Pessoa, the Portuguese poet, says somewhere, “Love is a thought”. That’s a very paradoxical statement, because people have always said love is about the body, desire and feeling, everything but reason and thought. And he says, “Love is a thought”. I think he’s right. I think that love is a thought and that the relationship between that thought and the body is quite unique, and always marked, as Antoine Vitez said, by irrepressible violence. We experience that violence in life. It is absolutely true that love can bend our bodies and prompt the sharpest torment. Love, as we can observe day in day out, is not a long, quiet river[...]it is equally tragedy, rejection and rage. -- Alain Badiou from In Praise of Love
Translated by Peter Bush
I first heard about this book in a talk Slavoj Žižek gave at the 6th Subversive Festival, titled Love as a Political Category. Žižek introduced the topic through an explication of the words falling in love paying particular attention on the word fall. Echoing Alain Badiou, he acknowledges how the word fall evokes not a simple slipping into or happening of love but rather love as something unexpected, violent, or even cruel. Love as a perilous journey. I would even venture to say that his conception of love necessitates every love story to be a bildungsroman, a reinvention of the self.
The idea for this slim little book was seeded in conversations Badiou had with journalist Nicolas Truong. As such, the book isn't unapproachable or even an exhaustive study of "love" -- rather, it's a series of questions and answers, accessible I think to most readers. I finished it in one sitting. Despite this, I'm wary of writing a review of this book, simply because I feel it warrants a second read for me to grasp it in its entirety. I'll do my best however to mention the aspects which intrigued me most.
Most romantic narratives, and in particular to use the typical Disney story or romantic comedy film, stops at the encounter of the hero and heroine, (their first meeting, a few subsequent ups and downs, and then the "happy marriage" with lots of babies) instead of progressing to the true love story, what happens after the honeymoon phase is over -- which he calls "fidelity". As such, the declaration of love to him doesn't simply mean the words "I love you" but is a promise that verges on to an eternal, almost post-sexual desire, to a condition in which both partners "work" to always bridge the inevitable distances and schisms between two people. On this note, I particularly enjoyed his rather old fashioned but nevertheless stoic understanding of love as being a "tenacious adventure", that lasts "painfully, over the hurdles erected by time, space and the world.".
In other words, for Badiou love is what succeeds the "encounter". He describes the encounter as the chance meeting of two individuals which has the power to evolve into something permanent. The uncertainty -- between chance and permanence -- this volatility is both revolutionary for him and an elementary metaphysical experience that shatters both individuals' equilibrium -- after which they experience the world not from the singular viewpoint of 'One' but rather as 'Two'.
For me, the revolutionary implications of Badiou-ian love interests me most, the power love possesses to "slice diagonally through the most powerful oppositions and radical separations". One of the most ancient tropes of a love story have precisely to do with two individuals who love one another in opposition to the State, or familial, religious, or cultural values. While Badiou acknowledges this, he does not further investigate the phenomenon, leaving it an open ended question, "what did love pay in the apparent gain of its freedom?" Perhaps he is implying that the 'price' is as a thing that very structure, kernel, and It of love.
Even sex for Badiou has to do with fidelity and endurance-- as when he addresses the relationship between sex and love, he makes a compelling argument against claims of love being a "cloak" for sexual desire and a biological imperative to reproduce. I enjoyed in particular how he highlighted the absurdity of sexual activity, the flaccidity of the penis after ejaculation and the woman's sagging breasts and belly, and highlights the "shouting and embarrassment" as well as the feeling of emptiness after a sexual encounter. For him, this activity and any sexual activity on a whole encodes a message of vulnerability and surrender to the other loved one --
"Love relates to the totality of the being of the other, and the surrender of the body becomes the material symbol of that totality."If I had any reservations about this book it would be that I feel his definition and understanding of love is too narrow, and for some reason is only interested in erotic or romantic love. In a way he implies that love without the surrender of body is not as full or complete, and doesn't give due credit to platonic love, nor does he discuss at length failed love, falling out of love. While this isn't meant to be a comprehensive book by any means, I still feel that it would have been more fulfilling to gain an understanding of the other side of the journey, the return to "pre" encounter, if that's possible.
I liked: The concepts, the clear writing, plenty of examples.
I disliked: Could have been a little more inclusive and addressed a few more things (as mentioned in a previous paragraph).
78/100
An interesting read for those who enjoy philosophy/sociology. The writing is very approachable, and not bogged down in jargon. It's reminiscent to Roland Barthes' A Lover's Discourse and may be interesting for those who enjoyed David Levithan's The Lover's Dictionary.
0 comments :
Post a Comment