Theologians ♥ Zizek
The back cover of Zizek's "The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core of Christianity"
Buddha-killer Becky and I have been in a bit of a back-and-forth lately about a peculiar phenomenon we’ve been observing: the preponderance lately of hip young Christians (and even Quakers) getting worked up about the atheist, materialist, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek. (May the bodhisattvas of multiculturalism forgive my leaving out the diacritical marks.) Last year, at the American Academy of Religion meeting, I remember being amazed to discover that an enthusiastic paper on Zizek began with a prayer. What followed was a young, optimistic, good-looking evangelical pastor explaining why Zizek points the way toward a genuine “postmodern” Christian theology. And at this year’s AAR, the man himself was present. He called himself “unconditionally a Christian”—insofar as being a Christian means being an atheist. (Adam Kotsko’s significant Zizek and Theology points to Zizek’s resonance with the “death of God” theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Thomas J.J. Altizer, so it was fitting that he shared the stage that day with Alitzer. Not that identification with one of theology’s greatest has-beens is any advertisement for his relevance.)
It’s like they—the theologians—don’t believe him. Pretty straight out, Zizek’s books attack pretty much all the cherished convictions of traditional Christian thought and culture: love of neighbor, social hierarchy, mercy, meekness, and even basic theism. Let there be no mistake, there has truly been a move toward Christianity in his recent books—a celebration of Christianity, indeed, with a muscular exclusivism, at the expense of other religions (following Hegel’s reasoning), that would make most polite Christians today blush. Zizek’s “theological turn,” like that of Terry Eagleton, amounts to no less than an attack on how theology is normally done. Like Terry Eagleton (and even Antony Flew), however, people with more conventional theological predilections have flocked to him as an ostensible bridge that their Christianity might cross into secular culture.
If they cherish their convictions, however, I’d warn them against doing so. What this contingent represents is a desire to do something quite different with theology—to replace church with a bureaucracy (Zizek) or a revolution (Eagleton) or a minimalist positivism (Flew). My advice for theologians concerning Zizek: fight him! That’s what he wants. And that’s what his thinking—so rich, so surprising, and so irreverent to necessary reverences—deserves. (See, e.g., my discussion of Adam Kirsch’s attack on Zizek last year at the New Republic.)
Returning to Zizek’s books again lately, I find in them more and more an attitude that can only be called theological—an analysis of living gods. But these are not the gods any respectable Christian theology should want. These are the gods of Christianity’s ruins, its graveyard, and accepting them means accepting the basic premise that the whole religion is a joke that its adherents are too dense to get.
But if that’s not a problem for you, then by all means, help yourself to this brilliant, alluring figure.
| Write a letter to the editors | Give back to KtB
November 21st, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Thanks Nathan for such a succinct analysis. I find much food for thought be engaging with a wide range of ideas. Hence, I bristle when anyone says that Christians should refrain from engaging in any form of culture including movies, books, and music.
Having said that, as a religious satirist, my radar tends to go off whenever anyone becomes heralded in select Christian circles as “the next big thing” with Žižek appearing to be the latest religious rock star placed on a pedestal. One Q I’ve had in observing this dynamic unfold is how many folks actually read Žižek as opposed to quoting snippets gleaned from blogs, articles, etc. in an attempt to be part of the cool Christian crowd?
As I relayed to you, seeing Žižek play in the trash during Astra Taylor’s insightful documentary “An Examined Life,” demonstrated vividly how his thoughts on nature bore scant resemblance to anything I had heard from even the most radical folks who self-identify as Christians. This reminds me of social activist Christians who wax poetic about Che Guevara. Can one don both a Che T-shirt and a cross necklace? Or are both these items simply trappings of the holy hipster? What do Christians (and I am definitely including myself here) need to peel away in order to reveal the core teachings of Jesus?
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:05 am
I meant to say “by engaging” – serves me right for typing late at night with a glass of wine.
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I might be wrong, having only read reviews of the books that you’re talking about, rather than the books themselves, but it seems to me that the reason for all the positive emotion towards Žižek and Eagleton on the part of theologians might be that they are coming after the wave of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens in popular culture.
Watching theology professors watch the former authors capture a segment of the public’s imagination I think was like watching english professors deal with Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyer’s 15 minutes. Both groups of PhD’s understand the field that their popular counterparts are working in to a tremendous degree. In both cases while they might be unwilling to use that superior understanding to step on to the public stage, in many cases they are unable, due to the other skills that are necessary and facts about the public itself that they would have to cater to. To watch Dawkins et al win fame speaking on the subject of religion and philosophy with such obvious ignorance of the subject matter is tremendously frustrating.
To have Zizek and Eagleton come in and provide honest (if incomplete, in my opinion) readings of religious texts is refreshing, especially considering what the sales totals of their books say about the number of people who fit into a social category where people who are hip, cool, and intelligent want a more mature treatment of the subject.
No matter where people end up, most of them start out in high school and in adulthood as in adolescence people want the ones who are highly regarded in their society to deserve it to a certain extent. The extent to which this isn’t true is a condemnation of the society.
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
(Where I’m coming from) http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/123/a_merry_marxy_christmas/
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Brendan,
Thanks for your comments! I think you’re absolutely right that the embrace of these folks stems in large part from the relief that they’re not New Atheists—I meant to discuss this in the post, actually, but time was short and I neglected to. Eagleton in particular styles himself as an antidote to them, and hopeful religious people sometimes believe him (for instance, I saw him at an event in New York hosted by the Templeton Foundation, an organization devoted to free-market, godly capitalism which was apparently unperturbed to showcase a revolutionary Marxist who doesn’t believe in prayer).
I might even go so far as to suggest that these “theological atheists” (Zizek, Eagleton) are more dangerous, more insidious, and probably therefore much better for theology than the New Atheists, who at least don’t bother to learn anything about it or think it has any bearing on themselves.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I was at that same Templeton forum and share Nathan’s assessment that Eagleton and Žižek offer far more robust critiques of Christianity than what one finds in the New Atheists’ works. Without such vibrant outsider outsider voices, any faith movement shrivels into a fossilized state until it become but an icon of it’s former self.
As a Buddha killer though, I become concerned when any thinker becomes embraced by any religious group as the latest, greatest academic guru. Such an elevation tends to produce a collective state of ‘group think’ where critical thinking tends to take a back seat with a desire to be part of the “in group.” If left unchecked, this dynamic can morph into a Lord of the Flies scenario. From what little I have read of Žižek, I suspect he would be very critical of such idol worship preferring instead to dialogue in the dirt (though I don’t see him encouraging pig hunting parties).
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:34 am
I don’t really see it so much as uncritical hero worship with any “Lord of the Flies” danger. My sense is that Zizek is an unusually interesting, dynamic thinker of a kind that gets people with a predilection for philosophy excited. He knows the Continental tradition, as well as pop culture and Soviet jokes. He also poses an especially biting critique to well-meaning, “green” bourgeois liberalism, which so dominates academic culture (kind of a philosophical equivalent of Stuff White People Like). I think the interest in him is deserved. I mean to argue here, precisely to his credit, that his threat to Christian theology should not be taken lightly.
Also in this group of “theological atheists” should be included Alain Badiou (see Mark Lilla’s critical essay) and Giorgio Agamben. Though that’s a pretty bad name for them.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:43 am
When I Googled Žižek and “rock star,” the articles that came up contained phrases like “academic rock star,” “philosopher rock star,” “intellectual rock star,” “accosted by autograph hounds,” and “Elvis of cultural theory.” The line “One fan seems to get a visceral thrill from just reaching out and touching his arm” seemed particularly creepy. There appears to be a level of adulation here among some Žižek followers that crosses the line from fan to fanatic when their critical thinking and reasoning skills take a backseat and they go into groupie mode. That’s when the person has become an idol of sorts and I say it’s time for some idol smashing to bring us all back to earth. (I say “us” because while I’m not a Žižek groupie, I find I always need to be on the lookout for any idols I may have created that need to be smashed into bits.)
November 25th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
To Nathan Schneider:
You dismiss Altizer as “one of theology’s greatest has-beens,” citing in support your own article containing no reference later than 1968. This article reads like a time capsule that was buried in the ground for 40 years. Are you so stuck in the past, Nathan? Have you read a book by Altizer since the 1960s? For your convenience he has published 10 systematic theological works since that date. Have you read Total Presence (1981)? History as Apocalypse (1985)? Genesis and Apocalypse (1990)? The Contemporary Jesus (1997)? Godhead and the Nothing (2003)? Slavoj Zizek, for one, has seriously read and cited the recent work of Altizer (see The Monstrosity of Christ, pp. 260-61). If after actually reading and reflecting on Altizer’s mature theology (post-1968) you find it to be “has-been,” the reasons for that are definitely worth arguing here and I will be the first to listen. But I am unhappy that you participate in the regrettable tendency of mainstream media commentators to dismiss someone or something preemptively on the basis of prejudice conjoined with ignorance.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:11 am
Lissa,
Thanks for the engaging response—I’m sorry to disappoint you so much. I appreciated very much your Thinking Through the Death of God volume, so I’m honored to hear from you. Unfortunately I have yet to study seriously Altizer’s later work (this being a bit of a side project for me), though I did enjoy his Living the Death of God. Nevertheless, I wrote the Obit piece (as well as one in The Guardian) with the express purpose of reminding the public of what I believe was and is an important theological movement. I for one have learned much from those figures, and Altizer certainly stands out among them.
Nevertheless, I think I am justified in referring to Altizer’s work, in the context of “relevance” as a “has-been,” though of course I could have been more delicate. From the perspective of the public I’m writing for, he really hasn’t been heard from in a long time, nor has his work continued to be as widely-discussed among theologians. I think that it is still important and certainly potentially-relevant, so I’m glad that scholars like you are continuing to keep the lines of investigation he opened alive.
As for “mainstream media,” I hardly think that describes Killing the Buddha, thank goodness. Still, I think it might be worthwhile to remember what Altizer himself said about the “mainstream media” coverage of his work in the ‘60, particularly compared to the academy:
Not that I claim that praise for myself, by any means, but what you said reminded me of it.