Professional Documents
Culture Documents
out, this antisocial force absorbs the repudiated negativity without which
community is never imagined, let alone brought into being. This focus
on the negativity of the social, on its inherent antisociality, does not deny
that such commonalities as community may posit can result, according to
Jacques Lacan, in “a certain law of equality . . . formulated in the notion of
the general will.” But while the imposition of such a law may establish, for
Lacan, “the common denominator of the respect for certain rights,” it also,
as he goes on to add, can “take the form of excluding from its boundaries,
and therefore from its protection, everything that is not integrated into its
various registers.”1 For the general will to be general, that is, it must negate
a certain specificity, which reflects, of course, first and foremost, the spe-
cific construction of the “general will.” Theodor Adorno, who makes a simi-
lar point, proposes that “society stays alive, not despite its antagonism, but
by means of it”—an insight that subsequently leads him to conclude that
“under the all-subjugating identity principle, whatever does not enter into
identity, whatever eludes rational planning in the realm of means, turns
into frightening retribution for the calamity which identity brought on the
nonidentical.”2
The governing logic I defined in No Future as reproductive futurism is
one of the forms this calamity takes3—a calamity that effects the violent era-
sure of the cost at which a social order, constitutively self-sentimentalizing,
perpetuates, in the name of the future and its privileged embodiment,
the Child, the absolutism of identity, the fixity of what is. It does so pre-
cisely by proscribing whatever insists on the nonidentical, whatever brings
out, through a critical practice that accedes to negativity, alternatives to
the terms permitting our conceptualization of the social only by means
of compulsory submission to the temporality of community—alternatives
that threaten the coherence, and so the identity, of the social itself and with
it the utopian fantasy of a collectivity, a general will, whose norms need not
themselves conduce to the enforcement of normativity.
For futurism’s dispensation, like the laissez-faire faith of neoliberalism,
authorizes every discursive stance to compete in the register of the political
except that stance construed, by those on the Right and Left alike, as extra-,
post-, or a-political insofar as it directs its negativity at the framing of poli-
tics as such. This is the fate of those whom No Future describes as sinthomo-
sexuals, those who reject the Child as the materialized emblem of the social
relation and with it the concomitant mapping of the political in the space
of reproductive futurism. Bringing together the Lacanian sinthome, which
472 Lee Edelman
general will, and so of what never attains to the status of political legibility,
sinthomosexuality offers no promise of social recognition, the holy grail of
the countless projects across the political spectrum that wrap themselves
in the ever-elastic flag of democratization. Without for a moment denying
the importance that distinguishes many of those projects, I want to insist
on the need for an ongoing counterproject as well: a project that’s willing to
forgo the privilege of social recognition and so is willing to break the com-
pact binding the image of the human to a social order speciously conflated
with kinship and collectivity, the compact adduced to foreclose dissent
from reproductive futurism by assuming the ontologized identity of futur-
ism and sociality itself. Even as I call for it, though, I call such a project
impossible because it aims, with an insistence I link to the pure repeti-
tion of the death drive, to expose within the social something inherently
unrecognizable, something radically nonidentical, that functions to negate
whatever is, whatever is allowed to be by the various regimes of normativity
to which, however inconsistently, we all, as subjects, subscribe. The impos-
sible goal of this project, then, would be to evince what Alain Badiou would
call the “void of the situation,” the foundational negativity that keeps the
symbolic from achieving self-identity to the extent that the nonidentical
persists within as internal antagonism.6 Such a manifestation could never,
of course, be anything but impossible, since the void can never appear
as itself, in the form of a pure negativity. Instead, there’s the sinthomo‑
sexual, or, as some might prefer, the queer, a term that evokes an exti-
mate relation to the structure of normative values while affirming, through
its historic association with specifically sexual irregularities, an indicative
link to the unassimilable excess of jouissance. But that excess, reflecting
the always excessive specificity of the sinthome, turns the sinthomosexual
into a surrogate for the perpetual failure of universalism, which can never
account for that element, that specificity, that sinthome, voided as the nec-
essary precondition of its own elaboration.
In opposition to this voided specificity of the sinthomosexual’s jouis-
sance, the nullified presence of which rules out any totalized social reality,
futurism adduces the image of the Child as a necessary figural supplement
to sociality as it is. By doing so it perpetuates the hope of a fully unified
community, a fully realized social order, that’s imagined as always avail-
able in the fullness of the future to come. In keeping with the prospect
of realizing this phantom community through reproduction, the figure of
the Child, whatever political program it may serve, whatever particularity
474 Lee Edelman
always and everywhere affirms the self-evidence of the human, the Child,
whose vulnerability conjures images of its suffering, reproaches the puta-
tive privilege for which sinthomosexuals stand accused. Though leveled by
the Right and the Left alike, the accusation remains the same: the sinthomo
sexual (whom those on the Right might identify as anyone queer and those
on the Left might construe more particularly as a white, middle-class, gay
man) has the privilege of refusing the responsibilities that come with col-
lective life, the privilege, that is, of sexual license, political disengagement,
and thus, most important, the privilege of remaining indifferent to the vul-
nerabilities of others, who might include heterosexual children and Chris-
tian believers for the Right or persons of color and unemployed members
of the working class for the Left. The sinthomosexual, on either hand, gets
denounced for affirming a jouissance indulgently fixed on the self, while
those who merit recognition as good, as communally minded, as properly
social, address the suffering of the other for which the Child is our domi-
nant trope. It remains the case that libidinal investment in the suffering
of the other, regardless of whether its dividends come through preventing
or producing that suffering, is also an investment tied to a specific knot-
ting of jouissance. But the Child, as the image of a suffering that can never
be simply a fact of the real without also becoming a figure for a cultural
erotics of social reality, lets the good in their goodness deny their structur-
ing determination by a jouissance that’s never permitted to be presented
as such in their framing of what “is”—that’s never permitted to reveal, in
other words, their own sinthomosexuality, though it clearly fuels the aggres-
sion with which they vituperate sinthomosexuals.
That’s what sociality means, and that’s what Adorno meant as well
when he insisted that “society stays alive, not despite its antagonism, but
because of it.” As antagonism, as negativity, as the substance of the Real,
sinthomosexuality returns us to the endlessly ramifying calamity that has
always already been brought on the nonidentical by identity—a calamity
no Child can ever redeem, no future can reconcile. How could they when
futurism and the Child alike are outposts of identity itself, repeating the
very calamity they purport to overcome? We might call that calamity “after-
ing”: the temporal distribution of relations and identities that correlates
the movement from before to after with a passage from an ignorance to a
knowledge and so with the ideological conflation of historical development
and genetic narrative, what Paul de Man calls “the pre-assumed concept of
history as a generative process[,] . . . of history as a temporal hierarchy that
476 Lee Edelman
Notes
1 Jacques Lacan, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, book 7, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959–
1960, ed. Jacques Alain-Miller, trans. Dennis Porter (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992),
195.
2 Theodor Adorno, Negative Dialectics, trans. E. B. Ashton (New York: Continuum, 1994),
320.
3 Lee Edelman, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive (Durham, NC: Duke Univer-
sity Press, 2004).
4 Ernesto Laclau, “Structure, History, and the Political,” in Judith Butler, Ernesto Laclau,
and Slavoj Žižek, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left
(New York: Verso, 2000), 209.
5 Slavoj Žižek, “Odradek as a Political Category,” lacanian ink 24/25 (2005): 152.
6 See, for example, Alain Badiou, Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil, trans. Peter
Hallward (New York: Verso, 2001), 68–69.
7 Laclau, “Structure, History, and the Political,” 208.
8 Adorno, Negative Dialectics, 381.
9 Paul de Man, “Literary History and Literary Modernity,” in Blindness and Insight: Essays
in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1983), 164.