The basic premise is that Žižek's book deals with "the four horsemen of the coming apocalypse" - the worldwide ecological crisis, imbalances within th...moreThe basic premise is that Žižek's book deals with "the four horsemen of the coming apocalypse" - the worldwide ecological crisis, imbalances within the economic system, the biogenetic revolution, and exploding social divisions and ruptures. That's exactly what it says on the back of the book. Sounds pretty interesting. I thought, if anything, the structure of the book would be primarily about the "four horsemen".
Instead what Žižek did was structure his book based on the Kübler-Ross model. In other words, the five stages of grieving: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Okay. Interesting concept. According to Žižek what is meant to be grieved, the loss in question, is capitalism. I suppose if I'm digging for an actual thesis (which I'm sure is in there somewhere) the death of capitalism is what is leading to the end of the world as we know it. Mmmkay... I'm almost still on board. But this Žižek guy is pretty much out of his mind, and everyone seems to be in agreement on that fact.
I disagree that every point he made in the different chapters based on the stages of grieving really had that much to do with the individual stages of grieving. Someone in our book club group had written down several examples to show how they do fit, but even he admits he didn't catch that on his first reading. (Yes, this crazy guy read this book twice.) My argument is (and usually always will be) that these sorts of issues should be relatively easily identifiable on the first reading. If it's not, something's missing. And that's what I feel happened here.
There are some individual words of serious wisdom here. I wrote down several notes of interest, and there are plenty of specific topics I wish Žižek would have expanded upon or clarified. Instead he sort of threw them out there with no real sense of resolution or interest in resolving his statements. Žižek referenced a lot of seemingly interesting other articles and literature, all of which appears to me to be more fascinating than what Žižek himself got out of it.
Also? He's a shitty Marxist. Apparently Marxism is an entirely arbitrary word and has an even more arbitrary definition, which immediately negates what being a Marxist is. Just sayin. There's really no gray area in Marxism, so for Žižek to find some gray area is a bit suspect. Sure, take some ideas from Marxism, take some ideas from Lacan and Hegel, put it all together and then come up with a new name for your beliefs. Maybe it's just an issue of semantics, but this is exactly where semantics are important.
The only solution Žižek posited in this book is that Communism is the only way to save us, but at the same time agreed he wasn't entirely sure how to make that happen. Seems he just wanted to throw the idea out there and hope some kids take the idea, run with it, and figure out how to make it happen. Sort of like a schizophrenic handbook of sorts. Otherwise the book just ends, with no real conclusion. I read the paperback edition so there is an Afterword which actually clarifies a lot of issues and fills in a lot of holes he had left with the original text - but the one guy in our group who read the hardcover version missed out. His edition just ended after the chapter on Acceptance. When I look at it from that perspective I realize how sudden that would seem. Incomplete, even.
I have other issues too, like how it appears (based on only this one reading of Žižek so far) that he's really interested in serving his own career, which is ironic considering all that he has to say about capitalism. He claims what he is discussing is all of global importance, but this is a very Western-centric book. He focuses on Western society which certainly isn't global. One could argue that Western society is the dominant society, but that's not what Žižek suggests in the beginning, and that's certainly not what is suggested by the book cover.
I cannot get over just how misleading the book cover is.
The Kübler-Ross model structure is misleading as well. Perhaps if Žižek had published each chapter individually things would have been different. If he had thrown out small tracts like his beloved Communist Manifesto, I'd probably feel differently. I think how this book itself could have been improved is if he structured it as the four horsemen of the coming apocalypse based on his initial theory. Those could have been his chapters. The five stages of grieving could easily have been added throughout to give a little extra spice; as it was, there was too much spice and not enough cohesion and texture in the meat.
Žižek is way media-oriented - his interest lies in the media (film, news stories, radio, etc.) which is important especially in this day and age. But I don't think he recognized nearly enough the fact that the media is a corrupt organization just as is everything else.
Again, this is all based on one reading of one of his books. There are plenty of others, and I'll check them out. There's really no rush. He's interested in speaking to the elite, and I'm certainly not the elite. Whether or not I read his books is entirely inconsequential. There are plenty of other people out there who are interested in giving their money to promote him, and that's where he's going to pander his wares.(less)
I actually finished reading this about a week ago, but have just been sitting on it since. It was our latest choice for The Totally Pretentious Bookcl...moreI actually finished reading this about a week ago, but have just been sitting on it since. It was our latest choice for The Totally Pretentious Bookclub in my real world, so I a) wanted some of my thoughts to percolate for a week or so and b) wanted to wait at least until the bookclub meeting to finalize my thoughts here. Now that we have had Complete Percolation and the fellow bookies left a few hours ago, I've come to one unavoidable fact:
Postmodern philosophy pisses me off.
I had an inkling when reading A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, but it's decidedly confirmed after reading Derrida. (Let me just interrupt myself to say that this is the first Derrida I've read. It probably won't be the last, but it is the first, so for now I'm going to call him another postmodern douche-hole like Deleuze and Guattari.)
A few things that might have made this read more enjoyable: *Had I read Derrida's book (Given Time: I. Counterfeit Money) that first introduced some of the thoughts discussed in this book. I have a feeling I would have picked up on a few other things. *Had I read Jan Patocka first considering Derrida analyzes the crap out of him here. *Had I read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling which came up numerous times, particularly in regards to discussion of the mysterium tremendum.
Obviously we were completely unprepared for this one.
Really, though, let's be honest (and this is something all of Bookclub could agree on) - Derrida thought he was pretty darn special. You could practically hear him guffawing smugly through the pages, one of those really obnoxious stereotypical French guffaws. This isn't to say that Derrida doesn't present some interesting thoughts here, but there doesn't seem to be an exact thesis that he follows.
The discussion on religion (using Abraham and Isaac as his examples) was annoying, and not just because I'm an atheonostic (yeah, I just made that up) but because I'm certain Derrida could have made his point without bringing religion into the mix. He didn't discuss the Crucifixion which I was surprised by, considering that seems to be historically, biblically, whatever, the ultimate sacrifice. He mentioned original sin a few times (but then never quite defined it himself which was, again, annoying), and then he spent all that freaking time talking about Abraham and Isaac. Is religion all so pervasive that it automatically becomes the go-to for philosophers trying to make their point?
And now I'm just rambling.
I'd rather read Derrida over Deleuze and Guattari, but I have a feeling I'd rather have D&G over for cocktails instead of Derrida.(less)
I would also like to mention that I will be reading this at the mercy of the one who decided we should read this (who is not my boyfriend, believe it or not - apparently there are other people like him in the world...). And since this person has chosen this and has previously read this himself, I will be "forced" to read this book out of order. The "schedule" is forthcoming. I am promised that it's only appropriate to read the chapters in a non-linear fashion. My entire face twitched and I might have thrown up a little in my mouth, but hey. You only live once, right?
(I think reading this alongside Infinite Jest might make me the most pretentious person ever. Suh-weet! For the record, this most certainly was not my idea.)
March 20, 2011 (I'm tired.)
This is an incredibly difficult book to rate and review, and that's probably how Deleuze and Guattari would have wanted it anyway. It's also incredibly late and I'm half-asleep so anything I say here is really not going to give this book much credit; though whether or not the book deserves much credit is still to be determined. Our book club meets again next Sunday and chances are my opinion will change after we talk about this for another several hours, just like we have done at each meeting since we started this.
(I hate spending this much time on any book.)
So what I intend to do here is list the chapters in the order our group's moderator decided to have us read the book. Reading the book in order is not necessary, nor is it even recommended. Brian Massumi (translator) writes in his forward,
The reader is invited to follow each section to the plateau that rises from the smooth space of its composition, and to move from one plateau to the next at pleasure. But it is just as good to ignore the heights. You can take a concept that is particularly to your liking and jump with it to its next appearance. They tend to cycle back. Some might call that repetitious. Deleuze and Guattari call it a refrain.
(I hate jumping around in a book.)
Since there's no clear direction on how this book should be read the only thing I could do was surrender my reading habits to the moderator. Dude has taught classes on this book and these authors so he's the best person to come up with a plan for me. I guess. This was our reading plan which I hope may be helpful to someone attempting to read this book for the first time:
Chapter 2 - 1914: One or Several Wolves? Introduction -Rhizome Chapter 14 - 1440: The Smooth and the Striated Chapter 3 - 10,000 BC: The Geology of Morals (Who Does Earth Think It Is?) Chapter 11 - 1837: Of the Refrain Chapter 10 - 1730: Becoming-Intense, Becoming-Animal, Becoming-Imperceptible Chapter 6 - November 28, 1947: How Do You Make Yourself a Body Without Organs? Chapter 9 - 1933: Micropolitics and Segmentarity Chapter 12 - 1227: Treatise on Nomadology: - The War Machine Chapter 13 - 7000 BC: Apparatus of Capture Chapter 7 - Year Zero: Faciality Chapter 5 - 587 AD: On Several Regimes of Signs Chapter 4 - November 20, 1923: Postulates of Linguistics Chapter 8 - 1874: Three Novellas, or "What Happened?" Conclusion
That being said there were a few things that stood out for me and/or I felt the need to write down:
p 358: Even in bands of animals, leadership is a complex mechanism that does not act to promote the strongest but rather inhibits the installation of stable powers, in favor of a fabric of immanent relations.
p 371: Slow and rapid are not quantitative degrees of movement but rather two types of qualified movement...
p 376: Because the less people take thought seriously, the more they think in conformity with what the State wants. Truly, what man of the State has not dreamed of that paltry impossible thing - to be a thinker?
p 381: Movement is extensive; speed is intensive.
p 400: Affect vs. emotion: Affect is the active discharge of emotion, the counterattack, whereas feeling is an always displaced, retarded, resisting emotion. Affects are projectiles just like weapons; feelings are introceptive like tools.
Learning to undo things, and to undo oneself, is proper to the war machine: the "not-doing" of the warrior, the undoing of the subject.
p 438-39: The same could be said for the last love. Proust has shown how a love can be oriented toward its own limit, its own margin: it repeats it's own ending. A new love follows, so that each love is serial, so that there is a series of loves. But once again, "beyond" lies the ultimate, at the point where assemblage changes, where the assemblage of love is superseded by an artistic assemblage - the Work to be written, which is the problem Proust tackles...
p 460: Should we then speak of "voluntary servitude"? This is like the expression "magical captive": its only merit is to underline the apparent mystery. There is a machinic enslavement, about which it could be said in each case that it presupposes itself, that it appears as preaccomplished; this machinic enslavement is no more "voluntary" than it is "forced".
p 102-03: Or the way Black Engish and any number of "ghetto languages" set American English in variation, to the point that New York is virtually a city without a language. (Furthermore, American English could not have constituted itself without this linguistic labor of the minorities.)
Good gravy, there's a lot of ground covered here and I'm not sure there is enough space for all my different thoughts. Am I glad to have read this cover-to-cover? Oy. That's a loaded question.
It's fascinating stuff as in listening to two insane genius mo-fo's is fascinating. The idea is to take a few thoughts from one philosopher, etc., throw those thoughts into a salad mixer, dump it out and there's Deleuze and Guattari. It's still lettuce, right? But not quite the same kind of lettuce that you first put in.
But my point throughout all of this reading is that I'm not sold on the idea that salad mixers need to exist. I don't own one because (ding-ding-ding!) I can mix my own salad. Deleuze and Guattari borrowed ideas from Freud and Marx and some other people, kind of tossed it all around, threw in some totally made-up words to help cement their status as crazy assholes points, and presented it as an entirely new way of thinking.
The thing I wasn't able to really get past - and the thing that almost made my book club partners want to smother me with a rhizomatic pillow - is that I'm not certain any of this was necessary. Deleuze and Guattari clearly were crazy mad geniuses, that's not the issue. But I'm always a little wary of someone that comes along and is all like, "Hey, I have this new way of thinking - listen up!" They're usually the same people who are handing out glasses of grape-flavored Kool-Aid.
Then again, as stated above, there were some moments of complete clarity. Some of what Delusional and Guitar had to say actually resonated with me. Of course then they'd go off in a complete different direction and I'd still be back in the dust just patting myself on the back for actually getting something. Oh, it's not just about a flying vagina, I get it now...
And - perhaps not surprisingly - I have found myself making connections between this stupid book and other stupid books I was reading at the same time. Especially Infinite Jest in which I found this whole passage that was obviously paying homage to D&G. I didn't think it could even be possible, but dude. It was right there in front of my face. And then the whole capitalism thing - gave a little flavor to freaking Atlas Shrugged; not that it mattered though - I mentioned Ayn Rand in our book club meeting and tried to compare the two texts and was met with blank looks and crickets.
Mostly this book pissed me off. Which really just means that I need to read it like fifty more times to really pick up on all the right points. I suck at math and reading this book at times felt like reading one giant word problem. Until tonight I wasn't even certain the word problem would ever actually end. I looked forward to the Conclusion most of all, thinking that conclusions are the time to sort of re-summarize all the main points, or at least the thesis, and maybe it will all come together for me. Silly rabbit! This conclusion wrote the whole damn book over again, but crammed it this time into just a couple of pages. Geniuses!
I'm usually pretty wary of books like this, the kind with animals on the cover. Which is really sort of funny since I'...moreRead for my in-person book club.
I'm usually pretty wary of books like this, the kind with animals on the cover. Which is really sort of funny since I'm such a whore for animals in real life. But this is the book that was decided upon for my in-person book club, and since I missed the previous two books I figured I should suck it up and read this, especially considering it was my boyfriend's recommendation.
Temple Grandin is an animal scientist with a "twist" as I like to say. Her personal experience with having autism allowed her to be able to really enter the minds of animals and see life through their minds and eyes. This book (from what it sounds like, her other books as well) discusses how to make the lives of animals better. She starts with domestic animals as pets (dogs, cats) before moving on to farm animals (horses, cows, pigs, chickens) and finishing with wildlife and zoos. In all environments animals' lives can be improved upon. She focuses mostly on the emotions of animals and how to bring out the best through SEEKING and PLAY, and how to bring out the worst through RAGE, FEAR, and PANIC.
As an animal lover myself I found that I didn't find I was learning anything new, per se. Animals do have emotions and little changes in their lives can be dramatic and/or traumatic if not handled carefully. Her final chapter about zoo-life was the most interesting to me since I have long had a love-hate relationship with zoos. The Pittsburgh zoo is pretty cool in my opinion (and they have a deer habitat!!) and we try to go at least once each summer. I always enjoy the time we spend there but do find myself feeling sad at the same time. Are the animals there getting the right amount of SEEKING and PLAY that they need to maintain a healthy lifestyle? I can think of a few situations there where things could be improved now that I've read Grandin's suggestions. I'd like for her to come to Pittsburgh and visit the zoo and aquarium to see what she thinks. Along the same lines, I'd also like to know her opinions on sea life as well. Fishies and penguins and manta rays are bad ass too. I'd be interested to hear her opinion of them as animals as well.
I'm also excited to see what people think of this in our book club. This is the first book that has been chosen that was not some hardcore philosophical or sociological study, so the discussion should be pretty interesting.(less)
There are some books that affect you long after you stop reading them; there are some books that come back to you when you least expect it, and you wa...moreThere are some books that affect you long after you stop reading them; there are some books that come back to you when you least expect it, and you want to suggest everyone read it at least once... yet you're shy to recommend it to many people because if they don't have the same experience with it you'll feel bad (and likely wonder what the hell is wrong with the recipient, the cold-hearted bastards...). Ahem.
This is one of those books for me. It blew my mind about six years ago when it was first recommended to me by a guy who I soon thereafter moved in with and here we are, still together (not solely because of this book, but it didn't hurt when we realized the kinds of conversations we could have). I recommended it recently as the next book for our book club because it's been on my mind a lot lately and I wanted a good reason to re-read it, since lately I've been finding it hard to want to re-read anything (too many books, too little time).
Viktor Frankl spent three years in concentration camps during World War II. During his time in the camps he was able to pull from the nightmare the principles behind what he later called logotherapy. In simple terms it's the concept that having meaning in one's life, a goal to work towards, is essential to be able to survive the harshest suffering. It seems like an easy enough concept, but so few people actually practice it; reading this a second time has revitalized the idea in my own mind.
I think it's nicely summed up in a footnote:
Logotherapy is not imposed on those who are interested in psychotherapy. It is not comparable to an Oriental bazaar but rather to a supermarket. In the former, the customer is talked into buying something. In the latter, he is shown, and offered, various things from which he may pick what he deems usable and valuable.
So the real question is: Did Frankl blow my mind in this second reading? Yes.(less)
Loading...
