[Breaking News]Slavoj Zizek: Political correctness solidifies hatred, it doesn't work
Interview · UK News & Politics ·
2018-04-21 · 0:27:00 · 4,350 words
ideologyrevolution-violencegeopolitics-warcapitalismfascism-populism
Žižek argues that politically correct rules ossify hate rather than eliminating it, suggesting that ironically playing with clichés may be the only way to break the ice. He distinguishes between subjective and objective violence, analyzing recent revolutions as symptoms of systemic failure rather than authentic emancipation. The discussion concludes with an analysis of the Ukrainian crisis as a conflict of oligarchs and a broader critique of global capitalism’s shift toward authoritarianism despite personal freedoms.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 8
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “political correctness ossifies hate”
The paradox that PC rules do not eliminate hate but render it invisible and transfixed, enabling oppression under the guise of politeness.
Violence directly perpetrated by an identifiable agent, contrasted with the background systemic violence.
Violence inherent within the system, as opposed to violence perpetrated by a specific agent.
Violence associated with popular movements occupying public space to make demands, distinguished from ethnic fundamentalist violence.
An explosion of rage with no specific goal, such as burning cars in Paris suburbs, which is a symptom of the system rather than a political program.
The theoretical claim that one cannot abstract dreams from social life; dreams structure how we experience reality and drive revolutions.
as “there is no ethnic cleansing without poetry”
The argument that mythic visions, religion, or 'poetry' (strong dreams) are necessary to overcome basic human dignity and enable atrocities.
as “global capitalism needs democracy less”
The observation that successful dynamic countries (China, Singapore, etc.) are moving toward authoritarian models, suggesting capitalism is approaching an authoritarian frame.
Stories he reaches for 2
Žižek argues there was no great violence in what people did on Tahrir Square, characterizing it as a reaction rather than authentic violence.
“I don't see any great violence in what people were doing on Tahrir Square and so on.”
Žižek cites the burning of cars in Paris suburbs and protests against police shootings as examples of 'divine violence', an explosion of rage with no goal.
“For me divine violence was for example you remember a couple of years ago when cars were burning in Paris suburbs?”
Works invoked 1
Violence book
The interlocutor references Žižek's book on violence, which made the distinction between subjective and objective violence, to question if his views have changed.
People invoked 3
Vladimir Lenin positive
Mentioned in the context of having pragmatism and flexibility to push through democratic endeavors, though the interlocutor questions this.
Thomas Carlyle positive
Cited for the quote that revolutions are started by enthusiasts but used by scoundrels, illustrating how political circles exploit popular rage.
Jacques Lacan positive
Referenced implicitly through concepts like 'objet petit a' (implied by 'basic [unintelligible]' in context of overcoming egoism) and the structure of dreams, though not explicitly named in this excerpt, his theoretical framework is the basis for the 'dreams constitutive of reality' argument.
Transcript 56 turns
unknown
A better place has become the rallying cry for many, from housewives to presidents. But in our obsession to create a new reality, aren't we losing sight of the one that we have? Well, to discuss that I'm now joined by philosopher, psychoanalyst and one of the world's leading intellectuals, Slavoj Žižek. Mr. Žižek, it’s so great to have you on the show. Thank you for this opportunity. It’s a great pleasure. I would actually like to start with love. I know that in many of your public speeches you lament the fact that people have stopped falling in love, that love has become more rational and devoid of the intensity of human emotion. But I think quite the opposite thing is happening with hatred because not only hatred is becoming more intense, but all the traditional safeguards like political correctness, education, no longer seem to be able to contain it. And I would like to ask you, how would you explain that?
A better place has become the rallying cry for many, from housewives to presidents. But in our obsession to create a new reality, aren't we losing sight of the one that we have? Well, to discuss that I'm now joined by philosopher, psychoanalyst and one of the world's leading intellectuals, Slavoj Žižek. Mr. Žižek, it’s so great to have you on the show. Thank you for this opportunity. It’s a great pleasure. I would actually like to start with love. I know that in many of your public speeches you lament the fact that people have stopped falling in love, that love has become more rational and devoid of the intensity of human emotion. But I think quite the opposite thing is happening with hatred because not only hatred is becoming more intense, but all the traditional safeguards like political correctness, education, no longer seem to be able to contain it. And I would like to ask you, how would you explain that?
Slavoj Žižek
I think my basic answer is a very simple one, that precisely these protective measures that you mentioned, politically correct rules and so on and so on, they don't work. They in a way ossify, fix hate. Hate remains there. You have just to look when somebody with politically correct attitude attacks you. It’s not, I am not just making the primitive point that his very attack on you displays hatred, but how precisely the politically correct rules just enable you to oppress, to render invisible your hatred, but it's still there, transfixed. I think that I think that again to break the ice in the sense of break this cold distance where we are where we are brutally identifying the other with some racist clichés and so on, there is no direct way. We cannot, let’s say we are of different races and each of us will say, oh I don't know you are the victim of certain clichés. I think that what absolutely doesn't work, that would be my first paradox, is to say let's drop the clichés and open up to the other the way he or she really is. What if the opposite holds, that maybe the way to break the ice is to ironically play with clichés themselves. That when I talk with from people with people from other nations what we enjoy so much is to in a mocking way adopt the racist cliché and make fun of
I think my basic answer is a very simple one, that precisely these protective measures that you mentioned, politically correct rules and so on and so on, they don't work. They in a way ossify, fix hate. Hate remains there. You have just to look when somebody with politically correct attitude attacks you. It’s not, I am not just making the primitive point that his very attack on you displays hatred, but how precisely the politically correct rules just enable you to oppress, to render invisible your hatred, but it's still there, transfixed. I think that I think that again to break the ice in the sense of break this cold distance where we are where we are brutally identifying the other with some racist clichés and so on, there is no direct way. We cannot, let’s say we are of different races and each of us will say, oh I don't know you are the victim of certain clichés. I think that what absolutely doesn't work, that would be my first paradox, is to say let's drop the clichés and open up to the other the way he or she really is. What if the opposite holds, that maybe the way to break the ice is to ironically play with clichés themselves. That when I talk with from people with people from other nations what we enjoy so much is to in a mocking way adopt the racist cliché and make fun of
unknown
it. Well, I think sometimes I get a feeling that in the modern day geopolitics we are playing, we are taking this play with the clichés perhaps too far. And what I mean by that is that in the current geopolitical discourse, you know, it is more and more framed in these Manichaean terms. I mean, it is as if everybody is reading, you know, Lord of the Rings and here is the good side, here is the bad side. And that's a very natural thing for humans to do, but at the same time it’s very primitive. I mean, it cuts your ability for analysis and self-reflection. And I would like to ask you the question whether you believe that's, you know, just an oversimplification that is inherent in our cognitive ability, or do you believe that it is serving a specific agenda, you know, to divide the world into good and bad sides?
it. Well, I think sometimes I get a feeling that in the modern day geopolitics we are playing, we are taking this play with the clichés perhaps too far. And what I mean by that is that in the current geopolitical discourse, you know, it is more and more framed in these Manichaean terms. I mean, it is as if everybody is reading, you know, Lord of the Rings and here is the good side, here is the bad side. And that's a very natural thing for humans to do, but at the same time it’s very primitive. I mean, it cuts your ability for analysis and self-reflection. And I would like to ask you the question whether you believe that's, you know, just an oversimplification that is inherent in our cognitive ability, or do you believe that it is serving a specific agenda, you know, to divide the world into good and bad sides?
Slavoj Žižek
Yes, I totally agree with you but I would just complicate it on one point. Isn't it the paradox that precisely those who claim like in the so-called permissive West life is complex, it’s fashionable to say today that we are against binary logic and so on, at a higher level they treat others precisely according to this binary logic like we are complex, open, the others are simple. I agree with that totally, but do you think that's a conscious deliberate drive to, you know,
Yes, I totally agree with you but I would just complicate it on one point. Isn't it the paradox that precisely those who claim like in the so-called permissive West life is complex, it’s fashionable to say today that we are against binary logic and so on, at a higher level they treat others precisely according to this binary logic like we are complex, open, the others are simple. I agree with that totally, but do you think that's a conscious deliberate drive to, you know,
unknown
you know, think of yourself as very sophisticated and of the other as very primitive? It doesn't matter for me if it’s conscious or not. I think there is something which is false, deeply false in what we call this liberal permissive culture and so on and so on. The way they treat the others, there you can see clearly what is false in this culture. But I mean the reason why it’s
you know, think of yourself as very sophisticated and of the other as very primitive? It doesn't matter for me if it’s conscious or not. I think there is something which is false, deeply false in what we call this liberal permissive culture and so on and so on. The way they treat the others, there you can see clearly what is false in this culture. But I mean the reason why it’s
Slavoj Žižek
important is because
important is because
unknown
it is very much expressed in geopolitics because many of the upheavals we had in the Middle East, for example, and I'm, it's not just the Western involvement, but I mean, you know, what happened in Iraq, what happened in Libya, what happened in Syria was within the framework that Western countries know what is good for those people, you know, for those poor Arabs and, you know, supporting democracy there. So, you know, this idea of that you somehow on the side of the good and those, you know, poor tyrants on the side of the bad, you know, it has very, you know, very significant consequences. I
it is very much expressed in geopolitics because many of the upheavals we had in the Middle East, for example, and I'm, it's not just the Western involvement, but I mean, you know, what happened in Iraq, what happened in Libya, what happened in Syria was within the framework that Western countries know what is good for those people, you know, for those poor Arabs and, you know, supporting democracy there. So, you know, this idea of that you somehow on the side of the good and those, you know, poor tyrants on the side of the bad, you know, it has very, you know, very significant consequences. I
Slavoj Žižek
agree with you, but I would just, again, that’s my profession as a philosopher, complicate things further. What I don't like is another dichotomy. For example, it’s so fashionable to say apropos Muslim fundamentalism, not only we are good, they are bad, but to distinguish in the other like Islam in itself a good religion and on the other hand there are some terrorists who are misusing it and so on and so on. For example, today in Western liberal leftist circles you almost cannot criticize Islam, you are immediately accused of Islamophobia and so on. Absolutely,
agree with you, but I would just, again, that’s my profession as a philosopher, complicate things further. What I don't like is another dichotomy. For example, it’s so fashionable to say apropos Muslim fundamentalism, not only we are good, they are bad, but to distinguish in the other like Islam in itself a good religion and on the other hand there are some terrorists who are misusing it and so on and so on. For example, today in Western liberal leftist circles you almost cannot criticize Islam, you are immediately accused of Islamophobia and so on. Absolutely,
unknown
you cannot criticize Islam but at the same time you you you can show, you know, the prophet of for millions and millions of people with his pants down. I mean, the Charlie Hebdo controversy. Here
you cannot criticize Islam but at the same time you you you can show, you know, the prophet of for millions and millions of people with his pants down. I mean, the Charlie Hebdo controversy. Here
Slavoj Žižek
I agree with you, but here I agree with you and of course we can immediately stumble upon what is false in the West limitations. For example, of course I am horrified at Holocaust deniers and so on. But nonetheless look, we were so shocked about the intolerance of Arabs, of Muslims when you have caricatures of Mohammed. But try to to publish in the West, not offensive, but just attacks which cast some doubts of like was it really million Jews that died in Holocaust, was it not maybe million, you're immediately accused. Or try to make fun, I am not for it, try to make fun of raped women and so on. What I'm saying is that every culture has a taboo, has things that you are not allowed to touch. It’s not simply with us we are free open, that’s, and others are primitive. That’s why I think another distinction has to be made here. We in the West we are caught between two extremes. On the one hand we claim we are totally open permissive no limits. On the other hand we have the logic of political correctness and so on where almost everything becomes prohibited. We oscillate between the two, while these so much despised criticized other countries, maybe they have a much more subtle way of like instead of trying to regulate everything, they just leave some things in the shadow. Like homosexuality, you don't talk about it, discreetly you do it, everything is okay. I would like to steer the conversation towards violence. You you wrote a book on violence back in and there you made a distinction between subjective violence, the one that is perpetrated by an agent, and objective violence, the one that is inherent within the system. And since that book was published in the world has been plunged into a series of revolutions or so-called revolutions that were aiming at overhauling the systems, the corrupt systems. So they were trying to get rid of that objective violence. Now my question to you is if whether what happened since that perhaps changed your view on objective and subjective violence because you talk for all your life you were sort of lobbying for, you know, the fight against that violence within the system, but don't you think
I agree with you, but here I agree with you and of course we can immediately stumble upon what is false in the West limitations. For example, of course I am horrified at Holocaust deniers and so on. But nonetheless look, we were so shocked about the intolerance of Arabs, of Muslims when you have caricatures of Mohammed. But try to to publish in the West, not offensive, but just attacks which cast some doubts of like was it really million Jews that died in Holocaust, was it not maybe million, you're immediately accused. Or try to make fun, I am not for it, try to make fun of raped women and so on. What I'm saying is that every culture has a taboo, has things that you are not allowed to touch. It’s not simply with us we are free open, that’s, and others are primitive. That’s why I think another distinction has to be made here. We in the West we are caught between two extremes. On the one hand we claim we are totally open permissive no limits. On the other hand we have the logic of political correctness and so on where almost everything becomes prohibited. We oscillate between the two, while these so much despised criticized other countries, maybe they have a much more subtle way of like instead of trying to regulate everything, they just leave some things in the shadow. Like homosexuality, you don't talk about it, discreetly you do it, everything is okay. I would like to steer the conversation towards violence. You you wrote a book on violence back in and there you made a distinction between subjective violence, the one that is perpetrated by an agent, and objective violence, the one that is inherent within the system. And since that book was published in the world has been plunged into a series of revolutions or so-called revolutions that were aiming at overhauling the systems, the corrupt systems. So they were trying to get rid of that objective violence. Now my question to you is if whether what happened since that perhaps changed your view on objective and subjective violence because you talk for all your life you were sort of lobbying for, you know, the fight against that violence within the system, but don't you think
unknown
that that subjective violence that we saw in Libya, in Syria, that perhaps we are seeing in Ukraine right now is much bloodier? I mean I'm sure those systems were unfair, those systems were exploitative, but they didn't kill just as many people as the subjective violence. You think, okay, I have some doubts here. Look, for me objective violence is also what I would have called violence which is not the violence of a change but
that that subjective violence that we saw in Libya, in Syria, that perhaps we are seeing in Ukraine right now is much bloodier? I mean I'm sure those systems were unfair, those systems were exploitative, but they didn't kill just as many people as the subjective violence. You think, okay, I have some doubts here. Look, for me objective violence is also what I would have called violence which is not the violence of a change but
unknown
violence needed which has to be exercised just for the things to remain the way they are. And
violence needed which has to be exercised just for the things to remain the way they are. And
Slavoj Žižek
I still think there is an incredible amount of violence going on here. Just my big example, take take take Congo, which is my royal example. In the last years millions of people died there. Nobody notices it. It’s simply part of the system. The second point would have been that this violence that we are witnessing today, we have nonetheless to distinguish between, I'm still a naive leftist and I would have called it authentic emancipatory violence and then ethnic fundamentalist violence
I still think there is an incredible amount of violence going on here. Just my big example, take take take Congo, which is my royal example. In the last years millions of people died there. Nobody notices it. It’s simply part of the system. The second point would have been that this violence that we are witnessing today, we have nonetheless to distinguish between, I'm still a naive leftist and I would have called it authentic emancipatory violence and then ethnic fundamentalist violence
unknown
and so on and so on. But Mr. Žižek, again, emancipatory or as you called it divine violence, this popular unrest that is aiming to overthrow a corrupt and or unfair system... Where
and so on and so on. But Mr. Žižek, again, emancipatory or as you called it divine violence, this popular unrest that is aiming to overthrow a corrupt and or unfair system... Where
Slavoj Žižek
did you see great violence in Egypt, for example?
