What do you think?
Rate this book
Heaven in Disorder
“An impressive feat.” —The Guardian
“Passages of beauty... a hire-wire juxtaposition of far-left political theory and pop culture, held together by the force of [Žižek’s] rumpled charm.” —BuzzFeed
As we emerge (though perhaps only temporarily) from the pandemic, other crises move center stage: outrageous inequality, climate disaster, desperate refugees, mounting tensions of a new cold war. The abiding motif of our time is relentless chaos.
Acknowledging the possibilities for new beginnings at such moments, Mao Zedong famously proclaimed “There is great disorder under heaven; the situation is excellent.” The contemporary relevance of Mao’s observation depends on whether today’s catastrophes can be a catalyst for progress or have passed over into something terrible and irretrievable. Perhaps the disorder is no longer under, but in heaven itself.
Characteristically rich in paradoxes and reversals that entertain as well as illuminate, Slavoj Žižek’s new book treats with equal analytical depth the lessons of Rammstein and Corbyn, Morales and Orwell, Lenin and Christ. It excavates universal truths from local political sites across Palestine and Chile, France and Kurdistan, and beyond.
Heaven In Disorder looks with fervid dispassion at the fracturing of the Left, the empty promises of liberal democracy, and the tepid compromises offered by the powerful. From the ashes of these failures, Žižek asserts the need for international solidarity, economic transformation, and—above all—an urgent, “wartime” communism.
“Passages of beauty... a hire-wire juxtaposition of far-left political theory and pop culture, held together by the force of [Žižek’s] rumpled charm.” —BuzzFeed
As we emerge (though perhaps only temporarily) from the pandemic, other crises move center stage: outrageous inequality, climate disaster, desperate refugees, mounting tensions of a new cold war. The abiding motif of our time is relentless chaos.
Acknowledging the possibilities for new beginnings at such moments, Mao Zedong famously proclaimed “There is great disorder under heaven; the situation is excellent.” The contemporary relevance of Mao’s observation depends on whether today’s catastrophes can be a catalyst for progress or have passed over into something terrible and irretrievable. Perhaps the disorder is no longer under, but in heaven itself.
Characteristically rich in paradoxes and reversals that entertain as well as illuminate, Slavoj Žižek’s new book treats with equal analytical depth the lessons of Rammstein and Corbyn, Morales and Orwell, Lenin and Christ. It excavates universal truths from local political sites across Palestine and Chile, France and Kurdistan, and beyond.
Heaven In Disorder looks with fervid dispassion at the fracturing of the Left, the empty promises of liberal democracy, and the tepid compromises offered by the powerful. From the ashes of these failures, Žižek asserts the need for international solidarity, economic transformation, and—above all—an urgent, “wartime” communism.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2021
About the author
Slavoj Žižek
587 books6,623 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 83 reviews
March 11, 2023
سيكون لدى سلافوي جيجيك دائما شيئًا جديدًا ليكتب عنه، ولكن لن يكون لديه بالضرورة شيئًا جديدًا ليقوله. الكتاب في مجمله يخلو من العمق الفلسفي الذي يُفترض بشخص يمارس الفلسفة أن يضفيه على رؤيته لما يحدث في العالم، ويتورط في مواضع كثيرة منه في تحليلات سطحية وعجولة وسخيفة. هذا ما يحدث عندما يصاب المرء بهوس المسارعة للحديث عن أي حادث أو حدث دون أن يترك مسافة - زمنية وفكرية- كافية تتيح له النظر للأمور بشكل واضح.
May 5, 2022
Yes, the forthcoming Communism will be a war Communism or there will be none.
Cleaving the thicket of (at least my own) despair, our friendly Slovenian philosopher has again saved my day. Collecting pieces from other publications (Guardian, LRB etc) this survey of our tumultuous times lives up to its titular Maoist forecast. The successive waves of Covid, January 6 and the eerie sense that climate change had turned an irrevocable corner are all commented upon. Some jewels found: the new Axis of Evil in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt and the UAE. Biden is Trump with a human face. Networked Authoritarianism will understand the needs of its constituents so effectively there won’t be a need for dissent or unrest.
Classic Žižek, parsing Habermas or Agamben on their stance on Macron or Covid, he takes a step back and describes a scene from a John Carpenter film and then glosses such with a phrase from Lacan or Hegel. Bob's your uncle.
4.5 rounded up.
Cleaving the thicket of (at least my own) despair, our friendly Slovenian philosopher has again saved my day. Collecting pieces from other publications (Guardian, LRB etc) this survey of our tumultuous times lives up to its titular Maoist forecast. The successive waves of Covid, January 6 and the eerie sense that climate change had turned an irrevocable corner are all commented upon. Some jewels found: the new Axis of Evil in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt and the UAE. Biden is Trump with a human face. Networked Authoritarianism will understand the needs of its constituents so effectively there won’t be a need for dissent or unrest.
Classic Žižek, parsing Habermas or Agamben on their stance on Macron or Covid, he takes a step back and describes a scene from a John Carpenter film and then glosses such with a phrase from Lacan or Hegel. Bob's your uncle.
4.5 rounded up.
February 17, 2022
I hope this book reaches a wider audience as Zizek gives, as usual, enlightening insights on some of the most important issues of our time plagued by a pandemic.
His main thesis could be formulated concisely as the need for a new ‘communism’, but neither 20th century type of centralized, Soviets style single-party communism nor a “multitude” based ‘ direct democracy, or autonom communism inspired by Negri / Deleuze vein. He strongly opposes the idea that self-organizing, rhizomatic movements like “OWS”, or “Yellow vests” could be “the” solution to our problems. All such movements fades away after the initial enthusiasm dies out; they can not persists beyond the day after. He says he would sell his mother in slave market just to see “V for Vandetta Part 2”. Yes it was exciting to see the masses with Guy Fawkes masks surrounding the parliement but then what happened afterwards?
He got a point here; enormous problems which we face today cannot be dealt with revolutionary romanticism, they require highly hierarchical expert organisations. We can compare two approaches towards the pandemic taken by the western democracies and China. While Western democratic approach failed miserably in handling the pandemic, highly strict, even despotic Chinese approach succeded in containing the virus. This proves that the liberal democratic or Negrian multitude approaches cannot solve the global problems. What we need is not less alienation but parodoxically more alienation, more expert organizations in global management to have less alienation in our private lives. Our recent experiences support this idea, but then the question comes to mind why then Zizek thinks 20th century style communism of hierarchical organisations of experts, intellectuals is over. One inclines to think that the true alternative to 20th century hierarchical communist organizations can be horizontal, rhizomatic, grassroot organisation of multitudes. Zizek convincingly shows the inefficacy of such grassroot organisations in tackling the huge global problems. But he also says classical type hierarchical communism is also over, so then what kind of communism he really proposing, in what respect it is different than other communisms based on multitude or hierarchy? He seems to oppose both of the possible varieties but fails to elaborate on a third.
This open point aside, he makes brilliant analysis of our current hellish state of things.
I only have two objections.
First is about the kurdish movement. His unconditional support for it , misses some important issues.And I am not talking about their partnership with western imperialism, their willingness of being a proxy of western interests. Despite being weak, Zizek has an explaination for it: “What other options did they have?”
I find his claim that Kurds are the most secular, most modern group in a region where extreme religous conservatism and sectarian approaches are norms, very problematic. Like other groups, Kurds are highly diverse, in some regions they are the most conservative group still living in a feudal culture; most of the infamous honor killings and vendettas happen in parts of Turkey where kurdish population is very high. These regions are also bullwarks of the ruling islamic party. They made coalitions with Islamic movements against the secular, enlightment movements in Turkey. At some point they employed strong Islamic references and rhetoric in attacking secular policies.
Secondly, I find his staunch Eurocentrism highly problematic. He argues that European legacy of Secularism and Enlightenment ideals are still very important. But it is highly questionable that Enlightenment ideals are still the dominant values in Europe. I think there are 2 dominant ideologies in Europe today: Far Right medivealism / neo-feudalism (especially in Eastern Europe) and Neo-liberal Postmodernism. Both of these are strongly opposed to Modernism/Enlightenment. I don’t think Europe would ever be a center of progressive policies again. So I think it is vain to insist on European legacy, the communist “spectre” stopped haunting it long ago, we should look for it in other parts of the world. It seems more probable that Europe will once again be the center of extreme right, even outright fascism.
These reservations having been underlined, otherwise I find this book of Zizek a must-read, highly relevant to our present dire conditions.
His main thesis could be formulated concisely as the need for a new ‘communism’, but neither 20th century type of centralized, Soviets style single-party communism nor a “multitude” based ‘ direct democracy, or autonom communism inspired by Negri / Deleuze vein. He strongly opposes the idea that self-organizing, rhizomatic movements like “OWS”, or “Yellow vests” could be “the” solution to our problems. All such movements fades away after the initial enthusiasm dies out; they can not persists beyond the day after. He says he would sell his mother in slave market just to see “V for Vandetta Part 2”. Yes it was exciting to see the masses with Guy Fawkes masks surrounding the parliement but then what happened afterwards?
He got a point here; enormous problems which we face today cannot be dealt with revolutionary romanticism, they require highly hierarchical expert organisations. We can compare two approaches towards the pandemic taken by the western democracies and China. While Western democratic approach failed miserably in handling the pandemic, highly strict, even despotic Chinese approach succeded in containing the virus. This proves that the liberal democratic or Negrian multitude approaches cannot solve the global problems. What we need is not less alienation but parodoxically more alienation, more expert organizations in global management to have less alienation in our private lives. Our recent experiences support this idea, but then the question comes to mind why then Zizek thinks 20th century style communism of hierarchical organisations of experts, intellectuals is over. One inclines to think that the true alternative to 20th century hierarchical communist organizations can be horizontal, rhizomatic, grassroot organisation of multitudes. Zizek convincingly shows the inefficacy of such grassroot organisations in tackling the huge global problems. But he also says classical type hierarchical communism is also over, so then what kind of communism he really proposing, in what respect it is different than other communisms based on multitude or hierarchy? He seems to oppose both of the possible varieties but fails to elaborate on a third.
This open point aside, he makes brilliant analysis of our current hellish state of things.
I only have two objections.
First is about the kurdish movement. His unconditional support for it , misses some important issues.And I am not talking about their partnership with western imperialism, their willingness of being a proxy of western interests. Despite being weak, Zizek has an explaination for it: “What other options did they have?”
I find his claim that Kurds are the most secular, most modern group in a region where extreme religous conservatism and sectarian approaches are norms, very problematic. Like other groups, Kurds are highly diverse, in some regions they are the most conservative group still living in a feudal culture; most of the infamous honor killings and vendettas happen in parts of Turkey where kurdish population is very high. These regions are also bullwarks of the ruling islamic party. They made coalitions with Islamic movements against the secular, enlightment movements in Turkey. At some point they employed strong Islamic references and rhetoric in attacking secular policies.
Secondly, I find his staunch Eurocentrism highly problematic. He argues that European legacy of Secularism and Enlightenment ideals are still very important. But it is highly questionable that Enlightenment ideals are still the dominant values in Europe. I think there are 2 dominant ideologies in Europe today: Far Right medivealism / neo-feudalism (especially in Eastern Europe) and Neo-liberal Postmodernism. Both of these are strongly opposed to Modernism/Enlightenment. I don’t think Europe would ever be a center of progressive policies again. So I think it is vain to insist on European legacy, the communist “spectre” stopped haunting it long ago, we should look for it in other parts of the world. It seems more probable that Europe will once again be the center of extreme right, even outright fascism.
These reservations having been underlined, otherwise I find this book of Zizek a must-read, highly relevant to our present dire conditions.
February 23, 2022
A political pacemaker. Not peacemaker, no, Zizek brings the sword of wartime communism as that which bars us from entry to paradise but also marks the spot. God is unconscious so act fast.
January 15, 2022
If you like previous Zizek books, you'll enjoy this, even though you may find yourself more than familiar with a few thoughts (and jokes) scattered throughout the book.
September 19, 2022
I like Zizek. He is a very stimulating writer. He combines Hegel's Ideas with Freud&Lacan's psychanalysis and Rammstein's lyrics in commenting contemporary politics.
I like his ideas. But I also think he is an idealist, as always these lefties good-guys are. So that is why I resonante a lot with him.
His style remainds me of Umberto Eco. However Eco concentrates too much (for me) on Italy, so his writing and ideas are difficult to understand if you are not an italian. Zizek is much more international, and for all contemporary - covid, Biden, Trump are his favourite topics in this book.
I like his ideas. But I also think he is an idealist, as always these lefties good-guys are. So that is why I resonante a lot with him.
His style remainds me of Umberto Eco. However Eco concentrates too much (for me) on Italy, so his writing and ideas are difficult to understand if you are not an italian. Zizek is much more international, and for all contemporary - covid, Biden, Trump are his favourite topics in this book.
January 12, 2023
Is it me (meaning am I getting crazier) or is Zizek writing much clearer and more accessible these days? Even though the book lacks coherence due to the fact that the it is a collection of articles and blog posts by Zizek, the premise is clear: keep fighting the good fight without deceiving ourselves that this mode of living and producing will face catastrophe (Zizek’s maybe favourite word) sooner or later. The solution is not just communism but wartime communism: kind of the mobilisation that’s required to solve crises of ecology, migration etc.
The reason why it’s not five stars is the reluctance Zizek shows on figuring out how this wartime communism will emerge and sustain itself in the long run. Understandable, but missing anyway.
The reason why it’s not five stars is the reluctance Zizek shows on figuring out how this wartime communism will emerge and sustain itself in the long run. Understandable, but missing anyway.
April 15, 2022
zizek is a confirmed Article Head and there's 175 URLs referenced here from news outlets, which i love bc they take up space and make me feel smart for turning pages quicker.
this has great pacing. if zizek wants a to touch on a topic he devotes a tiny chapter of it, ties it up quickly, then onto the next point. the only other work of his that ive read thats similar to this type of focus on politics was Like a Thief in Broad Daylight. this was much more enjoyable (and cohesive) for me
this has great pacing. if zizek wants a to touch on a topic he devotes a tiny chapter of it, ties it up quickly, then onto the next point. the only other work of his that ive read thats similar to this type of focus on politics was Like a Thief in Broad Daylight. this was much more enjoyable (and cohesive) for me
April 2, 2022
Pirmā pilnā Žižeka grāmata, ko izlasīju. Labs, īss pārskats par pēdējo divu gadu aktualitātēm pasaulē, īpašs uzsvars uz panedēmiju un pēc Trampa ASV un viss, protams, pasniegts ierastajā Žižeka stila mērcītē. Tomēr vairums nodaļu nepārsteidza, interesantākās bija garākās, analītiskākās.
October 16, 2023
Let me start by saying that this is the first work of Žižek that I have read. However, I have as a large number of people listened to an extensive number of his lectures and debates, for which his arguably quite known. Additionally, I have a read a number of books and papers that directly or indirectly reference and paraphrase him.
The book is a great analysis and incredibly interesting perspective on the recent geopolitical events (2020 US presidential elections, Covid pandemic, Chile protests, Honk Kong protests, etc.). As typical for Žižek the theoretical and philosophical analysis relies deeply on Hegel and Lacan, but even for less knowledgeable readers (like me), the references are perfectly understandable. Žižek offers a multitude of perspectives on worldwide trends and if you have a critical mind, it is a really enjoyable experience.
That said, I very much disagree with a number of conclusions that Žižek comes up with in his writing. So this part of the review is not meant to be discouraging of potential readers, but rather just my grain of thought. Firstly, one of the red lines of this book is alarmism and how to deal with incoming “apocalypses”. Žižek starts by telling us that we should reject alarmism, however as the book progresses, he constantly makes references to seemingly incoming dooms, such as the pandemic, climate change and populism. Each time, the subtle point is to tell us that only a new unidentified form of communism can save us from incoming catastrophes. However, in the last chapter Žižek concludes that we are already in the apocalypse and that truly the only solution is a vaguely defined communism that Žižek bases primarily on Leninist organisation, a radical strong form of global social-democracy and the creation of a new set of the “working class” that goes beyond the current understanding of transcending struggles that form one demographic entity (western European working class aristocracy, the nomadic proletariat, feminists, LGBTQ+ community, etc).
In many ways however, I find this reasoning purely alarmist and completely ignorant of the fact that communism is the only solution. Many times in this book, I found myself thinking of a joke: “How many communists do you need to change a lightbulb? It doesn’t matter, they will all tell you that in order to change the lightbulb, we need to change the social-economic order into communism”. And truly, this is what I understood. Žižek clearly identified real problems and issues in the systemic structures of numerous countries, but instead of providing direct solutions, Žižek tries to convince us that truly only communism will work.
Let me explain. In several chapters Žižek discusses the dissatisfaction of a number of people with the “liberal-democratic capitalist order” in the US and France. He mentions the US capitol storming and the “gilets jaune”. However, he does not spend a single word on explain the democratic systems and the flaws of these two countries. Both the US and France have deep presidential systems with an incredibly weak legislature that is voted in through old archaic and frankly undemocratic systems (FPtP and 2-rounds FPtP). These two characteristics completely explain why voters and the people are disillusioned with their system of governance. Simply, because their voted does not matter as these systems are not good in representing all votes.
Beyond this, there are also clear examples where Žižek either lacks knowledge or willingly ignores certain parts of the story. For example, in chapter 7 he endorses the conspiracy theory that antisemitic allegations against Corbyn were simply made up. The number of times were Corbyn indirectly and directly met/agreed with antisemites is uncountable. There are also clear examples where Corbyn endorsed organisations such as Hezbollah. Here Žižek simply does not want to admit that his own “allies” are flawed and can be problematic.
Similarly, when it comes to Bolivia, Žižek blindly believes the story on how Morales was truly innocent when we know for a fact that he attempted to seize power unconstitutionally. Furthermore, Žižek believes in the lithium coup story, despite the fact that the US gets a vast majority of its lithium from other sources. This lack of consciousness is problematic and reminds us that any political work needs to be critically.
There are many other problematic parts of the book, such as Žižek’s deep distrust and dislike of President Biden, whom he portrays as the return of a pre-Trumpian elite, despite the fact that Biden truly changed US politics forever with his strong pro-union messages and his discourse on democracy. Finally, I want to again say that the book is great and really has a number of interesting points (the role of democratic representatives as either leaders or truly just representatives for example). But I seriously encourage any potential reader to keep in mind that Žižek has a clear political goal in this book and this is to sell you a new form of communism that still has inherited issues of its predecessors (the need for a global form of communism which can be achieved only through force, for example).
The book is a great analysis and incredibly interesting perspective on the recent geopolitical events (2020 US presidential elections, Covid pandemic, Chile protests, Honk Kong protests, etc.). As typical for Žižek the theoretical and philosophical analysis relies deeply on Hegel and Lacan, but even for less knowledgeable readers (like me), the references are perfectly understandable. Žižek offers a multitude of perspectives on worldwide trends and if you have a critical mind, it is a really enjoyable experience.
That said, I very much disagree with a number of conclusions that Žižek comes up with in his writing. So this part of the review is not meant to be discouraging of potential readers, but rather just my grain of thought. Firstly, one of the red lines of this book is alarmism and how to deal with incoming “apocalypses”. Žižek starts by telling us that we should reject alarmism, however as the book progresses, he constantly makes references to seemingly incoming dooms, such as the pandemic, climate change and populism. Each time, the subtle point is to tell us that only a new unidentified form of communism can save us from incoming catastrophes. However, in the last chapter Žižek concludes that we are already in the apocalypse and that truly the only solution is a vaguely defined communism that Žižek bases primarily on Leninist organisation, a radical strong form of global social-democracy and the creation of a new set of the “working class” that goes beyond the current understanding of transcending struggles that form one demographic entity (western European working class aristocracy, the nomadic proletariat, feminists, LGBTQ+ community, etc).
In many ways however, I find this reasoning purely alarmist and completely ignorant of the fact that communism is the only solution. Many times in this book, I found myself thinking of a joke: “How many communists do you need to change a lightbulb? It doesn’t matter, they will all tell you that in order to change the lightbulb, we need to change the social-economic order into communism”. And truly, this is what I understood. Žižek clearly identified real problems and issues in the systemic structures of numerous countries, but instead of providing direct solutions, Žižek tries to convince us that truly only communism will work.
Let me explain. In several chapters Žižek discusses the dissatisfaction of a number of people with the “liberal-democratic capitalist order” in the US and France. He mentions the US capitol storming and the “gilets jaune”. However, he does not spend a single word on explain the democratic systems and the flaws of these two countries. Both the US and France have deep presidential systems with an incredibly weak legislature that is voted in through old archaic and frankly undemocratic systems (FPtP and 2-rounds FPtP). These two characteristics completely explain why voters and the people are disillusioned with their system of governance. Simply, because their voted does not matter as these systems are not good in representing all votes.
Beyond this, there are also clear examples where Žižek either lacks knowledge or willingly ignores certain parts of the story. For example, in chapter 7 he endorses the conspiracy theory that antisemitic allegations against Corbyn were simply made up. The number of times were Corbyn indirectly and directly met/agreed with antisemites is uncountable. There are also clear examples where Corbyn endorsed organisations such as Hezbollah. Here Žižek simply does not want to admit that his own “allies” are flawed and can be problematic.
Similarly, when it comes to Bolivia, Žižek blindly believes the story on how Morales was truly innocent when we know for a fact that he attempted to seize power unconstitutionally. Furthermore, Žižek believes in the lithium coup story, despite the fact that the US gets a vast majority of its lithium from other sources. This lack of consciousness is problematic and reminds us that any political work needs to be critically.
There are many other problematic parts of the book, such as Žižek’s deep distrust and dislike of President Biden, whom he portrays as the return of a pre-Trumpian elite, despite the fact that Biden truly changed US politics forever with his strong pro-union messages and his discourse on democracy. Finally, I want to again say that the book is great and really has a number of interesting points (the role of democratic representatives as either leaders or truly just representatives for example). But I seriously encourage any potential reader to keep in mind that Žižek has a clear political goal in this book and this is to sell you a new form of communism that still has inherited issues of its predecessors (the need for a global form of communism which can be achieved only through force, for example).
March 16, 2023
Ожидал книгу, а получил обзор последних новостей.
Книга в первые выпущена в начале 2021 года, то есть писалась в основном в 2020-м (это важно, так как некоторые главы писались именно в том контексте). И да, как уже и писал, это скорее не цельная книга, а обзор новостей, объединенных, по мнению автора, некоторой единой нарративной линией, и эта линия, опять же по мнению автора, отлично описывает состояние реальности, которой автор (и мы с ним) живем. Главы между собой не связаны, читать можно в любом порядке, кроме, пожалуй, открывающей и завершающей глав.
Большой акцент делается на проблеме пандемии коронавируса (ещё бы в 21-м году!). Многие выводы делаются именно исходя из той предпосылки, что люди живут в депрессивной неопределенности, связанной с неясностью будущего и сменой привычной нормальности на неопределенность.
Большинство глав завязаны именно на американскую политику, и актуальны скорее жителям Америки, при чем не только США, а в том числе и Южной Америки, так как многие события, описанные в книге, касаются Боливии, Чили и Аргентины.
Обсуждая в каждой отдельной главе отдельную новость, автор пытается дать какую-то оценку самой новости и сделать на её основании некоторый далеко (а иногда не очень) идущий вывод. Во многом, и даже в основном, эти выводы касаются того, какую политику нам следует продвигать, и что делать тем, кто эту политику поддерживает.
Отдельного внимания заслуживает ироничный, а местами даже провокационный стиль повествования. Чего только стоит заявление, что самые большие антисемиты в мире – это сионисты! Это определенно добавляет интереса в процессе чтения.
Для меня литература такой формы – это, безусловно, что-то новое. Попытаться связать множество разрозненных новостей в единый нарратив и на их основании попытаться сделать вывод и дать практические советы – это свежо (для меня!). Получилось ли у автора действительно всё увязать? Местами да, местами уж очень дискуссионно.
Помимо того, такой формат крайне контекстуален. Даже в 2023-м году, когда я читал эту книгу, часть утверждений уже казались неактуальными, или даже устаревшими. С пандемией, например, в основном всё уже разрешилось, и мы не живем в той неопределенности, исходя из которой делал выводы автор.
В целом, читать было занимательно. Местами смешно, местами нудновато. Не шедевр, но и не плохо.
6/10
Книга в первые выпущена в начале 2021 года, то есть писалась в основном в 2020-м (это важно, так как некоторые главы писались именно в том контексте). И да, как уже и писал, это скорее не цельная книга, а обзор новостей, объединенных, по мнению автора, некоторой единой нарративной линией, и эта линия, опять же по мнению автора, отлично описывает состояние реальности, которой автор (и мы с ним) живем. Главы между собой не связаны, читать можно в любом порядке, кроме, пожалуй, открывающей и завершающей глав.
Большой акцент делается на проблеме пандемии коронавируса (ещё бы в 21-м году!). Многие выводы делаются именно исходя из той предпосылки, что люди живут в депрессивной неопределенности, связанной с неясностью будущего и сменой привычной нормальности на неопределенность.
Большинство глав завязаны именно на американскую политику, и актуальны скорее жителям Америки, при чем не только США, а в том числе и Южной Америки, так как многие события, описанные в книге, касаются Боливии, Чили и Аргентины.
Обсуждая в каждой отдельной главе отдельную новость, автор пытается дать какую-то оценку самой новости и сделать на её основании некоторый далеко (а иногда не очень) идущий вывод. Во многом, и даже в основном, эти выводы касаются того, какую политику нам следует продвигать, и что делать тем, кто эту политику поддерживает.
Отдельного внимания заслуживает ироничный, а местами даже провокационный стиль повествования. Чего только стоит заявление, что самые большие антисемиты в мире – это сионисты! Это определенно добавляет интереса в процессе чтения.
Для меня литература такой формы – это, безусловно, что-то новое. Попытаться связать множество разрозненных новостей в единый нарратив и на их основании попытаться сделать вывод и дать практические советы – это свежо (для меня!). Получилось ли у автора действительно всё увязать? Местами да, местами уж очень дискуссионно.
Помимо того, такой формат крайне контекстуален. Даже в 2023-м году, когда я читал эту книгу, часть утверждений уже казались неактуальными, или даже устаревшими. С пандемией, например, в основном всё уже разрешилось, и мы не живем в той неопределенности, исходя из которой делал выводы автор.
В целом, читать было занимательно. Местами смешно, местами нудновато. Не шедевр, но и не плохо.
6/10
February 28, 2022
Zizek ontrafelt de catastrofe(s) van onze tijd, op een gedurfde en radicale manier. Het uitsterven van de mens veroorzaakt door de kapitalistische tegenstellingen in onze maatschappij kan slechts een uitweg vinden in een nieuwe vorm van een radicaal opgewekt Communisme, (losgemaakt van onze nihilisitishe vermoeidheid) waarin we onszelf positief weten te vervreemden. Het boek maakt duidelijk dat hoop alleen nog ligt in een vernieuwde linkse beweging. Zoals Zizek Max Horkheimer citeert: "Pessimism in theory, optimism in practice"
January 29, 2023
This was a lot more fun than I expected. Oh and the man clearly loves the word "apropos"
July 25, 2022
I guess I was expecting more from this given his reputation, which I basically understood to be something like "a thoughtful philosopher who writes books accessible to the masses." This definitely isn't technical stuff for specialists, so he nailed that part. But there really didn't seem to be much meat to it. I saw a review which said this one was "Zizek-lite," so maybe I'll try another book by him in the future.
April 29, 2022
o zizek tem dois tipos de livros: os de cariz filosófico e teórico, normalmente extremamente bem escritos e interessantes, mas mais difíceis de acompanhar, e estes- reflexões também filosóficas e críticas sobre acontecimentos da atualidade. muito mais fáceis de acompanhar, mas não menos interessantes e cheios de análises e provocações criativas, que já são quase uma imagem de marca do autor. este livro é bastante recente e trata os acontecimentos que dominaram o debate público político nos últimos anos, desde a pandemia até à invasão do capitólio. é um livro extremamente bom, mesmo para aqueles que se considerem politicamente distantes do autor; com constantes reinterpretações destes eventos com recurso a ferramentas de análise teóricas dos grandes pensadores da filosofia moderna e contemporânea, que o zizek conhece muito bem, por vezes melhor do que eles próprios.
May 31, 2022
Daudz ūdens, tam starpā daži “hmm” un labas vietas manai mīļākajai aktivitātei - pastrīdēties.
Noteikti iespējams no šīs grāmatas paņemt vairāk nekā es paņēmu, bet kopumā info pilns ieskats pēdējo divu gadu (vietām novecojušajos) notikumos, protams, līdz ar Žižeka īpatnējo rokrakstu to analīzē un kritikā.
Bieži nelasu politiku, tāpēc paldies “?” margās, kuras atgādināja lasīt analītiskāk. Reizēm, nezinot tematu, ir vēlme atzīt pirmo dzirdēto - ļauties izlasītajam. (Bet arī jāuzslavē, ka nevienā brīdī doma nebija pārāk grūti uztverama. Noteikti nebija labākais ievads, bet tumsā arī nepaliku.)
Visspilgtāk prātā palika frāze “decaffinated protester”.
Noteikti iespējams no šīs grāmatas paņemt vairāk nekā es paņēmu, bet kopumā info pilns ieskats pēdējo divu gadu (vietām novecojušajos) notikumos, protams, līdz ar Žižeka īpatnējo rokrakstu to analīzē un kritikā.
Bieži nelasu politiku, tāpēc paldies “?” margās, kuras atgādināja lasīt analītiskāk. Reizēm, nezinot tematu, ir vēlme atzīt pirmo dzirdēto - ļauties izlasītajam. (Bet arī jāuzslavē, ka nevienā brīdī doma nebija pārāk grūti uztverama. Noteikti nebija labākais ievads, bet tumsā arī nepaliku.)
Visspilgtāk prātā palika frāze “decaffinated protester”.
March 29, 2024
For someone whose entire style is defined by digressions and the rapid switching of topics, a surprisingly clear, coherent, and useful picture emerges out of the 'disorder' presented here. Zizek argues for the necessity of a renewed commitment to collective action, and against deluding ourselves with either utopian visions, divorced from the concrete situation before us or despairing due to apocalyptic nightmares, grounded in them. Instead, he insists on a 'moderate' Communism, which remains fully engaged with the people and situation surrounding us: surprisingly orthodox, but novel inn its formulation here. Really enjoyed this read.
January 15, 2023
Slavojs Žižeks lasa ziņas un par tām raksta grāmatu. Kopumā tā arī bija - dažādi 2020.gada notikumi, kas izpelnījušies mediju uzmanību, aprakstīti katrs savā nodaļā. Ir gan atsauces uz Lakānu, Hēgeli, anekdotēm un popkultūru (Rammstein pat vairāk nekā vienreiz), gan sociālismu. Nenoliedzami šāds grāmatas formāts to diez vai padarīs par klasiku, jo daļa no notikumiem ir aizmirsti un mainījušies (pandēmijas sākums utt.), bet lasīt bija interesanti.
Manai gaumei ASV notikumu varēja būt arī mazāk, bet tas tomēr atspoguļo Rietumu mediju telpu un tāpēc laikam arī ir diezgan atbilstoši reālajai ziņu proporcijai. Vislabāk man patika nodaļa par Bolīviju un Evo Moralesu, jo, lai saprastu, vai piekrītu autora pozīcijai, pašai nācās krist Vikipēdijas un publikāciju bezdibenī, kurā uzzināju daudz jauna ne tikai par Bolīvijas politisko vidi, bet arī citām Dienvidamerikas valstīm.
Manai gaumei ASV notikumu varēja būt arī mazāk, bet tas tomēr atspoguļo Rietumu mediju telpu un tāpēc laikam arī ir diezgan atbilstoši reālajai ziņu proporcijai. Vislabāk man patika nodaļa par Bolīviju un Evo Moralesu, jo, lai saprastu, vai piekrītu autora pozīcijai, pašai nācās krist Vikipēdijas un publikāciju bezdibenī, kurā uzzināju daudz jauna ne tikai par Bolīvijas politisko vidi, bet arī citām Dienvidamerikas valstīm.
February 8, 2022
I love Slavoj, he always makes you think and gives you a laugh while checking you & your philosophies. Also, as a die hard Rammstein fan, I love that Slavoj dedicated 2 chapters to them, using philosophy to analyze their songs in todays climate.
September 11, 2022
big fan of the guy, but it's a real stinker, sorry, shouldn't have been published
November 27, 2022
Easily the least interesting Zizek I’ve read.
April 1, 2024
أقل من العادي
June 2, 2022
Occasionally insightful, but mostly truism within Leftist discourses with mentions of Hegel and Lacan here and there.
August 6, 2022
My first Zizek reading. He is so Left, he's hanging at the edge of the Left-Right seesaw with legs above the void. His Left-ism makes centrism so Right.
I was illuminating to read these essays because it's a glimpse of the world through different glasses than I've not had on so far; I was familiar with most of the ideas, but only sketchy. Mr. Zizek puts highlights and caps lock in oh so many places.
