Zizek on violence

[Blackscare]

This is an extremely interesting interview where he outlines his definition of violence, the role it plays it society, etc. His idea of "violence" includes subjective and objective violence, subjective violence being the direct acts of mugging, police brutality, riots, what have you. The other form is more insidious, it refers to the socio-economic conditions that people live under (this can take many forms, which he elaborates upon later into the talk).

While this idea may seem like old news to any socialist (that crime and social problems are caused by economic factors), the way in which Zizek applies these ideas to myriad historical and modern examples is genius.

I didn't do a good job describing this because it covers so much more than what I describe. I couldn't just pull out one example to talk about because it would lack context, so forgive me. :D


Anyway, here it is. I'd like to hear what you guys think of his conclusions. Every segment has sort of a major topic so feel free to comment if you haven't finished it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VYw9V02oyk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Oeu4bXp-rk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjazIHG3UQE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xosFjuWpZk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCdbTlpf8Go

[Blackscare]

Before this is moved to philosophy, I'd like to say that what he talks about is applied to the tactics and character of today's left in the interview. I believe what he's talking about has value as socialist/Marxist/leftist theory of action and understanding the larger social context that we as leftists operate within.

[JimmyJazz]

He is a windbag, but he's an eloquent windbag. :) Also I think he snorted a few lines of coke before doing this interview.

Can someone who is more familiar with a Slovene accent tell me, does he also have a lisp?

What he says in the first video, about how the decentralized violence of capitalism appears as a "natural catastrophe", is spot on and a pretty important point to make. Some conservative writers, in the tradition of Malthus, have explicitly played on this in their defenses of capitalism.

If you're thinking about watching it, there are a few lulzy moments to lighten it up: "there is a direct line from Plato to NATO" and "every stupid American schoolchild knows that Martin Luther King had a dream, but they don't know what that dream was."

[Blackscare]

Also, "I am totally misanthropic, I don't want to understand everyone. I believe 95% of people are stupid idiots."

[jake williams]

I love the man so much. Sure he's a total whacko, but he also blows my mind constantly - he has very real insights, and while his total lack of inhibitions somewhat clash with his insistence on civility and politeness, he's nevertheless worth listening to and thinking about.

[Blackscare]

I love the man so much. Sure he's a total whacko, but he also blows my mind constantly - he has very real insights, and while his total lack of inhibitions somewhat clash with his insistence on civility and politeness, he's nevertheless worth listening to and thinking about.


True, but he also argues that over politeness and PC especially are damaging. So I'm not too sure where he stands exactly, except that I think he thinks that people show grow thicker skin and stop with the tolerance bullshit. (if you haven't listened/read what he thinks of tolerance that'll sound racist I suppose, but his definition is quite different than yours probably. So don't jump down my throat anyone :D)

[jake williams]

True, but he also argues that over politeness and PC especially are damaging. So I'm not too sure where he stands exactly, except that I think he thinks that people show grow thicker skin and stop with the tolerance bullshit. (if you haven't listened/read what he thinks of tolerance that'll sound racist I suppose, but his definition is quite different than yours probably. So don't jump down my throat anyone :D)
Basically I don't think he's that consistent. He's still a genius.

[Janine Melnitz]

I love how his copy and paste method extends to extemporaneous conversation: he pulls out his Fukuyama bit for the ten thousandth time and goes "Aren't we all -- how should I put it -- Fukuyamaists?" That "how should I put it", present in every single iteration of this bit since 2001, every time presented as if he's just grasping for a phrase on the spot, and apologizing for its homely clumsiness.

[Janine Melnitz]

In light of probable deletion it's probably stupid responding, but:

I think this idea that earlier political moves or this and that totally negate the validity of people's ideas is absurd. For one, he makes it clear in Zizek! that he's "ashamed" (or a similar term, you get the idea) of the liberal leanings he had in his early days in contrast to his more radical stances now.
The examples I linked to were written well after Zizek! came out. Also, he (cutely, always cutely) specified in that film that the "liberalism" he was embarrassed by was "we should all understand each other's differences, blah blah" and not "NATO should bomb Yugoslavia" (a position that's "changed" over the years from "I definitely support the bombing (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Elnp3/mydocs/modernism/Henwood_Zizek.htm)" to "The bombing was humanitarian, but its legal implications are unfortunate".)

The fact that someone can critique the leftist movement from within, without having some dogmatic party line to tow that can be attacked seems to infuriate many leftists.
No: the fact that someone only critiques the left, expressing his opposition to the right merely as "Of course I don't like them" (while vocally supporting rightist policies), along with the fact that that these "critiques" are either obviously true (seriously, what leftist, as opposed to liberal, thinks his point about "tolerance" above is news?) or amount to simple dismissal (as "vulgar", "naive", "utopian" etc.) -- this makes him useless, not infuriating (if I were infuriated I wouldn't have bothered watching those videos -- dude's entertaining).

In a similar way it is irrelevant what Zizek's early political stances were in Slovenia, and to ignore his philosophical work now because of events back then is stupid.
I don't; I said his politics are shit, and consistently so, past and present. This seems a relevant point to make in a thread posted to the "theory" board about Zizek's politics (and I specifically said (part of) why I think the videos themselves are dubious).

And in response to his copy and paste methods, I've noticed that too. I don't see it as a big deal though
Dude me neither; I said "love" and meant it.

[black magick hustla]

marxists should stop entertaining themselves with philosophers for we wish to destroy philosophy.

[Janine Melnitz]

marxists should stop entertaining themselves with philosophers for we wish to destroy philosophy.
We do? According to whom? Anyway one hopes the revolution will leave us room to entertain ourselves however the fuck we want.

Fair enough, but if you're saying that he doesn't attack the right then you haven't been listening to the same Zizek as I have. His work on ideology deals a lot with the madness and sinister nature of capitalism.
His stuff on ideology is interesting, but what you call "mad" and "sinister" is pretty weak tea. Apparently "we" are suffering from a superego imperative to enjoy, which I guess sounds quite hellish to those who haven't suffered from untreated medical problems or NATO bombings. Which "we" is he talking about? Or to?

http://www.lrb.co.uk/webonly/14/11/2008/zize01_.html (never mind the mushy Obama crap in the first few paragraphs, it gets good and he ties in his celebration of Obama's victory with the topic of using illusions quite well anyway :D)
That is a pretty good article! All the good bits, though, are notably the sort of "facts" that Zizek criticizes boring old Chomsky for focusing on. Unlike Chomsky, Zizek did not do any work to unearth these facts, but I give him props for using his rOcK StAR status to present them to the liberal bourgie readership of the LRB (for whom a lot of it may legitimately be news).

You can genuinely be a leftist and see enough wrong with it as it is today to decide that providing a leftist critical analysis of the leftist movement is a better thing to dedicate your time to than attacking the right (something there are already droves or people lined up to do anyway). Zizek plays a specific role for leftists, critical self analysis.
Is he talking to any leftist movement at all? In which venues is he disowning the "vulgar", "utopian", "naive" Marxists? To whom is he speaking?

[black magick hustla]

"We do? According to whom? Anyway one hopes the revolution will leave us room to entertain ourselves however the fuck we want."
According to Marx. Of course you can entertain yourself with windbags and toothfaries and pies in the sky but philosophical theology should not inform your political persuation.

[Janine Melnitz]

"We do? According to whom? Anyway one hopes the revolution will leave us room to entertain ourselves however the fuck we want."
According to Marx.
Give me the quote.

Of course you can entertain yourself with windbags and toothfaries and pies in the sky
You clearly said that we shouldn't! Now I don't know what to do! :crying:

but philosophical theology should not inform your political persuation.
This is a whole new, completely different prohibition!! I sure am confused, mister.

[black magick hustla]

Give me the quote.


'One has to “leave philosophy aside” one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality, for which there exists also an enormous amount of literary material, unknown, of course, to the philosophers. When, after that, one again encounters people like Krummacher or “Stirner”, one finds that one has long ago left them “behind” and below. Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as onanism and sexual love. Saint Sancho, who in spite of his absence of thought — which was noted by us patiently and by him emphatically — remains within the world of pure thoughts, can, of course, save himself from it only by means of a moral postulate, the postulate of “thoughtlessness”'


You clearly said that we shouldn't! Now I don't know what to do! :crying:

it was hyperbole.


This is a whole new, completely different prohibition!! I sure am confused, mister.
It is not really that confusing. By "entertained" I meant not to be taken seriously. Again, you can amuse yourself with toothfaries but basing a political leaning on that is basing it on either fantasy or nonsense.

[Janine Melnitz]

'One has to “leave philosophy aside”

we wish to destroy philosophy
Again, pretty different things. Maybe you're an idiot?

The famous quote about onanism is still funny but I don't think Marx seriously wanted to abolish jerkin' it.

[black magick hustla]

well now you are trollin so go to hell and consider this a verbal warn for trolling.

[Blackscare]

*sigh* I'd like it if you both took this squabble out of my thread, actually. Either it pertains to the ideas on the videos above, or it's trash (Including my post earlier where I defend Zizek, because this thread isn't about defending him. For that reason I'm going to delete that post.) I'd be thankful to any mod that could re-purge this thread so that hopefully we could get back on topic, or I should say *start* to get on topic at all lol.

[Adam KH]

It'd be easier to take his ideas seriously if he didn't write catalogs for Abercrombie & Fitch.

[Blackscare]

It'd be easier to take his ideas seriously if he didn't write catalogs for Abercrombie & Fitch.

What?

[Adam KH]

Surprising, isn't it?


Zizek has won himself such a broad audience that he was approached by Abercrombie and Fitch to write copy for its unashamedly homoerotic clothing catalogue. You might balk at the idea of a Marxist philosopher selling polo shirts, but Zizek understood it as only the next facet of his at best pluralist, at worst contradictory, career. So, next to a Bruce Weber photograph of two hunks in bed with a blonde, we get this: "Does this constellation not merely explicate the fact that, while a man cheats his feminine partner with another real woman, a woman can cheat a man even if she makes love only with him, since her pleasure is never fully contained in enjoying him?"

This is from yale daily news, but apparently I can't share any links with you until my next post. Google "zizek abercrombie".

[Blackscare]

ahahaa I looked it up. It doesn't bother me at all actually :laugh:


''You've got me there. I spent literally 10 minutes on this assignment, just free-associating. I was in theoretical despair!''


''If I were asked to choose between doing things like this to earn money and becoming fully employed as an American academic, kissing [EXPLETIVE] to get a tenured post,'' he growled, ''I would with pleasure choose writing for such journals!''


But anyway, this is yet another thing that has nothing to with the topics discussed in the video. Bah, whatever, there's been like one valid post anyway. I'd trash this myself if I had the power at this point :crying:

[bretty]

I liked the fact that he brought up the MLK topic, a similar situation happened with Malcolm X to a degree.

I think I agreed with a lot of the insights he made, however I don't think I agree with his take on what current leftists feel. I thought that was generalizing a bit, however being a student I do feel he was on the mark, with a lot of 'leftists', suggesting that a lot of them are complacent about capitalism and just want it to be more friendly opposed to an objection to the system altogether.

The Fukuyama part, I feel is a bit harsh as well. I often see people discussing historical contexts and he made it seem like that doesn't happen anymore in 'leftist' dialogue.

Thoughts?

[Captain Shiny Sides]

Also, "I am totally misanthropic, I don't want to understand everyone. I believe 95% of people are stupid idiots."

God damn I love Žižek, lol. :D

[jake williams]

I love how his copy and paste method extends to extemporaneous conversation
The dude speaks like 8 languages. You'd use the same wording over and over again too.