“Cargoes” by John Masefield, first appeared in 1903 as part of his poetry collection Salt-Water Ballads, reflects Masefield’s fascination with the sea and maritime history.
Introduction: “Cargoes” by John Masefield
“Cargoes” by John Masefield, first appeared in 1903 as part of his poetry collection Salt-Water Ballads, reflects Masefield’s fascination with the sea and maritime history, presenting a vivid contrast between the romanticized voyages of ancient and exotic ships and the stark utilitarianism of modern industrial transport. Through rich imagery and rhythmic language, Masefield evokes the opulence of ancient trade with “ivory, apes and peacocks” and the treasures of Spanish galleons laden with “diamonds, emeralds, amethysts,” before juxtaposing them with the grimy practicality of a “dirty British coaster” carrying mundane items like “coal” and “cheap tin trays.” Its enduring popularity lies in its evocative imagery, rhythmic beauty, and subtle commentary on the decline of romanticism in an industrialized world, offering a timeless reflection on progress and nostalgia.
Text: “Cargoes” by John Masefield
Quinquireme of Nineveh from distant Ophir, Rowing home to haven in sunny Palestine, With a cargo of ivory, And apes and peacocks, Sandalwood, cedarwood, and sweet white wine.
Stately Spanish galleon coming from the Isthmus, Dipping through the tropics by the palm-green shores, With a cargo of diamonds, Emeralds, amythysts, Topazes, and cinnamon, and gold moidores.
Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack, Butting through the channel in the mad March days, With a cargo of Tyne coal, Road-rails, pig-lead, Firewood, iron-ware, and cheap tin trays.
Nostalgic in the first two stanzas, critical in the third
Reflects the thematic progression from admiration to a critique of modernity.
Visual Imagery
“Diamonds, emeralds, amethysts”
Evokes the vivid colors and allure of precious goods.
Word Choice (Diction)
“Cheap tin trays”
The use of “cheap” reflects the degradation in quality and value over time.
Themes: “Cargoes” by John Masefield
The Romance of Maritime Trade
The poem celebrates the grandeur and romance of ancient and colonial maritime trade, evoking a sense of wonder through imagery of exotic goods and majestic ships. In the first stanza, the “Quinquireme of Nineveh” is depicted as carrying luxurious items like “ivory,” “apes,” and “peacocks,” symbolizing the wealth and mystery of ancient civilizations. Similarly, the “Spanish galleon” in the second stanza is laden with treasures like “diamonds,” “emeralds,” and “cinnamon,” further idealizing the golden age of exploration. These images romanticize a time when seafaring was a gateway to distant lands and unimaginable riches.
The Contrast Between Past and Present
Masefield juxtaposes the opulent imagery of ancient and colonial ships with the stark utilitarianism of modern industrial trade. The final stanza introduces the “dirty British coaster,” carrying mundane and practical goods such as “coal,” “road-rails,” and “cheap tin trays.” This shift from exotic treasures to industrial commodities highlights the decline in the romance of seafaring, reflecting a broader commentary on the impact of industrialization and the loss of aesthetic and cultural richness in modern times.
The Passage of Time and Cultural Transformation
The poem reflects on the passage of time and the transformation of cultures and economies. The progression from the ancient “Quinquireme” to the colonial “Spanish galleon” and finally to the modern “British coaster” mirrors the historical evolution of maritime trade and its changing priorities. Where the past celebrated luxury and grandeur, the present focuses on efficiency and practicality. The poem thus becomes a meditation on how time reshapes values, shifting from the exotic to the mundane, and from the beautiful to the functional.
Human Progress and Its Costs
While the poem acknowledges the advancements of industrialization, it also critiques its costs, particularly the loss of artistry and connection to nature. The “salt-caked smoke stack” and the “mad March days” of the British coaster convey a sense of harshness and struggle, contrasting sharply with the sunny and tropical imagery of the earlier stanzas. Through this contrast, Masefield suggests that progress, while inevitable, often comes at the expense of beauty, nostalgia, and cultural richness, urging readers to reflect on what is gained and lost in the pursuit of modernity.
Analyzes the relationship between humans, nature, and industrialization, critiquing the environmental impact of progress.
The “dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack” symbolizes industrial pollution and its harsh impact on nature.
Critical Questions about “Cargoes” by John Masefield
How does Masefield use imagery to contrast the past and present in maritime trade?
Masefield employs vivid imagery to highlight the contrast between the romanticized past and the utilitarian present. In the first stanza, the “Quinquireme of Nineveh” is laden with luxurious and exotic items like “ivory,” “apes,” and “peacocks,” evoking a sense of grandeur and mystery. Similarly, the second stanza’s “Spanish galleon” carries treasures such as “diamonds,” “emeralds,” and “gold moidores,” symbolizing the wealth of colonial exploration. This romantic imagery sharply contrasts with the third stanza’s portrayal of the “dirty British coaster,” which hauls mundane and industrial goods like “coal,” “road-rails,” and “cheap tin trays.” Through these contrasts, Masefield emphasizes the aesthetic and cultural loss associated with modern industrialization.
What role does repetition play in shaping the rhythm and structure of the poem?
Repetition is a key device in “Cargoes” that enhances its musicality and reinforces its themes. The recurring phrase “With a cargo of…” at the beginning of the cargo lists in each stanza creates a rhythmic consistency that mimics the steady movement of ships across the water. This structure also draws attention to the differences between the types of goods carried in each era, highlighting the shift from luxury and exoticism in the first two stanzas to practicality and industrial monotony in the third. The repetition underscores the poem’s central theme: the transformation of maritime trade and its implications for culture and society.
How does the poem reflect on the impact of industrialization?
The poem critiques industrialization by juxtaposing its stark utilitarianism with the romanticism of earlier eras. The “dirty British coaster,” with its “salt-caked smoke stack,” represents the harsh and unglamorous reality of modern industrial shipping. The utilitarian goods it carries, such as “coal” and “iron-ware,” signify the practical but uninspiring priorities of industrial economies. This contrasts with the luxurious and exotic items in the earlier stanzas, suggesting that industrial progress, while necessary, has led to a loss of beauty, imagination, and cultural richness in maritime trade.
How does Masefield address the theme of human progress in the poem?
Masefield presents human progress as a double-edged sword, celebrating historical achievements while critiquing their costs. The first two stanzas highlight the achievements of ancient and colonial trade, showcasing humanity’s ability to connect distant lands and acquire valuable goods. However, the final stanza introduces a critical perspective, depicting the “dirty British coaster” as a symbol of industrial progress that prioritizes efficiency over elegance. The poem suggests that while humanity has advanced technologically, this progress has come at the expense of the romantic and aesthetic values once associated with seafaring.
Literary Works Similar to “Cargoes” by John Masefield
“Sea Fever” by John Masefield Written by the same poet, this poem similarly captures the allure of the sea, emphasizing the romantic and adventurous spirit of maritime life.
“Ozymandias” by Percy Bysshe Shelley Though not explicitly about the sea, this poem parallels “Cargoes” in its meditation on the passage of time and the decline of grandeur.
“The Ship of State” by Horace (translated) Uses nautical imagery to draw metaphors about civilization and progress, akin to Masefield’s thematic exploration of trade and transformation.
“Crossing the Bar” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson Reflects on the sea as a metaphor for life’s journey and transition, echoing Masefield’s juxtaposition of nostalgia and progression.
Representative Quotations of “Cargoes” by John Masefield
Introduces the ancient ship and sets a tone of historical and biblical grandeur.
Postcolonial Theory: Reflects on the luxury of ancient trade and its dependence on resource extraction.
“With a cargo of ivory, and apes and peacocks”
Describes exotic goods, symbolizing the wealth and mystery of ancient civilizations.
Marxist Criticism: Highlights the commodification of natural and cultural resources.
“Stately Spanish galleon coming from the Isthmus”
Introduces the colonial era, emphasizing the majesty of exploration and conquest.
Postcolonial Theory: Suggests the dominance of European empires in global trade during the colonial period.
“With a cargo of diamonds, emeralds, amethysts”
Lists precious goods, underscoring the opulence and exploitation of colonial commerce.
Ecocriticism: Reflects on the environmental and cultural costs of exploiting natural resources.
“Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack”
Contrasts industrial pragmatism with earlier grandeur, emphasizing the grim reality of modern shipping.
Marxist Criticism: Examines the industrial economy’s prioritization of utility over aesthetic values.
“Butting through the channel in the mad March days”
Evokes the harsh, unromantic struggle of modern industrial vessels.
Ecocriticism: Highlights the environmental challenges and relentless pace of industrialization.
“With a cargo of Tyne coal, road-rails, pig-lead”
Lists utilitarian goods, signifying the shift from luxury to functionality in trade.
Marxist Criticism: Reflects the commodification of everyday goods under industrial capitalism.
“Sandalwood, cedarwood, and sweet white wine”
Represents refined luxury and exotic appeal in ancient trade.
Postcolonial Theory: Suggests the cultural and economic value placed on goods from colonized regions.
“Topazes, and cinnamon, and gold moidores”
Highlights treasures that were central to colonial trade networks.
Postcolonial Theory: Exposes the extractive nature of colonial trade systems.
“Cheap tin trays”
Symbolizes the degradation of trade goods in the industrial era.
Marxist Criticism: Examines the decline in cultural and material value due to mass production.
Suggested Readings: “Cargoes” by John Masefield
Dobson, Tom, and John Masefield. “Cargoes/[music by] Tom Dobson;[poem by] John Masefield.” (1920).
Nault Jr, Clifford A. “31. Masefield’s Cargoes.” The Explicator 16.5 (1958): 77-79.
Davison, Edward, and John Masefield. “The Poetry of John Masefield.” The English Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, 1926, pp. 5–13. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/802683. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
Fletcher, John Gould. “John Masefield: A Study.” The North American Review, vol. 212, no. 779, 1920, pp. 548–51. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25120619. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
Clarke, George Herbert. “John Masefield and Jezebel.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 32, no. 2, 1924, pp. 225–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27533755. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
“Ugly, Creepy, Disgusting, and Other Modes of Abjection” by Jela Krečič and Slavoj Žižek first appeared in the journal Critical Inquiry 43 in the autumn of 2016.
Introduction: “Ugly, Creepy, Disgusting, and Other Modes of Abjection” by Jela Krečič and Slavoj Žižek
“Ugly, Creepy, Disgusting, and Other Modes of Abjection” by Jela Krečič and Slavoj Žižek first appeared in the journal Critical Inquiry 43 in the autumn of 2016. This essay delves into the aesthetics of ugliness, drawing upon the foundational work of Karl Rosenkranz, who conceptualized ugliness as a necessary counterpart to beauty. It explores how ugliness serves as an aesthetic category in its own right and examines its complex roles as the foil, predecessor, or even essence of beauty in various philosophical traditions. The discussion extends to modern interpretations of abjection, disgust, and the monstrous, integrating insights from Julia Kristeva’s psychoanalytic theory. Žižek and Krečič highlight the destabilizing power of ugliness and its potential to subvert or reinforce cultural and symbolic orders. This essay is significant in literary theory as it reframes ugliness and abjection not merely as aesthetic outliers but as central to understanding beauty, sublimity, and cultural constructs of the grotesque. By doing so, it enriches discussions on the interplay of art, subjectivity, and the cultural dialectics of inclusion and exclusion.
Summary of “Ugly, Creepy, Disgusting, and Other Modes of Abjection” by Jela Krečič and Slavoj Žižek
Ugly as a Construct of Aesthetic Philosophy
Historical Context of Ugliness: Karl Rosenkranz introduced the notion of the ugly as an independent aesthetic category, detached from its traditional association with beauty, truth, and morality (Rosenkranz, Ästhetik des Häßlichen).
A Dialectical Relationship: Ugliness serves as the “negative beautiful,” functioning as a foil that enhances the aesthetic experience of beauty (Adorno’s interpretation, Aesthetic Theory).
Ambiguity of Ugliness: The ugly oscillates between extremes of the monstrous (sublime) and the ridiculous (comical), revealing its dual capacity for aesthetic and moral edification (Krečič & Žižek).
The Creepy as the Modern Uncanny
Subjectivity and Creepiness: The creepy reflects the Freudian uncanny and the impenetrability of the neighbor’s desire, marked by excessive attachment to an object or act (Kotsko, Creepiness).
Social Order and Hysteria: Creepiness disrupts social norms, exposing the performative contradictions in societal constraints, and offers insights into the power dynamics between hysteria and perversion (Žižek).
Disgust and Its Somatic Foundations
Violations of the Body’s Integrity: Disgust emerges when the boundary between the body’s inside and outside is breached, as in encounters with blood, excrement, or decay (Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle).
Abjection and Superego Injunctions: Disgust is tied to enjoyment (jouissance), driven by a paradoxical superego command to indulge in the very thing that repels us, illustrating the entanglement of pleasure and unpleasure (Kristeva, Powers of Horror).
Defining the Abject: The abject destabilizes the distinction between subject and object, threatening identity and systemic order while exerting a morbid fascination (Kristeva, Powers of Horror).
Cultural and Symbolic Dimensions: Abjection exists at the juncture of the natural and symbolic, manifesting as a violent differentiation that precedes structured identity and culture (Krečič & Žižek).
Fetishistic Disavowal and Symbolic Foreclosure
Ritual and Denial: Societies address abjection through symbolic rituals that simultaneously acknowledge and deny the abject, maintaining social coherence (Kristeva, Hindu caste practices).
Fetishism of Language: Language embodies a fetishistic disavowal, where the gap between signifier and signified is bridged by belief in the symbolic’s magic influence (Mannoni’s “I know very well…”).
Aesthetic Sublimation through Religion and Art
Traversing Abjection: Religion and art confront and sublimate abjection, creating a cathartic experience that transforms horror into beauty (Kristeva).
Modern Literature’s Role: Writers like Céline engage with abjection as a means to reveal existential truths, though such engagements can veer into reactionary politics when not critically mediated (Kristeva, Céline’s Journey to the End of the Night).
Abjection and the Symbolic Order
Primacy of the Symbolic: The symbolic order emerges from a primordial act of abjection, rejecting the pre-symbolic (hora) and establishing structured meaning through differentiation (Krečič & Žižek).
Fascism’s Misstep: Fascism denies the constitutive gap of the symbolic, attributing societal antagonisms to external scapegoats like “the Jew,” creating a paranoid closure (Žižek).
Realism and the Abject
Effective Realism: Abjection often manifests in art as hyperreal moments where meaning collapses, revealing the spectral nature of the real (Chesterton on Dickens’s “Moor Eeffoc”).
Trauma and Reality: Extreme trauma disrupts the coordinates of perceived reality, illustrating the fragile boundaries between the symbolic and the real (Žižek, 9/11 as the intrusion of the real).
This comprehensive engagement with abjection, creepiness, and disgust, as discussed by Krečič and Žižek, integrates psychoanalysis, aesthetics, and cultural critique to illuminate the underlying mechanisms of societal and individual engagement with the unsettling.
References:
Krečič, J., & Žižek, S. (2016). “Ugly, Creepy, Disgusting, and Other Modes of Abjection.” Critical Inquiry, 43(1), 60-83.
Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. New York: Columbia University Press.
Freud, S. Beyond the Pleasure Principle.
Chesterton, G.K. Charles Dickens.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Ugly, Creepy, Disgusting, and Other Modes of Abjection” by Jela Krečič and Slavoj Žižek
Term/Concept
Definition/Description
Key Source/Reference
Abjection
The unsettling phenomenon of objects or occurrences that disrupt the boundaries of self.
Julia Kristeva’s Powers of Horror; the disintegration of distinctions between subject and object.
The Ugly
Aesthetic category signifying negativity as a foil or precondition for beauty.
Karl Rosenkranz, Ästhetik des Häßlichen; Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory.
The Creepy
Modern iteration of the uncanny; impenetrable and unsettling aspects of the neighbor.
Adam Kotsko, Creepiness; Freud’s theory of the uncanny.
Disgust
Emotional and somatic reaction to violations of corporeal boundaries.
Freud’s Beyond the Pleasure Principle; linked to jouissance and corporeal destabilization.
The process of confronting and purifying the abject through religion or art.
Kristeva’s analysis of art and religion as mediators of abjection.
Extimacy
The intimate externality of the abject within the subject, creating an uncanny experience.
Lacanian neologism, applied to Kristeva’s abjection by Žižek.
Political Phobia
The use of abject figures (e.g., “the Jew”) to avoid addressing societal antagonisms.
Žižek on the interplay of fascism, class struggle, and symbolic scapegoating.
Contribution of “Ugly, Creepy, Disgusting, and Other Modes of Abjection” by Jela Krečič and Slavoj Žižek to Literary Theory/Theories
Psychoanalytic Literary Theory
Exploration of Abjection: The text deepens Julia Kristeva’s concept of abjection, linking it to Freud’s and Lacan’s psychoanalytic theories. It illustrates how abjection operates within cultural narratives and artistic expression, disturbing symbolic order (Kristeva, Powers of Horror).
Jouissance and Disgust: Highlights the paradoxical nature of jouissance—pleasure through unpleasure—and its embodiment in literary representations of disgust and corporeal transgressions (Freud’s Beyond the Pleasure Principle; Žižek).
Uncanny and Creepy: Updates Freud’s notion of the uncanny through Adam Kotsko’s concept of “creepiness,” applying it to modern narratives about the enigmatic Other (Creepiness by Kotsko; Freud’s Das Unheimliche).
Aesthetic Theory
Reevaluation of the Ugly: Expands on Karl Rosenkranz’s Ästhetik des Häßlichen by arguing for the ugly as both a foil for beauty and a productive force in art, enabling critique of societal norms (Rosenkranz, Adorno).
Monstrous and Sublime: Positions ugliness and monstrosity as key aesthetic categories, bridging Kantian sublime and Hegelian dialectics to question the limits of representation (Kant, Parret).
Art and Catharsis: Reinforces Kristeva’s assertion that art serves as a mode of traversing abjection, using literary works to mediate between the symbolic and the Real.
Postmodern Theory
Critique of Symbolic Order: Explores the fragility of symbolic systems through the abject, showing how meaning collapses in postmodern narratives, disrupting identity and structure (Kristeva’s Powers of Horror; Žižek).
Political Phobia in Narratives: Examines the fetishistic denial of societal antagonisms in postmodern works, where abject figures like “the Jew” or “the refugee” mask class struggles (Žižek’s Welcome to the Desert of the Real).
Interplay of Real and Reality: Discusses the breakdown of the symbolic, evident in postmodern realism’s ability to make the ordinary uncanny (e.g., Dickens’s “eerie realism”).
Marxist Literary Criticism
Class Antagonism and Abjection: Identifies the abject as a means of avoiding the recognition of class struggle, using scapegoating in literature to suppress deeper social contradictions (Žižek’s critique of anti-Semitism and political populism).
Role of Power and Perversion: Shows how power structures depend on the “perverse” transgression of their norms, reflecting societal dynamics within literary texts (Lacan’s Four Discourses, Žižek).
Maternal and Abjection: Engages with Kristeva’s semiotic (maternal rhythms) to critique the exclusion of feminine and maternal forces in patriarchal narratives. The abject becomes a site of tension between symbolic order and maternal pre-symbolic forces (Kristeva).
Hysteria and Borderline Subjects: Recontextualizes female hysteria in contemporary narratives, arguing that the borderline personality in literature reflects modern societal pressures (Kotsko).
Binary Collapse: Challenges binary oppositions like beautiful/ugly, self/Other, and inside/outside through the concept of the abject, emphasizing the fluidity and instability of meaning (Lacanian theory, Derridean deconstruction).
Language as Fetish: Analyzes the fetishistic function of language itself, bridging symbolic signs with the unspeakable real, a tension often central in literary texts (Kristeva, Mannoni, Lacan).
The Real and Bare Life: Connects abjection to the existential dread of bare life and mortality, drawing parallels with Kafkaesque and absurdist representations of human alienation (Žižek’s discussion of Kafka; Freud on death drive).
Subjectivity and the Abject: Frames abjection as central to the constitution of subjectivity, revealing the absurdity of maintaining distinctions in a world of blurred boundaries.
Contributions to Specific Literary Works/Theorists
Céline’s Literature: Positions Louis-Ferdinand Céline’s works as confrontations with the abject, offering insights into fascist aesthetics and the limitations of returning to “primal drives” (Journey to the End of the Night).
Dickens’s Realism: Highlights Dickens’s “eerie realism” as an example of how ordinary reality can be rendered spectral and uncanny, contributing to the aesthetic discourse on realism and fantasy.
Examples of Critiques Through “Ugly, Creepy, Disgusting, and Other Modes of Abjection” by Jela Krečič and Slavoj Žižek
Literary Work
Themes Analyzed
Connection to “Ugly, Creepy, Disgusting”
Critical Insight
Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis
Alienation, grotesque, family dynamics
Abjection of Gregor’s transformation blurs boundaries between human and nonhuman, evoking disgust and familial rejection.
Highlights how Gregor’s body represents the abject, disrupting familial and societal norms, aligning with Žižek’s view on the abject as destabilizing identity and corporeal boundaries.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
Monstrosity, the sublime, the grotesque
The creature embodies the ugly and monstrous as a foil to human beauty and morality, but also elicits sympathy, complicating binary oppositions.
Connects to the essay’s discussion of the monstrous as a paradoxical aesthetic—repellent yet captivating. Explores how Shelley critiques Enlightenment ideals through the creature’s abjection.
Louis-Ferdinand Céline’s Journey to the End of the Night
Nihilism, disgust with modernity, existential crisis
Céline’s narrative plunges into the abject, exposing the grotesque aspects of war, colonization, and urban despair as reflections of societal breakdown.
Shows how Céline uses abjection to critique modernity, aligning with the essay’s view that confronting the abject reveals societal hypocrisies and existential discontent.
Edgar Allan Poe’s The Tell-Tale Heart
The uncanny, psychological instability, guilt
The narrator’s obsession with the old man’s eye exemplifies the creepy, tied to Freud’s uncanny and Lacan’s objet petit a, driving the narrative’s psychological horror.
Integrates Kotsko’s idea of creepiness as the disturbing impenetrability of another’s desire. The essay’s insights link the narrator’s fixation on the eye to abject horror destabilizing subjectivity.
Criticism Against “Ugly, Creepy, Disgusting, and Other Modes of Abjection” by Jela Krečič and Slavoj Žižek
Overreliance on Hegelian Dialectics: The essay’s dependence on Hegelian frameworks and triadic structures, such as the interplay between the beautiful, ugly, and sublime, may oversimplify the complexity of aesthetic categories and abjection by forcing them into rigid philosophical schemas.
Ambiguity in Defining Abjection: While the essay explores abjection through Kristeva, it fails to provide a clear demarcation between abjection and other related concepts such as the uncanny or the grotesque, leading to conceptual overlap and interpretive vagueness.
Limited Engagement with Intersectionality: The analysis largely omits how abjection operates across axes of gender, race, and class. Critics might argue that this weakens its applicability to diverse cultural and sociopolitical contexts.
Insufficient Historical Grounding: Although it engages with historical aesthetics (e.g., Adorno, Rosenkranz), the essay overlooks how changing socio-historical conditions influence the perception and representation of ugliness, creepiness, and disgust.
Neglect of Empirical and Cognitive Research: By framing aesthetic responses purely through psychoanalytic and philosophical lenses, the essay does not incorporate insights from cognitive science or empirical studies on disgust, creepiness, or aesthetic reactions.
Deterministic View of Aesthetic Categories: The essay’s approach might be criticized for implying deterministic relationships between ugliness, societal decay, and individual moral failure, which could limit alternative interpretations of artistic or cultural expressions.
Overemphasis on Negativity: Critics may argue that the essay overstates the role of the ugly, creepy, and disgusting in art and culture, potentially neglecting the positive or redemptive capacities of these modes in fostering catharsis or social critique.
Lack of Practical Applicability: While rich in theoretical insights, the essay’s abstract language and dense conceptual frameworks might make it difficult for practitioners in art, literature, or cultural studies to apply its ideas effectively.
Neglect of Non-Western Perspectives: The essay’s philosophical lineage is rooted in Western thought (Hegel, Kant, Adorno), potentially ignoring how non-Western cultures conceptualize and respond to abjection, ugliness, and other modes.
Representative Quotations from “Ugly, Creepy, Disgusting, and Other Modes of Abjection” by Jela Krečič and Slavoj Žižek with Explanation
“The pure image of the beautiful arises all the more shining against the dark background/foil of the ugly.”
Highlights the dialectical relationship between beauty and ugliness, emphasizing that the beautiful is often defined and intensified in contrast to the ugly, an idea rooted in Hegelian aesthetics.
“If there is any causal connection at all between the beautiful and the ugly, it is from the ugly as cause to the beautiful as effect, and not the other way around.”
Adorno’s critique that beauty arises from ugliness challenges traditional Hegelian hierarchy, suggesting that the ugly precedes beauty as its foundational ground.
“Disgust arises when the border that separates the inside of our body from its outside is violated.”
Articulates the phenomenology of disgust through the collapse of boundaries, drawing on Kristeva’s notion of the abject as the breakdown of clear subject-object or inside-outside distinctions.
“The sublime can appear (turn into) the ridiculous, and the ridiculous can appear (turn into) the sublime.”
Explores the fluidity between aesthetic categories, showing how extremes of the sublime and ridiculous often converge or transform, challenging rigid classifications.
“What distinguishes man from animals is that, with humans, the disposal of shit becomes a problem.”
Analyzes human shame and disgust as a function of self-awareness and symbolic separation, contrasting the human tendency to ascribe meaning to bodily processes with animals’ instinctual behavior.
“The ugly is the force of life against the death imposed by the aesthetic form.”
Adorno’s view that ugliness embodies raw, chaotic life in opposition to the mortifying effects of aestheticization reflects the paradoxical vitality of the ugly in art.
“The abject is so thoroughly internal to the subject that this very overintimacy makes it external.”
Refers to Kristeva’s notion of the abject as extimacy, where what is most intimate to the subject becomes alien and external, disrupting identity and order.
“Creepy is today’s name for the Freudian uncanny, for the uncanny core of a neighbor.”
Redefines creepiness in contemporary terms as the impenetrability of others’ desires, linking it to Freud’s uncanny and the social anxieties around proximity and ambiguity.
“The ultimate object of disgust is bare life itself, life deprived of the protective barrier.”
Suggests that disgust reveals existential truths about life’s biological reality, exposing the vulnerability and “sleaziness” of organic existence when stripped of symbolic protections.
“In a historical situation in which the beautiful is irreparably discredited as kitsch, it is only by presenting the ugly in its ugliness that art can keep open the utopian horizon of beauty.”
Proposes that the ugly serves as a critical aesthetic tool in modernity, opposing the commodified and superficial beauty of kitsch to retain art’s subversive potential.
Suggested Readings: “Ugly, Creepy, Disgusting, and Other Modes of Abjection” by Jela Krečič and Slavoj Žižek
Sands, Danielle. “Insect Ethics and Aesthetics: ‘Their Blood Does Not Stain Our Hands.’” Animal Writing: Storytelling, Selfhood and the Limits of Empathy, Edinburgh University Press, 2019, pp. 154–79. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctvrs916m.11. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
Alvarado, Leticia. “Abjection.” Keywords for Gender and Sexuality Studies, edited by the Keywords Feminist Editorial Collective et al., vol. 13, NYU Press, 2021, pp. 11–13. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2tr51hm.5. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
Lipschitz, Ruth. “Abjection.” The Edinburgh Companion to Animal Studies, edited by Lynn Turner et al., vol. 1, Edinburgh University Press, 2018, pp. 13–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctv2f4vjzx.6. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
“Tolerance as an Ideological Category” by Slavoj Žižek first appeared in Critical Inquiry in the Summer 2008 issue (Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 660-682).
Introduction: “Tolerance as an Ideological Category” by Slavoj Žižek
“Tolerance as an Ideological Category” by Slavoj Žižek first appeared in Critical Inquiry in the Summer 2008 issue (Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 660-682), published by the University of Chicago Press. This seminal work critiques the elevation of tolerance as a central ideological principle in liberal multiculturalism, arguing that it functions as a post-political substitute for addressing deeper systemic issues of inequality, exploitation, and injustice. Žižek contends that contemporary politics has become depoliticized through the “culturalization” of conflicts, reducing political struggles to questions of cultural differences and framing tolerance as the remedy. He contrasts this with the “politicization of culture,” a radical return to addressing underlying structural inequities. Central to Žižek’s argument is the paradox of liberal tolerance, which often upholds a universalist framework while subtly privileging Western cultural norms and disguising mechanisms of domination under the guise of individual autonomy and multiculturalism. This work’s significance in literary theory and cultural studies lies in its challenge to the depoliticized nature of cultural critique and its call for a return to emancipatory politics. By analyzing the ideological underpinnings of tolerance, Žižek reshapes the discourse on cultural identity, universality, and the role of political struggle in addressing systemic oppression.
Summary of “Tolerance as an Ideological Category” by Slavoj Žižek
Culturalization of Politics:
Žižek critiques the reduction of political struggles (inequality, exploitation, injustice) into issues of cultural tolerance. This “culturalization” depoliticizes inherently political problems by framing them as clashes between immutable cultural differences (Žižek, 2008, p. 660).
He argues for a “politicization of culture,” opposing the post-political substitution of tolerance for genuine political struggle.
Post-Political Ersatz:
The retreat from substantive justice (welfare states, socialist projects) has resulted in tolerance replacing political emancipation as the ideal. This transition indicates the depoliticization of power and citizenship (Žižek, 2008, p. 661).
Clash of Civilizations and Liberalism’s Paradoxes:
Žižek critiques Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” as an ideological trope that naturalizes cultural differences, equating them with insurmountable barriers (Žižek, 2008, p. 661-662).
Liberalism itself paradoxically privileges Western culture by asserting individualism as universal, reinforcing cultural biases (Žižek, 2008, p. 663).
Tolerance and Intolerance:
The liberal idea of tolerance is intrinsically contradictory—it necessitates intolerance toward cultures deemed intolerant (Žižek, 2008, p. 665).
Žižek examines the limits of liberal tolerance, using examples such as feminist support for military interventions in Afghanistan, highlighting the paradox of “tolerant” aggression (Žižek, 2008, p. 665-666).
Freedom of Choice as Illusion:
Liberalism’s emphasis on “free choice” is critiqued. Žižek argues that cultural embeddedness often undermines genuine freedom, as seen in Amish communities or veiling practices (Žižek, 2008, p. 666-667).
True choice emerges only when individuals are removed from their original cultural contexts, creating a tension between individual autonomy and cultural belonging.
Universality and Particularity:
Authentic universality arises not as an abstraction but through struggles within specific contexts, destabilizing particular identities from within (Žižek, 2008, p. 668).
This tension between universal and particular is central to emancipatory movements and cannot be reduced to cultural relativism (Žižek, 2008, p. 669).
Critical Engagement with Liberalism:
Žižek recognizes the emancipatory potential of liberalism while critiquing its Eurocentric biases and superficial anti-essentialism (Žižek, 2008, p. 670).
He advocates a “universality-for-itself,” emphasizing solidarity in shared struggles that transcend cultural divides (Žižek, 2008, p. 673).
The Role of Habits and Social Norms:
Žižek explores the “obscene underside” of social habits and norms, arguing that they sustain power structures and ideological institutions, as exemplified by the Catholic Church’s handling of pedophilia scandals (Žižek, 2008, p. 680-681).
Radical emancipatory politics must confront and transform this hidden ideological infrastructure (Žižek, 2008, p. 682).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Tolerance as an Ideological Category” by Slavoj Žižek
Theoretical Term/Concept
Explanation
Context in the Essay
Culturalization of Politics
The transformation of political and economic issues into cultural differences, rendering them as naturalized and unchangeable.
Žižek critiques this as the liberal multiculturalist approach, which depoliticizes fundamental conflicts (Žižek, 2008, p. 660).
Post-Political Ersatz
A substitute for genuine political struggle, where tolerance becomes the proposed solution rather than emancipation or justice.
Illustrates the shift from active political engagement to passive cultural accommodation (Žižek, 2008, p. 661).
Clash of Civilizations
Samuel Huntington’s concept, critiqued by Žižek as reducing global conflicts to cultural incompatibilities.
Žižek frames this as an ideological operation that masks underlying economic and political inequalities (Žižek, 2008, p. 662).
Universal vs. Particular
The tension between abstract universality and concrete particularity; universality emerges through struggles within specific contexts.
Žižek uses this framework to explore how emancipatory politics destabilizes fixed identities (Žižek, 2008, p. 668-669).
Explored through examples like feminist support for military interventions in Islamic contexts (Žižek, 2008, p. 665-666).
Freedom of Choice
The liberal ideal of individual choice, which Žižek critiques as illusory due to cultural embeddedness and systemic constraints.
Examples include Amish adolescents and Muslim women’s veiling practices (Žižek, 2008, p. 666-667).
Effective Universality
A universality that is not abstract but emerges through the experience of struggles that reveal inadequacies within particular identities.
Žižek contrasts this with liberalism’s superficial universality (Žižek, 2008, p. 669-670).
Symbolic Efficiency
The capacity of symbolic structures (like laws and rights) to influence material reality and social practices.
Žižek emphasizes how formal structures like universal rights have transformative political potential despite their limitations (Žižek, 2008, p. 669).
Obscene Underside
The hidden, disavowed practices and norms that sustain public institutions and social order.
Examples include the Catholic Church’s handling of pedophilia scandals and unwritten rules of Soviet society (Žižek, 2008, p. 680-681).
Habits and Social Norms
Informal rules that guide behavior and define social identities, often embodying violence or exclusion.
Žižek explores how these norms operate as the invisible foundation of ideological and institutional practices (Žižek, 2008, p. 681).
Kulturlos Subject
The notion of a universal subject stripped of cultural particularities, which Žižek critiques as both impossible and rooted in Western individualist ideologies.
Žižek connects this to liberalism’s failure to recognize its own cultural biases (Žižek, 2008, p. 663).
Emancipatory Struggle
A struggle that unites individuals across cultural divides by addressing shared experiences of oppression and exclusion.
Advocated by Žižek as the alternative to the liberal focus on tolerance (Žižek, 2008, p. 673).
Cunning of Reason
Hegelian concept where actions driven by particular interests inadvertently serve universal purposes.
Žižek applies this to illustrate how liberalism’s universal claims are undermined by its Eurocentric particularities (Žižek, 2008, p. 671).
Contribution of “Tolerance as an Ideological Category” by Slavoj Žižek to Literary Theory/Theories
Emphasis on Structural Inequalities: Žižek critiques liberal multiculturalism for masking structural inequalities with a façade of cultural tolerance (Žižek, 2008, p. 660).
Contribution: Highlights how postcolonial theory can move beyond cultural relativism to address economic and political inequalities.
Tolerance as a Colonial Tool: Liberal tolerance justifies Western domination by framing non-Western cultures as intolerant or barbaric (Žižek, 2008, p. 666).
Contribution: Deepens postcolonial critiques of Western universalism and interventionist practices.
2. Marxist Critique of Ideology (Marxist Literary Theory)
Commodity Fetishism and Universal Rights: Žižek ties liberal human rights discourse to Marx’s analysis of commodity fetishism, showing how formal universality conceals class interests (Žižek, 2008, p. 669).
Contribution: Extends Marxist critiques to the cultural and symbolic dimensions of literature and ideology.
Revolutionary Universality: Advocates for universality emerging from class struggle, challenging bourgeois narratives of neutrality and equality (Žižek, 2008, p. 673).
Contribution: Reframes Marxist approaches to literature, focusing on universality as a site of contestation rather than bourgeois co-optation.
3. Psychoanalytic Insights into Identity (Psychoanalytic Literary Theory)
Obscene Underside of Institutions: Institutions, like literature, often have repressed, disavowed elements that sustain their surface structures (Žižek, 2008, p. 680).
Contribution: Adds to psychoanalytic readings by revealing how repressed cultural ideologies shape literary production.
Subjectivity and the Culturlos Ideal: Challenges the notion of the autonomous, rational subject in liberal thought, emphasizing the split and fragmented nature of identity (Žižek, 2008, p. 663).
Contribution: Reinforces psychoanalytic approaches that view the subject as inherently divided and shaped by ideological structures.
4. Deconstruction of Universalism (Postmodern Literary Theory)
Critique of Essentialism: Žižek problematizes essentialist notions of identity by illustrating how liberalism treats Western individualism as universal (Žižek, 2008, p. 665).
Contribution: Advances postmodern critiques of essentialism, showing how universality is contingent and context-dependent.
Tolerance as a Discursive Construct: Explores how tolerance functions as a hegemonic discourse, rather than a neutral or universal principle (Žižek, 2008, p. 665).
Contribution: Builds on Foucault’s idea of discourse to analyze power relations within cultural narratives.
Symbolic Exchange and Habits: Literature, like habits, functions through symbolic gestures that engage readers in shared social norms (Žižek, 2008, p. 681).
Contribution: Suggests that reader responses are shaped not just by textual interpretation but by broader ideological rituals embedded in culture.
Literature as a Site of Struggle: Žižek emphasizes how literature, like politics, can serve as a space where universal values are contested and redefined (Žižek, 2008, p. 673).
Contribution: Enriches cultural materialist approaches by framing literary texts as active participants in ideological and emancipatory struggles.
7. Hegelian Dialectics in Literary Form (Philosophical Literary Theory)
Cunning of Reason: Žižek applies Hegel’s concept to literature, showing how particular narratives can embody universal tensions (Žižek, 2008, p. 671).
Contribution: Encourages literary theorists to examine how narratives reveal contradictions that transcend their specific contexts.
8. Universality in Aesthetic Judgment (Aesthetic Theory)
Art and Universality: Žižek posits that great art transcends its historical context, speaking universally across epochs (Žižek, 2008, p. 670).
Contribution: Bridges Marxist and aesthetic theories by asserting the revolutionary potential of universalism in art and literature.
Examples of Critiques Through “Tolerance as an Ideological Category” by Slavoj Žižek
Literary Work
Key Critique (Through Žižek’s Lens)
Relevant Concept from Žižek
Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness
The portrayal of European imperialism as both “civilizing” and “barbaric” reflects the liberal paradox of universal tolerance masking systemic exploitation.
Culturalization of politics: framing imperialism as a clash of civilizations while ignoring economic exploitation (Žižek, 2008, p. 660).
Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart
Okonkwo’s struggle reflects how colonial modernity disrupts traditional identities, masking its violence under the guise of bringing “universal progress.”
Liberal tolerance as a tool of colonial violence: The West imposes its values while devaluing indigenous cultures (Žižek, 2008, p. 666).
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby
The American Dream embodies the ideological fantasy of free choice, while class and systemic inequality persist beneath its surface.
Form of freedom: The illusion of freedom masks systemic class exploitation (Žižek, 2008, p. 669).
Toni Morrison’s Beloved
The ghostly presence of Beloved critiques how systemic racism is repressed and ignored by liberal universalism, presenting history as unresolved trauma.
Repressed underside of universality: Universal human rights overlook the historical trauma of slavery and its ongoing effects (Žižek, 2008, p. 673).
Criticism Against “Tolerance as an Ideological Category” by Slavoj Žižek
Oversimplification of Liberal Tolerance: Critics argue that Žižek dismisses the genuine value and necessity of tolerance in multicultural societies, portraying it merely as an ideological tool of control without acknowledging its practical benefits in reducing conflict.
Limited Engagement with Postcolonial Realities: Žižek’s critique of tolerance as a form of neo-imperialism underestimates the agency of marginalized groups in resisting and reshaping imposed structures of tolerance.
Overemphasis on Universality: His insistence on a universal struggle against cultural particularisms is seen as contradictory, potentially reproducing the same Eurocentric biases he criticizes.
Neglect of Pragmatic Solutions: Žižek critiques the failures of political liberalism without offering clear or feasible alternatives to addressing social conflicts and cultural differences.
Potential Misreading of Multiculturalism: Some scholars argue that Žižek conflates multiculturalism with neoliberalism, failing to recognize the diversity and complexity within multicultural practices and theories.
Binary Framing of Political Ideologies: Žižek’s critique relies heavily on dichotomies, such as cultural vs. political struggles, which can obscure nuanced intersections between the two.
Abstract Philosophical Approach: His theoretical arguments, though provocative, are sometimes criticized as disconnected from practical realities and overly reliant on abstract psychoanalytic and Marxist frameworks.
Accusation of Pessimism: Žižek’s critique of tolerance as a post-political solution is seen by some as overly cynical, undermining the potential for tolerance to coexist with broader emancipatory political movements.
Inconsistency in Critique of Identity Politics: While Žižek critiques identity politics for fragmenting universal struggles, he has been accused of ignoring the role of identity in forming coalitions that address structural inequities.
Representative Quotations from “Tolerance as an Ideological Category” by Slavoj Žižek with Explanation
Žižek critiques the rise of tolerance as a replacement for substantive political action, suggesting it serves as a depoliticized substitute for addressing systemic inequality and injustice.
“The retreat from more substantive visions of justice heralded by the promulgation of tolerance today is part of a more general depoliticization of citizenship and power.”
Žižek emphasizes that promoting tolerance as an end in itself reflects a broader withdrawal from engaging in political struggles for justice and equity.
“The clash of civilizations is politics at the end of history.”
Critiquing Samuel Huntington, Žižek views the “clash of civilizations” narrative as a way to frame conflicts in cultural terms rather than as political or economic struggles, reinforcing a depoliticized world order.
“Culture is by definition collective and particular, parochial, exclusive of other cultures.”
Žižek contrasts the collective exclusivity of culture with the universality of the individual, exposing a paradox in liberalism’s approach to culture as privatized and stripped of its binding communal power.
“There are limits to tolerance, and to be tolerant towards intolerance means simply to support (‘tolerate’) intolerance.”
Žižek critiques the inherent contradictions in liberal multiculturalism’s promotion of tolerance, which can inadvertently justify interventions against so-called “intolerant” cultures.
“A choice is always a metachoice, a choice of the modality of the choice itself.”
This quotation underscores Žižek’s argument that the conditions under which choices are made often predetermine outcomes, making the notion of free choice illusory in many cultural and political contexts.
“The philosophical underpinning of this ideology of the universal liberal subject… is the Cartesian subject.”
Žižek critiques the liberal conception of the universal subject, rooted in Cartesian autonomy, as inherently biased and reflective of Western cultural values rather than a neutral universalism.
“The key moment of any theoretical… struggle is the rise of universality out of the particular lifeworld.”
Žižek highlights the necessity of identifying universal struggles that transcend particular cultural or social contexts, arguing for a universal solidarity rooted in shared antagonisms rather than cultural identities.
“What unites us is the same struggle.”
Advocating for a global emancipatory movement, Žižek suggests that solidarity should emerge from shared struggles against systemic oppression rather than a superficial tolerance of cultural differences.
“Habits are thus the very stuff our identities are made of; in them, we enact and thus define what we effectively are as social beings.”
This statement delves into how social norms and habits shape identities, often embedding systems of violence and exclusion within their practices, which Žižek critiques as sustaining oppressive structures under liberal ideologies.
Suggested Readings: “Tolerance as an Ideological Category” by Slavoj Žižek
Patel, Alpesh Kantilal, and Yasmeen Siddiqui, editors. “DEREK CONRAD MURRAY.” Storytellers of Art Histories, NED-New edition, Intellect, 2022, pp. 187–96. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv36xvjw3.32. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
TAYLOR, PAUL. “Žižek’s Brand of Philosophical Excess and the Treason of the Intellectuals: Wagers of Sin, Ugly Ducklings, and Mythical Swans.” The Comparatist, vol. 38, 2014, pp. 128–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26237373. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
BJELIĆ, DUŠAN I. “‘MATERNAL SPACE’ AND INTELLECTUAL LABOR: GRAMSCI VERSUS KRISTEVA AND ŽIŽEK.” College Literature, vol. 41, no. 2, 2014, pp. 29–55. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24544317. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
“From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back” by Slavoj Žižek first appeared in the Spring/Summer 2004 issue of The South Atlantic Quarterly.
Introduction: “From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back” by Slavoj Žižek
“From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back” by Slavoj Žižek first appeared in the Spring/Summer 2004 issue of The South Atlantic Quarterly, published by Duke University Press. This essay critically explores the intersections between politics, law, and biopolitics, referencing theoretical frameworks from thinkers like Hegel, Lacan, and Foucault. Žižek contrasts the structures of traditional authority and law with contemporary liberal ideologies, uncovering tensions between human rights and ethical imperatives. He interrogates how biopolitical mechanisms regulate life and redefine notions of freedom, revealing the contradictions inherent in modern liberal democracies. This work is crucial in literary theory and philosophy for its synthesis of psychoanalysis, critical theory, and political critique, advancing discussions on the ethical dimensions of power and human agency.
Summary of “From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back” by Slavoj Žižek
The Traumatic Real and the Neighbor as the “Thing” Žižek explores the concept of the traumatic Real, rooted in the Jewish Law, which represents an externally imposed, enigmatic, and contingent authority. The Neighbor, in this context, emerges as a traumatic presence that resists assimilation into a gnostic or self-fulfilling framework, aligning with the Judaic prohibition of idolatry. This notion contrasts with New Age self-realization ideologies, which reduce the Other to a reflection of the self (Žižek, 2004, p. 502–503).
Human Rights and Ethical Paradoxes Žižek critically examines the liberal conception of human rights, which paradoxically opens a space for the violation of ethical commandments while maintaining their formal respect. The tension between personal freedoms and moral constraints highlights the structural ambiguity of human rights within liberal permissive societies (p. 503–505).
Law, Mercy, and the Superego Drawing from Christianity’s emphasis on mercy, Žižek identifies an intensified debt imposed on believers. Mercy, often seen as a free, supralegal act, paradoxically reveals its obligatory nature, enforcing authority under the guise of clemency. This dynamic serves as a tool of power, blending law with an underlying superego injunction (p. 504–506).
The Role of Biopolitics Žižek connects biopolitics to the Foucauldian notion of power over life, examining how modern societies regulate bare life under the guise of expert knowledge. This framework links to cultural and ideological practices that normalize control over the body and individual freedoms (p. 507–508).
The Commodification of Experience Žižek critiques late-capitalist practices that commodify human experiences, creating products “without substance,” such as decaffeinated coffee or virtual reality. This metaphor extends to political life, where apparent freedoms are stripped of transformative potential, leaving only hollow forms of agency (p. 508–509).
Antagonism and the Limits of Democracy Democracy, as a contemporary Master-Signifier, masks deeper antagonisms while creating spaces of exclusion (e.g., the divide between included citizens and excluded “bare life”). Žižek challenges the liberal blackmail of rejecting radical political acts as inherently totalitarian, advocating instead for transformative gestures that redefine political possibilities (p. 510–513).
Revolutionary Acts and Subjective Destitution Žižek frames authentic revolutionary acts as those that dismantle established symbolic coordinates, requiring the revolutionary to embrace subjective destitution. This aligns with Brecht’s depiction of revolutionary agency as self-erasure, prioritizing collective transformation over individual identity (p. 519–520).
The Utopian Horizon of Radical Communities Using examples like Canudos and favelas, Žižek highlights moments of radical community formation as fleeting yet significant ruptures in the fabric of state power. These experiments in alternative societies question the compatibility of utopian ideals with the structural constraints of global capitalism (p. 512–513).
The Critical Role of Political Acts The essay concludes with an argument for rethinking the role of democracy, emphasizing that true political acts must transcend mere strategic interventions. Žižek calls for a radical engagement with the symbolic and structural dimensions of power to reshape the conditions of political and social possibility (p. 514–516).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back” by Slavoj Žižek
Theoretical Term/Concept
Explanation
Context in Žižek’s Essay
Traumatic Real
Represents an external, contingent, and enigmatic authority that resists assimilation.
The Jewish Law as a traumatic Real, experienced as an impossible Thing that “makes the law” (p. 502).
Neighbor as the “Thing”
The neighbor is an enigmatic and traumatic presence, distinct from self-reflective projections.
Contrasted with New Age ideologies that reduce the Other to a reflection of the self (p. 502–503).
Human Rights Paradox
The liberal conception of rights creates a “gray zone” that allows violations of ethical commandments.
Human rights enable acts like lying and stealing under the guise of freedoms (p. 503).
Superego and Mercy
Mercy intensifies guilt, making individuals perpetually indebted to the authority dispensing it.
Christianity’s mercy is linked to the superego, creating indelible guilt (p. 504–505).
Biopolitics
The management of life by expert knowledge and administrative power, often reducing subjects to “bare life.”
Associated with medical and political authority over individuals (p. 507).
Commodification of Experience
Late-capitalist creation of products that retain form but lack substance (e.g., decaffeinated coffee, virtual reality).
Extends to politics as “politics without politics” (p. 508).
Democracy as Master-Signifier
Democracy functions as an overarching symbolic framework that masks deeper antagonisms and exclusions.
Examined through the paradox of liberal democracy’s exclusions (p. 510–513).
Radical Political Act
Actions that disrupt symbolic coordinates and redefine societal frameworks.
Emphasized as transformative gestures beyond pragmatic interventions (p. 511).
Subjective Destitution
The revolutionary erasure of personal identity in favor of collective transformation.
Framed through Brecht’s revolutionary figures who erase themselves (p. 519–520).
Utopian Communities
Radical, fleeting spaces of alternative social organization that challenge state power.
Examples include Canudos and favelas as “liberated territories” (p. 512–513).
Liberal Blackmail
The rejection of radical political acts as inherently totalitarian or dangerous.
Critiques liberal constraints on transformative politics (p. 510).
The Last Man
A hedonistic figure in modernity who seeks pleasure devoid of substance or risk.
Represents the culmination of biopolitical control in society (p. 508).
University Discourse
A Lacanian term for the discourse of neutral knowledge that disguises its power dimension.
Applies to medical and administrative systems that claim objectivity while exercising power (p. 506).
Infinite Judgement
A Hegelian concept where opposites coincide to reveal underlying truths.
Used to analyze the coexistence of biopolitical control and vulnerability (p. 509).
Contribution of “From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back” by Slavoj Žižek to Literary Theory/Theories
Reimagining the Neighbor in Ethical Frameworks Žižek challenges the traditional literary and psychoanalytic understanding of the Other/Neighbor by framing it as a “traumatic Thing” rather than a projection of the self. This conceptualization shifts focus from self-realization to the persistent alienation inherent in human relationships (p. 502–503).
Critique of Liberal Human Rights Narratives The essay critiques the foundational assumptions of human rights discourse, suggesting that they mask ethical contradictions and serve as a means to maintain power structures. This perspective enriches postmodern and poststructuralist critiques of liberal ideologies (p. 503–504).
Intersection of Christianity and Psychoanalysis Žižek integrates psychoanalytic theory with theological analysis, exploring how Christianity’s mercy enforces an indelible guilt akin to Freud’s superego. This approach deepens the theoretical intersections between religion and psychoanalysis in literary criticism (p. 504–505).
Biopolitics and Its Cultural Implications By analyzing how biopolitics reduces subjects to “bare life,” Žižek contributes to discussions on the representation of life, body, and agency in literature. This aligns with literary theories concerned with biopolitical control and agency (p. 507–508).
Critique of Commodification in Cultural Practices The commodification of experience, such as “virtual reality” and “politics without politics,” critiques late-capitalist aesthetics and offers a lens to analyze cultural texts as hollowed-out forms that obscure substantive meaning (p. 508–509).
Redefinition of Democracy as a Narrative Form Žižek frames democracy as a Master-Signifier that masks antagonisms and exclusions. This perspective allows literary theorists to interrogate democratic ideals and their representation in literature as inherently contradictory constructs (p. 510–513).
Radical Acts in Literature and Beyond The concept of radical political acts as moments that redefine symbolic orders resonates with literary explorations of revolutionary characters and transformative narratives. This approach expands the role of literature in imagining political possibility (p. 511–512).
Utopian and Alternative Communities The essay’s discussion of Canudos and similar spaces as utopian alternatives to state power provides a framework for analyzing marginalized and alternative communities in literary texts, enriching postcolonial and utopian studies (p. 512–513).
Authority, Power, and the Revolutionary Subject Žižek’s exploration of subjective destitution and the erasure of the revolutionary self informs readings of revolutionary figures in literature, emphasizing collective transformation over individual heroism (p. 519–520).
Lacanian Acts in Literary Narratives By emphasizing Lacanian acts that suspend symbolic gaps, Žižek offers a way to analyze characters and narratives that challenge established orders, linking literary theory to psychoanalysis and structuralism (p. 511).
Examples of Critiques Through “From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back” by Slavoj Žižek
Literary Work
Critique Through Žižek’s Framework
Relevant Concepts from the Essay
Antigone by Sophocles
Antigone’s defiance of Creon represents a radical act that disrupts symbolic order. Žižek sees such acts as moments of transformative agency.
Radical Political Act; Subjective Destitution; Suspension of Symbolic Gaps (p. 511).
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
Conrad’s portrayal of imperialism can be read as an exploration of biopolitical control, where colonial subjects are reduced to “bare life.”
Biopolitics; Reduction of Subjects to Bare Life; The Other as “Traumatic Thing” (p. 507–508).
The Trial by Franz Kafka
Kafka’s depiction of bureaucratic systems mirrors Žižek’s critique of the “University Discourse,” where neutral knowledge masks power dynamics.
University Discourse; Power Relations; Performative Dimension of Knowledge (p. 506–507).
1984 by George Orwell
Orwell’s portrayal of totalitarianism aligns with Žižek’s critique of democracy as a Master-Signifier, masking exclusions and contradictions.
Democracy as Master-Signifier; Liberal Blackmail; Infinite Judgement (p. 510–513).
Criticism Against “From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back” by Slavoj Žižek
Over-Reliance on Abstract Theoretical Constructs Žižek’s dense theoretical language and reliance on abstract concepts like “traumatic Real” and “radical acts” can alienate readers who seek more concrete applications or empirical support for his arguments.
Neglect of Practical Political Implications Critics argue that while Žižek deconstructs existing ideologies effectively, he provides limited practical guidance for addressing the systemic issues he critiques, such as biopolitics and neoliberalism.
Ambiguity in Utopian Proposals Žižek’s discussion of alternative communities like Canudos as utopian spaces is compelling but lacks specificity regarding how such spaces can be sustained or reconciled with global capitalism.
Generalization of Human Rights Critique Žižek’s portrayal of human rights as enabling violations of ethical commandments has been criticized for oversimplifying complex legal and moral frameworks, potentially misrepresenting their role in societal governance.
Limited Engagement with Intersectionality The essay focuses on broad ideological critiques but offers minimal engagement with intersectional factors like race, gender, and class, which are crucial in contemporary biopolitical analyses.
Reductionist View of Democracy Žižek’s framing of democracy as a Master-Signifier can be seen as overly reductive, failing to acknowledge the potential of democratic systems to address some of the issues he critiques.
Overemphasis on Western Philosophy The essay heavily relies on Western philosophical traditions (e.g., Hegel, Lacan, Nietzsche), which may limit its applicability to non-Western political and cultural contexts.
Critique of Mercy Lacking Nuance Žižek’s analysis of mercy as a tool for perpetuating guilt and control underplays the diverse interpretations and applications of mercy in religious, legal, and literary traditions.
Complexity for Accessibility The essay’s dense theoretical style and interdisciplinary references make it inaccessible to readers unfamiliar with psychoanalysis, philosophy, or critical theory.
Idealization of Radical Acts Žižek’s celebration of radical acts risks romanticizing destructive or destabilizing behaviors without fully exploring their potential ethical and societal consequences.
Representative Quotations from “From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back” by Slavoj Žižek with Explanation
Quotation
Explanation
“The Neighbor remains an inert, impenetrable, enigmatic presence that hystericizes me.”
Žižek highlights the traumatic, unassimilable nature of the Neighbor in the Jewish tradition, emphasizing its role in ethical relationships.
“No images of God” does not point toward a divine beyond reality… but designates ethical hic Rhodus, hic salta.”
Here, Žižek underscores the grounding of ethical practice in tangible relations with the Neighbor, rather than abstract spiritual ideals.
“Human rights are ultimately… the rights to violate the Ten Commandments.”
This provocative statement critiques the liberal permissiveness that transforms human rights into spaces for moral transgressions.
“Mercy is the most efficient constituent of the exercise of power.”
He examines how mercy, rather than being a liberatory act, can perpetuate systems of guilt and control.
“Structures do walk on the streets.”
Borrowing from Lacan, Žižek connects social revolts to the structural changes within discourses of power and dominance.
“Everything is permitted, you can enjoy everything, but deprived of the substance that makes it dangerous.”
Žižek critiques contemporary consumerism and hedonism, which offer enjoyment devoid of its risky, meaningful elements.
“Populism evokes the direct pathetic link between the charismatic leadership and the crowd.”
This quote reflects Žižek’s concern with the manipulative dynamics of populist politics in bypassing democratic norms.
“The abolition of the death penalty is part of a biopolitics that considers crime as the result of circumstances.”
He critiques biopolitics for erasing individual moral accountability, reducing people to victims of their environment.
“An act is neither a strategic intervention into the existing order, nor its ‘crazy’ destructive negation.”
Žižek defines a radical act as a transformative moment that redefines the very coordinates of sociopolitical possibility.
“The only way to abolish power relations leads through freely accepted relations of authority.”
This paradoxical insight emphasizes the necessity of disciplined collectives for genuine liberation, rejecting pure libertine freedom.
Suggested Readings: “From Politics to Biopolitics . . . and Back” by Slavoj Žižek
Zizek, Slavoj. “From politics to biopolitics… and back.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 103.2 (2004): 501-521.
Galt Harpham, Geoffrey. “Doing the Impossible: Slavoj Žižek<br/>and the End of Knowledge.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 29, no. 3, 2003, pp. 453–85. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1086/376305. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
Moolenaar, R. “Slavoj Žižek and the Real Subject of Politics.” Studies in East European Thought, vol. 56, no. 4, 2004, pp. 259–97. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20099885. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
“From History and Class Consciousness to the Dialectic of Enlightenment… and Back” by Slavoj Žižek first appeared in New German Critique, No. 81, “Dialectic of Enlightenment” (Autumn, 2000).
Introduction: “From History and Class Consciousness to the Dialectic of Enlightenment… and Back” by Slavoj Žižek
“From History and Class Consciousness to the Dialectic of Enlightenment… and Back” by Slavoj Žižek first appeared in New German Critique, No. 81, “Dialectic of Enlightenment” (Autumn, 2000), published by Duke University Press. This seminal essay delves into the philosophical and historical trajectory of Marxist thought, particularly focusing on Georg Lukács’s History and Class Consciousness and its influence on subsequent critical theory, including Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment. Žižek revisits the foundational ideas of Lukács, such as reification and the proletariat as the subject-object of history, juxtaposing them with the Frankfurt School’s critique of instrumental reason. By dissecting the shifts and tensions within Western Marxism, Žižek emphasizes the profound philosophical and political stakes of interpreting Marxist revolutionary theory, engaging with themes like revolutionary contingency, Stalinism, and the appropriation of Marxist concepts within academic and cultural frameworks. This work is pivotal in literary theory as it interrogates the intersections of ideology, philosophy, and praxis, questioning the legacy and transformation of critical Marxist thought in the 20th century.
Summary of “From History and Class Consciousness to the Dialectic of Enlightenment… and Back” by Slavoj Žižek
Lukács’s History and Class Consciousness as a Foundational Marxist Text
Žižek emphasizes the historical and philosophical significance of Georg Lukács’s History and Class Consciousness (1923), which established critical concepts like reification and the proletariat as the subject-object of history. It emerged as a radical and revolutionary text in Marxist theory, often considered an underground “forbidden book” prior to its official reprint in 1967 (Žižek, 2000, p. 107-108).
Critical Reappraisal of Lukács’s Contribution
The work’s critique of Engels’s “dialectics of nature” played a significant role in challenging the reflection theory of knowledge central to dialectical materialism. Its influence extended beyond Marxism, impacting thinkers like Heidegger, who indirectly engaged with Lukács’s critique of reification (Žižek, 2000, p. 108).
Žižek identifies a divergence between Lukács’s revolutionary political engagement and the more academically oriented Western Marxism epitomized by the Frankfurt School. Lukács’s Leninist perspective contrasts sharply with the Frankfurt School’s philosophical critiques, especially their reluctance to engage directly with political praxis (Žižek, 2000, p. 109-111).
Transition to Dialectic of Enlightenment
Žižek examines how the Frankfurt School’s Dialectic of Enlightenment transformed Lukács’s focus on concrete socio-political analysis into broader critiques of “instrumental reason.” This philosophical generalization marked a retreat from the revolutionary engagement characteristic of Lukács’s earlier work (Žižek, 2000, p. 113).
Stalinism and the Evolution of Marxist Thought
The essay explores the ideological shifts following the revolutionary fervor of 1917. Žižek critiques both the Menshevik reliance on “necessary stages of development” and the Stalinist distortion of Marxist ideas into a universalist “scientific” framework. He stresses the importance of contextual political analysis to avoid these pitfalls (Žižek, 2000, p. 114-116).
Philosophical Mediation: From Marxism to Stalinism
Using Hegelian logic, Žižek traces the tripartite mediation of universal, particular, and singular in Marxism, showing how the Communist Party’s domination over the proletariat was justified as a necessary realization of historical progress. This, he argues, became the philosophical “truth” underlying Stalinism’s oppressive practices (Žižek, 2000, p. 116-118).
The Role of Revolutionary Acts and the “Augenblick”
Drawing on Lukács’s concept of the Augenblick (moment of decision), Žižek highlights the necessity of timely revolutionary interventions that disrupt established frameworks. He connects this to Alain Badiou’s notion of the Event as a break with historical determinism (Žižek, 2000, p. 120).
Critique of Democratic Fundamentalism
Žižek critiques the depoliticized universalization of democracy as a static framework immune to renegotiation. He contrasts this with Lukács’s revolutionary stance, which emphasizes contingency and the need to challenge hegemonic systems (Žižek, 2000, p. 122-123).
The Contemporary Relevance of Lukács
The essay concludes with a call to reinterpret Lukács in light of today’s socio-political challenges, advocating for a reinvigoration of Marxist praxis that engages with new historical conditions while resisting opportunistic revisionism (Žižek, 2000, p. 123).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “From History and Class Consciousness to the Dialectic of Enlightenment… and Back” by Slavoj Žižek
The process by which social relations are perceived as natural and object-like, rather than constructed and mutable.
Explored as a core critique by Lukács, where consciousness is “reified” into static objects, alienating individuals from true social relations (Žižek, 2000, p. 108).
Subject-Object of History
Lukács’s concept of the proletariat as both the subject and object of historical transformation.
Criticized for its inherent tension and eventual instrumentalization in Stalinist logic (Žižek, 2000, p. 109-111).
Instrumental Reason
A critique by the Frankfurt School, where reason is reduced to a tool for control and domination rather than emancipation.
Dialectic of Enlightenment critiques how Lukács’s concrete analysis gave way to broad critiques of “instrumental reason” (Žižek, 2000, p. 113).
Augenblick
A Hegelian term adopted by Lukács, referring to the decisive moment of intervention in historical processes.
Described as the art of seizing a revolutionary opportunity to disrupt systemic equilibrium (Žižek, 2000, p. 120).
Althusser’s concept of institutions (e.g., schools, media) that propagate ideology to maintain power structures.
Juxtaposed with Lukács’s idea of the Party as the operator of revolutionary class consciousness (Žižek, 2000, p. 116-118).
Stalinist Mediation
Žižek’s critique of the Stalinist transformation of Marxism into a justification for Party domination over the proletariat.
Described as the ultimate outcome of the dialectical synthesis of universal, particular, and singular in Marxism (Žižek, 2000, p. 116).
Contribution of “From History and Class Consciousness to the Dialectic of Enlightenment… and Back” by Slavoj Žižek to Literary Theory/Theories
Critical Theory and Frankfurt School Studies:
Žižek bridges Lukács’s History and Class Consciousness with the Frankfurt School’s Dialectic of Enlightenment, highlighting the transition from socio-political critique to philosophical abstraction. This comparison informs literary theory’s engagement with ideology, instrumental reason, and cultural critique.
Marxist Literary Criticism:
The essay revisits core Marxist ideas, such as reification and the proletariat’s historical agency, urging a reevaluation of how class, ideology, and material conditions are represented in literature. This reinforces the role of Marxist critique in analyzing commodification and alienation in texts.
Hegelian Dialectics in Literature:
Žižek underscores the influence of Hegelian dialectics on Lukács’s thought, particularly the contradictions between subject and object. This contributes to literary theories that emphasize contradiction, totality, and mediation within narratives and character studies.
By comparing Lukács to postmodern theorists like Badiou and Laclau, Žižek challenges the essentialist underpinnings of Marxism. This critique informs literary postmodernism, especially regarding contingency, multiplicity, and the rejection of teleological narratives.
The Role of Ideology in Literature:
Drawing on Lukács’s and Althusser’s theories, Žižek discusses the role of ideological state apparatuses and cultural systems in shaping perception. This framework aids in understanding literature as a site for both ideological reproduction and critique.
The essay explores reification as a key concern in both Lukács and the Frankfurt School, offering insights into how literature can challenge or perpetuate the objectification of human relations.
Revolutionary Potential in Literary Forms:
Through Lukács’s concept of the Augenblick and Badiou’s Event, Žižek contributes to theories that view literature as a medium for revolutionary thought, emphasizing the transformative potential of narrative and aesthetic innovation.
Critique of Democratic Universalism in Literature:
Žižek critiques “democratic fundamentalism” as a hegemonic ideology, encouraging literary theorists to explore how texts contest or reinforce depoliticized conceptions of democracy.
Stalinist Narratives in Cultural Texts:
Žižek’s critique of Stalinism’s appropriation of Marxism provides a lens for analyzing literary texts that engage with themes of authoritarianism, political betrayal, and ideological manipulation.
Examples of Critiques Through “From History and Class Consciousness to the Dialectic of Enlightenment… and Back” by Slavoj Žižek
Literary Work
Critique Through Žižek’s Framework
Key Concepts Applied
Franz Kafka’s The Trial
The novel’s depiction of bureaucratic oppression and existential alienation mirrors Žižek’s critique of reification, where social systems reduce individuals to mere objects within an inscrutable power structure. Kafka’s protagonist embodies the reified consciousness critiqued by Lukács.
Reification, Ideology, Instrumental Reason
George Orwell’s 1984
Orwell’s portrayal of totalitarian control aligns with Žižek’s critique of Stalinist mediation. The Party’s manipulation of historical truth and language reflects the instrumentalization of ideology for domination, paralleling Žižek’s analysis of the Soviet Communist Party’s actions.
Stalinist Mediation, Ideological State Apparatus, Instrumental Reason
Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness
Conrad’s exploration of colonialism’s moral decay can be analyzed through Žižek’s critique of “democratic fundamentalism” and global capitalism. The imperialist ideologies at work in the novel exemplify the systemic reification and commodification critiqued in Lukács’s and Frankfurt School’s theories.
Morrison’s narrative challenges historical reification by foregrounding the subjective experiences of formerly enslaved individuals. This counters Žižek’s critique of universalizing history, instead emphasizing contingency and the radical potential of subjective memory to disrupt systemic oppression.
Subject-Object of History, Contingency, Revolutionary Potential of Narratives
Criticism Against “From History and Class Consciousness to the Dialectic of Enlightenment… and Back” by Slavoj Žižek
Overemphasis on Theoretical Abstraction:
Critics argue that Žižek’s dense theoretical language and frequent references to Hegelian and Lacanian concepts can obscure practical applications of his ideas, making them inaccessible to a broader audience.
Ambiguity in Political Prescriptions:
While Žižek critiques both Stalinist orthodoxy and Western Marxism, his essay lacks clear political alternatives or actionable insights, leading to questions about its practical relevance in contemporary Marxist praxis.
Neglect of Cultural and Historical Specificity:
Žižek’s universalist approach sometimes overlooks the cultural and historical nuances that shaped both Lukács’s original context and the Frankfurt School’s turn toward philosophical anthropology.
Excessive Reliance on Dialectical Constructs:
The essay’s reliance on Hegelian dialectics has been criticized as overly deterministic, with some arguing that it risks perpetuating the teleological frameworks it seeks to critique.
Limited Engagement with Feminist and Postcolonial Critiques:
The essay does not extensively address how reification and instrumental reason intersect with gender, race, or coloniality, areas that have become central to contemporary critical theory.
Reduction of Frankfurt School to Philosophical Abstraction:
Žižek’s treatment of the Frankfurt School has been critiqued for overly simplifying their nuanced socio-political critiques, reducing their work to a broad indictment of “instrumental reason.”
Ambivalence Toward Revolutionary Action:
Critics note that while Žižek highlights revolutionary potential (e.g., through the Augenblick), his theoretical framework provides little guidance for enacting such moments in real-world struggles.
Tension Between Marxist and Postmodern Elements:
Žižek’s integration of postmodern contingencies into a Marxist framework has been criticized for creating unresolved tensions, particularly around issues of subjectivity and universality.
Elitist Academic Tone:
The essay’s dense academic style and frequent allusions to niche philosophical debates may alienate readers outside of academic or theoretical circles.
Representative Quotations from “From History and Class Consciousness to the Dialectic of Enlightenment… and Back” by Slavoj Žižek with Explanation
Quotation
Explanation
“History and Class Consciousness attained its cult status as a quasi-mythical forbidden book, comparable, perhaps, only to the traumatic impact of Pour Marx, written by Louis Althusser.” (Žižek, p. 107)
This quotation highlights the enduring significance of Lukács’s work, its underground circulation, and its unique status as a foundational yet controversial Marxist text.
“The paradox of History and Class Consciousness is that we have a philosophically extremely sophisticated book, a book which can compete with the highest achievements of the non-Marxist thought of its period. Yet, it is a book thoroughly engaged in the ongoing political struggle.” (Žižek, p. 109)
This juxtaposition underscores the dual character of Lukács’s work, which fuses theoretical depth with active engagement in political praxis, especially within the Leninist framework.
“The Dialectic of Enlightenment accomplished a fateful shift from concrete socio-political analysis to philosophico-anthropological generalization.” (Žižek, p. 113)
Žižek criticizes Adorno and Horkheimer for abstracting reification and instrumental reason, transforming them into universal philosophical problems detached from the specifics of capitalist relations.
“The Leninist strategy was to take a leap, throwing oneself into the paradox of the situation, seizing the opportunity and intervening, even if the situation was ‘premature.'” (Žižek, p. 118)
Žižek praises Lenin’s tactical boldness, which challenged deterministic Marxist approaches and emphasized the transformative potential of revolutionary agency over structural inevitability.
“There is no objective logic of the ‘necessary stages of development’; complications from the intricate texture of concrete situations and/or from the unanticipated results of ‘subjective’ interventions always derail the straight course of things.” (Žižek, p. 118)
This challenges orthodox Marxist teleology by asserting the role of contingency and subjective intervention in historical processes, reflecting Lukács’s and Lenin’s rejection of rigid determinism.
“The ultimate ‘truth’ of the Party ruthlessly exploiting working classes is the claim that it realizes history’s logic.” (Žižek, p. 116)
Here, Žižek critiques Stalinist ideology, exposing its justification of exploitation as a purported enactment of historical necessity, revealing the distortion of Marxist revolutionary ideals.
“Stalinism is not the result of some particular external corruptive influence, like the ‘Russian backwardness’ or the ‘Asiatic’ ideological stance of its masses, but an inherent result of the Leninist revolutionary logic.” (Žižek, p. 114)
Žižek contextualizes Stalinism as an outcome of Leninist strategies, inviting a critical but balanced examination of revolutionary trajectories without dismissing their emancipatory aims.
“The subject fails by definition; its full actualization as the Subject-Object of History necessarily entails its self-cancellation, its self-objectification as the instrument of History.” (Žižek, p. 117)
This reflects Žižek’s critique of Lukács’s Hegelian subject-object synthesis, arguing that the attempt to actualize the revolutionary subject paradoxically nullifies its agency.
“The crux of Lukács’s argument rejects the reduction of the act to its ‘historical circumstances.'” (Žižek, p. 120)
This highlights Lukács’s insistence on the primacy of subjective agency and revolutionary acts, which cannot be fully explained or justified by deterministic historical conditions.
“Today, in the era of the worldwide triumph of democracy, it is more important than ever to bear in mind Lukács’s reminder, in his polemic against Rosa Luxembourg, on how the authentic revolutionary stance of endorsing the radical contingency of the Augenblick should also not endorse the standard opposition between ‘democracy’ and ‘dictatorship.'” (Žižek, p. 122)
Žižek calls for revisiting Lukács’s ideas in the contemporary context, challenging the complacency of neoliberal democracy and emphasizing the critical importance of revolutionary moments.
Suggested Readings: “From History and Class Consciousness to the Dialectic of Enlightenment… and Back” by Slavoj Žižek
Sharpe, Matthew. “Slavoj Žižek (1949–).” From Agamben to Zizek: Contemporary Critical Theorists, edited by Jon Simons, Edinburgh University Press, 2010, pp. 243–58. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1g0b2mb.20. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
Galt Harpham, Geoffrey. “Doing the Impossible: Slavoj Žižek<br/>and the End of Knowledge.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 29, no. 3, 2003, pp. 453–85. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1086/376305. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
Moolenaar, R. “Slavoj Žižek and the Real Subject of Politics.” Studies in East European Thought, vol. 56, no. 4, 2004, pp. 259–97. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20099885. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
