Jump to content
Deleuze

Zizek Outed as a Plagiarist

Recommended Posts

http://withendemanndom.blogspot.fr/2014/07/slavoj-zizek-philosophaster-and_9.html?m=1

 

Slavoj Žižek: Philosophaster and Plagiarist. — Under the man’s name, clarity has appeared at last, owed albeit not to some unfogging of mind, but to plain old stealing. It was just this clarity that struck Steve Sailer as odd: “a reader inclined toward deconstructionism might note that Žižek summarizes [Kevin] MacDonald’s controversial argument [in The Culture of Critique] quite lucidly. In fact, the superstar professor achieves a higher degree of clarity while expounding MacDonald’s message than in any other passage I’ve read by Žižek”.1 The reason for the cat’s barking, the dog’s meowing, or rather, this obscurant’s lucidity, is simple: it is someone else’s summary, namely, Stanley Hornbeck’s, from a review that appeared in American Renaissance over seven years beforehand.
 
  Much of the plagiarism is word-for-word. Some passages are lightly rephrased. Below I give a side-by-side comparison. The passages from Žižek come from one continuous paragraph, which I have broken up into sections so that Hornbeck’s original might run parallel to it, making the comparison easier. To the same end, I have re-paragraphed some parts of Hornbeck’s original and removed Žižek’s page-citations. (Link)
 
 
Source: Slavoj Žižek, “A Plea for a Return to Différance (with a Minor Pro Domo Sua)”,Critical Inquiry, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Winter 2006). 2

Source: Stanley Hornbeck, “Cherchez le Juif”: Review of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique, in American Renaissance, Vol.10, No.3, March 1999. 3
 

. . .
1. Steve Sailer, “Slavoj Žižek on Kevin MacDonald’s ‘Culture of Critique’”, iSteve Blog: Unz Review, 8th July 2014. (The first commenter, “IHTG”, at Steve’s blog also noticed something untoward.)
2. For those who have access, Žižek’s original paper can be found at JSTOR. A somewhat altered version can be found at Lacan.com.
3The words that Hornbeck, and hence Žižek, attributes to Derrida are in fact those of John D. Caputo.

 

Thoughts?

Edited by Deleuze
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://withendemanndom.blogspot.fr/2014/07/slavoj-zizek-philosophaster-and_9.html?m=1

 

Slavoj Žižek: Philosophaster and Plagiarist. — Under the man’s name, clarity has appeared at last, owed albeit not to some unfogging of mind, but to plain old stealing. It was just this clarity that struck Steve Sailer as odd: “a reader inclined toward deconstructionism might note that Žižek summarizes [Kevin] MacDonald’s controversial argument [in The Culture of Critique] quite lucidly. In fact, the superstar professor achieves a higher degree of clarity while expounding MacDonald’s message than in any other passage I’ve read by Žižek”.1 The reason for the cat’s barking, the dog’s meowing, or rather, this obscurant’s lucidity, is simple: it is someone else’s summary, namely, Stanley Hornbeck’s, from a review that appeared in American Renaissance over seven years beforehand.
 
  Much of the plagiarism is word-for-word. Some passages are lightly rephrased. Below I give a side-by-side comparison. The passages from Žižek come from one continuous paragraph, which I have broken up into sections so that Hornbeck’s original might run parallel to it, making the comparison easier. To the same end, I have re-paragraphed some parts of Hornbeck’s original and removed Žižek’s page-citations.
 
 
Slavoj Žižek Stanley Hornbeck
The main academic proponent of this new barbarism is Kevin MacDonald, who, in The Culture of Critique, argues that certain twentieth-century intellectual movements led by Jews have changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed the confidence of Western man; these movements were designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests even though they were presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even utopian.
In The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th century intellectual movements – largely established and led by Jews – have changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed the confidence of Western man. He claims that these movements were designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests even though they were presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even utopian.
One of the most consistent ways in which Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity—but only for others. Ever since the nineteenth century, they have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint.
Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity – but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint.
MacDonald devotes many pages to The Authoritarian Personality (1950), a collective project coordinated by Adorno, the purpose of which was, for MacDonald, to make every group affiliation sound as if it were a sign of mental disorder; everything, from patriotism to religion to family—and race—loyalty, is disqualified as a sign of a dangerous and defective ‘authoritarian personality’. Because drawing distinctions between different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties—even close family ties—are ‘prejudice’.
Prof. MacDonald devotes many pages to an analysis of The Authoritarian Personality, which was written by Adorno and appeared in 1950. [. . .] The book’s purpose is to make every group affiliation sound as if it were a sign of mental disorder. Everything from patriotism to religion to family – and race – loyalty are signs of a dangerous and defective ‘authoritarian personality’. Because drawing distinctions between different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties – even close family ties! – are ‘prejudice’.
MacDonald quotes here approvingly Christopher Lasch’s remark that The Authoritarian Personality leads to the conclusion that prejudice ‘could be eradicated only by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy—by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.’
As Christopher Lasch has written, the book leads to the conclusion that prejudice ‘could be eradicated only by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy – by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.’
However, it is precisely the kind of group loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences central to Jewish identity that, according to MacDonald, Horkheimer and Adorno described as mental illness in gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: anyone whose political views were different from theirs was insane.
But according to Prof. MacDonald it is precisely the kind of group loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences central to Jewish identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as mental illness in gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: Anyone whose political views were different from theirs was insane.
For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of mental illness: Christian self-denial and especially sexual repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt school was enthusiastic about psychoanalysis, according to which ‘oedipal ambivalence toward the father and anal-sadistic relations in early childhood are the anti-Semite’s irrevocable inheritance.’
For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of mental illness: They concluded that Christian self-denial and especially sexual repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt school was enthusiastic about psycho-analysis, according to which ‘Oedipal ambivalence toward the father and anal-sadistic relations in early childhood are the anti-Semite's irrevocable inheritance.’
In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the Frankfurt school glorified promiscuity and bohemian poverty
: ‘Certainly many of the central attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution find expression inThe Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family pride, the Christian religion, and patriotism.’
In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the Frankfurt school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty. Prof. MacDonald sees the school as a seminal influence: ‘Certainly many of the central attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family pride, the Christian religion, and patriotism.’
Although he came later, the French-Jewish ‘deconstructionist’ Jacques Derrida was in the same tradition when he wrote: ‘The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue . . . The idea is to disarm the bombs . . . of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants . . . .’ As Prof. MacDonald puts it, ‘Viewed at its most abstract level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology’. Needless to say, this project has been successful; anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a mentally unhinged ‘hate-monger’, and whenever whites defend their group interests they are described as psychologically inadequate. The irony has not escaped Prof. MacDonald: ‘The ideology that ethnocentrism was a form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group that over its long history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the cultures of the world.’
Although he came later, Derrida followed the same tradition when he wrote: ‘The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue. . . . The idea is to disarm the bombs . . . of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants’. As MacDonald puts it, ‘Viewed at its most abstract level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology’. This project has been successful; anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a mentally unhinged hatemonger, and whenever whites defend their group interests they are described as psychologically inadequate—with, of course, the silent exception of the Jews themselves
: ‘the ideology that ethno-centrism was a form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group that over its long history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the cultures of the world.’
Source: Slavoj Žižek, “A Plea for a Return to Différance (with a Minor Pro Domo Sua)”,Critical Inquiry, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Winter 2006). 2

Source: Stanley Hornbeck, “Cherchez le Juif”: Review of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique, in American Renaissance, Vol.10, No.3, March 1999. 3

 

. . .

1. Steve Sailer, “Slavoj Žižek on Kevin MacDonald’s ‘Culture of Critique’”, iSteve Blog: Unz Review, 8th July 2014. (The first commenter, “IHTG”, at Steve’s blog also noticed something untoward.)

2. For those who have access, Žižek’s original paper can be found at JSTOR. A somewhat altered version can be found at Lacan.com.

3The words that Hornbeck, and hence Žižek, attributes to Derrida are in fact those of John D. Caputo.

 

Thoughts?

 

So he pulled a Churchill? 

 

Now I have some pretty legit indites against the one team in college who will read him next year. Ty op 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he pulled a Churchill? 

 

Now I have some pretty legit indites against the one team in college who will read him next year. Ty op 

I'm not really sure if you mean Churchill (and native epist in general) or Zizek, but if you expect only one team to use either in coming years, you're gonna have a bad time.

 

Edit: Well, it depends on the district you're in, but both of these authors are still used throughout the community.

Edited by Lantern360
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why "Zizek's a plagiarist" answers a single argument. Even if their stolen arguments, they're still arguments you have to answer.

 

word, it's definitely relevant for what you think of him as an academic but it has little relevance to debate argumentation

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone notice that the plagiarized text is from a positive review of a white supremacist explaining how Jews have infiltrated academia?

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

word, it's definitely relevant for what you think of him as an academic but it has little relevance to debate argumentation

Yeah, and I don't think anyone thought Zizek was the rigorous academic example to follow in the first place. My reaction to this is a combination of "huh, good to know" and "not surprised".

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why "Zizek's a plagiarist" answers a single argument. Even if their stolen arguments, they're still arguments you have to answer.

Some teams may actually use that as offense, believe it or not. If you remember the plagiarism PIC that several teams had run, there were decent warrants for how intellectual property should be abolished to challenge capitalist conceptions of knowledge production.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some teams may actually use that as offense, believe it or not. If you remember the plagiarism PIC that several teams had run, there were decent warrants for how intellectual property should be abolished to challenge capitalist conceptions of knowledge production.

I'd love to see someone read this in front of an English teacher.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some teams may actually use that as offense, believe it or not. If you remember the plagiarism PIC that several teams had run, there were decent warrants for how intellectual property should be abolished to challenge capitalist conceptions of knowledge production.

I'd love to see someone read this in front of an English teacher.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this wasn't clear enough before, I was looking for thoughts about Zizek, not how this pertains to any actual argumentation within a debate round. I don't view this as an indict nor as any sort of mockery of Zizek's overall philosophy or how it's many variations function within a debate round (thought I hate hearing the same Zizek and Daly cards). Regarding Churchill and how plagiarism might be seen as an argument, i've never understood or even seen this argument successfully run within a round, and as GBTL and Natives criticisms with Churchill cites are very abundant in today's debate community (I posted a GBTL k of my own with Churchill cards) I don't see why this accusation of Zizek being a plagiarist would have any adverse affects upon the functionality of his arguments within a round. 

 

Now as to my opinion on the issue (which i should have made clear in the OP), I think Zizek is a gigantic asshole, no doubt about it, and i apologize for the vulgarity of my language but to blatantly copy a fellow peers work and claim it as your own due to your own standings in the philosophical realm (which are already questionable to the point where debaters use anal sex metaphors to describe you) is a mockery of philosophy and deeply saddens me. This doesn't affect my opinion regarding Zizek's philosophy, but as Needs more Consult Japan stated, affects my perception of his character. 

Edited by Deleuze
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking for thoughts about Zizek

What kind of thoughts? I think it's very strange that both Žižek and Hornbeck misattributed to Derrida something by John D. Caputo--one would have thought they'd do their research.

 

But, on plagiarism: Žižek (obviously) seems to be denying the allegations. Classic blame-the-friend/intern/associate/third party, if this denial is false. But what's interesting to me is he seems to defend (the alleged) taking (of) "purely informative" passages from Hornbeck's review. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the charge of plagiarism in this instance was more about the phrasing being identical rather than ideas being stolen. I know not why he sees the need to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PLAGIARIST!

Not so, more likely independently contrived. Great minds think alike.

Which begs the question, if his works were solely his and coincidently similar to MacDonald's works, doesn't that just give his work more merit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so, more likely independently contrived. Great minds think alike.

Which begs the question, if his works were solely his and coincidently similar to MacDonald's works, doesn't that just give his work more merit?

He admits to intentionally using MacDonald's writings; he just believed that it was somehow acceptable not to cite it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He admits to intentionally using MacDonald's writings; he just believed that it was somehow acceptable not to cite it.

My bad then. I look like a real idiot now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he didn't 'steal any ideas'; he lifted a synopsis (his research assistant wrote) of (white supremacist) ideas which he then rejects. 

 

there are so many better reasons to dispute Zizek's arguments, that 'easy outs' like this - from the New Republic's slander to the sensationalized charges of Slate - are really just anti-intellectual excuses to refrain from engaging one of the most important thinkers of the last 30 years. we absolve Zizek's laziness by redoubling it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he didn't 'steal any ideas'; he lifted a synopsis (his research assistant wrote) of (white supremacist) ideas which he then rejects. 

 

there are so many better reasons to dispute Zizek's arguments, that 'easy outs' like this - from the New Republic's slander to the sensationalized charges of Slate - are really just anti-intellectual excuses to refrain from engaging one of the most important thinkers of the last 30 years. we absolve Zizek's laziness by redoubling it.

doublespeak and nonsense. He denies *ever* using a research assistant, and instead claims a nebulous "friend" wrote a summary he then plagiarized without citation or accreditation. The first existent reference to this unnamed, undescribed friend is after he was accused.  It's hardly reasonable to believe his story. 

 

The overwhelming consensus of this thread is that Zizek's various shitty arguments are still worth engaging while we simultaneously critique his shitty academic conduct. There's no reason we can't do both. Perm solves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zizek's a troll apparently LOL

http://www.critical-theory.com/author/szizek/

 

 

I have a confession to make.

For the past few years I have been masquerading as this petite-bourgeois blogger you know as “Eugene Wolters.”

I do not mean “I am Eugene” in the philosophical sense. I am neither German Jew, nor Zapatista. I am, however, Eugene Wolters – biologically.  But I assure you that I am still the same Eugene that you’ve come to love or, for many, hate.

I expect you are wondering: Why did I publicly shame myself? You may recall posts deriding comments I made to students such as “If you don’t give me any of your shitty papers you get an A” or another post outing my plagiarism. The short answer: I wanted to get caught.

I’ve long been fascinated with the flagellants of Christian history and Deleuze’s exploration of de Sade.  What would it mean, then, to create a public persona to “troll” myself?  I have not fully formulated my thoughts yet, but the results of this philosophical experiment will be explored in my forthcoming book, entitled “Ideology and the Art of Blog Maintenance.”

I will also note that it brought me sheer delight to be called an “anti-Žižek propaganda machine.” And the fact that I so cleverly Americanized the spelling of my name – I must give credit to my dear friend Judy Butler for that one.

The last two years have been a tremendous amount of fun, regardless. I hope to continue writing quality content without the deceptive facade.

Your Comrade,

Slavoj

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zizek posted on April 1, though...not sure if believe

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...