Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 11:33:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Jouissance in the Dark


Chris wrote:

>>influence). But the essay by Zizek above often puzzles me, when it almost
>>become suggested that reality IS the capitalist dynamic - (reality is
>>lacking, etc.). It's almost an apology for capitalism, and for endless
>>consumption, which gets my suspicious mind questioning what is really going
>>on in Zizek's work?

Fred replied:

>As I take it, one point is that if you live your "actual" (leisure or
>non-work) life as if it were somehow beyond the capitalist dynamic,
>"authentic," this actually supports capitalism, and you will continue to
>live out the desire of the "Other." (Because through this split you're
>instrumentalizing your self.)
>
>Fred

Yes, it is a dilemna - living one's private life as if it escapes the
capitalist dynamic often does support capitalism, as it offers the
individual the necessary brief relief required to make the system bearable.
Fair enough charge.

But then if one concludes (with Zizek) from this that the truly subversive
"act" is, therefore, to push the expectations of the system to the extreme
(for example, the well known idea of feminine masquerade) simply does not
follow for me. In fact, this conclusion could be charged with seeking an
"authentic" form of subversion, as if any acts of resistance which are
incomplete or flawed are, therefore, useless.

To me, von Trier's 'Golden Heart' trilogy clearly demonstrates the failure
of feminine masquerade and the idea of subjective destitution. Do they not
amount to spiritualized forms of resistance, which, effectively, change
nothing? There is no way to avoid "instrumentalizing" oneself to some
extent, nor will all acts of resistance be free of "instrumental reason."
Does this mean, therefore, that they are to be considered useless?

Are food co-ops, organic farming, and similar local initiatives to be
considered as mere supports for the capitalist system, or (limited) efforts
to develop alternative ways of living? 

Chris