Slovenian Philosopher Slavoj Zizek on Capitalism, and the "Farcical" Financial Crisis 1 of 2
Interview · mediagrrl9 ·
2009-10 · 0:10:00 · 1,599 words
ideologypsychoanalysiscapitalismdemocracyeveryday-life
Žižek analyzes contemporary ideology through the lens of psychoanalytic fetishist disavowal, using the Niels Bohr horseshoe anecdote to illustrate how we act as if systems work despite knowing they do not. He critiques the political left's moralization of the financial crisis, arguing for a structural understanding of capitalism over individual greed, and contrasts the public obscenity of political figures with the private belief in democratic forms.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 4
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
The psychoanalytic mechanism where one knows the truth (e.g., market failure) but acts as if it does not apply to them ('Je sais bien, mais quand même').
as “cynical ideology”
The state where public power is openly indecent/obscene, yet the system functions because the irony/mockery is part of the game.
The false populist choice of prioritizing ordinary citizens over financial institutions, which Žižek argues is impossible in modern capitalism due to structural credit dependencies.
Žižek's thesis that capitalism inherently provides state protection and subsidies for the wealthy, mirroring socialist redistribution from above.
Stories he reaches for 3
Physicist Niels Bohr has a horseshoe above his door for luck. When asked why he, a scientist, believes in superstition, he replies he doesn't believe in it, but has it because 'it works even if you don't believe in it.'
“He said I don't believe in it but I have it there, horseshoe, because I was told that it works even if you don't believe in it.”
Madoff is not an outlier but a 'radical version' of where the system pushes actors, illustrating the structural roots of the crisis beyond individual greed.
“he was just a radical version of where the system is pushing you.”
Berlusconi's lawyer publicly claimed his client is not impotent, ready to prove it in court, illustrating the obscene, indecent public face of modern power.
“claims that Berlusconi is impotent are lies and that Mr. Berlusconi is ready to prove this in court.”
People invoked 7
Silvio Berlusconi negative
Cited as undermining the dignity of state power; his lawyer's statement on impotence is used to illustrate obscene public power.
Paul Krugman positive
Cited for a mental experiment about bankers knowing the crash would happen, used to illustrate fetishist disavowal.
Bernard Madoff positive
Used to argue that he was a 'radical version' of the system's push, not just an evil individual.
Jacques Lacan positive
Referenced as the source of the psychoanalytic concept of fetishist disavowal.
Joseph E. Stiglitz positive
Cited for sympathetic Keynesian welfare state suggestions.
Nicolas Sarkozy negative
Cited as an example of the public face of power becoming indecent.
Niels Bohr positive
Used in an anecdote to illustrate the mechanism of fetishist disavowal.
Transcript 12 turns
unknown
I'm Amy Goodman with Juan Gonzalez. Juan.
I'm Amy Goodman with Juan Gonzalez. Juan.
unknown
We continue on the subject of the financial crisis with a man the National Review calls the most dangerous political philosopher in the West. The New York Times calls him the Elvis of cultural theory. Slovenian philosopher and public intellectual Slavoj Zizek has written over books on philosophy, psychoanalysis, theology, history and political theory. His latest just out from Verso is called First as Tragedy, Then as Farce. It analyzes how the United States has moved from the tragedy of to the farce of the financial meltdown. Zizek’s latest offering also excerpted in the October issue of Harper's Magazine opens with the words, quote, the only truly surprising thing about the financial meltdown is how easily the idea was accepted that its happening was unpredictable. He goes on to recall how the demonstrations against the IMF and the World Bank over the past decade all protested the ways in which banks were playing with money and warned of an impending crash. They were met with tear gas and mass arrests.
We continue on the subject of the financial crisis with a man the National Review calls the most dangerous political philosopher in the West. The New York Times calls him the Elvis of cultural theory. Slovenian philosopher and public intellectual Slavoj Zizek has written over books on philosophy, psychoanalysis, theology, history and political theory. His latest just out from Verso is called First as Tragedy, Then as Farce. It analyzes how the United States has moved from the tragedy of to the farce of the financial meltdown. Zizek’s latest offering also excerpted in the October issue of Harper's Magazine opens with the words, quote, the only truly surprising thing about the financial meltdown is how easily the idea was accepted that its happening was unpredictable. He goes on to recall how the demonstrations against the IMF and the World Bank over the past decade all protested the ways in which banks were playing with money and warned of an impending crash. They were met with tear gas and mass arrests.
unknown
The message, he writes, was quote loud and clear and the police were used to literally stifle the truth. Well Slavoj Zizek addressed a full house at Cooper Union here in New York City on Wednesday night and joins us now in our firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!
The message, he writes, was quote loud and clear and the police were used to literally stifle the truth. Well Slavoj Zizek addressed a full house at Cooper Union here in New York City on Wednesday night and joins us now in our firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!
Slavoj Žižek
It's really
It's really
unknown
good to have you with us. Thanks very much, it's my pleasure. You are even
good to have you with us. Thanks very much, it's my pleasure. You are even
Slavoj Žižek
better than Fox News which I usually watch. More amusing. Relate
better than Fox News which I usually watch. More amusing. Relate
unknown
the protests to the meltdown and why how it was predictable.
the protests to the meltdown and why how it was predictable.
Slavoj Žižek
No, what interests me is for example Paul Berm— Paul, sorry, Paul Krugman said basically the same thing which tells us a lot about how ideology works today. He said what if we make a mental experiment and all the leading bank people, managers and so on, were to know how it would end two years ago? He said let's not delude ourselves, there would have been no change, they would have acted in exactly the same way. This brings me as a psychoanalyst into the play because I think this makes us aware as to what extent our everyday dealing is controlled by what in psychoanalysis we call the mechanism of fetishist disavowal. Je sais bien, mais quand même. I know very well, but... You know, we can know very well the possible catastrophic consequences but somehow you trust the market, you think things will somehow work out and so on and so on. It's absolutely crucial to analyze this not only in economy but generally. This is the focus of my work, how beliefs function today. What do we mean when we say that someone believes? So that I don't get lost let me tell you a wonderful story which is my favorite story, I quote it also in the book. You know Niels Bohr? Copenhagen, quantum physics guy. You know once he was visited in his country house by a friend who saw above the entrance a horseshoe. You know in Europe the superstitious item allegedly preventing evil spirits to enter the house. And the friend, also a scientist, asked him, but listen, do you really believe in this? Niels Bohr said of course not, I'm not an idiot, I'm a scientist. Then the friend asked him, but why do you have it there? You know what Niels Bohr answered? He said I don't believe in it but I have it there, horseshoe, because I was told that it works even if you don't believe in it. That's ideology today. We don't believe in democracy, nobody, you make fun of it and so on, but somehow we act as if it works. It's a very strange situation because there are some of us old enough still remember them, old days when the public face of power was dignity, belief and privately you mocked it, you made fun and so on, no? Now we are I think approaching a very strange state where the public face of power is becoming more and more openly indecent, obscene. Look at Sarkozy in France, look at look at Berlusconi in Italy who is systematically undermining for over five years now the minimum of dignity of the state power. I mean you are again and again surprised, how is this possible? You know after those sex scandals two weeks ago his lawyer, Berlusconi's lawyer, made a public official statement where he said that claims that Berlusconi is impotent are lies and that Mr. Berlusconi is ready to prove this in court. Now how what did he mean? You know there is a level of obscenity but this shouldn't deceive us. We really live in cynical times, not just in this cheap sense that don't take them seriously but in the sense that that how should I put it the ironic self-undermining making fun of yourself is in a strange way part of the game. It's as if the system can function even if it makes fun of itself.
No, what interests me is for example Paul Berm— Paul, sorry, Paul Krugman said basically the same thing which tells us a lot about how ideology works today. He said what if we make a mental experiment and all the leading bank people, managers and so on, were to know how it would end two years ago? He said let's not delude ourselves, there would have been no change, they would have acted in exactly the same way. This brings me as a psychoanalyst into the play because I think this makes us aware as to what extent our everyday dealing is controlled by what in psychoanalysis we call the mechanism of fetishist disavowal. Je sais bien, mais quand même. I know very well, but... You know, we can know very well the possible catastrophic consequences but somehow you trust the market, you think things will somehow work out and so on and so on. It's absolutely crucial to analyze this not only in economy but generally. This is the focus of my work, how beliefs function today. What do we mean when we say that someone believes? So that I don't get lost let me tell you a wonderful story which is my favorite story, I quote it also in the book. You know Niels Bohr? Copenhagen, quantum physics guy. You know once he was visited in his country house by a friend who saw above the entrance a horseshoe. You know in Europe the superstitious item allegedly preventing evil spirits to enter the house. And the friend, also a scientist, asked him, but listen, do you really believe in this? Niels Bohr said of course not, I'm not an idiot, I'm a scientist. Then the friend asked him, but why do you have it there? You know what Niels Bohr answered? He said I don't believe in it but I have it there, horseshoe, because I was told that it works even if you don't believe in it. That's ideology today. We don't believe in democracy, nobody, you make fun of it and so on, but somehow we act as if it works. It's a very strange situation because there are some of us old enough still remember them, old days when the public face of power was dignity, belief and privately you mocked it, you made fun and so on, no? Now we are I think approaching a very strange state where the public face of power is becoming more and more openly indecent, obscene. Look at Sarkozy in France, look at look at Berlusconi in Italy who is systematically undermining for over five years now the minimum of dignity of the state power. I mean you are again and again surprised, how is this possible? You know after those sex scandals two weeks ago his lawyer, Berlusconi's lawyer, made a public official statement where he said that claims that Berlusconi is impotent are lies and that Mr. Berlusconi is ready to prove this in court. Now how what did he mean? You know there is a level of obscenity but this shouldn't deceive us. We really live in cynical times, not just in this cheap sense that don't take them seriously but in the sense that that how should I put it the ironic self-undermining making fun of yourself is in a strange way part of the game. It's as if the system can function even if it makes fun of itself.
unknown
Well I'd like to ask you, you say you're also a critic of the progressive or the left response here. You say in your article in Harper's there's a real possibility that the primary victim of the ongoing crisis will not be capitalism but the left itself in so far as its inability to offer a viable global alternative was again made visible to everyone.
Well I'd like to ask you, you say you're also a critic of the progressive or the left response here. You say in your article in Harper's there's a real possibility that the primary victim of the ongoing crisis will not be capitalism but the left itself in so far as its inability to offer a viable global alternative was again made visible to everyone.
Slavoj Žižek
Could you elaborate on that? I am a radical leftist. I like to call myself in a very conditional way a communist even. But I think one should as a leftist really concede the amount of the defeat of the left in the last years, that's the sine qua non condition of a possible renewal. So yes, apart from very sympathetic things suggested by people like Stiglitz, Krugman, which are basically a return to Keynesian welfare state, and apart from some interesting but I don't think they are the solution economic ideas like the basic income or so-called renda básica in Brazil, basic rent, which is a utopia of its own I think, I sometimes apart from this have a strange paranoiac idea that maybe this crisis was manufactured so that to so that people will see that even if there is a crisis the left really doesn't have a global answer. I I see what worries me is two things about the left. First, its more and more legalistic moralization. You know it's some kind of a pure form of protest against injustice, then the only thing you can do is legal forms and so on. The in this sense many of the ex-leftists are getting de-politicized. They no longer ask the truly basic questions, like even now all the outcry was oh those bank profiteers and so on. I totally agree with what we just heard. But don't you think that the truth is a little bit more complex in the sense of you know much more about this than me but the way I see it is that one of the roots of the present crisis is not just greed, is that after the digital bubble in the at the beginning of our millennium the idea was how to keep prosperity, how to keep economy alive. And it was as far as I remember even a little bit of a really bipartisan decision, let's make it easier in real estate and so on to keep it moving. So you know there is a structural problem beneath all this psychological topic of the greedy bankers, which is that's how capitalism works, my god! Which is why even concerning our beloved model Bernard Madoff, no? I didn't like it how they focused on him. Wait a minute, he was just a radical version of where the system is pushing you. Now I'm not saying I'm not crazy which is why we need to nationalize all banks and introduce immediately socialist dictatorship or what. What I'm just saying is let's not get rid of the problem by too easily making it into a psychological problem. Let's, you know, you can be an evil guy but there must be very precise institutional, economic and so on coordinates background which allows you to do what you do. The second thing, I also didn't like the cry shared by left and right-wing populists of help the Main Street, not the Wall Street. Where, sorry, but those bank managers who emphasized: in capitalism there is no Main Street without Wall Street. In today's industry because of the competition and immense investment into new inventions and so on, without large accessibility, availability of credits there is no prosperous Main Street. So this is a false choice. So again with all respect for the left and so on I think we should avoid quick moralization if we mean it seriously.
