Slavoj Zizek Wagner's Ring as a Communist Narrative Discussion
Lecture · TheEthanwashere ·
2009-06-17 · 0:28:24 · 4,328 words
cinema-art-culturereligion-theologycommunism-socialismpsychoanalysisideologyhistoryfascism-populismphilosophy-generalsubjectivity
A Wagner masterclass/Q&A in which Žižek argues against reading the Ring's end as cyclical repetition, instead framing it as humanity's first confrontation with the void after the death of gods. He develops 'find the true villain' readings across the Ring (Wotan, not Alberich), Parsifal (Titurel, not Klingsor) and Hamlet (Hamlet's father, not Claudius), defends decontextualized operatic reinvention against historicist readings (Marc Weiner on Parsifal), and pivots to David's Death of Marat as a non-paternal, 'Christological' figure of collective love. The talk closes with Žižek rejecting the tragic Lacanian ethics of impossibility and proposing a communist utopia where 'object a does the work without the master signifier'.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 21
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Hitchcock's term, borrowed via Michel Chion, to name the Ring as the greatest plot-object that displaces the real drama elsewhere.
His dialectical identification of Venus/Elisabeth (and finally Kundry) as one and the same woman, the seductress being the redemptive figure.
His repeated operatic/shakespearean reversal: the real villain is the founding father (Wotan, Titurel, Hamlet's father), not the obvious antagonist.
His slogan for reclaiming Wagner from Nazi appropriation, now staged predominantly by left Jewish directors.
His coinage for the apparent villain who is not the true source of evil: Klingsor in Parsifal, Claudius in Hamlet.
as “Urvater / obscene father”
The Freudian primal father; he identifies Titurel (Parsifal) and Wotan (Ring) and Hamlet's father as figures of this original sin.
The symbolic authority that 'has to properly die' for the Christological/collective moment to become possible.
His distinction between the dead leader as paternal totemic authority (Freud/Stalin) and as a non-paternal Christological collective figure (Marat).
His reading of the black upper half of David's Death of Marat as a proto-Malevich void, the non-totalitarian mark of the Jacobins.
The Freudian logic of the dead father returning as symbolic authority, which he contrasts unfavorably with a 'Christological' logic for Marat.
His paradoxical claim that universal anti-racism requires an equal-opportunity, indiscriminate 'racism' as its sincere form.
Kantorowicz's medieval doctrine of the king's mortal and symbolic bodies, which he says re-emerges perversely in Stalinism's leader-body cult.
Benjamin's category he applies to Wotan's failed planned violence, contrasted with divine violence.
Benjamin's category; Wotan tried to plan it 'like a Stalinist' but it failed, while Brünnhilde's sacrifice approximates it.
as “there is no sexual relationship”
The Lacanian axiom of impossibility he here refuses to treat as the ultimate truth, insisting it doesn't preclude a non-erotic authentic intersubjectivity.
His name for the position he now rejects, that the only authentic experience is failure/impossibility and every collective project is false.
Christian love; refigured as the asexual collective bond that would replace the tragic Lacanian sexual impossibility.
The Lacanian partial object that, in his communist-utopian formula, can hold a community together without a master signifier.
The Lacanian knot that dogmatically holds a community together; his utopian wager is that object a can do the work without it.
His brief formula for communist utopia: a community held together by asexual jouissance rather than a master signifier.
Used in his claim that there is an asexual jouissance (object a 'asexual') that grounds collective agape.
Stories he reaches for 2
More than half of David's Death of Marat is just black; a Stalinist painting would fill it with happy future people, so the void proves the Jacobins were not totalitarians, a Malevich-like space above a dead fragment.
“more than half of the painting is just black up there. And that's the greatness”
A close reading of Hamlet shows Claudius is a B-level villain; the true source of evil must have been Hamlet's father, the ghost who returns, killed in the flower of his sins.
“the true source of evil must have been Hamlet's father”
Works invoked 16
Parsifal opera
Klingsor is a B-level boss; Titurel is the true villain; the Kundry realization of the seductress-as-redemption is the culmination of the Tannhäuser logic.
Tristan und Isolde opera
The love duet is the greatest coitus interruptus; Wagner does the opposite of eternal self-obliteration, its structural interruption is the key to the opera.
Hamlet play
Close reading yields the thesis that Claudius is a B-level villain and Hamlet's father, the ghost killed in the flower of his sins, is the true source of evil.
The Death of Marat artwork
Its black upper half is a proto-Malevich void proving the Jacobins were not totalitarians; the dead Marat is a Christological, non-paternal revolutionary figure.
Der Ring des Nibelungen opera
The centerpiece: read against cyclical-narrative readings, as the greatest MacGuffin, with Wotan as original sin and Brünnhilde as the one who gets the point.
Götterdämmerung opera
Act 1's rape of Brünnhilde by Siegfried-as-Gunther is Wagner's most shatteringly modern moment; the ending is humanity's first void-confrontation, not a cycle.
Lang's film also rehabilitates Hagen at the end as a figure of German militaristic greatness, another foil to Wagner.
Dziady (Mickiewicz) play
The Polish romantic text whose Konrad-on-the-horse sublimation is compared to Brünnhilde, a collective political call requiring the death of the big Other.
A wonderful, well-written popular novel that totally rewrites and rehabilitates Hagen with Siegfried as a brutal thug, a different but successful Hagen.
Cited for the medieval doctrine whose leader-body logic re-emerges in Stalinism, the foil to the non-paternal Christological Marat.
Nibelungenlied book
The medieval source in which Hagen is already the figure of German fate-duty, rehabilitated as German greatness, the foil for Wagner's unambiguous villain.
Dismissed as 'even more boring than Wagner'; the only Mickiewicz-derived work he knows, and he never 'got the multiple orgasm' through it.
The Foucauldian book on anti-Semitic sounds/smells in Parsifal that elicits his 'fuck off, so what', the emblem of cheap historicist contextualization.
The German-British TV film with Loken as Brünnhilde and Fürmann as Siegfried, 'not such a bad film' with a notable English Hagen.
Tannhäuser opera
Re-read against the sensual/spiritual duality: the true center is the 'too much happiness' aria to Venus, and Elisabeth/Venus should be one soprano.
A current Musical Times essay taking apart Lawrence's structural reading of Tristan in favor of detailed motif analysis, endorsed as the right method.
People invoked 25
D.H. Lawrence negative
His 'structural reading of Tristan' is the foil Whittall takes apart and Žižek rejects in favor of close motif analysis.
His film Pan Tadeusz is dismissed as 'even more boring than Wagner'; Žižek never 'got the multiple orgasm through Pan Tadeusz'.
Michel Chion positive
His 'good friend the French theorist' whose Hitchcockian formulation of the Ring as the greatest MacGuffin Žižek endorses.
Kazimir Malevich positive
The black void above Marat is compared to 'a big Malevich up there just the space', the modernist void that makes the painting non-totalitarian.
