Is Slavoj Žižek even a theologian?
An interesting discussion is taking place on the Church and Postmodern Culture site sparked off by my previous post. In it even uses theological concepts and codes’, but wants to point out that this alone would not justify the title.
questions Žižek as a theologian for two reasons. Firstly, because he thinks that it obscures Žižek’s own project. Secondly, because it misunderstands the nature of theology itself. Both of these dovetail together in the fact that Žižek is a ‘fighting atheist’ (Žižek’s term) who not only believes that ‘religion in its actual forms… is fundamentalist and violent’, but advocates a void at the core of the cosmos. In contrast is interested in thinking about theology as a transcendent enterprise, writing,
‘But if theology is truly about something, someone, transcending reality as we know/perceive/construct it, something, someone, that, yes, stands beyond/above/outside what we can conceive, then it is plain that Žižek is not a theologian, and clearly states as much’
This gets us to what I see as the fundamental problem with . Namely, whether theology should be (loosely) demarcated in terms of the belief in and reflection upon some supreme being transcending our reality (the conceptual realm). Adam Kotsko brilliantly draws this out when he comments,
Okay, so let’s assume you’re talking about “theology” primarily in terms of “Christian theology” (which most people do, as is understandable given that arguably no other religion has pushed theological speculation to the insanely baroque levels you see in Christianity). If that is the case, I find it odd that you are defining “theology” in terms of the strictly formal question of “transcendence” rather than in terms of a meditation on the meaning and implications of Christ’s work.
If we define “theology” in terms of Christ, then it seems that we’re forced to say that yes, Zizek is engaging in Christian theology — albeit in a heterodox way. And in many cases, I think we’d have to say that Radox types like Milbank are *not* doing theology in any meaningful sense, but rather advancing a philosophical ontology of transcendence with occasional token gestures toward Christ.
Now I should be clear that I ultimately don’t think that these labels are very important, and I don’t think there’s anything insidious about your attempt to apply them (despite your kind of weird preemptive strike on the bleeding-heart liberals who would find your labels oppressive or something). What I do find important is that very bizarre thing that seems to have happened in Christ and in his wake. People who help me, directly or indirectly, to think about that wierd happening in new or more rigorous ways inspire gratitude in me. People who do not inspire boredom and frustration in me — or in the case of Milbank, both. I think that’s probably a more helpful way of divvying things up, if we must so divvy.
You can find the original post, along with the subsequent debate here. Also, Blake Huggins has started a related discussion on his (Ir)religiosity site entitled, ‘What does it take to be a theologian’.
Tags: (Ir)religiosity, Adam Kotsko, Blake Huggins, Church and Postmodern Culture, Geoffrey Holsclaw, John Milbank, Slavoj Žižek, theology
June 24th, 2009 at 10:05 am
hey pete,
thanks for letting me jump all over you for a phrase you probably just through out there to get a reading group started.
anyhow, I finally answered adam’s comment over at churchandpomo.org.
It is roughly that a bifurcation between “philosophical ontology” and “Christ and everything in his wake” often makes us drowsy and dreamy in thought rather than leading us into the wakefulness of God.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“who not only believes that ‘religion in its actual forms… is fundamentalist and violent’, but advocates a void at the core of the cosmos.”
Let’s just make things clear. Violence doesn’t necessarily mean a bad thing for Žižek. And where did he write that religion in its actual forms is fundamentalist? He says that fundamentalists are not true believers, that they betray the idea of belief, they take religious texts as simple empirical data and treat them as a scientist would treat scientific papers. In that sense he defends religion against this notion that ‘fundamentalists are the “real believes” while everybody else is not, and that they show what religion is really about’…
And what’s this about advocating a void at the core of the cosmos? Where did he write this?
June 24th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Hey Mariborchan
Have to defend Geoff on these ones. Zizek, as you know, is for a particular type of violence, one that changes what Hegel would call the ethical substance of a society. A violence that is faithful to the Real. He does not view most of the actually existing church as advocating this type of violence, rather it has a non-substantive violence (one against homosexuals, woman, etc.)
He has often attacked the actually existing church and is fond of quoting Mao that churches should be turned into grain silos and palaces of culture. He is clear that the true believer he advocates is not the believer that we find in the majority of the church. Like Eagleton he suggests that actually existing christianity has missed the founding moment of the Christ event and failed to grasp what the community of the Holy Spirit really means (the communist cell working against the Real of Capital).
In terms of whether he sees the actually existing church as fundamentalist this is more difficult. It is true that he sees most fundamentalism today as not fundamentalist enough (really being jealous of what they reject). But it is clear that he sees the modern church caught up in an ontology borrowed from science and this is something he thinks is key to fundamentalism. However I too think that, on this point, some traditions within the church miss this (I think hje would say Catholicism does).
Also I am not too sure one could say he is defending religion. As a Lacanian this would seem strange. I go with Kotsko that he is defending a religionless Christianity similar to that of Bonhoffers.
Finally in terms of the Nothing at the core of the cosmos, this is in dozens of his books (such as The Parallax View and everything since) and is central to his fundamental project. This Void takes many guises in his work: the Real, the void of subjectivity, the night of the World.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Holy-shit. I’m insane enough to engage in debates about whether so and so is a theologian or not. What does it take for us to realize that we are all theologians. We are all scientists (I can hear the push back on that one), we are all doctors, we are all teachers, learners, cab-drivers (think about the last time you ran someone/thing somewhere …. —- it is a matter of degree, and we have put a damn fine point on the living of life and want to, no matter how ‘evolved’ we get – we categorize – all the while categorization is always about defining things that are sometimes fuzzily categorical (say, an affable personality) to rather concrete categorical (say, a sub 4 min. miler). Often times categorization is about egos self-defining, self-exalting and subjectively determining the worth of others – from your little position in the cosmos. Damn, how stupid, esp. re: who is a theologian and who isn’t one.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Hey Zach
My first concern is that your position is just as absolutist as what you are claiming to reject. The idea that it is all a matter of degree and that we are all taxi drivers (though I am surprised you charge people for lifts), bus drivers, biologists, doctors, TV producers and astronauts (the logic seems to break down very quickly to me) seems to be just as metaphysical as what you oppose (which is not what the discussion is about either).
More than this, you also just shift the problem to a different site: namely to the site of degree (we still need to find criteria to distinguish between the ‘theology’ of one who has dreamt up their ideas while sitting on the toilet and those who have worked hard dealing with the issues at hand).
In addition to this many will respond with equal aggression to your own at what you suggest as there are many people who would find the claim that they are theologians distasteful because of what the word implies. Most of my friends would very strongly assert that they are not theologians in the same way that they would find the idea that they are a doctor or taxi driver absurd.
Instead it seems like a better starting point to take a Marxist analysis and begin by pointing out that the definition of who is a theologian is embedded and depends on ones position in the social matrix. E.g. those who are inside the category of ‘theologian’ are likely to fight for an exclusive usage while those on the outside are likely to fight for an inclusive usage. It is similar to the student who puts up a che picture until they get a job in the local bank and then replaces it with a Monet print – i.e. ones moral indignation is often, as Nietzsche shows, just resentment in sublimated form.
Now with this basic perspectivist starting point we can then move on and employ an institutional definition whereby we try to work out what, today in the Western 21st century, counts as theology by those who are already described as academic theologians (understanding, of course, that this is a human pursuit rooted in a genealogical tradition). Of course what passes as theology changes over time because of its embedded nature. For instance, what counts as theology changes fundamentally with Kant.
Your point misses what the debate is really about. I don’t think anyone in this debate is at the level you describe. They would almost all say, ‘OK, then lets talk about what counts as academic theology’. In other words, the point you make is not aimed at what the debate is attempting to interrogate.
Take your example of all being doctors for instance. If a local medical practitioner began to do crystal healing in their office hours a debate will no doubt arise as to what a doctor is and what are the scope and limitations of the practice. If you were to come into the debate and say, ‘Holy-shit. I’m insane enough to engage in debates about whether so and so is a doctor or not. What does it take for us to realize that we are all doctors’. This would add nothing to the debate except obscurantism. In the same way that it is obvious they are talking about the profession so to it is obvious this debate is about the academy.
In short, this is a serious debate being carried out by people well versed in the history of philosophy and well aware of the linguistic turn. All are well aware of the institutional definition and are debating with a whole host of shared understanding.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
BTW another point that is known by all in the debate is that theology is itself not something that exists in some atemporal manner. Theology is itself something with a context, history and genealogy. Your position operates with an ontology like that presumed in modern neo-liberalism, one which seems to think that theology is something that is ahistorical. Your definition, for example, seems to assume that theology covers anyone who thinks about God, but this is itself a very specific definition based in a particular historical period. Indeed it is this definition that is being questioned in the debate
June 24th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Hey, Pete. In your initial comment over at Church & Pomo Culture you mention that Zizek claims the “materialist theologian” title for himself someplace. I was reading through some bits of “Monstrosity” today and noticed that Creston Davis makes note of it too (pg. 17) but unfortunately his citation only references a conference (the content of which I was unable to find online).
I’m wondering if Zizek has made this claim (and possibly even discussed it at some length) in print someplace. Do you have any idea if he has or which volume might be the best place to search for something like that?
June 24th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
We are not all theologians anymore than we are all biologists or philosophers or poets. “Idol” has proven that we might all sing but we are not all singers. Are people really rushing to get this sprinted on their business card?
June 25th, 2009 at 1:33 am
In response to Zack, my only question is did you actually read the churchandpomo discussion? The author prefaces his discussion with your concern, so to respond as if you’re the first person who had this revelation about the violence of categorization is pointless and unnecessary. This is ideology at its purest
June 25th, 2009 at 3:58 am
“We still need to find criteria to distinguish between the ‘theology’ of one who has dreamt up their ideas while sitting on the toilet and those who have worked hard dealing with the issues at hand.”
Reminds me of the joke about the Mathematician with constipation. He had to work it out with a pencil.
I disagree slightly: Pop Idol etc. has confirmed that many people would self-denominate as ’singer’, whereas it might be more appropriate to consider the denomination of others as more informative. Note though, that, in the case of Idol, we have a panel of so-called experts mixed with a democratic vote: the denomination ’singer’ is not purely conferred from on high, but also opened to the public.
What really matters though is the perspective of history. Many will sing, and sing in tune. But time will tell who the *real* singers are. Perhaps, to use Malcolm Gladwell’s formula, it’ll be those who’ve spent 10,000 hours on it. Which is quite a time to spend doing theology on the crapper, I can tell you.