Abstract

Within Foucault’s assertion that society exists as a totalised field of actions upon actions, ‘doing nothing’ perhaps takes on the role of a radically subversive excess. This suggestion is consistent with Zizek’s politics of withdrawal, or Bartleby politics. However Zizek’s politics has come under much criticism in particular for the simple fact that he seems to be promoting indolent passivity in the face of systemic violence of contemporary liberal-democratic capitalism. This article seeks to critically examine two attempts at resisting the urge to ‘do nothing’, in particular the post-anarchist politics of Saul Newman and the Adrian Johnston’s critique of the cadence of change. It is argued here that both authors structure their arguments around the subversive excess of ‘doing nothing’.