Book Review: Slavoj Zizek's 'Welcome to the Desert of the Real'
In a book we recently reviewed, Peter Beinart argues that the war on terror presents us with a challenge of political faith. Do we side with the fundamentalism that the terrorists represent, or do we side with the tolerance and freedom of liberal democracy? The thrust of Beinart’s argument is that those on the left who criticized the war in Iraq, and even more, who critique the war on terror, are caught in the trap of anti-Americanism and relativism – they think the evil committed by the United States is equally, perhaps more, objectionable than that committed by the terrorists. The way certain policies are carried out may be criticized, but not the overall project of defending liberal democracy from totalitarianism. This, says the iconoclastic Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek, is what makes the war on terror a conservative, ideological event. Read on for our review of Zizek’s Welcome to the Desert of the Real.
4 Comments:
Read on for our review . . . .
I would if you would only post it.
Faisal Devji, a professor of history at the New School for Social Research, claims that the jihad is now "more ethical than political in nature". The Editors commenting on Devji's 'Landscapes of the Jihad'.
Following Kierkegaard, would it not be better to say that the jihadi's suicide is an aesthetic act rather than an ethical one -- more Achilles than Socrates? Or after Eric Ericson, the solution to an identity crisis?
"The thrust of Beinart’s argument is that those on the left who criticized the war in Iraq, and even more, who critique the war on terror, are caught in the trap of anti-Americanism and relativism – they think the evil committed by the United States is equally, perhaps more, objectionable than that committed by the terrorists. The way certain policies are carried out may be criticized, but not the overall project of defending liberal democracy from totalitarianism."
I don't see how that follows. I an anti-American and believe that the crimes committed by the United States are more objectionable, and yet I also criticize the "overall project."
Beinart takes the wishy-washy perspective that one can criticize certain decisions and even the way the war was conducted, but that the antiwar movement and those who critique the war on terror itself are anti-American and relativistic. He thinks they don't stand for anything, instead presenting the purely negative idea that America doesn't stand for anything. That is why he doesn't think the overal project should be criticized. As you can see from the review, we think Beinart's argument is wrong-headed.
Post a Comment
<< Home