1. The talk - at Backdoor Broadcasting Company
2. The controversy:
a) "I don't claim that Zizek is a fascist, or a "proto-fascist", for all that he seems anxious to provoke such reactions [...] But in the UK [...] the argument from the xenophobes and far right is almost identical to Zizek's: if the liberal elite love the gypsies and Muslims and immigrants so much, let them live with them. Similarly, his anecdotal demagogic style of discussing the issue of Roma is absolutely typical of the far right in Britain ... In a sense, Zizek, the radical firebrand contrarian, is a bourgeois, conformist, national liberal at heart." (Source)
b) [Zizek asserts] that certain modes of politically correct tolerance of the Other is grounded upon the belief that certain groups can be judged differently [...]. This ends up being monoculturalism based upon a rather stereotypical ideal of how the Other should act – the point being that the bourgeois liberal, for Zizek, is deluding himself by thinking he is a mutliculturalist, since it is almost a colonial understanding of the foreign Other who he is identifying. [...]
The confusion here lies in who we identify as this bourgeois liberal, naïve apologist? For many people who subscribe to multiculturalism this simply doesn't resonate. For me, Zizek's analysis is less a critique of multiculturalism, and more a critique of naïve, neo-colonial monoculturalism [..]. But maybe the word multiculturalism lends itself too easily to the idea that cultural relativism is appropriate– since we're immediately in a struggle to identify what we can call culture. [...]
When most people support multiculturalism, what they mean is that a country ought not to have a dominant national character immigrants are obliged to adopt as a guarantee of their debt to their new homeland. Instead a country should allow all to practice what they wish, as they wish, provided that it doesn't harm anyone. Perhaps I'll adopt the term socialist universalism? (Source)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario