What do you think?
Rate this book
Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours
'One of our best-known living philosophers' Guardian
How do we respond to the refugee crisis - by opening our doors, or pulling up the drawbridge? Both solutions, argues Slavoj Žižek, offer ideological blackmail, and both are wrong. He proposes that instead we see the crisis as an opportunity: a unique chance for Europe to redefine itself and its future.
'Žižek identifies the refugee crisis as one of the major global challenges of our time ... he argues for a politics of solidarity' The Times Literary Supplement
How do we respond to the refugee crisis - by opening our doors, or pulling up the drawbridge? Both solutions, argues Slavoj Žižek, offer ideological blackmail, and both are wrong. He proposes that instead we see the crisis as an opportunity: a unique chance for Europe to redefine itself and its future.
'Žižek identifies the refugee crisis as one of the major global challenges of our time ... he argues for a politics of solidarity' The Times Literary Supplement
117 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2015
123 people are currently reading
2234 people want to read
About the author
Slavoj Žižek
642 books7,579 followersSlavoj 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."
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."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 225 reviews
June 11, 2017
“Refugees,” says Slavoj Žižek, “are the price humanity is paying for the global economy.” They are a result of global inequalities, and slamming down the drawbridge will not help, for mass-migrations are an inevitable part of the future, especially as climate change begins to bite. However, opening the floodgates and letting large numbers of refugees into Europe is an equally futile response, and can only cause trouble; in the end, we won’t like them and they won’t like us. Better to understand that this is all the result of global class struggle, and engage with it. Half-measures will get us nowhere.
That’s the core message of this bleak little book. It’s a polemic that has virtually nothing optimistic or generous in its 25,000-odd words. But it does have some intriguing insights, and its central, Marxian, message of global class war makes alarming sense.
It’s fair to say Žižek doesn’t like liberals much. Early in his argument he condemns the hypocrisy he thinks is inherent in arguing for open borders for refugees. Everyone knows it won’t happen, because it would “trigger a populist revolt”, so advocating it is a self-indulgence of those who want to present themselves as “beautiful souls”. In the same vein, he argues against opening the doors to refugees for humane reasons, and insists that there are limits to human empathy. Do not pretend we can empathise with refugees, he says. And don’t expect them to be grateful to us for being rich. Žižek cites the New Year’s Eve 2015 disturbances in Cologne, when large numbers of women were assaulted, apparently by refugees. In a bizarre but interesting comparison, he then quotes a 1731 incident in Paris in which printers’ apprentices murdered cats because their master’s wife pampered them while they starved.
Neither has Žižek any time for those who are too polite about other people’s religions, including Islam. In this context he quotes the Rotherham child-abuse case, in which men of mainly Pakistani descent were found to have been sexually abusing and exploiting young girls over a period of many years, and the local authority had not intervened because (it is said) it was afraid of being seen as racist. He also draws on his background in psychoanalysis to argue that people of different cultures do not necessarily wish to live in proximity.
What all this is leading up to is Žižek’s central point: There is no point in pretending to like people who we don’t really want living next door to us. It’s a hypocritical liberal lie and in any case, it won’t solve the problem. The refugee crisis is a symptom of global class war. The rich world fuels conflict so that it can rob poorer countries of their natural resources, and refugees, Boko Haram and the rest are the result; what did we expect? It’s a fair comment. Žižek makes the interesting point that the Taliban takeover in the Swat valley in 2009 was at least in part a class-driven conflict against feudal landlords.
In the richer countries, Žižek’s sympathies are less with liberals than with lower-income groups of the sort who would oppose immigration or asylum. When Western liberals point the finger at working people in their own countries for being bigoted peasants, says Žižek, this is part of the “culture wars” fuelling movements such as Trump’s (he could have added Brexit in Britain, had he written the book a few months later). The “culture wars”, in his opinion, are themselves class conflict between the disadvantaged and a liberal elite that wishes to denigrate them to maintain its own position. I think he might be right. In this sense, class struggle underlies not only the movement of refugees but the response to them in their chosen countries of refuge. There is no “let them in” option, and no “keep them out” choice either. There is only one answer: To engage with the class struggle. This is a profoundly Marxian analysis, imbued with a visceral loathing for a hypocritical, self-interested “liberal” class that Žižek clearly wishes would go to hell.
While I accept Žižek’s analysis in principle, I did have some problems with this book. An underlying theme is that, sometimes, cultures are incompatible. Given that Žižek himself thinks future large-scale migrations are inevitable, I think that’s a dangerous message. We’re going to have to get used to each other. Moreover the evidence he presents is flawed. Rotherham is not a good example – it may have had as much to do with alienation and poor governance as it did with Islam or cultural difference. He also pushes a theory, based on the work of the French psychoanalyst Lacan, that we have a morbid distrust of the “other” and their customs that both attracts and repels, and causes tensions. I do not buy this. Has he never lived next door to someone whose habits are different? It’s not always so hard. Neither are humane impulses always a bad driver of policy, although Žižek is probably right that they can’t provide a stable world.
Moreover, while global conflict and forced migration is mostly the result of inequality and imperialism, there are other factors. The US and Britain invaded Iraq for several reasons, of which oil was only one. There was also messianic attachment to democracy, and a deluded belief that freedom would make Iraqis love Israel. Moreover, while the invasion helped open the gates of hell in neighbouring Syria, there had long been communal tensions there, and they had erupted before (I know this; I used to live there). Žižek might reply that these were the result of an arbitrary colonial division of the region in 1919 that put the borders in the wrong places. In the case of Iraq this holds water, but Syria is too complex ever to have been culturally homogenous. Elsewhere, Eritrean refugees are fleeing their own government as much as they are poverty.
Lastly, I did not feel that the arguments in the book were presented in a coherent sequence. For example, two early chapters deal with the obscene underbellies of religion, and the existence of undirected violence. They do not really feed into Žižek’s central argument and may have been culled from other work he has done. I wondered if he had felt that the refugee crisis was a golden opportunity to present a thesis of global class struggle, and put it together quickly. That’s not to say that Against the Double Blackmail is a bad read; it’s pithy and well-written. But it often lacks cohesion.
Western liberals do have some thinking to do. The “culture wars” do represent a class struggle with their own proletariat, and the different responses to the refugee crisis – “refugees welcome” hashtags on one side, Pegida on the other – has thrown this into sharp relief. And it is quite true that the current instability is a result of inequality, just as air masses of different temperatures create the weather. So a “humane” response to the refugee crisis will solve nothing. At the same time, humanity is not always a bad basis for policy, and empathy is not always the false emotion or tawdry hypocrisy that Žižek would have us believe. Besides, what would he do if he saw a Syrian or an Eritrean struggling in the water? Leave them to drown? I don’t suppose so.
This book does have something to say, and smug liberals should read it. But it is meant as a provocative polemic. We should all take it with a pinch of salt. And maybe Žižek wants us to.
That’s the core message of this bleak little book. It’s a polemic that has virtually nothing optimistic or generous in its 25,000-odd words. But it does have some intriguing insights, and its central, Marxian, message of global class war makes alarming sense.
It’s fair to say Žižek doesn’t like liberals much. Early in his argument he condemns the hypocrisy he thinks is inherent in arguing for open borders for refugees. Everyone knows it won’t happen, because it would “trigger a populist revolt”, so advocating it is a self-indulgence of those who want to present themselves as “beautiful souls”. In the same vein, he argues against opening the doors to refugees for humane reasons, and insists that there are limits to human empathy. Do not pretend we can empathise with refugees, he says. And don’t expect them to be grateful to us for being rich. Žižek cites the New Year’s Eve 2015 disturbances in Cologne, when large numbers of women were assaulted, apparently by refugees. In a bizarre but interesting comparison, he then quotes a 1731 incident in Paris in which printers’ apprentices murdered cats because their master’s wife pampered them while they starved.
Neither has Žižek any time for those who are too polite about other people’s religions, including Islam. In this context he quotes the Rotherham child-abuse case, in which men of mainly Pakistani descent were found to have been sexually abusing and exploiting young girls over a period of many years, and the local authority had not intervened because (it is said) it was afraid of being seen as racist. He also draws on his background in psychoanalysis to argue that people of different cultures do not necessarily wish to live in proximity.
What all this is leading up to is Žižek’s central point: There is no point in pretending to like people who we don’t really want living next door to us. It’s a hypocritical liberal lie and in any case, it won’t solve the problem. The refugee crisis is a symptom of global class war. The rich world fuels conflict so that it can rob poorer countries of their natural resources, and refugees, Boko Haram and the rest are the result; what did we expect? It’s a fair comment. Žižek makes the interesting point that the Taliban takeover in the Swat valley in 2009 was at least in part a class-driven conflict against feudal landlords.
In the richer countries, Žižek’s sympathies are less with liberals than with lower-income groups of the sort who would oppose immigration or asylum. When Western liberals point the finger at working people in their own countries for being bigoted peasants, says Žižek, this is part of the “culture wars” fuelling movements such as Trump’s (he could have added Brexit in Britain, had he written the book a few months later). The “culture wars”, in his opinion, are themselves class conflict between the disadvantaged and a liberal elite that wishes to denigrate them to maintain its own position. I think he might be right. In this sense, class struggle underlies not only the movement of refugees but the response to them in their chosen countries of refuge. There is no “let them in” option, and no “keep them out” choice either. There is only one answer: To engage with the class struggle. This is a profoundly Marxian analysis, imbued with a visceral loathing for a hypocritical, self-interested “liberal” class that Žižek clearly wishes would go to hell.
While I accept Žižek’s analysis in principle, I did have some problems with this book. An underlying theme is that, sometimes, cultures are incompatible. Given that Žižek himself thinks future large-scale migrations are inevitable, I think that’s a dangerous message. We’re going to have to get used to each other. Moreover the evidence he presents is flawed. Rotherham is not a good example – it may have had as much to do with alienation and poor governance as it did with Islam or cultural difference. He also pushes a theory, based on the work of the French psychoanalyst Lacan, that we have a morbid distrust of the “other” and their customs that both attracts and repels, and causes tensions. I do not buy this. Has he never lived next door to someone whose habits are different? It’s not always so hard. Neither are humane impulses always a bad driver of policy, although Žižek is probably right that they can’t provide a stable world.
Moreover, while global conflict and forced migration is mostly the result of inequality and imperialism, there are other factors. The US and Britain invaded Iraq for several reasons, of which oil was only one. There was also messianic attachment to democracy, and a deluded belief that freedom would make Iraqis love Israel. Moreover, while the invasion helped open the gates of hell in neighbouring Syria, there had long been communal tensions there, and they had erupted before (I know this; I used to live there). Žižek might reply that these were the result of an arbitrary colonial division of the region in 1919 that put the borders in the wrong places. In the case of Iraq this holds water, but Syria is too complex ever to have been culturally homogenous. Elsewhere, Eritrean refugees are fleeing their own government as much as they are poverty.
Lastly, I did not feel that the arguments in the book were presented in a coherent sequence. For example, two early chapters deal with the obscene underbellies of religion, and the existence of undirected violence. They do not really feed into Žižek’s central argument and may have been culled from other work he has done. I wondered if he had felt that the refugee crisis was a golden opportunity to present a thesis of global class struggle, and put it together quickly. That’s not to say that Against the Double Blackmail is a bad read; it’s pithy and well-written. But it often lacks cohesion.
Western liberals do have some thinking to do. The “culture wars” do represent a class struggle with their own proletariat, and the different responses to the refugee crisis – “refugees welcome” hashtags on one side, Pegida on the other – has thrown this into sharp relief. And it is quite true that the current instability is a result of inequality, just as air masses of different temperatures create the weather. So a “humane” response to the refugee crisis will solve nothing. At the same time, humanity is not always a bad basis for policy, and empathy is not always the false emotion or tawdry hypocrisy that Žižek would have us believe. Besides, what would he do if he saw a Syrian or an Eritrean struggling in the water? Leave them to drown? I don’t suppose so.
This book does have something to say, and smug liberals should read it. But it is meant as a provocative polemic. We should all take it with a pinch of salt. And maybe Žižek wants us to.
January 17, 2019
Ο Zizek-αν μη τι άλλο-μπορεί να προκαλεί αντιδράσεις από τον τίτλο (ή, πιο σωστά, τον υπότιτλο) ενός βιβλίου του: Τα πραγματικά αίτια του προσφυγικού κύματος και της τρομοκρατίας. Αρκετά απόλυτος τίτλος, που υπό άλλες συνθήκες θα με ξένιζε πολύ, αλλά κλείνω τα μάτια λόγω Zizek.
Δε θα παραθέσω ολόκληρη κριτική, γιατί άντε να σχολιάσεις ένα βιβλίο όπου σε κάθε σελίδα (σχεδόν) έχεις σημειώσει κάτι που σε προβλημάτισε πάνω στα θέματα της θρησκείας, του προσφυγικού και της τρομοκρατίας, αλλά θα μείνω σε δύο σημεία: ένα στο οποίο διαφωνώ και ένα στο οποίο συμφωνώ.
Οι μεγαλύτεροι υποκριτές είναι αυτοί που υποστηρίζουν τα ανοιχτά σύνορα: ενδόμυχα γνωρίζουν πολύ καλά πως κάτι τέτοιο δεν θα συμβεί ποτέ, αφού θα προξενούσε άμεσα λαϊκίστικο ξεσηκωμό στην Ευρώπη.
Αν και αυτό που θέλει να πει είναι σωστό, πατάει σε μια λεπτή γραμμή (η οποία είναι και κάπως επικίνδυνη): Ναι, είναι υποκριτικό να μιλάμε για ανοιχτά σύνορα την ώρα που ξέρουμε ότι στα πλαίσια του καπιταλιστικού συστήματος αυτό είναι αδύνατο (και όντως θα ακουστεί λαϊκίστικο). Τι μένει, όμως, να κάνουμε; Δηλαδή, αν επιτραπεί η είσοδος στους μετανάστες, τότε θα έχουμε άνοδο της ακροδεξιάς; Οπότε, για να αποφευχθεί αυτό πρέπει οι κυβερνήσεις να δράσουν εξ αρχής σαν να ήταν ακροδεξιές; Στην τελική, δεν είμαι σίγουρη αν έχει σημασία η μεταναστευτική πολιτική μιας χώρας όταν η ευρύτερη πολιτική της ατζέντα κινείται στα όρια του καπιταλισμού. Άλλωστε, για παράδειγμα, και η Μέρκελ κατηγορήθηκε από την αντιπολίτευση ότι ήταν ανεκτική απέναντι στους μετανάστες. Ας αναλογιστούμε, όμως, ότι αυτή η στάση της γερμανικής κυβέρνησης οφείλεται στη φιλοδοξία του (γερμανικού) κεφαλαίου να εκμεταλλευτεί τη φθηνή εργατική δύναμη των μεταναστών.
Εκεί που συμφωνώ είναι το εξής:
Η πιο βασική αιτία της δημιουργίας προσφύγων είναι ο ίδιος ο σημερινός παγκόσμιος καπιταλισμός και τα γεωπολιτικά του παιχνίδια.
Για να μην υφίσταται το προσφυγικό, θα έπρεπε να συνειδητοποιήσουμε τον ρόλο της ταξικής πάλης.
Ο μοναδικός τρόπος για να το κάνουμε είναι να επιμείνουμε στην παγκόσμια αλληλεγγύη προς τα θύματα εκμετάλλευσης και καταπίεσης.
Και να καταπολεμήσουμε τη ρίζα αυτής της εκμετάλλευσης, που έχει όνομα εδώ και πολλά, πάρα πολλά χρόνια.
Y.Γ.: Αυτό το βιβλίο μπορεί να είναι και το πιο προσιτό του Zizek. Οπότε, αν θα θέλατε να διαβάσετε κάτι δικό του κάποτε, ίσως να είναι και το πιο ομαλό ξεκίνημα.
Δε θα παραθέσω ολόκληρη κριτική, γιατί άντε να σχολιάσεις ένα βιβλίο όπου σε κάθε σελίδα (σχεδόν) έχεις σημειώσει κάτι που σε προβλημάτισε πάνω στα θέματα της θρησκείας, του προσφυγικού και της τρομοκρατίας, αλλά θα μείνω σε δύο σημεία: ένα στο οποίο διαφωνώ και ένα στο οποίο συμφωνώ.
Οι μεγαλύτεροι υποκριτές είναι αυτοί που υποστηρίζουν τα ανοιχτά σύνορα: ενδόμυχα γνωρίζουν πολύ καλά πως κάτι τέτοιο δεν θα συμβεί ποτέ, αφού θα προξενούσε άμεσα λαϊκίστικο ξεσηκωμό στην Ευρώπη.
Αν και αυτό που θέλει να πει είναι σωστό, πατάει σε μια λεπτή γραμμή (η οποία είναι και κάπως επικίνδυνη): Ναι, είναι υποκριτικό να μιλάμε για ανοιχτά σύνορα την ώρα που ξέρουμε ότι στα πλαίσια του καπιταλιστικού συστήματος αυτό είναι αδύνατο (και όντως θα ακουστεί λαϊκίστικο). Τι μένει, όμως, να κάνουμε; Δηλαδή, αν επιτραπεί η είσοδος στους μετανάστες, τότε θα έχουμε άνοδο της ακροδεξιάς; Οπότε, για να αποφευχθεί αυτό πρέπει οι κυβερνήσεις να δράσουν εξ αρχής σαν να ήταν ακροδεξιές; Στην τελική, δεν είμαι σίγουρη αν έχει σημασία η μεταναστευτική πολιτική μιας χώρας όταν η ευρύτερη πολιτική της ατζέντα κινείται στα όρια του καπιταλισμού. Άλλωστε, για παράδειγμα, και η Μέρκελ κατηγορήθηκε από την αντιπολίτευση ότι ήταν ανεκτική απέναντι στους μετανάστες. Ας αναλογιστούμε, όμως, ότι αυτή η στάση της γερμανικής κυβέρνησης οφείλεται στη φιλοδοξία του (γερμανικού) κεφαλαίου να εκμεταλλευτεί τη φθηνή εργατική δύναμη των μεταναστών.
Εκεί που συμφωνώ είναι το εξής:
Η πιο βασική αιτία της δημιουργίας προσφύγων είναι ο ίδιος ο σημερινός παγκόσμιος καπιταλισμός και τα γεωπολιτικά του παιχνίδια.
Για να μην υφίσταται το προσφυγικό, θα έπρεπε να συνειδητοποιήσουμε τον ρόλο της ταξικής πάλης.
Ο μοναδικός τρόπος για να το κάνουμε είναι να επιμείνουμε στην παγκόσμια αλληλεγγύη προς τα θύματα εκμετάλλευσης και καταπίεσης.
Και να καταπολεμήσουμε τη ρίζα αυτής της εκμετάλλευσης, που έχει όνομα εδώ και πολλά, πάρα πολλά χρόνια.
Y.Γ.: Αυτό το βιβλίο μπορεί να είναι και το πιο προσιτό του Zizek. Οπότε, αν θα θέλατε να διαβάσετε κάτι δικό του κάποτε, ίσως να είναι και το πιο ομαλό ξεκίνημα.
August 4, 2016
This was long on intellectual posturing and philosophical name dropping and short on solutions - it's a polemic, not a guidebook, although the latter is vaguely suggested by the marketing of the text. Most of the book deals with issues only loosely related to migration and refugees, an early rant on TTIP being an especially irrelevant example. When the What Is To Be Done? chapter arrives, in the last 10 pages, the solutions offered are vague and unconvincing and involve some sort of abstract solidarity, lots of class struggle and the end of capitalism. Not surprising, as this is Žižek, but the end-game is too incoherent to make much sense even in the Marxist framework.
Still, I read it in one sitting, as Žižek is clever and unafraid and often right.
Still, I read it in one sitting, as Žižek is clever and unafraid and often right.
April 27, 2018
I can understand why some people will find this read absolutely harrowing. It obviously clashes with everything that you hear in traditional media. But I'm also convinced that it's a little bit closer to the truth, especially in the discussion of moving past the emphatical argument when discussing refugees and their situation. The one thing I didn't like was Zizek's push for a sort of communist solution to this, but I agreed with most of his other arguments. He hits the nail on the head in terms of cultural differences and how there is a clash of civilizations between refugees and the Occident.
October 15, 2020
Πάει το χάσε και αυτός
"Έρχονται οι πρόσφυγες και μας πέρνουν τις δουλειές "
"Δεν πρέπει να έχουν οι πρόσφυγες όνειρα"
"Φταίνε σε μεγάλο βαθμό οι ίδιοι οι πρόσφυγες για τα δεινά τους"
Μερικά χαριτωμένα που θα διαβάσεις σε αυτό το βιβλιαράκι.
"Έρχονται οι πρόσφυγες και μας πέρνουν τις δουλειές "
"Δεν πρέπει να έχουν οι πρόσφυγες όνειρα"
"Φταίνε σε μεγάλο βαθμό οι ίδιοι οι πρόσφυγες για τα δεινά τους"
Μερικά χαριτωμένα που θα διαβάσεις σε αυτό το βιβλιαράκι.
March 29, 2017
I found this this the most approachable Žižek book I've encountered. Still difficult of course, but very relevant and insightfull!
June 11, 2017
Eight or so years ago, I was fortunate enough to attend a lecture Slavoj Žižek gave at my college. Unfortunately, I didn't know at the time who he was and was too distracted by his many nervous tics to truly grasp what he was saying ... something to do with his interpretation of Christ's crucifixion. If only I could be so lucky as to attend one of the great philosopher's lectures today - I would never take such an event for granted again!
"Against the Double Blackmail" is probably Žižek's most accessible book yet. Yes, it's far more demanding than your beach reads and is packed with references and information far exceeding any other book of its length (111 pages), but this book's political timeliness means we're all well familiar with the subject Žižek is tackling here - it's been dominating the headlines the past two years! That subject, as the title makes clear, is the current refugee crisis. And wow, is Žižek spot on!
It's rare that I ever agree entirely with anyone on a given topic, but Žižek is so crisply clever in both his denunciation of liberals who denounce as racist all those who advocate keeping the refugees out and in his comparing the far-right, anti-immigrant political parties in Europe with the armies of ISIS and Boko Haram that damn if I didn't find myself nodding the whole way through. These opposite positions by the two opposing sides in the West today represent "the double blackmail" of Žižek's title, and both positions are doomed to catastrophic ends.
