The Big Other? No Thanks!

Lenin draws attention to some Zizekian reflections on the EU voting. Now, I must admit, that on hearing of the emphatic ‘Non’ some of my own thoughts were along vaguely Zizekian lines:

There was a perception that the ‘Yes vote’ was the preserve of those ‘in the know’, those privy to a certain expert knowledge - a knowledge of what was ‘inevitable’, necessary. The ‘yes’ vote had the nod, the royal seal of History. The ‘no’ unthinkable – if we voted no ‘something would happen’.

Curiously this reminded my, in passing, of something from Zizek’s repertoire of examples, an incident that triggers the Iranian revolution. For some reason, a demonstrator refuses to obey a policeman. A basic contract has been broken. It’s unthinkable, and yet there it is. What really strikes the crowd of onlookers is that this unthinkable thing has taken place and nothing happens. There is no seismic movement; the fabric of reality doesn’t suddenly come apart at the seams. Everything is as it was and yet utterly different. All that has been subtracted from reality is, Zizek tells us, the illusion of the big Other – the idea that the policeman is supported by, embodies Authority, Inevitability, Order. ‘The appearance is broken’. ‘See,’ the crowd says, ‘nothing happens’.The prohibition was phoney.

Now, when news came in of the Dutch vote I wondered whether it would have been quite so emphatic not for the French result. Not that the Dutch were imitating or whatever. It’s that the French vote broke the appearance. ‘See’ the French Non declared, ‘nothing happens’. We’ve done the unthinkable and the world’s still here.

‘European unification’ had seemed to move under the spell of inevitability, as if unmoored from human control, and could be used to justify various measures – eg economic reforms – under duress of History. And the ‘yes’ men seemed to understand and be au fait with the secret knowledge of History. They embodied the big Other and spoke on its behalf. (In fact, a particular political and economic agenda was being smuggled in under the sign of Progress).

Perhaps Zizek might consider whether the referendum’s 'Non' wasn’t in part an answer to the question Do you not believe in the big Other?

Naturally, before you jump in eagerly, I realise that the very idea of a referendum on the big Other is inherently contradictory – let the majority decide for me, even if I’m part of it. The majority is always Other than me, and once it has spoken things are out of my hands. I accede to its Delphic voice. Saying 'Progress has decided' and saying 'The Majority has decided' aren't, from a certain point of view, that different.