Here, here, Woj!  Except for your mode of expression (which I call "my style problem with Woj" - he is sort of the neo-con Spartacist League of this list) I agree with you completely. Unless you want to work through an obsession with Lacan, Hegel, Lenin, and the Roman Catholic church, Zizek is close to unreadable.  But as far as I can see is Lakoff is not much different.  All of thes guys make a critical fetish of language, essentially reducing an analysis of politics to an analysis of ideology, and an analysis of ideology to their own peculiar misconception of human language.  <div>On 5/5/06, Wojtek Sokolowski <<a href="mailto:sokol@jhu.edu">sokol@jhu.edu</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Carrol: There is an important article by Zizek in the issue of Critical Inquiry_ that just arrived (Spring 2006).  Its take-off point is the rejection by France & the Netherlands of the new constitution, but it covers much more -- it even has a quite interesting political analysis of the Fourth Movement of Beethoven's Ninth. You can see the unedited rough copy of it at the following URL: <<a href="http://www.uchicago.edu/research/jnl-crit-inq/docs/Against%20the%20Populist"> http://www.uchicago.edu/research/jnl-crit-inq/docs/Against%20the%20Populist</a> %20Temptation%20-%20Slavoj%20Zizek.pdf> [WS:] I got to page 22 and quit.  This guy is so full of shit that it is not even funny.  He wasted 27 seven pages of incomprehensible mumbo jumbo to say exactly what?  That political choices today do not exactly fit the old conceptual schemes and that there are different variants of populism and universalism?  BFD!  A graduate of a European high school can figure that out. Most of that drivel is really a pissing contest with Laclau and Lakoff.  I do not know about Laclau, but I think he butchers Lakoff mercilessly. Lakoff does not say that framing is everything - he merely says it is important, because if poorly chosen, it can shut down the discussion before one has even a chance to deploy one's substantive argument.  I wish Zizek took that lesson seriously and abandoned his Lacanian postmodern mumbo-jumbo, unreadable drivel that makes sure that no-one but his fellow pomo buffoons will read it.  If I were to influence the people who take part in those "no immigrants" votes and marches - I would come with a frame and language that speaks to them, not repels them. To be fair, he makes a valid observation here and there, for example when he says that a Left ideology must offer a positive alternative (like the Third Way, for example) in addition to nice framing.  And, I may add, instead of a laundry list of complaints about the actions of the Right and Liberals. But the bottom line is that I wasted an hour or so of my valuable time to learn that he takes issues with Laclau and Lakoff, and that populism may or may not be a good thing, depending on circumstances, and so does universalism.  BFD.  Wake me up when he says something we do not already know. Wojtek ___________________________________ <a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</a> </blockquote></div> -- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture <a href="http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/">http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/</a> His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/">http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/</a> Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/"> http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/</a>