« Tasawwuf [1] | Main | La arqueologia en las tierras bajas suramericanas »
Agosto 05, 2005
Zizek: El Homo sacer como el objeto del Discurso de la Universidad
Este artículo de Slavoj Zizek (ya veré luego cómo se le ponen los diacríticos aquí a su nombre) es viejo, Homo sacer as the object of the discourse of the university, 25 de septiembre de 2003. No lo leo detenidamente y a veces interpreto cómo me da la gana, pero bueno, léanlo a ver.
Me encantan estos fragmentos:
Lacan's interest is focused on the passage from the discourse of the Master to the discourse of University as the hegemonic discourse in contemporary society. No wonder that the revolt was located at the universities: as such, it merely signaled the shift to the new forms of domination in which the scientific discourse serves legitimizes the relations of domination. acan's underlying premise is sceptic-conservative - Lacan's diagnosis is best captured by his famous retort to the student revolutionaries: "As hysterics, you demand a new master. You will get it!" This passage can also be conceived in more general terms, as the passage from the prerevolutionary ancien regime to the postrevolutionary new Master who does not want to admit that he is one, but proposes himself as a mere "servant" of the People — in Nietzsche's terms, it is simply the passage from Master's ethics to slave morality...
Esto ya es admitido por todos desde hace años, pero por alguna razón, siempre hay que repetirlo. Como que no cala:
The constitutive lie of the university discourse is that it disavows its performative dimension, presenting what effectively amounts to a political decision based on power as a simple insight into the factual state of things.
Muy curioso. Éste razonamiento es muy interesante, dado que es prácticamente homólogo al que hacía S. S. Juan Pablo II acerca de una "nueva ideología del mal" posiblemente escondida detrás de los defensores del matrimonio gay, el pro-choice, la eutanasia, etc.; sólo que en este caso, se trataría de una "biopolítica" la que defiende la "vida", la "familia", el rechazo a la pena de muerte, etc.:
It is within this horizon that one should appreciate today's growing rejection of death penalty: what one should be able to discern is the hidden "biopolitics" which sustains this rejection. Those who assert the "sacredness of life," defending it against the threat of transcendent powers which parasitize on it, end up in a world in which, on behalf of its very official goal — long pleasurable life — all effective pleasures are prohibited or strictly controlled (smoking, drugs, food…).
Ahora uno puede homologar a Zizek con S. S. Benito XVI. Ésta va muy bien de acuerdo a su parecer contra los "relativistas" en la misa pro eligendo:
On today's market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol... And the list goes on: what about virtual sex as sex without sex, the Colin Powell doctrine of warfare with no casualties (on our side, of course) as warfare without warfare, the contemporary redefinition of politics as the art of expert administration as politics without politics, up to today's tolerant liberal multiculturalism as an experience of Other deprived of its Otherness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically sound holistic approach to reality, while features like wife beating remain out of sight…)?...
There are two topics which determine today's liberal tolerant attitude towards Others: the respect of Otherness, openness towards it, AND the obsessive fear of harassment — in short, the Other is OK insofar as its presence is not intrusive, insofar as the Other is not really Other...
Éste me mata de risa:
..."Safe sex" — a term which makes one appreciative of the truth of the old saying "Is having sex with a condom not like taking a shower with a raincoat on?".
Debe ser por esto que soy capaz de poner a Zizek, a Lacan, a Freud, a Juan Pablo II y a Benito XVI en el mismo sitio, el "juicio infinito" que Zizek describe para la sociedad liberal (yo digo: ¿cuál sociedad liberal?):
What we were describing what cannot but appear as two opposite ideological spaces: that of the reduction of humans to bare life, to homo sacer as the dispensable object of the expert caretaking knowledge; and that of the respect for the vulnerable Other brought to extreme, of the attitude of narcissistic subjectivity which experiences itself as vulnerable, constantly exposed to a multitude of potential "harassments." Is there a stronger contrast than the one between the respect for the Other's vulnerability and the reduction of the Other to "mere life" regulated by the administrative knowledge?But what if these two stances nonetheless rely on the same root, what if they are the two aspects of one and the same underlying attitude, what if they coincide in what one is tempted to designate as the contemporary case of the Hegelian "infinite judgement" which asserts the identity of opposites? What the two poles share is precisely the underlying refusal of any higher Causes, the notion that the ultimate goal of our lives is life itself. Nowhere is the complicity of these two levels clearer as in the case of the opposition to death penalty — no wonder, since (violently putting another human being to) death is, quite logically, the ultimate traumatic point of biopolitics, the politics of the administration of life. To put it in Foucauldian terms, is the abolition of death penalty not part of a certain "biopolitics" which considers crime as the result of social, psychological, ideological, etc., circumstances: the notion of the morally/legally responsible subject is an ideological fiction whose function is to cover up the network of power relations, individuals are not responsible for the crimes they commit, so they should not be punished? Is, however, the obverse of this thesis not that those who control the circumstances control the people? No wonder the two strongest industrial complexes are today the military and the medical, that of destroying and that of prolonging life.
Lo que me gusta (y espanta) de los psicoanalistas es que son más liberales que los liberales: ellos todavía abogan por un sujeto responsable, qué sólo es así es libre. Que el psicoanálisis es una ética de la responsabilidad. Se trata todo de la libertad. De tal manera, es nuestro derecho que no nos repriman nuestra pulsión de muerte, debemos ser libres incluso para morir:
Recall the informations about health we are bombarded with all the time: "Smoking is dangerous! To much fat may cause a heart attack! Regular exercise leads to a longer life!" etc.etc. — it is impossible not to hear beneath it the unconditional injunction "You should enjoy a long and healthy life!"… What this means is that the discourse of the University is thoroughly mystifying, concealing its true foundation, obfuscating the unfreedom on which it relies.
Y usted, universitario radical, ¿qué dice?
Posted by dalegrett at Agosto 5, 2005 11:18 AM Posted to Ciencia y tecnología | Jacques Lacan | Lecturas | Política | Psicoanálisis | Universidad | Ética y política
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.anthroblogs.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/185