Editing Slavoj Žižek (section)

====Europe and multiculturalism====
In his 1997 article 'Multiculturalism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism', Žižek critiqued [[multiculturalism]] for privileging a culturally 'neutral' perspective from which all cultures are disaffectedly apprehended in their particularity because this distancing reproduces the racist procedure of Othering. He further argues that a fixation on particular identities and struggles corresponds to an abandonment of the universal struggle against [[global capitalism]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Žižek |first1=Slavoj |title=Multiculturalism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism |url=https://newleftreview.org/issues/i225/articles/slavoj-zizek-multiculturalism-or-the-cultural-logic-of-multinational-capitalism |journal=New Left Review |date=1997 |issue=I/225 |pages=28–51 |access-date=12 November 2022 |archive-date=12 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221112150424/https://newleftreview.org/issues/i225/articles/slavoj-zizek-multiculturalism-or-the-cultural-logic-of-multinational-capitalism |url-status=live }}</ref>

In his 1998 article 'A Leftist Plea for "Eurocentrism"', he argued that Leftists should 'undermine the global empire of capital, not by asserting particular identities, but through the assertion of a new universality',<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Žižek |first1=Slavoj |title=A Leftist Plea for "Eurocentrism" |journal=Critical Inquiry |date=1998 |volume=24 |issue=4 |page=1008|doi=10.1086/448904 |s2cid=211516308 }}</ref> and that in this struggle the European universalist value of ''egaliberte'' ([[Etienne Balibar]]'s term) should be foregrounded, proposing 'a Leftist appropriation of the European legacy'.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Žižek |first1=Slavoj |title=A Leftist Plea for "Eurocentrism" |journal=Critical Inquiry |date=1998 |volume=24 |issue=4 |page=1006|doi=10.1086/448904 |s2cid=211516308 }}</ref> Elsewhere, he has also argued, defending [[Marx]], that Europe's destruction of non-European tradition (e.g. through imperialism and slavery) has opened up the space for a 'double liberation', both from tradition and from European domination.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Žižek |first1=Slavoj |title=The Impasses of Today's Radical Politics |journal=Crisis & Critique |date=2014 |volume=1 |page=11ff}}</ref>

In her 2010 article 'The Two Zizeks', [[Nivedita Menon]] criticised Žižek for focusing on differentiation as a colonial project, ignoring how assimilation was also such a project; she also critiqued him for privileging the European Enlightenment Christian legacy as neutral, 'free of the cultural markers that fatally afflict all other religions.'<ref>{{cite web |url=http://kafila.org/2010/01/07/the-two-zizeks/ |last1=Menon |first1=Nivedita |title=The Two Zizeks |date=7 January 2010 |access-date=25 April 2023 |website=KAFILA – Collective explorations since 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100116065758/http://kafila.org/2010/01/07/the-two-zizeks/ |archive-date=16 January 2010 }}</ref> David Pavón Cuéllar, closer to Žižek, also criticised him.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Pavón-Cuéllar |first=D. |year=2020 |title=Žižek, universalismo y colonialismo: doce tesis para no aceptarlo todo |journal=International Journal of Žižek Studies |volume=14 |issue=3 |pages=1–22 |url=https://zizekstudies.org/index.php/IJZS/article/view/1193/1225 |format=pdf |language=es |access-date=5 February 2021 |archive-date=1 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220401081650/https://zizekstudies.org/index.php/IJZS/article/view/1193/1225 |url-status=live }}</ref>

In the mid-2010s, over the issue of Eurocentrism, there was a dispute between Žižek and [[Walter Mignolo]], in which Mignolo (supporting a previous article by [[Hamid Dabashi]],<ref>{{cite web |last1=Dabashi |first1=Hamid |title=Can non-Europeans think? |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/1/15/can-non-europeans-think/ |website=Aljazeera |access-date=16 November 2022 |archive-date=16 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221116210112/https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/1/15/can-non-europeans-think/ |url-status=live }}</ref> which argued against the centrality of European philosophers like Žižek, criticised by [[Michael Marder]]<ref>{{cite web |last1=Marder |first1=Micheal |title=A post-colonial comedy of errors |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/4/13/a-post-colonial-comedy-of-errors/ |website=Aljazeera |access-date=16 November 2022 |archive-date=16 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221116210106/https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/4/13/a-post-colonial-comedy-of-errors/ |url-status=live }}</ref>) argued, against Žižek, that decolonial struggle should forget European philosophy, purportedly following [[Frantz Fanon]];<ref>{{cite web |last1=Mignolo |first1=Walter D. |title=Yes, we can: Non-European thinkers and philosophers |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/2/19/yes-we-can-non-european-thinkers-and-philosophers/ |website=Aljazeera |access-date=16 November 2022 |archive-date=16 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221116210106/https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/2/19/yes-we-can-non-european-thinkers-and-philosophers/ |url-status=live }}</ref> in response, Žižek pointed out Fanon's European intellectual influences, and his resistance to being confined within the black tradition, and claimed to be following Fanon on this point.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Žižek |first1=Slavoj |title=The Impasses of Today's Radical Politics |journal=Crisis & Critique |date=2014 |volume=1 |page=9ff}}</ref> In his book ''Can Non-Europeans Think?'' (foreworded by Mignolo), Dabashi also critiqued Žižek for privileging Europe;<ref>{{cite book |last1=Dabashi |first1=Hamid |title=Can Non-Europeans Think? |date=2015 |publisher=Zed Books |location=London |isbn=978-1783604227 |page=1ff}}</ref> Žižek argued that Dabashi slanderously and comically misrepresents him through misattribution,<ref name="A Reply to My Critics">{{cite web |last1=Žižek |first1=Slavoj |title=A Reply to My Critics |url=https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-reply-to-my-critics/ |website=The Philosophical Salon |date=5 August 2016 |access-date=8 May 2022 |archive-date=7 August 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160807230212/http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-reply-to-my-critics/ |url-status=live }}</ref> a critique supported by [[Ilan Kapoor]].<ref name="Žižek, Antagonism and Politics Now"/>