<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Grayling reviews Žižek</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.voyou.org/2008/06/27/grayling-reviews-zizek/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.voyou.org/2008/06/27/grayling-reviews-zizek/</link>
	<description>Lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:46:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: voyou</title>
		<link>http://blog.voyou.org/2008/06/27/grayling-reviews-zizek/comment-page-1/#comment-30803</link>
		<dc:creator>voyou</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:43:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.voyou.org/?p=196#comment-30803</guid>
		<description>Well, the main problem I had with Grayling&#039;s review is that Žižek has a specific argument in favor of describing both &quot;a low wage and being shot in the head&quot; as violent (basically, that calling the latter violence but not the former serves as an implicit justification of the former; Grayling&#039;s review itself is an example of this, I think). So, when Grayling says &quot;these two things are different,&quot; he&#039;s not making any kind of useful criticism of Žižek; he&#039;s just asserting the opposite. Hence the link to the Monty Python video.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, the main problem I had with Grayling&#8217;s review is that Žižek has a specific argument in favor of describing both &#8220;a low wage and being shot in the head&#8221; as violent (basically, that calling the latter violence but not the former serves as an implicit justification of the former; Grayling&#8217;s review itself is an example of this, I think). So, when Grayling says &#8220;these two things are different,&#8221; he&#8217;s not making any kind of useful criticism of Žižek; he&#8217;s just asserting the opposite. Hence the link to the Monty Python video.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nate</title>
		<link>http://blog.voyou.org/2008/06/27/grayling-reviews-zizek/comment-page-1/#comment-30800</link>
		<dc:creator>Nate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:31:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.voyou.org/?p=196#comment-30800</guid>
		<description>If y&#039;all say Grayling misses nuance then I&#039;ll accept it as I&#039;m the novice in the room, but I&#039;d like to know what the missed nuance is  - as opposed to quibbling over Zizek&#039;s disciplinary home or whether he is postmodern or not, the latter is particularly forgivable I think given the vagaries of the use of that term in different parts of universities and given some of the sources Zizek draws on and engaged with. 

I think the point makes sense that over-use of the word violence is trivializing and obscurantist. For instance, having bailed out of comparative literature I hope I never again have to hear anyone speak of the violence that language does to the subject or similar phrases. 

Again I don&#039;t know much about Zizek (though I&#039;ve yet to see much that makes me want to) so I&#039;ll defer to those who do, but the review seems pretty cogent to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If y&#8217;all say Grayling misses nuance then I&#8217;ll accept it as I&#8217;m the novice in the room, but I&#8217;d like to know what the missed nuance is  &#8211; as opposed to quibbling over Zizek&#8217;s disciplinary home or whether he is postmodern or not, the latter is particularly forgivable I think given the vagaries of the use of that term in different parts of universities and given some of the sources Zizek draws on and engaged with. </p>
<p>I think the point makes sense that over-use of the word violence is trivializing and obscurantist. For instance, having bailed out of comparative literature I hope I never again have to hear anyone speak of the violence that language does to the subject or similar phrases. </p>
<p>Again I don&#8217;t know much about Zizek (though I&#8217;ve yet to see much that makes me want to) so I&#8217;ll defer to those who do, but the review seems pretty cogent to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: voyou</title>
		<link>http://blog.voyou.org/2008/06/27/grayling-reviews-zizek/comment-page-1/#comment-30095</link>
		<dc:creator>voyou</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 05:31:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.voyou.org/?p=196#comment-30095</guid>
		<description>I think calling him a sociologist is another warning sign. I guess given his academic affiliation it&#039;s technically true, but I can&#039;t imagine describing any of his work as &quot;sociology.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think calling him a sociologist is another warning sign. I guess given his academic affiliation it&#8217;s technically true, but I can&#8217;t imagine describing any of his work as &#8220;sociology.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tyler</title>
		<link>http://blog.voyou.org/2008/06/27/grayling-reviews-zizek/comment-page-1/#comment-30079</link>
		<dc:creator>Tyler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.voyou.org/?p=196#comment-30079</guid>
		<description>1. The fact that he associates Zizek&#039;s name with post-modernism is an immediate red-flag that this reviewer has absolutely no familiarity with Z.&#039;s position, or perhaps is simply relying on that terms common pejorative connotation. 

2. Why must every single introductory article on Zizek use the &quot;Elvis of theory/postmodernism/cultural criticism&quot; trope? It would be interesting to know who we should ultimately blame for this one. I think we can safely distrust anyone who uses this cliche.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1. The fact that he associates Zizek&#8217;s name with post-modernism is an immediate red-flag that this reviewer has absolutely no familiarity with Z.&#8217;s position, or perhaps is simply relying on that terms common pejorative connotation. </p>
<p>2. Why must every single introductory article on Zizek use the &#8220;Elvis of theory/postmodernism/cultural criticism&#8221; trope? It would be interesting to know who we should ultimately blame for this one. I think we can safely distrust anyone who uses this cliche.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Kotsko</title>
		<link>http://blog.voyou.org/2008/06/27/grayling-reviews-zizek/comment-page-1/#comment-29955</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Kotsko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:10:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.voyou.org/?p=196#comment-29955</guid>
		<description>But he says in the review itself that Zizek distinguishes between subjective and objective violence!

These fucking people...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But he says in the review itself that Zizek distinguishes between subjective and objective violence!</p>
<p>These fucking people&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
