Zizek and Critchley

May 26, 2008 by

As most of you know, there has been an interesting exchange between Zizek and Critchley.

Zizek published a review of Critchley’s Infinitely Demanding: Ethics of Commitment, Politics of Resistance. The review was reproduced this past february in Harpers. (Link to the review.)

Critchley has answered Zizek, in the May issue. Link to his answered, fortunately reproduced on the blogosphere.

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

  • Michael Paul Stevens

    interesting that in his interview with Amy Goodman Zizek calls on the left to “withdraw and think” in order to better get a grip on world situations. yet his review of Critchley’s book chastises him, along with so-called post-modernism, of sitting back and implicitly surrendering to the establishment. it seems to me, from having only read Zizek’s review as well as Critchley’s reply, that Critchley is doing more to sustain a critical interpretation of what both thinkers admit is the gaining permanency of global capitalism.

  • Ian M.

    I remember reading Critchley’s response and thinking, ‘Well, finally someone is saying it…’ I’ll be curious if Zizek responds, though Critchley’s probably right, it’s doubtful.

  • Nathan A. Franklin

    Michael,

    I experienced a similar stream of contradiction apropos his Democracy Now didactic sign off. However, his main criticism against Critchley is precisely how to avoid the ‘infinitely demanding’ framework–that is, Zizek’s ‘withdraw and think’ thesis is a counterbalance to the ‘infinitely demanding’ notion championed by Critchley and presumably other leftists.

  • Adam Proctor

    Zizek’s inability to accept (or understand, as I take it) Critchley’s “infinite demand” lies with his total rejection to even begin to apprehend the thought of thinkers like Derrida and Levinas — and I might add, Heidegger is always looking on from within. Time and time again, in work after work, Zizek fails (miserably) to properly respond (responsibly) and contend with the complex issues of undecidability, im-possibility, and the aporias–especially as presented by an irreducible otherness–that these thinker’s work presents. As Critchley indicates, Zizek is wholly dismissive at every turn. Zizek has much to say, and I truly am intrigued by some of his work, but his lack of scholarly responsibility (such a troubled concept! I’ll use it anyhow) bothers me greatly.

  • http://pasaudela.blogspot.com matt

    Yes, what Adam said.