Simon Gros

In his Sigmund Freud Lecture delivered in Vienna, Slavoj Žižek engages with themes at the intersection of psychoanalysis, theology, and the death drive. Žižek deconstructs common misconceptions about psychoanalysis, critiques contemporary ideologies, and explores existential voids inherent in the human condition.

Žižek begins by challenging the notion that psychoanalysis seeks coherent self-knowledge or alleviation of suffering. Drawing on the British psychoanalyst Adam Phillips, he asserts that psychoanalysis should free individuals from the need to fully know themselves. Instead, it encourages acting amidst ignorance and embracing unpredictability. Symptoms, as forms of self-knowledge, can trap individuals in repetitive cycles, and psychoanalysis helps dissolve this need for a stable narrative of the self.

He then pivots to Freud’s concept of the death drive, which Žižek reinterprets as a paradoxical expression of immortality rather than a desire for death. The death drive compels people to repeat self-destructive behaviors, embodying a strange persistence beyond biological life. He uses imagery from horror fiction—zombies and undead figures—to illustrate this compulsive drive, highlighting how these figures refuse to die, representing a grotesque form of infinite existence.

Žižek connects these psychoanalytic insights to theological themes, particularly negative theology, which defines God through absence rather than presence. He suggests that the experience of divinity often lies in the recognition of a fundamental void or brokenness in reality. For Žižek, God is not a benevolent, transcendent entity but a fractured presence reflecting the inconsistencies of human existence. He cites the Book of Job as a profound critique of ideology, where Job’s suffering exposes the arbitrary and grotesque nature of divine power. Job’s confrontation with God reveals a deity who is capricious and flawed, shattering the notion of a purely good or rational God.

Žižek explores how Protestantism, with its focus on predestination, captures the unsettling arbitrariness of divine grace. Effort and virtue do not necessarily lead to salvation, underscoring an existential randomness that mirrors the absurdity of modern life. He finds a comedic dimension in tragedy, particularly in extreme situations like the Holocaust, where the horrors become absurd in their cruelty, as described by Primo Levi.

Žižek critiques contemporary society’s obsession with controlled enjoyment and the imperative to be happy. In a permissive era, the pressure to enjoy has replaced prohibitions, leading to anxiety and guilt over one’s inability to find pleasure. He argues that psychoanalysis remains crucial today, not to liberate individuals to enjoy, but to free them from the super-egoic demand to enjoy.

Drawing on examples from cinema and literature, Žižek illustrates how narratives and ideologies shape our perceptions of reality. He emphasizes that ideological illusions persist not in our conscious thoughts but in our actions. Even when we intellectually reject certain beliefs, these illusions continue to govern social practices. This concept of “interpassivity” shows how people delegate beliefs and actions to others or to symbolic constructs.

Žižek concludes with reflections on the difficulty of imagining alternatives to the current social order. He sees the concept of God, even as an absence, as representing a possibility for radical change. In a world marked by existential voids and ideological traps, Žižek advocates for a materialist theology that embraces the gaps and uncertainties of existence, suggesting that hope lies in our capacity to recognize and engage with these voids.

Ultimately, Žižek’s lecture is a call to confront the fundamental uncertainties of life, resist ideological complacency, and explore the transformative potential hidden within the voids of existence. His synthesis of psychoanalysis, theology, and cultural critique offers a path to deeper self-awareness and societal reflection, challenging the audience to think beyond conventional frameworks.