Slavoj Žižek on Political Correctness P1 (Oct, 2015)
Interview · Renitzc Kantart ·
2015-10 · 0:20:15 · 3,044 words
ideologyliberalism-political-correctnessrace-antisemitismethicsgeopolitics-warsubjectivityeveryday-life
A televised interview (part one of two) in which Žižek reads US gun violence as the collateral damage of an otherwise valuable American ethos of personal freedom, arguing that freedom needs an invisible ground of laws, customs and manners (a Hegelian ethical substance) that American ideology underestimates. He then turns to political correctness, faulting it for trying to render explicit the implicit rules that manners govern, defending a Yugoslav culture of friendly ethnic jokes as warm contact, and reframing harassment-anxiety as fear of the proximity of the other. He closes by opposing charity to justice (on refugees), false respect for the Other's specificity to solidarity (Saudi Arabia), and the universality of human rights to a universality of struggle, illustrated through Malcolm X and a Native American friend's rejection of patronizing reverence.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 8
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
His 'bombastic term' for the foundational US idea of radical personal freedom, whose unchecked excess becomes self-destructive.
The unseen network of social manners one must stand on before counting 'one, two', what the American first-floor convention obscures.
as “common ethical substance”
The Hegelian Sittlichkeit, the thick, inherited network of values, manners and customs, that he says America underestimates and that sustains personal freedom.
His reframing of periodic gun violence as the by-product of an ethos of freedom that is, in itself, not wholly bad.
His paradoxical name for the old Yugoslav culture of friendly, self-directed ethnic jokes that established warm contact rather than hatred.
as “fear of the proximity of the other”
What he says harassment-anxiety really names, not hatred but an inability to tolerate the other's closeness.
Reverence for the Other's specific way of life that actually patronizes them and, in geopolitics, tolerates their brutal oppression.
His replacement for universal human rights: not a shared content but a shared form, 'you have your fight, we have our fight, let's turn it into the same fight.'
Stories he reaches for 2
Against the Roots fantasy of recovering an African tribal origin, Malcolm X treats the loss of roots as an X that opens a new freedom to become more universal and emancipatory than whites.
“this X paradoxically opens up a new freedom for us... to be more universal emancipatory than white people themselves”
A self-described lover of order, he was shocked by the chaos, nasty rituals and unwritten rules of his Yugoslav military service, proof that every civilization has a dark, transgressive underside.
“the chaos, at least in the Yugoslav army, all the nasty rituals, unwritten rules that you have to obey”
Works invoked 2
Roots tv
Calls it 'that stupid TV series'; treated as the foil, the wrong model that makes recovering an African tribal origin the highest honor, against Malcolm X's point about the X.
Spike Lee films film
Deployed to illustrate the white liberal discomfort at real Black proximity, the noisy, vulgar, food-smelling scene PC disavows.
People invoked 3
Malcolm X positive
Declares him 'my hero sincerely'; develops the X as a deprivation of roots that opens a new universal emancipatory freedom, against the Roots model.
Spike Lee positive
Cites Spike Lee movies as the canonical scene of white liberal discomfort with real Black proximity (noise, music, food).
Karl Marx positive
Refers to himself as 'some kind of a Marxist' and 'an old Marxist' who has written dozens of texts criticizing the exporting of democracy.
What it argues
Gun violence as collateral damage of American personal freedomThe invisible social ground that makes personal freedom possibleManners as the implicit rules political correctness fails to render explicitProgressive racism: friendly ethnic jokes as warm contact, not hatredCharity vs justice: white liberal guilt and the refugee questionFalse respect for the Other's way of life as patronizing tolerance of oppressionUniversality of struggle vs universality of human rights
Dialectical moves 7
“too much individual freedom destroys not social link but destroys human freedom itself”
Freedom pushed to its extreme negates itself; the very thing that grounds it (manners) is what it erodes.
“you are too atheist a nation... 13th floor doesn't exist. But don't you believe in God? Whom are you cheating?”
The professed atheists are the ones superstitiously cheating an all-seeing God; the symbolic Other knows even where belief is disavowed.
“these jokes disappeared. Because their place was precisely to establish real warm human contact”
The vanishing of the apparently-racist joke is the very signal that real racism has appeared, the symptom and its negation swap places.
