Theory of the Subject

by Alain Badiou

Theory of the Subject, first published in France in 1982, is without doubt one of Alain Badiou''s most important works, laying many of the foundations for his magnum opus, Being and Event . Here Badiou seeks to provide a theory of the subject for Marxism through a study of Lacanian psychoanalysis, offering a major contribution to Marxism, as well as to the larger debate regarding the relationship between psychoanalysis and philosophy. The book also provides a history and theory of structuralism and poststructuralism, a unique evaluation of the achievements of French Maoism during the 1970s and the significance of the events of May 1968, and breathtaking analyses of art and literature. As a theoretical synthesis, the book is extraordinary in terms of its originality, breadth and clarity. This is arguably Badiou''s most creative and passionate book, encompassing the entire battlefield of contemporary theory, philosophy and psychoanalysis. Available for the first time in English, athis is a must-read for anyone interested in this lively and highly original thinker.

Genres: Philosophy, Theory, Politics, Contemporary

412 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1982

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

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is Badiou's first major book, and it is about as hermetic and gnomic a book as Badiou will ever write. The central question that animates Badiou's entire corpus is, of course, the problem of the New, and in this book we find Badiou approaching the problem before having worked out his mathematical ontology in detail (though all his central concepts are already here: Event, Truth, Subject...)--thus Badiou is compelled to approach his topic through an engagement with all the familiar signposts of contemporary French philosophy: Hegel and Lacan, Mallarme, Greek Tragedy, the history of Marxist politics...

This book, more than any other I've read, has taught me what it means to be a dialectician, and reveals the dialectical foundations of Badiou's philosophy--a foundation that is not as readily apparent in his later great works, 'Being and Event' and 'Logics of Worlds'. Although Badiou has revised his postion on a number of key points in later works, reading 'Theory of the Subject' is indispensible for understanding his work as a whole. If Badiou is right when he claims (in 'Logics of Worlds') that the philosophy we need today is nothing other than a materialist dialectic to oppose the insipid complacency of prevailing democratic materialisms, then 'Theory of the Subject' is nothing less than the manifesto of the materialist dialectic.

[Ethan]

This book took me about a year to finish, not that I was reading it daily or anything, but its density forces a distance between each sitting. Is that density justified?

I think for the first ~100 pages it is. A really stunning, creative text, filled with analysis of Mallarme's poetry, re-interpretations of Hegel's Logic, use of Lacan, Sartre, and inventive uses of Mao (that make Mao seem almost palatable!). These first 100 pages I think are easily recommendable, they furnish most of what Badiou has to say for the rest of the book.

The density, however, is not necessarily justified further on. Though these were lectures over numerous years, and as such naturally repetitive, I just got the impression that the further chapters contributed very little more to his initial concepts. He starts making metaphorical uses of algebra (p. 209 this essentially begins) and though it is intriguing, it simply feels like the first 100 pages are repeated in the language of algebra for no apparent reason. It's likely I missed just what he was going for in fairness, my algebra is pretty poor no doubt, but it just seemed a little bit like an obsessive side project.

That aside, I think the text is beautifully written, the prose itself dances like nothing I've read for a while (in philosophy), and that alone is credit enough to it to say this book was great.

[J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I write here so that neither I nor my interlocutors - intellectuals or not - ever become the one who, all told, can only meet the great dates of history by distributing herring vouchers.

A = (AAp)... [T:]he true but camouflaged contrary of A is the space of placement P: it is that which delegates the index. The givenness of A as being itself split into:
- its pure being, A
- its being placed, Ap
...Everything that exists is thus at the same time itself and itself-according-to-its-place.

Objections. 1) I think I want to maintain that this thesis, which Badiou distills effectively from Hegel, is thought more radically, and without the Aristotelian detour of the "thing", by Plato, under the heading of the relation of eidos to khora. 2) Following from this, I think I want to name A opposed to the space of placement P, as "norm" (in the double sense, mathematical and ethical norm), rather than as either "thing" or "force". 3) How does the place dominate? Only through a postulation (false) of a general synthesis of place and term, characteristic of ideological closure. So the dialectical algorithms are perhaps not yet located quite at the right (metalogical) level.



oddities to check against the French:

xlii: "exposed to"
13: "manor" (pun in SM?)
15: "drain"

[Benjamin · Rating 4 out of 5]

The main difference between this and the other two parts of his core works (Being & Event, Logics of Worlds) is that this reads in a much more "traditional" continental style of neologisms, weaving poetic sentences, short stabbing aphorisms and references to literature and poetry. In this respect, it reflects the other writers of the day and the influence they had on those around them. This is Badiou before mathematical rigour and his desire for as much clarity as is possible in his increasingly complex Lacano-Marxist set theory.

This isn't a good or bad thing. While many aspects pop and fizz with aggressive polemical violence, others become obscure and impenetrable. However, stick at it. During each of these tricky sections where was often a quick detour that suddenly illuminated everything that was being said and gave it a freshness and clarity that was otherwise missing.

Less rigourous than his other works, but more dynamic. If anything, it is a must for those who've read the other two books and wish to see where they began. As usual with Badiou, I recommend picking up "Theoretical Texts" and "Infinite Thought" as two introductions, then do the two big buggers. Now I add to that advice that you should return to this later.

[Shulamith Farhi · Rating 5 out of 5]

A massive mess. Happily, a lot of the ideas can be rescued from the wreckage. I will almost certainly say more about it later.

#

I am deciding that I will keep saying stuff about this book for 6 more years, at min. That's a promise. More later.

[Alex Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am not sure what I was expecting from this book. In a sense, it's really just Lacan and Hegel expanded. Badiou has his manner of speaking in his preferred language as though you know what he's saying, but later on calms down enough to actually say what he wants to say... He provides some extension of Lacan but offers a clearer idea that subjecthood is in relation to how one accepts or rejects the social function. We can identify in a variety of manners, and how we choose to do so is our character.

Also, while Badiou doesn't say this, this choice also comes up with the Hegelian scission (has he calls it) as society splits itself into different relations along a social ideal. So in that sense, reversing the arrangement of this book, Badiou could make a tighter connection between Hegel and Lacan in a way that isn't fully expressed in current philosophy... but then again, this book was written 30 years ago, so what can we expect?

[Karlo Mikhail · Rating 5 out of 5]

Difficult.

[Adrian Mendizabal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Difficult & rewarding! ...what a great way to close a difficult book. Marxist ethics is built on the idea of confidence. According to Mao, we must have confidence in the masses, confidence in the Party. Without the two cardinal principles, we will accomplish nothing. 👌❤️

[Vittirivizzik · Rating 5 out of 5]

!!!!!!!!

[Amelia and John · Rating 4 out of 5]

No more Badiou!! Please!!

[Billy Dean]

I'll admit this book has its occasional mire (getting stuck in which is often enough to deter readers from going any further), but I'd agree with Bruno Bosteels in calling this a masterpiece--perhaps THE most important work in Badiou's corpus. If you get off on set theory and Lacan, I can't recommend this highly enough.

[Sigrid]

“If the owl of Minerva flies at dusk, it is only so as to go catch some mice.”

For a few reasons, I wasn’t able to get into Badiou when I first tried to read him years ago. But this book (written right at the break between the author’s Maoist commitments and his ‘mature’ turn into ‘mathematics as ontology’) was really a lot of fun. I’m not a serious student of Badiou, nor of Lacan (his primary interlocutor here), but this exceptional series of lectures has left an indelible mark on me. The book consists of some unforgettable engagements with Hegel, Mallarmé, Greek drama, Lacanian psychoanalysis, and so on, and each of these gets read (to extraordinary effect) through the lens of China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution—the generative Event which would structure (though sometimes too quietly) the rest of Badiou’s major works. Of course, the GPCR isn’t the only ‘lens’ in use here, but it plays an undeniably central role in the investigation.

Badiou would go on to (partially) disavow his stated belief in the necessity of destruction, in the necessity of strictly-marxist dialectical materialism—even if both of these would be partially reclaimed in his later work Logic of Worlds (as Bosteels’ introduction helpfully points out). But if today, revolutionaries are all confronted by the same problem that torments our now-contemporary Badiou—how to save materialist dialectics from the charade of a reductive, schematic, dialectical materialism—we can look back on Theory of the Subject as a striking moment of fidelity to this aim, (carried out in the light of real, active revolutions which are often absent in his C21 writings) and also (therefore) an instructive one.

I won’t try to mark out all the merits of this book, its importance for philosophy, psychoanalysis, marxism: for the theory of the subject around which each of these discourses must crystallize—since the subject is precisely what enables us to break from the confines of our epoch while reconstituting the truth of that which brought us here (“Love what you will never believe twice,”)—but I will say that today’s marxists can learn a lot about our own project and our own tools within these pages.

Highly recommended, especially for those of us who want to understand the breaks/continuities between idealism(s), structuralism(s), post-structuralism(s), and genuinely marxist realism. I look forward to re-reading when I can get my hands on a paperback copy!

[Arsh · Rating 5 out of 5]

A work of exemplary courage and piercing insight, setting itself the task of nothing less than the resurrection of the philosophical evidice. A promise held on to in the echoes heard in his Manifesto for Philosophy years later, and in fidelity to the truly 'speculative ' moment in Hegelian dialectics. A masterpiece.

[Freddie Murfin · Rating 5 out of 5]

'The true contrary of the proletariat is not the bourgeoisie. It is the bourgeois world, imperialist society, of which the proletariat, let this be noted, is a notorious element, as the principal productive force and as the antagonistic political pole. The famous contradiction of bourgeoisie/proletariat is a limited, structural scheme that loses track of the torsion of the Whole of which the proletariat qua subject traces the force. To say proletariat and bourgeoisie is to remain within the bounds of the Hegelian artifice: something and something else. Why? Because the project of the proletariat, its internal being, is not to contradict the bourgeoisie, or to cut its feet from under it. This project is communism, and nothing else. That is, the abolition of any place in which something like a proletariat can be installed. The political project of the proletariat is the disappearance of the space of the placement of classes. It is the loss, for the historical something, of every index of class.' p. 7.

[R.K. Cowles · Rating 3 out of 5]

3 1/4 stars

[Maxwell · Rating 4 out of 5]

‘Everything that exists in thought is the result of weak differences: differences among atomistic positions for Democritus, among written signs of the poem for Mallarme, among signifiers for Lacan, and, in a certain sense, among political class positions within the masses for Marxism.’

‘Every subject is political. That is why there are few subjects and rarely any politics’

I don’t have a reading that can stand up to this book, so I’m just going to rattle off some stuff that’s bumping-elbows in my head since I finished it.

It’s interesting that Badiou’s theory rigorously avoids determining the natural essence of the subject, but you leave with the feeling that he has anyway. It resonates variously in Lucretius’ Clinamen (which is also Lacan’s Real) ‘a-specific, beyond necessity, absolutely out-of-place, unsplaceable, unfigurable: chance’ (p. 59), the Two in Lacan ‘Two sexes, two classes’ (p. 113) subjectivized through the movement from anxiety to courage, from the superego to justice. This is embodied finally in the Party as a stabilizing integer during the interplay of movement-riot (anxiety) and insurrection-war (courage), the Party as the subjectivization of the proletariat. An intertextual pattern begins to emerge, where moments across different systems of philosophy, mathematics, politics and literature are correlated onto Badiou’s star chart of subjectivity, arranged into an analysis of the universal logic of the subject and its destruction.

I’ve always had a difficult time with anyone who diagrams philosophy like Badiou, the methodical system builders, those who expect you to follow their writing like they're an architect's blueprints. I don’t have an intuitive knack for it, like I do with the, shall we say, arcane literary philosophers. But it was good to get out of my comfort zone. My problems with Badiou are more or less my problems with Lacan, and they’re my problems not theirs--not just that I’m bad at logic (although I am), but that I’m bad at, let’s call it, spatial reasoning while reading. When a concept is rendered mathematically, as an equation, graph or god forbid a syllogism, I have a very difficult time conjuring and coordinating it in my head. I cannot apportion the size and shape correctly, can’t contour the edges--maybe I’m just slow, but I just can’t ever visualize the thing and charts, diagrams (“mathemes”?), etc do more to muddle these representations than reveal them. The parts of Badiou I found most compelling (and helpful, to be frank) were the practical examples that followed his formulations of Lacan, Hegel and whoever else, usually polemicizing the logic of his abstractions as Marxist materialisms; A = (AAp) is rendered as the exploitation of the proletariat. This explication works in inverse too--the situation of the vanishing term in Mallarme is elaborated as a structural dialectic, etc.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Badiou’s readers in philosophy departments found this stuff easier to follow than me, but there’s plenty in here that phlegm-for-brains English Literature students like myself can sink our teeth into. This book is difficult because it’s complex, not because it’s obfuscated by stylistic conceits like certain theorists that were popular in my seminars. The writing in Theory of the Subject is very clear and the jargon is technical and specific, rather than a funny & vague conceptual personae of hammers, arcades and rhizomes. There’s no thunderous rhetoric, but toward the end of each lecture Badiou ties together his adventurous arguments with heavily political calls-to-arms which I usually found very moving. My favorite of these was at the end of ‘Lack and Destruction’ where he denounces the return as inimical to courage, his motor for praxis, claiming ‘we must pass or overtake our nostalgia, as one passes or overtakes a special convoy; we must exceed the pregnant form of the return by way of courage’ (p. 168).

This is one of the more affecting books I've read all year. It was my first real foray into Badiou (I read a collection of ephemera called 'Infinite Thought' last year but it did not really leave an impression on me) and I'm planning to return to Badiou once I've pulled myself further from the muck of 'theory' and into the light of Philosophy proper.

[BadiouianShill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Badiou at his best – with a consistent verve and vivacity that he hasn't matched since then, as far as I can tell. The lecture format makes it seem immediate, and can make you feel like you're taking a course from the master himself. And he is a master. Žižek says that Badiou is proof that a figure "like Plato or Hegel" can still be alive and working today (who else is? don't say, like, Habermas or anyone like that), and that this book is one of the two or three greatest works of the 20th century (what are the others? Being and Time? Difference and Repetition?). Maybe he's right.
There was a chapter centering on Mallarmé that I found not-as-interesting. Definitely a weak point, in my view – its relevance is unclear and its arguments are weak. Poetry can inspire philosophy, no doubt, but Badiou seems to take this too far. But then, I don't care that much about poetry. So, whatever.
The rest of the book is high-octane conceptual work, and wide ranging too. You'll get Hegel, Lacan, Marx, early Christianity, poetry, math, Maoism – interestig use of the sundry influences that Badiou is now known for.
This is known as a notoriously difficult book, but don't let its reputation intimidate you. It's fine. What he tends to do is have a difficult, intricately conceptual passage or set of passages – followed up by an easier-to-understand example, often from more familiar domains like poetry or politics. This is a pedagogical feature, showing that Badiou obviously wants to be understood. It's hard because it's difficult – this is mitigated with the use of examples, just like any good teacher would do. Diagrams can be in equal parts clarifying and baffling. That's another pedagogical tool. I think they're pretty helpful, but your mileage may vary.
How is a (revolutionary) subject constituted? How do we go from our meaningless animal everyday lives to a life that participates in eternity itself, to an immortal life? How does the state of a situation change fundamentally? These are basic questions that Badiou is trying to answer, and has been trying to answer for decades now. If you're interested in anything like that – and you should be – read this masterpiece.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

A tour-de-force of Marxism-Leninism. Badiou captures some really significant thoughts and offers some outstanding work in formalizing them into mathemes. I especially appreciated his reworking of materialist dialects without the use of negation: scission/determination/limit.

Badiou also accomplishes a rather novel feat in working Marxism and Psychoanalysis into a theoretical overture of the subject. In thinking through the subject-effects of anxiety, superego, courage and justice, Badiou comes up with a magnificent space to operate in wherein in one can elucidate different forms in which the subject will take (his distinction is subjectivation and subjective-process).

This work was really challenging, but once I got going on it, it was hard to turn away from. Anyone familar with Marxism-Leninism (Mao Zedong thought) or Lacanian psychoanalysis has their foot in the door and will no doubt find this to be a rather enjoyable read. There's also a significant section of the book devoted to the use of Mallarme that I found quite entertaining.

[Steve]

Still working on it.

This book starts by laying out a mathematical delineation of the ontic and ontological. Badiou is attempting to address those things which are conditional upon situations and those things which transcend situational specificity. He uses a mathematical system that reminds me much of general linear algebra. I hear that this book does much to address Marx, Lacan, and a synthesis of the two in a way very different than, say, someone like Zizek does. I hope I get more about Lacan from this than I have in the past.

By the way, Zizek's comment on the back cover states:

"you hold in your hands proof that philosophers of the status of Plato, Hegel, and Heidegger are still walking around today!"

[Evelyn R · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great engagements with subjectivity and Marxism. I don't have any background in Lacan, but I understood how it was working with Althusser and that tradition, so I was able to grasp it pretty well. Probably a must-read if you want to understand Badiou, but it's certainly a formidable work.

Full review here: https://oldalexius.wordpress.com/2016...

[Phillip · Rating 1 out of 5]

I decided not to finish this because it's quite difficult, I'm simply not that interested in the metaphysics of subjectivity, and I have more important things to do. That being said, I'm sure it's really brilliant stuff, but I have no wish to wrap my head around it.

[Steven Felicelli · Rating 1 out of 5]

one star, but it's undoubtedly a great book - I quote Flann O'brien




"It is surely the handiwork of wisdom, because not one word of it do I understand."

[Ariadna73 · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't understand a lot of it, but I am glad that there are still philosophers out there. I am a firm believer that philosophy will save our world.