bosteels ontología y política

8/10/2019 Bosteels Ontologa y Poltica

1/12

Afterword: Thinking, Being, Acting, or, On the Uses and Disadvantages of Ontology for

Politics

Bruno Bosteels

Which imbecile spoke of an ontology of the revolt? ()

The revolt is less in need of a metaphysics than

metaphysicians are in need of a revolt. Raoul aneigem! Trait de savoir-vivre

lusage des jeunes gnrations

"

#aced $ith the ubi%uitous return of the %uestion of being in the field of political thought

today! put into relief most elo%uently by the present collection of essays! & am tempted to repeatTheodor W. 'dornos gesture $hen in art *ne of hisNegative Dialectics! as he himself

e+plains! ,ontology is understood and immanently critici-ed out of the need for it! $hich is aproblem of its o$n."&n keeping $ith this model! & too $ould $ant to ask in $hat $ay the

ans$ers of the ontological turn in self/anointed leftist circles today may be ,the recoil of the

unfolded! transparent %uestion! and to $hat e+tent these ans$ers also ,meet an emphatic need! asign of something missed! even if it does not! or no longer! correspond to $hat 'dorno sees as

,a longing that 0ants verdict on a kno$ledge of the 'bsolute should not be the end of the

matter.1We need not stoop to the level of 'dornos blunt and for this reason often ill/understood

attacks on the ne$ fundamental ontologies in 2ermany! 3artin 4eideggers in particular! to raiseagain the %uestion about the need for a leftist ontology today. This $ould mean asking not only5

What are the uses and disadvantages of ontology for politics! and a leftist one to boot? 6ut also5Where does this politico/ontological need stem from in the first place?The initial task $ould consist in outlining the general form or platform in $hich the

%uestion of being is presented to us today in the conte+t of political thought. 's opposed to

'dornos claim! the $ay this happens is no longerif ever it $as the casethrough an appeal toa supposed substantiality! or to some version or other of the absolute! surreptitiously brought

back to life behind 0ants back. &n fact! if there is a common presupposition shared by all

present/day political ontologies touched upon in this volume! it is that ontology is not! cannot be!

or must not be a %uestion of substance or the absolute. &t presupposes neither the presence ofbeing nor the identity of being and thinking as a guide for acting. To the contrary! ontology here

is described as spectral! nonidentical! and postfoundational. &t tries to come to terms! not $ith

present beings but $ith ghosts and phantasms7 not $ith entities or things but $ith events$hether $ith events in the plural! or! alternatively! $ith the singular event of presencing as such!

$hich should never be confounded $ith a given present! albeit a past or future one.

8onse%uently! there can be no determinate politics! not even a democratic or radical/democratic

"Theodor W. 'dorno!Negative Dialectics! trans. 9. 6. 'shton (:ondon5 8ontinuum! ";;


2/12

' :eftist *ntology'fter$ord by 6osteels 1

one! that $ould simply derive from ontology as a thoroughly desubstantiali-ed field of

investigation into being andCas eventeven though most commentators are %uick to add that

democracy! often in the guise of a radical democracy or a democracy/to/come rather than itshistorical shape! $ould be the only political formation or regime attuned to the hori-on of

ontology at the close of the metaphysical era. ,This! then! is the argument5 in the ans$ers that

they have traditionally brought to bear on the Dspecial %uestion DWhat is to be done?philosophers have relied! in one $ay or another! on some standard/setting first $hose grounding

function $as assured by a Dgeneral doctrine! be it called ontology or something else. #rom this

doctrine! theories of action received their patterns of thought as $ell as a great many of theirans$ers! Reiner =chErmann $rites in one of the very first attempts at outlining the practical and

political implications of a postfoundational! or an/archic! ontology. 4e continues5 ,>o$! the

deconstruction of metaphysics situates historically $hat has been deemed to be a foundation. &t

thus closes the era of derivations bet$een general and special metaphysics! bet$een firstphilosophy and practical philosophy.AThe specifically leftist nature of such a proposal!

ho$ever! is not al$ays clear! e+cept insofar as some prior criteria are assumed to be at our

disposal by $hich to Fudge $hat is leftist and $hat is not.

1

4eidegger and :acan! often in bold rereadings or creative misreadings! no doubt namethe t$o dominant strands in this revival of the ontological %uestion in a practical or political key!

$ith added inflections taken from the $ork of 8arl =chmitt and Walter 6enFamin. 4eideggers

centrality in this conte+t goes $ithout saying! even as the political conse%uences of his ontologyremain a topic of dispute! to say the least5 ,*ur epoch can be said to have been stamped and

signed! in philosophy! by the return of the %uestion of 6eing. This is $hy it is dominated by

4eidegger. 4e dre$ up the diagnosis and e+plicitly took as his subFect the realignment! after a

century of 8riticism and the phenomenological interlude! of thought $ith its primordialinterrogation5 $hat is to be understood by the being of beings? G6ut even :acans

psychoanalytical $ork is concerned $ith ontology! as his son/in/la$ and soon/to/become

e+ecutor of his intellectual legacy! Hac%ues/'lain 3iller! perceived as early as in ";BG $hen heasked :acan about his ontology! to $hich the latter responded rather coyly5 ,& ought to have

obtained from him to begin $ith a more specific definition of $hat he means by the term

ontology only to go on stressing ,that all too often forgotten characteristicforgotten in a $aythat is not $ithout significanceof the first emergence of the unconscious! namely! that it does

not lend itself to ontology! and yet Fust a fe$ $eeks later he $ould seemingly contradict

AReiner =chErmann!Heidegger on Being and Acting: ro! "rinci#les to Anarchy! trans.

8hristine/3arie 2ros (6loomington5 &ndiana niversity ress! ";;


3/12

' :eftist *ntology'fter$ord by 6osteels A

himself5 ,recisely this gives me an opportunity to reply to someone that! of course! & have my

ontology$hy not?like everyone else! ho$ever naLve or elaborate it may be.M4o$ever this

may $ell be! $e might conclude $ith one of :acans most astute contemporary readers5,*ntology or not! :acans psychoanalysis imposes a general rectification to philosophy! touching

upon nothing less than the $ay in $hich truth is adFusted to the real. B

6et$een 4eideggers destruction of the metaphysics of being %ua presence and :acanssubversion of the ideology of the subFect %ua ego! in any case! there lies the general frame$ork

in $hich $e could situate the authors $hose $ritings dominate most discussions in this

collection! namely! Hac%ues Kerrida! 2iorgio 'gamben! 9rnesto :aclau! 8hantal 3ouffe! 'lain6adiou! and =lavoF Ni-ek. 'side from the overarching legacy of 3ar+ism! here represented

above all in the figure of #redric Hameson! the principal e+ception to this 4eideggerian/:acanian

frame$ork that immediately comes to mind $ould be the neo/=pino-ist or Keleu-ian ontology of

substance as pure immanence! or life! $hich 'ntonio >egri and 3ichael 4ardt among othersoffer as their gift to the communist :eft in their t$o/volume manifesto!&!#ireand'ultitude.

6ut significantly though perhaps not surprisingly! this vitalist ontology $hich other$ise claims

to be an ontology of the event as $ell is not only underrepresented in the present collection of

essays7 it also comes under serious attack in the last t$o of these essays! both for beingdangerously idealist! insofar as it $ould esche$ the dimension of uncoded materiality! and for

being too confidently materialist! insofar as it $ould seek to e+orci-e the indeterminacy of ghosts$hose uncanny smile turns out to be irreducible! all good intentions not$ithstanding! to any

preestablished political programme! be it communist or other$ise. 8hristopher 6reu thus $rites5

,While 4ardt and >egri! citing aul of Tarsus! argue for the Dpo$er of the flesh $ithin thepolitical economy of the present! this flesh appears to have a peculiarly ghostly e+istence!

$hereas 0laus 3ladek and 2eorge 9dmondson in a $ay argue that this e+istence is not ghostly

enough5 ,The political has so far been entirely on the side of the specter! believing the specter to

be dependable! predictable! trust$orthy. 2hosts! mean$hile! seem out of place! lingering in a no/mans land bet$i+t and bet$een places and times! $hich is $hy a melancholic stance of fidelity

haunted by an+iety/producing ghosts may be needed to subtract our leftist ontology from the

illusions of mastery! movement! and militantism5 ,'s opposed to >egris vision of a robust!virile political agent enveloping the ne$ in his embrace! the haunted subFect is held in place!

petrified! by the decision to hesitate! by a declaration of fidelity to the undead! the discarded! the

unrememberedto all of those as yet unlisted in the account books of monumental history.

