No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 June 2015
In the following paper I shall be developing a critical discussion of the contemporary interpretation of Hegel proposed by a Yugoslavian, and more specifically Slovenian, philosopher named Slavoj Zizek, whose principal theoretical allegiance is to the thought of the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. The very existence of this body of work raises many intriguing questions about the theoretical, cultural, and political context from which it has arisen. Why, for example, should the notoriously obscure and difficult thought of a Parisian psychoanalyst be of such interest not just to Zizek, but indeed to a whole circle of Slovenian intellectuals? Furthermore, why should a Lacanian approach be considered the most promising way to unlock the ‘secret of Hegel’? And why should Zizek and his fellow thinkers insist on the convergence of the thought of Hegel and Lacan, even in defiance of many of Lacan's own pronouncements on the matter?
In a sense, the answer to the first of these questions already provides the answers to the other two. It is necessary to bear in mind that, for the most part, Yugoslavian philosophical life since the Revolution has been dominated not by the creaking orthodoxies of Soviet-style dialectical materialism, but by the far more plausible and congenial positions of what has come to be known as the Praxis School. The Marxism of the Praxis School, whose tradition still lives on, in the form of the journal Praxis International, is much closer, indeed can be seen as part of the philosophical current known in the other half of Europe as ‘Western Marxism’.
This article is based on a paper presented to the 11th Annual Conference of the Hegel Society of Great Britain, ‘The Presence of Hegel in Contemporary Thought’, Pembroke College, Oxford, September 1990. Although rewritten for publication, I have not attempted to suppress all traces of the original oral presentation.
1. For a representative sample of the work of the Praxis school see Markovic, Mihailo and Petrovic, Gajo (eds.), Praxis: Yugoslav Essays in the Philosophy and methodology of the Social Sciences (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. XXXVI), Dordrecht, Holland, 1979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also the journals Praxis, 1965-1974, and Praxis International. 1980-.
2. Zizek, Slavoj, The Sublime Object of Ideology (hereinafter SOI), London 1989, p. 198 Google Scholar.
3. Ibid., p.7. For more information on the socio-political background to Zizek's work, see ‘Lacan in Slovenia’ (interview with Slavoj Zizek and Renata Salecl), Radical Philosophy 58, Summer 1991. the interview is followed by an essay indicative of Zizek's approach to Hegel: ‘Why should a dialectician learn to count to four?’
4. Ibid.
5. Cf. SOI, p. 209.
6. Hegel, G. W. F., Phaenomenologie des Geistes, Hoffmeister, edn, Hamburg 1952, p. 24 Google Scholar.
7. SOI, p. 220.
8. Ibid., pp. 165-6.
9. Ibid., p. 165
10. Ibid., pp. 215-6.
11. Ibid., p. 220; emphasis mine.
12. Cf. Sein und Zeit, section 74.
13. Hegel, G. W. F., Lectures on the Philosophy of World History: Introduction, Cambridge 1975, p. 29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14. Cf. SOI, p. 214.
15. SOI, p. 214.
16. Ibid., p. 228. In this conception of the relation between philosophy and religion, Zizek's interpretation of Hegel resembles that of Emil Fackenheim, who argues that the plausibility of Hegel's philosophy is dependent on the existence of the Christian religion, which functions as the experiential bridge of ‘infinite Life’ between ‘finite life’ and ‘infinite Thought’. Cf. Fackenheim, Emil, The Religious Dimension in Hegel's Thought, Bloomington and London 1967, p. 117 Google Scholar. Zizek, of course, would not be committed to the priority of a religious understanding of the encounter with the object of desire in phantasy.
17. Hegel, G. W. F., Wissenschaft der Logik. Suhrkamp Werkausgabe, Frankfurt 1986, vol. 6, p. 34 Google Scholar.
18. Zizek, Slavoj, Le plus sublime des hysteriques — Hegel passe (hereinafter PSH), Paris 1988, p.7 Google Scholar.
19. Amongst many other formulas, Lacan defines the objet petit a as ‘the representative of representation in the absolute condition: Écrits: A Selection, p. 312.
20. Benjamin, Jessica, The Bonds of Love, London 1988, p. 101 Google Scholar.
21. Lacan, Jacques, Écrits: A Selection, London 1977, p. 79–80 Google Scholar.
22. Lacan, Jacques, Écrits, Paris 1966, p. 373 Google Scholar.
23. Cf. Kojève, Alexandre, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, Ithaca and London 1980, p. 6 Google Scholar.
24. Lectures on the Philosophy of World History: Introduction, p. 29.
25. Lacan, Jacques, Le Séminaire I: Les écrits techniques de Freud, Paris 1975, p. 242 Google Scholar.
26. Écrits; A Selection, p. 296.
27. Ibid., p. 296.
28. Lacan, Jacques, The four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis (Seminar vol. XI), London 1977, p. 211 Google Scholar.
29. PSH, p. 159.
30. PSH, p. 154.
31. Wissenschaft de Logik, edn. cited, p. 27.
32. Henrich, Dieter, Ilegel im Kontext, Frankfurt 1971, p. 107 Google Scholar.
33. Ibid., p. 105.
34. Cf. ibid., pp. 127-8.
35. Frank, Manfred, Der unendliche Mangel an Sein: Schellings Hegelkritik und die Anfaenge der Marxschen Dialeklik, Frankfurt 1975, p. 50 Google Scholar.
36. Ecrits, p. 839.
37. Ibid., p. 831.
38. SOI, p. 226.
39. PSH, p. 95.
40. Schelling, F. W. J., ‘Zur Geschichte der neuren Philosophie’, in Ausgewaehlte Schriften, Frank, M. ed., Frankfurt 1985, vol. 4, p. 517 Google Scholar.
41. PSH, p. 158.