German Idealism and Psychoanalysis with Slavoj Zizek, Alenka Zupancic, Mladen Dolar - Part 1
Interview · Deutsches Haus ·
2012-04-20 · 0:10:27 · 1,522 words
philosophy-generalcinema-art-culture
Žižek opens a panel discussion by humorously framing his relationship with co-speakers Mladen and Alenka as a hostile friendship, using a Kierkegaardian hierarchy to assign them superior roles (officer, maid) while casting himself as the subordinate 'chimney-sweeper'. He outlines the specific topics for each speaker, Hegel, Kafka, and comedy, and concludes with a self-deprecating joke about the nature of academic dialogue, comparing it to the monologic structure of late Plato.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 3
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Žižek's self-identified habit of announcing one topic but delivering another, here inverted to promise strict adherence to the title as a rhetorical device.
A ironic redefinition of 'dialogue' to mean a monologue interrupted only by brief, subservient affirmations from the listener, highlighting the performative nature of academic Q&A.
The paradoxical idea that true intellectual friendship is threatening because the colleague's constant productivity and superiority serve as a source of anxiety rather than comfort.
Stories he reaches for 2
Žižek compares the expected Q&A session to late Platonic dialogues where one character (Socrates) talks continuously and the other merely interjects with 'by Zeus, Socrates' every ten minutes, predicting a monologic format.
“One guy talks all the time, the other one says every ten minutes, by Zeus, so it is, Socrates”
Žižek ironically presents Kafka not as a writer but as a 'German idealist' and 'legal theorist' who specialized in workers' insurance, dismissing his fiction as 'cheap horror stories' to humorously justify why Kafka belongs in a philosophy talk.
“Kafka is the well-known German legal theorist... They now edited his writing, specialized in workers' insurance problems”
People invoked 6
Franz Kafka positive
Ironically presented as a 'German idealist' and legal theorist specializing in workers' insurance, with his fiction dismissed as 'cheap horror' to fit the German Idealism theme.
Described as one of his 'two best friends whom I really hate' and the 'maid' in the Kierkegaardian hierarchy, serving as a source of competitive anxiety.
Described as one of his 'two best friends whom I really hate' because they are a 'terror' who constantly publish better work, creating anxiety for Žižek.
Søren Kierkegaard positive
Cited as the source of a humorous categorization of human types (officers, maids, chimney-sweepers) used to structure the panel's dynamics.
Plato positive
Referenced for 'late Plato' dialogues, used as a metaphor for the monologic nature of academic discussions where the listener merely affirms.
Mentioned as the character in late Plato dialogues who talks all the time, serving as the model for the speaker's expected behavior.
Transcript 4 turns
unknown
And I welcome you all to this extraordinary evening. Very happy to have Slavoj Žižek back at Deutsches Haus. Last time he was here in the fall, we put his lecture on negativity in Hegel and Freud on YouTube, and since then more than people around the world watched it. We also absolutely thrilled that tonight there is not only Slavoj but other two prominent members of the famous Ljubljana school of psychoanalysis here at Deutsches Haus, Alenka Zupančič and Mladen Dolar. Together these three Slovenian thinkers form, in the words of Slavoj, the Slovene Hegelo-Lacanian troika. And tonight, the overall theme of their interventions will be German idealism and psychoanalysis: a Lacanian perspective. But before we start with the presentations, I'm very happy to welcome Professor Jacques Lezra, the chair of NYU's Comparative Literature Department, who kindly agreed to introduce Slavoj Žižek, who will later introduce Alenka Zupančič and Mladen Dolar. Thank you very much.
And I welcome you all to this extraordinary evening. Very happy to have Slavoj Žižek back at Deutsches Haus. Last time he was here in the fall, we put his lecture on negativity in Hegel and Freud on YouTube, and since then more than people around the world watched it. We also absolutely thrilled that tonight there is not only Slavoj but other two prominent members of the famous Ljubljana school of psychoanalysis here at Deutsches Haus, Alenka Zupančič and Mladen Dolar. Together these three Slovenian thinkers form, in the words of Slavoj, the Slovene Hegelo-Lacanian troika. And tonight, the overall theme of their interventions will be German idealism and psychoanalysis: a Lacanian perspective. But before we start with the presentations, I'm very happy to welcome Professor Jacques Lezra, the chair of NYU's Comparative Literature Department, who kindly agreed to introduce Slavoj Žižek, who will later introduce Alenka Zupančič and Mladen Dolar. Thank you very much.
unknown
Thank you. It's a pleasure, as you can imagine, to introduce Slavoj Žižek, though it's also a bit of a contresens for me to pretend to do so since his work needs no introduction to speak of for most of us. But rather than list for you, even in the preteritive mode that begins by saying I will not list for you and continues with the list of the things not listed, rather than list for you his works, his positions, the adjectives and adverbial clauses to which he and his work have been treated, I'll read to you one or two sentences from his work which I find particularly arresting. This is a remark from his introduction to The Ticklish Subject of It is in fact two linked remarks and it's the linkage that I'd invite you to consider today. While this book, writes Slavoj Žižek, is philosophical in its basic tenor, it is first and foremost an engaged political intervention addressing the burning question of how we are to reformulate a leftist anti-capitalist political project in our era of global capitalism and its ideological supplement, liberal democratic multiculturalism. There's a great deal encoded in this sentence, which is defiant on many levels and remains pressing now, nearly years after it was written. What has faded, perhaps, is the seeming importance of the last target, that supplement which is liberal democratic multiculturalism. Even now, with a resurgence of the culture wars under the strange banners of the Santorum camp and the Obama camp, liberal democratic multiculturalism seems to have stepped off the stage of burning questions to be replaced seemingly by the language of the and the I take it that this is not because we have moved beyond liberal democratic multiculturalism, but to the contrary because that position has become to such an extent unmarked that it is now no longer a concept strictly speaking. How do we begin marking it again, in the interest of putting it before ourselves as an object of thought, in the interest of political intervention and critique? By the end of the paragraph that I began citing, Slavoj Žižek provides one way, first in the mode of description, then as something stranger, an intervention in the political as well as the philosophical domain, though expressed—and here's the point—in the language of the court or of the trial. The accusation is leveled against Cartesianism. It is the fons et origo of the technological domination over nature and, on another level, of that very subject against which liberal democratic multiculturalism raises the banners of identitarian difference. The catastrophes that Žižek describes, from the forests of Borneo to Ground Zero, give body, he says, to the Real of our time, the thrust of capital which ruthlessly disregards and destroys particular life-worlds, threatening the very survival of humanity. To the charge that the Cartesian subjectivity lies at the heart of this catastrophe, Žižek enters here the emphatic plea of not guilty for the Cartesian subject. One way of reading this
Thank you. It's a pleasure, as you can imagine, to introduce Slavoj Žižek, though it's also a bit of a contresens for me to pretend to do so since his work needs no introduction to speak of for most of us. But rather than list for you, even in the preteritive mode that begins by saying I will not list for you and continues with the list of the things not listed, rather than list for you his works, his positions, the adjectives and adverbial clauses to which he and his work have been treated, I'll read to you one or two sentences from his work which I find particularly arresting. This is a remark from his introduction to The Ticklish Subject of It is in fact two linked remarks and it's the linkage that I'd invite you to consider today. While this book, writes Slavoj Žižek, is philosophical in its basic tenor, it is first and foremost an engaged political intervention addressing the burning question of how we are to reformulate a leftist anti-capitalist political project in our era of global capitalism and its ideological supplement, liberal democratic multiculturalism. There's a great deal encoded in this sentence, which is defiant on many levels and remains pressing now, nearly years after it was written. What has faded, perhaps, is the seeming importance of the last target, that supplement which is liberal democratic multiculturalism. Even now, with a resurgence of the culture wars under the strange banners of the Santorum camp and the Obama camp, liberal democratic multiculturalism seems to have stepped off the stage of burning questions to be replaced seemingly by the language of the and the I take it that this is not because we have moved beyond liberal democratic multiculturalism, but to the contrary because that position has become to such an extent unmarked that it is now no longer a concept strictly speaking. How do we begin marking it again, in the interest of putting it before ourselves as an object of thought, in the interest of political intervention and critique? By the end of the paragraph that I began citing, Slavoj Žižek provides one way, first in the mode of description, then