A transcript of a talk Zizek gave last year in London:
“Just like Heidegger with Nazis, Foucault has been heavily criticized for supposed lapse, error in his thought, over his engagement with Iranian revolution. But again, my thought here is that – just like Heidegger – he did the right thing, only again, in wrong direction.”
So you the see the logic here – three withdrawals. First, Foucault claims is event is absolutely new, and that whatever reactionary aspect it might seem to have belongs entirely to outside subjective perceptions. Then he says, in fact, split between new aspect and reactionary aspect inherent in event itself, but that the pure event comes first. Then, he withdraws even further, and says that actually it was reactionary aspect that came first, which generated event in the first place.”
“So you see the point here – and it is charge very often levelled against Badiou, but unfairly in his case, that criteria of Badiou mean that Nazism is event – this is actually not true of Badiou, but it is, I think true of Foucault – what Foucault theorizes with Iranian Revolution applies exactly to Nazism!”
I don’t know much about Zizek (although his positive review of 300 seems to be well circulated) but isn’t he just another personality that will come and go? Someone should let us know what he is talking about here.
Filed under: Iran |