Building Norway: a critique of Slavoj Žižek
by Sam Kriss
Most of us are now grimly aware of the pernicious hydraulic metaphor for migration – the tendency in newspapers or opinion columns for movements of people to be described in ominously fluid terms: a flood, a wave, a stream, a tide, an influx, a rising body of stinking brown water that can only threaten any settled population. This language isn’t just monstrously deindividuating and dehumanising: when hundreds of migrants are dying at sea, it helps to suture up any ethical laceration before it can fully open itself. Water to water, dust to dust. Vast numbers of people – children included – can sink beneath the waves without anyone feeling any need to do anything about it; it’s only once bodies wash up on beaches that there’s an imperative to act. So it’s unfortunate, but not surprising, that The Non-Existence of Norway, Slavoj Žižek’s essay on migration in the London Review of Books, starts in these familiar terms: ‘The flow of refugees from Africa and the Middle East into Western Europe…’ What comes next is even more unsettling: Žižek compares the European response to the crisis to Kübler-Ross’s five stages of grief – denial, anger, bargaining, and so on. Not just any grief, though – Europe is displaying ‘a set of reactions strikingly similar to those we display on learning we have a terminal illness.’ Migrants aren’t just a flood; Žižek resurrects a far more nakedly racist metaphor. The internal other is a parasite, a pathogen, or a cancer, a corrosive and polluting agent that brings death for the (healthy, homogeneous and homoeostatic) body it infects. Of course, this is on the level of the European reaction; he’s not himself making the comparison; it’s something that could be very plausibly dismissed as a little rhetorical pirouette. But it doesn’t bode well for what’s to come.
There are no great old Soviet jokes in this essay, no references to Hitchcock or Kung Fu Panda, and only a brief, perfunctory mention of Stalin. Crucially, there’s no Freud, Lacan, or Hegel; not even (surprisingly, given that the question of migration is ultimately one of hospitality) any citation of Derrida. Above all, there’s nothing that could be considered as Marxism. Which raises the question of what theory is actually for. Is it essentially just a game, a way of forming entertaining readings of pop-cultural ephemera, to be put aside in favour of a level and pragmatic analysis as soon as Real And Important Issues such as migration emerge? Or is it something that’s actually essential in forming a sophisticated understanding of the world, and never more so than when the unspoken demand is that we put away our rhizomes and différances, and start dealing with reality? However guilty I might be of the former tendency, I’d like to believe that the latter is true. Clearly Žižek doesn’t agree: what The Non-Existence of Norway gives us is an unadulterated and unmediated opinion piece, one normal man’s take, something that would be equally at home in the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal or on the blog of a self-confessed political junkie.
Žižek’s argument is convoluted and contradictory, but it could be briefly summarised like this. The migration ‘crisis’ currently afflicting Europe is (correctly) identified as the inevitable result of successive Western interventions in the Middle East and north Africa, along with neocolonial relations across the global South. At the same time, migrants display an ‘enigmatically utopian’ demand: they don’t just want to arrive somewhere safe in Europe, away from bombs and guns. The thousands heroically marching across Hungary are scrambling for Austria and Germany, those forced to camp in squalid conditions in Calais are ‘not satisfied with France’ and demand Britain instead, people risking their lives on rubber dinghies across the Aegean want to build a good life for themselves and their children in Norway – but, Žižek insists, ‘there is no Norway, not even in Norway.’ Life isn’t fair, folks. Migrants are everywhere met with reactionary violence, claiming to defend the pre-existing European way of life from the invaders, but the ‘standard left-liberal line on this is an arrogant moralism’ – to insist that human dignity outweighs any concerns over social disruption is ‘merely the obverse of anti-immigrant brutality,’ because it accepts that the defence of one’s way of life is in contradiction with ‘ethical universalism.’ But rather than demonstrating that this is a false opposition, however, Žižek seemingly out of nowhere starts valorising the (nonsensical) view that migration threatens some posited European way of life. ‘Should we tolerate migrants who prevent their children going to state schools; who force their women to dress and behave in a certain way; who arrange their children’s marriages; who discriminate against homosexuals?’ After indulging in this airily speculative rhetoricising for a few paragraphs, Žižek finally gets down to some serious prescriptivism. Europe must ‘reassert its commitment’ to the dignified treatment of refugees. (Does this mean that such a commitment already exists?) At the same time, it ‘must impose clear rules and regulations,’ through a strengthened central European authority. Migrants will be allocated a destination in Europe, and they must remain there. They must not commit any acts of sexist, racist, or religious violence, as such foreign types are apparently wont to do. This is because they are in Europe now, and are no longer free to indulge in the barbarisms endemic and unique to those parts of the world that produce migration. ‘Such rules privilege the Western European way of life, but that is the price to be paid for European hospitality.’ And they must be backed up by brutal state violence.
There is a lot that’s deeply wrong here, even beyond the obvious. The idea that the primary problem is the ‘flow’ of migrants into Europe, that Europe is experiencing a migration crisis, rather than the far more accurate reversal: migrants are experiencing a European crisis, one of fences and fascists and cops. The baffling notion that a lack of sexist, racist, or religious violence is somehow a fundamental part of European life, that these things only exist in the global South, and will be carried, plague-like, by its former inhabitants. The sudden and unexplained invocation of the Islamic veil as the master-signifier of non-European otherness: when hundreds are drowning in the Mediterranean, and thousands more are imprisoned in dehumanising refugee camps, is their expression of religiosity really the most pressing issue? Žižek’s essay seems to be as uninformed by bare facts as it is by theory: a vast portion of the migrants reaching Europe are Syrian, from a middle-income country with a long history of secularism and communal co-existence; the takfiri ideology that is currently running rampage in the region is a foreign import, as are most of the takfiri fighters themselves. Many of the refugees that can afford to make it to Europe are from the Syrian petit-bourgeoisie; if we really do believe that class is a more crucial determining factor than nationality, we should at least be open to the idea that their ‘values’ and ways of life will not be too different from those of bourgeois Europe.
It’s even possible to argue that the migrants are more European than Europe itself. Žižek mocks the utopian desire for a Norway that doesn’t exist, and insists that migrants should stay where they’re sent. (It doesn’t seem to occur to him that those trying to reach a certain country might have family members already there, or be able to speak the language, that it’s driven precisely by a desire to integrate. But also – isn’t this precisely the operation of the objet petit a? What kind of Lacanian tells someone that they should effectively abandon their desire for something just because it’s not attainable? Or are migrants not worthy of the luxury of an unconscious mind?) In Calais, migrants trying to reach the United Kingdom protested against their conditions with placards demanding ‘freedom of movement for all.’ Unlike racial or gender equality, the free movement of peoples across national borders is a supposedly universal European value that has actually been implemented – but, of course, only for Europeans. These protesters put the lie to any claim on the part of Europe to be upholding universal values. Žižek can only articulate the European ‘way of life’ in terms of vague and transcendent generalities, but here it is in living flesh. If the challenge of migration is one of European universalism against backwards and repressive particularism, then the particularism is entirely on the part of Europe.
This is, however, a line of argument that Žižek has deployed himself – see his discussion of the Haitian Revolution in First as Tragedy, Then as Farce; the moment when invading French soldiers were met by revolutionary slaves singing the Marseillaise. (Of course, even if all this weren’t the case – so what? Must anyone who doesn’t embody a certain universalism be left to drown?) So why not now? Is it because the Haitian Revolution is safely ensconced in the past, while the migrants’ crisis is happening now? Is it because of the uncomfortable element of Islam (although, as Susan Buck-Morss demonstrates, that was far from absent in Haiti)? Why, especially, does Žižek perform this total abandonment of theory? His ‘straightforward’ approach results in some highly uncomfortable formulations – take, for instance, the line that ‘refugees are the price we pay for a globalised economy in which commodities – but not people – are permitted to circulate freely.’ Not an overtly objectionable statement, but for the juxtaposition of ‘price’ with ‘economy.’ A price is an exchange-value, something that can only exist within a certain economy. An economy itself cannot have a price without being itself situated within some greater and more general economy – one that, under conditions of capitalist totality, can only ever replicate it. Rather than trying to form any critique of economy as such, Žižek surrenders his analysis over to it. Human life must be calculated in terms of cost and benefit, price rather than value; not just the presence of refugees but their existence itself is figured as an unconscionable squandering of resources. Nobody should be forced from their home, but here those people who are should instead not exist at all. This is why theory is essential: it allows us to more clearly identify, and resist, lines such as these.
Some of these questions might be answered by taking another perspective on Žižek’s essay. A properly Marxist critique doesn’t just look at what a text says, but what it does, and to whom it’s speaking. Žižek makes generous use of the first person plural pronoun throughout, but who is this ‘we’? Only and always the settled Europeans. It’s never once considered that a migrant could be educated, that they could speak English, that they could be reading the London Review of Books. When Žižek uses the vocative case, when he directly apostrophises the reader and makes prescriptions for what they should do, it’s even more obvious who he’s talking to. He invokes, but never encourages, a commonality of struggle between Europeans and migrants, or the kind of displays of spontaneous solidarity that are already breaking out across the continent. Instead, he directly addresses the European ruling classes, instructing them to impose rules and regulations, to form administrative networks, to introduce repressive measures. This is, to put it mildly, strange behaviour for a self-described communist. The Non-Existence of Norway isn’t a theoretical analysis, it’s a gentle word of heartfelt advice in the ear of the European bureaucratic class, one that’s not particularly interested in Lacan. For all his insistence on ‘radical economic change,’ this epistolary structure ensures that such a change is, for the time being, entirely off the table. Hence the insistence that there is not, and can never be, a Norway. The capitalists do not intend to make one, and Žižek does not intend to address those that could. To which the Marxist response must be that if there is no Norway, then we’ll have to build it ourselves.
this is not new for him. Its just more out in the open.
