Angus McDonald

The Brexit referendum result has given focus to and amplified a series of anxieties: the successful campaign gave visibility to anxiety about immigration and loss of sovereignty, while also creating anxiety about illiberal populism. This anxiety about national identity, current and prospective, about Brexit, as caused by anxiety and cause of anxiety, has provoked a debate even about the merits of democracy, if ‘the voice and will of the people’ disrupts the traditional constitutional assumptions regarding checks and balances and becomes despotic. Reference to the tradition of anxiety about democracy, exemplified by Kierkegaard and Kant, establishes a context here for a discussion of the Brexit political debate in terms derived from Lyotard’s investigation of, on the one hand, an appeal to mythic narrative to stabilise a claim of identity, and, on the other hand, narratives of emancipation embodied in a future-oriented deliberative process, which can be analysed in terms of seven different types of language game at play. Particular reference to the image of ‘triggering’ used in the Supreme Court’s judgments in the v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5) case in relation to Article 50 and the UK’s exit from the EU is made to illustrate the significance of figures of speech within discourse. The conclusion draws on Lyotard’s distinction between a litigation and a differend in order to better understand the politics of Brexit.

Starting from a re-assessment of the relevance of the situationist analysis of riots in the 1960s to the riots in 2011, and finding their analysis largely irrelevant, this paper argues for an interpretative framework derived from Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. Using Hegel’s concepts of the Good, the Bad, the state and wealth, the categories of noble and ignoble or base consciousness emerge as attitudes towards social phenomena with a strong explanatory relevance to the recent riots. Drawing upon Kojeve and Hyppolite’s readings of the Phenomenology, the argument is that the riotous looting of 2011 lacked all the elements of combat, challenge and struggle for recognition which would make of them a sovereign gesture and a historical episode. Instead, they embodied an abjection before the culture of the commodity which makes of them not a demand for mastery but a continuation of slavery. Given this, the view of the sub-proletarian proposed by Pasolini in the 1970s offers a descriptive analysis which perhaps also explains the current vogue for the language of the feral underclass, whilst demonstrating that such an analysis is not the sole property of Conservative Justice ministers, and can be distinguished from the latter by the connection it makes between antisocial amorality at the top of society and its repetition at the bottom.