Pandemic! COVID-19 Shakes the World By Slavoj Žižek
We are living in (and hopefully through) extraordinary times. The Trump government in the United States is taking over the private sector. Boris Johnson wants to nationalise the British railways. A universal form of basic income is being contemplated across much of Europe. Entire countries around the world are under lockdown and market logic is being openly defied; people have been asked to stay home and not work because they are, or could get, sick.
Žižek, like many others, thinks that this means we are beyond the point of no return; past denial, anger, bargaining, and depression, and nearing the fifth stage of grief as a terminally-ill society where we accept our need to radically change our ways of life.
In Pandemic: COVID-19 Shakes The World, the Slovenian philosopher brings together some of his corona-commentary to postulate that we need now, more than ever, to turn to a reinvented form of Communism focused on global cooperation and healthcare — and indeed, that we're already there. He critiques; with the occasional help of H.G Wells, Quentin Tarantino, Fredric Jameson, Tolstoy, and Lacan; the efficacy of our current systems and technology in face of nature, and points to our need for a different and more nuanced vocabulary of intervention instead of falling back on barbaric measures like the survival of the fittest even if it is with a human face. His is a more holistic appeal, emphasising a need to ensure real change (and not the kind of socialism of the rich that bailed out banks in 2008 at the cost of ordinary people's savings), and to take into account the well-being of the entire natural world. In his view, it isn't humankind itself but our current institutions and ways of life that constitute the real virus.
Žižek here is as witty and cogent as ever, although it is to be seen whether the suggested radical changes, or usual conservative Right-wing bailouts, are what will ensue. In Pandemic: COVID-19 Shakes The World the author is at his most accessible, too, making it the perfect book to dig into and keep up with the times. Slavoj Žižek ترجمه‌ی نوید گرگین تحسین‌برانگیز است. من با سه نسخه‌ی مختلف از این كتاب در بازار مواجه شدم که نشان می‌دهد سرعت ترجمه‌ی اثر در ایران نیز ستودنی است.
ژیژک در این كتاب همان ژیژک همیشگی است، با این تفاوت که موضوع را زمانی شکافته که همه‌مان با آن درگیریم. جذاب‌ترین وجه مطالعه‌ی كتاب برای من همين تازگی بود؛ به‌خصوص که گرگین چند ضمیمه را با خوش‌سلیقگی تمام به آن افزوده است. Slavoj Žižek کتاب را می‌توانید در عرض یک ساعت بخوانید. این یعنی که این کتاب، یک کتاب فلسفی به معنای کلاسیک آن نیست و چهارچوب نظری و مفهومی مشخصی هم ندارد و بیشتر ساختاری ژورنالیستی دارد. کتاب شامل ۱۹ جستار به هم پیوسته به اضافه یک ضمیمه است که ژیژک در آن‌ها، پرسش‌هایی را مطرح می‌کند که گاهی متواضعانه می‌گوید پاسخ مشخصی برای آن‌ها ندارد. او می‌گوید کرونا، علیرغم رنج‌هایی که بر ما تحمیل کرده است، فرصتی را فراهم کرده که درباره جهانی که در آن زندگی می‌کنیم بازاندیشی کنیم، کاستی‌های آن را که در شرایط بحران بروز روشن‌تری دارد ببینیم و قطعاً بیش از پیش متوجه این مسئله باشیم که چرا فکر کردن به امکان‌های جایگزین برای زندگی کردن مهم و البته شاید کمی دیر، اما همچنان ضروری است.
با این که جستارهای کتاب از نظر موضوعی ممکن است پراکنده به نظر برسند، اما می‌توان چند خط مشخص را بین آن‌ها پیدا کرد. اول از همه، نقدهایی است که ژیژک در مورد نگرش‌ها و تحلیل‌های مختلفی مطرح می‌کند که از سوی اندیشمندان گوناگون، از آگامبن گرفته تا فیلسوف اهل کره‌جنوبی بیونگ چول هال در مواجهه با بحران کرونا بیان شده است. ژیژک هشدار می‌دهد که چگونه بحران کرونا می‌تواند باعث قوت گرفتن راست افراطی در غرب شود. جایی که حالا نسبت دادن به ظاهر علمی شیوع کرونا به «دیگری شرقی» می‌تواند موضع راست افراطی در اروپا را برای مردم این قاره منطقی جلوه دهد. همچنین او از امکانی صحبت می‌کند که کرونا به دولت‌ها می‌دهد تا به بهانه مدیریت بحران، موضع استبدادی خود را نسبت به شهروندان تقویت و آزادی‌های سیاسی را به خصوص در رسانه‌ها محدود کنند.
اما چیزی که بخش اعظمی از بحث ژیژک در کتاب را شامل می‌شود نقد او به گسترش بحران کرونا با ارجاع به ساختار جامعه‌ی غربی و به طور ویژه اقتصاد مبتنی بر بازار آزاد است. ژیژک علیرغم نقد خوشبینی چپ افراطی در مورد فروپاشی سرمایه‌داری به واسطه بحران کرونا، این وضعیت برزخی را دارای پتانسیلی می‌داند که می‌تواند دوباره ما را برابر این پرسش قرار دهد؛ کمونیسم یا بربریت!
ژیژک علاوه بر شمردن ضعف‌های بی‌شمار اقتصاد آزاد در مواجهه با بحران، این مسئله را بیان می‌کند که سازوکارهای موجود در بازار آزاد برای مدیریت و جلوگیری از بحران و گرسنگی نابسنده است. بحران کرونا نشان داد که کالایی شدن و سود محوری درمان و پزشکی می‌تواند چه فاجعه‌ای را در پی داشته باشد. در حالی که کمبود فضاهای درمانی، لباس‌‌ها و امکانات محافظتی نظیر ماسک هر لحظه منجر به مرگ تعداد بیشتری از افراد می‌شود، ذخایر مالی سرمایه‌داران وارد چرخه تولید این امکانات نمی‌شود. بازار آزاد علیرغم نیاز شدید جامعه نتوانست در مراحل اولیه این امکانات را فراهم کند. و در همین نقطه است که سیاست‌های کمونیستی حداقل در حوزه درمان ضرورت خود را نشان می‌دهد. ژیژک ما را دعوت می‌کند که به این مسئله بیشتر فکر کنیم. او معتقد است ما هنوز در برابر دوگانه‌ای آشتی ناپذیر قرار داریم، کمونیسم یا بربریت. مگر بربریت جز این است که کادر درمان به علت کمبود امکانات پزشکی مجبور به انتخاب بین بیماران سالمند و جوان هستند؟ مگر بربریت غیر از این که است که هزاران نفر که به علت شیوع ویروس کرونا کار و درآمد خود را از دست داده‌اند به حال خود رها شده‌اند و اگر از بیماری نمیرند، قطعاً گرسنگی جان آن‌ها را خواهد گرفت. به همین خاطر ژیژک انتخابی جز کمونیسم را در شرایط فعلی ممکن نمی‌داند. اما بنا به کژفهمی واضحی که از کمونیسم ممکن است به ذهن متبادر شود؛ ژیژک مجبور است تا ایده‌ی خود از کمونیسم را به طور خلاصه شرح دهد؛ او از کمونیسمی صحبت می کند که همین حالا هم توسط سیاست‌مدارانی که حتی کمونیست هم نیستند در حال اجرا است. بوریس جانسون، نخست وزیر انگلستان در مارس ۲۰۲۰ به طور موقت را‌ه‌آهن کشوری را ملی اعلام می‌کند و ترامپ می‌گوید لایحه‌ای را امضا می‌کند که که به او اختیار می‌دهد که تولید صنعت بومی را در موارد لازم در دست بگیرد. ژیژک کمونیسم را رویایی تو خالی نمی‌بیند بلکه مستقیماً به برخی سیاست های عملگرایانه اشاره می‌کند، کمونیسمی که ژیژک از آن سخن می‌گوید برای توصیف جریانی است که هم اکنون در حال پیش روی است، اقداماتی که همین الان هم در نظر گرفته می‌شوند و تا حدی اعمال می‌شوند؛
«کمونیسم تصویری از یک آینده مشعشع نیست بلکه بیشتر نوعی کمونیسم فاجعه در واقع پادزهر سرمایه‌داری فاجعه است. دولت باید نقش فعال‌تری بر عهده بگیرد. تولید لوازمی ضروری مثل ماسک، کیت‌های تست و دستگاه تنفسی را سازماندهی کند، هتل و سایر اقامتگاه‌های تفریحی را تعطیل کند. معاش حداقلی تازه بیکارشده‌ها را تامین کند، و کارهایی از این دست؛ منتها باید تمام این اقدامات را بدون اعتنا به سازوکارهای بازار انجام دهد. بیایید فقط درباره‌ی میلیون‌ها نفری که کارشان لااقل برای مدتی منتفی و بی‌معنی می‌شود فکر کنیم؛ مثل کسانی که در صنعت گردشگری مشغولند. سرنوشت آن‌ها را نمی‌شود به امان سازوکارهای بازار یا مشوق‌های استثنائی، رها کرد … وقتی از کمونیسم حرف می��نم منظورم این قبیل پیشرفت‌ها است و در عوض آن، هیچ گزینه بدیلی جز بربریت نوین نمی‌بینم. اما این کمونیسم تا کجا پیش می‌رود؟ نمی‌توانم بگویم، فقط می‌گویم نیاز مبرم به آن احساس می‌شود.» صفحه ۸۵٫
ژیژک موضعی ناامیدانه در برابر بحران کرونا دارد. او در این که ما از بحرانی که دچار آن شده‌ایم عبرت بگیریم، تردید دارد. او با هگل هم نظر است که می‌گوید تنها فایده مطالعه تاریخ این است که بفهمیم ما از تاریخ هیچ چیزی نمی‌آموزیم. در این که این بیماری ما را نسبت به جهان خود خردمندتر کند، تردید جدی وجود دارد و این ویروس نه تنها جان شمار گسترده‌ای از افراد را در جهان می‌گی��د، بلکه پایه‌های اقتصاد را نیز کوبنده‌تر از «رکود بزرگ» در هم خواهد شکست. در مواجهه‌ی با این بحران، کافی نیست که ما سبک زندگی خود را تغییر دهیم یا در سطح کلان، تغییراتی در نظام بهداشت عمومی ایجاد شود. ما چاره‌ای نداریم جز آن که پرسشی را در میان بگذاریم؛ «چه اشکالی در سیستم ما وجود دارد که به رغم هشدارهایی که دانشمندان از سال‌ها قبل داده‌اند، در برابر این فاجعه غافلگیر شدیم؟»
این ریویو را برای سابت وینش نوشته ام
https://vinesh.ir/ Slavoj Žižek No surprises for adepts, no sense to the inept. Ok, one surprise: it was entirely on topic. I hope we can have more lockdowns, but I'm sure it's my garden and my library that make me so insensitive to the cares of overcrowded others. Social distancing is the best thing to ever happen ever. Most people look better with a mask yet the ugliest refuse. Can I keep my house if capitalism collapses? Maybe the local warlord I mean sheriff will allow me to be a collaborator! I may have enough provisions to last through 2020, which can't get any worse. Right?!! People you think you know are already thrilled at the prospect of roving cannibal hordes. Heavily armed, of course.
P.S. No other Zizek has nearly this many reviews. Hegel Lacan 2020! Slavoj Žižek من واقعا در این حوزه صاحب‌نظر نیستم که بگم به این دلیل و اون دلیل کتاب خوبی نیست یا هست. فقط حس شخصی‌ام رو می‌گم؛ احساس کردم نویسنده زیادی دادوبیداد و هیاهو می‌کنه و همه‌چی رو به هم می‌چسبونه. یه بخش‌هایی از حرف‌هاش هم کمی متعصبانه و تصفیه‌حساب شخصی به نظر می‌رسیدن.ـ Slavoj Žižek
As an unprecedented global pandemic sweeps the planet, who better than the supercharged Slovenian philosopher, Slavoj Žižek to uncover its deeper meanings, marvel at its mind-boggling paradoxes, and speculate on the profundity of its consequences, all in a manner that will have you sweating profusely and gasping for breath?
We live in a moment when the greatest act of love is to stay distant from the object of your affection. When governments renowned for ruthless cuts in public spending can suddenly conjure up trillions. When toilet paper becomes a commodity as precious as diamonds. And when, according to Žižek, a new form of communism may be the only way of averting a descent into global barbarism.
Written with his customary brio and love of analogies in popular culture (Quentin Tarantino and H.G. Wells sit next to Hegel and Marx in these pages), Žižek provides a concise and provocative snapshot of the crisis as it widens, engulfing us all.
“Žižek leaves no social or cultural phenomenon untheorized, and is master of the counterintuitive observation.” —The New Yorker
“The most dangerous philosopher in the West.” —Adam Kirsch, The New Republic Pandemic! COVID-19 Shakes the World
ترجمه از این مزخرف تر نداریم گرچه مترجم زحمت کشیده و مصحح وقت گذاشته اما عبارت مزخرف کلمه ای است که حس من رو بیشتر از هر کلمه دیگری می رسونه. سخت نویسیِ این کتاب کجا و مصاحبه هایِ رسانه ایِ ژیژک کجا. ایشون آدمِ حرف زدن هستن تا نوشتن. نظر من یکی اینه. مطلقاََ نپسندیدم، شاید بهتره بگم این کتاب رو با این ترجمه نپسندیدم
لینک مصاحبه ژیژک در مورد پندمیِ کرونا
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2ZJ4... Slavoj Žižek It would be hard to find a more topical book – admittedly it is short – you can read it in an hour or so – and while I don’t think this will necessarily be the theoretical book of the virus, it does raise a number of issues it is timely to think about.
Not least is the idea that, unlike Trump telling us that the ‘enemy’ we are facing in this ‘war’ is both invisible and smart – viruses are more like zombies than enemy soldiers, neither alive nor dead, but in need of us to continue living. They are mindless replicators – not too different, if you think about it, to how our societies have been managing to date – where their getting out of hand and killing the host is an ever-present danger. As so many environmentalists have said of late – when did so many governments suddenly start believing in ‘the science’?
I’ve been fascinated with the metaphors around the virus – particularly that of war. Illness and war are so often metaphors for each other – which is odd in a way, because often metaphors only work one way. George is a lion, makes sense, while a lion is George, not so much. Metaphors normally are used to help us understand the incomprehensible in terms of the already known – but it seems to me that war is at least as incomprehensible as illness. And I really dislike the things that connect to the war metaphor that I would rather weren’t connected to this virus – enemies, collateral damage, sacrifice, and also nationalism and chauvinism – the other as threat, the other as enemy, the other that must die to protect our way of life.
As Zizek says here at one point, “if refugees are perceived as linked to the spread of the epidemic (and of course there are likely to be widespread infection of coronavirus among refugees give the conditions in the crowded camps they occupy), then populist racists will have their heyday: they will be able to justify their exclusion of foreigners with ‘scientific’ medical reasons.” And as other theorist have said, the rise of refugees occurred and been contemporary with the rise of zombies in popular culture – with the half-life in isolation camps and threat refugees are perceived to present our ‘way of life’ something that makes them haunt our nightmares and, with suitable displacement, haunt our movie screens as well.
This book has been written in a moment of crisis – in the original Greek definition of that word – a moment where a choice must be made. And the options we have available to us hark back to Rosa Luxemburg’s choices between civilisation and barbarism. Zizek makes no bones about this – he says our choice now is communism and barbarism. It seems clear that the free market has proven strikingly incapable of reacting to this crisis – other than to be a further drain on already stretched resources. This has been particularly clear in the US where we are witnessing ‘more of the same’ in the shift of wealth towards the top even while the lives of millions are being smashed to pieces. Where inconceivable amounts of money are being poured in at the first sign of trouble to prop up corporations, but where little to nothing is being done to protect the precariat. If the majority of people in the US had been one pay cheque away from tragedy before this crisis, then the waves have gone over heads of a staggering number of them now. It is hardly surprising people are demanding ‘liberty or death’ so as to get back to work – taking the chance of death from the virus is the only viable option.
Zizek makes the interesting point that we in the developed world had long assumed that viruses had been relegated to cyberspace. Now we seem to have been relegated to virtual space too. Now, acts of solidarity and love involve us keeping our distance from those we are ‘closest to’. There are so many horrible perversions of basic human care involved in this crisis. And this feeds into something else that Zizek raises here and that I’ve been thinking about myself, yet another reason why the war metaphor is unhelpful. This pandemic has been predicted as being inevitable for decades, in fact, the only thing we can really say about it is that if anything it was over-due. But what had really been predicted is that this pandemic will be ‘an’ example of our future – not ‘the’ example – we didn’t predict ‘a’ pandemic – but a series of them intermittent and iterative.
We live lifestyles – particularly in our agricultural practices – that make such pandemics inevitable. How likely is it that we will learn from this one? Because ‘learning’ implies change. So, when I read the Queen saying ‘we’ll meet again’ that assumes that the world on the other side of all this will be the same as the one we have so recently left behind. I’m not sure that will be the case, or even if that is what we really want to be the case.
Zizek’s main point here is that the world we left behind wasn’t working for so many of us. There is hope that we will learn from that over this time of isolation and demand that we do not go back to the ‘normal’ that existed before – a normal that punished the vast majority to a half-life of risk and fear. Perhaps now the radical selfishness that is at the heart of Capitalism will be understood to be something that needs to be constrained. Surely, if this pandemic has taught us anything it is that radical individualism is an absurdity in what is a social species. The notion we are ‘all in the same boat’ is perhaps the metaphor we need to replace the battle and war metaphors we have proven so fond of.
If all of this sounds too utopian, then let’s end with the darker vision of the barbarism that is offered in its stead. The world economy has crashed. We are about to enter a profound depression like nothing most of us have seen in living memory. Technology is such that corporations will be much more likely to increase production by increasing the mechanisation of their workplaces, rather than in re-employing those who have lost their jobs. They have done this in every recession for the last 50 years, it isn’t clear why people think they won’t do it this time. The ‘future of work with fewer people’ will be a highly likely outcome of this crisis. A crisis of demand, following people across all societies having been forced to run down their savings and go further into debt to survive, will make the economy springing back in the fabled ‘V’ curve so many are predicting almost impossible.
We have already witnessed a near endless rise in xenophobia over the last two decades – with crusades against Muslims, wars on terror, torturing asylum seekers, just the top of the list that springs to mind. That will only get worse. How long did it take before Trump called on immigration into the US to stop? Populism and chauvinism are intimates that never practice social distancing.
Fear of the stranger is at the heart of so many of our social fears – now that they will be defined as a potential source of disease, that fear is hardly likely to be reduced.
Here in Australia we have recently doubled the amount of money people receive when on unemployment benefits – previously the amount was well below the poverty line – something even the business council thought was too low. We have already been told this is a short-term measure with a very definite end date for it to go back to the punishing levels of pre-virus.
We have spent decades being punitive towards the poor. We imprisoned them more, we have created more hurdles for them to jump over to get benefits that, even when they qualify, are barely enough to keep their body and soul together. We humiliate them by denying them any potential dignity other than via jobs – and jobs that we already know do not exist. Employment will be unlikely to bounce back after this is ‘over’ – particularly for the young, we will be creating a world of both physical and mental abuse.
We are faced with a crisis – a choice point – between a utopian future and one of ever deepening barbarism. The seeds of that barbarism were planted long before this pandemic began – their shoots have been springing from the ground for decades.
Zizek is more optimistic than me – something he explains by saying that he once lived in a punishing socialist country that eventually came to an end. That means he can see that change is possible and that he isn’t afraid of that change. My having never lived immediately through such change, means that that change seems much more terrifying for me. He says, “Remember that, in Nazi Germany, anti-Semitism was strongest in those parts where the number of Jews was minimal—their invisibility made them a terrifying spectre” and later a friend writes to Zizek and quotes Freud: “soldiers who had been injured in the war were able to work through their traumatic experiences better than those who returned unscathed”. I suspect we are all going to be scared by what lies ahead – it would be a pity of we picked barbarism merely because utopia seemed too good to be true.
Slavoj Žižek
Notes, quotes, jokes and my takes
“Touch me not,” according to John 20:17, is what Jesus said to Mary Magdalene when she recognized him after his resurrection. How do I, an avowed Christian atheist, understand these words?.
Me: really?? An avowed Christian atheist? Can a Christian be an atheist at the same time? No.
Such class divisions have acquired a new dimension in the coronavirus panic. We are bombarded by calls to work from home, in safe isolation. But which groups can do this? Precarious intellectual workers and managers who are able to cooperate through email and teleconferencing, so that even when they are quarantined their work goes on more or less smoothly.
Me: the stalinist intellectuals can do it too, smoothly as well.
My modest opinion is much more radical: the coronavirus epidemic is a kind of “Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique” on the global capitalist system—a signal that we cannot go on the way we have till now, that a radical change is needed.
Me: maybe, Zizek. You'd surely like the capitalist system to crumble. And China to take over. Maybe the solution to the coronavirus pandemic lies in the capitalism system.
The ongoing spread of the coronavirus epidemic has also triggered a vast epidemic of ideological viruses which were lying dormant in our societies: fake news, paranoiac conspiracy theories, explosions of racism.
Me: but if proved that the Chinese did it*, than their communist ideology is really viral, I mean, criminal. I just read The novel coronavirus we're facing here is an offensive biological warfare weapon. Zizek, who do you think said such a thing?
Speculation is widespread that coronavirus may lead to the fall of Communist rule in China, in the same way that, as Gorbachev himself admitted, the Chernobyl catastrophe was the event that triggered the end of Soviet Communism.
Me: I hope it will. Free elections are a nice thing.
The first vague model of such a global coordination is the World Health Organization from which we are not getting the usual bureaucratic gibberish but precise warnings proclaimed without panic.
Me: precise??? Give me a break. You should have said, the WHO praised the superiority of the socialist system of China, handling the coronavirus. That's precisely what the WHO did.
We should not be afraid to note some potentially beneficial side effect of the epidemic. (...) Car production is seriously affected—good, this may compel us to think about alternatives to our obsession with individual vehicles. The list can go on.
Me: that I agree on. It would be a wonderful thing, watching the stalinist intellectuals riding public mules, from home to the university,... then back home. No private mules. No cars. Only public mules.
There is, however, an unexpected emancipatory prospect hidden in this nightmarish vision. I must admit that during these last days I caught myself dreaming of visiting Wuhan.
Me: you should, Zizek. Especially if you're infected. Do you know who said this:
So, again, the choice we face is: barbarism or some kind of reinvented Communism.
Me: Zizek, there's a third option: capitalism.
No wonder that, as matters stand now, China, with its widespread digitalized social control, proved to be best equipped for coping with a catastrophic epidemic. Does this mean that, at least in some aspects, China is our future?
Me: the so-called digitalized social control was rejected by some in the West. Well done. Thanks, but no to Orwellian gadgets. Ha! You should ask the Uyghurs about the (their) future.
When I suggested recently that a way out of this crisis was a form of “Communism” I was widely mocked.
Me: they did it right. Communism is no cure nor vaccine, but another plague.
As the saying goes: in a crisis we are all Socialists.
Me: I AM NOT.
UPDATE
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/202...
https://thepointmag.com/politics/hope...
UPDATE
Follow China???
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/502825-china...
Predictions a la Zizek:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.c...
*https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xJxlOgC... Slavoj Žižek This was a very quick read, and not one that merits much dwelling upon in rereading. It is definitely written in a journalistic, opinion-piece style, rather than a theoretical style, and references to theory are minimal and presented simply. Hence the speediness of it. However, it's about what one would expect of a book written in such haste. Typos and editing misses abound. Some of what he says is quite cliche at this point, especially at the very end. He repeats almost the exact same statement several times, about the response to what he'd said about the pandemic previously. He cites Wikipedia twice - once for some background on an H.G. Wells novel, once for a summary of a book - in the former case, I suppose it's just undignified; in the latter case, it just seems lazy, self-aware remark or not. The summary is of a short text and I see no reason why Zizek himself should not have summarized it.
Now, those gripes are about what anyone would expect. This book went up for preorder right when the pandemic hit hard, and was released within the last few days, meaning it was put together in a matter of a few months or weeks. Nothing I said is news, then, only specifics of what everyone expected. What was unknown - at least to me, who had not read his previously-published articles on the pandemic - was what exactly his arguments would be.
The ideas in the book are not all bad. For instance, the reflections on different types of tiredness are interesting, if not very fleshed-out, and the same goes for a few other sections, like the introduction. But some points just seem wholly unconvincing. Chapter 5, The Five Stages of Epidemics, seems like a poor attempt at forcing an ongoing situation into a model that it doesn't quite fit yet - and a model I suspect you could eventually fit any situation into, depending on what sources you select. As an earlier published review noted, his strange desire to visit Wuhan, and his idea that the abandoned streets in a megalopolis ... provide a glimpse of what a non-consumerist world might look like (56), seem quite counter to any point I can think of. Is the point of ending consumerism to.... end community and vibrant public spaces? The idea that a non-consumerist city is a ghost town is a strange endorsement of consumerism!
Anyway - I acquired this as an ebook for free, as I preordered it, and I'm glad OR Books set it up that way. I'm also pleased that Zizek is donating the money he would make from its sales to charity. But, all things considered, why did this book need to exist, and so quickly? Apparently he'd been writing pieces about the pandemic already, and this book drew on them heavily. Why not simply continue doing that, and wait until the dust has settled before publishing an entire book? I won't speculate, but the question is on my mind.
Overall - if you want to read a brief book by Zizek with some characteristic anecdotes on an ongoing situation, I suppose I would recommend this. It's probably the first book by a well-known academic on the pandemic, and it's quick and relatively light. But if you aren't interested in Zizek, and don't care about reading the first text on the pandemic, I wouldn't bother. Better books will be published on it soon, and I'd imagine that this one will be largely forgotten, as with so many other current-events types of books by theorists. Slavoj Žižek Gee, it’s only been a month or so and Zizek already published a book “Pandemic! Covid-19 Shakes the World” (OR Books, 2020). This is the beauty of the Zizekian cut-up art of writing: reassembling pieces of previous works mixed with new thoughts or looked at from a different perspective, plus jokes and anecdotes from the good old days of Soviet communism. In this sense, at any point in life, he’s got a book that is already three-quarters done. (The book was free e-book though, he’s not making a quick buck off the crisis. Any royalties after the first 10,000 free copies will go to Médecins Sans Frontières)
Also: can you imagine Zizek NOT touching his face 😂
Now, the book. It’s actually a fairly optimistic reading of the situation: capitalism, at least in its current form, is dead but doesn’t know it yet. What comes after depends on us - this is a very political situation, we have radical choices to make.
Zizek rejects both the conspiracy theories from the right and left (including Agamben’s reading of the crisis) and warns against the ‘civilized barbarism’ of sacrificing the weak and old for the ‘survival of the economy’ - I like the expression he uses of animist capitalism, e.g, ‘panicking markets’. the economy cannot die, human beings die.
I also love his personal annex:
“Let me begin with a personal confession: I like the idea of being confined to one’s apartment, with all the time needed to read and work. Even when I travel, I prefer to stay in a nice hotel room and ignore all the attractions of the place I am visiting” 😻 Slavoj Žižek
