Slavoj %C5%BDi%C5%BEek
Get Slavoj %C5%BDi%C5%BEek essential facts below. View Videos or join the Slavoj %C5%BDi%C5%BEek discussion. Add Slavoj %C5%BDi%C5%BEek to your topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Slavoj %C5%BDi%C5%BEek

Slavoj ?i?ek
Slavoj Zizek in Liverpool cropped.jpg
?i?ek in Liverpool, England, 2008
Born (1949-03-21) 21 March 1949 (age 70)
RegionWestern philosophy
Main interests
Notable ideas
Ideology as an unconscious fantasy that structures reality
Revival of dialectical materialism

Slavoj ?i?ek ( SLAH-voy ZHEE-zhek; Slovene: ['slaj '?ik]; born 21 March 1949) is a Slovenian philosopher, currently a researcher at the Department of Philosophy of the University of Ljubljana Faculty of Arts, and International director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities of the University of London.[3] He is also Global Eminent Scholar at Kyung Hee University in Seoul and Global Distinguished Professor of German at New York University. He works in subjects including continental philosophy, political theory, cultural studies, psychoanalysis, film criticism, Marxism, Hegelianism and theology.

In 1989 ?i?ek published his first English-language text, The Sublime Object of Ideology, in which he departed from traditional Marxist theory to develop a materialist conception of ideology that drew heavily on Lacanian psychoanalysis and Hegelian idealism.[4][5] His theoretical work became increasingly eclectic and political in the 1990s, dealing frequently in the critical analysis of disparate forms of popular culture and making him a popular figure of the academic left.[4][6]

?i?ek's idiosyncratic style, popular academic works, frequent magazine op-eds, and critical assimilation of high and low culture have gained him international influence, controversy, criticism and a substantial audience outside academia.[7][8][9][10][11] In 2012, Foreign Policy listed ?i?ek on its list of Top 100 Global Thinkers, calling him "a celebrity philosopher"[12] while elsewhere he has been dubbed the "Elvis of cultural theory"[13] and "the most dangerous philosopher in the West".[14] A 2005 documentary film entitled Zizek! chronicled ?i?ek's work. A journal, the International Journal of ?i?ek Studies, was founded by professors David J. Gunkel and Paul A. Taylor to engage with his work.[15][16]


Early life

?i?ek was born in Ljubljana, SR Slovenia, Yugoslavia, into a middle-class family.[17] His father Jo?e ?i?ek was an economist and civil servant from the region of Prekmurje in eastern Slovenia. His mother Vesna, native of the Gorizia Hills in the Slovenian Littoral, was an accountant in a state enterprise. His parents were atheists.[18] He spent most of his childhood in the coastal town of Portoro?, where he was exposed to Western film, theory and popular culture.[5][19] When Slavoj was a teenager his family moved back to Ljubljana where he attended Be?igrad High School.[19] In the 1960s and early 1970s, Slavoj encountered western philosophy in Zagreb.[]


In 1967, during an era of liberalization in Titoist Yugoslavia, ?i?ek enrolled at the University of Ljubljana and studied philosophy and sociology.[20]

He had already begun reading French structuralists prior to entering university, and in 1967 he published the first translation of a text by Jacques Derrida into Slovenian.[21][21] ?i?ek frequented the circles of dissident intellectuals, including the Heideggerian philosophers Tine Hribar and Ivo Urban?i?,[21] and published articles in alternative magazines, such as Praxis, Tribuna and Problemi, which he also edited.[19] In 1971 he accepted a job as an assistant researcher with the promise of tenure, but was dismissed after his Master's thesis was denounced by the authorities as being "non-Marxist".[22] He graduated from the University of Ljubljana in 1981 with a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy for his dissertation entitled The Theoretical and Practical Relevance of French Structuralism.[20]

He spent the next few years in what was described as "professional wilderness", also fulfilling his legal duty of undertaking a year-long national service in the Yugoslav army in Karlovac.[20]


During the 1980s, ?i?ek edited and translated Jacques Lacan, Sigmund Freud, and Louis Althusser.[23] He used Jacques Lacan's work to interpret Hegelian and Marxist philosophy.

In 1985, ?i?ek completed a second doctorate (Doctor of Philosophy in psychoanalysis) at the University of Paris VIII[20] under Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault.

He wrote the introduction to Slovene translations of G. K. Chesterton's and John Le Carré's detective novels.[24] In 1988, he published his first book dedicated entirely to film theory.[] He achieved international recognition as a social theorist with the 1989 publication of his first book in English, The Sublime Object of Ideology.[4][5]

?i?ek has been publishing in journals such as Lacanian Ink and In These Times in the United States, the New Left Review and The London Review of Books in the United Kingdom, and with the Slovenian left-liberal magazine Mladina and newspapers Dnevnik and Delo. He also cooperates with the Polish leftist magazine Krytyka Polityczna, regional southeast European left-wing journal Novi Plamen, and serves on the editorial board of the psychoanalytical journal Problemi.[] ?i?ek is a series editor of the Northwestern University Press series Diaeresis that publishes works that "deal not only with philosophy, but also will intervene at the levels of ideology critique, politics, and art theory."[25]


In the late 1980s, ?i?ek came to public attention as a columnist for the alternative youth magazine Mladina, which was critical of Tito's policies, Yugoslav politics, especially the militarization of society. He was a member of the Communist Party of Slovenia until October 1988, when he quit in protest against the JBTZ trial together with 32 other Slovenian intellectuals.[26] Between 1988 and 1990, he was actively involved in several political and civil society movements which fought for the democratization of Slovenia, most notably the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights.[27] In the first free elections in 1990, he ran as the Liberal Democratic Party's candidate for the former four-person collective presidency of Slovenia.[4]

Despite his activity in liberal democratic projects, ?i?ek has remained committed to the communist ideal and has been critical of right-wing circles, such as nationalists, conservatives, and classical liberals both in Slovenia and worldwide. He wrote that the convention center in which nationalist Slovene writers hold their conventions should be blown up, adding, "Since we live in the time without any sense of irony, I must add I don't mean it literally."[28] Similarly, he jokingly made the following comment in May 2013, during Subversive Festival: "If they don't support SYRIZA, then, in my vision of the democratic future, all these people will get from me [is] a first-class one-way ticket to [a] gulag." In response, the right-wing New Democracy party claimed ?i?ek's comments should be understood literally, not ironically.[29][30]

?i?ek signing books in 2009

In a 2008 interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, he described himself as a "communist in a qualified sense," and in another appearance in October 2009 he described himself as a "radical leftist."[31][32] The following year ?i?ek appeared in the Arte documentary Marx Reloaded in which he defended the idea of communism.[33]

In 2013, he corresponded with imprisoned Russian activist and Pussy Riot member Nadezhda Tolokonnikova.[34]

All hearts were beating for you as long as you were perceived as just another version of the liberal-democratic protest against the authoritarian state. The moment it became clear that you rejected global capitalism, reporting on Pussy Riot became much more ambiguous.

In 2016, during a conversation with Gary Younge at a Guardian Live event, ?i?ek endorsed Donald Trump for the US presidency in the 2016 election. He described Trump as a paradox, basically a centrist liberal in most of his positions, desperately trying to mask this by dirty jokes and stupidities.[35] In an opinion piece, published e.g. in Die Zeit, he described the then frontrunner candidate Hillary Clinton as the much less suitable alternative.[36] In an interview with the BBC, ?i?ek did however state that he thought Trump was "horrible" and his support would have been based on an attempt to encourage the Democratic Party to return to more leftist ideals.[37]

Just before the 2017 French presidential election, ?i?ek stated that one could not choose between Macron and Le Pen, arguing that the neoliberalism of Macron just gives rise to neofascism anyway. This was in response to many on the left calling for support for Macron to prevent a Le Pen victory.[38]

Public life

?i?ek speaking in 2011

In 2003, ?i?ek wrote text to accompany Bruce Weber's photographs in a catalog for Abercrombie & Fitch. Questioned as to the seemliness of a major intellectual writing ad copy, ?i?ek told The Boston Globe, "If I were asked to choose between doing things like this to earn money and becoming fully employed as an American academic, kissing ass to get a tenured post, I would with pleasure choose writing for such journals!"[39]

?i?ek and his thought have been the subject of several documentaries. The 1996 Liebe Dein Symptom wie Dich selbst! is a German documentary on him. In the 2004 The Reality of the Virtual, ?i?ek gave a one-hour lecture on his interpretation of Lacan's tripartite thesis of the imaginary, the symbolic, and the real.[]Zizek! is a 2005 documentary by Astra Taylor on his philosophy. The 2006 The Pervert's Guide to Cinema and 2012 The Pervert's Guide to Ideology also portray ?i?ek's ideas and cultural criticism. Examined Life (2008) features ?i?ek speaking about his conception of ecology at a garbage dump. He was also featured in the 2011 Marx Reloaded, directed by Jason Barker.[]

Foreign Policy named ?i?ek one of its 2012 Top 100 Global Thinkers "for giving voice to an era of absurdity."[12]

In 2019 ?i?ek began hosting a mini-series called How to Watch the News with Slavoj ?i?ek on the RT network.[40] In April, ?i?ek debated professor and psychologist Jordan Peterson at the Sony Centre in Toronto, Canada over happiness under capitalism versus Marxism.[41][42]

Personal life

?i?ek has been married four times. His last wife is the Slovene journalist, columnist, and philosopher Jela Kre?i?, daughter of the architectural historian Peter Kre?i?.[43][44] He has a son.[45]

He is a fluent speaker of Slovene, Serbo-Croatian, French, German and English.[46]


His body of writing spans dense theoretical polemics, academic tomes, and accessible introductory books; in addition, he has taken part in various film projects, including two documentary collaborations with director Sophie Fiennes, The Pervert's Guide to Cinema (2006) and The Pervert's Guide to Ideology (2012). His work has impacted both academic and widespread public audiences (see for example his commentary in the 2003 Abercrombie and Fitch Quarterly).

Hundreds of academics have addressed aspects of ?i?ek's work in professional papers,[47] and in 2007, the International Journal of ?i?ek Studies was established for the discussion of his work.


Ontology, ideology, and the Real

?i?ek argues:[48][49][50]

  1. Against Karl Marx's concept of ideology as described in The German Ideology, false consciousness prevents people from seeing how things really are. Building upon Althusser, ideology is thoroughly unconscious and functions as a series of justifications and spontaneous socio-symbolic rituals which support virtual authorities.
  2. The Real is not experienced as something which is ordered in a way that gives satisfactory meaning to all its parts in relation to one another. Instead the Real is experienced as through the lens of hegemonic systems of representation and reproduction, while resisting full inscription into the ordering system ascribed to it. This in turn may lead subjects to experience the Real as generating political resistance.

Drawing on Lacan's notion of the barred subject, the subject is a purely negative entity, a void of negativity (in the Hegelian sense), which allows for the flexibility and reflexivity of the Cartesian cogito (transcendental subject).[4][51] Though consciousness is opaque (following Hegel), the epistemological gap between the In-itself and For-itself is immanent to reality itself;.[52] The antinomies of Kant, quantum physics, and Alain Badiou's 'materialist' principle that 'The One is Not', point towards an inconsistent ("Barred") Real itself (that Lacan conceptualized prior).[53]

Although there are multiple Symbolic interpretations of the Real, they are not all relatively "true". Two instances of the Real can be identified: the abject Real (or "real Real"), which cannot be wholly integrated into the symbolic order, and the symbolic Real, a set of signifiers that can never be properly integrated into the horizon of sense of a subject. The truth is revealed in the process of transiting the contradictions; or the real is a "minimal difference", the gap between the infinite judgement of a reductionist materialism and experience as lived,[54] the "Parallax" of dialectical antagonisms are inherent to reality itself and dialectical materialism (contra Friedrich Engels) is a new materialist Hegelianism, incorporating the insights of Lacanian psychoanalysis, set theory, quantum physics, and contemporary continental philosophy.

Political thought and the postmodern subject

?i?ek argues:

  • The state is a system of regulatory institutions that shape our behavior. Its power is purely symbolic and has no normative force outside of collective behavior. In this way, the term the law signifies society's basic principles, which enable interaction by prohibiting certain acts.[55]
  • Political decisions have become depoliticized and accepted as natural conclusions. For example, controversial policy decisions (such as reductions in social welfare spending) are presented as apparently "objective" necessities. Although governments make claims about increased citizen participation and democracy, the important decisions are still made in the interests of capital. The two-party system dominant in the United States and elsewhere produces a similar illusion.[56] It is still necessary to engage in particular conflicts - such as labor disputes - but the trick is to relate these individual events to the larger struggle. Particular demands, if executed well, might serve as metaphorical condensation for the system and its injustices. The real political conflict is between an ordered structure of society and those without a place in it.[57] In stark contrast to the intellectual tenets of the European "universalist Left" in general, and those Jürgen Habermas defined as postnational in particular, pro-sovereignty and pro-independence processes opened in Europe are good.[58]
  • The postmodern subject is cynical toward official institutions, yet at the same time believes in conspiracies. When we lost our shared belief in a single power, we constructed another of the Other in order to escape the unbearable freedom that we faced.[59] It is not enough to merely know that you are being lied to, particularly when continuing to live a normal life under capitalism. For example, that despite people being aware of ideology, they may continue to act as automata, mistakenly believing that they are thereby expressing their radical freedom. Although one may possess a self-awareness, just because one understands what one is doing does not mean that one is doing the right thing.[60]
  • Religion is not an enemy but rather one of the fields of struggle. Atheism is good. Religious fundamentalists are in a way no different from "godless Stalinist Communists". They both value divine will and salvation over moral or ethical action.[61][62]


There are two main themes of critique of ?i?ek's ideas: his failure to articulate an alternative or program in the face of his denunciation of contemporary social, political, and economic arrangements, and his lack of rigor in argumentation.[63]

Ambiguity and unclear alternatives

?i?ek's philosophical and political positions are not always clearly understandable, and his work has been criticized for a failure to take a consistent stance.[64] While he has claimed to stand by a revolutionary Marxist project, his lack of vision concerning the possible circumstances which could lead to successful revolution makes it unclear what that project consists of. According to John Gray and John Holbo, his theoretical argument often lacks grounding in historical fact, which makes him more provocative than insightful.[63][65][66]

Roger Scruton has written in "Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left", "To summarize ?i?ek's position is not easy: he slips between philosophical and psychoanalytical ways of arguing, and is spell-bound by Lacan's gnomic utterances. He is a lover of paradox, and believes strongly in what Hegel called 'the labour of the negative' though taking the idea, as always, one stage further towards the brick wall of paradox".[67]

?i?ek's refusal to present an alternative vision has led critics to accuse him of using unsustainable Marxist categories of analysis and having a 19th-century understanding of class.[68] For example, Ernesto Laclau argued that "?i?ek uses class as a sort of deus ex machina to play the role of the good guy against the multicultural devils."[69] The use of such analysis, however, is not systematic and draws on critical accounts of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as post-structuralism and Lacanian psychoanalysis.[70]

?i?ek does not agree with critics who claim he believes in a historical necessity:

There is no such thing as the Communist big Other, there's no historical necessity or teleology directing and guiding our actions. (In Slovene: "Ni komunisti?nega velikega Drugega, nobene zgodovinske nujnosti ali teleologije, ki bi usmerjala in vodila na?a dejanja".)[28]

In his book Living in the End Times, ?i?ek suggests that the criticism of his positions is itself ambiguous and multilateral:

[...] I am attacked for being anti-Semitic and for spreading Zionist lies, for being a covert Slovene nationalist and unpatriotic traitor to my nation, for being a crypto-Stalinist defending terror and for spreading Bourgeois lies about Communism... so maybe, just maybe I am on right path, the path of fidelity to freedom."[71]

Heterodox style and scholarship

Critics complain of a theoretical chaos in which questions and answers are confused and in which ?i?ek constantly recycles old ideas which were scientifically refuted long ago or which in reality have quite a different meaning than ?i?ek gives to them.[72] Harpham calls ?i?ek's style "a stream of nonconsecutive units arranged in arbitrary sequences that solicit a sporadic and discontinuous attention."[73] O'Neill concurs: "a dizzying array of wildly entertaining and often quite maddening rhetorical strategies are deployed in order to beguile, browbeat, dumbfound, dazzle, confuse, mislead, overwhelm, and generally subdue the reader into acceptance."[74]

Such presentation has laid him open to accusations of misreading other philosophers, particularly Jacques Lacan and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. ?i?ek carries over many concepts from Lacan's teachings into the sphere of political and social theory, but has a tendency to do so in an extreme deviation from its psychoanalytic context.[75] Similarly, according to some critics, ?i?ek's conflation of Lacan's unconscious with Hegel's unconscious is mistaken. Noah Horwitz, in an effort to dissociate Lacan from Hegel, interprets the Lacanian unconscious and the Hegelian unconscious as two totally different mechanisms. Horwitz points out, in Lacan and Hegel's differing approaches to the topic of speech, that Lacan's unconscious reveals itself to us in parapraxis, or "slips-of-the-tongue". We are therefore, according to Lacan, alienated from language through the revelation of our desire (even if that desire originated with the Other, as he claims, it remains peculiar to us). In Hegel's unconscious, however, we are alienated from language whenever we attempt to articulate a particular and end up articulating a universal. For example, if I say 'the dog is with me', although I am trying to say something about this particular dog at this particular time, I actually produce the universal category 'dog', and therefore express a generality, not the particularity I desire. Hegel's argument implies that, at the level of sense-certainty, we can never express the true nature of reality. Lacan's argument implies, to the contrary, that speech reveals the true structure of a particular unconscious mind.[76]

