Welcome to the Desert of the Real: Five Essays on September 11 and Related Dates

by Slavoj Žižek

Liberals and conservatives proclaim the end of the American holiday from history. Now the easy games are over; one should take sides. Žižek argues this is precisely the temptation to be resisted. In such moments of apparently clear choices, the real alternatives are most hidden. Welcome to the Desert of the Real steps back, complicating the choices imposed on us. It proposes that global capitalism is fundamentalist and that America was complicit in the rise of Muslim fundamentalism. It points to our dreaming about the catastrophe in numerous disaster movies before it happened, and explores the irony that the tragedy has been used to legitimize torture. Last but not least it analyzes the fiasco of the predominant leftist response to the events.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Theory, Essays, Sociology, History

154 pages, Paperback

First published November 17, 2001

About the author

Slavoj Žižek is a Slovene sociologist, philosopher, and cultural critic.

He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).

Since 2005, Žižek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Žižek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.

In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."

Reviews

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

The thing you notice quickly: how often the bastard contradicts himself. At first I wanted to say that he was inconsistent, but then it became clear that it was a bigger part of his mission. And, indeed, his first wish is to problematize the simple choices we have been given. Honestly, too, few are better positioned to do so. As a Slovene, as someone who cut his teeth on Soviet intellectualism then found himself suddenly a part of the Captalist West, Zizek has the perspective and authority to denounce both the Left and the Right in their responses to 9/11.

The book is much larger than this, however, and throughout I think Zizek takes up the mantle of exposing the dangers of simplicity. He jumps in topic, he starts with one belief, stated resolutely, then swings to examples that seem to voice the exact opposite, yet every perspective is clearly fit together by his thoughts. In other words, as a bit of a political Tiresias, Zizek delivers a message to us stuck in our simpler ideological bodies: simplicity is part of the problem.

[Iman Rouhipour · Rating 4 out of 5]

دستاورد اولین و دومین کشیک عمر بنده، خواندن این کتاب خوب از ژیژک بود. ژیژک در «به برهوت حقیقت خوش آمدید!» سال ۲۰۰۲ به مراتب رادیکال‌تر از ژیژک سال ۲۰۲۰ در مواجهه با کووید-۱۹ بود. (نظر شخصی)

بخشی از کتاب :
" انفجار و فرو ریختن برج‌های دوقلوی مرکز تجارت جهانی در سپتامبر ۲۰۰۱ نه تنها شباهتی به جنگ قرن بیستمی نداشت، بلکه آواز قوی تماشایی جنگ قرن بیستمی بود. آن‌چه در انتظار ماست چیزی‌ است بس مرموزتر: شبح جنگ "غیرمادی"ای که در آن حمله نامرئی است - ویروس‌ها، سم‌هایی که می‌توانند همه‌جا باشند و هیچ‌جا نباشند. در سطح واقعیت مادیِ مرئی، هیچ چیز اتفاق نمی‌افتد، هیچ انفجار بزرگی صورت نمی‌گیرد؛ با این حال جهان آشنا فرو می‌ریزد، زندگی از هم می‌پاشد."

ژیژک می‌گوید ما (مردم آمریکا) در مواجهه با تصویر فروریختن برج‌ها از خود پرسیدیم : «این تصویر را بارها کجا دیده بودم؟» زیرا پیش از یازده سپتامبر نابودی تنها بخشی از وحشت‌های جهان سومی بود که بر صفحه‌های تلویزیون نقش می‌بست و نه بخشی از واقعیت اجتماعی ما.

برخلاف بودریار (در کتاب روح تروریسم) که حملات یازده سپتامبر را رخدادی نمادین می‌داند و حتی آن را به نوع معماری برج‌های دوقلو ارتباط می‌دهد، ژیژک می‌گوید :
" انفجار تماشایی برج‌های مرکز تجارت جهانی به هیچ وجه یک عمل نمادین (به معنای عملی که هدف‌اش رساندن یک پیام است) نبود: این انفجار اساساً انفجار یک ژوئیسانس مرگ‌بار بود، عملی منحرفانه برای تبدیل خود به ابزاری برای ژوئیسانس دیگری بزرگ. آری، فرهنگ حمله‌کنندگان فرهنگ بیمارگون مرگ است، نگرشی که اوج خرسندی زندگی خود شخص را در مرگ خشن می‌یابد... آری قصد غائی حملات نه نوعی برنامه‌ی ایدئولوژیک پنهان یا آشکار، بلکه وارد کردن (دوباره‌ی) سویه‌ی منفیت مطلق به زندگی روزانه‌ی ما بود..."

"... چین امروزه همان کشور سرمایه‌داری مطلوب است: آزادی برای سرمایه، با دولتی که کار کثیف کنترل کارگران را برعهده گرفته‌ است. بدین ترتیب به نظر می‌رسد که چین به‌مثابه ابرقدرت در حال ظهور قرن بیست‌و‌یکم تجسم نوع جدیدی از سرمایه‌داریِ بی‌ترحم است: بی‌اعتنایی به‌ پیامدهای زیست‌محیطی، بی‌اعتنایی به حقوق کارگران، فدا کردن همه چیز در برابر کشش بی‌ترحم برای پیشرفت و تبدیل‌شدن به ابرقدرتی جدید. پرسش بزرگ این است: چینی‌ها در خصوص انقلاب بیوژنتیکی چه کار خواهند کرد؟ آیا به ضرس قاطع نمی‌توان گفت که به طور بی‌امان گرم دستکاری بدون قید و بند گیاهان، جانوران و انسان‌ها خواهند بود، و همه‌ی تعصبات و محدودیت‌های غربی ما را به کناری خواهند نهاد؟"

بنابراین ژیژک راه‌حل واقعی مقابله با گلوبالیسمِ آمریکایی را نه گروه‌های بنیادگرا (این‌ها دو روی یک سکه‌اند) و نه چین، که اروپا می‌‌داند که البته اروپا هم پس از ۱۱ سپتامبر نهایتاً کمی با اقدامات آمریکا مثلاً برای حمله به افغانستان و غیره مخالفت می‌‌کرد و در نهایت سر تسلیم فرود می‌آورد و به تقویت هژمونی آمریکا کمک کرد.

