Hegel, le sacre monstre
Sacre, sacred, derived from the Latin sacrare to make holy, to immortalise and to set apart.
Monstre from the Latin monstrum, a portent, warning or monster.
How can that which is sacred be a monster; and how can that which is monster be sacred? They are after all, properly thought as opposites - Agamben points out this was a notion that was already known to the ancient Romans, and obscure in meaning; he quotes Macrobius's Saturnalia to show:
I am not unaware that it appears strange to some people that whilst it is forbidden to violate any sacred thing it is permitted to kill the sacred man (sacer homo).
For Agamben, this figure of liminality signifies:
a moment in the life of a concept when it loses all immediate intelligibility, and can then, like all empty terms be overburdened with contradictory meanings.
Thus Hegel having died, and therefore having become merely (and morely) a concept, and then having assumed the life of a concept we see as a matter of empirical fact that this point of unintelligibility has been attained - and for analytical philosophers, this has made Hegel entirely opaque; his thinking has vanished leaving behind only a residue of pure immediate and indeterminate yet concretely physical text.
For philosophers on the continent dismissal isn't enough, he must be killed; but being inopportunely already dead, it's his after-image, the image of his thought, that is his reputation that must be laid waste; and this as psychology has shown in its interrogation of the human and political requires neccessarily demonisation - for philosophers before they are reasoning beings, are also human beings with human weaknesses.
Zizek, on the other hand wishes to rescue Hegel from Marxism, from over, under and indifferent interpretation; from being set aside to being made central - and this requires labour, and a special kind of labour - the labour of love.