Over at Long Sunday I have a critique of Rex Butler's and Scott Stephens' introduction to The Universal Exception. What I have had a hard time thinking about is why this introduction bothers me so much. I mean, people write idiotic and ill-informed papers and posts on Zizek all the time. Every once in a while I'll engage them, but for the most part I prefer to just igore them. But this one really bothers me. Why?
1. Because it is an introduction to Zizek's own work. The book is a collection of his writings, so it seems as if Zizek might be somehow endorsing this. Now, I'm confident that he isn't endorsing this interpretation of his work, but, it could well be assumed that insofar as this introduces some of his writings that he does endorse it. It could be, in other words, that this introduction has a different kind of status from other stupid articles.
2. Maybe I'm bothered because I worry that it could be true! What if the authors are right? What would this mean?
Some responses, then:
ad 1: Thinking in terms of the status of the introduction relies on a notion of the big Other, of a Symbolic order or audience. Even more problematically, my anxiety suggests that I am filling in the gaps in the Symbolic with fantasy figures. What sort? Well, a fantasy perhaps of Marxists saying, "Ha! We knew it all along! Zizek is not radical or revolutionary at all but the worst sort of Blairist opportunist capitalist sell out!" In fact, this fantasy might well be the return of a repressed figure, my own way of rescuitating, or allowing to live on, rabid anti-Zizekians recently fallen to blogicide. Or, perhaps the fantasy is one of horrid liberals saying, "Ha! We knew it all along! Zizek agrees with us--he's just too incoherent to say it clearly!"
But, why let the response of the Symbolic get coopted by these figures? Another (one suggested to me by Adam, notes Zizek's remarkable generosity: he doesn't worry about this non-existent big Other at all; instead, he is generous, allowing others to put their names on a book of his writing so that they can further their careers in a precarious academic market. What does he have to worry about? He writes a lot! This answer is, I think, far preferably to my pathetically haunted Symbolic: it's also a little scarier--it means that my own work and writing is unnecessary. Zizek doesn't need me, or anyone, to defend him. He's happy to let his writing stand on its own. And, he recognizes full well that one cannot control one's own words.
ad 2: this one has various components. If the authors are right, does this mean that Zizek was always wrong? That he is has gone crazy? And, again, what's the big deal to me about all this? In some ways, if the authors are right, that would be good news for me! I can stop pathetically repeating Zizek and rephrase all my points as critical--this is what he should have said! This is what I say! This, too, is risky: again, I have to accept the lack of a big Other that will support/recuperate my words. But, what if the authors' were right because Zizek is going mad? Or, worse, going banal? After all, there is something attractive in poor Nietzsche's last essays: "Why I write such good books" and "Why I am so clever." But, the later Foucault, in my view, undoes his contributions in Discipline and Punish by suggesting that somehow the subject can shift from being the product of discipline to carrying out self discipline and self care in an ethical way. This move, it seems to me, becomes a response fully compatible with liberalism rather than a standpoint for its critique and traversal.
What these reflections suggest to me is that, either way, I need to move past transference, accept the non-existence of the big Other, and recognize that there is no grounding, foundation, redemption, assurance.
Are there any good Lacanian analysts in your neck of the woods? Reportedly, it's impossible to do this stuff by yourself.
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | October 16, 2005 at 05:00 PM
Right--and, then the problem becomes: is it simply an excuse that the closest Lacanian analysts are 60-90 minutes away, that I hate driving, that it snows 5 months a year, and that I can't spend that much time driving around because of the kids? Am I pathetically avoiding analysis or pragmatically assessing the situation. The truth, unfortunately, is that my pragmatic assessment of the situation leads me pathetically to avoid analysis!!
Yet, there exists at least One Lacanian who was unanalyzeable....
Posted by: Jodi | October 16, 2005 at 05:55 PM
In all honesty, when I first read that review, I thought, "Oh shit, I was wrong," in large part because it was appearing in Zizek's book and was on lacan.com, thus lending it an air of authority.
My excuse for not going to analysis is that I'm a man, and men are obsessives, so it usually doesn't work anyway.
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | October 16, 2005 at 06:02 PM
Adam, I've been wondering 'what if I'm wrong on the reading of Z?' as well...but, then I happily decided that this would be great!
Posted by: Jodi | October 16, 2005 at 06:28 PM
We're probably right, but I bet he secretly loves this into.
Posted by: Amish Lovelock | October 17, 2005 at 05:33 AM
Jodi:
I read the introduction lightly when Adam linked to it on one of your other posts. Since you've posted on this in more detail here and in Long Sunday, I forced myself to read it again. I think the authors have a number of things wrong - but I believe they are being deliberately provocative. A few of the more *interesting* quotes:
“that it is not simply a matter of these two highly "engaged" thinkers suddenly losing their nerve…as so many others on the Left did”
"...might we not say that on the level of form Zizek wants to see himself as an "engaged" intellectual, but on the level of content he is struck by a kind of paralysis, unable to suggest any meaningful action?"
“His new, seemingly extreme radical Leftism might ultimately only be a way of maintaining his original liberal "conservatism" within the new conditions of the Left's theoretical perversion and decline.”
“Indeed, Zizek's entire work—even his so-called theoretical arguments—is merely a series of details understood in this way.”
“Blair is like Lenin, who understood he was to be thrown away after his usefulness was over, while his deputy, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor the Exchequer, is more like Stalin?”
Each of these quotes can be argued against pretty convincingly, plus the wording appears to want to *outrage* (trying to be like Z, without the skill)
Anyway, I'll spend more time on it - but I can understand why this is bothersome.
Posted by: pebird | October 17, 2005 at 06:03 PM
PEBird,
yes, there is something that seems deliberate here, like they want to outrage--but who? Zizek? That seems odd as an introduction to his work. I agree that they want to be 'like Zizek'--perhaps this is why they are twisting him into his opposite...
Posted by: Jodi | October 17, 2005 at 06:39 PM
I don't know - I don't always read introductions (I'm bad that way), so I guess a couple of outrageous comments early on "hooks" you in.
But the rest of the intro is so overboard without the substance to back it up (I mean Lenin as a throwaway?!?) that you would want to put down the book and throw down a shot of scotch before you get started again. Provocative in a mean-spirited way, not in a "lets get the crowd warmed up" way.
This is what happens when art critics get out of their area of expertise.
Posted by: pebird | October 17, 2005 at 07:26 PM