From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	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] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. 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 Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

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 1 Archive 2 Current 2.1 Feminism 2.2 Major problems with this article 2.3 Audio Pronunciation 2.4 Laibach and NSK 2.5 critiques of zizek 2.6 Pictures of Zizek

[edit] Archive

• /Archive 1

[edit] Current

==Christianity ====Didn't Zizek write a book or essay called, "The Perverse Core of Christianity"?

[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] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)