A review of 'First As Tragedy, Then As Farce'

In this piece, Zizek discusses the changes that have taken place in the nature of capitalism over the course of the last hundred years or so.  He references Boltanski and Chiapello’s The New Spirit of Capitalism (focused primarily on France) which suggests that during this period there have been three distinct styles of capitalism.

First was the entrepreneurial spirit, which survived until the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Second was the rigid organisation of the large corporation, which survived until the 1970s.

From the 1970s on, business began the slow process of abandoning such strict hierarchies, and began to move to a ‘network’ based model, giving more autonomy to individuals and encouraging smaller, more fluid, project-focused teams.

Zizek argues that this move away from strict hierarchy to a more flexible, de-centralised approach, was capitalism's response to the rise of socialism that occurred at this time.  Marginalising ‘true’ socialism by making it seem conservative and unexciting, while promoting the idea that ‘cultural capitalism’ was a force for good.  Zizek draws a link between this new method of approaching consumption, and Jacques Lacan’s theory of RSI, arguing that in purchasing an item, the consumer considers the Reality (the functional purpose), the Symbolism (e.g. Audi driver = wealthy, independent thinker) and the Imaginary (I can picture myself driving along beautiful, well-surfaced, empty roads).

Zizek believes that this cultural shift can be identified as an element of Post-Modernism, as defined by Jean-Francois Lyotard.  The link between personal identity and product choice has become ever more closely intertwined.

E.g. Believe in collaboration and trying to build a better world?   Why not buy an Android phone?  The software is open-source and anyone can build an application for it.  Or if aesthetics are everything, and having the slickest user interface is what matters (regardless of Apple's restrictive licensing policies) why not buy an iPhone?  Che Guevara vs Nietzsche anybody?

Zizek argues that another achievement of the current form of capitalism is in how it succeeded in appropriating the slogans and methods of the counter-culture for its own ends, rather than continuing attempts to violently and publicly repress it.

Zizek references Jean-Claude Milner, who argues that the state, in granting ‘permissions’ to the general population, such as allowing divorce or abortions to be more easily available, can be perceived as ‘loosening the chains’ sufficiently to prevent widespread protest, without relinquishing one iota of their control.  Zizek points out that as much as these greater civil freedoms are, in themselves, good things, they have absolutely no effect on the distribution of power.

Zizek also illustrates the difference between genuine radical emancipatory politics, and populist politics.  He argues that the fundamental cornerstone of populism is ignorance, a people's refusal to engage with and understand the complexities of the situation that they find themselves in.  He suggests that a populist outcry is effectively a shout of ‘I don’t really know what’s happening, but I want it to stop!’  Zizek argues that it is a politics that requires a scapegoat, something or someone that can be identified and blamed.

Zizek argues that truly radical emancipatory politics are active, imposing and enforcing a vision, while populist politics are reactive, a politics of fear.

Bibliography
Zizek, Slavoj. "The New Spirit Of Capitalism." In First As Tragedy, Then As Farce, by Slavoj Zizek, 51-64. London: Verso, 2009.