Kisner - The Concrete Universal in i Ek and Hegel-libre

8/12/2019 Kisner - The Concrete Universal in i Ek and Hegel-libre

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kisner-the-concrete-universal-in-i-ek-and-hegel-libre 1/38

Žižek and Hegel - IJŽS Vol 2.2

The Concrete Universal in Žižek and HegelWendell Kisner !tha"asca Universit# $Canada%

&iven the 're'onderance o( the criticis) la*nched at Hegel (or allegedl# s*"s*)ing

di((erence and otherness *nder an all-enco)'assing a"sol*te s'irit a criticis) that goes "ack at

least to Heidegger+s lect*re co*rse on Hegel, and is no do*"t eacer"ated "# the inter'retations

'*t (orard "# /radle# and 0cTaggart $and later "# Charles Ta#lor and 1avid Inood2% hich

see)ed to e)"race s*ch a vie the inter'retative a''roach o((ered "# Slavo Žižek in s'ite o(

his reliance *'on Ta#lor+s inter'retation in other res'ects is "oth re(reshing and interesting (or its

disavoal o( that vie. /roadl# s'eaking there are at least to a#s one )ight co*nter the

a"ove criti3*e. 4ne a# is to arg*e that 'ro'erl# *nderstood the Hegelian tet does not and

never did indicate an#thing like s*ch a vie and it does indeed artic*late so)ething like aninassi)ila"le otherness. !nother a# o*ld "e to co*nter that the ver# reasons (or regarding the

s*"s*)'tion o( alterit# to "e a "ad thing in the (irst 'lace are the)selves not onl# 'ro"le)atic "*t

act*all# 'res*''ose conce't*al deter)inacies that are alread# criti3*ed in the Hegelian tet. The

(irst a''roach sa#s that Hegel can )eet the o"ections o( his 'ost)odern critics5 the second sa#s

that the 'ost)odern criticis) is itsel( "ased on erroneo*s reasons. Whereas the (irst a''roach

acce'ts the ter)s o( the criti3*e o( Hegel the second does not. In general Žižek ado'ts the (irst

a''roach altho*gh as e ill see there are )o)ents in his treat)ent that )ight s*ggest an

alternative reading. Un(ort*natel# (or the )ost 'art that alternative re)ains *ndevelo'ed inŽižek+s on tet.

I( e+re looking (or a 'oint o( entr# into the Hegelian tet that )ight tell *s so)ething

a"o*t assi)ilation s*"s*)'tion etc. the classic distinction "eteen *niversalit# and 'artic*larit#

see)s to readil# o((er itsel( as a likel# candidate and es'eciall# Hegel+s ell-knon distinction

"eteen 6concrete6 and 6a"stract6 *niversalit#. Žižek (ollos this lead 'roviding hat is 'erha's

,



his )ost s*stained atte)'t to artic*late hat Hegel )eant "# a 6concrete *niversal6 in the

second cha'ter o( his "ook The Ticklish Subject .7 Žižek "egins ith a reartic*lation o( the

standard 'se*do-Hegelian clich8 6thesis-antithesis-s#nthesis6 in the contet o( the 'o'*lar 69e

!ge6 notion that ancient isdo) as holistic and at one ith nat*re hereas the )odern h*)an

"eing is "lighted ith an e'loitative attit*de toard nat*re and a conco)itant alienation (ro) it.:

!ccording to this stor# there once eisted a holistic *nit# that as s*"se3*entl# (ract*red "#

)odern d*alis) in hich ret*rn to the (or)er is i)'ossi"le and 'ersistence in the latter is (atal.

/*t rather than a''eal to a 6'se*do-Hegelian6 higher s#nthesis in hich these to o''osing

orientations )ight (ind their higher *nit# Žižek arg*es that the tr*l# Hegelian insight is to

discover that the s*''osed 6(all itsel( the (ate(*l (orgetting o( the ancient isdo) hich ena"led

*s to )aintain a direct contact ith the +dance o( li(e+ ;...< is alread# in itsel( its on sel(-s*"lation5

the o*nd is alread# in itsel( its on healing6 $Žižek ,===> ?,%. Hence the a# o*t o( the (all (ro)

nat*ral *nit# and "liss is alread# i)'licitl# (o*nd not "e#ond the (all "*t in the (all itsel(. This ishat Žižek takes to "e the )eaning o( the Hegelian 6negation o( negation6 or the cele"rated

Aufhebung that negates and 'reserves sel(-contradiction in conce't*al@ontological

deter)inacies.A He rites 6The inner logic o( the )ove)ent (ro) one stage to another is not

that (ro) one etre)e to the o''osite etre)e and then to their higher *nit#5 the second

'assage is rather si)'l# the radicaliBation o( the (irst6 $Žižek ,===> ?,%. !ll that is re3*ired is a

shi(t in 'ers'ective.

S*ch an 6inner logic o( the )ove)ent6 )akes reco*rse to the 'ri)ar# Hegelian tet that

deals ith 6logic6 'er se *navoida"le viB. the greater Science of Logic itsel(. Hoever Žižek

'ost'ones an# s*"stantial engage)ent ith this tet "eginning as he does ith the

Phenomenology and then onl# s'oradicall# re(erring to the Logic at a level o( generalit# that (or

the )ost 'art avoids a detailed anal#sis o( the arg*)ents. This "eginning gets Žižek o(( on the

rong track $as ill "e )ore (*ll# e'lained "elo% and leads hi) to regard re(lection as a

gro*nding categor#. /*t regardless o( ho e )ight organiBe the Logic A he does realiBe that

the 6inner logic6 he atte)'ts to (or)aliBe and resc*e (ro) the 'se*do-Hegelian clich8 )*st have

reco*rse to the categories o( *niversalit# 'artic*larit# and individ*alit# that are (irst o*tlined in

the Logic's (inal section the 6logic o( the conce't.6

!s is ell knon Hegel+s tri'artite division o( the Logic into a logic o( 6"eing6 o( 6essence6 and (inall# o( 6the conce't6 indicates s'eci(ic s'heres or )odes o(

conce't*al@ontological deter)inac#. The s'here o( 6"eing6 is )arked "# i))ediate

deter)inations that cannot re)ain hat the# are "*t )*st 'ass over into so)ething other the

s'here o( 6essence6 is )arked "# deter)inations that )ediate or gro*nd the i))ediate

deter)inations o( "eing "*t re)ain i))ediate the)selves and the s'here o( the conce't is

2



)arked "# deter)inations that re)ain the)selves in "eco)ing other and are there"# sel(-

deter)ining. It is to the latter s'here that the conce't o( *niversalit# "elongs inso(ar as the

6*niversal6 (irst a''ears as a str*ct*re that re)ains itsel( in otherness. That is rather than

dissolve deter)inacies "ack into a gro*nd that constit*tes their essence $the logic o( essence%

and rather than )erel# "eco)ing so)ething else $the logic o( "eing% the *niversal is that hich)*st relate to an otherness - the 'artic*lars hose *niversalit# it is - and #et at the sa)e ti)e

)aintain its deter)inac# as *niversal in and thro*gh those 'artic*lars.

Hoever i( the 'artic*lars (all o*tside the *niversal deter)inac# that the# hold in

co))on then the (or) o( *niversalit# is other than its content hich are the 'artic*lars. /*t this

)eans to things (or Hegel> on the one hand the ver# particularity that is s*''osed to "e

acco*nted (or "# the *niversal (alls o*tside the latter and on the other hand inso(ar as the

*niversal stands over and against the 'artic*lars s*"s*)ed *nder it it too can onl# "e so)ething

'artic*lar )aking it a 6'artic*lariBed6 or a"stract *niversal. Hegel+s )ethodolog# in the Logic

de)ands that one avoid )erel# o''osing the conce'tion o( a concrete *niversal to this a"stract

one and instead act*all# sho ho the (or)er can "e i))anentl# derived (ro) the latter. Žižek

is ell aare that the co))on criti3*e o( the Hegelian s#ste) that sees it as a totaliBing

s*"s*)'tion o( 'artic*lars *nder an all-enco)'assing *niversal s'irit itsel( navel# 'res*''oses

the deter)inac# o( a"stract *niversalit# (ailing to conceive o( the concrete *niversal that Hegel

clai)s to "e the e'licit deter)inac# into hich the (or)er develo's hen its on i)'licit logic is

s'elled o*t. It is to Žižek+s e'licit acco*nt o( the latter that I no t*rn.

The first approach to the concrete universal

Žižek initiall# characteriBes the di((erence "eteen a"stract and concrete *niversalit# in

ter)s o( the 6'ri)ar# identi(ications6 ith one+s nat*ral relationshi's $e.g. (a)il# )e)"ershi'% as

o''osed to secondar# identi(ications ith one+s 6arti(icial6 or conventionall# )ediated

relationshi's $e.g. national citiBenshi'% $Žižek ,===> =D%. Inso(ar as the *niversalit# o( national

citiBenshi' is o''osed to the nat*ral relationshi's $e.g. "# re3*iring the ren*nciation o( the latter%

it is an a"stract *niversal that does not incl*de this 'artic*lar content. Tho*gh Žižek doesnEt call

attention to it e can see this o''osition in Flato+s Euthyphro hen the #o*ng G*th#'hro "rings

his (ather "e(ore a co*rt o( la to 'rosec*te hi) (or ca*sing the death o( a servant thro*gh

negligence there"# reno*ncing his (a)ilial o"ligations in (avo*r o( the *niversalit# o( *stice

"e(ore the la. Hegel+s on ell-knon ea)'le is that o( !ntigone ho takes the o''osite 'ath

o( reno*ncing civic o"ligation in (avo*r o( (a)ilial d*t#.

!ccording to Žižek hoever it is onl# hen s*ch civic o"ligations can in so)e a#

a''ro'riate the (a)ilial ones s*ch that the state is served in and thro*gh one+s (a)ilial d*ties

7



that concrete *niversalit# is achieved. In Žižek+s ter)s the 6*niversal secondar# identi(ication6

onl# "eco)es concrete 6hen it reintegrates 'ri)ar# identi(ications trans(or)ing the) into the

)odes o( a''earance o( the secondar# identi(ication6 $Žižek ,===> =D%. To '*t it in )ore (or)al

Hegelian ter)s an initial i))ediac# $the set o( 'ri)ar# identi(ications% is overco)e in )ediation

$the set o( secondar# identi(ications% "*t that )o)ent o( )ediation onl# "reaks ith i))ediac#in an i))ediate a# itsel( )erel# standing over and against it as so)ething o''osed. It is onl#

hen the 'revio*s i))ediac# is shon to "e a necessar# )o)ent within the )ediated str*ct*re

that its i))ediac# is tr*l# shon to "e )ediated. 4therise it )erel# (alls o*tside the 'rocess o(

)ediation and re)ains *nto*ched "# the latter leaving *s to sides that are )*t*all# o''osed or

s*"sisting indi((erentl# alongside each other - and each side there"# re)aining i))ediate.

Žižek+s gloss here reall# characteriBes the general )ove (ro) deter)inacies o( "eing to those o(

essence in hich e )ove (ro) the s'here o( i))ediate transitions that si)'l# "eco)e

so)ething other to transitions that reveal )ediating str*ct*res *nderl#ing those i))ediate

deter)inacies. /*t inso(ar as this is a (or)al characteriBation o( the di((erence "eteen to

sections o( the Logic each o( hich contains a hole host o( )ore s'eci(ic versions o( this

generalit# not onl# does Žižek+s acco*nt here (ail to get at the specificity o( the categor# o(

*niversalit# 'er se incl*ding the distinction "eteen a"stract and concrete *niversalit# that

e)erges ithin it "*t it even e)'lo#s a deter)inac# )ore a''ro'riate to the s'here o( essence

than to the s'here o( conce't here 6*niversalit#6 (irst e'licitl# e)erges (or anal#sis in the

Logic .?

Hoever Žižek hi)sel( does not re)ain content ith the de(inition he 'rovides here

either. It is as i( escheing the )ore s#ste)atic a''roach to categor# derivation ee)'li(ied "#

Hegel he 're(ers to grad*all# ork his a# toard a )ore s'eci(ied acco*nt o( concrete

*niversalit# in a $at least see)ingl#% ha'haBard a# draing here and there *'on e)'irical

ea)'les historical develo')ents etc. and then setting *' a )*t*al inter'la# "eteen these

'rivileged selections and the categories he ants to see either re(lected in the) or develo'ed

and esta"lished "# the) - or 'erha's "etter "oth re(lected and esta"lished in a )*t*al

inter'la#. So in order to "etter *nderstand hat Žižek )eans "# 6concrete *niversalit#6 e have

to (ollo the tists and t*rns o( his (*ll acco*nt an acco*nt hich is carried o*t thro*gh several

a''roaches as it ere. What e have *st seen is the (irst a''roach.

The second approach to the concrete universal

The (act that the (irst a''roach is inade3*ate can "e seen in Žižek+s ea)'le o(

Christianit# according to hich 6#o* co*ld 'artici'ate in social li(e occ*'# #o*r deter)inate

'lace in it $as a servant 'easant artisan (e*dal lord...% and re)ain a good Christian -

:



acco)'lishing #o*r deter)inate social role as not onl# seen as co)'ati"le ith "eing Christian

it as even 'erceived as a s'eci(ic a# o( (*l(illing the *niversal d*t# o( "eing a Christian6 $Žižek

,===> =,%. We kno (ro) Hegel+s on acco*nt o( this hoever that the de(icienc# o( s*ch

(reedo) la# 'recisel# in the (act that it as onl# an inner 'rinci'le that had not #et "eco)e

o"ecti(ied in the str*ct*res o( the state a develo')ent that o*ld have to ait (or 0artin *ther and )odern li"eral de)ocracies. In Christ there is 6neither Je nor &reek there is neither slave

nor (ree )an there is neither )ale nor (e)ale6 $&alatians 7>2% "*t out there in the act*al orld

a o)an is not alloed 6to teach or eercise a*thorit# over a )an6 "*t 6)*st re)ain 3*iet6

$,Ti)oth# 2>,2% and r*naa# slaves are ret*rned to their )asters $Fhile)on ,D-,%.

We get to the second a''roach "# a# o( the radicaliBed individ*alit# that 6co)es into eistence

in the g*ise o( the individ*al+s a"sol*te egotist sel(-contraction his negation o( all deter)inate

content6 $Žižek ,===> =2%. It is onl# thro*gh s*ch a radical negation o( all 'artic*lar content that

the *niversal is esta"lished as act*al. This o( co*rse echoes the (a)iliar "eginning o( Hegel+s

Philosophy of ight in hich the a"stract sel(-identit# o( the +I+ asserts itsel( as (ree "# reecting

an# and ever# li)itation and there"# also negating all 'artic*lar content $inso(ar as the latter

o*ld li)it it to "eing or '*rs*ing one thing and not another%. In Žižek+s anal#sis this can also "e

seen as a res'onse to the )erel# 6inner6 *niversalit# noted a"ove ith res'ect to Christianit#

that leaves o''ressive str*ct*res o( do)ination intact. The choice o( 6a 'artic*lar ethical li(e-

orld6 as ee)'li(ied "# the Christian acce'tance o( one+s sociall# deter)ined 'lace in li(e 6can

end onl# in a regression to 're)odern organic societ# hich denies the in(inite right o(

s*"ectivit# as the (*nda)ental (eat*re o( )odernit#6 $Žižek ,===> =7%=. So the 6choice6 here is a

6(orced choice6 - that is 6one has to choose6 the destr*ctive and violent "reak ith the

esta"lished order that is 6the ver# o''osite o( the 'eace(*l ne*tral )edi*) o( all 'artic*lar

content6 $Žižek ,===> =:%.,D

Žižek s*ggests here that this is not the (inal sha'e o( concrete *niversalit# "*t onl# the

(irst ste' toard it. !ntici'ating a (*rther develo')ent he also notes that in order (or *niversalit#

to "eco)e concrete it not onl# cannot re)ain )erel# 6a ne*tral-a"stract )edi*) o( its 'artic*lar

content6 "*t in addition it has to !inclu"e itself among its particular subspecies6 $Žižek ,===> =2

Žižek+s e)'hasis%. The *nit# that e)erges o*t o( the 6e'losion6 o( the 'revio*s organic *nit# ill

"e 6a substantially "ifferent Unit# a Unit# gro*nded on the disr*'tive 'oer o( negativit# a Unit#in hich this negati#ity itself assumes positi#e e$istence6 $Žižek ,===> =%. We ill have to attend

care(*ll# to the a# in hich Žižek *nderstands this ne *nit# to "e 6gro*nded on6 negativit# and

look to see i( he (ollos thro*gh ith the i)'lications o( his s*ggestion here or i( he a"andons

the latter in (avo*r o( a (o*ndational conce'tion. /*t (or no let+s take as o*r g*iding criterion

Žižek+s on assertion that in order (or *niversalit# to "eco)e concrete it cannot re)ain aloo( or

A

yf

#8,

c

my u

N

Am

B

c

m



indi((erent th to its ' ontent )*st in itse ( a)ong its ' This

)ight at east 'rovide *s ith a kind o( e ark against i h to )eas*re hether or not

rete *ni it# has "een ade3*atel# conceived.

I))ediatel# (olloing this disc*ssion is the s*"section o( the cha'ter called 6+Concrete

Universalit#+6 th*s 'ro)ising the arrival o( the concretion e+ve "een aiting (or. Žižek "eginsthis section "# (irst 'resenting hat he calls the 6three )ain versions o( the relationshi' "eteen

the Universal and its 'artic*lar content6 $Žižek ,===> ,DD%. The (irst is the 6ne*tral *niversalit#6

ee)'li(ied "# the Cartesian cogito hich is alike in all individ*al s*"ects indi((erent to ethnicit#

gender etc. !gainst the 'ost)odern reection o( it (or this reason hoever this 'ers'ective sees

s*ch *niversalit# as 6the 'hiloso'hical (o*ndation o( the 'olitical e3*alit# o( the sees6 $Žižek

,===> ,DD% a (o*ndation that )a# have "een distorted d*e to historical contingencies like 6the

're*dices o( the social realit#6 ithin hich its initial theorists $1escartes Kant Hegel etc.% lived

"*t hich is not intrinsicall# tied to these contingencies. /*t i( e eval*ate this version according

to Žižek+s "ench)ark noted a"ove e cannot (ail to notice that this is not a *niversalit# that

incl*des itsel( a)ong its 'artic*lars "*t rather is one that re)ains indi((erent to its $non-ne*tral%

content and so accordingl# it does not constit*te a via"le candidate (or concrete *niversalit#.

The second is hat Žižek calls the 6s#)'to)atic6 reading o( the 'revio*s ne*tral

*niversalit#. This 'ers'ective (inds hidden in ne*tral *niversalit# a 'artic*lar content that

*nder)ines it e.g. the 'artic*larit# o( hite )ale 'ro'ert# oners "eneath the s*''osed

*niversalit# o( the )odern rights-"earing individ*al. Its strongest version indicts the ver# conce't

o( *niversalit# 'er se as an i)'licit act that 6o"literates6 'artic*lar di((erences and as s*ch is not

gender ne*tral "*t inherentl# )asc*line $or e )ight add is not ethnicall# ne*tral "*t is

inherentl# hite G*ro'ean etc.% $Žižek ,===> ,DD%. This 6s#)'to)atic6 inter'retation sees

*niversalit# as a s#)'to) o( a (or) o( do)ination that has an interest in don'la#ing or erasing

'artic*lar di((erences "ehind the (aade o( an ill*sor# ne*tralit# that is act*all# loaded in (avo*r o(

a 'artic*lar 'art#. !ltho*gh *niversalit# 'er se has "een i)'*gned this a# Žižek s'eci(ies it as

a criti3*e o( a"stract *niversalit# rather than o( *niversalit# '*re and si)'le there"# introd*cing

a distinction that )a# not ala#s "e )ade or even conceived in this kind o( criti3*e.,, !t an# rate

since this version conceives *niversalit# as an ideological (alsehood that is *nder)ined "# the

'artic*lar content it conceals *niversalit# 'er se is not incl*ded in its 'artic*lars "*t )erel# (allsaa# as ill*sor# and so (ails to )eet Žižek+s "ench)ark (or concrete *niversalit#. This version

)ore or less loses *niversalit# in 'artic*larit#.

The third version ee)'li(ied "# Grnesto acla* is hat e )ight call the 6hege)oniBed

*niversal.6 In this inter'retation the *niversal itsel( is '*rel# (or)al and e)'t# standing in need o(

so)e 'artic*lar content to (ill it. Since it has no deter)inac# in itsel( that o*ld s'eci(# its



content hoever it can onl# "e 6hege)oniBed "# so)e 'artic*lar content that acts as its stand-

in.6 Universalit# in this sense is a kind o( 6"attlegro*nd on hich the )*ltit*de o( 'artic*lar

contents (ight (or hege)on#6 $Žižek ,===> ,DD-,D,%. This "attle can onl# "e te)'oraril# resolved

- it is never resolved once and (or all - and each ti)e it is a 'artic*lar content in e((ect sa#s 6I a)

the tr*e *niversal.6 4nce this is nor)aliBed $hich e )ight regard as the sine 3*a non o( inning the "attle% a 'artic*lar content co)es to "e seen as the de(a*lt *niversal. ! )aor

di((erence "eteen this reading and the s#)'to)atic one is that hile the latter tends to regard

*niversalit# as at "est ill*sor# and at orst a (or) o( do)ination and so cannot develo' a 'ositive

conce'tion o( it the hege)oniBed *niversal is ala#s o'en-ended s*"ect to challenge and re-

hege)oniBation "# a di((erent content. Th*s as Žižek notes 6I( cogito silentl# 'rivileges )en as

o''osed to o)en this is not an eternal (act inscri"ed in its ver# nat*re "*t so)ething that can

"e changed thro*gh hege)onic str*ggle6 $Žižek ,===> ,D,%. This inter'retation does hoever

reoin the s#)'to)atic one in the reection o( ne*tralit#. 0oreover this version is the one that atleast initiall# see)s to line *' ith hat Žižek conceives as a concrete *niversalit# and is even

'erha's re(lected in hat he ill later call a 6str*ggling *niversalit#6 $Žižek 2DD7> ,D=%.

/*t even tho*gh Žižek does not call attention to it one cannot hel' "*t notice that since

the hege)oniBed *niversal is one in hich 6all 'ositive content o( the Universal is the contingent

res*lt o( hege)onic str*ggle - in itsel( the Universal is a"sol*tel# e)'t#6 $Žižek ,===> ,D,% in

this e)'t# (or)alit# it act*all# reoins the ver# ne*tralit# o( the (irst 6ne*tral6 version. 4ne )ight

even sa# that this version achieves a real ne*tralit# thro*gh its *tter (or)alit# and that hat the

(irst version lacked as 'recisel# the thoro*gh-going (or)alit# necessar# in order to 'revent its

ne*tralit# (ro) "eco)ing a )ere (aade "ehind hich 'artic*lar interests l*rk. So i( it can "e said

that this version reoins the s#)'to)atic one in the reection o( ne*tralit# this o*ld have to "e

)ore 'recisel# conceived as a reection o( that particular ne*tralit# that serves as an ideological

veil concealing 'artic*lar interests s*"stit*ting (or it a )ore thoro*ghgoing ne*tralit# that is

*tterl# devoid o( content and is there"# 6*' (or gra"s6 as it ere (or hege)oniBation. In other

ords hat it reects is a kind o( 'artic*larit# in (avo*r o( a (or)al a"straction (ro) all 'artic*lar

content.

9o Žižek hi)sel( at ti)es see)s to e)"race the hege)oniBed *niversal as the tr*e concrete

*niversalit#. Indeed he ill re'eatedl# re(er "ack to it as i( its legiti)ac# has "een esta"lishedand it re3*ires no (*rther arg*)ent or clari(ication in s*"se3*ent cha'ters cas*all# re(erring to

the 6(act6 that 6each a''arentl# *niversal ideological notion is ala#s hege)oniBed "# so)e

'artic*lar content hich colo*rs its ver# *niversalit#6 $Žižek ,===>,?A%,2 or asserting that 6a

sit*ation "eco)es +'oliticiBed+ hen a 'artic*lar de)and starts to (*nction as a stand-in (or the

i)'ossi"le *niversal6 $Žižek ,===> 277% etc. Žižek even e'licitl# identi(ies this ith Hegel hen

?

p



i))ediatel# a(ter (irst artic*lating it he clai)s that 6the 'arado o( the 'ro'er Hegelian notion o(

the Universal is that it is not the ne*tral (ra)e o( the )*ltit*de o( 'artic*lar contents "*t

inherentl# divisive s'litting *' its 'artic*lar content> the Universal ala#s asserts itsel( in the

g*ise o( so)e 'artic*lar content hich clai)s to e)"od# it directl# ecl*ding all other content as

)erel# 'artic*lar6 $Žižek ,===> ,D,%.,7

9o i( e eval*ate this version o( *niversalit# "# Žižek+s on "ench)ark it can

i))ediatel# "e seen that the *niversal inso(ar as it is an e)'t# (or)alit# not onl# cannot incl*de

itsel( a)ong its 'artic*lars "*t cannot incl*de an# 'artic*lars at all. Th*s (ar (ro) "eing

6concrete6 the *niversal in this vie is act*all# 6i)'ossi"le6,: and hence so)e 'artic*lar content

)*st "e substitute" (or it. I( a 'artic*lar content hege)oniBes the *niversal "# 6standing-in6 (or it

then it is not clear ho on this "asis one can then clai) as Žižek does that 6the Universal

ala#s asserts itsel( in the g*ise o( so)e 'artic*lar content hich clai)s to e)"od# it directl#

ecl*ding all other content as )erel# 'artic*lar6 $Žižek ,===> ,D,%. In 'oint o( (act the onl# thing

that 6asserts itsel(6 is some particular stan"%in not the *niversal itsel( hich as s*ch re)ains an

e)'t# i)'ossi"ilit#. Th*s in the end e onl# ind *' ith 'artic*larit# not *niversalit# at all and

so the 6g*ise6 here o*ld see) to "e not *niversalit# in the g*ise o( 'artic*larit# "*t rather the

other a# aro*nd - a 'artic*lar content in the g*ise o( *niversalit#. Lar (ro) "eing incl*ded in its

'artic*lar content in this vie *niversalit# as s*ch is 'recisel# e$clu"e" and replace" "# a

s*"stit*te.

L*rther)ore inso(ar as the 'artic*lar hege)on that stands in (or *niversalit# ecl*des 6all

other content as )erel# 'artic*lar6 it can onl# assert itsel( as this stand-in o#er an" against the

other ecl*ded 'artic*lars and there(ore can onl# "e itsel( so)ething particular . !s e ill see

this is )erel# hat Hegel o*ld call a 6'artic*lariBed *niversal6 hich as s*ch re)ains a"stract.

!s s*ch a 'artic*larit# its )ere assertion o( itsel( as 6the6 *niversal onl# signi(ies its 'oer to do

so over other contenders in the (ield and as s*ch a 'artic*lar 'oer over and against those

others it re)ains )erel# a (alse *niversal a 'retender. In this sense the hege)oniBed *niversal

(ails to get 'ast the s#)'to)atic one - the ideological ill*sion o( the latter is *st as easil#

re'lacea"le "# another ideological ill*sion as one hege)onic 'artic*larit# is re'lacea"le "# an#

other hege)onic 'artic*larit# that can s*ccess(*ll# s*"stit*te itsel( (or the e)'t# *niversal.,A

! (*rther da)aging 'oint can "e )ade here - one that s'ells o*t so)e o( the 'rag)aticconse3*ences o( the a"stract (or)alit# ith hich this conce'tion rests content. I( 6in itsel( the

Universal is a"sol*tel# e)'t#6 $Žižek ,===> ,D,% then one 'artic*lar stand-in is *st as good as

an# other. In other ords there is no "asis (or asserting the nor)ative or ontological 'rivilege o(

an# one hege)oniBed *niversal over another - the 6hite )ale 'ro'ert# oner6 as hege)on is

*st as 6legiti)ate6 $or e3*all# 6illegiti)ate6 i( indeed an# notion o( legiti)ac# can "e a''lied here



at

as sa# a conce'tion o( gender e3*alit#. !n# res*lt o( the "attle (or hege)on# is '*rel#

contingent and carries no nor)ative eight. L*rther)ore e cannot even assert that one is

6"etter6 than another "eca*se it is )ore 6incl*sive6 itho*t *sti(#ing the *niversalit# o( 6incl*sion6

as a nor)ative criterion hich )eans that e ill have to a''eal to a *niversalit# that is not

)erel# a res*lt o( contingent hege)on#. The sa)e goes (or an# other nor)ative criterion oneishes to s)*ggle in. So altho*gh this conce'tion )ight at (irst see) to assert a 'ositive notion

o( *niversalit# in (act it )erel# colla'ses into a (or) o( c*lt*ral or 'olitical relativis) that )a#

indeed "e )otivated "# a la*da"le desire to overco)e (or)s o( do)ination "*t 'recisel#

"eca*se o( the a# it conceives o( c*lt*ral@'olitical 'ractice as a 'regiven (o*ndation (or

nor)ativit# cannot *sti(# its on nor)ative criterion and there"# renders its on desire

i)'otent.

!s Michard Win(ield has 'ers*asivel# arg*ed an# ass*)'tion o( a 'regiven (o*ndation

(or nor)ativit# is saddled ith 6the dile))as o( (o*ndationalis)6 hich 6a((lict *sti(ication so

long as hat allegedl# 'ossesses validit# re)ains disting*ished (ro) hat con(ers validit#. This

distinction leaves the 'rivileged (o*ndation o( *sti(ication ala#s s*s'ect inso(ar as it can never

)eet its on standard o( legiti)ation6 $Win(ield 2DD?> -=%. In other ords inso(ar as an# gro*nd

o( nor)ativit# is given in advance o( that hich it is s*''osed to render )orall# legiti)ate it

cannot *sti(# itsel( "# its on criterion. This o( co*rse re'eats the age-old 'ro"le) o( gro*nds or

(o*ndational *sti(ications - no )atter hat is 'osited as gro*nd or (o*ndational 'rinci'le the

3*estion ill ala#s re)ain as to hat gro*nds the gro*nd leading either to in(inite regress or

dog)atic assertion. The 6con*ndr*) o( nor)ativit#6 lies in the (act that 6val*e cannot rest *'on

antecedent val*e itho*t "egging the 3*estion #et val*e can no )ore rest *'on hat has no

val*e6 $Win(ield 2DDA> ::%.

Th*s 'ost)odern relativis) hich o(ten sees itsel( as anti-(o*ndationalist inso(ar as it

clai)s to *n)ask the )erel# contingent character o( hat has "een asserted to "e nor)ativel#

*niversal $as NiBek+s s#)'to)atic and hege)oniBed versions o( *niversalit# do% *nder)ines its

on a"ilit# to )ake an# nor)ative eval*ations at all - not onl# ith res'ect to the no-co))on

'retence that all *niversal clai)s $that is uni#ersally % conceal a 'artic*lar content $or constit*te a

hege)onic stand-in% "*t even ith res'ect to the ver# (or)s o( do)ination it otherise ishes to

criticiBe. !s Win(ield '*ts it 6not onl# do these o*ld-"e anti-(o*ndationalists (ail to *'hold their clai)s "*t "# e)"racing the hege)on# o( contingent (o*ndations over all nor)ative arg*)ent

the# advance 'rivileged ter)s o( their on6 $Win(ield 2DDA> :%. Fost)odern relativis) there(ore

is itsel( )erel# a nave (or) o( (o*ndationalis) inso(ar as it ill ala#s 'osit a 'rivileged

deter)iner itho*t "eing a"le to *sti(# that 'rivilege. Hence given s*ch a conce't*al (ra)e

6val*es are (orarded *lti)atel# "eca*se their advocate chooses to (oist the) *'on others in

=



hat a)o*nts to a 'la# (or 'oer. Val*e 'ositing is a gra" (or 'oer 'recisel# "eca*se val*es

la# clai) to *niversal validit# #et on this diagnosis have no other "asis than the choice o(

hoever a((ir)s the). The# 'res*)e to "ind all "*t onl# serve the 'artic*lar ill that ar"itraril#

advances the)6 $Win(ield 2DD?> -=%.

!long Hegelian lines Win(ield arg*es that given the intracta"le 'ro"le)s o( (o*ndationalis) the do)ain o( nor)ativit# can onl# "e legiti)atel# clai)ed "# a conce't o(

(reedo) as self -deter)ination that does not look to an etrinsic (o*ndation (or its legiti)ac#

there"# avoiding the 'ro"le) o( gro*nding that has "een ith *s at least since Thales 'osited

6ater6 as the gro*nd o( ever#thing $and 'ro)'ted the si)'le reoinder (ro) !ristotle> 6Where

then did the ater co)e (ro)O6%. Inso(ar as the c*lt*re or tradition one ha''ens to "e "orn into

is a contingentl# 'regiven (actor it is not a )atter o( one+s on choosing or a res*lt o( (reedo).

To the degree that one+s c*lt*re or tradition is given in advance o( one+s activit# ithin it and

'rescri"es hat the character o( that activit# )*st "e it does not and cannot constit*te a sel(-

deter)ining str*ct*re "*t can onl# "e a 'regiven (o*ndation (or an# (*rther deter)inac#. !s s*ch

a contingentl# 'regiven (o*ndation it cannot constit*te an#thing nor)ativel# "inding. Sel(-

deter)ination then a''ears as a necessaril# trans-c*lt*ral *niversal even i( it )*st nonetheless

co)e into "eing ithin the contet o( a 'artic*lar c*lt*re so)ehere and so 6ill (irst a''ear in a

regional g*ise clothed ith so)e contingent (eat*res that are not ende)ic to the *niversal

str*ct*res o( (reedo) "*t re(lect resid*al ele)ents o( its "irth6 $Win(ield 2DDA> 7=%.

/*t rather than '*rs*ing s*ch a strictl# Hegelian line o( tho*ght Žižek+s )ain de(ense o(

Hegel o(ten see)s to a)o*nt to the clai) that Hegel does not regard the violent disr*'tion o(

'ri)al *nit# as a deto*r a(ter hich e can then sa(el# ret*rn to the original lost ne*tral *nit# "*t

rather as a necessar# ste' toards a ne *niversalit# that lies on the other side o( it. !t ti)es

Žižek gen*inel# envisions the 'ossi"ilit# o( this ne *niversalit# "*t then he i))ediatel# sli's

"ack into the a"straction o( a (or)al *niversalit# hich )*st "e hege)oniBed "# a 'artic*larit#

that (alls o*tside it and there(ore can onl# serve as its 6stand-in.6 /*t there )a# "e another 'ath

to concrete *niversalit# hich tho*gh 'erha's onl# vag*el# conceived or hinted at "# Žižek

hi)sel( and even then onl# s'oradicall# and inco)'letel# e )ight nonetheless "e a"le to

artic*late as a distinct conce'tion o( *niversalit# that is not )erel# a hege)oniBed (or)alit#. This

is hat I ill call the 6third a''roach.6

The third approach to the concrete universal

!ltho*gh it )a# see) that acla*+s hege)oniBed *niversal is the one that Žižek ado'ts

as the (inal ee)'li(ication o( concrete *niversalit# there is a (*rther n*ance that Žižek indicates

and hich re3*ires develo')ent "e(ore e can sa# that e have seen ever#thing Žižek has to

,D



sa# a"o*t the )atter. We )ight call this version the 6constit*tive ece'tion6 a acanian 'hrase

Žižek ill e)'lo# in this contet. !ltho*gh Žižek does a''roach this version "# a# o( acla* and

it is not ala#s clear (ro) his acco*nt hether or not he con(lates it ith the hege)oniBed

*niversal I think that it is )ore 'ro)ising to treat it as a distinct conce'tion i( e are looking (or a

tr*e concrete *niversalit# that is neither an a"stract ne*tralit# nor a (aade concealing 'artic*lar interests nor an e)'t# (or)alit# that as s*ch is i)'ossi"le and so )*st "e hege)oniBed "#

so)e 'artic*lar s*"stit*te that cannot clai) nor)ative validit#. 0# inter'retation o( the

constit*tive ece'tion as a distinct conce'tion not to "e )erel# con(lated ith the hege)oniBed

*niversal is given s*''ort "# Žižek+s on s*ggestion that 6it is not eno*gh to clai) that concrete

*niversalit# is artic*lated into a tet*re o( 'artic*lar constellations o( sit*ations in hich a s'eci(ic

content hege)oniBes the *niversal notion5 one sho*ld also "ear in )ind that all these 'artic*lar

ee)'li(ications o( the *niversalit# in 3*estion are "randed "# the sign o( their *lti)ate (ail*re6

$Žižek ,===> ,D7%. I( the 'artic*lar ee)'li(ications that hege)oniBe *niversalit# are )arked "#their *lti)ate (ail*re this leaves o'en the 'ossi"ilit# o( a *niversalit# that )ight not "e s*ch a

(ail*re.

Žižek o'ens *' this third a''roach ith a )*sical analog# in hich the general conce't o(

a 6violin concerto6 (*nctions as the *niversal and the act*al violin concertos that ere ritten and

'er(or)ed thro*gho*t its varied histor# co*nt as the 'artic*lars. Here the 'artic*lars are not

instances o( a *niversal that is 'regiven "*t rather serve to act*aliBe hat the *niversal itsel( is

viB. the# s*ccessivel# deter)ine hat co*nts as a s*ccess(*l violin concerto and there"#

deter)ine hat the *niversal is. The i)'ortant 'oint (or o*r '*r'oses here is Žižek+s concl*ding

state)ent> 6Here e have an ea)'le o( Hegelian +concrete *niversalit#+> a 'rocess or a

se3*ence o( 'artic*lar atte)'ts that do not si)'l# ee)'li(# the ne*tral *niversal notion "*t

str*ggle ith it give a s'eci(ic tist to it - the *niversal is th*s (*ll# engaged in the 'rocess o( its

'artic*lar ee)'li(ication5 that is to sa# these 'artic*lar cases in a a# decide the (ate o( the

*niversal notion itsel(6 $Žižek ,===> ,D2%.

The *'shot here is that Žižek ants to see the 'artic*lar cases as act*all# "etermining

hat the *niversal is a"ove and "e#ond "eing a )ere 'assive ee)'li(ication o( a ne*tral

*niversalit#. I( this 'rocess o( deter)ining is eternall# i)'osed - as sa# in the conce'tion o( a

contingent 'artic*lar content hege)oniBing an e)'t# *niversalit# - then the onl# 6*niversalit#6'resent o*ld )erel# "e the 'oer o( asserting hege)on# over others in the (ield hich as a

)ere 'artic*lar 'oer over and against those others re)ains a (alse *niversal. 4n the other

hand i( this 'rocess o( deter)ining necessaril# (ollos in so)e a# (ro) the *niversal itsel( or i(

the *niversal is deter)ined "# the 'artic*lar cases in s*ch a a# that it re)ains a uni#ersal

rather than a s*"stit*te then the *niversal o*ld indeed assert itsel( as its 'artic*lar content and

,,



e o*ld have a concrete *niversalit# "# o*r "ench)ark a *niversal in hich *niversalit# and

'artic*larit# are no longer at odds. So also s*ch a *niversal inso(ar as the 'rocess o(

deter)ining is not eternall# i)'osed o*ld constit*te a 'rocess o( self%"etermination and

there"# e)"od# hat Hegel takes the str*ct*re o( a conce't deter)ination to "e as ell as

satis(#ing Win(ield+s a"ove-)entioned criterion (or nor)ative validit#.Hoever Žižek does not get to a s*"stantive artic*lation o( this distinct conce'tion o(

concrete *niversalit# a"ove and "e#ond acla* *ntil to cha'ters later a(ter an etended criti3*e

o( /adio* and 'resented in the contet o( an inter'retation o( the latter along ith Manciere and

/ali"ar. The arg*)ent 'roceeds "# a# o( a rather o'a3*e anal#sis o( the 0arian notion o(

e'loitation hich e )*st *n'ack. In this 'rocess e ill have to develo' the logic o( Žižek+s

anal#sis (*rther than Žižek hi)sel( e'licitl# does. 1oing so hoever ill "ring *s to a notion o(

concrete *niversalit# that is 'erha's closer to Hegel than Žižek hi)sel( realiBes $at least *dging

"# his tet%. The (irst 'oint Žižek )akes ith res'ect to the notion o( e'loitation is that it is not

si)'l# o''osed to the idea o( *st and e3*ita"le echange - one cannot eli)inate e'loitation "#

ens*ring that orkers are 'aid the (*ll val*e o( their la"o*r. Mather its e'loitive character lies in

the co))odi(ication o( orkers the)selves. When la"o*r 'oer itsel( "eco)es a co))odit# that

is echanged on the )arket along ith other co))odities e'loitation co)es into "eing -

regardless o( ho ell the orkers are 'aid. In the )idst o( all the co))odities echanged on

the )arket one co))odit# stands o*t as an ece'tion that doesnEt "elong ith the rest - the

h*)an "eing ho orks. The e'loitive relationshi' co)es to light hen the ece'tion is )ade

to (*nction ithin an echange s#ste) as i( it ere nothing )ore than another co))odit#

alongside others.

This e)ergence o( e'loitation thro*gh the ece'tion in t*rn coincides ith 6the

*niversaliBation o( the echange (*nction> the )o)ent the echange (*nction is *niversaliBed -

that is the )o)ent it "eco)es the str*ct*ring 'rinci'le o( the hole o( econo)ic li(e - the

ece'tion e)erges since at this 'oint the ork(orce itsel( "eco)es a co))odit# echanged on

the )arket6 $Žižek ,===> ,D%. Žižek+s 'oint is that the 'rocess o( *niversaliBation here $viB. that

o( the echange (*nction% act*all# hinges on the ece'tion )aking it a 6constit*tive ece'tion.6

The ece'tion th*s constit*tes the r*le rather than )erel# (alling o*tside it. I( the ece'tion ere

an ece'tion in the ever#da# sense - that is i( it )erel# (ell o*tside the r*le o( *niversal echange- then the r*le o*ld not "e *niversal. Its *niversalit# here consists in the incl*sion *nder it o( the

ece'tion and hence it is onl# thro*gh the ece'tion that it "eco)es the r*le that is a

*niversaliBed (*nction. Invoking the s#)'to)atic version o( *niversalit# hoever Žižek asserts

that the ecessive ele)ent act*all# *nder)ines *niversalit#> 6the s#)'to) is an ea)'le hich

s*"verts the Universal hose ea)'le it is6 $Žižek ,===> ,D%. /*t "e(ore e si)'l# give *' on

,2



*niv

it# e have to consider hether it is *niversalit# per se that is *nder)ined or )erel# the

abstract form o( *niversalit# hose ne*tralit# conceals the 'artic*larit# *nderl#ing it. I( the latter

then there )a# still "e roo) (or a "etter conce'tion o( *niversalit# that is not so *nder)ined.

!t this 'oint Žižek indicates a shi(t that has occ*rred in the anal#sis> hereas 'revio*sl#

there e)erged a ga' "eteen the *niversal itsel( $as an ideological ill*sion in the s#)'to)atic*niversal or as e)'t# (or)alit# in the hege)onic *niversal% on the one hand and the 'artic*lar

content on the other hand no that ga' has e)erged ithin the 'artic*lar content itsel( viB.

"eteen the 'artic*lar as assertion o( *niversalit# and the ecess ithin that ver# 'artic*lar

content that s*"verts the *niversalit# it clai)s to "e. Žižek kee's to his ea)'le here - the

*niversalit# o( *stice is an e)'t# (or)alit# hose content is hege)oniBed "# the "o*rgeois

notion o( a *st and e3*ivalent echange "*t this 'artic*lar stand-in (or the e)'t# *niversal

necessaril# incl*des the e'loitive co))odi(ication o( h*)an la"o*r that *nder)ines its

'retension to *niversal *stice. To '*t it another a# the ga' "eteen *niversal and 'artic*lar

no e)erges ithin the 'artic*lar itsel( - "eteen the *niversal the 'artic*lar clai)s to "e and

the ecessive ele)ent ithin it that *nder)ines that clai). To "e s*re this *niversal is still seen

to "e *nder)ined or 6s*"verted.6 /*t nevertheless - even as s*ch a s*"verted *niversal - it no

a''ears within the 'artic*lar rather than "eing set o(( against it and this does "ring *s one ste'

closer to the idea o( a *niversalit# that incl*des itsel( a)ong its 'artic*lar contents. This is

so)ething neither the s#)'to)atic nor the hege)onic *niversal co*ld do inso(ar as in these

conce'tions *niversalit# as ala#s set o(( against the 'artic*lar and so co*ld not a''ear ithin

it as *niversal.

It is in and thro*gh this develo')ent that Žižek (inall# arrives at the 6individ*al6 or

sing*larit# the third )o)ent in the Hegelian triad o( *niversalit#-'artic*larit#-sing*larit#. The

constit*tive ece'tion is sing*lar in its ece'tive character - it stands alone a)ong the other

'artic*lars not as a 'artic*lar kind over and against the) $hich o*ld onl# )ake it 'artic*lar%

"*t as an ece'tion to the ver# idea that it is a 6kind6 at all. In other ords its ece'tive character

is the sa)e thing as its s*"version o( the *niversalit# it is s*''osed to "e and it there"# stands

o*t as sing*lar.

/*t is the *niversalit# that is 'resent in the sing*lar ece'tion reall# s*"vertedO Is that all

there is to the stor#O The 'ro"le) is that the *niversalit# that a''ears ithin the 'artic*lar here iss*"verted 'recisel# "eca*se it (ails to "e tr*l# *niversal. The ga' "eteen *niversalit# and

'artic*larit# does no a''ear in the 'artic*lar "*t in s*ch a a# that it *nder)ines the *niversal.

Hoever i( e 'iece together this anal#sis ith a co))ent Žižek s*"se3*entl# )akes near the

cha'ter+s concl*sion, e )a# discover the 'ossi"ilit# o( a *niversalit# that deter)ines itsel(

ithin 'artic*larit# as a sing*lar ece'tion and in s*ch a a# that its *niversal character is

,7



e'ressed rather than erted. n the s#)'to)atic version *niversalit# is a cloak (or the

ideologicall# rationaliBed 'rivilege o( a 'artic*lar interest hereas in the hege)oniBed *niversal

it is an e)'t# (or)alit# (or hich a 'artic*lar content s*"stit*tes itsel(. In neither o( these cases

can the 'artic*larit# that asserts itsel( as *niversal act*all# be *niversal. 9either an# given

'artic*lar interest nor an# given hege)oniBed *niversal can "e )ore or less valid than an# other - each is a contingent assertion o( do)inance that ill hold no nor)ative eight (or an# other

'art#.

Ho do things stand ith the constit*tive ece'tionO Žižek+s $i)'lied% anser is that things stand

di((erentl# ith the constit*tive ece'tion 'recisel# "eca*se it is incl*ded ithin the *niversal and

#et has no 'lace ithin it a contradiction evident in the ver# $o#)oronic% 'hrase 6constit*tive

ece'tion.6 It cannot "e )erel# ecl*ded (ro) the *niversal "eca*se the *niversal is constit*ted

thro*gh it and #et at the sa)e ti)e it cannot "e incl*ded ithin the *niversal "eca*se o( its ver#

ece'tive character. The reason h# the *niversal is s*"verted t*rns o*t to "e the reason h#

the constit*tive ece'tion can la# clai) to *niversalit# in the (irst 'lace> 6the s'ace (or the 'olitical

Tr*th-Gvent is o'ened *' "# the s#)'to)atic void in the order o( /eing "# the necessar#

inconsistenc# in its str*ct*ral order "# the constit*tive 'resence o( a surnum&raire o( an

ele)ent hich is incl*ded in the totalit# o( 4rder altho*gh there is no 'ro'er 'lace (or it in this

totalit# and hich for this #ery reason % since it is an element without further particular

specifications - 'ro(esses to "e the i))ediate e)"odi)ent o( the Whole6 $Žižek ,===> 277

e)'hasis )ine%. He gives voice to the sa)e 'oint a (e #ears later in The Puppet an" the warf

there calling it a 6radical *niversalit#6 in relation to the constit*tive ece'tion as the 6re)ainder6>

6Madical *niversalit# +covers all its 'artic*lar content+ 'recisel# inso(ar as it is linked thro*gh a

kind o( *)"ilical cord to the Me)ainder - its logic is> +it is those ho are ecl*ded ith no 'ro'er

'lace ithin the glo"al order ho directl# e)"od# the tr*e *niversalit# ho re'resent the Whole

in contrast to all others ho stand onl# (or 'artic*lar interests.+ acking an# s'eci(ic di((erence

s*ch a 'aradoical ele)ent stands (or a"sol*te di((erence (or '*re 1i((erence as s*ch6 $Žižek

2DD7> ,D=%.

Žižek then endorses the 6'roced*re o( i"entifying with the symptom6 that is ith the

constit*tive ece'tion hich he takes to "e the 6le(tist 'olitical gest*re 'ar ecellence6 a

'roced*re hich he clai)s is 6the eact and necessar# o"verse o( the standard critico-ideological)ove o( recogniBing a 'artic*lar content "ehind so)e a"stract *niversal notion that is o(

deno*ncing ne*tral *niversalit# as (alse $+the 6)an6 o( h*)an rights is act*all# the hite )ale

'ro'ert#-oner...+%> one 'atheticall# asserts $and identi(ies ith% the point of inherent

e$ception(e$clusion) the 'abject') of the concrete positi#e or"er) as the only point of true

uni#ersality 6 $Žižek ,===> 22: Žižek+s e)'hasis%. 9o i( the constit*tive ece'tion can

,:

p



legitimately

a# clai) to 6tr*e *niversalit#6 'recisel# d*e to its sing*lar ece'tive character inso(ar

as the latter 'revents it (ro) "eing red*ced to one 'artic*lar content over and against other

'artic*lar contents - that is inso(ar as its ecl*sion '*ts it in a 'osition to legiti)atel# sa# 6+e -

the 6nothing6 not co*nted in the order - are the 'eo'le e are !ll against others ho stand onl#

(or their 'artic*lar 'rivileged interest+6 $Žižek ,===> ,% - then the *niversalit# to hich it la#sclai) is neither an ideological ill*sion nor an e)'t# (or)alit# and the ga' "eteen the *niversal

and 'artic*lar is overco)e. Universalit# and 'artic*larit# co)e together in a 'artic*lar content

hich as s*ch )*st a''ear as a sing*lar ece'tion and so not )erel# another 'artic*lar content

v#ing ith others to see ho ill "eco)e the net contingentl# deter)ined stand-in (or a

*niversal that is *ua *niversal i)'ossi"le.,?

This is a 'ossi"ilit# o'ened *' "# Žižek+s tet that Žižek hi)sel( )a# not ala#s clearl#

see as evidenced "# his on i))ediate assertion that 6the individ*al is the dialectical *nit# o(

Universal and Fartic*lar6 onl# in the sense that 6the individ*al $the s#)'to)atic ecess% "ears

itness to the ga' "eteen the Universal and Fartic*lar> the (act that the Universal is ala#s

+(alse+ in its concrete eistence $hege)oniBed "# so)e 'artic*lar content hich involves a series

o( ecl*sions%6 $Žižek ,===> ,,%. This negativit# is indeed a necessar# )o)ent in the

develo')ent. !ll that is needed is to e)'lo# hat Žižek hi)sel( takes to "e the Hegelian strateg#

o( 6shi(ting 'ers'ective6 - the ece'tive character that *nder)ines *niversalit# and )akes the

ga' "eteen the *niversal and 'artic*lar e'licit "# 6"earing itness6 to it is the same thing as

the tr*e concrete *niversal in hich the ga' is 6s*"lated6 $aufgehoben% inso(ar as lacking a

'artic*lar character that o*ld set it o(( as a 'artic*larit# over and against other 'artic*lars in the

(ield it is *ni3*el# s*ited to serve as the *niversal - no longer as )ere 6stand in6 "*t as the

*niversal itsel(.

I( the constit*tive ece'tion is to e)"od# a tr*e *niversalit# then it )*st )ake e'licit a content

ithin *niversalit# itsel( that it does not )erel# i)'ose *'on it. There has to "e so)e sense in

hich it can sa# 6The (or)er *niversal $e.g. the cogito that silentl# 'rivileged Western hite )ale

'ro'ert# oners% is a (alse *niversal not "eca*se it ecl*des *s and e de)and recognition "*t

"eca*se "# ecl*ding *s it (ails to "e tr*l# *niversal.6 In other ords the constit*tive ece'tion

)*st "ring to light the hidden contradiction in the (or) o( a"stract *niversalit# itsel(. This it does

"# "earing itness to the a(ore)entioned ga'. Hoever in doing this it shos itsel( to "e thetr*e *niversal. 4nl# in this sense can the constit*tive ece'tion then "eco)e the 6)eta'horic

condensation6 (or h*)anit# itsel( $Žižek ,===> 2D% revealing as it does the a"stract character o(

the (or)er *niversal. In this a# the constit*tive ece'tion is not a )ere stand-in (or an e)'t#

*niversalit# "*t rather is - ontologicall# and nor)ativel# - a deter)inate (or) o( *niversalit#

itsel(., /# (*rther s'eci(#ing the uni#ersal character o( *niversalit# a"ove and "e#ond )erel#

,A

p



asserting its 'arti arit# as *niversal the constit*tive ece'tion is the sing*larit# ithin hich

and as hich the *niversal deter)ines itsel( as 'artic*lar and there"# according to o*r

"ench)ark incl*des itsel( a)ong its 'artic*lars. !s Žižek '*ts it ith res'ect to the de)and o(

'o'*lar 'rotest 6the sit*ation "eco)es 'oliticiBed hen this 'artic*lar de)and starts to (*nction

as a )eta'horic condensation6 s*ch that 6the 'rotest is no longer act*all# *st a"o*t thatde)and "*t a"o*t the *niversal di)ension that resonates in that 'artic*lar de)and6 $Žižek

,===> 2D:%.

/*t this is a 'ositive ste' that is at "est )erel# i)'licit in Žižek+s on treat)ent hich at

the e'licit level re'eatedl# (alls "ack to the assertion o( the disr*'tive 'oer o( negativit# and

too 3*ickl# relegates *niversalit# to an i)'ossi"ilit#. 4n the one hand Žižek ill see)ingl#

endorse the 6tr*e *niversalit#6 o( the constit*tive ece'tion "*t then he ill t*rn aro*nd and

a''arentl# take it "ack a''roaching the "rink o( a 'ositive conce'tion as it ere onl# to

i))ediatel# (all "ack *'on negative i)'ossi"ilit# again there"# re'eating the ver# kind o(

Kantian (or)alis) he elsehere reects. He goes to the tro*"le to even reiterate this in a (ootnote

lest there "e an# )is*nderstanding> 6The *niversalit# e are s'eaking a"o*t is th*s not a

'ositive *niversalit# ith a deter)inate content "*t an e)'t# *niversalit# ... ever# translation o(

this +e)'t# *niversalit#+ into so)e deter)inate 'ositive content alread# "etra#s its radical

character6 $Žižek ,===> 2:: (n A,%. !s noted a"ove Žižek readil# ad)its that the hege)oniBed

*niversal is a (ail*re to ade3*atel# *niversaliBe. The 'ro"le) is that he i))ediatel# takes this

(ail*re to "e the (inal ord on the )atter> 6The Hegelian +concrete *niversalit#+ th*s involves the

Meal o( so)e central i)'ossi"ilit#> *niversalit# is +concrete+ str*ct*red as a tet*re o( 'artic*lar

(ig*rations 'recisel# "eca*se it is (orever 'revented (ro) ac3*iring a (ig*re that o*ld "e

ade3*ate to its notion6 $Žižek ,===> ,D7%.,= 9o as ill "eco)e clear in the treat)ent o( Hegel

"elo this is certainl# not Hegel+s 'osition - Hegel can hardl# "e said to rest content ith the

a"stract negativit# o( an i)'ossi"le (or)alit# as the (inal ord on *niversalit#. Indeed even

itho*t t*rning to Hegel+s tet it is not too di((ic*lt to see that inso(ar as a *niversal fails to "e

ade3*atel# act*aliBed in its 'artic*lars it can hardl# co*nt as a concrete uni#ersal . Its *niversal

character is 'recisel# negated "# the 'artic*lar content that (ails to ade3*atel# e'ress it.

Žižek is right hoever to assert the necessit# o( the )o)ent o( negativit# - this ill sho

*' in the Hegelian dialectic as a sel(-contradiction ithin *niversalit# itsel( that is necessar# inorder (or *niversalit# to "e *niversal and hich at the sa)e ti)e 'revents it (ro) ade3*atel#

achieving that ver# *niversalit#. It is this negativit# that ill )ake e'licit the deter)inac# ithin

the *niversal that in t*rn ill ena"le it to "e ade3*atel# conceived as *niversal viB. in s*ch a a#

that its 'artic*lar content no longer (alls o*tside it. /*t (or this Žižek needs the 'ositive )o)ent

o( develo')ent "e#ond the a"stract negativit# at hich he sto's short. Indeed (ro) a Hegelian

,



tive one )ight vent*re to sa# that Žižek+s "iggest )istake is to take negativit# as

foun"ational rather than as a beginning that ill "e trans(or)ed in the 'rocess o( its dialectical

develo')ent. In other ords in s'ite o( all his a''eals to the Hegelian 6dialectic6 +i,ek "oes not

un"erstan" negati#ity "ialectically but foun"ationally a )istake evident hen he clai)s that 6(or

Hegel ... this )onstro*s )o)ent o( a"sol*te a"stract negativit# this sel(-destr*ctive (*r# hichashes aa# ever# 'ositive 4rder has always%alrea"y happene" since it is the ver# (o*ndation

o( the 'ositive rational order o( h*)an societ#6 $Žižek ,===> 27 Žižek+s e)'hasis%. P*ite o(ten

in Žižek+s tet one enco*nters s*ch a tr*ncated treat)ent in hich he sto's short o( (*ll

develo')ent5 he re'eatedl# ret*rns to the notion o( Hegelian concrete *niversalit# in order to

assert an irred*ci"le negativit# correctl# $(ro) a Hegelian 'ers'ective% indicating the necessit# o(

the negative )o)ent "*t incorrectl# $(ro) a Hegelian 'ers'ective% attri"*ting to it an *lti)ate

and (inal character> 6Hegelian +concrete *niversalit#+ is th*s )*ch )ore 'aradoical than it )a#

a''ear> it has nothing hatsoever to do ith an# kind o( aesthetic organic totalit# since itre(leivel# +incl*des o*t+ the ver# ecess and@or ga' that (orever s'oils s*ch a totalit# - the

irred*ci"le and *lti)atel# *nacco*nta"le ga' "eteen a series and its ecess "eteen the

Whole and the 4ne o( its ece'tion is the ver# terrain o( +concrete *niversalit#+6 $Žižek ,===>

,,7%. That Žižek can onl# conceive o( s*ch an 6aesthetic organic totalit#6 as a reactionar# return

to so)e pre#ious deter)ination o( *niversalit# there"# 'recl*ding his on earlier s*ggestion o( a

6ne +)ediated+ Unit#6 or 6nel# reinstated +)ediated+ totalit#6 that 6in no a# signals a ret*rn +at

a higher level+ to the lost initial Unit#6 $Žižek ,===> =% and instead no den#ing any kind o(

6aesthetic organic totalit#6 is shon in the re)ark i))ediatel# (olloing the a"ove citation> 6Lor

this reason the tr*e 'olitico-'hiloso'hical heirs o( Hegel are not a*thors ho endeavor to recti(#

the ecesses o( )odernit# via the ret*rn to so)e ne (or) o( organic s*"stantial 4rder $like the

co))*nitarians% "*t rather a*thors ho (*ll# endorse the 'olitical logic o( the ecess

constit*tive o( ever# esta"lished 4rder6 $Žižek ,===> ,,7%.

Whereas (ro) a Hegelian 'ers'ective one can (*ll# agree ith the necessit# o( this

negative )o)ent and even ith the i)'lied criti3*e o( co))*nitarianis)2D the 'ro"le) is that

des'ite his valoriBation o( 6the 'olitical logic o( the ecess constit*tive o( ever# esta"lished

4rder6 "# regarding the negative )o)ent as (o*ndational Žižek is 'revented (ro) develo'ing a

'olitical logic at all. Mather an# *niversal deter)inac# that a''ears $e.g. the constit*tiveece'tion% )*st "e "ro*ght "ack to the (o*ndational terrain and gro*nded there there"#

'recl*ding an# real develo')ent "e#ond that gro*nd inso(ar as the latter )*st re)ain intact in

order to serve as a (o*ndation. !nother a# e )ight '*t it is that rather than (olloing a

political logic Žižek (ollos a logic o( groun"ing - the ver# kind o( re(lective logic Hegel criti3*es

in the Science of Logic .2, Th*s oddl# eno*gh altho*gh Žižek ants to radicaliBe the "reak ith

,?



ished order he (ails to radicaliBe the "reak ith the ver# kind o( (o*ndational logic that

o*ld 'reserve s*ch esta"lished order against its r*'t*res. In other ords he reects the content

o( a certain (o*ndationalis) onl# to e)"race the #ery form of foun"ationalism itself .22

!ltho*gh (ro) a Hegelian 'ers'ective Žižek is correct to e)'hasiBe that in order (or

*niversalit# to "eco)e concrete it cannot re)ain aloo( or indi((erent ith res'ect to its 'artic*lar content "*t )*st incl*de itsel( a)ong its 'artic*lars $Žižek ,===> =2% and even i( e a((ir) that

the acco*nt o( the constit*tive ece'tion indicates a concrete *niversalit# that is neither )erel#

i)'ossi"le nor *nder)ined "# its 'artic*lar content hat he still lacks is a "e#elopment that

act*all# leads *s (ro) one version o( *niversalit# to the net. In other ords Žižek lacks a logic

o( develo')ent and hat he inds *' ith instead are several *ta'osed versions o(

*niversalit# "eteen hich a choice )ight "e s*ggested "*t none o( hich can "e the 6(orced

choice6 that he ants to see. !ltho*gh Žižek ants his acco*nt to "e aligned ith Hegel in so)e

a# a )ore Hegelian 'roced*re o*ld "e to (ollo an i))anent logic o( develo')ent rather

than to 'resent given alternatives in *ta'osition hich are then eval*ated in so)e a# "# a

re(lection that re)ains eternal to the). Here let *s "rie(l# t*rn to Hegel+s on derivation o( the

concrete (ro) the a"stract *niversal to see i( this develo')ent )ight thro an# light on

*niversalit# as Žižek atte)'ts to conceive it.

Hegel's concrete universal

In Hegel+s Logic *niversalit# as an e'licit conce't*al deter)inac# is (irst shon to "e

necessar# as a res*lt o( de(iciencies (o*nd in the categories o( s*"stance and ca*salit#.

S*"stance a''ears at the a'e o( hat Hegel calls 6re(lection6 or the 6logic o( essence6 inso(ar

as it returns to itself o*t o( its deter)inac# i.e. its 6accidents.6 That is the deter)inac# o(

s*"stance lies in its accidents "*t s*"stance onl# there"# re)ains the same deter)inac# and so

thro*gh its accidents it onl# 6ret*rns to itsel(6 as Hegel like to sa#. Inso(ar as this 6ret*rn to sel(6

)aintains the sa)e deter)inac# it does not develo' into a further deter)inac# or into so)ething

that o*ld "e )ore than the )ere deter)inac# o( s*"stance again. In other ords it is not sel(-

deter)ining in the sense that it cannot deter)ine itsel( (*rther thro*gh a develo')ent that o*ld

lead to so)ething other than the )ere categor# o( s*"stance. This then de(ines the re(lective

ret*rn to sel( - it is a )ove)ent that ret*rns to the sa)e deter)inac#. The 9ietBschean conce't

o( "eco)ing (or instance (or all its cele"rated 1ion#sian (l* and denial o( ontological (iit#

nonetheless invaria"l# ret*rns to the sa)e deter)inac# o( (l* 'la# o( (orces etc. $9ietBsche

,=> Q,D?% and so does not reall# become at all inso(ar as it re)ains the same. When it

"eco)es a''arent according to Hegel+s develo')ent o( the categor# o( s*"stance that it can

onl# "e s*"stance "# 'ositing the accidents thro*gh hich alone it can "e hat it is e have

,



'assed over onto the S*

as the deter)ining 'oer that 'osits the

deter)inac# thro*gh hich it is hat it is is the ca*se that can onl# "e a ca*se thro*gh 'ositing

an e((ect.

Ca*salit# gets closer to sel(-deter)ination "*t it does so "# a cancellation o( the

di((erence "eteen ca*se and e((ect and so it again ret*rns to itsel( in the 6s*"stantial6 )anner indicated a"ove. The e((ect is either not reall# an other and so again e have a ret*rn to the

sa)e or the ca*se is cancelled as ca*se in the e((ect and e have no 'osited deter)inac# o(

the ca*se. /*t as soon as the ca*se )aintains its identit# in the e((ect in s*ch a a# that the

latter is the e'licit 'ositing o( the (or)er e have a sel( deter)ining 'rocess. That is the ca*se

is onl# shon to "e a ca*se at all in the e((ect and so the e((ect in t*rn 6ca*ses6 the ca*se to "e

a ca*se. The deter)inac# o( 6ca*se6 there"# contin*es itsel( in the e((ect and in s*ch a a# that

it deter)ines itsel( to "e ca*se. This 'rocess that re)ains itsel( in and thro*gh "eco)ing other is

uni#ersality - the 6other6 that the *niversal "eco)es is its 'artic*lar content thro*gh hich alone it

can "e *niversal - and here "egins the s'here o( 6the conce't6 'ro'er in Hegel+s treat)ent. To

'*t it in Hegelese in the 6logic o( the conce't6 - as o''osed to the logic o( "eing $the s'here o(

i))ediac#% and the logic o( essence $the s'here o( )ediation% - the 6in itsel(6 "eco)es hat it is

viB. in itself onl# thro*gh its "eing-(or-other. 4nl# thro*gh the other is it 6(or itsel(6 or e'licit as

6in itsel(.6

Inso(ar as the conce't esta"lishes its identit# not "# holding itsel( a'art (ro) )ediation

"*t "# "eco)ing sel(-)ediating or sel(-deter)ining it cannot re)ain "ehind as an identit# that

*nderlies or that is 'rior to its )ediating )ove)ent nor can it "e a gro*nd to hich the )ediating

)ove)ent ret*rns. This )eans that the conce't has to lose itself to be itself - it cannot *st

re)ain an Ritsel( that is (or)all# distinct (ro) its on sel(-deter)ining. /*t neither is it lost in

otherness as in the s'here o( "eing. Mather it is the identit# that it is onl# in and thro*gh its on

sel(-loss. To '*t it another a# conce't*al deter)inac# itsel( is a 'rocess o( "eco)ing other

here the Ritsel( is the "eco)ing other. Th*s contrar# to hat e )a# o(ten take to "e )eant "#

the ter) Rthe conce't is not a )ental re'resentation. It is not a 3*asi-Kantian (or)al str*ct*re o(

the *nderstanding hich s*"s*)es an eternall# given content. It is not a *nit# back into which

di((erences disa''ear. !ll s*ch notions *ncriticall# rel# *'on essentialist str*ct*res and relations

like a (or) that s*"s*)es a given content a gro*nd that serves as a "asis (or hat it gro*nds acondition that conditions so)ething else etc. Mather 6the conce't6 na)es a kind o( mo#ement

that )ani(ests identit# in and as the contin*it# o( its di((erences.

9o this kind o( *nit# that is its di((erences is 'recisel# hat is )eant "# uni#ersality so

the initial deter)ination o( the conce't is the *niversal. The *niversal is the conce't as a sel(-

deter)ining activit# that contains its deter)inac# ithin itsel( and so is not so)ething that is

,=



o''osed to an etern

# given content. I( e think o( the *niversal as subsuming a content that

is other than it according to Hegel e are not conceiving o( *niversalit# at all. Indeed e are

thinking the s*"stantial relation in hich an active s*"stance eerts 'oer over a 'assive

s*"stance in a relation o( violence> 6Violence is the )ani(estation o( 'oer or 'oer as eternal6

$Hegel ,==> A?%. This is a to(old violence that on the one hand acts on an eternal 'assivit#and on the other hand red*ces that eternalit# "ack to itsel( - it is a 'oer hose violence

consists in see)ingl# acting on an other "*t reall# onl# acting on the other that it has itsel(

'res*''osed and hence never reall# dealing ith an other at all. Here e )ight locate the kinds

o( violences that in relating to otherness (irst re'lace the other ith a posite" other that is then

'res*''osed - the other as racial stereot#'e as constr*cted negative i)age the coloniBed other

etc. - and then seek to negate that 'osited other in order to ret*rn to the sec*rit# o( the sa)e.

0ore in kee'ing ith the 'revio*s disc*ssion hoever this )a# ell also characteriBe

the kind o( see)ingl# ne*tral *niversalit# that conceals a 'artic*lar interest inso(ar as the 6other6

'resent is reall# a 'osited otherness that red*ces to the sa)e $e.g. a *niversal 6h*)anit#6 that

ostensi"l# incl*des o)en and other ethnicities "*t hich act*all# re'laces the) ith the

'revailing )odel o( the hite )ale 'ro'ert# oner etc.%. The s#)'to)atic version o( *niversalit#

rightl# e'oses this as a (alse *niversal "*t (or Hegel that+s not the end o( the stor#. In contrast

to this s*"stantive ret*rn to sel( that violentl# acts on eternal 'assivit# the relation o( *niversalit#

to its deter)inac# in and thro*gh otherness is characteriBed "# Hegel as 6(ree love6 - that is a

6(reedo)6 in the sense o( sel(-deter)ination (inds itsel( in an other that is not red*ced "ack to the

sa)e o( a 'rior deter)inac# and 6love6 in the sense o( letting go o( that 'rior deter)inac# in sel(-

loss thro*gh the other rather than holding on to it against the threat o( loss in otherness.

What Hegel 'ro'oses to do at this 'oint in the Logic is think the conce't o( *niversalit#

itho*t eternall# introd*cing an# o"servations or e)'iricall# given contingencies. To think the

conce't is to )ake e'licit an# deter)inac# that )a# "e i)'licit in it. In other ords the logic o(

i)'lications i( there "e s*ch )*st "e thoro*ghl# i))anent. To '*t it another a# an# content

to "e deter)ined )*st "e derived (ro) the (or) o( *niversalit# itsel(. Lro) this 'ers'ective Žižek

is right to s*ggest that the 6the li)itation o( Kant+s 'hiloso'h#6 )a# lie 6in the (act that Kant as

not a"le and@or read# to co*nt@incl*de the (or) into the content as 'art o( the content6 $Žižek

,===> ,,7%. What Hegel '*r'orts to sho here as he does ith all the categories derived in theLogic is that the (or) itsel( generates or i)'lies a content.27 The challenge is to think thro*gh the

'*re (or)alit# o( *niversalit# itho*t s*rre'titio*sl# introd*cing a content (ro) the o*tside. This is

an a*stere task to "e s*re since it entails the s*s'ension o( all the readil# availa"le

'res*''ositions and e)'irical content that so easil# (lood the )ind hen it tries to conceive the

deter)inac# that )ight "e latent in the '*re a"stractions o( tho*ght. Hoever according to

2D



Hege that task is a essar# one i( e are to (irst s'ell o*t and then "e in a 'osition to

ade3*atel# criti3*e the deter)inac# i)'licit in the categories e e)'lo#. There(ore I ask (or the

reader+s 'atience as e atte)'t to think thro*gh hat deter)inate characteristics are i)'lied in

the a"stract notion o( *niversalit# 'er se itho*t introd*cing or 'res*''osing an# deter)inac#

dran (ro) e)'irical instances or (ro) an# inde'endentl# given content hatsoever.2:

Universality

Universalit# 'er se at (irst a''ears as an i))ediate indeter)inac# in that it is a '*re

relation to sel( in its di((erences. Unlike so)ething that can only "e deter)inate against an other

$e.g. the categories o( re(lection 'rior to the logic o( the conce't% hoever the *niversal

contains its deter)inac# ithin itsel(. Inso(ar as an# deter)inac# within the *niversal is the

*niversal - it cannot "e se'arated (ro) the *niversal as so)ething si)'l# eternal - it too )*st

"e *niversal. 4n the other hand inso(ar as the *niversal itsel( is deter)inate it is deter)inatethro*gh otherness. The onl# 6otherness6 here hoever is the ver# deter)inac# o( the *niversal

itsel( hich deter)inac# is itsel( *niversal. Hence the *niversal is deter)inate against other

*niversals.

et+s *n'ack this co)'le o( i)'lications. The deter)inac# o( *niversalit# looks in to directions

as it ere> o*tard and inard. 4*tardl# the *niversal is deter)inate against other *niversals.

Inso(ar as it is set o(( against other *niversals this a# it is so)ething 'artic*lar - one 'artic*lar

*niversal a)ong others. In other ords inso(ar as the ver# deter)inac# o( the *niversal is the

6other6 through which the *niversal is *niversal this other is also a *niversal. /*t inso(ar as this

other is the *niversal+s own deter)inac# the re(erence o*tards is ill*sor#. 9onetheless this is

the conce'tion o( the *niversal as a gen*s a)ong other genera. !s s*ch a 6'artic*lar6 gen*s

a)ong others it o*ld see) to "e *ni(ied ith the other genera *nder a higher *niversal. The

sa)e 'rocess ha''ens ith the latter higher *niversal hoever and so e have an in(inite

regress to ever higher genera.

/*t the gen*s is onl# the o*tard re(erence - the *niversal as deter)inate cannot "e

si)'l# generic hich o*ld )ake it indeter)inate. Lor Hegel the onl# 6'*re6 indeter)inac# is

the categor# o( "eing ith hich the Logic "egins - sheer 6isness6 ith no (*rther s'eci(ication.

/*t here e have the *niversal hich as s*ch contains deter)inac#. Th*s as a *niversal

containing its deter)inac# ithin itsel( it also re(ers inard to its on 6inner6 deter)inac#. This

inner deter)inac# is also necessar# inso(ar as the *niversal is not )erel# deter)inate against an

other "*t is sel(-deter)ining through the other. Hegel calls this inner deter)inac# its 6character.6

Th*s e have to sides to a *niversal deter)inac#> the deter)inac# o( the *niversal as a gen*s

vis--vis other genera "# hich it is itsel( a 'artic*lar gen*s a)ong others and the deter)inac#

2,

p



o( the *niversa as its on s'eci(ic character hich is contained ithin it itho*t re(erence

o*tards. Hegel asserts that "oth o( these re(erences - o*tard and inard - are ill*sor#. The#

are reall# to sides o( the sa)e coin> as deter)inate it is a 'artic*lar gen*s a)ong others "*t

e3*all# as deter)inate it has its on s'eci(ic character that is not si)'l# deter)ined against an

other. This to sided nat*re o( the *niversal can "e seen in the genera co))onl# entertained "#ordinar# re(lection> e.g. -rsus the gen*s o( "ears is one 'artic*lar gen*s as o''osed to sa#

)e)"ers o( Canis $the canines% #et it has its on deter)inate character that de(ines it as a

class o( "ears irres'ective o( other genera.

This ill*sor# o''osition )erel# s'ells o*t the to sides o( sel(-deter)ination de'ending

*'on the e)'hasis> as sel(-"etermination it i)'lies an o*tard re(erence and as self -

deter)ination it i)'lies an inard re(erence. /*t since "oth re(erences are the sa)e 'rocess

the# are ill*sor# hen treated se'aratel#. Gven tho*gh the# are not reall# se'arate hoever

the# are nonetheless conce't*all# distinct - the distinction "eing that "eteen *niversalit# 'er se

on the one hand and its on deter)inac# on the other.

/eca*se *niversalit# is a sel(-deter)ining 'rocess Hegel calls this 'rocess a creative

'oer as o''osed to the kind o( )ere transition into so)ething else hich characteriBed the

logic o( "eing $the s'here o( i))ediac#% - hence the ill*sor# character o( the re(erence o*tard.

!s a creative 'oer it is also distinct (ro) the kind o( sel(-s*"sistence hich characteriBed the

logic o( essence $the s'here o( )ediation% hich as *nder)ined inso(ar as it co*ld onl# "e

)aintained over and against an other - hence the ill*sor# character o( the re(erence inard. /*t

the real sel(-s*"sistent character o( *niversalit# as a sel(-deter)ining sel(-)ediating 'rocess

)eans that its di((erences viB. *niversalit# 'er se and its deter)inac# hich are conce't*all#

distinct are likeise 'osited as sel(-s*"sistent *niversals in their on right over and against

hich the *niversal itsel( is so)ething particular . In this a# the *niversal deter)ines itsel( as

particularity .

Particularity

Inso(ar as 'artic*larit# is an i))anent as'ect o( hat it )eans to "e *niversal in

'artic*larit# the *niversal does not enco*nter so)ething eternal "*t rather its on deter)inac#.

I( e vie the *niversal as a gen*s then e have to sa# that 6the s'ecies are not di((erent (ro)

the *niversal "*t onl# (ro) one another6 $Hegel ,==> D%. !ll 'artic*lars share the sa)e

*niversal. The 'artic*lar is the deter)inac# o( the *niversal hich is its ill*sor# relation o*tard

thro*gh hich the latter is deter)inate at all. So hen e sa# that the 'artic*lars are di((erent

(ro) each other hat other 'artic*lars are thereO Hegel sa#s that 6there is no other 'resent (ro)

hich the 'artic*lar co*ld "e disting*ished ece't the *niversal itsel(6 $Hegel ,==> D%. !gain

22



e+re (olloing the "are distinction "eteen *niversalit# 'er se on the one hand and its on

deter)inac# on the other. The 'artic*lar is the di((erence that "elongs to *niversalit# and as

s*ch a di((erence it is onl# disting*ished (ro) the *niversal itsel(. !nother a# e )ight '*t it is

that *niversalit# can "e conce't*all# divided into the *niversal as *niversal $the (irst

indeter)inate as'ect e "egan ith a"ove% and the *niversal as its deter)inac# i.e. as'artic*larit#. Inas)*ch as these can "e disting*ished at all the# "oth are 'artic*lars *nder the

*niversal> 6There(ore its s'ecies are onl# $a% the *niversal itsel( and $"% the 'artic*lar6 $Hegel

,==> D%.

The onl# di((erence here is that "eteen the *niversal and the 'artic*lar hich as

"ifferent are each 'artic*lars over and against one another. The *niversal 'er se is an

6imme"iate indeter)inate *niversalit#.6 /*t this )eans that its deter)inac# is its ver#

indeter)inac#> 6this ver# indeter)inateness constit*tes its deter)inateness or )akes it a

'artic*lar6 $Hegel ,==> D%. Inso(ar as the 'artic*lar is deter)inate o#er an" against the

*niversal the 'artic*lar as ell as the *niversal are each one o( the o''osed sides and th*s both

are 'artic*lar. 9ot onl# is the *niversal as conce't*all# distinct (ro) its deter)inac# in the

'artic*lar so)ething 'artic*lar itsel( over and against it. In addition 'artic*larit# (or its 'art is a

*niversal inso(ar as "oth *niversal and 'artic*lar are each 'artic*lar and hence the deter)inac#

o( 'artic*larit# is held in co))on "# "oth hich there"# )akes a *niversal o( that deter)inac#.

!s Win(ield '*ts it 6Hence not onl# is the *niversal the 'artic*lar in its contrast to 'artic*larit#

"*t the 'artic*lar is *niversal inso(ar as it enco)'asses the 'artic*lar and the *niversal as its

on to ee)'li(ications6 $Win(ield 2DD> 2%. Gach side contains the do*"le deter)inac# o(

*niversal and 'artic*lar> the *niversal as a deter)inate indeter)inac# is 'artic*lar5 the 'artic*lar

(or its 'art is nothing other than the deter)inac# o( the *niversal no s'eci(ied as 'artic*larit#.

Hoever inso(ar as "oth sides the *niversal and the 'artic*lar a''ear over and against one

another as 'artic*lars *niversal and 'artic*lar (all a'art.

This is the (or) o( a"stract *niversalit#. Gach side carries the deter)inac# o( *niversalit#

as "eing sel(-related in otherness and so each side is sel(-contained as it ere and is there"#

'osited as di((erent (ro) the other. 4rdinar# re(lection2A takes this to "e hat a 6conce't6 is - a

*niversal a"stracted (ro) its content on the one side and a 'artic*larit# a"stracted (ro) its

*niversal contet on the other side. In other ords the (or) o( *niversalit# and the 'artic*lar content as its deter)inac# (all a'art. !ccording to Hegel since the onl# di((erence here is that

"eteen the conce't o( *niversalit# and its $dis%on$ed% deter)inac# this )eans that the

conce't 6is outsi"e itself 6 $Hegel ,==> D%. This "eing-o*tside-itsel( o( the conce't is 'recisel#

hat the activit# o( conce't*al 6a"straction6 is. 4( co*rse 6a"straction is not e)'t# as it is

*s*all# said to "e6 $Hegel ,==> D=% inas)*ch as ever# a"straction has so)e deter)inate

27



- as e sa ith the ver# deter)inac# o( indeter)inac# characteristic o( the *niversal

hen it is 'artic*lariBed. Inso(ar as so)ething is said to "e indeter)inate this indeter)inac# 6is

s*''osed to stand oppose" to the deter)inate6 $Hegel ,==> D=% and is th*s deter)inate itsel(

over and against the latter.2

4rdinar# re(lection se'arates the *niversal (ro) its 'artic*lar content this a# ando''oses the) in a )*t*all# eternal relation there"# achieving onl# an a"stract *niversal hich

then 'rovides the )odel (or hat a 6conce't6 is s*''osed to "e. This is the 'ro"le) ith "oth the

s#)'to)atic and hege)onic *niversals in Žižek+s anal#sis - "oth are 'recisel# a"stract

*niversals in this sense a"stractions that cannot incl*de an# 'artic*lar content ithin the)selves

and in the case o( the s#)'to)atic version )erel# )asks a 'artic*lar content or in the case o(

the hege)onic *niversal is a )ere (or)al a"straction o''osed to a content that has to "e

eternall# introd*ced and s*"stit*ted (or it. The s#)'to)atic version see)s to give *' on

*niversalit# entirel# seeing it as an ideological 'lo# "*t this a''earance is revealed to "e a )ere

se)"lance as soon as an# nor)ative clai)s are )ade regarding *stice or overco)ing

o''ression clai)s hose nor)ativit# it cannot *sti(#. The hege)onic version doesnEt ant to

give *' on *niversalit# "*t it inds *' ith an a"stract *niversal hose 'artic*lar content on the

one hand re)ains eternal to the (or)al *niversalit# it is s*''osed to 6stand in6 (or "*t on the

other hand i( it is to "e the *niversal it clai)s to "e it cannot "e eternal to that ver# *niversal.

Singularity

It is in the a"stract *niversal that e enco*nter hat Hegel calls the 6(iit#6 $.estigkeit % o(

the *nderstanding - its a"ilit# to render a conce't 6*naltera"le.6 /*t the (a*lt does not lie in the

*nderstanding5 rather it lies in the (or) o( a"stract *niversalit# itsel( as a sel(-related and sel(-

enclosed totalit# that as s*ch invites as it ere its on (iation in a re'resentation> 6the

*niversalit# hich ;conce'ts< 'ossess in the *nderstanding gives the) the (or) o( re(lection-into-

sel( "# hich the# are (reed (ro) the relation-to-other and have "eco)e imperishable6 $Hegel

,==> ,D%. 9o hereas initiall# this a''ears to "e )erel# a loss o( the conce't in (iated

a"stractions that re'eat in a# the 6ret*rn to sel(6 characteristic o( essence Hegel 'oints o*t

that this ver# 'oer o( a"straction is also hat *nder)ines the see)ing inaltera"ilit# o( the

(iation and "rings a"o*t a transition "e#ond the latter> 6The highest )at*rit# the highest stage

hich an#thing can attain is that in hich its don(all "egins. The (iit# o( the deter)inateness

into hich the *nderstanding see)s to r*n the (or) o( the i)'erisha"le is that o( sel(-relating

*niversalit#6 $Hegel ,==> ,,%.

It is this ver# (or) o( sel(-relating *niversalit# that (acilitates a"stract (iation in the (irst

'lace. The 'ro"le) th*s (ar is that di((erence is 'osited in the *niversal as its 'artic*lar

2:



deter )inac# #ielding the di((erence "eteen *niversalit# and 'artic*larit# each o( hich hen

regarded as s*ch stand relative to the other as 'artic*lars. /*t even tho*gh di((erence is 'osited

in the *niversal di((erence is not #et 'osited as the *niversal. The di((erence 'osited is indeed a

di((erence contained ithin *niversalit# as its deter)inac# "*t as e+ve seen this has led to an

ill*sor# re(erence o*tard in hich the conce't and its deter)inac# (all a'art $and there"#e3*all# an ill*sor# re(erence inard as i( the deter)inac# is not a sel(-deter)ination thro*gh

otherness%. /*t inso(ar as the deter)inac# is a deter)inac# of the *niversal it is sel(-related and

this sel(-relation ena"les the (iit# in a"straction. !t the sa)e ti)e hoever inso(ar as the

deter)inac# is sel(-related - hich )eans inso(ar as particularity is sel(-related - it is distinct (ro)

the a"stract sel(-relation o( the *niversalit# that is deter)inate as indeter)inate. Whereas the

(irst *niversal is a sel(-related indeter)inac# hose deter)inac# as that is )erel# i)'licit $6in

itsel(6% 'artic*larit# is e$plicit deter)inac# $6(or itsel(6% and so the sel(-relation of particularity is a

sel(-relation of e$plicit "eterminacy . This sel(-relation o( an e'licit deter)inac# is singularity andit is thro*gh this categor# that 'artic*lars can "e not onl# disting*ished (ro) the *niversal the#

share "*t also (ro) each other.

/eca*se its sel(-related deter)inac# is e'licit Hegel calls it the 6deter)inate

deter)inate6 $Hegel ,==> ,% - that is a"ove and "e#ond *st $i))ediatel#% "eing deter)inate

sing*larit# is deter)inate as deter)inate. To '*t it another a# the sel( deter)ining 'rocess o(

conce't*al develo')ent has no 'osited its on deter)inac# rather than 6inheriting6 it as it

ere (ro) a 'revio*s categor#. This is a )ore e'licitl# sel( deter)ining )ove)ent inso(ar as it

has engendered (*rther deter)inac# thro*gh itsel( there"# re)aining itsel( in "eco)ing other.

With this develo')ent the a"stract *niversal has "eco)e concrete in its 'artic*larit# as

so)ething sing*lar. It is the sel(-deter)ination o( the conce't o( *niversalit# itsel( - its on

i)'licit deter)inac# rendered e'licit - that has led to its 'artic*lariBation and (inall# to its

sing*lariBation. We )ight sa# that the 'artic*lariBation o( the *niversal led to a"stract

*niversalit# hereas the *niversaliBation o( 'artic*larit# $as a sel(-related *niversalit# in its on

right% led to sing*larit#. 4r e )ight vie it as a 'rocess o( (*rther sel(-deter)ination thro*gh

sel(-di((erentiation> (irst an i))ediate *niversalit# then as deter)inate so)ething 'artic*lar then

a 'artic*larit# shared "# "oth *niversal and 'artic*lar and so *niversal itsel( and (inall# as s*ch a

'artic*larit#-"eco)e-*niversal it is distinct (ro) "oth the 'revio*s *niversalit# as ell as the'revio*s 'artic*larit# and so is so)ething *ni3*e and di((erentiated ithin the 'artic*lar itsel(

and there"# sing*lar. In this connection Žižek )a# "e right to invoke /adio*+s 6'assionate

de(ense o( St. Fa*l as the one ho artic*lated the Christian Tr*th-Gvent - Christ+s Mes*rrection -

as the +*niversal sing*lar+ $a sing*lar event that inter'ellates individ*als into s*"ects *niversall#

2A



irre tive o( their race se social class...%6 $Žižek ,===> ,:2%. Christ as the sing*larit# that

'artic*lariBes a *niversal h*)anit# is 'recisel# s*ch a concrete *niversal.2?

This sing*larit# as it a''ears in the Logic is hardl# the end 'oint hoever - it too contains

i)'licit deter)inac# that renders it a"stract - it is indeed the 'osited a"straction o( the a"stracting

)ove)ent that generated the a"stract *niversal in the (irst 'lace $Hegel ,==> 2,%. /*t rather than an a"stract *niversal deter)ined as indeter)inate it is a concrete sel(-relating *niversalit#

hose deter)inac# is its content. 9onetheless 'recisel# hat is 'osited there"# is the

a"straction itsel( - the sel(-relating *niversalit# that as s*ch a"stracts itsel( (ro) all relation. The

sing*lar is there(ore a Rthis a Rone re(lected into itsel( itho*t re(erence.

Lro) here the logical develo')ent enters the s'here (irst o( *dg)ent and then o(

in(erential )ove)ent $e.g. the 6s#llogis)6% in hich each o( the 6)o)ents6 or deter)inate

as'ects o( conce't*al deter)inac# develo'ed th*s (ar in Hegel+s treat)ent - *niversalit#

'artic*larit# and sing*larit# - take on the characteristic o( sel(-contained sing*larit# and then are

)*t*all# related thro*gh the )ediation o( the other )o)ents $*niversalit# connected to

sing*larit# thro*gh the )ediation o( 'artic*larit# etc. #ielding the vario*s s#llogistic (or)s%.

These three )o)ents cannot "e )erel# co*nted *' as a s*) or aggregate *nless the# are

a"stracted (ro) the conce't*al )ove)ent that gives the) their deter)inac#. Together the#

)ake *' a 'rocess in hich each 6loses itsel(6 in its other and there"# )aintains its identit# "*t

"eca*se at the sa)e ti)e each is in itsel( a sel(-relation the *nderstanding thro*gh a"straction

can isolate the) and )ake o( the) a collection o( 'artic*lars that can "e co*nted *'.

Concrete universality in the political space

4ne )ight no read the co*rse o( Žižek+s develo')ent o( concrete *niversalit# in ter)s

o( the logic that Hegel s'ells o*t. The a"straction o( a ne*tral )edi*) is indeter)inate ne*tralit#

over and against the non-ne*tral 'artic*lars hose *niversalit# it is s*''osed to "e. /*t inso(ar

as this a"stract ne*tralit# is itsel( a certain deter)inac# it does 'artic*lariBe itsel( as this

deter)inac#. !s s*ch a 'artic*lar deter)inac# it no stands as a 'artic*lar o''osed to its other

side o( i))ediate a"stract ne*tralit#. The ne*tral *niversalit# cannot incl*de its non-ne*tral

'artic*lars "*t its ver# character as ne*tral *niversalit# is its deter)inate content and so is its

'artic*larit#. Th*s the ne*tral *niversalit# deter)ines itsel( as one o( its 'artic*lar contents> the

s#)'to) that reveals it as a 'artic*lar interest a (act that re)ained hidden (ro) vie so long as

e sto''ed short at the sheer a"straction o( ne*tralit#.

/*t inso(ar as each side viB. the ne*tral ne*tralit# $no seen as ideological ill*sion% and

the s#)'to) $the 'artic*lar interest no *n)asked% is a sel(-relating *niversal that is sel(-

enclosed itho*t o*tard re(erence "oth sides - ne*tral *niversalit# and its deter)inac# as

2



i.e. 'artic*larit# - (all a'art (ro) each other. !t this 'oint the a"straction o( *niversalit# (ails

to incl*de an# 'artic*larit# at all - it is an a"stract *niversal as the e)'t# (or)alit# that can onl#

"e hege)oniBed "# a content that is other than it. This negativit# at (irst a''ears to "e all the

*niversal is or can "e "*t closer ins'ection reveals the necessit# o( an ece'tion that e)erges

a)ong its 'artic*lars that is not incl*ded a)ong the). The a"stract *niversal is closed o(( (ro)its 'artic*lar content - its (or) as *niversal is at odds ith its content as 'artic*lar deter)inac#.

/*t inso(ar as the a"stract *niversal stands over and against its 'artic*larit# it too is so)ething

'artic*lar. !s sel(-relating 'artic*larit# the a"stract *niversal 'asses over into 'artic*larit# - the

*niversal has "eco)e the 'artic*lar. /*t inso(ar as 'artic*larit# is the sel(-relating deter)inac# o(

*niversalit# or inso(ar as e no have a 'artic*larit# that has "eco)e )ore deter)inate as

*niversal itsel( it is a sing*larit# hose deter)inate content is rendered concrete as this

'artic*lar individ*al. /hat manifests this singularity is the !constituti#e e$ception)! not the mere

particularity of !particular interests0! It is 'recisel# this (*rther develo')ent o( a 'artic*larit#-"eco)e-*niversal and there"# sing*lar that 'revents its red*ction "ack to 'artic*lar or 6s'ecial6

interests a red*ction that sto's short at the deter)inac# o( a"stract *niversalit#. To this degree

Žižek ill correctl# assert that 6the tr*e Hegelian 6concrete *niversalit#6 is the ver# )ove)ent o(

negativit# hich s'lits *niversalit# from within red*cing it to one o( its 'artic*lar ele)ents one o(

its on s'ecies. It is onl# at this )o)ent hen *niversalit# as it ere loses the distance o( an

a"stract container and enters its own frame that it "eco)es tr*l# concrete6 $Žižek 2DD7> ?%.

Th*s it is thro*gh the concrete *niversal as sing*larit# that e )ight think Žižek+s constit*tive

ece'tion conceiving it *nder the to as'ects o( negative a"straction and 'ositive deter)inac#.

! shi(t here occ*rs> hereas *niversalit# as (or)erl# seen as standing over and against the

'artic*lar and so as so)ething 'artic*lar itsel( this s'lit "eteen *niversal and 'artic*lar no

a''ears ithin 'artic*larit# itsel( in and as these to as'ects.2 With res'ect to the negative

side the constit*tive ece'tion is the sel(-relating 'artic*larit#-"eco)e-*niversal that as s*ch is

not incl*ded in the a"stract *niversal that se'arates (or) (ro) content. This a"stract *niversalit#

can no "e seen as the co))on deter)inac# r*nning thro*gh all three o( the versions Žižek

e'licitl# lists viB. the ne*tral the s#)'to)atic as ell as the hege)onic versions. With res'ect

to the 'ositive side - the side Žižek neglects - the constit*tive ece'tion is the sing*larit# hich

as sel(-relating *niversalit# is the concrete *niversal that can ina*g*rate a ne "eginning.

Mather than (alling "ack to 'rior deter)inac# in a reactionar# a# $or in ter)s o( Hegel+s s#ste)

in a a# that is onl# a''ro'riate in the s'here o( essence% as sel(-deter)ining it can engender

ne deter)inac#. Indeed in this a# e )ight also "e a"le to disting*ish "eteen reactionar#

'retenders to ne "eginnings as in the 'artic*larl# odio*s ea)'le o( (ascis) and gen*inel#

ne "eginnings. It is in the sense o( concrete *niversalit# develo'ed here that e can sa# the

2?

p



tit*tive e tion is not the 'retender to a )e

# (alse *niversalit# thro*gh hege)oniBation

"*t rather is the tr*e *niversal that can stand (or the 6all6 inso(ar as it is not red*ci"le to a

'artic*lar interest a)ong others> 6it is those ho are ecl*ded ith no 'ro'er 'lace ithin the

glo"al order ho directl# e)"od# the tr*e *niversalit# ho re'resent the Whole in contrast to all

others ho stand onl# (or 'artic*lar interests6 $Žižek 2DD7> ,D=%.9o i( e (ast-(orard to Hegel+s 'olitical 'hiloso'h# this sel(-contained *niversalit# that

has 'artic*lariBed itsel( as sing*larit# shos *' as the a"stract ego devoid o( content - the no-

(a)iliar a"stractive )ove )aking itsel( knon again. This (*rther deter)inac# o( the *niversal

ithin the 'olitical s'here is the initiall# a"stract +I+ that negates all li)itation "*t nonetheless is

deter)inate as that ver# a"straction - )*ch as the initial (or) o( *niversalit# in the Logic is

deter)inate in its indeter)inac#. !s Hegel '*ts it alread# in the latter ork in the introd*ctor#

re)arks to the logic o( the conce't>

The conce't hen it has develo'ed into a concrete e$istence that is itsel( (ree is

none other than the I or '*re sel(-conscio*sness ;...< the I is first this '*re sel(-

related *nit# and it is so not i))ediatel# "*t onl# as )aking a"straction (ro) all

deter)inateness and content and ithdraing into the (reedo) o( *nrestricted

e3*alit# ith itsel(. !s s*ch it is uni#ersality 5 a *nit# that is *nit# ith itsel( onl#

thro*gh its negative attit*de hich a''ears as a 'rocess o( a"straction ;...<

Secon"ly the I as sel(-related negativit# is no less i))ediatel# singularity or is

absolutely "etermine" o''osing itsel( to all that is other and ecl*ding it -

in"i#i"ual personality $Hegel ,==> A7%.2=

Hegel does regard this conce'tion as inade3*ate "*t rather than si)'l# reecting it "# o''osing

to it other conce'tions dee)ed to "e )ore ade3*ate he de)onstrates its inade3*ac# "# s'elling

o*t its on i)'licit logic there"# shoing it to "e sel(-*nder)ining rather than )erel# reected "#

a re(lection eternal to it.7D Certainl# the 6I6 or ego here has "een a"stracted (ro) an# content> it

is the sheer vac*it# o( tho*ght thinking itsel( in its '*re *niversalit#. This is the '*re ego divested

o( the sociall# constr*cted sel( ith all o( its attendant deter)inacies - e.g. deter)inacies s*ch as

those "elonging to a 'artic*lar social class gender ethnicit# c*lt*re 's#chological histor# andall the other e)'irical varia"les that (or) the constellation o( an# 'artic*lar 'ersonalit#. Mather it

is the a"straction (ro) all s*ch deter)inac#. Inso(ar as it is an a"straction (ro) deter)inate

content it cannot "e dis)issed "# red*cing it to an# 'artic*lar variant o( the latter and there"#

'ositing a 'rivileged contingent deter)iner that o*ld *nder)ine it. !nd there(ore it is also

a"straction (ro) the s#)'to)atic version o( *niversalit# - a"straction is )ade (ro) 6hite )ale

2



'ro'er t# oner6 as )*ch as (ro) ever# other deter)inate characteristic. It is the negativit# that

radicall# "reaks ith the eisting deter)inate order Žižek+s 6(orced choice6 o( the destr*ctive and

violent "reak ith esta"lished deter)inac# that is 6the ver# o''osite o( the 'eace(*l ne*tral

)edi*) o( all 'artic*lar content6 $Žižek ,===> =:%.7, !s s*ch a "reak ith 'regiven content (or

Hegel this a"straction is the "eginning o( (reedo) in the 'olitical s'here al"eit (reedo) in its)ost a"stract (or) or hat he calls 6negative (reedo).6 The ke# ele)ent that Žižek "rings to

light here is the r*'t*re - contrar# to the s#)'to)atic inter'retation o( *niversalit# the 6I6 as

a"stract *niversal is a "reak ith the 'redeter)ined order rather than a )ere clandestine (or)

and sedi)entation o( it. In this sense Žižek is right to de(end the s*"ect as a "eginning (or

)odernit# that sho*ld not "e cast aside.

4n the other hand (or Hegel this a"straction is not a gro*nd or (o*ndation5 rather as e

sa ith the conce't o( a"stract *niversalit# it is )erel# a "eginning that ill "e trans(or)ed

thro*gh its on i))anent logic 'ositing (*rther deter)inac# thro*gh its on 'rocess o( sel(-

deter)ination. Th*s 'olitics neither re)ains at this a"stract level nor do e need to ass*)e a

'riori that it )*st 'er'et*all# ret*rn to it. !s a radical "reak ith the eisting order it clears aa#

the deter)inac# o( 'artic*lar content in order that no given deter)inac# "e s*rre'titio*sl#

i)'osed - hether the latter "e the 'rivilege o( hite )ale 'ro'ert# oners or an# other

deter)inac# given in advance "# tradition c*lt*re or co))*nit#. !s s*ch a "reak it cannot "e

*sti(ia"l# criticiBed (or "eing an ideological veneer concealing the ass*)'tion o( so)ething

gi#en hich is hat the latter deter)inacies o*ld "e5 rather it "reaks ith an# and ever#

givenness. Were this )ove not )ade then there o*ld "e so)e eternall# given (actor that

o*ld deter)ine the develo')ent (ro) the o*tside so)e 'rivileged deter)iner that acts as

(o*ndation (or deter)inac# and this eternal deter)ination o*ld *nder)ine the sel(-

deter)ination that is cr*cial here - or to '*t it negativel# an# s*ch eternal deter)ination o*ld

co)'ro)ise the "reak ith 'reesta"lished order.

Inso(ar as this a"stract 6I6 is a (*rther deter)ination o( the ver# *niversaliBing character o(

tho*ght a (or) in hich this *niversaliBing character as s*ch is )ade e'licit its *niversalit# ill

contain the i)'lications dran o*t a"ove in the develo')ent (ro) a"stract to concrete

*niversalit#. The di((erence ill "e that this develo')ent no takes 'lace at a greater level o(

deter)inac# or conversel# '*t at a less a"stract level than the derivation o( the logicalcategories. /*t it is not a )atter o( )erel# 6a''l#ing6 the categories to e)'irical content either -

that too o*ld "e to ass*)e an eternall# given content to hich the categories are then a''lied

red*cing the latter to )ere a"stract *niversals. Mather the 6I6 is to "e conceived as a further

"eterminacy of the ver# logical )ove)ent e (olloed a"ove in the treat)ent o( *niversalit# as a

categor# 'er se rather than as an inde'endentl# given content to which that logical )ove)ent is

2=



e tl# 6a''lied.6 Hegel+s arg*)ent here is that this "reak ith 'reesta"lished order is not

)erel# a contingent (l*ke that ar"itraril# ha''ens once in a hile "*t rather that it is necessitated

"# the ver# sel(-deter)ining develo')ent o( tho*ght. That sel(-deter)ining develo')ent can "e

tr*ncated or it can "e a"andoned in (avo*r o( regression - these ala#s re)ain contingent

'ossi"ilities in e)'irical eistence - "*t in Hegel+s vie it ill ala#s at least imply the "reak ith'redeter)ined givens and its (*rther develo')ent inso(ar as it contains an i))anent logic that

can "e so develo'ed. Th*s it is neither deter)ined "# 'regiven deter)inacies nor is it a )erel# a

contingent /adio*ian 6Tr*th-Gvent6 that ha''ens o*t o( the "l*e.72

!s ith the *niversal hose indeter)inac# is its deter)inac# the a"straction (ro) all

content in the 6I6 is its content. !lternativel# '*t its ver# character as negation o( li)its is itsel( its

li)it. /*t this )eans that in its negation o( ever# content it )*st also negate the content that it

itsel( is in this a"straction and so is sel(-negating. It is the self%negation i)'lied here that

according to Hegel renders this (or) o( *niversalit# *ns*staina"le and sel(-*nder)ining a sel(-

contradiction that is overco)e onl# in the (*ll recognition that s*ch 6negative (reedo)6 )*st give

itsel( its on li)its - since it does so in an# case inso(ar as its ver# negation o( li)its is itsel( a

li)it that it i)'oses on itsel( - and there"# "eco)e e'licitl# sel(-deter)ining. This develo')ent

is "ro*ght a"o*t as soon as e 6shi(t 'ers'ective6 and see that indeter)inac# is itsel( a certain

kind o( deter)inac# or that the negation o( content is a(ter all a certain content. /*t this is the

recognition that o(ten see)s a"sent in Žižek+s treat)ent ena"ling hi) to rest content ith the

a"straction o( an e)'t# (or)al *niversalit# on the one hand and the negativit# o( r*'t*re ith

'reesta"lished order on the other hand.

The develo')ent Hegel indicates leads to a greater degree o( concreteness over the

)erel# a"stract *niversalit# characteriBing a ill that in reecting all li)itation inds *' "eing an

e)'t# (or)alit# devoid o( content. 4nce e take the ste' to a (reedo) that has itsel( (or its

content then e have a concrete *niversal hich in this case )eans that the (or) o( (reedo) is

the sa)e thing as its content. What (reedo) hence(orth )*st do in order to "e (ree is to

deter)ine itself a"ove and "e#ond the )ere negation o( 'regiven deter)inac#. This in t*rn

entails the recognition o( itsel( as a sel(-i)'osed li)it and illing o( that li)it hich in t*rn is its

content - a content deter)ined "# it rather than eternall# given there"# rendering its *niversalit#

concrete. S*ch a sel(-deter)ining concrete *niversal in the 'olitical s'here $hich (or Hegel isthe s'here o( e'licit sel(-deter)ination i.e. (reedo)% is hat Hegel calls a 6right.6 The )ini)al

str*ct*re o( right is this *niversal illing o( (reedo) here (reedo) in giving itsel( its content or

li)it ills itsel(. Initiall# it+s *st the )ini)al right to "e (ree "*t Hegel ill then atte)'t to dra

o*t (*rther deter)inacies s*ch as 'ro'ert# )oralit# ethical li(e and at the )acro-level civil

societ# and the 'olitical order o( the state.77 The *niversalit# o( (reedo) then ill not "e an

7D



a *ni that 'ar * r given to it eterna

# "*t rather ill "e the

concrete *niversal that deter)ines itsel( (*rther and there"# gains 'artic*lar content thro*gh that

sel(-deter)ination.

Conclusion

/eca*se Žižek regards the negativit# o( the total a"straction (ro) content to "e

(o*ndational he can onl# ad)it that the constit*tive ece'tion is a legiti)ate concrete *niversal

hen it asserts itsel( against the (alse *niversal and that as soon as it takes over state 'oer it

ceases to "e the concrete *niversal and again "eco)es a 'artic*lar content that "ases itsel( on a

series o( ecl*sions> 6the )o)ent a 'olitical )ove)ent 'retends (*ll# to realiBe J*stice to

translate it into an act*al state o( things to 'ass (ro) the s'ectral "&mocratie 1 #enire to +act*al

de)ocrac#+ e are in totalitarian catastro'he6 $Žižek ,===> 277%. 4n the (o*ndational terrain o(

contentless a"straction an# 'ositive develo')ent into act*al *stice can onl# "e seen as at "esta 'retense and at orst a 6totalitarian catastro'he.6 Inso(ar as Žižek clai)s to "e 6dealing ith a

logic hich incl*des its on (ail*re in advance hich considers its (*ll s*ccess its *lti)ate

(ail*re hich sticks to its )arginal character as the *lti)ate sign o( its a*thenticit#6 $Žižek ,===>

277% this o*ld see) to 'lace Žižek in the ca)' o( the deconstr*ctionists (or ho) (ail*re is the

onl# inevita"ilit#.

/*t i( e avoid the (o*ndationalist thinking here and (ollo Hegel "# treating the

a"stractive )ove as a "eginning rather than as a gro*nd or terrain that re)ains "ehind

regardless o( hat e)erges (ro) it then e are in a "etter 'osition to at least envisage other

'ossi"ilities. Whether those 'ossi"ilities are 'recisel# the ones Hegel develo's in his Philosophy

of ight re)ains to "e seen and is certainl# not decided here in advance. Hoever one s*ch

'ossi"ilit# )a# "e the one Žižek anno*nces "*t (ro) hich he i))ediatel# shrinks "ack - the

constit*tive ece'tion. !s an ele)ent that has no 'ro'er 'lace ithin the esta"lished order it is

in a *ni3*e 'osition to )ake the a"stractive )ove that "reaks ith 'reesta"lished order and

assert the (irst negative )o)ent o( (reedo) and to do so as a *ni3*e sing*larit# that incl*des

the deter)inac# o( *niversalit# ithin itsel( and as s*ch cannot "e red*ced "ack to "eing )erel#

one 'artic*lar interest a)ong others. Inso(ar as its indeter)inac# is its deter)inac# and its

a"straction (ro) content is its content hoever it cannot re)ain in that a"stract negativit# "*t

)*st develo' its on i)'licit logic. !s a sel(-deter)ining )ove)ent hoever that develo')ent

is not the reactionar# ret*rn to a 'revio*sl# deter)ined organic order hich Žižek so)eti)es

i)agines to "e the onl# alternative to the a"straction o( a 'er'et*al i)'ossi"ilit#. Indeed e

)ight even sa# ith 9ietBsche that s*ch develo')ent is active sel( a((ir)ation as o''osed to the

reactive identit# that can onl# a((ir) itsel( "# den#ing the other the )arginal sel(hood that needs

7,



6the ene)# $+Foer+% hich )*st "e there in order (or *s to engage in o*r

)arginal@s*"versive activit#6 $Žižek ,===> 27:%. S*ch Hegelian 'ositive develo')ent or

9ietBschean a((ir)ation )a# "ring *s closer to the ho'e anno*nced in the World Social Lor*)s>

6!nother orld is 'ossi"le.6

Notes

, Lor )ore *'-to-date versions see &asch8 $,=> ,7-?% and Ta)inia* $,=??%.

2 Lor a critical acco*nt o( these inter'retations see Kol" $,=> :7((%.

7 To "e s*re in "oth Tarrying with the 2egati#e3 4ant 5egel) an" the Criti*ue of I"eology and

The Sublime 6bject of I"eology Žižek engaged in s*stained atte)'ts to inter'ret 'arts o(

Hegel+s greater Science of Logic . Hoever the (oc*s in "oth o( these orks re)ains centred

*'on the 6ogic o( Gssence6 the second )ain section o( Hegel+s Logic and to that degree is not

directl# relevant to the *niversalit# addressed in The Ticklish Subject inso(ar as (or Hegel

*niversalit# is a concept deter)inac# rather than an essentialist deter)inac# $or hat Hegel ill

also call a 6re(lective deter)ination6% and as s*ch involves a degree o( develo')ent not #et

conceiva"le in ter)s o( essentialist or re(lective categories alone. Th*s a 'reocc*'ation ith the

'*rel# re(lective categories o( the logic o( essence ill not shed )*ch light on the categor# o(

*niversalit# hich a''ears in the logic o( the conce't even tho*gh at ti)es in Tarrying with the

2egati#e Žižek see)s to con(late the to "# a''ealing to *niversalit# as a deter)inac# that

e'lains categories in the logic o( essence. Lor instance Žižek attri"*tes the logic o(

6o''ositional deter)ination6 a deter)ination that constit*tes one o( the )ost 'ro)inent (eat*res

o( the logic o( essence as a hole to a transition that takes 'lace 6hen the *niversal co))on

gro*nd o( the to o''osites +enco*nters itsel(+ in its o''ositional deter)ination6 $Žižek ,==7>

,72%. This kind o( e'lanation o*ld "e strictl# (or"idden "# Hegel+s )ethodolog# hich

de)ands a rigoro*s re(*sal to introd*ce deter)inacies that have not #et "een derived.

:

Žižek s'eci(icall# dras on a "ook "# Colin Wilson here $Žižek ,===> ?D%.

A Lolloing Ho*lgate $2DD% Win(ield $,==% and others I take the 6logical6 deter)inations

s'elled o*t in Hegel+s Logic to artic*late a 6logos o( "eing6 and hence to "e ontological as ell

as e'iste)ological inso(ar as the 'roect o( the Logic is to derive ever# deter)inac# itho*t

'res*''osing an# *nderived levels o( deter)inac# and to read these deter)inacies as strictl#

72



onging to tho*ght or to a io*s 6s t6 o*ld "e 'recisel# to introd*ce *nderived

deter)inac# - not the least o( hich is the ver# 6o''osition o( conscio*sness6 that the

Phenomenology '*r'orts to s*s'end.

G.g. hether into Hegel+s tri'artite or Žižek+s reco))ended 3*aternar# divisions. Indeed "#(iating at length *'on hat the over-arching divisions o( the logical )ove)ent sho*ld "e $c(.

Žižek ,===> D((.% Žižek allos hi)sel( to "e distracted (ro) the s'eci(icit# o( the logical

develo')ent itsel(. !n# over-arching division sho*ld at most "e so)ething derived (ro) that

logical develo')ent rather than a 'redeter)ined str*ct*re that is i)'osed on it. Gven still its

val*e re)ains )erel# that o( a shorthand inde. Th*s i( Hegel characteriBes the "eginning o( the

logic o( the conce't as the 6s*"ective logic6 this characteriBation sho*ld not "e given an# eight

in the inter'retation o( the logical develo')ent itsel( inso(ar as that characteriBation does not and

cannot "elong to the logic 'ro'er. To read it into the logic as Žižek see)s to do is to introd*ce

an *narranted deter)inac# "# a re(lection eternal to the logical develo')ent. Here e need to

care(*ll# discern "eteen hat "elongs to the i))anent develo')ent o( logical deter)inac# on

the one hand and Hegel+s on re(lections about that develo')ent on the other hand. That is e

have to act*all# do 'hiloso'h# rather than "e told a"o*t it - even "# Hegel.

? This )akes it do*"l# interesting that in the to earlier orks )entioned a"ove Tarrying with

the 2egati#e and The Sublime 6bject of I"eology Žižek devotes so )*ch attention to the logic o(

essence and its acco*nt o( 6re(lective6 deter)inations or essentialist categories and there reads

the )ore develo'ed conce't deter)inac# o( *niversalit# "ack into the re(lective categor# o(

o''osition $see (ootnote 7 a"ove%. 4ne onders i( this ecl*sive attention to hat (or Hegel is a

de(icient or one-sided s'here o( deter)inac# led hi) to read the )ore develo'ed conce't*al

deter)inacies in ter)s o( essentialist categories and there"# ind *' 'ositing 6i)'ossi"ilities6

that )ore a''ro'riatel# characteriBe the latter.

We sho*ld note in 'assing that this characteristic 6're)odern6 attri"*te (inds analog*es in other

religions as ell not the least o( hich is the 'lace o( o)en in Isla) vis--vis Sharia la.

= Žižek+s *se o( the 'hrase 6concrete *niversalit#6 is a)"ig*o*s here inso(ar as he a''lies it to

this 're)odern organic *nit# al"eit ith scare 3*otes. Hegel hoever o*ld not see it as a

concrete *niversalit# at all "*t rather as an a"stract *niversal that is still at odds ith its 'artic*lar

content inso(ar as the 'artic*lars contained in s*ch a ne*tral )edi*) do not (*rther s'eci(# that

77



)edi*) *t ( o*tside its deter )inac#. !t ti)es one onders i( Žižek )a# (all into the ha"it o(

con(lating the 6concrete6 ith the )erel# e)'irical.

,D 4( co*rse the iron# here - an iron# that Žižek does not see) to notice - is the (act that this

6(orced choice6 o( the a"stract (reedo) o( the individ*al against the collective order is the )odernnotion o( (reedo) de(ined as the (reedo) to choose.

,, See (or instance Virginia Held $,=?%.

,2 !s can "e seen (ro) the citation he ill also later slide (ro) the idea o( a concrete *niversalit#

'er se to hat he ill call a 6*niversal ideological notion6 as i( e+re still disc*ssing the sa)e

thing e.g. 6The sa)e goes (or e#ery *niversal ideological notion> one ala#s has to look (or the

'artic*lar content hich acco*nts (or the s'eci(ic e((icienc# o( an ideological notion6 $Žižek ,===>

,?A%.

,7 S*ch 6s'litting6 as also invoked in the earlier Tarrying with the 2egati#e in hich Žižek

a''rovingl# cites a '*r'orted acanian 6reading o( Hegel hich locates the +reconciliation+ o( the

Universal and the Fartic*lar into the ver# s'litting hich c*ts thro*gh the) and th*s *nites the)6

$Žižek ,==7> 7D%.

,: &iven his ecl*sive earlier attention in Tarrying with the 2egati#e to the re(lective

deter)inations o( the logic o( essence and the (act that the latter are )arked "# (or)s o( )ediation that are ala#s *nder)ined in vario*s a#s it+s hardl# s*r'rising that Žižek ill reveal

an ongoing tendenc# to regard the *niversal as i)'ossi"le and to 'osit an *n"ridgea"le ga'

"eteen *niversal and 'artic*lar e.g. there re(erring to 6the acanian Meal6 as 6the ga' hich

se'arates the Fartic*lar (ro) the Universal the ga' hich 'revents *s (ro) co)'leting the

gest*re o( *niversaliBation6 $Žižek ,==7> ,2=%.

,A We )ight add hoever that (ro) the 0arist 'ers'ective so)ething cr*cial is lost in the

hege)onic *niversal viB. the tie to class and the conco)itant )aterial relations that deter)inehich 'artic*lar content can assert itsel( as the *niversal. ! )odel in hich e have on the one

hand a )erel# e)'t# (or)al *niversal and on the other hand a 'l*ralit# o( vario*s 'artic*lar

contents v#ing (or hege)on# ith res'ect to it doesn+t tell *s h# e o*ld have s*ch a (or)al

*niversalit# in the (irst 'lace. In the s#)'to)atic version e can see that the ideological ill*sion

o( ne*tral *niversalit# is necessar# (or a 'artic*lar interest to gain s*'re)ac# and assert itsel(

7:



over others in the ithin an overall str*ct*re o( do)ination. !nd altho*gh Žižek a''eals to

acla*+s notion o( 6reada"ilit#6 as ansering the 3*estion as to how a 'artic*lar content "eco)es

s*ccess(*l in dis'lacing another as *niversal stand in $Žižek ,===> ,?=% it+s still not clear eactl#

why there sho*ld "e a str*ggle to stand-in (or an e)'t# *niversal in the (irst 'lace.

, Žižek+s riting o(ten )*st "e 'ieced together this a# as his 'resentation is not ala#s as

s#ste)atic as it )ight "e. To "e s*re this also raises the 3*estion as to hether or not Žižek

hi)sel( o*ld recogniBe an inter'retation so 'ieced together as his on and so one )*st re)ain

content )erel# to 'resent s*ch inter'retations as 'ossi"ilities ithin the tet that )a# or )a# not

"e e'licitl# recogniBed or endorsed "# its a*thor. /*t as ith all 'hiloso'hical riting one does

not have to ait (or 'er)ission (ro) the a*thor to artic*late 'ossi"ilities ithin it.

,? Žižek also 'oints o*t that the (alse *niversal o( secretl# 'rivileged 'artic*lar interests reasserts

itsel( against the constit*tive ece'tion+s clai) to *niversalit# 'recisel# "# red*cing the latter "ack

to the stat*s o( "eing )erel# one 'artic*lar 6s'ecial interest6 co)'eting ith other 'artic*lars in

the (ield and so carr#ing no nor)ative legiti)ac# (or an#one o*tside that interest $c(. Žižek ,===>

2D:%.

, ! 'ossi"ilit# 'recl*ded "# acla* ho according to Žižek can onl# clai) that 6(eat*res that e

$)is%'erceive as ontologicall# 'ositive rel# on an ethico-'olitical decision that s*stains the

'revailing hege)on#6 $Žižek ,===> ,?:% - and hich as s*ch o*ld carr# no nor)ative eight.

,= Here again *nlike either the s#)'to)atic inter'retation or the ne*tral version Žižek (ails to

'rovide a reason either h# s*ch an i)'ossi"le *niversalit# o*ld eert an# clai) on *s or h#

'artic*lar contents o*ld seek to stand in (or it.

2D Lor a criti3*e o( co))*nitarianis) that in )# vie ado'ts a tr*l# Hegelian 'ers'ective and

hich in so doing 'rovides a )ore thoro*gh-going criti3*e than Žižek+s hile agreeing ith his

central tenet that co))*nitarianis) a)o*nts to a red*ction o( the 'olitical to a (or) o( 're-

'olitical ethics $Žižek ,===> ,?,% see Michard Win(ield $,==%.

2, !gain lending the i)'ression that ith The Sublime 6bject of I"eology and Tarrying with the

2egati#e Žižek got st*ck in the logic o( essence.

7A



22 !gain closer attention to the logic o( the conce't over and a"ove the logic o( essence )ight

have 'revented this.

27 This is the )eaning o( the )*ch-cele"rated 6(or itsel(@in itsel(6 distinction that Žižek invokes

here and elsehere> 6(or itsel(6 $f7r sich% )eans that an i)'licit deter)inac# that had "een)erel# 6in itsel(6 $an sich% is rendered e'licit viB. is e'licitl# 'osited as s*ch in the logical

develo')ent.

2: Lor an inter'retation that di((ers so)ehat (ro) )# on "oth in ter)s o( sco'e and ai) see

Michard Win(ield $2DD> ?((%.

2A /# 6ordinar# re(lection6 I a) (olloing Hegel designating that (or) o( non-'hiloso'hical tho*ght

that holds on to its re'resentations itho*t conceiving o( their i)'licit deter)inac# and there"#

'recl*des the artic*lation o( their i))anent logic.

2 This is eactl# h# in Hegel+s atte)'t to "egin 'hiloso'h# in the Science of Logic ith the

tho*ght o( sheer indeter)inac# and there"# sec*re a 'res*''ositionless "eginning he co*ld not

"egin ith the tho*ght o( 6indeter)inac#.6 Since 6indeter)inac#6 is i)'licitl# deter)inate over

and against 6deter)inac#6 the 'roect o( the Logic can onl# "egin ith the tho*ght $or 8einung

"are gest*re% o( 6"eing6 a"stracted (ro) all deter)inate content.

2? In this connection also e can (or)*late hat o*ld no do*"t "e Hegel+s res'onse to9ietBsche+s valoriBation o( the ancient &reek religion (or inventing gods ho are )ore h*)an

than Christianit# is ca'a"le o( co)ing *' ith - viB. Hegel o*ld )aintain that it is Christ ho is

)ore h*)an inso(ar as *nlike the &reek gods he as a sing*lar historical individ*al ho

act*all# lived and died.

2 Hoever the s'lit does not a''ear )erel# ithin the 'artic*lar as Žižek has it - "*t then he

tends to a((le "eteen regarding the constit*tive ece'tion as sing*larit# $a.k.a. individ*alit#%

and as 'artic*larit#.

2= I have slightl# )odi(ied 0iller+s translation "# rendering 9egriff as 6conce't6 rather than as

6notion6 and Ein:elheit as 6sing*larit#6 rather than 6individ*alit#.6

7



/# shoing it to "e sel(-*nder)ining in its own terms this is a )ore thoro*ghgoing criti3*e

than sa# the standard (e)inist@0arist criti3*e that dis)isses it as a cloak (or 6hite )ale

'ro'ert# oner6 and then looks elsehere (or "etter conce'tions.

7,

4( co*rse the iron# here - an iron# that Žižek does not see) to notice - is the (act that this6(orced choice6 o( the a"stract (reedo) o( the individ*al against the collective order t*rns o*t to

"e the )odern notion o( (reedo) de(ined as the (reedo) to choose.

72 !s noted a"ove its character as sel(-deter)ination as o''osed to an essentialist ret*rn to a

'rior deter)inac# di((erentiates it (ro) reactionar# )ove)ents like (ascis). It+s not altogether

clear that e can )ake this di((erentiation ith res'ect to /adio*+s 6tr*th event6 inso(ar as a

ret*rn to 'rior deter)inac# o( the )agnit*de or intensit# o( (ascis) es'eciall# given the o(ten

(ictive character o( the 6"eginning6 '*r'ortedl# recovered in the latter )a# not "e (oreseea"le

(ro) ithin the state o( the sit*ation and this *n(oreseea"ilit# $or 6indiscerni"ilit#6% a''ears to "e

his criterion (or so)ething to constit*te a gen*ine 6event.6

77 4( co*rse the 3*estion as to hether or not Hegel convincingl# and *sti(ia"l# derives these

(*rther deter)inacies is one that lies "e#ond the sco'e o( the 'resent 'a'er.

References

&asch8 M. $,=% The Tain of the 8irror Ca)"ridge> Harvard Universit# Fress.

Hegel &. W. L. $,==% 5egel's Science of Logic trans. !. V. 0iller !tlantic Highlands>

H*)anities Fress.

Held V. $,=?% 6Le)inis) and 0oral Theor#6 in Gva Leder and 1iana T. 0e#ers $eds.% /omen

an" 8oral Theory Savage 01> Mo)an and ittle(ield F*"lishers.

Ho*lgate S. $2DD% The 6pening of 5egel's Logic West a(a#ette I9> F*rd*e Universit# Fress.

Kol" 1. $,=% The Criti*ue of Pure 8o"ernity3 5egel) 5ei"egger) an" After) Chicago> Universit#

o( Chicago Fress.

9ietBsche L. $,=% /ill to Power trans. "# Walter Ka*()ann and M. J. Hollingdale 9e ork>

Vintage /ooks.

Ta)inia* J. $,=??% Le egar" et l;e$ce"ent The Hag*e> 9iho(( ,=??.

Win(ield M. $,==% 6#ercoming .oun"ations3 Stu"ies in Systematic Philosophy 9e ork>

Col*)"ia Universit# Fress.

7?



Win(i

M. $,==% 6Gthical Co))*nit# itho*t Co))*nitarianis)6 Philosophy To"ay :D$2%>

7,D-72,.

Win(ield M. $2DDA% The <ust State3 ethinking Self%=o#ernment 9e ork> H*)anit# /ooks.

Win(ield M. $2DD% .rom Concept to 6bjecti#ity3 Thinking Through 5egel's Subjecti#e Logic

/*rlington VT> !shgate.Win(ield M. $2DD?% 8o"ernity) eligion) an" the /ar on Terror /*rlington VT> !shgate.

Žižek S. $,==% The Sublime 6bject of I"eology ondon> Verso.

Žižek S. $,==7% Tarrying with the 2egati#e3 4ant) 5egel) an" the Criti*ue of I"eology 1*rha)

9C> 1*ke Universit# Fress.

Žižek S. $2DD7% The F*''et and the 1ar(> The Ferverse Core o( Christianit# Ca)"ridge 0!>

The 0IT Fress.

Kisner - The Concrete Universal in i Ek and Hegel-libre

Documents

Transcript of Kisner - The Concrete Universal in i Ek and Hegel-libre