Das Herrenvolk?Just listen to Zizek (especially after 6:35). Zizek is of course a fascist, as far as his cultural inclinations are concerned (by his own admission, e.g. the Stalin Poster in his apartment, his love for the army, for order, etc). No wonder we are in agreement here.
What I do find problematic is some points made earlier in his speech, namely his reading of "They live". The fact that the enemy isn't principally in us, but the Other is to be targeted and eliminated is highly dangerous: antisemitic readings may well arise. It also misses an obvious point: the narrative used in "The live" is identical to the one anti-imperialism used to describe and elaborate on US-American involvement in Third-World countries vaguely up till the year the aforementioned film came into circulation (1988).
Kärnten bleibt Deutsch!Further reading: Deibt bleutsch!, Zizek's article in Die Zeit
the transcript of Zizek's speech at NYPL
the transcript of Zizek's speech at NYPL
Δυστυχώς από την Γερμανία δεν μπορώ να κοιτάξω το video των Rammstein.
AntwortenLöschenI have to admit that I find Zizek in his interviews pretty entertaining. In a way I would define him as the Sasha Cohen of philosophy. But that is where the fun would stop. Whereas Cohen is trying to expose, Zizek usually comes off as a bad infomercial ("...of course I cover this in my book...", "...if you bought my book I mention this..."...).
AntwortenLöschenBuy my book...read my book...my book...my...You get it!
His reading of the Rammstein video and the 2 minutes he dedicates talking about it are fine in my opinion. Nothing wrong there. However, one could raise the point here that he is not saying anything groundbreaking either (a freshman student of Continental Philosophy in any university would have given the same thesis).
The issue here is deeper however. Is Zizek the figure that the post-modernistists have been looking for? Is this postmodernism's superstar (which btw if he is a Lacanian Marxist he can't, strictly technically speaking, be a post-modernist anyway)? Why does every f*cking, post-modernist/feminist/colonialist "intellectual", who is supposed to be "progressive" (but would hate being labeled that way) in adoration with this guy?
I think that Zizek is like a new Chomsky. Producing multiple books a year with nothing really substantial to say. I can't say that I have read all of his books but don't have any intention to do so either. What we blame the right wing of doing (sophistry based on mambo jambo) we have ended up doing ourselves.
The real danger however, as you have mentioned in your article, is how far these guys are taking their game and how is academia responding to them (I am leaving the atttacks on the prose and reasoning of people like Zizek aside because I view them as technical and not socially and theoretically substantial). Zizek is a fascist with no regards about the "Other" (and yet hailed by gay Jewish feminists academicians as a messiah). Another example would be all those post-colonial/gender/etc feminists that run to defend dancehall homophobia (and songs that ask for gays to be killed) and blame the west for it!!!!
Pragmatically for the gay academic community this poses a real danger with the departments having been taken over by a bunch of people that noone reads what they write (except for themselves - IF you call that writing) and GLBTQ studies having become postmodernist readings of Wilde and Proust (there is a great criticsm of that by Larry Kramer) . Anything else (that may actually have some social impact) is brushed off to the sociologists of gender and family (sociology of course being the dying social science). But the gloryfication of people like Zizek poses the even greater danger that will force us into a social regression.
To paraphrase Foucault's introduction to Anti-Oedipus and take it a step further...where are all these readings of Marx, Freud, Lacan and Derrida taking the Gay and Jewish community? Can we really still talk about the current homosexual struggle through those models of thought or do we need to go a step further?
I würde deiner Majestät sog'n, ΕΥΤΥΧΩΣ που από την Γερμανία δεν μπορεί καμιά να παρακολουθήσει το συγκεκριμένο video!
AntwortenLöschen:-)
@Anonymus
"I have to admit that I find Zizek in his interviews pretty entertaining."
Quite so. He labels most of his appearances "speech and performance by S.Zizek"
"Zizek usually comes off as a bad infomercial"
I couldn't disagree more. The fact that many of the points made in his speeches are already elaborated upon in his books being true as it may, I have never ever heard him referring to any of his books at all. He even resists the customary promotion tours following a publication.
"His reading of the Rammstein video and the 2 minutes he dedicates talking about it are fine in my opinion. Nothing wrong there. However, one could raise the point here that he is not saying anything groundbreaking either (a freshman student of Continental Philosophy in any university would have given the same thesis)."
Would she really? Well, I need to get admitted into that Uni! :-)
"The issue here is deeper however. Is Zizek the figure that the post-modernistists have been looking for? Is this postmodernism's superstar (which btw if he is a Lacanian Marxist he can't, strictly technically speaking, be a post-modernist anyway)? Why does every f*cking, post-modernist/feminist/colonialist "intellectual", who is supposed to be "progressive" (but would hate being labeled that way) in adoration with this guy?"
Well, he himself is against postmodernists and against being labeled one. He has mentioned (commenting on the "Zizek!" documentary film) that he hasn't found a satisfying rationale for this fixation on him. So I'd say, if he cannot answer that, nobody will :D
"I think that Zizek is like a new Chomsky. Producing multiple books a year with nothing really substantial to say. I can't say that I have read all of his books but don't have any intention to do so either. What we blame the right wing of doing (sophistry based on mambo jambo) we have ended up doing ourselves."
I must object in the strongest possible terms to this proposition. I find Zizek has always something new to say, as well as that his position is gradually shifting. Chomskyites and right-wingers still fail to grasp what was said here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WveI_vgmPz8] forty years ago.
"Zizek is a fascist with no regards about the "Other" (and yet hailed by gay Jewish feminists academicians as a messiah)."
Well Zizek is not a fascist at all, in the terms you propose here. Just check this for example: http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?id=c6570f94-f4b8-4b2a-b3f5-6adefe8d15ca
"[...] Can we really still talk about the current homosexual struggle through those models of thought or do we need to go a step further?"
But is not Zizek himself this step further?
I am not ready to dismiss him just on grounds of one or two ill-judged thoughts· as far as I know, he hasn't WROTE anything that poorly conceived on "They live", and would he have had time, he would have elaborated on many more a point, giving a picture more to our satisfaction.
HEIL Rammstein >>
AntwortenLöschenEn tw metaksy to tragoudi Links 234 grafthke san apanthsh se osous kathgorousan to band oti ekfrazei fasizonta idewdh. Etsi asxetws th melwdia, to tragoudi ypotithetai katatassetai sto xwro ths aristeras me mia eudiakrith eirwnia ston militarismo tou yparktou socialismou mesa apo to marching akousma.
Malista oi anafores sthn kardia pou xtypaei aristera, einai empneusmenes apo ton Lafontaine tou Die Linke.
Kritika pantws panta milwntas, to Amerika einai arketa antiamerikaniko wste na prosferei san koino shmeio synanthshs ton antiamerikanismo, stous apantaxou fasistes kai stous kat epifasin "aristerous". Kati san ton antishmitismo pou enwnei ton Ethnikososialismo me to Sosialismo eis sarka mia.
Kai na prosthesw oti to bourlo pou anebase to en logw video to opoio prin kairo eixa proseksei, einai apo thn Oukrania h thn Ouggaria, de thymamai akribws. Kai ante na ths ekshgw egw oti an hmoun o Hitler tha th sixainomoun gt einai slaba.
AntwortenLöschenAlla h kahmenh epemene oti efoson o pappous ths polemhse "enantia stous kommounistes sto pleuro twn germanwn" tote eimai den kserw ki egw ti pou thn amfisbhtw.
Bebaia mallon den exei anrwththei akomh gt o pappous ths den htan sta SS. Isws gt htan slavos kai ara ypanthrwpos? Sta SS epitrepotan h eisdoxh mono katharwn Arywn kai se orismenes periptwseis se monades pou drousan sto ekswteriko, se Aryous A' Kathgorias (stous opoious symperilambanontan kai oi Ellhnes alla metepesan sthn parakaltw kathgoria logw ths sthenarhs antistashs tou KKE kai tou ELAS)
Το "Amerika" έχει πολλές αναγνώσεις...
AntwortenLöschenΓια τα SS δες εδώ:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:SS-Division
οι σλάβΟΙ πολέμησαν στα Waffen-SS (ΟΙ ΟυκρανΟΊ συγκεκριμένα στην 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (galizische Nr. 1)).
Πρόσεξε μια ωραία διαφορά όμως:
Οι μονάδες των Waffen-SS οι επΑΝΔΡΩΜΈΝΕΣ με "Untermenschen" είναι "der SS", δηλ. οργανωτικά, "των SS". Αντίθετα οι μεραρχίες επανδρωμένες με "Άρειους" ΕΙΝΑΙ τα SS (π.χ. SS-Freiwilligen etc...)