A

4ere! in other $ords! ontology by and large is supposed to be postmetaphysical! if by

metaphysics $e understand the age/old discourse for $hich the principle holds that ,the same!indeed! is thinking and being.@The problem $ith this characteri-ation of metaphysics! $hich

M:acan! The our unda!ental %once#ts of "sychoanalysis! ed. Hac%ues/'lain 3iller! trans.

'lan =heridan (>e$ Oork5 W.W. >orton! ";P")! 1; and @1.B'lain 6adiou! Thorie du sujet(aris5 =euil! ";P1)! "MA. #or a detailed account of :acans earlyontological reflections! see #ranQois 6alms! %e (ue )acan dit de l*tre(aris5 #! ";;;).@armenides! fragment A. #riedrich >iet-sche in this conte+t can be said to inaugurate the

closure of metaphysics $hen in a note from "PPP! included in The +ill to "o,er! he $rites5,armenides said! Done cannot think of $hat is not7$e are at the opposite e+treme! and say

D$hat can be thought of must certainly be a fiction. =ee The +ill to "o,er! trans. Walter

0aufmann and R.H. 4ollingdale (>e$ Oork5 intage! ";B@)! aphorism MA;. #or a commentary on


4/12

' :eftist *ntology'fter$ord by 6osteels G

other$ise seems to me no $orse than any other and $hich in any case has the virtue of

concision! is that it ignores the e+tent to $hich not only 4eidegger but also someone like 6adiou

both of $hom are $idely perceived to be models of so/called postfoundational thoughtmight ultimately subscribe to this armenidean principle! even though 4eidegger does so by

displacing metaphysics in the name of thinking! $hereas 6adiou (like Keleu-e and >egri for that

matter) openly embraces the notion that his ontology and theory of the subFect signal a ne$metaphysics! bypassing as a nonissue the $hole debate regarding the end of metaphysics or its

closure. 9ven so! it is hard to ignore that today! $ith very fe$ e+ceptions! most radical

ontological investigations $ould seem to start from the nonidentityof being and thinking$emight even say from their alterity! in the :evinasian sense according to $hich an ethics of the

other must disrupt the metaphysics of the same! or even from theirsualternity! in the sense in

$hich 2ayatri =pivak argues that ,the subaltern is necessarily the absolute limit of the place

$here history is narrativi-ed into logic.P6eing and thinking! but also history and logic! thusbecome delinked or unhinged in $ays that perhaps are not even dialectical anymore in the older

sense of the term. This has profound conse%uences for politics precisely insofar as there no

longer e+ists a necessary linkage that $ould set the paradigm for practical forms of acting.

&nstead! it is to the very delinking or unbinding of the social that a leftist ontology $ould have toattune itself. Whence also the stubborn not to say hackneyed insistence on motifshere $e can

forego the mention of proper namessuch as the indivisible remainder or reserve! theconstitutive outside! the real that resists symboli-ation absolutely! the dialectic of lack and

e+cess! or the necessary gap separating representation from presentation pure and simple.

&t is not! then! ontology as suchthat is either leftist or rightist! unless of course $e $ereto ascribe a moral value$hether good or badto being %ua being in a fashion that $ould more

properly have to be called religious or theological! but rather the specific orientationgiven to the

impasse or aporia that keeps the discourse of being %ua being from ever achieving full closure.

6adious distinction! e+plored in much ofBeing and &vent! bet$een three fundamentalontological orientationsconstructivist! transcendent! and genericshould be helpful in this

regard! especially insofar as the distinction does not correspond neatly to a leftist! rightist! or

centrist tripartite division! nor should it be e%uated $ithout further ado $ith the division that:aclau and Roland IgsJ! for instance! propose bet$een immanence! transcendence! and failed

or decompleted transcendence/$ithin/immanence! although in this case the similarities and

overlaps are rather striking indeed. 6riefly put! the constructivistorientation seeks to reduce theimpasse by bringing it back into the fold of a $ell/formulated language7 the transcendent

orientation raises the impasse to the level of a %uasi/mystical beyond7 and the genericorientation

postulates the e+istence of an indiscernible $ith $hich to interpret the impasse of being as the

effect of an event $ithin the situation at handthus neither collapsing the event into the sumtotal of its constructible preconditions nor elevating the impasse to the level of a miraculous or

monstrous/sublime Thing! as it $ere! taking the place once occupied by 2od.

