What did you do with my text?
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2020-01-22 · 1:24:31 · 11,871 words
with Stephen Kotkin
cinema-art-culturehegel-dialecticspsychoanalysisideologycommunism-socialismdemocracyfascism-populismliberalism-political-correctnessreligion-theologygeopolitics-warphilosophy-generalsubjectivityethics
A post-performance Q&A discussion following a staging of Žižek's Antigone play, held in Düsseldorf, in which Žižek engages with actors, a moderator/interviewer, and audience members about his three-ending structure for Antigone and its political allegory. He ranges across the reception history of Sophocles' tragedy (Anouilh, Brecht, Anouilh's fascist admirers), his rankings of Greek heroines, Oedipus at Colonus, and the Lacanian insight that Oedipus has no Oedipus complex. The second half addresses audience questions on accelerationism, the left's use of the term 'communism', Trump, democratic fragility, political depression, political correctness as a wrong terrain, and the obscene conservatism of postmodern right-wing culture.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 12
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “hysteria as radical position”
Žižek presents hysteria not as a disorder but as a genuine questioning of one's symbolic identity, the hysterical subject asks 'Am I really what ideology says I am?', making it a philosophically authentic stance.
Oedipus at Colonus exemplifies this Lacanian state: stripped of all social identity, utterly deprived, he is finally free and his desire is fully his own.
as “ideology in pure form”
Žižek argues that the 'spontaneous' singing, dancing, and emotional outbursts in theatrical performance represent ideology in its purest, unmediated state, not authentic expression but the very medium of ideological reproduction.
as “bestimmte Negation”
Žižek uses the Lubitsch 'coffee without cream' joke to illustrate Hegel's point that a determinate negation carries specific content: 'coffee without cream' and 'coffee without milk' are materially identical but symbolically different, so what didn't happen shapes the meaning of what did.
Žižek's coinage for those who refuse to commit to one of the three versions of Antigone, by analogy, a political attitude that avoids hard choices in the name of complexity.
as “authentic outburst”
Žižek applies this phrase to genuine revolutionary events (e.g. the October Revolution, Thebes-burning in Antigone's third version) whose authenticity is separate from and does not guarantee their subsequent outcome.
as “commons”
Žižek uses 'commons' to frame the three pressing contemporary problems, ecology, digital space, immigration, as domains that can be governed neither by the market nor by the state alone.
as “the true utopia”
Žižek inverts the standard usage: the 'true utopia' is not radical transformation but the naïve belief that cautious incrementalism will let us muddle through, he argues this is the genuinely impossible fantasy.
Žižek's prescription for political depression and for racism alike: rather than dwelling on victimhood or trauma, shift to a different register of struggle, external political fight rather than psychological introspection.
as “identify with your mask”
Via the Joker figure, Žižek argues for fully inhabiting one's social role/mask and refusing the pseudo-depth of psychological trauma-exploration, an anti-subjectivist move that echoes the Lacanian rejection of the 'inner self'.
as “postmodern right-wing conservatism”
Žižek's term for the alt-right/Trump phenomenon whereby the political right has appropriated the left's transgressive, ironic, and obscene cultural tactics, becoming the true postmodernists.
Žižek proposes that, given the right's appropriation of transgression and obscenity, it is the left that should now claim the mantle of conservatism, defending solidarity, basic decency, and communal bonds against capitalist dissolution.
Stories he reaches for 5
A customer asks for coffee without cream; the waiter says they have no cream, only milk, so they can only offer coffee without milk. Although the result is materially identical plain coffee, the symbolic difference is real.
“'Sorry sir, we don't have cream but only milk, so we can only give you coffee without milk.' That's what Hegel meant with bestimmte Negation.”
Žižek wrote Antigone with three different endings: the classical Sophoclean death, a version where Thebes burns because people revolt at Creon's complicity, and a version where Antigone and Ismene survive in exile. He uses this structure to argue that political struggles often present a false binary and a third option, neither Western liberalism nor fundamentalism, is always possible.
“How often in our actual political life we have a certain opposition portrayed to us by the media... But what if this opposition is not the real choice? What if this opposition is wrong?”
French colleagues told Žižek that Lacan's artificially mannered public persona was identical to his private self, you could never catch him being 'a warm human person like us.' Žižek takes this as a model for authentic leftist subjectivity.
“In private he was exactly the same. It was never possible to catch, 'Oh, now finally he is a warm human person like us.'”
French proto-fascists Robert Brasillach and Charles Maurras (Action Française) loved Anouilh's Antigone because for them Creon was a Jewish administrator and Antigone a figure of Blut und Boden fascism, showing that Antigone's appeal is structurally ambiguous.
“Creon is a Jewish administrator, pragmatic. Antigone is a true figure of fascism who stands for Blut und Boden against state alienation.”
Trump mimed an FBI agent's erotic phone conversation in front of thousands, and rather than ruining him it exemplified his postmodern obscenity, obscene transgression as a political tool of the right.
“You get Trump for two minutes among in front of thousands of people imitating her having orgasm and so on. Everybody thought now Trump is ruined, it's not.”
Works invoked 17
Antigone play
Criticized for making the brothers victims of Nazi resistance, thus making Antigone's choice 'too easy' and stripping the play of moral difficulty.
Parsifal opera
Žižek's dream opera to direct: he would set it in a decaying suburb, the Grail community as drug distributors and Klingsor as a prostitution ring, the structure maps perfectly, he says.
Anti-Oedipus book
Žižek signals he does not like this book, even as the accelerationist left takes it as their theoretical foundation.
Oedipus at Colonus play
Žižek's 'true hero' text: Oedipus stripped of all humanity finally has his desire free, selling his death as expensively as possible, a Lacanian figure of subjective destitution.
Kill All Normies book
Strongly recommended; describes how the alt-right appropriated transgressive leftist cultural tactics and how the left's 'online culture wars' have failed.
The Wire tv
The interviewer suggests Žižek's drug-distributor Parsifal concept has already been done in The Wire; Žižek says 'I have problems with that one' but does not elaborate.
A Thousand Plateaus book
Also cited as the theoretical background of accelerationism that Žižek distances himself from.
Joker (2019 film) film
Žižek rejects leftist readings of the Joker as Trump metaphor; instead he sees the Joker as embodying the Lacanian move of identifying with one's mask and rejecting psychological depth.
Excellent Inuit film used to argue against the European fetish for authentic original versions; the director's reply to a liberal critic is exemplary for Žižek's anti-essentialist position.
Gurre-Lieder other
Cited via the ironic anecdote in which Schoenberg calls this massive orchestral work 'a chamber piece for people', used to illustrate how re-framing changes the identity of a work.
Antigone's Claim book
Žižek criticizes Butler for following other humanist readers in explaining away Antigone's exclusive 'only for my brother' statement, which betrays a theoretical inconsistency.
Gymnopédies other
Žižek wanted Gymnopédies played during the massacre/burning of Thebes in his Antigone, the dissonance of tender music against brutal violence is the aesthetic effect he sought.
Called 'his best film'; cited as a model for the three-version narrative structure Žižek uses in his Antigone.
Žižek admires Brecht's staging instruction that each actor must perform all roles, this 'Durchqueren' structure is a model for his own Antigone.
Mentioned by an audience member as Žižek's forthcoming book; Žižek does not comment substantively on the book itself but the Q&A broadly rehearses its themes.
A British-Pakistani novel retelling Antigone in contemporary London (brother joins ISIS); mentioned in connection with the Nelly Sachs Prize scandal (prize revoked over BDS letters).
Mentioned as a commercial example of the three-version/multiple-ending narrative structure; 'it's commercial' but still illustrative.
People invoked 37
Co-author of the Accelerationist Manifesto with Srnicek; mentioned by audience member as part of the accelerationist left current.
Described as 'my good Jewish friend who is also connected with Palestinians'; Žižek recounts telling Aloni that his Jenin Antigone staging was too easy and proposing the traitor-brother version.
Claude Lévi-Strauss positive
Cited for the observation that some North American tribe says all dreams have a sexual meaning except directly sexual dreams, used by Žižek to introduce the parallel 'all families have an Oedipus complex except the Oedipus family.'
Antigone positive
Žižek describes Antigone as 'a real bitch', not an angel, but regards the figure as philosophically indispensable for exploring the ethics of transgression and the limits of state authority.
Proto-fascist French intellectual who admired Anouilh's Antigone because he read Creon as a Jewish administrator and Antigone as a fascist Blut-und-Boden heroine; Žižek uses this to illustrate the dangerous ambivalence of the Antigone archetype.
Arnold Schoenberg positive
Žižek says he loves Schoenberg; cites his preference for chamber ensembles and the ironic explanation that Gurre-Lieder is 'just a chamber piece for people.'
Jacques Lacan positive
Cited as a key intellectual hero; Žižek invokes Lacan's reading that Oedipus has no Oedipus complex, and takes Lacan's identical public/private persona as a model for authentic subjectivity.
Jean Anouilh positive
Žižek says he 'likes pretty much' Anouilh's Antigone despite its proto-fascist reception history, using it to show the ideological ambiguity of the Antigone figure.
Gilles Deleuze negative
Mentioned as the theoretical background of accelerationism (Anti-Oedipus, A Thousand Plateaus), Žižek does not like this book, which is why he partially distances himself from the Deleuze-based accelerationist left.
Erik Satie positive
Žižek wanted Gymnopédies played during the massacre scene in his Antigone; notes that Satie died a member of the French Communist Party's Central Committee, making him worth rehabilitating against his bourgeois image.
Judith Butler negative
Žižek says he is 'on good terms' with Butler personally but disagrees theoretically; he criticizes her Antigone's Claim for following other humanist interpreters in explaining away Antigone's exclusive claim ('I do it only for my brother') rather than confronting it.
Called 'a disgusting figure', 'an abomination', yet Žižek argues he has functioned as an accidental de-escalator of conflict and is the 'ultimate postmodern president', a complex, irreducibly contradictory object of analysis.
Mentioned (with Williams) as co-author of the Accelerationist Manifesto; Žižek engages with accelerationism as a current he partially endorses in a specific, limited sense.
Álvaro García Linera positive
Referred to as Bolivia's Vice President whom Žižek knew personally; cited as example of successful left governance.
Nancy Fraser negative
Žižek disagrees with Fraser (noting she is 'closer to Habermas') but acknowledges she wrote an excellent book criticizing how mainstream American feminism supported the Iraq invasion under the guise of women's liberation.
Alain Badiou positive
Referred to as 'my friend Alain Badiou' in the context of the left's strategic insight that ordinary people's power lies in numbers and discipline, not arms.
Elon Musk negative
Used as an example of how 'socialism' has become a meaningless term when even Musk can call himself a socialist while pursuing market capitalism.
Karl Polanyi positive
The Polanyi story about the two axes of distribution and recognition/identity is cited to frame Hitler's political success in crossing these axes.
Used as an example of the mainstream's embrace of postmodern obscenity: marketing a candle described as smelling like her vagina.
Félix Guattari negative
Co-author with Deleuze of Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus; Žižek signals he 'doesn't like' these books as the theoretical basis for accelerationism.
Bernie Sanders positive
Praised as 'a very naive moralist' who 'takes himself as the true moral majority', for Žižek this authentic earnestness is what the left needs, in contrast to Trump's postmodern irony.
Bertolt Brecht positive
Žižek acknowledges Brecht's Ja-Sager/Nein-Sager as a direct model for his three-version Antigone structure, and praises Brecht's Maßnahme staging method; however he criticizes Brecht's Antigone for making things 'too easy.'
Mentioned by an audience member as context for the DiEM25 movement; Žižek does not comment directly.
Evo Morales positive
Žižek cites Bolivia under Morales and Vice-President Linera as a rare example of left governance that actually grew the economy without 'screwing up everything'; the coup against Morales happened precisely because he succeeded, not because he failed.
Mentioned by an audience member in passing as another intellectual who endorsed a problematic political position (support for the Iranian revolution); Žižek acknowledges it briefly.
Angela Nagle positive
Žižek enthusiastically recommends Kill All Normies for describing how the alt-right appropriated the left's transgressive cultural tactics, she was 'almost excommunicated' for it but Žižek endorses her diagnosis.
Ernst Lubitsch positive
Called 'maybe the greatest in Hollywood'; the coffee without cream/milk joke is attributed to him and used to illustrate Hegelian determinate negation.
Bill Gates negative
Like Musk, cited as evidence that 'socialist' has lost all critical content when billionaires can adopt it as branding.
Krzysztof Kieślowski positive
Žižek names Przypadek (Blind Chance) as a film he liked that uses the three-version structure, one of the models for his own Antigone.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez positive
Mentioned as part of 'the Squad', truly progressive Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders against the establishment.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe negative
Famously wished that Antigone's line 'I do it only for my brother' were not in the play, Žižek holds this up as an example of the bad hermeneutic tendency to explain away inconvenient textual evidence.
Sophocles positive
Žižek repeatedly urges audiences to read Sophocles directly (Oedipus, Antigone) rather than rely on secondary interpretations; he treats the text as authority against Hegelian and other received readings.
Žižek says Chávez tried desperately to find new formulas (worker control of factories) before the Venezuelan project became corrupted; presented as a tragic rather than simply failed attempt.
Quoted for the ironic formulation 'Our greatest treasure are people, that is to say cadre, nomenclature', as if ordinary people don't count; used to make a joke about Žižek's self-described Stalinism.
His assassination by Trump's order is the context for the Iran de-escalation deal anecdote.
Karl Marx positive
Marx's lesson cited as remaining valid: only through the zero point of capitalism can we reach a new form of freedom, no local pre-capitalist resistance can substitute for passing through capital.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Žižek identifies as a Hegelian; the coffee joke illustrates bestimmte Negation; he also partially disagrees with Hegel's reading of Oedipus as a tragic hero who accepts responsibility.
What it argues
Three competing versions of Antigone as political allegoryThe ethics and limits of heroic transgressionOedipus at Colonus as the figure of subjective destitution and authentic desireThe inadequacy of binary political oppositions and the need for a third optionThe left's failure to address 'the true utopia' of maintaining the status quoPolitical correctness as ideological mystification that changes terrain wronglyTrump as ultimate postmodern president and the alt-right's appropriation of transgression
Dialectical moves 8
“The true utopia is not radical change but the belief that careful incrementalism will let us survive — that is the genuinely impossible fantasy.”
Žižek inverts the standard left/right labeling: it is the moderate, 'realistic' position that is utopian because it denies the structural necessity of transformation.
“Far from being a radical transgressor, Trump is the ultimate postmodern president — it is Bernie Sanders who is the authentic naive moralist.”
The apparent irony and transgression of Trump is the purest postmodernism; the left's authentic position is therefore the un-ironic one.
“We, the left, are the true conservatives — those who defend solidarity and basic decency against the obscene dissolution wrought by capitalism and the postmodern right.”
Žižek reframes 'conservative' as a left virtue once the right has colonized transgression, reversing the standard ideological mapping.
“An Antigone that survives is no longer Antigone — survival is her negation.”
The third version of the play, in which Antigone escapes, does not redeem her but cancels what makes her Antigone: her self-annihilating commitment.
“Oedipus does NOT have an Oedipus complex — all families are in the Oedipus complex except the Oedipus family.”
Following Lévi-Strauss's joke about dreams, the paradigm case is excluded from the structure it names: Oedipus just did it, without unconscious investment.
“Although materially plain coffee is the same as coffee without cream, symbolically it is not the same — the absent element (cream/milk) changes the identity of what is present.”
Determinate negation means the specific thing that is missing shapes the content of what remains; what didn't happen is constitutive of what did.
“Pure ideology is in all the dancing and singing — not in the philosophical words but in the apparently spontaneous theatrical outbursts.”
Žižek inverts the common intuition that rational discourse is ideological and artistic expression is authentic; performance/emotion is ideology in its purest state.
“The chorus in Greek plays is the place for stupidity — it is the wise characters who are confused and the stupid collective voice that has a point.”
Žižek reverses the conventional reading of the Greek chorus as collective wisdom, suggesting its conventionality and conformism is what makes it ideologically representative.
Claims 22
asserts
Antigone is not a moral heroine but a difficult, even dangerous figure — 'a real bitch' — and interpreters who make her too easy to admire falsify the play's genuine ethical tension.Antigone / the ethics of transgression
asserts
The proper Palestinian reinterpretation of Antigone would cast the buried brother not as a resistance hero but as a traitor, thus preserving the play's genuine ethical difficulty.Antigone / Palestinian politics
rejects
Brecht's Antigone makes things 'too easy' by making the brothers victims of Nazis, stripping the play of its genuine moral ambiguity.Brecht's Antigone adaptation
rejects
Oedipus in Sophocles does not accept tragic responsibility and does not undergo anagnorisis — the conventional tragic reading is wrong.the Aristotelian-Hegelian tragic hero / Oedipus
asserts
Oedipus at Colonus — utterly destitute, manipulative, and finally free in his desire — is Žižek's true tragic hero, not Oedipus Tyrannus.Oedipus at Colonus / subjective destitution
asserts
Oedipus himself does not have an Oedipus complex — the complex names a structure, not what Oedipus unconsciously desired.Oedipus complex / psychoanalytic reading of Sophocles
rejects
The obsession with an 'original authentic version' of a myth is a specifically European imperialist prejudice; traditional cultures like the Inuit routinely rework stories for their contemporary context.authenticity / cultural essentialism
asserts
Deep wisdom and proverbs are inherently conformist because for every situation there is a proverb that justifies both doing and not doing the thing.folk wisdom / ideology
asserts
What really happens can only be understood against the background of what might have happened but didn't — the unrealized possibilities are structurally necessary for meaning.contingency / determinate negation / Hegel
reframes
The binary presented by major media — Trump's authoritarianism vs. liberal democracy — is a false opposition that forecloses the real question: why did the conditions for Trump emerge from within liberal-democratic hegemony itself?Trump / liberal democracy
asserts
Trump, despite being an abomination, has functioned as a de-escalator of conflict with Iran and North Korea through deals that defused tension rather than escalating it.Trump's foreign policy
asserts
'Communism' is a more useful term than 'socialism' because socialism has been hollowed out to mean only market liberalism with a human face, while communism names the pressing need to manage the commons.communism vs. socialism / terminology
asserts
China's success under Communist Party rule came precisely from combining what the European left most hated — authoritarian state power and brutal market competition — and this is the lesson to draw, not celebration.Chinese communism
asserts
Ecology, digital control, and mass migration are all problems of the commons and cannot be solved at the nation-state level or by the market — they require internationally coordinated governance with real power.ecology / digital space / immigration / commons
asserts
Depression and political paralysis are not overcome by introspection but by changing the terrain — moving away from the psychological register altogether.political depression / left strategy
rejects
The politically correct reformulation of racism as a question of tolerance and psychological projection is itself an ideological operation that mystifies class difference.political correctness / anti-racism discourse
asserts
Trump is the ultimate postmodern president, not his liberal critics: ironic, self-undermining, transgressive — while figures like Bernie Sanders represent authentic moral earnestness.Trump / postmodernism / the left
asserts
The left should claim the terrain of conservatism — solidarity, basic decency, communal bonds — rather than ceding it to the right and retreating into minority-politics logic.left strategy / conservatism
asserts
Accelerationism is valid only in the specific sense that local-culture resistance to global capitalism is insufficient; one must pass through capitalism's zero point to reach any new form of freedom.accelerationism / anti-capitalism
rejects
The alt-right's appropriation of transgressive, obscene cultural tactics means the left's response through hate-speech regulation and moralism is both dangerous and self-defeating.left political correctness / hate-speech regulation
asserts
Mainstream American feminism's support for the Iraq invasion — justified as liberating women — had the opposite effect, worsening women's position in post-Saddam Iraq.mainstream feminism / Iraq war / Nancy Fraser
asserts
Putin supports Catalan independence because he supports anything that weakens Europe, which is reason enough for the left to be skeptical of that particular independence movement.Catalan independence / Putin / European politics
Quotes 12
“The true utopia for me, as I always repeat it, is not 'Oh what you want it' — the true utopia is that we are not doing so bad and let's carefully stick to what we are doing now, you will somehow survive. No, we will not.”Slavoj Žižek · the true utopia is incremental conservatism, not radical change
“If you compare Joker with Trump it's an insult to Joker, not to Trump.”Slavoj Žižek · Trump vs. Joker — the postmodern obscene
“Although materially plain coffee is the same as coffee without cream, but symbolically it's not the same.”Slavoj Žižek · determinate negation / symbolic vs. material identity
“I despise incredibly deep thoughts and wisdoms. I think they are inherently conformist. Whatever you do, you can always find a proverb that will just—”Slavoj Žižek · proverbs as ideology / against folk wisdom
“Be skeptical about what officially is presented to you as the big struggle today.”Slavoj Žižek · suspicion of media-defined political binaries
“Trump didn't fall from the sky. Obviously there was something wrong in this democratic hegemony of the last decades that all of a sudden the space was open for a disgusting figure like Trump.”Slavoj Žižek · Trump as symptom of liberal-democratic failure
“I am not saying now they will have a perfect people's democracy after that. Maybe even a worse terror will emerge. I'm not saying it will not. I'm just saying it's an authentic outburst.”Slavoj Žižek · authentic outburst vs. guaranteed outcome
“All families are in Oedipus complex except the Oedipus family.”Slavoj Žižek · Oedipus does not have an Oedipus complex
“Maybe our main task is to denounce wrong questions — how to formulate a problem in a certain way can precisely enforce the mystification.”Slavoj Žižek · the left's task as wrong-question critique
“Don't despise Trump supporters. They are desperate people, they clearly felt excluded in the sense that the democratic hegemony predominant didn't address their troubles.”Slavoj Žižek · Trump voters as symptom of left failure, not manipulation
“We should not be afraid to tell them no, in this bad sense, the true obscene revolutionaries are are these like Trump-like postmodern conservatives. We, the left, are the true authentic conservative.”Slavoj Žižek · the left as true conservatives against postmodern dissolution
“I think hysteria is for authentic psychoanalysis a very radical position. Hysteria is a questioning of subjectivity.”Slavoj Žižek · hysteria as radical philosophical position
Transcript 183 turns
Slavoj Žižek
I’m a very alienated philosopher and forget about all that psychological bullshit up and down. I want to ask especially you actors like uh, where do you stand with regard to my three versions? Because don't buy that bullshit at the very end, “you are free to choose.” No, I hope you noticed it, I'm fully on the third side. Of course, I think, I do this on purpose to shock you, I think Antigone is the worst, Creon is a little bit better, and you know who knew this? Do you know—we don’t have time for this, that I don’t talk too much—but you know a little bit also, and then I will stop, believe it or not, and so on. You know, of course my three versions are not the only three. Of course there are numerous other versions. One that I like pretty much, although it’s often dismissed as even proto-fascist, is Jean Anouilh, Antigone. But you know, there you see the entire madness of interpretations. You know that although the uh reviewers were mostly critical, the public for the first—it was premiered in till at least 1950—perceived this as a great play of resistance, French Resistance, and Creon as state representative. But it's so interesting. I read now a long study on Anouilh preparing for you here. You know, I hope if you know a little bit of history, these names will mean something to you. Uh, Robert Brasillach, the great French proto-fascist intellectual. He was a great intellectual, he wrote—I forgot with another guy—in the late ‘30s, the best at that point history of cinema with good appreciation of Soviet film and so on. And Charles Maurras, Action Française, another. They loved the play Anouilh’s and they were absolutely for Antigone. But you know from what standpoint? Creon is a Jewish administrator, pragmatic. Antigone is a true figure of fascism who stands for Blut und Boden against state alienation. And I think this is part of what makes Antigone so attractive. Another thing just to provoke you, I have to say this, another thing that may interest you is how often the newer versions make it too easy for them. An anecdote that happened to me. My good Jewish friend who is also connected with Palestinians, Udi—sorry, ah, Udi Aloni—Udi Aloni staged in Jenin Freedom Theatre, Antigone. And his version was of course actualized. It's a Palestinian family. Antigone's brother is killed because he is part of West Bank resistance by Israeli military and she wants to bury him, Israel prohibits him. But I told him this is making it easy, this is total falsification. You should never forget with Antigone that, if I may put it in brutal direct terms, I'm sorry but Polyneices was really a bad guy. So I proposed to Palestinians there and they instantly agreed with me that the proper Palestinian version would be a big Palestinian West Bank family and they discover that their son informs Israelis. He is a traitor. And then he is killed and Antigone wants to bury him. And I was so glad to discover that uh some PLO whatever circles deal with this problem and it’s a nice sign of Palestinians’ enlightenment that they found a relatively open formula. You are liquidated, but then the family is allowed to bury you properly. Did you also—I'm sorry I forgot her name—this mega-scandal which happened here with you in Germany. There is a British—sorry? Dort—in Dortmund, yes. Uh-uh British-Pakistani writer, I’m sorry it’s not racism, it’s old senility, I forgot her name. She did a novel which was wildly praised, got prizes, it's called I think Home Fire, something on this. Antigone story repeated in today’s London. The brother of a Pakistani Muslim family joins ISIS then he wants to return home, admits he made a [unintelligible] blah blah blah. The point is that she got a prize, big prize, Nelly Sachs Prize in Dortmund. Then when the committee discovered a couple of months later that she signed one or two uh supporting letters for Boycott, Divestment, BDS, they took the prize uh back from her. Even Brecht, correct me if I’m wrong, I read Brecht’s version long time ago, makes it too easy. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think in Bertolt Brecht's version Antigone's brother or two brothers are killed as resistance gegen die Nazis and their bodies hang on some post, how do you call it, Lampenstange? Yes, and they hang, just left hanging there and she wants to bury them properly. But sorry, this, this, this makes you feel good. This—so—because you are trying to retain the dignity of a true hero. My ultimate German version of Antigone would have been, sorry for the tastelessness, but I like to be tasteless. What if Adolf Hitler had a sister and she said in May coming to Russian, “Okay, you killed him now. I obey to a higher Gesetz,” you know? All I wanted to tell you is that uh the prob—that uh that uh that uh the problem is a difficult, it's a serious problem. Okay, we can leave all these details for later. Just what I already explained to the actors uh it's not critical. I'm too confused now to give all my reactions but one moment that I liked is that when there is at least in my scenario a truly really brutal moment, the greatest massive violence at the end of my second version when Thebes is burning, that you have chosen Goldberg Variations, no, as a—I—and now I can—I’m sorry, you who selected it? Yeah, but who has chosen it? [unintelligible response from audience] C’est moi. C’est pas [unintelligible]. You see this is bad, sorry. Yeah, yeah, C’est bien sûr. What I want to say is that you know when they performed my Antigone in Zagreb, Agram, Hauptstadt Kroatien uh Zagreb, the version I had a very benevolent conflict. You know for the final scene liquidation, you know which music I wanted? You would never have guessed. Very tender, soft. You know those that beautiful, he call it even musique de meuble, a meublement, furniture music. Erik Satie, those Gymnopédies and so on. Now you will say you are crazy. Hey, hey, hey. Don't forget Erik Satie perceived as this bourgeois uh—you know when he died in he was a member of the Central Committee of the French Communist Party. I think we should rehabilitate that line of French composers: Debussy, Ravel, Satie who are perceived as the type of uh—sorry—you know let’s—my problem with Bach is uh the same as with Schoenberg whom I love. My problem with Bach is that if there are less instruments with exception of, how do you call it, organ, which I hate his music, all the better. I like uh cello and violin sonatas. That’s miracle. [unintelligible audience response] Well, leave this to philosophers to decide. Uh you know why I like Schoenberg? After returning—no, he didn't return—in his last years Schoenberg says that in a civilized country you can say everything you want in music with maximum chamber orchestra of five-six people, chamber ensemble, that orchestras are needed only for stupid Americans you know. They understand it. And then it's a beautiful irony. Somebody asked him, “But you wrote his masterpiece—my—uh Gurre-Lieder,” which is I think if you perform it properly maybe a piece with greatest number of performers that you need. Double symphonic orchestra and people chorus. And he gave a wonderful explanation: that is just a chamber piece for people you know. And you approached a little bit this dimension even when people were shouting around and so on, the chamber feeling was here. Okay, liest man noch immer hier wenn ich jung war? Wir lesen Karl May, Winnetou. Und am Ende Winnetou sagt immer, “Hau-ka! Ich habe gesprochen.” Okay, das will ich jetzt sagen: Ich habe gesprochen. [Unintelligible person says: “Am Ende sagt Winnetou, ‘Winnetou stirbt als Christ.’ Das ist der letzte Satz von Winnetou III.”] But do you have a problem with this? Uh I mean, no, no, no, I'm an atheist Christian. Und gute Theologen entwickelt das—that's why I like—are you here in Düsseldorf? Uh if you give the wrong answer I leave the city immediately. Are you Protestant or Catholic part? [unintelligible response] Or is it mixture? Because you know that I came from Malmö and met there uh Norwegians and Swedes have some extremely intelligent theologians whose version is that and they quote as a proof uh predestination: that the ultimate mystery of Christianity is that God, God that we encounter in Book of—how do you pronounce it here—Job, Hiob, the one, the book where uh the guy with the jobs... [unintelligible audience comment] Yeah, yeah, that you can clearly see there that God maybe God the Father almighty, but morally a total barbarian. And that—and that this is how you should root, read the sacrifice of Christ. It's God's apology. I screwed it up, sorry. I pay to you with the death of my son. But I speak too much, sorry. [Interviewer: Well, first of all, thank you for a little ride through the world. I mean, clearly, the interesting thing about doing this piece is that you became Brecht with a theology degree, right? You joined the antique tragedy with the possibility of renewal, difference, a different choice, a different life.] No, no, no, sorry. I will—just to make clear my
I’m a very alienated philosopher and forget about all that psychological bullshit up and down. I want to ask especially you actors like uh, where do you stand with regard to my three versions? Because don't buy that bullshit at the very end, “you are free to choose.” No, I hope you noticed it, I'm fully on the third side. Of course, I think, I do this on purpose to shock you, I think Antigone is the worst, Creon is a little bit better, and you know who knew this? Do you know—we don’t have time for this, that I don’t talk too much—but you know a little bit also, and then I will stop, believe it or not, and so on. You know, of course my three versions are not the only three. Of course there are numerous other versions. One that I like pretty much, although it’s often dismissed as even proto-fascist, is Jean Anouilh, Antigone. But you know, there you see the entire madness of interpretations. You know that although the uh reviewers were mostly critical, the public for the first—it was premiered in till at least 1950—perceived this as a great play of resistance, French Resistance, and Creon as state representative. But it's so interesting. I read now a long study on Anouilh preparing for you here. You know, I hope if you know a little bit of history, these names will mean something to you. Uh, Robert Brasillach, the great French proto-fascist intellectual. He was a great intellectual, he wrote—I forgot with another guy—in the late ‘30s, the best at that point history of cinema with good appreciation of Soviet film and so on. And Charles Maurras, Action Française, another. They loved the play Anouilh’s and they were absolutely for Antigone. But you know from what standpoint? Creon is a Jewish administrator, pragmatic. Antigone is a true figure of fascism who stands for Blut und Boden against state alienation. And I think this is part of what makes Antigone so attractive. Another thing just to provoke you, I have to say this, another thing that may interest you is how often the newer versions make it too easy for them. An anecdote that happened to me. My good Jewish friend who is also connected with Palestinians, Udi—sorry, ah, Udi Aloni—Udi Aloni staged in Jenin Freedom Theatre, Antigone. And his version was of course actualized. It's a Palestinian family. Antigone's brother is killed because he is part of West Bank resistance by Israeli military and she wants to bury him, Israel prohibits him. But I told him this is making it easy, this is total falsification. You should never forget with Antigone that, if I may put it in brutal direct terms, I'm sorry but Polyneices was really a bad guy. So I proposed to Palestinians there and they instantly agreed with me that the proper Palestinian version would be a big Palestinian West Bank family and they discover that their son informs Israelis. He is a traitor. And then he is killed and Antigone wants to bury him. And I was so glad to discover that uh some PLO whatever circles deal with this problem and it’s a nice sign of Palestinians’ enlightenment that they found a relatively open formula. You are liquidated, but then the family is allowed to bury you properly. Did you also—I'm sorry I forgot her name—this mega-scandal which happened here with you in Germany. There is a British—sorry? Dort—in Dortmund, yes. Uh-uh British-Pakistani writer, I’m sorry it’s not racism, it’s old senility, I forgot her name. She did a novel which was wildly praised, got prizes, it's called I think Home Fire, something on this. Antigone story repeated in today’s London. The brother of a Pakistani Muslim family joins ISIS then he wants to return home, admits he made a [unintelligible] blah blah blah. The point is that she got a prize, big prize, Nelly Sachs Prize in Dortmund. Then when the committee discovered a couple of months later that she signed one or two uh supporting letters for Boycott, Divestment, BDS, they took the prize uh back from her. Even Brecht, correct me if I’m wrong, I read Brecht’s version long time ago, makes it too easy. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think in Bertolt Brecht's version Antigone's brother or two brothers are killed as resistance gegen die Nazis and their bodies hang on some post, how do you call it, Lampenstange? Yes, and they hang, just left hanging there and she wants to bury them properly. But sorry, this, this, this makes you feel good. This—so—because you are trying to retain the dignity of a true hero. My ultimate German version of Antigone would have been, sorry for the tastelessness, but I like to be tasteless. What if Adolf Hitler had a sister and she said in May coming to Russian, “Okay, you killed him now. I obey to a higher Gesetz,” you know? All I wanted to tell you is that uh the prob—that uh that uh that uh the problem is a difficult, it's a serious problem. Okay, we can leave all these details for later. Just what I already explained to the actors uh it's not critical. I'm too confused now to give all my reactions but one moment that I liked is that when there is at least in my scenario a truly really brutal moment, the greatest massive violence at the end of my second version when Thebes is burning, that you have chosen Goldberg Variations, no, as a—I—and now I can—I’m sorry, you who selected it? Yeah, but who has chosen it? [unintelligible response from audience] C’est moi. C’est pas [unintelligible]. You see this is bad, sorry. Yeah, yeah, C’est bien sûr. What I want to say is that you know when they performed my Antigone in Zagreb, Agram, Hauptstadt Kroatien uh Zagreb, the version I had a very benevolent conflict. You know for the final scene liquidation, you know which music I wanted? You would never have guessed. Very tender, soft. You know those that beautiful, he call it even musique de meuble, a meublement, furniture music. Erik Satie, those Gymnopédies and so on. Now you will say you are crazy. Hey, hey, hey. Don't forget Erik Satie perceived as this bourgeois uh—you know when he died in he was a member of the Central Committee of the French Communist Party. I think we should rehabilitate that line of French composers: Debussy, Ravel, Satie who are perceived as the type of uh—sorry—you know let’s—my problem with Bach is uh the same as with Schoenberg whom I love. My problem with Bach is that if there are less instruments with exception of, how do you call it, organ, which I hate his music, all the better. I like uh cello and violin sonatas. That’s miracle. [unintelligible audience response] Well, leave this to philosophers to decide. Uh you know why I like Schoenberg? After returning—no, he didn't return—in his last years Schoenberg says that in a civilized country you can say everything you want in music with maximum chamber orchestra of five-six people, chamber ensemble, that orchestras are needed only for stupid Americans you know. They understand it. And then it's a beautiful irony. Somebody asked him, “But you wrote his masterpiece—my—uh Gurre-Lieder,” which is I think if you perform it properly maybe a piece with greatest number of performers that you need. Double symphonic orchestra and people chorus. And he gave a wonderful explanation: that is just a chamber piece for people you know. And you approached a little bit this dimension even when people were shouting around and so on, the chamber feeling was here. Okay, liest man noch immer hier wenn ich jung war? Wir lesen Karl May, Winnetou. Und am Ende Winnetou sagt immer, “Hau-ka! Ich habe gesprochen.” Okay, das will ich jetzt sagen: Ich habe gesprochen. [Unintelligible person says: “Am Ende sagt Winnetou, ‘Winnetou stirbt als Christ.’ Das ist der letzte Satz von Winnetou III.”] But do you have a problem with this? Uh I mean, no, no, no, I'm an atheist Christian. Und gute Theologen entwickelt das—that's why I like—are you here in Düsseldorf? Uh if you give the wrong answer I leave the city immediately. Are you Protestant or Catholic part? [unintelligible response] Or is it mixture? Because you know that I came from Malmö and met there uh Norwegians and Swedes have some extremely intelligent theologians whose version is that and they quote as a proof uh predestination: that the ultimate mystery of Christianity is that God, God that we encounter in Book of—how do you pronounce it here—Job, Hiob, the one, the book where uh the guy with the jobs... [unintelligible audience comment] Yeah, yeah, that you can clearly see there that God maybe God the Father almighty, but morally a total barbarian. And that—and that this is how you should root, read the sacrifice of Christ. It's God's apology. I screwed it up, sorry. I pay to you with the death of my son. But I speak too much, sorry. [Interviewer: Well, first of all, thank you for a little ride through the world. I mean, clearly, the interesting thing about doing this piece is that you became Brecht with a theology degree, right? You joined the antique tragedy with the possibility of renewal, difference, a different choice, a different life.] No, no, no, sorry. I will—just to make clear my
unknown
position here and again I provoke
position here and again I provoke
Slavoj Žižek
you here, you will not agree. There are three mega-heroines, no? There are others I know, I’m half—halb-gebildet dennoch. Antigone, Electra, Medea. That's my order. My favorite one is Medea. That's true femininity. You go beyond mother's Electra—hysterical in a very good sense. I think hysteria is for authentic psychoanalysis a very radical position. Hysteria is a questioning of subjectivity. Hysterical answer is, “You, ideology, you tell me I'm your servant, I'm your mother, but am I really that? Why am I that?” I absolutely prefer the other two heroines. [Interviewer: Actually you just quoted three plays that were quoted in the play tonight.] This is my—halb-gebildet. You noticed some, at least references. Like the final scene when Antigone—use the microphone, Slavoj—it’s from, it’s from Verhör des Guten, a short poem by Brecht when then they say, “It's not just, it’s not sword, it's gun. Okay, you’re a good guy so we will shoot you with a good gun and bury you in good earth” and so on. It’s all, it's all full of uh quotations. And so that you will not accuse me of total idiocy, I know that Kol Nidre is I think from 16th century. They only invented it—I mean, was at least first recorded— [Interviewer: The liturgy, yeah.] The liturgy, yes. So I’m definitely not such an idiot who thought whatever. But I always loved—can—would you tolerate to tell you my favorite Judeo-Christian-Palestinian joke?
you here, you will not agree. There are three mega-heroines, no? There are others I know, I’m half—halb-gebildet dennoch. Antigone, Electra, Medea. That's my order. My favorite one is Medea. That's true femininity. You go beyond mother's Electra—hysterical in a very good sense. I think hysteria is for authentic psychoanalysis a very radical position. Hysteria is a questioning of subjectivity. Hysterical answer is, “You, ideology, you tell me I'm your servant, I'm your mother, but am I really that? Why am I that?” I absolutely prefer the other two heroines. [Interviewer: Actually you just quoted three plays that were quoted in the play tonight.] This is my—halb-gebildet. You noticed some, at least references. Like the final scene when Antigone—use the microphone, Slavoj—it’s from, it’s from Verhör des Guten, a short poem by Brecht when then they say, “It's not just, it’s not sword, it's gun. Okay, you’re a good guy so we will shoot you with a good gun and bury you in good earth” and so on. It’s all, it's all full of uh quotations. And so that you will not accuse me of total idiocy, I know that Kol Nidre is I think from 16th century. They only invented it—I mean, was at least first recorded— [Interviewer: The liturgy, yeah.] The liturgy, yes. So I’m definitely not such an idiot who thought whatever. But I always loved—can—would you tolerate to tell you my favorite Judeo-Christian-Palestinian joke?
unknown
Because I think the most perverted thing today is maybe this beautiful playing with anachronisms. I
Because I think the most perverted thing today is maybe this beautiful playing with anachronisms. I
Slavoj Žižek
believe in the explanatory power of anachronisms. Remember when I go to Israel and then also across to Ramallah, I discovered, do you know that there are there still, there were years ago now they are still
believe in the explanatory power of anachronisms. Remember when I go to Israel and then also across to Ramallah, I discovered, do you know that there are there still, there were years ago now they are still
unknown
Palestinian Christians.
Palestinian Christians.
Slavoj Žižek
They are the nicest people I met. They have an incredible sense of humor, even of religious humor. You know who is Tiger Woods? Golf, no? [unintelligible response] Yeah, okay. You just have to know this. A wonderful soft—I will offend nobody—religious joke they told me that which is very deep, it shows how God himself is not perfect, it’s decentered alienated from himself. Jesus Christ was tired from his eternal preaching. So he said to one of his apostles, “Listen, let’s take a break. Let’s go to Galilee and play golf there.” So Jesus hits it and misses. The ball goes to water. Jesus said, “No problem, I'm God,” and he walks on the water, picks up the ball, comes back. And the apostle told him, “But listen my Lord, my God, maybe you are not so good and so on, you know.” “No,” Jesus said, “but I can hit the stupid ball.” So Jesus hits it again. It goes again into
They are the nicest people I met. They have an incredible sense of humor, even of religious humor. You know who is Tiger Woods? Golf, no? [unintelligible response] Yeah, okay. You just have to know this. A wonderful soft—I will offend nobody—religious joke they told me that which is very deep, it shows how God himself is not perfect, it’s decentered alienated from himself. Jesus Christ was tired from his eternal preaching. So he said to one of his apostles, “Listen, let’s take a break. Let’s go to Galilee and play golf there.” So Jesus hits it and misses. The ball goes to water. Jesus said, “No problem, I'm God,” and he walks on the water, picks up the ball, comes back. And the apostle told him, “But listen my Lord, my God, maybe you are not so good and so on, you know.” “No,” Jesus said, “but I can hit the stupid ball.” So Jesus hits it again. It goes again into
unknown
the water. So then Jesus again had to walk on the water to pick up the ball. And now comes the beauty, anachronism, I love it. At that point a group of American tourists on a bus comes by and is shocked, a guy there walking on the water, and asks the apostle, “But who is that guy who thinks he can walk on the water? Does he think he
the water. So then Jesus again had to walk on the water to pick up the ball. And now comes the beauty, anachronism, I love it. At that point a group of American tourists on a bus comes by and is shocked, a guy there walking on the water, and asks the apostle, “But who is that guy who thinks he can walk on the water? Does he think he
Slavoj Žižek
is Jesus Christ?” You know what the apostle answers? “No, it's much worse. He thinks he is Tiger Woods,” you know. That's what psychoanalysis teaches us. I mean, I'm so sad that it's my life project that Jews and Palestinians cannot make some kind of a stupid fucking peace. Because Palestinians are in some sense the Jews among the Arabs. They are doctors, the most enlightened. And what I find it so sad is that Palestinians are becoming aware that it’s not only Israeli occupation, other
is Jesus Christ?” You know what the apostle answers? “No, it's much worse. He thinks he is Tiger Woods,” you know. That's what psychoanalysis teaches us. I mean, I'm so sad that it's my life project that Jews and Palestinians cannot make some kind of a stupid fucking peace. Because Palestinians are in some sense the Jews among the Arabs. They are doctors, the most enlightened. And what I find it so sad is that Palestinians are becoming aware that it’s not only Israeli occupation, other
unknown
Arab nations also
Arab nations also
Slavoj Žižek
strictly manipulate them and so on and so on. But we are moving from our target, you know, please go on. [Interviewer: You wrote, I mean, you wrote one play in your life, Antigone, and you wrote about
strictly manipulate them and so on and so on. But we are moving from our target, you know, please go on. [Interviewer: You wrote, I mean, you wrote one play in your life, Antigone, and you wrote about
unknown
books. So there's a reason why you wrote one play and not another book. And I think that has to do with the figure of Antigone, because she is
books. So there's a reason why you wrote one play and not another book. And I think that has to do with the figure of Antigone, because she is
Slavoj Žižek
precisely this difficult object of trying to define what is the difference between subjectivity, resistance, identity, heroism, nature, culture, nation—where do you belong? And I mean, here are the great actresses who did this. Um, we tried to show that in your play and with your slightly humorous—and I find quite comical actually—invention of saying that a—] I agree with you here but just— [Interviewer: Of saying that Antigone exists three times and to be—and you as a writer Slavoj, you were cowardly enough not to write the second ending, really. You said a lot in your directions, you say a lot of what already has been spoken gets repeated. So we invented an Antigone that survives, which is actually saying an Antigone that is no longer an Antigone, right?] You mean, you mean—sorry, now I’m
precisely this difficult object of trying to define what is the difference between subjectivity, resistance, identity, heroism, nature, culture, nation—where do you belong? And I mean, here are the great actresses who did this. Um, we tried to show that in your play and with your slightly humorous—and I find quite comical actually—invention of saying that a—] I agree with you here but just— [Interviewer: Of saying that Antigone exists three times and to be—and you as a writer Slavoj, you were cowardly enough not to write the second ending, really. You said a lot in your directions, you say a lot of what already has been spoken gets repeated. So we invented an Antigone that survives, which is actually saying an Antigone that is no longer an Antigone, right?] You mean, you mean—sorry, now I’m
unknown
not interrupting—just
not interrupting—just
Slavoj Žižek
clarification. When you say “survive,” is it that version when with Ismene, Ismene reserves a plane ticket— [Interviewer: Yeah, yeah, exactly, yeah.] —and an Antigone that survives, that actually Creon gets killed, Haemon gets killed, Thebes burns because the people are upset, because uh Antigone gets rescued by Creon and uh—well both of them, right? They both live in exile afterwards. And that is actually interesting part of your decision to say there are three lives of Antigone. If there are three lives of Antigone, one at least has to be one of an Antigone that survives. And an Antigone— Why? I am more cruel here. Can I
clarification. When you say “survive,” is it that version when with Ismene, Ismene reserves a plane ticket— [Interviewer: Yeah, yeah, exactly, yeah.] —and an Antigone that survives, that actually Creon gets killed, Haemon gets killed, Thebes burns because the people are upset, because uh Antigone gets rescued by Creon and uh—well both of them, right? They both live in exile afterwards. And that is actually interesting part of your decision to say there are three lives of Antigone. If there are three lives of Antigone, one at least has to be one of an Antigone that survives. And an Antigone— Why? I am more cruel here. Can I
unknown
explain
explain
Slavoj Žižek
why? [Interviewer: Well, because you wrote it, first of all, but secondly uh secondly that there can't—I mean the rest of the lives of Antigone that die—of course we can find hundreds of ways why somebody dies. I mean she could have cancer, or she could be run over by a car or something, but if she dies because of her actions there’s two versions. One because Creon kills her, or the second because the people kill her, and both of those options are in your play. The second option is Thebes burns, Creon was right to say no, I can't accept what you are trying to do, because otherwise the city will burn, and the city actually burns because he accepted. And then these two bitches, these two women, take a plane and take their Oedipus money to another city and survive. And what is an Antigone that survives? I think in a certain sense—I'm not quite done yet—in a certain sense, this is exactly what you are politically trying to propose, to say we need to develop relationships in these kind of opposing uh moments like for example Israel and Palestine, where the heroes don't die, they survive.
why? [Interviewer: Well, because you wrote it, first of all, but secondly uh secondly that there can't—I mean the rest of the lives of Antigone that die—of course we can find hundreds of ways why somebody dies. I mean she could have cancer, or she could be run over by a car or something, but if she dies because of her actions there’s two versions. One because Creon kills her, or the second because the people kill her, and both of those options are in your play. The second option is Thebes burns, Creon was right to say no, I can't accept what you are trying to do, because otherwise the city will burn, and the city actually burns because he accepted. And then these two bitches, these two women, take a plane and take their Oedipus money to another city and survive. And what is an Antigone that survives? I think in a certain sense—I'm not quite done yet—in a certain sense, this is exactly what you are politically trying to propose, to say we need to develop relationships in these kind of opposing uh moments like for example Israel and Palestine, where the heroes don't die, they survive.