I was illuminating to read these essays because it's a glimpse of the world through different glasses than I've not had on so far; I was familiar with most of the ideas, but only sketchy. Mr. Zizek puts highlights and caps lock in oh so many places.
Read
January 27, 2024Chapter 6 sex moron analogy was INSANE
March 1, 2022
Excellent take and analysis of the current political climate
February 15, 2022
A surprisingly lucid book from a very sniffly man
January 16, 2024
Always a pleasure, to read Žižek.
“Maybe this is one of the succinct definitions of populism: the movement of those who do not trust political representation. What Marx said for the French peasant protests of 1848 fits perfectly the attack on the Capitol: “Their entry into the revolutionary movement, clumsily cunning, knavishly naïve, doltishly sublime, a calculated superstition, a pathetic burlesque, a cleverly stupid anachronism, a world-historic piece of buffoonery and an undecipherable hieroglyph for the understanding of the civilized—this symbol bore the unmistakable physiognomy of the class that represents barbarism within civilization.”167 The “revolutionary” attackers were clumsily cunning (thinking they are deceiving anyone by their rhetoric), knavishly naïve (in following Trump as the embodiment of popular freedom), and doltishly sublime (evoking the great tradition of the founding fathers betrayed by the US administration). They acted on a calculated superstition (not really believing in their conspiracy theories they relied on), displayed a pathetic burlesque (imitating revolutionary fervor), and represented a cleverly stupid anachronism (defending the old American values of freedom) . . . As such, they were truly “an undecipherable hieroglyph”: an explosion of anti-Enlightenment barbarism that brought forth the hidden antagonisms of our civilization.”
Excerpt from
Heaven in Disorder
Slavoj Žižek
“Maybe this is one of the succinct definitions of populism: the movement of those who do not trust political representation. What Marx said for the French peasant protests of 1848 fits perfectly the attack on the Capitol: “Their entry into the revolutionary movement, clumsily cunning, knavishly naïve, doltishly sublime, a calculated superstition, a pathetic burlesque, a cleverly stupid anachronism, a world-historic piece of buffoonery and an undecipherable hieroglyph for the understanding of the civilized—this symbol bore the unmistakable physiognomy of the class that represents barbarism within civilization.”167 The “revolutionary” attackers were clumsily cunning (thinking they are deceiving anyone by their rhetoric), knavishly naïve (in following Trump as the embodiment of popular freedom), and doltishly sublime (evoking the great tradition of the founding fathers betrayed by the US administration). They acted on a calculated superstition (not really believing in their conspiracy theories they relied on), displayed a pathetic burlesque (imitating revolutionary fervor), and represented a cleverly stupid anachronism (defending the old American values of freedom) . . . As such, they were truly “an undecipherable hieroglyph”: an explosion of anti-Enlightenment barbarism that brought forth the hidden antagonisms of our civilization.”
Excerpt from
Heaven in Disorder
Slavoj Žižek
December 15, 2022
Loss of a Shared Reality aka Heaven in Disorder
The widespread discontent, seething just beneath the surface of contemporary society, is not simply the result of specific dissatisfaction with specific facts such as rising prices, poor public infrastructure, inadequate public health, racism, extreme inequality, substandard education, sub-subsistence level wage jobs, etc. These are all specific examples of justified discontent. The standard way of explaining the widespread or general discontent is as the sum of specific dissatisfactions. The alternative explanation is that we no longer have a shared reality. The list of specific dissatisfactions is Mao’s “great disorder under heaven”. The lack of a shared realty is Zizek’s “Heaven In Disorder”.
As Zizek puts it, we all know catastrophe is pending, but we are not ready to take it seriously, e.g., climate change which is a case of knowledge without belief. That is, we all know it is real, we just do not believe it will happen – a paradigm example of an epistemological contradiction, heaven itself is indeed in disorder.
A more fundamental doubt about facts, value, freedom, dignity, fairness, and the meaning of meaning itself has crept into the social consensus. We now live in an intense age without substance. The contemptable injustice of our social reality, the decay of our political institutions and the condemnable unfairness of our economic reality leads to the quest for alternative realities with alternative facts. New fictional and increasingly violent narratives are developed to explain or justify reality, this becomes realism in place of reality. The new narratives are about how we navigate our experience of existence and justify it to ourselves. We no longer live socially; we instead live in a pseudo social reality based on social, political, and economic theories which are invented to cover up our ignorance of how to live together; to make us feel more comfortable with a contemptable invented anti-factual, anti-rational reality in place of a shared reality based on a common body of accepted facts.
Zizek covers the knowns and unknowns for us. Some of this is old ground but something is new:
Known Knowns – Things we that we know we know. 1 + 1 = 2.
Known Unknowns – Things we know that we do not know. The ultimate origin of life.
Unknown Unknowns – Things we do not know that we do not know. The black swan events.
Unknown Knowns – Things we choose not to know. We prefer belief in our own myths.
I believe that fourth on this list is new and the most pernicious because this is where willful ignorance resides. This is also the basis of the suppositions and assumptions upon which we act without thinking; the place of our cultural paradigms and the way in which our institutions function. For example, the assumption that democracy and capitalism can of course be brought to Iraq by War. The unknown knowns are an example of negative self-awareness. These are things we should know about ourselves and our social reality but by ignoring them we leave the path to alternative anti-factual realty open and inviting.
Here are some anti-factual post-truth examples that I can think of, Zizek also talks about these in the book but what follows is from my perspective:
An example is the controversy over Coronavirus vaccinations. For example, I unapologetically argue for mandatory vaccinations for all persons who are medically able to receive the vaccination. Another person can reasonably disagree with me as to the mandate. The point is that if we start from a shared factual reality in which the vaccines are safe and effective and that it is desirable to implement them on as wide a scale as possible to as many people as possible, and as quickly as possible we can likely find a compromise. We just disagree as to the most effective means of getting the population vaccinated and reaching herd immunity; we can agree on this goal simply based on a rational assessment of the common facts. In a rational world based on a shared reality, we would likely reach a comprise based on a combination of mandates, education, and incentives. However, heaven is in disorder when we no longer have a shared factual reality. No rational compromise is possible if the person objecting to the vaccine mandate does so based on an anti-factual reality where the vaccines are dangerous or even the cause of lower immunity and the cause of unrelated health problems or that the vaccines are part of a wider conspiracy. The later scenario is the post-truth, anti-rational, anti-factual world in which now live. Hence, heaven itself is in disorder.
Without a shared reality, is liberal democracy even possible? For example, the 01/06/21 insurrection and attack on the U.S. Capitol Building was an attempt to disrupt a Constitutional procedure and possibly overturn a duly authorized election process and legitimate election result. The real struggle is over the nature of reality itself. I see two levels of unreality here:
1. There was no insurrection and the events of 01/06/21 were legitimate political discourse. No further comment needed.
2. The claim of the participants that the people have the right to alter, abolish or replace government in such a manner. However, if one assumes there is a constitutional right to overthrow a constitutional government, then constitutional government itself is not possible. A view of reality based on this sort of contradiction is another example of heaven is disorder.
The widespread discontent, seething just beneath the surface of contemporary society, is not simply the result of specific dissatisfaction with specific facts such as rising prices, poor public infrastructure, inadequate public health, racism, extreme inequality, substandard education, sub-subsistence level wage jobs, etc. These are all specific examples of justified discontent. The standard way of explaining the widespread or general discontent is as the sum of specific dissatisfactions. The alternative explanation is that we no longer have a shared reality. The list of specific dissatisfactions is Mao’s “great disorder under heaven”. The lack of a shared realty is Zizek’s “Heaven In Disorder”.
As Zizek puts it, we all know catastrophe is pending, but we are not ready to take it seriously, e.g., climate change which is a case of knowledge without belief. That is, we all know it is real, we just do not believe it will happen – a paradigm example of an epistemological contradiction, heaven itself is indeed in disorder.
A more fundamental doubt about facts, value, freedom, dignity, fairness, and the meaning of meaning itself has crept into the social consensus. We now live in an intense age without substance. The contemptable injustice of our social reality, the decay of our political institutions and the condemnable unfairness of our economic reality leads to the quest for alternative realities with alternative facts. New fictional and increasingly violent narratives are developed to explain or justify reality, this becomes realism in place of reality. The new narratives are about how we navigate our experience of existence and justify it to ourselves. We no longer live socially; we instead live in a pseudo social reality based on social, political, and economic theories which are invented to cover up our ignorance of how to live together; to make us feel more comfortable with a contemptable invented anti-factual, anti-rational reality in place of a shared reality based on a common body of accepted facts.
Zizek covers the knowns and unknowns for us. Some of this is old ground but something is new:
Known Knowns – Things we that we know we know. 1 + 1 = 2.
Known Unknowns – Things we know that we do not know. The ultimate origin of life.
Unknown Unknowns – Things we do not know that we do not know. The black swan events.
Unknown Knowns – Things we choose not to know. We prefer belief in our own myths.
I believe that fourth on this list is new and the most pernicious because this is where willful ignorance resides. This is also the basis of the suppositions and assumptions upon which we act without thinking; the place of our cultural paradigms and the way in which our institutions function. For example, the assumption that democracy and capitalism can of course be brought to Iraq by War. The unknown knowns are an example of negative self-awareness. These are things we should know about ourselves and our social reality but by ignoring them we leave the path to alternative anti-factual realty open and inviting.
Here are some anti-factual post-truth examples that I can think of, Zizek also talks about these in the book but what follows is from my perspective:
An example is the controversy over Coronavirus vaccinations. For example, I unapologetically argue for mandatory vaccinations for all persons who are medically able to receive the vaccination. Another person can reasonably disagree with me as to the mandate. The point is that if we start from a shared factual reality in which the vaccines are safe and effective and that it is desirable to implement them on as wide a scale as possible to as many people as possible, and as quickly as possible we can likely find a compromise. We just disagree as to the most effective means of getting the population vaccinated and reaching herd immunity; we can agree on this goal simply based on a rational assessment of the common facts. In a rational world based on a shared reality, we would likely reach a comprise based on a combination of mandates, education, and incentives. However, heaven is in disorder when we no longer have a shared factual reality. No rational compromise is possible if the person objecting to the vaccine mandate does so based on an anti-factual reality where the vaccines are dangerous or even the cause of lower immunity and the cause of unrelated health problems or that the vaccines are part of a wider conspiracy. The later scenario is the post-truth, anti-rational, anti-factual world in which now live. Hence, heaven itself is in disorder.
Without a shared reality, is liberal democracy even possible? For example, the 01/06/21 insurrection and attack on the U.S. Capitol Building was an attempt to disrupt a Constitutional procedure and possibly overturn a duly authorized election process and legitimate election result. The real struggle is over the nature of reality itself. I see two levels of unreality here:
1. There was no insurrection and the events of 01/06/21 were legitimate political discourse. No further comment needed.
2. The claim of the participants that the people have the right to alter, abolish or replace government in such a manner. However, if one assumes there is a constitutional right to overthrow a constitutional government, then constitutional government itself is not possible. A view of reality based on this sort of contradiction is another example of heaven is disorder.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews