Byrnesys Blabberings

I am not sure what it is about Slavoj Zizek that I find so endearing, maybe it is because I visited his native Slovenia last year and so am fascinated by an intellectual product of the country’s socio-political history, or maybe it is because although I imagine I am at ideological polars with him, his willingness to hold on to 21st Century, albeit revisionist, Marxism is equally fascinating.

I think above all of that, whatever you think of his conclusions and Lacanian projections we can’t help but be courted by Zizeks subversive meta-narrative. There is, I think, in all of us a desire to analyse and understand what is ‘really’ going on and Zizek’s lectures and writings attack our presuppositions from behind.

Zizek always constructs his thesis on subjects such as violence or religion, whilst consistently acknowledging he is using broken words and catergory distinctions. It could be argued that the very fact he allows these broken distinctions into his theorizing, whilst at the same time denying their validity, deconstructs his arguments, but in fact I think Zizek intelligently motions towards the meta-catergory distinctions which remain nameless. This is useful surmised in the Bright Eyes lyric:

"Now we speak with ruined tongues, and the words we say aren’t meant for anyone."

I feel this goes a way to explaining this love of the ‘un-named ‘ catergories which so captivate a post-modern generation, the sense that language, philisophical or emotive missed the mark in explaining the meta-narrative which is sensed but not described.