11 thoughts on “Zizek as immanent threat

  1. I agree. It is really a piece of work (in that derogatory sense). I’m kind of tired of the anti-Semitism card that is pulled so frequently. Mark Lilla did the same thing to Badiou in the New York Review of Books recently.

  2. Kirsch is clearly unqualified to write the review and, with respect to the anti-semitism point, misses the classic Freudian distinction between illusion and error. Freud – a Jew himself – makes the exact same argument relative to “certain German nationalists” in Future of An Illusion. But to expect the reviewer to know that is likely asking too much. After suffering through the review, I don’t know any more about the book being reviewed. Amazing for a seven page piece.

  3. I still haven’t forgiven Mark Lilla for the offhand way (also in NYRB) in which he dismissed Eric Santner’s book on Freud and Rosenzweig.

  4. What a waste of time. I am no expert, but it seems like Kirsch just used some google reader to find the word “jew” in all of Zizek’s books in order to find enough out of context “gotcha’s” to write a miserable review. The review seemed lazy- he even comments on a book called “In Defense of Violence.” I was under the impression that Zizek regards anti-semitism as the ultimate example of flawed ideology in our times.

  5. Dumb review, but could Zizek please stop with the lame reading of Deleuze and his lamer, quasi-hipster contrarianism against ecology? He criticizes Negri for not loving Chavez, when he does love Lula, when Zizek himself was shit-talking Chavez in Chicago three or four years ago. Consistency on particular issues is not his strong point, though I don’t doubt his theoretical works do, largely, have that kind of consistency.

Comments are closed.