Richard Wagner positive
Self-described 'fanatical Wagnerian' whose youth was spent in ecstatic admiration of Furtwängler's Wagner; the entire talk is a defense and reinvention of his operas.
Theodor W. Adorno negative
Criticized for the 'general readings' of Wagner (Leitmotif + German mythology) that Žižek hates, quick, totalizing interpretations.
Žižek personally hates him, though he concedes some nice microscopic clarity in his recordings; the more dishonest counterpoint to Furtwängler.
Jacques Lacan positive
Source of object a, master signifier, 'there is no sexual relationship', and the asexual reading of A, though Žižek here pushes beyond the tragic Lacanian ethics.
The Terminator cyborg actress who plays Brünnhilde in the German-British Ring of the Nibelungs TV film, 'not such a bad film.'
Alain Badiou positive
His 'good friend' who convinced him; he agrees with Badiou's death-of-gods point and claims Badiou was secretly rehabilitating the cult of personality at the communism conference.
Michel Foucault negative
Invoked only obliquely as 'Foucauldian points' to characterize Weiner's method, which he dismisses.
Arnold Whittall positive
Author of a current Musical Times essay on Tristan that takes apart Lawrence's structural reading in favor of detailed motif-following, exactly the close reading Žižek endorses.
Wilhelm Furtwängler positive
The conductor of organic passionate flow and continuity; Žižek's youthful idol, and 'infinitely more honest' than Karajan, even though he takes all the Nazi-music blame.
The German young star who plays Siegfried in the Ring of the Nibelungs TV film.
Walter Benjamin positive
Source of the mythic vs divine violence distinction applied to Wotan and Brünnhilde.
Wolfgang Hohlbein positive
Popular German Tolkien-esque writer whose novel Hagen von Tronje totally rewrites and rehabilitates Hagen with Siegfried as a brutal thug, a different but successful Hagen.
The great Wagnerian tenor, Viennese Jewish, whose very name occasions the Jewish-joke anecdote about Germanic first names in Viennese Jewish families.
Marc Weiner negative
Author of a Foucauldian book on Parsifal tracking anti-Semitic sounds/smells; Žižek's reaction is 'fuck off, so what', cheap historicist contextualization that misses Wagner.
William Shakespeare positive
Source of Hamlet, whose close reading yields the thesis that Hamlet's father, not Claudius, is the true source of evil.
Cited for the medieval doctrine of the King's two bodies, which Žižek says re-emerges perversely in Stalinism's leader-body cult.
Author of Dziady, whose Konrad-on-the-horse sublimation a questioner compares to Brünnhilde; Žižek takes it as the big Other's death.
Jacques-Louis David positive
Painter of the Death of Marat, whose black upper half is the centerpiece of Žižek's non-totalitarian reading of the Jacobins.
Joseph Stalin negative
The figure whose mausoleum and leader-body cult must be surpassed; Wotan is 'too much of a Stalinist' for trying to plan divine violence, yet Žižek wants to recover the collective moment without the Stalinist apparatus.
Invoked only as the comparator for Hohlbein's popular German Tolkien-esque fiction.
Sigmund Freud positive
The totem-and-taboo logic and the Urvater/obscene father are his, used as the foil Žižek contrasts with the Christological logic of the dead Marat.
What it argues
Wagner's Ring as non-cyclical: the first confrontation with the voidthe true villain is never the obvious one (Wotan, Titurel, Hamlet's father)operatic reinvention against historicist contextualizationTristan and Tannhäuser: Wagner does the opposite of self-obliterationthe seductress is the redemption (Elisabeth/Venus/Kundry)Death of Marat as a Christological, non-paternal revolutionary figurefrom tragic Lacanian impossibility to collective communist love (agape)
Dialectical moves 9
“It's not a repetition, it never happened before — the end of the Ring is humanity's first confrontation with the void.”
Inverts the standard cyclical reading of the Ring's ending into an inaugural, non-repetitive event.
“The true bad guy is never the obvious villain: in Parsifal it's Titurel not Klingsor, in Hamlet it's the father not Claudius, in the Ring it's Wotan not Alberich.”
Reverses the apparent antagonist into a B-level boss, locating the real evil in the founding father.
“The same woman who is the seductress is the redemption (Elisabeth/Venus, finally Kundry).”
Identifies the seductive and redemptive figures as one, collapsing the metaphysical duality.
“Wagner does exactly the opposite of what he is supposed to do — Tristan does not end in eternal self-obliteration.”
Reverses the standard reading of Tristan as self-obliterating love into its structural opposite.
“The only way to be truly anti-racist is to be a racist against everybody.”
Paradoxically inverts anti-racism into a universal, indiscriminate 'racism' as its sincere form.
“Wagner is too precious to be left to the enemies — once for old Nazis, now for left Jewish directors.”
Inverts Wagner's political ownership from the far right to the left/Jewish directors who are his true heirs.
“The dead leader is not a paternal totemic figure but a Christological one — resurrected in the collective, not as a new master.”
Reverses the Freudian totem-and-taboo reading of the dead leader into a Christological collective logic.
“Object a does the work without the master signifier.”
Inverts the Lacanian dogma (community = master signifier) into a community bound by asexual jouissance alone.
“The impossibility of sexual relationship is not the ultimate truth — it does not preclude another authentic intersubjectivity.”
Reverses the tragic Lacanian ethics of impossibility into the opening for a non-erotic collective love.
