I'm watching a video of Slavoj Zizek and Cornel West on YouTube. I don't know how it ends - Cornel hasn't had his mic time yet. Obviously I'm watching because I'm fascinated with Zizek, you know this from earlier posts. But I'm also fascinated by West. I love the way he talks. One of the items on my bucket list (yes, it's a little early for one of those but I believe in being prepared) is to have Dr. West call me "Brother". He makes it sound so great, being his brother. And I think I have a chance because he even called Newt Gingrich "Brother Newt". If you know Dr. West and he has a free minute or two (maybe next time he's on Democracy Watch) could you ask him for me? It would be great if he can slip in a shout out to Brother Sean. It doesn't have to be anything important - he might even be talking about another Sean, maybe Sean Connery or Sean Penn. I don't care. I just want to hear those three syllables before I die.
Anyway, back to the point. Zizek starts with an interesting observation about belief based, as so much of his commentary is, on a pop culture reference. The classic Marx Brothers' joke, "Sure, he acts like an idiot. He looks like an idiot. But don't let that fool you, he really is an idiot." Zizek uses this as his starting point for a discussion about religion and atheism. In Zizek's experience, most of the really big names in post-modern theory (people who are almost professional atheists) confess to a private unwillingness to actually believe there is no higher power out there. In the same way, his catholic friends were shocked when Pope Benedict was elevated to the Papacy because it was well known Cardinal Ratzinger actually believed Catholic dogma.
Professed belief, in this argument, is something that disguises a persons actual beliefs. Zizek is assuring us that while we might look and talk like idiots, we aren't really idiots.
Then some other stuff happens - not relevant for my point here.
Then Zizek moves to Capitalism. He is approaching it as a question of belief because of the illusory nature of modern capital. Zizek's claim is Capitalism functions as a religion. This is not merely to say it is an ideology. That is obvious. As a religion, it's adherents are similar to Zizek's Catholic friends; Capitalists could never believe Capitalist dogma. And Capitalism could not operate if it's own dogma was actually true. For example, the idea Capitalism is essentially meritocratic. Zizek argues (and I think he's is correct here) Capitalism would have destroyed the world long ago if could be demonstrated and known to be truly meritocratic. What makes poverty bearable, he argues, is the belief that the market is unfair. If those who do not succeed in a Capitalist system did not have clear grounds to believe that the success of others is largely the result of luck (whether in the form of contingent events or the birth lottery) they would be forced to accept they were unsuccessful because they are not smart enough, talented enough, etc. Further, they would be forced to accept those who were successful were actually better than they are. At this point, Zizek argues, the logic of envy would take over. He offers a Slovenian parable to illustrate the logic of envy: some mystical force offers a peasant farmer a deal. It will either give the peasant one cow (but give his neighbour two cows) or take one of the peasants cows (but take two of his neighbours cows). The peasant always chooses the second option.
This is an aspect of Capitalism that had never occurred to me before. It makes all the arguments about the blatant unfairness of Capitalist systems moot. Very intelligent people have spent an enormous amount of time documenting the unjustness of Capitalist, it's manifest unfairness. These are not arguments against the system but are essential to its survival.
I think these segments, seemingly disparate, come together in the figure of Zizek himself. He looks like a Communist, talks like a Communist, but don't worry, he isn't really a Communist. He is a Capitalist. And, very strangely, a Capitalist who actually believes Capitalist dogma. When his books sell, when people pay his appearance fees, as he watches his celebrity grow, it validates the belief he earned it by being smarter, more interesting, more talented.
I offer the next of Zizek's little parables as argument. A man is convinced he is not a man but a kernel of corn. He is taken to an asylum where the doctors convince him his is not, in fact, a kernel of corn but a man. He is released but immediately returns, terrified because he has seen a chicken. The doctors reassure him he is not a kernel of corn and he replies, "Of course I know that but does the chicken know it?" The point is the doctors had to argue against the man's unconscious, his chicken.
Zizek is a Communist. Everyone knows that. He looks like one, talks like one, thinks like one, argues like one, etc etc. He just happens to be doing very well. It's totally contingent tho. Just a strange aberration created by the massive unfairness of this Capitalist system. We shouldn't apply his discussion of the relationship between protests of belief and actual belief to Zizek himself. That would be unfair.
I'm going to watch the rest of the video now. I want to hear Cornel West's take on all this. I have a feeling he's just going to throw soft balls and call him Brother Slavoj - nothing against Dr. West, the discussion is happening at Princeton so he's kind of obligated to play nice.
No comments:
Post a Comment