NYPL link (with audio) --
<http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/pep/pepdesc.cfm?id=4685>
As every schoolchild should know (and would, in a Willy Wonka-ish alternate universe), Bernard-Henri Levy, or BHL as he's affectionately known, is a French thinker, globe trotting philosophe/reporter and sporter of lovely suits and world famous hair.
I probably don't have to introduce Zizek but anyone who's unfamiliar might want to check out this Wikipedia entry --
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zizek>
And while we're at it, here's one for BHL --
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard-Henri_Levy>
To some, both Zizek and Levy are lightweights who represent the degeneration of philosophy into post-pomo inanities.
These critics are only half right.
Although the debating topics were interesting (the legacy of the Paris uprising of 1968, the ideological uses of Zionism and so on) what kept me riveted was the way nearly every moment confirmed BHL's to be little else than a proud and flashy standard bearer for what Adolph Reed, talking to Doug in a different context, called, "goo goo liberal politics."
Time and again Levy spoke in his dream-caught way about 'universal values' the 'light' NGO workers bring to benighted places ("sometimes, they're the only clever, hopeful people around..."), the feeling of 'constant activity and immortality' his generation felt in '68 and the special moral qualities of Israel ("the only nation that tolerates parties which call for the state's destruction"). He spoke, in other words, like a more elegant version of a standard American liberal, a baby boomer with an inflated sense of his role in history.
Zizek, by contrast, showed that he's a truly radical thinker and, contrary to his image as a dirty joke telling clown, too fond of digressions and pop culture flights of fancy, a hard headed materialist of deep scholarship with little time for political fictions. His objections to Levy's positions did not come in an adolescent package -- i.e., whatever you say I will refute to appear different -- but fundamentally, as the result of thinking through the implications of ideology to a depth orders of magnitude greater than anything BHL seems capable of.
For example, at the beginning of the debate (after name droppingly announcing the presence in the audience of celebrity friends such as Salman Rushdie) BHL talked in romantic terms about the possibilities opened up by the events of 1968 (if you're unfamiliar, look here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968>). Zizek agreed with Levy in a broad sense -- 'who can deny that the situation for Gays, women and minorities in France opened up after the upheaval of May?' But he went further to track how the movement's bacchanalian aspects created new opportunities for Capital and new for methods for de-politicization.
This topic, from a different angle, is covered by Thomas Frank in his 1998 book, The Conquest of Cool and by British documentarian Adam Curtis in his 2002 film, The Century of the Self:
<http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/259919.html>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self>
We must acknowledge the ways that liberal notions of tolerance, multiculturalism, charity and personal self determination have been absorbed and co-opted by elite interests, Zizek insisted. When for example, we look at a television ad for an SUV which shows a family boldly driving off into flawless nature, rediscovering their true selves, we should see an echo of the very ideas the left has espoused for decades -- ideas which were thought to be beyond absorption and corruption.
This may seem trivial but is actually quite significant, indicating that what many on the left have long thought to be their core message is now part of mainstream marketing campaigns and even reactionary politics (the Republicans are the current masters of identity politics -- this must be admitted and understood).
Levy is clever, stylish, well educated and well spoken. His replies to Zizek's relentless challenges weren't embarrassing but they were insufficient. He merely repeated old lines about 'universal values', explained his concept of Fascist Islamism (as opposed to the neo-con formulation of Islamo-fascism; the former, according to Levy, tries to precisely describe a political fragment of a wider culture, the latter -- and I agree -- tries to depict the culture itself as a manifestation of the eternal fascist idea).
In short, Zizek was wrestling with the present and looking to the future; he constantly referred to climate change, genetic science and other critical elements shaping our situation. Levy, to me, seemed to be a relic of the past, clinging to walking dead concepts and the do-gooder's curious narcissism.
.d.