Tbh, after having worked there, this likely applies also to everything (the kitch & trinkets) in a Dollar Tree store... It's obvious that skilled labor didn't make those things. 😢
Well, in America, the word "shit" has an extremely harsh connotation, and as such using this word in any non-casual conversation is very unprofessional, however in Europe, the word "shit" when said in English, has a very weak meaning, because it is a swear word which does not exist in any of the languages here, incl. Slovenian. Even in Britain, the word is very weak when compared to America.
@@Prismate what do you mean it doesn't exist? Every language has a word for shit. In Polish for example it's "gówno" and it would be just as unprofessional and rude as in America.
The reason I love Zizek above all living philosophers is that he's the only one who can philosophize Coca-Cola: "the more you drink it, the more you need it" as a Marxist/Lacanian analysis. Hot dog!!
Actually, there are many more of them that do this. It is quite typical for French philosophers. If you speak French, just listen to France culture and you get plenty of similar thoughts. Zizek is only the product with the best marketing.
The problem with modern Continental philosophy (including Lakan and ofc Postmodernism as whole) is that you can say any nonsense, use terms with very vague descriptions and - voila! - you got proper paper. Philosophy downgraded from seeking higher meanings to incoherent ramble and word salad, where no word intentionally has clear meaning.
@@jsepulvedas Oh my god, I have been spinning that quote in my head for 6 years and after reading your words I feel as though I am one step closer to approaching the antimetaphysical lesson, I've always known that quote was extremely important to me but I also knew it was something I would have to internalize to make sense of it and it wasn't going to happen overnight. Seriously, thank you.
@@beveryofa2546 2 years late but whatever... I agree with @Jorge Sepulveda but I think the idea goes beyond that, into the realm of capitalistic consumption. Zizek says we are in a stage where it's impossible for us the enjoy only the chocolate without the surplus (the toy inside the egg). It's the plastic toy that makes us like the chocolate and not the other way around!
I can’t help but think about comic books - appreciated in their old age for their mint or near mint conditions, loved for the surface level engagement with the world and having at their core some fairy-tale like moral that supposedly undergirds the necessity of their presence. Comics may be the ultimate expression of what he’s talking about here.
Thank you so much for uploading this segment, I think this is the most meaningful 5 minutes I've ever continued to quote on a regular basis and use to help understand the world around me. If you watch enough of his material you will become very complicated to brainwash unless that is what you want. I wish that version of the egg was sold in the states, the version that complies with the U.S. law that says "You can't put the toy inside the thing you're going to eat" is gross and is why people lose their feet to sugar, but the truly worst part of the U.S. version is that it ruins the visual metaphor of the antimetaphysical lesson, which has been difficult for me to accept. Pervert's Guide to Ideology is in my all time top 5 films.
Same. I think its mostly because everything is a masters philosophy lecture with him, yet at the same time he has the most dry and rationalist delivery, even when it comes to a seemingly mundane topic as the Kinder Egg.
An interesting thing about this clip is that in an interview at his house we see that he has Coca-Cola in his fridge. "As everyone knows the more you drink the thirstier you get" not everyone knows that quite as well as you do, Zizek.
@@smol7151 just making sure-we’re talking about the regular chocolate completely encircling a toy capsule right? Not the plastic cover of the cream with a toy on the side right?
I loved Kinder eggs so much as child. I liked them way more than the normal Kinder chocolate, even though it is the same chocolate and I never really played with the toys.
As a kid I used to buy a lot of Kinder eggs so that I could get the toys of my desire or the ones which my friends had found in it(for eg. I remember most of my friends had got Tom and Jerry figurine , and I didn't so I kept on buying kinder eggs until I finally got one !!) . I was never interested in the chocolate itself . I did ate it , but mostly I used to throw the chocolate out !! I really loved Zizek's philosophy on this subject 👍
My personal relationship with Kinder Eggs: my sister-in law's daughter loved the toys, but didn't like the chocolate, hence the abundance of leftover wrappers and chocolate at my mother in Law's house (all this in the 1990's in Rome, yes: Kinder Surprise had conquered the world). Unfortunately nobody realised the dog was eating the chocolate, which really is very, very bad for a dog. The poor animal had to be rushed to the veterinarian, and barely survived. The whole thing, the Kinder eggs, having a dog while living in the city centre, the not-eating of the chocolate, the over-payed veterinarian: this could be the ultimate form of Capitalism.
Vinay Seth Marxism cannot be postmodernist, you've not read a book about it in your life, i can tell. What you hate is "rainbow", inclusive capitalism.
The toy in the egg will be completed only if you collect all of the series, then you must make a raft in your living space to show your achievements. You can also choose to throw them in the garbage (most of the cases where those toys ends) - And it will be again very fine ritual and feeling of achievement.
Kinder, surprise egg. A quite astonishing commodity. The surprise of the, kinder surprise egg is that this excessive object, the cause of your desire, is here materialized in the guise of an object. A plastic toy, which fills in the inner void of the, chocolate egg. The whole delicate balance is between these two dimensions. What you bought, the chocolate egg, and the surplus, probably made in some Chinese gulag or whatever, the surplus that you get for free. I don’t think that the chocolate frame is here just to send you on a deeper voyage, towards the inner treasure, the what Plato calls the agalma. Which, makes you a worthy person, which makes a commodity the desirable commodity. I think it’s the other way around. We should aim at the higher goal. The goal in the middle of an object, precisely in order to be able to enjoy the surface. This is what this, the anti-metaphysical lesson, which is difficult to accept. - Zizek
I was working as a teenager in McDonalds nothing there of what you eat is natural coming from the nature but people are loving it its the idea of distance yourself from the nature being a modern human being without ever working on fields like a small farmer that in socialism we were all been. Its the idea of better life even if the food is totally unhealthy for your body.
@ kbradshaw213 i think the kinder egg just examplifies the concept of desire in general. if u want to u can relate it to consumerism in general. we could not enjoy whatever we consume if the obejct we consume would be an end in itself. if that would be the case, once we have it we would lose desire which is the most horrible scenario perceivable. we need to desire in order to enjoy a little bit. the ultimative desire is the end of it too. that would be what Lacan meant with jouissance, maybe. there must be some higher object probably what Lacan calls the big A which makes us able to enjoy minor objects the petite a. in the case of the kinder egg what we think we desire is the egg which is why we can enjoy the chocolate so much. of course once we have the little toy inside we realize that this is not our true desire, we then want a better toy. once we have that better toy, toys like that are boring so we want an electronic one. once we have that we realize objects dont make us happy so we try to find it with experiences or people. but in order to enjoy these things at least for some time and without pain we need this higher object.
No flex; he’s economic in his use of vocabulary and he’s well read. I don’t think he is trying to appeal to the masses all the time. He’s an expert using the vocabulary of his expertise. The more I listen to Zizek, the more I want to read.
This "something more" he's referring to which is undefinable but without which an object cannot function is exemplified and even objectified to the fullest possible measure in the "X factor", both the expression and the original talent show along with its derivatives. In talent shows, the "x factor" is that which elevates, connects an otherwise normal, average human being to the intangible, transcendental realm of a "celebrity" or "star", regardless, and even sometimes in spite of, talent. It is an ideological category because it emphasises the absence of necessity for any particular tangible area of excellence; this helps perpetuate the ideological framework without which the category becomes meaningless: the idea that "anyone" could potentially tap into this "x factor", which functions as a sort of endowment of incomprehensible divine favour, regardless of real ability, and thus transcend the mundane. The apparent lack of any identifiable pattern or logic in the distribution of this "x factor" allows it to act as a negation of "order", of the "system", and to promise a breakout from ideology into a realm of infinite, "random", possibility and freedom. But it is precisely people's mass belief in this and their mass celebration of it which constitutes the real ideology and allows this category to exist. It is also interesting to note that the power of the "x factor" rests not with transcendence itself, taken in isolation, but with the potential energy, a kind of voltage between the mundane and the transcendent. It is thus ironic that a person who already exemplifies many of the qualities of an "established celebrity" in the eyes of an audience cannot make use of this potential, and loses that charm which affords a contestant victory in talent shows. There is an excellent video essay on this topic here: ruclips.net/video/x-E4wWhJx40/видео.html The x factor exists in the domain of the potential, not the actual, and disappears as soon as it is actually realised, which I am guessing refers to the Lacanian objet petit a, and such.
1:45 Perhaps the ancient Indian mystics had realized this aspect about desire and therefore were aiming to end desire. By the way, 'Desire is the root cause of suffering'- Buddha.
He says that Kinder uses the toy as a surplus (initial cause of desire) to sell chocolate at a higher price, and proposes that we should serve a higher purpose at the center of the object (agalma) to enjoy the surface (the chocolate). So briefly, return to a Platonic ideal where we don't need toys to enjoy chocolate, but simply to enjoy chocolate as a thing in itself and ban products that prey on fleeting desires. You can easily see how two words, agalma and surplus, can be switched around to make a counterargument. Of course the toy is the essence, because why else would you buy a Kinder product? But there are Kinder chocolate products of the same composition without toys and they taste the same, so indeed the toy is just a way to consume a specific and more expensive product, because our society teaches us to desire unique experiences. If you would offer a child to have a regular bar of Kinder chocolate and give them another toy perhaps or, as you could propose that the agalma is to inspire creativity in children, that you will let them play video games or do whatever they like to pass the time, an argument can be made that the child will still desire the Kinder egg because it does not know how to control its desires and most of the times is still unaware how easily it can be influenced by marketing techniques. So what Zizek proposes here is that we get rid of this taught behavior that is ingrained into our ideology and spoon fed to us since childhood (strife for unique experiences, consume these products that are not unique at all but pretend to be) and learn how to inhibit our initial desires so that we can appreciate life more fully in its simplicity.
@lobear It's not "a sick marketing technique" when we discuss it philosophically, but rather, as Zizek proposes at the start of the movie, a natural consequence of human beings as ideological creatures. Ideology is our natural means of understanding the Universe and structuring our society. Because we are a society that believes Capitalism is a functioning ideology, it produces products like Kinder Egg. The only thing he explains here is that Kinder Egg is a manifestation of the cultural ideology, he doesn't say if Kinder Egg is good or bad, he simply states that we are consuming our ideas, which in itself is a very Christian idea (consume the body of Christ, drink his blood to become a part of Christ). This is very important to notice, that there is no judgment, there is simply an explanation provided how Christian cultures have arrived to the form of capitalism that they enjoy today. Every judgment you make is entirely your own and cannot be argumented with the explanation that Zizek provides. Your judgment that cheap products that imitate the real product are better, just because they are cheaper, is entirely your own opinion. It doesn't touch upon ideology, but rather your judgment of propaganda (how ideology spreads) and how it affects your choices to consume. I work in a supermarket as well and even if I didn't I could tell you, store brand imitation Coca-Cola tastes very bad in comparison to the real thing. Some people buy cheap things as a badge of honor, that they don't belong to what I often refer to as "the capitalist bourgeoisie" or yuppie culture. Some people don't buy fizzy drinks at all, for several reasons, but the bottom line is that we still act from or against an ideology. Still, this is your judgment on products and doesn't say anything about the ideology we live in, as it is merely a reaction towards the dominant ideology. Zizek discusses branding slightly, but rather uses it as a preface towards propaganda and how propaganda can be subverted by our own means of jouissance. If you want to get a clearer idea of what branding does to you, I highly suggest reading (or watching) John Berger's Ways of Seeing. Not only does he discuss how branding can make you desire a product, he also touches upon the notion how branding is affecting our ability to see clearly towards pre-Modern artworks, as we are taught by branding how to read visually and this visual "vocabulary" sincerely interrupts our understanding of images that were produced in a culture with different values. Because of branding, he argues, we have become disconnected from the human condition and are stuck in a Modern limbo. Postmodernism is a reaction against this absurd virtual world, detached from reality, that Modernity has imposed on us. If you prefer a story about how the Cold War was used to brainwash individuals, and how we have arrived at a point in history where we can start to make sense what this Cold War meant, you should simply watch this movie. If you want to know how people resisted the ways in which corporations took advantage of the Cold War to sell products, you should read Berger. It is highly interesting, not only because of their different perspectives, but also because of the argument that exists that the Cold War never really finished and how that explains the fracturing of identity (and its crisis) in the 21st Century. I'm very sorry for this long comment, but it simply came out like this. To be brief, I don't believe branding and corporations are so evil, as small independents often do the same thing: promoting their brand and services to outperform competition. The only thing you can do to resist being toyed with as a consumer is to make informed decisions (a rational stance) instead of simply trying to rage against machines (reactionary, populist stance).
@lobear That's all right, man. I used to be against commercialism too, but as a fellow artist I can tell you it is more important to focus on your work and let the structures be. Let them work for you instead of trying to resist them. If anyone asks you for an interview, to do a skit, really anything that could profit your visibility and you feel like you could actually make a worthwhile contribution, just go for it. Funny to find someone who is on a similar journey like mine, as I'm also a supermarket clerk. Good luck :)
@@DarkAngelEU there's a number of way's you can take this, but i think we can at the same time let these structures be, but still understand that minimizing our interactions with them might be beneficial to our health. also, due to their structure, they are extractive by design, which means they will always get more out of you then you will get out of it, making you lose energy in the process. then again, trying to struggle against these things will also take more energy out of you, so to do your own thing is the best option. i understand that at some point i will interact with it, so strict adherence to asceticism is unlikely and thus unrealistic, but strict adherence to hedonism is just as exhaustive. god, so many people are exhausted. so many people don't understand that action can be counterproductive, and that there is such a thing as productive stillness.
