico-theoretico praxis does not better lay bare the structure behind his thought as
"ell as the social symptoms "ith "hich he is trying to engage and to "hich he is trying to
respond, than the discourse of the master, the discourse of the hysteric, the discourse of the
hysteric, and the discourse of the analyst.
Lacan tells us precious little about #ust ho" the discourse of the capitalist is to be
understood. Dignificantly "e are told that the discourse of the capitalist has come to replace the
discourse of the master *Ibid8 0- ( 00/. 1his echoes a claim Lacan had already made in The
Other Side of s!choanal!sis, "here he hints that the discourse of the master has largely
disappeared *Lacan ,--78 ,9/. !s such, discourses should not be understood as eternal
7
Glatonic forms characteri)ing all social relations, but rather as historical entities that come(to(be
and pass(a"ay in time. 1hus, for e%ample, not only does the discourse of the master
disappear, but the discourse of the analyst only comes into e%istence at the beginning of the
,-
th
century. 1his raises the question of the relationship bet"een the four discourses populating
any unierse of discourse. Ior e%ample, if the discourse of the master is no" in a state of
decline and disappearance, does this entail that the other discourses populating this unierse((
the discourse of the hysteric, uniersity, and analyst ((are also endangeredA !s "e shall see,
there is reason to beliee that this is precisely "hat "e are "itnessing today.
In addition to being told that the discourse of the capitalist has come to replace the
discourse of the master, "e are also told that it is the most ingenious discourse or social relation
eer deised *Lacan 0C7,8 00/. :o"eer, despite all of its ingeniousness, Lacan remarks that,
It is no less headed for a blo"out. 1his is because it is untenable. It is
untenable3 in a thing that I could e%plain to you3 because capitalist
discourse is here, you see3 Tindicates the formula on the boardU3 a little
inersion simply bet"een the D0 and P 3 "hich is the sub#ect3 it suffices
to the e%tent that it runs as if on a roulette "heel, but it runs too fast, it
consumes, it consumes so "ell that it consumes itself *Ibid/.
In claiming that the discourse of the capitalist is headed for a blo"out due to its o"n internal
contradictions, Lacan appears to be endorsing the standard $ar%ist account "here
contradictions bet"een production and distribution lead to"ard the implosion of capitalist modes
of production. :o"eer, in speaking of consumption as lying at the heart of capitalism, Lacan
also seems to be speaking of consumer culture as central to ho" capitalism functions. $y
suggestion is that Lacans formula for capitalism should be read as simultaneously representing
the structure of capitalist consumption and production. Ey irtue of the form of impossibility and
impotence that this particular structure of discourse or the social relation generates, it "ill be
seen that a number of social symptoms emerge characteristic of our historical moment, the
hori)on of political engagement in our time, and characteristic of ieks analysis of capitalism
as it functions in late modernity.
a. The (!namics of roduction
Iirst the structure of production in the discourse of the capitalist8 Hnlike the discourse of the
master "here objet a in the position of production is produced by the serant *D,/ for the
master)s consumption or en#oyment, the discourse of the capitalist does not aim at producing an
8
ob#ect for the sub#ect *P/ to en#oy or consume, but rather aims at endless accumulation,
production of surplus(alue, and capital that can then be re(inested in the ne%t cycle of
production so that the system can e%pand een more. 1o put this difference in rather literal
terms, in the discourse of the master the $onarch *D0/ commands the serant *D,/ to produce
either the ob#ect he desires or the kno"ledge he "ants as in the case of the slae in Glatos
*eno, "hich the $onarch then consumes. Ey contrast, in the discourse of the capitalist, the
"orker *P/ sets kno"ledge, technology, and kno"(ho" *D,/ to "ork "hich is then appropriated
by the o"ner of the means of production *either the o"ner of the company or the shareholders
in the form of D0/ "hich is procured not for the sake of the owner)s consumption, but rather for
the sake of reinestment to produce yet more capital that is then reinested in the ne%t cycle to
produce yet more capital. Hnlike the discourse of the master, then, the discourse of the
capitalist is premised on constant e%pansion. 1hus, as Beleu)e and &uattari argue in +nti-
Oedipus, the capitalist machine differs from the saage machine and the despotic machine in
that the latter carefully guard against accumulation, e%pansion, and anything that deiates from
the codes goerning these territories, "hereas capitalism feeds itself through constant
e%pansion, constantly decodes or pulls apart e%isting social codes, and integrates anything that
deiates from e%isting social codes into the system of capitalism to produce ne" markets. In
the saage machine eerything goes to the community as a "hole, "hile in the despotic
machine eerything goes to the despot. Ey contrast, in the capitalist machine eerything is
reinested in the machine itself so that it might continue to e%pand.
If the diided sub#ect *P/ no" appears in the position of the agent, then this is because
the agents of production under capitalism are no" workers "ho are themseles commodities on
the market. In short, the agent of production in the discourse of the capitalist does not o"n his
o"n labor, but sells his labor to someone else, the o"ners of the means of production *D0/, in
return for a "age. ;hile the "orker is free to sell his labor to any capitalist he might like, in all
but the most e%ceptional circumstances the "orker does not hae the freedom to not sell his
labor at all simply by irtue of the necessity of being able to surie and lie. If, then, this
sub#ect is a diided sub#ect, then this is because 0/ the "orker produces more alue than he is
gien for his labor *the famous 2surplus(alue6/, and ,/ because the alue of the "orkers labor
as a commodity is not determined by the "orker himself, but rather by competition among other
"orkers also selling their labor as a commodity as "ell as by the degree of technological
deelopment characteri)ing production. 1hus as $ar% had already obsered in his unpublished
,conomic and hilosophic *anuscripts of -.//, labor increasingly comes to be e%perienced as
9
something outside of life as it is something that belongs to someone else, and life is
e%perienced as beginning "hen the "ork day ends.
1he upper leel of the social relation in the discourse of the capitalist is characteri)ed by
impossibility in t"o "ays. Iirst, as $ar% obsered, capitalism must perpetually reolutioni)e the
means of production by irtue of competition bet"een different sites of production.
<onsequently, the relationship bet"een "orkers *P/ and kno"(ho", technology, and science
neer e%ists in a steady(state, but is al"ays characteri)ed by instability such that last years
modes of production need to be updated this year so that production might remain competitie
"ith other businesses. !s such, part of the capital produced must al"ays be reinested in
training, the deelopment of ne" kno"ledge, and the deelopment of ne" technologies. 1his is
part of "hat makes the discourse of the capitalist, in Lacans "ords, the cleerest discourse
eer deised as it is forced to perpetually recreate itself. :o"eer, the net result of this
competition is that the market can neer entirely be mastered so as to establish perfect
production. Gart of this dynamic, of course, entails that if the production of surplus(alue is to
be ma%imi)ed, "ages for labor must increasingly decline to ma%imi)e the production of surplus(
alue and ensure competitieness, such that the gap bet"een those that o"n the means of
production and "orkers becomes increasingly large. :ere is one of the "ays in "hich the
discourse of the capitalist is 2headed for a blo"out6, for production also requires distribution, and
distribution requires sub#ects capable of affording commodities. ?et "here "ages increasingly
decline, it becomes more and more difficult for "orkers to afford commodities, thereby leading
to a decline in the production of surplus(alue. Do far this problem has been managed by
2uneen geographical deelopment6, "here commodities are produced by less deeloped
countries and distributed among "ealthier countries, such that the less deeloped countries
gradually become more affluent, "hile the deeloped countries spiral into decline, thereby
insuring the emergence of ne" )ones of underdeelopment "here cheap labor again becomes
aailable for the ne"ly deeloped markets.
Decond, the relationship bet"een the "orker *P/ and kno"(ho", technology, and science
*D,/ is characteri)ed by impossibility insofar as it is plagued by inefficiency and "aste. !s $ar%
obsered in 0rundrisse, 2TtUhe act of production is3 in all its moments also an act of
consumption6 *$ar% 0C7F8 C-/. In the process of production, ra" material is used up, energy is
consumed, machines and tools are "orn out, effectiely consuming the means by "hich
commodities are produced. Dimilarly, "orkers do not implement their labor "ith ma%imal
efficiency, they get sick, they must take restroom and smoke breaks, they chat and gossip, they
play computer games on company time, there is miscommunication bet"een the arious leels
10
of the factory, and all the rest. It is for this reason that factories and businesses are constantly
compelled to search for more efficient modes of production, either through constant #ob
training(( in 2Gostscript of the Dociety of <ontrol6 Beleu)e "ill argue that today "e are neer
2done6 "ith anything, but must undergo endless training and modulation ((or studies to
determine ho" time "asted can be minimi)ed and labor ma%imi)ed. 1his is a pattern that has
no" een entered pedagogical theory and the organi)ation of the curricula of secondary schools
and uniersities in the 2education6 of students.
1he relationship bet"een the o"ners of the means of production and surplus(alue is
similarly characteri)ed by impotence for t"o reasons8 >n the one hand, as Baid :arey
some"here obseres, capitalists *D0/ are not necessarily "icked people consciousl! bent on
e%ploiting "orkers or diesting them of the alue of their labor. 1he capitalist might ery "ell
"ish to occupy the position of the master, simply en#oying the fruits of his business. :o"eer,
the capitalist does not e%ist in a acuum as a solitary indiidual, but rather e%ist in a market
characteri)ed by many other capitalists all in competition "ith one another. If "e read the
relationship bet"een the capitalist *D0/ and profit *a/ on the lo"er leel of Lacans formula as the
desire to master profit, then this relation is characteri)ed by impotence insofar as the capitalist
must perpetually reinest the capital his business produces so as to remain in business and be
competitie "ith other businesses. In short, the capitalist neer produces a sufficient amount of
capital to halt this endless cycle or deelop a stable system at equilibrium. 1he dynamics of
reinestment thus emerge immanently "ithin the system of capital, and not as the result of the
desire of any particular indiidual. >n the other hand, the relationship bet"een the capitalist
*D0/ and "hat is produced in this discourse *a/ can be read not as profit or commodities, but
rather in terms of "aste or remainders. 1he capitalist seeks to master the market, but "ithin the
system of capitalism something al"ays escapes either at the leel of production, as "e hae
already seen, or at the leel of ne" groups and social formations "ith desires that fall outside of
the current commodities being produced. Iaced "ith these 2deterritoriali)ations6 or 2lines of
flight6, the capitalist is perpetually compelled to produce ne" commodities so as to reintegrate
these elements of the social field that hae escaped the current system of distribution. 1his
entails ne" modes of production, "hich, in turn, require the inestment of additional capital.
:ere "e again encounter the fundamental difference bet"een "hat Beleu)e and &uattari call
the 2capitalist machine6, and the saage and despotic social machines. 1he latter carefully
police and destroy any deiation from the social codes *identities, social positions, practices/
inhabiting the social territory. 1he aim is to insure the continuance of the machine according to
the same code. Ey contrast, the capitalist machine embraces these deiations from e%isting
11
social codes, turning them into ne" markets. It is not :olly"ood or godless secular humanists
that destroy traditional alues, but the dynamics of capitalism itself that perpetually produces
ne" markets and "hich reduces the sole alue to the monetary alue "here all calculation
becomes simply a question of "hether or not a profit can be made. ;e shall see later ho"
additional discourses or social relations emerge "ithin the unierse of capitalism to both create
these ne" markets and manage "aste and inefficiency that emerges "ithin this system of
production. 1his impotence and impossibility transforms the discourse of the capitalist into a
perpetual motion machine, seeking to respond to these deadlocks that inhabit the machine,
accounting for "hy capitalism repeats in the "ay that it does. 1his is both the success of
capitalism and its perpetual failure. >r as Beleu)e and &uattari constantly remind us,
capitalism functions only by breaking do"n. It is this endless breakdo"n that constitutes the
specifically Lacanian real of capitalism.
b. The (!namics of 1onsumption
Just as the discourse of the capitalist can be read in terms of the specificity of capitalist
production, it can also be read in terms of distribution and consumption. :o"eer, here the
signification of the ariables populating the discourse of the capitalist(( D0, D,, P, and a ((take on
a some"hat different meaning. ! good deal of ieks "ork has focused on precisely this
aspect of the discourse of the capitalist.
Irom the standpoint of consumption, it is no" the desiring sub#ect *P/, the consumer,
that appears in the position of the agent. >ne of the central claims of Lacanian psychoanalysis
is that all sub#ects are characteri)ed by insatiable desire, distinct from need and demand. Keed
is something that disappears "hen satisfied. Bemand is a request addressed to another for a
specific ob#ect. Ior e%ample, the child cries for milk. :o"eer, because the demand is
e%pressed to another, oer the course of deelopment the ob#ect demanded also gets bound up
"ith loe insofar as receiing the ob#ect from the other comes to be e%perienced as a sign of
being loed or unloed. Ey contrast, desire, as understood by Lacan, is not a desire for a
specific ob#ect, but is an insatiable desire that is not precisely sure of "hat it desires. It desires
something for "hich there is no ob#ect. Lacan argues that desire is "hat remains "hen need is
subtracted from demand. In short, it is the dimension of loe in relation to the >ther, "here this
loe is not itself an ob#ect. !s Lacan sometimes puts it, 2desire desires to desire6, or 2desire
desires an unsatisfied desire6, or 2desire is a desire for an impossible desire6. Indeed, one "ay
12
of reading Lacans notorious aphorism that 2desire is the desire of the >ther6 "ould be that
desire al"ays desires something other.
