« How much is a professor subsidized? | Main | Assorted links »
Someone once asked me what I thought of Slavoj Zizek
Here is an excerpt:
Q: What does love feel like? A: Like a great misfortune, a monstrous parasite, a permanent state of emergency that ruins all small pleasures. Q: Have you ever said 'I love you' and not meant it? A: All the time. When I really love someone, I can only show it by making aggressive and bad-taste remarks. Q: Tell us a secret. A: Communism will win.
Here is the full interview, via Finoculous. It contains further revelations. A few months ago I spent some time browsing his latest book in Borders. He can't simply admit: "I was a fool to follow Mao and Stalin" but instead he has to push the line "I just need to reinterpret everybody more and I will still find some movement for "egalitarian terror" [those two words are his] to sign on to." Grow up, I say, yet he is almost sixty years old.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 11, 2008 at 12:59 PM in Philosophy | Permalink
Comments
Damn. Rare anyone admits it, but there is truth in them thar words.
Posted by: liberty at Aug 11, 2008 1:34:04 PM
I would point out this Q/A.
Q: "What makes you depressed?
A: Seeing stupid people happy.
A human person wishes unhappiness only upon those who cause misery to others. An inhuman person wishes unhappiness upon those who do no harm to others.
In other words, he is a true communist.
Posted by: James Hanley at Aug 11, 2008 1:36:45 PM
I also agree with this:
What is your favourite smell?
Nature in decay, like rotten trees.
And Caplan should note the comment on not being born. He's a jerk, but an honest one. I'd go back and kill Lenin.
Posted by: liberty at Aug 11, 2008 1:41:02 PM
Does he have a blog?
Posted by: Rich at Aug 11, 2008 1:55:04 PM
When did he follow Mao and Stalin? Wikipedia says he did a few years in the army in the 70s for being anti-Marxist. He ran for the presidency of Slovenia on a democracy and nationalism platform. It was only later that he turned to celebrating Lenin.
Posted by: bjk at Aug 11, 2008 2:01:09 PM
"Does he have a blog?"
One might be forgiven for thinking that he actually maintains every Live Journal in existence.
Posted by: d.cous. at Aug 11, 2008 2:10:59 PM
James,
I'm not interested in pointing out the many ways in which stupid people do harm to others, but needless to say - it happens and it's an idea worth some thought.
I think you're hung-up on Zizek's attachment to communism. Zizek has said on numerous occasions that capitalism is not going away. Besides, I think you're mistaking communism with totalitarianism. All forms of government (even democracy, sadly) can be bent to the whims of a totalitarian leader. Communism has no exclusive ownership of evil - it has most certainly borrowed more than its fair share of evil in the past, but it in no way is its exclusive owner.
Be that as it may, I'm no big fan of communism either, otherwise I'd have moved from luxurious Southern California a long time ago to a place where I could share in the suffering with all my proletarian neighbors. No thanks. But your human-communist dichotomy is a totally disingenuous and false one.
I also know you're mis-reading Zizek's statement about how depressing it is that stupid people are unhappy. To someone who's aware of philosophy, people who are stupid seem like terribly un-self aware automatons. And yes, it's discouraging to see that that sort of aggressively ignorant stance be rewarded by happiness. I'm certainly not saying that Zizek or any philosopher for that matter has a lock on absolute truth, but for crying out loud - people could stand to be a bit more thoughtful about what's going on around them. Sadly, few people have bothered to develop an idea about what it means to be that which they are.
Posted by: Greg Pyatt at Aug 11, 2008 2:11:37 PM
Greg,
Wouldn't a true philosophical thinker question whether or not it's better to be seemingly stupid yet happy, rather than seemingly intelligent but miserable?
If you can amuse yourself with Everybody Loves Raymond and a pepperoni pizza, aren't you at least in some sense better off than the guy who'll never be happy because he's always meditating on the human capacity for cruelty?
I myself tend more towards the latter than the former, but it seems incredibly arrogant to say that everyone who doesn't think like I think, or read my favorite books, is an idiot.
Posted by: d.cous. at Aug 11, 2008 2:21:30 PM
Slavoj Žižek should be ignored by everyone.
Posted by: Alex J. at Aug 11, 2008 2:32:13 PM
"Slavoj Žižek should be ignored by everyone."
I agree. He seems to want that anyways.
Posted by: assman at Aug 11, 2008 3:10:48 PM
He sounds like a grumpy and possessive old man.
Posted by: Yan Li at Aug 11, 2008 3:16:41 PM
If you can amuse yourself with Everybody Loves Raymond and a pepperoni pizza, aren't you at least in some sense better off than the guy who'll never be happy because he's always meditating on the human capacity for cruelty?
I suspect not, because you're probably also more likely to accept cruelty as the natural order of things.
Posted by: perianwyr at Aug 11, 2008 3:34:52 PM
Veljko Rus was a much better sociologist at the University of Ljubljana. Much better.
Posted by: DPrychitko at Aug 11, 2008 3:42:01 PM
His problem is that he actually reads Hegel. Even worse though, he would want to see Hegel pontificate.
Posted by: Dan in EuroLand at Aug 11, 2008 3:51:06 PM
I don't expect any of you to write a dissertation on what you dislike about Zizek in a website forum, but do any of you have a link to some criticisms you think are important? Or maybe you have a short idea or two about his ideas that you dislike?
Also, d.cous, I'm not seeing where Zizek is, or is advocating that people meditate on the human capacity for cruelty. Can you show me where that's happening? Sorry, I just need a little help seeing what you're seeing.
Posted by: Greg Pyatt at Aug 11, 2008 4:24:07 PM
Greg,
I'm unaware of any communist country that wasn't oppressive, if not wholly totalitarian. but what I really had in mind was the surprisingly numerous Marxists I knew in grad school--they, too, longed for a system that would save humanity, yet had a tendency to despise actual humans for being weak, stupid, and, yes, even despicably happy (if they only knew what was really going on, they'd be appropriately miserable like me!). Perhaps there are some happy and more generous communists and I've just had the misfortune of meeting the wrong type.
I wouldn't give stupid people who harm others a pass--in supporting happy stupid people I only mean those who are fundamentally harmless to others. (I.e., those who watch Family Guy.)
But I rather think it's not just a mistake, but a rather vicious one, to dislike happy people because they're stupid. Stupid people are clearly inferior to me in intelligence, and most of them are consequently inferior to me in worldly success and earnings. I should prefer that they be miserable as well? I'm known as a curmudgeon, but I'm not actually a misanthrope. What a terrible world it would be if we were all as unhappy as Zizek appears to believe we should be.
Posted by: James Hanley at Aug 11, 2008 4:42:51 PM
James,
Yes. I'll have to agree with you there about communist countries being oppressive, so until I get a better understanding of different communist countries, I'll have to recant my whole communist/totalitarian distinction. And I recall getting that little idea from Zizek. Hurmm... Interesting stuff. It sounds like I need to do a little more digging around there.
I also agree with what you say about how uncool it is to hate on people who are stupid. Perhaps I was reading Zizek's word "stupid" as "ignorant." I get that there are all sorts of people with all sorts of different IQs out there and treating people on the low end of the scale with a sense of disdain is mean. And even when I say people are instead "ignorant", we get into a huge grey area about responsibility. Is the society or the person to blame for people who are unaware of philosophy/critical theory/etc.? I'm not a big fan of heaping guilt on people who don't actively participate, but on the other hand I can't help but be critical of people who are basically thoughtless. So... I'm leaning heavily on the side of merely being critical and doing some serious finger-wagging. But darn, these people are terribly resistant to outside ideas, it's very frustrating!
Also, I think it's kind of humorous your depiction of your fellow grad students. I was under the impression that grad students would be a bit less naive about some sort of universal emancipation. And besides, I thought most Marxist types were more into the "laboratory" version of Marxism with the realization that once it got out of the lab (out of the ivory tower, that is) that (like a nasty virus) it *starts to kill people.* Sure, I have a decent respect for Marxist ideas as a way to look at things, but it's tempered by the reality that yes, communism has a whole LOT of blood on its hands to account for - and as such, should probably remain contained safely back in the "lab."
I guess after thinking about it some more, I like Zizek's analysis but I'm not such a big fan of his prescriptions.
Posted by: Greg Pyatt at Aug 11, 2008 5:19:07 PM
Shorter Zizek: These smug, fat Westerners all favor liberal democracy -- surely there must be something wrong, therefore, with liberal democracy.
But hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Unless you have one of those digital things.
Posted by: Anderson at Aug 11, 2008 5:20:04 PM
"If you can amuse yourself with Everybody Loves Raymond and a pepperoni pizza, aren't you at least in some sense better off than the guy who'll never be happy because he's always meditating on the human capacity for cruelty?"
I suspect not, because you're probably also more likely to accept cruelty as the natural order of things.
Dude. Say what? How does a preference for Everybody Loves Raymond and pepperoni pizza make someone more likely to accept cruelty as the natural order of things? But if the guy orders pepperoni and sausage, then yeah, he's a total fascist.
Posted by: Keith at Aug 11, 2008 8:20:26 PM
I am a mainstream philosophy professor in an very prestigious American university, and I have never heard of this guy. (Probably in part because he does critical theory, and critical theory is ignored in most English-speaking philosophy departments, at least, by the non-marginal ones.)
Posted by: JB at Aug 11, 2008 9:05:57 PM
I was reading Zizek's book about christianity and finding some interesting points, alongside the usual nonsense, and I thought he might be someone worth reading in more depth. Then I saw his books about Mao and Lenin at the bookstore.
bik is right in saying that Zizek was not a stalinist during communism. I don't think he is one now, either. He is just being glib, post-modern-radical-chic, saying "hey, it's a taboo to say good things about Mao, so I will go ahead and say it just to shock people". Very depressing.
There is a point in revisionist marxism where you must either take a big leap and become something else (even if, I admit the theoretical possibility, you remain a marxist in some sense), or you start regressing.
Posted by: NPTO at Aug 11, 2008 9:12:10 PM
who at 20 is no communist has no heart
Who at 40 is still communist has no brain
Posted by: karl at Aug 11, 2008 9:39:31 PM
I don't know SZ's work well, but I would have thought you all would recognize deliberate paradox and provocation when you see it, especially given the form of that interview. Is Tyler's chain so easily yanked? And is there a dumber dismissal than "I have never heard of the guy"? Somehow I don't think SZ has heard of JB either...
Anyone who wants to arrive at a more informed dismissal can start with SZ's numberless appearances on youtube. _Looking Awry_ is a relatively accessible intro to Lacan; in general people's tolerance for Zizek will track pretty closely with their tolerance for Lacan.
Posted by: Colin Danby at Aug 12, 2008 2:37:27 AM
Žižek says things that are provocative and likes to touch taboos. However, he only chooses subjects that are not really dangerous. He knows very well he would never be imprisoned or fired for what he's saying. He's a low-cost, low-risk dissident.
Posted by: Pavel from Prague at Aug 12, 2008 4:59:29 AM
"I would have thought you all would recognize deliberate paradox and provocation"
That is the point. SZ is an entertainer not a philosopher that entertains and he knows it. If only the audience did as well...
Posted by: aaron_m at Aug 12, 2008 5:33:41 AM
