What do you think?
Rate this book
Pandemic! & Pandemic! 2: Covid-19 Shakes the World & Chronicles of a Time Lost
What do sex doll sales, locust swarms, and a wired-brain pig have to do with the coronavirus pandemic? Everything—according to that “Giant of Lubliana,” the inimitable Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek.
In this exhilarating sequel to his acclaimed Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World, Žižek delves into some of the more surprising dimensions of lockdowns, quarantines, and social distancing—and the increasingly unruly opposition to them by “response fatigued” publics around the planet.
Here, Žižek examines the ripple effects on the food supply of harvest failures caused by labor shortages and the hyper-exploitation of the global class of care workers, without whose labor daily life would be impossible. Through such examples he pinpoints the inability of contemporary capitalism to effectively safeguard the public in times of crisis.
Writing with characteristic daring and zeal, Žižek ranges across critical theory, pop-culture, and psychoanalysis to reveal the troubling dynamics of knowledge and power emerging in these viral times.
In this exhilarating sequel to his acclaimed Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World, Žižek delves into some of the more surprising dimensions of lockdowns, quarantines, and social distancing—and the increasingly unruly opposition to them by “response fatigued” publics around the planet.
Here, Žižek examines the ripple effects on the food supply of harvest failures caused by labor shortages and the hyper-exploitation of the global class of care workers, without whose labor daily life would be impossible. Through such examples he pinpoints the inability of contemporary capitalism to effectively safeguard the public in times of crisis.
Writing with characteristic daring and zeal, Žižek ranges across critical theory, pop-culture, and psychoanalysis to reveal the troubling dynamics of knowledge and power emerging in these viral times.
Audiobook
First published November 1, 2020
20 people are currently reading
480 people want to read
About the author
Slavoj Žižek
650 books7,586 followersSlavoj 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."
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."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
April 27, 2022
Anyone who can combine the observations of Hegel, Freud, Lacan and the Big Boss from Hideo Kojima's video game Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots has to be admired for their intellectual interests and scope of understanding.
Today's populists don't want to get rid of the established order otherwise they'd have to take power themselves and the vacuity of their policies would become evident to almost everyone.
Zizek raises some great points and no one in the political and social spectrum comes out unscathed. His views are accurate and should make us all uncomfortable about the world we're living in. People say there should be more women in positions of power but those same people don't want to change the power structure. We all want to help the poor, but most of us don't want to become less rich in order to achieve this or change the economic system to facilitate this.
What is a direct rascist obscenity compared to the obscenity of a liberal who practices multiculturalist tolerances in such a way that it allows him to retain racist prejudices? It's not the racist white person who is in the Ku Klux Klan that we have to worry about, it's the white liberal democrat walking her dog in Central Park who weaponises race when she feels threatened by a Black man who is watching birds.
Our present predicament demands measures that suspend market mechanisms and obey the maxim "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities", such that even conservative politicians in power are obliged to implement things close to a Universal Basic Income.
The Global Capitalist system is aproaching a perfect storm in which the health crisis is combined with economic and ecological crises, international conflicts, and the anti-racist protests emerging all around the world. The combination of all these struggles and the awareness they're all linked, has an immense emancipatory potential.
If only more people would realise it!
Today's populists don't want to get rid of the established order otherwise they'd have to take power themselves and the vacuity of their policies would become evident to almost everyone.
Zizek raises some great points and no one in the political and social spectrum comes out unscathed. His views are accurate and should make us all uncomfortable about the world we're living in. People say there should be more women in positions of power but those same people don't want to change the power structure. We all want to help the poor, but most of us don't want to become less rich in order to achieve this or change the economic system to facilitate this.
What is a direct rascist obscenity compared to the obscenity of a liberal who practices multiculturalist tolerances in such a way that it allows him to retain racist prejudices? It's not the racist white person who is in the Ku Klux Klan that we have to worry about, it's the white liberal democrat walking her dog in Central Park who weaponises race when she feels threatened by a Black man who is watching birds.
Our present predicament demands measures that suspend market mechanisms and obey the maxim "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities", such that even conservative politicians in power are obliged to implement things close to a Universal Basic Income.
The Global Capitalist system is aproaching a perfect storm in which the health crisis is combined with economic and ecological crises, international conflicts, and the anti-racist protests emerging all around the world. The combination of all these struggles and the awareness they're all linked, has an immense emancipatory potential.
If only more people would realise it!
April 12, 2021
Diet Zizek! Enjoy the fat-free flavor!! Now in REAL TIME!!!
Easy reading for rough times, a respite of clarity in a global shitshow. The "jouissance of renunciation" and the "obscene Master" are indispensable concepts for grasping the moment. Though I don't think the former is actually discussed here. It's around for the looking. But we (sic?) have got to do something besides mutter "what the fuck I ugh seriously no" over and over as right wing populism spreads like a... like a uh, hm, can't think of anything highly contagious and hazardous but which simple common sense measures can prevent. But neoliberalism is back baby, Papa Joe is in the White House! See everythings fine, trumps gone, problem solved, zzz oh hello 2028 is it moldy corpses for dinner again? The Beaches of Iowa are strewn with them!
Easy reading for rough times, a respite of clarity in a global shitshow. The "jouissance of renunciation" and the "obscene Master" are indispensable concepts for grasping the moment. Though I don't think the former is actually discussed here. It's around for the looking. But we (sic?) have got to do something besides mutter "what the fuck I ugh seriously no" over and over as right wing populism spreads like a... like a uh, hm, can't think of anything highly contagious and hazardous but which simple common sense measures can prevent. But neoliberalism is back baby, Papa Joe is in the White House! See everythings fine, trumps gone, problem solved, zzz oh hello 2028 is it moldy corpses for dinner again? The Beaches of Iowa are strewn with them!
January 30, 2021
(อ่านต้นฉบับภาษาอังกฤษ)
สลาวอย ซิเซ็ก ขึ้นแท่นเป็นนักปรัชญาสมัยใหม่ที่คิดว่า “ต้องอ่าน” อีกคน จะเห็นด้วยหรือไม่เห็นด้วยก็ตาม ความคิดของเขาก็ควรค่าแก่การคิดตามและกระตุกให้มองมุมใหม่ๆ ของประเด็นร่วมสมัยได้เสมอ (อีกคนที่เข้าข่ายนี้คืออาจารย์ ไมเคิล แซนเดล) เล่มนี้รวบรวมบทความของซิเซ็กที่เขียนระหว่างช่วงการระบาดของโควิด-19 เป็น “ไทม์แคปซูล” บันทึกภาวะทางความรู้สึกและอาการวิกลจริตต่างๆ (psychoses) ต่างๆ ของสังคมได้ดีเลย
ซิเซ็กมองปรากฎการณ์ต่างๆ โดยเฉพาะที่เกิดในอเมริกาและยุโรป (เช่น หลายคนออกมาประท้วงการให้ใส่หน้ากากอนามัย) จากเลนส์จิตวิเคราะห์ของ ฌาคส์ ลากอง ตั้งคำถามว่า “new normal” นั้น “ปกติ” แค่ไหน, “เสรีภาพ” ที่หลายคนโหยหาอยากกลับสู่ “ปกติ” มีความหมายอะไรถ้ามันหมายถึงเสรีภาพที่จะเสี่ยงติดเชื้อโควิด-19 (จากการไม่ใส่หน้ากากแล้วพยายามออกไปใช้ชีวิต “เหมือนเดิม”) ขณะที่ผู้ช่วยแพทย์ คนทำงานสาธารณะจำนวนมากไม่มีทางเลือก ผู้ด้อยโอกาสเดือดร้อนจากโควิด-19 มากกว่าคนรวย บทความทั้งหมดยืนยันความคิดของซิเซ็กว่า วิกฤติโควิด-19 (ซึ่งเราเห็นแต่วิกฤติสุขภาพและเศรษฐกิจเป็นหลัก ยังไม่เห็นความขัดแย้งทางการเมืองและวิกฤติสุขภาพจิตที่จะตามมาติดๆ) เรียกร้องให้เรา “คิดใหม่” เรื่องระบบการเมืองและเศรษฐกิจตั้งแต่รากฐาน
อ่านสนุก ชอบที่ซิเซ็กเขียนหนังสือที่รู้เรื่อง(สำหรับคนนอกวงการปรัชญา)มากขึ้นเรื่อยๆ ด้วยการยกตัวอย่างร่วมสมัยทันทีที่พูดถึงมาร์กซ์ ลากอง ฯลฯ บทความขนาดยาวในภาคผนวกที่วิเคราะห์ความนิยมของทรัมป์และปัญหาของฝ่ายซ้ายก็แหลมคมเช่นกัน (เช่น เขาเสนอว่าความหยาบคายของนักประชานิยมฝ่ายขวาอย่างทรัมป์นั้นถูกใช้เป็นเครื่องมืออำพรางความกลวงเปล่าของเนื้อหา)
สลาวอย ซิเซ็ก ขึ้นแท่นเป็นนักปรัชญาสมัยใหม่ที่คิดว่า “ต้องอ่าน” อีกคน จะเห็นด้วยหรือไม่เห็นด้วยก็ตาม ความคิดของเขาก็ควรค่าแก่การคิดตามและกระตุกให้มองมุมใหม่ๆ ของประเด็นร่วมสมัยได้เสมอ (อีกคนที่เข้าข่ายนี้คืออาจารย์ ไมเคิล แซนเดล) เล่มนี้รวบรวมบทความของซิเซ็กที่เขียนระหว่างช่วงการระบาดของโควิด-19 เป็น “ไทม์แคปซูล” บันทึกภาวะทางความรู้สึกและอาการวิกลจริตต่างๆ (psychoses) ต่างๆ ของสังคมได้ดีเลย
ซิเซ็กมองปรากฎการณ์ต่างๆ โดยเฉพาะที่เกิดในอเมริกาและยุโรป (เช่น หลายคนออกมาประท้วงการให้ใส่หน้ากากอนามัย) จากเลนส์จิตวิเคราะห์ของ ฌาคส์ ลากอง ตั้งคำถามว่า “new normal” นั้น “ปกติ” แค่ไหน, “เสรีภาพ” ที่หลายคนโหยหาอยากกลับสู่ “ปกติ” มีความหมายอะไรถ้ามันหมายถึงเสรีภาพที่จะเสี่ยงติดเชื้อโควิด-19 (จากการไม่ใส่หน้ากากแล้วพยายามออกไปใช้ชีวิต “เหมือนเดิม”) ขณะที่ผู้ช่วยแพทย์ คนทำงานสาธารณะจำนวนมากไม่มีทางเลือก ผู้ด้อยโอกาสเดือดร้อนจากโควิด-19 มากกว่าคนรวย บทความทั้งหมดยืนยันความคิดของซิเซ็กว่า วิกฤติโควิด-19 (ซึ่งเราเห็นแต่วิกฤติสุขภาพและเศรษฐกิจเป็นหลัก ยังไม่เห็นความขัดแย้งทางการเมืองและวิกฤติสุขภาพจิตที่จะตามมาติดๆ) เรียกร้องให้เรา “คิดใหม่” เรื่องระบบการเมืองและเศรษฐกิจตั้งแต่รากฐาน
อ่านสนุก ชอบที่ซิเซ็กเขียนหนังสือที่รู้เรื่อง(สำหรับคนนอกวงการปรัชญา)มากขึ้นเรื่อยๆ ด้วยการยกตัวอย่างร่วมสมัยทันทีที่พูดถึงมาร์กซ์ ลากอง ฯลฯ บทความขนาดยาวในภาคผนวกที่วิเคราะห์ความนิยมของทรัมป์และปัญหาของฝ่ายซ้ายก็แหลมคมเช่นกัน (เช่น เขาเสนอว่าความหยาบคายของนักประชานิยมฝ่ายขวาอย่างทรัมป์นั้นถูกใช้เป็นเครื่องมืออำพรางความกลวงเปล่าของเนื้อหา)
Read
June 23, 2022Got distracted but finally finished it and yeah it's decent, better than the first.
Still very typical Žižek, who spends half of this book about the coronavirus pandemic reviewing the show Euphoria, talking about Gwyneth Paltrow's vagina candle and quoting Metal Gear Solid 4 before diving into Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis.
Still very typical Žižek, who spends half of this book about the coronavirus pandemic reviewing the show Euphoria, talking about Gwyneth Paltrow's vagina candle and quoting Metal Gear Solid 4 before diving into Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis.
March 31, 2023
He continues on the same theme as the previous book and manages to praise Kamala Harris in this one. One can only hope he is trolling.
April 21, 2021
Fun ride, a little patchy and hastily thrown together at times, but if you enjoy Zizek you’ll dig his takes on our COVID year.
December 8, 2020
Love Slavoj's clear-headed insights which are always supplemented with the funniest and most interesting anecdotes from popular culture. His "Pandemic!" series is a thoughtful, concise time capsule of 2020, covering most major events in this chaotic year. I liked his additional conclusion and appendix at the end (I don't think anything so extensive was included in the first "Pandemic!"), it tied up the loose threads nicely. I will probably continue to return to these books as a reference.
November 9, 2020
বেশ অনেকদিন ধরে আর সবার মত আমি আর আমার ওয়াইফ প্রায়ই প্ল্যান করি প্যানডেমিক চলে গেলে আমরা কি কি করব, কোথায় কোথায় যাবো, কি খাবো ইত্যাদি। সেদিন হঠাৎ সে জিজ্ঞেস করল, আচ্ছা একটা সময়ে যখন প্যানডেমিক চলে যাবে পৃথিবী কেমন হবে? কি কি চেঞ্জ আসবে? প্রশ্নটার মধ্যে একটা ব্যাপার আছে বলে মনে হল। যেন এই সময়টাকে ভুলে গিয়ে শুধু আগে আর পরের পার্থক্যটা নিয়ে আমরা ভাবতে চাইছি। উত্তর খুঁজতে গিয়ে আবিষ্কার করলামঃ সেই মার্চ মাস থেকে প্রথমদিকে যেন ট্র্যাক রাখার চেষ্টা করছিলাম পরিবর্তনগুলোর। তারপরে একটা সময় ক্লান্ত হয়ে চোখ সরিয়ে নিলাম নানান ঘটনাপ্রবাহ থেকে এবং সেইসাথে এ বিষয়ে চিন্তাভাবনা থেকে, ইউটিউবে রান্না আর খাওয়ার ভিডিও দেখতে দেখতে, যেহেতু বইপড়া, মুভি দেখা ইত্যাদি বিষয়গুলো ক্লান্তিকর হয়ে উঠছিল। ভুলে থাকা প্র্যাকটিস করতে করতে একসময়ে ঘরের বাইরে যাওয়ার সাহস হয়ে গেল। প্রতিদিন মৃত্যু আর নতুন আক্রান্তের হিসাব অর্থহীন হয়ে উঠল। অনেকটা সময় যেন হারিয়ে গেল।
প্যানডেমিক শেষে কি ধরনের চেঞ্জ দেখা যাবে বা আদৌ শেষ হবে কিনা কিংবা এই প্যানডেমিক শেষে পরবর্তী প্যানডেমিকগুলোর জন্য মানুষ কিভাবে প্রস্তুত হবে অথবা কিভাবে মানুষ নতুন নতুন দুর্যোগ ডেকে আনবে কিংবা ডেকে না আনতেই মুখোমুখি হবে - এসব নিয়ে ভাবতে গিয়ে বইটা পড়তে বসা। যদিও এর আগে ঠিক করেছিলাম জিজেক সাহবের পরবর্তী বইটি পড়ার আগে 'ছোটদের জন্য হেগেল' এবং 'শিশুদের জন্য লাকাঁ' টাইপ দুয়েকটা বই পড়ে নিতে হবে, সেটা করা হয়ে ওঠেনি। দৈনিক পত্রিকার কলাম স্টাইলে বেশ সহজবোধ্য করে লেখা। মার্কিন নির্বাচনের ইন্টারেস্টিং সময়ে পড়া হল। এই কারণে বলছি যে ডোনাল্ড ট্রাম্পের পপুলিস্ট জনমোহিনী রাজনীতির অবসেনিটি আর তার মানিকজোড় একে অন্যকে পুষে রাখা প্রতিপক্ষের রাজনীতি নিয়ে বেশ চমৎকার আলোচনা পাওয়া গেল। সেইসাথে বর্তমান প্যানডেমিক, জলবায়ু বিপর্যয়, আন্তর্জাতিক রাজনীতি, বর্ণবাদ ইত্যাদি বিষয় নিয়ে সাইকোএনালেটিক আলোচনা থেকে ব্যক্তিগতভাবে নতুন একটা দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি (ভাসা ভাসাভাবে হলেও) অর্জন করলাম বলে মনে হল।
প্যানডেমিক শেষে কি ধরনের চেঞ্জ দেখা যাবে বা আদৌ শেষ হবে কিনা কিংবা এই প্যানডেমিক শেষে পরবর্তী প্যানডেমিকগুলোর জন্য মানুষ কিভাবে প্রস্তুত হবে অথবা কিভাবে মানুষ নতুন নতুন দুর্যোগ ডেকে আনবে কিংবা ডেকে না আনতেই মুখোমুখি হবে - এসব নিয়ে ভাবতে গিয়ে বইটা পড়তে বসা। যদিও এর আগে ঠিক করেছিলাম জিজেক সাহবের পরবর্তী বইটি পড়ার আগে 'ছোটদের জন্য হেগেল' এবং 'শিশুদের জন্য লাকাঁ' টাইপ দুয়েকটা বই পড়ে নিতে হবে, সেটা করা হয়ে ওঠেনি। দৈনিক পত্রিকার কলাম স্টাইলে বেশ সহজবোধ্য করে লেখা। মার্কিন নির্বাচনের ইন্টারেস্টিং সময়ে পড়া হল। এই কারণে বলছি যে ডোনাল্ড ট্রাম্পের পপুলিস্ট জনমোহিনী রাজনীতির অবসেনিটি আর তার মানিকজোড় একে অন্যকে পুষে রাখা প্রতিপক্ষের রাজনীতি নিয়ে বেশ চমৎকার আলোচনা পাওয়া গেল। সেইসাথে বর্তমান প্যানডেমিক, জলবায়ু বিপর্যয়, আন্তর্জাতিক রাজনীতি, বর্ণবাদ ইত্যাদি বিষয় নিয়ে সাইকোএনালেটিক আলোচনা থেকে ব্যক্তিগতভাবে নতুন একটা দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি (ভাসা ভাসাভাবে হলেও) অর্জন করলাম বলে মনে হল।
February 26, 2021
Ta książka w większości składa się z krótkich felietonów o pandemii, szerzącym się populizmie, niepokojach społecznych, globalnym ociepleniu. To już drugi tom pandemicznych kronik straconego czasu Slavoja Zizka (pierwszego tomu nie czytałam).
Dla mnie pierwsze rozdziały trochę zbyt powierzchowne (przeskakiwanie z jednego poważnego tematu na drugi co akapit - to według mnie zbyt powierzchowne potraktowanie każdego z tych tematów). Czyta się jednak te rozważania bardzo łatwo - autor ma umiejętność łatwego tłumaczenia skomplikowanych zjawisk socjologicznych. Ostatnie dwa rozdziały już zdecydowanie bardziej dogłębnie analizują omawiane zagadnienia, ale jednocześnie znacznie trudniej się je czyta - pojawia się tu sporo powtórzeń jednego pojęcia - tak jakby autor bardzo chciał, żebyśmy je zapamiętali.
Po kilkunastu słowach "obsceniczny" na jednej stronie było mi niedobrze.
Dla mnie pierwsze rozdziały trochę zbyt powierzchowne (przeskakiwanie z jednego poważnego tematu na drugi co akapit - to według mnie zbyt powierzchowne potraktowanie każdego z tych tematów). Czyta się jednak te rozważania bardzo łatwo - autor ma umiejętność łatwego tłumaczenia skomplikowanych zjawisk socjologicznych. Ostatnie dwa rozdziały już zdecydowanie bardziej dogłębnie analizują omawiane zagadnienia, ale jednocześnie znacznie trudniej się je czyta - pojawia się tu sporo powtórzeń jednego pojęcia - tak jakby autor bardzo chciał, żebyśmy je zapamiętali.
Po kilkunastu słowach "obsceniczny" na jednej stronie było mi niedobrze.
March 18, 2021
Impressively slapdash, more a loose collection of meandering op-eds than a work of philosophical substance. Was probably outdated and exhausted before it was even released.
April 7, 2021
This is the second collection of pandemic-related essays, written in August 2020. Some of it already feels dated, but it stands as a testament to those times. The first collection was much stronger, but this one was an enjoyable read as well.
Of course, this is not only about pandemic through the philosophical lens. Žižek digresses in his usual style and talks among other things about Elon Musk's Neuralink, Trump and Gwyneth Paltrow's vagina candle.
It was worth reading, if not for anything else, for the essay Now We Live In The Store of the Worlds in which Žižek recommends a great short movie The Escape by Joseph Franklin.
Once again, Žižek sends a strong message about the need to reimagine the world of the future, not just to wish it go back to the "old normal". As the pandemic continues, this call seems to fall on deaf ears. But, due to the inevitability of the global change that will be caused by climate change, what he proposes will remain as a possible solution to the global crisis.
Of course, this is not only about pandemic through the philosophical lens. Žižek digresses in his usual style and talks among other things about Elon Musk's Neuralink, Trump and Gwyneth Paltrow's vagina candle.
It was worth reading, if not for anything else, for the essay Now We Live In The Store of the Worlds in which Žižek recommends a great short movie The Escape by Joseph Franklin.
Once again, Žižek sends a strong message about the need to reimagine the world of the future, not just to wish it go back to the "old normal". As the pandemic continues, this call seems to fall on deaf ears. But, due to the inevitability of the global change that will be caused by climate change, what he proposes will remain as a possible solution to the global crisis.
December 12, 2022
Pandemic 2 electric boogaloo. I'll be honest, I've forgotten most of this book. However, I can tell you how every zizek book is written:
1. Pop culture reference
2. Lacanian/Freudian psychoanalysis
3. Hegelian dialectical twist!
4. A joke, followed by another hegelian twist!!!
5. Conclusion, with another hegelian twist???
6. Somehow it leads to communism. Yay!!!
I'll need to return to this book as it is an extremely eloquent and readable critique of modern society in the wake of COVID-19. From the burgeoning class antagonisms rippling under the surface of our system to the imminent failure of liberalism, there is great stuff here. I'm kinda just not feeling this book tbh. Maybe I need a break from zizek. Will read again next time. Better than the first, skip that one.
1. Pop culture reference
2. Lacanian/Freudian psychoanalysis
3. Hegelian dialectical twist!
4. A joke, followed by another hegelian twist!!!
5. Conclusion, with another hegelian twist???
6. Somehow it leads to communism. Yay!!!
I'll need to return to this book as it is an extremely eloquent and readable critique of modern society in the wake of COVID-19. From the burgeoning class antagonisms rippling under the surface of our system to the imminent failure of liberalism, there is great stuff here. I'm kinda just not feeling this book tbh. Maybe I need a break from zizek. Will read again next time. Better than the first, skip that one.
March 7, 2025
Dziwne to uczucie, kiedy uwagi spisane prawie 5 lat temu są dziś aż zanadto aktualne… Z drugiej strony, czy to kogokolwiek dziwi…?
-
„Ta ontologiczna katastrofa [pandemia] stanowi też podłoże aktualnego, masowego odrodzenia pragnienia niewiedzy.
(…)
TO jest właśnie wybór, którego wszyscy musimy dokonać: czy poddamy się pokusie ignorancji, czy jesteśmy gotowi naprawdę z a s t a n o w i ć s i ę nad pandemią, nie tylko jako biochemicznym problemem zdrowotnym, ale też zjawiskiem zakorzenionym w złożonym całokształcie naszego (jako ludzkości) miejsca w przyrodzie oraz naszych relacji społecznych i ideologicznych - czy podejmiemy decyzję, która może wymagać zachowywania się w sposób «nienaturalny» i zbudowania n o w e j normalności?”
-
„Ta ontologiczna katastrofa [pandemia] stanowi też podłoże aktualnego, masowego odrodzenia pragnienia niewiedzy.
(…)
TO jest właśnie wybór, którego wszyscy musimy dokonać: czy poddamy się pokusie ignorancji, czy jesteśmy gotowi naprawdę z a s t a n o w i ć s i ę nad pandemią, nie tylko jako biochemicznym problemem zdrowotnym, ale też zjawiskiem zakorzenionym w złożonym całokształcie naszego (jako ludzkości) miejsca w przyrodzie oraz naszych relacji społecznych i ideologicznych - czy podejmiemy decyzję, która może wymagać zachowywania się w sposób «nienaturalny» i zbudowania n o w e j normalności?”
June 4, 2022
Zizek makes the best philosophical insights on contemporary phenomena and so on and so on. At 73 years young he has also proven the common belief "boomers are clueless about hardcore video games" to be pure ideology by quoting Metal Gear Solid.
Slavoj is truly a gem of a human that we need but do not deserve. 55+ books published and still relevant. I have a feeling his works will forever be influential. If I ever see him walking in the street I will run and hug him even though I am aware he will prefer not to.
Slavoj is truly a gem of a human that we need but do not deserve. 55+ books published and still relevant. I have a feeling his works will forever be influential. If I ever see him walking in the street I will run and hug him even though I am aware he will prefer not to.
October 1, 2021
Great book, very thought provocative and consumable. Absolute page-turner with some repetition from the authors previous works, however, put into new context and shedding new light on their meaning.
April 27, 2023
The front essays are a little bland, boring and repetitive but the closing essays really tie everything together.
Purchased at Brattle Book Shop in Boston.
Purchased at Brattle Book Shop in Boston.
November 29, 2020
The situation is not hopeless, but a fast and internationally coordinated response is needed—much more than calls for volunteers to help in the fields. Government organizations need to be involved in mobilizing people to avert the crisis.
At this point, I can hear the laughter of my critics (as well as some friends) who mockingly note how the pandemic means that my time as a philosopher is over: who cares about a Lacanian reading of Hegel when the foundations of our existence are threatened? Even Žižek now has to focus on how to bring in the harvest.
But these critics couldn’t be more wrong.
More and more, it has become a genuine conflict of global visions about society.
In the Marx Brothers’ Duck Soup, Groucho (as a lawyer defending his client in court) says: “He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot.” Something along these lines should be our reaction to those who display a basic distrust of the state by seeing the lockdown as a conspiracy designed to deprive us of our basic freedoms: “The state is imposing lockdown orders that curtail our liberty, and it expects us to police one another to ensure compliance; but this should not fool us—we should really follow the lockdown orders.
The US libertarian Right claims lockdowns should be eased in order to give people back their freedom of choice. That raises the question: what freedom?
The “free choice” is, here, one between starvation and risking your life.
it is reasonable to see the ongoing pandemic as announcing a new era of ecological troubles.
The pandemic reminds us that we remain firmly rooted in bodily existence with all dangers that this implies.
Does this mean our situation is hopeless? Absolutely not.
A new way of life will have to be invented.
The first thing that strikes me is that, contra to the cheap motto “we are now all in the same boat,” class divisions have exploded. At the very bottom of the hierarchy, there are those (refugees, people caught in war zones) whose lives are so destitute that Covid-19 is for them not the main problem.
But nurses are only the most visible part of a whole class of caretakers who are exploited, although not in the way the old working class of the Marxist imaginary is exploited; as David Harvey puts it, they form a “new working class”:
“The workforce that is expected to take care of the mounting numbers of the sick, or to provide the minimal services that allow for the reproduction of daily life, is, as a rule, highly gendered, racialized, and ethnicized. This is the ‘new working class’ that is at the forefront of contemporary capitalism. Its members have to bear two burdens: at one and the same time, they are the workers most at risk of contracting the virus through their jobs, and of being laid off with no financial resources because of the economic retrenchment enforced by the virus.
This new working class was here all along, the pandemic just propelled it into visibility.
They are the truly over-exploited: exploited when they work (since their work is largely invisible), and exploited even when they don’t work, in their very existence.
We perceived quarantine as a limited time of exception, an almost welcome standstill in our all-too-busy lives affording us some peace with our families, some time to read books and listen to music, and to enjoy cooking meals, in the knowledge that it will be over soon.
Only now are we forced to accept that we are entering a new era in which we will have to learn to live with the virus.
as the German virologist Hendrik Streeck succinctly put it: There is “no second or third wave—we are in a permanent wave.”
This fascination with the numbers automatically makes us forget the obvious fact that many more people are dying from cancer, heart attacks, pollution, hunger, armed conflicts, and domestic violence, as though if we get Covid-19 infections fully under control, the main cause of our troubles will disappear. Instead, human life will remain full of miseries and, in some sense, human life IS a misery that ends painfully, often with meaningless suffering.
Furthermore, the link between the Covid-19 pandemic and our ecological predicament is becoming ever more clear.
Greta Thunberg was right when she recently pointed out that “the climate and ecological crisis cannot be solved within today’s political and economic systems.”
Just think about all the long-frozen bacteria and viruses waiting to be reactivated with the thawing of permafrost!
The same goes for the link between Covid-19 and the anti-racist protests erupting around the world. The only effective answer to the ongoing debate about the assertion that “Black lives matter” (e.g., why shouldn’t we instead say, “all lives matter”?), is a wonderfully brutal meme now circulating in the US, which depicts Stalin holding a poster that reads: “No lives matter.”
The kernel of truth in this provocation is that there are things that matter more than bare life—is this not also the primary message of those protesting police violence against Black people?
Does this mean that Giorgio Agamben was right when he rejected state-imposed lockdowns and self-isolation as measures that imply reducing our lives to mere existence—in
The problem with this stance is that, today, the main proponents of abolishing lockdowns are to be found in the populist new Right: its members see in all similar restrictive measures—from lockdowns to the obligatory wearing of masks—the erosion of our freedom and dignity.
This brings us to the key point: the contradictory way the Covid-19 pandemic has affected the economy. On the one hand, it has forced authorities to do things that at times almost point toward Communism: a form of Universal Basic Income, healthcare for all, etc. However, this unexpected opening for Communism is just one side of the coin. Simultaneously, opposite processes are asserting themselves violently, with corporations amassing wealth and being bailed out by states.
The contours of corona-capitalism are gradually emerging, and with them new forms of class struggle—or, to quote Joshua Simon, writer and curator from Philadelphia: “US cities have seen the largest rent strike in decades, at least 150 worker strikes and walkouts (most notably by Amazon warehouse workers), and hunger strikes in refugee detention facilities. At the same time, research shows that US billionaires increased their collective wealth by $282 billion in just twenty-three days during the initial weeks of the coronavirus lockdown.
In these conditions, it is no longer primarily the capitalist who owns the means of production and hires workers to operate them: “the worker brings with her the means of production.
Simon evokes the poster held by Sarah Mason at an anti-lockdown protest: “Social Distancing Equals Communism.”
The paradox here is that both of the main variants of the corona-economy—working at home in lockdown and running deliveries of things like food and packages—are similarly subsumed to capital and imply extra-exploitation.
But what we need even more is a new economic order that will allow us to avoid the debilitating choice between economic revival and saving lives.
One can easily discern in such violent outbursts a reaction to the immobility imposed by social distancing and quarantine—it is reasonable to expect that more acts like these will follow
all around the world, and one should not restrain oneself from voicing the suspicion that the explosive worldwide anti-racist passion, although it is not just an outburst of meaningless violence but an expression of a progressive cause, obeys a similar logic: thousands threw themselves into anti-racist protests with a kind of relief that they were again able to tackle something that is not a stupid virus but “just” a social struggle with a clear enemy.
We are, of course, dealing here with very different types of violence.
There is a key feature shared by the three types of violence in spite of their differences: none of them expresses a minimally-consistent socio-political program. It may appear that the anti-racist protests meet this criterion, but they fail insofar as they are dominated by the Politically Correct passion to erase traces of racism and sexism—a passion that gets all too close to its opposite, the neoconservative thought-control.
The reason I mention this is that I think the recent urge to cleanse our culture and education of all traces of racism and sexism courts the danger of falling into the same trap as the Catholic Church’s index: what remains if we discard all authors in whom we find some traces of racism and anti-feminism? Quite literally all the great philosophers and writers disappear.
This is why, for a Cartesian philosopher, ethnic roots and national identity are simply not a category of truth. This is also why Descartes was immediately popular among women: as one of his early readers put it, cogito—the subject of pure thinking—has no sex.
Today’s claims about sexual identities as socially constructed and not biologically determined are only possible against the background of the Cartesian tradition—there is no modern feminism and anti-racism without Descartes’s thought.
Modern feminism and anti-racism emerged out of this long emancipatory tradition, and it would be sheer madness to leave this noble tradition to obscene populists and conservatives. The same argument applies to many disputed political figures.
So, while we should be ruthlessly critical about our past (and especially the past that persists in our present), we should not succumb to self-contempt—respect for others based on self-contempt is always and by definition false. The paradox is that in our societies, the whites who participate in anti-racist protests are mostly upper-middle class whites who hypocritically enjoy their guilt.
“Every time a man has contributed to the victory of the dignity of the spirit, every time a man has said no to an attempt to subjugate his fellows, I have felt solidarity with his act.
Frantz Fanon
Instead of perversely enjoying our guilt (and thereby patronizing the true victims), we need active solidarity: guilt and victimhood immobilize us. Only when we all act together, treating ourselves and each other as responsible adults, can we beat racism and sexism.
No wonder freedom-loving liberals are enthusiastic about the events in Belarus, seen as proof that even the threat of Covid-19 is no match for a good old-fashioned mass protest. For a brief moment, at least, the pandemic was relegated to the background, and we returned to the well-known scenario of the masses toppling “the last dictator in Europe”—Minsk as a new Kyiv.
However, this joyful enthusiasm for democracy has its own blind spot.
Lukashenko achieved economic stability, safety, and order, with a per capita income much higher than in the “free” Ukraine, and distributed in a much more egalitarian way.
That is to say, one should bear in mind the reason behind Lukashenko’s relative popularity in previous years: he was tolerated, even accepted in some circles, precisely because he offered a safe haven against the ravages of wild liberal capitalism (corruption, economic and social uncertainty,) Now the situation is clear: a large majority wants to get rid of the tyrant.
Problems begin after the people win—against whom do you protest in democracy? Since there is no clearly visible tyrant, the temptation is to search for an invisible master who pulls the strings (like the Jews who control the “deep state”).
Lacan is evoking here the phrase “le pere ou pire (the father or worse), implying a dire warning of how the final outcome of anti-patriarchal rebellions can be a leader worse than the deposed patriarch.
If we replace Achilles by “forces of democratic uprising” and the tortoise by the ideal of “liberal democratic capitalism”, we soon realize that most countries cannot get close to this ideal, and that their failure to reach it expresses weaknesses of the global capitalist system itself.
Additionally, we are forced to realize that while pro-democracy protesters strive to catch-up to the liberal capitalist West, there are clear signs that, economically and politically, the developed West itself is entering what can only be called a post-capitalist and post-liberal era—a dystopian one, of course.
The true choice is thus: what kind of post-capitalism will we find ourselves in?
For this reason, the new US TV series Euphoria (described in publicity materials as following “a group of high school students as they navigate drugs, sex, identity, trauma, social media, love and friendship”) almost portrays the opposite of the life of today’s high schoolers. It is out of touch with today’s youth and, for this reason, weirdly anachronistic—more an exercise in middle-aged nostalgia for how depraved the younger generations once were.
But we should take a step further here: what if there never was an entirely “real” sex with no virtual or fantasized supplement?
On the set of a porn film an actor lost his erection mid-scene—to coax it back, he turned away from the woman, naked below him, grabbed his phone and searched Pornhub. Which struck me as vaguely apocalyptic.”
To this I would add the lesson of psychoanalysis: something is constitutively rotten in the state of sex—human sexuality is in itself perverted, exposed to sadomasochist reversals and, specifically, to the mixture of reality and fantasy.
We cannot reduce this gap between the bodily reality of my partner and the universe of fantasies to a distortion opened up by patriarchy and social domination or exploitation—the gap is there from the very beginning. So I quite understand the actor who, in order to regain an erection, searched Pornhub—he was looking for a fantasmatic support for his performance.
When one makes love with someone they truly love, touching their partner’s body is crucial. One should therefore invert the common wisdom according to which sexual lust is bodily while love is spiritual: sexual love is more bodily than sex without love.
For a typical married couple, all the usual excuses for avoiding sex are invalidated when they are quarantined (“sorry, no sex tonight, we have to visit friends or I have to finish some work”),
and in a desperate search for an obstacle to the sexual duty, they interpose between themselves a plastic doll. The paradox is that what serves as an obstacle to the sexual relationship is a sexualized object par excellence.
Hopefully, however, a new appreciation of intimate bodily contact will also arise out of the pandemic, and we will learn again the lesson of Andrei Tarkovsky for whom earth—inert, humid matter—is not opposed to spirituality but is its very medium. In Tarkovsky’s masterpiece Mirror, his father Arseny Tarkovsky recites his own lines: “A soul is sinful without a body, like a body without clothes.”
Masturbating to hardcore images is sinful, while bodily contact is a path to the spirit.
Both extremes are to be avoided in interpreting the significance of Neuralink: we should neither celebrate it as an invention that opens the path toward Singularity (a divine collective self-awareness) nor fear it as a signal that we will lose our individual autonomy and become cogs in a digital machine.
Even if we ignore the technical feasibility of this dream, just think what would happen to the process of erotic seduction if human minds directly (outside of language) shared experiences with one another.
Imagine a seduction scene between two subjects whose brains are wired so that one’s train of thought is accessible to the other: if my prospective partner can directly experience my intention, what remains of the intricacies of seduction games? The whole thing would be over in seconds.
More fundamentally, the distance between our inner life (the movement of our thoughts) and external reality is the basis of our perception of ourselves as free: we are free in our thoughts precisely insofar as they are at a distance from reality,
Once our inner life is directly linked to reality so that our thoughts have immediate material consequences (or can be manipulated by a machine that is part of reality) and are in this sense no longer “ours,” we effectively enter a post-human state.
We mustn’t forget that if I can directly regulate processes in reality with my thoughts (I just think that my coffee machine should prepare a latte macchiato and it happens), the implication is that the causal link also works in the opposite direction: those who control the digital machine that “reads my mind” can also control my mind and implant thoughts into it.
The fragile balance between communal life and the private sphere characteristic of pre-pandemic society is replaced by a new constellation in which the diminishing of space for actual/bodily social interaction (due to quarantines, etc.) doesn’t lead to more privacy but gives birth to new norms of social dependency and control—don’t forget that even drones were deployed to control us in quarantine.
What we need now is not only more physical proximity to others but more psychic distance from them.
As Naomi Klein explains, the project announced by Cuomo and Schmidt proposes “to reimagine New York state’s post-Covid reality, with an emphasis on permanently integrating technology into every aspect of civic life.” Klein calls this proposal the “Screen New Deal”; it promises safety from infection while maintaining all the personal freedoms liberals care for—but can it work?
Here is Klein’s critical description of this vision of a “permanent—and highly profitable—no-touch future”: “It’s a future in which our homes are never again exclusively personal spaces but are also, via high-speed digital connectivity, our schools, our doctor’s offices, our gyms, and, if determined by the state, our jails. [. . .] for the privileged, almost everything is home delivered, either virtually via streaming and cloud technology, or physically via driverless vehicle or drone, then screen ‘shared’ on a mediated platform. It’s a future that employs far fewer teachers, doctors, and drivers. It accepts no cash or credit cards (under guise of virus control) and has skeletal mass transit and far less live art. It’s a future that claims to be run on ‘artificial intelligence’ but is actually held together by tens of millions of anonymous workers tucked away in warehouses, data centers, content moderation mills, electronic sweatshops, lithium mines, industrial farms, meat-processing plants, and prisons, where they are left unprotected from disease and hyperexploition.”
First is the paradox that those privileged enough to afford to live in the no-touch space are also the most controlled: their entire life is transparent to the true seat of power, an “unprecedented collaboration between government and tech giants [. . .] with public schools, hospitals, doctor’s offices, police, and military all outsourcing (at a high cost) many of their core functions to private tech companies.”
In short, as Klein proposes, should they not be transformed into nonprofit public utilities? Without a similar move, democracy in any meaningful sense is de facto abolished, since the basic component of our commons—the shared space of our communication and interaction—is placed under private control.
Second, the Screen New Deal intervenes into class struggle at a very precise point.
The Screen New Deal plans to minimize the visible role of this caretaker-class who have to remain non-isolated, largely unprotected, exposing themselves to viral danger so that we, the privileged, can survive in safety.
New forms of class struggle will erupt here
December 19, 2021
အကြောင်းအရာ သဘောတရားတွေကို ရှင်းပြရာမှာ pop culture,psychoanlysis references တွေနဲ့ စီကာပတ်ကုံး ရေးတတ်တယ်ဆိုတာ ဇိဇက်စာအုပ်တွေနဲ့ ရင်းနှီးတဲ့သူတွေကို အထူးတလည် ပြောစရာလိုမယ်မထင်ပါဘူး
ကိုဗစ်ကပ်ရောဂါ အလွန်မှာ normal သို့မဟုတ် reality ဆိုတာကို ရှုမြင်တဲ့ ပုံစံပြောင်းပစ်နိုင်ဖို့က အရေးကြီးပါတယ် ကိုဗစ်ဆိုတာက များမြှောင်ရှုပ်ထွေးလှတဲ့ ecological crisis ရဲ့ တစိတ်တပိုင်းသာဖြစ်တယ် ဆိုတာကို နားလည်ဖို့ လိုတယ် လူ့အဖွဲ့အစည်းအတွင်းရှိနေတဲ့ ဆင်းရဲချမ်းသာမညီမျှမှု အသားအရောင်ခွဲခြားမှု ပြဿနာတွေဟာ ကိုဗစ်ကပ်ရောဂါ ကြီးကြောင့် ပိုပြီး ထင်ရှားလာတယ် populist right တွေနဲ့ liberal left တို့ရဲ့ ပဋိပက္ခဟာ တကယ်တမ်း mutually complement ဖြစ်နေပုံ ကိုဗစ်အလွန်ကြုံတွေ့နေရတဲ့ နိုင်ငံရေး စီးပွါးရေးအကြပ်အတည်းကို ကျော်လွန်နိုင်ဖို့အတွက် radical ကျကျ တွေးခေါ်ပြီး action လုပ်နိုင်ဖို့ စိန်ခေါ်ထားတဲ့ စာအုပ်ဖြစ်တယ်
ကိုဗစ်ကပ်ရောဂါ အလွန်မှာ normal သို့မဟုတ် reality ဆိုတာကို ရှုမြင်တဲ့ ပုံစံပြောင်းပစ်နိုင်ဖို့က အရေးကြီးပါတယ် ကိုဗစ်ဆိုတာက များမြှောင်ရှုပ်ထွေးလှတဲ့ ecological crisis ရဲ့ တစိတ်တပိုင်းသာဖြစ်တယ် ဆိုတာကို နားလည်ဖို့ လိုတယ် လူ့အဖွဲ့အစည်းအတွင်းရှိနေတဲ့ ဆင်းရဲချမ်းသာမညီမျှမှု အသားအရောင်ခွဲခြားမှု ပြဿနာတွေဟာ ကိုဗစ်ကပ်ရောဂါ ကြီးကြောင့် ပိုပြီး ထင်ရှားလာတယ် populist right တွေနဲ့ liberal left တို့ရဲ့ ပဋိပက္ခဟာ တကယ်တမ်း mutually complement ဖြစ်နေပုံ ကိုဗစ်အလွန်ကြုံတွေ့နေရတဲ့ နိုင်ငံရေး စီးပွါးရေးအကြပ်အတည်းကို ကျော်လွန်နိုင်ဖို့အတွက် radical ကျကျ တွေးခေါ်ပြီး action လုပ်နိုင်ဖို့ စိန်ခေါ်ထားတဲ့ စာအုပ်ဖြစ်တယ်
March 1, 2024
Wanted to see what this guy is about before delving into anything more substantial of his. Apparently his popularity seems to revolve around endless references from popular culture mixed with purported deep philosophical insight into Hegel, Marx and postmodernists like Lacan and others. Furthermore, he’s charming and he at least seems to criticize both sides of the political spectrum, although the derision towards Trump and his followers illustrates his political bias quite clearly.
He generates original, deep-sounding perspectives around issues of the day that can spark discussion and further thought but sadly his insights stem from a postmodernist Marxist platform, which when he goes further into detail, and it rarely happens, reveals the anti-rational childish horseshit that underlines his thinking. This includes hating capitalism, which we will get into further on, and believing the fundamental drive in society it the struggle between the classes and their strive to subjugate each other and dominate the means of production.
As far as the pandemic goes, he praises everything the governments have supposedly done and derides capitalism as if the free market is completely helpless in a crisis situation without "a new communist government" to subdue the "capitalist barbarism" that will get us all killed according to Zizek.
Furthermore he believes in the labor theory of value, which is among Marx’s stupidest bullshit ideas and I find it hard to believe anything else Zizek claims, considering he believes in that. The labor theory of value means that value is added in an economy, or society by simply the fact that labor is used for doing something. So if a communist government forces a million people to dig meaningless holes, it means a great amount of value is added into the economy discounting the fact that no one needs or wants those holes and the population suffers from a massive famine due to the stupid, anti-rational, murderous Marxist ideas. This is the economic thinking behind Marxism and, apparently, Zizek.
One of the criticisms of capitalism that Zizek attempts to explain further in this book goes something like this: in capitalism we forever strive to invest our profits further into businesses, which prevents us to ever arrive at full satisfaction and thus we sacrifice our happiness to produce growing piles of useless stuff. Do we really want to live in this kind of world, he asks.
I do.
He generates original, deep-sounding perspectives around issues of the day that can spark discussion and further thought but sadly his insights stem from a postmodernist Marxist platform, which when he goes further into detail, and it rarely happens, reveals the anti-rational childish horseshit that underlines his thinking. This includes hating capitalism, which we will get into further on, and believing the fundamental drive in society it the struggle between the classes and their strive to subjugate each other and dominate the means of production.
As far as the pandemic goes, he praises everything the governments have supposedly done and derides capitalism as if the free market is completely helpless in a crisis situation without "a new communist government" to subdue the "capitalist barbarism" that will get us all killed according to Zizek.
Furthermore he believes in the labor theory of value, which is among Marx’s stupidest bullshit ideas and I find it hard to believe anything else Zizek claims, considering he believes in that. The labor theory of value means that value is added in an economy, or society by simply the fact that labor is used for doing something. So if a communist government forces a million people to dig meaningless holes, it means a great amount of value is added into the economy discounting the fact that no one needs or wants those holes and the population suffers from a massive famine due to the stupid, anti-rational, murderous Marxist ideas. This is the economic thinking behind Marxism and, apparently, Zizek.
One of the criticisms of capitalism that Zizek attempts to explain further in this book goes something like this: in capitalism we forever strive to invest our profits further into businesses, which prevents us to ever arrive at full satisfaction and thus we sacrifice our happiness to produce growing piles of useless stuff. Do we really want to live in this kind of world, he asks.
I do.
April 20, 2021
I picked this up because I enjoyed the first volume a few weeks ago. Like that, this book consists of Žižek writing angry philosophical reflections on the pandemic.
Despite the similar premise, I enjoyed this volume much less than the first. This volume is much longer than the first, and doesn’t have the same sense of capturing a moment: the first was published just as the pandemic was taking hold and the first lockdowns in Europe were being implemented. This second volume tries to take a longer view about “time lost” but isn’t very successful as it was published last autumn, which we now know to really have been in the ‘middle’ of the pandemic rather than at the end. It isn’t helped by large passages on why Trump will win re-election.
Žižek also goes much deeper into pop culture references in this volume: I know that’s his usual style, but my pop culture knowledge is a little lacking, so much of it went over my head. I preferred the lighter touch of the first volume.
I still think that the first short volume was fun and worth reading, but I’d advise skipping this second one.
Despite the similar premise, I enjoyed this volume much less than the first. This volume is much longer than the first, and doesn’t have the same sense of capturing a moment: the first was published just as the pandemic was taking hold and the first lockdowns in Europe were being implemented. This second volume tries to take a longer view about “time lost” but isn’t very successful as it was published last autumn, which we now know to really have been in the ‘middle’ of the pandemic rather than at the end. It isn’t helped by large passages on why Trump will win re-election.
Žižek also goes much deeper into pop culture references in this volume: I know that’s his usual style, but my pop culture knowledge is a little lacking, so much of it went over my head. I preferred the lighter touch of the first volume.
I still think that the first short volume was fun and worth reading, but I’d advise skipping this second one.
December 10, 2023
Interesting as usual
January 27, 2021
This is the first book I have read of Zizek's. It is what I expected, jumping around a lot and a little hard to follow at times but funny and engaging. The first section of this book is a series of observations on different phenomenons from the pandemic, like not being able to touch anyone, what happened to Bernie Sanders post-Covid, the George Floyd protests in summer 2020. They are mostly interesting but only 3-5 pages. Some points I liked from this section: Zizek points out that we are being forced to choose between two options: keep everyone safe and let the economy fall apart or go out and work and save the economy while sacrificing our lives. So it is economy vs. life, and of course people choose life but now we have to suffer from this decision. Zizek's solution is why not have both but to do so would require a global effort of solidarity between nations and the shifting of our economy from being blindly led by the market and instead conscious planning based around providing people with their basic needs. So he is just describing a centrally planned economy which I don't think we will be getting anytime soon.
The second part of the book is two longer essays, one focused on psychoanalysis and people's reaction to the pandemic which I didn't really understand and one on the political situation of the world, focusing on the USA. I liked how he described the populist right as not fascist because they have no coherent vision, "its ideology and politics is an incoherent bricolage". Their entire identity is created as the opposition to the "deep state" and the liberal establishment. Without those things the populist right wouldn't know what to do with itself. I think Zizek was proven correct with the January 6, 2021 "storming" of the US Capitol building. What did these militant Trump supporters do when they entered the halls of power? Did they declare themselves as the new government, make demands or propose any kind of alternative leadership? No, they shuffled around and took selfies until they were escorted out of the building.
I liked this paragraph on Left Liberals as well: "The PC stance remains within the basic liberal coordinates, it just wants to fully actualize them by abolishing the hidden biases - the problem is that it focuses on individual responsibility. With moralist zeal, it analyzes the details of the subject's behaviour, searching for traces of racism and sexism. But its domain is that of cultural and sexual identity, not of radical economic and social change; it extols you to get rid of racial and sexist cliches, not to analyze the society that gives birth to them." Not really breaking any new ground but it is a clear description of them.
He compares left liberals to the populist right in that they both have no vision for real change but want to engulf themselves in the endless conflict between puritan moralism and obscene populism. They need each other to keep the cycle going.
He also talks about Trump farting, Metal Gear Solid 4, Elon Musk treating people like pigs and needing Pornhub to keep an erection so there is something here for everyone!
The second part of the book is two longer essays, one focused on psychoanalysis and people's reaction to the pandemic which I didn't really understand and one on the political situation of the world, focusing on the USA. I liked how he described the populist right as not fascist because they have no coherent vision, "its ideology and politics is an incoherent bricolage". Their entire identity is created as the opposition to the "deep state" and the liberal establishment. Without those things the populist right wouldn't know what to do with itself. I think Zizek was proven correct with the January 6, 2021 "storming" of the US Capitol building. What did these militant Trump supporters do when they entered the halls of power? Did they declare themselves as the new government, make demands or propose any kind of alternative leadership? No, they shuffled around and took selfies until they were escorted out of the building.
I liked this paragraph on Left Liberals as well: "The PC stance remains within the basic liberal coordinates, it just wants to fully actualize them by abolishing the hidden biases - the problem is that it focuses on individual responsibility. With moralist zeal, it analyzes the details of the subject's behaviour, searching for traces of racism and sexism. But its domain is that of cultural and sexual identity, not of radical economic and social change; it extols you to get rid of racial and sexist cliches, not to analyze the society that gives birth to them." Not really breaking any new ground but it is a clear description of them.
He compares left liberals to the populist right in that they both have no vision for real change but want to engulf themselves in the endless conflict between puritan moralism and obscene populism. They need each other to keep the cycle going.
He also talks about Trump farting, Metal Gear Solid 4, Elon Musk treating people like pigs and needing Pornhub to keep an erection so there is something here for everyone!
November 23, 2023
Decent enough follow up to Zizek’s Pandemic!, but a lot of it feels like a rehash of ideas he already explored. I would love to read a third volume written today in our post-pandemic (whatever that means) hellscape. From the perspective where worldwide community/communism wasn’t achieved and the gap between the rich and poor just widened and the billionaires actually became richer—because that is the post-pandemic reality.
Anyway, there are some intriguing observations on Trump’s relationship with obscenity. Like that Trump isn’t actually obscene and that his obscenity is disingenuous and used merely as a way to relate to his followers—as a way to emphasize his seriousness to the right’s cause. It’s also a scary thought because I think Zizek is right.
He then draws an interesting parallel to Gwyneth Paltrow and her lifestyle company Goop. On Paltrow selling candles scented like her vagina: “Paltrow’s implicit point here is that she is just playing an obscene game while retaining her intimate dignity—and this is what one should reject: no, her intimate dignity is a false mask concealing the fact that she is openly merchandising her vagina.” Once again, I think Zizek hits the nail on the head.
Like usual, he does a great job of calling out some inconsistencies that plague liberal (not leftist) thinking, such as the refrains that there should be more women in power, but no mention of changing the power structures; or that we should help the poor, but also remain rich at the same time. Zizek doesn’t offer many solutions to these problems, other than his usual pleas for communism, but I don’t think he needs to because these ways of thinking are very much ingrained in our culture and really don’t have answers. Similarly, he points out that we don’t need to worry as much about inbred, illiterate klan members and maybe need to worry more about the affluent, Hilary-supporting, BBQ-busting Karens who preach equality, but also weaponize their race against those they feel superior to or threatened by. These people usually have the power and influence to call the cops into action and have them enforce/enact racism. Personally, I’m worried about both types of people, and I’m especially worried about cops.
Possibly my favorite Zizek take in this book is when he compares the pandemic to the films of Luis Bunuel. Bunuel described his films as exploring the “non-explainable impossibility of the fulfillment of a simple desire” (The Exterminating Angel being my favorite example of this). Zizek relates this idea to the pandemic in that “we all know what has to be done, but a strange fate prevents us from doing it.” And really, that’s applicable to almost everything now.
Anyway, there are some intriguing observations on Trump’s relationship with obscenity. Like that Trump isn’t actually obscene and that his obscenity is disingenuous and used merely as a way to relate to his followers—as a way to emphasize his seriousness to the right’s cause. It’s also a scary thought because I think Zizek is right.
He then draws an interesting parallel to Gwyneth Paltrow and her lifestyle company Goop. On Paltrow selling candles scented like her vagina: “Paltrow’s implicit point here is that she is just playing an obscene game while retaining her intimate dignity—and this is what one should reject: no, her intimate dignity is a false mask concealing the fact that she is openly merchandising her vagina.” Once again, I think Zizek hits the nail on the head.
Like usual, he does a great job of calling out some inconsistencies that plague liberal (not leftist) thinking, such as the refrains that there should be more women in power, but no mention of changing the power structures; or that we should help the poor, but also remain rich at the same time. Zizek doesn’t offer many solutions to these problems, other than his usual pleas for communism, but I don’t think he needs to because these ways of thinking are very much ingrained in our culture and really don’t have answers. Similarly, he points out that we don’t need to worry as much about inbred, illiterate klan members and maybe need to worry more about the affluent, Hilary-supporting, BBQ-busting Karens who preach equality, but also weaponize their race against those they feel superior to or threatened by. These people usually have the power and influence to call the cops into action and have them enforce/enact racism. Personally, I’m worried about both types of people, and I’m especially worried about cops.
Possibly my favorite Zizek take in this book is when he compares the pandemic to the films of Luis Bunuel. Bunuel described his films as exploring the “non-explainable impossibility of the fulfillment of a simple desire” (The Exterminating Angel being my favorite example of this). Zizek relates this idea to the pandemic in that “we all know what has to be done, but a strange fate prevents us from doing it.” And really, that’s applicable to almost everything now.
December 9, 2020
Not as entertaining a read as Žižek's first COVID pandemic volume in my personal experience, but nonetheless enjoyable between its idiosyncratic insights and intermittent provocations.
I was surprised to see Žižek stumble during a brief excursion into the how and why of Colin Kaepernick's NFL protest:
"Many police officers, including NYPD chief Terence Monahan, "took the knee" alongside the protesters—a practice introduced in 2016 by American athletes during the playing of the national anthem at sporting awards ceremonies."
Someone as comparatively knowledge-spongey as Žižek being apparently unaware of Americans playing their national anthem before just about every damn team sporting event out there made me both cringe and snicker.
"The performance of this gesture is intended to signal the existence of racial injustice within one's country and, since it is a sign of disrespect toward the national anthem, it indicates that one is not ready to fully identify oneself with the nation—"this is not my country.""
Another pretty blatant miss there in regards to the meaning of the knee. I didn't think Žižek's news media diet could lead to such gaffes in knowledge and comprehension, but I suppose that bit of ocean between North America and Europe hasn't been completely bridged by 21st century Internet connectivity and polyglot news media consumption.
Should Mr. Žižek ever come across this bit of nitpicking: you are welcome to run any future commentary on what happens around here—writing as an Austrian living abroad in the United States for two and a half decades and counting—by me. That is if you are in fact concerned about avoiding the usual pitfalls of European chauvinism arising from half-baked informedness of goings on this side of the pond :-)
p.s. Two COVID-19 books and not a single reference or nod by the author to his own involuntary, early pandemic meme stint (https://twitter.com/matejpirnat/statu...). Sure it was unkind, but if I'm not mistaken its transgressional quality in relation to The Big Other offered a perfect opportunity for self deprecating humor in the appendix dealing with the obscenity of the current wave of rightwing populism.
I was surprised to see Žižek stumble during a brief excursion into the how and why of Colin Kaepernick's NFL protest:
"Many police officers, including NYPD chief Terence Monahan, "took the knee" alongside the protesters—a practice introduced in 2016 by American athletes during the playing of the national anthem at sporting awards ceremonies."
Someone as comparatively knowledge-spongey as Žižek being apparently unaware of Americans playing their national anthem before just about every damn team sporting event out there made me both cringe and snicker.
"The performance of this gesture is intended to signal the existence of racial injustice within one's country and, since it is a sign of disrespect toward the national anthem, it indicates that one is not ready to fully identify oneself with the nation—"this is not my country.""
Another pretty blatant miss there in regards to the meaning of the knee. I didn't think Žižek's news media diet could lead to such gaffes in knowledge and comprehension, but I suppose that bit of ocean between North America and Europe hasn't been completely bridged by 21st century Internet connectivity and polyglot news media consumption.
Should Mr. Žižek ever come across this bit of nitpicking: you are welcome to run any future commentary on what happens around here—writing as an Austrian living abroad in the United States for two and a half decades and counting—by me. That is if you are in fact concerned about avoiding the usual pitfalls of European chauvinism arising from half-baked informedness of goings on this side of the pond :-)
p.s. Two COVID-19 books and not a single reference or nod by the author to his own involuntary, early pandemic meme stint (https://twitter.com/matejpirnat/statu...). Sure it was unkind, but if I'm not mistaken its transgressional quality in relation to The Big Other offered a perfect opportunity for self deprecating humor in the appendix dealing with the obscenity of the current wave of rightwing populism.
September 24, 2023
Pandemic! & Pandemic! 2: COVID-19 Shakes the World & Chronicles of a Time Lost by Slavoj Žižek are two essential books for anyone who wants to understand the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the world. Žižek is a Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic, and his writing is always provocative and thought-provoking.
In these two books, Žižek examines the pandemic from a variety of perspectives, including philosophical, political, and cultural. He argues that the pandemic has exposed the many contradictions and weaknesses of our current global system, and that it has forced us to rethink many of our assumptions about the world.
Žižek's writing is not always easy to read, but it is always rewarding. He is a master of the dialectical method, and he uses it to great effect in these two books. He is able to see both sides of an issue, and he is not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom.
Critical analysis:
One of the things that makes Žižek's writing so valuable is his ability to connect seemingly unrelated phenomena. In these two books, he connects the COVID-19 pandemic to everything from climate change to the rise of populism. He argues that the pandemic is a symptom of a larger crisis of our global system, and that we need to address this crisis in order to prevent future pandemics.
Žižek also does a great job of examining the psychological and cultural impact of the pandemic. He argues that the pandemic has caused a widespread sense of anxiety and uncertainty, and that it has led to a breakdown of trust in institutions. He also argues that the pandemic has exposed the many inequalities in our society, and that it has made it clear that we need to create a more just and equitable world.
Overall, Pandemic! & Pandemic! 2: COVID-19 Shakes the World & Chronicles of a Time Lost are essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the world. Žižek is one of the most original and thought-provoking thinkers of our time, and these two books offer a unique and insightful perspective on the pandemic.
In these two books, Žižek examines the pandemic from a variety of perspectives, including philosophical, political, and cultural. He argues that the pandemic has exposed the many contradictions and weaknesses of our current global system, and that it has forced us to rethink many of our assumptions about the world.
Žižek's writing is not always easy to read, but it is always rewarding. He is a master of the dialectical method, and he uses it to great effect in these two books. He is able to see both sides of an issue, and he is not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom.
Critical analysis:
One of the things that makes Žižek's writing so valuable is his ability to connect seemingly unrelated phenomena. In these two books, he connects the COVID-19 pandemic to everything from climate change to the rise of populism. He argues that the pandemic is a symptom of a larger crisis of our global system, and that we need to address this crisis in order to prevent future pandemics.
Žižek also does a great job of examining the psychological and cultural impact of the pandemic. He argues that the pandemic has caused a widespread sense of anxiety and uncertainty, and that it has led to a breakdown of trust in institutions. He also argues that the pandemic has exposed the many inequalities in our society, and that it has made it clear that we need to create a more just and equitable world.
Overall, Pandemic! & Pandemic! 2: COVID-19 Shakes the World & Chronicles of a Time Lost are essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the world. Žižek is one of the most original and thought-provoking thinkers of our time, and these two books offer a unique and insightful perspective on the pandemic.
January 11, 2021
I personally prefer the first book as it is more related to the pandemic and has some very original intakes, also, was such a witty pleasure to read. However, the second book is also worth the time. I’d say, it’s more focused on new populism and critics of contemporary capitalism than pandemic itself, but worth a read. Recently Žižek has become really very easy to read and as usually makes some strong points, I’d say, at this case especially at the appendix at the end of the book.
Some ideas (some of the most interesting) can be found here, at The Philosophical Salon (Los Angeles Review of Books), that actually convinced me to buy both books: http://bit.ly/philosophicsalon
Before the conclusion:
“For many liberals, the unexpected appearance of Trump was a moment of Kairos: something new that shattered the foundations of the established order. But I think that Trump is just a symptom of what was already wrong in our societies, and we are still waiting for the new to emerge.
If we don’t invent a new mode of social life, our situation will not be just a little bit worse, but much worse. Again, my hypothesis is that the Covid-19 pandemic announces a new epoch in which we will have to rethink everything, inclusive of the basic meaning of being human—and our actions should follow our thinking. Perhaps today we should invert Marx’s Thesis XI on Feuerbach: in the twentieth century, we tried to change the world too rapidly, and the time has come to interpret it in a new way.”
And also, it’s a pleasure to read some of Žižek’s humour and the dedication of this book is “To all those whose daily lives are so miserable that they ignore Covid-19, regarding it as a comparatively minor threat.”
Some ideas (some of the most interesting) can be found here, at The Philosophical Salon (Los Angeles Review of Books), that actually convinced me to buy both books: http://bit.ly/philosophicsalon
Before the conclusion:
“For many liberals, the unexpected appearance of Trump was a moment of Kairos: something new that shattered the foundations of the established order. But I think that Trump is just a symptom of what was already wrong in our societies, and we are still waiting for the new to emerge.
If we don’t invent a new mode of social life, our situation will not be just a little bit worse, but much worse. Again, my hypothesis is that the Covid-19 pandemic announces a new epoch in which we will have to rethink everything, inclusive of the basic meaning of being human—and our actions should follow our thinking. Perhaps today we should invert Marx’s Thesis XI on Feuerbach: in the twentieth century, we tried to change the world too rapidly, and the time has come to interpret it in a new way.”
And also, it’s a pleasure to read some of Žižek’s humour and the dedication of this book is “To all those whose daily lives are so miserable that they ignore Covid-19, regarding it as a comparatively minor threat.”
January 19, 2021
Much like the first "Pandemic!" book, this one feels a bit rushed and some of the ideas aren't developed as fully as they could be in a full work. That being said, I am desperate to hear folks I respect intellectually try to make sense of the world right now, and that is exactly what I get from Zizek's latest.
The earlier chapters are nice for quick reading and elaborate some basic ideas that (like I mentioned before) are maybe a little half-baked. I really enjoyed the latter half of the book where Zizek, in a more long form context, gives his insight on where we "go from here" (i.e. how we can see the chaos of the world today as an opportunity to radically change the structures that are breaking down in front of us) and his analysis of the current populist right and reactionary left and the missteps taken by both radical ends of the political spectrum.
Zizek critiques the alt-right for all of the obvious reasons (their nostalgia for a time when racist, sexist, bigoted opinions were better tolerated, their love of obscene politics, their lack of a positive ideaology to replace the liberal ideology they're so aggressively critical of, etc., etc., etc.), but he's also critical of the sort of PC/alt-leftism that leads to a politics of individualism, "canceling" and symbolic self-flagellation as opposed to actual radical political praxis.
While I don't love all of it, there is a core of really interesting ideas that feel very prescient and much-needed, in my opinion. And, as always, Zizek is just a joy to read.
The earlier chapters are nice for quick reading and elaborate some basic ideas that (like I mentioned before) are maybe a little half-baked. I really enjoyed the latter half of the book where Zizek, in a more long form context, gives his insight on where we "go from here" (i.e. how we can see the chaos of the world today as an opportunity to radically change the structures that are breaking down in front of us) and his analysis of the current populist right and reactionary left and the missteps taken by both radical ends of the political spectrum.
Zizek critiques the alt-right for all of the obvious reasons (their nostalgia for a time when racist, sexist, bigoted opinions were better tolerated, their love of obscene politics, their lack of a positive ideaology to replace the liberal ideology they're so aggressively critical of, etc., etc., etc.), but he's also critical of the sort of PC/alt-leftism that leads to a politics of individualism, "canceling" and symbolic self-flagellation as opposed to actual radical political praxis.
While I don't love all of it, there is a core of really interesting ideas that feel very prescient and much-needed, in my opinion. And, as always, Zizek is just a joy to read.
April 8, 2021
Short and classic Žižek compounded pessimism and optimism in the same sentence. I can't say if the pandemic will have such drastic effects as Žižek predicts, I can agree that many things in the current system are unsustainable, but predicting when and how things will crumble is always mostly a Fool's errand, that's not to say that people should not be prepared to seize the opportunity and create a better society where economical power is more evenly distributed, although pessimistic as it might sound the owner class is always better positioned to seize the rebuilding process.
I think anyone who will write about the pandemic will have a had time making his writings evergreen, nevertheless, the book IMO identifies correctly the world has really failed to show a good response to this event, and that was mostly because in order to appease the ruling class and because of capital's conflicting interests we really struggled to optimally find adequate solutions.
As a side note, I also liked in this book the critiques brought to the latest legal measures which affect how people can communicate, thought policing is very dangerous and should not become accepted in society if we don't want to find ourselves in a position of less freedom.
I think anyone who will write about the pandemic will have a had time making his writings evergreen, nevertheless, the book IMO identifies correctly the world has really failed to show a good response to this event, and that was mostly because in order to appease the ruling class and because of capital's conflicting interests we really struggled to optimally find adequate solutions.
As a side note, I also liked in this book the critiques brought to the latest legal measures which affect how people can communicate, thought policing is very dangerous and should not become accepted in society if we don't want to find ourselves in a position of less freedom.
June 7, 2021
Pandemic! 2, the redemptive sequel to Pandemic! (1)!
While I enjoyed both books, #1 seemed in many ways already anachronistic, irrelevant, and/or misguided in light of the progress made since it was published. #2 suffers a little from the same, but less of it had expired, and it contained several truly interesting morsels.
Zizek loves paradox and inversion, and he often does this great thing where he brings up some normal-seeming notion and then shows how it's actually the opposite. Along those lines, he brings us this great excerpt from Lacan in which a person is forced to awaken "into reality in order to avoid the Real." (https://www.lacan.com/essays/?p=146).
I also enjoyed his remarks defending the western cultural tradition and arguing for agency for victims of oppression, e.g. "Smashing up monuments and disowning the past isn’t the way to address racism and show respect to black people. Feeling guilty patronizes the victims and achieves little." and "we should be ruthlessly critical about our past (and especially the past which continues in our present), we should not succumb to self-contempt – respect for others based on self-contempt is always, and by definition, false. "
While I enjoyed both books, #1 seemed in many ways already anachronistic, irrelevant, and/or misguided in light of the progress made since it was published. #2 suffers a little from the same, but less of it had expired, and it contained several truly interesting morsels.
Zizek loves paradox and inversion, and he often does this great thing where he brings up some normal-seeming notion and then shows how it's actually the opposite. Along those lines, he brings us this great excerpt from Lacan in which a person is forced to awaken "into reality in order to avoid the Real." (https://www.lacan.com/essays/?p=146).
I also enjoyed his remarks defending the western cultural tradition and arguing for agency for victims of oppression, e.g. "Smashing up monuments and disowning the past isn’t the way to address racism and show respect to black people. Feeling guilty patronizes the victims and achieves little." and "we should be ruthlessly critical about our past (and especially the past which continues in our present), we should not succumb to self-contempt – respect for others based on self-contempt is always, and by definition, false. "
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews