One of Slavoj Žižek’s recent pieces in Le Monde Diplomatique has nothing to do with Lebanon… and everything to do with it. It is about the war in Congo, but — like this previous post — it is also about how seemingly archaic forms of civil strife are actually embedded in their “modern” conditions and about the banality of trying to separate the one from the other. It is also about why Africa receives less attention in the media than places like Lebanon or Palestine: the more “tribal” the conflict seemingly is, the more “natural” its violence is perceived to be.
I have not been able to find the original article, so some of the subtleties might be lost in this translation of a translation, but Žižek’s main point is this:
We can discern the contours of global capitalism under the facade of ethnic conflict. After the fall of Mobutu, Congo no longer existed as a unified, operational state, especially not the eastern part which is a patchwork of territories ruled by local warlords each controlling their own patch of land with an army which normally includes doped children. All the warlords have business contacts with foreign companies or industries who (mainly) profit from mining the riches of the region. This arrangement works well for the partners: the businesses receive exploitation rights without being burdened with taxes or other inconveniences, the warlords get money… The irony is that many of these [extracted] metals are used in high-technology products like laptops and mobile phones. In short, this is not about the local population’s primitive customs: if we remove the high-technology companies from the line, the entire structure of ethnic civil strife driven by old hate will collapse.
You might not agree with the final conclusion about the collapse — and Žižek is prone to theatricals — but the heart of the argument holds in the concluding sentence, a play on Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness:
There is definitely a lot of darkness in the dense Congolese jungle, but its heart is to be found elsewhere, in the illuminated head offices of our high-technology companies.
December 10, 2008 at 11:51 pm
It’s hard for me to take Žižek seriously, especially when he’s talking about places that he obviously knows very little about.
I haven’t read his piece, since I try to avoid both him and Le Monde Diplo as much as possible. But I will comment on this extract.
Before Mobutu, the Congo didn’t really function as a state either, with mineral-rich Katanga and Kasai provinces seceding. The fight to keep Congo united as a single country cost Patrice Lumumba and Dag Hammarskjöld their lives.
Furthermore, Zaire was far from a “unified, operational state,” with revolts, coups and rebellions constantly appearing, some of which were economic in nature, others ethno-messianic (see Simon Kimbangu and “King” Mizele).
I’m afraid that the Congo’s problems far predate “global capitalism,” at least as we understand it. The savagery of rubber collection by King Leopold in his own private “free state” was responsible for the deaths of somewhere in the ballpark of 8 million Congolese. This was not at all capitalism in action, but rather closer to medieval European feudalism than anything else.
Our Slovenian friend makes a common mistake, which is to equate greed with capitalism, when the former is obviously much older than the latter. Capitalism is just the latest system to accommodate man’s earthly appetite.
Finally, while much of the Congo’s current woes can be traced back to the greedy plunder by the Congolese and their neighbors, this greed is far from the only cause. And I can say with some certainty that peace would not reign supreme in the Congo if we were to wave a magic wand and disappear all the cobalt and gold mines of Kivu, Kasai and Katanga. (Ironically enough, the greedy plunder that Žižek argues is responsible for the conflict was also largely responsible for Mobutu’s ability to keep the country together through several decades.)
People like Žižek (and Mamdani) annoy me, because they take whatever happens to be the topic of the day and try to make it fit their one-trick pony shows. We don’t accept it when clearly uninformed people shoot their mouths off about Western politics or the hard sciences, but when it comes to Africa, or especially the Middle East these days, it seems that anyone can be an “expert.”
(Sorry if I sound overly peeved, but this is something that’s been annoying me for a while now.)
December 12, 2008 at 12:15 am
I’m not sure if you’ve read this article from Dissident Voice, which was written about a month ago.
http://lebanesechess.blogspot.com/2008/11/congo-full-story.html
I’m not entirely sure the removal of companies and Western interference would end the conflict immediately, but I do believe it would eventually subside. The warlords at the moment have access to the resources of the country, enabling them to buy arms, equip their soldiers, and pay for wars.
If we simply stop buying, the warlords lose the strength to fight. And as Lebanese are experts in the behaviour of warlords, we know what warlords do when they have no money and no support … they come crawling back to make peace in order to save their behind (e.g. Jumblatt et al).
Also, warlords inflame tribal and class divisions in order to prolong the conflict to serve their own selfish interests (another Lebanese trait). Without Western and Asian money fueling this conflict and the warlords, it would be very difficult for the protagonists to continue their struggle.
Zizek has some reason in his argument.
December 12, 2008 at 11:40 am
Sean, Antoun:
Sorry about the delay in releasing your comments. WordPress decided to moderate (probably because of the links) and then notify me on an older email.
Lots to discuss. I will get back to this later in the day.
December 13, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Anton,
Welcome back! Hope your ISP shift went well. I had missed the article you link to. Very interesting. It gives a glimpse of the level of complexity involved in this conflict. It was particularly interesting for me reading about the ways by which people identify and define themselves, using a blend of class, culture, nationalism, and ethnicity.
Sean,
I had my suspicions this post would elicit a reaction from you.
I am not a fan of Žižek’s either and I agree that it is far fetched that peace will reign supreme once the foreign companies are removed. But what interested me is the point he makes about how tribal or ethnic conflict cannot be divorced from its modern conditions, global capitalism being one instance of that. If I understand you correctly, you do not agree and are arguing instead that it is the very old problem of greed that shapes the conflict.
My Congo history is too frail to comment on that, but my history of European Imperialism is not. Brutal and monopolistic (even monarchic) accumulation is the hall-mark of how capitalism functions where there is primary material to be collected (a.k.a “primitive accumulation”). King Leopold’s free state (also “corporate state”) was not feudal. It was capitalism at its best, tying very neatly into a nineteenth century capitalist economy’s rubber demand for its industries (incidentally, Världskulturmuseet in Gothenburg had one of the best exhibitions I have ever seen on precisely that). Under a feudal system, there would be no point of collecting all that rubber.
And although greed is a common affliction, I think greed in an organized, industrialized form is a different creature. So, to me the question is less about when tribal violence in central Africa started (when did it end in Europe?) and more about how modern conceptions of identity and citizenship paralleled with successive changes in a global economy — from colonies to multinationals — feed into it and shape this violence (this neither means that it is “the only cause” nor does it exclude local leaders’ responsibility for the conflict).
You would be a better judge of whether it would be possible or not to talk about the conflict in Congo today in other terms. In the case of Lebanon, the answer is “no”.
December 13, 2008 at 7:39 pm
[Image here]
What we (Europeans) are still all about in the Congo.
(from the Museum of World Culture’s 2007 exhibition “Traces of Congo”.
- Børre
December 16, 2008 at 8:43 am
“And although greed is a common affliction, I think greed in an organized, industrialized form is a different creature”.
Doesn’t it talking about ‘modern conceptions of identity’ amount to talk about ‘modern conceptions of greed”? Who said “tribal violence” ever ended in Europe? It just took other forms…If capitalism is “greed in an organized, industrialized form”, isn’t the european nation-state “forced identity in an organized, industrialized form” smashing in its way cultural minorities?
December 16, 2008 at 10:54 am
I’ve been really busy and unable to respond, but very quickly, here’s the flip side of the idea that all of Congo’s ills stem for economic dispute. The response is probably the opposite that Žižek has in mind, but basic analysis is ironically pretty much the same.
December 16, 2008 at 9:36 pm
MJ,
Oh, yeah. I agree. And the marriage between capitalism and the state becomes all the more evident in times of crisis… like now, incidentally.