Slavoj Zizek. The Future of Europe. 2009 1/12
Talk · European Graduate School Video Lectures ·
2009-03-07 · 0:09:46 · 1,253 words
ideologycinema-art-culturegeopolitics-warliberalism-political-correctnesshistory
Žižek argues that globalization culturally benefits smaller post-communist nations by allowing them global visibility, contrasting this with the cultural decline of second-level powers like France and Germany. He then critiques the modern political shift from substantive political struggle to a 'post-political' focus on tolerance and harassment, arguing that this reflects an ideological erasure of genuine politics in favor of technocratic management and cultural conflict.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 3
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Used in an 'old-fashioned Marxist way' to describe how the very perception of a problem (e.g., framing racism as intolerance) constitutes part of the problem itself.
The mutation of capitalism post-1968 that enables the decentralization of cultural production and the shift toward tolerance-based discourse.
as “post-political society”
A condition following the 1968 events where genuine politics disappears, replaced by neutral technocratic expert knowledge and cultural conflicts perceived as clashes of civilization.
Stories he reaches for 1
Žižek suggests Googling MLK's speeches with the word 'tolerance' to prove it is absent; King viewed racism as a political/legal/economic issue, not a matter of being 'tolerated,' highlighting the modern ideological shift.
“Go to internet and Google Martin Luther King, his speeches and add the word tolerance-intolerance... Practically the word is absent.”
Works invoked 2
East of Bucharest film
Cited as an example of the beneficial effect of Romanian cinema on global cultural awareness.
Cited as a key work in the recent wave of Romanian cinema that demonstrates globalization's benefit to smaller nations.
People invoked 4
French theorists positive
Žižek invokes 'some French theorists' to support his concept of 'post-political society.'
Martin Luther King Jr. positive
Used as the primary figure of anti-racist struggle to demonstrate that his struggle was political/legal, not about 'tolerance,' contrasting him with modern discourse.
Mentioned as the previous abstract, 'horrible monster' image of Romania, which has been replaced by the cultural visibility of Romanian cinema.
Steven Saylor positive
Cited as the author of a popular American detective series set in ancient Rome and contemporary society, used to illustrate the decentralization of genre.
Transcript 2 turns
Slavoj Žižek
Veselo, hvala vsem, hvala da ste prišli v čakalnico, režiserji, ki govorijo slovensko, otherwise we have to speak English, which I think is already an indication where we are. In what sense? No, no, I don't want to engage in this English, British or American imperialism bashing. I think this is even, this is even good. This is a chance, I will return to this at the end of my monological speech, for our, for us smaller nations, especially from post-communist Eastern Europe. I think that this fear of in global society we will all be eating hamburgers and watching American blockbusters is totally wrong. I think the truth is the opposite one. Globalization at the level of culture gives a unique chance to smaller nations to have their five minutes on the world stage. For example, in domains which I follow and I think they are very important: cinema and detective novels. It's incredible how beneficient the effect of globalization was. If you know anything about detective novels today, you know that the main trend of the last years is decentralization. That is to say, till like years ago there were a couple of paradigmatic places like British detective novels in some castle outside London, whatever, then American noir novels in LA, New York, whatever. It was localized. Maybe France added Maigret, Paris, and so on. Today things can happen anywhere you want at any time you want. You know you have detective novels which takes place in ancient Greece at the Pericles time, you have even a very popular American series, the author is Steven Saylor, whose detective novels take place in ancient Rome and in contemporary society. How did I learn to know not Sicily but southern Italy? There are a couple of excellent Italian writers, novels take place there. You even have detective novels which take place in today's Tibet and so on. So I think if you ask me, the true victim of globalization will be and already are, which is why they are in such a panic even the way they act within European Union, the second-level powers. Like not United States, China, but countries like France, Germany and so on. They are reduced more and more I think culturally even economically to the same level as us smaller, as us smaller nations. And some effects of it are already here. For example, now I go to another domain to cinema. For example, the last bit which is in lately are, as you maybe know at least in my circles, Romanian film, Romanian cinema. You know all those like East of Bucharest, Four Months, Three Weeks, Two Days, and so on and so on. And don't underestimate the effect of this. At least among this global society of people who work so-called leisure intellectual classes, who work in the media and so on, they all know about Romania. I mean, a lot more. Before it was just abstract idea, some horrible monster Ceaușescu, whatever. They know about it. Don't underestimate this. So I am at this level at least culturally and so on, I am an optimist. But let me not lose my thread and let me start in a more systematic way. First I have to apologize. I am a philosopher. So of what use I am here? We philosophers don't have answers. And I notice how many people even if they don't trust us, they think we are bluffing, they nonetheless expect answers from us. Like now it's financial crisis, what should we do? There was earthquake, tsunami in Indonesia, what does this mean? What should we do and so on and so on. I don't know this. But so what can we do philosophers? Nonetheless, and maybe here I will be of some help to you, something which is I think at least as important as giving answers: correcting the questions, asking the right questions. Why is this crucial, especially in times of crisis like now? The problem is that we all know what's the problem. Whatever it is, now financial crisis, ecology, just name them. But again the problem is that often, as a rule even I'm tempted to claim, the very way we perceive a problem is part of the problem. This is why I still in an old-fashioned Marxist way cling to the notion ideology, ideology. This is ideology. Let me give you just one-two examples which already brings us close to our topic. Intolerance, sexism, racism and so on. We all know this is a real problem. And I don't know how to solve it. I don't have any good formulas. This is to I don't know, to politicians, sociologists and so on, social psychologists to propose. What I know is that there is something fundamentally wrong with how we approach this question. Why? Did you notice that automatically today when we talk about racism, sexism and so on, we translate it into problem of intolerance? The problem is harassment, intolerance and so on. Now there is nothing self-evident in this. A proof. Do something—do a simple experiment. Go to internet and Google Martin Luther King, his speeches and add the word tolerance-intolerance. Why? Because if there was a figure of anti-racist struggle, of course it's Martin Luther King. Practically the word is absent. He never—for him the problem of racism against the blacks in the United States was not the problem of tolerance. It would be even humiliating for King to say "we blacks want to be what? more tolerated by whites or what?" It's the same for example for a feminist. It would be a thing ridiculous to claim "we women want to be more tolerated by men" or what? No. To Luther King it's clear. The problem is universal political. The problem is—is—not even so much ideological prejudices as—as—legislation, law, economic exploitation and so on and so on. He moved at a totally different level. All of a sudden, and I think we can locate precisely this all of a sudden. After this great mutation of capitalism into so-called global capitalism, precisely after '68 events, those unrest student protests and so on, something happened. We entered—we are even entering now something which I'm tempted to call following some French theorists, post-political society, where politics as such is disappearing. What replaces it is on the one hand neutral technocratic expert knowledge, and then on the other hand, of course there are conflicts, but all conflicts that remain are more and more perceived as cultural conflicts, clash of civilizations and so on and so on. So—this is why I think because politics is out, so then if only problems—if the only topic where conflicts are allowed are cultural conflicts, then of course all you can do is preach tolerance and so on and so on. So my reaction to today's fight for tolerance as a philosopher is not what to do. It's just to warn first why to ask, why do we automatically translate racism into a problem of tolerance? This tells us I think a lot about ideology today. For example, let me now make a couple of associations to just to bring to you the background of this shift to tolerance-intolerance. First, the other side, the obverse of this focus on tolerance is the popularity, universal popularity of the notion of harassment. Like the other which racist fear is perceived as someone who harasses us, intrudes, endangers
Veselo, hvala vsem, hvala da ste prišli v čakalnico, režiserji, ki govorijo slovensko, otherwise we have to speak English, which I think is already an indication where we are. In what sense? No, no, I don't want to engage in this English, British or American imperialism bashing. I think this is even, this is even good. This is a chance, I will return to this at the end of my monological speech, for our, for us smaller nations, especially from post-communist Eastern Europe. I think that this fear of in global society we will all be eating hamburgers and watching American blockbusters is totally wrong. I think the truth is the opposite one. Globalization at the level of culture gives a unique chance to smaller nations to have their five minutes on the world stage. For example, in domains which I follow and I think they are very important: cinema and detective novels. It's incredible how beneficient the effect of globalization was. If you know anything about detective novels today, you know that the main trend of the last years is decentralization. That is to say, till like years ago there were a couple of paradigmatic places like British detective novels in some castle outside London, whatever, then American noir novels in LA, New York, whatever. It was localized. Maybe France added Maigret, Paris, and so on. Today things can happen anywhere you want at any time you want. You know you have detective novels which takes place in ancient Greece at the Pericles time, you have even a very popular American series, the author is Steven Saylor, whose detective novels take place in ancient Rome and in contemporary society. How did I learn to know not Sicily but southern Italy? There are a couple of excellent Italian writers, novels take place there. You even have detective novels which take place in today's Tibet and so on. So I think if you ask me, the true victim of globalization will be and already are, which is why they are in such a panic even the way they act within European Union, the second-level powers. Like not United States, China, but countries like France, Germany and so on. They are reduced more and more I think culturally even economically to the same level as us smaller, as us smaller nations. And some effects of it are already here. For example, now I go to another domain to cinema. For example, the last bit which is in lately are, as you maybe know at least in my circles, Romanian film, Romanian cinema. You know all those like East of Bucharest, Four Months, Three Weeks, Two Days, and so on and so on. And don't underestimate the effect of this. At least among this global society of people who work so-called leisure intellectual classes, who work in the media and so on, they all know about Romania. I mean, a lot more. Before it was just abstract idea, some horrible monster Ceaușescu, whatever. They know about it. Don't underestimate this. So I am at this level at least culturally and so on, I am an optimist. But let me not lose my thread and let me start in a more systematic way. First I have to apologize. I am a philosopher. So of what use I am here? We philosophers don't have answers. And I notice how many people even if they don't trust us, they think we are bluffing, they nonetheless expect answers from us. Like now it's financial crisis, what should we do? There was earthquake, tsunami in Indonesia, what does this mean? What should we do and so on and so on. I don't know this. But so what can we do philosophers? Nonetheless, and maybe here I will be of some help to you, something which is I think at least as important as giving answers: correcting the questions, asking the right questions. Why is this crucial, especially in times of crisis like now? The problem is that we all know what's the problem. Whatever it is, now financial crisis, ecology, just name them. But again the problem is that often, as a rule even I'm tempted to claim, the very way we perceive a problem is part of the problem. This is why I still in an old-fashioned Marxist way cling to the notion ideology, ideology. This is ideology. Let me give you just one-two examples which already brings us close to our topic. Intolerance, sexism, racism and so on. We all know this is a real problem. And I don't know how to solve it. I don't have any good formulas. This is to I don't know, to politicians, sociologists and so on, social psychologists to propose. What I know is that there is something fundamentally wrong with how we approach this question. Why? Did you notice that automatically today when we talk about racism, sexism and so on, we translate it into problem of intolerance? The problem is harassment, intolerance and so on. Now there is nothing self-evident in this. A proof. Do something—do a simple experiment. Go to internet and Google Martin Luther King, his speeches and add the word tolerance-intolerance. Why? Because if there was a figure of anti-racist struggle, of course it's Martin Luther King. Practically the word is absent. He never—for him the problem of racism against the blacks in the United States was not the problem of tolerance. It would be even humiliating for King to say "we blacks want to be what? more tolerated by whites or what?" It's the same for example for a feminist. It would be a thing ridiculous to claim "we women want to be more tolerated by men" or what? No. To Luther King it's clear. The problem is universal political. The problem is—is—not even so much ideological prejudices as—as—legislation, law, economic exploitation and so on and so on. He moved at a totally different level. All of a sudden, and I think we can locate precisely this all of a sudden. After this great mutation of capitalism into so-called global capitalism, precisely after '68 events, those unrest student protests and so on, something happened. We entered—we are even entering now something which I'm tempted to call following some French theorists, post-political society, where politics as such is disappearing. What replaces it is on the one hand neutral technocratic expert knowledge, and then on the other hand, of course there are conflicts, but all conflicts that remain are more and more perceived as cultural conflicts, clash of civilizations and so on and so on. So—this is why I think because politics is out, so then if only problems—if the only topic where conflicts are allowed are cultural conflicts, then of course all you can do is preach tolerance and so on and so on. So my reaction to today's fight for tolerance as a philosopher is not what to do. It's just to warn first why to ask, why do we automatically translate racism into a problem of tolerance? This tells us I think a lot about ideology today. For example, let me now make a couple of associations to just to bring to you the background of this shift to tolerance-intolerance. First, the other side, the obverse of this focus on tolerance is the popularity, universal popularity of the notion of harassment. Like the other which racist fear is perceived as someone who harasses us, intrudes, endangers
unknown
our way of life and so on and so on.
our way of life and so on and so on.