Slavoj Zizek on Importance of Theory: Psychoanalysis, Belief, Deconstruction, Cognitivism
Talk · rige hamo ·
published 2017-09-11 · 0:21:18 · 1,682 words
the date above is when the video was uploaded, no recording date was found
philosophy-generalideologycapitalismcinema-art-cultureecology-climaterace-antisemitismsexuality-genderrevolution-violencegeopolitics-warsubjectivityethics
Žižek opens the Jan van Eyck Academy lecture by mapping its triad (art, design, theory) onto Hegel's forms of absolute spirit, then argues that theory's task is to formulate problems correctly rather than serve power as expertise. He diagnoses 'post-political cultural capitalism' as recasting racism, sexism, and ecology into matters of tolerance and daily ritual, thereby depoliticizing them. Using Shakespeare's madman/lover/poet triad he develops a model of political imagination as the materialization of nothing, and closes with Jameson's claim that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 12
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “absolute spirit”
Hegel's three forms of spirit (art, religion, philosophy) which he here remaps onto the Academy's triad of art, design, and theory, with design playing the role of religion.
His reworking of the wedding proverb: old (recycled self), bad (for those in power), borrowed (from Dolar and Zupančič), red (politics) instead of blue.
Self-description of embattled 'useless academics' under criticism, with the paradox that leftists will turn out to be high culture's last chance.
as “the expert”
The figure power wants from intellectuals today: a specialist who solves problems the powerful have already formulated; the opposite of the theorist.
Not problem-solving expertise but the mirror that reflects what is outside (the production process) into the scene of ideology; its first step is to formulate the problem correctly.
Treated as an ideological category: the post-political frame into which racism, sexism, and cultural conflict are automatically translated, neutralizing their economic and legal content.
as “post-political cultural capitalism”
Capitalism in which all conflicts are recast as conflicts between different cultures, so that the only response is to tolerate differences.
as “ideological mystification”
The operation by which a structural problem such as racism or sexism is translated into the false frame of tolerance, dissolving its real political content.
as “way-of-life ecology”
The ideological version of ecology that offers small daily rituals (recycling a Coke can, sorting newspapers) to keep you ecologically satisfied while the real problem disappears.
In true love the ordinary reality of the beloved is not cancelled but transubstantiated into the appearance of a sublime dimension; you see all imperfections yet the being is absolute.
The poet's act, distinct from misperception and from transubstantiation: an appearance in which it is not some substantial X that appears, but nothing itself appears; the formula for political revolution.
The capacity to give shape to nothing, the opening of the new; now so constrained in the West that it cannot imagine a change to capitalism.
Stories he reaches for 4
King practically never mentions tolerance; for him racism was a matter of economic injustice and laws, not of attitudes to be tolerated, exposing the automatic translation of racism into tolerance as ideology.
“For Martin Luther King, my God, racism wasn't a problem of tolerance; it's a problem of economic injustice, laws, and so on and so on.”
China recently prohibited all narrative media dealing with time travel or alternate reality, which he reads as a good sign: it shows people can still imagine a different society, unlike the West where no ban is needed.
“all stories which deal either with time travel or with alternate reality.”
Citing his friend Fredric Jameson, he notes that catastrophe films make the end of the world imaginable while any slight change to capitalism appears impossible, as if capitalism would survive the annihilation of all life.
“it's easy to imagine the end of the world... But it's impossible to imagine a slight change in capitalism”
From A Midsummer Night's Dream he develops a triad: the madman misperceives a real object (a bush as a bear), the lover transubstantiates an ordinary face into sublime beauty, and the poet gives to airy nothing a local habitation and a name, the last being the model for political imagination.
“the poet gives to airy nothing a local habitation and a name.”
Works invoked 2
Quoted at length (Theseus's Act 1 speech on lunatic, lover, and poet) as a beautiful articulation of the triad culminating in the poet who gives to airy nothing a local habitation and a name.
Arnolfini Portrait artwork
The mirror in the Jan van Eyck painting is taken as the metaphor for theory, reflecting the production process into the scene of ideology.
People invoked 7
Jan van Eyck positive
The host Academy's namesake; his Arnolfini portrait and its mirror are used as the central metaphor for theory.
Alenka Zupančič positive
Named as a Slovene friend from whom the 'something borrowed' of the talk is taken.
Fredric Jameson positive
Called 'my friend Fredric Jameson'; cited for the thesis that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than a slight change in capitalism.
Mladen Dolar positive
Named as a Slovene friend from whom the 'something borrowed' of the talk is taken.
William Shakespeare positive
Calls the Theseus speech from A Midsummer Night's Dream 'beautiful'; uses its madman/lover/poet triad as the spine of his argument about imagination and politics.
Martin Luther King Jr. positive
Used as a positive foil against the tolerance framing: King treated racism as economic injustice and laws, never as a problem of tolerance.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Identifies himself as a Hegelian and uses Hegel's three forms of absolute spirit (art, religion, philosophy) to frame the Academy's triad of art, design, and theory.
What it argues
Theory as the mirror that reflects the production process into the scene of ideologyTheory's first step is to formulate the problem correctly, not answer questions posed by powerThe left as the last defender of a threatened high culturePost-political capitalism translates every conflict into a question of toleranceWay-of-life ecology as ideological mystification that hides the real problemThe madman/lover/poet triad as a ladder toward a political imagination of nothingThe crisis of political imagination: easier to imagine the end of the world than of capitalism
Dialectical moves 5
“Theory is precisely the first step of theory is not to answer problems formulated by others, but to formulate the problem correctly.”
Theory inverts the expert's task: it begins by re-posing the question, not by supplying answers to a question already framed by power.
“The good point is that at the end it will be we the leftists who will be the last chance for high culture.”
The left, normally suspected of destroying high culture, is paradoxically positioned as its last remaining defense.
“I think this is a good sign for China because it means at least that people there are still able to imagine a difference. The problem with us in the so-called developed West is that we don't need this prohibition.”
The presence of censorship is inverted into a sign of surviving imagination; the absence of censorship in the West is the deeper closure.
“It's an appearance where it's not some substantial X that appears, it's nothing, nothing appears.”
The poet's appearance is neither a misperceived reality (madman) nor transcendence in immanence (lover) but the appearance of nothing itself, which he takes as the model for political revolution.
“It is as if all life on Earth can be annihilated but capitalism would somehow survive.”
Via Jameson: the unimaginable is not the apocalypse but a modest change to capitalism; the system appears more invariant than the natural world.
Claims 15
asserts
Theory's first step is not to answer problems formulated by others but to formulate the problem correctly.the method and vocation of theory
asserts
Those in power want from intellectuals not theory but expertise that solves problems they themselves have formulated.the demand for experts versus theorists
asserts
Useless, criticized academics are the last survivors of high culture, and leftists will be its last chance.the fate of high culture
asserts
The Arnolfini mirror is the metaphor for theory: it reflects what is outside (the production process) into the scene of ideology.theory as reflection of production into ideology
asserts
Mapping design onto religion is legitimate because religion is basically a problem of design: you have an idea of God and must make it palpable.the art/design/religion/theory mapping of absolute spirit
rejects
Automatically translating racism and sexism into a problem of tolerance is an ideological mystification, not self-evident.the tolerance framing of racism and sexism
reframes
For Martin Luther King racism was not a problem of tolerance but of economic injustice and laws.the real content of anti-racist struggle
rejects
To claim the goal of feminism is that women be more tolerated by men is ridiculous and misses the problem.the tolerance framing of feminism
reframes
Way-of-life ecology makes you feel good through daily rituals while the real ecological problem disappears.the ideological function of everyday ecological ritual
asserts
In post-political cultural capitalism all conflicts become cultural conflicts whose only resolution is tolerating difference.the logic of post-political capitalism
reframes
The poet's appearance is a materialization of nothing, and this is the formula for political revolution.political imagination as the opening of the new
reframes
China's ban on time-travel and alternate-reality fiction is a good sign, because it means people there can still imagine a difference.the meaning of censorship for political imagination
asserts
The West does not need such a prohibition because its political imagination is already so constrained it cannot imagine a change to capitalism.the material weight of ideology in the West
asserts
It is easier to imagine the end of the world than a slight change in capitalism.the limits of political imagination under capitalism
asserts
True love does not idealize the object; one can be aware of all imperfections while the frail being remains absolute.the structure of true love
Quotes 9
“Theory is precisely the first step of theory is not to answer problems formulated by others, but to formulate the problem correctly.”Slavoj Žižek · theory's defining first move
“we are the last survivors of high culture. And the good point is that at the end it will be we the leftists who will be the last chance for high culture.”Slavoj Žižek · the left as high culture's last defense
“What those in power want from us more and more is like is education whose aim is to produce experts.”Slavoj Žižek · the demand for expertise over theory
“you already feel some, you see, I'm doing something for Mother Earth, a great project and so on.”Slavoj Žižek · the moral satisfaction of way-of-life ecology
“in true love, when you are truly in love, you do not need to idealize the object of love.”Slavoj Žižek · love as transubstantiation without idealization
“this is what we need today: the political imagination, to give shape to nothing, opening of the new.”Slavoj Žižek · political imagination as the materialization of nothing
“I think this is a good sign for China because it means at least that people there are still able to imagine a difference.”Slavoj Žižek · censorship as a sign of surviving imagination
“The problem with us in the so-called developed West is that we don't need this prohibition.”Slavoj Žižek · the deeper closure of Western political imagination
“It is as if all life on Earth can be annihilated but capitalism would somehow survive.”Slavoj Žižek · capitalism as more invariant than the natural world
Transcript 1 turns
Slavoj Žižek
What let's what I really like here is already the subtitle of this institution. It's Jan van Eyck Academy for art, design, theory. Of course, as a Hegelian I immediately recognize in it the three forms of absolute spirit, you know: art, art, theory, philosophy, design is religion. Religion is theory basically a problem of design. You have an idea of God, now what design to make to make it palpable, no? And so before elaborating this a little bit, I hope you will not be disappointed. I will what you will get here is you know that proverb, English phrase, that what the bride should bring when there is a wedding, no? It's something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue. You will get something like this from me here, but with a little bit of change. Something old, yes, as always I will recycle myself. Something new, there will be some original idea. Something borrowed, yes, especially from my Slovene friends Mladen Dolar and Alenka Zupančič. And here there is a problem: not something blue, you will get something red at the end of course. But then there must be a rhyme, so instead of new I propose bad. Bad for the those in power. So I will give you something old, something bad, something borrowed, something red. Why red? You know that here we are in Jan van Eyck Academy. You know of course even I knew it without checking on Wikipedia, which is the most famous painting, no? That guy Arnolfini and his bride. And this is a nice metaphor for theory. We the theory of are of course that mirror. That mirror where you see why? Because you know what what you see in that mirror in the middle of the painting is like the production process in a way, no? It's precisely we have to reflect into the scene of ideology what is outside, the productive process. So again, I will come back to this later, just a short remark then business starts. Just a short remark on these three forms of absolute spirit, that is to say art, design, religion and theory. You know let's nonetheless because serious high culture is obviously threatened today. I will return to this to the end. You know, the time has come to accept a tragic fact that we who are now under criticism, kind of a useless academics, the we are the last survivors of high culture. And the good point is that at the end it will be we the leftists who will be the last chance for high culture. Because what those in power want from us more and more is like is education whose aim is to produce experts. Like I was debating Bologna Reform, this terrible European community [unintelligible] in France and a guy who later even wanted to become a minister gave me a wonderful example. He told me, this was a couple of years ago when there were burning cars in Paris suburbs. He told me: Look, now cars are burning there. We don't need some stupid abstract philosophy. What we need from you intellectuals is we need specialist psychologists to to describe to us the psychology of the wild crowd, how to control it. We need urban urban developers to know, you know, how to construct suburbia so that to prevent mass gatherings and so on and so on. That's what they want to from us. They want us as experts to solve the problems that they formulate. But that's not theory. This is the end of theory. Theory is precisely the first step of theory is not to answer problems formulated by others, but to formulate the problem correctly. This is where theory begins. Like today, for example. Yes, we are all against racism, sexism and so on, but the problem is what? My old example, I'm sorry if I repeat myself with racism and sexism. Did you notice typically how we automatically translate racism, sexism into a problem of tolerance? But this is not self-evident. Think about Martin Luther King. He practically never mentions tolerance. Why do we automatically