Zizek, the Decalogue and The Problem with (too much) Liberation

C. Wess Daniels — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:46:20 GMT

It is…crucial to bear in mind the interconnection between the Decalogue (the traumatically imposed Divine Commandments) and its modern obverse, the celebrated ‘human rights’. As the experience of our post-political liberal-permissive society amply demonstrates, human Rights are ultimately, at their core, simply Rights to violate the Ten Commandments. ‘The right to privacy’ - the right to adultery, in secret, where no one sees me or has the right to probe my life. ‘The right to pursue happiness and to posses private property’ - the right to steal (to exploit others). ‘Freedom of the press and of the expression of opinion’ - the right to lie. ‘The right of free citizens to possess weapons’ - the right to kill. And, ultimately, ‘freedom of religious belief’ - the right to worship false Gods. Of course, human Rights do not directly condone the violation of the Ten Commandments - the point is simply that they keep open a marginal ‘grey zone’ which should remain out of reach of (religious or secular) power: in this shady zone, I can violate these commandments, and if power probers into it, catching me with my pants down and trying to prevent my violations, I can cry: ‘Assault on my basic human Rights!’ The point is thus that it is structurally impossible, for Power, to draw a clear line of speraration and prevent only the ‘misuse;’ of a Right, while not encroaching upon the proper use, that is, the use that does not violate the Commandments.

Slavoj Zizek, Fragile Absolute, 110-111

Here, Zizek’s piercing examination of liberal society hits the perverse underlying motivations of modern society right on the head. As society shifted away from the authority of tradition and faith, toward the “new” science and philosophy of foundationalism, as represented in Descartes and Galileo’s 17th century projects, we see a shift away from a life that is rooted with the meta-narrative of Scripture, which entails the Decalogue (or Ten Commandments), towards the meta-narrative of the individual and autonomous self. The self, freed from the commands to care for the “Other,” freed from the pursuit of the common good of humanity, is now given access to achieve “Whatever it is I so desire.” And “At whatever or whomever’s cost I see fit.” It is this switching of the “big” stories that has had huge implications in not only in the way we treat each other and think of God, but how we treat the earth and value creativity (I value my own creativity as self-realization not as an act of worship). This switching of meta-narratives is not only found in the “secular” parts of the world, those “profane” parts of life, but also the sacred. Thus we find theology, Christian philosophy, and biblical studies all falling victim to the whims of the liberated-self. In our freedom, we are left to help or hurt one another, we are left with the choice to do whatever appears good to us at that time, and in our freedom we find ourselves lost, asking “Is God even there at all?” The liberated, liberal, autonomous self is at once free (from God) and a slave (to ourselves).

For more see Alasdair Macintyre On Rights and Protest: Are We Just Talking To Ourselves?

Zizek

Advertisement: http://thedailyscribe.com/rss.xml Visit the Daily Scribe

The principle of the the thing

Rich Foss — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:22:11 GMT

"There is no policy in the handbook forbidding a supervisor from living with someone he or she is supervising," the young supervisor said.

She was right. She was also inadvertently pointing to the flaw of using policies as a management tool.

The supervisor at a community nonprofit faced a housing crisis and she faced who solved her housing problem by moving in with a male staff person whom she supervised.

When the program director discovered her living arrangement, she transferred her to other department so that she would no longer supervise the staff member she was living with. The supervisor objected to the transfer and pointed out she was violating no policy.

That's the inherent weaknesses of running an organization by policies. You can never create enough policies to cover all the crazy things people will do. It would be better to have a few principles, one of them might be, avoid conflicts of interest with anyone that you supervise.

Here’s a quote that expresses what I think about principles and policies:

A principle is just a commonly held guide for thinking, behaving and making decisions. You can manage a process or a machine with regulations, rules, and procedures, but if you want the best chance to capture people’ latent potential, then you start with principles that people “own” and help create.*

Principles can be smart and friendly.

* From “My Unfashionable Legacy” by Ralph Sink, Strategy+Business Autumn 2007. Click on Magazine tab, find the Autumn 2007 issue, and then scroll down and click on the article. You may have to fill out a free registration at the site but the article is worth it.

My Clippings on NewsGator Online

Zizek, the Decalogue and The Problem with (too much) Liberation

The principle of the the thing