8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

1/18

Phronimon, Vol 10 (1) 2009 ________________________________________________ 25

Lacan on the discourse ofcapitalism; Critical prospects

Bert Olivier Bert Olivier Bert Olivier Bert OlivierPhilosophy, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

Abstract

In his seminar on the four discourses, Lacan seemed to groupcapitalism under the heading of the discourse of the university,but a few years later, in the Milan lecture, he changed his mindand characterized it as discursively hysterical, in this wayproviding a powerful methodological conceptual configurationfor the analysis, and ultimately, intellectual strategies for thesubversion of capitalist practices (although some have raiseddoubts about this). Several other texts, including Naomi Kleinsrecent book, The Shock Doctrine, which outlines her assessmentof the phase (in the history of capitalism) known as disastercapitalism, on the other hand, provides just the kind ofinformation and insight to help one put Lacans theory to work.This paper is an attempt to understand how this could happen(and is perhaps already happening).

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance ofthose who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who havetoo little. - Theodore Roosevelt.

The present essay should be read in the spirit of a conception of the humanitieswhich is predicated on the capacity of these disciplines to advance the cause ofhuman freedom at every level, including the economic, in so far as it isinescapably implicated in the domain of political freedom.

It is almost inconceivable that human beings could take an abstracteconomic theory sufficiently seriously to use events such as natural, militaryor economic disasters including hurricanes, tsunamis, wars andhyperinflation or severe recession to destroy and/or replace previouslyexisting public institutions or social structures for the sake of establishingprivate structures and organizations for the sole purpose of profit. It may beargued that putting the matter in this way is to provide the obvious reasonfor such inconceivable value attached to the theory: the profit motive. Andthis is probably the case as far as the developers of private, profit-orientedorganizations are concerned, but Im not so sure that it accounts for the

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

2/18

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________26

theorists axiological attachment to the theory in question; by all accounts,this seems to be closer to an ideological belief. I believe that Thompsons(1990, p. 7) characterization of ideology, that it is meaning in the service ofpower , comes closer to explaining the sheer fervour with which proponentsof the theory in question have promoted it, and yet it is still baffling thatanyone could promote the implementation of such a theory in light of itsconsequences, namely to enrich (and empower, politically as well aseconomically) the few at the grave cost of the many.

The theory at stake here is that variously formulated by members of theChicago School of Economics, foremost among whom is the recently deceasedeconomic theorist, Milton Friedman. It is that economic theory which elevatesthe market to the position of governing principle, not merely for economics as if one could ever separate economics from the material conditions, thepolitical, social and cultural relations pertaining to human lives! but for theentirety of human society. In short, the hallowed market becomes the final,fundamental mechanism for establishing, reinforcing and extending socialrelations, that is, society in all its complexity. Any interference in the operationof the market, whether by individuals, non-governmental organizations, or bygovernment agencies is regarded as a form of socialist heresy (Klein, 2007,pp. 49-57) by free market fundamentalists for make no mistake: this is akind of fundamentalism; probably the most far-reaching ever devised and putinto practice as far as its effect on human lives, as well as on the rest of theplanet, is concerned, and which, absurdly, seems to go unnoticed by the vastmajority of people (see Kovel, 2007, pp. xi-xv).

To those familiar with Lacanian psychoanalytic theory, at first sight itmay seem plausible that another way of putting what has been said so far,is to say that the Chicago School (capitalist) economic theory formulated byFriedman and others, or neoliberal economics, is the masters discourse ofthe present era. And they would be right, exceptas I shall argue here (withthe help of others), it is no longer the traditional master who speaks, but aprotean, mutated master. As I shall point out towards the end of the paper(on the basis of Naomi Kleins work), however, it is perhaps the case that theprotean disguise of the traditional master is disintegrating for variousreasons, revealing once again the old, familiar features of inexorable,nonsensical subjugation of the other. Nevertheless, the fact that someLacanians talk as if capitalism simply represents the current version of themasters discourse (see for example Fink, 1997, p. 131), may hide theimplications of Lacans own evolving thought on the matter.

Lacan on discourse

Concerning the question of discourse Lacan himself is most informative(Lacan, 1978, 12):

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

3/18

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________27

What is a discourse? It is what, in the order in the ordering of what canbe produced by the existence of language, makes some social linkfunction

There must be at least two signifiers.

