- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
In this ground-breaking project, Judith Butler, Ernesto Laclau and Slavoj Zizek engage in a dialogue on central questions of contemporary philosophy and politics. Their essays, organized as three contributions each that respond to one another, range over the Hegelian legacy in contemporary critical theory, the ...
In this ground-breaking project, Judith Butler, Ernesto Laclau and Slavoj Zizek engage in a dialogue on central questions of contemporary philosophy and politics. Their essays, organized as three contributions each that respond to one another, range over the Hegelian legacy in contemporary critical theory, the theoretical dilemmas of multiculturalism, the universalism-versus-particularism debate, the strategies of the left in a globalized economy, and the relative merits of post-structuralism and Lacanian psychoanalysis for a critical social theory.
While the rigour and intelligence with which Butler, Laclau and Zizek approach their work is as formidable as one would expect, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality benefits additionally from their clear sense of energy and enjoyment in a revealing and often unpredictable exchange.
|Restaging the Universal: Hegemony and the Limits of Formalism||11|
|Identity and Hegemony: The Role of Universality in the Constitution of Political Logics||44|
|Class Struggle or Postmodernism? Yes, please!||90|
|Structure, History and the Political||182|
|Da Capo senza Fine||213|
|Holding the Place||308|
Posted October 1, 2005
Let me begin by saying that I'm a fan of all three of these writers, and I appreciate the candor of the work, as well as the project of dialogue concerning the structure of the movment of the New Left. 'Dialogues' has much representing the critical and important work these three authors are partaking in. Unfortunately, where 'Dialogues' succeeds is in the hashing out of the details of their specific projects - a hashing out that I found at times mundane and at other times superfluous. What shines in the work is the occasional page of actual accountablility of the authors to the structual change of the capitalist system. What the work lacks more than anything else is simply outrage and a contemplation of 'how' we would go about changing the system. To my frustration, these authors spend most of their time debating minor points in each other's programs instead of putting forth a joint effort decapitating capitalism. In other words, they should have spent their efforts doing something else entirely.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.