Customer Reviews

Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Very strange book--courageous, but disappointing in many ways. Butler tries throughout to get the others to think of gays/lesbians as something more than examples of minorities--they refuse. Laclau's second essay is positively bitchy and contemptuous. Zizek presses the other two to be more active activists and take a more positive political stance--they do not do so, instead noting that he also does not do so. Laclau says he assumed Zizek had a sophisticated political sense when he entered the collaboration but must conclude that he was wrong--Zizek is politically stupid, and Butler is a ranting, raving dyke--or so Laclau implies by referring to her first essay as a "war machine" or something. (She of course does not lower herself by responding.) It's an intersting collaboration in many ways--what I got out of it mainly was a better understanding of hegemony, which seems to me an incredibly powerful concept. But it comes mainly, I gather, from Laclau's earlier work. Butler, I thought, asked some good questions about universality that are ignored throughout the rest of the volume, as are all her remarks about gender, which seem invisible to the others. She writes beautifully at times. Laclau's thinking is incisive and powerful. Zizek seems to flip-flop wantonly on Derrida, and they all bicker constantly about who is and who isn't interpreting Lacan's Real with adequate thoroughness. It's a strangely confused, confusing, and inconclusive book. (The attempt, at the end, to present the failure to conclude anything as a theoretical triumph is a bit hollow.) It shows the state of theory now, I guess--theory is seductive in its power and potential, but three theorists of the Left seem unable to talk to each other. My own view is that theory can underestimate the power of disciplinary barriers. "Theory" seems to me to be nothing if not a way for a rhetorician, an economist, and a psychoanalyst/film critic to talk to each other, but the forces against such collaboration are not to be so easily thwarted, unfortunately. The book is interesting but naive.

I don't believe this work is for everyone, for one needs to have a pretty solid background of knowledge already, of the works and theoretics of Butler, Laclau and Zizek...they definitely write with a presumtion that one already knows what is being discussed. However, if you have read their works, or have a solid knowledge of these theoriticians, this book is excellent as a way to understand the similarities and differences between their theories. The book is set up as a debate. The first pages state questions which each of them ask the others and want themselves to deal with. The book is then set up with each writer giving an argument chapter (The order which remains throughout the book is Butler, Laclau, and Zizek), a rebuttal, and then a final summation.

Not only does the book give insight into the differences between these philosophers, who in many ways are trying to deal with much the same questions, but the framework of the discussion forced them to also reiterate aspects of each of their theories in a short and distinct manner that gives the reader more understanding in the end, of their works in general.

I have many criticisms to make about this book, but I will limit myself to the following points. Although Zizek makes an effort to be understood, Laclau and Butler compete for showing who is more obscure and pedantic. In spite all the apparent erudition of the authors, or rather because of it, the issue of hegemony is not well-focused. Certainly Gramsci was quite concerned about providing a philosophical dimension to his social reflection, but Laclau, Butler and, to a lesser extend Zizek, bury the social reflection under tons of excessive philosophical references. The lack of sociological dimension is particularly noticeable regarding Laclau's discussion of contigency. The blending of Kant, Hegel, Lacan, Saussure, to mention the main characters, is simply theoretical over-killing. It will take an article to show how shaky the theoretical connetion between hegemony and universalism is. It is my impression that Gramsci would not recognize his work in this academic potpourri. I bought the book, read carefully from cover to cover, and I strongly dislike it.

Yes this is a difficult book, but it is an absolute must read for those who are follwing the theoretical developments of post-strucuralism on the progressive left. Of course there are no prescriptions for immediate action but read Butler's contributions in this book and she addresses that dilemma. Laclau is very good, and Zizek has nuggets, but his Hegelian/Lacanianism is showing signs of wear and doesn't offer the opportunities for further theoretical developments and even research projects that the projects of Butler and Laclau offer.

This book represents an attempt by (the) three social thinkers of our time to bring their differing views of what is to done together by beginning with what it is that they have in common, namely: Marx (and Gramsci), Lacan, and Derrida. Although all three critique the above figures, they could not do what it is they do with them. This book provides a much needed companion to Laclau's (w/ Mouffe) "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy" and Zizek's "Ticklish Subject". It also helps towards Butler's "Gender Trouble" but I feel that her approach has matured a great deal from that mostly obscure book. Zizek and Laclau are on their game and their detailed responses back and forth really help in understanding what is at stake. I like Butler but it seems that she is out of her league and element. That being said, I think that there are nuggets of greatness in her writings, one just has to look extra hard to find them. My only criticism for Zizek is that sometimes his examples skew to the shallow side, but this negative is overcome with the remainder of his work.

A difficult book to read. It is composed of interrelated essays and brings poststructuralist analysis of the current political situation to the fore. Very good for scholars dealing with the desection of the postmodern but offers little advice to those struggling for a better life.