Contra o Progresso

by Slavoj Žižek

Definir o conceito de “progresso” é reivindicar o futuro.

Pode o mundo, que parece nunca ter estado tão mal, melhorar? E o que seria um mundo melhor? Como podemos abrir caminho e seguir em frente, contra profetas da desgraça e relativismos incapacitantes, e enfrentar as crises ecológica, social e política sem precedentes que vivemos hoje?

Contra o progresso reúne 13 ensaios provocantes onde Slavoj Žižek desafia a narrativa sufocante que neoliberais, trumpistas, indústrias tóxicas do desenvolvimento pessoal e aceleracionistas impuseram à noção de progresso. Esmiuçando aquilo que se perde quando permitimos que os principais antagonistas do futuro o definam por nós, o filósofo esloveno expõe o que as diferentes visões de progresso excluem ou sacrificam, bem como as dinâmicas do desejo, negação e rejeição em jogo nos blockbusters de Hollywood, na economia budista, nos movimentos de descolonização… Da gentrificação à teoria da relatividade, passando por Lacan, Lenine e Mary Poppins, Žižek questiona passado, presente e futuro para responder à pergunta mais difícil de todas: como nos libertamos deste sonho hipócrita e prenhe de culpa em que estamos embrulhados, e como começamos a construir um mundo melhor?

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Essays, Sociology, Technology, Psychoanalysis

176 pages, Paperback

First published January 9, 2025

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

[Kai · Rating 4 out of 5]

this is what i imagine crack must feel like: you don’t really need it, but it just feels so good

100+ namedrops,
Less perverted than your avg Zizek,
A+ analogies

[linde · Rating 4 out of 5]

‘There is infinite hope – just not for us.’ (Kafka)

[Bludniq Sin · Rating 4 out of 5]

je sais bien, mais quand même…, i know very well (that’s its true), but all the same…
Ah, yes, the world is ending, but we must go on and if we do it may not end (the way we expect it to do so, at least).
A quiet mix of fury - a normalised contradictory of the quotidian. Climate change, the rising new Right, war, corruption - you can never win - but you are still alive, no? I promenade in the park in the prettiest neighbourhood of my city, accompanied by friends. I worry about the news. I buy myself coffee and still think life is worth living.
The book reads like one grand coping mechanism with a fatalistic, yet optimistic, approach to life. A TV series that never ends; to be continued, but you wake up next week and start the show again.
I think of a conversation Irvin Yalome recalls in his book about accepting grief, the death of his beloved wife and continuing to live without her in “A Matter of Death and Life”; briefly visiting his old friend and mentor, suffering from dementia in a hospice-home. This is Jerry Frank, who says to him:
“Yesterday’s all gone. But i sit in this chair and watch life go by. It’s not so bad, Irv. It’s not so bad.”
This is how we must go on. Zizek suggests a disavowal of the ‘doomed’ reality - acknowledging what is to come, but also leaving a space for surprises. Life goes by, you watch it from the window and observe the state of your world. It’s not so bad, you have today.

[Arnau Gisbert Solà]

He entès, potser, el 5%

[Fríða Þorkelsdóttir · Rating 5 out of 5]

Er einfaldlega alltaf sammála þessum manni og það er gaman að lesa þannig.

[Nick]

Funny reading the last sentence of this book (speculation about how long the left/centrist alliance will last for following the French elections this year) whilst Barnier was being ousted, and also in the penultimate essay which talked about South Korea's comparative 'relaxed indifference' in context to the North like a day after people and politicians essentially physically overturned a coup there

[JCJBergman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like Žižek. He is not only refreshing but also often quite amusing to read. As this is a collection of philosophical/political essays, there is favouritism in regards to which appealed to me and those which did not. The first few essays (to do with the concept of "progress") interested me, and the rest not so much (when he doubled down on the subject of politics). The good thing with this kind of book is that it is easy to revisit in the future and see how his comments about contemporary events shine in the light of retrospect.

