P. 1
English Short Paper 1_Advertisements

English Short Paper 1_Advertisements

|Views: 1|Likes:
Published by Ryan Nacua

More info:

Published by: Ryan Nacua on Jan 07, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Analysis and Critique of Slavoj Zizek¶s First as Tragedy, Then as Farce Slavoj Zizek provided an argument about charity

and cultural capitalism and its effects to society as a whole. It is a complex argument in which he dealt with how charity ³degrades and demoralizes,´ as he have said in his argument. To fully understand what he is saying, let me breakdown his argument into several parts, using the Toulmin model, and see how each part is interrelated or supportive to the other parts. First is the claim. Slavoj Zizek is claiming that charity is not just an act of the good guys but is actually the basic unit or element of the economy. This idea is what he tries to explain in his entire argument. To support his claim, we move on to the second part²the data. Zizek argues that the present economic system has transformed into what he calls ³Cultural Capitalism.´ By cultural capitalism, as I have understood it, he means that capitalism or the act of buying something is already being infused with the act of charity. As he have said in his argument, ³in today¶s capitalism, more and more, the tendency is to bring the two dimensions (consumption and charity/ethical duties) together in the same cluster. So that when you buy something, your anti-consumerist duty to do something for others, for the environment and so on is already included in it.´ Then, he presented the third part²an assumption or the warrant, for us, the readers/listener, to believe his data. He assumes that ³the act of egotist consumption already includes the price for its opposite.´ By this he means that when you buy something, its price already includes the ethical/anti-consumerist duties that you must fulfill. This assumption actually explains further his ³cultural capitalism.´ Afterwards, we move on to the fourth part²the backing in which he further supports his claim by providing direct supports/evidences for his assumption. Zizek gave the example of the Starbucks¶ campaign and the Shared Planet program. Furthermore, he gave an example about Tom¶s Shoes which boasted their one for one program. Lastly, he gave an example about us, as consumers, would prefer buying organic apples. In all of these three examples, he reiterated the point that all these products includes a ³whole series of ethical duties´ and that when we buy these

³The proper aim is to try and reconstruct the society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. Second is that in his argument. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. since his entire argument seems to point out that he is against charity. I actually see that argument to be a fallacy of hasty generalization. I think that in here. the help that it can give to others or to the environment in which he really cannot prove unless he gives a more in-depth study of the matter. Slavoj Zizek¶s argument actually triggers one to think because his good examples would really depict what he is saying. he is against the institution of private property and charity. . It wouldn¶t make sense to me why he would want that change unless he gives a direct example of it in which he didn¶t. These three. and that he is moving away to the concept of capitalism and is suggesting that we should adapt communism but then again in the end he is promoting freedom/free trade and liberalism. It¶s an assumption that he wasn¶t able to support for it to become valid. he is pointing out that the campaign of Starbucks and Tom¶s Shoes are just used to attract customers. are very good examples of his assumption. indeed. Now moving on to the critique of the argument. he said that. he said something about using private property to alleviate evil that resulted from the institution of private property itself is immoral.´ he is suggesting to change the society wherein one should be selfish and unkind. in which he anticipated the possible questions regarding his arguments. he explicitly said that he is not against charity and that he believed it is better than nothing at all.´ as he always say. I think that to avoid questions such as ³What should we do then.products we are able to fulfill these ethical duties. First is he claims that you buy Starbucks or shoes just because ³you know. if buying these products and being charitable does not help in our society?´ he prepared a solution. It would have been better if he just didn¶t complain about the system but also provided a concrete solution/alternative to it. Third. As a solution. And then we moved on to the last part²the refutation.´ Furthermore. ³the proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. I believed that Slavoj Zizek¶s argument is logical in a way that one will understand the sense of his argument but at the same time his arguments carry some possible flaws which somehow makes his argument invalid. thus it¶s quite confusing. Lastly.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->