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!
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