The sublime object of ideology pdf

Date published 


The Sublime Objecto/"Ideology tries to answer this question by way of rehabilitating of the past where what survive are objects deprived of their living souls. Sorry, this document isn't available for viewing at this time. In the meantime, you can download the document by clicking the 'Download' button above. The Sublime Object of Ideology is a book by Slovenian philosopher and cultural theorist Create a book · Download as PDF · Printable version.

Language:English, Spanish, Japanese
Published (Last):18.06.2016
Distribution:Free* [*Registration needed]
Uploaded by: ISAIAS

45646 downloads 121261 Views 17.32MB PDF Size Report

The Sublime Object Of Ideology Pdf

duces the most reactionary aspects of capitalist ideology that seeks to reduce . heading in The Sublime Object of Ideology; indeed the notion of “the act”. The Sublime Object of Ideology (The Essential Zizek) [Slavoj Zizek] on site. com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Slavoj Žižek, the maverick. The-Sublime-Object-Of-Ideology - Download as PDF File .pdf) or read online. In this provocative and original work, Slavoj Zizek takes a look at the question of.

In , he ran for a seat on the four-member collective Slovenian presidency, narrowly missing office. He is currently a returning faculty member of the European Graduate School, and founder and president of the Society for Theoretical Psychoanalysis, Ljubljana. Then, so the theory runs, subjects will become aware of the political shortcomings of their current regimes, and be able and moved to better them. First, to criticize a discourse as ideological implies access to a Truth about political things the Truth that the ideologies, as false, would conceal. But it has been widely disputed in the humanities that there could ever be any One such theoretically accessible Truth. Yet he insists that we are not living in a post-ideological world, as figures as different as Tony Blair, Daniel Bell or Richard Rorty have claimed. For subjects to believe in an ideology, it must have been presented to them, and been accepted, as non-ideological indeed, as True and Right, and what anyone sensible would believe. This is obviously a false belief, at the start of the analytic process. Bush the man are irrelevant to understanding or evaluating his political power. A King is only King because his subjects loyally think and act like he is King think of the tragedy of Lear. Yet, at the same time, the people will only believe he is King if they believe that this is a deeper Truth about which they can do nothing. In the first moment, the size or force of an object painfully impresses upon the subject the limitation of its perceptual capabilities.

That is why the basic feature of the democratic order is that the place of Power is, by the necessity of its structure, an empty place. In a democratic order, sovereignty lies in the People — but what is the People if not, precisely, the collection of the subjects of power?

Here we have the same paradox as that of a natural language which is at the same time the ultimate, the highest metalanguage. And in totalitarianism, the Party becomes again the very subject who, being the immediate embodiment of the People, can rule innocently.

Which Subject of the Real? The message to the power structure is, on the contrary, the negation implied in the positive act of imitation: you are so powerful, but for all that, you are impotent. You cannot really hurt me!

The Sublime Object of Blackness

In this way, the power structure is caught in the same trap. The more violent its reaction, the more it confirms its fundamental impotence.

Without the reference to the Jew who is corroding the social fabric, the social fabric itself would be dissolved. Should we not be concerned as to whether this fear of error is not just the error itself? But what is hidden behind the phenomenal appearance? Precisely the fact that there is nothing to hide.

The man adduces mutually inconsistent excuses which are united only in terms of his ignoble desire to evade responsibility for breaking the kettle: he never borrowed the kettle, the kettle was already broken when he borrowed it, and when he gave the kettle back it was not really broken anyway. When political strife, uncertainty or division occur, political ideologies and the fundamental fantasies upon which they lean 3a operate to resignify this political discontent so that the political ideal of community can be sustained, and to deny the possibility that this discontent might signal a fundamental injustice or flaw within the regime.

Or, if this explanation fails: Saying that the political divisions are in any case contingent to the ordinary run of events, so that if their cause is removed or destroyed, things will return to normal. Yet political ideologies, as such, cannot avow this possibility see 2d. If only this other or enemy could be removed, the political fantasy contends, the regime would be fully equitable and just.

If what preceded the system was radically different from what subsequently emerged, how could the system have emerged from it, and how can the system come to terms with it at all?

If we name the limits of what the system can understand, do not we, in that very gesture, presuppose some knowledge of what is beyond these limits, if only enough to say what the system is not? Yet we hence presuppose, again in the very act of the explanation, the very thing we were hoping to explain. The only answer is that the Wolf Man has imaginatively transposed himself back into the primal scene if only as an impassive object-gaze—whose historical occurrence he had yet hoped would explain his origin as an individual.

The Judeo-Christian myth of the fall succumbs to precisely these paradoxes, as Kant analyses: if Adam and Eve were purely innocent, how could they have been tempted? The problems for the mythical narrative, Kant argues, hail from its nature as a narrative—or how it tries to render in a historical story what he argues is truly a logical or transcendental priority.

For Kant, human beings are, as such, radically evil. They have always already chosen to assert their own self-conceit above the moral Law. This choice of radical evil, however, is not itself a historical choice either for individuals or for the species, for Kant.

Žižek Slavoj. The Sublime Object of Ideology

This choice is what underlies and opens up the space for all such historical choices. Because of radical evil, Kant argues, it is impossible for humans to ever act purely out of duty in this life—this is what Kant thinks our irremovable sense of moral guilt attests.

But because people can never act purely in this life, Kant suggests, it is surely reasonable to hope and even to postulate that the soul lives on after death, striving ever closer towards the perfection of its will. In this way, though, Kant himself has to speak as if he knew what things are like on the other side of death—which is to say, from the impossible, because impossibly neutral, perspective of someone able to impassively see the spectacle of the immortal subject striving guiltily towards the good see 4d.

We will return to this thought in 4d and 4e below. It is only by acting as if there were such a Thing that community is maintained. Hence, their belief, coupled with these practices, is politically efficient. This is the meta-law that says simply that subjects must obey all the other laws.


No regime can survive if it waives this meta-law. What unites these two positions is the idea that the sublime objects of a political regime and the ideological fantasies that give narratives about their content conceal from subjects the absence of any final ground for Law beyond the fact of its own assertion, and the fact that subjects take it to be authoritative.

To elevate such a wholly Other order would, he argues, reproduce the elementary operation of the fundamental fantasy. His work reintroduces and reinvigorates for a wider audience ideas from the works of German Idealism.