Talk:Slavoj Žižek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Peer review Slavoj Žižek has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
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.

Contents

[edit] Archive

[edit] Current

[edit] Slavoj Žižek & Glyn Daly, Conversations with Žižek

I think this book should be mentioned. But where do I put it? In the bibliography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariborchan (talk • contribs) 11:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zizek on Chavez

I was just wondering, when Zizek said that "those resisting the state (in Venezuela) are the big capitalists, fox hunters and the Bill Gates of the world", was he saying this prior to the popular riots, or after they took place? It would be interesting to know what he thinks of Chavez now, the no-longer-demigod Chavez, the Chavez who is more hated in the slums than in upper class salons? Anyone have a clue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.73.145 (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible vandalism?

It seems like 79.77.145.209 has made a few strange edits... Can someone rollback these? Cheers Stephen LaPorte (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of Ontology section

Although ZenSufi's version was not perfect it was a better introduction than what replaced it. Also those same points were repeated later in the article. Mention of Althusser is dated as well. I have reverted to ZenSufi's version. DocFaustRoll

[edit] Life and Work

I added reference to the DVD publication of 'The Pervert's Guide to Cinema'. --Christofono 19:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Didn't Zizek write a book or essay called, "The Perverse Core of Christianity"? If so I don't see it in the bibliography. --Teetotaler

It is the subtitle of The Puppet and the Dwarf. Skarioffszky 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feminism

Maybe a word could be said on his reading of Otto Weininger and of his interpretation of Lacan concerning feminism ? Lapaz 19:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style

I find this article completely unreadable. Whoever wrote it was trying to write a dissertation to God in Arameic, then transliterated it when it was rejected for human consumption. If you can't explain something, you don't understand it.

[edit] Major problems with this article

I agree with the below criticism that the material, especially on the "formation of the subject," should be better referenced. I also think that the explanations of the real, the imaginary, and the symbolic are actually highly interpretive and not encyclopedic -- possibly why they are unreferenced. Whoever wrote them is not describing Zizek's positions in any clear way but rather interpreting Zizek and Lacan on subject formation. Furthermore, the explanations are badly written (I've seen much bettter exegeses of Lacanian theory, i.e. consult the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Zizek). Instead of these sketchy interpretations of subject formation in Zizek/Lacan, we should include a section like "Appropriation of Lacan," and discuss Zizek's unique mode of appropriation and deployment of Lacanian theory and leave the exegesis of Lacanian theory itself to Lacan's wiki article. It should be noted that committed Lacanian psychoanalysts generally do not take Zizek as Lacanian, because Zizek is using Lacan in his own, far-from-Lacanian, project of cultural analysis/critique. In general this article should more clearly discuss Zizek's (changing) positions and his methods, rather than technically interpreting his problematic Lacaniansm. We need someone familiar with Zizek's works in English and with Lacan to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.217.165 (talk • contribs)

Actually, I think the article would not lose anything if the sections on the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary were completely removed. The introductory section on the formation of the subject does not require the subsequent in-depth explanations of the real, the symbolic and the imaginary. As a new Wikipedian, I will wait and see if anyone else agrees with me, and then I would be willing to remove those sections and do a general polish on the other sections. infotainmentnihilist, 13:23, 6 June 2006 (GMT)
I strongly oppose such removal. I agree that there is something a bit off in the selection bias of those topics; some editor found those topics ones s/he wanted to address, and it gives the false impression that those are the universal or primary concepts Zizek uses (they're definitely important, but so are some others). But the discussions themselves are perfectly reasonable, and relatively good. However, if that discussion were taken out, we'd be left with a really emaciated biography stub, which is hardly a good goal. Instead, I think Infotainmentnihilist's efforts could much better be spent adding a section (or a few) on other important Zizekian concepts to balance the discussion. LotLE×talk 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Although, of course, adding more sections will inevitably increase the length of an already quite lengthy article. As for aspects of Zizek's thought which I think could be added, I propose: his work on the decline of the paternal function and his anti-essentialist approach to class struggle. However, I think these belong to the sections on postmodernism and politics respectively. infotainmentnihilist, 12:29, 7 June (GMT)
Sorry, I just re-read the sections on postmodernism and politics, and I think the fleeting reference to the decline of the paternal function and the couple of sentences on class struggle are sufficient. In any case, I intend to write a separate article on the decline of the paternal function relatively soon and I will add a link once that's done.infotainmentnihilist, 13:00, 7 June (GMT)
I wouldn't say the article is "lengthy" now. It's 34k, which is hardly the longest bio, even of academics. Moreover, about half the article is just bibliographic items (either book info, or links to articles), which is worth having but not the same thing as narrative description. So somewhere less than 20k describing Zizek's thought, biography, etc.
Well... just because something's covered fleetingly doesn't mean it might not be fleshed out a bit more. Whether or not to add subsections or just paragraphs isn't too important. And moreover, I'm not against condensing the Real/Symbolic/Imaginary stuff a bit, if you feel like you can do so without losing the gist of the presentation. The current descriptions do have a bit of that "college paper" feel to them... not a bad college paper, but a little different from the best encyclopedia tone.
I guess I'm modestly "inclusionists" as the WP habits go. I prefer to add more material to a topic, then refactor it into child/sibling articles as it grows, to follow summary style and WP:SIZE. I'm not nearly as absolutist in such an attitude as many editors: some things are definitely not worth including on WP at all; and more words is not better in itself. Moreover, I thought that an earlier draft that had more words about semi-notable critics than it did about Zizek and his thought itself, showed a bad undue weight unbalance. But even that was solved (IMO) by refactoring the critics stuff into a child article rather than simply deleting it (though some of it was pretty contentious and POV; but I helped tone it down). But should the presentation of Zizek's own thought grow longer than WP:SIZE suggests (still a long way to go), we can always factor out a child on "Zizek's use of Lacanian concepts" or something like that, then have the main bio just point briefly to that side discussion. LotLE×talk 12:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section on metaphysics which both foreshadows the later stuff on the Symbolic, the Real and the Imaginary and highlights some of the differences between Zizek and Lacan. It also foreshadows the sections on postmodernism and politics too. I will try to do a polish on those later sections tomorrow. infotainmentnihilist, 15:40, 7 June (GMT)

Thanks to LotLE for the polish on the metaphysics section - very useful and sensible edits! As you will know, Zizek's writing style often makes it hard to pin him down to a particular philosophical claim; he frequently leaves open the possible defence that he is merely explicating Lacan and Hegel for us, rather than actually putting forward the thesis as his own. However, the reference in the Canning interview I have cited is the most explicit defence of German Idealism I am aware of in Zizek's own words. infotainmentnihilist, 16:22, 8 June 2006 (GMT)
I must strongly object to the metaphysics section. It seem rather un-encylopedic; the encyclopedia, it seems to me, should seek to introduce the lay reader to a particular subject, not throw him into a mess of philosphical terminology. In addition, I think it's totally off the mark to begin the section with the claim that some argue that Zizek is an idealist. In many places, including the recent The Parallax View, Zizek states that his project is to resurrect dialectical materialism. Although Zizek is certainly a Hegelian, we must also remember that he is a Marxist, and Marx builds upon Feuerbach's claim that Hegelian Idealism is standing on its head. Zizek, in The Parallax View, proposes an alternative definition of the idealist/materialist split. Rather than created in the mind versus created outside of the mind from material (and one can immediately see the Cartesian presuppositions in this doxatic definition), Zizek reads the split in a Lacanian and Heideggerian fashion. He explains that idealism presupposes a totalizing All, the idea that we can somehow think the whole of the world. Materialism, on the contrary, claims that there is something fundamentally unthinkable (the Real, more or less, but not yet conceived parallaxically). That is, there is a sort of gap running through reality which is what allows us to conceive of things in the first place. This borrowing of meaning (the idea that some meaning must always be assumed for anything to mean anything) or in Heideggerian terms, the ontological cut in the ontic, is eventually where Zizek locates the unphenomenalizable death drive and is what gives us our subjectivity (or "free will," perhaps, if you prefer). Zizek is proposing what he calls a "materialist theology," which is a reading of Kierkegaard in non-totalizing terms (the non-All) in order to use his ideas in a materialist fashion, which contradicts the assertion that Zizek is an idealist. It seems to me that the metaphysics section needs a major rewrite, but I'd like to hear your thoughts first. Zensufi 03:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the metaphysics section either now, as I agree that it probably belongs to a specific POV reading of Zizek which is focussed on specific texts and a specific period of his career. I vote for either complete deletion or a rewrite (along the more up-to-date, contemporary lines that you have proposed). I must admit, however, that I am less familiar with this more recent work, and wouldn't be up to doing the rewrite myself. infotainmentnihilist 13:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. It seems to me much of the article needs a rewrite, because if you don't know philosophy it doesn't make any sense. I'll work on the metaphysics section and see what I can do with it in the next few days. Zensufi 12:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you did an good job with the rewrite. It is much more credible now. I was the one who added that he called himself a "materialist" and was gearing up to rewrite this as no one could claim credibly that he is an idealist. My one nitpick would be that we need an introductory graph that just comes out and says he is an idiosyncratic "materialist." I've done just that. I prefer ontology here but your mileage may vary. DocFaustRoll 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right about calling it ontology rather than metaphysics. I've gone ahead and changed it. You also made a good comment on my talk page about the idea that we should perhaps talk about Zizek's earlier metaphysical approaches before jumping into parallax. I disagree. Parallax is Zizek's first systematic treatment of ontology, and furthermore I think we see these same ideas adumbrated in his earlier texts. I don't think we can consider Zizek an ontological philosopher per se until his most recent work even if there is some discussion of ontology previously. Unless there are significant differences in his earlier work, I think we should let parallax be the major focus of the ontology section. On the other hand, considering that Zizek is primarily a cultural and political philosopher, it might make sense to put this stuff towards the top of the article and leave ontology for later. How can ontology possibly be the first thing we discuss regarding a Marxist Lacanian? Unfortunately, the article is still pretty nasty. The ontology section is still guilty of not making much sense unless you have a decent background in philosophy. Zensufi 21:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [Edit: I'm also a bit bothered by the fact that I seem to portray Zizek as a non-atheist philosopher, as if he doesn't reject God and acts sort of like Paul Tillich. I really don't know what to do with this example, because it exactly explains the split between materialism and idealism. Marxism and atheism is difficult, especially given that comment in Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts where he implies that atheism presupposes the same conception of man as theism and that what's really needed is the additional step of aufhebung. I'm not sure what to do.]


I think you are right on to emphasize parallax here. Not only because it is an explicit attempt to engage ontology, but also because ziz keeps changing and updating his thinking. The last word is the best here. He has made some of the same engagements with ontology before nonetheless as he did in his book on Deleuze, and that may be a clue as to why the emphasis on ontology. I vote for leaving ontology at the top here as it is also a familiar item on many philosopher pages and will offer a quick hit on where he stands. You have definitely made some improvements. Let's see what else we can do. My earlier point was just that some intro sentence should be in place as it is now. Also, thanks for the copy edit. I was lost between existent and extant. ;-) DocFaustRoll 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


ZenSufi's emphasis on Marxism in discussion of how to place Zizek is, I think, good and in fact less misleading than the emphasis on Lacan. I agree that more improvements can be made as well. DocFaustRoll 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


ZenSufi, I actually agree with your point that the emphasis on theology was too much for an entry that perhaps should go into materialism and reductionist materialism, although I want to keep some of your entry as I think it gets at his work. DocFaustRoll 02:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audio Pronunciation

The pronunciation is correct, but when I listen to the file I don't hear to the end of the last name. Does anyone else have this problem? Zensufi 09:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The final "k" is not heard at all. It should, however, be clearly pronounced. Sanjin Vukojevic 22:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
In that case I will delete it until we find a correct audio file. Zensufi 23:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Slovenian, but that's how HE pronounced his name. If you watch the documentary, Zizek!, there is a TV interview where the presenter asks if he pronounced his name correct, and Zizek pronounces it back to him. That's probably as close as you'll get at the correct prononciation. On what ground are you saying that you need to hear the K? If anyone think they know how to pronounce it, please record yourself and post a link here on the talk page. I'm getting curious. :) Here's the audio file for those who want to listen to it, and can confirm if it's correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Slavoj_Zizek.ogg NoiZy 03:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that file Zizek himself speaking? (I've heard him speak, but am not certain if that's his voice). While I cannot really speak to Slovenian pronunciation, the file doesn't sound obviously truncated to me. Instead it just sounds like an unreleased K (IPA "K?") to me. LotLE×talk 04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's the larger context from which I took that audio clip. Listen for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zizek_interview.ogg NoiZy 05:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Now it's obvious that because of cutting from the original .ogg file the final "k" has been lost. The "k" should be pronounced as in "link", or "Bullock". Trust me, this comes from 15 years of living and schooling in Slovenia. Anyway, even if you pronounced the name without it, there would be no misunderstanding about the identity of the subject and would suffice for every Slovenian. :-) Sanjin Vukojevic 12:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. So if we do have the audio file, it should include the pronunciation of the final "k". I saw the documentary too, and I promise you he pronounces the final "k". Zensufi 13:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'll leave it to the experts. Hope you can replace it with an appropriate clip. NoiZy 16:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
There is something of minor philosophical import in this issue in that the Ziz has said that he does not want English speakers to attempt to pronounce his name correctly, but rather with a Z as in Ziz and a hard k. Something about disregarding pretention and getting to the point of a discussion DocFaustRoll 18:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
From now on I shall call him "Slavoj, my boy" or "Comrade." Zensufi 21:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laibach and NSK

Some mention should be made of his affiliation of NSK and Laibach. He edited, and wrote the introduction for, Interrogation Machine, a critical analysis of NSK. He was also interviewed in A film from Slovenia, a documentary about Laibach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.12.102 (talk • contribs)

[edit] critiques of zizek

I think this should be merged into this page, because it seems to be giving undue weight to his critics. Few thinkers have pages devoted to critiques of them. Jimmyq2305 03:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This was factored out precisely to avoid undue weight in this biography. Far less harm is done to the bio by a separate discussion of criticsm than is by having half the article devoted to distinctly non-notable critics. LotLE×talk 04:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Concur with Lulu on this one. both the primary page and the critics page could use improvement as well. DocFaustRoll 05:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case, it needs to be either a) completely done away with or b) changed into something semireputable. having a separate page that is basically a david bordwell manifesto republished on wiki is unconscionable. honestly, and im sure you would agree, there needs to be a wide scale investigation as to NPOV regarding the content of the pages of continental philosophers as compared to those of analytics. sartre has a criticism section. nietzche has a detailed discussion of critiques of his views, heidegger has separate sections for nazi and non-nazi related critiques; wittgenstein has no criticism section (and portrays him as wholly analytic), bertrand russell has no criticism section, nor does george edward moore, gottlob frege, rudolph carnap, willard van orman quine or any canonical analytic figure. Nevertheless, their criticisms of continental philosophers are always on the continental thinkers article. This critiques article is not scholarship, its a pamphlet. ive flagged it and noted it, and if i dont hear from anyone who is going to defend it, im going to gut it, merge it, and replace all of the current references with serious critics of zizek that would be useful to someone interested in zizek. Jimmyq2305 05:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah... I strongly agree. If you look at my efforts (last March or so) to get the Zizek criticisms made slightly less doggerel, and then eventually spun off to where they cause less undue weight, you'll see the enormous number of hours I've poured into this. Moreover, still worse is the fact that many/most of the "criticisms" sections of continental philosophers are purely ad hominem insults, along the lines of Sokal's complaints that it "must be bad because I don't understand it". In this respect, the Zizek criticisms aren't quite as bad as those of Butler, Irigaray, Kristeva, etc (although those are three that I've made efforts to get to suck less): Bordwell is "special pleading", but at least he's nominally in one of the right fields to engage in the discussion.
But really the solution here is just to make the criticisms child article suck less. And I see, Jimmyq2305, that you've made some effort in that regard (though I no longer have the child watchlisted). Still, in practical terms, readers who are interested in Zizek, but not yet knowledgeable, will come to this main bio first. And I think the main bio is "pretty good". Not without room for improvement, but overall relatively fair and well written. LotLE×talk 14:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Jimmy, for whatever it is worth, I understand your concern re analytic versus continental philosophers. However, strategically and practically, editing and work must be page by page and subject by subject. If you want to add a critiques of Wittgenstein section or page, please do, as there is tremendous material on that subject. Having a critics section or subpage is valuable in that it allows for the presentation of multiple points of view on any subject.
I agree with Lulu that the main page is improving here, and that the subpage needs some serious work. Let me take a crack at it. DocFaustRoll 17:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures of Zizek

The pictures of Zizek in this article are quite low quality, and capture him in an ugly fashion. I really think they should be replaced with something nicer and/or of higher quality. I don't think anybody would appreciate having themselves in ugly poses (in my opinion of ugly - in fact the picture of him lecturing isn't ugly but only very low quality, yet the one of him sitting I'd say is truly ugly) placed in such a widely-seen encyclopedia as Wikipedia. Does anybody else agree with this? It's just something I thought should be noted and considered. —165.228.129.11 05:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide GFDL or PD images of better quality, we would love to use them. LotLE×talk 14:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that free-use is heavily preferred, but I have discovered this, if anyone wants to use it (I'm not sure whether it's totally necessary, unlike in Tank Man or Campbell's Soup Cans for example.) --Estrellador* 19:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia photo copyright policy, but I like the link you provide to the Zizek pic. It would be a lot nicer than the one that's up right now. Pschelden 21:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Somebody, please remove those pictures and put something nicer there. They are of low quality and quite ugly - demeaning to the man's public image. Though I must admit that it is difficult to find pictures of Slavoj of a high quality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Covervalid (talk • contribs) 12:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
As always, better pictures with proper copyright terms are very welcomed. We simply cannot use photos in violation of their copyright, however. LotLE×talk 15:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I too would really like to see a better quality photo of Zizek. I believe the use of photos freely provided to promote ZIZEK! would qualify as {{Non-free promotional}} fair use. This high quality photo, which would be credited to Kate Milford of Zeitgeist films, is particularly nice. Are there any objections to this? Riot Hero 01:28, 01 July 2007 (UTC)

The pictures from the film certainly seem to be better quality. If added to article, some explicit tie to the film should be indicated, such as in the image caption. For fair-use purposes, a still from the film is relevant to discussion of the film itself, but not per se to discussion of its subject matter. However, the film is discussed in the article (as it should be); let's just make the use rationale evident in the text. LotLE×talk 15:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lisp?

I'm not a student of Slavoj Žižek, but after listening to a featurette he contributed to, he appears to speak with a rather pronounced lisp, beyond his "accent". Whilst it in no part compares to the information of his life's work, it is certainly a noticeable trait. Should any mention be made to it in this article? Vampus 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am neither his student, though have recently been watching videos of him speaking in English on YouTube. I thought it was his accent, but now on closer inspection, and on inspection of him speaking in French in which he is supposedly much more fluent in speech though I am unsure (all from videos on YouTube); I notice that it really is quite a prominent lisp and not merely his accent.
I believe that it's definitely notable and definitely should be noted, though how would one incorporate it into the article? One cannot simply randomly throw in after some paragraph: "p.s. he has a prominent lisp". Where is one to put such comments, and how is one to comment without sounding slanderous? If it is to be commented on it should be commented on in some constructive way. —Completely Insane 12:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The crucial thing to keep in mind is WP:RS. If a citable source mentions Zizek's lisp (assuming he has one; I also just thought his sibilants were a Slovenian thing), we can include that. But our personal interpretation of his accent/speech pattern is WP:OR. LotLE×talk 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've found a few links which make reference to his (apparent) lisp, though you may have to be the judge as to how they came to these conclusions. [1], [2], [3]. My conclusions were drawn after listening to two featurettes he contributed to for the DVD release of Children of Men. Vampus 17:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zizek's personal life

Zizek is not longer married to Analia Hounie, the Argentinean model. Also to state that he is fluent in Serbo-Croatian, English and French seems irrelevant to the article. These two references should be deleted. Bobbyperou 4:56, 16 April (UTC)

When were they divorced? Do you have a link to a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axisnote (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the article to indicate this. Whoever previously deleted the statement shouldn't have, they should have merely modified it.
As for the irrelevance of his multilingualism, this is entirely false. Of course it is relevant, such traits are very important (for example he is able to, and has, propagated his philosophy much more due to having these familiarities; not to mention that knowing so many languages is also indicative to some degree of a person's character), and noting them is not against precedent of other Wikipedia articles. But indeed in its present place it may seem a little strange, and perhaps a special section (following the example and style of other biographical articles) should be created where all this information about his personal life is to be housed (i.e. his multilingualism, marriage(s), etc).
These things are definitely notable. Just because they seem strange in an article which principally talks about academics is no argument. Despite the fact that an encyclopedic article is initially created due to the achievement of a person (or some other facet) and not the "trifles" of their everyday lives, such trifles do have tremendous effect on a person and are thus important and interesting. One does not merely want to state what a person has done, but also to set the context of their lives. —Completely Insane 09:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catalog quote

The article had this alleged A&F catalog description by Zizek:

An example from this catalogue: "Duds, duds, get 'em while they're hot. I wouldn't wear that shirt except for maybe on laundry day. This past week, I went through three more dress shirts than usual; one I spilled coffee on, one got really sweaty in the metro. I hate the metro sometimes, but, hey, you got to get around. The other one got stuck in the back of my dresser drawer. As usual, it's all about ergonomics. I didn't much like that shirt anyways, but I should really stop putting them in my dresser. Iron, iron, ion, oiron. Repetitive motion. Getting bloody calluses, and maybe carpal tunnel. My teeth have been hurting lately, too."

I dunno... this really doesn't read much like Zizek to me. It looks much more like someone's amateurish effort to parody him to me. I could be wrong, but it definitely shouldn't be there without some verifiable citation.

I'm not sure such a long quote from what would have to be considered minor writing belongs in the article, even if true... but it definitely doesn't if false. LotLE×talk 14:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zizek's Ontology

A week ago I changed the contents of Zizek's ontology. The reason being the absurdity of the former text. It really read like a back cover brochure. I would very much appreciate that whoever reverted to that nonsense gives an explanation. Bobbyperou 09:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Bobby, I reverted that. Your change both repeated things that you also added elswhere in the article, and your change was not clear. You offered no clear introduction. Also your description of Zizek's ontology looks a little dated. I don't see Althusser for example mentioned once in Parallax. The section is certainly worth improving, but not by completely removing the old text and putting your own in there. Perhaps you could try some minor edits. ZenSufi wrote this a number of months ago. DocFaustRoll 16:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Doc, I wish first to apologize for my bluntness back to April 20, perhaps I should have taken a more diplomatic way to express my views. Well, as to Zizek's ontology let me assure that it is well accepted in academic circles the perception of his (Zizek's) three main categories: the Cartesian subject, ideology (revised) and the Lacanian Real. The concept of hegemony for instance recurs in "The Parallax View" (especially when he addresses the Master-Signifier) and in the same book he posits Spinoza as a anti-Cartesian. You begin your exposition by saying that "Zizek's ontology is an "idiosyncratic materialism". Well, what do you mean by "idiosyncratic materialism"? or that Zizek "engages contemporary theories of ontology and epistemology, emphasizing discontinuities and contradictions within existing systems of thought"? You should elaborate on that because - and please don't get upset - otherwise they sound empty and show a lack of articulation (and maybe understanding?). What if you do a different page titled "The Parallax View"? As to you arguing that "The Sublime Object" or any other work from the 90s /early 2000 is outdated, please reconsider your "reasoning"... So, I don't know if "Zizek's ontology" will eventually get to the stage of mediation, in the meantime I'll do some minor edits, as you suggest, trying to accomodate the various interest and also trying to write less cryptic and more "legible". Last but not least let me remind what Zizek says in "Parallax": Materialism means that the reality I see is never "whole" - not because a large part of it eludes me, but because it contains a stain, a blind spot, which signals my inclusion in it. Best, Bobbyperou 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bobby,

Absolutely no offence taken. I only ask you for some rigor. I agree that the word "idiosyncratic" is imprecise. That is a useful criticism. I or you should change that.

However, we need some cites for your contributions. What is this vague "reference" to "academic circles"? Unless you are prepared to mention your academic background and specific department of study, that comes off as weak reaching for authority. Your contributions to Zizek should at this point tighten the article and improve upon it, not add to the mess. The Deleuze page is a good model.

Furthermore, you still do not directly address ontology with your mention of three main categories of (what?) in Zizek. Again, please look at the Deleuze page for a model in which several people came to shared agreement (with citation) about how to clearly explain his metaphysics and his politics in different sections.

You seem to be parroting a weak summary of some areas of inquiry for Zizek and then you appear to be unskillfully stuffing that summary into a section that is inappropriate for that summary.

If you are going to meaninfully contribute, you should provide citations and you should apply the relevance test to your contributions. DocFaustRoll 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Doc, I'll look at Deleuze for a model and we'll see from there. By the way there are two Zizek's that refer to Lacan and Deleuze in the web (they will be published next year in Germany).Bobbyperou 21:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Looks like we can both come to some concord and collaborate on this entry. Every one of your points is a valid mention of some aspect of Zizek's work. I merely question whether they all belong in the ontology subsection and what prominence they should be given when judged agains his most current formulations and most current articulations. I see that you have worked on the Badiou page. For the last decade, Ziz's collaboration with Badiou and Agamben has been central to his work. A mention of Badiou would be relevant. I would prefer to use wikipedia convention and discuss any changes with you before I modify the ontology section again. I am reading Parallax myself now, so I can contribute something from my reading of his latest summa of his thinking. DocFaustRoll 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many "levels".

Too many levels were previously used in this article. One should not go beyond "===" -- it is poor practice. Pretty much all other articles I have seen about philosophers, or anything for that matter, are thus. It screws up the contents' appearance (check the article's history). And is additionally just plainly ugly and confusing. —Panelhurry 07:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The link to this page seems not to be workig properly; you can see that from the address bar above.

Rosa Lichtenstein 01:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] orthodox lacanian stalinist

Zizek's self-description is quoted in the first section of the article without regard for his highly ironic rhetorical style. Were someone unacquainted with Zizek to take this description literally, it would almost certainly lead to a perception of Zizek widely off the mark. This quote should either be qualified or moved farther down in the article. (For more on what Zizek *may* mean when he refers to Stalin, see the New Yorker article entitled "The Marx Brother". For example, "Stalin, on the other hand, functions for Zizek as a kind of stock gag.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.24.199 (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Zizek personally states (in the documentary "Zizek!") that his sarcasm (as he calls it) in using this phrase is partly to conceal that fact that he is being serious. He adds that the shock caused is here politically necessary to reclaim certain concepts traditionally associated with the left but that were later appropriated by mid-20th century fascism. Dawnfrenzy 08:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
like what specifically? mass murder? Or is he referring to the fact that the left is usually associated nowadays with peace protests and anti-war raving, as opposed to action and radical revolutionaries? Can someone add a section to the article about his views on violence. He recently wrote a book on it, and while I've yet to read it, I'm sure many of you Zizekheads have done so already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.73.145 (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Influence still

What the heck is going on with all the mostly anonymous semi-vandals who insert rather gratuitous "influences" in Zizek's infobox? This is just so annoying.

The latest was Alain Badieu. A perfectly good philospher whom Zizek read, of course. In that past it's been Kierkegaard; also an excellent thinker, whom Zizek mentions passingly in a couple books. Or Philip K. Dick has appeared a bunch (ditto, good fiction writer whom Zizek read). I think some folks like Foucault, Baudrilard, Kant, and so on jumped in here also.

What I would suggest as a rather clear and obvious criteria is that any alleged influence whose influence is not specifically addressed in the body of the article has no place in the infobox as such. Yes, Zizek has read (and writes about) hundreds of different thinkers in the course of his books... all of them are "influences" in some trite sense. But the infobox is for no more than a half-dozen most central influences. LotLE×talk 05:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Hello all. I wandered over here through WikiProject External Links and, though I like what y'all have done with the rest of the article, was dismayed by the external links section. Normally procedure is to evaluate each link individually, but when so many are present, that becomes overwhelming. I'd like to suggest that external links be re-added, one by one, to be evaluated on an individual basis. --Gimme danger 01:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to the new version? Skomorokh incite 02:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Not objections per se, but just a note on the purpose of external link sections. They're generally for including reliable sources that for some reason can't be used in writing the article. In this case, the bibliography link would be in that group, but the encyclopedia entry and academic profile should be incorporated into the article using inline citation. (I'd offer to do this myself, but this is a wikipedia-wide problem and I'm up to my eyeballs in citation jobs.) Putting these sources in the reference section not only allows readers to find out where the information in the article is coming from, it also puts the link on the page so that it doesn't need to be in the external links. --Gimme danger 02:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overall Clarity of the section on Ontology

I would like to provide some comments on the clairty of this section. I am not a scholar of Zizek, but am very knowledgable in other areas of philosophy and have researched for over 4 years now, These following comments are not without justification. I study philosophy full time (Phenomenology and Contemporary Analytic Philosophy of Mind) and it seems who has ever written the subject of ontology has thrown about some faily big words without perhaps understanding their meaning in philosophy. For starters, Sentence 1: "Žižek's ontology posits a return to the category of the Cartesian subject; a return to the category of ideology; and a return to the notion of the Lacanian Real."

The notion of the Cartesian subject is clear enough. But answer me, What is "The Category of Ideology" Ideology! As an Ontology! How can "Ideology" exist? Like we can talk of ideology most definately! But its not an ontological category such as Rocks, Stones, Human Beings, Thoughts, Time etc etc. If Zizek argues this, that needs to be made clear, because the way that sentence is written is total gobldygook. The Lacanian Real.... it might well be ontological..... but that needs to be justified. Most practising philosophers would have no clue what the Lacanian Real is, less how it relates to ontology!!!!!!!

I think the rest of it makes sense well enough, in an undergraduate essay sort of way, which is fine. The clarity of the writing is hopeless but one with enough background knowledge could figure it out. But I think that what needs to happen is to not make an already obtruse writer more obtruse, but a clarification of his ideas and a tone that is not so assuming of prerequisite knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.70.149 (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it could be tweaked for better clarity. Zizek's conception of ontology is different from the standard definition of ontology/has a particular Lacanian context/derivation. Ontology--the study of being--is predicated on the Lacanian concept of the"other." In Lacan, this is petit objet a and the Big Other, which have a function in ordering the symbolic (society itself)--hence ontology is ideological in Lacan/Zizek. (Huge oversimplification, but, attempt at explanation).-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huge bibliography

Well, we all know that Žižek has written absurdly many books, and even more articles. Someone recently added (via copying and touching up the French version) a whole bunch of article references. While these are nice to have in some sense, I don't think they're really encyclopedic; WP ain't an academic CV, but rather a discussion and summary of a thinker. It seems a bit wrong for the French Wikipedia, but I don't edit that.

What I wish we could do was point readers, with a single external link, to such a comprehensive bibliography. I don't know if that exists out in the world. If not, I'm reluctant to just delete all the refs, but still feel like that's the right thing to do. WP:NOT just a collection of facts (or citations). LotLE×talk 22:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who transferred the links. I just skimmed the WP:NOT and found the section you were probably referring to about NOT collecting links. It's sad because I actually do use wikipedia as a resource to find articles and such written by the people covered, so this kind of huge bibliography is a goldmine for me. If anyone can find a link to an external database, or if anyone wants to make this huge bibliography into an external database and link to it (*thinks wishfully*), that would be awesome... Also, I've noticed that there are some wikipedia pages that are just big lists (e.g., List of nineteenth-century British periodicals). This is probably a faux pas, but can we just make a List of articles by Slavoj Žižek page and add the disputed section to it?--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think a child article like you suggest is a good approach. If "List of articles" doesn't get AfD'd, a non-verbose link to it would be great for this article. I'd be happy to host the bibliography on my own website, which would make it external, but my site doesn't really meet WP:RS (I'm just a guy with a domain name, not a research institution, newspaper, whatever). LotLE×talk 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So I created that article here: List of articles by Slavoj Žižek, but I'm thinking I'll leave the bibliography up on this article until it looks like the List article will stay for good or go. Speaking of, is there a way to find out one way or another whether the article I just created is WP acceptable? Thanks for the help and input on all of this!--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and feel free to just delete those extra articles and add the link to that List if you (or anyone) feel(s) confident about it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The only way to really know whether the child article will stick around is to see if it gets nominated for AfD, and if it does, what the consensus is. That said, I'll do the moving now. If the child has a problem, we'll worry about that when the time comes (I'd vote keep, FWIW). LotLE×talk 01:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misreading WP:CRIT

I had not noticed that an editor had, without any discussion, merged the "Critiques" article into this one a couple weeks ago. This is definitely a very bad idea, as it creates a gross WP:UNDUE weight in this article. Moreover, the justification in the edit comment about WP:CRIT is a dramatic misreading of that essay... what the essay warns about is criticism sections firstly, which the editor stuck in at huge length. Given how we've recently split off the (very long) bibliography, I think we can move the article towards something closer to WP:SUMMARY style. Splitting off bits is the way to do that.

I'm not unaware of the WP:COATRACK or WP:FORK issue with the Critiques child article, but I think a neutral tone can be maintained there. Unlike in the case of politicians, or actors, or singers, philosophers really do live in the medium of critique, so having a child isn't so inherently POV as it would be for those other types of WP:LIVING persons. LotLE×talk 08:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Merging Critiques of Slavoj Zizek into this article was a good idea; 'Critiques of Slavoj Zizek' is not a subject that is notable enough to deserve its own article. Skoojal (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I might vote delete if you AfD'd it.... but I would definitely not ever allow insertion of material completely irrelevant to biography. "Criticism" sections are a real scourge on WP biographies, and quickly destroy good articles with infinite "me-too-ism" where every random grad student who says something critical of a thinker (or other public figure) suddenly becomes "balance."
Please try to remember that biographies on WP are biographies! If something doesn't help readers understand who a profiled person is, it has no place in an biographic article. A limited amount on critical reception, if worked into the main flow can sometimes be valuable; but coatracks to hang every bit of nastiness towards a bio figure who pops out of the woodwork reduces WP to a tabloid. LotLE×talk 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Proposing to delete Critiques of Slavoj Zizek is a good idea; I'll probably do just that. Thank you for the suggestion. And believe it or not, I take your point about criticism sections. Skoojal (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)