Claudia Landolfi

Legal apparatus looks like a set of norms which rely on a rational project of life, yet it is possible, following Deleuze but also Hume and Kafka, to recognise the irrational aspect of this system. Is the law a dream? In what relation is the law with the subject? If the legal subject acts in a dream, what are the results? This paper develops around such questions with the aim of critically reflecting on the foundations of subjectivity and its connections with the legal normativity that requires obedience as the main form of respect and adherence. In this apparently free and creative present, which is unfolded on a digital codex of information, it seems relevant to be highly suspicious of the barriers that are going to be tightened more and more around thought and its potential creative evolutions. Can we think of – beyond the legal/illegal, obedient/disobedient dichotomy – a system of social relations that, instead of giving space to the permanent and repetitive features of subjects, discovers a wider margin of affective, innovative and creative connections in response to the behavioral exemplifications of diktats?

In recent years there has been great attention paid to the so-called Italian theory in the field of political philosophy. This definition has brought to the fore Italian thinking, but at the same time also covers many reflections of the past several decades, by creating a category easily disclosable but also restricted to a few authors and topics. To this regard, I want to highlight the philosophical work of Ubaldo Fadini, professor of philosophy at the University of Florence, who for many years has been dedicated to the German and French philosophical tradition, crossing different disciplines and combining aesthetic and ethical issues to frame the subjectivity and the institutions into the post-Fordist era. Since his work is multi-faceted and broad, I would suggest first reading Il desiderio in America (The desire in America) for his ‘achipelago-politics’. Fadini addresses the issue of desire in Deleuze with an approach that escapes the opportunity and claim to be an interpretive key from which to see everything systemically. His work wisely touches on several authors and issues, from Kafka to Melville, Spinoza and Nietzsche, and many others, addressing the dynamics of a desire, debt, conscience, responsibility and law. These are, therefore, multiple inputs to desiring, which does not hide the dotted plurality of the brothers in the world, beyond the tight grip of the Oedipal triangle, i.e. the father-mother-child relationship. It follows a not only a psychological issue but also a political one, thus it regards the delineation of a field of forces in which ‘who’ acts – and speaks – is not only the person (a term which in Latin refers to theatrical mask, but well-defined identity fictitious necessary to enter the scene and carry on a story), but the scene itself, produced by relations not illuminated by the light of the show. The plural world of the brothers is the American one, in which the Oedipal relationship with the father-homeland is cut in the name of equality, contrary to colonial subjection (of which Fanon has also shown the psychic character revealing the mechanism of the colonized that internalized the oedipal function of the dominus. Fanon, in fact, has linked the production of subjectivity employee with the apparatus of colonial subordination). To this aside to Deleuzian thought, Fadini adds another, but productively connects to the first: from the cut with the father was not born the son (as in Hegelian-Lacanian interpretation or dialectical-psychoanalytic who wants the definition of the son from by the conflict with his father), but the brothers, the concrete manifold in which the father is not necessary but is placed from time to time in the decision-making function of the uncertainty, in the mobile uncertainty of the brothers in their organization. That this is happening is not a scandal. That this would represent a danger, as Fadini states, is a necessary point to be aware. Maybe, the problem arises when this function is preached the need: no, the fathers are not necessary. And even mothers. We reiterate: it is a political issue around which affirms or denies the legal capacity of the many in favor of the one. The one may be different persons: those who came before, the old, the wise, the priest who runs the border between the world and underworld with the rules applied on the swinging from one place to another, the legislature, the owner. The reason why the scope of the one is so problematic is mainly related to the mechanism he establishes so to ex-istere. It is a mechanism for fault-liability-debt, such as a pyramid which is based on a ‘primary’ concept, namely that of the absence. The paternal function certainly sums up everything in a person: the father is the legislator, he was there before, is older, closer to the world of the dead, but even in that of the living, owns the world, provides rules – even interpretation – to be applied to the fluctuations of life. A really great invention, no doubt about it, higher than that of basileus-priest, more functional, yes, more functional. As in The Wizard of Oz, a narrative that is served in an American election campaign and, as Graeber reminds us, explains the necessity of the idea of debt so to found the new relationship between money and gold, the legislator is microscopic compared to the effects of the conviction that is produced on a large scale, not only on his community but also on the foreigners who come to him in search of completeness. The vacuum is once again an instrument of domination, nothing else. Lack of confidence, of course. Lack of confidence in the ability of the brothers. In the story of The Wizard of Oz, the wizard was well-intentioned and therefore the trick is revealed, however, he reaffirms his role by giving foreigners a certificate of completion that settles the existential debt. Lack of confidence and perhaps even the reading of fairy tales. We don’t need ‘real’ narrations but concrete tales, and, as Fadini says, archipelagos and pirates and cartographers.

The paper is focused on the intedermination in compositive processes. In particular on John Cage. The art and the thought of Cage were a response to the growing complexity of the world through a practice and a reflection that focuses heavily on the concept of emptiness, understood as technical decentralization of: the author of the musical structure and the individual and of the same identification of sounds. This complexity results from a network of independent nodes, subjects, activities and institutions that interact in no particular order. You can no longer assume the existence of an ultimate subject for whose wisdom assumes all sense. There is no longer any author. Events happen randomly. Relinquishing control is one of the main themes running through the compositional work of Cage.

The digital represents an oppressive apparatus of control or a new horizon for liberation? This article frames a post-deleuzian and post-guattarian line of though about the digital and the politics. Control and discontinuity of affections are the two poles for a reasoning about our involvment in the digital and our awareness of risks and opportunities. If we assume that the contemporary is characterized by the pulverization of the real, and that from the thanatology of the twentieth century could hardly be born a 'providential' technology at the same time thanatology can’t stop the entropic being, which transcends all ambition of autonomy of matter. The machines were built in the frame of segmentation, but the ontological instability is able to give form to a different and new releases. However, a reflection on new technologies leads us to understand that the affectivity of matter, its discontinuities, while constituting a virtual source of potentiality with 'machinic heterogenesis', does not 'escape' the power, but urges the control to raise new challenges not in opposition but in affinity. In this mimetic interaction, then, should continue to reflect, remembering always the lure of Deleuze to irony and humour, on possible differential practices for limiting the disciplines in order to move the entropy in the logic of the database, under the sign of an aesthetics of affection, renewing the an-aestheticized subjectivity of contemporary.

Confronting different contemporary sources from philosophy and poetry, this article provides a trace of the emerging reflections on the question of political identity as person/face/mask that can be recognized. The article is focused on authors from Eastern Europe, the post-communist one, where, in recent years, a psychoanalytic perspective on politics has put in place the topic of void, lack, absence as an ineludible tool for facing identity. In the case of the mask, one can see the face and both the holes of the eyes, from which a person can see the world. If the face of the mask is immediately visible, what is behind the holes of the eyes is not. In a political perspective, this double of the mask is very disturbing, since it is the mark of a hidden presence, and not of the absence of the look. With this metaphor I would introduce the issue of absence which is strongly felt and claimed, by many contemporary authors, about the political intentionality. The absence is often the first level of the interpretation of phenomena, as in the case of the mask’s holes and may represent a danger for the legitimation and justification of masses manipulation. Also, the recurrent spatial metaphors linked to the lack/absence, with particular reference to the lack of a political subjectivity, may let possible a reflection on the possibility to react to neoliberal policies and other related forms of oppression rooted into the belief of passivity of subjects (holes apparently without a look).