generalising/expanding Badiou’s notion of the scandal – the notion that scandal is a [morality] device by which [an] ideology persuades people that particular problematic consequences of that ideology are in truth events that [morally] contradict that ideology and that thus don’t undermine/discredit it – thus a culture framing/interpreting events as scandals thus functioning as a kind of defense mechanism… or, in short: something being a scandal implies that it is an aberration – that things are normally not as bad, the scandalous event therefor noteworthy:
Morality and moral judgement/condemnation/prohibition in general perform the same function, just on a more abstract level – & especially what could be called progressive morality, by which I mean morality that continuously seeks/finds new moral frontiers to define[/re-define] itself with/along:
For a newly-emerging/visible domain of problematic consequences of an ideology, a new [phase of progressive] moral norm emerges, proliferates and predominates – which (pre-emptively or retro-actively) positions the ideology as standing in opposition to the bad stuff, as standing on the right side of emerging debate/struggle/conflict…
Furthermore: the morality that an ideology’s culture pushes most is an indication of the issues the ideology/culture is most fearful of discussing (instead of denying/repressing) – feels most guilty about.
This seems the principle/universal of which Badiou’s notion of scandal is the particular.