translate racism, sexism into a problem of tolerance? Again, this is a sign of this post-political cultural capitalism where all conflicts are conflicts between different cultures and then all you can do is tolerate differences and so on and so on. For Martin Luther King, my God, racism wasn't a problem of tolerance; it's a problem of economic injustice, laws, and so on and so on. Even for feminism it goes the same. I found it even ridiculous, and every woman does who is a feminist, to claim that the goal of feminists is what? That women should be more tolerated by men or what? It's ridiculous. This is not a problem. It's an ideological mystification of a problem. Not to mention my other well-known, I repeat them too much I know, examples. For example, ecology. Yes, it is a problem. We may all die because of it maybe. But did you notice how what is more and more in front presented to all of us is precisely the ideological version of what I like to call or some people already call the way-of-life ecology. You know, like they offer you as a bride small daily rituals to keep you ecologically satisfied, like did you recycle that Coke can? Did you put did you separate newspapers to be recycled? And okay, it's good to do this. But the problem is that when you do this, you already feel some, you see, I'm doing something for Mother Earth, a great project and so on. And of course, in this way, it makes you feel good. The real level, the real problem somehow disappears. So again, this is our task as theorists. So again, let me just before I begin properly, this is just the what in sex they call foreplay, yeah. Let me just quote you a wonderful couple of lines from Shakespeare Midsummer Night's Dream. It's it's Act first scene where Theseus says, listen it's beautiful: The lunatic, the lover and the poet are of imagination all compact. One sees more devils than vast hell can hold. That is the madman. The lover, all as frantic, sees Helen's beauty in a brow of Egypt. The poet's eye, in fine frenzy rolling, doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven. And as imagination bodies forth the forms of things unknown, the poet's pen turns them to shapes and gives to airy, what a beautiful formulation, and the poet gives to airy nothing a local habitation and a name. So Shakespeare articulates here a triad. A madman sees devils everywhere, for example he misperceives a bush as a wild animal, a bear. A lover sees sublime beauty in an ordinary face. A poet gives to airy nothing a local habitation and a name. So in all three cases we have a gap between ordinary reality and some transcendent ethereal dimension. But this gap is gradually reduced. The madman simply misperceives a real object as something else. I see a bush, I think it's a wild animal. It's simple confusion. A lover maintains the reality of the beloved object which is not cancelled but transubstantiated into the appearance of a sublime dimension. Everybody knows this. In true love, when you are truly in love, you do not need to idealize the object of love. You can be well aware of all all imperfections and so on. But at the same time, this is the paradox of love, this very imperfect frail being is the absolute for you. Then with the poet it's something much more mysterious. We also get an appearance, but this appearance again is neither as with madman the appearance of some false reality misperceived as real reality, it's not that you see a bush, you misperceive it as a bear. It's not the appearance of transcendence in immanence. It's not this ordinary woman I see absolute in her. It's much something much more beautiful, a materialization of nothing. You are able to give shape and form to nothing. You have an appearance in which it's an appearance where it's not some substantial X that appears, it's nothing, nothing appears. And maybe this is a nice formula even for political revolution. This is what we need today: the political imagination, to give shape to nothing, opening of the new. And at the end I will return to it, another political point here. Do you know that it's not a joke, I checked it up with my Chinese friends? Do you know that a couple of months ago in China they they imposed a new law which prohibits in all narrative media, comics, books, cinema, TV, in all fiction, narrative, all stories which deal either with time travel or with alternate reality. Of course, it's clear why. The idea is it's too dangerous even to allow people to dream about possible different societies. But I think this is a good sign for China because it means at least that people there are still able to imagine a difference. The problem with us in the so-called developed West is that we don't need this prohibition. Because our and this is the material weight of ideology, our let's call it political imagination is so constrained that it doesn't work in this sense. Like as my friend Fredric Jameson put it decades ago, it's easy to imagine the end of the world, all the time all these boring movies you know, asteroid hitting Earth, whatever. But it's impossible to imagine a slight change in capitalism, you know. It is as if all life on Earth can be annihilated but capitalism would somehow survive. It's easy to imagine the end of the world, all the time all these boring movies you know, asteroid hitting Earth, whatever. But it's impossible to imagine a slight change in capitalism, you know. It is as if all life on Earth can be annihilated but capitalism would somehow survive.
