Introduction: “Multitude, Surplus, and Envy” by Slavoj Žižek
“Multitude, Surplus, and Envy” by Slavoj Žižek first appeared in Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society in its January 2007 issue (Vol. 19, No. 1), following its online publication on December 11, 2006, by Routledge. The article critically examines Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s concept of the “multitude” as a model for resistance against global capitalism. Žižek challenges the premise by suggesting that capitalism itself already operates in the mode of “multitude” and perpetual self-revolutionization, thereby complicating its role as an emancipatory framework. He critiques the Marxian legacy embedded in Hardt and Negri’s work, particularly their utopian vision of “absolute democracy,” where the multitude autonomously regulates its social relations without state power. Central to Žižek’s argument is the dialectical deadlock in revolutionary theory, whereby the notions of surplus, envy, and reappropriation remain tied to the very structures they aim to subvert. This work is significant in literary theory and critical philosophy, as it interrogates the theoretical underpinnings of resistance, questions the limits of post-Marxist thought, and reflects on the political and social implications of immaterial labor and biopolitical production. It bridges Marxist critique, Lacanian psychoanalysis, and political theory to highlight the persistent tensions in conceptualizing post-capitalist futures.
Summary of “Multitude, Surplus, and Envy” by Slavoj Žižek
1. Critique of Hardt and Negri’s “Multitude” Model
Žižek examines Hardt and Negri’s conceptualization of the “multitude” as a model for resistance to global capitalism, arguing that capitalism itself already functions as a multitude through perpetual self-revolutionizing (Žižek, 2007, p. 46). He highlights the ambiguity in their revolutionary vision, where the goal of emancipating surplus value is still indebted to the structures it opposes.
2. Democracy as the Unifying Ideal
Hardt and Negri position democracy as the central thread uniting global emancipatory movements. They argue for an “absolute democracy,” where the multitude directly governs itself without state structures (Hardt & Negri, 2004, p. 340). Žižek critiques this notion, suggesting that democracy, as conceptualized, might paradoxically reinforce the capitalist fantasy of self-regulation.
3. Immaterial Labor and Social Production
The rise of immaterial labor, producing not just goods but social relations, is central to Hardt and Negri’s vision of post-capitalism. They claim this labor renders traditional capitalists redundant (Žižek, 2007, p. 336). Žižek acknowledges the transformative potential but points to the unresolved contradictions in this framework, as production remains entwined with capitalist appropriation.
4. Deadlock of Revolutionary Ideals
Žižek identifies a recurring deadlock in revolutionary thought: reliance on capitalism’s inherent contradictions for its overthrow. He critiques Hardt and Negri’s failure to describe the passage from resistance to direct self-rule, calling their reliance on a vague “messianic rupture” problematic (Žižek, 2007, p. 357-358).
5. Comparison with Other Theorists
Žižek juxtaposes Hardt and Negri’s ideas with those of Giorgio Agamben and Ernesto Laclau. While Agamben envisions a break from power’s cycle through divine violence, Laclau emphasizes the inescapability of political antagonism, resisting utopian visions of a harmonious post-revolutionary state (Agamben, 1993; Laclau & Mouffe, 1985).
6. The Role of Surplus in Human Desire
Drawing on Lacanian psychoanalysis, Žižek critiques the Marxist focus on surplus value, proposing that surplus desire drives both capitalist productivity and its critique. He underscores how envy and ressentiment, inherent in human desire, challenge notions of justice and equality (Žižek, 2007, p. 54).
7. The Predicament of Capitalist “Worldlessness”
Žižek argues that capitalism creates a “worldless” ideological constellation, detotalizing meaning and leaving people without coherent cognitive maps for resistance. This structural void results in outbursts of “meaningless violence,” as seen in global protests like the French suburban riots (Žižek, 2007, p. 51).
8. The Proletarian Potential of Slumdwellers
The explosive growth of urban slums in the Global South, with inhabitants outside state regulation, represents a key site of revolutionary potential. Žižek sees these “living dead” of global capitalism as embodying Marxist proletarian characteristics, albeit redefined for the post-industrial age (Žižek, 2007, p. 56-57).
9. Structural Failures in Emancipatory Visions
Finally, Žižek critiques the persistent Marxist belief in historical progress, arguing that capitalism’s self-revolutionizing dynamic is both its strength and its obstacle. He calls for a fundamental rethinking of how surplus, productivity, and revolutionary goals are conceptualized (Žižek, 2007, p. 53).
References:
- Žižek, S. (2007). Multitude, Surplus, and Envy. Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society, 19(1), 46-58.
- Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2004). Multitude. New York: Penguin Press.
- Agamben, G. (1993). The Coming Community. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
- Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Multitude, Surplus, and Envy” by Slavoj Žižek
| Theoretical Term/Concept | Explanation | Context/Significance in the Article |
| Multitude | A concept by Hardt and Negri referring to a collective of individuals acting together without a centralized authority. | Critiqued by Žižek for its ambiguity and reliance on capitalist dynamics while imagining post-capitalist governance (Žižek, 2007, p. 46). |
| Surplus Value | A Marxist concept describing the excess value generated by labor, appropriated by capitalists. | Žižek critiques Hardt and Negri’s focus on surplus value as insufficiently addressing its structural entanglement with capitalist production (Žižek, 2007, p. 53). |
| Immaterial Labor | Labor that produces intangible goods, such as social relationships, communication, or intellectual products. | Seen as hegemonic in modern capitalism; its potential for creating shared “commons” is discussed but remains limited by capitalist appropriation (Žižek, 2007, p. 336). |
| Absolute Democracy | A democratic model proposed by Hardt and Negri, where governance is decentralized and collective. | Critiqued by Žižek for its utopian reliance on the self-regulation of the multitude, which may reproduce capitalist logics (Žižek, 2007, p. 340). |
| Biopolitics | The production and regulation of life itself as a central element of power. | Highlighted in the context of immaterial labor as the production of social life, leading to biopolitical governance (Žižek, 2007, p. 336). |
| Ressentiment | A concept from Nietzsche, referring to envy or resentment towards others’ success or status. | Used to critique both Rawls’s theory of justice and the egalitarian aspirations of revolutionary movements (Žižek, 2007, p. 54). |
| Carnivalesque Resistance | Resistance movements likened to carnivals in their non-centralized and theatrical form. | Žižek questions whether late capitalist society itself has already absorbed and co-opted these forms of resistance (Žižek, 2007, p. 49). |
| Worldlessness | A term derived from Alain Badiou, describing the ideological void in which capitalism operates. | Žižek emphasizes how capitalism detotalizes meaning, leaving individuals without a coherent framework for resistance (Žižek, 2007, p. 51). |
| Divine Violence | A Benjaminian concept referring to revolutionary, transformative violence beyond the confines of law. | Compared with Hardt and Negri’s vision of an emancipatory rupture, which Žižek finds theoretically underdeveloped (Žižek, 2007, p. 48). |
| General Intellect | A Marxist concept describing collective knowledge and intellectual labor as a productive force. | Reinterpreted by Hardt and Negri to highlight the role of immaterial labor in capitalism; critiqued by Žižek for its limited emancipatory potential (Žižek, 2007, p. 336). |
| Lumpenproletariat | A Marxist term for marginalized, non-working class groups often dismissed as politically inactive or reactionary. | Žižek redefines slumdwellers in global capitalism as a new potential revolutionary subject, diverging from traditional Marxist categorizations (Žižek, 2007, p. 57). |
| Scale-Free Networks | A structural model in which a few nodes dominate the distribution of connections, leaving others marginal. | Used to critique the concentration of power and resources in capitalist networks, as exemplified by entities like Microsoft (Žižek, 2007, p. 56). |
| Hegemony | The dominance of one social group or ideology over others, often through consent rather than coercion. | Explored in relation to Laclau and Mouffe’s theory, emphasizing the contingent and contested nature of universality (Žižek, 2007, p. 50). |
| Surplus Enjoyment (Jouissance) | A Lacanian concept describing the excess pleasure or desire that drives human behavior and structures social dynamics. | Used by Žižek to critique Marx’s notion of surplus value, emphasizing its overlap with surplus enjoyment as a driving force in capitalism (Žižek, 2007, p. 53). |
Contribution of “Multitude, Surplus, and Envy” by Slavoj Žižek to Literary Theory/Theories
- Contribution: Žižek critiques and extends Marxist thought by re-evaluating the notions of surplus value and historical materialism.
- Key Insight: He questions the emancipatory potential of reappropriating surplus value, arguing that Marx overlooked how surplus is both a condition of productivity and a limitation (Žižek, 2007, p. 53). This tension enriches Marxist approaches to analyzing cultural texts that reflect or critique capitalist structures.
- Literary Application: Encourages readings of literature that focus on the contradictions of capitalist productivity, particularly how cultural forms perpetuate or critique surplus dynamics.
2. Psychoanalytic Literary Theory (Lacanian Framework)
- Contribution: Žižek introduces Lacanian concepts like surplus enjoyment (jouissance) and desire of the Other to critique Marxist notions of justice and equality.
- Key Insight: He links surplus value to surplus enjoyment, emphasizing the psychic investments in capitalist and ideological systems (Žižek, 2007, p. 54). This deepens the understanding of subjectivity in literature and the ways in which desire shapes narratives and character motivations.
- Literary Application: Supports psychoanalytic readings that explore the unconscious dimensions of class struggle, envy, and ressentiment in texts, revealing how desire structures societal and narrative conflicts.
- Contribution: Žižek critiques and builds on the poststructuralist emphasis on fluidity, multiplicity, and decentralization, particularly through his engagement with Hardt and Negri’s concept of the multitude.
- Key Insight: By interrogating the utopian vision of decentralized democracy, Žižek emphasizes the formal contradictions in such frameworks (Žižek, 2007, p. 340). This challenges poststructuralist optimism about dismantling hierarchical systems.
- Literary Application: Offers tools to critique texts that idealize decentralization or multiplicity, examining the underlying structures that sustain them.
4. Biopolitics and Cultural Theory
- Contribution: The article ties immaterial labor and biopolitics to the production of life itself, suggesting that cultural and social relations are central to modern production (Žižek, 2007, p. 336).
- Key Insight: Literature and culture, as producers of social relationships and ideologies, become key sites of biopolitical critique. This reframes cultural production as inherently political and economic.
- Literary Application: Enables analyses of literature as a form of biopolitical production, where texts produce and regulate social relations and subjectivities.
5. Critical Theory (Frankfurt School and Beyond)
- Contribution: Žižek engages with notions of alienation and totality from the Frankfurt School while critiquing Hardt and Negri’s optimistic view of capitalism’s deterritorializing potential.
- Key Insight: He emphasizes capitalism’s “worldlessness,” where it detotalizes meaning and deprives subjects of cognitive maps for resistance (Žižek, 2007, p. 51). This echoes and updates Adorno and Horkheimer’s critique of modernity.
- Literary Application: Encourages readings that explore how modern literature reflects or resists capitalism’s fragmented, “worldless” ideologies.
6. Political Philosophy in Literature
- Contribution: Through a critique of revolutionary and democratic ideals, Žižek explores how philosophical deadlocks manifest in cultural imaginaries.
- Key Insight: He challenges utopian resolutions in literature, proposing that narratives of revolutionary change often reproduce structural contradictions (Žižek, 2007, p. 357).
- Literary Application: Provides a lens for analyzing dystopian and utopian literature, particularly narratives that grapple with political and ideological transformation.
7. Postcolonial and Global Theories
- Contribution: By addressing slumdwellers and the marginalized in global capitalism, Žižek contributes to postcolonial and global literary theories.
- Key Insight: The depiction of the “living dead” of capitalism (e.g., slumdwellers) highlights the exclusionary dynamics of modern systems (Žižek, 2007, p. 56-57). This aligns with postcolonial concerns about visibility and representation.
- Literary Application: Enhances readings of global literature, focusing on narratives of dispossession, marginalization, and the politics of representation.
8. Utopian and Dystopian Literary Criticism
- Contribution: Žižek critiques Hardt and Negri’s utopian vision of “absolute democracy” as a form of wishful thinking detached from material conditions.
- Key Insight: His skepticism of utopian ruptures informs critiques of literature that rely on simplistic resolutions or uncritical celebrations of democratic ideals (Žižek, 2007, p. 340).
- Literary Application: Offers a framework for evaluating the viability and contradictions in literary utopias and dystopias, particularly their treatment of power and resistance.
Examples of Critiques Through “Multitude, Surplus, and Envy” by Slavoj Žižek
| Literary Work | Critique Through Žižek’s Framework | Key Connections to “Multitude, Surplus, and Envy” |
| George Orwell’s 1984 | – The totalitarian regime in 1984 reflects Žižek’s critique of centralized power structures and their reliance on surveillance and biopolitical control. | The Party’s biopolitical regulation of life mirrors the capitalist appropriation of social relations, described by Žižek as intrinsic to modern power (Žižek, 2007, p. 336). |
| – The suppression of individual freedom aligns with Žižek’s notion of capitalism’s “worldlessness,” where subjects lack cognitive maps for resistance. | Winston’s fragmented attempts to resist highlight the difficulties of overcoming systemic contradictions without reproducing them (Žižek, 2007, p. 51). | |
| Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale | – Gilead’s hierarchical society exemplifies Žižek’s critique of utopian ideals that disguise or perpetuate structural inequalities. | The Republic’s rigid gender roles and biopolitical control over women’s bodies reflect Žižek’s analysis of surplus value and power’s appropriation (Žižek, 2007, p. 53). |
| – The dystopia illustrates Žižek’s concept of ressentiment, as oppressed women turn their envy and frustration against each other rather than the system. | The Marthas and Handmaids policing one another mirrors Žižek’s idea of surplus enjoyment driving internalized oppression (Žižek, 2007, p. 54). | |
| F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby | – The novel’s portrayal of materialism and social aspiration critiques the capitalist obsession with surplus value and enjoyment. | Gatsby’s relentless pursuit of Daisy parallels Žižek’s linkage of surplus value to surplus enjoyment and unattainable desire (Žižek, 2007, p. 54). |
| – The class dynamics reflect Žižek’s critique of “justice as equality,” exposing the contradictions of meritocratic ideals in a capitalist society. | Tom’s dominance and Gatsby’s marginalization reveal the inherent inequalities Žižek identifies in surplus-driven systems (Žižek, 2007, p. 53). | |
| Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart | – The novel critiques colonialism’s role in imposing capitalist structures on traditional societies, reflecting Žižek’s notion of capitalist deterritorialization. | The arrival of colonial powers represents the global capitalist expansion Žižek critiques for appropriating and fragmenting local cultures (Žižek, 2007, p. 336). |
| – Okonkwo’s alienation mirrors Žižek’s “worldlessness,” where colonial disruption deprives individuals of meaningful cognitive maps or cultural identity. | The collapse of Igbo society illustrates Žižek’s analysis of capitalism’s detotalizing effect on meaning and social cohesion (Žižek, 2007, p. 51). |
Criticism Against “Multitude, Surplus, and Envy” by Slavoj Žižek
- Overreliance on Abstract Critique
Žižek’s analysis often operates at a highly theoretical level, which can obscure the practical implications of his critique. His arguments, such as the linkage between surplus value and surplus enjoyment, might feel disconnected from real-world applications or empirical grounding. - Ambiguity in Revolutionary Alternatives
While Žižek critiques the utopianism of Hardt and Negri, he does not provide a concrete or actionable vision of how to overcome the contradictions of capitalism. This leaves readers questioning the feasibility of his theoretical insights. - Lack of Engagement with Hardt and Negri’s Positive Contributions
Žižek largely focuses on critiquing the flaws in Hardt and Negri’s concept of the multitude, but he does not fully acknowledge their contributions to rethinking collective agency in the context of globalization and immaterial labor. - Limited Address of Intersectionality
Žižek’s critique of capitalism and the multitude does not adequately consider how race, gender, and other axes of identity intersect with class and economic systems. This can make his arguments feel incomplete when addressing global and structural inequalities. - Tendency Toward Philosophical Elitism
Žižek’s use of dense philosophical references, such as Lacan, Marx, and Hegel, can make his critique inaccessible to a broader audience. Critics argue this limits the impact of his ideas beyond academic circles. - Deterministic View of Capitalism
Žižek’s portrayal of capitalism as an almost inescapable system governed by inherent contradictions can appear overly deterministic. This risks diminishing the agency of individuals and groups working for change within and against capitalist structures. - Neglect of Cultural Specificity
Žižek’s critique often generalizes about global capitalism without sufficiently addressing how cultural and regional differences influence the dynamics of resistance and labor. - Potential Misrepresentation of Hardt and Negri
Some scholars argue that Žižek’s interpretation of Hardt and Negri’s ideas, particularly regarding the multitude and democracy, oversimplifies or misrepresents their nuanced arguments. - Overemphasis on Psychoanalysis
The heavy reliance on Lacanian psychoanalysis may alienate readers from other intellectual traditions and limit the interdisciplinary applicability of his critique.
Representative Quotations from “Multitude, Surplus, and Envy” by Slavoj Žižek with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Today’s capitalism itself already functions in the mode of multitude and of permanent self-revolutionizing.” | Žižek critiques Hardt and Negri’s notion of multitude by arguing that contemporary capitalism incorporates the very dynamics of decentralization and self-reorganization, blurring the lines between revolutionary opposition and systemic logic. |
| “The ambiguity of the notion of multitude is only the latest example of a more general deadlock of revolutionary thought.” | Žižek highlights a recurring challenge in revolutionary ideologies: they often rely on frameworks (like surplus value in Marxism) derived from the structures they aim to dismantle, leading to theoretical contradictions. |
| “The products are no longer material objects, but new social (interpersonal) relations themselves.” | This emphasizes how immaterial labor in modern capitalism reshapes production by centering on social relations, communication, and knowledge, creating a biopolitical sphere that challenges traditional notions of private property and production. |
| “Is their notion of the pure multitude ruling itself not the ultimate capitalist fantasy?” | Žižek questions whether Hardt and Negri’s idea of a self-ruling multitude is fundamentally utopian, suggesting it might mirror capitalism’s fantasy of self-perpetuating, unrestricted growth and innovation. |
| “Marx’s fundamental mistake was to conclude… that a new, higher social order is possible.” | Žižek critiques Marx’s belief in communism as an evolved form of capitalism, arguing that capitalism’s contradictions are intrinsic to its productivity and cannot be resolved without undermining the system itself. |
| “Justice as equality is founded on envy… the demand that the excessive enjoyment of the Other should be curtailed.” | Drawing from psychoanalysis, Žižek argues that demands for equality are often driven by ressentiment and envy, framing justice as a reaction to perceived disparities in others’ access to enjoyment. |
| “Slumdwellers… are the true ‘symptom’ of slogans like ‘Development,’ ‘Modernization,’ and ‘World Market.'” | Žižek identifies slumdwellers as a key byproduct of global capitalism, highlighting their systemic exclusion as evidence of capitalism’s inherent contradictions and its failure to integrate all into its logic. |
| “Capitalism is the first socioeconomic order to detotalize meaning.” | Žižek critiques capitalism’s detachment from ideological coherence, contrasting its focus on market mechanisms with prior systems that offered a unified worldview, albeit oppressive. |
| “The injunction, the ‘ideological interpellation,’ proper to global capitalism is… enjoy!” | He argues that capitalism’s ideological command to “enjoy” enforces superficial freedom, masking deeper restrictions on genuine individual and collective agency. |
Suggested Readings: “Multitude, Surplus, and Envy” by Slavoj Žižek
- Kapoor, Ilan. “Capitalism as Envy-Machine.” Confronting Desire: Psychoanalysis and International Development, Cornell University Press, 2020, pp. 94–122. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctvw04m5b.9. Accessed 5 Dec. 2024.
- Žižek, Slavoj. “Multitude, surplus, and envy.” Rethinking Marxism 19.1 (2007): 46-58.