ZIZEK's BRAND OF EXCESS AND LA TRAHISON DES CLERCS No one who has tried to work in from a perspective which is even conscious of global hegemony of neo-liberalism and its social consequences can fail to be dismayed by atmosphere of complete disengagement which seems to infuse so much cultural studies and related areas of thought ... (Bowman and Stamp 77) I heard recently Oliver Cromwell's address to rump parliament in 1653 (online, I'm not a Time Lord) where he bawls out whole of House of Commons as whores, virtueless horses and money-grabbing dicklickers. I added last one but, honestly, that is vibe. I was getting close to admiring old Oliver for his calls it as he sees it, balls-out rhetoric till I read about him on Wikipedia and learned that beyond this brilliant 8 Mile-style takedown of corrupt politicians he was a right arsehole; starving and murdering Irish and generally (and surprisingly for a Roundhead) being a total square. The fact remains that if you were to recite his speech in parliament today you'd be hard pushed to find someone who could be legitimately offended. (Brand) Through his inimitable use of philosophical excess in form of frequently offensive examples and dirty jokes, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek has risen to either academic celebrity status or notoriety depending upon one's personal taste. The briefest survey of his work reveals serious philosophical points conveyed through jocular descriptions of sphincters, interracial threesomes, and Hegelian nature of shit. This paper uses specific case of Zizek and his use of filthy humour to explore wider questions about viability of excess as a compensatory strategy for today's version of la trahison des clercs--the intellectual pusillanimity and lack of engagement with social and consequences of neoliberal ideology, a problem recognised above by even one of Zizek's fiercest critics. This lack of engagement has produced an intellectual climate in which most basic critical concepts have become decaffeinated. Ironically, this is not because critical theory's insights have proved inaccurate, but rather opposite. Pragmatic accommodations by academics with capitalist realpolitik have plumbed such quotidian depths that familiarity has bred, not contempt, but consent. For example, instead of constituting a cautionary concept, Adorno and Horkheimer's deliberate oxymoron the culture industry has become smoothly co-opted into such new capitalism-acquiescent fields of study as creative and industries, and in today's UK university sector, scholars scrabble indecorously to prove to funding councils real world and commercial impact of their work. This paper argues that within such a depressingly acquiescent environment, comedic excess can serve a valuably uplifting corrective and countervailing role--in terms of advertising slogan for Heineken beer, it can still refresh parts that other forms of political analysis no longer reach. The second quotation above comes from a guest editorial by comedian Russell Brand for British political magazine, The New Statesman. Whilst calling for a revolution in way we think about our current political situation, Brand does so in a manner that shares Zizek's strategic use of ribald humour's excess as an ideological tool with which to critique contemporary mediascape. Shortly before publication of his article, Brand appeared on a BBC flagship news programme Newsnight questioned by doyen of aggressive British TV political interviewing, Jeremy Paxman. By end of interview, due to a combination of Brand's strength of feeling, radical nature of his views and paradoxically earnest nature of his defence of right to be facetious, Paxman (despite being widely referred to in press as a Rottweiler) appears to be visibly chastened and video of encounter went viral (Paxman). …