Slavoj Žižek - the Politics of Psychoanalysis
Interview · ŽIŽEK & SO ON PODCAST ·
published 2021-04-19 · 0:49:42 · 5,559 words
the date above is when the video was uploaded, no recording date was found
psychoanalysisideologycommunism-socialismphilosophy-generalhegel-dialecticssexuality-gendercinema-art-culturedemocracyeveryday-life
Žižek critiques Jacques-Alain Miller’s leadership of the Lacanian school, arguing that its organizational structure reproduces class inequality and political conservatism under the guise of neutrality. He contrasts this with the work of Tupinambá, who exposes how psychoanalytic institutions mask their elitist reproduction of the upper classes. Žižek then defends his own philosophical project, aligning himself with a renewed, critical reading of Hegel through the work of contemporary female philosophers, positioning this as a necessary departure from Lacan’s failure to address political ideology. Žižek argues that modern philosophy, starting with Descartes, contains an inherent feminist potential because the subject is a genderless void, whereas the reified body is masculine. He reinterprets hysteria as a critique of ideology and love as a performative act that creates value rather than responding to it. He then outlines upcoming books on Hegel, ecological Marxism, and the Paris Commune, while analyzing pop culture examples like Homeland and Rammstein to illustrate political and psychoanalytic concepts.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 14
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
A derogatory term coined by Miller to accuse radical leftists of aiding the far-right by destabilizing the status quo.
as “Stalinist procedure”
The political tactic of labeling any internal critic as objectively serving the fascist enemy to maintain ideological purity.
A Lacanian gesture of interpreting a cultural text by identifying its central symptom or contradiction.
as “progressive bourgeois dictatorship”
A paradoxical Soviet-era justification for supporting military dictatorships if they were seen as progressive relative to feudalism or imperialism.
as “Lacanian-Hegelian”
Žižek’s preferred philosophical orientation, combining Lacanian psychoanalysis with Hegelian dialectics, distinct from pure Lacanianism.
A specific philosophical framework (via Zambrana) that reads Hegel’s logic as involving contingent reversals rather than necessary rational progress.
as “Cartesian subject is feminine”
The formal subject of thought is a pure void/abyss without fixed identity, a position Žižek associates with the feminine, whereas the reified, moralizing body is masculine.
as “Hysteria is the elementary form of the critique of ideology”
Hysteria questions the master's interpellation ('Why are you saying I am that?'), exposing the gap between social identity and the subject's void.
Love does not respond to pre-existing objective qualities (like beautiful legs) but actively creates those qualities through the act of loving itself.
A concept from Fredric Jameson used by Žižek to critique The Handmaid's Tale for making liberal society feel good by contrasting it with a worse fundamentalist future.
as “Good progressive alienation”
A plea for accepting that perfect transparency and unity are impossible; leaders must make tough, alienating decisions (like sacrificing some for the many) rather than seeking illusory consensus.
A pop-culture maxim from New Amsterdam illustrating that true leadership requires making ethically difficult, sleep-depriving decisions, rejecting theoretical refusal to decide.
Rehabilitating the character Carrie Mathison's betrayal of her lover as a 'feminine' strategy to maintain autonomy and space in a relationship, rather than stupidity.
as “Post-truth politics”
The ideological phenomenon where one advocates crazy falsehoods to trigger political movements, then claims the falsehood was so obviously false it couldn't be taken seriously, thus avoiding legal liability.
Stories he reaches for 3
Žižek notes that Lenin’s Politburo was run by fewer than ten people, the majority of whom were Jews, to refute the claim that radical movements inherently generate antisemitism.
“It was the only moment in the Western or even Christian societies where members of the ruling body forget democracy... the majority were Jews.”
A joke about how dialogues should look: one person talks all the time, the other interrupts every ten minutes with 'My God Socrates' to feign superiority, illustrating the fake nature of many political debates.
“I always tell them I love dialogue but they should look like late Plato's dialogues.”
Educated women in Descartes' time embraced the cogito because its abstraction lacked sex, offering a place for them in philosophy, contrary to the view that modern philosophy is purely patriarchal.
“There was a whole circle of course of educated women but they said wonderfully we like cogito because cogito is not male it doesn't have sex there is a place for us in it.”
Works invoked 13
Critiqued as 'pure liberal propaganda' and an example of 'nostalgia for the present' that makes liberals feel good by contrasting their society with a worse fundamentalist one.
Cited as an excellent early book by Gillian Rose.
Cited as a key work by Beatrice Longuenesse.
Homeland tv
Analyzed for its later seasons, specifically the character Carrie Mathison's betrayal of her lover, which Žižek rehabilitates as a 'feminine position' maintaining autonomy.
Billy Budd book
Mentioned as a text through which Angelica Nuzzo reads Hegel.
A Rammstein song Žižek calls 'the best song I think there,' used in his proposed theologico-critical reading.
Used to illustrate the concept of leadership requiring tough, sleep-depriving ethical decisions, rejecting theoretical refusal to decide.
Wuthering Heights book
Cited by Žižek as an example of 'hardline romantic' love, which he prefers over 'realistic' romanticism.
Angel song
A Rammstein song Žižek proposes for theologico-critical reading, noting the refrain 'please God don't make us an angel' as expressing the horror of the sublime.
Ecosocialism book
Kohei Saito's book, which Žižek praises for showing how deep late Marx went into ecological science and industrial agriculture.
The Future book
Cited as a work by Catherine Malabou (title truncated in transcript).
Cited as an excellent reading of Hegel by Rocío Zambrana, combining logic with neo-colonial analysis.
Tupinambá's Book book
Described as a 'phenomenal book' that asks the right political questions about the Lacanian school and Miller's leadership.
People invoked 36
Former General Secretary of the French Communist Party, used in an anecdote about journalists manipulating questions to expose political seriousness.
Gillian Rose positive
Cited as an early example of a woman writing excellent books on Hegel, such as 'Hegel Contra Sociology'.
Mentioned in the context of Brazilian psychoanalysts’ interest in her late writings, which they analyze for 'symptomatic cuts' unrelated to social problems.
Sidney Powell positive
Lawyer used as an example of 'post-truth politics' due to her bizarre legal defense against defamation suits.
Agon Hamza positive
Co-author of a forthcoming book on reading Hegel.
Referenced regarding the distinction between subject and soul, where soul contains masculine/feminine tendencies, but subject is neutral.
Gabriel Tupinambá positive
Praised for writing a book that exposes the political and class contradictions within the Lacanian school, specifically regarding Miller's leadership.
Alenka Zupančič positive
Identified as Žižek’s own colleague, representing the 'Lacanian-Hegelian' approach.
A Lieira positive
Described as a serious theorist and friend in Bolivia, who explained the tension between apolitical and progressive psychoanalysts.
Robert Pippin negative
Representative of 'new liberal-democratic readings of Hegel' (mutual recognition) which Žižek plans to critique.
Miller accuses radical leftists of helping Le Pen, the fascist enemy.
Robert Brandom negative
Representative of 'new liberal-democratic readings of Hegel' (mutual recognition) which Žižek plans to critique with his 'radical reading.'