Mr. Zizek, I think you do not get the whole point of the egg inside. It rests in the relationship between the human labor and the capital. In fact, there is the whole industry connected to the fabrication of those toys. The Ferrero company off course has the designers and producers of these toys. They surely have lawyers for this. They even must have specialised tax accountants somewhere in Luxmebourg or Mumbay to minimise the tax burden of this part of production on the company. Whole families, probably a minor city, are dependent on this product.
Let's say I buy a McDonald's toy to enjoy the happy meal. Well, with every purchase I make I get the same happy meal, regardless of what toy I get. In this case, there is no need to buy as many happy meals that it takes to complete the Mcdonald's toy collection. If I get the same toy twice, I don't need to buy a happy meal for the third time in the hopes that I'll get a different toy. I think McDonald's will go bankrupt if we follow Zizek's advice, which is to buy the center of the object to enjoy the surface lol
What is said was : you think you buy the happy meal because you want the toy, but in reality, the toy is an excuse for you to enjoy the food, that you want, but you can't admit that you want it ;)
he is brilliant and right, but i think the sublime qualities of products go further than excess. its a notable theme for sure, but more and more we see “organization”, “cleanliness”, “adequacy” etc
Wow I never heard anybody philosophising Coca-Cola and kinder eggs. He is musing on why do we eat or drink objects of desire. I don't know life is more important than that. We need to philosophisse more on ethics, politics and the sciences rather than objects of desire. He only makes sense if you're going to apply his philosophy to economical theory and behavioural consumerism to discredit capitalism and promote communist ideology. The only thing I don't like about him he is a communist at heart. The thing I like about him he discredits capitalism. I think there should be a middle ground between capitalism and communism ideology.
There is no middle ground between cats and mouses. Either mouses are property of cats or cats don't exist. Well, yeah, technically you can appoint very big cat that keeps all other cats in place and forces them and mice to work together... that ideology is called Fascism, and it wasn't particulary successful. And sure there are more global topics, but Zizek is (sadly) Lakan follower, so he naturally is interested in desires.
He doesn't grasp the concept of brands and slogans? Coke is "the real thing" because it's not any cola it's not RC cola it's not Pepsi it's Coca Cola. Kinder eggs are awesome it's why Happy meals are popular too comes with a toy a suprise used to get them in cereal too kids like toys and there isn't much chocolate so instead of buying them a whole bar and they will be hyper and not want dinner they get a little treat and something to play with or collect too.
"Probably made in some Chinese gulag, or whatever."
I honestly couldn't stop laughing at this little aside.
ironic, isn't it
Sad but true
Tbh, after having worked there, this likely applies also to everything (the kitch & trinkets) in a Dollar Tree store... It's obvious that skilled labor didn't make those things.
😢
It’s disarming
I love how zizek says "shit" as if it's a scientific term
Well, in America, the word "shit" has an extremely harsh connotation, and as such using this word in any non-casual conversation is very unprofessional, however in Europe, the word "shit" when said in English, has a very weak meaning, because it is a swear word which does not exist in any of the languages here, incl. Slovenian. Even in Britain, the word is very weak when compared to America.
@@Prismate what do you mean it doesn't exist? Every language has a word for shit. In Polish for example it's "gówno" and it would be just as unprofessional and rude as in America.
The reason I love Zizek above all living philosophers is that he's the only one who can philosophize Coca-Cola: "the more you drink it, the more you need it" as a Marxist/Lacanian analysis. Hot dog!!
Actually, there are many more of them that do this. It is quite typical for French philosophers. If you speak French, just listen to France culture and you get plenty of similar thoughts. Zizek is only the product with the best marketing.
Abstract > Negation > Concrete ❤
The problem with modern Continental philosophy (including Lakan and ofc Postmodernism as whole) is that you can say any nonsense, use terms with very vague descriptions and - voila! - you got proper paper. Philosophy downgraded from seeking higher meanings to incoherent ramble and word salad, where no word intentionally has clear meaning.
That makes him a "real' philosopher as he is giving insightful commentary on every day things not just grand existential issues
@David C.
Coke & a hot dog 😆👍
His two perverts guides blew my mind over and over. Some of the best stuff I have seen and it's expanding my mind so much. This is hilarious, thanks.
"We should aim at the higher goal, the goal in the middle of an object, precisely in order to be able to enjoy the surface" brilliant!
Any other example you can think that confirms this point?
@@vinayseth1114 in a way the deeper you aim to understand life (and yourself) the more you'll be able to enjoy it in a surface, day to day sense
@@jsepulvedas Oh my god, I have been spinning that quote in my head for 6 years and after reading your words I feel as though I am one step closer to approaching the antimetaphysical lesson, I've always known that quote was extremely important to me but I also knew it was something I would have to internalize to make sense of it and it wasn't going to happen overnight. Seriously, thank you.
@@beveryofa2546 2 years late but whatever... I agree with @Jorge Sepulveda but I think the idea goes beyond that, into the realm of capitalistic consumption. Zizek says we are in a stage where it's impossible for us the enjoy only the chocolate without the surplus (the toy inside the egg). It's the plastic toy that makes us like the chocolate and not the other way around!
"kinder surprise egg- a quite astonishing commodity!"
Ferrero should use this as actual ad
"The plastic toy fills the void...."
If only Zizek, if only 😢
I can’t help but think about comic books - appreciated in their old age for their mint or near mint conditions, loved for the surface level engagement with the world and having at their core some fairy-tale like moral that supposedly undergirds the necessity of their presence.
Comics may be the ultimate expression of what he’s talking about here.
Comic books are imperialist propaganda.
Thank you so much for uploading this segment, I think this is the most meaningful 5 minutes I've ever continued to quote on a regular basis and use to help understand the world around me. If you watch enough of his material you will become very complicated to brainwash unless that is what you want. I wish that version of the egg was sold in the states, the version that complies with the U.S. law that says "You can't put the toy inside the thing you're going to eat" is gross and is why people lose their feet to sugar, but the truly worst part of the U.S. version is that it ruins the visual metaphor of the antimetaphysical lesson, which has been difficult for me to accept. Pervert's Guide to Ideology is in my all time top 5 films.
I dont know why but i like how zizek makes me laugh and think deeper at the same time
Same. I think its mostly because everything is a masters philosophy lecture with him, yet at the same time he has the most dry and rationalist delivery, even when it comes to a seemingly mundane topic as the Kinder Egg.
Undercuts a central thesis of Mad Men as well as the final scene. Brilliant.
Elaborate
Elaborate.
An interesting thing about this clip is that in an interview at his house we see that he has Coca-Cola in his fridge. "As everyone knows the more you drink the thirstier you get" not everyone knows that quite as well as you do, Zizek.
I remember hating the taste of the kinder egg and loving it for the toys when I was little. Pure ideology
You have no culture.
man you're a psychopath how can someone hate the taste of a kinder egg
I bought the kinder egg for the taste, I knew the toys were thrash
@@smol7151 just making sure-we’re talking about the regular chocolate completely encircling a toy capsule right? Not the plastic cover of the cream with a toy on the side right?
purish ideology@@dinasov9
I loved Kinder eggs so much as child. I liked them way more than the normal Kinder chocolate, even though it is the same chocolate and I never really played with the toys.
As a kid I used to buy a lot of Kinder eggs so that I could get the toys of my desire or the ones which my friends had found in it(for eg. I remember most of my friends had got Tom and Jerry figurine , and I didn't so I kept on buying kinder eggs until I finally got one !!) . I was never interested in the chocolate itself . I did ate it , but mostly I used to throw the chocolate out !! I really loved Zizek's philosophy on this subject 👍
I thought I was here for an anti-consumerist rant, but I sort of feel like I just watched a commercial.
I could listen to Z analyzing candy all day long.
My personal relationship with Kinder Eggs: my sister-in law's daughter loved the toys, but didn't like the chocolate, hence the abundance of leftover wrappers and chocolate at my mother in Law's house (all this in the 1990's in Rome, yes: Kinder Surprise had conquered the world). Unfortunately nobody realised the dog was eating the chocolate, which really is very, very bad for a dog. The poor animal had to be rushed to the veterinarian, and barely survived. The whole thing, the Kinder eggs, having a dog while living in the city centre, the not-eating of the chocolate, the over-payed veterinarian: this could be the ultimate form of Capitalism.
Who else has perspective like Zizek. Brilliant.
All the postmodern marxists he borrowa from.
Vinay Seth Marxism cannot be postmodernist, you've not read a book about it in your life, i can tell. What you hate is "rainbow", inclusive capitalism.
@@televikkuntdaowuxing r you against the alphabet people
@@TeodorLojewski Hello Dumbass. Vinay this side; nice to meet you.
@@lakiog1938 I don’t think so - pretty sure he’s pointing out that the guy vinay is a JP Stan
The toy in the egg will be completed only if you collect all of the series, then you must make a raft in your living space to show your achievements.
You can also choose to throw them in the garbage (most of the cases where those toys ends) - And it will be again very fine ritual and feeling of achievement.
Ode to joy playing in the background towards the end , brilliant.
Kinder, surprise egg.
A quite astonishing commodity.
The surprise of the, kinder surprise egg is that this excessive object, the cause of your desire, is here materialized in the guise of an object. A plastic toy, which fills in the inner void of the, chocolate egg.
The whole delicate balance is between these two dimensions. What you bought, the chocolate egg, and the surplus, probably made in some Chinese gulag or whatever, the surplus that you get for free.
I don’t think that the chocolate frame is here just to send you on a deeper voyage, towards the inner treasure, the what Plato calls the agalma. Which, makes you a worthy person, which makes a commodity the desirable commodity.
I think it’s the other way around. We should aim at the higher goal. The goal in the middle of an object, precisely in order to be able to enjoy the surface.
This is what this, the anti-metaphysical lesson, which is difficult to accept.
- Zizek
I was working as a teenager in McDonalds nothing there of what you eat is natural coming from the nature but people are loving it its the idea of distance yourself from the nature being a modern human being without ever working on fields like a small farmer that in socialism we were all been.
Its the idea of better life even if the food is totally unhealthy for your body.
i respect the use of a Kinder Egg to fill us stupid people in on his deeper philosophy.
@ kbradshaw213 i think the kinder egg just examplifies the concept of desire in general. if u want to u can relate it to consumerism in general. we could not enjoy whatever we consume if the obejct we consume would be an end in itself. if that would be the case, once we have it we would lose desire which is the most horrible scenario perceivable. we need to desire in order to enjoy a little bit. the ultimative desire is the end of it too. that would be what Lacan meant with jouissance, maybe. there must be some higher object probably what Lacan calls the big A which makes us able to enjoy minor objects the petite a. in the case of the kinder egg what we think we desire is the egg which is why we can enjoy the chocolate so much. of course once we have the little toy inside we realize that this is not our true desire, we then want a better toy. once we have that better toy, toys like that are boring so we want an electronic one. once we have that we realize objects dont make us happy so we try to find it with experiences or people. but in order to enjoy these things at least for some time and without pain we need this higher object.
Hes just flexing his vocabulary on us
Or ‘using’
@@nigelfrancis1706 ?
No flex; he’s economic in his use of vocabulary and he’s well read. I don’t think he is trying to appeal to the masses all the time. He’s an expert using the vocabulary of his expertise. The more I listen to Zizek, the more I want to read.
@@nigelfrancis1706 i know, I made a joke
@@Jack-izzy oh
take a shot every time he says desire
This "something more" he's referring to which is undefinable but without which an object cannot function is exemplified and even objectified to the fullest possible measure in the "X factor", both the expression and the original talent show along with its derivatives.
In talent shows, the "x factor" is that which elevates, connects an otherwise normal, average human being to the intangible, transcendental realm of a "celebrity" or "star", regardless, and even sometimes in spite of, talent.
It is an ideological category because it emphasises the absence of necessity for any particular tangible area of excellence; this helps perpetuate the ideological framework without which the category becomes meaningless: the idea that "anyone" could potentially tap into this "x factor", which functions as a sort of endowment of incomprehensible divine favour, regardless of real ability, and thus transcend the mundane. The apparent lack of any identifiable pattern or logic in the distribution of this "x factor" allows it to act as a negation of "order", of the "system", and to promise a breakout from ideology into a realm of infinite, "random", possibility and freedom. But it is precisely people's mass belief in this and their mass celebration of it which constitutes the real ideology and allows this category to exist.
It is also interesting to note that the power of the "x factor" rests not with transcendence itself, taken in isolation, but with the potential energy, a kind of voltage between the mundane and the transcendent. It is thus ironic that a person who already exemplifies many of the qualities of an "established celebrity" in the eyes of an audience cannot make use of this potential, and loses that charm which affords a contestant victory in talent shows.
There is an excellent video essay on this topic here:
ruclips.net/video/x-E4wWhJx40/видео.html
The x factor exists in the domain of the potential, not the actual, and disappears as soon as it is actually realised, which I am guessing refers to the Lacanian objet petit a, and such.
It's called 'charisma'. Nothing that we didn't know about before.
Wut
3:14
Girls table:omg he’s so hot
Boys table: 3:13
What is this from?
The pervert's guide to ideology
What's the quality like of the chocolate in a Kinder Surprise, I've never had one.
It's mediocre at best
It's really good
Better than American throw up chocolate
used to be better 20 years ago, they are just cutting the production costs
I think regular Kinder chocolate now tastes a bit better than the eggs.
1:45 Perhaps the ancient Indian mystics had realized this aspect about desire and therefore were aiming to end desire. By the way, 'Desire is the root cause of suffering'- Buddha.
GOOOD MORNING
So the Kinder egg conditions kids to consume in order to achieve goals? The prize inside is a symbol of wealth, perhaps?
He says that Kinder uses the toy as a surplus (initial cause of desire) to sell chocolate at a higher price, and proposes that we should serve a higher purpose at the center of the object (agalma) to enjoy the surface (the chocolate). So briefly, return to a Platonic ideal where we don't need toys to enjoy chocolate, but simply to enjoy chocolate as a thing in itself and ban products that prey on fleeting desires.
You can easily see how two words, agalma and surplus, can be switched around to make a counterargument. Of course the toy is the essence, because why else would you buy a Kinder product?
But there are Kinder chocolate products of the same composition without toys and they taste the same, so indeed the toy is just a way to consume a specific and more expensive product, because our society teaches us to desire unique experiences. If you would offer a child to have a regular bar of Kinder chocolate and give them another toy perhaps or, as you could propose that the agalma is to inspire creativity in children, that you will let them play video games or do whatever they like to pass the time, an argument can be made that the child will still desire the Kinder egg because it does not know how to control its desires and most of the times is still unaware how easily it can be influenced by marketing techniques.
So what Zizek proposes here is that we get rid of this taught behavior that is ingrained into our ideology and spoon fed to us since childhood (strife for unique experiences, consume these products that are not unique at all but pretend to be) and learn how to inhibit our initial desires so that we can appreciate life more fully in its simplicity.
@lobear It's not "a sick marketing technique" when we discuss it philosophically, but rather, as Zizek proposes at the start of the movie, a natural consequence of human beings as ideological creatures. Ideology is our natural means of understanding the Universe and structuring our society. Because we are a society that believes Capitalism is a functioning ideology, it produces products like Kinder Egg. The only thing he explains here is that Kinder Egg is a manifestation of the cultural ideology, he doesn't say if Kinder Egg is good or bad, he simply states that we are consuming our ideas, which in itself is a very Christian idea (consume the body of Christ, drink his blood to become a part of Christ).
This is very important to notice, that there is no judgment, there is simply an explanation provided how Christian cultures have arrived to the form of capitalism that they enjoy today. Every judgment you make is entirely your own and cannot be argumented with the explanation that Zizek provides. Your judgment that cheap products that imitate the real product are better, just because they are cheaper, is entirely your own opinion. It doesn't touch upon ideology, but rather your judgment of propaganda (how ideology spreads) and how it affects your choices to consume. I work in a supermarket as well and even if I didn't I could tell you, store brand imitation Coca-Cola tastes very bad in comparison to the real thing. Some people buy cheap things as a badge of honor, that they don't belong to what I often refer to as "the capitalist bourgeoisie" or yuppie culture. Some people don't buy fizzy drinks at all, for several reasons, but the bottom line is that we still act from or against an ideology. Still, this is your judgment on products and doesn't say anything about the ideology we live in, as it is merely a reaction towards the dominant ideology.
Zizek discusses branding slightly, but rather uses it as a preface towards propaganda and how propaganda can be subverted by our own means of jouissance.
If you want to get a clearer idea of what branding does to you, I highly suggest reading (or watching) John Berger's Ways of Seeing. Not only does he discuss how branding can make you desire a product, he also touches upon the notion how branding is affecting our ability to see clearly towards pre-Modern artworks, as we are taught by branding how to read visually and this visual "vocabulary" sincerely interrupts our understanding of images that were produced in a culture with different values. Because of branding, he argues, we have become disconnected from the human condition and are stuck in a Modern limbo. Postmodernism is a reaction against this absurd virtual world, detached from reality, that Modernity has imposed on us.
If you prefer a story about how the Cold War was used to brainwash individuals, and how we have arrived at a point in history where we can start to make sense what this Cold War meant, you should simply watch this movie. If you want to know how people resisted the ways in which corporations took advantage of the Cold War to sell products, you should read Berger. It is highly interesting, not only because of their different perspectives, but also because of the argument that exists that the Cold War never really finished and how that explains the fracturing of identity (and its crisis) in the 21st Century.
I'm very sorry for this long comment, but it simply came out like this. To be brief, I don't believe branding and corporations are so evil, as small independents often do the same thing: promoting their brand and services to outperform competition. The only thing you can do to resist being toyed with as a consumer is to make informed decisions (a rational stance) instead of simply trying to rage against machines (reactionary, populist stance).
@lobear That's all right, man. I used to be against commercialism too, but as a fellow artist I can tell you it is more important to focus on your work and let the structures be. Let them work for you instead of trying to resist them. If anyone asks you for an interview, to do a skit, really anything that could profit your visibility and you feel like you could actually make a worthwhile contribution, just go for it.
Funny to find someone who is on a similar journey like mine, as I'm also a supermarket clerk. Good luck :)
@@DarkAngelEU there's a number of way's you can take this, but i think we can at the same time let these structures be, but still understand that minimizing our interactions with them might be beneficial to our health. also, due to their structure, they are extractive by design, which means they will always get more out of you then you will get out of it, making you lose energy in the process. then again, trying to struggle against these things will also take more energy out of you, so to do your own thing is the best option. i understand that at some point i will interact with it, so strict adherence to asceticism is unlikely and thus unrealistic, but strict adherence to hedonism is just as exhaustive. god, so many people are exhausted. so many people don't understand that action can be counterproductive, and that there is such a thing as productive stillness.
Can someone name the sources for those videos?
The pervert's guide to ideology
sry what we think we desire is not the egg but the little toy inside...
Žižek⭐
THATS THE REASON WE NEED DECATHEISM
no bisexual lighting wow
Mr. Zizek, I think you do not get the whole point of the egg inside. It rests in the relationship between the human labor and the capital.
In fact, there is the whole industry connected to the fabrication of those toys. The Ferrero company off course has the designers and producers of these toys. They surely have lawyers for this. They even must have specialised tax accountants somewhere in Luxmebourg or Mumbay to minimise the tax burden of this part of production on the company. Whole families, probably a minor city, are dependent on this product.
What are you talking about, Peter?
@@sebastianbardon391 What are you asking me, Sebastián?
Zizek pronounce "Kinder" Suprise Egg really well. I'am german and "Kinder" means Children in German.
I'am❌
I'm✅
I am✅
Of course he pronounced Kinder correct, he's a Slovene.
Let's say I buy a McDonald's toy to enjoy the happy meal. Well, with every purchase I make I get the same happy meal, regardless of what toy I get. In this case, there is no need to buy as many happy meals that it takes to complete the Mcdonald's toy collection. If I get the same toy twice, I don't need to buy a happy meal for the third time in the hopes that I'll get a different toy. I think McDonald's will go bankrupt if we follow Zizek's advice, which is to buy the center of the object to enjoy the surface lol
What is said was : you think you buy the happy meal because you want the toy, but in reality, the toy is an excuse for you to enjoy the food, that you want, but you can't admit that you want it ;)
Fabzil I used to go back and trade toys for different ones when I was little
Dhe Product Coke Is My Reward For My Loyalty To Dhe Product Coke
he is brilliant and right, but i think the sublime qualities of products go further than excess. its a notable theme for sure, but more and more we see “organization”, “cleanliness”, “adequacy” etc
Im a god
sheet
Wow I never heard anybody philosophising Coca-Cola and kinder eggs. He is musing on why do we eat or drink objects of desire. I don't know life is more important than that. We need to philosophisse more on ethics, politics and the sciences rather than objects of desire.
He only makes sense if you're going to apply his philosophy to economical theory and behavioural consumerism to discredit capitalism and promote communist ideology. The only thing I don't like about him he is a communist at heart. The thing I like about him he discredits capitalism. I think there should be a middle ground between capitalism and communism ideology.
There is no middle ground between cats and mouses. Either mouses are property of cats or cats don't exist. Well, yeah, technically you can appoint very big cat that keeps all other cats in place and forces them and mice to work together... that ideology is called Fascism, and it wasn't particulary successful.
And sure there are more global topics, but Zizek is (sadly) Lakan follower, so he naturally is interested in desires.
He doesn't grasp the concept of brands and slogans? Coke is "the real thing" because it's not any cola it's not RC cola it's not Pepsi it's Coca Cola. Kinder eggs are awesome it's why Happy meals are popular too comes with a toy a suprise used to get them in cereal too kids like toys and there isn't much chocolate so instead of buying them a whole bar and they will be hyper and not want dinner they get a little treat and something to play with or collect too.
This guy is so funny and cringe
Jonathan Meades is fifty times more interesting and intelligent than Zizek.
What was that all about. It's a drink - it's chocolate with a toy inside. Stop analysing stuff and enjoy it.
“Humanity is OK, but 99% of people are boring idiots.”
― Slavoj Žižek
***** Communists are always arrogant. The 1% Zizek had in mind are probably his fellow leftist "intellectuals".
+patches53 My god! This comment is PURE ideology!
Reactionary lies!!
Kulaks to dhe gulags!!
Girls table: "omg Tyler followed me on Insta"
The boys: