Zizek Documentary!

Yes, except when he's incomprehensible. Then again, that's probably compulsory for any "serious" social theorist today. lol.

P.S. Zizek rocks. Just sayin...

Interesting content, but terrible camera work, no arc and too long for the subject.  Love the philosopher, engaging and interesting guy, but dislike the film.  It felt like a rough cut, not a finished product.  She (the director) needed a DOP and a story editor in the worst way.  Also, the choice to not use narration at all is really tricky, most people who try it don't pull it off successfully.  It's too bad, there was some good potential there. 

I wonder what she was shooting on...

That movie needs a good editor.

Down to, say, 22 minutes.

Uh why is this posted to "Atlantic Provinces?" Why promote him at all? He is the worst kind of recycling (recycling Lacan et al), he is a denier of corporate-created climate change, he writes useless material that misdirects people, and the European mainstream, corporate media treats him like a rock star (which should be a different kind of red flag that maybe he is not so great or useful to us). When the US corporate media started promoting John Zerzan after Seattle 99 it should have been obvious as to the 'guerialla PR' campaign that was being developed, making sure to divert attention from far more reasoned critics as the time (ie Holly Sklar, Noam Chomsky). Once again the Left is falling into a trap, partly of its own making, probably in part due to gueralla PR on the behalf of corporations.

Lachine Scot wrote:

Give me a break.  He is such a marginal figure that to claim he is a stooge of the mainstream makes no sense.  OK, he recycles other ideas, big deal.  So he takes the ideas of a difficult thinker and makes them understandable to a much wider audience--this is some kind of crime?  How elitist.  Here we have a thinker (zizek) who is genuinely open to ideas from all quarters and to open them to leftist criticism and dialogue, and he is bashed for not somehow not being a true leftist.

He gets huge attention from the mainstream media in Europe and no he does not make anything more clearer. He himself engages in the same level of obscurantist language that Lacan and all of the other po-mo's drudge around.

I am not being elitist; I ask that academics and intellectuals be as clear as possible so as to be more accessible to a wide audience. The article from Chomsky that I have put to its own thread is an example of clarity and meaning that others should emulate.

And oh yes I forgot to restate that Zizek is on the wrong side of the climate chaos debate; he is a denier and therein again he is useful to the system, whether or not he is consciously complicit or not. I am not measuring him for 'leftism', I am measuring him for what he is useful and for the merit of his contributions. He is helpful to the Koch brothers, not us.

Astra Taylor is a self taught film maker....of course she was home schooled so she's used to that sort of thing. I saw her later film 'examined life' first and I was laughing out loud in the theatre. What's most important is the idea, of which I am jealous; to go stick a camera in front of philosophers.

Looks like she was still very fresh to film making here but I think she does a decent job. The text needs to stay on the screen longer, at some points I'm not very clear what zizek is saying but there's a good effort to get behind the talking head espousing theory and give us some idea about how the being behind the talking head lives. There were some nice juxtapositions between the ideas he is talking about and how he behaves in the world.

I'm not familiar enough with his philosophy to say he is not a climate change denier but I saw 'examined life' while I was in peak oil-tar sands despair and I appreciated his talk about ecology without feeling he was contesting my beliefs. I think his admission of using the Stalin poster as a provoking device later in the film is telling about his approach. His approach is not to explain things simply. It's to grab your attention, shake you up and give you other ways of looking at something you might be taking for granted.

Yes. Indeed, the idea that Zizek would even take a position "for or against" climate change is itself ludicrous. I smell a rat.

And I suppose that it's pointless to argue that Zizek's "po-mo crap" (he's not a postmodernist, incidentally) and "obscurantist language" is regularly published in the London Review of Books and the Guardian. And his books are published by widely read presses. But don't let that get in the way of particpating in the anti-intellectual discourse so popular with those frightened by radical philosophy.

Can you be more clear than just saying "Zizek would even take a position ... in itself ludicrous?" If you are accusing me of dropping a rat, can you  be more specific in your claim?

http://fora.tv/2011/04/04/Slavoj_Zizek_Catastrophic_But_Not_Serious

or

"Slavoj Zizek, too, cautions against a naïve view of science, although he seems just lately to be conceding more to the scientific consensus than in previous pronouncements wherein he made the case for uncertainty about the threat of global warming

and opposed any limits to development on the grounds that any attempt by scientists to quantify what constitutes a safe level of climate change is arbitrary because our knowledge is insufficient.

He argued moreover that nature is inherently unstable and crisis-ridden and that ideas about any natural balance being upset by human activity are misguided. Ecology, insofar as it emphasizes

our finitude and calls for us to treat the earth with respect, is inherently conservative, evincing a deep distrust of change, development and progress; he thus characterized it as "a new opium of the masses."

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/3266/

or

"The same as with, for example, ecology. What to do? Is global warming clearly a threat? I don't know.

What I know is that while ecology is definitely a serious problem, maybe even the problem which threatens us,

the way it is formulated, it's a big field for ideological investment, you know, all that stuff of Gaia, Mother Earth,

like our spontaneous confrontation of ecology is that there was a kind of a natural balance, homeostasis,

we evil humans disrupted it, now we have to repair it. An entire mythology is there.

And I think that-so, my paradoxical solution is that we need ecology without nature, that without nature,

if we understand, is nature, a kind of a primordial, innocent, balanced mechanism. Nature is crazy.

Nature is one big catastrophe. ..."

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/12/world_renowned_philosopher_slavoj_zizek_on

A rat? A rat would imply that I am making this up or that I am dropping a big lie. Please read your hero befor making that accusation, especially from a moderator.

Catchfire wrote:

Yes. Indeed, the idea that Zizek would even take a position "for or against" climate change is itself ludicrous. I smell a rat.

And I suppose that it's pointless to argue that Zizek's "po-mo crap" (he's not a postmodernist, incidentally) and "obscurantist language" is regularly published in the London Review of Books and the Guardian. And his books are published by widely read presses. But don't let that get in the way of particpating in the anti-intellectual discourse so popular with those frightened by radical philosophy.

2dawall, I certainly didn't think you made anything up--I did think you might have fallen for some naive characterization of his writings and interviews, however. My point about Zizek having a for or against position on global warming is about as ludicrous as Sartre having a position for or against vaccine jabs.

His position on ecology, as a philosopher--not an ecologist or a political scientist, is quite clear: "it's a big field for ideological investment." Which, as a Marxist and a Lacanian, is naturally his interest, rather than whether or not climate change is "real" or not. There was a similar smear done on maligned ex-OttawaU prof Denis Rancourt, also accused as a "climate change denier" (and hence discredited), when his position was that capitalism was the problem and that climate change activism was a liberal dumb show which didn't target its root cause.

Catchfire wrote:

His position on ecology, as a philosopher--not an ecologist or a political scientist, is quite clear: "it's a big field for ideological investment." Which, as a Marxist and a Lacanian, is naturally his interest, rather than whether or not climate change is "real" or not.

As a Marxist, Zizek's interest ought to be whether climate change is "real" or not. Because as a Marxist, Zizek would be concerned about the future of humanity.

As a philosopher or as a psychoanalyst, perhaps not.

Quote:

There was a similar smear done on maligned ex-OttawaU prof Denis Rancourt, also accused as a "climate change denier" (and hence discredited), when his position was that capitalism was the problem and that climate change activism was a liberal dumb show which didn't target its root cause.

Well now you're just compounding bullshit with bullshit. Denis Rancourt writes climate change denial articles that are carried on climate change denial websites like [url=http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7473]this piece of crap.[/url]

So, 2dawall, I'm guessing you haven't read In Defense of Lost Causes?  Rather than cherrypicking a few "zingers" from the internet, try reading it and you would find that he takes climate change very seriously.

knownothing wrote:

Well it is no Bowling for Columbine and I never expected it to be. Is production value that important? I love his joke about the Fascist leader who lets everybody clap for him and the Stalinist leader claps along with everyone because they are all in it together.

It appears he himself claps to himself.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/zize-n12.shtml

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."

Catchfire wrote:

....And I suppose that it's pointless to argue that Zizek's "po-mo crap" (he's not a postmodernist, incidentally) and "obscurantist language" is regularly published in the London Review of Books and the Guardian. And his books are published by widely read presses. But don't let that get in the way of particpating in the anti-intellectual discourse so popular with those frightened by radical philosophy.

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.

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.

Catchfire, your responses on here have been great and much more articulate than anything I could have come up with.  Bravo!

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 ...

M. Spector wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

...There was a similar smear done on maligned ex-OttawaU prof Denis Rancourt, also accused as a "climate change denier" (and hence discredited), when his position was that capitalism was the problem and that climate change activism was a liberal dumb show which didn't target its root cause.

Well now you're just compounding bullshit with bullshit. Denis Rancourt writes climate change denial articles that are carried on climate change denial websites like [url=http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7473]this piece of crap.[/url]

 

Timebandit wrote:

ebodyknows wrote:

 What's most important is the idea, of which I am jealous; to go stick a camera in front of philosophers.

Um, no.  The idea is the important first part.  The execution of that idea then becomes more important.

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.

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?

Catchfire wrote:

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.

 

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?

2dawall wrote:

...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/ 

 

 

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).

Catchfire wrote:

Quote:

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.