This means, the signifier insofar as it functions as an element: thesignifier insofar as it is the mode by which the world is structured, the worldof the speaking being, which is to say, all knowledge.

Thus there is S1 and S2 which is where we must start for the definition []the signifier is what represents a subject for another signifier.

The way in which a specific signifier represents a subject for another signifier,thus determines how the social field will be structured. For Lacan, the mastersdiscourse (S1 = master signifier) is one of four different discourses or types

of discourse the other three of which are the discourse of the university (orof knowledge; S2 = knowledge), the discourse of the hysteric ($ = splitsubject) and that of the analyst (a = surplus pleasure, object a), and whatdistinguishes them is articulated in terms of relations of repression andaddress (the master signifier repressing that of the split subject, whileaddressing or commanding that of the university, for instance), in otherwords, of mutating power relations. Schematically Lacan represents this stateof affairs as follows:

Terms: S1 Master signifier; S2 Knowledge (Knowing that);$ - Thedivided subject; a objet a and surplus pleasure.

Masters discourse: University discourse: Analysts discourse: Hystericsdiscourse:S1 > S2 S2 > a a > $ $ > S1 $ a S1 $ S2 S1 a S2

Capitalists discourse: Positions:$ > S2 Agent address/command OtherS1 a Truth product

What this shows, is that discourses enable social (and political) relations tofunction because of the ordering enacted by the representational relationsbetween signifiers, and these are invariably asymmetrical. Why? Becausesignifiers are diacritically related in the linguistic system, that is, in terms ofdifference, and the representation of the subject to one signifier by another the emergence of the subject (of discourse) in the interval or gap betweensignifiers therefore ineluctably involves relations of difference in the socialfield of intersubjectivity. The social link that is, relation between or

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

4/18

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________28

among speaking subjects is therefore differentially structured or ordered byvirtue of the signifiers representation of the subject to another signifier, asLacan states. And because this mode of representation of the subject isdifferent from one signifier to the next the master signifier has vastlydifferent implications in this regard as compared to that of the dividedsubject or of surplus pleasure discursively ordered social relations arebound to be cratologically asymmetrical. In other words, given the orderingfunction of discourse, social relations are simultaneously power relations.Every ideology is discursively articulated. Patriarchy (or managementsposition) is a discourse in this sense, and feminism (or labours position)marks the site of its counter-discourse: wherever a discourse functions, itengenders its own counter-discourse. Another way to explain discourse, is tosay, in Althusserian terms, that it is a mode of interpellation of the subject where it is no accident that interpellation is a legal term that means theprocedurally admissible interruption of a persons speech in a legalchamber (by way of objection, for instance). In other words, discourse islanguage in so far as it is marked by the speaking subjects interpellationor subjection to the law (for example of patriarchy: the Name of theFather) governing a certain set of norms oriented around it and implyingbehaviour and action in accordance with its tenets.

The masters discourse is that kind of discourse which functions toorganize the social field according to its (ideological) master signifier (S1) whether that be empire, masculinity, kingship, whiteness, blackness,the market, development, or globalization. It follows, therefore, thatonce the masters discourse has established its dominance, other discoursesplay second fiddle to it. Importantly, the masters discourse can only operateby way of asserting itself ruthlessly in the social field to the extent that themaster signifier represses all knowledge or acknowledgement of its ownfinitude ($ ); that is, of the inadequacy of the master, and to the extent thatit commands or addresses the signifier of knowledge (S2), which hereoccupies contrary to what one may think in the first place the position ofthe (Hegelian) slave (although, if I understand him correctly, it later changes,according to Lacan, in the age of the dictatorship of knowledge, where itappears that he regards S2 as assuming the position of the classical,[premodern?] master signifier). As Lacan (Fink, 1997, p. 132; Lacan, 2007,pp. 20-22) points out, universities have always functioned largely to supportthe cratologicalstatus quo , that is, the existing order or extant mastersdiscourse. The master is not primarily interested in knowledge (he hasbetter things to do; Lacan, 2007, p. 24); he does not doubt himself, butmerely uses knowledge to organize things in such a way that his position is

secured and perpetually strengthened.The discourse of the hysteric represents the split subject ($ ) in the