#ollo$ing 3ar+ and #reud $hose doctrines take us beyond ontology in the strict senseand possibly open up a fourth option! furthermore! $e could argue that the generic or

indiscernible orientation sho$s the e+tent to $hich the science of being! through its inherent

the significance of this note! see hilippe :acoue/:abarthe! ,:a fable (";@


5/12

' :eftist *ntology'fter$ord by 6osteels M

deadlock or impasse! presupposes the retroactive clarification of an intervening subFect $ithout

$hich the ontological impasse $ould not even be apparent to begin $ith. ,&ts hypothesis consists

in saying that one can only render justiceto inFustice from the angle of the event andintervention. There is thus no need to be horrified by an un/binding of being! because it is in the

undecidable occurrence of a supernumerary non/being that every truth procedure originates!

including that of a truth $hose stakes $ould be that very un/binding.;

&ndeed! it may very $ellbe the case that the defining polemic behind the present collection of essaysits principal

contradiction or its fundamental line of demarcationdepends not so much on the elaboration of

a leftist ontologyin one form or another as much as on the possibility of a leftist (or communistnot necessarily the same) theory of the suject. The latter! actually! turns out to be barred or

blocked! put under erasure! or kept at the level of virtuality or potentiality $ithout actuality! by

some of the most radical arguments for a lefist ontology in this volume.

&n any case! returning to a simpler alternative! the unspoken presupposition behind thoseessays in this volume that accept the optionif not the needof a leftist ontology seems to be

that a leftist orientation in ontology is one that ackno$ledges! e+poses itself to! or accepts to

come to terms $ith! the inherent gap or ghostly remainder in the discourse of being %ua being!

$hereas a rightist orientation $ould be one that disavo$s! represses! or displaces this gap orremainder. ,' leftist ontology therefore recogni-es that everyday political practiceand not Fust

Dthe politicalis defined by this daily struggle about the very Dnature of our $orld and its linesof communication! about $ho possesses the right and the po$er to delineate its borders and

enforce its rules! as 8arsten =trathausen $rites in his &ntroduction5 ,4o$ever! at stake is not Fust

any ontology! but one that ackno$ledges and thinks through its parado+ical! antifoundationalDhori-on. This means that! perhaps against the authors $ishes! even 'dornos o$n negative

dialectics! $hich hinges upon the gap bet$een the concept and nonconceptualities! might fit the

profile of a leftist ontology. ,Regarding the concrete utopian possibility! he $rites as if to enable

this posthumous rereading! ,dialectics is the ontology of the $rong state of things. The right stateof things $ould be free of it5 neither a system nor a contradiction."


6/12


7/12

' :eftist *ntology'fter$ord by 6osteels @

human being? What then could be more radical than in the name of contemporary ontological

interrogations to forego all humanist anthropologies so as unconceal the uprootedness of the

human essence that is its absent ground? The price to be paid for this radicali-ation! ho$ever! iseither the e+pulsion of the politics/to/come beyond the social realm altogether or else its sinister

and undialectical conflation through a figure of ambivalence $ith $orld/historical horrors such

as the 4olocaust. This enormous risk can be avoided only by reinscribing politicslet us sayonce again dialecticallyin the present situation. &nstead of seeking a pure or purified form of

the political! no matter ho$ violent and catastrophic! $hat is needed then amounts to some kind

of ontology of actuality! as in the essays of art T$o.

M

When 3ichel #oucault! in his programmatic elaboration upon 0ants ,What &s

9nlightenment? essay! coined this e+pression ,ontology of actuality to designate the task of hislifelong endeavor! as different from an ,analytic of truth! he himself perhaps could not have

predicted the enthusiasm this coinage $ould generate among contemporary thinkers.""#igures as

$idely different as 2ianni attimo and #redric Hameson thus have come to classify the overall

aim of their $ork under this umbrella term.

"1

'nd yet! beyond this une+pected success! have $efully understood the parado+ encapsulated in the very proFect for an ontology of actuality?

#or #oucault! the task of a ,historical ontology of ourselves or a ,critical ontology of thepresent amounts above all to an archaeological and genealogical criticism of our modes of

""3ichel #oucault! ,What is 9nlightenment? (,Suest/ce %ue les :umires?U)! in The oucault

2eader! ed. aul Rabino$ (>e$ Oork5 antheon 6ooks! ";PG)! A1/Me$ Oork5

8olumbia niversity ress! 1


8/12

' :eftist *ntology'fter$ord by 6osteels P

doing! thinking! and saying5 ,'rchaeologicaland not transcendentalin the sense that it $ill

not seek to identify the universal structures of all kno$ledge or of all possible moral action! but

$ill seek to treat the instances of discourse that articulate $hat $e think! say! and do as so manyhistorical events. 'nd this criti%ue $ill be genealogical in the sense that it $ill not deduce from

the form of $hat $e are $hat it is impossible for us to do and to kno$7 but it $ill separate out!

from the contingency that has made us $hat $e are! the possibility of no longer being! doing! orthinking $hat $e are! do! or think."AThe task of criticism then ultimately no longer consists

only in dra$ing up limits but also and above all in enabling one to pass beyond them. &n this

sense! the ontology of actuality is nothing less than the $ork of freedom in action. 's hilip2oldstein concludes in his contribution to this volume5 ,'lthough #oucault also develops

4eideggerian theory! he interprets it in positive terms $hereby its historical ontologies or

epistemes enable the subFect to assert him or herself. 3oreover! as 3acherey maintains! he

allo$s the subFect an indeterminacy or self/fashioning $hich permits progressive action. &n#oucaults $ake! ho$ever! the conFunction of both termsontology and actualityto describe

the task at hand has become increasingly parado+ical! especially $ith the advent of the so/called

postmodern condition and the rise of late or finance capitalism.

*n the one hand! as discussed above! the most radical ontological investigations todaytend to$ard spectrality! virtuality! potentialityand not to$ard actuality. ,4igher than actuality

stands possibility! 4eidegger notes inBeing and Ti!e! not unlike 'gamben $ho insists that themost radical potentiality is a potential not tobecome actual5 ,&t is a potentiality that is not simply

the potential to do this or that thing but potential to not/do! potential not to pass into actuality."G

2oing against the grain of these tendencies! there is thus something intrinsically uncanny! not tosay o+ymoronic! at least today! about an ontology of actuality! if $e take into account the

dominant orientations of postfoundational thinking. #oucaults provocation! in this sense! also

consisted in enabling a historical ontology of ourselves that $ould not have to shy a$ay from

speaking about the present situation in the name of some kneeFerk aversion to the metaphysics ofpresence.

*n the other hand! ho$ever! there can be no doubt that the ontological themes of

difference! multiplicity! event! becoming! and so on! are the product of late capitalism as muchas! if not more so than they are counteracting forces. 3ar+ himself after all $as al$ays %uite

enthusiastic about the po$er of capitalism to destitute and break do$n old feudal! patriarchal! or

idyllic bonds and hierarchies. ,&t is obviously the only thing $e can and must $elcome $ithin8apital! 6adiou comments referring to those $ell/kno$n passages from The %o!!unist

'anifesto5 ,That this destitution operates in the most complete barbarity must not conceal its

properly ontologicalvirtue."M6ut if it is indeed capitalism itself that reveals all presence to be a

mere semblance covering over random multiplicity! then this also means that the categories of apostfoundational ontology not only are not necessarily leftist! they also might turn out to be little

more than descriptive of! if not complicitous $ith! the status %uo. ,&n this case! Dcritical thought

is in fact precisely ade%uate to its moment! Fust not in the $ay it imagines itself to be. &treiterates! no doubt in sublimated or misrecogni-ed form! accepted social structures and political

"A#oucault! ,What &s 9nlightenment?! GM/GB."G3artin 4eidegger!Being and Ti!e! trans. Hohn 3ac%uarrie and 9d$ard Robinson (>e$ Oork5

4arper Y Ro$! ";B1)! BA7 2iorgio 'gamben!"otentialities: %ollected &ssays in "hiloso#hy!trans. Kaniel 4eller/Roa-en (=tanford5 =tanford niversity ress! ";;;)! "@;/"Porman 3adaras- ('lbany5 =>O ress!

";;;)! MB/M@.


9/12

' :eftist *ntology'fter$ord by 6osteels ;

presumptionseffectively canceling out real critical reflection! >icholas 6ro$n and &mre

=-eman $arn us! and! later! referring to $hat might $ell be the %uintessential category of a leftist

ontology! they conclude5 ,The primacy of Ddifference in fact outlines an identitytheunackno$ledged frame of the monoculture! global capitalism. Kifference! multiplicity! or the

primacy of events or becomings over subFects and obFects! far from giving critical leverage! thus

$ould define our given state of affairs under late capitalism and its attendant cultural logic.Heffrey T. >ealon! in his periodi-ation of the ";P


10/12

' :eftist *ntology'fter$ord by 6osteels "

bosteels ontología y política

Documents