The Impossibility of “Private” Space Flight And The Desire To Be Lacanian Big Other

In the Cold War, we witnessed a space race between two superpowers, but the space race among governmental entities began long before then, with people from different religions and/or societies all trying to imagine space in their own ways, with certain people representing the figure of “state/governmental astrologer,” like the "state philosophers" loyal to authority that Deleuze and Guattari found problematic. Space has always been the object of contesting theories and ideas, but so far these ideas and theories have been produced by governmental authorities linked to the state and not private citizens. But what ultimately motivates these space races is the desire to be the Lacanian big Other of society, to be that individual who is literally at a distance from the earth in outer space and hence distant from all of its societies and cultures, Big Other in a way that no place in the earth can today afford to produce, totally distant from symbolic coordinates and known locations.

However, this desire to be the big Other does not manifest in astronauts who work for the government, for the government and state always maintain very clear, serious and authoritative communication between themselves and their astronauts in order to keep the astronauts within the symbolic order of earth, and hence being a big Other within a governmental organization is impossible, and being a big Other implies a rejection of government. Hence we understand the need for formal and serious jargon from earth's "mission control" while communicating with governmental astronauts to keep them engaged within the earth's symbolic order. Informal “human” and “emotional” and even "philosophical" language is discouraged by authorities such as NASA despite the momentous and epic space travel, because the informality may inspire in the astronauts a sense of being free, and it is only a matter of a small push before zero-gravity is able to actually free oneself from the constraints of the earth's symbolic order. But only once private individuals travel to space can they come close to experiencing the status of big Other, since for private individuals their disengagement with earth will be close to complete.

Unlike the World Wars, the Cold War was itself never a contest to kill the small other of the enemy human being, but the Cold War logic was to try to be the big Other, distant from all of society, as in the case of the space race, spatially distant. Countering Foucault, the space race is evidence that power is not attained in a direct and competitive relationship with one's adversary, but rather by transcending the knowledge and capabilities of the adversary as it relates to an external object that is to be mastered. In other words, power is not the exercising of one's will over the adversary's being and possessions, but rather power is the mastering of what the adversary observes and senses.

However, it seems that being the big Other is not a permitted position in the eyes of the dominant and lawful father. And hence, in bygone years, when a very strict and dominant patriarchy was in place, there was a prevalence of authoritative governmental/state astrologers, who tried to imagine space theoretically and through fantasies from earth but had no intention of traveling and being in space alone as a big Other. In the past a theoretical engagement with space dominated, but today, with the law of the father in decline, the trend has very much become to build machines that can take one's body to space, so that one can directly be in space as a big Other of society.

It is this new-found fantasy to be big Other which motivates the construction of highly technical rockets and related machinery. Technical limitations are not the main reason why we don't travel to space. Indeed, as the myth goes, the computers that sent man to the moon were not even close to sophistication and power to even the most simple computers prevalent today, so it is not difficult to go to space if one is not forbidden to do so.

There aren't consumable objects that take one to space, rather, one is always to be attached to life-preserving machines if one is to be a big Other in space. The machines are attached to one's body, intimate and absolutely necessary for basic survival, and they cannot be treated as consumable objects can, that is, they cannot be thrown away. Thus, they are, for all purposes, a part of the body of the space traveler, and hence being the big Other involves a radical alteration of the body. Even so, being the big Other is still impossible today, even in the most freeing of space flights, because when the entrepreneurs of today claim that they will launch “private” space flights, they do not mention that figures from some governmental authority, such as NASA, will also “accompany” them, control their navigation and movements and monitor them thoroughly as patriarchal authorities do. The law is now articulated differently: being the big Other is allowed, but temporarily, for it is only allowed if the citizens are to return back to earth eventually. Thus the closest one can come to being the big Other via space-travel is by fantasizing that one is completely lost in space. In this regard, being the big Other is still only possible in fantasy.  

