Great accompanying material to the show, after listening to the relevant episodes and getting the broader context this video serves as a convenient condensation to reinforce some of the structure. Seems exhausting, thanks
Hi Todd. Super duper talk and super duper book. I would like to put your thesis on its head and ask you a question. If split subjectivity is the site of potentially political change as opposed to identity, if our political charge depends on whether or not we embrace the lack and alienation then what is the political arrangement which would foster that emergence of a split subjectivity in the first place? I believe that certain political logics are more accommodating to the idea of split subjects than others. You seem to situate the political as consequence of split subjectivity but not viceversa i.e. split subjectivity emerging as a result of a political logic which encourages it. Maybe I have misread your point, but it is nonetheless a challenging thought for me.
I do think it's right that certain political structures are more conducive to making us aware of our split subjectivity. It's easier to think the other way around--the ones that hide it most effectively, such as fascism and related forms.
I'm curious what you would think about following this line of thought in terms of politics related to categories like gender, race and sexuality. For example, if we take the notion of the "chilly climate" expressed by feminist scholars, one could follow the idea of alienation as you're presenting and suggest that such claims do not require any adjustments at all: it is simply the claimant projecting their lack onto the identity "woman". From a mainstream feminist perspective, this would simply be a form of "gaslighting" of sorts. And we can make similar examples from other categories as well. I'm curious how you would address this. One way to approach this is to say you recognize your alienation only by first attempting to rectify it with symbolic identities. But this cannot be exhausted because there are always more identities to reconcile (this is pointed out in response to a question about how we are told to constantly re-invent ourselves today). But the other problem with this approach is it suggests some identities are more conducive to recognition of the relationship between one's subjectivity and alienation: in an American context say, a white heterosexual male would be in a more conducive position to recognize this because there is "nowhere else to climb up", so to speak (this contradicts with the previous problem, but here I'm skeptical there is actually a demand to reinvent our identities among major categories like race and sex). But the point is: the discourse then reproduces certain dominant/privileged identity categories as "more enlightened" or at least with more proximity to it, than the more oppressed categories and what you said about Marcuse tallies with this line of thinking it seems.
Hey Prof, great lecture! Im curious on your comment on Freud: In what way(s) do you think the unconscious can break from biological determinations? Does being consciously aware of the "form" of the unconscious contribute to this? Or is that a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow we can never tap into fully?
I think that the unconscious interpretation that we engage in breaks from biological determinism precisely because it runs counter to interest. To me, that's the key, and it centers around the conception of death drive.
Do you think we can say that subjectivity and ideology are effects of each other, to the extent that subjectivity is shaped by and the unconscious shaping of ideology’s failure to craft a consistent identity?
That's a promising thought. You might think of it either way: ideology emerges to contain the threat of subjectivity, but subjectivity emerges in response to the failure of ideology to constitute an identity (as you say)
You do want to be careful not to say that ideology makes us subjects. It's rather that ideology is a fantasy frame that helps us collectively organize meaning, enjoyment, etc. So in that sense it shapes who we are and can lay the field for our subjectivity to emerge, can give us the cause we cling to in ethics and freedom. But as Todd points out, it's language that makes us subjects: we're the gaps in the symbolic. Ideology is something we/the subject needs/generates as a defense formation against subjectivity/gaps in the symbolic. Oodles more to say ofc.
@@nifarious you’re articulating why I think we can be careful and avoid that danger by recognizing that Ideology and Subjectivity are effects of each other
@@jeanlamontfilms5586 What I'm saying is ideology can influence/affect how subjectivity gets expressed, but subjectivity isn't an effect of/created by ideology. The subject comes first. This is back to the criticism of Althusser/interpolation.
@@nifarious it is shaped through and the shaping of ideology’s failure. Just like sexuality is the effect of and the unconscious shaping of ideology’s failure to generate non-contradictory sexual practices
sir i want to know hegel philosphy is based on common sense or some other criteria? plz answer sir ..i see once zizek regard hegel philosphy as radical form of common sense ?
Can you have a racist act without a concept of race in the first place? Historically the concept of race first emerged to explain class differences in society and only later became preoccupied with skin colour, particularly during the colonial period. The point is that the concept of race allowed the possibility and justification of discriminatory action.
![Understanding Marxism: Q&A with Richard D. Wolff [June 2019]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eU-AkeOyiOQ/mqdefault.jpg)
New McGowan video AND it’s over an hour? It’s a good day.
$NCL
#Mega make Europe great again be there
I want at least three hours, and a Disneyland experience!
I was so hyped to see the title of this one. I know what I’m watching tonight!
Great accompanying material to the show, after listening to the relevant episodes and getting the broader context this video serves as a convenient condensation to reinforce some of the structure. Seems exhausting, thanks
talk begins 16:30
Thanks!
I appreciate this video, I love your lectures. :D
Thanks for posting
Hi Todd. Super duper talk and super duper book. I would like to put your thesis on its head and ask you a question. If split subjectivity is the site of potentially political change as opposed to identity, if our political charge depends on whether or not we embrace the lack and alienation then what is the political arrangement which would foster that emergence of a split subjectivity in the first place? I believe that certain political logics are more accommodating to the idea of split subjects than others. You seem to situate the political as consequence of split subjectivity but not viceversa i.e. split subjectivity emerging as a result of a political logic which encourages it. Maybe I have misread your point, but it is nonetheless a challenging thought for me.
I do think it's right that certain political structures are more conducive to making us aware of our split subjectivity. It's easier to think the other way around--the ones that hide it most effectively, such as fascism and related forms.
@@toddmcgowan8233and communism, presumably.
prof. I think you might enjoy Lev Shestov's apotheosis of groundlessness..or also known as all things are possible.
I'm curious what you would think about following this line of thought in terms of politics related to categories like gender, race and sexuality. For example, if we take the notion of the "chilly climate" expressed by feminist scholars, one could follow the idea of alienation as you're presenting and suggest that such claims do not require any adjustments at all: it is simply the claimant projecting their lack onto the identity "woman". From a mainstream feminist perspective, this would simply be a form of "gaslighting" of sorts. And we can make similar examples from other categories as well. I'm curious how you would address this.
One way to approach this is to say you recognize your alienation only by first attempting to rectify it with symbolic identities. But this cannot be exhausted because there are always more identities to reconcile (this is pointed out in response to a question about how we are told to constantly re-invent ourselves today). But the other problem with this approach is it suggests some identities are more conducive to recognition of the relationship between one's subjectivity and alienation: in an American context say, a white heterosexual male would be in a more conducive position to recognize this because there is "nowhere else to climb up", so to speak (this contradicts with the previous problem, but here I'm skeptical there is actually a demand to reinvent our identities among major categories like race and sex). But the point is: the discourse then reproduces certain dominant/privileged identity categories as "more enlightened" or at least with more proximity to it, than the more oppressed categories and what you said about Marcuse tallies with this line of thinking it seems.
Thank you!!!!!!
Todd should be sponsored by Under Armor
Hey Prof, great lecture!
Im curious on your comment on Freud:
In what way(s) do you think the unconscious can break from biological determinations?
Does being consciously aware of the "form" of the unconscious contribute to this? Or is that a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow we can never tap into fully?
I think that the unconscious interpretation that we engage in breaks from biological determinism precisely because it runs counter to interest. To me, that's the key, and it centers around the conception of death drive.
@toddmcgowan8233 thank you! The word ~sabotage~ comes to mind
Do you think we can say that subjectivity and ideology are effects of each other, to the extent that subjectivity is shaped by and the unconscious shaping of ideology’s failure to craft a consistent identity?
That's a promising thought. You might think of it either way: ideology emerges to contain the threat of subjectivity, but subjectivity emerges in response to the failure of ideology to constitute an identity (as you say)
You do want to be careful not to say that ideology makes us subjects. It's rather that ideology is a fantasy frame that helps us collectively organize meaning, enjoyment, etc. So in that sense it shapes who we are and can lay the field for our subjectivity to emerge, can give us the cause we cling to in ethics and freedom. But as Todd points out, it's language that makes us subjects: we're the gaps in the symbolic. Ideology is something we/the subject needs/generates as a defense formation against subjectivity/gaps in the symbolic. Oodles more to say ofc.
@@nifarious you’re articulating why I think we can be careful and avoid that danger by recognizing that Ideology and Subjectivity are effects of each other
@@jeanlamontfilms5586 What I'm saying is ideology can influence/affect how subjectivity gets expressed, but subjectivity isn't an effect of/created by ideology. The subject comes first. This is back to the criticism of Althusser/interpolation.
@@nifarious it is shaped through and the shaping of ideology’s failure. Just like sexuality is the effect of and the unconscious shaping of ideology’s failure to generate non-contradictory sexual practices
great talk. sorry about your bangles Todd
36:00
One guy just can’t stop rolling his cigarettes lol 😂
sir i want to know hegel philosphy is based on common sense or some other criteria? plz answer sir ..i see once zizek regard hegel philosphy as radical form of common sense ?
beksinski era
Can you have a racist act without a concept of race in the first place? Historically the concept of race first emerged to explain class differences in society and only later became preoccupied with skin colour, particularly during the colonial period. The point is that the concept of race allowed the possibility and justification of discriminatory action.
I would say it this way: the racist act creates the concept of race. This is a point made very cogently by Barbara and Karen Fields.
Honey wake up Todd McGowan just dropped a new video 😩😵💫😭❤️❤️❤️❤️
A series of empty assertions
The story of your life
I challenge you to a duel!