Zizek argues in line with Lacan that human beings are essentially dualistic entities in his book the "The Sublime Object of Ideology". He would have us believe that we are both subject and object in our individual human form. And as puzzling it sounds there is a strong sense of truth and irony as we understand easily that we are subjects surrounded by objects, however we are not so willing to accept that we are also an object surrounded by a subject. From my interpretation of Zizeks thinking it seems the mind/mental states are considered the 'holy object' whereas the body is the subject and less fundamental. But what are we to make of this dualistic division within ourselves and what can it teach us.
Well firstly one must acknowledge the role of desire noted by Zizek as he identifies the strong role it plays in motivating and establishing our drive towards the 'objet petit a'; the fundamental object of desire, of which we can never truly attain, because it simply doesn't exist. Possibly stretching his reach Zizek go so far as to state that the 'objet petit a' is in fact the object inside us, 'the very self of self' that is characterised by a lack/void or impenetrability as it is a completely negative entity.
To try and distinguish the difference between the object and subject Zizek offers us two examples. The first is a painting of "Lenin at Warsaw" which puzzling doesn't depict Lenin but his wife in bed with her young lover in bed, who are both certainly not in Warsaw where Lenin is. Zizek identifies that the woman is the 'subject' of the painting and Lenin is 'the invisible object', the later of which gives the painting it's real meaning by way of the title. The very name of the painting apparently cuts through the canvas in a metaphorical way allowing one to understand the comical/serious affair of the heart.
What I find compelling about the example of the Russian adulterous romp that Zizek identifies are the interactions between the actors of the painting when analysed. If you subtract the object 'Lenin' by removing his name from the painting the work would become a legitimate moment of passion between a couple. If you subtract the wife subject from the painting everything is reversed as the lover or other rises insignificance in relation to the object of Lenin turning the painting into a homo erotic scene, all though the later is still not depicted.
However, the most important thing of which Zizek is clearly aware are the relationships between the subject and the object both are demanded by the painting, joining together to create a meaning impossible without the other, as well as the young lover.
Furthermore it seems that the subject is more dependent on the object. If the subject is removed meaning for the object persists be it in a distorted way, however if the object is removed the subject now must depend upon the given context of the painting, the backdrop, that cancels out the true nature of the unfolding situation betwixt the sheets.
No comments:
Post a Comment