The Suicide of New Left Review (posted by Doug Henwood to LBO-Talk)

[Rob Schaap]

Aw, c'mon, you blokes!  Can't we just think Zizek is an often appalling
writer, who chooses to be ambiguous when the need for ambiguity is not
apparent, whose metaphors maybe intrinsically pretty but whose relevance to
the text is not apparent, who quotes Althusser's worst bits too often,
analyses all the fun out of shagging, rejoices in some sorta Lacanian
denial of agency just before he tells us how to exercise it, and hides his
occasional sledgehammer points (I like it when he has a go at Foucault and
his acolytes here and there) amidst a thick porridge of glutinous verbiage.
I mean, a lot of us have to read a lot, and we should demand the right to
get cross at writers who gratuitously make that hard to do.  Edward
Thompson, Raymond Williams and Marvin Harris knew how to write about
culture - so that people within the cultures they were discussing could
understand 'em!

For my part, I kinda wish Doug would write about Zizek a bit more.  Mebbe
I'd get a kahlew what the bloke's on about ... him and that even more
outrageous torturer of readers everywhere, Jacque
if-you-reckon-philosophy's-hard,-wait-till-I-psychologise-it-for-ya Lacan.

And, Doug.  Is there any chance of transferring my LBO subscription to the
electronic option?  I feel so out of it having to wait for the clipper to
ply the South Seas ...

Cheers,
Rob.


>kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca wrote:
>
>>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