On Sloganeering

A meta-commentary on movements.

It is true that we are limited in the extent to which we can convey complex messages over social media. However, the issue is that the truth is in the details, and always within a gray area—nothing is truly ever black-and-white. And we know this is the case when working within an understanding of the Hegelian dialectic & dialectical materialism. 

One of the biggest factors is the attention-economy we are working within—and especially prevalent on social media. (A very important topic that requires more analysis—will come later.)

What is the issue with sloganeering? 

Sloganeering is a way to convey concepts in a simplified, bite-sized manner. However, its simplicity also is a double-edged sword.

The issue with sloganeering is that it often conveys a misleading picture, of one that is oversimplified. At the same time, slogans are often the primary form of information that the masses are receiving. Consequently, conditioning us to think in an oversimplified manner that does not convey the true complexity of situations. 

Sometimes, sloganeering is used as a way to avoid doing actual thinking or serious consideration of a topic. Again, leading people to become closed-minded and stuck in their ways, which can become dangerous—manifested within the pattern of “all x are bad!” or “I will never do x.” This is black-and-white thinking.

What is the issue with black-and-white thinking?

Black-and-white thinking, or splitting, is a pattern of thinking described within psychological practice that represents itself as extreme dichotomy, and not bringing together an understanding of that dichotomy within a cohesive whole. Sloganeering encourages black-and-white thinking.

An over-adherence to black-and-white thinking leads to a misleading representation of reality. The antithesis to black-and-white thinking is non-dual thinking. 

Although there is significant literature on the merits of non-dual thinking, it is important to understand that true non-dual thinking involves thinking beyond the dichotomy between duality and non-duality itself. Nagarjuna argued that the concepts of duality and non-duality are two sides of the same coin, where non-duality is the ultimate reality that transcends all dualities, and duality is merely an illusion and that there is really only one reality. In essence, non-duality requires an understanding of duality, while also being beyond all dualities. This also includes being beyond the duality of the dichotomy between duality and non-duality. 

Hegel believed that non-duality was a state of existence where everything is one and nothing is separate, where everything is a part of an all-encompassing Oneness, and where the appearance of a division or separation between things is a part of the dialectical process that will resolve itself through constant change and contradictions. 

Both Hegel and Nagarjuna advocated for this sense of non-duality as the ideal state of relating—allowing for a complete understanding and acceptance of all things. Nagarjuna and Hegel occasionally utilize contrasting terminology, which may lead a reader to conclude that they have major differences, however, at its foundational level, Nagarjuna and Hegel were both meta-philosophers in the sense of advocating for a process of relating with the world rather than a fixed set of reductive principles. Like Hegel, Nagarjuna rejected the notion of an ultimate reality, meaning a fixed state of being. Hegel’s process of thinking beyond duality, as seen within black-and-white thinking, is called dialectical reasoning, or dialectics.

Besides black-and-white thinking not being the beacon of epistemic truth, it is also harmful towards relationships, and positive relationships are the cornerstone of good community organizing and strong movements. 

Some reasons for sloganeering besides merely not knowing better.

Sloganeering, as a catch-all, is not just an innocent mistake. Rather, sloganeering provides an outlet, where individuals can feel vindicated for believing the “proper thing” but not needing to do the actual thinking. In this way, sloganeering can become a cover-up for one’s ignorance.

For Zizek, there is a hidden element of enjoyment within ignorance. In his work, For They Know Not What They Do, Zizek argued that enjoyment arises from ignorance, where in the situation that “one doesn’t (want to) know, in the blanks of one’s symbolic universe, one enjoys, and there is no Father to forgive, since these blanks escape the authority of the Name-of-the-Father.” When living in a society where there is no epistemic authority—no “all knowing” authority, or “Father” to defer towards—this creates a gap in one’s symbolic universe. Without an authority to defer towards, anything goes. And perhaps more covertly, without an authority to defer towards, it doesn’t matter what the right way to live is. This is the precise element that allows for the element of enjoyment within ignorance. 

Zizek also differentiated enjoyment in ignorance from jouissance, which is a form of pleasure that comes from an overflow of awareness. In a way, there may be a synergy of enjoyment by maintaining one’s ignorance through the adoption of slogans, without requiring critical thought. This is the case because, at the same time as not needing to expend one’s own resources onto challenging a widely-accepted thought (which can potentially be damaging towards one’s ego and conception of the self), the individual can also enjoy in feeling vindicated for having the “right” stance at the “right” time. This may explain the phenomenon of the archetype of the “I support the current thing” kind of person—where one remains in relative ignorance, while at the same time, enjoying their pleasure from holding the “correct” stances. 

Where do we see sloganeering used in practice? 

We see sloganeering used within political movements to consolidate the thinking of the target audience, towards a type of ideal. This is often performed with the best intentions, and starts at a good place within that point in history. The issue presents itself when movements are unable to evolve with the constantly changing situations, and consequently creates a stasis within that movement, with several consequences. This issue is often manifested as an unyielding dogmatism towards already held preconceived notions. Besides merely creating an unrealistic view of the world, an unexamined usage of slogans has real consequences for movements. When working with the public, an adherence to an unrealistic view of reality has the very real consequence of alienating the target audience (aka: masses) by coming across as out-of-touch and unrelatable. Most people don’t want to feel like slogans are being figuratively forced down their throats, especially if these slogans are ones that intuitively misalign with their living situation and worldviews. On top of that, it is hard to predict exactly what the masses will think or feel at any given time, and this issue becomes compounded when working with an especially static framework while being resistant to change. 

How can I apply this to myself, and what comes next? 

A static approach is largely incompatible, in itself, with the principles of the Hegelian dialectic & dialectical materialism, which advocate for dynamic and ever-changing understanding of reality. It is important to be able to recognize when one is holding onto a notion that no longer serves oneself and others, and when to let go and allow for the process of change. 

This topic can be forever further analyzed, deconstructed, and reconstructed, but the main takeaway is to apply the understandings of a more flexible dialectical process, and avoid sloganeering in exchange for depth and nuance whenever possible. 

---

Sources

For They Know Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a political factor. Slavoj Zizek, Verso (2008).

Nonduality — Non/duality —  Many-One Duality. Oliver Griebel (2019).

Thought and Reality in Hegel’s System. Gustavus Watts Cunningham (1910).