Metapolitics

by Alain Badiou, Jason Barker (Translator)

Metapolitics argues that one of the main tasks of contemporary thought is to abolish the idea that politics is merely an object for philosophical reflection. Badiou indicts this approach, which reduces politics to a matter of opinion, thus eliminating any of its truly radical and emancipatory possibilities.

Against this intellectual tradition, Badiou proposes instead the consideration of politics in terms of the production of truth and the affirmation of equality. He demands that the question of a possible “political truth” be separated from any notion of consensus or public opinion, and that political action be rethought in terms of the complex process that binds discussion to decision.

Starting from this analysis, Badiou critically examines the thought of anthropologist and political theorist Sylvain Lazarus, Jacques Ranciere’s writings on workers’ history and democratic dissensus, the role of the subject in Althusser, as well as the concept of democracy and the link between truth and justice.

This English edition includes a new preface from the author, as well as an introduction from the translator, Jason Barker.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Theory, France, Collections

159 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1998

About the author

Alain Badiou, Ph.D., born in Rabat, Morocco in 1937, holds the Rene Descartes Chair at the European Graduate School EGS. Alain Badiou was a student at the École Normale Supérieure in the 1950s. He taught at the University of Paris VIII (Vincennes-Saint Denis) from 1969 until 1999, when he returned to ENS as the Chair of the philosophy department. He continues to teach a popular seminar at the Collège International de Philosophie, on topics ranging from the great 'antiphilosophers' (Saint-Paul, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Lacan) to the major conceptual innovations of the twentieth century. Much of Badiou's life has been shaped by his dedication to the consequences of the May 1968 revolt in Paris. Long a leading member of Union des jeunesses communistes de France (marxistes-léninistes), he remains with Sylvain Lazarus and Natacha Michel at the center of L'Organisation Politique, a post-party organization concerned with direct popular intervention in a wide range of issues (including immigration, labor, and housing). He is the author of several successful novels and plays as well as more than a dozen philosophical works.

Trained as a mathematician, Alain Badiou is one of the most original French philosophers today. Influenced by Plato, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Jacques Lacan and Gilles Deleuze, he is an outspoken critic of both the analytic as well as the postmodern schools of thoughts. His philosophy seeks to expose and make sense of the potential of radical innovation (revolution, invention, transfiguration) in every situation.

Reviews

[C. Varn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Badiou's work is often both refreshing in its Platonic instance of the reality of abstractions and the importance of ontology of events and truth-procedures, and infuriating in that he often makes bold claims without explicit argumentation using a methodology of suture to lay philosophy out as meta-truth procedure. This book is short, but dense and often obtuse: for one, it is a collection of essays that can be divided into four categories: 1) polemical essays, 2) essays of commentary and support, 3) examinations of major categories, and 4) philosophical prescriptions. The last category, that is to say, the only argument that Badiou makes that is fundamental to his system lies in the last essay, "Politics as Truth Procedure."

This is largely a book whose roots lay in a suturing of politics to philosophy, but as the critic of Badiou has said, François Laruelle the demarcations of this suture is actually not as apparent as Badiou wishes. That aside, the sustained polemic against political philosophy, which Badiou seems to largely see as ethical and managerial at root, begins with 'Against Political Philosophy' in the first essay. Admittedly, when one can parse the idiosyncratic way that Badiou defines the state and events, his take-down of various forms of liberal political philosophy, such as the Levinasian reification of the other, Rawlsian "reflective equilibrium", Habermas's 'communicative ethics', Rorty's evocation of a 'conversation of mankind' moves it away from the purely ethical and the largely linguistic turns. These rhetorical defenses of pluralism are actually a defense of a homogenization of a liberal meta-state, but unlike critiques from the right, the ontology of "Being and Event" lingers in such a way that moves one to a nearly Maoist conception of the fidelity to the idea, and an Althusserian notions of structures, but which emerge from fidelity to events.

Now this makes sense in the larger movement of Badiou's work, but this is without Badiou's normal systemic lay-out of the position. However, the particular valorizing of Sylvain Lazarus and his ambivilent statement about Jacques Ranciere can seem hyperbolic even to those very familiar with contemporary French thought. Furthermore, as I have hinted at, it seems that even in Badiou's larger work, the argument for the suturing of evental politics to philosophy is actually quite thin in the larger work, and if that fails, so do most of these polemics.

Badiou, obviously, is refreshing, rigorous, and often insightful, although one sometimes suspects a formalization of Maoist impulses lie deeply within the text. People unfamiliar with Badiou's thought SHOULD NOT start with this text as it simple structure is actually predicated with much deeper knowledge of Badiou's methods and the philosophers in which he is in dialogue.

[Christoph · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a tough one. On the one hand, Badiou clearly has an inspirational and radical perspective here but the opacity of his language (at least as translated) and consequently his thought process is very tedious to follow. In Metapolitics, Badiou provides a new path for interpreting politics by also redefining it. Instead of it being a justification of the State to subsist, Badiou removes it from here and places it across a wide chasm among subjects, a "homogeneous multiplicity".

In this work we are treated to a thorough analysis of Lazarus's Anthropology of the Name to essentially establish the facts and axioms of Badiou's Metapolitics. He methodically outlines his objective accounting of his subjectivity which is de rigeur. There is always a number of points or assumptions or consequences of any procedure he invokes. It is all very abstract and in some ways takes on a kind of phenomenology. But deep in the subsequent analyses of Althusser and Ranceire, we happen on some remarkable implications of this work during a discussion on political bonds and democracy.

Badiou confronts liberal democracy in a unique way as a fascism of consensus. Even the idea of dissent against this consensus is simultaneously a crime against the State and a meaningless act in a politics that is built on a heterogeneous multiplicity that trumps such dissent. Evidence of this perspective can be seen in the interpretation of the recent American "debt crisis" debate where there was only one path possible for resolution; no binary or coalition or even hegemonic path is possible, merely the false pretense of consensus. Although, this is a false analogy since current liberal democracies are not the types of 'democracy' Badiou critiques, instead our systems are extensions he generally refers to as parlimentarianisms.

But for Badiou, what is just is a politics that is never converted to a relation of the State, but instead remains as a perpetual revolution of the homogeneous multiplicity. Of course as I say, all of this is described in very abstract terms and so a practical application of these ideas is rarely employed except for the essay What is a Thermidorean?. Even then, unless you are an expert on the intricacies of French history and politics from the revolution to today, it is far from clear. Ultimately the purpose of this itself is abstract since it means to critique the regressive fascism that eats away at the emancipatory politics devised in this tome.

The final essay, Politics as Truth Procedure we are treated to a brief attempt at the set theory symbolism Badiou likes to deploy to sum up some of these notions, but it is rudimentary and therefore essentially unnecessary, but I have a feeling I will discuss this further once I get into his Being and Event which is in my stack.

All in all, this book is a bit unwieldy; navigating Badiou's thinking is not trivial. But, the ideas that can be teased out of this reasoning are intriguing and radical. In some respects, this could easily be a groundwork for the Postmodern Anarchism I was complaining about in the book of the same name I previously reviewed. But this swings in the other direction. Somewhere between these two, may well be a truly revolutionary praxis waiting to be told.

[Chelsea Szendi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I may be doomed to never really be able to look at Badiou's thought directly - like the face of God, or of Medusa.

To run with the Medusa metaphor: it is fortunate that there are several pretty sharp mirrors through which I have been able to glimpse ways in which I can use Badiou. Alberto Toscano and Nina Power (on reactions to May '68), and Fabio Lanza (on Beijing University students and the May 4th Movement) are two examples.

Someday, though, I hope to really be able to gaze at "The Theory of the Subject" without being turned to stone.

[Ft. Sheridan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sylvain Lazarus? Chairman Mao?

[Chris Tempel · Rating 2 out of 5]

The only other French political philosophy I'm familiar with is Chantal Mouffe, so I need some more background reading.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some of this is heavy going in terms of the language. It's a lot denser than Badiou's _Ethics_, but it's definitely an interesting extension of his thinking into what should be done. I've been trying to think about What Should Be, lately, feeling overwhelmed by how much is unjust in this world.

One of my favorite things about Badiou's approach is this: a political event can be recognized as that which allows those who were not counted to count. A good first exercise: think back through history and think about which various groups were made up of individuals that were not counted. If you think that now everyone counts, you are not paying attention. Thus: we still have political work to do. Note also: for Badiou, a political event stands at a remove from the State, since the State fails, always, to be about virtues in favor of being about rights or rules (and thus in the end often about preserving property).

Well, I suppose I won't be able to summarize him here. A provocative read, indeed.

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are some interesting things in Badiou's work on politics. The most striking are the chapters on speculative democracy and Thermidorians. Unfortunately, there are a handful of really dull and spectacularly pointless chapters. The last chapter is pointless, certainly.
The language is also difficult and problematic - clear in some places but profoundly dense and not saying much of anything in other places.
The book is certainly an interesting appraisal of "politics" up to a point, but the stuff of politics as thought and the useless crap at the end make a potentially great book in to just an ok one.
If I could give it 2.75 stars, I would. I'll have to settle for 3.

[Leonardo]

«Hoy, el enemigo no se llama Imperio o Capital. Se llama Democracia». Es la «ilusión democrática», la aceptación de los procedimientos democráticos como el único marco para cualquier cambio posible, la que bloquea cualquier transformación radical de las relaciones capitalistas.

El año que soñamos peligrosamente Pág.90

[Joe Spencer · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic collection of papers, the last one being definitive.

[Josip Cmrečnjak · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is extremely difficult to read, but worth the time invested in it. This is essential read for every student interested in contemporary political philosophy.

[John Victor · Rating 2 out of 5]

the critiques are better than the proposals, gets a solid meh from me

[Melusine Parry · Rating 4 out of 5]

tough read in places, but worth it

[Yosra Ali · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book strength in my opinion is that it combines and interrelate history, politics and philosophy together in an organized structure which is in my opinion a great way to look into any of those three topics. The way Badiou lists and summarizes as he writes was efficient and definitely helped to follow and understand his views. This book is a good read to get a grasp on an old/new and deep philosophical debate around political stands. This is again because of the mix with historic and political events throughout the book.

Reading this book is quite difficult though. Partially because I agree with Badiou that if you are not living, haven’t lived in the French, European world, you will not be as easily related to the book as if you were. Another because the terms in this book is complex and doesn’t naturally translate into English as mentioned in this paper. For me, reading this book in one go was impossible. I had to stop many times and do some online research to get a better understanding on what Badiou is trying to say. Hence, the rating 3 for me.

[Mariam Rawwas · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is infinitely more interesting than most of Badiou's other work in that he actually tackles some novel subject matter here instead of simply retreading old concepts: we begin with Canguilhem on Cavaillès, as an exmeplar of true Resistance under Vichy, before moving to a sustained treatment of Lazarus' and Althusser's work (the "anthropology of the name" and philosophy as class struggle in theory, respectively), in its conjunction (and disjunction) with his own, which also clarifies the term "metapolitics," as philosophy's relation to politics (as a domain of the truth-procedure) and as against political philosophy. We also have here a rather uncharitable and seemingly uninterested read of Rancière, which borders on caricature in its carelessness, which is perhaps the weakest section of the book. Nevertheless, it is at least refreshing to see Badiou tackle new material, and most of what is presented here is respectable enough work, even if peremptory.

[Azha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Magnificent as always. Banyak istilah yg cukup membingungkan, entah dari terjemahannya atau dr Badiou sendiri. Pembacaan terhadap proyek politik hari ini perlu menyeret ide-ide yg diangkat buku ini. Sebab politik adalah usaha bersama demi kepentingan hidup bersama. Para politisi perlu mengubah mindset, alih-alih menghabiskan uang untuk membangun identitas, uang tersebut lebih berguna untuk membiayai startup pengabdian masyarakat. Selain berfungsi menyediakan pendidikan politik partisipatoris bagi masyarakat, politisi mampu memetakan masyarakat untuk perencanaan pembangunan berkelanjutan. Metapolics tidak hanya membedah pergerakan politik lewat pisau analisis filsafat namun lebih mendengungkan panggilan nurani untuk berpolitik secara sadar dan terencana dengan nuansa elegan dan terdidik.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

An extremely theoretical, mathematical, term-specific read. I love Badiou's politics, as he defines politics, but his explanations can be overwhelmingly opaque and/or obtuse. The references to Jacques Rancière and Sylvain Lazarus are made all the more difficult for me because I know the former only in passing (having not read much of his works) and the latter not at all. Still, Badiou presents his cases clearly, and my inability to follow due to my own lack of scholarship is hardly his problem. There are a lot of gems in here, so the less astute academic such as myself still got much of quality, and received heavy reinforcement of theories and concepts I hold true to in my own thinking. Those with a stronger grasp of Lazarus and/or Rancière may in fact come away with significantly more.

[Upoptos · Rating 4 out of 5]

'The state does not think'.
What a wonderful and at the same time militant formulation!
Pretty nice pargraphs on Althusser's and Ranciere's way of thinking.
Of course in the end Badiou would not leave us without a mathematical sleight of hand.
Politics moves from the infinite to the one, while love moves from one to two with the meditation of the infinite.

[Muhammad Shemyal Nisar · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting and detailed description of the way Badiou thinks about politics including democracy, and equality. An interesting but a dense book.

[Lisa · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’m not sure I care about metapolitics or political philosophy, but it wouldn’t know because this book (or the translation) is impenetrable

[Owen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting insights, but incredibly opaque.

[maria · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5

[Jane MB · Rating 1 out of 5]

A lot of words, but not saying anything.

[Felix · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is Badiou at the most lucid I've thus far encountered him, and the most explicitly anti-State form of his Communist thought shines through in this book. The reflections on democracy, justice, and the Thermidorian are especially illuminating.
Unfamiliar as I am with his major referents - Lazarus, Althusser, Ranciere - I found the first of these foci difficult to fixate upon, but the briefer chapters on the other two were easier to access. The mathemes in the final chapter are mildly obscure, but much more straightforward than most of the Lacanian algebra I've come across, and they hardly detract from the thesis of the chapter.

[Xdyj · Rating 3 out of 5]

Idk, in this book Badiou criticizes Arendt as being "theological", but is not Badiou's own position just another kind of "theology" beneath all the math/logic terms?