Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
56 of 75 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Why Am I Reading This?, June 27, 2008
Over the recent past, Slavoj Zizek has attracted a kind of cult followership. Some devotees attend to each of his public appearances, consult all his interventions on the internet, and voraciously read each and every volume that he publishes at an amazing pace. For others, he is a proto-terrorist on the loose, and his brand mix of Freudism and Marxism sets back the intellectual clock to the worst hours of leftist dogmatism. For my part, although I am far from sharing Zizek's political orientation, I find reading the Slovenian social scientist a useful distraction from more conventional readings, as well as a useful mind-stretching exercise. Like many other readers, I read Zizek for fun.
But reading In Defense of Lost Causes made me think again about why I took to reading his works with a kind of compulsive frenzy. I can think of several reasons. First, there is the shock of provocation, the "can he really mean that?" feeling when you stumble across sentences like "We need to reinvent revolutionary terror", "Today the enemy is not called Empire or Capital. It is called Democracy" or "The problem with Hitler is that he was not violent enough, that his violence was not 'essential' enough", or again chapters titled "How Stalin Saved the Humanity of Man" or "Give the Dictatorship of the Proletariat a Chance!"
So my first impulse was to check out his politics, so as to determine whether he really meant what he wrote. In fact, it took me a while to see clearly through his political agenda, as the first work I read (The Parallax View) was not very explicit in that respect. But In Defense of Lost Causes presents a clear overview on where Zizek stands with respect to issues of democracy, revolutionary terror, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the New Left agenda, or the antiglobalization movement. And there is only one conclusion I could draw: when he writes something, he means it.
The second element that makes reading Zizek an addictive pastime is the broad array of his references, spanning from pop culture to classical philosophers like Kant, Hegel and Heidegger, or modern critical theorists like Badiou, Laclau, Negri, Mouffe or Deleuze. Readers who praise Zizek's references to pop culture, his ability to mix high-brow references to continental philosophers with astute commentaries of Hollywood productions, might be frustrated with this volume. Zizek has only one single chapter on popular movies and novels. But his analysis of the commonalities in Michael Crichton's novels (fear of women) or in Steven Spielberg dramas (the rebuilding of a family), or his disclosure of the subversive element in Zack Snider's 300 (the film can be viewed as an apology of resistance to US imperialism) are pure Zizek vintage.
Zizek also reveals himself as a classical music lover, revisiting the debate on whether Dmitri Shostakovitch was a faithful Soviet composer or a closet dissident, or comparing him to the fate of Sergei Prokofiev, the other great name of Soviet music, who had a more tormented relationship to the regime. Other passages include an in-depth analysis of Robert Schumann's Humoresque, a piano piece with the vocal line reduced to silence, or the hint that Beethoven implanted a subversive irony toward the ideal of universal brotherhood in his Ninth Symphony's Ode to Joy.
The third reason that makes me relish Zizek is because I share with him a cultural horizon that tends to get lost in the current intellectual debate. Zizek bears testimony to a time when conservative intellectuals could engage their radical brethren on a discussion about dialectic materialism or the subversive element in Freud's writings. Zizek refers to marxism and psychoanalysis because they are "not only theories about struggle, but theories which are themselves engaged in a struggle". Here struggle should not be understood solely in terms of politics and ideology, but as a struggle within the self, an inner strive that leads to a higher form of self-consciousness. This is why many among the best conservative intellectuals, and this also includes the neo-cons, were former marxists, or at least defined their thought in relation to marxism.
According to Zizek, we now live in a post-ideological world, not in the conventional sense that we are at least liberated from the burden of great ideological narratives, but in the more cynical sense that power no longer needs to legitimize its rule and now exposes itself naked. The search for profit, the debasement of any intellectual pursuit, the acknowledgement of the use of torture are now part of our political horizon. This situation satisfies him: what Zizek hates the most is the recuperation of subversive discourses by the powers that be, who treat radical theorists as "harmless gadflies who sting us and thus awaken us to the inconsistencies and imperfection of our democratic enterprise."
Zizek wants no part in this legitimation business. Neither harmless gadfly nor amusing pet, he would like to rekindle the flame of radicalism that burned out after the seventies. But as we know, history only repeats itself as farce.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Read It As Polemic, October 12, 2009
If for nothing else, you should buy this book because it engages, in a direct and rigorous fashion, with the thought of various luminaries of the Left. While Zizek's discussions of Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Robespierre are stirring in their own right, his assessments of Antonio Negri, Ernesto Laclau, Simon Critchley and fellow-traveler Alain Badiou are acute and incisive. Of especial interest is his careful evaluation of the latent ambiguities in Badiou's political thought, probing its interstices and interrogating its silences. Also crucial is Zizek's neo-Deleuzian injunction to `repeat' Lenin, to actualize the multiple virtualities that Lenin missed. The importance of Zizek for our time lies in his continued exhortation to look beneath the post-structuralist affirmations of endless differentiation, creativity and diversification- tropes that are in no way inimical to the `permanent revolution' of global capitalism- and discern the underlying sameness beneath the protean flux. For instance, what is repressed/disavowed in the First World's triumphalist discourses on limitless mobility and decentralized organization, what is its hidden subtext? As Boltanski and Chiapello have told us in The New Spirit Of Capitalism, the movement of some requires the inertia of others- the nomadic flight of today's jet-setting executive is made possible by the sweatshop worker, the office janitor, outsourced labor. As such, the properly `transcritical' attitude (Kojin Karatani) is to refrain from treating `globalization' as a revolutionary break, a `cut' in history- we must identify the residual sediments of the past that persist in our purportedly `postmodern' age (traces of premodern feudalism in Japan, the predominance of noncapitalist forms of production in South America). This theory of `uneven development' means that we should regard all celebratory affirmations of globalization with extreme suspicion.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
26 of 38 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
No one said it would be easy, June 25, 2008
Mao said, the revolution is not a dinner party, and along the way horrible things may happen, Zizek here reclaims, or claims again(resurgence) the demise of thinking through the paradigm of change, it is not so much a matter of what has gone wrong but seeing one's mistakes, failing and going on- at it again, he likes Beckett's apt phrase, of Fail and fail again,we are human failure is part of what we do, nature somehow missed this, for now we may create ourselves out of existence with control over bio-political horizons, cloning,DNA research;software robotics;there is a chapter on this;UNBEHAGEN IN DER NATUR; but Zizek is getting good at writing, yes the entertainment factor is contained, he relies on sober analysis of the state of democracy and culture, exploitation,religion,hot spots the Right and the Left, the points of representation as the favelas, or the Zapatistas, Lulu in Brazil, the Left in Europe,Negri, Mao, Lenin, Critchley and Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, all become objects for contemplation on the objects of the state and transformations or lack thereof, the Cultural Revolution,(can collectives run the state?) all through the Lens of Lacan at times, or Hegel,certainly Marx; all well thought through; You come away with a real sense of knowing where things are within the globe, where greed resides,false hopes; "what should be done", and not done, the spectre of Walter Benjamin hovers here with the strain of Messianism, reclaiming the path to enlightenment and simple understanding, why revolutions failed is not so much the aim here as how to pick up the pieces once the Winter Palace was seized; perhaps Lenin believed in revolution but also that nothing happened in Soviet Russia; dual powere as well is great objects for discussion, as we find today, Zizek opts for a kind of nomadic resistence, create your own alternate spaces within capitalism, it is not going away, work within it, give concerts of political music in your friend's loft(don't publicize it) and invite your marxist friends(Freundshaft) with your stock broker friends as well;Deleuze as well makes an appearence herein, the "objects without a body",(OwaB)and(BwaO)sort of a Webern-ian mirror reversal on virtuality, the the spaces we like to inhabit, our comfort zones of contemplation and cognition;Zizek also follows quite well serious music, with a fascinating discussion on the "smoking gun" of Shostakovich, was he a committed socialist or not,with hundreds of thousands of dollars in production of the performances of his symphonies, I'd think the fundraising boards at USA orchestras should know. . . he is compared to Prokofiev,who was above all this dirty poltical stuff. . . great read . . .
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Slavoj Zizek
by Slavoj Zizek
by Slavoj Zizek
by Slavoj Zizek
