Return to drives

I shouldn't be surprised that Zizek has already observed Laclau's failure to distinguish between desire and drive. The posts or detailed work I did on it will come in handy at some; I'll be able to use it somewhere. And it's not like the conceptual tools I applied in working out my little criticism of Laclau weren't developed by Zizek anyway. Still, confronting my utter unoriginality is still not the highlight of my morning.

In In Defense of Lost Causes, Zizek writes:

Laclau should be criticized here for confounding desire (sustained by fantasy) with drive (one of whose definitions is also "that which remains of desire after its subject traverses the fantasy"): for him, we are condemned to searching for impossible fullness. Drive--in which we directly enjoy lack itself--simply does not appear on his horizon.