Zizek and Critics

["Mason G" <kilgore_trout@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

I have noticed a number of criticisms (well, admittedly, only two) of Slavoj 
Zizek.  While, I cannot say I adhere to many of Zizek's beliefs (or his choice 
of films), not all the criticism is warranted.

In Zizek's defense of Leninism ("Repeating Lenin"), many points of his analysis 
represents contemporary academic revisionism that allows revolutionary theory 
to stand up to postmodernists such as Richard Rorty.

Louis Proyect writes:
>>(Is it a big surprise that Zizek offers critical support to biogenetics?  
>>Perhaps not in light of his life-long commitment to Freudian psychoanalysis, 
>>another reductionist discipline albeit one with less--none, actually--claim 
>>to science.)<<

Obviously, Zizek?s writings aren?t directed towards you.  An earlier criticism 
of Zizek on this list was the journals he publishes in.  Journals on art, 
literary study, and culture may not be the place where revolution occurs, but 
it was one of the main components in my interest regarding Marxism.

Zizek?s commitment, by the way, is to (post-)Lacanian psychoanalysis (in which 
Freud is reexamined in structural terms).  An allegory to the Lacan?Freud 
relationship would be that of Lenin?Marx (Zizek argues).  They each represented 
a movement to formalize philosophy.  In the 50s and 60s, structuralism 
dominated much academic thought, especially Continental philosophy.  Zizek, as 
a Continental psychoanalyst and philosopher, has been greatly influenced by the 
structural school of thought and is a post-structuralist.  His interpretations 
of discourse and history are directed at post-structuralist and post-analytic 
philosophers who are abandoning Marxism, and especially Leninism.  Instead of 
seeing Zizek as abandoning the revolution by taking a less hostile (sadly 
academic) role, perhaps we should see him as a sadly academic revolutionary.  
Combining philosophy and revolutionary theory ? and ending with something 
usable ? is a rather difficult task that even Lenin complained abo
 ut.

Post-structuralism (influenced a great deal by Nietzsche, currently defended by 
icons like Derrida) and post-analytic philosophy (defended by bourgeois-liberal 
Richard Rorty, founded by pragmatists like Dewey and Pierce) question the value 
of truth.  Before understanding, let alone accepting, Zizek?s position, one 
must understand the conceptualization of ?Truth? in contemporary philosophy.  
It is very difficult for the modern intellectual to accept Marxism when Rorty 
espouses the claim ?There is no such thing as an historical fact.?  Derrida?s 
work, Spectres of Marx, has been sitting on my bookshelf, unread, but I?ve read 
a number of reviews.  He uses the history of ?justice? to defend aspects of 
Marx, but he lacks the revolutionary enthusiasm that ?in-the-field? Marxists 
would want.

To individuals like Rorty, all truth statements are value statements.  
Everything that one projects to be true reflects the values of the speaker, not 
Truth or Reality at all.  In Rorty?s ?Death of Leninism? (or ?End of 
Leninism??I have a copy, but it is loaned out.  Contact me personally for an 
exact reference), he states that Lenin?s doctrine sacrificed other truths, 
other interpretations, and therefore shows how progressive measures, such as 
abolishing private property, are inherently unjust.  He makes claims along the 
lines of primitive accumulation, that capitalism is inherently ?fair? and 
market economy is ?right.?

Zizek?s articles are directed towards young academics who are torn between 
imposing characters like Rorty ? who?s philosophy looks so tempting.

By becoming interested in philosophy, I?ve already forsaken much of the 
importance bestowed upon dialectical materialism.  Once this fundamental 
component to Marxism is questioned, young intellectuals face some pretty bleak 
alternatives, as far as revolution goes.  They know they aren?t the 
revolutionary class, yet many at one point, or even still do, support 
revolution.  Zizek is an icon that can entertain youths from various 
disciplines, advocating from at least a Marxist premise (though, perhaps not 
radical enough for this list).  Perhaps he should be criticized for his 
opinions on movies, but not all of his work is lacking in content.

>Mason G

Post Script: Proyect states that (Freudian) psychoanalysis has no scientific 
base.  If you think Marx?s discourse and use of ?the scientific method? makes 
it a ?more truthful? Truth, then so be it.  But, I think Zizek would not bother 
responding ? though I suppose I would.
--
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup