{"id":12157,"date":"2013-10-12T20:11:33","date_gmt":"2013-10-13T01:11:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=12157"},"modified":"2013-10-12T20:11:33","modified_gmt":"2013-10-13T01:11:33","slug":"kotsko-interview-about-z-and-religion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2013\/10\/12\/kotsko-interview-about-z-and-religion\/","title":{"rendered":"kotsko interview about \u017d and religion"},"content":{"rendered":"

An interview over Zizek Friday, October 11, 2013 \u2014 Adam Kotsko<\/a><\/p>\n

1. In general, what are the fundamental formulations of \u017di\u017eek on theology?<\/p>\n

\u017di\u017eek interprets Christianity along Hegelian lines, as an enactment of the death of God. His approach is similar to that of Thomas Altizer, whose declaration of the death of God caused significant controversy in the US in the 1960s. The basic claim is that when God became incarnate in Christ, that was a total and irreversible decision to empty himself into Christ<\/span>\u2014and so when Christ died on the cross, God truly and irreversibly died, emptying himself into the world<\/span>.<\/p>\n

2. What is the peculiarity of his approach?<\/p>\n

\u017di\u017eek\u2019s approach goes against the mainstream of Christian theology, where the doctrine of the Trinity has allowed theologians to affirm that only one of the divine persons underwent the ordeal of the incarnation \u2014 hence isolating the impact of the incarnation on the divine life. From the orthodox perspective, it is correct to say that \u201cGod is dead\u201d in view of Christ\u2019s death, but in a more important sense, God \u201csurvived\u201d even when Christ was buried in the tomb.<\/p>\n

The Hegelian approach \u017di\u017eek adopts also differs from traditional Christology, which holds that God raised Christ personally and individually from the dead. In the Hegelian interpretation, by contrast, Christ\u2019s divine power is \u201cresurrected\u201d as the new form of community known as the \u201cHoly Spirit.\u201d Here, however, \u017di\u017eek differs from Hegel insofar as he views the \u201cHoly Spirit\u201d not as an institutional form of life (like the Catholic Church) but as a fundamentally new form of human life together.<\/p>\n

3. In what sense are the works of \u017di\u017eek, especially the latest ones, relevant to the current theological debate?<\/p>\n

I see many mainstream theologians as torn between two desires. On the one hand, they recognize that the Greek philosophical categories through which the early Church Fathers interpreted the gospel were not the best fit and in some ways wound up distorting the Christian message. On the other hand, though, they want to remain faithful to the orthodox doctrines that grew out of that conceptuality. Karl Barth is emblematic of this conflict\u2014he claims to be providing a radical new basis for Christian doctrine, and yet he always comes up with essentially the same answers that orthodoxy had always provided.<\/p>\n

In that context, I think \u017di\u017eek\u2019s approach represents a way out of this deadlock, insofar as the Hegelian interpretation of Christianity attends to the inherent logic of the incarnation without troubling itself about philosophical presuppositions such as the unchangeability of God. In a sense, Hegel, Altizer, and \u017di\u017eek may represent a real attempt to follow up on Paul\u2019s claim to know nothing but Christ crucified.<\/p>\n

From the other direction, I believe that \u017di\u017eek\u2019s project provides support for other radical attempts to rethink the Christian tradition\u2014particularly in the various liberation theologies. This is not to say that such theologians \u201cneed\u201d \u017di\u017eek, but rather that \u017di\u017eek\u2019s work could point more mainstream theologians toward the creative, radical work that is already going on.<\/p>\n

4. In what sense is the argumentation of \u017di\u017eek on this subject complex and unusual?<\/p>\n

One challenge for theologians who want to read \u017di\u017eek is the importance of Lacan for his project. While \u017di\u017eek\u2019s reading of Hegel is somewhat idiosyncratic, Hegel is at least familiar to most theologians\u2014Lacan, on the other hand, is a less frequent point of reference and is in many ways more difficult to approach given that he uses a lot of his own jargon and symbols in developing his concepts. I try to provide some orientation in Lacanian thought in my book, so that people can at least know where to begin.<\/p>\n

5. How can we understand the claim of \u017di\u017eek that, to become a true dialectical materialist, one must go through the Christian experience? Is not this about a paradoxical stance from him?<\/p>\n

\u017di\u017eek understands the Christian experience in terms of the death of God. For him, Christianity is the most radical form of atheism insofar as even God himself becomes an unbeliever in Christ\u2019s cry of dereliction on the cross<\/strong>. This differs from other forms of atheism or skepticism, because \u017di\u017eek believes that most people who deny a particular God still believe in something else that fills the same role. A scientist, for instance, will generally believe in something like the laws of nature, or a Communist might believe in the laws of historical necessity. Only the Christian experience of a God who doesn\u2019t believe in himself provides the guarantee that we won\u2019t be able to sneak in a new idol to take the old God\u2019s place<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The Christian experience is thus the experience of the undeniable and irrevocable emptying out of any transcendent meaning or purpose\u2014of any \u201cmaster signifier,\u201d in Lacanian terms<\/span>. From the traditional Christian perspective, this may seem contradictory or strange, but from \u017di\u017eek\u2019s own perspective, it doesn\u2019t seem right to call it paradoxical.<\/p>\n

6. How can we understand the fact that \u017di\u017eek is interested in the emancipatory potential offered by Christian theology?<\/p>\n

\u017di\u017eek believes that the total emptying out of transcendent meaning is necessary to open up the possibility of real freedom<\/span>. For him, death and resurrection represent the movement of completely withdrawing from the present order and setting to work building something new.<\/p>\n

7. How does \u017di\u017eek analyze the continental philosophy and the future of Christian theology from the legacy of Paul of Tarsus? What is the significance of Paul, in this perspective?<\/p>\n

For \u017di\u017eek, Paul\u2019s Christian communities are a model of withdrawing from the present order\u2014or as \u017di\u017eek puts it in The Puppet and the Dwarf, \u201cunplugging\u201d from the force of law. Where many interpreters believe that Paul is an opponent of the Jewish law, \u017di\u017eek claims that Paul is trying to give Gentiles access to the uniquely Jewish stance toward the law. In this perspective, Paul\u2019s famous discussion of the law inciting its own transgression in Romans 7 is not talking about the Jewish law, but about distinctively pagan attitudes toward the law. Paul is trying to give his Gentile followers a way out of the vicious cycle he describes there.<\/p>\n

This is relevant for today, insofar as \u017di\u017eek views contemporary culture as embodying a kind of law that incites its own transgression<\/strong>\u2014everything has to be \u201csubversive\u201d and \u201cirreverent.\u201d People don\u2019t feel guilty about having sex, but about not having enough sex<\/span>. In this context, rebellion against social norms becomes meaningless<\/span><\/strong>. A completely different stance that breaks the dichotomy of obedience and rebellion is needed, and that\u2019s what Paul provides in \u017di\u017eek\u2019s view.<\/span><\/p>\n

8. To what extent are Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Chesterton leading thinkers in the theological stance of the Slovenian philosopher?<\/p>\n

This is an area where I believe \u017di\u017eek has been misunderstood. Many readers view his use of these thinkers, particularly Chesterton, as an endorsement. In reality, though, his ultimate goal is to show that they don\u2019t go far enough. He enjoys Chesterton\u2019s Hegelian style, for example, but he views Chesterton\u2019s Catholicism as a betrayal of the gospel that returns to the pagan approach to law and transgression. Similarly, though Pascal and Kierkegaard provide very real insights, he wants to go beyond them because they don\u2019t take the next step and embrace the death of God.<\/p>\n

9. What are the main points of the debate between \u017di\u017eek and Milbank in \u201cThe Monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or Dialectic\u201d?<\/p>\n

The encounter between \u017di\u017eek and Milbank is the encounter between the Hegelian death of God approach and traditional orthodoxy. The debate was productive insofar as it allowed \u017di\u017eek to develop his critique of traditional theology, particularly of the doctrine of the Trinity, and to reflect on the ethics implied in his position, but both authors\u2019 essays were so long and full of so many digressions that it was almost impossible to discern any actual debate.<\/p>\n

For me, the biggest benefit of this debate was that it allowed \u017di\u017eek to draw a clear line in the sand. Milbank\u2019s followers had sometimes viewed \u017di\u017eek as a natural ally of their Radical Orthodoxy project, but \u017di\u017eek declares that Milbank\u2019s vision\u2014which is centered on escaping from the problems of modernity by reasserting hierarchical authority and traditional family values\u2014as \u201clight fascism.\u201d He also makes it clear that he views Milbank\u2019s Anglo-Catholicism, like Chesterton\u2019s Catholicism, as a reversion into the pagan stance toward law and transgression.<\/p>\n

10. To what extent does the debate between these two thinkers deepen the dialogue between faith and reason?<\/p>\n

In my view, the debate was a disappointment. \u017di\u017eek and Milbank are simply too far apart for a truly productive struggle to emerge. Far more interesting, in my view, is the confrontation staged between \u017di\u017eek and Terry Eagleton in Ola Sigurdson\u2019s Theology and Marxism in Eagleton and \u017di\u017eek: A Conspiracy of Hope<\/em>. A confrontation with a less traditional theologian like Jurgen Moltmann or Catherine Keller would also have been more interesting.<\/p>\n

Between \u017di\u017eek and Milbank, though, there was little more than a missed encounter. \u017di\u017eek has not yet found a theological interlocutor who can challenge him in a productive way\u2014and I hope that someone does step up to fill that role, because it is so rare for a contemporary philosopher to have any interest at all in contemporary theology. I don\u2019t think I am the right person for the job, but I hope that in my book, I helped to clear the space for such an encounter to occur.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An interview over Zizek Friday, October 11, 2013 \u2014 Adam Kotsko 1. In general, what are the fundamental formulations of \u017di\u017eek on theology? \u017di\u017eek interprets Christianity along Hegelian lines, as an enactment of the death of God. His approach is similar to that of Thomas Altizer, whose declaration of the death of God caused significant … Continue reading “kotsko interview about \u017d and religion”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[137],"class_list":["post-12157","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-zizek","tag-interview"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12157","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12157"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12157\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12158,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12157\/revisions\/12158"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12157"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12157"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12157"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}