TNR on Zizek

Zizek gets some (unflattering) mainstream attention from Adam Kirsch in The New Republic.  Just to give you a sample of tone:

I witnessed the same deception a few weeks ago, when Zizek appeared with Bernard-Henri Lévy at the New York Public Library. The two philosopher-celebrities came on stage to the theme music from Superman, and their personae were so perfectly opposed that they did indeed nudge each other into cartoonishness: Lévy was all the more Gallic and debonair next to Zizek, who seemed all the more wild-eyed and Slavic next to Lévy. Thus it was perfectly natural for the audience to erupt in laughter when Zizek, at one point in the generally unacrimonious evening, told Lévy: "Don't be afraid--when we take over you will not go to the Gulag, just two years of reeducation camp." Solzhenitsyn had died only a few weeks earlier, but it would have been a kind of betise to identify Zizek's Gulag with Solzhenitsyn's Gulag. When the audience laughed, it was playing into his hands, and hewing to the standard line on Zizek, which Rebecca Mead laid down in a profile of him in The New Yorker a few years ago: "Always to take Slavoj Zizek seriously would be to make a category mistake."

Read "The Deadly Jester."

Comments

[indiefaith]

Do you have anything to add?

[James K.A. Smith]

No, I've taken a kind of vow of blog silence on Zizek. I just don't know him well enough to really comment (and haven't been motivated enough to really want to rectify that--probably just a sign I'm getting old and boring). And by posting the link, I didn't mean to necessarily suggest endorsement of Kirsch's take on him. But neither do I think this sort of take on Zizek can just be dismissed.

[Kevin]

It's a good read, thanks for the link. But there's more than a few instances of stupidity:

"Boynton was amused to see the manic, ranting philosopher order mint tea and sugar cookies: "'Oh, I can't drink anything stronger than herbal tea in the afternoon,' he says meekly. 'Caffeine makes me too nervous.'" The intellectual parallel is quite clear: in life, as in his writing, Zizek is all bark and no bite."

Kirsch needs a better editor -- nobody should let that kind of tripe go to print. Sorry, the intellectual parallel is not quite clear. Zizek, like millions of people over the age of, say, 20, can't have caffeine after lunch. This is not shocking or informative. Furthermore, it undermines Kirsch's whole point: to say Zizek is "all bark and no bite" means he's not really all that subversive -- yet TNR bills Kirsch's piece as an examination of "the most despicable philosopher in the West."

[Colin]

I knew someone would pounce on Zizek's statement about the lack of violence in the Holocaust. If one takes the comment out of context it can almost be twisted to paint Zizek as a holocaust denier, which is patently false. His point is not that there was not enough killing in the Holocaust, it is precisely that there was too much killing, thus revealing the impotence (i.e. lack of violence, inability to upset the social order, etc.) of the Third Reich. In this way a movement of nonviolence (Zizek mentions Ghandi) could be seen as a violent movement, at least in my interpretation.

Zizek explains this in Violence, oh... say... maybe three paragraphs or so before doing his Hegelian magic. It shocked me, so I made sure I read it correctly. Unfortunately it seems that this reviewer has a bone to pick so misreading is encouraged. And of course Zizek's supposed quirks are heavily emphasized to make even more of a clown out of him than has already been done so. As Kevin mentioned, what the hell does his tea preference have to do with his thought?

If the reviewer was truly afraid of Zizek I would have expected a bit more commentary on the final section of In Defense of Lost Causes, which to me suggested that Zizek might attempt a positive contribution to politics. Unfortunately I didn't really read much about the two books supposedly being reviewed here, so I can only assume that this portion didn't fit well with Kirsch's "all bark and no bite" spiel.

[rodney neill]

James,

I know very little about philosphy apart from chats with Pete Rollins - he has read Zizek extensively and much of his recent work is shaped by Zizeks ideas... in the 'emerging church' conversation will Zizek rather than Derrida not be the next big philosphical influence?

Rodney

[James K.A. Smith]

[Rodney: This is me resisting the temptation to say what I'm really thinking right now.] I wouldn't want to prognosticate about "the next big thing" or "emergent."

[Colin]

I personally can't imagine Zizek being the next big thing for emergent. His ideas hitting the ground running are expressed primarily in the political realm and are quite contrary to the "niceness" of emergent. In my opinion it seems like it would be hard to go from Derrida to Zizek, which is something that has continually puzzled me about Peter Rollins' books. Anyway, to paraphrase a half-kidding Zizek, all churches should be shut down and converted into cultural artifacts as under Mao.

[Geoff Holsclaw]

I agree with Colin, that Zizek read well is very far from Derrida and therefore would not initially be the 'next thing for emergents.' However, with that said, Zizek has a cultural side that is very transgressive that emergents would find fascinating, and therefore would find him appealing.

but I've also heard people try and link Badiou to 'weak thought' and derrida/Vattimo, so emergent can do what ever they want i guess.

and jamie, great job on the restrain!

As a wild speculation (and a window on the paper I'm currently writing), if it can be shown that Derrida is as Hegelian as he is Kantian, then along with Zizek's Hegelianism, it is no wonder that emergents prefer both to classical theology. While many fear the Hellenization of classical theology; might we now be in danger of the Hegelianization of contemporary theology?

[rodney neill]

I have recently read 'Christ in Postmodern Philosophy: Gianni Vattimo, Rene Girard, and Slavoj Zizek' by Frederiek Depoortere in which the author notes an increasing turn to Christological themes in Zizeks recent work so there might be inspiration for emerging theologians there...

Only Pete Rollins can answer question about his work in reference to Zizek/Derrida influence.Pete has a steadily increasing influence in the theology/philosphy postmodern conversation after his recent and forthcoming USA tours so his ideas are bound to have impact..athough his ideas will probably be poles apart from contributors to this website which has been characterised as a 'Radical Orthodoxy' thinktank.

Rodney

[James K.A. Smith]

I think a number of our contributors would be surprised--and a little non-plussed--to think they were part of a "Radical Orthodoxy Think Tank."

As for Rollins impact, well [once again exercising self-restraint].

[rodney neill]

James,

I have heard the website described as such but since I know very little about philosphy/theology the term could very well be unfair/not a good description/way off the mark - I did not mean to be cheeky!

I have been a fan of the website for the last few years even though much of it is above my head....

all the best,

Rodney

[Peter Rollins]

James: lol, I kinda like being someone who you need to hold back commenting on...

[James K.A. Smith]

Peter: please do take it as a compliment and a sign of friendship. As you well know, I completely disagree. But I also don't think a philosophical debate is quite the right response to what you're doing. So I take the vow of silence and enjoy the show.

[adrian]

Hi, guys---

I'm mainly just dropping in to say "hello" and wish you all well. It's been a while since I commented here!

My comment today is just another version of the point I---one-note Charlie---have always made whenever I have commented here, to wit:

We can and should discuss what light Zizek (or Derrida, or Badiou, or whoever) may or may not shed on our efforts to work out a post-fundamentalist Christianity. But we should also discuss how to ensure that the attempt to use their work as a resource for such a project(1)not unduly co-opt them; and (2) not preclude the recourse to other, perhaps better resources for the post-fundamentalist project, e.g., the Church Fathers (who, whatever their similarities in some respects with Derrida or whomever, are quite different from them as to their general mindset).

I'm glad you're all still out here in cyberspace.

Cordially,
Adrian

[jondopabs]

zizek owns him in his response...

emerging church ... or the postmodern mesh of christianity and postmodern theory its zizek's best friend that even zizek might not know about... i wonder what he would say about the peter rollinses of popping up everywhere in the west. "religion is one of the possible places from which one can deploy critical doubts about today's society. It has become one of the sites of resistance."

the pomochurch just needs to take one more step ... to face the traumatic kernel... of the brutality of meaninglessness.