For a radical Marxist, the actual history that we live is itself the realisation of an alternative history: we have to live in it because, in the past, we failed to seize the moment. In an outstanding reading of Walter Benjamin’s ‘Theses on the Philosophy of History’ (which Benjamin never published), Eric Santner elaborated the notion that a present revolutionary intervention repeats/redeems failed attempts in the past. These attempts count as ‘symptoms’, and can be retroactively redeemed through the ‘miracle’ of the revolutionary act.
The accusation against Zizek (see comments thread here) is that this citation of Santner is somewhat disingenuous. Luther Blisset links to the actual Santner piece (2003, I think) which, it turns out, cites Zizek’s own Welcome to the Desert of the Real (2002) as support for his argument. It would appear then that Zizek is citing as an authority/source someone who is citing as a source/authority Zizek himself. John Holbo refers to this referential circle as a ‘Munchausen’ tactic. Zizek has used Santner as a “sock puppet” another commenter states, and adds with obvious glee that this is the “killer” point against Zizek, and a suitable cue to “dismiss” him as a “clown”. Draw your own conclusions. Of course, those who are interested in Zizek are perfectly capable of recognising the lazy or ‘clownish’ elements, without seizing on these as convenient escape clauses.
But in any case, things are perhaps not quite as they seem. The offending passage, above, is basically something Zizek has cut and pasted straight from Revolution at the Gates (2002), where he is referring to an older unpublished version of Santner’s essay from 2001. We can assume that Santner’s citation of Zizek’s Desert of the Real (the offending citation) was added later. The fact that Zizek has simply pasted a 3 year old passage into his LRB essay unmodified is of course remarkable in itself. It’s lazy and frustrating, but readers of Zizek know this only too well. It’s become a signature of his journalism. Which is why, to repeat what Adam Kotsko, has been saying, those who want to engage with Zizek at his strongest are advised to look elsewhere.
ps There's a clip from the new Zizek film here.
pps Initially I thought Zizek might have been playing a little joke with the Santner citation, a la Debord in Panegyric:
Men more knowledgeable than I have explained very well the origin of what has come to pass: “Exchange-value could have formed only as an agent of use-value, but its victory by force of its own arms has created the conditions for its autonomous rule. Mobilizing all human use and seizing the monopoly on satisfaction, it has ended up directing use. The process of exchange became identified with all possible use and has reduced it to its will. Exchange-value is the condottiere of use-value, which finishes by waging war for its own advantage.”
He is of course quoting from Society of the Spectacle.
1 comment:
-- of course S.O.S. is a rather interesting sample-job itself. All the more challenging claims can be traced to Lukacs & the more interesting phrases are reversed from Marx, who reversed them from Hegel. Dialectics as sampladelia, anyone?
In any case I don't see Zizek's reference as dangerous: scientists cite other scientists who use their own experiments as evidence of validity, not falsity. It's called repeatability. And this is common in philosophy: to agree with the way in which others develop one's contribution to thought or to draw out the differences. Yet one would have thought Zizek would be more careful and less bombastic, more apt to consider the differences than bolster his own work.
- tV
Post a Comment