Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left

Yes this is a difficult book, but it is an absolute must read for those who are follwing the theoretical developments of post-strucuralism on the progressive left. Of course there are no prescriptions for immediate action but read Butler's contributions in this book and she addresses that dilemma. Laclau is very good, and Zizek has nuggets, but his Hegelian/Lacanianism is showing signs of wear and doesn't offer the opportunities for further theoretical developments and even research projects that the projects of Butler and Laclau offer.

This book represents an attempt by (the) three social thinkers of our time to bring their differing views of what is to done together by beginning with what it is that they have in common, namely: Marx (and Gramsci), Lacan, and Derrida. Although all three critique the above figures, they could not do what it is they do with them. This book provides a much needed companion to Laclau's (w/ Mouffe) "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy" and Zizek's "Ticklish Subject". It also helps towards Butler's "Gender Trouble" but I feel that her approach has matured a great deal from that mostly obscure book. Zizek and Laclau are on their game and their detailed responses back and forth really help in understanding what is at stake. I like Butler but it seems that she is out of her league and element. That being said, I think that there are nuggets of greatness in her writings, one just has to look extra hard to find them. My only criticism for Zizek is that sometimes his examples skew to the shallow side, but this negative is overcome with the remainder of his work.

I don't believe this work is for everyone, for one needs to have a pretty solid background of knowledge already, of the works and theoretics of Butler, Laclau and Zizek...they definitely write with a presumtion that one already knows what is being discussed. However, if you have read their works, or have a solid knowledge of these theoriticians, this book is excellent as a way to understand the similarities and differences between their theories. The book is set up as a debate. The first pages state questions which each of them ask the others and want themselves to deal with. The book is then set up with each writer giving an argument chapter (The order which remains throughout the book is Butler, Laclau, and Zizek), a rebuttal, and then a final summation. Not only does the book give insight into the differences between these philosophers, who in many ways are trying to deal with much the same questions, but the framework of the discussion forced them to also reiterate aspects of each of their theories in a short and distinct manner that gives the reader more understanding in the end, of their works in general.