ISSN 1751- 8229

Volume Two, Number Two

The Hegelian Night of the orl!"#
$i%e& on Sub'e(ti)it*, Negati)it*, an!
+ni)er,alit*
Robert Sinnerbrink - Macquarie University (Australia)
The human being is this night, this empty nothing, that contains everything in its
simplicityan unen!ing "ealth o# many representations, images, o# "hich none
belongs to himor "hich are not present$ $$$ %ne catches sight o# this night "hen
one looks human beings in the eyeinto a night that becomes a"#ul (&egel,
Jenaer Realphilosophie, '()*-+)$
This e,traor!inary passage, "ritten by &egel in his -ena, pre-Phenomenology !ays, appears in
many o# .i/ek0s publishe! "orks, usually in connection "ith the theme o# the ra!ical negativity
o# the (&egelian-1acanian) sub2ect (See .i/ek '3345 *)-*46 '3375 '7*6 '33+5 8(6 '3385 (-')6
'3335 43-9)6 4))+5 77)$ %ne coul! even say it is one o# the Ur-te,ts #or .i/ek0s pro2ect o#
rerea!ing 1acanian psychoanalysis through post-:antian, an! in particular &egelian, i!ealism$
;hile the importance o# &egel0s Logic an! &egelian !ialectic has been note! #or .i/ek0s re-
rea!ing o# 1acan (see -$ <utler, 1aclau, .i/ek, 4)))6 :ay 4))96 Sharpe 4))76 R$ <utler 4))*),
the importance o# the &egelian conception o# the ra!ical negativity o# the sub2ect #or .i/ek0s
pro2ect has receive! #ar less attention$ =n "hat #ollo"s = a!!ress this lack by e,ploring the
&egelian #igure o# the >night o# the "orl!0 that plays such an important role in .i/ek0s theorisation
o# the (&egelian) sub2ect$ =n the #irst part, = e,amine ho" the themes o# the ?pre-synthetic
imagination@ an! ?abstract negativityA are crucial to un!erstan!ing .i/ek0s theorisation o# the
&egelian sub2ect (in The Ticklish Subject ('333))$ =n the secon! part, = consi!er ho" this
'
&egelian mo!el o# the sub2ect is !ecisive #or un!erstan!ing .i/ek0s conception o# &egelian
?concrete universality,@ an! ho" the latter concept #igures prominently in .i/ek0s analysis o# the
relationship bet"een the abstract negativity o# the sub2ect an! the political question o#
con#ronting global capitalism$
'
=n conclusion = raise some questions about .i/ek0s combining o#
abstract an! determinate negation in his >romantic0 rea!ing o# the negativity o# the &egelian
sub2ect$ = then critically e,amine the implications .i/ek !ra"s #rom this analysis in In Defense of
Lost Causes (4))(), "hich presents a sustaine! argument to reclaim the revolutionary tra!ition
o# 1e#tist politics$
I# The Hegelian Ti(&li,h Sub'e(t
&egel is a ubiquitous presence in .i/ek0s #ormi!able (an! ever gro"ing) oeure$ =n!ee!,
&egelian !ialectics comprises one ape, o# the tria!ic structure (or intert"ining knots) that
continues to !e#ine .i/ek0s pro!igious theoretical pro2ect, the other t"o being 1acanian
psychoanalytic theory (the ape,), an! the contemporary criticism o# i!eology (.i/ek '33'5 4)$
%ne o# .i/ek0s most signi#icant analyses o# &egel can be #oun! in Bart = o# The Ticklish Subject
('333), entitle! ?The Cight o# the ;orl!,@ "hich presents an &egelian mo!el o# the sub2ect,
psychoanalytically recon#igure!, emphasising the ra!ical negativity o# sub2ectivity$ .i/ek0s #irst
chapter in The Ticklish Subject e,plores the ?!ea!lock o# the transcen!ental imagination@ that
prompts &ei!egger to recoil #rom the abyss o# sub2ectivity (a#ter his #amous !ehre or >turn0),
"hile the secon! turns to the ?&egelian Ticklish Sub2ect,@ !eveloping a po"er#ul rerea!ing o#
&egel0s concept o# ?concrete universality@ that continues to play a crucial role in .i/ek0s more
recent "orks, The Paralla" #ie$ (4))+) an! In Defense of Lost Causes (4))()$ This
e,traor!inary analysis o# the transcen!ental imagination, critique o# &ei!egger, an! rerea!ing o#
&egelian >night o# the "orl!,0 together contribute to .i/ek0s reassertion o# the ra!icality o# the
?Dartesian sub2ect@that thoroughly repu!iate! theoretical spectre "hich nonetheless continues
to ?haunt ;estern aca!emia@ ('3335 '-*)$ This unortho!o, rea!ing o# the &egelian >night o# the
"orl!0the ra!ical negativity that haunts sub2ectivityis !evelope! #urther in an e,plicitly
political !irection, "hich helps e,plain .i/ek0s recent critique o# the >Eukuyamaian0 consensus,
share! both by moral-religious conservatives an! libertarian >postmo!ernists0, that global
capitalism remains the >unsurpassable horiFon o# our times0$
4
$i%e&-, Hegelian (riti(i,m of .antian Imagination
&ei!egger0s groun!-breaking but controversial interpretation o# :ant ('338) turne! on the
question o# the possibility o# metaphysics, "hich in turn pointe! to the problem o# ho" to think
human #initu!e$ Eor &ei!egger, :ant >shrinks back0 #rom the ontological implications o# his path-
breaking move (in the #irst e!ition o# the Criti%ue of Pure Reason) in taking the productie
imagination as playing the primary role in the constitution o# the sub2ect$ =n!ee!, :ant0s
>recoiling0 #rom this ra!ical !imension o# sub2ectivity, &ei!egger claime!, "as a recoiling #rom
our constitutie finitude as temporalising-pro2ecting beings$ :ant0s an,iety over the imagination
can also be criticise!, ho"ever, #rom a &egelian-1acanian point o# vie", "hich is "hat .i/ek
!oes =n The Ticklish Subject ('333)$ .i/ek turns there to &egel0s criticism o# :ant0s >#ormalist0
theory o# sub2ectivity, un!erlining :ant0s #ailure to ackno"le!ge the !imension o# radical
negatiity that is constitutive o# the e,perience o# sub2ectivity$ =t is this ra!ical negativity, .i/ek
"ill argue, that &ei!egger too ultimately >shrinks back0 #rom in his later me!itative thinking on the
history o# <eing$
.i/ek0s point o# !eparture is to sho" that the #un!amental ambiguity in :ant0s account o#
imagination lies in its relationship "ith the !iscursive un!erstan!ing$ =n :ant0s consi!ere!
account o# cognition, "e begin "ith the !iversity o# pure intuition6 this !iversity is synthesise! by
the pure imagination, an! the resulting pure synthesis is then uni#ie! by means o# concepts
supplie! by the un!erstan!ing$ The question thus arises5 =s ?pure synthesis@ the "ork o# the
imagination, "ith un!erstan!ing intervening only a#ter the imagination has !one its "orkG %r is
?pure synthesis@ the "ork o# the un!erstan!ing, such that the imagination is merely a lo"er level
application o# the synthetic po"er o# the un!erstan!ing at a precognitive levelG (.i/ek '3335 43)
This is precisely the ambiguity that &ei!egger emphasises in his critique o# :ant0s >recoiling0
#rom the transcen!ental imagination$ Eor .i/ek, the critical point in &ei!egger0s rea!ing is that
?one shoul! !etermine the synthesis o# imagination as the #un!amental !imension at the root o#
the !iscursive un!erstan!ing, "hich shoul! thus be analyse! in!epen!ently o# the categories o#
the Un!erstan!ing@ ('3335 43)$ :ant recoils #rom this step, later taken by &ei!egger, !emoting
the imagination to a me!iator bet"een the sensuous mani#ol! o# intuition an! the synthetic
activity o# the Un!erstan!ing (.i/ek '3335 43)$
&ei!egger0s proposal to move beyon! :ant, = suggest, can be un!erstoo! as a romantic
rea!ing emphasising the primacy o# imagination over un!erstan!ing, "hich can be contraste!
