I don't see what's so "round the bend" about this article.
=======
Yes, I'm also puzzled.
We needn't agree with him, but Zizek's argument seems straightforward - indeed, Chuck Grimes made a somewhat similar assertion months ago (to nearly universal condemnation).
I interpret it to be a variation on the old "hastening the contradictions" theme.
The next-to-last paragraph sums it up:
Bush's victory will dispel the illusions about the solidarity of interests among the developed Western countries. It will give a new impetus to the painful but necessary process of strengthening new alliances like the European Union or Mercosur in Latin America. It is a journalistic cliché to praise the "postmodern" dynamic of U.S. capitalism against the "old Europe" stuck in its regulatory Welfare State illusions. However, in the domain of political organization, Europe is now going much further than the United States has toward constituting itself as an unprecedented, properly "post-modern," trans-state collective able to provide a place for anyone, independent of geography or culture.
...
Again, we needn't agree but this is, it seems to me, at least as plausible as the argument many of us (myself included) put forward: that the US can be more or less peacefully 'reformed' and made less dangerous through the actions of properly motivated citizens. Perhaps, but as history rolls forward events might evolve in other directions. The Bush administration's extreme unilateralism may create new domestic and international formations that will be, in the long term, at least somewhat beneficial.
Also, I don't think any Zizek watchers should be surprised by this. Indeed, during Doug's interview with him, Slavoj made the following statement (regarding the antiwar efforts prior to the invasion of Iraq):
But, on the other hand, I think it's the basic historical dialectic: that things which start as a narcissistic injury to some big party, things which may explode and emerge for the wrong reason can, in the long term, start to function on their own. They can start movements that are in themselves good. If we say, yes much of Europe was against the U.S., but we should look at the true roots and thereby dismiss it. No, I don't think this is the truth of it. There was resistance, which is in itself positive.
Point two: even when people complain, "But this was a weak resistance, now it's vanishing, now already Chirac is practically withdrawing," and so on, how Europe really showed its weakness. Oh, but I would say, are people aware how precisely by experiencing this as Europe's defeat, you at least set certain standards? You become aware in a negative way of what should have been done. My parallel here is with feminism. The first step of feminism is not, "Women should win." It's that you become aware of how defeated women are. You know, the first step towards liberation is, in a way, the awareness of defeat.
[...]
full at -
<http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Zizek.html >
...
Defeat as a prelude to victory appears to be the core idea. How can you understand your true position, Zizek appears to be saying, unless you are beaten down and must, of necessity, think carefully about your situation?
This doesn't sound at all mad to me.
.d.