Zizek! Page #2

---

I was shocked

by your toilets here.

"IDEOLOG Y"

Romanticism onwards.

That was the idea

of so-called European trinity...

Anglo-Saxon economy,

French politics,

German metaphysics,

poetry, philosophy...

as the basic...

how should I put it?...

spiritual stances of Europe.

Sorry. That's it.

French politics, revolutionary:

Sh*t should disappear

as soon as possible.

Anglo-Saxon/American:

Let's be pragmatic.

German metaphysic poetry, inspection:

You inspect,

you reflect on your sh*t.

So isn't it totally crazy

that in a vulgar,

common phenomenon like that

you find certain differences

which you truly cannot account

in any functional terms,

but you have to evoke all this.

I mean, you claim,

"Okay, I'm out of ideology

at a conference

post-ideological era."

Then you go to the toilet,

produce sh*t.

You are up to your sh*t,

or how do you put it

in ideology, no?

Who believes what today?

I think this is

an interesting question,

much more complex

than it may appear.

The first myth to be

abandoned, I think,

is the idea that we live

in a cynical era

where nobody

believes no values,

and that there were some times,

more traditional,

where people still believed,

relied of some sort

of substantial notion of belief,

and so on and so on.

I think it's today

that we believe more than ever,

and, as Fuller develops it

in a nice, ironic way,

the ultimate form of belief

for him is deconstructionism.

Why? Again, I'm going back

to that question

of, quote, Marx, no?

Look how it functions,

deconstructionism,

in its standard version,

already at the texture of style.

You cannot find

one text of Derrida

without "A,"

all of the quotation marks,

and "B," all of this

rhetorical distanciations.

Like... I don't know.

To take an ironic example,

if somebody like Judith Butler

were to be asked "What is this?"

She would never have said,

"This is a bottle of tea."

She would have said

something like,

"If we accept

the metaphysical notion

of language identifying

clearly objects,

and taking all this into account,

then may we not"...

she likes to put it

in this rhetorical way...

"...reach the hypothesis that,

in the conditions

of our language game,

this can be said to be

a bottle of tea?"

So it's always this need

to distanciate.

It goes even for love,

like nobody almost dares

to say today "I love you."

It has to be,

as a poet would have put it,

"I love you," or some kind

of a distance.

But what's the problem here?

The problem is that...

why this fear?

Because I claim that,

when the ancients

directly said "I love you,"

they meant exactly the same.

All these distanciations

were included.

So it's we today who are afraid

that, if we were to put it

directly, "I love you,"

that it would mean too much.

We believe in it.

You know what I learned

in the high school?

- What?

- English and Russian.

- You know why Russian?

- Why?

It's so disgusting,

the reasoning behind it.

Because all my friends...

most of my friends...

took either French or German

as a second language.

Okay, my idea was, you know,

there was a code word

to superpowers.

Isn't it good to play it safe?

Whoever wins, I will

speak their language.

There were three levels

of dissidents.

The first in theory...

I mean, if you dealt with theory

or whatever or writing.

The first level was,

"Were you allowed to teach?"

This was the first level

of exclusion.

The second level were,

"Are you allowed to publish books?"

The third level was,

"Are you allowed to get a job

at all in your domain?"

And the fourth level is,

you are arrested

or whatever, no?

I was between the second and third.

My God, I was unemployed.

It was humiliating.

I was 27, and my parents

supported me, my God.

Then for two years,

it was that humiliating job

at the central committee.

They knew that I am not

an idiot

and that I will probably succeed.

So they were afraid

that I would simply move abroad

and succeed there.

This would then be bad for...

you know, another victim

who wasn't allowed

to make a career in Slovenia.

So they want me

to vegetate on the margin,

but there in Slovenia.

It was in a way

an intelligent move,

but they didn't know

that the way they did it,

they made it even easier

for me to move abroad.

Give him 7. It's okay.

Oh, sorry.

Okay. "Gracias."

- This is it.

- Yeah.

- Oh, my God!

- Spectacular.

I thought this would be

some kind of old building

with Peron and...

not Peron, with Borges

and so on.

Oh, yeah. No, it's super-modern.

Oh, my God, I didn't like

the way that guy looked at me.

It's only an idiot coming.

I hate this. Let's move there.

- I really hate this.

- What do you hate?

I hate when...

I think that idiot...

friendly, bright person...

recognized me,

and I hate this,

because then they stare.

They descend on you?

Oh, my God.

Okay, for you.

- To whom do I put it to?

- Flora

- Thank you.

- Thank you.

Did you ever expect this,

to have all these fans?

No, but that's what

I really hate this.

I cannot tell you

how much I hate it.

You don't love it

just a little bit?

No, no, no, no, no.

I think people are evil.

This is horrible.

You see all these creeps,

all these creeps here?

This is horrible.

Who's that hysterical woman?

She's a fan, Slajov.

Yeah, but what is she doing here?

She should go up there

and wait in line,

not annoying me here.

It was simply made

as a documentary

supposed to present

Lacanian theory

to a wide public,

I think for

the second channel

of the French state TV.

What I appreciate

is this inversion...

reversal of the role

between public image and private.

It's this total denigration...

disappearance of this

warm, human person.

This for me is the idea

of ideology.

The central idea

of ideology for me

is not these ideas determine you...

you are a Christian,

you are a Marxist, whatever,

today liberal, I don't know.

But the idea is precisely

that ideological propositions

do not determine us totally.

We cannot be reduced

to our public image:

There is a warm human being behind.

I think this is ideology

at its purest.

The most horrible

and ideological act for me...

and really horrible, terrifying...

is to fully identify

with the ideological image.

The ultimate act is what we think

is our true self.

There is the true acting,

and usually, our truth

to that to which we are

really committed existentially

is in our acts

more than importance

supposed to be behind the act.

So again, my point

is that I'm...

I like philosophy

as an anonymous job,

not as this kind of...

look at the way he moves now,

these gestures.

I find this ridiculous.

He emphasizes

"One cannot say all the truth.

It's impossible materially."

This ridiculous emphasis.

I think it's pure fake,

an empty gesture,

as if he makes a deep point there.

He does not.

I think Lacan,

in a very classical way...

what interests me

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes