ŽIŽEK’S TICKLISH SUBJECT
The constitution of the political subject is a central concern in political theory since it addresses a basic question: how do people become capable of political action, how the capacity to act politically comes into being? Conventionally, a political subject is understood as a person or collective that act politically and affect political processes (Agné) — the political subject was treated as an already identifiable bearer of political agency. In uncertainty — when existing institutions, laws, and power relations become unstable, and when established identities, roles, and grounds of political agency can no longer be taken for granted — the basic question reemerges in entirely new light and urgency. New political profile must be built capable of dealing with complex political problems of present.
Philosophers before Žižek wrote extensively about the emergence of the political subject and the sources of political change. For Hegel, a political subject emerges by becoming aware of itself through contradictions within historical development and through mutual recognition with others. For Marx, people do not first become political because of ideas but because of their position within the economic system: when they recognise their common economic conditions, develop class consciousness, and begin acting collectively to change them. Althusser, people become subjects because ideology calls them into social roles. They learn to think of themselves as citizens, workers, parents, students, and voters, and by willingly accepting the identities that society assigns to them, they become political subjects. Political change becomes difficult because ideology continually reproduces and stabilises these existing identities by making their roles feel like their true identity. In turn, social change cannot easily originate from within the subject, leaving political transformation dependent on external factors.
Freud shifts attention inward. He argues that people are not fully rational; much of what motivates us lies outside conscious awareness. Fears, repressed wishes, and internal conflicts shape unconscious desires and political actions. Political change is affected by psychological forces as well as social conditions. Lacan radicalises Freud: the subject is never complete; there is always a gap between ourselves and our identity — we are never exactly the person we think we are. People continuously seek something that would overcome this gap and make them whole, but this completeness never arrives. A subject forms around a permanent sense that something is missing, and politics organises itself around promises to overcome this lack. Foucault sees political subjectivity as emerging through everyday practices and networks of power that shape people’s self-understanding and teach them how to behave and how to think about themselves. Political subjectivity is constituted through practices of power and processes of subjectivation by which individuals are shaped as particular kinds of subjects, how they govern themselves. Change occurs when people reject or alter the habitual routines and social norms that dictate how they act and see themselves, and when established modes of self-conduct are contested, resisted, or reconfigured. For Badiou, ordinary life reproduces the existing social order. Occasionally, however, an ‘Event’ occurs — something genuinely unexpected that cannot be rationalised in advance by existing rules. Such Events, whether a revolution, a scientific breakthrough, or a new political movement, open radically new possibilities. A political subject comes into being by enacting fidelity to the Event, acting politically according to its new possibility even when doing so is difficult and requires resisting the old order as it attempts to restore itself.
Žižek develops his theory of the political subject as much through Hegel and Lacan as against Heidegger. In doing so, he reworks Althusser’s structural account of interpellation through Lacanian lack, while positioning his model of subjective intervention alongside Badiou and his commitment to radical evental rupture.
Heidegger argued that subjects are constituted by their specific way of being in the world. We are always already thrown into a pre-existing historical world of language, culture, traditions, and social practices that shape how we think and act long before we make conscious choices. Most of the time, we live inauthentically within the comfortable dictatorship of ‘the They’ (das Man) — we speak as ‘they’ speak, judge as ‘they’ judge, and adopt pre-packaged norms that provide a false sense of groundedness, concealing from us the fundamental ungroundedness of our existence. True subjectivity emerges only when an individual confronts this thrownness in action under conditions of irreducible indeterminacy. The authentic political subject does not wait for a guaranteed scientific, moral, or ideological foundation before acting; it acts resolutely in the absence of absolute grounds. Political change therefore begins when people transform how they understand and inhabit their world, rather than simply trying to destroy or replace its institutions.
Žižek argues that Heidegger closes too soon. While Heidegger sees conformity as the fundamental problem, Žižek, drawing on psychoanalyst Lacan, contends that the subject is internally divided before any conformity begins. Furthermore, there is no authentic self hidden beneath ideology waiting to be revealed and recovered. Instead, the subject is constituted by an irreducible split or lack that can never be resolved. Žižek agrees that the symbolic order — language, ideology, and institutions — constitutes subjectivity, but this constitution is itself incomplete. Every subject contains a permanent gap or radical negativity that resists full determination by the social order. Unlike Heidegger’s authenticity, it is this constitutive negativity that enables political subjectivisation and genuinely radical political acts, making transformative political change possible. Žižek thus infers that Heidegger lacks a theory of radical negativity capable of accounting for the emancipatory constitution of an ungrounded political subject. This explanatory fissure is what Žižek seeks to fill with his book.
He elaborates the formation of political subjectivity beyond both naïve modernist optimism and postmodernist resignation. Political subjectivity, he argues, does not arise from a positive foundation hidden within the individual. People may rely on such foundations, but none provides a complete account of who they are or what they should do. There is always something that escapes complete self-understanding: a contradiction, an unacknowledged desire, a fear, or an aspect of a situation that one cannot fully grasp. Consider, for example, a voter who sees themselves as independent-minded but is shaped by ideological assumptions they do not recognise, or a citizen who believes they act according to their own interests while overlooking how their desires are fundamentally organised by collective narratives.
Žižek likewise resists postmodern accounts in political theory that dissolve the political subject into fragmented identities incapable of acting across differences and changing the conditions that produce them. Politics is then reduced to weighing competing claims rather than pursuing social transformation. The constitutive lack appears here as the absence of a unifying grounds capable of traversing these differences. For him, the void is not simply a problem of fragmented or incomplete subjectivity. It is “not directly the absence of existence, but a certain gap or void in the order of being” (p. 289). This gap becomes the very ground — from a paradoxical perspective, a ground without foundation — from which political subjectivity can emerge.
Žižek conceptualises political subjectivity as the capacity to act from this gap, under conditions of ungroundedness, when there are no stable foundations or final answers determining the most appropriate course of action. For him, conflict, instability, and ungroundedness are basic features of political life. Political subjectivity does not arise through involvement in an already established system of meaning. It emerges when a subject confronts instability; the absence of any final social foundation defines the starting point for political action.
The subject must confront a void in two respects. The first is the void within the subject. As he writes, there is a “the insecure position of a human subject” (p. 81). The second void concerns society, or its symbolic order. Laws, institutions, traditions, political authorities, religions, and ideologies all help to organise collective life. They work by presenting themselves as legitimate and stable. Yet none can provide a complete justification for its own authority. If we keep asking why a particular law is legitimate or why a political order should be regarded as fair, we eventually reach a point at which no final answer is available.
The political subject is ‘ticklish’ and vulnerable. Like a body that reacts when touched at a point it cannot fully control, the subject is affected by something foreign or unresolved, by what it cannot master. The individual is not fully defined by the existing order, and the order is not fully justified by itself. Uncertainty exists not only in the subject but also in the world as we describe it, and must be recognised in the relation between the subject and the world. Žižek describes this condition as “the ‘loss of a loss’, … a double movement of renunciation — of first sacrificing every thing, the very substance of our being, for some universal Cause, and then being compelled to confront the vacuousness of this Cause itself” (p. 370). Double void emerges when two incommensurable forms of void overlap, when the void voids itself. In political situation, the subject cannot simply step outside the symbolic order, but also recognises that the order demanding obedience has no ultimate guarantee. Political subjectivity emerges at this overlapping point: not by resolving the impossibility of a complete social order, and not by accepting it passively, but by acting within it.
Get Bojan Radej’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Political subjectivity emerges when a subject interrupts its assigned role, ruptures the existing symbolic order that frames these roles, and begins to act as the bearer of political will under conditions that no established rule or role can settle. Žižek uses Antigone as an example: she is expected to obey the ruler but acts beyond her assigned role by burying her brother, thereby exposing the limits of the law. Her ‘fidelity to the act of rupture’ lies in refusing to retract this defiance in the face of the authority that condemns it. Fidelity changes rupture from a momentary act of defiance into a sustained position from which the subject continues to act.
The subject emerges in this negativity, when certainty breaks down through rupture. “[W]e encounter the subject qua the void of negativity” (p. 61). He posits the subject as negativity, a void or an emptiness of being that conceptually challenges traditional notions of the self (Parker). “[T]he void of pure negativity” (p. 105) becomes, in his philosophy, the very basis from which the political subject emerges.
In his philosophy, negativity is the central term from which his central term ‘the void of negativity’ derives. Negativity is prior to negation: understood as constitutive lack, antagonism, contradiction, or impossibility, it precedes the act of negation. Negation only expresses or actualises an already operative negativity. Negativity is then positioned on both sides of negation which gives it foundational character and a remarkable structural primacy. In our reconstruction, negation operates through three modes in The Ticklish Subject: as constitutive negation, dialectical inversion, and transformative subversion, through which the void and negativity relate in different ways.
The void is first disclosed through constitutive negativity, because neither the subject nor society possesses a complete positive foundation. Negation strips away beliefs and determinate content until nothing remains but the bare act of doubting itself, as in Descartes. The void is not an empty room but one emptied. It is neither mere absence, a hidden essence waiting to be discovered, nor simply a deficiency or failure. As Žižek puts it, “The subject is the negative gesture of breaking out of the constraints that opens up the space of possible subjectivization” (p. 160). He prioritises negativity over any positive as well as over any neutral standpoint since there is no stable position outside social conflicts from which competing claims can be observed or balanced. There is no neutral ground, no neutral middle beyond ideology or contradiction.
The second mode of negation is inversion. The subject’s relation to constitutive negativity generates the act that ruptures the old (closure). Inversion is performed by the political act — a collective refusal, a strike, or an uprising — presented as “the very core of politics” (p. 187), by suspending, temporarily at least, the mechanisms of hegemony. He claim that “the subject … emerges in the course of an act of decision/choice that is not grounded in any pre-given factual Order” (p. 182). An act initially appears as a frightening interruption, without imagining what comes next. Through the act, something emerges that was not given in advance. Žižek allows for the positive effects of negativity while denying the possibility of a positive resolution of negativity through the closure of constitutive lack. The inversion enacted by the act transforms the subject’s relation to negativity: it ceases to function as a limit to political action and becomes the condition that makes genuine political novelty possible.
Following the inversion performed by the political act, the third mode of negation, subversion emerges within the structural impossibility of final transformation, as a transformation in the subject’s relation to the absent centre. Negativity becomes recognised as the condition from which political intervention proceeds, while changed symbolic coordinates make a previously impossible demand intelligible. Subversion therefore transforms the symbolic order while preserving its irreducible incompleteness and suspending the demand that political action must ultimately be grounded. Political subjectivisation occurs when groundlessness itself is pursued as the condition of political intervention.
His notion of the absent centre captures this logic. He developed the term through his critique of Laclau’s concept of ‘absent fullness’ as something that can be temporarily represented, whereas Žižek treats the centre itself as structurally impossible to establish. This is not an empty space (Laclau’s ‘empty signifier’) awaiting to be completed with meaning, but a crack in the foundation that cannot be filled, only confronted, reshaping everything built around it. He emphasises that society has no real, solid centre holding it together — only a gap — yet that gap still acts as a centre, pulling every conflict back towards it. Political life is organised around this centre as a vertical, hierarchical structure. It is a permanent empty spot that can hold a system together.
The importance of the absent centre for the constitution of the political subject and for constitution of any democratic collective entity may be reconstructed in this article by distinguishing two modes of relating the subject to the absent centre and the transition between them represents the core development of its subjectivisation. The first mode may be described as orbital geometry, in which the absent centre functions as an attractor — a region around which the subject oscillates as a referential point for the missing foundation, with its fantasies of positive values, groundedness, and identity, without ever entering it but also without recognising that the lack itself is constitutive. Orbirtal movement corresponds to Žižek’s psychoanalytic account of fantasy, which provides a framework through which the subject can sustain its relation to an underlying lack. The political subject, its identity is organised around a gap. Orbital geometry organises the subject by the absent centre without yet assuming its own groundlessness.
In the second mode, which he termed as traversal geometry, the subject traverses the absent centre and assumes the absence of a final ground as constitutive of its own subjectivity, in this way becoming ungrounded, no longer seeking a final positive foundation behind the ideological fantasy. Subjectivisation is then the process of moving subversively from orbital to transversal relation to the absent centre. Negation breaks the existing determination; inversion transforms the function of negativity; subversion transforms the subject’s relation to the absent centre, through which the subject becomes ungrounded.
The political significance of the ‘antisystemic’ (Wallerstein, 2014) revolutions of 1968 outlines how indispensable is Žižek’s subversive-traversal logic. Their historical novelty did not consist in establishing a new social order waiting on the other side of rupture, but in assuming groundlessness in political action following the act of rupture. Previous revolutions were oriented towards relatively determinate political horizons: the fall of the Berlin Wall in Central and Eastern Europe was driven by the aspiration to establish liberal democracy; earlier socialist revolutions likewise often imagined a determinate horizon beyond capitalism, supplied by a Marxist account of history. The revolutions of 1968, by contrast, exemplify rupture without a predetermined destination. Their enduring subversive force lies in revealing the possibility of collective action that no longer relies on the certainty of an already given historical destination. This is where Žižek’s account of the political Act becomes so original. Far from being a historical failure, the unresolved demands of the revolutions of 1968 continue to unsettle the symbolic coordinates of contemporary politics — both capitalist ideology and the institutional legacy of the Left. The same holds for Žižek’s philosophy: although he does not develop a political programme, his philosophy remains alive in political struggles because the questions he poses, and the specific way in which he poses them, retain their pressing urgency.
Constitutive negation is where Žižek’s philosophy is strongest. Inversion is where it is most generative and where he is most original. Subversion, however, is where his model remains unfinished: he does not move beyond negativity to elaborate ungroundedness through indeterminacy. Such an ordering of the three modes is, given his fundamental orientation, entirely consistent: his explanatory power decreases as the dominance of negativity declines across these modes — in the first, negativity is exclusive; in the second, it becomes a positive force; in the third, it must give way to indeterminacy beyond negativity.
Žižekian negativity thus moves asymmetrically through distinct structural moments — it remains theoretically overdeveloped in certain respects while remaining underdeveloped in others. Most importantly, it leaves insufficiently addressed how groundlessness can be incorporated into the political order. Political subjects that have traversed the void and acted without guarantees also require the capacity — or robustness — to inhabit groundlessness as an ongoing systemic condition. The following section therefore examines the limits of Žižek’s model of political subjectivation by asking how his philosophy erodes the transformative potential of its own radical framing.
(Second chapter in my new paper (working title): “The Limits of Negativity: The Unfinished Project of the Political Subject”)
