previous | | 1.5.8 (51) | contents

m047.jpg


fig.40—“interpretations of interpretations interpreted” 


 In figs.34­-37 we mined a footnote—here, a full essay (to which we shall return). Why? To get a feel for Žižek’s four discourses.  How? First: we stack two all­-adjective Plots atop fig.38 to make fig.40. By mining his text for qualifiers, we fill in the X,Y sub­-plot and A,B metaterms. Thus, we trace +A archepolitics, as “the ‘communitarian’ attempt to define a traditional, closed, organically structured, homogeneous social space that allows for no void in which [political trauma] can emerge” to ­-B ultrapolitics, as “the attempt to depoliticize the conflict by way of bringing it to extremes [of] direct militarization [by] reformulating it as a war between us and them”; as we cross to +B, we begin to see why Žižek would call it “Hobbesian”—a formal, transparent parapoliticsfocuses on the problematic of social contract” to resolve the conflicts of its substructure; it is open by virtue of collaborative practice; its progressive aim is tempered by contractual restraint. Since we began at +A, as had Žižek­-with-Plato, we have yet to face ­-A, as shall Žižek­-with-Marx. 

index | 1.5.9 (52) | | next

m048.jpg


 Second: upon another copy of fig.38, we stack fig.41 (above): as some few will have noted, Žižek quarters qualitative discourses by recourse to Lacan, whose [S1|S2|a|$] schema turns by recourse to Hegel, Freud, and Saussure. While we shan’t dive in after the dashing rabbit, note the counter­-revolving hole. Discourses are self­-moving targets. Can our recourse hunt them down? Yes—provided we ask who speaks from these places, and for these positions: To put “faces” to them, we omit academics and sit TV­-newspersons: if Glen Beck speaks ­-B, the obvious +B obverse is Rachel Maddow; but who speaks for +A? or for ­-A? to put it in terms of Lacan’s matrix of the four discourses, [­-A] is occupied by knowledge. Marx presented his position as scientific materialism”—hence, with Darwin and Freud, the Triumvirate of Terror; metapolitics “legitimizes itself [via] direct reference to the scientific status of its knowledge”—but then again, the “ethical Ideal towards which the revolutionary subject strives is directly grounded in (or coincides with) the ‘objective’, ‘disinterested’ scientific knowledge of social processes. This coincidence opens up a space for totalitarian violence...”

© 2008-2012 Ian C Thorne. all rights reserved. about credits privacy contact share