Žižek was born inLjubljana,PR Slovenia,Yugoslavia, into a middle-class family.[12] His father Jože Žižek was an economist and civil servant from the region ofPrekmurje in eastern Slovenia. His mother Vesna, a native of theGorizia Hills in theSlovenian Littoral, was an accountant in a state enterprise. His parents wereatheists.[13] He spent most of his childhood in the coastal town ofPortorož, where he was exposed to Western film, theory and popular culture.[3][14] When Žižek was a teenager his family moved back to Ljubljana where he attendedBežigrad High School.[14] Originally wanting to become a filmmaker himself, he abandoned these ambitions and chose to pursue philosophy instead.[15]
Žižek had already begun reading Frenchstructuralists prior to entering university, and in 1967 he published the first translation of a text byJacques Derrida into Slovenian.[17] Žižek frequented the circles of dissident intellectuals, including theHeideggerian philosophersTine Hribar andIvo Urbančič,[17] and published articles in alternative magazines, such asPraxis,Tribuna andProblemi, which he also edited.[14] In 1971 he accepted a job as an assistant researcher with the promise oftenure, but was dismissed after his Master's thesis was denounced by the authorities as being "non-Marxist".[18] He graduated from the University of Ljubljana in 1981 with aDoctor of Arts in Philosophy for his dissertation entitledThe Theoretical and Practical Relevance of French Structuralism.[16] He spent the next few years in what was described as "professional wilderness", also fulfilling his legal duty of undertaking a year-longnational service in theYugoslav People's Army inKarlovac.[16]
Žižek wrote the introduction to Slovene translations ofG. K. Chesterton's andJohn le Carré's detective novels.[21]In 1988, he published his first book dedicated entirely tofilm theory,Pogled s strani.[22] The following year, he achieved international recognition as asocial theorist with the 1989 publication of his first book in English,The Sublime Object of Ideology.[23][3]
Žižek has been publishing in journals such asLacanian Ink andIn These Times in the United States, theNew Left Review andThe London Review of Books in the United Kingdom, and with the Slovenianleft-liberal magazineMladina and newspapersDnevnik andDelo. He also cooperates with the Polish leftist magazineKrytyka Polityczna, regional southeast European left-wing journalNovi Plamen, and serves on the editorial board of the psychoanalytical journalProblemi.[24] Žižek is a series editor of theNorthwestern University Press series Diaeresis that publishes works that "deal not only with philosophy, but also will intervene at the levels of ideology critique, politics, and art theory".[25]
In 2012,Foreign Policy listed Žižek on its list of Top 100 Global Thinkers, calling him "a celebrity philosopher",[26] while elsewhere he has been dubbed the "Elvis of cultural theory"[27] and "the most dangerous philosopher in theWest".[28] Žižek has been called "the leading Hegelian of our time",[29] and "the foremost exponent of Lacanian theory".[30] A journal, theInternational Journal of Žižek Studies, was founded by professors David J. Gunkel and Paul A. Taylor to engage with his work.[31]
In 2003, Žižek wrote text to accompanyBruce Weber's photographs in a catalog forAbercrombie & Fitch. Questioned as to the seemliness of a major intellectual writing ad copy, Žižek toldThe Boston Globe, "If I were asked to choose between doing things like this to earn money and becoming fully employed as an American academic, kissing ass to get a tenured post, I would with pleasure choose writing for such journals!"[35]
Žižek has been married four times and has two adult sons, Tim and Kostja. His second wife was Slovene philosopher and socio-legal theoristRenata Salecl, fellow member of theLjubljana school of psychoanalysis.[41] His third wife was Argentinian model and Lacanian scholar Analia Hounie, whom he married in 2005.[42] Currently, he is married to Slovene journalist, author and philosopher,Jela Krečič.[43]
In early 2018, Žižek experiencedBell's palsy on the right side of his face. He went on to give several lectures and interviews with this condition; on March 9 of that year, during a lecture on political revolutions in London, he commented on the treatment he had been receiving, and used his paralysis as a metaphor for political idleness.[44][45][46]
Aside from his nativeSlovene, Žižek is a fluent speaker ofSerbo-Croatian, French, German and English.[47]
Žižek and his thought have been described by many commentators as "Hegelo-Lacanian".[54][55][56][57][58] In his early career, Žižek claimed "a theoretical space moulded by three centres of gravity:Hegelian dialectics,Lacanian psychoanalytic theory, and contemporary criticism ofideology", designating "the theory ofJacques Lacan" as the fundamental element.[59] In 2010, Žižek instead claimed that for him Hegel is more fundamental than Lacan—"Even Lacan is just a tool for me to read Hegel. For me, always it is Hegel, Hegel, Hegel."[60]—while in 2019, he claimed that "For me, in some sense, all of philosophy happened in [the] fifty years" betweenImmanuel Kant'sCritique of Pure Reason (1781) and the death ofGeorg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1831).[61] Alongside his academic, theoretical works, Žižek is a prolific commentator on current affairs and contemporary political debates.
For Žižek, although asubject may take on a symbolic (social) position, it can never be reduced to this attempted symbolisation, since the very "taking on" of this position implies a separate 'I', beyond the symbolic, that does the taking on. Yet, under scrutiny, nothing positive can be said about this subject, this 'I', that eludes symbolisation; it cannot be discerned as anything but "that which cannot be symbolised". Thus, without the initial, attempted, failed symbolisation, subjectivity cannot present itself. As Žižek writes in his first book in English: "the subject of the signifier is a retroactive effect of the failure of its own representation; that is why the failure of representation is the only way to represent it adequately."[62]
Žižek attributes this position on the subject toHegel, particularly his description of man as "the night of the world",[63] and toLacan, with his description of the barred, split subject, who he sees as developing theCartesian notion of thecogito.[64] According to Žižek, these thinkers, in insisting on the role of the subject, run counter to "culturalist" or "historicist" positions held by thinkers such asLouis Althusser andMichel Foucault, which posit that "subjects" are bound by and reducible to their historical/cultural(/symbolic) context.[65]
Žižek's Lacanian-informed theory ofideology is one of his major contributions to political theory; his first book in English,The Sublime Object of Ideology, and the documentaryThe Pervert's Guide to Ideology, in which he stars, are among the well-known places in which it is discussed. Žižek believes that ideology has been frequently misinterpreted as dualistic and, according to him, this misinterpreted dualism posits that there is a real world of material relations and objects outside of oneself, which is accessible to reason.[66]
For Žižek, as for Marx, ideology is made up of fictions that structure political life; in Lacan's terms, ideology belongs to thesymbolic order. Žižek argues that these fictions are primarily maintained at an unconscious level, rather than a conscious one. Since, according topsychoanalytic theory, the unconscious can determine one's actions directly, bypassing one's conscious awareness (as inparapraxes), ideology can be expressed in one's behaviour, regardless of one's conscious beliefs. Hence, Žižek breaks with orthodox Marxist accounts that view ideology purely as a system of mistaken beliefs (seeFalse consciousness). Drawing onPeter Sloterdijk'sCritique of Cynical Reason, Žižek argues that adopting a cynical perspective is not enough to escape ideology, since, according to Žižek, even though postmodernsubjects are consciously cynical about the political situation, they continue to reinforce it through their behaviour.[67]
Žižek claims that (a sense of) political freedom is sustained by a deeper unfreedom, at least underliberal capitalism. In a 2002 article, Žižek endorsesLenin's distinction between formal and actual freedom, claiming that liberal society only contains formal freedom, "freedom of choicewithin the coordinates of the existing power relations", while prohibiting actual freedom, "the site of an intervention that undermines these very coordinates."[68] In an oft-quoted passage from a book published in the same year, he writes that, in these conditions of liberal censorship, "we 'feel free' because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom".[69] In a 2019 article, he writes that Marx "made a valuable point with his claim that the market economy combines in a unique way political and personal freedom with social unfreedom: personal freedom (freely selling myself on the market) is the very form of my unfreedom."[70] However, in 2014, he rejects the "pseudo-Marxist" total derision of 'formal freedom', claiming that it is necessary for critique: "When we are formally free, only then we become aware how limited this freedom actually is."[51]
Žižek has asserted that "Atheism is a legacy worth fighting for" inThe New York Times.[72] However, he nonetheless finds extensive conceptual value inChristianity, particularlyProtestantism: the subtitle of his 2000 bookThe Fragile Absolute is "Or, Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?". Hence, he labels his position 'Christian Atheism',[73] and has written about theology at length.[74]
InThe Pervert's Guide to Ideology, Žižek suggests that "the only way to be an Atheist is through Christianity", since, he claims, atheism often fails to escape the religious paradigm by remaining faithful to an external guarantor of meaning, simply switching God for natural necessity or evolution. Christianity, on the other hand, in the doctrine ofthe incarnation, brings God down from the 'beyond' and onto earth, into human affairs; for Žižek, this paradigm is more authentically godless, since the external guarantee is abolished.[75]
Although sometimes adopting the title of 'radical leftist',[76] Žižek also controversially insists on identifying as a communist, even though he rejects 20th century communism as a "total failure", and decries "the communism of the 20th century,more specifically all the network of phenomena we refer to asStalinism as "maybe the worst ideological, political, ethical, social (and so on) catastrophe in the history of humanity."[77] Žižek justifies this choice by claiming that only the term 'communism' signals a genuine step outside of the existing order, in part since the term 'socialism' no longer has radical enough implications, and means nothing more than that one "care[s] for society."[78]
InMarx Reloaded, Žižek rejects both 20th-century totalitarianism and "spontaneous localself-organisation,direct democracy,councils, and so on". There, he endorses a definition of communism as "a society where you, everyone would be allowed to dwell in his or her stupidity", an idea with which he creditsFredric Jameson as the inspiration.[79]
Žižek has labelled himself a "communist in a qualified sense"[80] and as a "moderately conservative Communist".[81] When he spoke at a conference onThe Idea of Communism, he applied (in qualified form) the 'communist' label to theOccupy Wall Street protestors:
They are not communists, if 'communism' means the system which deservedly collapsed in 1990—and remember that the communists who are still in power today run the most ruthless capitalism (in China). ... The only sense in which the protestors are 'communists' is that they care for the commons—the commons of nature,of knowledge—which are threatened by the system. They are dismissed as dreamers, but the true dreamers are those who think that things can go on indefinitely the way they are now, with just a few cosmetic changes. They are not dreamers; they are awakening from a dream which is turning into a nightmare. They are not destroying anything; they are reacting to how the system is gradually destroying itself.[82]
In May 2013, duringSubversive Festival, Žižek commented: "If they don't supportSYRIZA, then, in my vision of the democratic future, all these people will get from me [is] a first-class one-way ticket to [a]gulag." In response, the center-rightNew Democracy party claimed Žižek's comments should be understood literally, not ironically.[83][84]
Just before the2017 French presidential election, Žižek stated that one could not choose betweenMacron andLe Pen, arguing that theneoliberalism of Macron just gives rise toneofascism anyway. This was in response to many on the left calling for support for Macron to prevent a Le Pen victory.[85]
In 2022, Žižek expressed his support for the Slovenian political partyLevica (The Left) at its 5th annual conference.[86]
I'm horrified at him [Trump]. I'm just thinking thatHillary is the true danger. ... if Trump wins, both big parties, Republicans and Democratics, would have to return to basics, rethink themselves, and maybe some things can happen there. That's my desperate, very desperate hope, that if Trump wins—listen, America is not a dictatorial state, he will not introduce Fascism—but it will be a kind of big awakening. New political processes will be set in motion, will be triggered. But I'm well aware that things are very dangerous here ... I'm just aware that Hillary stands for this absolute inertia, the most dangerous one. Because she is a cold warrior, and so on, connected with banks, pretending to be socially progressive.[87]
In 2019 and 2020, Žižek defended his views,[90] saying that Trump's election "created, for the first time in I don't know how many decades, a true American left", citing the boost it gaveBernie Sanders andAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez.[54]
However, regarding the2020 United States presidential election, Žižek reported himself "tempted by changing his position", saying "Trump is a little too much".[54] In another interview, he stood by his 2016 "wager" that Trump's election would lead to a socialist reaction ("maybe I was right"), but claimed that "now with coronavirus: no, no—no Trump. ... difficult as it is for me to say this, but now I would say 'Biden better than Trump', although he is far from ideal."[91] In his 2022 book,Heaven in Disorder, Žižek continued to express a preference for Joe Biden over Donald Trump, stating "Trump was corroding the ethical substance of our lives", while Biden lies and represents big capital more politely.[92]
In his 1997 article 'Multiculturalism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism', Žižek critiquedmulticulturalism for privileging a culturally 'neutral' perspective from which all cultures are disaffectedly apprehended in their particularity because this distancing reproduces the racist procedure of Othering. He further argues that a fixation on particular identities and struggles corresponds to an abandonment of the universal struggle againstglobal capitalism.[94]
In his 1998 article 'A Leftist Plea for "Eurocentrism"', he argued that Leftists should 'undermine the global empire of capital, not by asserting particular identities, but through the assertion of a new universality',[95] and that in this struggle the European universalist value ofegaliberte (Etienne Balibar's term) should be foregrounded, proposing 'a Leftist appropriation of the European legacy'.[96] Elsewhere, he has also argued, defendingMarx, that Europe's destruction of non-European tradition (e.g. through imperialism and slavery) has opened up the space for a 'double liberation', both from tradition and from European domination.[97]
In her 2010 article 'The Two Zizeks',Nivedita Menon criticised Žižek for focusing on differentiation as a colonial project, ignoring how assimilation was also such a project; she also critiqued him for privileging the European Enlightenment Christian legacy as neutral, 'free of the cultural markers that fatally afflict all other religions.'[98] David Pavón Cuéllar, closer to Žižek, also criticised him.[99]
In the mid-2010s, over the issue of Eurocentrism, there was a dispute between Žižek andWalter Mignolo, in which Mignolo (supporting a previous article byHamid Dabashi,[100] which argued against the centrality of European philosophers like Žižek, criticised byMichael Marder[101]) argued, against Žižek, that decolonial struggle should forget European philosophy, purportedly followingFrantz Fanon;[102] in response, Žižek pointed out Fanon's European intellectual influences, and his resistance to being confined within the black tradition, and claimed to be following Fanon on this point.[103] In his bookCan Non-Europeans Think? (foreworded by Mignolo), Dabashi also critiqued Žižek for privileging Europe;[104] Žižek argued that Dabashi slanderously and comically misrepresents him through misattribution,[105] a critique supported byIlan Kapoor.[93]
In his 2016 article "The Sexual Is Political", Žižek argued that all subjects are, like transgender subjects, in discord with the sexual position assigned to them. For Žižek, any attempt to escape this antagonism is false and utopian: thus, he rejects both the reactionary attempt to violently impose sexual fixity and the "postgenderist" attempt to escape sexual fixity entirely; he aligns the latter with 'transgenderism', which he claims does not adequately describe the behaviour of actual transgender subjects, who seek a stable "place where they could recognise themselves" (e.g., a bathroom that confirms their identity). Žižek argues for a third bathroom: a "GENERAL GENDER" bathroom that would represent the fact that both sexual positions (Žižek insists on the unavoidable "twoness" of the sexual landscape) are missing something and thus fail to adequately represent the subjects that take them on.[106]
In his 2019 article "Transgender dogma is naive and incompatible with Freud", Žižek argued that there is "a tension in LGBT+ ideology betweensocial constructivism and (some kind ofbiological) determinism", between the idea thatgender is a social construct, and the idea that gender is essential and pre-social. He concludes the essay with a "Freudian solution" to this deadlock:
...psychic sexual identity is a choice, not a biological fact, but it is not a conscious choice that the subject can playfully repeat and transform. It is an unconscious choice which precedes subjective constitution and which is, as such, formative of subjectivity, which means that the change of this choice entails the radical transformation of the bearer of the choice.[107]
Che Gossett criticized Žižek for his use of the "pathologising" term "transgenderism" throughout the 2016 article, and for writing "about trans subjectivity with such assumed authority while ignoring the voices of trans theorists (academics and activists) entirely", as well as for purportedly claiming that a "futuristic" vision underlies so-called "transgenderism", ignoring present-day oppression.[108] Sam Warren Miell and Chris Coffman, both psychoanalytically inclined, have separately criticized Žižek for conflating transgenderism and postgenderism; Miell further criticised the 2014 article for rehearsing homophobic/transphobic clichés (including Žižek's designation ofinter-species marriage as a possible "anti-discriminatory demand"), and misusing Lacanian theory; Coffman argued that Žižek should have engaged with contemporary Lacanian trans studies, which would have shown that psychoanalytic and transgender discourses were aligned, not opposed.[109] In response to the title of the 2019 article,McKenzie Wark had t-shirts made with thetransgender flag and "Incompatible with Freud" printed on them.[110]
Žižek defended his 2016 article in two follow-up pieces. The first addresses purported misreadings of his position,[105] while the second is a more sustained defence (against Miell) of the article's application of Lacanian theory,[111] to which Miell responded in turn.[112]Douglas Lain also defended Žižek, claiming that context makes it clear that Žižek is "not opposed [to] the struggle of LGBTQ people" but is instead critiquing "a phony liberal ideology that set up the terms of the LGBTQ struggle", "a certain utopian postmodern ideology that seeks to eliminate all limits, to eliminate all binaries, to go beyond norms because the imposition of a limit is patriarchal and oppressive."[113]
In a 2023 piece for Compact Magazine, Žižek took a hard stance against access topuberty blockers for trans youth, and against trans adults being sent to prisons matching their gender, citing the case ofIsla Bryson, whom he referred to as "a person who identifies itself as a woman using its penis to rape two women". Both of these things were attributed by Žižek towokeness (the wider subject of the article).[114][115]
Žižek wrote that theconvention center in which nationalistSlovene writers hold their conventions should be blown up, adding, "Since we live in the time without any sense of irony, I must add I don't mean it literally."[116]
All hearts were beating for you as long as you were perceived as just another version of the liberal-democratic protest against the authoritarian state. The moment it became clear that you rejected global capitalism, reporting on Pussy Riot became much more ambiguous.
It is capitalism, again and again, that emerges as the only alternative, the only way to move forward and the dynamic force for change when social life gets stuck into some fixed form. Today, capitalism is much morerevolutionary than the traditional Left obsessed with protecting the old achievements of thewelfare state. Just consider how much capitalism has changed the entire texture of our societies in the past decades.
In an opinion article forThe Guardian, Žižek argued in favour of giving full support toUkraine after theRussian invasion and for creating a strongerNATO in response to Russian aggression,[120] later arguing that it would also be a tragedy for Ukraine to yoke itself to western neoliberalism.[121] He compared the struggle of Ukraine against its occupiers to the Palestinians' struggle against theIsraeli occupation.[122] In April 2024, Žižek criticized Israel'sactions in theGaza Strip.[123]
Žižek's philosophical and political positions have been described as ambiguous, and his work has been criticized for a failure to take a consistent stance.[124] While he has claimed to stand by a revolutionary Marxist project, his lack of vision concerning the possible circumstances which could lead to successful revolution makes it unclear what that project consists of. According toJohn Gray and John Holbo, his theoretical argument often lacks grounding in historical fact, which makes him more provocative than insightful.[125][126][127]
In a very negative review of Žižek's bookLess than Nothing, John Gray attacked Žižek for his celebrations of violence, his failure to ground his theories in historical facts, and his 'formless radicalism' which, according to Gray, professes to be communist yet lacks the conviction that communism could ever be successfully realized. Gray concluded that Žižek's work, though entertaining, is intellectually worthless: "Achieving a deceptive substance by endlessly reiterating an essentially empty vision, Žižek's work amounts in the end to less than nothing."[125]
Žižek's refusal to present an alternative vision has led critics to accuse him of using unsustainable Marxist categories of analysis and having a 19th-century understanding of class.[128] For example,post-MarxistErnesto Laclau argued that "Žižek uses class as a sort ofdeus ex machina to play the role of the good guy against the multicultural devils."[129]
In his bookLiving in the End Times, Žižek suggests that the criticism of his positions is itself ambiguous and multilateral:
I am attacked for being anti-Semiticand for spreadingZionist lies, for being a covert Slovene nationalistand unpatriotic traitor to my nation, for being a crypto-Stalinist defending terrorand for spreading Bourgeois lies about Communism... so maybe, just maybe I am on the right path, the path of fidelity to freedom.[130]
Žižek has been criticized for his chaotic and non-systematic style: Harpham calls Žižek's style "a stream of nonconsecutive units arranged in arbitrary sequences that solicit a sporadic and discontinuous attention".[131] O'Neill concurs: "a dizzying array of wildly entertaining and often quite maddening rhetorical strategies are deployed in order to beguile, browbeat, dumbfound, dazzle, confuse, mislead, overwhelm, and generally subdue the reader into acceptance."[132]Noam Chomsky deems Žižek guilty of "using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever", adding that his views are often too obscure to be communicated usefully to common people.[133]
To summarize Žižek's position is not easy: he slips between philosophical and psychoanalytical ways of arguing, and is spell-bound byLacan's gnomic utterances. He is a lover of paradox, and believes strongly in whatHegel called 'the labour of the negative' though taking the idea, as always, one stage further towards the brick wall of paradox.[134]
Žižek has been accused of approaching phenomena without rigour, reductively forcing them to support pre-given theoretical notions. For example,Tania Modleski alleges that "in trying to makeHitchcock 'fit'Lacan, he [Žižek] frequently ends up simplifying what goes on in the films".[135] Similarly,Yannis Stavrakakis criticises Žižek's reading ofAntigone, claiming it proceeds without regard for both the play itself and the interpretation, given by Lacan in his 7thSeminar, which Žižek claims to follow. According to Stavrakakis, Žižek mistakenly characterisesAntigone's act (illegally burying her brother) as politically radical/revolutionary, when in reality "Her act is aone-off and she couldn't care less about what will happen in the polis after her suicide."[136]
Noah Horwitz alleges that Žižek (and theLjubljana School to which Žižek belongs) mistakenly conflates the insights of Lacan and Hegel, and registers concern that such a move "risks transforming Lacanian psychoanalysis into a discourse ofself-consciousness rather than a discourse on the psychoanalytic, Freudianunconscious."[137]
Žižek's tendency to recycle portions of his own texts in subsequent works resulted in the accusation ofself-plagiarism byThe New York Times in 2014, after Žižek published anop-ed in the magazine which contained portions of his writing from an earlier book.[138] In response, Žižek expressed perplexity at the harsh tone of the denunciation, emphasizing that the recycled passages in question only acted as references from his theoretical books to supplement otherwise original writing.[138]
In July 2014,Newsweek reported that online bloggers led bySteve Sailer had discovered that in an article published in 2006, Žižek plagiarized long passages from an earlier review by Stanley Hornbeck that first appeared in the journalAmerican Renaissance, a publication condemned by theSouthern Poverty Law Center as the organ of a "white nationalist hate group".[139] In response to the allegations, Žižek stated:
The friend send [sic] it to me, assuring me that I can use it freely since it merely resumes another's line of thought. Consequently, I did just that—and I sincerely apologize for not knowing that my friend's resume was largely borrowed from Stanley Hornbeck's review of Macdonald's book. ... In no way can I thus be accused of plagiarizing another's line of thought, of 'stealing ideas'. I nonetheless deeply regret the incident.[140]
^Nedoh, Bostjan, ed. (2016).Lacan and Deleuze: A Disjunctive Synthesis. Edinburgh University Press. p. 193.Žižek is convinced that post-Hegelian psychoanalytic drive theory is both compatible with and even integral to a Hegelianism reinvented for the twenty-first century.
^abcSharpe, Matthew."Slavoj Žižek".The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.ISSN2161-0002.Archived from the original on 22 June 2022. Retrieved27 September 2015.
^"Slavoj Žižek".Encyclopædia Britannica.Archived from the original on 16 March 2022. Retrieved8 June 2022.
^McGowan, Todd (2013). "Hegel as Marxist: Žižek's Revision of German Idealism." InŽižek Now: Current Perspectives in Žižek Studies. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 42.
^Žižek, Slavoj (26 September 2014)."DVD Picks".YouTube.Archived from the original on 17 May 2022. Retrieved17 May 2022.
^Žižek, Slavoj (2017)."My Favourite Classics".International Journal of Žižek Studies.11 (3).Archived from the original on 24 October 2023. Retrieved17 May 2022.
^Žižek, Slavoj and Stephen Kotkin (28 November 2016)."Stalin: Paradoxes of Power".YouTube.Archived from the original on 17 May 2022. Retrieved17 May 2022.
^Frazer, Michael. "Closer to Consciousness: Waking as the Žižekian Event in" Finnegans Wake"."James Joyce Quarterly (2015): 95-110.
^Žižek, Slavoj (1989).The Sublime Object of Ideology. London & New York: Verso. p. 175.ISBN0860919714.
^Žižek, Slavoj (2006).The Parallax View. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p. 22.ISBN9780262240512.
^Žižek, Slavoj (1989).The Sublime Object of Ideology. London & New York: Verso. p. 72.ISBN0860919714.
^Žižek, Slavoj and Sbriglia, Russell (2020).Subject Matters. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. pp. 3–21.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^Žižek, Slavoj (2017) (10 September 2017)."Christian Atheism". YouTube (European Graduate School Video Lectures).Archived from the original on 4 May 2022. Retrieved4 May 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^See hisThe Fragile Absolute,The Monstrosity of Christ,The Puppet and the Dwarf, andOn Belief.
^Fiennes, Sophie (dir.). (2012).The Pervert's Guide to Ideology. London: P Guide Productions.
^Žižek, Slavoj (2014). "The Impasses of Today's Radical Politics".Crisis & Critique.1: 11ff.
^Menon, Nivedita (7 January 2010)."The Two Zizeks".KAFILA – Collective explorations since 2006. Archived fromthe original on 16 January 2010. Retrieved25 April 2023.
^Holbo, John (1 January 2004). "On Žižek and Trilling".Philosophy and Literature.28 (2):430–440.doi:10.1353/phl.2004.0029.S2CID170396508....an unhealthy anti-liberal is one, like Z+iz=ek, who ticks and tocks in unreflective revulsion at liberalism, pantomiming that he is de Maistre (or Abraham) or Robespierre (or Lenin) by turns, lest he look like Mill.
^Holbo, John (17 December 2010)."Zizek on the Financial Collapse – and Liberalism".Crooked Timbers.Archived from the original on 4 March 2012. Retrieved21 August 2012.To review: Zizek does this liberal = neoliberal thing. Which is no good. And he doesn't even have much to say about economics. And Zizek does this liberal = self-hating pc white intellectuals thing. Which is no good.
^Butler, Judith, Ernesto Laclau and Slavoj ŽižekContingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left. Verso. London, New York City 2000. pp. 202–206
.jpg)