Claims 22
reframes
The end of the Ring is not a cyclical return but the first time humanity confronts the void after the death of gods.the Ring's ending / circular-narrative readings
asserts
Siegfried is an idiot and remains an idiot to the end; the Ring is not about him.Siegried as hero of the Ring
asserts
Only Brünnhilde 'gets the point' at the end — a proto-feminist moment in Wagner.Brünnhilde's knowing at the end of the Ring
reframes
Hagen is the only unambiguous villain only in Wagner, while every other tradition (Nibelungenlied, Fritz Lang) rehabilitates him.Wagner's proto-Nazi reputation vs his treatment of Hagen
asserts
In the Ring the original sin is Wotan's tearing out of the Ash tree, not Alberich's theft of the gold.the true source of evil in the Ring
asserts
In Parsifal the true villain is Titurel, the obsessive father of the Grail, not the apparent baddy Klingsor.the true villain of Parsifal
asserts
In Hamlet the true source of evil must have been Hamlet's father, not Claudius, who is only a B-level villain.the true source of evil in Hamlet
asserts
Wotan was 'too much of a Stalinist' — he tried to plan a divine violence through Siegfried and it failed.Wotan's planned mythic violence
reframes
The Tristan love duet's interruption by Brangäne is structurally necessary; Wagner does the opposite of eternal self-obliteration.standard readings of Tristan as self-obliterating love
reframes
In Tannhäuser the key aria is the opening one to Venus — 'too much happiness, too much pleasure' — not the usual metaphysical duality.the true center of Tannhäuser
asserts
Elisabeth and Venus in Tannhäuser should be sung by the same woman — the seductress is the redemption, fully realized later in Kundry.the staging of Tannhäuser and the unity of its women
rejects
Marc Weiner's Foucauldian historicist reading of Parsifal (anti-Semitic sounds/smells) is uninteresting and misses what matters in Wagner.historicist contextualization of opera
asserts
The proper way to do opera is to take it brutally out of context and reinvent it, producing an 'oh my god now I see it' enlightenment.method of operatic interpretation
asserts
Wagner, once 'for old Nazis who forgot to die', is now predominantly staged by left Jewish directors — and this is the truth of Wagner.the political appropriation of Wagner
asserts
The black upper half of David's Death of Marat proves the Jacobins were not totalitarians, since a Stalinist painting would fill it with happy future people.the non-totalitarian character of the Jacobins
reframes
The dead Marat is not a paternal totemic figure but follows a Christological logic — the leader is resurrected in the collective, not as a new master.the figure of the dead revolutionary leader
asserts
Badiou at the communism conference was secretly rehabilitating the cult of personality, the necessity of 'the one'.Badiou's obscure thesis on the one
reframes
We need to regain the moment of collective love (agape) without the Stalinist mausoleum and the cult of the leader's body.the collective communist moment
rejects
He rejects the tragic Lacanian ethics that the only authentic experience is impossibility/failure and that every collective project is false.tragic Lacanian ethics
reframes
The impossibility of sexual relationship is not the ultimate truth and does not preclude another authentic non-erotic intersubjectivity.the status of Lacanian sexual impossibility
asserts
Communist utopia is the formula 'object a does the work without the master signifier' — an asexual jouissance binding the community.the formula of communist utopia
reframes
Furtwängler was infinitely more honest than Karajan, even though all the blame for Nazism in music falls on Furtwängler.the moral comparison of Furtwängler and Karajan
Quotes 20
“the ring is to put it in Hitchcockian terms the greatest MacGuffin of all times”Slavoj Žižek · the Ring as MacGuffin
“Siegfried is an idiot. It's a bad guy and I think the whole point is that Siegfried remains an idiot to the end.”Slavoj Žižek · Siegfried as anti-hero
“schreiben wird ein Weib — so that a woman becomes knowing. Only a woman is the one who gets the point at the end.”Slavoj Žižek · proto-feminist Brünnhilde
“the only version where Hagen is without any ambiguity a bad guy is Wagner who is supposed to be the proto-Nazi”Slavoj Žižek · Wagner against the Nazi grain
“the same woman who is the seductress is the redemption”Slavoj Žižek · Venus/Elisabeth/Kundry
“I have this reaction f- fuck off so what... cheap historicist contextualization doesn't do what I like”Slavoj Žižek · against historicist Wagner
“Wagner was considered just for old Nazis who forgot to die... Now Wagner is almost predominantly a stuff for left Jewish directors to stage and I love this. This is the truth of Wagner.”Slavoj Žižek · Wagner reclaimed by left Jews
“Wagner is too precious to be left to the enemies”Slavoj Žižek · reclaiming Wagner
“the true source of evil must have been Hamlet's father”Slavoj Žižek · true villain is the father
“The true bad guy is Titurel the father who with his obsession with Grail kind of ruins the natural circle.”Slavoj Žižek · Titurel as true villain
“it's Wotan not Alberich who is the original sin”Slavoj Žižek · Wotan as original sin
“the big other has to properly die for this — you have to have this Christ-like moment”Slavoj Žižek · death of the big Other
“Badiou was basically rehabilitating the cult of personality people didn't notice”Slavoj Žižek · Badiou on the one
“more than half of the painting is just black up there. And that's the greatness.”Slavoj Žižek · Death of Marat's void
“the guy who dies is not a paternal figure... It's a more Christological logic”Slavoj Žižek · Christological not totemic
“I'm a true anti-racist the only way to be truly anti-racist is to be a racist against everybody”Slavoj Žižek · universal anti-racism
“Wotan was too much of a Stalinist — he thought that he can plan now I will organize a nice divine violence”Slavoj Žižek · Wotan as Stalinist
“object a does the work without the master signifier”Slavoj Žižek · communist utopia formula
“this impossibility of sexual relationship whatever is not the ultimate truth”Slavoj Žižek · against tragic Lacanian ethics
“there is a jouissance which is asexual and which this would be for me again the moment of agape”Slavoj Žižek · asexual jouissance as agape
Transcript 39 turns
unknown
He was talking about Wagnerian and heroines dancing in narcissistic monologues but then you did at the end come make a collective
He was talking about Wagnerian and heroines dancing in narcissistic monologues but then you did at the end come make a collective
Slavoj Žižek
love. No but let's have a narcissistic monologue.
love. No but let's have a narcissistic monologue.
unknown
No no enough of this monologue. We in the spirit of collective love we ask the public
No no enough of this monologue. We in the spirit of collective love we ask the public
Slavoj Žižek
to contribute. Or we'll be like those idiot birds just standing there. Mine is just a very minor and obvious point though which might come to you. It will be an evil remark from the way you started. No no no. No it's just it is called The Ring and just what you said about the whole kind of pagan Christian and that the ending isn't really
to contribute. Or we'll be like those idiot birds just standing there. Mine is just a very minor and obvious point though which might come to you. It will be an evil remark from the way you started. No no no. No it's just it is called The Ring and just what you said about the whole kind of pagan Christian and that the ending isn't really
unknown
what you showed Wagner's ending which is the apocalypse the whole Rhine overflows and then the cycle begins again which is... Which cycle begins? This I don't... Well the Ring the Ring it is you know...
what you showed Wagner's ending which is the apocalypse the whole Rhine overflows and then the cycle begins again which is... Which cycle begins? This I don't... Well the Ring the Ring it is you know...
Slavoj Žižek
But the Ring is returned to
But the Ring is returned to
unknown
Rhine Maidens... Well the whole cycle of the Ring starts again.
Rhine Maidens... Well the whole cycle of the Ring starts again.
Slavoj Žižek
Where did you find this? This I would respectfully dispute. I think you don't find this. Wagner doesn't say this. It's new. Where where before did you have people after the... So you're saying there's a break? Yes yes I claim it's new. I claim this not this sorry it's not this. This is on the contrary the darkest moment I think. No I think that that moment of just humanity confronting the void after the death of gods what does this repeat? I think it happens the first time. Where do you find it? I claim that precisely okay I concede one point to you. Wagner was a confused idiot in his writings. Maybe he even thought that but I think the whole point my point would be not to read it this way. It's not a repetition it never happened before. What happened before was just we know what the original criminal is Wotan who tear out the Ash tree and created brought the what happened before was just Rhine Maidens and then this natural balance ruined by the act of God. What happens here at the end this free open space it was never before there but you make one good point here which is that of course this was not a total reading. I totally obliterated it can be done the problem of Ring which as my good friend the French theorist Michel Chion put it the ring is to put it in Hitchcockian terms the greatest MacGuffin of all times as he put it no? And and I think that if anything here things go ambiguous because you are right in this sense that that it's too easy to I think reinscribe Ring into this standard notion of circular narrative where an object is displaced out of its proper place and then the whole story is really about how the story is over when the object gets back gets back to its place. Now if you take it in this way the Ring then I'm now a fanatical Wagnerian I can go on here then things get complicated because all Wagnerians know one of the big mysteries of the Ring is is is the following one. The whole point of gods dying and so on is that the ring you know they die because the ring the gold was stolen the natural balance was disturbed and so on and so on. But then why then although at the end the ring is returned to Rhine why do gods still have to die? I mean there are many mysteries at this level. If you know Wagner's Ring another big mystery I suspect you know it is this one I will ask you now a question. The end of act one when masked as Gunther Siegfried comes to the cave to take Brünnhilde. Do they have sex or not? No no it's very mysterious you know. Basically it's one of the most brutal rape scenes. I think if you look at the most traumatic moment Wagner at his most shatteringly modern in a good sense it's I think the finale of act one of Götterdämmerung. It's terrifying brutality of how Siegfried comes and brutally basically rapes kidnaps Brünnhilde and then the beginning of act two Hagen and so on all that stuff. And again here it's the greatest of Wagner. Hagen is the darkest figure of German mythology already in Nibelungenlied. Hagen is this figure of the hero fate destiny even if he knows it's the end of the world the cause is lost you fight to the end. But what's so typical is that in Nibelungen the myth he is nonetheless redeemed as this figure of German greatness. You know it's a lost battle but you it's your duty you persist to the end no? Then even in Fritz Lang's film Hagen is at the end rehabilitated as such. Hagen is the figure of this German militarism in this mythological sense of you fight to the end. Isn't it nice nonetheless that the only version where Hagen is without any ambiguity a bad guy is Wagner who is supposed to be the proto-Nazi or whatever no? I find this quite attractive how again he all others redeem Hagen who is again really this ultimate figure of well Hagen is mythic violence embodied. He does the dirty job to save to save it all. But I totally agree with you I mean like I buy the Ring being about Brünnhilde being about Wotan the only thing I don't buy is being about Siegfried. Here I think Siegfried is an idiot. It's a bad guy and I think the whole the whole point of this is that is that Siegfried remains an idiot to the end. And this is a nice proto-feminist point you know these key lines of Brünnhilde towards the end schau dass wissend wird ein Weib so that a woman becomes knowing. Only a woman is the one who as it were gets the point gets the point at the end. It's quite something.
Where did you find this? This I would respectfully dispute. I think you don't find this. Wagner doesn't say this. It's new. Where where before did you have people after the... So you're saying there's a break? Yes yes I claim it's new. I claim this not this sorry it's not this. This is on the contrary the darkest moment I think. No I think that that moment of just humanity confronting the void after the death of gods what does this repeat? I think it happens the first time. Where do you find it? I claim that precisely okay I concede one point to you. Wagner was a confused idiot in his writings. Maybe he even thought that but I think the whole point my point would be not to read it this way. It's not a repetition it never happened before. What happened before was just we know what the original criminal is Wotan who tear out the Ash tree and created brought the what happened before was just Rhine Maidens and then this natural balance ruined by the act of God. What happens here at the end this free open space it was never before there but you make one good point here which is that of course this was not a total reading. I totally obliterated it can be done the problem of Ring which as my good friend the French theorist Michel Chion put it the ring is to put it in Hitchcockian terms the greatest MacGuffin of all times as he put it no? And and I think that if anything here things go ambiguous because you are right in this sense that that it's too easy to I think reinscribe Ring into this standard notion of circular narrative where an object is displaced out of its proper place and then the whole story is really about how the story is over when the object gets back gets back to its place. Now if you take it in this way the Ring then I'm now a fanatical Wagnerian I can go on here then things get complicated because all Wagnerians know one of the big mysteries of the Ring is is is the following one. The whole point of gods dying and so on is that the ring you know they die because the ring the gold was stolen the natural balance was disturbed and so on and so on. But then why then although at the end the ring is returned to Rhine why do gods still have to die? I mean there are many mysteries at this level. If you know Wagner's Ring another big mystery I suspect you know it is this one I will ask you now a question. The end of act one when masked as Gunther Siegfried comes to the cave to take Brünnhilde. Do they have sex or not? No no it's very mysterious you know. Basically it's one of the most brutal rape scenes. I think if you look at the most traumatic moment Wagner at his most shatteringly modern in a good sense it's I think the finale of act one of Götterdämmerung. It's terrifying brutality of how Siegfried comes and brutally basically rapes kidnaps Brünnhilde and then the beginning of act two Hagen and so on all that stuff. And again here it's the greatest of Wagner. Hagen is the darkest figure of German mythology already in Nibelungenlied. Hagen is this figure of the hero fate destiny even if he knows it's the end of the world the cause is lost you fight to the end. But what's so typical is that in Nibelungen the myth he is nonetheless redeemed as this figure of German greatness. You know it's a lost battle but you it's your duty you persist to the end no? Then even in Fritz Lang's film Hagen is at the end rehabilitated as such. Hagen is the figure of this German militarism in this mythological sense of you fight to the end. Isn't it nice nonetheless that the only version where Hagen is without any ambiguity a bad guy is Wagner who is supposed to be the proto-Nazi or whatever no? I find this quite attractive how again he all others redeem Hagen who is again really this ultimate figure of well Hagen is mythic violence embodied. He does the dirty job to save to save it all. But I totally agree with you I mean like I buy the Ring being about Brünnhilde being about Wotan the only thing I don't buy is being about Siegfried. Here I think Siegfried is an idiot. It's a bad guy and I think the whole the whole point of this is that is that Siegfried remains an idiot to the end. And this is a nice proto-feminist point you know these key lines of Brünnhilde towards the end schau dass wissend wird ein Weib so that a woman becomes knowing. Only a woman is the one who as it were gets the point gets the point at the end. It's quite something.
