Gegen den Kult des Kindes

Wenn man davon ausgeht, dass mit dem Lacan’schen Begriffsapparat heute noch gültige Aussagen über die Weltgesellschaft (europäischer Herkunft) getroffen werden können, wenn man also auf den „realen“, „idiotischen“, sich dem Sinn entziehenden, unteilbaren Kern der Weltpolitik rekurrieren will – dem gleichwohl aller Sinn entfließt – dann kann man wohl sagen, dass Lee Edelman’s Buch No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive (2004) einiges hermacht. Zumal für eine Theorie der Lust ist Lacan vermutlich eine der unhintergehbaren Quellen: Lust, die gerade in ihrer merkwürdigsten individuellsten Ausprägung (als jouissance) ihrem Träger fremd bleibt, ihn wahrscheinlich nur als Intermedium gebraucht. Merkwürdig bleibt – und geprüft werden müßte – ob Lacan die gesellschaftliche Ordnung ebenso wie Lee Edelmann auf eine „fetischistische, identitätsstiftende jouissance“, d.h. auf ein stumpfsinniges, zur sinnlosen ritualistischen Wiederholung neigendes, dem Todestrieb verwandtes basales Genießen-Wollen zurückführen würde. Auf diese Art und Weise politisiert Edelman Lacan und repolitisiert er die Queer Theory. Und er hat ja Recht: der Beifall, der einer liberalen Schwulenpolitik gespendet wird, ist ranzig. Selbst Obamas Ja zur Schwulenehe (erst kürzlich) wird uns in den Medien unisono als ephemer revolutionärer Akt verkauft. Queer Politics sind auf eine heimtückische Art konformistisch geworden. Aber wie genau?

Vielleicht kann Lee Edelman, indem er die libidinösen Grundlagen der (globalen) politischen Ordnung neu ins Spiel bringt, einige vorläufige Antworten liefern. Vielleicht ist sein Buch, besonders der ausgeklinkte erste Teil The Future is Kid stuff aber auch nur eine atemberaubende Polemik, extrem laut und unglaublich nah. Hier die Klimax:

In Boston last year, Cardinal Bernard Law, mistaking, or perhaps understanding too well, the authority of identity bestowed by the signifier that constitutes his own name, declared his opposition to domestic benefits assuring the availability or health care to same-sex partners of municipal workers by offering us the following piece of rancid piety in the sky: »Society has a special interest in the protection, care and upbringing of children. Because marriage remains the principal, and the best, framework for the nurture, education and socialization of children, the state has a special interest in marriage« (Slattery 68), If Cardinal Law, by adducing this bitter concentrate of a governing futurism so fully invested in the figure of the child that it manages to justify refusing health care to the adults that those children become, if Cardinal Law can thus give voice to the mortifying mantra of a communal jouissance committed to the fetishization of the child at the expense of whatever it renders queer, then we must respond not only by insisting on our right to enjoy on an equal footing the various prerogatives of the social order, not only by avowing our capacity to confirm the integrity of the social order by demonstrating the selfless and enduring love we bestow on the partners we‘d gladly fly to Hawaii in order to marry or on the children we‘d as eagerly fly to China or Guatemala in order to adopt, but also by saying explicitly what Law and the law of the symbolic he represents here, more clearly even than we do perhaps, in every public avowal of queer sexuality or identity: fuck the social order and the figural children paraded before us as its terroristic emblem: fuck Annie; fuck the waif from Le Miz; fuck the poor innocent kid on the Net; fuck Laws both with capital „l“s and with small; fuck the whole network of symbolic relations and the future that serves as its prop.
Choosing to stand, as many of us do, outside the cycles of reproduction, choosing to stand, as we also do, by the side of those living and dying each day with the complications of AIDS, we know the deception of the societal lie that endlessly looks toward a future whose promise is always a day away. We can tell ourselves that with patience, with work, with generous contributions to lobbying groups, or generous participation in activist groups, or generous doses of political savvy and electoral sophistication, the future will hold a place for us – a place at the political table that won‘t have to come, as it were, at the cost of our place in the bed, or the bar, or the baths. But there are no queers in that future as there can be no future for queers. The future itself is kid stuff, reborn each day to postpone the encounter with the gap, the void, the emptiness, that gapes like a grave from within the lifeless mechanism of the signifier that animates the subject by spinning the gossamer web of the social reality within which that subject lives. If the fate of the queer is to figure the fate that cuts the thread of futurity, if the jouissance, the excess enjoyment, by which we are defined would destroy the other, fetishistic, identity-confirming jouissance through which the social order congeals around the rituals of its own reproduction, then the only oppositional status to which our queerness can properly lead us depends on our taking seriously the place of the death drive as which we figure and insisting, against the cult of the child and the political culture it supports, that we are not, to quote Guy Hocquenghem, »the signifier of what might become a new form of ’social organization‘« (138), that we do not intend a new politics, a better society, a brighter future, since all of these fantasies reproduce the past, through displacement, in the form of the future by construing futurity itself as merely a form of reproduction. Instead we choose not to choose the child, as image of the imaginary past or as identificatory link to the symbolic future; we would bury the subject in the tomb that waits in the hollow of the signifier and pronounce at last the words we are condemned from the outset for having said anyway: that we are the advocates of abortion; that the child as figure of futurity must die; that we have seen the future and it’s every bit as lethal as the past; and thus what is queerest about us, queerest within us, and queerest despite us, is our willingness to insist intransitively: to insist that the future stops here.


0 Antworten auf „Gegen den Kult des Kindes“


  1. Keine Kommentare

Antwort hinterlassen

XHTML: Du kannst diese Tags benutzen: <a href=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>


sieben − drei =