Jordoj Peterzek: Zizek and Peterson as fellow Jungians

I have often argued that Slavoj Zizek, despite his explicit Lacanianism, is unconsciously a Jungian. His particular version of « Lacan » is so influenced by his reading of Deleuze and Derrida and many others that it does not correspond to any independently identifiable figure.

Zizek’s Lacan is not the Lacan-1 of the imaginary nor the Lacan-2 of the symbolic, nor even the Lacan-3 of the real, but is a singular creation of Zizek’s that we may call Lacan-Z. It is « Lacan » enriched by Zizek’s whole theoretical trajectory, including his increasing proximity to Deleuzian ideas.

Lacan-Z is the product of what Zizek has called the « Lacan-Deleuze pact ».

Zizek projects this conceptual character backwards and outwards as the origin and source of his reflexions, but Lacan-Z is Zizek’s retroactive phantasm just as Peterson-Z is demonstrably Zizek’s phantasm of what a modern day Jungian must be: an ideologue complicit with the extreme right.

If Zizek could become conscious of his own scotomised Jungianism instead of projecting and demonising it in others perhaps the conditions for a fruitful dialogue with a thinker like Jordan Peterson would be realised.

The desirability and timeliness of this potential dialogue between Zizek and Peterson, and a possible synthesis of the two, is the object of this video by Cadell Last:

Cet article a été publié dans Uncategorized. Ajoutez ce permalien à vos favoris.

3 commentaires pour Jordoj Peterzek: Zizek and Peterson as fellow Jungians

  1. KMehishi dit :

    « an ideologue complicit with the extreme right. »
    I’ll admit to being really confused here.
    Not only I don’t remember Zizek even mentioning Peterson’s jungianism once (although he would of course take issue with that too), I see nothing wrong with him pointing out that Peterson has become a darling of the alt-right. It’s a simple fact, even if you put aside Peterson’s own conservatism.
    And Zizek is clear that although Peterson is terribly wrong-headed in more ways than one, he does adress real issues, and points to real problems within the left.

    « a fruitful dialogue with a thinker like Jordan Peterson »
    … How? Peterson is a guy who constantly keeps repeating how marxists are totalitarian apologists who should be ashamed of themselves, thinks communists deserve to be punched, and supports conspiracy theories about « cultural marxism ».
    How would you get him to have any meaning conversation with an unapologetic leninist like Zizek?

    Aimé par 1 personne

  2. landzek dit :

    That is so cool. Thanks again Terrence. I have never heard of Peterson guy but I’m going to have to look into him.

    Interestingly enough in the book that I’m working on that will probably be completed hopefully well it must be completed by August, I referred to the ZLH platform. 😊. And my point is is that there is no Hagel that anyone can know of neither Lacan, neither really is there a Zizek that I speak about through my book. Basically no matter how thoroughly I might read Hegel anything that I have to say about him is ultimately me saying stuff about him.

    I might also add something that I have said before elsewhere, I think one time as a response to one of your posts.

    One way to see what a thing is is to attack it. Of course we can approach slowly and we can discover the contours of it outside and then bit by bit take it apart piece by piece and look at the park and then look at the inside of the tree and then analyze the leaves in at some point come to this whole mess of what a tree actually is. But another kind approach is kind of like a friend of mine calls “throwing spaghetti on the wall”. What I call throwing hand grenade into the room. What you get is a whole series of various responses and reactions which define the parameters of the room along with everything that was in it, and I’ve kind of found that what happens is I get to stand back and get the lay out while everyone else is reacting and complaining and rebutting, and generally freaking out. Lol

    But I think it might be that that is a certain measure of what truth is being spoken, The more offended people get by it and the more reactionary they become, The more truth contained.

    As always again Terrence, we just keep our heads down and we do the work and through various types of interaction we help each other and move forward and one where another so thank you.


  3. landzek dit :

    The Zizek-jungian thing:
    I think the significance of the ZLH is that there is no getting outside of it because every occurrence serves to evidence what is Real:the impossible event that establishes the significance of the functioning of the symbolic thru the imaginary: everything is a significant event. Zs philosophy accounts for every contingency, makes sense of every event, as an event. It is thereby not merely a casting of a theory upon some ‘human subjects’ but an actual total description of what Deluze only ‘fictionalizes’ in philosophic-spiritual-poetry. Perhaps you are correct with Z being more Jungian that he likes to admit.


Votre commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:


Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Google. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s