Notes Towards a Definition of Communist Culture
Lecture ·
2013 · 0:41:48 · 5,972 words
communism-socialismideologypsychoanalysishegel-dialecticsreligion-theologycinema-art-culturephilosophy-generalrevolution-violencecapitalismethics
This is a Q&A session in which Žižek addresses questions about Marxist theory and practice, his public dispute with Noam Chomsky, the revolutionary core of Christianity and negative theology, and the role of art under capitalism. He argues that authentic practice requires theory, defends his reading of Hegel as more useful for revolutionary change than any activist blueprint, critiques Chomsky's lack of ideology critique, explores desire versus drive in Lacan, and attacks Brechtian Verfremdung and conceptual art as ideological escapes rather than genuine subversion.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 21
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “ideological blackmail of practice”
The rhetorical move that says 'stop theorising, children are starving' is ideology at its purest because its hidden message is 'do something, don't think too much.'
as “ideology as lived practice”
Ideology is not false consciousness superimposed on real practice but is constitutive of daily life itself, as Althusser showed, we live ideology in what we do, not merely in what we believe.
Implied in the critique of ideology as lived practice: ideology is not abstract false belief but something enacted in concrete daily activity.
as “hopelessness as precondition of change”
To really change things one must pass through a point of hopelessness where one renounces one's spontaneous dreams of change, the Hegelian lesson applied to revolutionary practice.
Following Lukács, theoretical self-consciousness, becoming aware of what you are as a historical agent, is the greatest practical act imaginable, more transformative than activist engagement.
The constant solicitation to interactive participation in contemporary consumerist society is a form of non-activity that reproduces the existing order rather than challenging it.
The most difficult and perhaps most politically radical act today is not hyperactivity but stepping back and opening oneself to a situation in a genuinely passive way.
The condition where even ideological constructs no longer need to pretend to take themselves seriously, Chomsky's position that contemporary ideology is simply transparent, which Žižek disputes.
For Žižek, ideology critique goes beyond exposing lies or hypocrisy to asking what one must sincerely believe in order to lie in that particular way, the mystery of sincere cynical belief.
Mao's distinction between contradictions among the people (non-antagonistic) and contradictions with the enemy; Žižek uses it to frame his disagreement with Chomsky as internal to the left, not a fundamental political opposition.
as “big Other”
The symbolic order or guarantee; the questioner asks what a movement looks like that 'sustains the assassination of the big Other' as Žižek finds in Christianity.
Not the mystical claim that God is beyond all determination, but the experience that before God comes a void, a fundamental sense of displacement and discontent that can persist without God.
Lacan's formula: the true formula of atheism is not 'God is dead' but 'God is unconscious', meaning that even avowed atheists act religiously in their practice.
Freudian concept invoked in connection with Lacanian sublimation and radical art as a move from pathology to the universal.
as “desire versus drive”
Žižek warns against the simplification of bad desire (caught in the dialectic of the law) versus good drive (self-enclosed satisfaction); he argues both are parallax views of a more radical deadlock and neither can be reduced to the other.
Two irreconcilable perspectives on the same deadlock, used here to describe desire and drive as parallax views of a more radical impasse rather than a hierarchy.
In Lacan's Seminar XI, the analyst's desire is explicitly declared not a pure desire, Žižek reads this as Lacan correcting his earlier privileging of pure desire in the Ethics seminar via Antigone.
Lacan's concept (Seminar VII) by which the aim of the drive is redirected, exemplified by Sade, whose satisfaction ultimately came through writing rather than his original object.
The Lacanian Real here is not raw physical reality but the irreducible abyss or imaginary gap, the opposite of what cynical 'materialist' reduction (à la Marcus Aurelius) exposes.
The structural operation in pornography and Brechtian theatre by which the work constantly signals 'this is not real', which Žižek reads as an escape from the Real rather than access to it.
as “Verfremdungseffekt / estrangement”
Brecht's technique of alienation-distance; Žižek argues it has been so thoroughly absorbed by cynical commercial culture that it now functions as an escape from the Real rather than a return to it.
Stories he reaches for 5
When Žižek's father died in hospital, he was called in the morning, said 'will you take care of the corpse? Thanks' and continued writing his book, never experiencing the expected sentimental regret of not embracing him.
“will you take care of the corpse? thanks, yes, boom, and i continue writing my book.”
Marx wrote to Engels in a panic around 1870 when it looked like European revolution was imminent: 'Oh my god, why revolution already now? Let them wait, I haven't yet finished my Capital.' Žižek presents this as the authentic Marx.
“oh my god, why revolution already now? let them wait. i haven't yet finished my capital”
In the 'gonzo' format, performers look directly into the camera, interact with the crew, ask 'is it okay? should I move my leg?', Žižek reads this as extreme de-realisation driven by fear that viewers will take the content seriously.
“where does this terrible fear come from people shouldn't take us seriously”
Contemporary art biennales proclaim themselves critically revolutionary and even admit to being co-opted by capital, yet this meta-awareness changes nothing, they remain perfectly integrated into the world market.
“it all appears so open, anti-racist and so on, but it's so perfectly integrated into world market.”
A classic hardcore pornography narrative: the plumber tells the housewife he fixed the hole in the kitchen; she says she has another hole to fix. Žižek uses this to argue that such absurd narratives are not mere stupidity but a structural de-realisation.
“i fixed that hole in the kitchen and the housewife says, i have another hole to be fixed.”
Works invoked 9
Lukács's work is praised for the concept of theoretical self-consciousness as the greatest practical act, becoming aware of what you are as a historical agent.
The Republic book
Cited as Plato's blueprint to change the world, used to undercut the straw man in Marx's Thesis 11 about philosophers who merely interpret.
Das Kapital book
The unfinished Capital is what Marx told Engels he needed to complete before any revolution, used to illustrate the authentic Marx who privileges theoretical labour over premature activism.
Cited for the declaration that the desire of the analyst is not a pure desire, read by Žižek as Lacan's self-correction of the Ethics seminar's privileging of pure desire.
Hal Foster's book is associated with the Brechtian position that Žižek refutes: that critical distance and awareness of production is a return to the real rather than an escape from it.
Lacan's seminar on sublimation (including the Antigone reading) is treated as a stage Lacan later corrected; Žižek considers it almost a 'taboo' now because it over-privileges pure desire.
Brecht's learning play with an authoritarian message of self-sacrifice; cited as evidence of the failure of didactic theatre, workers rejected it as too authoritarian, while the far right embraced it.
Meditations book
Marcus Aurelius's Stoic technique of materialist reduction is attacked as ideology disguised as realism, the paradigm of escape from the Real.
Lacan's analysis of Claudel's Coûfontaine trilogy is cited as the positive alternative to the Antigone reading, the move forward from pure desire.
People invoked 33
Used as an example: even cheating cynics are 'naive' in a deeper sense, because ideology operates below the level of conscious cynicism.
Marquis de Sade positive
Used by a questioner (and agreed to by Žižek) as Lacan's example of sublimation: Sade's satisfaction ultimately came through writing, not his original perverse object, exemplifying change of aim without change of object.
Mentioned by a questioner in connection with Hegel's failure in relation to art and class struggle; Žižek does not comment on Pippin directly.
Marcus Aurelius negative
Žižek says he 'hates' the emperor; his Stoic technique of reducing sex to its material components (glands, decay) is presented as the paradigm of ideological escape from the Real disguised as realism.
Georg Lukács positive
Cited as a Marxist who truly understood that practice is not opposed to theory; his concept of theoretical self-consciousness in History and Class Consciousness is held up as the greatest practical act.
Theodor W. Adorno positive
Praised for the insight that the most difficult thing in consumerist society is not to be active but to be authentically passive; also cited on the pseudo-activity of interactive culture.
Rey Chow positive
Described as 'a good Chinese cultural theorist' working with Fredric Jameson at Duke; praised for showing how Brechtian Verfremdung now serves contemporary cynical commercial culture.
Hal Foster negative
Author of The Return of the Real; Žižek contests the Brechtian thesis Foster represents, that awareness of production process and critical distance constitutes a return to the real, arguing it is instead an escape from it.
Jacques Lacan positive
Cited throughout on the formula 'God is unconscious,' the desire of the analyst (Sem. XI), sublimation (Sem. VII), and the Antigone reading (Ethics seminar); Žižek also identifies an internal tension in Lacan between drive and desire.
Louis Althusser positive
Credited for the insight that we live ideology in our daily life, ideology as constitutive of practice.
Described as 'boss' of Krytyka Polityczna and a Polish friend who relayed the Habermas anecdote.
Damien Hirst negative
Cited as the example of fashionable contemporary art Žižek dislikes: 'in my Stalinist universe... here you have a first-class ticket to Siberia and one-way ticket.'
Paul Claudel positive
Lacan's analysis of Claudel's Coûfontaine trilogy (in the Transference seminar) is cited by Žižek as the corrective move that supersedes the Antigone-pure-desire position.
Mentioned by a questioner as writing on Marxism and practice; Žižek does not comment substantively on him.
Mentioned in passing as Rey Chow's colleague at Duke.
Mentioned as the recipient of Marx's panicked letter about the prospect of early European revolution.
Listed among philosophers who all had projects to change the world, contrasted with Hegel.
Julian Assange negative
Praised for doing 'a great thing' but criticised as 'too Chomskyan', believing that revealing information will change things, whereas Žižek thinks people already know most of what WikiLeaks discloses.
Bertolt Brecht negative
Žižek criticises the failure of Brecht's didactic theatre in practice: workers rejected his learning plays as too authoritarian, the far right embraced them, and the Berliner Ensemble drew West German tourists, not the working class. Verfremdung has been absorbed into commercial cynicism.
Édouard Manet positive
Referenced alongside Munch by a questioner as an example from Žižek's previous lecture on art and the irreconcilable.
Edvard Munch positive
Referenced by a questioner as an example Žižek used (in a prior talk) to show how art works with what cannot be reconciled.
Mladen Dolar positive
Referred to as 'my friend'; credited with making a 'wonderful observation' about Thesis 11 in a recent debate in Slovenia.
Benjamin Netanyahu negative
Cited as an example of the tolerant-racist 'but' structure: 'Islam is a great religion, but...', for Žižek this is the ideological form of racism.
Hans Magnus Enzensberger negative
Described as a 'moderately leftist cultural theorist' who in the 1960s saw interactive media as a way for passive consumers to assume an active role, a position Žižek contrasts unfavourably with Adorno's.
Rowan Williams positive
Quoted on what makes Catholic novelists religious: not a positive vision of divinity but a fundamental sense of displacement and discontent, something is wrong with this world; Žižek says Williams agreed this matches his reading of negative theology.
Ex-Verso editor, now at OR Books; relayed to Žižek Chomsky's alleged private view that ideology today is so cynical it need not even be refuted.
Mao Zedong positive
His distinction between antagonism within the people and antagonism with the enemy of the people is deployed to frame the Žižek–Chomsky disagreement as an internal left debate.
Recounted as having threatened to end an interview if Žižek's name was mentioned again; Žižek notes this with detachment ('I don't care').
Plato positive
Cited as paradigm of the philosopher who wanted to change the world (Republic as blueprint; the trip to Syracuse), used to undercut Thesis 11's implied straw man.
Noam Chomsky negative
Žižek respects Chomsky as a great person and finds his concrete empirical analysis useful, but argues he lacks ideology critique, merely exposing lies without asking what must be sincerely believed to lie that way. Chomsky's anarchism leads him to dismiss the October Revolution as a simple Bolshevik coup.
Karl Marx positive
The 'authentic Marx' is the one who panicked at the prospect of revolution before finishing Capital, Žižek endorses this Marx over the activist caricature.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Singled out as the one philosopher who did not want to change the world and therefore was the most valuable source for actual revolutionary practice; his passage through hopelessness is the model.
Listed alongside Spinoza and Plato as philosophers with practical projects to change the world, contrasted with Hegel.
What it argues
theory as the precondition of authentic practiceideology as lived practice not false beliefŽižek vs. Chomsky: ideology critique versus empirical exposurenegative theology and the revolutionary core of Christianitydesire versus drive in LacanBrechtian Verfremdung as ideological escapepseudo-activity and hyperactivity as forms of passivity
Dialectical moves 9
“the first step towards authentic practice is theory”
The standard opposition of theory versus practice is inverted: theory is not the enemy of practice but its necessary precondition, and blind practice is the worst conformism.
“Hegel, who didn't want to change the world, was the most valuable source for actual revolutionary practice”
The philosopher who appears most conservative, with no practical programme, turns out to be the most useful for genuine revolution, because he passes through hopelessness rather than projecting utopian dreams.
“the most difficult thing today is not to be active, but to be authentically passive”
Adorno's inversion of the activist imperative: in a society of constant pseudo-activity, the radical act is stepping back and opening oneself to the situation.
“through our hyperactivity we reproduce the way things are”
Our apparent dynamism and engagement is itself the mechanism of stasis, we are passive at a more radical level precisely because the form of our activity reproduces the system.
“the true formula of atheism is not 'God is dead' but 'God is unconscious'”
Lacan's reversal: the definitive overcoming of religion is not the Enlightenment declaration of God's death but the psychoanalytic insight that God functions as an unconscious structure even for avowed atheists.
“before having a god, you must open up the space for god — and you can have that space also without god”
The theological experience of the void precedes any positive content of divinity; secular thought can inherit this opening without filling it with God.
“this strategy of Brechtian estrangement is not a return to the real but an escape from the real”
The technique meant to puncture illusion and reveal material reality has become an ideological escape, the Real is precisely the abyss that cynical de-mystification avoids.
“brutal cynical realism — cut the crap, take things the way they are — is the ultimate ideological naivety”
What presents itself as hardheaded exposure of reality (e.g. Marcus Aurelius on sex as mere glands) is itself an ideological gesture that evades the Real.
“a difference can be big apparently explicit but nonetheless we can collaborate; sometimes we may appear to be very close, but really it's the greatest gap”
The Stalinist/dialectical logic of political proximity: visible explicit disagreement is less politically significant than apparent closeness that conceals a fundamental divide.
Claims 19
asserts
Theory is the precondition of authentic practice, not its opposite; the worst conformism is blind practice.theory versus practice in Marxism
asserts
The call to 'do something practical' instead of theorising is ideology at its purest — it tells people not to think too much.charity and practical activism as ideology
asserts
Ideology is not false theory but is constitutive of daily lived practice — we live ideology, as Althusser showed.the nature of ideology
asserts
True racism today is not open hostility but the tolerant 'but' structure — 'I love them but their food smells bad' — rooted in envy, hatred, and fascination.the structure of contemporary racism
asserts
Hegel, who had no practical project to change the world, was the most valuable source for actual revolutionary practice — more so than philosophers who explicitly wanted to change things.Hegel and revolutionary practice
asserts
Theoretical self-consciousness — becoming aware of what you are as a historical agent — is the greatest practical act imaginable.Lukács and the primacy of theoretical self-reflection
asserts
Hyperactivity in contemporary society is itself a form of passivity — the way we reproduce existing conditions is precisely through our frantic busyness.hyperactivity and political passivity
asserts
Chomsky does not practice ideology critique — he exposes lies and hypocrisy but never asks what people must sincerely believe in order to lie in that way.Chomsky's method versus ideology critique
asserts
People already know most of what Assange and Chomsky seek to disclose; informing them is not enough because the problem is ideological, not cognitive.Assange/WikiLeaks model of radical transparency
rejects
The October Revolution was not merely a Bolshevik coup but an authentic event whose tragedy must be recognised — Chomsky's dismissal of it is a mistake.Chomsky's anarchist dismissal of the October Revolution
asserts
The displacement and discontent of negative theology — the sense that something is wrong with the world — can be preserved and activated without God.secular appropriation of negative theology
asserts
The true formula of atheism is not 'God is dead' but 'God is unconscious' — even avowed atheists live religiously in practice.atheism and religion
rejects
Desire and drive in Lacan are parallax views of a more radical deadlock rather than a hierarchy where drive is superior to desire.the common reading of Lacan privileging drive over desire
asserts
Lacan's Ethics seminar (Antigone) represents a stage he later corrected in the Transference seminar by moving from pure desire to the strange desire of the analyst.the development of Lacan's ethics
asserts
Brechtian Verfremdung, having been absorbed by cynical commercial culture, now functions as an escape from the Real rather than a subversive return to it.the failure of Brechtian estrangement technique
asserts
Contemporary biennales and politically correct anti-eurocentric art are perfectly integrated into the world market despite their revolutionary posturing.contemporary art institutions and the art market
asserts
Cynical materialist reduction — 'cut the crap, see what sex really is' (à la Marcus Aurelius) — is the ultimate ideological naivety, not a return to the real.cynical realism and ideology
asserts
Hardcore pornography is an ultra-censored genre because it constantly de-realises its content, reminding viewers not to take it seriously.pornography as ideological genre
asserts
Conceptual art plays a limited role and ultimately does not work to the end — art's genuine function is glimpsed only in particular works, not in a general movement.the limits of conceptual art
Quotes 17
“the worst conformism is blind practice. and not to be blind in practice, you need theory.”Slavoj Žižek · theory as precondition of authentic practice
“the message between the lines is do something, don't think too much.”Slavoj Žižek · charity discourse as ideological blackmail
“ideology at its most radical is part of your daily practice. you live, we, Althusser pointed this nicely, we live ideology in our daily life.”Slavoj Žižek · ideology as lived practice
“the enigma of ideology is not... that people lie all the time. but what do you have to believe sincerely in order to lie like that?”Slavoj Žižek · the mystery of sincere ideological belief
“hegel, which is the greatest inspiration for marx, no?... he was the most valuable source for actual revolutionary practice.”Slavoj Žižek · Hegel's non-practical philosophy as basis for revolution
“to really change things, you must go through that point of hopelessness where you lose your dreams.”Slavoj Žižek · hopelessness as revolutionary precondition
“the most difficult thing today is not to be active, but to be authentically passive.”Slavoj Žižek · authentic passivity as radical act
“the form of how we are unable to change anything is precisely because through our hyperactivity we reproduce the way things are.”Slavoj Žižek · hyperactivity as political passivity
“a theoretical, what Lukács called self-consciousness, where you... become aware of what you are as a historical agent. this is the greatest practical act that you can imagine.”Slavoj Žižek · theoretical self-consciousness as the highest practical act
“before god comes a void. we you know, like inconsistency and so on. and this is the fundamental theological experience.”Slavoj Žižek · the void as precondition of the divine
“before having a god, you must open up the space for god. and you can have that space then also without god.”Slavoj Žižek · secular negative theology
“lacon says... the true formal of atheism is not god is dead, but god is unconscious.”Slavoj Žižek · God is unconscious — the psychoanalytic formula of atheism
“i don't think you can reduce one to the other. [desire and drive are] like in parallax, two visions of some more radical deadlock.”Slavoj Žižek · desire and drive as parallax views
“this is not a return to the real, but an escape from the real. the real is precisely that abyss of that imaginary abyss.”Slavoj Žižek · cynical de-mystification as escape from the Real
“this brutal, cynical realism, cut the crap, take things the way they are, is the ultimate ideological naivety.”Slavoj Žižek · cynical realism as the deepest ideology
“i hated my father... when your father is dead. i said, will you take care of the corpse? thanks, yes, boom, and i continue writing my book.”Slavoj Žižek · rejection of sentimental deathbed reconciliation
“sometimes a difference can be big apparently explicit but nonetheless we can collaborate. there is a specific crucial point and sometimes we may appear to be very close, but really it's the greatest gap.”Slavoj Žižek · Stalinist dialectic of political proximity and distance
Transcript 74 turns
Questioner
sh for.
