June 15, 2012
Slavoj Žižek: 'Humanity is OK, but 99% of people are boring idiots'
From The Guardian:
If you have read all of Žižek's work, you are doing better than me. Born in 1949, the Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic grew up under Tito in the former Yugoslavia, where suspicions of dissidence consigned him to academic backwaters. He came to western attention in 1989 with his first book written in English, The Sublime Object of Ideology, a re-reading of Žižek's great hero Hegel through the perspective of another hero, the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. Since then there have been titles such as Living in the End Times, along with films – The Pervert's Guide To Cinema – and more articles than I can count. By the standards of cultural theory, Žižek sits at the more accessible end of the spectrum – but to give you an idea of where that still leaves him, here's a typical quote from a book called Žižek: A Guide for the Perplexed, intended to render him more comprehensible: "Žižek finds the place for Lacan in Hegel by seeing the Real as the correlate of the self-division and self-doubling within phenomena." At the risk of upsetting Žižek's fanatical global following, I would say that a lot of his work is impenetrable. But he writes with exhilarating ambition and his central thesis offers a perspective even his critics would have to concede is thought-provoking. In essence, he argues that nothing is ever what it appears, and contradiction is encoded in almost everything. Most of what we think of as radical or subversive – or even simply ethical – doesn't actually change anything. "Like when you buy an organic apple, you're doing it for ideological reasons, it makes you feel good: 'I'm doing something for Mother Earth,' and so on. But in what sense are we engaged? It's a false engagement. Paradoxically, we do these things to avoid really doing things. It makes you feel good. You recycle, you send £5 a month to some Somali orphan, and you did your duty." But really, we've been tricked into operating safety valves that allow the status quo to survive unchallenged? "Yes, exactly." The obsession of western liberals with identity politics only distracts from class struggle, and while Žižek doesn't defend any version of communism ever seen in practice, he remains what he calls a "complicated Marxist" with revolutionary ideals.
To his critics, as one memorably put it, he is the Borat of philosophy, churning out ever more outrageous statements for scandalous effect."The problem with Hitler was that he was not violent enough," for example, or "I am not human. I am a monster." Some dismiss him as a silly controversialist; others fear him as an agitator for neo-Marxist totalitarianism. But since the financial crisis he has been elevated to the status of a global-recession celebrity, drawing crowds of adoring followers who revere him as an intellectual genius. His popularity is just the sort of paradox Žižek delights in because if it were down to him, he says, he would rather not talk to anyone.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 06:44 AM | Permalink






















Comments
@ Azra,
Thanks for the post.
I confess my ignorance of this man. I would not have come across him in what I read and follow. To say I am not impressed may only confirm how little I know.
Then there is the eye and mind catching title, and I go to the complete quote: "I'm really more and more becoming Stalinist. Liberals always say about totalitarians that they like humanity, as such, but they have no empathy for concrete people, no? OK, that fits me perfectly. Humanity? Yes, it's OK – some great talks, some great arts. Concrete people? No, 99% are boring idiots."
Immediately my thoughts went to Walt Whitman and his "Leaves of Grass." Whitman heard the 99 percent singing and he rejoiced.
I Hear America Singing
I hear America singing, the varied carols I hear,
Those of mechanics, each one singing his as it should be blithe and strong,
The carpenter singing his as he measures his plank or beam,
The mason singing his as he makes ready for work, or leaves off work,
The boatman singing what belongs to him in his boat, the deckhand
singing on the steamboat deck,
The shoemaker singing as he sits on his bench, the hatter singing as
he stands,
The wood-cutter's song, the ploughboy's on his way in the morning,
or at noon intermission or at sundown,
The delicious singing of the mother, or of the young wife at work,
or of the girl sewing or washing,
Each singing what belongs to him or her and to none else,
The day what belongs to the day—at night the party of young
fellows, robust, friendly,
Singing with open mouths their strong melodious songs.
Posted by: Norman Costa | Jun 15, 2012 10:09:52 AM
You can draw a straight line from Whitman to Ginsburg:
Text:http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/america.html
Voice: The notorious slightly tipsy version. Love it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEUjTpyBhOo
Posted by: rmk28 | Jun 15, 2012 10:34:58 AM
I can't imagine anyone more boring that someone who thinks Hitler was "not violent enough"
Posted by: Olavi Valo | Jun 15, 2012 11:44:10 AM
This is the Grauniad at its tabloid worst and these soundbites essentially tell us nothing about Zizek. I would urge anyone who is interested to listen to some of his talks and/or read some of his writings.