unknown
Really reinforcing that point. You didn't mention this but in the very last bars of act three it's Siegfried's motif that is brutally truncated it's just left with a single long note the minor sixth of the scale. It just pathetically sinks back to the fifth and then you get the great renunciation. Yeah okay you put it more in technical terms you know these are the limits of my bluffing how they put it no? No but you see I like the way you are reading Wagner how should I put it you know it matters all these details. I hate those general readings Adorno sometimes falls into them you know just Wagner Leitmotif German mythology and in this quick way everything even would you agree with me because okay sorry if I ignore now all of you even my friend Alain Badiou convinced me I started as a good Nazi as all Wagnerians did that is to say my youth was spent in this ecstatic admiration of Furtwängler. But I think there is a whole dimension of Wagner which is lost
Really reinforcing that point. You didn't mention this but in the very last bars of act three it's Siegfried's motif that is brutally truncated it's just left with a single long note the minor sixth of the scale. It just pathetically sinks back to the fifth and then you get the great renunciation. Yeah okay you put it more in technical terms you know these are the limits of my bluffing how they put it no? No but you see I like the way you are reading Wagner how should I put it you know it matters all these details. I hate those general readings Adorno sometimes falls into them you know just Wagner Leitmotif German mythology and in this quick way everything even would you agree with me because okay sorry if I ignore now all of you even my friend Alain Badiou convinced me I started as a good Nazi as all Wagnerians did that is to say my youth was spent in this ecstatic admiration of Furtwängler. But I think there is a whole dimension of Wagner which is lost
Slavoj Žižek
in this Furtwängler's this Furtwängler is the conductor of this great how to call it great passionate continuity organic flow and so on. I think that there are quite many so although I as a person I hate Karajan I hate him because why always whenever you mention Nazism in music all the blame goes on Furtwängler who was endlessly more honest than the but nonetheless I think that there are some nice details in this clarity microscopic attention and so on in also in Karajan version. It's very interesting actually that just at the moment in the current issue of Musical Times there's a very interesting essay on Tristan by Arnold Whittall in which he takes apart Lawrence's structural reading of Tristan precisely in order to follow detailed developments of the motifs and the ideas and so on in very much the same kind of way. Yeah because this is what interests me in Tristan all the failures like what is the structural necessity you know Tristan in act two you have this great love duet. Now the big enigma if you I claim if you explain this you have already the first key to the opera is why doesn't it end in act two? It would have been okay they go into this sterben wir ungetrennt blah blah blah and okay you can say okay they are spotted but it's almost like there is an inner necessity in it and as we know then when Brangäne comes with a cry it's the greatest coitus interruptus in the design. Why the necessity of this? That you know officially people read Tristan and oh in this eternal eternal self-obliteration but this is exactly what doesn't happen that was Wagner's genius. He does exactly the opposite and he does it again and again we can reread
in this Furtwängler's this Furtwängler is the conductor of this great how to call it great passionate continuity organic flow and so on. I think that there are quite many so although I as a person I hate Karajan I hate him because why always whenever you mention Nazism in music all the blame goes on Furtwängler who was endlessly more honest than the but nonetheless I think that there are some nice details in this clarity microscopic attention and so on in also in Karajan version. It's very interesting actually that just at the moment in the current issue of Musical Times there's a very interesting essay on Tristan by Arnold Whittall in which he takes apart Lawrence's structural reading of Tristan precisely in order to follow detailed developments of the motifs and the ideas and so on in very much the same kind of way. Yeah because this is what interests me in Tristan all the failures like what is the structural necessity you know Tristan in act two you have this great love duet. Now the big enigma if you I claim if you explain this you have already the first key to the opera is why doesn't it end in act two? It would have been okay they go into this sterben wir ungetrennt blah blah blah and okay you can say okay they are spotted but it's almost like there is an inner necessity in it and as we know then when Brangäne comes with a cry it's the greatest coitus interruptus in the design. Why the necessity of this? That you know officially people read Tristan and oh in this eternal eternal self-obliteration but this is exactly what doesn't happen that was Wagner's genius. He does exactly the opposite and he does it again and again we can reread
unknown
in this way for example we can reread in this way in this way in this way Tannhäuser. Usually people read Tannhäuser as a simple metaphysical duality between sensual love and whatever but no the I claim the true undeadness is the key aria is the one at the beginning when Tannhäuser says to Venus Venus basically too much happiness too much pleasure I you know like where is the castration where is it's too much and so on no? So it it gets much more complex in this way which
in this way for example we can reread in this way in this way in this way Tannhäuser. Usually people read Tannhäuser as a simple metaphysical duality between sensual love and whatever but no the I claim the true undeadness is the key aria is the one at the beginning when Tannhäuser says to Venus Venus basically too much happiness too much pleasure I you know like where is the castration where is it's too much and so on no? So it it gets much more complex in this way which
Slavoj Žižek
is why I wonder what's your opinion I agree with those staging where Elisabeth the good Christian heroine and Venus are sung by the same woman. I think this is crucial in this sense we should read these two women but to Wagner it became clear only with Kundry. He wrote Wagner that when she got it that the same woman who is the seductress is the redemption and so on and so on. So all I want to say is that at this level something very naive let's not just get lost in this deconstructionist making fun like Marc Weiner's book I claim it's interesting but even if everything is true I have this reaction f- fuck off so what how to put it no? It's not interesting. Okay you know he makes all these microscopic Foucauldian points if you look at at at how sounds at how sounds or even smells are described in Parsifal you can see that it's all about making fun of the Jews and so on or whatever you want and so on and so on. This is for me basically to such an extent non non-interesting it doesn't this cheap historicist contextualization doesn't do what what I like is that precisely you do something very brutal you take an opera out of context you reinvent it and then if it's properly done you have this wonderful enlightenment idea oh my god now I see it and so on no? And and this is what I like so much about Wagner I am unfortunately old enough to know that when I was young Wagner was considered just for old Nazis who forgot to die basically no? Now Wagner is almost predominantly I would say a stuff for for left Jewish directors to stage and I love this I mean this is the truth this is the truth of Wagner. I'm older than you and and Jewish and... So you must be a Wagnerian then. More totally dedicated Wagnerian. You know even this joke you know sorry just this you know the great Wagnerian tenor one of now he is old Siegfried Jerusalem. A wonderful name Siegfried German Jerusalem Jerusalem. I asked friends in Vienna because he is Viennese what a strange name. He told me nothing strange he comes from a Jewish family and in Jewish families at the turn of the century and later in Vienna it was very fashionable to give Germanic names. My father was called was called Siegfried. Yeah so somebody told me that there is a standard Jewish joke from Vienna: two Jewish girls talk no two Austrian girls are talking and one says who is your boyfriend? She says Sigmund and yours Siegfried. Ah you also have a Jewish boyfriend. So it was practically you see this is what like Wagner is too precious to be left to the enemies to the enemies my god no? It's there is so much there is so much in Wagner just again look at the texture of the work and see how it interacts with let's call it for example would you agree with another point with which I am obsessed. Klingsor is not the true bad guy in in Parsifal Klingsor is a B-level boss. The true bad guy is Titurel the father who with his obsession with Grail kind of ruins the the natural circle. He is the source of it's a little bit I claim as with Hamlet. Any close reading of Hamlet makes it clear that that Claudius is a B-level small level whatever that
is why I wonder what's your opinion I agree with those staging where Elisabeth the good Christian heroine and Venus are sung by the same woman. I think this is crucial in this sense we should read these two women but to Wagner it became clear only with Kundry. He wrote Wagner that when she got it that the same woman who is the seductress is the redemption and so on and so on. So all I want to say is that at this level something very naive let's not just get lost in this deconstructionist making fun like Marc Weiner's book I claim it's interesting but even if everything is true I have this reaction f- fuck off so what how to put it no? It's not interesting. Okay you know he makes all these microscopic Foucauldian points if you look at at at how sounds at how sounds or even smells are described in Parsifal you can see that it's all about making fun of the Jews and so on or whatever you want and so on and so on. This is for me basically to such an extent non non-interesting it doesn't this cheap historicist contextualization doesn't do what what I like is that precisely you do something very brutal you take an opera out of context you reinvent it and then if it's properly done you have this wonderful enlightenment idea oh my god now I see it and so on no? And and this is what I like so much about Wagner I am unfortunately old enough to know that when I was young Wagner was considered just for old Nazis who forgot to die basically no? Now Wagner is almost predominantly I would say a stuff for for left Jewish directors to stage and I love this I mean this is the truth this is the truth of Wagner. I'm older than you and and Jewish and... So you must be a Wagnerian then. More totally dedicated Wagnerian. You know even this joke you know sorry just this you know the great Wagnerian tenor one of now he is old Siegfried Jerusalem. A wonderful name Siegfried German Jerusalem Jerusalem. I asked friends in Vienna because he is Viennese what a strange name. He told me nothing strange he comes from a Jewish family and in Jewish families at the turn of the century and later in Vienna it was very fashionable to give Germanic names. My father was called was called Siegfried. Yeah so somebody told me that there is a standard Jewish joke from Vienna: two Jewish girls talk no two Austrian girls are talking and one says who is your boyfriend? She says Sigmund and yours Siegfried. Ah you also have a Jewish boyfriend. So it was practically you see this is what like Wagner is too precious to be left to the enemies to the enemies my god no? It's there is so much there is so much in Wagner just again look at the texture of the work and see how it interacts with let's call it for example would you agree with another point with which I am obsessed. Klingsor is not the true bad guy in in Parsifal Klingsor is a B-level boss. The true bad guy is Titurel the father who with his obsession with Grail kind of ruins the the natural circle. He is the source of it's a little bit I claim as with Hamlet. Any close reading of Hamlet makes it clear that that Claudius is a B-level small level whatever that
unknown
the true source
the true source
Slavoj Žižek
of evil must have been Hamlet's father. You have some of the mysterious hints you know when the ghost first appears and explains to Hamlet because there is a big question if he was such a good father why is he returning as a ghost? And he says because I was killed murdered in the flower of my sins or whatever. You see one should be very precise who is again in Ring it's Wotan not Alberich who is the original sin. In Parsifal it's Titurel who is the true this kind of a Freudian Urvater obscene father it's not the poor Klingsor and so on. No? You two could talk forever. There's one there was a question there. Yes. No no I'm covered. You're covered. It was about Tannhäuser. Yes. I'm just wondering because it's so this the ending that you're looking at is very similar to Adam Mickiewicz's Dziady which is also the big Polish romantic text so at the end Konrad is sublimated on a horse because isn't Brünnhilde supposed to leap into the flames on a horse as well at the end? Look look they did it in the first years staging but then the horse got crazy almost jump into the public so okay let's go on. Yeah well I mean because that's also how Mickiewicz does it it's the horse ascends and that's the end but that's supposed to be this sort of collective call to political action for Poles to regain the nation so I mean is the opposite reading the possibility that there has to be first a moment of sublimation for there to be this collective call but isn't that the opposite of saying it's a big other that we're rejecting? No but what I'm saying is that the big other has to properly die for this you have to have this Christ-like moment. Here I'm a little bit maybe reactionary of thought but they agree here with Alain Badiou. People didn't notice it that he made the same point at the communism conference when he got into this obscure thought about the necessity of the one Badiou was basically rehabilitating the cult of personality people didn't notice no? I think yes I think so I think we if we want to be less playful shamelessly accept it. That's why I'm so sad I didn't have time to the big question is how can we regain this moment without all this Stalinist mausoleum stuff and so on. And I wanted to do it I don't have time. The key is
of evil must have been Hamlet's father. You have some of the mysterious hints you know when the ghost first appears and explains to Hamlet because there is a big question if he was such a good father why is he returning as a ghost? And he says because I was killed murdered in the flower of my sins or whatever. You see one should be very precise who is again in Ring it's Wotan not Alberich who is the original sin. In Parsifal it's Titurel who is the true this kind of a Freudian Urvater obscene father it's not the poor Klingsor and so on. No? You two could talk forever. There's one there was a question there. Yes. No no I'm covered. You're covered. It was about Tannhäuser. Yes. I'm just wondering because it's so this the ending that you're looking at is very similar to Adam Mickiewicz's Dziady which is also the big Polish romantic text so at the end Konrad is sublimated on a horse because isn't Brünnhilde supposed to leap into the flames on a horse as well at the end? Look look they did it in the first years staging but then the horse got crazy almost jump into the public so okay let's go on. Yeah well I mean because that's also how Mickiewicz does it it's the horse ascends and that's the end but that's supposed to be this sort of collective call to political action for Poles to regain the nation so I mean is the opposite reading the possibility that there has to be first a moment of sublimation for there to be this collective call but isn't that the opposite of saying it's a big other that we're rejecting? No but what I'm saying is that the big other has to properly die for this you have to have this Christ-like moment. Here I'm a little bit maybe reactionary of thought but they agree here with Alain Badiou. People didn't notice it that he made the same point at the communism conference when he got into this obscure thought about the necessity of the one Badiou was basically rehabilitating the cult of personality people didn't notice no? I think yes I think so I think we if we want to be less playful shamelessly accept it. That's why I'm so sad I didn't have time to the big question is how can we regain this moment without all this Stalinist mausoleum stuff and so on. And I wanted to do it I don't have time. The key is
unknown
my god
my god
unknown
it's a beautiful painting. You know it's a painting that you all know but only now did I discover it in the sense of David the Death of Marat. You know what's so strange about this painting if you remember it Marat is down here the strange thing is
it's a beautiful painting. You know it's a painting that you all know but only now did I discover it in the sense of David the Death of Marat. You know what's so strange about this painting if you remember it Marat is down here the strange thing is
Slavoj Žižek
that
that
unknown
more than half of the painting is just black up there. And that's the greatness. That's why I think this painting is a
more than half of the painting is just black up there. And that's the greatness. That's why I think this painting is a
unknown
material proof that the Jacobins were
material proof that the Jacobins were
Slavoj Žižek
not totalitarians because you know it's Marat the dying and then black. You know what you I can if you leave me okay if I were to know how to draw nice piece and if you leave me one afternoon I would be ready to make out of this death of Marat a wonderful Stalinist painting filling this blackness with some ideal future of happy people so that you can say you know Marat dying but his death is a triumph of the of the people and so on and so on. But this precisely isn't this something tremendously beautiful that you have a revolution whose central painting it's something again extremely weird it's just you know it's just a fragment down there of a dead body and then almost a kind of a Death of Marat supplemented by some kind of Malevich or whatever a big Malevich up there just the space. So but again you need a dead Marat you need a figure like that you need a figure like that. But I claim that maybe we can play I'm totally improvising now the game of dead father dead son or whatever that the guy who dies is not a paternal figure. It's not the Freudian totem and taboo logic of the dead father who returns as symbolic authority and so on and so on. That it's different it's different it's I'm saying this as an atheist of course. It's a more Christological logic. But if you come from Poland nonetheless I have a problem. Were you able to survive it's even more boring than Wagner Andrzej Wajda's Pan Tadeusz the film? I'm actually from California. You see now I see
not totalitarians because you know it's Marat the dying and then black. You know what you I can if you leave me okay if I were to know how to draw nice piece and if you leave me one afternoon I would be ready to make out of this death of Marat a wonderful Stalinist painting filling this blackness with some ideal future of happy people so that you can say you know Marat dying but his death is a triumph of the of the people and so on and so on. But this precisely isn't this something tremendously beautiful that you have a revolution whose central painting it's something again extremely weird it's just you know it's just a fragment down there of a dead body and then almost a kind of a Death of Marat supplemented by some kind of Malevich or whatever a big Malevich up there just the space. So but again you need a dead Marat you need a figure like that you need a figure like that. But I claim that maybe we can play I'm totally improvising now the game of dead father dead son or whatever that the guy who dies is not a paternal figure. It's not the Freudian totem and taboo logic of the dead father who returns as symbolic authority and so on and so on. That it's different it's different it's I'm saying this as an atheist of course. It's a more Christological logic. But if you come from Poland nonetheless I have a problem. Were you able to survive it's even more boring than Wagner Andrzej Wajda's Pan Tadeusz the film? I'm actually from California. You see now I see
unknown
it's the Nazi. You see such decadent Jewish mixture you even don't know where people come from and so on everything is broken in this
it's the Nazi. You see such decadent Jewish mixture you even don't know where people come from and so on everything is broken in this
Slavoj Žižek
world. But how did you know then about that? Oh you studied Polish literature?
world. But how did you know then about that? Oh you studied Polish literature?
unknown
Yeah yes yes. But this is this is the founding gesture was was
Yeah yes yes. But this is this is the founding gesture was was
Slavoj Žižek
Konrad's sublimation on the horse at the end of of Dziady. And and this... Because I don't know I admit I only know Pan Tadeusz and I didn't get the multiple orgasm through Pan Tadeusz. Normally you'd frankly ask people you know your racist credentials you ask them where they're from now you've given and you got it wrong. No but I told you I'm not joking here I think that the I'm a true anti-racist the only way to be truly anti-racist is to be a racist against everybody you know. I see it sounds like the next masterclass will be on communism and painting. I mean are you are you going to comment on
Konrad's sublimation on the horse at the end of of Dziady. And and this... Because I don't know I admit I only know Pan Tadeusz and I didn't get the multiple orgasm through Pan Tadeusz. Normally you'd frankly ask people you know your racist credentials you ask them where they're from now you've given and you got it wrong. No but I told you I'm not joking here I think that the I'm a true anti-racist the only way to be truly anti-racist is to be a racist against everybody you know. I see it sounds like the next masterclass will be on communism and painting. I mean are you are you going to comment on
unknown
any paintings for the next... No no no but you know I bluff a lot generally it's too much bluffing you know what I mean no? I just an idea came to me that how you have this medieval topic you know Kantorowicz two kings bodies. Then you have this reemerging in
any paintings for the next... No no no but you know I bluff a lot generally it's too much bluffing you know what I mean no? I just an idea came to me that how you have this medieval topic you know Kantorowicz two kings bodies. Then you have this reemerging in
Slavoj Žižek
Stalinism the leader's body and so on and the idea came to me my god what we have with David it's something totally different. It is as if precisely this you know Marat it is as if precisely this passage into
Stalinism the leader's body and so on and the idea came to me my god what we have with David it's something totally different. It is as if precisely this you know Marat it is as if precisely this passage into
unknown
this kind of a fake sublimation of the other body is blocked there is blocked there. Precisely why? Because again the only solution is this one the
this kind of a fake sublimation of the other body is blocked there is blocked there. Precisely why? Because again the only solution is this one the
Slavoj Žižek
only way for
only way for
unknown
the dead leader to be to be re-embodied to be resurrected it's in the
the dead leader to be to be re-embodied to be resurrected it's in the
Slavoj Žižek
collective. You don't need a new master and so on no? Exactly. And this again is precisely what maybe happens here. We have to go at four so are there any more questions anyone wants to ask? Yeah
collective. You don't need a new master and so on no? Exactly. And this again is precisely what maybe happens here. We have to go at four so are there any more questions anyone wants to ask? Yeah
unknown
please.
please.
unknown
Um maybe I misunderstood but but when you use divine violence... Siegfried? Why not Brünnhilde? Isn't Brünnhilde sacrifice at the end the creative destruction that
Um maybe I misunderstood but but when you use divine violence... Siegfried? Why not Brünnhilde? Isn't Brünnhilde sacrifice at the end the creative destruction that
Slavoj Žižek
allows for... Yeah but yeah but okay I will put it in this way I got your point and I totally agree with he. I think that the first okay I put it in this way what Wotan misplanned it he was aware that his mistake was mythic violence. He wanted he was too much of a Stalinist he thought that he can plan now I will organize a nice divine violence no? It didn't work. It worked in a totally different way yes it's a beautiful remark I agree with you with Brünnhilde but Wotan's plan was obviously for Siegfried to be like divine violence but it I don't know if you agree this if you know Wagner but I think again that the key thing is and again there are so many traces in Wagner of Siegfried's extreme brutality stupidity it's not only the way he treats in act two of Siegfried it's even worse his totally totally dismissive practically racist outbursts against Alberich Mime or again act two of sorry the end of act one of of Götterdämmerung. The way he treats Brünnhilde there one of the most traumatic painful scenes and so on and so on although incidentally everything can be rewritten. There is an attempt and I love the book unfortunately it's not translated into English. There's one of these popular German like German version of of Tolkien writer called Hohlbein but with a double H H-O-H-L-B-E-I-N. I forgot even his name who wrote... Wolfgang? Sorry? Wolfgang? Yeah yeah yeah Wolfgang I think. Didn't he wrote among other things also a total rewriting of Nibelungen a wonderful novel I love it called Hagen von Tronje which is a wonderful pages novel very well written total rehabilitation but not as a figure of mythic obscene violence. It's a total rewriting where also Siegfried is a brutal thug but it's a different totally different rehabilitation of Hagen. That's a successful but it's simply it's simply another another Hagen. But one of the best Hagens recently is yours British how is it called that actor. Did you see a movie a German British movie with Brünnhilde don't laugh is that the girl who plays the the bad cyborg in Terminator Kristanna Loken. She plays Brünnhilde the German young star Benno Fürmann plays Siegfried and I forgot one of the English actors plays Hagen it's not such a bad film incidentally but okay let's stop okay. Can I ask a question I mean we do have until at maximum we were told but um oh yeah I thought your talk was I mean I'm not an opera expert but I thought it was really sweet this business of collective love in the end. I mean are you are you suggesting that we can go beyond this there is no sexual relationship the Lacanian and are you suggesting you know as long as there is... Yeah this was to be the secret
allows for... Yeah but yeah but okay I will put it in this way I got your point and I totally agree with he. I think that the first okay I put it in this way what Wotan misplanned it he was aware that his mistake was mythic violence. He wanted he was too much of a Stalinist he thought that he can plan now I will organize a nice divine violence no? It didn't work. It worked in a totally different way yes it's a beautiful remark I agree with you with Brünnhilde but Wotan's plan was obviously for Siegfried to be like divine violence but it I don't know if you agree this if you know Wagner but I think again that the key thing is and again there are so many traces in Wagner of Siegfried's extreme brutality stupidity it's not only the way he treats in act two of Siegfried it's even worse his totally totally dismissive practically racist outbursts against Alberich Mime or again act two of sorry the end of act one of of Götterdämmerung. The way he treats Brünnhilde there one of the most traumatic painful scenes and so on and so on although incidentally everything can be rewritten. There is an attempt and I love the book unfortunately it's not translated into English. There's one of these popular German like German version of of Tolkien writer called Hohlbein but with a double H H-O-H-L-B-E-I-N. I forgot even his name who wrote... Wolfgang? Sorry? Wolfgang? Yeah yeah yeah Wolfgang I think. Didn't he wrote among other things also a total rewriting of Nibelungen a wonderful novel I love it called Hagen von Tronje which is a wonderful pages novel very well written total rehabilitation but not as a figure of mythic obscene violence. It's a total rewriting where also Siegfried is a brutal thug but it's a different totally different rehabilitation of Hagen. That's a successful but it's simply it's simply another another Hagen. But one of the best Hagens recently is yours British how is it called that actor. Did you see a movie a German British movie with Brünnhilde don't laugh is that the girl who plays the the bad cyborg in Terminator Kristanna Loken. She plays Brünnhilde the German young star Benno Fürmann plays Siegfried and I forgot one of the English actors plays Hagen it's not such a bad film incidentally but okay let's stop okay. Can I ask a question I mean we do have until at maximum we were told but um oh yeah I thought your talk was I mean I'm not an opera expert but I thought it was really sweet this business of collective love in the end. I mean are you are you suggesting that we can go beyond this there is no sexual relationship the Lacanian and are you suggesting you know as long as there is... Yeah this was to be the secret
unknown
thing but you converted me here I don't believe I no longer buy this tragic Lacanian ethics you
thing but you converted me here I don't believe I no longer buy this tragic Lacanian ethics you
Slavoj Žižek
know like... So as
know like... So as
unknown
long as we focus on something else we can love each other. No
long as we focus on something else we can love each other. No
Slavoj Žižek
I am even ready to go a step further. That's very sweet. I can even forget about the woman or the man or whatever or two women so that you will not accuse me to being in a binary opposition or whatever. What I'm saying is that I I don't buy this I less and less buy this tragic Lacanian ethics of you know the only authentic experience is the experience of an ultimate impossibility failure and so on and then every collective project is in some radical sense false based on some erasure oppression disavowal of this impossibility and so on. I think that this kind of collective yeah this kind of collective unity should not be dismissed at some psychoanalytic level as based on some repression on some original trauma or whatever and so on. And it's not imaginary. Sorry? It's not imaginary. No no so and so I think precisely this I think this would be my ultimate goal that there that this impossibility of sexual relationship whatever is not is not the ultimate truth it also doesn't preclude another authentic form of intersubjectivity which doesn't have to be to be erotic in the immediate sense. I think that no my Lacanian point here is very simple one. It's the object a that communities are kept together Lacanian dogma by master signifier. But I think that what we can get and that's for me a very brief simple formula of communist utopia that object a does the work without the master signifier. Object a which you should remember this Lacan calls it asexual. A he also reads A as asexual. So I think there is a jouissance which is asexual and which this would be for me again the moment of agape and so on and so on. And it can function well
I am even ready to go a step further. That's very sweet. I can even forget about the woman or the man or whatever or two women so that you will not accuse me to being in a binary opposition or whatever. What I'm saying is that I I don't buy this I less and less buy this tragic Lacanian ethics of you know the only authentic experience is the experience of an ultimate impossibility failure and so on and then every collective project is in some radical sense false based on some erasure oppression disavowal of this impossibility and so on. I think that this kind of collective yeah this kind of collective unity should not be dismissed at some psychoanalytic level as based on some repression on some original trauma or whatever and so on. And it's not imaginary. Sorry? It's not imaginary. No no so and so I think precisely this I think this would be my ultimate goal that there that this impossibility of sexual relationship whatever is not is not the ultimate truth it also doesn't preclude another authentic form of intersubjectivity which doesn't have to be to be erotic in the immediate sense. I think that no my Lacanian point here is very simple one. It's the object a that communities are kept together Lacanian dogma by master signifier. But I think that what we can get and that's for me a very brief simple formula of communist utopia that object a does the work without the master signifier. Object a which you should remember this Lacan calls it asexual. A he also reads A as asexual. So I think there is a jouissance which is asexual and which this would be for me again the moment of agape and so on and so on. And it can function well
unknown
well I I hesitate to carry on because we've got a hopeful note to finish at but unless there's some people want to ask questions?
well I I hesitate to carry on because we've got a hopeful note to finish at but unless there's some people want to ask questions?
Slavoj Žižek
No I just had a I'm sorry for today again tomorrow it would I just have this bad feeling that I was how should I put it stuffing backyard you know like when I visited years ago British friends no and they told they are doing me a great favor they were forcing me to eat those pheasants and and all that it's almost as bad pheasants as haggis. Haggis is the lowest. Now we enjoyed... No I enjoyed... Like as if I was stuffing haggis down your throats years my private dreams no? So tomorrow we are back to normal waters. Normal waters. Normal nightmare. Okay thanks for your patience. Thanks.
No I just had a I'm sorry for today again tomorrow it would I just have this bad feeling that I was how should I put it stuffing backyard you know like when I visited years ago British friends no and they told they are doing me a great favor they were forcing me to eat those pheasants and and all that it's almost as bad pheasants as haggis. Haggis is the lowest. Now we enjoyed... No I enjoyed... Like as if I was stuffing haggis down your throats years my private dreams no? So tomorrow we are back to normal waters. Normal waters. Normal nightmare. Okay thanks for your patience. Thanks.