![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ0tHbS0MRWbKglkMDRo5edZDUnqcpt-JDXh2ebPT1wDjFWaSAdLcGFHr41kotEJergzy3fhlkrpDNSi77A0OxKKzuqGbwhYv8VbdgZOiSeo7DDDAmg83pUVa8dLw2ElRQRp1IYrZIg-M/s320/3244450794_c102c2b4f5.jpg)
Žižek was born in Yugoslavia when it was still a 'Communist' country. He got a PhD in philosophy from the University of Ljubljana, and a second PhD in psychoanalysis from the University of Paris. He was a big name in Yugoslavian intellectual circles in the 70s, but got kicked out of his university job for not being Marxist enough, and in the 80s he moved to Paris, only to return in the early 90s when Yugoslavia got broken up into different countries to run against the socialist party's presidential nominees. He started publishing books in English in the late 80s, and since then has written stupidly lots - roughly 200,000 words every two years - as well as starring in several films: 'The Pervert's Guide to Cinema', 'Žižek!' and 'Examined Life'.
People seem to either love him or hate him: plenty of Eastern Europeans think he betrayed Communism/Yugoslavia; academics sometimes get sniffy because the more he writes the less he sticks to the 'rules' of academic writing (things like using proper references, structuring your book around a main argument, being boring); he often seems to say things just because they're controversial or will make people cross with him, and he has a funny habit of making similar arguments in several books by basically cutting and pasting whole sections of text. Also, he's increasingly communist, increasingly angry about capitalism, and often quite violent in his rhetoric.
On the plus side, he's fun to read: he'll move suddenly from talking about 19th century philosophy to analysing jokes to talking about that time Mel Gibson got arrested and started ranting about the Jews to discussing the psychoanalytical significance of Alien. He's original and engaging; passionate and inspiring; and he has a wonderful ability to make you feel like another world is possible.
Now, Žižek's not a (conventional) theologian, but there's a crucial shift in his work around the time he starts reading Schelling, who's a theological but not a very orthodox thinker. Around that time, Žižek's political philosophy moves, roughly, from advocating some form of radical democracy to wanting something more like a revolution and an authoritarian government, but he also turns more and more to theology to articulate his ideas: he writes books with names like 'The Fragile Absolute: or why is the Christian legacy worth fighting for?' and 'The Puppet and the Dwarf: the perverse core of Christianity', and he recently wrote a book with John Milbank, one of the big names in contemporary theology. He is, roughly, a 'Christian atheist', arguing that you can only be an atheist by being a Christian first, and that the way to be faithful to Jesus is to stop believing in God. Theologians get quite excited by the fact that a non-theologian is talking about incarnation and sin and Jesus, but they're not always sure Žižek is an ally or an enemy of theology. Žižek's mostly read by academics, but is starting to influence little bits of the non-academic-churchosphere, leading to some more debates about whether he's a friend or a foe.
So, readers: meet Žižek. I think you'll find we've all got lots to talk about.
Photo credit: brechtjekeulen on Flickr
Photo credit: brechtjekeulen on Flickr
10 comments:
After clicking around, and eventually reading this account of Žižek and Milbank's recent debate:
http://thomaslynch.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/zizek-vs-milbank/
I'm more inclined than ever to conclude that only a direct experience of the divine teaches us anything very reliable about the nature of the divine.
And frankly, I feel the mixture of academic philosophy and theology that apparently characterized the tone of this debate sheds more heat than light. Just this seeker's opinion, of course.
Ah yes the big-time talkers of power-seeking religion (even dressed up as "orthodoxy")
Yes Loco Moco you are exactly and precisely correct re direct Divine Revelation.
www.kneeoflistening.com
www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon
The authors writings on politics & culture via:
www.beezone.com/AdiDa/reality-humanity.html
www.dabase.org/not2.htm
www.dabase.org/openlett.htm
Plus two related references as to why in 2010 things are INEVITABLY so dark.
www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html
www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2
Our entire "culture", including all of its religion, is based upon this taboo and the war against the body.
Well, Anonymous, those are interesting readings. But do they not also express a "theology"?
I have nothing against theology, or why would I be visiting this site? But in the context of my comment above, a system of theology can be seen as a travel-guide to the divine.
My feeling is that "all uphill roads lead to the mountaintop", and further, that each of us follows a unique life-pilgrimage, a unique road.
Reading the travel-guides can certainly help us find our way, but is no substitute for putting our sandals onto a "path with heart" -- any more than reading "Into Thin Air" is a substitute for climbing Everest.
To bring this back to Žižek, perhaps I pass him off too facilely as one who seems focused on the head. I would like to know more of what's in his heart.
I speak somewhat obliquely here, but intentionally so, because I know that those who visit here are also pilgrims on a path with heart, to whom things need not be spelled out.
Loco, the idea that religious experience and what goes on in the 'heart' is more important than what goes on in the head is pretty deeply theological, and, I'd argue, pretty problematic. Sure, academic debates can be dry and spiritually empty, but ideas about God based primarily on 'experience' can be vapid, contradictory, and shallow. If God made us with minds and hearts, surely he wants us to use both?
Thank you for your comment. Indeed I don't disagree that both are important, nor did I intend to demean sincere theological debate. And of course, you are correct that "ideas about God" that stem primarily from experience can be all those things you mention. But they need not necessarily be so.
I acknowledge freely that when we try to explain or interpret our personal mystical or ecstatic experiences verbally or in writing, we are bound to fall short of perfectly expressing the inexpressible. This is an unavoidable risk.
For that reason, I'm not suggesting that the firsthand encounter with the divine should in any way be the proper progenitor of "ideas about God". This, in fact, is precisely the sort of linkage I'm trying to avoid. "Ideas" are no substitute for direct experience, though they can surely be a worthy complement to it.
I believe we work out our "salvation" with "fear and trembling" (a natural reaction, when confronted with the immanence of the divine) more so than with debates and discussions; those may illuminate our minds and guide our thoughts, but seem to offer no direct encounter with the Light.
I don't think I agree. I think that to follow God is to follow him with everything that we are - body, mind, spirit. I reckon that I've been more deeply changed by some of the theology I've read and the intellectual discussions I've had than I have by almost anything else. Why can't encounter with God take place in study and debate just as much as in contemplation and prayer?
I'm not sure we disagree to any significant extent, certainly not at all regarding what it means to follow God with all our being. I likewise share your experience of enlightenment through study and debate. Nor do I mean to establish a hierarchy that places study and debate below prayer and contemplation.
But I do *distinguish* among them to this extent:
Reading, let's say "Pride and Prejudice" and the "Kama Sutra", and discussing them in a study group, or attending debates on love and sexuality, may certainly prepare us for, open us to, and kindle our ardor for an intimate relationship. Those alone do not comprise such a relationship, nor can they alone substitute for one. However, the preparation for the actual experience is what catalyzes it, and then the experience likewise validates the preparation.
Mind you, I don't claim that the actual experience necessarily trumps the readings and discussions. To the contrary, the experience enrichens and transforms them, making them even more enlightening and worth one's while. Granted that some believers favor the "active life" more, while others prefer the "contemplative life"; this is a matter of individual personality more than of doctrine. But all these aspects, as you say quite rightly, become synergistic and intertwined.
Hey, Marika,
Just wondering whether you know of Adam Kotsko's book on "Zizek and Theology?" which I thought might interest you. (He seems like an intelligent guy to me, who unlike, say, me has an understanding of theology as well as of Zizek's philosophical background...
Anyway.
Over at "An und fuer sich", A. has been talking about a recent, incredibly pompous sounding denunciation that he has just received from John Milbank. Alas, this is not the first time, that Milbank has looked like a bit of a prat when dealing with intellectual disagreements among his brothers and siters. (You warned readers of this blog about this, but I wasn't listening b/c I was reading 'theology and social theory' at the time and being enamoured of its cleverness.
Anyway, you can find out about Kotsko and Milbank's wrath at:
http://itself.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/because-i-am-lukewarm/
The things is 'though I can't really comment on the theological issue between Milbank and Kotsko, namely b/c I don't really know anything about 'death of God theology'/to what extent theologians align Zizek with it (apart from the fact that I know that the big Z. himself as expressed some sympathy for this position both in and after "The Monstrosity of Christ" ) or why they think connecting the two reflects badly on both Zizek and the opposing camp of theologians.
Just out of curiosity: What do you think "death of god theology" Marika? Silly? Sexy? Should be stopped? I'm a bit out of my depth here...it's odd how, coming from philosophy, you expect theologians to be more in agreement than philosophers, less viscious in their denunciations of each other and so on...But, no..?
Hey, Marika,
Just wondering whether you know of Adam Kotsko's book on "Zizek and Theology?" which I thought might interest you. (He seems like an intelligent guy to me, who unlike, say, me has an understanding of theology as well as of Zizek's philosophical background...
Anyway.
Over at "An und fuer sich", A. has been talking about a recent, incredibly pompous sounding denunciation that he has just received from John Milbank. Alas, this is not the first time, that Milbank has looked like a bit of a prat when dealing with intellectual disagreements among his brothers and siters. (You warned readers of this blog about this, but I wasn't listening b/c I was reading 'theology and social theory' at the time and being enamoured of its cleverness.
Anyway, you can find out about Kotsko and Milbank's wrath at:
http://itself.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/because-i-am-lukewarm/
The things is 'though I can't really comment on the theological issue between Milbank and Kotsko, namely b/c I don't really know anything about 'death of God theology'/to what extent theologians align Zizek with it (apart from the fact that I know that the big Z. himself as expressed some sympathy for this position both in and after "The Monstrosity of Christ" ) or why they think connecting the two reflects badly on both Zizek and the opposing camp of theologians.
Just out of curiosity: What do you think "death of god theology" Marika? Silly? Sexy? Should be stopped? I'm a bit out of my depth here...it's odd how, coming from philosophy, you expect theologians to be more in agreement than philosophers, less viscious in their denunciations of each other and so on...But, no..?
Hm. I started to try to give an opinion, and then realised that I don't really know what I'm talking about. I haven't read Kotsko's book, though I should; I haven't read any death of God theology either. I do think you run into problems as a theologian if you buy into Zizek's theology, not least because he's, er, an atheist, but I've no idea whether or not that's what Kotsko does. It's hard not to feel like Milbank was unnecessarily rude in that interview, although the part of the blogosphere that Kotsko inhabits isn't really known for being kind to Milbank. As for theologians being non-vicious in their disagreements, it's sweet that you're so idealistic, but I'm afraid it's not the case, and hasn't really ever been.
Post a Comment