News

Al Jazeera Lets Slavoj Žižek Sound off on Egyptian Revolution and Western Meddling

For anyone looking for the most unvarnished reporting out of Egypt, Al Jazeera’s website has been the place to go. Last week they hosted Slavoj Žižek, a philosopher and critical theorist noted for his Hegelian, Marxist and Lacanian work, who spoke at length on the Egyptian revolution and the West’s predictable response. This should have been played on all major networks.

Slavoj Žižek is a divisive figure in the field of psychoanalytic theory, drawing both praise and criticism for his interpretation of Jacque Lacan’s brand of psychoanalysis. Žižek looks something like Peter Jackson circa the filming of “Lord of the Rings” and speaks in a Slovanian accent with the intensity of the Tazmanian Devil. In fact, Žižek is just as likely to drop a Looney Tunes reference in an interview or book as he is in applying Lacanian or Marxist thought to a subject.

Aside from his social and political theory, Žižek has contributed to film theory through reviews as well as books such as “The Fright of Real Tears: Krzystof Kieslowski Between Theory and Post-Theory.” Žižek has also incorporated James Joyce into his theory and asked the question “Is there a proper way to remake a Hitchcock Film?” and answered it in an article.

Žižek critics make the critical mistake of lamenting, “Well, he doesn’t offer a unified system of thought!” Does every thinker need a system of thought? That’s not Žižek’s game.

He is not trying to intellectually browbeat people into submission, but to radically shift any willing person’s way of thinking who comes into contact with his material. In that sense, he shares something with other thinkers (and activists) like Guy Debord or the team of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, whose book “A Thousand Plateaus,” with its conceptual conceit of human intellect and experience as a rhizome, seems almost like the French mirror of Žižek’s mind.

For these philosophers, a radical rebuilding of civilization requires an equally radical shift in thought. That we have been provided a horribly inadequate education makes the material written by Žižek or Deleuze often times hard to follow, thereby silently and very effectively reinforcing the status quo. If we’d been taught from a young age to think in radically different ways, instead of the cliched variant of the heard-many-times “think outside the box” (while we are kept firmly inside the four walls), we’d quite easily follow Žižek.

If we had a world thinking on that wavelength, how different would it be?

But, while Žižek is quite often thought-provoking and inspiring, he should not be endorsed unconditionally (who could be?).  Nevertheless, as a personality who can shift people into a radical reconfiguration of thought, presently he has very few equals.

And so it was great to see Žižek appear along with Tariq Ramadan on Riz Khan’s Al Jazeera show. And while Ramadan certainly deserves mention in this piece, I will concentrate on Žižek’s comments, only to highlight what a non-Muslim sees in the Egyptian revolution. Žižek attempts to lay bear what is happening for the Egyptians and the West, cleansing the revolution of the West’s very subtle propaganda.

The host filling in for Khan noted that Tony Blair felt the West needs to “manage” Egypt and the transition—this being born out of the West’s position of fear.

“I think that [Blair's] message was, if one can read between the lines, quite unambiguous… What they want is some changes that would allow the global situation to stay the same… You know how often in our multicultural era, where we’re all suspicious of universalism, we like to hear how democracy as we understand it is something specifically Western.

But, what affected me tremendously when I was not only looking at the general picture of Cairo, but listening to interviews with participants, protesters there, is how cheap, irrelevant all this multicultural talk becomes. There, where we are fighting a tyrant, we are all universalists. We are immediately solidary with each other. That’s how you build universal solidarity, not with some stupid Unesco multicutural respect. It’s the struggle for freedom. Here we have a direct proof that a) freedom is universal, and b) especially, proof against that cynical idea that somehow Muslim crowds prefer some kind of religiously fundamentalist dictatorship.”

And so, for Žižek, and indeed for myself, the Western line exemplified by Blair but also by our own President, that the revolution must be managed, is particularly offensive. Especially given that the Western powers have propped up Mubarak’s regime with billions of dollars in financial support, but also diplomatic support, even as his people were denied basic human rights and economic justice.

What Žižek hints at but does not explicitly state in the interview (though certainly not out of any fear) is that the Western desire to manage the Egyptian revolution is born not out of a concern for the Egyptian people, but out of a great fear of the political wildfire spreading to Europe and then across the Atlantic.

Žižek ends his first monologue with the thought that the clash of civilization theory spread by Western governments is essentially fabricated. Žižek states, and quite rightly, “The moment we fight tyranny, we are solidary. No clash of civilizations. We all know what we mean.  No miscommunication here.”

And many commendations to the host for mentioning the fact that if we are to worry about radical Islam rising out of these revolutions, shouldn’t the discussion really begin with a country like Saudi Arabia, where people can be executed for witchcraft and sorcery? And, yet, that hasn’t stopped the U.S. from inking a $60 billion arms deal with the Saudi monarchy. The host feels that this marks the West’s fear of radical Islam as insincere. A critical point, indeed, because the real fear here is the people rising up against their own government.

Žižek goes on to say that religious fundamentalism fills the void left by a disappearance of the left—that is, the radical left that is currently revolting in Egypt, for example. He cites Afghanistan as a prime example of a country that was secular but religiously radicalized. Read up on Afghanistan history and watch this radicalization unfold as the U.S. government finances, trains and arms the Mujahideen, paving the way for the ascendancy of the Taliban, which the U.S. then had to topple after 9/11.

This has convinced Žižek that “it is crucial to have a strong left. Only this can save us.”

But, don’t take my word for it, watch the interview below for a very enlightening 25 minutes.

  1. February 08, 2011 at 2:54 pm, john charles webb jr. said:

    THE INTERNET ! , INDEED IS MIRACULOUS !

    WE CAN NOW CONNECT INSTANTLY , ON A GLOBAL SCALE , AND FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON BEHIND THE FORMER VEILS OF LIES AND NATIONAL (us) POLITICS:

    ONE WOULD THINK THAT OBAMA WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KEEPING THE INTERNET “UNREGULATED” AND INSTEAD (F.C.C.) HAVE CABLE TV REGULATED BECAUSE OF TOO MUCH COMMERCIAL CONTENT AND CONSTANT ADS AND FLASH AND SUBLIMINAL ADVERTISING :

    W T F ? IS UP WITH THAT , JACK ?

    Reply

  2. February 10, 2011 at 8:22 pm, guest said:

    Note to the author. Zizek is not “postmodern” by any stretch. He is a Hegalian through and through. Even a cursory google search would reveal this.

    Reply

    • February 11, 2011 at 6:45 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:

      Hey Guest,

      Zizek might very well be a “Hegelian,” if we boil him down to his essence, but he definitely has a post-modern style, what with the range of his thinking and subjects. You don’t need a cursory google search to figure that out: the proof is in the pudding. We might also call Zizek a Lacanian, but this is all rather useless and academic.

      So, you can nitpick all you like. I don’t much care for labels. Even Baudrillard and Deleuze could be classed this way if you like, owing to George Bataille’s influence on their thought re: Hegel; and Bataille defied classification as far as I’m concerned (though he had been a Surrealist).

      Thanks for your input, but it’s irrelevant. Zizek’s analysis of Egypt is what matters here, not how he is classed as a thinker.

      But, if it matters to you, great.

      DJ

      Reply

      • February 12, 2011 at 7:01 pm, guest said:

        Wow very defensive! There is perhaps something postmodern with Zizek, in the sense that he collapses the distinction between high and pop culture in his rhetorical style. But in the more important theoretical sense of his comportment to the possibilities of knowledge as such, no one with anykind of background in these matters would refer to Zizek as postmodern.

        Reply

        • February 12, 2011 at 8:46 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:

          I’m not defensive. I’d prefer that you perhaps take your understanding of Hegel and Zizek and apply it to what Zizek is actually saying in the video. That would actually help us, no? You might actually be able to clarify a point or two for those who might not understand some of his points, no?

          Arguing over a word that I used to describe Zizek is, I think, ultimately irrelevant and academic (the sort of conversation that happens in a university and not in the real world). Those interested in Zizek after reading my article will find out for themselves. I wasn’t describing him in terms of whether he was a Hegelian, a Marxist or a Lacanian; I was using ‘post-modern’ to describe, as you said, high and pop culture and the breadth of the subjects he engages–nothing more. It doesn’t matter what we call Zizek. Most readers aren’t getting hung up on this detail. The point is Zizek’s appearance on Al Jazeera, where he was allowed to speak at length.

          And Hegelianism has been interpreted differently even by his followers, as I’m sure you know; so don’t we risk confusing people by saying Zizek is purely Hegelian? He owes quite a bit to Marx and Lacan as well, and many other things. He’s not a clone of Hegel, just as Aristotle wasn’t a clone of Plato, or Debord a clone of Marx. If we’re talking the underlying structure of Zizek’s thought, then fine, yes, he applies a Hegelian lens to that which he surveys.

          I’m not a PhD candidate writing a dissertation. The article is about what Zizek said on Egypt. You’re fixating on a single word in the introduction that I’m sure most people haven’t bothered with. Notice that no one else seems to mind. Why? There eyes passed right over it as they read, and proceeded down to the body of the article.

          If those schooled in philosophy want to argue over terms and not the substance of Zizek’s thoughts re: Egypt, then so be it.

          DJ

          Reply

          • February 12, 2011 at 11:21 pm, Charles B Wrong said:

            “Zizek’s analysis of Egypt is what matters here, not how he is classed as a thinker”

            Are you a retard, clearly you must be because you admit that what matters is his analysis of Egypt but you ignore the significance about the post-modernist classification is that you color the frame of his analysis. When we speak that someone is a post-modernist we situate his analysis, his ‘body’ in a constellation of other works of other authors.

            this debate matters, you better prove your salt by justifying why you inserted that one ‘meaningless’ line.

          • February 13, 2011 at 5:29 am, D. J. Pangburn said:

            Charles,

            I wish I got paid overtime to talk schools of philosophy and terminology with you guys. I really do. But, I don’t, so I’m going to keep it short.

            I wasn’t trying to be intellectually dishonest or color the commentary, as you say. It’s not as if I’ve shattered the world of those readers unfamiliar with Zizek by calling him a postmodern social and political theorist. As I’ve said three times now, I was speaking to the style of his writing and cultural interests. It’s like calling James Joyce a modernist and Thomas Pynchon a postmodern novelist–neither really arrives at the true substance of their fiction, or indeed their learning. One must experience the material himself so as to truly know what it is. If I had really wanted to describe Zizek’s philosophy in the intro, I would have said, “Zizek is a Hegelian-Marxist-Lacanian.” More to the point, though, I might have to include all of the other influences that Zizek has acquired from the world of film, literature, cartoons, and so forth.

            Postmodern was used as a shorthand for the diffuse quality of his influences, but I understand how it could confuse others, and I accept the responsibility for it.

            So for your sake and others, and since I don’t want to upset the delicate order of learning that I’m responsible for as an author, I wil cross out post-modern and put in “Hegelian-Marxist-Lacanian.”

            Will that do?

            DJ

  3. February 13, 2011 at 3:41 am, Sssnite said:

    Mr. Romney:
    Ron Paul told Fox news on Thursday that we not shouldn’t help Cairo with money, rather spent our money at home. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

    Also, Our President gave the green light to our young people to change the goverment by protesting. Terrible: Also, nothing should have been said every day by our President at all. It doesn’t make any sense.

    MJ

    Reply

  4. February 13, 2011 at 3:52 am, Sn said:

    Misunderstanding

    Cancel my comment

    MJ

    Reply

  5. February 13, 2011 at 12:07 pm, Ana said:

    “…. a- Freedom is universal. b- especially a prove against the cynical idea that somehow muslins crowds prefer religion fundamentalism, dictatorship… whatever.
    No! What happens in Tunisia, what happens now in Egypt is precisely this universal revolution for dignity, human rights, economical justice… This is universalism at work.”
    Slavoj Žižek

    You can label him the way you want. I rather listen to what is good because nowadays we cannot lose any thinker, any person who wants to help recreate opposition.
    I attended some Deleuze’s classes. Great man and thinker.
    But I didn’t follow the academic life because it takes too much time discussing things doesn’t matter. Like this article of yours.
    We need action! Now!
    Are you ready? Oh!!! You have to label and defend the label. You don’t have time.

    Reply

    • February 13, 2011 at 7:33 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:

      I agree. Even the article itself is a waste of time. But to take away, or distract, from what Zizek is actually saying is even worse.

      The only thing I was trying to do was introduce some of D+T’s readers to Zizek, as well as others like Deleuze, Baudrillard and Debord. If I was able to get even but one person to radically shift their way of thinking, then I did my job. Zizek can take it from there, as can the other thinkers.

      DJ

      Reply

  6. November 30, 2012 at 12:57 am, Surrealism & Automatic Writing: The politics of destroying language | Death and Taxes said:

    [...] but found integration in Marxist thought, most notably with Michel Foucault, Jean Baudrillard and Slavoj Zizek. Like many 19th and 20th century thinkers, Lacan was particularly influenced by George Wilhelm [...]

    Reply

Add New Comment

Showing 12 comments
Subscribe by RSS