Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:25:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Jouissance in the Dark


At 01:46 AM 25/10/00 -0400, Ken wrote:

>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. 

Is he not? If not, then I am guilty of misreading him. However, what am I to
make then, of his celebration of Bess' act of 'subjective destitution' in
BtW? Also, I know he didn't actually see the Rosellini films, but he still
praises what he understands to be the plot line, for illustrating a praxis
that pushes ideology to its extremes. If he isn't serious about such claims,
why should I take anything he writes seriously? And, what do you mean by an
"aesthetic illustration"? It is that, because we are talking about the acts
of characters in a movie, we aren't talking about 'real' human beings and
certain ways of living? This seems to be a rather strange procedure for a
film critic and social theorist, does it not?

<snip>
> 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...

Nice example, and it almost makes sense to me. But, in the Ticklish Subject,
there is a discussion over the fact that one cannot oppose the totality of
the system directly, because this implies one is still operating within the
system. So, I guess, you wouldn't understand such an act to be 'flawed',
because it still 'fits' within the status quo, even though it opposes it.
But, this perspective is what leads Zizek to advocate his idea of subjective
destitution, which, as I continue to annoyingly repeat, seems to suggest a
certain kind of praxis which I am not comfortable with (I know you don't
agree here). What is the equivalent of 'shattering a glass in one's hand'
for someone suffering in poverty? Once I start trying to fit this
theoretical position into some example of praxis, I get uncomfortable. I
know that someone like Adorno is also very difficult to fit into any
practical model of social action, but he never advocates this idea of
subjective destitution......

Chris