27.12.2013 Views

1 Theorising Agency in International Relations In Hobbes's Wake ...

1 Theorising Agency in International Relations In Hobbes's Wake ...

1 Theorising Agency in International Relations In Hobbes's Wake ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

subject that function as anchor<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>ts, where the signifier and the signified are knotted together. The<br />

analogy here is that the upholstery button is a place where the mattress-maker’s needle has worked to<br />

prevent a shapeless mass of stuff<strong>in</strong>g from shift<strong>in</strong>g about. It becomes the organiz<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t runn<strong>in</strong>g<br />

through broader discourses, a form of overarch<strong>in</strong>g referent po<strong>in</strong>t for multiple <strong>in</strong>dividual utterances; not<br />

unlike the l<strong>in</strong>es radiat<strong>in</strong>g from the upholstery button on the mattress’s surface. While Lacan co<strong>in</strong>ed the<br />

concept to analyse the <strong>in</strong>dividual’s discourse, the concept was developed <strong>in</strong> his wake to analyse political<br />

discourses at large (Laclau and Mouffe 1985, Edk<strong>in</strong>s 1999, Stavrakakis 1999, Zizek 2003). It constitutes a<br />

key signifier that unifies the discursive field, fix<strong>in</strong>g the mean<strong>in</strong>g of otherwise open-ended and often<br />

ambiguous terms, or ‘essentially contested concepts’ as Walter Gallie’s called them (see Gellner 1974<br />

for a discussion), ‘such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’. Slavoj Zizek (2003, 282), for example, shows how,<br />

under communism, certa<strong>in</strong> signifiers, such as ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’ and ‘the state’, acquired a<br />

particular mean<strong>in</strong>g when ‘quilted’ by the signifier/po<strong>in</strong>t de capiton ‘communism’. The same words rang<br />

quite differently <strong>in</strong> the West where they were ‘quilted’ otherwise.<br />

These signifiers, however, designate a political order, not the order underly<strong>in</strong>g the possibility of<br />

politics itself. This is precisely what Hobbes nailed with the Leviathan. What the signifier-Leviathan<br />

designates <strong>in</strong> Hobbes’s political thought is noth<strong>in</strong>g short of the symbolic itself. As such, and albeit to<br />

Schmitt’s dismay, it has to be open-ended, its mean<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong>exhaustible. It necessarily eludes all attempts<br />

to p<strong>in</strong> it down to a set number of signified, because it operates as the master signifier that designates<br />

the symbolic at large. Just as the ‘quilt<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t’ is the po<strong>in</strong>t at which a signifier is knotted to the<br />

otherwise <strong>in</strong>determ<strong>in</strong>ate and float<strong>in</strong>g signified, the Leviathan is the <strong>in</strong>stance that fastens the otherwise<br />

ever shift<strong>in</strong>g and always relative mean<strong>in</strong>g of ‘good’ to a fixed, objective and commonly agreed upon set<br />

of understand<strong>in</strong>gs as to what constitutes the Good.<br />

28

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!