We associate Freud with the repression of thoughts and feelings. But he also described a subtler defense: recognizing an uncomfortable truth, yet acting as if it didn’t matter—a phenomenon he called disavowal. In this interview, philosopher Alenka Zupančič, a close collaborator of Slavoj Žižek, argues that disavowal is the key to understanding our political paralysis. From climate change to populism to the performative outrage of social media, Zupančič says the problem isn’t that we deny reality—it’s that we acknowledge it endlessly and keep doing nothing.

Oliver Adelson: Your latest book spans politics, philosophy, psychology, and more, but there’s one concept that you think is essential for making sense of all these areas: disavowal. What is disavowal, and why is it so key for understanding our predicament?

Alenka Zupančič: It’s something that I started to think about really intensely a few years ago. So it’s not that it’s been with me the whole time, but I think it captures something essential—as you put it—about this time. And it’s a very interesting concept, because we are used to this other concept, which is simple denial. You know, denial of climate change, denial of this or that.

But disavowal functions in a much more perverse way. Namely, by first fully acknowledging some fact—“I know very well that this is how things are”—but then going on as if this knowledge didn’t really matter or register. So in practice, you just go on as before. And I think this is even more prevalent in our response to different social predicaments than simple denial.

You mentioned climate change, and I want to pick up on the difference between denial and disavowal here. Do people who declare the truth of climate change but then do nothing—do they perhaps do more harm than the deniers of climate change through their disavowal?

Yes, this is precisely one of my points in the book—that they are doing perhaps more damage. Or, what is even more important, they are entrapped in this kind of pas de deux with the direct deniers, because they present themselves as much more rational. They say, “Look at these stupid people. They just don’t believe in climate change. But we are enlightened. We know all about it.” But in the long run, nothing really happens. The practices remain just the same. You organize a couple of climate conferences, but growth still remains the principle of social functioning, and so on. So I think, not only is it more dangerous because it is more prevalent—I mean, there are many more people who are into this kind of disavowal functioning—but it’s also dangerous because there is this dance between the two.

The deniers, who are often associated with so-called conspiracy theories—they point to these elites who just use it as some kind of scheme to enrich themselves. Whereas the elites, who do get richer and richer, point at the deniers, saying, “Okay, but they are the real bad guys,” while they do exactly nothing. It is a real problem.

Do you think this perhaps explains why we have populists and business-as-usual figures in our politics? Do these represent denial and disavowal?

Precisely. I think we are really tragically condemned to this kind of opposition, which, in my eyes, is not even a true opposition, because the two sides really need each other and support each other.