Polemos

All things theory / Polemos — No Comments
4
Sep 11

The Next Generation

It is election time and the all the well-known political themes are flourishing. One theme that seems unable to sustain its steady dominance since 2001, however, is that of national identity. This, of course, poses a bit of a problem for the party primarily devoted to this sole theme. They appear strangely left out and ignored and their cries for a significant position in the spotlight sound ever more hysterical.

One such desperate voice belongs to Marie Krarup, daughter of long time member of parliament for the Danish People’s Party (DF) Søren Krarup. He is retiring this year but the next generation is ready to take over, to continue the fight for “true conservatism.”

Klaus Wivel interviewed her for Weekendavisen and her statements played in a similar key to that of the Zizek quote brought up in Che vuoi? A spinning top made out of pork:

One becomes a full member of a community not simply by identifying with its explicit symbolic tradition, but only when one also assumes the spectral dimension that sustains this tradition, the undead ghosts that haunt the living, the secret history of traumatic fantasies transmitted “between the lines,” through the lacks and distortions of the explicit symbolic tradition […]

In my own sloppy translation, Marie Krarup said the following:

Continue reading →

All things theory / Polemos — 1 Comment
1
Sep 11

Che vuoi? A spinning top made out of pork

As most readers of Zizek have propably noticed, the pelvis of Cultural Theory has a tendency to repeat himself, giving many passages a strange air of déjà vu. This, of course, is not a problem per se, but if, like me, you are hysterical when it comes to references, it does tend to disrupt your reading somewhat when you feel the irrepressable urge to go look for that other place where you saw that paragraph last.

One such fragment is the following:

One becomes a full member of a community not simply by identifying with its explicit symbolic tradition, but only when one also assumes the spectral dimension that sustains this tradition, the undead ghosts that haunt the living, the secret history of traumatic fantasies transmitted “between the lines,” through the lacks and distortions of the explicit symbolic tradition […]

This passage can be read twice in the 2008 edition of The Fragile Absolute (pp. vii-viii and 58) and once in The Puppet and the Dwarf (p. 128).

In all three instances, the text adequately describes “Judaism’s stubborn attachment to the unacknowledged violent founding gesture that haunts the public legal order…” (ibid.). Zizek’s goal is to rid society of this spectral haunting and its obscene superego legal supplement, which is why he hails Christianity as the revelation that “there is nothing – no secret – behind it to be revealed” (Puppet p. 127); that “with this “Father, why hast thou forsaken me?,” it is God-the-Father who, in effet, dies, revealing His utter impotence, and thereupon rises from the dead in the guise of the Holy Spirit [the community of believers = communism] (Puppet p. 126).

Continue reading →

All things theory / Polemos — No Comments
13
Jun 11

Zizek’s misreading of Foucault

In a rant about the relations between the university discourse and the Master-Signifier 1, Zizek criticizes Foucault:

What one should avoid here is the Foucauldian misreading: the produced subject is not simply the subjectivity which arises as the result of the disciplinary application of knowledge-power, but its remainder, that which eludes the grasp of knowledge-power.

The thing is, that this is not an adequate rendition of Foucault. It might be ascribed to Althusser for whom the subject was constituted solely by the interpellation of ideology but for Foucault the remainder is exactly what characterizes the subject.

One indication of this remainder is found in Foucault’s desciption of his attempt to analyze power:

It consists of taking the forms of resistance against different forms of power as a starting point.2

In order to understand power as well as subjectivation we should study resistance, the remainder. Foucault, of course is althusserian, and he acknowledges the transition from the individual to the subject as a a result of power but even then, there are two meanings to the word ‘subject’:

It is a form of power which makes individuals subjects. There are two meanings of the word “subject”: subject to someone else by control and dependence; and tied to his own identity by a conscience or self-knowledge. Both meanings suggest a form of power which subjugates and makes subject to.3

Both meanings suggest power and the production of the subject by power but in one, power takes the role of agent whereas the second is a matter of subjective response. The remainder is completely immersed in various power structures but, nonetheless, it remains a remainder.

This is exactly what constitutes Foucault’s notion of Freedom:

Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free. By this we mean individual or collective subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving, several reactions and diverse comportments, may be realized. Where the determining factors saturate the whole, there is no relationship of power; slavery is not a power relationship when man is in chains.4

Subjectivity according to Foucault is precisely characterized by some splinter of freedom, by what Zizek calls “its remainder, that which eludes the grasp of knowledge-power.” The foucauldian misreading turns out to be Zizek’s misreading of Foucault.

  1. Cf. Zizek: HOMO SACER AS THE OBJECT OF THE DISCOURSE OF THE UNIVERSITY ↩
  2. Foucault: “The subject and power” in Critical Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Summer, 1982), p. 780 ↩
  3. Foucault: “The subject and power” p. 781 ↩
  4. Foucault: “The subject and power” p. 790 ↩
Polemos / Waffle — No Comments
27
May 11

Von Trier’s breast

Much has been said about Lars von Trier’s failed remarks at his Cannes press conference. Too much. One of the few sain interventions came from Hannah Pilarczyk at Spiegel. She states:

By deciding to declare von Trier persona non grata for the current competition, the festival loses much of its credibility. Treating von Trier’s remarks as a political position to be taken seriously and drawing extensive consequences from it misjudges the situation in which von Trier made the remarks, as well as his work as aesthetic context.

I completely agree. Yes, Trier said foolish things, he has apologized, now let’s get on with it. Anyone taking his remarks at face value and thus considering him a true Nazi is a blithering idiot. So there.

But now, according to Danish newspaper Politiken, French/German television channel Arte threatens to pull further sponsorship for von Trier’s movies. They have financially supported several of his films but, apparently, they now feel that the remarks, although acknowledged as a failed joke, enter into conflict with their overall identity and purpose.

From Politiken:

“We know it was said for fun. But it was simply not funny. We found Trier’s statements crude and very shocking. We need to reconsider whether we can continue to support his films,” says Arte Film Director Michel Reilhac.
[…]
Arte was originally created by the then French President François Mitterand and Germany’s Helmuth Kohl as a way of signalling an end to historical enmity and in order to show through culture that European countries share the same ideals about humanity and generosity.

“Lars von Trier’s statements do not fit in to that perspective,” Reilhac says.

Arte hereby loses all credibility as a producer of quality cultural content. This reaction reminds me of the time Janet Jackson showed a not quite naked breast during a Super Bowl performance. To be shocked by Trier would require the same nervous frailty as the woman who claimed substantial psychic damage three years after being inflicted by Jackson’s breast. It is a feigned shock, designed to show… I have no idea! Does it demonstrate moral superiority to say “We know he didn’t mean it but, nonetheless, we were profoundly hurt”? This is the reaction you would expect form the tabloids, from the small town idiots who gossip about their new next door neighbour, not from what is supposed to be a powerhouse of cultural television.

Polemos — No Comments
19
Mar 11

Hey… Hey… Listen..!

I have just done something I have never done before. I knocked on the door of my upstairs neighbour to complain about the level of noise issuing from the apartment at two in the morning.

I don’t normally do that sort of thing, as I believe we should all be allowed some guests and some beers from time to time. What triggered this first accusing knock, however, was a simple discussion between three people. I think the topic was US involvement in certain geopolitical matters and how these are taught and communicated. One particularly effective argument was the following: “Listen, listen, listen… I can only say that when I have to tell my kids about American intervention, I’ll say that they only do what’s best for themselves!”

A wonderful silence of almost five seconds followed this immensely astute observation of American foreign politics. Then the shouting recommenced.

I love drunken debates, I really do. I love having a shouting match about Hegelian traits in Nietzsche when I am so thoroughly sloshed that I have forgotten my complete ignorance of the matter. But listening to others doling out their dime-store apothems is auditory torture well beyond any preteen a cappella rendition of Lady Gaga’s Bad Romance.

I think we should agree – drunkard to drunkard – that if three people debate in a private room, and you still have to shout “Hey… Hey… Listen!” in order to get a word in, you really need to find a bar loud enough to allow for such lung effort or shut the fuck up.

Polemos — No Comments
14
Feb 10

Teabagging the Nation – A Patriotic Pursuit

Sarah Palin on Twitter

On February 10, Sarah Palin tweeted a public birthday greeting to Glenn Beck: “Happy B’day Glenn Beck! Ah, the wisdom of our elders…” Apart from the feigned folksiness of the word “B’day” and the astonishing attributing of wisdom to Glenn Beck, the tweet primarily declares an attempted strategic alliance. Self-professed “rodeo clown” Glenn Beck soon reciprocated by suggesting one of the few strategic alliances described by the American Constitution: “Happy belated birthday to my younger friend Sarah. Let’s just have a combined party in 2013, to save the WH pastry chef some work.” So, however jokingly it may have been put forth, we now have the proposition of a Palin/Beck ballot in 2012.

This twittering mating game may not disclose actual political plans and aspirations on behalf of Glenn Beck but Palin has declared herself ready and willing if not rough and ready, she has publicly cuddled up to elderly wisdom, and the wise old man is apparently going along as far as the ride will take him. Both twitterers seem to be flaunting blatant political opportunism in a giddy, frivolous manner indicating that whatever they are doing, it is working.
Continue reading →

in Danish / Polemos — No Comments
14
Jan 10

Del og Hersk

I lederen Kulturracisme 1 tager Anne Knudsen til orde i debatten om Lars Hedegaards efterhĂĄnden famøse pĂĄstand: “De voldtager deres egne børn. Det hører man hele tiden. Piger i muslimske familier bliver voldtaget af deres onkler, deres fætre eller deres far.” Til den omfattende stĂĄhej, denne udtalelse har afstedkommet, svarer Anne Knudsen:

“Hvis nogen efter en tĂĄr over tørsten havde forsøgt sig med at lancere pĂĄstanden om, at de missionske boller deres døtre tykke, eller at førtidspensionister driver hjemmebordeller med mindreĂĄrige, som et seriøst indslag i debatten om noget som helst, havde alle og enhver trukket pĂĄ skuldrene over det rablende fjols, uanset hvilken forening han eller hun var formand for. Men adskillige fuldvoksne danskere har nu i ugevis seriøst beskæftiget sig med Lars Hedegaards pĂĄstand fra denne skuffe.

Anne Knudsen mener altsĂĄ, at Lars Hedegaard har været udsat for en noget pedantisk behandling, der ikke var tilkommet nogen anden i en lignende situation. AltsĂĄ udgør “adskillige fuldvoksne danskeres” barnlige reaktion en overfølsomhed over for enten Lars Hedegaard eller enhver kritik af Islam. Dette argument er tidligere fremført af Søren Krarup:
Continue reading →

  1. Weekendavisen nr 01 – 8. januar 2010 ↩
All things theory / Housekeeping / Polemos — No Comments
13
Jan 10

What matter who’s speaking?

A friend recently questioned the use of the personal pronoun “we” on aleph.dk. The question was posed on a rather bacchanalesque occasion, so the debate soon wandered off and finally had to sit down against a wall somewhere. In order to actually answer the very interesting question of personal pronouns, however, it would be pertinent to quote Beckett: “Qu’importe qui parle, quelqu’un a dit qu’importe qui parle” 1

There is a funny double entendre in the French original, which is sadly lost in translation. The sentence has three members. The first one is perceived as a question even though it has no question mark. The second member states that someone said something, this something being the third member. The ambiguity arises in this last member, which can be read as both a direct and an indirect quotation. Either someone repeated the question in the first member – “What matter who’s speaking” – or someone said that, in fact, it matters who is speaking.
Continue reading →

  1. Beckett’s own English translation goes as follows: “What matter who’s speaking, someone said what matter who’s speaking.” ↩
in Danish / Polemos — No Comments
5
Jan 10

Anne Knudsens juleevangelium

Anne Knudsen

Anne Knudsen indleder sit juleevangelium – sin sædvanlige tilsvining af alle, der ikke smertefrit træder den gode produktive borgers sko og marcherer i takt med “det store vi” – med et julemysterium: Hvordan kan det være, at der ĂĄr efter ĂĄr bliver flere værdigt trængende, nĂĄr arbejdsløsheden stadigt er lav. Det mystiske ved mysteriet er naturligvis ikke selve mysteriet, som ikke er et mysterium, men proklameringen af mysteriet. Mysteriet har jo rent faktisk mulige forklaringer, men som sædvanlig foretrækker Anne Knudsen at insinuere uforklarlighedens utilladelighed, ligesom hun afviser “forvildede unge” og “moraliserende lovovertrædere”, fordi muligheden af, at de skulle have legitime motiver, ligger uden for den tidligere antropologiske forskers fatteevne 1.

Julemysteriet er naturligvis relateret til gaven: “Riges omsorg for fattige mennesker er imidlertid en af de dyder, den moderne velfærdsstat har gjort en del for at udrydde; man fandt det nemlig uværdigt, at private fattige skulle (eller bare kunne) sige tak til private rige.” Statens gavegiveri er sĂĄledes “endnu et skridt pĂĄ vejen væk fra det personlige ansvar og frem mod staten som det eneste voksne samfundsmedlem.” Den patroniserende stat skal altsĂĄ afløses af de riges patronat. I stedet for en eftergivende stat skal de fattige børn fĂĄ en anden kærlighed at føle.
Continue reading →

  1. se evt. indlæggene Muligheden af en anden verden og Dyr og dyr – angivelighedens pris ↩
in Danish / Polemos — 1 Comment
22
Dec 09

Muligheden af en anden verden

I fredags var Anne Knudsen som sĂĄ ofte før 1 ude med sin lettere sløve rive efter alle, der ikke indgĂĄr i “det store vi” med dertil hørende respekt for ejendomsretten og generel tilfredshed med det bestĂĄende samfund. Hun indleder med, hvad der i en bedre verden var en overflødig anerkendelse af ytringsfriheden. Hmm…

Hvis man anerkender menneskerettighederne, hvilket Anne Knudsen jo foregiver, giver det ikke mening at relativisere og hierarkisere dem. Menneskerettighederne betragtes vel som ubestridelige, som a priori strukturer i menneskets konstitution. Er ytringsfriheden vigtigere end artikel 6, der fremstĂĄr lettere overset i de politihandlinger, som Anne Knudsen hylder: “Ethvert menneske har overalt i verden ret til at blive anerkendt som retssubjekt”? Derudover er menneskerettighederne jo en “anerkendelse af den mennesket iboende værdighed og af de lige og ufortabelige rettigheder,” hvorfor de som fundamentale menneskelige elementer er evige. Skal man absolut give dem en historie, springer 1948 i øjnene som ĂĄbenlyst pejlemærke for alle menneskerettighederne, hvorfor det igen er meningsløst at tale om “ældste.”
Continue reading →

  1. se evt. vores sidste svada mod Anne Knudsen her ↩
← Older Entries