Changes

{{BSZ}} 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?

The [[Pope]]’s ambiguous reaction to the film is well known: Upon [[seeing ]] it, deeply moved, he muttered “It is as it was” — a [[statement ]] quickly withdrawn by the official [[Vatican ]] speakers.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]]” [[neutrality]], corrected so as 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 [[Jew]]ish mob demanded the [[death]] of [[Christ]], 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 a stance is that it merely [[repress]]es [[aggressive]] [[religious]] [[passion]], which remains smoldering beneath the surface and, finding no release, gets stronger and stronger.

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 [[life]]. We no longer “really believe,” we just follow (some of) the [[religious]] [[ritual]]s and [[mores]] out of respect for the “[[lifestyle]]” of the [[community]] to which we belong. Indeed, what is a “[[cultural]] [[lifestyle]]” if not that every December in every house there is a Christmas tree — although none of us believes in [[Santa Claus]]? Perhaps, then, “[[culture]]” is the [[name ]] for all those things we [[practice ]] without really believing in [[them]], without “taking them seriously.” Isn’t this why we dismiss [[fundamentalist]] believers as “[[barbarians]],” as a [[threat]] to [[culture]] — they dare to take seriously their [[belief]]s? Today, ultimately, we perceive as a [[threat]] to [[culture]] those who immediately live their culture, those who [[lack ]] a [[distance]] toward it.

[[Jacques Lacan]]’s definition of [[love]] is “giving something one doesn’t have.” What one often forgets is to add the other half: “… to someone who doesn’t [[want ]] it.” This is confirmed by our most elementary [[experience ]] when somebody unexpectedly declares [[passion]]ate [[love]] to us: Isn’t the reaction, preceding the possible affirmative reply, that something [[obscene]] and intrusive is [[being ]] [[forced ]] upon us? This is why, ultimately, passion is [[politically incorrect]]; although everything seems permitted in our culture, one kind of [[prohibition]] is merely [[displaced ]] by [[another]].

Consider the deadlock that is [[sexuality]] or [[art]] today. Is there anything more dull and sterile than the incessant invention of new artistic [[transgression]]s — 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 necrophiliacs. 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 the perfect example of how the [[PC]] stance realizes [[Kierkegaard]]’s insight that the only [[good ]] [[neighbor]] is a [[dead ]] [[neighbor]]. A corpse is the [[ideal ]] [[sexual ]] partner of a [[tolerant]] [[subject]] trying to avoid any passionate interaction.

On today’s [[market]], we find a series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without [[caffeine]], cream without fat, beer without alcohol. The [[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 [[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 [[tolerance]] gives us is a [[decaffeinated]] [[belief]], a [[belief]] that does not hurt anyone and never requires us to commit ourselves.

Today’s [[hedonism]] combines [[pleasure]] with [[constraint]]. It is no longer “Drink coffee, but in moderation!” but rather “Drink all the coffee you want because it is already [[decaffeinated]].” The ultimate example is [[chocolate laxative]], with its [[paradox]]ical [[injunction]] “Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate!” — the very [[thing ]] that causes constipation.

The [[structure ]] of the “[[chocolate laxative]],” of a product containing 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 it is counteracted with charitable activities — first you amass billions, then you [[return ]] (part of) them to the needy. The same goes for war, for the emerging [[logic ]] of [[humanitarian]] militarism: [[War]] is OK insofar as it brings [[about ]] [[peace]] and [[democracy]], or creates the [[conditions ]] to distribute humanitarian aid. And does the same not hold [[true ]] for [[democracy]] and [[human rights]]? It is OK to “rethink” [[human rights]] to include [[torture]] and a permanent [[emergency state]], if [[democracy]] is cleansed of its [[populist]] “[[excess]]es.”

Does this mean that, against the [[false ]] [[tolerance]] of [[liberal]] [[multiculturalism]], we should return to [[religious]] [[fundamentalism]]? The very absurdity of [[Gibson]]’s [[vision]] makes clear the [[impossibility]] of such a solution. Gibson first wanted to shoot the film in [[Latin ]] and Aramaic and show it without subtitles. Under pressure, he allowed subtitles, but this compromise was not just a concession to commercial [[demands]]. Sticking to the original plan would have displayed the [[self]]-refuting [[nature ]] of Gibson’s [[project]]: That is to say, the film without subtitles shown in large suburban malls would turn its intended [[fidelity]] into the opposite, an incomprehensible exotic [[spectacle]].

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 praise Islam as a great [[religion]] of [[love]] and [[tolerance]] that has [[nothing ]] to do with disgusting [[terror]]ist [[act]]s. Instead, one should gather the courage to recognize the obvious fact that there is a deep strain of [[violence]] and in[[tolerance]] in [[Islam]] — that, to put it bluntly, something in [[Islam]] resists the [[liberal-capitalist]] [[world]] [[order]]. By transposing this tension into the core of [[Islam]], one can conceive such [[resistance ]] as an opportunity: It [[need ]] not necessarily lead to “[[Islamo-Fascism]],” 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 [[sacrifice]], but how these motives were deformed by a specific political twist. [[Fascism]], in a way, took the best and turned it into the worst.

Instead 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. 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.