"The emancipation of the slave's mind is the best way of preventing the emancipation of the slave."

[Gravitycollapse]

Leading up to this excerpt, Zizek references an old joke where an East German gets a job in Siberia and tells his friend that, due to censorship in mail, he will write his letters in two potential colors. If the letter is in blue ink, it is true. If it is in red ink, it is a lie. The first letter shows up and says, in blue ink:

"Everything is wonderful here: the shops are full, food is abundant, apartments are large and properly heated, cinemas show films from the West, there are many beautiful girls ready for an affair --the only thing you can't get is red ink."

Is this not the matrix of an efficient critique of ideology -- not only in 'totalitarian' conditions of censorship but, perhaps even more, in the more refined conditions of liberal censorship? One starts by agreeing that one has all the freedoms one wants -- then one merely adds that the only thing missing is the 'red ink': we 'feel free' because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom. What this lack of red ink means is that, today, all the main terms we use to designate the present conflict -- 'war on terrorism', 'democracy and freedom', 'human rights', and so on -- are false terms, mystifying our perception of the situation instead of allowing us to think it. In this precise sense, our 'freedoms' themselves serve to mask and sustain deeper unfreedom. A hundred years ago, in his emphasis on the acceptance of some fixed dogma as the condition of (demanding) actual freedom, Gilbert Keith Chesterton perspicuously detected the antidemocratic potential of the very principle of freedom of thought:

We may say broadly that free thought is the best of all safeguards against freedom. Managed in a modern style, the emancipation of the slave's mind is the best way of preventing the emancipation of the slave. Teach him to worry about whether he wants to be free, and he will not free himself.

Is this not emphatically true of our 'postmodern' time, with its freedom to deconstruct, doubt, distantiate oneself? We should not forget that Chesterton makes exactly the same claim as Kant in his 'What is Enlightenment': 'Think as much as you like, and as freely as you like, just obey!' The only difference is that Chesterton is more specific, and spells out the implicit paradox beneath the Kantian reasoning: not only does freedom of thought not undermine actual social servitude, it positively sustains it. The old motto 'Don't think, obey!' to which Kant reacts is counterproductive: it effectively breeds rebellion; the only way to secure social servitude is through freedom of thought. Chesterton is also logical enough to assert the obverse of Kant's motto: the struggle for freedom needs a reference to some unquestionable dogma

--Welcome to the Desert of the Real, Introduction: Missing Ink, Slavoj Zizek

[Jim__]

1. "... the struggle for freedom needs a reference to some unquestionable dogma." Really?

How about: ... 'democracy and freedom', 'human rights', and so on ...? Isn't that the role that they play? How would unquestionable dogma not mystify our perception of the situation?

[Gravitycollapse]

2. I believe you've confused the wording...

Zizek is referring to the fact that, in the real world, our struggle for freedom must reference unquestionable dogma. He is not endorsing that but only pointing it out. Which is perfectly continuous with the rest of the argument.

[Jim__]

4. "He is not endorsing that but only pointing it out."

Zizek is referring to the fact that, in the real world, our struggle for freedom must reference unquestionable dogma. He is not endorsing that but only pointing it out.

I am questioning the alleged fact. Nothing in the argument establishes this fact.

[Gravitycollapse]

5. Most likely because this is an excerpt and not the 150 page essay.

[Jim__]

7. No, the introduction continues, but he is finished with this argument. - n/t

[Gravitycollapse]

8. Have you read Welcome to the Desert of the Real?

[Jim__]

9. "... of the Real?" - yes.

I read it years ago.

I remember the introduction, the opening joke about the red ink and then the follow-up about unquestionable dogmatism. I've repeated his joke about the red ink. I never agreed with what he said about unquestionable dogma. I still don't.

[Gravitycollapse]

10. Whoops. Freudian slip.

I'll have to see if the reference to unquestionable dogma comes up again. Only about 20 pages in so far.

[backscatter712]

12. Bonus points: Where did the saying "The Desert of the Real" first come from? n/t

Last edited Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Correction: the saying is "The Desert of the Real", not "Welcome to the Desert of the Real."

[Gravitycollapse]

16. The Matrix.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[backscatter712]

21. No. Though I'll give you a hint. The book makes a cameo appearance in the Matrix. n/t

[backscatter712]

22. No answer:

The answer is Simulacra & Simulation by Jean Baudrillard.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Like most of Chesterton's paradoxes, it's entertaining but not enlightening.

Chesterton was a great writer, but his polemics are usually dazzling displays of intellectual gymnastics and paradox that are great fun to read, but often don't actually boil down to logically valid syllogisms from a premise to a conclusion, and thus are often, not to put too fine a point on it, wrong, despite being brilliant.

[Gravitycollapse]

6. It's entertaining precisely because it is enlightening.

Paradoxes can enlighten without ultimately being true themselves. In fact, that is really the very premise of intellectual paradoxes.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. I'm afraid I don't agree.

I think it's a fun construction of words, but I don't think it reflects or leads to any truth about the world we live in.

[backscatter712]

11. So many people, and not enough of them have taken the red pill... n/t

[struggle4progress]

13. "Philosophers may have SOLVED the world -- but the real task is to CHANGE it"

-- Theses on Feuerbach (1845)

I suppose it is amusing to set ourselves little abstract puzzles about the credibility and consistency of our own ideas, but it is important to realize that the best we can hope form, in working out such puzzles, is some insight into the irreducible muddiness of our own thoughts: philosophy cannot actually teach us anything about the world as-it-is

A slogan -- such as "The emancipation of the slave's mind is the best way of preventing the emancipation of the slave" -- cannot have any scientific meaning whatsoever, unless it corresponds to an attempt to synthesize certain pragmatic observations about what works or does not work in a very specific context -- and if it does correspond to such a context, we would have to be fools to expect blindly that it must retain meaning outside that context

Steve Biko's somewhat contrary assertion -- "The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed" -- at least has the advantage that it did not spring from a pure and detached ideological consideration of the world but rather summarized something about the psychiatric issues of a specific struggle at a particular time and place. It therefore has some empirical content

[Gravitycollapse]

14. Let me put it this way...

Let's consider what the ultimate state of dictatorship would look like. How would it remain stable?

We are told about the oppression of citizens. But if the oppression is severe, and the oppressed are in sufficient number, then this often leads to a departure from political and social stasis. To have a citizenry who knows that such oppression exists, who desires that it leave them, is to have a potential army of resistance against the state oppressors.

What would be the best way to maintain stability? The answer is to tweak the psyche of citizens in such a way that they no longer know they are being oppressed. For when you have a body of citizens who are not aware of their oppression, you have a group who will not resist.

That is not a thought exclusive to thought exercise. It is not an abstract puzzle. It is a real world issue that exists, in abundance. Consider the American working class who are brainwashed to believe, despite their best interest, that a vote for the corporate state is a vote for their own success. That is something that very truly exists. And it could be said that the false consciousness of Marx's philosophy falls in line very well with such understanding. The difference becomes the semantics of labeling.

What I think Zizek is talking about is a perception of free thought and not actually thoughts of a free man.

[struggle4progress]

17. Without actually intending to be too snarky, I might be inclined to file

that PoV under "the tragic oppression of the bourgeosie"

I mean: well, yes, it is true that there are many possible mechanisms of social control, including the stupefaction suggested (say) by Huxley in Brave New World, but it seems to me self-indulgent to consider that (very often chosen) social conformity as a sign of "oppression," considering how much of the rest of the world lives

I, for example, own various computers that, on reflection, I really should regard as having been produced by something that very closely resembles Chinese slave labor. Now THOSE people really are oppressed

I have repeatedly tried to read Zizek on Lenin -- that being a potentially interesting topic, involving all sorts of interesting historical questions, such as the failure of that supposedly internationalist movement to pay close attention to the protracted fizzle of Germany's 1918 revolution -- and what I find, again and again, as I try to wade through it, is the sort of dreary academic sloganeering that I abhor: I simply don't much care about "post-modernism," as a style of criticism, or a jumble of references to various movies. It's navel gazing that doesn't seem to be grounded in any concrete practice

[Gravitycollapse]

18. I am a child of post-modernism. So I guess that's where the worlds differ...

Although, I have only just begun reading Zizek. For all I know, I may hate him.

I've simply gotten used to the almost word-salad ramblings, ambiguities and other eccentricities inherent in post-modern work. Actually, I quite enjoy the feeling of insanity induced by many post-modern writings.

[struggle4progress]

19. De gustibus non disputandum, of course

I'll run to the arts for that experience myself. I want philosophy to help me make my own thinking clearer

[joshcryer]

20. Nice discussion.

I've read Desert of the Real. But [font color="blue"]I'm too sleepy[/font] to comment further. Hopefully I'll recall this in My Posts later.

[MFrohike]

23. The Chesterton assertion makes perfect sense

The unquestionable dogma is the touchstone. It's the basic statement of purpose for the organization doing the work. I don't see it as the dogma is unquestionable period, just within the sphere of the organization. If a group of people band together for a common purpose, they need core principles if only for reference when they get confused. It's easy to get lost in the trees and miss the forest. The dogma is a reminder to pay attention to the forest and a lens to see it. When the group gets bogged down in the details, they can ask what is their ultimate purpose, refer back to the dogma, and carry out their work with it in mind.

I don't see it as some rule set by an outsider that limits the organization's permissible lines of thought, but as a common agreement that the group is there to carry out that purpose, so there is no point in questioning it unless they want to change into something different (or disband). It's not a paradox, just a poorly, in this excerpt anyway, explained method of maintaining an organization for a purpose.

[Gravitycollapse]

24. It seems unquestionabl dogma in this context...

Means more than what you've taken away. To be unquestionable is to be above doubt. And to be dogmatic is to have an authoritative belief system not wholly grounded in reality. That is the paradox. To be worthy of doubt but nonetheless above doubt.

Scripture is an excellent example of unquestionable dogma. So when we talk about such a thing with the state, it tends to be about nationalism. And it is not a flattering accusation.

[MFrohike]

25. Possibly

I realized exactly what unquestionable meant. I see it in terms of a group of people who voluntarily band together for a common purpose. In that context, it's a prerequisite to accomplishing goals unless the goal is to be a discussion forum. Further, it's unquestionable, undoubtable only as long as the people involved agree. It's not a paradox unless you consider it fixed for all time, which is just not in line with human experience. Nothing lasts forever.

Scripture is a poor example of unquestionable dogma in the abstract because it depends, and has always depended, on the interpretation of the individual. The church, of whichever sect, has its interpretation, but there can be, and often is, a disconnect between the hierarchy, however constituted, and the congregation. In that particular case, you may have two groups in the same space but with different purposes. The Catholic Church has discovered this sad fact over the last 40 years or so in regard to its teachings on contraception and abortion. The bishops will treat their rulings as unquestionable, but the congregation clearly has a different opinion on what can be questioned.

Nationalism is neither here nor there as far it goes. It's often treated as some sort of plague on the left because it's frequently caricatured as incipient fascism, which is both stupid and wrong. Nationalism is a real and powerful force that must be addressed in practical terms, not simply wished away or treated as though it's a disorder. Nationalism was the foundation for both the New Deal and successors as well as the civil rights movement. The programs and laws that were enacted were not because it was right in the abstract, but because it was wrong that Americans were suffering. When we talk about the right's goal of effectively bringing back the Jim Crow laws on voting, like they're doing here in NC, our concern is that American citizens are being denied their rights. We might decry it a bit in other countries, but we detest it when it's done to our own. Nationalism is kind of vague to define, but part of it is the feeling that people in your group, the nation, deserve certain treatment. When they don't get it, it's outrageous.

We live with unquestioned dogma all the time. All men are created equal. Freedom is a right. Capitalism is the best economic system. Democracy is the best, or least worst, political system. America is the best country in the world. People have a right to education/health care/food/etc. Murder is wrong. These are all presented as unquestionable tenets of faith at some point or another (usually all the time). They are necessary to accomplish certain goals. I am not talking about those goals right now, so please don't misunderstand me. I am only talking about the process used. There needs to be a core for the group. In the beginning, it needs to be unquestioned, or at least respected, or the group will never get going. As time passes, it will get questioned because organizations change over time. This is not a paradox, this is human experience.

The basic point of that except is that to take action, you need a point in opposition to the dominant theme of the day. Without that solid core, it just degenerates into endless argument and the problems continue. This is only paradoxical if you're on the sidelines. If you're in the mix, it's one of the basic necessities of setting up an organization. In other words, the very argument that this is paradoxical is a paradox according to the writer's logic because he assumes only one frame of reference in a discussion of freedom of thought. He doesn't acknowledge that others will have a different view which may make his argument irrelevant.