1

00:00:03,545 --> 00:00:09,547

SLAVOJ IEK:
THE REALITY OF THE VIRTUAL
2
00:00:15,845 --> 00:00:20,146
11th DECEMBER 2003
LONDON
3
00:00:31,072 --> 00:00:35,076
Today, everybody is talking
about virtual reality
4
00:00:35,076 --> 00:00:39,378
but I think, frankly, that virtual reality
is rather miserable idea.
5
00:00:39,881 --> 00:00:45,083
It simply means "let us reproduce,
in an artificial digital medium,
6
00:00:45,086 --> 00:00:47,888
our experience of reality."
7
00:00:47,889 --> 00:00:52,091
I think that a much more
interesting notion,
8
00:00:52,093 --> 00:00:54,895
crucial to understand
what goes on today,
9
00:00:54,896 --> 00:01:01,598
is the opposite: not virtual reality,
but the reality of the virtual.
10
00:01:01,603 --> 00:01:07,605
That is to say: reality - by this
I mean efficacity, effectiveness,
11
00:01:08,109 --> 00:01:12,011
real effects - produced,
generated, by something,

12
00:01:12,013 --> 00:01:15,015
which does not yet fully exist;
13
00:01:15,016 --> 00:01:18,118
which is not yet fully actual.
14
00:01:18,119 --> 00:01:19,921
In what sense can we
talk about this?
15
00:01:19,921 --> 00:01:23,123
Huh! In many, maybe even
too many senses.
16
00:01:23,124 --> 00:01:25,626
At least in three senses:
17
00:01:25,627 --> 00:01:29,629
If we take, as the starting point,
18
00:01:29,631 --> 00:01:35,633
the well-known lacanian triad of
imaginary, symbolic and real.
19
00:01:35,637 --> 00:01:39,139
We have, put in simple terms,
20
00:01:39,140 --> 00:01:45,142
imaginary virtual, symbolic virtual
and real virtual.
21
00:01:45,146 --> 00:01:47,948
First, a little bit about
the first two of them,
22
00:01:47,949 --> 00:01:49,851
less important,
and then of course
23
00:01:49,851 --> 00:01:52,653
the big topic: the real.

24
00:01:53,154 --> 00:01:55,556
Imaginary virtual: what it is?
25
00:01:55,657 --> 00:02:00,159
Isn't it clear, if we look at
our most common daily experience
26
00:02:00,161 --> 00:02:02,963
of ourselves and of others,
27
00:02:02,964 --> 00:02:06,966
that how when we deal
with another person,
28
00:02:07,168 --> 00:02:09,170
phenomenologically - that is to say,
29
00:02:09,170 --> 00:02:11,272
the way we immediately
experience them 30
00:02:11,372 --> 00:02:19,174
we erase, abstract
from the image of the other person,
31
00:02:19,180 --> 00:02:21,682
our partner...
32
00:02:21,683 --> 00:02:26,485
certain features, which are
simply too embarrassing
33
00:02:26,488 --> 00:02:28,590
to be kept in mind
all the time?!
34
00:02:28,590 --> 00:02:30,190
Like, I talk to you:
35
00:02:30,191 --> 00:02:32,193
of course rationally I know

36
00:02:32,193 --> 00:02:35,195
you are defecating,
you are sweating,
37
00:02:35,297 --> 00:02:37,195
not to mention other things,
38
00:02:37,198 --> 00:02:40,700
but quite literally,
when I interact with you
39
00:02:40,702 --> 00:02:46,704
this is not part of the image
I have of you.
40
00:02:47,008 --> 00:02:49,710
So, when I deal with you,
I'm basically not dealing
41
00:02:49,711 --> 00:02:51,211
with the real of you.
42
00:02:51,212 --> 00:02:54,714
I'm dealing with the
virtual image of you.
43
00:02:54,716 --> 00:02:57,518
And this image has reality,
44
00:02:57,519 --> 00:03:03,121
in the sense that it, none of the less,
structures the way I am dealing with you.
45
00:03:03,224 --> 00:03:07,226
And then this idealization
is crucial.
46
00:03:08,429 --> 00:03:10,631
The negative proof,
a wonderful one,
47
00:03:10,632 --> 00:03:16,734

would have been letters between

James Joyce and his wife Nora.
48
00:03:17,038 --> 00:03:21,940
where, as far as I know,
they went very, very far,
49
00:03:21,943 --> 00:03:27,245
almost to the end, into
accepting each other
50
00:03:27,248 --> 00:03:32,250
in the vulgar reality
of bodies.
51
00:03:32,253 --> 00:03:35,655
Like, all the sounds,
the bad smells, etc.
52
00:03:35,757 --> 00:03:39,259
That was even part
of their sexual interaction.
53
00:03:39,260 --> 00:03:41,762
It's incredible. I admire this
in Joyce.
54
00:03:41,963 --> 00:03:43,263
So... OK.
55
00:03:43,264 --> 00:03:46,566
This would be the
first elementary level:
56
00:03:46,567 --> 00:03:51,269
imaginary virtual,
in the sense of the virtual image
57
00:03:51,272 --> 00:03:55,274
which determines how we
interact with other people.
58
00:03:55,276 --> 00:03:57,278

Virtual image in the sense of:

59
00:03:57,278 --> 00:03:59,180
although we interact
with real people,
60
00:03:59,180 --> 00:04:07,282
we erase, we behave as if
whole strata of the other person
61
00:04:07,288 --> 00:04:09,290
are not there.
62
00:04:09,791 --> 00:04:13,793
Second level, already
the more complex one:
63
00:04:13,795 --> 00:04:17,797
symbolic virtual.
64
00:04:17,799 --> 00:04:19,800
It's elementary.
65
00:04:19,800 --> 00:04:23,301
Let's think about an experience,
known well to all of us,
66
00:04:23,304 --> 00:04:25,706
of experiencing authority.
67
00:04:25,806 --> 00:04:28,308
Let us say, paternal authority.
68
00:04:28,309 --> 00:04:31,711
Isn't it clear, that this
authority,
69
00:04:31,712 --> 00:04:33,814
in order to be operative,
70
00:04:33,814 --> 00:04:37,616
in order to be experienced...

precisely there's the nice paradox,

71
00:04:37,618 --> 00:04:41,820
in order to be experienced
as actual, effective authority,
72
00:04:41,822 --> 00:04:43,824
it has to remain virtual.
73
00:04:43,824 --> 00:04:46,326
Virtual in the sense of
a threat.
74
00:04:46,327 --> 00:04:50,829
If authority is enacted
too directly,
75
00:04:50,831 --> 00:04:55,333
it is, paradoxically,
experienced as a sign of impotence.
76
00:04:55,336 --> 00:04:59,838
Concretely: father who truly is
an authority
77
00:04:59,840 --> 00:05:02,842
doesn't have to beat you,
or to shout at you, etc.
78
00:05:02,843 --> 00:05:05,845
It's just this look,
a threatening look,
79
00:05:05,846 --> 00:05:07,248
and you obey.
80
00:05:07,248 --> 00:05:10,350
If your father
looses his nerves
81
00:05:10,351 --> 00:05:13,253
and smacks you,
starts to shout etc.,

82
00:05:13,254 --> 00:05:15,956
it can be physically
painful,
83
00:05:16,056 --> 00:05:17,358
but let's admit it,
84
00:05:17,358 --> 00:05:23,360
there is always an aspect
of something ridiculous impotent.
85
00:05:23,364 --> 00:05:29,366
There's something of a furious
outburst
86
00:05:29,370 --> 00:05:33,372
of a puppet,
of a clown image.
87
00:05:33,574 --> 00:05:36,376
Again, this is then
one clear example
88
00:05:36,377 --> 00:05:41,879
of how symbolic authority,
in order to be operative,
89
00:05:41,882 --> 00:05:44,384
that's the paradox,
I want to emphasize,
90
00:05:44,385 --> 00:05:46,085
has to remain virtual.
91
00:05:46,086 --> 00:05:49,888
So it's not just
"it is actual already as virtual."
92
00:05:49,990 --> 00:05:52,892
No! It's actual ONLY
as virtual.

93
00:05:52,893 --> 00:05:56,895
If it's fully actualized,
as the realized threat,
94
00:05:56,897 --> 00:05:58,499
father beats you,
shouts at you...
95
00:05:58,599 --> 00:06:00,901
it's self-destructive.
96
00:06:00,901 --> 00:06:04,203
It undermines itself
as authority.
97
00:06:04,405 --> 00:06:14,007
Another example of how the virtual dimension
is operative at the symbolic level
98
00:06:14,114 --> 00:06:17,916
would have been beliefs.
99
00:06:17,918 --> 00:06:19,920
Are we aware to what extent
100
00:06:19,920 --> 00:06:22,922
our beliefs today are virtual?
101
00:06:22,923 --> 00:06:29,925
By virtual I mean, in this case,
attributed to others, presupposed.
102
00:06:29,930 --> 00:06:34,232
They don't actually exist,
they are virtual,
103
00:06:34,235 --> 00:06:37,937
in the sense that
nobody really has to believe,
104
00:06:37,938 --> 00:06:44,740
we only have to presuppose

another person to believe.

105
00:06:44,945 --> 00:06:50,947
Elementary example which
I'm almost embarrassed to mention:
106
00:06:50,951 --> 00:06:54,553
if you are a father or mother
of small children,
107
00:06:54,555 --> 00:06:55,456
Christmas.
108
00:06:55,456 --> 00:06:56,858
Of course, if somebody
asks you,
109
00:06:56,957 --> 00:06:59,159
"do you really believe
in Santa Claus Christmas,"
110
00:06:59,159 --> 00:07:01,161
you would say,
"No, I just pretend,
111
00:07:01,161 --> 00:07:03,463
"because of the children,
which...
112
00:07:03,464 --> 00:07:05,466
"not to disappoint them,"
but then,
113
00:07:05,466 --> 00:07:07,468
we know how the
game goes on and on.
114
00:07:07,468 --> 00:07:09,160
If you ask the children,
they say,
115
00:07:09,169 --> 00:07:11,471
"No, we just play

that we are naive,

116
00:07:11,472 --> 00:07:12,874
"not to disappoint our parents
117
00:07:12,973 --> 00:07:16,475
"and to make it sure
that we get the presents," etc. etc.
118
00:07:16,477 --> 00:07:18,178
But it's not only the children.
119
00:07:18,178 --> 00:07:23,480
It's even with our political life,
I'm tempted to claim.
120
00:07:23,484 --> 00:07:26,686
Now with our so called wrongly so called, I claim,
121
00:07:26,687 --> 00:07:28,489
because we believe
more than ever 122
00:07:28,489 --> 00:07:31,291
in our so called
"cynically era",
123
00:07:31,291 --> 00:07:34,993
for example, I don't
think anyone believes in democracy,
124
00:07:34,995 --> 00:07:38,797
but nonetheless we want
to maintain appearances.
125
00:07:38,799 --> 00:07:43,501
There is, to say...
There is some purely virtual entity,
126
00:07:43,504 --> 00:07:47,806
whom we do not want
to disappoint,

127
00:07:47,808 --> 00:07:53,010
who has to be kept innocent,
ignorant,
128
00:07:53,013 --> 00:07:55,515
because of whom we
have to pretend.
129
00:07:55,516 --> 00:08:01,522
So the paradox is that
although nobody effectively believes,
130
00:08:01,522 --> 00:08:09,524
it is enough that everybody
presupposes someone else to believe
131
00:08:09,630 --> 00:08:12,032
and the belief is actual.
132
00:08:12,032 --> 00:08:15,034
It structures reality.
It functions.
133
00:08:15,035 --> 00:08:22,037
Again, the paradox is here
then similar as the one of authority.
134
00:08:22,042 --> 00:08:25,844
It's not only that a belief,
which is a virtual belief,
135
00:08:25,846 --> 00:08:31,548
not belief of an actual person,
but always attributed to other,
136
00:08:31,552 --> 00:08:37,554
let's call it, along Lacanian lines,
"the subject supposed to believe".
137
00:08:37,558 --> 00:08:42,660
It's not only that a belief, already
as virtual, as nearly presupposed,

138
00:08:42,663 --> 00:08:45,865
already is actual.
I'm tempted to claim
139
00:08:45,866 --> 00:08:53,568
that many of our daily believes,
in order to function socially as believes,
140
00:08:53,574 --> 00:08:56,576
have to remain virtual
in this sense.
141
00:08:56,577 --> 00:09:01,582
Because if we believe
too immediately,
142
00:09:01,582 --> 00:09:06,084
then I think it's, again,
self-destructive for an ideology.
143
00:09:06,086 --> 00:09:09,588
We no longer appear
normal subjects,
144
00:09:09,590 --> 00:09:11,190
we appear idiots.
145
00:09:11,191 --> 00:09:15,593
Like, we all know how it is
when we encounter somebody,
146
00:09:15,596 --> 00:09:20,098
who takes too directly
his or hers religious believes,
147
00:09:20,100 --> 00:09:22,702
or political believes.
148
00:09:22,903 --> 00:09:26,105
There is something
monstrous about somebody

149
00:09:26,106 --> 00:09:29,108
who directly identifies with it.
150
00:09:29,109 --> 00:09:32,611
It is as if he or she is
no longer a real person.
151
00:09:32,613 --> 00:09:36,615
It is as if he or she turns into
a kind of a puppet.
152
00:09:36,617 --> 00:09:41,119
So, I hope now these two levels
are relatively clear;
153
00:09:41,121 --> 00:09:43,023
the first two levels of virtuality:
154
00:09:43,023 --> 00:09:46,125
imaginary virtuality,
symbolic virtuality.
155
00:09:46,427 --> 00:09:51,129
But now, of course,
the true treasure is waiting for us:
156
00:09:51,131 --> 00:09:53,533
real virtuality.
157
00:09:56,136 --> 00:09:59,538
So, the real virtual.
158
00:10:00,641 --> 00:10:04,643
Well, the problem here, the catch,
of course, is the notion of the real.
159
00:10:04,945 --> 00:10:09,147
So, this may appear void,
but we have to go again
160
00:10:09,149 --> 00:10:12,152
through the triad

"imaginary-symbolic-real".
161
00:10:12,152 --> 00:10:17,154
because, when Lacan defines
this triad
162
00:10:17,157 --> 00:10:21,559
as the triad of a knot,
163
00:10:21,562 --> 00:10:24,664
it means that they are literally
interwoven
164
00:10:24,665 --> 00:10:31,271
in the sense that the entire triad
is reflected into each of the 3 terms,
165
00:10:31,271 --> 00:10:34,475
which means, to put it blindly,
that there is, again,
166
00:10:34,475 --> 00:10:39,677
imaginary real, symbolic real
and real real.
167
00:10:39,980 --> 00:10:43,182
What would be the
imaginary real?
168
00:10:43,183 --> 00:10:48,385
Images, but images which
are so strong, so traumatic,
169
00:10:48,388 --> 00:10:51,190
that they are real.
170
00:10:51,191 --> 00:10:55,693
Too strong to be perceived,
but still images.
171
00:10:56,196 --> 00:11:02,102
Simply think about incredible,
breath-taking catastrophes,

172
00:11:02,102 --> 00:11:04,604
think about monsters,
173
00:11:04,605 --> 00:11:10,711
think about precisely what
in SF or horror is called The Thing.
174
00:11:10,711 --> 00:11:14,213
Think about movies
like Alien,
175
00:11:14,214 --> 00:11:20,921
these terrifying creatures,
too strong to be directly confronted,
176
00:11:20,921 --> 00:11:23,223
but nonetheless
it's imaginary,
177
00:11:23,223 --> 00:11:28,225
because it's an image
which is too strong to be confronted.
178
00:11:28,228 --> 00:11:33,433
Even if you cannot confront it,
we are still moving at the imaginary level.
179
00:11:33,433 --> 00:11:36,235
That would be the
imaginary real.
180
00:11:36,536 --> 00:11:40,238
Then, the symbolic real.
181
00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:42,742
It's simply...
182
00:11:42,743 --> 00:11:45,745
for example, scientific discourse,
scientific formulas,
183

00:11:45,946 --> 00:11:48,248

like quantum physics.
184
00:11:48,248 --> 00:11:50,250
Why is this real?
185
00:11:50,250 --> 00:11:52,252
For a simple reason.
186
00:11:52,252 --> 00:11:55,454
The meaning of definition
of the real for Lacan, is,
187
00:11:55,455 --> 00:11:57,757
that which resists
symbolization,
188
00:11:57,758 --> 00:12:02,760
inclusion into our
universe of meaning.
189
00:12:02,963 --> 00:12:08,765
And isn't it that precisely which happens
for example with quantum physics?
190
00:12:08,769 --> 00:12:13,271
What is quantum physics?
Formulas which work,
191
00:12:13,273 --> 00:12:16,175
experimentally confirmed,
etc., etc.,
192
00:12:16,176 --> 00:12:24,278
but we cannot translate them into
our daily experience of ordinary reality.
193
00:12:24,785 --> 00:12:29,287
As we all know, this is what is
so traumatic about quantum physics:
194
00:12:29,289 --> 00:12:31,291
we literally cannot understand it.

195
00:12:31,491 --> 00:12:35,793
Not in the sense that we, common people,
idiots, cannot understand it,
196
00:12:35,796 --> 00:12:40,798
only a couple of scientists can:
even they cannot.
197
00:12:41,301 --> 00:12:42,503
In what sense?
198
00:12:42,503 --> 00:12:46,005
In the sense that
it just works,
199
00:12:46,006 --> 00:12:50,508
but if you try to build
a consistent ontology out of it,
200
00:12:50,511 --> 00:12:53,013
again, you get meaningless
results;
201
00:12:53,013 --> 00:12:57,315
you get time running backwards,
you get parallel universes, or whatever.
202
00:12:57,818 --> 00:13:02,820
In other works, you get things
which simply are meaningless
203
00:13:02,823 --> 00:13:05,825
with regard to our ordinary
notion of reality.
204
00:13:05,826 --> 00:13:09,328
So this would be symbolic real.
205
00:13:09,329 --> 00:13:14,331
Symbolic - obviously
the symbolic, formulas, few signifiers -

206
00:13:14,334 --> 00:13:18,636
they function, it's a functioning
machine, but meaningless.
207
00:13:18,639 --> 00:13:21,641
We cannot make any sense
out of it.
208
00:13:21,642 --> 00:13:24,744
We cannot relate it to
our experience.
209
00:13:24,745 --> 00:13:29,647
Which is why we try
so desperately to do it.
210
00:13:29,650 --> 00:13:34,952
Which is why we try to invent metaphors
to imagine quantum universe.
211
00:13:35,050 --> 00:13:37,352
But it cannot be done.
212
00:13:37,357 --> 00:13:43,359
Then, finally we are
coming to the real real,
213
00:13:43,864 --> 00:13:49,866
which it's precisely not
what is usually identified as the real.
214
00:13:49,870 --> 00:13:51,672
This would have been
the first real,
215
00:13:51,672 --> 00:13:54,674
the imaginary real,
too traumatic image.
216
00:13:54,675 --> 00:14:00,877
What then is this famous real real,
the very core of the real?

217
00:14:00,881 --> 00:14:02,883
Let me approach it
at two levels.
218
00:14:03,383 --> 00:14:08,185
The first level is still relatively
close to the symbolic order.
219
00:14:08,388 --> 00:14:10,390
It would have been...
220
00:14:12,693 --> 00:14:16,995
all that accompanies
the symbolic level
221
00:14:16,997 --> 00:14:20,799
at as its obscene shadow.
222
00:14:21,201 --> 00:14:23,403
Think about...
223
00:14:24,905 --> 00:14:26,907
army units.
224
00:14:26,907 --> 00:14:28,407
How they function?
225
00:14:28,408 --> 00:14:31,410
You have discipline,
symbolic machine,
226
00:14:31,411 --> 00:14:34,313
symbolic order,
drill, etc.
227
00:14:34,414 --> 00:14:37,916
But as we all know,
this is sustained
228
00:14:37,918 --> 00:14:42,220
by a kind of obscene,
shadowy reality

229
00:14:42,222 --> 00:14:48,324
of - among other things so called "marching chants".
230
00:14:48,428 --> 00:14:50,930
In every movie about the marines
you hear them,
231
00:14:51,030 --> 00:14:53,932
these songs which are
extremely interesting 232
00:14:53,933 --> 00:14:57,335
songs that soldiers sing
by their training, marching 233
00:14:57,437 --> 00:14:59,939
because they are
characterized
234
00:15:00,039 --> 00:15:03,941
by meaningless rhymes,
235
00:15:04,044 --> 00:15:09,146
combined with sadistic,
or sexually perverse, obscenities.
236
00:15:09,849 --> 00:15:11,451
One example that I remember,
237
00:15:11,451 --> 00:15:15,753
I think it is from
An Officer and a Gentleman, the movie,
238
00:15:15,854 --> 00:15:18,756
where marines are singing
something like:
239
00:15:18,958 --> 00:15:23,760
"I don't know but I was told
that Eskimo pussies are rather cold."

240
00:15:23,963 --> 00:15:28,765
The enigma is, again, why does
the military discourse need this?
241
00:15:28,968 --> 00:15:31,870
So this would be one level,
242
00:15:31,871 --> 00:15:36,473
this shadowy virtual reality
of affects
243
00:15:36,676 --> 00:15:40,778
which has to accompany
the official discourse.
244
00:15:40,880 --> 00:15:42,982
But let's move a little
bit deeper.
245
00:15:43,483 --> 00:15:45,785
Let's think about...
246
00:15:45,985 --> 00:15:49,487
well, one of the great achievements
of Western Civilization,
247
00:15:49,489 --> 00:15:51,891
a movie like
The Sound of Music.
248
00:15:51,991 --> 00:15:53,993
Officially, as we all know,
249
00:15:53,993 --> 00:15:55,995
it's a story about
250
00:15:56,496 --> 00:15:59,898
small, anti-fascist, democratic
Austrians,
251
00:15:59,999 --> 00:16:01,801
- at the political level,

that is to say 252

00:16:01,801 --> 00:16:04,403
I will leave out all the
singing aspect 253
00:16:04,504 --> 00:16:06,506
small, honest, democratic Austrians,
254
00:16:07,006 --> 00:16:11,508
fighting, resisting the Nazi
occupation of Austria in 1938.
255
00:16:11,511 --> 00:16:13,011
But!
256
00:16:13,012 --> 00:16:15,514
Look at the movie really closely.
257
00:16:15,515 --> 00:16:18,517
Look at its texture,
258
00:16:18,518 --> 00:16:22,020
and you will discover
a quite different reality,
259
00:16:22,021 --> 00:16:24,023
a kind of a virtual reality
260
00:16:24,023 --> 00:16:28,025
of the officially depicted
narrative reality.
261
00:16:28,027 --> 00:16:31,029
If you look at how Austrians
are depicted in the movie,
262
00:16:31,030 --> 00:16:33,032
you will discover
- to cut a long story short 263
00:16:33,032 --> 00:16:36,234

that they are precisely

depicted as a kind of a
264
00:16:36,236 --> 00:16:40,038
small-is-beautiful
provincial fascists.
265
00:16:40,039 --> 00:16:46,041
Their idiocy is emphasized,
these local folkloric dresses, etc.
266
00:16:46,045 --> 00:16:49,047
They're presented directly
as anti-intellectual,
267
00:16:49,048 --> 00:16:53,050
rooted in narrow
life world, etc.
268
00:16:53,052 --> 00:16:59,054
Now, look at how the occupying,
invading Nazists are presented.
269
00:16:59,058 --> 00:17:04,560
They're not mostly soldiers,
but managers, bureaucrats,
270
00:17:04,564 --> 00:17:08,066
exquisitely dressed,
with short mustaches,
271
00:17:08,067 --> 00:17:11,569
smoking expensive
cigarettes, etc.
272
00:17:11,571 --> 00:17:14,273
In other words, almost
a caricature
273
00:17:14,273 --> 00:17:18,075
of cosmopolitan,
decadent, corrupted Jew.
274

00:17:18,077 --> 00:17:19,579

So, that's my point:
275
00:17:19,579 --> 00:17:25,081
at the level of simple
narrative reality we get one message,
276
00:17:25,084 --> 00:17:28,086
democratic resistance
to Nazism.
277
00:17:28,087 --> 00:17:33,089
But at the level of
- let's call it - virtual texture
278
00:17:33,092 --> 00:17:41,094
all these micro signs,
maybe we could even call it writing,
279
00:17:41,601 --> 00:17:45,603
we get practically
the opposite message, which is:
280
00:17:45,804 --> 00:17:52,106
"Honest fascists resisting
decadent Jewish, cosmopolitan, takeover."
281
00:17:52,111 --> 00:17:55,613
And incidentally maybe
this is at least one of the reasons
282
00:17:55,615 --> 00:17:59,917
why this movie was so
extremely popular.
283
00:18:00,119 --> 00:18:08,021
While officially agreeing
with our democratic ideology,
284
00:18:08,028 --> 00:18:13,132
it, at the same time, addresses
our secret fascist dreams.
285

00:18:13,132 --> 00:18:16,134

But let's take a more serious example:
286
00:18:16,135 --> 00:18:20,340
Robert Altman's masterpiece,
Shortcuts.
287
00:18:20,440 --> 00:18:26,142
Again, at the narrative level we get
a simple story,
288
00:18:26,145 --> 00:18:30,650
or rather 9-10 stories,
parallel stories,
289
00:18:30,650 --> 00:18:37,652
depicting desperate everyday
life of LA middle classes,
290
00:18:37,657 --> 00:18:43,162
It's the portrait of today's alienation,
solitude, etc.
291
00:18:43,162 --> 00:18:47,064
But again, the very texture
of the film, I claim,
292
00:18:47,162 --> 00:18:49,164
is a much more optimistic one.
293
00:18:49,168 --> 00:18:54,170
It's a kind of celebration of
this magic of contingent encounters,
294
00:18:54,173 --> 00:18:57,675
generatings, unexpected
effects of meaning.
295
00:18:57,677 --> 00:18:59,679
So I think that...
296
00:18:59,679 --> 00:19:03,081
In a similar way to how we

should read The Sound of Music,

297
00:19:03,082 --> 00:19:09,184
it is wrong to read Shortcuts
simply as kind of social critical piece,
298
00:19:09,388 --> 00:19:16,190
there is another much more
optimistic, life asserting even, letter.
299
00:19:16,195 --> 00:19:25,104
So, to provide the formula
of this 'real virtual'.
300
00:19:25,104 --> 00:19:29,709
Let me refer to recent
paradoxical statement
301
00:19:29,709 --> 00:19:33,012
by none other
than Donald Rumsfeld.
302
00:19:33,012 --> 00:19:36,714
I think that this statement
was an important contribution
303
00:19:36,716 --> 00:19:39,718
to contemporary American
philosophical debate.
304
00:19:39,719 --> 00:19:44,321
This happened in March 2003,
just before the war on Iraq,
305
00:19:44,323 --> 00:19:51,731
where Rumsfeld elaborated the
relationship between 'known' and 'unknown'.
306
00:19:51,731 --> 00:19:54,733
First, he said, there are 'known knowns'.
307
00:19:54,734 --> 00:19:57,236
There are things we know

that we know.
308
00:19:57,236 --> 00:20:01,541
Like, we knew at that point
that Saddam was the president of Iraq.
309
00:20:01,541 --> 00:20:02,942
OK, everything clear.
310
00:20:02,942 --> 00:20:06,744
Then, he went on,
there are 'known unknowns'.
311
00:20:06,746 --> 00:20:11,250
There are things that
we know that we don't know.
312
00:20:11,250 --> 00:20:15,054
The idea was, for example,
we know that we don't know
313
00:20:15,054 --> 00:20:20,459
how many weapons of
mass destruction Saddam has.
314
00:20:20,459 --> 00:20:21,961
OK, now we know he had none.
315
00:20:21,961 --> 00:20:22,761
It doesn't matter.
316
00:20:22,762 --> 00:20:25,264
At that point it appeared
like this.
317
00:20:25,264 --> 00:20:29,666
Then there is
'the unknown unknown',
318
00:20:29,769 --> 00:20:33,071
things we don't know
that we don't know,

319
00:20:33,072 --> 00:20:35,574
things which are so
foreign and so unimaginable
320
00:20:35,574 --> 00:20:39,276
that we even don't know
that we don't know.
321
00:20:39,278 --> 00:20:41,780
For example, maybe
Saddam had
322
00:20:41,781 --> 00:20:46,783
some unimaginable,
totally unexpected weapon.
323
00:20:46,786 --> 00:20:50,288
And here unfortunately
Rumsfeld stopped.
324
00:20:50,289 --> 00:20:52,991
because I think
he should have go on.
325
00:20:52,992 --> 00:20:55,594
making the next step
to the fourth category,
326
00:20:55,595 --> 00:20:57,295
fourth variation, which is missing,
327
00:20:57,296 --> 00:21:03,298
which is: not the 'known unknowns',
but the 'unknown knowns'.
328
00:21:03,803 --> 00:21:07,805
Things we don't know
we know them.
329
00:21:08,307 --> 00:21:11,409
We know them,
they are part of our identity,

330
00:21:11,410 --> 00:21:13,312
they determine our activity,
331
00:21:13,312 --> 00:21:15,314
but we don't know
that we know them!
332
00:21:15,314 --> 00:21:19,816
This is what,
in psychoanalysis, of course,
333
00:21:19,819 --> 00:21:21,319
is called unconscious.
334
00:21:21,320 --> 00:21:25,322
Unconscious fantasies,
unconscious prejudices, etc., etc.
335
00:21:25,324 --> 00:21:28,326
And I think that
this level is crucial.
336
00:21:28,427 --> 00:21:31,329
To refer to previous two
examples from movies:
337
00:21:31,330 --> 00:21:33,332
in The Sound of Music,
338
00:21:33,533 --> 00:21:35,335
what we directly know
339
00:21:35,434 --> 00:21:39,536
is that it's a movie
about antifascist resistance
340
00:21:39,539 --> 00:21:41,841
of modest, honest Austrians.
341
00:21:41,841 --> 00:21:44,343
What we don't know
that we know

342
00:21:44,343 --> 00:21:46,845
is that it's
also the opposite:
343
00:21:46,846 --> 00:21:49,848
that it's the movie
about fascists
344
00:21:49,849 --> 00:21:53,551
resisting the Jewish takeover.
345
00:21:54,754 --> 00:21:58,456
And the tragedy of today's
American politics, I think,
346
00:21:58,558 --> 00:22:03,860
is that precisely they are
not aware of these 'unknown knowns',
347
00:22:03,863 --> 00:22:09,865
which is why there was
a deep truth in one of the statements
348
00:22:09,869 --> 00:22:13,871
of that unfortunate
Iraqi minister of information.
349
00:22:13,873 --> 00:22:17,375
We were all laughing at him
during the last Iraqi war,
350
00:22:17,376 --> 00:22:20,378
because of his ridiculous
statements, denying the obvious,
351
00:22:20,579 --> 00:22:24,381
but at one point, I claim,
what he told was absolutely true.
352
00:22:24,383 --> 00:22:26,685
When, towards the end of the war,
he was asked,

353
00:22:26,886 --> 00:22:30,888
"Is it true that Americans
already control,
354
00:22:31,390 --> 00:22:34,192
"American forces,
part of the Baghdad airport?",
355
00:22:34,193 --> 00:22:38,895
he said: "Not true. Americans
don't control even themselves."
356
00:22:38,898 --> 00:22:40,300
Perfect truth.
Why?
357
00:22:40,399 --> 00:22:44,401
Because they don't know
what they know.
358
00:22:44,403 --> 00:22:47,405
And this - what you don't know
that you know 359
00:22:47,406 --> 00:22:50,008
controls you, but you don't
control it.
360
00:22:50,009 --> 00:22:54,911
OK. So now we come
to the really real,
361
00:22:55,414 --> 00:22:57,416
real core of the real,
362
00:22:57,917 --> 00:23:01,619
much more fundamental
than the symbolic real,
363
00:23:01,620 --> 00:23:03,922
but which, paradoxically,
is at the same time

364
00:23:03,923 --> 00:23:07,925
the most virtual real.
365
00:23:07,927 --> 00:23:09,329
It is what?
366
00:23:09,428 --> 00:23:15,430
Let us think about attractors
in mathematics or in physics.
367
00:23:15,935 --> 00:23:20,537
For example, you have small
pieces of iron
368
00:23:20,639 --> 00:23:24,441
and you throw them
around a magnetic field.
369
00:23:24,944 --> 00:23:30,246
They are dispersed,
following a certain shape,
370
00:23:30,449 --> 00:23:32,451
infinitely approaching
this shape,
371
00:23:32,551 --> 00:23:39,053
but this shape, of course,
is not existing itself.
372
00:23:39,158 --> 00:23:41,460
It's just something
that you can abstract,
373
00:23:41,761 --> 00:23:46,963
isolate from the dispersion
of the small pieces of iron.
374
00:23:47,967 --> 00:23:52,969
That's the idea
of 'virtual real'.

375
00:23:53,472 --> 00:23:56,774
It's a shape - this is the real
of this field,
376
00:23:56,976 --> 00:23:58,978
but it doesn't exist
in itself.
377
00:23:59,979 --> 00:24:02,981
It's just an abstract form,
378
00:24:03,182 --> 00:24:08,984
which structures the disposition of
actually existing elements around it.
379
00:24:09,989 --> 00:24:12,991
Now, what has this to do
with psychoanalytic problematic,
380
00:24:13,092 --> 00:24:15,694
or, even more, with
political problematic?
381
00:24:15,694 --> 00:24:17,496
My idea is: a lot.
382
00:24:17,997 --> 00:24:24,999
Let's think about the precise status
of trauma in psychoanalysis.
383
00:24:25,004 --> 00:24:29,006
It is similar to this
non-existing attractor.
384
00:24:29,508 --> 00:24:32,510
That is to say, more closely:
385
00:24:33,012 --> 00:24:37,414
Freud shifted his position,
as we all know, with regard to trauma,
386
00:24:37,516 --> 00:24:43,518

he shifted his position in a way

which is, strangely enough,
387
00:24:43,522 --> 00:24:50,024
parallel to the shift in Einstein's
theory of relativity,
388
00:24:50,029 --> 00:24:56,031
the shift from special to general
theory of relativity.
389
00:24:56,135 --> 00:25:03,037
This shift in theory of relativity
concerns the reference
390
00:25:03,042 --> 00:25:06,044
to the curved space,
curvature of space.
391
00:25:06,545 --> 00:25:08,547
As most of us, I hope, know,
392
00:25:08,547 --> 00:25:11,949
for Einstein, first,
in a first approach,
393
00:25:12,050 --> 00:25:16,552
it was the presence of the
density of matter, of stuff,
394
00:25:16,555 --> 00:25:18,557
which curved the space.
395
00:25:19,057 --> 00:25:25,059
Space was originally perceived
as empty space,
396
00:25:25,063 --> 00:25:28,865
abstractly was symmetrical,
non-curved,
397
00:25:28,867 --> 00:25:32,369
then the presence of stuff

curves it.
398
00:25:32,471 --> 00:25:37,573
But then, in a second step, Einstein
accomplished a wonderful reversal.
399
00:25:37,576 --> 00:25:41,378
He just termed the terms around.
400
00:25:41,480 --> 00:25:46,582
It was not the presence of matter,
of stuff, which curves the space,
401
00:25:46,585 --> 00:25:53,087
it was, on the contrary, the curvature
of the space which was primordial.
402
00:25:53,091 --> 00:25:55,393
And what we perceive as matter
403
00:25:55,394 --> 00:25:59,096
is just kind of a reified,
fetishist misperception
404
00:25:59,097 --> 00:26:04,099
of a purely formal
curvature of the space.
405
00:26:04,102 --> 00:26:08,604
And I claim it's exactly like this
in the psychoanalytic notion of trauma.
406
00:26:08,807 --> 00:26:12,109
In a first approach Freud
imagined trauma
407
00:26:12,110 --> 00:26:16,112
as some kind of dense,
raw presence,
408
00:26:16,615 --> 00:26:22,117
presence of some real which brutally
intrudes into our symbolic space

409
00:26:22,120 --> 00:26:24,422
and curves it.
Quite literally.
410
00:26:24,523 --> 00:26:28,625
Let's imagine that I have my
well-balanced symbolic space,
411
00:26:28,627 --> 00:26:30,429
then something traumatic
happens to me:
412
00:26:30,529 --> 00:26:33,631
I'm raped, I witness
a terrifying event,
413
00:26:33,832 --> 00:26:36,634
I'm tortured,
whatever.
414
00:26:36,635 --> 00:26:39,637
And because of the traumatic
impact of this event
415
00:26:39,638 --> 00:26:41,840
my symbolic space
gets curved.
416
00:26:41,840 --> 00:26:44,642
Some things can no longer
be symbolized,
417
00:26:44,643 --> 00:26:48,245
the function of those symbol
has to be taken over with other symbols.
418
00:26:48,346 --> 00:26:49,948
There is a kind of imbalance.
419
00:26:49,948 --> 00:26:52,650
There is a gap in my
symbolic space.

420
00:26:52,651 --> 00:26:54,653
This would be the first approach.
421
00:26:54,653 --> 00:26:58,555
But then Freud noticed
some strange things.
422
00:26:58,557 --> 00:26:59,858
What things?
423
00:26:59,858 --> 00:27:05,160
Let's recall his best known
analysis of Wolfman.
424
00:27:06,064 --> 00:27:10,869
The traumatic scene there, of course,
is the small child, Wolfman,
425
00:27:10,869 --> 00:27:13,571
witnessing the parental
coitus a terbo.
426
00:27:13,672 --> 00:27:18,674
But let's look at it
in a much more precise way.
427
00:27:19,477 --> 00:27:20,779
What effectively happens there?
428
00:27:20,879 --> 00:27:23,181
It's not that this was simply
a trauma.
429
00:27:23,682 --> 00:27:26,684
As a small, 1-year and the half
old child,
430
00:27:26,685 --> 00:27:30,087
Wolfman did not find
anything traumatic in this scene.
431

00:27:30,288 --> 00:27:32,190

He just perceived it
and stored it.
432
00:27:32,190 --> 00:27:35,592
It was 3-4 years later,
433
00:27:35,694 --> 00:27:40,196
when Wolfman started
to develop his theories,
434
00:27:40,298 --> 00:27:42,200
infantile theories of sexuality,
435
00:27:42,200 --> 00:27:45,602
and because he was not able
to account for sexuality,
436
00:27:45,704 --> 00:27:47,106
in other words,
437
00:27:47,205 --> 00:27:52,207
because the symbolic space
of his sexual theories was curved,
438
00:27:52,210 --> 00:27:58,612
it is only at this point that
he resuscitated the traumatic scene.
439
00:27:58,717 --> 00:28:01,719
So... I think, in clear parallel to Einstein,
440
00:28:01,920 --> 00:28:04,622
we can see how here
it's the other way around.
441
00:28:04,723 --> 00:28:09,725
The primordial fact is not
some brutal intrusion of the real,
442
00:28:09,728 --> 00:28:10,729
of a traumatic real.

443
00:28:10,729 --> 00:28:13,731
The primordial fact,
and also the primordial real,
444
00:28:13,732 --> 00:28:16,634
is a purely formal imbalance.
445
00:28:16,735 --> 00:28:19,737
The symbolic space is curved,
446
00:28:19,738 --> 00:28:25,240
it's cut across by antagonism,
imbalanced, etc.
447
00:28:25,243 --> 00:28:33,645
and to account for this
you need reference to some real.
448
00:28:33,752 --> 00:28:36,254
Which is, of course,
the real.
449
00:28:36,254 --> 00:28:38,256
The real in the sense of
the traumatic appearance.
450
00:28:38,757 --> 00:28:41,259
It's a lure here.
A trap.
451
00:28:42,761 --> 00:28:49,763
So what does this notion
of the virtual real,
452
00:28:49,768 --> 00:28:52,170
as trauma, trauma as virtual,
453
00:28:52,270 --> 00:28:55,272
what does this notion
mean for politics?
454
00:28:55,273 --> 00:28:59,275

Can this serve us - we want to

analyze political, ideological phenomena?
455
00:28:59,778 --> 00:29:01,270
Of course.
456
00:29:01,279 --> 00:29:05,281
Let's just recall how
antisemitism functions.
457
00:29:05,283 --> 00:29:09,285
In it's fascist version,
antisemitism,
458
00:29:09,287 --> 00:29:12,189
or rather the figure of the Jew,
the Jewish plot,
459
00:29:12,190 --> 00:29:17,792
is precisely an external trauma
which brutally intrudes,
460
00:29:17,796 --> 00:29:19,798
disturbing social balance.
461
00:29:19,998 --> 00:29:22,800
Curving, as it were,
the social space.
462
00:29:22,801 --> 00:29:26,803
Society was supposed to be
harmonious, balanced,
463
00:29:26,805 --> 00:29:28,807
then Jews intervened,
distort it.
464
00:29:28,807 --> 00:29:31,509
It's, as it were, natural order.
465
00:29:31,609 --> 00:29:33,311
But of course, here at least,

466
00:29:33,511 --> 00:29:36,313
we should be Marxists,
and turn things around.
467
00:29:36,314 --> 00:29:39,816
It's not that there is disorder,
antagonism,
468
00:29:39,818 --> 00:29:42,820
disintegration, class struggle,
because of the Jews.
469
00:29:43,321 --> 00:29:48,623
Class struggle, or more generally,
social antagonism, comes first.
470
00:29:48,827 --> 00:29:54,829
That is to say: social space
is in itself already curved, imbalanced.
471
00:29:54,833 --> 00:29:58,835
And in order to imaginarily,
in an imaginary way,
472
00:29:58,837 --> 00:30:01,839
account for it,
we invent the figure of the Jew.
473
00:30:02,340 --> 00:30:08,942
That is to say, we project
the cause of it into the figure of the Jew.
474
00:30:09,547 --> 00:30:12,049
Even at the more fundamental level,
475
00:30:12,050 --> 00:30:15,352
of today's economic constellation,
476
00:30:15,353 --> 00:30:25,355
I think that this notion of the
real as virtual can help us to
477

00:30:25,363 --> 00:30:30,365

critically reject, a category
which is more and more popular
478
00:30:30,368 --> 00:30:33,870
with politically correct,
post-colonial authors,
479
00:30:33,872 --> 00:30:38,874
the notion of so-called
alternate or alternative modernity.
480
00:30:39,177 --> 00:30:42,379
The idea is, to put it simply,
the following one.
481
00:30:42,380 --> 00:30:48,582
Of course there are inconsistencies,
antagonisms, repressive potentials
482
00:30:48,586 --> 00:30:50,488
in the notion of modernity,
483
00:30:50,588 --> 00:30:54,390
which ultimately means, of course,
capitalism as the force of modernity,
484
00:30:54,392 --> 00:30:56,394
but, so the story goes,
485
00:30:56,895 --> 00:31:00,397
this antagonistic, represive
elements
486
00:31:00,398 --> 00:31:04,400
are not part of the very concept
of modernity,
487
00:31:04,502 --> 00:31:08,404
but are only limited to
the Anglo-Saxon,
488
00:31:08,406 --> 00:31:11,808

West European model

of modernization.
489
00:31:11,910 --> 00:31:16,912
Why then should not there not be
other alternate modernities,
490
00:31:16,915 --> 00:31:19,317
where you can have modernization,
491
00:31:19,417 --> 00:31:22,919
but without this alienating
effects
492
00:31:22,921 --> 00:31:26,823
which characterize Western European
process of modernization.
493
00:31:26,825 --> 00:31:29,427
Without socially disruptive processes,
494
00:31:29,527 --> 00:31:31,429
without alienation,
without exploitation,
495
00:31:31,429 --> 00:31:34,431
without ecological catastrophes,
etc., etc.
496
00:31:34,432 --> 00:31:37,134
And then, of course,
it's free for grab.
497
00:31:37,135 --> 00:31:40,937
Anybody can have his
own modernity.
498
00:31:40,939 --> 00:31:44,441
You can say we can have
Latin American modernity,
499
00:31:44,442 --> 00:31:45,944
as alternate modernity,

500
00:31:45,944 --> 00:31:50,746
we can have African modernity,
we can have Asian modernity, whatever.
501
00:31:50,949 --> 00:31:53,651
So what is the problem
with this approach,
502
00:31:53,651 --> 00:31:59,453
which is basically an approach
of historicist nominalism?
503
00:31:59,457 --> 00:32:04,959
Because the underlined logic is
that in famous...
504
00:32:04,963 --> 00:32:07,465
pseudo the constructionist logics of
505
00:32:07,465 --> 00:32:10,067
"There is no modernity as such."
506
00:32:10,168 --> 00:32:12,770
"There are only particular modernities."
507
00:32:12,970 --> 00:32:17,472
"Like West European, Latin American,
African, etc."
508
00:32:17,976 --> 00:32:21,478
Of course this is true.
The problem is elsewhere.
509
00:32:21,479 --> 00:32:25,481
The problem is that through this
nominalist reduction,
510
00:32:25,884 --> 00:32:29,486
again, by claiming that only particular
modernities effectively exist,
511

00:32:29,487 --> 00:32:37,489

the sight of antagonism is reduced
to only one particular modernity.
512
00:32:37,495 --> 00:32:46,497
It is no longer modernity as such
which is characterized by antagonism, imbalance.
513
00:32:46,504 --> 00:32:52,506
Imbalance is dismissed as just
pertaining with certain species of,
514
00:32:52,510 --> 00:32:55,012
particular species of modernity.
515
00:32:55,013 --> 00:32:58,015
And what is problematic with this? Well...
516
00:32:58,016 --> 00:33:00,018
To put it very simply:
517
00:33:00,018 --> 00:33:04,020
did we not have already in the
early 20th century,
518
00:33:04,022 --> 00:33:06,024
in the first part of the 20th century,
519
00:33:06,524 --> 00:33:10,526
one big, well-known project
of alternate modernity?
520
00:33:10,528 --> 00:33:12,330
It was called fascism.
521
00:33:12,330 --> 00:33:15,532
Fascism was precisely the first
big attempt
522
00:33:15,533 --> 00:33:17,535
to build an alternate modernity.
523

00:33:17,836 --> 00:33:21,038

That is to say, to have the process
of modernization,
524
00:33:21,039 --> 00:33:23,041
industrial development etc.
525
00:33:23,041 --> 00:33:29,043
but without paying the price
of alienation, social disintegration, etc.
526
00:33:29,047 --> 00:33:32,049
What should we then oppose to this model?
527
00:33:32,450 --> 00:33:36,052
We should oppose to it
the idea that
528
00:33:36,054 --> 00:33:40,556
some antagonism,
we can call it by different names,
529
00:33:40,558 --> 00:33:44,260
traditional Marxist would have called it
"class struggle",
530
00:33:44,262 --> 00:33:49,064
Frankfurt school would have call it
"dialectic of enlightenment",
531
00:33:49,167 --> 00:33:51,569
but the idea being that
532
00:33:51,569 --> 00:33:55,071
there is some antagonistic potential
533
00:33:55,073 --> 00:33:58,575
in the very project of capitalist modernity.
534
00:33:58,576 --> 00:34:02,978
That is to say that all these phenomena
that we deploy,

535
00:34:03,081 --> 00:34:08,483
wars, violences, concentration camps,
new fundamentalism, you name it,
536
00:34:08,486 --> 00:34:11,588
that all this is not simply regression,
537
00:34:11,589 --> 00:34:14,091
or as Habermas would have put it,
538
00:34:14,092 --> 00:34:17,594
a sign of modernity as an unfinished project,
539
00:34:17,595 --> 00:34:22,597
but is part of the very
project of modernity.
540
00:34:22,600 --> 00:34:25,602
This is what gets lost.
541
00:34:25,603 --> 00:34:27,105
Which is why I think that
542
00:34:27,105 --> 00:34:31,107
although it wants to be historicist,
critical,
543
00:34:31,109 --> 00:34:38,311
this idea of reducing the antagonistic
aspects of modernity,
544
00:34:38,314 --> 00:34:42,116
to just one particular form of modernity,
is deeply ideological.
545
00:34:42,120 --> 00:34:47,122
Because it saves unblemished
the general notion of modernization.
546
00:34:47,625 --> 00:34:50,627
What we should insist on
is on the contrary,

547
00:34:50,628 --> 00:34:54,630
as I've just said, that
there is an antagonism
548
00:34:54,632 --> 00:34:59,134
inherent to the very
universal notion of modernity,
549
00:34:59,137 --> 00:35:01,139
and, now I'm coming to my point,
550
00:35:01,139 --> 00:35:05,141
so that the particular species
of modernity
551
00:35:05,143 --> 00:35:09,045
are not just examples
or exemplifications
552
00:35:09,047 --> 00:35:13,149
of their universal genus,
of their universal notion,
553
00:35:13,151 --> 00:35:16,153
but they are, in a way,
reactions to it,
554
00:35:16,154 --> 00:35:17,155
they fight it.
555
00:35:17,155 --> 00:35:21,157
Modernity, as a universal notion,
556
00:35:21,159 --> 00:35:24,361
names a certain dead-lock,
a certain antagonism,
557
00:35:24,362 --> 00:35:29,164
and particular,
really existing forms of modernity,
558

00:35:29,167 --> 00:35:34,169

are attempts to resolve this deadlock,
to solve the problem.
559
00:35:34,172 --> 00:35:37,674
Liberal capitalism,
as one form of modernity,
560
00:35:37,675 --> 00:35:40,477
wants to solve the deadlock
of modernity in a certain way,
561
00:35:40,477 --> 00:35:42,179
through market freedoms etc.,
562
00:35:42,179 --> 00:35:44,681
fascist modernization
in a different way,
563
00:35:44,682 --> 00:35:47,184
Latin American modernization
in a different way.
564
00:35:47,184 --> 00:35:49,286
So what's properly
dialectical here?
565
00:35:49,286 --> 00:35:55,188
It's, again, this very reversal
of the usual constellation.
566
00:35:55,192 --> 00:35:59,194
It's not that struggle
is at the level of the particular content,
567
00:35:59,196 --> 00:36:03,698
while universally it's just some kind
of neutral empty container,
568
00:36:03,701 --> 00:36:09,203
so that universal means
some encompassing global notion,
569

00:36:09,206 --> 00:36:12,708

and then, within this notion,
particular forms struggle,
570
00:36:12,710 --> 00:36:17,112
like fascist modernization
against liberal modernization etc. etc.
571
00:36:17,114 --> 00:36:21,716
No! The sight of the struggle
is universal antagonism itself.
572
00:36:21,719 --> 00:36:25,721
And all particular actually
existing modernisms
573
00:36:25,723 --> 00:36:30,725
are attempts to cover up,
resolve this problem.
574
00:36:30,728 --> 00:36:33,730
So, again, we should
remember this that
575
00:36:33,731 --> 00:36:39,733
the sight of antagonism
is universality.
576
00:36:39,737 --> 00:36:43,239
What has this to do with
'virtual as real'?
577
00:36:43,240 --> 00:36:49,242
Ah, precisely this sight of universality
as the sight of antagonism is virtual.
578
00:36:49,747 --> 00:36:50,747
In what sense?
579
00:36:50,748 --> 00:36:55,250
In the sense that
there is no universal modernization.
580

00:36:55,252 --> 00:36:59,254

It's just a certain virtual
constellation of a certain antagonism.
581
00:36:59,757 --> 00:37:02,759
All that exists...
Nominalists are here right.
582
00:37:03,260 --> 00:37:09,862
All that effectively exists
are just particular forms of modernization.
583
00:37:10,067 --> 00:37:12,269
There is no modernity
as such.
584
00:37:12,570 --> 00:37:18,772
There only is Anglo-Saxon,
Latin-American, African etc., fascist modernity.
585
00:37:18,776 --> 00:37:23,778
But in order to grasp
the very dynamic of this particular forms,
586
00:37:23,781 --> 00:37:29,783
one has to refer them to this...
their absent cause,
587
00:37:29,987 --> 00:37:33,789
to the big antagonism,
to which they react.
588
00:37:33,791 --> 00:37:37,293
So, again, this would have been
another example of
589
00:37:37,294 --> 00:37:42,296
how the notion of virtual as real
is operative,
590
00:37:42,499 --> 00:37:48,301
of how it is a necessary notion
if we are to grasp the concrete social dynamic,

591
00:37:48,806 --> 00:37:51,808
especially of today's global capitalism.
592
00:37:56,814 --> 00:38:01,616
So the conclusion to be drawn
from all this is that
593
00:38:01,819 --> 00:38:08,221
the category of the real
is ultimately a purely formal category.
594
00:38:08,325 --> 00:38:15,827
It's not a category of some
formless content disturbing order,
595
00:38:15,833 --> 00:38:18,335
it's a pure structural gap.
596
00:38:18,335 --> 00:38:22,337
It's an entirely
non-substantial category.
597
00:38:22,840 --> 00:38:24,340
It's...
598
00:38:24,341 --> 00:38:26,343
If we may put it
in these terms,
599
00:38:26,343 --> 00:38:29,345
it's a difference,
but a pure difference.
600
00:38:29,346 --> 00:38:31,348
A pure difference
in the sense that
601
00:38:31,548 --> 00:38:36,050
it's a difference
which is paradoxically prior
602
00:38:36,053 --> 00:38:39,355

to what it is the difference

between.
603
00:38:39,356 --> 00:38:41,758
So it's not simply
that we have two terms
604
00:38:41,759 --> 00:38:44,061
and there is a difference
between the two terms.
605
00:38:44,061 --> 00:38:49,363
Paradoxically, the two positive terms
appear afterwards
606
00:38:49,366 --> 00:38:56,368
as attempts to dominate,
cover up the tension etc. of this difference.
607
00:38:56,373 --> 00:38:58,175
Again, how can this be?
608
00:38:58,175 --> 00:39:02,377
Another simple example,
just to illustrate this logic:
609
00:39:02,379 --> 00:39:04,381
the political distinction...
610
00:39:04,681 --> 00:39:06,383
I know, it's half forgotten today,
611
00:39:06,383 --> 00:39:08,785
nobody wants to hear about it,
but nonetheless,
612
00:39:08,886 --> 00:39:12,188
the distinction between
Left and Right.
613
00:39:12,189 --> 00:39:15,191
The first thing that strikes the eye
about this distinction,

614
00:39:15,192 --> 00:39:17,194
if we take it seriously,
is that
615
00:39:17,194 --> 00:39:23,196
it's not just a distinction
within a certain social cowl.
616
00:39:23,300 --> 00:39:25,802
It's not that,
in a certain society,
617
00:39:25,803 --> 00:39:29,705
if we take into account
all political forces, we can say:
618
00:39:29,707 --> 00:39:33,709
"These are right-wing forces,
these are left-wing forces,
619
00:39:33,711 --> 00:39:36,113
"and then all the
intermediate phenomena,
620
00:39:36,113 --> 00:39:39,415
"in between, center, center-left,
center-right, whatever you want."
621
00:39:39,616 --> 00:39:43,818
It's different.
It is that...
622
00:39:43,921 --> 00:39:51,423
if you ask a right-winger,
how is the entire social field structured,
623
00:39:51,428 --> 00:39:55,830
you will get a totally different answer
than if you ask a left-winger,
624
00:39:55,832 --> 00:39:59,134
or, for that matter,

if you ask a centrist.

625
00:39:59,136 --> 00:40:02,438
To simplify it:
a right-winger will tell you
626
00:40:02,439 --> 00:40:06,441
that society is an organic,
harmonious unity,
627
00:40:06,543 --> 00:40:09,145
at least the traditional
right-winger,
628
00:40:09,146 --> 00:40:13,448
and that left radicals
are external intruders.
629
00:40:13,450 --> 00:40:17,952
What is anathema for
radical conservative is
630
00:40:17,955 --> 00:40:21,457
the idea that there is an antagonism,
an imbalance
631
00:40:21,458 --> 00:40:24,760
inscribed into the very heart
of the social edifice.
632
00:40:24,762 --> 00:40:27,464
For a left-winger,
633
00:40:27,464 --> 00:40:30,466
the struggle is
admitted as central.
634
00:40:30,467 --> 00:40:34,269
So, again, the point is
that there is no neutral way
635
00:40:34,271 --> 00:40:37,473
to define the difference

between Left and Right.

636
00:40:37,975 --> 00:40:39,977
In itself it's a void.
637
00:40:39,977 --> 00:40:43,379
It's just that you
can approach it
638
00:40:43,380 --> 00:40:46,482
either from the leftist
or from the rightist point of view.
639
00:40:46,984 --> 00:40:51,486
And incidentally, for Lacan,
it's exactly in the same way
640
00:40:51,488 --> 00:40:54,890
that also sexual difference
functions.
641
00:40:54,992 --> 00:40:58,994
Sexual difference is not a difference
between the two species
642
00:40:58,996 --> 00:41:03,998
of humanity in general,
but it's the...
643
00:41:04,001 --> 00:41:07,003
From the male perspective
sexual difference itself
644
00:41:07,004 --> 00:41:12,006
appears in a different way
that from the feminine perspective.
645
00:41:12,009 --> 00:41:17,011
So, again, difference
paradoxically comes first.
646
00:41:18,015 --> 00:41:24,017
Crucial, philosophically,

is this, let's call it pure formalism.

647
00:41:24,521 --> 00:41:27,323
And against the reproach
that we are dealing here
648
00:41:27,324 --> 00:41:29,526
with some kind
of idealism.
649
00:41:29,526 --> 00:41:33,028
Isn't matter in it's
positive, inert presence, primordial?
650
00:41:33,030 --> 00:41:35,732
I think that we should
reject this reproach
651
00:41:35,832 --> 00:41:40,634
and precisely insist on
this notion of...
652
00:41:40,637 --> 00:41:44,239
how should I call it?...
purely formal materialism.
653
00:41:44,241 --> 00:41:47,043
Materialism as materialism
of the difference.
654
00:41:47,044 --> 00:41:50,546
The minimal feature of
materialism being
655
00:41:50,547 --> 00:41:53,049
that there is
a pure difference.
656
00:41:53,050 --> 00:41:58,552
That there is a crack,
an antagonism in within the order of the One.
657
00:41:58,555 --> 00:42:04,557

That the primordial fact

is pure, self difference.
658
00:42:04,761 --> 00:42:06,163
I'm very precise here.
659
00:42:06,163 --> 00:42:12,465
Self difference, and not any kind
of this mythological polar opposites,
660
00:42:12,469 --> 00:42:17,471
feminine-masculine,
light-darkness, yin-yang, etc.
661
00:42:17,474 --> 00:42:19,976
I think that here radical
materialism should be
662
00:42:19,977 --> 00:42:28,079
even critical towards
Deleuze, Gilles Deleuze, who
663
00:42:28,183 --> 00:42:31,585
blights to assert some kind
of primordial multitude,
664
00:42:31,588 --> 00:42:35,290
as the ultimate
ontological fact.
665
00:42:35,292 --> 00:42:38,594
From the radical prospect
that I'm advocating,
666
00:42:38,595 --> 00:42:43,397
multitude already is
an effect of the inconsistency
667
00:42:43,400 --> 00:42:45,602
of The One with itself,
668
00:42:45,602 --> 00:42:50,604
of the fact that

The One cannot coincide with itself.

669
00:42:50,807 --> 00:42:54,109
Or, to put it in a slightly
different way,
670
00:42:54,111 --> 00:42:57,813
we do not have some primordial
polarity,
671
00:42:57,814 --> 00:43:02,116
like masculine-feminine,
light-darkness,
672
00:43:02,119 --> 00:43:05,821
and then we can play
all these New Age, agnostic games
673
00:43:05,822 --> 00:43:10,624
of how win our era,
we put too much accent on one pole,
674
00:43:10,627 --> 00:43:12,329
and we have to reestablish
the balance,
675
00:43:12,327 --> 00:43:14,129
like we are too rational, masculine,
676
00:43:14,131 --> 00:43:18,433
let's put more accent on the
feminine, emotional side, whatever...
677
00:43:18,435 --> 00:43:20,437
No, it's more radical!
678
00:43:20,435 --> 00:43:24,137
It's as if, as Lacan puts it,
679
00:43:24,141 --> 00:43:28,643
the binary signifier
is primordially repressed,

680
00:43:28,645 --> 00:43:32,647
which means, the second element
is always missing,
681
00:43:32,649 --> 00:43:37,151
and this lack of the
counterpoint 682
00:43:37,154 --> 00:43:40,656
we have one, but we don't have
the accompanying other 683
00:43:40,657 --> 00:43:45,659
and this original imbalance then
sets in motion
684
00:43:45,662 --> 00:43:47,664
the generation of
multiplicity.
685
00:43:49,166 --> 00:43:52,168
Again, an extremely simple example
686
00:43:52,169 --> 00:43:55,671
from one of the early movies
by Woody Allen,
687
00:43:55,672 --> 00:43:59,374
I think it's Love and War,
a kind of a parody on Tolstoy,
688
00:43:59,376 --> 00:44:06,678
where, again, the whole movie topic
focuses on topic of Tolstoy.
689
00:44:06,683 --> 00:44:11,185
So, of course, our first enigma
is here: "Where is Dostoyevsky?",
690
00:44:11,188 --> 00:44:15,190
The Other, natural
supplement to Tolstoy.

691
00:44:15,692 --> 00:44:18,194
There is no Dostoyevsky,
so what happens in the movie,
692
00:44:18,195 --> 00:44:21,697
as a kind a return of the repressed,
is that
693
00:44:21,698 --> 00:44:25,200
in one wonderful short scene,
694
00:44:25,202 --> 00:44:29,204
when two main characters
talk with each other,
695
00:44:29,206 --> 00:44:34,208
all the big titles of Dostoyevsky's
novels emerge.
696
00:44:34,211 --> 00:44:37,213
Like, "do you know what happened with that Idiot?"
697
00:44:37,214 --> 00:44:39,716
"Ah, you mean the one of
the Karamazov brothers?"
698
00:44:39,716 --> 00:44:41,718
"Yes." -"He did his crime,
it was punished."
699
00:44:41,718 --> 00:44:48,720
"Then he went underground,
turned into a gambler", etc. etc.
700
00:44:48,825 --> 00:44:51,227
The lesson of this is
ontological lesson:
701
00:44:51,228 --> 00:44:57,430
is: one cannot coincide
with itself, pure difference,
702

00:44:57,434 --> 00:45:00,736

because of this pure difference
as a secondary effect
703
00:45:00,737 --> 00:45:05,239
the multitude explodes.
704
00:45:05,242 --> 00:45:07,244
So, again...
705
00:45:07,244 --> 00:45:10,246
Against the usual reproach
is this not idealism.
706
00:45:10,247 --> 00:45:16,549
I would say that today it is rather
idealism which is materialist.
707
00:45:16,553 --> 00:45:18,955
Today's opposition,
I'm tempted to claim,
708
00:45:18,955 --> 00:45:22,257
between materialism and idealism
is that
709
00:45:22,259 --> 00:45:25,261
today's idealism,
or rather spiritualism,
710
00:45:25,262 --> 00:45:30,964
clings to this famous density,
inertia of experience,
711
00:45:30,967 --> 00:45:33,969
of matter, of earth...
of the stuff.
712
00:45:33,970 --> 00:45:41,772
No wonder that the greatest,
arguably, spiritual movie director,
713
00:45:41,878 --> 00:45:46,280

the Russian, Tarkovsky,

was at the same time
714
00:45:46,280 --> 00:45:51,282
practically obsessed by
the topic of inertia of matter,
715
00:45:51,288 --> 00:45:53,990
density of matter,
matter in decay.
716
00:45:53,990 --> 00:45:57,392
In his films, when heroes
are praying,
717
00:45:57,394 --> 00:46:00,797
they don't pray looking upwards.
718
00:46:00,797 --> 00:46:05,799
They pray by sometimes literally
immersing their heads into mud,
719
00:46:05,802 --> 00:46:08,304
with close contact with earth.
720
00:46:08,304 --> 00:46:09,806
So I think, the thing to do today
721
00:46:09,806 --> 00:46:16,308
is to oppose to this kind of
spiritual materialism,
722
00:46:16,312 --> 00:46:21,814
the pure formalism
of true radical materialism,
723
00:46:21,818 --> 00:46:23,310
which is...
724
00:46:23,319 --> 00:46:27,821
Why, for me, quantum physics is
ultimately a deeply materialist theory,

725
00:46:27,824 --> 00:46:31,726
where you don't need any
positivity of matter.
726
00:46:31,728 --> 00:46:36,330
You can do everything with
purely formal oscillations etc.
727
00:46:36,332 --> 00:46:39,834
So, again, back to this
central insight
728
00:46:39,836 --> 00:46:43,838
that difference comes first.
Difference... How to think
729
00:46:43,840 --> 00:46:51,342
a difference, which is prior
to the elements it is the difference of?
730
00:46:51,347 --> 00:46:57,849
Immanuel Kant,
already in his early writings,
731
00:46:57,854 --> 00:47:00,960
introduces here
a crucial distinction.
732
00:47:01,054 --> 00:47:03,860
A very strange,
but clear distinction.
733
00:47:03,860 --> 00:47:09,162
A distinction between a negative judgment
and indefinite judgment.
734
00:47:09,165 --> 00:47:11,367
That is to say,
as Kant puts it,
735
00:47:11,367 --> 00:47:24,369
it is not the same thing to say:
"You aren't human"

736
00:47:24,380 --> 00:47:28,382
and to say
"You are inhuman".
737
00:47:28,384 --> 00:47:32,386
If I say "You aren't human",
738
00:47:32,388 --> 00:47:34,890
it simply means you are
external to humanity,
739
00:47:34,891 --> 00:47:38,093
you are animal, divine, whatever.
It's outside.
740
00:47:38,094 --> 00:47:41,896
But if I say,
as Kant puts it,
741
00:47:41,898 --> 00:47:45,400
if I do not simply negate a predicate,
742
00:47:45,401 --> 00:47:48,403
but if I affirm a non-predicate...
743
00:47:48,404 --> 00:47:51,706
So again, if I don't say simply
"You aren't human",
744
00:47:51,707 --> 00:47:54,109
but if I say
"You are inhuman",
745
00:47:54,110 --> 00:47:58,412
it means non-humanity,
an excess over humanity,
746
00:47:58,414 --> 00:48:03,416
but an excess which is
inherent to humanity itself.
747

00:48:03,419 --> 00:48:06,421

To give you another example,
which will make it clear,
748
00:48:06,422 --> 00:48:09,424
there's this thing about
Steven King's horror novels,
749
00:48:09,425 --> 00:48:12,227
the well known category
of the undead.
750
00:48:12,228 --> 00:48:13,420
We can feel the difference.
751
00:48:13,429 --> 00:48:17,331
If I say,
"You aren't dead".
752
00:48:17,333 --> 00:48:21,935
It's not the same as saying
"You are undead".
753
00:48:21,938 --> 00:48:24,940
If I say you aren't dead,
it simply means you are alive,
754
00:48:24,941 --> 00:48:26,740
and nothing more,
nothing mysterious.
755
00:48:26,742 --> 00:48:29,444
But, as every reader
of horror novels knows,
756
00:48:29,445 --> 00:48:32,447
if I say,
"You are undead",
757
00:48:32,448 --> 00:48:34,650
it means
you are the living dead,
758

00:48:34,650 --> 00:48:38,152

you are alive
precisely as dead.
759
00:48:38,354 --> 00:48:40,456
Immanuel Kant's point
is that
760
00:48:40,456 --> 00:48:44,958
human freedom has
exactly such a status.
761
00:48:44,961 --> 00:48:48,463
It's something which is neither nature 762
00:48:48,464 --> 00:48:52,466
animals are not free,
they are enslaved to their instincts 763
00:48:52,468 --> 00:48:57,470
nor culture - culture is already:
symbolic law, symbolic regulation.
764
00:48:57,473 --> 00:49:00,977
But, the conclusion to be drawn
from Kant,
765
00:49:00,977 --> 00:49:05,979
and consequently from Freud
and Lacan, is that
766
00:49:05,982 --> 00:49:10,484
what cultural symbolic prohibitions
try to regulate 767
00:49:10,486 --> 00:49:14,188
to master, to dominate,
to domesticate, whatever you want 768
00:49:14,190 --> 00:49:17,292
is not directly nature,
natural instincts,
769

00:49:17,293 --> 00:49:22,995

but it's this zero-level
inhuman excess,
770
00:49:22,999 --> 00:49:28,501
to use Lacan's Pan:
the extimate kernel of humanity.
771
00:49:28,704 --> 00:49:31,306
The in-human dimension
772
00:49:31,307 --> 00:49:37,009
in exactly the same sense,
in which we talk about the undead 773
00:49:37,013 --> 00:49:40,015
not in-human as external to humanity,
774
00:49:40,016 --> 00:49:44,018
but a monstrous excess,
or some radical wild freedom,
775
00:49:44,020 --> 00:49:48,322
which is inherent to
humanity itself.
776
00:49:48,324 --> 00:49:50,026
So again we have this paradox,
777
00:49:50,026 --> 00:49:53,028
that the difference between
nature and culture,
778
00:49:53,029 --> 00:49:57,931
is a level of its own.
Is neither nature, nor culture,
779
00:49:57,934 --> 00:50:00,636
it's some kind of crazy excess.
780
00:50:00,636 --> 00:50:04,538
So what would then a politics
of pure difference be?

781
00:50:04,540 --> 00:50:09,542
Well, first, per negationem what it would not be?
782
00:50:09,545 --> 00:50:11,547
It would definitely not be
783
00:50:11,547 --> 00:50:17,049
what emerges today more and more
as the ultimate horizon of the political,
784
00:50:17,053 --> 00:50:22,355
the so-called "identity politics",
or more broadly,
785
00:50:22,358 --> 00:50:25,560
the politics of recognizing
the differences,
786
00:50:25,561 --> 00:50:30,063
of tolerating the differences.
787
00:50:30,066 --> 00:50:34,068
What is for me problematic
788
00:50:34,070 --> 00:50:37,872
in this multicultural,
at least tolerant politics etc.
789
00:50:37,874 --> 00:50:40,776
It's not just the vulgar fact
that they effectively,
790
00:50:40,776 --> 00:50:45,778
even if they deny it,
neglect economic struggle.
791
00:50:45,781 --> 00:50:48,283
It's the very logic of the struggle.
792
00:50:48,284 --> 00:50:50,586

The logic of multicultural struggle,

793
00:50:50,586 --> 00:50:55,988
of anti-racist struggle,
of struggle against sexism,
794
00:50:55,992 --> 00:51:00,596
is again the logic
of recognizing differences.
795
00:51:00,596 --> 00:51:05,298
For example:
in anti-sexist struggle,
796
00:51:05,301 --> 00:51:09,303
the goal, of course, is not,
even for radical feminists 797
00:51:09,305 --> 00:51:11,907
I don't know - to kill,
to annihilate men.
798
00:51:12,008 --> 00:51:15,110
It's to establish an open field
799
00:51:15,111 --> 00:51:19,713
within which both sexes,
all different sexual positions,
800
00:51:19,715 --> 00:51:24,117
sexual identities,
cultural identities inclusive,
801
00:51:24,120 --> 00:51:27,122
will be allowed to thrive freely,
802
00:51:27,123 --> 00:51:32,125
so that one will not articulate itself
at the expense of others.
803
00:51:32,128 --> 00:51:34,330
Again, in the anti-racist
struggle

804
00:51:34,330 --> 00:51:37,132
the ultimate horizon is that of
805
00:51:37,133 --> 00:51:40,135
opening up the space for differences:
806
00:51:40,136 --> 00:51:44,538
each ethnic group, religious group,
cultural group, way of life group,
807
00:51:44,539 --> 00:51:48,341
should have the freedom
to freely deploy,
808
00:51:48,344 --> 00:51:51,646
articulate it's potentials,
it's position.
809
00:51:51,647 --> 00:51:56,249
But this conceptual field,
810
00:51:56,252 --> 00:52:00,154
the field of openness
towards the other,
811
00:52:00,156 --> 00:52:03,658
of tolerating, allowing
for differences,
812
00:52:03,659 --> 00:52:07,961
as the ultimate ethical horizon,
813
00:52:07,964 --> 00:52:12,666
this, I claim, should not,
cannot be, our ultimate horizon.
814
00:52:12,668 --> 00:52:15,670
Because we can immediately see that...
815
00:52:15,671 --> 00:52:20,173
to use the simplified example -

class struggle.
816
00:52:20,176 --> 00:52:23,678
My God, the ultimate goal
of the class struggle is not
817
00:52:23,679 --> 00:52:27,981
for proletarians to allow the bourgeoisie,
818
00:52:27,984 --> 00:52:34,886
and bourgeoisie to allow proletarians
to freely deploy their own potentials etc.
819
00:52:34,890 --> 00:52:36,692
It's an antagonistic struggle.
820
00:52:36,692 --> 00:52:42,094
The goal is not to let
the multitude be.
821
00:52:42,098 --> 00:52:44,700
The goal is to annihilate the enemy.
822
00:52:44,700 --> 00:52:47,202
It's a totally different logic.
823
00:52:47,203 --> 00:52:49,705
It's the logic of animosity,
824
00:52:49,705 --> 00:52:52,207
it's the logic of antagonistic struggle.
825
00:52:52,208 --> 00:52:56,710
Which also involves a totally
different notion of universality.
826
00:52:56,712 --> 00:52:58,714
The notion of universality here
827
00:52:58,714 --> 00:53:04,716
is no longer universality
as the encompassing medium,

828
00:53:04,720 --> 00:53:08,422
container of the plurality
of positions 829
00:53:08,424 --> 00:53:11,226
sexual positions, cultural positions,
whatever.
830
00:53:11,227 --> 00:53:18,329
No! Universality is here
the universality of struggle itself.
831
00:53:18,934 --> 00:53:23,236
There is also a central paradox
to this struggling position.
832
00:53:23,239 --> 00:53:30,641
The position of struggle does not mean
the position of a particular identity
833
00:53:30,646 --> 00:53:34,248
and the abandonment of the
universal notion of truth.
834
00:53:34,250 --> 00:53:37,752
The abandonment of the
universal notion of truth
835
00:53:37,753 --> 00:53:40,255
goes very well with
multi-culturalese politics
836
00:53:40,256 --> 00:53:42,758
where we can say:
"Everybody has the right
837
00:53:42,758 --> 00:53:46,960
"to narrate it's own version of truth.
There is no global truth."
838
00:53:46,962 --> 00:53:51,264
No! Our position should be:

there is universal truth.

839
00:53:51,267 --> 00:53:56,269
There always is one universal
truth of a certain situation.
840
00:53:56,272 --> 00:54:03,474
But this truth is accessible
only from a specific, partial, engaged,
841
00:54:03,479 --> 00:54:07,781
engaged in the struggle,
standpoint.
842
00:54:07,783 --> 00:54:11,285
So it's not that we arrive
at the universal truth
843
00:54:11,287 --> 00:54:14,289
by abstracting from our particular
engagement,
844
00:54:14,290 --> 00:54:17,292
from our particular interests,
the idea being:
845
00:54:17,293 --> 00:54:22,495
each of us has it's own
interests, positions,
846
00:54:22,498 --> 00:54:25,100
but the truth of a situation emerges
847
00:54:25,101 --> 00:54:28,203
when we can step, as it were,
outside ourselves
848
00:54:28,204 --> 00:54:31,306
and look at the situation more
objectively,
849
00:54:31,307 --> 00:54:33,309
the way it really is.

850
00:54:33,309 --> 00:54:34,808
No, on the contrary!
851
00:54:34,810 --> 00:54:36,812
We should fully assume the paradox
852
00:54:36,812 --> 00:54:43,314
of universal truth being accessible
only through a partial, engaged position.
853
00:54:43,319 --> 00:54:47,821
This, I think, is more precious
than ever to maintain today.
854
00:54:47,823 --> 00:54:51,825
And this is the reason why,
at the social level, I think,
855
00:54:51,827 --> 00:54:56,429
we should cling to the notion
of collective
856
00:54:56,432 --> 00:55:02,838
as it was till now practice
in three forms:
857
00:55:02,838 --> 00:55:07,240
messianic religious collectives,
revolutionary parties,
858
00:55:07,243 --> 00:55:09,345
and psycho-analytic communities.
859
00:55:09,345 --> 00:55:11,947
They both share...
sorry, all three of them,
860
00:55:11,947 --> 00:55:16,849
they share precisely this
same notion of universality
861

