Sunday, March 20, 2005
(9:13 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
If you want to critique Zizek
Do it from the left:The sheer banality of this analysis is a bit below the level to which the mainstream Nouvel Observateur can reach. The wave of terrorist bombings in Paris of course was treated more or less calmly as the police matter it was, and N. O. readers would be better served by some discussion of how the Bush regime managed to turn a police matter into a Hollywood disaster thriller's Grim and Desperate Moment Of Truth through deftly orchestrated political and media theatre in the Drama Queen style of ludicrous over-reaction. But Zizek has swallowed the risible theatrical whole - the ridiculous hiding-in-bunkers, closing airspace for days not hours, shutting down normal transport even thousands of miles away from the crime scene, the 24 hour video loop, the endless commemorations of anniversaries, the President's Dionysian reappearance from his symbolic death amidst the rubble vowing revenge, the sudden transformation of the administration from ordinary politicians open to criticism to a small grim and determined emergency 'leadership' who spoke and behaved like a military junta who had just taken power after the Deluge. Zizek serenly promotes that essential pillar of propaganda - 9/11, which did not even negatively affect Soho and Tribeca real estate values was exactly what Bush requires it to appear, a massive catastrophe, a world historical watershed, an event as cataclysmic as the Nazi invasion of Poland or Belarus. And under cover of this replay of the main Bush regime theme for the center-left readers of N.O. who are skeptical of it, he slips in a gesture of contempt for the most radical and trenchant struggles to contain and roll back the power of capital that would otherwise be obvious as a striking center-right prise de position.This particular post is interspersed with exerpts from a French interview with Zizek, translated in brackets. Here's another fun chunk:
The question - why think about an popular 'public' intellectual of a sort (not after the Marcuse, Sartre or Chomsky style, not an engagé or activist who might affect your tax obligations) with whom you don't agree? - has the flavour of 'the emperor is naked.' Wouldn't it be better to just ignore what you don't like, whether its FoxNews or Camille Paglia or Forrest Gump?I read a whole post by Alphonse van Worden, the blogger everyone's been talking about (Jodi Dean, Matt, Mark Kaplan...) -- even though it was long! I consumed it. It had French in it, even.
While in general, the question has obvious answers, when applied to Zizek - not why does Zizek think and write about things he doesn't like and get hysterical about decaf and The Talented Mr. Ripley ("not as good as the book"), but why would anyone else think and write about Zizek - it is more complex. It hints at a hidden and assumed model of a medium not factually in question. Why are you watching this show if you don't like it? Why don't you go read a book?
For television, it is well established: people don't turn off television, they watch the programme which appalls them the least. If one show is objectionable, they don't try to influence it, to engage with it, they change the channel in search of something less objectionable.
We were joking, of course, but M. Gauche, Anthony, and I more or less decided that we should do an edited volume of blog people who work on contemporary philosophy. I don't know if we would market it as such or if anyone would in fact purchase such a volume. I do know that since Anthony has not yet completed his BA degree, his CV is in need of more help than either mine (soon to be a world-renowned Derrida translator) or M. Gauche's (a hyperproductive book reviewer and conferencier, spearheading the Badiouian cause), and so he would get the editor credit. And, probably, do most of the work.
Brad Johnson, Discard the Name, Old (Doug Johnson), all those previously mentioned -- are you in? And do we have a publisher? Does anyone have connections? Jodi? Even without Jodi's massive connections, though, I think we can do this. It is, as they say, "doable." And Anthony is ready and waiting for your submissions. Hell, the material that Old has contributed already could easily be compiled into a single paper -- we already have our first contribution, right here, right in the archives.
I recant on my remark about long posts. Two screenfuls sometimes isn't enough.