sh for.
Slavoj Žižek
no but the point is that he is there shout. okay, so the shout. you raised the hand, no? didn't you? that's what i mean. it's time for questioning but south so that people will hear you, you know.
no but the point is that he is there shout. okay, so the shout. you raised the hand, no? didn't you? that's what i mean. it's time for questioning but south so that people will hear you, you know.
Questioner
i want to say that. i have read many books from Alasdair MacIntyre, you know.
i want to say that. i have read many books from Alasdair MacIntyre, you know.
Slavoj Žižek
so
so
Questioner
Alasdair MacIntyre
Alasdair MacIntyre
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, yeah, yeah.
yeah, yeah, yeah.
Questioner
and as i know that he wrote many books or works about marxism in his own.
and as i know that he wrote many books or works about marxism in his own.
Slavoj Žižek
sorry about?
sorry about?
Questioner
that.
that.
Slavoj Žižek
to.
to.
Questioner
that.
that.
Slavoj Žižek
mar a mar.
mar a mar.
Questioner
and as i know that he use a very important item is practice. practice is also a very important.
and as i know that he use a very important item is practice. practice is also a very important.
Slavoj Žižek
mm-h.
mm-h.
Questioner
andx he used the practice to build his revolutionary army.
andx he used the practice to build his revolutionary army.
Slavoj Žižek
revolutionary
revolutionary
Questioner
yeah, the evolutionary.
yeah, the evolutionary.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, yeah.
yeah, yeah.
Questioner
and may i ask that how you think about the practice, this item in marxism? and do you think that they has something to do with the revolutionary in marxism?
and may i ask that how you think about the practice, this item in marxism? and do you think that they has something to do with the revolutionary in marxism?
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, but yeah, it's a nice question. okay, i mean again, the only problem is that to answer it properly it means another talk but i will just give you some maybe surprising hint. first. i think that it was demonstrated by marxists who really knew about it, like... the young Lukács and some in the Frankfurt School and so on, that practice is not to be opposed to theory. so the first thing is to totally reject this entire topic of, oh, you are just in your ivory tower of theory, we need practical engagement and so on and so on. the worst conformism is blind practice. and not to be blind in practice, you need theory. show up. the the relevance of practice is for me that precisely you refuse to be as it were blackmailed by practice you know i often use this example of charity today. that's for me practice as it works. you know like my god, what do you bullshit here about lacon, hegel, all these distinctions when children are starving in somalia and so on and so on why is this ideology at its purest? because the message between the lines is do something, don't think too much. you know, i mean, i had some quotes from people like... like bill gates and so on, who all make these points. for example, people are dying by millions, starving today. why don't we just all get together, ngos, people, charities, states, rich people, and do something. let's not lose time with all those debates about capitalism, communism, ideology and so on. so for me, the first step towards authentic practice is theory. theory without practice is... we know why. because, and this is the... the core of marxist critique of ideology. ideology is not a crazy theory. which is... obfuscating we're doing in practice, ideology at its most radical is part of your daily practice. you live, we, Althusser pointed this nicely, we live ideology in our daily life. you know, for me,... for example, racism is not nobody, almost nobody, is racist today in this direct sense, whatever. no. no, racism is when you, true racism for me today is not to say i don't know. arabs are stupid terrorists, fanatics. islam is bad terror. no, true racism is to say what netanyahu and all of them are saying, you know, islam is a great religion. but my god, the way, and then you go into this, for example, racism is for me to say, i love them, but this but, you know, their food smells bad, i don't like the sound of their music and so on and so on. racism as ideology is why do you find something in the other's way of life intolerable? this whole structure of envy, hatred, fascination, and so on and so on. and so, for me, again. i don't fetishize practice. i'm even ready to go here a step further. where probably no one will follow me. you know, again, i refer to my friend Mladen Dolar, who made recently in a debate we had in slovenia a wonderful observation. you know, this... that this thesis 11, you know, philosophers have only interpreted the world. the point is also to change it. no? okay. let me ask yourself, i'm sorry if i already repeat this point here maybe a year ago. let me ask you an extremely stupid, naive question. who are these stupid philosophers who just interpreted the world? all of them, as far as i know, of course not in the sense of marxist practice, but practically all of them wanted to change the world. plato, we know it. republic was a blueprint to change. and you know the story. he even went to syracuse, to sicily, to convince the local tyrant there to reconstruct his state in this sense. they practically all wanted to change the world. spinoza has a project, kant, has a project, all. all philosophers had a project how to change the world. now i will become really evil. except one. absolutely no. hegel, which is the greatest inspiration for marx, no? with hegel, you definitely don't have this. he doesn't want to change the world. that's why, and that's the beauty. he was the most valuable source for actual revolutionary practice. or to put it in another way, to really change things. and that's what i will improvise if i will still survive and not have a heart attack at 6.30 today at lsc at that talk. that's why to really change things, you must go through that point of hopelessness where you lose your dreams and so on and so on. you know. so let's not just first to really change the world, you have to see how what spontaneously comes to you as the way to change the world, how to renounce that and so on. which is why, and that was the greatness of Lukács in History and Class Consciousness to describe, which is why. uh. a theoretical, what Lukács called self-consciousness, where you, in an act of self-reflection, become aware of what you are as a historical agent. this is the greatest practical act that you can imagine. and i will go even sorry, immediately even further here. that's why what I like in Adorno. is this insight which i think is more true than ever apropos today's interactive art and so on. you know like when all this new digitalization began at the very beginning in the 60s, Hans Magnus Enzensberger. German moderately leftist. cultural theorist. made this point about how in today's culture we are too much passive consumerists and he saw, this is typical modernist leftist appropriation, he saw in interactive media a way nonetheless to assume an active role. we just don't stare at the screen, we co-create it and so on and so on. but already adorno saw something very nicely that if anything in today's consumerist society we are not passive consumers we are all the time solic involved in pseudo-activity and so on and so on as adorno put it nicely the most difficult thing today is not to be active, but to be authentically passive. maybe this is not the ultimate act. i'm not saying we just sit back and that's the big revolution, you know. but like... to step back and open yourself in an authentically passive way to this situation. which is why to to close with my last joke, which i repeat i think in my learning book on marx, like that's the marx that i love. you know, there are some letters, my god, i think i found it where from 187 seventy when it looked for a moment that there will be a european revolution and marx wrote to engels a letter which is a letter of pure panic. he says, oh my god, why revolution already now? let them wait. i haven't yet finished my capital and so on. that's authentic marx, you know, not that o practical activity, whatever and so on. today we have to emphasize this because we do live in a hyperactive. society, you know, we are passive at a more radical level. the form of how. we are unable to change anything is precisely because through our hyperactivity. we reproduce the way things are. i know i didn't answer you but fuck it, that's life. sorry, there was a green guy there and then. first row and then you should shout i'm half blind okay you begin the green guy
yeah, but yeah, it's a nice question. okay, i mean again, the only problem is that to answer it properly it means another talk but i will just give you some maybe surprising hint. first. i think that it was demonstrated by marxists who really knew about it, like... the young Lukács and some in the Frankfurt School and so on, that practice is not to be opposed to theory. so the first thing is to totally reject this entire topic of, oh, you are just in your ivory tower of theory, we need practical engagement and so on and so on. the worst conformism is blind practice. and not to be blind in practice, you need theory. show up. the the relevance of practice is for me that precisely you refuse to be as it were blackmailed by practice you know i often use this example of charity today. that's for me practice as it works. you know like my god, what do you bullshit here about lacon, hegel, all these distinctions when children are starving in somalia and so on and so on why is this ideology at its purest? because the message between the lines is do something, don't think too much. you know, i mean, i had some quotes from people like... like bill gates and so on, who all make these points. for example, people are dying by millions, starving today. why don't we just all get together, ngos, people, charities, states, rich people, and do something. let's not lose time with all those debates about capitalism, communism, ideology and so on. so for me, the first step towards authentic practice is theory. theory without practice is... we know why. because, and this is the... the core of marxist critique of ideology. ideology is not a crazy theory. which is... obfuscating we're doing in practice, ideology at its most radical is part of your daily practice. you live, we, Althusser pointed this nicely, we live ideology in our daily life. you know, for me,... for example, racism is not nobody, almost nobody, is racist today in this direct sense, whatever. no. no, racism is when you, true racism for me today is not to say i don't know. arabs are stupid terrorists, fanatics. islam is bad terror. no, true racism is to say what netanyahu and all of them are saying, you know, islam is a great religion. but my god, the way, and then you go into this, for example, racism is for me to say, i love them, but this but, you know, their food smells bad, i don't like the sound of their music and so on and so on. racism as ideology is why do you find something in the other's way of life intolerable? this whole structure of envy, hatred, fascination, and so on and so on. and so, for me, again. i don't fetishize practice. i'm even ready to go here a step further. where probably no one will follow me. you know, again, i refer to my friend Mladen Dolar, who made recently in a debate we had in slovenia a wonderful observation. you know, this... that this thesis 11, you know, philosophers have only interpreted the world. the point is also to change it. no? okay. let me ask yourself, i'm sorry if i already repeat this point here maybe a year ago. let me ask you an extremely stupid, naive question. who are these stupid philosophers who just interpreted the world? all of them, as far as i know, of course not in the sense of marxist practice, but practically all of them wanted to change the world. plato, we know it. republic was a blueprint to change. and you know the story. he even went to syracuse, to sicily, to convince the local tyrant there to reconstruct his state in this sense. they practically all wanted to change the world. spinoza has a project, kant, has a project, all. all philosophers had a project how to change the world. now i will become really evil. except one. absolutely no. hegel, which is the greatest inspiration for marx, no? with hegel, you definitely don't have this. he doesn't want to change the world. that's why, and that's the beauty. he was the most valuable source for actual revolutionary practice. or to put it in another way, to really change things. and that's what i will improvise if i will still survive and not have a heart attack at 6.30 today at lsc at that talk. that's why to really change things, you must go through that point of hopelessness where you lose your dreams and so on and so on. you know. so let's not just first to really change the world, you have to see how what spontaneously comes to you as the way to change the world, how to renounce that and so on. which is why, and that was the greatness of Lukács in History and Class Consciousness to describe, which is why. uh. a theoretical, what Lukács called self-consciousness, where you, in an act of self-reflection, become aware of what you are as a historical agent. this is the greatest practical act that you can imagine. and i will go even sorry, immediately even further here. that's why what I like in Adorno. is this insight which i think is more true than ever apropos today's interactive art and so on. you know like when all this new digitalization began at the very beginning in the 60s, Hans Magnus Enzensberger. German moderately leftist. cultural theorist. made this point about how in today's culture we are too much passive consumerists and he saw, this is typical modernist leftist appropriation, he saw in interactive media a way nonetheless to assume an active role. we just don't stare at the screen, we co-create it and so on and so on. but already adorno saw something very nicely that if anything in today's consumerist society we are not passive consumers we are all the time solic involved in pseudo-activity and so on and so on as adorno put it nicely the most difficult thing today is not to be active, but to be authentically passive. maybe this is not the ultimate act. i'm not saying we just sit back and that's the big revolution, you know. but like... to step back and open yourself in an authentically passive way to this situation. which is why to to close with my last joke, which i repeat i think in my learning book on marx, like that's the marx that i love. you know, there are some letters, my god, i think i found it where from 187 seventy when it looked for a moment that there will be a european revolution and marx wrote to engels a letter which is a letter of pure panic. he says, oh my god, why revolution already now? let them wait. i haven't yet finished my capital and so on. that's authentic marx, you know, not that o practical activity, whatever and so on. today we have to emphasize this because we do live in a hyperactive. society, you know, we are passive at a more radical level. the form of how. we are unable to change anything is precisely because through our hyperactivity. we reproduce the way things are. i know i didn't answer you but fuck it, that's life. sorry, there was a green guy there and then. first row and then you should shout i'm half blind okay you begin the green guy
Questioner
okay about. as to you and chomsky's work, i really respect and admire, but i feel that there is this standoff between you.
okay about. as to you and chomsky's work, i really respect and admire, but i feel that there is this standoff between you.
Slavoj Žižek
he accuses you of posturing.
he accuses you of posturing.
Questioner
and i don't know whether this is male soap opera, or maybe when you become a very big public intellectual, you can afford to sort of say those things. but it really saddens me that two people who are sort of very respected leaders of the left-leaning intellig don't seem to... have a relationship other than to sort of slag each other off.
and i don't know whether this is male soap opera, or maybe when you become a very big public intellectual, you can afford to sort of say those things. but it really saddens me that two people who are sort of very respected leaders of the left-leaning intellig don't seem to... have a relationship other than to sort of slag each other off.
Slavoj Žižek
no, okay, i will very briefly i will clarify it. as you know, it all happened, maybe not in this room, but at Birkbeck, i think. two years was it a year a little bit over ago, somebody asked me, did you hear about chomsky's attack on you. because the first maybe chomsky gave some radio interview where he totally, totally tried to squash me. like because then the journalist asked him, okay, but okay, you don't agree with him theoretically, but what about some progressive political collective acts. would you be ready to collaborate with him there? and tom said, no, absolutely no, nowhere and so on and so on. so then i didn't know anything about it. i just, in a crazy shocked way reacted here. and i was pretty pissed off when then somebody someone transcribed this and then it started to circulate as my response to chomsky. so then, of course, he did back. and then the only thing that i count if you notice, this is done in an extremely respectful way. it's my second reaction, which was a proper text, which is very respectful towards Chomsky and i just go into where i don't uh. agree with him and i emphasize what he is doing, his concrete analysis is great and so on and so on. but for me... how put it, we can learn a lot from him and so on and so on. and he was so crazy when i said there is no critique of ideology in his work. and in one of his replies he wrote, but that's all i'm doing. no, exactly not. you know, why not? because if you look, for example, at his critical analysis of american establishment. aren't they naive, you know, in what sense? it's simply she's denouncing lies, dispelling mystifications and so on and so on. she displays all this hypocrisy and so on. but for me, the enigma of ideology is not, we all know this, that people lie all the time. but what do you have to believe sincerely in order to lie like that? that put it, that's the mystery of ideology. you know, for example, we know that Dick Cheney was cheating and so on. but you know. cheating people are even more naive i claim and cynics and so on so this this aspect is for me me he is simple and we need this he is just and we are now even put together i was glad to see now somebody told me there is now news that there is some. action in support of snowden and we are even mentioned as a couple. chomsky and me are doing it and so on and so on. because this is so one difference that he is, you know what? i didn't want to confirm who told he said, i did never say what he, but i know, you know, i can say this here. Colin Robinson, the ex-Verso editor, who now works for OR Books or whatever, some american publisher, he told me two years ago that he had a lunch with chomsky and the chomsky told him that basically today, things are so cynical that we don't have to. reject, refute any ideology that today's ideology even doesn't pretend to take itself seriously. like when the united states say we fight for freedom, democracy, ignore it. it's ridiculous. we just have to make it known to people, to disclose sh. i mean, to inform people what is going on. dich i don't believe. i think first people know a lot of it. here i even had a slight, very friendly, not even really disagreement with julian assange. he's here to chomkyan for me, because he's doing a great thing. but he still thinks, my god, people have to know this. my cynical view is that most of it, okay, not in this detailed form, but wait a minute, was any of us so stupid that you or he or she didn't know that probably we are controlled and so on?
