Thesis update

Background

My project seeks to develop a new understanding of political economy and capitalism via a fusion of Marxist political economy and Lacanian psychoanalysis. Globally, the combination of Marxism and psychoanalysis is a project with a relatively long history. Leftist theorists have attempted this project in the belief that such a fusion would retain the emancipatory potential of Marxism whilst providing a more satisfactory explanatory framework for the operation of the psyche. The latest and most popular instantiation of this tradition is Slavoj Zizek.

Zizek and Marx

Zizek’s work is firmly embedded in Lacanian theory, but as his theory has become progressively political and increasingly anti-capitalist, Zizek has turned to Marxism. Marx had always been an influence in Zizek’s work, but had played a secondary role in comparison to Lacan and Hegel, whom Zizek utilised to organise his central emphasis on ideology and enjoyment/jouissance.

Even though Zizek has become increasingly influenced by Marxist, Zizek has not taken on Marx’s work as a totality, although he takes on the tradition of the Marxist totality. Zizek’s investment into Marxist categories is mixed. He claims a fundamental homology between Lacan and Marx in some areas, such as the symptom and the link between surplus-value and surplus-enjoyment. Other concepts, like ideology, commodity fetishism and class are retained as important elements of the Marxist edifice, but are given a radical Lacanian twist. Finally, the positivising aspects of Marxist theory, such as species-being and false consciousness, are discarded.

Critiques of Zizek

Through his interpretation of the Marxist tradition, Zizek attempts to provide a new critique of capitalism and a renewed global anti-capitalist political project. This move has been the source of both academic and political controversy. Some theorists contend that Zizek’s fusion of Lacan and Marx is illegitimate because of Zizek’s continued adherence to Lacan. Others argue that the incommensurability between Lacan and Marx has led to Zizek not providing a systematic account of capitalism, a failure which produces several symptomatic hesitations in his account of capitalism.

Many theorists suggest that Zizek’s work is good theory, but not good politics. Conversely, many of these critics accept the fundamental premises of Zizek’s work, that is, his commitment to a negative ontological position, yet they dismiss the political consequences of this commitment without suggesting alternatives that adhere to a negative ontology. Instead, they produce what one might describe as ideal politics and poor theory.

Moving forward

Instead, I believe that Zizek’s theoretical positioning provides an excellent, if esoteric account of capitalism, but one that is not operationalised to its full potential because of a lack of applied analysis. Additionally, however, Zizek’s work has been unable to move past analysis and critique, a point which he fully acknowledges.

My thesis seeks to address this issue by starting from and advancing Zizek’s problematic (how to act radically against capitalism without the positivising aspects of Marxism) by extending Zizek’s existing understanding of capitalism and attempting to go beyond this critique by advancing Zizek’s own theoretical categories, such as the concrete universal. Additionally I seek to reconsider the notion of universality within political economy, particularly in regards to surplus-value and its relationship with surplus-enjoyment, a relationship which is always based on an exclusion (the concrete universal/class).