Slavoj Žižek doesn't buy into political correctness. In fact, it frightens him. The famed philosopher and social critic describes political correctness as a tacit form of totalitarianism, an act of coercion built upon the premise that "I know better than you what you really want."
This isn't to say that people should be allowed to go around treating others poorly, but Žižek argues that employing coercion and scare tactics to instill a state of forced behavior completely missed the point. To Žižek, the kinds of obscenity targeted by political correctness are much more effective at breeding a sense of shared solidarity than most alternatives.
Read more at BigThink.com:
http://goo.gl/X1zzcJ Follow Big Think here:
YouTube:
http://goo.gl/CPTsV5 Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/BigThinkdotcom Twitter:
https://twitter.com/bigthink Transcript: Of course I have nothing against the fact that your boss treats you in a nice way and so on. The problem is if this not only covers up the actual relationship of power but makes it even more impenetrable. You know, if you have a boss who is up there, the old fashioned boss shouting at you, exerting full brutal authority. In a way it’s much easier to rebel than to have a friendly boss who embraces you or how was the last night with your girlfriend, blah, blah, all that buddy stuff. Well then it almost appears impolite to protest. But I will give you an example, an old story that I often use to make it clear what do I mean by this. Imagine you or me, I’m a small boy. It’s Sunday afternoon. My father wants me to visit our grandmother. Let’s say my father is a traditional authority. What would he be doing? He would probably tell me something like I don’t care how you feel, it’s your duty to visit your grandmother. Be polite to her and so on. Nothing bad about this I claim because I can still rebel and so on. It’s a clear order.
But what would the so called post-modern non-authoritarian father do? I know because I experienced it. He would have said something like this. You know how much your grandmother loves you but nonetheless I’m not forcing you to visit her. You should only visit her if you freely decide to do it. Now every child knows that beneath the appearance of free choice there is a much stronger pressure in this second message. Because basically your father is not only telling you you must visit your grandmother but you must love to visit it. You know he tells you how you must feel about it. It’s a much stronger order. And I think that this is for me almost a paradigm of modern permissive authority. This is why the formula of totalitarianism is not – I don’t care what you think, just do it. This is traditional authoritarianism. The totalitarian formula is I know better than you what you really want and I may appear to be forcing you to do it but I’m really just making you do what without fully knowing what you want and so on. So in this sense yes, I am horrified by this. Also another aspect this new culture of experts where an injunction is presented just as a neutral statement.
For example, one example that I like and let’s not have a misunderstanding here. I don’t smoke and I’m for punishing tobacco companies and so on and so on. But I’m deeply suspicious about our phobia about smoking. I don’t buy it that this can be really justified just based on scientific knowledge how cigarettes hurt us and so on and so on. Because my first problem is that most of the people who oppose smoking then usually are for legalization of grass and so on and so on. But my basic problem is this one. Look, now they found a more or less solution – e-cigarettes, electronic cigarettes. And I discovered that now big American airline companies decided to prohibit them. And it’s interesting to read the reason why. The reason is not so much that it’s not yet sure are they safe or not. Basically they are. The idea is that if you smoke during the flight e-cigarette you publicly display your addiction and that is not a good pedagogical example for others and so on and so on. [transcript truncated]
Directed / Produced by Jonathan Fowler, Elizabeth Rodd, and Dillon Fitton
22 Comments
Chairman_woosays...*promote (drunk with power points!)
The magnificent mad rambling Slovenian bastard nailed it again!
The e-cig thing in particular is a hot topic for me at the moment due to the moronic new EU legislation & combined media shitstorm.
As we shoot down the layers of poorly researched bullshit the anti crowd throw at us in arguments it generally seems come down to something along the lines of "you are setting a bad example", or "you'd still be better off not smoking".
At that point "mind your own fucking business you self righteous prude" starts to seem like a perfectly mature response.
siftbotPromoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, December 14th, 2015 1:50am PST - promote requested by Chairman_woo.
enoch*quality
siftbotBoosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by enoch.
eoesays...Cocaine's a hell of a drug.
ChaosEngine"The idea is that if you smoke during the flight e-cigarette you publicly display your addiction and that is not a good pedagogical example for others and so on and so on."
Or (far more likely) the airline realised that other passengers don't like people smoking around them in a confined space. You want to vape at home or outside? Knock yourself out. But kindly refrain from doing so in my cramped airspace. Otherwise, we'll test the old adage about how my right to swing my fist ends at your face.
He hasn't really presented any kind of decent argument here. Ok, the Carmen thing is stupid, but if you actually read the story behind that, it's because the Opera house was sponsored by a health company. Essentially they bowed to commercial pressure. Nothing to do with PC.
Even if WAS a "PC" decision, on what planet is that "a more dangerous form of totalitarianism"?
Someone decided they didn't want to stage an opera because there's smoking in it... oh no! Save us from opera-hitler!
Did the government step in and force them to do this? Nope, they made the decision themselves.
00Scud00says...I think I can see where he's coming from with this, and the more open forms of racism there is an honesty that does seem less insidious. Open racism, like a fire in your house is not something you want, but at least you can see the problem right away and begin to address it (get the fuck out of the house!). But that more subtle form of racism is more like radon gas, can't see it, can't smell it, but it's slowly killing your ass (I feel terrible, I think I'll lie down and take a nap).
In America I think we've been living under the delusion that racism is a thing of the past, especially after electing a black President, but then we see how most of the racism has simply gone underground. And so, all that outwardly PC behavior is just for show, you can change how people act on the outside, but they're still the same on the inside and quietly act on those impulses, the rot is still there.
His examples of dirty jokes weren't even really genuine racism, amongst certain groups (guys in particular) razzing, busting your balls and such is usually a sign of acceptance and sometimes it takes on racial or ethnic tones, but with no real malice.
The decision not to show Carmen at the Sydney Opera House sounds like a classic case of PC overreach, how does not showing Carmen actually serve the anti-smoking cause? Let's ask how many kids started smoking because they saw that scene in Carmen? It's an absolutely useless and pointless gesture.
He hasn't really presented any kind of decent argument here. Ok, the Carmen thing is stupid, but if you actually read the story behind that, it's because the Opera house was sponsored by a health company. Essentially they bowed to commercial pressure. Nothing to do with PC.
Even if WAS a "PC" decision, on what planet is that "a more dangerous form of totalitarianism"?
Someone decided they didn't want to stage an opera because there's smoking in it... oh no! Save us from opera-hitler!
Did the government step in and force them to do this? Nope, they made the decision themselves.
Chairman_woosays...In the case of this particular example the airline did cite that reason (I remember the forum buzz about it at the time).
But, I still agree with your point there. I've never been keen on the vapers who like to belligerently assert their "right to vape" everywhere they can without engaging their brains, or a bit of basic consideration.
Doubly so when snus so easy to order online & "stealth vaping" in public spaces is so easy to do.
That said, most of the negativity I've had & seen personally over the subject has been largely moralistic in nature. Specifically either "still bad for you!" or "think of the children!".
This may have been a bad example, but I could dig you up about as many media & campaign group hit pieces as you'd care to read.
Right now it's resulting in some deeply ill conceived legislation. I recognise that some sensible legal regulation is needed, but that is not what's happening at the moment. It seems like a double pronged shafting from the tobacco/pharma cartel and the morality police.
Maybe I'm just too emotionally invested on that one.
As for the other bit's. Your dealing with classic scattershot Slavoj. He writes in a much more ordered way than he speaks, but he is still very much a stream of consciousness when he gets going.
I enjoy "truffle hunting in the forest of knowledge" like that, but I understand why it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
I this case, I don't think the specific examples are as important as the idea he is expressing (to him or myself).
That said, couldn't said health organisation be seen as pushing a moral position there? I guess your arguing it was beneficial to their business in some way? (not informed enough to have a strong position either way on that, but I think I can see where your coming from)
As for it being more dangerous than overt totalitarianism. The argument would be that you can see and fight overt ideologies, as such they are considerably less of a threat in modern developed countries.
Here I think, it would be "more dangerous" simply in the sense that there is a greater danger of anything significant actually happening.
Naturally the jackboots and piano wire kind is infinitely worse in practice. But there seems considerably less danger of that kind of totalitarianism gaining a serious foothold in most of our cultures than in times past.
The policing of peoples thoughts, language and consensual behaviour on the other hand (epitomised by the PC gone mad crowd). Could perhaps be said to be more dangerous, simply in the sense that it has more potential to do actual damage.
You could accuse that of being a bit hyperbolic, but that's our Slavoj.
^Above post
vilSlavoj has more experience with oppressive regimes. Effective oppressive regimes let "ordinary people" do most of the oppressing. Much more zealous than any government agency can be. For any "good citizen" it is enough to know what the party line is and that one must not deviate.
Perhaps vaping sections on aeroplanes (I hate people vaping in my vicinity) or semi-secret performances of smoking operas (for people who like those) would make the world less oppressive for some people without sacrificing too much selfrighteous ego. Perhaps the selfrighteous ego is just too strong.
A ban on smoking in pubs has just been passed over here. Again, I am fine with that in the pubs I go to, however there are pubs in small villages out in the country where only smokers ever go and all they do is drink and smoke. Will they have to meet elsewhere, rename the pub to a "smoking club" or just become underground smokers against the establishment?
My favourite Yugoslav joke is BTW Q: What is the national record for the 100 meter sprint in Montenegro?
A: 80 metres.
Did the government step in and force them to do this? Nope, they made the decision themselves.
Babymechsays...Man, how is this even an issue in this day and age? The PC crowd at the university campuses can do their thing, and the Mac crowd can do theirs.
(Seriously, totalitarian dictatorships are much less dangerous than political correctness, because you can fight totalitarianism but how would you ever fight political correctness? Between myself and Anne Frank, I'm actually the real victim, because she had the chance to fight the nazis, but I don't even get to call people faggots D: )
ChaosEngineThere's a difference between public and private speech. If you're talking to someone you know, well, by definition you know them and you know where to draw the line. My friends throw all kinds of anti-Irish racist slurs at me that I would take serious offence at coming from someone else.
As for the idea that PC "hides" racism/sexism/homophobia, fantastic! The more it's hidden away, the less people are exposed to it, until it becomes more and more socially unacceptable to be a racist, sexist, homophobic asshole.
Again re the opera: first, it was Perth not Sydney, and second, I agree it's stupid. But it was the opera companies stupid decision to make. No-one forced them to do this.
Here's the importance point: PC is not censorship. Censorship is saying you CAN'T say this, PC is saying "maybe you SHOULDN'T".
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. If someone says something racist or sexist or whatever, I have the right to express my opinion that they shouldn't have said those things. If that's PC, so be it.
I think I can see where he's coming from with this, and the more open forms of racism there is an honesty that does seem less insidious. Open racism, like a fire in your house is not something you want, but at least you can see the problem right away and begin to address it (get the fuck out of the house!). But that more subtle form of racism is more like radon gas, can't see it, can't smell it, but it's slowly killing your ass (I feel terrible, I think I'll lie down and take a nap).
In America I think we've been living under the delusion that racism is a thing of the past, especially after electing a black President, but then we see how most of the racism has simply gone underground. And so, all that outwardly PC behavior is just for show, you can change how people act on the outside, but they're still the same on the inside and quietly act on those impulses, the rot is still there.
His examples of dirty jokes weren't even really genuine racism, amongst certain groups (guys in particular) razzing, busting your balls and such is usually a sign of acceptance and sometimes it takes on racial or ethnic tones, but with no real malice.
The decision not to show Carmen at the Sydney Opera House sounds like a classic case of PC overreach, how does not showing Carmen actually serve the anti-smoking cause? Let's ask how many kids started smoking because they saw that scene in Carmen? It's an absolutely useless and pointless gesture.
ZawashI prefer a PC over a console any day.
00Scud00says...Quite true, and it's a risk you take when you do that and suffer the consequences if it bombs, comedians push these boundaries all the time (the good ones at least, IMHO). When he joked with that disabled person about the sign language was that person genuinely offended or did they connect over the joke which might have occurred to them as well?
And I honestly can't see how hidden racism/sexism/ or any other isms I can think of is an improvement. You can't fight an enemy you can't see, you have movements like Black Lives Matter and others having to first convince everyone that there is actually a problem before they can even begin to address the problem itself. So, no, not fantastic, pretending you don't have cancer doesn't make the cancer go away, it just festers and eventually spreads throughout the whole system.
I'm glad we both agree it was a stupid decision and while it may be their stupid decision to make it doesn't mean that Zizek and others can't criticize that decision and explain why they think it's stupid.
And censorship comes in many forms, Governmental is only one of the easiest to recognize. The tyranny of the majority is a very real thing, maybe they can't throw you in jail, but they can make your life very difficult and that can be enough to silence many. And that can make it into a totalitarianism of it's own kind, I find a lot of Left Wing extremism to be equally as dangerous and crazy as the Right Wing brand.
It's been shown time and time again that even without the law behind you you can pretty much destroy someone's life just because they said something you didn't like, all I'm saying is "maybe you SHOULDN'T".
I listen to the Intelligence Squared debates sometimes and I thought this seemed relevant, interesting debate.
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/1310-liberals-are-stifling-intellectual-diversity-on-campus
@Zawash
PC Master Race, checking in!
There's a difference between public and private speech. If you're talking to someone you know, well, by definition you know them and you know where to draw the line. My friends throw all kinds of anti-Irish racist slurs at me that I would take serious offence at coming from someone else.
As for the idea that PC "hides" racism/sexism/homophobia, fantastic! The more it's hidden away, the less people are exposed to it, until it becomes more and more socially unacceptable to be a racist, sexist, homophobic asshole.
Again re the opera: first, it was Perth not Sydney, and second, I agree it's stupid. But it was the opera companies stupid decision to make. No-one forced them to do this.
Here's the importance point: PC is not censorship. Censorship is saying you CAN'T say this, PC is saying "maybe you SHOULDN'T".
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. If someone says something racist or sexist or whatever, I have the right to express my opinion that they shouldn't have said those things. If that's PC, so be it.
TruckchaseA threat of violence based on something that might annoy or scare you.
Weird that I'm the US citizen.
"The idea is that if you smoke during the flight e-cigarette you publicly display your addiction and that is not a good pedagogical example for others and so on and so on."
Or (far more likely) the airline realised that other passengers don't like people smoking around them in a confined space. You want to vape at home or outside? Knock yourself out. But kindly refrain from doing so in my cramped airspace. Otherwise, we'll test the old adage about how my right to swing my fist ends at your face.
He hasn't really presented any kind of decent argument here. Ok, the Carmen thing is stupid, but if you actually read the story behind that, it's because the Opera house was sponsored by a health company. Essentially they bowed to commercial pressure. Nothing to do with PC.
Even if WAS a "PC" decision, on what planet is that "a more dangerous form of totalitarianism"?
Someone decided they didn't want to stage an opera because there's smoking in it... oh no! Save us from opera-hitler!
Did the government step in and force them to do this? Nope, they made the decision themselves.
ChaosEngineYep, and then I'll melt them with my laser eyes.
Really not that weird that you're a US citizen; you share your countrymen's inability to realise when someone is being tongue in cheek.
A threat of violence based on something that might annoy or scare you.
Weird that I'm the US citizen.
TruckchaseRetro edit for victory! Yup, that's "TOTALLY OUTSIDE THE FRAME OF YOUR DUMB COMMENTS EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME".
* "DUMB EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME" = "tongue in cheek".
Yep, and then I'll melt them with my laser eyes.
Really not that weird that you're a US citizen; you share your countrymen's inability to realise when someone is being tongue in cheek.
ChaosEngineCool story bro.
Get back to me when the drugs wear off.
Retro edit for victory! Yup, that's "TOTALLY OUTSIDE THE FRAME OF YOUR DUMB COMMENTS EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME".
* "DUMB EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME" = "tongue in cheek".
TruckchaseIt was all tounge-in-cheek, but Kiwis can't understand that; as part of any given nation in the world you are exactly the stereotype I imagine you to be, and thus I have remotely stripped you of your self-perceived humanity. I'm guessing you thought you were real, but you're not. You never have been. You are a Kiwi, and thus are everything I think you should be. Bro.
Cool story bro.
Get back to me when the drugs wear off.
ChaosEngineJokes on you... I'm not a kiwi; I'm Irish.
And if I was sober I would have some kind of epic burn for you, but as it is, I'm way too fucked to care.
It was all tounge-in-cheek, but Kiwis can't understand that; as part of any given nation in the world you are exactly the stereotype I imagine you to be, and thus I have remotely stripped you of your self-perceived humanity. I'm guessing you thought you were real, but you're not. You never have been. You are a Kiwi, and thus are everything I think you should be. Bro.
TruckchaseGood stereotype play!
Jokes on you... I'm not a kiwi; I'm Irish.
And if I was sober I would have some kind of epic burn for you, but as it is, I'm way too fucked to care.
newtboyClearly you got back to him long BEFORE the drugs had worn off.
It was all tounge-in-cheek, but Kiwis can't understand that; as part of any given nation in the world you are exactly the stereotype I imagine you to be, and thus I have remotely stripped you of your self-perceived humanity. I'm guessing you thought you were real, but you're not. You never have been. You are a Kiwi, and thus are everything I think you should be. Bro.
TruckchaseI've been waiting years for that to happen, still no luck.
Clearly you got back to him long BEFORE the drugs had worn off.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.