Berlusconi in Tehran
Slavoj �i�ek
When an authoritarian regime approaches its final crisis, but before its actual collapse, a mysterious rupture often takes place. All of a sudden, people know the game is up: they simply cease to be afraid. It isn’t just that the regime loses its legitimacy: its exercise of power is now perceived as a panic reaction, a gesture of impotence. Ryszard Kapu?ci?ski, in Shah of Shahs, his account of the Khomeini revolution, located the precise moment of this rupture: at a Tehran crossroad, a single demonstrator refused to budge when a policeman shouted at him to move, and the embarrassed policeman withdrew. Within a couple of hours, all Tehran had heard about the incident, and although the streetfighting carried on for weeks, everyone somehow knew it was all over. Is something similar happening now?
July 20th, 2009 at 11:14 am
I’m not sure how accurate Zizek assertion that Islam has a liberatory potential is. That is, I am not sure how accurately it reflects the situation in Iran at the moment. Yes, there are many camps, all more or less opposed to the Ayatollah-however there is a much stronger anti-Islamic regime current.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:39 pm
I’m not so sure that’s true. Much of the opposition movement’s goal is to reclaim the revolution (hence the use of green). And Shiism, especially, contains a strong liberatory quality (Shariati, for example, was a revolutionary-era thinker who blended Shiism with Marxism).
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Kyle,
Of course there are various fractions, all of whom want to out the Ayatollah and the ‘elected’ President. But to claim that the liberatory element in the uprising has its connection with Islam itself, I think it a bit of a stretch. Zizek’s noted that the yelling of “Allah Akbar” on the rooftops at night signals the emancipatory potential within Islam. But that’s on the presupposition that the ‘god is great’ yelling is genuine, and not merely a form of expression.
All in all, it is very hard to get a concrete account of what is exactly happening in Iran.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Ah, I thought you were saying that Islam lacks emancipatory potential, not merely that its involvement here might be exaggerated. My bad, though I would say that, even if references to Islam are merely expressive, Islam’s rhetorical value in advancing freedom can signal that quality within the actual faith.
July 27th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Daimon,
To say that any rhetoric is “just an expression” I think neglects the multiple layers of nuance and meaning embedded in those expressions themselves. Particularly in Farsi and Arabic, it is hard to say that anything is just an expression or that the words being used can be boiled down to EITHER their “content” OR their “context” neglects the rich history which is weaved into all of those expressions. I think the point Zizek touches on is that Allahu Akbar, though it is a very common phrase, can never be separated from its religious content, that the kind of joy conveyed through this particular phrase links precisely to a cultural heritage of ecstatic religious triumph.
Derrida teaches similar lessons about Western phraseology…
July 29th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Ashley,
Of course words cannot be merely boiled down to either their context OR their content. Its both. So, that said, in this particular context (mass protest, violence, killings, torture, beatings, etc, etc) the phrase Allahu Akbar is far from joyous, I’d say its more so anger, or devastation.
It’s fitting that you mentioned Farsi, because I happen to be Iranian and I speak Farsi. The connotation in which the calling out of ‘Allahu Akbar’ on top of rooftops had, in Farsi, was not from joy, but from desperation within the context of the Iranian turmoil (granted, there may be specific cases where certain Iranians were zealous with joy at the mass protesting, and called the phrase out in joy, but the cases I am thinking of are the ones of older women, mothers and grandmothers who can do nothing but watch the events unfold).
As for Zizek, he is taking up a Lacanian/political theology position. The subject, for Lacan, can use what was once considered an oppressive ideological symbol (i.e. religious veil in Islam, or the phrase ‘Allahu Akbar’) and in a paradoxical twist, reverse the symbolic meaning and turn it into a subversive act/symbol. The issue I have with this analysis regarding the particular situation in the Iranian event is that the use of the phrase ‘Allahu Akbar’ is not ONLY used to subvert the Islamic regime, but reflects the real, material conditions and situations the oppressed people of Iran now find themselves in (i.e. horrified men and women crying out the phrase due to the unfolding violence). Let’s just say that I think Zizek is generalizing a little bit too much here, and his commentaries are getting a tad sloppy. I’m sure he will have a more refined analysis when the Iranian event has developed more.
August 9th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Dear all
I am guest editing a special issue of the Zizek Studies journal on “Zizek in Tehran” in response to Zizek’s intervention on the post election events in Tehran.
CALL FOR PAPERS
Žižek in Tehran
The recent post election events in Iran have caused individuals and groups of almost
every political persuasion to give their take on the situation. One of the more persistent
ideas was the Western Left’s supposed stubborn defense of President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, on the grounds of his purported working class base and anti-imperialist
credentials. On the other hand, another idea was spread that the Western media had been
falsely creating the impression of a middle-class “velvet revolution” in the country, for the
aim of regime destablisation. The ideological confusion was understandable, and in this
confused climate open letters were furiously drafted and circulated on the internet. The
letters were clearly an attempt to inscribe a cognitive mapping of a situation in which the
coordinates had become lost.
Inevitably – and quite quickly – Slavoj Žižek appeared with his take on the matter, reaching
its culmination in a piece for the London Review of Books called “Berlusconi in Tehran.” No
longer just the Elvis of academic theory, or everyone’s favorite joker, Žižek’s interpretation
on the situation was received, as Saeed Rahnema puts it, as that of “the prominent voice
of the new left.” Even in terms of Žižek’s unpredictable career trajectory the piece was in
many ways remarkable. Here, Žižek seemed to drop his calls for a return for Leninist
organization and class analysis; and, significantly, he ditches his aversion to political Islam.
More than anything, however, the following claim gives us pause for thought. Comparing
reformist candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi to rival reformist Mehdi Karroubi: “Mousavi is
something entirely different: his name stands for the genuine resuscitation of the popular
dream which sustained the Khomeini revolution.”
What this symposium on “Žižek in Tehran” aims to do is not simply provide a set of
reactions to Žižek’s specific intervention on the situation in Iran, but rather to also explore
a number of themes which it raises: the role of the public intellectual, politics and
universalism, ‘Western’ versus ‘Eastern’ points of view, and political realism as opposed to
utopian critique.
We are looking for papers upwards of 1500 words for this special issue of the International
Journal of Žižek Studies. Deadline October 1st 2009.
Please contact Guest Editor Nathan Coombs with any queries:
N.Coombs@rhul.ac.uk
For those that wish to contribute the following online texts may help –
Slavoj Žižek, “Berlusconi in Tehran,” London Review of Books. 23rd July 2009.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n14/zize01_.html
Saeed Rahnema, “The tragedy of the Left’s Discourse on Iran,” Znet. 10th July 2009.
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21948
Hamid Dabashi, “Iran conflict isn’t class warfare,” CNN. 22nd June 2009.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/22/dabashi.iran.myths/index.html
Open Letter, “Truth and reconciliation for Iran,” Guardian Online. 31st July 2009.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/31/iran-truth-reconciliation-commission
See also reactions to the above letter in the comments section on Lenin’s Tomb blog:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/08/truth-and-reconciliation-for-iran.html