In a very negative review of ?i?ek's book Less than Nothing, the British political philosopher John Gray attacked ?i?ek for his celebrations of violence, his failure to ground his theories in historical facts, and his 'formless radicalism' which, according to Gray, professes to be communist yet lacks the conviction that communism could ever be successfully realized. Gray concluded that ?i?ek's work, though entertaining, is intellectually worthless: "Achieving a deceptive substance by endlessly reiterating an essentially empty vision, ?i?ek's work amounts in the end to less than nothing."[63]

Noam Chomsky is critical of ?i?ek, saying that he is guilty of "using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever", and also that ?i?ek's theories never go "beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old".[77]

Accusations of self-plagiarism in 2014

?i?ek's tendency to recycle portions of his own texts in subsequent works resulted in the accusation of self-plagiarism by The New York Times in 2014, after ?i?ek published an op-ed in the magazine which contained portions of his writing from an earlier book.[78] In response, ?i?ek expressed perplexity at the harsh tone of the denunciation, emphasizing that the recycled passages in question only acted as references from his theoretical books to supplement otherwise original writing.[78]

On 11 July 2014, American weekly newsmagazine Newsweek reported that in an article published in 2006 ?i?ek plagiarized substantial passages from an earlier review that first appeared in the journal American Renaissance, a publication condemned by the Southern Poverty Law Center as the organ of a "white nationalist hate group."[79] However, in response to the allegations, ?i?ek stated:

When I was writing the text on Derrida which contains the problematic passages, a friend told me about Kevin Macdonald's theories, and I asked him to send me a brief resume. The friend send [sic] it to me, assuring me that I can use it freely since it merely resumes another's line of thought. Consequently, I did just that - and I sincerely apologize for not knowing that my friend's resume was largely borrowed from Stanley Hornbeck's review of Macdonald's book. [...] As any reader can quickly establish, the problematic passages are purely informative, a report on another's theory for which I have no affinity whatsoever; all I do after this brief resume is quickly dismissing Macdonald's theory as a new chapter in the long process of the destruction of Reason. In no way can I thus be accused of plagiarizing another's line of thought, of "stealing ideas". I nonetheless deeply regret the incident.[80]

Published works


Year Title Role
1996 Liebe Dein Symptom wie Dich selbst! Lecturer (as himself)
2004 The Reality of the Virtual Script author, lecturer (as himself)
2005 Zizek! Lecturer (as himself)
2006 The Pervert's Guide to Cinema Screenwriter, presenter (as himself)
2012 The Pervert's Guide to Ideology Screenwriter, presenter (as himself)
2016 Houston, We Have a Problem! As himself
2018 Turn On (The Mute Series)[81] Based on an idea by Slavoj ?i?ek


?i?ek is a prolific writer and has published in numerous languages.



  1. ^ Bostjan Nedoh (ed.), Lacan and Deleuze: A Disjunctive Synthesis, Edinburgh University Press, 2016, p. 193: "?i?ek is convinced that post-Hegelian psychoanalytic drive theory is both compatible with and even integral to a Hegelianism reinvented for the twenty-first century."
  2. ^ Kotsko, Adam (2008). "Politics and Perversion: Situating ?i?ek's Paul" (PDF). Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory. 9 (2): 48. ISSN 1530-5228. Retrieved 2018.
  3. ^ "Slavoj Zizek - International Director -- The Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, Birkbeck, University of London".
  4. ^ a b c d e "Slavoj Zizek - Slovene philosopher and cultural theorist".
  5. ^ a b c "Slavoj ?i?ek," by Matthew Sharpe, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, 27 September 2015.
  6. ^ Kirk Boyle. "The Four Fundamental Concepts of Slavoj ?i?ek's Psychoanalytic Marxism." International Journal of ?i?ek Studies. Vol 2.1. (link)
  7. ^ Germany, SPIEGEL ONLINE, Hamburg. "SPIEGEL Interview with Slavoj Zizek: 'The Greatest Threat to Europe Is Its Inertia'".
  8. ^ "Slavoj Zizek: the world's hippest philosopher".
  9. ^ Engelhart, Katie. "Slavoj Zizek: I am not the world's hippest philosopher!".
  10. ^ O'Hagan, Sean (13 January 2013). "Slavoj ?i?ek: a philosopher to sing about". The Guardian. Retrieved 2013.
  11. ^ "?i?ek - The most dangerous thinker in the west?". 23 September 2010.
  12. ^ a b "The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers". Foreign Policy. 26 November 2012. Archived from the original on 30 November 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  13. ^ "International Journal of ?i?ek Studies, home page". Retrieved 2011.
  14. ^ "Slavoj Zizek - VICE - United Kingdom".
  15. ^ "About the Journal". Retrieved 2019. The International Journal of ?i?ek Studies (IJ?S) is an online, peer-reviewed academic journal devoted to investigating, elaborating, and critiquing the work of Slavoj ?i?ek.
  16. ^ "?i?ek Studies". 31 October 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  17. ^ "Kdo je kdaj: Slavoj ?i?ek. Tisti poslednji marksist, ki je iz filozofije naredil pop in iz popa filozofijo" [Who's When: Slavoj ?i?ek. The Last of the Marxists who made Pop from Philosophy and Philosophy from Pop] (in Slovenian). Mladina. 24 October 2004. Retrieved 2010.
  18. ^ Slovenski biografski leksikon (Ljubljana: SAZU, 1991), XV. edition
  19. ^ a b c "Slovenska pomlad: Slavoj ?i?ek (Webpage run by the National Museum of Modern History in Ljubljana)". 29 September 1988. Archived from the original on 3 October 2011. Retrieved 2011.
  20. ^ a b c d Tony Meyers Slavoj Zizek - His Life, from: Slavoj Zizek, London: Routledge, 2003.
  21. ^ a b c "Tednik, ?tevilka 42, Slavoj ?i?ek". Mladina.Si. 24 October 2004. Retrieved 2010.
  22. ^ ?i?ek's response to the article "?e sem v kaj resni?no zaljubljena, sem v ?ivljenje Sobotna priloga Dela, p. 37 (19.1. 2008)
  23. ^ "Prevajalci - Dru?tvo slovenskih knji?evnih prevajalcev". Archived from the original on 5 January 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  24. ^ Sean Sheehan (2012). Zizek: A Guide for the Perplexed. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 10. ISBN 978-1441180872.
  25. ^ "Diaeresis series page". Northwestern University Press. Northwestern University Press. Retrieved 2017.
  26. ^ "Skupinski protestni izstop iz ZKS". Slovenska Pomlad. 28 October 1998. Archived from the original on 3 October 2011.
  27. ^ "Odbor za varstvo ?lovekovih pravic". Slovenska Pomlad. 3 June 1998. Archived from the original on 3 October 2011. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  28. ^ a b Interview with ?i?ek - part two, Delo, 2 March 2013.
  29. ^ Sabby Mionis (6 March 2012). "Israel must fight to keep neo-Nazis out of Greece's government". Haaretz. Retrieved 2012.
  30. ^ "Slovenian philosopher Zizek proposes 'gulag' for those who do not support SYRIZA". 20 May 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  31. ^ Democracy Now! television program online transcript, 11 March 2008.
  32. ^ "Slovenian Philosopher Slavoj Zizek on Capitalism, Healthcare, Latin American "Populism" and the "Farcical" Financial Crisis". Retrieved 2010.
  33. ^ "Marx Reloaded and the revolutionary turn | BTURN". Retrieved 2019.
  34. ^ "Nadezhda Tolokonnikova of Pussy Riot's prison letters to Slavoj ?i?ek".
  35. ^ Browne, Marcus (28 April 2016). "Slavoj ?i?ek: 'Trump is really a centrist liberal'". The Gurdfian.
  36. ^ ?i?ek, Slavoj (6 November 2016). "Die schlimme Wohlfühlwahl Trump ist abstoßend. Was ist noch abstoßender? Der wirtschaftshörige und aggressive Konsens, für den Hillary Clinton steht". DIE ZEIT Nr. 45/2016.
  37. ^ ?i?ek, Slavoj. "Slavoj Zizek on Trump and Brexit - BBC News".
  38. ^ ?i?ek, Slavoj (3 May 2017). "Don't Believe the Liberals - There Is No Real Choice between Le Pen and Macron." Retrieved 19 June 2018.
  39. ^ Glenn, Joshua. "The Examined Life: Enjoy Your Chinos!", The Boston Globe. 6 July 2003. H2.
  40. ^ "How to Watch the News with Slavoj ?i?ek". RT. Retrieved 2019.
  41. ^ Raju Mudhar; Brendan Kennedy (19 April 2019). "Jordan Peterson, Slavoj Zizek each draw fans at sold-out debate". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2019.
  42. ^ Stephen Marche (20 April 2019). "The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj ?i?ek". The Guardian. Retrieved 2019.
  43. ^ "?i?ka vzela Jela z Dela". Delo. 1 July 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  44. ^ "Philosopher and Beauty". Delo. 29 March 2005. Retrieved 2012.
  45. ^ Forster, Katie (10 December 2016). "Interview: Slavoj ?i?ek: 'We are all basically evil, egotistical, disgusting'." Retrieved 20 June 2018.
  46. ^ Ippolit Belinski (30 June 2017). "Slavoj ?i?ek - A plea for bureaucratic socialism (June 2017)." Retrieved 20 June 2018.
  47. ^ "Google Scholar search for Zizek". Google Scholar. Retrieved 2011.
  48. ^ ?i?ek, Slavoj. The Sublime Object of Ideology. New York: Verso, 1989.
  49. ^ ?i?ek, Slavoj (22 May 2012). Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism. Verso Books. ISBN 9781844678976.
  50. ^ Zizek, Slavoj (7 October 2014). Absolute Recoil: Towards A New Foundation Of Dialectical Materialism. Verso Books. ISBN 9781781686836.
  51. ^ Sinnerbrink, Robert (2008). "The Hegelian 'Night of the World'i?ek on Subjectivity, Negativity, and Universality". International Journal of ?i?ek Studies. 2 (2). ISSN 1751-8229. Retrieved 2012. This extraordinary analysis of the transcendental imagination, critique of Heidegger, and rereading of Hegelian 'night of the world,' together contribute to a reassertion of the radicality of the 'Cartesian subject'--that thoroughly repudiated theoretical spectre which nonetheless continues to 'haunt Western academia' (1999: 1-5). This unorthodox reading of the Hegelian 'night of the world'--the radical negativity that haunts subjectivity--is developed further in an explicitly political direction, which helps explain a critique of the 'Fukuyamaian' consensus, shared both by moral-religious conservatives and libertarian 'postmodernists', that global capitalism remains the 'unsurpassable horizon of our times'.
  52. ^ Eyers, Tom; Harman, Graham; Johnston, Adrian; Gaufey, Guy Le; McGowan, Todd; Rousselle, Duane; Riha, Jelica ?umi?; Riha, Rado (1 January 2013). Umbr(a): The Object. Umbr(a) Journal. ISBN 9780979953965.
  53. ^ Zizek, Slavoj (22 May 2012). Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism. Verso Books. ISBN 9781844679027.
  54. ^ Zizek, On Belief
  55. ^ ?i?ek, For They Know Not What They Do
  56. ^ A Plea for Intolerance
  57. ^ ?i?ek, Slavoj (1999). "Political Subjectivization and Its Vicissitudes". The Ticklish Subject: the absent centre of political ontology. London: Verso. ISBN 9781859848944.
  58. ^ ?i?ek: "The force of universalism is in you Basques, not in the Spanish state", Interview in ARGIA (27 June 2010)
  59. ^ ?i?ek, Looking Awry: an Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture
  60. ^ ?i?ek, Slavoj (18 March 1999). "You May!". London Review of Books. 21 (6). Retrieved 2012. But the notion is undermined by the rise of what might be called 'Post-Modern racism', the surprising characteristic of which is its insensitivity to reflection - a neo-Nazi skinhead who beats up black people knows what he's doing, but does it anyway. Reflexivisation has transformed the structure of social dominance. Take the public image of Bill Gates....
  61. ^ ?i?ek, Slavoj. "Atheism is a legacy worth fighting for". The New York Times. 13 March 2006.
  62. ^ Zizek, Slavoj. "Atheism is a Legacy Worth Fighting For". Retrieved Mon., 18 August 2014.
  63. ^ a b c Gray, John (12 July 2012). "The Violent Visions of Slavoj ?i?ek". New York Review of Books. Retrieved 2012.
  64. ^ Kuhn, Gabriel (2011). The Anarchist Hypothesis, or Badiou, ?i?ek, and the Anti-Anarchist Prejudice Alpine Anarchist. Retrieved 4 September 2013.
  65. ^ Holbo, John (1 January 2004). "On ?i?ek and Trilling". Philosophy and Literature. 28 (2): 430-440. doi:10.1353/phl.2004.0029. unhealthy anti-liberal is one, like Z+iz=ek, who ticks and tocks in unreflective revulsion at liberalism, pantomiming that he is de Maistre (or Abraham) or Robespierre (or Lenin) by turns, lest he look like Mill.
  66. ^ Holbo, John (17 December 2010). "Zizek on the Financial Collapse - and Liberalism". Crooked Timbers. Retrieved 2012. To review: Zizek does this liberal = neoliberal thing. Which is no good. And he doesn't even have much to say about economics. And Zizek does this liberal = self-hating pc white intellectuals thing. Which is no good.
  67. ^ Scruton, Roger (2015). Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left. Bloomsbury. p. 256. ISBN 1408187337.
  68. ^ ?i?ek, Slavoj (3 July 2012). "Slavoj Zizek responds to his critics". Jacobin. Retrieved 2018.
  69. ^ Butler, Judith, Ernesto Laclau and Slavoj ?i?ek Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left. Verso. London, New York City 2000. pp. 202-206
  70. ^ Bill Van Auken; Adam Haig (12 November 2010). "Zizek in Manhattan: An intellectual charlatan masquerading as "left"". World Socialist Web Site. Retrieved 2012.
  71. ^ Slavoj ?i?ek. "Living in the End Times".
  72. ^ See e.g. David Bordwell, "Slavoj ?i?ek: Say Anything", blog, April 2005.[1]; Philipp Oehmke, "Welcome to the Slavoj Zizek Show". Der Spiegel Online (International edition), 7 August 2010 [2]; Jonathan Rée, "Less Than Nothing by Slavoj ?i?ek - review. A march through Slavoj ?i?ek's 'masterwork'". The Guardian, 27 June 2012.[3]
  73. ^ Harpham "Doing the Impossible: Slavoj ?i?ek and the End of Knowledge"
  74. ^ O'Neill, "The Last Analysis of Slavoj ?i?ek"
  75. ^ Ian Parker, Slavoj ?i?ek: A Critical Introduction (Pluto Press: London and Sterling, 2004) p.78-80. For example, ?i?ek's appropriation of Lacan's discussion of Antigone in his 1959/1960 seminar, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis. In this seminar, Lacan uses Antigone to defend the claim that "the only thing of which one can be guilty is of having given ground relative to one's desire" (Slavoj ?i?ek, The Metastases of Enjoyment, Verso: London, 1994; p. 69). However, as Parker notes, Antigone's act (burying her dead brother in the knowledge that she will be buried alive) was never intended to effect a revolutionary change in the political status quo; yet, despite this, ?i?ek frequently cites Antigone as a paradigm of ethico-political action.
  76. ^ Noah Horwitz, "Contra the Slovenians: Returning to Lacan and away from Hegel" (Philosophy Today, Spring 2005, pp. 24-32.
  77. ^ Springer, Mike (28 June 2013). "Noam Chomsky Slams ?i?ek and Lacan: Empty 'Posturing'",, Retrieved 20 June 2018.
  78. ^ a b "Slavoj ?i?ek On 'Self Plagiarism' in The New York Times: What's the Big Deal?". 10 September 2014.
  79. ^ "Did Marxist Philosophy Superstar Slavoj ?i?ek Plagiarize a White Nationalist Journal?". Newsweek. 11 July 2014. Retrieved 2014.
  80. ^ Dean, Michelle. "Slavoj ?i?ek Sorta Kinda Admits Plagiarizing White Supremacist Journal". Gawker Online. Retrieved 2015.
  81. ^ "TURN ON -- from The MUTE Series". Retrieved 2018.

Works cited

  • Canning, P. "The Sublime Theorist of Slovenia: Peter Canning Interviews Slavoj ?i?ek" in Artforum, Issue 31, March 1993, pp. 84-9.
  • Sharpe, Matthew, Slavoj ?i?ek: A Little Piece of the Real, Hants: Ashgate, 2004.
  • Parker, Ian, Slavoj ?i?ek: A Critical Introduction, London: Pluto Press, 2004.
  • Butler, Rex, Slavoj ?i?ek: Live Theory, London: Continuum, 2004.
  • Kay, Sarah, ?i?ek: A Critical Introduction, London: Polity, 2003.
  • Myers, Tony, Slavoj ?i?ek (Routledge Critical Thinkers)London: Routledge, 2003.

External links

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Music Scenes