"One of the telltale signs of university discourse is that the opponent is accused of being “dogmatic” and “sectarian.” University discourse cannot tolerate an engaged subjective stance. Should not our first gesture be, as Lacanians, to heroically assume this designation of being “sectarian” and engage in a “sectarian” polemic?"
I should ask (to relate this to another thread/question on this website) who the real academics here are? According to Slavoj Zizek (here: http://www.lacan.com/essays/?page_id=303),
there is some real value in adopting the sectarian stance with regards to those who provoke others with their "anti-sectarian" position: you will recall the way AJODA responded to some critics not too long ago with 'what is sectarianism?'. The university discourse is founded upon a desire to produce knowledge for the master, openly submitting oneself to work for the master. In the case of the sectarianism debate the correct position is not to say: 'well you are being sectarian, and we are not', this is merely the equivalent of suggesting that one is the master of the tradition while the other option is failure, thus closing off, as Jarach would say, the right to another subjectivity (a human right, I would say :-P).
Elsewhere, Zizek says, of T. S. Eliot, that there are "moments when the only choice is the one between sectarianism and non-belief, i.e., when the only way to keep a religion alive is to perform a sectarian split from its main corpse. By means of this sectarian split, by cutting himself off the decaying corpose of the International Psychoanalytic association, Lacan kept the Freudian teaching alive -- and it is upon us today to do the same with Lacan." Well, it strikes me that Anarchism is quickly being brought to death. It seems to me that many folks are aware of this (the post-left debate, nihilist anarchy, anti-civ anarchism, etc) but we have yet to come to terms with the value of our sectarianism. If we care about anarchism it is required that we split from it.