Slavoj Žižek - Unbehagen in der Natur: On Thinking the End of Nature (2022)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 พ.ค. 2024
- A talk given by Slavoj Žižek at Princeton in 2022 as part of a lecture series on "Universality & its Glitches". Note, the introduction has been edited out, and so on, and so on.
00:00 Pre-Talk
10:25 Talk
1:25:49 Q&A
Source: mediacentral.princeton.edu/me...
#philosophy #zizek
Videos like these allow me to dive into youtube for hours without having to feel guilty. TH-cam contains its own freeing from guilt for youtubing, just as the extra price of those coffees frees us from guilt for our decadent expenses.
There's inspiration to be found even in the most wretched of places...
how does expensive coffee free you from guilt? shouldnt you be even more guilty about buying that shit? lol
Genius as always 🎉
I have to say that, despite my reservations about engaging with Žižek’s thought on trans issues, the first section of this called to mind an excellent book published earlier this year called Gender Without Identity by Ann Pellegrini and Avgi Saketopoulou.
The ideological constellation those authors start from is rather different-with on the one hand trans activists often insisting on a “born this way” narrative where gender identity is thought to be made more acceptable if it is somehow seen as innate and something about which the individual has no choice, over and against the insistence that gender identity is a result of trauma in a psychoanalytic sense and therefore something that can be “fixed,” thereby reinstating normal psychosexual development.
I think the future of gender theory and psychoanalysis will be extremely interesting as the two learn from one another and it’s foolish to reject one or the other for plainly political/ideological reasons.
he never said anything controversial about trans people. you guys are just triggered by slightest amount of discourse, proving his real point brilliantly.
@@roderbergis4038 Well I’m not sure what you take his “real point” to be, or why you’d assume I’m one of “us guys” who is triggered by discourse on gender theory, but if you must know my reason for having reservations about Žižek’s contributions, it’s simply that I find other theorists have more plausible explanations that are more grounded in anthropological considerations, a field I have more experience in than psychoanalytic thought.
Edit: I also find it amusing to claim he never said anything controversial-this man is basically a walking controversy and he seems to cultivate that intentionally.
That Pellegrini book sounds interesting - I'll have a look. I think Zizek would not agree to a strong idea of 'normal' psychosexual development, and would follow the Freudian line that we are all to some degree 'perverted'. But that really aims to suggest the deeper philosophical view that attaining human subjectivity, interior selfhood, consciousness etc is also to be 'split', unfinished, divided between symbolic life and biological existence in the material world. Gender and sexed bodies cannot be co-extensive and reconciled into one integrated whole. No fully satisfactory normality. All of us are like that - nobody inhabits their gender identity fully and without unease or division. So Zizek can also 'praise' the resistances some gender activists put up - the commitment to a self-definition under difficult circumstances. However, he has also gone more quiet on other comments about the reality of biological sexed bodies, and dismissing Butler's performative views on gender. Here's an interesting provocation by him: ontologically there is only sex. If you think about it: all variations of gender expression are just variations of symbolically expressing maleness, femaleness, indeterminate-male-femaleness. There is no non-sexually referenced gender ascription. Even a claim of perfect androgyny has to be referenced by the negation of maleness and femaleness. The negations are themselves (following Freud and Hegel) of course also logical operations -references, and therefore positive instantiations of maleness, femaleness.
@@paulaa1175
Yes, I think your characterization of Žižek’s rejection of “normal” psychosexual development has a strong proximity to where Pellegrini and Saketopoulou end up-likely due a shared theoretical heritage stemming from Freud and Lacan, although Pellegrini and Saketopoulou draw heavily on Laplanche (who I’ve never heard Žižek mention, if anyone knows more about dialogues between the two of them I’d be very interested). In fact, one of Laplanche’s essays (Gender, Sex, and the sexual) is reprinted in GWI as supplementary material for those unfamiliar with Laplanche’s views. It’s fascinating stuff, especially Laplanche’s critique of the idea that our usual notion of sex is properly “biological.” Most of the time, he claims, sex is best understood as an anatomical category relating to observable phenotypic traits and inferences about sexual organs based on those observations. Gender identities-all of them, even normative ones-are the result of the original trauma of the “fundamental anthropological situation” where the infant is exposed to unconscious sexual messages from the parents and other caregivers. So it’s not only that “I” am a split subject, but that I can only come to know myself through messy, traumatic relationships with caregivers and cultural (Symbolic) resources that are all stained with the sexual from the start. It’s fascinating stuff and I see how an engagement with Žižek’s Lacan/Hegel framework could be very productive.
As to Butler’s performativity, in the form presented in Gender Trouble, which as far as I know has generally been Žižek’s target, I think it is basically only worth historical interest and shouldn’t be taken as a tenable position. In form it’s basically behaviorist in the sense of like the Vienna Circle or B.F. Skinner, where all it can mean to say “I have so and such a gender identity” is that I act in the ways that are considered normatively acceptable for people who claim to have such an identity. So to say that I believe the stove is hot can only be glossed as my tendencies to avoid touching it, using it to cook only when it is in a particular state, or something like that. But what Butler added to this was that idea of an ability to “negotiate” norms through repetitive subversive actions. I think the reason that gender theory especially of this type is necessary is that we require a way of moving from the naturalist insistence on human biology-or for Žižek, the ontological primacy of sex-to the properly normative realm of social life. But what Butler realized as early as 1997 in The Psychic Life of Power was that the best way to make this move in terms of gender is to appeal to psychoanalysis. Their application of psychoanalysis to gender identity in that book is also missing a lot, but what is important is that even Butler rejected their earlier behaviorist performativity. I’d just say regarding the final section that a fourth term to be added to that would be the fact that there are people who insist on being “agender”, which fits into the semiotic as a rejection of sex or gender at all (hence also a reference to both but one of absolute negation).
Zizek on Laplanche: a few places. The Ticklish Subject, p.282+.(that chapter 5 is good re Butler) Elsewhere I can't remember.There's not much though, since Laplanche I believe while sharing some Lacanian views also remained more traditionally Freudian (though not ego-psychology style Freud). Butler as behaviourist? That's a bit of a rough characterisation. Her early views are very indebted to Althusser and Foucault. Social constructedness writ large. There is still important work to be done showing how Butler misinterprets Foucault's History of Sexuality. The use of the Hercule Barbine text is very poor work. This is a great critique: www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia01/parrhesia01_boucher.pdf Yes I get your points about avoiding old-fashioned biological determinism. Certainly Zizek is not doing that, yet, he is also a proper materialist: humans do come in two morphological forms, which fundamentally cuts across the symbolic dimensions by which we attribute basic identities.
So... It's completely crazy to think that a social movement can come along and 'plan' how to subvert sex and gender, and make up useful new pronouns, and harness rights discourse, and grant special powers to individuals, and hey presto, a 'more just' new regime of genders will emerge. It's even crazier to imagine that individuals can unilaterally declare what they are essentially, and expect this to become an enforceable civic demand on others. No ascription of the self comes from the self. To nominate 'an identity' is to say - "I belong to that group and its characteristics." Language is a social fact. To identify is to identify with ... So anyone who claims to be 'agender' is minimally subscribing to a category that can be shared. "I am one of those." And then any such position is partially organised by how it negates: "we are NOT ..." etc. Current trans thought is so individualistic, so weak in understanding the character of language, so shallow in its politics ... the neo-liberal Right can have a great time splashing 'woke' across the whole thing ... There - sorry, getting polemical - enjoyed your response. I am working hard and tired, cheers, Paul. @@officialPlacidity
How sad that nobody thought about audio during the last hour of this presentation.
It was fixed afterwards
Coin toss on which is better... Zizek adlib, or reading from notes.... he always pleases. Had to turn off last part due to terrible audio. Thanks tho for posting.
His observations are worth hearing, even if he is a complete mad man and you are diametrically opposed to his views. It is brain tickling at least.
@@rosaehermeticus7807 ah yes, the pop culture fanboys are finally leaving the room. now we real philosophers - people who actually studied it - can start listening to zizek without all the uneducated hype around him. thank you.
I'm not a philosopher, but I can understand him. Lacan is difficult though. Hegel and Marx are much easier. "Fuck mother Nature". Pardon me.@@roderbergis4038
@@RereloluwaAkintayo-3579 bwahaha sure you do.
@@RereloluwaAkintayo-3579 then what of Hegel did you read? I call your bluff, sir.
@MrLcowles an abstract idea worded in difficult prose isn't vague, it's simply inaccessible to anyone who can't approach ideas without the concrete allure of the senses. You've be filtered, chud.
The forest dieback was real, just a little overestimated. A major cause has been eliminated: the emission of sulfur gases from coal-fired power plants, which results in acid rain that has been shown to damage plants.
Forest dieback phenomena are occurring again today due to climate change: As a result of this, tree pests can venture into regions for which it was previously too cold for them. There they find no natural enemies, which means that the plants are left defenseless. Long droughts caused by climate change are also noticeably affecting Central European forests. This also has a negative economic impact: wood harvests become less and/or less valuable (heat damage). As a result, the prices for high-quality wood, for example for building buildings, making musical instruments and making furniture, are rising.
Precisely this has to get added to Zizeks statement about "more forests than ever. . ."
Let's buy the shitty Amazonas forests 😍
The new ‘invasive species’ in Waldsterben like the Borkenkäfer are according to, from my knowledge unchallenged, expert opinions a largely natural reaction to artificial green reforestation efforts. The bugs become an overwhelming problem in the unnatural monoculture forest with fast growing, but vulnerable trees.
With a little bit of intervention, where they destroy, actually good forest can grow later.
@@Sheeshening The bark beetle is not an invasive species but is native. It is still a problem today. The reason for this is the lack of its natural enemies (especially species of flies and beetles, which primarily attack not adult bark beetles but eggs or larvae). The reasons for this are environmental toxins and the aforementioned monocultures.
@@santaclaus0815 no disagreement here
Theatre as usual🤯
Every single artefact material or chemical thing, is made from nature, and in the day you understand that Plastic its Natural you re-think your concepts about artificiality.
1:01:12 The high point . . .
Agamben reference: 01:06:53
I wish there was Turkish in automatic translation, all video for
Speak monkey? 🐒
39:40 lol
anybody catch the name of that sci fi author he mentioned? not Liu Xixing, the european woman that should write about pandemic rats
Patricia Highsmith?
Liu Cixin
I'm not exactly rational optimist, there's some pessimism.
Whoever was in the first row: how did you stand all that spittle?
You would swear to god that his guy is the only philosopher in the entire world. Good grief.
too bad hes a NATO supporter
I've never heard about a trans person killing themselves after getting the official, juridical sex change. I've actually written a lot about transgender through an explicit "zizekian" lens. There are a LOT of interesting points in hegelo-lacanian thought, but I really really don't like ascribing trans suicide to gender affirmation. If anyone here can argue for his point, I'm listering, though
It was a weird point and it ended abruptly so I'm not sure if there was originally a thought he wanted to add to it.
As I understood it the point had nothing to do with trans people, it was just a point to show that if you fight the system long enough you forget how to live your life normally. When you finally get embedded in the system itself this feels scary and unnatural (like joining the enemy), leading to the point of suicide. But again, that was just my interpretation he did not state this clearly.
His story is anecdotal at best. There was a recent study (2024) done in the US which found that, of those who fully transitioned, 79% felt more satisfied with their lives after transitioning.
Should the little child "i" choose between my 2 Forefathers Who raised the CHILD from afar EAST? Who raised, fed, cloths, teach to remind already the child already knows? Visited to comfort the COMFORTER, and provided Haven for the poor RICH YOUNG RULER Nations resting upon HIS SHOULDER. Who are ye ALL HEIRS and our BEAUTIFUL? Thy shared I AM who love with patience, mercy, and grace! Washer of Feet seating upon Judgment and justice is HIS THRONE! Gratitude and Honor! What is Gratitude? Should the CHILD turned HIS back from "WHO HAVE RAISED THE OLIVE..."? KEEP WATCH! Gratitude and Honor knows belongs. What is this and what is that? Without My Feet resting upon my Footstool! Students will say none exists! I know? Students will say mileage from thy feet is recognize! Indeed. Preserve Foundation for all thy feet to rest upon.
Why does criticism of capitslism not threaten it? Because the accumulation of capital never has any signifcant opposition, except by other capitalists. No one sees it as a threat to their life. Capitalists provide minimal jobs and through government, a minimal social safety net. Although, Extinction Rebellion is trying to make the case against capital.
Also, as Zizek said, its attractiveness and strength grows by the force of it being criticised and blamed.
Crisis is the very DNA of capitalism.
@@farrider3339 Also see Herbert Marcuse on the concept of repressive tolerance
@@DelFlo thanks man. I will check
Regular apples taste like shit, modified to be just sugar.
His point regarding gender critical and biological sex was so far off the mark, and so irrational, that despite what he said, it doesn’t seem like he really has thought about it.
Gotta upload some capitalist philosopher to balance it out
They upload plenty
Our beautiful Mothers holding a little Child "i". Some will say is HE born from a VIRGIN? Our Beautiful will say come...likewise remember who is sitting in the Midst! Who sitteth upon judgment and justice! Who love with patience, mercy, and grace! Where else space, room, and came with time given from the True Owner. It took a HOLY BLOOD stains to be accused! For Time to be allowed from the True Owner! SOME WILL SAY WHY THERE'S SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING? Even unto all the Who am I and all these principalities who deceiveth sitting in high places? Given Time. Now the True Owner will Visit. SOME WILL SAY WHO IS THAT LITTLE CHILD "i"?
HE'S DEFINITELY ON HEROIN SNORTED BEFORE CLASS
he didn't you asshole. It's a nervous tick he has
Um Zizek, humans are just sexual, like we really like sex in all sorts of ways, with all sorts of people. But if we’re talking about the politics of identity, then homosexuality predates heterosexuality as a clinical concept, thanks to psychoanalysis. And gender is everywhere and always relational and performative. Everyone does it - if you don’t believe me then wear a dress for a few weeks. It may not ‘feel’ right, but then ‘changing’ your gender back will not be so radical or traumatic. It is a change of costume, though for the most committed can be a change of body as well. Body composition and shape, hair length, brain chemistry, sex organs, skin pigment etc are all body modifications that people choose, and so they should. The point being, we are all queer, and transgendered - and largely unconcerned. It’s neurotic to dwell on a few people who do the process of their sexuality or gender differently, but still arrive at the same place as everyone else.
His point was that it is ridiculous to act like something as our identity is so fluid and subject to change; having the 'wrong' identity is traumatic exactly for that reason, it is something super deep and central to our being and doesn't just change by the day.
The non philosophers philosopher.
He is incomprehensible
I'm not a native English speaker but I figure out every single idea he expresses.
I understood everything. He's a philosopher after all, giving a lecture at a school
@@miguelgarzon6281You think.
Zizek is now unfortunately out-of-date with his understanding of ecology and environmental ethics/politics. He assumes 'deep ecology' is still influential; he assumes environmentalism still thinks of nature as a stable repetition of cycles; he quotes Lukacs from the 1920s understanding nature as a social category. (yawn) You only have to read a decent newspaper to get plenty of quality description of how today we understand the complexity of the planet's systems AND the problems of what we still don't know. (for example, the unknown dynamics of the deep ocean) Climate change pushes constant ecological updates into mainstream media: we can easily know how we are 'part of nature'. (Judith Butler is almost totally unimportant in the real discussions - why bother to disagree with her?) "collective interventions are needed Zizek says - sure ... now what have you got to get the 'collectivity' thing happening? Not much.
Yawn
Clueless Much?
Yawn
who are you quoting then?
Reading a newspaper is no longer a reliable citation today
WTF
Clean your ears? put on subtitles? I understand him well
really? You understand this nose blowing nose rubbing snot flying freak? Good for you Dexter.
how the fuck somebody understand what he says. He jumps from one conclusion from to other, talks gibberish, there is no coherence. i understand it needs to be this way because it is complicated and philosophical topic but what is this seriously.
You should look at David Pickus’s paper on Zizek, he talks about this exact thing.
If you like to watch a court jester, he is the Best.
Train on vertical thinking.
Coherence is for weenies.
Nothing, just jester.
Ramblings of a madman
this guy is not impressive at all
Im so glad he announces his opposition to the basic science of sex right at the very beginning. It saves me the trouble of listening to the remaining 2 hours.
great argument bro
look, the most stupid person in the room wants a say as well, nice
You are a bullshitter, not saying anything true or false but just bullshit😅
In a Hegelian spirit of dialectic, I kept going. Sadly, synthesis was not achieved.
Synthesis is not the goal, wtf.
Go back to Schelling.