Posted by: big joe | Jun 15, 2012 12:07:53 PM
Being a Hegel/Marx inspired savant, Zizek is prone to philosophizing with a jackhammer (which is not to say that, say, a tenth of what he says is not relevant and timely). Others who are more careful with things like factual evidence such as Joan Roelofs and Michael James Barker have arrived at similar conclusions about "safety valves that allow the status quo to survive unchallenged." Arundhati Roy has also written about the "NGO-ization of resistance":
Posted by: slr | Jun 15, 2012 2:14:25 PM
I can't imagine anyone more boring that someone who thinks Hitler was "not violent enough"
Looking up the details of that quote, I found this interesting article which tries to defend Zizek from charges of being pro-authoritarian, and talks about that quote in particular:
Third, no, he’s not being ironic or anything when he (Zizek) writes “The problem with Hitler is that he was not violent enough, that his violence was not ‘essential’ enough” - and anyone who says so is being disgustingly dishonest to the stances that Zizek tries to take. He’s serious about that claim. But of course, he doesn’t mean that Hitler wasn’t violent enough in the sense that he didn’t kill enough people - on the subjective or objective levels of violence - but that he wasn’t violent to the state of things, that he didn’t challenge the running order of things (he just took it more seriously then others in his time - as has been pointed out time and time again, anti-Semitism was rampant in pre-WWII Europe [and beyond], Hitler just took this to an extreme): that is, that he wasn’t violent on the structural level. And, again, that’s the violence that Zizek advocates. Structural violence. Violence against the smooth running of things, against the ahistorical characterization of Capital, or Nature, or anything like that, against the notion that what is, has to be. And he does mean for that violence to be a verb - you can’t just critique the smooth running of things (as I’ve said before, what Zizek hates more than anything is probably Hegelian “Beautiful Souls” that do just that) - a thousand critiques against the ahistorical nature of Capital won’t do anything to change that ideological construction within society - especially since, for Zizek, ideology is founded upon the fact that we know the ideological construction in the first place (“I know very well, but still…”).
This page also discusses his view that capitalism is inherently a violent system and we need to make a radical break from it, and gives a longer version of the Hitler quote:
crazy, tasteless even, as it may sound, the problem with Hitler was that he was not violent enough, that his violence was not ‘essential' enough. Nazism was not radical enough, it did not dare to disturb the basic structure of the modern capitalist social space (which is why it had to focus on destroying an invented external enemy, Jews).
And this page says he also said Gandhi was more "violent" than Hitler because he dismantled the state while Hitler was accommodating to German business. So that suggests that even when he talks about the need for "divine violence" to counter the violence of the capitalist order, he isn't necessarily thinking in terms of killing people (though I get the sense he's not particularly opposed to killing people in the name of overthrowing capitalism, either). The page also says he was being "too clever by half" by phrasing things this way, which I agree with, but the idea he was expressing was anti-capitalist-system rather than pro-mass-murder.
Posted by: Jesse M. | Jun 15, 2012 2:15:01 PM
@ rmk28,
LIKE!
Posted by: Norman Costa | Jun 15, 2012 2:55:05 PM
Am I the only one here who is reminded by Zizek of Yevtushenko? This kind of clowning, posing, and psueudo-criticism of accommodationists while being not only an accommodationist but a media darling and a professional crazyman is Eastern European/Russian schtick top to toe. I also think Zizek is as much of a philosopher as Yevtushenko was a poet, and that time will tell us so. The fault is not Zizek's for wringing the dynamic dry -- who wouldn't? The fault is ours, for not knowing Zizek from Lacan any better than we knew Yevtushenko from Brodsky.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jun 15, 2012 4:31:07 PM
Wisdom from Elatia, as ever.
Posted by: Zara | Jun 15, 2012 9:03:54 PM
Echo, unique Elatia! But a lot more can be said about Lacan, the French psychoanalist that tried to transform freudianism into fraudanism.
An incredible narcissistic feat, I must admit.
Posted by: Félix E. F. Larocca, MD | Jun 15, 2012 10:26:50 PM
Elatia, word!
But we may be making a category mistake. He is having fun and mostly getting paid for it and his readers are enjoying his writing. No one got hurt in the making of this movie...Not even the capitalist system, whatever it is.
Posted by: omar | Jun 15, 2012 11:46:13 PM
My head didn't explode when I watched the video, but Assange and Žižek are a lot more fun than Horowitz.
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Jun 16, 2012 1:12:28 AM
Omar, thank you. You mean: Zizek is not subversive, but very well rewarded even for an academic super-star, and entertaining to serious people. So he's as good a shill for the status quo as could be wished by any Mormon malefactor sitting on his prostate. Take someone I like much better -- Jon Stewart, who could be in the pay of the Chinese, for undermining us by getting us off, when there's real work to be done. As much as I may laugh at them because they are funny, I despise every high-IQ clown who encourages us to be Barcalounger Lefties giggling ourselves to sleep, feeling chilled though we have good reason to be restless.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jun 16, 2012 1:20:38 AM
Things that might concern leftists, but don't seem to at all:
NDAA, indefinite detention, extension of the Patriot Act, refusal of the Supreme Court to hear Gitmo prisoners' habeas cases, the fact that Gitmo is still open, warrantless spying . . . the list goes on.
These things take place under the official leadership of the country.
Clowns are clowns. Leaders are not supposed to be clowns.
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Jun 16, 2012 2:41:07 PM
99% of us may not be idiots but most of us are brainwashed zombies doped by the system, unable to see through the tyranny of the status quo which Zizek brilliantly does. The article portrays him as a clown whereas he is a serious and accomplished academic. For more factual information about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_Žižek
Posted by: Raza | Jun 16, 2012 11:20:57 PM
Love him! Made my way though a huge crowd and chased him down Broadway after he spoke at Zuccotti Park last Falll and against all odds reached him and got my copy of living in the end times signed. :)) like a right proper groupie.
Posted by: Maniza | Jun 17, 2012 12:15:01 AM
If it made you happy, Maniza, I'm all for it, especially last fall in Zuccotti Park, where all I did was hand out protein bars for a few hours. I can remember when Mick Jagger used to be styled "His Satanic Majesty" -- and he was certainly menacing and glorious and Miltonic for a while. But -- just for me -- to envision Zizek as a penetrating or original prophet is a lot like thinking Mick Jagger really was...Satan. I am basing this on personal opinion, of course, and on the Julien Benda Test I sometimes use to sort out my own thinking, not to impose it on others.
Raza, I am not thrilled with the Wikipedia as a work of reference to determine anything more controversial than the year of the death of Franz Schubert. Read the Wikipedia article on Nietzsche, and tell me how factual it is. When the day comes that nothing you read there could possibly be a Wikipedist having his little joke before being found out, I will accept it as a reference work with real cred, not a compendium of spin.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jun 17, 2012 1:05:27 AM
Raza and Elatia, I won't defend Zizek, but I will too defend wiki!
On Zizek I instinctively take the clowning rock star view myself, and the wikipedia page did nothing much to change my impression. The article seemed pretty decent though, in the sense that it described his views extensively, as also criticisms of those views, and linked to plenty of useful articles and websites. I ran into nothing horrible, certainly nothing bad enough to merit a blanket dismissal of the "Ah, wiki, no-one takes that seriously" form. My antennae here are likely ill-tuned since Zizek isn't a particular interest of mine, so is there anything particular that's awful? I haven't read the Nietzsche article, but it's not the subject.
Posted by: prasad | Jun 17, 2012 5:54:14 AM
Prasad, a Wikipedia article can be very useful or quite misleading, depending on who has just been under the hood. What it is usually best for is helping a user to assemble sources to conduct their own research. I like the Wikipedia, and it leads me to primary sources I would never have known about almost every time I use it. Certainly the Wikipedia is very clear and forthcoming when an article is insufficiently referenced to be useful, or when the subject of a vanity entry lacks notability criteria.
It needs to be judged entry by entry, with the understanding that entries are always being tweaked -- not necessarily for the better, but by people who have highly varied motivations for the tweak. Also, since everyone goes to the Wikipedia, citing it as the work of reference you have chosen to support your point may be a little slack. The article on Nietzsche is just a famous example of how badly served a reader may be by relying on the Wikipedia as if it were the gold standard -- nothing to do with Zizek himself.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jun 17, 2012 9:46:45 AM
@Elatia---What???? Mick Jaggar isn't???????? No one ever tells me anything...
Posted by: Maniza | Jun 18, 2012 4:42:06 PM
Zizek is a serious thinker posing as a buffoon while any number of people - I think off the top of my head of Sam Harris, Alain de Botton, Gayatri Spivak - are buffoons posing as serious thinkers.
Any critic of capitalism is an easy target for those who would sneer because, horror of horrors, said critic wears shoes and has a bank account and takes airplanes and isn't a Tolstoyan in sack-cloth, crying against the cities. Unless they are, in which case they are equally easily shrugged off as a kook. The de-legitimation and reappropriation of any point of leverage against capitalism may be one of its most brilliant accomplishments.
What does it mean to say that Zizek is 'accomodationist'? If the comment is aimed at his personal hypocrisies, I think it's an ad hominem of modest relevance. If it's aimed at his work, I think it requires a little justification. And if 'accomodationist' is to be the derogatory label of choice, what would its laudatory converse be? 'Revolutionary'? Wouldn't that just make us titter, with its adolescent naivety and echoes of unreconstructed Leninism?
I personally find his analysis and critique of the structural and psychological architectures of modern global capitalism to be incisive and insightful. But this article quite deliberately precludes any serious engagement with Zizek's work.
Posted by: joe | Jun 19, 2012 12:04:18 AM
Joe's list of "buffoons posing as serious thinkers" sounds so exactly right I wonder if I should try to look past the Zizek surface. Any reading recommendations?
Posted by: prasad | Jun 20, 2012 1:34:36 AM
Joe and Prasad, you have a point. But sometimes, buffoons are posing as heroic scale buffoons to force listeners to take them more seriously. For instance, if I came at you riding a juggernaut of schtick, you might well seek the serious thread before dismissing me, the very way very way people open themselves to a streak of high level aggression in a stand-up comic. If I were scholarly, tedious and sanctimonious, burdening you with my failure to connect and beating you about the head with my high seriousness, you would probably want out. I am not saying it's all about style and self presentation, but that these issues befog content, and are meant to.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jun 20, 2012 9:39:59 AM
Post a comment