Rebecca Comay positive
Cited as a radical leftist philosopher proving the trend of women writing on Hegel.
Rocío Zambrana positive
Cited for 'Hegel's Theory of Intelligibility', combining Hegel’s logic with analysis of neo-colonial exploitation in Latin America/Puerto Rico; Žižek notes her sexual attractiveness as a 'forbidden' aside.
Vladimir Lenin positive
Cited as an example of a 'Leninist tyrant' who knew who the boss was, and whose Politburo included many Jews, refuting antisemitism claims.
Respected as a theorist of practice who built in mechanisms of irony, but criticized for failing to prevent the patriarchal terror and class reproduction within the psychoanalytic organization.
Mentioned in the context of Rammstein's song 'Dalai Lama,' which Žižek calls 'the best song I think there.'
Her coup d'état context is used to explain the complex position of psychoanalysts in Argentina during the 70s.
Frank Ruda positive
Co-author of a forthcoming book on reading Hegel.
Judith Butler negative
Cited as someone who interprets Hegel's lesson as 'recognition,' part of the liberal-democratic reading Žižek opposes.
Mentioned in the context of US grain export prohibitions to the Soviet Union, leading to Soviet engagement with Argentina.
Kohei Saito positive
Author of Ecosocialism, described as an 'intelligent' attempt to redeem Marxism for ecology, showing how deep late Marx went into ecological science.
Miller is fanatical against leftists who criticize Macron.
Miller was included in electoral propaganda for Sarkozy, indicating a liberal/right-leaning political orientation.
Fredric Jameson positive
Cited for the concept of 'nostalgia for the present,' which Žižek uses to critique The Handmaid's Tale.
Mentioned in the context of Bolivian politics, where some psychoanalysts are apolitical (against him) while others are progressive.
Catherine Malabou positive
Cited as a prominent female philosopher contributing to the Hegel revival.
Béatrice Longuenesse positive
Cited as a key figure in the new wave of female Hegel scholars, author of 'Hegel and the Critique of Metaphysics'.
Jacques-Alain Miller negative
Criticized for leading the Lacanian school in a conservative, liberal direction, excluding members from political movements, and enforcing a 'Stalinist' organizational structure without Lacan's irony.
Walter Benjamin positive
The subject of a conference in Ramallah, used to illustrate a moment of intellectual engagement across political divides.
Joan Copjec positive
Cited as another key figure in the contemporary Hegel scholarship.
Mentioned as a hardline romantic whom Žižek likes, contrasting with 'realistic' romanticism.
Actress who played the heroine in Homeland, whose character's betrayal of her lover is analyzed by Žižek.
Karl Marx positive
Referenced in the context of ecology and late Marx's studies of industrial agriculture's chemical components.
René Descartes positive
Žižek argues Descartes' cogito has a feminist potential because the subject is genderless/void, contrary to the view that modern philosophy is patriarchal.
Angelica Nuzzo positive
Cited for reading Hegel obliquely through Samuel Beckett and Herman Melville.
Transcript 27 turns
Slavoj Žižek
Sorry, am I... this is madness. We talking about debate, no? And okay, I will repeat my own joke that you may know. Do you know... when people invite me to a dialogue, do you know this old joke of mine? I always tell them I love dialogue but they should look like late Plato's dialogues. Read them. You know how they look? It's one guy talks all the time and the other guy just so every ten minutes interrupts him with My God Socrates so it is they see it superior and so on. So please it was confused and so on but please at least let's pretend that this is a dialogue. Give me ask me some questions
Sorry, am I... this is madness. We talking about debate, no? And okay, I will repeat my own joke that you may know. Do you know... when people invite me to a dialogue, do you know this old joke of mine? I always tell them I love dialogue but they should look like late Plato's dialogues. Read them. You know how they look? It's one guy talks all the time and the other guy just so every ten minutes interrupts him with My God Socrates so it is they see it superior and so on. So please it was confused and so on but please at least let's pretend that this is a dialogue. Give me ask me some questions
unknown
before I drop down. Thank you for the dialogue but I just want to... but it's
before I drop down. Thank you for the dialogue but I just want to... but it's
Slavoj Žižek
not clear to me now who is the boss. I'm a Leninist tyrant. I say democracy yes if you know who is the boss. Is the boss you or the other guy?
not clear to me now who is the boss. I'm a Leninist tyrant. I say democracy yes if you know who is the boss. Is the boss you or the other guy?
unknown
Yellow Guy. It's always Yellow Guy. It's always someone else.
Yellow Guy. It's always Yellow Guy. It's always someone else.
Slavoj Žižek
That's the true Stalinist formula you know. You do all the dirty job but you must have another guy to be truly responsible. Okay let's go on please.
That's the true Stalinist formula you know. You do all the dirty job but you must have another guy to be truly responsible. Okay let's go on please.
unknown
I was just going to ask so obviously there's a dynamic between what you're describing in terms of global events catastrophes and your own thinking in terms of communism and philosophy. I'm just wondering how like if there's how you're like updating your thought. You recently released an introduction for Tupinambá's book Psychoanalysis and Desire rather. But
I was just going to ask so obviously there's a dynamic between what you're describing in terms of global events catastrophes and your own thinking in terms of communism and philosophy. I'm just wondering how like if there's how you're like updating your thought. You recently released an introduction for Tupinambá's book Psychoanalysis and Desire rather. But
Slavoj Žižek
do you know sorry to interrupt you but very but do you know why I love the book? He did something that I wasn't able or was too afraid to do. He directly addresses the key question of not only in our today's enemies Jacques-Alain Miller but where something was wrong in the basic sense of political ideology already in Lacan and even already in Freud. He asks very radical questions but not from some kind of you know external social perspective. Immanently he is a very good Lacanian. And just maybe this will make you glad he knows this. I have a text which is four times longer where I have also some critical questions debate with Tupinambá and I didn't want to do this as an introduction to this book. But now we are putting something new together where this debate will be expanded. I think it's a phenomenal book a book which asks the right questions political questions. Because the enigma of all of us let's call us left-wing Lacanians left-wing Marxist Lacanians was how could Miller have done what he did in the last ten fifteen years? He was even directly included in propaganda electoral for Sarkozy. He is fanatical against any left which is a little bit more radical for example those who criticized Macron from the left. You know in a purely Stalinist way Miller accused them of helping Le Pen. And he coined the term Le Pen-Trotskyist like Trotskyite leftist helping the fascist enemy and so on. You know it's typical Stalinist procedure I am the true left so if you attack me you are objectively serving the fascist enemy and so on and so on. But how was this possible? Because the insight of Tupinambá is that this is not simply his liberal Miller's liberal leaning's orientation. There is something wrong at the practical level of how psychoanalytic organization functions and its role in class division and so on. And here he Tupinambá does an excellent he does an excellent job. For example it made me so sad how Miller in Latin America where they always had some social tensions he prohibited members of his school to participate in any emancipatory movements. And he gave two reasons which are both fake. One is our main goal is to have a society in which psychoanalysis is possible as a practice. And we see that whenever there is social disorder psychoanalysis cannot fully function. You need minimal civil order so that you can tell to your patient next week two times at PM and so on all that stuff. So this is the first conformist reasoning. The second is very weird one. The idea is that whenever there is social unrest antisemitism grows. So for this we should not support any radical movement because it always generates antisemitism. Now my cynical answer to this one is please look at Lenin's Politburo. It was the only moment in the Western or even Christian societies where members of the ruling body forget democracy Soviet Union under Lenin was run by the Politburo less than ten people the majority were Jews. You know so if anything you cannot say that Bolsheviks were antisemitic you know. But what I'm saying is that how under the pretense of these excuses we just want to