Along the same lines, it’s of note that the intros to his books are very short. I don’t think it’s out of place here to point to the lack of introduction to Lacan’s Seminars – he more or less just launches into it. And it’s because of how Zizek (and I think Lacan) see the relation between theory and practice. He can’t just tell you the theory, because it’s abstract. It has to birth itself through existing literature and events (or for Lacan Math and literature – he generally doesn’t talk about his case studies because ‘you had to be there’ – i.e. there’s a difference between transmittable knowledge and ‘know-how’).

This might sound ‘idealist’, or simply empty talk, but take a look at what Lukacs says about Lenin and Luxemberg: They’re called Marxist _literature_ because they take into account what people are talking about and what’s going on in the world, not just coming up with a theory out of the blue… Marx, of course, did the same thing.

And that’s another reason ‘Zizek is important’. People generally leave out the fact that he’s declared 2001 the advent of his ‘Leninist turn’. He’s not just talking philosophy, he’s attempting to revitalize some standard Marxist categories which can then be turned into political praxis…
and refined.

Which of course opens the door to the ‘Why isn’t he politically active now?’. The answer he gives is that current thought has left out the destruction of Capitalism as a viable option, and these ‘presuppositions’ are what enable people to act in the first place. Attacking these foundations (he hopes) will open some doors for action.

Which is, of course, part of the reason he doesn’t have a political program. He’s in a position to attack thought, but has no idea what the exact conditions in my neck of the woods are. It’s for people to take up thought and make something of it…

A sustained reading of Zizek shows that the examples and thoughts are not just random, that they do form an argument. For example the first section of parallax approaches freedom through the question of how capitalism functions (Chapter 1) and what the structure of democracy is (Chapter 2), culminating in what ‘freed choice’ looks like (Interlude 1). The problem, as everyone knows, is that you tend to remember the examples more than the argument. (I could go on about how exmaples work for Zizek, but this is too long as it is). The trick is to read it more than once so that examples attract less attention and the ideas become clearer.

Criticizing him by saying he doesn’t have a linear argument is like attacking Marx because the first chapter is too abstract. Marx repeats his procedure over and over, getting more concrete as he goes along. It’s only the whole picture (the whole book…plus the others!) that makes a coherent argument. Same goes for Zizek. If you only read the Intro to Parallax you won’t get it. If you read the whole book (a few times…) you’ll begin to see why the art on the book is such that it is: Party as Analyst. (Lenin in Lacan’s seat)…

In this sense he is making more of an arguement than cultural theorists (a cateogy he is clumsily thrown into) in that, if nothing else, he is stating that one should embrace a stance that is more than simply oppositional – such as when he refers to himself as a dogmatic Lacanian. The best evidence for why Zizek matters is the work of those who jump forward with his ideas – Adrian Johnston is a standout here.

From your title, Why Zizek Matters, I was looking for something that would tell me why he matters….why should I keep reading Zizek? Will he offer anything new outside of some admittedly brilliant Lacanian readings of film, literature, etc. Is that what matters? He reminds me a bit of the band Mars Volta…they are undeniably brilliant, and weave some amazing theoretical tools through their work, but it remains unfocused. if they could only channel their creative energy something profound would emerge. I feel the same about Zizek….does he hate writing so much they he can’t maintain attention for longer than a paragraph? And if he can manage to do so, I think we’ll see something great. Sublime Object, Tarrying With the Negative, Ticklish Subject, and Parallax View are, doubtless, his most sustained and reasoned works, and at this point, I’m willing to stick with them as foundational texts for Zizek’s thought. But, again, why DOES Zizek matter? This post seems Zizekan in this sense that it doesn’t offer anything positive….it doesn’t tell us anything about Why. Did you prefer not to tell us? If so, why?

“What makes Žižek important is the simple fact that he approaches the topic of subjectivity and freedom (among other issues) by using psychoanalysis as a lense to examine German Idealism, and that this analysis allows for, and even encourages, a theory of the subject that takes into account but manages to narrowly escape, the scientifically fueled determinism of our age.”

Why is this so important? I understand why the latter claim is important because without freedom (of some kind) Zizek’s entire “system” would lose everything…his tentative construction of a radical politics wouldn’t be too radical without freedom.

Just some initial reactions to your post to which I hope you’ll engage in a response.