Abstract

Zizek is right to focus on the element of action in Heidegger's political engagement and to try to develop what I call a traumatic ontology that would supplement Heidegger's thought of the 1930s . However, I draw on Arendt's distinction between work and action to show that both Zizek and Heidegger misunderstand the nature of action. Work can be carried out by a lone, silent creator and normally requires violence; action is necessarily interpersonal and consists of speech, first and foremost. When we substitute work for action, we lay ourselves open to irresponsible revolutionary enthusiasms and run the risk of condoning tyranny