Slavoj Zizek on Love & Sex
Talk · Cameraad ·
2021-02-15 · 0:22:15 · 2,766 words
sexuality-genderpsychoanalysisideologyliberalism-political-correctnesshegel-dialecticsreligion-theologycommunism-socialismsubjectivitytechnology-ai-cyberspace
A panel intervention (Valentine's Day) in which Žižek argues that erotic love (Eros) is a catastrophe structurally distinct from collective political love (Agape), that passionate love is disappearing under commodification, and that the only ultimate proof of love is betrayal. He rejects 'politically correct' sexual-liberation discourse for ignoring Freud (desire is twisted, fantasy-dependent, ambiguous; permissivity produces frigidity), and he closes on the pandemic: pure sex virtualizes, love re-embodies, and authentic solitude requires the Other's presence. Politics, he insists, needs Agape and joy or it degenerates into a technocratic affair of specialists.
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
Individual erotic passion, figured as a contingent arrow that ruptures life and is a 'big destructive mess' irreducible to Agape.
His 'old thesis' that erotic love is literally a catastrophe that ruins the balance of a life and destroys collective harmony.
His thesis, borrowed from le Carré, that the only ultimate proof of love is to betray the beloved: full love requires betrayal, otherwise you are lost.
as “commodification as fake subjectivization”
His analysis that commodification stages an apparent subjectivization (the porn actress looking into the camera) which is in fact the ultimate objectivization.
The perverse enjoyment obtained in repression itself: repression of desire turns into desire for repression, so one enjoys the act of repression.
The virtual scenario required to sustain desire even in the presence of the real object (the porn-actor needing Pornhub on his iPhone).
We may know what we want but we do not know what we desire; sexuality is constitutively ambiguous and not transparent to the subject.
His claim that politics without the collective dimension of Agape degenerates into an affair of specialists, technocrats and manipulations.
Hegel's 'world spirit', which Žižek sees embodied in the lonely figure of Bernie Sanders at Biden's inauguration, echoing Hegel seeing Napoleon at Jena.
Collective, political love that empowers a community and provides the transcendent subjective engagement politics needs.
His paradox that pure sex can be virtualized while love re-embodies: love is in some sense more bodily than sex itself.
His notion that authentic aloneness is a mode of being-with-others, not its opposite: to be authentically alone the Other has to be there.
Stories he reaches for 3
Hegel said on seeing Napoleon ride through Jena after the battle that it was as if he saw the Weltgeist on horseback; Žižek transposes this to the disgusting spectacle of Biden's inauguration, where the world spirit was embodied in the lonely figure of Bernie Sanders sitting alone on a chair.
“I think at this disgusting spectacle of Biden inauguration, Weltgeist, the world spirit, was there embodied in the lonely figure of Bernie.”
On a hardcore porn shoot the penetrating actor stepped back saying he was losing his erection and asked for his iPhone to watch Pornhub and get excited again, he had the real woman there but needed virtual fantasy.
“He had there the real woman, he needed virtual space fantasy to get excited.”
Russian friends report that recently declassified Soviet secrets confirm Lenin had a love relationship with Inessa Armand, an ideal love relationship at a different level from mere sex.
“recently they discovered some further kept secret by Soviet Union, notice very clear that Lenin had a love relationship with Inessa Armand.”
Works invoked 5
Against Love book
Kipnis's book arguing that love is the last limit on sex and should be dropped; used as a foil for the trend of attacking love.
Homeland tv
TV series; Carrie's betrayal of her country while living love in Moscow and continuing to spy for the CIA illustrates that love has to be betrayed.
Ethics book
Spinoza's Ethics, used as the example of a difficult text a study group collectively works through before being disrupted by erotic love.
A Perfect Spy book
One of le Carré's best novels; supplies the thesis that the only ultimate proof of love is betrayal.
Hegel's remark that on seeing Napoleon ride through Jena it was as if he saw the world spirit on horseback; transposed to Bernie Sanders.
People invoked 20
Lenin's love, a recently declassified Soviet secret used to illustrate an ideal love relationship at a different level from mere sex.
Alenka Zupančič positive
Co-panelist; Žižek credits her for pointing out that the virtualization of sex was underway before the pandemic.
Vladimir Lenin positive
Cited (apocryphally) for the glass-of-water reply to Kollontai and for the love affair with Inessa Armand as an ideal love relationship.
Theodor W. Adorno positive
Cited for warning years ago to beware regimes that legitimate themselves on the subjects' love for the leader.
Co-panelist addressed during the technical hiccup and the Sarajevo anecdote.
Sappho positive
Quoted (via Eva) for the image of Eros as a totally contingent arrow that hits and ruptures.
Originator of the drinking-glass analogy of sex to which Lenin (apocryphally) replied.
John le Carré positive
The 'great writer who recently died'; A Perfect Spy supplies Žižek's thesis that the only ultimate proof of love is betrayal.
Named (with Bernie Sanders) as one of the two big U.S. politicians who trigger love, illustrating that political love is ambiguous.
Nancy Fraser positive
Cited for describing how American feminism was kidnapped to a strong degree by liberalism/neoliberalism.
Terry Eagleton positive
Cited for 'nicely' translating Agape as political collective love and Eros as individual love passion.
Bernie Sanders positive
His lonely figure at Biden's inauguration embodied the Weltgeist and was the moment of love where Žižek saw hope.
Laura Kipnis negative
Author of Against Love; appreciated for her critique of political correctness but used as a foil for the trend of attacking love.
Michael positive
Co-panelist whose 'nice example' of collective love Žižek engages; he agrees love/Agape is an ontologically different level of being.
Eva Illouz positive
Co-panelist; Žižek appreciates her thesis on the commodification of love and largely agrees, while reframing its conclusion.
The figure Hegel saw riding through Jena, prompting the 'world spirit on horseback' remark.
Joe Biden negative
His inauguration is called a 'disgusting spectacle', the backdrop against which Bernie embodied the world spirit.
Plays Carrie in Homeland, the example used to illustrate betrayal as the form of full love.
Sigmund Freud positive
The lesson from Freud is that love/sex is in itself twisted and perverted, not a harmonious force merely repressed by society.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Source of the Weltgeist remark on seeing Napoleon at Jena, transposed to Bernie Sanders at Biden's inauguration.
What it argues
Agape vs Eros: the gap between collective and erotic loveLove as catastrophe and the ruin of everyday balanceBetrayal as the only ultimate proof of loveCommodification and the gradual disappearance of passionate lovePermissivity producing impotence instead of enjoymentJoy and Agape as the missing dimension of progressive politicsLove re-embodies what virtual sex dematerializes; solitude requires the Other
Dialectical moves 11
“the only ultimate proof of love is betrayal”
The true proof of love is its apparent opposite: betraying the beloved is what makes one fully in love.
“Love has to be betrayed. If you totally fall in love, you are lost.”
Total commitment to love requires betrayal; without it one is merely lost in the passion.
“she had to perform a fake subjectivization. That's how commodification works today.”
The apparent subjectivization staged by commodification is itself the ultimate objectivization.
“repression of desire turns around into desire for repression”
Repression inverts into its opposite: one comes to enjoy the act of repression itself.
“it's not sexuality that has to be liberated. It's love”
The true object needing liberation is the opposite of the assumed one: not sex but love.
“Permissivity is happening today. The result is exploding frigidity and impotence.”
Sexual liberation produces its opposite: the removal of repression yields impotence, not enjoyment.
“love is in some sense more bodily than just sex”
Love is more bodily than the bodily act itself: pure sex can be virtualized, love re-embodies.
“to be authentically alone, you have to be—the other has to be there.”
Authentic solitude requires the presence of the Other; aloneness is not the absence of the other but a mode of being-with.
“Alone is being with others but not in a suffocating way.”
Being alone is a sub-mode of being-with-others, not its negation.
“the result was not 'we were dreaming about each other so let's now be a real happy couple', no, the marriage split immediately.”
The realization of shared fantasy destroys the relationship rather than fulfilling it; fantasy's power lies in remaining virtual.
“politics without this collective dimension of Agape, political love, is an affair of specialists, technocrats, manipulations”
The absence of love in politics is not neutral technicity but the reduction of politics to mere manipulation.
Claims 21
asserts
Erotic love (Eros) is a catastrophe that ruins the balance of one's life.Eros
asserts
Agape (collective political love) and Eros (individual erotic passion) must be disconnected; there is a gap between them.Agape and Eros
asserts
The only ultimate proof of love is betrayal of the beloved.love and betrayal
asserts
Passionate erotic love is gradually disappearing today under commodification and objectivization.love under capitalism
reframes
It is not sexuality but love, in the passionate sense, that needs liberation today.sexual liberation
reframes
Sexual permissivity produces exploding frigidity and impotence, not liberated enjoyment.permissivity
reframes
Love and sex are in themselves twisted and perverted, not a harmonious force merely repressed by society.Freud against PC
asserts
Repression of desire turns into desire for repression; one begins to enjoy the act of repression itself.jouissance of repression
rejects
The 'yes means yes' consent framework wrongly presupposes subjects who know what they desire; we know what we want but not what we desire.consent politics
asserts
Sadomasochism is an immanent, irreducible fact of love life; sexuality is constitutively ambiguous.sexuality
asserts
The first truly revolutionary act is to fully admit the gap between Agape and Eros.revolutionary act
asserts
Politics without the collective dimension of Agape degenerates into an affair of specialists and technocrats.political love
asserts
Joy is precisely what is missing in a certain type of political correctness, whose only pleasure is the decadent pleasure of uncovering micro-racisms and micro-sexisms.political correctness
asserts
American feminism has been kidnapped by neoliberalism, whereas Mexican feminists address the same problems joyfully rather than in a rigid moral way.feminism
asserts
Pure sex can be transposed into virtual media; love is what brings the body back.virtualization of sex
asserts
Love is in some sense more bodily than sex itself.love and embodiment
asserts
To be authentically alone the Other has to be there; aloneness is a mode of being-with-others, not its opposite.solitude
asserts
Bernie Sanders sitting alone at Biden's inauguration embodied the Weltgeist, the world spirit.political love
asserts
Love has to be reinvented, because politics requires its collective Agape dimension.reinvention of love
rejects
Political correctness acts as if Freud and psychoanalysis do not exist, treating love/sex as naturally harmonious.political correctness
asserts
Realizing a shared fantasy (the Sarajevo couple) destroys the relationship rather than fulfilling it.fantasy
Quotes 17
“I think that love, and I'm talking now about erotic love, is, is a catastrophe, literally.”Slavoj Žižek · love as catastrophe
“the only ultimate proof of love is betrayal. That you betray the one whom you love.”Slavoj Žižek · betrayal as proof of love
“Love has to be betrayed. If you totally fall in love, you are lost.”Slavoj Žižek · betrayal as proof of love
“it's not sexuality that has to be liberated. It's love, love in this passionate sense, that is gradually disappearing.”Slavoj Žižek · disappearance of love
“We may know what we want, but we don't know what we desire.”Slavoj Žižek · divided subject
“the first truly revolutionary act is to fully admit this gap, in Christian terms between Agape and Eros. Eros is a big destructive mess.”Slavoj Žižek · revolutionary gap Agape/Eros
“Permissivity is happening today. The result is exploding frigidity and impotence.”Slavoj Žižek · permissivity produces impotence
“politics without this collective dimension of Agape, political love, is an affair of specialists, technocrats, manipulations”Slavoj Žižek · politics of specialists
“I think at this disgusting spectacle of Biden inauguration, Weltgeist, the world spirit, was there embodied in the lonely figure of Bernie.”Slavoj Žižek · Bernie as Weltgeist
“Joy is for me what is missing in a certain type of political correctness.”Slavoj Žižek · joy missing from PC
“All the pleasure you get there is the very decadent pleasure of: oh my god, I discovered a little bit of racism here, a little bit of feminism there”Slavoj Žižek · PC's decadent pleasure
“love brings body back. For me the paradox is that love is in some sense more bodily than just sex.”Slavoj Žižek · love more bodily than sex
“to be authentically alone, you have to be—the other has to be there.”Slavoj Žižek · solitude needs the Other
“Alone is being with others but not in a suffocating way.”Slavoj Žižek · loneliness-with-others
“He had there the real woman, he needed virtual space fantasy to get excited.”Slavoj Žižek · fantasy sustains desire
“repression of desire turns around into desire for repression. You start to enjoy act of repression itself.”Slavoj Žižek · jouissance of repression
“I admire Mexican feminists. It's a totally different approach. They deal with the same problems, but in a joyful way, not in this rigid moral way.”Slavoj Žižek · joyful feminism
Transcript 11 turns
Slavoj Žižek
Okay, thank you very much. I'm sorry if my intervention will work as a kind of a destructive, brutal spoiling of the illusions, and I do it on purpose, as a leftist, as a communist. First let me say, it's a complex thought, I cannot develop it fully now, that I don't believe in this ultimate unity of collective love, collective of solidarity and so on, and personal love. I think Agape and Eros, and Terry Eagleton nicely translated Agape as political collective love and Eros, individual love passion, are to be disconnected, there is a gap between, gap between the two. I will now repeat my old thesis: I think that love, and I'm talking now about erotic love, is, is a catastrophe, literally. My old joke: imagine yourself living a happy everyday life, you have a good job, you meet with friends, blah blah blah, maybe from time to time a one-night stand and so on, and then you passionately fall in love. All the balance