Why is it that cultural critics seem to be more patrician than

I really think Zizek most be on some kind of drug, he is like a funcional totally nuts guy

>>9106232
because it's easy to understand cultural criticism since we're exposed to culture on a constant basis, but the same can't be said of more abstract academic philosophy or more formal literary criticism. you can't say that something is patrician without understanding it enough to know that it's "above" you.

>>9106256
Does this mean plebs have the best eye for what's patrician?

>>9106377
Well, Machiavelli does say that those in the valleys are best able to comprehend the true nature of the mountains, and vice versa.

>>9106232
Because some men are actually intelligent. And those free men end up in fields where they have the freedom --- i.e. some of the best people who 'should' be in philosophy departments and write philosophy are actually in literature departments; because academic philosophy is such a conformist dead end, with no relation to any other discipline than itself and it's own worthless journal articles which nobody but the author reads and the desperate publish-or-perish and grant-getting anthill. Contemporary liberal academic political philosophy is spiritual anemia and analytic philosophy is a desperate attempt to appeal to scientists who don't care about what they have to say, from people who know nothing of science but constantly ape it. And then the typical response to this ridiculous situation by academicians and bureaucrats is that those people are either dangerous totalitarians or crazy know-nothings or subjectivist crazies who aren't scientific enough --- if 'scientific' simply means dressing up like a high school teacher from the 50s and refusing to risk a metaphor.

>>9106424
This

>>9106377
No, they aren't at the level of understanding cultural criticism. They might catch the references, but that's it. To a pleb, something like Catcher in the Rye would be patrician. Most reasonably well-read people can at least understand cultural criticism like Zizek, even if it's something that's a bit "above" them, if that makes sense.

Literature is like a ladder, where, as your taste grows, you become capable of appreciating higher works, and view lower works as trivial. The goal is to get to the top of the ladder.

>>9106232
>the culturalist will always understand the reference and have a list of implications as a result of it ready to go.
Except they might not even understand it, or vaguely understand it, and then talk within their own subjective terms. You only think they're impressive because you're a pleb, and not at a high level, and are swayed by whoever seems most confident/brays the loudest.

>>9106377
>>9106406
Plebs have no such thing. Even a clock is right twice a day.