unknown
They become—they come together.] Yes, but here again it’s my professional
They become—they come together.] Yes, but here again it’s my professional
Slavoj Žižek
deformation as a philosopher. I like to mystify things. I think—it’s a horrible thing and I don’t like Trump, he is an abomination. But that Donald Trump will maybe survive, if we will also survive his reign, yeah, as the ultimate president of avoiding conflict, survive. Did you notice how often he plays this game? He talks a lot, threatens, then all the world is on the edge, a madman has his finger on the—on the—on the button of the atomic... [Interviewer: And then he goes and plays golf.] Sorry? [Interviewer: And then he goes and plays golf.] Yeah, isn't it clear? I have friends in Iran who are half-arrested but nonetheless talk. He told me this was a wonderfully done negotiated settlement. Uh after uh after Trump ordered the killing of that General Soleimani. They made a precise deal of how Iranians can bomb some empty whatever uh military barracks, be sure that nobody is hurt, and they defuse the tension. It’s the same with uh with North Korea. With all the talking, Trump actually defused the tension. Some American leftists who hate Trump proposed the reading, sorry not in bombastic terms, claimed that if Hillary were to be the president, the
deformation as a philosopher. I like to mystify things. I think—it’s a horrible thing and I don’t like Trump, he is an abomination. But that Donald Trump will maybe survive, if we will also survive his reign, yeah, as the ultimate president of avoiding conflict, survive. Did you notice how often he plays this game? He talks a lot, threatens, then all the world is on the edge, a madman has his finger on the—on the—on the button of the atomic... [Interviewer: And then he goes and plays golf.] Sorry? [Interviewer: And then he goes and plays golf.] Yeah, isn't it clear? I have friends in Iran who are half-arrested but nonetheless talk. He told me this was a wonderfully done negotiated settlement. Uh after uh after Trump ordered the killing of that General Soleimani. They made a precise deal of how Iranians can bomb some empty whatever uh military barracks, be sure that nobody is hurt, and they defuse the tension. It’s the same with uh with North Korea. With all the talking, Trump actually defused the tension. Some American leftists who hate Trump proposed the reading, sorry not in bombastic terms, claimed that if Hillary were to be the president, the
unknown
possibility of a war with either Iran or North Korea would have been much greater. The reason I worry about Trump are uh are uh are uh are uh are at another level. But if I may jump because you mentioned Oedipus, no? You know where I maybe not disagree, but uh read please, forget about Hegel, I even disagree with Hegel here who has this classical definition, Oedipus, tragic hero, he didn't know what he is doing but in this typical tragic way he nonetheless had to take responsibility. Please read Sophocles. This doesn't happen in— [Interviewer: Keiner liest Sophocles heute mehr. Man liest nur noch Žižek.] Wait a minute. Oedipus at the end, he doesn't admit anything. There is no tragic recognition, “Oh my god.” He said, “No, I didn’t know. It was not fate in the sense that I am objectively responsible.” Part three now comes, Oedipus at Colonus. That’s my true hero. It is as if finding herself in this—himself in
possibility of a war with either Iran or North Korea would have been much greater. The reason I worry about Trump are uh are uh are uh are uh are at another level. But if I may jump because you mentioned Oedipus, no? You know where I maybe not disagree, but uh read please, forget about Hegel, I even disagree with Hegel here who has this classical definition, Oedipus, tragic hero, he didn't know what he is doing but in this typical tragic way he nonetheless had to take responsibility. Please read Sophocles. This doesn't happen in— [Interviewer: Keiner liest Sophocles heute mehr. Man liest nur noch Žižek.] Wait a minute. Oedipus at the end, he doesn't admit anything. There is no tragic recognition, “Oh my god.” He said, “No, I didn’t know. It was not fate in the sense that I am objectively responsible.” Part three now comes, Oedipus at Colonus. That’s my true hero. It is as if finding herself in this—himself in
Slavoj Žižek
this
this
unknown
totally destitute position, he is finally free. [Interviewer: And what does he say to Antigone?] Sorry? [Interviewer: What does he say to Antigone?] Okay, I don’t know. I— [Interviewer: Meh, meh, meh. No, okay, a bet. A bet. You are objectively lying. Five years of Gulag. Go on please.] Check it up. I checked it up. [Interviewer: I learned from you that objectively lying is one of the paths to the truth.] You will learn this better in Gulag if we take over. Check it up. I for long years do—does any of you know Oedipus at Colonus? Chorus said this: “Meh-phin-ai” and all that bullshit, the better luck, the best luck is not to be born at all. And in my tasteless way,
totally destitute position, he is finally free. [Interviewer: And what does he say to Antigone?] Sorry? [Interviewer: What does he say to Antigone?] Okay, I don’t know. I— [Interviewer: Meh, meh, meh. No, okay, a bet. A bet. You are objectively lying. Five years of Gulag. Go on please.] Check it up. I checked it up. [Interviewer: I learned from you that objectively lying is one of the paths to the truth.] You will learn this better in Gulag if we take over. Check it up. I for long years do—does any of you know Oedipus at Colonus? Chorus said this: “Meh-phin-ai” and all that bullshit, the better luck, the best luck is not to be born at all. And in my tasteless way,
Slavoj Žižek
I hope this will amuse you. I proposed
I hope this will amuse you. I proposed
unknown
this to a Slovenian agency as the best pro-abortion campaign. The best luck for
this to a Slovenian agency as the best pro-abortion campaign. The best luck for
Slavoj Žižek
unwanted
unwanted
unknown
child
child
unknown
is not to be born and we arrange it for you. But that's my taste. But what I wanted to
is not to be born and we arrange it for you. But that's my taste. But what I wanted to
unknown
say, I love old Oedipus at Colonus, who is not this wise old guy, you know, reconciled with fate. He knows what he wants: to fuck up, ruin Thebes, his city, and to sell his death as expensively as possible whom to profit. He is a wonderful character at the end when he is totally deprived of all humanity, he finally has his desire free. So he is my true— [Interviewer: And he founds Oedipus Inc.] Sorry? [Interviewer: And he founds Oedipus Incorporated.] That what I like, just don't forget something. I don't have the time to go into it today, which can be developed in a nice way Jacques Lacan did it. Oedipus doesn't have an Oedipus complex. No,
say, I love old Oedipus at Colonus, who is not this wise old guy, you know, reconciled with fate. He knows what he wants: to fuck up, ruin Thebes, his city, and to sell his death as expensively as possible whom to profit. He is a wonderful character at the end when he is totally deprived of all humanity, he finally has his desire free. So he is my true— [Interviewer: And he founds Oedipus Inc.] Sorry? [Interviewer: And he founds Oedipus Incorporated.] That what I like, just don't forget something. I don't have the time to go into it today, which can be developed in a nice way Jacques Lacan did it. Oedipus doesn't have an Oedipus complex. No,
Slavoj Žižek
it's totally wrong.
it's totally wrong.
unknown
Oedipus just did it, screwed his mother and so on. But he didn't know it, there was no unconscious investment or whatever. I totally distrust this vulgar psychoanalytic reading, what if Antigone wanted to fuck Polyneices or whatever, incest. Paradoxically, now you will say, but we call it incest Oedipus complex. You know Claude Lévi-Strauss, the great anthropologist, mentions one American—microphone—sorry, yeah, uh North American tribe where who which claim that all dreams have a sexual meaning except directly sexual dreams. And I think it’s the same with all families are in Oedipus complex except the Oedipus family. [Interviewer: I think my actors here were trying to show this in part today that some of them have one and some of them don't. Um, but the question is, is it still a political issue?] It is. No, wait a minute, I’m not totally against Antigone vulgar and I learned—I’ve learned my feminism. [Interviewer: Think about your friend Judith Butler, you know, the one—think about your friend Judith Butler that you love so much.] I love so much her personally, we are on good terms, but not theoretically. Yeah, yeah. Because you know if you read her book *Antigone’s Claim*, did you notice something which is for me as a Stalinist theoretical policeman, one feature which betrays her. All these humanist defenders of Antigone, she stands for all oppressed, excluded and so
Oedipus just did it, screwed his mother and so on. But he didn't know it, there was no unconscious investment or whatever. I totally distrust this vulgar psychoanalytic reading, what if Antigone wanted to fuck Polyneices or whatever, incest. Paradoxically, now you will say, but we call it incest Oedipus complex. You know Claude Lévi-Strauss, the great anthropologist, mentions one American—microphone—sorry, yeah, uh North American tribe where who which claim that all dreams have a sexual meaning except directly sexual dreams. And I think it’s the same with all families are in Oedipus complex except the Oedipus family. [Interviewer: I think my actors here were trying to show this in part today that some of them have one and some of them don't. Um, but the question is, is it still a political issue?] It is. No, wait a minute, I’m not totally against Antigone vulgar and I learned—I’ve learned my feminism. [Interviewer: Think about your friend Judith Butler, you know, the one—think about your friend Judith Butler that you love so much.] I love so much her personally, we are on good terms, but not theoretically. Yeah, yeah. Because you know if you read her book *Antigone’s Claim*, did you notice something which is for me as a Stalinist theoretical policeman, one feature which betrays her. All these humanist defenders of Antigone, she stands for all oppressed, excluded and so
Slavoj Žižek
on, they have a problem with her emphatic statement, “It's only for my brother that I’m doing it, not others.” [Interviewer: Now you're talking Hegel.] Uh yes, Hegel has a shady—I don't like his theory. The problem is that so many interpreters throughout the centuries try to explain this away as a later insertion, no this couldn't have been Antigone and so on. [Interviewer: Goethe famously said, yeah, Goethe famously said that he wished that this was not a part of it.] Yes, but it is. And even typically, unfortunately, she does the same, Judith Butler. She do—no, I think and I agree with Judith and other great feminists who point out that the beauty
on, they have a problem with her emphatic statement, “It's only for my brother that I’m doing it, not others.” [Interviewer: Now you're talking Hegel.] Uh yes, Hegel has a shady—I don't like his theory. The problem is that so many interpreters throughout the centuries try to explain this away as a later insertion, no this couldn't have been Antigone and so on. [Interviewer: Goethe famously said, yeah, Goethe famously said that he wished that this was not a part of it.] Yes, but it is. And even typically, unfortunately, she does the same, Judith Butler. She do—no, I think and I agree with Judith and other great feminists who point out that the beauty
unknown
of Antigone is not in what she demands, it's just purely sacred apolitical,
of Antigone is not in what she demands, it's just purely sacred apolitical,
Slavoj Žižek
but the way she acts is in a way publicly appropriate only for men in that society. That's the beauty of her, you know. [Interviewer: Wenn man heute zu einer Oedipus Inc Treffen geht und man sagt “Mama,” weiß man nicht wie viele sich umdrehen. Und bei “Papa” schon gar nicht.] No, don't provoke me in this. Because you are addressing me as a Slovene and we have a wonderful—trigger warning if you are politically correct—vulgar Oedipal jokes. Like a Slovenian classic is: a small son asks his mother, “Mommy, what is Oedipus complex?” You know what mother answers? “Shut up and go on fucking.” Let’s—sorry. Let’s not go into that. Let’s not go into that. But can I add another story? More serious thing where I’m— [Interviewer: How much else do you have on your list?] This is the last one in two parts. The first one is why Antigone? I don't know how it is with you but in Slovenia, my country, when we became independent and so on uh Antigone was the absolute national heroine. The idea was communists at the end of the World War II killed all the collaborators with the Nazis without proper judgment, burial and—microphone—yeah. Uh I'm glad you speak to my actors but there's a lot of people up there too. No, I'm a Stalinist. They are the party and I
but the way she acts is in a way publicly appropriate only for men in that society. That's the beauty of her, you know. [Interviewer: Wenn man heute zu einer Oedipus Inc Treffen geht und man sagt “Mama,” weiß man nicht wie viele sich umdrehen. Und bei “Papa” schon gar nicht.] No, don't provoke me in this. Because you are addressing me as a Slovene and we have a wonderful—trigger warning if you are politically correct—vulgar Oedipal jokes. Like a Slovenian classic is: a small son asks his mother, “Mommy, what is Oedipus complex?” You know what mother answers? “Shut up and go on fucking.” Let’s—sorry. Let’s not go into that. Let’s not go into that. But can I add another story? More serious thing where I’m— [Interviewer: How much else do you have on your list?] This is the last one in two parts. The first one is why Antigone? I don't know how it is with you but in Slovenia, my country, when we became independent and so on uh Antigone was the absolute national heroine. The idea was communists at the end of the World War II killed all the collaborators with the Nazis without proper judgment, burial and—microphone—yeah. Uh I'm glad you speak to my actors but there's a lot of people up there too. No, I'm a Stalinist. They are the party and I
unknown
only—their nomenclature. Fuck you, you are ordinary party members. Because you know Stalin said this wonderful when
only—their nomenclature. Fuck you, you are ordinary party members. Because you know Stalin said this wonderful when
Slavoj Žižek
he said, “Our greatest treasure are people, that is to say cadre, nomenclature,” as if others don’t count. But now a more serious—not reproach—but maybe why I liked your staging. Maybe I didn’t understand it the way you meant it and I want to ask you this. [Interviewer: Oh.] You know, my god I would like to see you in Gulag okay. But you know you take my words and then you add all those songs and so on. No, no, no, the usual reading would have been words are pathetic and so on, it is in this actings out that you get a more authentic existential position. I think it’s the opposite. Pure
he said, “Our greatest treasure are people, that is to say cadre, nomenclature,” as if others don’t count. But now a more serious—not reproach—but maybe why I liked your staging. Maybe I didn’t understand it the way you meant it and I want to ask you this. [Interviewer: Oh.] You know, my god I would like to see you in Gulag okay. But you know you take my words and then you add all those songs and so on. No, no, no, the usual reading would have been words are pathetic and so on, it is in this actings out that you get a more authentic existential position. I think it’s the opposite. Pure
unknown
ideology is in all that dancing and so on. That’s the pure ideology. Uh I—I see that as
ideology is in all that dancing and so on. That’s the pure ideology. Uh I—I see that as
Slavoj Žižek
like I say something, what does it ideologically mean, here you have the song and so on. So I read again that
like I say something, what does it ideologically mean, here you have the song and so on. So I read again that
unknown
part where you have spontaneous outbursts and so on as—wie sagt man das auf Deutsch—Ideologie in reinem Zustand.
part where you have spontaneous outbursts and so on as—wie sagt man das auf Deutsch—Ideologie in reinem Zustand.
Slavoj Žižek
[Interviewer: Ja. Ja. Is this hysteria?] Absolutely. Or a revisionist who just pretends to follow the party line but— No, it’s—I mean—this is—I mean, you are not really a theater author, I’m sorry to tell you that. You’re a brilliant guy but uh this play needs to be played and to find this ideological connection between ideology and subjectivity you need to invent connections and pop music and uh other elements are forms to do that. Okay, okay. My last question. You know what tempted me? I loved when you mixed, I saw the all pop music and so on. [Interviewer: It's very hard to see a play that you wrote, I get that.] No, no, but you know what I was tempted to do, what was my dream? Uh you remember repeated two-three times that the most—let’s put it—the biggest hit of Antigone, you know, “Manche Ungeheuer, Monster,” that chorus song, “But nothing more ungeheuer, but that's Hölderlin or monstrous like man.” You know what I would like to do there I imagined. You are too
[Interviewer: Ja. Ja. Is this hysteria?] Absolutely. Or a revisionist who just pretends to follow the party line but— No, it’s—I mean—this is—I mean, you are not really a theater author, I’m sorry to tell you that. You’re a brilliant guy but uh this play needs to be played and to find this ideological connection between ideology and subjectivity you need to invent connections and pop music and uh other elements are forms to do that. Okay, okay. My last question. You know what tempted me? I loved when you mixed, I saw the all pop music and so on. [Interviewer: It's very hard to see a play that you wrote, I get that.] No, no, but you know what I was tempted to do, what was my dream? Uh you remember repeated two-three times that the most—let’s put it—the biggest hit of Antigone, you know, “Manche Ungeheuer, Monster,” that chorus song, “But nothing more ungeheuer, but that's Hölderlin or monstrous like man.” You know what I would like to do there I imagined. You are too
unknown
young to remember, maybe you heard it from your parents or what. In the ‘50s before rock proper,
young to remember, maybe you heard it from your parents or what. In the ‘50s before rock proper,
Slavoj Žižek
you had this disgusting with sweet violins uh pop music like—do you remember some of you older ones—Perry Como, Caterina Valente, Connie Francis, this direction. I would like to have that chorus sang in this sweet way by some pop
you had this disgusting with sweet violins uh pop music like—do you remember some of you older ones—Perry Como, Caterina Valente, Connie Francis, this direction. I would like to have that chorus sang in this sweet way by some pop
unknown
singer, you know.
singer, you know.
Slavoj Žižek
Because that’s I think the most stupid part of the entire play. I don’t see anything deep in it. I think— [Interviewer: I think you need to find an 80-year-old director for that.] I'm approaching that so you know. Uh and I mean some of the music come from the Slovenian friends. No, but you know what I wanted to say, sorry. I wanted to say that I’m—I have a great, I hope you don’t low this line of mine, it will minimally amuse you but I mean it very seriously. Uh I have—I despise incredibly deep thoughts and wisdoms. I think they are inherently conformist. Whatever you do, you can always found a proverb that will just—microphone—sorry, yeah. For example, let's say you are in a risky situation. You take
Because that’s I think the most stupid part of the entire play. I don’t see anything deep in it. I think— [Interviewer: I think you need to find an 80-year-old director for that.] I'm approaching that so you know. Uh and I mean some of the music come from the Slovenian friends. No, but you know what I wanted to say, sorry. I wanted to say that I’m—I have a great, I hope you don’t low this line of mine, it will minimally amuse you but I mean it very seriously. Uh I have—I despise incredibly deep thoughts and wisdoms. I think they are inherently conformist. Whatever you do, you can always found a proverb that will just—microphone—sorry, yeah. For example, let's say you are in a risky situation. You take
unknown
the risk and you succeed. And then I don't know how you have it in German, in my language you can say, it sounds better, “Only those who risk profit,” like you should take risk. Let’s say you take a risk, you fail. You have another
the risk and you succeed. And then I don't know how you have it in German, in my language you can say, it sounds better, “Only those who risk profit,” like you should take risk. Let’s say you take a risk, you fail. You have another
Slavoj Žižek
deep wisdom. It says—it’s very vulgar I like it—“You cannot urinate against the wind,” you know. This is wisdom. I will prove it to you in another way very short. Let's take the relationship between our earthly life and some
deep wisdom. It says—it’s very vulgar I like it—“You cannot urinate against the wind,” you know. This is wisdom. I will prove it to you in another way very short. Let's take the relationship between our earthly life and some
unknown
higher spiritual eternity. If I tell you, “Dismiss earthly life, the only truth is spiritual eternity,” if I say it, I can’t,
higher spiritual eternity. If I tell you, “Dismiss earthly life, the only truth is spiritual eternity,” if I say it, I can’t,
Slavoj Žižek
with the right tone, it will sound as a
with the right tone, it will sound as a
unknown
wisdom. If I say the opposite: “Don’t
wisdom. If I say the opposite: “Don’t
Slavoj Žižek
trust eternal life, we probably will never reach it, enjoy carpe diem, enjoy the moment,” it will sound as a wisdom. If I tell you, “Don’t fall for this difference, try to discover eternity in earthly life,” it will sound as a wisdom. If I tell you again the opposite: “We are split between eternity and earthly life now and this is our eternal fate,” it will sound a wisdom. So I’m—I am always—I think chorus is usually in Greek plays the place for stupidity. And that's why that was my idea, what if the chorus itself is no longer so stupid? [Interviewer:
trust eternal life, we probably will never reach it, enjoy carpe diem, enjoy the moment,” it will sound as a wisdom. If I tell you, “Don’t fall for this difference, try to discover eternity in earthly life,” it will sound as a wisdom. If I tell you again the opposite: “We are split between eternity and earthly life now and this is our eternal fate,” it will sound a wisdom. So I’m—I am always—I think chorus is usually in Greek plays the place for stupidity. And that's why that was my idea, what if the chorus itself is no longer so stupid? [Interviewer:
unknown
So you think we
So you think we
Slavoj Žižek
were not stupid enough?] No, but chorus at the end finally and I like very much, I appreciated it, how did you call it? Durchqueren or what? [Interviewer: Durchqueren.] This how actors change, this reminds me of what I do like about Brecht. You know Brecht uh where he said how his
were not stupid enough?] No, but chorus at the end finally and I like very much, I appreciated it, how did you call it? Durchqueren or what? [Interviewer: Durchqueren.] This how actors change, this reminds me of what I do like about Brecht. You know Brecht uh where he said how his
unknown
Maßnahme should be performed. He insisted that it
Maßnahme should be performed. He insisted that it
Slavoj Žižek
must be performed literally for actors to learn, so that each
must be performed literally for actors to learn, so that each
unknown
of them goes
of them goes
Slavoj Žižek
through all. And incidentally my Ja-Sager, Nein-Sager was even the model for my Antigone. There you also have three— [Interviewer: You wrote that, actually. In the first line, you know, in the first line of your introduction, you tell us that.] Yeah, yeah, but also you know other
through all. And incidentally my Ja-Sager, Nein-Sager was even the model for my Antigone. There you also have three— [Interviewer: You wrote that, actually. In the first line, you know, in the first line of your introduction, you tell us that.] Yeah, yeah, but also you know other
unknown
films that I liked. You have then Kieślowski, his best film Przypadek, Blind Chance usually, three versions. Then you have of course, it's
films that I liked. You have then Kieślowski, his best film Przypadek, Blind Chance usually, three versions. Then you have of course, it's
Slavoj Žižek
commercial, Lola rennt and so on, you know. And I—I like this idea of to understand what happens you have to include what might have happened but didn’t happen. You have to have the entire span to get the mi—you know I’m a Hegelian and I’m sorry to tell you I use it—not too much, just I would say times in my last book—one wonderful joke from maybe the greatest in Hollywood, Ernst Lubitsch, you
commercial, Lola rennt and so on, you know. And I—I like this idea of to understand what happens you have to include what might have happened but didn’t happen. You have to have the entire span to get the mi—you know I’m a Hegelian and I’m sorry to tell you I use it—not too much, just I would say times in my last book—one wonderful joke from maybe the greatest in Hollywood, Ernst Lubitsch, you
unknown
know that coffee
know that coffee
Slavoj Žižek
joke. You know a guy goes to a cafeteria and
joke. You know a guy goes to a cafeteria and
unknown
says, “Can I get—microphone—sorry, yeah, can I get a coffee with coffee
says, “Can I get—microphone—sorry, yeah, can I get a coffee with coffee
Slavoj Žižek
with cream, please?” And the waiter says, “Sorry, I cannot give you—” No, he says, “Can I get water—sorry—can I get coffee but without cream, please?” And the waiter says, “Sorry sir, we don’t have cream but only milk, so we can only give you coffee without milk,” you know. That’s what Hegel meant with bestimmte Negation: that although materially plain coffee is the same as
with cream, please?” And the waiter says, “Sorry, I cannot give you—” No, he says, “Can I get water—sorry—can I get coffee but without cream, please?” And the waiter says, “Sorry sir, we don’t have cream but only milk, so we can only give you coffee without milk,” you know. That’s what Hegel meant with bestimmte Negation: that although materially plain coffee is the same as
unknown
coffee without cream,
coffee without cream,
Slavoj Žižek
but symbolically it’s not the same. And in this sense I think what happened, what really happens, can only be understood against the background of what might have happened. [Interviewer: Well, I think this is a very good moment in which to open—] My god, you really despise me. You say this in such a patronizing... No, no. I think I love-hate you for decades by now, it’s all, it’s all good. Uh-uh. But I want to hear from you. Yeah, I want— [Interviewer: I will open it for two questions.] Yeah, but can they really tell
but symbolically it’s not the same. And in this sense I think what happened, what really happens, can only be understood against the background of what might have happened. [Interviewer: Well, I think this is a very good moment in which to open—] My god, you really despise me. You say this in such a patronizing... No, no. I think I love-hate you for decades by now, it’s all, it’s all good. Uh-uh. But I want to hear from you. Yeah, I want— [Interviewer: I will open it for two questions.] Yeah, but can they really tell
unknown
me in a very
me in a very
Slavoj Žižek
naive way, pre-Brechtian even, you actors, where do you stand if you were at a gunpoint—let's say I'm a really hardline SS or KGB agent, tell you, “Okay, choose. Which of the three versions?” Do you have a position or are you Antigone-softist nonetheless? [Interviewer: We had this discussion a lot of times.] Okay, tell me what was the—ah, please. Actually we had this moment in the rehearsal together. The director asked us two questions: which end would you like to happen and which one do
naive way, pre-Brechtian even, you actors, where do you stand if you were at a gunpoint—let's say I'm a really hardline SS or KGB agent, tell you, “Okay, choose. Which of the three versions?” Do you have a position or are you Antigone-softist nonetheless? [Interviewer: We had this discussion a lot of times.] Okay, tell me what was the—ah, please. Actually we had this moment in the rehearsal together. The director asked us two questions: which end would you like to happen and which one do
unknown
you think is realistic? And it’s actually, it was a great violence to all of us I think, this question. [Interviewer: In which sense violence? In which sense?] Well, you’re working on a play uh on all the complexity of it and all the questions that you are asked as actor, as player, as figure, as member of group, as thinker maybe. And then suddenly you need to answer that question that’s very brutal. And um we all made the round, I’m not sure if we want to start again. I said for me the one I wish
you think is realistic? And it’s actually, it was a great violence to all of us I think, this question. [Interviewer: In which sense violence? In which sense?] Well, you’re working on a play uh on all the complexity of it and all the questions that you are asked as actor, as player, as figure, as member of group, as thinker maybe. And then suddenly you need to answer that question that’s very brutal. And um we all made the round, I’m not sure if we want to start again. I said for me the one I wish
Slavoj Žižek
for would be the third. [Žižek: You are, oh, my communist
for would be the third. [Žižek: You are, oh, my communist
unknown
friend, perfectly.] And the realistic one would be between one and two
friend, perfectly.] And the realistic one would be between one and two
Slavoj Žižek
in our world. Yeah, because you know that's what I wanted to say, that Creon might be a conformist whatever, but sorry, if he is right in his judgment—we cannot be sure—then it's a really tough decision. Like it's ethical to allow Antigone to do it, but what if hundreds of people will die because of it? I'm not saying how to decide, I'm saying that it’s a serious dilemma. Of course, for me it’s very clear that Antigone is not a—an angel, right? She’s a real bitch, I mean, and I very much like to play this kind of figure. Obviously. I hope this works also for you as a person, that you are a bitch and... Okay, sorry. Please. Come on. As I remember most of us prefer the third ending with the choir and uh I said that I don’t trust the choir. [Interviewer: The chorus.] The chorus. Sorry. The chorus uh um yeah because as you said uh he’s also he’s as stupid as all the others. And um so I prefer an ending which is um— Do you imagine, sorry, a
in our world. Yeah, because you know that's what I wanted to say, that Creon might be a conformist whatever, but sorry, if he is right in his judgment—we cannot be sure—then it's a really tough decision. Like it's ethical to allow Antigone to do it, but what if hundreds of people will die because of it? I'm not saying how to decide, I'm saying that it’s a serious dilemma. Of course, for me it’s very clear that Antigone is not a—an angel, right? She’s a real bitch, I mean, and I very much like to play this kind of figure. Obviously. I hope this works also for you as a person, that you are a bitch and... Okay, sorry. Please. Come on. As I remember most of us prefer the third ending with the choir and uh I said that I don’t trust the choir. [Interviewer: The chorus.] The chorus. Sorry. The chorus uh um yeah because as you said uh he’s also he’s as stupid as all the others. And um so I prefer an ending which is um— Do you imagine, sorry, a
unknown
fourth ending maybe? [unintelligible
fourth ending maybe? [unintelligible
Slavoj Žižek
person says: A totally endless ending which is a—eine Annäherung.] Ich verstehe, ja, ja. Actually I forgot what I said. Actually I— [Žižek: Ich
person says: A totally endless ending which is a—eine Annäherung.] Ich verstehe, ja, ja. Actually I forgot what I said. Actually I— [Žižek: Ich
unknown
verstehe, ja, ja.] Uh so I don’t believe in the third, I would prefer the third ending uh either. No, but I agree with you because you know where I am careful. I
verstehe, ja, ja.] Uh so I don’t believe in the third, I would prefer the third ending uh either. No, but I agree with you because you know where I am careful. I
Slavoj Žižek
am not saying now they will have a perfect people's democracy after that. Maybe even a worse terror will emerge. I'm not saying it will not. I'm just saying it's an authentic outburst. But like October Revolution also was an authentic outburst and look at what happened in—in years, you know. I'm also, I'm not as naive as may—as it may appear. But you know what’s for me important in this idea of three endings? How often in our actual political life we have a certain opposition portrayed to us by the media, for example, either Western liberalism or some fundamentalism. But what if this opposition is not the real choice? What if this opposition is wrong?
am not saying now they will have a perfect people's democracy after that. Maybe even a worse terror will emerge. I'm not saying it will not. I'm just saying it's an authentic outburst. But like October Revolution also was an authentic outburst and look at what happened in—in years, you know. I'm also, I'm not as naive as may—as it may appear. But you know what’s for me important in this idea of three endings? How often in our actual political life we have a certain opposition portrayed to us by the media, for example, either Western liberalism or some fundamentalism. But what if this opposition is not the real choice? What if this opposition is wrong?
unknown
I
I
Slavoj Žižek
often suspect
often suspect
unknown
that the
that the
Slavoj Žižek
way big struggles today are portrayed by the big media, that they already somehow falsify,
way big struggles today are portrayed by the big media, that they already somehow falsify,
unknown
obfuscate where
obfuscate where
Slavoj Žižek
the real problem is. For example, very briefly in Vereinigten Staaten, United States today, the big opposition, will Trump prevail, this neo-fascism authoritarian, or democracy? But for me the whole problem is that Trump didn’t fall from the sky. Obviously there was something wrong in this democratic hegemony of the last decades that all of a sudden the space was open for a disgusting figure like Trump. So I think it’s not enough to say, of course, against Trump, I am for uh democ—no, one should ask what did we do wrong so that a monster like Trump was possible? That—that would be my ultimate position. Be skeptical about what officially is presented you as the big struggle today. I would just actually quote Daniela, if I may, the first week, when we said, you said, “Okay, Žižek wrote three endings,
the real problem is. For example, very briefly in Vereinigten Staaten, United States today, the big opposition, will Trump prevail, this neo-fascism authoritarian, or democracy? But for me the whole problem is that Trump didn’t fall from the sky. Obviously there was something wrong in this democratic hegemony of the last decades that all of a sudden the space was open for a disgusting figure like Trump. So I think it’s not enough to say, of course, against Trump, I am for uh democ—no, one should ask what did we do wrong so that a monster like Trump was possible? That—that would be my ultimate position. Be skeptical about what officially is presented you as the big struggle today. I would just actually quote Daniela, if I may, the first week, when we said, you said, “Okay, Žižek wrote three endings,
unknown
why not Why—and uh I think that
why not Why—and uh I think that
Slavoj Žižek
is a question that we asked ourselves often. Um at the same time we had this author and he wrote three. Well, do you know—I report on this, sorry, I
is a question that we asked ourselves often. Um at the same time we had this author and he wrote three. Well, do you know—I report on this, sorry, I
unknown
know you should answer, but immediately—but do you know I
know you should answer, but immediately—but do you know I
Slavoj Žižek
write this about this in my introduction? I read somewhere that it’s kind of a half-proven, not really, and I love this for historical reasons. It tells us a lot, it gives us good reasons against fetishizing uh original authentic version. Do you know that Sophocles is not the original version? As far as we can reconstruct the myth, there was an earlier version which sounds much more modern melodramatic. If somebody were to stage that version today, you would have been accused for cheap Hollywood melodrama. What happens is that— [Interviewer: You mean Antigone with a child?] Yeah, and they escape
write this about this in my introduction? I read somewhere that it’s kind of a half-proven, not really, and I love this for historical reasons. It tells us a lot, it gives us good reasons against fetishizing uh original authentic version. Do you know that Sophocles is not the original version? As far as we can reconstruct the myth, there was an earlier version which sounds much more modern melodramatic. If somebody were to stage that version today, you would have been accused for cheap Hollywood melodrama. What happens is that— [Interviewer: You mean Antigone with a child?] Yeah, and they escape
unknown
Thebes and the child returns years later to take revenge and so on and so on. I mean—and I think that uh uh leaving antiq—we
Thebes and the child returns years later to take revenge and so on and so on. I mean—and I think that uh uh leaving antiq—we
Slavoj Žižek
should get rid of this romantic myth of original authentic version. To give you my last example, I think unfortunately I always repeat myself, I also quote it in my introduction. An excellent Inuit—once we call them Eskimos, just so that you know—Inuit film Fast Runner, which stages an ancient Inuit myth, but which in its original version, two tribes or parts of a tribe they kill each other, totally tragic ending. This film has a happy ending, half-happy ending, okay. And then a stupid multiculturalist liberal attacked the director: “Oh you, you fell into Euro—into Hollywood commercialism, why didn’t you stick to the original?” And the director, an excellent Inuit artist who unfortunately died of cancer, uh gave him a perfect answer. He said, “No, you are an European imperialist.” He said because this obsession with authentic original is your European obsession. He said, “In our Inuit tradition, it’s considered normal to change the story to rewrite it again and again for the contemporary occasion.” So I’m a great believer in—no, it's not so much non-authenticity as that’s what I like about if you really look at them about traditional cultures. Like another story which may amuse you, very short one. Years ago I visited New Zealand and I found them contact with some group of painters and first they gave me their authentic bullshit. They later admitted to me it’s just to fascinate Western visitors. They said, “You Western people technologically exploit nature, we are in a
should get rid of this romantic myth of original authentic version. To give you my last example, I think unfortunately I always repeat myself, I also quote it in my introduction. An excellent Inuit—once we call them Eskimos, just so that you know—Inuit film Fast Runner, which stages an ancient Inuit myth, but which in its original version, two tribes or parts of a tribe they kill each other, totally tragic ending. This film has a happy ending, half-happy ending, okay. And then a stupid multiculturalist liberal attacked the director: “Oh you, you fell into Euro—into Hollywood commercialism, why didn’t you stick to the original?” And the director, an excellent Inuit artist who unfortunately died of cancer, uh gave him a perfect answer. He said, “No, you are an European imperialist.” He said because this obsession with authentic original is your European obsession. He said, “In our Inuit tradition, it’s considered normal to change the story to rewrite it again and again for the contemporary occasion.” So I’m a great believer in—no, it's not so much non-authenticity as that’s what I like about if you really look at them about traditional cultures. Like another story which may amuse you, very short one. Years ago I visited New Zealand and I found them contact with some group of painters and first they gave me their authentic bullshit. They later admitted to me it’s just to fascinate Western visitors. They said, “You Western people technologically exploit nature, we are in a
unknown
dialogue with nature. Before we paint a mountain, we ask the mountain for permission”
dialogue with nature. Before we paint a mountain, we ask the mountain for permission”
Slavoj Žižek
and so on. Okay, a week afterwards we
and so on. Okay, a week afterwards we
unknown
become friends and they told me the truth: “Yeah, yeah, you ask the
become friends and they told me the truth: “Yeah, yeah, you ask the
unknown
mountain but you ask especially your representative in New York who tells you what’s fashionable.” And they told me at that point the
mountain but you ask especially your representative in New York who tells you what’s fashionable.” And they told me at that point the
Slavoj Žižek
fashionable thing was sacred objects, old temples in ruins with here and there a naked feminine body, no? And they told me with wonderful irony, they took care that this is what the mountain told them, you know. And I told them, “No, we are not non-authentic, don't, don't.” You have—just for—I hate, they also too, they hate white people, even some American Indians, Native
fashionable thing was sacred objects, old temples in ruins with here and there a naked feminine body, no? And they told me with wonderful irony, they took care that this is what the mountain told them, you know. And I told them, “No, we are not non-authentic, don't, don't.” You have—just for—I hate, they also too, they hate white people, even some American Indians, Native
unknown
Americans told me this when I visited them in Missoula, Montana. Uh that they hate— Slavoj,
Americans told me this when I visited them in Missoula, Montana. Uh that they hate— Slavoj,
Slavoj Žižek
you hit the microphone. No, just
you hit the microphone. No, just
unknown
okay, I will just finish the
okay, I will just finish the
unknown
sentence. They hate white people who come to them and tell them, “We live the alienated line, consumerist in big cities, you have your authentic modest life.” They said, they always answer them, “Okay let’s change positions, no? Give me your nice Los Angeles villa and you can come to live in my...” No, no, there—there—ich
sentence. They hate white people who come to them and tell them, “We live the alienated line, consumerist in big cities, you have your authentic modest life.” They said, they always answer them, “Okay let’s change positions, no? Give me your nice Los Angeles villa and you can come to live in my...” No, no, there—there—ich
Slavoj Žižek
habe gesprochen. Okay. [Žižek
habe gesprochen. Okay. [Žižek
unknown
responds to audience question] My god, you really despise me. You say this in such a patronizing— No, no, I think I love-hate you for decades by now, it’s all, it's all good. Uh-uh. But I want to hear from you. Yeah, I want— [Interviewer: I will open it for two questions.] Yeah, but can they really tell me in a very naive way, pre-Brechtian even, you actors, where do you stand if you were at a gunpoint? Let's say I'm a really hardline SS or KGB agent, tell you, “Okay, choose.
responds to audience question] My god, you really despise me. You say this in such a patronizing— No, no, I think I love-hate you for decades by now, it’s all, it's all good. Uh-uh. But I want to hear from you. Yeah, I want— [Interviewer: I will open it for two questions.] Yeah, but can they really tell me in a very naive way, pre-Brechtian even, you actors, where do you stand if you were at a gunpoint? Let's say I'm a really hardline SS or KGB agent, tell you, “Okay, choose.
Slavoj Žižek
Which of the three versions?” Do you have a position or are you Antigone-softist nonetheless?
Which of the three versions?” Do you have a position or are you Antigone-softist nonetheless?
unknown
[Interviewer: We had this discussion a lot of times.] Okay, tell me what was the—ah, please. [Žižek: You are, oh, my communist friend,
[Interviewer: We had this discussion a lot of times.] Okay, tell me what was the—ah, please. [Žižek: You are, oh, my communist friend,
Slavoj Žižek
perfectly.] Yeah, because you know that's what I wanted to say, that Creon might be a conformist whatever, but sorry, if he is right in his judgment—we cannot be sure—then it's a really tough decision. Like it's ethical to allow Antigone to do it, but what if hundreds of people will die because of it? I'm not saying how to decide, I’m saying that it’s a serious dilemma.
perfectly.] Yeah, because you know that's what I wanted to say, that Creon might be a conformist whatever, but sorry, if he is right in his judgment—we cannot be sure—then it's a really tough decision. Like it's ethical to allow Antigone to do it, but what if hundreds of people will die because of it? I'm not saying how to decide, I’m saying that it’s a serious dilemma.
unknown
Of course, for me it’s very clear that Antigone is not a—an angel, right? She’s a real bitch, I mean, and I very much like to play this kind of figure. Obviously.
Of course, for me it’s very clear that Antigone is not a—an angel, right? She’s a real bitch, I mean, and I very much like to play this kind of figure. Obviously.
Slavoj Žižek
I hope this works also for you as a person, that you are a bitch and... Okay, sorry. Please. Come on. [unintelligible person
I hope this works also for you as a person, that you are a bitch and... Okay, sorry. Please. Come on. [unintelligible person
unknown
says: As I remember most of us prefer the third ending with the choir and uh I said that I don’t trust the choir. The chorus. Sorry. The chorus uh um yeah because as you said uh he’s also he’s as stupid as all the others. And um so I prefer an ending which is um—]
says: As I remember most of us prefer the third ending with the choir and uh I said that I don’t trust the choir. The chorus. Sorry. The chorus uh um yeah because as you said uh he’s also he’s as stupid as all the others. And um so I prefer an ending which is um—]
Slavoj Žižek
Do you imagine, sorry, a fourth ending maybe? [unintelligible person
Do you imagine, sorry, a fourth ending maybe? [unintelligible person
unknown
continues: A totally endless ending which is a—eine Annäherung.] Ich verstehe, ja, ja. Actually I forgot what
continues: A totally endless ending which is a—eine Annäherung.] Ich verstehe, ja, ja. Actually I forgot what
Slavoj Žižek
I said.
I said.
unknown
Actually I— [Žižek:
Actually I— [Žižek:
unknown
Ich verstehe, ja, ja.] Uh so I don’t believe in the third, I would prefer the third ending uh either. No, but I agree with you because you know where
Ich verstehe, ja, ja.] Uh so I don’t believe in the third, I would prefer the third ending uh either. No, but I agree with you because you know where
Slavoj Žižek
I am careful. I am not saying now they will have a perfect people's democracy after that. Maybe even a worse terror will emerge. I'm not saying it will not. I'm just saying it's an authentic outburst. But like October Revolution also was an authentic outburst and look at what happened in—in years, you know. I'm also, I'm not as naive as may—as it may appear. But you know what’s for me important in this idea of three endings? How often in our actual political life we have a certain opposition portrayed to us by the media, for example, either Western liberalism or some fundamentalism. But what if this opposition is not the real choice? What if this opposition is wrong? I often suspect that the way big struggles today are portrayed by the big media, that they already somehow falsify, obfuscate where the real problem is. For example, very briefly in Vereinigten Staaten, United States today, the big opposition, will Trump prevail, this neo-fascism authoritarian, or democracy? But for me the whole problem is that Trump didn’t fall from the sky. Obviously there was something wrong in this democratic hegemony of the last decades that all of a sudden the space was open for a disgusting figure like Trump. So I think it's not enough to say, of course, against Trump, I am for uh democ—no, one should ask what did we do wrong so that a monster like Trump was possible? That—that would be my ultimate position. Be skeptical about what officially is presented you as the big struggle today.
I am careful. I am not saying now they will have a perfect people's democracy after that. Maybe even a worse terror will emerge. I'm not saying it will not. I'm just saying it's an authentic outburst. But like October Revolution also was an authentic outburst and look at what happened in—in years, you know. I'm also, I'm not as naive as may—as it may appear. But you know what’s for me important in this idea of three endings? How often in our actual political life we have a certain opposition portrayed to us by the media, for example, either Western liberalism or some fundamentalism. But what if this opposition is not the real choice? What if this opposition is wrong? I often suspect that the way big struggles today are portrayed by the big media, that they already somehow falsify, obfuscate where the real problem is. For example, very briefly in Vereinigten Staaten, United States today, the big opposition, will Trump prevail, this neo-fascism authoritarian, or democracy? But for me the whole problem is that Trump didn’t fall from the sky. Obviously there was something wrong in this democratic hegemony of the last decades that all of a sudden the space was open for a disgusting figure like Trump. So I think it's not enough to say, of course, against Trump, I am for uh democ—no, one should ask what did we do wrong so that a monster like Trump was possible? That—that would be my ultimate position. Be skeptical about what officially is presented you as the big struggle today.
unknown
[Audience member: Thank you so much. Um, at first I want to congratulate you. The last—last time I saw you was in HSD, I think it's three years ago, at this Markus Gabriel conference here in Düsseldorf about design or something.
[Audience member: Thank you so much. Um, at first I want to congratulate you. The last—last time I saw you was in HSD, I think it's three years ago, at this Markus Gabriel conference here in Düsseldorf about design or something.
Slavoj Žižek
And back then I wasn't an anarchist and right now, yeah, you convinced me of a more communist stance. And this is my first question actually, because I know thanks to—] Thanks to our play hopefully. [Audience member: Yeah, of course, also because of that. Um, and my first question is: I know there is a new forthcoming
And back then I wasn't an anarchist and right now, yeah, you convinced me of a more communist stance. And this is my first question actually, because I know thanks to—] Thanks to our play hopefully. [Audience member: Yeah, of course, also because of that. Um, and my first question is: I know there is a new forthcoming
unknown
book which is called *For a Left That
book which is called *For a Left That
Slavoj Žižek
Dares to Speak Its Name*. And um I’m actually organized leftist. I was with Yanis Varoufakis in his DiEM25 and I'm also with Die Linke and there's also another group that’s probably the has probably the probably the largest—] Okay, not the whole list, ask the question. [Audience member: Okay, not the whole list. I have actually three questions. But this is the first
Dares to Speak Its Name*. And um I’m actually organized leftist. I was with Yanis Varoufakis in his DiEM25 and I'm also with Die Linke and there's also another group that’s probably the has probably the probably the largest—] Okay, not the whole list, ask the question. [Audience member: Okay, not the whole list. I have actually three questions. But this is the first
unknown
one. So I want to know: do you think because
one. So I want to know: do you think because
Slavoj Žižek
I’m in a struggle arguing with many people, let’s—let’s call it democracy in Europe movement to I don’t know communism in Europe movement or something like that. Do you think it is indispensable to revive the term or can we just you know implement communism without telling without naming it communism?] If you re-ask this question you'll be sitting here for an hour and a half with him. No, but I will try to answer very briefly. [Audience member: But the first my second my other questions, right? Okay. The other question is um uh we consider ourselves accelerationists not in this vulgar sense that we uh we think that capitalism will destroy itself or something but in this sense that yeah people wrote a book or the *Accelerationist Manifesto*, Srnicek and Williams and so on. They want to give more scope to leftist thought and so on think big questions and so on. But they always take recourse on Deleuze and Guattari and mostly on *Anti-Oedipus* and *A Thousand Plateaus*. And I know you don't like this book. So do you think or do you think about reconciling this because this is a huge huge movement on the left that partly yeah has the same objectives like you but has theoretical problems. And the last one is kind of a joke question: I know you wanted to stage *Parsifal* and all the guys would be drug addicts and so on as an opera. Have you done it yet? Will you do it someday? Don’t you want to do it in Düsseldorf please? Thanks.] No, but but okay, very briefly with the last one. Yes, to be before I became a philosopher I dreamt of having been an opera director. And my dream was to take a classical big opera and not in this postmodern way you change everything, just a small change and I think *Parsifal*, I hope you know it, the story, would have worked wonderfully if you put it in some decaying suburb of a big megalopolis and the Grail community is obviously a drug distributing circle, when they distribute Grail they distribute drug. [Interviewer: I think it's called *The Wire*, it's a TV series.] I have problems with that one. But whatever. And then Klingsor is of course a prostitution ring. And it's simply the story is that the guy who runs prostitution wants to take control of drug so—but no look more serious the other two questions. Accelerationism. I have—I will not go into details now, as he said it’s one hour and the half—where I am in some sense accelerationist, it's only in this one. I absolutely don't buy this idea popular in some third world countries that to fight global capitalism we should look—that was the fashionable term when I was younger—local sites of resistance, you know. You find some remainders of a culture there which may—no, I think the Marx—Marx’s basic lesson remains: capitalism may be alienating blah blah blah but only through the zero point of capitalism can we
I’m in a struggle arguing with many people, let’s—let’s call it democracy in Europe movement to I don’t know communism in Europe movement or something like that. Do you think it is indispensable to revive the term or can we just you know implement communism without telling without naming it communism?] If you re-ask this question you'll be sitting here for an hour and a half with him. No, but I will try to answer very briefly. [Audience member: But the first my second my other questions, right? Okay. The other question is um uh we consider ourselves accelerationists not in this vulgar sense that we uh we think that capitalism will destroy itself or something but in this sense that yeah people wrote a book or the *Accelerationist Manifesto*, Srnicek and Williams and so on. They want to give more scope to leftist thought and so on think big questions and so on. But they always take recourse on Deleuze and Guattari and mostly on *Anti-Oedipus* and *A Thousand Plateaus*. And I know you don't like this book. So do you think or do you think about reconciling this because this is a huge huge movement on the left that partly yeah has the same objectives like you but has theoretical problems. And the last one is kind of a joke question: I know you wanted to stage *Parsifal* and all the guys would be drug addicts and so on as an opera. Have you done it yet? Will you do it someday? Don’t you want to do it in Düsseldorf please? Thanks.] No, but but okay, very briefly with the last one. Yes, to be before I became a philosopher I dreamt of having been an opera director. And my dream was to take a classical big opera and not in this postmodern way you change everything, just a small change and I think *Parsifal*, I hope you know it, the story, would have worked wonderfully if you put it in some decaying suburb of a big megalopolis and the Grail community is obviously a drug distributing circle, when they distribute Grail they distribute drug. [Interviewer: I think it's called *The Wire*, it's a TV series.] I have problems with that one. But whatever. And then Klingsor is of course a prostitution ring. And it's simply the story is that the guy who runs prostitution wants to take control of drug so—but no look more serious the other two questions. Accelerationism. I have—I will not go into details now, as he said it’s one hour and the half—where I am in some sense accelerationist, it's only in this one. I absolutely don't buy this idea popular in some third world countries that to fight global capitalism we should look—that was the fashionable term when I was younger—local sites of resistance, you know. You find some remainders of a culture there which may—no, I think the Marx—Marx’s basic lesson remains: capitalism may be alienating blah blah blah but only through the zero point of capitalism can we
unknown
reach, maybe, I’m very
reach, maybe, I’m very
Slavoj Žižek
skeptical, new—new form of freedom. I think that all these local cultures and so on can be perfectly integrated into today’s into today’s global capitalism. But the first question. Communism. You know, I use the term communism first because I want to oppose socialism. Recently, even people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates pronounced themselves socialists
skeptical, new—new form of freedom. I think that all these local cultures and so on can be perfectly integrated into today’s into today’s global capitalism. But the first question. Communism. You know, I use the term communism first because I want to oppose socialism. Recently, even people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates pronounced themselves socialists
unknown
in some sense. Socialism is a worthless term. It means just
in some sense. Socialism is a worthless term. It means just
Slavoj Žižek
I can play my dirty market games, but yeah, I care about people and so on. Why communism? No, I of course I’m not an
I can play my dirty market games, but yeah, I care about people and so on. Why communism? No, I of course I’m not an
unknown
idiot. I know that 20th century communism
idiot. I know that 20th century communism
Slavoj Žižek
it wasn’t simply a fiasco, it’s very tragic story. It had one big triumph, if by communism we mean reign of the
it wasn’t simply a fiasco, it’s very tragic story. It had one big triumph, if by communism we mean reign of the
unknown
Communist
Communist
unknown
Party, it’s China. I don't think very rarely in history of humanity was there in couple of decades such an explosive success. But we should take a lesson in it. How did the Chinese succeed? The 20th century European left hated two things: authoritarian state power and brutal market competition. And the Chinese combined precisely these two. So what
Party, it’s China. I don't think very rarely in history of humanity was there in couple of decades such an explosive success. But we should take a lesson in it. How did the Chinese succeed? The 20th century European left hated two things: authoritarian state power and brutal market competition. And the Chinese combined precisely these two. So what
unknown
I mean is this: the problems we are facing today, not
I mean is this: the problems we are facing today, not
unknown
only these three, there is also uh women’s oppression, all that gay rights and so on, LGBT+, but the one I think are at least appear as most pressing are: ecology,
only these three, there is also uh women’s oppression, all that gay rights and so on, LGBT+, but the one I think are at least appear as most pressing are: ecology,
unknown
then new forms of digital control, I think it’s a crucial struggle today who will control the digital space, and of course mass movements of population fluctuation and so on. And I think all are problems of commons. In the sense nature is our common space, it cannot be left to market and so on, also not to state control. I don’t think this was the Stalinist solution or Chinese try it. It’s the same with digital space, it’s the same with immigrants. It’s that’s why, not because I don’t appreciate immigrants, that’s why I have great
then new forms of digital control, I think it’s a crucial struggle today who will control the digital space, and of course mass movements of population fluctuation and so on. And I think all are problems of commons. In the sense nature is our common space, it cannot be left to market and so on, also not to state control. I don’t think this was the Stalinist solution or Chinese try it. It’s the same with digital space, it’s the same with immigrants. It’s that’s why, not because I don’t appreciate immigrants, that’s why I have great
unknown
mistrust in humanitarianism because it’s not— Slavoj you're becoming an anarchist
mistrust in humanitarianism because it’s not— Slavoj you're becoming an anarchist
unknown
in your
in your
Slavoj Žižek
old
old
unknown
age. No I'm not
age. No I'm not
unknown
that, I'm for stronger international order. If there will come a really strong ecological catastrophe, it simply cannot be solved, it’s clear today, at the level of nation state. We will it's a—okay maybe this is a utopia, but then it's we are lost. Some kind of internationally coordinated movement with some kind of real power is the only which is not controlled neither by nation states nor by international market. I see an absolute urgency in this. And I'm not proposing any model how this will look. And I even admitted that this is a great problem. I mean, I take for example in Venezuela today, it’s an extremely sad story because before it got corrupted, I had connections there, I know. Chávez tried desperately to find some new formula giving factories to workers and so on and so on. Basically it was not just American embargo, it all failed. So if you ask me for whom I am, here and
that, I'm for stronger international order. If there will come a really strong ecological catastrophe, it simply cannot be solved, it’s clear today, at the level of nation state. We will it's a—okay maybe this is a utopia, but then it's we are lost. Some kind of internationally coordinated movement with some kind of real power is the only which is not controlled neither by nation states nor by international market. I see an absolute urgency in this. And I'm not proposing any model how this will look. And I even admitted that this is a great problem. I mean, I take for example in Venezuela today, it’s an extremely sad story because before it got corrupted, I had connections there, I know. Chávez tried desperately to find some new formula giving factories to workers and so on and so on. Basically it was not just American embargo, it all failed. So if you ask me for whom I am, here and
Slavoj Žižek
there there are miracles. Just to conclude, for example Bolivia, Morales and especially Vice President Linera whom I knew. They were doing something, they were not often in newspapers. Look at the economic data. Economy was growing per year. They—they didn't do anything stupid, you know, the usual story of two radical leftists, “Okay, leave them in power for two-three years, they will screw up everything.” The reason they had to do a coup against Morales is that he
there there are miracles. Just to conclude, for example Bolivia, Morales and especially Vice President Linera whom I knew. They were doing something, they were not often in newspapers. Look at the economic data. Economy was growing per year. They—they didn't do anything stupid, you know, the usual story of two radical leftists, “Okay, leave them in power for two-three years, they will screw up everything.” The reason they had to do a coup against Morales is that he
unknown
failed—he didn't fail. He succeeded. So again I'm very modest, I don't have
failed—he didn't fail. He succeeded. So again I'm very modest, I don't have
Slavoj Žižek
simple solution, but I think communism is for me more a negative name: how to deal with these pressing problems of commons. And again the true utopia for me, as I always repeat it, is not, “Oh, what you want it,” the true utopia is that we are not doing so bad and let's carefully stick to what we are doing now, you will somehow survive. No, we will not. Okay, it's getting late people so um what should we say? Three more questions? I would like to give this cheap wisdom pseudo-Zen Buddhism like listen to silence, clap with one hand or whatever. But the lady here, did you raise your hand or did you want to scratch your hair? I always have this semantic opening you know and... [unintelligible person says: It was more of a comment than a question. But when you mentioned the many deaths of Antigone were not and the perpetuation of death through the many lives and the many deaths, I kind of thought of the idea of Mussolini hanging from the Esso station in Milano with his mistress...] Sorry for which station? [unintelligible person says: Esso station in Milano. Mussolini hanging from the Esso station with his mistress.] Ah, yeah. Identity you mean, yeah, yeah. [unintelligible person says: I think it's a great backdrop for that idea and then turning that picture upside down you get a Tifosi in the football making the Wave. Have you realized that? Sorry you get the... the Tifosi. If you turn the picture upside down, you get the image of a Tifosi... making the Wave. La Ola. But is this only football because I know that in American baseball and so on you also get this. But what's your point here, can I just ask you something more? Because you know uh I—I know you probably didn't mean this but I'm always suspicious about those liberal leftist critics who say, “Yes, fascism mass movement, coordinated masses.” But are you aware that Hitler took this from Social Democracy? That originally—oh, oh, oh, I know you will say this, five years more in Gulag, yeah, yeah. No, no, quite seriously that it was part of his fake this idea of, because you know Social Democrats were from the beginning aware of something that my friend Alain Badiou insists on: those in power have arms, police power, what people only have is large number and discipline.] I completely agree with you because I think he was smart enough to make the two main axes, the one of recognition and identity, national identity, cross the one of distribution. You know that whole Polanyi story right now with Nancy Fraser and the two axes, the axis of distribution, acknowledgment, and—and identity. I think Hitler was smart enough to make the two axis— I agree, and when you
simple solution, but I think communism is for me more a negative name: how to deal with these pressing problems of commons. And again the true utopia for me, as I always repeat it, is not, “Oh, what you want it,” the true utopia is that we are not doing so bad and let's carefully stick to what we are doing now, you will somehow survive. No, we will not. Okay, it's getting late people so um what should we say? Three more questions? I would like to give this cheap wisdom pseudo-Zen Buddhism like listen to silence, clap with one hand or whatever. But the lady here, did you raise your hand or did you want to scratch your hair? I always have this semantic opening you know and... [unintelligible person says: It was more of a comment than a question. But when you mentioned the many deaths of Antigone were not and the perpetuation of death through the many lives and the many deaths, I kind of thought of the idea of Mussolini hanging from the Esso station in Milano with his mistress...] Sorry for which station? [unintelligible person says: Esso station in Milano. Mussolini hanging from the Esso station with his mistress.] Ah, yeah. Identity you mean, yeah, yeah. [unintelligible person says: I think it's a great backdrop for that idea and then turning that picture upside down you get a Tifosi in the football making the Wave. Have you realized that? Sorry you get the... the Tifosi. If you turn the picture upside down, you get the image of a Tifosi... making the Wave. La Ola. But is this only football because I know that in American baseball and so on you also get this. But what's your point here, can I just ask you something more? Because you know uh I—I know you probably didn't mean this but I'm always suspicious about those liberal leftist critics who say, “Yes, fascism mass movement, coordinated masses.” But are you aware that Hitler took this from Social Democracy? That originally—oh, oh, oh, I know you will say this, five years more in Gulag, yeah, yeah. No, no, quite seriously that it was part of his fake this idea of, because you know Social Democrats were from the beginning aware of something that my friend Alain Badiou insists on: those in power have arms, police power, what people only have is large number and discipline.] I completely agree with you because I think he was smart enough to make the two main axes, the one of recognition and identity, national identity, cross the one of distribution. You know that whole Polanyi story right now with Nancy Fraser and the two axes, the axis of distribution, acknowledgment, and—and identity. I think Hitler was smart enough to make the two axis— I agree, and when you
unknown
mentioned Nancy Fraser, okay she's closer to Habermas,
mentioned Nancy Fraser, okay she's closer to Habermas,
Slavoj Žižek
I don't agree with her, but she wrote, did you read it, an excellent book criticizing American mainstream feminism. How it got totally— [unintelligible person says: The percent? The new one with the percent?] No, I mean this. For example do you know that the mainstream American feminism supported American invasion of Iraq with the idea it will give greater rights to women. It’s totally the opposite. Saddam was a nightmare, brutal, torturing thousands. But he was a secular nationalist basically who gave pretty strong positions to women nonetheless, as far as anybody except him could have and so on. And so that, so that paradoxically, isn't this a tragedy? Okay, United States easily occupied Iraq. But now the position of women is much worse, the position of... [unintelligible person says: Christians as well, right? Foucault did the same.] Sorry? [unintelligible person says: Foucault did the same.] No, but he did it with Iran. It was later... yeah. But what I want—what I want to say is that is that and uh their problem was like of Saudi Arabia, uh limiting Iranian influence. And the result of American occupation was that now Iran is stronger than ever in Iraq and it's practically taking it over. [unintelligible person says: Which is terrible for Palestinians as well.] Terrible for
I don't agree with her, but she wrote, did you read it, an excellent book criticizing American mainstream feminism. How it got totally— [unintelligible person says: The percent? The new one with the percent?] No, I mean this. For example do you know that the mainstream American feminism supported American invasion of Iraq with the idea it will give greater rights to women. It’s totally the opposite. Saddam was a nightmare, brutal, torturing thousands. But he was a secular nationalist basically who gave pretty strong positions to women nonetheless, as far as anybody except him could have and so on. And so that, so that paradoxically, isn't this a tragedy? Okay, United States easily occupied Iraq. But now the position of women is much worse, the position of... [unintelligible person says: Christians as well, right? Foucault did the same.] Sorry? [unintelligible person says: Foucault did the same.] No, but he did it with Iran. It was later... yeah. But what I want—what I want to say is that is that and uh their problem was like of Saudi Arabia, uh limiting Iranian influence. And the result of American occupation was that now Iran is stronger than ever in Iraq and it's practically taking it over. [unintelligible person says: Which is terrible for Palestinians as well.] Terrible for
unknown
Palestinians and if I may be a
Palestinians and if I may be a
Slavoj Žižek
little bit arrogant here at least only here, we are still friends, a little bit sympathy for Europe. You know what is Trump doing? Listen. How the Syrian crisis was maybe for the time being resolved? Deal between Turkey and Russians. We occupy this part, they that part. Libya now the same. But you know what this means? That Russia together with Turkey will totally control the pipelines, all supply to Europe and will be able to squeeze us at any point. [unintelligible person says: I come from the second world, I'm a Spaniard...] Where? [unintelligible person says: I'm a Spaniard, I'm Spanish. We are an intervened country...] How do you stand to Catalonia? [unintelligible person says: No, no, no, sorry. I don't want—no, no, no, sorry. Very briefly. I
little bit arrogant here at least only here, we are still friends, a little bit sympathy for Europe. You know what is Trump doing? Listen. How the Syrian crisis was maybe for the time being resolved? Deal between Turkey and Russians. We occupy this part, they that part. Libya now the same. But you know what this means? That Russia together with Turkey will totally control the pipelines, all supply to Europe and will be able to squeeze us at any point. [unintelligible person says: I come from the second world, I'm a Spaniard...] Where? [unintelligible person says: I'm a Spaniard, I'm Spanish. We are an intervened country...] How do you stand to Catalonia? [unintelligible person says: No, no, no, sorry. I don't want—no, no, no, sorry. Very briefly. I
unknown
don't want now another
don't want now another
Slavoj Žižek
debate. But I was always for Catalonia till I learned, do you know how high are Putin's investment in... He supports Catalonia independent because Putin supports everything that uh that weakens Europe. Uh, I mean now I touch—okay, I make two caveats. I endorse all your jokes and I tell them to all my friends. That means I...] Also the dirty
debate. But I was always for Catalonia till I learned, do you know how high are Putin's investment in... He supports Catalonia independent because Putin supports everything that uh that weakens Europe. Uh, I mean now I touch—okay, I make two caveats. I endorse all your jokes and I tell them to all my friends. That means I...] Also the dirty
unknown
ones? [unintelligible person says: Also the dirty ones. In Spain you can do that as a woman, I don't know in Germany.] She means she’s a very brave woman these days. [unintelligible person says: Um, I think it's interesting
ones? [unintelligible person says: Also the dirty ones. In Spain you can do that as a woman, I don't know in Germany.] She means she’s a very brave woman these days. [unintelligible person says: Um, I think it's interesting
Slavoj Žižek
that we are revisioning the whole
that we are revisioning the whole
unknown
national structure of Spain through this movement, but we shouldn't forget that the movement in Catalonia was begun by the high bourgeoisie
national structure of Spain through this movement, but we shouldn't forget that the movement in Catalonia was begun by the high bourgeoisie
Slavoj Žižek
and
and
unknown
the nationalists.] Yeah, yeah, my solution is also in
the nationalists.] Yeah, yeah, my solution is also in
Slavoj Žižek
this sense that you know it's not just as simple as honest
this sense that you know it's not just as simple as honest
unknown
independent
independent
Slavoj Žižek
Catalonia. [unintelligible person says: I think Spain is very much like Yugoslavia was, and you have places like Extremadura and middle of Spain that are so, you know, deprived of everything and the Catalonians are behaving like the—the rich...] But they are the rich part. Only Basque are richer and they—they
Catalonia. [unintelligible person says: I think Spain is very much like Yugoslavia was, and you have places like Extremadura and middle of Spain that are so, you know, deprived of everything and the Catalonians are behaving like the—the rich...] But they are the rich part. Only Basque are richer and they—they
unknown
rebel even more at least they did in...
rebel even more at least they did in...
Slavoj Žižek
[unintelligible person says: Some people even coined the term...] We'll have a beer, we'll have a beer afterwards and then we'll discuss. Okay, okay, sorry. Sorry, we— I'm sorry, I would like to go on but we— We have— We said three questions but this was basically ten already. Um, so there is two hands, so let's take those two and then we stop and you discipline
[unintelligible person says: Some people even coined the term...] We'll have a beer, we'll have a beer afterwards and then we'll discuss. Okay, okay, sorry. Sorry, we— I'm sorry, I would like to go on but we— We have— We said three questions but this was basically ten already. Um, so there is two hands, so let's take those two and then we stop and you discipline
unknown
yourself a little bit, okay? [unintelligible person says: Ah, die mit rot und schwarz dann kurz daneben.] Hello. Um, often in your videos you said happiness is not something to uh perceive, and um I know a lot of people who are really, really broken and depression is rising. And how can we defeat capitalism and solve
yourself a little bit, okay? [unintelligible person says: Ah, die mit rot und schwarz dann kurz daneben.] Hello. Um, often in your videos you said happiness is not something to uh perceive, and um I know a lot of people who are really, really broken and depression is rising. And how can we defeat capitalism and solve
Slavoj Žižek
problems like climate change if we are all broken? What do you— Do you mean, sorry, just explanation, you mean broken psychologically or economically? [Audience member: No, psychologically, yeah. Genau. Um, so how do we get out of this? And a lot of people are feeling
problems like climate change if we are all broken? What do you— Do you mean, sorry, just explanation, you mean broken psychologically or economically? [Audience member: No, psychologically, yeah. Genau. Um, so how do we get out of this? And a lot of people are feeling
unknown
like
like
Slavoj Žižek
victims, and if we feel like it uh we don’t have the power to uh fight and um how do we can get out of it?] Okay, this is what they call in TV quizzes a million dollar question, you know. If I—but my main answer would have been that we shouldn't approach the question in these terms you know like as a psychological question. You don't get out of depression by thinking about depression all the time. You must change the terrain, not care about it. To move out of this domain. That’s for me the big problem of today’s
victims, and if we feel like it uh we don’t have the power to uh fight and um how do we can get out of it?] Okay, this is what they call in TV quizzes a million dollar question, you know. If I—but my main answer would have been that we shouldn't approach the question in these terms you know like as a psychological question. You don't get out of depression by thinking about depression all the time. You must change the terrain, not care about it. To move out of this domain. That’s for me the big problem of today’s
unknown
left in such a
left in such a
Slavoj Žižek
subtle way even for example racism, how the middle-class politically correct activists approach it. They like to re—re—reformulate racism as a question of tolerance which is already an ideological operation. All of a sudden it’s not a problem our class differences whatever, but why don’t I tolerate you, then you make a
subtle way even for example racism, how the middle-class politically correct activists approach it. They like to re—re—reformulate racism as a question of tolerance which is already an ideological operation. All of a sudden it’s not a problem our class differences whatever, but why don’t I tolerate you, then you make a
unknown
next pseudo-psychoanalytic step
next pseudo-psychoanalytic step
Slavoj Žižek
because I’m projecting into you some of my traumas and then we are in this suspicious sphere and so on and so on. So I agree with you that uh the pro—this is maybe we cannot offer clear solutions, leftist theorists philosophers today, maybe our main task is to denounce wrong questions, how to formulate a problem in a certain way can precisely enforce the mystification can make it impossible to—to resolve it. That's why for me very naively, I don't idealize him, but Bernie Sanders offers a totally
because I’m projecting into you some of my traumas and then we are in this suspicious sphere and so on and so on. So I agree with you that uh the pro—this is maybe we cannot offer clear solutions, leftist theorists philosophers today, maybe our main task is to denounce wrong questions, how to formulate a problem in a certain way can precisely enforce the mystification can make it impossible to—to resolve it. That's why for me very naively, I don't idealize him, but Bernie Sanders offers a totally
unknown
different approach. He
different approach. He
Slavoj Žižek
doesn’t complain about victimization
doesn’t complain about victimization
unknown
and so on and so on. And
and so on and so on. And
Slavoj Žižek
it’s incredibly sad how now not only Donald Trump of course and his side, but even the majority of the establishment Democratic Party now they are at Bernie
it’s incredibly sad how now not only Donald Trump of course and his side, but even the majority of the establishment Democratic Party now they are at Bernie
unknown
Sanders, you know. And all the progressives, truly progressives, like all those the Squad called by Trump young ladies Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and so on stood for Bernie Sanders. So you know,
Sanders, you know. And all the progressives, truly progressives, like all those the Squad called by Trump young ladies Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and so on stood for Bernie Sanders. So you know,
unknown
problem is resolved for me here
problem is resolved for me here
unknown
by—by changing the terrain, not by getting—by getting stuck into it. Even, but so that you will not think that I simplify things here, that’s what I find, I’ve written
by—by changing the terrain, not by getting—by getting stuck into it. Even, but so that you will not think that I simplify things here, that’s what I find, I’ve written
Slavoj Žižek
about it maybe some of you know the text, so interesting in the figure of Joker from the movie. Some of my friends made a totally wrong
about it maybe some of you know the text, so interesting in the figure of Joker from the movie. Some of my friends made a totally wrong
unknown
leftist reading like Joker is a metaphor of Trump. No, my point was if you compare Joker with Trump it's an insult to Joker, not to—not to Trump. Joker for me in all his madness and so on does something beautiful. He identifies
leftist reading like Joker is a metaphor of Trump. No, my point was if you compare Joker with Trump it's an insult to Joker, not to—not to Trump. Joker for me in all his madness and so on does something beautiful. He identifies
Slavoj Žižek
with his mask. He rejects to play these games, did my mother screw me up, what did I do wrong. Joker is misread as a film of deep
with his mask. He rejects to play these games, did my mother screw me up, what did I do wrong. Joker is misread as a film of deep
unknown
psychological analysis. Let's look what happened to him, what traumas and so on. No, the message is you identify with your mask, you absolutely reject
psychological analysis. Let's look what happened to him, what traumas and so on. No, the message is you identify with your mask, you absolutely reject
Slavoj Žižek
to get caught into this deep roots and so on
to get caught into this deep roots and so on
unknown
and so on. And maybe to conclude with my, one of my intellectual heroes Jacques Lacan. He had the same problem. French were telling me, older ones who knew him, that
and so on. And maybe to conclude with my, one of my intellectual heroes Jacques Lacan. He had the same problem. French were telling me, older ones who knew him, that
unknown
Lacan behaved in public in a very affected typically French way, you know these artificial manners. And then of course as a typical
Lacan behaved in public in a very affected typically French way, you know these artificial manners. And then of course as a typical
unknown
bourgeois subject I was asking all of them, but tell me how was he privately like? Was he more funny, humor? And they told me a wonderful thing: in private he was exactly the same. It was never possible to catch, “Oh, now finally he is a warm human
bourgeois subject I was asking all of them, but tell me how was he privately like? Was he more funny, humor? And they told me a wonderful thing: in private he was exactly the same. It was never possible to catch, “Oh, now finally he is a warm human
Slavoj Žižek
person like us.” I think that all true leftists do something like this. The thing to avoid
person like us.” I think that all true leftists do something like this. The thing to avoid
unknown
absolutely is this, how should I put it, I believe in external fight, not in this deep deep looking into your traumas and so on and so on. So I didn't answer her question I know, but I hope I gave you—you know, sorry to amuse you this is my old
absolutely is this, how should I put it, I believe in external fight, not in this deep deep looking into your traumas and so on and so on. So I didn't answer her question I know, but I hope I gave you—you know, sorry to amuse you this is my old
Slavoj Žižek
joke but when I was young and when the crisis of the left began, you never—leftists were afraid to offer direct answers, you know. Like they never in the ‘60s leftists were still writing books like *Aesthetic Theory*, *Philosophy of Nature*. Then it’s a very subtle change from ‘70s, ‘80s on. Typical leftist books had titles like *Elements for a Future Theory of Aesthetic* or what. You know let’s be careful. And then the story goes on, I'm so sorry we don't have time. In postmodernism, ‘90s, there was a new formula, with horror I discovered that even I followed it: poetic title, explanatory subtitle. Like I'm sorry for a very evil male chauvinist example: *Beat Me Harder Darling: The Motive of Feminine Masochism in 19th Century Poetry*, you know, like this was there, you know. And now I hope we are, I’m absolutely for a return to kind of naivety. No, fuck it, we do economics of capitalism, we do cinema theory or whatever. I think the—the last man. It’s the last—last woman, or last man? I’m not—sorry, I’m myopic that’s why I cannot say what sex it is. [unintelligible person says: Bitté, ja.] Okay, yes, thanks to your talk and to all those interesting questions. [Žižek: When you begin like this you are sharpening your knife.] Please, sorry. Okay. Um, I have two questions. I want to talk about art and culture. And uh you write a piece—you wrote a piece for a theater and you don't let be uh yeah you don't destroy the stage or uh fight against the audience. So uh why do you choose this form of theater? So you spoke about Bertolt Brecht and uh yeah Lehrstück. So uh yeah I go home tonight and think yeah I see something from Slavoj Žižek, and now? So that's my first question: so why do you choose this form? Um my second question is um yeah Donald Trump and I think the President of Ukraine uh come from the TV show. So I use the German words they are in some kinds Schauspieler. And um yeah I ask me is democracy what we do is it something of yeah a piece of a theater? Is democracy something of a big piece for theater? What do you say? Okay let me do it very—very—very briefly. First you said this Brecht and so on. I think we live in very strange times. I forgot her name, but it’s not racism it’s senility again. I forgot her name. There is a cultural theorist of Chinese origins in United States, my god I'm so sorry, who wrote an excellent piece claiming that all this Verfremdung strategy yeah uh by Brecht is now absolutely part of artistic mainstream. You are absolutely not allowed to identify too directly. [Interviewer: That's obvious.] Yeah, so I think that I think that it’s a very common observation, I'm sure without any irony you know it better than me that uh in the last decades this tendency to undermine, to transgress all limits and so on and so on functions is so radicalized in art. For example in England I spoke with a friend of mine a painter who wants to do an exhibition with big Thatcher supporters, Saatchi and Saatchi, Saatchi Gallery. And they told him what, you have just paintings? No today it must be frames without a painting, it must be some statue of Christ in urine, it has to be a dead cow or what. You know that all these uh they are so perfectly incorporated that and also that's why, okay now this will surprise you but maybe it's a good ending. You know some media present today's big conflict as the conflict between on the one hand fanatical conservatives and on the other hand uh these postmodern—no, they are naive, but postmodern ironies you don't take any anything seriously blah blah blah. I say okay but who is who if this totally manipulative ironic attitude is postmodernism, then Donald Trump is the ultimate postmodern president. And if you look at somebody and that's what I liked at him, and Bernie Sanders is an authentic—are they throwing us out or what? [Interviewer: They're laying the law for us but go on.] Ah yeah. No what I say is that Bernie—I like Bernie Sanders because he is, I even know people who know people who know him, three levels of
joke but when I was young and when the crisis of the left began, you never—leftists were afraid to offer direct answers, you know. Like they never in the ‘60s leftists were still writing books like *Aesthetic Theory*, *Philosophy of Nature*. Then it’s a very subtle change from ‘70s, ‘80s on. Typical leftist books had titles like *Elements for a Future Theory of Aesthetic* or what. You know let’s be careful. And then the story goes on, I'm so sorry we don't have time. In postmodernism, ‘90s, there was a new formula, with horror I discovered that even I followed it: poetic title, explanatory subtitle. Like I'm sorry for a very evil male chauvinist example: *Beat Me Harder Darling: The Motive of Feminine Masochism in 19th Century Poetry*, you know, like this was there, you know. And now I hope we are, I’m absolutely for a return to kind of naivety. No, fuck it, we do economics of capitalism, we do cinema theory or whatever. I think the—the last man. It’s the last—last woman, or last man? I’m not—sorry, I’m myopic that’s why I cannot say what sex it is. [unintelligible person says: Bitté, ja.] Okay, yes, thanks to your talk and to all those interesting questions. [Žižek: When you begin like this you are sharpening your knife.] Please, sorry. Okay. Um, I have two questions. I want to talk about art and culture. And uh you write a piece—you wrote a piece for a theater and you don't let be uh yeah you don't destroy the stage or uh fight against the audience. So uh why do you choose this form of theater? So you spoke about Bertolt Brecht and uh yeah Lehrstück. So uh yeah I go home tonight and think yeah I see something from Slavoj Žižek, and now? So that's my first question: so why do you choose this form? Um my second question is um yeah Donald Trump and I think the President of Ukraine uh come from the TV show. So I use the German words they are in some kinds Schauspieler. And um yeah I ask me is democracy what we do is it something of yeah a piece of a theater? Is democracy something of a big piece for theater? What do you say? Okay let me do it very—very—very briefly. First you said this Brecht and so on. I think we live in very strange times. I forgot her name, but it’s not racism it’s senility again. I forgot her name. There is a cultural theorist of Chinese origins in United States, my god I'm so sorry, who wrote an excellent piece claiming that all this Verfremdung strategy yeah uh by Brecht is now absolutely part of artistic mainstream. You are absolutely not allowed to identify too directly. [Interviewer: That's obvious.] Yeah, so I think that I think that it’s a very common observation, I'm sure without any irony you know it better than me that uh in the last decades this tendency to undermine, to transgress all limits and so on and so on functions is so radicalized in art. For example in England I spoke with a friend of mine a painter who wants to do an exhibition with big Thatcher supporters, Saatchi and Saatchi, Saatchi Gallery. And they told him what, you have just paintings? No today it must be frames without a painting, it must be some statue of Christ in urine, it has to be a dead cow or what. You know that all these uh they are so perfectly incorporated that and also that's why, okay now this will surprise you but maybe it's a good ending. You know some media present today's big conflict as the conflict between on the one hand fanatical conservatives and on the other hand uh these postmodern—no, they are naive, but postmodern ironies you don't take any anything seriously blah blah blah. I say okay but who is who if this totally manipulative ironic attitude is postmodernism, then Donald Trump is the ultimate postmodern president. And if you look at somebody and that's what I liked at him, and Bernie Sanders is an authentic—are they throwing us out or what? [Interviewer: They're laying the law for us but go on.] Ah yeah. No what I say is that Bernie—I like Bernie Sanders because he is, I even know people who know people who know him, three levels of
Stephen Kotkin
separation,
separation,
Slavoj Žižek
degrees, that he is a very naive moralist. He takes himself as “I am the true moral majority.” And as a leftist I
degrees, that he is a very naive moralist. He takes himself as “I am the true moral majority.” And as a leftist I
Stephen Kotkin
am tempted to do I'm tempted to do this.
am tempted to do I'm tempted to do this.
Slavoj Žižek
Uh another thing when sorry what was your—ah
Uh another thing when sorry what was your—ah
Stephen Kotkin
yeah, Trump and so on. I think this is part of a larger movement. Is it übersetzt ins Deutsche this Angela, Angela Nagle book *Kill All Normies*? Yes, I advise you to read it. It’s a very interesting book for which she was almost excommunicated, where she describes this reversal. At least years ago when I was young uh you know the official right, those in power, spoke the language of patriotism, dignity, respect. And leftist students were doing thing like this, F-word and so on, we are subverting power. But now it’s this is the horror of the so-called alt-right, alternative right, they fully appropriated these obscenities. They are the only ones who are making dirty jokes and so on. And the tragedy is that the path, the
yeah, Trump and so on. I think this is part of a larger movement. Is it übersetzt ins Deutsche this Angela, Angela Nagle book *Kill All Normies*? Yes, I advise you to read it. It’s a very interesting book for which she was almost excommunicated, where she describes this reversal. At least years ago when I was young uh you know the official right, those in power, spoke the language of patriotism, dignity, respect. And leftist students were doing thing like this, F-word and so on, we are subverting power. But now it’s this is the horror of the so-called alt-right, alternative right, they fully appropriated these obscenities. They are the only ones who are making dirty jokes and so on. And the tragedy is that the path, the
Slavoj Žižek
way to fight this chosen by the left is this uh politically correct moralism against hate speech. I am against hate speech but I think if you play this legalistic way of trying to of trying to regulate it, even for example many of my friends who are definitely leftists, I once was almost arrested for a dirty joke. People in the hall called— I think that when politics is moralized in this way it's—it's very dangerous. It means that you don't really have a positive—a positive vision and so on and so on. I’m—I’m a—I’m a—I'm a pessimist here. I'm a pessimist here because that's the tragedy. Trump is not just a guy who miraculously manipulated uh ordinary people and so on. Don't, don't despise Trump supporters. They are desperate people, they clearly felt excluded in the sense that the democratic hegemony predominant didn't address their troubles. And so this is why I think that the only way, at least in the United States, for the return of the left is not what Joe Biden is doing: to try to occupy the middle ground, we shouldn’t go too much to the left but more moderate. No, it’s to directly address those impoverished, desperate white people who now vote for Trump. It's a very difficult operation. So I think the but you know what also surprises me, that’s Trump at its purest. First the incredible obscenity of Trump. Did you read it happened a month or two ago, we always think Trump went to the end but then he goes a step further. He is in conflict with some lady FBI agent and some of her erotic conversations on phone became I don't know how public with her lover. And you can immediately found it on YouTube. You get Trump for two minutes among in front of thousands of people imitating her having orgasm and so on. Everybody thought now Trump is ruined, it’s not. But then this vulgarization is common. Did you read it a week ago I read, you know the actress Gwyneth Paltrow? You know what she did? Did you read it? She put on market a candle and it's not— [unintelligible person says: Smells like my vagina.] Yeah, it's not implied, it says openly “the smoke smells like my vagina.” I mean, here I'm a kind of a leftist moral conservative. [Interviewer: Antigone leftist moralism uh conservatism, that's maybe a good ending. Thank you very much.] Another thing if you let me. Wait a minute, I didn't happen even my—if by conservatism we mean ordinary people today who simply want some kind of basic decency and so on, we should not be afraid to tell them no, in this bad sense, the true obscene revolutionaries are are are are are these like Trump-like postmodern conservatives. We, the left, are the true authentic conservative if you're worried about lack of dissolution of solidarity and so on, we should occupy that terrain. Not and get out of this logic of minority. We should protect some tiny marginal movement and so on. Of course we should do this, but don't be afraid to really say to this simply worried confused majority, “We are with you.” [Interviewer: That solidarity is still the singular word of politics and speaking for the Agora or with the Agora as a company that is based on solidarity in a basis demokratisch organisiert, I think this is a good company. No?] Someone told me yesterday, yeah basis-democracy, but yesterday you still met with the Prime Minister of that part of Belgium you know. But I have nothing against it. One should be brutally pragmatic here. I
way to fight this chosen by the left is this uh politically correct moralism against hate speech. I am against hate speech but I think if you play this legalistic way of trying to of trying to regulate it, even for example many of my friends who are definitely leftists, I once was almost arrested for a dirty joke. People in the hall called— I think that when politics is moralized in this way it's—it's very dangerous. It means that you don't really have a positive—a positive vision and so on and so on. I’m—I’m a—I’m a—I'm a pessimist here. I'm a pessimist here because that's the tragedy. Trump is not just a guy who miraculously manipulated uh ordinary people and so on. Don't, don't despise Trump supporters. They are desperate people, they clearly felt excluded in the sense that the democratic hegemony predominant didn't address their troubles. And so this is why I think that the only way, at least in the United States, for the return of the left is not what Joe Biden is doing: to try to occupy the middle ground, we shouldn’t go too much to the left but more moderate. No, it’s to directly address those impoverished, desperate white people who now vote for Trump. It's a very difficult operation. So I think the but you know what also surprises me, that’s Trump at its purest. First the incredible obscenity of Trump. Did you read it happened a month or two ago, we always think Trump went to the end but then he goes a step further. He is in conflict with some lady FBI agent and some of her erotic conversations on phone became I don't know how public with her lover. And you can immediately found it on YouTube. You get Trump for two minutes among in front of thousands of people imitating her having orgasm and so on. Everybody thought now Trump is ruined, it’s not. But then this vulgarization is common. Did you read it a week ago I read, you know the actress Gwyneth Paltrow? You know what she did? Did you read it? She put on market a candle and it's not— [unintelligible person says: Smells like my vagina.] Yeah, it's not implied, it says openly “the smoke smells like my vagina.” I mean, here I'm a kind of a leftist moral conservative. [Interviewer: Antigone leftist moralism uh conservatism, that's maybe a good ending. Thank you very much.] Another thing if you let me. Wait a minute, I didn't happen even my—if by conservatism we mean ordinary people today who simply want some kind of basic decency and so on, we should not be afraid to tell them no, in this bad sense, the true obscene revolutionaries are are are are are these like Trump-like postmodern conservatives. We, the left, are the true authentic conservative if you're worried about lack of dissolution of solidarity and so on, we should occupy that terrain. Not and get out of this logic of minority. We should protect some tiny marginal movement and so on. Of course we should do this, but don't be afraid to really say to this simply worried confused majority, “We are with you.” [Interviewer: That solidarity is still the singular word of politics and speaking for the Agora or with the Agora as a company that is based on solidarity in a basis demokratisch organisiert, I think this is a good company. No?] Someone told me yesterday, yeah basis-democracy, but yesterday you still met with the Prime Minister of that part of Belgium you know. But I have nothing against it. One should be brutally pragmatic here. I
unknown
agree.
agree.
Slavoj Žižek
Tausend Dank.
Tausend Dank.