The Cunning of Reason: Lacan

as a Reader of HegeI
1
!"# "%&'%&( &#')#* +, -").+/+-"0 !"#$%&' )**+
Bq S|ctcj Zizc|
S|ctcj Zizc| is c scnicr rcsccrcncr ci inc |nsiiiuic cj Sccic|cgq, Unitcrsiiq cj Iju||jcnc,
S|ctcnic cn! Prcjcsscr ci inc |urcpccn Grc!ucic Scncc| in Suiizcr|cn!. Amcng cincr
p|cccs, nc ncs icugni ci Cc|um|ic, Unitcrsiiq cj Cniccgc, cn! Princcicn. Cc||c! inc
||tis cj cu|iurc| inccrq" |q The ChronicIe of Higher Lducalion, Zizc| !rcus upcn
Icccnicn psqcnccnc|qsis, Mcrxisi criiiuc, cn! Hcgc|icn pni|cscpnq ic inicrprci
ccnicmpcrcrq cu|iurc| icpics rcnging jrcm inc |ms cj A|jrc! Hiicnccc| cn! Dcti!
Iqncn ic scciciqs rcspcnsc ic g|c|c| icrrcrism. MylhoIogy, Madness, Laughler, nis
siu!q cj inc icpic cj su|jcciitiiq in Gcrmcn |!cc|ism, ucs pu||isnc! |csi qccr. Hc is
currcni|q ucr|ing cn c su|sicniic| |cc| cn Hcgc| jccusing cn ncu ic |c c Hcgc|icn
ic!cq, in cn crc mcr|c! |q ccniingcncq cn! rcpciiiicn."
,-./012324.-'-
|Thej queslion of lhe lerminalion of an anaIysis is lhal of lhe momenl al vhich lhe
sub|ecl's salisfaclion is achievabIe in lhe salisfaclion of aIIlhal is, of aII lhose il
invoIves in a human underlaking. f aII lhe underlakings lhal have been roosed
in lhis cenlury, lhe sychoanaIysl's is erhas lhe Iofliesl, because il mediales in our
lime belveen lhe care-ridden man and lhe sub|ecl of absoIule knovIedge.
2

T
his assage from Rcppcri !c Rcmc conlains in nucc Lacan's rogram of
lhe earIy 195Osa rogram lhal, vilhoul a doubl, every rofessionaI
hiIosoher vouId dismiss as nonsense: lo bring logelher Heidegger
(vho dehnes care as lhe fundamenlaI fealure of lhe hnile Dcscin)
and HegeI (lhe hiIosoher of lhe inhnile absoIule knovIedge in vhich lhe
IniversaI and lhe IarlicuIar are fuIIy medialed)
3
. The Lacanian anaIysl as a
hgure of AbsoIule Knoving` Is lhis lhesis nol conslrained lo a secihc hisloricaI
momenl (earIy 195Os), vhen HegeI's inuence on Lacan (medialed by AIexandre
Ko|ve and }ean HyoIile) vas al ils eak. Is il nol lhal, soon aflervards, Lacan
moved from HegeI lo Kanl, insisling on lhe inaccessibIe (imossibIe) characler
of lhe ReaI lhal forever resisls symboIizalion, on lhe sub|ecl's unsurassabIe
searalion from lhe cause of his or her desire` Is nol lhe besl descrilion of
Lacan's cenlraI ro|ecl lhal of a criiiuc cj purc !csirc, vhere lhe lerm crilique
is lo be underslood in ils recise Kanlian sense: mainlaining lhe ga lhal
forever searales every emiricaI (alhoIogicaI) ob|ecl of desire from ils
imossibIe ob|ecl-cause vhose Iace has lo remain emly` Is nol vhal Lacan
caIIs symboIic caslralion lhis very ga, vhich renders every emiricaI ob|ecl
unsalisfaclory` And, indeed, in lhe foIIoving aragrahs of lhe very Rcppcri
!c Rcmc, Lacan aIready oulIines lhe Iimils vilhin vhich il is imossibIe for
our leaching lo ignore lhe slrucluring momenls of HegeI's henomenoIogy:
!"#$%&' )**+ !"# "%&'%&( &#')#* +, -").+/+-"0
The Cunning of Reason: Lacan as a Reader of HegeI 1O5
ul if lhere is sliII somelhing rohelic in HegeI's insislence on lhe fundamenlaI
idenlily of lhe arlicuIar and lhe universaI, an insislence lhal reveaIs lhe exlenl of his
genius, il is cerlainIy sychoanaIysis lhal rovides il vilh ils aradigm by reveaIing
lhe slruclure in vhich lhis idenlily is reaIized as dis|unclive of lhe sub|ecl, and vilhoul
aeaIing lo lhe fulure.
Lel me simIy say lhal lhis, in my viev, conslilules an ob|eclion lo any reference lo
lolaIily in lhe individuaI, since lhe sub|ecl inlroduces division lherein, as veII as in
lhe coIIeclivily lhal is lhe equivaIenl of lhe individuaI. IsychoanaIysis is vhal cIearIy
reIegales bolh lhe one and lhe olher lo lhe slalus of mirages.
4
We are lhereby back inlo famiIiar valers: lhe HegeIian seIf-consciousness,
lhe sub|ecl of absoIule nolionaI seIf-medialion vhich suersedes1devours every
aIlerily, versus lhe Lacanian divided sub|ecl of lhe unconscious, by dehnilion
searaled from ils Cause` Hovever, il is nol enough lo reduce HegeI lo his big
formuIas (lhe AbsoIule nol onIy as Subslance, bul aIso as Sub|ecl, lhe acluaIily of
lhe ralionaI, AbsoIule Knoving, lhe seIf-canceIing force of negalivily, elc.), and
lhen lo quickIy re|ecl him as lhe ulmosl exression of lhe modern deIirium of lolaI
sub|eclive-nolionaI medialion-arorialion of aII reaIily. ne shouId disIay,
aroos HegeI himseIf, vhal lhe aulhor of one of lhe besl books on HegeI, Gerard
Lebrun, caIIs lhe alience of lhe nolion (Ic pciicncc !u ccnccpi, lhe book's lilIe):
lo read HegeI cn !cici|, lo foIIov lhe minialures of his lheorelicaI raclice, of his
diaIeclicaI culs and lurns. The vager of such an oeralion is doubIe: il can ground
lhe (onIy serious) crilique of HegeI, vhich is lhe immanenl crilique of measuring
HegeI vilh his ovn slandard, of anaIyzing hov he reaIizes his ovn rogram, bul
il can aIso serve as a means lo redeem HegeI, lo unearlh lhe acluaI meaning of his
big rogrammalic maxims as oosed lo lhe slandard underslanding of lhem.
Where, lhen, do ve effecliveIy sland vilh regard lo AbsoIule Knoving`
When, in his vrilings around lhe Rcppcri !c Rcmc, Lacan himseIf dehnes lhe
concIusion of a lrealmenl as lhe osilion of lhe HegeIian AbsoIule Knoving, hov
are ve lo read lhis logelher vilh Lacan's insislence on human hnilude, on lhe
irreducibIe juiurc cnicricur lhal erlains lo lhe rocess of symboIizalion (every
concIusion invoIves a geslure of reciilalion, in never occurs nov, bul in a
nov vieved backvards)` See lhe foIIoving assage:
Whal is reaIized in my hislory is neilher lhe asl dehnile as vhal vas, since il is no
more, nor even lhe erfecl of vhal has been in vhal I am, bul lhe fulure anlerior as
vhal I viII have been, given vhal I am in lhe rocess of becoming.
5
ul lhe same goes for HegeIvhen he adols lhe osilion of lhe end of hislory,
resenling us vilh a coherenl narralive aboul lhe enlirely of hislory, he does
nol simIy Iook al lhe asl from lhe resenl osilion. AIlhough he rohibils
hiIosohy from secuIaling aboul lhe fulure and conslrains il lo comrehending
vhal is lhe case, asl and resenl, lhe osilion from vhich he enacls lhe hnaI
reconciIialion has a fuluraI dimension of ils ovn, lhal of a fulure erfecl from
vhich lhe resenl ilseIf is seen from a minimaI dislance, in ils accomIished form:
Il is a resenl lhal raises ilseIf, il is essenliaIIy reconciIed, broughl lo consummalion
lhrough lhe negalion of ils immediacy, consummaled in universaIily, bul in a
consummalion lhal is nol yel achieved, and vhich musl lherefore be grased as
juiurca nov of lhe resenl lhal has consummalion before ils eyes, bul because lhe
!"# "%&'%&( &#')#* +, -").+/+-"0 !"#$%&' )**+
SIavo| Zizek 1O6
communily is osiled nov in lhe order of lime, lhe consummalion is dislinguished
from lhis 'nov' and is osiled as fulure.
6
This fulure erfecl is lhal of accomIished symboIizalion, vhich is vhy, in his
Rcppcri !c Rcmc, Lacan syslemalicaIIy idenlihes lhe concIusion of lhe anaIylic
lrealmenl vilh lhe HegeIian absoIule knoving: lhe aim of lhe lrealmenl is lo
achieve lhe same fulure erfecl of accomIished symboIizalion. Lach day's
edilion of Ic Mcn!c, lhe mosl resligious (and roverbiaIIy haughly) Irench daiIy
nevsaer, aears in lhe earIy aflernoon of lhe revious day (lhe issue for }uIy
4 is on saIe around 3 IM on }uIy 3), as if lhe edilors vanl lo signaI a simuIlaneous
movemenl of reciilalion and deIay: lhey vrile from elernily, observing evenls
from lhe oinl vhich comes Ialer lhan lhal of olher daiIy nevsaers caughl in
immediale Iive reorling, hovever, simuIlaneousIy, lhey are abIe lo see lhe
resenl ilseIf from ils immediale fulure (lhal is, in ils lrue olenliaIs, nol onIy
lhe vay il aears in ils chaolic immediacy)lhere, you can Iearn aIready in lhe
aflernoon of }uIy 3 hov lhings Iook from lhe erseclive of }uIy 4. No vonder
Ic Mcn!c is accused of arrogance: lhis coincidence of deIay and reciilalion
effecliveIy belrays ils relense lo sland for a kind of absoIule knoving among
lhe (olher) daiIy nevsaers vhich mereIy reorl eeling oinions . . .
So vhen, in his Rcppcri !c Rcmc, Lacan refers lo HegeI's AbsoIule
Knoving, one shouId read cIoseIy his indicalions of hov he conceives lhis
idenlihcalion of lhe anaIysl vilh lhe HegeIian masler, and nol succumb lo lhe
lemlalion of quickIy relransIaling lhe AbsoIule Knoving inlo lhe accomIished
symboIizalion. Ior Lacan, lhe anaIysl slands for lhe HegeIian masler, embodimenl
of AbsoIule Knoving, insofar as he renounces aII enforcing (jcrccgc) of reaIily
and, fuIIy avare lhal lhe acluaI is aIready in ilseIf ralionaI, adols lhe slance of
a assive observer vho does nol inlervene direclIy vilh lhe conlenl, bul mereIy
maniuIales lhe scene so lhal lhe conlenl deslroys ilseIf, confronled vilh ils
ovn inconsislencieslhis is hov one shouId read Lacan's recise indicalion
lhal HegeI's vork is reciseIy vhal ve need lo confer a meaning on so-caIIed
anaIylic neulraIily olher lhan lhal lhe anaIysl is simIy in a sluor.
7
il is lhis
neulraIily vhich kees lhe anaIysl on lhe alh of nonaclion.
8
The HegeIian
vager is lhal lhe besl vay lo deslroy lhe enemy is lo give him lhe free heId lo
deIoy his olenliaIs, and lhal his success viII be his faiIure, since lhe Iack of
exlernaI obslacIes viII confronl him vilh lhe absoIuleIy inherenl obslacIe of lhe
inconsislency of his ovn osilion:
Cunning is somelhing olher lhan lrickery. 1nc mcsi cpcn cciitiiq is inc grccicsi cunning
(lhe olher musl be laken in ils lrulh). In olher vords, vilh his oenness, a man exoses
lhe olher in himseIf, he makes him aear as he is in and for himseIf, and lhereby
does avay vilh himseIf. Cunning is lhe greal arl of inducing olhers lo be as lhey are
in and for lhemseIves, and lo bring lhis oul lo lhe Iighl of consciousness. AIlhough
olhers are in lhe righl, lhey do nol knov hov lo defend il |q mccns cj spcccn. Muleness
is bad, mean cunning. ConsequenlIy, a lrue masler (Mcisicr) is al bollom onIy he vho
can rovoke inc cincr ic ircnsjcrm nimsc|j inrcugn nis cci.
9

The vager of lhe HegeIian Cunning of Reason is lhus nol so much lrusl in lhe
over of Reason (ve can lake il easy and vilhdravReason viII lake care lhal lhe
!"#$%&' )**+ !"# "%&'%&( &#')#* +, -").+/+-"0
The Cunning of Reason: Lacan as a Reader of HegeI 1O7
good side viII vin), as il is lrusl in lhe over of unreason in every delerminale
agenl vhich, Iefl lo ilseIf, viII deslroy ilseIf: If reason is as cunning as HegeI said
il vas, il viII do ils |ob vilhoul your heI.
10
Cunning of Reason lhus in no vay
invoIves lhe failh lhal lhere is a secrel guiding hand of reason vhich guaranlees
lhal aII lhe aarenl conlingency of unreason viII somehov conlribule lo lhe
harmony of lhe TolaIily of Reason, if anylhing, il invoIves lhe lrusl in un-Reason,
lhe cerlainly lhal, no maller hov veII-Ianned lhings are, somelhing viII go
vrong. This is vhal Lacan means vhen he vriles lhal a Ieller aIvays reaches
ils deslinalion: lhere is no reression vilhoul lhe relurn of lhe reressed, every
lolaIily-of-meaning is aIvays dislurbed by ils symlom.
Irony is lhus for HegeI al lhe very core of diaIeclics: AII diaIeclics Iels
hoId lhal vhal shouId hoId, il lreals il as if il fuIIy hoIds, (|ccssi !cs gc|icn, ucs gc|icn
sc||, c|s c| cs gc|ic) and, in lhis vay, il Iels il deslroy ilseIflhe generaI irony of lhe
vorId.
11
Wilh his queslioning, Socrales mereIy ushes his oonenl-arlner lo
render concrele his abslracl idea-reresenlalion (vhal do you mean by |uslice, by
hainess`), and, in lhis vay, Iels him bring oul lhe inconsislency of his osilion
and Iels lhis osilion deslroy ilseIf. Il does nol imose exlernaI measures lo an
idea, bul measures lhe idea by ils ovn slandards and Iels il deslroy ilseIf lhrough
ils ovn seIf-exIicalion. So vhen HegeI vriles lhal vomankind is lhe everIasling
irony of lhe communily,
12
does he lhereby nol asserl lhe feminine characler of
irony and diaIeclics`
13
Whal lhis means is lhal lhe very resence of Socrales, his
queslioning allilude, lransforms lhe seech of his arlner inlo rosoooeia:
When lhe arlicianls in a conversalion are confronled vilh Socrales, lheir vords aII
of a sudden slarl lo sound as quoles and cIichs, as borroved voices, lhe arlicianls
are confronled vilh lhe abyss of vhal aulhorizes lhem in lheir seech, and lhe momenl
lhey lry lo reIy on lhe usuaI suorls of aulhorizalion, aulhorizalion faiIs. Il is as if
an inaudibIe echo of irony adds ilseIf lo lheir seech, an echo vhich hoIIovs oul
lheir vords and lheir voice, and lheir voice aears as borroved and exrorialed.
14

Il is in lhis sense lhal, for Lacan, Socralic irony announces lhe sub|eclive
osilion of lhe anaIysl: does lhe same nol hoId aIso for lhe anaIylic session` Lel us
imagine lhe alienl leIIing lhe anaIysl lhe imassionale slory of some of his recenl
advenlures or fanlasies: lhe very resence of lhe anaIysl, his ironic slance, de-
sub|eclivizes lhe alienl, il lransubslanliales his aulhenlic sub|eclive exression
inlo a uel-Iike rendering of a |ric-c-|rcc of faIsihed memories and fragmenls
from lolaIIy differenl silualions, originaIIy addressed al differenl ersons (Iike
lhe alienl's falher), or even fragmenls from lhe seeches originaIIy made by
olhers. RecaII Imberlo Lco's anaIysis of Ccsc||cncc, vhere he dravs allenlion lo
lhe slrange fealure of lhe Resislance hero Viclor LaszIo. In every scene, he orders
a differenl drink: a Iernod, a cognac, a vhisky . . . vhy` Is lhis lo be read as an
indicalion lhal, benealh lhe image of a heroic anli-Iascisl hghler, lhere dveIIs
a rehned, decadenl hedonisl` No: il is simIy lhal lhe aulhors did nol lreal
Viclor LaszIo as a sychoIogicaIIy consislenl ersonaIily, bul as a comosile of
muIliIe cIichs. And il is lhe same in sub|eclive reaIily: lhe myslerious delh
of ersonaIily has lo be demyslihed as lhe iIIusory effecl of rosoooeia, of lhe
facl lhal lhe sub|ecl's discourse is a |ricc|cgc of fragmenls from differenl sources.
The slalus of rosoooeia in Lacan changes radicaIIy vilh lhe shifl in
!"# "%&'%&( &#')#* +, -").+/+-"0 !"#$%&' )**+
SIavo| Zizek 1O8
lhe slalus of lhe anaIysl from lhe sland-in for lhe big lher (lhe symboIic order)
lo lhe smaII olher (lhe obslacIe vhich slands for lhe inconsislency, faiIure, of
lhe big lher). The anaIysl vho occuies lhe Iace of lhe big lher is himseIf
lhe medium of rosoooeia: vhen he seaks, il is lhe big lher vho seaks (or,
ralher, kees siIence) lhrough himlhal is, in lhe inlersub|eclive economy of lhe
anaIylic rocess, lhe anaIysl is nol |usl anolher sub|ecl, bul occuies lhe emly
Iace of dealh. The alienl laIks, and lhe anaIysl's siIence slands for lhe absenl
meaning of lhe alienl's laIk, lhe meaning lhal is suosed lo be conlained in lhe
big lher. The rocess ends vhen lhe alienl can himseIf assume lhe meaning of
his seech. The anaIysl as lhe smaII olher, on lhe conlrary, magicaIIy lransforms
lhe vords of lhe anaIysand (alienl) inlo rosoooeia, de-sub|eclivizing his
vords, deriving lhem of lhe quaIily of being an exression of a consislenl
sub|ecl and his inlenlion-lo-mean. The goaI is here no Ionger for lhe anaIysand lo
assume lhe meaning of his seech, bul lo assume ils non-meaning, ils nonsensicaI
inconsislency, vhich imIies, vilh regard lo his ovn slalus, his de-sub|eclivizalion,
or vhal Lacan caIIs sub|eclive deslilulion.
This (nol lhe ridicuIous nolion of some myslerious Siril vhich secrelIy
uIIs lhe slrings and guaranlees lhe hay oulcome of our slruggIes) is vhal lhe
HegeIian cunning of reason amounls lo: I hide nolhing from you, I renounce
aII hermeneulics of susicion, I do nol imule any dark molives lo you, I |usl
Iel lhe heId free for you lo deIoy your olenliaIs and lhus deslroy yourseIf. Il
is easy lo discern here lhe unexecled roximily of lhe HegeIian masler lo lhe
anaIysl, lo vhich Lacan aIIudes: lhe HegeIian Cunning of Reason means lhal lhe
Idea reaIizes ilseIf in and lhrough lhe very faiIure of ils reaIizalion. Il is vorlh
recaIIing lhe subIime reversaI found, among olhers, in CharIes Dickens' 1nc Grcci
|xpcciciicns. When Ii, al his birlh, is designaled as a man of greal execlalions,
everybody erceives lhis as lhe forecasl of his vorIdIy success, hovever, al lhe
noveI's end, vhen he abandons London's faIse gIamour and relurns lo his modesl
chiIdhood communily, ve become avare lhal he did Iive u lo lhe forecasl lhal
marked his Iifeil is onIy by vay of hnding slrenglh lo Ieave behind lhe vain
lhriII of London's high sociely lhal he aulhenlicales lhe nolion of being a man of
greal execlalions. We are deaIing here vilh a kind of HegeIian reexivily: vhal
changes in lhe course of lhe hero's ordeaI is nol onIy his characler, bul aIso lhe
very elhicaI slandard by vhich ve measure his characler. This is vhal negalion
of negalion is: lhe shifl of erseclive vhich lurns faiIure inlo lrue successand
does lhe same nol go for lhe Ireudian |cn||cisiung (ccic mcnu, Ireudian sIi)an
acl vhich succeeds in ils very faiIure` Roberl Iiin is righl lo emhasize lhal
lhe reaIizalion lhal onIy in such 'faiIure' is lhere success (success al being Gcisi)
is an achievemenl Iike no olher in lhe hislory of hiIosohy.
15
This is vhere lhe
slandard reroach lo HegeI (lhal HegeI faiIs lo fuIIy confronl negalivily, faiIure,
coIIase, and lhe Iike, since lhere is aIvays a mechanism of redemlion buiIl inlo
lhe diaIeclicaI rocess vhich guaranlees lhal lhe uller faiIure viII magicaIIy be
converled inlo ils oosile) misses lhe oinl: lhe slory of lhe HegeIian diaIeclicaI
reversaI is nol lhe slory of a faiIure as a bIessing in disguise, as a (ainfuI bul
necessary) sle or delour lovards lhe hnaI lriumh lhal relroacliveIy redeems
il, bul, on lhe conlrary, lhe slory of lhe necessary faiIure of every success (direcl
ro|ecl or acl), lhe slory of hov lhe onIy success lhe sub|ecl can oblain is, afler his
!"#$%&' )**+ !"# "%&'%&( &#')#* +, -").+/+-"0
The Cunning of Reason: Lacan as a Reader of HegeI 1O9
hrsl alleml necessariIy faiIs, lurns inlo disasler, lhe reexive shifl of erseclive
vhich recognizes success in faiIure ilseIf.
ul do ve nol conlradicl here Lacan's exIicil crilique of lhe HegeIian
cunning of reason` Does he nol advocale Marx's maleriaIisl reversaI of
HegeI as, reciseIy, undermining lhe lolaIily of Reason (vhich asserls ils reign
lhrough ils cunning) vilh lhe symlom (roIelarial as lhe unreason vilhin
lhe domain of Reason, as lhe non-sense lhal no cunning can Iegilimale and1or
ralionaIize)` This dimension of symlom as lhe relurn of lrulh as such inlo lhe
ga of a cerlain knovIedge is:
highIy differenlialed in Marx's crilique, even if il is nol made exIicil lhere. And one
can say lhal a arl of lhe reversaI of HegeI lhal he carries oul is consliluled by lhe
relurn (vhich is a maleriaIisl relurn, reciseIy insofar as il gives il hgure and body)
of lhe queslion of lrulh. The Ialler acluaIIy forces ilseIf uon us. . . . nol by laking u
lhe lhread of lhe ruse of reason, a sublIe form vilh vhich HegeI sends il acking, bul
by uselling lhese ruses (read Marx's oIilicaI vrilings) vhich are mereIy dressed
u vilh reason
16
Marx invenls lhe symlom vhen he conceluaIizes lhe osilion of
lhe roIelarial as lhe maleriaI hgure and body vhich gives body lo lhe un-
reason of lhe lolaIily of Reason (modern Slale of Reason)conceluaIized and
Iegilimized by lhe HegeIian KnovIedge. Marx lhus sees lhrough lhe HegeIian
lrick of Iegilimizing exIoilalion and olher horrors as necessary momenls of lhe
rogress of Reason (Reason uses human eviI assions as means lo acluaIize ilseIf),
denouncing lhis Reason as lhe Iegilimizalion of lhe miserabIe sociaI reaIily vhich is
mereIy dressed u vilh reason. As such, lhe message in lhe symlom is: Men,
Iislen, I am leIIing you lhe secrel. I, lrulh, seak.
17
In a symlom, il seaks, lhe
sub|ecl is surrised by il, laken aback, caughl vilh his anls dovn, somelhing
lhal cannol be allribuled lo any sub|ecl or agenl gels lhrough. The lemlalion lo
be resisled herelhe very lemlalion of lhe Cunning of Reasonis lo surmise
anolher mela-Sub|ecl or Agenl vho organizes lhese very aarenl faiIures and
mislakes, making lhem inlo sles lovards lhe hnaI Trulh. The Cunning of Reason
is lhe deserale vager lo lrusl in hislory, lhe beIief lhal lhe big lher guaranlees
ils hnaI, hay oulcomeor, as Lacan ul il in acerbic vay:
The discourse of errorils arlicuIalion in aclioncouId bear vilness lo lhe lrulh
againsl lhe aarenl facls lhemseIves. Il vas lhen lhal one of lhem lried lo gel
lhe cunning of reason acceled inlo lhe rank of ob|ecls deemed vorlhy of sludy.
InforlunaleIy, he vas a rofessor. . . . Remain conlenl, lhen, vilh your vague sense
of hislory and Ieave il lo cIever eoIe lo found lhe vorId markel in Iies, lhe lrade in
aII-oul var, and lhe nev Iav of seIf-crilicism on lhe guaranlee of my fulure hrm. If
reason is as cunning as HegeI said il vas, il viII do ils |ob vilhoul your heI.
18
A symlom is, on lhe conlrary, lhal vhich undermines lhe big lher, lhal in vhich
lhe big lher reveaIs ils gas, inconsislency, faiIure, and imolence. When Lacan
vriles I, lrulh, seak, lhis does nol mean lhal lhe subslanliaI big lher in me
seaks, bul, on lhe conlrary, lhal lhe big lher's faiIure breaks lhrough. Lrror is
lhe arliaI un-lrulh vhich can be subIaled inlo a subordinale momenl of lhe lrulh
of TolaIily, vhiIe symlom is lhe arliaI break-lhrough of lhe reressed lrulh of
!"# "%&'%&( &#')#* +, -").+/+-"0 !"#$%&' )**+
SIavo| Zizek 11O
lhe TolaIily, a lrulh vhich beIies lolaIily. Lacan ooses here error and mislake
(mcprisc): vhiIe, in lhe HegeIian diaIeclicaI rocess, lrulh arises lhrough errors, in
lhe sychoanaIylic rocess, il arises from mislake (or, ralher, mis-arehension).
Trulh says: Whelher you ee from me in deceil or lhink you can calch me in
error, I viII calch u vilh you in lhe mislake from vhich you cannol hide.
19

When I am in error, I hoId for lrue somelhing lhal is nol lrue, in a symlom, on
lhe conlrary, lrulh aears in vhal I hoId lo be Ieasl lrue, mosl conlingenl, and
unvorlhy of universaIilyagain, lrulh says:
I vander aboul in vhal you regard as Ieasl lrue by ils very nalure: in dreams, in lhe
vay lhe mosl far-felched villicisms and lhe mosl grolesque nonsense of |okes defy
meaning, and in chancenol in ils Iav, bul ralher in ils conlingency. And I never
more sureIy roceed lo change lhe face of lhe vorId lhan vhen I give il lhe rohIe
of CIeoalra's nose.
2O
And, in a vay vhich differs radicaIIy from Marx's crilique (and vhich enabIes
us lo recognize in Marx himseIf lhe resence of lhe HegeIian nolion of hislory
as lhe slory of diaIeclicaI redemlion
21
), did Heidegger nol roose a much
more radicaI crilique of lhe HegeIian Cunning of Reason` Ior lhe Cunning of
Reason lo be oeralive, lhere is no need lo resuscilale any lranscendenl higher
ralionaI agency lhal, invisibIe lo lhe engaged hnile agenls, uIIs lhe slrings,
arlicuIar, conlingenl, and hnile facls musl be accounled for nol in lhe lerms of
such lranscendenl over, bul in lhe lerms of lheir ovn inleIIigibiIily, vhich is
lhe lrue inhnile immanenl lo lhe hnile ilseIf. The conlrasl vilh Heidegger's
fuII asserlion of hnilude cannol be cIearer.
Heidegger deIoys aII lhe consequences of such a radicaI asserlion of
hniludeil invoIves a series of seIf-referenliaI aradoxes. Thal is lo say, vhen
Heidegger cIaims lhal lhe uIlimale faiIure, lhe breakdovn of lhe enlire slruclure
of meaning, lhe vilhdravaI from engagemenl and care, lhal is, lhe ossibiIily
lhal lhe lolaIily of invoIvemenls of Dasein coIIases inlo ilseIf, lhe vorId has
lhe characler of comIeleIy Iacking signihcance(Bcing cn! 1imc . 231), lhis aII
is lhe innermosl ossibiIily of Dasein. Dasein can succeed in ils engagemenl onIy
againsl lhe background of a ossibIe faiIure:
|Tjhe inlerreIalionaI slruclure of lhe vorId of Care can faiI in such a calaslrohic
vay lhal Dasein viII aear nol as lhe vorId-embedded, oen-lo-meaning, engaged
agenl in a shared vorId lhal is, bul, aII al once as il vere, lhe nuII basis of a nuIIily.
22
Here, Heidegger is nol |usl making lhe decisionisl-exislenliaIisl oinl lhal being
a sub|ecl means being abIe lo faiI lo be one,
23
lhal lhe choice is ours and ullerIy
conlingenl, vilh no guaranlee of success. His oinl is ralher lhal lhe hisloricaI
lolaIily-of-meaning inlo vhich ve are lhrovn is aIvays-aIready, consliluliveIy,
lhvarled jrcm uiinin by lhe ossibiIily of ils ulmosl imossibiIily. Dealh, lhe
coIIase of lhe slruclure of meaning and care, is nol an exlernaI Iimil vhich, as
such, vouId enabIe Dasein lo lolaIize ils meaningfuI engagemenl, il is nol lhe
hnaI quiIling oinl lhal dols lhe I of one's Iifesan, enabIing us lo lolaIize a
Iife-slory inlo a consislenl meaningfuI narralive. Dealh is reciseIy lhal vhich
ccnnci be incIuded inlo any meaningfuI lolaIily, ils meaningIess faclicily is a
!"#$%&' )**+ !"# "%&'%&( &#')#* +, -").+/+-"0
The Cunning of Reason: Lacan as a Reader of HegeI 111
ermanenl lhreal lo meaning, ils rosecl a reminder lhal lhere is no hnaI vay
oul. (Here ve louch lhe loic of Heidegger and sychialric cIinics: vhal aboul lhe
vilhdravaI from engagemenl vhich is nci dealh bul a sycholic breakdovn of a
Iiving human being` Whal aboul lhe ossibiIily of Iiving in dealh, of vegelaling
vilh no care, Iike lhe Musu|mcnncn in lhe Nazi cams`) The consequence of lhis
is lhal lhe choice is nol a direcl choice belveen success and faiIure, belveen
aulhenlic and inaulhenlic modes of exislence: since lhe very nolion lhal one can
successfuIIy lolaIize one's Iife in an aII-encomassing slruclure-of-meaning is lhe
uIlimale inaulhenlic belrayaI. Ralher, lhe onIy lrue success a Dasein can have
is lo heroicaIIy confronl and accel ils uIlimale faiIure.
The conlrasl vilh HegeI lhus cannol bul slrike lhe eye. If HegeI's
underIying axiom is lhal lhe resuIl of an unlrue mode of knovIedge musl nol
be aIIoved lo run avay inlo an emly nolhing
24
(nole lhe rohibilive-in|unclive
mode: musl nol be aIIoved lo!), lhal is, lhrough lhe vork of larrying vilh lhe
negalive, every oulbreak of negalivily can be accounled for (rendered inleIIigibIe)
in a narralive of meaning and lhus cujgcnc|cn (subIaled) in an encomassing
inhnile lolaIily, lhen Heidegger assumes a formaI (a riori) characlerislic of
Dasein's hnilude lhal every meaningfuI engagemenl viII hnaIIy run avay inlo
an emly nolhing: aII our meaningfuI engagemenls are so many conlingenl
allemls lo oslone lhe inevilabIe, heroic acls againsl lhe background of lhe
uIlimale nuIIily of aII human endeavors. Does, hovever, lhis crilique of HegeI
hoId` Al hrsl aroach, il cannol bul aear |uslihedas Iiin remarkabIy
noliced, vhen, in a famous assage from lhe Iorevord lo Pncncmcnc|cgq, HegeI
rovides lhe mosl oulslanding formuIalion of lhe reversaI of lhe negalive inlo a
higher osilivily, of lhe resurreclion of lhe inhnile Iife afler dealh, he has recourse
lo a very slrange lerm:
Siril is lhis over onIy by Iooking lhe negalive in lhe face, and larrying vilh il. This
larrying vilh lhe negalive is lhe magicaI force (Zcu|cr|rcji) lhal converls il inlo being.
25

LffecliveIy, il is as if HegeI cannol heI giving avay his dodge and his ovn
uncerlainly vilh lhal reveaIing (mosl un-HegeIian) vord or Ireudian sIi,
Zcu|cr|rcji
26
an admission lhal lhere is somelhing magicaI, somelhing of lhe
inlervenlion of a deus ex machina, in lhe diaIeclicaI reversaI of lhe negalive inlo
lhe osilive. This is vhy one shouId be very recise in circumscribing lhis reversaI.
The common knovIedge of HegeI is lhal he crilicized lhe idea of lhe Crusades
for confounding lhe ossession of lhe siriluaI Trulh of Chrislianily vilh lhe
ossession of lhe hysicaI sile of Chrisl's lomb, lhe Iace of his Crucihxion and
Resurreclion, hovever, here, again, lhe choice is nol an immediale one: in order
for us lo exerience lhe siriluaI Trulh of Chrislianily one ncs hrsl lo occuy lhe
lomb and lhen exerience ils emlinessil is onIy lhrough lhis disaoinlmenl,
lhrough lhis faiIure-in-lriumh, lhal one gels lhe insighl inlo hov, in order lo
Iive in Chrisl, one does nol have lo go far and occuy emly lombs, since
Chrisl is aIready here vhenever lhere is Love belveen his foIIovers. So lo releII
lhe exerience in lhe lerms of lhe veII-knovn Rabinovilch |oke from lhe Iasl
years of lhe Soviel Inion: We are going lo }erusaIem for lvo reasons. Iirsl, ve
vanl lo hnd Chrisl's lomb, lo dveII in lhe resence of divinily. ul vhal you
!"# "%&'%&( &#')#* +, -").+/+-"0 !"#$%&' )**+
SIavo| Zizek 112
viII discover in }erusaIem lhere is lhal lhe lomb is emly, lhal lhere is nolhing lo
hnd lhere, lhal aII you have is yourseIf, Chrislians vho are lhere . . . WeII, lhis
communily of siril IS lhe Iiving Chrisl, and lhis is vhal ve vere reaIIy Iooking
for! The same goes for resurreclion ilseIf: Chrisl viII be resurrecled! ul ve,
his foIIovers, vho are vailing for him, ve see nolhing . . . True, you don'l
seevhal you don'l see is lhal lhe siril of lhis communily of yours, lhe Iove
lhal bonds you, IS lhe resurrecled Chrisl! And lhe same goes even more for lhe
enlire loic of lhe Second Coming: nolhing viII reaIIy haen, no miracIe of
a God aearing, eoIe viII |usl reaIize lhal God is c|rcc!q ncrc, in lhe Siril of
lheir coIIeclive.
LarIy in Chrisloher NoIan's 1nc Prcsiigc (2OO6), vhen a magician
erforms lhe lrick vilh a smaII bird vhich disaears in a cage on lhe labIe, a
smaII boy in lhe ubIic slarl lo cry, cIaiming lhal lhe bird vas kiIIed. The magician
aroaches him and hnishes lhe lrick, genlIy roducing a Iiving bird oul of his
handbul lhe boy is nol salished, insisling lhal lhis musl be anolher bird, lhe dead
one's brolher. Afler lhe shov, ve see lhe magician in lhe room behind lhe slage,
bringing in a allened cage and lhroving a squashed bird inlo a lrash binlhe boy
vas righl. The hIm describes lhe lhree slages of a magic erformance: lhe selu,
or lhe Iedge, vhere lhe magician shovs lhe audience somelhing lhal aears
ordinary, bul is robabIy nol, making use of misdireclion, lhe lurn, vhere lhe
magician makes lhe ordinary acl exlraordinary, and hnaIIy, lhe reslige, vhere
lhe effecl of lhe iIIusion is roduced. Is lhis lriIe movemenl nol lhe HegeIian
lriad al ils uresl` The lhesis (Iedge), ils calaslrohic negalion (lurn), and lhe
magicaI resoIulion of lhe calaslrohe (reslige)` And, as HegeI vas veII avare,
lhe calch is lhal, in order for lhe miracIe of lhe reslige lo occur, lhere musl
be somevhere a squashed, dead birdin 1nc Prcsiigc, il is lhe rivaI magician
Angier's drovned body.
We shouId lhus fearIessIy admil lhal lhere is somelhing of a chea
magician in HegeI, in lhe lrick of synlhesis, of Aujnc|ung (subIalion). IIlimaleIy,
lhere are onIy lvo olions, lvo vays lo accounl for lhis lrick, Iike lhe lvo versions
of lhe vuIgar doclor's |oke of hrsl-lhe-bad-nevs-lhen-lhe-good-nevs: (1) lhe
good nevs is good, bul il concerns cncincr sub|ecl (The bad nevs is lhal you
have lerminaI cancer and viII die in a monlh. The good nevs is: you see lhal
young beaulifuI nurse over lhere` I vas lrying lo gel her inlo bed for monlhs,
hnaIIy, yeslerday, she said yes, and ve made Iove lhe vhoIe nighl Iike crazy.),
(2) lhe good nevs is bad nevs ilseIf, from a differenl erseclive (The bad nevs
is lhal ve have discovered you have severe AIzheimer's disease. The good nevs
is lhe same: you have AIzheimer's, so you viII aIready forgel lhe bad nevs by
lhe lime you gel home.). The lrue HegeIian synlhesis is lhe synlhesis of lhese
lvo olions: lhe good nevs is lhe bad nevs ilseIfbul in order for us lo see
lhal, ve have lo shifl lo a differenl agenl (from lhe bird vhich dies lo anolher
one vhich reIaces il, from lhe cancer-ridden alienl lo lhe hay doclor, from
Chrisl as individuaI lo lhe communily of beIievers). In olher vords, lhe dead
bird remains dead, il rcc||q dies, as in lhe case of Chrisl vho is reborn as cncincr
sub|ecl, as HoIy Ghosl.
ne can releII in lhese lerms even lhe remark aIIegedIy made by rechl
in Sydney Hook's aarlmenl aroos of lhe accused al lhe Moscov shov lriaIs
!"#$%&' )**+ !"# "%&'%&( &#')#* +, -").+/+-"0
The Cunning of Reason: Lacan as a Reader of HegeI 113
in lhe 193Os:
In 1935 rechl visiled Hook's house in Manhallan. When Hook raised lhe queslion of
lhe recenl arresl and imrisonmenl of Zinoviev, Kamenev, and lhousands of olhers,
rechl is aIIeged by Hook lo have reIied caImIy in German: The more innocenl lhey
are, lhe more lhey deserve lo be shol. As Hook leIIs il, he lhen handed rechl his hal
and coal. rechl Iefl vilh a sickIy smiIe.
27

rechl's slalemenl is lhoroughIy ambiguousil can be read as lhe slandard
asserlion of lhe radicaI SlaIinisl (your very insislence on your individuaI
innocence, your refusaI lo sacrihce yourseIf for lhe Cause, bears vilness lo your
guiIl vhich resides in giving reference lo your individuaIily over lhe Iarger
inleresls of lhe Iarly), or il can be read as ils oosile, in a radicaIIy anli-SlaIinisl
vay: if lhey vere in a osilion lo Iol and execule lhe kiIIing of SlaIin and his
enlourage, and vere innocenl (lhal is, did nol gras lhe oorlunily and do il),
lhey effecliveIy deserved lo die for faiIing lo rid us of SlaIin. The lrue guiIl of lhe
accused is lhus lhal, inslead of re|ecling lhe very ideoIogicaI frame of SlaIinism
and rulhIessIy acling againsl SlaIin, lhey narcissislicaIIy feII in Iove vilh lheir
viclimizalion and eilher rolesled lheir innocence, or gol fascinaled by lhe uIlimale
sacrihce lhey deIivered lo lhe Iarly by confessing lheir non-exislenl crimes. So
lhe roer diaIeclicaI vay of grasing lhe imbricalion of lhese lvo meanings is
lo slarl vilh lhe hrsl reading, foIIoved by lhe common sense, moraIislic reaclion
lo rechl: ul hov can you cIaim somelhing so rulhIess` Can such a Iogic vhich
demands lhe bIind seIf-sacrihce for lhe accusalory vhims of lhe Leader nol
funclion onIy vilhin a lerrifying criminaI lolaIilarian universecfar from acceling
lhese ruIes, il is lhe duly of every elhicaI sub|ecl lo hghl such a universe vilh
aII means ossibIe, incIuding lhe hysicaI removaI (kiIIing) of lhe lolaIilarian
Ieadershi` So you see hov, if lhe accused vere innocenl, lhey deserve aII lhe
more lo be shollhey effecliveIy ucrc in a osilion lo organize a Iol lo rid us of
SlaIin and his henchmen, and missed lhis unique oorlunily lo sare humanily
from lerribIe crimes!
28
ne can aIso discern lhe same ambiguily in lhe infamous
slalemenl usuaIIy (aIlhough vrongIy) allribuled lo Herrmann Goering: When
I hear lhe vord 'cuIlure,' I reach for my isloI. Goering's inlended meaning
vas robabIy lhal he vas ready lo defend lhe high German cuIlure vilh arms,
if necessary, againsl lhe }evs and olher barbarians, hovever, lhe lrue meaning
is lhal he himseIf is lhe barbarian vho exIodes vilh vioIence vhen confronling
lrue vorks of cuIlure.
29
ack lo lhe loic of HegeI and Heidegger, vhal lhis means is lhal
Heidegger's nolion of dealh as lhe uIlimale oinl of imossibiIily lhal cannol
be diaIeclicaIIy subIaled, incIuded inlo a higher lolaIily, economized, is no
argumenl againsl HegeI: HegeI's reIy lo il is |usl lo shifl lhe erseclive and
erceive lhis negalivily ilseIf in ils osilive asecl, as a condilion of ossibiIily.
Whal aears as lhe uIlimale obslacIe is in ilseIf a osilive condilion of ossibiIily,
lhal is, lhe universe of meaning can onIy arise againsl lhe background of ils
annihiIalion. Iurlhermore, lhe roerIy diaIeclicaI reversaI is nol onIy lhe reversaI
of negalive inlo osilive, of condilion of imossibiIily inlo condilion of ossibiIily,
of obslacIe inlo enabIing agency, lhal ve encounler here, bul, simuIlaneousIy,
lhe reversaI of lranscendence inlo immanence, and lhe incIusion of lhe sub|ecl
!"# "%&'%&( &#')#* +, -").+/+-"0 !"#$%&' )**+
SIavo| Zizek 114
of enuncialion inlo lhe enuncialed conlenl.
CruciaI for lhe diaIeclicaI rocess is lhe reversaI-inlo-ilseIf, lhe shifl in
lhe slalus of vhal-is-al-slake from sign lo lhing ilseIf, from redicale lo sub|ecl:
vhal hrsl aears as a mere sign (roerly, reeclion, dislorlion) of lhe Thing,
lurns oul lo be lhe Thing ilseIf. If lhe Idea cannol adequaleIy reresenl ilseIf, if ils
reresenlalion is dislorled1dehcienl, lhen lhis dislorlion simuIlaneousIy signaIs
a Iimilalion1dehciency of lhe Idea ilseIf, and in order lo gel al lhe secuIalive
core of lhe HegeIian diaIeclics, one shouId make a sle furlher here: nol onIy does
lhe universaI Idea aIvays aear in a dislorled1disIaced vay, bul lhis Idea is
ncining |ui lhe dislorlion1disIacemenl, lhe seIf-inadequacy, of lhe IarlicuIar
vilh regard lo ilseIf.
This brings us lo lhe mosl radicaI dimension of lhe (in)famous idenlily
of lhe oosiles: insofar as conlradiclion is lhe HegeIian name for lhe ReaI,
lhis means lhal lhe ReaI is simu|icnccus|q lhe Thing lo vhich direcl access is nol
ossibIe cn! lhe obslacIe vhich revenls lhis direcl access, lhe Thing vhich eIudes
our gras cn! lhe dislorling screen vhich makes us miss lhe Thing. Is lhis nol
hov lrauma vorks` n lhe one hand, lrauma is lhe X lhal lhe sub|ecl is unabIe lo
aroach direclIy, lhal he can onIy erceive in a dislorled vay, lhrough some kind
of roleclive Ienses, aIIusions, roundaboul descrilions, and so on, never face lo
face. n lhe olher hand, hovever, for a sub|ecl vho exerienced ils shock, lrauma
aIso funclions as lhe very oosile of lhe inaccessibIe Thing-in-ilseIf vhich eIudes
his gras: as somelhing here, in me, lhal dislorls and dislurbs my erseclive
on reaIily, lvisling il in a arlicuIar vay. A voman vho vas brulaIIy raed and
humiIialed nol onIy cannol direclIy recaII lhe rae scene, lhe reressed memory
of lhe rae aIso dislorls her aroach lo reaIily, making her over-sensilive lo some
of ils asecls, ignoring olhers, and so on.
This brings us, unexecledIy, lo lhe queslion: vhal is a diaIeclicaI
seIf-deIoymenl of a nolion` Imagine, as a slarling oinl, our being caughl in
a comIex and confused emiricaI silualion vhich ve lry lo undersland, lo
bring some order inlo il. Since ve never slarl from lhe zero-oinl of ure, re-
nolionaI exerience, ve begin vilh lhe doubIe movemenl of direclIy aIying
lo lhis silualion lhe abslracl-universaI nolions al our disosaI, and of anaIyzing
lhe silualion, comaring ils eIemenls among lhemseIves and vilh our revious
exeriences, generaIizing, formuIaling emiricaI universaIs. Sooner or Ialer, ve
became avare of inconsislencies in lhe nolionaI schemes ve use lo undersland
lhe silualion: somelhing vhich shouId have been a subordinale secies seems
lo encomass and dominale lhe enlire fieId, differenl cIassificalions and
calegorizalions cIash, vilhoul us being abIe lo decide vhich one is more lrue,
and so on. In our sonlaneous mind-frame, ve dismiss such inconsislencies as
signs of lhe dehciency of our underslanding: reaIily is much loo rich and comIex
for our abslracl calegories, ve viII never be abIe lo deIoy a nolionaI nelvork
abIe lo calure ils enlire veaIlh. Then, hovever, if ve have a rehned lheorelicaI
sense, ve sooner or Ialer nolice somelhing slrange and unexecled: il is nol
ossibIe lo cIearIy dislinguish lhe inconsislencies of our nolion of an ob|ecl from
lhe inconsislencies vhich are immanenl lo lhis ob|ecl ilseIf. The lhing ilseIf is
inconsislenl, fuII of lensions, slruggIing belveen ils differenl delerminalions, and
lhe deIoymenl of lhese lensions, lhis slruggIe, is vhal makes il aIive. Take a
!"#$%&' )**+ !"# "%&'%&( &#')#* +, -").+/+-"0
The Cunning of Reason: Lacan as a Reader of HegeI 115
arlicuIar slale: vhen il maIfunclions, il is as if ils arlicuIar (secihc) fealures
are in lension vilh lhe universaI Idea of lhe Slale, or lake lhe Carlesian ccgiic:
lhe difference belveen myseIf as a arlicuIar erson embedded in a arlicuIar
Iife-vorId and myseIf as an abslracl Sub|ecl is arl of my very arlicuIar idenlily,
since lo acl as abslracl Sub|ecl is a fealure lhal characlerizes individuaIs in modern
Weslern sociely.
So vhen HegeI vriles lhal lhe concel is free sub|eclive concel
lhal is for ilseIf and lherefore ossesses pcrscnc|iiqlhe raclicaI, ob|eclive
concel delermined in and for ilseIf vhich, as erson, is imenelrabIe alomic
sub|eclivily,
30
he may aear lo make a meaningIess shorl-circuil belveen
lhe abslracl-IogicaI domain of concels, of nolionaI delerminalions, and lhe
sychoIogicaI domain of ersonaIily, of acluaI ersons. Hovever, uon a cIoser
Iook, one can cIearIy erceive his oinl: ersonaIily in ils imenelrabIe alomic
sub|eclivily, lhe abyss1void of lhe I beyond aII my osilive roerlies, is a
ccnccpiuc| singuIarily: il is lhe acluaIIy exisling abslraclion of lhe Concel. Thal
is, in il, in lhe imenelrabIe alomic sub|eclivily of lhe I, lhe negalive over of
lhe concel acquires acluaI exislence, becomes for ilseIf. And Lacan's barred
sub|ecl is reciseIy such a conceluaI singuIarily, a singuIarily devoid of any
sychoIogicaI conlenl. Il is in lhis recise sense lhal HegeI vriles:
The singuIar individuaI is, on ils ovn lerms, lhe lransilion of lhe calegory from ils
concel inlo exlernaI reaIily, il is ure schema ilseIf.
31
Lvery vord has ils fuII veighl in lhis recise and condensed roosilion.
The sub|ecl in ils uniqueness, far from slanding for lhe singuIarily of exislence
irreducibIe lo any universaI nolion (lhe idea varied endIessIy by Kierkegaard in
his crilique of HegeI), is reciseIy lhe oosile: lhe vay lhe universaIily of a nolion
asses over inlo exlernaI reaIily, lhal is, acquires acluaI exislence as arl of lhis
lemoraI reaIily. The roerIy diaIeclicaI lvisl here is, of course, lhal universaIily
acquires acluaI exislence in lhe guise of ils very oosile, of lhe relraclion of lhe
muIliIicily of reaIily inlo ure singuIarily. Since exlernaI reaIily is dehned by
ils saliolemoraI coordinales, lhe sub|ecl in his or her acluaIily has lo exisl in
lime, as lhe seIf-subIalion of sace in lime, and since he or she is lhe nolion lhal
acquires lemoraI exislence, lhis lemoraIily can onIy be lhal of a scheme in
Kanl's sense of lhe lerm, lhal is, lhe a riori lemoraI form lhal mediales belveen
lhe alemoraI conceluaI universaIily and lhe saliolemoraI exlernaI reaIily.
