Two big cultural events this summer, the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics and the release of Deadpool & Wolverine, both offer dazzling spectacles saturated by irony, but that is about all they have in common, and by analyzing their differences, we can better appreciate the profoundly ambiguous nature of irony today.
Ironic distance toward the prevailing social order often functions as a barely veiled form of conformism. As Wendy Ide of the Observer wrote of Deadpool & Wolverine, which is merely the latest installment in an apparently never-ending cycle of Marvel superhero blockbusters, the movie “can be obnoxious and simultaneously very funny ... but it’s also slapdash, repetitive, and shoddy looking, with an overreliance on meme-derived gags and achingly meta comic fan in-jokes.”
What a perfect description of how ideology functions today.
Illustration: Mountain People
Knowing that nobody takes its central message seriously any longer, it offers self-referential jokes, multiverse-hopping and smarmy asides that break the fourth wall. This same approach — irony in the service of the status quo — is also how much of the public endures an increasingly mad and violent world.
However, Thomas Jolly, director of the Olympic opening ceremony, reminds us that a different mode of irony is also available. Although he closely followed the Olympic Charter in showcasing the host city and French culture, he was widely criticized. Putting aside the Catholics who mistook the depiction of Bacchanalian festivities as a mockery of the Last Supper, the negative reactions are best captured by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
“Westerners believe that nation-states no longer exist. They deny that there is a common culture and a public morality based on it. There is no morality, and if you watched the opening of the Olympic Games yesterday, you will have seen it,” Orban said.
This suggests that the stakes could not be higher. For Orban, the ceremony signaled Europe’s spiritual suicide, whereas for Jolly (and many of us, I hope), it was a rare manifestation of Europe’s true cultural legacy. The world got a taste of the nation of Descartes, the founder of modern philosophy, whose radical doubt was grounded in a universal — and therefore “multicultural” — perspective. He understood that one’s own traditions are no better than the supposedly “eccentric” traditions of others.
“I had been taught, even in my college days, that there is nothing imaginable so strange or so little credible that it has not been maintained by one philosopher or other, and I further recognized in the course of my travels that all those whose sentiments are very contrary to ours are yet not necessarily barbarians or savages, but may be possessed of reason in as great or even a greater degree than ourselves,” Descartes wrote.
Only by relativizing particularity can we arrive at an authentic universalist position. In Kantian terms, clinging to our ethnic roots leads us to engage in a private use of reason, where we are constrained by contingent dogmatic presuppositions.
In What is Enlightenment?, Immanuel Kant opposes this immature, private use of reason to a more public, objective one. The former reflects and serves merely one’s own state, religion and institutions, whereas public reason requires one to take a transnational position.
Universal reason is what we saw in the opening ceremony — a rare glimpse of modern Europe’s emancipatory core. Yes, the imagery was of France and Paris, but the self-referential jokes made clear that this was no private use of reason. Jolly masterfully achieved ironic distance from every “private” institutional frame, including that of the French state.
Conservatives are simply wrong to denounce the ceremony as a display of LGBTQ+ ideology and politically correct uniformity. Of course, there were implicit critiques of conservative nationalism, but in its content and style, it was directed even more against stiff PC moralism — or “wokeism.”
Instead of worrying about diversity and inclusion in the standard PC mode (which excludes everyone who does not agree with a particular notion of inclusion), the show let in everyone. Marie Antoinette’s guillotined singing head was set against the Mona Lisa floating in the Seine and a joyful Bacchanalia of half-naked bodies. Workers repairing Notre Dame danced on the job, and the show unfolded not in a stadium, but across the entire city, which remains open to the world.
Such an ironic and obscene spectacle is as far away as possible from sterile, humorless political correctness. The ceremony did not merely present Europe at its best, it reminded the world that only in Europe is such a ceremony even possible. It was global, multicultural, and all of that, but the message was delivered from the standpoint of the French capital, the greatest city in the world. It was a message of hope, imagining a world of great diversity, with no place for war and hatred.
Contrast this with the vision offered by the right-wing Russian political philosopher Aleksandr Dugin in an interview with the Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar. For Dugin, Europe is now irrelevant, a rotten garden protected by a high wall. The only choice is between the US globalist deep state and a peaceful new world order of sovereign states. It would be peaceful, he suggests, because Russia would distribute nuclear arms to all developing nations, so that the principle of mutual assured destruction applies everywhere.
As a contest between the US deep state and former US president Donald Trump, this year’s US presidential election, according to Dugin, therefore would decide humanity’s fate. If Trump wins, de-escalation is possible — if a Democrat wins, we are headed for global war and the end of humanity.
Set against what people like Orban and Dugin think, Jolly’s message is deeply ethical. It is whispering to conservative nationalists: Watch the ceremony carefully again, and be ashamed of what you are.
Slavoj Zizek, professor of philosophy at the European Graduate School, is international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London and the author of Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS