I have not read very much by Slavoj Zizek because what I have read by him has struck me as lackluster or worse. One of these days I’ll get around to really reading him seriously, because I know people - people I take seriously - who take him seriously.
A friend sent me a thing that Zizek wrote, supposedly a review of Simon Critchley’s new book (though it seems to me that the piece fails as a book review strictly speaking; the piece merits reading largely for the letters sent in response). In it Zizek puns on Marx’s vampire metaphor to note that the capitalist vampire seems to keep rising up again after being killed.
What Zizek does not do is unpack what he means by “capitalism” (or by “the left”). His real interest in the piece seems to be in the state and in war. Of course it’s a book review so there’s only so much space, but Zizek would not have to look far at all to find marxist debate on the nature of the USSR and the PRC, some participants in which - the type that I find convincing - argue that these were never non-capitalist regimes but rather were state capitalist regimes as opposed to market capitalist regimes. Thus in those cases the vampire of capital wasn’t killed but changed form, from horde of rats to wolf. Communist society not having been achieved, capitalism has not been abolished yet, so the resurrection Zizek posits is overstated. I’m not favorably predisposed to Chavez - I’ve got a kneejerk antistate politics related to that which Zizek caricatures - though I can’t really speak to Venezuela as I’ve not followed it. Still, it seems to me that Zizek would have a stronger more nuanced argument about Chavez if he engaged with the issue of state capitalism. I don’t think nuance or stronger argument (in terms of logical rigor, not rhetoric - Zizek excels at the latter) is what Zizek is after. Nor does his seem to me to be a serious marxism. He invokes Marx for the sake of metaphor and for the rhetorical weight that name carries, but capitalism as it appears in his review is of the “you know, like, capitalism”, an everybody-knows-what-I-mean sort of common sense use of the term. That’s fine, but it sheds little light.
Also in the dark in Zizek’s articles are movements and organizations. Left academics loom larger - Critchley, Hardt and Negri, anonymous postmodernists and culture studies people - though they too are in the background. Zizek notes only the EZLN, mostly via Marcos, and antiwar demonstrations. There is no mention of antiglobalization, of piqueteros, of occupied factories, of parties, of unions, of collectives, of networks, of federations, of strikes, of riots, etc; despite Zizek’s criticism of the EZLN for failing to “directly attack” capital and the state (never mind that the EZLN began in armed uprising). Nor is there any mention that what he claims Critchley prescribes - unfulfillable demands - has a history or at least a precursor in the posing or attempt to pose economic demands which can not be realized, just as what Zizek prescribes does as well - precise, patient demands via involvement with the state, because apparently that is what a “direct attack” means.
None of this is surprising. Zizek is a pundit. His peers are fellow pundits and policy makers, and like those peers he is well paid. The acronym of one of the places that pays or has paid him makes the point - Birkbeck’s Centre for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, CASH. http://www.bbk.ac.uk/cash/ CASH is Zizek’s first loyalty, so why should he critically consider the institutions and social relations which maintain it?
(Birkbeck has since changed the name of the institute, perhaps having had its ego bruised by an opinion piece it references on the main page of the institute.)
Yeah, I fully agree about Zizek. For all I know his earlier Lacanian stuff could be great. But his ventures into politics and political economy are laughable. My impression is that he is cynical about it too, unlike a lot of capital T theorists. He’s like the emperor with new clothes, but he’s an exhibitionist so he loves it.
The piece you mentioned a few posts ago was so ludicrous I can’t imagine he meant it seriously. Still, the Zizek backlash is well underway. That Critchley piece was attacked all over the show, see Chabert’s site for example.
Comment by Mike Beggs — December 28, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
I think punditry best explains it. While Zizek does do some serious theory work, in his political commentary he is best described as a pundit. CASH-money describes it all: I think the real difference with folks like Zizek is that we are committed to real political projects that attempt to enact the radical change we want to see (we are committed to a praxis and an outcome), while I think he engages in his discussion and critique without this committment (except his committment to CASH as you say, an outcome that we are so deprived of).
Comment by Adam W. — December 28, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
I have to admit, I tend to have a similar reaction to Zizek - and a similar feeling that I do need to tackle some of his more serious work, as other people seem to find something there. So many things to read… So little time… And reading his more editorial pieces tends to evoke a reaction in me, that manages to push back the date when I tackle his work in a more substantive way… (Again, with caveats that I say this in effective ignorance of what he does, when he takes space and time to do it properly…)
Comment by N Pepperell — December 29, 2007 @ 4:40 am
Just scroll down this link to find a hilarious pic of Zizek:
http://www.higher-yearning.org/2005_07_01_archive.html
Comment by Adam W. — December 29, 2007 @ 9:37 am
Hey All. I am at the moment trying to embark on a serious reading of Zizek - personally being a more of a Virno/Negri kind of person. Zizek, with Badiou, represents ,perhaps, the most serious intellectual challenge on the Left to the idea of multitude and its emancipatory democracy. The thing that is so frustrating about Zizek’s critique of the Zapatistas is that it is not about the Zapatistas at all. Indeed the Zapatista struggle can be read favourably through a Zizekian lens. Rather it is an attack at the dream world of alter-globalisation movements and Negri. It is a bankrupt rhetorical trick
rebel love
Dave
Comment by grumpy cat — January 3, 2008 @ 3:50 am
hi Dave,
Nice to hear from you! What you reading by Zizek? Maybe I can stomach reading him in order to join you, that could be fun.
take care,
Nate
Comment by Nate — January 3, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
Hi Nate, my friend Naima commented the other day that “all you seem to read at the moment is written by Zizek” - i was sleeping after work (in a call centre) surrounded by a small book fort. The titles of these books included The Sublime Object of Ideology,The Parallax View, The Universal Exception , Iraq: The Borrowed KettleOn Practice and Contradiction by Mao with Zizek’s intro and the recent collection of essays on Lenin that he co-edited. Personally i think the longer books are much weaker than his shorted better structured punchier essays. It could be fun to read something together. I think maybe a shorter more polemical piece, maybe on of the on lines essays from ? Something relevant? Or maybe to look at one of his themes , say perhaps the question of ideology?
rebel love
Dave
Comment by grumpy cat — January 7, 2008 @ 8:35 am
hi Dave,
I’m up for reading some Zizek together. His stuff is all checked out from the library, so something online would work well for me. Like I said, I’m not real up on Zizek, so I’m not sure where to start - how to tell more serious and important works from ones which are less so.
A few options for places to start
on Mao
http://www.lacan.com/zizmaozedong.htm
on Badiou
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-psychoanalysis-in-post-marxism.html
http://www.lacan.com/zizou.htm
Articles involving Lenin
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-a-plea-for-leninist-intolerance.html
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-seize-the-day-lenins-legacy.html
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-repeating-lenin.html
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-can-lenin-tell-us-about-freedom-today.html
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-leninist-freedom.html
http://www.lacan.com/zizekfinland.htm
http://www.lacan.com/replenin.htm
http://www.lacan.com/zizeklenin34.htm
On New Orleans and Paris
http://www.lacan.com/zizfrance.htm
Long lists of article:
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek-articles.html
http://www.lacan.com/bibliographyzi.htm
That’s more than enough for a start, though if you’ve got others in mind I’m amenable. If not, how about we start with the Mao one? Then from there I’d like to either do the Badiou or the Lenin ones (or both groups of articles). What do you think?
take care,
Nate
Comment by Nate — January 8, 2008 @ 10:48 am
Hi Nate , i would like to start with the one on Mao. It actually presents Zizek arguments about both capitalism and revolution pretty well…..and it is about Mao.
rebel love
Dave
Comment by grumpy cat — January 9, 2008 @ 8:23 am
sorry about typos…am sleepy
Comment by grumpy cat — January 9, 2008 @ 8:26 am