Žižek speaks of western taboos that need to be abandoned, such as that most annoying tendency of many western liberals to call out any critique of Islam as "Islamophobic". He cites the case of Salmon Rushdie and how liberals - rather than criticize an edict from an authoritarian religious ruler condemning an author to death for "blasphemy" - rushed to criticize Rushdie for, in their lowly opinions, choosing to "deliberately" offend the muslim world. Žižek also condemns western media first in its attempt to hide the identities of, and later to rationalize the actions of Muslims responsible for brutal sexual assaults on women in Rotherham and, most recently, Cologne, by pinning the blame on western foreign policy.
Žižek is no partisan though, and he heaps scorns on acts committed by Christians and Jews as well, and argues that Europe's populist right is essentially doing ISIS's work for them by increasingly demonizing Europe's own Muslim population - further ostracizing them to the point where they become more susceptible to radicalization.
Žižek doesn't make the mistake that so many theorists before him have, which is to claim that religion plays no role in fundamentalism. Of course it does, but such Islamic fundamentalism is fascistic in its hatred for the West which is borne, in large part, out of an envy of it.
"Against the Double Blackmail" is never less than fascinating, and oh what fun it is to see Žižek employ pop culture standards like "The Hateful Eight" and "The Searchers" to shatter mainstream taboos.
This book is essential not just for gaining a better understanding of the current refugee crisis, globalization, and other hot button issues around the world, but for bettering how you think.
"Against the Double Blackmail" is probably Žižek's most accessible book yet. Yes, it's far more demanding than your beach reads and is packed with references and information far exceeding any other book of its length (111 pages), but this book's political timeliness means we're all well familiar with the subject Žižek is tackling here - it's been dominating the headlines the past two years! That subject, as the title makes clear, is the current refugee crisis. And wow, is Žižek spot on!
It's rare that I ever agree entirely with anyone on a given topic, but Žižek is so crisply clever in both his denunciation of liberals who denounce as racist all those who advocate keeping the refugees out and in his comparing the far-right, anti-immigrant political parties in Europe with the armies of ISIS and Boko Haram that damn if I didn't find myself nodding the whole way through. These opposite positions by the two opposing sides in the West today represent "the double blackmail" of Žižek's title, and both positions are doomed to catastrophic ends.
Žižek speaks of western taboos that need to be abandoned, such as that most annoying tendency of many western liberals to call out any critique of Islam as "Islamophobic". He cites the case of Salmon Rushdie and how liberals - rather than criticize an edict from an authoritarian religious ruler condemning an author to death for "blasphemy" - rushed to criticize Rushdie for, in their lowly opinions, choosing to "deliberately" offend the muslim world. Žižek also condemns western media first in its attempt to hide the identities of, and later to rationalize the actions of Muslims responsible for brutal sexual assaults on women in Rotherham and, most recently, Cologne, by pinning the blame on western foreign policy.
Žižek is no partisan though, and he heaps scorns on acts committed by Christians and Jews as well, and argues that Europe's populist right is essentially doing ISIS's work for them by increasingly demonizing Europe's own Muslim population - further ostracizing them to the point where they become more susceptible to radicalization.
Žižek doesn't make the mistake that so many theorists before him have, which is to claim that religion plays no role in fundamentalism. Of course it does, but such Islamic fundamentalism is fascistic in its hatred for the West which is borne, in large part, out of an envy of it.
"Against the Double Blackmail" is never less than fascinating, and oh what fun it is to see Žižek employ pop culture standards like "The Hateful Eight" and "The Searchers" to shatter mainstream taboos.
This book is essential not just for gaining a better understanding of the current refugee crisis, globalization, and other hot button issues around the world, but for bettering how you think.
May 29, 2018
Thought provoking, resoundingly so.
Contextualises and illuminates the causes of and responses to the modern concept of "refugeeism".
Žižek is an erudite man, with a clear and pragmatic approach to contemporary taboos. I particularly enjoyed the way he used literary touchstones to drive home any given argument.
Well worth a read ... In fact, it should be on every MPs "must read" list.
Contextualises and illuminates the causes of and responses to the modern concept of "refugeeism".
Žižek is an erudite man, with a clear and pragmatic approach to contemporary taboos. I particularly enjoyed the way he used literary touchstones to drive home any given argument.
Well worth a read ... In fact, it should be on every MPs "must read" list.
May 16, 2018
U pesmi od Damira Avdića, Human Rights, postoji jedna, koliko tragična toliko i bolna, strofa o migrantskoj krizi:
„Iskrcala se ljudska prava
u zemlju moju iz oklopnjaka
prizemljili iz transportera
odmah iza projektila
čizme nose da utabaju
stazu meni da put nađem
puške nose jednom klikne
rafal puca da bolje pamtim
zidine su izgradili
mene u njih zatvorili
pa me uče da sam džubre
ološ svjetski nepismeni
sve su moje popalili
zaostalo je kažu bilo
pa sad grade bolje ljepše
a ja gledam iza žice.“
I koliko god da navedeni stihovi pogađaju u metu, te pljuju u lice licemernog i nadasve bezkrupuloznog stanovništva Evrope, Žižek o tome nije hteo da raglaba. Njegova glavna meta u ovoj knjizi jesu njegovi – levi liberali. Iako i sam pripadam toj grupaciji, njegovu kritiku pogrešnih postupaka pomenutih ne mogu da osporim. Neosporno je, pak, po mom mišeljenju, da su desničari nerazumni, da su njihove teze neosnovane, kao i da se radi o mržnji radi mržnje. Ali taj desničarski pogled na ovu krizu, greške koje oni prave, treba ostavit njima. Slavoj s' razlogom kritikuje one kojima pripada po principu „svako treba da sređuje svoje dvorište".
„Iskrcala se ljudska prava
u zemlju moju iz oklopnjaka
prizemljili iz transportera
odmah iza projektila
čizme nose da utabaju
stazu meni da put nađem
puške nose jednom klikne
rafal puca da bolje pamtim
zidine su izgradili
mene u njih zatvorili
pa me uče da sam džubre
ološ svjetski nepismeni
sve su moje popalili
zaostalo je kažu bilo
pa sad grade bolje ljepše
a ja gledam iza žice.“
I koliko god da navedeni stihovi pogađaju u metu, te pljuju u lice licemernog i nadasve bezkrupuloznog stanovništva Evrope, Žižek o tome nije hteo da raglaba. Njegova glavna meta u ovoj knjizi jesu njegovi – levi liberali. Iako i sam pripadam toj grupaciji, njegovu kritiku pogrešnih postupaka pomenutih ne mogu da osporim. Neosporno je, pak, po mom mišeljenju, da su desničari nerazumni, da su njihove teze neosnovane, kao i da se radi o mržnji radi mržnje. Ali taj desničarski pogled na ovu krizu, greške koje oni prave, treba ostavit njima. Slavoj s' razlogom kritikuje one kojima pripada po principu „svako treba da sređuje svoje dvorište".
November 8, 2020
" پناهجویان بهایی هستند که بشر برای اقتصاد جهانی میپردازد."
مختصر و روشنگر در باب پناهجویان و مشکلات ناشی از این پدیده.
مختصر و روشنگر در باب پناهجویان و مشکلات ناشی از این پدیده.
October 19, 2019
"I felt that way about Slavoj Zizek, that’s one person who I wrote about in a deliberately attacking way because I felt the cult of Zizek was intellectually dangerous"
Literary critic Adam Kirsch
"Estamos perdidos, Europa se está convertiendo en Europastán!"
("We're doomed, Europe is becoming Europeistan")
"Our goal is not to remain in Mexico. Our goal is to make it to the US. We want passage, that’s all.”
Honduran migrant
This book had its English title as: Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours, which is not exactly like the Spanish one, obviously. But I would translate the Spanish one as:"The new class struggle: the refugees and the terror. Well, well....
Though written especially for the European theater of migrations (out of control, some years ago), this is a pertinent book for our recent times. As "the Caravan" of thousands, from Honduras and Guatemala, move towards Mexico, and possibly to the USA, one can only wonder about, namely, the study of the Caravan organization*; in the Zizek's words, this "class" of migrants. I have read news that hypothesize a left-wing hand behind these thousands of people; I mean, a "partially" financed operation by Venezuela. If true, this migration is truly political.
Of course, Zizek puts the blame on capitalism in the book at stake. He fully agrees with the views of Peter Sloterdijk who defends that the "capitalist globalization" represents not only "openness and conquest" but a world closed on itself, one world which separates the Inside from the Outside**; it sets a "radical division of classes"; those within (protected by the "sphere") and those outside, unprotected. What solution to this problem? According to Zizek you should "reconstruct the global society".
(German Philosopher Peter Sloterdijk)
In the case of Europe, it should "redefine " itself, says Zizek. How? By breaking with all the left-wing tabus, like: "it's a racist (or protofascist) thing to protect our way of life", "don't criticize radical islam", "to identify emancipating European values with imperialism", "politicized religion is similar to fanaticism" etc.
Still in the domain of "what to do" Zizek points several avenues. Maybe firstly, he acknowledges "great migrations are our future". The "humanity should be prepared to live in a more nomadic and plastic way". The Slovenian philosopher is pro a positive and emancipating Leitkultur; so with the fight of Wikileaks, of Snowden, of the Pussy Riot, against aggressive Zionism, against antisemitism, against fundamentalism, against west neocolonialism.
The book by Zizek is not limited to Europe, and the refugees question. It includes also the terror attacks in Paris (of 13th November 2015), the Palestinian cause, ISIS, and Israel; it even approaches the Taliban cause. It seems Zizek has a certain hope for the Taliban (as when they had occupied the Swat valley, in Pakistan, back in 2009). Echoing an article by the New York Times***, Zizek quotes: (an ongoing) "revolt of classes which exploited the deep fissures between those who owned land and those who rented it". Zikek believes in those who "listen" to the worries of the people; and, yes, the Taliban had expelled many of the landowners. Zizek suggests they're not that fundamentalists; I concluded .
But how about the USA? What's the best way to deal with "The Caravan"? Should we allow them in? I mean, should the US allow them in? The USA is a sovereign nation...the EU is not.
UPDATE
For some days I've been wondering about how would Zizek respond to "the Caravan", a central America migration phenomenon. And yesterday he "answered"; he thinks "they do signal a basic geopolitical fact". If proved that "the Caravan " is a political move, I doubt the phenomenon is that basic, or comparable to Europe's. ****
*About its composition there are interesting views...I won't disclose for now.
** EN EL MUNDO INTERIOR DEL CAPITAL: PARA UNA TEORIA FILOSOFICA DE L A GLOBALIZACION
*** https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/wo...
****https://www.rt.com/op-ed/442485-migra...
Literary critic Adam Kirsch
"Estamos perdidos, Europa se está convertiendo en Europastán!"
("We're doomed, Europe is becoming Europeistan")
"Our goal is not to remain in Mexico. Our goal is to make it to the US. We want passage, that’s all.”
Honduran migrant
This book had its English title as: Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours, which is not exactly like the Spanish one, obviously. But I would translate the Spanish one as:"The new class struggle: the refugees and the terror. Well, well....
Though written especially for the European theater of migrations (out of control, some years ago), this is a pertinent book for our recent times. As "the Caravan" of thousands, from Honduras and Guatemala, move towards Mexico, and possibly to the USA, one can only wonder about, namely, the study of the Caravan organization*; in the Zizek's words, this "class" of migrants. I have read news that hypothesize a left-wing hand behind these thousands of people; I mean, a "partially" financed operation by Venezuela. If true, this migration is truly political.
Of course, Zizek puts the blame on capitalism in the book at stake. He fully agrees with the views of Peter Sloterdijk who defends that the "capitalist globalization" represents not only "openness and conquest" but a world closed on itself, one world which separates the Inside from the Outside**; it sets a "radical division of classes"; those within (protected by the "sphere") and those outside, unprotected. What solution to this problem? According to Zizek you should "reconstruct the global society".
(German Philosopher Peter Sloterdijk)
In the case of Europe, it should "redefine " itself, says Zizek. How? By breaking with all the left-wing tabus, like: "it's a racist (or protofascist) thing to protect our way of life", "don't criticize radical islam", "to identify emancipating European values with imperialism", "politicized religion is similar to fanaticism" etc.
Still in the domain of "what to do" Zizek points several avenues. Maybe firstly, he acknowledges "great migrations are our future". The "humanity should be prepared to live in a more nomadic and plastic way". The Slovenian philosopher is pro a positive and emancipating Leitkultur; so with the fight of Wikileaks, of Snowden, of the Pussy Riot, against aggressive Zionism, against antisemitism, against fundamentalism, against west neocolonialism.
The book by Zizek is not limited to Europe, and the refugees question. It includes also the terror attacks in Paris (of 13th November 2015), the Palestinian cause, ISIS, and Israel; it even approaches the Taliban cause. It seems Zizek has a certain hope for the Taliban (as when they had occupied the Swat valley, in Pakistan, back in 2009). Echoing an article by the New York Times***, Zizek quotes: (an ongoing) "revolt of classes which exploited the deep fissures between those who owned land and those who rented it". Zikek believes in those who "listen" to the worries of the people; and, yes, the Taliban had expelled many of the landowners. Zizek suggests they're not that fundamentalists; I concluded .
But how about the USA? What's the best way to deal with "The Caravan"?
UPDATE
For some days I've been wondering about how would Zizek respond to "the Caravan", a central America migration phenomenon. And yesterday he "answered"; he thinks "they do signal a basic geopolitical fact". If proved that "the Caravan " is a political move, I doubt the phenomenon is that basic, or comparable to Europe's. ****
*About its composition there are interesting views...I won't disclose for now.
** EN EL MUNDO INTERIOR DEL CAPITAL: PARA UNA TEORIA FILOSOFICA DE L A GLOBALIZACION
*** https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/wo...
****https://www.rt.com/op-ed/442485-migra...
June 23, 2022
Hay muchas formas de admirar un libro, una de las mejores es releerlo. Este ha sido el caso. En cuanto a su autor, en algún lugar habré leído que Zizek es un rockstar de la filosofía, y si por tal definición hay que entender a un pensador que desde un mensaje duro es capaz de llegar a un gran número de personas, entonces estamos ante una buena definición.
“La nueva lucha de clases” tiene una virtud muy interesante, nace muy anclado a su momento (uno, por cierto, precovid), con la crisis de los refugiados sirios y los problemas migratorios que desestabilizaban Europa allá por los primeros años del inicio de la segunda década de este siglo, y sin embargo, y sin que nada se haya solucionado, y teniendo en cuenta que hemos ido a peor, el libro es completamente actual. Los nuevos problemas que sacuden la Historia apenas cambia el análisis que hace el filósofo esloveno, y, aunque no haya soluciones a la vista, su lectura te permite manejarte mejor en el desaguisado de nuestro tiempo.
Desde mi punto de vista, es un libro muy útil para mejorar una perspectiva de izquierda, para fortalecerla, pues incide en sus contradicciones y debilidades, para centrar los problemas y recuperar un núcleo ideológico fundamental: claro que sigue habiendo lucha de clases, y estamos en una guerra difusa que beneficia a los ricos, quienes batalla tras batalla, quienes estrago tras estrago, ganan y ganan y tiene toda la pinta de que seguirán ganando, quizá hasta un colapso definitivo que a fecha de hoy, con la guerra de nuevo en Europa, esté rozándose con las manos.
Quiero concluir citando el último párrafo de la obra, y aconsejando tener a mano un lápiz afilado, porque quien lea el libro sospecho que va a sentir la necesidad de subrayar en muchas ocasiones (eso sí, remarco, que no espere soluciones): “quizá la solidaridad global sea una utopía, pero si no luchamos por ella, entonces estamos realmente perdidos, y merecemos estar perdidos.”
“La nueva lucha de clases” tiene una virtud muy interesante, nace muy anclado a su momento (uno, por cierto, precovid), con la crisis de los refugiados sirios y los problemas migratorios que desestabilizaban Europa allá por los primeros años del inicio de la segunda década de este siglo, y sin embargo, y sin que nada se haya solucionado, y teniendo en cuenta que hemos ido a peor, el libro es completamente actual. Los nuevos problemas que sacuden la Historia apenas cambia el análisis que hace el filósofo esloveno, y, aunque no haya soluciones a la vista, su lectura te permite manejarte mejor en el desaguisado de nuestro tiempo.
Desde mi punto de vista, es un libro muy útil para mejorar una perspectiva de izquierda, para fortalecerla, pues incide en sus contradicciones y debilidades, para centrar los problemas y recuperar un núcleo ideológico fundamental: claro que sigue habiendo lucha de clases, y estamos en una guerra difusa que beneficia a los ricos, quienes batalla tras batalla, quienes estrago tras estrago, ganan y ganan y tiene toda la pinta de que seguirán ganando, quizá hasta un colapso definitivo que a fecha de hoy, con la guerra de nuevo en Europa, esté rozándose con las manos.
Quiero concluir citando el último párrafo de la obra, y aconsejando tener a mano un lápiz afilado, porque quien lea el libro sospecho que va a sentir la necesidad de subrayar en muchas ocasiones (eso sí, remarco, que no espere soluciones): “quizá la solidaridad global sea una utopía, pero si no luchamos por ella, entonces estamos realmente perdidos, y merecemos estar perdidos.”
December 11, 2017
I'm so done with Zizek. This is the last straw lmao.
September 19, 2022
Zizek wrote this one after the immigration flood started in Europe (Angie's work). There is a short but intensive meditation on immigration which brings along concepts of difference and otherness. How do we perceive The Other, along with all his differences. What is it for us, how does an Other integrate itself in the concept of Western Europe.
He proposes some working points in dealing with the immigration problem. I find them good and common sense. Hard to apply probably
He proposes some working points in dealing with the immigration problem. I find them good and common sense. Hard to apply probably
July 28, 2025
Ideas claras y concisas, me he visto gratamente sorprendida por este texto. Le doy 3 estrellas porque, como es de esperar, no estoy del todo de acuerdo con varias conclusiones y soluciones que extrae de su análisis.
September 13, 2023
eher ideensammlung denn kohärente entwicklung eines gedankens. zizek verbindet ausführungen zur unvermeidbaren kulturellen differenz zwischen den flüchtenden 2015 und westeuropa, die nicht in linksliberalem multikulturalismus aufzulösen sei, sondern die man mit globaler solidarität bei gleichzeitigem beharren auf universellen und vermeintlich westlichen werten behandeln sollte; mit verschiedenen einzelnen anekdoten, bringt wie immer die psychoanalyse in der tradition lacans mit ein und vollführt einen für ihn typischen parforceritt durch verschiedenste themen.
teils erhellend, teils zu weitschweifend, aber in ihrer geistigen beweglichkeit und frische eine lohnende lektüre.
teils erhellend, teils zu weitschweifend, aber in ihrer geistigen beweglichkeit und frische eine lohnende lektüre.
June 20, 2022
I gather there are two main strands of opinion regarding Slavoj Zizek: (a) that he is a brilliant philosopher (b) that he is a provocateur, a flaneur, and a poseur.
Having finished this slim (slim is good!) book(let?) I still cannot really make up my mind. Perhaps both?
He is very good at skewering some liberal pablums. But the solution he offers - "bring class struggle back" or maybe form some sort of "Communist" world government - is not realistic and feels like an afterthought tacked on top of all the pablum-skewering which is the real point of the exercise.
May I be slightly biased because Zizek cannot seem to refrain from taking a shot (some deserved, some very cheap) at Israel and Zionism in almost every chapter? Perhaps I am. Nevertheless.
Having finished this slim (slim is good!) book(let?) I still cannot really make up my mind. Perhaps both?
He is very good at skewering some liberal pablums. But the solution he offers - "bring class struggle back" or maybe form some sort of "Communist" world government - is not realistic and feels like an afterthought tacked on top of all the pablum-skewering which is the real point of the exercise.
May I be slightly biased because Zizek cannot seem to refrain from taking a shot (some deserved, some very cheap) at Israel and Zionism in almost every chapter? Perhaps I am. Nevertheless.
August 11, 2025
4/5- Es gibt ja so Bücher, die einen irgendwie einfach traurig machen und das gehörte definitiv dazu.
Zizek (sorry für die falsche Schreibweise) zeigt hier auf wie sich die sog. Flüchtlingskrise entwickelt, sollten wir nicht beschließen diese als Preis für unsere globale Ökonomie zu sehen. Besser gesagt und grundsätzlich gesagt: Unsere Ökonomie hat den „Preis“ der Flüchtlinge. Wie wir damit umgehen definiert somit auch den Umgang mit Flüchtlingen und das Ergebnis, die faschistischen Tendenzen, spüren wir nun, Zizek sagt sie 9 Jahre früher vor.
Die letzten Sätze in seinem Buch lauten: „Vielleicht ist eine globale Solidarität eine Utopie. Doch wenn wir nichts tun, dann sind wir verloren - und verdienen es, verloren zu sein.“
Hätten mehr Menschen in den letzten Jahren nach diesem Kredo gelebt, sich nicht an kulturkämpferischen Themen festgefahren, Zizek führt hier Debatten über islamistische Terroranschläge z.B. auf, sondern hätten uns dem Klassenkampf gewidmet, könnte die Situation anders aussehen.
Es gibt viele interessante Ansätze, einige, die ich vielleicht nicht ganz verstehe, vielleicht auch nicht ganz verstehen möchte, trotz alledem bleiben sie interessant.
Z.B. thematisiert er das Thema der kulturellen Unterschiede und verschiedenen Stadien der grundsätzlichen Emanzipation. Ist Eurozentrismus unbedingt etwas schlechtes in jedem Falle? Müssen wir „Leben und Leben lassen“?
Außerdem erwähnt auch Zizek die immer wichtiger werdenden „Commons“, ein wichtiges theoretisches Konzept, mit dem man sich durchaus mal beschäftigen kann und sollte mMn.
Zizek (sorry für die falsche Schreibweise) zeigt hier auf wie sich die sog. Flüchtlingskrise entwickelt, sollten wir nicht beschließen diese als Preis für unsere globale Ökonomie zu sehen. Besser gesagt und grundsätzlich gesagt: Unsere Ökonomie hat den „Preis“ der Flüchtlinge. Wie wir damit umgehen definiert somit auch den Umgang mit Flüchtlingen und das Ergebnis, die faschistischen Tendenzen, spüren wir nun, Zizek sagt sie 9 Jahre früher vor.
Die letzten Sätze in seinem Buch lauten: „Vielleicht ist eine globale Solidarität eine Utopie. Doch wenn wir nichts tun, dann sind wir verloren - und verdienen es, verloren zu sein.“
Hätten mehr Menschen in den letzten Jahren nach diesem Kredo gelebt, sich nicht an kulturkämpferischen Themen festgefahren, Zizek führt hier Debatten über islamistische Terroranschläge z.B. auf, sondern hätten uns dem Klassenkampf gewidmet, könnte die Situation anders aussehen.
Es gibt viele interessante Ansätze, einige, die ich vielleicht nicht ganz verstehe, vielleicht auch nicht ganz verstehen möchte, trotz alledem bleiben sie interessant.
Z.B. thematisiert er das Thema der kulturellen Unterschiede und verschiedenen Stadien der grundsätzlichen Emanzipation. Ist Eurozentrismus unbedingt etwas schlechtes in jedem Falle? Müssen wir „Leben und Leben lassen“?
Außerdem erwähnt auch Zizek die immer wichtiger werdenden „Commons“, ein wichtiges theoretisches Konzept, mit dem man sich durchaus mal beschäftigen kann und sollte mMn.
April 8, 2017
Pametan čovek. Ponekad i suviše za moje standarde, ili bar želi tako da zvuči.
Nisam čitao Žižka, ali sam čuo dosta o njemu, pa je bio red. Moguće da nisam izabrao pravu knjigu. Iako kratka, i iako govori o bitnoj temi imigranata i kako rešiti trenutne probleme Evrope sa njima, ipak je 150 strana na tu temu mnogo.
Nisam čitao Žižka, ali sam čuo dosta o njemu, pa je bio red. Moguće da nisam izabrao pravu knjigu. Iako kratka, i iako govori o bitnoj temi imigranata i kako rešiti trenutne probleme Evrope sa njima, ipak je 150 strana na tu temu mnogo.
December 24, 2024
Zizek you are cool up until a point and unfortunately you do not end your thoughte before that point :(
—
Drunk me does not play about goodreads
—
Drunk me does not play about goodreads
March 5, 2024
A bit more scatter-shot than your average Zizek, some of the cultural and theoretical tangents here felt pretty wild, and I’m not sure if it brings the issue of refugees into any clearer focus other than stressing the link with global capitalism. Also, does Zizek fall into the trap he identifies at the start of the book? Eg. He criticises liberal humanitarian sentiment as playing the Beautiful Soul - decrying the immorality of our treatment of refugees whilst doing little to practically address the root cause of their conditions. On the other hand he advocates for a refreshed global solidarity and struggle against capitalism that could be argued is equally unlikely to change the conditions of refugees in the foreseeable future.
In any case, it’s a Zizek book so still a nice read. 2.5
In any case, it’s a Zizek book so still a nice read. 2.5
August 6, 2021
'Ho detto: caxxo che botta!, che botta caxxo! Caxxo che botta!' direbbe Mia Wallace (da me pudicamente censurata). Ecco, l'effetto leggendo quasi tutti i libri di Zizek e' un po' questo. Il libretto e' del 2015, potrebbe essere un po' datato in alcuni dettagli ma in realta' e' uno spunto di riflessione non indifferente. I rimandi, i collegamenti, le citazioni spaziano come sempre dalla filosofia alla poilitica, alla letteratura, al cinema (Mia Wallace ci stava a pennello quindi). La questione della rappresentanza democratica in Occidente in relazione al fenomeno migratorio e' e sara' non un problema, ma il problema a venire, specie dopo la pandemia virale (aggiungo io). In un contesto di complessiva (ma non ineluttabile) decadenza geopolitico-culturale dell'Europa, la sinistra, il pensiero progressista, devono innanzitutto togliere di mezzo le proprie ipocrisie e i paternalismi dal rapporto con chi arriva da fuori, per poter anche solo sperare di strumentalizzare a proprio favore gli antagonismi nascenti (che l'autore identifica) all'interno del contesto capitalistico globale.
April 6, 2022
الكتاب ده، ووفقا للمحتوى المعروض، تقدر تقول إن اسمه هو (ضد الإزدواجية بمعنى عام).
الحقيقة أنا متخيلتش إني هبقى مستمتع! كتاب بيتكلم عن الإرهاب واللاجئين، وكاتبه فيلسوف معروف إنه صاحب آراء محيرة وبتثير الجدل، لكن الواحد تفاجئ بكتاب، بيجمع بين طرق عرض المشاكل، بنظرة محايدة، وشوية قصص تخدم القضايا المطروحة، وبيقولك بالبلدي كده: "مش كفاية تمثيل بقى؟ ما أحنا لو عايزين نحل حاجة، هنحلها بجد! كفاية شعارات كذابة، عشان كلها بتجري ورا مصلحتها!".
الكتاب بيعرض كمية الإزدواجية إللي بيعاني منها العالم كله، الغني والفقير، صاحب القضية والظّالم، النّاس إللي بتقول كلام وتعمل غيره، وبيتكلم كمان عن إن في حاجات كتيرة هي حقوق إنسانية أصلا، فالمفروض إن يتم تصديرها للرأي العام على إنها (حقوق إنسانية)، مش تعاطف ولا منة من الرّجل الغربي الأوروبي.
الحقيقة هو مشلوح الخلاف اليهو-مسيحي، ومشلوح التّعارك الغربي الكنيسي والإسلام السّياسي، وفضائح من هنا على هناك، وكلها بتخدم القضية الأساسية (حقوق الإنسان)، وهنا هو بيتكلم عن أي إنسان، وعن قضايا اللّاجئين، وعارض كمان إن إزاي في ناس متعاطفة وناس كارهة سيرتهم، بمنتهى الصّراحة، بل وعارض مقولات استفزازية جدا لناس بتطالب بترحيل سكان أصليين لدول معينة، عشان دي مش دولتهم، وقالك: "طيب ما فلسطين أولى!".
حتّى الأفلام، إللي قال يعني بتخليك محتار تتعاطف مع أي ظالم ولا الإنسانية، بيقولك مفيش الكلام ده! الحقيقة كذا وده المطلوب! إيه بقى لازمته جو الصّعبانيات واللّف والدّوران ده؟
ترجمة مينا ناجي كانت ممتازة، والحقيقة صعب عليا، لأن ما شاء الله ع سلافوي چيجك، بيحط في الفقرة الواحدة يجي 6 ولا 7 مصطلحات مركبة، فأعتقد لولا حب مينا لآراء سلاڤوي كان زمانه قاطع شرايينه بالطول.
كمان هتلاقي في الآخر ملحق، مكتوب فيه ترجمة حلقة مينا مع سلاڤوي، وهتشوف أكتر مدى اقتناعه بكل كلمة عرضها، وتقريبا يعني -والله أعلم- هتبدأ تتابع شغل سلاڤوي.
الحقيقة أنا متخيلتش إني هبقى مستمتع! كتاب بيتكلم عن الإرهاب واللاجئين، وكاتبه فيلسوف معروف إنه صاحب آراء محيرة وبتثير الجدل، لكن الواحد تفاجئ بكتاب، بيجمع بين طرق عرض المشاكل، بنظرة محايدة، وشوية قصص تخدم القضايا المطروحة، وبيقولك بالبلدي كده: "مش كفاية تمثيل بقى؟ ما أحنا لو عايزين نحل حاجة، هنحلها بجد! كفاية شعارات كذابة، عشان كلها بتجري ورا مصلحتها!".
الكتاب بيعرض كمية الإزدواجية إللي بيعاني منها العالم كله، الغني والفقير، صاحب القضية والظّالم، النّاس إللي بتقول كلام وتعمل غيره، وبيتكلم كمان عن إن في حاجات كتيرة هي حقوق إنسانية أصلا، فالمفروض إن يتم تصديرها للرأي العام على إنها (حقوق إنسانية)، مش تعاطف ولا منة من الرّجل الغربي الأوروبي.
الحقيقة هو مشلوح الخلاف اليهو-مسيحي، ومشلوح التّعارك الغربي الكنيسي والإسلام السّياسي، وفضائح من هنا على هناك، وكلها بتخدم القضية الأساسية (حقوق الإنسان)، وهنا هو بيتكلم عن أي إنسان، وعن قضايا اللّاجئين، وعارض كمان إن إزاي في ناس متعاطفة وناس كارهة سيرتهم، بمنتهى الصّراحة، بل وعارض مقولات استفزازية جدا لناس بتطالب بترحيل سكان أصليين لدول معينة، عشان دي مش دولتهم، وقالك: "طيب ما فلسطين أولى!".
حتّى الأفلام، إللي قال يعني بتخليك محتار تتعاطف مع أي ظالم ولا الإنسانية، بيقولك مفيش الكلام ده! الحقيقة كذا وده المطلوب! إيه بقى لازمته جو الصّعبانيات واللّف والدّوران ده؟
ترجمة مينا ناجي كانت ممتازة، والحقيقة صعب عليا، لأن ما شاء الله ع سلافوي چيجك، بيحط في الفقرة الواحدة يجي 6 ولا 7 مصطلحات مركبة، فأعتقد لولا حب مينا لآراء سلاڤوي كان زمانه قاطع شرايينه بالطول.
كمان هتلاقي في الآخر ملحق، مكتوب فيه ترجمة حلقة مينا مع سلاڤوي، وهتشوف أكتر مدى اقتناعه بكل كلمة عرضها، وتقريبا يعني -والله أعلم- هتبدأ تتابع شغل سلاڤوي.
April 16, 2022
...Above your body, people are still alive. Follow the river as days go by. Head for the ocean that mirrors the sky. You want to wake up to free yourself of the image of Europa. But it is not possible.
Kad sam prvi put gledala "Evropu" (davao RTS) sa nekih šest godina posle bombardovanja, mislila sam da je taj čika fon Trir onako baš sve shvatio i htela sam odmah da odgledam ostalo što je napravio (roditelji sa pravom rekli ne može, "Breaking the Waves" tek kad porasteš); trinaest godina kasnije fejspalmujem na skorašnja mu dela, ajde "Melanoholija" okej ali ovo posle ZABOGA Larse šta ti bi.
Ova Žižekova knjižica (128 stranica, proguta se lepo posle deprimirajuće radne nedelje umesto nekog alkohola sumnjivog porekla iz ostave u cilju emocionalne eutanazije) je aktuelna i nekoliko godina posle objave. Biće i kroz još par, bez frke. Dobro istražena, kritična bez osude i prodorna.
A evropski voz, isti je onaj čiju prugu deca grade na podu u sobi, i prolazi kroz iste stanice ukrug, ukrug; da bar spakujemo šine u prašnjavu kutiju ili da željno čekamo da se nivo mora digne.
Kad sam prvi put gledala "Evropu" (davao RTS) sa nekih šest godina posle bombardovanja, mislila sam da je taj čika fon Trir onako baš sve shvatio i htela sam odmah da odgledam ostalo što je napravio (roditelji sa pravom rekli ne može, "Breaking the Waves" tek kad porasteš); trinaest godina kasnije fejspalmujem na skorašnja mu dela, ajde "Melanoholija" okej ali ovo posle ZABOGA Larse šta ti bi.
Ova Žižekova knjižica (128 stranica, proguta se lepo posle deprimirajuće radne nedelje umesto nekog alkohola sumnjivog porekla iz ostave u cilju emocionalne eutanazije) je aktuelna i nekoliko godina posle objave. Biće i kroz još par, bez frke. Dobro istražena, kritična bez osude i prodorna.
A evropski voz, isti je onaj čiju prugu deca grade na podu u sobi, i prolazi kroz iste stanice ukrug, ukrug; da bar spakujemo šine u prašnjavu kutiju ili da željno čekamo da se nivo mora digne.
June 7, 2017
Applied philosophy: What can be done about the seemingly insurmountable inflow of refugees to Europe? The refugees are only a symptom of global capitalism, which is proving unsustainable. I found many interesting ideas here, not least of which was that the idea of trying to better understand those who are different from us — whether they be the Other or the Neighbor or both — is not going to help us. Written before the horrible U.S. election of 2016, this short book/long essay does not consider the United States or its deep troubles, but as an American I could not help thinking of them all the while I was reading it. Those who are excluded from the fruits of global capitalism are never going to be included — not most of them, anyway. Žižek calls for a new approach, a new view. Not Marx's Communism but a sober acknowledgment that we are not all alike — we are not all the same — and we have to work with that, together.
December 11, 2017
Žižek es siempre inteligente y mordaz. Sin duda el más interesante y entretenido de los pensadores contemporáneos. Y éste es un libro breve pero demoledor, en el que, como de costumbre, el filósofo se ahorra cualquier indicio de corrección política y condescendencia y pone las cartas sobre la mesa: la crisis de refugiados es una consecuencia del capitalismo global. Y, por supuesto, no basta con lamentarnos o realizar pequeñas campañas de fingida solidaridad sino cambiar, radicalmente, el sistema político, económico y social en el que vivimos. Un libro que me parece verdaderamente fundamental para entender el mundo.
Slavoj Žižek concluye: “Quizá la solidaridad global sea una utopía, pero si no luchamos por ella, entonces estamos realmente perdidos, y merecemos estar perdidos”.
Slavoj Žižek concluye: “Quizá la solidaridad global sea una utopía, pero si no luchamos por ella, entonces estamos realmente perdidos, y merecemos estar perdidos”.
June 12, 2020
Zizek is effortlessly brilliant. I still have a crush on him. He’s made of an entirely different material than Varoufakis; one is an extant marxist with a discourse of protean distinction, the other is a communist wannabe who fails to be convincing, subtle or... communist. Not that I fully agree with Zizek - I’m more for open borders (not to be understood as ‘unrestricted’) than he’ll ever probably be, and my argument is pragmatic - Europe's aged population should be refreshed through sensible reforms on migration.
https://youtu.be/yjxAArOkoA0
“ ‘Culture’, in other words, is the name for all those things we practise without really believing in them, without ‘taking them seriously’. “
https://youtu.be/yjxAArOkoA0
“ ‘Culture’, in other words, is the name for all those things we practise without really believing in them, without ‘taking them seriously’. “
May 20, 2018
Slavoj Žižek doesn't pull any punches in this book. This is a honest and courageous critisims of todays world problems relating to the war on terror and immigration, but also a fearce critisism of liberals and people further on the left. This book have some good ideas, but sometimes it is hard to follow Žižek's train of thought. Still would recommend because this gives a not-racist or left-reactionary alternative to the immigration debate.
December 11, 2017
Brillante Gedanken, aber viele intuitiv nicht eingängige Argumentationen und merkwürdige Beispiele. Außerdem krasse sprachliche Vermischung von einfacher Laiensprache und schwieriger Fachsprache.
March 11, 2020
(I've never felt so called out and so agreeing at the same time).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 225 reviews