Changes

[[Amish]] [[community|communities]] routinely [[practice]] the institution of <pi>This is [[rumspringa]]</i> (from the [[German]] <i>herumspringen</i>, to jump around). At 17, their [[children]] (who until then have been subjected to strict [[family]] [[discipline]]) are set free and allowed, solicited even, to go out and [[experience]] the ways of the "American" [[world]] around [[them]]. They [[drive]] cars, listen to pop [[music]], watch TV and get involved in drinking, drugs and wild sex. After a perfect example couple of years, they are expected to decide: Will they become members of the difficulties Amish community, or leave it and turn into ordinary American citizens? Far from allowing the youngsters a truly free [[choice]] — that accompany is, giving them a [[chance]] to decide based on the idea [[full]] knowledge and experience of both sides of the choice — such a “free solution is a [[forced choice|fake choice]] if there ever was one.” While After long years of discipline and fantasizing [[about]] the illicit pleasures of the [[outside]] world, when the adolescent Amish adolescents are formally given thrown into this world unprepared, they cannot but indulge in extremely [[transgressive]] [[behavior]], gorging themselves fully on a free choice[[life]] of sex, drugs and drinking. And since they have never had the conditions they find themselves chance to develop any [[self]]-regulation in while choosing make such a life, the choice “unfreewholly new and permissive [[situation]] inexorably backlashes, generating unbearable [[anxiety]].” In order for them to have Thus, it is a safe bet that, after a truly free choicecouple of years, they would have will [[return]] to be properly informed the seclusion of and educated about all their optionscommunity. However Indeed, 90 percent of the only way to children do this would be to extract them from the Amish community, which would effectively render them Americanexactly that.</p>

<p>This deadlock also illustrates is a perfect example of the problems with difficulties that accompany the standard liberal attitude toward Muslim women who wear veils: They can do it if it is their [[idea]] of a "[[free choice and not an option imposed on them by their husbands or family. However, the moment women wear " While Amish adolescents are formally given a veil as the result of their free choice (say, the conditions they find themselves in while choosing make the choice "unfree." In order for them to realize their own spirituality)have a truly free choice, the meaning they would have to be properly informed of wearing a veil changes completelyand educated about all their options. For liberals However, it is no longer a sign of their belonging the only way to do this would be to extract them from the Muslim Amish community, but an expression of their idiosyncratic individuality. The difference is the same as the one between a Chinese farmer eating Chinese food because his village has done so from time immemorial and a citizen of a Western megalopolis deciding to go and have dinner at a local Chinese restaurantwhich would effectively render them American.</p>

<p>A choice This deadlock also illustrates the problems with the standard [[liberal]] attitude toward [[Muslim]] [[women]] who wear veils: They can do it if it is thus always a “meta-their free choice,” a choice that simultaneously defines and is defined not an option imposed on them by the conditions of the choice itselftheir husbands or family. It is only However, the woman who does not choose to [[moment]] women wear a [[veil who effectively makes a ]] as the result of their free choice. This is why(say, in our secular societies order to realize their own spirituality), the [[meaning]] of choicewearing a veil changes completely. For [[liberals]], people who maintain it is no longer a substantial religious [[sign]] of their belonging are in a subordinate position. Even if they are allowed to maintain their beliefthe [[Muslim]] [[community]], this belief is “tolerated” as but an expression of their idiosyncratic personal choice or opinionindividuality. The moment they present it publicly [[difference]] is the same as what it is for them (the one between a [[China|Chinese]] farmer eating Chinese food because his village has done so from [[time]] immemorial and a matter [[citizen]] of substantial belonging), they are deemed “fundamentalista Western megalopolis deciding to go and have dinner at a local Chinese restaurant.”</p>

<p>So what does all this have to do with the recent French (and then Dutch) vote of “No” to the European Constitution? <i>Everything</i>. The French voters were treated exactly like the Amish youngsters. They were not given A choice is thus always a clear symmetrical "[[meta-choice. The very terms of the choice privileged the “Yes” vote. The elite proposed ]]," a choice that was effectively no choice at all—people were called to ratify simultaneously defines and is defined by the inevitable, the natural result [[conditions]] of enlightened expertise. The media and political elite presented the choice as one between knowledge and ignorance, between expertise and ideology, between post-political administration and old political passions of the left and the right. The No was thus dismissed as a short-sighted fearful reaction to the emerging new postindustrial global order, an instinct to stick to and protect the comfortable Welfare State traditions—a gesture of refusal that lacked any positive alternative programitself. It is little wonder that the only political parties whose official stance was No were those at the extremes of the political spectrum: Le Pen’s Front National on the right and the Communists and Trotskyists on the left[[woman]] who does not choose to wear a veil who effectively makes a choice. Furthermore This is why, we’ve been toldin our secular societies of choice, the No was really [[people]] who maintain a substantial [[religious]] belonging are in a No subordinate [[position]]. Even if they are allowed to many other things: Anglo-Saxon neoliberalism, Chirac and the present French government, the influx of immigrant workers from Poland who lower the wages of the French workersmaintain their [[belief]], etc. (And before dismissing this last complaint belief is "[[tolerance|tolerated]]" as racist, one should keep in mind that this influx of immigrant workers is not the consequence of multicultural “tolerancean idiosyncratic personal choice or opinion.” It effectively The moment they [[present]] it publicly as what it is part of capital’s strategy to hold in check the demands for them (a matter of workers!substantial belonging)</p>, they are deemed "[[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]]."

So what does all this have to do with the [[recent]] [[French]] (and then [[Dutch]]) vote of "No" to the European [[Constitution]]? <pi>HoweverEverything</i>. The French voters were treated exactly like the Amish youngsters. They were not given a clear symmetrical choice. The very [[terms]] of the choice privileged the "Yes" vote. The [[elite]] proposed a choice that was effectively no choice at all — people were called to ratify the inevitable, even if there is an element the [[natural]] result of truth in all thisenlightened [[expertise]]. The [[media]] and [[political]] elite presented the choice as one between [[knowledge]] and [[ignorance]], between [[expertise]] and [[ideology]], between [[post-politics|post-political]] [[administration]] and old political passions of the very fact that [[left]] and the [[right]]. The No was not sustained by thus dismissed as a short-sighted fearful reaction to the emerging new [[postindustrialism|postindustrial]] [[global]] [[order]], an [[instinct]] to stick to and protect the comfortable [[Welfare]] [[State]] [[tradition]]s — a coherent gesture of [[refusal]] that lacked any positive alternative program. It is little wonder that the only political vision is parties whose [[official]] stance was No were those at the strongest possible condemnation extremes of the political spectrum: [[Le Pen]]’s [[Front National]] on the [[right]] and the [[Communism|Communists]] and media elite[[Trotskyism|Trotskyists]] on the [[left]]. Furthermore, we've been told, the No was really a monument No to their inability to articulate many [[other]] things: [[Anglo-Saxon]] [[neoliberalism]], [[Chirac]] and translate the people’s longings and dissatisfactions into a political vision. Insteadpresent French [[government]], in their reaction to the No voters, they treated them as retarded pupils influx of [[immigrant]] [[workers]] from [[Poland]] who did not get lower the lesson [[wage]]s of the experts: Their self-criticism was French workers, etc. (And before dismissing this last complaint as racist, one should keep in [[mind]] that this influx of immigrant workers is not the teacher who admits that he failed consequence of [[multiculturalsim|multicultural]] "[[tolerance]]." It effectively is part of [[capital]]'s strategy to properly educate his pupils.</p>hold in check the [[demands]] of workers!)

<p>So while the choice was not the choice between two political optionsHowever, neither was it the choice between the enlightened vision even if there is an element of a modern Europe[[truth]] in all this, ready to fit the new global order, and old confused political passions. When commentators described very fact that the No as was not sustained by a message coherent alternative political [[vision]] is the strongest possible condemnation of confused fear, they were wrong. The main fear was the fear that the refusal itself provoked in the new European political and media elite, the fear that people will no longer easily buy into a monument to their “post-political” vision. For all others, the No is a message and expression of hope—hope that Politics is still alive inability to articulate and possible, that translate the debate about what the new Europe shall people’s longings and should be is still opendissatisfactions into a political vision. This is why those on the left should reject the sneering insinuation by liberals that Instead, in our their reaction to the Novoters, we found ourselves strange bedfellows with neo-Fascists. What they treated them as retarded pupils who did not get the new populist right and lesson of the left share is precisely <i>this</i>experts: Their self-criticism was that of the awareness teacher who admits that Politics proper is still alivehe failed to properly educate his pupils.</p>

<p>For in factSo while the choice was not the choice between two political options, there <i>neither was</i> a positive it the choice in between the No: the choice enlightened vision of a modern Europe, ready to fit the choice itselfnew [[global order]], and old confused political passions. When commentators described the rejection No as a [[message]] of confused [[fear]], they were wrong. The main fear was the blackmail by fear that the refusal itself provoked in the new European political elite , the fear that offered us only the choice to either confirm people will no longer easily buy into their expert knowledge or to display our “irrational” immaturity“post-political” vision. The For all [[others]], the No vote is a message and expression of hope—hope that [[Politics]] is still alive and possible, that the positive decision to start a properly Political debate about what kind of the new Europe we really wantshall and should be is still open. Late This is why those on the left should reject the sneering insinuation by liberals that, in his lifeour No, Freud asked we found ourselves strange bedfellows with neo-Fascists. What the famous question “new populist right and the left share is precisely <i>Was will das Weib?this</i>” (“What does Woman want?”), admitting his perplexity when faced with : the enigma of feminine sexuality[[awareness]] that Politics proper is still alive. Doesn’t the imbroglio with the European Constitution bear witness to the same puzzlement: Which Europe do we want? </p>

For in fact, there <pi>was</i>To put it bluntly, do we want to live in a world positive choice in which the only No: the choice is between of the American civilization and choice itself, the emerging Chinese authoritarian-capitalist one? If [[rejection]] of the answer is no, then [[blackmail]] by the new elite that offered us only alternative is Europethe choice to either confirm their expert knowledge or to display our "[[irrational]]" immaturity. The Third World cannot generate No vote is the positive decision to start a strong enough resistance to the ideology properly Political debate about what kind of the American Dream[[Europe]] we really [[want]]. In Late in his life, [[Freud]] asked the present constellationfamous question “<i>[[Was will das Weib?]]</i>” ("[[What does Woman want?]]"), only Europe can do soadmitting his perplexity when faced with the [[enigma]] of [[feminine sexuality]]. The true opposition today is not Doesn’t the one between imbroglio with the United States and European Constitution bear [[witness]] to the Third World, but the one between the whole of the American global Empire (and its Third World colonies) and same puzzlement: [[Which Europe.</p>]] do we want?

<p>Theodor Adorno claimed that what To put it bluntly, do we are getting want to live in a world in which the contemporary “administered world” only choice is between the American [[civilization]] and its “repressive desublimation” the emerging Chinese authoritarian-[[capitalist]] one? If the answer is no longer , then the old logic of social authority’s repression of the Id (the individual’s illicit aggressive drives)only alternative is Europe. Rather, we have The [[Third]] World cannot generate a perverse pact between the punitive Superego’s legally sanctioned social authority and the Id’s illicit aggressive drives at strong enough [[resistance]] to the expense ideology of the Ego’s rationalityAmerican [[Dream]]. Today In the present constellation, something structurally similar only Europe can do so. The [[true]] opposition today is going on at not the political level. We have a weird pact one between postmodern global capitalism and premodern societies at the expense of modernity proper. The [[United States is essentially “at home” in ]] and the Third World countries, exploiting them (economically and culturally) in a true relationship of symbiosis: exporting high tech products and food, importing raw materials and but the one between the products [[whole]] of sweatshops, flooding them with U.S. pop culture and appropriating selected “authentic” aboriginal culture and arts. It is easy for the American multiculturalist global [[Empire to integrate premodern local traditions. The foreign body that it cannot effectively assimilate is European modernity]] (and its Third World colonies) and Europe.</p>

<p>[[Theodor Adorno]] claimed that what we are getting in the contemporary “administered world” and its “repressive desublimation” is no longer the old [[logic]] of [[social]] authority’s [[repression]] of [[the Id]] (the individual’s illicit [[aggressive]] [[drives]]). Rather, we have a [[perverse]] pact between the punitive Superego’s legally sanctioned social [[authority]] and the Id’s illicit aggressive drives at the expense of the Ego’s [[rationality]]. Today, something structurally similar is going on at the political level. We have a weird pact between [[postmodern]] global [[capitalism]] and premodern societies at the expense of [[modernity]] proper. The United States is essentially “at home” in Third World countries, exploiting them (economically and culturally) in a true [[relationship]] of symbiosis: exporting high tech products and food, importing raw [[materials]] and the products of sweatshops, flooding them with U.S. pop [[culture]] and appropriating selected “authentic” aboriginal culture and [[arts]]. It is easy for the American multiculturalist global Empire to integrate premodern local traditions. The foreign [[body]] that it cannot effectively assimilate is European modernity. So although the French and Dutch No is not sustained by a coherent and detailed alternative vision, it at least <i>clears the [[space ]] for it</i>. This [[void ]] demands to be filled with new projects—in contrast to the pro-Constitution stance that effectively precludes <i>[[thinking]]</i>, presenting us with an administrative-political <i>fait accompli</i>. The message of this No to all of us who care for Europe is: We will not allow anonymous experts whose merchandise is sold to us in a brightly colored, [[liberal-multiculturalist ]] package to prevent us from thinking. It is time for us “Europeans”—both citizens and lovers of Europe—to become aware that we have to make a properly Political decision of what we want. No enlightened administrator will do the job for us.  ==Source==* [[Thanks, But We'll Do It Ourselves]]. ''In These [[Times]]''. June 19, 2005. <http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2169/>. Also listed on ''[[Lacan]].com''.<http:/p/www.lacan.com/zizekamish.htm>.  [[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:Works]]