BOOKS AND ARTS JULY 26, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Pity is not one of the qualities one associates with Slavoj Zizek, whose radicalism runs more towards fantasies of purgative violence. But in a recent interview with The Times of India, he indulged in at least a little pity for himself, complaining that “now they say I am the most dangerous philosopher in the West. But I don’t care.” He was referring, I presume, to an article I wrote in The New Republic in the fall of 2008—though, to be a stickler about it, the cover line for that article called him the most despicable philosopher in the West.
Comparing what Zizek says in the interview with what he said last year, when he wrote in to TNR to complain about the review of his books Violence and In Defense of Lost Causes, may help the reader decide whether that adjective is justified. In his reply to TNR, Zizek argued that I had quoted his amazing judgment on Hitler—“the problem with Hitler was that he was not violent enough”—without understanding just what he meant by violence. Violence, Zizek said in his letter, was using force “to really change things,” and Hitler did not really change things (because, as the old Communist interpretation runs, fascism was really just capitalism unmasked). As an example of what he meant by true violence, Zizek rather surprisingly adduced Gandhi: “In this precise sense of violence, Gandhi was more violent than Hitler: Gandhi’s movement effectively endeavored to interrupt the basic functioning of the British colonial state.”
At the time, I objected to Zizek’s using the great apostle of nonviolence as an exemplar of violence, suggesting that it was proof of a mind “fatally attracted to violence.” I also wondered why Zizek, in his letter, seemed to repudiate the praise of (traditional, non-Gandhian) violence which is so conspicuous in his books. Light may be shed on this question by his new interview with The Times of India, where the subject of Gandhi not unnaturally comes up:
You have also been critical of Gandhi. You have called him violent. Why?
It’s crucial to see violence which is done repeatedly to keep the things the way they are. In that sense, Gandhi was more violent than Hitler.
A lot of people will find it ridiculous to even imagine that Gandhi was more violent than Hitler? Are you serious when you say that?
Yes. Though Gandhi didn’t support killing, his actions helped the British imperialists to stay in India longer. This is something Hitler never wanted. Gandhi didn’t do anything to stop the way the British empire functioned here. For me, that is a problem.
I guess you have no respect for Gandhi who is a tall figure in this country.
I respect him. But I don’t respect him for his peaceful ways, vegetarianism, etc. I don’t care about that.
To recap: Writing to TNR, Zizek suggested that Gandhi was more violent than Hitler because his peaceful protest movement “effectively endeavored to interrupt” British imperialism. Now, speaking in an Indian newspaper which most of his American readers will never see, Zizek says the precise opposite: Gandhi was more violent than Hitler because he failed to disrupt British imperialism, and so was objectively responsible for continuing the violence of the Raj. (If Gandhi had taken up arms, presumably, Zizek would consider him less violent, because anything that ended British rule would have been a net gain for peace.) He then adds a grace note—that Hitler was a better anti-imperialist than Gandhi, because he “never wanted” the British Empire to be preserved!
In fact, this is historically incorrect: in the early stages of World War II, Hitler wanted to strike a deal with the British, which would preserve the Empire in exchange for German superiority on the Continent. But that is not the main point. What matters is that Zizek now explicitly denies what he tried to imply in TNR, that he has any kind of admiration for Gandhian nonviolence: “I don’t respect him for his peaceful ways.” I am not surprised by this; Zizek is, after all, the author of a book called Violence in which violence is quite openly defended. What does surprise me is the pure hypocrisy that his interview exposes, and the total absence of consistency in his thought and public speech. In the same interview, Zizek also complains that “In the last two years, the tone has changed” in the West regarding him and his work. Let’s hope so.
Adam Kirsch is a senior editor of The New Republic.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
7 comments
adam, having read zizek for many years, it is no suprise that he flip flops. Actually, in an ironic twist, it is entirely consistent with his other academic writings: he consistently changes his opinion on topics, he has on more than one occasion misread hegel and lacan. Despite this, his supporters will all preach in echo that we are missing the point of zizeks irony entirely: looking for mistakes within zizek are precisely the problem he attempts to identify. There is a simple solution to this problem --- QUIT READING SLAVOJ
- Fyre182
July 25, 2010 at 9:39pm
The notion of violence previously used by Zizek - ability to really change things -- was very much understandable within his system. Because when mentioning those "things" he was mentioning discursive reality or political-cultural reality, that reality that "lives in our minds" so to speak. In this sense, it made perfect sense to say that Gandhi was more "violent" than Hitler, as it would make sense to say that Christ was more "violent" than Mohammed. I have a lot of respect for Zizek's critical points (for instance his distinction between subjective violence and objective violence, precisely On Violence, is a very interesting analytical tool of contemporary times) even if sometimes his thought is still tamed by a childish Marxism, by a ridiculous notion that the world can be forcefully transformed (in a way that is inconsistent with his own notion of reality). I don't have as much respect for Adam Kirsch. I mean, is this the right tone to discuss anything, the one used here and on his last piece on Zizek? Is he interested in a quiet and serious assessment of Zizek's thought or in polemicizing after his new found personal hatred, grown after his sense of personal scandal? Reading Kirsch, the reader gets no idea whatsoever of what Zizek's most important points are. He only gets the idea of how much Kirsch is scandalized by some of Zizek's polemic quotes -- most of them made out of context.
- Ideaot
July 26, 2010 at 2:38am
@ Ideaot I totally agree with the idea that Kirsch's review seems underscored by something much more personal, almost adversarial, but I can't help but understand where he's coming from. Foucault writes a beautiful criticism of discussion on polemics, one that properly discusses why its a poor idea to engage in the discussion of polemics. But let's not forget who we're talking about, we're talking about: Slavoj Zizek, buddy, the master of contradictions. I love reading slavoj as much as the next direly misled individual -- one who confuses poor writing with genius. I love his subtle examination of vaginal penetration in the Desert of the Real; I love his own confusion of phantasmal fantasies; I even love the ironic nature of his article for Abercrombie and Fitch, amidst his prior anti-capitalist muck. I love Zizek because he embodies, in its purest form, the reason to reject much of the "new" Western continental philosophy tradition. Zizek's polemic quotes out of context? I'm sorry that you've been drinking one too many glasses of the Kool aid, but the very purpose of his writing is to act as a polemicist. He is, at his core, only relevant when he is radical.
- Fyre182
July 26, 2010 at 4:19am
@ Fyre182 I don't think Zizek is that important. He is more fun than great. Even if there are very interesting analytical tools there. But if he is a polemicist, his polemical quotes must be placed in context. As I read him, it has more to do with dialectics than with mere polemics. His aim, it sounds to me, is more to expose the ruthless nature of contemporary times, than to ressuscitate forms of past violence. This is what Kirsch seems to miss: his sense of personal scandal -- and perhaps his denial of how much contemporary global capitalism really is ruthless -- leads him to entirely miss the point. I would also reject most of the "new" Western continental philosophy tradition. But not in the name of the "new" Anglo-American tradition. Perhaps in the name of the "old" Western continental philosophy tradition, missed both by the "new" Western continental philosophy tradition (and I would accuse Foucault's dishonest attack of Hegelianism of most of present day's confusions) and by the "new" Western Anglo-American tradition (which paradoxically seems to grow out of the same Foucault's iconoclastic, and very dishonest, points).
- Ideaot
July 26, 2010 at 6:10am
I don't see the contradiction. In his reply to TNR, Zizek is talking about what Gandhi tried, or intended, to do - what he "effectively endeavored" - and how those intentions were more violent than Hitler's because they were not simply reactionary but tried to actually change the larger structure of Western imperialism, and not just replace a British face with a Germn one. Zizek is saying that, unlike Gandhi, Hitler was not some kind of evil visionary - he was just an evil reactionary, in terms of his vision of gleichschaltung. With Gandhi, you have someone who is effectively *trying to destroy an ideology, and this is not the case with Hitler. Thus, in the interview Zizek says that "It’s crucial to see violence which is done repeatedly to keep the things the way they are" - this is the sheer physical, not theoretical, violence of Hitler. In his interview with the Times, Zizek isn't so much as talking about what Gandhi tried to do, but rather what his tactics actually brought about. Thus, Zizek clearly says that Gandhi's "actions helped the British imperialists to stay in India longer." Here Zizek is saying that the tragedy of Gandhi's violence is that, despite itself, it ended up reaffirming the ideology it meant to undo. A parallel to this in Zizek's work would be something like Buddhism, which started out as very subversive - that is, violent - but was then incorporated into our capitalism ideology. This confusion all points, I think, to why Zizek is using the word "violence" in such a counter-intuitive way. Zizek clearly sees the term as a kind of site for ideological combat and he's trying to intervene dialectically. While no one is "for" violence this past century, to his mind, has been the most violent ever. Zizek sees a connection here - we are clearly not thinking about violence in a very responsible way. Everyone disowns it, yet it's all around us. That is, we are all against it philosophically but its physically present all around us. Zizek's solution to this is to embrace the idea of violence, rather than running away from it as liberal political philosophers do, and undo this standoff. When we accept violence philosophically, the argument goes, we will be more responsible for it in the real world, and not just give ourselves an out by being able to say, "Well, of course I abhor the violence in Iraq, but democratic ideals are ..." I don't agree with this argument, but this is what I think he's getting at. I got this sense from reading his books, not from what's in TNR and the Times.
- NR851651
July 26, 2010 at 12:08pm
Zizek is not so much a philosopher, but rather a performance artist playing a philosopher. And the performance is pretty poor.
- dlevin23
July 26, 2010 at 8:27pm
I agree wholeheartedly with dlevin's comments. In fact, I would go further: Zizek is obviously a creation of Alan Sokal, who has quite cleverly hired an escapee from a Slovenian lunatic asylum to pontificate pirated postmodern piffle.
- cansv
July 28, 2010 at 10:19pm