Changes

The Pope's ambiguous reaction to the film is well known: immediately after seeing itcredentials of those who, deeply moved, he muttered "It is as it was!" - and this statement was quickly withdrawn by the official Vatican speakers. A glimpse into the Pope's spontaneous reaction was thus quickly replaced by the "official" neutral stance, corrected in order not even prior to hurt anyone. This shift is the best exemplification of what is wrong with liberal toleranceits release, with the Politically Correct fear that anyonevirulently criticize Mel Gibson's specific religious sensibility may be hurt<i>[[Passion]]</i> seem impeccable: even if it says are they not fully justified in the Bible their worry that the Jewish mob demanded the death of Christ[[film]], one should not stage this scene directly, but play it down and contextualize it to make it clear that Jews are collectively not to be blamed for the Crucifixion... The problem of such made by a stance is thatfanatic [[Catholic]] traditionalist with occasional anti-Semitic outbursts, in this waymay ignite anti-Semitic sentiments? More general, the aggressive religious passion is merely repressed: it remains there<i>Passion</i> not a kind of manifesto of our own (Western, smoldering beneath the surface [[Christian]]) fundamentalists and, finding no release, gets stronger and stronger. (And, incidentally, is this compromiseanti-stance secularists? Is then not the same as that [[duty]] of today's enlightened anti-Semite who, although he does not believe in Christ's divinity, nonetheless blames Jews for killing our Lord Jesusevery Western secularist to reject it? Or as the typical secular Jew who, although he does Is such an unambiguous attack not believe in Jehova and Moses as his prophet, nonetheless thinks that Jews have a divine right sine qua non if we [[want]] to make it clear that we are not covert racists attacking only the land [[fundamentalism]] of Israel[[other]] (Muslim) cultures?)

Within The Pope's ambiguous reaction to the film is well known: immediately after [[seeing]] it, deeply moved, he muttered "It is as it was!" - and this horizon, [[statement]] was quickly withdrawn by the [[official]] [[Vatican]] speakers. A glimpse into the Pope's spontaneous reaction was thus quickly replaced by the only "passionateofficial" response neutral stance, corrected in [[order]] not to hurt anyone. This shift is the fundamentalist passion best exemplification of what is aggressive secularism of wrong with [[liberal]] [[tolerance]], with the kind displayed recently by Politically Correct [[fear]] that anyone's specific [[religious]] sensibility may be hurt: even if it says in the French state where Bible that the government prohibited wearing all too conspicuous religious symbols and dresses in schools (not only [[Jewish]] mob demanded the scarves [[death]] of Muslim women[[Christ]], one should not [[stage]] this [[scene]] directly, but also the Jewish caps play it down and too large Christian crosses). It is contextualize it to make it clear that [[Jews]] are collectively not difficult to predict what be blamed for the final result Crucifixion... The problem of such a stance is that, in this measure will beway, the [[aggressive]] religious passion is merely [[repressed]]: excluded from it remains there, smoldering beneath the public spacesurface and, finding no release, gets stronger and stronger. (And, incidentally, is this compromise-stance not the Muslims will be directly pushed to constitute themselves same as nonthat of today's enlightened anti-integrated fundamentalist communities. This is what Lacan means when Semite who, although he emphasized does not believe in Christ's divinity, nonetheless blames Jews for killing our Lord [[Jesus]]? Or as the link between the rule of post-revolutionary fraternite typical secular Jew who, although he does not believe in Jehova and [[Moses]] as his prophet, nonetheless thinks that Jews have a divine [[right]] to the logic land of segregation.[[Israel]]?)

Jacques Lacan's definition of love is "giving something one doesn't have" - what one often forgets is to add Within this horizon, the other half which completes the sentence: only "...to someone who doesn't want it.passionate" This is confirmed by our most elementary experience when somebody unexpectedly declared passionate love response to us - is not the first reaction, preceding the possible positive reply, that something obscene, intrusive, is being forced upon us? This is why, ultimately, fundamentalist passion as such is Èpolitically incorrectÇ: although everything seems permitted, prohibitions are merely displaced. Recall aggressive secularism of the kind displayed recently by the deadlock of sexuality or art today: is there anything more dull, opportunistic, and sterile than to succumb to [[French]] [[state]] where the superego injunction of incessantly inventing new artistic transgressions [[government]] prohibited wearing all too conspicuous religious [[symbols]] and provocations dresses in [[schools]] (not only the performance artist masturbating on stage or masochistically cutting himselfscarves of Muslim [[women]], but also the sculptor displaying decaying animal corpses or human excrementsJewish caps and too large Christian crosses), or to the parallel injunction to engage in more and more "daring" forms of sexuality... In some "radical" circles in the US, there came recently a proposal It is not difficult to "rethink" predict what the rights final result of necrophiliacs (those who desire to have sex with dead bodies) - why should they this measure will be deprived of it? So : excluded from the idea was formulated that[[public]] [[space]], in the same way people sign permission for their organs to Muslims will be use for medical purposes in the case of their sudden death, one should also allow them directly pushed to sign constitute themselves as non-integrated fundamentalist communities. This is what [[Lacan]] means when he emphasized the permission for their bodies to be given to necrophiliacs to play with them... Is this proposal not link between the perfect exemplification rule of how the PC stance realizes Kierkegaard's old insight into how the only good neighbor is a dead neighbor? A dead neighbor post- a corpse - is revolutionary fraternite and the ideal sexual partner [[logic]] of a "tolerant" subject trying to avoid any harassment: by definition, a corpse cannot be harassed..segregation.

Does this mean [[Jacques Lacan]]'s definition of [[love]] is "giving something one doesn't have" - what one often forgets is to add the other half which completes the [[sentence]]: "...to someone who doesn't want it." This is confirmed by our most elementary [[experience]] when somebody unexpectedly declared passionate love to us - is not the first reaction, preceding the possible positive reply, thatsomething [[obscene]], against intrusive, is [[being]] [[forced]] upon us? This is why, ultimately, passion as such is Èpolitically incorrectÇ: although everything seems permitted, prohibitions are merely [[displaced]]. [[Recall]] the false tolerance deadlock of the liberal multiculturalism[[sexuality]] or art today: is there anything more dull, opportunistic, we should return and sterile than to succumb to religious fundamentalism? The very ridicule the [[superego]] [[injunction]] of Gibson's film makes clear incessantly inventing new artistic transgressions and provocations (the performance [[artist]] masturbating on stage or masochistically cutting himself, the impossibility of such a solution. Gibson first wanted sculptor displaying decaying [[animal]] corpses or [[human]] excrements), or to shoot the film parallel injunction to engage in Latin and Aramaic more and more "daring" forms of sexuality... In some "radical" circles in the US, there came recently a proposal to show it without subtitles; under "rethink" the pressure rights of distributors, he later decided necrophiliacs (those who [[desire]] to allow English (or otherhave sex with [[dead]] bodies) subtitles. However- why should they be deprived of it? So the [[idea]] was formulated that, this compromise on his part is not just a concession in the same way [[people]] [[sign]] permission for their organs to be use for medical purposes in the commercial pressure; sticking [[case]] of their sudden death, one should also allow [[them]] to sign the original plan would rather directly display permission for their bodies to be given to necrophiliacs to play with them... Is this proposal not the self-refuting nature perfect exemplification of Gibsonhow the PC stance realizes [[Kierkegaard]]'s project. That old insight into how the only [[good]] [[neighbor]] is a dead neighbor? A dead neighbor - a corpse - is to say, let us imagine the film without subtitles shown in [[ideal]] [[sexual]] partner of a large American suburban mall"tolerant" [[subject]] trying to avoid any harassment: the intended fidelity to the original would turn it into its oppositeby definition, into an incomprehensible exotic spectaclea corpse cannot be harassed...

Does this mean that, against the [[false]] tolerance of the liberal [[multiculturalism]], we should [[return]] to religious fundamentalism? The very ridicule of Gibson's <i>Passion</i> thus its pays film makes clear the ultimate dialectical price for its attempt [[impossibility]] of such a solution. Gibson first wanted to do a fundamentalist Christian shoot the film: what in [[Latin]] and Aramaic and to show it loses it precisely without subtitles; under the trace pressure of any authentic Christian experiencedistributors, andhe later decided to allow [[English]] (or other) subtitles. However, at this compromise on his part is not just a concession to the commercial pressure; sticking to the level original plan would rather directly display the [[self]]-refuting [[nature]] of its cinematic texture, rejoins its official opponentsGibson's [[project]]. That is to say, what is <i>Passion</i> if not the ultimate sacrilege, the staging of Christ's suffering and death as the ultimate sado-maso gay spectacle? What remains of let us imagine the film is that without subtitles shown in a naked young and beautiful male body is slowly tortured large American suburban mall: the intended fidelity to death (and, ironically, the film cheats here on original would turn it into its own "realist" terms: in all probabilityopposite, Christ was naked at the cross...)into an incomprehensible exotic [[spectacle]].

Totally absent from the film is any kind of inquiry into the meaning of crucifixion: why did Christ have to die? There are three main versions: (1) a gnostic-dualist one: ChristGibson's death was a chapter in the struggle between Good and Evil, <i>Passion</i.e., Christ's death was > thus its pays the ultimate [[dialectical]] price for its attempt to be paid by God to Devil for do a fundamentalist Christian film: what it loses it precisely the redemption trace of humanity; (2) the sacrificial one: Christ paid the price for our sins - not to the Devilany authentic Christian experience, but just to satisfy the sense and balance of justice; (3) , at the exemplary one: by his example of ultimate act level of loveits cinematic [[texture]], Christ inspires people rejoins its official opponents. That is to follow himsay, to act good... There what is, of course, something missing here, <i>Passion</i> if not the FOURTH versionultimate sacrilege, which is the truth staging of the first three: what if Christ's [[suffering]] and death was a way for Godas the ultimate sado-maso gay spectacle? What remains of the-Father film is that a naked young and beautiful [[male]] [[body]] is slowly tortured to repay his death (and, ironically, the film cheats here on its own debt to humanity"realist" [[terms]]: in all probability, to excuse himself for having done such a botched-up job, creating an imperfect world full of suffering and injustice?Christ was naked at the cross...).

But there Totally [[absent]] from the film is a third position, beyond religious fundamentalism and liberal tolerance. Instead any kind of trying to redeem inquiry into the pure ethical core [[meaning]] of crucifixion: why did Christ have to die? There are [[three]] main versions: (1) a religion against it political instrumentalizations, gnostic-dualist one should thus ruthlesly criticize this very core - : Christ's death was a chapter in ALL religionsthe [[struggle]] between Good and [[Evil]], i.e. Today, when religions themselves Christ's death was the price to be paid by God to Devil for the redemption of humanity; (from 2) the sacrificial one: Christ paid the price for our sins - not to the New Age spirituality Devil, but just to [[satisfy]] the cheap spiritualist hedonism [[sense]] and [[balance]] of Dalai Lamajustice; (3) are more than ready the exemplary one: by his example of ultimate act of love, Christ inspires people to follow him, to serve act good... There is, of course, something [[missing]] here, the postmodern pleasure-seekingFOURTH version, it which is paradoxically only the [[truth]] of the first three: what if Christ's death was a consequent materialism which is able way for God-the-[[Father]] to repay his own debt to humanity, to sustain excuse himself for having done such a truly ascetic militant ethical stance.botched-up job, creating an imperfect [[world]] [[full]] of suffering and injustice?