What let's what I really like here is already the subtitle of this institution. It's Jan van Eyck Academy for art, design, theory. Of course, as a Hegelian I immediately recognize in it the three forms of absolute spirit, you know: art, art, theory, philosophy, design is religion. Religion is theory basically a problem of design. You have an idea of God, now what design to make to make it palpable, no? And so before elaborating this a little bit, I hope you will not be disappointed. I will what you will get here is you know that proverb, English phrase, that what the bride should bring when there is a wedding, no? It's something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue. You will get something like this from me here, but with a little bit of change. Something old, yes, as always I will recycle myself. Something new, there will be some original idea. Something borrowed, yes, especially from my Slovene friends Mladen Dolar and Alenka Zupančič. And here there is a problem: not something blue, you will get something red at the end of course. But then there must be a rhyme, so instead of new I propose bad. Bad for the those in power. So I will give you something old, something bad, something borrowed, something red. Why red? You know that here we are in Jan van Eyck Academy. You know of course even I knew it without checking on Wikipedia, which is the most famous painting, no? That guy Arnolfini and his bride. And this is a nice metaphor for theory. We the theory of are of course that mirror. That mirror where you see why? Because you know what what you see in that mirror in the middle of the painting is like the production process in a way, no? It's precisely we have to reflect into the scene of ideology what is outside, the productive process. So again, I will come back to this later, just a short remark then business starts. Just a short remark on these three forms of absolute spirit, that is to say art, design, religion and theory. You know let's nonetheless because serious high culture is obviously threatened today. I will return to this to the end. You know, the time has come to accept a tragic fact that we who are now under criticism, kind of a useless academics, the we are the last survivors of high culture. And the good point is that at the end it will be we the leftists who will be the last chance for high culture. Because what those in power want from us more and more is like is education whose aim is to produce experts. Like I was debating Bologna Reform, this terrible European community [unintelligible] in France and a guy who later even wanted to become a minister gave me a wonderful example. He told me, this was a couple of years ago when there were burning cars in Paris suburbs. He told me: Look, now cars are burning there. We don't need some stupid abstract philosophy. What we need from you intellectuals is we need specialist psychologists to to describe to us the psychology of the wild crowd, how to control it. We need urban urban developers to know, you know, how to construct suburbia so that to prevent mass gatherings and so on and so on. That's what they want to from us. They want us as experts to solve the problems that they formulate. But that's not theory. This is the end of theory. Theory is precisely the first step of theory is not to answer problems formulated by others, but to formulate the problem correctly. This is where theory begins. Like today, for example. Yes, we are all against racism, sexism and so on, but the problem is what? My old example, I'm sorry if I repeat myself with racism and sexism. Did you notice typically how we automatically translate racism, sexism into a problem of tolerance? But this is not self-evident. Think about Martin Luther King. He practically never mentions tolerance. Why do we automatically translate racism, sexism into a problem of tolerance? Again, this is a sign of this post-political cultural capitalism where all conflicts are conflicts between different cultures and then all you can do is tolerate differences and so on and so on. For Martin Luther King, my God, racism wasn't a problem of tolerance; it's a problem of economic injustice, laws, and so on and so on. Even for feminism it goes the same. I found it even ridiculous, and every woman does who is a feminist, to claim that the goal of feminists is what? That women should be more tolerated by men or what? It's ridiculous. This is not a problem. It's an ideological mystification of a problem. Not to mention my other well-known, I repeat them too much I know, examples. For example, ecology. Yes, it is a problem. We may all die because of it maybe. But did you notice how what is more and more in front presented to all of us is precisely the ideological version of what I like to call or some people already call the way-of-life ecology. You know, like they offer you as a bride small daily rituals to keep you ecologically satisfied, like did you recycle that Coke can? Did you put did you separate newspapers to be recycled? And okay, it's good to do this. But the problem is that when you do this, you already feel some, you see, I'm doing something for Mother Earth, a great project and so on. And of course, in this way, it makes you feel good. The real level, the real problem somehow disappears. So again, this is our task as theorists. So again, let me just before I begin properly, this is just the what in sex they call foreplay, yeah. Let me just quote you a wonderful couple of lines from Shakespeare Midsummer Night's Dream. It's it's Act first scene where Theseus says, listen it's beautiful: The lunatic, the lover and the poet are of imagination all compact. One sees more devils than vast hell can hold. That is the madman. The lover, all as frantic, sees Helen's beauty in a brow of Egypt. The poet's eye, in fine frenzy rolling, doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven. And as imagination bodies forth the forms of things unknown, the poet's pen turns them to shapes and gives to airy, what a beautiful formulation, and the poet gives to airy nothing a local habitation and a name. So Shakespeare articulates here a triad. A madman sees devils everywhere, for example he misperceives a bush as a wild animal, a bear. A lover sees sublime beauty in an ordinary face. A poet gives to airy nothing a local habitation and a name. So in all three cases we have a gap between ordinary reality and some transcendent ethereal dimension. But this gap is gradually reduced. The madman simply misperceives a real object as something else. I see a bush, I think it's a wild animal. It's simple confusion. A lover maintains the reality of the beloved object which is not cancelled but transubstantiated into the appearance of a sublime dimension. Everybody knows this. In true love, when you are truly in love, you do not need to idealize the object of love. You can be well aware of all all imperfections and so on. But at the same time, this is the paradox of love, this very imperfect frail being is the absolute for you. Then with the poet it's something much more mysterious. We also get an appearance, but this appearance again is neither as with madman the appearance of some false reality misperceived as real reality, it's not that you see a bush, you misperceive it as a bear. It's not the appearance of transcendence in immanence. It's not this ordinary woman I see absolute in her. It's much something much more beautiful, a materialization of nothing. You are able to give shape and form to nothing. You have an appearance in which it's an appearance where it's not some substantial X that appears, it's nothing, nothing appears. And maybe this is a nice formula even for political revolution. This is what we need today: the political imagination, to give shape to nothing, opening of the new. And at the end I will return to it, another political point here. Do you know that it's not a joke, I checked it up with my Chinese friends? Do you know that a couple of months ago in China they they imposed a new law which prohibits in all narrative media, comics, books, cinema, TV, in all fiction, narrative, all stories which deal either with time travel or with alternate reality. Of course, it's clear why. The idea is it's too dangerous even to allow people to dream about possible different societies. But I think this is a good sign for China because it means at least that people there are still able to imagine a difference. The problem with us in the so-called developed West is that we don't need this prohibition. Because our and this is the material weight of ideology, our let's call it political imagination is so constrained that it doesn't work in this sense. Like as my friend Fredric Jameson put it decades ago, it's easy to imagine the end of the world, all the time all these boring movies you know, asteroid hitting Earth, whatever. But it's impossible to imagine a slight change in capitalism, you know. It is as if all life on Earth can be annihilated but capitalism would somehow survive. It's easy to imagine the end of the world, all the time all these boring movies you know, asteroid hitting Earth, whatever. But it's impossible to imagine a slight change in capitalism, you know. It is as if all life on Earth can be annihilated but capitalism would somehow survive.