Hegelianism in Slovenia: A Short Introduction

HEGELIANISM IN SLOVENIA: A SHORT INTRODUCTION Boris Vezjak My modest aim and scope in this article is to outline the present philosophical situation in Slovenia, inasmuch as it is linked with the development of Hegelian thought and influenced by the work of Hegel. I will briefly discuss some historical characteristics of its origin, with no attempt to depict “ethnographic” features of it or to show its ideological basis. Later on I will introduce some aspects of Hegel’s philosophy, as understood by Slovenian lacaniens, trying to summarize their reading of Hegel and consequently point out how deeply their work on Lacan is inspired by him. My hidden and not explicitly discussed assumption throughout this paper will be that their research, although manifestly concerned with Lacan, is for the most part inspired by Hegel, and therefore Slovenian Lacanians are actually Hegelians. I will, however, try to avoid disputing and making comments on the main views of their orientation and how they concur with Hegel - this would require an extra space for comparison of both standpoints and be too complicated hermeneutically . I. Slovenia, which used to be a part of Yugoslavia, grew up in a rigorous tradition of communist thinking with Marxism as a systematical ideological basis. This happened in almost all Easter European countries, which shared the same destiny till the fall of Berlin’s wall. The ideological restrictions behind the so-called “iron curtain”, so typical and easily recognizable within all these countries, caused a total eclipse of almost every non-Marxist philosophy in Slovenia up to the sixties. As the first attempt to influence the intellectual or strictly philosophical life we could actually consider the Frankfurt school and its critical, nonstandard and progressive approach within Marxist ideology, which had a tremendous impact on new theoretical currents especially in Croatia and also other parts of former Yugoslavia. The Frankfurt School was itself only a reflection of some major setbacks for Marxism, i. e. the experience of Stalinism and general failure of communist idea about the progress of working class in Western Europe. Probably the most famous and internationally recognized was the group around the journal Praxis in Zagreb, later on banned, which organized annual seminars on the island of Korcula, which were attended by some eminent representatives of the Frankfurt school such as Marcuse, Habermas, Bloch and others. The department of philosophy in the capital Ljubljana (the only one in Slovenia at that time) was mostly dominated by powerful Marxists, whose negative role was also to stop all alternative philosophical currents at that period, especially the existentialists gathering around the journal Perspektive. Heidegger was then in the centre of their phenomenological interest, and many Heideggerians were excluded from the department and so became dissidents. From recent times after the collapse of socialism they are once again an increasingly strong philosophical current in Slovenia, publishing Phainomena, a review with an international editorial board . Slovenian Marxists, of course, were concerned with Hegel as well, but it was a materialistically ‘superseded’ Hegel, mostly important as a source of Marx’s teachings or critique and nothing else. In the 1960’s, the effects of the New Left and other radical movements in Europe touched the Slovenian philosophical area as well, and the authors like Adorno, Habermas and Benjamin started to exert influence upon a few neomarxistically oriented Slovenian philosophers. Probably the widest theoretical impact in the period at the end of 1960s was made by the review Problemi, which remained the central philosophical journal in Slovenia for the following 20 years. In its beginning it covered partially also some Heideggerian topics, but then suddenly turned to be exclusively linked with new theoretical movements in Europe, especially those in France. The most significant was structuralism, which at that time was dominant in Europe, and many Slovenes, studying abroad, returned with fresh ideas and tried either to connect them with the theoretical marxistic legacy or to develop them on their own. It was not only Althusser’s new reading of Marx that shook the old Marxist tradition and questioned some of its ‘undeniable’ premises, but primarily the most important representatives of the structuralistic movement, unexpectedly appearing to be a possible alternative to the dominant style of communist ideological discourse. Levi-Strauss, Barthes, Foucault, Derrida, Kristeva perpetuated the intellectual life of different groups of mostly young Slovenian students in many departments of the Faculty of philosophy, which covered the humanities, arts and linguistic studies and is actually still the crucial centre of all theoretical happenings in Slovenia. During the 1970s, Problemi published many translations of structuralistic texts from French, accompanied with studies of Slovenian theoreticians, and among them there was a name that particularly occupied their philosophical interest. II. The French psychiatrist Jacques Lacan is still as highly controversial as he is influential in his field, but he nevertheless caused a longterm impression on intellectual life in Ljubljana: his name will be henceforth strictly associated with the Slovenian capital, especially with the group around Slavoj Zizek and Mladen Dolar, two penetrating philosophers, who actually brought Lacan’s thought into this area of Europe. The extension of Lacan studies really exceeded the expectations of many opponents in Slovenia, particularly the dogmatic Marxists, and nowadays their representatives have gained a reputation as the so-called Ljubljana School of Lacan, being one of the most steady and advanced disseminators of his thought in the world. Considering himself a strict Freudian but taking ideas also from structuralist linguistics, Lacan revived interest among French intellectuals not only with original psychoanalytical ideas, but also throughout all other fields of interest, particulary philosophy and social studies. He founded the Freudian School of Paris in 1964 and disbanded it in 1980, after it had fallen into “deviations and compromises.” In the middle of the 1970s his teachings became more and more popular as the theoretical background for various topics in Problemi as well. A characteristic of young Slovene newcoming philosophers, if they were not concerned with the orthodox narrow Marxian perspective, was to do some strictly theoretical work, and a step back and ‘return to Hegel’ seemed to the inevitable choice. As Lacan was also tending to regard Hegel as one of his favourite inspirations within philosophy, although reckoning himself as anti-Hegelian, the encounter of Lacanian influence from France with the Marxist heritage in Slovenia turned out to be inescapable . For that reason it is exactly Hegel (and German idealism altogether), who will continue to remain at the centre of philosophical discussions in the Ljubljana School up to the present day - in some unexpected way both approaches can be combined into a new theoretical synthesis.The beginning of the eighties was marked by the overall acceptance of Lacanian thought even in everydays social life, and its representatives made some further steps in order to establish even more autonomy. In the year 1980 a new edition of books called Analecta was launched, with the first book “Hegel in oznacevalec” (Hegel and the signifier), subtitled as “An attempt of ‘the materialistic turn of Hegel’ in the contemporary psychoanalytic theory and its meaning for the historical materialism”, written by Slavoj Zizek. His doctoral thesis actually brought together all the topics still present in his work and the group around him: the Lacanian reading of Hegel, criticism of Habermas and Kristeva, Adorno and Levi-Strauss. After this volume the incredible number of another 50 titles has followed so far, including mostly the books and collections of papers of Slovenian authors, with numerous translations of Hegel, Lacan, Freud, Descartes, Spinoza and others. In 1982 the group around Zizek founded “The society for theoretical psychoanalysis” and “The Sigmund Freud School” as part of it, which was supposed to educate people in the field of theoretical psychoanalysis. It is worth mentioning that its work never involved itself with the area of clinical psychology or psychiatry. Psychoanalytic theories have been used as guides to doing research in certain social sciences, as well as in the humanities. Indeed, the Lacanian school in Ljubljana has established its reputation by specialising in a broad set of topics and areas, and by steadily expanding its range of interests and activities. Cultural, ideological and political research has been enriched by adding the insights of psychoanalysis. The resulting studies have added a dimension of depth to the understanding of some events and mechanism in the history and society, and particularly in local political life and psychological portraits of Slovenians. It is in the application of psychoanalysis to artistic and literary criticism or social studies that theorists here, just like Jacques Lacan in his analyis of Edgar Allen Poe or Shakespeare, have made their most widely known contributions, and Slovene Lacanians are still continually developing such a tradition. Some of them, for example Zizek, even took an active part in public discussions at the time of major upheaval throughout Eastern Europe in 1989-90 and politically participated at the act of independence of Slovenia in 1991, thus having an opportunity to introduce a great deal of theoretical ideas directly into the sphere of politics. In the middle of 1980s, the Society for theoretical psychoanalysis started to publish two additional reviews, both being parts of the international organization “Fondation du Champ freudien”: the first one was Wo es war in German (Vienna), another one Razpol in Slovenian. Today their books are also published by Thuria & Kant (Berlin, Vienna) in German and mainly by Verso (London) in English, which has served to strengthen their position at home and abroad. III. What is then the essence of Lacan’s contribution to the philosophy of Hegel or even vice versa? First of all, there is a quite important part of Hegelianism in his teaching. A very significant impact on Lacan’s theory of psychoanalysis was his attendance on Kojeve’s famous lectures on Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, held during 1933-1939 in Paris, of which I am going to expatiate more on the next pages. And there is an element of Marxism too. This is mainly due to some similarities with the ideas of the Frankfurt School. In the case of the subject they seem to claim very similar things. Social influences on the individual, for instance, are not made directly, but society comes to dwell within him. Lacan’s theory of the construction of the symbolic order, when language and law enter man, allows no real boundary between self and society: man becomes social with the appropriation of language, where it is language that constitutes man as a subject . Secondly, even Althusser’s interpretation of Freud and Marx as scientifically homologous theorists partly relies on Lacan’s reading of Freud. Althusser wanted to return to Marx, Lacan to Freud.Both returns, however, were characterized by a typical structuralist approach. Because structuralism values deep structures over surface phenomena, it parallels, in part, the views of Marx and Freud, both of whom were concerned with underlying causes, unconscious motivations, and transpersonal forces, shifting attention away from individual human consciousness and choice. Like Marxism and Freudianism therefore, structuralism furthers the ongoing modern diminishment of the individual, portraying the self largely as a construct and consequence of impersonal systems. Individuals neither originate nor control the codes and conventions of their social existence, mental life, or linguistic experience. Lacan’s work was even more concerned with reinterpreting Freud in terms of the structural linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure and Roman Jakobson. Saussure envisaged a new discipline, a science of signs and sign systems that he named semiology and for which he believed structural linguistics could provide a principal methodology. Lacan’s famous dictum is that the unconscious itself has linguistic structure, i.e. “the unconscious is structured like a language”. Furthermore, inspired by Levi-Strauss’s formalization, structural linguistics, philosophy and Freud’s metapsychology, he introduced three orders of psychoanalytic ‘reality’ - the imaginary, the symbolic and the real. The notions of the ‘symbolic’ and symbols, for instance, are in the Lacanian view interpreted as ‘signifiers’, differential elements without any meaning; they are meaningful only in their mutual relations. Lacan’s ideas have had wide political, literary and cultural influence in France, and the very same wide scope of theoretical interest would become characteristic of Slovenian Lacanians as well. At the same time his research had little effect on the practice of psychoanalysis. In the 1953 Lacan and his followers were actually expelled from the International Psychoanalytic Association for unorthodoxies that included using analytic sessions as short as ten minutes - an obvious sign of lack of interest in verifying the theoretical results in the clinical situation. Lacan probably believed that his work provides a kind of appropriate metatheory for psychoanalysis and that its adoption resolves some of the dilemmas inherent in Freud’s original metapsychology, which is also generally treated as a speculative theory or epistemology without any support in practical methods. Such an inclination to theorize dragged him into the sphere of philosophy and various philosophical ideas. In the following pages I will shortly describe some basic Hegelian topics, as represented by Slavoj Zizek, Mladen Dolar and their group in order to introduce some main features of the Lacanian reading of Hegel . IV. First of all, it is not very easy to comprehend the connection between Lacan and Hegel. As I said before, Hegel was surely a very basic source for the development of Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory, though Slovene Lacanians seem to go even a step further by interpreting Hegel in exclusively Lacanian terms and then joining them both in order to explain cultural, political or ideological phenomena, or just a scene from the film or the novel. The first and obviously permanent difficulty that such an approach appears to have is in binding up two rather heterogenous fields of theoretical research, which is obviously an unquestionable premise of Slovene commentators. Learning to read Hegel’s philosophy always in the light of its ideological, political and cultural implications can be particularly helpful in fulfilling this task because he is respected almost universally by philosophers as one of the great philosophical thinkers in the history of Western philosophy - if not the greatest. Indeed, many would agree that Hegel, in modern times, has replaced Aristotle as a kind of intellectual reference system. Likewise, the number of philosophers who acknowledge Hegel’s achievement is so large as to render it hopeless even to attempt to draw up an exhaustive list. Lacan’s view was undoubtedly influenced by the philosophies of Heidegger and Hegel. More specifically, there was an interpretation of only one book made by only one man which so radically affected the French thinkers of Lacan’s generation. As I mentioned above, Alexandre Kojeve’s excitingly iconoclastic lectures on Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit caused a tremendous effect on his psychoanalytic theory, although Kojeve’s interpretation was already inspired by Marxist and Heideggerian ideas and for that reason Kojeve’s picture of Hegel is rather peculiar . However, what matters here is the fact that Lacan’s Hegel is mainly or even exclusively Kojeve’s Hegel, i.e. he is approaching him only in a very narrow frame of understanding.While Lacan treats Hegel as the inspiration for his own psychoanalytic concepts, Slovenian Lacanians take Lacan in order to explain and rethink the most sublime philosophic notions of German idealism. The tradition of such reading stems from the very beginning of their appearance in public, but probably the first book, systematically concerned only with Hegel, was Hegel in objekt (Hegel and the object) from 1985, written by Zizek and Dolar. The culminating point in this direction is represented by the recently published interpretation of Phenomenology of Spirit, Mladen Dolar’s dissertation, published in two volumes, which provides a highly elaborated reading of this famous book, tracing Hegelian notions from chapter to chapter and rethinking them in Lacanian terms .The Slovenian school became widely known in Anglo-Saxon countries (especially in the United States) by works published in English. The first break-through was made by a Zizek’s very warmly welcomed book The sublime object of ideology (Verso, 1989), which contains all characteristics of his highly original writing . Zizek is never trying to give us a systematic presentation of some theory and its critique; he is more concerned with finding a good anecdote or a joke, which illustrates some theoretical structure or ideological mechanism. Taking the examples from Hitchcock’s films, Kafka’s novels or Wagner’s operas and mixing them up with Lacan’s formulas and Hegel’s notions forms his standard, unmistakably recognizable style. Such an approach obviously hinders our intention to find a clear picture of Lacanian apprehension of Hegel, still I will try to depict some typical examples of his reading. Let me very briefly introduce some of the most popular notions in this area, that is of consciousness, desire, subject-substance relation, master-slave dialectic and Aufhebung. *Consciousness In the Phenomenology of Spirit Hegel traced the stages of this manifestation from the simplest level of consciousness, through self-consciousness, to the advent of Reason. But what determines the progress of this consciousnees? Traditionally his dialectic is the process whereby consciousness becomes aware of what it is and then afirms its discovery in reality. It discovers itself as negativity. For Hegel, Lacan argues, “the subject knows what he wants” from the very outset. Since whatever is recognized by self-consciousness was already present to consciousness, the end is present from the beginning. Selbstbewusstsein is the substratum of this process, the being conscious of self. But for Lacan the subject cannot know what he wants from the very beginning: his existence consists in a systematic meconnaisance. Consciousness’ development is an effect of language acquisition, and therefore the subject will be described as the subject of the signifier . The latter is defined as that which ‘represents the subject for another subject’. Zizek’s attempt represents a radically new theory of subjectivity found in the work of Lacan, and the passage from the consciousness to self-consciousness from Phenomenology of spirit is a good example for it. This passage always implies the experience of a certain radical failure: the subject (consciousness) wants to penetrate the secret behind the curtain and his effort fails because there is nothing behind. This nothing, the experience of it, is actually the real appearance of the subject: nothing itself is the subject.In the same sense Lacan too treats the subject (of the signifier) and the object (of fantasy) as correlative or even identical: the subject is the void, the hole in the Other. The subject’s entire ‘being’ consists in the fantasy-object filling out his void. The progression of consciousness shows us the way in which it gets subjectivized. The subject is therefore not even the effect of subjectivation: symbolic representation always displaces the subject, the latter cannot find ‘his own’ signifier. The failure of its representation is its positive condition - the subject it a retroactive effect of the failure; it resides in the constitutive act of symbolization . *Substance is subject Zizek and his followers very frequently use the example of the Hegelian thesis that the substance is to be conceived as subject. As I said before, Lacan’s subject is the subject of the signifier. Hegel criticized Descartes’s rational cogito and the transcendental ego of Fichte and Kant, but still he does not give us any positive theory of it and here is the chance for Lacan to help him. In Zizek’s view the best way to understand the concept of subject is to have a look at the tautology “God is God”. When one expects a specific determination of God, some predicate, one obtains nothing. Pure tautology thus opens a void in the Substance which is then filled out by the exception, a certain “nothing”: this void is the very subject, because lack of determination subjectivizes it. “God is God” is therefore the most succint way of saying “Substance is Subject”: there is no plenitude of a self-sufficient substance, identical with itself, but the absolute contradiction - the pure difference is always-already the impossible “predicate” of identity-with-itself . In Lacanian terms the identity of a signifier’s mark (S) always-already represents the subject ($). The subject is the void, the lack in the series of the predicates of the universal Substance, it is the Nothing implied in the Substance’s tautological self-relationship. The subject is substance precisely in so far as it experiences itself as substance; it is nothing but the name for this inner distance of ‘substance’ towards itself. *Desire Desire is another topic within Lacanian readings of Hegel: it is an essentially human phenomenon, which with the infant’s birth emerges into language because it is at that point that he first experiences “want”. Lacan is speaking of the distinction between need, demand and desire, all of them being internally dependent on each other . There is always some “dialectic of desire” going on in such a relationship, Lacan tells us, and in Zizek’s opinion it is precisely the same idea that can be found in Hegel’s dialectial movement, by which the individual, “I”, becomes self-conscious in the very act of desiring, through a dynamism of desire (Begierde). The “I” that desires experiences the emptiness with regard to the object of desire, unless it is directed toward another self-consciousness, i.e. another desire. What the “I” desires is to be the desire of the other whom he desires - to be desired in turn, to be recognized as desirable by the other. This corresponds with Lacan’s famous dictum “The desire of man is the desire of the Other”. In Lacan’s perspective desire is suddenly devalued, the defensive, inhibiting nature of it coming to the fore. Desire is what in demand is irreducible to need: if we subtract need (e.g. for food) from demand (e.g. for love), we get desire. For Lacan the object does not satisfy the desire, the object is causing it. The object of desire is a new one; it replaces the lost-sublated object of need - objet petit a, the object-cause of desire, one of Lacan’s the most famous notions. *Master-slave dialectic The struggle between domination and submission (Master and Slave, Lord and Bondsman), as it is reflected in the psychoanalytic relationship is a theme that recurs again and again in Lacan. In a way ‘the logic of intersubjectivity’ in him is dependent on the model of master-slave relation . Hegel shows us that the status of the master is established in the struggle to the death of pure prestige. A life and death struggle stands at the origin of individual acculturation much like that which Hegel saw as the precondition of all human history.For Lacan this same dialectic can be found in the psychoanalytic transference. The analytic relationship is by him frequently characterized as a struggle for recognition in which the analysand assumes the role of the slave, who agrees initially to undertake the work of analysis in order to satisfy the analyst-master. The patient lives in the expectation of the master’s death, from which moment he will begin to live, but in the meantime he identifies himself with the master as dead, “and as a result of this he is himself already dead .” The attack of a consciousness on another consciousness is to destroy the otherness in the other self and not the self. It is otherness that is attacked and not the self in the other.Lacan’s criticism of Hegelian dialectic of lordship and bondage is as follows: Hegel’s thesis is that, by submitting himself to the lord, the bondsman renounces enjoyment, which thus remains reserved for the lord. But Lacan claims it is precisely enjoyment (and not the fear of death) which keeps the bondsman in servitude. The bondsman is enjoying by expecting the enjoyment waiting for him at he moment of the Master’s death. Enjoyment is never immediate, it is always mediated by the presupposed enjoyment imputed to the Other; it is enjoyment procured by the expectation of enjoyment, by the renunciation of it . *Aufhebung Hegel was preoccupied with triadic development, one phase demanding the next by an inner necessity. In this development, known as the Hegelian dialectic, one concept, the thesis, is followed by its opposite, the antithesis; the ensuing conflict between the two is brought together at a higher level as a new concept, or synthesis, which becomes the thesis of yet another triad. Zizek and Dolar claim that the dialectical process is misunderstood because of the notion of ‘sublation’ (Aufhebung): usually it is thought there is a split, a dispersion of original unity, the Particular takes over the Universal. But when the disintegration reaches its utmost, it reverses into its opposite, the Idea succeeds in recollecting-internalizing all the wealth of particular determinations and thus reconciles its opposites. For most interpreteters Aufhebung never turns out without a certain remainder, there is always a certain leftover which resists the dialectical sublation, while being at the same time the condition of its possibility. This criticism is wrong: the dialectical ‘sublation’ is always a kind of retroactive ‘unmaking’, where the difference was always-already sublated and it actually never effectively existed. The point is not to overcome the obstacle to Unity but to experience how the obstacle never was one, how the appearance of an obstacle was due only to our wrong, “finite” perspective. The condition of the process of Aufhebung is a kernel, which resists the dialectics . Dialectics is for Hegel a systematic notion of the failure of its progressive overcoming - Hegelian ‘reconciliation’ is not a ‘panlogicist’ sublation of all reality in the Concept but a final consent to the fact that the Concept itself is ‘not-all’ (to use the Lacanian term). The pure form of dialectical mediation maintains its distance from the positive content it mediates only by means of its coincidence with the most inert, “nonmediated”, remainder of this content. The Lacanian “Real” ultimately denotes such a nonmediated leftover which serves as a support of the symbolic structure and it is through this remainder of the Real that the system achieves its identity with itself. The proper dialectical approach therefore includes its own suspension, a point of exception which is constitutive of the dialectical analysis. V. Finally, at the end of this survey, what is then the main contribution of Slovene Lacanians? Obviously Zizek and the surrounding group have made Lacan’s famous “return to Freud” a return, as well, to the best principles of the Enlightenment and philosophy of German idealism, reinterpreting them in a new and fresh way . In their own words, they have to accomplish a kind of ‘return to Hegel’. The idea of ideological and philosophical reactualization of the Hegelian heritage through Lacan and its affirmation against the postmodernistic and poststructuralistic movement is therefore the essential idea of such an endeavour. Boris Vezjak University of Maribor A bibliographical guide to some essential works of the Slovenian Lacanian school on Hegel (and German idealism) in Slovene and other languages (in order of the year of publication) Zizek, Slavoj: Hegel and the signifier: An attempt of ‘the materialistic turn’ of Hegel in the contemporary psychoanalytic theory and its meaning for the historical materialism (Ljubljana, Analecta, 1980). (in Slovene) Mocnik, Rastko & Zizek, Slavoj: Psychoanalysis and culture (Ljubljana, Drzavna zalozba Slovenije, 1981). (in Slovene) Zizek, Slavoj: History and the unconscious (Ljubljana, Cankarjeva zalozba, 1982). (in Slovene) Zizek, Slavoj: Philosophy through psychoanalysis (Ljubljana, Analecta, 1984). (in Slovene) Zizek, Slavoj & Dolar, Mladen: Hegel and the object (Ljubljana, Analecta, 1985). (in Slovene) Dolar, Mladen: Schelling’s philosophical development, in: F.W.J Schelling: Collected works (Ljubljana, Slovenska Matica, 1986), pp 349-386. (in Slovene) Riha, Rado & Zizek, Slavoj: Problems of the fetishism theory (Ljubljana, Analecta, 1985). (in Slovene) Kobe, Zdravko: Being and reflection, in: Desire and guilt (Ljubljana, Analecta, 1988), pp 125-176. (in Slovene) Zizek, Slavoj: The sublime object of ideology (London-New York, Verso, 1989). Dolar, Mladen: Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit I (Ljubljana, Analecta, 1990). (in Slovene) Zupancic, Alenka: Das Unheimliche in Kant’s theory of law, Ljubljana, Filozofski vestnik 11, 1990), pp 39-47. (in Slovene) Zizek, Slavoj (editor): Gestalten der Autoritaet : Seminar der Laibacher Lacan-Schule, Wien: Hora, 1991. Zizek, Slavoj: Looking awry : an introduction to Jacques Lacan through popular culture (Cambridge, London , The MIT Press, 1991). Zizek, Slavoj: Kant: the subject out of joint (Ljubljana, Filozofski vestnik 13, 1992), pp 233-248. Zizek, Slavoj: Der erhabenster aller Hysteriker : Psychoanalyse und die Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus ( Wien-Berlin, Turia & Kant, 1992). Zupancic, Alenka: On the beautiful in Kant, in: God, Teacher, Master, (Ljubljana, Analecta, 1991), pp 147-159. (in Slovene) Zizek, Slavoj: For they know not what they do : enjoyment as a political factor (London-New York, Verso, 1991). Kobe, Zdravko: Das Problem des inneren Sinnes : Das Innere, das Aussere, und die Apperzeption (Ljubljana, Filozofski vestnik, 1992), pp 79-96. Zizek, Slavoj: Enjoy your symptom!: Jacques Lacan in Hollywood and out (New York-London, Routledge, 1992). Dolar, Mladen: Selfconsciousness. Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit II (Ljubljana, Analecta, 1992). (in Slovene) Zizek, Slavoj: L’intraitable : psychanalyse, politique et culture de masse (Paris, Anthropos, 1993). Zupancic, Alenka: Ethics of the Real: Kant, Lacan (Ljubljana, Analecta, 1993). (in Slovene) Kobe, Zdravko: The place of the unconscious within the transcendental idealism (Ljubljana, Problemi-Razprave, 1993), pp 149-224. (in Slovene) Zizek, Slavoj: Tarrying with the Negative: Kant, Hegel and the critique of ideology (Durham, Duke University Press, 1993). Zupancic, Alenka: Kant and the paradox of “inner lie”, (Ljubljana, Problemi, 1994), pp 257-268. (in Slovene) Kobe, Zdravko: Automaton transcendentale I: Kant’s way to Kant (Ljubljana, Analecta, 1995). (in Slovene)