Excellent question — and yes, there’s a real conceptual resonance between Žižek’s “fetishistic disavowal” and both pluralistic ignorance and the spiral of silence, though they operate at different levels (psychic vs. social) and with different emphases on ideology, affect, and agency.
Let’s tease that out carefully:
1. Žižek’s “fetishistic disavowal”
Žižek famously formulates this as the structure of the statement:
“I know very well, but nonetheless…”
It’s a psychic and ideological mechanism where a person recognizes the truth of a situation but continues to act as if they didn’t.
-
Example: “I know capitalism is exploitative, but I still buy the latest iPhone.”
-
Or: “I know my government lies, but I trust it anyway — what else can I do?”
In Žižek’s view, this disavowal sustains ideology precisely because it allows subjects to know the critique but continue functioning within the ideological frame. It’s not ignorance, but a knowing ignorance — a split within the subject that stabilizes the social order.
He draws this from psychoanalysis (Freud and Lacan): the fetish allows the subject to cope with anxiety by both acknowledging and displacing it.
2. Pluralistic Ignorance
Pluralistic ignorance describes a social-psychological phenomenon:
Each individual privately rejects a norm but assumes everyone else accepts it, so all conform.
-
Example: In a classroom, everyone is confused but stays silent because they think others understand.
-
Or: In an authoritarian society, most people disagree with the regime but act compliant because they believe others support it.
Here the mechanism is misperception: people act against their private beliefs due to mistaken assumptions about collective belief. It’s not a deliberate disavowal; it’s a failure of intersubjective transparency.
3. The Spiral of Silence
Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s “spiral of silence” theory builds on similar ground:
People remain silent about opinions they think are in the minority, for fear of isolation.
Over time, this silence reinforces dominant opinions and suppresses dissent. The process is performative — silence produces the illusion of consensus, which further silences others.
Here, too, the subject knows something but suppresses expression to avoid social sanction. It’s not so much self-deception as it is social self-preservation.
4. The Structural Parallels
If we line them up, you can see the echo:
| Mechanism | What is “known” | Why it’s denied | Function |
|---|---|---|---|
| Žižek: Fetishistic Disavowal | The truth of ideology or desire | To maintain psychic stability and social functioning | Sustains ideology through cynical distance (“I know, but…”) |
| Pluralistic Ignorance | That others don’t really believe the norm | Because of mistaken social perception | Sustains false consensus |
| Spiral of Silence | That one’s belief differs from the public majority | Fear of isolation or social penalty | Sustains dominant opinion through silence |
5. The Key Distinction
-
Žižek’s disavowal is primarily intra-psychic and ideological: the subject splits internally between knowledge and belief.
-
Pluralistic ignorance and the spiral of silence are intersubjective and communicative: the split occurs between what is thought privately and what is expressed publicly.
But — and here’s the bridge — in late-capitalist ideology, these mechanisms overlap. Fetishistic disavowal becomes a social pattern: everyone knows the system is broken, but no one acts differently because they assume everyone else still believes.
In that sense, Žižek’s concept explains the emotional glue behind pluralistic ignorance — the way ideology supplies comfort and plausible deniability to sustain the false consensus.
6. Synthesis
You could say:
Fetishistic disavowal is the libidinal-ideological infrastructure of pluralistic ignorance and the spiral of silence.
It’s the psychic template for how people maintain belief in something they no longer fully believe in — not by ignorance, but by the performance of belief.
Would you like me to connect this synthesis to an example (e.g., climate change, political correctness, or online discourse)? Each one makes the parallels very vivid.
No comments:
Post a Comment