339. Authoritarianism or democracy
A leading question for Žižek has been: why would
people obey ‘the law?’ The Law here is the whole of laws, rules, regulations
and habits that form the ‘symbolic order’.
As I discussed in item 337 of this blog, for Žižek obedience
requires some ‘obscene lust’, called ‘jouissance’(adopted from Lacan), lust
even in knowing that one will never be able to obey completely, always feeling
guilty, as Kant recognized, of not having obeyed ‘purely’, acting on hidden
motives of pleasure, self-interest and hypocrisy.
I wonder. Isn’t there more pleasure in breaking the
rules, in a romantic urge of transgression, in self-manifestation or ‘thymos’?
Perhaps one could even say that rules are needed to enable the pleasure in
breaking them.
I see neither the actual presence nor the philosophical
need of a masochistic pleasure of obedience, and I would stay with the simpler
explanation that disobedience is punished by isolation or ostracism. On a
deeper level, my argument would be, as I have argued extensively in this blog,
that selves are developed in interaction with others, and perhaps some
awareness or even pleasure in this is built into human instinct.
To me, Žižek becomes more interesting when he claims
that it is unclear what, precisely, is demanded by the ‘big Other’ of the Law.
As Kant already recognized, the symbolic order in place has no clear,
consistent, objective foundation. It is an outcome of historical process, in
clashes of interest and grabs of power. That order is not only impossible to
state coherently and fully, but has no foundation in logic, rationality or
ethics, and is a scandal that needs to remain hidden. This is difficult to
accept, and people grasp at some ‘fantasmatic’ non-existent ideal, called
‘objet-a’ (a term taken from Lacan).
Here emerges the problem of liberal democracy:
decision making arises from a clash of special interests that, like bumper cars
in a fancy fair, yield outcomes no-one could predict and perhaps no-one really
intended, with unforeseen casualties. It yields an often incoherent, even
self-contradictory tangle of rules and regulations.
Žižek now argues, convincingly in my view, that this
needs to be hidden in the phantasm of an order that is not to be questioned. This
imagined order used to be embodied in some unquestioned authority, in the form
of a monarch with divine investiture. The question is: When that disappeared, what
was to come in its place?
The iconic historical case is that of the French
revolution. The aim was to eliminate all special interests, of the king, the
clergy and the nobility, and to institute the ‘general will’ of the people. But
who was to represent that? Any claim to representation would be suspect, hiding
special interest, and so the revolution ended in slaughtering itself, in a
‘virtuous terror’.
What is needed, Žižek claims, is some other idealized
(‘phantasmatic’) something, an ‘objet-a’, that is not questioned, and is dressed
up in ideology. He argues that this requires some leading ‘master-signifier’,
to symbolize this object, providing a focus to effectuate blind, willing, even
eager conformance. That can be a national flag, national anthem, the glitter
and soap of royalty, or hero entrepreneurs that symbolize the glory of
capitalism and the wonders of the market.
Žižek offers
the example of the Rumanian revolution against Ceausescu, where protesters
waved the national flag with the central red star cut out of it, with the
resulting hole demonstrating the elimination of the master signifier.
When the emperor was seen not to wear any clothes, and
now in politics the democratic order is unmasked as yielding arbitrary and
often partially unjust and even at times irrational, or counter-productive
results, there is a call for just and rational government, without the
recognition that this cannot in fact be achieved. Political parties that claim
to offer representation only represent partial interests, waving rival ideologies.
This frightening void, Žižek argues, is now filled by
populist claims to yield the desired, unified society, in a unity of the
people, embodied in an authoritarian leader with unquestionable authority, with
master-signifiers dug up from national history, and polished into appealing
myths. This hides the fact that here also not everyone can be satisfied,
promises will not be kept, and outcomes will again be partially unjust,
incoherent, irrational, and so on. In authoritarian regimes, the blame for this
is shifted onto some scapegoat that carries the blame of failure. For the Nazis
it was the Jews, for Stalinism the revisionists betraying socialist purity. For
present populists it is the refugees, non-western immigrants, or some guilty
conspirational ‘elite’. The scapegoating of refugees feeds on what earlier in
this blog I discussed as ‘parochial altruism’.
In the end, Žižek winds up in seeking freedom in
breaking out of the ruling symbolic order by grasping a new mastery for itself,
with some new master signifier that gives no quarter to demands for rational
and ethical justification. But that just yields a continuation of the exercise
of blind power.
There is, in my view, no alternative to dealing with
democracy as best we can. That is the subject for a later item.