by Jay Rafferty
Of the many subjects broached by philosophers the concept of Love is often overlooked or discarded of with few words said for its importance in philosophical studies. Alain Badiou, one of France’s leading philosophers, in this tiny book attempts to rectify this by discussing past philosophical interpretations of love and the faults in them. He also introduces his own concept of love as well as how we may see the reflection of it in wider society.
Badiou makes his argument to Nicolas Truong throughout (Truong’s segments being italicised and Badiou’s not) and this presentation of an interview format lends the reader a unique insight. Truong, while certainly being versed in philosophical and literary studies (at one stage in the fourth chapter quoting from the philosopher André Gorz, specifically from his Letter to D.) serves as something of a middleman between the reader and Badiou, bridging both parties’ knowledge. Truong is constantly probing Badiou on certain issues, prompting the philosopher to expand on a concept or clarify a turn of phrase. The journalist’s role here is to establish that the reader, be they just beginning their studies or a learned scholar of philosophy, is not alienated or lost but likewise he does not ask Badiou to simplify his explanations. He is respectful of both the philosopher and the reader without being patronising to either. This interview took place in 2009 and as such does not discuss the advent of mobile dating Apps such as Tinder. This does not subtract from the overall argument Badiou is making but given that the first chapter of the book discusses modern perceptions of dating via online means (the dating website Meetic specifically) one can only wonder what more the philosopher would have to say on the popularity of dating apps in the dozen years since this interview took place.
The book opens with Truong probing the philosopher on why the adverts around Paris for the Meetic dating website disturbs Badiou so. The philosopher here expands on the disturbing nature of the “risk free” love promised by these advertisement campaigns in comparing them to propaganda issued by the United States military. Badiou as a lifelong communist takes aim throughout this book at separate political and Christian ideologies, in this chapter particularly “Liberals and Liberaltarians.” He states that their concept of love is a restrained one, bound by decorum, a lack of passion and a guaranteed vanguard between partners to protect themselves. Badiou finds issue with this stating numerous times throughout the book (particularly in the chapter “Philosophers and love.”) that love requires reinvention. The issues raised in the first chapter go on to inform later ones, and be expanded upon by the philosopher, as prompted by Truong, a heavier focus for instance is given to the connections, beyond Badiou’s liberal comments, between love and politics in the titular chapter “Love and Politics.”
The second chapter focuses primarily on different interpretations of love by numerous philosophers with Badiou suggesting their merits and failings, from the religious tension of marriage in the Christian faith as experienced by Søren Kierkegaard to the extreme “anti-love” stance of philosophers like Arthur Schopenhauer. Badiou goes on to define what he believes are three contradictory philosophical interpretations of love. The first, Romantic, focuses on the ecstasy of the encounter, the second is the contractual safety-first view of love, perpetrated by Meetic. The third is Badiou’s own interpretation, that love is primarily a search for truth, to observe the world as two rather than as one or as Truong put it “a manner of experiencing the world on the basis of difference.” The philosopher expands on this interpretation further in the fourth chapter “The Truth of Love.” Truong notes in the beginning of this chapter that love in Plato’s eyes was a type of “Truth Procedure” and prompts Badiou to expand on his understanding of the phrase. At this point the philosopher expands on points he raised in the third chapter “The Construction of Love,” notably the stages of love from the meeting, sexual desire, childbirth etc. Badiou particularly finds issue with the concept of the child being the end product of love, the return to the one from the two as it were.
The philosopher’s argument in the fourth chapter against a friend of his who endorses the child-as-end-product ideal is compact and persuasive, not only in defence of sterile couples and homosexuals but also in expanding upon his interpretation of Love, namely that childbirth like marriage or when Harry meets Sally is, in his own jargon, a “point” in a relationship, not the culmination of one. To return to “Love and Politics” Badiou discusses further why he believes Communism to be the correct philosophical basis for Love rather than say tradition Christian ideals or indeed the liberal “safety first” approach as Communism suggests “the collectively is capable of integrating all extrapolitical differences.”. The philosopher in the final chapter touches on the themes of “Love and Art” which have been briefly brought up throughout the book (such as Truong’s quotation of André Gorz or the reference to Wagner’s Tristan and Isolde in chapter three). Badiou in this chapter returns the focus to the first’s discussion on Rimbaud and the phrase the philosopher borrowed from him: “love needs re-inventing.”. They continue in this chapter to discuss numerous poets and writers who also have influenced Badiou’s own interpretation of love.
Despite any political ideological differences a reader might have with Badiou, the confidence and persuasion of his argument is hard to deny. His thesis in this book is significantly straight forward despite it never being spoken by either interviewer or interviewee throughout their discussion. Put simply, love must adapt to the modern world. Informed by the past? Yes, but not a slave to past traditions, religions or ideologies. Badiou’s argument is cohesive and, thanks to Truong’s prompting input, never lingers on any one point or argument for longer than is needed. The translator, Peter Bush has done an excellent job at conveying Truong’s intelligence and the philosopher’s frankness throughout their discussion and rather than a lecture or an essay the interview style lends an intimate nature to the book, almost as though it were a conversation the reader was eavesdropping on.
It may be 12 years old but this little conversation still holds up in the age of Love Island.
Jay Rafferty is an uncle, an Irishman and an eejit. He’s the Social Media Manager for Sage Cigarettes Magazine and a Best of the Net Nominee. You can read his poems in several journals including Lights on the Horizon and the Alcala Review. When not playing games of pool he, sometimes, writes stuff. You can follow him on Twitter @Atlas_Snow
