This is the thread where we talk about Slavoj Zizek...

*sobs* a lot

I'd tried to erase that day from my memory, thanks a lot Barley!!!

zizek is a leninist, a means-to-an-ends kind of guy, so his stance here is unexpected.

of 24: "It is here that we encounter the series' ideological lie: in spite of the CTU's ruthlessness, its agents, especially Bauer, are warm human beings - loving, caught in the emotional dilemmas of ordinary people."

which begs the question: well, can't ruthless people also be loving fathers? s/z's answer is:

"As Arendt says, the fact that they are able to retain any normality while committing such acts is the ultimate confirmation of moral depravity."

i can't help finding his paradoxes (and there are umpteen more in the article) a bit fortune cookie. isn't the ultimate confirmation of moral depravity the morally depraved act itself? likewise, do we need his thoughts on 'why is cheney telling us this' -- isn't the fact of torture enough?

But the main point is fairly straightforward. The means-to-an-end argument, when it comes to torture, boils down to "do what you need to do, then pay the price later." But by implying that torture has no price for those who practice it, legal or emotional, 24 to some extent moves the issue beyond mere means-to-an-end - there's no longer any moral balancing going on at all. It simply becomes "this is what we do." Torture becomes unfortunate but no longer morally troubling. The notion that this somehow goes to a person's guilt and depravity is popularly accepted in the entrenchment of the consideration of remorse as a mitigating factor in sentencing for crimes.

It's basically the same argument w/r/t Cheney openly justifying what was formerly tacitly permitted: this does violence to the notion that there is a price to be paid for these actions, that there is a price that should be paid. The point is not merely to bring formerly hidden acts out into the open, but to disrupt and overturn the systems of understandings that necessitated the acts be hidden. A government which has to hide its torture is one which submits to the notion that, strictly speaking, what is being done is wrong. And there is always the possibility that the torture will be publicly exposed, resulting in loss of face and power for the ruling government.

The hiding at least pays lipservice to the notion that what is happening is morally reprehensible (as Mac says on Commander In Chief, "I don't want to hear that he was tortured"). What is changed in publicly announcing the use of torture is not necessarily the seriousness of the acts of torture committed (which, perhaps in the short-term, does not increase), but the system of morality within which that act is situated, and the system of power relationships. The Government says "you can no longer hold your avowed distaste for torture over me"; if the public does nothing at this stage, it effectively acknowledges "I accept your use of the torture as morally defensible."

I think that the ramifications for "society" in this are pretty huge, and that it's therefore right for Zizek to argue that the consideration of the moral depravity of an act can go beyond the act itself and extend to how it is framed in discourse.

I wouldn't go that far because I haven't really gotten to the "make your own zizekian argument" stage. But yeah his stuff (esp. these sorts of arguments) feels very familiar now, you sort of know where it's going immediately.

Yeah he is very repetitive, and not just in terms of overall approach but in terms of specific detail - the analogy of the husband and the wife who have the tacit agreement w/r/t his infidelity is in half a dozen other books by him. For me it's really all about the world-building of the first two big books (The Sublime Object and For They Know Not What They Do).

(of course, he also coasts in other things too, but then that's more an element of not seeing himself as a "theoretician" so much as a sort of gadfly polemicist)

But cool that he'd thought enough about it to come up with that one perfect phrase.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n08/letters.html

excellent combination of bad faith and projection, well done.

it would be kind of interesting to see him deploy that argument w/r/t palestine though, also not an independent state pre-1948, etc etc etc

I agree that he is too understanding of China's policies, but I thought this paragraph was spot-on:

One of the main reasons so many people in the West participate in the protests against China is ideological: Tibetan Buddhism, deftly propagated by the Dalai Lama, is one of the chief points of reference for the hedonist New Age spirituality that has become so popular in recent times. Tibet has become a mythic entity onto which we project our dreams. When people mourn the loss of an authentic Tibetan way of life, it isn’t because they care about real Tibetans: what they want from Tibetans is that they be authentically spiritual for us, so that we can continue playing our crazy consumerist game. ‘Si vous êtes pris dans le rêve de l’autre,’ Gilles Deleuze wrote, ‘vous êtes foutu.’ The protesters against China are right to counter the Beijing Olympic motto – ‘One World, One Dream’ – with ‘One World, Many Dreams’. But they should be aware that they are imprisoning Tibetans in their own dream.

There are other peoples the Chinese central government has oppressed as well, such as the Uyghurs, but since they don't have evoke similar imagery in Westerners as the Tibetans do, and don't have a charismatic leader like the Dalai Lama, they are mostly ignored. (Also, the Uyghurs happen to be mostly muslims, which of course makes them less likely to get much Western support.)

it would be kind of interesting to see him deploy that argument w/r/t palestine though, also not an independent state pre-1948, etc etc etc

The difference is, though, that the Israeli government has done little if nothing to develop the Palestinian areas. I'm not trying to defend China here, but the two situations aren't that easily comparable.

oh that bit about new-age hippies was what i meant by 'projection'; i suppose it might be true of some people who are actively pro-tibet, but most people seem to be against the occupation on more liberal grounds. just as many people who broadly support the palestinian cause might not be so keen on hamas.

zizek doesn't actually advance any evidence of this syndrome, anyway:

When people mourn the loss of an authentic Tibetan way of life, it isn’t because they care about real Tibetans: what they want from Tibetans is that they be authentically spiritual for us, so that we can continue playing our crazy consumerist game.

is just a standard zizek-y paradox. i'm sure he's used it before, conjoining it with the line from 'to be or not to be'; "the poles do the camping, we do the concentrating."

i'm not saying palestine corresponds with tibet 1:1, but zizek's take on it is likely to be 180 degress from his take here -- namely that the occupier is right, and the vocal support for a religio-nationalist cause is wrong.

Tibetan Buddhism, deftly propagated by the Dalai Lama, is one of the chief points of reference for the hedonist New Age spirituality that has become so popular in recent times.

This is bullshit as regards specifically Tibetan Buddhism, which strikes me as being way too particularist to offer much to New Age thinking. The Dalai Lama's charisma and media savvy has done far more to keep Tibet in the public consciousness of Western liberals. I'm also pretty sure that a lot of anti-Chinese government protests are grounded in issues other than Tibet. Amnesty's campaigns are one obvious example.

Plenty of Stalin apologists argued that he was only liquidating horrible reactionaries, too.

Yes to the Dalai Lama's media profile keeping it in public consciousness - linked to strong idea of Tibet as a separate occupied country, a profile that abkhazia, dagestan, kurdistan, don't have - kosovo being the anomaly here (but western govts wanted kosovar independence, rather than western people - so a bit of a red herring?)

Aren't Uyghar's in a minority in Xianjiang?

laxalt, by that i'm guessing you think none of these countries deserve independence? pretty blatantly in the case of kosovo.

bringing the opinion of 'western people' is a huge red herring, really, but i'd have thought those western people who have heard of kosovo will generally recall why its independence from serbia could be seen as a good thing for the people of kosovo.

No that isn't what I mean. (also wether Western Govt's wanted Kosovar independence or not shouldn't make that independence any more or less desirable per se)

I'm not suggesting any of these countries either deserve or don't deserve independence (just that western policy towards Kosovo was unusual as the usual state of affairs is to preseve integrity of the nation state).

Its more that I was trying to suggest that Tibet has a higher profile as an actual occupied state in western minds, whereas the others are probably thought of as regions - and that itself must be at least partially responsible for pro-Tibetan feeling in the west.

Surely one of the Kosovans' core claims to independence is that Kosova corresponds to what a nation-state is supposed to be?

Its more that I was trying to suggest that Tibet has a higher profile as an actual occupied state in western minds, whereas the others are probably thought of as regions - and that itself must be at least partially responsible for pro-Tibetan feeling in the west.

yeah, undeniably. though again: palestine is fairly prominent in the west. those other places barely even register as names, kurdistan excepted. i think there's some kind of insinuation threaded through this line -- i don't know what it is exactly, but my main reaction is 'so what?'

western policy towards Kosovo was unusual as the usual state of affairs is to preseve integrity of the nation state

greater serbia wasn't a nation state. plus the west had been operating in the former yugoslavia pre-1999. plus it was the west (germany) that encouraged its break-up.

I'm curious as to why Zizek is someone you guys read/talk about? Is he someone you read in school, and if so in what course of study? Or is he a big public intellectual in the UK or Australia or somewhere, and in those places public intellectuals are taken seriously? I'm just ignorant but curious, not trying to be snarky.

I'm curious as to why Zizek is someone you guys read/talk about? Is he someone you read in school, and if so in what course of study? Or is he a big public intellectual in the UK or Australia or somewhere, and in those places public intellectuals are taken seriously? I'm just ignorant but curious, not trying to be snarky.

-- Euler, Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:52 PM (7 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

he's definitely a prominent public intellectual -- ie he doesn't just address a specialist philosophy audience. (there is a q-mark over what his specialism is, perhaps.)

there've been about four films made about him, he gets new yorker profiles done on him, he gets into the LRB, guardian, etc, and he publishes a lot.

he's achieved this mostly post-9/11 and i was at uni before then and anyway he doesn't have much to say on my subject (history).

as for public intellectuals being taken seriously -- britain has often perceived itself as not giving intellectuals their due, in comparison with france where they alledgedly have a bigger public profile.

What do you mean by greater serbia?

yugoslavia

- croatia

xxxpost

Yeah, the French version of Play Your Cards Right was hosted by Louis Althusser.

in that case, i agree Yugoslavia, like USSR not a nation state

but kosovo was part of Serbia, not part of Yugoslavia. Same reason Estonias independence a different matter to, say, Dagestans, no?

He also was on the DVD of _Children of Men_, and made me realize that I did not in fact like _Children of Men_.

Yeah, the French version of Play Your Cards Right was hosted by Louis Althusser.

-- Noodle Vague, Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:59 PM (13 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

well this is the thing. but the received opinion is that french intellectuals had a nicer time of it.

but kosovo was part of Serbia, not part of Yugoslavia. Same reason Estonias independence a different matter to, say, Dagestans, no?

-- laxalt, Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:59 PM (9 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

i don't think this is a very fruitful way to look at this issue -- comparatively, from the outside, but also using unchanging categories like 'serbia' and 'kosovo', and indeed 'nation-state'. "kosovo was part of Serbia, not part of Yugoslavia", but serbia was "part of" yugoslavia, so...

Yeah I wasn't skitting you I was just playing the comedy disinformation game.

I.E. yes of course this is a widespread perception but from my experience French TV channels frequently mistake po-faced earnestness for intellectualism. NOT THAT THEY ARE ALONE IN THIS

Ok, thanks for the help! I work in pretty mainstream analytic philosophy in the US (and also in France), and it would be weird for any of us to get attention on a general interest internet message board. But we all have provocative political things to say, it's just that we don't work on those things as our speciality and so we don't receive attention for them. I wanted to gauge better why Zizek gets this kind of attention, since he's never come up in a discussion I've had with colleagues in the US or France.

The west has quite clearly encouraged the breakup of state-nations such as yugoslavia, and the USSR. Whether it is fruitful or not, I still find the west encouraging the breakup of nation-states to be unusual. This distinction clearly exists, fruitful or not

The west has quite clearly encouraged the breakup of state-nations such as yugoslavia, and the USSR. Whether it is fruitful or not, I still find the west encouraging the breakup of nation-states to be unusual. This distinction clearly exists, fruitful or not

-- laxalt, Saturday, April 19, 2008 3:10 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

ussr was an empire rather than a state-nation or nation-state.

state-nations do sometimes have a tendency to be constructed that way don't they!

not on expert on how far it had a 'national' identity -- from the rate of break-up, i'm thinking maybe not too much. of course, this could be down to western 'encouragement', but it does seem to have been unusually fissile.

new celebrity eggheads? (just looking for ideas. zizek is 60 next year and he seems like the tail end of a eurotheory wave.)

Whether it is fruitful or not, I still find the west encouraging the breakup of nation-states to be unusual.

Divide and conquer. Nationalism, the idea that particular ethnic groups should have their own discrete states, is a recent ideology and never a neutral one. There is no consistent U.S. policy toward ethnic nationalism -- it's mostly encourage the break up of our enemies/competitors (Russia, Serbia, Iraq), and help our friends stick together (Pakistan).

Nationalism, the idea that particular ethnic groups should have their own discrete states, is a recent ideology and never a neutral one.

kind of a CHALLENGING OPINION. what ideologies are neutral? what political philosophies are older? (and therefore more valid?)

anyway, nationalism doesn't have to specify 'ethnic groups' and your view of US influence would gratify the state department.

(did the US do *that much* to aid chechnya against russia?)

i don't get why you (and laxalt) are so keen on the preserving territorial integrity of serbia and russia!

But Gavin, I don't really think the US has encouraged the breakup of either Russia or Iraq! (precisely why Kosovo is something of an anomaly).

I have no particular desire to preserve territorial integrity of either serbia or russia, but neither do i believe that fragmentation is a default good for peoples either (the smaller the state, the weaker when it comes up against commerical interests?)

It seemed like some posters were assuming it's always good and right and natural for particular ethnic (or maybe I should say "cultural" to be more expansive) groups to have their own self-governing political entities, and were assuming that the U.S. is somehow consistent on this question. I was trying to point out the actual pattern of U.S. support for cultural nationalism around the world is consistent, but only with U.S. interests. I am not justifying it.

As far as "keen on Serbia's territorial integrity," that is much less important to me than explaining what actually happened, not some Hollywooded-up genocide -> U.S. benevolent cluster bombing -> happy flag-waving new nation paradigm that is continually regurgitated by the media. I don't know what crawled up your ass, I might as well ask you why you are so keen on the U.S. paying Al Qaeda to fuck with Serbia back in the '90s!

But Gavin, I don't really think the US has encouraged the breakup of either Russia or Iraq

No, but Serbia is a historical Russian ally, so fucking them up does weaken Russia. Combined with the "Color Revolutions" along Russia's border and the message supporting Kosovo sends to other minorities in Russia (including Chechnya)... I guess the jury can still be out on this one. And as for Iraq, we will just have to disagree, or maybe take it to another thread. I think that dividing the country along ethnic lines has been in the cards for a while and certain policies (walls, arming various militias) are exacerbating this.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSfCzWmVQAEJSc8.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSfDp4CWsAAtxNv.jpg

slavojpingbag

Oh no: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrSUGgfM4Q4

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QwasyxTf3q0/VgU-uPebGeI/AAAAAAAAFVM/NmFobBNrk6A/s1600/Zizek-wedding-0002.jpg

Everyone evil n egotistical: that's why I love Zizek (and Haneke). Both have a deep rooted belief that we're not that good.

the fabled backstory here -- true or not who can say! -- is that he looks as if he's beaten up bcz he had been, by the brothers of the bride when sz tried to weasel out of the wedding :D

enjoy yr symptom!

he is fumbling in his pocket with a concealed taser.

Not sure how an in-law-to-be beatdown is gonna convince you to *go thru* with a wedding

i think it also involved being frogmarched to the altar

no shotgun no credibility

we are in agreement tbh

Feels like they watched Game of Thrones. Lol

in an alternate universe zizek plays detective crockett in miami vice

A local linguist is found dead in a puddle of black ooze. Suspicion falls on Midsomer Stanton’s ice cream van driver, angry that all-encompassing whiteness might threaten the world ending with a whimper rather than a bang.

— Midsomer Murders Bot (@midsomerplots) March 18, 2019

Important update

mesmerized by this video of slavoj žižek absolutely demolishing two hot dogs pic.twitter.com/grNOIPfEQn

— Nick Usen (@nickusen) April 16, 2019

So good..

So stoked to watch this

Not going to watch this (my masochism has limits). Sounds like they were having two monologues side by side rather than a debate.

Live debate is bullshit

lest we forget

remember in 2011 when the white radical left lined up to denounce the black riot as feral, incoherent, mindless? here’s Zizek and David Harvey back then pic.twitter.com/ZJVxWq5r5e

— hannah (@nanpansky) June 4, 2020

I had a feeling Owen Jones was often bad back then but couldn't quite remember why, but knew it was more than just his early hostility to Corbynism and his terrible books!

whenever he's actually deigned to take a concrete position on something specific it's always been some basic liberal and/or conservative bullshit, with marxist/hegelian rhetoric thrown in to appease those who still want to believe he's a revolutionary. "no message to deliver" fuck off back to the academy you pearl clutching hack

these celebrity leftists always turn out like this, he & chomsky are way more similar than different in this regard

this guy has always had seriously dodgy views on race (as well as gender, sexuality etc) which "the white radical left" has been way too keen on obfuscating/excusing

motherfuck him and hegel

Zizek. Apparently the new frontier of emancipatory philosophy is “indigenous people couldn’t understand their genocide as being wrong without western theory.” Impressive! pic.twitter.com/6chPxe3aCH

— Ben Miller (@benwritesthings) July 4, 2020

celebrity leftist here casually writing liberal-fascist defend-western-values screeds for russian state media

fox news levels of empathy for the police here

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/493408-white-racism-fight-guilty/amp/

happy international men's day pic.twitter.com/no1MZGamwU

— zo (@gramscifancam) November 19, 2020

been laughing at this for 3 days pic.twitter.com/e2XtNpKX46

— the thicc husband & father (@lukeisamazing) February 10, 2021

just saw him at a cafe in Bloomsbury, he was looking unusually dapper / kempt

get ready for your new Chief Adviser