A lot has already been written, not the least in Reartikulacija, about the various aspects and levels of appropriation that neoliberal capitalism makes use of in order to reinstate itself and its own ideology. In this article I wish to focus on the various levels of appropriation of crisis; that is, situations of crisis, states of emergency, which are, in the first place, created by the systems of power of the governing structures and largely serve the logic of capital, and are, secondly an important element for the spreading of Western values of democracy and capital. In the context of appropriation of crisis I am not interested primarily in the invested capital and the resulting profit, but rather in the construction of language which allows for the naturalization of situations of crisis, violence and states of emergency, and through them builds an internalised ideology of neoliberal capitalism which is thus able to spread into all existing pores of contemporary society.

In “Contesting the Cynicism of Neoliberal Discourse: Moving towards a language of possibility”, Panayota Gounari writes: “One way that market ideology is naturalized and disseminated, is through the use of a commodified, de-historicized language, where terms such as knowledge, skills, access, freedom, choices, opportunities, and so forth acquire a new content and are aligned with the logic of the market.”1 This is indeed an important statement, which demonstrates the power of the market logic (the essence of neoliberalism) that adjusts various levels of societal discourses to a comparable degree, and especially refers to the logic’s ability to break or transform the connection between language and its meanings. This initiates a new formatting of language and words – their meanings are defined on the basis of historical origins, but are nevertheless transformed to the point where only a one-way interpretation is allowed; meanings are most commonly contaminated with the expansionist logic of neoliberal capitalism. This is why, for example, the Western tendency towards democratisation of the world automatically incorporates the imposition of market economy as the only option for the newly “liberated” countries. Gounari also highlights the example of discourse of human rights which is “used only as a cover to penetrate other countries’ economies and/or to legitimize military interventions abroad.”2 We will return to the discourse of human rights later, as I would first like to draw parallels between the logic of construction of a neoliberal language and the discourse of crisis as it is being utilized by the first world and its faithful servants (agents) in other parts of the world. As already indicated, the discourse of crisis is a very suitable tool to export democracy (and thereby market economy) to the second and the third worlds, but also very important is the appropriation of crisis when it comes to naturalization and legitimization of this kind of undertaking, be it with the population of the newly-established democracies or the population in the countries that export democracy. In regards to the countries that export democracy, we may also point out the system of values which is constructed on the basis of clearly defined Western optics and consequently the polarization of the world and self-evidence of these values that both occur as part of this system. As we shall see in the end, the analysis of appropriation of crisis also shows the inability of modern-day institutions of critique to react within the context of an almost cynical delight, which is in a great deal displayed mostly by the ruling social class.

In “Live and let die: Colonial Sovereignties and the Death Worlds of Necrocapitalism”, Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee says: “The creation of new spaces of exceptions is a weapon for the ideological arsenal of empire where the imposition of an economic relationship becomes paramount, using brute force if required. Thus, the right to rule is justified ‘by the right, indeed the obligation, to produce exchange value’.”3 Banerjee also exposes the issue of Iraq as the prototype of contemporary colonisation, where state of emergency serves firstly for the occupation and then for the reconstruction of the territory from the perspective of Western investors, not to mention the control of natural resources. What is interesting here is the language used for legitimizing the state of emergency. The structure of language namely makes use of a whole arsenal of neoliberal democratic ideological terminology, from freedom, and opportunity to peace, etc., and is complemented by a clear demand for the establishment of links with the global market that offers possibilities to foreign (Western) investors. In short, for the “liberated” countries there is only one option and that is to conform to Western imperialism and to allow the capital to colonise them anew. In his A Brief History of Neoliberalism4, David Harvey claims that after the Second World War, the USA forced European colonial empires to decolonize so that the USA was then able to colonize these territories anew by enforcing laws that support privatization and free trade, which opened the path of broadening neoliberal ideology and investments from the West. Harvey also ascertains that the USA’s tendency for decolonization may be compared to the tendency of the West to demolish the iron curtain of communist and socialist states and federations, as in both cases this brought about a neoliberal economy, free trade and free market. If I use the example of Slovene independence, the self-evidence of the transition into neoliberal democracy becomes clearer as the discourse in use was one of crisis, a bipolar optics of the former totalitarian state and a new state of unlimited possibilities and freedom – a discourse which does not allow any other option but to decide for neoliberal global capitalism. It is interesting to point out the role that Slovenia plays today. It is an exemplary harbinger of neoliberal values in the service of the West and performs the function of colonizer in the West Balkans region. If we consider the example of Kosovo, we can find links between the recognition of its independence and the interests of Slovene investors in this territory.

Appropriation of crisis also enables mediation and strengthening of neoliberal values. I will focus on two cases which bear reference to the discourse of human rights and which occurred in Slovenia in the last year. In both we can see that the appropriation of discourses is going hand in hand with the assertion of ideology and we can see as well the way that this process affects the discourse of human rights nowadays. The first case relates to the event of honouring the international day of human rights, December 10th, in 2007, which the author Drago Jančar, conceived in the form of testimonies retold by political prisoners of the former system. This program was a typical case of esthetization, mythologization and glorification of violence that marked the dark period of our history with a clear message that such things should never happen again. If we remove the event’s highly aesthetic form, it is interesting to point out how such a presentation in a certain way reflects the ideology of an adolescent neoliberal state with a socialist past (also in terms of violating human rights) and how this ideology can contribute to the transformation of Slovene national identity according to neoliberal standards of the European Union. The script for the event was constructed with the intention of establishing a bi-polar perspective of past and present, the before and the now, through the optics of Slovene independence as the turning point which took Slovenia out of a totalitarian past and placed it into the liberal present. It is important that we are aware of the construction of a collective memory (a systematic and lengthy process, in which this particular event has no significant role, but can be viewed as a materialized example) which is based on a dual logic of the past and the present in which the current consumerist way of life seems taken for granted.

The second example is the TV programme Trenja (Frictions) (April 24th 2008, Pop TV) which dealt with the ombudswoman’s initiative, as she responded to (warned the general public of) the “humiliation and loss of human dignity”5 in the reality show Big Brother. What strikes the eye more than the fact that this debate developed in the direction of pure propaganda of Eurocentric, Christian and patriarchal moral values, is that the discourse on human rights was lowered to the level of a show intended for a young audience (where it is all about a generally accepted entertainment’s franchise present on the majority of TV channels) and displayed only a moralizing preaching of values of modern-day youth (supposedly being only violent and humiliating). Does this example not picture the inability of modern institutions to face concrete problematic issues? Are not these institutions transformed more and more into mechanisms that through asserting only their moralistic stances are here solely to keep order and discipline when it comes to challenging Western capitalist values? In relation to this issue, it is important to outline a fundamental characteristic of capitalism, one that made it so successful, as self-evidence. In ”What Are We Capable Of? From Consciousness to Embodiment in Critical Thought Today” Marina Garcés writes: “Because capitalism is not forced to defend or justify itself its self-evidence has become a new form of dogmatism. This dogmatism without masks cannot be demystified or combated by any form of exposure.”6 What is exhibited here is the inability to produce any kind of critique, since capitalism managed to form systems of self-criticism, which through depolitization of a population supply constant reproduction of capitalist ideology. That is why situations of crisis can no longer bear a collective revolt but only an increase of nationalism and aggression diligently exploited by the rightist governments of Western democracies.

It is perhaps due to the inability of critique and a lack of reflection by the nation that the most cynical and degenerated appropriation of crisis is rendered possible. In neoliberal capitalism this crisis is executed by the ruling class purely for their own amusement. Recently, for instance, Vivienne Westwood staged a fashion show in which her extravagantly designed creations were composed of worn-out clothing. Westwood said that this was her response to the current financial crisis in the world, as her creations showed how people affected by the crisis can variegate their outfit by putting on worn-out clothes. Such cynicism is somewhat similar to the statement »If they haven’t got bread, then let them eat cake.«

Staš Kleindienst is an artist and a theoretician, post-graduate student at the Academy of Fine Arts and Design, Ljubljana.

Translated from Slovenian by Jernej Možic.

[top]