This reflects so many liberal opinions on this currently popular debate – the dehumanisation of non-western people continues, and Europeans continue to live in their sheltered bubble, believing themselves to be a continent separate from the barbarous ‘east’. Basing this ideology on the notion of a particularised ‘Europeanness’ that is superior to the rest of the world in some way.
thanks, in short, for critiquing Zizek. Many of his opinions have troubled me.
Hi Sam, I agree that asking what an article ‘does’ is fundamental. However, I don’t think it is only aimed at the bureaucracy – it is aimed at ‘the left’, within or without the bureaucracy. And what it says is : your universalist principles will be eviscerated by Front National type reactions.
You don’t respond to that claim, and therefore come across as angry with Zizek for conceding that the anti-immigrant forces in Europe are powerful. But they clearly are.
Your question “So why not now?” is especially interesting, and there is parallel to be drawn there with the stances Z adopted in relation to the Greek crisis. In relation to that crisis we were struck by the sharp contrast between his earlier unequivocal affirmation of a Napoleonic throwing of oneself into the revolutionary struggle when talking about events safely in the past, and his insistence that the radical options in Greece would be too risky, causing a further drop in incomes, at least in the short term, as if the plan wasn’t to drive incomes all the way down to the bottom anyway. The support was all for a Syriza leadership that was obviously in the process of destroying its own democratic party structures, with no solidarity expressed for the Greek people themselves. Zizek did not even write as if he were addressing the Greek people. It didn’t read like an attempt to join a struggle, to help a struggle develop a better comprehension of what was being struggled for. Instead, the pieces read like little more than opportunities to ride the wave of media interest and get a little more publicity for the Zizek brand.
There is a pattern here of radical generalised rhetoric that evaporates when the particularities of the situation have to be engaged with.
I used to like Zizek a lot. After reading your comment I can only agree with you. He doesn’t get out of the box of stereotypes about refugees, he doesn’t consider the possibility of tearing down the blocks of “we” and “them”. He doesn’t notice that if “them” are takfiris, Syrians are definitely “we”.
The line I liked best: “Europe is (not) experiencing a migration crisis: migrants are experiencing a European crisis”. Very true.
This is great stuff
twist things around with words
build more theory and more academia
promote liberal values
[…] published an essay “The Non-Existence of Norway” in London Review of Books. Sam Kriss critically look at that essay on his blog ‘Idot Joy Showland‘. You can read his view […]
[…] Slavoj Žižek responded to my earlier critique of his discussion of the migrant crisis. There are a few strange moments in his piece – I’ve […]
[…] an interesting and symptomatic exchange with a young and prolific English writer who had earliert taken aim at the former’s thoughtless interventions after the Paris attacks. Like Star Wars, Žižek’s […]
It seems to me Žižek has reached his use-by date. A pity. The pervasive use of a false “us” – “them” dichotomy makes me wonder about his sanity while writing these recent essays.
Aside from the essay you link to, I haven’t read a word of Žižek’s since that inane Kung Fu Panda reference.
[…] Kriss, “Building Norway: A Critique of Slavoj Žižek.” and “Why Slavoj Žižek Is Wrong About the Syrian Refugee Crisis—And […]
[…] UN ALTRO ARTICOLO SULLO STESSO TEMA DI SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK APPARSO SU IN THESE TIMES UNA CRITICA DURA E ARGOMENTATA DEL BLOGGER SAM KRIS ALL’ARTICOLO DI SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK […]
[…] tragic humanitarian catastrophe. His position has been met with significant and legitimate criticism from those on the Left who bristle at his belief that the influx and integration of Middle Eastern […]
[…] > UN ALTRO ARTICOLO SULLO STESSO TEMA DI SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK APPARSO SU IN THESE TIMES > UNA CRITICA DURA E ARGOMENTATA DEL BLOGGER SAM KRIS ALL’ARTICOLO DI SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK […]
[…] UN ALTRO ARTICOLO SULLO STESSO TEMA DI SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK APPARSO SU IN THESE TIMES UNA CRITICA DURA E ARGOMENTATA DEL BLOGGER SAM KRIS ALL’ARTICOLO DI SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK […]