Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:25:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Jouissance in the Dark


At 11:03 PM 24/10/00 +0300, Fred wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, christopher brittain wrote:

>True, but I was thinking more in terms of "authentic" life functioning as 
>an obscene support of capitalism (i.e. as opposed to threatening it).

Perhaps you could say a bit more about what you mean by 'authentic', as I am
quite uncomfortable with this term. What does it mean to be authentic? How
is this possible?

Chris 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

Fred replied:

>I'm not sure whether that would be the only solution: what has been a 
>worthwhile atgument for me is Zizek's insistence on refusing any set 
>identity (e.g., 'an authentic life beyond capitalism') and instead 
>insisting on self-criticism. In a sense, not being afraid of losing 
>one's identity while dealing with the "truth out there" - so this is how a 
>kind of authenticity can be maintained as long as one resists 
>self-instrumentalization. As far asI know, the problem with the Cartesian 
>cogito (for Zizek) is precisely that is becomes a substantial position (res 
>cogitans), whereas Hegel is used to insist on the non-substantiality 
>(sort of the outward turn) of subjectivity. 

Well, Zizek certainly speaks of the idea of 'feminine masquerade' and
'subjective destitution' as being THE form of 'subversive act'. This agenda,
at least as far as I understand it, suggests a bit more than self-criticism,
does it not? (although it certainly also opposes any stable identity). What
I'm again unclear about is your use of the word "authenticity".

>> 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

>Only if success is measured quantitatively rather than qualitatively.

>> 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? 
>
>Marx would probably have considered them to be supportive rather than 
>subversive. That was Brecht's point in Mutter Courage - that she by 
>patching up the soldiers actually helped maintain the war. This again is 
>of course quantitative thinking.

I'm not sure what you mean by quantitative and qualitative, but I certainly
don't concur with Marx or Brecht on this point. Perhaps by qualitative you
mean something like I do - that the anti-humanitarian position of Brecht
devalues human beings at the expense of his grand theory. I don't see,
however, how the same issue applies to my concerns RE Von Trier's films and
Zizek's idea of subjective destitution, as, for me, again human suffering is
being 'spirirualized' by overlaying it with a 'deeper' meaning for the
greater 'Good'.

Chris