The Parallax View (book)
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 17:36, 27 May 2020 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 17:38, 27 May 2020 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) (→Psychoanalysis) Next diff → |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| - | '''''The Parallax View''''' (2005) is a book by [[Slavoj Žižek]] in which he stages confrontations between idealist and materialist understandings of various aspects of [[ontology]]. One such confrontation between [[idealism]] and [[materialism]] is expressed in [[Lacanian]] terms between an idealism's purported ability to theorize the All versus a Materialism's understanding that an apparent All is really a non-All. His penchant for staging a confrontation between idealism and materialism leads him to describe his work in such paradoxical terms as a "materialist theology." Žižek offers that reality is fundamentally open and a materialist "minimal difference" - the gap that appears in reality between a reductionist description of physical process and one's experience of existence - is the real of human life and the crucial domain that an ontology must attempt to theorize. Žižek equates the gap with the Freudian [[death drive]], as the negative and mortifying "thing that thinks." Although biological psychology might one day be able to completely model a person's brain, there would still be something left over that could not be explained, and this something corresponds precisely with the Freudian death drive. It is the death drive precisely, which takes this role, not the [[pleasure principle]], thus it is the negative aspect of consciousness that breaks and offers judgement on the unrepresentable totality. Žižek points to the fact that consciousness is opaque. A primary characteristic of consciousness is that you can't ever know if a thing is really conscious or merely mimicry. | + | '''''The Parallax View''''' (2006) is a work of critical theory by [[Slavoj Žižek]]. Like many of Žižek's books, it covers a wide range of topics, including philosophy, psychoanalysis, neuroscience, politics, literature, and film. Some of the authors discussed in detail include [[Jacques Lacan]], [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]], [[Karl Marx]], [[Immanuel Kant]], [[Martin Heidegger]], [[Alain Badiou]], [[Michael Hardt]] and [[Antonio Negri]], [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Antonio Damasio]], [[Franz Kafka]], and [[Henry James]]. |
| + | |||
| + | The book was described by Žižek as his ''magnum opus'', According to Žižek's introduction to the book, it is divided into three main sections (philosophical, scientific, and political) in order to introduce "a minimum of conceptual order." Although the book was largely well-received, some questioned whether it truly had a systematic approach. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The most enduring concept developed throughout the book is the [[parallax]], which refers to the different apparent position of an object when it is seen from different perspectives. Žižek uses this idea, which comes from [[Kojin Karatani]]'s ''Transcritique'', to rework the [[Dialectic#Hegelian dialectic|Hegelian dialectic]] from a [[Materialism|materialist]] perspective. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Interpretation== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Parallax=== | ||
| + | A parallax shift refers to the apparent motion of an object when it is seen from different perspectives. Using this notion, Žižek claims that both positions viewing the object are Kantian antinomies, meaning that they are completely incompatible and irreducible ways of seeing something. [[Fredric Jameson]] argues that Žižek is after the "absolute incommensurability of the resultant descriptions or theories" of whatever object is discussed. Traditionally, this would be seen as a problem for the Hegelian dialectic, in which thesis and antithesis come together in a synthesis, rather than remaining entirely opposed. Žižek argues, however, that this is an incorrect view of the dialectic. Instead, Žižek writes, Hegel does not overcome the Kantian division, but rather asserts it as such. The Hegelian synthesis, in other words, is the recognition of the insurmountable gap between two positions. This synthesis can only be achieved through a parallax shift. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Ontology=== | ||
| + | [[Adrian Johnston (philosopher)|Adrian Johnston]] maintains that Žižek is an "emergent dual-aspect monist." This refers to the belief that, although there is ultimately one substance that makes up the world, it appears divided and refracted into "distinct, disparate attributes." Žižek promotes a substance that is constantly "fracturing itself from within so as to produce parallax splits between irreconcilable layers and tiers of existence." In other words, the multiple appears because of a split in the Real. This could be contrasted to the work of [[Gilles Deleuze]] and [[Félix Guattari]], who maintain that multiplicity is the "primary ontological fact." | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Neuroscience=== | ||
| + | In neuroscience, Žižek confronts contemporary theorists like [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Antonio Damasio]] in terms of materialism and idealism. According to Johnston, Žižek asserts that although the mental arises from material neuronal processes, it nonetheless "breaks away" from being determined by those processes. In Johnston's words, "the mental phenomena of thought achieve a relatively separate existence apart from the material corporeality serving as the thus-exceeded ontological underbelly of these same phenomena." | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Politics=== | ||
| + | Žižek makes two major political points. The first involves a split between the economy and politics. He insists that although the economy is the real area where struggle occurs and that politics is simply a shadow of that, the battle must still be fought in politics. Additionally as the book concludes, he describes [[Herman Melville]]'s Bartleby as a new key figure in politics; Bartleby's consistently repeated phrase, "I would prefer not to," marks a purely formal refusal that must be adopted politically. According to Dean, Žižek advocates for a "withdrawal from resistance and from charity... a withdrawal from the whole variety of micropolitical practices..." He offers, ultimately, a political figure of "unbearable, inert, insistent, immobile violence." | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Psychoanalysis=== | ||
| + | There are a number of [[Lacanian]] and psychoanalytic concepts that are reworked throughout the course of the book. The parallax concept, for example, has important implications for Lacan's concept of [[the Real]]. Whereas the Real for Lacan meant a hard kernel that resisted symbolization, for Žižek the term refers to the "gap in perspectives." Another concept that Žižek redefines is the [[superego]]. According to Jameson, Žižek's revision looks beyond the superego as the "instance of repression and judgment, of taboo and guilt" toward a new definition that states that the superego today has become "something obscene, whose perpetual injunction is: 'Enjoy!'" Whereas the superego was once thought by Freud to prohibit certain activities, today, Žižek argues, it commands people toward the pursuit of pleasure. Jameson claims that the "death drive" is another one of Žižek's persistent fundamental themes. In his revision of the Freudian Thanatos, Žižek suggest that the death drive's true horror is that it lives through us, embodied in life itself. The concept of ''[[jouissance]]'' also receives a revision; according to Žižek, the envy of the Other's ''jouissance'' accounts for "collective violence, racism, nationalism and the like, as much as for the singularities of individual investments, choices and obsessions..." One final and crucial concept in the book involves the Lacanian "gap." According to Jameson, this refers to the doctrine that "the human subjectivity is permanently split and bears a gap within itself, a wound, an inner distance that can never be overcome." | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Reception== | ||
| + | Jodi Dean wrote that, although the book may not necessarily be a magnum opus, as Žižek suggested, it is certainly his best book since ''The Ticklish Subject'', which was published in 1999. Fredric Jameson assessed the book positively, writing that the chapter on cognitive science is a "superb achievement," and that the political lesson of the book is "as indispensable as it is energizing"; he considered these sections to stand as "major statements." He expressed some reservation, however, about the book's style; he claimed that the book functioned as a "theoretical variety show," and that the drawback of such a style is that, at the end, the reader is "perplexed as to the ideas that have been presented, or at least to the major ones to be retained." In a similar vein, Alexei Bogdanov described the book as a "vast battlefield of opinions, where the author's own position is often hard to pinpoint." Adrian Johnston also noted this aspect of the book, observing that although the book purports to be systematizing, "certain readers might experience a feeling of frustration in their attempts to discern the systematic unity supposedly underlying and tying together the wide-ranging discussions of the vast amount of diverse content contained in this text." Ultimately, Johnston asserts that there is an "integrated logic/pattern" to the book. Jameson discussed a similar problem and noted that, in theorizing the parallax explicitly, Žižek may have produced a new concept and system, despite the inherently "anti-philosophical" position of the concept. | ||
| + | |||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| *''[[The Parallax View]]'' | *''[[The Parallax View]]'' | ||
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Revision as of 17:38, 27 May 2020
|
"In the Stalinist ideological imaginary, the universal Reason is objectivized in the guise of the inexorable laws of historical progress and we are all its servants, the leader included – which is why, after a Nazi leader delivers a speech and the crowd applauds, he just stands and silently accepts the applause, positing himself as its addressee, while in Stalinism, when the obligatory applause explodes at the end of the leader's speech, the leader stands up and joins others in applauding. Recall the wonderful detail from the beginning of Lubitsch's To Be or not to Be: when Hitler enters a room, all the Nazi officers in the room raise their hands into a Nazi salute and shout their »Heil Hitler!«; in reply to it, Hitler himself raises his hand and says: "Heil myself!""--The Parallax View (2005) by Slavoj Žižek |
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
The Parallax View (2006) is a work of critical theory by Slavoj Žižek. Like many of Žižek's books, it covers a wide range of topics, including philosophy, psychoanalysis, neuroscience, politics, literature, and film. Some of the authors discussed in detail include Jacques Lacan, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx, Immanuel Kant, Martin Heidegger, Alain Badiou, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Daniel Dennett, Antonio Damasio, Franz Kafka, and Henry James.
The book was described by Žižek as his magnum opus, According to Žižek's introduction to the book, it is divided into three main sections (philosophical, scientific, and political) in order to introduce "a minimum of conceptual order." Although the book was largely well-received, some questioned whether it truly had a systematic approach.
The most enduring concept developed throughout the book is the parallax, which refers to the different apparent position of an object when it is seen from different perspectives. Žižek uses this idea, which comes from Kojin Karatani's Transcritique, to rework the Hegelian dialectic from a materialist perspective.
Contents |
Interpretation
Parallax
A parallax shift refers to the apparent motion of an object when it is seen from different perspectives. Using this notion, Žižek claims that both positions viewing the object are Kantian antinomies, meaning that they are completely incompatible and irreducible ways of seeing something. Fredric Jameson argues that Žižek is after the "absolute incommensurability of the resultant descriptions or theories" of whatever object is discussed. Traditionally, this would be seen as a problem for the Hegelian dialectic, in which thesis and antithesis come together in a synthesis, rather than remaining entirely opposed. Žižek argues, however, that this is an incorrect view of the dialectic. Instead, Žižek writes, Hegel does not overcome the Kantian division, but rather asserts it as such. The Hegelian synthesis, in other words, is the recognition of the insurmountable gap between two positions. This synthesis can only be achieved through a parallax shift.
Ontology
Adrian Johnston maintains that Žižek is an "emergent dual-aspect monist." This refers to the belief that, although there is ultimately one substance that makes up the world, it appears divided and refracted into "distinct, disparate attributes." Žižek promotes a substance that is constantly "fracturing itself from within so as to produce parallax splits between irreconcilable layers and tiers of existence." In other words, the multiple appears because of a split in the Real. This could be contrasted to the work of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, who maintain that multiplicity is the "primary ontological fact."
Neuroscience
In neuroscience, Žižek confronts contemporary theorists like Daniel Dennett and Antonio Damasio in terms of materialism and idealism. According to Johnston, Žižek asserts that although the mental arises from material neuronal processes, it nonetheless "breaks away" from being determined by those processes. In Johnston's words, "the mental phenomena of thought achieve a relatively separate existence apart from the material corporeality serving as the thus-exceeded ontological underbelly of these same phenomena."
Politics
Žižek makes two major political points. The first involves a split between the economy and politics. He insists that although the economy is the real area where struggle occurs and that politics is simply a shadow of that, the battle must still be fought in politics. Additionally as the book concludes, he describes Herman Melville's Bartleby as a new key figure in politics; Bartleby's consistently repeated phrase, "I would prefer not to," marks a purely formal refusal that must be adopted politically. According to Dean, Žižek advocates for a "withdrawal from resistance and from charity... a withdrawal from the whole variety of micropolitical practices..." He offers, ultimately, a political figure of "unbearable, inert, insistent, immobile violence."
Psychoanalysis
There are a number of Lacanian and psychoanalytic concepts that are reworked throughout the course of the book. The parallax concept, for example, has important implications for Lacan's concept of the Real. Whereas the Real for Lacan meant a hard kernel that resisted symbolization, for Žižek the term refers to the "gap in perspectives." Another concept that Žižek redefines is the superego. According to Jameson, Žižek's revision looks beyond the superego as the "instance of repression and judgment, of taboo and guilt" toward a new definition that states that the superego today has become "something obscene, whose perpetual injunction is: 'Enjoy!'" Whereas the superego was once thought by Freud to prohibit certain activities, today, Žižek argues, it commands people toward the pursuit of pleasure. Jameson claims that the "death drive" is another one of Žižek's persistent fundamental themes. In his revision of the Freudian Thanatos, Žižek suggest that the death drive's true horror is that it lives through us, embodied in life itself. The concept of jouissance also receives a revision; according to Žižek, the envy of the Other's jouissance accounts for "collective violence, racism, nationalism and the like, as much as for the singularities of individual investments, choices and obsessions..." One final and crucial concept in the book involves the Lacanian "gap." According to Jameson, this refers to the doctrine that "the human subjectivity is permanently split and bears a gap within itself, a wound, an inner distance that can never be overcome."
Reception
Jodi Dean wrote that, although the book may not necessarily be a magnum opus, as Žižek suggested, it is certainly his best book since The Ticklish Subject, which was published in 1999. Fredric Jameson assessed the book positively, writing that the chapter on cognitive science is a "superb achievement," and that the political lesson of the book is "as indispensable as it is energizing"; he considered these sections to stand as "major statements." He expressed some reservation, however, about the book's style; he claimed that the book functioned as a "theoretical variety show," and that the drawback of such a style is that, at the end, the reader is "perplexed as to the ideas that have been presented, or at least to the major ones to be retained." In a similar vein, Alexei Bogdanov described the book as a "vast battlefield of opinions, where the author's own position is often hard to pinpoint." Adrian Johnston also noted this aspect of the book, observing that although the book purports to be systematizing, "certain readers might experience a feeling of frustration in their attempts to discern the systematic unity supposedly underlying and tying together the wide-ranging discussions of the vast amount of diverse content contained in this text." Ultimately, Johnston asserts that there is an "integrated logic/pattern" to the book. Jameson discussed a similar problem and noted that, in theorizing the parallax explicitly, Žižek may have produced a new concept and system, despite the inherently "anti-philosophical" position of the concept.
See also
