Slavoj Zizek, in his long career, has written extensively on a vast array of controversial and current topics. Whether extolling the virtues of Hegelian dialectics, commenting on the jouissance of our political and social motivations or making crude jokes that only tangentially relate to his main point, Zizek certainly likes to engage with the current cultural moment. Such attentiveness to the present moment has led Zizek to write books such as Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World, which addressed, amid a global pandemic, the social and political implications that the virus could have on our global society. In a similar vein, Zizek has once again returned to the forefront of cultural criticism with his trademark humor and contrarian ideas. Embracing his love of bawdy jokes and hyperbolic -- if sometimes inflammatory -- language, Slovenian philosopher and provocateur Slavoj Zizek, in his 2020 book A Left That Dares To Speak Its Name: 34 Untimely Interventions, hopes to rekindle the spirit of a political Left that is brave enough to speak its own name. What is this name, you may wonder? According to Zizek, the stance we should take is one of global Communism.

Overview:

Per the title, the book is divided into thirty-four chapters, which vary in genre, depth, and purpose. The book is essentially an anthology of essays that were written over the past few years in other places, but have now been edited and arranged here together in one place. Ranging from acute social commentary to political analysis, to reprimands and mini-rants, Zizek seeks to call out and psychoanalyze the reactionary tendencies of the Left, pointing out their ideological shortcomings, calling them to recognize the mess that we are in across the world, while also offering alternative ways to building global solidarity. Thus, these chapters are divided into four main sections, each of which addresses different geopolitical and cultural contexts: 1) Global, 2) the United States, 3) Western Europe, and 4) Ideology (in which Zizek mainly addresses issues of sexuality). In addition, there is also a short appendix in which Zizek responds to his critics regarding his defense of Avital Ronell and his debate with Jordan Peterson. 

  In short, these essays provide a wide-angle approach to the various crises we are facing across the globe. Lambasting both the political Left and Right, Zizek explains how our political and economic systems are inherently dysfunctional, while also reiterating that we must move beyond a Leftism that is preoccupied with culture wars in favor of a solution that addresses the economic exploitation of capitalism. Drawing on the work of Marx, Zizek insists that Marx did not go far enough in his analysis, as he did not anticipate globalization or the fluidization of identity (primarily found today in ever-fluid sexual and gender identifications). As such, Zizek criticizes contemporary liberalism, the #MeToo movement, and the Left’s preoccupation with identity politics, arguing that these are not inherently revolutionary because they do not challenge the underlying economic system of capitalism. 

Furthermore, he argues that the reason the liberal-Left often fails is due to the jouissance (excess enjoyment) it receives from existing as a political minority with little power. As such, Zizek writes that the Left often receives a kind of perverse pleasure from self-flagellation (think of Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility), which often serves to reify racial and social hierarchies, as whiteness remains the privileged universal position against which other particularist identities can be expressed. Zizek takes issue with identity politics because he does not believe that identity (in the form of a deep, “true” self) exists. Thus, when we assert our identities, which are increasingly fluid and transient, we tend to foreclose the opportunity to establish a universalist stance.

Accordingly, Zizek believes that identity politics ultimately serve to fragment and divide the Left and their political potential, as they remain content with particularist identities rather than striving to form a universal class consciousness. Zizek believes that the Left will continue to lose ground to the political Right until it finds such a universal consciousness. This is not to say that Zizek disagrees with the goals of these political activist causes; rather, he wants to point out that they ultimately have their root in the division between capital and labor. Zizek is even critical of the dilution of the term socialism in the modern mainstream discourse, writing that “even Bill Gates claims to be a socialist!” Rather, Zizek wants us to go further, insisting that global communism is the only viable answer that can address the issues we face in our world today, including the climate and refugee crises. On immigration, Zizek clarifies his stance, urging the Left not to treat it as a humanitarian issue (which he believes mystifies and obfuscates the true antagonism), but rather as an economic and social issue. Similarly, Zizek believes that we must form a collective response, cooperating in tandem with other nations in solidarity to address the climate catastrophe just over the horizon. 

Finally, Zizek reiterates that we should not see radical individuals of the Right as the true enemies (despite how awful Trump and others on the Right might be), but rather the banality of bureaucrats that allow a violent system to continue unchallenged. We can’t just fight the Right and get caught up in a form of liberal nostalgia (for example, when someone says “remember when Obama was president and everything was okay?”). Rather, we must unite the struggles of the economically and socially dispossessed, even those on the Right who voted for Trump as a protest against the status quo. The true struggle today, Zizek writes, is the struggle for universality. What interests Zizek is not comparing our particularist identities against each other, but rather to link our struggles and antagonisms together to form an emancipatory collective. In this way, he believes we need a new form of communism (divorced from the authoritarian 20th-century expressions) -- which he defines as a transnational universal agency outside of the limits of the market and state -- to address the issues in our world. Granted, Zizek does not wholly dismiss the usefulness of capitalism, as he writes, “it is possible to tolerate limited elements and domains of capitalism without allowing the logic of capital to become the overdetermining principle of social reality (188). Yet, Zizek remains skeptical of current Leftist postcapitalism, writing, “the task of the Left is not just to propose a new order, but also to change the very horizon of what appears possible” (197). Only in this way can we begin to see a Left that dares to speak its name. 

Commendations: 

On the whole, this work provides an extensive and clear overview of Zizek’s political project (if there can be said to be a cohesive one). This is by far one of the most accessible works by Zizek; while they are referenced, there is very little deep, impenetrable analysis of Hegel or Lacan, which leads this to be an immensely readable work. Most of the chapters are exceptionally short and sweet, making it a relatively quick read. Essentially, this work functions as a Violence 2.0; this is Zizek providing pure social and political commentary, rather than digging into philosophical abstractions. 

Those who are familiar with Zizek’s previous works will find plenty of his “greatest-hits” and favorite themes. As always, he incorporates examples from pop culture and sprinkles in a healthy dose of humor and bawdy jokes to illustrate his theoretical stances (though if you’ve read any of Zizek’s other works, you’re more than likely to have already seen most of these utilized elsewhere). As a book of pop-philosophy, Zizek does well to make his viewpoints clear and relatively concise.

Throughout this work, Zizek astutely diagnoses the jouissance (excess enjoyment) of liberal multiculturalism, arguing for a universal stance of solidarity as opposed to a myopically-focused particularist identity. In this way, he goes beyond the boring, milquetoast takes of liberal pundits who insist that all we have to do is to get conservatives out of power, and instead calls for us to shift our way of thinking about our problems. There does indeed need to be a massive shift in our way of thinking on the Left, especially in the wake of the defeat of Sanders and Corbyn. Zizek points out that every political ideology has inconsistencies and contradictions within them, and calls on us to unabashedly face these antagonisms to shift our ideological paradigms. 

For example, noting the Left’s lack of a center as epitomized by the Yellow Vest protests in Paris, Zizek comments that it is this very decentralization of authority that gives the movement a certain strength. This lack of a central authority figure forces the agents of power to reckon with the people’s dissatisfaction with the system, rather than dialoguing and addressing the demands of an individual that stands in for the group. Yet, Zizek contends, these vague demands have to be operationalized by individuals through political processes, lest they lose steam and ultimately disappear. Thus, Zizek advocates for leaders of the Left to obey their desire, letting the people decide whether they want to follow. In this way, the power of a leader comes from the fidelity to their vision, rather than from compromising it to get “results” (147). 

Finally, Zizek is certainly talented at grabbing the reader’s attention through a wide-ranging and eclectic use of sources. Whether it is the use of self-admittedly tasteless titles (eg, Chapter 29: Nipples, Penis Vulva...and Maybe Shit, or Chapter 10: Is Donald Trump a Frog Embracing a Bottle of Beer?) or through the combination of seemingly disparate sources to make his point (eg, utilizing Aquinas’s Summa Theologica to contemplate the rights of sexbots), Zizek certainly has a penchant for memorable moments throughout his work. The breadth of subjects that he discusses in this book, brushing across so many of the political and social situations around the globe, makes this a great entry point into Zizek’s work.

Critiques: 

On the other hand, while it is a widely accessible book, the short length of the chapters render this book into essentially a series of hot take essays. The brevity of the chapters ensures that some of his ideas are not fully and rigorously fleshed out. Admittedly, the first few chapters are a bit dense before opening up and becoming more accessible to the average reader, but the number of philosophical musings is rather uneven as it goes on. While this book is one of Zizek’s more pop-philosophy and politically-charged work, when he does dive deeper into philosophical musings and psychoanalysis, readers could very easily get lost without some background on Lacan, Marx, or Hegel. Also, if you’ve read any of Zizek’s work, you’re most likely going to run into many familiar jokes and pop-culture references that he uses elsewhere. 

Relatedly, Zizek has the persistent vice of plagiarizing himself across different books in his bibliography; one can often find sentences and even full paragraphs copied and pasted from other works. Unfortunately, this work is no exception either, and there are a few cases of intratextual self-plagiarism (as just one example, there’s an identical word-for-word copied paragraph regarding the dangers of large data-collection companies such as Google and Facebook on pages 70 and 161). I understand that Zizek often writes for many different outlets, both digital and in print, but when you consider that he publishes several books every year, it becomes a more and more glaring issue that’s difficult to ignore. 

Zizek also tends to over-utilize provocative rhetorical questions without ever following through on them, which will most likely frustrate most readers who are looking for bold, declarative stances. As such, there are some conflicting ideas within the book. For example, how do we achieve a new form of communism? Zizek openly admits that he doesn’t know exactly how that would work. Rather, he gives a litany of negative examples of what he doesn’t want. He sees local democracy as a nightmare, and would rather live a happy alienated life where he doesn’t have to think about social organization. While he seeks to unite the disenfranchised populace, he also doesn’t believe in populism, as most ordinary citizens (in Zizek’s estimation) have racist, anti-immigrant views. While he wants to avoid the authoritarianism of the 20th century, he also asserts that a true progressive leader should not be afraid to act against the majority. For Zizek, a charismatic Leftist leader could unite the Left, take the risk of unpopular action, and then, if it works, their action will retroactively be redeemed. Overall, Zizek posits that we see elements of this transnationalism (for example, in Europe, though it is currently breaking apart), but he admits that this is unsatisfactory. 

Furthermore, while I do appreciate his criticism of the contemporary Left, he also tends to paint the Left with rather broad strokes (as merely white, middle-class, multicultural tolerant, and so on), without ever really engaging with the wide array of current literature and criticism from BIPOC. In this vein, while he loves to be bombastic and provocative, he sometimes comes very close to echoing the talking points of right-wing populism, especially regarding the excesses of identity politics and political correctness. To his credit, he then utilizes a Hegelian negative dialectic method to advocate for a radical leftist position. Ultimately though, I am not sure that such a move would be convincing to those on the Right, even if Zizek is trying to sort of provide a wormhole in which they can begin to adopt a Leftist position. To be fair, at least Zizek is trying to meaningfully address the logic of the Right, even if it might not always be successful in converting them to the Left.

  On the other hand, I’m not sure that some on the Left would find the core of his argument the most convincing either. As I previously wrote in my review of Zizek’s book on COVID-19, I am still not convinced that, much to Zizek’s disappointment, Communism will be the signifier that will rally and unify the Left. In parts of this book, he dismisses socialism too easily and glibly, more so as a reaction against the term becoming more mainstream than anything else. There’s just too much baggage associated with the term Communism, and as much as Zizek wants to distance himself from the authoritarian manifestations of it in the 20th century (Stalinism, Maoism, etc), I do not think that the term can be rehabilitated. Even so, given Zizek’s new definition of communism (aka. a transnational universal agency outside of the limits of the market and state), I’m not sure why he’s dedicated to labeling this as communism, which can alienate and raise red flags for so many people. It can often seem like he’s rejecting the label of socialism in favor of communism simply to be contrarian and provocative since such a stance does indeed grab attention and headlines, whether in praise or ire. Yet, Zizek often tends to revel in being “canceled,” especially by those he deems as milquetoast liberals, so his rhetoric makes sense in this regard, even if I don’t believe it’s the most helpful. 

Finally, in the Appendix, while his short essay on Jordan Peterson is spot-on, his defense of Avital Ronell is a bit trickier to justify. In September 2017, Avital Ronell (a distinguished professor at NYU) was accused of sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, and retaliation by a former male graduate student. In May of 2018, NYU found her guilty of sexual harassment and suspended her for the rest of the academic year. Around that same time, a letter signed by many prominent scholars in philosophy, feminist studies, and history (including Judith Butler, Joan Scott, and even Zizek) defending Ronell was leaked to the public, which resulted in a sharp backlash from the public. This case has brought up a variety of issues within academia, such as the role of power dynamics between professors and students, as well as cracks within the #MeToo movement, as many prominent feminist scholars have come to the defense of Ronell, even though she is accused of sexual assault. While Butler has since apologized for parts of the letter, Zizek in typical fashion has doubled down on his defense, and this essay is yet another example of such. Zizek, while acknowledging the role of power dynamics in this case and bemoaning Ronell’s self-destructive tendencies, ultimately chalks up her behavior to “eccentricity” that is “widely known” within the field of academia. He further accuses Reitman, the accuser, of ruthlessly “playing the game” of academia, going along with Ronell’s sexual advances until it no longer became expedient for him (click here to read more about the case and feel free to make your own opinions).

While I certainly think that Zizek can reasonably rationalize his way to this viewpoint, it is still not a perspective that I think it is the wisest to double down on and boldly assert, especially since Zizek admits that he doesn’t know Reitman and has only read the emails relevant to the case. To be sure, the case is rather odd in many respects (eg, both Ronell and Reitman identify as lesbian and gay respectively, Ronell’s seeming emotional dependence on Reitman, the private nature of the investigation which was only done internally at NYU), but Zizek is not doing himself any favors by refusing to let his involvement in it die. Yet, Zizek has a word for those like me, who although understand his viewpoint, are a bit concerned with his continued involvement with it: “May they burn in hell” (270). Again, due to Zizek’s penchant for polemical flair, one shouldn’t take this too much to heart. 

Conclusion: 

Overall, this book serves as a fairly accessible introduction to Zizek’s larger philosophical, cultural, and political thoughts. While I realize that I have been fairly critical in this review, I want to make it clear: while I do not always necessarily agree with Zizek, I always find his work exceptionally important and well worth considering. Far from being antagonistic to his thoughts, I hope that my critiques show just how much I think his work has to offer the world. By weaving together a Leftist perspective with psychoanalytic insight, Zizek has a keen eye to see how the systems in which we live are thoroughly marked with ideological trappings, as he calls us to imagine ways of living beyond our current predicaments.

  As such, since this book was written before the disruption that came with the COVID-19 virus, many of the insights that Zizek wrote about in this work, far from being disproved, have been validated. The virus has indeed revealed many of the shortcomings of our social and political organization, especially in the United States. The defeat of Sanders in the Democratic primary (both in 2016 and 2020) have revealed fundamental tensions in the political “Left” in America (aka the struggle between Liberal Democrats and Leftists). But as of writing this review (July 2020), Democratic nominee Joe Biden has been working with Sanders and the Leftist branch of the Party on joint policy proposals to address concerns such as climate change, the racial gap, immigration, and healthcare. Although these proposals fall short of realizing a fully-robust Leftist political and social program, they are an encouraging sign that the moderate liberals and progressive Leftists are uniting and working together towards ever more progressive policies. As such, Zizek might just be right: amid populist dissent and political pessimism, if the legacy of liberalism is to survive, it must accept the help of the radical Left.