Once again; here is a comment I made over at Neotenionos.
One could say I am a Zizekian, but then if they did, I think they would have already missed what is Zizekian about my being Zizekian, Perhaps, in one of the P-views I am a Zizekian, but on the other there is no possibility of my being so. But I do have some things to say whenever someone wants to bring him up because there is really nothing that Z says that doesn’t fall complete, so as to make a total sense about it.
Check out the original post itself, as well maybe the other comments for some context.
Here is the one that made it here:
… I am always curious why we would need to conceal our points. It is interesting that in the very section of Parallax View, zizek talks about this. What is the purpose behind writing a detailed analysis of a work, in this case “wings”, and not come right out and say what he means? Why would he, in effect, rely upon others to draw out the meaning, as you have down here? I think Z is being quite characteristically forthcoming of his position.
My initial question beckons this kind of answer. Why would zizek make a point about guilt and punishment that you had to draw out for other people? Perhaps it is an artistic kind of move, but is Zizek really concerned about himself being an artist? Z is actually very forth coming with his opinions, Ive found. Why would he disguise it this time?
I have a little difficulty, personally, with using pieces of ideas for various uses; I am a ‘totalistic’ kind of guy . Though it is the way of the world, I had to ask for what are you putting to use this snippet. You seem a political kind of dude, so I got a political kind of answer, so it does really confirm what I was looking for.
What I get from this section on “Wings” is Z is describing the current situation. We ‘deserve our punishment’ because we (as a Hegelian determinant, a kind of Kantian imperative – the vehicle Z always works within) have and are (as a political situation, perhaps Capitalist) stay the middle ground, making gestures of commitment that are seeded in manipulation that attempts to put the weight of ethical judgement upon the object of our activity. We defer our activity to what occurs around us, but then take back the ability to respond and put it to work as a proactive move. What comes out of our mouths doesn’t say this, but only suggests it around the edges, and puts the ethical gesture in the hands of those who must see and hear us, for them not to slap us for our blatant chicanery, nor agree with us and become ‘allies’, but to uphold our suspicion and doubt that is at the very core of our ability to pose with confidence: We ‘work in confidence’ for them (objects) to be complicit in our deception.
Zizek is always quite confident in his assertions, and he defers, deflects and agrees in a very strategic manner, and our appraisal of this, of our coming to opinions about his various crass or non-PC or ironic stuff, places us exactly within the purview of his statement, and draws us into the situation that he himself cannot escape, even as he describes the situation. This is uncomfortable for us because we, as modern capitalists, must find the excess with which to generate our (profitable) identity, but Zizek is not involved in this perpetuation; or rather, he is, but ironically as that ‘in the middle’, in that ‘place of nil’, where the subject disappears and is displaced into a multitude of identifiable objects.
in particular to the selection from the post:
The significance involved in our situation is found in the reflection that in the moment where there should’ve been love, where love was being professed, there was actually no love, but just a sort of precursor to love. Love was found after words, after her death, inasmuch as he then realizes or at least admits that he didn’t love her.
for this segment alone then we have to extrapolate. we have to ask what was that time spent with her where he professed his love for her and yet was not in love? what is the situation that after she dies, a love is born?
The significance of this event is that the extent of love is found after it has dissipated. zizek would point to the Freudian ‘bourgeois’ because this is the modern subject, The subject that never has to committed to anything because it is a subject that has found its identity through ideological process of excess. Love is found there a comparison of identities, of qualities that never have anything to do with the subject but eternally identify with the objects that surround it. A life time is spent in love of this identity and once the identity is dispelled, once the object of love dies, what is left is the subject itself, which in retrospect has only but to love in the realization that what was before was never love.
The punishment comes so long as one continues to identify with the object of love. So long as the traumatize subject remains in a state of trauma — and it will do this to any lengths, it will continue along it’s trauma filled path until there is absolutely nothing left, no identities left to uphold in misdirection and deception.
We will also find, though, that this is the capitalist state only in so far as there is nothing else that can identify it, which is to say, ironically. Indeed every system of existing humanity will fall to this analysis. This is the reason why poetry remains poetic no matter how much time goes by; this is why Mozart is still music; and why the blues people still love even after over 100 years. The political analysis that seems to be getting anywhere are particular formations and structural configurations of identities that work to form the structure of reality in which the subject is enframed.
Any other analysis is not incorrect; but is entirely partial and ideological.