save analysis conditions for analysis how they get into this liberal deadlock. And the underlying problem is even a worse one. Lacan has a wonderful theory of how psychoanalysis works. But the problem is that then psychoanalysis is not just I am an analyst I have patient analysts also form societies and there the worst patriarchal terror returned with a vengeance. Lacan fought terribly against this honestly but he failed. It was all one Lacan had wonderful formulas to fight this. For example Lacan said that in his seminars this every week that he is not the master he is the hysteric. He is the analyst who is improvising topics and the public there thousand people squeezed into a hall are his collective analyst. And he said I speak as an analyst in my écrit writings which are practically unreadable. But Lacan admitted that in his writings he just gives opaque ambiguous formulas. He consciously plays the role of a clown and it's up to you ordinary analysts reading Lacan to bring out if there is anything worth in it. So Lacan did enjoy power but he built in so many mechanisms of irony and so on that it wasn't power while today with Miller no there is no irony power is clear so many unwritten rules and so on. This failure of an organization is terrifying. And this also as Tupinambá nicely points out has wonderful class consequences. Did you read his book where he says how all Lacanians of course analysts in Brazil you know they like to appear with sympathy for the workers for the poor so they give once or twice a week one afternoon where ordinary people who cannot pay come to them. Yeah but you know what's the trick? The basic Lacanian premise very democratic is that there is no difference between ordinary analysis to help you if you are crazy or psychic troubles and so-called didactic analysis when you are analyzed to become analyst. An analysis brought to the end makes you the analyst. But if you divide your patients into two groups those who are ready to come to you twice a week for years paying and those poor guys whom you out of mercy receive two three times for free it's clear that they will never become analysts. They will not have neither the time money abilities to go to the end. You just give them a couple of advices for free. So it's a wonderful mechanism how mask even although it has this form of no let's make it possible for poor guys to do it it's how nonetheless formally already self-reproduction is limited to upper classes. And I was told that this is the case especially in Brazil where as I was told much more than in other Latin American countries psychoanalysis as a group psychoanalysts is limited to not even upper middle classes but many of them even upper upper classes. And some guy there gave me a formula nicely that in a rich mega-rich Brazilian family you have let's say three children at least. The first one takes over the family company. The second one becomes lawyer or politician. One takes the company so that company does not split. And then the third one usually becomes a doctor. And then one variation there is maybe psychoanalyst. This is social origin of the large majority of psychoanalysts. And it's something obscene. I once gave a talk for them in São Paulo more than years ago. First I gave a talk about politics psychoanalysis Trotsky and so on in a university wonderful. Then I was shocked they told me you must give a short speech there because they are they give money. They told me like they financed your trip here you have to... and I was put into a different world. They it wasn't even about Brazil it was about elements of psychoanalysis in late writings of Virginia Woolf you know. What about that phrase in that novel? Absolutely no link with any minimal even social problems or whatever. They love this type of Lacanian analysis of culture where you make a text isn't that gesture that he cuts short the chapter symptomatic you know and so on as if it's very it's very sad. In Argentina it's more complex because when there was this second military dictatorship for some mysterious reasons psychoanalysts were even under harsher pressure than communists. It was a very perverse situation. At that point in the 70s or when later when there was the coup d'état against Isabel Perón Perón's wife it was the time when because of intervention in Afghanistan whatever Carter and United States prohibited export of grain to Soviet Union. So Soviet Union moved to Argentina which meant military dictatorship Argentina. So what to do with the Communist Party there which was subordinated pro-Soviet Union? What should it do? Ah they had to follow Moscow's line. The claim was that the military dictatorship was a progressive bourgeois dictatorship you know with all they were doing you know. So it's a paradox an anticommunist dictatorship but it was much safer to be a communist than a psychoanalyst. Many psychoanalysts were left Peronist no? Even now you have the line the line running. But nonetheless so even now this is the big tension in all even in I follow the situation in Bolivia where I really had friends I knew Linera my God he is a serious theorist and Linera also told me how on the one hand you have these pure apolitical psychoanalysts you know who say oh we don't want to get messed in politics blah blah blah which means they are against them no against Evo Morales. But then you get many progressive psychoanalysts who are serious psychoanalysts but at the same time see social mediation social conditions of you know. And so yes I that book it affected me deeply because it's not my problem directly because we the Slovene gang were for a long time under a pressure from Paris from Miller's group to do something in Slovenia in the sense of develop become practicing psychoanalysts no? Then I used first as an excuse some of my standard jokes you know. My first joke obvious one was look at me with all my nervous tics would you really trust me as an analyst no? The second joke I used is look I talk all the time do you really think that I would tolerate a guy there on divan talking more than half a minute without me interrupting him and me talking all the time. And then when Miller became serious we simply let him know sorry no we don't want to be practicing psychoanalysis. Then Miller moved into this more aggressive line but you know Lacan is a theorist of psychoanalytic practice you cannot do this and be a true Lacanian. And then we thought about our position and adopted now a radical shift in party line where we claim that yes Lacan is not a philosopher but that's not his advantage that's his failure. You can exactly see where he doesn't raise the philosophical question strongly enough. So now without shame we define ourselves as philosophers. Sorry do one more and then sorry I will have to disappear before I drop that. I just along that line. Sorry? Along along that line it feels like last time we spoke you mentioned a kind of departure from Lacan which is potentially signaled in Tupinambá's book as well but it looks to me that the Owl of Minerva is sort of departing from Lacan and Lacan is now properly a philosopher with you guys. Yeah but I don't I don't maybe but you know nonetheless first nonetheless you know our philosophy is not a philosophy like others. It's a pretty crazy philosophy. It's a philosophy which is critical towards the classical Lacanian tradition as well as towards this post-Hegelian traditions. For us the guy is still Hegel. And you know what makes me really glad I will tell you that we are not alone. Independently of us there are now so many this really makes me happy because usually we were attacked as anti-feminist. But all all okay great majority of good books on Hegel are now written by women. Even for example it began with Gillian Rose Hegel Contra Sociology years ago excellent book. Then it was Beatrice Longuenesse Hegel and the Critique of Metaphysics. Then you get Catherine Malabou The Future
do you know sorry to interrupt you but very but do you know why I love the book? He did something that I wasn't able or was too afraid to do. He directly addresses the key question of not only in our today's enemies Jacques-Alain Miller but where something was wrong in the basic sense of political ideology already in Lacan and even already in Freud. He asks very radical questions but not from some kind of you know external social perspective. Immanently he is a very good Lacanian. And just maybe this will make you glad he knows this. I have a text which is four times longer where I have also some critical questions debate with Tupinambá and I didn't want to do this as an introduction to this book. But now we are putting something new together where this debate will be expanded. I think it's a phenomenal book a book which asks the right questions political questions. Because the enigma of all of us let's call us left-wing Lacanians left-wing Marxist Lacanians was how could Miller have done what he did in the last ten fifteen years? He was even directly included in propaganda electoral for Sarkozy. He is fanatical against any left which is a little bit more radical for example those who criticized Macron from the left. You know in a purely Stalinist way Miller accused them of helping Le Pen. And he coined the term Le Pen-Trotskyist like Trotskyite leftist helping the fascist enemy and so on. You know it's typical Stalinist procedure I am the true left so if you attack me you are objectively serving the fascist enemy and so on and so on. But how was this possible? Because the insight of Tupinambá is that this is not simply his liberal Miller's liberal leaning's orientation. There is something wrong at the practical level of how psychoanalytic organization functions and its role in class division and so on. And here he Tupinambá does an excellent he does an excellent job. For example it made me so sad how Miller in Latin America where they always had some social tensions he prohibited members of his school to participate in any emancipatory movements. And he gave two reasons which are both fake. One is our main goal is to have a society in which psychoanalysis is possible as a practice. And we see that whenever there is social disorder psychoanalysis cannot fully function. You need minimal civil order so that you can tell to your patient next week two times at PM and so on all that stuff. So this is the first conformist reasoning. The second is very weird one. The idea is that whenever there is social unrest antisemitism grows. So for this we should not support any radical movement because it always generates antisemitism. Now my cynical answer to this one is please look at Lenin's Politburo. It was the only moment in the Western or even Christian societies where members of the ruling body forget democracy Soviet Union under Lenin was run by the Politburo less than ten people the majority were Jews. You know so if anything you cannot say that Bolsheviks were antisemitic you know. But what I'm saying is that how under the pretense of these excuses we just want to save analysis conditions for analysis how they get into this liberal deadlock. And the underlying problem is even a worse one. Lacan has a wonderful theory of how psychoanalysis works. But the problem is that then psychoanalysis is not just I am an analyst I have patient analysts also form societies and there the worst patriarchal terror returned with a vengeance. Lacan fought terribly against this honestly but he failed. It was all one Lacan had wonderful formulas to fight this. For example Lacan said that in his seminars this every week that he is not the master he is the hysteric. He is the analyst who is improvising topics and the public there thousand people squeezed into a hall are his collective analyst. And he said I speak as an analyst in my écrit writings which are practically unreadable. But Lacan admitted that in his writings he just gives opaque ambiguous formulas. He consciously plays the role of a clown and it's up to you ordinary analysts reading Lacan to bring out if there is anything worth in it. So Lacan did enjoy power but he built in so many mechanisms of irony and so on that it wasn't power while today with Miller no there is no irony power is clear so many unwritten rules and so on. This failure of an organization is terrifying. And this also as Tupinambá nicely points out has wonderful class consequences. Did you read his book where he says how all Lacanians of course analysts in Brazil you know they like to appear with sympathy for the workers for the poor so they give once or twice a week one afternoon where ordinary people who cannot pay come to them. Yeah but you know what's the trick? The basic Lacanian premise very democratic is that there is no difference between ordinary analysis to help you if you are crazy or psychic troubles and so-called didactic analysis when you are analyzed to become analyst. An analysis brought to the end makes you the analyst. But if you divide your patients into two groups those who are ready to come to you twice a week for years paying and those poor guys whom you out of mercy receive two three times for free it's clear that they will never become analysts. They will not have neither the time money abilities to go to the end. You just give them a couple of advices for free. So it's a wonderful mechanism how mask even although it has this form of no let's make it possible for poor guys to do it it's how nonetheless formally already self-reproduction is limited to upper classes. And I was told that this is the case especially in Brazil where as I was told much more than in other Latin American countries psychoanalysis as a group psychoanalysts is limited to not even upper middle classes but many of them even upper upper classes. And some guy there gave me a formula nicely that in a rich mega-rich Brazilian family you have let's say three children at least. The first one takes over the family company. The second one becomes lawyer or politician. One takes the company so that company does not split. And then the third one usually becomes a doctor. And then one variation there is maybe psychoanalyst. This is social origin of the large majority of psychoanalysts. And it's something obscene. I once gave a talk for them in São Paulo more than years ago. First I gave a talk about politics psychoanalysis Trotsky and so on in a university wonderful. Then I was shocked they told me you must give a short speech there because they are they give money. They told me like they financed your trip here you have to... and I was put into a different world. They it wasn't even about Brazil it was about elements of psychoanalysis in late writings of Virginia Woolf you know. What about that phrase in that novel? Absolutely no link with any minimal even social problems or whatever. They love this type of Lacanian analysis of culture where you make a text isn't that gesture that he cuts short the chapter symptomatic you know and so on as if it's very it's very sad. In Argentina it's more complex because when there was this second military dictatorship for some mysterious reasons psychoanalysts were even under harsher pressure than communists. It was a very perverse situation. At that point in the 70s or when later when there was the coup d'état against Isabel Perón Perón's wife it was the time when because of intervention in Afghanistan whatever Carter and United States prohibited export of grain to Soviet Union. So Soviet Union moved to Argentina which meant military dictatorship Argentina. So what to do with the Communist Party there which was subordinated pro-Soviet Union? What should it do? Ah they had to follow Moscow's line. The claim was that the military dictatorship was a progressive bourgeois dictatorship you know with all they were doing you know. So it's a paradox an anticommunist dictatorship but it was much safer to be a communist than a psychoanalyst. Many psychoanalysts were left Peronist no? Even now you have the line the line running. But nonetheless so even now this is the big tension in all even in I follow the situation in Bolivia where I really had friends I knew Linera my God he is a serious theorist and Linera also told me how on the one hand you have these pure apolitical psychoanalysts you know who say oh we don't want to get messed in politics blah blah blah which means they are against them no against Evo Morales. But then you get many progressive psychoanalysts who are serious psychoanalysts but at the same time see social mediation social conditions of you know. And so yes I that book it affected me deeply because it's not my problem directly because we the Slovene gang were for a long time under a pressure from Paris from Miller's group to do something in Slovenia in the sense of develop become practicing psychoanalysts no? Then I used first as an excuse some of my standard jokes you know. My first joke obvious one was look at me with all my nervous tics would you really trust me as an analyst no? The second joke I used is look I talk all the time do you really think that I would tolerate a guy there on divan talking more than half a minute without me interrupting him and me talking all the time. And then when Miller became serious we simply let him know sorry no we don't want to be practicing psychoanalysis. Then Miller moved into this more aggressive line but you know Lacan is a theorist of psychoanalytic practice you cannot do this and be a true Lacanian. And then we thought about our position and adopted now a radical shift in party line where we claim that yes Lacan is not a philosopher but that's not his advantage that's his failure. You can exactly see where he doesn't raise the philosophical question strongly enough. So now without shame we define ourselves as philosophers. Sorry do one more and then sorry I will have to disappear before I drop that. I just along that line. Sorry? Along along that line it feels like last time we spoke you mentioned a kind of departure from Lacan which is potentially signaled in Tupinambá's book as well but it looks to me that the Owl of Minerva is sort of departing from Lacan and Lacan is now properly a philosopher with you guys. Yeah but I don't I don't maybe but you know nonetheless first nonetheless you know our philosophy is not a philosophy like others. It's a pretty crazy philosophy. It's a philosophy which is critical towards the classical Lacanian tradition as well as towards this post-Hegelian traditions. For us the guy is still Hegel. And you know what makes me really glad I will tell you that we are not alone. Independently of us there are now so many this really makes me happy because usually we were attacked as anti-feminist. But all all okay great majority of good books on Hegel are now written by women. Even for example it began with Gillian Rose Hegel Contra Sociology years ago excellent book. Then it was Beatrice Longuenesse Hegel and the Critique of Metaphysics. Then you get Catherine Malabou The Future
unknown
of Hegel. Then you
of Hegel. Then you
Slavoj Žižek
get Rebecca Comay another radical leftist to prove this to you. You know where I met her? When we were at a in Ramallah at a Palestinian congress on Walter Benjamin. This was an ingenious move to say let's do a conference on Walter Benjamin in Ramallah. And it was wonderful all the Palestinian theoreticians came there talking with great respect. And then there are others. It's my own colleague Alenka Zupančič Lacanian-Hegelian. It's Joan Copjec. Then there are two now that I discovered only now. One is Angelica Nuzzo who did a very good book reading Hegel obliquely through Samuel Beckett through Herman Melville Billy Budd and so on. And the latest one okay she is still active from Puerto Rico but she teaches now in Oregon and elsewhere it's a lady's name Rocío Zambrana. She did a book Hegel's Theory of Intelligibility which is an excellent reading of Hegel not as this great idealist you get a system you know everything by this idea how Hegel doesn't paint some necessary rational progress how Hegel's dialectical process has moments of contingent reversals and so on. And isn't it nice to have a lady who does excellent reading of Hegel's logic most difficult parts combining them with incredibly forceful analysis of neo-colonialist exploitation Latin America Puerto Rico and so on. And now I will add something for which I will be lynched and maybe you also and she on the top of it she is a very nice sexually attractive lady. It's prohibited to say this all I can say is that I read her book before I saw her image you know. I'm pure here you know. But what
get Rebecca Comay another radical leftist to prove this to you. You know where I met her? When we were at a in Ramallah at a Palestinian congress on Walter Benjamin. This was an ingenious move to say let's do a conference on Walter Benjamin in Ramallah. And it was wonderful all the Palestinian theoreticians came there talking with great respect. And then there are others. It's my own colleague Alenka Zupančič Lacanian-Hegelian. It's Joan Copjec. Then there are two now that I discovered only now. One is Angelica Nuzzo who did a very good book reading Hegel obliquely through Samuel Beckett through Herman Melville Billy Budd and so on. And the latest one okay she is still active from Puerto Rico but she teaches now in Oregon and elsewhere it's a lady's name Rocío Zambrana. She did a book Hegel's Theory of Intelligibility which is an excellent reading of Hegel not as this great idealist you get a system you know everything by this idea how Hegel doesn't paint some necessary rational progress how Hegel's dialectical process has moments of contingent reversals and so on. And isn't it nice to have a lady who does excellent reading of Hegel's logic most difficult parts combining them with incredibly forceful analysis of neo-colonialist exploitation Latin America Puerto Rico and so on. And now I will add something for which I will be lynched and maybe you also and she on the top of it she is a very nice sexually attractive lady. It's prohibited to say this all I can say is that I read her book before I saw her image you know. I'm pure here you know. But what
unknown
I'm saying is that there is something in this that almost all the best books on Hegel in the last there are a couple of exceptions maybe mine there is a Gérard Lebrun book but women are today the big Hegelian. That's nice it makes me very glad. And incidentally not this Jane Austen type of women. That's why I never liked Jane Austen.
I'm saying is that there is something in this that almost all the best books on Hegel in the last there are a couple of exceptions maybe mine there is a Gérard Lebrun book but women are today the big Hegelian. That's nice it makes me very glad. And incidentally not this Jane Austen type of women. That's why I never liked Jane Austen.
Slavoj Žižek
She has this conservative wisdom don't follow too much your love find a realistic way to I never I'm a hardline romantic here. I like Emily Brontë Wuthering Heights you know fuck wildly or whatever. I don't like this romantic... but what I'm saying is that it's this is the best proof of how of the feminist undercurrent of the modern European philosophy. Then with my friends looked back Descartes cogito. You know how popular was this with women at his time? There was a whole circle of course of educated women but they said wonderfully we like cogito because cogito is not male it doesn't have sex there is a place for us in it. Immediately they perceived in the very abstraction of cogito feminist potential. And there were already some pupils of Descartes who then directly developed in detail this feminist potential of Descartes. So I think this idea which some feminists that all modern philosophy from Descartes on is patriarchal male philosophy no it's absolutely not I claim. It's because you know patriarchy is part of your social identity all transcendental thought has this distinction between subject and soul. Soul is the seat of your inner life and all that and there of course there you have in a Jungian way masculine feminine tendencies but this is not subject. Subject is neutral subject is an abyss of void. And the big result is that the Cartesian subject is feminine if you interpret feminine position in a Lacanian purely formal way that man is more reified as woman. Woman is this pure void no identity. Man... I hate life... man is a woman with a things that she really exists you know. Man thinks she has a certain moral foundation and so on. That's why I like this is not an anti-feminist cliché that women are hysterics. You know what hysteria means? It means you don't have a fixed identity. As Lacan pointed out hysteria is the elementary form of the critique of ideology because ideology is in its basic form interpellation. Ideology tells you you're a pupil you're a master you're a teacher you're a woman. But the basic hysterical question is but why are you saying that I am that? I don't want to be that. This is hysteria. Hysteria is a provocative question to the master. And this is the basic feminine position once to amuse my students I even referred to them and said the most elementary form that you encounter this if you are a couple with a woman you know when a woman typically at certain point after you declare love asks you but tell me why do you love me? you know like why am I an object? And of course this is a tricky question because it's an impossible question. You know the moment you know the reason why do you love me it's not love it's just objective assessment you know. It's just oh you have beautiful legs you have beautiful sorry for obscenity vagina you have beautiful breasts you smile nicely okay let's establish a list. This one has the this is not love. Love is something paradoxical. Love is not I love you because you have sorry for the vulgarity beautiful legs let's say. Love is in true love it's that only through love you notice that your beloved's legs are beautiful. You know for others they can be ordinary legs or head or smile or whatever. Love is performative. And this is much more the feminine domain. This is even I at a clinical level I learned something wonderful from France. You know that many psychoanalysts today have patients who are there just for fashionable reasons. It's part of your social identity to have an analyst you know like oh you don't have an analyst who do you think you are? And so my friends told me that when they wanted an analyst their French friend immediately asked them sorry but do you need this just as a for your social status or do you really have trouble? If you said I really have trouble you always got a woman as the analyst. They are supposed to be much better you know. And from women I talked with some of them you also get a much better realistic assessment. Like I spoke with some women about problems of psychosis and they gave me a very good pessimistic assessment. They told me that if you really have a hard psychotic no you cannot do miracles and really cure him. There are only two options. One is chemical drugs biochemistry pills whatever to but this doesn't solve anything. Only if you are violent you get half-dead and so on. There is something then which it's difficult to achieve but it works. They don't cure you they just offer you superficial rituals which even if you remain a madman in your brain it enables you at least for others to function normally. And we should love at this it's a great step for the guy. So that if you are perspicuous you see that the guy is crazy but it's a great thing for him you know somehow he communicates you know. That's all you can do you cannot do more. I like these pessimistic realistic approaches you know. Sorry finish with one more short and then I drop that. And then I don't know what will you do with this but please I need you as a censor cut it short and so on you know use only... ah you know what you should do? My favorite terror. Take my statement and make it an answer to another question so that I will appear as an idiot that I didn't get it you know. That's how you should treat enemies you know. You know when I was young I learned this there were some French journalists who treated like this who made on TV this kind of comical reports. They asked certain questions big politicians but then they and they got answers but then they replaced their questions with a much more obscene question. So that for example I remember Georges Marchais at that point when I was in Paris half a century ago General Secretary of the Communist Party was asked in this manipulation if the members of parliament are tired don't you think that there should be small rooms with beds in the background of the of the parliamentary seats the big hall where you can make quick sex to relax you to be better and so on no? And the guy answered not knowing to what he answers this is a very important question for progressive politics Central Committee will debate it. Do something like this with me please. Maybe just on a very formal note like is it what's next? What's what's in the works? Oh what's in the works? Many things. One is I am just finishing a book with my two friends Agon Hamza and Frank Ruda on reading Hegel. There it will be a very long text I will try to clarify my position with this new liberal liberal-democratic readings of Hegel which means Brandom Pippin no? Those who think this mutual recognition and so on that's it. Also Judith Butler goes into this the lesson of Hegel is recognition blah blah. So this it will be a long text like almost pages but a detailed systematic account and then connected to my radical reading of Hegel. Then on the top of it I will do I'm in the middle of another a little bit shorter book the title will probably something like Living and Dying in a Topsy-Turvy World. The idea is we are living in this crazy world everything goes wrong crisis and what to do? And very traditionally the first chapter will be Marx's ecology ecological problem. I will react to that very good Kohei Saito's book Ecosocialism. You know very intelligent people trying to redeem Marxism for ecology. And you learn very interesting data of how deep into ecology late Marx was. Like do you know that he was studying like crazy some German scientists who tried what industrial agriculture does to the chemical components on the fields of... it's so I will try to redeem Hegel there that Hegel is not an idealist who think Earth doesn't matter that Hegel was took extremely seriously this idea that nature nature is outside the idea and it's totally independent there and nature doesn't serve humans that Hegel has an unexpected humanist potential. That the second one will be I plan to put in this the chapter on Tupinambá The Politics of Psychoanalysis. What went wrong with Freudomarxism and so on. Then there will be a third chapter on the notion of surplus-enjoyment. I want to elaborate it systematically how this functions in today's politics ideology populism and so on. I will include there my ferocious critique of Handmaid's Tale as pure liberal propaganda as an example of what Fredric Jameson called the nostalgia for the present. You know the task of that book is by painting this horrible new fundamentalist Christian universe to make us feel good that thanks God we are not yet there we're living still this wonderful... it's the same mistake as those who focus too much on Trump. Sorry Trump didn't fall from the sky Trump emerged from our liberal societies. How? Why? So this will be the third chapter and then the fourth chapter the most problematic I want to take as a starting point you know where are we now? I will publish some text now these days literally. Paris Commune years. Paris Commune was from March 18th till May 28th and it was the first case of workers taking power and this ideal democracy from below and so on and I will try to develop this in detail no? In the sense of where are the limits of this that we cannot return simply that's what I miss with big
She has this conservative wisdom don't follow too much your love find a realistic way to I never I'm a hardline romantic here. I like Emily Brontë Wuthering Heights you know fuck wildly or whatever. I don't like this romantic... but what I'm saying is that it's this is the best proof of how of the feminist undercurrent of the modern European philosophy. Then with my friends looked back Descartes cogito. You know how popular was this with women at his time? There was a whole circle of course of educated women but they said wonderfully we like cogito because cogito is not male it doesn't have sex there is a place for us in it. Immediately they perceived in the very abstraction of cogito feminist potential. And there were already some pupils of Descartes who then directly developed in detail this feminist potential of Descartes. So I think this idea which some feminists that all modern philosophy from Descartes on is patriarchal male philosophy no it's absolutely not I claim. It's because you know patriarchy is part of your social identity all transcendental thought has this distinction between subject and soul. Soul is the seat of your inner life and all that and there of course there you have in a Jungian way masculine feminine tendencies but this is not subject. Subject is neutral subject is an abyss of void. And the big result is that the Cartesian subject is feminine if you interpret feminine position in a Lacanian purely formal way that man is more reified as woman. Woman is this pure void no identity. Man... I hate life... man is a woman with a things that she really exists you know. Man thinks she has a certain moral foundation and so on. That's why I like this is not an anti-feminist cliché that women are hysterics. You know what hysteria means? It means you don't have a fixed identity. As Lacan pointed out hysteria is the elementary form of the critique of ideology because ideology is in its basic form interpellation. Ideology tells you you're a pupil you're a master you're a teacher you're a woman. But the basic hysterical question is but why are you saying that I am that? I don't want to be that. This is hysteria. Hysteria is a provocative question to the master. And this is the basic feminine position once to amuse my students I even referred to them and said the most elementary form that you encounter this if you are a couple with a woman you know when a woman typically at certain point after you declare love asks you but tell me why do you love me? you know like why am I an object? And of course this is a tricky question because it's an impossible question. You know the moment you know the reason why do you love me it's not love it's just objective assessment you know. It's just oh you have beautiful legs you have beautiful sorry for obscenity vagina you have beautiful breasts you smile nicely okay let's establish a list. This one has the this is not love. Love is something paradoxical. Love is not I love you because you have sorry for the vulgarity beautiful legs let's say. Love is in true love it's that only through love you notice that your beloved's legs are beautiful. You know for others they can be ordinary legs or head or smile or whatever. Love is performative. And this is much more the feminine domain. This is even I at a clinical level I learned something wonderful from France. You know that many psychoanalysts today have patients who are there just for fashionable reasons. It's part of your social identity to have an analyst you know like oh you don't have an analyst who do you think you are? And so my friends told me that when they wanted an analyst their French friend immediately asked them sorry but do you need this just as a for your social status or do you really have trouble? If you said I really have trouble you always got a woman as the analyst. They are supposed to be much better you know. And from women I talked with some of them you also get a much better realistic assessment. Like I spoke with some women about problems of psychosis and they gave me a very good pessimistic assessment. They told me that if you really have a hard psychotic no you cannot do miracles and really cure him. There are only two options. One is chemical drugs biochemistry pills whatever to but this doesn't solve anything. Only if you are violent you get half-dead and so on. There is something then which it's difficult to achieve but it works. They don't cure you they just offer you superficial rituals which even if you remain a madman in your brain it enables you at least for others to function normally. And we should love at this it's a great step for the guy. So that if you are perspicuous you see that the guy is crazy but it's a great thing for him you know somehow he communicates you know. That's all you can do you cannot do more. I like these pessimistic realistic approaches you know. Sorry finish with one more short and then I drop that. And then I don't know what will you do with this but please I need you as a censor cut it short and so on you know use only... ah you know what you should do? My favorite terror. Take my statement and make it an answer to another question so that I will appear as an idiot that I didn't get it you know. That's how you should treat enemies you know. You know when I was young I learned this there were some French journalists who treated like this who made on TV this kind of comical reports. They asked certain questions big politicians but then they and they got answers but then they replaced their questions with a much more obscene question. So that for example I remember Georges Marchais at that point when I was in Paris half a century ago General Secretary of the Communist Party was asked in this manipulation if the members of parliament are tired don't you think that there should be small rooms with beds in the background of the of the parliamentary seats the big hall where you can make quick sex to relax you to be better and so on no? And the guy answered not knowing to what he answers this is a very important question for progressive politics Central Committee will debate it. Do something like this with me please. Maybe just on a very formal note like is it what's next? What's what's in the works? Oh what's in the works? Many things. One is I am just finishing a book with my two friends Agon Hamza and Frank Ruda on reading Hegel. There it will be a very long text I will try to clarify my position with this new liberal liberal-democratic readings of Hegel which means Brandom Pippin no? Those who think this mutual recognition and so on that's it. Also Judith Butler goes into this the lesson of Hegel is recognition blah blah. So this it will be a long text like almost pages but a detailed systematic account and then connected to my radical reading of Hegel. Then on the top of it I will do I'm in the middle of another a little bit shorter book the title will probably something like Living and Dying in a Topsy-Turvy World. The idea is we are living in this crazy world everything goes wrong crisis and what to do? And very traditionally the first chapter will be Marx's ecology ecological problem. I will react to that very good Kohei Saito's book Ecosocialism. You know very intelligent people trying to redeem Marxism for ecology. And you learn very interesting data of how deep into ecology late Marx was. Like do you know that he was studying like crazy some German scientists who tried what industrial agriculture does to the chemical components on the fields of... it's so I will try to redeem Hegel there that Hegel is not an idealist who think Earth doesn't matter that Hegel was took extremely seriously this idea that nature nature is outside the idea and it's totally independent there and nature doesn't serve humans that Hegel has an unexpected humanist potential. That the second one will be I plan to put in this the chapter on Tupinambá The Politics of Psychoanalysis. What went wrong with Freudomarxism and so on. Then there will be a third chapter on the notion of surplus-enjoyment. I want to elaborate it systematically how this functions in today's politics ideology populism and so on. I will include there my ferocious critique of Handmaid's Tale as pure liberal propaganda as an example of what Fredric Jameson called the nostalgia for the present. You know the task of that book is by painting this horrible new fundamentalist Christian universe to make us feel good that thanks God we are not yet there we're living still this wonderful... it's the same mistake as those who focus too much on Trump. Sorry Trump didn't fall from the sky Trump emerged from our liberal societies. How? Why? So this will be the third chapter and then the fourth chapter the most problematic I want to take as a starting point you know where are we now? I will publish some text now these days literally. Paris Commune years. Paris Commune was from March 18th till May 28th and it was the first case of workers taking power and this ideal democracy from below and so on and I will try to develop this in detail no? In the sense of where are the limits of this that we cannot return simply that's what I miss with big
unknown
leftists today. You know they all expect this wonderful
leftists today. You know they all expect this wonderful
Slavoj Žižek
moment of unity where Muslims who feel oppressed and LGBT women will bring them together and Black students and white unemployed workers will bring them together and of course you never arrive at that point and I'm getting tired of this just wait there will be unity. How to change this and it will be a thesis well meant but very provocatively probably the title will be a plea for a plea for good progressive alienation. That you know it's I'm suspicious as I said at the beginning of this idea small societies where everything is transparent. No we will never arrive at that point. This idea that we will all be active. There are magic points when this happens when you have like Syriza in Greece or now in Chile this lasts for two-three months then things life returns to normal and that's the most difficult moment. How will people feel the difference? I don't like the big the big big one million people we were there also la-di-da fuck it what interests me is how will everyday life be different for ordinary people. So I will try to engage with this more. And you know what it will be amusing because I will use some quotes from popular TV what kind of leaders we needed this maybe this will amuse you two TV references. One is from that series my wife watched it and I was watching it a little bit New Amsterdam. Okay what interests me is that at the end towards the end when a guy wants to be the leader of that hospital but this type of open let's listen to everybody and so on and somebody tells him a wonderfully wise thing. He says a real leader should be the one who never can sleep well because sometimes you have to make such tough decisions you know. No medicines for everybody you have to sacrifice some people no money to cure that. And he has this wonderful phrase if you sleep well you cannot be a leader. You know leader true leader involves such such tough ethical decisions you know. You cannot say a theoretic would say I refuse to decide here this is bourgeois trap. No but as a leader and Lenin always was aware of this as a leader you have to make tough tough decisions. And like the other thing to shock you did you all see that series I mentioned it a couple of times lately I know it was first the usual CIA propaganda stuff but then the last seasons it got better Homeland. It's interesting how the first four seasons were the usual US propaganda but then it gets more and more ambiguous and at the end the heroine played by Claire Danes emigrates to Russia today's Putin's Russia falls in love there with her previous KGB or FSB now opponent lives happily with him but secretly still informs CIA. And what I try to rehabilitate I claim that this is a typical feminine position. Women are not stupid I give all for my love. That and I read a conversation with the scenario writer and learned that he did this on purpose. He said this is a type of a woman who is passionately in love but had at the same time a compulsion to betray her partner otherwise he would have too much control. And he said this is for her a perfect fully satisfying relationship. And I love it also. I think it's you this is what gives you the space of autonomy you know. I love or the woman I love that guy passionately but no he will not hold me perfectly you know. I will go into all this stuff but it will be it will not be another book on Hegel but ah what I will also have a lot there a whole sub-chapter on Rammstein you know my favorite German the harsh one. I will propose reading or four five... Engel isn't this a do you know his Engel Angel is that we try to look angels we don't see them and then a voice sings like Angel it's horrible for us we are up there on the edge of the sky we would like to come down to earth but and then the refrain is please God don't make us an angel and so on. That one then Dalai Lama the best song I think there. I will do a little bit of theologico-critical reading of Rammstein. But I publish too quickly. This book maybe it will appear where are we now? Not this year probably beginning of This year it's enough if that substantial text on Hegel appears and maybe I have enough stuff another of this collection of political texts. I didn't yet decide maybe it will be Pandemic! because I have a lot of new stuff there or generally some of this stuff about Trump and so on you know. Like it's wonderful what is happening now I admire them Trump people. Did you watch that nightmarish defense of that crazy woman Sidney Powell? You don't know what happened. She was the one who accused that company Dominion of making fake accounting machines which which counts votes for Trump as votes for Biden. Now the company is prosecuting her of course for one billion and so on. And you know what's her official defense? That what I was saying is so crazy and obviously false that nobody could have taken this seriously. So I cannot be prosecuted for defamation. This is such a wonderful case of this post-truth politics you know. You advocate something you trigger a whole political movement and then you say but wait a minute you cannot take this seriously and so on. Very interesting ideological phenomenon no? Okay let me say hello and manipulate me nicely. Okay thank you so much for joining us. Where were you? Where were you? Where is who? I want to locate you. You who said thank you so much you are... I'm Peter. Yeah but where where? Oh where Toronto. Ah you are Toronto? Yeah. I'm also in Toronto I'm Jacob. Ah the two of you are Toronto and the other two one is Berlin? I'm in a small town near Frankfurt. Ah sorry Frankfurt and the... Ah we are three yes. That's three. Yes. Yeah. No. Yeah. How did you the Frankfurt guy join them? Oh we we met in Canada we're all friends from Canada. Ah. Oh my god oh my god that's so nice. And how is your podcast or whatever doing? Ah it's it's going well I think we're we've had a lot of fun the last year we've been reading a lot of your books and we've... But tell me something else that interest me. Yeah. Is it pure amateur or do you get some money? No we're amateurs. I mean there are some people who pay for our extra episodes but we're we're doing this of our own you know free volition our own interest. And it's so sad that you cannot get at
moment of unity where Muslims who feel oppressed and LGBT women will bring them together and Black students and white unemployed workers will bring them together and of course you never arrive at that point and I'm getting tired of this just wait there will be unity. How to change this and it will be a thesis well meant but very provocatively probably the title will be a plea for a plea for good progressive alienation. That you know it's I'm suspicious as I said at the beginning of this idea small societies where everything is transparent. No we will never arrive at that point. This idea that we will all be active. There are magic points when this happens when you have like Syriza in Greece or now in Chile this lasts for two-three months then things life returns to normal and that's the most difficult moment. How will people feel the difference? I don't like the big the big big one million people we were there also la-di-da fuck it what interests me is how will everyday life be different for ordinary people. So I will try to engage with this more. And you know what it will be amusing because I will use some quotes from popular TV what kind of leaders we needed this maybe this will amuse you two TV references. One is from that series my wife watched it and I was watching it a little bit New Amsterdam. Okay what interests me is that at the end towards the end when a guy wants to be the leader of that hospital but this type of open let's listen to everybody and so on and somebody tells him a wonderfully wise thing. He says a real leader should be the one who never can sleep well because sometimes you have to make such tough decisions you know. No medicines for everybody you have to sacrifice some people no money to cure that. And he has this wonderful phrase if you sleep well you cannot be a leader. You know leader true leader involves such such tough ethical decisions you know. You cannot say a theoretic would say I refuse to decide here this is bourgeois trap. No but as a leader and Lenin always was aware of this as a leader you have to make tough tough decisions. And like the other thing to shock you did you all see that series I mentioned it a couple of times lately I know it was first the usual CIA propaganda stuff but then the last seasons it got better Homeland. It's interesting how the first four seasons were the usual US propaganda but then it gets more and more ambiguous and at the end the heroine played by Claire Danes emigrates to Russia today's Putin's Russia falls in love there with her previous KGB or FSB now opponent lives happily with him but secretly still informs CIA. And what I try to rehabilitate I claim that this is a typical feminine position. Women are not stupid I give all for my love. That and I read a conversation with the scenario writer and learned that he did this on purpose. He said this is a type of a woman who is passionately in love but had at the same time a compulsion to betray her partner otherwise he would have too much control. And he said this is for her a perfect fully satisfying relationship. And I love it also. I think it's you this is what gives you the space of autonomy you know. I love or the woman I love that guy passionately but no he will not hold me perfectly you know. I will go into all this stuff but it will be it will not be another book on Hegel but ah what I will also have a lot there a whole sub-chapter on Rammstein you know my favorite German the harsh one. I will propose reading or four five... Engel isn't this a do you know his Engel Angel is that we try to look angels we don't see them and then a voice sings like Angel it's horrible for us we are up there on the edge of the sky we would like to come down to earth but and then the refrain is please God don't make us an angel and so on. That one then Dalai Lama the best song I think there. I will do a little bit of theologico-critical reading of Rammstein. But I publish too quickly. This book maybe it will appear where are we now? Not this year probably beginning of This year it's enough if that substantial text on Hegel appears and maybe I have enough stuff another of this collection of political texts. I didn't yet decide maybe it will be Pandemic! because I have a lot of new stuff there or generally some of this stuff about Trump and so on you know. Like it's wonderful what is happening now I admire them Trump people. Did you watch that nightmarish defense of that crazy woman Sidney Powell? You don't know what happened. She was the one who accused that company Dominion of making fake accounting machines which which counts votes for Trump as votes for Biden. Now the company is prosecuting her of course for one billion and so on. And you know what's her official defense? That what I was saying is so crazy and obviously false that nobody could have taken this seriously. So I cannot be prosecuted for defamation. This is such a wonderful case of this post-truth politics you know. You advocate something you trigger a whole political movement and then you say but wait a minute you cannot take this seriously and so on. Very interesting ideological phenomenon no? Okay let me say hello and manipulate me nicely. Okay thank you so much for joining us. Where were you? Where were you? Where is who? I want to locate you. You who said thank you so much you are... I'm Peter. Yeah but where where? Oh where Toronto. Ah you are Toronto? Yeah. I'm also in Toronto I'm Jacob. Ah the two of you are Toronto and the other two one is Berlin? I'm in a small town near Frankfurt. Ah sorry Frankfurt and the... Ah we are three yes. That's three. Yes. Yeah. No. Yeah. How did you the Frankfurt guy join them? Oh we we met in Canada we're all friends from Canada. Ah. Oh my god oh my god that's so nice. And how is your podcast or whatever doing? Ah it's it's going well I think we're we've had a lot of fun the last year we've been reading a lot of your books and we've... But tell me something else that interest me. Yeah. Is it pure amateur or do you get some money? No we're amateurs. I mean there are some people who pay for our extra episodes but we're we're doing this of our own you know free volition our own interest. And it's so sad that you cannot get at
unknown
least
least
Slavoj Žižek
some money or what. Yeah you know that's how it goes. It's okay. It's
some money or what. Yeah you know that's how it goes. It's okay. It's
unknown
purely
purely
Slavoj Žižek
amateur
amateur
unknown
though for the love of it yeah.
though for the love of it yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
Yeah but I like this late
Yeah but I like this late
unknown
capitalist tricks
capitalist tricks
Slavoj Žižek
that it's purely amateur you
that it's purely amateur you
unknown
just cover your expenses you
just cover your expenses you
Slavoj Žižek
say. And then I'm sorry your expenses to be in
say. And then I'm sorry your expenses to be in
unknown
those some of the wealthiest hotels in Toronto and so on no? These tricks I love
those some of the wealthiest hotels in Toronto and so on no? These tricks I love
Slavoj Žižek
them. Okay guys it was nice.
them. Okay guys it was nice.
unknown
Have
Have
Slavoj Žižek
a nice time no? Okay. I'm leaving you now. Bye bye.
a nice time no? Okay. I'm leaving you now. Bye bye.