Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?: Five Interventions in the (Mis)use of a Notion

by Slavoj Žižek

In some circles, a nod towards totalitarianism is enough to dismiss any critique of the status quo. Such is the insidiousness of the neo-liberal ideology, argues Slavoj Žižek.  Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? turns a specious rhetorical strategy on its head to identify a network of family resemblances between totalitarianism and modern liberal democracy.  Žižek argues that totalitarianism is invariably defined in terms of four things: the Holocaust as the ultimate, diabolical evil; the Stalinist gulag as the alleged truth of the socialist revolutionary project; ethnic and religious fundamentalisms, which are to be fought through multiculturalist tolerance; and the deconstructionist idea that the ultimate root of totalitarianism is the ontological closure of thought.  Žižek concludes that the devil lies not so much in the detail but in what enables the very designation totalitarian: the liberal-democratic consensus itself.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Psychoanalysis, Theory, History, Political Science

160 pages, Hardcover

First published March 1, 2001

About the author

Slavoj Žižek is a Slovene sociologist, philosopher, and cultural critic.

He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).

Since 2005, Žižek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Žižek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.

In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."

Reviews

[Buck · Rating 2 out of 5]

Since this review is bound to get political sooner or later, I’d better put my ideological cards on the table. I happen to be one of those deluded souls whom Slavoj Žižek dismisses as ‘conformist liberal scoundrels’ (though personally I’ve always self-identified as a ‘capitalist running dog’). I’m rather attached to that ‘existing order’ which Žižek and his comrades, in their revolutionary ardour, are so eager to pull down. I like Starbucks, YouPorn and human rights. I have remarkably few problems with ‘hegemony’, ‘binary oppositions’ and ‘Western-style democracy’. On the other hand, I’m lukewarm on lecture-hall radicals of the Marxist persuasion, but as long as they’re willing to stay behind the gilded bars of their academic zoos—and it’s funny how many of them are willing—I say live and let live. In short, I’m Žižek’s opposite in just about every way: a bumbling and reactionary Jerry Lewis to his philosophically debonair Dean Martin. So I should have hated Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?, and the fact that I almost enjoyed it at times—when it wasn’t being a massive pain in the balls with its critical-theory gobbledygook—is either a testament to my tolerance or a sign that Žižek’s finally losing his edge.

In fact, I’d say it’s the latter. If anything, I was disappointed by how coy and inoffensive this book is. There I was, all set to be outraged by the wild and crazy Slovene, and what did I get? A lot of upmarket philosophizing, harmless in itself, and a bit of tacked-on political posturing, as vague as it is portentous. I’ve concluded that Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? is an elaborate intellectual prick tease: it starts off alluring and provocative, but somewhere between first and second base it suddenly remembers its boyfriend and is all like, “Wait. Stop. Can we talk about this?” (Too detailed?)

To be sure, the thesis enunciated in the opening pages is pretty heady stuff:

The ‘return to ethics’ in today’s political philosophy shamefully exploits the horrors of Gulag or Holocaust as the ultimate bogey for blackmailing us into renouncing all serious radical engagement…Every attempt to change things is denounced as ethically dangerous and unacceptable, resuscitating the ghost of ‘totalitarianism’.

See, that’s an interesting idea. Even though I probably would have ended up disagreeing with it, I was curious to watch Žižek run with it. But he never does. Of the five chapters or ‘interventions’, only two deal directly with totalitarianism, and even those are mostly concerned with proving that Stalinism and the Holocaust were, like, really, really bad—which I sort of already knew. The rest of the time, you have Žižek being Žižek: stroking Lacan’s phallus, plumbing bad movies for profound allegories (‘John Woo as a critic of Levinas’), and looking everywhere for new paradoxes with which to astound cultural studies undergrads.

The guy talks a good game; he makes threatening noises about the need for a truly ‘emancipatory’ politics and throws the word ‘radical’ around a lot, but nowhere does he specify the political goals he has in mind. On this point, Žižek is notably (prudently?) silent. Seeing how scathing he is about the timid incrementalism of mainstream leftists, it’s a safe bet he’s after something much bolder and sexier than a school-lunch program—revolution, in other words. But by what means? To what end? How many broken eggs does his omelette recipe call for? He simply won’t tell us.

I realize these are crude and insufficiently theoretical questions, but revolutions themselves tend to be crude and insufficiently theoretical affairs: hence all those ‘conformist liberal scoundrels’ hanging from lampposts.

The few times he drops the Lacanian bafflegab and gets explict, the results are frankly embarrassing, as when he fantasizes aloud about the virile charms of Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan strongman:

He is authoritarian…but one has to take this risk, in so far as traditional liberal democracy is unable to articulate a certain kind of radical popular demand…Often, one does need a Leader in order to be able to ‘do the impossible.’ The authentic Leader is literally the One who enables me actually to choose myself – subordination to him is the highest act of freedom.

That’s it? That’s the best he can do? Hugo Chavez as a pink Il Duce? I’d be creeped out if I weren’t so busy laughing my ass off.

[Trevor · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this book was just too hard for me to follow. I don’t know nearly enough about Lucanian psychoanalysis and so I struggled with a lot of this. For most of the book I was wondering how what he was saying about Hamlet or other works of fiction had to do with totalitarianism. I guess the answer is that totalitarianism is based on a leader and the leader is a kind of father figure and the father figure is basically the little other when compared with the big other of society – and so the same psychological principles can be applied to both. I’m not totally sure how accurate a description of what he was trying to achieve here, or even if it is a justifiable conclusion, but it was the best I could make of it all.

The book provides nightmare visions of the two great totalitarian projects of the twentieth century – Fascism and Stalinism – and presents them as quite different in kind. He provides an interesting discussion of the Stalinist show trials, but his point is to look at the psychology of those who would have been happy to sacrifice themselves for the good of the party if they could believe the party actually believed in the truth of what they were doing – even if they had mistaken their actions as those of enemies. His point is that the earnestness of those accused was met with the cynicism of those making the accusations – they were playing the game by the stated rules, rather than those actually in play.

I think Zizek’s argument is a bit like this - that all societies have their totalitarian side. That they demand conformity to the truth of their constitution and do what they can to eliminate dissent. That leaders are father figures - hence all the talk of Hamlet - and that overcoming conformity requires a kind of cynicism that is very hard to sustain since the whole of society is forcing us towards acceptance. Forcing in the sense that we are surveilled within an inch of our lives, but still think we are living in a democracy where we have options and choices, but these are so constrained as to be effectively meaningless. This is similar to Chomsky’s idea that in a liberal democracy debate is very strictly limited, where saying things like the Old Testament is a guidebook to genocide, is not really tolerated, regardless of how true it is, but that debate is furious within the set limits of accepted dispute.

I guess part of the problem is that we don’t really have a notion of what a utopia might look like any longer – and anyone who professes a utopian vision is treated as a madman. This is interesting in the sense that dystopian visions are completely acceptable. Any step outside of the accepted narrative is seen as taking us down the ‘road to serfdom’ and so, as imperfect as the world might be, all possible alternatives are worse. And this is a problem because change is inevitable – as we are seeing with AI and so on. We seem to be living in a perpetual state of nostalgia, nostalgia for a world that never existed – where people didn’t exist in silos and echo chambers and where there was a kind of truth we could move ever closer to discovering. Today we live in TS Eliot’s world of bricolage made up of the half-remembered fragments of our broken societies. These fragments I have shore against my ruin – but we are in need of new pieces, and the new pieces on offer don’t fit very well with the past images we had of a stable society.

I guess the problem we have is one we have always had – a terror of those who have a vision contrary to that of the world as we know it. It is why we need to kill Socrates. His demand that we celebrate him as a gadfly is the exact opposite of the world we want to live in, and yet, without gadflies biting us out of our complacency the difference between the world we live in and a totalitarian society is one of quantity rather than of kind.

I’ve become fascinated with our seeming inability to negotiate anything. Russia is pure evil, Hamas is pure evil, Iran is pure evil, China is pure evil. You cannot negotiate with pure evil, it must be defeated – even if you must make yourself evil to achieve that end, it is the end we must strive for. We do not recognise the death wish at the heart of this obsession. We go on producing more and more weapons regardless of the fact that the world is on the edge of climate destruction and our endless just wars are racing us to our doom. Our inability to see the constraints in our thinking is coming up against the physical constraints of the planet. We are, to quote Eliot again, certain of certain certainties – whether these will ultimately matter on a dead planet seems beyond our ability to reason. We may not see Trump or Harris as ‘father figures’ – but that is what they seem to want us to envision them as and so the limited debate remains constrained by our acceptance of the totalitarian desires of the ‘truth’ both believes they offer. The contempt each shows for the other is the same contempt we feel for those outside our own constructed father laws. Laws that we force the world to conform to.

It is all a very bleak vision. And not one I can see a way out of – other than in seeking understanding of the other as a manifestation of our own fears, repressed desires and crushed hopes. Even that recognition is probably not enough – but perhaps it is better than our current course rushing us towards oblivion.

[Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This being my first Žižek book, I fully expected to be reading about what he told me he would be writing about. Oh, how, one book later, I now know I was so wrong. At more than one point in the book I stopped and wondered to myself why in the world he's talking about this, and flipped back to the chapter subtitle to see if it had anything to do with what he ostensibly introduced, only to find out I had no idea why. I went into this book thinking it would be more focused on the political aspects of totalitarianism, but I suppose because it's Žižek, he took it in a very psychoanalytic turn. In a way, I do quite like his style. Often I find myself getting bored at non-fiction writers because they seem to repeat the same points, but Žižek surely cannot be accused of that. The seemingly aimless rambling is actually all linked, and often near the end of a chapter one understands why he spent all that time talking about other things before it. Things flow into each other and eventually serve to illustrate the point he's making (not always about totalitarianism).

[Peter Harrison · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is certainly a stimulating read. In Zizek's typical style he introduces the book as a meditation on the use of the phrase totalitarianism. What Zizek then serves up is rambling discussion around the subject, drawing on his wide academic interest, ranging from psychoanalysis to dialectical materialism and modern cultural studies.

But for all that, he does make you think. The section on the holocaust challenges the reader to reflect on whether there truly is a simple explanation, and what a complex one might actually mean. This is countered by an analysis of the purges and show trials of the Stalinist USSR based in psychoanalysis and what this means for the nature of the Soviet state.

In the later segments of the book, Zizek's style does become slightly more rambling and intellectual, and harder for the non-academic to follow. But it remains worth persevering with.

Zizek finishes by discussing the "third way" and the rise of the surveillance society. With just a veneer of liberalism, the restriction of valid political debate around the centre ground and the use of a far-right "other" to assert democratic credentials despite the lack of choice means that we are increasing willing to see radical solutions outside this "anti-totalitarian" liberal consensus. I have written about this before and it remains a persuasive argument. Backed by a rallying cry to take charge of the opportunities offered by new technology to drive a progressive agenda, Zizek finishes in style.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zizek takes on some interesting topics in extremely vivid and lucid prose. Particularly interesting are his analyses of the Stalinist Bolshevik Purges and his Lacanian-employed attacks on Neo-Darwinians (and among my favorite authors) Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett.

[Will · Rating 4 out of 5]

If I had to recommend a Zizek book to someone, this is the one I'd pick. Relatively accessible and focused on an interesting subject. Skip the extras at the end of the latest edition.

[Nils Van Nieuwenhuyse · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wel interessant, maar ik had gehoopt dat het meer over de titel ging gaan, ipv. over godsdienst en wat dan ook.

[Tyler · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m not sure if I learned anything by reading this book, but Zizek is an entertaining writer just the same. From the title I expected a discussion of the many uses of the term totalitarianism, but the author eschews this approach. What the book attempts is a psychoanalysis of the concept.

We know in Orwellian terms, for example, what happened at the Stalin show trials. Zizek goes beyond that in order to explore the underlying psychology. What did the trials mean for the participants? What purpose did they serve to the psyche? Was 1937 an act of collective suicide by the Party? Totalitarian states, Zizek says, condone moral bankruptcy, so the true believers are the real danger. Such states, or states of affairs, require cynicism.

The author goes beyond the State to unearth strands of totalitarian thought in current social and political life, and in unexpected places. He does not answer the question this leads to: Can we properly describe our current situation as in some way totalitarian? Perhaps the question is too broad, but clearly Zizek wants to throw light on the present, not the past.

My criticism of his approach centers around his love affair with Lacanian psychoanalysis as a tool for his investigations. Whatever its merits, this method adds a layer of jargon the book could do without. The author seems to be writing, at times, for an intellectual elite, and the text seems intended to beguile their vanity. The philosophical problem, of course, is that the lack of objectivity in psychoanalysis undermines the author's insinuations. His lines of thought could have been set in a more rational cement.

Regardless, Zizek raises interesting points. Does melodrama result from excessive knowledge; and does putting dignity back into human existence then redeem life as tragedy? Does real democracy come only as an unforeseen outburst of ethical responsibility? Do acts stem from existing ethical reality or do they create it anew each time they occur? Is the celebration of diversity a mask for totalitarian thought? Do cultural studies actually vouchsafe patterns of global domination? Has work, as actual labor, become obscene? Are some sex acts spectacles for imaginary observers whose purpose is to validate the existence of the person performing those acts?

The jargon slows this book down, but for those willing to plow through it, I recommend a highlighter to capture the many thoughts such as these that pop up. Maybe I did learn something after all.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a bit of a task trying to draw out the theme of totalitarianism from this book. If you've read Zizek you'll know it's hard to draw out any theme from his books. Much as I like him, he has a tendency to just repeat himself over and over again in every text--even in ways that don't seem linked to an argument.

Nonetheless, even if there seem to be tangents, they're insightful and entertaining ones at least. The final chapter was very on topic and sees Zizek almost at his most ferocious.

[Aditya Adhikari · Rating 3 out of 5]

Zizek starts to get tiresome after you've read a few of his books. Still, I'll probably read a few more before I stop reading him.

[Karlo Mikhail · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meanders a lot, which is typical of Zizek. But has some gems of insights against the now waning liberal democratic and postmodern left doxa equating radical collective movements with totalitarianism.

[Abbie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, it never does get around to the topic of its subtitle. But it does solve the problem of the Trinity, so that's something.

[Eleni · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ο Ζίζεκ είναι εικονοκλάστης. Πολύς κόσμος δυσκολεύεται να καταλάβει την ιδεολογική του τοποθέτηση λόγω του "terrorist attitude" που έχει αναπτύξει απέναντι στα πάντα. Στον καπιταλισμό, στον κομμουνισμό, στον σοσιαλισμό, στη σύγχρονη Αριστερά και κυρίως απέναντι στον ίδιο του τον εαυτό.

Ας ξεκινήσουμε λοιπόν από τη βασική διαπίστωση ότι χωρίς αυτές τις παραδοχές δεν μπορείς να τον προσεγγίσεις. Δεν μπορείς να προσεγγίσεις τον Ζίζεκ χωρίς τον Ζίζεκ δηλαδή. Διαβάζω συχνά παντελώς ανόητες κριτικές για άρθρα και βιβλία του από ανθρώπους που εμφανώς ούτε καν τον έχουν διαβάσει, ούτε τους αφορά η ειρωνεία, ο τρόπος που σκέφτεται και απορώ για ποιο λόγο μπαίνουν στη διαδικασία και ασχολούνται μαζί του. Δεν εξηγείται διαφορετικά να τον χαρακτηρίζουν κάποιοι (ευτυχώς λίγοι) σταλινικό. Πρέπει πραγματικά να είσαι υπερβολικά αφηρημένος ή απορροφημένος σε κάτι άλλο την ώρα που διαβάζεις ("χαζός" για να μην το θέσω κομψά) για να προσάπτεις στον Ζίζεκ, of all intellectuals, αυτή την κατηγορία. Πολλά μπορείς να πεις εναντίον του, ότι είναι προβοκάτορας, ότι κάνει καραγκιοζιές, ότι κάνει τον έξυπνο, ότι κάνει επίδειξη γνώσεων κλπ κλπ, ναι σε όλα αυτά, αλλά δεν μπορείς να τον πεις σταλινικό εφόσον τον έχεις διαβάσει, ήμαρτον. Εδώ με το γνωστό του "sort of" αποδομητικό στυλ ας πούμε φτάνει και σε δυσθεώρητα ύψη αντισταλινικού μένους όταν λέει ή υπονοεί (και αρκετές φορές κιόλας) ότι ο υπαρκτός ήταν χειρότερος από τον ναζισμό. Όλα αυτά πάντα μέσα από ένα πρίσμα σχημάτων υπερβολής, χούμορ και ειρωνείας. Δεν είναι πάντα κυριολεκτικοί οι αφορισμοί που κάνει ο Ζίζεκ, αλλά αν διαβάσεις έστω ένα βιβλίο του, καταλαβαίνεις πολύ καλά πότε μιλάει σοβαρά και πότε κάνει χιούμορ, γιατί μπορεί να είναι "καραγκιοζάκος", αλλά παράλληλα είναι και ένας πάρα πολύ σοβαρός άνθρωπος. Και, βέβαια, ένας από τους ελάχιστα τόσο διαβασμένους και μορφωμένους εν ζωή διανοητές σήμερα.

Σε αυτό το απολαυστικό βιβλίο, ο "Σλαβ" ασχολείται διαδοχικά με τις ιδέες του ολοκληρωτισμού από την πλευρά της λακανικής ψυχανάλυσης, ως συνήθως με αρκετές αναφορές στην pop culture, οι οποίες όμως δεν είναι αρκετές για να χαρακτηρίσεις αυτό το βιβλίο "εύκολο". Το βιβλίο είναι απολαυστικό, συχνά είναι τρομερά αστείο αλλά είναι δύσκολο, πολύ απαιτητικό και πολύ βαθύ. Είναι δύσκολος ο Λακάν, όπως και να το κάνεις.

Ένα πελώριο mindfuck που καταλήγει να βγάζει νόημα και να δημιουργεί νέες προβληματικές για το πώς μπορούμε να δούμε τον κόσμο σήμερα (σαν τραγωδία ή σαν φάρσα). Ο Ζίζεκ δεν έχει απαντήσεις (που σε επίπεδο ερμηνευτικής έχει κιόλας πιστεύω), αλλά μέσα στο μισότρελο στυλάκι του έχει ένα συγκροτημένο πλαίσιο ιδεών και ξέρει να κάνει τις σωστές ερωτήσεις. Μίλησε κανείς για ολοκληρωτισμό; Όπως είχε πει και ο ίδιος don't act; just think!

[Jack Reid · Rating 4 out of 5]

It felt good to read this, a lot of epistemological problems of academia still as present as they were in 2001. I think obviously some of the terminology could be updated but still provides a lot of good context for our post idealistic post scientific kinda cognitive bias. I think about this when people talk bout like sensory experiences and dopamine and serotonin sometimes.

[Josh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Here Zizek engages in a rambling series of meditations on the bourgeois-centrist disarmament of the radical left through accusations of totalitarianism. The charge seems so fallacious at first blush to a radical leftist like myself that I was not immediately compelled, but Zizek certainly has incisive insights and confident control of his bibliography. Unfortunately I am so unfamiliar with most of the source material that he dissects so precisely that I found myself restless and distracted when reading this book.

I enjoy Zizek's tendency to eradicate the distance between the academic/high-concept and popular/vulgar but his deep investment in both Lacan (or Lacanism) and philoso-speak obfuscate his ostensibly radical purpose. I may return to this work someday after becoming more read in the source material and will perhaps have a warmer appraisal of it.

[Josh · Rating 3 out of 5]

I could have done without all of the theoretical jargon. All of the Lacanian terminology and references were difficult to understand as someone who is unfamiliar with Lacan's work. I also wish there was more of an explicit thematic thread connecting his smaller points to the main argument of each chapter. Instead, it felt as if he was jumping around a lot.

[Wasim Rahaman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most of the content of the book isn't really relevant to what the title/flap says but it's still an interesting read. I read this with a little knowledge of Freud and some Marx; it'd probably be easier to understand with a greater knowledge of Lacan, Marx, and Hegel, as well as maybe some others Žižek mentions frequently like Badiou and Derrida.

[Gabriel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Zizek has interesting to say and has a pretty entertaining style. The big problem is that there is no apparent through line for these essays = not enough focus. He also gets sometimes bogged down by technical passages that are difficult to grasp even for the informed layman that I am.

[Sean Lynch · Rating 3 out of 5]

So damn thick. With jargon, Lacan, I cannot stand the inside-joke terminology. And yet... Zizek still makes you agree with him. This man is definitely the philosopher of the now, of the real. Too hard to get into though.

[Josiah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Žižek is enormous fun, like walking through a city with your insane friend who comments on that book you just saw in the window, the film advertised on a billboard, the sound of a song, all of it weaved together into philosophy. A remarkable ride.

[M.moore · Rating 5 out of 5]

I laughed a lot

[Matt Klingebiel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zizek makes complex ideas easy to understand, however some parts of the book were a bit thick and didn't really seem relevant to the over all topic

[Pirate Hat Hughes · Rating 4 out of 5]

My only issue with the book is the emphasis on Freud. However, Slovoj's mind is brilliant and I plan to re-read sections of it at another time.

['Izzat Radzi · Rating 3 out of 5]

This works, that sort of lectures/supports of the one by Hannah Arendt does also include other iscussion, as zizek usually does.

[Elliot Lorentz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kan äntligen säga att jag läst Žižek. Kan dock inte säga att jag förstår över hälften.

[Count Gravlax · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book's like that scene from The Simpsons where Nelson comes out from a screening of Naked Lunch and says "I can think of at least two things wrong in that title".

[R. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading this book is like panning for gold. Several nuggets of excellent analysis are buried in tons of Lacanian dross. Not sure it was actually worth the effort to sort.

[Socrate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pe pachetul de ceai verde „Celestial Seasonings" se poate citi o scurtă prezentare a calităţilor sale: „Ceaiul verde este o sursă naturală de antioxidanţi, care neutralizează moleculele nocive din organism, cunoscute sub denumirea de radicali liberi. Neutralizând radicalii liberi, antioxidanţii ajută la menţinerea sănătăţii naturale a organismului." Mutatis mutandis, nu este oare noţiunea de totalitarism unul dintre principalii antioxidanţi ideologici, al cărui rol a fost, de-a lungul existenţei sale, să neutralizeze radicalii liberi şi astfel să ajute la menţinerea sănătăţii politico-ideologice a organismului social?
În aceeaşi măsură ca şi viaţa socială, lumea academică de astăzi, ce se autointitulează „radicală" este pătrunsă de reguli şi de interdicţii nescrise; deşi aceste reguli nu sunt niciodată formulate explicit, nerespectarea lor poate avea consecinţe grave. Una dintre aceste reguli nescrise se referă la ubicuitatea incontestabilă a nevoii de a-ţi „contextualiza" sau „situa" poziţia: modul cel mai facil de a câştiga automat teren într-o dezbatere este să pretinzi că oponentul nu şi-a „situat" corespunzător poziţia într-un context istoric: „Vorbiţi despre femei - care femei? Nu există femei pur şi simplu, aşa că nu cumva prin această discuţie generalizată despre femei, deşi aparent imparţială din toate punctele de vedere, avantajaţi anumite tipuri de femei şi le excludeţi pe altele?"

[Nazlıcan Karaali · Rating 3 out of 5]

Throughout the entire text, Žižek almost never "gets to the point." Namely, he avoids directly explaining why the liberal-democratic consensus around the notion of "totalitarianism" is problematic at its core. He meanders and seems to enjoy exhausting the reader in the process. While reading, I felt that the author was well aware that his impetuous academic readers were eager to grasp the "big picture" as quickly as possible. However, he deliberately withholds answers, choosing instead to circle around the initial question—Did somebody say totalitarianism?—even at the risk of disappointing his audience.

This may explain why, in the first two chapters, the notion of "totalitarianism" is scarcely mentioned, despite it being the very concept that likely drew us to pick up the book in the first place. Unlike in his seminars, here he prefers to draw a circle around main critiques without ever directly touching them, because providing clear answers—and thus catering to an audience accustomed to the fast consumption of information—is not what a true philosopher aspires to do. I think for Žižek, offering an answer kills the thinking process. Instead, the continuous and endless circling around the question with seemingly ''irrelevant'' conections is what gives rise to creative thinking, even if it is sometimes quite irritating for the impatient readers like me.

[Veronika · Rating 5 out of 5]

Myslím, že někteří lidé mají tendenci hodnotit filozofické knihy podle toho, jak moc jsou schopni se ztotožnit s jejími myšlenkami. Přitom to považuji za špatný přístup k filozofii: člověk by neměl dogmaticky akceptovat předkládané myšlenky a ani by to nemělo být jeho cílem při čtení filozofických traktátů. Hodnotit lze nakolik vám kniha dává smysl, nakolik je ve vás schopna otevřít nějakou novou konverzaci, ukázat vám směr myšlení, kterým jste se zatím nevydali.
Žižkův 'Mluvil tu někdo o totalitarismu?' se zabývá primárně konceptem totalitarismu. Není omezen na kritickou reflexi nejznámějších nelidských totalitárních režimů (kapitoly Hitler jako ironik? a Když strana spáchá sebevraždu), ale také se soustředí na způsob, kterým nám dnes idea totalitarismu pomáhá vytvářet nepřítele vůči našemu současnému politicko-ekonomickému systému a tím tento systém legitimizovat.
Kniha je akademicky filozofická - špatně přístupná pro laiky nebo jen okrajově informované zájemce o filozofii - pokud člověk chce od Žižka číst něco přístupnějšího, navrhla bych spíše jeho publicistické články, filmy nebo některé přednášky na youtube. Nicméně i jen se základní znalostí moderní a postmoderní filozofie jsem byla schopna knize z velké části porozumět.