[From Sotiris Triantis]
Slavoj Zizek – in a video titled ‘Don’t Act. Just Think’ – suggests that in the social and political realm we should not act but think. It’s an odd, somewhat counter-revolutionary thesis. Historical change has always been brought about by collective action.
A more useful model might be: ‘First Think, Then Act’. When Noam Chomsky was asked by the German student magazine Zeit Campus what we should do in order to change the world, he replied: ‘Look around, analyze the problems, ask yourself what you can do and set out on the work!’ Chomsky’s view reflects both core parts of activism: Thought (analysis) and Action (synthesis). Zizek’s framework unfortunately includes only the analytic part.
The classic binary opposition between ‘thinking’ and ‘acting’ must be reconsidered. Instead of perceiving thought and action as a duality of opposites, it would be better to perceive them as two elements in a feedback loop in which thought leads to action and then action leads reflectively to a new level of experience and thus knowledge for thought.
Zizek, in Violence: Six Sideways Reflections, suggests that we should always think before we act. We should resist to the calls of pseudo-activism that always tries to engage us in action. He argues that we should always ‘learn, learn and learn’, as Lenin did after the beginning of World War One in 1914:
He withdrew to a lonely place in Switzerland, where he ‘learned, learned and learned’, reading Hegel’s logic. And this is what we should do today when we find ourselves bombarded with mediatic images of violence”. [p.7]
The problem is that if we always learn without acting then we never apply our knowledge. Zizek seems to perceive learning and acting as two separate elements in a binary opposition and doesn’t emphasize the way in which they are related.
Thinking is indispensable in order to plan the way to change. Nonetheless, the type of thinking that people need is not individual thought about the world’s problems; this type of thinking keeps people isolated and therefore far from acting. What they need instead is collective and reflective thought that can lead to a well-planned and successful action. Knowledge and thought are not sufficient for change.
Sotiris Triantis was born in Athens, in 1990. He is currently a postgraduate student of Social Cognition at University College London.
P.S. The Arab Spring is a perfect example of how the interactions between information sharing and participation in a socio-political movement can bring a huge change. In this massive movement people did not only think what to do with the situation but they also re-acted. In the meantime, the role of social media was crucial because they provided people with an information bomb that enabled them to act.
Generally, effective communication between the members of any movement is undoubtedly the key to success. This is how Arab Spring was transformed from a vast ‘online’ dialogue to a massive ‘offline’ movement. [See Saleem Kassim, Twitter Revolution: How the Arab Spring Was Helped By Social Media]
Sotiris–
You have identified the achilles heel of Zizek. He appropriates Melville’s Bartleby who takes the stance “I would prefer not to” as a stance in his anti-philosophical position. This is a very anti-climactic response from an otherwise advocate of social and moral revolution. Some think that his saying no (action) to no (philosophy), the absolute denial of the Big Other is a way of saying that he can not make decisions for us and we have to make them ourselves, but this is very unsatisfactory as you have pointed out. Here is a sample comment on his position:
“In the conclusion to The Parallax View (pp.375-85), although it is suggested throughout the
book, Zizek claims that the parallax view opens onto a politics, what he calls – echoing Badiou –
a subtractive politics, expressed in the figure of Melville’s Bartleby, who reappears as the hero
in the closing pages of Violence.(pp.180-83) What interests Zizek in Bartleby is his insistent ‘I
would prefer not to’, where Zizek places the emphasis on the ‘not to’ or the ‘not to do’, on
Bartleby’s impassive, inert and insistent being, which hovers uncertainly somewhere between
passivity and the vague threat of violence.”
(http://www.hks.harvard.edu/cchrp/hrsm/programs/study_group_PDF/Critchley_Zizek.pdf)
You have introduced Chomsky’s position, which is of course very logical. I do not agree that Chomsky’s better active position therefore justifies Chomsky’s political choices. I think Zizek could have kept his metaphysics and taken an active position as well, but he apparently thinks that is buying into the Big Other. His passivity seems to me far too close to the slave position of the master-slave problem.
“Don’t act. Just think.”
What would it solve? Everything.
We can clearly see acting as the source of all errors and we also see the solution. But not being free or rational agents we can never reach that goal. To put it bluntly: humans are incapable of not fucking.
Critics call us lazy pessimists but in fact any position beats the monstrosities of activities. Critics have also wrongly compared the angelic principle of detachment to that of self-denial and violence against the self when nothing could be further from the truth: “To Live signifies to believe and hope — to lie and to lie to oneself.” -Cioran
Shutting up and not doing violence for once is the truest thing you can do to yourself and for others. It is impossible to suppress all ferocity without suicide but even little things can make a huge difference, like preventing one child from dying can prevent thousands of children of not dying (i.e. of not being born).
Interesting post. I was wondering if you have any reading suggestions or could name thinkers that have influenced your outlook presented here in addition to Zizek (sincerely).
I can only recommend you Emil Cioran and the numerous authors that he refers to. But be careful with his texts, nothing’s there as it seems. At the first look they seem naively nihilistic and suicidal but as you read on you will discover other truths, contradictory to the first ones. It is quite fresh and joyful palette, really, but he has not bothered argumenting, only showcasing conclusions and it is your job to find the argumentation and the works citated.
Also, it’s more like antiphilosophy, but if you’re interested and got time, go for it.
I agree with the Cioran recommendation; if you enjoy the aphoristic style, he’s kind of a blend of Nietzsche’s antiphilosophy and Schopenhauer’s pessimism. If you want to start with some secondary stuff, I just finished a couple of excellent, although very different books – Pessimism, by Joshua Foa Dienstag, and The Conspiracy Against the Human Race by Thomas Ligotti. Recommended reading!
As for the activism / passivity thing, I’m split. It’s pretty clear that neglect usually makes things worse, but action is no better, since happiness is ephemeral, but suffering is forever.
I take some solace in the realization that it doesn’t really matter anyway – the universe will continue its march into entropy with or without my agency, and the ashes of saints and sinners weigh the same in the end.
This was my reading too. As a product designer, I visualise the problems of consumerism and its environmental dimension. To think, not act, is to make do with less, avoid manufactured desire, and neglect to compel others in same with design, production, or marketing. In addition to the bigger issue of not fighting and not fucking, as you point out. The problem for me comes with the general idea of creating – which I think can be justified as a positive human quality. How can we create without harm? I think there is a case to be made that some level of doing is necessary (at least ontologically because thinking is doing is thinking) and so the problems becomes either: how do we create without implementing systems which compel others to create in poor ways (systems which manufacture desire or are production and consumptions systems), or, how do we create systems which motivate others to think, but not act. These are central concerns of my practice.
I have thought that if we can get through life having done no more harm, and as much good as a labrador retriever, we would die as saints.
if you simply watch as injustice occurs, you help enable and subtly sanction injustice.
Agreed. And even as a labrador retriever, no one gets my food.
To be fair to Zizek, I don’t remember him just witnessing injustice without comment. He is one of the most prolific “actors” in both the on-stage sense as well as active with speech acts in combating injustice verbally as any one I know.
He also comes from a rich political history: Between 1988 and 1990, he was actively involved in several political and civil society movements which fought for the democratization of Slovenia, most notably the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights. In the first free elections in 1990, he ran as candidate for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution abolished in the constitution of 1991) for the Liberal Democratic Party. His philosophical position of inaction is paradoxical at worst, and hopefully does not reflect
“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”
― T.S. Eliot
Didn’t mean to imply Zizek does nothing; just responding to your somewhat cryptic comment. It’s good that he was active.
…The best lack all conviction, while the
worst
Are full of passionate intensity…
W.B. Yeats
elaborate.
Well, just that those who are inclined to think things through, are concerned with the welfare of others, the ones, “the best,” who do think before they act are those most likely to defer, compromise or placate.
It is typically the zealot, the selfish, the solipsist, “the worst,” who acts without the thought of others in mind, dogged in the pursuits they deem necessary to achieve their goal, often disregarding the unintended consequences of their actions, not caring at all about others and are only concerned with bending the world to their own self-righteous will.
indeed. those who merely think end up just being impotent, which is the other extreme.
Agreed…
Yeats meant that as a lament, though. Zizek takes it as an ideal.
Right… The difference between the pragmatic and the ideal. I’m with the Pragmatists on this one. I believe it is wise to try to act as thoughtfully as one can given a particular circumstance and let the chips fall where they may.
so you have no idea at all about what zizek means with “think”. you call it “analysis” and identify it with chomskys (totally stupid) understanding of thinking. completly wrong.
My intro to Zizek was a video posted by a PEL citizen and I just loved it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGCfiv1xtoU)! I thought he was interesting, thought of my son and his friends, that loved to explore what people deem garbage and what they could make of it. This was years ago, spending the weekend ravaging the woods, sorting their findings in our garage, and making some creation out of their explorations–good memories but what a mess! I loved watching them work together and they were so different–their skills. It seems so long ago but that exploring spirit is still present in my son but has been crushed in a way. I don’t know how to explain it but it saddens me because he really doesn’t enjoy school as he once did but still loves to go and explore the world.
I think in a way we have become so disintegrated from our natural environment that with education funding cuts we have made a type of synthetic environment, which isn’t the same kind of discoveries. But here is what I comprehend Zizek to be asserting–the synthetic, the garbage is how we should understand our natural environment if we are going to survive.
Anyway, this is interesting to me because this goes back to fundamental dogma as Christianity became a religion and of course Soteriology, the philosophy of religion, and the material world in relation to our humanity of the flesh-and-blood (biological [I think and could be wrong]). I will have to look for some research I have a few years back but roughly was investigating the different interpretations of the translation of the Latin root word sarx and soma. Again, it has been a few years and will have to refresh.
I think this is one way I can understand, Zizek and his philosophy doesn’t seem foreign to me. And, what I’ve done to have a better understanding of the contention re Zizek is read an analysis by Leo Stan “Risible Christianity? Kierkegarrd versus Zizek” re the comments and different views in these blogs.
Isn’t this what I was saying?
“We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.”
TS Eliot
And…you can not have the synthetic without the analysis.
Laura–
Interesting comments.
What are you referring to about what you were saying?
Hi Sotiris.
I have to say you’ve created a straw Zizek. He does say “[it’s] time to start thinking”. He also says that the past 20th century “alternatives to capitalism and market miserably failed”. However he also actually explicitly says “I am NOT saying [..] that we should *just* sit and think, but that we should be very careful with what we do”.
So of course the dichotomy you pose, is not there. Not in his words at least.
Filipe–
Appreciate your comments.
Here is the full quote: ” I’m not saying people are suffering, enduring horrible things, that we should just sit and think, but we should be very careful what we do. Here, let me give you a surprising example. I think that, okay, it’s so fashionable today to be disappointed at President Obama, of course, but sometimes I’m a little bit shocked by this disappointment because what did the people expect, that he will introduce socialism in United States or what? But for example, the ongoing universal health care debate is an important one. This is a great thing. Why? Because, on the one hand, this debate which taxes the very roots of ordinary American ideology, you know, freedom of choice, states wants to take freedom from us and so on. I think this freedom of choice that Republicans attacking Obama are using, its pure ideology. But at the same time, universal health care is not some crazy, radically leftist notion. It’s something that exists all around and functions basically relatively well–Canada, most of Western European countries. ” http://bigthink.com/videos/dont-act-just-think
Zizek elaborates on his Bartleby position (http://bigthink.com/videos/dont-act-just-think):
“This is why, as I always repeat, with all my sympathy for Occupy Wall Street movement, it’s result was . . . I call it a Bartleby lesson. Bartleby, of course, Herman Melville’s Bartleby, you know, who always answered his favorite “I would prefer not to” . . . The message of Occupy Wall Street [regarding social and economic inequality, 9-17-2011] is, I would prefer not to play the existing game. There is something fundamentally wrong with the system and the existing forms of institutionalized democracy are not strong enough to deal with problems. Beyond this, they don’t have an answer and neither do I. For me, Occupy Wall Street is just a signal. It’s like clearing the table. Time to start thinking.”
Zizek’s positions can equally be accused of being to violent in his belief that heads must roll in order for revolution to be successful, versus too passive in his admonition to think before action. The explanation appears to be therefore somewhere in between and dependent on the context–not very surprising after all.
Isn’t this just Paralysis by Analysis?
Wayne–
Just to clarify you from myself (Wayne Schroeder), I share your observation about the paralysis trying to understand WTF Zizek is saying, but the analysis regarding the nature of society and individuals, independent of Zizek is critical.Should Obama make a retaliatory strike on Syria (revolution), or take no action because that leads to false expectations of making a difference. The clear answer is that both sides need to be faced and dealt with in the most careful and realistic way possible in order to come to the best possible decision (which is impossible just to start with in the face of analysis). So yes, Analysis and Action are crucial, and paralysis is to be avoided at all costs. The impulse of action is not a good substitute for considered analysis.
(continued)
For example, Obama said Wednesday, “When you start talking about chemical weapons in a country that has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, where over time their control over chemical weapons may erode, where they’re allied to known terrorist organizations that in the past have targeted the United States, then there is a prospect, a possibility in which chemical weapons that can have devastating effects could be directed at us,” he said. “We want to make sure that that does not happen.”
My analysis of Obama’s position on this issue is not so much that he may be making a poor judgment on how to deal with genocide, but that he is stating to Syria that he is afraid of retaliation–my interpretation, though this may simply be his analytic consideration. (Paralytic?) Passivity is disingenuous in my estimation.
My analysis is not based on partisian Democrat versus Republican, but on my understanding of the meaning of Obama’s communication to Syria, or to any one communicating to another: ” I am afraid of you.” That is what I call the slave position regarding the master, and Syria therefore occupies the power of the status given to them by Obama’s stated fear. To make such statements publicly is to devalue one’s own position in the face of the “Master.” Are we really at the mercy of such a specious position?
(continued)
The issue of Syria actually boils down to what you (me, each of us) would do if confronted with the Syria conflict and had the power to enforce our decision as does Obama? Think, Act, Punt?What are the constituents of a good decision?
As noted above, I detect a slave/master position (solely meant as a position of power as first raised by Hegel, not a racial inference) from Obama which makes any subsequent decisions thereby weak and invalid.
In fact, Obama has taken a position of saying that he decides that intervention should be taken to send a message to Syria that their poison gassing of the populace is not acceptable.
But he is also saying that Congress must affirm his decision–perhaps not a bad decision in itself–except for the underlying possibility of weakness.
I clearly do not have the ability to read his mind/only his actions.
Weakness from the U.S.? The United States is the strongest superpower ever to have existed, and is responsible for most of the worst terrorism of the last half century. “What we say goes” to quote Bush Sr. Somehow I doubt Obama is no different, particularly given his willingness to assassinate American citizens, engage in drone warfare, and work to continue U.S. hegemony.
Only in a pragmatic way is the U.S. afraid of these tiny countries, in terms of their possible detrimental effects on U.S. global domination. But in no way is Syria an actual direct threat to the U.S. or its people.
(more continuation)
Syria dismisses Obama as Confused
(http://hosted2.ap.org/CAANR/162267dc0689421dbbd940e1d89c4eeb/Article_2013-09-01-Syria-Crisis/id-165e64ec5a1e4c4fac126371669cbd36
‘Obama’s turn-about on military action was “the start of the historic American retreat.”‘
Glen–just saw your post, and my concern is not with the United States as a country, but with Obama as having the chutzpah, cajones as an individual to encounter his destiny. Right now he seems simply to be whining to Congress. WTF?
Glen–
I remind you, Obama said Wednesday, “When you start talking about chemical weapons in a country that has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, where over time their control over chemical weapons may erode, where they’re allied to known terrorist organizations that in the past have targeted the United States, then there is a prospect, a possibility in which chemical weapons that can have devastating effects could be directed at us,” he said. “We want to make sure that that does not happen.” This man speaks from fear, not that it is not unwarranted. Who wants sarin gas to be unleashed on American soil as the new 911? But fear is unbecoming, and a clear message to the Master, as Syria has interpreted.
I should have responded earlier.
The United States has not been under serious attack since 1812, when the British burned Washington D.C.
Irregular forces such as terrorism is in its own category, and let’s not forget that state-sponsored terrorism is by far worse than the sort that any network of cells such as Al Quaeda could ever hope to achieve. The U.S. is the leading supporter of terrorism in the world and has been since the cold war got going. Of course since the U.S. does it it doesn’t get labeled terrorism but gets cloaked in rhetoric about how we are defending ourselves against aggressors.
I don’t think the U.S. is at risk of a attack from a state such as Syria or the like, being underdeveloped deserts 7,000 miles away. The only thing the U.S. or the Obama administration could possible fear is the erosion of U.S. control over the region, which is certainly happening after Mubarak was ousted and Iran continues to pursue nuclear energy/weapons which is its right under the non-proliferation treaty.
