Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?: Five Interventions in the (Mis)use of a Notion in Philosophy

Feb 20, 2011 Tyler rated it liked it

Shelves: philosophy

I’m not sure if I learned anything by reading this book, but Zizek is an entertaining writer just the same. From the title I expected a discussion of the many uses of the term totalitarianism, but the author eschews this approach. What the book attempts is a psychoanalysis of the concept.

We know in Orwellian terms, for example, what happened at the Stalin show trials. Zizek goes beyond that in order to explore the underlying psychology. What did the trials mean for the participants? What purpos I’m not sure if I learned anything by reading this book, but Zizek is an entertaining writer just the same. From the title I expected a discussion of the many uses of the term totalitarianism, but the author eschews this approach. What the book attempts is a psychoanalysis of the concept.

We know in Orwellian terms, for example, what happened at the Stalin show trials. Zizek goes beyond that in order to explore the underlying psychology. What did the trials mean for the participants? What purpose did they serve to the psyche? Was 1937 an act of collective suicide by the Party? Totalitarian states, Zizek says, condone moral bankruptcy, so the true believers are the real danger. Such states, or states of affairs, require cynicism.

The author goes beyond the State to unearth strands of totalitarian thought in current social and political life, and in unexpected places. He does not answer the question this leads to: Can we properly describe our current situation as in some way totalitarian? Perhaps the question is too broad, but clearly Zizek wants to throw light on the present, not the past.

My criticism of his approach centers around his love affair with Lacanian psychoanalysis as a tool for his investigations. Whatever its merits, this method adds a layer of jargon the book could do without. The author seems to be writing, at times, for an intellectual elite, and the text seems intended to beguile their vanity. The philosophical problem, of course, is that the lack of objectivity in psychoanalysis undermines the author's insinuations. His lines of thought could have been set in a more rational cement.

Regardless, Zizek raises interesting points. Does melodrama result from excessive knowledge; and does putting dignity back into human existence then redeem life as tragedy? Does real democracy come only as an unforeseen outburst of ethical responsibility? Do acts stem from existing ethical reality or do they create it anew each time they occur? Is the celebration of diversity a mask for totalitarian thought? Do cultural studies actually vouchsafe patterns of global domination? Has work, as actual labor, become obscene? Are some sex acts spectacles for imaginary observers whose purpose is to validate the existence of the person performing those acts?

The jargon slows this book down, but for those willing to plow through it, I recommend a highlighter to capture the many thoughts such as these that pop up. Maybe I did learn something after all.
...more

2 likes · Like · see review