8/10/2019 Alain Badiou’s Revolutionary Theory of Political Transformation Focuses Centrally on the Idea of the Event

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/alain-badious-revolutionary-theory-of-political-transformation-focuses-centrally 1/6

 Alain Badiou’s revolutionary theory of political transformation focuses centrally on the idea of the

 Event . In the fourth through seventh parts of a ten-part series on Badiou, I will respectively explore the

conditions, occurrence, and consequences of an Event, and its viability as an explanation and model ofrevolutionary change.

The Excluded Part and the Evental Site 

Badiou‟s theory of revolution is based on what I‟ll call the excluded part. It has various names in

Badiou‟s work, which are more-or-less equivalent: „generic‟ part, „singularity‟, „foundational‟ part,„void of the situation‟ and so on. (Žižek gives it the additional name „social symptom‟). Every situationis assumed to have a part of this type, for mathematical reasons.

For Badiou, true „thought‟ always goes towards the part which is least protected or sheltered in asituation. It orients to the most precarious or excluded part. This might be the  sans-culottes in pre-

revolutionary France, undocumented migrants in modern France, the proletariat in Marx‟s day, thePalestinians in the Israeli regime, and so on.

The excluded part is equivalent to the „empty set‟ in set theory, and also sometimes the „generic set‟. It

is characterised by not fitting normally or „properly‟ into the situation. The excluded part is an elementto which nothing appears to belong, as long as one observes it from within the dominant situation (or

ontology). It is basically unrepresentable.

The empty set has no content or properties. It is simply a formalisation of being, as „void‟. It is a signthat there is more to being than what language or intuition can classify or perceive. There is even more

to being than the state of the situation can represent. The void is the return of inconsistent multiplicity

to disrupt the ontological order.

The excluded part is the disruptive element from which Events emerge. It is also the foundation of

social ontology. In Badiou‟s theory, a social structure is always built on dysfunction. An order, with acount-for-one, is built on top of inconsistent multiplicity. The excluded part is the place where

inconsistent multiplicity erupts back into the order which renders it consistent. The void marks a kind

of reversibility of being. It shows that a particular way of counting, with its count-for-one, is notinevitable and fixed. In Theory of the Subject , Badiou suggests that the subject is a recurring point at

which the Real exceeds its inscription in the situation. It is the point of the return of the repressed.

In his early, Althusserian works, Badiou sees the motor of change as an instance of internal exclusion.

It determines the structure, but is excluded from it for this very reason. This is a development ofAlthusser‟s idea of  determination in the last instance. At this point, the occurrence of change seems to

 be a matter of chance for Badiou. Only the direction of change can be altered. Change simply

redistributes existing practices into a different order.

In maths, the foundational role of the excluded part is played by the „empty set‟. The existence of sucha set is posited when theorising the possible ways in which a set could be arranged in set theory  –  the

same conversion which produces the „state of the situation‟. This arrangement of possible elementsalways includes the option of a set which contains none of the elements, unless an axiom is used to

specifically prohibit this.

The excluded part has the characteristics of an empty set. It is effectively “void” in the situation,

 because it is not an element –  so it counts for zero. And it has no elements of its own, and therefore no

recognisable place in the situation. Badiou also sometimes identifies the excluded part with a set whose

elements all belong to other sets. This would be a „generic‟ set. 

We have seen above that belonging (presentation) and inclusion (representation) are different in

Badiou‟s theory. An excluded part belongs but is not included. It appears in the situation but not in the„state of the situation‟. Hence it is „present‟ but not „represented‟. It belongs to the situation as a set, butit does not belong to any of the subsets of the situation (hence why it is generic). Only something

which comes from within a situation can count as an excluded part. (As a result, events such as foreign

invasions can never be true Events by Badiou‟s standards). 

8/10/2019 Alain Badiou’s Revolutionary Theory of Political Transformation Focuses Centrally on the Idea of the Event

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/alain-badious-revolutionary-theory-of-political-transformation-focuses-centrally 2/6

Another difference of an excluded part from a normal part is that its own elements might not belong to

the situation. A normal element does not only belong to the situation itself. Any elements of this

element also belong to the situation. For instance, if an army belongs to the situation, so do its different

squadrons, ranks, and individual soldiers. There are also elements known as “excrescences”, which are par t of the state of the situation and thus “represented”, but are not “presented” or visible in it. Thismight include sections of the “deep state”. 

The excluded part is different from both of these types of element, because it is present but notrepresented. It evades the count-for-one, and does not have a numerical value. Nothing can be seen in

the situation unless it counts as one within the existing mechanism of counting. This means that

nothing can be said for definite about the excluded part. It is not demonstrably part of the situation.

Hence, while the situation is a mathematically „consistent‟ presentation, the void remains„inconsistent‟. Everything that is recognised in the situation‟s count-for-one is demonstrably part of the

situation. Therefore, the excluded part is very different from other elements. And it cannot be shown to

 be part of the situation.

This part is not only excluded. It is also foundational. This is because it is the point at which

inconsistent multiplicity is contained. In other words, there is always an excess of what exists –  inconsistent multiplicity –  over what can be represented in any particular situation. Normally, this

excess is concealed by the state. The true structure of a situation is only revealed in moments of

dysfunction or disaster.

To take some political examples, it cannot be shown in dominant, racist terms that undocumented

migrants “belong” in the countries where they reside, because they do not have the marks of recognised belonging such as citizenship papers. It cannot be shown in patriarchal terms that the male economy

depends on women‟s reproductive labour , because this labour has no recognisable exchange-value.

Politically, this also means that the excluded part is subversive. The excluded part never has any

interest whatsoever in preserving the existing order. It is pitted radically against the state‟s preservationof the existing order.

The existence of the excluded part is problematic and self-referential. In set theory, to exist  is to belong

to a set. The empty set does not belong to any other sets or multiples in the situation. If the empty set

exists at all, it exists only in that it belongs to itself . Badiou argues that something analogous happens

with excluded social groups and Events. The excluded group does not exist in terms of the categories

of the situation. It exists only by reference to itself. Similarly, an Event has meaning only by reference

to itself –  not in the situation‟s terms. 

In fact, the Event is not even permitted by set theory. (It violates the Axiom of Foundation, which

 prohibits sets from belonging to themselves). This means, for Badiou, that it is extra-ontological. It

comes from the void beyond being.

Every situation contains a part (or on some accounts, at least one part) which is excluded. This partcannot be viewed as an element in the situation. It is the element around which the situation is

structured. But it is also the element which prevents the situation from achieving completeness, or

 positive existence.

The excluded part is usually experienced as something anomalous. It feels to those who see it like it is

out of place or disorderly, a violation of the proper order of the situation. Oliver Feltham‟s rendering ofthis position is that, if something is an excluded part, it is „clearly marked by signs of excess and lack‟.It is not part of the ordinary discourse, but is a point at which discourse is in some way distorted, like

light around a black hole. In this, it is very similar to the Lacanian Real. 

To the normal parts of a situation, the excluded part seems to have nothing in common with them.

Often, the group belongs to the situation, but it cannot be individuated. In other words, the mainstream

or the state is unable to see the individual members of the group or category. Peter Hallward gives theexample of racial stereotyping –  to an anti-Semitist for instance, Jews all look the same. Similarly, anti-

8/10/2019 Alain Badiou’s Revolutionary Theory of Political Transformation Focuses Centrally on the Idea of the Event

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/alain-badious-revolutionary-theory-of-political-transformation-focuses-centrally 3/6

immigration bigots don‟t see the situations of individual refugees and migrants –  they only see

aggregate immigration and its alleged aggregate effects.

In many ways, this move turns the current discourse upside-down. A Badiousian can point to the outcry

about the revolt of 2011, or Millbank, or J18, and declare that this outcry is actually evidence of the

 progressive, Evental character of these events. The more angry conformists get, the more evidence we

have that we‟ve found a real excluded part! 

Undocumented migrants are certainly an excluded group (though quietly integrated and exploited). But

I would argue that, if there is a general category for those excluded today, it is their classification as

“anti-social” or “unemployable”. There is a demand in neoliberal capitalism that everything be sociallynetworked, exploitable, and non-disruptive of the dominant order. To make sense, everything must fit

into the capitalist code. Against this system of meaning, anything which cannot be coded or exploited

is subtracted and criminalised.

What links together today‟s Events and quasi-Events –  from the London Insurrection of 2011, to

migrant movements, the Arab Spring, El Alto, peasant land occupations, the banlieue revolt, Greek

anarchist uprisings, and Chinese resistance to land grabs –  is the revolt of those who cannot be coded

and exploited, or who refuse to be coded and exploited. Undocumented migrants form part of this picture because they resist the segmenting of wages between different global zones, and the assignation

of people as belonging to one zone or another. The global poor are too numerous to encode within

capitalism. Dissidents and activists are too recalcitrant. Indigenous groups are too autonomous from

market categories. Peasants stand in the way of resource exploitation. The so-called “anti-social” haveno place in the body politic of stultifying conformism.

The results of such an analysis run against Badiou‟s politics. For one thing, they emphasise thesingularity of the excluded, who often appear either as individuals, or non-standard collectives. For

another, they reveal a kind of un-absorbable character of today‟s resistances and social problems. Theysuggest that the suspension of the logic of the market, not the addition of axioms to it, is necessary to

resolve this wave of struggles.

The basic conclusion of such a line of analysis leads to insurrectionism, as in the InvisibleCommittee‟s view of revolt, or  Bonanno‟s discussion and included and excluded. It thus runs againstthe quasi-hierarchical, austere, representational, almost orthodox Communist organisational style

Badiou prefers.

Like other aspects of Badiou‟s theory, the excluded part is altered subtly in more recent works. Theexcluded part still appears in the theory in Logic of Worlds, but is termed the „inexistent‟ –  a part whichhas no existence in the sense of appearing as self-present. It is taken to be a trace of the contingency of

whatever appears. Every object has some inexistent aspects which do not appear in its place in the

world. These are the flip-side of the parts which are „existent‟ or which „appear‟ in the situation. Anexcluded part has a maximum degree of inexistent aspects –  it isn‟t seen, or is barely seen, in thesituation at all.

In Logic of Worlds, Badiou also fuses the Evental site and the Event into a single concept. He also

replaces the natural/historical distinction with a distinction between tonal and atonal worlds.

It is not just a matter of a group being excluded. Usually, people assume an excluded group could just be included, through small reforms. For Badiou, a radically excluded part is not only excluded. The

whole situation is founded, or built, on its exclusion. The group can only be recognised –  even treated

as human, or seen as individuals –  if the situation is radically changed.

Badiou ascribes to the excluded part various characteristics derived from its mathematical character. It

is always in fact the basis of the situation, even though it is invisible. It is „the absolute neutrality of being‟, which is to say, the contingency of being when being isn‟t subject to a count-for-one. The

group also has no distinguishable parts (as it is an empty set). It cannot be divided into sub-groups.

This claim is problematic in political terms. To take Badiou‟s examples, nineteenth-century workerswere subdivided into different work sectors, regions of origin, and places in factory regimes of control.

8/10/2019 Alain Badiou’s Revolutionary Theory of Political Transformation Focuses Centrally on the Idea of the Event

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/alain-badious-revolutionary-theory-of-political-transformation-focuses-centrally 4/6

Undocumented migrants are highly differentiated by different migration statuses and countries of

origin –  for instance, between asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers, people with leave to remain,

 people who are completely off the grid. Migrants are often grouped by ethnicity or religion in

 particular areas, such as the “jungles” of Calais. 

Fundamentally, the excluded part is immeasurable. In the terms of the dominant discourse, it can‟t be

determined that it belongs to the situation at all. The excess of the parts over the situation cannot bemeasured. It can only be decided . In other words, someone can choose to recognise the existence of the

 part, or to deny it. This is a choice between the Event and the state.

The excluded part is also sometimes talked about spatially. Badiou refers to it as the Evental site  –  the

 position from which an Event can occur.

In his early work, Theory of the Subject , he refers to the situation as a „splace‟ (esplace) and the

Evental site as an „offsite‟ or „outplace‟ (horlieu). The excluded part is said to be located outside its

 place by the structure. Change occurs in the struggle between the offsite and the splace. The division

 between the offsite and its site is the motor of change. The main change in Badiou‟s later work is tosuggest that change comes from specific points, not a general field which is excluded.

In later works, splace is replaced by multiplicity or situation. The role of the excluded part is similar. It

arises where the situation intersects with the chaos of inconsistent multiplicity. This site is not itself the

void, but exists on the edge of the void. In such a situation, some subsets or elements are always

unnamable.

It is this site which ensures the specificity or location of a truth-procedure (see below) within a

situation. In other words, the Event and its unfolding happen at this particular social point. In  Logic of

Worlds, the concepts of Event and Evental site are fused together into one concept.

The excluded part also has philosophical significance. For Badiou, there is always a remainder, which

marks the gap between being and knowledge. True thought, according to Badiou, is something which

relates to the nothingness or void, rather than relating something specific. In Logic of Worlds, Badiou

suggests that most contemporary philosophers believe that there are only bodies and languages. Badiouadds that there are also Truths. These are closely related to Evental sites and excluded parts.

I‟m inclined to think of the Evental site as a point of radical exclusion. Feltham frames it somewhatdifferently. From the state‟s point of view, the excluded part or Evental site is on the edge of the void.From inside an Evental site, it seems to be an intersection between two situations. Undocumentedmigrants, for instance, are usually caught between a postcolonial and a post-imperial society. This

intersection appears as a void because it is not recognised by the state (or dominant discourse). Yet the

intersection is real. It is paradoxically the „impossible‟ demands of the left, for recognition formigrants, which are realistic in this context. Nationalists are unrealistic in denying this real

intersection. The excluded part is internal to the situation and external to the state (which is why the

state often misrepresents Events as the workings of external agents).

 Ideology 

The situation always has an ideology. Badiou understands this term in a  broadly Althusserian sense.Ideology organises the parts of a situation so as to maintain the structural repression and invisibility of

the excluded part.

The state of the situation cannot determine that the excluded part belongs to the situation. It feelsthreatened by this part, which has no interest in the status quo. So it resorts to forms of naming which

attach labels so as to exclude or suppress the part. In general, the state of the situation will remain

intact if it can successfully attach a collective label to the excluded part and Evental site. This might

consist of things like calling protesters “extremists” or “terrorists”, criminalising dissent, or dismissinga minority as fanatical or backward.

8/10/2019 Alain Badiou’s Revolutionary Theory of Political Transformation Focuses Centrally on the Idea of the Event

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/alain-badious-revolutionary-theory-of-political-transformation-focuses-centrally 5/6

8/10/2019 Alain Badiou’s Revolutionary Theory of Political Transformation Focuses Centrally on the Idea of the Event

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/alain-badious-revolutionary-theory-of-political-transformation-focuses-centrally 6/6

In a sense, it is true that a truly „unmarked‟ person would be excluded. Social Others are seen as „feral‟or „uncivilised‟; sans-papiers are not „marked‟ as having papers. But it seems to me that excludedgroups are also marked –  with stereotypes, labels, „marked terms‟, differing migration statuses,criminal records, presence on various databases, and so on. So Badiou can‟t really avoid the problemswhich the status of unmarked terms create for his theory.

For this reason, Badiou‟s approach seems to work badly when applied to situations where exclusion operates along ethno-nationalist lines. For example, Badiou‟s insistence on formal equality isdangerously close to the arguments of French racists opposed to the veil. To be sure, Badiou opposes

the campaign against the veil. But he seems unable to see the complicity between his own particularity-

 blind universalism and the intolerance arising from similarly universalist, colonial doctrines. What

happens when opponents appeal to an alternative universality, and not to a communal concern? Can

Badiou still uphold a Truth when faced with a rival Truth?