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

5/18

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________29

position of address, in so far as the latter is always already constituted by thedivision between consciousness and the unconscious, self-confidence andself-doubt; it represents the finitude of the subject in relation to mastersignifiers that which is not explicitly recognized by the master; in fact, herepresses any such knowledge. In its turn, the discourse of the analyst standsfor the primacy of surplus pleasure orjouissance (a) as the cause of desire(which operates via what Lacan calls theobjet petit a little other object as proximate cause of desire, for example a colour1, a melody or a certainaroma that triggers in the subject an inexplicable longing, or anxiety, orboth) in other words, that which can never be accounted for in systems ofknowledge, and can therefore never be colonized by the imperatives of themaster. This explains, as Joan Copjec points out (more pertinently regardingthe present paper), why capitalism cannot abide the kind of pleasuresignalled by a, the primary signifier configuring the discourse of the analyst(1994, p. viii):

the pleasure that the unconscious sets to work accumulating is a surpluspleasure which has no use for material reward or even well-being; itcontributes nothing to the subjects inclination towards survival. This less-than-useless surplus pleasure cannot, therefore, enter the calculus ofcapitalism except to undermine it.

The discourse of the capitalist

It is precisely capitalism as a social and economic practice that interests mehere, in so far as it may be rendered intelligible by psychoanalytic theory. What motivated this paper, is a curious discrepancy in Lacans work. In the17th Seminar of 1969-1970 (The other side of psychoanalysis ; 2007, p. 31-32), he says the following:

we began with the fact that in the initial status of the masters discourseknowledge is on the side of the slave. And I thought I could indicatethatwhat happens between the classical masters discourse and that of themodern master, whom we call capitalist, is a modification in the place ofknowledgeThe fact that all-knowing has moved into the place of the master issomething that does not throw light on it, but rather makes a little bit moreobscure what is at issue, namely, truth. How does it come about that thereis a masters signifier in this place? For this is well and truly the S2 of themaster, revealing as it does the bare bones of how things stand under thenew tyranny of knowledge

Now the sign of truth is somewhere else. It is to be produced by what hascome to be substituted for the ancient slave, that is, by those who arethemselves products, as we say, consumables every bit as much as theothers. Consumer society, we say. Human material, as it was called at

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

6/18

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________30

one stage to the applause of some who thought there was somethingtender in this.

This passage, although not straightforwardly interpretable, suggests anidentity between the universitys discourse (S2) and that of the capitalist asmaster. Further on in the same text (2007, p. 168) he speaks of thiscapital mutation, also, which gives the masters discourse its capitaliststyle, and raises the question, how this society called capitalist societycan afford to allow itself a relaxation of the university discourse asomewhat baffling formulation, except if one sees it as a subtle allusion tothe sometimes flamboyant, always innovatively self-promoting appearanceof capitalist production and development, which have not left the previouslyaustere, rather staid faade of universities untouched either. But although hefirst, inSeminar 17 , intimates that the discourse of the capitalist belongs with

the discourse of the university or knowledge (S2), two years later, in hisMilan lecture (1978), he shifts his position on capitalism by identifying itwith the discourse of the hysteric ($ ). Why this curious shift? For one thing, ifone considers that the discourse of the hysteric elicits the followingcharacterization from Mark Bracher, then capitalism might seem the leastlikely candidate for inclusion in this category (1994, p. 122):

The hysterical structure of discourse also characterizes other instances ofresistance, protest, and complaint from the plaintive anthems of slaves tothe yearning lyrics of lovesick poets to the iconoclastic rhetoric ofrevolutionaries. The hysterical structure is in force whenever a discourse isdominated by the speakers symptom that is, his or her unique mode ofexperiencingjouissance , a uniqueness that is manifested (in experiencessuch as shame, meaninglessness, anxiety, and desire) as a failure of thesubject,$ , to coincide with or be satisfied by the master signifiers offered bysociety and embraced as the subjects ideals.

