The Kettle Logic of Islam

Much discussion has already taken place (here and here among others) regarding Zizek's recent Op-Ed piece in the NY Times.  And of course, as everyone suspected, the op ed is actually a cut and paste from a longer piece entitled The Antinomies of Tolerant Reason. What I think is striking is that it is one of few times Zizek succinctly (and somewhat persuasively) analyzes a current situation - in this case the violent Muslim response to the Danish cartoons.  What I found particularly convincing is his re-appropriation of the Freudian kettle logic, this time for the purpose of deconstructing Islamists denials of the holocaust:

1) [The] Holocaust did not happen. (2) It did happen, but the Jews deserved it. (3) The Jews did not deserve it, but they themselves lost the right to complain by doing to Palestinians what the Nazis did to them.

Zizek also goes on to make his classic case that multi-culturalism and fundamentalism form a dialectical unity, one that plays itself out with "tolerant liberals" condescendingly defending the righteous anger of the Muslim protesters.  But what I think is the most audacious part of the argument is Zizek's attempt to apply the Lacanian symbolic to the passionate anger in the streets:

What we should always bear in mind is the fact that the protests (and the very real violence accompanying them) were triggered by means of representation, by words and images (caricatures, which a large majority of those protesting did not see, but just read or heard about). The Muslim crowds did not react to caricatures as such; they reacted to the complex figure/image of the “West” that was perceived as the attitude behind the caricatures. Those who proposed the term “Occidentalism” as the counterpart to Edward Said’s “Orientalism” were up to a point right: what we get in Muslim countries is a certain ideological image of the West which distorts Western reality no less (although in a different way) than the Orientalist image of the Orient. What exploded in violence was a complex cobweb of symbols, images and attitudes (Western imperialism, godless materialism and hedonism, the suffering of Palestinians, etc.etc.) that became attached to Danish caricatures, which is why the hatred expanded from caricatures to Denmark as a country, to Scandinavian countries, to Europe, to the West – it was as if all these humiliations and frustrations got condensed in the caricatures. And, again, one should bear in mind that this condensation is a fact of language, of constructing and imposing a certain symbolic field.

What I find astounding in this description is the laundry list of symbols and images: Western Imperialismm, godless materialism, suffering Palestinians.  While clearly there is a form of consciousness one could describe as "Occidentalism,"  I am uneasy with the suggestion that it is a certain "linguisitic displacement" (my words not Zizek's)  that is responsible for Muslim humiliation and resentment, and not the real terror and exploitation that they experience in their lives everyday. This is not to say that ideology isn't important to how one interprets and reacts to symbols - but I am very cautious not to minimize the "real" violence being perpetrated by the west (and Israel) against the muslim world. Would the cartoons have evoked the same reaction if they were not published within the context of the current "War on Terror?"  Even those under the delusion of collective fantasies can tell when they are the subjects of attempted domination.

What I also find strange is that in the very next passage, Zizek takes on the Habermasian notion of communicative rationality.  He makes the Derridean point that all linguistic representation is a form of violence and that we cannot hope to find peaceful co-existence in more respectful, transparent forms of dialogue.  This sets up his conclusion:

Reality in itself, in its stupid facticity, is never intolerable: it is language, its symbolization, which makes it such. So precisely when we are dealing with the scene of a furious crowd, attacking and burning buildings and cars, lynching people, etc., we should never forget the placards they are carrying, the words sustaining and justifying their acts.

While I agree that experience is always mediated by language, and that such mediation always implies a certain violence, is it really the case that "Reality... is never intolerable?"  This seems to be a dubious conclusion to an otherwise provocative essay.

Comments

[TCO]

In fact, the 'kettle logic' is actually

1. Someone says that Zionists exploit the Holocaust
2. Anyone who believes 1 must believe it because Jews don't deserve to complain about the Holocaust,
3. Anyone who believes 2 must secretely believe that the Jews deserved it.
4. Someone who believes 3 is really as bad or worse than someone who thinks the Holocaust didn't happen.