of your life is ruined, you are obsessed by that. Or, and it's really like Eva quoted Sappho: this is the moment of rupture, Eros, which is a totally contingent arrow, hits you, you are lost. I'm not saying this is the ultimate fate of love. It's a long work where you try to build out of this a kind of a relationship which can somehow function. But returning to Michael's nice example, this love, collective love, which empowers all of you while it affects all of you, let's imagine a very tasteless example: a group of students, professors studying, let's say, Spinoza's Ethics, a very difficult text, you empower each other, blah blah blah. And then there is a student there, men, women, I don't know what you are, and you fall passionately in love. It ruins the community, I claim. It's a total illusion that somehow the two will work together and so on, and so on. So my point here is that it doesn't—now comes my madness—it doesn't mean that private passionate love can only be this kind of a destructive moment, but I think more and more (warning!) that the only solution is betrayal. I got this idea from, of all kind of people, the great writer who recently died, John le Carré, who in his A Perfect Spy, one of his best novels, writes that the only ultimate proof of love is betrayal. That you betray the one whom you love. And I wonder if you've seen, now I'm going to the lowest of the lowest popular culture, Homeland, the TV series where Carrie, played by Claire Danes, at the end, what does she do? CIA agent. She betrays her own country, so it appears, goes to Moscow and lives there a very intense erotic relationship, there is love there, it's clear, but at the very end of the series, we notice that she still works as a spy for CIA, sending encoded messages and so on. So I don't think this is to be read that she just fakes love. No, that's the, the way for her to be fully in love. Love has to be betrayed. If you totally fall in love, you are lost. Second thing: what does this mean today for our time? I'm also a pessimist here, that's how I read Eva, whom I appreciate very much, this what she calls commodification of love and so on, and so on. I agree with her thesis, a very complex phenomenon. I think simply that today, with all our permissivity and so on, and so on, it's not sexuality that has to be liberated. It's love, love in this passionate sense, that is gradually—that is gradually disappearing. What does this commodification, objectivization mean? I think again it's more complex, again trigger warning, one of my vulgar examples: I noticed when I was young, I watched in hardcore pornography, did you notice how the man is truly objectivized? The man is usually some anonymous sailor, sailor with his tattoo marks, and he just does his job. The woman breaks the rule and while being penetrated and so on, is allowed to look into the camera. But this is not authentic subjectivization, of course. This is in some sense the ultimate objectivization because she, the woman, had to—had to perform a fake subjectivization. That's how commodification works today. And why is love, in the sense of this absolute erotic passion... it would be interesting to go into this, why is love gradually disappearing today? You have a whole trend. Laura Kipnis, whom I otherwise appreciate in her critique of political correctness, she even wrote a book ten years ago, I think even more, called Against Love, claiming that first it was you can make love, have sex just in marriage and so on, further or to procreate, and then now the last limit is love. And her idea of liberation of sex is: drop love. We have other tendencies today, for example, this I always considered it irrational, very suspicious ideologically, this advocacy of polyamory, like that no, love should not be just binary with one person, you should be more open and so on, and so on. So what is going on here? I think that—now I will be very brutal and not to talk too long jump to a conclusion—I think that what this recent trend of attacking love, which is for me another aspect of what I find critical in predominant form of political correctness, is that—just a short remark to conclude—they are, I think, they are simply acting as if Freud and psychoanalysis don't—don't exist. I, as Alenka already mentioned, most of them act as if love is in itself, or sex, harmonious positive power, then something bad oppresses it. It can be patriarchy, social repression and so on, and so on. But I think if there is a lesson to be learned from Freud, it is precisely that love is in itself twisted, perverted, as Freud demonstrated. We don't just have a repression of desire, we always then get an additional twist where repression of desire turns around into desire for repression. You start to enjoy act of repression itself. Or for exa—or for example, the role of fantasy. I recently read a report, I often use this story, I'm sorry, of a—of a—of a scene when they were shooting a hardcore pornographic movie where something absolutely ridiculous happened. The guy who was doing it, penetrating the woman, stepped back and said, sorry, I'm losing my erection, can somebody pass me my iPhone so that I will look at a Pornhub to quickly get excited again? Now this is madness. He had there the real woman, he needed virtual space fantasy to get excited. I think this is not a pathology. I think this is in the immanent structure of love. And this then opens all other problems. For example, I'm a radical feminist, but because of this reason, I don't think that we can simply accept the hypothesis that which hidden in this 'yes means yes', the hypothesis that we are subjects who know what we want. We may know what we want, but we don't know what we desire. And I think that this simplistic formula of each of the sexual partners has to be free to desire what—sorry, to formulate what he wants and so on, and so on, is not enough. Sado-masochism is a fact