Just One More Thing: Slavoj Zizek on Wokeness
In this essay, guest columnist Dwayne Monroe gives his response to Slavoj Zizek's essay in Compact Magazine--and he has a little help from a very famous detective.
On 19 April, 2019 in Toronto, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek debated Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson (a man who, by issuing a relentless stream of absurd, dangerous and dangerously absurd material has, among his many other offenses, launched an equally relentless industry of YouTube commentary). For some, certainly Zizek´s left and Lacanian fans, this much anticipated conversation, which was given the meaningless title, “Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism” took on the air of a gladiatorial match; there was an expectation that Zizek, wielding his encyclopedic knowledge of Marx, Lacan and Hegel like a gladius in an arena, would make short work of his opponent.
About ten minutes into the debate, responding to Peterson´s (at the time) often repeated declaration that a shadowy group, ¨postmodern Marxists¨ all but completely controlled a magical place, ´The West´, Zizek twitchingly turned to Peterson asking: “where are these postmodern Marxists?” There it was, the dagger, glinting in the Roman sun before being plunged deep into his opponent for the crowd´s amusement. All that was lacking was an emperor to give a grim thumbs down. Peterson´s complete lack of understanding of the Marxist tradition he routinely derided and mischaracterized (he had barely read The Communist Manifesto and nothing else besides) was laid bare. Zizek’s fans roared their approval. Peterson, it was clear, had no idea what the hell he was talking about. In a saner world, this would have marked the end of Peterson´s celebrity but alas…
At that moment, four years ago, it was possible to believe Zizek was a man who, to put it plainly, did his homework. But now we must consider Zizek´s article, ¨Wokeness is Here to Stay¨, recently published in the unfortunate Compact magazine that presents us with an apparent puzzle; why, when writing this chaotic article, did Zizek not do his homework? Why did Zizek, like his debating opponent in Toronto in 2019, throw around unmoored assertions, such as the existence of a "trans lobby” with reckless abandon? What is the meaning of this essay and who is the guilty party?
I
There is, it seems, a mystery to be found in Zizek’s ‘wokeness’ essay: the mystery of how someone who, many of us assume, gets so many things right, could, in this instance, be so very wrong. When confronted with a mystery it’s natural to seek the aid of a detective and, for me, the ideal person to be on this case is Columbo, from the 1960s and 70’s American television series. Who better to calmly take in a winding Zizekian argument, assessing its truth, carefully thinking while appearing befuddled.
In detective dramas, there are moments when suspects, or witnesses, explain what they’ve seen or claim to have seen, telling a story to convince the detective of their trustworthiness.
In the Compact article, Zizek begins his story by telling his reader the following:
“Some claim that “wokeness” is on the wane. In fact, it is gradually being normalized, conformed to even by those who inwardly doubt it, and practiced by the majority of academic, corporate, and state institutions. This is why it deserves more than ever our criticism—together with its opposite, the obscenity of the new populism and religious fundamentalism.”
We are given a word, “wokeness” which, although placed in quotes suggesting doubt and analytical distance, is, in subsequent sentences referred to, with confidence, as “it”. This “it”, this force which, although “inwardly doubted”, possesses such irresistible power that colleges and universities, governments and corporations must bend to its will.
Columbo listens, quietly, nodding his head, writing in a small notepad, the brief line: what is “it”?
Having laid the groundwork for his tale, that the mist, “wokeness” is creeping across the Earth’s surface, entering every nook and corner, Zizek goes on, later in the article, to introduce us to one of the powers wielding ‘wokeness’, the “trans lobby” -
“At many gender clinics across the West, doctors feel compelled to adopt an “unquestioning affirmative approach,” one critic noted, with little regard to other underlying mental-health crises troubling children. The pressure is, in fact, twofold. For one thing, clinicians are cowed by the trans lobby, which interprets skepticism regarding puberty blockers as a conservative attempt to make it more difficult for trans individuals to actualize their sexual identity. This is compounded by a financial compulsion: More than half of Tavistock’s income, for example, came from the treatment of youngsters’ sexual troubles. In short, what we have here is the worst combination of politically correct badgering with the brutal calculation of financial interests. The use of puberty blockers is yet another case of woke capitalism.”
Now our detective, hearing this tale, raises an eyebrow, ever so slightly. There are sweeping assertions here, wrapped in what is presented as an anti-capitalist argument (the clinic, according to Zizek, became some sort of woke factory, driven ever onward by “financial compulsion,” producing profit via puberty blockers like a gender clinic version of an auto assembly line. And then there is “lobby.” You’d think Zizek was writing about lobbyists from Raytheon, deploying money like candy to promote the interests of the arms industry.
Az Zizek continues talking, Columbo writes the words lobby, trans lobby, cowed and woke capitalism and the one word question: who? in his notebook.
Zizek is not done. To further drive his point home, he turns to familiar terrain, perhaps as comfortable as a well worn pair of shoes, the world of academics. Zizek recounts the infamous (for those in the world where the word ´discourse´ is routinely and seriously used) incident at a Telluride Association event in which professor Vincent Llyod of Villanova, a person who, presumably should be shielded from attack by woke commando brigades, is condemned by the high school students who attended the event for various perceived transgressions. The story is told in the Compact Magazine article, ¨A Black Professor Trapped in Anti-Racist Hell¨ (one could write an entire essay on the meanings of this title alone). Why did the Telluride Association surrender to the demands of the wokenistas? Zizek offers an answer, seasoned with just a dash of Lacanian terminology:
“...the mystery resides in the functioning of the big Other (the Telluride administrative authority, in this case): The view gradually imposed on all by the awokened black elite was the view of a minority (initially, even among the black participants). But how and why did these few not only succeed in terrorizing the majority, but even compelling the Telluride Association to take their side and decline to defend Lloyd? Why didn’t they at least assume a more nuanced position? How does wokenness, although a minority view, manage to neutralize the larger liberal and leftist space, instilling in it a profound fear about openly opposing the woke?”
Initially, ¨even the Black participants¨ who, one is encouraged to suppose, would take to this element, wokeness, as a fish to water, were not fully onboard and only succumbed after being ¨terrorized.¨ Our detective, taking note of the assumptions quietly slipped into this stream of text, writes the word ´terrorized´ in his notebook.
Moments later, Zizek, perhaps recalling his moment of glory when facing Peterson, years ago, answers the question he posed by calling on the most reliable arrows in his quiver, Freudian thought and the shadow of Stalin:
“Psychoanalysis has a clear answer to this paradox: the notion of superego. Superego is a cruel and insatiable agency that bombards me with impossible demands and mocks my failed attempts to meet them. It is the agency in the eyes of which I am all the more guilty, the more I try to suppress my “sinful” strivings. The old cynical Stalinist motto about the accused at the show trials who professed their innocence—“The more they are innocent, the more they deserve to be shot”—is superego at its purest.”
There´s more along these lines but by now, our detective has heard enough and gets up to leave. As he walks towards the door, he turns to Zizek and says, ¨oh, just one more thing Professor, where is this trans lobby?¨
II
Zizek´s essay can be thought of as a play, divided into four acts:
Act one: Wokeness dominates government, academia and business
Act Two: Behold! Two disparate examples; one from government (a sexual assault trial and sentencing of someone claiming to be trans to a women’s prison) the other from medicine (a clinic accused of abusing ‘puberty blockers’ for profit)
Act Three: Behold! A few examples from academia
Final Act: Enter Lacan to explain why
Between the first and the fourth acts there is an attempt to build a bridge of reasoning but this effort fails; there is no path from declaring that a group, the ‘woke’, possesses the power to sway governments and corporations and a well worn appeal to the ¨superego¨ as an explanation for it all. Reading Zizek´s article, my thoughts turned to physicist David Bohm’s insight, stated in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order:
"...all theories are insights, which are neither true nor false but, rather, clear in certain domains, and unclear when extended beyond these domains.”
Zizek´s application of Lacanian concepts, useful in other domains, falls flat here because in the first paragraphs Zizek demonstrates that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He reaches his limit but refuses to stop.
Like Peterson in 2019, Zizek has not done his homework and comes to the topic of trans rights and the challenges faced by trans people with a series of tricks and rhetorical maneuvers (deeply irresponsible, indeed, dangerous, during a time when trans people are under intense and escalating attack), pulled from a threadbare bag. There is no indication of knowledge or even a hint that Zizek, as he stumbled from one unsupported point to another, rushing to get to the superego, spent a moment talking to, or reading the statements of trans individuals.
There is a cohort of people who admire Zizek, some of whom, having met or interviewed him, start nearly every sentence about the man with the phrase, ´my dear friend´ (a sentence that often signals the application of blinders and earplugs); in the wake of the ´Wokeness´ article and the anger it aroused, this group rushed to develop complex apologies and academic defenses, intended to convince those of us who simply read what is before us that we fail to understand the nuances of Zizek´s argument.
Such people fool themselves via their elaborate games even as they try to fool us. The question isn't what is in Zizek´s heart but what is on the virtual page. What´s on the page, written in a moment of emergency, as reactionaries seek to eliminate trans people and liberals offer soft defense, is shameful. Zizek, it seems, has reached the limit of his theoretical vision; he has, to paraphrase Bohm, gone beyond that ´certain point´ at which his ideas apply. The result here was an utter failure.
Everyone knows what wokeness is. It's everywhere, whether in the BLM movement, DSA meetings, progressive homelessness policies, or even the army. Pretending like there is no such thing makes it hard to believe that Zizek doesn't know what he's talking about - but you do.
"throw around unmoored assertions, such as the existence of a "trans lobby” with reckless abandon? What is the meaning of this essay and who is the guilty party?"
"oh, just one more thing Professor, where is this trans lobby?"
"there is no path from declaring that a group, the ‘woke’, possesses the power to sway governments and corporations and a well worn appeal to the ¨superego¨ as an explanation for it all."
this is a very bizarre argument. somehow that no person ever has ever influenced government ever totes trust me. transgender medicine is a big money maker, why wouldn't corporations lobby for a greater acceptance of something they believed is both moral and profitable? mermaids, a charity in the uk, as well as stonewall too i believe, often pushed back on the lgb alliance for transphobia while endorsing these process and clinics which ended up not being affective. the mermaids charity is now having its charitable status questioned i believe, something which it wanted done to lgb alliance. but getting hundreds of thousands in donations from a twitch stream endorsed by aoc is not lobbying at all, no sir
"the topic of trans rights and the challenges faced by trans people with a series of tricks and rhetorical maneuvers (deeply irresponsible, indeed, dangerous, during a time when trans people are under intense and escalating attack)"
and there the penny drops. 'no evidence of mass support for unpopular trans policies, they were just implemented out of thin air' says I, someone who happens to support all these policies to such a degree that I think not implementing them is an attack on a minority group's moral character or existence
"spent a moment talking to, or reading the statements of trans individuals."
what if the trans individuals are wrong, or agree with him? trans people aren't a monolith
" in the wake of the ´Wokeness´ article and the anger it aroused, this group rushed to develop complex apologies and academic defenses, intended to convince those of us who simply read what is before us that we fail to understand the nuances of Zizek´s argument."
I hate this 'damn you used to be cool and then you said something I disagreed with and now you're evil' thing that radical liberals posing as left wing revolutionaries do. I love friendlyjordies, the guy defended china's camps, i don't disavow the guy for one blind spot if I think he's a genius 99 percent of the time
"What´s on the page, written in a moment of emergency, as reactionaries seek to eliminate trans people and liberals offer soft defense"
not having puberty blockers for minors and not having transgender women in women's prisons is not seeking to eliminate trans people, just like wanting puberty blockers for minors or transgender women in women's prisons is not proof of grooming. I support puberty blockers, hormones and maybe even surgery for some minors on a case by case basis, but I am less supportive of transgender women because they tend to be stronger than the other prisoners and are statistically more likely to be in there for sex crimes. what am I doing: half-a genocide?