"... اخیراً یکی از تصمیم‌های شوم‌ اتحادیه‌ اروپایی تقریباً بدون این‌که کسی متوجه شود از تصویب گذشت: طرح تأسیس یک نیروی پلیس مرزی برای تمام اروپا به قصد جداسازی قلمرو اتحادیه، و از این طریق، جلوگیری از هجوم مهاجران. این است حقیقت جهانی‌شدن: برافراشتن دیوارهای جدیدی که اروپای ثروتمند را از سیل مهاجران در امان می‌دارند. آدمی وسوسه می‌شود تقابل امانیستی‌ای را که مارکس بین "رابطه‌ی بین چیزها" و "رابطه‌ی بین انسان‌ها" قائل بود، اینجا دوباره احیا کند: ... این "چیزها" (کالاها) هستند که آزادانه می‌چرخند، در حالی که چرخش انسان‌ها هرچه بیشتر تحت کنترل در می‌آیند."

پس آیا نمی‌توان کل غائله‌ی کووید-۱۹ را (با فرض مردود شمردن هرگونه تئوری توطئه مثل آزمایشگاهی بودن ویروس) مرحله‌ای دیگر از کنترل چرخش انسان‌ها دانست که بیست سال پیش یا حتی پیش‌تر از آن کلید خورد؟ این بار با احکام ایدئولوژیکی مثل
«در خانه بمانید [و از آمازون و دیجی‌کالا خرید کنید.]»
«در خانه بمانید [و به خیابان‌ها نریزید.]»
«ماسک بزنید.»
«دوتا ماسک بزنید.»
«واکسن بزنید.»
«می‌توانید به هرجا خواستید سفر کنید به شرطی که کارت واکسیناسیون داشته‌باشید. [البته فقط واکسن معتبری که در کشورهای ما تولید شده و دولت کشورتان پولش را به حسابمان ریخته.] »


پ.ن : طرح جلد چاپ جدید کتاب عالیه.

[Jonfaith · Rating 5 out of 5]

In short, is it not that today, in our resigned postideological era which admits no positive Absolutes, the only legitimate candidate for the Absolute are radically evil acts?

This is a book about dreams. The philosopher notes early that in developing nations people dream about making it to the West, while First Worlders dream about the end of the world. Slavoj Žižek is coy like that. Throughout Welcome To The Desert of the Real he displays his range without much rigor. It doesn't read as caprice, it functions as serial questions, those that make us readers uncomfortable. The Western Malaise is one of excess. Lacan offered diagnosis some time back. we now need to cut ourselves, distract our neuroses in reality programming. We to be displaced by the Spectacle. Our choices leave us docile. We stared at the remains of the World Trade Center and asked how could this happen here? The author poses that we should've reacted that this shouldn't happen again anywhere.

This is a riveting work. Many are critical of Žižek's recourse to popular cultural. I am not. While being unaware of the title being a line from The Matrix, I find the analogy comfortably disturbing.

[AC · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is quite interesting. This brief book, which contains a series of six largely 'political' essays written after (and largely about) 9/11, is generally accessible, full of sometimes remarkable insights, though certainly repetitive, and an excellent point of entry for starting in on Zizek. There is stuff that is useless -- for example, giving "readings" of Sophocles' Antigone as a method for extracting some philosophical item or nugget that has about as much to do with Sophocles or Antigone as does a ham sandwich -- and, on the other hand, the utterly fascinating insights in ch. 4: "From Homo Sucker to Homo Sacer" -- which essay is alone worth the price of this book.

Zizek -- not that I should be making generalizations based on one small volume -- seems like the guy who is channelling, mediumistically the Spectacle, and who simply lets it run out unchecked uncensored from all his principal orificies... only that (unlike with a writer like Baudrillard) it is filtered and prism'd through a hard and *resistent* ideology -- which is precisely the justification for indulging in his logorrheic hyperpublication hyperpublicization hyper...zizakization...

His mind is like a mirror bearing witness to the Spectacle..., and showing us all that it is cracked.

[Geoff · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Every feature attributed to the Other is already present at the very heart of the USA."

[I'll write more later, when time allows... But, after Terror, isn't it best to engage with Reason?]

[Abraham · Rating 3 out of 5]

Zizek's writing is some kind of intellectual porn. I turn the pages compulsively, but what's the point? Some part of me is thrilled whenever it interacts with a thought pattern that is not reductive, predetermined, transparent. It is light in the intellectual darkness, and like porn, it removes the easy coverings of lazy thinking and reveals ideas for what they are, in all their mechanical specificity. It is compelling because it is so absent from the quotidian. Try to have a conversation about politics with someone that goes beyond platitudes and pretty soon the other person will get angry and defensive, or you will. It is nearly as offensive as kissing a stranger in public.

Recently, I watched a play called The Laramie Project, about the brutal torture and murder of a gay college student in Wyoming. It made me want to puke - twice: once for the horror of the crime and once for the banality of the play. It presented total intellectual abdication and called upon the audience to become outraged but not to question any of the tenets of the conversation. Not that there were tenets, not that anything was stated explicitly which could, in any way, be questioned. The fundamental argument was that there are haters in America, and that Wyoming is a place built on hate. Some people managed to overcome their original Wyoming/hate sin, but none were as pure as the people who wrote the play, nor as pure as the martyr who was inherently without sin for being a martyr. The gay in the play is present as the victim of Wyomingites who perceive him as the hated other, while the play suggests the true other is the pure unredeemed Wyomingite himself, inhuman in his violent otherness. The real crime, this original sin of making homosexuality the other, is answered with the same crime visited on the Wyomingites, some of whom emerge into humanhood as they renounce their homophobia, just as homophobes imagine the homosexual emerging into humanhood upon "choosing" to be straight. Puke. It was like a reeducation camp. There was even a candlelight vigil in the middle.

So reading a book like this is a relief from the world where politics and violence, when dealt with by liberals, is so patronizing and anti-intellectual. But, again, what's the point? Reading Zizek drops one down a hole of ideas, tearing everything apart and leaving very little ground upon which to stand. Some of the ideas strike me as pretty strong, especially the overall notion that the overall structure of our political life vis-a-vis the other/enemy sits on an intellectually tedious set of structures. His critique of torture, or his idea of the homo sacer - the person who (like an illegal combatant) fits into no known legal framework and becomes a non-person, seem fairly sound, but so what?

The very nature of his constant critique invites its own. Who is he to decide that the Czechs were happy in the 80s? Who is he to make all the grand claims he makes? I guess this is what theorists do, but it all seems so arbitrary. Arbitrary and unnecessary.

