Slavoj Zizek is a leading Marxist sociology academic, whose work is well publicized as utilizing the works of leading French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in reinterpreting contemporary socio-political trends (Parker, p.120). Moreover, it has been posited that it was with Zizek's "The sublime object of ideology" that his work was elevated to international academic recognition in socio-political theory with Eagleton describing Zizek "as the most formidably brilliant exponent of psychoanalysis, indeed of cultural theory in general, to have emerged from Europe in some decades (Eagleton, 1997: 4). However, Zizek's work has been criticized for inconsistency and Parker argues that "there is no Zizekian system of philosophy because Zizek, with all his inconsistencies, is trying to make us think much harder about what we are willing to believe and accept from a single writer" (Parker, 2004, p.120). Indeed, to this end Zizek argues himself that we should constantly challenge our ideologies and philosophies.
[...] Moreover, it is precisely this theory which further underpins Zizek's argument for the necessity of the two revolutions as the two revolutions ultimately result in the new symbolic political order, which relates to the symbolism utilized through Zizek's reference to the Moreover, Zizek's argument highlights the need to question existing philosophies by focusing on the need to address the and that the “perception of our reality as only one of the possible outcomes of an open situation, the notion that other possible outcomes continue to haunt our “true reality” conferring on it an extreme fragility and contingency is by no means alien to Marxism. [...]
[...] Accordingly, the focus of this analysis is to critically evaluate the pros and cons of Zizek's arguments regarding the two revolutions with specific reference to Zizek's edited “Revolution at the Gates, A Selection of Writings from February to October 1917” (Zizek, 2002). To this end, I shall consider why Zizek posits that there is a necessity for two revolutions with a critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments. Firstly, in considering Zizek's arguments for the two revolutions, it is submitted at the outset that that it is necessary to evaluate the key theories of Zizek. [...]
[...] However, whilst Zizek's theory in criticizing existing ideologies pertaining to the necessity of the two revolutions is not without merit, there appears to be consistent inconsistency in his work where the “widening narrative fails to elaborate connections implied by his argument” (Ryder, at www.bard.edu/bgia/bardpolitik/vol3/vi-article3.pdf accessed on 28 April 2009). Moreover, in seeking to propound radical theories to undermine conventional argument, Zizek is often leftist in attacking previous theory prior to revealing his own position sometimes without consistent support for his arguments. [...]
[...] Accordingly, the essence of Zizek's argument for the necessity of the two revolutions relies on Lenin's argument of not waiting for the opportunity, but pre-planning. As such, Zizek posits that Lenin's view was effectively a psychoanalytical notion as evidenced by Lenin's initial warnings against the “implantation of Communism under no circumstances must this be understood in the sense that we should immediately propagate purely in strictly communist ideas in the countryside. As long as our countryside lacks the material basis for communism, it will be, I should say, harmful, in fact, I should say, fatal for communism to do (Zizek at p.9). [...]
[...] As such, it is submitted that Zizek's explanation of the two revolutions is not without merit and is important in looking beyond the historical backdrop and conventional theorem. However, the central weakness of Zizek's argument is the lack of consistency and impartiality, which clouds the meritorious nature of his argument. This is further highlighted by Brighenti's “diavolution” concept, which whilst in line with the Zizekian line of thought, goes further in seeking to propose a theoretical explanation for the interrelationship between organization and revolution, [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
