Talk:Slavoj Žižek

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its subpage (Aug 2004) to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Archived discussion of merged page (Critiques_of_Slavoj_Žižek)

Coke

Zizek denies the usage of coke http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2009/10/today-interview-capitalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.233.131.18 (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

Somebody who knows how simply has to make a redirect without all those little gnats all over the letters. I tried to link here from another article, but not having a Martian keyboard, I couldn't do it. This is the English-language Wikipedia, incidentally, in case anybody's confused. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Slavoj Zizek already redirects to this article (and has for some time). If you feel any other redirects are required, go ahead and create them. Terraxos (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Use cut and paste, and you can recreate the "Martian" characters without a special keyboard!93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC).

Uhmm

I removed the word 'Leninist' from the Lead section. I don't think it's sensible to describe his political stance in the Lead section with one word; when he's not jokingly referring to himself as a fascist or a Stalinist, he can be talking as a liberal leftist, Marxist, Leninist and whatnot. He's also opposed both anarchism and the State in the same talk -- overall his politics are ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulbous oxen (talk • contribs) 16:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the "Leninist" characterization adds far more smoke than fire. There are some comparatively narrow ways in which Z speaks positively of Lenin relative to some specific debates. But in many other ways, he is more sympathetic to the intellectual opponents of Lenin (within Marxist circles still, of course): e.g. he's more Luxemburgian relative to her disputes with Lenin.

I'm also not sure why the anon keeps trying to erase Hegel, who figures far more prominently than Lenin--perhaps even than Marx--in Z's work. Yes, in some odd way "Marxists are Hegelians"... except all the ones who are not because they reject or revise Hegel (oh... say Marx rejecting Hegel). LotLE×talk 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He has criticised Luxemburg for her reticence and argued passionately on the BBC recently that terror is politically virtuous. He is 100% Leninist, and I think he makes a good argument. Hegelian is very broad and includes a variety of sub-philosophies, but if you insist then fine. --84.67.155.170 (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Recently on the BBC" sure doesn't sounds like biographical perspective, but rather like WP:NEWS. In any case, "terror is politically virtuous" is very hard to find as a "Leninist" position... at least not in the sense that Lenin ever argued such a thing. I'm sure you can find some oddball CP<wherever>-ML group that might claim that position... but this just piles digressions upon artifice upon original research. LotLE×talk 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

He made the same case in his introduction to Robespierre's "Virtue and Terror". Oh, and Lenin led something called the Red Terror. I have already stated that I'm not making a case for changing the article anymore, so please stop firing inaccurate information at me to bolster your "argument". --84.67.155.170 (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I watched him on a video on YouTube where he states himself as a Stalinist, and in another video where he shows where he lives and shows he has a picture of Stalin on his wall. I've read many of his writings, and I find him fascinating, and probably one of the most smartest people alive. In a way I kind of believe he is a Marxist in a very intellectual way, and Stalinist in a dark humour way, as well as praising Lenin. --Madkaffir (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The video where he says he's a Stalinist and shows he has a picture of Stalin on his wall is from the film 'Žižek!'. It's later followed (in the same film) with another clip in the same scene, where Žižek explains it. If I remember correctly, he also commented on the 'Žižek!' film and said that this was the only scene that was intentionally staged for the film. Statements like that are there to provoke, anyone familiar with his work probably knows that he's not a Stalinist. --TheMariborchan (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor Error

The article has the name "Adrian Johnston" listed under the seventh full paragraph under the "Life" section. The link leads to a British musician. I do not believe this is correct as there is an Adrian Johnston who works as a professor of philosophy at the University of New Mexico who I know has written the stated book on Zizek.

So... I have no idea how to fix that or anything... figured it needed pointing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.5.17 (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'll make DAB pages. If someone can actually write the aritcle on the Adrian Johnston of interest, that would help. LotLE×talk 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Heraclitus

If Heraclitus was called "the weeping philosopher", I would suggest Žižek be called "the sniffing philosopher." --Tsinfandel (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Lede

I suggest that the lede's first sentence as it stands now -- "...is a Hegelian philosopher, Lacanian theoretical psychoanalyst, Marxist political thinker, film theorist, and cultural critic" -- is overly detailed, unwieldy and confusing in its terminology. I have never understood this article's aversion to ascribing to Zizek a nationality. Perhaps somebody could explain it to me. I would suggest something like "...is a Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic working in the Hegelian and Lacanian traditions. He has made contributions to political theory, film theory, theoretical psychoanalysis, and cultural criticism." I realize this renders the last paragraph largely redundant, but something to this effect sounds more felicitous to me. Thoughts? Grunge6910 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to the reworded lead as proposed by Grunge6910. LotLE×talk 07:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

German idealism

According to the article, At its most basic, German idealism believes that the truth of something could be found in itself. For Žižek, the fundamental insight of German idealism is that the truth of something is always outside it. This is very uninformative and seems to have nothing to do with German Idealism. After Kant had shown that the existence of God could not be proved, the German Idealists tried to rescue the concept of God by changing its designation from the word "God" to the word "Absolute." How do we go from that to Žižek's "fundamental insight" that "the truth of something is always outside it."?Lestrade (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Your problem with the statement amounts to personal research. It is irrelevant if German Idealist such as Kant actually advocated such a position or not. What matter is If Slavoj Zizek actually advocates this reading or not. I suggest this be given a needs citation. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Image

Kudos to whoever provided the photo. It alludes to the (I think) important biographical fact of his incessant gesticulation while speaking, without being pejorative or making him look "like a paedophile" (something he has mentioned being wary of). Ebenheaven (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Kkolozova (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Alenka Zupancic could not have become Slavoj's friend and colleague in the late 70 since she was about 10 years old then; so, I have removed her nameKkolozova (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Analia Hounie

"(...) Argentine model and Lacanian scholar Analia Hounie."

Zizek did marry this lady, I do not question this statement. If confirmation is required, you can check here:

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/28536695/ACTING-UP

for references to an article from "New Humanist," January 2008, by John Clark confirming it. I do not question that she is a model, as it is also stated in the aforementioned article. However, "Lacanian scholar"? Are you joking? Her name appears in association with one (1) and ONLY ONE book, which is in fact a sort of transcript of Zizek's lecture/s in Buenos Aires. She is, in fact, only credited as "Compiladora" (Compiler, not even editor). See here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Violencia-Acto-Conferencias-Buenos-Espacios/dp/9501265420/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268613971&sr=1-1

and here:

http://www.libreriapaidos.com/libros/0/950126542.asp

She marries a Lacanian scholar and all of a sudden she is one? Please, amend this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.193.239 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 81.99.193.239 (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Atheist

Judging from his views and comments about Christianity and religion in general, couldn't he be considered more of an antitheist than an atheist? DMJohnston (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be referring to the agnostic vs. atheist distinction. There's no difference in the terms given unless you define one. Have "First as Tragedy, Then as Farce", will perhaps post something here or in the article. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Antireligious" of course does have a meaning distinct from being an atheist and some but not all atheists are anti-religious. Finished the title above finding it hypothetical of Nitzan's Differential accumulation thesis applied to the current historical moment with no salient original thesis, so taking a dismissive posture here and reviewing DA. It's odd for this page to be protected. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He may call himself an atheist, but if he also calls himself a "Christian" anything, he can't possibly be an atheist. Atheism is the rejection of all claims of the existence of the divine, Christianity is belief in the claim that Jesus is or was a divine being (either in part or in whole); the positions are mutually exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.211.203 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

List articles by date, like for books?

Similar to the lost for books, can somebody help list/categorise articles based on year of publication? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.128.75 (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree Tsinfandel (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"notoriety" vs "fame"

A lot of people seem to be unaware of this, but "notoriety" does not mean "fame." It means being famous in a negative way. A criminal or a pseudo-celebrity is notorious (usually "for" follows the word). I've changed the word to make the entry more neutral, although "fame" isn't totally neutral either. Evangeline (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "well-known"? Jaque Hammer (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Serbo Croatian

Please remove the mention of Serbo-Croatian, as this language does not exist. There are two languages: Serbian and Croatian. Thank you. 93.139.0.219 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croation is a language. It is written in two different alphabets, but is denoted, by all linguists, as one language. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.84.38 (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on Taylor, Paul (2010) "Zizek and the Media"

Text to go in Section 6 - Critical Introductions to Zizek and to say:

Paul A. Taylor. Zizek And The Media (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010).

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. One of the reasons for this page's semi-protection was spam-linking, so I don't think it would be appropriate to add this without discussion. AJCham 08:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. The Amazon link to the book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Zizek-Media-Paul-Taylor/dp/074564368X The author: http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/details.cfm?id=17 Paimproviser (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paimproviser (talk • contribs) 22:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So how does one go about establishing the consensus needed to have this inserted into a semi-protected article?Paimproviser (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Changed the title from "edit requested" Paimproviser (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What a mess--need references and plagiarism from other wiki-articles?

First of all, the whole section on "Thought" needs to either reference specific books or needs to use quotes. Secondly, the whole second on "The Real" seems to be plagiarized right off the Jacques Lacan page. Vientelibro (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

wow i wonder if *any* of this is reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.182.30 (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops didn't see someone already caught this. The Symbolic section is too. http://www.lacan.com/zizekchro1.htm They should be removed until someone can write an actual entry. --24.61.191.94 (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have proposed merging Critiques of Slavoj Žižek here. It would give more balance and substance to this article. And anyone who makes his or her way through this article as it is would not be daunted by a little extra material. Jaque Hammer (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I will merge the articles this afternoon if no one objects. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Žižek is also an avid Falconer

this is a joke.

the reference picture does not show slavoj zizek. there are no other references to this claim to be found online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvo101 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

On Iran

I had just deleted from the criticism section the part about Iran. All it was was a comment from Hamid Dabashi claiming he doesn't know that Zizek doesn't know what he's talking about. There was no substance to the criticism, or anything at all really. The section didn't go into why exactly Dabashi thinks Zizek was wrong, he just sort of states it as if it were self-evident. xcuref1endx (talk) 1:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"A return to The German Ideology"?

