Subject: Re: Jouissance in the Dark
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:46:17 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)


On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 11:33:07 -0400 christopher brittain 
<chris.brittain-AT-utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 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.

We should be clear that Zizek is not advocating a *praxis* which pushes 
ideology to its extremes. In other words, you don't subvert capitalism by 
becoming a better capitalist. Remember, Zizek's is talking about an aesthetic 
illustration - an illustration that, if taken seriously, is incomprensible. 
Gritty realism mixed with miracles... the contrast reveals precisely what 
gritty realism and supernaturalism don't want to admit to themselves - that 
they are, in fact, entwined and coexist. Realism is only coherent against the 
backdrop of the supernatural (not unlike Locke's mythic "state of nature" or 
Rawls' "original position") and likewise, mythic thought only reproduces itself 
when it meets with a pragmatic orientation. BtW illustrates this. Notice the 
parallels between the drunken oil rigger who smashes the can against his head, 
followed by the priest who shatters the glass in his hand. There is a tension 
here and one begets the other. Faith meets stupidity and stupidity encounters 
faith. The point being, that acts are subversive *precisely* when they are 
flawed... when they don't fit together with the status quo (which presents 
itself as total: the totality of the mythic worldview, the grand unified grail 
of science. It is only when our "acts" are flawed, incomplete, imperfect, that 
we can actually take responsibility for them...

ken