The enigmatic spectacle of a large-scale collective suicide is always fascinating - recall hundreds of Jim Jones's cult followers who obediently took poison in their Guyana camp. At the level of economic life, the same thing But there is going on today in Kansas. Thomas Frank<a name="1x"></a><a href="#1"><font color="#cf1f23" face="BOOKMAN" size="3">1</font></a> aptly described the paradox of today's US populist conservatism[[third]] [[position]], whose basic premise is the gap between economic interests beyond religious fundamentalism and "moral" questionsliberal tolerance. That is Instead of trying to say, redeem the economic class opposition (poor farmerspure [[ethical]] core of a [[religion]] against it [[political]] instrumentalizations, blueone should thus ruthlesly criticize this very core -collar workers versus lawyers, bankers, large companies) is transposed/coded into the opposition of honest hard-working Christian true Americans versus the decadent liberals who drink latte and drive foreign cars, advocate abortion and homosexuality, mock patriotic sacrifice and "provincial" simple way of life, etcin ALL [[religions]]. The enemy is thus perceived as the "liberal" whoToday, through federal state interventions when religions themselves (from school-busing to ordering the Darwinian evolution and perverse sexual practices New Age spirituality to be taught), wants to undermine the authentic American way cheap spiritualist hedonism of life. The main economic interest is therefore to get rid of the strong state which taxes the hard-working population in order to finance its regulatory interventions - the minimal economic program is thus "less taxes, less regulations"... From the standard perspective of enlightened rational pursuit of self-interests, the inconsistency of this ideological stance is obvious: the populist conservatives Dalai Lama) are literally voting themselves into economic ruin. Less taxation and deregulation means more freedom for the big companies that are driving the impoverished farmers out of business; less state intervention means less federal help than ready to small farmers; etc. In serve the eyes of the US evangelical populists[[postmodern]] [[pleasure]]-seeking, the state stands for an alien power and, together with UN, is an agent of the Antichrist: it takes away the liberty of the Christian believer, relieving him of the moral responsibility of stewardship, and thus undermines the individualistic morality that makes each of us the architect of our own salvation - how to combine this with the unheard-of explosion the state apparatuses under Bush? No wonder large corporations are delighted to accept such evangelical attacks on the state, when the state tries to regulate media mergers, to put strictures on energy companies, to strengthen air pollution regulations, to protect wildlife and limit logging in the national parks, etc. It is the ultimate irony of history that radical individualism serves as the ideological justification of the unconstrained power of what the large majority of individuals experience as paradoxically only a vast anonymous power consequent [[materialism]] which, without any democratic public control, regulates their livesis able to sustain a truly ascetic militant ethical stance.

As to The enigmatic spectacle of a large-scale collective [[suicide]] is always fascinating - recall hundreds of Jim [[Jones]]'s cult followers who obediently took poison in their Guyana camp. At the ideological aspect level of their struggle[[economic]] [[life]], it the same [[thing]] is more than obvious that going on today in Kansas. Thomas Frank<a [[name]]="1x"></a><a href="#1"><font color="#cf1f23" face="BOOKMAN" size="3">1</font></a> aptly described the populists are fighting a war that simply cannot be won: if Republicans were effectively totally ban abortion[[paradox]] of today's US populist conservatism, if they were whose basic premise is the gap between economic interests and "[[moral]]" questions. That is to prohibit say, the teaching of evolutioneconomic [[class]] opposition (poor farmers, if they were to impose federal regulation on Hollywood and mass cultureblue-collar [[workers]] versus lawyers, this would mean not only their immediate ideological defeatbankers, but also a largecompanies) is transposed/coded into the opposition of honest hard-scale economic depression in [[working]] Christian [[true]] Americans versus the USdecadent [[liberals]] who drink latte and [[drive]] foreign cars, advocate abortion and [[homosexuality]], mock patriotic sacrifice and "provincial" simple way of life, etc. The outcome [[enemy]] is thus a debilitating symbiosis: although perceived as the "ruling classliberal" disagrees with who, through federal state interventions (from [[school]]-busing to ordering the populist moral agendaDarwinian evolution and [[perverse]] sexual practices to be taught), it tolerates their "moral war" as a means wants to keep undermine the lower classes in check, iauthentic American way of life.e., to enable them to articulate their fury without disturbing their The main economic interests. What this means interest is that CULTURE WAR IS CLASS WAR in a displaced mode therefore to get rid of the strong state which taxes the hard- so much for those who claim that we leave working population in a postorder to finance its regulatory interventions -class societythe minimal economic program is thus "less taxes, less regulations"...ThisFrom the standard perspective of enlightened [[rational]] pursuit of self-interests, however, makes the enigma only more impenetrable: how is [[inconsistency]] of this displacement possible? "Stupidity" and "[[ideological manipulation" are not an answer; that ]] stance is to say, it is clearly not enough to say that that obvious: the primitive lower classes populist conservatives are brainwashed by literally voting themselves into economic ruin. Less taxation and deregulation means more [[freedom]] for the ideological apparatuses so big companies that they are not able driving the impoverished farmers out of business; less state [[intervention]] means less federal [[help]] to identify their true interestssmall farmers; etc. If nothing elseIn the eyes of the US evangelical populists, one should recall howthe state stands for an [[alien]] [[power]] and, decades agotogether with UN, is an [[agent]] of the same Kansas was Antichrist: it takes away the liberty of the Christian believer, relieving him of the moral [[responsibility]] of stewardship, and thus undermines the hotbed individualistic [[morality]] that makes each of progressive populism in us the US architect of our own salvation - and people certainly did not get more stupid in how to combine this with the last decades... And neither would do a direct "psychoanalytic" explanation in unheard-of explosion the old Wilhelm Reich style (people's libidinal investments compel them state apparatuses under [[Bush]]? No wonder large corporations are delighted to act against their rational interests): it confronts too directly libidinal economy and economy properaccept such evangelical attacks on the state, failing when the state tries to grasp their mediation. It is also not enough regulate [[media]] mergers, to propose the Ernesto Laclau solution: there is no "natural" link between a given socio-economic position and the ideology attached put strictures on [[energy]] companies, to itstrengthen air pollution regulations, so that it is meaningless to speak of "deception" protect wildlife and "false consciousness[[limit]] logging in the national parks," as if there etc. It is a standard the ultimate irony of "appropriate" ideological awareness inscribed into [[history]] that radical individualism serves as the very "objective" socio-economic situation; every ideological edifice is justification of the outcome unconstrained power of a hegemonic fight to establish/impose a chain what the large majority of equivalences, individuals experience as a fight whose outcome is thoroughly contingentvast anonymous power which, not guaranteed by without any external reference like "objective socio-economic position"... In such a general answerdemocratic public [[control]], the enigma simply disappearsregulates their lives.

The first thing As to note here the ideological aspect of their struggle, it is more than obvious that it takes two to fight the populists are fighting a culture warthat simply cannot be won: if Republicans were effectively totally ban abortion, if they were to [[prohibit]] the teaching of evolution, if they were to impose federal regulation on Hollywood and mass [[culture is ]], this would mean not only their immediate ideological defeat, but also a large-scale economic [[depression]] in the dominant ideological topic of US. The outcome is thus a debilitating symbiosis: although the "enlightened[[ruling class]]" liberals whose politics is focused on disagrees with the fight against sexismpopulist moral agenda, racismit tolerates their "moral war" as a means to keep the lower classes in check, and fundamentalismi.e., and to enable them to articulate their fury without disturbing their economic interests. What this means is that CULTURE WAR IS CLASS WAR in a displaced mode - so much for multicultural tolerancethose who [[claim]] that we leave in a post-class [[society]]... The key question is thusThis, however, makes the enigma only more impenetrable: why how is this [[displacement]] possible? "cultureStupidity" and "ideological manipulation" emerging as our central life-world category? With regard are not an answer; that is to say, it is clearly not enough to say that that the [[primitive]] lower classes are brainwashed by the ideological apparatuses so that they are not able to religion[[identify]] their true interests. If [[nothing]] else, one should recall how, we no longer ãreally believedecades ago," we just follow (some of the) religious rituals and mores as part same Kansas was the hotbed of progressive [[populism]] in the respect for the ãlifeUS -style" of and people certainly did not get more stupid in the community to which we belong (non-believing Jews obeying kosher rules "out of respect for tradition," etclast decades..). ãI And neither would do not really believe a direct "[[psychoanalytic]]" explanation in the old Wilhelm [[Reich]] style (people's [[libidinal]] investments compel them to act against their rational interests): itconfronts too directly libidinal [[economy]] and economy proper, it failing to grasp their mediation. It is just part of my culture" effectively seems also not enough to be propose the predominant mode of the disavowed/displaced belief characteristic of our times. What Ernesto [[Laclau]] solution: there is no "[[natural]]" link between a cultural lifegiven socio-styleeconomic position and the [[ideology]] attached to it, if not the fact so thatit is meaningless to [[speak]] of "[[deception]]" and "false [[consciousness]], although we do not believe in Santa Claus, " as if there is a Christmas tree in every house and even in public places every December? Perhaps, then, the standard of "non-fundamentalistappropriate" notion of ãcultureideological [[awareness]] inscribed into the very " as distinguished from ãreal[[objective]]" religion, art, etc., IS in its very core the name for socio-economic [[situation]]; every ideological edifice is the field outcome of disowneda hegemonic fight to establish/impersonal beliefs impose a [[chain]] of [[equivalences]], a fight whose outcome is thoroughly [[contingent]], not guaranteed by any [[external]] reference like "objective socio- economic position"culture" is ... In such a general answer, the name for all those things we practice without really believing in them, without "taking them seriouslyenigma simply [[disappears]]."

The second first thing to note here is how, while professing their solidarity with the poor, liberals encode that it takes two to fight a culture war with an opposed class message: more often than not, their fight for multicultural tolerance and women's rights marks culture is also the counter-position to the alleged intolerance, fundamentalism, and patriarchal sexism dominant ideological topic of the "lower classes.enlightened" The way to unravel this confusion liberals whose [[politics]] is to focus focused on the mediating terms the function of which is to obfuscate the true lines of divisionfight against sexism, [[racism]], and fundamentalism, and for multicultural tolerance. The way the term "modernization" is used in the recent ideological offensive key question is exemplary herethus: first, an abstract opposition why is constructed between "modernizersculture" (those who endorse global capitalism in all its aspectsemerging as our central [[life-world]] [[category]]? With [[regard]] to religion, we no longer ãreally believe, from economic to cultural) and "traditionalists" we just follow (those who resist globalization). Into this category some of those-who-resist are then thrown all, from the traditional conservatives ) religious [[rituals]] and populist Right to the "Old Left" (those who continue to advocate Welfare state, trade unions...). This categorization obviously does comprise an aspect mores as part of social reality - recall the coalition of Church and trade unions which, in Germany in early 2003, prevented respect for the legalization ãlife-style" of stores being open also on Sunday. However, it is not enough to say that this "cultural difference" traverses the entire social field, cutting across different strata and classes; it is not enough [[community]] to say that this opposition can be combined in different ways with other oppositions which we belong (so that we can have conservative non-believing Jews obeying kosher rules "traditional values" resistance to global capitalist "modernizationout of respect for [[tradition]]," or moral conservatives who fully endorse capitalist globalizationetc.); . ãI do not really believe in shortit, it is not enough just part of my culture" effectively seems to say that this "cultural difference" is one in be the series predominant mode of antagonisms which are operative in today's social processes. The failure the disavowed/displaced [[belief]] characteristic of this opposition to function as the key to social totality does not only mean that it should be articulated with other differencesour [[times]]. It means that it What is "abstracta [[cultural]] life-style," and if not the wager of Marxism is fact that , although we do not believe in Santa Claus, there is one antagonism ("class struggle") which overdetermines all others a Christmas tree in every house and which is as such even in public places every December? Perhaps, then, the "concrete universalnon-fundamentalist" [[notion]] of the entire field. The term ãculture"overdeterminationas distinguished from ã[[real]]" is here used religion, art, etc., IS in its precise Althusserian sense: it does not mean that class struggle is the ultimate referent and horizon of meaning of all other struggles; it means that class struggle is very core the structuring principle which allows us to account name for the very "inconsistent" plurality of ways in which other antagonisms can be articulated into "chains field of equivalences." For example, feminist struggle can be articulated into a chain with progressive struggle for emancipation, or it can (and it certainly does) function as an ideological tool of the upperdisowned/impersonal beliefs -middle classes to assert their superiority over the "patriarchal and intolerantculture" lower classes. And the point here is not only that the feminist struggle can be articulated name for all those things we [[practice]] without really believing in different ways with the class antagonismthem, but that class antagonism is as it were doubly inscribed here: it is the specific constellation of the class struggle itself which explains why the feminist struggle was appropriated by upper classeswithout "taking them seriously. (The same goes for racism: it is the dynamics of class struggle itself which explains why direct racism is strong among the lowest white workers.) Class struggle is here the "concrete universality" in the strict Hegelian sense: in relating to its otherness (other antagonisms), it relates to itself, i.e., it (over)determines the way it relates to other struggles.

The third second thing to take not of note is how, while professing their [[solidarity]] with the fundamental difference between feminist/anti-racist/anti-sexist etc. struggle and poor, liberals encode culture war with an opposed class struggle[[message]]: in more often than not, their fight for multicultural tolerance and women's rights marks the counter-position to the first casealleged [[intolerance]], fundamentalism, and patriarchal sexism of the goal "lower classes." The way to unravel this confusion is to translate antagonism into difference ("peaceful" coexistence focus on the mediating terms the function of sexes, religions, ethnic groups), while which is to obfuscate the goal true lines of [[division]]. The way the class struggle term "[[modernization]]" is precisely used in the opposite[[recent]] ideological offensive is exemplary here: first, i.e.an abstract opposition is constructed between "modernizers" (those who endorse [[global]] [[capitalism]] in all its aspects, from economic to cultural) and "aggravatetraditionalists" class difference into class antagonism(those who resist [[globalization]]). So what the series raceInto this category of those-genderwho-class obfuscates is resist are then thrown all, from the different logic of traditional conservatives and populist Right to the political space in the case "Old [[Left]]" (those who continue to advocate [[Welfare]] state, trade unions...). This categorization obviously does comprise an aspect of class: while the anti[[social]] [[reality]] -racist and anti-sexist struggle are guided by the striving for recall the full recognition coalition of the other, the class struggle aims at overcoming [[Church]] and subduingtrade unions which, annihilating even, the other - even if not a direct physical annihilationin [[Germany]] in early 2003, class struggle aims at prevented the annihilation legalization of the other's socio-political role and functionstores being open also on Sunday. In other wordsHowever, while it is logical not enough to say that anti-racism wants all races to be allowed to freely assert and deploy their this "cultural[[difference]]" traverses the entire social field, political cutting across different strata and economic strivings, classes; it is obviously meaningless not enough to say that the aim of the proletarian class struggle is to allow the bourgeoisie this opposition can be combined in different ways with other oppositions (so that we can have [[conservative]] "traditional values" [[resistance]] to global [[capitalist]] "modernization," or moral conservatives who fully assert its identity and strivings... In one caseendorse capitalist globalization); in short, we have a it is not enough to say that this "horizontalcultural difference" logic of is one in the recognition series of different identities, while, [[antagonisms]] which are operative in the other case, we have the logic today's social [[processes]]. The failure of this opposition to function as the struggle key to social [[totality]] does not only mean that it should be articulated with an antagonistother differences.<a name=It means that it is "3xabstract,"></a><a href=and the wager of [[Marxism]] is that there is one [[antagonism]] ("#3[[class struggle]]"><font color=) which overdetermines all [[others]] and which is as such the "#cf1f23[[concrete]] [[universal]]" face=of the entire field. The term "BOOKMAN[[overdetermination]]" size="3">3</font></a> The paradox is here used in its precise Althusserian sense: it does not mean that class struggle is the ultimate [[referent]] and horizon of meaning of all other struggles; it means that it class struggle is the populist fundamentalism [[structuring]] [[principle]] which retains this logic of antagonism, while allows us to account for the liberal Left follows the logic very "inconsistent" [[plurality]] of recognition ways in which other antagonisms can be articulated into "chains of differencesequivalences." For example, of "defusing" antagonisms [[feminist]] struggle can be articulated into co-existing differences: in their very forma chain with progressive struggle for emancipation, or it can (and it certainly does) function as an ideological tool of the conservativeupper-populist grass-roots campaigns took middle classes to assert their superiority over the old Leftist-radical stance of "patriarchal and intolerant" lower classes. And the point here is not only that the popular mobilization and feminist struggle against upper-class exploitation. Insofar as, can be articulated in different ways with the present US two-parties systemclass antagonism, red designates Republicans and blue Democrats, and insofar but that class antagonism is as populist fundamentalists, it were doubly inscribed here: it is the specific constellation of course, vote Republican, the old anti-Communist slogan "Better dead than red!" now acquires a new ironic meaning - class struggle itself which explains why the irony residing in feminist struggle was appropriated by upper classes. (The same goes for racism: it is the unexpected continuity dynamics of class struggle itself which explains why direct racism is strong among the lowest white workers.) Class struggle is here the "redconcrete [[universality]]" attitude from in the old Leftist grass-root mobilization strict [[Hegelian]] sense: in relating to its [[otherness]] (other antagonisms), it relates to the new Christian fundamentalist grass-root mobilizationitself, i.e., it (over)determines the way it relates to other struggles.

This unexpected reversal The third thing to take not of is just one the fundamental difference between feminist/anti-racist/anti-sexist etc. struggle and class struggle: in a long series. In today's USthe first case, the traditional roles [[goal]] is to translate antagonism into difference ("peaceful" coexistence of Democrats and Republicans are almost inverted: Republicans spend state money[[sexes]], thus generating record budget deficitreligions, de facto build a strong federal stateethnic groups), and pursue a politics while the goal of global interventionismthe class struggle is precisely the opposite, while Democrats pursue a tough fiscal politics thati.e., under Clinton, abolished budget deficitto "aggravate" class difference into class antagonism. Even So what the series [[race]]-[[gender]]-class obfuscates is the different logic of the political space in the touchy sphere case of socioclass: while the anti-racist and anti-economic politicssexist struggle are guided by the striving for the full [[recognition]] of the [[other, Democrats (the same as with Blair in ]] class struggle aims at overcoming and subduing, annihilating even, the UK) as other - even if not a rule accomplish direct [[physical]] annihilation, class struggle aims at the neo-liberal agenda annihilation of abolishing the Welfare Stateother's socio-political [[role]] and function. In other [[words]], lowering taxeswhile it is [[logical]] to say that [[anti-racism]] wants all races to be allowed to freely assert and deploy their cultural, privatizingpolitical and economic strivings, etcit is obviously meaningless to say that the aim of the proletarian class struggle is to allow the [[bourgeoisie]] to fully assert its [[identity]] and strivings...In one case, while Bush proposed we have a radical measure "horizontal" logic of legalizing the status recognition of different identities, while, in the other case, we have the millions logic of illegal Mexican workers and made healthcare much more accessible to the retiredstruggle with an antagonist. <a name="3x"></a><a href="#3"><font color="#cf1f23" face="BOOKMAN" size="3">3</font></a> The extreme case paradox here is here that it is the populist fundamentalism which retains this logic of antagonism, while the survivalist groups in liberal Left follows the West logic of recognition of differences, of the US"defusing" antagonisms into co-existing differences: although in their ideological message is that of religious racismvery [[form]], their entire mode the conservative-populist grass-roots campaigns took over the old [[Leftist]]-radical stance of organization (small illegal groups fighting FBI the popular mobilization and other federal agencies) makes them an uncanny double of struggle against upper-class exploitation. Insofar as, in the Black Panthers from the 1960s. [[present]] US two- According to an old Marxist insightparties [[system]], red designates Republicans and blue [[Democrats]], and insofar as populist fundamentalists, every rise of Fascism is a sign of a failed revolution - no wondercourse, thenvote Republican, that Kansas is also the state of John Brown, old anti-[[Communist]] slogan "Better dead than red!" now acquires a new ironic meaning - the KEY political figure irony residing in the history unexpected continuity of US, the fervently Christian "radical abolitionistred" who came closest attitude from the old Leftist grass-root mobilization to introducing the radical emancipatorynew Christian fundamentalist grass-egalitarian logic into the US political landscape:root mobilization...

<blockquote>"John Brown considered himself This unexpected [[reversal]] is just one in a complete egalitarianlong series. And it was very important for him to practice egalitarianism on every levelIn today's US, the traditional roles of Democrats and Republicans are almost inverted: Republicans spend state [[money]], thus generating record budget deficit, de facto build a strong federal state, and pursue a politics of global interventionism, while Democrats pursue a tough fiscal politics that, under [[Clinton]], abolished budget deficit. /.../ African Americans were caricatures Even in the touchy sphere of peoplesocio-economic politics, they were characterized Democrats (the same as with Blair in the UK) as buffoons and minstrels, they were a rule accomplish the buttneo-end liberal agenda of jokes in American society. And even abolishing the abolitionistsWelfare State, lowering taxes, as antislavery as they wereprivatizing, etc., while Bush proposed a radical measure of legalizing the majority status of them did not see African Americans as equals. The majority the millions of them, illegal Mexican workers and this was something that African Americans complained about all the time, were willing made healthcare much more accessible to work for the end retired. The extreme case is here that of slavery the survivalist groups in the South but they were not willing to work to end discrimination in West of the North. /.../ John Brown wasn't like US: although their ideological message is thatof religious racism, their entire mode of organization (small illegal groups fighting FBI and other federal [[agencies]]) makes them an [[uncanny]] [[double]] of the Black Panthers from the 1960s. For him- According to an old [[Marxist]] insight, practicing egalitarianism was every rise of [[Fascism]] is a sign of a first step toward ending slavery. And African Americans who came in contact with him knew this immediately. He made it very clear failed [[revolution]] - no wonder, then, that he saw no differenceKansas is also the state of [[John Brown]], and he didn't make this clear by saying itthe KEY political [[figure]] in the history of US, he made it clear by what he did.the fervently Christian "radical abolitionist"</blockquote>who came closest to introducing the radical emancipatory-egalitarian logic into the US political landscape:

His consequential egalitarianism led <blockquote>"John Brown considered himself a [[complete]] egalitarian. And it was very important for him to get engaged in the armed struggle against slavery: in 1859practice egalitarianism on every level. /.../ African Americans were caricatures of people, Brown they were characterized as buffoons and twentyminstrels, they were the butt-one other men seized end of [[jokes]] in American society. And even the federal armory at Harper's Ferryabolitionists, as antislavery as they were, hoping to arm slaves and thus create a violent rebellion against the southmajority of them did not see African Americans as equals. HoweverThe majority of them, after thirty-six hours the revolt was suppressed and Brown this was taken something that African Americans complained [[about]] all the [[time]], were willing to [[work]] for the end of slavery in the South but they were not willing to work to jail by a federal force led by no other than Robert Eend discrimination in the North. /... Lee/ John Brown wasn't like that. After being found guilty of murderFor him, treason, and inciting practicing egalitarianism was a slave insurrection, Brown was hanged on December 2, 1859first step toward ending slavery. And, today even, long after slavery was abolished, Brown is the dividing figure African Americans who came in American collective memory - contact with him knew this point was immediately. He made most succinctly it very clear that he saw no difference, and he didn't make this clear by Russell Bankssaying it, whose magnificent novel Cloud-splitter retells Brown's story:he made it clear by what he did."</blockquote>

<blockquote>"The reason white people think he was mad is because he was a white man and he was willing His consequential egalitarianism led him to sacrifice his life get engaged in order to liberate Black Americans. /.../ Black people don't think he's crazythe armed struggle against slavery: in 1859, generally Brown and twenty-- very few African Americans regard Brown as insane. If you go out onto one other men seized the street todayfederal armory at Harper's Ferry, whether you are speaking hoping to arm [[slaves]] and thus create a school kid or an elderly woman or a college professorviolent rebellion against the south. However, if it's an African American person you're talking to about John Brown, they are going start right out with after thirty-six hours the assumption that he [[revolt]] was a hero because he suppressed and Brown was willing taken to sacrifice his life -- jail by a white man -- in order to liberate Black Americansfederal force led by no other than Robert E. Lee. If you speak to After being found [[guilty]] of [[murder]], treason, and inciting a white American[[slave]] insurrection, probably the same proportion of them will say he Brown was a madmanhanged on December 2, 1859. And it's for the same reason, because he today even, long after slavery was a white man who abolished, Brown is the dividing figure in American collective [[memory]] - this point was willing to sacrifice his life to liberate Black Americans. The very thing that makes him seem mad to white Americans is what makes him seem heroic to Black Americans."</blockquote>made most succinctly by Russell Banks, whose magnificent novel Cloud-splitter retells Brown's story:

For this <blockquote>"The [[reason]] white people [[think]] he was mad is because he was a white man and he was willing to sacrifice his life in order to liberate Black Americans. /.../ Black people don't think he's crazy, those whites who support Brown are all the more precious generally -- among them, surprisingly, Henry David Thoreau, the great opponent of violence: against the standard dismissal of very few African Americans regard Brown as blood-thirsty, foolish and insane. If you go out onto the street today, Thoreau<ref>4</ref> painted whether you are [[speaking]] to a portrait of school kid or an elderly [[woman]] or a peerless man whose embracement of a cause was unparalleled; he even goes as far as college professor, if it's an African American person you're talking to liken about John Brown's execution (, they are going start right out with the assumption that he states that was a hero because he regards Brown as dead before was willing to sacrifice his actual death) life -- a white man -- in order to Christliberate Black Americans. Thoreau vents at If you speak to a white American, probably the scores same proportion of those who have voiced their displeasure and scorn them will say he was a madman. And it's for John Brown: the same people can't relate to Brown reason, because of their concrete stances and "dead" existences; they are truly not living, only he was a handful of men have livedwhite man who was willing to sacrifice his life to liberate Black Americans. The very thing that makes him seem mad to white Americans is what makes him seem heroic to Black Americans."</blockquote>

AndFor this reason, when talking about those whites who support Brown are all the Kansas populistsmore precious - among them, surprisingly, Henry David Thoreau, one should bear in mind that they also celebrate John the great opponent of [[violence]]: against the standard dismissal of Brown as their saint.blood-thirsty, foolish and insane, Thoreau<ref>54</ref> We should thus not only refuse the easy liberal contempt for the populist fundamentalists (or, even worse, the patronizing regret painted a portrait of a peerless man whose embracement of how "manipulated" they are)a [[cause]] was unparalleled; we should reject the very terms of the culture war. Although, of course, he even goes as far as to the positive content of most of the debated issues, a radical Leftist should support the liberal stance liken Brown's execution (for abortion, against racism and homophobia, etche states that he regards Brown as dead before his actual death) to Christ.), one should never forget that it is Thoreau vents at the populist fundamentalist, not the liberal, scores of those who is, in the long term, our ally. In all have voiced their anger, they are not radical enough to perceive the link between capitalism [[displeasure]] and scorn for John Brown: the moral decay they deplore. Recall how Robert Borksame people can's infamous lament about our t relate to Brown because of their concrete stances and "slouching towards Gomorrahdead" ends up in existences; they are truly not [[living]], only a deadlock typical handful of ideology:men have lived.

And, when talking about the Kansas populists, one should bear in [[mind]] that they also celebrate John Brown as their saint.<ref>5<blockquote/ref>"The entertainment industry is We should thus not forcing depravity on an unwilling American public. The demand only refuse the easy liberal contempt for decadence is therethe populist fundamentalists (or, even worse, the patronizing regret of how "manipulated" they are); we should reject the very terms of the culture war. That fact does not excuse those who sell such degraded material any more than Although, of course, as to the positive [[content]] of most of the debated issues, a radical Leftist should support the demand liberal stance (for crack excuses the crack dealerabortion, against racism and [[homophobia]], etc. But we must be reminded ), one should never forget that it is the populist fundamentalist, not the fault liberal, who is , in ourselvesthe long term, our ally. In all their anger, in human nature they are not constrained by external forcesradical enough to perceive the link between capitalism and the moral decay they deplore.Recall how [[Robert Bork]]'s infamous lament about our "slouching towards Gomorrah"<ref>6</ref></blockquote>ends up in a deadlock typical of ideology:

In what, exactly, <blockquote>"The entertainment industry is not forcing depravity on an unwilling American public. The [[demand]] for decadence is then this there. That fact does not excuse those who sell such degraded [[material]] any more than the demand grounded? Here Bork performs his ideological short-circuit: instead of pointing towards for crack excuses the inherent logic of capitalism itself which, in order to sustain its expanding reproduction, has to create new and new demands, and thus admitting crack dealer. But we must be reminded that, the fault is in fighting consumerist "decadenceourselves," he is fighting a tendency which insists in the very core of capitalism, he directly refers to "human naturenot constrained by external forces." which, led to itself, ends up in wanting depravity, and is thus in a need for constant control and censorship:<ref>6</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>"The idea that men are naturally rationalIn what, exactly, moral creatures without is then this demand grounded? Here Bork performs his ideological short-circuit: instead of pointing towards the need for strong external restraints inherent logic of capitalism itself which, in order to sustain its expanding reproduction, has been exploded by experience. There is an eager to create new and growing market for depravitynew [[demands]], and profitable industries devoted thus admitting that, in fighting consumerist "decadence," he is fighting a tendency which insists in the very core of capitalism, he directly refers to supplying it."<ref>7</ref></blockquote>human nature" which, led to itself, ends up in wanting depravity, and is thus in a [[need]] for constant control and [[censorship]]:

This<blockquote>"The idea that men are [[naturally]] rational, however, throws an unexpected light onto the Cold Warriors' "moral" crusade against Communist regimes: [[creatures]] without the embarrassing fact need for strong external restraints has been exploded by experience. There is that the Eastern European Communist regimes were overthrown by forces which "represented the three great antagonists of conservatism: the youth culture, the intellectuals of the '60s generationan eager and growing [[market]] for depravity, and the laboring classes that still favored Solidarity over individualism." This feature returns profitable industries devoted to haunt Bork: at a conference, he "referred, not approvingly, to Michael Jackson's crotch-clutching performance at the Super Bowl. Another panelist tartly informed me that supplying it was precisely the desire to enjoy such manifestations of American culture that had brought down the Berlin wall. That seems as good an argument as any for putting the wall back up again."<ref>87</ref> Although Bork is aware of the irony of the situation, he obviously misses its deeper aspect.</blockquote>

This, however, throws an unexpected light onto the Cold Warriors' "moral" crusade against Communist regimes: the embarrassing fact is that the Eastern European Communist regimes were overthrown by forces which "represented the three great antagonists of conservatism: the youth culture, the intellectuals of the '60s generation, and the laboring classes that still favored Solidarity over individualism." This feature returns to haunt Bork: at a conference, he "referred, not approvingly, to Michael Jackson's crotch-clutching performance at the Super Bowl. [[Another]] panelist tartly informed me that it was precisely the desire to [[enjoy]] such manifestations of American culture that had brought down the Berlin wall. That seems as good an argument as any for putting the wall back up again."<ref>8</ref> Although Bork is aware of the irony of the situation, he obviously misses its deeper aspect. Recall Jacques Lacan's definition of successful [[communication]]: in it, I get back from the other my own message in its inverted - i.e., true - form. Is this not what is happening to today's liberals? Are they not getting back from the conservative populists their own message in its inverted/true form? In other words, are conservative populists not the [[symptom ]] of tolerant enlightened liberals? Is the scary and ridiculous Kansas redneck exploding in fury against liberal corruption not the very figure in the guise of which the liberal encounters the truth of his own [[hypocrisy]]? We should thus - to refer to the most popular song about Kansas, from The Wizard of Oz - definitely reach over the rainbow: over the "rainbow coalition" of the single-issue struggles, favored by radical liberals, and dare to look for an ally in what often appears as the ultimate enemy of multi-culti [[liberalism]].

2. How come that conservative evangelicals who, against [[Darwinism]], like to insist on the literal truth of the Bible, are never tempted to read literally Christ's "Sell all that you have, and give to the poor"(Mark 10:21)?3. However, the pure difference of antagonism has nothing to do with the difference between two positive social groups one of which is to be annihilated, i.e., the [[universalism ]] that sustains [[antagonistic struggle ]] is not exclusive of anyone - which is why the highest triumph of the antagonistic struggle is not the [[destruction ]] of the enemy, but the explosion of the "[[universal brotherhood]]" in which agents of the opposite camp [[change ]] sides and join us (recall the proverbial scenes of police or military units joining the demonstrators). It is in such explosion of enthusiastic all-encompassing brotherhood from which no one is in principle excluded, that the difference between "us" and "enemy" as positive agents is reduced to a PURE [[formal ]] difference.

5. Some anti-abortionists draw parallel between Brown's fight and their own: Brown acknowledged as fully human blacks, i.e., people who, for the majority, were less-than-human and as such denied basic [[human rights]]; in the same way, anti-abortionists acknowledge as fully human the unborn [[child]]...

* [[Over the Rainbow Coalition!]] ''[[London ]] Review of Books''. Volume 26, [[Number ]] 21. April 13, 2005. <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n21/zize01_.html>. Also listed on ''[[Lacan.com]]''. <http://www.lacan.com/coalition.htm>.