“I say, 'No, I hate them!' But it's not a matter of me liking them, it's justice”
The moral act is orthogonal to sentiment: justice is precisely what does not depend on empathy or liking.
“English people... are masters of being polite and being all the more humiliating, aggressive in the very form of politeness”
The polite form can be the very vehicle of aggression; vulgarity is not where violence lives.
“this X paradoxically opens up a new freedom for us... to be more universal emancipatory than white people themselves”
The deprivation of roots is itself the opening to a higher universality; loss becomes the condition of freedom.
“I don't believe in universality of our human rights. I believe in universality of struggle”
True universality is not a shared content (rights) but a shared form (the struggle itself).
Claims 13
asserts
Periodic US gun violence is the collateral damage of an American ethos of personal freedom that is, in itself, not wholly bad.gun violence / American freedom
asserts
Personal freedom presupposes an invisible ground of laws, customs and manners, and underestimating that ground makes freedom self-destructive.the social ground of freedom
reframes
Political correctness fails because it tries to render fully explicit rules that can only function implicitly and conditionally.political correctness
asserts
To know a society is to know not only its rules but how to violate them — which is what manners encode.manners and implicit rules
asserts
Friendly, self-directed ethnic jokes can establish real warm human contact; their disappearance is the index that real racism has arrived.progressive racism / Yugoslavia
reframes
Harassment rules are not really about stopping hatred but about a fear of the proximity of the other.harassment / political correctness
asserts
White liberal charity toward Black people often masks a cold refusal of real proximity and friendship.white liberal charity
reframes
Refugees are a matter of justice, not charity or empathy — one may dislike them and still be obligated.refugees / charity vs justice
rejects
The PC reverence for Native Americans' organic link with nature is patronizing, and his Native friends reject it.Native American reverence / political correctness
asserts
Malcolm X's X — the deprivation of roots by slavery — paradoxically opens a new freedom to be more universal and emancipatory than whites.Malcolm X / universality
reframes
Exporting democracy can mask the imposition of a specific way of life — but the opposite, false respect for others' specificity, also tolerates brutal oppression (Saudi Arabia).exporting democracy / cultural respect
asserts
Universality lies in shared struggle, not in universal human rights.universality / human rights
asserts
Politeness can be more humiliating and aggressive than vulgar outspokenness.politeness and aggression
Quotes 10
“Maybe these explosions of violent gun and so on that you get from time to time are a collateral damage of some attitude towards freedom and so on, which is in itself not so bad.”Slavoj Žižek · gun violence as collateral damage of freedom
“you don't see that in order to count one, two, you need a ground.”Slavoj Žižek · the social ground of freedom
“I think you are too atheist a nation.”Slavoj Žižek · America disavows its own symbolic substance
“too much individual freedom destroys not social link but destroys human freedom itself.”Slavoj Žižek · freedom negates itself
“To know a society, it's not only to know the rules, but to know how to violate the rules.”Slavoj Žižek · manners as rule-violation
“the moment in early '80s in ex-Yugoslavia real racism which ended up in the terrible civil war of the '90s, real racism started to explode, these jokes disappeared.”Slavoj Žižek · vanishing joke as index of real racism
“harassment is really a form of maybe not hatred but fear of the proximity of the other.”Slavoj Žižek · PC as fear of proximity
“I say, 'No, I hate them!' But it's not a matter of me liking them, it's justice.”Slavoj Žižek · justice without empathy
“I prefer to be called Indian because at least in this case my name is a monument to white man's stupidity who didn't know where they arrived.”Slavoj Žižek · reclaiming the misnomer
“I don't believe in universality of our human rights. I believe in universality of struggle. You have your fight, we have our fight, let's turn it into the same fight.”Slavoj Žižek · universality of struggle over human rights
Transcript 20 turns
unknown
Slavoj Žižek is a renowned philosopher and cultural critic who has been dubbed the most dangerous philosopher in the West by both The New Republic and Europe's largest magazine Der Spiegel. Žižek has published more than books translated into over languages and is the subject of multiple documentaries exploring culture, theology and political theory. He currently serves as the International Director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London and Senior Researcher at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana. Correct? How'd I say that right? Close enough. How would you say it? Ljubljana. But
Slavoj Žižek is a renowned philosopher and cultural critic who has been dubbed the most dangerous philosopher in the West by both The New Republic and Europe's largest magazine Der Spiegel. Žižek has published more than books translated into over languages and is the subject of multiple documentaries exploring culture, theology and political theory. He currently serves as the International Director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London and Senior Researcher at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana. Correct? How'd I say that right? Close enough. How would you say it? Ljubljana. But
Slavoj Žižek
nobody pronounces it correctly. No, you do.
nobody pronounces it correctly. No, you do.
unknown
In his home country of Slovenia. I got that right. Absolutely. Professor Žižek, good to have you on the program.
In his home country of Slovenia. I got that right. Absolutely. Professor Žižek, good to have you on the program.
Slavoj Žižek
Thanks, I am grateful to you,
Thanks, I am grateful to you,
unknown
honored. I'm honored to have you here, believe me. Honored that you're here in the States and giving us a full show to talk to you. So I want to just pick your brain on a number of things if I can. I think I want to start with what is obviously the leading news story in our country right now: this prevalence of gun violence. And because your perspective is different, living in a different part of the world, I wonder what there is for us, the US, to learn from the world about the psychosis, the psychology of why we are so addicted to guns.
honored. I'm honored to have you here, believe me. Honored that you're here in the States and giving us a full show to talk to you. So I want to just pick your brain on a number of things if I can. I think I want to start with what is obviously the leading news story in our country right now: this prevalence of gun violence. And because your perspective is different, living in a different part of the world, I wonder what there is for us, the US, to learn from the world about the psychosis, the psychology of why we are so addicted to guns.
Slavoj Žižek
I don't know enough specifically about American culture to give you a good answer, but I would nonetheless tell you, don't blame yourself too much. Maybe, just maybe, that's my modest optimist view. Maybe these explosions of violent gun and so on that you get from time to time are a collateral damage of some attitude towards freedom and so on, which is in itself not so bad. You know what I mean? I think that every civilization, if you look at it closely, has its dark side. And this is what in most of my book I'm trying to elaborate. In what sense what appears to you as an unnecessary prohibited transgression and so on is really part of a culture. Like, that's why my big experience, almost epiphany, was serving the military. I'm a very disciplined man. I like order, things work. And the big shock for me was the chaos, at least in the Yugoslav army, all the nasty rituals, unwritten rules that you have to obey and so on and so on. So this may sound strange for someone like me who still considers himself some kind of a Marxist, no? But I always had a great admiration for United States. I think what is at the bottom of all this is a key part of, let me use this bombastic term, American ideology, a certain idea of personal freedom as the foundation of it. As a more old-fashioned European, I think that you Americans sometimes tend to forget that, yes, personal freedoms are a wonderful thing. I do whatever I want, I walk wherever I want, I travel wherever I want. But in order for this to function, are we aware what extremely complicated level of laws, custom, manners has to be here in order to enable this? I found two wonderful symptoms of where maybe you got it wrong. Maybe they, I'm crazy to mention them, but I think they tell something. When I enter an American hotel or any building, for you, first floor is for what for us Europeans is a ground floor. For us, you climb to the first floor already. Maybe this is what's wrong with you: you don't see that in order to count one, two, you need a ground. Ground would be precisely the network of social manners and so on. Another point that amuses me: I think you are too atheist a nation. What do I mean by this? I noticed how in many hotels here, if they have more than floors, you cheat—not you, but hotel managers, whatever—13th floor doesn't exist. and then is But don't you believe in God? Whom are you cheating? God knows that is really You see what I mean? What in Europe in an old-fashioned way we call a common ethical substance, the field of values, manners and so on. Maybe you underestimate a little bit the weight of this. Maybe you accentuate in a wrong way the radical untouchable character of personal freedom. Now, again, individual freedom. Now, again, I have nothing against it. What I'm saying is only that in brought to the end, this attitude is self-destructive. Because too much individual freedom destroys not social link but destroys human freedom itself. I hear your point and I take
I don't know enough specifically about American culture to give you a good answer, but I would nonetheless tell you, don't blame yourself too much. Maybe, just maybe, that's my modest optimist view. Maybe these explosions of violent gun and so on that you get from time to time are a collateral damage of some attitude towards freedom and so on, which is in itself not so bad. You know what I mean? I think that every civilization, if you look at it closely, has its dark side. And this is what in most of my book I'm trying to elaborate. In what sense what appears to you as an unnecessary prohibited transgression and so on is really part of a culture. Like, that's why my big experience, almost epiphany, was serving the military. I'm a very disciplined man. I like order, things work. And the big shock for me was the chaos, at least in the Yugoslav army, all the nasty rituals, unwritten rules that you have to obey and so on and so on. So this may sound strange for someone like me who still considers himself some kind of a Marxist, no? But I always had a great admiration for United States. I think what is at the bottom of all this is a key part of, let me use this bombastic term, American ideology, a certain idea of personal freedom as the foundation of it. As a more old-fashioned European, I think that you Americans sometimes tend to forget that, yes, personal freedoms are a wonderful thing. I do whatever I want, I walk wherever I want, I travel wherever I want. But in order for this to function, are we aware what extremely complicated level of laws, custom, manners has to be here in order to enable this? I found two wonderful symptoms of where maybe you got it wrong. Maybe they, I'm crazy to mention them, but I think they tell something. When I enter an American hotel or any building, for you, first floor is for what for us Europeans is a ground floor. For us, you climb to the first floor already. Maybe this is what's wrong with you: you don't see that in order to count one, two, you need a ground. Ground would be precisely the network of social manners and so on. Another point that amuses me: I think you are too atheist a nation. What do I mean by this? I noticed how in many hotels here, if they have more than floors, you cheat—not you, but hotel managers, whatever—13th floor doesn't exist. and then is But don't you believe in God? Whom are you cheating? God knows that is really You see what I mean? What in Europe in an old-fashioned way we call a common ethical substance, the field of values, manners and so on. Maybe you underestimate a little bit the weight of this. Maybe you accentuate in a wrong way the radical untouchable character of personal freedom. Now, again, individual freedom. Now, again, I have nothing against it. What I'm saying is only that in brought to the end, this attitude is self-destructive. Because too much individual freedom destroys not social link but destroys human freedom itself. I hear your point and I take
unknown
that and I'm glad you brought that up. But go to but. When you say something like this, I see your
that and I'm glad you brought that up. But go to but. When you say something like this, I see your
Slavoj Žižek
sharpened knife begin to find its way. A big but
sharpened knife begin to find its way. A big but
unknown
coming. A big but coming. If you're right about the fact that the collateral damage of personal freedom might be these incidences of gun violence that happen too often, so it's collateral damage of personal freedom. I take that. Why does that happen just in this country? This isn't the only country in the world where people have individual
coming. A big but coming. If you're right about the fact that the collateral damage of personal freedom might be these incidences of gun violence that happen too often, so it's collateral damage of personal freedom. I take that. Why does that happen just in this country? This isn't the only country in the world where people have individual
Slavoj Žižek
and individual freedom. That's what I tried to
and individual freedom. That's what I tried to
unknown
answer with the second part.
answer with the second part.
Slavoj Žižek
That your accent on personal freedom does not take enough into account society, how society in the sense of the thick network of social rules, customs. Now I come to more refined points, and this will bring us strangely even to what I see as the failure of political correctness. Not just the explicit spoken, explicitly formulated rules, but especially those implicit rules, you know? What's so beautiful for me for social manners—and I'm here very conservative, I like manners—is that manners do not simply prescribe what you should do, say or not do, say. But what you should you are allowed to say but it's not polite to do it. Or, the other way around, what you are prohibited to do but you are expected nonetheless to do it. For example, the first paradox is wonderful for me. Let's say you invite me to lunch. I suppose, I hope it's true, maybe not, you have more money than me. Don't you have also in this country a certain implicit rule when the bill arrives, you will... If I invited you, I should pay. Yeah but, don't you have this manner that for a little bit I'm expected to insist, 'No, no, I should pay'? 'Oh no, I'll pay, you oh please let me, yeah, okay.' But it's part of the game. And I claim this is not simply hypocrisy. It's in a sense it's hypocritical—we both know you will pay, and I would love you for doing something horrible, for telling me at the beginning, 'No okay if you want you pay.' No, then I will have to go through all the game, 'Oh my god sorry I forgot my money' or what. But what I'm saying is that you see, this is for me, I'm simplifying the line of argumentation, what doesn't work with so-called political correctness. It tries to render explicit the rules too much, like let's regulate everything. If you do this it's already sexism, if you do that. But it doesn't function like that. Rules in real life also always functions in this conditional way. To know a society, it's not only to know the rules, but to know how to violate the rules. And there manners enter. And here, again, I have problems with political correctness. For example, consider—now I will provoke you to the end—considering political correctness and racism. Of course, my god, I find racism something not only incorrect but simply stupid, obscene. Racists are weak people who don't trust themselves basically. But nonetheless, would you admit or not, coming from relatively different culture, I'm sincerely, it's not just a rhetorical trick, interested in your opinion. Isn't something which from a strict standpoint of political correctness cannot but appear a racism or racial slur insult, also an absolute for me at least in most of the cases absolute condition of establishing a real opening, a real warm contact with another human being? By this I mean the following: whenever I visit a country, first we play these official rules, 'Oh how interesting are your rituals, your food,' all that bullshit, you know. But then, you know, I tell a dirty joke, they tell a dirty joke, we are in. And I remember a fond memory of my country which disappeared in civil war, ex-country Yugoslavia, before racial tensions exploded when I was young, '60s, '70s. Racism, but I call it paradoxically progressive racism, was all-pervasive. Each nation was identified with a certain racial cliché: we Slovenians were misers, Montenegro people were lazy and so on. And when I talk with my friends, it wasn't telling racist jokes so much against the other; it was we were competing in a friendly way who will tell a nastier joke about oneself, about myself. And we didn't experience this racial clichés as insulting, but as something we in a wonderful comical spirit to be assumed. And I can guarantee you it works wonderfully. A negative proof: the moment in early '80s in ex-Yugoslavia real racism which ended up in the terrible civil war of the '90s, real racism started to explode, these jokes disappeared. Absolutely. Because their place was precisely to establish real warm human contact. And that's my fear of political correctness. Behind all this respect of the other and so on, isn't beneath it a certain terrifying coldness? The what I experience as the real message of this political correctness, its rules, especially when they are connected with this fear of harassment. And I experience this with my okay slightly obscene nature, you know, I look a woman into the eye one second too long, 'Oh, visual rape.' I tell a dirty joke, 'Oh, verbal rape' and so on and so on. And then I noticed what they are afraid... harassment is really a form of maybe not hatred but fear of the proximity of the other. The fear of harassment basically means 'don't come too close to me, I cannot tolerate your proximity.' It's like many of my white liberals. They love Blacks—oh we did them horrible damage, we should give them billions of dollars—but, here I have a but, but their but is I immediately notice they really have no Black friends except some maybe academics and so on. And what disturbs them is, you know, the classical scene many times it happens in Spike Lee movies, Black people, something bothers you: too noisy, their music, vulgar joke, food doesn't smell well and so on and so on. That's for me the horror of political correctness. I want to—you've said so many things I didn't want to interrupt you but you said so many things I want to go back to. You should interrupt. No no no otherwise you are finished as quickly as I can. Number one, I agree with you about so many, not all, but so many of these white liberals. I make the point all the time that there's a distinct difference between charity and justice. Absolutely. Not less empirical, even theoretically. Can I interrupt you but in a good way? In Europe that's the problem with refugees now. We are moralizing it, we are changing this into problem of charity so that we like how good we are, we are... But not justice though. No, it should be a matter of justice. Exactly. That's why to provoke some journalists who ask me, 'Do you feel charity, empathy? Would you like to receive some refugees in your apartment?' I say, 'No, I hate them!' But it's not a matter of me liking them, it's justice. I have to do it, I'm ready to lower my standard for percent for justice. For justice, absolutely. The other thing I want to go back to is I hear your point about political correctness and I have a problem with it myself. And yet I think there's a distinct difference between political correctness and the visual or verbal rape that you talked about that says something about the humanity and the dignity of the person uttering those statements. What does it say about your humanity and your dignity when you process a conversation in a certain way and those jokes, those crude remarks come out of you? Says something about your humanity and your dignity, does it not? I see your point. But I would just say, and believe me I have many English friends and I've learned this
That your accent on personal freedom does not take enough into account society, how society in the sense of the thick network of social rules, customs. Now I come to more refined points, and this will bring us strangely even to what I see as the failure of political correctness. Not just the explicit spoken, explicitly formulated rules, but especially those implicit rules, you know? What's so beautiful for me for social manners—and I'm here very conservative, I like manners—is that manners do not simply prescribe what you should do, say or not do, say. But what you should you are allowed to say but it's not polite to do it. Or, the other way around, what you are prohibited to do but you are expected nonetheless to do it. For example, the first paradox is wonderful for me. Let's say you invite me to lunch. I suppose, I hope it's true, maybe not, you have more money than me. Don't you have also in this country a certain implicit rule when the bill arrives, you will... If I invited you, I should pay. Yeah but, don't you have this manner that for a little bit I'm expected to insist, 'No, no, I should pay'? 