"ith the idealist rea!ing insisting on the primacy o# un!erstan!ing over imagination$ :ant, along
"ith the mature &egel, opte! #or the >i!ealist0 alternative, "hile Schelling an! the romantics,
inclu!ing &ei!egger (an! the early &egel), chose the >romantic0 path to a transcen!ental
9
#ree!om o# imagination that groun!s, but also circumvents, the !iscursive un!erstan!ing$ ;hat
one !iscovers along this >romantic0 pathas Schelling, &Hl!erlin, CietFsche, an! &ei!egger
"ere each to #in!is that metaphysical thinking, groun!e! in the transition #rom un!erstan!ing
to reason, gives "ay to a post-metaphysical language in "hich philosophy intersects "ith
poetry, literature, an! art$ An! this is also partially the case, = "oul! suggest, "ith .i/ek0s
(romantic neo-&egelian) rea!ing o# :ant, even !o"n to .i/ek0s evocation o# the #ilms o# Iavi!
1ynch as !isclosing the unconscious, pre-synthetic, >!isintegrative0 po"er o# the >pre-synthetic0
imagination (.i/ek '3335 *'-*3)$
=nterestingly, .i/ek also presents himsel# here as a romantic rea!er o# :ant$ =n the spirit
o# the young &egel, an! in keeping "ith Schelling0s emphasis on the ra!ical sel#-contraction at
the heart o# sub2ectivity, .i/ek turns to the ra!ical !imension o# negatiity that :ant esche"s in
his account o# transcen!ental imagination ('3385 (-'4)$
4
=n!ee!, :ant0s version o# the
imagination ignores the crucial !imension o# negativity emphasise! by &egel?namely,
imagination %ua the >activity o# !issolution0, "hich treats as a separate entity "hat has e##ective
e,istence only as a part o# some organic ;hole@ (.i/ek '3335 43)$ Eor &egel, accor!ing to
.i/ek, this negative po"er o# !issolution, o# !issolving the "hole into !istinct in!epen!ent parts,
comprises both the po"er o# imagination an! o# the un!erstan!ing$
The Night of the orl!"
.i/ek cites t"o #ascinating passages #rom &egel, one obscure, the other "ell-kno"n, to sho"
&egel0s original insight into the !isintegrative po"er o# negativity$ The #irst is #rom &egel0s '()*-
+ Jenaer Realphilosophie manuscripts, the enigmatic ?night o# the "orl!@ passage5
The human being is this night, this empty nothing, that contains everything in its
simplicityan unen!ing "ealth o# many representations, images, o# "hich none
belongs to himor "hich are not present$ This night, the interior o# nature, that
e,ists herepure sel#in phantasmagorical representations, is night all aroun!
it, in "hich here shoots a bloo!y hea!there another "hite ghastly apparition,
su!!enly here be#ore it, an! 2ust so !isappears$ %ne catches sight o# this night
"hen one looks human beings in the eyeinto a night that becomes a"#ul
(&egel '3875 4)76 quote! in Jerene '3(*5 8-()$
.i/ek obsessively returns to this e,traor!inary passage in many o# his "orks$
9
<e#ore turning to
.i/ek0s rea!ing o# this passage it is "orth making a #e" interpretative remarks$ &egel vivi!ly
!escribes here the pre-sub2ective e,perience o# the >impersonal0 or >unconscious0 pro!uction o#
representations an! images, both violent an! !estructive, "hich "ill #orm the basis #or the
emergence o# sel#-conscious sub2ectivity$ This pre-!iscursive, pre-rational, >unconscious0
7
interiority is a part o# (alienate!) nature in the proto-sub2ect$ =t e,presses the ?pure@ or
impersonal sel#, "hose !ark unconscious !omain o# phantasmagorical partial ob2ects?a
bloo!y hea!,@ a ?ghastly "hite apparition@is precisely "hat marks the >violent0, traumatic
transition #rom natural being to social an! cultural sub2ect$ This nether"orl! o# unconscious
#antasy, sub2ective !issolutionthe ?night o# the "orl!,@ o# intersub2ective meaningis an
irre!ucible !imension o# the #initu!e o# sub2ectivity$ =t is the abyss o# negativity glimpse! in the
uncanny gaFe o# the %therin the night o# the eye, the abyss o# sub2ectivity, ?a night that
becomes a"#ul,@ as &egel says$
The proto-psychoanalytic resonances o# this passage are striking, anticipating themes
such as the Ereu!ian !eath !rive an! the 1acanian traumatic encounter "ith the Real that
precipitates the imaginary capture an! symbolic >quilting0 o# the sub2ect$ =n!ee!, .i/ek rea!s this
passage, at least in The Ticklish Subject, as an e,emplary !escription o# the negative,
!isruptive, !ecomposing po"er o# imagination, ?as the po"er that !isperses continuous reality
into a con#use! multitu!e o# >partial ob2ects0, spectral apparitions o# "hat in reality is e##ective
only as a part o# a larger organism@ ('3335 9))$ Contra :ant, the imagination in its pro!uctive or
constructive aspect is at the same time also negative or !estructive$ Eor the imagination is ?the
po"er to !ismember "hat imme!iate perception puts together@6 the uncanny po"er to imagine a
partial, phantasmagorical ob2ect abstracte! #rom its proper "hole5 a hea! "ithout a bo!y, a
ghost "ithout #lesh, colours "ithout shape, a bo!y "ithout organs an! organs "ithout a bo!y
(.i/ek '3335 9))$ &egel0s >night o# the "orl!0the negative aspect o# the synthetic po"er o#
sub2ectivityis thus ?transcen!ental imagination at its most elementary an! violent@5 the empty
or abstract #ree!om o# imagination as the po"er o# !issolution rather than synthesis6 the po"er
o# !issolving all ob2ective relations groun!e! in things in themselves (.i/ek '3335 9))$ The night
o# the !issipative imagination is the ra!ical negativity o# arbitrary freedom6 the po"er, to cite
&egel once again, ?to tear up the images an! to reconnect them "ithout any constraint@ (.i/ek
'3335 9))$
.i/ek returns to this passage many times in !i##erent conte,ts, each time linking the
&egelian >night o# the "orl!0 "ith a !i##erent philosophical theme$ =n &njoy 'our Symptom( the
&egelian >night o# the "orl!0 is connecte! "ith the psychoanalytical an! Kerman i!ealist theses
concerning the constitute! or >posite!0 nature o# social reality, its constitution through the
per#ormative e##icacy o# >symbolic #ictions06 the universe o# the symbolic or!er o# the ;or!
emerging only against the backgroun! o# this e,perience o# the abyss o# negativity (.i/ek
'334L4))'5 *))$ The te,t o# &egel0s -ena manuscript goes on to make 2ust this point, arguing
that this ra!ical in"ar!ness o# the pure sel# ?must also enter into e,istence@ through language as
?name-giving po"er@ (&egel '3876 quote! in Jerene '3(*5 ()$ =n The )etastases of &njoyment,
.i/ek compares this &egelian >night o# the "orl!0, the e,perience o# the sel# qua pure >abstract
*
negativity0 "ith %tto ;eininger0s misogynistic images o# the pre-representational #eminine,
"hich is really an aversion to the voi! o# sub2ectivity itsel# ('3375 '7*)$
7
&ere as in The *byss of
+reedom, .i/ek un!erlines &egel0s break "ith the Mnlightenment tra!ition, his metaphoric
reersal o# the image o# the transparent sub2ect as the ?light o# Reason@ as oppose! to the !ark
inertness or opacity o# matter, nature, or tra!ition6 contra the Mnlightenment clichN, &egel0s
takes the very kernel o# the sub2ect0s being, ?the gesture "hich opens up the space #or the 1ight
o# Logos,@ to be abstract negativity qua the >night o# the "orl!0 ('3375 '7*), the ?point o# utter
ma!ness in "hich phantasmatic apparitions o# >partial ob2ects0 "an!er aroun!@ ('3385 ()$ .i/ek
goes on to link the &egelian >night o# the "orl!0 "ith Schelling0s conception o# the sub2ect as
?pure night o# the Sel#@, ?in#inite lack o# <eing@6 the ?violent gesture o# contraction@ that also #orms
the basis o# &egel0s account o# ma!ness as the cutting o# all links "ith e,ternal reality, "hich
&egel then construes as the sub2ect0s regression to the level o# the ?animal soul@ still
unre#lectively immerse! in its imme!iate natural environment (.i/ek '3385 (6 '3335 97-9*)$
;here .i/ek !i##ers #rom &egel, ho"ever, is in arguing that this "ith!ra"al #rom the
"orl!, the sub2ect0s contraction an! severing o# all links "ith the ,m$elt, is rather the #oun!ing
gesture o# >humaniFation0, in!ee! the emergence o# sub2ectivity itsel# ('3385 ()$ The passage
through ma!ness is thus an ontological necessity6 there is no sub2ectivity "ithout this
e,perience o# ra!ical negativity, this cutting o# links "ith the ,m$elt, "hich is then #ollo"e! by
the construction o# a symbolic universe o# meaning ('3385 36 '33+5 8()$ The question,
psychoanalytically, is not so much ho" the #all into ma!ness is possible, but rather ho" the
sub2ect is able to attain ?normalcy@ by climbing out o# ma!ness#or &egel, this ra!ical
"ith!ra"al #rom the "orl!in or!er to reconstitute social reality through symbolic me!iation$
This &egelian-Schellingian moment o# ra!ical negativity an! symbolic reconstruction "ill remain
a consistent #eature not only o# .i/ek0s account o# sub2ectivity but also, as "e shall see, o# his
analysis o# the historico-political e,perience o# revolutionary violence$
Tarr*ing with the Negati)e"
The other &egelian te,t .i/ek cites to sho" the po"er o# negativity is the #amous ?tarrying "ith
the negative@ passage in the Bre#ace to the Phenomenology of Spirit ('3885 '3)$ =n the latter,
&egel #amously !escribes the ?activity o# !issolution@ that is the ?po"er an! "ork o# the
,nderstanding O#erstandP, the most astonishing an! mightiest o# po"ers, or rather the absolute
po"er@ (&egel '3885 '()$ The tremen!ous po"er o# the negative"hich &egel here attributes
to the understanding rather than imaginationis the po"er to !etach an acci!ental, contingent
particular belonging "ithin a conte,tual "hole such that it can attain an in!epen!ent e,istence
+
o# its o"n6 this is precisely ?the energy o# thought, o# the pure =@ ('3885 '3) ("hich "e have
alrea!y encountere! in &egel0s earlier te,t on the ?night o# the "orl!@)$ This li#e o# thought, the
activity o# !issolution !e#ining the pure =, is at the same time marke! by !eath, #initu!e, ra!ical
loss, "hich can nonetheless be sublate! in thought by the #inite sub2ect ("hich there#ore also
has the &egelian >logical0 structure o# infinitude)$ =n!ee!, rather than a metaphysical tract on the
>totalising0 Sub2ect o# absolute i!ealism, &egel0s #amous passage can be rea! as an account o#
the radical finitude o# the Sub2ect6 the constitutive negativity that both makes possible an!
!elimits autonomous sub2ectivity$ To quote &egel5
Ieath, i# that is "hat "e "ant to call this non-actuality, is o# all things the most
!rea!#ul, an! to hol! #ast to "hat is !ea! requires the greatest strength$ 1acking
strength, <eauty hates the Un!erstan!ing #or asking o# her "hat it cannot !o$ <ut
the li#e o# Spirit is not the li#e that shrinks #rom !eath an! keeps itsel# untouche!
by !evastation, but rather the li#e that en!ures it an! maintains itsel# in it$ =t "ins
its truth only "hen, in utter !ismemberment, it #in!s itsel#$ =t is this po"er, not as
something positive, "hich closes its eyes to the negative, as "hen "e say o#
something that it is nothing or is #alse, an! then, having !one "ith it, turn a"ay
an! pass on to something else6 on the contrary, Spirit is this po"er only by
looking the negative in the #ace, an! tarrying "ith it$ This tarrying "ith the
negative is the magical po"er that converts it into being$ This po"er is i!entical
"ith "hat "e earlier calle! the Sub2ect Q (&egel '3885 '3)$
;hat is striking in this celebrate! passage is the "ay that e,periences o# #initu!eo# !eath,
negativity, absence, lossare all presente! as constitutive o# the po"er o# the sel#-conscious
Sub2ect as -eist$ The positive aspect o# imagination#or e,ample in the aesthetic e,perience o#
beauty, the sub2ective harmony an! #ree play bet"een imagination an! un!erstan!ingcannot
!eal "ith this ra!ically negative !imension o# sub2ectivity (unless "e are talking o# the !isruptive
e,perience o# the sublime, as .i/ek goes on to !iscuss ('3335 7'-*)))$ Sub2ectivity as -eist is
precisely the embracing o# #initu!e in or!er to a##irm the in#inite "ithin the #inite (the
trans#orming-transcen!ing po"er o# imagination an! un!erstan!ing !e#ining the #inite sub2ect),
as "ell as a##irming the #inite "ithin the in#inite (the sel#-consciousness o# the in!ivi!ual sub2ect
recognise! "ithin relations o# historical an! social intersub2ectivity)$ Sub2ectivity is thus
constitute! through a negatie self.relation5 a relation to itsel# that is necessarily a relation to the
%ther6 a mediated sel#-relation in "hich the sel# #in!s itsel# precisely in an! through its relation to
the %ther$ At the same time, this sel#-relation through the %ther is ma!e possible only because
o# a violent ren!ing o# the imme!iate sel#-#eeling an! immersion o# this seemingly isolate! proto-
sub2ect "ithin its natural environment$ The sub2ect is not only negative sel#-relation, a relation to
the %ther, it is also a self.relating negatiity5 that "hich "ins its truth (its sel#-i!entity in
otherness) only through the e,perience o# ra!ical negativity or the #ree!om to negate itsel#, to
8
say >noR0 to everything, even itsel#6 or as &egel puts it, through the e,perience o# #in!ing itsel# in
an! through ?utter !ismemberment@$
%nce again, #or &egel this negativity is constitutive, ontological rather than ontic, as
&ei!egger "oul! say$ Sel#-conscious Spirit is this po"er o# sel#-relating negativity, "hich is to
say #ree sub2ectivity, only through ?tarrying "ith the negative@$ =n!ee!, this #un!amental moment
o# negativity, "e shoul! note, is a !ecisive #eature o# every key e,perience in the
phenomenological 2ourney o# consciousness an! sel#-consciousness (the most #amous e,ample
being the li#e-an!-!eath struggle an! e,perience o# mastery an! servitu!e, not to mention the
alienate! >#ree!om0 o# sel#-consciousness in stoicism, scepticism, an! the unhappy
consciousness, or the ra!ical a##irmation o# #ree!om in the Erench revolution an! subsequent
negative moment o# Terror as the >violence0 o# abstract universality)$ This po"er o# ra!ical
negativity, this ?abyss o# #ree!om,@ is precisely "hat #or &egel !e#ines an! !etermines ?the
Sub2ect@$
Unlike some >non-metaphysical0 rea!ers o# &egel, .i/ek !oes not shy a"ay #rom this
element o# ra!ical negativity$
*
=n!ee!, it is precisely the cru, o# his critique o# the &ei!eggerian
rea!ing o# :antian imagination$ .i/ek notes the surprising #act that &egel !oes not praise
speculative Reason but rather the ,nderstanding O#erstandP as the ?mightiest po"er in the
"orl!,@ the in#inite po"er o# >!ismembering,0 o# taking apart an! treating as separate "hat
naturally belongs together ('3335 9')$ Eor .i/ek, &egel here i!enti#ies the >negative po"er0 o#
the Un!erstan!ing "ith ?the basic negative gesture o# let us risk the term >pre-synthetic
imagination0, its !estructive po"er o# un!ermining every organic unity@ ('3335 9')$ Although the
t"o passages o# &egel seem to speak o# opposing phenomenanamely the pre-rationalLpre-
!iscursive con#usion o# the purely sub2ective =nterior, an! the abstract !iscursive activity o# the
rational un!erstan!ingthey in #act must be taken together, .i/ek argues, as constituting both
the pre-synthetic and !iscursive po"er o# negativity !e#ining the #ree!om o# sub2ectivity as such$
Imagination or +n!er,tan!ing/
= remark here that .i/ek here passes over the obvious point that &egel too shi#ts #rom giving
primacy to the pure imagination (in the '()*-+ -ena manuscripts) to asserting the pure
Un!erstan!ing as the e,emplary po"er o# the ?activity o# !issolution@ (in the '()8
Phenomenology of Spirit)$ =n response to this point, it is "orth noting that .i/ek gives this shi#t a
>Schellingian0 interpretation that e##ectively makes the pre-synthetic imagination an! the
!iscursive un!erstan!ing t"o >potences0 o# the same po"er o# negativity !e#ining the sub2ect5
?here >Un!erstan!ing0 is another name #or "hat "e have calle! >pre-synthetic un!erstan!ing0@
(
(.i/ek '3335 3+)$ <e that as it may, one coul! nonetheless argue that &egel con#ronts here the
same !i##iculty as :ant5 ho" to account #or the ambiguous relationship bet"een the pure
imagination an! !iscursive un!erstan!ingG =s the >pre-synthetic0 imagination the source o# the
ra!ical negativity that makes possible sel#-conscious sub2ectivity, or !oes this resi!e rather in
the mightiest o# po"ers, the !iscursive un!erstan!ing or pure =G
%n .i/ek0s >Schellingian0 rea!ing, &egel0s resolution o# this ambiguity lies in taking both
&egel0s re#erences to !issolutive po"er o# imagination an! un!erstan!ing as t"o interrelate!
aspects o# the process o# ra!ical negativity$ &ei!egger, .i/ek notes, "as right to point to :ant0s
retreat #rom the pro!uctive imagination, but this retreat concerne! :ant0s re#usal ?to bring to light
=magination in its negativeL!isruptive aspect, as the #orce o# tearing the continuous #abric o#
intuitions apart@ ('3335 94)$ :ant overlooks the #act that the primor!ial #orm o# imagination is not
synthetic an! uni#ying but !isruptive an! !isintegrative5 ?imagination enables us to tear the
te,ture o# reality apart, to treat as e##ectively e,isting something that is merely a component o# a
living ;hole@ (.i/ek '3335 94)$
.i/ek0s response to my question "hether the imagination or the un!erstan!ing is more
#un!amental #or ra!ical negativity is to han! the palm to the !ismembering po"er o# >pre-
synthetic0 imagination$ .i/ek thus observes that ?because o# the sub2ect0s irre!ucible #initu!e,@
the !isintegrative imagination takes prece!ence over the un!erstan!ing$ =n!ee!, ?the very
en!eavour o# >synthesis0 is al"ays minimally >violent0 an! !isruptive@ ('3335 99), since every
synthetic unity is base! upon a primor!ial act o# >repression0 that inevitably leaves some
(Schellingian) ?in!ivisible remain!er@ (or, i# one "ill, Ierri!ean >supplement0)$ This primor!ial
>repression0 is the price o# entry into the symbolic, intersub2ective universe o# rational
un!erstan!ing5 the violent transition #rom &egel0s ?night o# the "orl!@ to the intersub2ective
?spiritual !aylight o# the present@$
.i/ek thus arrives at a very !istinctive interpretation o# the &egelian >night o# the "orl!0
as the >pre-synthetic0 multitu!e, highly reminiscent o# the 1acanian Real$ As .i/ek remarks, this
?pre-synthetic Real, its pure, not-yet-#ashione! multitu!e not yet synthesiFe! by a minimum o#
transcen!ental imagination, is, stricto sensu/ impossible5 a level that must be retroactively
presuppose!, but can never actually be encountered$@ ('3335 99)$ Dontra -u!ith <utler, "ho
un2ustly criticise! .i/ek #or lapsing into a cru!e pre-:antian >transcen!ental realism0 concerning
the status o# the 1acanian Real ('3395 '(8-444), .i/ek here !ra"s the &egelian lesson that this
retroactively presuppose! multitu!epure !i##erence, ?!i##erence in itsel#,@ or pre-in!ivi!ual
singularities, to speak "ith IeleuFeis the product o# the transcen!ental imagination$ At the
same time, the presupposition o# a pre-synthetic multitu!e is nothing but pure imagination itself,
?imagination at its most violent, as the activity o# !isrupting the continuity o# the inertia o# the
pre-symbolic >natural0 Real@ (.i/ek '3335 99)$ This pre-synthetic multitu!e, the >night o# the
3
"orl!,0 is the ?unruliness@ o# the sub2ect0s abyssal #ree!om, the !isruptive po"er o# negativity
that is the very !e#inition o# the #inite Sub2ect$ This is the ra!ical moment o# #initu!e that,
accor!ing to .i/ek, the later &ei!egger shrinks back #rom, retreating #rom this !imension o#
!isruptive negativity an! attempting instea! to restore the ontological sun!ering o# human
Dasein #rom its originary groun! in the unconcealment o# <eing$ Erom this perspective, it is
&ei!egger, not &egel, "ho retreats #rom the trauma o# #initu!e, "hich is to say #rom the ra!ical
abyss o# #ree!om$
II# 0b,tra(t Negati)it* an! 1on(rete +ni)er,alit*
.i/ek0s re#lections on the &egelian sub2ect, ho"ever, !o not only have psychoanalytic an!
cultural signi#icance6 they also have social an! political implications$ =n The Ticklish Subject as
"ell as else"here, .i/ek0s analysis o# the &egelian ?night o# the "orl!@ is e,plicitly linke! "ith
the question o# abstract negativity an! its relationship "ith concrete universality$ =n an argument
charge! "ith political resonances, .i/ek sho"s ho" the ra!ical negativity o# sub2ectivitythe
capacity to negate all our #inite, particular !eterminationsenables the !ialectical passage #rom
abstract to concrete universality$ =n practical terms, this means there is a !imension o# violence,
con#lict, or antagonism that cannot be eliminate! in historical an! socio-political e,perience$ Ear
#rom rehearsing the clichN o# &egel0s reconciliationist stance to"ar!s the state, .i/ek claims that
the ra!ical negativity o# the sub2ectthe >night o# the "orl!0means that there can be no
concrete universality "ithout the historico-political passage through ma!ness, violence, even
revolutionary terror (as in &egel0s #amous analysis o# the post-revolutionary -acobin Terror, an
abstract negativity that ushere! in the mo!ern bourgeois state (&egel '3885 9**-9+9))$ This
&egelian argument concerning abstract negativity an! concrete universality provi!es an
essential back!rop, #requently misun!erstoo!, to .i/ek0s critique o# various contemporary #orms
o# >post-political0 ethical resistance to the state (most recently, Simon Dritchley0s ethically
groun!e! neo-anarchism (see Dritchley 4))86 .i/ek 4))+5 994-9976 .i/ek 4))(5 993-9*)))$
.i/ek returns again an! again to the &egelian !istinction bet"een abstract an! concrete
universality$ ;hat !oes it meanG Against the prevailing stereotype o# &egel0s subor!inating o#
particularity to universality, .i/ek points out that universality in its concrete !imension is realise!
through indiidualisation6 that is, the concrete universal is embo!ie! in the in!ivi!ual$ As .i/ek
observes, &egel "as the #irst thinker to argue that the ?properly mo!ern notion o#
in!ivi!ualisation@ occurs through secon!ary i!enti#ication ('3335 3))$ The in!ivi!ual is initially
immerse! in its imme!iate milieu, the particular li#e-#orm into "hich he or she is born (#amily,
local community)$ =t is only once one0s primary i!enti#ications "ith one0s >organic0 community are
')
broken that one becomes an ?in!ivi!ual,@ namely by asserting one0s autonomy through
i!enti#ication "ith a secon!ary community that is also universal an! >arti#icial06 that is, me!iate!
an! sustaine! through the #ree activity o# in!epen!ent sub2ects (pro#ession, nation, in!epen!ent
peer-group versus tra!itional apprenticeship, organic community, prescribe! social role, an! so
on) (.i/ek '3335 3))$ The abstract opposition bet"een primary an! secon!ary i!enti#ications
("here primary i!enti#ications are re2ecte! in #avour o# secon!ary i!enti#ications) is suspen!e!
once the primary i!enti#ications are reintegrate! an! e,perience! as the ?mo!es o# appearance@
o# my secon!ary i!enti#ications (.i/ek '3335 3))$
.i/ek then #urther complicates this account o# concrete universality, >crossbree!ing0 it
"ith &egel0s !istinction bet"een neutral ?positive@ Universality an! !i##erentiate! ?actual@
Universality ('3335 3))$ The #ormer re#ers to the ?impassiveLneutral me!ium o# the coe,istence
o# its particular content@6 the latter to the actual e,istence o# Universality, ?"hich is indiiduality,
the assertion o# the sub2ect as unique an! irre!ucible to the particular concrete totality into
"hich he is inserte!@ (.i/ek '3335 3')$ The Universal as neutral >container0 that is in!i##erent
to"ar!s the particulars it subsumes is contraste! "ith the Universal as ?the po"er o# negativity
that un!ermines the #i,ity o# every particular constellation@ (.i/ek '3335 3')$ The latter is the
Universality o# the in!ivi!uate! sub2ect as po"er o# the negative6 the po"er to oppose an!
negate all particular !eterminate content$ =n!ee! the passage #rom abstract to concrete
universality, .i/ek argues, procee!s thanks to the po"er o# abstract negativity6
phenomenologically speaking, this po"er o# the negative ?comes into e,istence in the guise o#
the in!ivi!ual0s absolute egotist sel#-contraction@ (.i/ek '3335 3')via "hat the
Phenomenology "ill later !escribe, "ith re#erence to the !iscursive un!erstan!ing, as the
sub2ect0s po"er to ?tarry "ith the negative@$
The striking conclusion .i/ek !ra"s #rom this analysis is that the only "ay to make the
passage #rom abstract to contract universality is via ?the #ull assertion@ o# this po"er o# ra!ical
negativity, the negation o# all particular content ('3335 34)$ At one level this "oul! seem to be
an instance o# the #amous &egelian *ufhebung6 "e must lose imme!iate reality in the sel#-
contraction o# the ?night o# the "orl!@ in or!er to regain it as social reality, symbolically me!iate!
by the sub2ect6 or "e must renounce the imme!iate organic "hole, submitting ourselves to the
activity o# the un!erstan!ing, in or!er to regain it at a higher, me!iate! level as the ?totality o#
Reason@ (.i/ek '3335 34)$ &ere the stan!ar! ob2ection to the &egelian *ufhebung looms, much
rehearse! by poststructuralist rea!ers o# &egel (see .i/ek '33'5 9'-9()6 namely that &egel
allo"s the moment o# ra!ical negativity, recognises ?the horror o# the psychotic sel#-contraction,@
the ra!ical !ismemberment in "hich Spirit #in!s itsel#, but only in or!er to !ialectically recuperate
this negativity in the name o# the ?reconstitute! organic "hole@ (.i/ek '3335 34-9)$
''
2rom 0b,tra(t to 1on(rete +ni)er,alit*
.i/ek0s ra!ical rea!ing o# &egel challenges this ortho!o,y5 the passage through negativity, #rom
abstract to concrete universality, is not about avoi!ing the moment o# ra!ical negativity in #avour
o# the rational totality$ Rather, it claims that this passage is unavoi!able6 the passage to the high
passes through the lo", the !irect choice o# the higher is precisely the "ay to miss it (.i/ek
'3335 39)$ Diting another #avourite speculative passage #rom the Phenomenology, .i/ek re#ers
to the peculiar con2unction o# opposites that &egel observes in the case o# the penis, a
con2unction "hich Cature ?naively e,presses "hen it combines the organ o# its highest
#ul#ilment, the organ o# generation, "ith the organ o# urination@ (&egel '3885 4'))$ =t is not a
matter o# choosing insemination rather than urination (as though these comprise an abstract
opposition, as representational consciousness "oul! have it)$ Rather, "e have to pass through
the >"rong choice0 (biological e,cretion, urination) in or!er to attain the >right choice0 (biological
conception, insemination, the repro!uction o# li#e)5 the speculative meaningthe &egelian
in#inite 2u!gment that articulates the co-e,istence o# e,cretionLelimination an!
conceptionLrepro!uction, in!ee! the shi#t #rom biological conception to rational comprehension
emerges only as an a#ter-e##ect o# the #irst, >"rong0 rea!ing, "hich is containe! "ithin, in!ee!
constitutive o#, the speculative meaning (.i/ek '3335 39)$
+
.i/ek0s point here is to sho" that the movement #rom abstract to concrete universality
requires this passage through ra!ical negativity, that is to say the >"rong0 choice o# the abstract
negativity o# con#lict an! violence is the only "ay to arrive historically at the >right0 choice o# a
stable, rational, !emocratic state$ At the level o# social an! political li#e, the attempt to bypass
the negative an! !irectly choose ?the >concrete universality0 o# a particular ethical li#e-"orl!@
results in the even greater violence o# a ?regression to premo!ern organic society@6 a !enial o#
the ?in#inite right o# sub2ectivity@ that, #or &egel, is the principle o# mo!ernity itsel# (.i/ek '3335
39)$ The mo!ern sub2ect-citiFen cannot accept being immerse! "ithin a particular !eterminate
social role prescribe! "ithin an organic social ;hole6 rather, as in &egel0s #amous analysis o#
the Erench revolution, it is only by passing through the ?horror o# revolutionary Terror@ that the
constraints o# the premo!ern organic >concrete universality0 are !estroye! an! the ?in#inite right
o# sub2ectivity in its abstract negativity@ can thus be asserte! (.i/ek '3335 39)$
Again, .i/ek questions the stan!ar! rea!ing o# &egel0s #amous analysis in the
Phenomenology o# abstract #ree!om an! Terror, accor!ing to "hich the revolutionary pro2ect,
"ith its ?!irect assertion o# abstract Universal reason,@ perishes in ?sel#-!estructive #ury@
because it #ails to organise its revolutionary energy into a stable an! !i##erentiate! social or!er
('3335 39)$ &egel0s point, rather, as .i/ek argues, is to sho" ho" the revolutionary Terror,
'4
!espite being an historical !ea!lock, is nonetheless necessary in or!er to e##ect the historical
passage to"ar!s the mo!ern rational state ('3335 39)$ The historical situation that opposes ?a
premo!ern organic bo!y an! the revolutionary Terror "hich unleashes the !estructive #orce o#
abstract negativity@ al"ays involves an &egelian forced choice5 ?one has to choose Terror@ (the
>"rong0 choice) against pre-mo!ern organic community, in or!er to create the terrain #or the
>right0 choice6 namely to create the con!itions ?#or the ne" post-revolutionary reconciliation
bet"een the !eman!s o# social %r!er an! the abstract #ree!om o# the in!ivi!ual@ (.i/ek '3335
37)$
.i/ek thus #ully en!orses the &egelian claim that the #ree!om o# sub2ectivity emerges out
a certain e,perience o# ra!ical negativity$ This also applies to the contrast bet"een ethical li#e
an! morality5 the immersion o# the sub2ect in hisLher concrete social li#e-"orl! versus hisLher
?abstract in!ivi!ualistLuniversal moral opposition to this concrete inherite! universe@ (.i/ek
'3335 37)$ The moral in!ivi!ual, acting on behal# o# a larger universality, acts so as to challenge
an! un!ermine the inherite! !eterminate ethical mores o# hisLher community (Socrates versus
the Kreek polis6 Dhrist versus the -e"ish people) (.i/ek '3335 37)$ As &egel argues, ho"ever,
the stubborn attachment o# the moral sub2ect to hisLher convictions, !espite the !eman!s o# the
ethical totality, also !ialectically transitions into its opposite, that is, into Mvilyet another
instance o# the passage through negativity marking the movement #rom abstract to concrete
universality$ As .i/ek points out, &egel is "ell a"are that this abstract universality gains
e,istence through violence, the !estructive #ury to"ar!s all particular content, "hich is again the
only "ay the concrete Universal can be realise! through the emergence o# the #ree!om o#
in!ivi!ual sub2ectivity ('3335 37)$
%nce again, .i/ek challenges the !o,a concerning the young &egel0s aesthetic vision o#
harmonious Kreek Sittlichkeit5 &egel >becomes &egel0 once this vision o# a stable organic
totality (as !evelope! in the '()4-9 System o# Sittlichkeit) is aban!one!$ Such a mo!el, .i/ek
remarks, is in #act closer to the >aestheticisation o# politics0 characteristic o# political romanticism,
"ith its anti-mo!ernist emphasis on organic community an! anti-universalistic tra!itionalism
('3335 37)$ =n!ee!, it is only a#ter &egel too makes the >"rong0 choice (i!ealise! Kreek
Sittlichkeit) that the mature &egel can make the >right0 one5 namely, ackno"le!ging that the only
path to concrete universality (an! the mo!ern state) is via the sub2ect0s choice o# abstract
negativity (the skandalon o# Dhrist0s emergence versus the nostalgic hope #or a rene"e!
version o# Kreek Sittlichkeit) (.i/ek '3335 37-*)$ The mature &egel0s concept o# reconciliation,
on .i/ek0s rea!ing, is thus !eeply ambiguous5 it is not only the reconciliation of a split (bet"een
in!ivi!ual sub2ectivity an! social totality) but reconciliation $ith this split as ?the necessary price
o# in!ivi!ual #ree!om@ ('3335 3*)$ The stereotype o# the young ra!ical &egel "ho later became
the conservative >state philosopher0 2usti#ying the e,isting social or!er shoul! thus be turne! on
'9
its hea!5 it is the revolutionary pro2ect o# the younger &egel that pre#igure! the establishment o#
a ne" organic %r!er that abolishes mo!ern in!ivi!uality, "hile the mature &egel0s insistence on
the right o# sub2ectivityinclu!ing the unavoi!able passage through abstract negativity
provi!es the only "ay historically to ensure the achievement o# concrete universality (.i/ek
'3335 3*)$ The lesson to be !ra"n here is t"o#ol!5 that liberal !emocratic mo!ernity cannot
!isavo" its revolutionary, in!ee! violent, historico-political origins6 an! that political romanticism
can recur even in the guise o# an anti-universalist insistence on particularity, !i##erence, an!
>community0$
To return to my earlier !iscussion, this is "hy &egel praises the Un!erstan!ing
O#erstandP (rather than reason) in the ?tarrying "ith the negative@ passage #rom the
Phenomenology quote! above$ =t is the un!erstan!ing0s po"er to ?!isrupt any organic link,@ to
treat as separate! "hat originally e,ists "ithin a concrete conte,t, that guarantees the sub2ect0s
#ree!om as Spirit$ =n!ee!, this negative po"er o# the un!erstan!ing is a more !evelope! version
o# "hat the younger, romantic &egel calle! the >night o# the "orl!,0 the po"er o# the pre-
synthetic imagination6 ?the po"er that prece!es the synthesis o# imagination "hose highest
e,pression is logos@ (#or &ei!egger, that "hich gathers together) (.i/ek '3335 3+)$ The image o#
&egel the arch-conservative, arguing #or a return to a premo!ern organic social totality in "hich
each in!ivi!ual has hisLher prescribe! place, is thus ra!ically #alse$ Rather, #or &egel, the very
e,istence o# sub2ectivity ?involves the >#alse0, >abstract0 choice o# Mvil, o# Drime@that e,cessive
moment o# abstract negativity that thro"s the "hole social or!er momentarily >out o# 2oint0 (.i/ek
'3335 3+)$ The !estruction o# organic community, the sub2ect0s >irrational0 insistence on some
>abstract0 #eature o# the "hole that !isrupts its harmonious unity, is the very movement by "hich
the sub2ect is historically actualise!or to put it in &egelese, the manner in "hich substance
also becomes sub2ect$ As .i/ek argues, the unity that emerges #rom this passage through
negativity is thus no longer a substantial organic unity6 rather it is a ?substantially !i##erent
Unity,@ a Unity groun!e! in negativity, one in "hich this movement o# negativity assumes a
positive e,istence ('3335 3+)precisely in the mo!ern political state, the #ormalise!
>embo!iment0 o# negativity that nonetheless retains the trace o# this violent po"er to e,pose the
li#e o# its citiFens$ &egel thus anticipates the Eoucaultian-Agambenian theme o# biopolitics, the
>negative0 po"er o# the state to both e,pose an! a!minister the biological li#e o# its citiFens$
'7
The 3Night of the orl!- an! 4e)olutionar* Violen(e
.i/ek0s unortho!o, rea!ing o# the &egelian theme o# concrete universalitythe necessity o# a
passage through abstract negativity in or!er to attain the in!ivi!ualisation o# the sub2ect as #ree
an! universalis taken up again in The Paralla" #ie$ (4))+)$ =t also in#orms his recent analysis
(4))(5 998-9()) o# the ?crisis in !eterminate negation@ a##licting liberal !emocratic politics an!
contemporary political philosophy (Dritchley an! <a!iou)$ =n The Paralla" #ie$, &egel0s >night o#
the "orl!0 passage reappears again, this time in connection "ith the question o# revolutionary
violence$ .i/ek cites here Rebecca Domay0s #ascinating !iscussion o# the link bet"een the
&egelian analysis o# the sel#-!estructive #ury o# the revolutionary Terror, an! the ?obsessive
#antasies o# survival entertaine! by the popular imaginary o# the guillotine@ (4))+5 79)$ Such
spectral !ecapitation #antasies "ere vivi!ly mani#este!, Domay observes, in the ?proli#eration o#
blushing hea!s, talking hea!s, su##ering hea!s, hea!s that !reame!, screame!, returne! the
gaFe, the !isembo!ie! bo!y parts, !etache! "riting han!s, the ghosts an! ghouls an! Fombies
that "oul! #ill the pages o# gothic novels throughout Murope@ (Domay 4))75 9(+)$ As .i/ek asks,
"ith these nightmarish #antasies o# spectral !ecapitation haunting the post-revolutionary "orl!,
are "e not back again "ithin &egel0s notorious >night o# the "orl!0G The #renFy o# revolutionary
upheaval !estroys the #abric o# or!inary historical an! social reality, returning us to the
elementary >Fero-level0 o# sub2ectivity6 the ?spectral obscene proto-reality o# partial ob2ects
#loating aroun! against the backgroun! o# the ontological Joi!@ (4))+5 77)$ Revolutionary
violence !isrupts social reality through the e,ercise o# abstract negativity, temporarily returning
the sub2ect to the elemental level o# proto-sub2ectivity, the !ismembering violence o# the >night o#
the "orl!0$
&ere one cannot help but make the comparison bet"een &egel0s brutal observation
concerning the guillotinethe post-revolutionary re!uction o# !eath to a mechanical cut, ?a
meaningless chopping o## o# a cabbage hea!@ (&egel '3885 9+)6 .i/ek 4))+5 79)an! the
archaic revival o# >sacri#icial0 behea!ings practise! by =slamist terrorists$ Such behea!ings occur
through kni#e-"iel!ing e,ecutioner rather than the impersonal operation o# the guillotine6 an!
"hile per#orme! in secret they are vi!eo recor!e! in or!er to be !isseminate! via -iha!ist
propagan!a "ebsites #or a globally !isperse! au!ience$ =n the latter case, ho"ever, this
abstract negativity or political violence is not in the service o# ?Absolute Eree!om,@ as "as the
case, #rom &egel0s perspective, "ith the post-Erench revolutionary Terror$
8
Rather, =slamist
terrorism is more akin to a violent abstract negation o# the mo!ern >right o# in!ivi!ual
sub2ectivity05 a simultaneously >pre- an! post-mo!ern0, technologically primitive (knives,
bo,cutters) an! sophisticate! (internet an! communicational me!ia), attempt to negate the
'*
>morally !eca!ent0 liberal !emocratic capitalist or!er that makes this right o# sub2ectivity
possible$
The point o# &egel0s analysis, it must be sai!, is to sho" that this revolutionary Terror is
#un!amentally sel#-un!ermining6 that it cannot reconcile the !rive to"ar!s (abstractly conceive!)
Absolute Eree!om "ith the historically achieve! norms o# #ree!om an! sub2ectivity that !e#ine
the institutions o# mo!ernity$ .i/ek0s claim is that such violence is nonetheless historically
unavoi!able as the "ay in "hich the transition #rom abstract to concrete universality is e##ecte!$
&ere = return to my earlier question concerning the relationship bet"een imagination an!
un!erstan!ing5 the contrast bet"een the >romantic0 rea!ing o# &egel that gives priority to the
>pre-synthetic0 imagination o# the >night o# the "orl!0 (abstract negation) versus the >i!ealist0
rea!ing that emphasises the ?po"er o# the negative@ articulate! through the !iscursive
un!erstan!ing (!eterminate negation)$ .i/ek combines the t"o #orms o# negativity (abstract an!
!eterminate) in a Schellingian manner, arguing that they are t"o aspects o# the same po"er o#
negativity$ This move, ho"ever, e,poses him to the criticism that his account o# revolutionary
Terror #lirts "ith a political romanticism that valorises the abstract negatiity o# revolutionary
struggle over the determinate negation that results in the rational social an! political institutions
o# the mo!ern state$ Eor &egel, the abstract negativity o# revolutionary violence must be
aufgehoben in the rational organisation o# the sel#-re#orming social an! political institutions o#
mo!ernity$ ;e only revert to the abstract negativity o# revolutionary violence "hen these norms
an! institutions have utterly broken !o"n, lost all legitimacy an! normative authority, that is,
"hen the (violent) historical transition to a ne" con#iguration o# Spirit is alrea!y "ell un!er"ay$
Must "e say, ho"ever, "ith .i/ek that abstract negation is the only "ay that concrete
universalitythe #ree!om o# sub2ectivitycan be historically realise!G
5lobal 1a6itali,m# 37n! of Hi,tor*- or 3Hi,tor* of Violen(e-/
The question #or us to!ay, then, is to ask "hat happens "hen this rational totality (;estern
neoliberal !emocracy) becomes !isturbe! by the contra!ictory !ynamics o# global capitalism$
There are at least t"o !istinct &egelian responses5 one is to point to the role o# the sel#-
re#orming institutions o# mo!ernity, those o# capitalist liberal !emocracy, to e##ectively paci#y,
manage, or control these contra!ictory !ynamics "ithout entirely eliminating them$ This line o#
thoughtgiven popular e,pression in Eukuyama0s The &nd of 0istory and the Last )an ('334)
ten!s to the conclusion that liberal !emocratic capitalist mo!ernity is here to stay6 "e have
e##ectively reache! the >en! o# history0 in "hich ra!ical revolutionary political trans#ormations are
no longer likely or even possible$ This >Eukuyamaian0 line then cleaves into at least t"o
'+
opposing positions5 the moral or religious conservative position arguing #or a return to tra!itional
values to o##set the !eracinating e##ects o# neoliberalism, a !esperate attempt to re#oun! the
!isturbe! Sittlichkeit o# multicultural liberal !emocracies6 an! the libertarian-postmo!ernist
position that !isplaces political ra!icalism to the conteste! sphere o# culture, arguing #or a
cultural politics o# !i##erence, utopian multiculturalism, ra!ical a##irmation o# the %ther, an! so
on, as "ays o# a##irming ethical #orms o# #ree!om an! plural mo!es o# sub2ectivity ma!e possible
by capitalist liberal !emocracy$ The point, #or .i/ek, is that both moral-religious conservative
an! libertarian-postmo!ernist positions share the >Eukuyamaian0 thesis5 that capitalist liberal
!emocracy is here to stay, hence nee!s to be either resiste! or re#orme!$ ?The !ominant ethos
to!ay,@ as .i/ek remarks, ?is >Eukuyamaian05 liberal-!emocratic capitalism is accepte! as the
#inally #oun! #ormula o# the best possible society, all one can !o is ren!er it more 2ust, tolerant,
an! so #orth@ (4))(5 74')$
%n the other han!, there is the romantic, revolutionary position, "hich argues #or a
retrieval o# the abstract negativity o# the revolutionary tra!ition in or!er to per#orm a !estructive
negation that "oul! !isrupt the capitalist economico-political system$ This is the line o# thought
&egelian but also Mar,ist-1eninist in inspirationthat .i/ek argues #or in his most recent
tome, In Defense of Lost Causes (4))()$ Eor .i/ek, "e must #irst o# all question an!
theoretically re2ect the >Eukuyamaian0 liberal !emocratic consensus5 capitalist liberal !emocracy
is not necessarily the >universal an! homogeneous0 #orm o# the state, as :o2Sve put it, in "hich
the atomise! post-historical animals o# the species homo sapiens "ill privately en2oy their
narcissistic consumer pleasures (:o2Sve '3+35 '*8-'+4)$ Rather, the contra!ictory !ynamics o#
contemporary global capitalism"e nee! only mention global cre!it, #uel, oil, an! Thir! ;orl!
#oo! crises, an! the stark reality o# ecological an! environmental limits to gro"thsuggest that
it is possible that ;estern societies may be entering a perio! o# instability, uncertainty, even
!ecline$
.i/ek cites #our key antagonisms that are relevant here5 the ecological crisis (global
"arming, >peak oil0)6 the challenge to concepts o# priate property pose! by ne" #orms o#
>intellectual property06 the socio-ethical implications o# ne$ techno.scientific deelopments
(biogenetics)6 an! ne$ forms of apartheid/ particularly the proli#eration o# slums, separate!
communities, non-state governe! Fones o# !isor!er (4))(5 74'-748)$ =n light o# these
intersecting antagonisms con#ronting global capitalism, the historical question o# "hether it is
possible to re!eem the #aile! revolutionary attempts o# the past (<en2amin) may not yet be
entirely close!$
.i/ek0s ra!ical &egelian-Mar,ist "ager is !irecte! primarily against contemporary liberal
!emocratic but also >postmo!ernist0 politics that !epoliticise the economy>naturalising0 it as the
unquestione! backgroun! o# society, culture, an! politicsan! thereby !isplace political con#lict
'8
to the sphere o# culture an! sub2ectivity$ %ne coul! argue that the !isplacement o# political
ra!icalism to the cultural sphereour contemporary >aestheticisation o# politics0is an
i!eological !isavo"al o# the real source o# the antagonisms a##licting mo!ern liberal
!emocracies$ =t represents a politically !ebilitating attempt to transpose the abstract negativity o#
revolutionary struggles to the >sublimate!0 sphere o# culture (as in the #amiliar >culture "ars0 that
pit social an! religious conservatives against secular liberals an! libertarian >postmo!ernists0 in
symbolic struggles over moral an! cultural questions o# sub2ectivity, i!entity, an! values)$ The
problem "ith this pseu!o-&egelian sublimation o# politics into culture, ho"ever, is that it leaves
untouche! "hat Mar, correctly i!enti#ie! as the >base0 o# these morally !riven #orms o# socio-
cultural struggle5 the economic !ynamics o# global capitalism$ This is "hy .i/ek0s has recently
argue!notably in In Defense of Lost Causes#or a re#usal o# the liberal !emocratic >moral
blackmail0 that con!emns in a!vance any #orm o# ra!ical politics as >totalitarian0 or >terroristic,0
an! "hy he no" a!vocates an active reclaiming o# the historical an! political revolutionary
heritage o# the 1e#t$ .i/ek0s ra!ical &egelian-Mar,ist proposal "oul! entail ackno"le!ging the
po"er o# negativity !e#ining mo!ern sub2ectivity, a recognition o# the suppresse! >night o# the
"orl!0 or abstract negativity that continues to haunt the precarious >imaginary community0 o#
liberal !emocracy$
The question, ho"ever, is "hether this can be !one "ithout relapsing into the
nightmarish violence o# the &egelian >night o# the "orl!0$ Are there more determinate forms of
negationo# social an! political struggle against the normative or!ers o# capitalismthat might
!isturb the liberal !emocratic >moral consensus0 that has so strikingly paralyse! the 1e#tG Ioes
reclaiming the history o# revolutionary activism also imply the risk o# embracing #orms o#
violence that have marre! t"entieth-century political historyG %r can the revolutionary spiritthe
spectre o# Mar,, i# one "illbe reanimate! "ithout repeating this history o# violenceG .i/ek0s
&egelianism an! his Mar,ist-1eninism pull in !i##erent !irections precisely on this issue$ The
&egelian ans"er "oul! be that the abstract negativity o# revolutionary violence must be
aufgehoben through the #ormation o# rational social an! political institutions capable o#
reconciling the !eracinating e##ects o# capitalism "ith the principle o# in!ivi!ual sub2ectivity$ The
Mar,ist-1eninist response, on the other han!, "oul! argue that such liberal-capitalist institutions
themselves be sub2ecte! to revolutionary violencea >negation o# the negation0that "oul!
create the historical con!itions #or #uture (communist) emancipation$ ;e shoul! note, though,
that the &egelian response is retrospectie an! descriptie6 a conceptual comprehension o# the
un!erlying logic o# the !ynamics o# mo!ernity that "oul! reconcile us to the vicissitu!es o#
mo!ern #ree!om$ The Mar,ist-1eninist response, by contrast, is prospectie an! prescriptie6 a
!eman! to translate theory into practice, overcoming this alienating opposition by means o#
revolutionary action$ .i/ek appears to argue #or a synthesis o# these !istinct, seemingly
'(
incompatible, responses, "hich raises the #ollo"ing !i##iculty5 ho" is the &egelian account o# the
negativity involve! in the transition #rom abstract to concrete universality to be reconcile! "ith
the Mar,ist-1eninist !eman! #or revolutionary action that "oul! negate all such merely
>i!eological0 comprehensionG
%ne response "oul! be to suggest that .i/ek is simply pointing to the unavoi!ability o#
the moment o# negativity in any theorisationan! political practiceo# the historical realisation
o# #ree sub2ectivity$ &e remin!s us that the 1e#t #orgets this &egelian lesson at its peril$ Eor in
that case it either assents to the >Eukuyamaist0 consensus that there is >nothing to be !one0
since "e0ve alrea!y arrive! at the (liberal-capitalist !emocratic) >en! o# history06 or else it naively
asserts the nee! #or a rene"e! romantic-revolutionary response that !eman!s a violent
(abstract) negation o# the status quo$ The &egelian response, by contrast, "oul! be to argue #or
the possibility o# a retrieval o# the revolutionary tra!ition that has also become historically
re#lective an! socio-politically !eterminate5 not simply an abstract >violent0 negation o# mo!ern
liberal-!emocratic institutions but rather a determinate negation o# the normative consensus
the implicit backgroun! o# economic neo-liberalismthat sustains them6 a productie negation
that "oul! both preserve their emancipatory potentials "hile also negating their alienating socio-
cultural e##ects$ Such a task, o# course, is easier sai! than !one$ .i/ek0s bol! engagement "ith
the relationship bet"een the negativity o# the (&egelian) sub2ect an! the antagonisms !e#ining
global capitalism thus thro"s !o"n the philosophico-political gauntlet$ All the more so i# one
believes that social an! political movements to!ay shoul! reclaim that seemingly most >lost0 o#
causesthe 1e#tist revolutionary tra!ition committe! to the concrete universality o# #ree!om$
Note,
'
This &egelian backgroun! is crucial, = suggest, #or grasping .i/ek0s critical response to Simon
Dritchley0s claims #or a (1evinasian) ethical anarchism o# resistance in response to global
capitalism (Dritchley 4))86 .i/ek 4))+5 994-9976 .i/ek 4))(5 993-9*))$
4
.i/ek returns precisely to &egel0s ?night o# the "orl!@ passage in his analysis o# Schelling0s Die
1eltalter, comparing the &egelian ra!ical negativity an! conception o# ma!ness as "ith!ra"al
#rom the "orl! "ith the Schellingian ?sel#-contraction@ that ?negates every being outsi!e itsel#@
(.i/ek '3385 ()$
9
As .i/ek remarks, he has re#erre! to these t"o &egelian passages ?repeate!ly in almost all
my books@ ('3335 +8, #n$ 99)$
7
%tto ;eininger, like &ei!egger, recoils #rom the abyss o# sub2ectivity5 ;eininger via recourse
to his misogynistic ?heni!s@ or phantasmatic ?con#use! #eminine representations@ ('3375 '7*),
'3
an! &ei!egger via his ?turn@ #rom the Daseinsanalytik o# 2eing and Time to"ar!s the gentle
releasement to"ar!s <eing ('3335 44-4()$
*
=n this respect, .i/ek0s &egelianism echoes the ra!ical rea!ing o# &egelin#lecte! by Mar,
an! &ei!eggerma!e #amous by Ale,an!re :o2Sve in his '399-93 1ectures on &egel0s
Phenomenology of Spirit ('3+3)$
+
As A$ J$ Miller observes, &egel makes a similar speculative point (in his Philosophy of 3ature)
concerning the mouth, "hich combines kissing an! speech on the one han!, "ith eating,
!rinking, an! spitting on the other (&egel '3885 4')-4'', #n$ ')$
8
This is "hy .i/ek criticises Simon Dritchley0s claim (4))85 *-+) that all #orms o# revolutionary
vanguar!isminclu!ing 1eninism, Maoism, Situationism, an! Al-Tae!a-style =slamismare to
be equally re2ecte! as #orms o# active nihilism$ <y blurring the !i##erence bet"een the !istinct
political logics o# ?ra!ical egalitarian violence@ ("hat <a!iou calls the ?eternal =!ea@ o#
revolutionary 2ustice) an! ?anti-mo!ernist >#un!amentalist0 violence@ (!e#ining ra!ical =slamism),
Dritchley lapses into ?the purest i!eological #ormalism@, echoing the i!enti#ication, both by
liberals an! conservatives, o# so-calle! >1e#t0 an! >Right0 #orms o# totalitarianism (.i/ek 4))(5
97()$
4eferen(e,
<utler, -$ ('339)$ 2odies That )atter, 1on!on5 Routle!ge$
<utler, -$ 1aclau, M$ .i/ek, S$ (4))))$ Contingency/ 0egemony/ ,niersality4 Contemporary
Dialogues on the Left, 1on!on5 Jerso$
<utler, R$ (4))*)$ Slaoj 5i6ek4 Lie Theory, Ce" Uork5 Dontinuum$
Domay, R$ (4))7)$ >Iea! Right5 &egel an! the Terror0, South *tlantic 7uarterly ')95 4L9
(SpringLSummer), pp$ 98*-93*$
Dritchley, S$ (4))8)$ Infinitely Demanding4 &thics of Responsibility/ Politics of Resistance,
1on!on5 Jerso$
Eukuyama, E$ ('334)$ The &nd of 0istory and the Last )an, Ce" Uork, Eree Bress$
&egel, K$;$E$ ('387)$ >-enaer Realphilosophie, in +r8he politische Systeme, Erank#urt5 Ullstein$
&egel, K$;$E$ ('388)$ &egel0s Phenomenology of Spirit, trans$ by A$ J$ Miller, %,#or!5 %,#or!
University Bress$
&ei!egger, M$ ('338)$ !ant and the Problem of )etaphysics$ Ei#th e!ition, Mnlarge!$ trans$ by
R$ Ta#t, <loomington5 =n!iana University Bress$
4)
:ay, S$ (4))9)$ 5i6ek4 * Critical Introduction, 1on!on5 Bolity Bress$
:o2Sve, A$ ('3+3)$ Lectures on 0egel9s Bhenomenology o# Spirit, trans$ by -$ &$ Cichols, Ce"
Uork, <asic <ooks$
Sharpe, M$ (4))7)$ Slaoj 5i6ek4 * Little Piece of the Real, Al!ershot5 Ashgate$
Jerene, I$ B$ ('3(*)$ 0egel9s Recollection4 * Study of Images in the Bhenomenology o# Spirit,
Albany5 SUCU Bress$
.i/ek, S$ ('33')$ +or They !no$ 3ot 1hat They Do4 &njoyment as a Political +actor, 1on!on5
Jerso$
.i/ek, S$ ('334L4))')$ &njoy 'our Symptom( Jac%ues Lacan in 0olly$ood and out, Revise!
M!ition, Ce" UorkL1on!on5 Routle!ge$
.i/ek, S$ ('339)$ Tarrying 1ith the 3egatie4 !ant/ 0egel/ and the Criti%ue of Ideology,
Iurham5 Iuke University Bress$
.i/ek, S$ ('337)$ The )etastases of &njoyment4 Si" &ssays on 1omen and Causality, 1on!on5
Jerso$
.i/ek, S$ ('33+)$ The Indiisible Remainder4 *n &ssay on Schelling and Related )atters,
1on!on5 Jerso$
.i/ek, SLE$ ;$ -$ von Schelling ('338)$ The *byss of +reedom:*ges of the 1orld; *n &ssay by
Slaoj 5i6ek $ith the te"t of Schelling9s Iie ;eltalter (secon! !ra#t, '('9), in &nglish
translation by Judith 3orman, Ann Arbor, M=5 The University o# Michigan Bress$
.i/ek, S$ ('333)$ The Ticklish Subject4 The *bsent Centre of Political <ntology, 1on!on5 Jerso$
.i/ek, S$ (4))+)$ The Paralla" #ie$, Dambri!ge, MA$L1on!on5 The M=T Bress$
.i/ek, S$ (4))()$ In Defense of Lost Causes, 1on!on5 Jerso$
4'