The Issue of Undecidability Within the Debate Between Ernesto Laclau and Slavoj Žižek
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE ISSUE OF UNDECIDABILITY WITHIN THE DEBATE BETWEEN ERNESTO LACLAU AND SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY MEHMET GÖKHAN UZUNER IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION DECEMBER 2009 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof. Dr. Sencer Ayata Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science. Prof. Dr. Raşit Kaya Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Okyayuz Supervisor Examining Committee Members Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Okyayuz (METU, ADM) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Necmi Erdoğan (METU, ADM) Assist. Prof. Dr. Erdoğan Yıldırım (METU, SOC) I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. First name, Last name: Mehmet Gökhan Uzuner Signature: iii ABSTRACT THE ISSUE OF UNDECIDABILITY WITHIN THE DEBATE BETWEEN ERNESTO LACLAU AND SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK Uzuner, Mehmet Gökhan M.S. Department of Political Science and Public Administration Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet OKYAYUZ December 2009, 161 pages The philosophical problem of the tension between liberty and order has dominated the agenda of western philosophy and science since the beginning of the history of thought, and it is a leading issue nowadays, too. The problem of the act of decision is particularly one of the significant themes of contemporary political thought. Instead of the classical poles of both voluntarism and determinism prioritising either the subject or the structure, what should be employed is a much deeper analysis of the relation between undecidability and the act of decision. In this respect, the discussion between Ernesto Laclau and Slavoj Žižek is considerably illuminating. But there are also theoretical shortcomings shared by these thinkers. That is, despite the informativeness of this debate, there is an overwhelming necessity to critically assess this dialogue with a particular emphasis on the conceptual issues. In this regard, an overall scrutiny and critical assessment of this debate constitute the main body of this thesis. Keywords: act, decision, Derrida, impossibility, Kant, Lacan, Laclau, necessity, psychoanalysis, the subject, undecidability, Žižek iv ÖZ ERNESTO LACLAU VE SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK ARASINDAKĐ TARTIŞMA BAĞLAMINDA KARAR VERĐLEMEZLĐK MESELESĐ Uzuner, Mehmet Gökhan Yüksek Lisans, Siyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Mehmet OKYAYUZ Aralık 2009, 161 sayfa Özgürlük ve düzen arasındaki gerilim, düşünce tarihinin başlangıcından beri batı felsefesinin ve biliminin gündemini işgal etmiştir ve günümüzde de önde gelen meselelerden biridir. Bilhassa, karar verme eylemi sorunsalı çağdaş siyasal düşüncenin en önemli konularından birini oluşturmaktadır. Ya özneye ya da yapıya öncelik tanıyan iradecilik ve belirlenimcilik gibi klasik kutuplar yerine karar verme eylemi ve karar verilemezlik arasındaki ilişki çok daha derin bir analizle incelenmelidir. Bu bağlamda Ernesto Laclau ve Slavoj Žižek arasındaki tartışma oldukça aydınlatıcıdır. Ama bu iki düşünür tarafından paylaşılan kuramsal eksiklikler de vardır. Başka bir deyişle, tartışmanın aydınlatıcılığına rağmen, bu diyaloğu - özellikle kavramsal sorunları vurgulayarak - eleştirel bir şekilde incelemek karşı konulamaz bir zorunluluktur. Bu bakımdan bu tartışmanın genel bir çözümlemesi ve eleştirel bir ele alınışı bu tezin ana gövdesini oluşturmaktadır. Anahtar Sözcükler: Derrida, eylem, imkansızlık, Kant, karar, karar-verilemezlik, Lacan, Laclau, psikanaliz, özne, Žižek, zorunluluk v To the lovely memory of Mehmet Uzuner vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Okyayuz for his valuable guidance, patience, criticisms, insight and academic enthusiasm throughout the research. Without his support and encouragement, this study would have been never completed. Also, I express sincere thanks to examining committee members, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Necmi Erdoğan and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erdoğan Yıldırım for their critical evaluations. Moreover, I wish to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mesut Yeğen for his encouragements and suggestions particularly in terms of outlining the main body of the study. Further, I am particularly grateful to TÜBĐTAK for providing me with graduate scholarship within National Scholarship Programme for MSc Students. By means of such a financial assistance, I could complete the study. What is more, very special thanks go to Haluk Akkaya for his deep philosophical and psychoanalytic insights. Without his brilliant comments and constructive suggestions, I would not have overcome the complexity of the study. Additionally, I am very grateful to Berkay Ayhan for his patience and support throughout the study. Particularly his revitalizing aids made the completion process of the study manageable for me. Also I am deeply indebted to Ali Galip Çamlı, Behçet Doğan, Rafet Çevik, Kaan Tacal and Ertan Bahat. They listened to me and gave me moral support whenever I had trouble with the study. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my family for their supports at all steps of the study. They stood by me whenever I needed. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAGIARISM ..................................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................iv ÖZ...........................................................................................................................v DEDICATION ......................................................................................................vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................ vii TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................... viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................. xii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................1 2. ERNESTO LACLAU AND HIS USE OF THE CONCEPT OF UNDECIDABILITY..................................................................................16 2.1 Introduction of Post-Structuralism..................................................16 2.1.1 Basic Conceptual Tools..........................................................17 2.1.1.1 Articulation.................................................................17 2.1.1.2 Overdetermination......................................................19 2.1.1.3 The Subject.................................................................21 2.1.2 Basic Application Fields ........................................................22 2.1.2.1 Antagonism ................................................................22 2.1.2.2 Hegemony ..................................................................24 2.2 Introduction of Psychoanalysis .......................................................26 2.2.1 Undecidability of the Signifier...............................................27 viii 2.2.2 Undecidability of Hegemony .................................................29 2.2.3 Undecidability of Structure ....................................................32 2.2.4 Undecidability of the Subject.................................................35 2.3 Introduction of Deconstruction .......................................................38 2.3.1 Universal-Particular ...............................................................38 2.3.2 The Empty Signifier...............................................................42 2.3.3 Undecidability and Indeterminacy .........................................45 2.3.4 Undecidability and Subjectivity.............................................49 2.4 Concluding Comments: Undecidability at Work............................51 2.4.1 Construction of the ‘People’ ..................................................52 2.4.2 Discourse(s) of Nationalism...................................................53 2.4.3 ‘New Social Movements’.......................................................54 2.4.4 Radical (Plural) Democracy...................................................56 2.4.5 Decisionist Propensity of Laclau............................................58 3. ISSUE OF UNDECIDABILITY IN ŽIŽEKIAN THEORY OF THE ACT.............................................................................................................61 3.1 Žižek on Benjamin: What’s the Worth of Reading Marx? .............61 3.1.1 Some Žižekian Preliminary Remarks on Theses on the Philosophy of History .............................................................61 3.1.2 Žižek against Historicism.......................................................64 3.1.3 The Act as Vanishing Mediator .............................................65 3.1.4 Antigone as a Perfect Case of the Revolutionary Act............67 3.2 Žižek on Schelling: What’s the Worth of Reading German Idealism? .........................................................................................69