no, okay, i will very briefly i will clarify it. as you know, it all happened, maybe not in this room, but at Birkbeck, i think. two years was it a year a little bit over ago, somebody asked me, did you hear about chomsky's attack on you. because the first maybe chomsky gave some radio interview where he totally, totally tried to squash me. like because then the journalist asked him, okay, but okay, you don't agree with him theoretically, but what about some progressive political collective acts. would you be ready to collaborate with him there? and tom said, no, absolutely no, nowhere and so on and so on. so then i didn't know anything about it. i just, in a crazy shocked way reacted here. and i was pretty pissed off when then somebody someone transcribed this and then it started to circulate as my response to chomsky. so then, of course, he did back. and then the only thing that i count if you notice, this is done in an extremely respectful way. it's my second reaction, which was a proper text, which is very respectful towards Chomsky and i just go into where i don't uh. agree with him and i emphasize what he is doing, his concrete analysis is great and so on and so on. but for me... how put it, we can learn a lot from him and so on and so on. and he was so crazy when i said there is no critique of ideology in his work. and in one of his replies he wrote, but that's all i'm doing. no, exactly not. you know, why not? because if you look, for example, at his critical analysis of american establishment. aren't they naive, you know, in what sense? it's simply she's denouncing lies, dispelling mystifications and so on and so on. she displays all this hypocrisy and so on. but for me, the enigma of ideology is not, we all know this, that people lie all the time. but what do you have to believe sincerely in order to lie like that? that put it, that's the mystery of ideology. you know, for example, we know that Dick Cheney was cheating and so on. but you know. cheating people are even more naive i claim and cynics and so on so this this aspect is for me me he is simple and we need this he is just and we are now even put together i was glad to see now somebody told me there is now news that there is some. action in support of snowden and we are even mentioned as a couple. chomsky and me are doing it and so on and so on. because this is so one difference that he is, you know what? i didn't want to confirm who told he said, i did never say what he, but i know, you know, i can say this here. Colin Robinson, the ex-Verso editor, who now works for OR Books or whatever, some american publisher, he told me two years ago that he had a lunch with chomsky and the chomsky told him that basically today, things are so cynical that we don't have to. reject, refute any ideology that today's ideology even doesn't pretend to take itself seriously. like when the united states say we fight for freedom, democracy, ignore it. it's ridiculous. we just have to make it known to people, to disclose sh. i mean, to inform people what is going on. dich i don't believe. i think first people know a lot of it. here i even had a slight, very friendly, not even really disagreement with julian assange. he's here to chomkyan for me, because he's doing a great thing. but he still thinks, my god, people have to know this. my cynical view is that most of it, okay, not in this detailed form, but wait a minute, was any of us so stupid that you or he or she didn't know that probably we are controlled and so on?
Questioner
it't certain matter. conferred. this notion of transcendence on intellectuals like you and chomsky so you can't see each other. you've reached a certain
it't certain matter. conferred. this notion of transcendence on intellectuals like you and chomsky so you can't see each other. you've reached a certain
Slavoj Žižek
and here i would be a little bit more arrogant and i would say, i can see him. i don't have any problem with him and a shared friend. even tried already five years ago to say. why don't the two of you meet and do a book of conversations together? i said, yes, he said, absolutely no, no, no way, and so on. but, you know, many people, Chomsky is not here an exception, you know, because, you know, with whom it was even worse, Jürgen Habermas. a polish friend of mine told me that from that Krytyka Polityczna, Sławomir Sierakowski, the boss, that he made two, three years ago a big interview with habermas, like four hours, what they call in-depth profile. i don't like this because i don't have any depth to be whatever. but the point is that in the middle, you know, they went over contemporary theories and at some point he said, okay, Žižek doing some kind of a leftist critique, what do you think about him? you know what habermas answered? if you mention this name once more again, this interview is over. so it happens. i don't care. but what i want to say is that i agree with you. look, i'll put it in this way, in old-fashioned maoist way. i still don't think that the antagonism between me and chomsky is the antagonism between people and the enemy of the people. it's what mao called the antagonism within the people, where i only... okay, apart from this general disagreement, but still finding chomsky's work very extremely useful. where i have another disagreement is you know, his type of... what vaguely he himself refers to as anarchism. i don't have any illusions of october revolution. it was a deadlock maybe from the very beginning. but you know, he chomsky totally, here i'm not lying, i can give you a quote, he totally dismisses it as a narrow bolshevik coup d'etat, nothing. oh, it wasn't as simple as that. it she doesn't see the tragedy of october revolution, which was that it was an authentic. event and so on. so again, what i m in him i know we i don't have a detailed blueprint planned for what to do but. like... do you have any idea what chomsky wants in the positive sense? okay, vaguely we all want this more transparency, democracy blah blah blah okay okay, everyone wants this but sorry?
and here i would be a little bit more arrogant and i would say, i can see him. i don't have any problem with him and a shared friend. even tried already five years ago to say. why don't the two of you meet and do a book of conversations together? i said, yes, he said, absolutely no, no, no way, and so on. but, you know, many people, Chomsky is not here an exception, you know, because, you know, with whom it was even worse, Jürgen Habermas. a polish friend of mine told me that from that Krytyka Polityczna, Sławomir Sierakowski, the boss, that he made two, three years ago a big interview with habermas, like four hours, what they call in-depth profile. i don't like this because i don't have any depth to be whatever. but the point is that in the middle, you know, they went over contemporary theories and at some point he said, okay, Žižek doing some kind of a leftist critique, what do you think about him? you know what habermas answered? if you mention this name once more again, this interview is over. so it happens. i don't care. but what i want to say is that i agree with you. look, i'll put it in this way, in old-fashioned maoist way. i still don't think that the antagonism between me and chomsky is the antagonism between people and the enemy of the people. it's what mao called the antagonism within the people, where i only... okay, apart from this general disagreement, but still finding chomsky's work very extremely useful. where i have another disagreement is you know, his type of... what vaguely he himself refers to as anarchism. i don't have any illusions of october revolution. it was a deadlock maybe from the very beginning. but you know, he chomsky totally, here i'm not lying, i can give you a quote, he totally dismisses it as a narrow bolshevik coup d'etat, nothing. oh, it wasn't as simple as that. it she doesn't see the tragedy of october revolution, which was that it was an authentic. event and so on. so again, what i m in him i know we i don't have a detailed blueprint planned for what to do but. like... do you have any idea what chomsky wants in the positive sense? okay, vaguely we all want this more transparency, democracy blah blah blah okay okay, everyone wants this but sorry?
Questioner
he doesn't accept his own contradiction, so he can't see another.
he doesn't accept his own contradiction, so he can't see another.
Slavoj Žižek
but even, you see, here is a hegelian, i totally agree with you. i would have added, even with this i agree, but then you should heroically accept your contradiction. and this i cannot imagine chomsky doing.
but even, you see, here is a hegelian, i totally agree with you. i would have added, even with this i agree, but then you should heroically accept your contradiction. and this i cannot imagine chomsky doing.
Questioner
if you're an old man you've made a career out of thinking that way, it's like death. it's like you don't want to die.
if you're an old man you've made a career out of thinking that way, it's like death. it's like you don't want to die.
Slavoj Žižek
eb, but don't you believe in materialist mercy then? maybe if god has mercy on you, say, oh my god, but i was in contradiction. no, but again, i agree with you that it's a tragedy. i felt so bad because when i made that immediate reaction here, this was not because i didn't really mean, this was a stupid direct reaction. and obviously he also withdrew because after my second answer, which was a detailed, respectful answer, chomsky gave, you can probably find it easily on the web, another interview. where he is all the time provoked by the journalist. so what do you think about zizrec? and he doesn't mention it. he obviously he also decided to. not to go into it, you know. and then apart from these two points, i must say i also do have some political concrete, i think. he sometimes does. make in concrete. judgment, political mistakes, and so on and so on. i mean, he's not... perfect empirically as he thinks but we all who is perfect you know no no but again he is a great person and so on whatever my god no i think i totally agree with you it's like it's not productive it's unnecessary you know and i'm not saying because the difference is small i'm here a good stalinist i say this is the political dialectic sometimes a difference can be big apparently explicit but nonetheless we can collaborate. there is a specific crucial point and sometimes we may appear to be very close, but really it's the greatest gap.
eb, but don't you believe in materialist mercy then? maybe if god has mercy on you, say, oh my god, but i was in contradiction. no, but again, i agree with you that it's a tragedy. i felt so bad because when i made that immediate reaction here, this was not because i didn't really mean, this was a stupid direct reaction. and obviously he also withdrew because after my second answer, which was a detailed, respectful answer, chomsky gave, you can probably find it easily on the web, another interview. where he is all the time provoked by the journalist. so what do you think about zizrec? and he doesn't mention it. he obviously he also decided to. not to go into it, you know. and then apart from these two points, i must say i also do have some political concrete, i think. he sometimes does. make in concrete. judgment, political mistakes, and so on and so on. i mean, he's not... perfect empirically as he thinks but we all who is perfect you know no no but again he is a great person and so on whatever my god no i think i totally agree with you it's like it's not productive it's unnecessary you know and i'm not saying because the difference is small i'm here a good stalinist i say this is the political dialectic sometimes a difference can be big apparently explicit but nonetheless we can collaborate. there is a specific crucial point and sometimes we may appear to be very close, but really it's the greatest gap.
Questioner
actually.
actually.
Slavoj Žižek
i don't have any problems there. i must say openly, i hated my father. no, no, no, and it wasn't that then. i hated him while he was alive. and then years later, you know, i started to cry, oh, why didn't i embrace him when he was dying? i remember, my father was dying in a hospital in the morning. they called me from the hospital, your father is dead. i said, will you take care of the corpse? thanks, yes, boom, and i continue writing my book. never did i have this moment of, oh that, why didn't i? embrace you the last time i saw you i'm a christian here you know you are we are here holy spirit you are my family okay sorry i talk too much you and then there was somebody there please
i don't have any problems there. i must say openly, i hated my father. no, no, no, and it wasn't that then. i hated him while he was alive. and then years later, you know, i started to cry, oh, why didn't i embrace him when he was dying? i remember, my father was dying in a hospital in the morning. they called me from the hospital, your father is dead. i said, will you take care of the corpse? thanks, yes, boom, and i continue writing my book. never did i have this moment of, oh that, why didn't i? embrace you the last time i saw you i'm a christian here you know you are we are here holy spirit you are my family okay sorry i talk too much you and then there was somebody there please
Questioner
you can ahead.
you can ahead.
Slavoj Žižek
nah, fact it's your problem.
nah, fact it's your problem.
Questioner
i like what you do with the revolutionary core of christianity, as you put it. but i have two issues with it, which you may have been asked before, but i haven't really found an answer. first of all, what is religion exactly doing? i mean, is it a nice story that illuminates?
i like what you do with the revolutionary core of christianity, as you put it. but i have two issues with it, which you may have been asked before, but i haven't really found an answer. first of all, what is religion exactly doing? i mean, is it a nice story that illuminates?
Slavoj Žižek
very good.
very good.
Questioner
is issue that you're bringing up or is it something else? and then second of all what would a society or a movement or something look like that sustains the assassination of the big other or whatever it is that you see in christianity?
is issue that you're bringing up or is it something else? and then second of all what would a society or a movement or something look like that sustains the assassination of the big other or whatever it is that you see in christianity?
Slavoj Žižek
it's not so much an assassination, it's like a suicide. but okay, whatever. yes. okay, no, of course, again, fuck you in the good sense. i mean, like to answer this, it's again two hours, no, at least. but my brief answer, i tried more or less to answer this at the other conference that actuality of theological political, no? i agree you asked the key question, which is, when we leftists refer to religion. in a not just critical way. are we just playing this patronizing game like in stupid countries they are not, but i'm imitating an attitude. like latin america, you still need to mobilize christianity to make people revolutionary, but we enlightened europeans, we don't. is it just this? or is something that we can genuinely accept in religion? and yes i'm not just a manipulator. i am an atheist, but two things. first i claim um. my reference here is Rowan Williams, i quoted him, who in his, i don't know which book, he, i think in his book on dostoevsky, he says that he quotes some, he refers to some british novelists, catholic novelists, and say, what makes them religious? and he says, not any positive vision. of divinity or whatever, but just this fundamental sense of displacement discontent. something is wrong with this world of ours. and i asked him this, and he told me, at least maybe out of politeness, you never know, that he agrees with me that this is how i read negative theology. not that bullshit, you know, god is beyond of determination, but that... before god comes avoid. we you know, like inconsistency and so on. and this is the fundamental theological experience. it comes before asserting in, like, to put it in this way. before having a god, you must open up the space for god. and you can have that space then also without god. that's my definition of you know along these lines, the second thing is that... then we go specifically to christianity because, you know laccon says, as i also repeated, that the true formal of atheism is not god is dead, but got is unconscious. he means precisely referring back to ideology that even if we are officially atheists, we act as if we are a religion in our activity and so on and so on. and the point is how you overcome death. and here i see the legacy of christianity. maybe people are always telling me, but why don't you also see similar possibilities in other religions and so on and so on? i don't know. i wasn't yet convinced of it. i did. i have a great, contrary to what some people think i have a great appreciation of buddhism and so on, but it doesn't totally satisfy me. but sorry, i'm losing time so that at least one, two idiots people, i mean you can please...
it's not so much an assassination, it's like a suicide. but okay, whatever. yes. okay, no, of course, again, fuck you in the good sense. i mean, like to answer this, it's again two hours, no, at least. but my brief answer, i tried more or less to answer this at the other conference that actuality of theological political, no? i agree you asked the key question, which is, when we leftists refer to religion. in a not just critical way. are we just playing this patronizing game like in stupid countries they are not, but i'm imitating an attitude. like latin america, you still need to mobilize christianity to make people revolutionary, but we enlightened europeans, we don't. is it just this? or is something that we can genuinely accept in religion? and yes i'm not just a manipulator. i am an atheist, but two things. first i claim um. my reference here is Rowan Williams, i quoted him, who in his, i don't know which book, he, i think in his book on dostoevsky, he says that he quotes some, he refers to some british novelists, catholic novelists, and say, what makes them religious? and he says, not any positive vision. of divinity or whatever, but just this fundamental sense of displacement discontent. something is wrong with this world of ours. and i asked him this, and he told me, at least maybe out of politeness, you never know, that he agrees with me that this is how i read negative theology. not that bullshit, you know, god is beyond of determination, but that... before god comes avoid. we you know, like inconsistency and so on. and this is the fundamental theological experience. it comes before asserting in, like, to put it in this way. before having a god, you must open up the space for god. and you can have that space then also without god. that's my definition of you know along these lines, the second thing is that... then we go specifically to christianity because, you know laccon says, as i also repeated, that the true formal of atheism is not god is dead, but got is unconscious. he means precisely referring back to ideology that even if we are officially atheists, we act as if we are a religion in our activity and so on and so on. and the point is how you overcome death. and here i see the legacy of christianity. maybe people are always telling me, but why don't you also see similar possibilities in other religions and so on and so on? i don't know. i wasn't yet convinced of it. i did. i have a great, contrary to what some people think i have a great appreciation of buddhism and so on, but it doesn't totally satisfy me. but sorry, i'm losing time so that at least one, two idiots people, i mean you can please...
Questioner
i was interested in your lecture yesterday and the part that art played in it.
i was interested in your lecture yesterday and the part that art played in it.
Slavoj Žižek
uh-huh.
uh-huh.
Questioner
looking through pipippin at
looking through pipippin at
Slavoj Žižek
yes.
yes.
Questioner
hegel's failure in relation to
hegel's failure in relation to
Slavoj Žižek
hmm.
hmm.
Questioner
class struggle. i was the idea that art has been demoted and we look to science. abs.
class struggle. i was the idea that art has been demoted and we look to science. abs.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Questioner
um... and then i was interested in the way you're using Munch and Manet try to show how art works with what can't be reconciled. yes,. junctionuncture.
um... and then i was interested in the way you're using Munch and Manet try to show how art works with what can't be reconciled. yes,. junctionuncture.
Slavoj Žižek
.
.
Questioner
and my question is, do you think that Lacan... work on Sade in relation to sublimation. atheism, the death drive, for instance.
and my question is, do you think that Lacan... work on Sade in relation to sublimation. atheism, the death drive, for instance.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah,.
yeah,.
Questioner
and the wayside that is an adequate way of thinking. art and the absolute in the contemporary situation.
and the wayside that is an adequate way of thinking. art and the absolute in the contemporary situation.
Slavoj Žižek
i cannot answer you but because
i cannot answer you but because
Questioner
did you get the point that i made? sorry, i'm sorry, i'm finished. i mean, the interesting point abouthan on sublimation in relation to Sade. as you said, it's not his erotics, not his social theory, it's the fact that he pushes the literary sign, but not as a literary. literary theorist or practitioner but because he's working with these symptom. so he changes, it doesn't change the object, he changes the aim.
did you get the point that i made? sorry, i'm sorry, i'm finished. i mean, the interesting point abouthan on sublimation in relation to Sade. as you said, it's not his erotics, not his social theory, it's the fact that he pushes the literary sign, but not as a literary. literary theorist or practitioner but because he's working with these symptom. so he changes, it doesn't change the object, he changes the aim.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, yeah.
yeah, yeah.
Questioner
writing and finally what satisfies his drive is writing.
writing and finally what satisfies his drive is writing.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, yeah.
yeah, yeah.
Questioner
no longer what the original object of damaging young girls and so on.
no longer what the original object of damaging young girls and so on.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Questioner
so there's a potential to change not only the drive, but ethics.
so there's a potential to change not only the drive, but ethics.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, of course.
yeah, of course.
Questioner
so i just wonder whether you think that lean's... theory of sublimation index to the death drive. is an adequate way of thinking. art and the absolute in our contemporary situation.
so i just wonder whether you think that lean's... theory of sublimation index to the death drive. is an adequate way of thinking. art and the absolute in our contemporary situation.
Slavoj Žižek
now i will be totally honest. to answer you now directly, these are such fundamental points beyond my scope now. you know why? because here i found a certain, maybe i'm wrong, not so much. tension is... and indability, non-clarity, however you call it, in Lacan because i think that too many readings of lacon, mine included. sell... did fall into this trap of bad desire versus good drive, you know. but i think that ultimately lacon doesn't privilege drive. against desire as if you know desire is still attached to the law caught in some dialectic master but truly elementary the zero level is drive i think that there is a short tech in agreeri on. from freud's tribe to the desire of the analyst. where nonetheless desire returns as the strange desire of the analyst, and its desire not drive. so along... these lines, i don't think some people are fascinated by this idea of saying, you know, in desire you still have lost object, fascination and so on, endless, while in drive you find satisfaction, self-inlosing. i think that both desire and drive are... like in parallax, two visions of some more radical deadlock, however you call it, and so on and so on, i don't think you can reduce one to the other.
now i will be totally honest. to answer you now directly, these are such fundamental points beyond my scope now. you know why? because here i found a certain, maybe i'm wrong, not so much. tension is... and indability, non-clarity, however you call it, in Lacan because i think that too many readings of lacon, mine included. sell... did fall into this trap of bad desire versus good drive, you know. but i think that ultimately lacon doesn't privilege drive. against desire as if you know desire is still attached to the law caught in some dialectic master but truly elementary the zero level is drive i think that there is a short tech in agreeri on. from freud's tribe to the desire of the analyst. where nonetheless desire returns as the strange desire of the analyst, and its desire not drive. so along... these lines, i don't think some people are fascinated by this idea of saying, you know, in desire you still have lost object, fascination and so on, endless, while in drive you find satisfaction, self-inlosing. i think that both desire and drive are... like in parallax, two visions of some more radical deadlock, however you call it, and so on and so on, i don't think you can reduce one to the other.
Questioner
clear in the ethics. but seminar seven, that sublimation. inside. and for lacan, radical forms of sublimation. linked to the death drive. is a move from say pathology to the universal.
clear in the ethics. but seminar seven, that sublimation. inside. and for lacan, radical forms of sublimation. linked to the death drive. is a move from say pathology to the universal.
Slavoj Žižek
i agree. although, as you know,
i agree. although, as you know,
Questioner
and also it's the bearing, just one more point, i to see whether it's the bearing of in ati, transgenerational contamination it's coming to terms with.
and also it's the bearing, just one more point, i to see whether it's the bearing of in ati, transgenerational contamination it's coming to terms with.
Slavoj Žižek
but okay, i will not repeat the old stuff. i agree with you, but you know probably better than me that in ethics, precisely there is not yet drive. it's a pure desire. and i think this is how we should read my old point, you remember on the very last page, even the last or one before the last paragraph of sem11 where lecon says the desire of analyst is not a pure desire. ce n'est pas un désir pur.,. the totally stupid question. who is that idiot who ever claimed that desire of the analyst is a pure desire? the answer is laccon himself four years earlier in antigone. which is why, maybe i'm wrong. but now antigone is almost my taboo, you know, the one which should be excluded... no, sorry, not antigone, the ethics seminar. because precisely, i think that what laconbe does in... next seminar, transference when he analyzes Claudel, Coûfontaine. sen there. it's precisely whatop? what elute antigone. what is still falls in antigone. i think that would have been much closer. it's precisely just a way of, you know, this. no, the no of xen. that laccon moved forward, which is why, yes, i agree with you about sublimation and so on. and we would have...
but okay, i will not repeat the old stuff. i agree with you, but you know probably better than me that in ethics, precisely there is not yet drive. it's a pure desire. and i think this is how we should read my old point, you remember on the very last page, even the last or one before the last paragraph of sem11 where lecon says the desire of analyst is not a pure desire. ce n'est pas un désir pur.,. the totally stupid question. who is that idiot who ever claimed that desire of the analyst is a pure desire? the answer is laccon himself four years earlier in antigone. which is why, maybe i'm wrong. but now antigone is almost my taboo, you know, the one which should be excluded... no, sorry, not antigone, the ethics seminar. because precisely, i think that what laconbe does in... next seminar, transference when he analyzes Claudel, Coûfontaine. sen there. it's precisely whatop? what elute antigone. what is still falls in antigone. i think that would have been much closer. it's precisely just a way of, you know, this. no, the no of xen. that laccon moved forward, which is why, yes, i agree with you about sublimation and so on. and we would have...
Questioner
absolute in the contemporary.
absolute in the contemporary.
Slavoj Žižek
sorry?
sorry?
Questioner
the absolute, the question of whether art, we look to science for the absolute or whether art in the contemporary situation can actually take up what can't be reconciled. the absolute important questions. whether how art might be
the absolute, the question of whether art, we look to science for the absolute or whether art in the contemporary situation can actually take up what can't be reconciled. the absolute important questions. whether how art might be
Slavoj Žižek
no, no, no, of course no, no, my answer is this one. of course it can. but where? i mean, i would. bye. i mean, weak, what? i mean, i'm more and more very critical of contemporary art. like all these fashionable artists like Damien Hirst and so on, my god, when people take power in my stalinist universe, you know. i say, hi, Damien, here you have a first-class ticket to siberia and one-way ticket. no you... i don't know it's so, of course it still does play this role, art. but one should have been very precise here where, how. i think it's's more in glimpses here and there. you cannot simply say disorientation is the proper one or whatever you know. i just have great doubts about conceptual art. i don't think it works to the end. he did play a certain role. sorry, i have to... you are lady, the black lady.
no, no, no, of course no, no, my answer is this one. of course it can. but where? i mean, i would. bye. i mean, weak, what? i mean, i'm more and more very critical of contemporary art. like all these fashionable artists like Damien Hirst and so on, my god, when people take power in my stalinist universe, you know. i say, hi, Damien, here you have a first-class ticket to siberia and one-way ticket. no you... i don't know it's so, of course it still does play this role, art. but one should have been very precise here where, how. i think it's's more in glimpses here and there. you cannot simply say disorientation is the proper one or whatever you know. i just have great doubts about conceptual art. i don't think it works to the end. he did play a certain role. sorry, i have to... you are lady, the black lady.
Questioner
yeah. i wasn't going to ask this, but you did mention adorno earlier and it falls right into this.
yeah. i wasn't going to ask this, but you did mention adorno earlier and it falls right into this.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Questioner
i'm thinking about the material production of art now and how much it's oriented towards education and sort of like political and social appeals, grants, that kind of thing, and like sort of, i don't know, moralistic, almost educational. and i was thinking about this idea of like interactive art. it seems like art these days is entangled in social and effective labor and some form of kind of moral. basically ideological orientation in society. so i'm curious how, why we bring up Adorno in terms of possibly this idea of autonomy and whether at all that connects to what you said earlier about borderline.
i'm thinking about the material production of art now and how much it's oriented towards education and sort of like political and social appeals, grants, that kind of thing, and like sort of, i don't know, moralistic, almost educational. and i was thinking about this idea of like interactive art. it seems like art these days is entangled in social and effective labor and some form of kind of moral. basically ideological orientation in society. so i'm curious how, why we bring up Adorno in terms of possibly this idea of autonomy and whether at all that connects to what you said earlier about borderline.
Slavoj Žižek
i see your point. now here again i can just give you some confused points. the first one is when you say how art is, you know, what i hate in modern art is best exemplified in these institutions of biennale and so on. they have two features. on the one hand, it's part of an intellectual fashion that they proclaim themselves critical, extremely revolutionary, and even analyzing the way they in advance admit, but we are ourselves always already manipulated by capitalist market and so on. and nothing changes. it still works. i mean, for me, today's artbnales, especially when they play this politically correct, anti-eurocentric role and so on, it all appears so open, anti-racist and so on, but it's so perfectly integrated into world market. so when you the second problem i have with this, what you mentioned, this qualities included education into political process. this is the big problem i already had with brecht. look, he had this idea, learning place and so on. but how did brecht's plays, when they were performed, really work? a very vulgar question. i claim there was never a moment when you can really say they were performed to the workers' public, they mobilized the workers and so on. maybe there were some mass performances just before 19333 in germany of some of the learning plays, but it's very interesting to read the reactions to them. workers were mostly shocked. and consider them way too authoritarian. it's interesting that Der Jasager, that how do you call it, yes, the the man who says yes this, first learning play with that authoritarian message, it was better received by the extreme right. who saw you know the true spirit of self-sacrifice. i'm not saying they were right i'm just saying that. when we talk about art playing an educational role and so on and so on. here i am for practice and empiricist. i would really like to see what does this really mean? how does it really function? it's very tragic if you look, for example, and i spoke with people who worked there at Brecht Berliner Ensemble theatre in berlin after world war. almost the majority of the public were west german from west berlin turich. it was earning money for it absolutely never functioned in this way described by brecht. the other problem with, and that with material practice, reality and so on, is that, as i often already repeated, i think, and this is the big confusion, who is that american theorist who wrote the book The Return of the Real, Hal Foster or who? you know that all this brechtian topic of as if, if you are too identified emotionally and so on, it's somehow bourgeois. ideology that you have to be aware of the production process, that the truly subversive thing is to remind you. death. it's just on stage or whatever. i think this precisely is not a return. to the real, but an escape from the real. the real is precisely that abyss of that imaginary abyss. you know, for example, i often make this joke. i'm sorry if it sounds tasteless to you, but this is why... in pornography. hardcore pornography. this is... prohibited to get too immersed and this is why i think it's an ultra-sensored genre, hardcore pornography. because it all in different ways wants to remind you again and again this is just a joke, don't take it seriously and so on. this is my old story i'm sure you all know it how when i was young 30irty years ago. this instantiation was enacted through stupid. stupidity of the story. stories, you know, the narrative which accompanies a hardcore. movie you know, you don't just show people fucking there, you have to somehow introduce it in a narrative. they were so stupid that i'm absolutely convinced that it cannot be, it's not that simply. people were so stupid who did it. there was some, my old joke, i'm sorry to bore you with it. you must have heard it. like i remember even now, i'm traumatized. one when the plumber comes home and says to the housewife, i fixed that hole in the kitchen and the housewife says, i have another hole to be fixed. can you also? you are embarrassed. and i'm saying this cannot be that people are simply so stupid. it had to de-realize it to remind you and today maybe's even worse because as you know so i was told i'm too old to watch them, not that i have any problems, that today's hardcore form is so-called gonzo, i think, which is they don't even allow even the totally ridiculous fiction is too much. gonzo means they have to remind you all the time, you know, like the actors look into the camera even interact. hi, is it okay? should i move my leg? where does this terrible fear come from people shouldn't take us seriously and so on. so in other words, i think we should totally drop this maybe even pseudo-bchtian topic of somehow to you know, Rey Chow, she's a good Chinese cultural theorist i think she works with Fred Jameson at Duke. she wrote a wonderful text of how what appeared 30, 40 years ago, the best of this brecht verfremung, extranation, good distance and so on, that now it serves perfectly contemporary cynical. she even gives some wonderful examples of how even the most popular the most commercialized pop culture functions like that, like she draws attention to what i've seen in the states, you have already metalexive commercial publicity which take the forum of the debate about how to make a publicity. like i saw a publicity clip where people simply debate. we should do publicity for this product, should we do it in this way, in that way, and so on and so on. so i think, again, that we should drop this talk. it's the same motive that i always developed, you know. this is part of ideology, this is not realism. this strategy which was used already by, that's why i hate him, Marcus Aurelius, the emperor. you know, he has this idea like when you think about sex. to get. who get redeemed to get free of this false attraction of sex, just think materially what happens. you are embracing a woman, beautiful here. think about what is two inches inside. all the glands, she collecting, whatever, and so on. or think about what will happen with her beautiful body, i don't know, 30 years on, you know. or think about what happens when you have orgasm. just some stupid ejaculationulations, some disgusting slimy juice, whatever. i think that this is the escape from the real. the real here is not this stupid reality of the body. so in this sense, i think that this brutal, cynical realism, cut the crap, take things the way they are, is the ultimate ideological naivety. no? i'm sorry, don't kill me. i have to run. it's quarter past. but here again, thanks very much. because unfortunately, i have to
i see your point. now here again i can just give you some confused points. the first one is when you say how art is, you know, what i hate in modern art is best exemplified in these institutions of biennale and so on. they have two features. on the one hand, it's part of an intellectual fashion that they proclaim themselves critical, extremely revolutionary, and even analyzing the way they in advance admit, but we are ourselves always already manipulated by capitalist market and so on. and nothing changes. it still works. i mean, for me, today's artbnales, especially when they play this politically correct, anti-eurocentric role and so on, it all appears so open, anti-racist and so on, but it's so perfectly integrated into world market. so when you the second problem i have with this, what you mentioned, this qualities included education into political process. this is the big problem i already had with brecht. look, he had this idea, learning place and so on. but how did brecht's plays, when they were performed, really work? a very vulgar question. i claim there was never a moment when you can really say they were performed to the workers' public, they mobilized the workers and so on. maybe there were some mass performances just before 19333 in germany of some of the learning plays, but it's very interesting to read the reactions to them. workers were mostly shocked. and consider them way too authoritarian. it's interesting that Der Jasager, that how do you call it, yes, the the man who says yes this, first learning play with that authoritarian message, it was better received by the extreme right. who saw you know the true spirit of self-sacrifice. i'm not saying they were right i'm just saying that. when we talk about art playing an educational role and so on and so on. here i am for practice and empiricist. i would really like to see what does this really mean? how does it really function? it's very tragic if you look, for example, and i spoke with people who worked there at Brecht Berliner Ensemble theatre in berlin after world war. almost the majority of the public were west german from west berlin turich. it was earning money for it absolutely never functioned in this way described by brecht. the other problem with, and that with material practice, reality and so on, is that, as i often already repeated, i think, and this is the big confusion, who is that american theorist who wrote the book The Return of the Real, Hal Foster or who? you know that all this brechtian topic of as if, if you are too identified emotionally and so on, it's somehow bourgeois. ideology that you have to be aware of the production process, that the truly subversive thing is to remind you. death. it's just on stage or whatever. i think this precisely is not a return. to the real, but an escape from the real. the real is precisely that abyss of that imaginary abyss. you know, for example, i often make this joke. i'm sorry if it sounds tasteless to you, but this is why... in pornography. hardcore pornography. this is... prohibited to get too immersed and this is why i think it's an ultra-sensored genre, hardcore pornography. because it all in different ways wants to remind you again and again this is just a joke, don't take it seriously and so on. this is my old story i'm sure you all know it how when i was young 30irty years ago. this instantiation was enacted through stupid. stupidity of the story. stories, you know, the narrative which accompanies a hardcore. movie you know, you don't just show people fucking there, you have to somehow introduce it in a narrative. they were so stupid that i'm absolutely convinced that it cannot be, it's not that simply. people were so stupid who did it. there was some, my old joke, i'm sorry to bore you with it. you must have heard it. like i remember even now, i'm traumatized. one when the plumber comes home and says to the housewife, i fixed that hole in the kitchen and the housewife says, i have another hole to be fixed. can you also? you are embarrassed. and i'm saying this cannot be that people are simply so stupid. it had to de-realize it to remind you and today maybe's even worse because as you know so i was told i'm too old to watch them, not that i have any problems, that today's hardcore form is so-called gonzo, i think, which is they don't even allow even the totally ridiculous fiction is too much. gonzo means they have to remind you all the time, you know, like the actors look into the camera even interact. hi, is it okay? should i move my leg? where does this terrible fear come from people shouldn't take us seriously and so on. so in other words, i think we should totally drop this maybe even pseudo-bchtian topic of somehow to you know, Rey Chow, she's a good Chinese cultural theorist i think she works with Fred Jameson at Duke. she wrote a wonderful text of how what appeared 30, 40 years ago, the best of this brecht verfremung, extranation, good distance and so on, that now it serves perfectly contemporary cynical. she even gives some wonderful examples of how even the most popular the most commercialized pop culture functions like that, like she draws attention to what i've seen in the states, you have already metalexive commercial publicity which take the forum of the debate about how to make a publicity. like i saw a publicity clip where people simply debate. we should do publicity for this product, should we do it in this way, in that way, and so on and so on. so i think, again, that we should drop this talk. it's the same motive that i always developed, you know. this is part of ideology, this is not realism. this strategy which was used already by, that's why i hate him, Marcus Aurelius, the emperor. you know, he has this idea like when you think about sex. to get. who get redeemed to get free of this false attraction of sex, just think materially what happens. you are embracing a woman, beautiful here. think about what is two inches inside. all the glands, she collecting, whatever, and so on. or think about what will happen with her beautiful body, i don't know, 30 years on, you know. or think about what happens when you have orgasm. just some stupid ejaculationulations, some disgusting slimy juice, whatever. i think that this is the escape from the real. the real here is not this stupid reality of the body. so in this sense, i think that this brutal, cynical realism, cut the crap, take things the way they are, is the ultimate ideological naivety. no? i'm sorry, don't kill me. i have to run. it's quarter past. but here again, thanks very much. because unfortunately, i have to