The Ideological Unconscious
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2021 · 1:24:29 · 10,700 words
with Cathy Newman
ideologyhegel-dialecticspsychoanalysiscapitalismliberalism-political-correctnesssexuality-genderrace-antisemitismecology-climatedemocracyphilosophy-generalsubjectivity
A Birkbeck Institute summer school Q&A session in which Žižek responds to prior presentations by Etienne Balibar, Jodi Dean, and Jacqueline Rose, then fields questions from the audience. He argues for the material existence of ideology in everyday practice, defends universalism against liberal identity politics, reinterprets Hegel as a pessimist rather than a thinker of mutual recognition, and analyses the structural logic of ideological prohibition, including the 'queerness of ideology' whereby ideology needs its rules to be violated. The session also addresses the pandemic, neofeudal capitalism, the death drive, authority, and the virtual/spectral character of the Lacanian Real.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 23
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “material existence of ideology”
The thesis that ideology does not reside in explicit worldviews but in concrete material practices, habits, and the necessary fictions that sustain economic reproduction (as in commodity fetishism).
Žižek's fourth supplement to Rumsfeld's matrix, things we know but are not aware that we know, because they operate as unconscious ideological and racist prejudices embedded in daily practice.
Žižek distinguishes commodity fetishism from ideology as such: it is ideology embedded in the basic economic reproduction of capitalism, not a floating superstructure.
as “self-transparent intervention into history”
The classical Marxist hypothesis that the proletariat is the unique historical agent that both acts and knows exactly what it is doing; Žižek, following Hegel's owl of Minerva, rejects this as naive.
A contemporary form of capitalism in which exploitation returns to direct interpersonal relations of domination and economic extraction shifts from profit to rent, reversing Marx's prediction of purely reified domination.
as “return from profit to rent”
The Italian autonomist diagnosis that the dominant mode of capitalist extraction is no longer industrial profit but rent, marking the transition to neofeudal capitalism.
Read through Hegel's self-relating negativity, the death drive names the capacity to step outside egotistic survival calculation; its destructive effects appear most forcefully when it is masked as collective egotism rather than openly assumed.
The pathological form of death drive: when the drive to self-destruction is masked as the absolute self-preservation of a collective entity at any price.
Žižek's phrase for today's predominant spontaneous ideological attitude: accepting scientific expertise on vaccines while refusing to question one's own way of life or confront deeper systemic truths.
as “universality through partiality”
The Marxist-Hegelian thesis that truth and universalism are accessible only through an engaged, partial standpoint; false 'neutral objectivity' is itself the most violent partiality.
as “classism (enjoy your class identity)”
Žižek coins this as the mirror-image danger of identity politics applied to class: treating class as a cultural identity to be enjoyed rather than as a position that demands its own negation.
Borrowed from Christa Wolf: different particular positions carry different visions of universality; we do not share one universal heaven, making the conflict one of universalities rather than of identities within a neutral space.
The structural layer of implicit premises that cannot be explicitly stated yet must be operative for an ideology to function; distinct from Jungian individual unconscious, it belongs to a discursive structure.
Implicitly operative in the discussion of ideological prohibition: the structural symbolic order that cannot explicitly state its own rules.
as “obscene masters”
A new figure of authority (exemplified by Trump) that publicly announces what classical ideology kept obscenely hidden, yet whose own deep prohibitions remain repressed and inaccessible, making the unconscious paradoxically more inaccessible in perverts.
Žižek privileges hysteria over perversion as the more subversive subjective position: the pervert occupies a position of absolute knowledge and has no questions, while the hysteric's questioning is more radically destabilizing.
Underpins the discussion of how ideology solicits transgression and regulates violations as part of its own reproduction.
as “queerness of ideology”
Ideology does not simply demand obedience to its commandments but requires subjects to violate them in a regulated way, using those violations to produce guilt and reintegrate subjects.
For Žižek, class struggle is Real in the Lacanian sense: in empirical reality you never find two pure classes, but class difference functions as the spectral antagonism that structures the whole.
as “spectral real”
The Real is virtual and spectral, operative as a threat or impossibility that can never be actualized; ideology also generates its own fake version of the real as fundamental ideological fantasy.
Sexual difference is Real, meaning it cannot be fully symbolized; transgender subjects are therefore closer to the traumatic core of sexual difference than those who identify straightforwardly as men or women.
Following Hegel, Žižek insists appearance always posits its own supposed in-itself (what is behind the veil); the fight against ideology must undermine both the appearance and the false in-itself it constructs.
Žižek argues the Real is always virtual, functioning as a threat that cannot be actualized (like nuclear weapons), and is itself an immanent impossibility or stumbling block of the symbolic, not a bedrock positive thing.
Stories he reaches for 6
Žižek supplements Rumsfeld's three epistemological categories with a fourth, unknown knowns: ideological prejudices we enact without knowing we hold them, more relevant to pandemic response and climate than to the Iraq War.
“the unknown knowns, things we know but we are not even aware that we know them, because they are our ideological, racist and so on, prejudices”
Under Stalinism you were not allowed to criticize Stalin, but if you publicly announced this prohibition you would be arrested even faster, illustrating that ideology's prohibitions must themselves be prohibited from being stated.
“under Stalinism you were not allowed to criticize Stalin but believe me if you pronounced publicly this prohibition you would be arrested even faster”
Žižek notes that the Jacobin magazine's phrase 'grave errors' for his positions is the classic Stalinist formula for someone who disagrees with the party but is given a chance to remain in the fold, he proudly assumes the label.
“I love the expression they use 'grave errors'... this is the classical Stalinist designation of somebody who commits errors, disagrees with the party but basically is still given a chance”
Žižek invokes the two Greek painters to argue that appearance always creates a supposed in-itself behind itself; ideological critique must undermine both the surface appearance and the fantasy of depth it generates.
“appearance always creates a supposed in itself what is behind the appearance. Each and so the true fight against ideology is not just destroy the appearance”
Arendt argues it is a lie to tell your children 'my authority is not grounded, I am just delivering you to your freedom'; a parent cannot escape exercising authority, and must do so more heroically without pretending it is legitimated.
“the greatest lie here is to tell your children listen my authority is not grounded I cannot be of any help to you just I am delivering you to your freedom”
In Yugoslavia nobody took socialist education seriously in high school; this cynical disengagement was exactly what those in power wanted, they were most horrified when anyone took official ideology seriously.
“Those in power when I was young in Yugoslavia were most horrified if you took the official ideology seriously.”
Works invoked 12
Less Than Nothing book
One of Žižek's major books listed by the host; his Hegel-Lacan synthesis.
Philosophy of Right book
Hegel's text cited via Pippin: Žižek argues it describes not an ideal but a form of life already decaying, supporting a pessimistic-materialist reading of Hegel.
Žižek's own book mentioned in passing by the host as one of the twenty books he shared with the Birkbeck Summer School over ten years; the wired brain topic surfaces in his talk on the transformation of the human.
Identified by the host as likely the first book Žižek wrote during his Birkbeck association; its 'end times' theme is described as a tenor that has not disappeared.
Listed among Žižek's books shared with the Birkbeck Summer School.
The Laws of Manu other
The Indian classical text cited to illustrate the 'queerness of ideology', that ideology doesn't want full obedience to its commandments but requires their violation in a regulated way.
Beloved book
Called 'the founding text of feminine subjectivity today'; Toni Morrison's novel is praised for depicting a specific feminine situation unreducible to male transposition, yet meeting the highest criteria of German idealist subjectivity.
Another of Žižek's books listed by the host as part of his decade-long engagement with the Birkbeck Summer School.
Nomadland film
Žižek says he didn't see it because it 'put him off'; calls it 'subtly right-wing nostalgia' and the exemplar of identity politics transposed onto class, presenting nomadic proletarians as having a cultural identity to enjoy.
Adorno's study used approvingly: it shows that authoritarian personality is the return of the repressed of liberal personality, not its external opposite.
Christa Wolf's novel cited approvingly to illustrate the thesis that different particular positions carry incompatible visions of universality, we are not all under the same heaven.
La La Land film
Mentioned by the host summarising Žižek's lecture: he discussed it as having been attacked for insufficient gay representation, used as an example of identity-politics critique of art.
People invoked 33
Gillian Rose positive
Cited as Žižek's long-standing example of an extraordinary woman Hegelian scholar.
Jair Bolsonaro negative
Mentioned for wanting to ban gender theory in universities and for the burning of Judith Butler's effigy in Brazil.
Robert Pippin negative
Cited as someone with whom Žižek is 'always in polemics'; acknowledges Pippin's point that Hegel's Philosophy of Right describes a form of life already disappearing, but uses this against liberal-Hegelian idealism.
Jacques Derrida positive
Acknowledged to have pointed out nicely that prohibitions at the most radical level are themselves prohibited, Žižek credits this insight even while in polemics with him.
Rocío Zambrana positive
Her book on Hegel and imagination is called 'wonderful' for delivering both a critique of rough Marxist readings of Hegel and the best critique of liberal Hegelians of recognition/dialogue.
Theodor W. Adorno positive
Cited approvingly for the Authoritarian Personality analysis: authoritarian personality is the return of the repressed of liberal personality, not its external opposite.
Jacques Lacan positive
Operates throughout as a foundational framework (the Real, symbolic, imaginary; hysteria vs. perversion; objet petit a); Žižek argues against the Lacanian tendency to disparage the imaginary and symbolic in favour of the Real.
Donald Rumsfeld positive
Žižek uses Rumsfeld's known/unknown matrix as a springboard, calling him 'not a friend of ours' and listing his catastrophic misjudgments on Iraq, but credits the epistemological schema as a useful framework to supplement.
Francis Fukuyama negative
Referenced briefly: the 'end of history' hope after 1989 ended up where we are now, used to illustrate Hegel's pessimism about apparent moments of resolution.
Jodi Dean positive
Engaged as an interlocutor; Žižek links her concept of neofeudalism to the Italian autonomist argument about the return from profit to rent.
Judith Butler negative
Žižek is appalled that her effigy was burned in Brazil; sympathetic personally. Intellectually he disagrees with her short text arguing Hegel teaches mutual recognition as the condition of a livable society.
Luce Irigaray negative
Dismissed as an 'easy' feminist: her opposition of male firm structures vs. female fluidity is an abstract opposition Žižek distrusts.
Étienne Balibar positive
Addressed directly as a collaborator; Žižek engages approvingly with Balibar's anthropological work and his collaboration with Rebecca Carson on Marx and necessary fictions.
Miloš Zeman negative
Czech president described as a 'right-wing social democrat' who called trans people 'totally disgusting' on CNN.
Graham Harman negative
Cited as the main proponent of object-oriented ontology; Žižek criticises the OOO claim that we can never directly grasp things-in-themselves for blurring the ideologically crucial distinction between appearance and in-itself.
Giorgio Agamben negative
Referenced for his claim that following lockdown rules makes us 'no longer human'; Žižek mentions this as a position to be taken seriously while not endorsing it.
Jacqueline Rose positive
Addressed warmly throughout; Žižek agrees with her points on feminist subjectivity, institutional misogyny, and the death drive, though he defends his positive reading of the death drive.
Žižek wrote a brief text for Assange's 50th birthday and expresses sympathy, lamenting that authorities are counting on public fatigue to make his case disappear.
Reported (without endorsing) the view of New Zealand acquaintances who see her as the feminine face of new digital authoritarian capitalism; Žižek says he doesn't agree but flags that new capitalism is reinventing new forms of femininity.
Catherine Angel positive
Žižek endorses her work for showing the limitations of 'yes means yes' consent frameworks without doing so in a male-chauvinist way, demonstrating how explicit consent rules can reproduce subtle violence.
Pierre Legendre negative
Described as 'the French conservative Lacanian I violently disagree with'; rejected for his conclusion that weakening prohibitions must be remedied by reasserting paternal authority.
Jacques-Alain Miller negative
Criticised alongside Legendre for sustaining the cynical position that authority is fake but should be maintained anyway.
Christa Wolf positive
Referenced via her novel Der geteilte Himmel (Divided Heaven) to illustrate that different particular positions carry different visions of universality.
Janez Janša negative
The Slovenian prime minister is called 'the craziest', 'personally fanatic', doing 'mad' things, the most extreme on the Eastern European reactionary axis.
Discussed as more pragmatic and opportunist than other Eastern European right-wing leaders, making deals with China; still part of the reactionary axis.
Hannah Arendt positive
Read 'in spite of my critical attitude towards her'; Žižek approvingly cites her point on parental authority, that it is a lie to pretend authority is ungrounded and simply hand children over to their freedom.
Toni Morrison positive
After a Freudian slip forgetting her name, Žižek calls Beloved 'the founding text of what I'm tempted to call feminine subjectivity today', praising it for meeting the highest criteria of German idealist subjectivity without being patronizing.
Jürgen Habermas negative
Called 'my otherwise half-enemy'; Žižek agrees with his point about how much scientists learned they don't know during the pandemic, but opposes his reading of modernity as an unfinished liberal project and his belief that more pure liberalism is the answer.
Rebecca Carson positive
Described as a shared friend; Žižek credits her idea that neofeudal capitalism returns to direct interpersonal relations of domination, reversing Marx's reification thesis.
Karl Marx positive
Central reference throughout; Žižek both defends and criticises Marx, crediting his analysis of commodity fetishism and fictions of capitalism but rejecting his hypothesis of a self-transparent proletarian revolution.
Sigmund Freud positive
Cited on the claim that the unconscious is nowhere more repressed than in perverts; Žižek notes Freud made a 'bad unfortunate' simplification in saying perverts do what hysterics only talk about.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Žižek consistently identifies as a Hegelian; reads Hegel as a pessimist and materialist against liberal mutual-recognition interpretations, emphasising the owl of Minerva and the immanent negativity of historical systems.
Angelica Nuzzo positive
Mentioned alongside Zambrana as supplementing the list of important women Hegelian scholars.
What it argues
material existence of ideology and ideological unconsciousuniversalism vs. identity politicsHegel as pessimist against liberal recognition readingsqueerness of ideology: prohibition requires violationneofeudal capitalism and the return to rentthe virtual/spectral character of the Realdeath drive as ambiguous liberatory potential
Dialectical moves 15
“The truly universal identity is not the one that can articulate itself within a neutral liberal space, but the identity which is inherently antagonistic and cannot articulate itself.”
Universality is found in the position of internal antagonism, not in harmonious coexistence of particular identities.
“Far from being a neutral view above the conflict, the false objectivity of 'let's look at all sides' is perhaps the greatest and most violent partiality.”
The claim to neutrality is itself the most ideologically violent partisan position.
“The prohibition itself is prohibited: in Stalinism, announcing the prohibition on criticizing Stalin would get you arrested even faster than the criticism itself.”
Ideology functions by prohibiting the very articulation of its prohibitions, making them operative through silence.
“Trump is a pervert, and nowhere is the unconscious more repressed than in perverts: his obscene openness is precisely the site of deeper concealment.”
The apparent transgression of ideological prohibition by obscene masters conceals a deeper repression rather than exposing it.
“Ideology doesn't want you to fully obey its commandments but to violate them in a certain way—ideology at its most basic is to regulate your violations.”
Ideological integration proceeds not through obedience but through controlled transgression.
“You are given a free choice, but only on condition that you don't use this free choice—or rather, only on condition that you make the right choice.”
The freedom offered by ideology is always already circumscribed to produce the mandatory outcome.
“Hegel's lesson is exactly the opposite of Butler's: yes we need equality, but the only way to equality is through violence, unilateral misrecognition, and struggle—and even then there is no happy ending.”
Hegel is a pessimist, not a philosopher of harmonious mutual recognition.
“Whenever we think we have a solution, things will for sure turn bad—Hegel would have been perverted-glad about World War I as the catastrophe of triumphant capitalism.”
The cunning-of-reason optimism is inverted: apparent progress always stores up its own catastrophe.
“The authoritarian personality is not the opposite of liberal personality but the return of its repressed.”
Authoritarianism is internal to liberalism, not an external threat to it.
“The true fight against ideology is not just to destroy the appearance but to simultaneously undermine the false idea of the in-itself supposedly behind the appearance.”
Ideological critique must target both the surface and the fantasy of depth it constructs.
“What is presupposed as being hidden is also constructed by the surface—to get rid of the obscenely hidden, you must change the surface.”
The obscene underside of ideology is produced by the surface itself, not pre-given beneath it.
“The Real is always virtual: nuclear weapons function as a threat only insofar as they remain virtual—the moment you actualize them, everything is over.”
The Real operates as an impossibility; actualization destroys the very efficacy that makes it real.
“If you want to grasp the antagonism that defines sexuality, you find it in a much purer way in transgender subjects than in those who are purely men or purely women.”
The marginal or 'deviant' case is the privileged site of the Real antagonism, not the normal cases.
“Death drive's destructive effects emerge most forcefully precisely when it is masked as a form of singular collective egotism rather than being openly assumed.”
The pathological destructive form of the death drive arises from its disavowal, not from its open acknowledgment.
“We do something but almost by a priori structure we should always count that our act will lead to unpredictable consequences—every revolution has to deal with its own catastrophic consequences.”
Historical agency is never self-transparent; the structure of the act guarantees it will exceed the agent's intentions.
Claims 30
asserts
Today we believe more than ever, but our beliefs are not in explicit ideological premises or systematic worldviews—they reside in our material practices.material existence of ideology
asserts
The category of 'unknown knowns'—things we know but are unaware that we know, embedded in ideological prejudice—is more relevant to the pandemic and global warming than it was to the Iraq War.ideology and the pandemic
rejects
Marx's hypothesis of a self-transparent proletarian revolution—an agent that both acts and knows what it is doing—must be abandoned in light of the 20th century; we should adopt a more open view of history in which acts always produce unpredictable consequences.classical Marxist teleology
asserts
Hegel is more materialist than Marx precisely in his insistence that we can grasp a social system only when it is already decaying—the owl of Minerva flies at dusk.Hegel vs. Marx on historical knowledge
asserts
Trump's rise, despite its horrors, catalyzed a new socialist-democratic left and a realignment that could combine liberal values with a leftward turn.progressive potentials of Trumpism
asserts
The pandemic made clear for the first time in decades a universal demand for global healthcare coordination, a need that will not disappear.progressive potentials of the pandemic
asserts
Contemporary neofeudal capitalism is marked by a return from profit to rent as the dominant form of exploitation, reversing the tendency toward reified domination that Marx predicted.neofeudal capitalism
asserts
Relations of domination in neofeudal capitalism are becoming direct interpersonal relations again rather than being displaced onto relations between things.neofeudal domination vs. Marx's prediction
asserts
Universalism and taking a partial side are not opposed but identical: truth is accessible only through an engaged, interested viewpoint, never from a neutral position above the conflict.universalism and partiality
asserts
The falsely objective view that 'all sides make mistakes' is perhaps the greatest and most violent partiality, secretly reproducing class exploitation.false neutrality as ideology
asserts
Identity politics in its bad sense always presupposes a hidden universality—white liberals who champion minority identities secretly reserve the universal position for themselves.identity politics and liberal universalism
rejects
The film Nomadland exemplifies identity politics transposed onto class struggle—presenting nomadic proletarians as having their own cultural identity to enjoy rather than as a position demanding its own negation.Nomadland and class identity politics
reframes
Our problem today is not the plurality of particular identities but universality—who defines the space of coexistence and what does global capitalism mean.identity politics and universality
asserts
Every ideology has structural unconscious premises that cannot be explicitly stated because articulating the prohibition would itself be prohibited.ideological unconscious
asserts
Trump is a pervert in the psychoanalytic sense, and the unconscious is nowhere more deeply repressed than in perverts—so his apparent openness is a deeper concealment.Trump and perversion
asserts
Ideology at its most basic regulates violations of its own commandments and uses those violations as the very mode of integrating subjects—it does not simply demand obedience.queerness of ideology
rejects
The solution to the breakdown of prohibitions is not the reassertion of paternal authority—that only produces cynical fake authority—but a more heroic exercise of authority that does not pretend to be grounded.paternal authority (Legendre/Jacques-Alain Miller position)
rejects
Hegel is not a thinker of mutual recognition and happy endings but a pessimist: whenever we think we have a solution, things will turn bad.liberal reading of Hegel as mutual recognition
rejects
Judith Butler's reading of Hegel as a lesson in mutual recognition is mistaken; the Hegelian lesson is that equality is achievable only through violence, unilateral misrecognition, and struggle.Judith Butler's Hegel
asserts
Death drive is an ambiguous notion: its destructive effects appear most forcefully when it is masked as singular collective egotism rather than openly assumed; openly assumed, it can be liberating.death drive
asserts
The Real is always virtual—operative as an impossibility and threat that can never be actualized—and ideology always generates its own fake version of the real as ideological fantasy.the spectral Real
rejects
Object-oriented ontology blurs the distinction—immanent to ideology—between appearance and the supposed in-itself behind it, and thereby obscures the real epistemological-critical work needed.object-oriented ontology
asserts
To really get rid of the obscenely hidden, you must change the surface; one should never underestimate the surface.ideology and appearance
rejects
Neoliberalism does not mean the state is disappearing; on the contrary, the regulative power of the state is stronger than ever under neoliberalism.neoliberalism and the state
asserts
Hysteria is more subversive than perversion: the hysteric questions while the pervert occupies a position of absolute knowledge.hysteria vs. perversion
reframes
Feminist subjectivity today cannot be understood simply as a substantial feminine identity oppressed by patriarchy; being a woman is a subjective position that is itself antagonistic.feminine subjectivity
reframes
Quota systems do not solve the problem of underrepresentation but may create new tensions; the deeper issue is material conditions and possibly the theoretical structure of disciplines.gender quotas and institutional reform
asserts
The most dangerous form of anti-feminism today is false liberals who officially obey the rules while enforcing subtle unwritten exclusions.anti-feminism and liberal hypocrisy
asserts
The predominant spontaneous form of ideology today is the 'will not to know': accept science on vaccines but refuse to change our way of life.ideology and science denial
asserts
Authoritarian personality is not the opposite of liberal personality but the return of the repressed of liberalism itself (via Adorno).authoritarianism and liberalism
Quotes 17
“Today we believe more than ever, but our beliefs are not to be sought in explicit ideological premises, systematical worldview and so on, but in our very material, material practices.”Slavoj Žižek · material existence of ideology
“We don't want to be what we are. That's our program.”Slavoj Žižek · identity demanding its own negation (Dalit workers)
“Truth is not a universal category. You must be engaged to have access on a truth.”Slavoj Žižek · universalism through partiality
“This falsely objective view, let's look at all sides, they are all making mistakes and so on—this is perhaps the greatest most violent partiality in the sense of class exploitation.”Slavoj Žižek · false neutrality as violent partiality
“Under Stalinism you were not allowed to criticize Stalin but believe me if you pronounced publicly this prohibition you would be arrested even faster.”Slavoj Žižek · prohibitions on prohibitions / ideological unconscious
“You are given a free choice only on condition that you don't use this free choice—or rather on condition that you make the right choice.”Slavoj Žižek · ideology and false free choice
“Those in power when I was young in Yugoslavia were most horrified if you took the official ideology seriously.”Slavoj Žižek · cynicism as ideological compliance
“Perversion is really a position of absolute knowledge, a pervert doesn't ask questions, a pervert knows.”Slavoj Žižek · perversion as absolute knowledge
“Hegel is not this traditional cunning of reason guy. Whenever we think we have a solution things will for sure turn bad.”Slavoj Žižek · Hegel as pessimist
“The only way to equality is through this violence unilateral misrecognition and so on and so on. With Hegel you don't even have a happy ending at the end.”Slavoj Žižek · Hegel against liberal mutual recognition
“The predominant spontaneous form of ideology is simply what I even called the will not to know: yes, let the scientists provide a vaccine but we don't want to change our way of life.”Slavoj Žižek · will not to know as dominant ideology
“Nuclear weapons function as a threat only in so far as they remain virtual—the moment you actualize it everything is over.”Slavoj Žižek · the Real as virtual/spectral
“To really get rid of the obscene what is obscenely hidden you should change the surface. Don't ever underestimate the surface.”Slavoj Žižek · surface and obscene underside in ideology
“If you want to grab the antagonism which defines sexuality you find it in a much purer way in transgender subjects than in those who are purely men purely women.”Slavoj Žižek · transgender as site of pure sexual antagonism
“White liberals who support Black or Native American whatever identity, even if they appear masochistic ideologically, secretly reserve for themselves their own universal position.”Slavoj Žižek · liberal identity politics and hidden universalism
“We are not all under the same heaven. Every particular position has its own vision of universal heaven as it were.”Slavoj Žižek · divided heaven / conflict of universalities
“Death drive also means beyond pleasure principle, ethics is beyond death drive.”Slavoj Žižek · death drive and ethics
Transcript 81 turns
Slavoj Žižek
I will simply begin. I, it may surprise you, but I don't want to give a systematic overview of I've said, I will just to make it more dynamic already include some constructive, non-aggressive replies to what you said. First, my title, my my topic was material existence of ideology. I think this topic is more than ever crucial today, when it's fashionable to say that on the one hand, we have new fanaticism, fundamentalism, on the other hand, we have total post-ideological cynicism and so on. I claim that in some sense, we believe more than ever today, but our beliefs are not to be sought in explicit ideological premises, systematical worldview and so on, but in our very material, material practices. That's why I would like to mention the fact that I think two days ago, not a friend of ours, but a well-known person, Rumsfeld, you know, the Secretary of Defense died. And I think in a just world, he shouldn't be remembered for all the catastrophes he caused, his catastrophic misjudgment of the situation in Iraq, which the result was to make Iran strengthened, to make women's position much worse in Iraq and so on, but you know his well-known distinction between known knowns, and so on and so on. I think that when I then tried to supplement his list of the three with the fourth category, the unknown knowns, things we know but we are not even aware that we know them, because they are our ideological, racist and so on, prejudices of which we are not even aware, but we practice them, that this opposition unknown unknowns, things we don't even know that we don't know them and unknown knowns, are even more than for the Iraqi war, actual today, the pandemic, the global warming. On the one hand, we discovered, and here I agree with my otherwise half-enemy, Jürgen Habermas, who says that propos pandemic, it's almost more important what scientists learned about the virus, it's almost more important how much we learned that we don't know. And this is very important. On the other hand, unknown knowns. I think that to understand especially Western reaction to the virus, it's very important to bear in mind all the ideological prejudices and so on. You cannot understand our collective response in different countries, within countries to virus without all this ideologico-political, I don't like the word prejudice, because prejudice has this bad taste as if you are stupid one-sided, but prejudice as something embedded in our daily practice. And from here on, I would like to refer briefly to the work you Etienne are doing also together with I think our shared friend Rebecca Carson, something very interesting. More and more if we read Marx, we learn to what extent in the last years of his life he was preoccupied by the role of fiction, of necessary fictions for the normal reproduction of capitalism itself. You have in Marx always a reluctance, he never, as far as I know, he never calls commodity fetishism an ideology. Why? Because he still clings to this standard notion, ideology is something like up in the air at a distance from real life, but commodity fetishism is ideology as part of the very basic economic reproduction of capitalism. You take fictions out of actually functioning capitalism and capitalism itself disintegrates. Here, just if I may briefly add, I don't want to miss time, another critical point would you agree or not, I wonder of Marx, why I'm returning to Hegel. I think if we don't learn anything from history, but if we maybe learn anything from the 20th century, is that this basic Marxist hypothesis, how should I call it, that the working class, proletariat, organized into a party is a unique historical moment where we have a social agent which does something and from its theory also knows exactly what this agent is doing, so that we get in the proletarian revolution the first self-transparent intervention into history. I'm here a Hegelian. I think Hegel is here even more materialist than Marx. Hegel was always aware of the fact that when, this pessimist Hegel, when we try to grasp our historical moment, you know when Hegel says the owl of Minerva takes off in the evening, that is to say and this holds also for Hegel, one has to repeat it always, that we can grasp a system, social system, only when it's already decaying in reality. So as Robert Pippin, with whom I am always in polemics, pointed out, what Hegel is presenting in his Philosophy of Right is not his ideal how society should be, no, it's a form of life which Hegel knew it very well is already disappearing. So I think we should adopt, and again the entire 20th century demonstrates this, a more, not so much pessimistic as open view of history. We do something but almost by some kind of a priori structure, we should always count that our act will lead to unpredictable consequences and so on and so on. So every revolution in this sense has to be repeated, has to repeat its own sorry, it has to deal with its own catastrophic consequences. Now just briefly I will stick to my allotted time. I want briefly to provoke maybe you Etienne to explain why I still stick to two of my as Jacobin called them, grave errors in a beautiful Stalinist term, which are my mistakes in the last year. A, my not celebration, I knew he's a disgusting nobody, but when I say maybe in the long term Trump with his Donald Trump with his horrors can lead to something positive, and my idea that there are also progressive potentials in the pandemic. I stick to this more than ever. First Trump. Don't forget that the Democratic, socialist Democratic left that is now rising not only in United States, in Europe, now the Greens are sometimes it goes up and down almost the strongest party in West Germany, the idea of echosocialism is growing and so on and so on. I think that all this nonetheless emerged as a reaction to Trump. I think that today we are entering a new era where we will have on the one side this Trumpian populism and on the opposite side not the traditional liberalism but more something like the combination I hope so of liberal values and more and a turn a turn to the left. As for pandemic, yes I know the entire story, catastrophe for women, class struggle and so on, but nonetheless I think pandemic for the first time in decades make clear a general demand that we need some kind of a global healthcare coordination and so on and so on and this will not disappear, there will be further catastrophes. Like I read now because I have friends there, this terrifying news, you read I hope two days ago in Vancouver in Canada the temperatures were degrees Celsius. Now I agree here with Biden, this is global warming. You cannot even understand this problem as a local problem of of Northwest of that part of the world. Okay I could go on here but just to to make it more dynamic I will just briefly reply to Jodi. First economically I agree with you, it's just clarifications, neofeudalism. Economically do you agree or not, because this is my limitation, till now I followed the idea of some Italian guys that the key to this neofeudalism in very brutal basic economic terms is what they call a return from profit to rent. That the model of capitalist exploitation is no longer profit, we are returning to rent. Now I'm linking this to another point, which to me at least it was presented by Etienne you know her Rebecca Carson, that paradoxically against Marx's idea that the more we progress in capitalism the more, this classical phrase, we are posited as free humans but relations of domination are transposed onto relations between things, so that we are formally free, domination is reproduced as at the level of relations between things. But Rebecca Carson proposed this idea and I think it rhymes Jodi with your neofeudalism stuff, she proposed the idea that no, with this new form of neofeudal capitalism, no the relations of domination are again becoming more and more direct interpersonal relations of domination. It's no longer we are free individuals, domination is out there covered up in object relations and so on and so on. Now Etienne would you agree or not, I absolutely with what I absolutely accept your point about the importance of anthropology, this anthropological dimension. The way I understand it I just wonder if you see a place for my type of reasoning here is that not only the pandemic but also the other crisis which I think is looming, I even wrote a short book on it, the so-called prospect of a wired brain. Direct contact between our brain, our psychic life and a digital network and through this direct extra-sensory how should I put it, direct mental contact with other people, so-called singularity and so on, it's an ideal but we are coming very close to realize it in some primitive forms, that this perspective and even the pandemic also are not just political social problems, they raise and I take this very seriously, they raise the problem of are we still human, what does it mean to be human today, like if we will be able to directly mentally communicate without language what does this mean for our being human, or even this we all know how even with the pandemic when we were forced to lockdown, isolate and so on, some of the common protesters claimed that this and this is basically Agamben's point also, that if we follow all the rules of the lockdown and so on, we are in some sense no longer human. So it is at this level that I see the problem, not in an essentialist level of course essential anthropology but that what goes on now socially, ecologically, economically somehow affects our very standard understanding of what does it mean to be human. And I have one minute if I stick to others' speak to you Jacqueline. You know what's my problem here, I totally agree with what you said, I'm just maybe it's my philosophical distortion, you know I have as an old Hegelian a sympathy for death drive, you know. And I what I would just say that death drive is also if we read it in link with Hegel's notion of self-relating negativity and so on and so on, death drive also means I'm able to step out of the egotistic calculation of survival, profit and so on. It's another name almost I would say for another name for sovereignty. So Jacqueline would you agree or not, I don't want to go into philosophical details now, but would you agree or not that all these destructive violent effects of death drive emerge most forcefully precisely when death drive instead of being openly assumed is masked as a form of singular collective egotism. Death drive in the sense of you have an entity, a living entity, it has to be protected at any price and so on and so on. So I'm not ready to dismiss the how should I call it, the the liberating aspect of death drive. I think death drive is an ambiguous notion. Death drive also means beyond pleasure principle, ethics is beyond death drive. Maybe I'm going too far here, I will as promised stick to the timeline so thanks very much. You know a couple of friends from New Zealand told me that from their standpoint Jacinda Ardern is perceived in a more ambiguous way. They claim that even more than China, the situation in New Zealand, that's how they controlled pandemic was in a soft way totally digitally state controlled and so on. And with a slight anti-feminist twist with which I don't agree, for them they claim Jacinda Ardern is the new human feminine face of the new digital authoritarian capitalism for them. I don't agree with this, just my point is don't forget that new capitalism is also reinventing a new type of femininity which fits it. Second point very briefly, neoliberalism. You know what I don't like in this term? Wherever I look, these new big corporations, neoliberalism and so on, they all need a stronger role of the state than ever. Neoliberalism doesn't mean the state is disappearing. Its regulative power and so on is stronger than ever. Second, what Etienne just my another point, what Etienne mentioned about how we will react to digital controlled new rules and so on. But here enters what I consider absolutely a crucial point, namely never forget that rules can also function by apparently being violated. Brief story, I remember from socialism. Nobody took socialist education seriously in a high school. They said this is just blah-blah-blah, forget about it, be cynical, don't get engaged politically, but that's what fitted those in power. Those in power when I was young in Yugoslavia were most horrified if you took the official ideology seriously. The last point, reason. My God, let me defend reason a little bit. You know there are different points of aspects of reason. We have understanding this quantitative mechanical reason, but we have also the notion of reason in the proper Hegelian sense of proper reflexivity, the basic approach of reason in this Hegelian sense is okay, we have science, but how does science function socially? What are its implicit social presuppositions, implications and so on. Because don't forget that today the predominant spontaneous form of ideology is simply what I even called the will not to know. Typical attitude today is yes, let the scientists provide a vaccine but we don't want to change our way of life, we don't want to know. So I am for in this sense for a rehabilitated notion of reason. Nonetheless without reason we are lost.
I will simply begin. I, it may surprise you, but I don't want to give a systematic overview of I've said, I will just to make it more dynamic already include some constructive, non-aggressive replies to what you said. First, my title, my my topic was material existence of ideology. I think this topic is more than ever crucial today, when it's fashionable to say that on the one hand, we have new fanaticism, fundamentalism, on the other hand, we have total post-ideological cynicism and so on. I claim that in some sense, we believe more than ever today, but our beliefs are not to be sought in explicit ideological premises, systematical worldview and so on, but in our very material, material practices. That's why I would like to mention the fact that I think two days ago, not a friend of ours, but a well-known person, Rumsfeld, you know, the Secretary of Defense died. And I think in a just world, he shouldn't be remembered for all the catastrophes he caused, his catastrophic misjudgment of the situation in Iraq, which the result was to make Iran strengthened, to make women's position much worse in Iraq and so on, but you know his well-known distinction between known knowns, and so on and so on. I think that when I then tried to supplement his list of the three with the fourth category, the unknown knowns, things we know but we are not even aware that we know them, because they are our ideological, racist and so on, prejudices of which we are not even aware, but we practice them, that this opposition unknown unknowns, things we don't even know that we don't know them and unknown knowns, are even more than for the Iraqi war, actual today, the pandemic, the global warming. On the one hand, we discovered, and here I agree with my otherwise half-enemy, Jürgen Habermas, who says that propos pandemic, it's almost more important what scientists learned about the virus, it's almost more important how much we learned that we don't know. And this is very important. On the other hand, unknown knowns. I think that to understand especially Western reaction to the virus, it's very important to bear in mind all the ideological prejudices and so on. You cannot understand our collective response in different countries, within countries to virus without all this ideologico-political, I don't like the word prejudice, because prejudice has this bad taste as if you are stupid one-sided, but prejudice as something embedded in our daily practice. And from here on, I would like to refer briefly to the work you Etienne are doing also together with I think our shared friend Rebecca Carson, something very interesting. More and more if we read Marx, we learn to what extent in the last years of his life he was preoccupied by the role of fiction, of necessary fictions for the normal reproduction of capitalism itself. You have in Marx always a reluctance, he never, as far as I know, he never calls commodity fetishism an ideology. Why? Because he still clings to this standard notion, ideology is something like up in the air at a distance from real life, but commodity fetishism is ideology as part of the very basic economic reproduction of capitalism. You take fictions out of actually functioning capitalism and capitalism itself disintegrates. Here, just if I may briefly add, I don't want to miss time, another critical point would you agree or not, I wonder of Marx, why I'm returning to Hegel. I think if we don't learn anything from history, but if we maybe learn anything from the 20th century, is that this basic Marxist hypothesis, how should I call it, that the working class, proletariat, organized into a party is a unique historical moment where we have a social agent which does something and from its theory also knows exactly what this agent is doing, so that we get in the proletarian revolution the first self-transparent intervention into history. I'm here a Hegelian. I think Hegel is here even more materialist than Marx. Hegel was always aware of the fact that when, this pessimist Hegel, when we try to grasp our historical moment, you know when Hegel says the owl of Minerva takes off in the evening, that is to say and this holds also for Hegel, one has to repeat it always, that we can grasp a system, social system, only when it's already decaying in reality. So as Robert Pippin, with whom I am always in polemics, pointed out, what Hegel is presenting in his Philosophy of Right is not his ideal how society should be, no, it's a form of life which Hegel knew it very well is already disappearing. So I think we should adopt, and again the entire 20th century demonstrates this, a more, not so much pessimistic as open view of history. We do something but almost by some kind of a priori structure, we should always count that our act will lead to unpredictable consequences and so on and so on. So every revolution in this sense has to be repeated, has to repeat its own sorry, it has to deal with its own catastrophic consequences. Now just briefly I will stick to my allotted time. I want briefly to provoke maybe you Etienne to explain why I still stick to two of my as Jacobin called them, grave errors in a beautiful Stalinist term, which are my mistakes in the last year. A, my not celebration, I knew he's a disgusting nobody, but when I say maybe in the long term Trump with his Donald Trump with his horrors can lead to something positive, and my idea that there are also progressive potentials in the pandemic. I stick to this more than ever. First Trump. Don't forget that the Democratic, socialist Democratic left that is now rising not only in United States, in Europe, now the Greens are sometimes it goes up and down almost the strongest party in West Germany, the idea of echosocialism is growing and so on and so on. I think that all this nonetheless emerged as a reaction to Trump. I think that today we are entering a new era where we will have on the one side this Trumpian populism and on the opposite side not the traditional liberalism but more something like the combination I hope so of liberal values and more and a turn a turn to the left. As for pandemic, yes I know the entire story, catastrophe for women, class struggle and so on, but nonetheless I think pandemic for the first time in decades make clear a general demand that we need some kind of a global healthcare coordination and so on and so on and this will not disappear, there will be further catastrophes. Like I read now because I have friends there, this terrifying news, you read I hope two days ago in Vancouver in Canada the temperatures were degrees Celsius. Now I agree here with Biden, this is global warming. You cannot even understand this problem as a local problem of of Northwest of that part of the world. Okay I could go on here but just to to make it more dynamic I will just briefly reply to Jodi. First economically I agree with you, it's just clarifications, neofeudalism. Economically do you agree or not, because this is my limitation, till now I followed the idea of some Italian guys that the key to this neofeudalism in very brutal basic economic terms is what they call a return from profit to rent. That the model of capitalist exploitation is no longer profit, we are returning to rent. Now I'm linking this to another point, which to me at least it was presented by Etienne you know her Rebecca Carson, that paradoxically against Marx's idea that the more we progress in capitalism the more, this classical phrase, we are posited as free humans but relations of domination are transposed onto relations between things, so that we are formally free, domination is reproduced as at the level of relations between things. But Rebecca Carson proposed this idea and I think it rhymes Jodi with your neofeudalism stuff, she proposed the idea that no, with this new form of neofeudal capitalism, no the relations of domination are again becoming more and more direct interpersonal relations of domination. It's no longer we are free individuals, domination is out there covered up in object relations and so on and so on. Now Etienne would you agree or not, I absolutely with what I absolutely accept your point about the importance of anthropology, this anthropological dimension. The way I understand it I just wonder if you see a place for my type of reasoning here is that not only the pandemic but also the other crisis which I think is looming, I even wrote a short book on it, the so-called prospect of a wired brain. Direct contact between our brain, our psychic life and a digital network and through this direct extra-sensory how should I put it, direct mental contact with other people, so-called singularity and so on, it's an ideal but we are coming very close to realize it in some primitive forms, that this perspective and even the pandemic also are not just political social problems, they raise and I take this very seriously, they raise the problem of are we still human, what does it mean to be human today, like if we will be able to directly mentally communicate without language what does this mean for our being human, or even this we all know how even with the pandemic when we were forced to lockdown, isolate and so on, some of the common protesters claimed that this and this is basically Agamben's point also, that if we follow all the rules of the lockdown and so on, we are in some sense no longer human. So it is at this level that I see the problem, not in an essentialist level of course essential anthropology but that what goes on now socially, ecologically, economically somehow affects our very standard understanding of what does it mean to be human. And I have one minute if I stick to others' speak to you Jacqueline. You know what's my problem here, I totally agree with what you said, I'm just maybe it's my philosophical distortion, you know I have as an old Hegelian a sympathy for death drive, you know. And I what I would just say that death drive is also if we read it in link with Hegel's notion of self-relating negativity and so on and so on, death drive also means I'm able to step out of the egotistic calculation of survival, profit and so on. It's another name almost I would say for another name for sovereignty. So Jacqueline would you agree or not, I don't want to go into philosophical details now, but would you agree or not that all these destructive violent effects of death drive emerge most forcefully precisely when death drive instead of being openly assumed is masked as a form of singular collective egotism. Death drive in the sense of you have an entity, a living entity, it has to be protected at any price and so on and so on. So I'm not ready to dismiss the how should I call it, the the liberating aspect of death drive. I think death drive is an ambiguous notion. Death drive also means beyond pleasure principle, ethics is beyond death drive. Maybe I'm going too far here, I will as promised stick to the timeline so thanks very much. You know a couple of friends from New Zealand told me that from their standpoint Jacinda Ardern is perceived in a more ambiguous way. They claim that even more than China, the situation in New Zealand, that's how they controlled pandemic was in a soft way totally digitally state controlled and so on. And with a slight anti-feminist twist with which I don't agree, for them they claim Jacinda Ardern is the new human feminine face of the new digital authoritarian capitalism for them. I don't agree with this, just my point is don't forget that new capitalism is also reinventing a new type of femininity which fits it. Second point very briefly, neoliberalism. You know what I don't like in this term? Wherever I look, these new big corporations, neoliberalism and so on, they all need a stronger role of the state than ever. Neoliberalism doesn't mean the state is disappearing. Its regulative power and so on is stronger than ever. Second, what Etienne just my another point, what Etienne mentioned about how we will react to digital controlled new rules and so on. But here enters what I consider absolutely a crucial point, namely never forget that rules can also function by apparently being violated. Brief story, I remember from socialism. Nobody took socialist education seriously in a high school. They said this is just blah-blah-blah, forget about it, be cynical, don't get engaged politically, but that's what fitted those in power. Those in power when I was young in Yugoslavia were most horrified if you took the official ideology seriously. The last point, reason. My God, let me defend reason a little bit. You know there are different points of aspects of reason. We have understanding this quantitative mechanical reason, but we have also the notion of reason in the proper Hegelian sense of proper reflexivity, the basic approach of reason in this Hegelian sense is okay, we have science, but how does science function socially? What are its implicit social presuppositions, implications and so on. Because don't forget that today the predominant spontaneous form of ideology is simply what I even called the will not to know. Typical attitude today is yes, let the scientists provide a vaccine but we don't want to change our way of life, we don't want to know. So I am for in this sense for a rehabilitated notion of reason. Nonetheless without reason we are lost.
unknown
While we are waiting Jacqueline
While we are waiting Jacqueline
Slavoj Žižek
did you see the movie I don't like it I think it's kind of a political class identity Nomadland? No I haven't seen it yet but I don't like the sound of it. No you know where it's tricky, it is apparently for those poor guys who cannot even afford a house just drive around and look for a job but then it goes into this typical subtly right-wing nostalgia, they are happy in their own way without. That's what I read and it really put me off. Yeah it really put me off so I didn't haven't
did you see the movie I don't like it I think it's kind of a political class identity Nomadland? No I haven't seen it yet but I don't like the sound of it. No you know where it's tricky, it is apparently for those poor guys who cannot even afford a house just drive around and look for a job but then it goes into this typical subtly right-wing nostalgia, they are happy in their own way without. That's what I read and it really put me off. Yeah it really put me off so I didn't haven't
unknown
I've hardly been to the cinema
I've hardly been to the cinema
Slavoj Žižek
but I thought this sounds way too sweet for me. I'm more radical, I'm theoretically convinced that it's not a good movie so I will not see it you know one has to trust theory absolutely. Incidentally sorry, are we beginning, I don't want to lose time? Um yeah we should we begin? Let me see. Yeah we've now got. Is my voice better now? I changed over my. Can you hear me Slavoj? No you're not wonderfully clear Esther, I noticed that earlier. Still no? Is this any better? Esther did you hear what I saw what I told to Esther before. Now I'm becoming politically correct, it's in today's news. Yesterday in an interview for CNN, CNN, Zeman, the Czech president, right-wing social democrat, said that he can understand gays and lesbians how you can be, but trans he used this terms they are totally disgusting and so on. Oh God. I mean you see this is what I'm afraid of, it's really, we should return to Churchill, iron curtain, but now in the other way, we should build an iron curtain because it's the whole level Poland, Czech Republic, Austria also a little bit, Hungary, Slovenia, this is the axis. Hungary for sure, Hungary. Hungary is looking things yeah. No what I want to tell you is that speaking to journalists I learned that Orbán is nonetheless much more pragmatic, he makes deals with Chinese with he's very opportunist. While beware of the Polish guys who are and the Slovene guy Janša is the craziest. He's personally fanatic, totally. It's mad what he's doing. You know what is really strange and maybe we can have this conversation a bit later, but it's as if the unconscious of everything we've been discussing politically, sexually, culturally for the last two decades has now suddenly risen to the surface of politics and become an object of such venom and hatred that we've not I mean they were burning effigies of Judith Butler in Brazil when she visited three years ago. It's really out of control. And Bolsonaro even said he wants to put an end in universities to gender theory, he didn't even say gender as a concept he said gender theory. He was he was
but I thought this sounds way too sweet for me. I'm more radical, I'm theoretically convinced that it's not a good movie so I will not see it you know one has to trust theory absolutely. Incidentally sorry, are we beginning, I don't want to lose time? Um yeah we should we begin? Let me see. Yeah we've now got. Is my voice better now? I changed over my. Can you hear me Slavoj? No you're not wonderfully clear Esther, I noticed that earlier. Still no? Is this any better? Esther did you hear what I saw what I told to Esther before. Now I'm becoming politically correct, it's in today's news. Yesterday in an interview for CNN, CNN, Zeman, the Czech president, right-wing social democrat, said that he can understand gays and lesbians how you can be, but trans he used this terms they are totally disgusting and so on. Oh God. I mean you see this is what I'm afraid of, it's really, we should return to Churchill, iron curtain, but now in the other way, we should build an iron curtain because it's the whole level Poland, Czech Republic, Austria also a little bit, Hungary, Slovenia, this is the axis. Hungary for sure, Hungary. Hungary is looking things yeah. No what I want to tell you is that speaking to journalists I learned that Orbán is nonetheless much more pragmatic, he makes deals with Chinese with he's very opportunist. While beware of the Polish guys who are and the Slovene guy Janša is the craziest. He's personally fanatic, totally. It's mad what he's doing. You know what is really strange and maybe we can have this conversation a bit later, but it's as if the unconscious of everything we've been discussing politically, sexually, culturally for the last two decades has now suddenly risen to the surface of politics and become an object of such venom and hatred that we've not I mean they were burning effigies of Judith Butler in Brazil when she visited three years ago. It's really out of control. And Bolsonaro even said he wants to put an end in universities to gender theory, he didn't even say gender as a concept he said gender theory. He was he was
unknown
fingering her. I mean it is getting very very serious.
fingering her. I mean it is getting very very serious.
Slavoj Žižek
And not just Brazil I read a week ago that of American states are already enacting laws prohibiting critical race theory, gender theory and so on. And openly, they say they even say that especially this critical history you know the history of the United States, what really happened, they are openly saying it's not a matter of truth but a
And not just Brazil I read a week ago that of American states are already enacting laws prohibiting critical race theory, gender theory and so on. And openly, they say they even say that especially this critical history you know the history of the United States, what really happened, they are openly saying it's not a matter of truth but a
unknown
nation needs a unified myth and so on I mean it's. Yeah you said that in your talk. Yeah yeah yeah
nation needs a unified myth and so on I mean it's. Yeah you said that in your talk. Yeah yeah yeah
Slavoj Žižek
and I checked it up I mean it's. I don't know don't ask me what's going on. Okay I think we should start now. Yeah let us start. Esther's going to start. Hello I hope everyone can hear me. As usual when Slavoj comes
and I checked it up I mean it's. I don't know don't ask me what's going on. Okay I think we should start now. Yeah let us start. Esther's going to start. Hello I hope everyone can hear me. As usual when Slavoj comes
unknown
we sort of start before the start and then we have to stop so we can start so let us now start.
we sort of start before the start and then we have to stop so we can start so let us now start.
unknown
Also I just come because of the short notice of the of the period we had to
Also I just come because of the short notice of the of the period we had to
unknown
watch
watch
Slavoj Žižek
the video I just watched him at double speed so imagine how I feel now although it wasn't discernibly different but it was within the realms of imaginableness. So we are delighted to open our summer school, the live part of our summer school with Professor Slavoj Žižek who is International Director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities as well as holding various other roles and our summer school is virtually unthinkable without Slavoj Žižek's presence as he has been part of the faculty since its very inception in And Slavoj has always very generously shared his developing thoughts with us each year at the summer school as well as in his masterclasses here at Birkbeck. So we've heard from his books as they progress and so by my calculations we've been exposed to the developing thoughts of twenty books yeah twenty books over the last ten years. I don't need to say all the titles though they are an exercise in inventiveness around a
the video I just watched him at double speed so imagine how I feel now although it wasn't discernibly different but it was within the realms of imaginableness. So we are delighted to open our summer school, the live part of our summer school with Professor Slavoj Žižek who is International Director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities as well as holding various other roles and our summer school is virtually unthinkable without Slavoj Žižek's presence as he has been part of the faculty since its very inception in And Slavoj has always very generously shared his developing thoughts with us each year at the summer school as well as in his masterclasses here at Birkbeck. So we've heard from his books as they progress and so by my calculations we've been exposed to the developing thoughts of twenty books yeah twenty books over the last ten years. I don't need to say all the titles though they are an exercise in inventiveness around a
unknown
core set of themes so just one or two to remind you: Hegel in a Wired Brain, Sex and the Failed Absolute, Incontinence of the Void, Economico-Philosophical Bandits. Esther we can't hear you very well. Well I'm not surprised oh no. People are commenting it on the chat. Perhaps you could just remove all your mics and see if that's better. Well no uh. Your sound is now off Esther. It's strange because you Jacqueline I hear you simply perfectly I don't know. And I can hear you perfectly but Esther I can't hear very well. Okay Esther you're muted now. Apologies to everybody for these what we like to think of little technical teething problems at the beginning of the week. I'm sure we'll get there. Esther can you unmute yourself? Yes no mic. Is that any better? Is that better? Marginally better, marginally better. Problem
core set of themes so just one or two to remind you: Hegel in a Wired Brain, Sex and the Failed Absolute, Incontinence of the Void, Economico-Philosophical Bandits. Esther we can't hear you very well. Well I'm not surprised oh no. People are commenting it on the chat. Perhaps you could just remove all your mics and see if that's better. Well no uh. Your sound is now off Esther. It's strange because you Jacqueline I hear you simply perfectly I don't know. And I can hear you perfectly but Esther I can't hear very well. Okay Esther you're muted now. Apologies to everybody for these what we like to think of little technical teething problems at the beginning of the week. I'm sure we'll get there. Esther can you unmute yourself? Yes no mic. Is that any better? Is that better? Marginally better, marginally better. Problem
Slavoj Žižek
with my setup. Do you have to use a mic? Possibly not let um. How does this sound? Better a little bit. I think that's better. No that's echoing. Okay I think yeah let's see what people say. People are saying it's much better. Is that much better? You get an applause Esther you're getting an applause like better much better like Stalin at the end of a speech you should be proud yeah. I am so proud about that. Should I okay I I won't start again but I shall I shall pick up where I left off so I was reminding you of titles Hegel in a Wired
with my setup. Do you have to use a mic? Possibly not let um. How does this sound? Better a little bit. I think that's better. No that's echoing. Okay I think yeah let's see what people say. People are saying it's much better. Is that much better? You get an applause Esther you're getting an applause like better much better like Stalin at the end of a speech you should be proud yeah. I am so proud about that. Should I okay I I won't start again but I shall I shall pick up where I left off so I was reminding you of titles Hegel in a Wired
unknown
Brain, Sex
Brain, Sex
Slavoj Žižek
and the Failed Absolute, Incontinence of the Void, Absolute Recoil, The
and the Failed Absolute, Incontinence of the Void, Absolute Recoil, The
unknown
Most Sub- towards a new foundation of dialectical materialism, The Most Sublime Hysteric: Hegel with Lacan, Less Than Nothing, Living in End Times. A sense of end times which I think was the first book that was written during Slavoj's first association with us, maybe set a tenor that has clearly not disappeared, we're in the extended end times and Slavoj has spent the last ten eleven years modulating how that occurs and rendering for us the different and unpredictable ways in which our world of politics and culture
Most Sub- towards a new foundation of dialectical materialism, The Most Sublime Hysteric: Hegel with Lacan, Less Than Nothing, Living in End Times. A sense of end times which I think was the first book that was written during Slavoj's first association with us, maybe set a tenor that has clearly not disappeared, we're in the extended end times and Slavoj has spent the last ten eleven years modulating how that occurs and rendering for us the different and unpredictable ways in which our world of politics and culture
unknown
has developed. Now two weeks ago the US left-wing magazine Jacobin did a profile of Slavoj Žižek, indeed it was titled In Defense of Slavoj Žižek because the point from which one steps out would need to already be apparently defensive. And their short profile gives a balance sheet totting up his quote truly bad positions over the years and his important provocations, noting and I quote Žižek remains an important theorist for the left for two reasons. First his reinterpretation of dialectical materialism has resuscitated leftist philosophy in the face of intellectual assaults. Second he has written creative insightful studies of ideology in our post-modern neoliberal era. Taken together these contributions constitute a formidable legacy that ensures Žižek whatever his flaws will remain a touchstone for a long time. So from Jacobin a mealy-mouthed endorsement from the left but an endorsement nonetheless which admittedly does conclude if the mission of critical theory is to analyze and critique the ailments of its time then Žižek is one of our finest diagnosticians. In any case then Žižek is a touchstone and an obsession in some quarters. He's really suffused our thinking about ideology as a complex inconsistent difficult terrain with a lot of disavowal in it and "I know but" structures
has developed. Now two weeks ago the US left-wing magazine Jacobin did a profile of Slavoj Žižek, indeed it was titled In Defense of Slavoj Žižek because the point from which one steps out would need to already be apparently defensive. And their short profile gives a balance sheet totting up his quote truly bad positions over the years and his important provocations, noting and I quote Žižek remains an important theorist for the left for two reasons. First his reinterpretation of dialectical materialism has resuscitated leftist philosophy in the face of intellectual assaults. Second he has written creative insightful studies of ideology in our post-modern neoliberal era. Taken together these contributions constitute a formidable legacy that ensures Žižek whatever his flaws will remain a touchstone for a long time. So from Jacobin a mealy-mouthed endorsement from the left but an endorsement nonetheless which admittedly does conclude if the mission of critical theory is to analyze and critique the ailments of its time then Žižek is one of our finest diagnosticians. In any case then Žižek is a touchstone and an obsession in some quarters. He's really suffused our thinking about ideology as a complex inconsistent difficult terrain with a lot of disavowal in it and "I know but" structures
unknown
and what keeps
and what keeps
unknown
his thinking ever compelling is that he trails and tracks events and phenomena in
his thinking ever compelling is that he trails and tracks events and phenomena in
unknown
contemporary culture and political movements and he points up the ridiculous humorous dissociative and often peculiar illogics that underpin them and is merciless in exposing other logics and pitfalls of contemporary ideology not without frequent controversy. So we've already seen how this is part of the lecture he's provided for us for our summer school and so I want to now turn over to Slavoj and welcome him and um describe the structure so we're going to have a
contemporary culture and political movements and he points up the ridiculous humorous dissociative and often peculiar illogics that underpin them and is merciless in exposing other logics and pitfalls of contemporary ideology not without frequent controversy. So we've already seen how this is part of the lecture he's provided for us for our summer school and so I want to now turn over to Slavoj and welcome him and um describe the structure so we're going to have a
Slavoj Žižek
conversation between ourselves for or minutes we'll see where it goes and then we then open to contributions and comments you can use the chat if you want to write it down we may open the
conversation between ourselves for or minutes we'll see where it goes and then we then open to contributions and comments you can use the chat if you want to write it down we may open the
unknown
mics we'll just see we've got our great moderators keeping an eye on the chat box and what's going on there so we do hope to to bring as many of you in as is possible but also remember tomorrow after Slavoj's live mini lecture there will also be opportunities for discussion and comment and engagement. So thank you for the lecture um I thought it was really interesting how you began with the universal
mics we'll just see we've got our great moderators keeping an eye on the chat box and what's going on there so we do hope to to bring as many of you in as is possible but also remember tomorrow after Slavoj's live mini lecture there will also be opportunities for discussion and comment and engagement. So thank you for the lecture um I thought it was really interesting how you began with the universal
unknown
you began with this this notion of us as universal beings
you began with this this notion of us as universal beings
Slavoj Žižek
this was part of your discussion of nature and
this was part of your discussion of nature and
unknown
those sort of anthropocentric thoughts that want to decentre the human and you you talk there of a kind of universality of being and and the particular role that we hold within mitigating climate change and so on and you ended with universality and you were very insistent on holding onto universal truth and that came after your
those sort of anthropocentric thoughts that want to decentre the human and you you talk there of a kind of universality of being and and the particular role that we hold within mitigating climate change and so on and you ended with universality and you were very insistent on holding onto universal truth and that came after your
unknown
discussion of critical race theory and the the ways in which notions are mobilized
discussion of critical race theory and the the ways in which notions are mobilized
Slavoj Žižek
and it doesn't matter if they're
and it doesn't matter if they're
unknown
true or not for
true or not for
unknown
you know
you know
Slavoj Žižek
your own government or for Trump Trumpian style politics
your own government or for Trump Trumpian style politics
unknown
and you were holding onto the actuality the truth that critical race theory points to for example so yeah I wondered if you would say something about that that category of the universal I suppose or yeah is there a connection I suppose between
and you were holding onto the actuality the truth that critical race theory points to for example so yeah I wondered if you would say something about that that category of the universal I suppose or yeah is there a connection I suppose between
unknown
the universalism at the start of the talk in terms of us as a universal being and the universalism of truth that you hold onto at the end. Thanks very much, just one remark about that Jacobin article, I love the expression they use "grave errors" that I also do you know that if I know something I know Stalinism, that this is the classical Stalinist designation of somebody who commits errors, disagrees with the party but basically is still given a chance of being one of us, you know, like for example no Khrushchev went further but later when Khrushchev was deposed it was said that he committed some grave errors and so on and so on. So that okay I proudly assume there I don't that I don't want to lose time I will just go directly to your point. I'm basically just repeating the old central claim I think of Marx himself, Frankfurt School and all serious philosophically reflected Marxist, my point is that and I think if we abandon this all Marxism even Marxist legacy disintegrates that universalism and taking a side, being partial, are not opposed. On the contrary, for example a couple of examples to make this clear. Today in the United States to be really against racism means Black Lives Matter. Although from an abstract liberal point of view you could say oh but don't all lives matter? No, state violence against racism sorry, against the blacks is the hidden model, the paradigm of racism today. So you cannot just say okay let's look also to the other side and so on. No, there is always a particular case, in Germany in the 30s it was antisemitism, today in Israel it's how you treat Palestinians on the West Bank and so on and so on, this which is the exemplary case of the universality. So I think this is the point of of this idea how to say universalism today. Definitely not in this sense of adopting a universal objective view, there are partial views and so on. No, truth in itself is available only through an interested view. You must be engaged to have access on a truth. Truth is not a universal category. This is why I would go even a step further and claim that this falsely objective view, let's look at all sides, they are all making mistakes and so on, this secret presupposition but we have the neutral view, we are above the conflicts, this is perhaps the greatest most violent partiality in the sense of class exploitation and so on and so on. And the way I apply this is also against a certain type of identity politics. I think that's what I reproach them, that the vision I see in them is that again there are different identities, each identity should be allowed to articulate itself and then what we get is some kind of a neutral liberal space where identities can coexist. No, I think that there are different identities and the truly radical universal as it were identity is the identity which is inherently antagonistic, which cannot articulate itself. I will stop soon but let me give you an example I hope you will like it. The movie which got Oscar and some progressives even celebrated it, Nomadland. Yes it's good, these nomadic proletarians who even cannot afford a home and so on, that it focuses on them, but it's for
the universalism at the start of the talk in terms of us as a universal being and the universalism of truth that you hold onto at the end. Thanks very much, just one remark about that Jacobin article, I love the expression they use "grave errors" that I also do you know that if I know something I know Stalinism, that this is the classical Stalinist designation of somebody who commits errors, disagrees with the party but basically is still given a chance of being one of us, you know, like for example no Khrushchev went further but later when Khrushchev was deposed it was said that he committed some grave errors and so on and so on. So that okay I proudly assume there I don't that I don't want to lose time I will just go directly to your point. I'm basically just repeating the old central claim I think of Marx himself, Frankfurt School and all serious philosophically reflected Marxist, my point is that and I think if we abandon this all Marxism even Marxist legacy disintegrates that universalism and taking a side, being partial, are not opposed. On the contrary, for example a couple of examples to make this clear. Today in the United States to be really against racism means Black Lives Matter. Although from an abstract liberal point of view you could say oh but don't all lives matter? No, state violence against racism sorry, against the blacks is the hidden model, the paradigm of racism today. So you cannot just say okay let's look also to the other side and so on. No, there is always a particular case, in Germany in the 30s it was antisemitism, today in Israel it's how you treat Palestinians on the West Bank and so on and so on, this which is the exemplary case of the universality. So I think this is the point of of this idea how to say universalism today. Definitely not in this sense of adopting a universal objective view, there are partial views and so on. No, truth in itself is available only through an interested view. You must be engaged to have access on a truth. Truth is not a universal category. This is why I would go even a step further and claim that this falsely objective view, let's look at all sides, they are all making mistakes and so on, this secret presupposition but we have the neutral view, we are above the conflicts, this is perhaps the greatest most violent partiality in the sense of class exploitation and so on and so on. And the way I apply this is also against a certain type of identity politics. I think that's what I reproach them, that the vision I see in them is that again there are different identities, each identity should be allowed to articulate itself and then what we get is some kind of a neutral liberal space where identities can coexist. No, I think that there are different identities and the truly radical universal as it were identity is the identity which is inherently antagonistic, which cannot articulate itself. I will stop soon but let me give you an example I hope you will like it. The movie which got Oscar and some progressives even celebrated it, Nomadland. Yes it's good, these nomadic proletarians who even cannot afford a home and so on, that it focuses on them, but it's for
unknown
me a kind of identity politics transferred onto class struggle. The the the feeling you get from the movie is nonetheless that look even these poor people who cannot even afford a permanent home have their own cultural identity, their own way of life, they know how to enjoy a little bit that life offers them and so on and so on. I think this is the most dangerous position. I like to oppose to this identity which I call classism, enjoy your class identity, what I heard when in New Delhi I visited the lowest of the lowest caste, those who those who clean dry toilets. And I asked them what's your basic program and they gave me a wonderful definition: We don't want to be what we are. That's our program you know. So again again never forget that identity politics in this bad sense to each its, her, their, his own identity always presupposes a hidden universality and universality in the sense of who defines the space of coexistence of these identities. And that's why I claim that many white liberals who support Black or Native American whatever identity even if they appear masochistic ideologically in the sense of no we don't have the same right to our own identity but secretly they reserve for themselves their own universal position. They're really taking care, judging others, are you faithful to your identity and so on and so on. And so for me I of course
me a kind of identity politics transferred onto class struggle. The the the feeling you get from the movie is nonetheless that look even these poor people who cannot even afford a permanent home have their own cultural identity, their own way of life, they know how to enjoy a little bit that life offers them and so on and so on. I think this is the most dangerous position. I like to oppose to this identity which I call classism, enjoy your class identity, what I heard when in New Delhi I visited the lowest of the lowest caste, those who those who clean dry toilets. And I asked them what's your basic program and they gave me a wonderful definition: We don't want to be what we are. That's our program you know. So again again never forget that identity politics in this bad sense to each its, her, their, his own identity always presupposes a hidden universality and universality in the sense of who defines the space of coexistence of these identities. And that's why I claim that many white liberals who support Black or Native American whatever identity even if they appear masochistic ideologically in the sense of no we don't have the same right to our own identity but secretly they reserve for themselves their own universal position. They're really taking care, judging others, are you faithful to your identity and so on and so on. And so for me I of course
Slavoj Žižek
admit we are all culturally overdetermined and so on but as an old Hegelian I claim that the conflicts that we fight are not conflicts of identities within some universal space, no they are conflicts of different universalities. Each particular identity has its own view of of universality. In new brief book of political text recently published I refer to now deceased famous East German writer Christa Wolf who wrote a book Der geteilte Himmel, Divided Heaven. So we are not all under the same heaven. Every particular position has its own vision of universal heaven as it were. And again this is the problem. Our problem today is not particular identities, it's universality. It's not enough to say all sexual positions should be tolerated, the problem is from which position does sexuality as such appears to us, what does global capitalism mean. We live more than ever in a global era. I'm getting lost that should be enough for now sorry. Hello? Something wrong? Uh no we can hear you Slavoj. You can hear me? Yes, yes I can hear you too. But we can't hear Esther. Yeah. Where is Esther gone? Esther's muted. Esther you're muted. Esther's muted and invisible. Uh can you can you hear me now? Yes. Yes. Okay brilliant sorry about that. It's better than before. Yeah I managed to find some button that that helped. So yeah what you were saying about not from what position I suppose this is something that intrigues me in your talk like you come up with this notion of the ideological unconscious and I just wanted to understand like unconscious to who, you know who is unconscious to us or socially unconscious or you know where is this um or things like that the prohibitions and the regulations where are they exerted from because if they're not they're not manifest um on the surface these things are not necessarily written out and applied but it seems to me like the notion of the ideological unconscious they sort of emanate from somewhere else that's always very imprecise and you know I mean in a classic Marxist kind of point of view that you know one might talk about economic imperatives or so on but where where where does it emanate from where is the I suppose the center of power or the or is there one or you know unconscious for and to what and who. Very good question and I admit it I don't even go very deep into this in my talk. What I just wanted to emphasize is this which always fascinated me as you Esther already hinted at how every ideological edifice has and I don't some unconscious premises and I want to avoid now this big topic whose unconscious social of course not in some Jungian sense individual, what is I would say unconscious of a discursive structure. In the simple sense that explicitly ideology has a set of premises but to be engaged part of this ideology there are other rules, premises which for structural reasons cannot be explicitly cannot be explicitly stated. The example I give, I know it's tasteless very risky, I repeat an old example of mine you remember of that guy the Supreme Mufti in Australia when he blamed women who are not properly dressed that they provoked if they men if they were raped. And I simply asked the question, but isn't the presupposition of this argumentation blaming the women that we men are are are just stupid, we cannot restrain ourselves. Women are implicitly treated there paradoxically as the only the only properly ethical agents. They should or there are other examples for example my favorite example with Stalinism. Of course it wasn't I use this example already at Birkbeck many times I know. Of course under Stalinism you were not allowed to criticize Stalin but believe me if you pronounced publicly this prohibition you would be arrested even faster. So this structure interests me how again in diff- its different versions, how something is prohibited but ultimately and I admit even people with whom I was engaged in polemics pointed out this nicely like Jacques Derrida, how at the most radical level prohibitions themselves are prohibited in the sense that they are operative on condition that you don't announce them publicly. And now returning to what many times Jacqueline pointed out, I think that this is the classical ideological structure and I think that today with what I call obscene masters new obscene rules something is changing here that even these obscene prohibitions can be publicly announced but on the other hand I want to emphasize this. I'm not saying that a person like Trump is without prohibitions. No, he is cheating precisely when he goes openly into obscenity and so on and so on he knows very well what he shouldn't talk about and so on and so on. Trump is for me in this sense a pervert and I always remember what Freud said that nowhere is the unconscious more out of reach, more oppressed than with perverts. I find this very important because often even Freud once used in some other place this very bad unfortunate formulations that what hysterics just talk about dream perverts do it. No it's
admit we are all culturally overdetermined and so on but as an old Hegelian I claim that the conflicts that we fight are not conflicts of identities within some universal space, no they are conflicts of different universalities. Each particular identity has its own view of of universality. In new brief book of political text recently published I refer to now deceased famous East German writer Christa Wolf who wrote a book Der geteilte Himmel, Divided Heaven. So we are not all under the same heaven. Every particular position has its own vision of universal heaven as it were. And again this is the problem. Our problem today is not particular identities, it's universality. It's not enough to say all sexual positions should be tolerated, the problem is from which position does sexuality as such appears to us, what does global capitalism mean. We live more than ever in a global era. I'm getting lost that should be enough for now sorry. Hello? Something wrong? Uh no we can hear you Slavoj. You can hear me? Yes, yes I can hear you too. But we can't hear Esther. Yeah. Where is Esther gone? Esther's muted. Esther you're muted. Esther's muted and invisible. Uh can you can you hear me now? Yes. Yes. Okay brilliant sorry about that. It's better than before. Yeah I managed to find some button that that helped. So yeah what you were saying about not from what position I suppose this is something that intrigues me in your talk like you come up with this notion of the ideological unconscious and I just wanted to understand like unconscious to who, you know who is unconscious to us or socially unconscious or you know where is this um or things like that the prohibitions and the regulations where are they exerted from because if they're not they're not manifest um on the surface these things are not necessarily written out and applied but it seems to me like the notion of the ideological unconscious they sort of emanate from somewhere else that's always very imprecise and you know I mean in a classic Marxist kind of point of view that you know one might talk about economic imperatives or so on but where where where does it emanate from where is the I suppose the center of power or the or is there one or you know unconscious for and to what and who. Very good question and I admit it I don't even go very deep into this in my talk. What I just wanted to emphasize is this which always fascinated me as you Esther already hinted at how every ideological edifice has and I don't some unconscious premises and I want to avoid now this big topic whose unconscious social of course not in some Jungian sense individual, what is I would say unconscious of a discursive structure. In the simple sense that explicitly ideology has a set of premises but to be engaged part of this ideology there are other rules, premises which for structural reasons cannot be explicitly cannot be explicitly stated. The example I give, I know it's tasteless very risky, I repeat an old example of mine you remember of that guy the Supreme Mufti in Australia when he blamed women who are not properly dressed that they provoked if they men if they were raped. And I simply asked the question, but isn't the presupposition of this argumentation blaming the women that we men are are are just stupid, we cannot restrain ourselves. Women are implicitly treated there paradoxically as the only the only properly ethical agents. They should or there are other examples for example my favorite example with Stalinism. Of course it wasn't I use this example already at Birkbeck many times I know. Of course under Stalinism you were not allowed to criticize Stalin but believe me if you pronounced publicly this prohibition you would be arrested even faster. So this structure interests me how again in diff- its different versions, how something is prohibited but ultimately and I admit even people with whom I was engaged in polemics pointed out this nicely like Jacques Derrida, how at the most radical level prohibitions themselves are prohibited in the sense that they are operative on condition that you don't announce them publicly. And now returning to what many times Jacqueline pointed out, I think that this is the classical ideological structure and I think that today with what I call obscene masters new obscene rules something is changing here that even these obscene prohibitions can be publicly announced but on the other hand I want to emphasize this. I'm not saying that a person like Trump is without prohibitions. No, he is cheating precisely when he goes openly into obscenity and so on and so on he knows very well what he shouldn't talk about and so on and so on. Trump is for me in this sense a pervert and I always remember what Freud said that nowhere is the unconscious more out of reach, more oppressed than with perverts. I find this very important because often even Freud once used in some other place this very bad unfortunate formulations that what hysterics just talk about dream perverts do it. No it's
unknown
too simplified.
too simplified.
Slavoj Žižek
For me I think I hope I'm here a little
For me I think I hope I'm here a little
unknown
bit of a feminist in
bit of a feminist in
Slavoj Žižek
so far as hysteria is more feminine it's a risky claim and perversion more masculine I think that hysteria is much more subversive than perversion. Perversion is really a position of absolute knowledge, a pervert doesn't ask questions, a pervert knows. So again these structures which are today more operative than ever I think always fascinated me how something is prohibited but you are solicited discreetly to violate it. Or even more disgusting, something you are solicited or told you have a free choice here but how should I put it you are given a free choice only on condition that you don't use this free choice or rather on condition that you make the right choice. And what I'm trying to say is that this is not a secondary alienated whatever mystification or of ideo- this characterizes ideology as such. Every ideological space is antagonistic, cut in this sense. And my further point I think I went just for a couple of minutes in my talk that's why I love the conclusion I make that's my favorite part of my talk. I think I do speak briefly about that Indian classic book The Laws of Manu, no? Yeah. Where here you can see what I will call tomorrow the queerness of ideology. Ideology really doesn't want you to fully obey its commandments but to violate them in a certain way so that then it ideology at its most basic is to regulate your violations and to use your violations as the very mode to make you feel guilty and then to allow you to be integrated into ideology and so on and so on. The most for a Catholic at least Christian the most horrible thing is simply not to break
so far as hysteria is more feminine it's a risky claim and perversion more masculine I think that hysteria is much more subversive than perversion. Perversion is really a position of absolute knowledge, a pervert doesn't ask questions, a pervert knows. So again these structures which are today more operative than ever I think always fascinated me how something is prohibited but you are solicited discreetly to violate it. Or even more disgusting, something you are solicited or told you have a free choice here but how should I put it you are given a free choice only on condition that you don't use this free choice or rather on condition that you make the right choice. And what I'm trying to say is that this is not a secondary alienated whatever mystification or of ideo- this characterizes ideology as such. Every ideological space is antagonistic, cut in this sense. And my further point I think I went just for a couple of minutes in my talk that's why I love the conclusion I make that's my favorite part of my talk. I think I do speak briefly about that Indian classic book The Laws of Manu, no? Yeah. Where here you can see what I will call tomorrow the queerness of ideology. Ideology really doesn't want you to fully obey its commandments but to violate them in a certain way so that then it ideology at its most basic is to regulate your violations and to use your violations as the very mode to make you feel guilty and then to allow you to be integrated into ideology and so on and so on. The most for a Catholic at least Christian the most horrible thing is simply not to break
unknown
the laws. And I think we find this already I know there are more refined readings but I'm always shocked
the laws. And I think we find this already I know there are more refined readings but I'm always shocked
unknown
we find this already
we find this already
unknown
in Paradise at the beginning of the Bible. Why did God put
in Paradise at the beginning of the Bible. Why did God put
unknown
that stupid apple in the middle of the paradise
that stupid apple in the middle of the paradise
Cathy Newman
garden where everybody could see it and
garden where everybody could see it and
unknown
so on and so on. It's absolutely clear
so on and so on. It's absolutely clear
Cathy Newman
that God played there a kind of a superego perverted game you know. Those theologians who claimed felix culpa, happy fall were right. So this is this is what this is what fascinates me here. But again the conclusion I want to avoid and even some leftists drive at this conclusion I want to avoid is the conclusion that like Pierre Legendre, the French conservative Lacanian I violently disagree with him, is that since today prohibitions are getting weaker paternal authority blah blah blah so we get this new obscenities and so on and he sees the only way to reestablish some kind of normality I reject this notion with reassertion of the paternal authority. I absolutely reject this conclusion because if you try to do it I think you end up as in bad sense of the term some postmodern relativist. Like we need authority but we know it's not true but let's play the game it's a cynical position. Unfortunately Jacques-Alain Miller also sustains it. Authority is always a fake but what can we do let's
that God played there a kind of a superego perverted game you know. Those theologians who claimed felix culpa, happy fall were right. So this is this is what this is what fascinates me here. But again the conclusion I want to avoid and even some leftists drive at this conclusion I want to avoid is the conclusion that like Pierre Legendre, the French conservative Lacanian I violently disagree with him, is that since today prohibitions are getting weaker paternal authority blah blah blah so we get this new obscenities and so on and he sees the only way to reestablish some kind of normality I reject this notion with reassertion of the paternal authority. I absolutely reject this conclusion because if you try to do it I think you end up as in bad sense of the term some postmodern relativist. Like we need authority but we know it's not true but let's play the game it's a cynical position. Unfortunately Jacques-Alain Miller also sustains it. Authority is always a fake but what can we do let's
Slavoj Žižek
do it. But on the other hand I complicate things here. I read a passage which I like in spite of my critical attitude towards her of of Hannah Arendt where I don't know if I already quoted it somewhere that's big news to you, a passage a quote that I didn't already use, namely Hannah Arendt says that although as a father or mother family authority you know that you are delivering your children into a world which you don't control, that you don't have the proper authority. But Hannah Arendt says but nonetheless the greatest lie here is to tell your children listen my authority is not grounded I cannot be of any help to you just I am
do it. But on the other hand I complicate things here. I read a passage which I like in spite of my critical attitude towards her of of Hannah Arendt where I don't know if I already quoted it somewhere that's big news to you, a passage a quote that I didn't already use, namely Hannah Arendt says that although as a father or mother family authority you know that you are delivering your children into a world which you don't control, that you don't have the proper authority. But Hannah Arendt says but nonetheless the greatest lie here is to tell your children listen my authority is not grounded I cannot be of any help to you just I am
Cathy Newman
delivering you to your freedom. That's also a lie, you
delivering you to your freedom. That's also a lie, you
Slavoj Žižek
cannot escape in this simple way like a parent no? It's a much more I would say heroic position how to exert authority without bluffing without saying I am qualified to express this authority and so on and so on. So the again the question of authority I think is crucial today. But I'm again getting lost please go on I don't want to talk too much. Because I expect some attacks on me when I see many Latino American colleagues joining us I know that many people are now attacking me there as Eurocentrist because I publish some kind of European manifesto in Le Monde and okay. Please Esther. Um okay I'll just have one more question because there's a lot coming in on the chat but um yeah I wanted to pick you up on one thing in the lecture which um you know from- which might be one of these grave errors or flaws I don't know but it seemed to me you used these examples at a certain point when you were talking about um I suppose a kind of repressive tolerance or uh you were talking about La La Land and how the film had been attacked for not representing um gay people even though gay people are you know part of the reality of the LA of Hollywood and then you you sort of seemed to set that together with another example from publishing around the idea of readers or panels discussion panels where one has to you know pull pull in people from all the different identities women gay people trans black and so on. And then you made this comment which we we can't just let slip by whereby rather than saying grave error okay, rather than saying this is a denial of the reality of publishing or the intellectual world you say we must ask the question why there are not enough good people coming from those different groups which seems to me to be firstly a different structure one's talking about a lack of reflection of the real the other is uh maybe starting to think about material conditions in intellectual world but at the same time is also not true um so just yeah I wondered if you would say something about about that about the parallel you made there or yeah about that comment. Great point yeah. Okay I refrain maybe you were even you Esther going too deep there because my the critical point that I used there was repeatedly told to me by women who told me I was invited to a volume and then when I sent the text I got this subtle male chauvinist message, a woman of course I will not name her claimed that she was aware that it's not a very good text and she asked the editor like could I rework it and the editor basically in a little bit more twisted way but nonetheless replied you know it doesn't really matter we just need you for the quota you know. So I think that I'm not against this, I'm and happily to say I even don't have to do it like it happened again this was my neglect like my big obsession Hegelian women no? It's not only your Jacqueline Gillian Rose it's a series which is now supplemented by two other names Rocio Zambrana and Angelica Nuzzo I think. So like the prob- with Hegelian studies today you have to keep if you want the balance you have to keep male quota and so on you know. What I what distracts me is also this that isn't it that this quota system doesn't solve the problem but creates new tensions. So I'm not against using it but the real problems are what you mentioned Esther material conditions then of course this is for me a totally legitimate necessary question: Is there something in the very structure of this Hegelian studies but not there and so on today which in a much more refined way privileges men and so on, material conditions, how should philosophy itself be either abandoned or restructured. But you know we should- what I don't like is this idea there are real inequalities then let's just establish quotas and somehow no no necessity to go further. That's that's my that's my problem. Because again Hegel studies and if there is a philosopher who is difficult it's Hegel, Hegel studies demonstrate how if the space is properly open to women you get explosive incredible results. For example Rocio Zambrana's book on Hegel imagination and so on it's a wonderful critique of this entire tradition. On the one hand too rough Marxist critique of Hegel, on the other hand the best critique that I know of how should I call them today's liberal Hegelians you know uh re- re- recognition uh dialogue and so on and so on. And now I want to address both of you Esther and Jacqueline. Uh when you mentioned Jacqueline like she was her effigy was burned of uh Judith of course this was horrible. But now I found a text by Judith which for me goes a little bit too far in this direction of recognition liberal topic asked it was propos Hegel's anniversary just a short three-four pages text. She was asked uh what is alive of Hegel today is a question and her answer is basically that Hegel's lesson is that every position of domination exclusion and so on is a dead alley and that to have a livable society we need kind of a mutual recognition space of equality and so on and so on. I here respectfully disagree. I think the the lesson of Hegel is exactly the opposite one. Yes we need equality but the only way to equality is through this violence unilateral misrecognition and so on and so on. With Hegel you don't even have a happy ending at the end. I think I again the main danger general generic danger today for me in Hegel studies is this liberal reading of Hegel as a as a thinker of mutual recognition and so on and so on. No Hegel is a much more pessimistic if you want philosopher. That's the way I read Hegel is that Hegel is not this traditional
cannot escape in this simple way like a parent no? It's a much more I would say heroic position how to exert authority without bluffing without saying I am qualified to express this authority and so on and so on. So the again the question of authority I think is crucial today. But I'm again getting lost please go on I don't want to talk too much. Because I expect some attacks on me when I see many Latino American colleagues joining us I know that many people are now attacking me there as Eurocentrist because I publish some kind of European manifesto in Le Monde and okay. Please Esther. Um okay I'll just have one more question because there's a lot coming in on the chat but um yeah I wanted to pick you up on one thing in the lecture which um you know from- which might be one of these grave errors or flaws I don't know but it seemed to me you used these examples at a certain point when you were talking about um I suppose a kind of repressive tolerance or uh you were talking about La La Land and how the film had been attacked for not representing um gay people even though gay people are you know part of the reality of the LA of Hollywood and then you you sort of seemed to set that together with another example from publishing around the idea of readers or panels discussion panels where one has to you know pull pull in people from all the different identities women gay people trans black and so on. And then you made this comment which we we can't just let slip by whereby rather than saying grave error okay, rather than saying this is a denial of the reality of publishing or the intellectual world you say we must ask the question why there are not enough good people coming from those different groups which seems to me to be firstly a different structure one's talking about a lack of reflection of the real the other is uh maybe starting to think about material conditions in intellectual world but at the same time is also not true um so just yeah I wondered if you would say something about about that about the parallel you made there or yeah about that comment. Great point yeah. Okay I refrain maybe you were even you Esther going too deep there because my the critical point that I used there was repeatedly told to me by women who told me I was invited to a volume and then when I sent the text I got this subtle male chauvinist message, a woman of course I will not name her claimed that she was aware that it's not a very good text and she asked the editor like could I rework it and the editor basically in a little bit more twisted way but nonetheless replied you know it doesn't really matter we just need you for the quota you know. So I think that I'm not against this, I'm and happily to say I even don't have to do it like it happened again this was my neglect like my big obsession Hegelian women no? It's not only your Jacqueline Gillian Rose it's a series which is now supplemented by two other names Rocio Zambrana and Angelica Nuzzo I think. So like the prob- with Hegelian studies today you have to keep if you want the balance you have to keep male quota and so on you know. What I what distracts me is also this that isn't it that this quota system doesn't solve the problem but creates new tensions. So I'm not against using it but the real problems are what you mentioned Esther material conditions then of course this is for me a totally legitimate necessary question: Is there something in the very structure of this Hegelian studies but not there and so on today which in a much more refined way privileges men and so on, material conditions, how should philosophy itself be either abandoned or restructured. But you know we should- what I don't like is this idea there are real inequalities then let's just establish quotas and somehow no no necessity to go further. That's that's my that's my problem. Because again Hegel studies and if there is a philosopher who is difficult it's Hegel, Hegel studies demonstrate how if the space is properly open to women you get explosive incredible results. For example Rocio Zambrana's book on Hegel imagination and so on it's a wonderful critique of this entire tradition. On the one hand too rough Marxist critique of Hegel, on the other hand the best critique that I know of how should I call them today's liberal Hegelians you know uh re- re- recognition uh dialogue and so on and so on. And now I want to address both of you Esther and Jacqueline. Uh when you mentioned Jacqueline like she was her effigy was burned of uh Judith of course this was horrible. But now I found a text by Judith which for me goes a little bit too far in this direction of recognition liberal topic asked it was propos Hegel's anniversary just a short three-four pages text. She was asked uh what is alive of Hegel today is a question and her answer is basically that Hegel's lesson is that every position of domination exclusion and so on is a dead alley and that to have a livable society we need kind of a mutual recognition space of equality and so on and so on. I here respectfully disagree. I think the the lesson of Hegel is exactly the opposite one. Yes we need equality but the only way to equality is through this violence unilateral misrecognition and so on and so on. With Hegel you don't even have a happy ending at the end. I think I again the main danger general generic danger today for me in Hegel studies is this liberal reading of Hegel as a as a thinker of mutual recognition and so on and so on. No Hegel is a much more pessimistic if you want philosopher. That's the way I read Hegel is that Hegel is not this traditional
Cathy Newman
cunning of reason guy where
cunning of reason guy where
Slavoj Žižek
whenever things are go bad he adds quickly yeah but at the end even the greatest crime serves some positive purpose and so on and so on. No Hegel's point I claim is almost the contrary one. Whenever we think we have a solution things will for sure turn bad. That's why I think Hegel would have been in a slightly perverted way glad to see 19th century after his death. Look we had years only in Europe elsewhere in the world it was a nightmare colonial nightmare but in Europe relative peace prosperity till World War I of course and then how World War I the true tragedy exploded and remember that World War I you cannot blame fascist communists whatever it was pure explosion of capitalism precisely of the capitalism which thrived so much in the second half of 19th century. And it was the same moment in the Fukuyama hope end of history no we are where we are now. Here Hegel is useful today I think. I again took too much time I'm sorry. So okay we have a lot of questions coming
whenever things are go bad he adds quickly yeah but at the end even the greatest crime serves some positive purpose and so on and so on. No Hegel's point I claim is almost the contrary one. Whenever we think we have a solution things will for sure turn bad. That's why I think Hegel would have been in a slightly perverted way glad to see 19th century after his death. Look we had years only in Europe elsewhere in the world it was a nightmare colonial nightmare but in Europe relative peace prosperity till World War I of course and then how World War I the true tragedy exploded and remember that World War I you cannot blame fascist communists whatever it was pure explosion of capitalism precisely of the capitalism which thrived so much in the second half of 19th century. And it was the same moment in the Fukuyama hope end of history no we are where we are now. Here Hegel is useful today I think. I again took too much time I'm sorry. So okay we have a lot of questions coming
Cathy Newman
in but I think maybe Jacqueline
in but I think maybe Jacqueline
Slavoj Žižek
you wanted to to come in? Yeah yeah yeah because Jacqueline is giving me now sorry Jacqueline I mean this in a benevolent ironically way I see in Jacqueline's image what I
you wanted to to come in? Yeah yeah yeah because Jacqueline is giving me now sorry Jacqueline I mean this in a benevolent ironically way I see in Jacqueline's image what I
Cathy Newman
call when my wife is mad at me the the Greta Thunberg look you know. That bit of a slight smile but thank you thank you Slavoj for the identification with Greta Thunberg. Um I just wanted to say a couple of practical things I've been reading the chat questions that have come in and I want to say to all of you that they are being registered the questions are fabulous by the way but we do have another full live session with Slavoj tomorrow so if we don't get to many of the questions today we can carry them over and we will begin with them tomorrow. Oh perfectly I fully agree. Slavoj will be happy with that after Slavoj's done his presentation so there will be time. Uh Sergio uh key organizer of this whole process is recommending Slavoj although I think you're constitutionally incapable of this that you restrict your answers to two or three minutes so that enough people get to talk to you. Um so that's a plea. Okay I will just make a brief intervention of a kind that those of you who are regulars at the summer school will have heard me make before. I welcome your description of hysteria as the subversive alternative to perversion. I welcomed in your talk the welcoming of Catherine Angel and what I thought was a
call when my wife is mad at me the the Greta Thunberg look you know. That bit of a slight smile but thank you thank you Slavoj for the identification with Greta Thunberg. Um I just wanted to say a couple of practical things I've been reading the chat questions that have come in and I want to say to all of you that they are being registered the questions are fabulous by the way but we do have another full live session with Slavoj tomorrow so if we don't get to many of the questions today we can carry them over and we will begin with them tomorrow. Oh perfectly I fully agree. Slavoj will be happy with that after Slavoj's done his presentation so there will be time. Uh Sergio uh key organizer of this whole process is recommending Slavoj although I think you're constitutionally incapable of this that you restrict your answers to two or three minutes so that enough people get to talk to you. Um so that's a plea. Okay I will just make a brief intervention of a kind that those of you who are regulars at the summer school will have heard me make before. I welcome your description of hysteria as the subversive alternative to perversion. I welcomed in your talk the welcoming of Catherine Angel and what I thought was a
Slavoj Žižek
profound point that you made about how the manipulation of power in sexual violence by men against women includes the appropriation of the power to know the mind of the woman who is the victim of the attack and I think that is an important insight. And I also was pleased to hear you reject the Pierre Legendre Jacques-Alain Miller position who ask for a
profound point that you made about how the manipulation of power in sexual violence by men against women includes the appropriation of the power to know the mind of the woman who is the victim of the attack and I think that is an important insight. And I also was pleased to hear you reject the Pierre Legendre Jacques-Alain Miller position who ask for a
Cathy Newman
semi-ironic reassertion
semi-ironic reassertion
Slavoj Žižek
of paternal authority and how that restoration
of paternal authority and how that restoration
Cathy Newman
would be unhelpful to say the
would be unhelpful to say the
Slavoj Žižek
least. At the same time I have a recurrent problem which you won't be surprised to hear Slavoj about the way the figure of the feminine punctuates your speech and your thinking. So the example of the Jewish marriage broker, the example of the gang rape, um leaves me with a question about what images we want to be promoting and circulating within our own discourse and I know you present them in order to critique them but there's something about the way they appear which still leaves me with a concern and a discomfort which was crystallized for me this time with the point that Esther's already made as if it was true that there were not enough good women or black writers as if it was true and we therefore need to see why that is the case instead of seeing it as systematic institutional misogyny and racism which makes the extraordinary output of women and black writers mostly but less so now as a result of Black Lives Matter invisible. So you won't be surprised to hear any of this Slavoj but I always feel I have a responsibility towards our wider constituency to articulate these concerns. Um and I'm happy I mean you may want to respond or we could move on to the questions now. No I will be this time really very really very brief. First I agree with you fully Jacqueline my god yes it's many ways of not only institutional but unwritten rules in institutions like often you know I think that anti-feminism today its most dangerous form are I think with these false liberals who officially obey the rules. It's almost easy to fight with open anti-feminist white supremacists and so on and so on. What you said about many excellent women writers and so on I agree with you for example for example my god now you will accuse me of Freudian slip that I oppressed her memory who wrote Beloved uh. Toni Morrison. Toni Morrison okay sorry. But this is for me the founding text of what I maybe in an essentialist way but nonetheless of what I'm tempted to call feminine subjectivity today you know because you cannot what she does the heroine you cannot simply transpose it onto men no. This is a specific feminine situation and at the same time in no patronizing there. It's it meets the highest criteria of subjectivity in German idealism and so on and so on. I just think that as you pointed out yes there are many writers movie makers and so on and so on but sooner or later don't you think Jacqueline we okay encounter a certain deadlock. Yes I agree there are many excellent black feminine writers and so on and so on but I don't think it's just the institutional oppression of them. I think that something maybe that would be my conclusion something has to be changed in the very structure not just institutionally but even theoretically of what is philosophy today and not in this easy Luce Irigaray way you know like men are too much into firm firm structures women fluidity and so on I distrust these abstract oppositions but I think the problem is deeper here. But to conclude really when we talk about hysteria and so on what why the reason I like to emphasize hysteria is that often even with many feminists today you find this idea of some although they don't say it some substantial feminine identity then oppressed distorted by and so on and so on. No I think women are fundamentally to be a woman is much more than to be a man a subjective position position of subjectivity which precisely means that it's a position in itself antagonistic and so on that it's not that we simply have some feminine substantial identity crushed or whatever by by by by patriarchy and so on. Sorry but let's go on yes. Please let's go what Jacqueline you said let's go in detail into all this stuff tomorrow with all the other with all the other questions. And you know Jacqueline it's a funny remark don't take it as obscene but you know when I mentioned Catherine Angel I wasn't sure is she allowed in our circle or is she excluded like I'm glad to hear that I didn't make a theoretical mistake there that there are no conflicts there to repeat my
least. At the same time I have a recurrent problem which you won't be surprised to hear Slavoj about the way the figure of the feminine punctuates your speech and your thinking. So the example of the Jewish marriage broker, the example of the gang rape, um leaves me with a question about what images we want to be promoting and circulating within our own discourse and I know you present them in order to critique them but there's something about the way they appear which still leaves me with a concern and a discomfort which was crystallized for me this time with the point that Esther's already made as if it was true that there were not enough good women or black writers as if it was true and we therefore need to see why that is the case instead of seeing it as systematic institutional misogyny and racism which makes the extraordinary output of women and black writers mostly but less so now as a result of Black Lives Matter invisible. So you won't be surprised to hear any of this Slavoj but I always feel I have a responsibility towards our wider constituency to articulate these concerns. Um and I'm happy I mean you may want to respond or we could move on to the questions now. No I will be this time really very really very brief. First I agree with you fully Jacqueline my god yes it's many ways of not only institutional but unwritten rules in institutions like often you know I think that anti-feminism today its most dangerous form are I think with these false liberals who officially obey the rules. It's almost easy to fight with open anti-feminist white supremacists and so on and so on. What you said about many excellent women writers and so on I agree with you for example for example my god now you will accuse me of Freudian slip that I oppressed her memory who wrote Beloved uh. Toni Morrison. Toni Morrison okay sorry. But this is for me the founding text of what I maybe in an essentialist way but nonetheless of what I'm tempted to call feminine subjectivity today you know because you cannot what she does the heroine you cannot simply transpose it onto men no. This is a specific feminine situation and at the same time in no patronizing there. It's it meets the highest criteria of subjectivity in German idealism and so on and so on. I just think that as you pointed out yes there are many writers movie makers and so on and so on but sooner or later don't you think Jacqueline we okay encounter a certain deadlock. Yes I agree there are many excellent black feminine writers and so on and so on but I don't think it's just the institutional oppression of them. I think that something maybe that would be my conclusion something has to be changed in the very structure not just institutionally but even theoretically of what is philosophy today and not in this easy Luce Irigaray way you know like men are too much into firm firm structures women fluidity and so on I distrust these abstract oppositions but I think the problem is deeper here. But to conclude really when we talk about hysteria and so on what why the reason I like to emphasize hysteria is that often even with many feminists today you find this idea of some although they don't say it some substantial feminine identity then oppressed distorted by and so on and so on. No I think women are fundamentally to be a woman is much more than to be a man a subjective position position of subjectivity which precisely means that it's a position in itself antagonistic and so on that it's not that we simply have some feminine substantial identity crushed or whatever by by by by patriarchy and so on. Sorry but let's go on yes. Please let's go what Jacqueline you said let's go in detail into all this stuff tomorrow with all the other with all the other questions. And you know Jacqueline it's a funny remark don't take it as obscene but you know when I mentioned Catherine Angel I wasn't sure is she allowed in our circle or is she excluded like I'm glad to hear that I didn't make a theoretical mistake there that there are no conflicts there to repeat my
unknown
joke there is no unwritten rule that you shouldn't mention her too
joke there is no unwritten rule that you shouldn't mention her too
Slavoj Žižek
much you know. So I was very glad because again what I like her is that she shows so clearly the limitation of this simplistic view yes means yes and so on but not in this
much you know. So I was very glad because again what I like her is that she shows so clearly the limitation of this simplistic view yes means yes and so on but not in this
unknown
male
male
unknown
chauvinist way oh women are ambiguous you never know when she invites you but showing how even in this way explicit rules you as a woman should know what you want and so on and so on that even here a much more subtle but maybe brutal violence can reproduce itself. This is very important to say today. Who is now where did Esther disappear? Yeah I'm back uh and I'm realizing that time is very much slipping away. But we have tomorrow all the time you want. Well we have to have a break and then we will have Jodi Dean this afternoon. But happily hello to her. happily we do have um at least an hour and a half tomorrow but I'm going to throw the first question here and to everyone who's written very extensive questions we will either uh present them tomorrow or I know Slavoj is often very generous and he's happy to sort of receive them and you know maybe respond in another way um while he's sunning himself on his Adriatic island. So if the questions are long I propose a compromise: Send me the full text of the questions so that tomorrow you present just a shortened version so as you say in English you can have a cake and eat it or how do you say this I'm never good in English proverbs. Yeah no that that's a really good idea. So we will communicate them to Slavoj after this session. Let me just start with the first one from from Jean Mathee though who's saying if the real is spectral and virtual how is it distinguished from the imaginary and the symbolic? Does this change the real of death and the real of the lack of rapport in the sexual relation or the real of the division in the subject? What is at stake in the spectrality of the real in your argument? So in two minutes. Okay no this is I think high even philosophical speculation. I think that the real even in the sense of ultimate traumatic point and so on is in
chauvinist way oh women are ambiguous you never know when she invites you but showing how even in this way explicit rules you as a woman should know what you want and so on and so on that even here a much more subtle but maybe brutal violence can reproduce itself. This is very important to say today. Who is now where did Esther disappear? Yeah I'm back uh and I'm realizing that time is very much slipping away. But we have tomorrow all the time you want. Well we have to have a break and then we will have Jodi Dean this afternoon. But happily hello to her. happily we do have um at least an hour and a half tomorrow but I'm going to throw the first question here and to everyone who's written very extensive questions we will either uh present them tomorrow or I know Slavoj is often very generous and he's happy to sort of receive them and you know maybe respond in another way um while he's sunning himself on his Adriatic island. So if the questions are long I propose a compromise: Send me the full text of the questions so that tomorrow you present just a shortened version so as you say in English you can have a cake and eat it or how do you say this I'm never good in English proverbs. Yeah no that that's a really good idea. So we will communicate them to Slavoj after this session. Let me just start with the first one from from Jean Mathee though who's saying if the real is spectral and virtual how is it distinguished from the imaginary and the symbolic? Does this change the real of death and the real of the lack of rapport in the sexual relation or the real of the division in the subject? What is at stake in the spectrality of the real in your argument? So in two minutes. Okay no this is I think high even philosophical speculation. I think that the real even in the sense of ultimate traumatic point and so on is in
Slavoj Žižek
some sense always virtual. Virtual in the sense that it functions as a threat and so on but it cannot ever be actualized. Take the example that I use I think nuclear weapons you know. They function as a threat only in so far as they remain virtual the moment you actualize it everything is over and so on and so on. So from here now I will make not to take too much time another twist which maybe will surprise you. We should discard a certain Lacanian theory which kind of disparages or rejects imaginary it's just images nothing, symbolic symbolic games and real is the only authentic thing. No, real can also be a fake. Every ideology implicitly resuscitates its own version of the real which is a fake. You know real as spectral can also be a fundamental ideological fantasy. So in some sense what we should do in psychoanalysis is not only to get rid of this symbolic imaginary superficial structures and look at the real, no we should also bring out the virtual spectral status of the real. This is my answer also to those who reproach me that I'm always fascinated on the real as the real thing. No the real is for me always an immanent impossibility of the symbolic. It's every symbolic structure is built upon a certain fundamental stumbling. Okay let's take Marxism class struggle is for me real. What does this mean? This means precisely that in reality you never get two classes. You get always at least three middle class complex and so on and so on but the spectral real is class difference. Or I make like to make the same point about sexual difference it's real which means exactly that you cannot symbolize it fully. Which means exactly that that in reality you have you never have just women and men. You have necessarily other positions which are even closer to the traumatic core of sexual difference. My idea is that if you want to grab the antagonism which defines sexuality you find it in a much purer way in transgender subjects than in those who are purely men purely women and so on and so on. But maybe we leave this for tomorrow okay with pleasure I go into this. Let me um give a second question um because it relates directly to the lecture. And this from you know these are sorry an anti-feminist remark I cannot ever restrain. You see this is how women are evil. You said one question now it's another you give them a finger they take a hand I'm sorry I cannot resist that's my nature. Please go on. That is your nature yes. Radoslav Stupak says I'm not sure I understand your point about object oriented ontology the link to obscenity and ideology. Is obscenity the false reality the supposedly real object what does it then destroy in relation to ideology? Why should we fight it besides the fact that it's homophobic transphobic reactionary etc.? Should we then defend current ideology instead of destroying it stepping outside creating a better one or is it better to
some sense always virtual. Virtual in the sense that it functions as a threat and so on but it cannot ever be actualized. Take the example that I use I think nuclear weapons you know. They function as a threat only in so far as they remain virtual the moment you actualize it everything is over and so on and so on. So from here now I will make not to take too much time another twist which maybe will surprise you. We should discard a certain Lacanian theory which kind of disparages or rejects imaginary it's just images nothing, symbolic symbolic games and real is the only authentic thing. No, real can also be a fake. Every ideology implicitly resuscitates its own version of the real which is a fake. You know real as spectral can also be a fundamental ideological fantasy. So in some sense what we should do in psychoanalysis is not only to get rid of this symbolic imaginary superficial structures and look at the real, no we should also bring out the virtual spectral status of the real. This is my answer also to those who reproach me that I'm always fascinated on the real as the real thing. No the real is for me always an immanent impossibility of the symbolic. It's every symbolic structure is built upon a certain fundamental stumbling. Okay let's take Marxism class struggle is for me real. What does this mean? This means precisely that in reality you never get two classes. You get always at least three middle class complex and so on and so on but the spectral real is class difference. Or I make like to make the same point about sexual difference it's real which means exactly that you cannot symbolize it fully. Which means exactly that that in reality you have you never have just women and men. You have necessarily other positions which are even closer to the traumatic core of sexual difference. My idea is that if you want to grab the antagonism which defines sexuality you find it in a much purer way in transgender subjects than in those who are purely men purely women and so on and so on. But maybe we leave this for tomorrow okay with pleasure I go into this. Let me um give a second question um because it relates directly to the lecture. And this from you know these are sorry an anti-feminist remark I cannot ever restrain. You see this is how women are evil. You said one question now it's another you give them a finger they take a hand I'm sorry I cannot resist that's my nature. Please go on. That is your nature yes. Radoslav Stupak says I'm not sure I understand your point about object oriented ontology the link to obscenity and ideology. Is obscenity the false reality the supposedly real object what does it then destroy in relation to ideology? Why should we fight it besides the fact that it's homophobic transphobic reactionary etc.? Should we then defend current ideology instead of destroying it stepping outside creating a better one or is it better to
Cathy Newman
keep the obscene repressed? Why how does that relate to truth and hatred? This second part of the question I agree it's even a very good point. I here you have in clear the difference between I will not lose my thread between classical dialectic of enlightenment critical theory and Habermas. What we should never forget is that for example Adorno in
keep the obscene repressed? Why how does that relate to truth and hatred? This second part of the question I agree it's even a very good point. I here you have in clear the difference between I will not lose my thread between classical dialectic of enlightenment critical theory and Habermas. What we should never forget is that for example Adorno in
Slavoj Žižek
Authoritarian Personality when he discloses the basic structure of authoritarian personality, of course it's
Authoritarian Personality when he discloses the basic structure of authoritarian personality, of course it's
Cathy Newman
as
as
Slavoj Žižek
opposed to liberal personality but Adorno is not saying
opposed to liberal personality but Adorno is not saying
Cathy Newman
that this means we should get rid of authoritarian personality and just assert no for Adorno if I put it in somewhat simplified way authoritarian personality is the return of the repressed of the liberal personality. While the way I read Habermas his thesis on modernity as an unfinished project he believes that we just need more pure liberalism actual liberalism or whatever. So I would
that this means we should get rid of authoritarian personality and just assert no for Adorno if I put it in somewhat simplified way authoritarian personality is the return of the repressed of the liberal personality. While the way I read Habermas his thesis on modernity as an unfinished project he believes that we just need more pure liberalism actual liberalism or whatever. So I would
Slavoj Žižek
say that I would say that to reply to this question that we- ah now I will give you clearly the link between all this and what I said about appearances object oriented ontology. My is slightly complex thought but I will try to be as brief as possible. When an ideology describes a certain universe by ideology I don't mean theoretical edifice even our daily life ideologies, you they always bring with them ideologies an idea of what is behind the veil, the hidden real and so on. And that's why I use to indicate this the famous times repeated by me example of two Greek painters Zeuxis Parrhasius. Appearance is never that's the big lesson of Hegel appearance is not just what appears appearance always creates a supposed in itself what is behind the appearance. Each and so the true fight against ideology is not just destroy the appearance but at the same time undermine this false idea of in itself behind the appearance. And here I reproach object-oriented ontology that they blur this distinction between appearance and reality in itself as immanent to ideology and on the other hand to put it very naively obviously there are some things outside but the way they really are. Because the big motive of Graham Harman and so on is that we cannot ever grasp directly things there is always a part of the thing hidden and so on and so on. Okay but I'm saying what
say that I would say that to reply to this question that we- ah now I will give you clearly the link between all this and what I said about appearances object oriented ontology. My is slightly complex thought but I will try to be as brief as possible. When an ideology describes a certain universe by ideology I don't mean theoretical edifice even our daily life ideologies, you they always bring with them ideologies an idea of what is behind the veil, the hidden real and so on. And that's why I use to indicate this the famous times repeated by me example of two Greek painters Zeuxis Parrhasius. Appearance is never that's the big lesson of Hegel appearance is not just what appears appearance always creates a supposed in itself what is behind the appearance. Each and so the true fight against ideology is not just destroy the appearance but at the same time undermine this false idea of in itself behind the appearance. And here I reproach object-oriented ontology that they blur this distinction between appearance and reality in itself as immanent to ideology and on the other hand to put it very naively obviously there are some things outside but the way they really are. Because the big motive of Graham Harman and so on is that we cannot ever grasp directly things there is always a part of the thing hidden and so on and so on. Okay but I'm saying what
Cathy Newman
is hidden what
is hidden what
Slavoj Žižek
we presupposed as being hidden is also constructed by the surface. So my idea is that to really get rid of the obscene what is obscenely hidden you should change the surface. Don't ever underestimate the surface. Thank you. Um we are we're out of time I think for today. So what we will do then is gather up the questions that have come in so far and
we presupposed as being hidden is also constructed by the surface. So my idea is that to really get rid of the obscene what is obscenely hidden you should change the surface. Don't ever underestimate the surface. Thank you. Um we are we're out of time I think for today. So what we will do then is gather up the questions that have come in so far and
Cathy Newman
send them to Slavoj to
send them to Slavoj to
Slavoj Žižek
to think about and they might sort of help to augment his his talk tomorrow or certainly augment the discussion although I'm sure we will get more
to think about and they might sort of help to augment his his talk tomorrow or certainly augment the discussion although I'm sure we will get more
Cathy Newman
questions too. Um and yes so I also wanted to say we take a break now and we come back at three o'clock when we'll watch Jodi Dean's pre-recorded lecture. If we haven't figured out how to run that through the main room then please watch it through
questions too. Um and yes so I also wanted to say we take a break now and we come back at three o'clock when we'll watch Jodi Dean's pre-recorded lecture. If we haven't figured out how to run that through the main room then please watch it through
Slavoj Žižek
the Moodle shell. Um so I invite you all to go and get some coffee or tea. Um we also have a common room and the link I think is going to be posted in the chat where you might want to jump in and meet each other or chat or just keep an eye on each other um presenters may or may not also drop in so please um do that but otherwise if you also just need some headspace after um this world of thoughts and discussion from Slavoj please do that too. Um so Slavoj thank you so much for that we'll be back with you one o'clock your time twelve o'clock our time or twelve o'clock London time tomorrow. Um yeah thank you. I would like you to be British racist and said one o'clock your time and noon the real time you know the actual the real yeah exactly noon. But isn't the real time the universal timecode which is something like eleven o'clock now anyway. No you United Kingdom have
the Moodle shell. Um so I invite you all to go and get some coffee or tea. Um we also have a common room and the link I think is going to be posted in the chat where you might want to jump in and meet each other or chat or just keep an eye on each other um presenters may or may not also drop in so please um do that but otherwise if you also just need some headspace after um this world of thoughts and discussion from Slavoj please do that too. Um so Slavoj thank you so much for that we'll be back with you one o'clock your time twelve o'clock our time or twelve o'clock London time tomorrow. Um yeah thank you. I would like you to be British racist and said one o'clock your time and noon the real time you know the actual the real yeah exactly noon. But isn't the real time the universal timecode which is something like eleven o'clock now anyway. No you United Kingdom have
Cathy Newman
a privileged
a privileged
Slavoj Žižek
access to universality. And to time itself yes indeed hmm. You you can- no no what I wanted to tell you is that now I wrote a brief text on Assange because he will celebrate in a couple of days you must know this 50th birthday no. And you know that old Rolling Stones hit time is on my side you know. Unfortunately in the case of Assange time is not on his side. It's very very very sad what is happening there. Don't you think that the the authorities simply count on the fact that somehow people will get tired of this you know. Yeah I think so as simple as that you
access to universality. And to time itself yes indeed hmm. You you can- no no what I wanted to tell you is that now I wrote a brief text on Assange because he will celebrate in a couple of days you must know this 50th birthday no. And you know that old Rolling Stones hit time is on my side you know. Unfortunately in the case of Assange time is not on his side. It's very very very sad what is happening there. Don't you think that the the authorities simply count on the fact that somehow people will get tired of this you know. Yeah I think so as simple as that you
Cathy Newman
know. Yeah yeah. It's it's very very it's very just but okay we are losing time tomorrow we have enough time okay. Yes good thank you Slavoj. Enjoy your island and my bad idea. Sometimes I see you sometimes I see Jacqueline sometimes I suspect that you are the same person just you know disappearing here quickly changing your hair and so forth okay. Thanks bye-bye. All
know. Yeah yeah. It's it's very very it's very just but okay we are losing time tomorrow we have enough time okay. Yes good thank you Slavoj. Enjoy your island and my bad idea. Sometimes I see you sometimes I see Jacqueline sometimes I suspect that you are the same person just you know disappearing here quickly changing your hair and so forth okay. Thanks bye-bye. All
Slavoj Žižek
right see you bye-bye.
right see you bye-bye.