If desire takes on this insatiable, endless quality in "hich it seeks only to perpetuate
itself, then this is because, according to Lacan, an ineradicable lack is introduced into the
biological indiidual once that indiidual is sub#ected to the signifier. Insofar as language
introduces an a priori lack into our being *a/, the sub#ect is perpetually searching for this lost
ob#ect "ithout eer being able to find any actual or empirical ob#ect that "ould plug up the lack.
Kot only is there no ob#ect that "ould be capable of filling this lack, but, since the lack is a lack
of something that neer e%isted to begin "ith(( it is a retroactie effect of our introduction into
language ((the sub#ect characteri)ed by this lack or desire neer kno"s "hat, precisely, it is that
he desires. !s iek occasionally points out, the question of desire is not 2"hat do I desireA6,
but rather the self(refle%ie question of 2"hat should I desireA6. In other "ords, gien the infinite
plurality of ob#ects that e%ist, ho" does the sub#ect choose among this infinity of ob#ectsA In
fact, contends Lacan, this question is not a question about ob#ects, but a question of those
conditions under "hich the sub#ect might be desired by the >ther *yet another "ay in "hich the
aphorism 2desire is the desire of the >ther6 can be understood/. 1hus "e might, for e%ample,
take on the desires of our beloed, deeloping a taste for particular types of music, noels, te%ts
of theory, actiities, commodities, etc., not because "e directly desire these things but because,
in desiring these things, "e capture the desire of the >ther. Dimilarly, the young child is keenly
attentie to its parents, noticing "hen they delight in its arious actiities, speculating that he
captures the desire of the >ther by en#oying the stra"berries so much. In other "ords, "e look
to the >ther to determine "hat it is that "e should desire, "hich is precisely "hat Lacan
understands by the fundamental fantasy. Iantasy is not so much the desire for a particular
thing or scenario that one imagines, but rather is a frame through "hich "e fill out the opaque
and enigmatic desire of the >ther, proiding ourseles "ith a structure through "hich "e might
become desirable to the >ther. 1hrough fantasy the sub#ect stries to conert the enigmatic
desire of the >ther into a determinate demand from the >ther that can then be satisfied or
th"arted. 1raersing the fantasy lies in discoering that the >ther itself is barred, desiring,
castrated, diided. >r, in less dramatic terms, that the >ther itself does not kno" "hat it
desires.
In the domain of consumption, the discourse of the capitalist takes adantage of this
insatiable structure of desire, insuring that commodity consumption is an infinite domain that can
neer be fully satisfied. !s Lacan remarks in 2Ladiophonie6, capitalism is 2the e%tensie, hence
insatiable, production of a lack of jouissance6 *quoted in Leupin ,--98 79/. In other "ords, in a
13
manner not dissimilar to Eaudrillards analysis of symbolic(alue *in distinction from use(alue,
e%change(alue, and surplus(alue/ in 2or a 1riti3ue of the olitical ,conom! of the Sign,
capitalism perpetually manufactures lack and therefore desire, thereby insuring that commodity
consumption continues despite the satisfaction of essential needs.
7
In early "orks like The
,conomic and hilosophic *anuscripts of -.//, $ar% had seemed to suggest that capitalism
"ould eentually find itself e%hausted by irtue of filling all the commodity niches defined by
essential needs, such that its ability to produce profit and e%pand "ould stagnate. :o"eer, all
of this changes "ith the addition of symbolic(alues, "here the ob#ect of desire no longer
corresponds to the satisfaction of an essential need, but instead becomes a stake in social
struggles for prestige and recognition. Later $ar% in the unpublished 0rundrisse and 1apital
clearly recogni)es these forms of desire, "hile still maintaining an internal dynamic at "ork in
capitalism bet"een production and distribution that tends to point in the direction of implosion.
;hen approached from the angle of consumption, the agent of the discourse of the
capitalist is occupied by the desiring sub#ect *P/ that does not kno" "hat it is that she desires
and "ho thereby addresses herself to 2kno"ledge6 *D,/ in the form of adertising, media,
e%perts, talk(sho"s, fashion sho"s, home decorating sho"s, etc., to learn "hat a proper sub#ect
ought to desire. Insofar as the constitutie desire characteri)ing the diided sub#ect is an
insatiable desire "ithout any ob#ect, insofar as it is premised on an ineradicable lack, the
product of this discourse is no" a remainder haunting the consumption of any commodity, not
unlike the disappointment e%perienced by the protagonist of Joyces story 2!raby6 in (ubliners
upon finally isiting the ba)aar to procure a gift for his loe interest, only to discoer that it is
filled "ith cheap and gaudy baubles and trinkets. In short, the commodity neer deliers the
satisfaction or jouissance promised in the glossy pages of maga)ine adertisements "here "e
are presented "ith a se%y and e%citing "orld populated by fulfilling romantic and social
relationships, but rather is al"ays surrounded by a halo of disappointment in "hich unrequited
desire painfully persists.
In the position of truth "e find the master(signifier *D0/ as the motor behind the diided
sub#ect. :o"eer, here, the master(signifier is no longer to be understood as the capitalist "ho
has bought the "orkers labor, but rather as the ferocious super-ego. !s articulated by Lacan,
the super(ego does not so much prohibit, as command us to ,njo!! >n the one hand, this
commandment to 'n#oy@ issues from the incompleteness of the La" or prohibition in telling us
"hat it is "e are to do. !s such, the La" is al"ays supplemented by a shado"y and obscene
double of the La" characteri)ed by the commandment to transgress. !s Gaul had already
obsered in Lomans 787,
14
;hat shall "e say, thenA Is the la" sinA <ertainly not@ Indeed I "ould
not hae kno"n "hat sin "as e%cept through the la". Ior I "ould not
hae kno"n "hat coeting really "as if the la" had not said, 2Bo not
coet.6 Eut sin, sei)ing the opportunity afforded by the commandment,
produced in me eery kind of coetous desire. Ior apart from la", sin is
dead.
1he point here is not that the relationship bet"een La" and sin is like the relationship bet"een
the ?in and the ?ang "here you cannot hae one "ithout the other, but rather that the ery
prohibition creates or produces the desire for that "hich is prohibited. :ere the La" is either
e%perienced by the sub#ect as a sadistic jouissance en#oyed by the dispenser of the La" in
e%acting his command, as in the case of Joseph V. in The Trial "here he discoers
pornographic pictures in the books of the la" at the courthouse5 or the sub#ect e%periences
himself as compelled to procure jouissance through transgression. 1he point not to be missed
is that the jouissance commanded by the superego is not necessarily the sub#ects jouissance.
Ior e%ample, both the sadist and the masochist e%perience themseles as procuring jouissance
for the >ther, not for themseles. Like"ise, the petty bureaucrat or subordinate soldier often
seems to understand herself as a tool of the >thers jouissance, committing the most horrific
acts in the name of the >thers jouissance *"here the >ther here might be :istory, the
$oement, the <ause, the >rgani)ation, etc./.
:o"eer, "hile iek often comments on this obscene shado" la" that al"ays
accompanies the public la" and sustains that la", he also suggests that today the superego
commands us to directly en#oy in a "ay that is not simply a desire for transgression produced as
a by(product of the la".
J
1o illustrate this point, iek often has recourse to the difference
bet"een the classical >edipal father and the so(called 2postmodern father6. In the case of the
classical >edipal father "e are commanded to go to our grandmothers "hether "e like it or not.
Ko proision is made as to "hether or not "e are required to en#oy this isit, only that "e are
commanded to go. :ere, should "e "ish to contest this claim, the target is clear. 1he sub#ect
can enter into the discourse of the hysteric and contest the totalitarian father, resisting his
despotic command. Ey contrast, the postmodern father does not command us to isit our
grandmother, but says 2"hether or not you go to your grandmothers is entirely up to you, but if
you do go, you must en#oy it@6 In this scenario, the sub#ect is directly commanded to en#oy.
$oreoer, this structure is far more insidious in that it is no longer clear ho" resistance is
possible. If I choose not to go am I resisting my fatherA ;hat is it that he desiresA Boes he
desire me to go or notA If I do not go, hae I disappointed my fatherA I do not really "ish to go,
15
so in going I am betraying my desire, giing "ay on my desire, and thereby must pretend to
en#oy the isit. In short, any choice "e make seems to generate guilt.
'ery"here "e look, commodity consumer society seems to command en#oyment, such
that if "e are not en#oying "e are someho" falling short or failing. :o"eer, this is internal to
the ery nature of the superego. 1he parado% of the superego is that the more you obey the
superego, the more an%iety and guilt you e%perience. 1his is clear in the case of the superego
producing the desire for transgression for, een if it only occurs in thought, the ery attempt to
conform to the La" produces the shado" thought of the transgression iolating the La". In the
case of a direct command to en#oy, guilt arises insofar as the sub#ect betrays his desire in
condescending to en#oyment *desire becomes entangled in specific ob#ects/. !dditionally, the
more the sub#ect obeys the superegoic command to en#oy, the more ferocious and demanding
the superego becomes, commanding more@, more@, more@ :ere, then, lies the compulsie
character behind consumerism. $oreoer, if the consumer capitalist superego commands
en#oyment, and if obeying this command necessarily generates guilt, this might account for the
comparatie rise in depressie and an%iety disorders in recent history.
In light of the foregoing, it no" becomes possible to see ho" the discourse of the
capitalist functions to *re/produce consumption "ithin the system of capitalism. >n the one
hand, this discourse is characteri)ed by impossibility on the upper leel of the discourse or
social relation insofar as the relationship bet"een the desiring sub#ect *P/ and kno"ledge in the
form of e%perts, adertising, home decorating and cooking sho"s, etc., is neer able to
successfully name the sub#ects desire. 1his is due first to the fact that the command of the
superego *D0/ in the position of truth is insatiable, such that no commodity is equal to it, but also,
second, it is due to the fact that the desire inhabiting the sub#ect is a desire "ithout an ob#ect,
such that no commodity eer adequately responds to "hat is desired in desire. Indeed, the
pursuit of commodities marks an increasing alienation and betrayal of desire. Gerhaps this is
one reason that many e%tremely "ealthy people nonetheless seem so dissatisfied. >n the
other hand, this discourse is characteri)ed by impotence on the lo"er leel of the discourse
insofar as the remainder *a/ produced by the failure of the commodity to satisfy desire is neer
adequate to the ferocious command of the superego *D0/, such that the more the sub#ect tries to
respond to the superegoic command to 'n#oy@, the more demanding the superego becomes. In
this "ay, the discourse of the capitalist "hen ie"ed from the angle of consumption functions as
a perpetual motion machine insofar as the sub#ect is led to endlessly pursue ne" and different
commodities in the elusie quest to finally find that ob#ect of desire that "ould complete the
sub#ect, but also to quiet the insatiable and guilt producing commands of the superego. !s a
16
result, the sub#ect endlessly pursues ne" commodities een "hen all the sub#ects needs are
satisfied. In this connection it could be said that one of the central problems of ieks thought
is that of ho" to disentangle desire from the superegoic command to en#oy. Insofar as
commodity consumption is one of the central supports of the capitalist dynamic, no effectie
political engagement "ith the dynamics of capitalism is possible until the sub#ect discoers that
the solution to its constitutie lack does not reside in commodities.
/% !onse0uences and +'m"toms of te Decline of te 1aster and te $ise of te
Universe of !a"italism
In 4acan Toda!, !le%andre Leupin obseres that 2the $asters discourse is3 the formali)ation
of politics itself, to "hich philosophy seres as a help by giing it the 4reason to #ustify
totali)ation6 *Leupin ,--98 70(,/. In the discourse of the master, the master(signifier *D0/
appears in the position of the agent, acting on or addressing kno"ledge *D,/8
Discourse of te 1aster

Impossibility
D0 Q D,
R ((( ((( S
P == a
Impotence
:ere "e should e%ercise caution "ith respect to Leupins uniersali)ing statements and his
suggestion that the discourse of the master is the only form that either politics or philosophy can
take. >ne of the burning questions of Lacanian inflected political theory such as "e find in
thinkers like iek and Eadiou "ould be that of "hether or not it is possible to think a politics of
the real or impossibility and constitutie incompleteness, rather than a politics premised on
imaginary totali)ation. I "ill return to this question later "hen I address the discourse of critical
theory. Ior the moment, if it is true that the discourse of the master is one formali)ation of
politics, then certain consequences follo" from the disappearance of the discourse of the
master and its replacement by the discourse of the capitalist. <an "e discern these
consequences in ieks analysis of our contemporary historic momentA 1o address this
17
question it is first necessary to unfold #ust ho" the discourse of the master is a formali)ation of
the imaginary politics of totali)ation.
;hen the discourse of the master is thought as a formali)ation of politics, "e are to
understand the leader or ideology *D0/ totali)ing the disparate elements that make up the social
totality *D,/ in an attempt to form an organic social totality. Ior e%ample, "e hae the master(
signifier 2Hnited Dtates6 organi)ing the totality of people liing in the Hnited Dtates into a totality,
presenting the illusion of a unified group. Like"ise, a charismatic leader functions to surmount
the differences bet"een all of the follo"ers, creating the illusion that all those follo"ing the
leader or the moement are the same. In structuring social relations in this "ay, the master(
signifier produces stability "ithin the elements composing the social field *D,/. 'en though the
social field is riddled "ith differences, antagonisms, and contradictions, the master(signifier
proides the illusion, the semblance, that unanimity e%ists and that these antagonisms and
contradictions are illusions. 1hus, "hen the master(signifier is treated as a persons proper
name, the illusion is produced that the person is a man of his "ord and that all the utterances
that person makes point back to an identical person defined by identical intentions. Like"ise,
"hen the master(signifier is treated as &od, morality and La" are seen as firm and fi%ed, based
on a solid foundation. Bescartes and 'instein both hae recourse to &od in order to establish
the orderliness of the la"s of physics despite the appearance of perpetual anomalies *a/ "e
encounter at the leel of e%perience *in the case of Bescartes, it is necessary to sho" that &od
is not a deceier so that "e might trust our clear and distinct ideas, "hile in the case of 'instein,
he appeals to &od as the diine orderer of the unierse "ho does not play dice/. Duch "ould
be true of Ke"tons conception of &od as "ell. 'en Laplace eokes the idea of a perspectie
outside of the unierse *D0/ "herein all of the causal interactions might be obsered "ith perfect
kno"ledge from their initial state, "hen famously responding to Kapoleons query as to "here
&od falls in his mechanistic system. Like"ise, "hen someone eokes the dictionary as an
immutable authority on "hat "ords mean, the dictionary functions as a master(signifier, as an
uncastrated authority, that can pin do"n the play of meaning despite the be"ildering comple%ity
and resourcefulness of language in creating meaning through conte%t and surprising
con#unctions of signifiers. Iinally, in the >edipal structure, the name(of(the(father *D0/, creates
the illusion that the opaque desire of the mother or caregier can be named and pinned do"n,
giing it a determinate structure.
It is, of course, true that despite the attempts of the discourse of the master to form a
totality, a remainder *a/ is al"ays produced that eludes the structuration of that totality.
Domething al"ays falls a"ay and fails to fit "ithin the totality. :o"eer, the crucial point is that
18
in the discourse of the master, this remainder is not treated as something that necessarily fails
to fit, but rather is treated as an accident disrupting the totality, coming from the outside, "hich
can be eradicated. In other "ords, the totality is treated as sound and true, such that the
anomaly is treated as an accident rather than a structural feature of any and all attempted
totalities. !s iek puts it,
.."hat makes such an assertion of belief *in the essential goodness of
mankind5 in the truly human character of the Doiet regime/ sublime is the
ery gap bet"een it and the oer"helming factual eidence against it, that
is, the actie will to disa#ow the actual state of things. Gerhaps therein
lies the most elementary meta-ph!sical gesture8 in this refusal to accept
the Leal in its idiocy, to disao" it and to search for !nother ;orld behind
it *iek 0CCC8 F,F(9/.
1his other "orld, of course, is the "orld of logos, of the "orld as an orderly place despite
appearances to the contrary. 1hus the Ka)is, for e%ample, do not treat the remainder as a
structural feature of their attempt to form an organic society, as a structural antagonism at the
heart of any and eery organi)ed system, but as the accidental and disruptie figure of the Je",
such that once the Je" is eradicated, the totality aimed at "ill finally be formed. Like"ise, the
Ke"tonians do not treat the anomalies in the orbit of the planet $ercury as a failure of the
totali)ation of Ke"tons la"s of motion, but instead "ork from the premise that there must be
some hidden body that "ould account for these anomalies "ithin the frame"ork of Ke"tonian
physics.
1he truth of the discourse of the master is, of course, that the relationship bet"een the
master(signifier and kno"ledge is al"ays impossible(( that it is structurally impossible to form a
totality for the reasons outlined in the first section of this paper ((and that the relationship
bet"een the diided sub#ect and the remainder is impotent in that the sub#ect is foreer unable
to surmount his o"n split *P/. 1he ob#ect produced *a/ by this discourse is neer the ob#ect
commanded due to the fact that all communication is miscommunication5 or, alternatiely, all
discourse produces a remainder that cannot be integrated into the system. It is due to both this
impossibility and this impotence that the discourse of the master perpetually repeats, al"ays
striing to attain totality or completeness and integrate the remainder in the sub#ect so as to
finally, at last, surmount the sub#ects lack, "ithout eer being able to accomplish this task.
Konetheless, as Jacques(!lain $iller obseres, the fact that the >ther does not e%ist(( that the
master(signifier cannot form a totality out of the battery of signifiers ((does not preent the >ther
from functioning *$iller ,--J/. 1hat is, those "ithin the unierse of the master continue to
19
beliee that totality is the true nature of things despite appearances to the contrary. ;hen, for
e%ample, a political party fails, the follo"ers of that party do not e%plain this failure as a result of
the fundamental bankruptcy of the partys goerning philosophy, but as an accident of the
insufficiencies of those "ho happened to be in charge.
If, then, the discourse of the master is in a state of decline and disappearance, "e can
e%pect to "itness the disappearance of a certain type of politics as "ell as a crisis of a particular
set of social relations insofar as the discourse of that master is that discourse that stries to
produce totali)ation and insofar as this discourse is "hat establishes the illusion that these
social relations are stable and grounded despite appearances. Ior e%ample, it is only insofar as
the name(of(the(father *D0/ is 2that signifier that represents the signifier for all the other
signifiers6 that language takes on the appearance of haing fi%ed meanings. Dhould this
signifier fail to be operatie as in the case of psychosis, the battery of signifiers *D,/ falls apart
into a chaos "here "ords are no longer distinguished from things and "here meaning can no
longer be pinned to based on a higher authority. Domething similar happens in the domain of
the political. >n the one hand, "e can e%pect a disappearance of grand totali)ing political
pro#ects. >n the other hand, "e can e%pect the decline or disappearance of protest politics
premised on the discourse of the hysteric, "here the arious figures occupying the position of
the master(signifier are challenged by the diided sub#ect *P/. Iinally, "e can e%pect a crisis of
the stability of social ties, such that these ties become precarious and are approached "ith
cynicism. <losely related to this, if the decline of the discourse of the master is not simply a fall
into social psychosis but the emergence of a ne" form of social relations, "e can e%pect that
other discourses, other social relations, "ill emerge to respond to the precariousness of the
contemporary social structure. In one form or another, in places t"o numerous to cite, "e
"itness iek both analy)ing this historical situation and seeking to discern solutions to the
problems resulting from this disappearance of the discourse of the master. !t the center of this
engagement is the question of ho" politics is possible in an age that appears 2post(political6.
Indeed, this is a question that preoccupies an entire range of thinkers from Eadiou, to Lanciere,
to Laclau and $ouffe, to Beleu)e and &uattari. 1his an%iety appears to arise from inhabiting a
set of social relations "here it is no longer clear #ust "here the enemy is and "here the social
field itself has come to appear de(politici)ed(( the market, for e%ample, is described in terms
akin to meteorological phenomena rather than as a site of political struggle.
1he decline of the discourse of the master and the consequences of this decline hae
been a persistent theme throughout ieks "ork, but these points are deeloped "ith particular
clarity in 2;ither >edipus6, the concluding chapter of The Ticklish Subject. 1here iek notes
20
that the >edipus(( one form the discourse of the master takes ((is in a state of decline, and
outlines a "hole host of social symptoms that follo" from this shift in social relations. It is "orth
noting that this decline is not restricted to the family structure, but can be discerned in a ariety
of structures organi)ed around the function of the master, ranging from the declining efficiency
*or trust/ in political leaders, to Kiet)sches famous death of &od, to the manner in "hich grand
ideological signifiers seem to hae lost their efficiency. Detting aside ieks o"n account of
#ust "hy the >edipus is in a state of decline, this collapse "as already famously recogni)ed by
$ar% in the *anifesto. !s $ar% there remarks,
1he bourgeoisie, historically, has played the most reolutionary part.
1he bourgeoisie, "hereer it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all
feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motly
feudal ties that bound man to his 2natural superiors,6 and has left no other
ne%us bet"een man and man than naked self(interest, then callous 2cash
payment.6 It has dro"ned the most heaenly ecstasies of religious feror,
of chialrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy "ater of
egotistical calculation. It has resoled personal "orth into e%change
alue, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms,
has set up that single, unconscionable freedom(( Iree 1rade. In one
"ord, for e%ploitation, eiled by religious and political institutions, it has
substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal e%ploitation *$ar% and 'ngels
0CCJ8 NF/.
1hroughout this passage $ar% outlines the manner in "hich capitalism has targeted all those
elements of social formation premised on the discourse of the master *religion, patriarchy, idyllic
relations or society as an organic totality, feudal ties, 2natural superiors6, etc./. >n the one
hand, the discourse of the capitalist transforms agents into indiiduals rather than members of a
social organism insofar as the sub#ect no longer has a place in a 2natural social order6, but is
instead a sub#ect that sells his labor as a commodity on the market, in competition "ith other
"orkers. !s a consequence, I no longer see myself as a part of the diine clock"ork of the
social order "orking alongside my fello"s, but rather as an indi#idual in competition "ith these
others. Lather than seeking to promote shared social aims or "orking in a community in
obedience to the "ill of &od, I no" pursue my o"n self(interest.
>n the other hand, the discourse of the capitalist introduces a uni#ersal alue8 the
pursuit of profit. !ll things come to be measured in terms of this alue, such that it becomes
possible to relinquish traditional alues "hen they do not accord "ith the pursuit of profit. Ior
this reason, traditional forms of political organi)ation premised on symbolic po"er as in the case
of monarchy begin to collapse, for "hen measured against the profit motie they fail to hold up.
21
!s $ar% puts it, 2TaUll that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last
compelled to face "ith sober senses his real conditions of life and his relations "ith his kind6
*Ibid8 N9/. ;here the aristocracy cannot keep up "ith the pursuit of capital, they stand in the
"ay of other capitalists pursuing capital and are therefore quickly toppled due to both their
dependence on the bourgeoisie and their gro"ing irreleance. 1he old supports of their
authority or po"er premised on myths and narraties about diine right begin to fall one by one
as they are measured against the ne" uniersal set of alues8 the pursuit of egoistic self(
interest. ;here before these myths held and "ere sufficient to e%plain "hy a king "as a king, a
peasant a peasant, psycho(social critiques of monarchial po"er begin to emerge such as "e
find in :obbes, Dpino)a, :ume, Biderot, Moltaire, Kiet)sche, etc., "here myth comes to be seen
as myth, and "here these narraties are understood as cynical, self(interested mechanisms for
maintaining po"er. 1hrasymachus is redeemed. It is for this reason that the diided sub#ect *P/
comes to appear in the position of the agent, replacing the position formerly en#oyed by the
master *D0/5 for this is the sub#ect pursuing naked self(interest. Like"ise, all of the old master(
signifiers begin to topple one by one. Insofar as self(interest no" becomes the uniersal
motie, master(signifiers such as the &ood, Kation, Justice, Ireedom, etc., increasingly come to
be ie"ed "ith suspicion as eiled rhetorical maneuers for po"er and the interest of one group
oer another. !s Beleu)e and &uattari obsere, premised on their thesis that the unconscious
is social prior to being indiidual and familial, this shift comes to perade all leels of the social
sphere, including the family.
Irom this historical shift, iek dra"s a number of consequences, t"o of "hich I shall
focus on here. Iirst, as a result of the decline of the discourse of the master, iek argues that
"e "itness a decline of "hat he calls 2symbolic efficiency6. !s e%plained by iek, 2TsUymbolic
efficiency thus concerns the point at "hich, "hen the >ther of the symbolic institution confronts
me "ith the choice of 4;hom do you beliee, my "ord or your eyesA, I choose the >thers "ord
"ithout hesitation, dismissing the factual testimony of my eyes6 *iek 0CCC8 F,7/. It "ill be
recalled that the discourse of the master seres an ordering function for the multitude of floating
signifiers *D,/, creating the illusion that meaning has a fi%ed and solid foundation or that the
Dtate has a fi%ed and solid identity, or that the Leader is in control of the situation. Bespite the
ast eidence that contradicts this, this contradictory eidence is not treated as undermining the
belief in an >rder or logos behind the anomalous appearances. Lather, the appearances to the
contrary are ignored in faor of the posited >rder behind the appearances.
22
1he collapse of symbolic efficiency entails that the >ther *D0/ no longer e%ists as an
authority that could ground or secure social relations as a third term bet"een agents that could
decide bet"een disputes and ground identities. Gut differently, "here sub#ects e%isting in the
2enchanted "orld6 of feudal society could take it as a basic and unquestioned fact that &ods la"
and "ill goerned all sub#ects and assigned eery sub#ect a natural place in the cosmos "ith a
role to fulfill, the unierse follo"ing the unierse of mastery is one in "hich eerything is reduced
to relations bet"een indiiduals "ithout a third mediating and independent term such as &ods
la" that sub#ects share in common. 1hus, on the one hand, there are profound consequences
for ethical and political deliberation. !s iek obseres,
1hese reersals signal that today, the big >thers none%istence has
attained a much more radical dimension8 "hat is increasingly undermined
is precisely the symbolic trust "hich persists against all skeptical data.
Gerhaps the most eye(catching facet of this ne" status of the
none%istence of the big >ther is the sprouting of 4committees destined to
decide upon the so(called ethical dilemmas "hich crop up "hen
technological deelopments eer(increasingly affect our life"orld8 not
only cyberspace but also domains as dierse as medicine and biogentics
on the one hand, and the rules of se%ual conduct and the protection of
human rights on the other, confront us "ith the need to inent the basic
rules of proper ethical conduct, since "e lack any form of big >ther, any
symbolic point of reference that "ould sere as a safe and unproblematic
moral anchor *Ibid8 FF,/.
1his trend can also be discerned in the domain of politics and attitudes to"ards ne"s media.
'ery"here, it seems, elections are in question, there is cynicism to"ards elected officials, and
sub#ects profoundly doubt the truthfulness of ne"s sources. 1his een bleeds into the sciences,
"here people regularly e%press doubts about global "arming, for e%ample, claiming that the
scientists are motiated to claim certain things based on their desire to secure grant funding. !s
a consequence, indi#idual agents begin to pick and choose their o"n ne"s and science
according to "hat accords "ith their beliefs and tastes. In short, science and the ne"s are no
longer e%perienced as an ob#ectie 1hird that is independent of the "him of indiiduals and that
ad#udicates disputes. 1rust in these institutions and figures increasingly becomes oer"helmed
by doubt. Dimilarly, the emergence of conspiracy theories ranging from those surrounding to
C(00 to alien abductions can be seen as attempts to make the >ther e%ist, seeking some >ther
that both kno"s and is silently functioning behind the scenes orchestrating eerything.
>n the other hand, it is not simply trust in authorities and stable codes that is
undermined, but also the ery identities of sub#ects themseles. !s Lacan argues, the
23
alienation of the sub#ect in language renders identity precarious because there is no signifier
that is capable of fi%ing the identity of the sub#ect. >nce again, the signifier cannot signify itself.
1he discourse of the master functions to artificially fi% the identity of the sub#ect and assign the
sub#ect a place "ithin the symbolic order. ?et "ith the collapse of this discourse, all of this is
once again called into question. !s iek remarks,
3the problem today is not that sub#ects are more dispersed than they
"ere before, in the alleged good old days of the self(identical 'go5 the fact
that 4the big >ther no longer e%ists implies, rather, that the symbolic
fiction "hich confers a performatie status on the leel of my identity,
determining "hich of my acts "ill display 4symbolic efficiency is no longer
fully operatie *Ibid8 FF-/.
! number of social symptoms emerge in relation to this. Ior e%ample, the rise of religious
fundamentalisms and identity politics(( right"ing and left"ing ersions of the same phenomena
((can be seen as desperate attempts to fi% and establish identities "here identities no longer
seem to hold. Do too in the case of irulent nationalisms. <onersely, the intensification of
arious racisms can be read as both a symptom of the manner in "hich the social tie has been
reduced to the dimension of the imaginary as a tie bet"een indiiduals "ithout a mediating
1hird, and also as a by(product of the precariousness of symbolic identities, leading sub#ects to
strike out at an 2>ther6 as that "hich threatens identity and renders it precarious. Later I shall
attempt to sho" ho" a ne" discourse or social relation emerges to manage and respond to this
collapse of symbolic efficiency. !s "e shall see, this discourse or form of social relation is one
of the priileged targets of ieks politico(theoretico praxis.
!s a second consequence of the decline of the discourse of the master, politics has
increasingly disappeared from the social field. Iirst, grand political causes *D0/ seem to hae
progressiely eacuated the social field insofar as all master(signifiers hae been called into
question by the decline of symbolic efficiency. !s iek obseres in the documentary iek!,
si%ty years ago there "ere passionate debates as to "hether "e should hae a socialist, fascist,
or liberal democratic form of goernment, yet today these debates hae almost entirely
disappeared, capitalism has come to be seen as an unsurpassable hori)on, and "e can only
imagine the end of capitalism resulting from a ma#or global catastrophe. Decond, as a result of
this, capitalism itself comes to be depolitici)ed, such that it comes to be treated as a natural
phenomenon, independent of any human agency. Ior e%ample, "e speak of "hat the market
does, ho" the market regulates itself, and ho" "e should let the market decide. 1hird, in
contrast to the imaginary politics of totali)ation, the protest politics of the discourse of the
24
hysteric has also become ineffectual and has largely disappeared *see Eoltanski and <hiapello
,--7/. ;here the master(signifier disappears or goes underground, the politics of the hysteric
disappears insofar as it loses its target and no longer kno"s "here to turn. Iinally fourth, "here
politics does today appear, it takes the form of diffuse and competing struggles oer identities,
rather than a unified political pro#ect that is capable of surmounting difference. !s iek puts it,
3postmodern political thought3 TrailingU 3against the spectre of the
*transcendental/ Dub#ect, endeaorTsU to assert the liberating proliferation
of multiple forms of sub#ectiity(( feminine, gay, ethnic3 !ccording to this
orientation, one should abandon the impossible goal of global social
transformation and, instead, focus attention on the dierse forms of
asserting ones particular sub#ectiity in our comple% and dispersed
postmodern unierse, in "hich cultural recognition matters more than
socioeconomic struggle(( that is to say, in "hich cultural studies hae
replaced the critique of political economy *iek 0CCC8 F/.
In one respect this shift in the political mirrors the rise of the indiidual that emerged alongside
capitalism. ;here the pursuit of self(interest becomes the uniersal alue, solidarity disappears
and emancipatory political struggle takes the form of struggles oer arious particularities and
their representation. In another respect, "here economy becomes naturali)ed, the site of
political contestation becomes semiotic, a struggle oer cultural signifiers, rather than a struggle
oer material conditions. >ne of the burning questions of the entire body of ieks "ork is that
of ho" a politics of global social transformation is possible in the "ake of the rise of the
discourse of the capitalist. !s I hope to sho", capitalism is accompanied by the emergence of a
ne" discourse, similar to the discourse of the analyst in the unierse of mastery, that engages
"ith precisely this problem.
2% 3aste and te Discourse of &io(Power
!s "e sa" in the case of the discourse of the capitalist "hen ie"ed through the lens of
production, one of the central problems plaguing the discourse of the capitalist is that of "aste
and inefficiency in the production process. !s I attempted to sho", the relationship bet"een the
"orker *P/ and kno"(ho" *D,/ is characteri)ed by a structural impossibility, by a constitutie
deadlock, that 0/ is perpetually beset by "aste and inefficiency, preenting ma%imal production
of capital, and ,/ that competition among capitalists compels the constant reolutioni)ing of
25
production so as to increase the production of capital and remain competitie. !s $ar%
obsere,
1he bourgeoisie cannot e%ist "ithout constantly reolutionising the
instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and
"ith them the "hole relations of society. <onseration of the old modes
of production in unaltered form, "as, on the contrary, the first condition of
e%istence for all earlier industrial classes. <onstant reolutionising of
production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, eerlasting
uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier
ones. !ll fi%ed, fast fro)en relations, "ith their train of ancient and
enerable pre#udices and opinions, are s"ept a"ay, all ne"(formed ones
become antiquated before they can ossify *$ar% and 'ngels 0CCJ8 N9/.
If social conseraties "ish to understand the decline of traditional alues, they should not look
to :olly"ood or godless leftists, but rather to these dynamics internal to capitalism itself. 1his
process is not the result of an intentional desire on the part of capitalists, but rather emerges out
of the necessity of constantly e%panding production in the face of competitors that are doing the
same. 1he capitalist is faced "ith the alternatie of either e%panding or becoming antiquated
and falling out of the game altogether. <onsequently, faced "ith the problem of "aste and the
necessity of perpetually increasing and reolutioni)ing production, a ne" discourse emerges out
of the discourse of the capitalist that targets the body of the "orker "ith the aim of enhancing
productiity and producing "orkers. 1his discourse is the discourse of bio(po"er.
1he discourse of bio(po"er is found by shifting the terms of the discourse of the
capitalist one position clock"ise so that the master(signifier *D0/ no" appears in the position of
the agent, the diided sub#ect *P/ no" appears in the position of the other, kno"ledge no"
appears in the position of production *D,/, and objet a no" appears in the position of truth8
Discourse of &io(Power
Impossibility
D0 Q P
R((( ((((S
a == D,
Impotence
26
!s described by Ioucault, this social relation 23endeaors to administer, optimi)e, and multiply
TlifeU, sub#ecting it to precise controls and comprehensie regulations6 *Ioucault 0CC-/. Ioucault
himself associates bio(po"er "ith capitalism, arguing that,
1his bio(po"er "as "ithout question an indispensable element in the
deelopment of capitalism5 the latter "ould not hae been possible
"ithout the controlled insertion of bodies into the machinery of production
and the ad#ustment of the phenomena of population to economic
processes. Eut this "as not all it required5 it also needed the gro"th of
both these factors, their reinforcement as "ell as their aailability and
docility5 it had to hae methods of po"er capable of optimi)ing forces,
aptitudes, and life in general "ithout at the same time making them more
difficult to goern *Ibid8 09-(0/.
Eio(po"er thus refers to a social relation in "hich an immense system of practices comes to act
on the bodies and minds of sub#ects, giing them form to optimi)e production. Duch po"er is
embodied in the schools, military, churches, prisons, mental institutions, continuous on the #ob
training, the perpetual deelopment of ne" "orkplace procedures and protocols, etc., all of
"hich emerged around the time that capitalism itself came into being and "hich hae continued
to mutate and intensify eer since. It could be said that bio(po"er is a production of production,
in the sense that bio(po"er is a body of kno"ledge and techniques that produce those "ho
produce.
If, then, the master(signifier *D0/ no" appears in the position of the agent in the
discourse of bio(po"er, then this is because this social relation aims at mastery of the bodies it
acts upon *P/. 1he dream of bio(po"er is a completely regulated body that could function as a
gear in the machine of production "ithout friction, "aste, or remainder. If the product of the
discourse of bio(po"er is no" the signifier for kno"ledge *D,/, then this is because the
discourse of bio(po"er both generates institutions and disciplines. Ioucault describes the latter
as 23an anatomo-politics of the human bod!6 *Ibid8 0FC/. 1his "ould be the arious disciplines
in the social and information sciences aimed at producing kno"ledge of the arious techniques
through "hich humans can be effectiely regulated and controlled, thereby ma%imi)ing
production and efficiency. 1his kno"ledge, in turn, is implemented in institutions such as
schools that preside oer the formation of bodies and minds so as to produce the appropriate
types of "orkers for the form production takes at a particular point in the course of the
deelopment of capitalism.
C
1hese institutions and serices also sere as a relay for the
continuous retraining of "orkers as the means of production become antiquated and change.
27
1he appearance of objet a in the position of truth or that "hich dries this discourse can
be taken in a ariety of "ays. >n the one hand, it can be understood as the pursuit of surplus(
alue as the driing force behind this discourse. 1he schools, on the #ob training, and
2apolitical6 social sciences
0-
perpetually tell the sub#ect that these technologies are for their o"n
benefit. !n employer might refer a "orker to a cognitie(behaioral therapist or psychiatrist, for
e%ample, not because the "orkers passie resistance is inhibiting productiity, but for the
"orkers o"n "elfare *i.e., "ith the subte%t that the "orker is being told, 2&et your act together
or you "ill not be selling your labor commodity here any longer@6/. :o"eer, "hat lies behind all
of this is the aim of increasing productiity. >n the other hand, the appearance of objet a in the
position of truth can also be understood as the reinestment of capital in the means and forces
of production so as to e%pand production as in the case of training in ne" techniques that
enable the "orker to produce t"ele "idgets an hour rather than ten for the same "age.
Iinally, the appearance of objet a in the position of truth can be taken as the "aste and
resistance that inhabits all systems of production(( so "ell chronicled by Gynchon in The 1r!ing
of 4ot /5 ((and the aim of capitalism to e%clude this "aste and silence or integrate resistance. If
this discourse perpetually returns, if ne" techniques, kno"ledges, and regulatory mechanisms
are foreer being deised, then this is because the remainder and resistance al"ays returns in a
ne" form.
1here are adantages to a Lacanian formulation of bio(po"er in terms of discourse
theory that surmount problems internal to Ioucaults understanding of po"er. !s Ioucault
notoriously argued,
It seems to me that po"er must be understood in the first instance as the
multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in "hich they operate
and "hich constitute their o"n organi)ation5 as the process "hich,
through ceaseless struggles and confrontations, transforms, strengthens,
or reerses them5 as the support "hich these force relations find in one
another, thus forming a chain or a system, or on the contrary, the
dis#unctions and contradictions "hich isolate them from one another5 and
lastly, as the strategies in "hich they take effect, "hose general design or
institutional crystalli)ation is embodied in the state apparatus, in the
formulation of the la", in arious hegemonies *Ioucault 0CC-a8 C,(F/.
!s a consequence, it appears that there is no outside to po"er, nor any point of purchase on
po"er that "ould allo" the agent to aoid reproducing the system of po"er relations. Indeed,
this problem is only intensified in The 6se of leasure, "here "e are presented "ith the
internali)ation of po"er and the thesis that the sub#ect itself is a product of these po"er relations
28
*Ioucault 0CC-b8 ,N(F,/. If an agent is itself a product of these po"er relations, ho" can the
agent do anything but reproduce these po"er relationsA !s Ioucault obseres, 23there is no
single locus of great Lefusal, no soul of reolt, source of all rebellions, or pure la" of the
reolutionary6 *Ioucault 0CC-a8 CN(./.
1he Lacanian formulation of the discourse of bio(po"er calls this thesis into question.
>n the one hand, the discourse of bio(po"er is constitutiely incomplete due to the role truth or
the unconscious plays in this discourse. >n the other hand, the upper and lo"er leels of the
formula are haunted by both an impossibility and an impotence. If the relationship bet"een
mastery and the diided sub#ect is characteri)ed by impossibility, then this is because the
techniques deised by the discourse of bio(po"er are unable to completely gain purchase on
the slippery diided sub#ect upon "hich it acts. Insofar as the diided sub#ect is a pure oid, an
emptiness "ithout positie content, there is structurally a minimal gap or distance bet"een the
sub#ect and the body
00
"hich bio(po"er stries to target, and like"ise a minimal distance or gap
to all signifying formations that strie to represent the sub#ect in a body of kno"ledge such as
the BD$(IM. Dince no signifier is eer adequate to the sub#ect, any kno"ledge that stries to
situate and fi% the sub#ect is doomed to fail. !s a consequence, the kno"ledge and institutions
produced in the discourse of bio(po"er al"ays proe inadequate. Just as the hysteric al"ays
deelops ne" tricks for challenging the master in the clinic, something about the sub#ect
perpetually escapes precisely because the sub#ect is a failure of language. It is for this reason
that the lo"er leel of the discourse of bio(po"er is characteri)ed by impotence. 1he
kno"ledge and institutions produced in this discourse foreer miss the remainder or surplus
embodied in objet a "hich dries the sub#ect. Gut other"ise, the discourse of bio(po"er fails
because the sub#ect is already dead5 "hich is to say that the sub#ect is goerned by the death
drie, in e%cess of any homeostatic mechanisms characteristic of life.
4% Te Decline of +'mbolic 5fficienc' and te Discourse of 6mmaterial #abor
!ll in all iek has ery little to say about the discourse of bio(po"er beyond "hat he dra"s from
!gambens account of homo sacer, and the focus on reducing us to bare life, "here the po"er
of death perpetually hangs oer us. Instead, the priileged site and focus of ieks theoretico(
politico engagement has been "hat I here hae chosen to call the discourse of immaterial labor.
It is "ithin the field of immaterial labor that ideology proper is to be located. If, of the four
discourses inhabiting the unierse of capitalism, the discourse of immaterial labor is a priileged
site of political engagement, then this is because the discourse of immaterial labor is today "hat
29
maintains social relations after the decline of symbolic efficiency by continuously "eaing and
un"eaing the social field, creating temporary fields of social ties and opening ne" commodity
markets, "hile perpetually recapturing or reterritoriali)ing ne" sub#ectiities that do not fit "ith
e%isting social codes. :ere the reader should note that I hae skipped the discourse of critical
theory, "hich follo"s as the ne%t structural permutation from the discourse of bio(po"er. 1he
discourse of social critique "ill be e%plored in the ne%t section.
!s described by Kegri and :ardt, immaterial labor has come to replace industrial labor,
no" dominating the social field.
In the final decades of the t"entieth century, industrial labor lost its
hegemony and in its stead emerged 2immaterial labor,6 that is, labor that
create immaterial products, such as kno"ledge, information,
communication, a relationship, or an emotional response. <onentional
terms such as ser#ice work, intellectual labor, and cogniti#e labor all refer
to aspects of immaterial labor, but none of them captures its generality.
!s an initial approach, one can conceie immaterial labor in t"o principle
forms. 1he first form refers to labor that is primarily intellectual or
linguistic, such as problem soling, symbolic and analytic tasks, and
linguistic e%pressions. 1his kind of immaterial labor produces ideas,
symbols, codes, te%ts, linguistic figures, images, and other such products.
;e call the other principle form of immaterial labor 2affectie labor.6
Hnlike emotions, "hich are mental phenomena, affects refer equally to
body and mind. In fact, affects, such as #oy and sadness, reeal the
present state of life in the entire organism, e%pressing a certain state of
the body along "ith a certain mode of thinking. !ffectie labor, then, is
labor that produces or manipulates affects such as a feeling of ease, "ell(
being, satisfaction, e%citement, or passion *Kegri and :ardt ,--98 0-J/.
;hile not entirely sharing Kegri and :ardts thesis that immaterial labor has come to replace
industrial labor as the hegemonic mode of production, it is undeniable that immaterial labor is
today ubiquitous in the most deeloped countries. ;hether "e are speaking of the "ork of
adertising, political pundits and media, the production of #ingoistic e%pressions or clichWs in the
"orld of politics, analysts proiding standard narraties of "hat is going in the "orld, economy,
country, "ith children, and all the rest, arious serice #obs, pollsters, self(help sho"s, the
proliferation of self(help and ho"(to management books, fashion and home improement
sho"s, etc., eery"here "e see forms of labor geared to"ards the production of codes, social
identities, and affects.
!s Kegri and :ardt are careful to note, this form of labor is directed at the production of
social life.
30
1he labor inoled in all immaterial production3 remains material(( it
inoles our bodies and brains as all labor does. ;hat is immaterial is its
product. ;e recogni)e that immaterial labor is a ery ambiguous term in
this regard. It might be better to understand the ne" hegemonic form as
2biopolitical labor,6 that is, labor that creates not only material goods but
also relationships and ultimately social life itself. 1he term biopolitical
thus indicates that the traditional distinctions bet"een the economic, the
political, the social and the cultural become increasingly blurred *Ibid8
0-C/.
Immaterial labor is thus a complement of bio(po"er, functioning to shore up the functioning of
capitalism. It seres this function in three "ays. Iirst, as "e hae already obsered, the social
relations or social life formed through immaterial labor come to supplement the declining
symbolic efficiency, creating temporary relationships and identities to supplement the enduring
relationships that had e%isted prior to the deelopment of capitalist modes of production. 1hese
relationships are ital for the production of "orkers "ithin the discourse of the capitalist. !
"hole fauna or ecosystem of arious dispositions must be produced inoling forms of
affectiity, different social codes, and different social identities that assign bodies arious
positions in the oerall system of production and promote social relationships among these
sub#ects.
Decond, as "e sa" in the discourse of the capitalist, capitalism is a system premised on
continuous e%pansion and accumulation. 1his e%pansion must not only occur at the leel of
production, but also at the leel of distribution and consumption. ;ere the system of capitalism
to simply remain at the leel of producing goods that satisfy basic biological needs, its gears
"ould ery quickly grind to a halt, bringing the system to a state of static equilibrium. 1hus, not
only must the production of goods e%pand, but there must be a production of different t!pes of
commodities as "ell as a production of desires for these commodities. !s $ar% puts it,
2TpUroduction3 produces not only the ob#ect but also the manner of consumption, not only
ob#ectiely but also sub#ectiely6 *$ar% 0C7F8 C,/.6 1hrough the production of ne" desires,
capitalism is able to insure that infinite e%pansion is possible.
Iinally, third, not only must social relations and desires be produced through immaterial
labor, but it is also necessary to produce sub#ects that find their conditions of production and
place in the social "orld tolerable, reasonable, and natural. !s $ar% puts it, 2TpUroduction3
creates an ob#ect for the sub#ect, but also a sub#ect for the ob#ect6 *Ibid/. !s Luc Eoltanski and
'e <hiapello note in The 7ew Spirit of 1apitalism,
31
In many respects, capitalism is an absurd system8 in it, "age earners
hae lost o"nership of the fruits of their labor and the possibility of
pursuing a "orking life free of subordination. !s for capitalists, they find
themseles yoked to an interminable, insatiable process, "hich is utterly
abstract and dissociated from the satisfaction of consumption needs, een
of a lu%ury kind. Ior t"o such protagonists, integration into the capitalist
process is singularly lacking in #ustifications *Eoltanski and <hiapello
,--78 7/.
In such circumstances it is thus necessary to produce ideologies capable of rationali)ing this
system, e%plaining the sub#ects place in this system, and aboe all proiding #ustifications as to
ho" the sub#ect benefits from this system. ;here such #ustifications are lacking, it then
becomes necessary to direct discontent else"here, to some other entity like immigrants or
Je"s, so as to proide a rationale for discontent. Duch a task requires a massie production of
signifiers, narraties, and affectie responses to sere these functions.
:o", then, is the discourse of immaterial labor structuredA In the discourse of
immaterial labor, the battery of signifiers, kno"ledge *D,/, no" appears in the position of
agency, acting on or addressing objet a, producing master(signifiers *D0/, "ith the diided
sub#ect *P/ in the position of truth8
Discourse of 6mmaterial Production
Impossibility
D, Q a
R((( (((S
P == D0
Impotence
Hnlike pre(capitalist social formations "hich rigorously enforce social codes and mercilessly
defend against any deiation *a/ from these codes, capitalism functions through the perpetual
integration of that "hich escapes it. It is in this respect that "e can understand the appearance
of objet a in the position of the other in the discourse of immaterial labor. :ere a stands for that
"hich is not yet named or integrated in the system of capital. 1hus, follo"ing Gaolo Mirno, "e
can distinguish bet"een the people and the multitude. !ccording to Mirno, 23the multitudo
indicates a pluralit! which persists as such in the public scene, in collectie action, in the
handling of communal affairs, "ithout conerging into a >ne3 $ultitude is the form of social
32
and political e%istence for the many, seen as being many36 *Mirno ,--98 ,0/. !s Mirno goes on
to obsere,
Eefore the Dtate, there "ere the many5 after the establishment of the
Dtate, there is the >ne(people, endo"ed "ith a single "ill. 1he
multitude3 shuns political unity, resists authority, does not enter into
lasting agreements, neer attains the status of #uridical person because it
neer transfers its o"n natural rights to the soereign. 1he multitude
inhibits this 2transfer6 by its ery mode of being *through its plural
character/ and by its mode of behaing *Ibid8 ,F/.
>n the one hand, then, there is the multitude, "hich is an e%cess or multiplicity "ithout identity,
a remainder *a/ "ithin capitalism that does not fit any established codes *D,/ belonging to the
e%isting social field. >n the other hand, there is the Geople "hich is the unification of a
multitude into a shared identity or "ill *D0/.
In this connection, Mirno sho"s an astonishing pro%imity to Eadiou. $odifying Mirnos
understanding of the Dtate as a goernmental entity, the Dtate can be understood as the
operation by "hich inconsistent multiplicities, multiplicities "ithout unifying identity, are
transformed into consistent multiplicities or >nes.
0,
!s Eadiou puts it, 2TtUhe state of the
situation is that by means of "hich the structure of a situation is, in turn, counted as one6
*Eadiou ,--N8 N,,/. It is precisely this operation that the discourse of immaterial labor stries to
accomplish. 1hrough the interention of language, social sciences, images, etc., the Dtate *D,/
aims at the integration of that "hich fits no established place "ithin the contemporary system of
codes *a/. !s a consequence, the product of this discourse is a >ne *D0/, or the master(
signifier, that transforms the e%cess, multiplicity, or multitude into a unified identity that can be
counted. 1his master(signifier functions as a point of identification for sub#ects populating the
social system, builds social relations bet"een the no" counted(identity and other identities, and
opens ne" markets "ithin the system.
1o make these rather abstract points more concrete "e might refer to the e%ample of the
punk moement in its early days. If "e recall that objet a can also signify a remainder,
resistance, or "aste, "e can read the discourse of the capitalist as producing a "aste,
resistance, or remainder alongside its functioning that is not integrated in the system. 1his, for
e%ample, might consist of arious forms of "orker sabotage *theft, loafing, cutting corners, not
properly caring for the tools and technology used in production, etc./, not carried out in any
directed "ay, but simply out of impotent frustration "ith their "orking conditions. 1he early days
of punk emerged ery much in this spirit. Gunk began in London as a sort of protest against
33
both reigning economic conditions and the alienating and hypocritical nature of the social
system of codes that tolerated these conditions. In its beginnings it "as not a self(conscious
moement, in the sense that it did not identify itself as a set of principles, a defined aesthetic,
and a politics, but rather "as a sort of amorphous multiplicity *a/ gro"ing like some monstrous
ne" creature alongside the e%isting social codes *D,/. :o"eer, as time passed, punk came to
be named *D0/, giing it a countable identity *the 2count as one6/, and it congealed into a defined
aesthetic, "ith certain moral and political codes defining a set of social relations. !t this point,
punk became a point of identification for other sub#ects "ithin the social field, opening an
entirely ne" market largely diorced from its social and political origins. Ior instance, today "e
find youth and musicians participating in the fundamentalist <hristian rock moement "earing
clothing and "riting music ery similar to original punk music, but "ithout any of the protest
against economic and social conditions that originally motiated the moement. In other "ords,
the multitude becomes pacified and integrated, forming yet another marketable commodity. !s
Beleu)e and &uattari obsere, capitalism can al"ays add a ne" a%iom.
In light of the foregoing, the rationale for the appearance of the diided sub#ect *P/ in the
position of truth no" becomes clear. >n the one hand, the discourse of immaterial labor
functions to e%clude or disao" the alienated sub#ect of capitalism, masking it "ith a master(
signifier that purports to proide the sub#ect "ith an identity that "ould fi% its place in the
symbolic order. >n the other hand, the diided sub#ect is that "hich dries this discourse,
endlessly pursuing some signifier that "ould be capable of naming it or assigning it a place
"ithin the symbolic order. >f course, this is structurally impossible insofar as the sub#ect, to
quote Lacans aphorism, 2al"ays is "here it is not and is not "here it is6. 'ery signifier that
purports to name or fi% the sub#ect slides off of it like "ater on the back of a duck.
It no" becomes clear as to "hy the discourse of immaterial labor is haunted by both an
impossibility and an impotence. >n the one hand, because the discourse of immaterial labor is
drien by the diided sub#ect, by that "hich is al"ays displaced in the symbolic, no kno"ledge
*D,/ can eer catch up "ith the loss *a/ that plagues this sub#ect as a result of its alienation in
language. 'ndless signifiers proliferate attempting to catch up "ith objet a, only to see objet a
displaced like an eer receding hori)on. <onsequently, the relationship bet"een the diided
sub#ect *P/ and the master(signifier that purports to name it *D0/ is characteri)ed by impotence.
1he naming al"ays fails. !s a result, the discourse of immaterial labor ineitably generates
social symptoms structured around the bifurcated structure of fantasy described in the first
section of this paper. 1he sub#ect is forced to cast about for some reason for the failure of its
34
identity to function properly. It is precisely here that "e see the aim of ieks critique of
ideological formations. !s iek "rites in the introduction to The Sublime Object of 8deolog!,
In contrast to TtheU !lthusserian ethics of alienation in the symbolic
4process "ithout a sub#ect, "e may denote the ethics implied by Lacanian
psychoanalysis as that of separation. 1he famous Lacanian motto not to
gie "ay on ones desire Tne pas c9der sur son desirU(( is aimed at the
fact that "e must not obliterate the distance separating the real from its
symboli)ation8 it is this surplus of the Leal oer eery symboli)ation that
functions as the ob#ect(cause of desire. 1o come to terms "ith this
surplus *or, more precisely, leftoer/ means to ackno"ledge the
fundamental deadlock *4antagonism/, a kernel resisting symbolic
integration(dissolution *iek 0CJC8 F/.
It is precisely at this point "here the master(signifier stries to count the Leal as one, "here it
tries to coer oer constitutie antagonism, that ieks theoretico(politico praxis interenes.
?et here "e encounter a ne" discourse, unlike the others that each support, in their o"n "ay,
the discourse of the capitalist.
7% Te Discourse of !ritical Teor'
!s I suggested at the beginning of this paper, ieks characteri)ation of his o"n engagement in
terms of the discourse of the analyst fits uncomfortably. >n the one hand, ieks gloss on the
discourse of the capitalist is curious. !s iek remarks,
3the analysts discourse stands for the emergence of reolutionary(
emancipatory sub#ectiity that resoles the split of uniersity and hysteria.
In it, the reolutionary agent(( a ((addresses the sub#ect from the position
of kno"ledge that occupies the place of truth *i.e., "hich interenes in at
the 2symptomal torsion6 of the sub#ects constellation/, and the goal is to
isolate, get rid of, the master signifier that structured the sub#ects
*ideologico(political unconscious/ *iek ,--.a/.
Kot only is this gloss on the discourse of the analyst inconsistent "ith his analysis of the other
three discourses in the unierse of mastery, this is not "hat takes place in the discourse of the
analyst. 1he master(signifier *D0/ is not e%cluded, but is the product of this discourse. Gut
other"ise, "hat emerges oer the course of the analysis is the >edipal determinants of the
sub#ects unconscious. Dimilarly, the analyst does not speak from the position of kno"ledge,
but rather kno"ledge is "hat is e%cluded from the analytic setting. 1he analyst sets aside his
kno"ledge so that the unconscious kno"ledge of the analysand might come to the fore through
35
transference. 1he early Ireud had attempted to occupy the position of the analyst as a master
possessed of kno"ledge of the analysands symptoms. It "as this that droe Bora a"ay. It
"as not until Ireud set aside his kno"ledge that progress could be made in the process of
analysis.
!side from these issues of ho" Lacans discourse of the analyst is to be interpreted, a
more serious concern arises "ith respect to the aims of the discourse of the analyst "hen
situated in a political conte%t. !re analysis and engaged political actiity consistent "ith one
anotherA !s Lacan remarks at the end of The 2our 2undamental 1oncepts of s!choanal!sis,
2TtUhe analysts desire is not a pure desire. It is a desire to obtain absolute difference, a desire
"hich interenes "hen, confronted "ith the primary signifier, the sub#ect is, for the first time, in a
position to sub#ect himself to it6 *Lacan 0CCJ8 ,7./. 1he analysand begins analysis in the
dimension of the imaginary, treating eerything and eeryone as the Dame. >er the course of
analysis "hat emerges is an absolutely singular constellation of signifiers, specific to this
sub#ect and this sub#ect alone as determinants of his unconscious *hence Lacans reference to
the sub#ect being in a position to sub#ect himself to this primary signifier/. Lacan goes so far as
to suggest that the primary signifiers uncoered in analysis are pure non(sense. 23T1Uhe effect
of interpretation is to isolate in the sub#ect a kernel, a kern, to use Ireuds o"n term, of non-
sense36 *Ibid8 ,N-/. If this primary signifier has the status of non(sense, then this is precisely
because it is not common but particular to the sub#ect and no other. It is thus difficult to see
ho" it is possible to get a politics out of the discourse of the analyst, for the discourse of the
analyst does not aim at collectie engagement or the common(( "hich is necessary for politics ((
but the precise opposite.
Konetheless, there is a kernal of truth in ieks characteri)ation of his o"n position in
terms of the discourse of the analyst. Hnlike the politics of the discourse of the master premised
on the fantasy of imaginary organic totality, any reolutionary politics must speak not from the
position of totality, but from the standpoint of the Leal, of antagonism, of the remainder, or of
that "hich the other social ties function to eil or hide from ie". In other "ords, reolutionary
political engagement differs from the politics of the Dtate and master in that it approaches the
social from the perspectie of the Leal, treating this as the truth of social formations. !s iek
remarks,
!ll 4culture is in a "ay a reaction(formation, an attempt to limit, canali)e((
to culti#ate this imbalance, this traumatic kernel, this radical antagonism
through "hich man cuts his umbilical cord "ith nature, "ith animal
homeostasis. It is not only that the aim is no longer to abolish this drie
36
antagonism, but the aspiration to abolish it is precisely the source of
totalitarian temptation8 the greatest mass murders and holocausts hae
al"ays been perpetrated in the name of man as harmonious being, of a
Ke" $an "ithout antagonistic tension *iek 0CJC8 N/.
;here the politics of the master treats this imbalance or traumatic kernel of radical antagonism
as an accident to be eradicated and oercome, the critical(reolutionary politics treats the
tension as the truth that allo"s a "hole set of social symptoms to be discerned and engaged.
Ior e%ample, $ar% does not treat discontent among the proletariat as an anomalous deiation
disrupting the social to be summarily dismissed, but rather as the key to the systematic
organi)ation of capitalism and the perspectie from "hich capitalist production is to be
understood, and as the potential for reolutionary transformation. 1he mark of any critical(
reolutionary political theory "ill thus be that objet a, the remainder, the gap, the traumatic
kernel, occupies the position of the agent in the social relation.
:o"eer, "hile the discourse of critical theory resembles the discourse of the analyst in
that objet a occupies the position of the agent, the structure of this discourse is ery different
and has entirely different aims. 1he aim is no longer that of uncoering those nonsensical
signifiers that function as determinants of the sub#ects unconscious, but rather of producing a
di#ided subject. In the discourse of the critical theory objet a no" addresses the master(signifier
*D0/, producing a diided sub#ect *P/, "ith kno"ledge *D,/ in the position of truth8
Discourse of !ritical Teor'
Impossibility
a Q D0
R((( (((S
D, == P
Impotence
1he relation of objet a(( the remainder, e%cluded, Leal, or traumatic kernel ((addressing the
master(signifier *D0/ comes as no surprise. Ladical engagement is precisely the praxis that
challenges reigning master(signifiers, ideologies, masters, leaders, forms of hegemonic
domination of one group by another, and all the rest. :o"eer, the appearance of the diided
sub#ect *P/ in the position of the product comes as a surprise. Is not the aim of a critical theory
37
and praxis precisely that of emancipationA :o" can a discourse that produces a dominated or
alienated sub#ect possibly able to contribute to the aim of emancipationA
If "e are to understand the appearance of the diided sub#ect in the position of the
product it is necessary to raise the question of the conditions for the possibility of emancipation.
iek relates a #oke at the beginning of :elcome to the (esert of the "eal that can help us to
address this question. !s iek remarks,
In an old #oke from the defunct &erman Bemocratic Lepublic, a &erman
"orker gets a #ob in Diberia5 a"are of ho" all mail "ill be read by the
censors, he tells his friends8 4Lets establish a code8 if a letter you get
from me is "ritten in ordinary blue ink, its true5 if its "ritten in red ink, its
false. !fter a month, his friends get the first letter, "ritten in blue ink8
4'erything is "onderful here8 the shops are full, food is abundant,
apartments are large and properly heated, cinemas sho" films from the
;est, there are many beautiful girls ready for an affair(( the only thing you
cant get is red ink. 1he structure here is more refined than it might
appear8 although the "orker is unable to signal that "hat he is saying is a
lie in the prearranged "ay, he none the less succeeds in getting his
message across(( ho"A ;! inscribing the #er! reference to the code in
the encoded message' as one of its elements3
Is this not the matri% of an efficient critique of ideology(( not only in
4totalitarian conditions of censorship but, perhaps een more, in the more
refined conditions of liberal censorshipA >ne starts by agreeing that one
has all the freedoms one "ants(( then one merely adds that the only thing
missing is the 4red ink8 "e 4feel free because "e lack the ery language
to articulate our unfreedom *iek ,--,b8 0(,/.
1his #oke perfectly illustrates "hy the diided sub#ect appears in the position of the product in
the discourse of critical theory. If "e recall that the discourse of immaterial labor functioned by
e%cluding the diided, alienated sub#ect, by e%cluding antagonism and tension by integrating it
into the e%isting social net"ork, then it becomes clear that the first step in emancipatory practice
lies in the articulation of our unfreedom. Gut other"ise, the discourse of critical theory proides
a language through "hich our unfreedom can be articulated, discerned, and therefore engaged.
>n the one hand, the production of a diided sub#ect shifts the sub#ects relation to the
symbolic from one of identification "here the social order appears natural and as things should
be, to one "here the sub#ect discerns the manner in "hich she is alienated in the symbolic
order. >n the other hand, and more profoundly, the production of the sub#ect opens the space
of the oid "here alternatie possibilities of social organi)ation might emerge. !s iek
remarks, 2TtUhe sub#ect is nothing but the gap in Dubstance, the inadequacy of the Dubstance to
itself36 *iek ,--,a8 0F0/. :ere Dubstance should be understood as 2social substance6, the
38
Dtate, or the body of codes that appear natural. If the sub#ect is the gap in substance, then this
is because it is in e%cess of any and all identifications, such that its status as a oid opens a
space "here alternatie possibilities of life might become possible.
1he reason for the appearance of kno"ledge *D,/ in the position of truth no" becomes
clear. >n the one hand, kno"ledge(( ideology ((is "hat is e%cluded by this discourse in order to
function. 1he ideological #ustifications for the e%isting social order are placed in brackets, called
into question, reealed as riddled "ith contradictions and antagonisms. >n the other hand, the
pursuit of a different form of kno"ledge and ne" institutions is no" "hat dries this discourse.
1his "ould be reolutionary kno"ledge that analy)es and engages the social field from the
standpoint of its constitutie antagonisms.
Like the other discourses, the discourse of the critical theorist is characteri)ed by both
an impossibility and an impotence. >n the one hand, the relationship bet"een objet a and the
master(signifier is characteri)ed by impossibility insofar as no master(signifier is eer adequate
to naming objet a. ! remainder al"ays returns that e%ceeds the organi)ing aims of the master(
signifier. :ere it "ill be noted that this impossibility perfectly captures ieks gloss on the
discourse of the analyst, underlining the manner in "hich objet a or the Leal and the master(
signifier are separated from one another. >n the other hand, the lo"er leel of the formula is
characteri)ed by impotence insofar as ideology *D,/ perpetually fails in containing or mastering
the diided sub#ect, but also insofar as the pursuit of reolutionary kno"ledge aimed at by this
discourse neer completely responds to the sub#ects lack. !s a result, the discourse of the
critical theorist endlessly repeats "ithout limit. Garaphrasing Eeckett, the discourse of critical
theory is characteri)ed by the impossibility of going on, the necessity of going on, and the "ill to
go on.
8% !onclusion
1hroughout this paper I hae attempted to sho" that the difference bet"een iek and Lacan is
to be situated not at the leel of content, but of form. ;here Lacans thought engages the
unierse of mastery and the discourses that inhabit that unierse, a structure can be discerned
throughout ieks thought that engages a ery different unierse of discourse. !lthough iek
does not e%plore all dimensions of this unierse in depth, his "ork can be seen as a cartography
of this ne" unierse, both uncoering the mechanisms by "hich it functions and deising
strategies for engaging "ith this unierse "ith the aim of promoting emancipation by proiding
us "ith a language through "hich "e might become capable of articulating our unfreedom. 1he
39
structure of the discourses that can be discerned at "ork in ieks thought reeals a ery
precise analysis of the structural organi)ation of our historical present. :o"eer, these
discourses also go "ell beyond iek, reealing a common ground among many ery different
forms of critical engagement, "hile also allo"ing us to discern the role that the unconscious and
the real play "ithin this ne" unierse of discourse.
,""endi*: , &rief +ummar' of #acans +tructuralist Teor' of Discourse
Lacan deeloped his theory of discourse bet"een the years of 0C.C and 0C7F, bet"een
Deminar OMII, The Other Side of s!choanal!sis, and Deminar OO, ,ncore< On 2eminine
Sexualit!' the 4imits of 4o#e and =nowledge. Hnlike other theories of discourse, the focus is
not on the content of discourse, but rather on the structural relation bet"een the speaker of the
discourse and the addressee of the discourse, such that 0/ something is produced in the
discourse, and ,/ the discourse is al"ays constitutiely incomplete by irtue of the role that the
unconscious plays in the discourse. !s !l%endre Leupin nicely puts it,
;hat is a discourseA It is a formali)able structure that positions itself in
bet"een language and speech. It can subsist "ithout being spoken by an
indiidual *as in the case of an institution/, but it is not the "hole of a
language8 it inscribes itself in language as a fundamental relationship.
Located bet"een the generality of a gien language and the speech act of
an indiidual or the e%treme singularity of each human sub#ect, discourses
define social groups *Leupin ,--98 .J/.
! discourse is thus not so much "hat a speech act is about, but is rather a particular form or
structure taken by social relations, bet"een institutions and other institutions, groups and other
groups, institutions or groups and indiiduals, indiiduals and groups or institutions, and
indiiduals and institutions. !s a consequence, speech acts that are about ery different things
can embody one and the same structure of social relations. Ior e%ample, "orkers might
oerturn the o"ners of the means of production, but institute a social order that has precisely
the same structure, "ith masters commanding other "orkers so as to procure en#oyment. 1his
seems to hae occurred in Doiet socialism "here the mode of production remained the same
een though those in charge changed.
1he formal structure of discourse or social relations as understood by Lacan is represented as
follo"s8
40
Formal +tructure of Discourse
Impossibility
!gent Q >ther
R(((((((((( (((((((((((S
1ruth == Groduction
Impotence
In each discourse, an agent *indiidual, group, institution/ acts upon or addresses an other
*indiidual, group, or institution/. Lacan claims that the position of the agent is a position of
semblance, as any agent is ultimately goerned or made to act by the unconscious or "hat
Lacan refers to as the 2truth6 of the discourse. 1he position of truth is thus the real agent of
discourse. It is simultaneously "hat the discourse must eil or hide, "hat the discourse must
e%clude, in order to function, "hile also being that "hich dries the discourse or functions as the
2engine6 of the discourse. Ior e%ample, in the discourse of the master belonging to the unierse
of mastery, the sub#ect diided bet"een consciousness and the unconscious *P/ appears in the
position of truth, "hile the master(signifier *D0/ appears in the position of semblance or agency.
1he master, leader, boss, or >edipal father presents himself to the other(( in this case *D,/,
standing for the serant, slae, "orker, or child ((as being complete and "ithout any diision by
language. In order to function as the master, the agent of this discourse must eil or hide his
diision or lack. ?et it is the diision or lack that dries this discourse. 1he master addresses
the serant, commanding him to produce ob#ects for his en#oyment. :o"eer, because the
master, like any other sub#ect, is diided by language, this command can neer properly be
transmitted, such that the ob#ect *a/ produced in the discourse is neer quite "hat the master
asked for. !s a result, the master continues to make commands, futilely attempting to surmount
his diision, becoming eer more alienated in language. Hnlike theories of discourse premised
on information theory "here the focus is on ho" it is possible to transmit a shared, identical
message to a receier, Lacan begins from the premise that all communication is
miscommunication or that all communication ultimately fails. It is for this reason that "e
continue to endlessly talk. !s a consequence, each discourse is designed to account for this
failure and "hy this failure *impossibility and impotence/ generates the repetition of the arious
structured social relations.
41
'ach discourse is thus determined by the position of one of four ariables(( D0, D,, P,
and objet a ((in relation to one another in the formal structure of discourse. D0 stands for the
master(signifier and can be anything from the master, the Iather, the leader, proper names, to
key ideological signifiers like 2freedom6, 2democracy6, the 2Hnited Dtates6, 2enironment6, etc.
1hese signifiers function to form a totality by relating all the other signifiers back to this originary
master(signifier. Ior e%ample, a $ar%ist links all of the "orlds social problems(( unemployment,
ethnic and nationalistic tensions, gender inequality, looming enironmental catastrophe, energy
shortages, etc. ((back to 2capitalism6 functioning as D0. In and of itself, the signifier 2capitalism6
means nothing, but it seres an organi)ational role "ith regard to all the other signifiers in the
social field. Like"ise, feminism might see 2gender inequality6 as the master(signifier underlying
all of the signifiers composing the social field, e.g., enironmental problems emerge from
masculine attitudes to"ards nature that perceie it as a female body to be e%ploited. 1he
discourse of the master in the unierse of mastery is also a highly schemati)ed representation
of the >edipal structure, "here the name(of(the(father names the opaque desire of the m>ther,
instituting the La", desire, and prohibition. D, stands for kno"ledge, the battery of signifiers
composing language, the serant or "orker that possesses 2kno"(ho"6, archies, bureaucracy,
etc. P stands for the sub#ect diided bet"een consciousness and the unconscious, alienated
sub#ects, sub#ects subordinated to other sub#ects, etc. Iinally a stands for surplus(jouissance,
the lost ob#ect, jouissance, commodities, and so on. Lacan employs algebraic symbols to
emphasi)e structural relations, so that ery different phenomena can be discerned as being
organi)ed by identical social relations. <onsequently, the manner in "hich the ariables are
filled out by content "ill depend on the social formation being discussed. Dometimes D0 "ill be
the name(of(the(father, at other times the proper name, at yet other times, the master or
monarch, and yet other times a boss or signifier central to an ideological formation.
1he arro"s on the left and right hand of each discourse indicate the direction in "hich
the little machines "ork. 1he up"ard arro" on the left side of each discourse indicates the role
that the unconscious plays in the discourse beneath the semblance defined by the position of
the agent, "hile the do"n"ard arro" on the right side of each discourse indicates "hat is
produced by the other in the discourse. Insofar as each discourse is constitutiely incomplete
due to possessing an unconscious element *the truth/ that is eiled in the discourse, the
relationship bet"een the agent and other on the upper leel of the discourse is characteri)ed by
2impossibility6. 1he agent of the discourse can neer fully transmit his desire to the addressee
of the discourse because, as Lacan liked to say, 2truth can only be half(said6. Dimilarly, the
relationship bet"een the t"o terms of the lo"er leel of each discourse is characteri)ed by
42
2impotence6 *represented by the t"o diagonal slash marks/, because the product of each
discourse is neer "hat "as desired in the position of truth for each discourse. Ior e%ample,
the kno"ledge *D,/ produced by the master *D0/ in the discourse of the hysteric is neer the sort
of kno"ledge that "ould proide a kno"ledge of jouissance, loss, or lack that dries the
hysteric. 1he relation bet"een a and D, is characteri)ed by impotence. 1hus, the doctor,
political leader, therapist, father, scientist, etc., foreer gies the "rong ans"er to the hysterics.
If this is so, then it is so because the loss *a/ driing the hysterics symptom *P/ is something
that foreer falls outside of language. :ere it should be recalled that objet a is the remainder or
constitutie lack produced "hen the liing body is alienated in language. 1he more signifiers
the master produces, the more alienated the hysteric feels insofar as proliferating signifiers
increase the diision in the sub#ect, pushing the sub#ect further and further a"ay from the lost
ob#ect3 ! parado% not unlike those described by +eno.
1he subsequent discourses belonging to each unierse of discourse are found by
rotating the terms of the initial discourse clock"ise one position. 1hus, for e%ample, the
discourse of the hysteric is found by shifting the diided sub#ect *P/ from the position of truth in
the discourse of the master to the position of the agent, shifting the master(signifier from the
position of the agent to the position of the other, shifting the position of kno"ledge *D,/ from the
position of the other to the position of production, and shifting objet a from the position of
production to the position of truth. Ior each unierse of discourse there are e%actly four
discourses and no more. 1he relations bet"een the four terms remains identical for each
discourse in a unierse of discourse. Eet"een the four positions of the formal structure of
discourse and the four ariables that can occupy these positions, there are ,9 possible
discourse and . possible unierses of discourse. 1he discourses are thus "hat the branch of
mathematics kno"n as 2group theory6 refers to as 2permutation groups6. Lacan proposed fi#e
discourses, the four belonging to the unierse of mastery and a fifth called the 2discourse of the
capitalist6 that cannot be deried in the unierse of mastery. 1he discourse of the capitalist thus
suggests an entirely ne" unierse of discourse populated by F additional discourses not
discussed by Lacan. Eelo" readers "ill find the si% possible unierses of discourse "ithin
Lacans matri%. 1he additional four unierses of discourse hae not been named as it has not
yet been established "hether or not they, in fact, e%ist in our social "orld. 1hey are irtual
"ithout being actual.
43
Te Universe of 1aster'
Discourse of te 1aster Discourse of te 9'steric

Impossibility Impossibility
D0 Q D, P Q D0
R ((( ((( S R((( ((( S
P == a a == D,
Impotence Impotence
Discourse of te ,nal'st Discourse of te Universit'
Impossibility Impossibility
a Q P D, Q a
R((( (((S R((( (((S
D, == D0 D0 == P
Impotence Impotence
Te Universe of !a"italism
Discourse of te !a"italist Discourse of &io(Power
Impossibility Impossibility
P Q D, D0 Q P
R((( ((((S R((( (((S
D0 == a a == D,
Impotence Impotence
Discourse of !ritical Teor' Discourse of 6mmaterial Production
Impossibility Impossibility
a Q D0 D, Q a
R((( (((S R((( (((S
D, == P P == D0
Impotence Impotence
44
Tird Universe of Discourse
Discourse - Discourse .
Impossibility Impossibility
D0 Q D, a Q D0
R ((( ((( S R((( ((( S
a == P P == D,
Impotence Impotence
Discourse / Discourse 2
Impossibility Impossibility
P Q a D, Q P
R((( (((S R((( (((S
D, == D0 D0 == a
Impotence Impotence
Fourt Universe of Discourse
Discourse - Discourse .

Impossibility Impossibility
D0 Q a D, Q D0
R ((( ((( S R((( ((( S
D, == P P == a
Impotence Impotence
Discourse / Discourse 2
Impossibility Impossibility
P Q D, a Q P
R((( (((S R((( (((S
a == D0 D0 == D,
Impotence Impotence
45
Fift Universe of Discourse
Discourse - Discourse .

Impossibility Impossibility
D0 Q a P Q D0
R ((( ((( S R((( ((( S
P == D, D, == a
Impotence Impotence
Discourse / Discourse 2
Impossibility Impossibility
D, Q P a Q D,
R((( (((S R((( (((S
a == D0 D0 == P
Impotence Impotence
+i*t Universe of Discourse
Discourse - Discourse .
Impossibility Impossibility
D0 Q P D, Q D0
R ((( ((( S R((( ((( S
D, == a a == P
Impotence Impotence
Discourse / Discourse 2
Impossibility Impossibility
a Q D, P Q a
R((( (((S R((( (((S
P == D0 D0 == D,
Impotence Impotence
46
1
As iek puts it, Lacans foru!a of t"e four #iscourses t"us ena$!es us to #ep!o% t"e t&o faces of o#ernit%
'tota! a#inistration an# capita!ist(in#i)i#ua!ist #%naics* as t&o &a%s to un#erine t"e asters #iscourse+ #ou$t
a$out t"e efficienc% of t"e aster(fi,ure '&"at -ric .antner ca!!s t"e crisis of in)estiture/* can $e supp!eente# $% t"e
#irect ru!e of t"e e0perts !e,itii1e# $% t"eir kno&!e#,e, or t"e e0cess of #ou$t, of peranent 2uestionin,, can $e
#irect!% inte,rate# into socia! repro#uction3 4ina!!%, t"e ana!%sts #iscourse stan#s for t"e eer,ence of re)o!ution(ar%(
eancipator% su$5ecti)it% t"at reso!)es t"e sp!it of uni)ersit% an# "%steria3 6n it, t"e re)o!utionar% a,ent(( a ((a##resses
t"e su$5ect fro t"e position of kno&!e#,e t"at occupies t"e p!ace of trut" 'i3e3, &"ic" inter)enes at t"e s%ptoa!
torsion/ of t"e su$5ects conste!!ation*, an# t"e ,oa! is to iso!ate, ,et ri# of, t"e aster si,nifier t"at structure# t"e
su$5ects 'i#eo!o,ico(po!itica!* unconscious/ 'iek 2006+ unpa,inate#*3
2
6n t"e #ocuentar% iek!, iek ar,ues t"at t"e ,oa! of p"i!osop"% is not to answer 2uestions, $ut $ot" to
pose 2uestions an# refrae t"e )er% nature of t"e 2uestions $ein, aske#3
3
As suc", 7!ato is #irect!% at o##s &it" 4reu#s account of socia! #issatisfaction an# conf!ict in Civilization and
Its Discontents.
4
8"rou,"out t"is paper 6 #istin,uis" $et&een #iscourses an# uni)erses of #iscourse3 A #iscourse is an
in#i)i#ua! structure suc" as t"e #iscourse of t"e aster, t"e ana!%st, t"e "%steric, or t"e uni)ersit%3 As Lacan attepts to
#eonstrate, t"e #iscourse of t"e "%steric, ana!%st, an# uni)ersit% are perutations of t"e #iscourse aster foun# $%
rotatin, t"e ters of t"is #iscourse c!ock&ise one position for&ar#3 A uni)erse of #iscourse, $% contrast, is a set of
structura! perutations copose# of four #iscourses taken to,et"er3 9ase# on t"e four ters Lacan uses to represent
t"e )aria$!es of an% #iscourse, t"ere are 24 possi$!e #iscourses3 :o&e)er, t"ese #iscourses for sets of perutations,
suc" t"at t"ere are on!% si0 possi$!e universes of #iscourse3 4or a $rief account of Lacans #iscourse t"eor% an# t"e si0
uni)erses of #iscourses consu!t t"e appen#i0 to t"is paper on pa,e 533
5
6 nae eac" of t"e si0 uni)erses of #iscourse &it" reference to t"e first #iscourse fro &"ic" t"e ot"er t"ree
#iscourses are #eri)e#3 8"e four #iscourses propose# $% Lacan are nae# t"e uni)erse of aster%/ $ecause t"e initia!
#iscourse fro &"ic" t"e #iscourse of t"e "%steric, t"e #iscourse of t"e ana!%st, an# t"e #iscourse of t"e uni)ersit% are
#eri)e# is t"e #iscourse of t"e aster3 ;ee#!ess to sa%, not a!! of t"e #iscourses t"at popu!ate t"is uni)erse or ,roup of
perutations are t"ese!)es socia! re!ations t"at ai at aster%3
6
6n Lacans foru!ation of t"e #iscourse of t"e capita!ist in t"e <i!an =iscourse, t"e arro& on t"e !eft("an# si#e
of t"e #iscourse appears pointin, #o&n&ar# rat"er t"an up&ar#3 Lacan #oes not e0p!ain &"% t"e arro& points
#o&n&ar#, nor #oes "e, to % kno&!e#,e, e)er a,ain #iscuss t"e #iscourse of t"e capita!ist usin, "is at"ees3 6n
keepin, &it" Lacans treatent of t"e ot"er four #iscourses $e!on,in, to t"e uni)erse of aster%, 6 "a)e opte# to p!ace
t"e !eft("an# arro& pointin, up&ar#s rat"er t"an #o&n&ar#s3 >ea#ers t"ese!)es can 5u#,e &"et"er or not t"is #oes
interpreti)e )io!ence to Lacans o&n foru!ation $ase# on t"e coentar% t"at fo!!o&s3
7
6t is note&ort"% t"at #espite 9aur#ri!!ar#s o&n c!ais "ere an# e!se&"ere t"at s%$o!ic()a!ue spe!!s t"e ruin
of <ar0s ana!%sis of capita!is, t"e a##ition of s%$o!ic()a!ue #oes not #estro% <ar0s un#erstan#in, of t"e
coo#it%3 <ar0 )er% c!ear!% ar,ues t"at nee#s/ are not sip!% $io!o,ica! nee#s, $ut are a!so socia!!% an# "istorica!!%
pro#uce# nee#s, i3e3, nee#s t"at are pro#uce# or anufacture#3 As <ar0 o$ser)es on t"e )er% first pa,e of Capital,
8"e coo#it% is, first of a!!, an e0terna! o$5ect, a t"in, &"ic" t"rou," its 2ua!ities satisfies "uan nee#s of &"ate)er
kin#3 8"e nature of t"ese nee#s, &"et"er t"e% arise, for e0ap!e, fro t"e stoac", or t"e imagination, akes no
#ifference/ '<ar0 1990+ 125, % ita!ics*3
8
4or an e0ce!!ent #iscussion of t"e ro!e p!a%e# $% t"e super(e,o an# jouissance in conteporar% capita!is, see
<c?o&an 20033
9
:ere 9our#ieus ana!%sis of e#ucationa! institutions, c!ass, an# habitus is of ,reat si,nificance '9our#ieu
1988*3
10
9% apo!itica! socia! sciences/, 6 un#erstan# t"ose socia! sciences t"at take t"ese!)es to $e pro#ucin, a
neutra! kno&!e#,e of "uan $ein,s, socia! re!ations, an# socia! #%naics t"at "a)e no po!itica! stake in t"is kno&!e#,e3
6n ot"er &or#s, suc" socia! sciences i,nore t"e #iension of ref!e0i)it% or t"eir o&n ro!e in t"is kno&!e#,e pro#uction3
8"is &ou!# $e %et anot"er reason t"at t"e aster(si,nifier '.
1
* appears in t"e position of a,enc% in t"e #iscourse of $io(
po&er, insofar as t"ese fors of socia! science #o not app!% t"eir o&n o#es of ana!%sis to t"eir o&n position as
o$ser)ers in a socio!o,ica! fie!#3
11
4or an e0ce!!ent account of t"e 'non*(re!ations"ip $et&een t"e su$5ect an# t"e $o#%, see @o"nston 20083
12
4or a #etai!e# treatent of t"is in fora! ters, cf3 9r%ant 20073
$eferences
Eadiou, !. *,--N/ ;eing and ,#ent, Ke" ?ork8 <ontinuum.
Eryant, L.L. *,--7/ 2Dymptomal Vnots and 'ental Luptures8 iek, Eadiou, and Biscerning the
Indiscernible6, 8nternational >ournal of ?i@ek Studies.
Eryant, L.L. *forthcoming/ 21he >ther Iace of &od8 Lacan, 1heological Dtructure, and the
!ccursed Lemainder6, reAText< + >ournal of "hetorical Theor!.
Eoltanski, L. and <hiapello, '. *,--7/ The 7ew Spirit of 1apitalism, Merso8 Ke" ?ork.
Eourdieu, G. *0CJJ/ Bomo +cademicus, Dtanford8 Dtanford Hniersity Gress.
Ioucault, $. *0CC-a/ The Bistor! of Sexualit!< +n 8ntroduction C$olume -D, Ke" ?ork8 Mintage
Eooks.
Ioucault, $. *0CC-b/ The 6se of leasure< The Bistor! of Sexualit! C$olume ED, Ke" ?ork8
Mintage Eooks.
Johnston, !. *,--J/ iek)s Ontolog!< + Transcendental *aterialist Theor! of Subjecti#it!,
'anston8 Korth"estern Hniersity Gress.
$ar%, V. *0C7F/ 0rundrisse, London8 Genguin Eooks.
$ar%, V. *0CC-/ 1apital C$olume 8D, London8 Genguin <lassics.
$ar%, V and 'ngels, I. *0CCJ/ The 1ommunist *anifesto, Ke" ?ork8 Dignet <lassics.
$c&o"an, 1. *,--F/ The ,nd of (issatisfaction< >ac3ues 4acan and the ,merging Societ! of
,njo!ment, Ke" ?ork8 Dtate Hniersity of Ke" ?ork Gress.
$iller, J(!. *,--J/ 2Duture6, in S!mptom $olume .. !ailable at
http8==""".lacan.com=symptomJXarticles=millerJ.html. !ccessed C
th
Deptember ,--J.
Kegri, !. Y :ardt, $. *,--9/ *ultitudes< :ar and (emocrac! in the +ge of ,mpire, Ke" ?ork8
1he Genguin Gress.
Lacan, J. *0C../ 4a logi3ue du fantasme. Hnpublished 1ranscript.
Lacan, J. *0C7,/ 2Biscourse of Jacques Lacan at the Hniersity of $ilan on $ay 0,, 0C7,6, trans.
J.;. Dtone. !ailable at http8=="eb.missouri.edu=~stone#=$ilanXBiscourse,.pdf. !ccessed
on 0,th Deptember ,--J.
Lacan, J. *0CCJ/ The 2our 2undamental 1oncepts of s!choanal!sis, Ke" ?ork8 ;.;. Korton Y
<o.
Lacan, J. *,--7/ The Other Side of s!choanal!sis, Ke" ?ork8 ;.;. Korton Y <o.
Leupin, !. *,--9/ 4acan Toda!< s!choanal!sis' Science' "eligion, Ke" ?ork8 >ther Gress, Llc.
Merhaeghe, G. *0CCC/ (oes the :oman ,xistF 2rom 2reud)s B!steric to 4acan)s 2eminine, Ke"
?ork8 >ther Gress, Llc.
Mirno,G. *,--9/ + 0rammar of the *ultitude, Ke" ?ork8 Demiote%t*e/.
iek, D. *0CJC/ The Sublime Object of 8deolog!, Ke" ?ork8 Merso.
iek, D. *0CCC/The Ticklish Subject< The +bsent 1entre of olitical Ontolog!, Ke" ?ork8 Merso.
iek, D. *,--,a/ 2or The! =now 7ot :hat The! (o< ,njo!ment as a olitical 2actor, Ke" ?ork8
Merso.
iek, D. *,--,b/ :elcome to the (esert of the "eal, Ke" ?ork8 Merso.
iek, D. *,--.a/ 2Jacques Lacans Iour Biscourses6. !ailable at
http8==""".lacan.com=)i)four.htm. !ccessed on Deptember Cth ,--J.
iek, D. *,--.b/ The arallex $iew, <ambridge8 1he $I1 Gress.
iek, D. *,--7/, Sla#oj iek resents *ao on ractice and 1ontradiction, Ke" ?ork8 Merso.