What does it mean to take “one more
step, a single step” … towards
universality? (Badiou, Manifesto For Philosophy P. 32). What does it mean to be forced to think and what
kind of thought would we need in order to make ‘a logic of a world’ shift? (Lecture notes from Professor Vernon,
March 26th, 2013). For Badiou, philosophy must be reckless or it is
simply nothing at all. Thought must force a shift in a transcendental of a
world and it must
force us all to think. This recklessness is the violence of thought; it is the
unknown form of a discipline, opening a new terrain to make one more step
possible. It is the moment when we are
pushed to think beyond our own desires; it comes in the form of militant
participation and brutal contingency (Badiou, Second Manifesto for Philosophy
p. 110). Above all, it comes down to a single choice; one must become a subject to truth, and stay
loyal to the event. This loyalty binds the subject to their radical choice
incorporating them in a body, a collective, or an encounter rallied together
for a cause.
Badiou is concerned with the effective appearance of a subject and a
truth; and their existence and participation in a world (Badiou, Second
Manifesto for Philosophy p. 119). The question is how far one must go in that
single step, that radical choice and its commitment to an effective appearance?
What does one lose and gain in the violence of thought? The following essay
will investigate that “One more step”
and its relationship to radical choice, the subject and truth and whether we
need a violent thought to push us into committed action in order for there to
be eternal truths. I will need to do an in-depth full analysis of Badiou’s
ontology in order to lay out the foundations behind the violence of thought,
radical choice, subjectivity and truth.
Philosophy, for Badiou, rests in the realm of the transformation of a
subject. This transformation is the radical alteration and disruption of
existence (Badiou, Philosophy for Militants p. 8). Yet how would one measure
such a disruption of existence? It is through phenomenology or the theory of
appearing, which in turn, concerns problems of identity. This requires Badiou
to open a space, to properly think a
place for appearing to situate the being-there
in a world (Badiou, Second Manifesto for Philosophy p. 49) Badiou makes it
quite clear that philosophy is not a body of knowledge, its rules and
regulations are not directed at a specific discourse but surround the
singularity of an act (Badiou, Philosophy for Militants p. 10). Philosophy is an action, and this action can
be related to the corruption of the youth that Socrates was charged and
condemned with (Badiou, Philosophy for Militants p. 10). This corruption of the youth embodies the
philosophical act, because the very act of corrupting the youth means teaching
against the norms of a society, those norms that make the people submit to the
tyranny of opinion (Badiou, Philosophy for Militants, p.10) This corruption as
an act is to give the youth the possibility to challenge those accepted beliefs
that demand of them; approval, imitation and obedience (Badiou, Philosophy for
Militants, p.10) In essence, it is arming the youth with real issues that
embody a collective act, whether in debate or revolt if needed. The revolt
represents the new principles of a true
critique that can be articulated to the entire body (Badiou, Philosophy for
Militants, p.11). The philosophical act
must always take the form of a decision, where one must clearly choose a path,
which invokes a clear separation between … “a
this or a that” (Lecture notes from Professor Vernon, April 2nd, 2013) Badiou
states that thought is a form of practise and this practise is putting thought
to the test. The decision is the push and the beginning of a truth which are
intricately connected with one another. A truth represents the real process of
the fidelity of an event and thus provokes the creation of a subject who in
turn bears this fidelity (Badiou, Ethics an Essay on the Understanding of Evil
P.41). Thus, the production of truths according to Badiou can be seen as a
militant thought, produced by those who remain faithful to such an event. But
why must Badiou carry on with the idea of militant thought because it is only
through militant thinking where risk, activity, decision and fidelity are
invoked in the active participation of an event (Badiou, Manifesto for
Philosophy, p, 81). Such a truth puts a whole in knowledge separating it from
opinion and leaving the room for the production of truths (Badiou, Manifesto
for Philosophy p.81). What we need to
investigate are the following questions 1)
why does Badiou stress the need for the production of truths and what is the opposition between truths and opinions?
2) What is the fundamental
relationship between the subject and the event? 3) How does radical choice enter into the equation?
How dangerous is the freedom of opinion?
Badiou makes it abundantly clear that there are many forms of opinion,
from polling and feeble questionnaires to counter-opinion and in some cases
forms of non-opinion. But the very basis of our society or parliamentary-democracy
is structured around the freedom of opinion; and such opinion is a giant mass
unfurling as an authority that also is utilised as a marker for an objective
consensus. This translucency of such a consensus has a sway over the people that
carries them away. Being carried away by the current of opinion is what limits
the role of the decision and one would wonder how much subjectivity is really
being actualized if individuals are just going along with the sway of the mass?
This is the problem that Badiou points out
that there are no principles behind the usage of such opinion. How can we ever
have a systematized account of all the various and diverse forms of opinions?
How would anyone truly have a say in any matter? What exactly does a law of opinion without principles
look like? These are important questions and one would have to wonder what
would be implemented in the place of opinion according to Badiou? His answer is
a part of that ‘one-more-step’ in the direction of Cartesian thought, to
resurrect thought and the subject and Being back into the conditions of
philosophy (Badiou, Manifesto for Philosophy p, 32).
If philosophy is to have axioms they cannot be tainted by rhetoric or
public opinion , philosophy’s axioms must not be under the rule of the democrat
who is also known as the sophist. What the freedom of opinion allows, is
precisely that freedom to change those axioms, thus negating the universality
of truths (Badiou, Second Manifesto for Philosophy p. 19) Philosophy’s never
ending battle is always situated against opinion, and those who are opposed to
universal truths. The democrat or the sophist is as real today as they were for
Plato.
The Philosopher and the Democrat will only agree on two conditions i) that individuals exist; and ii) communities belonging to those
individual exist. With this acknowledgement Badiou must accept a certain
materialist postulate; there are bodies and languages (Badiou, Second Manifesto
for Philosophy p. 19). This postulate becomes the main ideology that consumes
the world, but the philosopher is not bothered by the ideology per se, he/she
is also subjugated by democratic materialism. This means that what exists in
our world occurs under the axiom of democratic materialism, “there are only bodies and languages”
(Badiou, Second Manifesto for Philosophy p. 21). This is the state of our current contemporary
world, accepting such a limitation that only x and y exist.
If democratic materialism is the axiom that pertains to all that happens
in our world how are truths possible? Badiou
explains that there is an exception to the axiom and that exception comes in
the form of science, art, politics and love (Badiou, Second Manifesto for
Philosophy p. 22). Truths act as a form
of resistance and can be appropriated by individuals that partake in their
materialization and progress. They are still materially affiliated with the
axiom but their creation and implementation raises their value. Truths thus
hold a transwordly value, and the philosopher must introduce them into the
prevailing world of democratic materialism (Badiou, Second Manifesto for
Philosophy p. 22).
Bodies and languages are the only factors surrounding opinion; a truth
can never be reduced to mere opinion for a truth is appropriated and seized not
in this world, but of another world, one that is seen as insignificant until
raised up from the current of a truth procedure (Badiou, Second Manifesto for
Philosophy p. 22). In this sense truths can be seen as the sole factor that
affirms and unifies worlds (Badiou, Second Manifesto for Philosophy p. 22). A
truth, in essence, does not belong to any specific world, its purpose, is to show
that although worlds differ in several aspects, they are essentially the same
because of the truths that have been called into being (Badiou, Second
Manifesto for Philosophy p. 22). In other words, two worlds grasped in one
reality; and this coming together of worlds, are unified solely by truths alone.
He states . . .
“Truth, and truths alone, unify worlds. They
transfix the disparate composites of bodies and languages in such a way that,
for a split second or sometimes longer these are, as it were, welded together.
This is why truths introduce within the established play of opinions, a sudden
change of scale … through the welding of worlds” (Badiou, Second Manifesto
for Philosophy p. 24).
Opinion is always
limited to the freedom of repeating established norms that have taken hold of a
given society, but a truth opens a world to a new “world-to-come” (Badiou, Second Manifesto for Philosophy p. 24).This
opening produces a shift in the logic or
an order of a world. This ‘world-to-come’
is always already presupposed in the infinity of the true because a truth is
always that which is rising up as an excess, or a people, or proletariat, or
lovers embodied as a collective truth, affirming their place in the welding of
the two worlds (Badiou, Second Manifesto for Philosophy p. 25). This is the truest form of real freedom which
is established for all worlds and not just the subordination of the one.
