E,thics

\A'O ES \\AR

A st'rit's liorn

Versr> erlitt'cl bv Slauri ZiTck

llb r.s uar, toll ith u,enlcn - \I'hrrt il itru.s,I shall t orru' irtlo hrittg - is
l ' r - e r r r l ' sv e r - s i o n o f t h c I i n l i g l r t c n m ( ' r ) t g o a l o f ' k n o n l c d q e

An Essayon the
[Jnderstanding of Evil

that is in

Is it still possitrle t() [)rlrs(rc this goal

t o c l l r r ' i, n t h e c o r r t l i t i o r r so f l u t t ' c a p i t : r l i s r n - rI f i t ' t o t l a v i s t l r t ' t t ' i r r

itst'll an act of libcration.

nrle o{ pragrnatic-rt:l:rtivist Nt'rv Sophists ancl Nel

Age obscrtr':rnt-

ists,rvhat'sltall corrre into being' irr its placc? The pltmiss of tirc
s c l i e s i s t h a t t h c e x p l o s i v e c o n t b i r u r t i o n o l [ - : r c a r r i l i t rp s v c h o a r t a l v s i s
arrcl N{arxist trirrlition det()nates :r rlrrrilnic frcerlorrr th:rt enal)l('s us

ALAIN BADIOU

t o q r r e s t i o r r t h e r v c n p r e s r r p p o s i t i o r r so f t l r e c i l c u i t o f O a p i t a l .

In tltr' sunu' stries:

.|erenrv llentltirrn.
Milan RoZovii
,\lain (]rosricltard.

'l'ht

Translated and introduced by

lltrLolttittrt ll'ritirtg.s.[.clitt'd arrcl introclttct:rl ]x

'l'he

Petcr Hallward

Sulktn'.s Oourl: liuroputn I'artta.sicsol lltt liu.sl.

Tlanslatccl br' [.iz Heron anrl introrlucerl br' \lladen L)olar

Renata S'alecl, (ltcr)lter'.sit,rt.s
of l.rnc unrl Hate
Slav<rj Zi7ck,
( )uusality
SlaNrj ZiZek,

l'lu :\lctasluscs ol l'.njr4nt,n.l: ^\i.r ..rrzulrort Womt:n antl

'l'fu

Inditti.tible lftntairrrlt:

An lr.rvrr on Sthcllina' und

Iitlated Ialt.er.s
'l'hrc
I'lagre rl litnt.uie.s
Slavoj Ziiek.
'l'hc
'|'he't'itkt,ish
Sul4ed:
Slavr>iZiiek,
,lbsenI Oentreof kliti(al

(hr.toktsr

Slavoj ZiZek, Did,SrnneodtSrq'l'otulilarirmi.sm? l'it,e !ntentcntiorts in t,he

(t\li.s)useoJ a Nolitn
Alerrka Zupirrrii, b)thirs of the Rcal: Kunt, Larart

VERSO
London . New York

$23U- S. A$3296

DOES THE OTHER EXIST?

presses all gentrine experience of the Other', :rrrcl bars th{

way to an ethical opening to alterity. So we rnust push
thought

Does the Other Exist?

Thc conception o{'ctlrics as thr: 'ethics of the other' or the

'ethics
of clifTrence' has its orisin in the theses of Emmantrcl l,vinas rathcr than in those of Kant.
l,vinirs has devoted his work, after a brush rvith phenomcnoloq!' (an exertrplary cclnfrontaticln betrveen Husserl and
I{eirleuger),

to the deposing ldestitutionl of philosophy in

favour of ethics. It is to hirn that we owe, lone before the
currer)t fashion, a kind of ethicirl radicalisrn.'

I Ethics

according

l9

to Lvinas

over to a diflrent

oripin, a non-(lreek

origirr.

one th:rt propose.s a raclical, prirnary openiDg to the Other

I
t o r r c c i r e d a s o n t ( ) l o g i c a l l va n t e r i o r t o t h e c o n s t r r r c t i o n( ) l
|
/
i < l c n t i t r . l t i s i n t h e . f e r v i s ht r a d i t i o n t h a t L v i n a s f i n d s t h e
I
/
llrsis lol this prrslrinu over'. \4hat tlre l.an (rrrrderstood
|
/
i r <r ' < r l d i r t gt o . f e r t i s l r t r a d i t i o r r a s b o t l t i m r n e r t t o r i a l a n < l c r r r - I
/
r-enth' in elfect) names is precisel,"-the anteriot'ity, t,,,,rcled
/ V
in beins-before-the-Same, and rvith respect to theoretical f
thousht, of the ethics of the relation t() thc ()ther, itselt
I
'oltjectivc'
i<lentification ol regtrcorrceivecl merely as the
[
lalitics and iclentities. The l,arv, indeed, does rot tcll nre
\
whirt is. but rvhat is imposed bv the existencc of othcrs.
I
'fhis
[.arv (oI the Other) might bc opposed to thc larrs (t>l I
tlr. r'c:rl).
f\
.\ccordinq t0 (ireek thorrght, adequate actiorr presunrcs
lun irritinl theorcticirl mastcr of exper-ience, rthich cnsrlres
tlrat thc actit'rrris in conforrnitv with tlte rationality of beine.
Frotn this point of clepaltnre are clecluced lar,r's(in tlie
lrlrrral; of the (litv ancl of action. Accorcling to.lcrvish ethics.

Rotrghlv

in l.r'inirs's sense, cverythine is grounded in thc inrnrediacy

ol arr openins to the Other which clisarnrs the reflexir,e
strbject.-fhe'thotr Itz] 'prevails ovcr the'I'. Such is the

at an authentic thousht of the Other (and thus an ethics

of thc relation to the Other) fiom the despotisrn of the
Silme, which is incirpable of recosnizing this Other. The
dialectic of ttre Same and the Other, conceived 'ontologi-

rvlr<rlerneaning of t.heLaw.
Li'r'inas proposcs a rvhole series of phcnornenological
themes for testins and explorine the orieinality of' the
()therr, at the centre of which lies the therne of the face, of
tlrc sitrsular givitrg ldonation) of the Other 'in person',
thror,rsh his lleshly epiphany, whicl-r does not resr mimeric
recoerrition (the Other as 'similar', identical r() me), but,
on the contrary. is that from which I experience myself

speaking: Lvinas rnaintains that rnetaphysics,

irnprisonecl by its Greek origins, has subordinated thousht
to the losic of tl'rr: Same, to the primacv of substnnce ancl
irlentitr,. But, accordins to L.vinas,it is impossiltlc to arrive

callv' urrder the clominance

of selidentity fidentit--soi),
ensures thc absence of the Other in effcctive thotrght, sup-

I
t

/
V

20

'pledged'
ethically as
to the appearine of the Other, and
subordinated in my being to this pledge.
For l,vinas, ethics is the nau name of thought, thousht
which has thrown off its 'logical' chains (the principle of
idcntity) in favour of its prophetic strbmissionto the l,aw of
founding alterity.

II The 'ethics of difference'

Whether thel' knorv it or n<>t,it i.s in the name of this
confisuration that the proponents of ethics explain to us
todar,that it amounts to 'recr.rgnitionof the other' (against
racism, which woulcl deny this other), or to'the ethics of
diflrences' (asainstsubstantialistnationalism,which would
exclude immigrants, or sexism,which would deny femininebeing), or to 'multiculturalism' (againstthe imposition of a
unified model of behaviour and intellectual approach). Or,
qtrite sirnply, to good old-fashioned 'tolerance', which consistsof not being ofInded by the fct that others think and
act dif'erently from you.
This cornrnonsensical discourse has neither f<rrce nor
truth. It is defeated in advance in the competirion it
declaresbetween 'tolerance' and 'lnaticism',between 'the
ethics of difference' and 'racism', between 'recognition of
the other' and 'iclentitarian' fixity.
For the honour of philosophy, it is first of all necessaryto
admit that this ideolosy of a 'risht to difference', rhe
contemporary catechism of goodwill with regard to 'other
cultures', are strikinely distant from Lvinas'sactual concep
tion of thines.

2l

D O I ] S ' T H EO T H E R E X I S T ' ?

ETHICS

III From the Other to the Altogether-Other

The principal - but also fairly superficial - objection that
rvc might

rlrake to ethics in Lr'inas's scnse is: rr'hat is it

tlrat testifies to tlle originality of mv cle-r'otion fdl-uoueartalyses of

ttttntl tct tl're Other? Thc phenornent)losical
thc firce, of the cress, of love, cann()t by thernselves
sround the anti-ontological (or anti-identitarian) thesis
'fotality
'rnirnetic'
concep<rf the arrthor of
and Inftnity. A
tion that locates original access to the other in my own
lerloubled inrase also sheds light ()n that element of sel
that characterizes t.he graspine of this other:
is that me-rnyself-at-a-distance rvhich. pre'objectified'
fbr rtrv corrsciotrsrress,
cisely bccause it is
l i r r r n r l s I n c a s a s t l r h l t ' c o n s t r u ( l i ( ) n , a s a n i r t t e t ' i o t ' i t va c c c s fil'getting

rvhat I cherish

sible iir its exteriority. Psvchoanalysis explains brilliantlv how

tlris <:onstnrction of the Ego in the identification rvittr the
otlrer - this mirlor-cfct: - combines rrarcissisrn (I ctelight
in the cxteri()ritv of the other in so far as he figures as
nrlself rnacle visible to rn1'self) and augressivity' (l invest in
the othcr nry death dril'e, my orvn archaic desire for-sel
<lcstrtrction).
Hcre, horvever, lve are a vel-y long wiry frorn what l-vinas
u'itnts to tell us. ,{s alwavs, the ptrre anirlr-sis of phenomenal
appearine cannot decide betrvcen clivergent orientati()ns of
thousht.
\\'e need, in addition, to make explicit the axioms of
t l t r r r r s h t t h a t d e c i d ra n o r i c n t a t i o n .
The difficulty, which also defines the point of application
fbr these axioms, can be explained as follorvs: the ethical
primacy

of the Other

over the Same requires

that the

$2{f-

u- s_ A_
$32- ert

D O E ST H E O T H E R E X I S T ?

T]TH I C]S

'guaranteed'
of alterity be ontologically
as the
experience of a distance, or <-rfan essential non-ide ntiry, the
trauer.sril of which is the ethical experience itself. But

'serrant'

of theology. Rather, this is philosophy (in the

Grcek sense of the word) annulled by thecllogl', itself no
is still too Greek, and
Ionger a theology (the terminolow

experience

the

nothing in the simple phenonrenon of the other contains

such a guarantce. Ar-rd this sirnply because the finitude of
the other's appearing certainlv tan be couceivecl as resen)-

presurnes proximigv to the divine via the identity and predicates of Cod) but, precisely, an ethics.
'Io
make of ethics the ultimate name of' the religious as
strr:lr (i.e. of that which relates fre-liel to the Other under

blance, or as imitation, and thus lead back to the logic of

the Same. The otht:r alwirys resembles lne too rnuch fcrr the
hypotiresis of an originary

exposrlre to his alterity

to be

neces.sarilytrve .
The phenornenon of the other (his face) rnust then attest
to a radical alterity which he nevertheless docs not c()ntain
by himself. The Other, as he appears t() me in the order of
the finite, rnlrst be the epiphany of :r properlv infinite
distartce to thc <.rther, the traversal of which is the originary
ethi<'al experience.
This rneans that in order to be intellisible, ethics requires
be in sorne se'.nsecarried by a principle of
alterity which transcends rncre finite experience. Lvinas
'Altogether-Other',
calls this principle the
and it is quite
obviously the ethical narne for (]od^ There can be no ()ther
tlrat the Otlrer

if be is not the immcdi:rte phenontenon of the Altose:therOther. Therc can be no finite cler.otion t() the rlon-i(lentical
if it is not sustained b1' the infinite rlevotirtn of the principle
to that which subsists outside it. There clrn be no r:thics
withotrt (iod the ineffable.
In Lvinas's enterprise, the cthical dominance of the
Other over the theoretical ontolosv of the same is entirely
bound trp with a reliqi(lls axiom; to believe that we can
separate what Lvinas's thotrsht unites is to betrav the
intimate movement of this thought, its subjective rigotrr. In
trtrth, Lvinas has no pl'rilosophy - not even philosophy as

is to disthe ineffable authority of the Altogether-Other)

tance it still more completely fiom all that can be gatherecl
'philosophy'.
rrnrler the name of
To put it cnrdely: Lvinas's enterprise sen'es to remind
rrs. with extraordinarv insistence, that every effcrrt to trrrn
cthics into the principle of thought and action is essentially
religi()us. \{e might sa,v (hat Lvinas is the c<>herent and
of an assumption that no acadenric exercise of r''eiling or ilbstraction can ohscrtre: distanced fiorn its
Greek trsase (according to rvhich it is clearly subordinated
to the theoretical), and taken in general, ethics is a category
inventir,e thinker

of piorrs discourse.

IV Ethics as decomposed [dcompose]religion

\\'hat ttren becomesof this categoryif we claiurto suppress.
or nrask,its religiorrscharactcr,all the t'hile preseruins
the
abstlar:tarrangenrent of its apparent constitutioll ('recognition of the other', etc.)? The ansrveris obvious: a dog's
dirrner lde kt bouilliepour lesr:/zrzts].
\A'e are lcft rvith a pious
cliscoursewithout piety, a spiritrral supplement for incompett'nt governments,and a cultural sociolow preached, in
line with the nerv-styleserrnons,in lieu of the late class
strLrggle.

.r

ETHI(;S

Our suspicions are first aroused when we see that the

self-declaredapostlesof ethics and of the 'right to diftrence' are clearly honiJiedb; rtnl uigorous$susktineddiJfi:rertce.
For thenr, Ali-ican customs are barbalic, Muslims are dreaclful, the flhinese are totalitarian, and so on. As a rn'.rtterof
fact, this celebrated'other' is acceptableonl,vil he is a goor./
other - whicl.ris to sav rvhat, exactl), if :not thesnmcas tts?
Respect for cliflrences,of <:orrrselBut on condition tl.rat
the diflrent be parliamentan.democratic,pro fiee-rtrirr-ket
t'conornics,in fr'our of fieeclonr of opinion, ferninisrn,the
enl'ir<)nnrcnt.. . . That is to sat': I respect <lif}-eretrces,
but
only, of course, in so fr as that rvhich difers also respects,
'no
.ju.stas I clo, the saicl clifferences..Just as there can ber
lieedorn f'or the enemies of fieeclom', s() there can be
r1()respcct for those rvhose diflerenr:e consistsprecisell- in
-fo
not respectins dilrences.
prove the point. jrrst consicler the oTtsessiveresentrnent expressed by the partisans
of ethics regarcline ar4'thing that resembles an Islanric
'frrndarnentalist'.
The problem is that the 'respectfor differences'and ttre
etlrics of lrtrnran rights do seenl to define an itlentity*!And
that as a rcstrlt, the respect for clilferences applies only to
those clifferencesthat are reasonablvconsistent with this
identity' (which, after all, is nothing other than the identitv
of a wealthy - albeit visiblydeclining - 'M'est'). Er.enimm!
grants in this country [France], as seen by the partisansof
ethics, are acceptablv diffrent only when thev are 'integrated', onlv if they seekintegration (which seemsto mean,
if vou tlrink about it: only if they want to suppresstheir
diflerence). It might well be that ethical ideolog,v,detached
fiom the relisious teachings which at least conferred upon
it the fullness of a 'revealed' identity, is simply the final

D O E ST H E O T H E RE X I S T ?
inrperative of a conquering civilization:
and I will respect your clifference.'

25

'Become like me

V Return to the Same

Thc truth is that, in the context of a systemof thought that
is both a-religious and genuinely contemporary with the
trtrths clf our titne, the whole ethical predicatiorl based
upon reconitionof the other should be purely and simply
abandoned. For the real question - and it is an extraordirrarily clif{icult crne - is rnuch more that oI recognizingthe
Junv.
Let us posit ozr axiorns. There is no God. \4hich also
'without-one' - evelY
nlcans: the One is not. The multiple
rntrltiple being in its trtrn nothing other thalr a nrultiple of
nrtrltiples- is the law of being. The only stopping point is
the void. The infinite, as Pascalhad already realized, is the
banal reality of every situation, not the predicate of a
t.ranscendence.For the inllnite, as Cantor demonstrated
with the creation of set theory, is actually only the most
gcneral form of multiple-being [tre-multiple).ln fact, every
situation, inasmuch as it is, is a multiple composed of an
infinity of elements,each one of which is iself a rnultiple.
(lonsidered in their simple belonging to a situation (to an
infirrite mtrltiple), the animals of the species Homo sapiens
a r e o r d i n a r ym r r l t i p l i c i t i e s .
What. then. are we [o make of the other, of differences,
'.rndof tl.reir ethical recognition?
Irrfinite alterity is quite simply what therels. Any experience at all is the infinite deployrnent of infinite differences.
Even the apparently reflexive experience of myself is by no

I
26

ETHIcs

rneansthe intuition
of.a unity but a labyrinth
of clifferentia_
tions, a'cl Rimba'cl
,,?s cer;i;i;;;;;.r*
'I
whe'
he said:
arn another.' Ih

achi'eseo"o,u
.i:ili ",i;ji;;ffi ;f
",Ji,i.ffi
berrveerr
url.selfand
an1bocly,,
l".rriing mvself.
As many,bllt als(),then,

"rr,
icithtr
irrr, ,r), ,rr.

VI .Cultural' differences
and ctrlturalism
O''tenrp.rarv ethir:skicks
rrp a bie

,crrltrrral,

lirss about
< l i l l r c r r c elrt .s t . o r r t
of.the ,other, is inlirrrnecl
ntainlv
'v t^is kirrcl ,f .rrrr"O,,o,

(oexisre,ce
.,,,.linll,
il;_lli,i.l,,.':lJ,.,,;.ff
::]
t i e s ' , t l i e r e l u",,
sal of .excltrsion,.
But \1hat we rnust rec<tgnize
is that the.seclifferences
holcl

ii,u,,r,.uu,,,
il i :" norhingrnc,
rc
;i:,i,,,.r:.':,j;i,,,,,j.,X;*r1,,

ki' cr,as"b"i;;,;;,;;'L.'.1-,
:l: ""il:,:J:,,;r
l,:l,ll:
;;;";il;:

crusi' from Ly', as it

is berweenin;.i;.,;

of Iraq and tlie fat cowbo,vs

of Texas.
objectirc (or historical)
fr,,r,.ti.rn ,
.The

l.' irtt.,.uti'r.",irr r.r^ . r"",rri:.'ri;1;:r:i::l

11hic.s

cliver-sit,vof r1e12l.q,
custorlrs ancl beliefs.
And in par.ticular,
ior the imeducible

,i:jl1'f.

i,";;,*.y

ri.*utio.,. 1r.rig_
rons, sexual represerrtations,"1
incarnations of.atrthority.
,objectir..e,
. .).
essenrial

basisof .,il.;
I"t: 1n"
sociolos;y.,
clirec tl,v inhe-rited fiorn
the ;;,,r
-"rl
liJ
c-rlo'ial enco.nter
with savages^;;;;,
rnust
not f.crrget
that there are arso .urro""
,ll)-._ ..:,:t
arnolrg
us (the drug acldicts
of
the banlieues,;;u*;;1"*es

prrernaria
; ;;ffi; ;:::i;iJilj: :ilil:
#:

I ) O E ST H E O T H E RE X I S I , ?

2?

ethics that oflrs, without

changing i$ means
of. investigation., its ,recognition, and
;rr roil"j-**r...r.
Against these trifling descriptions
1.,iu r..ofity that is both
o b v i o r r sa n c l i n c o r r ..

afn
rmthefr,, ;;ii,il rf i];3Ji'::::::::il
"
t h t ' r c i s , a n c l s"*i
ince ew.- rr,,,h ," ;;^

rvhichis ,,.,,,r.r,',lu:i_:::i1.i
:l:

or that
'"'"*-to-be

r^rths<repose,'rrenrrerinsignificant
;:',,,::i:liJ-i

irny c-oncretesitrration
by the ncition of the .r:".ogr_ritior,
,rf
the 't^er.,. Every nroclern
c,rllective .orrfig.,.u,l.rn
i.v'lves
people fiom evemvhere,
who hr,.. ;;i;
cliffrent wa1,sof
eating ancl speaking, who
rvear cliffererrr^ro.r.,ol.heaclgear,
Tirllowdiffrent religions,
hou" .;;;r;il
urra 'uri.a relari''s
to sexuality, prefer authority
,-,r.air,rra"r, ancl suclr
is the
rr'ayof the worlcl.

VII

From the Same to truths

Phil'srphicalty, if t'e
.ther cloesn,t rlatrer
it is i'.ecd
bt'carr.setrre clitficurrylics on tn" ,ia. oi the
Same. Trre
Sarne,in effct, i.snot
rvhar is (i.e. rhe
-i*,r"rJ:;il,i:lltJ
infi

.I clirrre'ce.s
) but wt:atcornes
), ]r.

that in resard to rvhich

.rrry t^e
rt is it tt.ulh.ODh, a tr
"au.','"ilure

same ()cc'r.s:

.', i,.Im"ffi :'il i,,xlrj,

:n
"iJ i';;,!!:::::,?,!:K,,,,

age h:l,e alrvay.sattcrnptecl

^-rrlu to
t\' ('rrscure
<1f5ss1_6t$ certaillty:
:\'e?
trtrth is rhe.same
a
fro ntt.
\{'hat is to be postulatecl
lbr clrre ancl all, what
I have
.],,: 'being.imrnortat,,

cerrainlyi;;;coverecr
l.:.11t
by trre
trxrrc
of' 'cultural,differenccs
* i"rigrrifi.urr,o, they are
tnassive.
It is our capacityfor truth _
"i.'.^O_rty ro be that

9R
'seme'

D O E ST H E O T H E R E X I S T ?

ETHI(]S

that a ttuth conuohesto its ozun

'sameness'
. Or in other

rvords, clepending on the circumstances, otlr capacity for

science, love, politics or art, since all truths, in my view, fall
under one or another o1'these ttniversal names.
It is only ttrrough a sentrine pen',ersion, for rvhich we will
pay a terrible historical price, that rve have sottsht to
'e
thics' on the basis of c:ttltural relativisrn. For
elaborate an
this is to pretend that a merely contingent statc oI' things
can firund a [,aw.
The only genttine ethics is of tmths in the pltrral - or,
more precisely, the only ethics is o1'processes oI' truth, of
the labotrr that brings some trttths into the rvorld. Ethics
in the sense presrrrned by Lacan when,
the notion of a qeneral rnorality, he
cliscrrssesthe ethics of'psychoanalr.'sis. Ethics does n()t exist.
There is only t|re ethic-ol'(of politics, of lovc, of science, of
must be taken
against Kant

and

art).
There is not, in fct, one sinsle Subject, bttt as many
subjects as there are truths, and as rnany subiectivc types as
there are procedures of truths.
'types':
As for me, I identify foLrr funclamental sub.jective
political, scientific, artistic, and amorous famoureux].
Every hurnan animal, by participatins in a given sinsular
tnrth, is inscribed in one of these forrr types.
A philosophy sets out to construct a space of thotrght ir-t
rvhich the difTrent subjective types, expressed by the sinsular truths of its time, coexist. But this coexistence is not a
unification - that is rvhy it is irnpossible to speak of one
Ethics.

29

Notes
l . Ernmanuel Lvinas,

'l'otality

nntl InJinity, 196l [1969]. This is

his major work.

'The l\{irror Phase', in lirrit.s:A Selcrtion,1966
facques Lacan,
[1977].