[This text was translated in part from a short essay written for a local newspaper in 2013.]
The 2011 Israeli social justice uprising was an ongoing political event composed of a series of demonstrations involving hundreds of thousands of protesters from a variety of socio-economic and religious backgrounds, relating to issues such as social justice and power structures in Israel. The uprising started on July 2011 with a protest opposing the continuing rise in the cost of living and the deterioration of public services such as health and education. As a result, thousands of people started to establish tents in the centre of the city of Tel-Aviv, and soon after, in other major cities in Israel. The largest protest took place on the 3rd of September and included approximately half a million protesters – it was named the “March of the Million”. Its primary rallying call was: “The people demand social justice!”
The uprising of 2011 had undeniably sparked a new kind of political discourse in Israel, one that the agents of consensus had long ago forcefully foreclosed. The imminence of the objective, the heterogeneity of the political body materialising in the streets, the unbridgeable gap between the governmental response and the affirmative capacity of the masses, all testified that we are facing an unprecedented opportunity for positivistic change. These were all essential for the political struggle of the summer of 2011. As well as the fact that the maxim demanded exactly what was not yet possible to articulate at the time, something which was so radically different from what was offered by the contemporary democratic jargon that it necessarily took form in a single question – “are you with us or not?”
In this post I will attempt to read this political event while correspondingly reading the theory of the event as it is disclosed by the renowned philosopher Alain Badiou. Badiou is one of the most original French philosophers of our time; a philosopher which stands being a vast philosophical endeavour which seeks to identify and characterise the potential rooted in transformative processes in the human situation. In this essay I do not intend to criticise Badiou, but walk in the path he has paved for us – not plodding along, but accompanying him – while depicting the struggle of the summer of 2011. I will be discussing three “formulations”, or in Jacques Lacan’s words “mathèmes” which represent the formal dimension Badiou recognises in the different subjective positions manifest in a political body during a political event. They compose the theoretical kernel I intend to convey by using examples and knowledge drawn from the struggle of 2011 itself. Nevertheless, this essay encompasses an additional value which exceeds its formal dimension – a lesson, in the form of a tale, which entails its own kind of knowledge. A knowledge, which in our time, almost six years after the struggle, in an era where the political domain is radically questioned (in theory and practice), might teach us something of the possibility of justice and emancipation; a knowledge which can progress us in understanding our persistent loses in these kinds of struggles, in which way we are faithful to them? and what are the conditions which enable the reaction which finally obscures them completely?
That being the case, we will start with a hypothesis, a hypothesis rooted in the logic of the event and is quite simple: we will hypothesise that in the summer of 2011 a political event took place and started a procedure – which we will name “Social Justice” – manifest in the political body we saw marching in the streets of Israel. Moreover, we will assume that the fact that this body was so vast, united so many people, was so diverse, and pointed to such a deep fracture in Israeli political reality, testifies to its relation to a universal political truth. The different positions this body took in relation to this truth are integrated in, what Badiou calls, “subjective positions” which he divides into three ethical trajectories: that which works for the production of truth (the faithful subject), its denial (the reactive subject), or its total occultation (the obscure subject). Let us begin with the first.
The Faithful Subject:
The subjective position of the faithful subject characterises the political body at the points where it is subjected to the production of the truth of the event. And indeed, in the summer of 2011, this subjective position was composed by the material actions of the many individuals (half a million in number) which found themselves occupying the streets of Israel, sleeping in tents. Those who opened discussion circles, and committed to alternative cultural gatherings. Those who allowed the truth of the event to sink through their bodies, and were devoted to the possibility of the creation of a new reality in Israel today.
Because the outcomes of the event cannot be clear as it unravels, the fidelity to the event has to take form in a decision which is not based on odds, opinions, nor on self-interest, but has to take form in a singular act of the subordination of the political body to a procedure aiming at the constitution of a new present. It entailed saying “yes” to the concrete possibility of a new positive idea – that the people do not have to live in a constant state of “injustice”, to adopt the bleak present as the smallest evil, but can create “justice” in a new political present. In Israel of 2011, this fidelity was mobilised in accordance to a fundamental maxim marking this new possibility – “The people demand social justice” – but was only truly manifest in the material actions the political body took. These actions were all rooted in many singular decision – “yes” / “no” – should we protest peacefully? should we jostle with the police? how do we provide new protest tactics? should we adopt the parliamentary solution? etc. These oppositions, and the way they were decided upon, eventually unraveled the effectiveness of the political body, and the subjective position it embodied.
One of these major questions in late 2011 revolved the inclusion of the National Workers Union (NWU) in the political body. While the struggle started from the work of a group of young and privileged individuals, its development brought about the inclusion of many other facets of the Israeli society. The question that was asked was, “can the NWU be part of the political body? can they take part in the struggle?” When the answer was positive the NWU was subjected to the same political body and the same political truth. This act created concrete repercussions for the continuation of the struggle: as more factions of workers joined the protests, the body grew in size, changed, and could address more issues and political realities. Other factions soon followed: teachers, mothers, senior citizens, Palestinians, and even orthodox Jews. We were all sharing discussion circles, inventing a new language or politics, approaching and deciphering an unforeseeable present.
These chance encounters which expanded the political body were manifold, and were also diverse, they directed the political body to handling different aspects of the political reality. The heterogeneity of the body – the fact that the maxim was relevant to so many in the Israeli domain – emphasises the universality of the struggle and its direct relation to a political truth. That is why Badiou names the political body a “divided body”, which is never universally homogeneous and all-encompassing, but is always in a process of inclusion and adaptation.
The Reactive Subject
Let us take into account the vast amount of individuals which did not join the political struggle. Those who felt related to the cause, but insisted on arguing that the growing political body is composed of nothing but a group of young and spoiled citizens which need to either accept their fate, or find proper retribution under the law. For instance, regarding the demand for affordable housing, one of the main reactionary responses offered protestors to find lower prices on housing in secluded and unpopulated areas of the country. Another response, which represented the vast majority of the neo-liberal reactionaries during the struggle, was to adhere to the democratic electoral system and in the next election vote for better representation.
Although it is easy to identify these individuals as conservatives seeking to perpetuate the ways of the “old world”, we must take into account the novelty of their line of argumentation. And indeed, the Israeli reactionary lexicon was going through a process of revitalisation in the days of the struggle, relating the political demand for justice to elitism, privilege, and childishness – calling it “the struggle of the hookah smokers of Tel-Aviv”. These demonstrate another fundamental theme in the reactionary subjective position – the acknowledgement of the political truth of the struggle on the one hand, but the classification of the political body and its actions as irresponsible, and even destructive.
Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the reactive individual does not aim at the complete negation of the maxim, but attempts to create something new out of it. Under the guise of “modernity” or “realism”, the reactive individual creates reactionary novelty which usually manifests in a solution which makes the current state of affairs a little less horrible than it was. This is a reality which does not pretend to actualise the eminent call for social justice, but by resisting its catastrophic facets, it offers a more measured and diluted solution – a present which is not in actuality new, but in Badiou’s words, only “partial”.
The most successful reactive invention in the struggle of 2011 was rooted in the calls to stop the protests and let the government deal with its goals. These were calls opposing any change in the electoral structure and any redistribution of wealth or goods. These forces were calling to stick with midway solutions like a governmental investigative committee, and minute changes to existing laws. Correspondingly, the most compelling reactionary figure in the political sphere of 2011 was Yair Lapid – a newspaper reporter and son of a very wealthy Israeli politician. His newly formed party “Yesh Atid” (There is a Future), stood behind a very successful campaign calling for the transformation of the struggle for “social justice” to a struggle for an “equality in burden”. Lapid’s party was very successful in the following Israeli elections, gaining much power, but in actuality focusing on populist issues such as mandatory army service for religious Hasidic jews. These minute “improvements” driven by the reactionary forces are of course negligible in comparison to the universal demand for social justice which characterises the faithful subject. They bestow on the reactive individual the feeling of taking part in change, while at the same time sophisticatedly avoiding its attribution to the rebelling masses.
The Obscure Subject:
Ideological economists, major stock holders, political lobbyists, and opportunistic parliamentarians, taking notice of the extraordinary social unrest, as well as the growing political body manifest in the giant protests all over the country, could not settle for a reactionary response. In order to preserve the current state of affairs and prevent future devastating losses a procedure aiming at the total demise of the political body had to be put into work. Therefore, in response to the growing mass of protestors, consumerist organised boycotting, and the potential unraveling of newly formed political practices, the imperative of the obscure trajectory was twofold: first, it had to firmly determine that the maxim “the people demand social justice” is an utter lie. Second, it had to demonstrate that no proper political body can be the legitimate carrier of this fictitious call. Thus the obscure trajectory took form on two levels, on the level of the idea – by negating the political truth of the struggle – and on the material level – by forcefully dismantling the political body itself.
Evidently, the obscure subjective position can only gain momentum with the help of reactionary novelty – out of the newly formed practices of denial. With its help, and in spite of the growing political divided body, the obscure subjective position situates the “full body” in the guise of race, the state, god, etc. The essence of the full political body is the violent erasure of the newly forming political present up until its total occultation. This position can be identified with the fascist ideology for instance, which positions the eternal sign of the state contrary to any other political organisation, thus justifying violent measures taken against it.
One of the major obscurantist narratives implemented in Israel of 2011 was the nationalist one. In regards to the pure body of the “Jewish State”, the struggle for social justice began to be perceived as a radical leftist movement, undermining national solidarity against the enemy, especially coinciding with the newly unfolding military skirmishes on the Palestinian border. Wars are not rare before elections in Israel, and are known to effect the masses and manipulate their political priorities. In the end of 2011, things were not very different. In the face of rocket attacks, and the ongoing sound of alarms, protesters found it hard to go out to the streets. The struggle, perceived at this time as illegitimate, was specifically scrutinised in relation to the full body at stake – the state. In its shadow the event was reduced to a silence. The remaining few which kept their stand as the political body, were violently scattered by the use of police violence, heavy vehicle destruction of the tents, and the arrests of students and protesters even in the confines of university campuses. This political atmosphere has plagued the Israeli social discourse up until this day. It became deeply rooted in the general consensus, and made many changes to the social fabric, all apparent today in its high levels of corruption, poverty, and social division.
Summary and Resurrection:
Let us then summarise. Badiou describes three subjective positions, and accordingly, three subjective trajectories in any true political struggle. The faithful position functions in the production of a new present, the reactive in its denial, and the obscure in its occultation. Nevertheless, Badiou claims that there is another subjective trajectory that cannot be discerned by investigating each position by itself, but only by tackling the subjective domain as a whole. Moreover, Badiou argues that the transition from fidelity to reaction to the obscure characterises every emancipatory struggle in human history. Accordingly, he claims, that this circuit testifies to the fact that the faithful subject can reincorporate into contemporary political reality the same obscured truths violently erased in former struggles. This reincorporation of a political truth in the contemporary political situation is named by Badiou “resurrection” and is the fourth subjective trajectory in his schema.
Accordingly, if we are faithful to Badiou, we have to assert that the Israeli political struggle of 2011 was in actuality a contemporary manifestation of political struggles for justice up until this day. We have to assume that its manifestation in Israel is another testimony to the crucial hypothesis of a world free from the exploitation and oppression rooted in profit and capital. Moreover, it forces us to stay faithful to this hypothesis even in the face of reactionary scrutiny and obscurantist violence; in the face of the pressing demand to renounce the idea that emancipatory politics is possible. It forces us to protect the essence of our maxim – that the current state of affairs is not inescapable, that “the people demand (and can fulfil) social justice”. It teaches us that only this fidelity to a universal truth can keep the current wave of populist agenda at bay.
Badiou remarks that Louis Saint-Just asked an important question at the time of the French revolution: “What do those who want neither Virtue nor Terror want?”. His answer was “Corruption.”. According to Badiou, that is exactly what the world is asking from us today – to accept the corruption of thought and the idea under the bondage of capital and commodity. If so, we have to answer this demand with a brave negating call – “no” – to bravely protect our ideas even in the face of the private companies hired by our own universities to dismantle our convictions.