Philosophy produces a principle of principles one that thinks in the
direction of truths; and not of the freedom of opinions (Badiou, Second
Manifesto for Philosophy p. 25). Thought
for Badiou can be considered as a form of labour that is in search of
production, process, constraint and discipline (Badiou, Second Manifesto for
Philosophy p. 25). This form of labour
makes the philosopher, in a sense, a worker who is given the tasks of detecting;
and finding the truths of his/her time that have been long forgotten while,
being strongly opposed to the lifeless opinion that surrounds our society (Badiou,
Second Manifesto for Philosophy p. 25). The philosopher must then weld together
the separate worlds in order for a truth to appear. This means that a truth is
more then just an abstract entity, a truth must exists as a body, in-a-world;
and although they maybe rare, truths are both timeless and eternal (Badiou,
Second Manifesto for Philosophy p. 26). We will have to return to how a truth
as a body, appears in the world, when we can identify what a subject is and its
connection to the event. It is still unclear how Philosophy and the philosopher
welds worlds together and how a truth is universal, so it important to
understand the conditions of philosophy and what precisely those conditions
pertain to.
The conditions of philosophy are called truth procedures and they are not
in any way influenced by religions, rhetoric/opinions or myths (Badiou,
Manifesto for Philosophy p. 33). Badiou posits four
conditions, or truth procedures, of philosophy ‘the matheme’, ‘the
poetic’, the political’ and ‘the amorous’. Philosophy in itself cannot create
truths this is why the need for the four conditions; and as I stated earlier
philosophy is not a body of knowledge, but action; and these generic procedures
become heightened by their eventful existence (Badiou, Manifesto for Philosophy
p. 36). A truth has a paradoxical relationship in the world, it must be new and
something rare, and reach the very core of its being as a truth. This means
that a truth must in a sense, impose itself on the world, where it is
heightened and seen at maximal intensity. The origin of a truth is based on its
connection to an event (Badiou, Manifesto for Philosophy p. 36). A situation or
a state of things can be seen as a multiple and for a truth to occur; a truth
procedure must supplement itself into the situation (Badiou, Manifesto for
Philosophy p. 36). Badiou states …
“Philosophy sets
out to think its time by putting the state of procedures conditioning it into
common place. Its operations, whatever they maybe, always aim to think
‘together’, to configurate within an unique exercise of thought the epochal
disposition of the matheme, poetic, political invention and the amorous
…philosophy’s sole question is indeed that of truth not that it produces any,
but because it offers a access to the unity of a moment of truths, a conceptual
site in which the generic procedures are thought” (Badiou, Manifesto for
Philosophy p. 37).
How would a truth appear in the
world? And how could we constitute a truth as a body in a world? These are
rather important questions. We now know that philosophy doesn’t produce its
truths but has 4 conditions -truth procedures- which are supplemented into a
situation suspending a truth from the situation (Badiou, Being and Event p.25).
If there isn’t such a supplementation then there is no truth, to rupture a hole
in knowledge. But just exactly how can a truth appear in the first place as a
condition supplemented into the situation? A situation is the very place of a
“taking-place” or occurrence of a pending truth that is hovering over the
situation until its eventful origin has been brought to bear on the world
(Badiou, Being and Event p.25). This bringing to bear on the world is the risk
that one faces, thrown into a position of mere chance and activity.
The existence of truths that appear in our world do not in anyway
interrupt Badiou’s own materialist postulate. This taking-place can be
identified as another question, how can we properly think a body, as a truth appearing in the world? Yet a series of problems arise. If truths are
interwoven as bodies in a world; and at the same time, the singularity of their
appearance are created out of the sheer materials of a particular world, how
can a body in a world be representative of a given truth? (Badiou, Second
Manifesto for Philosophy, p.32). These so called truths and their origins are
not contingent upon a god, this is Badiou’s paradox. The materials of a world
impart a presence that is lifted to the level of the infinite and then considered
as eternal truths in time (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, p.32). If we
strip down being to its bare essentials, it can be qualified as a pure
multiplicity. However, this multiplicity is a complex multiple made up of a
series of multiplicities (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, p.32). This interweaving relationship between
multiplicities is netted together out of the void (Badiou, Second Manifesto of
Philosophy, p.32).
Appearing for Badiou means that a pure multiplicity as a multiplicity is
assigned to a world (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, p.32). Being
assigned to a world means that a multiplicity must be indentified by its
numerous forms of relation to other multiples in a given world (Badiou, Second
Manifesto of Philosophy, p.32). Thus a multiplicity is differentiated by its
own elements and attributes and of course it surrounding environment (Badiou,
Second Manifesto of Philosophy, p33).
This means that a multiplicity is visibly connected to a system based on
the differences between elements and identities that correlate to all other
multiples (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, p33).
Appearing for Badiou has a unique structure that is imposed upon by the
logical identity of a given world. Thus, appearing for Badiou is contingent
solely upon the network of differences and identities amongst a series of
multiples (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, p33). For a singularity or a
truth process to arise upon the scene, Badiou must have an intricate way to
decipher the relations between any given set of multiples (Badiou, Second
Manifesto of Philosophy, p.34). This means there must be a specific criterion
for the existence of a truth in any situation of a world. Now the question is how we differentiate
between two multiples? Any two multiples
will differ in composition if they contain or lack a specific element that the
other does not possess (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, p33). This is
what separates the two multiples, the very precise amount of elements that they
contain. If multiple Y has elements (a, b, c) and multiple Z contains elements (a, b, c, d), then this is all the
evidence needed to prove their differences in identity (Badiou, Second
Manifesto of Philosophy, p.34). Yet these differences, according to Badiou are
based on an extensional dimension, meaning they are ontologically different
based on how their Being-there appears in a given world (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, p.35).
There is certain logic that is applied to all multiplicities and the
degrees to which their identities and differences fluctuate in a world based on
the circumstances of how they appear in the logical frame. I will give an
example of this. If we take a group of people (High school students in a blue
and green uniform) walking amongst others on a busy day in the streets of Toronto
Badiou posits a necessary ordered structure behind the identity of
degrees. This system allows the group seen by the coffee shop watcher a minimal
amount of degrees of identity as opposed to the city street where the group is
seen as a blur amongst the mass or at maximal degree of identity. This multiple
appears differently based on the visible degree of its identity in a given
world. In some cases a multiple’s
minimum level of identity will be registered at a zero mark, while at others
times it will appear as a maximum degree. This fluctuation of the degree of
identities from maximum to minimum is part of the order structure of a world
and behind the logic of appearing or being-there (Badiou, Second Manifesto of
Philosophy, p.38). This being-there or as Badiou calls it the
there-being is the localization of a pure multiple. This logic or world is a
system of rules that can be also called a transcendental, which indirectly helps
disclose degrees of identities and differences of a multiple (Badiou, Second
Manifesto of Philosophy, P. 40).
For Badiou existence is not a specific predicate of any kind of
traditional subject but belongs to the logic of appearing (Badiou, Second Manifesto
of Philosophy, P. 52). The logic of a world always refers to the distribution
of degrees of identities and differences which abides by the transcendental of
a world (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, P. 53). Elements of a multiple
can be placed in a relationship with other multiples whose given elements
consist of different degrees of identity (Badiou, Second Manifesto of
Philosophy, P. 54). This implies that there is a system of degrees making it
possible for all to see the fluctuation between degrees of identities. Now
these elements correlate between degrees of identity that can be registered as
larger or smaller. Every multiple has a couple of elements (Badiou, Second
Manifesto of Philosophy, P. 55). A transcendental will always refer to the
correlation between two given elements of a multiple. This relationship between
the elements of a multiple which refers to size; larger or smaller can be
identified as identity function (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, P.
57). This identity function is a basic part of the logic of appearing (Badiou,
Second Manifesto of Philosophy, P. 57). When the identity function of two
elements is at a maximal level the elements will be identical. If, however, the
identity function takes a minimal level these two elements will be quite
different from each other (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, P. 58). Multiples
that appear are arranged as a very complex network of degrees of identity
between their elements; their existence solely depends on the value of its
identity function when one and the same element has peaked and reached its
maximal intensity (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, P. 58). The
existence of a multiple is contingent upon a transcendental degree of its self
identity in a world (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, P. 58). This means
that existence plays a pivotal part in the logic of a world, as the visible
appearance of any multiple in a world (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy,
P. 58). However, if a multiple exists with a minimal degree of identity, the
multiple does not exist in the present world. It is in the world per se, but
its visible intensity is at the mark of zero degrees, making its existence a
non-existence (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, P. 60). It cannot be
visibly seen in the world because its own appearance is its very annihilation.
A good example of this would be visiting workers from a different country
called in to do work, paid poorly only for their labour and not given the right
that every other individual in the country has. They exist, but in the laws of
the world there existence is a non existence. In a given society there are
people that make up a “count” because
in the society they are accounted for and clearly visible; in the
aforementioned case these workers represent a people below the count and their
existence is a non-existence (Lecture notes from Professor Vernon, March 26th,
2013). The being-there of this being
is identified as an inexistent of its world. This is the most pivotal foundation
for Badiou because the world has the capacity to allow inexistence; it makes it
extremely important for events to arise, which not only transforms a multiple’s
elements from inexistent to existent, but allows the room for a shifting
transcendental (Lecture notes from Professor Vernon, March 26th,
2013). This prioritises the need for truths, events, subjects and conditions
for the sole purpose of emancipation. Badiou’s project is to liberate oneself
from the oppressive regime of opinion to reconfigure and reconstruct truths of
a situation by incorporating truth procedures led by a militant intervention
(Hallward, A Subject to Truth p. 319). We can begin to identify the close
relationship between the subject and an event.
For a truth to exist it needs to appear with a maximum level of
intensity, thus disclosing its self identity. A truth must exist as a
modification of its transcendental direction.
Since truths are the only exception to the principle of materialism it
must in some way affect the very rigid rules of a world (Badiou, Second
Manifesto of Philosophy, P. 75). This means that the rarity and exceptional
component in a truth in some way can change the very logic of a world. A
transcendental is considered the measure of all existence or the capture of
multiple elements whose identities and differences appear. In some way a truth
must be able to aid in the shifting and mutation of elements and parts (Lecture
notes from Professor Vernon, March 26th, 2013). This means that
appearance has a unique relationship between multiplicities and the
transcendental. We still don’t know how change occurs? How is a truth elevated
and how is the subject introduced and what is the importance of the event?
In order for change to occur, a multiple must be introduced as a new
entry; it must belong to itself and abide by its own laws. Every multiple has an inexistent element. When
this element reaches ‘maximal existential value’ an event occurs (Badiou,
Second Manifesto of Philosophy, P. 79). What is called a site is the new phase
of a multiple or an event seen in a very different light brought to bear on the
world in a new way. I had mentioned emancipation and liberation, what is taking
place is the raising up of an inexistent from its minimal state to a maximal
value; and this is the birth of a truth. Only through an event can a truth
become. Its origin must take place through the momentum of the event and its
elements rising up.
The Paris Commune marks a similar event, a political event or truth which
witnessed the people that were previously seen as inexistent elements of a
society, rise up and overthrow the government. This forced those that were
oppressed to resort to brutal violence. It pushed them to think the violence of thought, to decide and impose upon them something
new; and rare that had both chance and eternity colliding together with each
movement (Lecture notes from Professor Vernon, March 26th,
2013). This rising up of an element can
be understood as a local mutation. A local mutation is when a multiple’s
inexistent element appears with maximal value or the people of Paris
This is the risk of thought; it forces us to act and to actively
participate in changing our surroundings. It demands of us to push the limits
and in some cases to not have any limits at all. The corruption of the youth,
the recklessness of thought and its violent imposition upon us represents a
militant thinking. What militant thinking demands of the bodies that make this
body are to accept the consequences of the event or the raising up which
initiates the primordial statement into a ‘subjectivizable
body’ or a united collective (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, P.
89). This body rallied together by the authority of the primordial statement must
simply declare allegiance to the statement and be a volunteer opening its arms
to all the consequences (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, P. 89). This is what Badiou terms incorporation, a
close affinity between all those bodies that now exist as one. It is this one
that must move together in order to shatter the laws of appearing. Once a
multiple is elevated to a maximal intensity it is incorporated in a
truth-process, this is how a truth becomes a body and how a body of truth
appears in a world. Incorporating oneself in a body is the giving up of oneself
for this newly formed truth. This affinity allows one to not only have a part
of this truth but it allows one to exist and appear at the same level of
intensity as the primordial statement. The problem here is that one has to
sacrifice their individuality for the collective and for truth. The subject
must accept the consequences at all costs. This imposes on them to have faith
in the movement and to the event. Badiou
imposes a rigid binary structure, either go back to the world of opinion that
is consumed with bodies and languages or stay faithful to the event and remain
hopeful in truths. Both scenarios leave no room for individual freedom for you’re
either stuck in the realm of opinion or have faith in truths. The so called
exception is simply another term for another structure to impose upon an
individual.
How can thought demand of us to give ourselves up? How can we exist as a
subject to truth and stay loyal to the event once it has vanished? Is the
fidelity of an event enough to keep one whole? If an event vanishes after it
climaxes why would one stay loyal and faithful to its very short existence only
to go back to the way things were previously? Our enthusiasm and active
fidelity as participants is supposed to be enough disrupt the laws of a world.
A truth moves through a subject who has faith in an event linking them
together, making the subject a part of an infinite process a truth and an
immortal in that moment in time. The faithful subject with its collective body
rallied by its incorporation represents a militant becoming (Badiou, Second
Manifesto of Philosophy, P. 93).
Badiou doesn’t allow any other options. There is always a wager, a choice
and a decision, and this type of radical choice represents the forced identity
that we are to uphold. This time he erects a tripartite subjective map. We are
either a faithful subject rallied together by a collective body/ incorporation,
or we are a reactive subject. The reactive subject does not accept the event
and its consequences, these subjects’s hold on to the previous world without
the need to change anything, and those that fall into this type of subject will
always distance themselves from those that follow the event, taking away the
new transformation. This taking away represents a false present. The reactive
subject will always try to place limits on the movement never allowing another
rising up of an inexistent (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, P. 94). The
Obscure subject demands the destruction of the body of truth; it replaces the
body of truth with a fictitious body. Its mode of expression is always an order
of a God, race, or nation (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, P. 95).
This Philosophy invokes its participants to be militants of a procedure. These
militants are the faithful subjects armed with fidelity and the idea (Badiou,
MetaPolitics p.142). The idea for Badiou is what sets the motion of an
individual in the path of the true, thus an idea is supposed to mediate between
an individual and a subject to truth (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy,
P. 105). What we are left with is the violence of thought, that moment where we
have to choose either incorporation as the faithful subject with truths,
indifference and opinion as the reactive subject, or pure hostility and
destruction as the obscure subject. It is that one more step that imposes on us
that we must go on, we must decide
and choose in favour of the true (Badiou, Second Manifesto of Philosophy, P.
67). What Badiou has forced on us, is the rigidity of thought based on
arbitrary decision. Our decisions have consequences and if those consequences
do not support the entire collective or fidelity to an event we fall back into
the world of opinion. If philosophy is not reckless it is nothing and so we
must strive for action and any form of inaction is to turn our back on the
true. Therefore, the forcing of thought shocks people into action and only
action can cause real change.
Bibliography
Badiou, Alain, and Norman Madarasz.
Manifesto for Philosophy: followed by two essays: "The (Re)turn of
philosophy itself" and "Definition of Philosophy". Albany , N.Y. : State University
of New York
Badiou, Alain, and Oliver
Feltham. Being and Event. London
Badiou, Alain. Logics of
Worlds Being and Event, 2. London
Badiou, Alain. Second
Manifesto for Philosophy. English ed. Cambridge ,
UK
Badiou, Alain, and Jason Barker. Metapolitics.
English-language ed. London
Badiou, Alain, and Bruno
Bosteels. Philosophy for Militants. London
Badiou, Alain. Ethics: An
Essay on the Understanding of Evil. London
Hallward, Peter. Badiou: A
Subject to Truth. Minneapolis , Minn. u.a.: University
of Minnesota Press
No comments:
Post a Comment