The Truth of Zizek by Paul Bowman
My rating: 2 of 5 stars
I find the only thing more confusing and boring than reading Zizek (who is sometimes boring!) is reading about what academics have to say about him. Of course, this is where academia is at its most stupefying, where one can only take a stand by claiming that another did not say enough. While sometimes amusing, I think the short essays attempting to grasp Zizek’s complex and often compelling arguments seems to fall short. The problem with summing what someone says when they aren’t finished saying it, is that often we can’t figure out what kind of effect that person has had yet.
There are a few gems in this book, but it’s often undecidable as to who to give more weight to. Zizek’s 50 page reply at the end (by far the longest) encapsulates the very paragon of being himself. As he states ironically
When we are avidly expecting the new book of an author, and this book, when it finally appears, turns out to be a disappointment, we can say: ‘Although we were waiting for this book, this is not the book we were waiting for’. This, unfortunately, is also my impression apropos the texts in the present volume–not because it is highly critical of me, but because so many arguments in it are based on such a crude misreading of my position, that instead of confronting theoretical positions, I will have to spend way too much time answering insinuations and untruths as well as setting straight the misunderstandings of my position–which is, for an author, one of the most boring exercises imaginable. In order to ease this burden, I will effectively do what I am often accused of (over)doing: cut and paste bits of my past texts where I already clarified the issues debated here.
Taking the most critical stereotype of himself, Zizek gives permission for his detractors to mock him by effectively removing their ability to criticize him. He does what they claim he does so as to remove their criticism from him. In this manner, Zizek exercises in academia a general mode of reddit or 4chan or any other internet forum. You agree with your critics so they no longer have power over you. And yet, apropos Lacan (and Marx), you acknowledge the “terrestrial basis” of your ideology so that it can have greater force. We do what we do despite our intellectual cynicism because that which we do has power over us, to move us despite our skeptical, enlightened modality. In this way, Zizek may stop short of asking what his critics “hamsters” are, despite their probing into his own personal life, because as it may turn out (who knows), their critical hamsters may actually be the position they have placed Zizek himself. Perhaps (un)ironically, by questioning what his truth is, they have given him full license to continue to perpetuate the writings he engages in.
And in that sense, this book is wholly unsatisfying simply because there remains a pivoting but no synthesis of position. We are left knowing less than we knew before despite having all these experts positioned around a table differentiating themselves. I think this is a good view of academia in its meaningless repetition.
