>From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: FW: Zizek help
>Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 11:09:59 -0500
>
>And just how does this involve any dependence on Lacan? And what is
>uncanny about the fact? I see utterly no connection between this
>paragraph and _any_ psychological theory. I can only conclude that the
>primary purpose of psychological theory is to permit writers to repeat
>commonplaces in a way that makes them seem new and profound.
>
>Carrol
Carrol,
In the quoted passage, Zizek is using Lacan's theory of the "decentrement" of the subject to provide this account of the "actual" Marxist reproach to commodity fetishism. Perhaps I took the quote too much out of context.
Anyway, your point about psychological theory only making the commonplace seem new and profound is well-taken by me. I just happen to think (while not at all conceding that Zizek is nothing but fluff) that making the commonplace seem new and profound is worthwhile -- radical theory readers need some entertainment now and then! What, praytell, is *cooler* than Zizek's use of "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" in describing the appearance of Christ as the ultimate scandal of evil for the pagan world? (Okay, this isn't a serious question.)
Enjoy Your Zizek!
Jody
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com