Fantasy-traversal is ultimately about changing the subject’s position relative to the object/issue in question, getting us to ‘realise’ that “There is no Big Other”.

How this happens, of course, needn’t be limited to one or two approaches. Off my head, depending on the context, options include:

1) identifying with the system/symptom (which is what the article was about)

2) absolute withdrawal (the ‘Seeing’ example, Bartleby’s “I prefer not to”, etc.)

3) absolute commitment in the face of severe opposition (e.g. Antigone?)

4) divine (revolutionary) violence (Lenin, Mao, etc.), this is why IMO Zizek doesn’t exactly frown on the Cultural Revolution and, in fact, he probably thinks Mao didn’t go far enuff!

5) Random disruption (the clinical practice whereby the analyst interrupts the analysand out of the blue or/and even terminates the session)

There are a few more, but at the end of the day the point is to make us break the disavowal of what we already know, i.e. to smash the ‘enjoyment’ we get from the existing circuits, practices, etc.

Edu-trainer, Žižek studies, amateur theologian, columnist.

Edu-trainer, Žižek studies, amateur theologian, columnist.