Slavoj Zizek's "Tolerance as an Ideological Category" (Summary)

 

Contemporary societal issues often get framed as problems of intolerance rather than inequality, exploitation, or injustice. The suggested solution, tolerance, is viewed as inadequate compared to more transformative actions like emancipation or political struggle, even armed conflict. This emphasis on tolerance stems from a tendency to culturalize politics, wherein political differences are normalized into cultural ones, seen as inherent and unchangeable.

 

This shift towards culturalization arises from the perceived failure of direct political solutions like welfare programs or socialist initiatives. Tolerance then becomes a post-political substitute. However, this focus on tolerance depoliticizes citizenship and power, diminishing the transformative potential of political engagement.

 

Liberal multiculturalism further exacerbates this trend by equating culture with nature, essentially naturalizing cultural differences. Samuel Huntington's concept of the "clash of civilizations" epitomizes this culturalization of politics. It replaces ideological conflicts with cultural clashes, depicting politics as stagnant.

 

Underlying this culturalization is a fundamental opposition between those bound by culture and those who are culturally liberated, privileging the latter. However, this dichotomy overlooks the inherent biases within liberalism itself, such as its promotion of Western capitalist culture.

 

Moreover, liberalism's emphasis on freedom of choice is problematic, as it often ignores structural constraints on choice, particularly for marginalized groups. For example, while individuals may theoretically have the freedom to choose their cultural traditions, social pressures often limit these choices.

 

In the context of religious expression, liberal societies tend to tolerate personal beliefs but view public displays of religious affiliation with suspicion, fearing a breach of secularism. This underscores the violent process individuals undergo to emerge as "free" subjects in Western multicultural societies, often requiring them to sever ties with their cultural roots.

 

Brown's critique of liberalism targets its philosophical foundation: the Cartesian subject, particularly in its Kantian form. This subject is depicted as capable of separating itself from its cultural and social context, asserting its autonomy and universality. The Cartesian notion of universal doubt, exemplified by Descartes, reflects a multicultural experience where one recognizes the validity of diverse perspectives. The cogito, or "I think," is not a substantial entity but a structural function emerging in the gaps of communal systems. Spinoza further develops this idea, embodying a philosophical stance of being outside communal identities.

 

For philosophers like Spinoza and Nietzsche, ethnic roots or national identity hold no truth value. Kant emphasizes the distinction between private and public use of reason. Rorty, a contemporary liberal thinker, views the private realm as a space of creativity and individuality, while the public realm emphasizes social rules and solidarity. However, for Kant, the public space represents the paradox of universal participation while remaining singular. Kant's notion of the public sphere asserts the possibility of emancipatory universality beyond one's social identity, a dimension absent in Rorty's perspective.

 

Brown's critique overlooks the liberating aspect of recognizing one's cultural background as contingent. Political liberalism emerged in Europe post the Thirty Years War, aiming to facilitate coexistence among individuals with differing religious affiliations. It goes beyond mere tolerance, demanding respect for other religions as an expression of true belief, as exemplified by Abu Hanifa's quote, "Difference of opinion in the community is a token of Divine mercy." Liberalism also encompasses atheists within its framework.

 

Brown's critique of liberal multiculturalism as essentialist is misplaced, as liberalism inherently opposes essentialism. However, she advocates for a self-reflective liberalism that critically examines its own norms and biases. Despite her insightful analysis, Brown's critique remains Eurocentric in its opposition of contingency and essentialism.

 

Moreover, Brown's critique often stays at a Marxist or postmodern level, denouncing false universality and privileging certain cultural identities. While valid, this overlooks how abstraction becomes a feature of social life, particularly in societies dominated by commodity exchange. Marx's insight into commodity fetishism reveals how individuals relate to themselves and others in an abstract, universal manner.

 

Rancière's perspective highlights the ambiguity of Marxist notions regarding formal democracy. While universal rights may appear illusory, they possess symbolic efficiency, prompting societal changes through progressive politicization. This challenges the cynical view of bourgeois freedom as merely formal, revealing its potential for effecting real change.

 

The essence of any theoretical, ethical, political, and even aesthetic struggle lies in the emergence of universality from within particular contexts. Rather than viewing universality as colored by or embedded in particular lifeworlds, the crucial moment occurs when a universal dimension emerges within a specific context and is directly experienced as such.

 

Consider Marx's analysis of Homer's epics: the challenge is not merely to explain their roots in early Greek society, but to understand how they transcend their historical origins to speak to all epochs. Similarly, great works of art endure because they can be reinterpreted across different historical contexts. Nietzsche's works, for instance, have been reinterpreted throughout the 20th century, each time revealing new aspects of his thought.

2

The Marxist approach to uncovering the particular bias of abstract universality should be complemented by a Hegelian procedure that uncovers the universality within apparently particular positions. For instance, during the French revolution of 1848, the conservative-republican Party of Order unknowingly established conditions conducive to bourgeois republican order, despite viewing themselves as royalists.

 

The cunning of reason, as Hegel described it, manifests when particular positions are blinded to their implicit universality. For example, individual capitalists may pursue their own profit without realizing how they contribute to the universal expansion of capital, which undermines all particular lifeworlds.

 

Brown's ironic rejection of liberalism's claim of culturally neutral universality overlooks the Marxist insight that capitalism is indeed universal, operating across various cultural contexts. Critics who seek to expose capitalism's Eurocentric bias miss the point; capitalism's universality lies in its neutral economic and symbolic machinery, operating globally.

 

While capitalist mechanisms may be symbolized differently in various civilizations, they function as a universal matrix of social relations. Despite variations in meaning and integration into specific social contexts, capitalism generates the same formal set of social relations aimed at self-reproduction across different communities worldwide.

 

In the struggle for emancipation, the resistance of particular cultures to universal values often involves suppressing the universal dimension inherent within them. This challenges the notion that preserving cultural identity is paramount. Even within specific cultures, individuals may protest against oppressive practices, viewing their struggle from a universal standpoint.

 

True universality is not merely a shared set of values across civilizations, but emerges through the experience of negativity within particular identities. Revolutionary solidarity is not about tolerating differences, but recognizing common struggles that transcend cultural boundaries.

 

Universality arises concretely through violent breakthroughs, leading individuals to confront their own identity limitations. For instance, the democratic ideal of individual participation may disrupt social stability by creating self-alienated individuals.

 

Primo Levi's dilemma of whether to identify primarily as a Jew or a human illustrates this tension. His humanity was not contingent upon his Jewishness but stemmed from his struggle to reconcile his identity with broader universal principles.

 

The resistance to universality often manifests through habits—informal rules that guide behavior within a society. Totalitarian regimes may exploit legal regulations to maintain control while appearing merciful. The collapse of implicit social rules can lead to social disintegration, as seen in post-Soviet Russia.

 

Empty gestures, such as offers meant to be rejected, are common in symbolic exchanges. They reflect the paradox of willing what is necessary and maintaining appearances of choice where none exists.

 

Revolutionary figures like Robespierre and John Brown reject established habits in favor of universal principles of equality. Their refusal to accommodate cultural norms reflects a commitment to uncompromising principles of justice and equality.

In the early 1980s, a student newspaper in Yugoslavia sought to protest the lack of genuine free elections by using a creative tactic. Rather than directly denouncing the elections as unfree, they published a fake edition declaring that the Communists would remain in power. This intervention aimed to disrupt the unwritten norm of silence surrounding the lack of freedom in elections, thereby reminding the public of their unfreedom.

 

In the TV series Nip/Tuck, a character named Sean faces a dilemma when he learns that his business partner is the biological father of his son. Instead of simply stating his forgiveness, Sean delivers a lengthy speech expressing his mixed feelings. This excessive explanation may stem from cultural differences between Europe and the U.S., where explicitness is often valued due to a lack of traditional grounding.

 

Habits play a significant role in shaping our identities and social interactions. They reflect societal norms and can perpetuate social violence. George Orwell highlighted the reluctance to abolish class distinctions, as it would require individuals to fundamentally change their identities. Similarly, habits can reveal our true ideological beliefs, even when we outwardly adopt different attitudes.

 

The Catholic Church's handling of pedophilia scandals illustrates how institutional habits can perpetuate harmful behavior. These scandals are not merely individual transgressions but reflect deeper institutional dynamics. Institutions may protect their "obscene" underside to maintain solidarity, making it challenging to address such issues.

 

To enact meaningful change, radical politics must challenge these entrenched habits. This involves confronting the ideological foundations of liberalism and addressing the underlying assumptions that perpetuate social injustice. Only by daring to challenge the ideological status quo can true universality emerge as a basis for emancipatory struggle.