The International News Media's Birthing Of BRICS

Leaders from Brazil, India, China and South Africa (in short: the BRICS nations) meet regularly, cooperating with one another because their countries are claimed by the news to represent the economic and geopolitical powerhouses of the future. But the BRICS's economic performance and sociopolitical climate are far from steady to make the “powerhouse” label justified. Rather, the significance of “the BRICS arc” lies in the international news media "big business." This international news media big business has divided into continental offices and thus needs a nation to play the role of “leading continental powerhouse” to serve as the main character for their news-stories in a specific continent. China and India play the “powerhouse” characters in “Asia-Pacific,” while Brazil plays the same character for South America as South Africa does so for the African continent. A standardized and model narrative is in display for each continent, with the use of the “one core power per continent” story-line. If the specific proper names of BRICS countries are removed, the broadcast news in the “Asia-Pacific” region will resemble that in “Africa” or elsewhere to a great degree because of a kind of standard news template having been utilized by each continental office. Nations such as Nepal are not regular fixtures within international news channels, and so do not have roles to play, but for nations that are a regular fixture, there needs to be an arc or story in which they are placed as characters so that they can attract loyal viewers on a day-to-day basis.

The aesthetic orderliness of this simple idea of the one-powerhouse-per-continent arc makes it seem that the international news media shapes geopolitics in a way that makes the world seem pleasing to the audience: the goal of news being shaping geopolitics to make the news attractive, rather than relying on undramatic information-spreading. Also, the audience's demands for more relevant news-stories encourages the news media to build the story that each continent has its own powerhouse, a powerhouse which that whole continent can relate to and like or dislike. American power is in decline not only because of geopolitical tensions, but rather also because "America-as-sole-superpower" arc is no longer attractive for audiences of the international news media channels. The audiences have moved to appreciating a new kind of news-story, one where a regional nation takes up the role of regional powerhouse.

As so much of the news media's production relies on international relations, it follows that the news media are more invested in orienting international relations a certain way, in other words, the news media is not just invested in observing foreign nations, but rather is invested in actively monitoring and shaping the stories that emerge from foreign nations. The news media shapes geopolitics from behind-the-scenes in this way because it is good for business: it can expand its viewership and operate its offices in “Asia-Pacific” or “South America” if it can produce news that will keep South American viewers tuned in in South America and the African viewers tuned in in Africa and so on. 

With And Without The Super-Egoist Nepali Constitution

Different nations have different intensities of punishment, meaning that the difference in sensitivity to punishment between two populations demarcates national boundaries between those populations in the first place. Nepal is the name of a territory with a certain intensity of punishment and a certain level of harshness of the police-prison “punishment system” that is different from that of other nations. The Nepali constitution makes Nepal uniquely Nepal by subjecting some people to a certain level of punishment, or to a different "way of punishing" that still falls within a globally-relevant "intensity of punishment" scale. 

When the constitution is being written, one area of scrutiny for its writers is to see whether Nepal police is competent enough to actually enforce the tenets in the constitution document. At this stage, the police has to actively demonstrate its potential. So as long as the constitution is being drafted, Nepal could be called a “low-intensity police state” as the police works to try to convince the constitution writers that it will be effective in applying the completed constitution.

After the constitution is complete, Nepal police plays a role in making the constitution the most authoritative document within the nation. The police has to discipline the nation's subjects towards acting “by the book” or “by the document.” Of course the things that cause displeasure and discontent are to be enforced, but more importantly, people also have to be trained and disciplined to take and enjoy the benefits that are produced by the constitution. People do not "naturally" work towards increasing their pleasure or satisfaction, rather they need a constitution to lead them. Freedom isn't realized “naturally” by the people, but has to be given to them through the text of the constitution. Like Zizek's formulation of the superego as demanding enjoyment through a command: “Enjoy!” we will have the Nepali constitution demanding people to “Be Free!” 

But even without a constitution, Nepal functions smoothly with the same authorities in place and the status-quo in check. This constitution-less but smooth running Nepal shows that people behave as if some kind of law is already in place even when it isn't. People do not challenge authority using their “freedom” even when there is an opportunity to do so, as if they already know that there is no such “freedom” outside the constitution's enforced freedom, or as if people cannot articulate a freedom in the absence of a constitution. There is no need/use for a strong and disciplining Lacanian “Law/Name of the Father” because people have today begun behaving as if there is a law, pretending there is a law, without there being need for an actual, written law and an authoritative individual as its producer. Nepal shows that we are in a kind of “post-political” moment with the constitution as outdated: we have moved to a phase where we can self-discipline and function without a constitution.

International Involvement in Nepali Constitution-Making Hall

It feels like the Nepali constitution will be an authentically Nepali-made document. Although they speak of it sometimes, major international actors seem to remain silent from any continuous involvement with Nepali constitution making. This is not the truth however. The foreign involvement in the constitution is evident and it is concentrated to one message only at this point: the maintenance of order among the members of the constitution-making body. Apart from that, the details of the Nepali constitution are not of importance at the moment, as if to suggest that for Nepali politicians to come to order is a significant progress at this point in the constitution-making process. We are fooled by the brevity of the foreign message into thinking that there is no message at all. In short, the main message from international parties can be encapsulated in one word: “Order! Order!”

What can feel and look like the complete absence of a foreign power is more likely to be an even broader, more authoritative involvement on foreign power's part. Micro-managing with regards to the smaller details of the Nepali constitution is the job of those with less power, not more. Having said this, however, it should be noted that once the members involved in constitution-making really come to order, then other more detailed messages will arrive from abroad. No longer will the foreign message be to Nepalis to “be patient” and “let the formal constitution-making process play out,” but it will be established in relations with individual political figures directly.

While the foreign powers spread the message of “Order!” the Nepali politicians choose to act through acts of vandalism and disruption, which is not the mark of a sustained political response, but rather appears to be the act of a more passive group without proper avenues to express politically. At once, in Nepal, the avenue and channel for political expression has been concentrated to one hall, with great opportunities for monitoring and controlling of the Nepali political process and activity. (Also, within the hall, the differences in power between two politicians are so nuanced and marginal that politicians do not attempt "political power games" to dominate other less powerful politicians, so that all politicians appear as passive and powerless.) Outside the assembly hall, political activity seems to be quite infrequent and low in intensity these days. The assembly hall is like a detention center: it is a place to isolate those politicians who if left to the streets will cause much disruption in Nepal. This means that the assembly hall did not come after a completed peace-process, but it is a necessary place to try and complete the peace-process itself.  

The Frequent Meetings Between Figures Involved In The Greek Crisis

In the Greek financial crisis, the 'powerful' figures of Greece and EU members have been meeting one another very frequently, and this indicates that power relations between the figures are being formed and challenged constantly. The Greek case is peculiar: we are quite accustomed to nations failing, but when they fail usually it is in cases such as civil wars, so that the government is lost before the nation fails in the usual case. It is in the Greek crisis where Greek and European governmental structures are alive, active and aware of the failures-in-progress, where governmental and financial structures are very present to the Greek failure, they are very sturdy, yet they are not acting in ways that can save the people from the crisis; it is a crisis given that there is plenty of power in each figure/structure rather than a failure caused by a lack of power everywhere, so it is a failure within and because of the power-play rather than after the exhaustion of power of all figures and parties involved.

In this crisis, even governing structures and not just banks deserve the label “too big to fail,” in that, so far it is governing structures being “saved” by financial institutions rather than governmental structures doing the saving. However, financial institutions seldom have the patience of saving government indefinitely, and so it is only in the eyes of a benevolent government that institutions and structures become “too big to fail” and are saved. It is not in the interest of financial institutions to constantly act as “saviors.” Only a big and benevolent governmental structure can save Greece for a period of decades and generations now.  

We also see in the meetings of the prominent figures of Greece, EU, ECB etc the surprising intimacy of governmental figures and financial figures. It is a case of financial figures looking into the politics of the crisis, and politicians looking into the financial aspects of it, as if each figure knows his/her own area of interest/expertise will not bring about the solution, and so these interminglings show desire among the figures involved to evoke a proper “EU philosophy” which would move beyond finance and governance, which would wipe the slate clean of political and financial attempts, so that the figures could meet and act in the name of that “EU philosophy” and undertake a more romantic/idealistic cause to save Greece. The optimistic signs are there that romanticism is already in play, because the figures in the crisis have become elevated personalities in the eyes of one another, with the media only working to add cosmetics to that elevation or “romance,” and this romantic attachment to changing one another is why they meet one another so frequently and in friendly terms. The figures of the “savior” and the “rebel” and several others are in play in this romance.

Yet the influential figures in the crisis simply do not know how to act without a properly important “EU philosophy” given that their financial and political decisions have failed, and subsequently the crisis is always worded in such complicated terms and unfolds in a complex manner, with these complications and complexities showing a desire to be articulate and productive in a philosophical manner. But the problem is that it is in the “style” of idealistic philosophy to arrive a little too late to the scene, and so we may see the figures involved evoking the philosophical underpinnings of the EU only once the EU has failed. Idealistic philosophy must be present to the crisis at the moment, not at a later time when the EU can be painted, appropriately for those figures involved who wish to remain in their seats, as a philosophical mistake rather than a governmental or financial one.