This article focuses on three recent controversies in which Žižek has been embroiled and for which he has taken positions that rest on the notion of antagonism. His views on Eurocentrism, the European refugee crisis and trans politics have been the subject of notable disapproval, if not denunciation. Critics reproach him for being Eurocentric, racist and transphobic, charges which he has repeatedly countered. The article will examine the differing theoretical and political positions in these debates, underlining what Žižek’s critics miss (...) or misunderstand about his notion of antagonism. While I side firmly with Žižek on the substance of these issues, I nonetheless consider the extent to which at least part of the disagreement here centres on the performative rather than the strictly “theoretical”: Might his critics be reacting to his overexposure? Could such overexposure be interpreted as an attempt at having the last word? And to what extent does the antagonistic form of Žižek’s interventions militate against their theoretical content? (shrink)

This book critically analyzes important current issues in international development-growth, poverty, inequality, participation, consumption, corruption, gender, race, LGBT politics, revolution, universalism-by deploying key psychoanalytic concepts-enjoyment, fantasy, antagonism, fetishism, envy, drive, perversion, hysteria. It draws on the work of Lacan and Žižek, and on psychoanalytic postcolonial and feminist scholarship.

This book claims that there is a negativity at the core of all social articulations that provides the basis for a universal politics. Drawing principally on the work of Slavoj Žižek, the book suggests that the social is punctured by an impossibility-an incompletion-which rather than serving as a barrier to politics, lays a foundation for shared struggle. The book thus argues for a negative universality, rooted not in a positive element (e.g., identity-based politics) but a discordant one, so that under (...) our current global capitalist system, solidarity is to be forged on the basis of social antagonism (i.e., shared experiences of exploitation and marginalization). Such a conception of shared struggle avoids the trap of both a neocolonial universalism (e.g., the rights of white men parading as universal rights) and the narrow particularism of identity-based politics. Most importantly, it foregrounds the struggles of the systematically dispossessed and excluded (the permanently unemployed, migrants, refugees, sweatshop laborers, etc.), who stand as symptom of our global capitalist order. The book compares "negative universality" with four competing contemporary versions of universalism-conservative, liberal, postcolonial, and Marxist. It also brings "negative universality" into dialogue with present-day critics of universalism-postmodernists, post-Marxists, queer theorists, decolonial pluriversalists, and new materialists. Finally, it examines what a universal politics might look like today in the context of such key global sites of struggle as climate change, the refugee crisis, the Palestinian question, Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, Political Islam, workers' struggles, the Bolivian state under Morales, the European Union, and COVID-19. (shrink)