> Stumbled on this from the Chronicle of Higher Education, June 2006. I
> found it on a blog from a Poli Sci prof named Jodi Dean whose stuff looks
> interesting. She wrote a book called Solidarity of Strangers: Feminism
> after Identity Politics, edited a book with Geert Lovink, and writes a lot
> about Zizek. Her blog is called I Cite:
>
> http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2006/03/badiou_buzz_boo.html#more
>
>
> In his introduction, Mr. Critchley noted that there was a "tremendous
> thirst" for Mr. Badiou's far-ranging work in a time when there is
> "frustration and fatigue with theoretical paradigms." He argued that Mr.
> Badiou's work is "refreshing, direct, and concise."
Particularly interesting in that Critchley and Badiou have disagreed so vehemently, at least at times. I would very much have liked to witness that exchange. Ah, to live in New York, where these things happen. There was a session at AAR last year that was supposed to include Mark C. Taylor, Ernesto Laclau, Zizek, and Badiou, but, alas, Z and B bailed. It was for me the main reason to go at all, and so I was very disappointed. Laclau was fine, Taylor was really good, and the stand-ins performed admirably (perhaps surprising but true), but it was not the same thing. Instead Laclau and Taylor wound up having to say things like, "and this is where Zizek and I are always arguing . . ."
>
>
> The increasing popularity of Mr. Badiou's work also can be explained by his
> public stance, which is strikingly hopeful.
Indeed. Refreshing.
> Philosophy is not in twilight, he said. Literary studies, psychology,
> science, and mathematics animate it and inform it.
>
I am planning some posts on B's *The Meaning of Sarkozy*; perhaps over the weekend I will get started on it. The book is short and a pretty quick read, and I like to think it is more useful than *Rules for Radicals*, but I didn't hate that book, so, as usual, *caveat emptor*.
j