Jung, Aufhebung and a Deeper Analysis of the Dialectic

Give that the Sublime Object of Ideology has a lot to do with the relationship between Idealism and Psychoanalysis, I sent upon myself to watch a talk by Zizek about the subject. As you can imagine he covers incredibly dense philosophical notions and I wanted to note some of the things I was able to get my head around.

Zizek talks about the Jungian compensation theory about the elevation of the unconscious into the substantial truth of the human subject.

The theory stipulates that when the Ego is faced with the things that don't fit it's self image - They are thus recognized as brutal foreign intrusions. Jung argues that instead of pushing or eliminating these 'intrusions' away, the objective should be to integrate them into a wide sense of self which transcends the narrow confines of the Ego.

In these unconscious foreign intrusions, you are faced by the message of your disavowed self (or the parts of yourself you do not accept) and the point is to reconcile yourself with this disavowed self.

Zizek rejects this theory however as he believes essentially, that not all selves are equal in their contexts, and thus there is no balance between two opposing selves that identify 'foreign intrusions' in each other. Rather, one self can be seen as a reaction to the other.

Zizek claims, that according to Hegel's dialectics, only one side is the one that brings transformation and it should be stubborn enough to bring itself to completion. He claims that it is not a matter of having one side and then the other side, and we need a broader perspective to bring them together through synthesis - He claims that for Hegel it is not about re-establishing the symmetry and balance of the two opposing principles, but to recognize in one pole, the symptom or the failure of the other.

Zizek puts this in the context of individualist capitalism and fundamentalism - The point is to recognize through fundamentalism the failure of capitalism. (Not as the Jungian compensation theory hold, that there is a current equilibrium between the poles of fundamentalism and capitalism and as both recognize in the other the 'foreign intrusions' that they must reconcile and reach a more enlightened equilibrium if you like).

He claims that the ultimate point of Hegel is to ensure that a universality needs to revolutionize itself so that it no longer requires it's opposite pole in order to sustain itself.

He claims that the entire model of fighting the extreme to find the balance is false. The essential feature of Aufhebung is that it is a cycle through which the cycle itself achieves change - not one in which the cycle of sublation stagnates. Zizek argues, that only the opposite (fundamentalism) will allow for the space to open up for real change (in individualist capitalism).

Below is the video for further reference.