This is the climax of the first chapter of Zizek’s ‘Violence’, which I have just begun and had to share. It exposes beautifully the way the liberal communist and the fundamentalist are really just, as he will go on to say, “two sides of the same coin”.
We live in a society where a kind of Hegelian speculative identity of opposites exists. Certain features, attitudes and norms of life are no longer perceived as ideologically marked. They appear to be neutral, non-ideological, natural, commonsensical. We designate as ideology that which stands out from this background: extreme religious zeal or dedication to a particular political orientation. The Hegelian point here would be that it is precisely the neutralization of some features into a spontaneously accepted background that marks out ideology at its purest and most effective. This is the dialectical ‘coincidence of opposites’: the actualisation of a notion oor an ideology at its purest coincides with, or, more precisely, appears as its opposite, as non-ideology. Mutas Mutandis, the same holds for violence. Social-symbolic violence at its purest appears as its opposite , as the spontaneity of the milieu in which we dwell, of the air we breathe.
The liberal communist then (remembering the context here), while they fight subjective violence, acts as the very agent by which the structural violence which leads to the subjective violence taking place is created. Hiding behind their philanthropy, they destroy millions by monopolizing the market and breeding the conditions which create the need.
Scott Kirkland
tim parker Said:
on January 17, 2010 at 9:27 am
This sounds like samuel beckett or james joyce, that is to say, impenetrable.
I look forward to something tasty, a bit more lucid, in other words, for the
sheer joy of comprehension. Maybe, the quote is something to do with polar opposites, having the same effect or outcome. What the subject is – violence? – i dont know, and what the outcome is, I don’t know either. What kind of fundamentalist are we referring to?
Myk Habets Said:
on January 19, 2010 at 7:58 pm
But Zizek is a self-confessed Leninist Scott! So what do you make of that. I am in India at the moment and so is Zizek! Who would have thought he would follow the likes of me around the globe! There is a brief interview in the paper which I have kept in which Zizek claims Gandhi is far more violent than Hitler ever was! For these reasons I think Zizek is a bozo and I can’t for the life of me see what many theo-bloggers see in him!
sakirkland Said:
on January 19, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Thanks for sharing Myk, dont feel like you have to hold back on me
! To be honest I don’t see alot in Zizek’s thought which I would like to adopt, but I have a fascination with the way his thought is mashed together. I don’t think it’s as incoherent as many would make out. So, I agree with you in so far as he is a bit of a nutcase, but I would say a fascinating nutcase. As an outsider I think there are glimmers of solid criticism (like this little piece) in his his thought which he can only see because he is in the situation he is, but as for adopting his alternatives, I’m a long way from there!