"Violence,” By Slavoj Zizek, 2008
This is not a pacifist book.
Zizek is the post-modern philosopher who feeds at the banquet table of
ethical dialectics via Hegel and Kant and the secret trough of Marx. He operates in the ‘post-left,’‘post-idealist,’ 'post-modern,' 'post-ideological,' 'post-racial' world – yet since history did not end, those terms are in
themselves suspect. While at times
wrapping himself in Lacanian psychology, in this book he produces an analysis
that a Marxist could be proud of.
Violence in his meaning here is that done by religion, by identity
politics, by liberalism, and ultimately by ‘the system’ - capitalism, that
great ‘universalizer.’
In other books the contradictory Zizek calls Marxism some
‘old’ and ‘ancient’ idea. Yet he cannot
help but use it. He starts a discussion
of the post-Katrina New Orleans
by highlighting the alleged role of poor people ‘looting’ and murdering after
the ‘breakdown of law and order.’ He later points out that hardly any of this
happened. The looting that did take
place was to get necessities. The
murders were by police or the storm. He
seems to criticize the 2005 Arab outbreaks in the French suburbs against police
brutality as ‘blind violence’ yet later says this kind of violence has emancipatory
potential. Zizek usually says a few good
things about the alleged positive characteristics of Christianity (as opposed
to other religions) but here he takes a stone cold opposition to religion by
looking carefully at Islam. At one point
he sounds like a Republican talking about how the lower classes or the ‘losers’
suffer from psychological and financial ‘envy,’ citing Nietzsche’s
philosophy. Then Zizek turns the idea
upside down in a later chapter by accusing the neo-liberals and
neo-conservatives of actually being envious of the revolutionary project
itself, envious of those who are not happy with the present.
Zizek is the center of his own quirky philosophy - a
personalism that attempts to universalize itself on its good days, and descends
into isolated ‘thought’ provocations on its worst. He dots the book with film references,
especially Hitchcock, some of which seem somewhat forced. One chapter goes on an on about ‘liberal
communists’ who turn out to be people like George Soros and Bill Gates –
billionaires with charitable capitalist goals.
Thus turning the whole concept of ‘liberal communist’ into a worthless
phrase. Yet this book might be his most
consistent.
While usually keeping mum about his ‘native’ Slovenia, Zizek here talks about Slovenia for a
page and a half! Slovenians are the
first in the former workers’ states to reject bourgeois attempts at dividing
the working class through religious or ethnic appeals. They did this by electing a leftish government
in 2014 based on votes from many different religious and ethnic communities. Zizek’s efforts against particularism and
identity politics must be in the water in Ljubljana.
Zizek does this by coming out unequivocally for the
Palestinians. He says the answer to the
question, ‘Are you a Jew or a human” is the latter. He does this by indicating that ‘tolerance’
of Islamic intolerance, as liberals are prone to do, is paternalistic and a
form of liberal racism. Muslims (and
others) are not held by Western liberals (even when they call themselves
‘radicals’) to the same universal standards as anyone else – as if they are
incapable. Abu Ghraib demonstrated to
Zizek, not a strange departure from American morality, but an exhibit of the
actual underside of American culture, an unconscious ‘id’ expression of its habitual
unspoken culture. Not enshrined in law,
yet adhered to more rigorously – such as other unwritten rules, like the ‘blue code of silence.’
Zizek focuses on the ‘solipsistic speculative dance of
capital, which pursues its goal of profitability in blessed indifference to how
its movement will affect social reality.’
Capital throws off systemic, objective violence every day, yet this goes
unnoticed by pro-capitalist pacifists.
Only ‘violence’ in the abstract (which can involve the oppressed…) is
condemned by them. In this light he
highlights the Brecht quote: “What is the robbery of a bank compared to the
founding of a bank?” to illustrate this point.
In a chapter cleverly titled, “Fear Thy Neighbor As
Thyself,’ Zizek describes modern liberal politics as ‘post-political bio-politics’
which dwells on cultural issues alone, as represented by different religions, nationalities, genders or
ethnicities – never classes. Your
family, biological group, sex, local and geographical community are all that matter. These are the roots of a narrow
‘particularism’ which divides humanity.
The ‘neighbor’ is really not everyone. These identity politics actually
promote violence between communities or religions or nations. As Khomeini pointed out when Iran killed
some dissidents – they were ‘animals’ not Muslims. Zizek wants to politicize culture instead of accepting the
culturalization of politics.
Zizek takes on Muslim fundamentalism by wondering why some
have to kill or prohibit expressions of non-belief regarding their religion IF
they are secure in their religion. The
answer, obviously, is that they are not, and in fact fear the criticisms are
correct. Even the concept of the ‘veil’
is based on the 'fact' that Muslim men are evidently so helpless and
incapable of sexual restraint that they will violate any woman who does not
wear one. He points out that only
atheism rises above the particular narrow allegiance to one religion or
another, and is the road to the universal.
He calls atheism ‘Europe’s most
precious legacy.” The place where people
are no longer ‘Christian” or “Muslim” or “Jewish” but humans. As Marxists understand, even the concept and
reality of ‘the working class’ will some day become obsolete, just as religion
has now become obsolete.
Zizek calls for confronting Islamic fundamentalist ideas, not running away claiming ‘cultural relativism.’ He identifies this ‘tolerance’ with the racism and conservatism of the Western liberal. In his clever contradictory way he says: “The failure of all the efforts to unite religions proves that the only way to be religious in general is under the banner of the ‘anonymous religion of atheism.’” He says that Muslims ‘must be treated as serious adults responsible for their beliefs.’ Regarding Christians, he points out that the Catholic Church’s paedophilia problem is actually inherent in the church itself, and not just related to ‘some’ wayward priests. It is the unwritten rule within the Church, and I might add, many undemocratic / personalist organizations. Sexuality is a material force and it will out, and the more repressed, the worse will be the manifestation.
Zizek calls for confronting Islamic fundamentalist ideas, not running away claiming ‘cultural relativism.’ He identifies this ‘tolerance’ with the racism and conservatism of the Western liberal. In his clever contradictory way he says: “The failure of all the efforts to unite religions proves that the only way to be religious in general is under the banner of the ‘anonymous religion of atheism.’” He says that Muslims ‘must be treated as serious adults responsible for their beliefs.’ Regarding Christians, he points out that the Catholic Church’s paedophilia problem is actually inherent in the church itself, and not just related to ‘some’ wayward priests. It is the unwritten rule within the Church, and I might add, many undemocratic / personalist organizations. Sexuality is a material force and it will out, and the more repressed, the worse will be the manifestation.
Zizek books always include funny moments where he stands our
knowledge on its head. He has ridiculous
takes on the narcissistic culture of self-fulfilment that is hoisted on
everyone – to hedonistically ‘enjoy’ everything one consumes. The ‘enjoy’ of the waiter at the restaurant
will haunt you.
Zizek ends the book with a chapter discussing Marxist
culture critic Walter Benjamin’s idea of ‘divine violence.’ Seemingly it is unavoidable that some
theorists (and writers) must use Christian or religious ideas in order to give
their thought some kind of ostensible weight. After much torturous reasoning,
Zizek comes around to conclude that ‘divine’ violence is really revolutionary /
emancipatory violence. It is the one form
of violence he supports. Its divinity
has nothing to do with being sanctioned by some ‘big Other” – like God, a
Church, a religion or the government, but issues directly from ‘the people’
themselves. Why divine? Only in the sense that ‘the people’ are the
only real divinity that exists. This is the divinity of the French Revolution.
I’ll leave you with a good Zizek quote that reflects the world-wide struggle for emancipation: “”The formula of revolutionary solidarity is
not ‘let us tolerate our differences,’ it is not a pact of civilizations, but a
pact of struggles which cut across civilizations, a pact between what in
each civilization undermines its identity from within, (and) fights against its
oppressive kernel. What unites us is the
same struggle.”
Mayday Books has a
large selection of Zizek and other political philosophers. Zizek books reviewed below are: “Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?”, “First
As Tragedy, Then as Farce” and “Living in the End Times.”
And I bought it at Mayday Books!
Red Frog
March 14, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment