BY SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK
Now that the (select) details
of the accusation against Avital Ronell have become public, some journalists
and friends (or, rather, “friends”) asked me: do you still stand by your
support for her? My immediate reaction to this question is: do you still
believe in Avital’s guilt? If you do, then we don’t live in the same world. I
didn’t learn anything new in the now available data, so there is nothing that
should make me change my stance. From my perspective, two things immediately
strike the eye in the latest stage of this affair.
First is the breathtakingly
biased reporting in the big (and not so big) media. Not only were my (and
others’) texts defending Avital serially rejected (I was only able to
publish mine in The
Philosophical Salon), but also the letter of support signed by 120 of her
students went unreported – a clear indication where the power resides in this
case. The way the media covered the affair follows a certain pattern. Here is
the title of the report in The
Sunday Times: “Groping professor Avital Ronell and her ‘cuddly’ Nimrod
Reitman see kisses go toxic,” where the specific accusation of “groping” which
was not accepted by the court is highlighted as a fact. Later, it is usually
mentioned that Avital denies this accusation, but this denial is itself
relativized, as in the report in Salon which
first highlights the accuser’s statement:
“’She put my hands onto her breasts,
and was pressing herself — her buttocks — onto my crotch,’ he said. ‘She was
kissing me, kissing my hands, kissing my torso.’ That evening, a similar scene
played out again, he said.”
The report then goes on:
“Ronell has denied that any
such incidents occurred, and NYU’s investigation did not sustain Reitman’s
allegations of sexual abuse and stalking, largely because there were no
witnesses and no physical evidence. (A familiar outcome, let us note, for many
women who make similar claims.) His claim of harassment was sustained, based on
a lengthy pattern of emails in which Ronell addressed him with sexualized pet
names like ‘baby love angel’ or ‘cock-er spaniel,’ or described her desire to
kiss him or cuddle up together on her sofa.”
So, Ronell’s denial is duly
noted, but then it is immediately devalued: there were no witnesses or physical
evidence, so it is his word against hers, and sowing doubt in the victim’s
report is the usual strategy of harassers and their defenders. In short, the
message is clear: although Avital denies it, we all know the accusations are
true…
But what about the “lengthy
pattern of emails in which Ronell addressed him with sexualized pet names like
‘baby love angel’ or ‘cock-er spaniel,’ or described her desire to kiss him or
cuddle up together on her sofa”? Well, the first thing to do here is to situate
these emails in their true “pattern,” which is provided by the entire corpus of
messages, i.e., to include also his messages to her which, as we are getting to
now, constantly use the same language: “Just sending you infinite kisses and
love. Thank you for your being my most precious blessing”; “Mon Avital, beloved
and special one”; “Sending you infinite love, kisses and devotion,” etc.
etc. The eccentric pattern was followed by both parties involved, and when
the accuser claims he “acquiesced because he did not want to anger his
supervisor,” this is simply not convincing enough to explain his language. He
didn’t just tolerate her messages, but was fully caught in the spiral of
mutually reinforcing their tone.
Two questions arise as a
result. First, was this just eccentric talk or a prelude to sex? This question
is not difficult to answer, and not only because one was gay and the other
lesbian. It was a pattern of eccentric rhetoric, which was so excessive
precisely because it was based on the understanding that there is no actual sex
involved. (Incidentally, I know dozens of people who interact in this way.)
Second, how did this exchange function for each of the participants? It seems
clear that Avital participated in it with no ulterior motives, just enjoying
the game, while, as we know now, in his emails to third parties from the same
period, the accuser referred to her as “the monster” and “a witch”. So what
went on?
To explain the accuser’s
participation in the game with Avital through her position of power is
ridiculous. If he effectively felt oppressed and harassed, there were ways of
signaling this, which would have definitely not hurt his position. The only
reasonable explanation I see is that he engaged in (faking) a personal
friendship with her to get her help in promoting his career, and then dropped
her when he didn’t get the desired results because she was ethical enough not
to privilege him over others but continued to treat him professionally in
professional matters – it’s as simple as that. And he is now where he obviously
wants to be: enjoying the media spotlight on a model victim, a position which
gives him (and his supporters) all the actual social power to push Avital, the
figure with “power,” to the brink of social impotence and exclusion.
THE AUTHOR
The Slovenian Marxist
philosopher and cultural critic is one of the most distinguished thinkers of
our time. Žižek achieved international recognition as a social theorist after
the 1989 publication of his first book in English, "The Sublime Object of
Ideology“. He is a regular contributor to newspapers like “The Guardian”, “Die
Zeit” or "The New York Times“. He has been labelled by some the
"Elvis of cultural theory“ and is the subject of numerous documentaries
and books.
