babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
There has always been debate among leftists, Bakunin and Marx didn't agree on everything
My point was that he does what he ridicules. What you said in response had nothing to do with what the point I was making.
How is he not a post-modernist? He recycles Lacan's 'big other' with little or no variation. The fact that he uses obscurantist language is not contradicted by the mere fact that he is widely published. Way, way too much crap gets widely published (that should not even have to be stated on rabble/babble) and that he lent himself to an Abercrombie & Fitch catalog says volumes about his real worth and his real role.
How am I being anti-intellectual? I am anti-crap, anti-solipism, anti-marginalization in addition to being pro-rational and very ardently wanting to democratize discourse.
What have I said in particular that would illustrate being "frightened by radical philosophy."
I have not cherrypicked; I produced lenghty quotes from a variety of sources. And I am hardly the first person to describe him as a denier of climate change.
No I did not read it entirely but kept to the sections on climate (he is really hard to stomach and I am not going to give him any money) and seems to be moving but which direction is not clear. There is no equivocation on the most central issue of our time.
Why does he not fully renounce his previous statements then that is not knowable and that human activity is not central to it?
Postmodernism is a specific discursive field which peaked in the early nineties. It's a response to modernism and the critical response to it postwar. Zizek actually positions himself as a response to postmodernist philosophy and critical theory. It's not a catch-all for academic jargon. Usually the term is used casually as a pejorative with no allowance for its particular historical context--ironically the same charge critics would levy at postmodernist theory. babble is no exception in that regard. Although I'm used to it.
And we're not talking about injudicious publications, we're talking about two highly respected publications with rigourous editorial standards--and Zizek is regularly found on their pages. I'm not sure what "volumes" Zizek's flirtation with A&F say, other than yet another casual slur.
And finally, the way you balance "anti-crap, anti-solipism, anti-marginalization" with "pro-rational" and "democratization" shows ideological biases that a more robust reading of Zizek's philosopher would temper some. I find your criticisms a bit unwieldy and defensive here.
No it is not a catch-all for academic jargon but you have still not said how Zizek is not post-modernist others than using 'positions' as a verb. Are you denying that he recycles Lacan's concepts, that he denies that we can understand anything fundamental about nature, that he also recycles other po-mo's such as Badiou or Baudrillard? That he at some point criticizes po-mo as if he stands apart from it is meaningless; he attempts to being a thought-contortionist but he is just a clown who connects the odd dot or two, randomly.
Ideological biases? Saying one is pro-rational is a bias to what else other than the anti-rational? "Unwieldy" means what?
Highly respected publications? By what standard? Commercial?
That he takes part in an A & F catalog says he is caught up in the 'rockstar' status and the most contemptuous parts of our business culture. Not a slur but an indictment.
If you want to know how Zizek is not postmodernist, you should come to one of my lectures. He does not "recycle" Lacan--I have no idea how one would accomplish such a feat. As a psychoanalytic theorist, he channels Lacan (postmodernist), Freud (modernist) among others to support his writings. David Hume and other enlightenment scholars said we couldn't understand anything fundamental about nature--shall we call them postmodernist as well? The fact that you list Alain Badiou as another postmodernist demonstrates that you are unclear as to its definition. Badiou is another respondent to the questions raised by postmodernism, not someone most would characterize as postmodernist himself.
I find your questions aggressive and disingenuous. Perhaps I should ask you to buttress your claims with something Zizek has actually written. I don't see that they are rooted in anything other than your personal allergy to his writing--are you saying, for example, that th Guardian and the LRB are not respectable publications? What is, then? It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with him, or even simply to dislike his writing; but criticism should be grounded in alternative thought and theory. Otherwise, it's just white noise.
Personally, I have my own problems with Zizek. He is extraordinarily prolific, perhaps to his detriment, so maybe in that respect I agree with you. I consider him to be a comedian of critical theory, which in no way detracts from his force as a radical thinker. He provokes, demystifies, unpacks and titillates (as indicated by the responses here), but he is never far from philosophical grounding. He has written some of the most compelling accounts of modern political thought I have read anywhere, and as a reader of cultural texts, he is almost without equal.
well, if 2dawall has made you unpack your own claims or views then that's a good thing.
Catchfire, your responses on here have been great and much more articulate than anything I could have come up with. Bravo!
Well I am not in Toronto nor should I have to be; you should be able to clearly delineate your argument here. "Channels?" Uh how is 'channels' different from 'recycles?'
Give a clear definition of post-modernism (not its timeframe; how could there be a timeframe?) and then tell me how Zizek and Badiou do not fit into that. You should be able to do that here and be clear; none of that jargon please that might be confused with post-modernism.
'Respectable' means what exactly? The Guardian has a few good writers eg Robert Fisk but what of it?
Aggressive? You were the one to make that 'bat signal' reference to M Spector and that seemed highly aggressive and personal.
Disingenuous? Meaning or referring to what in particular that I have said? Could you be more clear or are you being evasive?
Written or spoken?
I have none of his written works with me but here is a link where he is all over the place with ludicrous Hollywood references and an incoherence to toward the politics of Kosovo.
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/the-superego-and-the-act/
Catchfire, I am still waiting for you to counter M Spector's proof here that Denis Rancourt is a climate change denier. M Spector has given a decent link with decent proof and you have said nothing. You said that Rancourt was smeared but the proof is right there exactly what Rancourt has said. Still waiting ...
I would also like to hear someone define post-modernism. I guess I understand it to be the end of absolute truth. We can't prove through logic or observation that anything outside of our own language actually exists so we have to accept this reality and deal with it accordingly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjZBNDW7DmQ&feature=related
Sure, but if we look at this as the demo...Her next film has bigger budget camera work, simple but well thought out speech/background pairings and cuts the philosopher down to not 22 but 10 minutes of screen time. Of course you loose the intimacy and any attempt to get a more personal glimpse of the philosopher.
This is how I usually define postmodernism: It is a discourse or academic cultural dominant that is highly sceptical of the enlightenment project after its disintegration during modernism (approx. 1900-1940). It peaked in the mid- to late-eighties and it is primarily concerned with the instability of meaning and identity. The enlightenment Cartesian subject is based on Descartes' cogito--'I think therefore I am'--where identity is based in essence. Postmodernists posit a decentred subject where identity is not essentialist, but performative. Postmodernists are circumspect of master narratives, and believe instead that the best way towards consensus and meaning is through the juxtaposition and interaction of concurrent and competing histories (queer, feminist, african-american, labour, etc). It is characterized by the work of John Cage, Frank Gehry, Thomas Pynchon, Andy Warhol, and by the theory of Judith Butler, Edward Said and and Jacques Derrida.
As for Rancourt, yes, it does appear I was mistaken, although that article was posted long after the thread to which I was referring. I remembered his critique being that climate change did not concern, say, the poor of the global south, but is part of a Western liberal narrative that distracts from the main enemy, capitalism. I agree with that. Unfortunately, it seems he also believes that climate change is a myth. I don't agree with that. At any rate, I believe Zizek, insofar as he ever challenges climate change, is more in line with the first bit than the second.
Is this your most clear, coherent definition?
"Postmodernists posit a decentred subject where identity is not essentialist, but performative. Postmodernists are circumspect
of master narratives, and believe instead that the best way towards consensus and meaning is through the juxtaposition
and interaction of concurrent and competing histories (queer, feminist, african-american, labour, etc)."
Does this mean that in can rain and simutaneously not rain?
2dawall, are you asking these questions in good faith? I'd be happy to answer any questions you have but I fail to see how you got the above question from anything I have written. I am not making this stuff up; in fact, I teach it. If you don't believe postmodernism exists, or if you think it's just stupid, I don't see the point in arguing whether Zizek is or isn't part of their camp. If you just want to use it as a casual pejorative (which is what my first instinct was, above), then go ahead. But you aren't using it correctly.
Can anyone tell me after reading the previous link in the quote from below what Zizek's actual position on Kosovo was or is?
Btw, here is a link with someone else's take on the Zizek documentary and no, I, myself am not a British social democrat.
http://johannhari.com/2007/04/27/slavoj-zizek-s-intellectual-suicide
And here in Winnipeg it is not raining yet but soon it will be raining. When it starts to rain, will it also still not be raining?
From the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
or if you prefer Wikipaedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
Well we have a problem here. You deny that Zizek is a postmodernist and that you have a definition of postmodernism that posits him outside of it. I see postmodernism as a rejection of modernity including the Enlightenment, a type of discourse that includes contradictory ideas simutaneously, using an obscure language that explains little of nothing (ie Lacan, Derrida) and uses commercial references (often referred to as pop culture but that term is misleading) as evidence. Yes that is negative but those are attributes of what postmodernism is defined.
I ask the question about rain because to my mind it parallels how Zizek approaches the war in Kosovo. So yes it is serious. As was the war in Kososvo was serious (and seriously mispresented by a whole host of writers and media people).
So far so good, except many scholars see both modernism and postmodernism as continuation of the Enlightenment project, so it's not quite a "rejection." I might call it an extension of the metaphysical crises brought out by modernism. Your point about "contradictory ideas simultaneously," for example, is a seminal modernist concern. F.Scott Fitzgerald, one of modernism's poster boys, once wrote: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in one's head at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
Have you ever read Hegel or Kant? You don't know from obscure. I don't deny that clarity can be an issue in academic discourse, although I maintain that difficult concepts require difficult language, but these radical philosophers (many of whom are anti-establishment) bear too much of a brunt of these criticisms. Do legislators, lawyers or policy makers receive the same grade and quantity of criticism? Absolutely not. At any rate, the "obscure language" you deride is constant throughout Western philosophy, since Plato.
Hrm. Not quite true, although part of postmodernism's departure from high modernism was recognizing the cultural and political content of mass culture. I wouldn't call them using it "as evidence," which sets up a binary between mass culture (evidence) and high culture (non-evidence) which is not present. Rather, postmodernist scholars opened the door to see culture as a continuum--but they are not unique in this. See also Raymond Williams' wonderful essay "Culture is Ordinary."
I don't have time to read that interview right now, and I'm not sure what I could tell you, since I don't know much about the Kosovo conflict. Cueball, were he still around, could probably speak to that. If you want a better idea of how cultural texts fit into geo-political acts, I'd suggest reading part of his freely accessible How to Read Lacan, which is actually more about Zizek's writings than Lacan's. It contains a nice mixture of his psychoanalysis, philosophy and Marxism, as well as elucidating readings of cultural texts. A very good example of his style.
Well one of the definitions of po-mo provided by Caissa also indictated that po-mo is a rejection of modernity. That seems it essence and what of these nameless scholars who have no info provided here?
Zizek's defenders seem to want to make all definitions so murky that he can avoid any of the indictments he so richly deverves.
By obscure language, I should clarify and say inpenetrable. Lacan's concept of Other/other is meaningless nonsense and many serious writers (if the Guardian's publishing Zizek's work is itself proof of its worth my use of 'serious writers' can be useful too!) such as Chomsky have pointed out that he is charlatan.
I never made the distinction between low culture and high culture; stop playing games. I described commericial culture; a Madonna album is the product of Madonna, her record producer, and the record executive. It is may have lyrics that describe certain scenarios that play out in everday life; it might be an example of something but it is not proof of something.
All of the discourse on this thread only serves to prove that nobody can give a meaningful clear defense of Zizek. You have time to produce lengthy texts of that serve no particular meaning or purpose but you will not give a clear defense of what Zizek's can be quoted to have said about Kosovo. Zizek is a destructive waste of time, a man with no purpose but to entertain himself and exploit the commerical culture tendencies to disquise or lie about reality. Zizek does not further the cause of real change but only serves to distract others from it. That is why he gets featured in an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog and his willingness to participate in such a project only serves to prove what a self-serving clown that so many of his fans want to deny that he is. This is akin to those who want to pretend that Sarah Palin is anything other than an empty political fashion model.
"Meaningless nonsense" is no criticism. What could you possibly mean by that? And Chomsky, who has called Derrida a charlatan, is a linguist scholar who believes that language is present in the brain before birth. His theories have largely been discredited, of course. I wonder why it would be in his interest to undercut another linguist theorist whose work has been much more successful?
Anyway, I can see that your beliefs are well-entrenched, despite your limited will to read postmodernism or Zizek seriously. Sadly, you're not the first such individual I have encountered, and you won't be the last, so I won't lose much sleep over it. I have answered your questions patiently and in good faith and you reward me with the same hackneyed and substance-less accusations you began with. Thanks for the dance, we out.
No, they haven't been largely discredited. They have in fact been largely confirmed by modern research in evolutionary psychology and biology by people such as Steven Pinker and E.O. Wilson. Humans' ability to use language is not merely a cultural invention but the product of an evolutionary development that has given us brains that are particularly well adapted for that purpose.
No, it is not a demo. A demo is no more than 10 minutes long, usually the best pieces of what you've got so far and used for the purposes of securing funding for the completed project - this is common for both grant-funded and commercially funded projects.
If this is the same doc as the cut-down version, we call that a rough cut. As I've already said, it has the feeling of a rough cut (although again, the shooting angles, lighting, etc are very poorly done), but it's being marketed as a feature length documentary. So no, only someone who was really working at trying to explain away the flaws as not-flaws would look at it as a demo.
I don't think Canada Council got their money's worth on this one (IIRC, I thought I saw CC mentioned on the web site...).
Perhaps an overstatement on my part. Chomsky's lingustic theories obviously still hold a lot of currency; he's giving the keynote at some linguistic conference at M.I.T. this summer, I think. Perhaps I should say they've been effectively challenged--as evidenced by the fact that Chomsky and his disciples like Pinker have kept changing the goalposts: in Cartesian Lingusitics, language was supposed to be embedded in behaviour; when this failed to stand up to scrutiny, it was changed to the brain. Now, with the latest shrine of nativist theories of language, it's supposed to be evolution which explains how language is innate. It's the all the same gambit, of course, with the latest fad doing the heavy lifting.
Chomsky's theories may be proven right some day. We just have no proof right now.
Okay, call it something else. Whatever we want to label the thing it obviously informed the production of the subsequent philosophy documentary. Having seen 'examined life' first I was happy to go deeper with zizek. I like others in this thread wasn't bothered by any of the technical aspects.
I'll call it what IMDB calls it: A feature length documentary. Incidentally, that's what the filmmaker calls it as well. It's not about what I would "label" it - as I've pointed out, the filmmaker already has - or whether it informed a later work. As it stands, on its own, it's not a high-quality production. I've juried grant competitions and been involved in curating screenings and festival events - this wouldn't make the cut.
Two other posters did comment that it was not a very watchable film. They may not have been specific, but the story editing, editing and shooting are aspects that make the film much more confused. So I don't think I am entirely alone in my criticism.
"We out"; wow you are like RDP, claiming when the argument is over. Can you actually explain Lacan's Other concept in basic terms accessible to all? Can anyone? It was actually Lacan that Chomsky called a "charlatan" and he was dead on.
"Limited will to read postmodernism?" We have no choice; it is constantly thrust upon us no matter how often it is has been exposed as a charade (ie Alan Sokal's hoax on Stanley Aronowitz, the many drubbings Michael Albert had given Stanley Fisher in Z Papers, both in the early 90's). Unfortunately the Against The Current website does not draw up achives articles very well because sometime around 94 or 95 it had an excellent book review/article on the Cold War implications on how postmodermism developed. Maybe someone else can find it.
Po-mo is one of those social trends that is extremely useful to the elites in trailing people off in a variety of pointless directions. Those on the Left who promote po-mo do so at great harm to general debate. Now more than ever we need clear, cogent arguments provided to a larger audience that seeks real understanding. Professor Richard Wolff's recents comments on his ability to talk to US small c-conservatives would be a possible example of that as was the documentary he had out two years ago that accompanied his book Capitalism Hits The Fan.
http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/prospects-for-the-u-s-left-not-bad-at-all
So my not accepting your arguments as correct are merely the measure of how 'entrenched' are my beliefs; I would offer that you need to provide a better argument, one that is very clear and understandable.
You never gave a defence of Zizek's lecture on Kosovo where he seems to what to have two opposing positions at once. That goes to my question as to whether it can be simutaneously raining and not raining. Right now it Winnipeg it is again on the verge of possibly raining.
Like Big Foot?