Zizek + Peterson Post Debate Round Up: What The Hell Did I Just Watch?
This debate has mostly succeeded in subverting the expectations of everyone who looked forward to it, and the person solely responsible for that was Zizek. It's clear, from Peterson's opening argument, and from the pre (and immediate post-debate) commentary, that viewers were anticipating a decisive showdown, the rhetorical equivalent of a mexican stand-off.
That is not what occurred. Instead, Zizek spent a lot of his time detailing some points he made before -- but advancing them in new ways, while also striking out at left-liberal identity politics and political correctness.
This naturally found an ally in Peterson. But his reaction to Zizek, of being completely dumbfounded, ended up demonstrating the intellectual vacuousness of Petersonism. Nothing of what Zizek said was out of line from his former work, and anyone who had read up on him would have known that. Anyone, it seems, except Peterson, who could only seem to repeat the same right-wing talking points (equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome), and then getting being surprised to find out that that was never what Marxism was about.
The ultimate exposure moment, was when Zizek simply asked him, to name a single marxist, in the vein of the post-modern neo-marxists, who advocated political correctness, which Peterson was incapable of doing.
But though it did succeed at exposing Peterson, it creates a new problem: what exactly, then, is "Zizekism"? A material Hegelianism resulting from an inversion of Marxism, itself an inversion of Hegel? It's one thing to be, as Zizek admits, grossly pessimistic and misanthropic ("If there is a light at the end of the tunnel, it is a train coming in the other direction"). Yet that is not enough. How exactly are these problems meant to be solved? If they are intractable, doesn't that reaffirm Peterson's underlying philosophy, of Capitalist Realism?
There is obviously a lot of value in what Zizek is doing. Previous ideologies ascribed to themselves the 'divinity' of their own teleology, as Zizek admits about mid 20th century communism, that enabled them to justify whatever they wanted. To instead place yourself in the position of asking the right questions, as Zizek has done, rather than presuming you have all the answers, has immense value. Far too much of political debate today, is done at a distance, without any honest engagement of the underlying truths, and with massive disagreement of the common social reality. Left-liberals want to pretend that identity politics and political correctness are not an issue (and if you do take issue with them, you're transgressing the secret shibboleths that separate the left from the alt-right), and right wingers want to deny that capitalism and commodification has done far more damage to their own 'traditional' values, than gays getting married ever could.
But having found ourselves in this boat, adrift in the mist of history, without any heading or bearing, what exactly are we supposed to do now? Even if we accept that capitalism is in the process of destroying the commons (external commons of environment, internal commons of biogenetics and technology, etc), pessimism without hope would only lead to a depressing acceptance of this reality as "just the way things are".
And in this respect, I think Zizek didn't exactly won the debate either. He succeeded at doing what left-liberals have being trying to do and failed (see: Cathy Newman), and he did it in the simplest and best way: by treating his opponent with respect, and with free speech. But in doing so, he has shown the entire world, just how unable the contemporary political climate is, both left and right, to deal with the multitude of issues that we are now facing.
So what do you think? Who got the most out of this debate? Is there really a 'winner'? What do you expect the follow up to be by Peterson?
Zizek money shots:
Second: Yes, we should carry our burden, accept our suffering that goes with it. But a danger lurks here: that of a subtle reversal. Don't fall in love -that's my position- with your suffering. Never presume that your suffering is in itself a proof of your authenticity. Renunciation of pleasure, can easily turn into pleasure of renunciation itself. For example -- an example not from neo-conservatives -- white left-liberals love to denigrate their own culture, and blame eurocentrism for our evils. But it is instantly clear, how, this self-denigration, brings a profit of its own. Through this renouncing of their particular roots, multicultural liberals reserve for themselves the universal position, graciously soliciting others to assert their particular identities. White multiculturalist liberals embody the lie of identity politics.
My hero is here a black lady, Tarana Burke, who created the the metoo campaign more than a decade ago. She observed in a recent critical note, that, in the years since the movement began, it deployed an unwavering obsession with the perpetrators. Metoo, is all to often, a genuine protest, filtered through resentment.
Furthermore, I find it very hard, to ground today's inequalities -- as they are documented by, for example, Piketty in his book -- to differences in competencies. Competencies for what? In totalitarian states, competencies are determined politically. But market success is also not innocent and neutral, as a regulator of the social recognition of competencies.
Posted Apr 20, 2019, 10:42 AM UTC · edited
I just kept cringing throughout the whole of Peterson's opening statement. I mean, the absolute irony of accusing Marx and Engels of arguing like college freshmen and then going on to present the most shallow, vacuous and vulgar "interpretation" of Marxism imaginable. Marx and Engels only considered economics? They never considered nature? Marx thought hierarchy was just a capitalist phenomenon? Marx thought capitalists were just evil? Fucking really? God damn, I knew Peterson has always been lazy when it comes to actually reading the literature he criticizes, but this was just sooo bad.
All of this. How is anybody suggesting Peterson did not just make an absolute fool of himself and lose?
People who also misunderstand all those concepts, because, frankly, pop-academics like Peterson, and the Neo-Liberal war against the broader study of arts and humanities have completely debased intellectual discourse among the middle class of the developed world...
I mean the guy has built a cult around him, while constantly saying things that are just as ludicrous.
Yeah it was fucking wild, someone got kicked out for shouting "you're a fucking idiot, so fucking stupid" when Peterson said Marx and Engels didn't consider human nature or think to proofread or refine their ideas after writing the first draft. Just, absolutely staggering levels of ignorance from the Foremost Thinker of the Contemporary Era
Imagine paying hundreds of bucks for this, just to get kicked out at the beginning.
It was for posterity.
It’s one long string of caricatured idea after caricatured idea. Absolutely stupid.
Valid point but how am I suppose to know that I need to wash my balls and make my bed?
What I agree with Peterson on in his opening statement is that much of what we consider Marxist thought is later writers interpreting what Marx may have meant. Marx only put forth class consciousness but please enlighten me to where Marx or Engels discuss human nature in a biological sense.
Marxist thought doesn't mean "what Marx said". It means thought influenced by Marx's approach.
Yeah, "Marx isn't a Marxist" is like one of the biggest clichés on the left.
OK yes. But that is arguably a large set of non-conforming interpretations. It's too tempting to disregard Marxist thought based an a significant flaw in the original text.
I don't understand what you mean by non-conforming. It's based on the use of the same tools of interpretation developed by Marx. It's a systemisation of the Marxist method, it doesn't necessarily mean either dogmatic attachment to everything Marx has said, nor a refusal to talk about things Marx ignored. There are some forms of Marxism which are denounced as revisionist for abandoning concepts which are seen as key to Marx's thought, like class struggle. But people are generally aware that Marxist schools aren't a 1:1 of things Marx said, if it were the case they'd all be in agreement and there'd be no need for their existence. The term refers to the methodology.
This is the most profoundly banal statement I've read in months, good work.
So I’m right and it bothers you?
Marxist thought does not necessarily mean Marx's writings.
Like, that's inherent in the whole -ist part. "Much of what we consider Christian thought is later writers interpreting what Christ may have meant" well fucking duh.
do you not know what banal means? hint: it doesn't mean "wrong"
My thoughts actually are literally Marx’s thoughts. Nobody ever believes me tho, so I’m not surprised to read your comment. It’s just, Karl Marx’s essential spirit, mental function, and memory are actually within me, animating me, motivating me, and are the direct source of my every post.
But we're not trying to create a Canon. If Marx was discredited I'd ditch him in an instance.
You sound like Peterson when he asked why Žižek wasn't a Žižekian.
If you google ‘Marx species-being’ you’ll get a bunch of stuff. Here’s some: