Ethics and the Resistant Subject Levinas, Foucault, Marx Shokoufeh Sakhi A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN POLITICAL SCIENCE YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO March 2014 © Shokoufeh Sakhi 2014 Abstract: The present work essays a conception of human subjectivity capable of effective resistance to totalizing systems. The term “effective” distinguishes the absolute resistance of an ethical-subjectivity from the survival resistance of a for-itself subjectivity. It signifies a resistance that itself is neither rendered a new totality, nor assimilated within the old one. Chapters One through Three draw on Emanuel Levinas’s separation between interiority and exteriority, between the I and the other, and on his conceptualization of subjectivity on the ethical plane as being-for-the-other. Through a material phenomenology of sensory deprivation and solitary confinement the human subject is comprehended as a corporeal-sensible being that is rendered a subject in response to exteriority, response that arises from both its (survival) needs for itself and its (ethical) Desire for the other. The second Section, chapters Four and Five, presents immanent critical analyses of the conceptions of the human subject and resistance in Michel Foucault and Karl Marx respectively. These theorists exemplify opposable approaches to the notion of the human subject and subjectivity–and thus to an ethically-based resistance—which help elucidate the limits of the for- itself approach to theorizing effective resistance. Arguing in the last section, chapter Six, that, though occluded, for-the-other subjectivity and effective resistance are to be found in the actual practices of human struggle. A Levinasian interrogation of resistance under torture and prison confinement presents the case for theorizing the subject as primordially an I-in-tension and for the indispensability of the ethical dimension for an effective resistance against totalizing systems. ii To stubborn life, surpassing love… and to those who care despite themselves. iii Acknowledgements This work is deeply indebted to many who have helped make it possible. Among these I single out some for particular acknowledgment. Without the support of my supervisory committee it would never have seen the light. Much more than a supervisor, Asher Horowitz’s timely interventions sustained me throughout the extended intellectual and personal journey of its making, offering challenging stimulus, providing space for the free development of my thought and giving warm, supportive friendship. Robert Albritton’s probing questions and thoughtful feedback helped strengthen my arguments and clarify my presentation. His warm humanity generally and his generous willingness to take time from his Emeritus research and writing are greatly appreciated. And Shannon Bell, whose exemplary intellectual energy provided a model, however irregularly followed, and whose attentive reading and continuous affirmation helped keep me going. As Political Science Graduate Director, the late Ann Denholm Crosby allowed me to develop my own specialized Minor, The Anthropology of Late Capitalism, which contributed to the research for this work. Of the many members of the staff whose work supported my efforts and to all of whom I am grateful, Marlene Quesenberry requires particular acknowledgment for her constant availability, her quick, knowledgeable and warm responses, never showing irritation, however repetitious, small or large, silly or serious the years of questions drummed up in the minds of graduate students, of whom I provided perhaps more than my share. I had the privilege of benefiting from a network of friends who supported my journey each in her or his way, reading and commenting on my work, giving respite and helping me to remain on course. To name a few, I am indebted to Katayoun Baghaei, Fataneh Farahani, Niloofar Hojati, Nasser Mohajer, Shourideh Molavi and Victoria Tahmasebi. I would like to thank my mother, Parvin Boujoran, and my father, Mohammad Ali Sakhi, who instilled in me a stubbornness without which I could not be here. They stood by me not only during my long years of post-secondary education but throughout the eight years of my political imprisonment, from which the germ of this research derived. I want also to acknowledge my son, Shahram Eskandary, who had more faith in my work than I did and who lived with and without me and suffered the hard years of my imprisonment and our immigration, always participating without expectations. My brothers, Shahin and Shapour and my sister Elham, always inquiring about my progress, provided encouragement and solace whenever I needed them. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my love, Bill Swanson, whose boundless faith and love surpass all saying and all said. This manuscript would not have been possible without him; he has been my main interlocutor, attentive reader and editor. My doctoral research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral Fellowship and by Scholarships from the Faculty of Graduate studies, York University. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Dedication iii Acknowledgements iv Introduction 1 Section I A Materialist Phenomenology of Corporeal-Sensibility Chapter I. Interiority as Sensible Corporeality 19 i) Absolute Separation: Participation/Relation 22 ii) Isolation: Melting into the Il y a 24 iii) Solitary Confinement: The Reduction of the World 26 iv) Sensory Deprivation: Melting into the There is 31 v) Conclusion 39 Chapter II. Corporeal-sensibility and Living From the Elements 42 i) Living-being/Lived-body 43 ii) Corporeal Need and Desire 47 iii) Corporeal Desire 51 iv) Finitude and the Trauma of Separation 55 v) The Bad Infinite and Fear 57 vi) Conclusion 59 Chapter III. The I-in-tension: Subjectivity as Respons-ability 61 i) Encountering the Other and the Birth of the Subject 62 ii) Proximity: the Space-time of Corporeal-sensibility and Encountering the Other 64 iii) Proximity: the Birth of the I-in-tension 65 iv) Proximity: the Ethical Condition 72 v) Proximity: the Inter-human Relation 76 vi) Proximity: Tension and the Immanence of Ambiguity 79 vii) Sensible-corporeality: Ethical Desire and Survival Need 86 viii) Conclusion: The Four Corners of Life and Death 92 Section II The Limits of the "For-Itself": Foucault and Marx Chapter IV. Foucault: Docility, Power and the Care of the Self 100 i) The subject as a derivative of power 103 ii) Power, Power, Everywhere 120 iii) The Aesthetic-self: Totality-redux 137 iv) Conclusion: the Foucaultian Resistance 152 v Chapter V. Marx: The Impasse of Self-referentiality 157 i) Marx’s Ethical Dimension 163 ii) Marx’s Subject 169 iii) The Human Subject as a Natural-being 171 iv) The Human Subject as a Social-Historical Being 181 v) The Human Subject as a Species-Being 196 vi) The Estranged-Subject 205 vii) Conclusion 214 Section III Effective Resistance and Ethical Subjectivity Chapter VI. Prison and the Subject of Resistance: A Levinasian Inquiry 217 i) Political Prison and the Survival-Ego 219 ii) Interrogating the Meaning of Resistance 225 iii) Eros, Thanatos and Totalizing Systems: The “Caress” and Torture 233 iv) The Naked I and Bad Conscience 241 v) Conclusion 245 Conclusion: Humanity as Resistance 248 Bibliography 253 List of Abbreviations 262 vi INTRODUCTION In an interrogation session the prison warden asks nonchalantly, “what is your motivation for resisting? What are you fighting for that is worth all of this?” By “this” he means the state of indefinite solitary confinement in one of his coffin-cells, the intermittent interrogations, and the physical and psychological torture. “Think about it” he says, “I have convinced many young people like you to stop their nonsensical opposition, to leave prison, go home, get married and have children.” He pauses for a reaction, “you can have your freedom too; you can have your life back. Aren’t you a mother? Why are you here; what are you resisting for?”1 i) Resistance Analysis of such a broad concept as “resistance” should perhaps begin with a delineation of parameters. Putting to one side the concept as it appears in the physical sciences, resistance, whether failed or successful, is a ubiquitous phenomenon of human life. Resistance to norms, traditions, rulings, authority, power of all sorts, is a cross-cultural/cross-historical phenomenon apparently immanent to human existence itself.2 This phenomenon, however, is not limited to negation, for while resistance may initially appear as the enactment of a ‘no,’ a rejection of something, a state of being against, the same may not generally be said for its outcome. In fact, while it is not seldom that the initial ‘no’ is originally the only conscious objective of a resistance, it rarely remains so. However apparently indifferent to consequences it may appear, it 1 Anecdotal reference to one of my interrogation sessions while confined in a ‘coffin,’ a semi-sensory deprivation state. Ghezel Prison, Karaj, Tehran, Iran, 1983; see Chapter Six. 2 For a broad sociological review of scholarship on resistance across discipline see Jocelyn A. Hollander, Rachel L. Einwohner, “Conceptualizing Resistance,” Sociological Forum, 19, No. 4 (December 2004): 533-554. The authors develop a topology of resistance to clarify the meanings and sociological utility of the concept, arguing that resistance, whether individual or collective, is socially constructed and is interactional