In Anthropology of the Name, Sylvain Lazarus warns us against subordinating radical political thinking to its relationship with extant social reality. When we attribute thought to historical or social prerequisites that supposedly ‘determine’ it, we deny that thinking can challenge what already is. By contrast, radical politics contest the extant and create new social possibilities. For Lazarus, ‘enthusiasm’ is the disposition that accompanies transformational politics. This article distinguishe…
Read moreIn Anthropology of the Name, Sylvain Lazarus warns us against subordinating radical political thinking to its relationship with extant social reality. When we attribute thought to historical or social prerequisites that supposedly ‘determine’ it, we deny that thinking can challenge what already is. By contrast, radical politics contest the extant and create new social possibilities. For Lazarus, ‘enthusiasm’ is the disposition that accompanies transformational politics. This article distinguishes Lazarus’ ‘enthusiasm’ from Alain Badiou’s ‘fidelity.’ I argue, contra most English-speaking interpreters, that Lazarus’ theory of politics is a) distinct from Badiou’s and b) more helpful for understanding moments of political resistance.
