One Khepra has responded to Lenin’s Tomb‘s follow-up post on Žižek and racism with this absolute gem:
First, I think it critical to point out that I would not argue that your charge of ‘racism’ is wrong, but that it is not right. In other words, I would not suggest that ‘racist’ themes cannot be interpreted in Zizek’s argumentation, but that these themes are *interpretations* and not ‘reality’ or ‘the truth’. I propose that if one were to ask Zizek something to the effect of, “Did you mean to implicitly endorse racism or pogroms?” he would not answer in the affirmative. Therefore, I would suggest that you have interpolated this meaning and that it might be more constructive to acknowledge your role as author and translator than arbiter of ‘truth’ and ‘meaning’. [That is not to say that all meanings and interpretations are equivalent. Many ≠ any. One could not, for instance, legitimately come away from Zizek's presentation with the interpretation that Zizek ignored the plight of the Romas outright, or that the cultural dispositions of the Romas had been thoroughly and accurately represented, or that Zizek was a firm advocate of neoliberal capitalism, etc.]
Reminds me of that moment in a lift when you hear two academics talking about something or other: it seems like a caricature of any intellectual conversation. (ht cp)
15 January, 2011 at 5:22 pm
When I see this I thought of this.KJB,
2 Timothy 37Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
16 January, 2011 at 1:35 am
I believe Richard Seymour said it best, in the best practical example of when one does not join in solidarity just because one shares a belief system with others:
“No, you’re quite right – I don’t want ‘solidarity’ with you, not over this issue.”
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/01/moving-on-from-zizek-or-not.html#comment-123597726
Honestly, there should be an AAR paper proposal on Zizek & Race or Zizek & Cultural studies. That would stir the pot.
16 January, 2011 at 6:31 am
He’s always played with such things: sexism (in Metastases of Enjoyment and his jokes), anti-Semitism (in discussions of Judaism), and racism. One element is a desire to confront, take the most obnoxious position and generate controversy; but when you begin to add them up and identify a pattern, it’s not pretty.