OVERINTELLECTUALIZATION AND ACADEMIC ALIENATION a report back from the Zizek Studies Conference - 2012 - day I - Saturday 4/28 by Joshua Strauss and Mitchell Jones. "I'm growing tired of this political bullshit that I used to write." - Slavoj Zizek Representation: should we consider? The overall lasting impact of the Communist conception of the revolutionary state as exemplified by the 1917 revolution in Russia is that revolutions are in fact possible. Not only are they possible, but inevitable according to Marx. They develop through our individual understandings of autonomy as a form of creation. However, the American/individualist conceptualization of autonomy has created a zeitgeist, via Occupy, whereby the "new New Left" is rendered impotent through its anarchistic insistence on leaderlessness. Such was the arguement put forth by Jodi Dean. This was her identification of the problem with the "new New Left" aka: Occupy. However she offered an alternative, something which none of the other critical theorists offered. Be one with the altruistic exchange. Her suggestion was to form a Communist party that would transcend routine involvement and enter the realm of true political empowerment. She articulated what I could only conceptualize. Contrast that to Slavoj Zizek's purely theoretical talk on Hegel. Perhaps he was playing to his audience; mostly philosphers. Others who are concerned with the issues Zizek addresses were apparently marginalized. I should preface my explanation of the previous statement by saying that I respect Zizek and his work and feel that what he has to say is incredibly relevant, as we percieve reality manifest. Those to whom Zizek's examination of contemporary culture and his critique of neoliberal ambition are most relevant, ie: the proletariat, are alienated by the duality of the so-called "radical acadademic" vs. the "radical activist." This duality can be explained thusly; the academic provides the theoretical basis whereas the activist does the work of making the revolution happen. Thus a distinction is made between radical thought and radical PRAXIS. As Ryan O'Neill remarked over dinner, academics can hardly even be considered radical as their livelihood depends on mad attachment to the structures of power that exist already and which reinforce Ivory Tower institutions aka: a social circumstance whereby an elite intellectual class is allowed to exist. Contrast this to Mao's Cultural Revolution where academics were "reeducated" and sent to experience reality as collective farmers see it. I do not share Mao's disdain for intellectuals. Mao himself was a bit of a hypocrite as he was an educated man. However, Zizek writes for an exclusive audience of elite intellectuals while simultaneously preaching liberation of the proletariat. It is a shame because the very societal element (ie: people) for whom his theories are not only relevant, but important, cannot access the wealth of knowlege he has to offer due to his incomprehensible use of jargon and constant flickering, tangential digressions. Zizek's masturbatory 2000-some-odd-page book on Hegel is a departure from his previous political work. His discussion of Hegel is purely theoretical and for someone who speaks a lot about the so-called "Real" he seems ungrounded in reality. Cries of "WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO!?!" could be heard in the audience during the Q&A sessions. The only person who had a pragmatic answer was Jodi Dean who put forth the establishment of a unified Communist party as a way to assert class autonomy. This would also do the work of fulfilling the proletariat's desire for collectivity. This has been a failure of the Occupy movement, according to Dean, as they are still caught up in American anarchist notions of individuality. Opposition to vangaurdism by the revolutionary vanguard itself (ie: the occupiers) have resulted in an attempt to reconcile the diverse, and sometimes contradictory, concerns of the 99%. This has made movement appear apolitical to its detractors since many of the occupiers have made few specific demands. These, among other tactical errors, have lead to the failure of Occupy to become a sustainable, lasting movement. However, Dean praised Occupy for their efforts in a few main areas. First of all, the Occupation has offered a more tangible community of activists who share the same concerns than the internet, exemplified by the MoveOn.org's "clicktivism" model. However, she warned against Occupy becomming simply another internet-like public forum. We already have the internet, we don't need another one. Second, through the slogan "We are the 99%" Occupy engages in class warfare, making a distinction between the "us" (99% of us) and the "them" (the wealthy 1% who control 80% of the wealth). Thus, Occupy identifies the other through statistical means. That brings me to Dean's third praise of Occupy: that the occupiers utilize facts to their advantage, thus providing a solid basis in reality. These elements, she says, are keys to a successful political party, which to Dean is the next step. I will conclude by saying that although the academics seem to be doing a lot of complaining and little pragmatic problem-solving, they do have something to offer the activist side of the duality. Instead of seeing the academy and the streets as opposing sides of the radical coin, activists and academics must reach something approaching symbiosis whereby activists can gain the theoretical sophistication of academe and the academics can benefit from the legitimacy of the revolutionary PRAXIS of the activists.