Talk:Slavoj Žižek/Archive 1

Hachek
Please note that z-hacek is not part of the ISO 8859-1 character set which this wiki uses. It's part of a Microsoft extension which is not compatible with all browsers; so until we move this wiki to UTF-8, the title is going to have to stay accentless. Sorry. --Brion 17:26 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
 * I can hardly wait that day. :-) --XJamRastafire 20:52 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Picture
This image is awful, so dark one can't see his features.. -- Viajero 16:04, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yugoslavia
I have changed "born in Ljubljana, Yugoslavia (now Slovenia)" to "born to Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of Yugoslavia". The reason is that Ljubljana has always been part of Slovenia, because Slovenia already existed before it became independent (and indeed was recognized as a constituent republic of Yugoslavia).  I have also added Zizek's latest book to the list.  By the way, for which political party (if any) did Zizek stand for President?  This would be interesting to know.  He seems to be a Marxist-Leninist, though I don't know if this is stated anywhere explicitly.


 * I'm almost positive that this was the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia. For a while he was considered their ideologist, although of course the party is now much more centered that it used to be; left-wing of what is now the LDS party originated back from Union of the Socialist Youth of Slovenia, but then it got merged with several slightly-right-of-them parties and it also rules Slovenia for 12 years, which also moved the party to the center. --romanm (talk) 20:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Slovenian pronounciation
Please, can somebody who knows Slovenian put out some sort of pronounciation for Žižek? I'm from Sweden and everyone seems to have their own why of saying it. I'm pronouncing it "gee-jack", but I think I may be wrong. :-)
 * I've heard it pronounced by Slovenes and I am quite certain the ž-s are Voiced postalveolar fricatives (like the "s" in English "treasure": "Zheezhack") David Sneek 06:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

David you are correct. We pronuance ž as in english word treasure. So Žižek is prounanced zheezhack.

Philosophy
There's enough here to whet one's appetite for Lacan and Zizek's psychoanalytic, cultural, and political insights, but there appears to be no mention of Zizek's indebtedness to Marx or, more importantly, Hegel. And what about his later obsessions with Christianity and Paul? This needs to place Zizek squarely (or roundly) within a more philosophical context.


 * Indeed. This article is too liberal and postmodern by far. I don't have the time now to make any formal claims of NPOV. But consider notice given.


 * Pazouzou 21:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Major problems in defining Zizek's terms:

The symbolic real : the signifier reduced to a meaningless formula (as in quantum physics, which like every science grasps at the real but only produces barely comprehensible concepts) The example assumes open hostility toward science, and implies that concepts that Zizek doesn't understand are impossible for everyone to comprehend.

The real real : a horrific thing, that which conveys the sense of horror in horror films This assumes that other theorists haven't explained the operation of horror films using alternate analytical methods. Such as Noel Carroll's cognitive psychology approach.

''The imaginary real : an unfathomable something that permeates things as a trace of the sublime. This form of the real becomes perceptible in the film The Full Monty, for instance, in the fact that in stripping the unemployed protagonists disrobe completely; in other words, through this extra gesture of voluntary degradation something else, of the order of the sublime, becomes visible.'' This is a piece of sophomoric film interpretation that is not supported by any evidence. If someone else interpreted the film differently, would that change the meaning of the term?

I propose that a Zizekian try and explain these terms without reverting to undergraduate film interpretation, or without displaying contempt for an analytical method that they don't understand.

Critique
any good criticism on him? I have read an article by Alberto Moreiras (Children of Light) on him but wish to seek some other sources (perhaps dialogues with Badiou, some of which are on www.egs.edu)...

A new user added the following "critique". S/he first did so as an anon, then started an account to add it. Frankly, as far as I can tell, it seems to be gibberish that only barely uses some words from Zizek. But maybe I'm being ungenerous. Does this make sense to anyone else? Clearly, the hyperbole words like "most potent" and "formidable" need to go; but after that, is there any kernel of meaningful comment here? Well, also the "primary antagonist" being someone I've never heard of (but who apparently does exist, according to Google: John Holbo is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the National University of Singapore; 1999 Ph.D. from Berkeley).


 * Perhaps the most potent critiques of Žižek's theory come, unsurprisingly, from his primary antagonists: the Liberal Democrats. John Holbo of the National University of Singapore, for example, scathingly criticizes Zizek for his refusal to lay out what, precisely, social formation he would replace the existing order with. Holbo argues that Žižek's "irrational" approach to thought disregards the ontic benefits brought about by late capital, specifically in its liberal-democratic form. By refusing to "play the game," as it were, and demanding leftist fidelity to a revolutionary ethic, Žižek is paradoxically demonstrating an unwillingness to face the consequences of political action (a pathology that he himself often criticizes). Politics, simply, is liberal democracy these days, like it or not.


 * Another formidable challenge to Žižek's theory has come from the realm of cognitivist psychology, or cognitivism. The cognitivists argue that Žižek's theory, like all psychoanalysis, is pseudo-scientific ideology: the "hard kernel" of neuroscience, insofar as it reduces the operation of the brain to the (debatably random) firing of neurons, is incompatable with a top-down, cartesian model of the subject.

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahh... a bit more research. It appears this Holbo fellow does have a rather mediocre paper that says roughly what is characterized above. It's a bit dopey as a critique, but I can sort of make out the claims. I wonder if our new user is Holbo, actually. The second paragraph still appears to be gibberish though. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Holbo is an example of the lib-dem critique that runs the same whether advanced by fukuyama or joe blow off the street. Holbo's article is a decent insofar as it is typically banal example.

The cognitivist attack is much stronger. You deleted it because you don't understand it. It is not "gibberish;" have you not read the Ticklish Subject or Hofstader? (unsigned comment by Aesthetician)


 * Yeah, of course I've read Ticklish Subject and Hofstadter. Actually, I've written much more important and widely read published articles on Zizek than Holbo's (not that I want them in this article, since it's about Zizek, not about me).  Holbo's bit about the shape of the future social formation is really just a trite retort to Marxism in general that reminds one of unsophisticated 19th century social democrats and college sophomores who first read the Manifesto.


 * Possibly "gibberish" is a slight exaggeration, but only slight. There's no real reason to think that cognitivist psychology is incompatible with Cartesian subjects, or at least not in such simple terms.  But even if it did say that, Zizek has nothing to do with the Cartesian model: psychoanalysis, in general, is much more anti-Cartesian than is cognitivism.  About the only salvageable thing in the paragraph is the rather banal allegation that psychoanalysis is "pseudo-scientific", but that has nothing to do with Zizek specifically. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Links to Zizek articles
The list is getting rather lengthy... It is indeed a fine collection of links to Zizek's articles, but maybe we should try to either find a way to organize them or work out a solution that doesn't make Wikipedia a link farm. -- Michalis Famelis 14:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe split these off into a separate child article like List of articles by Slavoj Zizek... but certainly don't just delete them in the meantime, as some editor did. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a link farm. I don't know how many times it has to be said. As I said in your talk page I think Wikisource is your best option if you want to organise a collection of Zizek articles. Ramanpotential 08:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the links to articles that are not in the Lacan.com and inthesetimes lists should be reinserted. True, wikipedia is not "a repository of links", but "there is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article", and these were as relevant to the article as they get. David Sneek 08:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree. I think Ramanpotential repeatedly removed them as an effort to delegitimate Zizek by making his publication history less obvious. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Rambling criticism section
In the last few days the "critique" section has grown quite long, while still consisting of barely coherent, and rather trivial diss'ing of Zizek by unimportant academics. It really unbalances the article quite a bit. Just because some third rate, barely published, professor can complain, basically, that they can't make sense of Zizek, it doesn't mean we need it in this article. Can we clean this up somehow... serious critique is fine, but the rambling is not very encyclopedic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the "third rate, barely published, professor" you speak of David Bordwell? If you do a little research I think you'll find he publishes quite a lot. You are correct in stating that he is a Professor.


 * Instead of hurling meaningless mud at the people who have been working on the critique section, as well as the people cited therein, why don't you try pointing out exactly how and why the things that have been added are wrong. Also, it seems churlish and somewhat hypocritical to call someone's writing "barely coherent" and yet dismiss any criticisms of Zizek as misunderstanding right out of hand. Ramanpotential 08:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been meaning to trim out some of the cruft. An anonymous editor or two have been adding a lot of this sophomoric stuff, so I was hoping for that to slow down a bit before trying to edit it (probably literally, stuff they wrote as college sophomores).  A lot of articles on intellectuals seem to attract this stuff (for example, I helped clean up some of the spurious pseudo-criticism in the Lacan article: it amounted to quoting a few people saying they didn't understand Lacan's writing; i.e. so what?)... it's not that it's false that someone wrote these various things.  But going on at length about trivial critics creates an undue emphasis which needs to be watched.  If we had 50k words on Zizek, a few paragraphs on minor critiques might be interesting, but with 10k words, far too many of them are spent on stuff that barely merits a footnote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * See, again there you have failed to point out exactly what is illegitimate about the criticisms in the section. Rather, you just seem to believe that your condescending tone and highly dubious vanity article is evidence enough that you're right. I'm afraid that's not going to cut it. I do agree, however, that the section is disproportionately large. I'd encourage you to include a sub section detailing the ways in which Zizek responds to these criticisms, to make it more balanced. Ramanpotential 09:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What's the appeal of the personal attack exactly? I guess if it floats your boat, or whatever. I'm guessing that the anonymous Australian editor (big-pond ISP) who added most of the criticism cruft might be you logged out? Maybe not, but it might speak to the hostility if so.


 * Even though I actually am one of the first people to publish on Zizek in English, it would be utterly absurd to include my non-notable work in the Zizek article. Almost as bad as including the trivia by Holbo, Bordwell, Harpham or O'Neil.  FWIW, I think there's a moderately good probability I introduced Balibar to The Sublime Object of Ideology in that I met Balibar through giving a paper comparing Balibar and Zizek on concepts of race and nation.  The point is that many hundreds of academics have made some comment or another on Zizek (myself included), and putting any uninteresting comment by J. Random Critic in there just because Zizek's name appears in it is utterly unencyclopedic.


 * The start of the slippery slope was Holbo's silly failure to read Zizek, which someone inserted some months ago (I'm pretty sure either Holbo himself as an anonymous address, or some student of Holbo)... I objected at the time, but maybe not strenuously enough. But now the trivia has pushed the article utterly out of balance. What's next, adding everyone's freshman paper on what's wrong with the Cogito to the Descartes article?! (yeah, sarcasm; but the whole criticism section is so painfully trite now that I can barely bring myself to read it enough to edit it). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly: no, it isn't me. What possible motivation do you think I might have to log out? And I have not attacked you personally, I have simply objected to your condescending tone. Which, by the way, has continued in this latest post. Simply using words like "trivia" to impugn other people's work will not make it so, and I find it decidedly ironic that your unreasoned "because I say so" approach is reminiscent of Zizek himself. Now I'm going to ask you for the third time to detail some of your objections to the arguments made in the Critiques section. Oh, but you can barely bring yourself to read it. A likely story. Ramanpotential 03:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've lopped some POV and unsourced stuff off and the Critiques section now amounts to about 20% of the text in the article. I don't think that is unbalanced. Ramanpotential 03:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, good to know it's not you at 58.160.214.51. I confess that an Australian ISP is a pretty thin thread, but it sort of felt in that protesteth-too-much vein.  If you can read "highly dubious vanity article" as something other than a personal attack, all power to you.  Whatever my personal faults though (I consider condescention a virtue, in this case, YMMV), I wanted to wait for some more editors to chime in before going crazy with the metaphorical scissors.  Actually, I'm enormously happy with your recent excisions, Ramanpotential.  Most excellent decruftification on your part.


 * I've requested some input over at the critical theory wikiproject. Maybe someone there will come visit, which would be good.  My objection to the "Critique" material is that none of it ascends above the "so what?" level; but that's the same thing I already wrote above.  It's not ad hominem exactly, but neither is it anything that a reader wondering "so who is Zizek?" is going to give a rat's ass about.  Like I write over at the crit theory talk page: if someone can dig up some nice serious disagreements from Negri, Butler, Laclau, or someone else seriously working in a relevant field, I'd love to include some concise remarks along those lines... but just to point out that a few academics skimmed Zizek in order to pad their CVs is not interesting or encyclopedic (and that includes the fact I wrote a couple minor papers too; I'd be the first to delete any silly citation to "Mertz" in this bio). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I would consider the very act of condescention far more within the realms of personal attack than my mere reference to your self-created, self-promoted Wikipedia article.


 * OK, I get it... you don't like me. Fine.  Please lay off the WP:PA now, OK?


 * Are you going to respond to any of the questions below? Ramanpotential 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My objection to the "Critique" material is that none of it ascends above the "so what?" level - In whose opinion? And more to the point, why?


 * It's not ad hominem exactly, but neither is it anything that a reader wondering "so who is Zizek?" is going to give a rat's ass about. - Why, because it's critical? A section of criticisms should be part of any notable academic's article. And, hopefully, that academic's responses to said criticisms... if they exist.


 * but just to point out that a few academics skimmed Zizek in order to pad their CVs is not interesting or encyclopedic - On what grounds are you accusing the cited academics of having done that? Once again, you're preaching without providing any support for your statements. Ramanpotential 04:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * NB I think this is an acceptable edit but your comment accompanying it is unnecessarily smarmy and definitely not AGF. No reasonable and objective person would read it as an implication that the scientists listed were critics of Zizek. Ramanpotential 07:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Notabilities of critiques
Several critics or critiques of Zizek are stated in the article. Question has been raised whether these critiques are sufficiently notable for inclusion in an academic biography of Zizek. The below quick polls are intended to gauge the notability of the several critiques. Notability of critiques may be affected by both the notability of the thinker making the critique and by the underlying nature of the critique.

The exact wording of a given critique might be tweaked. These quick polls are interested in the basic notability of the critique itself, assuming it is phrased in the best possible fashion.

John Holbo
"No specification of post-Capitalist social formation"

Not notable

 * 1) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

David Bordwell
"Does not explain the problem he is trying to solve, freely associates between unrelated issues, argues without evidence, and expresses ideas poorly."

Not notable

 * 1) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC) (borderline notability) Not at all notable as recharacterized.

David Bordwell 2
"Zizek's assumption (argued without any evidence) that all aesthetic properties of films are culturally determined".

Not notable

 * 1) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Harpham and O'Neil
"Flouts standards of reasonable argumentation"

Not notable

 * 1) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Other academics
"Hostility and misunderstanding of science, assumption that concepts that he can not understand are impossible to understand for everyone else"

Not notable

 * 1) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

David Mertz
"David Mertz" is the name of Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters in the real world. He is not mentioned in this article.


 * The real world really exists, it doesn't require quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.223.124 (talk • contribs)

Not notable

 * 1) Assumes everything Zizek writes is true. Is unable to explain why critiques of Zizek are wrong. Refuses to reveal if he is even aware # of critics who are otherwise considered leaders in their fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.223.124 (talk • contribs)

Personal attacks
Snore. I notice you still haven't attempted to argue why the criticisms are invalid, or why they're "who cares?". Apparently your standard for notability rests on whether you've read them or not, and/or whether their views mesh with yours. Ramanpotential 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you even read a book by David Bordwell? Sorry, do you know who David Bordwell is?


 * Please refrain from personal attacks. It appears to be difficult for you, but if you continue this, I will seek an appropriate block for user misconduct. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from personal attacks by saying I'm attacking you. It seems you haven't read any books by Bordwell, so I can't see how that can be construed as an attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.223.124 (talk • contribs)


 * Interesting that Ramanpotential, while denying being 58.160.223.124, finds that IP addess used to refer to himself in the first person. A check user request might be interesting here. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Go for it. 58.160.223.124 obviously believed you were referring to him. That doesn't make me him. Ramanpotential 09:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

User:58.160.223.124, the goal of our No personal attacks policy is not to create some line in the sand and then debate about whether a particular comment crosses it or not. We are here to create a free, reusable encyclopedia. I am completely uninterested in whether or not you intended your comments above (under "David Mertz") to be interpreted as an attack or not. It absolutely is a comment on the contributor instead of the contributions, does not encourage a WP:CIVIL, collegial discussion on improving the article. Wikipedia is not a battleground. In the future, use article Talk pages solely for discussing the article, not the contributors to it. Jkelly 18:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hitchcock, etc.
I was forced to remove a reference to (Alfred) Hitchcock from the "Formation of the Subject" section. It gives the impression that Alfred Hitchcock endorsed a Zizekian concept. However, this is not the case; rather Zizek is performing a metaphorical, analogising, or otherwise interpretive act due to an inability to succinctly explain a term.

I note that other sections suffer from the same interpretive problem. For example: "The real real : a horrific thing, that which conveys the sense of horror in horror films". The operation of horror films is open to debate, see for example Noel Carroll's essay "Film, Emotion, and Genre" in Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures. Currently most of Zizek's terms are presented with examples as if those examples are facts instead of simply being opinions open to debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.223.124 (talk • contribs)

Suggestion
I would suggest that editors read this guideline Biographies of living persons. It contains some guidelines that may be applicable to this article, in particular the sub-section about critics and detractors, that reads (my highlights):


 * Many persons that are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia about them are likely to have detractors, opponents and/or critics. Their views can be presented in a biography providing that these are relevant to their notability, based on reputable sources and in a manner that does not overwhelm the article. Note that for each detractor a public figure has, this person may have thousands that do not share these detractor's views and by default their views will not be represented in the article. We should be careful not to give a dispropotionate voice to detractors, opponents or critics as you could be representing a minority view as if it were the majority view.

&asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 17:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Another issue is the creation of Critiques of Slavoj Žižek. This could be challenged as a POV fork. In my view, such article is not needed based on the following understanding of WP:NPOV:
 * If critics are notable, their criticism can and should be listed in this article;
 * If criticism of this person and his views is widely held, it needs to be noted. If the criticism is NOT widely held, it also should be noted;
 * If the latter is the case, a short sentence should suffice. There is no need to expand, as these views are made by non-notable individuals, and not widely held;
 * If the criticism is held by a small minority of scholars, then you can list all other scholars that cite Žižek without being critical (I have seen many at time how this minority POV issue is exploited by people that want to bypass WP:NPOV by claiming that all POVs need to be present. That is incorrect, only significant POVs ought to be present for NPOV. See: WP:NPOV.)

So my suggestion is to have a short section about the criticism of Žižek and his theories (unless such criticsm is widely held by notable scholars) and to place the criticism article in WP:AFD for deletion. If the criticism is widely held and by notable scholars and the section becomes too big, then summarize the criticism here and keep the criticism article.


 * From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Hope this helps. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 17:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi's suggestions for moving forward are sensible and to-the-point. I encourage the regular editors of this article to proceed with them in mind.  Jkelly 18:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Eating with forks
I agree that the new Critiques article could be described as a POV fork, but you must bear in mind that it was created by a user who didn't think the criticisms were worthy in the first place. Personally I don't think the new page was an entirely bad idea, because I think there's a great deal more to be written on the subject and if the page survives I'll be one of the ones writing it. However, if the content is merged back into the main Zizek article I don't think a large scale trim down is necessary or deserved, because the size of the section was never actually that disproportionate. Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 23:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there's a productive possibility here. Which is why I made the child article.  I don't think the child is a good AfD candidate, and I'd vote to keep it (not only because I created it, but because it has actual merit).  Despite the numerous weird accusations launched against me on this, I don't object to the "critiques" because I think Zizek is "beyond criticism" or some silliness like that.  I object because it isn't encyclopedic in an academic biography of a particular thinker; and specifically, none of the criticisms are significantly relevant to Zizek's notoriety.


 * As I mention over in the philosophy project talk page, the articles on Robert Nozick, or John Rawls, or Daniel Dennett, or for that matter David Bordwell (or more in Zizek's vein, Louis Althusser), don't carry such critique sections—nor should they. And again, it's not because any of these thinkers is "beyond criticism", or even that they lack actual critics.  It's just not fitting to an academic biography, which should discuss in the affirmative what specific concepts the thinker advanced... not tell readers why that thinker is wrong.


 * On the other hand, a page whose title specifically says that it is about criticisms is perfectly well focused on presenting such criticisms. While such articles may not currently exist, I think a Criticisms of Daniel Dennett could be perfectly encyclopedic, assuming it used proper citations, was WP:NPOV, WP:V, and so on.  Obviously, it's not notable to write "Dennett's mom is so ugly..." (nor Zizek's), but criticisms/critiques within an academic discipline can be presented in a neutral fashion.  It's just a matter of putting them in the right place.  Actually, a the Bordwell stuff might better go in Bordwell's article (since he has one, albeit slightly stubby).  Even a "Critiques" article has a little question of balance and representativeness, but that doesn't seem fatal. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You have been accused of acting as though Zizek was beyond criticism because that's precisely how you came across, at least at first. And I can see from further up the talk page that you have done the same thing before User:ShowsOn or I ever got here: calling into question a critic's credibility just because you hadn't heard of them (the horror!). You must recognise that that is a fairly suspicious precedent. And how you can claim that the explicit identification of fundamental flaws in his reasoning and writing are not "significantly relevant" to his notoriety is beyond me, but never mind that for now.


 * While you are correct that the Nozick, Rawls and Dennett articles do not contain critiques sections, nor do they contain anywhere near the same volume of detailing and explanation of their philosophical structures that is afforded to Zizek in this article. It is intellectually irresponsible to let that kind of indulgence pass without introducing some balance.


 * There are plenty of Wikipedia articles the titles of which begin with "Criticism(s) of" or "Critique(s) of", anyway, so it's not as if it's without precedent. So yes, I think the article should definitely survive. And be very very big. :-)-- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 03:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Working with suggestion
I'm not quite sure what to do with Jossi's suggestions in this context. Certainly they are nice references to guidelines in the right area. But the application still remains opaque to me.

Here's the situation as I see it: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Zizek has been discussed by hundreds of other academics, in academic papers.  To a degree, he's also been discussed in more popular press, but less so.   Google scholar gives a sense of the relative breadth, with several thousand hits.
 * 2) Most of those discussants—as is done in academic papers—disagree with various aspects of Zizek's writing that they discuss.  Even those who "mostly agree" usually disagree about some details of the topic discussed.
 * 3) * A minority of academic discussants are overwhelming negative in their appraisal of Zizek (though even such generally negative discussants may still want to utilize isolated aspects).
 * 4) The half-dozen or so discussants who are presented in the article or subarticle seem to be mostly in the negative camp.  But each of the half-dozen criticisms is completely different from each of the others, and all focus on isolated aspects of Zizek's work, rather than on some fundamental underlying principle.
 * 5) * None of those presented are even slightly important to Zizek's overall notability. Zizek would be of exactly equal notoriety had, for example, Bordwell decided to write about some different topic that month.
 * 6) * None of those presented are particularly significant figures in the same field(s) that Zizek works in, though they are all perfectly respectable academics, of somewhat minor note.
 * 7) * Each of the criticisms presented is the opinion of just one or two isolated individuals; but all of them are likely to get a moderate amount of sympathy among other people working in the same fields. None of the critiques are "fringe" opinions, but the particular expression and spin given belongs exclusively to the one person writing a particular criticism.
 * 8) *There does not appear to be any one identifiable criticism that a wide minority of people familiar with Zizek would endorse. Some people think he's wrong about X, others that he's wrong about Y, others that he's wrong about Z.  I suppose the closest thing to a widely held common criticism is that Zizek is impressionistic in the topics he chooses, and connects them together in ways that are non-obvious or undermotivated.  But that's much more a question of style than actual theory.


 * I don't think it's true that the arguments were not aimed at a "fundamental underlying principle". A large part of them were critical of Zizek's very argumentative methodology, and that's pretty damn fundamental.


 * Your subjective and unsubstatiated impugning of the cited academics' credentials aside, you have still not managed to say exactly what is wrong with the arguments as presented. And your idea that they represent an insignificant body of opinion is patently false. Because I actually pursue reading in the area, my impression is of a significant groundswell against a fashionable style of Humanities academia of which Zizek is a poster-child, perhaps best exemplified in the Sokal affair and the book that followed it. Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 23:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this a question of Ozzies not liking philosophers who aren't named Bruce? :-). I admit it can be a bit confusing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ozzies: Well at least you're speaking in plurals, now.-- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

ShowsOn defense of Bordwell over Zizek
You're being funny. Zizek constantly presents himself as knowing about films, therefore he is open to criticism by David Bordwell, someone who knows (a lot more) about films. Bordwell frequently responds directly to Zizek's wacky film ideas in print, most recently in his book Figures Traced In Light (2005) (pp. 260 - 264). ShowsOn 11:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Bordwell is considered one of the most important academics in the field of cinema studies. Again, why is Zizek allowed to talk about film, but a film scholar isn't allowed to critique his ideas? Or are you implying that Zizek's explorations in the world of cinema studies aren't worth giving any thought? Should I drum up some Noell Carroll quotes? After all, he has Ph.D.s in both philosophy and cinema studies. Apparently that philosophy Ph.D. is worth double points. ShowsOn 11:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Bordwell by all means deserves an article (and has one). Debates among thinkers can and should be presented in articles like film theory or film studies (or Debates about Hitchcock, if you like).  None of this organization question has anything to do with whether Zizek is right or wrong, or whether Bordwell is more right or more wrong.  A presentation of a given thinker/writer in their own biography must present the general outlines of their own line of thought, not pound into readers head the point that that thinker is wrong (nor that they are right). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, if Bordwell is right, then Zizek's entire intervention into cinema studies is suspect. Which brings into question why Zizek's disputed interpretations of films receive so much emphasis. If articles shouldn't pound into readers heads that Zizek is right, then it is mandatory that all references to film interpretations be removed from the article. They are all open to serious dispute, yet are currently presented as facts. This equates to a lot of head pounding going on in favour of Zizek. ShowsOn 00:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is precisely where ShowsOn/Ramanpotential clearly disagree with Wikipedia policy. He/they think that an article needs to find the "truth" about film interpretation (or whatever topic).  And presumably, to his mind, Bordwell states the truth and Zizek states untruth.  Which is all very well and good: sounds like a good topic for a professional paper.  But Wikipedia's policy (especially WP:V and WP:NOR) states that an article must present Zizek's views in his article, not whatever the "truth" is (according to ShowsOn/Ramanpotential).  This article must not, may not, and does not present any "truth" about film interpretation, it simply summarizes Zizek's views. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm happy to abide by WP policy, provided the under-graduate level film interpretations receive sufficient criticism on the critique page, and so long as critics of Zizek aren't criticised for a) not having read or understood Zizek, and b) not being sufficiently qualified to criticise Zizek because they don't have degrees in philosophy. The later would be the same as me criticising Zizek for not having a degree in cinema studies.ShowsOn 08:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The person who wrote the criticism was David Bordwell. ShowsOn 11:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Being rational, and supplying evidence to support arguments is just a matter of style!? Oh, I remember, it's all about the "clever writing". ShowsOn 11:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A read
I'm going to read this article over as it seems interesting. I think we need to continue to maintain a good standardization for the citations as Lulu has been doing. I'll chime back in on this article shortly.--MONGO 06:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

After looking over the article (which is quite good), I simply don't understand why we need a critical review section listing varoius detractors and their disagreements with this gentleman. Our job is to simply report what they have published, their known biography and their current affairs and do our best not to then brow beat them as being wrong. It should suffice to simply state that: A number of educators (or whatever) disagree with some or all of the philiosphical viewpoints of Slavoj Žižek. A very brief summary of those critically divergent views from noteworthy peers is fine...but we must be careful to maintain a high level of neutrality, paying close attention to ensuring that undue weight for nonnotable critical commentary based on opinions...especially opinions that may have been deliberately spoken or written simply for argument sake or to slander the work of others. This article could use some major work in adding some kind of referencing within article text too. Just a few of my thoughts.--MONGO 08:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The major problem with the article is it relies on disputed interpretation of films, or other aspects of cinema, to explain what Zizek believes. Is Zizek really on such intellectual thin ice that an article concerning his philosophical ideas requires an interpretation of The Full Monty?


 * As soon as the article refers to film, then it is valid that the criticism page feature challenges by people prominent in the field of cinema studies. I understand why including criticism from a film scholar is proving controversial; Zizek often avoids debate of his (sometimes bizarre) film references by pretending criticism doesn’t exist, or (purposely or otherwise) misconstruing the precise nature of the criticism.  Zizek’s main tactic when confronted with criticism from film scholars is evasion, which is not the act one expects from someone people refer to as a “thinker” and “intellectual”.


 * I propose that it is suitable for the criticism page to include a brief explanation that some film scholars generate theories by formulating evidence, from empirical data, which is organised logically, and communicated in concise prose. The main criticisms of Zizek, as offered by film scholar David Bordwell and philosopher Noel Carroll, concerns Zizek failure to offer evidence for his theories, and his inability to reason logically, and explain his ideas clearly.


 * Some may not be aware, but this is representative of a wider debate in film studies: on one side, some scholars derive theories from a close analysis of films based on their industrial, technological, and economic origins. Others are interested in films only as symptoms of race, gender, sexuality, and/or class conflict. For Zizek, films are allegories of symptomatic concerns, for scholars like David Bordwell, films are interesting as an art form in their own right, and one does not need to revert to Lacan to explain why films look and sound the way they do.


 * Zizek’s approach is to use films as analogies or metaphors to explain concepts he otherwise fails to explain in clear prose. I realise this is part of Zizek’s smoke and mirror tricks, but readers new to Zizek should not be introduced to the Zizek world on Zizek’s terms.  If Zizek has anything of worth to say, surely it can be explained without assuming his film interpretations are undisputed facts.


 * I encourage everyone to read David Bordwell's essay Slavoj Zizek: Say Anything to get an understanding of the degree that Zizek's film interpretations are disputed. ShowsOn 11:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)