Slavoj Žižek og William E. Connollys værker repræsenterer tilsammen nogle af de mest interessante tilegnelser til studiet af politik på en fransk poststrukturalistisk baggrund, skriver Lars Tønder i denne introduktion til udvekslingen mellem Žižek og Connolly.

The following two articles represent the first-ever published exchange between two of the leading thinkers in contemporary political theory: Slavoj Žižek and William E. Connolly. Both thinkers are acknowledged for their provocative innovations in theories of politics. Žižek, on his part, has shown how Lacanian psychoanalysis helps us to understand the view that identities always remain incomplete and that ideologies of nationalism and populism only can operate if they succeed in convincing us otherwise. Connolly, equally preoccupied with the theme of identity, has shown how the same incompleteness of identity may be the beginning of an ethics of cultivation, and argues that such ethics is more sensitive to new ways of life than other frameworks of ethics (including the one of liberalism). Together, the works of Žižek and Connolly surely represent some of the most interesting appropriations of French post-structural philosophy with regard to the study of politics.

The exchange in the present issue of Politologiske Studier explores the intersection between film and politics, and is concerned with questions about ideology, micropolitics, interpretation, textuality, authority, and contestability. Žižek, who is the one of the two that has written most extensively on film and politics, begins his contribution by reviewing The Duel, a recent movie by Jean-Jacques Annaud that premiered at the 2001 Berlin Film Festival. The movie tells the epic story of the Second World War battle for Stalingrad through the lenses of a Soviet sniper and his fight against the Germans. However, Žižek argues that the movie fails because it refuses to confront the trauma of a larger historical reality (the pursuit of a meaningless war), and instead dresses up the story in a narrative about romantic heroes. As a result, the “most expensive European film of all times (200 millions DM), destined to assert Europe against Hollywood, marks the ideological defeat, the subordination to Hollywood.”  

In his reply to Žižek, Connolly does not contest this analysis, nor does he disagree with Žižek about the ideological use of film in Nazi Germany. What Connolly does contest is the sufficiency of Žižek’s psychoanalytic interpretations. Fundamental to Connolly’s view is the idea that politics and ethics cannot be reduced to the level of text and narration. Instead, politics and ethics are the productive reflection of multiple layers of thoughts and practices. While some of these layers are available to narrative interpretation (like the one of text), others are not; they only come to our attention once we infuse our own discourse of interpretation with a sense of insufficiency and admit that other perspectives than the one of narration may be equally valid. As Connolly finds Žižek’s psychoanalysis hesitant to make such concession, he suggests that we explore alternative approaches to the question of film and politics, ones that are attentive to the use of multi-media techniques: “I am interested in an approach to the nexus between film and politics that is inflected differently […] As the hegemony of narrative interpretation is relaxed, attention to technique is accentuated.”

The disagreement between Žižek and Connolly is interesting because it reveals two fundamentally different modes of thought. These modes of thought cut across Žižek and Connolly’s shared concern for identities and common commitment to French post-structural philosophy. On the one hand, Žižek represents a mode of thought concerned with what we might call the “lack of being.” The prime concern for this mode of thought is the structural dislocation (the lack) that makes any identity incomplete, and its most controversial suggestion is the suggestion that we never shall attain the object of our pursuits. For example, we may strive toward a perfect democracy where the relationship between the rulers and the ruled is completely transparent. However, the lack of being teaches us that such transparency is unattainable due to the structural dislocation of the lack. The result is a sense of political cynicism where enjoyment is reserved the repetitive movement of a closed circuit, the circuit of always pursuing what we cannot get.

On the other hand, Connolly represents a mode of thought concerned with what we might call the “abundance of being.” The abundance of being may not disagree completely with its counterpart’s conclusions about political cynicism. Nonetheless, as a mode of thought, it puts the emphasis differently, and becomes concerned with the possibilities for ethical affirmation, i.e. the possibilities for negotiating and changing constellations of identities. The reason for this change of emphasis is the belief that life itself is a multiplicity, and that this multiplicity functions as a non-fixable marker, challenging any attempt to use a concept without resistance. This goes also for the concept of the lack, even if this concept appropriated in non-conventional terms. Thus, we may not come to erase the structural dislocation of our democratic frameworks, but we may come to realize that the dislocation itself is a possibility for affirming new identities (and not only the cause for cynicism).

The consequences of these differences in mode of thought between Žižek and Connolly far exceed the specific question of film and politics, and are important for the ways in which we study nationalism, ideology, international law, ethical paradoxes, and new identities of government. In all, the present exchange shows therefore the way in which the study of film works as an aesthetic representation of politics and ethics, which, while participating in this representation, provides us with new insights into these realms of inquiry. As Connolly says: “The intriguing thing about film is that it both participates in micropolitics and teaches us how this ubiquitous dimension of politics operates.” [i]

 Enjoy your reading! 

Notes