...True Openness is not that of undecidability, but that of living in the aftermath of the Event, of drawing out the consequence -- of what? Precisely of the new space opened up by the Event. The anxiety of which Cereau (1) speaks is the anxiety of the act.Zizek & Gunjevic, "God in Pain: Inversions of Apocalypse"
Today's propaganda -- not just in the narrow political sense -- targets the very possibility of all such Openness: it fights against something to which it is structurally blind -- not the actual counter-forces (political opponents), but the possibility (the utopian revolutionary-emancipatory potential) which is immanent to the situation:The goal of all enemy propaganda is not to annihilate an existing force (this function is generally left to police forces), but rather to annihilate an unnoticed possibility of the situation. This possibility is also unnoticed by those who conduct this propaganda, since its features are to be simultaneously immanent to the situation and not to appear in it, (2)This is why enemy propaganda against radical emancipatory politics is by definition cynical -- not in the simple sense of not believing its own words, but at a bunch more basic level: it is cynical precisely insofar as it does believe its own words, since its message is a resigned conviction that the world we live in, if not the best of all possible worlds, is the least bad one, so that any radical change can only make it worse.
(1) Patrice Chereau, cited in Patrick Carnegy's "Wagner and the Art of Theatre"
(2) Alain Badiou, "Seminar on Plato's 'Republic', (unpublished), Feb 13, 2008
...of course, since Socrates would be the first to state that he in fact "knew nothing" of the subject, would likely exonerate him from the charge.
PS- And shouldn't all "radical revolutionary-emancipatory politics" by Zizekian definition be labelled "cynical"...since they, too, are "structurally blind" and know not either all the "unexamined possibilities" opened up by the revolutionary Event in the firm belief that the ensuing world will be a "better" one?
13 comments:
Too late. Already read it. :P
1, not 2.
Heh. I was afraid to seem too presumptuos; after all, you are my senior in years. :)
Nyt, mon ami.
It was late at night and i may have erred. I meant the lives of Antisthenes, of Diogenes, and of Crates by Diogenes Laertius. :)
As you links point out, there has been a "Universalization" of the term "cynic" since Diogenes... it has an "absolute" sense to it that represents the actual philosophy practiced by Diogenes and a "relative" sense now that relates to current and emerging ideologies... and this is the sense that Zizek is currently exploiting.
Indeed. It has been rather a common attitude towards Cynicism throughout its history, to distinguish between "a sham and a true Cynicism, between a perverted Cynicism and an essential core of Cynicism" as represented by Diogenes and Crates.
P.s. "Univerality" has a very specific meaning with respect to Cynicism which was often recognized as a sort of universal philosophy valid for and accessible to everyone. One example you can find in Julian's To the Uneducated Cynic, where he says: “As for myself, who would speak with deference of the gods and those who have made their way towards the divine life, I am convinced that even before him [he is referring to Heracles who, in line with Cynic tradition, he has just made the founder of philosophy, especially ascetic philosophy], there were men—not only among Hellenes, but even among Barbarians—who professed this philosophy[the Cynic philosophy], which is, as it seems to me, universal, entirely natural, and demands no special study. It is sufficient to choose what is decent out of desire for virtue and aversion to vice; there is no need to work on thousands of volumes, for, it is said, ‘erudition does not give one sense.’ One does not have to submit oneself to any other discipline than that which the followers of the other various philosophical schools endure.”
a sham and a true Cynicism, between a perverted Cynicism and an essential core of Cynicism" as represented by Diogenes and Crates.
So, naturally, between an original Cynicism and a "present day" Cynicism as well. :)
As to Zizek, i think all he is doing is using the term in its current popular sense. I don't think Cynicism proper is his concern here. But i could be wrong. I am not much familar with his work. :)
Sorry for the multiple posts, fj, but a very good example of the ambiguity of the attitude towards Cynicism is Lucian’s two texts: The death of Peregrinus and The Life Of Demonax. :)
No apologies necessary. It's been an education! :)
:)
In the Epictetus's text and his portrayal of the ideal Cynic, there is to be found a strong stoic inflection or mutation. One example is where he says that a Cynic ought not to conceal anything that is his - it is the ideal of the unconcealed life, a very common theme in Antiquity - but, instead of connecting it to anaideia, or shamelessness as was the Cynic practice [think Diogenes masturbating in public], he connects it to aidos, or modesty [or self-resepct, as this particular translation says.]
There are other intances as well. :)
Post a Comment