00:55:16,852 --> 00:55:22,054

accessible only through an engaged,
struggling, subjective position.
862
00:55:24,360 --> 00:55:30,262
This politics of pure difference
is opposed today
863
00:55:30,266 --> 00:55:35,368
by another, I would call it,
politics of the real,
864
00:55:35,371 --> 00:55:37,373
but the real of the super-ego,
865
00:55:37,373 --> 00:55:41,875
in precisely the sense
I already talked about,
866
00:55:41,877 --> 00:55:45,379
that is to say: super-ego injunction,
867
00:55:45,381 --> 00:55:48,883
the obscene virtual super-ego
injunction to enjoy.
868
00:55:48,884 --> 00:55:54,886
So how does this super-ego
injunction function today,
869
00:55:54,890 --> 00:56:03,899
in the hegemonic mode
of social identification?
870
00:56:03,899 --> 00:56:06,401
To put it in extremely simplified terms:
871
00:56:06,402 --> 00:56:14,104
the old functioning of ethics
was that of moderation.
872
00:56:14,109 --> 00:56:17,011
The ultimate task of ethics

was to moderate it,

873
00:56:17,012 --> 00:56:21,614
like - do it, but not excessively.
Eat, drink - not too much.
874
00:56:21,712 --> 00:56:23,914
Sex - not too much.
875
00:56:23,919 --> 00:56:26,421
It was the ethics of the
proper measure.
876
00:56:26,422 --> 00:56:30,924
Today, I claim, a different kind
of ethics is emerging.
877
00:56:30,926 --> 00:56:38,828
An ethics which, on the one hand,
allows you limitless consumption,
878
00:56:38,834 --> 00:56:41,936
no moderation,
go to the end - but why?
879
00:56:41,937 --> 00:56:45,639
Because the object in itself
is already deprived
880
00:56:45,640 --> 00:56:49,942
of its dangerous substance,
as it were.
881
00:56:49,945 --> 00:56:54,447
The whole series of products
that we find today on the market 882
00:56:54,449 --> 00:57:01,957
decaffeinated coffee, beer without alcohol,
sugar without sugar etc. 883
00:57:01,957 --> 00:57:04,959
that is to say the product

where you get the effect

884
00:57:04,960 --> 00:57:10,262
but deprived of its
potentialy dangerous substance.
885
00:57:10,265 --> 00:57:13,467
So that today the injunction
is no longer
886
00:57:13,468 --> 00:57:17,470
"Drink coffee, but moderately",
it is:
887
00:57:17,472 --> 00:57:19,474
"Have as much coffee as you want,
888
00:57:19,474 --> 00:57:23,976
"because coffee is already,
in itself, decaffeinated coffee."
889
00:57:23,979 --> 00:57:28,981
Maybe the best - slightly tasteless,
but what the hell, why not? 890
00:57:28,984 --> 00:57:32,686
metaphor for this product is
something that I saw
891
00:57:32,784 --> 00:57:35,486
2-3 years ago in Los Angeles.
892
00:57:35,490 --> 00:57:38,492
It's the paradox of
a chocolate laxative.
893
00:57:38,593 --> 00:57:42,495
Of course, chocolate being that
which gives you constipation.
894
00:57:42,497 --> 00:57:44,499
With the publicity, I remember it:

895
00:57:45,000 --> 00:57:49,002
"Still constipated? Not a problem,
eat more of our chocolate!"
896
00:57:49,004 --> 00:57:50,504
So that's the paradox,
897
00:57:50,505 --> 00:57:55,207
that the chocolate is already
its own remedy
898
00:57:55,210 --> 00:58:01,516
in a kind of almost Hegelian
direct coincidence of the opposites.
899
00:58:01,516 --> 00:58:03,518
So, why is this interesting?
900
00:58:03,518 --> 00:58:08,020
Precisely because, I claim,
it's not limited only
901
00:58:08,023 --> 00:58:12,525
to phenomena of commodities.
902
00:58:12,527 --> 00:58:17,329
What interests me is how we can
locate the same logic also,
903
00:58:17,332 --> 00:58:23,034
the same paradoxical logic
of an product being its own counter-effect,
904
00:58:23,038 --> 00:58:28,540
already and also within the
social field.
905
00:58:28,543 --> 00:58:33,345
For example, let's take
the big topic of tolerance.
906
00:58:33,348 --> 00:58:34,549

What does it mean?

907
00:58:34,549 --> 00:58:38,051
I claim it has precisely the structure
of chocolate laxative.
908
00:58:38,053 --> 00:58:42,355
That is to say, tolerance is
a mode of appearance
909
00:58:42,357 --> 00:58:45,059
of its own opposite,
of intolerance.
910
00:58:45,060 --> 00:58:47,562
Because, what does it mean,
tolerance, today?
911
00:58:47,562 --> 00:58:50,564
It means tolerate the differences,
which, again,
912
00:58:50,565 --> 00:58:53,067
means "don't harass me".
913
00:58:53,068 --> 00:58:56,770
Tolerance means: "Tolerate me",
means "Don't harass me".
914
00:58:56,771 --> 00:58:58,573
What does it mean,
"Don't harass me"?
915
00:58:58,673 --> 00:59:01,575
It means precisely
"Don't come too close to me".
916
00:59:01,576 --> 00:59:04,778
If you come too close to me
with your excessive enjoyment,
917
00:59:04,779 --> 00:59:07,381
you disturb me,

you harass me.

918
00:59:07,382 --> 00:59:10,084
So we have then
this idea
919
00:59:10,085 --> 00:59:12,687
that practically everything
appear form of harassment.
920
00:59:12,687 --> 00:59:16,089
I look at you, it's potentially
sexual harassment.
921
00:59:16,091 --> 00:59:19,893
I speak too loudly,
it's verbal harassment, whatever.
922
00:59:19,895 --> 00:59:23,597
Everything, every over-proximity
of another human being
923
00:59:23,598 --> 00:59:27,100
can be potentially
a form of harassment.
924
00:59:27,102 --> 00:59:29,904
And I think that this fear
of harassment
925
00:59:29,905 --> 00:59:34,607
is preciselly fundamental
form of intolerance, today.
926
00:59:34,609 --> 00:59:39,911
And so, again, I claim that
when we talk about tolerance today,
927
00:59:39,914 --> 00:59:48,016
it means precisely tolerance
as avoiding harassment,
928
00:59:48,023 --> 00:59:50,025

which means intolerance.

929
00:59:50,025 --> 00:59:52,827
It means let's tolerate
each other, again,
930
00:59:52,827 --> 00:59:57,829
which means let's keep
at a proper distance from each other.
931
00:59:57,832 --> 01:00:03,138
Yet another chocolate laxative
phenomenon
932
01:00:03,138 --> 01:00:07,740
isn't it the way we deal
with wealth today?
933
01:00:07,742 --> 01:00:10,144
The exemplary figure today
for me here
934
01:00:10,145 --> 01:00:12,647
is somebody
like George Soros.
935
01:00:12,647 --> 01:00:19,549
Half the day he engages in the
most ruthless financial exploitations,
936
01:00:19,554 --> 01:00:22,756
ruining the lives of hundreds,
of thousands, even millions.
937
01:00:22,757 --> 01:00:26,659
The other half he just gives
part of it back.
938
01:00:26,661 --> 01:00:29,363
So the morning is chocolate,
the afternoon is laxative.
939
01:00:29,364 --> 01:00:33,166

Like, you know, involving all these

human aid programs, etc.,
940
01:00:33,168 --> 01:00:35,970
political, democratization, etc. etc.
941
01:00:35,971 --> 01:00:42,973
So again, instead of simply not
engage in ruthless speculation,
942
01:00:42,977 --> 01:00:46,081
he does it, but then
includes counter-action.
943
01:00:46,081 --> 01:00:52,683
And even more radically,
is it not exactly the same with war today?
944
01:00:52,687 --> 01:00:55,689
I think that Ulrich Beck,
the German sociologist,
945
01:00:55,790 --> 01:01:02,697
was well justified in inventing
the term "militarist pacifism",
946
01:01:02,697 --> 01:01:06,199
or "humanitarian militarism".
947
01:01:06,201 --> 01:01:08,203
What goes on today where
948
01:01:08,203 --> 01:01:14,105
all the wars are declared as
wars for peace.
949
01:01:14,109 --> 01:01:18,711
It's not only that their ultimate goal
is defined as to bring peace,
950
01:01:18,713 --> 01:01:22,215
into Iraq, to remove the
threat of war, etc. etc.

951
01:01:22,217 --> 01:01:24,219
It's even more radically.
952
01:01:24,219 --> 01:01:28,121
It is that the war operation itself
953
01:01:28,123 --> 01:01:32,525
resembles more and more
a kind of humanitarian intervention
954
01:01:32,527 --> 01:01:35,529
to help the people there.
955
01:01:35,530 --> 01:01:39,332
If you read, for example,
the recent justification of attack on Iraq.
956
01:01:39,334 --> 01:01:42,536
It's not so much that Iraq
was attacked
957
01:01:42,537 --> 01:01:46,239
in order to remove the threat
to the Western nation of Saddam.
958
01:01:46,241 --> 01:01:50,245
It was in order to help
the Iraqi people etc. etc.
959
01:01:50,245 --> 01:01:54,747
No wonder then that...
the ultimate chocolate laxative...
960
01:01:54,749 --> 01:01:59,451
No wonder that...
The concentration camps.
961
01:01:59,453 --> 01:02:02,755
As Giorgio Agamben claims,
962
01:02:02,757 --> 01:02:08,259

the typical, exemplary case

of a 20th century collective,
963
01:02:08,263 --> 01:02:11,065
has precisely these both aspects.
964
01:02:11,065 --> 01:02:12,767
Again, chocolate laxative structure,
965
01:02:12,767 --> 01:02:17,169
the aspect of isolating the enemy Guantanamo or whatever 966
01:02:17,172 --> 01:02:20,774
and the aspect of concentrating people
967
01:02:20,775 --> 01:02:25,777
in order to give them,
to provide them with humanitarian aid.
968
01:02:25,780 --> 01:02:29,282
So, what this means
are two things.
969
01:02:29,284 --> 01:02:36,191
First, I don't think that it is justified
to talk today about consumption 970
01:02:36,191 --> 01:02:38,793
we live in a society of consumption, etc.
971
01:02:38,793 --> 01:02:42,295
On the contrary, I claim.
We consume less than ever,
972
01:02:42,297 --> 01:02:46,799
if consuming means taking the risk,
really opening yourself.
973
01:02:46,801 --> 01:02:50,805
Which is why, incidentally,
we are so afraid of smoking.

974
01:02:50,805 --> 01:02:53,807
I claim it's not simply
medical results etc.
975
01:02:53,808 --> 01:02:55,810
What is so terrifying in smoking
976
01:02:55,810 --> 01:02:58,812
is somebody really consuming
the smoke
977
01:02:58,813 --> 01:03:01,315
with all the dangers
this involves.
978
01:03:01,316 --> 01:03:04,018
I think that the true consumers today are
979
01:03:04,018 --> 01:03:06,920
drug-addicts, chain-smokers, etc.
980
01:03:06,921 --> 01:03:12,323
And they are the figures of horror today,
if anything.
981
01:03:12,326 --> 01:03:16,128
Again, the structure is that of
chocolate laxative,
982
01:03:16,131 --> 01:03:19,333
which is why we are
or looking even at this level
983
01:03:19,334 --> 01:03:23,836
for products which would be already
a kind of decaffeinated coffee.
984
01:03:23,838 --> 01:03:26,840
Which is why I think marijuana
is so popular.
985
01:03:26,941 --> 01:03:29,443

Because it's kind of

decaffeinated opium, de facto.
986
01:03:29,444 --> 01:03:32,846
Opium without opium.
You can have it, but
987
01:03:32,847 --> 01:03:36,349
deprived of its
dangerous substance.
988
01:03:36,351 --> 01:03:44,058
So, to conclude this brief reflection,
I would say that
989
01:03:44,058 --> 01:03:48,363
today the fundamental, as it were,
ethical injunction,
990
01:03:48,363 --> 01:03:51,465
the injunction society bombards
us with,
991
01:03:51,466 --> 01:03:56,868
is no longer the injunction
to control yourself,
992
01:03:56,871 --> 01:04:00,175
to repress your strivings or whatever.
993
01:04:00,175 --> 01:04:05,880
It's on the contrary, the injunction
to enjoy it, to go to the end.
994
01:04:05,880 --> 01:04:08,882
This is what we feel guilty about today.
995
01:04:08,883 --> 01:04:11,885
And this, I think, also
changes fundamentally
996
01:04:11,886 --> 01:04:14,388
the role of psychoanalysis.

997
01:04:14,389 --> 01:04:17,892
It does not make it outdated,
it's more actual than ever,
998
01:04:17,892 --> 01:04:22,397
only its function fundamentally changed.
999
01:04:22,397 --> 01:04:24,699
In the good all days,
or so it appeared,
1000
01:04:24,699 --> 01:04:27,104
now it's clear that it never
was simply like that,
1001
01:04:27,199 --> 01:04:29,404
the idea was the following one.
1002
01:04:29,404 --> 01:04:32,306
Let's say you are
sexually frustrated,
1003
01:04:32,307 --> 01:04:36,611
because you internalized
some paternal or other prohibitions,
1004
01:04:36,611 --> 01:04:39,914
you cannot enjoy sex, and
the function of psychoanalysis is
1005
01:04:39,914 --> 01:04:48,423
to relieve you, release you of the
pressure of these internalized prohibitions,
1006
01:04:48,423 --> 01:04:51,926
so you can let yourself go,
you can enjoy.
1007
01:04:51,926 --> 01:04:54,729
In other words, you feel guilty
if you

1008
01:04:54,729 --> 01:04:58,233
transgressed social prohibitions
in order to enjoy.
1009
01:04:58,233 --> 01:05:00,133
Today it's almost
the opposite.
1010
01:05:00,134 --> 01:05:03,438
You feel guilty, if you cannot make it,
if you cannot enjoy.
1011
01:05:03,438 --> 01:05:05,940
And we shouldn't take here
enjoyment just
1012
01:05:05,940 --> 01:05:09,944
in the immediate sense of sex,
sure pleasure of drinking, whatever.
1013
01:05:09,944 --> 01:05:15,250
It can be enjoyment of power,
social success, professional success,
1014
01:05:15,250 --> 01:05:19,554
it can be even spiritual enjoyment,
in the New Age sense,
1015
01:05:19,554 --> 01:05:22,957
Gnostic sense of realizing
your ego etc. etc.
1016
01:05:22,957 --> 01:05:27,959
What we are getting today is
that you feel guilty if
1017
01:05:27,962 --> 01:05:31,466
in this sense you cannot
enjoy yourself.
1018
01:05:31,466 --> 01:05:36,468
So this brings us, I claim, to a
double function of psychoanalysis today.

1019
01:05:36,471 --> 01:05:40,975
A. It's message is not "relax, get rid
of prohibitions".
1020
01:05:40,975 --> 01:05:46,481
It's message is, as
Alain Badiou put it in wonderful terms,
1021
01:05:46,481 --> 01:05:53,290
"you should learn to become
a pitiless censor of yourself."
1022
01:05:55,590 --> 01:06:00,295
The role of pychoanalysis today.
It's not to enable you to enjoy,
1023
01:06:00,295 --> 01:06:07,802
but to open up a space in which
you are allowed not to enjoy.
1024
01:06:07,802 --> 01:06:11,004
That's the fundamental message
of psychoanalysis today.
1025
01:06:11,005 --> 01:06:13,507
You are not
obliged to enjoy.
1026
01:06:13,508 --> 01:06:15,510
You are allowed
not to enjoy.
1027
01:06:15,510 --> 01:06:20,512
Which, of course, is not the same
as saying you are prohibited to enjoy.
1028
01:06:20,515 --> 01:06:25,720
Just: you are allowed
not to enjoy.
1029
01:06:25,720 --> 01:06:32,026
This confronts us furthermore

with the paradoxes of today's superego.

1030
01:06:32,026 --> 01:06:38,833
Which is how, on the one hand,
permissivity ends up in its opposite.
1031
01:06:38,833 --> 01:06:41,535
Like: today the injunction
is "enjoy",
1032
01:06:41,536 --> 01:06:46,040
the result is more prohibitions,
regulations than ever.
1033
01:06:46,040 --> 01:06:52,046
You can enjoy yourself,
but in order to enjoy yourself properly,
1034
01:06:52,046 --> 01:06:58,552
you are ordered to - what not to eat too much,
1035
01:06:58,552 --> 01:07:02,056
to engage in jogging,
to take care of your fitness,
1036
01:07:02,056 --> 01:07:06,060
not to smoke, etc. etc.
1037
01:07:06,060 --> 01:07:12,066
Just look around and I think that
there is nothing more miserable today
1038
01:07:12,066 --> 01:07:18,068
than those younger couples or people
who organize their life
1039
01:07:18,072 --> 01:07:22,576
in order to enjoy themselves.
The regulation is total.
1040
01:07:22,576 --> 01:07:25,579
On the other hand,

we have the opposite paradox,

1041
01:07:25,579 --> 01:07:32,086
which is that the so-called
"newly emerging fundamentalism"
1042
01:07:32,086 --> 01:07:36,088
is not here in order to introduce
some new stability,
1043
01:07:36,090 --> 01:07:38,292
to give you firm ethical foundation
1044
01:07:38,292 --> 01:07:42,894
in today's world where there are
no firm stable values etc.,
1045
01:07:42,896 --> 01:07:47,101
but on the contrary, I claim,
it is here to open up
1046
01:07:47,101 --> 01:07:49,603
as a kind of a false space
of freedom.
1047
01:07:49,603 --> 01:07:51,906
I'm referring here, of course,
implicitly
1048
01:07:51,906 --> 01:07:56,610
to Lacan's famous reversal
of the Dostoyevsky motto.
1049
01:07:56,610 --> 01:07:59,412
it is not that if God doesn't exist,
everything is permitted,
1050
01:07:59,412 --> 01:08:02,416
but if God doesn't exist,
everything is prohibited.
1051
01:08:02,416 --> 01:08:05,218
This is the lesson of the

hedonistic yuppies.
1052
01:08:05,219 --> 01:08:08,121
And the opposite lesson,
no less crucial:
1053
01:08:08,122 --> 01:08:11,925
if God exists,
then everything is permitted.
1054
01:08:11,925 --> 01:08:15,529
Which means: if you can
justify your role
1055
01:08:15,529 --> 01:08:21,135
as that of being the instrument
of the divine will,
1056
01:08:21,135 --> 01:08:22,836
in other words - you hear voices,
1057
01:08:22,836 --> 01:08:25,139
you have the contact with
the guy up there,
1058
01:08:25,139 --> 01:08:27,141
either George Bush
or Osama bin Laden 1059
01:08:27,141 --> 01:08:29,743
as many people noticed:
this is what they have in common,
1060
01:08:29,743 --> 01:08:32,846
they both hear directly from up there 1061
01:08:32,846 --> 01:08:34,348
then you can do whatever you want 1062
01:08:34,348 --> 01:08:38,352
you can do terrorist acts,
bomb countries, etc. etc.

1063
01:08:38,352 --> 01:08:45,659
So here we see how difficult it is
to orient ourselves in today's constellation
1064
01:08:45,659 --> 01:08:50,664
where there is a certain urge
to false freedom,
1065
01:08:50,664 --> 01:08:54,168
inherent to the system itself.
1066
01:08:54,168 --> 01:08:57,571
Which is why, I claim,
the main task today
1067
01:08:57,571 --> 01:09:01,778
is to reinvent utopia,
a space of utopia.
1068
01:09:01,871 --> 01:09:04,178
What do you mean by this?
1069
01:09:04,178 --> 01:09:07,281
It's not, of course, the old
fashioned utopia,
1070
01:09:07,281 --> 01:09:12,186
which is the utopia of
imagining ideal world
1071
01:09:12,186 --> 01:09:15,189
about which we know in advance
that it will never be realized.
1072
01:09:15,189 --> 01:09:18,692
The big models here are, of course:
Plato's Republic,
1073
01:09:18,692 --> 01:09:22,196
Thomas Moore Utopia,
and - we should not forget 1074

01:09:22,196 --> 01:09:27,701

Marquis de Sade:
Philosophy in the Boudoir.
1075
01:09:27,701 --> 01:09:30,504
That's the classical utopia.
1076
01:09:30,504 --> 01:09:33,907
Then we have, what I'm tempted to call,
the capitalist utopia.
1077
01:09:33,907 --> 01:09:39,713
This unbridled solicitation
of new and new desires,
1078
01:09:39,713 --> 01:09:44,715
which can go pretty far.
Like today I learned that
1079
01:09:44,718 --> 01:09:47,721
in the United States, they are,
in some communities,
1080
01:09:47,721 --> 01:09:54,128
seriously considering the idea
that necrophiliacs,
1081
01:09:54,128 --> 01:09:59,333
those who want to play sexual games
with corpses, dead bodies,
1082
01:09:59,333 --> 01:10:02,836
are seriously deprived.
So isn't it the duty of our society
1083
01:10:02,836 --> 01:10:05,839
to provide them with corpses?
Can it be done in some way
1084
01:10:05,839 --> 01:10:07,741
so that people sign voluntarily
1085
01:10:07,841 --> 01:10:11,743

in the same way that you sign

that if you die, your heart,
1086
01:10:11,745 --> 01:10:14,447
your organs can be used,
that your body can be used
1087
01:10:14,448 --> 01:10:17,751
to be delivered to necrophiliacs etc. etc.
1088
01:10:17,751 --> 01:10:21,753
The problem here is that,
radical as this may appear,
1089
01:10:21,755 --> 01:10:25,259
there is something ridiculously
benign about it,
1090
01:10:25,259 --> 01:10:27,061
about this capitalist utopia.
1091
01:10:27,061 --> 01:10:30,864
You can go to the end,
basically nothing happens.
1092
01:10:30,864 --> 01:10:34,268
But we have a third utopia,
which is, again,
1093
01:10:34,268 --> 01:10:39,471
neither this classical utopia
of imagining an alternative universe,
1094
01:10:39,471 --> 01:10:42,176
not even dreaming about
really realizing it,
1095
01:10:42,176 --> 01:10:45,179
then the capitalist utopia
of ever new desires,
1096
01:10:45,179 --> 01:10:48,282
extreme forms of satisfying

your desires,
1097
01:10:48,282 --> 01:10:52,286
there is a third mode which,
I would say it precisely 1098
01:10:52,286 --> 01:10:56,288
the real,
the real core of utopia.
1099
01:10:56,290 --> 01:10:59,292
I think a truly radical utopia
1100
01:10:59,293 --> 01:11:02,995
is not an exercise
in free imagination.
1101
01:11:02,996 --> 01:11:06,598
Like, you sit down,
don't have anything wiser to do
1102
01:11:06,600 --> 01:11:09,302
than to imagine possible
ideal worlds.
1103
01:11:09,403 --> 01:11:15,805
It's something that you do
literally as out of an inner urge.
1104
01:11:15,809 --> 01:11:21,515
You have to invent something new
when you cannot do it otherwise.
1105
01:11:21,515 --> 01:11:24,217
True utopia for me is not a matter
of the future,
1106
01:11:24,218 --> 01:11:26,820
it's something to be
immediately enacted,
1107
01:11:26,820 --> 01:11:29,322
when there is no other way.

1108
01:11:29,323 --> 01:11:33,827
Utopia in this sense simply means:
1109
01:11:33,827 --> 01:11:40,334
do what appears, within the given
symbolic coordinates, as impossible.
1110
01:11:40,334 --> 01:11:43,336
Take the risk, change
the very coordinates.
1111
01:11:43,337 --> 01:11:45,839
And I'm not talking here about
something crazy.
1112
01:11:45,839 --> 01:11:50,841
Even big classical well-known,
even some times conservative acts,
1113
01:11:50,844 --> 01:11:55,846
have this utopian dimension.
Like, to take a ridiculous example,
1114
01:11:55,849 --> 01:12:01,355
thirty years ago, remember
Richard Nixon's trip to China.
1115
01:12:01,355 --> 01:12:04,557
There was almost a utopian
dimension to it. Why?
1116
01:12:04,558 --> 01:12:06,860
Because he did what was appeared
as impossible.
1117
01:12:06,860 --> 01:12:09,862
China was portrayed as
the ultimate evil super power.
1118
01:12:09,863 --> 01:12:12,565
With Soviet Union there was detente,
not with China.

1119
01:12:12,566 --> 01:12:15,368
That act changed
the entire coordinates.
1120
01:12:15,369 --> 01:12:16,967
It did the impossible.
1121
01:12:16,970 --> 01:12:20,574
This is what we need
more than ever today.
1122
01:12:20,574 --> 01:12:25,276
Because ultimately, I claim,
the true utopia today
1123
01:12:25,279 --> 01:12:29,381
is not a different order.
It's the idea that
1124
01:12:29,383 --> 01:12:33,985
the existing order
can function indefinitely.
1125
01:12:33,987 --> 01:12:36,889
The true utopia, I claim,
was not communism,
1126
01:12:36,890 --> 01:12:39,193
which disintegrated in '89,
1127
01:12:39,193 --> 01:12:40,894
it was the utopia of the 90s.
1128
01:12:40,894 --> 01:12:44,298
The idea, elaborated, among others,
by Francis Fukuyama,
1129
01:12:44,298 --> 01:12:47,900
that we discovered the final
social form 1130

01:12:47,901 --> 01:12:51,603

liberal capitalist democracy that we cannot go further.
1131
01:12:51,605 --> 01:12:54,907
That it's just a question of
making it little more tolerant,
1132
01:12:54,908 --> 01:12:57,910
spread it all around the world,
but that we have the formula.
1133
01:12:57,911 --> 01:13:01,915
And I think that if there is
a symbolic meaning to September 11th,
1134
01:13:01,915 --> 01:13:09,423
is that the time of that utopia
is over. The real of history is back.
1135
01:13:09,423 --> 01:13:14,425
Which is why today the urge
is not to be terrorized
1136
01:13:14,428 --> 01:13:16,930
by the so-called
"post-political politics"
1137
01:13:16,930 --> 01:13:20,234
which tells us:
"ideological times are over,
1138
01:13:20,234 --> 01:13:22,936
"all you can do is just
to play the realistic game
1139
01:13:22,936 --> 01:13:29,443
"of accepting the trends" etc. etc.
We should dare
1140
01:13:29,443 --> 01:13:34,948
to enact the impossible.
1141

01:13:34,948 --> 01:13:43,257

We should rediscover how to
not imagine, but enact utopia.
1142
01:13:43,257 --> 01:13:46,359
The point is not again
about planning utopias,
1143
01:13:46,360 --> 01:13:48,962
the point is about practicing them.
1144
01:13:48,962 --> 01:13:52,964
And I think this is not
a question of
1145
01:13:52,966 --> 01:13:56,968
should we do it or should we
simply persist in the existing order.
1146
01:13:56,970 --> 01:14:00,674
It's much more radical.
It's a matter for survival.
1147
01:14:00,674 --> 01:14:05,476
The future will be utopian,
or there will be none.
1148
01:14:09,179 --> 01:14:14,183
Transcribed by MojsterSplinter
www.podnapisi.net