What do you think?
Rate this book
October Books
Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture
Slavoj Zizek, a leading intellectual in the new social movements of Eastern Europe, provides a virtuoso reading of the psycholanalytic theory of Jacques Lacan through the works of contemporary popular culture, from horror fiction and detective thrillers to popular romances and Hitchcock films.
188 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1991
About the author
Slavoj Žižek
612 books6,802 followersSlavoj Žižek is a Slovene sociologist, philosopher, and cultural critic.
He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).
Since 2005, Žižek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Žižek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.
In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."
He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).
Since 2005, Žižek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Žižek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.
In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews
October 13, 2022
I do not exist, mostly because I am a woman. I deeply regret not being able to disappear at will. I hate that I have to structure my life like language, why can't we just screech at each other?
in spite of all our frenetic activity, we are stuck in the same place.
I hate that I have to always alternate between ascent and descent, between being tethered and untethered. Must we always oscillate between lack and surplus meaning?
Last night I decided to stop taking refuge in fantasy, I suppose it hasn't been good for my psychological development. But then what do I do with my desire?
through fantasy we learn how to desire.
X is what sustains me, I need it but I can't have it so I will always need it more. We are psychotics, some of us. We aren't deceived by the symbolic order, no sir.
X frames my life precisely through its absence.
I hate and love that I remain in a deadlock, always.
looking awry is precisely what prevents us from sliding into psychosis.
By my very nature I look awry upon everything, I am queer.
P.S. This is a great introduction to Lacan. And Hitchcock is super-daddy. The big Daddy.
P.P.S (actually a question ) Had Shakespeare read Lacan?
in spite of all our frenetic activity, we are stuck in the same place.
I hate that I have to always alternate between ascent and descent, between being tethered and untethered. Must we always oscillate between lack and surplus meaning?
Last night I decided to stop taking refuge in fantasy, I suppose it hasn't been good for my psychological development. But then what do I do with my desire?
through fantasy we learn how to desire.
X is what sustains me, I need it but I can't have it so I will always need it more. We are psychotics, some of us. We aren't deceived by the symbolic order, no sir.
X frames my life precisely through its absence.
I hate and love that I remain in a deadlock, always.
looking awry is precisely what prevents us from sliding into psychosis.
By my very nature I look awry upon everything, I am queer.
P.S. This is a great introduction to Lacan. And Hitchcock is super-daddy. The big Daddy.
P.P.S (actually a question ) Had Shakespeare read Lacan?
June 25, 2019
از یه سخنرانی برگشته بود، می گفت سخنران خیلی عالی صحبت کرد، خییییلی
پرسیدن حالا چی می‌گفت؟
گفت والا من که نفهیمدم چی می‌گفت، ولی خیلی عالی بود
حالا حکایت ماست
البته به ژیژک خرده نمی‌گیرم
اینکه من خیلی از مطالب رو نفهمیدم، به گردن ژیژک نیست
یعنی اگر قرار بود ژیژک از خودش دفاع کنه، می‌تونست بگه:
اولاً، من دارم لاکان رو توضیح میدم که خدای ابهامِ؛ برو یقه‌ی اونو بچسب
دوماً، حجم موضوعات خیلی زیاده، ناچار بودم سریع‌تر از روشون رد شدم
سوماً، تویی که پیش نیازها (روانکاوی، سیاست و ...) رو پاس نکردی، اصلاً کی بهت اجازه داد با من واحد برداری؟
چارماً، روزنامه که نیست تند تند بخونی، باید بشینی فکر کنی؛ حالا خوبه این همه مثال عالی برات آوردم که راحت‌تر بفهمی، این عوض دستت درد نکنه‌ست؟
استاد چرا عصبانی می‌شی؟ من که گفتم ازت راضی‌ام. تازه، اگه اجازه بدی می‌خواهم چند واحد دیگه هم باهات بردارم
______
یه دست‌مریزاد هم بگیم به آقای پرویز بیانی، به خاطر طراحی جلدش
مشخصه کتاب رو خونده، خوب هم خونده، و می‌دونه داره چی‌کار میکنه
پرسیدن حالا چی می‌گفت؟
گفت والا من که نفهیمدم چی می‌گفت، ولی خیلی عالی بود
حالا حکایت ماست
البته به ژیژک خرده نمی‌گیرم
اینکه من خیلی از مطالب رو نفهمیدم، به گردن ژیژک نیست
یعنی اگر قرار بود ژیژک از خودش دفاع کنه، می‌تونست بگه:
اولاً، من دارم لاکان رو توضیح میدم که خدای ابهامِ؛ برو یقه‌ی اونو بچسب
دوماً، حجم موضوعات خیلی زیاده، ناچار بودم سریع‌تر از روشون رد شدم
سوماً، تویی که پیش نیازها (روانکاوی، سیاست و ...) رو پاس نکردی، اصلاً کی بهت اجازه داد با من واحد برداری؟
چارماً، روزنامه که نیست تند تند بخونی، باید بشینی فکر کنی؛ حالا خوبه این همه مثال عالی برات آوردم که راحت‌تر بفهمی، این عوض دستت درد نکنه‌ست؟
استاد چرا عصبانی می‌شی؟ من که گفتم ازت راضی‌ام. تازه، اگه اجازه بدی می‌خواهم چند واحد دیگه هم باهات بردارم
______
یه دست‌مریزاد هم بگیم به آقای پرویز بیانی، به خاطر طراحی جلدش
مشخصه کتاب رو خونده، خوب هم خونده، و می‌دونه داره چی‌کار میکنه
October 2, 2015
The ideas in this book are very similar to those Zizek began developing in The Sublime Object of Ideology, but because Looking Awry is less grounded in the complex interplay of Hegelian dialectics and Lacanian psychoanalysis, this is a somewhat more accessible read. Certainly Looking Awry tries to explicate Lacanian theory, but unlike the earlier book, Looking Awry is more focused on making Lacanian theory accessible than it is in restructuring major traditions of ideology.
Part of what makes Looking Awry a more accessible book is that its analysis is grounded in film and literary studies, particularly through Hitchcock's films. Even if you don't actually know the film or story under discussion, Zizek is very good at explaining the relevant portions of the film or story in such a way that they illustrate his point. This is one of Zizek's particular strengths as a writer.
Part of what makes Looking Awry a more accessible book is that its analysis is grounded in film and literary studies, particularly through Hitchcock's films. Even if you don't actually know the film or story under discussion, Zizek is very good at explaining the relevant portions of the film or story in such a way that they illustrate his point. This is one of Zizek's particular strengths as a writer.
December 2, 2016
Like it's often the case with Žižek - it's highly entertaining but lacks substance. If you are looking for a book to learn about Lacan in a systematic way, this is in no way a book for you. Generally speaking, words "systematic" and "Žižek" don't go together, so the fragmentary and digressive nature of this book should not come as a surprise. He has fun ways of presenting some of Lacan's ideas, but in this particularized form it's not worth much because the bigger Lacanian picture will still elude the reader. If you already know Lacan's work, on the other hand, you will no doubt enjoy Žižek's insightful application of his ideas to movies and literature.
August 25, 2024
Das Ding | خلاء پرنشدنی
امر واقع* لکانی، حفره یا مغاکی در هسته وجودی ماست که مدام به دنبال پُر کردنش هستیم. ابژه اپتی a سازوکار پوشاندن موقتی این فقدان است. رجوع شود به پانویس صفحه 15 و شروع کتاب.
اصل هر اندوه را بیست سایه هست،
که چونان خودِ اندوه می‌نماید، اما نه چون آن‌اند.
چرا که چشم اندوه، پوشیده از لعابِ اشک‌های کوری‌آور،
یک چیز یکپارچه را بخش می کند به چندین و چند چیز
چونان مناظری که چون راست در آنها بنگری
چیزی جز آشفتگی‌ات نمی‌نمایند و چون کج نگاهشان کنی
صورت و ساخت می یابند.
پس بانوی مهرپرور من،
عزیمت شویتان چون کج نگاهش کنید
اندوه‌هایی به بار می‌آورد بیش از غمی که از بابت خودِ وی دارید؛
اندوهی که اگر چنان که به حقی��ت هست دیده شود، هیچ نیست اِلا
سایه‌هایی از نیست. پس ای بانوی مهر پرور من،
بر چیزی بیش از عزیمت سرورتان شیون نکنید: که چیزی بیش از این به چشم نمی‌آید
و گر بیاید، به چشم اندوه کاذب بوده است
که به جای چیزهای حقیقی بر چیزهای خالی مویه می‌کند.
از نمایشنامه ریچارد دوم در متن کتاب
این کتاب کنار تموم خوبی‌ها و فایده‌هاش به یکی از مهم‌ترین سوالات بنیادین زندگیم که از کودکی ناخودآگاه با خودم حملش می کردم جواب داد یا لااقل براش یک پاسخ قابل قبولی در حد نظریه ارائه کرد: چرا همیشه خواسته‌های ریز و درشتم تمومی نداره و درست لحظه‌ای که بهشون میرسم دیگه جذاب نیستن یا لااقل اون هیجانی که فکر می‌کردم بعد از به دست آوردنشون داشته باشم فروکش میکنه و مجدد شعله میل جدیدی در من روشن میشه؟
لاکان میگه: «هسته ای از امر واقع* وجود داره که همیشه از نمادسازی پرهیز میکنه و تمام بازنمایی ها، تصاویر و دلالت ها صرفا تلاشی برای پر کردن این شکاف هستن. لاکان این عنصر، خلاء یا شکاف رو به آلمانی Das Ding یا همون thing گمشده نام گذاری میکنه. ابژه ای که عملا جایی نبوده که بخواد گم بشه و ما در زندگی بگردیم تا پیداش کنیم، نیست و هرگز هم نخواهد بود. این چیز یا ابژه علت امیال ماست و به شکل بازگشتی یا Retroactive ساخته میشه. این ابژه در سال 1964 جایگزین شد با ابژه پتی a. برای درک بهتر توصیه می کنم به تصویر پایین (گره برومه‌ای) نگاهی داشته باشید.
برای درک تصویر بالا به کمک چت GPT تونستم توضیحات این مطلب از سایت تداعی رو ساده کنم که به طور خلاصه شد این:
1.سه بُعد روان انسان (RSI):
لکان سه بخش اصلی را در روان انسان تعریف کرده است: بُعد واقعیت (Real)، بُعد نمادین (Symbolic) و بُعد تصویری (Imaginary). این سه بخش در روند روانکاوی اهمیت زیادی دارند. ابتدا، لکان بر بُعد تصویری متمرکز بود، سپس به بررسی بُعد نمادین و بعد از آن به بُعد واقعیت پرداخت. در نهایت، او به ترکیب این سه بخش و معرفی مفهوم گره برومه‌ای (Borromean knot) پرداخت که به توضیح چگونگی ارتباط این سه بخش کمک می‌کند.
2. بُعد تصویری (Imaginary):
این بُعد مربوط به نحوه‌ی شکل‌گیری تصویرهای ذهنی در انسان است. لکان این مفهوم را با مطالعه بر روی مرحله‌ی آینه‌ای مطرح کرد. در این مرحله، کودک برای اولین بار تصویر خود را در آینه می‌بیند و این تجربه پایه‌ای برای شکل‌گیری هویت او می‌شود. بُعد تصویری به ارتباطی دوگانه میان تصویر و خود فرد اشاره دارد.
3. بُعد نمادین (Symbolic):
بُعد نمادین به توانایی انسان در استفاده از زبان و نشانه‌ها برای برقراری ارتباط اشاره دارد. این بُعد شامل نشانه‌هایی است که توسط فرهنگ و جامعه ایجاد می‌شوند و به انسان کمک می‌کنند تا به درک جهان بپردازد. در این بُعد، نقش پدر به عنوان نماینده‌ی قانون و نظم نمادین بسیار مهم است.
4. *امر واقع (Real):
بُعد واقعیت به چیزهایی اشاره دارد که نمادین‌سازی آنها غیرممکن است، یعنی چیزی که نمی‌توان آن را با کلمات یا نشانه‌ها توصیف کرد. این بُعد معمولاً خارج از درک و آگاهی فرد قرار دارد و به عنوان بخشی ناشناخته از روان انسان باقی می‌ماند. امر واقع به شکل ناخودآگاه و اختلالی در واقعیت نمادین بروز میکنه. امر واقع بدون اطلاع سوژه وجود داره، توسط اندام های حسی پردازش نمیشه ولی سوژه بهش برخورد می کنه. برای مثال میشه شطرنج رو در نظر گرفت، قوانین نمادین و مهره‌ها خیالی هستن؛ اتفاقات پیش بینی نشده، امر واقع. پیشنهاد میکنم سرچ کنید و در این زمینه اطلاعات بیشتر به دست بیارید.
5. گره برومه‌ای و توپولوژی:
لکان گره برومه‌ای را معرفی کرده که شامل سه حلقه است و نماد سه بُعد روانی (واقعیت، نمادین و تصویری) است. اگر یکی از حلقه‌ها باز شود، دو حلقه دیگر هم از هم جدا می‌شوند. این گره به لکان کمک کرد تا بهتر توضیح دهد که چگونه این سه بُعد با هم مرتبط هستند و چگونه بر روان انسان تأثیر می‌گذارند.
+ برای مدتی که با این کتاب همراه بودم حس آدمی رو داشتم که در معدود لحظاتی از زندگیش در جای درست قرار گرفته و اونچه که براش مطلوبه رو دریافت میکنه.
+ این مطلب رو هم پیشنهاد میکنم بخونید.
+ کتاب ارجاعات به داستان ها و فیلم های متعددی داشت تا بتونه منظور رو بهتر منتقل کنه. فیلم ها و کتابها رو علامت زدم برای دیدن و خوندن در آینده.
+ اون یک ستاره امتیاز کمی که دادم بخاطر ترجمه بود. درسته که ترجمه خوبی بود اما به نظرم یکجاهایی بیش از حد سنگین شده بود که میشد با ساده سازی بهترش کرد.
July 4, 2018
Anyone who has read a book by Slavoj Žižek knows that it is difficult - almost impossible - to give a coherent summary of what he has written. That's because there is a chaotic force to the structure of his books, an apparent anarchism that makes it feel as though Žižek should perhaps be taking some kind of medication to mitigate his scattered attention. There's also that little matter of him constantly repeating (plagiarizing?) his own work, so that reading successive works of his creates a strong sense of déjà vu.
That said, there is no question that Žižek knows what he is talking about. His points and insights have a rare penetration into the complexities of whatever issue he is talking about - the problem is merely that he likes to jump from topic to topic, leaping with apparent abandon from a discussion of the function of the gaze in Hitchcock to the "postmodernity" of Kafka to the hysterical nature of Hegelian philosophy to the formal structure of the democratic subject all without blinking an eyelid.
As such, I'm not going to give an overview of what Žižek presents in Looking Awry, an introduction to Lacan that compares favorably with his 2006 effort How to Read Lacan, which felt more like the fulfillment of a contract obligation than a labor of love. Instead, I simply want to mention two of the things that I got out of reading this book, new perspectives on Lacan to which Žižek opened my eyes.
The first is Žižek's justification of the later Lacan. Everyone who reads Lacan tends to be fascinated with the early to middle stages of Lacan's work, namely, the structuralist-linguistic model that he develops in "An Instance of the Letter..." Žižek, however, emphasizes how the later Lacan provides a more profound set of ideas and techniques for moving beyond the vagaries of language and into an exploration of the real. Žižek is a groundbreaking interpreter of Lacan precisely because he has been able to see the value of this later development in Lacan's thought, which is either ignored by Lacanians or seen (by Roudinesco, for instance) as a distraction from his real work. I also tend to see the later Lacan, with the mathemes and the knots, as an adventure in nonsense, but Žižek is able to draw out some valuable stuff, especially from Seminars 17, 20, and 23.
The second is Žižek's explanation of the sinthome. I have been trying so hard to grasp the significance of this term, which up until this point seemed banal and theoretically useless. However, in Chapter 7 of Looking Awry, Žižek finally explains, in the ethical context of Lacan's work, how there is a movement from a concern with the symptom (dialectical, negotiable, symbolic) to the sinthome (non-dialectical, non-negotiable, real). This was a major theoretical breakthrough for me, a concept the value of which no other writer has allowed me to see.
Looking Awry is not really an "introduction" to Jacques Lacan, as its subtitle claims - it is a critical rereading of Lacan by Žižek, in an attempt not only to explain but to reposition the basic understanding of what Lacan's thought was trying to do, to move beyond the linguistic model that has dominated Lacanian thought and explore the more radical dimensions of his later thought.
That said, there is no question that Žižek knows what he is talking about. His points and insights have a rare penetration into the complexities of whatever issue he is talking about - the problem is merely that he likes to jump from topic to topic, leaping with apparent abandon from a discussion of the function of the gaze in Hitchcock to the "postmodernity" of Kafka to the hysterical nature of Hegelian philosophy to the formal structure of the democratic subject all without blinking an eyelid.
As such, I'm not going to give an overview of what Žižek presents in Looking Awry, an introduction to Lacan that compares favorably with his 2006 effort How to Read Lacan, which felt more like the fulfillment of a contract obligation than a labor of love. Instead, I simply want to mention two of the things that I got out of reading this book, new perspectives on Lacan to which Žižek opened my eyes.
The first is Žižek's justification of the later Lacan. Everyone who reads Lacan tends to be fascinated with the early to middle stages of Lacan's work, namely, the structuralist-linguistic model that he develops in "An Instance of the Letter..." Žižek, however, emphasizes how the later Lacan provides a more profound set of ideas and techniques for moving beyond the vagaries of language and into an exploration of the real. Žižek is a groundbreaking interpreter of Lacan precisely because he has been able to see the value of this later development in Lacan's thought, which is either ignored by Lacanians or seen (by Roudinesco, for instance) as a distraction from his real work. I also tend to see the later Lacan, with the mathemes and the knots, as an adventure in nonsense, but Žižek is able to draw out some valuable stuff, especially from Seminars 17, 20, and 23.
