Metapolitics [Englisch] [Gebundene Ausgabe]

Badiou is one of the most exciting writers in the field of "philosophy" today. I put that word in quotes because it seems to be part of Badiou's project to relieve words such as "truth," "ethics," "beauty", and now, "politics" of their own brackets-which suspend them and ultimately, imprison them in the arena of sophism. Badiou asserts that there is a way to capitalize Truth, Ethics, Art, Love, etc. and that such a move might be neccessary in a world that capitalizes (on) everything else. "Ethics" was one of the most illuminating books I have read in recent years and "Metapolitics" falls short by a hair only because I did not read it first. Refreshingly bereft of irony and relativism, Badiou is precisely the writer the Left needs in order to rediscover its cause on a foundation that, this time, is not afraid to assert the universal.

Having read many philosophical and political theorists across a spectrum from Heidegger, Plato, Schmitt, Zizek, Derrida, Marx etc, I never expected to find a philosophical text I could genuinely label "exasperating". There is something about Badiou's writing in Metapolitics (or possibly the translation) where one finds oneself starting to grasp an issue at the beginning of a paragraph, only to end it flailing in mid air, as if Badiou's thought had gone scurrying into a dark cave, never to reappear.

Even "difficult" thinkers such as Heidegger start in shallow water with simple concepts and take you on a journey, building arguments and challenging the writer's, and your own, assumptions. By the end of the journey, the writing points out areas for intellectual and emotional discovery. Difficult topics are approached cautiously and with precision.

Badiou relies on too many unexplained and weak assumptions along with huge leaps of faith. One can expect that a reader needs to bring with them some "basic principles" that don't bear repeating. However even here (or perhaps especially so) the great philosophers and thinkers put you to task, challenging key ideas or thought processes. In Metapolitics, there is something lazy and haphazard about how the thoughts are strung together with assumptions or concepts dangerously passed over, leading one to a feeling that the conclusions reached are suspect. Or worse, that the effort expended doesn't really bear any fruit.

In the case of Badiou's analysis and application of Sylvain Lazarus' work 'Anthropologie du nom (Des travaux)', my first question was "why Lazarus?" Yes, they are friends and political allies in L'Organization Politique but beyond that I found it very hard to agree with Badiou opening claim that "...it is no exaggeration to say that, today, philosophers cannot attempt any seizure of politics of thought without studying this [meaning Lazarus'] book..." Politically, this gesture is done in good faith but nothing that followed supported such a bold assertion. And ultimately, I felt that, contra Badiou, it was in fact an "exaggeration". So if there is exaggeration or a wilful blindness to the flaws carried by a friend (in this case Lazarus), what about other friends, human or ideological, approached by Badiou? And why stop there? One could, with complete peace of mind and even good conscience, exaggerate the "enemy". This dual suspicion haunts this work and weakens its impact.

Disappointingly, rather than finding key concepts such as "politics" and "democracy" being fundamentally challenged in this book, I found Badiou's thought being challenged. Let us say "autochallenged". As if inherent weaknesses in the text left it unable to sustain itself.

I would even have been happy to treat this as a polemical text (and there are some entertaining and powerful examples by Badiou and friends online) but I couldn't get engaged, let alone angry.

Rather than a meaty and challenging text, I found myself reading an intellectual soufflé that had overreached and then sunk under its own (lack of) weight.

There seems to be something in Badiou's work, though it is often hard to locate. To me, however, it's not enough to revel in the fact that he "challenges the status quo" or "really gets you thinking." I mean come on--have you heard of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Levinas, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze, Zizek, etc.? These days, it's not simply a matter of "thinking outside the box." Perhaps this would have been a remarkable achievement many, many decades ago, but certainly not now.

The question for me goes like this: Badiou is an original enough thinker--sure. However, it is often difficult to place him in regards to traditions and currents because--as "original" philosophers often do--he rarely grapples with contemporary thinkers, and if he does, it is anything but clear as to how he positions himself in various flows of politics, etc.

There is certainly SOMEthing there in his work... it perhaps remains to be seen, though I would side with Simon Critchley's critique that Badiou tends to overly-romanticize the figure of the revolutionary figure. There is a sense of heroism that comes on a bit too strong for my taste.

Overall, I recommend Badiou's work. Just be prepared to grapple with it. Though it is not as if these texts were wordy or jargon-filled (such as a Heidegger or Lacan). The struggle here is more of a matter of what to make of this work and what its consequences are on philosophy, politics, and thought. If nothing else inspires you, the first 40 pages where he engages in a much-needed critique of "political philosophy" are certainly worth the price of admission, so to speak.