between the cracks
Filled with love and admiration
AMY GOODMAN: The massive French protests that are taking place—I mean, I think when people here hear that massive number of people are in the streets because the retirement age is being lifted from sixty to sixty-two—
SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN:—people would only wish for that early retirement age in the United States.
SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK: Yeah, but let me tell you something else which may surprise you here. I will make a different comment, because in my country, Slovenia, the same thing is going on.
Of course, in general, in principle, I support those who strike and so on. But did you notice how they are mostly—mostly—state employees with guaranteed employment and so on. A strange phenomenon is now exploding in Europe, getting more and more accentuated, which was here, we just didn’t notice it all the time.
Those who dare to strike today are usually the privileged, those who have a guaranteed state employment and so on.
And they strike for these things like, no, we don’t want to freeze our salaries; we want raise them up, while, for example, in my country, there are thousands of textile workers, women, who, if one were to offer them what—that situation with regard to which those who strike today are protesting, like "we guarantee you permanent employment, just with frozen salaries for next five years," they would say, "My god! That’s better than we dared to dream."
This is what worries me a little bit, that this strike waves, you know, are clearly predominantly strikes of the, let’s call it in old Leninist terms, workers’ aristocracy, those with safe positions. The truly needy and poor one don’t even dare to strike.
But talk about the mass protests in the street in France compared to what we don’t have here. We don’t see that in the streets.
SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK: OK, this is an old French tradition, and I wouldn’t even overestimate it. You know why? Because—this is what makes me sad. There is no alternate—again, we are always returning to the same problem—there is no global alternate vision. They are—sorry, but now I will appear like anti-worker, but I’m not, please believe me. They just think, "Oh, no, we want this. We want our piece of cake" and so on. Well, what the left is missing is a kind of a more global idea of how to restructure entire economy. I mean, they are not addressing the true causes. This makes me very sad. This is typical. All that the left can do today is to propose—sorry, oppose—protest against reductions. The left is, let me be very frank, in this social sense, a conservative force. In the social sense of social, fast changes and so on, it’s capitalists who are today the revolutionary class. This makes it very sad, the situation.
As for the method of deconstruction of texts I see clearly what it is, I admire it a lot, but it has nothing to do with my own method. I do not present myself as a commentator on texts.
For me, a text is merely a small cog in an extra-textual practice. It is not a question of commenting on the text by a method of deconstruction, or by a method of textual practice, or by other methods; it is a questin of what use it has in an extra-textual practice that prolongs the text ..
Professor DChallanger speaking
in Clinical Critical terms as the hat was in the wind
What I most detested was Hegelianism and dialectics. my book on Kant’s different; I like it, I did it as a book about an enemy, a book about an enemy tries to show how his system works, how its various cogs-the tribunal of reason… but I suppose the main way I coped with it at the time was to see the history of philosophy as a sort of buggery or it comes to the same thing, immaculate conception. I saw myself as taking an author from behind taking an author from behind and giving him a child that would be his own offsprings, yet monstrous. It was really important for it to be his own child, cuz the author had to actually say all I had him saying,
but the child was bound to be monstrous too, cuz it resulted from all sorts of shifting, slipping, dislocation and hidden emissions…
Le but, ce n’est pas de répondre à des questions, c’est de sortir, c’est d’en sortir.
G. VELTSOS: En ce sens-là vous êtes ami avec Deleuze parce que vous créez ensemble un monde ?
F. G. : C’est ça. Mais comme je le disais dans une interview, je suis ami avec Deleuze mais je ne suis pas copain. Je ne sais pas comment l’on pourrait traduire ça. Parce que, par exemple, avec Deleuze on s’est toujours vouvoyé, on a toujours gardé une grande proximité et une grande distance amicale. Comme si l’on en avait besoin, précisément, pour maintenir la consistance de notre tapisserie commune. (...)