In ontology there's a statement

While Žižek posits a return to the category of the Cartesian subject, a return to The German Ideology, and a return to Lacan, he does so in a way that undercuts their foundations and re-energizes their potential.

The link The German Ideology is to Marx'es book The German Ideology where he criticises "The German Ideology". The link didn't make sense, so I substituted it for German idealism, where Žižek is extensively mentioned. But I might be wrong: since Žižek is from a post-Marxist country, maybe he really propones what he calls The German Ideology. If I'm wrong, please be WP:BOLD. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Every talk I've heard, Zizek is scathing about Marx's early text 'The German Ideology'. He has written books on the German Idealists (Schelling, Fichte, Hegel) so the reference is to that. But I wouldn't say 'return' to but 'reappropriation of insights from German Idealism' 175.39.15.250 (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 21 April 2012 demetrius

"thought" section

I fail to understand why are the topics on the section "thought" the most relevant about his work. The list presented in this section (the real, the symbolic, etc.) is nothing more than a Lacan reference. Zizek's work is way beyond that, and I know it may be difficult for us to make a brief description about every topic he has worked on, but the ones listed are far from providing to the reader a synthesis of his work. I vote for deleting this section, or changing it completely.

--Mpg v (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Also the entire Symbolic section is copy and pasted from here: http://www.lacan.com/zizekchro1.htm --24.61.191.94 (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of section

I've queried the complete removal of this section: Accusations of fascism and antisemitism at this user page, wondering if the removal was excessive or flimsily based. I'd appreciate comments here or there. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the whole of the section is a pretty gross violation of WP:BLP in being little other than a personal attack on Zizek (albeit one sourced to someone; but for a public and controversial intellectual, you can always find someone who will say something excessively negative). There may be some way to incorporate a small part of it back into the article without the attack title, but the "Criticism/Critique" section itself seems to veer pretty badly off the cliff of WP:UNDUE weight. 76.170.68.189 (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the somewhat elaborated rationale. I guess I'll have to dig further in, if I'm to recover some, all or any of the edit. That won't be now but maybe later. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Life

He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault.

Žižek completed his PhD at Ljubljana in 1981 on German Idealism, and between 1981 and 1985 studied in Paris under Jacques Alain Miller, Lacan’s son-in-law. In this period, Žižek wrote a second dissertation, a Lacanian reading of Hegel, Marx and Kripke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.162.206 (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV/Refimprove - Thought

The section called "Thought" needs a lot of work. The material it contains needs to be expressed in a neutral manner. It needs simplified to assist readers who do not study philosophy, and it needs more inline citations. I'm adding the NPOV and Refimprove tags. These should be removed only when that section's content is expressed neutrally, and when the sources are verified and cited, respectively.

Example of NPOV problem: "..he does so in a way that undercuts their foundations and re-energizes their potential."

Fennasnogothrim (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

How do folks feel about the article, particularly the "Thought" section, as it is now? Can we remove (some of) these tags? If not, what specifically needs work? groupuscule (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we can safely remove neutrality tag. The technical tag is deserved until we further copy edit and condense the section. The citations need to be strengthened, as it appears that many citations are inline citations, which need to be fully referenced and properly formatted. Other comments about what we need to do on the section.

1. We need a better introduction to the thought section. The two graphs are contradictory and don't really tell the reader anything. Can we get some substance in there?
2. Ontology section doesn't need number points, as 2 and 3 are the same topic and should be in their own graph.
3. Ontology section should be condensed.
4. Change Big Other section to an "On Ideology" section, bringing the discussion of ideology currently under Ontology down here.
5. Atheism and religion section doesn't really add much, i.e. I don't see this as a core of Zizek's thought.

Archivingcontext (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing revisions

Perhaps folks notice that I've been slowly reworking the "Thought" section. I think my changes are good, but it would be great to hear what others think. We should seek to (justifiably!) remove those ugly tags, ASAP.

Going to rewrite the major remaining section. Also going to take the last paragraph of the first section—you know, the one that starts with "Žižek tries to sidestep relativism by claiming that there is a diagonal ontological cut across apparently incommensurable discourses..."—and fold those ideas into other sections.

We might also create a new section called "Politics" or maybe ("Žižek's politics") to describe SZ's positions on major political issues. This could make the article more interesting and useful. It would also draw some of the content from the lengthy "Life" section. Heck, we could do a similar thing for "Žižek on culture": it's what he's best known for and, again, could help to make the material more accessible.

Love, groupuscule (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nostalgia for American imperialism graph in "Party" section

I don't understand the paragraph on nostalgia for American imperialism in the "centralized party" section. The topic sentence says that he made his nostalgia clear, but the qualification at the end says it does not mean that he has nostalgia. If this needs to be read in a different way, then someone needs to edit the graph to clarify what it should mean. If this confused reading is the only one possible, however, then it should probably be cut. Archivingcontext (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the said graph under question. It is clear now. However, it seems misplaced. The section is focused on Zizek's call for a central party as the apparatus to replace the neo-liberal state. I don't think he agrees with someone like Nail Ferguson that the US is that party. The graph is more of Z just pontificating on the changing global situation; the views here espoused cannot represent the constancy on his position of revolution. Delete? 111.235.214.79 (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Although it does not appear to fit in this section as it stands, but perhaps it could be moved to another section. Archivingcontext (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Move "in documentaries" section under "Notes"

The "In documentaries" section continues to grow, but the content is more of a reference rather than explication of the man or his ideas. I propose moving it under "Notes" at the end of the article. Archivingcontext (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

On the exciting controversial 'trajectories' section:

Let's talk about it please? I really don't have strong feelings about it but I sense that something is wrong when my watchlist shows a huge chunk of text been continually deleted and restored. It does read a little like an essay. Maybe we could talk about who is making the claims about parallels between Z's work and others? Maybe we could diversify the section a bit to make it about Z's relationship to other philosophers in general? We shouldn't have to fight about this. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating a discussion on this matter. (Apologies for the late response as I am traveling.) My position is that every thinker is situated in a historical context, and an encyclopedia article on that thinker should give some indication of that context as well as the parallels of contemporary thought or different trajectories of their ideas. (The May '68 generation are particularly fascinating in this regard due to the number of different ideas and trajectories that arose among them--if I am biased then it is to this group.) Thus, the idea behind the section under discussion is to situate Zizek and draw parallels and trajectories of his thought in relation to his contemporaries. The first graph of the section attempts to do some of the situating and brings in Badiou to do so, while the other two graphs trace a trajectory of an alternative path taken by Unger.

I am all in favor of diversifying the section, and welcome others to contribute. The trick, however, is to avoid original research. The two articles of scholarship on Zizek and his contemporaries I had at hand are what this section is based on, and they are cited in the first sentence. These are from peer reviewed philosophy and law journals that cannot be confined to a minority opinion. Further contributions should also adhere to this strict standard of references.

Lastly, I will work on editing the tone and citing the scholarship on the matter rather than the primary sources of the thinkers themselves. Ça va? Archivingcontext (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There is great value in placing a thinker in the context of his/her contemporaries - this sheds greater light on the thinker being discussed while broadening the reader's knowledge by introducing him to other.related thinkers. So I think this section would be brilliant if it is kept and possibly add other relevant thinkers. Doinggreatthings (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A record

This is the worst sentence I have ever seen on Wikipedia: "Žižek tries to sidestep relativism by claiming that there is a diagonal ontological cut across apparently incommensurable discourses, which points to their intersubjectivity."—Chowbok ☠ 03:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ability to produce such a sentence will gain you employment in most academic institutions.98.110.35.22 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Pat Pending

Haha--sounds like a Steve Martin comic routine from the 70s. Thanks for pointing it out--we can all use a good laugh here from time to time. Gandydancer (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Revisions

I was inspired this morning and made a series of revision on the article in order to address concerns expressed on the talk pages and in the tags in the article. I did take a heavy read pen to a lot of material that I thought was either obfuscating the subject or just not adding anything to the article. Given that some of those tags have been up for years, I suggest using the talk pages here to address any concerns with my revisions rather than just undoing or reverting changes. I am completely open to discussing and improving this article. Archivingcontext (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

And can we remove those tags now? Archivingcontext (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Lede 2

I've just restored some disputed info to the lede that is well-cited by multiple RSs. Please do not revert without discussion here. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just reverted it, per discussion elsewhere. I'd have discussed here, too, if you hadn't written your second sentence William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see this information in the article. I'm not an expert but the opinions expressed in the sources seems more appropriate than that of WFC. Gandydancer (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

[E/c]

Thanks for engaging. [This was originally to WMC; after the edit conflict, it is also to Gandydancer.] Please undo your revert unless you present a cogent reason for deleting quotes from RSs. Here are some excerpts from a review by Terry Eagleton:

In The Sublime Object of Ideology, Zizek sees ideological power as resting finally on the libidinal rather than the conceptual, on the way we hug our chains rather than the way we entertain beliefs. At the root of meaning, for both Freud and Lacan, there is always a sustaining residue of non-sense. [Yopienso thought WMC would like that bit. Hyphen in original.]

Zizek illustrates the point with the story of a man faking insanity in order to escape conscription, whose ‘psychosis’ takes the form of rummaging obsessively through a pile of documents saying, ‘That’s not it, that’s not it!’ When the doctors, convinced by this frenetic performance, finally present him with a certificate of exemption, he exclaims: ‘That’s it!’ What looked like the result of his behaviour was actually the cause of it, and this reversal of cause and effect is a staple of psychoanalytic theory which Zizek expounds – as he expounds everything else – with extraordinary brio and élan.

He is, in fact, the most formidably brilliant exponent of psychoanalysis, indeed of cultural theory in general, to have emerged in Europe for some decades.

If the only topic psychoanalysis recognises is enjoyment, the same might finally be said of Zizek the writer. His books have an enviable knack of making Kant or Kierkegaard sound riotously exciting; his writing bristles with difficulties but never serves up a turgid sentence. The demotic companionability of his style is an implicit rebuke to the high-minded terrorism of so much French theory. Lacan may insist that the analyst is an empty signifier, that he holds no secret key to the patient’s unhappiness, but his posturing rhetoric belies any such disavowal. ‘Enjoy!’ is Zizek’s implicit injunction to the reader, as he shifts within a single chapter from Mozart to time travel, hysteria to Judaism, Marx to Marlboro ads, while managing somehow to sustain a coherent argument. In his case too, however, form and content are subtly at variance. The mercurial sparkle of his work is at odds with its bleak, mechanically recurrent content, for which enjoyment, in the Real, is where we encounter the least delectable truths of all.

Michael Sharpe has written a peer-reviewed overview of Zizek's philosophy at the IEP.

I believe this gives more than adequate support for the recently deleted quotes. Yopienso (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I followed this confrontation the last time around and it was my impression the WFC was being extremely arrogant, but this subject is so far out of my area that I did not speak up. I do believe that it needs to be discussed and not be deleted just because one editor thinks its bull shit. Again, I don't have a lot of knowledge of philosophy, but from what I do know, the information seemed to be accurate. Gandydancer (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the deleted quotes add anything to the article. They don't really tell us much about the man or his thought. Rather, they are opinions stated in sympathetic articles or publications, and which could be found on any subject. (As a contrast, we would not place derogatory statements about him in the lede although they are aplenty.) It seems to me, that the task of a good lede is to balance pertinent information about the subject with enough emphasis on his importance to give the reader a sense of who the subject is and why he is important. This task is better served by trying to show as much (much as the IEP piece does that is cited above), rather than pulling a quote or two out of a lauding publication to do so. So, is there something else that we can find to add to the lede that might do this work for us? Archivingcontext (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. I would like to see the word "leftist" restored and the second paragraph opening with the name Zizek instead of the pronoun he. The first helps orient a reader who doesn't know anything about Zizek's philosophy, while the second is merely stylistic. I do not like the final sentence of the lede as it stands: He has continued to develop his status as a confrontational intellectual, although the phrase "confrontational intellectual" is apt. I would go for something like, "Zizek is known as a confrontational intellectual; Terry Eagleton has called him "formidably brilliant." The first part is descriptive; the second lets the reader know he's respected by the intelligentsia and not a crank. Yopienso (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have read that many or even most readers of Wikipedia get no further than the lead and I am not that sort of Wikipedia reader--except for this and a very few other articles. I usually read the article, the links and some of the sources. I just don't like philosophy, it was torture in college...my mind just does not work that way. The lead as it now reads is meaningless to me--it says nothing. Even if the above, "Zizek is known as a confrontational intellectual; Terry Eagleton has called him "formidably brilliant." were added it would not help me much--who's Eagleton and what's a "confrontational intellectual"? It may irritate some editors to think that an editor wants the article dumbed down and that perhaps I should read the philosophy article before I criticize this one. Etc. Perhaps, though I obviously don't agree.

On the other hand, this information, "He has been called "one of the world's best known public intellectuals,"[4][5] and "the thinker of choice for Europe's young intellectual vanguard."[6]" was meaningful to me. I've heard him speak a few times and I liked him. If he had been my college philosophy teacher I would have liked it. Archivingcontext said, "Rather, they are opinions stated in sympathetic articles or publications, and which could be found on any subject. (As a contrast, we would not place derogatory statements about him in the lede although they are aplenty.)" I don't see the addition as being approving or disapproving of him but rather a statement regarding his popularity, an important question/answer for me and which right off the bat gave me a couple of sources to read that were the type of information I was actually looking for rather than much of the information contained in our article. Anyway, I may revert the article since no editor should think that they are so special that they need not bother with the article talk page to discuss changes with other editors. Gandydancer (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I see your point and think your concerns are valid. We should really then extract the kernal the offending sentences and build them into their own paragraph on the significance of the subject. In this way, I suggest we rewrite the lede entirely to give a better picture of the subject, his influence, and his significance. What I propose is the following:

• opening graph with a straightforward statement of who he is and what he does.
• second graph discussing his thought and ideas.
• third graph on his significance.

In doing this we should try to keep balanced and avoid talking up the subject or giving him undue weight. The problem that WMC and others have is that the quotes lend themselves to "puffery." I have been accused of this as well and am still trying to find the right balance in the expression of the importance of the subject and doing so in a neutral manner. Archivingcontext (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please proceed. I already put in more time here than I can afford. For a guideline, you may wish to look at the Richard Dawkins lede, which seems to me free of puffery. Well down into the article is "In the same year, he was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007,[138] and he was ranked 20th in The Daily Telegraph's 2007 list of 100 greatest living geniuses.[139] He was awarded the Deschner Award, named after German anti-clerical author Karlheinz Deschner.[140]" Yesterday I did not notice Zizek's listing on Foreign Policy's top 100 is at the bottom of the "Academic life" section. That would be a possible place to add quotes about his fame; any that could be found about notoriety would also be appropriate. I'm suggesting this from the angle of a user who hears Zizek's name and comes to Wikipedia to find out who the guy is, what he thinks, and what people who count think about him. A new section, "Critical reception," or some such, may be advisable. Yopienso (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please refraim from giving others permissions as though you were the page owner. As to FP, the article says 2012, not 2007. Yet the link given doesn't lead me to SZ William M. Connolley (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

2007 is from the well-written Dawkins BLP I'm suggesting as a model. The link works for me just fine. It's currently footnote #18, "The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers". Foreign Policy. 26 November 2012. Archived from the original on 28 November 2012. Retrieved 28 November 2012." Here's a direct link. I don't know why some kind of mark-up shows a dead url; I just clicked on the hyper-linked title and the FP list came right up to SZ, #92. Yopienso (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added in probably an over-copious quote from FP to the lede, opting not to insert the word "leftist." The quote is intended to inform the reader quickly and succinctly just what sort of a philosopher Zizek is. I believe it addresses the "nonsense" aspect mentioned by several editors. Yopienso (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "leftist" in the lede, although it is a somewhat fluid term and can mean different things in different contexts (see N Bobbio 1996). The block quote is a bit distracting in that it breaks the flow of the article; we should try to rephrase it to capture the meaning but not have to have a block quote there in the lede. I will try to work on this coming days... Archivingcontext (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

New section--"Public life"

I've put some popular, as opposed to academic, stuff into a new section. Yopienso (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo

@ IP 92.96.252.38--I think the other photo of Zizek is more appropriate for the article. This one makes him look wild, which he may be, but I think in a BLP we don't want to do that. Yopienso (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The other photo is better. Archivingcontext (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, WFCs choice was not encyclopedic. I have changed it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

templates/tags

Could the template on over-technicality be moved to the "Thought" section? Yopienso (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I reworked most of the article and rewrote the thought section a few weeks ago in order to address the concerns of both templates. If others feel the issues have been addressed and there are no other objections, I suggest we take them down. Archivingcontext (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes/questions

Thanks to all for the good work you are doing to help people like me understand the article! I am reading the criticism section because I'm wondering about the "he's all hype" comments. I don't want to get suckered in! I thought I was off to a really good start when I found the comments that "Holbo" made, but alas I was unable to download more than a teaser.

I have been looking into and do want to learn more about this very long sentence (and hopefully rewrite it for easier understanding):

If its symbolic expression is denied, collective trauma can develop into full scale post-traumatic disorder and attachment to violence (Stockholm syndrome), and in fact, as predicted by the cited Frantz Fanon, the Slovenian Littoral where Žižek's mother came from, was subjected to the Fascist repression of Slovene minority in Italy (1920-1947) for 20 years during the forced Italianization period, and later during the Fascist occupation of the Province of Ljubljana, the Italian war crimes committed against civil population were not symbolically and legally processed, only the German ones were processed in the Nuremberg Trials, because the British government prevented extradition of the Italian colonial war criminals to Yugoslavia, Greece and Ethiopia, since Pietro Badoglio, who was also on the list, was seen by British as a guarantee of an anti-communist post-war Italy.

Is Gray saying this or is "Wikipedia" saying it? Gandydancer (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in getting the page into shape, it has been a long time coming! That passage you cite is a mess. It appears to be the obtuse prose of a Wikipedian. It should be rewritten or deleted, as it borders on nonsense.

On this note, the entire criticism section should be condensed or some subsections collapsed into each other. To have so many subheadings detracts from what the core of the article should be focused on--the man and his thought. Archivingcontext (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, what the critics have to say can be helpful to form an opinion (when one knows nothing), but one then needs to form some sort of opinion of the critics as well! If someone does not even have an article I wonder how much weight to give their opinion... BTW, the "nonsense" paragraph--I wonder if it stood out as interesting to me because it actually isn't about philosophy? :-) It seems to be more about psychology. I do know a fair amount about psychology and the statements do not seem quite correct to me--though it's hard to say because I can't figure out what they're getting at. Gandydancer (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I just read Slovenia's history--poor Slovenia, what an awful time they had of it. However, it is my impression that the information most likely should be removed from the article unless someone can find a reasonable connection. Gandydancer (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually there is a reasonable connection. Let me explain. Since I am not a native English speaker I apologize for my English (and my obtuse prose mentioned above). Now, having said that, I also do not know how familiar you are with the findings in the field of transgenerational trauma and to what extent you accept those findings as factually correct, but if you do, you should be able to see the connection. Žižek's mother's community was traumatized by Fascist violence and this is now reflected in his acceptance of violence in his theory as was noted by John Gray. I'd appreciate if you would leave - but by all means you can improve the prose - this connection in the article together with the Gray's criticism. Thank you. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

I want to take a scalpel to the "criticism" section. It reads like a list of different people expressing different opinions about the man without any real coherency or addition to the article. I propose the following:

• bringing all the stuff about Marxism under the "ambiguity" subsection and cutting this down to fit thematically into a critique and not focused on what certain people said.
• cut the violence section
• move the philosophy readings and argument style under a single section to focus on questions of his rigor.

Archivingcontext (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I "butchered" the criticism section myself and moved above mentioned violence to Life. Now, if your subconscious hasn't done it already, try reading (my previous) sentence literally. See? OMG, God (read The Other) really seems to exist! ;- ) --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Unger's special guest appearance in the lede?

As already said here, I wonder how come Unger gets into the lede about Ž, while Žižek gets no such "special guest" treatment in article about Unger? DancingPhilosopher (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

@Archivingcontext: I quote you "But I would not object to removing Unger from the Zizek lede." According to this, I will once again do what you said you would not object to. Your recent action seems to be in cognitive dissonance with your words.
P.S. Sorry, I didn't notice that you did remove Unger from the lede, which is fine. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

But you still insist on unequal treatment of the two by inserting implicit criticism via comparing Ž with other contemporaries in the lede, while, on other hand, the Unger's article is spared of any unfavorable comparison with his contemporaries in the lede. The only comparison there is a favorable one, citing Richard Rorty's opinion of him. I have no other choice but to object to such an unequal treatment of the two. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a rather petty exchange. Criticism is productive. Doinggreatthings (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I can only agree with you that "criticism is productive" (however, I disagree that this particular article on Ž should be an exception in that it should contain criticism and comparison in its lede, I have looked at some other philosophers here on Wikipedia and most of them are not criticized right away in lede). I disagree with your disqualifying the above content as "petty exchange". DancingPhilosopher (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a bit of activity and talk about the lede some months ago, with the main complaint being that it did not provide enough context to inform the uninformed about who this guy is. I made some changes in effort to address those concerns; the addition of the contextualization of Z in relation to other things added by Doinggreatthings I thought also helped address these concerns. I don't see it as a criticism but a contextualization. Perhaps if you think it comes off as too critical we could work on revising the language. Overall, however, I think that it serves to introduce Z and contrast him to his contemporaries. As for the Unger page, well, I agree with you that a similar section could also be added there, which could include a similar contextualization mentioning a comparison with Z. It looks like there has been activity on the lede there recently, so I will try to get a chance to go back over and see what should be done. Archivingcontext (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Unger's special section?

Unger does not deserve a whole section (called Trajectories and parallels of Žižek's thought) for his criticism of Ž's necessiatarianism. A sentence about his criticism that has been moved to the Criticism section will do. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We had a debate on this last October and came to a WP:Consensus. In short, the section is not about Unger, but rather the different trajectories taken. It is meant to contextualize--to provide a short intellectual history of the thinker. You may have grounds to challenge this, but then the debate should be reopen here. I will restore the edits until we reach another consensus. Yes? Archivingcontext (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No contextualizing (or comparing one thinker to others) is value free, i.e. free of (implicit) evaluation/criticism - therefore it should be in Criticism section where I put it.--DancingPhilosopher (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In response I would say that no presentation of a thinker's views in any form including an encyclopedia entry are value free. Nonetheless, would a compromise be to make this contextualization section its own subsection under the criticism section--it does not really fit under the "lack of alternatives" subsection? (I'll get back to you later on the other point you raise about the lede.) Archivingcontext (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the compromise you propose as a good middle-ground that will communicate to a reader both what you and me wanted to to be communicated. I especially appreciate that we -- on a meta-communicative level -- agree we each have a valid point to communicate. And, consequently, that we are able to refrain from (dis-)qualifying each other's messages as "petty exchanges" - thank you. And another thing, I probably will not be able to respond until next Tuesday, 2nd April.) DancingPhilosopher (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes made. I wrote an extra sentence for the "criticism" section lede to introduce the "new" sub-section. I put this new subsection first, although it may work better after the "lack of alternatives" subsection. See what you think. Archivingcontext (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't typically contribute to wikipedia, but I had to figure out what was going on with this Unger section. It's listed under "Criticism," but I'm not sure if it has much to do with Zizek at all. While one might very well write an essay comparing different "trajectories" for thinkers like Zizek, Badiou, and Unger, I don't see what business it has in an encyclopedic entry. Sure, it's "relevant," but it's no more relevant than if I were to add a section that began: "Zizek and his commitments to psychoanalysis and German Idealism represent one trajectory among several others, and his trajectory is starkly contrasted with that of Donald Davidson. Coming from very different traditions and using very different historical and otherwise philosophical references, these two trajectories are best compared by blah blah blah etc." Okay, that might be stretching it, but wouldn't that also be a "path not trodden by philosophers like Badiou and Zizek"? Unger's relevance here is that they both work on politics, Hegel, and Marx. But we could reasonably justify substituting *any* such political philosopher, if that is the case. Althusser wrote on Hegel and Marx. So did Adorno. So does Laclau. So does Buckmorss. It's hard to find a leftist theorist who doesn't meet those criteria. However you dress it up, this is a section on Unger--to claim that it's "really" about different trajectories taken or not taken by Zizek is to implicitly justify putting in ANY trajectory on ANY subject. Billy67.160.130.132 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is WP:V. If there is relevant literature on the topics that you cite above then they could very well be included in the article. This section on "trajectories," however, captures the core of the contemporary debate about alternatives and the side that Zizek advocates and makes the focus of his politics. Not only is it discussed in the literature on issue, but also helps explain where Zizek is coming from. Archivingcontext (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Could someone rewrite this sentence who understands it?

It is:

Trying to politically discredit SYRIZA as endorsing totalitarian past, its right-wing opponent which itself made a controversial decision to allow someone who was described in The Guardian as an "axe-wielding fascist" in his youth to be a minister in its government,[16] claimed Žižek should be understood literally, not ironically.

I would perhaps try, but its meaning(s) is unclear. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanamizu (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism in Introduction

I'm removing the following two sentences from the introduction for what I think are obvious reasons.

He also made money to get through college as an extra in the Die Hard series. His inspirations come from Tupac, 2 Chainz, and Miley Cyrus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldNewEnglander (talk • contribs) 02:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Two NPOV concerns under the 'Life' section

My first concern is, under sub-section 'Political life', the second paragraph mentions a joking statement made by Žižek regarding support of SYRIZA. The sentence immediately following says:

Trying to politically discredit SYRIZA as endorsing totalitarian past, its right-wing opponent which itself made a controversial decision to allow someone who was described in The Guardian as an "axe-wielding fascist" in his youth to be a minister in its government, claimed Žižek should be understood literally, not ironically.

While the "axe-wielding fascist" part does have a source, it seems wholly POV and just plain irrelevant to a section that's supposed to be part of an objectively-written bio. Here is my proposed replacement (in context):

Similarly, he jokingly made the following comment in May 2013, during the Subversive Festival: "If they don’t support SYRIZA then, in my vision of the democratic future, all these people will get from me [is] a first-class one-way ticket to [a] gulag." In response, the right-wing New Democracy party claimed Žižek's comments should be understood literally, not ironically.

My second concern relates to the photograph to the left of the 'Public life' sub-section. Its caption states, "Over the course of 25 years, Žižek was able to go from academic ghettoization to attending worldwide conferences and being a premier speaker on theory; he is pictured here at a 2009 lecture in Poland"

Well, okay, that may be true, but it doesn't belong under a photograph. (Also, is "ghettoization" even an appropriate word?) A photograph's caption should state the person's name and where they were or what they were doing at that moment.

I propose we reduce the caption to simply: Slavoj Žižek, pictured here at a 2009 lecture in Poland.

Adam9389 (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If nobody responds to my contentions by the end of the week, I'll just assume nobody cares one way or the other, and I'll go ahead and make the changes. Adam9389 (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ideology as false consciousness?

"Marxist interpretation of ideology as false consciousness" -- now exactly who defined ideology as false consciousness and where did they define or describe it as such? Engels mentioned the term false consciousness in a letter and Lukacs seemed to equate ideology with false consciousness but that's about it. This can hardly be used as evidence to support a 'Marxist interpretation of ideology as false consciousness'

False consciousness implies mistaken or false ideas but according to McLellan, no where does Marx describe or define it as such. In the GI for example 'Marx thought of ideas as distorting or inverting reality because that reality was itself distorted or inverted' and in Marx's later writings, 'ideology was seen as deriving from the real surface relations of capitalist society which served to conceal the fundamental relations of production' (Ideology, 2nd edition, p.13, 1995). McLellan goes on to say that 'Marx's point is often that ideology is not a question of logical or empirical falsity [as implied by false consciousness] but of the superficial or misleading way in which truth is asserted.' (Ibid., p.15). So if Marx did not think of ideology as false consciousness and Engels the term false consciousness mentioned it only in a letter, who else defined ideology this way? If one or two so called Marxists did, then maybe use their name (e.g., Engels and Lukacs) instead of claiming ideology is false consciousness from a Marxist point of view.