of love life. What if I want to be in a certain codified way and so on, of course, oppressed? This mess is immanent to sexuality. I don't think you can—you can make it better and so on, but there always is this ambiguity. I—this does not mean that 'no' doesn't always mean 'no' from a woman to a man. I'm not into these vulgarities: she really wanted it. No. I think it's even much more feminist point that I wanted to make, that—that 'yes' can be a more subtle 'no' enforced and so on, and so on. It's just that there is a sphere of ambiguity, my god, we are really divided subjects. So I think that the first truly revolutionary act is to fully admit this gap, in Christian terms between Agape and Eros. Eros is a big destructive mess. There is no way to liberate it in the sense of you erase oppression and so on and we will be happily enjoying our love life. Permissivity is happening today. The result is exploding frigidity and—and impotence. And you know, when I read this politically correct description of love... Cut me immediately, just that I finish the sentence, I think that what is emerging as ideal form of sexual act today is sado-masochist contract. Everything has to be written down with all specificities and so on and so on. That's where we are moving into, that's... Okay, so it's me, I... Wait a minute, I have to... Yeah, you're unmuted Slavoj, so the floor is yours. I... what did I do here? Something wrong... I'm... I'm... Yeah, but I did something terribly wrong, I don't know what here... No no no, you are on the screen, we can hear you... Okay, okay, okay. Very briefly, very briefly, when we talk about reinventing love, political liberation and so on, you know love is, and I agree with the last point that was made, what was made, love is in politics a very ambiguous notion. None other than Adorno wrote years ago that beware of the regimes which legitimize themselves on behalf of the subjects' love for the leader, you know. So love, it's not so simple. Or let's go concretely to the United States today. There are two persons, big politicians, who trigger love. Let's be brutal: it's Trump and Bernie Sanders. And for me, the moment of love where I saw hope was: do you remember at the inauguration, a fake spectacle if there ever was one, Bernie sitting alone there on a chair? And I wrote in a text that it was, you know, Hegel's well-known remark when he saw Hegel—sorry, when he saw Napoleon riding through Jena after the battle, 'it's as if I saw the world spirit, Weltgeist, riding on a horse there'. I think at this disgusting spectacle of Biden inauguration, Weltgeist, the world spirit, was there embodied in the lonely figure of Bernie. But yes, I agree with you, love has to be reinvented, you know why? Because I think politics without this collective dimension of Agape, political love, is an affair of specialists,
Okay, thank you very much. I'm sorry if my intervention will work as a kind of a destructive, brutal spoiling of the illusions, and I do it on purpose, as a leftist, as a communist. First let me say, it's a complex thought, I cannot develop it fully now, that I don't believe in this ultimate unity of collective love, collective of solidarity and so on, and personal love. I think Agape and Eros, and Terry Eagleton nicely translated Agape as political collective love and Eros, individual love passion, are to be disconnected, there is a gap between, gap between the two. I will now repeat my old thesis: I think that love, and I'm talking now about erotic love, is, is a catastrophe, literally. My old joke: imagine yourself living a happy everyday life, you have a good job, you meet with friends, blah blah blah, maybe from time to time a one-night stand and so on, and then you passionately fall in love. All the balance of your life is ruined, you are obsessed by that. Or, and it's really like Eva quoted Sappho: this is the moment of rupture, Eros, which is a totally contingent arrow, hits you, you are lost. I'm not saying this is the ultimate fate of love. It's a long work where you try to build out of this a kind of a relationship which can somehow function. But returning to Michael's nice example, this love, collective love, which empowers all of you while it affects all of you, let's imagine a very tasteless example: a group of students, professors studying, let's say, Spinoza's Ethics, a very difficult text, you empower each other, blah blah blah. And then there is a student there, men, women, I don't know what you are, and you fall passionately in love. It ruins the community, I claim. It's a total illusion that somehow the two will work together and so on, and so on. So my point here is that it doesn't—now comes my madness—it doesn't mean that private passionate love can only be this kind of a destructive moment, but I think more and more (warning!) that the only solution is betrayal. I got this idea from, of all kind of people, the great writer who recently died, John le Carré, who in his A Perfect Spy, one of his best novels, writes that the only ultimate proof of love is betrayal. That you betray the one whom you love. And I wonder if you've seen, now I'm going to the lowest of the lowest popular culture, Homeland, the TV series where Carrie, played by Claire Danes, at the end, what does she do? CIA agent. She betrays her own country, so it appears, goes to Moscow and lives there a very intense erotic relationship, there is love there, it's clear, but at the very end of the series, we notice that she still works as a spy for CIA, sending encoded messages and so on. So I don't think this is to be read that she just fakes love. No, that's the, the way for her to be fully in love. Love has to be betrayed. If you totally fall in love, you are lost. Second thing: what does this mean today for our time? I'm also a pessimist here, that's how I read Eva, whom I appreciate very much, this what she calls commodification of love and so on, and so on. I agree with her thesis, a very complex phenomenon. I think simply that today, with all our permissivity and so on, and so on, it's not sexuality that has to be liberated. It's love, love in this passionate sense, that is gradually—that is gradually disappearing. What does this commodification, objectivization mean? I think again it's more complex, again trigger warning, one of my vulgar examples: I noticed when I was young, I watched in hardcore pornography, did you notice how the man is truly objectivized? The man is usually some anonymous sailor, sailor with his tattoo marks, and he just does his job. The woman breaks the rule and while being penetrated and so on, is allowed to look into the camera. But this is not authentic subjectivization, of course. This is in some sense the ultimate objectivization because she, the woman, had to—had to perform a fake subjectivization. That's how commodification works today. And why is love, in the sense of this absolute erotic passion... it would be interesting to go into this, why is love gradually disappearing today? You have a whole trend. Laura Kipnis, whom I otherwise appreciate in her critique of political correctness, she even wrote a book ten years ago, I think even more, called Against Love, claiming that first it was you can make love, have sex just in marriage and so on, further or to procreate, and then now the last limit is love. And her idea of liberation of sex is: drop love. We have other tendencies today, for example, this I always considered it irrational, very suspicious ideologically, this advocacy of polyamory, like that no, love should not be just binary with one person, you should be more open and so on, and so on. So what is going on here? I think that—now I will be very brutal and not to talk too long jump to a conclusion—I think that what this recent trend of attacking love, which is for me another aspect of what I find critical in predominant form of political correctness, is that—just a short remark to conclude—they are, I think, they are simply acting as if Freud and psychoanalysis don't—don't exist. I, as Alenka already mentioned, most of them act as if love is in itself, or sex, harmonious positive power, then something bad oppresses it. It can be patriarchy, social repression and so on, and so on. But I think if there is a lesson to be learned from Freud, it is precisely that love is in itself twisted, perverted, as Freud demonstrated. We don't just have a repression of desire, we always then get an additional twist where repression of desire turns around into desire for repression. You start to enjoy act of repression itself. Or for exa—or for example, the role of fantasy. I recently read a report, I often use this story, I'm sorry, of a—of a—of a scene when they were shooting a hardcore pornographic movie where something absolutely ridiculous happened. The guy who was doing it, penetrating the woman, stepped back and said, sorry, I'm losing my erection, can somebody pass me my iPhone so that I will look at a Pornhub to quickly get excited again? Now this is madness. He had there the real woman, he needed virtual space fantasy to get excited. I think this is not a pathology. I think this is in the immanent structure of love. And this then opens all other problems. For example, I'm a radical feminist, but because of this reason, I don't think that we can simply accept the hypothesis that which hidden in this 'yes means yes', the hypothesis that we are subjects who know what we want. We may know what we want, but we don't know what we desire. And I think that this simplistic formula of each of the sexual partners has to be free to desire what—sorry, to formulate what he wants and so on, and so on, is not enough. Sado-masochism is a fact of love life. What if I want to be in a certain codified way and so on, of course, oppressed? This mess is immanent to sexuality. I don't think you can—you can make it better and so on, but there always is this ambiguity. I—this does not mean that 'no' doesn't always mean 'no' from a woman to a man. I'm not into these vulgarities: she really wanted it. No. I think it's even much more feminist point that I wanted to make, that—that 'yes' can be a more subtle 'no' enforced and so on, and so on. It's just that there is a sphere of ambiguity, my god, we are really divided subjects. So I think that the first truly revolutionary act is to fully admit this gap, in Christian terms between Agape and Eros. Eros is a big destructive mess. There is no way to liberate it in the sense of you erase oppression and so on and we will be happily enjoying our love life. Permissivity is happening today. The result is exploding frigidity and—and impotence. And you know, when I read this politically correct description of love... Cut me immediately, just that I finish the sentence, I think that what is emerging as ideal form of sexual act today is sado-masochist contract. Everything has to be written down with all specificities and so on and so on. That's where we are moving into, that's... Okay, so it's me, I... Wait a minute, I have to... Yeah, you're unmuted Slavoj, so the floor is yours. I... what did I do here? Something wrong... I'm... I'm... Yeah, but I did something terribly wrong, I don't know what here... No no no, you are on the screen, we can hear you... Okay, okay, okay. Very briefly, very briefly, when we talk about reinventing love, political liberation and so on, you know love is, and I agree with the last point that was made, what was made, love is in politics a very ambiguous notion. None other than Adorno wrote years ago that beware of the regimes which legitimize themselves on behalf of the subjects' love for the leader, you know. So love, it's not so simple. Or let's go concretely to the United States today. There are two persons, big politicians, who trigger love. Let's be brutal: it's Trump and Bernie Sanders. And for me, the moment of love where I saw hope was: do you remember at the inauguration, a fake spectacle if there ever was one, Bernie sitting alone there on a chair? And I wrote in a text that it was, you know, Hegel's well-known remark when he saw Hegel—sorry, when he saw Napoleon riding through Jena after the battle, 'it's as if I saw the world spirit, Weltgeist, riding on a horse there'. I think at this disgusting spectacle of Biden inauguration, Weltgeist, the world spirit, was there embodied in the lonely figure of Bernie. But yes, I agree with you, love has to be reinvented, you know why? Because I think politics without this collective dimension of Agape, political love, is an affair of specialists,
unknown
technocrats, manipulations
technocrats, manipulations
Slavoj Žižek
and so on and so on. This transcendent dimension of full subjective engagement can only be provided by love. And
and so on and so on. This transcendent dimension of full subjective engagement can only be provided by love. And
unknown
just
just
Slavoj Žižek
a final remark about—I think was it you, Michael, or who mentioned the joy? No, sorry, it was one of the ladies, of bringing back joy to progressive politics. You mentioned—you hit the nail correctly. Joy is for me what is missing in a certain type of political correctness. All the pleasure you get there is the very decadent pleasure of: oh my god, I discovered a little bit of racism here, a little bit of feminism there and so on and so on. Yes, absolutely agree, we should bring joy back to politics. That's why, in contrast to typical liberal American feminist Nancy Fraser described nicely how they kidnapped to a strong degree to liberalism, to neoliberalism, American feminism, that's why, for example, I admire Mexican feminists. It's a totally different approach. They deal with the same problems, but in a joyful way, not in this rigid moral way. So yes, joy, love are needed in politics, absolutely. Without this, we can leave everything to algorithm and experts. First, let me say that I agree with all your nice thoughts about—about Agape, Eros and so on. I just limited myself to Eros because today it's Valentine's Day, and Valentine's Day is meant for erotic couples, that's why. So I agree with what you said. But, you know, when you, Michael, I agree with you when you said and you, [unintelligible], you know this, that it's not a gap, I correct myself, but it's simply a different, ontologically a different level of being and so on. But nonetheless, I would like to add something. It's not just sex, let's f- as much as we want, sleep around, something authentic like love can happen also there. Love is not the same as having... so now I will say something to make enemies, most of you, it's horrible, but you know Lenin's—Michael, do you know Lenin's reply, probably it's not true, probably it's a fake, to that sentence by Alexandra Kollontai like drinking water? You know what Lenin said, it sounds male chauvinist almost, he said, but nonetheless I wouldn't like to drink water from a glass from which another guy drank just before me. Why do I mention Lenin? Because here you have an ideal love relationship. My Russian friends are telling me that recently they discovered some further kept secret by Soviet Union, notice very clear that Lenin had a love relationship with Inessa Armand. You see, it was totally at a different level with... [unintelligible] some problems with internet or is it just me? It's just you, so shut up.
a final remark about—I think was it you, Michael, or who mentioned the joy? No, sorry, it was one of the ladies, of bringing back joy to progressive politics. You mentioned—you hit the nail correctly. Joy is for me what is missing in a certain type of political correctness. All the pleasure you get there is the very decadent pleasure of: oh my god, I discovered a little bit of racism here, a little bit of feminism there and so on and so on. Yes, absolutely agree, we should bring joy back to politics. That's why, in contrast to typical liberal American feminist Nancy Fraser described nicely how they kidnapped to a strong degree to liberalism, to neoliberalism, American feminism, that's why, for example, I admire Mexican feminists. It's a totally different approach. They deal with the same problems, but in a joyful way, not in this rigid moral way. So yes, joy, love are needed in politics, absolutely. Without this, we can leave everything to algorithm and experts. First, let me say that I agree with all your nice thoughts about—about Agape, Eros and so on. I just limited myself to Eros because today it's Valentine's Day, and Valentine's Day is meant for erotic couples, that's why. So I agree with what you said. But, you know, when you, Michael, I agree with you when you said and you, [unintelligible], you know this, that it's not a gap, I correct myself, but it's simply a different, ontologically a different level of being and so on. But nonetheless, I would like to add something. It's not just sex, let's f- as much as we want, sleep around, something authentic like love can happen also there. Love is not the same as having... so now I will say something to make enemies, most of you, it's horrible, but you know Lenin's—Michael, do you know Lenin's reply, probably it's not true, probably it's a fake, to that sentence by Alexandra Kollontai like drinking water? You know what Lenin said, it sounds male chauvinist almost, he said, but nonetheless I wouldn't like to drink water from a glass from which another guy drank just before me. Why do I mention Lenin? Because here you have an ideal love relationship. My Russian friends are telling me that recently they discovered some further kept secret by Soviet Union, notice very clear that Lenin had a love relationship with Inessa Armand. You see, it was totally at a different level with... [unintelligible] some problems with internet or is it just me? It's just you, so shut up.
unknown
Okay,
Okay,
Slavoj Žižek
Slavoj, you're back. Okay, okay. Can I talk? You hear me now? Srećko? Okay. Now I don't get it, we just had some technical problems but we can hear you now. Okay, okay, I go quickly, quickly. First, pandemic and so on what you mentioned and sex. You know, Eva, you mentioned some things and I totally agree with you, this complexity, this direction, but I would say this: my paradoxical experience is that, as Alenka also pointed out, things were going on towards this virtualization of sex already before pandemic. So I think that the lesson of the pandemic for me is very paradoxical. If you are just at the level of sexuality, it's easy to go into virtual orgasms, playing and so on, that love brings body back. For me the paradox is that love is in some sense more bodily than—than just sex. I spoke with my younger son's friends once who told me, who has the time today for the complex game of seduction, isn't it easier? Maximum they are ready to do is one-night stand, or just masturbate in front of virtual space. So I think pure sex can be transposed into—into virtual media. But let me go just to the concluding point, this—this complexity of sex. You know, maybe you know the story, Srećko, it happened after the end of the war, of all places, in Sarajevo. I report on this in some of my books, it's incredible story. A couple discovered that both of them had—under—not revealing their identity—erotic fantasies shared with another partner on—on the web, you know, virtual sex. Then they decided to meet
Slavoj, you're back. Okay, okay. Can I talk? You hear me now? Srećko? Okay. Now I don't get it, we just had some technical problems but we can hear you now. Okay, okay, I go quickly, quickly. First, pandemic and so on what you mentioned and sex. You know, Eva, you mentioned some things and I totally agree with you, this complexity, this direction, but I would say this: my paradoxical experience is that, as Alenka also pointed out, things were going on towards this virtualization of sex already before pandemic. So I think that the lesson of the pandemic for me is very paradoxical. If you are just at the level of sexuality, it's easy to go into virtual orgasms, playing and so on, that love brings body back. For me the paradox is that love is in some sense more bodily than—than just sex. I spoke with my younger son's friends once who told me, who has the time today for the complex game of seduction, isn't it easier? Maximum they are ready to do is one-night stand, or just masturbate in front of virtual space. So I think pure sex can be transposed into—into virtual media. But let me go just to the concluding point, this—this complexity of sex. You know, maybe you know the story, Srećko, it happened after the end of the war, of all places, in Sarajevo. I report on this in some of my books, it's incredible story. A couple discovered that both of them had—under—not revealing their identity—erotic fantasies shared with another partner on—on the web, you know, virtual sex. Then they decided to meet
unknown
and—you can guess the solution—it was
and—you can guess the solution—it was
Slavoj Žižek
each other, the same couple. And
each other, the same couple. And
unknown
now
now
Slavoj Žižek
comes my Lacanian lesson: the result was not, 'oh but we were dreaming about each other so let's now be a real happy couple', no, the marriage split immediately. That's a nice lesson. Also what you, Eva, mentioned about this complexity and so on, or this suffocation of being with a couple. You know, I read a wonderful—wonderful means terrifying for me—data from—Japan, Singapore, where sexbots, plastic dolls, are very popular. But you know when some selling agency inquired into who is buying them, it's not lone men who can have... you know that over married couples bought them. So my final thought, it's paradoxical, and there were already some indications in this direction in what you said. Do you know that what I really miss now is, in my experience of pandemic, I miss loneliness. It's so much suffocating, this social contact and so on, or being suffocatingly with your nearest in the apartment and so on, and so on. I am awaiting the end of pandemic to be—and as you, Eva, said nicely, to be authentically alone, you have to be—the other has to be there. Being alone for me is, I don't know, walking and they're disappearing now, it's horrible, to this wonderful in—around Greenwich Village in—these streets where in the evening cafeterias, bookstores and so on, there I am alone. I—I expect more loneliness. I like to be alone. And alone and being with others are not the opposites for me. Alone is being with others but not in a suffocating way.
comes my Lacanian lesson: the result was not, 'oh but we were dreaming about each other so let's now be a real happy couple', no, the marriage split immediately. That's a nice lesson. Also what you, Eva, mentioned about this complexity and so on, or this suffocation of being with a couple. You know, I read a wonderful—wonderful means terrifying for me—data from—Japan, Singapore, where sexbots, plastic dolls, are very popular. But you know when some selling agency inquired into who is buying them, it's not lone men who can have... you know that over married couples bought them. So my final thought, it's paradoxical, and there were already some indications in this direction in what you said. Do you know that what I really miss now is, in my experience of pandemic, I miss loneliness. It's so much suffocating, this social contact and so on, or being suffocatingly with your nearest in the apartment and so on, and so on. I am awaiting the end of pandemic to be—and as you, Eva, said nicely, to be authentically alone, you have to be—the other has to be there. Being alone for me is, I don't know, walking and they're disappearing now, it's horrible, to this wonderful in—around Greenwich Village in—these streets where in the evening cafeterias, bookstores and so on, there I am alone. I—I expect more loneliness. I like to be alone. And alone and being with others are not the opposites for me. Alone is being with others but not in a suffocating way.