Could you elaborate on that? I am a radical leftist. I like to call myself in a very conditional way a communist even. But I think one should as a leftist really concede the amount of the defeat of the left in the last years, that's the sine qua non condition of a possible renewal. So yes, apart from very sympathetic things suggested by people like Stiglitz, Krugman, which are basically a return to Keynesian welfare state, and apart from some interesting but I don't think they are the solution economic ideas like the basic income or so-called renda básica in Brazil, basic rent, which is a utopia of its own I think, I sometimes apart from this have a strange paranoiac idea that maybe this crisis was manufactured so that to so that people will see that even if there is a crisis the left really doesn't have a global answer. I I see what worries me is two things about the left. First, its more and more legalistic moralization. You know it's some kind of a pure form of protest against injustice, then the only thing you can do is legal forms and so on. The in this sense many of the ex-leftists are getting de-politicized. They no longer ask the truly basic questions, like even now all the outcry was oh those bank profiteers and so on. I totally agree with what we just heard. But don't you think that the truth is a little bit more complex in the sense of you know much more about this than me but the way I see it is that one of the roots of the present crisis is not just greed, is that after the digital bubble in the at the beginning of our millennium the idea was how to keep prosperity, how to keep economy alive. And it was as far as I remember even a little bit of a really bipartisan decision, let's make it easier in real estate and so on to keep it moving. So you know there is a structural problem beneath all this psychological topic of the greedy bankers, which is that's how capitalism works, my god! Which is why even concerning our beloved model Bernard Madoff, no? I didn't like it how they focused on him. Wait a minute, he was just a radical version of where the system is pushing you. Now I'm not saying I'm not crazy which is why we need to nationalize all banks and introduce immediately socialist dictatorship or what. What I'm just saying is let's not get rid of the problem by too easily making it into a psychological problem. Let's, you know, you can be an evil guy but there must be very precise institutional, economic and so on coordinates background which allows you to do what you do. The second thing, I also didn't like the cry shared by left and right-wing populists of help the Main Street, not the Wall Street. Where, sorry, but those bank managers who emphasized: in capitalism there is no Main Street without Wall Street. In today's industry because of the competition and immense investment into new inventions and so on, without large accessibility, availability of credits there is no prosperous Main Street. So this is a false choice. So again with all respect for the left and so on I think we should avoid quick moralization if we mean it seriously.
unknown
You write is the bailout then really a socialist measure? If it is, it takes a peculiar form, a socialist measure whose primary aim is to help not the poor but the rich, not those who borrow but those who lend.
You write is the bailout then really a socialist measure? If it is, it takes a peculiar form, a socialist measure whose primary aim is to help not the poor but the rich, not those who borrow but those who lend.
Slavoj Žižek
Yeah, I mean this is my old thesis that capitalism always was socialism for those who are on the top. That's the basic paradox of it. What about health care? Oh, now you touch my favorite topic. You know why? Because I think that here we see when people when I write on ideology and people laugh at me ho ho didn't you notice we live in post-ideological era? No, no, here you see ideology in its [unintelligible].
Yeah, I mean this is my old thesis that capitalism always was socialism for those who are on the top. That's the basic paradox of it. What about health care? Oh, now you touch my favorite topic. You know why? Because I think that here we see when people when I write on ideology and people laugh at me ho ho didn't you notice we live in post-ideological era? No, no, here you see ideology in its [unintelligible].