I’ve been working through a bunch of Badiou the last week or so for a conference next month in Italy, but also as part of a larger project. Whatever one thinks of Badiou–pompous blowhard! the last of philosophers to speak the truth!–I’m hoping we can agree that his writings on love in particular are cringe worthy. Love is one of the four conditions of philosophy (along with science, politics, and art), and is always between two (eternally so in its form). And it’s always heterosexual:
By stating that love is heterosexual, I want to understand that two distinct positions [e.g., “male” and “female”] are found within love itself, and this is the case regardless of the empirical sex of the partners…Once again, I absolutely recognize the fact that there are homosexual loves. I’ve known some that were very long lasting, very passionate. Yet this doesn’t constitute an objection since there are always two identifiably distinct positions in homosexual relations. Everyone will agree to speak here of a position ‘man’ and a positions ‘woman.’
Yes, everyone would have to agree, except when they don’t. But Badiou also has very similar statements about women: why do people keeps saying I’m suturing women to narrative? “Once again…” I have to say this… And then he defines the ‘woman’ position (you know, not “empirical women”–as if femininity and its Other status were ever just relegated to empirical women) as adhering to narrative, as different from the mute and violent heroic male, etc. In any case, if you keep having to say, hey “I recognize” stuff you’d never think from my writing, then maybe it’s time to rethink what you’re writing instead of continuing with the refrain of “Why do people say this? I think homosexuals can have passion,” etc. As long, I guess, as one identifies as a woman and the other man. As we all will agree.
In any case, Badiou Studies has a CFP (date passed, alas) for a Queer Badiouian Feminism, so good luck with that.