Changes

If a [[character ]] like Slavoj [[Zizek ]] showed up in a draft version of one of David Lodge's broad satires on academic [[life]], the editor would probably tell him to eliminate it because it was overdrawn. As a permanent fixture of high-toned [[left ]] journals and academic conference plenaries, Zizek usually seems to be lampooning himself.

If [[nothing ]] else, his embrace of the terminally [[self]]-important and boring Reaganite filmmaker [[David Lynch ]] should have made him the laughing-stock of the intelligentsia, both professional and [[organic]]. Perhaps it was a calculated bid to one-up a [[French ]] academy that had attached itself to Jerry Lewis.

In "The Art of the Ridiculous [[Sublime]]," Zizek solemnly announces that:

"[[Lenin ]] liked to point out that one could often get crucial insights into one's enemies from the perceptions of intelligent enemies. So, since the [[present ]] essay attempts a [[Lacanian ]] [[reading ]] of David Lynch's 'Lost Highway,' it may be useful to start with a reference to 'post-[[theory]],' the [[recent ]] cognitivist orientation of [[cinema ]] studies that establishes its [[identity ]] by a thorough [[rejection ]] of Lacanian studies."

I would instead refer students of [[film ]] to the review of "Lost Highway" on www.mrcranky.com, a critic with far more [[sense ]] than the gaseous Zizek:

"If you [[want ]] some [[help ]] in [[understanding ]] this film, [[think ]] of it as a Mobius [[strip ]] - which is what Lynch is trying to do to your brain - twist it into a confused mass. Two stories occupy each half of the film. First there's Fred Madison (Bill Pullman) having trouble with his wife, Renee (Patricia Arquette), then there's Pete Dayton (Balthazar Getty) having trouble with Mr. Eddie's (Robert Loggia) girlfriend, Alice (Patricia Arquette). Explaining any more than that would ruin your sense of utter [[frustration ]] - and my sense of justice: sometimes [[knowing ]] [[others ]] will suffer is my only joy in life."

For reasons having something to do either with the zeitgeist of the post-[[Cold War ]] era or something they put into the drinking water on certain prestigious college campuses, Zizek has emerged as a kind of standard-bearer for the woozy, academic, post-[[Marxist ]] left. In the latest issue of "Bad [[Subjects]]," there is an interview with Zizek (eserver.org/bs/59/zizek.html) by Doug Henwood, the president of the [[Slavoj Zizek ]] fan club.

It combines the usual Zizek preoccupations over the dangers of [[multiculturalism ]] and the undiscovered joys of Lenin, who is to Zizek as some remote and exotic island resort is to a contributor to Travel Magazine. "Have you had a [[chance ]] to visit St. Lenin lately? The beaches are pristine and the natives so well behaved."

For veteran Zizek-watchers like myself, it was a surprise to see him also take swipes at anarchists and at Noam [[Chomsky]]. For Zizek, "the [[tragedy ]] of anarchism is that you end up having an authoritarian [[secret ]] [[society ]] trying to achieve [[anarchist ]] goals." After reading this, I nearly resolved to [[change ]] my [[name ]] to Louis Zero and listen to Rage Against the [[Machine ]] 12 hours a day.

The hostility to Chomsky is [[another ]] story altogether. Bad Subjects editor Charlie Bertsch sets the tone for this in the introduction to the interview: " For anyone who has tired of the dumbing down of mainstream [[political ]] [[discourse ]] in the West, who finds it hard to believe that the bone-dry American leftism of a [[Noam Chomsky ]] represents the only possibility for [[resistance]], who wants to critique [[global ]] [[capitalism ]] without falling back on faded Marxist slogans, Zizek's [[work ]] flashes the promise of something better."

Of course, it must be said that the "something better" referred to above must be connected to the sort of success that Zizek [[enjoys ]] in certain circles. For Bertsch, this very well might have more to do with how many [[times ]] you appear in [[New Left ]] Review rather than [[speaking ]] on Pacifica Radio or at a campus teach-in on the war in Afghanistan:

"It's hard to become a superstar in the [[world ]] of scholarly publishing. Most of the [[people ]] who read its products can also write [[them]]. To stand out in a crowd this smart requires both luck and perseverance. [[Slavoj zizek|Slavoj Zizek ]] has demonstrated plenty of both."

Turning to the interview itself, we discover that the big problem with Chomsky is not just that he doesn't [[know ]] how to connect [[Lacan ]] to Peewee Herman. Rather it is that he is too preoccupied with "facts". Henwood poses the question to Zizek:

"Let me give you a very naive answer. I think that basically the facts are already known. Let's take Chomsky's [[analyses ]] of how the CIA intervened in Nicaragua. OK, (he provides) a lot of details, yes, but did I learn anything fundamentally new? It's exactly what I'd expected: the CIA was playing a very dirty [[game]]. Of course it's more convincing if you learn the dirty details. But I don't think that we really learned anything dramatically new there. I don't think that merely 'knowing the facts' can really change people's perceptions."

In [[reality]], the big problem has always been the [[lack ]] of facts in American society on questions such as these. Mostly, what the Central American [[solidarity ]] movement had to contend with was the immense propaganda campaign against the FMLN in El Salvador and the FSLN in Nicaragua. People like myself joined CISPES or built Tecnica to help counter this disinformation campaign that cost the lives of so many people. When you involve thousands and then millions of people in vast movements opposed to the Vietnam War, the wars in Central America or the wars going on today, much of the effort revolves around getting the [[truth ]] out. This is what distinguishes Noam Chomsky. It is also what makes Slavoj Zizek such a enormously superfluous [[figure]]. When is the last [[time ]] anybody would pick up a book by Zizek to find out the [[economic ]] or [[social ]] reality of a [[place ]] like Nicaragua or Afghanistan? You might as well read Gayatri Spivak to find out [[about ]] how to overturn the Taft-Hartley Act.

Well, what can one say? Surely, with all the scholarly research on the [[role ]] of [[German ]] banks, etc. that has been written by people like the late Sean Gervasi about the breakup of [[Yugoslavia]], one can't blame Zizek for avoiding the facts like a dirty dog avoids a bath. In any [[case]], for all of Zizek's Leninist posturing, the main [[thing ]] he gets wrong is the [[need ]] to take a principled stand against [[NATO ]] military [[intervention ]] in the country he once called home. In an April 24, 1999 Independent interview, Zizek is quite blunt about what should happen:

"The Slovenians were the first to be attacked by Slobodan [[Milosevic]]'s Serbia, in the [[three]]-day war of 1990. That [[conflict ]] revealed the extent of international apathy towards Milosevic's [[aggressive ]] [[nationalism]], which has culminated in the Kosovan war. Today, Zizek lambasts 'the interminable procrastination' of Western governments and says that 'I definitely support the bombing' of Milosevic's [[regime ]] by Nato."

Because of statements like this, Lenin decided to start a new movement in 1914. It is singularly [[obscene ]] that Zizek now holds academic conferences on Lenin. Better he should stick to David Lynch.

Finally on the topic of Lenin himself, Henwood asks Zizek: "What do you find valuable in Lenin, or the Leninist [[tradition]]?"

"Let's take the campaign against smoking in the U.S. I think this is a much more suspicious phenomenon than it appears to be. First, deeply inscribed into it is an [[idea ]] of absolute [[narcissism]], that whenever you are in contact with another person, somehow he or she can infect you. Second, there is an [[envy ]] of the intense [[enjoyment ]] of smoking. There is a certain [[vision ]] of [[subjectivity]], a certain falseness in [[liberalism]], that comes down to 'I want to be left alone by others; I don't want to get too close to the others.'"

Poor Lenin is reduced to a [[leftist ]] version of Rush Limbaugh, who has also harped upon his [[right ]] to smoke in restaurants.