In old news, French voters rejected the EU Constitution [See also: this at CNN] a week ago Monday. In the last eight days, this somewhat surprising turn of events has elicited the commentary of a fairly wide variety of intellectual-types, notably (at least for me) the infamously outspoken Slavoj Zizek, as well as a somewhat clairvoyant pre-party commentary from Alain Badiou (nod in this direction for the link).

Five days after the fact, and in what can only be called classic Zizek form, Lacan’s most popularly supposed heir had some interesting things to say:

The voters … were not given a clear symmetrical choice. The very terms of the choice privileged the yes lobby. … People were called to ratify the inevitable. Both the media and the political elite presented the choice as one between knowledge and ignorance, between expertise and ideology, between post-political administration and the old political passions of the left and the right.

So although the choice was not a choice between two political options, nor was it a choice between the enlightened vision of a modern Europe, ready to embrace the new global order, and old, confused political passions. (sic)

There was a positive choice in the no: the choice of choice itself; the rejection of the blackmail by the new elite that offers us only the choice to confirm their expert knowledge or to display one’s “irrational” immaturity. Our no is a positive decision to start a properly political debate about what kind of Europe we really want.

Now compare what Baidou said on May 18:

In the division between the ‘yes’ vote and the ‘no’ vote there has appeared - and it is a relative novelty - the argument from authority. In other words, the correlation, which Foucault would have appreciated, between knowledge and power: the ‘yes’ is the choice of enlightened people (experts of all sorts, without forgetting journalists), the ‘no’ belongs to the ignorant. The criticisms levied against Chirac on the choice for the referendum overlap with this argument: it is not a good idea to entrust matters as important as Europe to the decision of an ignorant mass; one could, or rather should, put the ignorant fraction of the population outside the capitalo-parliamentarian system (a theme which is already explicitly in circulation in the U.S.A. where grosso modo only half the population takes part in voting).

Baidou claims he will not have voted…

My personal view is that Europe, Europe as Idea, is already dead; voting for Europe is voting for a corpse. As far as I’m concerned, I won’t vote. There are only two ways of envisaging Europe as a singularity: a) conceiving it in the framework of inter-imperialist rivalry (Europe versus U.S.A.) - but this is a schema that belongs to the past; b) thinking it as a heterogeneous power, i.e. both heterogeneous vis-à-vis the U.S.A. and as a new type of power.

Zizek:

To put it bluntly, do we want to live in a world in which the only choice is between the American civilisation and the emerging Chinese authoritarian-capitalist one? If the answer is no then the only alternative is Europe. The third world cannot generate a strong enough resistance to the ideology of the American dream. In the present world constellation, it is only Europe that can do it. The true opposition today is not between the first world and the third world. Instead it is between the first and third world (ie the American global empire and its colonies), and the second world (ie Europe).

Baidou:

If the ‘no’ wins, we are threatened with a possible regression with regard to Europe. But I think that this backward step is necessary. What is on the agenda is effectively a ‘beyond’ of the national sphere … with the difference that this beyond must be subjectivated on the basis of what exists in the national sphere itself. We reencounter our question: the necessity of the identification of a figure of the adversary. The question of a power of a new type, of a power opposed to U.S. hegemony and which would not be symmetrical vis-à-vis U.S. power … a decisive question, which today largely remains open.

As it happens, back in 1960, Elias Canetti noted, "A man can evade commands by not hearing them and he can evade them by not carrying them out. The sting - and this can never be too emphatically stated - only results from the carrying out of a command. … [One’s] defence against new commands then becomes a matter of life and death." (Crowds and Power, Penguin: 1973. 373.) In fact, the last words of his one-score-year-consuming work are as follows:

The system of commands is acknowledged everywhere. It is perhaps most articulate in armies, but there is scarcely any sphere of civilized life where commands do not reach and none of us they do not mark. Their threat of death is the coin of power, and here it is all too easy to add coin to coin and amass wealth. If we would master power we must face command openly and boldly, and search for means to deprive it of its sting.

…and finally…

WE’RE VOTING no. It is a constitution for the bourgeoisie, for multinationals, for bosses. It is only about the economy, competition, profits, the market and capitalism. We are against all that; we are communists. There isn’t any progress for workers. Most workers want to say “merde”, to stick two fingers up at them. We are fed up with saying yes to politicians.

- Thomas Meurnier, a 32 year old history teacher (quoted in the Guardian 28 May)