Glen,
My interpretation of Obama’s position of fear is not of Syria’s power in the Middle East, but 911 strikes in the US, or Shabab attacks in Kenya, etc, most specifically the use of sarin gas, IED’s, etc. in the US. The US has actually been under serious attack since 9/11/2001, as we are reminded every time we fly, and now, every time we have a marathon. That is not a fear that I condone giving in to.
Being anonymous is the main strength of acting against the establishment. Social Media takes away the anonymity and also links all the agitators on exposed links. Facebook and Twitter exposes all the grass roots individuals to the establishment and then they can be hunted down and stomped out at early stages.
Egypt is worse off now because of social media. And it creates the illusion that people have free speech and a voice, when actually they are being rounded up and permanently silenced.
The older medias (T.V. — Al Jazeera) did way more for the Arab Spring than all of the internet combined.
In the west; societies like Europe and the U.S., Social media makes people lethargic and replaces real life activity with cyberspace action: people tweet, facebook each other and create blogs; thinking they did something for a cause.
Social Media is not the great solution that people make it out to be; it’s more like the biggest “castle in the sky” ever created.
Nice, Dave–
I think you are reflecting Zizek’s Starbuck’s pehnomenon, where we buy our corporate coffee which has its green/environmental aspect that make us feel justified, or as you indicate as long as we interface on Social Media, we are making an impact. (With the caveat that good social media people can make changes in opinions, actions, etc.
It certainly gets confusing, Al Jazeera has the credibility of not being the Western party line because of its objective reporting (vs many US channels). So if objectivity and reasonability leads to an Arab Spring, then what doe we have? As the new world unravels, I am getting more open to its complexity and indeterminateness rather than having black and white solutions.
Nice example. The arab spring was passion-driven idealism that in reality served as a trojan horse for saudi-funded sunni wahabbists to take control of the middle east. Once the power shifted, the so called liberal thinkers in those countries who were aligned with the movement and who helped propelled it, were completely sidelined and threatened. It happened in Tunisia, Libya and recently in Egypt.
Guess what the saudis resorted doing recently after exhausting the use of mercenaries in Syria? They sent over 1k+ saudi death-row inmates to fight the shi’ites in exchange for their freedom. I can’t even begin to imagine who they’d put in power after Assad is toppled. Everyone keeps projecting their westernized ideals of freedom on the middle east without truly analyzing the consequences of destabilization in the region. People somehow thought that after kicking a few hornet nests that eventually these countries would have settled into a nice Turkey-style secular government. There’s definitely a lot of action without thought of repercussions.
If Zizek’s comment were simply an injunction to think rather than act, there would be little to talk about here (and no doubt some feel that that is indeed the situation). We could then debate the relative merits and interdependencies of thought and action, with endless historical examples capable of vindicating any balance of the two that we dream up. What gives Zizek’s statement its provocative force, however, is not the formulation itself, but its departure from the cliche it inverts: “Don’t think, just act”. This has long been a favorite call to arms among activists on the Left (and on the Right, for that matter, though I think, given what we know of Zizek’s politics, that he is addressing his constructive criticism to the former). It is an injunction that today carries with it a number of assumptions:
-that the world’s problems are due to the failure of the concerned to intervene
-that these problems are so urgent as to preclude anything but the total devotion of our energies towards their remedy, by the use of whatever strategy we have at hand
-that our failure to intervene on behalf of the world is in some way analogous to the apathy that impairs us in other areas of our lives (quitting smoking, losing weight, etc.– “Just do it!”)
Again, these are ideas that might never be stated explicitly, but nonetheless hide behind the invocation to act rather than to think. These are simply the ideological assumptions that give meaning and force to such a statement. To strip Zizek’s joke of its context is to render it just another ambiguous command. Much like Adorno, Zizek likes to take an idea that “everybody knows” and turn it on its head. The point is not to scrutinize the inversion (it will quickly turn out to be impossible to engage in productive argument), but to unpack the statement that it inverts. This may be frustrating to one who wishes to encounter and debate a grounded argument, and those who accuse Zizek of being facile or unrigorous may be justified. But to debate the statement “Don’t act, just think” without talking about the aphorism that it mirrors is missing the point entirely when it comes to a cultural critic like Zizek.