Slavoj Zizek - The Big Other Doesn't Exist

8/20/2019 Slavoj Zizek - The Big Other Doesn't Exist

1/9

Why did Freud supplement the Oedipal myth with the mythical narrative of the "primordial father"in Totem and Taboo (T&T)? The lesson of this second myth is the exact obverse of the Oedipusfar from havin! to deal with the father who intervenin! as the Third prevents direct contact withthe incestuous ob#ect (thus sustainin! the illusion that his annihilation would !ive us free accessto this ob#ect) it is the $illin! of the father i%e% the very realiation of the Oedipal wish which!ives rise to symbolic prohibition (the dead father returns as his 'ame)% nd todays much*decried "decline of Oedipus" (of the paternal symbolic authority) is precisely the return of fi!ureswhich function accordin! to the lo!ic of the "primordial father" from "totalitarian" political leadersto the paternal sexual harasser% +ut why? When the "pacifyin!" symbolic authority is suspendedthe only way to avoid the debilitatin! deadloc$ of desire its inherent impossibility is to locate thecause of its inaccessibility into a despotic fi!ure which stands for the primordial #ouisseur wecannot en#oy because ,- amasses all en#oyment %%%

* . *

/n the "Oedipus complex" parricide (and incest with the mother) is the unconscious desire of allordinary (male) sub#ects since the paternal fi!ure prevents access to the maternal ob#ectdisturbs our symbiosis with it while Oedipus himself is the exceptional fi!ure the One whoeffectively did it% /n T&T on the contrary parricide is not the !oal of our unconscious wish but asFreud emphasies a!ain and a!ain a prehistoric fact which "really had to occur" to allow the

passa!e from animal state to 0ulture% /n short the traumatic event is not somethin! we dreamabout but which never really happens and thus via its postponement sustains the state ofculture (since the consummation of the incestuous lin$ with the mother would abolish thesymbolic distance1prohibition which defines the universe of 0ulture)2 rather the traumatic event isthat which always already had to happen the moment we are within the order of 0ulture% /f weeffectively $illed the father why is the outcome not the lon!ed*for incestuous union? /n thisparadox lies the central thesis of T&T the bearer of prohibition preventin! our access to theincestuous ob#ect is not the livin! but the 3-3 father who after his death returns as his 'amei%e% the embodiment of the symbolic law1prohibition% What the matrix of T&T accounts for is thusthe structural necessity of the parricide the passa!e from direct brutal force to the rule ofsymbolic authority of the prohibitory law is always !rounded in a (disavowed) act of primordialcrime% Therein resides the dialectic of "4ou can only prove that you love me by betrayin! me" thefather is elevated into the venerated symbol of 5aw only after his betrayal and murder% This

problemati6ue also opens up the va!uaries of i!norance not the sub#ects but the bi! Others"the father is dead althou!h unaware of it" i%e% he doesnt $now that his lovin! followers have(always*already) betrayed him% On the other hand this means that the father "really thin$s that heis a father" that his authority directly emanates from his person not merely from the emptysymbolic place that he occupies and1or fills in% What the faithful follower should conceal from thepaternal fi!ure of the leader is precisely this !ap between the leader in the immediacy of hispersonality and the symbolic place he occupies a !ap on account of which the father 6uaeffective person is utterly impotent and ridiculous (7in! 5ear confronted violently with thisbetrayal and the ensuin! unmas$in! of his impotence and deprived of his symbolic title isreduced to an old ra!in! impotent fool)% The heretical le!end accordin! to which 0hrist himselfordered 8udas to betray him (or at least let him $now his wish between the lines%%%) is thus well*founded in this necessity of the +etrayal of the 9reat :an which can only assure his Fameresides the ultimate mystery of ;ower%

,owever there is still somethin! missin! in the T&T matrix% /t is not enou!h to have the murderedfather return as the a!ency of symbolic prohibition this prohibition to be effective must besustained by a positive act of Will% For that reason Freud in his :oses and :onotheism (:&:)added a further last variation to the Oedipal dispositif% ,ere the two paternal fi!ures howeverare not the same as that in T&T the two fi!ures are here not the presymbolic obscene1non*castrated Father*8ouissance and the (dead) father 6ua bearer of the symbolic authority i%e% the'ame*of*the*Father but the old -!yptian :oses (who dispensin! with earlier polytheisticsuperstitions introduces monotheism the notion of a universe as determined and ruled by auni6ue rational Order) and the the #ealous 9od who displays


2/9

ven!eful ra!e when ,e feels betrayed by his people)% :&: turns around yet a!ain the dispositifof T&T the father "betrayed" and $illed by his followers1sons is 'OT the obscene primordialFather*8ouissance but the "rational" father embodyin! the symbolic authority the fi!ure whichpersonifies the unified rational structure of the universe (lo!os)% ather than the obscene pre*symbolic father returnin! in the !uise of his 'ame of symbolic authority we have now thesymbolic authority (lo!os) betrayed $illed by his followers1sons and returnin! in the !uise of the

#ealous ven!eful and unfor!ivin! supere!o fi!ure of a 9od full of murderous ra!e (.)% Only afterthis second reversal of the Oedipal matrix do we reach the well*$nown ;ascalean distinctionbetween the 9od of ;hilosophers (9od 6ua the universal structure of lo!os identified withrational structure of the universe) and the 9od of Theolo!ists (the 9od of love and hatred theinscrutable "dar$ 9od" of capricious "irrational" predestination)%

The crucial point is that in contrast to the primordial father endowed by a $nowled!e about #ouissance this uncompromisin! 9od is that ,e says "'o@" to #ouissance as 5acan puts it this9od is possessed by a ferocious i!norance ("la fAroce i!norance de 4ahvA") (B) by an attitude of"/ refuse to $now / do not want to hear anythin! about your dirty and secret ways of #ouissance"2a 9od who banishes the universe of traditional sexualied wisdom a universe with still asemblance of an ultimate harmony between the bi! Other (the symbolic order) and #ouissanceand the notion of a macrocosm re!ulated by some underlyin! sexual tension of male and female"principles" (yin and yan! 5i!ht and 3ar$ness -arth and ,eaven%%%)% This 9od is the proto*

existentialist 9od whose existence to apply anachronistically


3/9

8un!ian neoobscurantist notions of masculine and feminine archetypes which thrive today% Thispoint is crucial if we are not to misunderstand completely the !ap which separates the "proper"authority of the symbolic law1prohibition from the mere "re!ulation by rules" paradoxically thedomain of symbolic rules to count as such must be !rounded in some tautolo!ical authority+-4O'3 C5-


4/9

roof nei!hbors be!an to annoy her%%%)%


5/9

with the Old Testament lo!ic of


6/9

excuse% The more the sub#ects structure is "narcissistic" the more he blames the bi! Other andthus asserts his dependence on it% The "culture of complaint" thus calls on the bi! Other tointervene and to set thin!s strai!ht (to recompense the dama!ed sexual or ethnic minority etc%althou!h how exactly this is to be done is a matter of different ethico*le!al "committees")% Thespecific feature of the "culture of complaint" lies in its le!alistic twist in the endeavor to translatethe complaint into the le!al obli!ation of the Other (usually the


7/9

("men are from :ars women are from Jenus") accordin! to which there is an underlyin! deeplyanchored archetypal identity which provides a safe haven in the flurry of contemporary confusionof roles and identities% From this perspective the ultimate ori!in of todays crisis is not thedifficulty to overcome the tradition of fixed sexual roles but modern mans unbalanced emphasison the male1rational1conscious aspect at the expense of the feminine1compassionate one% Whilesharin! with feminism the anti*0artesian and anti*patriarchal bias this tendency rewrites thefeminist a!enda into a re*assertion of archetypal feminine roots repressed in our competitivemale mechanistic universe% nother version of the real Other is the fi!ure of the father as sexualharasser of his youn! dau!hters which stands at the core of the so*called "false*memory*syndrome" here also the suspended father as the a!ent of symbolic authority i%e% theembodiment of a symbolic fiction "returns in the real" (the controversy is caused by the contentionof those advocatin! rememoration of childhood sexual abuses that sexual harassment by thefather is not merely fantasy or at least an indissoluble mixture of fact and fantasy but a plainfact somethin! that in the ma#ority of families "really happened" an obstinacy comparable toFreuds no less obstinate insistence on the murder of the "primordial father" as a real event inhumanitys prehistory%) There is however yet another much more interestin! and uncannyassertion of the bi! Other clearly discernible in the alle!edly "liberatin!" notion that todayindividuals are compelled to (re)invent the rules of their co*existence without any !uarantee ofsome meta*norm 7ants ethical philosophy was already its exemplary case% /n 0oldness and0ruelty 3eleue provides an unsurpassable formulation of 7ants radically new conception of the

moral 5aw

%%% the law is no lon!er re!arded as dependent on the 9ood but on the contrary the 9ood itself ismade to depend on the law% This means that the law no lon!er has its foundation in some hi!herprinciple from which it would derive its authority but that it is self*!rounded and valid solely byvirtue of its own form% =%%%> 7ant by establishin! T,- 5W as an ultimate !round or principleadded an essential dimension to modern thou!ht the ob#ect of the law is by definitionun$nowable and elusive% %%% 0learly T,- 5W as defined by its pure form without substance orob#ect of any determination whatsoever is such that no one $nows nor can $now what it is% /toperates without ma$in! itself $nown% /t defines a realm of trans!ression where one is already!uilty and where one oversteps the bounds without $nowin! what they are as in the case ofOedipus% -ven !uilt and punishment do not tell us what the law is but leave it in a state ofindeterminacy e6ualed only by the extreme specificity of the punishment%" ()

The 7antian 5aw is thus not merely an empty form applied to random empirical content in order toascertain if this content meets the criteria of ethical ade6uacy% ather the empty form of the 5awfunctions as the promise of an absent content (never) to come% The form is not a $ind of neutral*universal mould of the plurality of different empirical contents2 the autonomy of the Form ratherbears witness to the uncertainty which persists with re!ard to the content of our acts we never$now if the determinate content which accounts for the specificity of our acts is the ri!ht one i%e%if we have effectively acted in accordance with the 5aw rather than bein! !uided by some hiddenpatholo!ical motifs% 7ant thus announces the notion of 5aw which culminates in 7af$a and theexperience of modern political "totalitarianism" since in the case of the 5aw its 3ass*


8/9

uni6ue concrete situation)2 however in Foucault this simply means that the sub#ect is thrown intoa situation in which he has to shape his ethical pro#ect with no support in any transcendent(al)5aw while for 7ant this very absence of 5aw in the specific sense of a determinate set of positiveuniversal norms renders all the more sensible the unbearable pressure of the moral 5aw 6ua thepure empty in#unction to do ones 3uty% From the 5acanian perspective it is here that weencounter the crucial distinction between rules to be invented and their underlyin!5aw1;rohibition it is only when the 5aw 6ua set of positive universal symbolic norms fails toappear that we encounter the 5aw at its most radical the 5aw in its aspect of the eal of anunconditional in#unction% The paradox to be emphasied here resides in the precise nature of the;rohibition involved by the moral 5aw at its most fundamental this ;rohibition is not theprohibition to accomplish some positive act which would violate the 5aw but the self*referentialprohibition to confuse the "impossible" 5aw with any positive symbolic prescription and1orprohibition i%e% to claim for any positive set of norms the status of the law% Cltimately the;rohibition means that the place of the 5aw itself must remain empty%

;ut in classic Freudian terms in Foucault we !et a set of rules re!ulatin! the "care of the


9/9

interconnected althou!h opposed conse6uences on the one hand the failure of symbolic fictioninduces the sub#ect to clin! more and more to ima!inary simulacra to sensual spectacles whichbombard us today from all sides2 while on the other it tri!!ers the need for violence in the eal of the body itself (cuttin! and piercin! the flesh or insertin! prosthetic ob#ects into the body)%

(.) For a concise description of these shifts see :ichel 5apeyre u*delH du complexe dOedipe(;aris nthropos*-conomica .EEN)%

(B) The title of 0hapter /P of 8ac6ues 5acan 5e sAminaire livre PJ// 5envers de lapsychanalyse (;aris -ditions du

Documents

Slavoj Zizek - The Big Other Doesn't Exist