Slavoj Zizek - a modern day marxist philosopher, or irrelevant opporunist?

[norwegian commie]

The title says it all. My question is about the cultural-theorist, and philosopher Slavoij Zizek, and his relation to marxism. He is one of todays most popular (if not most influental) philosophers, and a self proclaimed marxist (leninist, even). Asserting philosophical discussions, in the book "The ticlish subject" (on the cartesian subject) and other works, like "The parallax view".

Personally ive come to like his style - but cannot form a comprehensive view of his philosophical insights and its implications... What is your view on the guy?

(In this thread, the simplistic discussion of the supposed lacking value of philosophy all-together is ignored - this can be discussed in another thread.)

[RED DAVE]

Pseudo-leftist stand-up comic.

RED DAVE

[Sir Comradical]

Pseudo-leftist stand-up comic.

RED DAVE

All he needs is a drumset in the background.

*Badumtish!*

[norwegian commie]

Pseudo-leftist stand-up comic.

RED DAVE

It seems to simple to simply name Zizek a pseudo-leftist, as a critique it is quite unsatisfactory. First of all, reading for example his "In defense of lost causes", "First as tragedy then as farce", his talks against tolerance, charity, on ideology is all enlightening and interesting. In spite of the fact that the man may seem unsubstantial as a philosopher, due to his vulgar, provocative style (But, to put it in old-fashioned Marxist terms: we need to separate its form from its content...) – he should in my opinion be taken seriously and be met with a carefully constructed Marxist critique (that is, a critique taking its positive and negative elements in consideration).

I find his view on ideology as a reformulation of Marx' "They don’t know it but still do it" to "They know it, but still does it" interesting. As with his point that, in a sense, the task of philosophy now (or, our task) is to stop trying to change the world and try to understand it properly. He is refreshingly non-dogmatic and discusses classic Marxist notion in a manner that emphasizes the fact that WE, as a collective must evolve.

I am, above all, a marxist. (Member of a Norwegian organization called Marxistisk forum (could – non satisfyingly – be translated "Marxist debate")....) And I increasingly realize the need to challenge old dogmas (personally, if find the good old "reflection theory" and its relation to Marxist ontology - simply not valid. Even though this notion, and other somewhat positivistic notions, found support in Marx and Engels as progressive trends. I believe we must now reject these trends, if we wish to maintain a theory capable of defending.) - and that this is not something witch threatens Marxism as such, but rather is the condition of its existence as a radical theory capable of serving the needs of the fighting masses. (And I am not talking about anti-dogmatism as it is classically (somewhat dogmatically) quoted in Lenin: "marxism is not a dogma" etc. etc. (...) - but like real, actual, anti-dogmatism, not simply in theory. In this context, even though he sometimes can be wrong or ridiculous, Zizek is an extremely important and interesting figure.

So this discussion could – if you guys wish – take a moore specific turn, with a focus on Zizeks conception of ideology and his critique of the classic Marxist notion. Or we could discuss leanings towards hegelian-marxism in general, including both Zizek and Lukacs... We’ll se how it develops…

My point is, Zizek MAY indeed be a pseudo-leftist (however, I personally doubt it – but my insight in Zizek’s philosophical universe is rather limited), but he may also be the opposite. And my suspicion is that he is a man that may give the impression of being a pseudo-leftist because of his provocative attitude- but is in reality a really interesting character, the left should, if not embrace uncritically, properly critically review his views in an orderly manner - in accord with the best remains of the Marxist tradition.

EDIT: This is a vid of one of Zizeks lectures. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2530392910118230001#)

[Hiero]

Here he says he does not rate any of his currents works and that primarily he is a Hegelian and his life work will be book on Hegel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/jun/27/slavoj-zizek-living-end-times

[Chimurenga.]

Here he says he does not rate any of his currents works and that primarily he is a Hegelian and his life work will be book on Hegel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/jun/27/slavoj-zizek-living-end-times

He was totally serious in this one too: http://www.lacan.com/symptom2/?page_id=88

:cool:

[Invincible Summer]

I thought he referred to himself as a Stalinist in Zizek! but I could just not be getting his sarcasm

[norwegian commie]

Here he says he does not rate any of his currents works and that primarily he is a Hegelian and his life work will be book on Hegel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/jun/27/slavoj-zizek-living-end-times

Zizek also says: "I don't give clear answers to even the simplest, most direct questions,", and this is is the reason he is misunderstood by people labeling him as a Stalinist, or simply a Hegelian. His Stalinism consists in his provocative nature - but he is extremely critical towards Stalinism in all its shapes and sizes. Well, of course he is a Hegelian, but certainly considers himself a Marxist (certainly a member of the Hegelian-Marxian tradition, interpreting Marx in a Hegelian fashion). What he is "above all", Laconian, Hegelian, Marxist - varies from interview to interview. This is uninteresting - what we could and should discuss is the substance in his works AS a Marxist.

[Hit The North]

Well, of course he is a Hegelian, but certainly considers himself a Marxist (certainly a member of the Hegelian-Marxian tradition, interpreting Marx in a Hegelian fashion). What he is "above all", Laconian, Hegelian, Marxist - varies from interview to interview. This is uninteresting - what we could and should discuss is the substance in his works AS a Marxist.

I'd suggest that if he interprets Marx in a Hegelian fashion, this makes Zizek a Hegelian, not a Marxist. In order to lay a claim to Marxism, he should be interpreting Hegel from a Marxist, that is to say, from an historical materialist, point of view.

As for the merits of his work, I confess that I cannot understand it with any degree of clarity that would allow me to properly assess it.

[Hiero]

Zizek also says: "I don't give clear answers to even the simplest, most direct questions,", and this is is the reason he is misunderstood by people labeling him as a Stalinist, or simply a Hegelian. His Stalinism consists in his provocative nature - but he is extremely critical towards Stalinism in all its shapes and sizes. Well, of course he is a Hegelian, but certainly considers himself a Marxist (certainly a member of the Hegelian-Marxian tradition, interpreting Marx in a Hegelian fashion). What he is "above all", Laconian, Hegelian, Marxist - varies from interview to interview. This is uninteresting - what we could and should discuss is the substance in his works AS a Marxist.

But the fact is that Zizek's phd work is on Hegel, his entry into philosophy is Hegel. That becomes a big determing factor, the work and theorist that people use to come into a discipline is usually used as a grounding for understanding. If you enter with Marx and yet even change later on you are usually still answering questions that Marx raised and become post-Marxist.

I think it is true that when he says he is a Hegelian, he is a hegelian. Also when he says that people just want shity politics, that is what he thinks of the current left. That is why he doesn't give simple answers. In the film Zizek! (which isn't that good, Perverted Guide is better) he is perplexed that so many people came to see a lecture on based on Lacanian interpretation of culture and politics. The reason they are there is that they want shitty politics, they want to be re-told things they have already learnt, the usual propaganda about how things are getting worse and we need to unite and do this and that. Basically they want another Lenin but they are asking a man who is primarily a Hegelian who is trained in pyschoanalysis.

If anything he is sympathetic to Communism and uses Marxism to explain such things as jouissance(desire in surplus).

[norwegian commie]

I'd suggest that if he interprets Marx in a Hegelian fashion, this makes Zizek a Hegelian, not a Marxist. In order to lay a claim to Marxism, he should be interpreting Hegel from a Marxist, that is to say, from an historical materialist, point of view.

As for the merits of his work, I confess that I cannot understand it with any degree of clarity that would allow me to properly assess it.


But the fact is that Zizek's phd work is on Hegel, his entry into philosophy is Hegel. That becomes a big determing factor, the work and theorist that people use to come into a discipline is usually used as a grounding for understanding. If you enter with Marx and yet even change later on you are usually still answering questions that Marx raised and become post-Marxist.

Bob: Heard of György Lukács and his work "History and class consciousness”? Few doubt if Lukas is to be considered a Marxist at all – that he is. But he is a Marxist in a certain, specific, tradition: Hegelian Marxism. As with other Marxists belonging to other traditions, like Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism etc. Simply because Lukas belongs to a specific Marxist tradition, a Hegelian (and Leninist) one – it would in my opinion be unwise to automatically consider him a Hegelian, (or even Leninist) above all i.e above Marxist. Personally I used to consider myself a Marxist-Leninist – this does not mean I was a Leninist first, then a Marxist. On the contrary, I found my fundamental marxisan views far more important than my Leninist ones… Zizek is all this, that is, he is a Hegelian-Marxist Laconian Leninist.

Hiero: Problem with your argument is: Marx’ entry into philosophy was, also, through Hegel! And for him this was a big determining factor - and it was grounding for his understanding (read Kapital, and you clearly see that although Marx is no Idealist, the influence of Hegel is remarkable). The point is: Zizek didn’t enter with Marx and end with Hegel, he simply belongs to a tradition that, as I understand, considers Marx’ philosophical views to be highly rooted in Hegelian thought. Thus, their Hegelian-Marxism is simply (or not simply… but still) their view on how Marx is best understood…




I think it is true that when he says he is a Hegelian, he is a Hegelian. Also when he says that people just want shity politics, that is what he thinks of the current left. That is why he doesn't give simple answers. In the film Zizek! (which isn't that good, Perverted Guide is better) he is perplexed that so many people came to see a lecture on based on Lacanian interpretation of culture and politics. The reason they are there is that they want shitty politics, they want to be re-told things they have already learnt, the usual propaganda about how things are getting worse and we need to unite and do this and that. Basically they want another Lenin but they are asking a man who is primarily a Hegelian who is trained in pyschoanalysis.

If anything he is sympathetic to Communism and uses Marxism to explain such things as jouissance(desire in surplus).

Don’t we all consider the current left – at least the visible (social-democratic) one, too be precisely “shitty politics”. Of course it is. Your account of Zizek is far to simple, based on a few free-floating quotes. Read his political discussions… He critizises Chavez… Why? Well, for using the oil too sustain in-sustainable politics and to prolong the current state of not really exiting capitalism. The point is: we need revolutionary change. Among his works we find analyzis of (the Marxist notion of) capital-accumulation in the modern day virtual capitalism and a publishing of Lenins 1917-writings with commentary.

When Zizeks claims to be a Hegelian, we should believe him. But we should also believe in him when he claims to be a Marxist and a Leninist, and then publishing Marxist analyzis of modern day issues. He comments and revises the classical Marxist notion of ideology, in order to establish a modern Marxist notion!

He is not only sympathetic to communism, he is a communist and founder of the seminar: The idea of communism. He also participated, as a modern day Marxist philosopher, in “Marxism today” with a speech on “What does it mean to be a revolutionary today?”. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GD69Cc20rw&feature=PlayList&p=3B2F0B11F41753C6&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=11)

As a theorist he is a Marxist-Hegelian-Laconian, by self description. But sometimes he simply names himself a Marxist, Hegelian or even Dialectical Materialist. Considering the question: “Does Zizek consider himself to be a Marxist” – it simple answer, by both Zizek and commentators, is YES. And I see no further reason to dispute this. What I in fact was interested in, was a detajled discussion of the ups and downs of his Marxist thought.

[norwegian commie]

Hmm... I really wonder why so few leftists here really seem to take an interest in Zizek... My guess is, as he himself asserts, that his vulgar jokes and provocative nature seem to confuse and scare people away.

[Invincible Summer]

Hmm... I really wonder why so few leftists here really seem to take an interest in Zizek... My guess is, as he himself asserts, that his vulgar jokes and provocative nature seem to confuse and scare people away.

More that he writes in a very obtuse fashion, talks less like that though.

[BAM]

Hmm... I really wonder why so few leftists here really seem to take an interest in Zizek... My guess is, as he himself asserts, that his vulgar jokes and provocative nature seem to confuse and scare people away.

the jokes and provocation are somewhat appealing. Less so is the Lacanianism.

[norwegian commie]

the jokes and provocation are somewhat appealing. Less so is the Lacanianism.

I believe i agree with you on that one. But what in Zizek reflects the error of his influence from Lacan? (Im asking simply because i honestly know to little about both Lacan and Zizek.)

I would never be named a Zizekian (or whatever), but i find him fascinating to both read and listen too. And my political insight is definetly enriched since i started buying his books. (Convienently enough, they are quite cheap here in norway.)

[BAM]

I believe i agree with you on that one. But what in Zizek reflects the error of his influence from Lacan?

to be honest, I couldn't tell you. The reason is, even though I have tried a few times to read Lacan's Écrits and Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, I couldn't understand them at all. It may be that they are just beyond my limited understanding, I don't know.

One of the best critiques of Zizek, by Edward R. O'Neill (http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol5-2001/n17oneill), writes the following:


Sometimes the very process of giving examples [of explanations of Lacanian psychoanalytic terminology] is itself interrupted by a strange process of substitution in which what's going to be explained gets switched with something else [...] Thus, in order to explain the way Lacan conceives the relation between the subject and the 'Other', Zizek instead explains Lacan's scheme of the 'four discourses', structures which relate the subject to yet other terms -- a master signifier, knowledge, and surplus enjoyment. Then, instead of defining each of these terms and drawing the implication for their possible relations, Zizek explains the whole thing at once -- how else? -- by giving examples. One discourse is exemplified by Churchill, another by a Woody Allen movie. Another involves what Zizek calls 'medical discourse', yet another Romeo and Juliet, and yet another Racine. Then there are ethnic jokes and Rossini's attitude towards Mozart.

At each turn, as the Lacanian insignia are being explained, yet other terms pop-up which are not themselves explained. The reader finds herself caught in an infinite regress of things which need to be explained being explained by things which themselves need to be explained: hence the Alice-in-Wonderland feeling one gets from reading Zizek -- a feeling not entirely unenjoyable but not entirely profitable either.


I would never be named a Zizekian (or whatever), but i find him fascinating to both read and listen too. And my political insight is definetly enriched since i started buying his books. (Convienently enough, they are quite cheap here in norway.)

they're cheap here too, and he churns out plenty of titles every year. The trouble is, a few years ago I stopped reading them because they all said pretty much the same thing.

Also, Zizek has an annoying habit of writing about a philosopher, then taking that thinker and re-interpreting him/her via Lacan to make it seem as though said philosopher is a forerunner of Lacan. You could see that with his work on Schelling, for instance. Not only that, but you also need to have already read and understood that philosopher to be able to understand Lacan.

[norwegian commie]

[QUOTE=BAM;1795294]to be honest, I couldn't tell you. The reason is, even though I have tried a few times to read Lacan's Écrits and Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, I couldn't understand them at all. It may be that they are just beyond my limited understanding, I don't know./QUOTE]

I certainly can relate to that... But, I’ve also read several comments on Lacan claiming his writings to be absurd pseudo-intellectual nonsense... Even though it in fact isn’t, we at least are not the only ones having trouble grasping "his rational core".

And the critique by Edward R. O'Neill (http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol5-2001/n17oneill) is certainly valid, i expect this is a feeling most people get when reading Zizek. I would agree. (However, i found it amusing that the article you gave me to a critique of Zizek, is indeed written by O'Neill, but edited by Zizek himself.)

Zizek is not without error, and I guess he is right when he makes it clear that the left should not turn to him for answers and solutions. What I enjoyed with Zizek, is the way he tore down my own dogmatism. Personally I have, over the years, been thought the classical theory of Marxist-Leninism and its essential concepts. While I was used to discussing, writing in a style using certain rather dogmatic concepts, reaching into the vocabulary of Leninist truth etc.. Zizek has, as a Marxist, lead by example: He is a Marxist, but has no illusions about Marxist dogmas and is highly critical. This, if nothing else, I have adopted. Of course, we Leninists used to quote Lenin in saying that Marxism is simply a guide to action, not a dogma. Again saying that critique is the very essence… But in reality, this was simply another quotation of the bible. Now I am still a Marxist – in reality more than ever – but my relationship too classical Marxist theories is significantly freer. Even though I might be what Zizek calls a “dinosaur Marxist”…

[BAM]

I certainly can relate to that... But, I’ve also read several comments on Lacan claiming his writings to be absurd pseudo-intellectual nonsense... Even though it in fact isn’t, we at least are not the only ones having trouble grasping "his rational core".

I cannot tell whether it is nonsense or not. I simply don't understand what Lacan is talking about.


And the critique by Edward R. O'Neill (http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol5-2001/n17oneill) is certainly valid, i expect this is a feeling most people get when reading Zizek. I would agree. (However, i found it amusing that the article you gave me to a critique of Zizek, is indeed written by O'Neill, but edited by Zizek himself.)

Just to clear this up: the article is not edited by Zizek. It is an extended review of the book Cogito and the Unconscious (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gAErujhn-wAC&dq=cogito+and+the+unconscious&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=imk0TOnrO82NjAeuqOyWBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false), a collection of essays which was edited by Zizek.


Zizek is not without error, and I guess he is right when he makes it clear that the left should not turn to him for answers and solutions. What I enjoyed with Zizek, is the way he tore down my own dogmatism. Personally I have, over the years, been thought the classical theory of Marxist-Leninism and its essential concepts. While I was used to discussing, writing in a style using certain rather dogmatic concepts, reaching into the vocabulary of Leninist truth etc.. Zizek has, as a Marxist, lead by example: He is a Marxist, but has no illusions about Marxist dogmas and is highly critical. This, if nothing else, I have adopted. Of course, we Leninists used to quote Lenin in saying that Marxism is simply a guide to action, not a dogma. Again saying that critique is the very essence… But in reality, this was simply another quotation of the bible. Now I am still a Marxist – in reality more than ever – but my relationship too classical Marxist theories is significantly freer. Even though I might be what Zizek calls a “dinosaur Marxist”…

I am an orthodox "dinosaur Marxist" too, and part of the reason I reject Zizek is that his understanding of, for instance, Marx's theory of value departs in a significant way from Marx's. I am all for updating Marx's work. It badly needs it in some areas, but Zizek stripped away what was actually very useful and left behind some appalling trivialities.