Talk:Critiques of Slavoj Žižek

Untitled

 * This is the archived discussion of a merged/redirected page

Redirect
Need redirection: Critiques of Slavoj Zizek

Has Zizek responded to any of these charges, or has anyone on his behalf? I really dont know anything about david bordwell, and I could easily see zizek not responding to him, but if he has responded and it isnt on the page, wouldnt that be a NPOV violation? Honestly, i think its a little odd that, apparently alone among theorists, Zizek has an entire entry devoted to critiques of him. Especially one that includes at least a couple assertions on the part of the writer. "For a scientific formula to be valid it must - by definition - be meaningful, even if it requires specialised knowledge to be understandable. The fact that science is readily taught to adolescents suggests that it is comprehensible, even if the concepts seem to defy non-scientific 'logic'. Asserting that all science devolves to "barely comprehensible concepts" assumes that scientists are unable to take complex ideas and explain them in terms accessible to non-scientists. This is ironic given that Žižek frequently uses popular culture as examples or analogies (he very rarely explains the precise relationship) for theoretical concepts that he is unable to discuss on their own." -- all of this seems to be original.

[The author of this critique mentions an article by Harpham from "Critical Inquiry" entitled "Doing the Impossible: Slavoj Zizek and the End of Knowledge", but fails to mention that Zizek himself caustically responds to this critique in the same issue in a paper tited "Critical response: A symptom - of what?". This is obviously problematic - especially seeing that Harpham responds to Zizek's response... with a mere 2 paragraphs, that (effectively and literally) say "thank you so much for responding, It's great to have gotten your attention."]

Also, it seems to make a mountain out of the bordwell molehill.... Bordwell admits in his article that his critiques have not put much of a dent in lacanian film theory in general or zizek in particular, why does he get 2/3 of a wiki article that is redirected from the main zizek article?

Im not a big fan of zizeks work my own self, but i think that this article is fairly obviously not NPOV and not particularly informative. For every continental philosopher, there is an american pop scientist following them around shouting "gibberish! its all gibberish!" This whole line of argument deserves, at maximum, one page devoted to it.

What I find ironic is that, while no one would allege that Zizeks reputation depends on his pronouncements on science (and the same is true, moreso even, of lacan), sokal, bricmont, bordwell et all have never had a bigger impact on academia than by 'exposing' them as 'self-promoting charlatans'. What would these guys do if there were no incomprehensible european philosophes to spout gibberish for them to denounce.Jimmyq2305 02:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section that seemed to be an original argument on the part of the article writer. I believe the existence of the article as separate from slavoj zizek gives undue weight (indeed the article admits that he hasnt been more frequently criticized than other continental philosophers. wikipedia needs to reflect this) to criticism of zizek, making him seem more controversial than other analagous figures who are equally controversial. Within the article, it gives undue weight to bordwell as a critic of zizek. Bordwells criticism of zizek (and keep in mind that this article is a fork off of the zizek article, its purpose is to give information on zizek) is hardly the most useful critical information for someone with an interest in zizek. Zizek has had lengthy theoretical contentions, with numerous articles being written on both sides, with various other thinkers. He published a book with Ernesto Laclau and Judith Butler in which they did nothing but critically comment on each others work. He's had numerous exchanges with hardt and negri, and badiou. Keep in mind that a page that lists critiques of a thinker is not supposed to list the most powerful arguments (which implies an active POV on the part of the writer), but rather the most significant ones, or those most frequently made in print. Even if all of bordwells accusations about zizek are true, they are not accepted as valid by the majority of scholars who comment on zizek. I think it would be impossible to argue that bordwells critiques of zizek have had more of an influence on zizek himself, his acceptance in his field (and keep in mind that zizek's field is psychoanalysis, which bordwell rejects wholesale), his political significance than have those of the abovementioned scholars, or countless others. The criticism section of most thinkers is, rightfully, brief and sweeping. If you want to know about bordwells critique of zizek, youd be better off reading the bordwell article than the zizek one. Im going to wait a while, and then move most of the content of this page to the bordwell article, make a standad sized criticism section out of the pieces left over to move to zizek, and delete this article. Ill also put a flag on it Jimmyq2305 03:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, as far as bordwell goes. Let's just scrap him entirely. as for this page, I think we should leave it, as the only way people will get here will be by the main zizek page, and that page is already long. DocFaustRoll 05:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * that seems like a good idea. Ill add some of laclau and butlers criticisms later on, when I find my copy of contingency, hegemony, universality and have some time to edit.Jimmyq2305 13:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * now, that sounds like an excellent idea. this could be critique in the sense of close reading. I'm a little occupied with real time work and other obligations to contribute too much right now. Perhaps in September. DocFaustRoll 22:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the critiques were fine as part of the Zizek entry. There does seem to be some steam gaining behind an anti-zizek backlash. Victim of one's own success? (This comment not signed by author)

I think it is absurd to treat critique separately from the main Zizek article. Unless you already know Zizek's thought backwards you won't be able to make sense of the critique without swapping between pages to find out what the critics are actually addressing.

It is also clear that this page is dedicated to trashing Zizek's worth rather than to discussing the pros and cons, as identified by both sympathetic and unsympathetic critics. The unsigned comment above sounds about right to me. It does look like people with an axe to grind are ganging up here. I think this page sets an appalling precedent.

What I suggest instead is one of the following options:
 * The page is simply merged back into the Zizek article, even if that does make it very long, or…
 * Separate articles are created for certain aspects or periods of Zizek's work and that criticism (both positive and negative) should be addressed in these articles alongside a summary of what they criticise. Ireneshusband 04:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

but isn't the meta academic humor section original claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.48.115 (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur! This seems like a waste of layout electrons, and of reading time, for exactly the stated reasons. Merge back, overhaul, or delete. Jmacwiki (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This statement needs a rewrite
"However by using academic humor itself as argumentative means to argue against its usage by Žižek, the Bordwell's criticism which can be categorized as meta academic humor, that is an academic humor about the academic humor (similar to meta-cognition or meta-emotion) is also logically self-contradicting which makes it even more humorous since his use of it as argumentative method contradicts Bordwell's conscious belief about both the usage of humor as argumentative method and academic humor as non-humor, making it a beautiful example of petit a, a contradictive leftover that was not consciously intended to be either of what it is, both the argumentative means and humorous at the same time."

Hopefully someone can rewrite the above so it is more intelligible and grammatically correct. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm seconding this, without having the guts to try it either. Perhaps the 'meta' bs should just be dumped entirely: the criticism leveled back at Bordwell is not that he's engaging in meta-academic humor in his criticism of Zizek's academic humor, but that he's engaging in academic humor in his criticism of Zizek's academic humor, which, I'll note, is hardly a meaningful criticism anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.207.84 (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fake Dialectic
I think this section which contains a quote from Adam Kirch's amateurish "critique" of Zizek should be deleted. If you've read the artice in its entirety you will realize that it is not a serious piece of criticism at all and is more just a series of absurd claims and falsely attributed quotes. Seeing that the rest of the content in this page is of a much more serious, professional and academic nature, this laughable quote from Kirch is completely out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvemoxes (talk • contribs) 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, but I think that Kirsch's main point is his accusation of Anti-Semitism and bloodlust. His arguments for such are solid. The "Fake Dialectic" section ought to be retitled as Anti-Semitism, and substantiated with Kirsch's quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.202.149 (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This section reads like he is right, while actually Zizeks statement is exactly what Kirch criticised. I think this section has to be changed - it would be good to change the order or something —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.33.115.105 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

somewhat odd selection of critiques
I'm not entirely sure how to classify the critiques here, but they seem to have a somewhat random flavor, and don't sound hugely representative of the areas where there's actually been much of a sustained exchange, as opposed to a random article here and there. It also seems not to discuss areas that do seem to be active debates, such as Žižek's long-running feuds with post-colonial theory, queer studies, and similar areas of (mainly American) cultural studies (see e.g. this as a random example). --Delirium (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Al-Ahram Weekly excerpt/Merge
The article cites lines from Al-Ahram by Hamid Dabashi. On examination of the article, the lines quoted don't refer to Zizek at all, but to Asad AbuKhalil (though there is a blistering critique of Zizek later on in the same article.) Personally, I don't see why this whole page isn't merged with the Zizek page, which has a pretty small and poorly-written and researched "critiques" section anyway. Seastrada (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed the "charge". What this article had quoted from Al-Ahram refered to what Dabashi said about someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtdashti (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Influential or not?
In the article there is a statement "the influential Polish leftist journal Krytyka Polityczna". This information is imprecise. "Krytyka Polityczna" may be influential within the leftist intellectual milieu, but certainly it is not a widely recognized or read journal in Poland. I'm not aware of any sociological studies about how many people read "Krytyka Polityczna" or how often it is cited etc. Until any such studies are cited in the article, there shouldn't be "influential", just "the Polish leftist journal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monosautos (talk • contribs) 11:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)