Which raises the question: when is thinking about such things useful? I keep coming back to the same thought - that it has to matter deeply to oneself to be worth thinking about, and in order for it to matter deeply it cannot be merely an exercise in intellectual acrobatics, it must be connected to conscience, to meaning or the search for it. Otherwise, life's too short.

Still, I've got one chapter left. I can't wait to open it.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think sometimes people who've known me for a long time wonder how I ended up a fan of Zizek and Badiou, how I ended up so disenchanted with capitalism, etc. There'a a lot of things that go into it, but one aspect that this book reminded me about: these guys get it right. I'm a mathematician, have taught probability and statistics, I like keeping myself open to evidence, and here's the evidence: Zizek wrote these essays between Sept 11, 2001 and Sept 11, 2002. This book was published on that one-year anniversary. Okay, you say, fine, big deal, he's got people who know how to sell his books.

But here's why I read it now, and here's why it's so important: he saw it all coming, he saw it all clearly, already, right then. So when people say Zizek's just a contrarian, or he's just a provocateur, well, he is those things sometimes, but he's also built himself a conceptual and analytic apparatus that allows him to see clearly the (corrupt, sad, horrifying) reality of the world much earlier than lots of other people can. This is how you decide on a good model in mathematics or in science, right? You see what its predictions are, and then test those predictions against reality. How well do those predictions and descriptions correspond to what actually came about? Well, read this book and see how well Zizek recognized, predicted, described the mess we've (all of us) enmeshed ourselves within since 9/11.

So, yes, I think Zizek is worth reading and listening to because he's done a good job, before, of seeing through the noisy, confusing smokescreens and misdirections thrown at us everyday by a corrupt power structure and a bought-and-paid-for media apparatus.

[Amirsaman · Rating 3 out of 5]

ژیژک می‌گوید امروزه طوری از ورژن آمریکایی دموکراسی صحبت می‌شود که در دل این ایدئولوژی، دیگر هیچ انتخاب دیگری -مثلا بنیادگرایی- اصلا ممکن و قابل بحث نیست.

صحبت از جذابیت امر مطلق لاکانی می‌کند؛ که مثلا دوربین‌هایی که در پورنوگرافی به داخل اعضا برده می‌شوند (وقتی بیش از حد به سوژه‌ی اروتیک نزدیک می‌شویم) دیگر شیفتگی بدل به نفرت از امر واقعی می‌شود. یعنی به ضد خودش تبدیل می‌شود، همان‌طوری که توسل به خشونت توسط جنبش دانشجویان در آلمان دهه‌ی هفتاد چنین بود.

از لحظه‌ی مسیحاییِ بنیامین نقل می‌کند، که منتظر ماندن یک ملت، مثلا در کوبا، برای سقوط سوسیالیسم، منجر می‌شود به این‌که یک نوع کرختی و بی‌تحرکی درونی در جامعه ایجاد شود. و بعد با آن شور انقلابی، سعی می‌شود یک تحرک بیرونی و ظاهری وارد شود. دقیقا مشابه ملال درونی زندگی سرمایه‌داری جهانی که با فعالیت اجتماعی پرشتاب، از نظر پنهان می‌شود.

«انتخاب بین بوش و بن‌لادن انتخاب ما نیست؛ هر دوی "آن‌ها" علیه ما هستند. این واقعیت که سرمایه‌داری جهانی یک تمامیت است بدان معناست که این سرمایه‌داری وحدتی دیالکتیکی است از خودش و از دیگریِ خودش، یعنی از نیروهایی که با تکیه بر بنیان‌های ایدئولوژیک "بنیادگرانه" در برابر آن مقاومت می‌کنند.»

«پیامِ "همیاری-در عین-همه‌ی تفاوت‌ها" ایدئولوژی در خالص‌ترین شکلش است - چرا؟ چون، دقیقا، هر تصوری از تعارض "عمودی" که به قلب بدنه‌ی اجتماعی می‌زند، بکل حذف می‌شود، و جای خود را به مفهوم کاملا متفاوتِ تفاوت‌های "افقی"ای می‌دهد و/یا ترجمان خود را در تفاوت‌های "افقی"ای می‌یابد که باید یاد بگیریم با آنها کار بیاییم، زیرا این دو مکمل یکدیگرند.»
از قول بدیو می‌گوید که یک وقت‌هایی احترام به دیگری بی‌معنا می‌شود، مثل وقتی که علم با فرقه‌های دانش‌ستیز رویارو شده است.
ممکن است گفته شود‌ که ولی حدی از دگربودگیِ ریشه‌ای دیگری باید رعایت شود تا به میلیون‌ها قربانی توتالیتریسمِ قرن بیستم و حمایت از ترور کمونیستی نرسیم.
بنظر ژیژک این استدلال غلط است زیرا مثلا یهودی‌ها می‌گویند اگر یک انسان را نجات بدهی کل بشریت را نجات داده‌ای، و مسیح می‌گوید بخاطر انسانیتِ خودِ آن‌ دشمنانِ انسانیت (مثلا بخاطر باقی‌مانده‌ی انسانیت خود هیتلر) است که باید با بالاترین توان با آن‌ها جنگید. این است آزمون اخلاقی واقعی؛ نابودی مسببانِ قربانیان و نه نجات قربانیان.

حرف ژیژک این است که امروزه در جهان پساایدوئولوژی، ایدئولوژی این‌گونه است که مثلا پدر __همچنان نقش قیومیت نمادین خود را اجرا می‌کند__، __بدون این‌که آن‌ را بپذیرد__؛ او اظهاراتی رندانه درباره‌ی بلاهت پدر بودن و غیره بیان می‌کند. یا مثلا چپ‌هایی که از مواهب لیبرالیسم بهره‌مند می‌شوند، و غرهایشان را هم به حکومت می‌زنند، ولی خیالشان راحت است که هیچ‌گاه خواسته‌هایشان مورد عمل قرار نخواهد گرفت.
می‌گوید باید مراقب باشیم کن از نسبت دادن باور ساده‌لوحانه‌ای که قادر به تایید آن نیستیم به دیگری دوری کنیم. از داستان سنتی شِرِک که با عصر پست مدرن مربوط شده مثال می‌زند؛ اژدها زنی مهربان از آب درمی‌آید و شاهزاده، دختری چاق. این اداپتِ داستانِ سنتی با پست‌مدرنیسمْ در خود فیلم، باعث می‌شود امکان جایگزینی این داستان با روایتی دیگر از ما سلب شود.

نویسنده از نسبی‌گراییِ پست‌مدرن شکایت می‌کند و از چسترتون نقل می‌کند که یا عقیده‌ای درست است و یا عقیده‌ی شما نیست. ژیژک می‌گوید دموکراسی همین توهم را داده است؛ فرد بدون‌تحمل رنجِ بنیادگرایان، در گوشه‌ی امن و بی‌مسئولیت و بی‌تعهد خود، هر جانبداری دگماتیک را رد می‌کند. دموکراسی صحبت از بد و بدتر است و در طبیعتش مستعد فساد است. ژیژک می‌پرسد آیا می‌توان این دور باطل را شکست؟ از نظر او ایجاد سوسیالیسم، بدون توصل به خشونت ممکن نیست.

از مارگریت دوراس نقل می‌کند که «تنها راه داشتن یک رابطه‌ی شخصی (جنسی) تمام‌عیار و رضایت‌بخش این نیست که زوج‌ها در چشم یکدیگر خیره‌شده جهان پیرامون را فراموش کنند، بلکه این است که در حالی که دست‌های هم را گرفته‌اند، هر دو به بیرون، به یک نقطه‌ی ثالث (آرمانی که به‌خاطرش می‌جنگند، آرمانی که هر دو به آن متعهدند) نگاه کنند.»

«اگر آن بمب‌گذار شهادت‌طلب فلسطینی، درست در لحظه‌ی عمل، به معنای موکد کلمه "زنده‌تر" باشد از آن سرباز امریکایی که در جلوی صفحه‌ی کامپیوتر با دشمنی صدها کیلومتر دورتر از خود می‌جنگد، یا زنده‌تر باشد از آن تازه‌به‌دوران‌رسیده‌ی نیویورکی که دارد در ساحل رودخانه‌ی هودسن می‌دود تا تناسب اندام خود را حفظ کند، چه؟»

لنینیسم یعنی پرهیز از عافیت‌طلبی، انحراف در مکتب او یعنی پرهیز فرصت‌طلبانه از خطر جانبداری آشکار و افراطی.

ژیژک می‌گوید هدف اعلام‌شده‌ی زندگی، عمر دراز غرق در لذت است. در نتیجه، لذت‌های واقعی (مثل غذا، مواد مخدر و...) ممنوع یا شدیدا کنترل می‌شوند. این هدف به تقدس زندگی اصرار دارد و در نتیجه، اعدام می‌شود یک مجازات.
حرفِ __نجات سرباز رایان__ این است که جنگ یک کشتار بی‌معنا است و هیچ‌چیز نمی‌تواند توجیه‌اش کند. در نتیجه بقول ژیژک بهترین توجیه برای آموزه‌ی نظامی کالین پاول است: جنگ بدون تلفات برای خودی‌ها.

آمریکا و اسرائیل وقتی به حملات‌شان __پاسخ__ داده شود، دیگر مقاومت‌کنندگان را سرباز دشمن و جنایتکار عادی نمی‌دانند، آن‌ها دیگر مبارزان غیرقانونی و تروریست هستند.
امروزه دو نوع جنگ داریم. منازعه‌ی گروه‌های هوموسیکر (به تعبیر آگامبن، انسانی که زنده است ولی جزء جماعت سیاسی به حساب نمی‌آید)؛ مثل منازعات قومی-مذهبی. بعد این آمریکا است که مداخله‌ی بشردوستانه و صلح‌طلبانه می‌کند و باید بخاطرش نوبل صلح بگیرد. طالبان بیشتری بکشیم تا بتوانیم به __مردم محلی__ غذا برسانیم؛ یک پارادوکس آشکار از هواپیماهای آمریکایی که یا غذا می‌اندازند یا بمب.

ژیژک از نادیده‌گرفتن آزارهای «ملایم» نژادپرستانه توسط شهروندان می‌گوید و این‌که شهروندانِ مثلا آلمان به خود اجازه می‌دهند آن ویتنامی (که مورد آزار نژادپرستانه قرار گرفته) را به مثابه هوموسیکر ببیند.
این من را به تعبیری در محیط خودم سوق می‌دهد. جایی که دانشجویان پزشکی رفتار متکبرانه و توهین‌آمیز رزیدنت‌ها (پزشک متخصص) با مردم را می‌بینند، اما کم‌کم خود را قانع می‌کنند و در برابر این صحنه، هیچ کنشی انجام نمی‌دهند؛ هنوز که «خطای پزشکی» رخ نداده! (یعنی هنوز که آزارهای نژادپرستانه جنبه‌ی فیزیکی پیدا نکرده‌اند...)

__(ترجمه‌ی کتاب به شدت افتضاح است.)__

[فهد الفهد · Rating 3 out of 5]

مرحباً في صحراء الواقع

هذا العنوان مستل من فيلم (الماتركس) الشهير، هي عبارة يقولها لورنس فيشبورن لكيانو ريفز وهو يستيقظ من العالم الوهمي الذي كان يعيش فيه بتأثير الماتركس، ليجد أمامه العالم الواقعي الحقيقي الذي يعمه الخراب، أو صحراء الواقع بتعبير آخر، يستخدم الفيلسوف السلوفيني سلافوي جيجيك هذه العبارة موجهاً إياها إلى الأمريكيين الذين يفترض أن توقظهم هجمات الحادي عشر من سبتمبر، وتدفعهم إلى صحراء واقع العالم الذي يعيشون فيه ولكنهم في ذات الوقت معزولون داخله.

يسمى جيجيك الذي اكتسب شهرة كبيرة بعدما ترجمت كتبه للإنجليزية (الفيلسوف النجم)، وهو فيلسوف وناقد ثقافي، يكتب في النظرية السياسية، والنظرية السينمائية والتحليل النفسي، ويتضح هذا تماماً في كتابه هذا، الذي أظن أنه الوحيد له الذي ترجم إلى اللغة العربية حتى الآن من بين القائمة الطويلة لأعماله، وهذه الترجمة متعبة للأسف رغم ما بذل فيها من جهد.

يتميز جيجيك بعناوينه اللذيذة مثل (العيش في آخر الأزمنة) أو (في الدفاع عن قضايا خاسرة) أو (الجيران ووحوش أخرى)، كما يتميز بأنه يملأ كتبه بمناقشات عن هيجل وماركس وكانط ولاكان، هذا غير تحليل الأفلام وإعادة قراءتها، والإشارة للأحداث السياسية قريبها وبعيدها، مع إيراد النكت السياسية والاجتماعية بطريقة تجذب القارئ، ولكن المشكلة في هذا كله يلخصها الناقد الأمريكي فريدريك جيمسن في أن هذا كله عبارة عن عروض منوعات نظرية، تتوالى فيها العروض التي تجعل الجمهور ينبهر، ولكن القارئ يتحير في النهاية بشأن الأفكار المعروضة، أو على الأقل بشأن الأفكار الأساسية التي يجب الحفاظ عليها.

يضم الكتاب خمسة مقالات حول 11 سبتمبر، تناقش لا الحدث ذاته وإنما انعكاساته على الفرد والمجتمع الغربي من خلال مقولات تحليلية، كما يناقش الحرب على الإرهاب والقضية الفلسطينية، وكذا حرب البوسنة.

[Ibrahim Abdulla · Rating 4 out of 5]

لم ينل جيجيك لقب ألفيس النقد الثقافي من فراغ؛ فهو يمزج فلسفته النقدية والجدلية الماركسية منطلقاً من التحليل النفسي عند لاكان بأمور ومعارف الثقافة الشعبية من تحليلات للأفلام و نكات وملاحظات من عالم الرواية وجدالات دينية وسياسية وحتى موسيقية، ويدخل هذا الخليط العجيب في تحليلاته الفلسفية السياسية

ويبدو هذا واضحاً من عنوان الكتاب؛ الذي هو في الأصل اقتباس لعبارة مورفيس التي قالها لنيو من فيلم ذا ماتريكس المعروف عندما يُريه عالم الواقع ( الحقيقي ) الذي كان خراباً وبقايا من الدمار : "مرحباً في صحراء الواقع" يحاول بذلك أن يوضح بأن أحداث الحادي عشر من سبتمبر كانت شبيهة بهذا المشهد، من حيث أن هذا الحدث قذف بنا إلى الواقع الحقيقي، وهو ما سيتناوله وما يتعلق به في مقالات هذا الكتاب.

الترجمة كانت ممتازة، والقراءة لجيجك -في كثير من مقالاته- متعة .. لكن المشكلة كما يقول أحد ناقديه، بأن هذا التطواف المنوع والعروض الجميلة في كتاباته تجعل القارئ منتشىً ومذهول، لكن في أحياناً كثيرة يخرج من المقالة دون الحصول على ما يجب أن يحافظ عليه من معلومات و أفكار رئيسية ..

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

So clever I understood almost none of it. 5 stars.

[Lisajean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought-provoking... there’s a fair amount of nonsense to wade through, but Zizek also calls out a bunch of people/groups for their nonsense, so it was worth the wade.

[Mikael Hekkala · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nyt toinen teos tältä aikamme yleisintellektuellilta tykitelty. Vaikka teos on aikalailla poliittinen kommentaari 11.9 iskuihin, kuvastaa kirja hyvin myös yleisesti 2000-luvun politiikkaa länsimaisen taloudellis-poliittisen systeemin kehityskulun ja psykoanalyyttisen teorisoinnin kautta.

Vaikka teos oli zizekmäisesti tilkkutäkki eri teorioita ja puolikkaita ajatuksia niin eritoten mieleen jäi 9.11 iskujen kuvaaminen länsimaisen liberaalidemokraattisen instituutioiden toimettomuuden ja taloudellisen brutaalisuuden kautta. Zizek selittää, että liberaalin järjestyksen luoma todellisuus on nykyään virtuaalista. Virtuaalisuudella Zizek viittaa elämämme symbolisoitumiseen Baudrillardin tyyliin. Länsimaissa haluamme oluen ilman alkoholia ja kahvin ilman kofeiinia eli siis todellisuuden ilman todellisuuttta. Tämä fantasia, jossa elämme ohjaa ideologisesti keskittymisemme uusliberaaleihin postpoliittisiin ongelmiin, joita tarkastellaan ilman reaalista viittauspistettä. Esimerkiksi kolmannen maailman maiden kärsimys on meille televiossa tapahtuvaa kauhua samalla tavalla kuin kauhuelokuvat. Tällä reaalisuuden välttelyllä on fantasiassamme kuitenkin päätepiste: 11.9 iskut. Iskut ovat tulos uusliberaalista taloudellisrationaalisesta politiikasta eli Lähi-idän kurittaminen ja tuhoaminen öljyn nimissä. Kuitenkin tämä politiikka näyttäytyy ja esitetään ainoana vaihtoehtona ja jopa ei-poliittisena toimintana.

Zizekin teoria on yhdistys marxilaista sosiologista kuvailua kapitalismista, jota Zizek soveltaa filosofisesti ja psykoanalyyttista suhtautumista tähän. Zizek ajattelee, että ideologia syntyy koska on olemassa jokin reaalinen asia (asia jota ei ole symboloitu, annettu kielellistä merkitystä), joka halutaan peittää. Tämä asia on systeemin reaalinen ongelma (kapitalismissa esim. jatkuva kriisiytyminen), joka halutaan heijastaa ulkoiseksi ongelmaksi (kapitalismin tapauksessa esimerkiksi liian suuri julkinen sektori). Täten todellisuudessa ideologiaa on historialliset ongelmat, joita ei uskalleta myöntää universaaleiksi ja sisäisiksi, koska se veisi pohjan todellisuudeltamme.

[محمد · Rating 4 out of 5]

الكتاب فيه نفس الطابع المعتاد لكتب جيجك، كم هائل من المعلومات و التنوع الثقافي - المتمثل في معرفة بالأفلام و التاريخ و السياسة و الدين - و الأفكار الجديدة تماماً و التي تتعارض مع الكثير من الأفكار الشائعة في المجتمع و يراها الناس من البديهيات، مع طابع ثوري يقبل العنف و إن كان لا يطلبه.

الكاتب يفترض في القاريء معرفة محترمة بالكثير من المفاهيم الصعبة في الفلسفة و التحليل النفسي، لهذا كنت كثيراً ما أقف لأبحث عن مصطلح ما أو فكرة فلسفية يشير هو إليها دون أن يشرحها، و ظلت بعض الأفكار صعبة أو غير مفهومة بصورة كاملة. علي الرغم من هذا يظل هذا الكتاب أكثر سهولة بكثير من كتب أخري له مثل
In Defense of lost causes.

