Writing in the execrable Counterpunch, Gilad Atzmon, along with an apparently “adorable” friend of his, dreams of being taken hostage:
“In my dreams I was also held hostage, and very much like in the case of the above dream, I was quick to announce my support of liberation movements and resistance. In my hallucination I was similarly ignored or dismissed.”
By way of Jacques Lacan, Atzmon goes on to say: “The hostage dream is our reaction to our repetitive failure to attain a real comprehensive bond with our subject of solidarity.”
I’d like to suggest something to Atzmon: put yourself in a real situation where you will be able to test the response of your captors.
Here’s how you might go about it. Propose to Hamas that they release the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who turned 23 today, his fourth birthday in captivity, in exchange for you. If you have no means of contacting Hamas directly, perhaps you might try through the good offices of the Turkish Prime Minister, who quoted you approvingly at the last Davos Summit and who, in turn, you described as “rather courageous” before launching into one of your standard tirades against Zionist financial power.
Everybody wins. Gilad Shalit gains his freedom. Gilad Shalit’s family can return to some semblance of normality. The negotiators can hold their heads high. Hamas get to appear magnanimous and keep a hostage at the same time. And you get an opportunity that most human beings would envy: to establish whether the shards of consciousness that compose a dream can be reassembled in a woken state.
Will your Hamas captors welcome you with open arms? Or will they view you with suspicion? Will they chain you to a radiator? Will they beat and spit on you and then refuse you medical attention? No-one can say for sure. But perhaps you’ll be allowed to send a letter through the Red Cross letting us know how it all turned out.
Only hurry. Once more, rumors of an imminent Shalit release are circulating. If they turn out to be true, what an extraordinary chance you will have wasted.
Gilad Atzmon has delusions of grandeur.
The antisemite is insane. No surprise there.
Poor Lacan for having his oeuvre become the plaything of every half-erudite trendy radical. But then again that’s perhaps just what he wanted…
honestly, ganselmi, you’re such a cynic…
“… the plaything of every half-erudite trendy radical.”
More like, quasi-erudite trendy radical. It makes you want to weep, really.
I just read Atzmon’s own piece. It flies in the face of the Freudian (and by extension Lacanian) principle that the latent content of the dream, i.e what you actually see and experience during the dream, distorts or even expresses the very opposite of the repressed, unconscious desire the dream is actually trying to express.
If we take Freudian psychoanalytic theory seriously, Atzmon’s dream more than likely had nothing to do with “solidarity with Palestinian, Arab, and Islamic liberation movements.” It could well be expressing a hatred of his mother-in-law or whatever. Unfortunately I’m not privy to Atzmon’s private life and therefore I can’t speculate. But it’s worth noting that he’s flirtation with psychoanalysis is just as unprincipled as his politics.
“Unfortunately I’m not privy to Atzmon’s private life”
“unfortunately” !!!????
“‘unfortunately’ !!!????”
Hahaha!
On a slightly more serious note; I live in one of the world’s most important center’s for pyschoanalysis and I can’t recall having read any of the sort of nonsense peddled by Atzmon here ( and Jacqueline Rose elsewhere) from the usual anti-Israel crowd
Psychotherapy in Argentina and France is dominated by Lacanian practitioners. Elsewhere, it’s mostly critical theorists who take up Freud and Lacan. And those folks (especially the incredibly popular Slavoj Zizek and Alain Badiou) are vehemently anti-Israel. But they attack Israel on the basis (or pretext) of universal values. ‘Yes anti-semitism is vulgar and dangerous and worthy of every intellectual’s contempt,’ they would argue. ‘BUT, the new anti-semitism would be less problematic were it not for the “Jewishness” ascribed to the state of Israel. Here’s a typical passage from Badiou:
“[T]here is no question of tolerating the anti-Jewish diatribes, uttered in the name of colonial guilt and the rights of Palestinians, that circulate in a number of organizations and institutions that are more or less dependent on identitarian words such as “Arab”, “Muslim”, “Islam”… This anti-Semitism could not be passed off with give-and-take for a progressivism that settles for little …
“Today, some among us are visibly tempted, in the name of the principal character of the contradiction between North and South, or between Arab peoples and American imperialism, to find all sorts of excuses for transforming (legitimate) opposition to the activities of the State of Israel into open and frank anti-Semitism, which is intolerable, and should not he tolerated. All the less so as the actions of progressive Israelis, who constantly show proof of a rare courage, have been crucial to advancing the situation in Palestine.
