Zizek and the law

I was reading over some Slavoj Zizek materials yesterday after hearing more than a few debate rounds at the ADA National Tournament at Appalachian State University in beautiful Boone, NC.

Zizek is one of the more controversial intellectuals of our time. He’s had a profound impact on cultural theory, sociology, philosophy, criticism, and debate. He never avoids controversy and has a knack for being able to write across disciplines.

Zizek is often misunderstood as a contradictory crazy, for lack of a better phrase. Too often instead of appreciating the totality of his work, critics try to position each writing in conflict in order to find inconsistencies.

This masks the larger importance of Zizek’s writing, namely that his self-admitted goal is to criticize, to question. He is not a provider of answers, he is an enabler of thought. Understanding philosophy and criticism as a way to reinvigorate the subjective is a much more fulfilling path than viewing criticism as an esoteric absurdity.

Zizek opens up space and encourages questioning. These are important ideas that would compliment any discipline.  Maligning Zizek as a radical or dismissing him to the obscurity bin is the wrong approach.  He’s a much easier read than his greatest influence Lacan, or Deleuze, or Baudrillard, or Derrida.  If you haven’t thumbed through some Zizek, perhaps you should. 

I hope that as I continue to write this article that I learn more about my own relationship with the law, as a critic.  Zizek has written important about law and society, terrorism, and political action, but there has not been a thorough examination of these writings from a legal scholar’s standpoint.  I hope that I can produce something that does justice to Zizek and helps broaden our conceptions of legal theory.

Judging college debate at the Naval Academy

This weekend I was judging college debate at the U.S. Naval Academy.  It was absolutely great except for the long hours and uncomfortable holiday inn beds. 

Debate tournaments are always exciting places to see students and coaches grapple with complex ideas.  It’s not every day that most of contemplate nuclear war rhetoric, Baudrillard, of that famous Khalilizad in ‘95 evidence.  Perhaps we should.  There’s probably a lot most folks could learn from debate. 

Here’s a list of some of them…

1) Know the qualifications of your authors.  How often do you hear people saying they heard something from TMZ or read it in US Weekly and thought it had to be absolutely true.  Debate teaches that you must understand the strengths and weaknesses of the people you cite. 

2) Take risks.  The Great Debaters was a really neat movie, but Rocket Science is a much more accurate depiction of policy debate today.  Sometimes its necessary to go out on a limb to make a point.  Debate teaches the power of personal politics, something that’s lacking in even the most evolved democracies. 

3) It’s okay to dress how you want.  Maybe I’m wiser than my years, but I don’t associate custom-tailored suits with intelligence.  There’s more to the Gobstopper than the outer candy shell.  College debate is an interesting place where people of all shapes, sizes, backgrounds, and persuasions discuss important political and philosophical ideas.  It’s just as fun in pajamas as it is in slacks. 

Thank you to the debaters who read Baudrillard, Capitalism K’s, eco-fem, and other arguments that make me think and make me even more sure that debate is providing an important co-curricular experience to college students.