Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Is Zizek popular because he is the obscene stain of academic discourse? (because he sucks)?

Slavoj appears to be a serious Lacanian capable of translating almost anything into what he calls "Lacanese." His prose is energetic, inteilligent, and, perhaps best of all, he can be funny. Isn't what appears udner the name "Zziek" as authentic political philosophy / Lacan 6.0 psychoanalysis actually a masquerade, a sham that makes Zizek either into the ultraLacanian charlatan / shaman or the dupe who dupes his readers and himself into thinking he has something to say. Are his rhetoric of overkill (why say anything briefly if you can say it ad nauseam) and suicitation (if you said something in a previous book that was good why not repeat it whole-cloth in your present book?) "sinthomes" or "symptoms?" Consider, for example, the lengthy chapter on "political subjectivation" (borrowed from Jacques Racniere) in The Ticklish Subject. Does Ziek really any anything worth listening to? He begins by characterizing three theorists as the inversions of what they appear to be, then translates them first into "Hegelese" and "Lacanese" and finally comes out at Derrrida's Spectres of Marx. In no case does he actually quote from any of the authors he discusses. In no case does he read. Is is just the ideal pundit of academics? Is that why he gets op-eds published in the NY Times? Because he doesn't read and reading hims relieves the reading of the responsibility of reading, of not having to "traverse the fantasy," which is precisely what Zizek never does while claiming constantly to have done it? My recommendation: Press "Eject" Zizek. Put the slightest pressure on his randomly structured "arguments" and they dissolve into the obscene stains of roadkill.

No comments: