Review: Žižek & Peterson vs Happiness

By Antimo Coates and Louis Altena

In a time characterised by uncertainty, social isolation, volatility and pessimism for the future, the Žižek vs. Peterson debate, which had every chance of being a farce and a spectacle, proved to be of significant value. The debate was hosted at Toronto’s Sony Centre and extended to a length of almost three hours covering opening remarks, rebuttal, discussion and Q&A sections on the topic Happiness: Marxism vs. Capitalism. Advertised as the “debate of the century”, the event predictably failed to live up to its ambitious billing. However, this should not be seen as an indictment of the entire event. While yes, both thinkers didn’t add any new ideas to the political discourse, that was rightfully not their intention. Instead they seemingly opted for an introduction to their respective worldviews.

Peterson

Peterson structured his opening remarks as a 10-point critique of The Communist Manifesto which covered the basic issues with Marxism ranging from its underestimations of the productive efficiency of free market economics to its ignorance of fundamental tenants of human nature. All in all, the introduction served its purpose as a basic outline for the debate but achieved little beyond this.

Following the opening remarks of both speakers there was general discussion section which allowed both speakers to ask questions of one another and was undoubtedly the climax of the debate. When pressed on his position regarding post-modern neo-Marxism, it was evident that Peterson had little to offer in defence which turned the debate in favour of Žižek. It was clear from this point that Peterson was out of his depth in terms of appearing as an intellectual equal to Žižek, but this did not discredit his contributions in any sense beyond this.

Genuine praise must still be given to Peterson who, once adopting the role of a conversational facilitator instead of a combatant, asked many insightful questions of his conversation partner. Notably, a major turning point of the debate was his questioning of Žižek’s alignment with Marxism which forced Žižek into shedding his Marxist skin and opened the floor for a more meaningful discussion. The humility and intellectual honesty of both speakers transcended the topical limitations of Marxism vs. Capitalism, and instead aimed towards an anti-thesis to contemporary neoliberal ideology.

Žižek

On the subject of the debate’s topics, Peterson’s arguments, and the general political and philosophical trends in society, Žižek, paradoxically didn’t respond.

His response is one of negation — “I would prefer not to”.

It is through this position of negation that he seeks to open up a space for a philosophy of the future that can articulate movement beyond the futile pursuit of happiness for happiness’ sake. Žižek never claimed to have all the answers, and it can never be that simple. Instead we should take up his challenge and articulate for ourselves a way to move beyond our pessimistic nihilism and the left-vs-right political deadlock in favour of operating in a more radically open space.

With regards to the debate topic neither thinker had a great deal of positive things to say. For Žižek and Peterson happiness should not be pursued as a thing in and of itself, as by its very nature it is perpetually elusive.

The problem with contemporary, western, neoliberal societies is that the pursuit of base pleasures as a means to happiness is ingrained into our socio-political and economic systems. This, according to Žižek, is a fundamentally flawed approach to happiness. Happiness in the Žižekian world-view is not an overburdening sense of personal responsibility, nor is it the acquisition of the latest name-brand fashion products. Instead, happiness should come as a by-product in the pursuit of something greater than ourselves. For Žižek, much like Peterson, this is the pursuit of an authentic self-becoming that necessarily involves an utterly violent struggle. Where Žižek differs is that he doesn’t seemingly place such a great accent on the individual as the locus of this transformative process.

Žižek’s politics of negation and opening the void as a place of emancipatory potential was on display in his critical engagement with many of the political trends we see today. Through their hyper-moralisation much of the left is engaged in a simulated resistance to neoliberalism that only ends up reinforcing it. Instead of being engaged in a politics of temporality and trying to articulate a new political horizon, they are engaged in a highly legalistic politics of rearrangement that only masquerades as a political challenge but is in fact a silent admission of defeat.

The philosophy of Žižek highlights the pitfalls of the resurgent right-wing nationalist reaction to neoliberalism as well, as these populist movements fail to grapple with the core problems that produce our disillusioned modern life. For the right-wing populist, escaping from the international political and economic system represents a strategy of retreat rather than solution in the face of the issues brought about by neoliberal global capitalism.

Even Žižek’s heritage of Marxism isn’t safe from criticism. By placing a teleology on the future, as Marxism does, we close ourselves off from the radical openness of Žižek’s preferred Hegelian approach. While for Žižek, Marxism is useful, it is but one analytical tool to achieve something wider and overcome the horizon of today.

The Reception

In terms of reactions to the debate there is a clear air of disappointment and political point-scoring from both sides. Whilst interest in the works of these thinkers has undoubtedly increased as a result of the debate, it still seems that the value of this debate has been lost on swathes of the audience.

Rather than discussing the ideas the debate raised, a clear effort on the part of online communities to announce the death of Peterson’s academic credibility filled newsfeeds for the days following the event. It seems strange to me that so many of Peterson’s critics took him as seriously as they do, as the narrative of the debate quickly became a tale of the death of the frog-boys’ leader who was massacred on stage by the sheer force of Žižek’s staggering intellect.

But this narrative is a false one.

In reality the debate confirmed what most of us already knew, that Peterson is not the great saviour of western civilisation as some fans may suggest but is instead revealed to be just as lost as the rest of us when it comes to political direction. But this does not discredit him in the way some have suggested.

The sheer popularity of Peterson’s lectures (and the fact that his fame was the main drawcard for the debate in the first place) suggests there is something of significant value in what he is saying, even if he hasn’t quite worked it all out yet. Peterson maintains an important position within mainstream academic culture, as his own brand of neo-conservatism based on his clinical experience speaks to many of the people feeling disenfranchised by the current political climate.

What this debate revealed, however, is that we must go beyond existing formulations of political doctrines, be they Marxist, Capitalist, etc. In essence, this debate was a battle between two old warriors, and what they surprisingly agreed on, was that the world desperately needs something new.