In ancient Rome, there was no need for people to have distinct names, they followed that of their tribe. For instance, a family of four children would classify their kids as young, middle, old, and first-born. There was no need for them to have their own identity because this identity was no expected to serve any purpose. Although two thousand years have gone by, this ideological reproduction of the self into a miniature replica is still present within contemporary Levantine societies. (...) This paper will particularly shed light on 21 st century Lebanon and its system of ideological stratification and inheritance; this structure functions on the basis of an advanced rendition of primitive tribalism, known as sectarianism. Consequently, this sectarian identity enables the othering of the self from its own surrounding as well as any “outsider”. This constant and inter-generational practice is classified as a manifestation of persistence. (shrink)

Law functions on the basis of some presuppositions of what a person is. The purposes and tasks that are projected on a legal system depend on an understanding of personhood. Also, courts continuously find themselves in situations where they have to define the person or the legal subject, at times with surprising consequences. However, legal theory lacks clear criteria for personhood. We do not know who or what a legal person is, nor do we know what kind of being we (...) want her to be. There is clearly a need for critical examination of the concept of legal personhood. This article takes its inspiration from a historical theory, which sheds light on the complex logics of subjectivity. Reflecting on the thought of Johann Gottlieb Fichte we can contemplate fundamental aspects of personhood, especially in its politico-legal dimensions. It is claimed in this article that even though the legal subject has to be autonomous to some degree, acknowledging otherness inside the self is a compelling way of understanding legal personhood. (shrink)

This paper takes off from a growing preoccupation in Western political-social philosophy on the thinkability of the materiality of change, that became most pronounced in Alain Badiou's philosophy of the event. It traces the development of the discourse of radical change tied to a materialist theory of subjectivity beginning from Badiou, down to the strong criticism posed against it by Slavoj Žižek. This is then followed by the discussion of Bruno Bosteels' potent defense of Badiou's philosophy. Finally, the last part (...) takes off from this debate and highlights how this tension in Badiou's philosophy was possible in the first place. Using Adrian Johnston's key insight on pre-evental and post-evental time, this paper argues that Žižek and Bosteels respectively employ pre-evental and post-evental lenses in reading the relation of event to being. Furthermore, these two lenses are themselves the effect of the split readability of the event at the moment of its rupture: the parallax-effect that divides the event into two. This paper asserts that neither of the two is sufficient. Both are fundamental in outlining what sort of sustained disciplines are necessary before and after events take place. (shrink)

Much has been written about Žižek’s critique of ideology and its theoretical boundaries. Beyond the critical aspect of Žižekian philosophy, the desert of Žižekian politics lies in the way subjectivity persists even at the end of great revolutionary mobilizations. In this essay, I deal with the implications of a Žižekian politics based on the theory of subjectivity and the problem of the “morning after”. His rejection of the main currents of leftism opens up the discussion whether Žižekian politics is a (...) call for pragmatism or as a provocation to revolution. To address this issue, this essay proceeds in two ways. First, we study how Vladimir Lenin and Deng Xiaoping gives us two lessons in socialist pragmatism; the lessons we draw from Lenin and Deng allow us to study the problematic faced by the post-revolutionary politics: the need to arrive at a concrete plan to govern the nation and resuscitate the economy. Second, from what we learn as the audacity of Lenin’s strategic retreats and the missed political opportunities in Deng’s economic reforms, I argue that in a politics of militancy, collectivism is complemented by the rigorous study of our present situation. Militancy is an attitude of guarded optimism that complements communist optimism with a critical edge and a level-headed approach to dealing with political problems. (shrink)

The critical aspect of Slavoj Žižek’s philosophical system is clearly established. It has allowed us to see the ideological backdrop of late capitalism and its political situation. As we move from critique of ideology to theory proper, the desert of Žižekian politics lies in describing the political implications of a politics of subjectivity. Here, I tackle the question of how should we deal with the post-event rupture, when the morning after demands us to present a viable alternative to the previous (...) system. Engaging with Žižek’s latest works, I find a deadlock: responding to the myriad of anti-Trump movements and actions, Žižek warned us of the dangers of false activity and invites us to further study the conditions that allowed the rise of clownish populists in the first place; concerning the European debate about the refugee crisis, he argues for the strengthening of European borders as well as provide an effective bureaucracy to deal with the influx of refugees, avoiding the liberal leftist naïveté of open borders. Such positions do not sit well with the liberal leftist politics that invite us to combat fascism at all costs and demand a compassionate policy towards the refugees. Here, the question of Žižekian politics becomes clear: is it a form of pragmatism or a revolutionary theory that depends on the collective subject that introduces the rupture to the status quo? I do not argue that it is one or the other; rather, the two sides provoke a dialectical examination of our political situation, where grand revolutionary projects are constantly haunted by the stigma of failure. Hence, Žižekian politics, as a politics of subjectivity, is a politics of the organization of the collective from the margins that will break the status quo; but, as a politics of militantism, collectivity is complemented by the vigorous study of our present situation to be able to properly confront the political crises of our time. (shrink)