The de-symbolized world Dufour, Dany-Robert.

The art of shrinking heads: on the new service of the liberated in the age of total capitalism, D. Macey (trans.), Cambridge !olity !ress, "##$. %t is not often that critics of neo-liberal economics begin by arguing that the logic of ca&italism wor's too well. (et the arguments of )rench &hiloso&her Dany-Robert Dufour in, The art of shrinking heads, de&end critically on this &remise. *ere is a prcis of Dufour+s argument The logic of neoliberal ca&italism o&erates by gi,ing ob-ects a new status that effectually di,orces them from the symbolic meaning(s) they may ha,e formerly held. .s de-symbolized ob-ects, goods circulate a&art from any cultural com&onents or agreement regarding human ,alues. This redefinition e,entually &er,ades conscious and non-conscious human actions as we transform oursel,es to ada&t to commodities as the sine qua non of social reality. *owe,er, this logic of reassigning ob-ects a new status has now &ro,ed too effecti,e in the sense that it has undermined the symbolic resources that indi,idual sub-ects &re,iously used to orient rational choices in accordance with broader life &ro-ects. *ence the rational sub-ect of neoliberal theory faces e/tinction. The thesis is that the de-symbolization of ob-ects means that the self, as an agent theoretically able to ma'e the ty&es of decisions u&on which economic transactions are &remised (utility calculations of means ,s. ends and net gains, etc.), finds no grounding for com&aring use or e/change ,alues with widely shared cultural goods. Dufour+s argument shares similarities with !olanyi+s 0double mo,ement1 thesis and *abermas+ concern about the 0rationalization of the lifeworld1 e/ce&t that it is a&&lied internally to the human sub-ect and, more s&ecifically, the notion of the 2ub-ect constructed in modernity. )or Dufour, one of the defining features of the modern 2ub-ect has been its relationshi& to the 3ther. 2&ecifically, Dufour argues that it is the 3ther that the modern 2ub-ect has literally been sub-ected to. )or Dufour, the relationshi& between the 2ub-ect and the 3ther was e/&ressed through cultural symbols that &ro,ided a tem&oral and s&atial framewor' that indi,iduals were sub-ect to for the coordination and e/ecution of their life &ro-ects. *e begins by considering 4ant+s critical 2ub-ect, which was sub-ect to the constraints and limits of Reason for defining the e/tent and limits of freedom and e/&erience. Dufour+s concern with what neoliberal logic &ortends internally for the 2ub-ect leads him to also ta'e u& )reudian thought as an archety&e of the modern &syche and the &sychological counter&art to 4ant+s critical sub-ect. 5ithin the )reudian &syche the construction of myths, social status and se/uality all ser,ed a symbolical role as norms for modern society. The symbolic role of the critical and &sychological 2ub-ects of 4ant and )reud erode in &ost-modernity. This erosion lea,es the &ost-modern sub-ect without a s&atial or tem&oral framewor' as cultural symbols are remo,ed and, conse6uently, the ga& between the 2ub-ect and the 3ther closes. Moreo,er, without the symbolic resources of modernity, the elements necessary for the foundational narrati,es &re,iously used to orient modern society are not a,ailable. The u&shot of this &rocess is that whereas symbols once delimited the s&atial and tem&oral categories of ob-ects that could be gi,en economic ,alue, their remo,al lea,es the 2ub-ect e/&osed to become &art of the circulation of commodities as humans transform their interactions in a world

of de-symbolized ob-ects. !arado/ically, the neoliberal 2ub-ect is rendered inca&able of ste&&ing outside of economic categories of ,alue due to the lac' of cultural symbols u&on which such an effort may be &remised. Dufour considers this to be a new ty&e of ,iolence and the dawn of an era of human ser,itude to the logic of neoliberal ca&italism. .s the age of grand narrati,es closes, Dufour briefly considers the role of 7ature as a &otential starting &oint for grounding a new ,ision of the 2ub-ect. The &otential is clear, for if there is no &hysical nature then the necessary element for symbols li'e nation-states, which re6uire &hysical territory and natural ca&ital, are missing. To this Dufour res&onds by arguing, somewhat indirectly, that ecology must be careful to a,oid becoming subsumed within other narrati,es. This is the case because ecology forces the issue of defining the human-en,ironment relationshi& and, as a framewor' for orienting human action, at least tacitly relies on a construction of the human sub-ect. Moreo,er, the ecological mo,ement of the late "#th century is emerging at a time when the o&tions for constructing the human sub-ect are few. *ence there is a danger that ecological narrati,es will sim&ly be subsumed into neoliberal logic. )ollowing this reasoning, we may e/tend Dufour+s brief and intermittent treatment of the en,ironment in terms of its im&lications for emergent theories such as those of 0ecosystem ser,ices.1 .mong other things, the 0ecosystem ser,ices1 framewor' assembles the world of ecological relationshi&s as ob-ects to be ,alued for their usefulness in an economic theory of well-being that rests on assum&tions regarding what is good for the human sub-ect. .s such, these ideas do not symbolize a new relationshi& of the 2ub-ects to 7ature and we need to be cautious about how we ada&t to ecological relationshi&s qua 0ecosystem ser,ices.1 The two main e/am&les that Dufour uses to e/&ound his argument are the denial of generational difference in modern education and, following )reudian im&lications, the denial of se/ual difference. The former will be of &articular interest to those concerned with &reser,ing the collecti,e wisdom of western 'nowledge or indigenous cultures in efforts to achie,e sustainability. Dufour offers a &enetrating, if at times sarcastic, loo' at the ca&acity of modern uni,ersities to function in their traditional role as educational institutions. *is argument turns on the idea that symbols are transmitted through discourse and that, in many cases, new and inno,ati,e technologies are interru&ting the traditional manner of symbol transmission. %n this sense there has been a loss of &oignancy in the face-to-face instruction among sub-ects in the &rocess of 'nowledge sharing. )urther, suggests Dufour, &ost-modern &edagogy has encouraged the dissolution of generational differences by denying that the cultural symbols of &re,ious generations, such as those im&lied by the teacher-&u&il relationshi&. The Art of Shrinking Heads concludes with a call to resist 0the consolidation of total ca&italism.1 Dufour+s closing arguments reiterate, in a much more direct manner than the body of his wor', the ris' that de-symbolization &resents to indi,iduals and society. *owe,er, Dufour does not call for a rein,ention of the 3ther. Rather, he belie,es we are better off without the failed narrati,es of the modern 2ub-ect and offers a final caution The emerging ideology of neoliberal ca&italism is one that re6uires we attend not only to how we define and symbolize the ob-ects in the world around us, but how we, in turn, ada&t to the world we are creating. 8eremy 8. 2chmidt, Trudeau 2cholar De&artment of 9eorga&hy, :ni,ersity of 5estern 3ntario