Those who virulently criticized Mel Gibson’s The Passion even before its release seem unassailable: Are they not justified to worry that the film, made by a fanatic Catholic known for occasional anti-Semitic outbursts, may ignite anti-Semitic sentiments?{{BSZ}}
More generally, is Those who virulently criticized [[Mel Gibson]]’s [[The Passion ]] even before its release seem unassailable: Are they not a manifesto of our own (Western, Christian) fundamentalists? Is it then not the duty of every Western secularist justified to reject it, to make it clear worry that we are not covert racists attacking only the fundamentalism of other (Muslim) cultures[[film]], made by a fanatic [[Catholic]] known for occasional [[anti-Semitic]] outbursts, may ignite anti-Semitic sentiments?
The Pope’s ambiguous reaction to the film is well known: Upon seeing itMore generally, deeply moved, he muttered “It is as it was”—a statement quickly withdrawn by the official Vatican speakers. [[The Pope’s spontaneous reaction was thus replaced by an “official” neutralityPassion]] not a manifesto of our own ([[West]]ern, corrected so as [[Christian]]) [[fundamentalists]]" Is it then not to hurt anyone. This shift, with its politically correct fear that anyone’s specific religious sensibility may be hurt, exemplifies what is wrong with liberal tolerance: Even if the Bible says that the Jewish mob demanded the death [[duty]] of Christevery [[West]]ern [[secularist]] to reject it, one should not stage this scene directly but play it down and contextualize it to make it clear that Jews we are collectively not to be blamed for covert [[racist]]s attacking only the Crucifixion. The problem [[fundamentalism]] of such a stance is that it merely represses aggressive religious passion, which remains smoldering beneath the surface and, finding no release, gets stronger and stronger.other ([[Muslim]]) [[culture]]s?
This prohibition against embracing a belief with full passion may explain whyThe [[Pope]]’s ambiguous reaction to the film is well known: Upon [[seeing]] it, todaydeeply moved, religion he muttered “It is only permitted as it was” — a particular “culture,[[statement]] quickly withdrawn by the official [[Vatican]] speakers. The Pope’s spontaneous reaction was thus replaced by an “[[official]]” or lifestyle phenomenon[[neutrality]], corrected so as not as a substantial way of lifeto hurt anyone. We no longer “really believe This shift,” we just follow (some of) the with its [[politically correct]] [[fear]] that anyone’s specific [[religious rituals and mores out of respect for the “lifestyle” of the community to which we belong. Indeed]] [[sensibility]] may be hurt, exemplifies what is a “cultural lifestyle” wrong with [[liberal]] [[tolerance]]: Even if not the [[Bible]] says that every December in every house there is a Christmas tree—although none the [[Jew]]ish mob demanded the [[death]] of us believes in Santa Claus? Perhaps[[Christ]], then, “culture” is 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 name for all those things we practice without really believing in them, without “taking them seriously[[Crucifixion]].” Isn’t this why we dismiss fundamentalist believers as “barbarians,” as The problem of such a threat to culture—they dare to take seriously their beliefs? Todaystance is that it merely [[repress]]es [[aggressive]] [[religious]] [[passion]], ultimatelywhich remains smoldering beneath the surface and, we perceive as a threat to culture those who immediately live their culturefinding no release, those who lack a distance toward itgets stronger and stronger.
Jacques Lacan’s definition This [[prohibition]] against embracing a [[belief]] with [[full]] [[passion]] may explain why, today, [[religion]] is only permitted as a [[particular]] “[[culture]],” or [[lifestyle]] phenomenon, not as a substantial way of love is “giving something one doesn’t have[[life]]. We no longer “really believe,” we just follow (some of) the [[religious]] [[ritual]]s and [[mores]] out of respect for the “[[lifestyle]]” What one often forgets is to add of the other half: “… [[community]] to someone who doesn’t want itwhich we belong.Indeed, what is a “[[cultural]] [[lifestyle]]” This if not that every December in every house there is confirmed by our most elementary experience when somebody unexpectedly declares passionate love to a Christmas tree — although none of us: Isn’t believes in [[Santa Claus]]? Perhaps, then, “[[culture]]” is the reaction[[name]] for all those things we [[practice]] without really believing in [[them]], preceding the possible affirmative replywithout “taking them seriously.” Isn’t this why we dismiss [[fundamentalist]] believers as “[[barbarians]], that something obscene and intrusive is being forced upon us” as a [[threat]] to [[culture]] — they dare to take seriously their [[belief]]s? This is why Today, ultimately, passion is politically incorrect; although everything seems permitted in our we perceive as a [[threat]] to [[culture]] those who immediately live their culture, one kind of prohibition is merely displaced by anotherthose who [[lack]] a [[distance]] toward it.
Consider the deadlock that [[Jacques Lacan]]’s definition of [[love]] is sexuality or art today“giving something one doesn’t have. Is there anything more dull and sterile than ” What one often forgets is to add the incessant invention of new artistic transgressions—the performance artist masturbating on stage, the sculptor displaying human excrement? Some radical circles in the United States recently proposed that we rethink the rights of necrophiliacsother half: “… to someone who doesn’t [[want]] it. In the same way that people sign permission for their organs to be used for medical purposes, shouldn’t they also be allowed to permit their bodies to be enjoyed by necrophiliacs? ” This proposal is confirmed by our most elementary [[experience]] when somebody unexpectedly declares [[passion]]ate [[love]] to us: Isn’t the perfect example of how reaction, preceding the PC stance realizes Kierkegaard’s insight possible affirmative reply, that the only good neighbor something [[obscene]] and intrusive is [[being]] [[forced]] upon us? This is a dead neighbor. A corpse why, ultimately, passion is the ideal sexual partner [[politically incorrect]]; although everything seems permitted in our culture, one kind of a tolerant subject trying to avoid any passionate interaction[[prohibition]] is merely [[displaced]] by [[another]].
On today’s market, we find a series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcoholConsider the deadlock that is [[sexuality]] or [[art]] today. The list goes on: virtual sex as sex without sex, Is there anything more dull and sterile than the Colin Powell doctrine incessant invention of war with no casualties (new artistic [[transgression]]s — the performance [[artist]] masturbating on our side, of course) as war without warstage, the redefinition sculptor displaying [[human]] excrement? Some radical circles in the [[United States]] recently proposed that we rethink the rights of politics as expert administration as politics without politicsnecrophiliacs. Today’s tolerant liberal multiculturalism wishes In the same way that people [[sign]] permission for their organs to be used for medical purposes, shouldn’t they also be allowed to permit their bodies to experience be enjoyed by necrophiliacs? This proposal is the Other deprived perfect example of its Otherness (how the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically holistic approach to reality, while features like wife beating remain out of sight). Along [[PC]] stance realizes [[Kierkegaard]]’s insight that the same lines, what this tolerance gives us only [[good]] [[neighbor]] is a decaffeinated belief, [[dead]] [[neighbor]]. A corpse is the [[ideal]] [[sexual]] partner of a belief that does not hurt anyone and never requires us [[tolerant]] [[subject]] trying to commit ourselvesavoid any passionate interaction.
Today’s hedonism combines pleasure with constraint. It is no longer “Drink On today’s [[market]], we find a series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffeewithout [[caffeine]], but in moderation!” but rather “Drink all the coffee you want because it is already decaffeinatedcream without fat, beer without alcohol.” The ultimate example is chocolate laxative[[list]] goes on: [[virtual]] [[sex]] as sex without sex, the [[Colin Powell]] [[doctrine]] of [[war]] with no casualties (on our side, of course) as war without war, the redefinition of [[politics]] as [[expert]] [[administration]] as politics without politics. Today’s [[tolerant]] [[liberal]] [[multiculturalism]] wishes to experience the [[Other]] deprived of its paradoxical injunction “Do you have constipation? Eat more [[Other]]ness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an [[ecologically]] holistic approach to [[reality]], while features like wife beating remain out of [[sight]]). Along the same lines, what this chocolate!”—the very thing [[tolerance]] gives us is a [[decaffeinated]] [[belief]], a [[belief]] that causes constipationdoes not hurt anyone and never requires us to commit ourselves.
The structure of the “chocolate laxativeToday’s [[hedonism]] combines [[pleasure]] with [[constraint]]. It is no longer “Drink coffee,but in moderation!” of a product containing but rather “Drink all the agent of its own containment, can be discerned throughout today’s ideological landscape. Consider how we relate to capitalist profiteering: It is fine IF coffee you want because it is counteracted with charitable activities—first you amass billions, then you return (part of) them to the needyalready [[decaffeinated]]. ” The same goes for war, for the emerging logic of humanitarian militarism: War ultimate example is OK insofar as it brings about peace and democracy[[chocolate laxative]], or creates the conditions to distribute humanitarian aid. And does the same not hold true for democracy and human rightswith its [[paradox]]ical [[injunction]] “Do you have constipation? It is OK to “rethink” human rights to include torture and a permanent emergency state, if democracy is cleansed Eat more of its populist “excessesthis chocolate!” — the very [[thing]] that causes constipation.”
Does this mean thatThe [[structure]] of the “[[chocolate laxative]], against ” of a product containing the false tolerance [[agent]] of liberal multiculturalismits own containment, can be discerned throughout today’s [[ideological]] landscape. Consider how we should relate to [[capitalist]] profiteering: It is fine IF it is counteracted with charitable activities — first you amass billions, then you [[return ]] (part of) them to religious fundamentalism? the needy. The very absurdity of Gibson’s vision makes clear same goes for war, for the impossibility emerging [[logic]] of such a solution. Gibson first wanted to shoot the film in Latin [[humanitarian]] militarism: [[War]] is OK insofar as it brings [[about]] [[peace]] and Aramaic and show it without subtitles. Under pressure[[democracy]], he allowed subtitles, but this compromise was not just a concession or creates the [[conditions]] to commercial demandsdistribute humanitarian aid. Sticking to And does the original plan would have displayed the self-refuting nature of Gibson’s project: That same not hold [[true]] for [[democracy]] and [[human rights]]? It is OK to say“rethink” [[human rights]] to include [[torture]] and a permanent [[emergency state]], the film without subtitles shown in large suburban malls would turn if [[democracy]] is cleansed of its intended fidelity into the opposite, an incomprehensible exotic spectacle[[populist]] “[[excess]]es.”
But there is a third positionDoes this mean that, against the [[false]] [[tolerance]] of [[liberal]] [[multiculturalism]], beyond we should return to [[religious ]] [[fundamentalism and liberal tolerance]]? The very absurdity of [[Gibson]]’s [[vision]] makes clear the [[impossibility]] of such a solution. One should not put forth Gibson first wanted to shoot the distinction between Islamic fundamentalism film in [[Latin]] and Aramaic and Islamshow it without subtitles. Under pressure, a la Bush and Blairhe allowed subtitles, who never forget to praise Islam as but this compromise was not just a great religion of love and tolerance that has nothing concession to do with disgusting terrorist actscommercial [[demands]]. Instead, one should gather the courage Sticking to recognize the obvious fact that there is a deep strain of violence and intolerance in Islam—that, to put it bluntly, something in Islam resists original plan would have displayed the liberal[[self]]-capitalist world order. By transposing this tension into the core refuting [[nature]] of Islam, one can conceive such resistance as an opportunityGibson’s [[project]]: It need not necessarily lead That is to “Islamo-Fascismsay,” but rather could be articulated into a Socialist project. The traditional European Fascism was a misdirected act of resistance against the deadlocks of capitalist modernization. What was wrong with Fascism was NOT (as liberals keep telling us) film without subtitles shown in large suburban malls would turn its dream of a people’s community that overcomes capitalist competition through a spirit of collective discipline and sacrifice, but how these motives were deformed by a specific political twist. Fascism, in a way, took the best and turned it intended [[fidelity]] into the worstopposite, an incomprehensible exotic [[spectacle]].
Instead of trying But there is a [[third]] [[position]], beyond [[religious]] [[fundamentalism]] and [[liberal]] [[tolerance]]. One should not put forth the [[distinction]] between [[Islam]]ic [[fundamentalism]] and [[Islam]], a la [[Bush]] and [[Blair]], who never forget to extract the pure ethical core of praise Islam as a great [[religion from its political manipulations]] of [[love]] and [[tolerance]] that has [[nothing]] to do with disgusting [[terror]]ist [[act]]s. Instead, one should ruthlessly criticize gather the courage to recognize the obvious fact that there is a deep strain of [[violence]] and in[[tolerance]] in [[Islam]] — that very core—in ALL religions. Today, when religions themselves (from New Age spirituality to put it bluntly, something in [[Islam]] resists the cheap spiritualist hedonism [[liberal-capitalist]] [[world]] [[order]]. By transposing this tension into the core of the Dalai Lama) are more than ready [[Islam]], one can conceive such [[resistance]] as an opportunity: It [[need]] not necessarily lead to serve postmodern pleasure“[[Islamo-seeking, it is consequentlyFascism]], ” but rather could be articulated into a [[Socialist]] project. The traditional [[Europe]]an [[Fascism]] was a misdirected act of resistance against the deadlocks of [[capitalist]] [[modernization]]. What was wrong with [[Fascism]] was NOT (as [[liberals]] keep telling us) its [[dream]] of a [[people]]’s [[community]] that overcomes [[capitalist]] competition through a [[spirit]] of [[collective]] [[discipline]] and paradoxically[[sacrifice]], only but how these motives were deformed by a thorough materialism that is able to sustain specific political twist. [[Fascism]], in a truly asceticway, militant took the best and ethical stanceturned it into the worst.
http://wwwInstead of trying to extract the pure [[ethical]] core of a [[religion]] from its [[political]] manipulations, one should ruthlessly criticize that very core — in ALL [[religion]]s.inthesetimes Today, when [[religions]] themselves (from [[New Age]] [[spirituality]] to the cheap spiritualist [[hedonism]] of the [[Dalai Lama]]) are more than ready to serve [[postmodern]] [[pleasure]]-seeking, it is consequently, and paradoxically, only a thorough [[materialism]] that is able to sustain a truly ascetic, militant and [[ethical]] stance.com/site/main/article/146/
==See Also==
* [[ethics]]
* [[religion]]
* [[materialism]]
* [[sacrifice]]
* [[islam]]
* [[fundamentalism]]
* [[christianity]]
* [[liberalism]]
* [[violence]]
* [[tolerance]]
* [[political correctness]]
* [[multiculturalism]]
* [[war]]
* [[belief]]
* [[love]]
* [[pleasure]]
* [[decaffeinated coffee]]
* [[chocolate laxative]]
* [[culture]]
==Source==
* [[Passion: Regular or Decaf?]] ''In These [[Times]]''. February 27, 2004. <http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/146/>. Also listed on ''[[Lacan]].com''. <http://www.lacan.com/zizek-passion.htm>
[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Postmodern theory]]
[[Category:Ethics]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]]
[[Category:Works]]
[[Category:Articles]]
