Book Summary:
In the Year of Dreaming Dangerously, Slavoj Zizek forms a complex layered analysis of the social uprisings that occurred across the world in 2011. He employs a dialectic analysis of the capitalist form to explain the uprisings and advocate for the necessity, and inevitability, of continued upheaval, revolution, and destruction of the current hegemonic structure. This brief work is a compelling theoretical analysis, that, while accessible to a broad audience, does not present normative arguments. It is radical in its formations, and, for that reason alone, is a valuable read.
Chapter One: War Nam Nihadan
In this chapter Zizek connects emancipatory dreams across the world from New York City, to, Tahrir Square and all across Europe. Zizek argues that while the “primary task of the hegemonic ideology was to neutralize the true dimension of these events,” the reaction the the media was as zizek describes a “war nam nihadan” (A Persian expression that means: to murder somebody, bury his body then grow flowers over the body to conceal it)(Zizek 6). Zizek explains that the media effectively “killed the radical emancipatory potential” of the events of 2011 and that it is important to look at the events of 2011, like the protests in New York and the Arab Spring, as part of a widespread global narrative surrounding contemporary capitalism (Zizek 6). This global narrative, he explains, offers all of the possible answers and reactions toward a “basic structural deadlock or antagonism” and furthermore “opens a set of creative possibilities” which can be used as potential responses to the situation (Zizek 7). Zizek looks at this argument through a communist lens as he explains that “more than ever one should bear in mind that communism begins with the ‘public use of reason’”, which he argues is what the world needs to do: “think publicly” (Zizek 11, 12).
Chapter Two: From Domination to Exploitation and Revolt
In chapter two, Zizek states Marx’s “critique of political economy remains the starting point for understanding our socio-economic predicament”(Zizek 16). However, he goes further when he explains that while Marx’s critique may be a starting point it can not fully explain or propose “clear solutions” for the socio-economic problems we face today. Zizek explains that capitalism is characterized by “structural imbalance”, this can be seen in the rise of the “salaried bourgeoisie”(Zizek 18, 19). Zizek discuses the limitations Marx faced by viewing “general intellect” as the central agency of revolution(Zizek 20). Zizek explains that it is in fact the rise of “immaterial labor” to a “hegemonic position” that makes the idea of revolution possible (Zizek 20). Here Zizek brings back into light the position of the salaried bourgeoisie in revolution. In current capitalism, he explains, there are levels of salaried bourgeoisie, the upper level bourgeoisie included lawyers, managers, doctors etc…, have a higher surplus wage than the lower level of salaried bourgeoisie. For the lower level the “only thing that stands in the way of their joining the proletarians is their power of political protest. In this relationship is where the idea of revolution is born as the lower salaried bourgeoisie fight and protest against the “gradual erosion of their (politically) privileged economic position”(Zizek 28). These protests are not “proletarian protests”, as Marx would say but “ protests against the threat of being reduced to a proletarian status”(Zizek 29). Many of the revolutions, and protests of 2011 started as a protest of the salaried bourgeoisie but turned into a larger fight “against an oppressive regime”(Zizek 30). Further in this chapter Zizek also argues against the Welfare State as a solution to these problems. He explains that this would not work because a Welfare State “opposes its own idealized ideological supplement to the existing deadlock”(Zizek 39). Finally, Zizek touches on the the US’s establishment of its imperial role by creating a permanent state of war in which the US fights the “war on terror” and paints itself as the “universal protector” of the world(Zizek 46).
Chapter Three: The “Dream-Work” of Political Representation
In this chapter, Zizek dives into the idea of class struggle and politics. He begins by discussing the deadlock of all classes. Zizek explains that in order for one – in his example, Napoleon – to stand above all the classes and not “act as direct representative” of any one class he can not simply locate the base of his regime in the “remainder of all classes” but he must act as the representative of the class of people who can’t represent themselves: the small-holding peasants class(Zizek 59). He must be able to represent them but, at the same time, “appear as their master”(Zizek 59). Furthermore Zizek explains that we live in a time of debt and deficit; because of this everyone must “share the burden and accept a lower standard of living” except for the rich because we are told that if we tax the very rich, they will loose incentive to invert and create jobs(Zizek 61). Therefore the perpetuated idea of debt relief is for the rich to become richer and the poor to become poorer. He then goes on to explain that most of the political wars and cultural battles we have today stem from the class struggle. For example anti-Semitism is displaced class struggle. In order to unify all the classes against hardship, the hardship or problem is displaced and “projected onto [an] external intruder” like the Jews(Zizek 63). Following this discussion Zizek looks at the conservative versus liberal clash in the United States. He argues that today’s middle class are small farmers who just want to maintain their way of life and live in peace. This sentiment often leads to the middle clash often being the most supportive of “authoritarian coups [that] promise to put an end to crazy political mobilization of society” that causes changes to their way of life(Zizek 65). In the mind of the conservative middle class, this change is perpetuated by liberals which is the heart of American politics today. In an ironic twist however, Zizek explains that in order to maintain their way of life, the conservative middle class votes “themselves into economic ruin”; by voting for less taxation and deregulation they give more freedom and opportunity to large corporations which drive the conservative middle class farmers out of business(Zizek).
