Chomsky’s critique of Lacan’s ideology: covid brings truth to character (big think)
Chomsky called Lacan a charlatan. Claiming his psychoanalytic synthesis undermines proper inquiry. Yet Chomsky’s recent covid stunt and Epstein correspondence question his own integrity. Maybe Lacan has a point. Beyond the psychoanalytic element, the symbolic theory itself holds weight to the traditional mantra.
Ideology is generally defined as a belief held tight by a group or individual (all the isms). Yet Marx interprets ideology differently by adding an agenda to propagandise the public. Divine right is an example of such false ideas overwhelming the public into submission. A set of ideas but those that bind obedience and derail change. On the heels of Marx, Zizek further argues the subconscious helps shape the world. An ideology is a perceptual conclusion of reality. Based in our subconscious and linguistic elements do the bidding for us. We may think we are clear of the ideological halt but are at the same time upholding the dogmatic strings. Democracy liberated from feudalism and religious institutionalism. It is the break from ideology. It is the freedom to speak one’s mind. Yet at the same time is an ideology in of itself. Not only as a set of beliefs but in contrast to other political formations. McCarthyism and the Cold War only cement this point. Democracy is good communism bad. The quick to reject communism in the states, the absolute terror in the mind of Americans is tribute to the propaganda against communism. Democracy is good do not rebel into a communist state. For better or worse that is the situation.
Ironically, contrary to Marx, it finds similarities with Foucauldian force relations. For Marx, Power is binary with one side oppressing the other. Foucault saw interactions as power. It wasn’t so much one overpowering the other but influencing the other. The same goes for Lacan and Zizek. Ideology is not necessarily a hierarchical exploitation but merely a relational influence. In a way, Foucault and Zizek synthesise in power contributing to ideological formations. It is the relational continuity that breeds institutions. Almost everyone has someone to answer to whether that be a parent or a boss. While Marx is correct that these situations are imbalanced, it isn’t necessarily oppressive. Unless by default it is oppressive but humanity tolerates certain forms of oppression. Still, this is quite the definition for a parental or teacher-student relationship. Yet it is not incorrect to recognise the power imbalance. Foucault’s force relations is not equal transmission. Parents have greater influence on their children as a teacher over her students. It is this influence that beholds the ideological streams of thought. Teenagers may not realise it but much of their thinking is based off of adolescent education. The terror of communism is educated from youth consistently which is why the exposure to marxist professors in universities is a shock and rebellious inclination. Power meets influence in educating others.
The various strands of political thinking are vast amongst different people. Many follow their parents or their communities. Others do the exact opposite of their loved ones. Some people want more government others want less government. It all boils down into an ideology but why the difference? It comes down to the reflective axis. The influence of various events only further entrenches the belief. Democrats elected a black president so they are pro-black, will vote for them. Republicans are lowering taxes so they are pro-middle class, will vote for them. Yet some black people may say just because Obama was a democrat doesn’t mean everyone needs to be a democrat. Though Biden said it best that if you don’t for him you ain’t black. Voting republican is somehow unforgivable or even impossible. On the other side, republicans are doing away with social security for the middle class pension. The clear theory though is both sides have a certain dogma. To be part of the party one must fit criteria. Much of the Latino community voted for Trump. Though a minority, they were concerned more with the economy than social issues. They also happen to be more socially conservative to begin with. Still, many of these rising conservatives are seen as sellouts. There is such a method of uniform voting that stepping out of line is an offence. Where is all the free thinking and open-mindedness.
Polarising effects have only overshadowed the capability to fluidly transfer. The idea that there is only two parties to vote for. Anyone who voted for Jill Stein in 2016 allowing Trump to win is a terrible person. Many of these liberal voices condemn those who dislike the two party system. Demanding that they not vote for a third party. There is two parties and vote for Hillary. Again this upcoming election they fear Cornel West will take away from Biden ultimately leading to Trump’s reelection. Frankly, they are only speaking out because Stein and now West fanbases are liberal. If either was conservative they would be silent though conservative voices may speak up against such a candidate. The freedoms employed in the constitution are nice ideas but when push comes to shove egoism takes the front seat. Daring to vote for a third candidate is honouring a personal belief. An ideology that said candidate is the best. This isn’t a novelty. Lincoln ran against three other candidates. It is just against their own team so they call those brave souls sellouts. There is a split ideology. Some wish for a third party or specific candidate who matches their ideals over the Democratic Party desiring all liberal thinkers to align with them. Power seeps through when the voters here have the say. Any candidate can run and any voter can decide who they wish to run the country. In a marxian way, the people are oppressing the conglomerate party by refusing to join their nonsense.
Political beliefs are the heart of ideological prose but ideology melts into everyday life. Which way one likes their coffee or who is the basketball GOAT. The manner in which two sides strongly debate their side with little relenting is a clear objection to the other’s ideology. The encounter fuels a dichotomy. Two sugars or one sugar, LeBron or Jordan. Each is entitled to their opinion but the dogmatic certainty elevates it to ideological promiscuity. While the latter debate can get out of hand ending in yelling and name calling, the former may just be a pleasant disagreement. Ideology doesn’t mean all out war. It doesn’t mean teasing or even bullying. It could simply be preference. Black coffee doesn’t do it, need some sugar and milk. Some people think beer tastes like piss others hate vodka. It is perfectly normal for individuals to have their differences. It comes down to what is the consequence of that disagreement. It is inevitable to find someone who will disagree. Some may politely explain their disagreement calmly, others’ emotions flare up shouting their enraged opposition. Upholding one’s view in protest is a clear sign of an air tight alibi that needs some convincing to alter their view. Even after explaining may not switch sides. Entrenched beliefs are difficult to sway yet they are everyday enjoyments.
There is almost no position that is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even science is boiled up into theories. The claim that something is objective is merely a subjective statement. While there is experimentation, it is the human experience of that experiment that concludes the truth of reality. While a majority of people may agree to something suggesting its objectivity, it is also possible everyone is hallucinating. Does communal agreement make it fact subjectively yes but objectively no. Mathematics is argued to objectively true. The numbers are socially constructed but the speed of light is the speed of light. Yet this is based in the idea that it is testable and can only be withdrawn if falsifiable though never proven. There may be speed of light out there but that is based on testing, that testing may be wrong. So far science has concluded that the sun is the centre of the universe after the inverse being the case for so many years. Again, this is based on subjective experimentation. Many theories were adopted and then rejected. Galileo “proved” heliocentricity through a telescope visually but that is a subjective usage. Even if millions others have accepted his view, it could be wrong, maybe the telescopes are skewed or the sun is really travelling around the earth, Anaximander seems to think so.
Even if there is an objective world out there, it does not mean that humanity accepts the objectivity. Since theories are readily discarded for new ones. Categorically there may be some sway but details-wise the picture is distorted. Given the lack of closure on countless issues, it is the subjectivity that reigns supreme. Much of this knowledge is passed on to the next generation in textbooks. Old textbooks read will have rejected science while the newer ones for the future generations will be wrong. The reason for mass acceptance of certain science is allegiance to authority. Most people have not looked to see the sun as the centre of the universe but merely accept the textbook and teacher’s perspective. Young minds, innocent yet so vulnerable. While the classic polemic is against religious institutions who either forgo scientific teachings or teach flat earth bogus, the scientific textbooks also have an agenda. Their science is correct. They may argue that this is current theory but they also deceive students into believing this is the end all be all truth. We’ve done studies trust us. That is what many scientists have said prior and were overturned. It is not necessarily nefarious but it is arrogant. The search for truth cannot be tied up in "well everyone knows this". They know it because it has been force-fed to people for centuries, similar to what religious institutions did in the medieval era. It is the same process with different variables.
Two quick examples to highlight the misuse of science was global warming and coronavirus. Hundreds of scientists signed a document that global warming was impending. Shutting out all the dissenters. Those dissenters are heretics. So many scientists affirmed so they must be correct. Others took an anti-global warming position. Both extremes had obvious political goals. Just because someone says something does not make it true. It seems that retroactively, it is somewhere in the middle. The alarmists were beyond the pale but there is truth to the globe warming. The question is the cause and the consequence. Then again, politicians complaining about average usage and then heading on their private jets which pollutes ten times the amount is quite hypocritical (yes John Kerry). Even if there is a global issue, the solutions may not the right ones. War against fossil fuels may be erroneous. Yet the media frenzies the alarmists campaign hyping young activists to take up the cause blinded into a dubious game. The covid pandemic was ushered in with masking and lockdowns which were unhelpful force vaccines with side effects. While data has come to upend Fauci’s claims he still appears on media calling these studies frauds. His involvement in illegal gain of function research potentially causing the pandemic and dispelling the authentic lab leak hypothesis only demonstrates the authoritarianism of science. People were silenced, censored for arguing otherwise. No ramifications for the devils nor retribution for the wronged. People still either hold Fauci a good guy or a bad guy defending him or hating him.
Thus left at the famous Cartesian claim: cogito ergo sum. The only thing that I know to be true is that I exist. If empiricism cannot be trusted then can I ever trust my own perception of myself? The only thing we can truly ever know is that we exist. We know we’re alive because we sense it. It may be an illusion but it is the truest feeling. Insidiously subjective but deeply introspective. Though concerning everything beyond us is dually unknown. There is a subjective empirical sensation but that does not make it real nor genuine. Even the self reflection is an ideological phenomenon. The superior self in the superego is incentive of an imbalanced conception. Even at the core of human existence there is a relational enterprise. The vector internally comprises a fundamental element that seeks to radicalise the self’s endowment. The subjectivity of the self’s existence is itself the most valid of claims and yet ultimately opinionated. Still, the internal empirical mechanism facilitates a model of I am true but others may not be. The meta theme of the concept itself is tied to a binary that treads alongside monism. Individually sucked into a void would still eventually lead to a dogmatic belief that there is no other but him in the void. The void is his haven.
Ideology is reflective in the presence of otherness. Whether that be a person, place, or thing. Humanity is under the guise of a particular thought process with others around. Either in agreement or disagreement the possibility of ideological shift is present. Mutuality affirms the I-thou and I-it. The encounter with otherness presumes a side of the conflict expecting another side to rise to compare. Otherness produces a nuanced link that stitches beliefs into an intricate web. It is the relational connection that assumes an attitude toward the object. It transforms the other into an idolised construction. Whether that be a place or even a person. Any configuration of a noun fits the category. Reverting back to the LeBron-MJ debate contorts these athletes into idolised objects to discuss fervently. Turning one’s gladiator into a hero to support. It is not so much praise insofar as such praise leads to strong held beliefs about the person. No longer is the question of MJ’s heroics about his skill but about his success over another. His statistics over his play style. The conversation muddles the enjoyment of the sport and the player’s skill but about dubious arguments on the media platform. Who can beat who when such a possibility is an abstract impossibility. It is only when two people possess diverging positions that ideology is imprinted on their forehead. A nonchalant statement is reacted with stubborn rebuttal. Emotions enter the fray and it’s an all out brawl.
Emotions contribute to the objectification and undermining of these beautiful systems. Any sense of comprise is ignored in the face of one extreme over another. Backed into a corner only has a single response, do not let up, keep flailing punches forward. This objectification determines the bordered parameters of the belief. It becomes closed off, dogmatic, in its incarcerated line. A yellow painted do not cross sign boldly dismisses any progress froward. A strong sense of submission to this belief and to defend with bolstered defences. Yet this not only concerning people. A person alone on an island has an ideology. His belief in his island being the best. Even if he was last person on earth would still be ideological. The defining aspect is that it the choice of one thing at the expense of others, excluding all other possibilities. Even in a void, looking internally is objectifying the self and turning that ideologically. Cogito is a form of ideology. On a meta level there is a self appointed simplicity and yet dogmatic salvation. Tension is the kicker to imploring the ideological contingency. The self application is never quite void of emotional connection. An instinctive urgency to a belief model is mental isolation of otherness. As long as a person conscious differentiates between two modes, there is a possibility of objectifying and thus ideologically mustering a submissive aura.
Bringing in Chomsky, only builds the irony. Labelling Lacan a charlatan. While the psychoanalytic aspects may be foreign, the poststructuralist expansion/watered down version is completely justifiable. Chomsky’s decision to continue to deal business with Epstein is horrifying. Knowing about his defiant scandals and yet turning a blind eye. Even if Haberman is correct that it was for university grants, it does not dispel their apparent collusion with this terrible man. It is not so much whether he participated. The biggest issue is his hypocrisy over associating with such a nefarious character. All his lectures about ethics and human freedom yet he was essentially voiding a grave threat to morality. An ideology he seems to purport and yet not necessarily follow. It is relational. Only when it suits did he follow through. Even worse was concerning the pandemic. Follow the science and governmental misuse of power. Sam Harris did the same. Pushing a monolithic ideology of correctness berating dissenters. In the end, he was wrong. Overreach and deception were headed by the experts. He submitted to the ideology and then forced it on others. Quite the irony. He was a charlatan. Pushing ideas and lecturing all on the importance of liberty and ethics. Then when it came down to the moment he eroded all his teaching. He undermined all his efforts with his actions, truly dishonourable and distasteful.
Similar to Foucault, Ideology becomes more of a pervasive connective dilemma than a hierarchal situation. While taking Marx into account, it is less about structural imbalances and more about individualistic preferences. It is these preferences that are emboldened into systematic structures. Simplistic statements welded tight. Surrounded by hoards of knights and castle walls. Individuals cultivate their beliefs either alone or with others. Yet many of these ideologies combine with others mutating into a more powerful foe. Variance polarised will merge to binary bosses but the diversity is solely a marker of human expression. Holding fast to identity ensures grounded ideology, ready to protect beliefs at all cost. The more threatened the more defended. While ideology itself is not an issue, it is the fear of compromise. The ability to submit an aspect of the ideology that transforms it into a canonised dogma. Instead beliefs should be fluid thoughts that can travel malleably. Through conversation and experience they can adapt. The system is never truly erected. It is an ever developing process. Unfortunately emotion and friction destabilise this aspired possibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment