[mrxd]

Zizek’s argument is that cynicism is the prevailing form of “ideology”. Cynicism is a position of doubt, skepticism, seeing through illusions, knowing better than the deluded masses. The view that everyone is manipulated while only you see the truth is the ultimate ideological position because it presupposes a neutral and objective position.

The linked article falls into this trap. It sees through “ideology” - meaning political theory - on the grounds that it oppresses the individual. The problem is that this itself a political ideology.

[SavantIdiot]

> The view that everyone is manipulated while only you see the truth is the ultimate ideological position

Except Zizek never claims that. Not everyone is claiming "only I see the truth and you are a sheep". Some of us are claiming we are all being manipulated and need to be aware: ourselves included.

I think it is disingenuous for you to make that straw-man, to claim people who say ideology is harmful somehow think they are better than everyone else because only they see the truth.

That only serves to put a spotlight on your own personal axe to grind.

[mrxd]

If you remember from the documentary the analysis of the movie They Live, the protagonist puts on the glasses in order to see the truth. For Zizek, the putting on (not taking off) of the glasses is crucial. It is specifically not a gesture of unmasking:

“The key feature here is that to see the true nature of things, we need the glasses: it is not that we should put ideological glasses off to see directly reality as it is”: we are “naturally” in ideology, our natural, immediate, sight is ideological.”

https://www.lacan.com/essays/?page_id=397

[SavantIdiot]

I've been thinking about this for a day and thanks for pointing this out. I remember the scene well, as I've seen the film several times, but I didn't catch the distinction between putting glasses on and taking them off. As you quoted, clearly Zizek said this, but it just never registered this way.

However, I'm still having trouble internalizing your claim that the belief that you have to put on the glasses is in itself an ideology. How? Is it an ideology in the sense that anyone can apply it by saying, "Ah, you don't see the truth," where the truth can be whatever you say it is?

Wouldn't Zizek have noticed that? Or is it intentional since the entire film is about ideology, and that's kind of a perversion of ideology.

[mrxd]

Well, it doesn't help that the word ideology is being used in different ways. In non-Marxist contexts, an ideology is a political theory: liberalism, socialism, fascism, etc. When Zizek uses the word, it is in the traditional Marxist sense of the beliefs and ideas that sustain capitalism, especially that persuade the working class to support capitalism. An ideological statement would be something like "rising tides lift all boats" to support cutting taxes for the rich.

Zizek uses the metaphor of parallax to explain ideology. Parallax is the phenomenon where a distant object's position seems to shift depending on the position of the viewer. Two people looking at the same object from different angles will see something different. Zizek's point is that this isn't an epistemic problem where one person is wrong (lying, deluded, etc.) and the other is right. The conflict is ontological—the parallax shift is part of reality itself.

The true ideological move is to claim that you've stepped back from the conflicting perspectives to a neutral, objective standpoint, some kind of middle ground where all differences are reconciled. This move is always epistemic, i.e. "Both sides have good points, but they're blinded by their beliefs and can't see how things really are." The truth is not a middle position halfway between two people who are looking out at a distant object and seeing different things due to parallax.

Zizek says the They Live glasses are like critique-of-ideology glasses, not because they show the that the "true" meaning behind advertising is "Obey", "Consume", etc. It's because they render the conflict visible. Ultimately, one is forced to pick a side-which is a political choice-because there is no neutral objective position.

[imtringued]

It's kinda like the "Marxism problem" where the critique of capitalism has a lot to offer but the solutions are incredibly lacking. Just because capitalism is flawed doesn't mean that socialism is the answer.