When Zizek talks about the Symptom, he seems to be essentially speaking of the general ignorance of the individual to the reality of the world. He goes on to say that "the subject can 'enjoy his symptom' only in so far as its logic escapes him."

I translate this statement to the common phrase of "Ignorance is bliss." Is Zizek promoting this ignorance, or does he want to be the one who brings this enjoyment to its end by enlightening everybody with reality, or the logic? What exactly is his logic?


I thought Zizek's discussion of the relationship between the social effectivity and the commodity exchange was very characteristic of the postmodern. He describes this relationship by saying that "non-knowledge of the reality is part of its very essence: the social effectivity of the exchange process is a kind of reality which is possible only on condition that the individuals partaking in it are not aware of its proper logic."

"return of the repressed" and the terminator

I was sitting in a coffee shop last week, and I swear I wasn't eavesdropping, but these two people were sitting right next to me talking loudly about short stories they had read. One of the stories they talked about seems to offer a good illustration of Lacan's idea of the repressed returning from the future . . .

Commodity Fetishism vs. Relationship Fetishism

I'm having a hard time accepting Zizek's statement (from p. 25) that "commodity fetishism occurs in capitalist societies, but it capitalism relations between men [and/or other gender identities] are definitely NOT 'festishized.'"



I found Zizek's discussion on democracy from 146-9 interesting. If Leader-Party social categories are mutually constitutive, if the People are the People only because they aren't the Leader or if the Leader is the Leader only because he draws on the People or if anyone non-constitutive of the Leader is by definition excluded from the purview of the People, and if all these relations are fascistic, then what constitutes democracy?

personal kernels, universal kernels

(this is a long post, but there's a question at the bottom, and I'd appreciate a little clarification/a swift kick re the connections I'm wondering about)

The following quote stuck with me:

not really about zizek at all, NYT winning college essay on Postmodernism

I forgot to post this a few weeks back, but the New York Times Magazine had an open call competition for college students to write about why college still matters...and the winning essay was written by some dude at Yale...who wrote all about postmodernism as his saving grace.

Zizek's style


I just want to express that I really enjoyed Zizek's writing style. It was comprehensible and accessible to the everyday person. One does not have to be an "intellectual" to understand the points he makes. In today's world so many people rely on art and film to get a grasp on theory. I know I do. Before this class, my understanding of postmodernism was greatly based on my viewings of postmodern films. Film can visually articulate complex theories.

Going through the fantasy


Zizek writes at p.195 that 'going-through the fantasy' involves recognizing any objects of desire as embodiments of a fundamental lack (in the self, in the Other, in the symbolic order), as sociofantastic makeshifts constructed over the lack to conceal the lack. He also writes at 230-1 that

going through the social fantasy

I'd like to qualify my response to Anonymous. There seems to be way in which Zizek conceives of knowledge itself being destructive to ideology. Specifically, he seems to view understanding "the logic of enjoyment" (125) as antithetical to ideology, and, consequently, enjoyment. Earlier, Zizek writes that, "It is also clear why Facism was so terrified of psychoanalysis: psychonalysis enables us to locate an obscene enjoyment at work in this act of formal sacrifice" (82).

Syndicate content