The Last Temptation of Slavoj Zizek

Continuing the Tuesday session...

Frankenstein

"Many people have remarked upon parallels between Bible Book of Genesis and Mary Shelley Frankenstein - in both cases you have non-sexual creation of life, subsequent creation of bride, creation escaping control of creator, and so on. But there is contradiction here - between this reading, and "promethean" reading - as you know, subtitle of Frankenstein is "Modern Prometheus" - and here idea is of course rebellion against God."

"Now again, this relates back to Chesterton "Man Who Was Thursday" idea that God himself is supreme criminal, in rebellion against himself - and this is why it is always very ironic when Conservative Christians, say things like, "Oh, we must not play God, things will get out of control" - but this is exactly what happened with God himself!

"Now, writer of Frankenstein was Mary Shelley - of course, wife of Percy Shelley - and by the way, [deep breath] I have to say: I despise all these fake feminist readings of Frankenstein where critic says, idea of Frankenstein, it was written against Percy - because you know there is letter written by Mary Shelley after marrying Percy in which she describes Percy gaze and then same passage later is in Frankenstein, used as description for gaze of monster - tell me why, there is this idea, that in literary couples, man is always obscene extreme penetrating phallogocentric - you know, they should try rehabilitating Nietzsche's sister, if they dare - then I would respect them!"

"But anyway [Zizek regains his train of thought] - my point was - Percy is author of probably greatest political poem in English language, "Mask of Anarchy" - which he wrote after British government massacre - and with regard back to Chesterton point, that anarchists are already power, my point is that Percy already realized this. As he puts it:

O'er fields and towns, from sea to sea,
Passed the Pageant swift and free,
Tearing up, and trampling down;
Till they came to London town.

And each dweller, panic-stricken,
Felt his heart with terror sicken
Hearing the tempestuous cry
Of the triumph of Anarchy.

For with pomp to meet him came,
Clothed in arms like blood and flame,
The hired murderers, who did sing
'Thou art God, and Law, and King."

Foucault in Tehran



"Just like Heidegger with Nazis, Foucault has been heavily criticized for supposed lapse, error in his thought, over his engagement with Iranian revolution. But again, my thought here is that - just like Heidegger - he did the right thing, only again, in wrong direction."

"In his Iran writings, key Foucauldian term is enthusiasm, which he takes from Kant writings on French Revolution, but turns around - original Kant idea was that political enthusiasm is property not of empirical event itself, but rather of sublme image of event - so that true French Revolution meant for him hopes aroused by French Revolution in gaze of observers."

"Now the problem with this would be that it is basically endless, we can play crazy games with it - it can work with French Revolution, the Iranian Revolution, Stalinism, Maoist Cultural Revolution - even Nazism! Which is why, incidentally, with regard to Latin America, where I think there might be something like this happening now with foreign leftists, I am tempted to turn around, and say, "Screw Chavez!""

"In any case, though - in his Iranian revolution writings, Foucault inverts Kant, he says that enthusiasm is totally contained within empirical situation, it has nothing to do with sublime image, is even opposed to this, to cold gaze of observers who Foucault claims cannot understand it at all, he says, "the man in revolt is ultimately inexplicable.""

"This is first Foucault position on Iranian revolution - that it is something totally new, and that this is something that outsiders cannot grasp."

"But Foucault then a little later withdraws from this position - effectively, what he does is to transpose the split between outside sublime image and immanent empirical scene into revolting subjects themselves: the distinction Foucault draws here is between revolt and revolution, in which former is pure event, and latter is moment of cynical reinscription of event back into realpolitik - he says things now like Iranian mullahs themselves did not really grasp the pure event."

"But this is not all - Foucault then goes to third position, where he withdraws even further. Now he claims that the enthusiasm driving the pure event in the first place was driven by reactionary factor - anti-feminism, chauvinism, xenophobic nationalism, anti-semitism, and so on - with his conclusion here basically that you need all of this historical shit in order to sustain enthusiasm, it is ultimately necessary."

"So you the see the logic here - three withdrawals. First, Foucault claims is event is absolutely new, and that whatever reactionary aspect it might seem to have belongs entirely to outside subjective perceptions. Then he says, in fact, split between new aspect and reactionary aspect inherent in event itself, but that the pure event comes first. Then, he withdraws even further, and says that actually it was reactionary aspect that came first, which generated event in the first place."

"So you see the point here - and it is charge very often levelled against Badiou, but unfairly in his case, that criteria of Badiou mean that Nazism is event - this is actually not true of Badiou, but it is, I think true of Foucault - what Foucault theorizes with Iranian Revolution applies exactly to Nazism!"

Capitalism, and the Indestructibility thereof

"I was debate in New York recently with Simon Critchley, and it was good, productive debate - no irony intended here - and question came up, "Do you believe that Capitalism is indestructible?" And Critchley answered that yes, ultimately he did."

"Now - point here is not, "Oh, Critchley is traitor!" - though after revolution, of course, we will have to have him shot - but rather that there is this aspect to capitalism, that it does present itself as indestructible - because it is basically undead - and this, of course, was Marx's point when he compared capital to a a vampire, and so on."

"Marx thought that capitalism was essentially liberating, dynamic force, but only that it met limit with capital itself which made it turn backwards on itself, and so theory was, we abolish capital, and then we would just get pure dynamic."

"The irony of this is that this basically what happened, though in an inverted way, with really existing socialism - in effect, it acted during cold war as limit to pure unconstrained capitalism, but then was eventually destroyed by globalizing world economy, which it could not match in terms of production."

Repeating Thatcher

"In Britain, Tony Blair has repeated Thatcher in the same way that Augustus repeated Caesar - by elevating what was with her just pure contingency and pragmatic decisions, into concept of Thatcherism.

"The lesson of this is that, to be a proper capitalist in the West today - as opposed to just a contingent capitalist who really only supports particular capitalist interests, old aristocratic establishment and so on - one has to be a third way social democrat, like Blair in the UK, or like Clinton was in USA. Similarly, in China rapid capitalist expansion demands authoritarian state - if the CCP was to fall, China would collapse. Tiananmen Square basically was a blessing for global capitalism."

"My own view is that as leftists, we need to appreciate Blair and Clinton for what they are, what they have done - in essence, what they represent the best that the existing system has to offer."

The Dictatorship of the Proleteriat

"When I say dicatorship of the proleteriat, what I mean is basically non-representative functioning of poltics, the aspect of state power that is irreducibly dictatorial, the unconditional premise that frames all political discourse. For example, in talking about the role of state, the underlying question is, "what is the state?" And actually, I think this is one of the things that is very positive about Chavez in Venezuela, the fact that this has been made very conscious."

"On the level of dictatorship, it is not just a question of shifting particular positions, but more radically one of competing universal visions - not just the struggle within the frame, but the struggle for the frame itself. What I mean by proleteriat is basically what people like Badiou and Ranciere are talking about in France - the non-represented, excluded part that precisely because it is excluded, stands for universality as such..."

"Professor Zizek," a woman abrasively calls out from the audience, "Will you be answering questions?"

Another voice, somewhere: "That's a meta-question!"

Zizek: "Well, it sounds like you have one, so you may as well ask it..."

The woman winds up and plunges into her mad polemic:

"You are wrong about Israel, you are wrong about everything, all you do is criticize, you are the very embodiment of everything you criticize, you have no positive program, you are the very embodiment of everything you criticize!"

Zizek: "Now, wait a minute - I do not accept this idea that one cannot criticize without adding at the end some nice little light-at-the-end-of-tunnel happy ending. Furthermore," Zizek spies the opening for his trademark sucker-punch, "Have you not now caught yourself in your own trap, because you are not advancing positive vision either, you are just criticizing my lack..."

"Yes, but I'm not the one on stage!"

"What?"

"I'm not the one on stage."

"Well, yes, okay - this is true, but nonetheless I do not think my duty as a philosopher is to give you program, but rather to try and show you where the problem is."