Customer Reviews

The Fragile Absolute: Or, Why is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

A self-described "fighting atheist," though not a very conventional one, and an avowed Marxist, though not a very typical or orthodox one, Žižek writes rooted deeply within Lacanian psychoanalysis in order to produce some of the most intriguing, bewildering, and relevant philosophy concerned with post-modern conundrums such as relativism, agency, and subjecthood.

Žižek in this work embraces the shared Marxist and Christian messianic visions of history as an alternative to both the post-modern, New Age-Gnostic moral sludge dominating PC culture and the excesses of capital. The true heart of the work-and its most convincing parts as well-occur mid-way through in Žižek `s treatment of Pauline agape vs. the Law/Sin dialectic as it relates to modern human rights. More or less, this is a desperate attempt to revive Marxism as an alternative to Liberalism. Good Luck.

Žižek writes in a frenetic, gregarious style that is endearing but not necessarily rigorous. His penchant for citing movies, novels and popular culture besides the likes of Schelling, Lacan, Hegel and Heidegger lightens the atmosphere, but the problem is that many things that he says, many conclusions he arrives at from overly generalized instances of cultural practice are just blatantly false. Also, it can be annoying when he rambles on for five pages about a movie you've never seen, thus, making any attempt to understand his point tedious. [Recommendation: definitely make sure you've watched Hitchcock's VERTIGO before reading this book].

For me, Žižek is one of the authors with whom I part ways with on the big questions but with whom I often side with on the smaller questions. His acuity in the realm of cultural interpretation and his applications of Lacanian psychoanalysis to politics are both haunting and memorable long after you've finished the books. Re-reading this book, I came across this passage in footnote #12 that sent shivers down my spine with it's accuracy.

Read one book by Zizek and you will have read half of his entire repertoire. He's a cool guy with cool insights on various things, but he pumps out books without much sustenance in them. Most of his books only approach the supposed theme tangentially and spend most of the time on other unrelated items.

The only thing I found interesting in this book is his insight on Diet Coke as objet petite a. It's interesting, but I have suspicions that it's not an entirely accurate reading of Lacan's objet petite a (or if it is, Zizek did not argue the point correctly/thoroughly).

If you haven't read him before, buy it. I would recommend something else, though, I preferred "Violence" over this one.
If you've read him and you're "meh" about him, save your money. If you want something different from him, buy "The Parallax View".
If you're a blowhard Zizek person.... well you probably bought this before even reading the review. And if you haven't you probably will anyways.

Okay, I know Zizek is a Lacanian, but I was hoping that he'd get beyond his neo-Freudianism in this book--considering that its billed as an intersection between Marx and Christianity. Indeed, the topic is very intriguing and Zizek's fundamental thesis--that Christianity should be saved and joined with Marxism--is compelling. I especially liked his treatment of "agape"...
The problem, however, is that Zizek's Lacanianism blinds him to the history of Marxist criticism. He mentions Adorno and Horkheimer at several points, but it is evident that he has not read Lukacs or Debord. This fact is obvious in his chapter entitled "The Spectre of Capitalism" where he writes, as if he has some profound insight, "this reduction of heavenly chimeras to brutal economic reality generates a spectrality of its own". if he had read Lukacs--who preceded Adorno and Horkheimer--he would realize that he's speaking about the concept "reification" which even A & H understood, having read "History and Class Consciousness". And Debord's concept of spectacular society rounds out Lukacs' take on "reification" and basically nullifies Zizek's next chapter. aside from reiterating Lukacs and Debord in his own convoluted language (and appearing to sound original), Zizek also rips of Deleuze and Guattari at numerous points without giving credit. Funny thing this, since D & G would have had nothing but derision for Zizek's Lacanianiasm--psycho-analytic criticism, grounded in Freud, is nothing but Statist and pro-Capitalist since it reinforces the Oedipal triangle. You would think that even Zizek would notice this fact.

Aside from these theoretical problems, "The Fragile Absolute" is still a very compelling read. One has to wonder, however, why Zizek thinks the merging of Marxism and Christianity is some kind of "new" strategy; wasn't this the fundamental thesis of Liberation Theology in the 1960s?

En 1940, Walter Benjamin ilustraba la historia como una partida de ajedrez entre las fuerzas dominantes y un títere llamado "Materialismo Histórico" que era manejado por "Teología": una enana que se escondía por ser tan fea. Ahora es lo contrario: el "giro teológico" posmoderno es enseñar a la teología y esconder el materialismo histórico por asqueroso e intocable. Restos de un pasado paria. Si Marx aparece en Newsweek es por su crítica sofisticada del fetichismo. Lenin, en cambio, es impresentable: un fanático oriental, como Mao. Esta es la tesis de Slavoj Zizek quien retoma el cristianismo paulino como una versión pre-leninista de la revolución. Zizek arguye por una ética incondicional, consciente hasta las últimas, como en San Pablo y Lenin. El compromiso "revolucionario" no es solamente con el Nuevo Comienzo sino con el Terror que trae: la tarea de Lo Peor con sus mártires y purgas. Cuando vemos que todos los pueblos atrasados "aspiran" a la democracia, olvidamos que ésta sueña perversamente con paredones. El terrorismo fue lo mejor que pudo pasarle a la democracia: no la puso sobreaviso sino que le regaló más control migratorio, menos derechos civiles y más racismo. Pero la anestesia de la filosofía democrática prolifera con éticas y políticas cursis que ni se diferencian de un catálogo de perfumes. Espejos de un aristotelismo siempre mediocre: de liberales a socialistas. Por dichas taras, segun Zizek, cualquier autenticidad o radicalismo es fundamentalista y ortodoxa. La falta de pasión se complementa con la guerra global. El acto de guerra del 11-S todavía se considera impensable y la ausencia bélica se compensa con el más grande gasto militar de la historia. El consenso (u oportunismo trascendental) se ayuda con éticas "profesionales" e ideologías dormilonas: acción comunicativa, indecibilidad, autorrealización personal, los hombres son de Marte, las mujeres de Venus, etc. Es la evidencia borrega de la falta pública de evidencia. Por eso, para Zizek, la huida contemporánea a la "teología" es lo propio de las tendencias privatizantes en la sociedad cosmopolita. En la "hospitalidad" cosmopolita, la empatía se combina con la náusea. Se desinfectan las otras culturas de sus excrementos como se fumigan las religiones de su fe. Sus tradiciones son de un paraíso perdido y al mismo tiempo, estúpidas y sexistas. Como en el desapego budista, el otro encanta y al mismo tiempo apesta. Las "minorías" sexuales demandan derechos del Estado y al mismo tiempo quieren ser "contraculturales". En las Universidades occidentales, está bien ser anarquista pero con un puesto en propiedad. Para Zizek, en la sexualidad actual, donde lo normal es ser sadomasoquista; el Capital nos demanda perversiones sin subversiones. La Ley no sería la Represión, sino el imperativo del Goce, por lo que nos sumimos en una pulsión indiferente. El núcleo "perverso" del cristianismo, en Zizek, está en la muerte de Cristo como evento que encuentra su fidelidad posterior en el goce de la Ley. Cuando se quiere la Ley, ya no existe su Prohibición. Todo se le permite al cristiano porque "Dios es Amor". Por eso, la Iglesia nunca ha reprimido la perversión, sino que en nombre de lo Universal, -lo cual es histeria- hubo Cruzadas y violaciones, la confesión favorita de la lujuria laica y el que escoge ser cura puede gozar con todos los monaguillos que quiera. La diferencia con el Capital es que ahora, el Universal ni siquiera está regido por algo contingente, sino por la ambigüedad fría y vacía del oportunismo ideológico donde no hay ni democracia ni terror.

zizek is trapped in lacan, hegel, heidegger...he has no solution to the loss of subjectivity because these philosophers are the reason for objectification...zizek, zisk means 'profit'...just like the greek myths were meant to instill mass objectification among its subjects, so too, the modern re-introduction via freud, lacan circulate the same objectivity, paramount for capital and social order, pretending to solve its enigma, the solution is the reason and cause...it all justifies objectivity by arguing the ultimate loss of self and realm of Other and chaos...its tautological...its fraudulent...the last chapter deals with Christianity, sort-of, the rest is weird lacanian, hegel mumbo...this is why zizek is popular, he has no solution nor wants one...read baudrillard if you are really interested in how capital controls

Zizek at his all time high (takes Lacan with him)!

This writing is what brings out the positivist in the best of us. Nonsense from beginning to end. What would Wittgenstein not say?