Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle

by Slavoj Žižek

In order to render the strange logic of dreams, Freud quoted the old joke about the borrowed kettle: (1) I never borrowed a kettle from you, (2) I returned it to you unbroken, (3) the kettle was already broken when I got it from you. Such an enumeration of inconsistent arguments, of course, confirms exactly what it attempts to deny—that I returned a broken kettle to you.

That same inconsistency, Žižek argues, characterized the justification of the attack on Iraq: A link between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda was transformed into the threat posed by the regime to the region, which was then further transformed into the threat posed to everyone (but the US and Britain especially) by weapons of mass destruction. When no significant weapons were found, we were treated to the same bizarre logic: OK, the two labs we found don’t really prove anything, but even if there are no WMD in Iraq, there are other good reasons to topple a tyrant like Saddam ...

Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle – which can be considered as a sequel to Žižek’s acclaimed post-9/11 Welcome to the Desert of the Real – analyzes the background that such inconsistent argumentation conceals and, simultaneously, cannot help but highlight: what were the actual ideological and political stakes of the attack on Iraq? In classic Žižekian style, it spares nothing and nobody, neither pathetically impotent pacifism nor hypocritical sympathy with the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Theory, Middle East, Political Science, 21st Century

208 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

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

[Jonfaith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why should every project of a radical social revolution automatically fall into the trap of aiming at the impossible dream of 'total transparency'?

It should be noted that my wife and I viewed Zero Dark-Thirty last night before I began this challenging tome. Much of the premise is dated. There is no hint here of Civil War and the Surge, drones or Blackwater. Thus qualified, the ensuing discussion is rich and frenetic and evokes myriad notions, a personal favorite being "the cunning of noble lies and bitter truths". Antigone is explored as well as a rasher of contemporary theorists. While lacking the polish of Welcome to the Desert of the Real: Five Essays on September 11 and Related Dates this is a solid tract.

If the 'terrorists' are ready to wreck this world for love of another world, our warriors on terror are ready to wreck their own democratic world out of hatred for the Muslim other. Some of them love human dignity so much that they are ready to legalize torture - the ultimate degradation of human dignity - to defend it . . .

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't know what the hell he's talking about half the time, and I majored in philosophy and have kept up with it somewhat through the years. I also have looked into the Iraq war from a pretty in depth perspective and a lot of what he said went over my head.

The thing is, though, I was completely blown away.

Ever have that feeling when you are just barely hanging on to what an author or speaker is saying, getting it but just not quite being, like, conversant with it? You can feel your brain straining but it feels like its gotten stronger. You can feel your cranium buzzing with a thousand new ideas and images and arguments.

It's kinda like that. Definitely recommended for people with a philosophical background, because otherwise the heavy reliance on Lacan and Marx, etc. will be flabbergasting. Not to mention the incidental references to other thinkers and historical situations and so on.

He does, however, write pretty clearly all in all and uses pop culture to illustrate what he's trying to get at extremely well. So that helps.

But what I DID pick up from it I got wholeheartedly and opened up a whole new avenue(S) of exploration.

I've got to read his other books now. I'm in the muthaf&^%in' rabbit hole!

The movie about him, following him around and interviewing him and such, entitled "Zizek!" is pretty rad, too. Probably a good place to start before trying to tackle him in the prose form. It's only an hour, and he's pretty entertaining, in a charmingly fussy little goofy brilliant fuzzball kinda way.

He has a picture of Stalin above the light switch in his apartment. he's a post-Marxist, so it's more about Lenin and such for him, but he talks about how he keeps it there to freak people out so they can leave him alone. I loved this! If that kind of thing strikes you as funny or insightful or intriguing, you might enjoy dipping in here.

[James Hogg · Rating 2 out of 5]

A little more on Iraq would've been nice...

[Evan]

after a few days of thinking about it, here is a review for this book...

in typical zizek fashion, he stays on topic for maybe 30 pages out of 180? iraq almost seems like an afterthought. the historical through-line from ford to bush feat. the same cast of policy makers such as rumsfeld & cheney isnt even mentioned. sure we get the little anecdote about how rumsfeld left out 'unknown knowns' from his foray into amateur philosphy, but we dont get any analysis showing how the bush's and other oil oligarchs have a long history in the middle east, and how that history lead to 9/11 and the situation in iraq. instead we get a lot of esoteric ramblings on lacan and treading the same philosophical ground that seems to be in everything zizek writes - he never strays far from the zizekisms we've come to know and love!

I admit i went into this with my own set of topics i wanted him to review: the nature of conspiracy theories, maybe a nice history lesson on America and Saudi relations leading up to 9/11, bush's 'war on terrorism' and how stoking patriotic zeal functions to carry out US interests, perhaps some insight into the nature of covert operations a la the CIA and the 'deep state'. Didnt really get much of the above, and i cant fault him for not giving me what i want, but i really wish he would have had more to say on conspiracy theories than he did - especially since 9/11 conspiracies were proliferating from the day of the attacks onward. What he did say was interesting though, and here is a little snippet from one such reflection

"We all know the cliche about conspiracy theories being the poor man's ideology: when individuals lack the elementary cognitive mapping capabilities and resources that would enable them to locate their place within a social totality, they invent conspiracy theories which provide an ersatz mapping, explaining all the complexities of social life as the result of hidden conspiracy. However...we are all to often dealing with real 'conspiracies'."

he gives an example about LA public transit, but honestly just talk about WMDs and how we were lead to believe Saddam had them. Perhaps our intelligence services didn't even know of their existence, or knew he in fact DID NOT have them but needed some reason to feed the public in order to invade. Thats a good conspiracy, and one specific to Iraq....ya know what this book is ostensibly about. Shit, he could even talk about the highly disputed election in 2000 which had to be handled by the Supreme Court; a case that exposed the Supreme court's partisan nature effectively undermining the legal system it supposedly represents.

He goes on -

"Today, the ultimate ideology would be the self complacent critico-ideological dismissal of all conspiracies as mere fantasies."

Which is a great point! But why would this ideology be so ubiquitous? what function does labeling conspiracy theorists as harebrained, paranoid, or un-American serve? And who/what is responsible for this very prevalent mindset? Does the CIA have any history in playing down conspiracy? A role in tying these pejoratives to the concept of conspiracy? something they may have done in 1967 with the help of journalists and news media? perhaps the critics of the warren commission are un-american communists hell bent on destroying america? does this sound like a similar narrative perpetuated by the media concerning BLM and protesters in Portland? hmmm? well zizek doesnt seem to think mucking about in these weeds is necessary.

Anyway, here is another snippet that I found illuminating, especially in light of the upcoming election (hAvE u ReeGiStered 2 VotEE?)

"...the populist Right disturbs the aseptic liberal consensus by giving voice to passionate dissent, clearly arguing against the 'foreign threat'; in a second negation, the 'decent' democratic Centre, in the very gesture of pathetically rejecting this populist Right, integrates its message in a 'civilized' way - in between, the entire field of background 'unwritten rules' has already changed so much that no one even notices, and everyone is simply relieved that the anti-democratic threat is over. And the true danger is that something similar will happen with the 'war on terror': 'extremists' such as John Ashcroft will be discredited, but their legacy will remain, imperceptibly woven into the invisible ethical fabric of our societies. Their defeat will be their ultimate triumph: they will no longer be needed, since their message will be incorporated into the mainstream. This defeat will simultaneously signal the defeat of democracy itself, its gradual change into a travesty of itself, its impotence in the face of a right-wing populist threat."

And here we could switch Ashcroft for Trump, and in classic Zizekian subversion of logic, if trump were to lose the upcoming election (which hmmmm okay lets find out) would be in fact his ultimate victory blah blah blah...Funny how the patriot act truly is woven into the ethical fabric of the country tho...

One more quote ---

"Democracy qua ideology functions principally as the space of a virtual alternative: the very prospect of a change, the looming possibility of this change makes us endure the existing power relations - that is to say these existing relations are stabilized, rendered tolerable, by the false opening (In a strict homology, subjects accept their economic situation if it is accompanied by an awareness of the possibility of change - 'good luck is just around the corner'.) The opponents of capitalist globalization like top emphasize the importance of keeping the dream alive: global capitalism is not the end of history, it is possible to think and act differently - what, however, if it is this very lure of a possible change which guarantees that nothing will actually change? What if it is only full acceptance of the desperate closure of the present global situation that can push us towards actual change? In this precise way, the virtual alternative displays an actuality of its own; in other words it is a positive ontological constituent of the existing order."

My gahd, could you think of a more pretentious way to finish that paragraph? a pOsItIvE oNtOlOgIcAl CoNstItUeNt... sheesh

Anyway, here we have another patented zizekian sleight of hand, a fun little parlor trick that pulls back the curtain, revealing that our hope for something to change actually maintains our current reality. I can only take so many of these until it starts to sound like fb arguing 'oh you thought it was like that but actually its like this so there!'

Maybe it's because this book was written in 2004 and change was still something people could believe in (Obama the proof in that pudding?), but 2020 seems to have shattered all illusions concerning politics in America. Not for everyone of course, but it seems that most with even the slightest bit of political acumen are sick of tolerating the shit show that is american politics. Did yall watch the DNC/RNC? Its like we are stuck in a shitty black mirror episode.

So did I love it? No. Did I hate it? No?

[Brandon Montgomery · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zizek uses the Iraq war as a pretext to discuss things only distantly related to the book's ostensible subject mater, yet it's these moments that, in 2018, are the most interesting and thought provoking. Most notable is the section on populism which tells us much about Brexit, nationalism, and the rise of Trump and his up-and-coming European doppelgangers.

[olive · Rating 3 out of 5]

honestly, i couldn’t finish the last trek of this book. Way too much psychoanalysis for me to follow.
from what i did read i thought it was interesting, but im not sure if there was any groundbreaking epiphanies about US imperialism besides maybe a more refined perspective on its drivers and potential roots.
But yeah idk… maybe one day i’ll finish the last 40 pages lol

[Nihal Vengara · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mind-blowing

[Joel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Žižek I love you but as soon as you start talking about Hegel, Kant, or Lycan I immediately lose any sense of understanding!! Still, some good stuff in this book

[RoPlo28 · Rating 4 out of 5]

At times hilarious and thought-provoking throughout. He occasionally goes deeper than I care to admit but habitually brings us back to an intellectual rendezvous to keep us engaged.

[Jared Colley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not your typical work of politics/current events. In fact, the engagement with the Iraq War takes place within the first half of the book. The 2nd part of the work is something much more theoretical & abstract. What you have here is a philosopher attempting to interpret a recent event/predicament. He is less concerned with proving a specific reason for "why" we went to war in the first place. The issue of WMDs is not a central concern for him as well. In fact, the very issue that we are baffled over such things gets closer to Zizek's point. He reads the Iraq War as a greater, telling symptom of the state of politics in general - where politics is collapsing in on itself like a house of cards due to the destructive contradictions of late capitalism. What I mean here, for instance, is a predicament like that of suspending freedoms for the purpose of making freedom possible - "Freedom isn't free / It cost alot from you and me...."

I think Zizek's interests in the contradictions of the Iraq war are the same that motivate his attention to the recent film, Children of Men. (If you haven't watched the film since its DVD release, do so. Zizek offers commentary on the film in the special feature options.) The film represents a parallel predicament in politics set in the near future. The contradictions there are that of two polarized political groups. Both groups desire ownership & control of the only known pregnant woman in the world, and they both want this woman for purposes of enpowering their political cause. The irony is the means at which they attempt to achieve their end. Both groups murder, betray, oppress, & lie for the purpose of politics, and why? To preserve life - to seize control of this woman and thus figure the way to, once again, prolong life. And this is why politics began in the first: to secure and preserve life. However, the predicament today is that we will kill, torture, & lie so that life & freedom may be preserved... But then again, freedom isn't free....Does that mean that Democracies are not democratic?

[Emma · Rating 3 out of 5]

I only recently discovered this contemporary philosopher and was intrigued enough to try his writings. I started with Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle, the only one available in my library network!

As you can see, this is far from being an easy book, but the content is refreshingly thought provoking and worth pondering.

The book is in 3 parts: the 1st part analyses the logic or rather absence of logic behind Iraq’s invasion by the US. This was the easiest part for me. Then there are 2 appendices. This is how the author himself presents them: “In its 2 appendices, this book follows the path of gradual ‘abstraction’ from direct political analysis (or, rather, in Hegelese, the path towards concrete totality): first, it questions the reference to democracy and its defense, which plays the central role in the justification for the war; then it goes into a more fundamental problem of the structure of domination that characterizes social order.” (p.7)

I had more problems with these 2 appendices, probably because I need to refresh my knowledge of Lacan.

Slavoj Žižek‘s socio psychological analysis of the phenomenon at stake was fascinating in its ...

To read my full review and many excerpts of the book, please go here:

http://wordsandpeace.com/2012/07/31/2...

[Ben Bush]

In Zizek's lectures and interviews I find him funny, illuminating and pretty easy to follow. After about page 100 of this book, I couldn't really figure out what any of it had to do with Iraq. In the introduction, he describes the book as kind of a collection of notes as the war was in progress and I wonder if some of it is a bit less finished than some of his other works. I read this right after DFW's Pale King and even prior to reading either one Zizek's interest in Christianity has reminded me a bit of DFW's. A line that stood out to me in the context of post-Pale King reading was Zizek on 'Lacan and the political': "...if we leave aside some directly conservative inclinations (like calls for the restoration of the 'strong' paternal Law as the only defence against the destructive potential of today's all-pervasive narcissism)" It made me think about how the Pale King in many ways seems to work along those lines, often invoking strong paternal figures directly in its call to extract ourselves from the self-obsession that current life often directs us toward.

[Tristan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Zizek is an embodiment of the ideal of the crazy professor. In this short read, he places the Iraq war and occupation in the context of contemporary US foreign policy, and then deconstructs both the context and the Iraq war in order to a create some unified theories on US politics and culture. Foucult once spoke of the necessity of intellectuals be coming 'intellectual hand-grenades.' That is what Zizek does. Articulate explanation is not his strong point, and towards the end of the book he degenerates into Lacanian psycho-babble, but Zizek excels at pushing the reader both to look at many things from completely different angles and also to see everything as connected to everything else.

[Johan · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's some good comments on this book here already so I'm just gonna say that I found the first part of this book very interesting. He presents quite a few disruptive ideas and challenges to people of leftist inclinations. Then it gets very, very philosophical and lacanian in a way that is way over my basic knowledge of these subjects. So although I didn’t read until the end, this book has enticed me to dig into some of the more advanced philosophy and also lacanian psychoanalysis, later to return to this book and see if I can make any sense of it. I also like how Zizek uses examples from popular culture like movies and TV to illuminate what he’s talking about.

[Wendy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I should be clear here that the four stars are for the parts of the book that I followed (namely, the first part, not so much the appendices). I've wanted to read Zizek for a while, out of curiosity, and I feel sufficiently humbled - but with every intention of seeking out the other writings he references and refutes, so I can understand his arguments better. This is a rambling book with a lot of hidden gems, though worth noting that it strays far from the topic of Iraq (although the discussion of the impetus for the war itself, especially given that the book was published in 2004, is pretty spot on and merciless).

[Leila]

Zizek barely talks about Iraq...and it would be uncharacteristic of Zizek if he did. He goes bonkers sometimes in an unrelated rant. You might not agree with that rant. But it'll be interesting. That said, there are definitely some well-crafted points that are really fascinating. If you haven't read Zizek and were just looking for a book to understand Iraq then this is not it. If you're looking for something to add to your philosophical ponderings then give it a go.

[Elizabeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm nerly done this is a spellbinding out of body philosphy/psychoanalytic book about politics, and the ways we fool ourselves..Zizek does meander a bit into the context provided by pyschoanalysis but overall I love a book that sends me search for more background and a greater depth of undersrtanding provided by mixing what on the surface appear to be very different frmeworks and disclipines

[Sharook wayanad · Rating 3 out of 5]

ഇറാഖിലെ അമേരിക്കൻ അധിനിവേശത്തെ അർഹിക്കുന്ന രീതിയിൽ വിമർശിക്കുന്ന പുസ്തകം.... ലോകരാജ്യങ്ങൾക്കിടയിൽ മേധാവിത്വം പുലർത്താനുള്ള അമേരിക്കയുടെ മരണപ്പാച്ചിൽ സാംസ്കാരികപരമായും മനഃശാസ്ത്രപരമായും വിലയിരുത്തുന്നു .. പ്രബന്ധരൂപത്തിലുള്ള വിലയിരുത്തലുകൾ മനസിലാക്കാൻ നേരിയ ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടുണ്ടെങ്കിലും വിരസതയില്ലാതെ വായിച്ചുപോകാൻ വായനക്കാരനെ സന്നദ്ധനാക്കുന്നതിൽ സിസേക് വളരെയധികം വിജയിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്.....

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zizek frequently derails his own arguments with indulgent philosophical sidetracks, yet the urgency of his insights are inspiring. As usual, the book hinges on the question, "how is resistance possible?"

[meredith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rambling, but the occasional points of lucid criticism make it worthwhile.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

second half was way hard

[Brian Foley · Rating 2 out of 5]

this title made me laugh out loud.
then i read it.

[Shane · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've heard a lot of good stuff about Zizek, but the guy just can't commit to writing about what the title of the book suggests, let alone the chapter headings.

[Judy · Rating 4 out of 5]

i love this beautiful man.

[Glen Teejay · Rating 5 out of 5]

How to practice Utopia?

[Mark Nenadov · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed many parts of this. I really struggled with other parts, which were either way off topic or inscrutable or both.