Quote of the Week: Slavoj Žižek
The danger represented by the Iraq War can be best exemplified by the actual role of the populist Right in Europe — namely, to introduce certain topics (like the foreign threat, the necessity of limiting immigration, etc.) that can be silently taken over not only by conservative parties, but even by the de facto politics of ‘socialistic’ governments. [...]
What we have here is a kind of perverted Hegelian ‘negation of negation’: in the first negation, the populist Right disturbs the aseptic liberal consensus by giving voice to passionate dissent, clearly arguing against the ‘foreign threat’; in a second negation, the ‘decent’ democratic centre, in the very gesture of pathetically rejecting this populist Right, integrates its message in a ‘civilized’ way — between these two movements, the entire field of ‘unwritten rules’ has already changed to the extent that no on even notices and everyone is simply relieved that the anti-democratic threat is over. And the true danger is that something similar will happen apropos of the ‘war on terror’: so-called ‘extremists’ like John Ashcroft will be discarded, but their legacy will remain, imperceptibly interwoven into the invisible ethical fabric of our societies. Their defeat will be their ultimate triumph: they will no longer be needed, since their message will have become incorporated into the mainstream.
–Slavoj Žižek, “The Iraq War — Where is the True Danger,” pgs. 289 – 303 in The Universal Exception (New York: Continuum, 2007):301-302.
Comments are closed.
That’s interesting. Of course the “‘decent’ democratic center” often coalesces around ideas that are either mistaken or downright immoral. So there certain circumstances where “extremism” like the Church’s unambiguous stance on issues like abortion and immigration,* which are outside the consensus in the U.S., is no vice, to paraphrase Goldwater (who fits Zizek’s model here).
And the reason that populist right wing parties have been successful in Europe is not just because they have reshaped debates in a way that orces centrist parties to adopt some of their attitudes (as Sarkozy did to negate Le Pen in France), but because they are responding to a popular sentiment that has been ignored or dismissed rather than engaged, and if correct, rebuted in a meaningful way.
*I say immigration because the general statements of Church leaders are, I would say, considerably to the “left” of the compromise legislation of recent years and the positions of either major candidate for President.
Zak
I think one of the best examples one can bring up of what Zizek is after is to look to Tony Blair and Labor, and how Blair took on the basic qualities and characteristics of the 80s to form the “New Labor.” He clearly is not saying this is a good thing, but the danger.
But I think, following what you said, there could be an argument that this feature of society is not always negative. That is legitimate, though of course, in the greater context, his interest was in the danger of the Iraq War and the sentiments it is bringing into the greater society. And he is right, even the “liberals” convert — look to Obama and his stand on the war and you will see that is exactly what is happening.