I en diskussion kring olika typer av fundamentalism närmar sig Zizek den fundamentalism han menar är en av de mest ideologiskt omärkbara, och mest komplicerade idag. Nämligen den ekologiska fundamentalismen. Samtidigt rör han sig väldigt nära diskussionen kring den komplexa frågan transcendens/immanens och den svåra distinktionen mellan att vara ansvarig för sina handlingar eller att lyda en högre auktoritet. Denna diskussion är aktuell, inte minst för kyrka, idag då den handlar om vilket sätt vi har en relation till Gud. Skall vi lyda eller ta ansvar för Gud?
"We all know we are in deep shit, global warming, whatever. The problem is, why don’t we act? I think it’s a perfect example of what in psychoanalysis is called the fetishist disavowal: ”I know very well but…” We know it very well, but! You hear a talk, you read a text about ecology, it convinces you then you step out, you see there is sun there are birds, rain. And you, precisely because we are imbedded in [Nature], wired into it we cannot really accept that this can change. So i think paradoxically wee need more alienation from nature. In the sense of that we have to accept nature in its total contingency. Madness, that’s nature. Nature is not balanced, paradise. Nature is… you know something happens, small imbalance and everything goes crazy, i mean every natural balance is temporary, fragile and so on. Why am I saying this? Because this would be for me to bring it to the end what Lacan says ”the Big Other doesn’t exist”. You know usually people say either you are a subjectivist, self-responsible - and this means you are arrogant absolute subject. Or you defer to the higher authority. The difficult thing is to separate between these two, to accept that we are totally responsible but nonetheless we are not absolute subjects. It is a very difficult position to sustain, but I think we will be forced into it."