Chapter Four: The Return of the Evil Ethnic Thing
In this chapter Zizek discusses some of the politics behind anti-immigration, anti-semitism and the backlash toward multiculturalism. Zizek begins his argument by discussing Hitler’s anti-semitic narrative from the 1930s. He explains, anti-semitism was given as an “explanation for troubles experienced by ordinary Germans: unemployment, moral decay [and] social unrest…”(Zizek 96). Zizek argues that anti-immigration, anti-Islamic and anti-multiculturalism sentiments today are similar scapegoats for economic hardships people are experiencing today. he explains that “clinging to to ethnic identity” serves as a “protective shield against the trauma” of current financial crisis(Zizek 97). He explains how Europe’s Crisis gives justification for Europe’s current anti-immigration stance, and pro-Christianity politics is a construct created to oppose Islam. Zizek goes in to deep detail on the politics surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Much support of Israel, he explains, is seeded from a deep fear of Islam. Islam seems to be the new external intruder from which countries can build a political platform by blaming their problems on Islam. As country’s governments discuss the “peace process” in Israel-Palestine, they are looking to further their countries interests which exist under occupation; however their citizens by into the narrative that Islam is the source of all many of their problems, so sustaining an occupation seems to be in their interest as well. Another issue, Zizek explains, is the inability for anyone to criticize the politics of the Israeli government and their occupation of Palestinian territory without also being accused of being anti-Semitic. These sentiments make it possible to perpetuate these oppressive political stances.
Chapter Five: Welcome to the Desert of Post-Ideology
In this chapter, Zizek primarily discusses the idea that “enjoyment is tolerated…on condition that it remains healthy…”, healthy meaning it does not disrupt the “psychic or biologic stability” that society deems as the norm(Zizek 133). Problems arise, Zizek argues, when “while prohibiting” (and judging) many escapades, the law, or government will often “not only discreetly…ignore and tolerate” these escapades but “even solicit them”(Zizek 136). Zizek illuminates this problematic relationship through his example of the “Catholic Church which today turns a blind eye to pedophilia”(Zizek 136). In this chapter, Zizek further analyzes this contradiction in various political contexts in an attempt to understand social movements that include social unrest, riots and even the movement of political correctness.
Chapter Six – The Arab Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall
In the only chapter of the book devoted entirely to uprisings in the Arab world, Zizek takes a remarkable turn away from the expected. Rather than producing an analysis exclusively of the 2011 uprisings, Zizek describes the complicated radical history of Islam (in a social, rather than religious, sense) in relation to the spirit of resistance in the Arab world as a whole. By generating a narrative in this manner, Zizek moves away from the normative analysis of the process of revolution in the MENA region as a two-step process that ultimately manifests in the clash between religion and secularism. Instead, he focuses on the emancipatory history and potential of Islam as a source of radical individual and communal self-determination.
Chapter Seven – Occupy Wall Street, Or, The Violent Silence of a New Beginning
In his analysis of the Occupy Movement, Zizek seeks to explain Occupy’s potential beyond reform. The end of revolutionary action, he ultimately asserts, ought to be change beyond what is imaginable within the confines of society’s present condition – beyond the model of capitalist liberal democracy. In defending the OWS movement against charges of communism, Zizek responds, “The only sense in which they are communists is that they care about the commons – the commons of nature, of knowledge – which are threatened by the system,” he continues, “they are not destroying anything, but reacting to a system in the process of gradually destroying itself.” (p.83)
Chapter Eight – The Wire, Or, What to do in Non–Evental Times
In the most playful chapter of the book, Zizek analyzes the HBO series The Wire as providing a vision of the utopian imagination of radical change. In imagining the metaphor that is the show’s title, Zizek forms two images – the wire as a surveillance device and the wire as the razor thin line that divides, “those participating in the American Dream, and those left behind.” (p.92). In this way, Zizek proceeds to analyze the show as explicative of class struggle in the United States and the world, and by extension the totality of the capitalist system. It is within this context that the Series’ main characters attempt to apply their utopian visions to the existing system and inevitably fail. This indicates to Zizek the necessity of radial change – reform, no matter how utopian will fail.
Chapter Nine – Beyond Envy and Resentment
In chapter 9, Zizek constructs the ideal revolutionary, while responding to the Sloterdijk’s belief in the philanthropic nature of the aristocracy. Solterdijk’s assertion is that taxation is extraneous because, if the rich were not taxed, they would engage more in charitable giving – Sloterdijk believes in a harmonious balance between the desires to aggressively accumulate and give generously. Zizek responds to this claim with incredulity – the capitalist aristocracy, formed in this manner, is not to be praised. Instead, the perfect aristocrat is a revolutionary who appears in classic works of literature – the anti-bourgeois aristocrat (p.118). It is this model that Coriolanus fits perfectly. Of Coriolanus, Zizek writes, “Coriolanus is a killing machine…he has not fixed class allegiance and can easily put himself in the service of the oppressed” (p.123). It is this character-type who is the ideal radical freedom fighter – the violent aristocrat who is not bound to the aristocracy.
(Text by Marisa Edmondson and Naoise Reynolds)