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

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.

iirc you were on the kosovo thread again getting misty-eyed about milosovic?

i don't buy the hollywood version, but 'what actually happened' doesn't reflect so well on the serbs.

again, the US acting in its interests is challenging-opinion material. what state or actor on the international stage doesn't do this?

xpost

haha the US *wishes* it could control iraq to that degree.

No, but Serbia is a historical Russian ally, so fucking them up does weaken Russia

"fucking them up"

banriquit, you keep drawing these false dichotomies and putting me into them instead of responding to my posts. I have reservations about encouraging Kosovo independence and disagree with the mainstream narrative about these events -- oh I must be a misty-eyed apologist for the savage Serbs! What exactly does dragging the discussion down to this level accomplish other than re-establishing your "big dawg" status on this thread?

again, the US acting in its interests is challenging-opinion material. what state or actor on the international stage doesn't do this?

Yes, well, no shit. Yet people still believe we invade other countries for some sort of greater good, like stopping bad guys. I guess we shouldn't bother to remind them how the world actually works.

that seems to me a pretty big dichotomy: acting in self-interest/stopping bad guys.

but to respond, ok:

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)...

tbh my reaction is like, AND? i don't really have a dog in this fight. on the whole i'll take my capitalism with (on the whole) the rule of law rather than without.

And as for Iraq, [...] 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.

i seriously don't think the US has the power to direct events the way you're suggesting here; i don't even know if they anticipated the break-up and the transfer of power to iran. this is not a great example of US cunning.

that seems to me a pretty big dichotomy: acting in self-interest/stopping bad guys

I'm sorry, I thought you agreed the U.S. works (and by works, I mean invades/bombs/imposes sanctions) in its own self-interest, not to stop eeeeevil terrorists or promote magical democracy freedoms.

on the whole i'll take my capitalism with (on the whole) the rule of law rather than without.

Well, that's your preference. I should point out laxalt's excellent point that breaking up nations into smaller bits makes them weaker in practically every case -- the rule of law is too weak to do anything to stop corporate abuse, or prevent exploitation from larger powers.

i seriously don't think the US has the power to direct events the way you're suggesting here; i don't even know if they anticipated the break-up and the transfer of power to iran. this is not a great example of US cunning.

Again, this is a much larger debate, and I am not really ready for it before my first cup of coffee. One narrative says that the ethnic strife was a "powder keg" just waiting to explode and the U.S. ignorantly had no idea (ethnic powder keg metaphor also used for Yugoslavia, interestingly enough). While I agree there are historical ethnic tensions, I think the U.S. has exacerbated them, and has engaged in many actions that weaken the national sovereignty of Iraq, pushing it towards breakup. Arming competing militias, building walls around neighborhoods, etc. It's a big question, one I consider often -- is the U.S. interested in Iraq as an independent nation-state or not? They say they are, although some others (Biden) are explicitly supporting break up.

I'm sorry, I thought you agreed the U.S. works (and by works, I mean invades/bombs/imposes sanctions) in its own self-interest, not to stop eeeeevil terrorists or promote magical democracy freedoms.

well, you know, stopping terrorists may have been part of the afghanistan invasion. probably would not have gone down without 9/11. promoting democracy has historically (zizek disputes that it is a necessary relationship, but this is a side-point) promoted markets. it's not like killing bad guys and promoting democracy IMPEDE their interests.

Well, that's your preference. I should point out laxalt's excellent point that breaking up nations into smaller bits makes them weaker in practically every case -- the rule of law is too weak to do anything to stop corporate abuse, or prevent exploitation from larger powers.

this makes no sense at all. kosovo is always going to be run by a larger power! it's not news that small states can't function independently. so that's why, given the choice, US-style capitalism is probably going to work out better than russian-style capitalism for kosovo. i'm not saying it's going to be paradise, and the weirdness of a US muslim protectorate... for another thread.

Yes, I agree, we have derailed Zizek's thread long enough (though he certainly supported ethnic nationalism when he was involved in Slovenian politics), though I'll leave you with an interesting interview I just re-read in which Samatha Power (brought up as a candidate for new celebrity egghead!) gets kneecapped by Democracy Now over Kosovo.

Isn't it not so much whether a nation is run by a larger power or not, it is about the power that corporations wield.

Wait, what terrorists were being stopped by the Afghanistan war again?

Isn't it not so much whether a nation is run by a larger power or not, it is about the power that corporations wield.

i don't know, is it? in these specific cases, tibet, palestine, kosovo, how does that figure?

Wait, what terrorists were being stopped by the Afghanistan war again?

-- laxalt, Saturday, April 19, 2008 5:41 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

i'm sure you can google this.

lol mccaine in nyt pwning tho. his constituency recognize & ignore while he cat-strings huckabees zombie cohort?

rong thred

mkcaine for presinedt

"Yeah I wasn't skitting you" <--- not heard skitting you since school.

Zizek has become a bit of an opinions4u troll. Which is why he gets the Guradian work and stuff I guess.

I still kinda like him though, and K-Punk need somewhere to glom his ideas from.

K-Punk need somewhere to glom his ideas from.

http://www.soulstrut.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/snapgraem26wuch9.gif

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