Changes

Those who virulently criticized [[Mel Gibson’s 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?

More generally, is [[The Passion ]] not a manifesto of our own (Western[[West]]ern, [[Christian]]) [[fundamentalists? ]]" Is it then not the [[duty ]] of every Western [[West]]ern [[secularist ]] to reject it, to make it clear that we are not covert racists [[racist]]s attacking only the [[fundamentalism ]] of other ([[Muslim]]) cultures[[culture]]s?

The Pope’s [[Pope]]’s ambiguous reaction to the film is well known: Upon seeing it, deeply moved, he muttered “It is as it was”—a was” — a statement quickly withdrawn by the official Vatican speakers. The Pope’s spontaneous reaction was thus replaced by an “official” “[[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 Jewish [[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 represses [[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“[[culture]],” or [[lifestyle ]] phenomenon, not as a substantial way of life. We no longer “really believe,” we just follow (some of) the [[religious rituals ]] [[ritual]]s and [[mores ]] out of respect for the “lifestyle” “[[lifestyle]]” of the [[community ]] to which we belong. Indeed, what is a “cultural lifestyle” “[[cultural]] [[lifestyle]]” if not that every December in every house there is a Christmas tree—although tree — although none of us believes in [[Santa Claus]]? Perhaps, then, “culture” “[[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“[[barbarians]],” as a [[threat ]] to culture—they [[culture]] — they dare to take seriously their beliefs[[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 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 passionate [[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 transgressions—the [[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 [[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 Otherness [[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 paradoxical [[paradox]]ical [[injunction ]] “Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate!”—the ” — the very thing that causes constipation.

The structure of the “chocolate “[[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 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 “excesses]] “[[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 [[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 Islamic [[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 terrorist acts[[terror]]ist [[act]]s. Instead, one should gather the courage to recognize the obvious fact that there is a deep strain of [[violence ]] and intolerance in Islam—that[[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“[[Islamo-Fascism]],” but rather could be articulated into a [[Socialist ]] project. The traditional European [[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 [[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 core — in ALL religions[[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. http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/146/