Quote of the Week: Slavoj Žižek
The paradox (which grounds so-called ‘conservative modernism’) is thus that the innermost possibility of modernism is asserted in the guise of its apparent opposite, of the return to an unconditional authority that cannot be grounded in positive reasons. Consequently, the properly modern God is the God of predestination, a kind of Schmittian politician who draws the line of separation between Us and Them, Friends and Enemies, the Delivered and the Damned, by means of a purely formal, abyssal act of decision, without any grounds in the actual properties and acts of concerned humans (since they were not yet even born). In traditional Catholicism, salvation depends on earthly good deeds; in the logic of Protestant predestination, earthly deeds and fortunes (wealth) are at best an ambiguous sign of the fact that the subject is already redeemed through the inscrutable divine act – that is, he is not saved because he is rich or did good deeds, he accomplishes good deeds or is rich because he is saved … Crucial here is the shift from act to sign; from the perspective of predestination, a deed becomes a sign of the predestined divine decision.
—Slavoj Žižek, The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology (London: Verso, 1999; rev. ed., 2008),136 .
Comments are closed.
Very timely comment!
Mark
He has another great quote relating to nominalism which I will use sometime; I could make a series of weekly quotes from Zizek, many of his thoughts are just that good (obviously, I don’t agree with him on everything). I try to limit that urge, but this time, I had to use this quote.
“In traditional Catholicism, salvation depends on earthly good deeds…”
Not to nit, but as Catholics, we do not believe we earn our way to salvation. We are called to live a Christian live as Jesus Christ taught us and in living that live we love our neighbor as ourselves. Some perceive this as earning salvation through good deeds, but this is not what the Church teaches. Our faithful living of the Christian way is our cooperation with God’s grace. Our salvation is through Jesus Christ.
Steve
Saying it depends upon earthly good deeds (which it does) says nothing about grace; the whole rejection of good deeds in relation to salvation is Protestant. Catholics do not say we earn our way to salvation, but they do say without works, we are not saved.
I guess it is a context reading. My perception of the statement was the age old retort from non-Catholics that Catholics earn their way to salvation regardless of your state of grace, not that charitable works should come from our desire to be Christ-like. I guess I read more into the statement its perceived disconnection from the heart of salvation.
We say that without works our faith is not true but rather it is empty. How can we life our faith if we do not say and act as Christ instructed us to act. (The timing is almost scary with the Gospel reading today.) This is very different from salvation depends on good works. It depends on our acceptance of grace and in that acceptance living that life we are called leading us to the good works. However, good works without the grace of faith is what the Gospel talks about today (works for perception rather than out of love for God).
Steve:
Good works alone does not provide salvation, as all will agree. Saying it depends upon works does not say works alone. The logical value of the two differ. Remember, St Paul said, “Work out your own salvation with much fear and trembling.” He didn’t say ” with grace” in that verse, but we know it is implied, as well.
The thing is, as St. Thomas would have been happy to tell you, God *is* a God of predestination. Predestination is a Catholic dogma, and needs to be defended against unorthodox interpretations. Garrigou-Lagrange’s book on the subject is well-worth consulting.
Whatever Mr. Zizek’s merits as a political commentator, he’s at sea theologically, wrongly conceding the entire doctrine to Protestantism, however defined. Moreover, many Protestants would be surprised to know that works are, at most, an add-on. In fact, given the split between Calvinists and Arminians, there really isn’t a unified “Protestant” doctrine of election/predestination, per se.
A few hours with G-L and the Joint Declaration on Justification would do Mr. Zizek’s argumentation wonders.
Dale
The thing is, he is talking within a specific cultural context, where the term predestination does not have the definition of St Thomas Aquinas. You must understand your objection here is equivocation. But that is typical from people who ARE NOT experts and think they are because “I read X and Y.” Indeed, this is discernable in how he uses the term here, which connects to the Protestant use (and he says as much).
Indeed, what Zizek is saying here, the point he raises, IS EXACTLY Pope Benedict’s famous point about the status of theology when reason is removed from God: it ends with voluntarism, which is the problem of predestinationism under the Calvinistic guise. And, even though you or others might hate to hear it, the influence of this tradition is great, even in the secular field; there is a strong sense of secular Calvinism within most modern conservative traditions, thanks, of course, to the Enlightenment and its relationship to the Protestant tradition.
My argument is considerably narrower–simply that he’s conceded the concept of predestination to Protestantism. For a Catholic writer commenting on theological matters, this is not an option. I understand that it is a common reaction to the reprobation aspect of Calvinist theology, but it’s the wrong one. Had he said “a distorted, if too pervasive understanding of predestination” or something similar, it would be unobjectionable.
In combatting the errors of Calvinism, he falls into his own. The answer to pervasive Calvinist error is not warmed-over semi-Pelagianism and permitting cartoonish understandings of predestination to flourish. The danger with that is that eventually people will stumble across predestination–verbatim–in Paul’s writing and think–”Hmm…only the Reformed are talking about this–they must be right.” As someone googling might stumble across this quote and miss out the critical detail.
Now, I can tell even from the snippet you posted that that his commentary about election probably doesn’t qualify as even a minor focus of the work. But fatally-incomplete arguments like that only ensure that those who most need to read that will dismiss it out of hand.
Dale
Stop right there. He used Protestant as an adjective. Grammar would suggest there could be other adjectives put in front of predestination. That adjective limits the discussion and explains the kind of predestination he is describing. Therefore, he doesn’t concede what you claim. He didn’t say “only Protestants believe in predestination,” he said, “Protestant predestination.”
Secondly, Zizek isn’t Catholic. He isn’t even a believer. He is an outsider who nonetheless takes Christianity seriously and as an influence upon his own ideas. He is quite well versed in theological matters, though as a philosopher, not as a theologian. This is why theologians take his work seriously. But I do think one needs to follow basic rules of hermeneutics when engaging his text, for that will at least make sure one is on the same page as him.
Henry Karlson,
“Saying it depends on works does not say works alone. The logical value of the two differ.”
Good point; however, you’ve got to admit that though the locution may say “In traditional Catholicism, salvation depends on earthly good deeds”; nevertheless, the elocutionary force is such that the message will undoubtedly come across as “In traditional Catholicism, salvation is earned by performing good deeds”.
Given Zizek’s own philosophical leanings, it is not entirely inconceivable that the perlocutionary effect he intended to leave the audience is much more aligned with the force of the latter.
Yet, I must defer to your own expertise concerning the man himself and must, therefore, attend only to what the text itself suggests, which is exactly that in the aforementioned.
Interesting quote though regardless given the immediate context.
As intimated in the quote, under a certain kind of “protestant predestination,” God is not good, in effect; he is simply God, the boss of everything, and decides arbitrarily what is “good,” and so be it.
As a convert to Catholicism, I have found very liberating the Catholic notion that God is indeed good and all good things come from Him–even the good deed of a bad man, for example; even Bhuddist good deeds and secular humanist good deeds, and so on. This idea also recognizes a certain degree of wisdom in other religions.
God is good and God is for us. It makes sense to my natural mind and accords with the teachings of Jesus and the entire Biblical witness–or so it seems to this non-expert.
If I’m wrong, Henry, please be gentle!
David and WJ
I both think you add interesting and proper elements to the discussion over the quote itself. Really, there are many ways one can go with it, and I think both of you took on elements of what I was thinking when I posted it.
He talks about “the God of predestination” at the beginning, then compares “traditional Catholic” salvation to “Protestant predestination” in the same sentence. It doesn’t take a class in philosophy to see that it is, at best, a sloppy argument. And, as noted above, there is no such thing as “Protestant predestination” per se. Then again, if his oeuvre has displayed broader understandings of the topic, then I would have to concede. If not, then even the best minds have off days.
Broadbrushes are fine for ideological point-scoring, but you have generally had more of a demand for careful nuance. Which is what the subject calls for, not easy shots and waving the Calvinist boogeyman.
Leaving aside the over-simplified distinction between Catholic and Protestant theories of soteriology, can we all at least agree that Zizek’s account of “conservative modernism” is extremely suggestive vis-a-vis the Catholic Neo-Conservatives (Novak, Weigel, Neuhaus, et. al), who have been accused, actually, by other Catholic theologians (Schindler, Zwick, Cavanaugh) of ascribing to a weird form of American Calvinism?