Summary Analysis – Ch. 1 of Slavoj
Zizek’s Looking Awry
How real is
reality? It is an awkward question for
one to consider, surely. But, does it
worth merit? Philosopher/scholar Slavoj Zizek
certainly seems to think so. He has been
quoted by critics to be the Rock Star philosopher of our times.1 For
someone interested in philosophy, they couldn’t go wrong by picking up a book,
article, or essay written by Slavoj Zizek.
So, how real is reality? Let’s see what he has to say.
In, From
Reality to the Real, the first chapter of his book, “Looking Awry,” author
Slavoj Zizek is entertaining that very question. His answer, it doesn’t appear to be as real
as one commonly understands it to be. He
does so by pointing out examples in literature, theather, or movies that
support his answer to the question. His
gesturing to these examples is meant to be towards the disposition that this is
something that those examples inherently know, vis a vis their expression of
them. Zizek borrows heavily from Jacques
Lacan to provide these examples, and it should be noted that the subtitle to
this book is, An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture.
For example,
he turns to William Shakespeare’s, Richard II, to employ his reality-isn’t-real
answer. In reference to an exchange
between Bushy and the Queen, Zizek writes, “…the crucial point is the way his
metaphor splits, redoubles itself, that is, the way Bushy entangles himself in
contradiction.”2 He then goes on to explain Bushy’s quote, Zizek
states, “…if we take the comparison of the Queen’s gaze with the anamorphotic
gaze literally, we are obliged to state that precisely by ‘looking awry,’ i.e.,
at an angle, she sees the thing in its clear and distinct form, in opposition
to the ‘straightforward’ view that sees only an indistinct confusion.”3 This
is his set-up for his answer. He then
goes on to state that these (the two gazes) constitute two realities. One that when looked upon directly is
“indistinct confusion,” and the other, clearly seen only when looked upon awry. And the angle that one uses, is that of
desire.4
That seems
to be a lot to take in. First off, what
the heck is anamorphotic? Mirriam-Webster defines it as, “producing, relating
to, or marked by intentional distortion of an image.”5 So, it
appears that he’s trying to say it is only through the intentional distortion
that the Queen can see the object clearly.
Which, when combined with this expanded upon theory it seems like he’s
saying reality, when looked at as it is, is indistinct and confusing. Whereas, if one intentionally distorts their
view, and looks at reality through that distortion, it seems to resolve for
them. And what is that distortion, none
other than desire. This all seems to
make sense, but is also very radical.
Another
example from this chapter is Zizek’s reference to Robert Heinlein’s novel, “The
Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag,” a story in which some rather unusual
and crazy universal circumstances lead to the main character finding out the
world was created by a universal artist and some touch-ups were going to be
needed. The example Zizek prepares from
this, is the main character was told he wouldn’t notice the changes if, no
matter what, he didn’t roll down his window on the drive home. Well, he did, and all he and his wife could
see was a gray, formless mist. Zizek
goes on to say that that gray, formless mist is reality, when looked upon
directly.6
So, he has
tackled reality through literature yet again, and he comes up with this
example. While the brief synopsis of
Heinlein’s novel offered here is but a shadow of what Zizek himself offers, it
suffices to say that his notion can be compelling. However, if one wanted to be critical, it
wouldn’t be hard to brush these aside as merely fictional allusions
cherry-picked to support his claim.
While, that notion is unappealing, it nevertheless should be tabled.
All-in-all,
Zizek’s answer to the question of, “How real is reality?” is- not really that
real. His detailing through fictional
examples does excite one, and can be very compelling, especially through his
interpretation. Is it depressing or
wanting? At times, the answer to that
is, yes. However, it is his relating it
to desire as the angle/intentional distortion through which we see reality as
we do today, that really hooks one in.
Again, and more encompassing, it couldn’t hurt anyone to pick up a book,
article, or essay written by Slavoj Zizek.
End Notes
1. "Slavoj Zizek -
Biography." Slavoj Zizek. European Graduate School, Accessed 26 Apr, 2014.
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/biography/
2. Žižek, Slavoj. Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through
Popular Culture. MIT, 1991. Print.
Pgs 10-11
3. Ibid. pg 11
4. Ibid. pgs 11-12
5. "Anamorphic."
Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed April 27, 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anamorphic.
6. Žižek, Slavoj. Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through
Popular Culture. MIT, 1991. Print.
Pgs 12-15
No comments:
Post a Comment