From: Parker, I. (2004) Slavoj iek: A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto Press.

INTRODUCTION SOMETHING RETROACTIVE AND SOME ANTICIPATION Let us start with a typical i!ek "oke, which is #rom the e$%&erman 'emocratic (epu)lic: * &erman worker +ets a "o) in ,i)eria. *ware o# how all mail will )e read )y censors, he tells his #riends -Let.s esta)lish a code. I# a letter you will +et #rom me is written in ordinary )lue ink it is true. I# it is written in red ink it is #alse.. *#ter a month his #riends +et the #irst letter #rom ,i)eria, written in )lue ink, where they are a)le to read -/0erythin+ is wonder#ul here in ,i)eria. ,tores are #ull. Food is a)undant. *partments are lar+e, properly heated. 1o0ie theatres show 2estern mo0ies. 3here are many )eauti#ul +irls ready #or an a##air. 3he only thin+ una0aila)le in stores is red ink.. I.0e heard i!ek tell this "oke to introduce papers se0eral times in the last #ew years 4 this 0ersion is #rom a talk in London in 5une 2002 4 and it is not surprisin+ that this should )e one o# his #a0ourite openin+ +am)its. 2hy6 3here are at least si$ reasons. First, the "oke is set in old supposedly%communist /astern /urope, which is the settin+ #or many o# i!ek.s anecdotes and which is also the +roundin+ #or how he understands the connection )etween cynicism and state power. 3here is a 7uestion here a)out how the +ames we play with the state #all so 7uickly into the +ames the state is playin+ with us. ,econd, the "oke plays with themes #rom 8e+el, a #i+ure not well%known #or his "okes, and works throu+h some characteristic 8e+elian dialectical re0ersals9 two key points here )ein+ that you only +et where you want to +o throu+h startin+ with a re#usal, ne+ati0ity, and that you can only speak the truth )y re#le$i0ely includin+ yoursel# in it. 3hird, it is a "oke that Freud would ha0e lo0ed. For psychoanalysis, "okes are one o# the ways that you can tell the truth, )ut sa#ely wrapped up in somethin+ else, and a)le to deli0er a char+e o# en"oyment at the end9 and #or Lacan, one o# the +reatest Freudian psychoanalysts, it shows us that you only +et to the truth )y )ein+ a)le to tell lies. Fourth, it draws attention to the nature o# censorship in ideolo+y that is in line with i!ek.s use o# 1ar$ist theory9 the +uy in the "oke is not at all deluded into a kind o# -#alse consciousness. a)out the deli+hts o# ,talinist #ake%socialism9 rather, he knows 0ery well what he is doin+ )ut he does it anyway, and he still #inds a way to resist. Fi#th, this "oke shows us somethin+ a)out the style o# i!ek.s writin+. :ou think you are )ein+ told one thin+, and then it chan+es into the opposite. ,uch sudden shi#ts #rom one #rame to another o#ten make the underlyin+ structure o# his ar+ument di##icult to +rasp, so when you hear stories #rom i!ek you also need to notice how he tells them. ,i$th, you need to know now that almost all o# i!ek.s work is written in red ink: 8is selecti0e readin+ o# 8e+el is only one take on this 0ery comple$ contradictory philosophical system9 he picks up notions #rom Lacan and wil#ully applies them "ust as he likes9 and althou+h he uses ideas #rom 1ar$ he is not a 1ar$ist at all. 3his )ook co0ers what you need to know to read i!ek. 3he )ook does not repeat what he says a)out this or that topic, and it does not tell you e$actly what his position is. 3his is )ecause his inter0entions around di##erent issues are inconsistent and his theoretical position is contradictory. 2hat I can do is show you the #ield o# conceptual

and political re#erence points that or+anise his writin+. 3hen you can at least know where he is comin+ #rom and understand )etter the terrain o# de)ate he is mo0in+ around. i!ek is a scholar and acti0ist. 8e was )orn in L"u)l"ana in ;<4<, studied philosophy there and )ecame one o# the leadin+ #i+ures in the mo0ement #or the independence o# ,lo0enia. 8is +roundin+ in &erman philosophy was #uelled )y an encounter with French psychoanalysis and i+nited )y political stru++les in the ;<=0s as :u+osla0ia disinte+rated. 3his +i0es his writin+ on theories o# ideolo+y and su)"ecti0ity an ur+ent cuttin+%ed+e character that throws recei0ed wisdoms into 7uestion and opens up a space to think and act a+ainst contemporary capitalism. I ha0e to tell you now that this )ook is not as en"oya)le or #unny as i!ek.s writin+, )ut perhaps a#ter readin+ this you will not so easily )e sidetracked or swept alon+ )y his anecdotes and "okes. *nd then, when you know what he is doin+ you will )e in a )etter position to make your own assessment o# his ar+uments. Instead o# )ein+ )ewitched )y him you can notice )etter how he puts to+ether his per#ormance #or us. i!ek )urst onto the world academic sta+e with commentaries and inter0entions in politics and psychoanalysis, with power#ul e$amples o# the way an understandin+ o# those two domains could )e dialectically intertwined and powered throu+h a close readin+ o# &erman philosophy. i!ek.s academic per#ormance has also drawn attention #rom a wider intellectual audience, and this has +i0en him the opportunity to ela)orate some comple$ conceptual machinery that can )e applied to music, theolo+y, 0irtual reality, and, it would seem, 0irtually any other cultural phenomenon. 8is writin+ appeared at an opportune moment, o##erin+ a new 0oca)ulary #or thinkin+ throu+h how ideolo+y +rips its su)"ects. ieks sublime objec s 8is #irst ma"or work #or an /n+lish%speakin+ audience was The Sublime Object of Ideology, pu)lished in ;<=< in a )ook series edited )y /rnesto Laclau and >hantal 1ou##e. 3his was one o# the #irst important reasons why people turned to i!ek, #or his e$perience o# theoretical and practical stru++le in ,lo0enia was ela)orated into richly%te$tured analyses o# popular culture with a sharp political ed+e. It is clear #rom Laclau.s pre#ace to the )ook that he hoped i!ek would )e recruited, i# only temporarily, to a political pro"ect o# post%mar$ist -radical democracy. which would sol0e the crisis o# le#t politics )y )lendin+ aspects o# post%structuralism with pra+matism. -Post%structuralism. is a portmanteau term, promisin+ to +o )eyond the mere selection and com)ination o# ideas #rom an assortment o# French writers, many o# whom i!ek actually takes to task. 3he pra+matism in the radical democratic pro"ect owes more to a typically ?, *merican optimistic en+a+ement with chan+in+ the world in a way that lea0es any traces o# history well )ehind than with classical 1ar$ism, and i!ek has since distanced himsel# #rom this pro"ect. 3he alliance with Laclau and 1ou##e, prominent #i+ures in the turn to discourse in @ritish politics, was e0entually to come to +rie#, )ut it did launch i!ek as a key theoretical player in these de)ates. 1any readers then #ound themsel0es )ewitched and #ascinated )y some thin+ inside his #irst )ook 4 somethin+ like the -su)lime o)"ect. itsel# 4 that they could not +rasp. @ut they also knew it mi+ht hold the key to how su)"ects are held in thrall )y ideolo+y at the 0ery same moment that they ima+ine that they ha0e escaped it. For They no! "ot #hat They $o: %njoyment a& a 'olitical Factor appeared in the same

series two years later (in ;<<;) and )y this time the attraction to i!ek was already operatin+ #airly e##iciently as a political #actor in the en"oyment o# a +rowin+ readership o# le#tist cultural theorists. 3his second )ook (he then claimed) is the te$t o# lectures ser0in+ as an introductory course on Lacan to the ,lo0ene ,ociety #or 3heoretical Psychoanalysis (in ;<=<%;<<0), rooted in the political process accompanyin+ the )reak%up o# :u+osla0ia and leadin+ up to the #irst -#ree. elections in ,lo0enia. It takes as its task to trace a "ourney #rom 8e+el to an analysis o# the transition #rom 3ito%,talinist rule to nationalist%populism. *lon+side the political analyses in i!ek.s work, then, there was another power#ul reason #or readin+ i!ek9 he pro0ided a way o# e$plainin+ how concepts #rom Lacanian psychoanalysis could )e put to work in readin+ popular culture. 1uch more, o# course, is entailed )y i!ek.s analyses, which take as e$amples "okes, no0els and #ilms, and the popular audience #or his writin+ was shortly therea#ter secured with three introductions to Lacan throu+h readin+s o# 8itchcock and other 8ollywood productions. 3hese three )ooks 4 (ooking A!ry, %njoy )our Sym*tom and the edited %verything )ou Al!ay& #anted to no! about (acan +,ut #ere Afraid to A&k -itchcock. 4 appeared in 7uick succession, and ha0e drawn in a readership peerin+ in to the )ooks a little con#used, en"oyin+ what they read, )ut still rather a#raid to ask what it is all a)out, and what i!ek is a)out. 3he ener+y and enthusiasm with which he writes has itsel# )ecome an o)"ect o# intense attention and discussion amon+ admirers and detractors. 3he erratic 7uality o# his speech in inter0iews, seminars and con#erence presentations is also present to the reader in the rapid shi#t #rom theme to theme in articles and in the pace o# production o# his )ooks. 3he stories that circulate a)out his sta) at psychoanalysis with 5ac7ues *lain%1iller #or a year without sayin+ anythin+ that would +i0e him away, and his re#usal to do any administrati0e work connected with academic appointments are indicati0e at least o# what many people ima+ine they are readin+ when they +et drawn into i!ek.s work. 3here was, we mi+ht say, a -symptomatic. ima+e o# i!ek, #or e$ample, in 200; durin+ an appearance on a @@> (adio 4 talk pro+ramme, when he was asked, )y way o# a link #rom the pre0ious item, whether he would 0isit a particular +allery e$hi)ition. 8e immediately replied that -no. he would not, )ecause he ne0er +oes to art e$hi)itions, )ut that -yes. he would in this case +o )ecause it sounded interestin+, yes he would certainly +o. /0ery now and a+ain i!ek stops, re#lects and attempts to tie his work )ack to certain endurin+ theoretical resources. In Tarrying !ith the "egative pu)lished )ack in ;<<A, #or e$ample, there is a most con0incin+ ela)oration o# a distincti0e theoretical position in a readin+ o# Lacan throu+h 8e+el. In The Tickli&h Subject (in ;<<<) there is a re0iew o# where he stands in relation to competin+ intellectual positions, includin+ 1artin 8eide++er, *lain @adiou and 5udith @utler. *nd then there are encounters in which he seems to spin out o# control 4 in the de)ate with @utler and Laclau in Contingency/ -egemony/ 0niver&ality, #or e$ample (in 2000) 4 where there is somethin+ o# an anticipation o# his in"unction to -repeat Lenin., an in"unction that 0ery soon a#ter looks a little too much like the admiration o# ,talin to )e detected in $id Somebody Say Totalitariani&m1 (also pu)lished in 2000). 3he political coordinates o# his writin+ are si+ni#icant, and it is necessary to understand these coordinates in order to make sense o# how 1ar$, 8e+el and Lacan are deployed )y him in his commentaries on e0ents like the B*3C )om)in+ o# ,er)ia or the <D;; 2orld 3rade >entre attacks. i!ek is, it would seem so #ar, a ,lo0enian Lacanian 8e+elian. 8ow one shu##les those three descripti0e terms, and how one places the #inal one as the

theoretical anchor or #inal destination is not so easy to determine thou+h, and that #inal term chan+es dependin+ on who he is writin+ #or. *nd it depends who he is speakin+ #or and speakin+ a+ainst, #or there is a political ur+ency in his work which +i0es a representati0e #unction 4 this must )e said on )ehal# o# this or that constituency 4 and a stu))ornly contrary aspect to his ar+ument which means that a theoretical position is #irst de#ined ne+ati0ely, )y what it is a+ainst9 de#initely -no., )ut then o# course -yes.. 3o )e+in with a re#usal ser0es to de#ine the production o# identity in the case o# each o# these three terms 4 -,lo0enian., -Lacanian., -8e+elian. 4 and that includes a re#usal to make it su)ordinate to the other two. For i!ek, the philosophical articulation o# this route to truth throu+h error is to )e #ound #irst in 8e+el, who de#ines his own position throu+h sustained com)at with Eant. Psychoanalysis is #or+ed as touchstone #or testin+ the truth o# the su)"ect )y way o# Lacan.s -return. to Freud, which must #irst clear away the errors o# the dominant *n+lo%*merican clinical trainin+ or+anisations. *nd ,lo0ene national identity also #i+ures, as somethin+ that has emer+ed #rom the de)ris o# the :u+osla0 state in a stru++le #or reco+nition and sel#%de#inition that tan+les it in )roader imperialist pro"ects. i!ek.s tra"ectory #rom researcher in L"u)l"ana to cultural am)assador, spokesperson #or a 0ariety o# political and theoretical constituencies, and 0isitin+ academic in many other countries could "ust as easily )e read as that o# a 8e+elian Lacanian ,lo0enian. M!""i#$ %is book 3he only way to +rasp i!ek.s peculiar com)ination o# theoretical resources and political pro"ects is to understand somethin+ o# where he is comin+ #rom. 3he #irst chapter o# this )ook, then, e$amines the political #ormation and disinte+ration o# the :u+osla0 state, and i!ek.s place in that process. 3his is the settin+ #or his ra0ellin+ and unra0ellin+ o# theoretical moti#s #rom 8e+el, Lacan and 1ar$. *nd the te$ts we read now were wo0en #irst in the particular political conte$t in ,lo0enia and France where he +athered and rehearsed his +uidin+ philosophical, psychoanalytic and political lines o# criti7ue. 3he chapter on :u+osla0ia tackles two )road issues in order to arri0e at a point where we can map i!ek. 3he #irst concerns the particular con#luence o# conceptual resources that to+ether de#ine the -,lo0ene Lacanian ,chool.. 3here has )een a wide array o# interestin+ work across the social sciences, #rom criminolo+y and law to ethics and #ilm theory, accumulatin+ in L"u)l"ana. i!ek has clearly tried to make this, as well his own, work accessi)le to a wider academic audience in other countries. 8ere, the theoretical stakes are #ar more than how to read Lacan, and we also need some assessment o# the local uptake o# other competin+ traditions in psychoanalysis and philosophy. 3he second issue is how to capture the speci#ic con"uncture that makes the work o# the +roup around i!ek in L"u)l"ana reada)le, to those at home and a)road. 1y readin+ o# the political%economic con"uncture which +a0e )irth to i!ek has had to include a #airly close description o# the historical #ormation o# the :u+osla0 state and the contradictory demands e$perienced )y its su)"ects as they li0ed out the dialectical tensions o# a supposedly -socialist. society. 8ere the place o# 1ar$ and 1ar$ism is situated in relation to a state apparatus that employed 1ar$ist rhetoric precisely in order to keep its workers and intellectuals in check. I trace the distincti0e character o# :u+osla0ia and the #orms o# ideolo+ical control the state used to deal with dissent, and then the #unctions cultural and

philosophical practices played in the political mo0ement leadin+ up to the secession o# ,lo0enia. 2e can then identi#y )etter the role o# 8e+el, Lacan and 1ar$ in this conte$t, and the appeal o# the peculiarly e$otic ,lo0enian mi$ture o# these three #i+ures, e$otic #or an audience +aFin+ in #rom the outside. It is no accident, perhaps, that it is e$actly at the point that :u+osla0ia )roke up and ,lo0enia made its )id #or #ree%market -#reedom. that this 8e+elian Lacanian com)ination )ecame such an o)"ect o# #ascination #or post%mar$ists elsewhere9 i!ek.s own scathin+ comments on how the 2est looked to the e0ents in /astern /urope so that it may there disco0er and en"oy -the re%in0ention o# democracy. implicates the process )y which i!ek too has re%in0ented himsel# #or the 2est. 3he #orms o# that re%in0ention and the di##erent +uises he adopts #or di##erent audiences need to )e disentan+led i# we are not also to )e trapped in the line o# an admirin+ or dismissi0e +aFe on his work. 2e then turn to #ocus on 8e+el, Lacan and 1ar$, locatin+ them in relation to i!ek.s 0arious pro"ects and e$plorin+ the dialectical interrelationships )etween them. 3he ne$t chapter, on enli+htenment, shows why 8e+el.s work is so important to i!ek, and what he does with it. I trace the ar+ument presented in i!ek.s philosophical mani#esto Tarrying #ith the "egative (#irst pu)lished in ;<<A), throu+h to his de#ence o# >hristianity in On ,elief (#rom 200;). 3hese two works anchor an account o# 8e+el and pro0ide the +round #or e$plorin+ certain key concepts that appear repeatedly in i!ek.s writin+. 3hey also ser0e as the settin+ #or e$aminin+ some assumptions in 8e+el.s work that i!ek is happy to run with )ut which we should perhaps )e a little more wary a)out. 8e+el is the #oundin+ #i+ure #or much recent French philosophy, and his work lies not only in the )ack+round o# contemporary discussions o# phenomenolo+y and hermeneutics, )ut it is also o#ten an implicit re#erence point e0en #or ar+uments #rom within -post%structuralism. that pretend to ha0e nothin+ to do with 8e+el. i!ek.s retrie0al o# 8e+el is 0alua)le )ecause it shows why certain theoretical notions in his writin+ 4 3ruth arisin+ throu+h error, the production o# -su)stance as su)"ect., uni0ersality in the particular 4 are crucial to philosophy (and then to psychoanalysis and politics). 2e will look at those connections )etween 8e+el and other domains o# work toward the end o# the chapter. i!ek proceeds, in true 8e+elian #ashion, )y speci#yin+ 8e+el a+ainst what he is not, in ne+ati0e #ashion. 3his means that we also need to locate them )oth in relation to other philosophical traditions, the most important #or our purposes here )ein+ Eant. 8e+el then needs to )e treated, as i!ek su++ests, as a space to think, as shi#tin+ and openin+ up new ideas. 3his is more in keepin+ with what 8e+el was tryin+ to do than as i# he were descri)in+ a positi0e #ully%#ormed system that mi+ht then pretend to sol0e all the pro)lems o# philosophy. Be+ati0ity is at the heart o# 8e+el, and it is i!ek.s task to keep that ne+ati0ity at work while readin+ him. 3he points at which moti#s o# ne+ati0ity turn into #ormulaic in"unctions in his work then need to )e analysed so that the limitations o# i!ek.s 0ersion o# 8e+el can )e understood. 3he discussion o# psychoanalysis in the #ollowin+ chapter #ocuses on two key te$ts to illustrate how i!ek uses ideas #rom psychoanalysis to read popular culture and the way he )uys into certain psychoanalytic notions a)out representation and the su)"ect. 3he #irst is (ooking A!ry, which appeared in ;<<;. 3his )ook not only employs notions o# #antasy, trauma and unconscious desire to interpret science #iction and detecti0e no0els, )ut it also makes o# these cultural phenomena sites to illustrate key concepts in Lacanian psychoanalysis. 3hat is the way I use i!ek.s te$t here.

3he second te$t is the summary and position statement in The 2eta&ta&e& of %njoyment pu)lished in ;<<4, where i!ek deals, amon+ other thin+s, with #emininity and #eminist response to psychoanalysis. 3hat )ook is the settin+ #or a re0iew o# ideas #rom the ri0al Frank#urt ,chool tradition o# psychoanalytic social theory that ha0e )een so appealin+ and pro)lematic #or many radicals, and it tackles the worries o# those sympathetic to Lacan as a pro+ressi0e alternati0e and ostensi)ly more politically sensiti0e -return. to Freud. 8owe0er, i!ek does more than this, #or his description o# Lacanian concepts is also an opportunity to e$plicate #urther how use#ul 8e+el is. *s we e$plore Lacan, then, we will also )e drawin+ on the material in the pre0ious chapter to e$plore the way Lacan is inde)ted to 8e+el, and then to 7uestion i!ek a)out this. Lacanian psychoanalysis #or i!ek is not only a readin+ o# popular culture9 it is also a way o# inter0enin+ in political de)ate, as we will see in his discussion o# the nation as -thin+. in (ooking A!ry and o# -se$uation. in The 2eta&ta&e& of %njoyment. 3he way i!ek repeats standard psychoanalytic attempts to comment upon political phenomena, and the way he attempts to in0ent some connections )etween psychoanalysis and culture o# his own, need to )e traced out and assessed. 3his )rin+s us to the chapter on politics, which turns to i!ek.s relationship to 1ar$ism, and what he says a)out it. *#ter the close e$amination o# i!ek.s take on philosophy and psychoanalysis, we will )e in a )etter position to appreciate his use o# 8e+elian and Lacanian ideas as political criti7ue. 8is +round%)reakin+ ;<=< )ook The Sublime Object of Ideology lays out a political tra"ectory that is repeated and ela)orated in more recent te$ts. It is worth spendin+ a little time to pick apart the way his readin+ o# 1ar$ can +i0e rise to a distincti0e and inno0ati0e account o# ideolo+y, )ut also how his readin+ o# 1ar$ strikes some crucial political distance #rom 1ar$ist politics. I look at the place o# the su)lime o)"ect in the conte$t o# -post%mar$ist. political theory, as well as in i!ek.s own work. 3his is the )ook that made i!ek so attracti0e to 1ar$ists lookin+ #or a way out o# the deadlock and #ailure o# 2estern 1ar$ism, )ut it is actually already 7uite critical o# 1ar$ism. i!ek.s later writin+ then seems to mo0e closer to 1ar$ism )ut in such a way as to cause +reat an$iety amon+ many 1ar$ist readers. 2e shall take the -*#terword: Lenin.s >hoice. #rom 3evolution at the 4ate& as our second main re#erence point in this chapter in order to e$amine this parado$ical shi#t in i!ek.s work. i!ek.s political inter0entions with respect to the le+acy o# Lenin and ,talin and what can )e learnt #rom them, and around Eoso0o and the attacks on the 2orld 3rade >entre, raise 7uestions not only a)out the nature o# democracy and -terror. in his work )ut also a)out what e$actly is )ein+ -repeated. when he writes a)out 1ar$. 3he oscillation )etween di##erent political positions in his work needs to )e hi+hli+hted i# any accurate critical assessment o# these inter0entions is to )e made. 3here is much that escapes reduction to a simple mi$ture o# 8e+el, Lacan and 1ar$ in i!ek.s work, and so we look at how the di##erent theoretical threads o# work are knotted to+ether )y him in the concludin+ chapter. 8ere we also look at the e$istin+ critical responses to i!ek. I# there is one +ood critical way into i!ek, it is actually throu+h the claim to #idelity that he makes a)out each o# these traditions. 3his is why I re0iew )rie#ly some main lines o# ar+ument a+ainst i!ek within and outwith these traditions that ha0e appeared recently. 3he chapter uses the #ault%lines in his readin+s o# 8e+el, Lacan and 1ar$ that ha0e )een identi#ied in the precedin+ chapters to trace some conse7uences #or his work and the reception o# it )y academics and acti0ists. 3his re0iew cues you into the #ield o# de)ate around i!ek.

@ut then we +o #urther. 3he #inal chapter com)ines what we are now a)le to notice, now retroacti0ely, in his writin+s o0er the last #i#teen years and #ocuses on his writin+s on culture 4 in %verything )ou Al!ay& #anted to no! about (acan +,ut #ere Afraid to A&k -itchcock. (;<<2) and The 'lague of Fanta&ie& (;<<I), #or e$ample 4 to +et a #i$ on how the puFFlin+ inconsistencies in his writin+ are or+anised. 2hat we need to )e a)le to +rasp is the speci#ic asymmetric relationship )etween philosophy, psychoanalysis and politics in his writin+. 3hen we mi+ht at least )e a)le to +et a #i$ on why it seems so di##icult to sum up who he is and where he is +oin+. 3his )ook, as will ha0e )een patently o)0ious already )y this point, lays out )ut one way o# readin+ i!ek. I use sli+htly di##erent theoretical coordinates within Lacanian psychoanalysis, 8e+elian theory and 1ar$ism to those he draws on. 3his is necessary to +et a critical perspecti0e on what he is producin+. 3here are many pro)lems with 8e+el e0en when wrapped so )eauti#ully, the Lacanian orthodo$y carries with it at least as many pro)lems as Freud, and i!ek.s 0ersion o# 1ar$ism is not one that would )e accepted )y many 1ar$ists. 1ar$ism is the theory and practice o# collecti0e resistance to contemporary capitalism, and connections with psychoanalysis and academic philosophy ha0e o#ten had the e##ect o# muddlin+ and weakenin+ 1ar$ist politics. ,o, why should i!ek.s attempt to make connections make any di##erence6 1y position in this )ook is that a re0olutionary 1ar$ist analysis o# the corruption o# socialism )y the )ureaucracies o# /astern /urope can now help us make sense o# the disappointment and turn to the ri+ht )y many e$%Le#tists. Lacanian psychoanalysis is, I )elie0e, a re0olutionary way o# 7uestionin+ how indi0idual su)"ecti0ity is #ormed and it o##ers one place #or speakin+ the truth. * 8e+elian dialectical interwea0in+ o# criti7ues o# state oppression and indi0idual misery pro0ides conceptual tools #or makin+ links )etween 1ar$ and Lacan without reducin+ one to the other, or either to 8e+el himsel#. i!ek shows us a power#ul way o# com)inin+ these disparate theoretical resources. It is the wron+ way, )ut in the process he #orces us to think throu+h what mi+ht need to )e done with them to +et it ri+ht. Some i#&i'isible (emi#&e(s :ou cannot )e a - i!ekian., and only i!ek can )e i!ek. 3he concepts he works with are )orrowed and distorted )e#ore they are applied and transmuted into somethin+ else, and somethin+ sli+htly di##erent happens to them each time they appear. 3his is why there are no speci#ic - i!ekian. concepts that could )e outlined in a +lossary +uide to his work. Instead, you mi+ht think o# this )ook as )ein+ the e7ui0alent o# a su)way map which connects rele0ant key concepts #rom the theorists he discusses. :ou will #ind your way around this map, )ut you need to )ear in mind that it has no necessary correspondence with the world outside. *nd to #ind your way around this map you will need to read the chapters in order so that you are a)le to +et a +rip on what connections are possi)le )etween i!ek.s own theoretical re#erence points. :ou could say that an introductory )ook o# this kind plu+s a much%needed +ap in i!ek.s work. 3his would indeed )e a pro)lem i# +aps in theoretical or ideolo+ical systems could really e0er )e closed o0er, and it seems to )e the #undamental #antasy o# many theorists treadin+ the same +round as i!ek that the +ap could actually )e closed, and such closure would then herald totalitarian catastrophe or mass psychosis. @ut this attempt to tackle i!ek is not, in any case, the #inal word, and he mo0es so

#ast that it can )e at )est a temporally%limited partial 0iew, su)0ersi0e, contin+ent, awry. ,o, )e wary.