D O C U M E N T/ I N T R O D U C T I O N

ON YUGOSLAV
POSTSTRUCTURALISM
INTRODUCTION TO “ART, SOCIETY/TEXT”

niKOLa DEDi ´C

“Umetnost,­družba/tekst”­was­an­editorial­published­in­the­Slovenian­
journal­Problemi-Razprave­(Problems-Debates)­in­1975.­It­was­written­
by­the­journal’s­editorial­board­at­the­time:­Mladen­Dolar,­Daniel­
Levski,­Jure­Mikuž,­Rastko­Mocˇnik,­and­Slavoj­Žižek.1­The­journal,­
which­is­still­published­today­under­the­name­Problemi,­was­the­central­
outlet­of­the­so-called­Slovenian­Lacanian­school,­and­as­such­the­most­
important­place­for­the­reception­of­French­antihumanist­philosophy­in­
the­former­Yugoslavia.­The­journal’s­concept­was­based­on­interpreting­
French­poststructuralism­in­the­spirit­of­Tel Quel­magazine;­anti-
humanist­Marxism­in­the­spirit­of­Louis­Althusser;­theoretical­psycho-
analysis­in­the­spirit­of­Jacques­Lacan­and­his­followers;­as­well­as­the­
special­blend­of­Lacanian­psychoanalysis­and­Althusserian­ideology­
­critique­that­characterized­the­French­journal­Cahiers pour l’analyse.2­
For­this­issue­of­ARTMargins,­the­original­text’s­fi­rst­two­parts­are­
translated,­in­which­the­theoretical­orientation­of­the­whole­magazine­
is­elaborated;­the­excised­third­and­fourth­parts,­which­I­will­also­

1­­

2­­

“Umetnost,­družba/tekst:­Nekaj­pripomb­o­sedanjih­razmerijih­razrednega­boja­na­
podrocˇju­književne­produkcije­in­njenih­ideologij”­[Arte,­Society/Text:­A­Few­Notes­on­
Contemporary­Relations­in­Class­Struggle­in­the­Domain­of­Literary­Production­and­Its­
Ideologies],­Problemi-Razprave­XIII,­nos.­3–5­(March–May­1975):­1–10.
One­might­also­fi­nd­theoretical­and­conceptual­similarities­between­Problemi­and­other­
French­poststructuralist­periodicals,­such­as­Peinture, cahiers théoriques­and­Cahiers du
cinéma.

© 2016 ARTMargins and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

doi:10.1162/ARTM_a_00160

93 93

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu
UN
R
T

/

/

M
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

5
3
9
3
1
9
8
8
8
9
6
UN
R
T

/

M
_
UN
_
0
0
1
6
0
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

­discuss­briefly­in­this­introductory­commentary,­focus­on­debates­
around­the­local­literature­scene­in­Slovenia­and­Yugoslavia­at­­
that­time.

Problemi­was­a­unique­example­of­a­journal­seeking­to­introduce­
structuralism,­poststructuralism,­and­Lacanian­psychoanalysis­into­
debates­about­society,­culture,­ideology,­and­art­in­a­socialist­country.­
In­so­doing,­it­realized­a­critique­and­deconstruction­of­humanist­
­philosophies,­including­Marxist­variants­of­existentialism­and­phenom-
enology,­which­had­hitherto­dominated­Yugoslav­theory­(the­protago-
nists­of­which­were­the­philosophers­gathered­around­the­journal­
Praxis—Gajo­Petrovi ´c,­Milan­Kangrga,­Danko­Grli ´c,­Rudi­Supek,­and­
others).­In­relation­to­art,­Problemi­represented­a­gradual­overcoming­
of­the­Yugoslav­neo-avant-garde­utopian­experiments­of­the­1960s­and­
’70s.­Most­notable­here,­at­least­in­Slovenia,­was­the­neo-avant-garde­
utopianism­of­the­OHO­group,­which­sought­to­bridge­Arte Povera,­
land­art,­and­process­art­through­a­“mystical”­conceptualism­in­the­
spirit­of­the­hippie­movement.­The­journal­also­anticipated­the­post-
modernist­strategies­of­the­Yugoslav­retro-avant-garde­nearly­a­decade­
Dopo,­especially­the­cynical­and­citational-eclectic­strategies­of­the­­
Neue­Slowenische­Kunst­collective,­which­did­not­seek­a­utopian­trans-
formation­of­the­world­so­much­as­an­anti-utopian­transgression­in­the­
field­of­ideology.­Although­Problemi­was­basically­a­journal­in­the­mold­
of­Tel Quel,­its­greatest­difference­from­many­similar­French­journals­
in­the­1960s­lay­in­the­absence­of­radical­Maoism­from­its­purview.­
This­was­due­to­the­specificity­of­the­Yugoslav­context­at­the­time,­
which­rested­on­the­ideal­of­already-realized­self-managed­socialism.3­
The­journal,­as­well­as­the­editorial­discussed­below,­had­none­of­that­
characteristically­French­“zeal­and­ecstasy­that­Tel Quel-ian­writings­
had,”­according­to­critic­Miško­Šuvakovi ´c,­“precisely­because­it­
emerged­in­a­postrevolutionary­society­that­no­longer­allowed­for­
­charismatic­revolutionary­rhetoric,­but­sought­to­relocate­it­to­remote­

3­­

The­concept­of­socialist­self-management­was­introduced­in­1950.­It­emerged­through­a­
revision­of­revolutionary­state­Marxism­of­the­Bolshevist­type­toward­a­state­that­would­
proclaim­and­implement­direct­democracy:­it­was­based­on­the­concept­of­debureaucra-
tizing­productive­labor­by­switching­from­planned,­statist­policymaking­to­workers’­self-
management­and­a­socialist­free­market.­The­postulates­of­self-management­were­
elaborated­by­Edvard­Kardelj,­Boris­Kidricˇ,­Milovan­Đilas,­and­others,­by­relying­on­
Marx’s­slogan­of­“factories­to­the­workers”­and­a­revolutionary­implementation­of­the­
social-utopian­teachings­of­the­Paris­Commune,­and­by­forging­active­political­ties­with­
British­Labour­and­Scandinavian,­Belgian,­and­German­social­democrats.

3

:

5

S
N

io

G
R
UN
M
T
R
UN

94

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu
UN
R
T

/

/

M
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

5
3
9
3
1
9
8
8
8
9
6
UN
R
T

/

M
_
UN
_
0
0
1
6
0
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

historicizations­of­the­revolution­or­to­theoretical­and­philosophical­
­distances­between­the­revolution­and­analysis­of­class­struggle,­divided­
into­different­registers.”4

Problemi­was­not­alone­in­its­endeavors,­but­part­of­a­broader­cul-
ture­advancing­Slovenian­poststructuralism­and­Yugoslav­readings­of­
Lacan’s­psychoanalysis.­Among­these­were­the­Society­for­Theoretical­
Psychoanalysis­in­Ljubljana­and­the­Analecta­publishing­house,­espe-
cially­its­series­Filozofija skozi psihoanalizo­(Philosophy­through­
Psychoanalysis),­which­initially­published­lectures­given­at­the­Society,­
based­on­Lacanian­structuralist­analysis­of­classical­German­philoso-
phy­such­as­Hegel­and­Marxist­social­theory.­We­can­also­think­of­the­
continuation­of­the­Slovenian­“alternative,”­based­on­a­blend­of­punk,­
1980s­youth­cultures,­and­the­Slovenian­retro-avant-garde’s­radical­
artistic­procedures—Lacanian­psychoanalysis,­as­a­form­of­ideology­
critica,­acted­as­the­theoretical­framework­for­the­emergence­of­this­
amalgam.5

As­noted­above,­the­article­comprises­four­sections:­the­first­con-
tains­the­journal’s­programming­policy,­which­was­based­on­a­Marxist,­
materialist­theory­of­art­interpreted­through­poststructuralism­and­
psychoanalysis;­the­second,­third,­and­fourth­sections­analyze­the­local­
Slovenian­situation­in­the­domain­of­art­and­culture­under­self-man-
aged­socialism,­observed­through­the­journal’s­antihumanist­lens.6­

4­­ Miško­Šuvakovi ´c,­Diskurzivna analiza­[Discursive­Analysis]­(Belgrade:­Univerzitet­umet-

5­­

6­­

nosti,­2006),­466.
The­authors­of­“Umetnost,­družba/tekst”­went­on­to­become­the­chief­representatives­of­
Yugoslav­antihumanist­philosophy.­Mladen­Dolar,­for­instance,­applied­Lacanian­psycho-
analysis­in­his­interpretations­of­German­classical­idealism­(the­most­important­of­which­
concerns­Hegel’s­Phenomenology of Spirit),­as­well­as­music­and­opera.­Rastko­Mocˇnik­
generated­unique­ways­to­apply­Althusser’s­theories­of­ideology­to­political­philosophy,­
the­sociology­of­art,­theoretical­psychoanalysis,­semiotics,­linguistics,­and­leftist­political­
activism.­Jure­Mikuž­is­an­art­historian­who­later­undertook­historical­anthropology­and­
art­criticism,­while­Slavoj­Žižek­today­is­the­most­prominent­international­philosopher­in­
the­field­of­Lacanian­ideology­critique.­He­published­his­first­books­soon­after­the­emer-
gence­of­this­editorial,­proceeding­to­his­current­global­fame­only­after­1990.
The­notion­of­humanism­within­Marxist­theory­implies­a­striving­for­a­kind­of­holistic­
thought,­which­views­Marxism­as­a­great­synthetic­philosophy­of­the­teleological­emanci-
pation­of­the­entire­society.­It­is­based­on­reading­Marx­within­a­dialectic­of­alienation­
and­(self-)emancipation;­in­that­sense,­totality­is­interpreted­as­a­normative­aim­to­be­
attained­in­the­process­of­social­emancipation.­By­contrast,­within­an­antihumanist­per-
spective,­history­is­viewed­not­as­a­teleological,­diachronic­process­leading­toward­the­­
self-realization­of­the­human­subject­or­society,­but­as­a­synchronic­field­of­structures,­­
or­relations.­As­such,­structure­(or­social­process)­precedes­the­human­subject.­Anti-
humanism­abandoned­the­ideas­of­universality,­rationalism,­absolute­truth,­linearity,­­
and­so­on.

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu
UN
R
T

/

/

M
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

5
3
9
3
1
9
8
8
8
9
6
UN
R
T

/

M
_
UN
_
0
0
1
6
0
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

M
S

io

l
UN
R
U
T
C
U
R
T
S
T
S
O
P

V
UN
l
S
O
G
U
Y

N
O

|

´C

io

D
E
D

95

The­text’s­main­purpose­is­to­offer­a­materialist­critique­of­the­
­bourgeois­concept­of­artistic­autonomy,­which­was­an­inherent­charac-
teristic­of­the­phenomenon­now­known­as­Yugoslav­socialist­modern-
ism.­Following­the­country’s­break­with­Stalin­and­the­Cominform­in­
1948,­Yugoslavia­rejected­socialist­realism­as­its­official­artistic­doc-
trine,­instead­adopting­the­formalist­procedures­of­international­mod-
ernism­as­signs­of­the­country’s­liberalization­of­art­and­culture.­At­
first,­this­turn­brought­cultural­emancipation­under­the­conditions­­
of­socialist­self-management;­yet,­by­advocating­artistic­autonomy­and­
the­apolitical,­socialist­modernism­was­often­a­locus­of­bureaucratized­
art­and­culture,­as­well­as­a­stronghold­of­conservative­resistance­
against­the­radical­experiments­of­the­Yugoslav­neo-avant-garde­(in­­
that­regard,­art­historians­have­described­this­phenomenon­as­“moder-
ate­modernism”­and­“socialist­aestheticism,”­as­well).7­The­Problemi­
editorial­offers­a­deconstruction­of­socialist­modernism­as­a­relic­of­a­
traditional­European­humanism­that­was­also­highly­aestheticized—
that­is,­arguing­that­the­dominant­ideological­paradigm­in­Yugoslav­
culture­at­the­time­was­predicated­on­a­bourgeois­fetishization­of­art.
Instead­of­the­humanist­concept­of­artistic­autonomy,­the­editors­

insist­on­interpreting­art­as­a­form­of­material­practice­(in­a­traditional­
Marxist­sense,­the­notion­of­“material­practice”­implies­that­human­life­
is­not­determined­by­consciousness,­but­rather­by­its­material­and­
social­conditions­of­existence—modes­of­production,­ideology,­social­
relations,­etc.)­that­is­fundamentally­linked­to­class­struggle.­
Nonetheless,­whereas­classical­Marxist­theory­links­materialism­and­
class­struggle­with­economic­processes,­the­editorial­insists­on­recon-
ceptualizing­and­associating­those­concepts­with­the­Tel Quel–derived­
concept­of­signification­or­textual practice.­In­that­regard,­the­material-
ism­of­Problemi­is­not­that­of­economic­processes­as­the­basic­determi-
nant­of­history­and­society,­but­of­language­and­culture­viewed­as­
complex­systems­of­producing­meaning­in­a­historically­given­society.­
Its­materialism,­in­other­words,­is­that­of­discourse­in­the­poststructur-
alist­sense.­As­their­central­term,­the­authors­single­out­the­classic­
Marxist­concept­of­reflection,­but­not­in­its­humanistically­understood­

7­­

For­a­more­detailed­discussion,­see­Ješa­Denegri,­“Inside­or­Outside­‘Socialist­
Modernism’?­Radical­Views­on­the­Yugoslav­Art­Scene,­1950–1970,”­in­Impossible
Histories: Historical Avant-Gardes, Neo-Avant-Gardes, and Post-Avant-Gardes in Yugoslavia,
1918–1991,­edited­by­Dubravka­Djuricˇ­and­Miško­Šuvakovi ´c­(Cambridge,­MA:­MIT­Press,­
2003),­170–208.

3

:

5

S
N

io

G
R
UN
M
T
R
UN

96

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu
UN
R
T

/

/

M
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

5
3
9
3
1
9
8
8
8
9
6
UN
R
T

/

M
_
UN
_
0
0
1
6
0
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Marxist­sense­through­the­traditional­dialectic­of­base­and­superstruc-
ture.­According­to­that­tradition,­the­base­comprises­the­domain­of­
­economic­exchange,­whereas­art,­as­part­of­the­superstructure,­mimet-
ically­reflects­whatever­goes­on­in­the­base’s­economic­domain.­Slo-
venian­Lacanians­rejected­this­view­of­social­structure­and­instead­
emphasized­the­claim­that­art­reflects­society­not­in­terms­of­mimesis,­
but­through­a­process­of­exclusion­in­the­field­of­ideology.­Society­is­not­
a­homogeneous­or­undivided­whole;­on­the­contrary,­the­social­field­is­
established­by­excluding­a­traumatic­“remainder”­or­lack.­In­that­sense,­
society­is­negatively­determined.­Art­presents­precisely­this­point­of­
exclusion­in­the­social­field.

Slovenian­antihumanist­theorists­thereby­imply­that­both­the­
human­subject­and­society­itself­are­fragmentary­and­inconsistent­
­entities,­a­concept­they­draw­from­what­Lacan­called­the­nonwhole.­
According­to­Lacanian­psychoanalysis,­nature­and­culture­do­not­form­
two­circles­that­might­come­together­to­form­a­unified­whole;­only­­
their­intersections­are­apparent,­from­which­something­falls­out.­
Antihumanist­philosophy­thus­deconstructs­the­2,000-year-old­
Western­tradition­of­complementarity,­totality,­wholeness,­and­consis-
tency.­(This­means­that­antihumanist­philosophy­is­reluctant­to­ground­
discourse­in­any­theory­of­metaphysical­origin;­it­insists­on­plurality­
and­the­instability­of­meanings,­and­it­doubts­systematic­scientificity,­
rationalism,­and­linear­thinking.)8­Using­the­concepts­of­disinterested­
art­and­its­autonomy,­bourgeois­ideology­seeks­to­posit­society­as­a­
whole,­undivided­unity;­by­negating­this­elitist­concept­of­autonomy,­
critical­art,­by­contrast,­points­to­the­fact­that­society­is­fragmented.­­
It­strikes­at­the­locus­of­social­antagonism­and­thereby­rediscovers­­
the­signifying,­productive­nature­of­art,­and­in­the­process­reveals­the­
revolutionary­potential­of­cultural­production.

What­is­important­to­note­is­that­by­reinterpreting­Marxist­theory,­
then­dominant­in­the­Yugoslav­framework,­the­Slovenian­theorists­nei-
ther­rejected­nor­sought­to­revise­Marxism­ideologically;­rather,­by­
deconstructing­Marxian­humanism­in­a­Lacanian­and­Althusserian­
spirit,­they­insisted­on­radicalizing­it.­In­lieu­of­the­humanist­belief­
that­the­subject­and­society’s­self-realization­were­meant­to­reconcile­
the­contradictions­of­the­economy,­Slovenian­post-Marxist­theory­

8­­ Miško­Šuvakovi ´c,­Postmoderna (73 pojma)­[Postmodernity­(73­Concepts)]­(Belgrade:­

Narodna­knjiga/Alfa,­1995),­46–47.

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu
UN
R
T

/

/

M
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

5
3
9
3
1
9
8
8
8
9
6
UN
R
T

/

M
_
UN
_
0
0
1
6
0
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

M
S

io

l
UN
R
U
T
C
U
R
T
S
T
S
O
P

V
UN
l
S
O
G
U
Y

N
O

|

´C

io

D
E
D

97

insisted­on­the­impossibility­of­reconciling­social­antagonisms,­reflect-
ing­the­poststructuralist­concept­of­difference,­as­opposed­to­the­ideal-
ist­category­of­totality.­What­it­sought­to­deconstruct,­then,­was­the­
economic­basis­of­classical­Marxism:­whereas­vulgar­Marxists­situated­
social­antagonisms­in­the­field­of­economy,­Slovenian­Lacanians,­
including­the­editors­of­“Art,­Society/Text,”­located­them­in­the­field­­
of­culture,­which­for­them­was­the­field­of­signification.­In­other­words,­
social­antagonisms­relate­not­only­to­class­differences,­but­also­to­those­
of­gender,­race,­nation,­generation,­subculture,­and­so­on.­No­society­­
is­free­of­inherent­antagonisms—any­society­that­declares­itself­non-
antagonistic­inevitably­falls­into­totalitarianism.­Marxism­is­thereby­
transformed­from­a­utopian­idea­of­synthesis­into­a­materialist­theory­
of­transgressivity,­gaining­a­basically­negative­or­antinormative­
determination.

The­editorial’s­third­and­fourth­parts­(omitted­from­our­transla-
zione)­analyze­the­state­of­Slovenian­literature­at­the­beginning­of­the­
1970s.­As­in­the­visual­arts­at­that­time,­so-called­sober­modernism­or­
socialist­aestheticism­dominated­in­Slovenian­literature.­The­editors­
critique­these­dominant­trends­in­Slovenian­national­culture­and­link­
them­with­philosophical­idealism­in­interpreting­art­and­culture.­The­
editors­also­deal­with­the­contemporary­Slovenian­literary­scene:­they­
emphasize­the­importance­of­artists­such­as­Rimbaud,­Lautréamont,­
and­Mallarmé­in­literature,­Cézanne­in­painting,­and­Schoenberg­in­
music,­all­of­whom­marked­a­radical­materialist­cut­in­Western­culture,­
from­art­as­a­disinterested­and­beautiful­object­toward­interpreting­art­
as­a­material,­signifying­practice.­The­authors­stress­that­such­a­radical­
materialist­cut­had­yet­to­happen­in­Slovenian­and­Yugoslav­culture,­
and­especially­in­literature,­notwithstanding­the­efforts­of­individual­
avant-garde­artists.­They­further­highlight­the­significance­of­the­
Slovenian­neo-avant-garde,­explicitly­mentioning­the­poetic­works­of­
Boris­Paš,­Aleš­Kermanauer,­and­Istok­G.­Plamen,­and­especially­the­
OHO­group’s­experiments­in­the­domain­of­poetry,­even­as­the­authors­
maintain­that­while­OHO­came­“to­the­brink­of­making­such­a­break,”­
they­did­not­ultimately­achieve­it.

The­OHO­group­was­active­between­1966­and­1971­and­went­
through­a­number­of­stages­in­its­neo-avant-garde­experimentation;­
one­of­them­was­so-called­reism.­In­its­work,­the­group­was­inspired­by­
phenomenology,­and­especially­by­the­Slovenian­philosopher­Taras­
Kermanauer’s­theoretical­thinking;­during­its­reistic­phase,­the­group­

3

:

5

S
N

io

G
R
UN
M
T
R
UN

98

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu
UN
R
T

/

/

M
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

5
3
9
3
1
9
8
8
8
9
6
UN
R
T

/

M
_
UN
_
0
0
1
6
0
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

acted­in­the­domain­of­pure­perception,­working­with­phenomena­
themselves—that­is,­with­forms­of­appearance­in­their­unmediated­
presence.­In­line­with­that­thinking,­Marko­Pogacˇnik,­a­member­of­­
the­group,­used­a­simple­procedure­to­make­impressions­of­quotidian­
objects­and­then­gave­them,­in­the­space­of­a­gallery,­the­appearance­­
of­immediate­presence.­Reistic­poetry,­for­instance,­entails­working­to­
transform­text­into­a­book-object­(or­a­box­as­a­collection­of­objects,­or­
to­transform­a­spatial­object­in­the­spirit­of­visual­poetry).­It­insists­on­
a­tautological­relation­between­the­meaning­of­a­word­and­its­visual­
phenomenality—a­word­literally­points­to­visual­phenomenality,­and­
vice­versa.­The­authors­of­the­editorial­accept­the­significance­of­the­
reistic­poets’­neo-avant-garde­experiments,­but­criticize­precisely­this­
engagement­with­phenomenologically­closed,­essentialist,­and­ontolog-
ically­founded­systems­that­disregard­the­productive,­heteronomous,­
intertextual,­rhizomatic,­open,­and­transgressive­nature­of­language.­
Throughout­the­history­of­Problemi,­especially­in­the­1970s,­literary­
contributions­were­not­published­very­often;­instead,­each­issue­con-
sisted­mostly­of­papers­that­dealt­with­Lacanian­psychoanalysis,­a­
fusion­of­psychoanalytic­theory­and­traditional­philosophy,­linguistics,­
antipedagogy,­and­so­on.­But­an­important­part­of­every­issue­was­dedi-
cated­to­art,­and­particularly­to­film­and­literary­theory.­Similarly­to­­
Tel Quel,­those­contributions­promoted­so-called­textual­writing,­in­
which­the­linguistic­or­material­aspect­of­the­text­prevailed­over­the­
representation­of­external­reality.­The­authors­of­those­articles­privi-
leged­blurring­the­divide­between­theoretical­and­fictional­writing­and­
the­aesthetics­of­“the­unfinished”­and­“the­infinite.”­In­line­with­this­
method,­the­editors’­critique­of­the­OHO­group­pursued­a­deconstruc-
tion­of­phenomenological­essentialism­through­a­structural­analysis­­
of­language.

The­concluding­paragraphs­of­the­article­provide­guidelines­for­­

the­journal’s­future­activities.­From­today’s­perspective,­the­text­offers­
clear­indications­about­the­development­of­Slovenian­and­Yugoslav­
poststructuralism,­which­would­operate­in­the­domain­of­deconstruct-
ing­the­national(ist)­understanding­of­culture.­It­is­also­an­example­of­
“cleansing”­Marxist­theory­of­all­remnants­of­idealism­(such­as­econo-
mism,­humanism,­mechanical­interpretations­of­the­categories­of­
reflection­and­class­struggle,­etc.),­and­especially­linking­up­with­the­
historical­avant-gardes’­heritage­(symbolism,­zenitism,­surrealism,­
dada,­and­Russian­avant-gardes)­of­interpreting­art­and­culture.­In­the­

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu
UN
R
T

/

/

M
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

5
3
9
3
1
9
8
8
8
9
6
UN
R
T

/

M
_
UN
_
0
0
1
6
0
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

M
S

io

l
UN
R
U
T
C
U
R
T
S
T
S
O
P

V
UN
l
S
O
G
U
Y

N
O

|

´C

io

D
E
D

99

years­that­followed,­Slovenian­poststructuralism­developed­in­multiple­
directions,­reinterpreting­classical­aesthetics­from­a­humanist­study­of­
the­beautiful­into­a­materialist,­interdisciplinary­platform­for­studying­
culture­(in­that­regard,­especially­relevant­is­the­work­of­Aleš­Erjavec),­
via­an­Althusserian-Lacanian­philosophy­of­science­(Rado­Riha),­the­
semiotics­of­painting­(Braco­Rotar,­Tomaž­Brejc,­Jure­Mikuž),­and­a­
definite­crystallization­of­the­Slovenian­Lacanian­school­as­ideological­
critique­(Slavoj­Žižek,­Rastko­Mocˇnik,­Mladen­Dolar,­Alenka­Zupancˇicˇ,­
Renata­Salecl,­etc.).­What­was­merely­suggested­by­the­theoretical­work­
of­the­authors­gathered­around­Problemi­culminated,­during­the­1980s,­
with­the­emergence­of­the­Slovenian­youth­alternative­and­the­develop-
ment­of­retro-avant-garde­artistic­strategies­by­collectives­such­as­
Laibach­and­Borghesia­in­music­and­the­visual­arts,­IRWIN­in­paint-
ing,­and­the­Scipion­Nasice­Sisters­in­theater.

Yugoslav­poststructuralism­represents­a­unique­place­in­the­devel-

opment­of­the­humanities­among­Europe’s­other­post-communist­
countries,­where,­due­to­their­specific­political­and­historical­circum-
stances,­no­reception­of­French­poststructuralist­philosophy­was­
­possible,­let­alone­a­nuanced­critique­of­poststructuralism’s­revision­­
of­Marxist­theory.­The­Yugoslav­variant­of­self-managed­socialism­was­
liberal­enough­to­permit­such­a­synthesis.­Moreover,­the­reception­of­
poststructuralism­in­Yugoslavia­was­no­mere­importation­of­ready-
made­models­of­French­philosophy,­but­rather­their­reinterpretation­
according­to­the­conditions­that­prevailed­in­Yugoslavia­at­the­time.­
Most­of­the­theorists­gathered­around­Problemi,­and­later­the­Slovenian­
Society­for­Theoretical­Psychoanalysis,­had­a­thorough­education­in­
Marxism,­a­consequence­of­socialist­Yugoslavia’s­“ideological­horizon.”­
At­the­same­time,­this­generation­lived­in­a­system­that­enabled­them­
to­study­and­pursue­further­education­abroad,­typically­at­universities­
in­France­(Rastko­Mocˇnik­studied­at­the­École­Pratique­des­Hautes­
Études­and­the­École­des­Hautes­Études­en­Sciences­Sociales­in­Paris,­
Slavoj­Žižek­studied­at­Université­Paris­VIII­Vincennes­à­Saint-Denis,­
and­other­Slovenian­poststructuralist­thinkers­pursued­similar­paths­
in­their­educations).­This­mix­of­Marxism,­poststructuralism,­and­psy-
choanalysis­eventually­enabled­Yugoslav­theory­to­make­an­original­
contribution­internationally­(culminating­in­Žižek’s­international­
­success­after­the­1989­English­translation­of­The Sublime Object of
Ideology).­Slovenian­Lacanian­theory,­sketched­out­in­this­1975­editorial­
of­Problemi,­effected­a­sort­of­paradigm­shift­in­discussions­of­psycho-

3

:

5

S
N

io

G
R
UN
M
T
R
UN

100

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu
UN
R
T

/

/

M
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

5
3
9
3
1
9
8
8
8
9
6
UN
R
T

/

M
_
UN
_
0
0
1
6
0
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

analysis­as­a­critical­theory,­enabling­the­materialist­transition­of­
­psychoanalysis­from­a­metamedical­theory­into­an­all-encompassing­
theory­of­culture.­Indeed,­in­the­hands­of­its­Yugoslav­advocates,­psy-
choanalysis­would­become­a­late-materialist,­poststructuralist­ideologi-
cal­critique.9­Curiously,­we­can­see­the­seeds­of­this­transformation­of­
Lacanian­psychoanalysis­in­the­work­of­the­French­authors­gathered­
around­Jacques-Alain­Miller­at­the­Cahiers pour l’analyse.­The­Cahiers­
were­discontinued­after­only­ten­issues,­and­its­editorial­board­dis-
persed­in­different­directions,­from­political­Maoism­to­academic­work­
in­other,­non-Marxist­areas.10­The­transformation­would­find­its­fore-
most­proponents,­however,­in­the­Yugoslav­philosophers­of­Problemi-
Razprave­and­their­application­of­Lacan’s­nonwhole­of­discourse­to­
issues­of­ideology.­Precisely­for­that­reason,­the­editorial­presented­­
here­provides­an­important­testament­to­the­beginnings­of­a­dynamic­
E,­within­the­confines­of­what­used­to­be­called­Eastern­Europe,­
unique­intellectual­scene.

9­­

È interessante notare,­unlike­their­French­colleagues,­the­Slovenian­authors­have­not­pursued­
psychoanalytic­practice,­but­have­acted­only­in­the­field­of­social­theory.

10­­ See­Peter­Hallward,­“Introduction:­Theoretical­Training,”­in­Concept and Form: Volume 1.
Selections from the­Cahiers­pour­l’Analyse,­edited­by­Peter­Hallward­and­Knox­Peden­
(London:­Verso,­2012),­1–55.

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu
UN
R
T

/

/

M
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

5
3
9
3
1
9
8
8
8
9
6
UN
R
T

/

M
_
UN
_
0
0
1
6
0
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

M
S

io

l
UN
R
U
T
C
U
R
T
S
T
S
O
P

V
UN
l
S
O
G
U
Y

N
O

|

´C

io

D
E
D

101

Scarica il pdf