Though it would be hard to claim an overriding thesis for the piece as there are several subsections each with their own emphasis, and ambiguity is something that Žižek has been accused of on more than one occasion, they are all connected under the banner of re-evaluating Stalinism on a more even footing than is often achieved.
In short however, if I were pressed for a thesis out of this work I would posit one from near the beginning, which sets the tone for this, slightly overwhelming, work.
The conservative counter cultural revolution brought forth by Stalin was not
a thermidor [or retreat from revolutionary ideals], but rather may
have saved humanity, and even mankind.
This is a big claim, and to support it Žižek employs an interesting strategy. Early on he makes this broad claim, which sounds absurd, perhaps even offensive, and provides a few quick supports to the idea. Particularly the emphasis on mechanization of a populace as a work force, positing that the creation of "Proletarian Units" is a form of biopolitics and the creation of a people who's functioning [happiness?] would no longer be measured, "by a shout or a smile, but by a pressure gauge or a speedometer," could actually, if played out have proved worse for humanity than the Purges of Stalin. After all, the purges and cultural revolution led by Stalin brought back earlier versions of morality and artistic forms that were attractive to large crowds [prerevolutionary art forms, stepping away from modernism].
In this way, constraining this move towards modernism and a populace of mechanized humans [to risk sounding dramatic], Žižek argues that Stalin may have in fact saved what kept these people human.
While for my own purposes of understand I almost feel compelled to restate all of Žižek's claims here, but that was not the purpose of this reading and this space is not for that purpose either. So, moving on to a more analytical position.
While for my own purposes of understand I almost feel compelled to restate all of Žižek's claims here, but that was not the purpose of this reading and this space is not for that purpose either. So, moving on to a more analytical position.
This was interesting for me on two levels. One: Žižek's structuring of his argument is very interesting. He provides us with a daring claim, supports it immediately in a way that is concrete and understandable, and then proceeds to use that first success as a framework for the further discussion on Stalinism to come. This further discussion is thus not only based on the premise that there may some validity to Žižek's thesis, but it acts in both ways: it both reinforces the thesis and is reinforced by the thesis.
Furthermore, Žižek draws upon unusual sources for illustration of his points. At one moment I think I am attempting to understand how there is a "fetishization of the Other" [capitalization intentional] and that Stalin, as well as those under him act on behalf of a concept of the People, rather than the people's wants members of a whole, when all of a sudden I'm reading about Shostakovitch's music and how it presents an example of a split...Ok. Not such a stretch to draw upon a Russian composer writing under the Stalinist regime in order illustrate an idea about how this system worked. However, as the adage most attributed to Martin Mull goes, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." On some level perhaps Žižek was aware of this, and the line of reasoning was not terribly clear, until he brought in a seemingly random support for it - and before I know it I am reading a small handful of pages focused on a 3.5 second segment in the film Casablanca . While this seems almost non-sensical this move was incredible on the part of Žižek. The analogy with the logical choice, A Russian composer in the period being discussed, had little hope of being clear or compelling, so a seemingly unrelated analogy was brought in to supplement it and thus not only was the use of Shostakovitch now more clear, so was this facet of his argument.
Here I can see how this sort of a strategy may assist my analysis on my topic (which is of course the purpose of reading an author such as Žižek at this point in the project). While I do not anticipate digging into American film in order to illustrate a point about Russian sentiment at the turn of the century, I am attempting to utilize certain works or art, and artistic movements in this way. Either using something a lens between two objects [say for example, Lenin's refusal to assist the Bolshevik shippers soviet, and Checkhov's Black monk] or utilizing it to strengthen a logical support that may need clarification.
An interesting tactic, to be sure.
[And now I want to watch Casablanca]
Furthermore, Žižek draws upon unusual sources for illustration of his points. At one moment I think I am attempting to understand how there is a "fetishization of the Other" [capitalization intentional] and that Stalin, as well as those under him act on behalf of a concept of the People, rather than the people's wants members of a whole, when all of a sudden I'm reading about Shostakovitch's music and how it presents an example of a split...Ok. Not such a stretch to draw upon a Russian composer writing under the Stalinist regime in order illustrate an idea about how this system worked. However, as the adage most attributed to Martin Mull goes, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." On some level perhaps Žižek was aware of this, and the line of reasoning was not terribly clear, until he brought in a seemingly random support for it - and before I know it I am reading a small handful of pages focused on a 3.5 second segment in the film Casablanca . While this seems almost non-sensical this move was incredible on the part of Žižek. The analogy with the logical choice, A Russian composer in the period being discussed, had little hope of being clear or compelling, so a seemingly unrelated analogy was brought in to supplement it and thus not only was the use of Shostakovitch now more clear, so was this facet of his argument.
Here I can see how this sort of a strategy may assist my analysis on my topic (which is of course the purpose of reading an author such as Žižek at this point in the project). While I do not anticipate digging into American film in order to illustrate a point about Russian sentiment at the turn of the century, I am attempting to utilize certain works or art, and artistic movements in this way. Either using something a lens between two objects [say for example, Lenin's refusal to assist the Bolshevik shippers soviet, and Checkhov's Black monk] or utilizing it to strengthen a logical support that may need clarification.
An interesting tactic, to be sure.
[And now I want to watch Casablanca]
Secondly, as a bit of an aside, this article on Stalinism is providing an interesting extra perspective for me, as I am currently also reading Keeping Faith With the Party, by Nanci Adler. The text documents the great number of Soviet citizen's who returned, after having been imprisoned in the Gulag unjustly during the purges, only still strongly support the Bolshevik Communist Party and it discusses the authoritarian framework and psychological processes that would allow this to happen with such frequency. The two texts are informing one another for me the result of which I am still somewhat processing. The Adler text is certainly the result of historical, as well as psychological research, while Žižek, while his roots are in history, in a historical event, his methodology is decidedly philosophical.
[To be expanded/concluded]
شركة مكافحة حشرات بعرعر
ReplyDeleteشركة تنظيف بنجران