Even the Winners Lose: Some Thoughts on Revolution and Joy

In philosophy there’s a famous idea that goes by the name ‘Master/Slave Dialectic.’ To begin to understand what the terms “Master” and “Slave” mean here, think about a dominant political/cultural/religious matrix. In basic terms the Master class can be said to encompass those on the inside of this matrix and the Slave class represents those who are excluded from it. But while they are excluded from it, they are also a part of it. They are this basically invisible element that represents the unpleasant truth of the system that they are excluded from. They are in the world, but not of it.

Take the example of contemporary America. We might say that the Master class encompasses those of us who particulate in the dominant political, cultural and religious values. This might be expressed in the desire to be successful, to achieve the American Dream etc. In this situation the Slave class represents both those invisible people who are used to sustain this system (Chinese workers making iPhones, Indian children making our clothes etc.), and those who are directly excluded from participation in that system (the homeless, prisoners, those living in trailer parks etc.). In the movie Snowpiercer those who live in the back of the train are simultaneously excluded from the system and needed to keep it running (children being used to keep the engine running).

To understand the Master Class we might say that they are the ones who have symbolic value and who seek symbolic rewards. By “symbolic value” I mean that they have value as citizens under the law who have rights and responsibilities in relation to that law. The term “symbolic rewards” refers to those things we pursue that are valued because of what they represent. For example, the difference between a cheap car and a very expensive car is often minimal (slightly quieter engine, warms up a little faster, has a better sound system etc.). The majority of the extra money is more related to the symbolic value that the car has rather than the material benefits it offers.

In other times and in other places the difference between these two groups has been more pronounced. But in Western society the “Master Class” has expanded to include those who would previously have been in the “Slave Class.” What this means is that more and more people have some kind of minimal symbolic value within the dominant political/cultural/religious matrix and seek the same kind of pleasures that are valued by this matrix. While the reality is that the very poor generally don’t get equal treatment under the law, and will likely never possess the items that society values, they are still inculcated in those systems and oppressed by them.

This situation is powerfully expressed in George Orwell’s classic novel 1984. From what I recall there are the party officials, who are at the top of the system, and the workers who are located at the bottom. Yet both the party officials and the workers are ultimately caught up in the same oppressive system. While the party officials have more power and possessions than the workers, they are ultimately bound together in the same death-dealing system that feeds off perpetual war, endless scarcity and continual fear.

In this system the obvious losers are those at the bottom. Yet even the winners lose in Orwell’s dystopia. They too are caught up in an ultimately unsatisfying and oppressive system that they simultaneously sustain. The winners lose while the losers lose doubly.

This is somewhat analogous to our contemporary situation. Consider how those who “win” in our society often suffer from profound boredom and ennui, while those who most directly lose, not only experience the pain of not receiving the rewards of society, but also by having to work difficult jobs while struggling to meet basic needs.

But in 1984 the party officials and the workers only make up part of the story. There is also another class. A class of no class. A group of people in the system, yet who are not of it: the Prols.

This group have carved out a space not monitored, controlled and manipulated by the system. They are needed by it (maintaining a needed black market etc.) but are not integrated into it.

For Marx, this class of no class is the Proletariat and they are the site of a potential revolution. Their position is one that ensures they directly experience the system in its most horrible parts and, as such, are best able to see its unpleasant truth. More than this, they are the most motivated to change things. Unlike those within the Master Class (the Bourgeoisie) who will tend to simply improve the present system rather than overturn it, the Proletariat imagine new worlds and have good reason to try and bring them into being.

One of the interesting features of the prols in 1984 initially sounds to run in the face of what you’d expect. As the most oppressed group that are invisible politically speaking and given no symbolic value, one might expect them to be the unhappiest people of all. Yet they seem to be the only group who are capable of any pleasure.

Lacan can help us understand this in that he saw this class of no class is not only the site of potential revolution, but also the site of a potential pleasure not readily accessible to most of us. The reason for this is because those who are excluded from the system are put in a place where they must attempt to find ways of life outside the symbolic pleasures and rewards of the system (rewards that are ultimately empty). They must find pleasure in creating alternative communities embedded in more immediate pleasures. This is why communities excluded from our consumerist systems often seem to have a wealth of enjoyment that seems strangely absent from those of us caught in the rat race.

The Proletariat is a site of potential pleasure not only because they can find more substantial forms of enjoyment (remember Mother Teresa’s comment that the West was so much poorer than the slums of Calcutta), but also because they can disrupt the present system and draw us back to a more enjoyable form of life.

In this way, the class of no class are the oil of history. They are the ones who hold the promise of real change and deep joy.

One of the ways to understand this is via an understanding of the symptom. A symptom is that phenomenon which is in our body, but not of it. It is that thing we either don’t see, or try to ignore (our outbursts of anger, nervous twitch etc.). Yet the symptom, if we listen to it, speaks a truth. It tells us that something isn’t right in our world. The symptom is thus a protest against something that is bad in our lives (a job we hate, an unfulfilling relationship, a repressed guilt).

The symptom causes us suffering yet, if we listen to it, the symptom can become the site where real transformation and new joy can blossom. If we let it speak it can become the force that causes us to change our lives.

The point then is not to ignore the symptom, but to listen to it. To let it change us.

By doing this the symptom is transformed. Lacan notes this change by cleverly calling it the transformation of a symptom into a sinthome. In French sinthome sounds like “Saint Homme.” Lacan is thus playing on how sinthome sounds just like “Holy Man.” In this way, Lacan is saying that the site of our suffering can become a type of prophet calling us to repentance and transformation. And, just like a prophet, if we open our ears we will find new life, while closing our ears will ultimately lead to destruction.

On the personal, political and cultural level then we must find ways of turning the unholy symptom into a holy prophet.

In terms of pyrotheology the role of the “Church” is not to believe a particular thing, but to be a micro-society of resistance that turns symptoms into sinthomes. This means that it has revolution and joy hard-baked into its very DNA.

This means that it seeks to identify with what is not, so as to disturb, disrupt and dissolve what currently is. In the words of St. Paul, “the lowly things of this world and the despised things–and the things that are not“ will ultimately “nullify the things that are.”