dr Sinthome, for larvae’s sake, why do you need the facking New Republic to tell you that dr. Zizek is – not a fascist, mind you – but a PETIT fascist, in the employee of big fascists? Didn’t I tell you that when we first had sex in 2006? And they didn’t provide a full analysis either, because dr. Zizek’s fascism is contained in his deep Protestant love for his Heimat, the culprit of the Yugoslav war SLOVENLIA, and its Aryan ambitions on the Balkan penninsula.
Dejan, I can’t emphasize enough how much I do not wish to get in a long, drawn out debate about this, but in all fairness to Zizek, I do think the review falls short in a number of ways. First, the article fails to mention Zizek’s oft-repeated statements about choosing the “bad alternative” as a way of shifting the very co-ordinates of the debate. In other words, the aim is not to advocate the “bad” position as the review suggests, but rather to shift the terms of the debate and reveal the hidden assumptions that underlie the debate. I discuss this logic here in my article “Symptomal Knots and Evental Ruptures” (warning pdf).
Second, nowhere does the review outline Zizek’s arguments against liberal democracy. Rather, the article portrays Zizek as having an irrational loathing of liberal democracy and supporting totalitarianism or fascism, without explaining his antipathy to the current socio-politico hegemony of liberal democracy. This comes as no surprise given that The New Republic is a center-left rag that is fond of the DLC, and has largely ignored the economic foundations of our current political malaise, instead presenting issues in terms of “values” like so many American pundits.
Once again, I don’t want to get in a big argument about Zizek’s politics or positions with respect to Serbian politics. There are, however, a number of problems with the review no matter how inadequate Zizek’s politics might otherwise be (I tend to advocate the classical Marxist position described by the author vis a vis Negri and Hardt and traditional Marxism where the conditions for change must be met for change to occur).
“bad alternative” as a way of shifting the very co-ordinates of the debate. In other words, the aim is not to advocate the “bad” position as the review suggests, but rather to shift the terms of the debate and reveal the hidden assumptions that underlie the debate.
And what pray tell LEGITIMIZES this operation, this psychoanalyzing and subjective destitution of politics, if not dr. Zizek placing himself in the role of our collective Analyst – the one who knows ”what it’s really about”? Besides the article as far as I read did say that via the negation of negation, a constant shifting of perspective, dr. Zizek actually avoids getting to any kind of a substantial point *because he doesn’t really have any point to speak of. Interesting that I heard that point, while you found it appropriate to once again reiterate the shifting of perspective.
Once again, I don’t want to get in a big argument about Zizek’s politics or positions with respect to Serbian politics.
Well that’s just insolent. You’re placing yourself in the standard role of the white American supremacist who ignores the local cultural context in much the same way you have reprimanded psychoanalysts for ignoring alternative familial structures. And it’s not an issue of ”Serbian” politics at all, but the issue of Dr. Zizek supporting, and continuing to support, the economic conquest and political breakdown of one of the strongest, largest and most important socialist countries of the previous century.
That whole section of history remains in darkness, because what – you’re never ”in the mood” to pay any attention to it?
You’re still a cultist, despite your pretensions to rationality.
I’ve got a doubt: what is saddest/most discouraging, the article or comments like that Charlotte who claimed that it was high time for someone to dare unmask Zizek and, then, say she will never waste her time reading anything by him…?
parody center:”And what pray tell LEGITIMIZES this operation, this psychoanalyzing and subjective destitution of politics, if not dr. Zizek placing himself in the role of our collective Analyst – the one who knows ”what it’s really about”?”
Kvond: What I find most hilarious (in both a critical, but also enjoyable kind of way) is the manner in which Zizek abhors…and I do mean abhors, a fan-base which sees him as “the subject-supposed-to-know”, as one sees in the self-named docu-film. When they touch him he recoils as if from a disease. He can enjoy the position, as long as he is not forced to occupy it, so to speak.