Therefore, a critic of the exploitation of the Holocaust by Zionists is worse than a Holocaust denier. Wow!

[abelard]

Chabert and Lenin have rewritten the SWP's slogan. Now it's 'Neither Washington nor Moscow, but Tehran'.

[mark]

Well, I don't know about kettle logic, but the following two positions seem slightly at odds:

on the one hand let's deign to treat Muslim's as serious [?] adults responsible for their beliefs (the suggestion here is almost 'let's try the following thought experiment)

on the other, lets treat 'their' response to the Danish cartoons as symptoms - understood in terms of Freudian condensation & displacement etc

+ their should be an embargo on quoting Yeats' The Second Coming. But one perhaps needs to make the now equally familiar rejoinder that the blood dimmed tide was that of democracy itelf, not some non-Western Other.

[Alain]

"Therefore, a critic of the exploitation of the Holocaust by Zionists is worse than a Holocaust denier."

TCO, no disrespect but who is saying that? Do you mean Isreali's or Jews who criticize those who criticize the exploitation of the holocaust? If so, then I agree with the astounding irony.

[old]

Enjoyed the piece. Thanks, Alain. Also very much appreciated the link to the colonel's splendid little post.

[Alain]

Mark, I agree with you that the two major theses of Zizek's argument do seem at odds. Can one be treated as an "adult" and also shown to be under the sway of irrational ideology? To the degree that the discussion of Islam is a mirror image of his discussion of US justifications for the invasion of Iraq, it would seem his form of respect equates with "putting someone on the couch."

Old, thank you. I wonder what you (or anyone) thinks of Lenin's reaction in the comments to Colonel's post? Is the NY Times piece really all that offensive? What I think is more troubling is the "Zizek as Zelig" question - does the NY Times OpEd and the larger piece it is taken from make the same argument or draw the same conclusions? On the surface, it would seem not. Even accounting for the limits of an Op Ed piece in terms of space and theoretical sophistication, is treating Muslims as adults the same as demonstrating their symbolic illusions?

Now I know Zizek is fond of pointing out the dialectical unity of opposites, and in many parts of his work draws out the parallels between western tolerance and Islamic fundamentalism. But what I think he has failed to do so far (but I have not read the Parallex View yet) is to find a way through this impass. Perhaps this is asking too much but it seems that this would be a logical next step.

[chabert]

Is it that offensive? If a Chinese intellectual said China is was the first and only civilization on earth to truly tolerate atheism, would you be offended?

The offense though is mainly in accepting and reproducing the constrtuction of the protagonist's of 'the cartoon story' as a psych experiment on 'mad Muslims' - the only fit objects of psychoanalysis in the story; everyone else is presumably fit for the role of analyst, alongside Zizek, even though the first to enter the field of this spectacle were the cartoonists, their publishers, followed by US propagandists, and the mainstream media, and last in the field were Muslim demonstrators, after months and months. So why are the Muslims the obvious lab rats about whom these events, treated like an experiment, reveal things? Isn't there a mishigas worthy of analysis in this compulsion to invent a mass of angry Muslims even when the cartoons stirred no reaction whatsoever? (The nightly tv show about the non reaction to the cartoons was what, finally, got a rise out of some people). But to psychoanalyse the manufacturers of the (non) crisis en masse would be demeaning and would in any wase not reproduce the key myth which is the crisis itself, and one would run the risk of one of them having a letter in response published in the Times.

[chabert]

"What makes modern Europe unique is that it is the first and only civilization in which atheism is a fully legitimate option, not an obstacle to any public post".

Is this true? Is 'modern Europe' a) a distinct 'civilization' and b) unique among 'civilizations' in the possession of this most virtuous of virtues, respect for freedom of conscience? the first? and only?

[chabert]

"If a Chinese intellectual said China is was the first and only civilization on earth to truly tolerate atheism, would you be offended?"

or more specifically, if a Chinese intellectual said this just after China had invaded Haiti and deposed a left wing former priest, and while it was sponsoring death squads in your neighborhood who were posing as radical religious nuts. then would be it be offensive?

What made Victor Klemperer say he would let some of the Nazis leaders go but string up the intellecuatls from lamposts was reading a history professor's piece on how Frederick the Great was 'the Northern European Man' par excellence, exhibiting all the virtues and quirks of such. Basically this is what we have here, this very gesture that so infuriated Klemperer, gratuitous flattery of the fascist aggressor.

[Alain]

Chabert, thank you for responding. I greatly respect your thoughts on this.

First, perhaps I am naive but I would not be offended if a Chinese person said China was the first and only civilization on earth to truly tolerate atheism. (And I have no idea if it is true or not.)

Regarding the larger issue, you are suggesting that the "World wide Muslim reaction" was manufactured by the media? Perhaps you're right (it wouldn't be the first time), but I don't know that. There was certainly some protests, a few of which were reported as "violent."

To your larger point, that Zizek is using the Muslims as lab rats is not accurate. He uses the same psychoanalytic concepts to analyze everything, including western culture and politics. And I know we disagree about the usefulness of his approach - but he doesn't single out Muslims for his mucshuganah theories. He freely applies them everywhere, for anyone who cares to listen.

Where I agree with you is that it is an odd topic to focus on for an Op Ed piece in one of the major US newspapers. This is where your "Zizek as Zelig" approach makes sense to me - he seems to change his stripes and content to match the audience he is soliciting. And it is hard to see a legitimate reason for that.

bloody mountains out of molehills. It may be a banal generalization, but he's right about Europe.

[Alain]

Chabert, I published the previous comment before your last two remarks. I remember the Victor Klemperer remark you reference and it is a good example of why his op ed piece was inappropriate. But I do not equate the two because of the context of Zizek's larger work, which is generally critical of the west, neoliberalism and capitalism.

Having said that, I am struggling a bit with this topic personally. I consider myself a religious Jew (of sorts) and the distinction between "false religious consciousness" and righteous indignation can get fuzzy. I have also thought of Marx's personal anti-semitism, particularly reflected in "On the Jewish Question." It has been years since I have read it but I recall him ending the essay with the declaration "The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation from Judaism," or something like that. I know he means the emancipation from all "huckstering," in the translation I read (I am sure it is online somewhere). I am trying to find a way to think of these things in a way that makes sense, both personally and politically.

Anyway, I am short on time right now so thanks for your thoughts.

[chabert]

"Atheism is a[n exclusively] European legacy worth fighting for"

right, and

"Courage and uprightness is a German legacy worth fighting for"

"Valuing life is a Jewish legacy worth fighting for"

"Democracy is an American legacy worth fighting for"

Well it's a clash of civilizations we have here.

"I would not be offended if a Chinese person said China was the first and only civilization on earth to truly tolerate atheism. (And I have no idea if it is true or not.)"

Okay, but if that were true - that China is the first and only - than Zizek's statement is a lie, right? They can't both be true. You don't know, okay, but you don't therefore assume nobody knows, that this is unknowable. It wouldn't take more than half an hour in a library to find out. Are we to treat Zizek as 'a serious adult' responsible for his 'beliefs'? Is he responsible for his belief that 'modern Europe' possesses this unique virtue?

As for the 'violence', almost all was against demonstrators. In fact regarding the viole,nce attributed to demonstrators, no one has been identified. So we don't know whether the arsons were carried out by provocateurs as many witnesses in Lebanon suspected. Anyway, there wasn't any considerable violence - let's keep some persepctive - despite months and months of hammering away at this issue, efforts to provoke a reaction, and despite a nightly television show which kicked off with a risible and transparent- but entertaining! - effort to portray 300 Muslims peacefully protesting *worldwide* - 300 in the entire world - as a great battle in the clash of civilizations.

Now we have this given, the violent Muslim reaction to the cartoonbs. It's bullshit. There was a little perfectly lawyerly and calm response to the cartoons by some prominent muslims in denmark. The 'show' came first, the big demonstrations after. This is a matter of historical record.

[Matt]

re: cartooning, Michelle Malkin is the moral compass I go by generally.
[/sarc]

[chabert]

"t Zizek is using the Muslims as lab rats is not accurate. He uses the same psychoanalytic concepts to analyze everything, including western culture and politics"

on the contrary, in the times' piece, it is muslims who react violently and are pathologized, and atheists who are the automatic analysts of the pathology, 'we' who ruthlessly critique, whom zizek exorts to be ruthless, who with our resect endow the other with adulthood; he does not care to invite the other to ruthlessly critique us, because we are already adults and presumably do this better than any other could do, we are not in need of their help, they need ours, our respect and our instruction, because we invented Freedom and Critique! We are not amenable to a ruthless critique and do not have to prove we are adults by getting Muslims to treat us as though we are.

I sense you feel zizek should not be ruthlessly critiqued; that it's enough to say, well, this is an aberration, with some marginal insignificant accidental (anything but psychoanalyic) cause and anything but psychoanalytic explanation. He's not exhibiting a group mishigas with this; he can't exhibit a group mishigas because really, the whole idea is silly unless we have a real fungible horde at hand. In this case, unusually, a pragmatic realism is enough and Zizek's own method would not apply, would be indeed demeaning and offensive and speculative. There is no meaningful explanation for this article - he does it for the money and the clout, he's just a chameleon. That a muslim cleric could also write op eds for the money and the clout is of course unimaginable, since he participates in a horde mishigas. The Muslim's foolish article can be psychoanalyzed as part of a mass psychoanalysis of The Muslims: Zizek's foolish article cannot.

But when he addresses the tiny niche audience who reads his books, then he's serious, then he speaks his real mind, he's not just giving that audience also what that audience will consume and what flatters that audience. (presumably that audience is too wise to fall for a con like that, wiser than the obviously gullible NYTimes op ed editor). Only when he addresses a large, influential audience is he an apologist - (only when it might count). Psychoanalysis, certainly mass psychoanlysis of 'Western Academic Intellectuals', would be of no use here.

[josef k.]

Charbet - citing Klemperer here is perverse in the extreme. Are we to understand from it accordingly that from your perspective, what is said about something is somehow worse than acts really committed? So that, for instance, insulting the Koran might be a grevious sin in your book than, say, torturing someone who calls themselves a Muslim?

I don't imagine that you hold really hold this view, but please explain to me - what is your theory of ideology by means of you connect the two? I don't buy your syllogism (x + x + x = clash of civilization thesis) and I don't understand why you are moved to conflate the figure of the intellectual with the figure of the fascist, and I don't understand why you think that any of this has to do with Haiti. Because Aristede was a priest? As far as I know, this fact never really majorly figured in the propaganda put forward. Rather, the argument as I recall was that Aristede was corrupt. A questionable idea certainly, but a different one.

[chabert]

"for instance, insulting the Koran"

insulting the Koran in absolutely fine by me. So is insulting people who insult the Koran. Are you saying insulting people who insult the Koran is the same as torturing them to death with a drill? Or just implying it is?

Insulting is something we all have to live with, something I am sure you have noticed.

[chabert]

And to show I mean what I say - Joseph K you are an illiterate bubblehead, genuinely. You really cannot read properly and you make shit up that makes me suspect you are high a lot of the time.

There. I've insulted you. And no I don't thnk I should be prosecuted or prevented.

[chabert]

I mean yikes, look at this "i don't imagine " "idon't buy" "i don"t understand". Well, you would know what you imagine, buy and understand; on this you are the supreme authority; just announcing this without explanation is not very interesting and certainly nothing i would dream of rebutting. Am i supposed to say yes you do imagine, you do buy, you do understand? It's your concern alone, surely.

[Alain]

Colonel, I apologize because I do not have the time to respond thoroughly. But let me say that of course Zizek should be ruthlessly critiqued, the same as any other thinker. And I generally agree with you that the choice of topic for his more popular Op Ed is open to scrutiny.

But in the longer piece, the one I am quoting from, he is trying to do more than single out the "Muslim heathens." It seems to me he is attempting to describe the mechanisms of ideology, applying them to public statements made by a few Muslims, including the current leader of Iran.

But if you are right, that "The 'show' came first, the big demonstrations after. This is a matter of historical record," than you may be right that this is all a big waiste of time. And I have already agreed with you that I think his subject matter is inappropriate given the war on muslims (terror). Assuming you are correct, leave aside the personal failings of this "celebrity Zizek" for the moment. Is there no value in ideological critique of Muslim fundamentalism, just as there is benefit to critique all ideology? When it comes down to it, that is my interest in Zizek.

I know you think Zizek is largely describing figments of his own imagination, or acting as an apologist for the current Hegemons. I may one day share your veiw, but I am not there yet.

[Matt]

Hm..I hate to be a pedant, but here's Zizek again:

The history of European atheism, from its Greek and Roman origins (Lucretius’ De rerum natura) to modern classics like Spinoza, offers a lesson in dignity and courage. Much more than with occasional outbursts of hedonism, it is marked by the awareness of the bitter outcome of every human life, since there is no higher authority watching over our fates and guaranteeing the happy outcome; at the same time, they all strive to formulate the message of joy which comes not from escaping reality, but from accepting it and creatively finding one´s place in it. What makes this materialist tradition unique is the way it combines the humble awareness that we are not masters of the universe, but just parts of a much larger whole, exposed to contingent twists of fate, with the readiness to accept the heavy burden of the full responsibility for what we make out of our lives – is today, when the threats of unpredictable catastrophies loom from all sides, such an attitude not needed more than ever?

A year or so ago, a debate was raging in Europe: should, in the preambles to the draft of the European constitution, Christianity be mentioned as the key component of European legacy? As usual, a compromise was worked out, where Christianity is listed along with Judaism, Islam, and the legacy of Antiquity. But where was modern Europe’s most precious legacy, that of atheism? What makes modern Europe unique is that it is the first and only civilization in which atheism is a fully legitimate option, not an obstacle to any public post? THIS is the European legacy worth fighting for.

And here's LCC:

"Atheism is a[n exclusively] European legacy worth fighting for"

right, and

"Courage and uprightness is a German legacy worth fighting for"

"Valuing life is a Jewish legacy worth fighting for"

"Democracy is an American legacy worth fighting for"

Even with distorting brackets, this analogy seems pretty grotesque.

[chabert]

Even with distorting brackets

where is the distortion. He writes "What makes modern Europe unique is that it is the first and only civilization in which atheism is a fully legitimate option"

First. Only. What are you saying? He means something other than first and only, that atheism is not especially and exclusively a european thing, that euopre is not unique in being the first and only civilization in which atheism is a fully legitimate option?

[chabert]

oh, or are you saying, Matt, that modern Europe is a) a distinct civilization and b) really was the first and is the only civilization where atheism is a legitimate option?

So its not an option in China (or Japan, or India or South Africa or Haiti or Cuba or Palestine)? One can't be an atheist there in public life as easily as one can be in Italy or Spain or Ireland or Poland? This is what you are saying?

[Matt]

Well none of those terms delimit future-tense, as far as I can tell.

As for "exclusion"... his comments appear to be oriented generally against it. He seems to find atheism a rather good thing, in a model sense even.

[chabert]

and why is he labouring to make atheism European anyway? Can't he defend atheism without claiming it for Europe (against Muslims?) Jeez, the war against 'Godless Communists' worldover (inside europe and ourside) carried out by Europeans (aiding Americans) just ended five seconds ago.