By Vikas Datta
It is a field dealing with significant questions on human existence, knowledge, values, ethics, and so on, but philosophy is generally seen more as an abstruse and impenetrable academic exercise than a helpful endeavour. However, this is not always the case, especially when some of its flamboyant practitioners apply it to examine issues like ecology, poverty, modern politics, and terrorism.
That too, in a clear, even colloquial and ‘colourful’ language – eschewing the esoteric jargon that most philosophers, chiefly Central European, tend to create or revel in.
And it also helps when they use examples from popular culture, like this bearded and burly Slovenian philosopher, whose frame of reference spans Hollywood films from Charlie Chaplin to “The Matrix” and literature from Shakespeare to Stephen King, as well as a wide section of cutting-edge science, from biogenetics to quantum theory.
For good measure, Slavoj Zizek (pronounced ‘Slah-voy Zhi-zek’, born in Ljubljana in 1949) is characterised by an unconventional approach and appearances (the latest a cameo in Owen Wilson-Salma Hayek drama “Bliss”, 2021) and can be counted for a slew of polemics and provocations – describing most people as “boring idiots”.
Along with global political and economic issues, he offers trenchant opinions on topics from modern advertising to consumerism to reality shows, and so on.
This is not only a bid to disrupt the expected academic method, but also of the idea of the philosopher as an unworldly, sacrosanct figure beyond criticism or reproach, and remote from life.
Termed the most “dangerous”, “rockstar” or the “hippest” philosopher”, as many other names – most of them uncomplimentary – and which he abhors, and pilloried from both the left (as “court jester of capitalism”) and the right (as a “communist”), what does Zizek actually espouse?
His thought combines two “discredited” systems – Marxism and psychoanalysis – which he seeks to meld to offer a different view of our world. This is not a new approach – The Frankfurt School did the same for most of the mid-20th century, but he takes it to a new level. Also, his view of Marxism is in context of the German idealism’s tradition, especially G.W.F. Hegel, while he draws on theories of Sigmund Freud — as re-interpreted by French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan.
Zizek’s primary focus is politics – as he contests the view that we live in a post-ideological era, or that the supremacy of capitalism, the end of history, or the war on terror are here for the long term, or that, market forces are the panacea for ills A foe of right-wing and capitalism, he is no friend of neo-liberalism or political correctness either. He frequently refers to Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler – with some engaging insights and comparisons.
Take, “Lenin is best remembered for his famous retort,’ Freedom- yes, but for WHOM? To do WHAT?'” or “…Hitler did not ‘have the balls’ to really change things; he did not really act, all his actions were fundamentally reactions, i.e., he acted so that nothing would really change, he stages a big spectacle of Revolution so that the capitalist order could survive. In this precise sense of violence, Gandhi was more violent than Hitler: Gandhi’s movement effectively endeavoured to interrupt the basic functioning of the British colonial state.”
Zizek is a committed Marxist, but not a Stalinist and Maoist – or even the Leninist makeover. His Marxism is more of a recognition of its communitarian basis, its economic subtext, and capacity for “emancipatory politics”, not “dreams of revolutions around the corner”.
Another key archstone is his idea of truth, where he opposes the liberal notion that it is relative.
Truth, he says, is not a metaphysical construct or a set of universal principles governing meaning, but “an understanding of the real power relations that control society” and the ideologies curbing social and political freedom.
He abominates political correctness. “Also, I really hate all of this politically correct, cultural studies bull****. If you mention the phrase “postcolonialism,” I say, “F*** it!” Postcolonialism is the invention of some rich guys from India who saw that they could make a good career in top Western universities by playing on the guilt of white liberals,” he said in an interview.
Zizek also decries the “sentimental, spiritual” idea of nature — the belief that a balanced world, disturbed by humans, can be restored — contending this ignores what is needed: a radical approach to fight the ruthless market forces actually responsible as well as the acquiescent politicians.
The same misguided sentimentality, he argues, curbs eradication of worldwide poverty, where charity and “ethical” products represent pure cultural capitalism which offers “redemption” from performing a consumerist act, and forestalls hope of an anti-capitalistic alliance between socially-conscious liberals and the radical left.
On terror, Zizek dismisses “McWorld vs Jihad” — the perceived opposition between Western “liberalism” and Islamic “fundamentalism” — as an American geo-strategic ploy. He also holds the concept of “clash of civilisations” is rooted in West’s increasing interest in global affairs, noting how Afghanistan, till the mid-1970s’ superpower meddling, was one of the most vibrant and open Muslim societies.
There is a similar treatment of other major issues of the day, including the immigrant influx into the West, where he is also at his provocative best.
Where can we get to know Zizek more? He has over 100 books in English and Slovene (and other languages), ranging from rather polemic theory, to academic works, and essay collections.
Recommended “general” books are his first English work: “The Sublime Object of Ideology” (1989), and then “Trouble in Paradise: From the End of History to the End of Capitalism” (2014), “Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours: Against the Double Blackmail” (2016), “The Courage of Hopelessness” (2017), “Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World” (2020), and “Surplus-Enjoyment: A Guide For The Non-Perplexed” (2022).
In a visual format, you can check his take on some iconic Hollywood films in documentaries like “The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema” (2006) and its sequel “The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology” (2012).
Both are worthwhile.
(Vikas Datta can be contacted at vikas.d@ians.in)
–IANS
vd/
