Slavoj Zizek, one of today’s most influÂenÂtial philosophers/theorists, spoke earÂliÂer this year at the RoyÂal SociÂety of the Arts (RSA). And now RSA has postÂed the video online with their patentÂed aniÂmatÂed treatÂment. Like othÂer recent RSA speakÂers, Zizek makes modÂern capÂiÂtalÂism his focus. This time, we see how conÂtemÂpoÂrary capÂiÂtalÂism has essenÂtialÂly reworked Max Weber’s ProtesÂtant EthÂic, or that strange relaÂtionÂship between monÂey makÂing and perÂsonÂal redempÂtion. Zizek’s criÂtique isn’t utterÂly damnÂing. (No one will run to the barÂriÂcades.) Nor do I think he intends it to be. But the obserÂvaÂtions hold a cerÂtain amount of interÂest, espeÂcialÂly when placed alongÂside BarÂbara EhrenÂreÂich and David HarÂvey’s relatÂed RSA talks.
You can find the full 30 minute lecÂture (sans carÂtoons) here, or downÂload the video as an mp4 here.
Seems like an interÂestÂing subÂject, but I can’t fathÂom what his ultiÂmate point is. Does he have one?
I’m sure he has an ultiÂmate point, but I doubt that just ten minÂutes are enough to realÂly bring it across.
@ HanÂnoch
His largÂer theme (I think askÂing Zizek to have a point is futile — he always has mulÂtiÂple points) is that CharÂiÂty as pracÂticed genÂerÂalÂly in the West is counter-proÂducÂtive because it priÂmarÂiÂly serves to preÂserve the conÂdiÂtions that creÂatÂed the probÂlems that require charÂiÂty in the first place.
His point is simÂple and can be illusÂtratÂed by a quote from the Tao Te Ching, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifeÂtime.” Instead of creÂatÂing bigÂger fishÂeries and sysÂtems to disÂpense them to the poor thereÂby proÂlongÂing the probÂlem with charÂiÂty (and being required to pay the midÂdle man to perÂpetÂuÂate the sysÂtem), why not actuÂalÂly give a subÂstanÂtial effort to enable the poor to empowÂer themÂselves so they can finalÂly become self-susÂtainÂable.
I think the false belief that self-sacÂriÂfice and charÂiÂty is one of the earÂliÂest and oldÂest lessons taught to chilÂdren of westÂern culÂtures. Not only by reliÂgion but also by pop culÂture. Ever heard of “The LitÂtle Dutch Boy?” If you grew up in the US I bet you have. It was one of the chilÂdren’s stoÂries read to us in our earÂly eleÂmenÂtary eduÂcaÂtion years.
The idea that charÂiÂty is the soluÂtion to all our probÂlems is passed on to us in some of our earÂliÂest lessons. The orgaÂniÂzaÂtions who exist between those who give and those who receive stand to make a lot of monÂey with no work/effort put in. How else do you think the chrisÂtÂian church became so wealthy/powerful. It wasÂn’t through hard work and sound investÂments (unless income from charÂiÂty could be conÂsidÂered a sound investÂment).
@PeterHanley,
And not only that, but also that the way charÂiÂtaÂble colÂlecÂtions are genÂerÂatÂed (usuÂalÂly) in conÂtemÂpoÂrary capÂiÂtalÂist sociÂety is essenÂtialÂly through bribery: he gives the famous StarÂbucks examÂple that if you buy X..say a botÂtle of water, so many cents toward your purÂchase will go to help starvÂing orphans in ___istan. There are many probÂlems with this, includÂing the comÂmodÂiÂfiÂcaÂtion of a natÂurÂal resource, the mark-up embedÂded in the price of the water so that WE are givÂing our monÂey (not StarÂbucks) to the starvÂing orphans, but most of all his point is that we are GETTING someÂthing in return for helpÂing the orphans, we expect someÂthing in return. We don’t give for free. Think also of walkÂing through shopÂping cenÂters at this time of year and all the hockÂey and socÂcer teams havÂing their fundraisÂers, but they don’t just ask you to donate your monÂey, there’s a 750 dolÂlar gift basÂket that is drawn and awardÂed to the lucky donaÂtor. This is immoral in Zizek’s eyes: if there’s no sacÂriÂfice, there’s no charÂiÂty. He’s an authorÂiÂtarÂiÂan ChrisÂtÂian, after all.
and that part of what we are payÂing for in our conÂsumerist act is the narÂcisÂsisÂtiÂcalÂly soothÂing feelÂing that we’ve not been mereÂly capÂiÂtalÂist conÂsumers. They are not just sellÂing us cofÂfee but also a comÂpliÂment, and this is how peoÂple who want to think of themÂselves as leftÂists can be brought into the fold of conÂsumerism; how peoÂple who like to fanÂcy themÂselves as proÂmotÂing greater social good can be co-optÂed. In othÂer words, in addiÂtion to the cofÂfee, you get a peek into a mirÂror that makes you appear admirable.
He neglects to menÂtion here about the role of the state. All of this perÂcepÂtion and judgeÂment and hisÂtorÂiÂcal sweep but nowhere does he refer to how monopÂoly govÂernÂment warp the fabÂric of social life. Their is charÂiÂty that comes volÂunÂtarÂiÂly and then there is coerced charÂiÂty through govÂernÂment. The “one thing” that needs to change”, that he is searchÂing for in his modÂel is the abolÂishÂment of the coerÂcive monopÂoly state.