[Patrick Hewett]

Zizek can be so fun when you're not required to have done a philosophy phd on Lacan and Hegel to understand his writing.

eyes did glaze over for a couple of these essays.

to be honest i dont think there was anything too thought provoking, however he has such a talent with visual metaphors and can (especially not referencing other philosophers) give a funny and clever insight into world politics, failure of the left, the traps of left wing populism, and challenging political narratives.

[Liebestraum · Rating 3 out of 5]

Azért érdekelt ez az esszés kötet, mert leginkább arról szól, hogy hogyan kerüljük el a világvégét. Természetesen válaszai nincsenek. Hátha ez, vagy hátha az. Na és addig? Žižek jól látja a megküzdési stratégiákat: a legtöbben a tagadást választják: “jaj nem olyan rossz a helyzet, csak a fiatalok nem akarnak dolgozni!” Mások az üres, szimbolikus “politikai cselekvést”: politikai nyár=bebaszás palesztin zászlóval. Én meg az irodalmat választom. Pótcselekvések mind.

[Jonathan Garvey · Rating 3 out of 5]

interesting thoughts

[Thanos Chatziioannou · Rating 4 out of 5]

Detailed, thought - provoking and engaging in a multitude of subjects (in typical Zizek fashion, using progress as a vehicle to include takes on Israel - Palestine, pop movie culture and climate change). The only downside (essentially why 4/5 and not 5 stars) is a specific mid - end section of the book (the chapter Authority), which is not only disconnected from the rest of the book, but requires extensive familiarity with Lacan and Habermas (EXTENSIVE), while the rest of the book serves as a good prelude and explainer to their work itself. If you come in with more than epidermal comprehension of their work, then you can be sure that your opinion of Against Progress will be of the 5 star variety.

[Alicia Dai · Rating 4 out of 5]

i’ve never felt more intellectually humbled and painfully aware of my shrunken pea brain than when reading this book.

žižek is an encyclopedia of every philosopher and political theorist who’s ever existed so it’s almost impossible to keep up without context of everyone who’s ever written anything important in the history of time. if you happen to have the 10,000 TB of brainpower required to understand, these are some poignant applications of classic existentialism on 2025 issues such as trumpian populism, false fundamentalist anti-colonialism, and technocapitalism that i’m sure are worth appreciating.

for as much anxiety and despair i feel over trump’s ongoing obliteration of our societal order, it did kind of make me feel better to engage with a text that acknowledges the complex interplay between everyday complacency and people’s desire for wide-scale revolution in a way that is sympathetic but rightfully critical of the level of agency we feel we have in a ‘society of choice.’ through ‘disavowal,’ žižek offers a way out of outright denial or gleeful acceptance of a deteriorating society afflicted by far right extremism, perverse neoliberalism, and climate disasters: “one should accept the catastrophe as inevitable – and then act to undo the destiny which is already ‘written in the stars’” (106).

unfortunately, the worst part about this book is that i can hardly recall a single thing i learned due to my own cognitive shortcomings!!! as mentioned, frequent references to kierkegaard, hegel, and lacan were all lost on me and it makes me wonder if it’s even possible for me to engage in dialectics let alone retain any sociopolitical theories IN GENERAL even if i read more. i just know my philosophy and mcc professors would’ve rated this 5 stars.

[Steven · Rating 2 out of 5]

Zizek is always relevant, but I don't like this one very much. Plenty of points that repeat from his talks, he didn't suggest anything new or groundbreaking, and instead letting his Lacanian word salad to carry the day. I don't agree with almost everything he said. He tends to take any left leaning opinion too seriously. If you read too much of him uncritically, you'll be stuck in a whirpool of world problems, paralyzed with overthinking. However, I do share his worry that the world is facing a big crisis in a lot of areas, although I think he's overestimating it.

[Isaac Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

Classic Žižek: “what the hell is he talking about ……. Oh okay that makes sense”

[James Hughes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Žižek is very active in both public speaking and writing and yet rarely establishes a memorable call to action. It’s quite difficult to decipher what Žižek aims to achieve with his writing and public speaking (in fact many would say it’s difficult to decipher what he even means in the first place, and I would concede this describes some of the essays here). What is the audience supposed to do with all this information that he throws up?

His short videos on Big Think are worth a watch and his speech ‘Don’t Act. Just Think.’ might provide the biggest clue as to his position on this. Žižek’s words both spoken and written inevitably turn your worldview upside-down. Prepare to learn how quantum wave functions might provide a framework for thinking about geopolitical catastrophe. I try to avoid ‘ism’s at all costs but Žižek has me sold on one: (Hegelian) idealism. Not in the colloquial sense of naive blue-sky thinking, but the firm position that ideas, thoughts, and stories are the primary movers of the human world and of history. This makes Žižek not only a heretic within his own political circle, but a contrarian thinker in Western society at large.

After all, why is a clear call to action the yardstick by which we so often measure someone’s chain of thought? I’ve seen adverts for conferences where the main selling point was all speakers being obliged to finish their talks with ‘5 practical steps that you can implement right now’. I don’t want your pomodoro techniques and your binaural focus music, I want to think more deeply about what I should be focusing on in the first place.

Žižek wrestles with what it means to be a progressive in a world where ‘progress’ means exploitation and catastrophe.

[mia moraru]

‘This, according to Dupuy, is also how we should approach the prospect of an ecological or social catastrophe: not realistically appraising the likelihood of the catastrophe, but accepting it as our fate, as unavoidable, and then, on the basis of this acceptance, mobilize ourselves to perform the act which will change destiny itself, and thereby open up new possibilities within the situation. Instead of saying “the future is still fluid, we still have time, time to act and prevent the worst,“ one should accept the catastrophe as inevitable– and then act to undo the destiny which is already “written in the stars “.

Basically create the miracle that we need (in order to avert the seemingly inevitable, the indomitable, the looming catastrophe. It’s always possible.)

the unanswered question is what happens after the miracle, after the catastrophe that we avoided…we likely/often find ourselves at a crux of instability, tension, general confusion, ripe ground for co-optation. it’s a mess, but probably still better than the would’ve-be catastrophe. we’ve altered history. in real time.

[Eliya Hashemi · Rating 4 out of 5]

at age 20, the first book I’ve ever finished is now this. for a large sum, it, for the great first half, holds a cohesive lining of anecdotal filmic comparisons that give way to the universality of what is a very sporadic project. halfway down the road, it drops the dead birds and indulges in just about anything, and from a geopolitical centre examined by an external psychoanalytical or philosophical theory, the inverse occurs and it becomes primarily of theory itself applied to theory. this, to a layman like me, is perhaps as unenjoyable as this text can become. this is perhaps best displayed in the longest essay as Authority, alongside the more reductive (at least to a layman like me) chapters like holographic history, and even teetering perhaps in the final chapter, which perhaps may belong as much to be at the end as anywhere else in the ensemble. the final product is, for its majority, immensely engaging whilst engaging with pedestrian qualities of theoretical, at times anecdotal theory in accordance with whatever may be dragged together, and at its worst, completely flat as a piece put inside a collection of essays that gives the impression of non accordance.

[Anthony Acquisto]

Did I understand half of what Žižek was talking about in this book? God no. “Authority” had me genuinely gasping for air trying to get through it. I’m by no means a philosopher or a philosophical thinker at that, but I was able to pull some pretty valuable insight from these essays when he stopped using his jargon and babied me through his examples.

Most of it made me either sad or angry about the state of the world. Some of his religious allegories blew my mind. There were even a few references to media I had already consumed and on which I already have firm opinions, and THAT was fun to annotate.

I think the point is that Žižek is far above me still, but I’m glad I gave this a shot and made a point of engaging with the text and taking notes. Contemporary political philosophy is depressing and complicated as all get out, but most of all it’s very clearly important. Žižek articulates that ultimate sentiment in so many words.

It will be interesting to reread this in a few years.

[Ana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fantastic, real, had my thoughts whizzing off the pages even where I didn't agree or wanted to steer the conversation someplace else. He's got the right idea of it.

[Stef]

You are very interesting to read, and I like the call to do what needs to be done even though we’re headed towards disaster. I just think you’d be insufferable to meet in person.

[Conor Fitzpatrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good ideas n analysis, very sassy Slavoj I like it, very depressing the state of the fascist world right now

[Keelan]

Relevant and urgent—Žižek never fails to intrigue!
The essay “Holographic History” is particularly innovative and excellent, but those interested in his prior work will find “Authority” to be of paramount importance.

[kiara · Rating 5 out of 5]

she can be pretentious at times, but she's inherently lovely and sobering

[Ella Okko · Rating 3 out of 5]

Powerful, but hopeful cultural commentary. Motivating to action, through writing with great fluidity. Philosophical essays (mainly "Authority") were indecipherable to me - minus for that.

[Enrique Delgado · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una serie de ensayos realmente tristes pero, necesarios.  El fin del mundo ya está ocurriendo y Zizek lo presenta aquí derrumbando la concepción de progreso que ha estancado todo como un nuevo conservadurismo utilizado por diferentes movimientos ideológicos bajo el yugo capitalista. 

Con hegel, Kant, Lacan e incluso Kierkegaard. La llamada aquí es que no existe el progreso, esta debe ser redifinida con el tiempo. Éste no existe de manera lineal. 

Estamos actuando como si nada estuviera sucediendo, como si mañana fuera a ser igual que hoy. Con la física cuántica se presenta éste paralelismo ¿Y si ya estamos en el fin del mundo? Quitandonos incluso la expectativa de la megacatastrofe, esto se parece más a las novelas televisivas que al final de cada capítulo nos dejan en una tensión, pues se acerca el final pero, espera, en el siguiente capítulo seguirá siendo peor, habrá más. "La repetición interminable del mismo momento interminable diferido e interminablemente diferido".


Estamos dirigiendonos a la barbarie capitalista. 

La crisis ambiental está aquí y sólo la desesperación podrá salvarnos. Citando a Kafka, "Oh, bastante esperanza, infinita esperanza, sólo que no para nosotros".

Y aún así, yuxtaponiendose al renegacionismo es saber que aunque se tiene esta presunta certeza del fin como algo natural seguir actuando ante esa postura estática:


A diferencia del negacionismo y la negación, la renegación funciona reconociendo plenamente aquello de lo que renegamos; su lógica es la de la célebre frase francesa «je sais bien, mais quand même...», «lo sé muy bien, pero sin embargo... (en realidad, no me lo creo)». Una actitud semejante se está convirtiendo con rapidez en el modo predominante en el que vivimos nuestras vidas sociales y políticas. La vemos en amplios sectores de la población que aceptan plenamente el cambio climático y el colapso medioambiental inminente como realidades científicas, pero no obstante continúan reproduciéndose, conduciendo coches, comiendo carne, confiando en las tecnologías y demás, como si los recursos del planeta fuesen ilimitados en lugar de agotarse: «Sé muy bien que tenemos un grave problema con nuestro medioambiente, pero sin embargo... (la vida debe continuar, sigue mereciendo la pena perseguir nuestros deseos individuales, todo sigue básicamente como siempre)». En términos políticos, lo vemos en la tibia respuesta a las victorias de los partidos y actores neofascistas por toda Europa occidental: «Sí, el auge del populismo derechista supone una seria amenaza para nuestra democracia, pero sin embargo... (fijémonos en Italia, el Gobierno de Meloni funciona bastante bien en el contexto de la Unión Europea; incluso en los Países Bajos, la victoria de Geert Wilders resultó en un Gobierno tecnocrático respetado; y podemos estar seguros de que Rassemblement National en el Gobierno tendrá que moderar sus excesos, las cosas cotidianas continuarán como siempre, la vida debe seguir...)». La continuidad, el aquí no pasa nada, la asunción de que no existe ninguna alternativa significativa a seguir comportándonos como si el mañana no fuese a ser sustancialmente diferente del hoy, y de que nuestra forma de vida puede perdurar indefinidamente: estos son los mecanismos de la renegación.


El objetivo no es proporcionar «datos alternativos», sino socavar el marco que nos hace seleccionar ciertos hechos e ignorar otros. Por eso no estamos hablando aquí de la renegación habitual, sino de un acto valiente de asumir un riesgo e ignorar nuestras aparentes limitaciones. Nuestra actitud debería ser: sabemos que parecemos débiles y divididos, pero deberíamos no obstante hacer lo que hay que hacer. Sabemos (o sentimos con la fuerza del aparente conocimiento) que no podemos evitar el colapso medioambiental, pero aun así deberíamos adoptar las medidas que nos dieran las mayores probabilidades de hacerlo.


En una situación semejante, en la que el apocalipsis se vislumbra en el horizonte, deberíamos tener presente que la lógica estándar de la probabilidad ya no resulta aplicable; necesitamos una lógica diferente, la descrita por Jean-Pierre Dupuy: 


El suceso catastrófico se inscribe en el futuro como un destino, con certeza, pero también como un accidente contingente [...]. Si se produce un acontecimiento destacado, una catástrofe, por ejemplo, no podría no haberse producido; sin embargo, en tanto en cuanto no se ha producido, no es inevitable. Así pues, es la realización del acontecimiento, el hecho de que se produzca, la que crea de forma retroactiva su necesidad.

[Kin · Rating 3 out of 5]

รวมบทความชุดล่าสุดของชิเช็ก ตัวอย่างใหม่ แต่ไอเดียก็พอจับทางได้ถ้าเคยอ่านงานชิเช็กมาก่อน บทความหลักๆ ที่พูดเรื่องความก้าวหน้าสนุกดี แต่ที่เหลือก็ตามสไตล์ คือวิเคราะห์การเมืองโลกตั้งแต่ขบวนการชาตินิยมในแอฟริกา ไปจนถึงอิสราเอล-ปาเลสไตน์ รัสเซีย-ยูเครน ยันเกาหลีเหนือ-ใต้ ซึ่งสนุกและชวนคิดดี แต่ถ้าไม่อินกับประเด็นพวกนี้คงหลุดไปเลย

ข้อเสนอใหญ่ว่าทำไมหนังสือถึงชื่อว่า Against Progress คือเรามักมองคำว่า "ก้าวหน้า" แคบไป หมายความว่าเรามักเชื่อว่าการพัฒนาทางเศรษฐกิจและเทคโนโลยีเท่ากับ "ก้าวหน้า" แต่คำถามของชิเช็กคือ ก้าวไปไหน ก้าวจากอะไร และที่สำคัญที่สุด และเป็นหัวใจของบทแรกๆ ที่ชอบมาก คือเราเสียอะไรไปบ้างระหว่างทาง

ชิเช็กยกตัวอย่างนักมายากลในหนังเรื่อง Prestige ที่ทำเหมือนเสกให้นกหายไปแล้วเสกกลับมาได้ แต่ในความเป็นจริง เบื้องหลังคือนกตัวที่ถูกเสกให้หายไปถูกฆ่า ส่วนตัวที่เสกกลับมาคือนกคนละตัวกัน นกที่ถูกบีบให้ตาย (squashed bird) พวกนี้เองคือ "ต้นทุน" หรือเศษซากของความก้าวหน้าที่เรามักหลงลืมไม่สนใจ เรามองเห็นมายากลของความเจริญ โดยลืมความรุนแรง ความตาย หรือต้นทุนที่ใครบางคน (คนยากคนจน ชนชั้นแรงงานในประเทศพัฒนาแล้ว และคนส่วนใหญ่ในประเทศ Global South) หรือบางสิ่ง (aka สิ่งแวดล้อม) แบกรับ

ต้นทุนของความเจริญของประเทศที่เจริญแล้ว คือประวัติศาสตร์อาณานิคมในประเทศโลกที่สาม ต้นทุนความก้าวหน้าทางเทคโนโลยีและเศรษฐกิจหลังยุคอุตสาหกรรมสู่ยุคอินเตอร์เน็ต คือแรงงานและทรัพยากรธรรมช���ติในประเทศยากจน ไปจนถึงสิ่งแวดล้อมและโลกใบนี้ทั้งใบ

ธีมหลักของบทความหลายชิ้นคือการตั้งคำถามกับความก้าวหน้าทั้งทางเทคโนโลยีและเศรษฐกิจ และชี้ให้เห็นว่า นกที่ถูกฆ่าพวกนี้แหละที่กลับมาหลอกหลอนผู้คนที่เห็นแต่นกตัวใหม่โดยไม่สนใจราคาที่จ่ายไป กระแสอนุรักษ์นิยมในอเมริกาก็ใช่ (ชนชั้นแรงงานต่อต้านชนชั้นนำซ้ายกลาง) กระแสชาตินิยมในหลายๆ ประเทศทั่วโลกก็ใช่ ประชานิยมทรงพลังเพราะท่ามกลางความก้าวหน้าทางเศรษฐกิจ คนที่ได้ประโยชน์จากความก้าวหน้าเลิกสนใจการเมือง เลิกสนใจปัญหาเชิงโครงสร้าง หันมาชื่นชมในเสรีภาพในการซื้อและสร้างตัวตนที่หลากหลาย แต่ในขณะเดียวกัน มันทิ้งคนจำนวนมากไว้ข้างหลัง เมื่อชีวิตไม่ดี ไม่มีกิน ใครจะเป็นที่พึ่งได้ดีไปกว่าเผด็จการที่พร้อมชี้หน้าว่าใครคือตัวปัญหาที่คอยบีบนกให้ตาย (ศัตรูทุกคน ยกเว้นตัวเอง)

ข้อเสนอเชิงแนวคิดของชิเช็กคือการมองความก้าวหน้าในสองขยักเสมอ ความก้าวหน้าที่แท้จริงต้องประกอบไปด้วย หนึ่ง การก้าวไปข้างหน้าสู่เป้าหมายที่ตั้งไว้ และสอง ที่คนมักจะลืมไป คือต้องคิดทบทวนถึงราคาที่ต้องจ่ายและจ่ายไป และปรับปรุงเป้าหมายของความก้าวหน้านั้นใหม่ในทุกๆ ก้าว (radical redefinition of the very notion of progress)

เพราะทันทีที่เราสนใจแต่การมุ่งไปข้างหน้าโดยไม่สนใจค่าใช้จ่าย ความก้าวหน้านั้นจะเป็นความก้าวหน้าที่จริงๆ แล้วไม่จำเป็นเลย เพราะมันทำลาย "อิสรภาพ" ของมนุษย์

ชิเช็กบอกว่าแนวคิดเรื่องความก้าวหน้าอย่างน้อยๆ ในปรัชญาตะวันตก มีรากฐานจากสิ่งนี้ คือสังคมที่คนเรียกกันว่า "ก้าวหน้า" หมายถึงสังคมที่มนุษย์มีอิสรภาพมากขึ้นเสมอ แต่ที่ควรระวังคือ อิสรภาพที่ว่านี้ไม่ใช่แค่อิสรภาพส่วนบุคคล ซึ่งเราอาจเห็นได้ชัดและคนยุคนี้แคร์มากกว่า ดังนั้นจึงพร้อมโจมตีนโยบายใดๆ ที่ดูเหมือนจำกัดอิสรภาพของ "ฉัน" แต่อิสรภาพยังมีแง่มุมของส่วนรวม เป็น collective freedom ในความหมายว่า ถ้าทุกคนไม่มีอิสรภาพ ก็ไม่มีใครมี ซึ่งเป็นสปิริตของยุค Enlightenment ด้วย (คิดง่ายๆ คือ ถ้ายังมีทาสอยู่ มีคนโดนกดขี่อยู่ คนโดนบังคับใช้แรงงานอยู่ในสังคมเดียวกันเรา เราเป็นอิสระจริงๆ หรือเราแค่โชคดีไม่ตกเป็นทาส?)

สำหรับชิเช็ก (ที่เราตีความเอา) ความก้าวหน้าบางอย่างส่งเสริม individual freedom แต่ทำลาย collective freedom มันฆ่านกมากมายที่อาจจะไม่เป็นพิษเป็นภัยในวันนี้ แต่จะกลับมาหลอกหลอนเหล่า "อิสรเสรีปัจเจกชน" ที่เลิกสนใจการเมืองแล้วในอนาคต

[Steven Kippax · Rating 2 out of 5]

I admire Žižek, but I rarely agree with him. Unfortunately, as a mere mortal, correctly critiquing his ideas may be beyond my scope; although, I shall attempt.

However, I will start with agreement. The cardinal mistake of political movements is that they become a caricature of themselves by failing to examine the context in which they exist and revolutionise themselves. The talking points become aged and their supporters parrot-like, whether on the right or left. And this provides an endless source of mockery for the "other side" whilst "their side" fails to realise that they too look ridiculous. Both ends of the political spectrum need to modernise their ideas and create pragmatic solutions that address the real world.

Beyond this, I often disagree with Žižek in Against Progress. He makes the common mistake of eclectic academics, applying something he understands little to his domain. In this case, his quantum ramblings bear no resemblance to anything scientific. Perhaps he intended only a metaphor, but it seems he extends beyond that and actually thinks quantum effects are invading the political world, which is ludicrous. Quantum physics is often treated like a panacea to justify all kinds of nonsense, and I fear Žižek should separate his love of physics from his political discourse.

More importantly, his support for the idea of "slowing down" and accelerationism as an existential threat violates his own view of the world. He reminds us that we are heading towards an apocalyptic collapse, and that this, at some point, appears inevitable; in the same breath, he advocates slowing down the intelligence explosion. However, it is the sliver of hope that an intelligence explosion can avoid the apocalypse that makes accelerationism essential. This issue is about acceleration towards what and for whom.

A more effective critique would be to question the motives of those leading the Singularity effort, suggesting that it is an endless pursuit of accumulated capital, status, pride, and power. And providing an alternative with accelerationism towards technology that can avoid ecological collapse, decrease the incentives for violence, and provide equitable resources to the populace. The right has co-opted the concept of the technological singularity because the left rejects it and therefore they can adopt it to win power. The left should accept it in a form that benefits all and use that to reclaim power from the right, accelerating us toward more admirable goals. Slowing down is inherently a conservative philosophy and it is the political reversal of our times that it is the right advocating for progress (albeit in a bastardised way).

Surely, the only way the situation can be saved is not to slow down, but to redirect the spear of acceleration away from the heart of civilisation and towards its injustices, its existential threats and its broken systems.

[Salvador Ramírez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Este es un nuevo libro de ensayos políticos de Slavoj Žižek el cual consta de 13 textos. Los ensayos tratan en su mayoría directamente sobre la idea del progreso o sobre temas y perspectivas que corren en paralelo, pues estas se encuentran determinando la idea de futuro.

A lo largo del los ensayos existe la idea de fondo que estamos ante una situación desesperada, ante las crisis actuales (guerras, cambio climático, ascenso de la derecha, etc.). Situaciones por las cuales no se sostiene la idea del progreso lineal (de paso por paso), que ha implicado enormes sacrificios y vidas. Como tampoco se sostienen sus alternativas propuestas más actuales como el aceleracionismo y el decrecimiento son suficientes ( como trata en su segundo ensayo "Against Progress") . Para Žižek se requiere reinventar la idea de progreso, para que este deje de ser una idea vacía que sólo funciona al estatus quo, ya que sólo habla de la actualización gradual de los potenciales de un sistema o es definida por los enemigos del cambio. No una transformación radical que cambie la situación critica actual. Por lo que boga por recuperar la idea de emancipación, de planeación y cooperación global para construir un mejor futuro. Al mismo tiempo, que redima los sacrificios hechos en el pasado en pos del progreso.

En los diferentes ensayos va discutiendo críticamente diferentes aspectos o abriendo discusiones sobre la contingencia ("Holograpich History"), una nueva relación con la naturaleza ("We are Biomass"), la guerra en Ucrania ("Concrete Analysis of a Concrete Situation"), la crisis del liberalismo centrista que esta agonizando ("Civil War") o sobre el fin de la lucha de clases por sistemas despolitizantes o dictatoriales ("The End of the world")

El texto más largo de los ensayos ("Authority") es una crítica a la idea de que la autoridad se esta desintegrando, retomando una de sus recientes tesis sobre que es un nuevo tipo de autoridad más obscena, como lo demuestra Trump (y señala en el pequeño texto de "Worsting").

La posición de Žižek ante una situación tan pesimista es que debemos de reconocerla como tal y, a pesar de ella, debemos de actuar, evitando los mecanismos de evasión de la realidad como la negación o la desmentida fetichista. El futuro es contingente y no predestinado.

Sin duda un pequeño libro que habla de la actualidad, altamente recomendable para quien desee profundizar el momento desde la perspectiva hegelo-lacaniana de Žižek.

[Nuno Mendonça · Rating 4 out of 5]

Contra o Progresso, de Slavoj Žižek, é um murro filosófico no estômago. Lê-se como um fluxo denso de provocações, paradoxos e observações hilariantes (e, por vezes, desesperantes), sempre a meio caminho entre Lacan, Marx e a cultura pop. Mas mais do que estilo, Žižek oferece aqui uma inquietação de fundo: e se o nosso problema político hoje for precisamente a ideia de "progresso"?

O título é enganador. Žižek não é um reacionário: está contra o progresso apenas enquanto narrativa linear, inevitável e bem-comportada. E aponta o dedo a uma esquerda que, mesmo quando acerta no diagnóstico (catástrofe climática, desigualdades, crise do capitalismo), parece incapaz de oferecer uma verdadeira visão de futuro. Tudo o que nos propõe é sobrevivência — e isso, diz Žižek, é uma tragédia em si mesma.

Neste vazio, a direita radical ganha terreno. Não por ter melhores políticas, mas porque oferece normalidade. Um quotidiano reconhecível. Uma promessa de ordem, por mais ilusória que seja. Há aqui uma inversão inquietante: hoje, a ultra-direita é que parece conseguir oferecer uma imagem de futuro (reacionária, patriarcal, violenta), enquanto a esquerda se refugia na gestão da catástrofe.

Žižek explora esta inversão através de imagens provocadoras — como o paralelismo entre Le Pen e os extremistas islâmicos: ambos desprezam as “exageradas preocupações LGBT”, a crise climática ou a autocrítica do Ocidente, e ambos querem uma cultura patriótica forte e coesa. A ironia está clada.

Há ainda uma crítica ao ecomarxismo enquanto forma abrandada de pensamento, algo que Žižek compara ao período Edo no Japão — uma espécie de “sustentabilidade” forçada que, longe de ser emancipadora, pode significar apenas adaptação passiva. A própria “meritocracia”, com base em Jo Littler, é desmascarada como um mito profundamente funcional ao status quo neoliberal.


Contra o Progresso não é um livro difícil. É um labirinto de ideias, citações e provocação pura. Mas também é um dos retratos mais lúcidos — e desesperados — da nossa condição contemporânea. Žižek não nos dá muitas soluções, mas também não nos poupa ilusões.

[Wyatt]

Being a collection of essays, this work is hard to characterize in a single stroke, but I think it's sufficiently accurate to say that while some of these essays are imminently approachable (I was thrilled to find that the first one, "Progress and its Vicissitudes," begins with a reference to Christopher Nolan's The Prestige, incidentally one of my favorite films), others are extremely referential (to the point of near-complete dependence) on the thoughts of G.W.F. Hegel and Jacques Lacan. I have read neither of these men, but some preliminary googling suggests that their writings are considered extremely dense and often inscrutable. On this front, I would say Žižek mostly has them beat. It's clear that he's extremely well-read, and as a result, he is perhaps reflexively a name-dropper, but even thought I didn't have any familiarity with the thinkers he references, his ideas usually came through pretty clearly, and at their best, they are relevant and resounding:

"many people’s hopes of averting total ecological collapse rest on the vague faith that ‘people will act’ before it is too late. But if the people who must act are comprised of individuals struggling with a cost of living crisis, bombarded by conflicting information on global warming – with even scientists and experts, who might be expected to hold authority, espousing radically divergent views about the nature of the problem, let alone what must be done to combat it – is it remotely realistic to expect that person to be able to act decisively in the world?"

Two of the denser essays, "Authority" and "Holographic History," were a little harder to get into without knowledge of the intellectual context on which they depend. Even still, there were nuggets in each that rang true and clear.

Žižek's style, while referential, makes this collection a joy to read, even when the ideas are hard to get a grasp of.