'Oh no, I'll pay, you oh please let me, yeah, okay.' But it's part of the game. And I claim this is not simply hypocrisy. It's in a sense it's hypocritical—we both know you will pay, and I would love you for doing something horrible, for telling me at the beginning, 'No okay if you want you pay.' No, then I will have to go through all the game, 'Oh my god sorry I forgot my money' or what. But what I'm saying is that you see, this is for me, I'm simplifying the line of argumentation, what doesn't work with so-called political correctness. It tries to render explicit the rules too much, like let's regulate everything. If you do this it's already sexism, if you do that. But it doesn't function like that. Rules in real life also always functions in this conditional way. To know a society, it's not only to know the rules, but to know how to violate the rules. And there manners enter. And here, again, I have problems with political correctness. For example, consider—now I will provoke you to the end—considering political correctness and racism. Of course, my god, I find racism something not only incorrect but simply stupid, obscene. Racists are weak people who don't trust themselves basically. But nonetheless, would you admit or not, coming from relatively different culture, I'm sincerely, it's not just a rhetorical trick, interested in your opinion. Isn't something which from a strict standpoint of political correctness cannot but appear a racism or racial slur insult, also an absolute for me at least in most of the cases absolute condition of establishing a real opening, a real warm contact with another human being? By this I mean the following: whenever I visit a country, first we play these official rules, 'Oh how interesting are your rituals, your food,' all that bullshit, you know. But then, you know, I tell a dirty joke, they tell a dirty joke, we are in. And I remember a fond memory of my country which disappeared in civil war, ex-country Yugoslavia, before racial tensions exploded when I was young, '60s, '70s. Racism, but I call it paradoxically progressive racism, was all-pervasive. Each nation was identified with a certain racial cliché: we Slovenians were misers, Montenegro people were lazy and so on. And when I talk with my friends, it wasn't telling racist jokes so much against the other; it was we were competing in a friendly way who will tell a nastier joke about oneself, about myself. And we didn't experience this racial clichés as insulting, but as something we in a wonderful comical spirit to be assumed. And I can guarantee you it works wonderfully. A negative proof: the moment in early '80s in ex-Yugoslavia real racism which ended up in the terrible civil war of the '90s, real racism started to explode, these jokes disappeared. Absolutely. Because their place was precisely to establish real warm human contact. And that's my fear of political correctness. Behind all this respect of the other and so on, isn't beneath it a certain terrifying coldness? The what I experience as the real message of this political correctness, its rules, especially when they are connected with this fear of harassment. And I experience this with my okay slightly obscene nature, you know, I look a woman into the eye one second too long, 'Oh, visual rape.' I tell a dirty joke, 'Oh, verbal rape' and so on and so on. And then I noticed what they are afraid... harassment is really a form of maybe not hatred but fear of the proximity of the other. The fear of harassment basically means 'don't come too close to me, I cannot tolerate your proximity.' It's like many of my white liberals. They love Blacks—oh we did them horrible damage, we should give them billions of dollars—but, here I have a but, but their but is I immediately notice they really have no Black friends except some maybe academics and so on. And what disturbs them is, you know, the classical scene many times it happens in Spike Lee movies, Black people, something bothers you: too noisy, their music, vulgar joke, food doesn't smell well and so on and so on. That's for me the horror of political correctness. I want to—you've said so many things I didn't want to interrupt you but you said so many things I want to go back to. You should interrupt. No no no otherwise you are finished as quickly as I can. Number one, I agree with you about so many, not all, but so many of these white liberals. I make the point all the time that there's a distinct difference between charity and justice. Absolutely. Not less empirical, even theoretically. Can I interrupt you but in a good way? In Europe that's the problem with refugees now. We are moralizing it, we are changing this into problem of charity so that we like how good we are, we are... But not justice though. No, it should be a matter of justice. Exactly. That's why to provoke some journalists who ask me, 'Do you feel charity, empathy? Would you like to receive some refugees in your apartment?' I say, 'No, I hate them!' But it's not a matter of me liking them, it's justice. I have to do it, I'm ready to lower my standard for percent for justice. For justice, absolutely. The other thing I want to go back to is I hear your point about political correctness and I have a problem with it myself. And yet I think there's a distinct difference between political correctness and the visual or verbal rape that you talked about that says something about the humanity and the dignity of the person uttering those statements. What does it say about your humanity and your dignity when you process a conversation in a certain way and those jokes, those crude remarks come out of you? Says something about your humanity and your dignity, does it not? I see your point. But I would just say, and believe me I have many English friends and I've learned this
unknown
game from them, I don't think you can map the opposition between dignity and brutal imposition, vulgar imposition directly onto the couple of politeness and this slightly vulgar outspokenness. Believe me, English people—maybe not all of them, I have many good friends there—are masters of being polite and being all the more
game from them, I don't think you can map the opposition between dignity and brutal imposition, vulgar imposition directly onto the couple of politeness and this slightly vulgar outspokenness. Believe me, English people—maybe not all of them, I have many good friends there—are masters of being polite and being all the more
Slavoj Žižek
humiliating, aggressive in the very form of politeness. That's crucial for me. My point is not now we should all use sleazy words or whatever. No, there are persons with whom the only thing that works is politeness and so on. But what makes me crazy, my point of sensitivity, is the following: okay, I'm addressing now you as a Black person. Don't you feel a little bit patronized but maybe even more for Blacks this holds for so-called Native Americans? I say so-called because of
humiliating, aggressive in the very form of politeness. That's crucial for me. My point is not now we should all use sleazy words or whatever. No, there are persons with whom the only thing that works is politeness and so on. But what makes me crazy, my point of sensitivity, is the following: okay, I'm addressing now you as a Black person. Don't you feel a little bit patronized but maybe even more for Blacks this holds for so-called Native Americans? I say so-called because of
unknown
my love for them. You know all this bullshit of we Western white people have imperialist attitude towards nature, we just exploit nature and so on. But Native Americans, they have an organic link with nature; before they mine a mountain, they ask the spirit of the mountain for a permission and so on and so on. All my Native American friends, they hate this. They see in this false respect a terrible patronizing attitude. One of them told me a wonderful thing, you should like it. He told me, 'I hate even this term Native Americans because it's associated with nature, culture, like we are Native
my love for them. You know all this bullshit of we Western white people have imperialist attitude towards nature, we just exploit nature and so on. But Native Americans, they have an organic link with nature; before they mine a mountain, they ask the spirit of the mountain for a permission and so on and so on. All my Native American friends, they hate this. They see in this false respect a terrible patronizing attitude. One of them told me a wonderful thing, you should like it. He told me, 'I hate even this term Native Americans because it's associated with nature, culture, like we are Native
Slavoj Žižek
Americans, you are what, cultural Americans?' And then he told me a wonderful thing. He told me, 'I prefer to be called Indian because at least in this case my name is a monument to white man's stupidity who didn't know where they arrived.' Another thing with Black—I wonder now I propose you as a—I provoke you as a Black guy. My hero sincerely, I'm not bluffing, is Malcolm X. You know why? Tell me why. Because of this Malcolm X. He had an ingenious insight which was at the top of contemporary philosophy. Namely, he wasn't playing the Hollywood game Roots. You remember that stupid TV series? As if the greatest honor for you Blacks' desire is to find some tribe there in Africa, 'Oh I'm from there.' No. Of course Malcolm X meant by the brutality of white man being enslaved we were deprived of our roots and so on. But he wrote about it, he says, 'But this X paradoxically opens up a new freedom for us.' All that white people want to be—not primitive tribal but universal, creating their own space—we Black people have a unique chance to not to become, not to return to our particularity, no, to be more universal emancipatory than white people themselves. You see, this is the important thing for me. What say you then about the political correctness of this country feeling like it is our duty to export democracy around the world? Is there a political correctness in that? Of course. And as an old Marxist I've written dozens of texts criticizing this. But I think this is just one part of the story. That is to say the fear of how under the pretense of exporting some universal values we are really imposing our way of life, our specific values. I buy this argument. But wouldn't you agree that often the opposite also holds? That there is a false respect for others' specific way of life where under the pretext of we shouldn't impose our way of life you tolerate, even condone the most brutal oppression. An example: Saudi Arabia, which is for me real empire of evil, point of shame. Why? Are you aware what is happening now with these refugees? Saudi Arabia is directly responsible for the war in Syria. It is supporting one side, some Islamist parties and so on. You know how many refugees Saudi Arabia accepted? None. None. So what I'm saying is that and saying we must
Americans, you are what, cultural Americans?' And then he told me a wonderful thing. He told me, 'I prefer to be called Indian because at least in this case my name is a monument to white man's stupidity who didn't know where they arrived.' Another thing with Black—I wonder now I propose you as a—I provoke you as a Black guy. My hero sincerely, I'm not bluffing, is Malcolm X. You know why? Tell me why. Because of this Malcolm X. He had an ingenious insight which was at the top of contemporary philosophy. Namely, he wasn't playing the Hollywood game Roots. You remember that stupid TV series? As if the greatest honor for you Blacks' desire is to find some tribe there in Africa, 'Oh I'm from there.' No. Of course Malcolm X meant by the brutality of white man being enslaved we were deprived of our roots and so on. But he wrote about it, he says, 'But this X paradoxically opens up a new freedom for us.' All that white people want to be—not primitive tribal but universal, creating their own space—we Black people have a unique chance to not to become, not to return to our particularity, no, to be more universal emancipatory than white people themselves. You see, this is the important thing for me. What say you then about the political correctness of this country feeling like it is our duty to export democracy around the world? Is there a political correctness in that? Of course. And as an old Marxist I've written dozens of texts criticizing this. But I think this is just one part of the story. That is to say the fear of how under the pretense of exporting some universal values we are really imposing our way of life, our specific values. I buy this argument. But wouldn't you agree that often the opposite also holds? That there is a false respect for others' specific way of life where under the pretext of we shouldn't impose our way of life you tolerate, even condone the most brutal oppression. An example: Saudi Arabia, which is for me real empire of evil, point of shame. Why? Are you aware what is happening now with these refugees? Saudi Arabia is directly responsible for the war in Syria. It is supporting one side, some Islamist parties and so on. You know how many refugees Saudi Arabia accepted? None. None. So what I'm saying is that and saying we must
unknown
show understanding for their specific way of life... No! I believe in solidarity of battle. Arabs have their own battles, they have their
show understanding for their specific way of life... No! I believe in solidarity of battle. Arabs have their own battles, they have their
Slavoj Žižek
own secularists, they have movements for example against honor killings and so on and so on. I don't believe in universality of our human rights. I believe in universality of struggle. You have your fight, we have our fight, let's turn it into the same fight. I have to stop this conversation right now because I'm out of time. This isn't fair, but I'm going to do it anyway because this is the best I can do. Tomorrow night on this program I cannot continue this conversation because of commitments already scheduled, but on Monday night we're going to continue part two of this conversation because I got—we—I want to talk about four or five things tonight, we only got to one: political correctness. So we'll continue on Monday night. Up next, a bonus performance from singer-songwriter Jewel. If you missed a conversation, you think this is good, it's a good conversation last night. Jewel was amazing. If you missed her last night, please go online and check out the conversation with Jewel last night. Tonight, though, a second song from this new record. It's called Picking Up the Pieces. She also
own secularists, they have movements for example against honor killings and so on and so on. I don't believe in universality of our human rights. I believe in universality of struggle. You have your fight, we have our fight, let's turn it into the same fight. I have to stop this conversation right now because I'm out of time. This isn't fair, but I'm going to do it anyway because this is the best I can do. Tomorrow night on this program I cannot continue this conversation because of commitments already scheduled, but on Monday night we're going to continue part two of this conversation because I got—we—I want to talk about four or five things tonight, we only got to one: political correctness. So we'll continue on Monday night. Up next, a bonus performance from singer-songwriter Jewel. If you missed a conversation, you think this is good, it's a good conversation last night. Jewel was amazing. If you missed her last night, please go online and check out the conversation with Jewel last night. Tonight, though, a second song from this new record. It's called Picking Up the Pieces. She also
unknown
has a memoir out. Tonight a song from that project called Mercy. Please enjoy Jewel coming up now. We'll see you tomorrow night on this program as always.
has a memoir out. Tonight a song from that project called Mercy. Please enjoy Jewel coming up now. We'll see you tomorrow night on this program as always.
unknown
Thanks for watching and keep the faith.
Thanks for watching and keep the faith.