الترجمة كانت أكثر من سيئة، و كثيراً ما شعرت أن لفظة ما ترجمتها غير مناسبة أو غير مفهومة فكنت أعود للنص الإنجليزي و كنت أجد شعوري صائباً في أغلب الأحيان. طوال قرائتي للكتاب كانت النسخة الإنجليزية بجواري لأعود لها بين الحين و الآخر.

الكتاب يستحق قراءة أخري فيما بعد إن شاء الله.

[Eric Piotrowski · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nicholas Lezard said it very well, about another Zizek book: "Reading Žižek is hard work. But it is worth it; like hacking through miles of undergrowth and jungle vegetation in order to be rewarded, every so often, with a splendid view. [...:] For when Žižek stops talking like that and actually says something directly, then he is electrifying."

I just wish there were a higher signal to noise ratio.. Maybe noise isn't the right word, but there's a lot of Antigone diversions on the way to actual discussions of 9/11.

[Francisco Luis Benítez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Libro imprescindible para entender el reflejo del Otro en nuestra sociedad. O cómo la búsqueda de un enemigo exterior aplaza la necesidad de buscar soluciones a los problemas sistémicos de nuestras sociedades, basándose en la teoría del Homo Sacer y la Otroridad como excusa.

[Umar Hashmi · Rating 5 out of 5]

filthy Slovene muses about the secret fantasies of Americans

[Leda · Rating 5 out of 5]

I feel like I am a bit smarter now

[Miguel Soto · Rating 3 out of 5]

A este señor entre más lo leo, más me da la impresión de que sus libros son su autoanálisis, y no necesariamente lo digo como queja, igualmente resultan iluminadores de algunos aspectos sociales actuales. Acá se dedica sobre todo a analizar el acontecimiento que para algunos marcó el fin del siglo XX, y que para él, al menos marca el fin de "los felices noventa": el atentado del 11 de septiembre. Efectivamente es una irrupción de lo real, una zarandeada de la que sin embargo, a 20 años ya, veo que hemos hecho muchos esfuerzos por recuperarnos, narrándola, tratando de darle varios sentidos y explicaciones, quizá como cualquier otro gran acontecimiento, nos negamos a dejarla en su estatuto real. Me pregunto si alguna vez lo lograremos.

[Mack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Every time I pick up a Zizek book, I go in with the expectation I'll be able to track with maybe half of it. His thoughts on 9/11 are just as askew, insightful, and obscure as you'd think they'd be. I especially liked the chapter on Israel's relationship with Palestine becoming more aggressive than ever (at the time) all while using the exact same verbiage of America's War on Terror propaganda. Each essay has plenty of peaks and valleys, but more so than some of his other works, the pointed insight stays pretty prevalent and the tangents are a little less harebrained.

[Rami Khrais · Rating 4 out of 5]

هو جامد نيك بصراحة بس عاوز تركيز أكبر واطلاع (تحديدا بمجال السينما) وهو بالمناسبة لا يقدم كثيرا من الأجوبة بقدر ما يطرح مجموعة من التساؤلات المهمة بس قشطة يعني.

[Terence Blake · Rating 3 out of 5]

ZIZEK, UNCONSCIOUS DISCIPLE OF ONFRAY

"The beginning of any change, the first step, consists in putting an end to a false activity" (p11, my translation)

This book is very interesting for anyone who likes Zizek, and he covers a lot of ground. I wish mainly to comment the first two chapters where Zizek talks a little about his own analysis, about his vision of psychoanalysis, and about his relation to Lacan.
The style is very clear, and it is a great pleasure to read this book. Zizek talks with modesty and discretion about his own analysis, and tells us how it began in a period of despair over a love affair, when he was close to committing suicide. He claims that his analysis gave him the necessary support to allow him to fight against his desire for suicide, and to eventually, several months later, overcome it. Then after renouncing his desire for suicide, he declares that he did everything in his power to resist any further subjective evolution:
"I was active in every instant to prevent any change" (p10, my translation). During two years of analysis, Zizek opposed an "absolute resistance" to the whole process of the cure: he spoke constantly, to prevent the analyst from asking him a veritable question which would oblige him to change. After these two years, he stopped his analysis.
To interpret this episode (and we shall see that according to Zizek "everything is to be analysed"), Zizek speaks of "subtraction", of the necessity to withdraw from all false activity. It appears that his analysis itself, after his overcoming of despair, constituted a false activity. The beginning of real change, the passing on to real activity, coincided with the act of putting an end to his analysis. This was, in my reading, his way of carrying out the leap into the void, of passing through the "cartesian moment of the void" (p11). Of course, the symptoms persist ("today I still talk too much") but the aim is no longer to eliminate one's symptoms, that is an unnecessary idea, a fantasm. The aim is to "change our relation to our symptoms" (p32) and to learn to live with them. Not to eliminate one's symptoms, but to be reconciled with them. It is true that Zizek lives comfortably now with his symptom of "talking too much".
The implicit criticism of the whole system of analysis is radical indeed: "the system ... can only reproduce itself through this permanent false activity" (p11). Zizek is speaking here of the "individual, psychic, or even political and ideological" system, but the lesson for the psychoanalytic system of the cure is ineluctable. Psychoanalysis first functioned for him in an authoritarian, "bureaucratic" mode. The superego injunction to come back for the next appointment saved Zizek from suicide. Then came the fear of the too efficacious speech of the analyst, which generated the false activity of incessant talking. The "cure" was not to stop talking to here the transformative speech of the analyst, as the fantasm of the analytic system would have it. The solution was to stop the analysis and to speak in his own name.
The impasse of psychoanalysis, where according to Zizek even Lacan failed, is constituted by a double bind:
(1) there is no complete symbolisation
(2) there is no pure desire
Thus, the end of analysis cannot be some ideal transcendent point where one attains absolute knowledge and traverses the fantasm. This point of transcendence, this blinding encounter with the real, is yet another element in the fantasmatic system, its one pole in a dualistic fantasm where the other pole is the return to normal life. The system of analysis according to this fantasm is the transgressive movement towards an authentic moment of encounter with the real, followed by a return to wisdom, a distancing of oneself, a new-found normality. Zizek by his own account did everything to subtract himself from this fantasm.
The end of analysis according to Zizek's strategy comes with a subtraction and a withdrawal, not with a cure. One withdraws from a false activity, which was only made possible by the passive acceptance of the superego injunctions of the psychoanalytic framework (the appointments, the obligation to talk) and of its associated fantasies (complete symbolisation, pure desire, transformative question, mad encounter with the real, return to normal life). One enters into a different passivity, the passivity of Bartleby: "I'd prefer not to" as slogan of subtraction, a withdrawing which is not the "distancing" required by the fantasm. The act of wisdom is to consider that "when there is nothing to discover, except the real, it is best to keep onself at a healthy distance from everything. Conscious that it is only an empty spectacle" (p31). This distancing betrays the real and takes shelter in conformism, even if it is a lucid conformism. For Zizek, to withdraw is a way to remain faithful to one's encounters, to prolong them into daily life. This is the strategy of fidelity of Zizek in analysis: "I'd prefer not to (change)". The analytic injunction is to speak so as to change. Zizek's "absolute resistance" is to speak so as not to change. For the change desired by the system of analysis is not a real change, it's just another fantasm.
This is where paradoxically Zizek is in agreement with Onfray: psychoanalysis does not cure, it is based on replacement fantasms and acts of power. In a moment of lucidity Zizek declares in Foucauldian terms "the first act of power of the analyst is to declare what deserves to be analysed and what doesn't" (p20). He draws the correct conclusion, unfortunately calling it a "Freudian" conclusion, that "everything is to be analysed" (p21), making clear by the examples he gives that it is above all conformism, normality, and the acts of power of psychoanalysts that are to be analysed. However, this intuition itself is extra-analytic, as if everything is to be analysed the analytic system itself is to be analysed ... as a fantasm. Bartleby's (and Zizek's) strategy goes then: speak so as not to change in the terms of the fantasm, neither mine nor my analyst's.
"Everything is to be analysed" is ironically a jungian slogan, rather than a freudian one. Freud was unable, unwilling to pursue his own auto-analysis to the point where he could see his "scientific discoveries" as just another fantasm, and not the reality behind the fantasm. This is what Zizek seems to insinuate with his thesis that "surplus enjoyment comes first" and that impossible enjoyment, forbidden and repressed, is only a secondary formation projected as origin:
"This idea of a substantial, incestuous, impossible enjoyment is only a retroactive effect of surplus-enjoyment" (p39).
In conclusion, the purported foundations of freudian theory are only retroactive fantasms.
The attempts by Zizek to confuse the issue and to perpetuate the mystification of the fantasmatic system of analysis are not unique to him. One is "Freudian" but Freud is too positivist, too dogmatic, too conformist. So one progresses to Lacan, who is himself too dogmatic, too linguistic, too structuralist, too conformist. So one divides Lacan up into periods, distinguishes successive Lacans: Lacan 1, 2 3 4; and we pick out what suits us. Zizek likes the "old Lacan", the "late Lacan", but not Lacan at the end. He likes Lacan 3, who has abandonned the notion of the cure as the elimination of the symptoms (p32). But he rejects Lacan 4, with his topological schemas(p35). Further, while declaring that his Lacan remains that of Jacques-Alain Miller, Zizek mocks Miller by comparing him, cruel irony, to Althusser just before his breakdown. It is obvious that the signifier "Lacan" functions as a fantasm that allows Zizek to validate retroactively his own ideas. And even all these operations are insufficient, because Lacan did not see that surplus enjoyment precedes impossible enjoyment.
It is also obvious that Zizek, as usual, concedes everything to his adversary once he has condemned him unambiguously. Thus, Zizek condemns New Age mysticism many times over, but goes on to valorise "the cartesian moment of the void, accomplished by Lacan" (p11). Of course this passage through the void to begin real change has nothing to do with similar-sounding New Age wisdom; No confusion is possible, as Zizek has been very careful to insert the adjective "cartesian" and to invoke Lacan. (Similar remarks could be made for his ripping off ideas from Deleuze and Guattari, Jung, the Gnostics, etc. once he has thunderously condemned them) one could in each case ask which Lacan is being invoked here? Lacan 2? or Lacan 3? or rather Lacan-Z, the Lacan that Zizek constructs pluralistically, by opportunistic picking and choosing. "Lacan" is in fact a conceptual persona that permits Zizek to think and to validate his ideas retroactively. Surplus-Lacan comes first.
This is why Zizek can easily accept all the critiques that Onfray and anyone else can make of the Freudian system or of its Lacanian variant. After all, Lacan-Z preceded them all, since he is a retroactive fantasm.

Postscript on Badiou

Badiou himself plays this sliding game: the true Freud is Lacan; and the true Lacan is not Lacan i or Lacan 2, nor even Lacan 3, but my Lacan, Lacan-B. That is to say not Lacan at all, and certainly not Freud. Thus Badiou, like Zizek, is another Onfray-in-disguise, who cannot admit that he makes use of the pluralist technique of opportunistic cherry-picking so as to find retroactively in Lacan his own (Badiou's) ideas. Once again, the comparison with Deleuze and Guattari is inevitable. They do not find an unsuspected Lacan-3,5 who validates their ideas, they expose and analyse the fantasm of the system and then withdraw. Badiou, for all his sophistication, remains within the fantasm.

[Gerardo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Il testo resta illuminante sulle dinamiche dell'Occidente, per quanto legato a un evento particolare: l'11 Settembre 2001. L'attacco alle Torri Gemelle, per la sua importanza storica - ma soprattutto mediatica - è diventato paradigma di un'epoca, per tale motivo l'analisi di Zizek resta utile anche all'uomo contemporaneo, nonostante i mutamenti che lo stesso terrorismo ha subito negli ultimi anni.

L'attacco alle Torri Gemelle è stata una grande tragedia, ma non superiore a molte altre accadute in nazioni con meno peso politico: gli U.S.A., nonostante la loro forza non sia stata intaccata da tale attacco, si sono autodefiniti come "vittima universale", portando avanti un discorso paradossale. La vittima è colui che subisce, senza potere e senza forza: come è stato possibile che un paese, capace di una forza di azione travolgente e possente, abbia potuto agire proprio ponendosi dalla parte del debole e inerte?

