As part of the panel “Freedom, Citizenship, and Right-Wing Challenges to Democracy”, I presented my talk titled “S/M as a Category of Political Philosophy to Understand the Outbreak of the Right Wing of Politics: A Foucauldian Approach”, which is outlined below:
“It is my distinct pleasure to begin by expressing my sincerest gratitude to the Organizing Committee of this esteemed conference for affording me the privilege of sharing my research findings with such a distinguished audience. Your tireless efforts and unwavering dedication to bringing this event to fruition are truly appreciated. I would also like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to King’s College London for its gracious hospitality and for providing me with the opportunity to present my work within the hallowed halls of this venerable institution. The rich history and tradition of excellence that permeate this esteemed university are a source of inspiration to me, and I am deeply grateful for the privilege of being a part of this community, albeit briefly.
The inclusion of the concept of sadomasochism in the title of my presentation may, understandably, raise certain expectations and potentially lead to confusion. Given the prominent role of psychoanalytic theory in pathologizing sadomasochistic practices, as well as the extensive exploration of sexuality in the work of Michel Foucault, it is reasonable to think that this discussion will revolve around the intersections of desire, power, and identity. However, I would like to preemptively clarify that my analysis seeks to traverse a distinct trajectory, one that diverges from the more established discourses surrounding sadomasochism in the realms of psychoanalysis and sexuality studies.
I propose to deliberately subvert the intuitive trajectory of discussions surrounding sadomasochism, which often gravitate toward the realm of sexuality or the interpretive frameworks of psychoanalysis. Instead, I aim to excavate the intricate dynamics of power and control that underpin sadomasochistic practices, situating them within a broader discourse on the operations of power in societal contexts. By eschewing the more obvious and oft-trodden paths of sexualized or psychoanalytic interpretations, this examination seeks to illuminate the nuanced and multifaceted nature of power relations, revealing the ways in which sadomasochism can serve as a paradigmatic lens through which to understand the complex interplay of dominance, submission, and resistance.
The purpose of my talk is to propose an approach to our present era, a frustrating political moment in which we’ve seen the re-emergence of some right-wing political movements and the rise to power of leaders who have no qualms about disregarding human rights and democracy. But before proceeding, I would like to outline the structure of this presentation and clarify the scope of my discussion. Given the time constraints, I will focus on presenting the central thesis of my argument, rather than delving into an exhaustive examination of the topic. To begin, I will explain what I mean by the distinctive characteristics of contemporary power, drawing on the work of several contemporary political thinkers who have built upon and moved beyond Foucault’s insights. Next, I will situate the category of sadomasochism, as understood by Michel Foucault, within this context, while also exploring the resonances of this idea in the work of two other key thinkers. Finally, I will provide an illustrative example that will allow us to evaluate the pertinence of my analysis.
As I said before, I depart from the premise that the manner in which power manifests itself and its dynamics present characteristics that distinguishes it from modern power. As a matter of fact, in a significant number of countries, the political response to neoliberalism has been marked by a democratic regression, as demonstrated by a decline in the autonomy of the judiciary and financial authorities, an escalation in media control, and the manipulation of electoral processes for the purpose of authoritarian control. The economic dynamics and the impact of neoliberalism, understood as the deregulation and liberalisation of markets, are just one of the factors contributing to this authoritarian shift.
According to some political thinkers there is a kind of global trend characterized by the rhetoric and policies of exclusion and marginalization of specific groups, along with rising reactionary populism, nativism, racism, and xenophobia. For instance, Wendy Brown points out that these trends increase the risk of anti-democratic political leadership and lead to the erosion of foundational elements in liberal democratic societies, which previously seemed stable and enduring but now appear more vulnerable. In relation with it, some thinkers have observed how right-wing political movements are emboldened to demand policies that permit, or even encourage, the undermining of constitutionalism and the rule of law, “while these movements {I QUOTE}also attracted support not only from the white, uneducated, evangelical Christian white population – animated by discontent, anger or hurt – but also from educated whites, racial minorities, ultra-rich, ultra-Zionists and the alt-right”..
In a political era in which, as Tocqueville would have argued, people simply choose their ‘guardians’ and enjoy a relative degree of autonomy and freedom, neoliberalism became uncertain to the extent that the idea of freedom has been remodelled to justify political movements that are oppressive and undemocratic. That is to say, undermining equal rights, civil liberties and tolerance, as well as promoting white nationalism, authoritarianism and social exclusion, ending, finally, with the displacement of the social and the political by a combination of markets and traditionalist morality, which is a sign of a depoliticising logic that builds on the ‘distrust of the political and the disavowal of the social’. Or, as Robin Celikates states, with the subtraction of decision-making from public participation and contestation, framing technical decisions and issues to be resolved by experts rather than political issues open to debate.
Now, the crux of the issue pertains to the advent of antidemocratic politics, which has precipitated a crisis in the manner in which these phenomena are categorised and comprehended. The present moment is characterised by a proliferation of authoritarianism, reactionary populism, nativism, racism, and xenophobia on a global scale, which poses a substantial challenge to the field of political analysis. The fundamental issue underlying this challenge is the inability of these movements to be accommodated within the confines of prevailing political classifications, thereby engendering a state of perplexity and analytical impediment for observers. The absence of ideological consistency within these movements enables them to amalgamate incongruous elements in unanticipated ways. For instance, the convergence of concepts of statism and nationalism with neoliberal principles of freedom gives rise to a hybrid political entity that defies straightforward categorization. Consequently, conventional approaches to political analysis are often unable to adequately address the challenges posed by these hybrid movements. Furthermore, the antipolitical stance adopted by these groups, characterised by a rejection of conventional politics, processes and institutions, serves to further complicate our understanding of the issue. This rejection has the effect of undermining the frameworks that typically allow for nuanced analysis. The result is a heightening of the challenge of addressing the complexities and dynamics of these emergent trends.
Accordingly, taking it as acknowledged that there exists a tension between the necessity for classification and the elusiveness of right-wing eruptions, the aim of my research has been to propose a theoretical category which has the capacity to comprehend the intricacies and inherent tightness of contemporary power dynamics.
As previously noted in the introduction to this presentation, my analysis draws upon Michel Foucault’s approach to sadomasochism. Im quoting just an extract, from one on his last interviews, which encapsulates Foucault’s perspective on this topic:
I think what we have here is a kind of creation, a creative enterprise, one of the main features of which is what I call the desexualisation of pleasure. The idea that physical pleasure always comes from sexual pleasure, and the idea that sexual pleasure is the basis of all possible pleasures, I think is really something wrong. What SM practices show us is that we can get pleasure from very strange objects, by using certain strange parts of our bodies, in very unusual situations, and so on. The idea that sexual pleasure is the basis of all possible pleasures is really wrong. End of quotation.
What is important for us is that Foucault here conceptualizes “creation” as a process of innovation and experimentation in the experience of pleasure, entailing a reinvention of pleasure beyond the traditional normative dimensions of sexuality. In this sense, “creation” refers to the ability to invent and experiment with new forms of pleasure, beyond traditional sexual norms and conventions. Foucault observes this as a form of liberation and empowerment, as it allows individuals to take control of their own pleasure experience and create new forms of enjoyment and satisfaction. Furthermore, Foucault suggests that this creation of new forms of pleasure can be a form of resistance to dominant norms and powers that seek to control and regulate sexuality. By creating new forms of pleasure, individuals can challenge and subvert the norms and expectations imposed upon them.
Nevertheless, whilst drawing upon the conceptual framework developed within the philosophical tradition of Michel Foucault, my research does not restrict itself solely to that tradition. I propose to make echo with other key theoretical touchstones: On the one hand, notwithstanding his philosophical distinction between the sadist and the masochist and his insistence that they should not be considered part of a unitary phenomenon, it is important for our discussion to focus on Gilles Deleuze’s contributions to the disentangling of masochism from the psychoanalytic field and demonstrate its relevance to social or political relationships. On the other hand, Slavoj Žižek, since he refers to masochism as the sole means of ‘suspending the fundamental abstraction and coldness of capitalist subjectivity,’ which consists of an audacious gesture of outreach to the suffering other, wherein one must first dismantle the entrenched abstraction, foreclosure, and blindness to others’ pain inherent to capitalist subjectivity, thereby facilitating a transition to revolutionary subjectivity.
Evidently, this should not be viewed as an experiment that overlooks the significant differences in the epistemological and methodological foundations of philosophers from various traditions. In this context, I argue that, despite their differing perspectives on masochism, there is common ground between Deleuze and Žižek concerning its subversive and creative potential. Deleuze describes masochism as a form of destructive jouissance, while Žižek recognizes its role in expressing excessive desire. However, a closer examination can reveal that both theorists understand that masochism cannot be simply reduced to a matter of pain or pleasure. Instead, they propose a more complex and nuanced dynamic at play within masochism. Consequently, even when we delve into a sexual practice that Foucault passionately discussed—and for some, perhaps even tried out—we can still grasp with it the intricacies of contemporary power dynamics. Moreover, rather than dogmatically using Foucault’s categories exegetically interpreted beforehand –something that has and continues to be pursued by a large group of philosophers–, I have decided to employ additional categories provided by other contemporary political and social thinkers to advance my own critical project.
But let’s talk about our current political situation and to begin with let me exemplify by introducing you to a familiar one.
Javier Milei, the president of Argentina, has always been characterized by his insulting behavior, raised fists, loud shouting, and unhinged expressions since he first became prominent. He has insulted many local politicians, including those who now support him. Milei won the presidency with the backing of over 50% of the electorate, which included votes from marginalized groups who are now facing the consequences of his budget cuts. Upon assuming office, he dismissed the importance of parliament, referring to it as a “rat’s nest” just two months later. When announcing layoffs in the public administration, he dramatically shouted, “Get out!” and contemptuously told workers to “go back to work.” When warned that cuts to public works could prevent infrastructure, like sewers, from being built in small towns, he callously responded, “I’m sorry; if you cannot pay for it, you won’t have it.” He labeled governors as corrupt, promising to “melt them all down,” and even made an offensive comparison of one with Down syndrome. Despite this aggressive approach, many in the public opinion acknowledge that Milei was upfront about his intentions during his campaign, and today he continues to act on the promises he made. It’s worth noting that this violence extends well beyond mere public speeches or expressions; it permeates actual public policies. Consider the dismantling of the National Palliative Care Programme at the National Cancer Institute. This program was essential, providing morphine and methadone to all 24 jurisdictions in the country, primarily to treat severe cancer pain in the poorest provinces. Its removal has had a profound effect on the healthcare system. Additionally, the government has proposed a preliminary budget for fiscal year 2025 that includes an alarming 76% reduction in funding for the prevention of HIV, viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted infections, and tuberculosis. This decision clearly represents a significant departure from the earlier commitment to fund essential medicines and supplies for these crucial public health initiatives.
The fact is that every single wednesday since several months ago, an increasing amount of people protest in front of the national parliament,. Most of them are aged people who are dealing with hunger because of Milei’s pension and economic policies have affected the economic capacities of retirees, who cannot even afford the cost of their medications. Milei’s government represses them violently every single wednesday. And the point is not that Milei’s policies are sadistic, which in my opinion is out of controversy, but the weekly people’s reaction against them, despite the cruelty aggression they know they are going to receive from the police. Could it be possible that these bloody protest lead us to some better situation? We don’t know.
But allow me to give a second example.
As many of us know, In Euripides’ masterful retelling, Medea and Jason’s tumultuous relationship unfolds in Corinth, a city that offered them sanctuary after their exile from Yolcos. Yet, as the tragedy begins, Jason’s betrayal becomes apparent, as he forsakes Medea to wed Creon’s daughter and ascend to the throne. Humiliated and wounded, Medea sets in motion a plan to restore her honour. Her response to Jason’s perfidy is a descent into darkness, one that surpasses the bounds of mere retribution. In a bold and devastating twist, Euripides presents Medea as the architect of her own children’s demise, a heinous act born of jealousy and a desire to punish Jason’s treachery. The poet’s portrayal of Medea is a nuanced exploration of the destructive power of passion, as her rage and heartbreak converge in a catastrophic reprisal that annihilates not only her rival, but also her own flesh and blood.
Euripides’ tragedy nor various interpretations of the Medea myth are the primary focus of this study, although they provide a relevant context. It is undisputed that Medea killed her babies to punish her husband for abandoning her. However, what other inferences could we draw from Medea’s actions? The question must therefore be posed: is the act merely a manifestation of spite, driven by resentment and jealousy? In order to comprehend this phenomenon, it is necessary to analyse the roles of women in ancient Greece. It is evident that women were often subject to the authority of their spouses, fathers, or guardians, reflecting their perceived inferiority. This perception can be attributed to the prevailing Greek notion that women’s actions were primarily driven by emotions and passions, rather than reason. This perception was further entrenched by prominent philosophers and literary figures of the time, including Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, who attributed women’s inferiority to their inherent nature and the absence of education. Aristotle, in particular, justified women’s subjugation based on their perceived passivity in reproduction. This perspective is also evident in early literary works, where women are often depicted as being governed by instinct rather than reason, leading to moral weakness and untrustworthiness. Consequently, women were relegated to domestic roles, reproduction, and family preservation.
Notwithstanding the fact that the poem is not that of Medea herself, but rather of Euripides, a male, the aforementioned reference to the context could not be regarded as trivial, as the filicide committed by the heroine implies two significant aspects. On the one hand, Medea did not merely kill Jason’s new wife, but also took the lives of her own children, who, although not explicitly mentioned as objects of Medea’s love in the tragedy, represent the culmination of the sole mission attributed to women in ancient Greece. On the other hand, this painful act simultaneously subverts, in the poetic realm, both the silence imposed upon women throughout the centuries and the malignity and infidelity attributed to them. In other words, Medea challenges the traditional image of womanhood, not only by negating her maternal instinct but also by transgressing the norms imposed by society, invading the public sphere, an exclusive domain of the Greek male, and abandoning the private sphere traditionally assigned to women.
In this sense, it can be argued that Medea sought to escape the oppressive constraints of her time, and in masochism, she discovered an unconventional yet potent means of achieving this objective. In ancient Greece, women were subjects of oppression, subjected to a relationship of domination that extended beyond the family sphere and into the political realm with unparalleled ferocity. Greek women were deprived of their political rights, denied a voice or vote in the Ecclesia, barred from administrative or executive positions, and unable to serve on a jury or deliver public speeches. The prevailing social order was such that silence was considered the highest virtue for women. However, this silence was not merely a virtue; rather, it served as a form of oppression, a means of maintaining women in their designated role, thereby preventing them from articulating their thoughts and feelings. The prevailing Greek view of women as inherently inferior, and thus incapable of governing themselves, was further entrenched by the belief that they lacked the right to participate in public life. While acknowledging their necessity for the development of social life, the prevailing sentiment was that their opinions held little value and their existence was scarcely tolerated. Legally speaking, they were considered inferior beings, without rights or protections. It is important to note that the discourse surrounding this issue often suggests that the use of the term ‘discrimination’ is inappropriate in this context, as if forms of oppression and exclusion do not constitute discrimination. Aristotle himself articulated this perspective explicitly: “And also in the relationship between male and female, by nature, one is superior and the other inferior, one commands and the other obeys.” The democratic system in ancient Greece was regarded as a farce, a system created by and for men, with women being disregarded, their voices silenced, and their humanity overlooked.
Consequently, Medea’s mythological narrative transcends the confines of mere jealousy. It provides a comprehensive representation of ancient Greek political society and offers a compelling instance of the mechanisms of power during that historical period. Whilst the majority of psychological and psychoanalytic studies of masochism have focused exclusively on its sexual aspect, my analysis contends that, in spite of the apparent intricacy of the relationship between family politics and sexuality, it is imperative to acknowledge the notion that sadomasochism is, in essence and at its core, a political phenomenon rather than a sexual one.
So, if we compare these power relationships, I mean Milei’s government and Euripides Medea, with those at the center of masochism,parallels begin to emerge that are impossible to ignore, and I would like to point them out.
The violent repression of protests by the government of Milei can be seen as a manifestation of the sadomasochistic dynamics of power and control, as described by Foucault. In this context, the government’s use of force against the protesters can be seen as a form of domination that seeks to crush the resistance and maintain control. This dynamic is eerily reminiscent of the myth of Medea, where the titular character’s actions are driven by a desire for power and control, and her violence is a manifestation of her own feelings of powerlessness.
However, Foucault’s analysis might not fully capture the complexities of this situation, particularly in terms of the ideological and economic context that underpins the government’s actions. This is where Deleuze’s perspective can be useful, highlighting the ways in which the protesters are seeking to create a “line of flight” that resists the dominant structures of power. Deleuze’s emphasis on the creative potential of desire and the importance of resisting dominant structures can help to illuminate the ways in which the protesters are seeking to challenge the existing power dynamics.
Meanwhile, Žižek’s perspective can help to situate the violent repression within the broader context of the capitalist system and the ideological narratives that underpin it. By highlighting the ways in which ideology shapes our perceptions of reality and informs our actions, Žižek’s analysis can help to reveal the underlying structures of power that are driving the government’s response to the protests. In this sense, the government’s actions can be seen as a form of ideological violence that seeks to maintain the existing power structures and suppress dissent.
By combining these perspectives, we would gain a more nuanced understanding of the complex dynamics at play in this situation, and how the government’s actions are driven by a desire for power and control that is reminiscent of the myth of Medea.
Thank you.”
