Zizek Response

In his book, “Living in the End Times,” Slavoj Zizek discusses three processes of proletarianization on Earth: ecological breakdown, the biogenetic reduction of humans to machines, and the total digital control over our lives. He describes these processes by calling forth examples from Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” in order to illustrate how “capitalism exploits catastrophes to get rid of old social constraints and impose its agenda on the clean slate created by the disaster.” Using this example he compares people who have balanced views of capitalism to people who have balanced views on Hitler since he abolished unemployment and inflation in addition to committing genocide against the Jewish people. Finally, Zizek describes three versions of apocalypticism today: Christian fundamentalist, New Age, and techno-digital-post-human. These ways of thinking differ in how they perceive apocalypses, some taking from the bible and others taking from uncontrollable advances in science.

Personally, I disagree with Zizek on a variety of issues but I respect him for offering them up for debate. I find his referencing of mediocre films to be immature, and I don’t see the future of our world in the same way that he does. For instance, I think we as humans should do as much as we can to prevent climate change from happening because it will destroy many of the natural things we cherish so greatly today. Zizek believes we should separate ourselves from nature as much as possible but I cannot agree with this because that would require us to forget where we come from, which is always a dangerous thing to do. I hope Zizek doesn’t actually believe some of the things he says because those things would significantly reduce his credibility if he truly does believe them. I certainly find his work to be interesting but I cannot see the world from his vantage point.    

9/16/14 Kaia Hayes

A common theme discussed in both "Welcome to the Desert of Real" and "Living in the End Times" was the manner in which we, as a western society, see disaster in relation to ourselves. Zizek describes the perspective as a 'bubble', shielding us from the reality of living in such circumstances. While this is a broad statement, I agree that as a whole, we see tragedy as something we observe, rather than experience. Because the majority of our global intervention and interaction occurs abroad, Americans tend to see tragedy and true disaster as something that happens elsewhere, to other people. They develop a false sense of invincibility, and as a result, are not mentally prepared for the instances when disaster does strike. One would hope that this denial would be shaken as we reel in the aftermath, that we can take away from the event the 'revelation' that Zizek argues a disaster provides-- but the 'that kind of thing doesn't happen here' mindset is deep-rooted, and tends to result in normalizing the event rather than catalyzing societal change. One application of this is the recent upspike in school shootings and gun violence, especially in the past two years. There is nothing to dispute about the horror of such acts, however once the initial frustration and call to action have dulled in their echoing, the issue seems to fall from the public eye. It is almost as if the issue has become so prevalent that we are becoming desensitized; as if the idea that finding a solution to such an overwhelming and concrete issue is entirely in our hands is too much responsibility to handle. People shy away from acknowledging that they play a role in the world around them-- and in doing so, shrug their shoulders and tell themselves that it's too late to do anything about it anyway, or that eventually change will be brought about by the worsening of the situation. In reality, true change requires society to validate disasters as a very real and present force to contend with, and once it has done so, as Zizek concluded in "Desert of Real," people must alter their thinking from "Things like this should not happen here!" to "Things like this should not happen anywhere!"

Zizek Response

While reading and watching the video, I found myself having to re read parts of the text and re watch parts of the video. Trying to fully grasp the idea that Zizek was discuss was a difficult task for me. One thing I like about Zizek is that he is a different type of thinker. He talks about topics in ways that they are not usually discussed. He brings up the way that an average person would perceive nature. He mentions that we know that catastrophes can happen, but generally think that they won't happen. know this is true, in my case. I cannot imagine a life changing event happening in Michigan, not in a million years. Another thing I received from Zizek was his way of looking at catastrophes. He mentions that it is better to look at these events as a punishment from God and not as some random occurrence. The last thing I want to comment on was his ability to make seemingly unrelated ideas come together for a great comparison or analogy.