Hope

hope [is] a simple imperative of continuation, a principle of tenacity, of obstinacy (Badiou)

hope is rooted in men’s incompletion, from where they move out in constant search (Freire)

hope and possession cross one another, inversely proportional.
[hope] assists possibility.
(Jean-Luc Marion)

Hope is not bound to a telos. Hope is often understood as something that aims at a concrete telos: A hopes for x; if A gets x, the hope is fulfilled; if not, it is thwarted. As if hope could be reduced to an economy of goods. How useful could such an understanding be? Would it not be better to understand hope only in an abstract sense? Hope, understood not as hope for a telos, but as hopefulness.

Abstract hope points not to a reward, but to a future, a future that is not-yet. In the present, this hope is only hopeful perseverance. This hope cannot be reduced to desire – though the two are intertwined. The definition must be circular. Hope is hopefulness. It is hopeful patience, but not a passive patience: hope is a struggle for continuation in hopefulness. Simple passivity can only allow an absence of hope, a giving up. As Freire says, “as long as I fight, I am moved by hope; and if I fight with hope, then I can wait”. Hope is the imperative: do not give up!

However, hope is not dogmatic optimism, where we are secure in our possibly misguided, and necessarily naïve, “knowledge” that we are on the right path, a “knowledge” that brooks no questioning. Such dogmatic optimism cannot allow for an opening up of a universe of hope – it will necessarily limit it within the contours of its limited (but exalted) knowledge. Hope, which is not naïve optimism, will allow subjectively for a creative unfolding of a world of possibilities.

Hope is the essence of the subject – the subject continues in hope, and the perseverance of the subject is guided by a hope which gestures towards a world of possibility.