<< Mailer on God | Front Page | Doris Lesfing >>
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The Eternal Zizek
First God, then Mailer, now Zizek.
Zizek has an op-ed in the New York Times about “How China Got Religion”:
The significant issue for the West here is not Buddhas and lamas, but what we mean when we refer to “culture.” All human sciences are turning into a branch of cultural studies. While there are of course many religious believers in the West, especially in the United States, vast numbers of our societal elite follow (some of the) religious rituals and mores of our tradition only out of respect for the “lifestyle” of the community to which we belong: Christmas trees in shopping centers every December; neighborhood Easter egg hunts; Passover dinners celebrated by nonbelieving Jews.
“Culture” has commonly become the name for all those things we practice without really taking seriously. And this is why we dismiss fundamentalist believers as “barbarians” with a “medieval mindset”: they dare to take their beliefs seriously. Today, we seem to see the ultimate threat to culture as coming from those who live immediately in their culture, who lack the proper distance.
He’s also got his own journal. From the home page of the International Journal of Zizek Studies:
Launched in January 2007, IJZS is a peer-reviewed, open access academic journal. As its title unambiguously proclaims, it is devoted to the work of Slavoj Zizek, a Slovenian philosopher/cultural theorist. Despite such predictably caricatured media portrayals as “the Elvis of cultural theory” and “the Marx brother”, Zizek has attracted enormous international interest through his application of otherwise esoteric scholarship to contemporary mass culture and politics.
With a desire to avoid “how many Zizeks can dance on the head of a pin?” [42, no?, BB] types of debate, and mere hagiography, IJZS aims to provide a valuable resource for those interested in his inimitable brand of critical thought.
Note that where every other academic journal starts with Vol. 1. No. 1, IJZS starts with Vol. 1 No. 0. Presumably it will end there as well – it’s currently up to Vol.1, No. 3, on film. But what will the penultimate issue be?
Comments
If the Zizek’s journal is already up to Vol. 1, No. 3, how would it end at Vol. 1. No. 0?
The Eternal Return, the Great Cipher, the Alpha and the Omega, all the mystical stuff.
I like Zizek, but that op-ed is pretty aggravating to anybody who objects to China’s actions in Tibet over the past half-decade, or to anybody who wishes to hold China accountable for its horrifying approach to human rights in general.
Zizek says: “It is strange to hear self-described democracy advocates who denounce Chinese persecution of followers of the Dalai Lama — a non-democratically elected leader if there ever was one.”
I guess if one wants to view the situation in a metaphysical abstract sense, this is true. On the real-life human level, though, these comments aren’t very helpful. And, when freedom-loving people speak of “democracy”, they are usually referring to a form of democracy that is compatible with freedom of religion. The fact that some religions aren’t themselves democratic does not mean there is a contradiction between supporting democracy (which China certainly does not) and supporting freedom of religion (which China certainly does not).
I think the Zizek op-ed makes some good points, particularly regarding the Afghani Buddha statues. Nevertheless, there are two clear objections to his discussion of Tibet.
First, the Dalai Lama has stated that he wants Tibet to be a democracy, not a theocracy. See here, for instance. He owes his influence to being (as some believe) the reincarnation of the Buddha, but does not want to be head of state on that basis.
Second, supporting a sovereign Tibet is not so much a matter of supporting democracy as it is supporting self-determination. If it was only a matter of democracy, believers in a free Tibet would also have supported the invasion of Iraq, to replace an authoritarian state with a democratic one. (It goes without saying that most people would support the right of China or Iraq to self-determination, while opposing human rights abuses there and supporting sanctions or other measures to discourage them.)
I mistakenly wrote that the Dalai Lama is believed to be the reincarnation of the Buddha. As I was writing it I had the impression that I might not be right, but I clicked “submit” anyway, then checked and, yep, wrong. Sorry about that.
The Dalai Lama is believed to be the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama.
I thought we were all buddha-nature.
"For some, the notion of a journal devoted to the work of a theorist very much alive and intellectually kicking is discombobulating. That death should be a prerequisite for sustained scholarly interrogation of a patently substantial body of work, however, is perhaps stranger still.”
If you meet Zizek on the road…
I feel like the point of the op-ed is that the West is different from China in degree rather than kind on religious issues, or something like that, but he doesn’t make the point especially well.
He almost got to the end of the article without any copy and paste, but the Afghan statue thing is a repeat.
“"""the Zizek op-ed makes some good points.""""”
Mr. Op-Ed always had a way with words.
“"""I feel like the point of the op-ed is..."
Sometimes you feel like a point; sometimes you don’t.
..."vast numbers of our societal elite follow (some of the) religious rituals and mores of our tradition only out of respect for the “lifestyle” of the community to which we belong: Christmas trees in shopping centers every December; neighborhood Easter egg hunts; Passover dinners celebrated by nonbelieving Jews"""”
C’est vraiment. Zizek may downplay China’s lousy human rights’ record: he doesn’t, however, overlook the absurdity of religious “culture”, including that of Buddhism. Whatever buddhism was initially, it’s now mostly a new-agey narcissism (--but then so is consumer Xtianity, or joodaism), superfluous except for perhaps some westside wifeys with sufficient leisure time to contemplate their, uh, navels..........
What the Dalai Lama seems to ignore is the Buddhist theory of karma. Tibet must have done great harm to China to have been invaded. Interesting how theology gets thrown out with the bathwater when it is no longer useful to explain events.
"What the Dalai Lama seems to ignore is the Buddhist theory of karma. Tibet must have done great harm to China to have been invaded. Interesting how theology gets thrown out with the bathwater when it is no longer useful to explain events.”
He actually blames the occupation of Tibet on the bad karma accumulated under the old feudal regime.
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=399
Interesting, that, seeing as how Tibetan feudalism like every feudalism relies on the coercion of the great majority by a powerful minority. Not that the Dalai Lama would have any experience at all within that structure, of course.
“First, the Dalai Lama has stated that he wants Tibet to be a democracy, not a theocracy. See here, for instance.”
His change of mind was convenient, but anything to get the support of the West in the Cold War, I suppose.
“Second, supporting a sovereign Tibet is not so much a matter of supporting democracy as it is supporting self-determination. If it was only a matter of democracy, believers in a free Tibet would also have supported the invasion of Iraq, to replace an authoritarian state with a democratic one. (It goes without saying that most people would support the right of China or Iraq to self-determination, while opposing human rights abuses there and supporting sanctions or other measures to discourage them.)”
Doesn’t it make most sense to tackle the structures responsible for human rights abuses _across_ China and not in just an outlying province?
I don’t know why this thread is starting up again, but if it is:
“His change of mind was convenient, but anything to get the support of the West in the Cold War, I suppose.”
Wait, hold up--you mean, he was working out a position that would gain political allies? Get out of town!
“Doesn’t it make most sense to tackle the structures responsible for human rights abuses _across_ China and not in just an outlying province?”
Well, part of the point is that it wasn’t an “outlying province” before the invasion, so its self-determination and China’s are (or should be) separate issues.
But I’ll do you one better: it actually makes the most sense to tackle the structures responsible for human rights abuses across Asia, rather than in one province or country. Henceforth, you can’t be concerned about any issues in North Korea, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, or the Middle East unless you’re simultaneously working on solving problems in all those countries.
As much as Tibetans might have liked it to be otherwise, Tibet was never recognized as an independent state by another country. If anything, one-time neighbours like Britain and Russia explicitly stated that Tibet was a constituent part of China.
“But I’ll do you one better: it actually makes the most sense to tackle the structures responsible for human rights abuses across Asia, rather than in one province or country.”
That’s just silly. Tibet, as part of China, shares the same polity as the rest of China. Why fight for religious freedom in only a single Chinese province, if for no other reason than that religious freedom in Tibet will be pretty threatened if religious freedom exists only there. Chinese Buddhists and Christians suffer the same sorts of issues, and Muslims in Xinjiang (I don’t know about the Hui) appear to fare even worse. Why not a campaign for religious freedom for all Chinese, regardless of region or ethnicity or religion?
This is sounding too much like conversations I’ve had with people who don’t believe in the existence of Palestinians, so I think I’ll discontinue it. So long.
"This is sounding too much like conversations I’ve had with people who don’t believe in the existence of Palestinians[.]”
?
Point A: I haven’t said that Tibetans don’t have serious grievances. They have suffered very significantly; burdens have been placed upon their culture far heavier than what one would expect if Tibet had modernized independently, to say nothing of the death toll.
Point B: I _have_ said that the moral authority of the Tibetan government-in-exile and the Dalai Lama is questionable at best, that Tibet has never been recognized as an independent state no matter how mmuch some people might like it to be otherwise, and that Tibetan problems can’t be seen in isolation from those of the rest of China if they are to be solved.
One can feel sympathy for the Tibetans without believing every claim made by Tibetans and their sympathizers. If anything, by knowing what’s actually going on and what’s actually possible, one could provide more help than anything that a starry-eyed idealists/fanatic could give.
Oh, no no no no!
Tibet invaded China back in the First Millennium, and sacked the Tang Dynasty capital while the Tang Dynasty was in deep decline. In a sense, you could blame the collapse of the Tang Dynasty for everything that is wrong with China today.
So… karma!