Žižek: A Very Brief Introduction, and His Critique of Western Buddhism

Some have called him dangerous. Some have called him a bête noire ("black beast" - something that is particularly distasteful or difficult and to be avoided). Some - perhaps most - have never heard of him. The Slovenian political philosopher (and I give him that title because I'm not sure how else to classify him, if not bête noire), Slavoj Žižek, is the patron saint of the young European intellectual elite (if in fact we've entered an era in which sainthood can be conferred upon the living), and he'll be shaking things up with the hipsters on this side of the pond soon enough. Although, if history offers a key to understanding the process of culture shaping, Žižek's influence will probably linger just below the surface, waiting for a posthumous eruption.

I've been reading a couple of his books in my current research, The Sublime Object of Ideology and The Monstrosity of Christ. Before you get tripped up on "monstrosity," know that it does not mean what you probably imagined at first glance. With "monstrosity," Žižek refers to Hegel's notion (which Žižek shares) of the subversively powerful claim that God, the divine Logos, the Word of God, "became flesh and lived among us" (John 1:14). Here's Žižek on the matter:

Hegel uses this unexpectedly strong word,"monstrosity,” to designate the first figure of Reconciliation, the appearance of God in the finite flesh of a human individual: “This is the monstrous [das Ungeheure] whose necessity we have seen.”¹ The finite fragile human individual is “inappropriate” to stand for God, it is “die Unangemessenheit ueberhaupt² [the inappropriateness in general, as such].”³

So much for introductions. I'll let you wrestle with the Incarnation. I began this post with the intention of presenting a few of his insights on Western Buddhism. To those we now turn. Oh, and it's important to know that he's a Marxist:

Spiritual meditation [and here Žižek means the so-called "pure" forms of meditation - mindfulness, Zen, "sitting," Transcendental Meditation (TM), etc.], in its abstraction from institutionalized religion, appears today as the zero-level undistorted core of religion: the complex institutional and dogmatic edifice which sustains every particular religion is dismissed as a contingent secondary coating of this core. The reason for this shift of accent from religious institution to the intimacy of spiritual experience is that such a meditation is the ideological form that best fits today’s global capitalism.⁴

Elsewhere, in an interview with Believer, a San Francisco based magazine that concerns itself with issues of hipster culture, Žižek elaborates on Buddhism and Capitalism:

...This basic Buddhist insight that there is no permanent self, permanent subject, just events and so on, in an ironic way perfectly mirrors this idea that products are not essential. [What is] essential is this freedom of how you consume products and the idea that the market should no longer focus on the product. It is no longer: this car has this quality, blah blah blah. No, it’s what you will do with the car. They are trying as directly as possible to sell you experiences, i.e. what you are able to do with the car, not the car as a product itself. An extreme example of this is this existing economic marketing concept, which basically evaluates the value of you as a potential consumer of your own life. Like, how much are you worth, in the sense of all you will spend to buy back your own life as a certain quality life. You will spend so much in doctors, so much in beauty, so much in transcendental meditation, so much for music, and so on. What you are buying is a certain image and practice of your life. So what is your market potential, as a buyer of your own life in this sense?

 To which the Believer interviewer responds,

OK, so ironically, when Westerners buy into a Buddhist mentality, then they set themselves up to be perfect consumers in contemporary capitalism. It is kind of sad and funny at the same time. While looking for spirituality or God, they become ideal consumers to marketing executives. Sounds like science fiction.

Science fiction, or the high point of Western Civilization as it is today. Have you ever noticed that a great deal of the highest quality clothing and gear at REI is branded with Buddhist names? "The Zen," "Prana" ("breath" in Sanskrit), and so forth. They don't even attempt to conceal it.



_________________________________________


I owe a great deal for my understanding of Žižek to my friend, Vincent. You know who you are.

¹G. W. F. Hegel, Theologian of the Spirit, ed. Peter C. Hodgson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1997), p. 238-9.

²G. W. F. Hegel, Werke, vol. 17 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1969), p. 272.

³Slavoj Žižek, John Milbank, and Creston Davis. The Monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or Dialectic? (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), p. 74.

⁴ibid, p. 28. Italics added for emphasis.

Stealing from Atheism 2.0. Nicely.

I'm stealing this idea from NearEmmaus, one of my favorite blogs.

Alan de Botton, a kind atheist, presents some profound critiques of secularization in this TED Talk. As a Christian, he reminds me of some of the great benefits of Christian art, the liturgical calendar, community, etc. As a Christian, de Botton encourages me in my practices. While I disagree entirely on the superstructure of belief, and I say "Of course there is a God, look around you," I think he has some important things to say, which ought to act as excellent reminders for those of us who find ourselves swept up in the grand story of a loving Creator. Take a few minutes to watch de Botton's talk; you'll be glad you did.

A Letter To Phil Robertson: On Gentleness and Wisdom

Mr. Robertson,

One part of me wants to encourage you for your boldness in the face of a cultural war, speaking out on an issue that's important to you.  Going against the grain, if you will.  One part of me wants to say, "Yeah!  You should be able to say whatever you want to say about whoever, whenever!  This is the United States of America and you've got the right to free speech!"  And I think, in one sense, this is true.

Consider this, if you will:  "Existing power structures would have loved to silence Nelson Mandela (and Martin Luther King while we're at it) because of his views. I don't think anyone can propose media restriction while discussing huge ideas... What if someone deemed this conversation "lacking in character" or "dangerous" and deleted it?" That's a quote from a Facebook conversation with a friend of mine earlier this month--he makes a great point, doesn't he? The Germans and Russians who opposed their power structures were deemed dangerous and silenced. And things escalated quickly from there.

Another point to consider, however, is this:  A&E, the television business that suspended you, is just that--a business. And just like you have the freedom to say what you want, they have the freedom to present their own views with their own business.  (But then I wonder, can someone legally be suspended from their job for talking about their religious convictions?)

But Phil, if you don't care about anything I've said thus far, please do consider this final point:

Click to read more »

Albert Einstein and Faith

While reading Dale Allison's Constructing Jesus, I came across this enlightening little quote by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld:

In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism.

And so we are left with theories and models of reality that cannot be proven.  And so we, even if the best of scientists, are left with faith.

In other news, check out this NPR article about the discovery of particles that may move faster than light, thus perhaps leaving E=MC^2 as an old, incorrect theory.