How to Read Žižek
Žižek first directly develops a certain theoretical line in a straightforward way, with all its oscillations and blind alleys, and then goes on to condense the result in precise, but compressed formulas. In fact, Žižek’s lectures and books relate like the discourse of analysand and analyst during treatment. In lectures, Žižek acts as an analysand: he ‘free-associates’, improvises, skips and jumps, addressing his public, which is thus put into the role of a kind of collective analyst. In comparison, his writings are more condensed, formulaic; they throw out ambiguous propositions that often appear like oracles, challenging the reader to start working on them, to translate them into clear theses and provide examples and logical demonstrations of their sense. In contrast to the usual academic procedure, where the author formulates a thesis and then tries to sustain it through arguments, not only does Žižek more often than not leave this work to the reader, but often the reader must even determine what exactly is Žižek’s actual thesis among the multitude of conflicting formulations or the ambiguity of a single oracular formulation. In this precise sense, Žižek’s books are like an analyst’s interventions, whose aim is not to provide the analysand with a ready-made opinion or statement, but to set the analysand to work.
So what and how to follow? Books or lectures? The only proper answer is a variation on the old ‘tea or coffee’ joke: Yes, please! One should follow both. If you go directly to the books, there’s a chance you won’t get anything, so you should start – but not stop – with the lectures since, if you listen to nothing but the lectures, you also won’t get it. The impression that the lectures are clearer and more transparent than the books is deeply misleading: they often oscillate, experiment with different approaches. The proper way is to listen to a lecture and then go on to read the corresponding book so as to ‘get the point’ of the lecture. The books are clear, they provide precise formulas, but we can only understand them after listening to the lecture that fills in their background.
See also:
How to Read Lacan
Seems like good advice. I’ve personally gotten a lot out reading a text along side a related lecture.
In one of the lectures I saw, Z. says that he doesn’t even know why anyone goes to those things since they should just read the book. I found that to be basically true—i.e. straight out of the book. That said, I feel like I’ve gotten a lot out of the lectures, though I can’t put my finger on what.
I find it a lot easier to understand some of the more esoteric ideas and formulations from his writings (often the ones in Lacanian jargon) when put in context with the many examples he gives in his lectures; at the same time though you would probably not get a lot out of the lectures if you have not read anything by Zizek.
Of course you can’t read his writings and listen to his lectures simultaneously but once you’ve done both you’d (hopefully) discover that the writings and the lectures each now makes sense in their own way.
Hey, that sounded like a parallax!
In what order would you guys recommend reading Zizek? I’ve been trying to introduce some new people to Zizek’s work and to critical theory in general and I’ve devised the following introductory Zizek Cocktail, to be consumed and mulled over in consecutive order:
(0. Discussion from me and youtube lectures – What Does it Mean to be a Revolutionary Today, Living in End Times etc.)
1. Welcome to the Desert of the Real
2. First as Tradgedy Then as Farce
3. Violence
4. The Fragile Absolute: Or, Why is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?
From here the reader has his/her foot in the door and can move on to some of the bigger, more difficult tomes. You guys aware of any further Zizek amenable to the “introductory level” reader?
I wonder if one could say that people could move with either one of two groups at any time. One group learning about Lacanian psychoanalytic theory, the other undergoing such an analysis. I think I prefer to stay away from the analysis and keep the theory at an arms length.
Steve, if they are interested in theory then his earlier works (i.e. Sublime Object of Ideology, For They Know Not What They Do, Tarrying with the Negative) are much more coherent as they actually serve in the capacity of introducing readers to Lacan and Hegel, in particular Zizek’s reading of Hegel through Lacan and vice versa.
However if they are interested in Zizek as a cultural critic then First as Tragedy Then as Farce may be more accessible and current. Of course you’d miss out a lot if this is the way you read Zizek.
Also the film Zizek! (2005) is an excellent intro to him for someone who has no idea who he is.
Isn’t this an exact lift from the HtRL book… substituting Zizek for Lacan?
In any case, terrific site! Is the Philosophy In Our Time download on the way?
@Charles Marks
You shouldn’t spoil secrets like that. And yeah, I’ll be uploading it today.
@Mariborchan
While I too think this is funny in the non-dupes errent sense, there is I think a crucial difference in style between Lacan and Zizek. While Lacan and his associates function like some sort of secret Masonic order with mystical texts, Zizek with his seemingly mechanical non-stop production of texts plus his ubiquitous public appearances (relatively, for a philosopher) makes him almost like the Primordial Blogger.
@Tony K
I know that my procedure is a bit problematic exactly because you wrote there. I was playing with the idea when I remembered Žižek said somewhere he considers his articles, lectures, etc. as kinds of seminar, to keep people updated with what he’s going on. But I think that it does hold true to some extent, I do perceive Žižek as following this recipe. The distinction between lectures/books is for me where there isn’t perfect overlapping – while Lacan’s work can (as far as I know) easily be divided into seminars/ecrits, Žižek’s overproduction means that you can’t easily split him into two. But I think the point about the discourse of the analyst and the analysand still holds, I think he perceives his work to some extent like that.
@Mariborchan
I agree completely, and I’m sure Zizek himself must have said something to that effect somewhere, the overproductive bugger that he is.
I’m sure people’d appreciate the joke still despite my over-problematization :)
@Tony K
I appreciate and prefer this kind of ‘over-problematization’ in my comments. I’m also glad someone noticed what I did, that means that at least some of my visitors actually read the books.
My apology if I’ve lessened its symbolic efficiency ;)
Philosophy In Our Time worth the buy? seems like a bit of repetition (of which I’m sure Zizek would have no problem admitting…) :p
@Mariborchan
De hecho Lacan fue quien dijo colocarse en la posición de analisante frente a su auditorio. Si Zizek repitió el gesto habrá de ser un simple guiño a los lectores de Lacan, y no mucho mas: Hay que tener en cuenta que sus textos no son tan diferenciables entre Escritos y Orales( Sean seminarios o lecturas o comentario de textos, etc).
Hay una enorme distancia entre los escritos lacanianos y los libros de Zizek. Zizek mantiene la misma “densidad” en sus textos que en un seminario cualquiera. Tomemos por ejemplo “Amor sin piedad: hacia una politica de la verdad”: si bien las tesis son oscilantes y el dialogo con otros autores es abrumador, es una argumentacion clara y DISTENDIDA. Mientras los escritos de Lacan no son asi: Los Escritos de Lacan son extremadamente precisos, y en consecuencia realmente difíciles de leer. Diria incluso ..de lectura lenta.
Para leer a la Lacan ( ademas de los contrapuntos que da Zzk en el libro del mismo titulo) hay que Leer al Pie de La Letra. Hay que seguirlo Termino a termino. palabra a palabra. Eso NO sucede con Zzk.
Yo creo que si se puede dividir el trabajo de Zzk en dos es entre
1.- Su acción y posición política
2.- Sus múltiples re lecturas y diálogos con otros textos y otros autores.
Es decir, entre académico y no académico. Y habrá diferentes formas de abordarlo como autor dependiendo el objetivo ¿Re leer a Lacan, Heidegger o Marx? ..para…pensar ..y hacer filosofia
ó
¿defender la academia de los foucaultianos y deconstruccionistas blandos-”Organicos”(granci)ó Funcionales al sistema? ..Para… una nueva corriente marxista realmente anti capitalista.
espero que todos aquí lean español. saludos!
Excelente sitio! gracias mariborchar
@Franco
English:
I can’t read Spanish, but I used Google Translate and I think I got your message pretty well. To a large extent I agree with your comment, but perhaps I think that Žižek ‘over-identifies’ with Lacan to the extent of repeating his didactic procedures at some level. I think he perceives his interventions as those of an analyst and that it’s not simply a ‘wink to the readers of Lacan’. I can’t understand some of his actions if I don’t read him in this way. (take a look at “his taste for a particular film changes depending on who he talks to“).
I’m not sure I understood everything, so I’ll end my message here.
Google Translated into Spanish:
No puedo leer en español, pero he usado Google Translate y creo que recibí tu mensaje bastante bien. En gran medida estoy de acuerdo con su comentario, pero tal vez creo que Zizek “más se identifica” con Lacan en la medida de repetir sus procedimientos didácticos a cierto nivel. Creo que percibe sus intervenciones como las de un analista y que no es simplemente un ‘guiño a los lectores de Lacan. No puedo entender algunas de sus acciones si no leerlo de esta manera. (Echa un vistazo a “his taste for a particular film changes depending on who he talks to“).
No estoy seguro de haber entendido todo, así que voy a terminar mi mensaje aquí.
@Charles Marks
See the comments section of that book. I know waiting for it is frustrating and that I’ve been promising it for over a week, but it’s a manual transcription and I’m almost finished, and I have to spell check it and format it before I upload it.
Weren’t there four books that Zizek mentioned in the documentary on him that he said were his most important [theoretical] works? I can’t remember them all, I think it was Sublime Object, Tarrying with the Negative, Ticklish Subject, and then Parallax View, which he was working on at the time.
On an off note: my God I did not realize how far Google Translate has come. That’s like a perfect translation.
@Metzgermeistr
Verso published a book set “The Essential Zizek” last year, and your list isn’t that far off.
And I was thinking about The Parallax View (or at least the first few chapters I’ve actually read) when I decided to pull this trick. Because in now way is that easy reading. I think people often underestimate how precise Žižek is in his books, at least in his main works.
And yeah, Google Translate is amazing. I didn’t realize it until some guy came up to me who said that he’s from London and he spoke very fluent Slovene (which is very hard to learn, or so I was told). When I asked him where he learned it he said he only used Google Translate and then when he moved here he just learned how to pronounce the words when people corrected him. From that day on it’s one of my regularly used bookmarks. Perhaps Miller misspoke when he called Google stupid…
@Mariborchan
If you’re going to translate something, don’t trust just one translator. I’ve run into a bit of trouble translating personal pen pal messages myself. Spanish words can mean so many words in English that the meaning can get really screwed up. I usually use the spanish translation from SpanishDict.com. It gives you the translations from 3 different translators so you can compare the results and find the one that sounds best. If I am still not sure, I just put it into the forum and the super friendly users correct it for me for free.
at the risk of ‘de-zizek-ing’ zizek, i’ve tried to extract principles throughout his books which can then be applied in various contexts, e.g. \Real is what distorts the Real\, \disavowal of knowledge\, etc.. i’ve found that the task of identifying and interacting with the principles (which, as we know, show up in almost all his books) helps me develop a growing ‘body’ of understanding.
but yes great point about Zizekian discourse being kinda like psycho-analysis. can’t wait for his latest end-times book to come out.