I wish to distinguish the dialectical and the ontological Zizek from the psychoanalytical Zizek. The psychoanalytical Zizek with his dogmatic Lacanianism constitutes a monstrous regression in thinking, back to pre-Deleuzian times. The dialectical and ontological Zizek contributes interesting ideas both to the contemporary debate and to our vision of recent philosophical history.
In this video Aaron Schuster gives an interesting analysis of the relation between Deleuze and Lacan, and shows some openness despite his declared preference for Lacan. However, in the discussion after with Zizek things begin to close down.
Zizek even goes so far as to declare “I will never pardon in Deleuze his defence of Jung”. In fact, he will not pardon Deleuze’s freedom of spirit.
How long will those interested in Continental philosophy go on imitating or repeating the closed-minded dogmatism of these thinkers along with their strong points?
Zizek does not even need Lacan as a source for his conceptual creations. He needs Lacan in a second time as a replacement for argument. Instead of arguing for his ideas and theses (and admitting sharing a lot with Deleuze) Zizek “finds” them in Lacan, QED. Those who differ are condemned tautologically as non-Lacanian.
Every time Zizek mentions Jung he turns him into a symbol of the closed and harmonious totality that he supposedly rejects. More deeply, Jung is a symbol of the openness, disunity and pluralism that Zizek flees, preferring the closed little unified world of retro-French Theory.
Zizek prefers to stay in his comfort zone, he does not speak in his own name, he proclaims anachronistically “we Lacanians” think this thing or that, at best pouring new wine into old bottles.
Schuster timidly replies to Zizek that although of course he rejects Jung there are some good points that he raises. But the moment of openness has been lost, and the discussion remains in the same closed circles.