E,thicsAn Essay on the

[Jnderstanding of Evil

ALAIN BADIOU

Translated and introducedPetcr Hallward

by

V E R S O

London . New York

\A'O ES \\AR

A st ' r i t 's l iorn Versr> er l i t t 'c l bv Slaur i Z iTck

llb r.s uar, toll ith u,enlcn - \I'hrrt il itru.s, I shall t orru' irtlo hrittg - isl ' r -errr l 's ver-s ion of thc I in l ig l r tcnm( ' r ) t goal of 'knonlcdqe that is ini ts t ' l l an act of l ibcrat ion. Is i t s t i l l possi t r le t ( ) [ ) r l rs(rc th is goalt oc l l r r ' , i n t he co r r t l i t i o r r s o f l u t t ' cap i t : r l i s r n - r I f i t ' t o t l av i s t l r t ' t t ' i r rnr le o{ pragrnat ic-r t : l : r t iv is t Nt ' rv Sophists ancl Nel Age obscrt r ' : rnt-i s t s , r vha t ' s l t a l l co r r r e i n t o be ing ' i r r i t s p l acc? The p l tm i ss o f t i r cscl ies is that thc explosive contbi rur t ion ol [ - : rcarr i l i t r psvchoarta lvs isarrc l N{arx ist t r i r r l i t ion det()nates : r r l r r r i ln ic f rcer lorrr th: r t enal) l ( 's usto qrrest iorr ther vcn presrrpposi t iorrs of t l re c i lcui t of Oapi ta l .

In tltr' sunu' stries:

.|erenrv llentltirrn. 'l 'ht lltrLolttittrt ll 'ritirtg.s. [.clitt'd arrcl introclttct:rl ]x

Mi lan RoZovi i,\lain (]rosricltard. 'l 'he Sulktn'.s Oourl: liuroputn I'artta.sics ol lltt liu.sl.

T lanslatccl br ' [ . iz Heron anr l int ror lucer l br ' \ l laden L)olarRenata S'alecl, (ltcr)lter'.sit,rt.s of l.rnc unrl HateSlavi Ziiek, '| 'he't'itkt,ish Sul4ed: 'l 'hc ,lbsenI Oentre of kliti(al (hr.toktsrSlavoj ZiZek, Did,Srnneodt Srq'l'otulilarirmi.sm? l'it,e !ntentcntiorts in t,he

(t\li.s)use oJ a NolitnAlerrka Zupirrrii, b)thirs of the Rcal: Kunt, Larart

$ 2 3 -U - S . A -$ 3 2 - 9 6

Does the Other Exist?

Thc concept ion o{ ' c t l r i cs as th r : 'e th ics o f the o ther ' o r the'ethics of clifTrence' has its orisin in the theses of Emman-trcl l ,vinas rathcr than in those of Kant.

l,vinirs has devoted his work, after a brush rvith phenom-cnoloq! ' (an exertrplary cclnfrontat icln betrveen Husserl andI{eirleuger), to the deposing ldestitutionl of philosophy infavour of ethics. It is to hirn that we owe, lone before thecurrer)t fashion, a kind of ethicir l radical isrn. '

I Ethics according to Lvinas

Rotrghlv speaking: Lvinas rnaintains that rnetaphysics,irnprisonecl by its Greek origins, has subordinated thoushtto the losic of t l ' rr : Same, to the primacv of substnnce anclir lenti tr , . But, accordins to L.vinas, i t is impossi l t lc to arr iveat an authentic thousht of the Other (and thus an ethicsof thc relation to the Other) fiom the despotisrn of theSilme, which is incirpable of recosnizing this Other. Thedialect ic of t tre Same and the Other, conceived 'ontologi-

callv' urrder the clominance of selidentity fidentit--soi),ensures thc absence of the Other in effcctive thotrght, sup-

DOES THE OTHER EXIST?

presses al l gentr ine experience of the Other' , :rrrcl bars th{way to an ethical opening to alterity. So we rnust push Ithought over to a dif lrent orip in, a non-(lreek origirr. tone th:rt propose.s a racl ical, prirnary openiDg to the Other It o r r c c i r e d a s o n t ( ) l o g i c a l l v a n t e r i o r t o t h e c o n s t r r r c t i o n ( ) l | /i < l c n t i t r . l t i s i n t h e . f e r v i s h t r a d i t i o n t h a t L v i n a s f i n d s t h e I /l l r s i s l o l t h i s p r r s l r i n u o v e r ' . \ 4 h a t t l r e l . a n ( r r r r d e r s t o o d | /i r< r '< r ld i r tg to . fe r t i s l r t rad i t io r r as bo t l t imrner t to r ia l an< l c r r r - I /r-enth' in elfect) names is precisel,"- the anteriot ' i ty, t , , , ,rcled / Vin beins-before-the-Same, and rvith respect to theoretical fthousht, of the ethics of the relat ion t() thc ()ther, i tselt Icorrceivecl merely as the 'olt ject ivc' i

2 l20 E T H I C S

ethically as 'pledged' to the appearine of the Other, andsubordinated in my being to this pledge.

For l,vinas, ethics is the nau name of thought, thoushtwhich has thrown off its ' logical' chains (the principle ofidcntity) in favour of its prophetic strbmission to the l,aw offounding alterity.

II The 'ethics of difference'

Whether thel' knorv it or nt, it i .s in the name of thisconfisuration that the proponents of ethics explain to ustodar, that it amounts to 'recr.rgnition of the other' (againstracism, which woulcl deny this other), or to'the ethics ofdif lrences' (asainst substantialist nationalism, which wouldexclude immigrants, or sexism, which would deny feminine-being), or to 'multiculturalism' (against the imposition of aunified model of behaviour and intellectual approach). Or,qtrite sirnply, to good old-fashioned 'tolerance', which con-sists of not being ofInded by the fct that others think andact dif'erently from you.

This cornrnonsensical discourse has neither f

$ 2 { f -u- s_ A_$32- ert

T]TH I C]S

experience of alterity be ontologically 'guaranteed' as theexperience of a distance, or

DOES THE OTHER EXIST? 25

inrperative of a conquering civilization: 'Become like meand I will respect your clifference .'

V Return to the Same

Thc truth is that, in the context of a system of thought thatis both a-religious and genuinely contemporary with thetrtrths clf our titne, the whole ethical predicatiorl basedupon reconition of the other should be purely and simplyabandoned. For the real question - and it is an extraordi-rrarily clif{icult crne - is rnuch more that oI recognizing theJunv.

Let us posit ozr axiorns. There is no God. \4hich alsonlcans: the One is not. The multiple 'without-one' - evelYrntrlt iple being in its trtrn nothing other thalr a nrultiple ofnrtrlt iples - is the law of being. The only stopping point isthe void. The infinite, as Pascal had already realized, is thebanal reality of every situation, not the predicate of at.ranscendence. For the inllnite, as Cantor demonstratedwith the creation of set theory, is actually only the mostgcneral form of multiple-being [tre-multiple). ln fact, everysituation, inasmuch as it is, is a multiple composed of aninfinity of elements, each one of which is iself a rnultiple.(lonsidered in their simple belonging to a situation (to aninfirrite mtrltiple), the animals of the species Homo sapiensare ord inary mrr l t ip l ic i t ies.

What. then. are we [o make of the other, of differences,'.rnd of tl.reir ethical recognition?

Irrfinite alterity is quite simply what there ls. Any experi-ence at all is the infinite deployrnent of infinite differences.Even the apparently reflexive experience of myself is by no

. r E T H I ( ; S

Our suspicions are first aroused when we see that theself-declared apostles of ethics and of the 'r ight to diftr-ence' are clearly honiJied b; rtnl uigorous$ susktined diJfi:rertce.For thenr, Ali-ican customs are barbalic, Muslims are dreacl-ful, the flhinese are totalitarian, and so on. As a rn'.rtter offact, this celebrated 'other' is acceptable onl,v i l he is a goor./other - whicl.r is to sav rvhat, exactl), i f :not thesnmc as tts?Respect for clif lrences, of

26 ETHIcs

rneans the intuit ion of.a unity but a labyrinth of clifferentia_tions, a'cl Rimba'cl ,,?s cer;i; i ;;;;;.r* whe' he said:'I arn another.' Iha c h i' e s e o " o,u ",Ji,i.ffi .i:ili ",i ; ji;; ffi ;fberrveerr url.self and an1 bocly ,, "rr,

l".rriing mvself.As many, bllt als(), then, icithtr irrr, ,r), ,rr.

VI .Cultural' differences and ctrlturalismO''tenrp.rarv ethir:s kicks rrp a bie lirss about ,crrltrrral,< l i l l r c r r ce r . l t s t . o r r t'v t^is kirrcl ,f .rrrr"O,,o,

of.the ,other, is inlirrrnecl ntainlv( oexisre,ce ",,

.,,,.linll, il;_lli,i.l,,.':lJ,.,,;.ff ::]t ies ' , t l i e re lusa l o f .exc l t rs ion , .But \1hat we rnust rec

9R E T H I ( ] S D O E S T H E O T H E R E X I S T ? 29

'seme' that a ttuth conuohes to its ozun 'sameness' . Or in otherrvords, clepending on the circumstances, otlr capacity forscience, love, pol i t ics or art, since al l truths, in my view, fal lunder one or another o1'these ttniversal names.

It is only ttrrough a sentrine pen',ersion, for rvhich we willpay a terrible historical price, that rve have sottsht toelaborate an 'e thics' on the basis of c:ttltural relativisrn. Forthis is to pretend that a merely contingent statc oI ' thingscan firund a [,aw.

The only gentt ine ethics is of tmths in the pltrral - or,more precisely, the only ethics is o1'processes oI ' truth, ofthe labotrr that brings some trttths into the rvorld. Ethicsmust be taken in the sense presrrrned by Lacan when,against Kant and the notion of a qeneral rnorality, hecliscrrsses the ethics of'psychoanalr.'sis. Ethics does n()t exist.There is only t|re ethic-ol'(of politics, of lovc, of science, ofa r t ) .

There is not, in fct, one sinsle Subject, btt t as manysubjects as there are truths, and as rnany subiectivc types asthere are procedures of truths.

As for me, I identify foLrr funclamental sub.jective 'types':pol i t ical, scie nt i f ic, art ist ic, and amorous famoureux].

Every hurnan animal, by participatins in a given sinsulartnrth, is inscribed in one of these forrr types.

A philosophy sets out to construct a space of thotrght ir-trvhich the difTrent subjective types, expressed by the sinsu-lar truths of i ts t ime, coexist. But this coexistence is not aunification - that is rvhy it is irnpossible to speak of oneEthics.

l .

Notes

Ernmanuel Lvinas, 'l'otality nntl InJinity, 196l [1969]. This ishis major work.facques Lacan,

'The l\{irror Phase', in lirrit.s: A Selcrtion, 1966[ 1 9 7 7 ] .