INDIVIDUAL, STATE AND THE SEMIOTICS OF ANARCHYJan Broekman
What happens after discovering that the State is no longer a State, as we knew him? But we do not lose or forget the name: ’State’ is the Name I need in order to articulate my proper Self! State is the name I live in, the one that makes me a citizen, an individual, a bearer of rights, the ruler of my representations. Just a Name … no more— nobody knows any more?There is no language anymore to express the meaning of a State, yet all expressions that I use are embedded in that one meaning that expanded as if it were a language in its own right. Together with the State, I lost reference, lost meanings. I used to live in the space of occidental metaphysics, delineated between arche and telos—how can I ever understand myself beyond that master dimension? How does one deny one’s own arche? Does it suffice to be an anarchist?The State tells me the myth of my identity, which should be the cradle of my social life. Lacan reminds us how the word of the father is the voice of the law. But without the State in which we unfold our selves, there would never be a word of that myth or of the father therein. Anarchists reject those words; they are not against the State but against the tyranny of the word that makes us a citizen as its individual. The slogan ‘Occupy Wall Street’ is semiotic by nature: it wants to indicate that the meaning making processes should take place elsewhere and have a different outcome. Those who understood, practiced or even criticized ‘occupy’ in terms of possession, did not grasp the deep semiotic revolve at hand.