The second is Žižek's explanation of the sinthome. I have been trying so hard to grasp the significance of this term, which up until this point seemed banal and theoretically useless. However, in Chapter 7 of Looking Awry, Žižek finally explains, in the ethical context of Lacan's work, how there is a movement from a concern with the symptom (dialectical, negotiable, symbolic) to the sinthome (non-dialectical, non-negotiable, real). This was a major theoretical breakthrough for me, a concept the value of which no other writer has allowed me to see.
Looking Awry is not really an "introduction" to Jacques Lacan, as its subtitle claims - it is a critical rereading of Lacan by Žižek, in an attempt not only to explain but to reposition the basic understanding of what Lacan's thought was trying to do, to move beyond the linguistic model that has dominated Lacanian thought and explore the more radical dimensions of his later thought.
July 4, 2018
I could do with more Lacan and less pop culture. This is my first "return to Zizek" after lengthy immersion in Lacan and Freud. Zizek's noble goal is to provide revolutionary fervor with Lacanian linchpins. To that end, he makes use of what can be made to appear "readymade" from Lacan. Mind you, this is no simple endeavor, and--until you are acclimated--it is anything but simple to understand Zizek's pedagogic simplifications of Lacan. That is truly my only qualm: it seems to me that sometimes Zizek's cultural examples are merely the bare functional rudiments of the Lacanian notion to which they refer, and on rare occasions they may even be found deleterious when compared with what I think I've gleaned from Lacan himself. This is less an aspersion cast on Zizek that an exhortation to you (potential?) readers of Zizek to listen to him when he says "Don't just do something--read Lacan!" Until then, read Zizek.
January 6, 2013
This book is incredibly insightful, not to mention fun. It has example after example of Lacanian concepts taken from movies and novels. The meaning of the object petit a is demonstrated, each time more clearly, and each time being tied in with other aspects of Lacanian psychoanalysis such as the tri-partite structure of experience. (Imaginary/Symbolic/Real) It is not possible to be bored reading this book. Even if what Zizek is talking about in terms of content goes over your head, he will always render some kind of basic summary of his subject. (unlike some philosophers cough* Deleuze cough*)
Excellent.
Excellent.
August 25, 2018
Доволі дотепна книга, яка пояснює лаканівську теорію на прикладах з масової культури. Вона написана в 1991 році, тому розбору на “свіжих” прикладах тут не знайти, Жижек очікувано зосереджений на своєму любимому Гічкоку та film noir. З назви можно зробити висновок, що це такий Лакан для чайників, але це не зовсім так. Бажано все таки мати якесь загальне уявлення про лаканівський психоаналіз: коли мені років десять тому трапився російський переклад цієї книги, я мало що в ньому зрозумів.
November 25, 2022
My problem is that the symbolic order within which i am woven sticks out something uncanny every now and then; a stain within an organized field. Then i can't look straight, i have to look awry. Something uncanny doesn’t fit to the rule,something real doesn’t fit to my language. My language breaks down with nonsensical utterances. And i desire not of the object,but because i desire that's why there's an object. My self is nothing but a movement, it circles around the heat of the real and the real is a hole in my world. I am anxious not because i have lost an object,i am anxious because i am too close to the object.
Zizek is too Zizekian than he realises. From Sherlock Holmes,Hitchcock to Hard boiled detective stories we get to see the Lacanian interpretation everywhere. And this is where Zizek is too zizekian than he realises.
Zizek is too Zizekian than he realises. From Sherlock Holmes,Hitchcock to Hard boiled detective stories we get to see the Lacanian interpretation everywhere. And this is where Zizek is too zizekian than he realises.
April 29, 2023
Overall, my considered opinion is that this book is the intellectual trash of a lightweight thinker, no more than Sunday reading material for an armchair philosopher such as myself. To be quite frank, Zizek cheapens his discourse with his constant references to movies and low-brow, popular and downright 'bad' literature and, while I understand that postmodern discourse seeks to level the high and the low, I feel the inclusion of these materials betrays the fact that his work is overthought and overwritten. The 'philosophy' of this book seems to have been composed by someone who in adolescence was overly committed to watching television reruns throughout the 1970s and 1980s and devised a philosophy, not of the bedroom, but of the 'idiot box'. My takeaway from this book is that the new wrinkle on philosophy called postmodernism reveals itself to be a permutation of existentialism, which itself was natural philosophy understood from the perspective of the spectator; thus, postmodernism is in the existential position of the spectator who cannot move or take any determinate action and is thereby reduced to passivity and must conceive a philosophy of subject-object relations in the form of tense-changes.
This of course does not prevent Zizek from presenting Jacques Lacan as the first postmodernist who foretold that particles on a subatomic level achieve balance in the universe by affecting and regulating spin ratios and thereby and achieving a harmonious balance in a chaotic universe. The fact that, as Lacan's meta-psychology explicitly says, the unconscious is structured like a language of a God who is not dead but instead is unconscious and as such is fundamentally powerless, remaining a presence despite His concurrent absence from our lives... Proceeding further in the books, it appears that in Zizek's postmodern universe, which is ruled by the absence of the Lacanian God, evil escapes the opposition of pleasure and pain and therefore is not to be understood as a negative quality. In my opinion, a philosophy that sees Good as standing for a mask for Evil is a philosophy for people who are seeking to overcome some sort of trauma by constructing a fantasy relationship in their lives that allows them to overcome the self and its overweening burden of guiltiness. I also don't like the way Zizek keeps going back and forth with both Marx and Fraud as if trying to decide if they are suitable ideological counterweights for his arguments, which threaten to become overtly political statements but likewise suffer because their rhetoric is so overwritten that they cannot be taken seriously. Two stars.
This of course does not prevent Zizek from presenting Jacques Lacan as the first postmodernist who foretold that particles on a subatomic level achieve balance in the universe by affecting and regulating spin ratios and thereby and achieving a harmonious balance in a chaotic universe. The fact that, as Lacan's meta-psychology explicitly says, the unconscious is structured like a language of a God who is not dead but instead is unconscious and as such is fundamentally powerless, remaining a presence despite His concurrent absence from our lives... Proceeding further in the books, it appears that in Zizek's postmodern universe, which is ruled by the absence of the Lacanian God, evil escapes the opposition of pleasure and pain and therefore is not to be understood as a negative quality. In my opinion, a philosophy that sees Good as standing for a mask for Evil is a philosophy for people who are seeking to overcome some sort of trauma by constructing a fantasy relationship in their lives that allows them to overcome the self and its overweening burden of guiltiness. I also don't like the way Zizek keeps going back and forth with both Marx and Fraud as if trying to decide if they are suitable ideological counterweights for his arguments, which threaten to become overtly political statements but likewise suffer because their rhetoric is so overwritten that they cannot be taken seriously. Two stars.
April 5, 2018
For Lacan our unconscious is language itself.
The emergence of language opened up a hole in our reality, and this hole shifted the axis of our gaze, language redoubling “reality” back into itself.
Subjects can not communicate with one another (nor even themselves) directly, but only through the signifiers called ‘words’ in a language. Signifiers are neither fixed nor even fully understood by anyone, there is always hidden meaning behind what we say and how it’s said, therefore repression is required for us to assimilate the rules or orders constituting a language.
The subject itself is neither fixed nor transparent and language doesn’t represent the subject passively but turns around and structures the subject. In fact, the subject only comes to be with it’s initiation into language.
Zizek conceives the subject as something purely negative, a void or an emptiness of being (which Lacan refers to as the incomplete, divided, or “barred” subject of the unconscious).
The result of all of this is that communication is never clear or complete, selves are both brought together and separated by language and the subject is subject to demands that remain unfulfilled and desires that are rooted not in the individual but in the symbolic order of which it is a part.
Social reality then is nothing more than a fragile, symbolic cobweb that can at any moment be torn asunder by an intrusion of the real. The real being any traumatic event that shatters our coordinates, i.e. the part that is left over after symbolization, the part that resists symbolization altogether.
Zizek took Lacan’s ideas and applied them to the genealogy of culture and it is here that we should perhaps look for the basic premise of a Freudian theory of culture: all culture is ultimately nothing but a compromise formation, a reaction to some terrifying, radically inhuman dimension proper to the human condition itself. Culture is something we all believe in without realizing we believe in it. What is a cultural lifestyle, if not the fact that, although we don’t believe in Santa Claus, there is a Christmas tree in every house, and even in public places, every December?
Since our desires themselves are rooted in the symbolic order we can use Lacan’s ideas to interpret a text (movie, book, etc.) to see what it presents to us as objects of desire and since language and the symbolic order require repression, Lacan (Zizek) can offer us ways to discover just how the oppressive dynamics of our society actually work.
The emergence of language opened up a hole in our reality, and this hole shifted the axis of our gaze, language redoubling “reality” back into itself.
Subjects can not communicate with one another (nor even themselves) directly, but only through the signifiers called ‘words’ in a language. Signifiers are neither fixed nor even fully understood by anyone, there is always hidden meaning behind what we say and how it’s said, therefore repression is required for us to assimilate the rules or orders constituting a language.
The subject itself is neither fixed nor transparent and language doesn’t represent the subject passively but turns around and structures the subject. In fact, the subject only comes to be with it’s initiation into language.
Zizek conceives the subject as something purely negative, a void or an emptiness of being (which Lacan refers to as the incomplete, divided, or “barred” subject of the unconscious).
The result of all of this is that communication is never clear or complete, selves are both brought together and separated by language and the subject is subject to demands that remain unfulfilled and desires that are rooted not in the individual but in the symbolic order of which it is a part.
Social reality then is nothing more than a fragile, symbolic cobweb that can at any moment be torn asunder by an intrusion of the real. The real being any traumatic event that shatters our coordinates, i.e. the part that is left over after symbolization, the part that resists symbolization altogether.
Zizek took Lacan’s ideas and applied them to the genealogy of culture and it is here that we should perhaps look for the basic premise of a Freudian theory of culture: all culture is ultimately nothing but a compromise formation, a reaction to some terrifying, radically inhuman dimension proper to the human condition itself. Culture is something we all believe in without realizing we believe in it. What is a cultural lifestyle, if not the fact that, although we don’t believe in Santa Claus, there is a Christmas tree in every house, and even in public places, every December?
Since our desires themselves are rooted in the symbolic order we can use Lacan’s ideas to interpret a text (movie, book, etc.) to see what it presents to us as objects of desire and since language and the symbolic order require repression, Lacan (Zizek) can offer us ways to discover just how the oppressive dynamics of our society actually work.
October 30, 2014
This is by no means an "introduction" to Lacan. If you're not already quite familiar with Lacan, then I'd suggest reading something a bit more straightforward and comprehensive than this.
For the most part, this is great; Zizek has a talent for finding illustrations of complex portions of Lacan through a host of pop culture items, including film and literature. Divided into three parts, I found the first part the most interesting and helpful. The second was less so, but still quite interesting, and the third section I found a bit difficult to get through.
Must-read for fans of Zizek in his most fully Lacanian mode.
For the most part, this is great; Zizek has a talent for finding illustrations of complex portions of Lacan through a host of pop culture items, including film and literature. Divided into three parts, I found the first part the most interesting and helpful. The second was less so, but still quite interesting, and the third section I found a bit difficult to get through.
Must-read for fans of Zizek in his most fully Lacanian mode.
January 30, 2021
Acredito que esse livro consegue sintetizar bem a ideia zizekiana de sublimação. É bem-posto em linguagem e dinâmica e tem um bom ritmo, considerado o fator continental. sem dúvidas o leitor sairá com alguns insights interessantes e um pouco mais elucidado em determinados tópicos da teoria psicanalítica.
Contudo, ainda tenho uma extrema ressalva ao que Zizek propõe como um passe lacaniano para a cultura pop/pulp. Na maioria das abordagens, o autor tende a se apoiar em certo empuxo humorístico e realiza gigantesco esforço para embutir conceitos que já são extremamente vertiginosos em pequenas pílulas de cultura pop. O resultado é, sem sombra de dúvidas benigno e democrático, mas na maioria dos casos, um pequeno arranhão na superfície, que raramente se aproxima a qualquer processo de resolução ou sublimação.
Essa tentativa de passagem do complexo pro simples que zizek tenta exercer não me deixa de lembrar dos pequenos livretinhos de misticismo oriental tão popularizados nas Américas. Talvez se trate um pouco do que Lacan fez com Freud: um processo de ressignificação como esforço último para a permanência de algo que talvez não tenha envelhecido muito bem.
Contudo, ainda tenho uma extrema ressalva ao que Zizek propõe como um passe lacaniano para a cultura pop/pulp. Na maioria das abordagens, o autor tende a se apoiar em certo empuxo humorístico e realiza gigantesco esforço para embutir conceitos que já são extremamente vertiginosos em pequenas pílulas de cultura pop. O resultado é, sem sombra de dúvidas benigno e democrático, mas na maioria dos casos, um pequeno arranhão na superfície, que raramente se aproxima a qualquer processo de resolução ou sublimação.
Essa tentativa de passagem do complexo pro simples que zizek tenta exercer não me deixa de lembrar dos pequenos livretinhos de misticismo oriental tão popularizados nas Américas. Talvez se trate um pouco do que Lacan fez com Freud: um processo de ressignificação como esforço último para a permanência de algo que talvez não tenha envelhecido muito bem.
May 7, 2020
Eser, ünlü yönetmen Alfred Hitchcock'un filmlerinin psikanaliz ve Lacancı yöntemle irdelenişini, Sloven yazarın konuyla ilgili göndermelerde bulunduğu bazı Amerikan romancı ve öykücülerin kahramanlarının bilinçdışı gerçekliğe, başka bir deyişle "öteki"ye karşı semptomlarının bir dizi yorumlamalarını kapsamaktadır. Bu kitabı okuduktan sonra Hitchcock'un filmleri anlam bağlamında daha da derinleşecek, ünlü yönetmenin filmlerinde kullandığı başat nesneler çoğu zaman hedef şaşırtıcı bir imge olmaktan öteye gidemeyecektir. Bazı filmlerinden izlediğim kadarıyla (Sapık, Yükseklik Korkusu, Kuşlar ve Trendeki Yabancı) Žižek, bazı sahneleri (örnek verecek olursak Sapık filminde Lila'nın Norman'ın annesinin evine giderken çekilen iki kare: İlkinde ev öyle bir açıdan çekilmiştir ki hem ortamla hem de gerilimin rengiyle bütünleşmiştir. İkincisinde de Lila'nın çekinerek basamakları çıkması yine farklı bir açıdan mükemmel yansıtılmıştır.) ustaca yorumlamış, deyim yerindeyse "Yamuk" bakmıştır.
Kitabın bir kısmı Lacan'ın psikanaliz anlayışını ve teoremlerini daha iyi özümsemiş insanların kavrayabileceği derin terminolojiler ve anlamlandırmalar içerir. Ben şahsen Jacques Lacan'ı yüzeysel bildiğimden bu kısımları kitabın sonunda bulunan sözlük bölümünden yardım alarak zorlukla okudum ancak nitelikli bir Lacan okumasıyla bu zorluklar aşılabilir düzeyde olacaktır.
Ayrıca vakti zamanında okuduğum Stephen King'in "İt", "Rüya Avcısı" ve "Medyum" romanları (tıpkı Patricia Highsmith'in Karanlık Ev öyküsündeki gibi); kahramanların bilinçaltına hükmeden izbe ve uğursuz malikaneleri (Palyaço'nun kök saldığı ev, Jonesy ve arkadaşlarının fantazi mekanı olan eski okul binası), esrarlı odaları (237 numaralı oda), Žižek'in yorumlamaları ile daha bir anlam kazanmış oldu.
Öte yandan Žižek, modernizm ile postmodernizm arasındaki ilişkiye zorunlu bir tarihsel süreç olarak bakmaz. Onları zaman zaman birbirine içkin şekilde yorumlar. Bunu da Kafka'nın tematik doğrusallığıyla ve Joyce'un şifreli anlatımları ile gösterir.
Kitabın bir kısmı Lacan'ın psikanaliz anlayışını ve teoremlerini daha iyi özümsemiş insanların kavrayabileceği derin terminolojiler ve anlamlandırmalar içerir. Ben şahsen Jacques Lacan'ı yüzeysel bildiğimden bu kısımları kitabın sonunda bulunan sözlük bölümünden yardım alarak zorlukla okudum ancak nitelikli bir Lacan okumasıyla bu zorluklar aşılabilir düzeyde olacaktır.
Ayrıca vakti zamanında okuduğum Stephen King'in "İt", "Rüya Avcısı" ve "Medyum" romanları (tıpkı Patricia Highsmith'in Karanlık Ev öyküsündeki gibi); kahramanların bilinçaltına hükmeden izbe ve uğursuz malikaneleri (Palyaço'nun kök saldığı ev, Jonesy ve arkadaşlarının fantazi mekanı olan eski okul binası), esrarlı odaları (237 numaralı oda), Žižek'in yorumlamaları ile daha bir anlam kazanmış oldu.
Öte yandan Žižek, modernizm ile postmodernizm arasındaki ilişkiye zorunlu bir tarihsel süreç olarak bakmaz. Onları zaman zaman birbirine içkin şekilde yorumlar. Bunu da Kafka'nın tematik doğrusallığıyla ve Joyce'un şifreli anlatımları ile gösterir.
May 31, 2020
Жижек зробив філософію Лакана вкрай цікавою та наглядною. Все ж, вивчати філософію через популярну культуру - окремий вид задоволення. Тільки от не певна, чи зрозуміла я все. Перегляну фільми Гічкока (прикладів, пов'язаних з його фільмами, найбільше) і обов'язково перечитаю. :)
July 30, 2018
Have read this before so this time just came back to reread the extended analyses of crime-noir, film-noir, and Hitchcock films.
March 23, 2024
(3.9)
December 31, 2008
This is one of the most fascinating books I've read in a while. Zizek does for "serious" contemporary philosophy what no one has before: he makes it reasonably accessible and super interesting. But Zizek is not someone whose express goal it is to make the works of a giant like Lacan accessible to the public at large, but more to further explicate Zizek's own philosophy (two parts Lacan, two parts Hegel, one part Marx), which is not on the surface in this book, but is always just under the surface. Much of the work in this book finds itself reworked in Zizek's self-professed tour de force, The Parallax View. That being said, it is Zizek's goal to make Zizek's philosophy, while perhaps not "immediately accessible" to the public at large, at least clear enough that someone with an acquaintance with 20th C. Continental Philsophy would have a good chance at wrapping his/her mind around it. At least more accessible than anyone like Derrida, Deleuze or even Lacan himself ever tried to make their work.
Anyone with a passing interest and some knowledge of contemporary philosophy/psychoanalysis vis a vis Lacan should read this. Zizek's primary goal here is not to make Lacan accessible in some kind of systematic way but to elucidate the work of mainly Hitchcock (as well as some others including the entire mystery genre of fiction as well as a little Stephen King) via Lacan. One gets the impression that wherever Zizek casts his net, he would reel in Lacan. The effect does not seem contrived but rather that Lacan does indeed pervade cinema and fiction if not our lives more generally.
Anyone with a passing interest and some knowledge of contemporary philosophy/psychoanalysis vis a vis Lacan should read this. Zizek's primary goal here is not to make Lacan accessible in some kind of systematic way but to elucidate the work of mainly Hitchcock (as well as some others including the entire mystery genre of fiction as well as a little Stephen King) via Lacan. One gets the impression that wherever Zizek casts his net, he would reel in Lacan. The effect does not seem contrived but rather that Lacan does indeed pervade cinema and fiction if not our lives more generally.
March 22, 2014
This is a very interesting and provocative read. Lacan's theories are nothing if not provocative. Parts of this book are pure intellectual joy! However, it is not an introduction as the title states. To truly appreciate this book, readers must know their Freud well beyond what is taught in Psych 101. One must have seen about a dozen Hitchcock films to truly appreciate this introduction, particularly Psycho, The Birds, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Strangers on a Train, The 39 Steps, and Rope. If you are a Hitchcock fan, and have a good memory for the plots and shots of his movies, you will probably appreciate this book a lot once you familiarize yourself with Lacan's and Freud's theories. You will probably even experience jouissance!
February 23, 2016
I'm just beginning to delve in to Lacan and want to read more before I make any comments other than I really enjoyed this book and am committed to reading it again after it gestates in my unknowable Thing. And after I read a couple of Lacan's books and do some more Googling. In other words, Lacan is sort of my project for 2016. I am a lucky 73 year old man to have good health and a spouse that lets me read all day.
April 15, 2019
کژ نگریستن را نباید مقدمه‌ای بر لاکان دانست، بل‌که باید کاربست لاکان در سینمای هیچکاک، ادبیات و فرهنگ عامه دانست. نتیجتا به میزان آشنایی با مصادیق مورد بحث، کتاب می‌تواند لذت‌بخش و مفید باشد
July 22, 2021
کتاب کژنگریستن مقدمه‌ای است بر ژاک لاکان. برام سوال شد که چرا این مقدمه به زور فیلم و داستان نوشته شده؟ بسیاری از مفاهیمِ ساده‌فهم میان مثال‌های کتاب الکی پیچیده شده بودند. اگه کسی در زبان فارسی درباره لکان کنجکاو باشه، احتمالاً به واسطه‌ی اسم ژیژک و صالح نجفی با این کتاب و کتاب‌های مشابه که در زمینه‌ی نظریات لکان در علوم اجتماعی و سینما و ادبیات هستند آشنا میشه. شخصاً مطالعه‌ی روانکاوی به کمک مثال‌های بالینی رو، با فاصله‌ی خیلی زیاد، ترجیح میدم. اما متاسفانه کتاب‌های ترجمه شده درباره‌ی بحث بالینی لکان بسیار کم هستند و در عین حال آشنا شدن از طریق اتاق درمان تجربه‌ی بسیار متفاوتی از فهم روانکاوی رو در اختیار خواننده قرار میده. اگر از مسیر اول (علوم اجتماعی و سینما و ادبیات) با روانکاوی مواجه شدید و سرخورده شدید، توصیه میکنم مسیر دوم رو به عنوان تجربه‌ای متفاوت به هیچ وجه نادیده نگیرید.
December 9, 2022
A Žižek lo he leído, más que nada, como lector de Lacan. Acá, más que un Lacan a través de la cultura popular, es un Lacan hitchockiano y un Hitchcock lacaniano. Con segundo, queda clara la teoría lacaniana, pero siempre hay algo en sus libros que no logro comprender. Quizá se deba a cierto excedente obsceno que no logro integrar a mi universo simbólico y que, al seguir leyéndolo, no estoy más que entregándome a un goce omimoso y abrazando mi sinthome y la propia incomodidad ambigua del plus-de-jouir. No sé
July 12, 2020
Kafalar pırıl pırıl :)
October 30, 2022
By “Pop Culture” the title means Hitchcock.
April 29, 2022
While I love a good Žižek riff, this book feels like 170 pages of Žižek riffing. And don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of good riffs in here, I’m just also not convinced he didn’t sit down to write this book in one sitting. Far from being an “introduction to Lacan,” Žižek never really contextualizes the theory (or most of the pop culture examples), which makes it pretty hard to follow if you are unfamiliar with the particular concept or reference. However, Žižek shreds, so when the riffs hit, they hit.
December 14, 2019
Mostly about Hitchcock movies, with some other cultural artifacts to explore Lacan. I doubt if anyone could learn much about Lacan, though, from this book.
One gem for me, though, was this comparison of 'new social movements' and 'democracy':
"Today, we can perceive this affinity of democracy with "alienated" Gesellschaft in the so-called 'new social movements': ecology, feminism, the peace movement. They differ from traditional political movements (parties) by a certain self-limitation, the reverse side of which is a certain surplus; they want at the same time "less" and "more" than the traditional parties. That is to say, the 'new social movements' are reluctant to enter the routine political struggle, they continually emphasize their unwillingness to become political parties like the others, they exempt themselves from the sphere of the struggle for power. At the same time, however, they make it clear that their aim is much more radical than that of the ordinary political parties: what they are striving after is a fundamental transformation of the entire mode of action and belief, a change in the 'life paradigm' affecting our most intimate attitudes. They offer, for example, a new attitude toward nature, which would no longer be that of domination but rather that of a dialogic interplay; against aggressive 'masculine' reason, they stand for a pluralistic, 'soft,' 'feminine' rationality, etc. In other words, it is not possible to be an ecologist or feminist in quite the same way as one can be a conservative or a social democrat in a Western formal democracy. What is at stake in the former case is not just a political belief but an entire life attitude. And such a project of radical change in the 'life paradigm,' once formulated as a political program, necessarily undermines the very foundations of formal democracy. The antagonism between formal democracy and the 'new social movements' is irreducible, which is why this antagonism has to be fully assumed and not eluded by means of utopian projects for a 'concrete democracy' which would absorb the whole diversity of the so-called 'life-world' (p.100).
I don't know what it means for democracy or new social movements, but the sheer number of scare-quotes suggests that there is something there.
One gem for me, though, was this comparison of 'new social movements' and 'democracy':
"Today, we can perceive this affinity of democracy with "alienated" Gesellschaft in the so-called 'new social movements': ecology, feminism, the peace movement. They differ from traditional political movements (parties) by a certain self-limitation, the reverse side of which is a certain surplus; they want at the same time "less" and "more" than the traditional parties. That is to say, the 'new social movements' are reluctant to enter the routine political struggle, they continually emphasize their unwillingness to become political parties like the others, they exempt themselves from the sphere of the struggle for power. At the same time, however, they make it clear that their aim is much more radical than that of the ordinary political parties: what they are striving after is a fundamental transformation of the entire mode of action and belief, a change in the 'life paradigm' affecting our most intimate attitudes. They offer, for example, a new attitude toward nature, which would no longer be that of domination but rather that of a dialogic interplay; against aggressive 'masculine' reason, they stand for a pluralistic, 'soft,' 'feminine' rationality, etc. In other words, it is not possible to be an ecologist or feminist in quite the same way as one can be a conservative or a social democrat in a Western formal democracy. What is at stake in the former case is not just a political belief but an entire life attitude. And such a project of radical change in the 'life paradigm,' once formulated as a political program, necessarily undermines the very foundations of formal democracy. The antagonism between formal democracy and the 'new social movements' is irreducible, which is why this antagonism has to be fully assumed and not eluded by means of utopian projects for a 'concrete democracy' which would absorb the whole diversity of the so-called 'life-world' (p.100).
I don't know what it means for democracy or new social movements, but the sheer number of scare-quotes suggests that there is something there.
January 5, 2023
I'd say the first 3/4 of the book is very good but as it continues it seems that Zizek is less concerned with explaining Lacan so much as using Lacan to grind his own axe, so to speak. I'll likely re-read this very soon and take some notes while I do so. Lots of terminology and concepts to keep track of, which also was probably why the latter bit of the book was pretty difficult to follow.
May 17, 2020
Mirando al sesgo. Una introducción a Jacques Lacan a través de la cultura popular, del filósofo esloveno Slavoj Zizek (1949) es, como todos los libros de este autor, un libro entretenido y complejo de leer. Un libro que antecede a Pandemia, el último libro del autor y, que a su vez, lo contiene. Un libro de Zizek es, sintéticamente, todos los libros de Zizek.
Entretiene tanto por sus referencias a la cultura popular, como por su original reinterpretación de las lógicas que atraviesan los discursos literarios, cinematográficos y de las artes plásticas con la lógica del discurso psicoanalítico, específicamente, como lo indica el subtítulo de esta obra, con el discurso lacaniano.
En este sentido, el capítulo sobre la transición del policial clásico al policial negro, interpretado como un cambio de época, y su relación con la actividad lógico interpretativa del psicoanálisis, es de los más logrados del libro.
Después, ya sabemos, Zizek adora el cine de Hitchcock, y aquí hallamos una nueva versión de “todo lo que usted siempre quiso saber sobre Lacan y nunca se atrevió a preguntarle a Alfred Hitchcock”.
Hallamos en la segunda parte del libro una detallada explicación tanto de las posibilidades narrativas del travelling como del sonido que ambienta una película, hasta la explicación de conceptos claves del discurso psicoanalítico como el deseo, el Otro, el acecho de lo Real y la realidad.
Por otra parte, este es un libro complejo porque aquí, como generalmente hace en el resto de su obra, Zizek traduce la teoría psicoanalítica lacaniana al plano político. La pregunta por el sujeto de la democracia, clave en el último capítulo del libro, traduce la concepción de sujeto vacío en busca de una identidad en la contradicción que hace de la democracia moderna un sistema político abierto acechado tanto por el totalitarismo como por el fantasma de una sociedad neurótica.
Entretiene tanto por sus referencias a la cultura popular, como por su original reinterpretación de las lógicas que atraviesan los discursos literarios, cinematográficos y de las artes plásticas con la lógica del discurso psicoanalítico, específicamente, como lo indica el subtítulo de esta obra, con el discurso lacaniano.
En este sentido, el capítulo sobre la transición del policial clásico al policial negro, interpretado como un cambio de época, y su relación con la actividad lógico interpretativa del psicoanálisis, es de los más logrados del libro.
Después, ya sabemos, Zizek adora el cine de Hitchcock, y aquí hallamos una nueva versión de “todo lo que usted siempre quiso saber sobre Lacan y nunca se atrevió a preguntarle a Alfred Hitchcock”.
Hallamos en la segunda parte del libro una detallada explicación tanto de las posibilidades narrativas del travelling como del sonido que ambienta una película, hasta la explicación de conceptos claves del discurso psicoanalítico como el deseo, el Otro, el acecho de lo Real y la realidad.
Por otra parte, este es un libro complejo porque aquí, como generalmente hace en el resto de su obra, Zizek traduce la teoría psicoanalítica lacaniana al plano político. La pregunta por el sujeto de la democracia, clave en el último capítulo del libro, traduce la concepción de sujeto vacío en busca de una identidad en la contradicción que hace de la democracia moderna un sistema político abierto acechado tanto por el totalitarismo como por el fantasma de una sociedad neurótica.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews