Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:08:44 -0800 (PST) From: villon sasha k <il_frenetico-AT-yahoo.com> Subject: [postanarchism] Zizek, post-poststructuralism, and totalitarianism Zizek is interesting. Newman seems to get a lot of his reading of Lacan from Zizek, which make a lot of sense given that one of Zizek’s main points about Lacan is that he allows us to move beyond post-structuralism. Zizek, of course, is militantly anti-poststructuralist. So I think it also makes sense that this list thinks about the present day Lacanian post-poststructuralists such as Zizek and Badiou (perhaps Newman somewhat fits here, although he seems a bit more of a mix). Look at the introduction to Zizek’s Tarrying with the Negative for an explication of Lacan as what allows us to move beyond poststructuralism/postmodernism. My earlier comments on the linkage between the present stage of capitalism and the ideology of multiculturalism came not from Jameson but straight from Zizek. In fact, one of Zizek’s most stable targets has been multiculturalism (we could say that he is also militantly anti-multiculturalism as an ideology of capitalism). Zizek would certainly support the Jamesonian idea that postmodernism is a symptom of capitalism. It is worth, I think, reflecting on the history of the categories we use. In the disciplines of social science and history, the shift to the usage of pre-modern/modern instead of feudalism/capitalism primarily occurred in the 1950s. This was part of a conservative reaction to Marxism and revolution. Modernization theory began as an alternative theory of stages in development, one, however, that didn’t rely on class struggle as a motor but on institution building. We can even see this shift taking place in the House Un-American Activities Hearings of the 1950s, in which historians battled around the very question of whether to use feudalism/capitalism or pre-modernity/modernity—people lost their careers and even committed suicide over this. Later, in another period of reaction (the post-1968 period), conservatives introduced into broad usage the term post-modern. And then leftists, Jameson and David Harvey, recuperated the term by linking it as a symptom of late-capitalism or flexible accumulation. Zizek takes part in this later move, critiquing postmodernism as a sophistry linked to capitalism. Zizek’s critique of the usage of totalitarianism fits in here, for the discourse of "totalitarianism", too, is linked to this conservative move to delink ideology from an analysis of capitalism. Again, one of his main targets of his Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? is multiculturalism (but, as always, also late-capitalism, post-structuralism and liberalism). Zizek actually argues for intolerance. The posted review was somewhat interesting, but I think most of the problems Pessoa notes are his not Zizeks. Pessoa states: “Deeply sunk into his brilliant psychoanalytical intellect, however, Zizek makes some minor historical and theoretical mistakes. First, there is no reason to grant to Stalinism instead of Nazism the sole attempt to escape the logic of Capital. Nazism is commonly known as having asserted a 'third way' between Marxism and Liberalism. Second, if totalitarianism acts as an ' ideological anti-oxidant' for liberal-democratic discourse, that says nothing about capitalism in itself. Throughout his argument, Zizek makes the common mistake of intrinsically linking these two discourses together. Nevertheless, these mistakes are minor and do not affect the overall aim of the book, which is to reveal the contemporary and political phobia sustaining liberal-democratic discourse.” Of course, Zizek would see, as many people would, that Fascism is an attempt by capital to save itself and not outside of capitalism at all (if we are going to disagree with Zizek here, I think it makes more sense to say that Stalinism was counter-revolutionary and part of capitalist modernization as well). For Zizek, there is no “third way”. Pessoa says nothing of why it is a mistake to link liberal-democratic discourse to capitalism-—I, following Zizek, Jameson, Harvey and others, would say it is a mistake not to. This is no minor part of the book or of Zizek, of course, it is one of his main points. But at least Pessoa notes that it isn’t just liberalism that Zizek is fighting against: “This is clear in his repetitive discussion of Cultural Studies and social movements which Zizek sees as guilty for allowing liberal-capitalist discourse to permeate and replicate its dimensions.”-—it is liberal-capitalist discourse, not just liberalism that Zizek opposes and he clearly includes multiculturalism there. For Zizek, one of the main problems with “totalitarianism” is that it is depoliticized, which means that it comes to be delinked from a critique of capitalism. Again, we could look at that term’s history to see the conservative reaction against revolution at work: specifically in the discursive split between “authoritarian” (ok) and “totalitarian” (bad) that is a founding conservative move. I would also note, bringing us back to the discussion at hand, that nobody here is calling Islamic Fundamentalism (I.F.) “totalitarian”. But certainly it might be part of everyday discourse to do so, although I haven’t really heard the term used much in such a way. If so, and we want to learn from Zizek, perhaps it makes the most sense to not use “totalitarianism” to describe I.F., but to instead repoliticize the discourse by bringing it back to a discussion of capitalism and its present ideologies: e.g. both as a critique of liberal-capitalist discourse and of I.F. as also a symptom of the time. If I remember right, that is just what Zizek does in his Welcome to the Desert of the Real. Remember that the US supported the rise of I.F. in order to fight the commies in the Mid-east, to keep authoritarian governments in power such as in Saudi Arabia and keep the oil flowing, and fight the Soviets. Israel originally supported I.F. (they supported Hamas!) in Palestine in order to combat the leftists in the PLO. Of course, everything escapes the intensions originally laid upon it (we just need to look at what has happened to Israel and Hamas now). And, while the capitalist west has certainly used I.F. in different ways, this does not mean believers in I.F. have no agency. We could look at the interesting case of Tariq Ramadan here, as I think Jason suggested. Yet we need to stay critical and look at this historically as well; otherwise we will be stuck with a rather blind, ahistorical view of the world, one in which we lose all our agency. As I suggested in my last—(too much of a shorthand)—post, perhaps it would be interesting for us to read some of the Lacanians together. I would suggest Badiou’s short Ethics book, since it somewhat targets the questions we have been dealing with in recent discussions: universalism, an ethics of difference, etc.. best, sasha ====------------- Anarchist Discussion Board -- Also for response to KKA, WD and Aporia: http://pub47.ezboard.com/banarchykka The Killing King Abacus Page: http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005