Was Neruda a rapist?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Okay, I am currently reading "Living in The End Times" by Slavoj Zizek.Zizek mentions a story related by the great Chilean poet Pablo Neruda in his Memoirs that when he was Chilean consul to Sri Lanka he raped a woman. Neruda doesn't actually say "rape". apparently some place where he lived did not have an indoor bathroom. Instead was an outhouse. Every morning Neruda would watch a "lower caste" Tamil woman empty the previous day's shit. Neruda admired the woman. Early one morning Neruda "had his way" with her. The way its described it sounds like rape. Zizek assumes that it was.

The interesting and odd thing is that Zizek uses this incident to make a somewhat complex philosophical point about the embededness and hypocrisy of liberalism.

It ocurred to me that Zizek himself is having a bizarre, somewhat tasteless joke at or with his readers.

Anyway I am disappointed. I like Neruda, after seeing the classic film Il Postono I went on a Neruda binge for a while, his General Cantos are great. Was the guy a rapist? Am I naive?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Okay, I am currently reading "Living in The End Times" by Slavoj Zizek.Zizek mentions a story related by the great Chilean poet Pablo Neruda in his Memoirs that when he was Chilean consul to Sri Lanka he raped a woman. Neruda doesn't actually say "rape". apparently some place where he lived did not have an indoor bathroom. Instead was an outhouse. Every morning Neruda would watch a "lower caste" Tamil woman empty the previous day's shit. Neruda admired the woman. Early one morning Neruda "had his way" with her. The way its described it sounds like rape. Zizek assumes that it was.

The interesting and odd thing is that Zizek uses this incident to make a somewhat complex philosophical point about the embededness and hypocrisy of liberalism.

It ocurred to me that Zizek himself is having a bizarre, somewhat tasteless joke at or with his readers.

Anyway I am disappointed. I like Neruda, after seeing the classic film Il Postono I went on a Neruda binge for a while, his General Cantos are great. Was the guy a rapist? Am I naive?


Did Zizek exclude all possibilities that the sexual act inn question was consensual? Was Zizek able to exclude the possibility of a commercial sexual transaction? While this possibility would not have been Neruda's finest Communist moment it would at least not have been rape. Rape is an ugly thing to happen to a woman but also an ugly charge against a potentially innocent long-deceased man. Pablo Neruda was a life-long Communist and supporter of socialism for Chile. Given Neruda's history as a comrade and the gravity of the charges, I respectfully request the production of any evidence to support a rape charge.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't see how the actions of one guy illustrate some kind of point regarding liberalism, but whatever. I guess it is Zizek, soooo...

[Eleutheromaniac]

Okay, I am currently reading "Living in The End Times" by Slavoj Zizek.Zizek mentions a story related by the great Chilean poet Pablo Neruda in his Memoirs that when he was Chilean consul to Sri Lanka he raped a woman. Neruda doesn't actually say "rape". apparently some place where he lived did not have an indoor bathroom. Instead was an outhouse. Every morning Neruda would watch a "lower caste" Tamil woman empty the previous day's shit. Neruda admired the woman. Early one morning Neruda "had his way" with her. The way its described it sounds like rape. Zizek assumes that it was.

The interesting and odd thing is that Zizek uses this incident to make a somewhat complex philosophical point about the embededness and hypocrisy of liberalism.

It ocurred to me that Zizek himself is having a bizarre, somewhat tasteless joke at or with his readers.

Anyway I am disappointed. I like Neruda, after seeing the classic film Il Postono I went on a Neruda binge for a while, his General Cantos are great. Was the guy a rapist? Am I naive?

This would surprise me if it came from someone other than Žižek. It is very possible that this happened. I assume it's a confession. He considered that the love that the narrator (Neruda) had for the woman was part of the fundamental paradox that they deal with shit and are considered shit.

"Protestantism, finally, posits the relationship as real, conceiving Christ as a God who, in his act of Incarnation, freely identified Himself with His own shit, with the excremental real that is man – and it is only at this level that the properly Christian notion of divine love can be apprehended, as the love for the miserable excremental entity called "man."

Neruda wasn't religious, but it points to blind faith of man. Man worships himself but has an innate love for lack of self-worth. That manifests itself when he rapes the woman and regrets it. That's what I got from it at least.

[Eleutheromaniac]

Did Zizek exclude all possibilities that the sexual act inn question was consensual?
"Unsmilingly, she let herself be led away, and was soon naked in my bed" - Neruda
"how did she become naked? Obviously she didn't do it herself" - Žižek

Obviously, it doesn't exclude all possibilities but it posits the assumption.

Was Zizek able to exclude the possibility of a commercial sexual transaction? While this possibility would not have been Neruda's finest Communist moment it would at least not have been rape. Rape is an ugly thing to happen to a woman but also an ugly charge against a potentially innocent long-deceased man. Pablo Neruda was a life-long Communist and supporter of socialism for Chile. Given Neruda's history as a comrade and the gravity of the charges, I respectfully request the production of any evidence to support a rape charge.

Quotes from the piece under scrutiny:

"I got a strong grip and stared into her eyes."

"It was the coming together of a man and a statue."

"She kept her eyes open all the while, completely unresponsive."

Neruda's political ideologies obviously cannot inhibit his sexual innuendo. This innuendo exists innately because of societal acceptance and a lack of personal responsibility.

"She was right to despise me. The experience was never repeated."

Obviously, he regrets it, because he knows it was wrong.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Zizek did not spend much time on this.He discusses an extract from Neruda's Memoirs in pages 24-25 of his book. Zizeks's real topic is human feces, i.e., shit. Zizek seems to be doing a weird kind of riff on Life against Death by Norman Brown.Human shit is supposed to represent some kind of Absolute Real or Ground of Being which the frame of reference liberalism is based on ignores or obsfucates. Zizek talks about Ambedkar vs Gandhi in relation to the Indian caste system,the Indian dalits whose enforced job is to dispose of human feces, Martin Luther and his obsession with human feces, and then goes into the Neruda story.

There's a philosophic point here somewhere....

Zizek himself is full of shit at times (no pun intended). His send ups of liberalism are great but at times I wonder if he is a highly sophisticated troll. He has improved since 08 or so.

Anyway I don't know how to do a copy paste or screenshot with this so if you are interested you can download the whole book here.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?rj1am1q4bcincpv

http://ebookcollective.tumblr.com/post/28924962755/slavoj-zizek-compendium

[Os Cangaceiros]

Zizek did not spend much time on this.He discusses an extract from Neruda's Memoirs in pages 24-25 of his book. Zizeks's real topic is human feces, i.e., shit. Zizek seems to be doing a weird kind of riff on Life against Death by Norman Brown.Human shit is supposed to represent some kind of Absolute Real or Ground of Being which the frame of reference liberalism is based on ignores or obsfucates. Zizek talks about Ambedkar vs Gandhi in relation to the Indian caste system,the Indian dalits whose enforced job is to dispose of human feces, Martin Luther and his obsession with human feces, and then goes into the Neruda story.

There's a philosophic point here somewhere....

Sounds about right.

[GoddessCleoLover]

My degree is in history, not philosophy, so I am just a simple guy who tries to get the facts straight. I stand in awe of my superiors such as the Great Philosopher Zizek who can spin shit into gold.:rolleyes:

Unless shown information to the contrary, I will infer that Zizek just inferred that Pablo Neruda was a rapist without considering other possibilities. If Zizek were not such a Great Philosopher one could infer that such an accusation would be irresponsible.

[L.A.P.]

She walked solemnly toward the latrine, without so much as a side glance at me, not bothering to acknowledge my existence, and vanished with the disgusting receptacle on her head, moving away with the steps of a goddess.

She was so lovely that, regardless of her humble job, I couldn't get her off my mind. Like a shy jungle animal she belonged to another kind of existence, a different world. I called to her, but it was no use. After that, I sometimes put a gift in her path, a piece of silk or some fruit. She would go past without hearing or looking. The ignoble routine had been transformed by her dark beauty into the dutiful ceremony of an indifferent queen.

One morning, I decided to go all the way. I got a strong grip on her wrist and stared into her eyes. There was no language I could talk with her. Unsmiling, she let herself be led away, and was soon naked in my bed. Her waist, so very slim, her full hips, the brimming cups of her breasts made her like one of the thousand-year-old sculptures from the south of India. It was the coming together of a man and a statue. She kept her eyes wide open all the while, completely unresponsive. She was right to despise me. The experience was never repeated.


Neruda then simply passes to other things. This passage is remarkable not only for obvious reasons: a shameless story of a rape, with the dirty details discreetly passed over ("she let herself be led away, and was soon naked in my bed" - how did she come to be naked? Obviously, she didn't do it herself), the mystification of the victim's passivity into a divine indifference, the lack of elementary decency and shame on the part of the narrator (if he was attracted to the girl, wasn't he embarrassed by the awareness that she was smelling, seeing, and dealing with his shit every morning?). Its most remarkable feature is the divinization of the excrement: a sublime goddess appears at the very site where excrements are hidden. One should take this equation very seriously: elevating the exotic Other into an indifferent divinity is strictly equal to treating it like shit.

zizek paraphrase: i think this is a cop out when Buddhists say 'oh, frog jumps from lilliy pad and water splashes, this is pure phenomena and so on'. why not take it further, why exclude, 'man sits on toilet, pushes shit out, shit drops in toilet, water splashes, this is phenomena' *audience laughter*

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Yeah, I'm starting to think that Slavoj Zizek is not only a philosophic troll but a libelous philosophic troll.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Not enough details to convict Neruda of rape. OTOH he convicts himself of piggishness. IMO Neruda skated close to rape and is evidently ashamed of his conduct and he has good reason to be ashamed. It is somewhat unclear whether the woman consented to have sex with Neruda or was coerced. Since the charge of rape is a serious criminal charge, I will give Neruda the benefit of the doubt. OTOH if the woman were suing Neruda for money damages in a civil court, I would favor ordering Neruda to pay her damages. Neruda was a great advocate of socialism and a talented poet but his conduct in this regard merits serious criticism.

[L.A.P.]

passage immediately preceding the Neruda quote


Exemplary here is the conflict between Ambedkar and Gandhi during the 1930's. Although Gandhi was the first Hindu politician to advocate the full integration of the Untouchables, and called them "the children of god", he perceived their exclusion as the result of the corruption of the original Hindu system. What Gandhi envisaged was rather a (formally) non-hierarchial order of castes within which each individual has hir or her own allotted place; he emphasized the importance of scavenging and celebrated the Untouchables for performing this "sacred" mission. It is here that the Untouchables are exposed to the greatest ideological temptation: in a way which prefigures today's "identity politics", Gandhi allowed them to "fall in love with themselves" in their humiliating identity, to accept their degrading work as a noble and necessary social task, to see even the degrading nature of their work as a sign of their sacrifice, of their readiness to do a dirty job for the sake of society. Even his more "radical" injunction that everyone, Brahmins included, should clean up hir or her own shit, obfuscates the true issue, which, rather than having to do with our individual attitude, is of a global social nature. (The same ideological trick is performed today when we are bombarded from all sides with injunctions to recycle personal waste, placing bottles, newspapers, etc., in the appropriate bins. In this way, guilt and responsibility are personalized - it is not the entire organization of the economy which is to blame, but our subjective attitude which needs to change.) The task is not to change our inner selves, but to abolish Untouchability as such that is, not merely an element of the system, but the system itself which generates it.

Although Gandhi and Ambedkar respected each other and often collaborated in the struggle for the dignity of the Untouchables, their differenceis here insurmountable: it is the difference between the "organic" solution (solving the problem by returning to the purity of the original non-corrupted system) and the truly radical solution (identifying the problem as the "symptom" of the entire system, the symptom which can only be resolved by abolishing the entire system). Ambedkar saw clearly how the structure of four castes does not unite four elements belonging tot the same order: while the first three castes (priests, warrior-kings, merchant-producers) form a consistent All, an organic triad, the Untouchables are, like Marx's "Asiatic mode of production", the part of no part, the inconsistent element within the system which holds the place of what the system as such excludes - and as such, the Untouchables stand for universality. Or, as Ambedkar put it with us ingenious wordplay: "There will be be outcasts as long as there are castes." As long as there are castes, there will be an excessive excremental zero-value element which, while formally part of the system, has no proper place within it. Gandhi obfuscates this paradox, as if harmonious caste structure were possible. The paradox of the Untouchables is that they are doubly marked by the excremental logic: they not only deal with impure excrements, their own formal status within the social body is that of excrement.

This is why the properly dialectical paradox is that, if one is to break out of the caste system, it is not enough to reverse the status of the Untouchables, elevating them into the "children of god" - the first step should rather be exactly the opposite one: to universalize their excremental status to the whole of humanity. Martin Luther directly proposed just such an excremental identity for man: man is like a divine shit, he fell out of God's anus - and, effectively, it is not only within this Protestant logic of man's excremental identity that the true meaning of Incarnation can be formulated. In Orthodoxy, Christ ultimately loses his exceptional status: his very idealization, elevation to a noble model, reduces him to an ideal image, a figure to be imitated (all men should strive to become God) - imitatio Christi is more an Orthodox than a Catholic formula. In Catholicism, the predominant logic is that of a symbolic exchange: Catholic theologians enjoy pondering over scholastic juridical arguments about how Christ paid the price for our sins, etc. No wonder Luther reacted badly to the lowest outcome of this logic: the reduction of redemption to something that can be bought from the Church. Protestantism, finally, posits the relationship as real, conceiving Christ as a God who, in His act of Incarnation, freely identified himself with His own shit, with the excremental real that is man - and it is only at this level that the properly Christian notion of divine love can be apprehended, as the love for the miserable excremental entity called "man". We are dealing here with what can be ironically referred to as the cosmic-theological proletarian position, whosae "infinite judgment" is the identity of excess and universality: the shit of the earth is the universal subject. (This exremental status of man is signaled already by the role of sacrifice in the original Veda: by way of substituting the sacrificial victim for humans, the sacrifice bears witness to the eccentric, exceptional, role of man in the great chain of food - to paraphrase Lacan, the sacrificial object represents man for other "ordinary" members of the food chain.) Here is a quite surprising, if not outright shocking, passage from Pablo Neruda's Memoirs, which deals precisely with the invisible excremental space and what one might discover by way of probing into it - the event described took place when he was the Chilean consul in Sri Lanka:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I understand the point Zizek is making here, although he does seem to cast a wide net.

[hetz]

I don't know. If you're interested you should check primary or secondary sources about Neruda, not Žižek.

[Raman 123]

Did Zizek exclude all possibilities that the sexual act inn question was consensual? Was Zizek able to exclude the possibility of a commercial sexual transaction? While this possibility would not have been Neruda's finest Communist moment it would at least not have been rape. Rape is an ugly thing to happen to a woman but also an ugly charge against a potentially innocent long-deceased man. Pablo Neruda was a life-long Communist and supporter of socialism for Chile. Given Neruda's history as a comrade and the gravity of the charges, I respectfully request the production of any evidence to support a rape charge.

I was until now a very great admirer of Pablo Neruda and his poetry. I know many of his poems by heart and particularly admired his memoirs as an extraordinarily vivid book. Strangely I had never marked the frightful descriprition of his rape of a helpless and very poor Tamil girl who for all we know may have been married and whom he may have made pregnant. We only have his word for it that the experience was never repeated. Frankly, I suspect it was. These acts are very likely addictive.

I detested Neruda's Stalinism and yet had enormous admiration for him. Now one has simply to bite the bullet and admit that one of the greatest heroes one has had was an inhuman rapist who took advantage of the weakest and most helpless person and savagely dishonoured her. I will never worship at this shrine again. The man is finished for me.