It’s true enough that, to anyone wanting to eradicate such circumstantial anti-Semitism, it would be helpful if the State of Israel were no longer referred to as the “Jewish state”, and it everywhere it was agreed that a strict separation should be maintained between, on the one hand, religious, customary and private uses of an identity predicate - the words “Arab” and “Jew” as much as “French” and, on the other, its political usages, which are always harmful.” (From Badiou’s “The Uses of the Word ‘Jew’”)
Notice the subtle way he goes from condemning progressive anti-semitism to condemning Israel’s Jewish character as the source of the problem.
“Notice the subtle way he goes from condemning progressive anti-semitism to condemning Israel’s Jewish character as the source of the problem.”
The above statement should not be in bold as it is my writing.
Fascinating contributions, ganselmi.
No doubt, all the world’s problems would be solved if only the Jews accepted the rules laid down for how to define their identity etc. by the progressives of the world…
Off-topic, but: pretty depressing what’s going on in Iran.
“It’s true enough that, to anyone wanting to eradicate such circumstantial anti-Semitism, it would be helpful if the State of Israel were no longer referred to as the “Jewish state”, and it everywhere it was agreed that a strict separation should be maintained between, on the one hand, religious, customary and private uses of an identity predicate - the words “Arab” and “Jew” as much as “French” and, on the other, its political usages, which are always harmful.”” Alain Badiou
Only someone deeply ignorant of Jewish culture and history could have written this passage.
Am I supposed to divorce my secular self from my Jewish origins?
Moreover, what exactly does the phrase “political usages” above mean? How is his own passage to be divorced from the political?
ganselmi, since I was not familiar with the writings you referred to, I went to look for them… What an experience! The text can be found online at — surprise, surprise:
http://www.lacan.com/badword.htm
Thanks for drawing my attention to this; I’m still a bit in disbelief — complete ignorance of the subject he writes about is clearly no concern for the guy… mind you, I wouldn’t have thought that it is possible to write about the Holocaust like this:
“the grace of having been an incomparable victim can be passed down not only to descendants and to the descendants of descendants but to all who come under the predicate in question, be they heads of state or armies engaging in the severe oppression of those whose lands they have confiscated.”
My head spins.
Of course, Badiou is for a secular one-state, which means that he objects to Arab/Palestinian/Muslim identity as much as to Jewish. Now I’m off, to look for a piece where he sets out to delegitimize those identities, — probably those pieces will be filed under the URL ….badword 2/3/4???
Petra,
I should have provided the lacan.com link - my apologies. It’s worthwhile taking a look at the two Zizek pieces about Israel/Palestine on there as well. Here are the URLs:
Zizek, “The Palestinian Question - Part 1:
Ideological Mystification”
http://www.lacan.com/essays/?page_id=261
Zizek, “The Palestinian Question - Part 2:
Islamo-Fascism, Christo-Fascism, Zionism”
http://www.lacan.com/essays/?page_id=240
From the “Part 1″:
‘[T]oday we are witnessing the last version of anti-Semitism which reached the extreme point of self-relating. The privileged role of Jews in the establishment of the sphere of the “public use of reason” hinges on their subtraction from every State-Power – this position of the “part of no-part” of every organic Nation-State community, not the abstract-universal nature of their monotheism, makes them immediate embodiment of universality. No wonder, then, that, with the establishment of the Jewish Nation-State, a new figure of the Jew emerged: a Jew resisting identification with the State of Israel, refusing to accept the State of Israel as his true home, a Jew who “subtracts” himself from this State, and who includes the State of Israel among the states towards which he insists on maintaining a distance, to live in their interstices – and it is this uncanny Jew who is the object of what one cannot but designate as “Zionist anti-Semitism,” the foreign excess disturbing the Nation-State community. These Jews, the “Jews of the Jews themselves,” worthy successors of Spinoza, are today the only Jews who continue to insist on the “public use of reason,” refusing to submit their reasoning to the “private” domain of Nation-State.’
For Zizek, Jews are embodiments of the Enlightenment universal precisely when they insist on being a stateless, homeless people. They lose this wonderful status as soon as they too come to have a state of their own, especially one that expropriates and oppresses, blah blah. And this guy is THE academic to adore and approvingly quote in the most sophisticated circles!
As for your question about Iran: I’m utterly depressed, personally and politically. But also at peace with myself in a strange way now that I can say: look, the Iranian people gave it their very best shot on their own and their sacrifice has made it very difficult for Europe and Obama to easily do business with the regime or abide by a nuclearized regime.
Thanks, ganselmi, will have a look at this stuff as soon as I manage to get into a masochistic enough mood…
WRT Iran: I’m afraid the suffering of those now imprisoned and abused doesn’t interest those who profited handsomely from continued “good” relations with Iran’s regime.
The problem isn’t just Badiou or Zizek, the problem is the kind of “critical theory” that’s being practiced today that gives certain individual intellectuals the right to “legislate” to whole nations upon issues which they themselves are not involved nor will they be affected should their “theory” be proven wrong.
Zizke has not right to “legislate” on Jewish issues only on Slovenians or at most European issues, the same with Badiou who should stick with theorizing about France and Europe.
Jacob-Alain,
I’m not sure if each intellectual should just stick to thinking and theorizing about her own tribe. But should she venture to engage other histories and other traditions, a little genuine curiosity and humility will go a long way in limiting the kind of overreaching and thoughtless legislating you describe.
I read a few of Zizek’s articles, none of his books. I found he uses an excessive amount of words in his expression and repeats himself many times. He overwhelms the listerner/reader with the overflow of his verbosity, his restless gesturing, his seeming reluctance to address a question directly. When he is asked a specific question he starts free-associating and spills all over the place. What I mean to say in this criticism is that I believe his way of expressing himself suggests he does not think things through. It suspect he reads cursorily, picks up only what captures his eye, does not make an effort to understand an issue thoroughly. At least not when he talks about Israel.
I agree, then, with ganselmi implies, that for Zizek exhibits “a little genuine curiosity and humility will go a long way in limiting the kind of overreaching and thoughtless legislating” but I think Zizek will find no use for this advice.
I also agree that it does not make sense to restrict each intellectual “to thinking and theorizing about her own tribe.”. Absolutely not. Who will, then, speak for the Afghan women? Or the persecuted Bahai or homosexuals or the repression of women in Iran?
There is more talk about Zizek on Terry Glavin’s blog:
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/08/they-plunder-organs-of-our-sons.html
And here is what I wrote once about what I deem Zizek’s overeagerness to curry favour with certain audiences:
http://contentious-centrist.blogspot.com/2008/09/tolerance-of-islamic-regimes-ive-been.html
“[T]oday we are witnessing the last version of anti-Semitism which reached the extreme point of self-relating.” Zizek
This is the kind of utter nonsense that Zizek specializes in. This is also why I stopped reading him a long time ago even before he became a “specialist” in antisemitism.
How the hell does Zizek know that we have reached “the last version” of antisemitism? He doesn’t.
Antisemitism has gone through myriad mutations. It will continue to do so. Zizek himself, among other academics, are laying the groundwork for a new mutation of antisemitism. I also doubt it’ll be the last one.
In his view the very desire of Jews for sovereignty to live in their own culture and make their own politics is to Zizek a sign of antisemitism. He wants Jews to continue to be a dispersed minority in the world with no ability to defend themselves against Jew hatred. This to him is “a sign that antisemitism has been overcome.”
ganselmi “Jacob-Alain, I’m not sure if each intellectual should just stick to thinking and theorizing about her own tribe. But should she venture to engage other histories and other traditions, a little genuine curiosity and humility will go a long way in limiting the kind of overreaching and thoughtless legislating you describe.”
I didn’t say that intellectuals should stick to thinking and theorizing only about their own “tribe” (this is a word I hate since we are not talking about tribes but about peoples, nations, civilizations, religions), what I object to when they attempt to dictate to nations about which they know very little and more impotently in a way which not affect the legislator at all. They have abrogated to themselves a right which no one entrusted to them. The true legislator of the people comes from within the people.
In any case, the modern University system have become centers of indoctrination and not of learning and critical theory, so called, is the vehicle used to imprint predigested ideas on students.
Finally, the antisemitism we see within critical theory today is merely a symptom a much larger disease.
For those who can read French see,
Pierre-André Taguieff, L’émergence d’une judéophobie planétaire
And this:
http://www.nouveau-reac.org/docs.htm#jcm
The last part of my post got truncated:
Here is the second link:
http://www.nouveau-reac.org/docs.htm#jcm
Sorry here it is again:
Pierre-André Taguieff, L’émergence d’une judéophobie planétaire
http://www.nouveau-reac.org/docs/TPA/TPA_emergence.htm
And this:
http://www.nouveau-reac.org/docs.htm#jcm
‘[Zizek’s views on Islamic tolerance] also tells me that Zizek often does not quite know what he is talking about.’
Your statement describes the arrogance with which Zizek approaches any number of topics outside his areas of expertise (psychoanalysis / Hegelian Marxism). I mean the guy has pieces offering theoretical interpretations of astrophysics and cosmology, which I’m guessing scientists in those arenas could only laugh at.
BTW, here’s a powerful condemnation of Zizek’s positions and methods from TNR, where the author also accuses Zizek of harboring anti-semitic biases.
http://www.tnr.com/article/books/the-deadly-jester
From there you can find Zizek’s reply, where Zizek basically make the “I-have-Jewish-friends-so-I-can’t-be-an-anti-semite” argument, and the author’s response to the reply.
Correction the following:
“I didn’t say that intellectuals should stick to thinking and theorizing only about their own “tribe” (this is a word I hate since we are not talking about tribes but about peoples, nations, civilizations, religions), what I object to when they attempt to dictate to nations about which they know very little and more impotently in a way which not affect the legislator at all. They have abrogated to themselves a right which no one entrusted to them. The true legislator of the people comes from within the people.”
Should read:
“I didn’t say that intellectuals should stick to thinking and theorizing only about their own “tribe” (this is a word I hate since we are not talking about tribes but about peoples, nations, civilizations, religions), what I object to when they attempt to dictate to nations about which they know very little, and more importantly, in a way which does not affect the legislator at all. They have arrogated to themselves a right which no one entrusted to them. The true legislator of the people comes from within the people.”
“Your statement describes the arrogance with which Zizek approaches any number of topics outside his areas of expertise (psychoanalysis / Hegelian Marxism). I mean the guy has pieces offering theoretical interpretations of astrophysics and cosmology, which I’m guessing scientists in those arenas could only laugh at.”
This is a problem with all of critical theory and not just with Zizek.
The Alan Sokal affair makes this clear where a scientist posed as a critical theorist and used its methodology in order to show that all science is “culturally fashioned:
Here is the article by Sokal:
“Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” by Alan D. Sokal
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html
Se the following links on the dispute:
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/
Note how many anti-Zionists tried to defend critical theory against Sokal beginning with the pathetic Bruce Robbins who has called for a boycott of Israel.
Jacob-Alain,
I agreed with much of what you wrote to begin with. And now that you’ve clarified your position, I think we are in complete agreement.
“I mean the guy has pieces offering theoretical interpretations of astrophysics and cosmology, which I’m guessing scientists in those arenas could only laugh at.”
ganselmi: got any examples??
Check out the Sokal affair, Eamonn, through the link I set up above.
What is unnerving about critical theory is that one can show again and agains how wrong one is and still get promoted in academia as the example of Bruce Robbins show. He is now some director of a program at NYU and he is still in the name of Edward Said calling for boycotts of Israel.
I wasn’t aware that Zizek had any connection with the Sokal ffair
“I wasn’t aware that Zizek had any connection with the Sokal ffair”
Not directly no, but Zizek did comment on it where he also tried to link it to the Paul de Man affair as proof that anti-critical theorists like myself were trying to delegitimize critical theory. Is this narcissism, or what?
http://books.google.com/books?id=YRrThKGNTKIC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=sokal+affair+and+zizek&source=bl&ots=uxRDJyTG7J&sig=5EWsMu45iF1lV_oPhKqgbKTF9A0&hl=en&ei=sMCaSriaIeaGmQf54byxBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Eamonn,
Here’s an example of Zizek pontificating on the epistemological consequences of quantum physics:
‘[I]t is perhaps in the insistence on this gap, on this minimal delay between the event itself and its registration, that we find the most far-reaching epistemological revolution of quantum physics: in classical physics, “knowledge in the real” asserts its hold directly, without any delay — that is to say, things simply know what laws they are to obey - whereas quantum physics allows for a minimum of “ontological cheating.” A whole new domain is thus opened up, the domain of the shadowy pseudo-being of pure potentialities, of uncanny events which go on “in the twinkling of uncertainty … while the universe isn’t looking…”
‘Is not this virtual state of an electron which, upon admitting its mistake and acknowledging its unreality, returns to non-existence, equivalent to what Lacan describes as the state “between the two deaths?” an entity exists only so long as it does not “register,” “take note of,” its existence — like the proverbial cartoon cat which, although it has no ground under its feet, is unaware of this, and so calmly continues to walk in the air…’
Zizek, The Indivisible Remainder: An Essay on Schelling and Related Matters, pp. 226-227 - http://books.google.com/books?id=K77t2XTpSeMC&pg=RA2-PA227&lpg=RA2-PA227&dq=zizek+on+cosmology&source=bl&ots=wACPQJu4Ve&sig=eG5EQJhJKqljjDjYZyvLxMs-pn4&hl=en&ei=SM6aSvexCc-PmAeyn-mYDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#
thanks, Ganselmi, I wasn’t aware that he had gone quite that far into the long grass.
JA: I think you are not using the term “critical theory” in the sense that it is widely understood i.e. the school of thought associated with the Frankfurt school and intellectual progeny; that means Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Habermas and a few more. Honneth would probably be the most important exponent of this line of thought still in harness
Zizek has nothing to do with critical theory, in this sense, and has indeed poured scorn on Habermas. What Zizek does is “theory”, a mish-mash of badly understood philosophical ideas bandied about for the most part by folk in literature departments rather than by philosophers.
some celebrity gossip
http://eamonnmcdonagh.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/zizek/
Eamonn,
I love it. As much as I’ve had a falling out with all things theory since finishing undergrad, your experience would still have brought me as close to being “starstruck” as I’m ever likely to get!
Eamonn, in the US most people who practice “critical theory” are closer to the Zizek, Bruce Robbins model than to the Frankfurt School of which Frederick Jameson is the most ardent supporter.
American “critical theory” is mostly a melange of ideas derived from Heidegger and Nitzsche via Derrida, Lacan and Foucault. Your description of their work is apt:
” a mish-mash of badly understood philosophical ideas bandied about for the most part by folk in literature departments…”
This is what I am criticizing. I have no problem with Adorno and Walter Benjamin (though Horkheimer is a little to orthodox Marxist for my taste).
Ironically, real critical theory (the Frankfurt School kind) was born from an attempt to understand fascism and antisemitism first in Germany then in the US.
A new book examines this issue:
“The Frankfurt School in Exile” by Thomas Wheatland
Reviewed here by Adam Kirsch:
http://www.tnr.com/print/article/books-and-arts/frankfurt-the-hudson