L'11 Settembre, così, si è caricato di una strana retorica che, successivamente, ha condizionato il corso degli eventi nel mondo. Gli U.S.A., inoltre, attraverso l'attacco, hanno rafforzato la propria egemonia culturale sull'Occidente: infatti, non solo evocato l'empatia di tutto il mondo, ma senza mezzi termini hanno affermato che non partecipasse al loro discorso culturale era da considerarsi come nemico, perché loro - immaginandosi in un pericolo mortale, loro che sono così potenti - non avevano altra scelta di fronte a tale violenza.

Gli U.S.A., anziché proporre un discorso in difesa di tutte le vittime, difende soltanto i propri caduti, elevandoli a uno status speciale, differente da tutti quanti gli altri. Per tale motivo, la violenza sprigionata come risposta non è stata capace di suscitare la stessa indignazione, perché ormai erano stati fatti dei distinguo tra vittime eccezionali e vittime di seconda categoria. In sostanza, Zizek mostra come dietro alla violenza di un tale evento, che per tale motivo sembrerebbe più reale del reale, si nasconda un immaginario molto forte, capace di influenzare fortemente la nostra percezione delle cose.

Lo stesso attacco ha qualcosa di virtuale: più che sul numero delle vittime, si è puntato sulla spettacolarità del gesto. In questo, l'attacco è stato propriamente occidentale: si sono infiltrati elementi hollywoodiani all'interno del reale, creando un corto circuito percettivo che, ancora oggi, porta molte persone a riguardare quei video per il grande sentimento di godimento che quella spettacolarità è capace di produrre. Paradossalmente, l'evento è stato molto più forte per i non newyorkesi: gli abitanti, infatti, hanno partecipato direttamente all'evento, senza subire quell'elemento mitologico in più che, nel mondo contemporaneo, ha scatenato il "trauma".

Un piccolo appunto: trovo molto interessante l'idea che il contrario di esistenza sia l'insistenza, cioè tutto ciò che si vorrebbe dimenticare, ma che purtroppo "insiste" nella nostra coscienza, ripresentandosi senza che questi sia stato accettato dalla nostra volontà. Questo pensiero riporta la questione dell'essere alla sfera psicologica, visione interessante che sottolinea l'importanza dei discorsi retorici, capaci così di plasmare l'essere stesso.

[Amy Blair · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading these essays in 2021 is interesting. Given the events of our time, it is worth revisiting and understanding the first great Event of our century to uncover the tensions and ideologies that emerged from it, which continue to define our fracturing world. As usual, Zizek has three or four hits for each miss, but he still misses a lot, and some of his misfires will be clear to a contemporary reader. He also is, again as usual, too ready to see reformist social demands being readily subsumed by neoliberal politics as somehow an indictment of the demands themselves. Stylistically, at times these essays are smugly self-contradictory and irritating, bombarding you with rhetorical questions that hide the confident assertions he is really making.

Nevertheless, in retrospect, these essays are shockingly prescient, extrapolating the moment of September 11 forward to a not-too-distant future that looks near-exactly like our contemporary world. He detects in the political trajectory of Western capitalism tendencies toward ethnic and national conflicts based upon obscured class antagonisms, the rise of anti-semitism, the new nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and an emerging political polarization based upon a division between “the global field of ‘moderate’ post-politics and extreme Rightist repoliticization”. I was impressed by this last point regarding the populist right, which he already saw as the active political force against which the liberal left was becoming reactive and impotent. His prescription of an invigorated class politics as the only antidote to the destructive force of the war on terror and of ‘postideological’ world politics, though perhaps buried here in too much punch-pulling and rhetorical meandering, is today as obvious as it was subversive in 2002. Reading these essays in their context and recognizing their sometimes astounding foresight, I have let myself forgive some of Zizek’s excesses.

[Brandon · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a very thought-provoking book about September 11th and its aftermath that I read for a graduate history course on 9/11. Though there were passages that I thought were interesting and revealed a new understanding of global responses to the events, I disliked most of the book. Though I recognize it may simply be because I don't have a solid understanding of philosophy - especially modern philosophy - it felt like the history Žižek was interpreting became subsumed by the philosophical frameworks he was utilizing. Consistently, I felt that possible insights became lost in a sea of Lacanian buzzwords and rhetorical structures that got away from what was actually being discussed. In addition, though some of the media comparisons were interesting (9/11 as a media spectacle, or comparing our post-historical vacation to the Matrix), many of them seemed outlandish and only justified by the complicated philosophy Žižek drowns the book in.

This book will definitely leave you thinking. As with many books like that, there was plenty I don't agree with, but I'm still glad I read it. Though I may re-read certain highlights, I doubt I'll be re-reading the book as a whole anytime in the future. I might recommend it to one of my classmates, but that's it.

[🪄wiktoria✨ · Rating 3 out of 5]

so the main thing about our pal slavoj here is that no matter where you fall on the political spectrum he will just piss you the fuck off so. much. he literally makes you nod your head in agreement in one moment and then toss the book against the wall in the next one.

so divisive that once i literally had a situationship fall out because of this fucking dude. but i keep on reading him once in a while because i too, at the end of the day, can never make up my mind like ever and have a single thought without immediately questioning my own perspective and asking like a million of self-contradicting questions just for the hell if it —

picking up any zizek i am always expecting it to be 90% random pop culture anecdotes 10% contradicting himself for no reason whatsoever buuuut let me tell you i did not expect him to analyze fucking shrek in the context of 9/11. like i’m here for it i think but man only this guy i swear.

this book also contains one of the craziest sentences i’ve ever read in my entire life — “The whole Cuban politico-ideological identity rests on the fidelity to castration — no wonder that the Leader is called Fidel Castro!” ……….

lastly can’t believe he named this one after a fucking matrix quote lol

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

zizek.... i love you but you're tearing me apart!!!!!
there was some really interesting stuff in this, but for some reason I found it really hard to get through. i love the way zizek writes but a lot of this seemed very inconsequential. the beginning and end was great, the middle draaaaaaaged way too much

[Front de Lecture Populaire (FLP) · Rating 3 out of 5]

top ! les enchaînements d'idées sont parfois compliquées à comprendre mais dans l'ensemble ce livre est super intéressant. on retrouve les concepts clés de zizek qu'on aime bien. pas si problématique que ça je trouve (quelques trucs limites ou pas assez développés mais ça va)

[Lukas Stock · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very good collection. Interesting to see the relevance over 20 years later.

Easily the worst dimensions ever chosen for a published work. Awful experience to read.

[Viktor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Briljant💅