did you see great violence in Egypt, for example?
unknown
Well, I think more people have been killed in Egypt since the resignation of Mubarak than during the protests against... Yeah, but it was
Well, I think more people have been killed in Egypt since the resignation of Mubarak than during the protests against... Yeah, but it was
Slavoj Žižek
strictly Islamists and the military. It was the reaction. I don't see any great violence in what people were doing on Tahrir Square and so on.
strictly Islamists and the military. It was the reaction. I don't see any great violence in what people were doing on Tahrir Square and so on.
unknown
Well, people were, that may be a secret to you, but they raped quite a number of women there. I mean, who? Who? People who were on the Tahrir Square, including Lara Logan, a famous American reporter. But...
Well, people were, that may be a secret to you, but they raped quite a number of women there. I mean, who? Who? People who were on the Tahrir Square, including Lara Logan, a famous American reporter. But...
Slavoj Žižek
Yeah, but by whom? I mean I still because I know things in detail there, my friends were there they reported to
Yeah, but by whom? I mean I still because I know things in detail there, my friends were there they reported to
unknown
me. But I mean what my my point here is and I heard you say that that the biggest problem with revolution is the morning after, whether that sort of popular mobilization could be sustained. But if I stretch that metaphor a bit further, isn't the main problem with what is actually born out of the revolution nine months or let’s say two years down down the line? Because I I don't see any positive examples of that popular unrest that you seem to be glorifying, I mean with referring to the revolution as divine, you know, divine violence. Why is it divine?
me. But I mean what my my point here is and I heard you say that that the biggest problem with revolution is the morning after, whether that sort of popular mobilization could be sustained. But if I stretch that metaphor a bit further, isn't the main problem with what is actually born out of the revolution nine months or let’s say two years down down the line? Because I I don't see any positive examples of that popular unrest that you seem to be glorifying, I mean with referring to the revolution as divine, you know, divine violence. Why is it divine?
Slavoj Žižek
Uh-huh, here, okay. First, what do I mean by divine violence? Here my distinction is more subtle, if I may say so. I don't think divine violence is anything to be glorified. It’s something that it’s even horrible. For me divine violence was for example you remember a couple of years ago when cars were burning in Paris suburbs? Or now sometimes when the protests against white cops shooting blacks there, it’s the violence which has no goal, it’s just an explosion of rage. It’s horrible. If I were to be there, I would shoot back. I'm just saying that it’s a symptom of a certain [unintelligible]. Absolutely, but that symptom is very easily exploited by political circles and that’s always happens in revolution. You you remember that famous Carlyle quote that revolution is started by enthusiasts and it is always used by scoundrels. So
Uh-huh, here, okay. First, what do I mean by divine violence? Here my distinction is more subtle, if I may say so. I don't think divine violence is anything to be glorified. It’s something that it’s even horrible. For me divine violence was for example you remember a couple of years ago when cars were burning in Paris suburbs? Or now sometimes when the protests against white cops shooting blacks there, it’s the violence which has no goal, it’s just an explosion of rage. It’s horrible. If I were to be there, I would shoot back. I'm just saying that it’s a symptom of a certain [unintelligible]. Absolutely, but that symptom is very easily exploited by political circles and that’s always happens in revolution. You you remember that famous Carlyle quote that revolution is started by enthusiasts and it is always used by scoundrels. So
unknown
I wonder why do people still seem to be infatuated with this notion of revolution, yourself included? I am not talking so much as revolution in the sense of barricades hundreds of
I wonder why do people still seem to be infatuated with this notion of revolution, yourself included? I am not talking so much as revolution in the sense of barricades hundreds of
Slavoj Žižek
thousands of people on the street and so on and so on. What I'm saying is as simple as this. I see the world moving in a certain direction. If nothing changes, there will be a catastrophe. Geopolitically we are getting in a very dangerous situation, practically everyone is already talking about a new
thousands of people on the street and so on and so on. What I'm saying is as simple as this. I see the world moving in a certain direction. If nothing changes, there will be a catastrophe. Geopolitically we are getting in a very dangerous situation, practically everyone is already talking about a new
unknown
Third World War and so on, and new apartheid is emerging everywhere. So for me the true catastrophe will be if nothing changes, if things just go on the way they are. Well, Mr. Žižek, on that point I have to agree with you. We have to take a very, very short break now, but when we come back: Ukraine and Russia, can the two learn anything from the catastrophic experience of Yugoslavia? That's coming up in a moment on Worlds Apart. Stay tuned. Welcome back to Worlds Apart where we are
Third World War and so on, and new apartheid is emerging everywhere. So for me the true catastrophe will be if nothing changes, if things just go on the way they are. Well, Mr. Žižek, on that point I have to agree with you. We have to take a very, very short break now, but when we come back: Ukraine and Russia, can the two learn anything from the catastrophic experience of Yugoslavia? That's coming up in a moment on Worlds Apart. Stay tuned. Welcome back to Worlds Apart where we are
unknown
discussing
discussing
Slavoj Žižek
political philosophy with Slavoj Žižek. Mr. Žižek, before
political philosophy with Slavoj Žižek. Mr. Žižek, before
unknown
the break we were talking about this revolutionary violence and one of the things that you always encounter there is some sort of a conversation about dreams and inspirations. And I heard you say once that Martin Luther King, you know, everybody knows that Martin Luther King had a dream, nobody one knows what that dream was. And I think that's pretty much what the current geopolitics is all about. Everybody is pushing their brand of dreams. I mean, Americans are pushing democracy, radical Islamists are pushing for Caliphate, Russians has just woken up from their, you know, communist dream, they are looking for a new dream. So everybody is doing that. And as somebody who has seen the consequences of that geopolitical dreaming in many of the war zones, I I wonder how do you make people to stop indulging in those fantasies and actually appreciate the life that they have around them. Why is it less important than, you know, those lofty ideas about fairness and how society should be organized?
the break we were talking about this revolutionary violence and one of the things that you always encounter there is some sort of a conversation about dreams and inspirations. And I heard you say once that Martin Luther King, you know, everybody knows that Martin Luther King had a dream, nobody one knows what that dream was. And I think that's pretty much what the current geopolitics is all about. Everybody is pushing their brand of dreams. I mean, Americans are pushing democracy, radical Islamists are pushing for Caliphate, Russians has just woken up from their, you know, communist dream, they are looking for a new dream. So everybody is doing that. And as somebody who has seen the consequences of that geopolitical dreaming in many of the war zones, I I wonder how do you make people to stop indulging in those fantasies and actually appreciate the life that they have around them. Why is it less important than, you know, those lofty ideas about fairness and how society should be organized?
Slavoj Žižek
But I don't think that when ordinary people really explode on the streets, I don't think they are following some precise dream program. They are just simply desperate. They experience...
But I don't think that when ordinary people really explode on the streets, I don't think they are following some precise dream program. They are just simply desperate. They experience...
unknown
Absolutely, but they don't realize that they may lose even what they have. Again, in Libya when I was covering it, people were comparing themselves to the living standards of Saudi Arabia, but the country that is next to them is also Yemen where the living standards are much lower. So when people do that they don't understand that situation may has just as much possibility of turning for worse rather than for better. Isn't that an inherent danger of revolution? Fine, okay. Now we
Absolutely, but they don't realize that they may lose even what they have. Again, in Libya when I was covering it, people were comparing themselves to the living standards of Saudi Arabia, but the country that is next to them is also Yemen where the living standards are much lower. So when people do that they don't understand that situation may has just as much possibility of turning for worse rather than for better. Isn't that an inherent danger of revolution? Fine, okay. Now we
Slavoj Žižek
are approaching high theoretical stuff because I claim but it's a highly theoretical point that precisely in actual social life you cannot simply distinguish between the reality and the dreams. The dreams are constitutive of that reality. Like you you experience reality through the structure of dreams. I don't think that you can abstract dreams. This is why, now comes my second conclusion which may shock you, everybody is attacking, it's popular, philosophers, like we are guilty, we impose our crazy rational notions of a new society, the result is totalitarianism. Isn't it time to blame the poets also? I claim there is no ethnic cleansing without poetry. Poetry I mean not just poetry in the narrow sense, but mythology, religion and so on and so on. Because now I will refer to your example. In everyday life we are most of us at least, okay there is egotism, hypocrisy, but we have usually certain levels of elementary dignity, like to be tasteless. If somebody were to tell me now that I have with a knife to pick out your eyes and eat them or whatever I would have some problems. How to make me do it? You need a poet, I claim. Somebody will... Or a revolutionary who will... Yeah, but revolutionaries need poets also. Poets in the sense that there has to be what you called a strong dream, mythic vision, which makes me which renders possible for me to obliterate, to overcome my basic [unintelligible]. Absolutely, at the end of the day you agree with me that we we should all stop dreaming in geopolitics and start appreciating what we actually have. And this is actually, you know, not the kind of argument that you endorsed all your life. You you've been trying to change the reality rather than appreciate what we already have. Yeah, but you know on the other hand I would say, okay take East Germany in the last years of real socialism. Okay, you can also say they should have looked at what they had. They had maybe East Germany DDR the highest living standard among all socialist countries and so on. But dreams were there. Dreams in the sense of compare yourself with West Germany. And what I claim is that you never can abstract this
are approaching high theoretical stuff because I claim but it's a highly theoretical point that precisely in actual social life you cannot simply distinguish between the reality and the dreams. The dreams are constitutive of that reality. Like you you experience reality through the structure of dreams. I don't think that you can abstract dreams. This is why, now comes my second conclusion which may shock you, everybody is attacking, it's popular, philosophers, like we are guilty, we impose our crazy rational notions of a new society, the result is totalitarianism. Isn't it time to blame the poets also? I claim there is no ethnic cleansing without poetry. Poetry I mean not just poetry in the narrow sense, but mythology, religion and so on and so on. Because now I will refer to your example. In everyday life we are most of us at least, okay there is egotism, hypocrisy, but we have usually certain levels of elementary dignity, like to be tasteless. If somebody were to tell me now that I have with a knife to pick out your eyes and eat them or whatever I would have some problems. How to make me do it? You need a poet, I claim. Somebody will... Or a revolutionary who will... Yeah, but revolutionaries need poets also. Poets in the sense that there has to be what you called a strong dream, mythic vision, which makes me which renders possible for me to obliterate, to overcome my basic [unintelligible]. Absolutely, at the end of the day you agree with me that we we should all stop dreaming in geopolitics and start appreciating what we actually have. And this is actually, you know, not the kind of argument that you endorsed all your life. You you've been trying to change the reality rather than appreciate what we already have. Yeah, but you know on the other hand I would say, okay take East Germany in the last years of real socialism. Okay, you can also say they should have looked at what they had. They had maybe East Germany DDR the highest living standard among all socialist countries and so on. But dreams were there. Dreams in the sense of compare yourself with West Germany. And what I claim is that you never can abstract this
unknown
dimension
dimension
Slavoj Žižek
of dreams. This is how people make revolutions.
of dreams. This is how people make revolutions.
unknown
But it's not it's not abstract. I mean the reality, the geopolitical reality at that time was
But it's not it's not abstract. I mean the reality, the geopolitical reality at that time was
Slavoj Žižek
very, very different than the so-called East Germany
very, very different than the so-called East Germany
unknown
revolution came about in a very, very different way from let’s say the Libyan revolution. So again, maybe it is the East Germany revolution that was an exception rather than the rule in a sense of producing so little or no casualties which is, you know,
revolution came about in a very, very different way from let’s say the Libyan revolution. So again, maybe it is the East Germany revolution that was an exception rather than the rule in a sense of producing so little or no casualties which is, you know,
Slavoj Žižek
mass violence... But here I would nonetheless insist on this distinction. I see your point. I just for example, I think that there is one measure of authentic popular violence. Okay, there always can be excesses what you said rapes, but that people just occupy public space and say we don't move from here. But and pose certain demands, but then there is no essentially no physical violence. They don't attack anyone. Those in power attack. But Mr. Žižek I think... And but sorry, but go back to Libya, there it wasn't I think an emancipatory movement. But come
mass violence... But here I would nonetheless insist on this distinction. I see your point. I just for example, I think that there is one measure of authentic popular violence. Okay, there always can be excesses what you said rapes, but that people just occupy public space and say we don't move from here. But and pose certain demands, but then there is no essentially no physical violence. They don't attack anyone. Those in power attack. But Mr. Žižek I think... And but sorry, but go back to Libya, there it wasn't I think an emancipatory movement. But come
unknown
on, what we know from social psychology and crowd psychology is that when people gather together the the threshold for violence, the propensity for violence increases. I mean, that's just inherent in the nature of
on, what we know from social psychology and crowd psychology is that when people gather together the the threshold for violence, the propensity for violence increases. I mean, that's just inherent in the nature of
Slavoj Žižek
gathering [unintelligible]. No, okay but let's return then to although I don't idealize all those movements, Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia and so on. But take the disintegration of of communism in in Hungary, in Czechoslovakia, in Poland, Solidarity and so on. Where you had there great crowds. Where did you get violence there? Well absolutely it
gathering [unintelligible]. No, okay but let's return then to although I don't idealize all those movements, Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia and so on. But take the disintegration of of communism in in Hungary, in Czechoslovakia, in Poland, Solidarity and so on. Where you had there great crowds. Where did you get violence there? Well absolutely it
unknown
was peaceful and perhaps my thesis at least is that, you know, communism as an idea as an ideology simply ran out of steam. And it, you know, it's not that it was... The 20th century communism, I totally agree with you, it did run out of steam. But I'm saying
was peaceful and perhaps my thesis at least is that, you know, communism as an idea as an ideology simply ran out of steam. And it, you know, it's not that it was... The 20th century communism, I totally agree with you, it did run out of steam. But I'm saying
Slavoj Žižek
that if that but what we got now will breed further explosions of violence if we don't do... Well, okay let’s let’s address a concrete example which is much closer to my home. I'm talking about Ukraine here and when you look at some of the exchange between Russians and Ukrainians those are very, very depressing because I think each, you know, each side tends to think of itself as superior to the other in a moral sense or historic sense, many other senses, but they treat themselves in a very similar manner, especially when they express hatred or arrogance what have you. And I think you experienced perhaps the same during the breakup of Yugoslavia with all those different people, you know, sort of thinking that we are better than the others. How do you really overcome that? All these explosions of violent nationalism came in because you know it was precisely the problem as you have put it at the
that if that but what we got now will breed further explosions of violence if we don't do... Well, okay let’s let’s address a concrete example which is much closer to my home. I'm talking about Ukraine here and when you look at some of the exchange between Russians and Ukrainians those are very, very depressing because I think each, you know, each side tends to think of itself as superior to the other in a moral sense or historic sense, many other senses, but they treat themselves in a very similar manner, especially when they express hatred or arrogance what have you. And I think you experienced perhaps the same during the breakup of Yugoslavia with all those different people, you know, sort of thinking that we are better than the others. How do you really overcome that? All these explosions of violent nationalism came in because you know it was precisely the problem as you have put it at the
unknown
level of dreams. People's dream originally was not the Western capitalism. People expected something totally different. Something more basic, you know, better jobs, fairer society. Yeah, yeah and when they didn't get that but they have no again authentic leftist option to fight for that, nationalism enters. And I think this was in ex-Yugoslavia there was another point. Maybe the parallel would be with ex-Soviet states like Azerbaijan and so on, that nationalism was also in ex-Yugoslavia, we should not forget this, a way for the old communist nomenclature to survive. They quickly changed themselves, reinvented themselves as protectors of national identity, national rights and so on and so on. So I again I don't think that liberal tolerance will help here. Here it may appear crazy old-fashioned, but I think that only renewed more radical left will work against nationalism.
level of dreams. People's dream originally was not the Western capitalism. People expected something totally different. Something more basic, you know, better jobs, fairer society. Yeah, yeah and when they didn't get that but they have no again authentic leftist option to fight for that, nationalism enters. And I think this was in ex-Yugoslavia there was another point. Maybe the parallel would be with ex-Soviet states like Azerbaijan and so on, that nationalism was also in ex-Yugoslavia, we should not forget this, a way for the old communist nomenclature to survive. They quickly changed themselves, reinvented themselves as protectors of national identity, national rights and so on and so on. So I again I don't think that liberal tolerance will help here. Here it may appear crazy old-fashioned, but I think that only renewed more radical left will work against nationalism.
unknown
Well, I don't think there are big fans of radical left in Ukraine these days. Now, I I do believe that there is a very genuine movement among the Ukrainian people to make their country better, to make it fairer,
Well, I don't think there are big fans of radical left in Ukraine these days. Now, I I do believe that there is a very genuine movement among the Ukrainian people to make their country better, to make it fairer,
Slavoj Žižek
to build, you know, a more prosperous society. But the question is and, you know, the more I read about Lenin the more I wonder about it. In order to succeed in those democratic endeavors, don't you think that Ukraine
to build, you know, a more prosperous society. But the question is and, you know, the more I read about Lenin the more I wonder about it. In order to succeed in those democratic endeavors, don't you think that Ukraine
unknown
really needs a leader like
really needs a leader like
Slavoj Žižek
Lenin with the same level of pragmatism, the same level of conviction and the same level of flexibility to push that through rather than, you know, what we have at the moment which is again more or less populist ideas? No, I totally agree. At the moment at the moment we have two elements which partially overlap. On the one hand and it’s interesting how little at least in our Western media this is reported. I think that definitely one of the key aspects of Ukrainian crisis is the conflict of oligarchs. Forget about the people and so on, the conflict of oligarchs. You have oligarchs who are pro-Russian, you have oligarchs who are pro-Western. A second point is of course and it is a strong force. I don't want to ignore it. Let’s I okay it’s too simple to say Nazis or whatever but this strong nationalism
Lenin with the same level of pragmatism, the same level of conviction and the same level of flexibility to push that through rather than, you know, what we have at the moment which is again more or less populist ideas? No, I totally agree. At the moment at the moment we have two elements which partially overlap. On the one hand and it’s interesting how little at least in our Western media this is reported. I think that definitely one of the key aspects of Ukrainian crisis is the conflict of oligarchs. Forget about the people and so on, the conflict of oligarchs. You have oligarchs who are pro-Russian, you have oligarchs who are pro-Western. A second point is of course and it is a strong force. I don't want to ignore it. Let’s I okay it’s too simple to say Nazis or whatever but this strong nationalism
unknown
which definitely has fascist dimensions. Although I think that no no side is innocent here. Russia is also enjoying the support of Le Pen, of all the Western rightists. Oh and Russia also has its own nationalists who are unfortunately empowered by this Ukrainian crisis to many extent. I want to ask you one more question. President Poroshenko just recently signed a decree on the so-called de-communization of Ukraine and to me that's a very, very interesting phenomenon because I think there are very, very few countries in history who consciously embarked on this idea of
which definitely has fascist dimensions. Although I think that no no side is innocent here. Russia is also enjoying the support of Le Pen, of all the Western rightists. Oh and Russia also has its own nationalists who are unfortunately empowered by this Ukrainian crisis to many extent. I want to ask you one more question. President Poroshenko just recently signed a decree on the so-called de-communization of Ukraine and to me that's a very, very interesting phenomenon because I think there are very, very few countries in history who consciously embarked on this idea of
Slavoj Žižek
deliberate remodeling of their national identity partially at least by sort of exorcising their past. One example that I can think of was the Soviet Union that really tried to construct its new identity by denying its past identity. And what I would like to ask you, what do you think is necessary for this social experiment in Ukraine to succeed rather than allow the people's genuine aspirations to degenerate into something more sinister like happened with the Soviet Union? Well, first I am I don't think that what that let's call it naively the good emancipatory aspect of Maidan protests and so on that it has a chance to assert itself. Why not? Because I think they are more and more marginalized and so on. I think that that but this is not because of Ukrainians or you Russians are primitive. I claim that what we see in Ukraine is maybe in a more extreme
deliberate remodeling of their national identity partially at least by sort of exorcising their past. One example that I can think of was the Soviet Union that really tried to construct its new identity by denying its past identity. And what I would like to ask you, what do you think is necessary for this social experiment in Ukraine to succeed rather than allow the people's genuine aspirations to degenerate into something more sinister like happened with the Soviet Union? Well, first I am I don't think that what that let's call it naively the good emancipatory aspect of Maidan protests and so on that it has a chance to assert itself. Why not? Because I think they are more and more marginalized and so on. I think that that but this is not because of Ukrainians or you Russians are primitive. I claim that what we see in Ukraine is maybe in a more extreme
unknown
way what we see also in most of the West. It’s that the new political polarity is between liberal capitalist center and anti-immigrant nationalist right. This is you know it's not just I'm not blaming Ukrainians for being primitive, but on the contrary for becoming what Western Europe is unfortunately also becoming. We no longer have this old political dynamics moderate left moderate right replacing each other exchanging power. Well, at the end of the day it's a question of security not just, you know, lofty ideas abstract lofty ideas but also the question of security and survival of not only Ukraine, not only Russia but also Europe. Don't you think that again
way what we see also in most of the West. It’s that the new political polarity is between liberal capitalist center and anti-immigrant nationalist right. This is you know it's not just I'm not blaming Ukrainians for being primitive, but on the contrary for becoming what Western Europe is unfortunately also becoming. We no longer have this old political dynamics moderate left moderate right replacing each other exchanging power. Well, at the end of the day it's a question of security not just, you know, lofty ideas abstract lofty ideas but also the question of security and survival of not only Ukraine, not only Russia but also Europe. Don't you think that again
Slavoj Žižek
Europeans, perhaps
Europeans, perhaps
unknown
Russians, perhaps even Americans can do something to really, you know, push this conflict in the right direction when again we can harness all the good things? No, I'm a
Russians, perhaps even Americans can do something to really, you know, push this conflict in the right direction when again we can harness all the good things? No, I'm a
Slavoj Žižek
pessimist. Again, my point is that global capitalism globally is needs democracy less and less. It is slowly approaching a certain authoritarian model. No wonder that the most successful dynamic countries today are countries like People's Republic of China, South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, yes and so on. So that's the irony. And I where I don't agree with liberals is when they say, oh wait a minute there will be a new Tiananmen and so on. No, I don't believe in this. I think that really something new is emerging which worries me. What, if I may develop it very briefly. A new type of society where at the personal level we will be even more free, you know all that stuff, gay marriages whatever you want.
pessimist. Again, my point is that global capitalism globally is needs democracy less and less. It is slowly approaching a certain authoritarian model. No wonder that the most successful dynamic countries today are countries like People's Republic of China, South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, yes and so on. So that's the irony. And I where I don't agree with liberals is when they say, oh wait a minute there will be a new Tiananmen and so on. No, I don't believe in this. I think that really something new is emerging which worries me. What, if I may develop it very briefly. A new type of society where at the personal level we will be even more free, you know all that stuff, gay marriages whatever you want.
unknown
You don't have a say in deciding the framework of that freedom and devising the general rules. Yes, yes, and this is more and more
You don't have a say in deciding the framework of that freedom and devising the general rules. Yes, yes, and this is more and more
Slavoj Žižek
true even in the West. Look, the big decisions are made all these agreements, trade agreements, we simply don't know what is
true even in the West. Look, the big decisions are made all these agreements, trade agreements, we simply don't know what is
unknown
happening. Well, why even in the West? I think it it is far more pronounced in the West than in many other countries. Even
happening. Well, why even in the West? I think it it is far more pronounced in the West than in many other countries. Even
Slavoj Žižek
yeah no no I say even in the West because the West tries to tries to proclaim itself being more democratic and so on. No, we just have maybe more of this personal freedoms of choice and so on, but the very frame is maybe even more impenetrable in the West.
yeah no no I say even in the West because the West tries to tries to proclaim itself being more democratic and so on. No, we just have maybe more of this personal freedoms of choice and so on, but the very frame is maybe even more impenetrable in the West.
unknown
Well, Mr. Žižek and this very, very depressing note we have to leave it there. I am depressed, yes. I really appreciate you being on the show. And to our viewers, please share your thoughts, concerns on our Twitter, Facebook and YouTube pages. And I hope to see you again same place, same time, here on Worlds Apart.
Well, Mr. Žižek and this very, very depressing note we have to leave it there. I am depressed, yes. I really appreciate you being on the show. And to our viewers, please share your thoughts, concerns on our Twitter, Facebook and YouTube pages. And I hope to see you again same place, same time, here on Worlds Apart.