How could capitalism possibly be construed, then, as being at one withexperiential phenomena symptomatic of the failure of the mastersdiscourse? After all, it may seem to make perfect sense that capitalismwould be in a similar position to the university as servant of the dominantorder of the master (through the expansion of a certain kind of knowledge).It is important to remember, however, that inSeminar 17 (2007, p. 31-32)Lacan suggests that knowledge, or the discourse of the university, hasmoved into the place of the master, and that capitalism is subsumed underthis discourse. On the other hand, as observed earlier, many would arguethat today, capitalism is identical to the discourse of the master, althoughnot necessarily conceiving of the latter in the same sense as it wastraditionally the case. And if this is so, what does that make of capitalism? Why did Lacan effect the small inversion (Lacan; see below) between themasters discourse and that of the hysteric, by putting the master signifier

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

7/18

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

8/18

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________32

capitalist discourse is the cleverest discourse that we have made. It is alsothe most unassailable, as Matthias Pauwels (2008) has brilliantly argued.In his paper Lacan and the subversion of the discourse of the capitalist(2008, pp. 1-11) Pauwels not only offers a clear explanation of themeaning of Lacans tiny inversion between S1 and $ , which renders theformula of the discourse of the (paradoxical) hysterical master, he also fillsin the gap left by Lacan himself in so far as the latter failed to elaborate onwhat this would mean in practice. In brief, what the inversion means is that,in contrast to the masters discourse, where the master signifier, S1, hides thetruth about the self-assured masters own finitude (symbolized by thesignifier$ ), by inverting these two signifiers it is suggested that the newmasters position is one where he is only too aware of his own shortcomings,is plagued by self-doubt, indulges in regular self-criticism, and so on.However, what is hidden in this case is the truth which the capitalisthysterical master would rather keep out of sight that, no matter howconvincingly the capitalist may show solidarity with workers, ecologists,social activists and so on, claiming that he is equally committed to findingsolutions to ostensibly intractable problems, deep down there is no doubt inhis own mind about his project: it is still the masters. Hence, as Pauwels(2008, p. 3) rightly points out, the hysterical capitalist master is at most apseudo -hysteric, because, although his style of rule has changedfundamentally, it is really only part and parcel of capitalisms fiendish(wildly clever) capacity to re-invent itself whenever it faces a crisis oflegitimacy. By displaying such flair in adapting to what might otherwise beadverse conditions, the capitalist takes the wind out of his worst critics sails,and even succeeds in making allies of them (Pauwels, 2008, pp. 4-5).

Evidence of hysterical capitalist discourse

One of the most revealing instances that Pauwels (2008, pp. 4-6) adduces, inhis effort to compensate for Lacans lack of specific, concrete examples ofhysterical capitalist discursive behaviour, concerns an episode from the filmdocumentary,The Corporation , based on Joel Bakans book by the sametitle. The scene-sequence in question shows an encounter between theChairman of Shell and a group of activists that visits his rural home with thepurpose of denouncing the activities of the Shell Corporation in Third Worldcountries like Africa, where it stands accused of grossly exploiting human andnatural resources. To the utter surprise and consternation of the activists, theChairman and his wife not only readily talk to them in an ostensibly open andreceptive manner about their grievances, but also treat them hospitably by

giving them lunch on their lawn. Most importantly and here the sheergenius of the capitalist masters discourse surfaces unmistakably the

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

9/18

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________33

Chairman displays an eagerness to resolve the problems listed by theactivists, to the point of inviting them to join Shell in finding such solutions.The implication extremely effective in its discursive power is that, while theactivists are in the position of merely agitating for solutions in a fairlyimpotent manner, the Shell Corporation has the power and resources to dosomething about it. Small wonder that such rhetorical mastery leaves thosewith legitimate grounds for objection without ammunition! And yet, no oneshould be fooled by it: the bottom line remains the same, namely forcorporations like Shell to maximise profits even as their hysterical discursivestyle of mastery succeeds in covering up their real intentions. Small wonder,too, that (as Pauwels remarks) this discursive style has contributedsubstantially in defusing criticism of capitalism from the left the capitalistsconsistently appear in the guise of being more radical than their critics!

So apart from that provided by Pauwels, what evidence is there thatthe capitalist is indeed in the position of the hysteric or what I would preferto call (as Pauwels does) the position of a pseudo-hysteric, given Lacanscharacterization of it as wildly clever? As the earlier discussion of Pauwelsshighly suggestive paper has indicated, there are many sources (includingother critical ones) which confirm this unlikely diagnosis. In a recent TIMEmagazine (Woo Liu, 2008, pp. 46-47), for example, an article on aninternational brand, Coca-Cola, announces the companys intention tobecome water neutral: its CEO offered the assurance that:

every drop of water it uses to produce beverages would be returned tothe earth or compensated for through conservation and recyclingprograms. Water is the main ingredient in nearly every beverage that wemake, Isdell said. Without access to safe water supply, our businesssimply cannot exist.That big thirst is why its essential that Coca-Colaaddresses water issues as part of its corporate social responsibilityprogram, says Jeff Seabright, the companys vice president of environmentand water resources. Population growth and climate change mean thatwater is no longer available in seemingly limitless quantities and Cokeneeds to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

If one considers that climate change has itself been persuasively linked toindustrial activity of mainly a capitalist kind (Kovel 2007; Bakan 2004), andthat the masters discourse in the political register has always drawn on theeconomic power imparted to it by such activity, it may seem as if Coca-Colaas capitalist companypar excellence is distancing itself from the master,refusing it in a paradigmatically hysterical manner. This impression wouldbe erroneous, however. Does the company not admit that, without access toclean water, its businesscannot exist? Which, the impression of being on

the side of the clean water-activists notwithstanding, is a confession that thebottom line remains power through profit.

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

10/18

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

11/18

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

12/18

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________36

This insight seems to me to propose a strategy which corresponds to thepsychologically paralyzing open door policy on the part of the hystericalcapitalist master as its critical counterpart: just as the latter short-circuitscriticism from the left in advance, so consumers on condition that they wakeup to their own potential power of putting their consumer behaviour on holdregarding specific commodities can paralyze capital selectively, stunting itsindispensable growth in the process, thus negotiating for themselves (andperhaps for the planet) a better material and ecological dispensation.5555 Becktherefore reminds consumers forcefully that they could organize themselvestransnationally into a lethal weapon against capital after all, they cannotbe fired (Beck, 2007, p. 10)! This growing counter-power of the consumerpoints to a valuable lesson by saying no to the exhortation to buy, onecould join the increasing numbers of people who are becoming aware oftheir power to combat the excesses of capital (the mainstay of the hegemonicnations, and the main threat to psychological and ecological health today)where necessary. After all, consumers must realize, sooner or later, that theiractions are predicated on the fact that the state no longer constitutes thecounter-power to capital. Once this course of action is adopted on a largeenough scale, it would seriously limit gross exploitation of resources it isnonsensical for the state to intervene in free economic activity by forcing it tobe un-free in the context of the free market.

I would further argue that Naomi Kleins (2007) unmasking of thelatest phase of capitalisms development as disaster capitalism is anotherinstance of what Pauwels hints at as a possible strategy against thedisarming self-criticism of the hysterical capitalist master, to wit, finding themeans for obliging the capitalist to close the door that he has sobeguilingly left open. This is what I initially described as the possibledisintegration, in certain areas of capitalist activity today, of the hystericalcapitalist masters (hysterical) disguise, which if it is indeed the case would amount to closing the door, thus enabling criticism instead ofdefusing it.

Through intelligent, relentless and thorough research Klein hasuncovered the links between the shock therapy used initially in psychiatrichospitals, supposedly to give psychiatrists a clean slate (of patients psyche)to work on, and later by the US military to disorientate prisoners with a viewto breaking down their resistance, on the one hand, and the Chicago Schooleconomic theory referred to at the outset in this paper, on the other. Theconnection consists in this: just as the concept of shock operated inpsychiatry (before it was discredited) and still does in the military,Friedmans purist neoliberal-capitalist economic theory, which insists on the

primacy of the market, is further predicated on the very same principle ofdisorientation through shock for laying the foundation of market-driven

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

13/18

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________37

privatization of every sphere of social life (in anticipation of huge profits).Klein quotes Friedman to this effect (2007, p. 6):

only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change. When thatcrisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lyingaround. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives toexisting policies, to keep them alive and available until the politicallyimpossible becomes politically inevitable.

Given the shape assumed by the implementation of this brand of capitalisteconomics, Klein (2007, pp. 3-21; 49-71) dubs it disaster capitalism, andproceeds to enumerate some of the recent instances of forcible imposition ofFriedmanite principles in the wake of the crises that he saw as goldenopportunities. These include the virtual eradication of public schools in NewOrleans during the period following Hurricane Katrina, and their

replacement by publicly funded, but privately run, for-profit charter schools(a process that saw job-losses of many erstwhile teachers in the publicschool system, and is widely perceived as having reversed the gains of thecivil rights movement regarding the same standard of education for allchildren). Similarly, in the wake of the devastating tsunami in the vicinity ofSri Lanka, the people who had previously lived in fishing villages on thecoast found themselves dispossessed of their livelihood (fishing in the oceanwhere they lived) when pristine coastal areas were made available todevelopers for the establishment of world class resorts (the playgrounds ofthe rich) by the government at a time when they were still reeling with shock. Again, the American invasion of Iraq left the local population severelytraumatized, creating the desired opportunity for private companies to gaina foothold in the country. The cynicism behind the pretence, to be bringingdemocracy, with all its hysterical discursive associations of freedom(accompanied by the real thing,free trade) to Iraq, is captured toperfection by Mike Battless remark (quoted in Klein, 2007, p. 9), that Forus [his private security company], the fear and disorder offered realpromise. This is hardly an instance of the hysteric speaking; I would arguethat the voice of the master can be detected there. As Klein wryly observes,His words could serve just as well as the slogan for contemporary capitalism fear and disorder are the catalysts for each new leap forward. Herfearless excavation of the dirt underneath capitalisms perhaps largely(globally) persuasive hysterical persona (in the etymological sense of mask)gives the lie to its performance on the world stage.

Kleins, merciless exposure of the excesses of capitalism (and onecould add Bakans and Kovels as well) must surely rank as a means ofpainstakingly forcing capitalism into a corner by means of scrupulousargumentation, backed up with incontrovertible evidence. Such a patient,critical intellectual strategy gives new impetus to the critical resources of

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

14/18

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________38

those concerned with capitalisms sinister, but wildly clever ruse ofadopting the manner of its severest critics, with debilitating results for thelatter. Being forced into a corner by such relentless scholarship, it is difficulteven for the capitalist discourse to extricate itself from the well-foundedcharges of promoting its own narrow economic interests at the cost of thoseof the people directly and detrimentally affected by its cynical exploitation ofnatural as well as humanly caused disasters. To be sure, signs of its adoptedhysterical persona abound, and this is emblematically evident in MiltonFriedman, arguably (together with Friedrich Hayek) the chief architect of thehegemonic neoliberal variety of capitalism, being proclaimed a champion offreedom when he died (Klein, 2007, p. 18). (Ironically, Californiangovernator, Arnold Schwarzenegger known for his many filmappearances in the roles of a variety of freedom fighters, that is, hystericsvis--vis a dictatorial order of some kind even publicly dedicated a day inFriedmans honour following his death!)

That the hysterical capitalist master is secretly governed by themasters discourse, is strikingly confirmed by none other than MiltonFriedman, in conversation with Joel Bakan (writer ofThe corporation ), inresponse to the latters question, how far Sir John Browne, chief of the BP oilcompany, could push his newly professed green convictions, that BP isbeyond petroleum, and that the oil companies should no longer choosebetween profits and a clean environment (which makes it very clear that theyare not about to give up profits). According to Bakan (2004, pp. 41-42)Friedman said:

He can do it with his own money. If he pursues those environmentalinterests in such a way as to run the corporation less effectively for itsstockholders, then I think he is being immoral. Hes an employee of thestockholders, however elevated his position may appear to be. As such, hehas a very strong moral responsibility to them.

Theres the rub no matter how persuasively capitalist companies employthe adopted discourse of the hysteric to convince the public of their concernfor the environment and for society at large, their overriding concern,professionally and legally if not morally is to guarantee profits forstockholders; in fact, this is theironly legal obligation (see Bakan, 2004, pp.35-37). Friedmans claim that Browne has a moral responsibility to putstockholders interests first should be placed in relation to the question,whether unbridled capitalist growth is not perhaps the most egregiouslyimmoral, unethical process imaginable, when the well-being of the entireplanet and its inhabitants is at stake.6

One cannot easily overestimate the pervasiveness of the hystericaldiscourse on the part of the new capitalist masters, even if the masksometimes slips, revealing the cynical features of the beast (as in the case of

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

15/18

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________39

the private security executive quoted by Klein, above). An exemplary instanceof capitalisms hysterical persona, in addition to that of Sir John Browne,Bakan (2004, p. 32) concerns a Shell television advertisement, showing aromantic woman environmentalist (who also happens to be a Shell-employed geologist) flying by helicopter in an area with beautiful mountainsand lakes, talking to indigenous people in their huts, and lookingskeptically at heavy trucks trundling across an unspoilt landscape. AsBakan observes, the point of the advertisement is to let the audience suspectthat the woman is an ecological activist, only to be informed, in a charmingScottish-accented voice-over, that shes not at war with the oil company;she is the oil company. Viewers should therefore (supposedly) be reassuredthat Shell is leading the field in its concern for the environment. But, as Ihope to have shown, there are limits to the persuasiveness of this hystericalbehaviour on the capitalists part.

Conclusion

Hence, to conclude, if the hysterical strategy of the capitalist has been largelyeffective in defusing even the most valid, well-grounded criticism aimed atuncovering the obscenely destructive side-effects of capitalist production anddevelopment socially as well as ecologically then one has to create (orreport) circumstances that leave the hysterical capitalist master no option thanto the drop the mask and reveal him- or herself as being really a pseudo-hysteric, secretly committed to an unassailable or rather, unquestioned project, propelled by therelentless privatisation or colonization of the naturaland social world in pursuit of more profit. This is a prerequisite for sociallyand politically effective critique. It may be argued that stripping the hystericalcapitalist of his or her mask cannot itself happen by means of critique of anykind whether the latter assumes a philosophical, psychoanalytical, social-scientific or journalistic character and that it can only happen, as hinted atby Lacan (above), in capitalist discourse itself being headed for a blowout,because it consumes so well that it consumes itself... (an extremelysuggestive remark, not elaborated on further by Lacan). And yet, I believe thatLacans own work, in conjunction with that of Lacanian intellectuals likePauwels, Copjec and Zizek, as well as persistently investigative (journalisticor philosophical) writers like Naomi Klein, Joel Bakan and Joel Kovel, hasbeen in the process of advancing the kind of critique which has, slowly butsurely, been eroding the mask of pseudo-enlightenment and quasi-self-criticism, donned by the hysterical capitalist master, thus forcing him (or her)to close the door and show his (or her) true colours. Even if it turns out not to

be sufficient in exposing the capitalist emperor as being without clothes, if theblowout which Lacan believes the capitalist discourse is destined for does

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

16/18

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

17/18

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________41

Olivier, B. (2007). Truth, power, intellectuals, and universities. Paper presented, byinvitation, at International Conference on Philosophy in Africa, organized by thePhilosophy Department of St Augustines College, Johannesburg, South Africa, 23October (submitted for publication).

Olivier, B. (2007a). Nature as abject, critical psychology, and revolt: The pertinence of

Kristeva.South African Journal of Psychology , Vol. 37, No. 3, 2007, pp. 443-469.Olivier, B. (2007b.) Wake up and smell us burn and crash. Article published in the(Johnnic Communications, SA)Weekend Post . 10 November, p. 9. Also posted on theMail & Guardian Online Thought Leader site www.mg.co.za, as The urgent need towake up to the demands of the environment. 23 November.

Olivier, B. (2007c.) The obsession with money. Posted on theMail & Guardian Online Thought Leader site www.mg.co.za, 23 November.

Olivier, B. (2007d). Neo-what? Posted on theMail & Guardian Online Thought Leadersite www.mg.co.za, 7 December.

Olivier, B. (2005). Lacan and the question of the psychotherapists ethical orientation.SAJournal of Psychology 35 (4), 657-683.Olivier, B. (2005a). Lacan and narrative identity:The Piano Teacher . In Word, (wo)man,

world: Essays on literature (pp. 94-112).Festschrift for Ina Grbe. Oliphant, A.W. &Roos, H. (Eds). Pretoria: UNISA Press.

Olivier, B. (2005b). Nature, capitalism, and the future of humankind.South AfricanJournal of Philosophy 24 (2 ) , pp.121-135.

Pauwels, M. (2008). Lacan and the subversion of the discourse of the capitalist. Paper(unpublished, to the best of my knowledge) presented at PSSA Conference, University

of Pretoria, 17 January.Thompson, J.B. 1990.Ideology and modern culture . Stanford: Stanford University Press. Woo Liu, L. (2008). Water pressure.TIME magazine , June 23, pp. 46-47. iek, S. 1993. The thing that thinks: The Kantian background of thenoir subject, in

Shades of Noir A reader , ed. Copjec, J. London & New York: Verso, pp. 199-226. 1. A telling example of such an objet a is found in a short story by Antonia Byatt(1998), namely Jal, in the volume, Elementals, where the colour red triggers in thenarrator the unsettling memory, in the first place, of the colour with which she illustratedthe biblical story where the eponymous heroine kills the enemy general sleeping in herhome, causing the red blood to flow from his head. But secondly, it simultaneouslytriggers her confused memory of her (probable) involvement in sabotaging the attempt,on the part of her schools best athlete and leader of the in-group at their school, torepeat her usual victory in a cross-country race, inadvertently causing her severe injurywhen she fell and hit her head against a hard object. Byatt subtly intimates that there areassociative similarities between the biblical story of Jal and the deed (gone seriouslywrong) committed by the narrator, born of envy and resentment at not being allowed intothe other girls group. The colour red is therefore her object a, and represents or causesher desire for a life, not merely free from the pangs of conscience resurrected repeatedlywhenever she sees a certain hue of red, but most fundamentally her desire for being partof a community represented by the girl whom she inadvertently injured. To belong to

8/12/2019 28-111-1-PB

18/18

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________42

such a community represents her unattainable jouissance. Slavoj iek (1993, pp. 206-207) draws attention to another illuminating instance of objet petit a documented inFreuds work.2. I dont think it is an accident that, further on in the text, Lacan (1978, 11) hints atthe prospect of psychoanalysis becoming an accomplice of capitalism in America: A

discourse that would finally be truly pestilent, wholly devoted, finally, to the service ofcapitalist discourse. This seems to me to suggest that, just as mainstream psychologyeasily (and usually) functions to prop up the discourse of the master or the dominantorder, so, too, psychoanalytic practice could easily, in a country marked by unbridledcapitalism, become the slave discourse, endlessly reproducing servants of this order.3. See in this regard Kovel, 2007, pp. 57-60, for an account of such a disintegrativeeffect of capitalism on communities in Mexico, by luring young people to the free tradeborder city of Juarez with the promise of earning a few measly dollars. In the processespecially the young women risk losing far more than just their family life, as they areeasily drawn into the night club, sex and drug business, again with the carrot of

supposed high dollar earnings. Kovel (2007, pp. 54-55) also describes a similar effect ofcapital on equatorial rain forest villagers, some of whom blindly exchanged a simple, butfulfilling community life for the real thing, Coca-Cola, where the latter functions asemblem for the quick fix wages promised by the mining companies to susceptible youngpeople from these villages. The price they pay is ultimately the socially integrated villagelife they once had, where, to be sure, wealth in western terms did not exist, but in itsplace there was a life of plenty of food, as well as family and community cohesion,interwoven with a worldview which was not shot through with the nihilism which istypically produced by capitalisms tendency to exploit everything nature as well aspeople for profit.

4. On several earlier occasions (including Olivier 2007 and 2007a) I have put forwardother avenues of criticism aimed at dislodging capitalisms stranglehold on societalorganization, for instance via a discourse-analytical unmasking of the corporatization ofuniversities, and an enlargement of the practice of critical psychology so as to include therelation of human beings with nature in an encompassing sense.5. Incessant growth is one of the indispensable conditions for capital to operate, andcapitalism as a way of life to exist. The other two are, firstly, exploitation of labour inthe sense that a gap necessarily has to obtain between workers wages (and otherproduction costs) on the one hand, and capital income through sales, on the other, andsecondly, the need for continued technological development and innovation, without

which the required diversity in commodity production cannot be regularly introduced (seeHarvey 1990: 180).6. See in this regard Olivier 2005b and 2007a.7. Personally, I believe that the gravity of the matter is such that one should utilizeevery possible avenue to conscientize colleagues, students and the public at large. Thiswould include lectures, conference papers, radio and television as well as other publictalks and discussions, and also publications ranging from academic articles and books topopular ones in newspapers or on the internet (see for example Olivier 2008a, 2008b,2008c, 2007b, 2007c and 2007d).