344. Žižek: Beyond Lacan
Here I continue with a series of items on Žižek. Like many others I am
amused by his style, but also detest the hyperbole, provocation, bluff,
outrageous statements later retracted with the excuse that he did not mean them
in that way, and so on, but he does have interesting or at least challenging
things to say that call for response. I cannot read all the 50 books or so that
he published, which anyway are said to include many repetitions. The sources I
use are mostly the interviews and debates posted on YouTube. I am not
everywhere sure that I understand or interpret him correctly, which also is
difficult because he regularly seems to contradict himself. He endorsed Donald
Trump but also rejected him. He favoured Jeremy Corbyn but rejected his
socialism. He pleaded for bureaucratic socialism but also rejected it. And so
on. I am doing my best to make sense of it all. I begin with a discussion of
his use of Lacan.
If I understand correctly, Žižek is inspired first of
all by Hegel, and second by psychoanalysis, in particular Lacan. What those
have in common is interest in paradoxes, tensions, between ideas, in conduct, and
in social systems. The difference between the two is, I heard Žižek say, is that
with Hegel the tensions are resolved in a dialectic that raises the issues to a
higher level of synthesis (called ‘aufhebung’, in German), while in
psychoanalysis the tensions remain unresolved and hidden, with mental trauma’s,
mostly from infancy, buried in the unconscious, but with conduct or expressions
or dreams sometimes revealing them in ‘Freudian slips’.
Here I want to look a little further at what Lacan
called jouissance, enjoyment with an
‘excess’ that goes beyond enjoyment, with some paradoxical twists. Sex is the
more appealing when it is more or less illicit, or submissive, or repressive. More
sexual freedom and permissiveness have made it less enticing, has bred more
frigidity. Fraternities, at universities and in armies, are aimed at
brotherhood, mutual loyalty and support, but engage in hazing practices that are
demeaning, suppressive, assaulting at times. Movies condemn violence while
relishing it.
I am interested here, in particular, in celebrity
worship. People with simple lives, perceived (by themselves or supposedly by
others) as insignificant, pedestrian, compared to the lives of public figures,
celebrities, craving for some vicarious enjoyment from reflection of their glamour
and fame. People enjoy it the more when there is some deviance, something
illicit in the celebrity’s conduct.
I wonder where this comes from. Is it ‘just there’, in
the human being? Is it a romantic relish of transgression? Is it a consolation
for their own mediocrity: these people may be glamourous, but they are also
bad, unlike us decent people.
Žižek used the example of Donald Trump. A striking
phenomenon is that his adherents celebrate him not in spite but partly because
of his vulgarity, lies, provocation, aggression, bigotry and hypocrisy. Why?
Žižek says that this is because his followers are
secretly like him, and Trump gives them a feeling of legitimation. Also, they
feel victimized by globalization and a political elite, and relish Trump’s
rebellion, and his politically incorrect scorn and defamation of that elite.
I think Žižek himself is an example. He gathered fame
with interesting views but also by provocation, bluff, political incorrectness,
and humour.
If these insights are due to Lacan, that is to be
applauded.
However, Žižek seems to surreptitiously apply this
insight from psychoanalysis to the level of social systems: capitalism and
politics. That is a category mistake. It helps to explain the Trump phenomenon,
but does it explain the present crisis of capitalism that Žižek considers to be
of critical importance (along with many others, including myself)?
To some extent perhaps it can. Capitalism is indeed
full of paradox. Its virtues of yielding material prosperity, dynamism and
freedom of enterprise are tainted by perversities of exclusion, exploitation,
and injustice, which are relished and at the same time denied and justified by
the logic of markets.
So, Lacanian insight does seem to apply, but there is
more, which lies on the system level, not in psychoanalysis. Like many other
systems, social systems have ‘emergent properties’ that are lacking in the
individuals that make up the system.
In particular there is what in this blog I have called
‘system tragedy’. People in banks, other business, government and politics are
ensnared in positions and roles in organizations and networks of interests and
dependencies that coerce them to go along with processes and outcomes that are
at odds with their ethics, which then is hidden, tucked away, in buried shame.
This is not jouissance, I think.
What mostly plays a role, is the logic of prisoners’
dilemma’s, as I have discussed earlier in this blog. Some people may secretly
cherish to perversion of the game, but others would like to exercise their
ethics and turn things around, but can afford to do so only if others do so as
well, and since everyone argues like this, no-one does, and perversities of the
system remain.
The classic solution is for governments to intervene
and impose a way out of the dilemma, but now, and that, in particular, is the
feature of present capitalism, governments are themselves engaged in prisoners’
dilemma’s that force them into a ‘race to the bottom’ in facilitating the
interests of multinational corporations, to the detriment of citizens. Anger
about this is one of the feeds of populism.
No comments:
Post a Comment