[Zizek está a mirar noticia e foto que saen
Can I ask you a simple question? If you were to have a daughter, would you allow this guy (sinalando a súa foto) to take your daughter to cinema? Be honest, the answer is ‘no’. I hate the way I appear. In some documents, it’s even worse. It’s really as a kind of a criminal that I appear, you know...
[Zizek está na súa casa, explicando porqué ten un cartaz con Stalin enriba do telefonillo...]
Often, friends tell me: ‘But why do you provoke people unnecessarily? Why don’t you simply say what you mean? That, of course, you are against fascism, bad, blablabla’. I tell them yes, this is good, as an abstract theoretical -not even theoretical- intellectual, whatever, statement. But it doesn’t work like that. For example, concerning Stalinism. My God! I’ve probably written more about Stalinism, about its most horrible aspects, then most of the people who reproach me with Stalinism. And that’s my wager here. That sorry, the only way to get the message; if you say, of course, I am against fascism, there are just some attitudes which were traditionally even more to the left but fascism appropiated them blablabla, I think it doesn’t have the desired precise political effect. It enables the liberal consensus to reappropiate it. You must say it with this excess.
[Zizek está a respostar unha pregunta sobre a súa popularidade. No medio, intercalouse unha pregunta que lle fixera unha derridiá en Columbia sobre o seu 'dogmatismo lacanián', á que resposta airado conque eles son igual de dogmáticos, pero con Derrida. 'I am a card-carrying Lacanian!'. Logo, ven a explicar porqué se dedica a facer o show e o paiaso...]
I think that I admit it: there is a clownish aspect to me, like they put it in the New York Times (Marx brother or whatever, no?), all that, and I may flirt with it. But nonetheless, I am getting tired of it, because I noticed that there is, as it were, when there are some stupid reports on me, reactions to me..., a kind of a terrible urge, compulsion, to make me appear as a kind of a funny man, and so on and so on. And the true question should be: 'Where does this urge come from?' 'Why is there this necessity to portray me as someone who can only thrive through jokes and so on and so on..., and even my publishers buy it (...). So, you know?, it is much more then it may appear what is going on here. It is quite a complex phenomenon. I am almost tempted to say that making me popular is a resistance against taking me serious.