The Battle in Philosophy: Time, Substance, and the Void – Slavoj

Zizek vs. Graham Harman

In my pursuit to understand poetry and philosophy in our time I’ve found that “time” is
the key: there is a great battle that has up till now been perpetrated under the auspices
of subtantialist versus process philosophers – as in the recent battle over Graham
Harman and Object Oriented Philosophy (a reversion to a substantive formalism,
although non-Aristotelian in intent), and the Process philosophers who seem to come
out of Whitehead and others. Part of the wars of speculative realism…

In Harman the object is split between a sensual (phenomenal) appendage and a real
(noumenal) withdrawn core, etc. For him this real can never be described, or even
known directly, but must be teased out or allured from its “volcanic” hiding place, etc.
While for those like Zizek there is nothing there, even less than nothing: a void that is
the negation of negation: a self-reflecting nothingness. No core, no substance, no big
Other.

Graham Harman will tells us that at the heart of our era there lurks a philosophical
dogma, an idealism purporting to mask itself under the rubric of deflationary realism.
Under the banner of deflationary realism he will align deconstruction (Jaques Derrida),
Lacanian/Hegelian dialectics (Slavoj Zizek), and every dialectical philosophy “which
tries to undercut any subterranean power of the things by calling this power an
“essence,” then claiming that essence is a naive abstraction unless it finds its proper
place in the drama of human knowledge about the world.”1 The point he makes is that
at the center of this view of the world is the notion of singular gap between the human
and its world. (p. 123) For Harman Zizek is an anti-realist par excellence:

The Ticklish Subject (1999). The second, taken from The Sublime Object of Ideology
(1989), is a revealing assessment of the Kripkean theory of reference that displays
Zizek’s anti-realism in all its glory and all its bias. (Tool-Being, p. 205)

As one reads Harman’s works which on the surface seem a revisionary turn in
phenomenological thinking and philosophy – especially as to its central reading of
Heidegger’s concept of readiness-to-hand (Zuhandenheit), which “refers to objects
insofar as they withdraw from human view into a dark subterranean reality that never
becomes present to practical action any more than it does to theoretical awareness”
(ibid. 1). This notion of a non-utilitarian realism beyond the human with its
attendant swerve from the linguistic turn, dialectical materialism, and the naturalism of
scientific physicalism and scientisms sets the tone: an enframing of the withdrawal of
objects from the human/world bifurcation or gap ontology of deflationary realism, and
a decentering of the anthropocentric world-view that pervades humanistic philosophy
and literature, art and aesthetics offers the base approach of Harman’s philosophical
outlay.

His reading of Zizek teases out the concern with Time (future) over past, etc.:

By cementing the priority of the future at this early stage, Zizek is setting the table
for his doctrine of retroactive causation, in which the Real is not a “real world”
outside of the human sphere, but the very gap between appearance and the non-
appearing that is first posited by the fantasy of the human subject. As he puts it:
“Daily habitat and excess are not simply opposed: the habitat itself is ‘chosen’ in an
 ‘excessive’ gesture of groundless decision.” Or in even clearer terms: “one can never
reach a ‘pure’ context prior to a decision; every context is ‘always-already’
retroactively constituted by a decision.” Not only do my perspectives and
projections affect how the context is seen, but the context is created by the very act
of decision. (Tool-Being, p. 207)

Objects for Harman are first of all entities as formal cause, as well as the converse notion
that “every set of relations is also an entity” (p. 260). Harman will argue against all naïve
materialisms and naturalisms, saying: “

What separates this model from all materialism is that I am not pampering one
level of reality (that of infinitesimal particles) at the expense of all others. What
is real in the cosmos are forms wrapped inside of forms, not durable specks of
material that reduce everything else to derivative status. If this is “materialism,”
then it is the first materialism in history to deny the existence of matter.(p. 293)

This notion that there is no physical matter, but that everything from the smallest
quantum events to the largest structures in the universe are forms within forms:
structured entities immersed in relations and the engines of reality. Yet, these very
entities can unplug from these relations and enter into new and different engagements.
The point here takes up the notion of intervention and the revisionary process of
entities in their actual ongoing movements across the tiers or levels of reality. As he will
tell it instead of materialism, this is perhaps a new sort of “formalism,” one that sides
with Francis Bacon “who lampoons efficient causation as ridiculous.” (p. 293).

He will make explicit use of Zizek’s notion of “retroactive causation” in Tool-Being

“without accepting the attitude of “deflationary realism” with which Zizek frames this
concept.” The problem Harman has with Zizek’s term is that he restricts it “to a narrowly
human realm, and orbits around the same unique gap between human and world that
dominates most contemporary philosophy.” Which speculative realists such as Harman
argue is to bound within the correlationist circle (Meillassoux) of mind/world dualism
at the heart of the anti-realist world-view, etc. (Harman 207-208)

Anyone who has read the early works of Harman finds Zizek everywhere in the pages.
Harman fights with Zizek from the opposite end, holding to an new or
revised substantial formalism. Zizek starts with lack (Void, Gap, Den: Democritus) at the
heart of things, while for Harman there is no lack – everything is fully deployed in an
almost copy of the Platonic notion of time as vessel (our universe on a flat plane with
multilevel tiers or scales). Zizek sticks with the whirlwind of nothings that Democritus
termed “Den”: his less than nothing that gives birth to nothing and from there our
universe ( a quantum theory of subjectivity as process and emergence out of the void).
This is the basic battle between opposing conceptual frameworks of reality.

Harman will openly tell us he likes Zizek, yet he totally disagrees with almost everything
he’s written, saying of one of Zizek’s key concepts: “
Among the most central of these ideas is Zizek’s concept of retroactive causation—a
theme in one respect very close to the present book, and in another respect
diametrically opposed. (p. 205)
He will tell us that Zizek’s retroactive causation brings with it the notion that the Real is
not a “real world” outside of the human sphere, but the very gap between appearance
and the non-appearing that is first posited by the fantasy of the human subject.(p. 207)

Even a cursory reading of Zizek’s latest two magnum opus’s will attest to this continued
drift (see Less Than Nothing, and Absolute Recoil). Zizek against all substantial
formalisms will tell us:

This last claim should be qualified, or, rather, corrected: what is retroactively called into
existence is not the “hitherto formless matter” but, precisely, matter which was well
articulated before the rise of the new, and whose contours were only blurred, or became
invisible , from the horizon of the new historical form— with the rise of the new form,
the previous form is (mis) perceived as “hitherto formless matter,” that is, the
“formlessness” itself is a retroactive effect , a violent erasure of the previous form. If one
misses the retroactivity of such positing of presuppositions, one finds oneself in the
ideological universe of evolutionary teleology: an ideological narrative thus emerges in
which previous epochs are conceived as progressive stages or steps towards the
present “civilized” epoch . This is why the retroactive positing of presuppositions is the
materialist “substitute for that ‘teleology’ for which [Hegel] is ordinarily indicted.”3
Yet, in accepting this notion of retroactive causation the only difference he makes (if one
can call it a “difference”) is his disagreement as to whether it should be restricted to the
“fantasy life of human subjects”, or much rather displaced to include “inanimate objects”
that also display this sort of fantasy life:

Zizek apparently wants to restrict retroactive causation to the fantasy life of

human subjects, I have insisted that even inanimate objects display this sort of
fantasy.(Harman, 208)

The point Zizek makes is that in a dialectical process, the thing becomes “what it always
already was”; that is, the “eternal essence” (or, rather, concept) of a thing is not given in
advance, it emerges, forms itself in an open contingent process— the eternally past
essence is a retroactive result of the dialectical process. This retroactivity is what Kant
was not able to think , and Hegel himself had to work long and hard to conceptualize it.
Here is how the early Hegel, still struggling to differentiate himself from the legacy of
the other German Idealists, qualifies Kant’s great philosophical breakthrough: in the
Kantian transcendental synthesis, “the determinateness of form is nothing but the
identity of opposites”.(ibid., Zizek: Less Than Nothing)

As you can see at the heart of the conflict between Harman and Zizek is a notion of
causation, a view of time and the implication of time’s determinations in reality. For
Zizek the concept or essence does not precede its history or processual movement in
time, but is rather a creation of its contingent interactions in the dialectical process of
this time itself. For Harman the “essence” is that core depth of every entity. In his
discussion of Zubiri on essence he will tell us:

“Zubiri allows common sense to pull off a bloodless coup d’état at the precise
moment when he had begun to open our eyes to a zone of incomparable
strangeness—- that of the essence withdrawn from all relation, even from brute
causal relation (as overlooked by Heidegger, Levinas, and Whitehead alike).(p.
258)
His beef with Zizek on retroactive causation is over its alignment with anthorpmism and
anti-realist stance:
Retroactive causation is a global ontological structure, and not a narrowly
psychoanalytic one. Whatever distinguishes human beings from animals and rocks
cannot be found in this structure alone. Given that retroactive cause occurs on every
layer of reality, there is nothing ontologically special about human retroaction, meaning
that Zizek’s noncommittal distance from the question of realism is untenable.(Harman,
208)

This is a core notion of Harman’s that real objects (essences) can withdraw from all
relations, that retroactive cause occurs in objects, things, events just as it does in
humans. As he will tell us further on “It is not only the case that every entity has a deeper
essence—rather, every essence has a deeper essence as well” (p. 258). Realizing this
leads to an infinite regress Harman will instead term it an “indefinite regress, and move
on to other problems that arise from the emerging concept of substance” (p. 259).
Succinctly Harman’s position is stated as follows:

I have offered the model of reality as a reversal between tool and broken tool, with the
tool-being receding not just behind human awareness, but behind all relation
whatsoever. This duality has been crossed by another opposition of equal power: the
difference between the specific quality of a thing and its systematic union. Furthermore,
the world is not split up evenly with a nation of pure tool-being on one side and a land
of sheer relations on the other—every point in the cosmos is both a concealed reality
and one that enters into explicit contact with others. Finally, in the strict sense, there is
no such thing as a sheer “relation”; every relation turns out to be an entity in its own
right. As a result, there is no cleared transcendent space that gains a distance from
entities to reveal them “as” what they are. There is no exit from the density of being, no
way to stand outside the brutal play of forces and vacuum-packed entities that crowd
the world.(pp. 288-289).

In the above tool-being and the concept of “essence” are interchangeable. So for Harman
the essence of real objects precedes its sensual appendages, and in fact for him
withdraws not only from human awareness but from all relation whatsoever. But what
is this agency that withdraws? It’s as if Harman has sided at least figuraly with the
vitalists, as if objects had the power to make decisions, that they could intervene in the
world, withdraw from relations as they see fit. But is this true? Can rocks remove
themselves from their precarious life on the edge of a cliff ready to topple? I exaggerate.
My problem comes down to “awareness” and “consciousness”: what makes a decision?
Does a rock or any other inanimate object have the powers to make decisions? How so?

The whole of Harman’s metaphysics hinges on this shift from the human to the
inanimate without a complete and thorough, detailed explanation of this process by
which inanimate things make decisions (i.e., how they can withdraw from relations,
unplug their inanimate being form the things around them). Of course he’ll talk of
indirect relations and that we should not confuse literal phenomenalism with the
abstract notions of which he is speaking. He’ll pointedly state of Zizek: “There is a
surplus of the world beyond our projection of it; the world is not just a pure signifier
representing a void, but is that which always withdraws from signification. The same
fate awaits all objects in the cosmos” (Tool-Being, 209). But is this a parody of Zizek or
a clear reading? Harman sees Zizek as not escaping Idealism, but rather bound to its
horizon of meaning, encapsulated within its net of Ideas on the subject, etc.
Harman will read Zizek and his return to Hegel through Lacan’s eyes as “a subject not
“immersed in its life-world,” but one able to create a fissure in being and retroactively
posit its own context” (Harman, 210). Harman will only add the juncture that Zizek does
not go far enough and posit that what goes for humans also goes for all other objects,
animate and inanimate, in the world.

We are here back at the notion of den in Democritus: a “something cheaper than nothing,”
a weird pre-ontological “something” which is less than nothing.

– Slavoj Zizek

(Badiou and Zizek from a materialist perspective also opt for a event based, non-
substantive notion of time, a time of rupture and newness: an event.
Zizek recounting an Agatha Christie Jane Marple mystery in which a woman sees a
murder on another passing train in which the police find no evidence, and only Mrs.
Marple believes her and follows up:

This is an event at its purest and most minimal : something shocking, out of joint
that appears to happen all of a sudden and interrupts the usual flow of things;
something that emerges seemingly out of nowhere, without discernible causes,
an appearance without solid being as its foundation.
…
It is a manifestation of a circular structure in which the evental effect retroactively
determines its causes or reasons.1
As Zizek further qualifies an event is thus the effect that seems to exceed its causes –
and the space of an event is that which opens up by the gap that separates an effect from
its causes. Already with this approximate definition, we find ourselves at the very heart
of philosophy, since causality is one of the basic problems philosophy deals with: are all
things connected with causal links? Does everything that exists have to be grounded in
sufficient reasons? Or are there things that somehow happen out of nowhere? How,
then, can philosophy help us to determine what an event – an occurrence not grounded
in sufficient reasons – is and how it is possible? (Zizek, 5)

Zizek will see this as two approaches or opposing views of reality: the transcendental
and the ontological or ontic. The first concerns the universal structure of how reality
appears to us. Which conditions must be met for us to perceive something as really
existing? ‘Transcendental’ is the philosopher’s technical term for such a frame, which
defines the co-ordinates of reality – for example, the transcendental approach makes us
aware that, for a scientific naturalist, only spatio-temporal material phenomena
regulated by natural laws really exist, while for a premodern traditionalist, spirits and
meanings are also part of reality, not only our human projections. The ontic approach,
on the other hand, is concerned with reality itself, in its emergence and deployment:
how did the universe come to be? Does it have a beginning and an end? What is our
place in it?(Zizek, 5-6)

For Zizek the universe can never be reduced to its determinations, there is only an open
ended strife at the heart of existence:
There is time, there is development, precisely because opposites cannot directly
coincide. Therein resides already the lesson of the very beginning of the Logic: how do
we pass from the first identity of opposites, Being and Nothing, to Becoming (which then
stabilizes itself in Something[ s])? If Being and Nothing are identical, if they overlap, why
move forward at all? Precisely because Being and Nothing are not directly identical:
Being is a form, the first formal-notional determination, whose only content is Nothing;
the couple Being/ Nothing forms the highest contradiction which is impossible, and to
resolve this impossibility, this deadlock, one passes into Becoming, into oscillation
between the two poles.

In the above Zizek agrees with Harman in the sense that ‘Being’ is form, yet for Zizek it
is not a substantial form but rather a formless form. No essence preceding things, not
hidden core behind the veil within which the essence can withdraw. Instead there is the
conflict of becoming and process to which essence is the end not the beginning. So for
Zizek there is war and strife in the heart of the universe and nothing else. This very
oscillation between Being and Nothingness will never be resolved until the final death
throws of the universe. Until then we have eternal war of being and nothingness:
working in oscillation with becoming… this is time.
I’ve begun a long arduous process of tracing down this ancient battle between
substantial formalists (object oriented) and non-substantive event (process) based
philosophers, and have begun organizing a philosophical work around the great theme
of Time that will tease out the current climate of Continental thought against this
background.

In some ways I want to take up Zizek’s philosophical materialism of non-substantial

self-relating nothingness vs. Harman’s substantial formalism where they intersect in
the notions of Time and Causality. We’ve seen work on both of these philosophers, but
have yet to see the drama they are enacting from the two world perspectives of
transcendental vs. ontology and ontic, substance vs. void or gap. I think this would be a
worthwhile battle to bring to light what is laying there in fragments.
Stay tuned.

1. Harman, Graham (2011-08-31). Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of

Objects (p. 1). Open Court. Kindle Edition
2. Zizek, Slavoj (2014-08-26). Event: A Philosophical Journey Through A Concept (p. 4).
Melville House. Kindle Edition.
3. Zizek, Slavoj (2012-04-30). Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical
Materialism (Kindle Locations 6322-6330). Norton. Kindle Edition.