Skip to main content

Inescapable Imagination

Image
By
So this week I’d like to focus predominantly on Zizek’s discussion of “actual “ and “formal” freedom. To recap, Zizek defines the difference between the two by explaining “formal freedom is the freedom of choice WITHIN the coordinates of the existing power relations, while actual freedom designates the site of an intervention which undermines these very coordinates.” I find these definitions not only narrow-minded, but also a bit naïve given the fundamentals of human existence. My major contention is that in discussing the Leninist freedom of choice, both scholars make a fundamental assumption that stems from the belief that there is true (as we say with a capital T) choice. We already discussed the difference between choices within structures and choice between structures, but again all such conclusions are still based on the presupposed notion of choice. The question I pose is, is there really ever choice without structure? To expound this idea a bit, think in general abstract terms. All things recognized as “things” (animate or inanimate) and all “things” created into material existence come from the human psyche. Regardless of if we discuss communism, socialism, and/or liberalism, they are all constructs derived from our imagination. Granted we may not have been able to image the consequences of such structures, but none the less, these structures are manifestations of the human psyche.
So with that said, I return to my previous question of whether there is a such thing as “fundamental choice”. If our choices, be it of structures or within structures, are limited by our imaginations or that which can be formulated in the human psyche, is there fundamental choice? I think not. I think we are limited by our imaginations, and the possibilities are not “endless”. The same “existing power relations” that Zizek attempted to use as a separation of actual choice and formal choice, ironically plagues all existence according to group agreed recognition. We are all victims of circumstances and at the same time have the potential to free ourselves (individually and collectively) from these circumstances, but only if the imagination allows it, and that’s where the possibilities become endless. I believe this is also what Ziezek was explaining as the basic characteristic of today’s “postmodern” subject. Where do we go from here, I can only imagine...wait, no I can't!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into ...
6 comments
Read more

Whose means justifies their end?

By
I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu...
7 comments
Read more

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

By
The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [ source ]. The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government. However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the alrea...
Post a Comment
Read more