In this chapter, I will concentrate on the problem of global capitalism not only in the novel, but also in our reality. I want to stress that the only way to prevent the oppression of the individual as well the repetition of such a global financial crisis is to stop seeing global capitalism as a norm. To explain the influence of global capitalism in the novel as well as our life, I will first reemploy the Lacanian theory of different discourses from the master’s discourse to the analyst’s discourse. Except for the analyst’s discourses, every other discourse is the transformation of the master’s discourse based on the master signifier (S1). Only in the analyst’s discourse can the split subject ($) traverse the ideological fantasies, perceiving the void behind the objet
171
petit a (a), and abandon the old master signifier (S1).
As the subject enters the symbolic order, it has been living under the control of the objet petit a, which is the basis of its ideological fantasies. Today the subject has accepted global capitalism as the sole system in the society. Žižek has stressed that people regard global capitalism as the “true [M]aster-[S]ignifier” (Žižek, In Defense 184). As the public believe in the “democratic form of the struggle against capitalism, they stop radically questioning capitalism” (183). Under the disguise of democracy, the public accept “market capitalism as the only game in town” (Did Somebody Say 244). Thus in the subject’s ideological fantasies, the subject is interpellated as a consumer of desires. It is solicited to desire ever new objects as the objet petit a. In global capitalism, the subject sees the objet petit a as a mirror that reflects the fantasies it desires. Over time, global capitalism assumes different forms, including master’s discourse and university’s discourse. In the master’s discourse, the global capitalist qua the master signifier (S1) commands the public to follow its rule while in the university discourse the global capitalist disguises as the expert and scholar (S2) to explore the meaning of the objet petit a (a) for the split subject ($). On the contrary, the analyst’s discourse represents “the emergence of revolutionary-emancipatory subjectivity” (Žižek, Parallax 298):
. . . in it, the revolutionary agent (a) addresses the subject from the position of knowledge which occupies the place of truth (that is, which intervenes at the “symptomal torsion” of the subject’s constellation), and the goal is to isolate, get rid of, the [M]aster-[S]ignifier which structured the subject’s (ideological-political) unconscious. (298)
In the analyst’s discourse, the analyst who is supported by knowledge serves as the revolutionary agent (a). The goal of the analyst is to “isolate, get rid of, the
[M]aster-172
[S]ignifier which structured the subject’s (ideological-political) unconsciousness”
(298). Although the master’s discourse and university discourse may look and work differently, they focus on maintaining the effective working of global capitalism qua the master signifier22 (S1). Only the analyst’s discourse can eventually isolate global capitalism qua the master signifier.
In the master’s discourse, the master signifier (S1) occupies the dominant position of the Agent, which represents the split subject ($) for knowledge (S2). The master’s discourse represents the more oppressive model of all other discourses. It directly controls and commands the subject as a slave in the signifying process. The master’s discourse works in the diagram below:
In the signifying process, the master signifier (S1) addresses the slave, who learns knowledge (S2) in slaving away for the master. As a dictator-like character, the master signifier (S1) demands absolute submission and disregards knowledge or how the things work as long as its own power is maintained. The master signifier represses all knowledge or recognition of its own finitude ($) and the inadequacy of the master’s discourse. By achieving its control over the subject, it also creates the objet petit a by expelling something. The result becomes a loss, which becomes the object cause of the subject’s desire. In the master’s discourse, the master signifier fails to understand the intangible and excessive objet petit a.
In My Revolutions, the fragmented picture of Chris Carver is put together by the flashbacks of Michael Frame. Through his recollection of the period spanning from
22 When the subject is first constructed on entry into the language qua the symbolic order, it is pinned to a master signifier as the point de capiton or “quilting point” (Lacan, Seminar III 268). The quilting point ideologically places the subject and encodes the subject’s relations in the symbolic order. When the subject is pinned to a master signifier, the moment of pinning is that of ideological interpellation.
This master signifier is an influential signifier that stands for the subject for another signifier. When the subject embraces global capitalism, it will think and react based on the logics of global capitalism.
173
1967 to 1997, Michael Frame showed us how his true and repressed identity, Chris Carver, resisted different master’s discourses. Chris and his friends, including Anna Louis Addison and Sean Michael Ward, always acted, thought, and protested against the capitalist master’s discourse. In the 1960s during the Cold War, the British ruling class accepted democratic capitalism as its master signifier against communism. In the signifying process of capitalism, the capitalist government gave the public the
information that the army, Vietnam War and nuclear weapons protected their old traditions and private property from the invasion of communism (Kunzru, My
Revolutions 30). The government assured that the public would enjoy personal safety
and “economic progress” (63) if they obeyed the order of democratic capitalism.Unlike communism, democratic capitalism offered them freedom, personal safety and economic development. Chris’s father told him that obeying the order of the
government was his “trump card” (30). He said “Where would I [Chris
]
be if he [Chris’s father]
hadn’t known how to obey an order in 1940?” (30). That is, Chris would never have received a good education and a stable life. Therefore, Chris’s father gained the knowledge from his experience in 1940 that the government could protect the public’s life, repel the invasion of the rival Communist countries, and ensure economic prosperity. Yet, through the master’s discourse of expulsion, workers were exploited and more people suffered from the Vietnam War (32). The master’s discourse created unwanted excess, which became the incomprehensible object and object cause of desire. As the British government supported the Vietnam War and suppressed the demonstration, it failed to offer the public real freedom. Instead of offering Chris and the public true freedom, the capitalist government created the objetpetit a, which it offers as a form of freedom.
Having learned the problems of the working class and the Vietnam War, Chris
174
discovered that the ruling class of capitalism exploited the working class and brutally killed many people in the war. For Chris, the war in Vietnam did not protect personal safety. It meant “warmongering bastards, burning the skin off little children” (30).
Also, the life in the capitalist master’s discourse suggested a “scramble to the top over the heads of those poorer, slower, or weaker than yourself” (29). Chris told his parents that the ruling class were “scum, fattened by nine hundred years of greed and
oppression” (30). They generated “poor blacks in Mississippi and factory workers in Bradford” (32). Having perceived the exploitative and violent oppression of
capitalism, Chris chose to do what his father and the government were opposed to, which was to protest against the government. He protested against the war in Vietnam and the government’s policy that benefited the rich over the poor. He joined the excluded, useless, and poor outcasts in capitalism. He proclaimed that “I had enough of my father’s world” and that “I was a Communist” (29). For Chris’s father, Chris was like the rebellious, threatening, and incomprehensible enemy from the Eastern Bloc. He became the undesired and unwanted. He could only be saved by seeing the
“appropriate authorities—the psychiatrist or the vicar” (30). Unable to tolerate the capitalist master’s discourse, Chris was forced to leave home and join the
revolutionary group Free Pictures. Yet, Chris did not know that all the revolutionary groups and leaders in his life also had the same oppressive and exploitative effect and structure of the master’s discourse.
When Chris first joined Free Pictures, he thought he had discovered a group that had a system completely different from the exploitative and violent working of capitalism. He did not know that his revolutionary group worked the same way as the capitalist master’s discourse. In the revolutionary group, Anna and Sean were leaders.
Their group was structured in the master’s discourse, as well. In the signifying
175
process, Anna and Sean worked as the master (S1) to address all other members as slaves (S2), who learned knowledge in slaving away for the master. “Once Anna and Sean started making decisions on their own,” the whole group would have to follow their decisions (Kunzru, My Revolutions 219). As they accepted Communism as their only principle, Communism became the master signifier (88). They took up the dominant position of the Agent, which represented the split subject ($) for knowledge (S2). In their flyers, they promoted knowledge that they wanted to “construct zones of liberation, counter institutions, alternative systems of exchange, [and] reject the bankrupt logic of submission and domination” (85). Despite the knowledge of liberation, revolution, and freedom, Anna and Sean directly controlled and commanded the participants as their slaves.
They demanded absolute sacrifice of personal freedom and individual privacy for the greater good. “People got ready by waking up at five A.M. to join picket lines, by writing leaflets, folding leaflets, organizing fund-raisers, getting pushed around by cops, folding more leaflets, going to court, getting up at two A.M. to write slogans on walls . . . and talking, above all, talking” (104). In Free Picture, people had to wake up early to work the whole day. Compared to the average workers, they had less
freedom, income and greater risk of being arrested and going to jail. People in the revolutionary group were regarded as unimportant vehicles for the revolution (110).
Therefore, Anna and Sean demanded absolute submission, denied any privacy, and even ignored personal safety (111). Sean took the “door off the toilet and started forcing people to share rooms, accusing anyone who argued with him” (111). As a leader of the revolutionary group, Anna was indifferent to personal happiness, comfort, and safety (110). Although they proclaimed to bring freedom to the public, Sean and Anna asked their members to complete missions irrelevant to freedom, such
176
as stealing food from supermarkets and bombing government buildings. They thought that “all liberation depended on the consciousness of servitude” (41). As they
deprived the subject of its freedom and privacy, they created the objet petit a, which is the object cause of desire. For Chris, the loss of freedom for the purpose of the
revolution made him ponder over the meaning of freedom and revolution. He used to ask his leader, Anna, about the meaning of revolution and freedom in the future. But Anna told him that she did not know what the future would be like after the revolution (193).
As the British government employed the capitalist master’s discourse, it generated a group of oppressed and exploited outcasts. Although the government promised personal safety and economic growth, it also created economic inequality and exploitation, which brought the exploited class and the younger generation to the street. The ruling authorities, such as Chris’s church and his university, attempted to understand the reasons these excluded outcasts rebelled against their respective systems. So the university discourse appears to help the master’s discourse. It can be regarded as a regression of the discourse of the master because the master cannot answer the true meaning of the objet petit a. The master signifier (S1) regresses into the position of truth allowing a field of knowledge (S2) to occupy the place of the Agent in the university discourse:
The knowledge (S2) is supported by a master signifier (S1), which guarantees the consistency of the knowledge (S2). In order to understand the mysterious meaning of the objet petit a (a), a person with knowledge (S2) attempts to research and question it. Yet, it (S2) can never reach the objet petit a (a) since it is the lost object and cause of desire beyond signification. As a result, the product of this university discourse
177
only creates an ever-increasing division of the split subject ($). The more knowledge one uses to reach for the objet petit a, the more one becomes trapped within its own desire to look for the nonexistent object behind the objet petit a.
In the novel, when Chris’s father failed to understand Chris, he could only count on the London School of Economics to change his son’s mind. In order to support the order of the capitalist ruling class, the deputy governor and the chaplain of the
London School of Economics tried to help and teach Chris. They attempted to understand and persuade Chris to change his mind:
The chaplain said he believed I was Church of England, and looked forward to seeing me in chapel . . . . The deputy governor wanted me to take the opportunity to ask myself some hard questions. . . . to see that my posture of rebellion was essentially immature. We were living in changing times, which made it all the more regrettable that certain irresponsible social elements were leading some of our best and brightest to squander their advantages, advantages most of young lads in this place would give their eye teeth for. (Kunzru, My Revolutions 74)
In the university discourse, the capitalist ruling class (S1) does not appear. In My
Revolutions, It was replaced by the deputy governor and the chaplain of the London
School of Economics (S2). Having supported the capitalist policy of the government, the school authorities came to talk to Chris. The chaplain first expressed his faith in Chris. He said that Chris was Church of England. He wanted Chris to believe in the religion and government of England so that he could transform the excluded Chris back into the system of capitalism. The chaplain hoped to instill religious meaning into Chris’s excluded identity. In the meantime, the deputy governor wanted him to take the chance to reflect on his own immature posture of rebellion against the178
capitalist government. He pointed out that Chris was in the most advantageous position in capitalist society, something reserved for the “best and brightest” (74).
Most young people would have to work extremely hard to have such a great opportunity. Therefore, Chris should cherish his opportunity and stop challenging capitalism. In the end, instead of understanding Chris’s rebellion, both the chaplain and deputy governor merely wanted Chris to give up his excluded identity and re-embrace capitalism. As they represented the power of the capitalist master’s discourse, they did not reflect on the problem of capitalism itself. Neither did they reflect on the cause of the excluded outcast (a).
The university staff failed to understand not only the problem created by capitalism, but also Chris’s rebellion. In the end, they made students doubt both the educational and government system. Chris Carver and his friends knew the
connection between the government and educational institutions that produce alluring knowledge. They understood that the knowledge they learned was supported and controlled by the university staff who supported the capitalist ruling class. So in order to fight against the oppressive educational institutions, they called for peaceful sit-ins at school to fight against the capitalist ruling class. They hoped to wake the public up from the oppressive teachings at the London School of Economics (Kunzru, My
Revolutions 73). They proclaimed that professional knowledge did not solve the
problem of the exploited and oppressed working class qua the outcasts. In their occupation movement, Chris and his friends argued that professional knowledge at their university did not solve the problem of poverty.Likewise, as Anna failed to explain the world of emancipation they desired after the revolution, she created a meeting called “Criticism-Self-Criticism” in order to persuade the subject to make personal sacrifice. In so doing, Anna and Sean set up
179
their own university’s discourse (Kunzru, My Revolutions 152). They studied hard and invited lawyers to join them so that they could sharpen their will in their terrorist actions. And after any action, they would have the meeting called “Criticism-Self-Criticism” (152), which served as the university discourse. In the meeting, Anna and Sean (S1) would not become leaders who dictated the final decision. Instead, they would become members of the group and allow those in the meeting (S2) to discuss and explore the mysterious meaning of freedom and revolution qua the objet petit a.
In the meeting, everyone would point out “moments” when they thought they had failed and when they had “been too conciliatory or someone else’s behavior had fallen short of the increasingly high standards” for the revolution (152). Instead of reflecting on the oppression in their master’s discourse, they criticized each other for failing to complete their missions for the revolution according to their high standards. It turned out to be a violent and stressful criticism session that forced participants to confirm their “commitment to the armed struggle” (191). So participants in the “Criticism-Self-Criticism” meetings (S2) never understand the meaning of freedom and
revolution qua the objet petit a (a). Instead, Chris and his friends started to “reproduce all the worst forms of hegemonic domination” (193). Through
“Criticism-Self-Criticism,” Anna and Sean shared a dictator-like character and forced others to follow their orders. They started to demand absolute submission. Their reflective
self-criticism grew so oppressive and violent that few could question the motivation behind their bombing and burning actions. At first, Chris thought he could follow Anna and Sean as leaders to seek freedom and revolution qua the objet petit a (a) in the Free Picture. But through the violent and oppressive “Criticism-Self-Criticism”
qua the university discourse, Chris was not convinced that he could gain true freedom through terrorist actions. Instead, he was torn between the ideal of freedom and the
180
violent terrorist actions of revolution. In his last “Criticism-Self-Criticism,” he lost his faith in Anna and his revolutionary group:
So this was what it felt like to be a traitor . . . . They were bombing me.
They were going to turn me inside out and pick over my head for bad bits, like monkeys smashing a coconut to get at the flesh . . . . And as I tried . . . to answer their questions, reality slid away until there was no me, just a voice pleading with other voices. (251)
In the final meeting, his comrades suspected him as a traitor and informer who attempted to sell information to the police. So they drugged, tortured, and questioned Chris. They did their best to make Chris reveal his own thinking. They tried to turn him “inside out” and “pick over” his head, “like monkeys smashing a coconut to get at the flesh” (251). Instead of understanding Chris’s desire, the “Criticism-Self-Criticism” made Chris stop “believing in the need for a revolutionary politics” (255).
In the end, the violent and oppressive “Criticism-Self-Criticism” only created an ever-increasing division inside Chris’s mind. The more Chris thought in “Criticism-Self-Criticism” to reach for the freedom and revolution qua the objet petit a, the more he was divided between brutal terrorism and an ideal world of freedom. After the last
“Criticism-Self-Criticism,” Chris started to question Anna and the revolutionary group. For him, Anna and the revolutionary group brought him more torment, suffering and oppression rather than bringing him closer to the goal of freedom and
“Criticism-Self-Criticism,” Chris started to question Anna and the revolutionary group. For him, Anna and the revolutionary group brought him more torment, suffering and oppression rather than bringing him closer to the goal of freedom and