>Doug, do you have any possible explanation why people are loosing their vision
>/ patience / solidarity [??] because of your tacit interest in a Lacanian
>social theorist? It seems to be that the very effort to read a particular
>theorist has lead to a widespread break in party ranks. The issues used to be,
>how might we improve the lot of the majority of the population of the planet,
>what about food distribution, unionization, the critique of transnational
>capitalism. Now, the more relevant question seems to be: have you read Zizek?
>Has this every happened before? A theorists considered such a threat to a
>political organization that anyone who even touches on his work is deemed
>suspect?
It's pretty weird. As even LNP3 conceded, the stuff I write about hasn't changed much, nor has my prose style. I still care about economic and social polarization, exploitation, the despoilment of the natural environment, etc. etc. - all those issues of "real" politics that the enemies of the "merely cultural" disparage. Apparently any sign of interest in the psyche (a distraction that leads us from the struggle, even if many people don't perceive any need to struggle), or gendering (aside from what Carrol characterized as the exploitation of women, as if that were a self-evident, straighforward field of analysis), or sexuality (nothing material about that, of course!), or discourse (plain speech, unambiguous slogans, that's what we need! forget Marx's interest in Hegel) makes you a wanking dupe of the bourgeoisie.
Doug