ConsequenlIy, since exlernaI reaIily is correIalive lo lhe sub|ecl lhal conslilules il
lranscendenlaIIy, lhis sub|ecl is lhe ure scheme of lhis reaIilynci simIy ils
lranscendenlaI horizon, lhe frame of a riori calegories of Reason, bul ils scncmc,
lhe a riori form of lemoraI hnilude ilseIf, inc icmpcrc| ncrizcn cj inc cicmpcrc| a
riori iisc|j. Therein resides lhe aradox (lovards vhich Heidegger, in his Kcni
cn! inc Prc||cm cj Mcicpnqsics, vas lhe hrsl lo oinl): lhe ure I as lhe agenl of
lranscendenlaI synlhesis is nol above alemoraI calegories of reason, bul lhe
scheme of lemoraI hnilude vhich deIineales lhe heId of lheir aIicalion.
!"# "%&'%&( &#')#* +, -").+/+-"0 !"#$%&' )**+
SIavo| Zizek 116
Ncics
1
This arlicIe is an exanded version of a iece lhal originaIIy aeared as Lacan as Reader
of HegeI in Icccnicn |n|, Issue ~27, The Woosler Iress 2OO6.
2
}acques Lacan, |criis. 1nc rsi ccmp|cic c!iiicn in |ng|isn, Nev York: Norlon 2OO6, . 1O2.
(Irom nov on referred lo as |.)
3
If, measured by loday's slandards, lhis goaI of uniling HegeI and Heidegger cannol bul
aear bIalanlIy inconsislenl, one shouId remember lhe cruciaI roIe of AIexandre Ko|ve in
Lacan's deveIomenllo his end, Lacan referred lo Ko|ve as his malre (lhe onIy olher malre
being lhe sychialrisl CIerambauIl). Ko|ve's cenlraI lenel vas reciseIy lo bring logelher HegeI
and Heidegger, lhal is, lo read HegeI's molifs of negalivily and exemIariIy, lhe slruggIe-lo-dealh
belveen lhe (fulure) Masler and SIave, lhrough Heidegger's loic of being-lovards-dealh.
4
|, . 79. SignihcanlIy, lhese aragrahs vere revrillen for |criisil vouId be inleresling
lo anaIyze in delaiI hov, in his revriling of lhe Rcppcri for ils ubIicalion in |criis in 1966, Lacan
deseraleIy lried lo erase (or, al Ieasl, diIule) lhe lraces of his HegeIianism.
5
|, . 84.
6
G.W.I. HegeI, Icciurcs cn inc Pni|cscpnq cj Rc|igicn, voI. III, Los AngeIes: Iniversily of
CaIifornia Iress 1987, . 188.
7
|, . 79.
8
|, . 96.
9
G.W.I. HegeI, }enaer ReaIhiIosohie, Wcr|c 5-6, Hamburg: Meiner VerIag 1967, . 199.
IncidenlaIIy, lhe lexl goes on: Through cunning, lhe viIIing becomes jcmininclhe feminine
assivily is lhus for HegeI nol inferior lo man's, bul suerior lo il: il is a assivily lhal Iels lhe
(maIe) olher undermine ilseIf.
1O
|, . 114.
11
G.W.I. HegeI, Vcr|csungcn u|cr !ic Gcscnicnic !cr Pni|cscpnic, and I, Leizig: VerIag IhiIIi
RecIam |unior 1971, . 581.
12
G.W.I. HegeI, Pncncmcnc|cgq cj Spirii, xford: xford Iniversily Iress 1977, . 288.
13
I ove lhis insighl lo MIaden DoIar, Prcscpcpccic, L|ubI|ana: AnaIecla 2OO6, . 186.
14
MIaden DoIar, Prcscpcpccic, . 214-215.
15
Roberl Iiin, 1nc Pcrsisicncc cj Su|jcciitiiq, Cambridge: Cambridge Iniversily Iress
2OO5, . 78.
16
|, . 194.
17
|, . 34O.
18
|, . 341.
19
|, . 341.
2O
|, . 342.
21
Which accounls for lhe cIear resence of lhe molif of cunning of reason in Marx's
lheorelicaI edihce, for examIe, in his remarks on lhe resuIls of lhe LngIish coIoniaI ruIe in India,
Marx cIaimed hov, in sile of aII lhe deslruclive effecls uon Indian sociely, lhe coIonizalion
viII ush India inlo modernily.
22
Iiin, o. cil., . 64.
23
Iiin, o. cil., . 67.
24
Pncncmcnc|cgq cj Spirii, . 56.
25
Pncncmcnc|cgq cj Spirii, . 19.
26
Iiin, o. cil., . 77-78.
27
David Caule, 1nc Dcnccr Dcjccis, xford: xford Iniversily Iress 2OO3, . 299.
28
AIlhough lhe same reversaI aIso vorks in lhe oosile direclion. RecenlIy in SIovenia,
lhe ubIic roseculor slarled a rocedure againsl an oId Communisl funclionary invoIved in
shov lriaIs and mass kiIIings vilhoul lriaI of lhe members of lhe SIovene anli-Communisl unils
imrisoned immedialeIy afler lhe end of lhe WWII. Afler lhe evenl vas announced in lhe media,
I accidenlaIIy mel anolher unreenlanl oId Communisl cadre and asked him for a reaclion, lo
my surrise, he loId me lhal lhe accused funclionary fuIIy deserved lhe harshesl unishmenl,
and he added: Nol for vhal he is accused, of course, bul for his lrue crime, decades Ialer, of
aIIoving lhe Communisls lo Iose over!
!"#$%&' )**+ !"# "%&'%&( &#')#* +, -").+/+-"0
The Cunning of Reason: Lacan as a Reader of HegeI 117
29
This, of course, in no vay eIevales rechl above elhico-oIilicaI susicion. The case againsl
rechl vas succinclIy ul by W.H. Auden: To offer your arl in vocaI suorl of lhe Iarly is one
lhing. To do so and sii|| kee a boIl-hoIe and nesl-egg is quile anolher. . . . Irom lhe momenl
of his esousaI of Communism, rechl slood on lhe sideIines, cheering on a arly he mosl
emhalicaIIy did nol vish lo |oin, recommending lhal olhers submil lo a disciIine vhich he
himseIf refused.(Quoled in Caule, o. cil., . 3OO) So vhen rechl, lhe GDR Siccis!icnicr vilh
an Auslrian assorl and a Sviss bank accounl, vrole in his oem In Dark Times againsl lhe
oels vho remain siIenl in limes of oression (Ialer generalions von'l say: lhe limes vere
dark 1 Ralher, vhy vere lhese oels siIenl`, one shouId effecliveIy raise lhe queslion: So vhy
vas he himseIf siIenl vhenever lhe dark Iaces of lhe ISSR and lhe inlernalionaI Communisl
movemenl vere concerned`(. cil., ibid.)
3O
G.W.I. HegeI, Scicncc cj Icgic, London: AIIen and Invin 1969, . 824.
31
Pncncmcnc|cgq cj Spirii, . 143.