Posts tagged Zizek
Zizek and Israeli Denial
Aug 18th
Writing in today’s Guardian, Slavoj Zizek the rock star philosopher, makes the crucial point that,
“When peace-loving Israeli liberals present their conflict with Palestinians in neutral, symmetrical terms – admitting that there are extremists on both sides who reject peace – one should ask a simple question: what goes on in the Middle East when nothing is happening there at the direct politico-military level (ie, when there are no tensions, attacks or negotiations)? What goes on is the slow work of taking the land from the Palestinians on the West Bank: the gradual strangling of the Palestinian economy, the parcelling up of their land, the building of new settlements, the pressure on Palestinian farmers to make them abandon their land (which goes from crop-burning and religious desecration to targeted killings) – all this supported by a Kafkaesque network of legal regulations.”
This is it for me. I have been debating with many, both in the cyber world as well as in person, and often the response is that there are bad people on both sides. Another standard response is that we are both doing horrible things but we are not happy in doing these things, we are forced. Zizek’s article deconstructs this dangerous argument. The occupation does not stop. It has not stopped since 1967 and will not stop until…well, according to Zizek, there will be no possibility for a Palestinian state. Perhaps, but the issue is that it is no longer possible for Israelis to dismiss the occupation as the major problem in this conflict today. Don’t hold your breath because I do not see a sea change on the horizon.
Slavoj Žižek: The Rome-Tehran Axis
Jul 16th
Brilliant piece from Zizek in the current London Review of Books.
Alain Badiou has proposed a distinction between two types (or rather levels) of corruption in democracy: the first, empirical corruption, is what we usually understand by the term, but the second pertains to the form of democracy per se, and the way it reduces politics to the negotiation of private interests. This distinction becomes visible in the (rare) case of an honest ‘democratic’ politician who, while fighting empirical corruption, nonetheless sustains the formal space of the other sort. (There is, of course, also the opposite case of the empirically corrupted politician who acts on behalf of the dictatorship of Virtue.)
‘If democracy means representation,’ Badiou writes in De quoi Sarkozy est-il le nom?, ‘it is first of all the representation of the general system that bears its forms. In other words: electoral democracy is only representative in so far as it is first of all the consensual representation of capitalism, or of what today has been renamed the “market economy”. This is its underlying corruption.’[*] At the empirical level multi-party liberal democracy ‘represents’ – mirrors, registers, measures – the quantitative dispersal of people’s opinions, what they think about the parties’ proposed programmes and about their candidates etc. However, in a more radical, ‘transcendental’ sense, multi-party liberal democracy ‘represents’ – instantiates – a certain vision of society, politics and the role of the individuals in it. Multi-party liberal democracy ‘represents’ a precise vision of social life in which politics is organised so that parties compete in elections to exert control over the state legislative and executive apparatus. This transcendental frame is never neutral – it privileges certain values and practices – and this becomes palpable in moments of crisis or indifference, when we experience the inability of the democratic system to register what people want or think. In the UK elections of 2005, for example, despite Tony Blair’s growing unpopularity, there was no way for this disaffection to find political expression. Something was obviously very wrong here: it wasn’t that people didn’t know what they wanted, but rather that cynicism, or resignation, prevented them from acting.
Zizek on Love
Jul 16th
The philosopher rock star Slavoj Zizek on Love. Is love going to end the occupation? Is it going to heal the settler insanity? Perhaps not…

Authority, the Persistence of the Past and a New Year
Sep 18th
Posted by Joseph Dana in Villages
3 comments
The Zionist experience in Palestine has exposed the Jewish people to a number of modern experiences which were previously unknown. The governance of a state, the construction of an army and the maintenance of a civil society are but a few of the tasks which the Zionist movement has thrust upon the Jewish people. This exposure has come at the cost of state politics, class creation and, in the case of Israel, ongoing violent conflict. Perhaps the most taxing cost of the Zionist experiment is the creation of a new internal Jewish politics, one which does not tolerate challenge to its authority. In the past twenty years, the discourse surrounding the holocaust has reached a point in which any genuine challenge to its position as the single most horrific event in human history is met with attacks and dismissal from the official organs of the Jewish community. The contemporary Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek has placed, at the center of his philosophical platform, a discussion of the Jew in European society and the rise of “Zionist anti-Semitism”. By using the Jew to understand modern European politics, Zizek is able to argue that the intellectual roots of Zionist anti-Semitism and the so-called anti-anti-Semitism lie in European modernity.
Using Lacanian discourse Zizek introduces, perhaps, the foundational tension of the European modernity and Jewish inclusion in Europe:
Insofar as the Jews insist on the unsurpassable horizon of the Law and resist the Christian sublation (Aufhebung) of the Law in Love, they are the embodiment of the irreducible finitude of the human condition: they are not just an empirical obstacle to full incestuous jouissance, but the obstacle “as such,” the very principle of impediment, the perturbing excess that can never be integrated. Jews are thus elevated to the objet petit a (“notre objet a” the title of Francois Regnault’s booklet on the Jews), the object-cause of (our Western) desire, the obstacle which effectively sustains desire, and in the absence of which our desire itself would vanish. They are our object of desire not in the sense of that which we desire, but in the strict Lacanian sense of that which sustains our desire, the metaphysical obstacle to full self-presence or full jouissance, that which has to be eliminated to make way for the arrival of the full jouissance; and, since this non-barred jouissance is structurally impossible, that which returns with increasing strength as a spectral threat the more Jews are annihilated. (Zizek, Slavoj. The Parallax View)
European anti-Semitism has not dissolved with the holocaust rather it has transformed into unfounded critique of the state of Israel. Zizek argues:
Today’s anti-Semitism is no longer the old ethnic anti-Semitism; its focus is displaced from the Jews as an ethnic group to the State of Israel… In this way today’s anti-Semitism can present itself as anti-anti-Antisemitism, full of solidarity with the victims of the Holocaust; the reproach is just that, in our era of the gradual dissolution of all limits, of the fluidization of all traditions, the Jews wanted to build their own clearly delimited nation-state. (The Parallax View. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2006. Page 253-254)
More >