as something stranger, an intervention in the political as well as the philosophical domain, though expressed—and here's the point—in the language of the court or of the trial. The accusation is leveled against Cartesianism. It is the fons et origo of the technological domination over nature and, on another level, of that very subject against which liberal democratic multiculturalism raises the banners of identitarian difference. The catastrophes that Žižek describes, from the forests of Borneo to Ground Zero, give body, he says, to the Real of our time, the thrust of capital which ruthlessly disregards and destroys particular life-worlds, threatening the very survival of humanity. To the charge that the Cartesian subjectivity lies at the heart of this catastrophe, Žižek enters here the emphatic plea of not guilty for the Cartesian subject. One way of reading this
unknown
is, of course, to interpret the little courtroom drama in the mode of the Lorax, who speaks for the trees. Now Žižek speaks for the subject—a subject then that cannot or chooses not to plead for itself, a subject accused in immediate need of a mediating intervention, not the autonomous and self-regarding, self-preserved subject accused, but impervious, but one marked and subjected by accusation. It seems to me that we can indeed derive this subject position from Slavoj Žižek’s works, the insight that philosophical-political interventions involve first and foremost marking the concept of subjectivity as accused, including of course marking as accused the subjective position from which I take the word, though in Spanish, my language, we say not prendre la parole but pedir la palabra. We don't take the word, as the French do, but we ask for it. We're much more polite in Spanish than in—than the French are. Anyway, there you go. I like this. It's very Dr. Seussy. But it cannot on its face be separated from the other reading of this little courtroom drama in which the philosopher speaks as the Cartesian subject, not as the proxy or delegate, the mark of the insufficiency of the Cartesian subject, but the thing itself speaking, res ipsa loquitur. This second sort of interpretation of the courtroom drama leads to the reinstalling of philosophical integrity of the classic accusatory narcissism of philosophical autonomy at the heart of political-philosophical intervention. My temptation here would be to throw my hands up and to say that the domain of the political in the regime of global capitalism is the undecidability of these two positions. But it is this precisely that Slavoj Žižek’s work will not allow us to accept. He makes this specific form of academic quietism unavailable. And this is why the position I have just sketched for you, this seeming aporia, occurs at the beginning of his works and not at the end. It is not where we get off the whirlwind of political-philosophical intervention, but where we enter its necessities and its torqued spaces. And with that, let me give you Slavoj Žižek.
is, of course, to interpret the little courtroom drama in the mode of the Lorax, who speaks for the trees. Now Žižek speaks for the subject—a subject then that cannot or chooses not to plead for itself, a subject accused in immediate need of a mediating intervention, not the autonomous and self-regarding, self-preserved subject accused, but impervious, but one marked and subjected by accusation. It seems to me that we can indeed derive this subject position from Slavoj Žižek’s works, the insight that philosophical-political interventions involve first and foremost marking the concept of subjectivity as accused, including of course marking as accused the subjective position from which I take the word, though in Spanish, my language, we say not prendre la parole but pedir la palabra. We don't take the word, as the French do, but we ask for it. We're much more polite in Spanish than in—than the French are. Anyway, there you go. I like this. It's very Dr. Seussy. But it cannot on its face be separated from the other reading of this little courtroom drama in which the philosopher speaks as the Cartesian subject, not as the proxy or delegate, the mark of the insufficiency of the Cartesian subject, but the thing itself speaking, res ipsa loquitur. This second sort of interpretation of the courtroom drama leads to the reinstalling of philosophical integrity of the classic accusatory narcissism of philosophical autonomy at the heart of political-philosophical intervention. My temptation here would be to throw my hands up and to say that the domain of the political in the regime of global capitalism is the undecidability of these two positions. But it is this precisely that Slavoj Žižek’s work will not allow us to accept. He makes this specific form of academic quietism unavailable. And this is why the position I have just sketched for you, this seeming aporia, occurs at the beginning of his works and not at the end. It is not where we get off the whirlwind of political-philosophical intervention, but where we enter its necessities and its torqued spaces. And with that, let me give you Slavoj Žižek.
Slavoj Žižek
Thank you very much for the kind introduction, for this invitation. I am honored to be here, especially I am honored not to be here alone, with my two best friends whom I really hate. Why? I'm not kidding. Because you know when you praise your colleagues, it's easy to praise them. It means you are above them and can afford to praise them. But they are terror for me. With every new book, I'm afraid, will they again be better than me and so on and so on. So first statement, no friendship here. Second statement, I will be—I will try to do the impossible and be really short, basically only introducing them, because I'm here annoying people every year a couple of times and it's their show. I'm just sad that Mladen played originally with a different title. You know that famous passage from Kierkegaard where he says basically all human people can be categorized into three groups: officers, maids, and chimney-sweepers. Well, although this is not the title of his talk, but in an—in a different geistigem Sinne, in a deeper spiritual sense, this is what you will see here because he is the officer, the boss, she is the maid and I’m the poor, today at least, the poor sweep-chimney here. Now, as to the title: German Idealism and Philosophy. Usually, we are well known, especially me, for cheating with titles—announcing one thing, giving the another. Today I'm glad to tell you it will be strictly about only about the title. Alenka will speak about Where does the dirt come from?, about comedy and so on, which if you know anything about Hegel, you know this is the central problem. Mladen will—will basically talk about a certain German author—I don't know if you know him—Kafka. It's the last German idealist, which is why it strictly fits. Who—I don't know if you know him—Kafka is in history—I’m speaking how they will see undoubtedly our present from years from now in the future—Kafka is the well-known German legal theorist. They now edited his writing, specialized in workers' insurance problems and so on. But he also wrote some good short stories on which Mladen will focus, on animals and so on. Unfortunately, in his free time, he did some cheap horror stories about castles, trials and so on. This he deserves to be forgotten there. No, I mean, no? So, that's what you will get. I will promise to be the shortest one, but it will be like one installment: me, Alenka, Mladen, and then if you’ll still have the energy, the debate, Q and A. But I warn you we are all lovers of dialogue, but sorry to repeat the old joke, lovers of dialogue in the sense you find them in late Plato. You know how—what dialogues are in late Plato. One guy talks all the time, the other one says every ten minutes, by Zeus, so it is, Socrates. So we expect from you this kind of a dialogue, to make it clear.
Thank you very much for the kind introduction, for this invitation. I am honored to be here, especially I am honored not to be here alone, with my two best friends whom I really hate. Why? I'm not kidding. Because you know when you praise your colleagues, it's easy to praise them. It means you are above them and can afford to praise them. But they are terror for me. With every new book, I'm afraid, will they again be better than me and so on and so on. So first statement, no friendship here. Second statement, I will be—I will try to do the impossible and be really short, basically only introducing them, because I'm here annoying people every year a couple of times and it's their show. I'm just sad that Mladen played originally with a different title. You know that famous passage from Kierkegaard where he says basically all human people can be categorized into three groups: officers, maids, and chimney-sweepers. Well, although this is not the title of his talk, but in an—in a different geistigem Sinne, in a deeper spiritual sense, this is what you will see here because he is the officer, the boss, she is the maid and I’m the poor, today at least, the poor sweep-chimney here. Now, as to the title: German Idealism and Philosophy. Usually, we are well known, especially me, for cheating with titles—announcing one thing, giving the another. Today I'm glad to tell you it will be strictly about only about the title. Alenka will speak about Where does the dirt come from?, about comedy and so on, which if you know anything about Hegel, you know this is the central problem. Mladen will—will basically talk about a certain German author—I don't know if you know him—Kafka. It's the last German idealist, which is why it strictly fits. Who—I don't know if you know him—Kafka is in history—I’m speaking how they will see undoubtedly our present from years from now in the future—Kafka is the well-known German legal theorist. They now edited his writing, specialized in workers' insurance problems and so on. But he also wrote some good short stories on which Mladen will focus, on animals and so on. Unfortunately, in his free time, he did some cheap horror stories about castles, trials and so on. This he deserves to be forgotten there. No, I mean, no? So, that's what you will get. I will promise to be the shortest one, but it will be like one installment: me, Alenka, Mladen, and then if you’ll still have the energy, the debate, Q and A. But I warn you we are all lovers of dialogue, but sorry to repeat the old joke, lovers of dialogue in the sense you find them in late Plato. You know how—what dialogues are in late Plato. One guy talks all the time, the other one says every ten minutes, by Zeus, so it is, Socrates. So we expect from you this kind of a dialogue, to make it clear.