How dare you, sir
Steven Poole muses on
a possible tension in what passes for my “thought”: evincing on the one hand a kind of Anglo-empiricism, I nonetheless have a soft spot for the works of such writers as Derrida, Baudrillard and Zizek, all of whom are anathema to the Anglophone analytic tradition…[P]erhaps the common factor was this: I was not at all sure that I was as clever as any of these men, and so even when I was troubled by seeming opacity or nonsense, I reckoned that I had better tread carefully.
That’s an interesting ‘and so,’ since it leads to something that doesn’t follow from what ‘and so’ seems to claim that it does. It is not necessary to be sure that one is as clever as the writer of something one is reading, in order to think that the something one is reading is either opaque or nonsense and ought not to be. In fact that’s a silly way of looking at the matter. It could make much more sense to view it the opposite way: ‘This writer may well be cleverer than I am, so why did the writer not write this clearly and/or non-nonsensically?’ One could surmise that there is something else in operation, something other than or in addition to cleverness – vanity for example; a desire to impress; pretension; a taste for posturing opacity which is not incompatible with cleverness. One could surmise that the writer had enough cleverness to write in a posturingly opaque way, but not enough to conclude that that’s a narcissistic, preening, and fundamentally anti-intellectual thing to do. One could recall other clever writers and thinkers who do research and also write about it in clear, accessible ways so that a larger public can learn from it, and one can decide that that is much more worth admiring and respecting than is ‘seeming opacity or nonsense’; one can wish that clever writers who go in for seeming opacity or nonsense had applied their cleverness in different ways. One can think a lot of things. ‘I had better tread carefully’ is not the only thing one can think as a consequence of thinking ‘I was not at all sure that I was as clever as any of these men.’ And I would argue that one ought to think other things, partly because the ‘they are clever: I had better tread carefully’ thought is exactly the thought such writers want readers to have, and that coupled with opacity and/or nonsense is an unworthy desire. Readers ought not to submit to the manipulation; readers ought to resist it; readers ought to expect writers to want to address them as clearly as they know how, not as opaquely. Argumentative writers, that is, of course; literary writers can do what they like, and readers are welcome to be impressed if they fancy it; but I take Poole’s three to be all argumentative writers, and I think there is no merit in chosen (as opposed to genuinely unavoidable) opacity in argumentative writing. I think this slavish idea that opacity could be a sign of great cleverness and therefore ought not to be dissed is a mistake.
The mistake leads Poole to say some peculiar things.
Luckily, the opinion journalist Johann Hari does not suffer from such uncertainty, and has taken it upon himself to denounce Slavoj Zizek in an article for the New Statesman, on the occasion of the British release of the documentary film, Zizek!. In doing so, he furnishes a useful example of the word “postmodernist” as it is almost always used nowadays, as a kneejerk insult from reactionary anti-intellectuals…[T]he opinion journalist Johann Hari shows no sign of actually having read any of Zizek’s books…Nonetheless, the opinion journalist Johann Hari finds it within himself to accuse Zizek, in his film performance, of “intellectual suicide”. In another world, it might be considered intellectual suicide to denounce a writer with whose works one has only a hurried and superficial acquaintance.
What can he mean, ‘taken it upon himself to denounce Slavoj Zizek’? Why does he word it that way – as if it were some kind of violation of the holies or lèse majesté? Why shouldn’t Hari ‘take it upon himself’ (much as Poole has taken it upon himself) to ‘denounce’ (meaning criticize) a particular writer? Was he supposed to ask someone’s permission first? Whose? Poole’s? The Archbishop of Canterbury’s? The Department of Homeland Security’s? And then notice the way Poole goes from his assertion that Hari ‘shows no sign of actually having read any of Zizek’s books’ to apparent certainty that Hari ‘has only a hurried and superficial acquaintance’ with Zizek’s works – when in fact he obviously has no idea how much of Zizek Hari has read, or how deeply. Notice also the repetition of ‘denounce’ – which is a sly word, probably meant to leave incautious readers with a vague impression that Hari has ‘denounced’ Zizek to the secret police. And of course notice that ‘reactionary anti-intellectuals’ remark. Inaccurate and bullying, groupthink-enforcing and toadying; it’s unpleasant stuff. For my part, I think it’s Poole’s view of the matter that is really anti-intellectual: by telling people not to question or criticize or resist when they read what strikes them as opaque or nonsensical but instead to think ‘this writer [because opaque or nonsensical] may well be cleverer than I am so I will read respectfully and denounce people who denounce this clever [opaque or nonsensical] writer and call them idiots and reactionary anti-intellectuals,’ Poole makes it that bit harder for people who pay attention to him to read critically and thoughtfully.
Ah, but my judgment of their cleverness was not based on the seeming opacity: on the contrary, it is based on the seemingly lucid bits. That’s why I wrote “even when…”.
by telling people not to question or criticize or resist when they read what strikes them as opaque or nonsensical but instead to think ‘this writer [because opaque or nonsensical] may well be cleverer than I am so I will read respectfully and denounce people who denounce this clever [opaque or nonsensical] writer and call them idiots and reactionary anti-intellectuals,’
It agree it would be yucky if I had actually said that, but I didn’t. I’m all for informed criticism and questioning, but I didn’t see any of that going on in the article in question.
Steven: This response in no way addresses the actual substance of OB’s criticism, just like your post in no way addresses the substance of Hari’s criticism of Zizek. You DO in fact use very rhetorically loaded language about denunciation. You DO, in exactly those words, accuse Hari of being “reactionary” and “anti-intellectual.” But Johann Hari is clearly neither, which one can plainly see just by reading what he writes – for Hari writes with great clarity and transparency rather than generating opaque nonsense. Your ungrounded, absurd accusation is sufficient reason to dismiss your post as yet another wagon-circling defense of postmodernism from any criticism, however legitimate. Honestly, it seems as if the question of whether a criticism of one of your heroes might be legitimate doesn’t even arise in your mind: Otherwise, you would write a defense against the actual criticisms Hari offers instead of an ungrounded assault on his character and motivations.
You also studiously ignore OB’s main point: Obscurantist language is a manipulative strategy that should inspire suspicion rather than admiration. A great many very intelligent men and women have gone to great lengths to write as clearly as possible about a great many very complicated and difficult subjects. Your cited intellectual heroes do the exact opposite, writing deliberately obscure and jargon-laden prose about even the most pedestrian ideas. What they peddle is such patent nonsense that even they cannot distinguish between mocking parody of their gibberish and the real thing, as Sokal so memorably proved.
But no doubt you would dismiss Alan Sokal as another reactionary anti-intellectual – and your accusation would be just as false, saying far more about the accuser than the accused.
Steven, it would be good to see you respond to Hari’s points about Zizek’s support for tyrannies. That is the core of Hari’s criticisms, but you don’t address it at all. Can really all these statements be ironic, as one of your commenters claims?
I’d be genuinely interested to hear your views on this, as somebody who has only ever dipped into Zizek.
Steven, true, you didn’t say that; I was doing a little hermeneutics; but you also didn’t say ‘on the contrary, it is based on the seemingly lucid bits.’ That would have made a difference, to both the substance and the tone of your comment.
It’s odd, because you could have simply disagreed with Hari’s take by for instance disputing specific claims and offering evidence for your view; instead you resorted to wagon-circling rhetoric.
Oh, honestly. I answered Steven too politely. He has a comment on his post pointing out this one and concluding ‘Oh well. I suppose she was not sufficiently delighted with my review of her recent book.’
Pfffffffffffffff.
Yes, that’s why I waited almost a year to react! I knew eventually he would say something inaccurate about Johann Hari, and that would be my chance to – to – well, to have my revenge.
Actually I quite liked his review, so that comment is not only unpleasant but also inaccurate. But hey, I’m an anti-intellectual reactionary (surely?) so anything goes.
Ah, so “doing a little hermeneutics” is okay for some but not for others… ;)
I’m fascinated by how people are reading a “wagon-circling” defence of one of my supposed “intellectual heroes” into this. I have been quite explicit about my own criticisms of Zizek in the past. Indeed, some of my best friends denounce Zizek passionately. The difference is that they do it from – hey, imagine this – a close critical engagement with what Zizek actually writes.
Steven,
You didn’t condemn Hari for an insufficiently “close critical engagement with what Zizek actually writes”. You said nothing about the inaccuracy of Hari’s reading of Zizek, but rather that Hari “does not suffer from such uncertainty”[about whether he, Hari, is as clever as these writers]. This can only mean that you consider condemnation of an author as tantamount to believing oneself at least as clever as the author. What could be more anti-intellectual than such deferentialism? I hope this isn’t what you really meant, but it sure as hell is what you said.
There’s hermeneutics and then there’s hermeneutics.
We’re reading a “wagon-circling” defence into this because that is, for some reason, how you chose to write it.
Oh, but how are we to tell the difference between the good hermeneutics and the bad? If your psychological speculation as to writers’ nefarious hidden intentions counts as acceptable hermeneutics, what sort of thing is forbidden?
Steven, you still haven’t offered any actual response to Hari’s critique of Zizek – you’ve only accused him of not having done enough “critical engagement” without providing any argument to that effect. After all, Hari’s review cites Zizek repeatedly – so why don’t his citation and criticism of things Zizek has actually written or said amount to sufficient “critical engagement” in your judgment?
You also haven’t offered any defense of your blatant ad hominem attacks on Hari. And note that it was the presence of insults and the absence of actual arguments that led to the judgment of wagon-circling: No deep hermeneutics required, really. Insults and high dudgeon offered in response to criticism? Check. Overblown rhetoric in place of any actual evidence, arguments, or other substantial response to criticism? Check. Looks like yet another instance of circling the po-mo wagons against the assault of “reactionary anti-intellectuals” to me. If you weren’t just circling the wagons against criticism, then why on earth did you choose to use that kind of rhetoric instead of actually addressing Hari’s critique. Neither Hari nor anyone here is reactionary or anti-intellectual. We’re just devoted critical thinkers.
And how are we to tell bad hermeneutics from good? I have a notion: Hermeneutics should be, if not a last resort, a second or third resort. I don’t try to “read into” what someone is saying, I try to assess it at face value. When the argument being presented has no face value – when it is rather transparently fallacious, as I judge your series of ad hominems, appeals to emotion, and red herrings to be – only then do I look for some other motivation or meaning. Bad hermeneutics starts with imputing motives rather than evaluating and responding to arguments. Good hermeneutics, or at least potentially better hermeneutics, looks for motives only after the actual substance of an argument has been examined and been found wanting.
I’m fascinated by how people are reading a “wagon-circling” defence of one of my supposed “intellectual heroes” into this.”
I’m “fascinated” by your ineffectual construction of Russian-doll-style straw men.
You have the debating style of a teenager. IKYABWAI and the Wookie Defense do not an explanation make.
A less generous reader than myself might form the opinion that OB’s characterisation of your snail trail rhetoric as “Inaccurate and bullying, groupthink-enforcing and toadying” and “anti-intellectual” has only been reinforced by your blathering on this comments page.
The limitations of your creed of simply fellating Great Minds is shown by the limp ineffectuality of your own pronouncements. You, by your own admission, are not a Great Mind. Nobody believes what you are saying. Nobody has to. You do not have the authority to ask that they simply accept what you say. Yet you cannot engage with debate as otherwise you concede that there may be criteria other than authority on which ideas can be evaluated. So you have to sidestep to the only remaining resource available to you; rhetoric. Your mistake is to not make your rhetoric totally opaque in the manner of your “heroes”. This makes your hectoring trivially debunkable.
I’d also add that since postmodernism is now a decades-old old guard it is hardly “conservative” (or even conservative) for progressives to use it as a pejorative for the worst excesses of meaningless, self-important, scholastic solipsism.
Yes, I would keep appealing to Steven to answer Hari’s main point. Zizek defends Lenin and Mao, and calls for the return of “egalitarianism with a taste of terror.”
Johann shows this with close readings from Zizek, and lengthy quotation.
That makes Zizek monstrous. Yet you keep avoiding this, Hari’s key point, and I genuinely don’t see why, since you are clearly somebody opposed to dictatorships on the basis of your very good book Unspeak.
I’m afraid G is right, so far you have only offered ad hominem attacks on Hari: he hasn’t read it (when he plainly has), he is a reactionary idiot (when he plainly isn’t), etc etc.
Why not engage with his argument? if it’s wrong that Zizek defends all these dictators, show us how. If it’s not, concede Hari has a pretty important point that most readers of Zizek choose to overlook.
If your psychological speculation as to writers’ nefarious hidden intentions counts as acceptable hermeneutics, what sort of thing is forbidden?
You yourself were perfectly happy imputing all kinds of psychological motives and general cultural positions to Johann Hari when it served your purpose to do so. So clearly that degree of “speculation” ist nicht verboten, at least some of the time for some people. I do not believe, comparing OB’s writing to yours, that OB has gone any further than you yourself have. Do you have special permission to use this technique that others shouldn’t? Who from?
If pulling together a group of writers and taking pot shots from behind cover of their authority at someone who you feel is attacking them isn’t “wagon circling” then apart from moving horse-drawn carriages into a roundy configuration I don’t know what is.
Vapid rhetoric is like lying. You have to remember what you’ve said when and to who. Otherwise it comes back to bite you on the ass.
And here you are.
Dear Ophelia,
I’m sorry to be a knee-jerk reactionary, but if Mr Poole should read Zizek’s attempt to paint a post-modern gloss over Stalin’s terror – ‘there is something great and bold about the political idea of a general purge’ — he might be a little more careful before throwing around accusations of anti-intellectualism. Particularly repellent is Zizek’s pretence that Bukharin’s confession had layers of meaning hidden in the text. In fact, it was tortured out of him (and, trust me, more than Bukharin’s knee was jerked).
Original appeared in New Left Review before it went over from the totalitariainism of the left to the totalitariainism of the right. (Subscription required.) There’s a good critque here http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/modernism/Zizek.htm that costs you nothing.
This Poole character is a bit sleazy, isn’t he? He’s now suggesting on his blog that when people you approve of (in this case Zizek) use words like ‘terror’ they don’t mean terror in the usual way but that instaed they mean something nice but indefinite, perhaps ‘liberal democracy’ or maybe something else. Not ‘terror’ though, that’s the one thing it doesn’t mean. I assume that if GWB were to praise the use of terror as a political weapon Poole et al would suddenly find the word to have become suddenly and radically radically disambiguated.
All very interesting. We still seem to be left with the same problem, that Steven Poole could have disputed Hari’s claims by making his own counter-claims, supported by quotations (as Hari’s claims were), but instead chose to, shall we say, cast aspersions and invoke deference. He says he wasn’t invoking deference, but I still say that’s what the ‘as clever – seeming opacity – tread carefully’ comment looked like, and that it’s not readers’ fault for understanding it that way.
The whole discussion seems weirdly distorted; it’s hard not to suspect some buried loyalty-need or orthodoxy-imperative at work, as if there really is a holy of holies somewhere on the premises. Because…if it is just a matter of saying ‘Hey Zizek has considerable merit, he has his faults but he also has his virtues, read this and this, he’s better than you think’ – then why not just say that?
Mr Cohen might want to do some rereading. It is not Zizek who claimed “there is something great and bold about the political idea of a general purge”, but Bakhurin in his “confession”.
But these are of course mere details. The guy must love Stalin, right?
Just the way Johann Hari must be a reactionary anti-intellectual and must have only a hurried and superficial acquaintance with Zizek’s works, right?
Notice the return to picking nits and ignoring the actual substantial critique. Again, I point out that Steven STILL hasn’t done a darn thing to justify either his defense of Zizek from Hari’s criticism OR his own overheated ad hominem attack on Hari. (And again, he will ignore it.)
Steven, the only things you’ve justified by your “contributions” to this thread are the judgments expressed by everyone here: Every bit of empty rhetoric, every cheap pot shot, every failure to engage any of the substantial criticisms aimed at your positions only serves to confirm that you deserve the drubbing we’re giving you.
I know, and it’s pretty clear that he’s not going to. (If he does, I’ll say I was wrong about that!) I’d have some respect for him if he said ‘Oh you’re right, that was short on substance and long on personal attack and innuendo; beg pardon, here’s the substantive version.’ But no – just irrelevancy piled on irrelevancy, all in defense of groupthink. It’s a depressing spectacle.
I have made two points in Poole’s discussion page that he and the commenters are straining really hard not to see.
(1) Zizek himself expliclty says in the documentary he is not being ironic when he praises dictators, saying in the film: “Obviously there is something in it, that it’s not simply a joke.”
(2) I asked: “If a hypothetical philosopher did unironically praise Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and most critics ignored that fact and praised him, would it not be valid for a writer to write a piece pointing out this strange incongruity, and advising people to handle him with extreme caution? Wouldn’t that be a valuable act?”
They have refused to answer either point so far, choosing instead to claim again that Hari hasn’t read Zizek. (Oddly, a regular poster on the site, Alex Higgins, is actually a friend of Hari’s and has witnessed him readign Zizek! So they know it’s untrue.)
Good post, dirigible, but I’m confused by the Brian Ferry reference. I know who he is (even have some of his music), but what’s the connection to Zizek? Is it that BF sort of plays a character?
DMS, see the long comment thread at my original post, which contains Zizek quotes, eg at #48 and #78.
No but see if we ask Poole to give us facts instead of style, we’re ‘perpetrators of frivolous attacks’ demanding ‘careful, scholarly replies’ and stamping when we don’t get them. It’s not permissible to demand careful scholarly (or even substantive?) replies because – um – well it’s just not.
The quotes are from Poole, by the way.
DMS,
you might want to go to Steven’s site and look through the comments there to see how these arguments have developed… otherwise, these threads will become a bit repetitive…
Oh, Steven already said that…
Poole seems to think it is terribly gauche of Hari to condemn a philosopher who, when asked when he believes in, replies, “Communism! Egalitarianism with a taste of terror.”
Clearly, Hari should have interpreted that as an attack on ASBOs and the Iraq war. (Yes, that is really what Poole says it was about.)
When Zizek praises Lenin, we should see that what he means is that ““Lenin” stands for the compelling FREEDOM to suspend the stale existing (post)ideological coordinates, the debilitating Denkverbot in which we live — it simply means that we are allowed to think again.”
Set aside the irony of saying that Lenin means we “are allowed to think again”, when that’s precisely what people were forbidden from doing under Lenin. (Unless their thought led them to laud Lenin, of course).
“Lenin” is not a free-floating signifier. He is an actual person, who killed millions of other actual people. Many were my relatives; my grandfather barely made it out alive.
Poole thinks it is “reactionary” of Hari to condemn a man whose thought produces praise of him. Clearly, we should compare Zizek to Jonathan Swift as a marvellous satirist! Even when Zizek says he is not joking…
As I say on Poole’s site, I had quite a high opinion of him after reading his book Unspeak. It has plummetted given his evasive, ridiculous and rude responses to simple queries over this matter.
Niko: “Lenin … killed millions of other actual people.”
Sorry to be the ignoramus here, but I thought the mass killing came after Lenin’s death. Millions?
And ASBO, Denkverbot? Would you mind defining these terms?
Lenin, and Trotsky, were certainly responsible for many deaths (the very brutal crushing of the Kronstadt revolt for example), but as you say Doug, the millions were old Uncle Joe’s fault.
However, Vladimir and Leon set up the system that allowed Stalin to gain power fairly easily by taking over the Vanguard.
Alex Higgins,
Well if my point has already been made by others then I agree, what more is there to say?
1. Hari makes a statement.
2. Poole attacks Hari but doesn’t show from Zizek’s own words how/where Hari is wrong.
End of story, no?
Steven, I don’t see how Comments #48 and #78 to which you directed me say anything which illustrates your contention. The Zizek quotes seems to me to be double-talk.
Has anyone here seen *300*? I read this contrary review by Zizek, thinking that it would help clarify my position on him. It’s only a film review, so the writing’s pretty clear for the most part, but then it ends like this:
“The effect produced is that of “true reality” losing its innocence, appearing as part of a closed artificial universe, which is a perfect figuration of our socio-ideological predicament. Those critics who claimed that the “synthesis” of the two arts in 300 is a failed one are thus wrong for the very reason of being right: of course the “synthesis” fails, of course the universe we see on the [sc]reen is traversed by a profound antagonism and inconsistency, but it is this very antagonism which is an indication of truth.”
Full: http://www.lacan.com/zizhollywood.htm
I’d be interested in any reactions.
Zizek, without any organizational base, in order to stand out in the very
crowded field of gobbledygook, takes iconoclastic positions one day, common
sense leftist ones the next, always attaching himself to pop culture. It’s a very smart strategy for a mumbo-jumboist. Even I find him at least a bit interesting.
Doug
I don’t know why you can’t try and keep up like the rest of us but;
the mention of Brian Ferry is because of recent comments he made. See http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2449976.ece for details;
ASBO stands for Anti-Social Behaviour Order;
Denkverbot just means uncritical thinking – like pomo some people like to disguise simple concepts by stating them in a different language, especially German because it is redolent of Kant, Heidegger and all those deep thinkers.
Thanks, Chris. I think. You were kidding, right? (I do my meager best.)
My response to the 300 Review:
I am not smart enough to be a profound philosopher who has scuh profound insights about profound matters like the profound nature of reality most profound.. You are all meanies and reactionaries and probably voted for Thatcher and Bush. We need a heroic revolutionary to clear out the lot of you!
I did better than that, I voted for Thush and Batcher! I am one mean reactionary person.
I bet you eat broiled working class children for dinner! While reading the Wall Street Journal! And chrotling. Always chortling!
[…] came under fire for this review. Ophelia Benson defended him. There was a massive comment-volley on Butterflies and Wheels (Benson’s site) which is worth […]