Changes

[[Amish]] [[community|communities]] routinely [[practice ]] the institution of <i>[[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 couple of years, they are expected to decide: Will they become members of the Amish community, or leave it and turn into ordinary American citizens? Far from allowing the youngsters a truly free [[choice]] — that is, giving them a [[chance ]] to decide based on the [[full ]] knowledge and experience of both sides of the choice — such a solution is a [[forced choice|fake choice]] if there ever was one. After long years of discipline and fantasizing [[about ]] the illicit pleasures of the [[outside ]] world, when the adolescent Amish are thrown into this world unprepared, they cannot but indulge in extremely [[transgressive ]] [[behavior]], gorging themselves fully on a [[life ]] of sex, drugs and drinking. And since they have never had the chance to develop any [[self]]-regulation in such a life, the wholly new and permissive [[situation ]] inexorably backlashes, generating unbearable [[anxiety]]. Thus, it is a safe bet that, after a couple of years, they will [[return ]] to the seclusion of their community. Indeed, 90 percent of the children do exactly that. This is a perfect example of the difficulties that accompany the [[idea]] of a "[[free choice." While Amish adolescents are formally given a free choice, the conditions they find themselves in while choosing make the choice "unfree." In order for them to have a truly free choice, they would have to be properly informed of and educated about all their options. However, the only way to do this would be to extract them from the Amish community, which would effectively render them American. This deadlock also illustrates the problems with the standard [[liberal]] attitude toward [[Muslim]] [[women]] who wear veils: They can do it if it is their free choice and not an option imposed on them by their husbands or family. However, the [[moment]] women wear a [[veil]] as the result of their free choice (say, in order to realize their own spirituality), the [[meaning]] of wearing a veil changes completely. For [[liberals]], it is no longer a [[sign]] of their belonging to the [[Muslim]] [[community]], but an expression of their idiosyncratic individuality. The [[difference]] is the same as the one between a [[China|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 restaurant. A choice is thus always a "[[meta-choice]]," a choice that simultaneously defines and is defined by the [[conditions]] of the choice itself. It is only the [[woman]] who does not choose to wear a veil who effectively makes a choice. This is why, in our secular societies of choice, [[people]] who maintain a substantial [[religious]] belonging are in a subordinate [[position]]. Even if they are allowed to maintain their [[belief]], this belief is "[[tolerance|tolerated]]" as an idiosyncratic personal choice or opinion. The moment they [[present]] it publicly as what it is for them (a matter of substantial belonging), they are deemed "[[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]]."

This is a perfect example So what does all this have to do with the [[recent]] [[French]] (and then [[Dutch]]) vote of "No" to the difficulties that accompany European [[Constitution]]? <i>Everything</i>. The French voters were treated exactly like the idea of Amish youngsters. They were not given a "clear symmetrical choice. The very [[free terms]] of the choiceprivileged the "Yes" vote." While Amish adolescents are formally given The [[elite]] proposed a free choicethat was effectively no choice at all — people were called to ratify the inevitable, the conditions they find themselves in while choosing make [[natural]] result of enlightened [[expertise]]. The [[media]] and [[political]] elite presented the choice "unfreeas one between [[knowledge]] and [[ignorance]], between [[expertise]] and [[ideology]], between [[post-politics|post-political]] [[administration]] and old political passions of the [[left]] and the [[right]]." In The No was thus dismissed as a short-sighted fearful reaction to the emerging new [[postindustrialism|postindustrial]] [[global]] [[order for them ]], an [[instinct]] to stick to have and protect the comfortable [[Welfare]] [[State]] [[tradition]]s — a truly free choice, they would have to be properly informed gesture of [[refusal]] that lacked any positive alternative program. 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 educated about all their optionsthe [[Communism|Communists]] and [[Trotskyism|Trotskyists]] on the [[left]]. HoweverFurthermore, we've been told, the only way No was really a No to do this would be to extract them many [[other]] things: [[Anglo-Saxon]] [[neoliberalism]], [[Chirac]] and the present French [[government]], the influx of [[immigrant]] [[workers]] from [[Poland]] who lower the Amish community[[wage]]s of the French workers, etc. (And before dismissing this last complaint as racist, which would one should keep in [[mind]] that this influx of immigrant workers is not the consequence of [[multiculturalsim|multicultural]] "[[tolerance]]." It effectively render them American.is part of [[capital]]'s strategy to hold in check the [[demands]] of workers!)

This deadlock also illustrates the problems with the standard However, even if there is an element of [[liberaltruth]] attitude toward in all this, the very fact that the No was not sustained by a coherent alternative political [[Muslimvision]] women who wear veils: They can do it if it is their free choice the strongest possible condemnation of the political and not an option imposed on them by their husbands or family. Howevermedia elite, the moment women wear a veil as the result of monument to their free choice (say, in order inability to realize their own spirituality), articulate and translate the meaning of wearing people’s longings and dissatisfactions into a veil changes completelypolitical vision. For liberalsInstead, it is no longer a sign of in their belonging reaction to the [[Muslim]] [[community]]No voters, but an expression they treated them as retarded pupils who did not get the lesson of their idiosyncratic individuality. The difference is the same as experts: Their self-criticism was that of the one between a [[China|Chinese]] farmer eating Chinese food because teacher who admits that he failed to properly educate 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 restaurantpupils.

A So while the choice was not the choice between two political options, neither was it the choice is thus always between the enlightened vision of a "modern Europe, ready to fit the new [[meta-choiceglobal order]]," a choice that simultaneously defines and is defined by the conditions of the choice itselfold confused political passions. It is only When commentators described the woman who does not choose to wear No as a veil who effectively makes a choice[[message]] of confused [[fear]], they were wrong. This is why, The main fear was the fear that the refusal itself provoked in our secular societies of choicethe new European political elite, the fear that people who maintain a substantial religious belonging are in a subordinate positionwill no longer easily buy into their “post-political” vision. Even if they are allowed to maintain their For all [[beliefothers]], this belief the No is "a message and expression of hope—hope that [[tolerance|toleratedPolitics]]" as an idiosyncratic personal choice or opinionis still alive and possible, that the debate about what the new Europe shall and should be is still open. The moment they present it publicly as what it This is for them (a matter of substantial belonging)why those on the left should reject the sneering insinuation by liberals that, in our No, they are deemed "we found ourselves strange bedfellows with neo-Fascists. What the new populist right and the left share is precisely <i>this</i>: the [[fundamentalism|fundamentalistawareness]]that Politics proper is still alive."

So what does all this have to do with the recent [[French]] (and then [[Dutch]]) vote of "No" to the European Constitution? For in fact, there <i>Everythingwas</i>. The French voters were treated exactly like the Amish youngsters. They were not given a clear symmetrical positive choice. The very terms of in the choice privileged No: the "Yes" vote. The elite proposed a choice that was effectively no choice at all — people were called to ratify the inevitable, the natural result of enlightened [[expertise]]. The media and political elite presented the choice as one between [[knowledge]] and [[ignorance]]itself, between [[expertise]] and the [[ideologyrejection]], between [[post-politics|post-political]] [[administration]] and old political passions of the [[leftblackmail]] and by the new elite that offered us only the choice to either confirm their expert knowledge or to display our "[[rightirrational]]" immaturity. The No was thus dismissed as a short-sighted fearful reaction to vote is the emerging new [[postindustrialism|postindustrial]] [[global]] [[order]], an instinct to stick positive decision to and protect the comfortable [[Welfare]] [[State]] [[tradition]]s — start a gesture properly Political debate about what kind of refusal that lacked any positive alternative program. It is little wonder that the only political parties whose official stance was No were those at the extremes of the political spectrum: [[Le PenEurope]]’s we really [[Front National]] on the [[right]] and the [[Communism|Communists]] and [[Trotskyism|Trotskyists]] on the [[leftwant]]. FurthermoreLate in his life, we've been told, the No was really a No to many other things: [[Anglo-SaxonFreud]] asked the famous question “<i>[[neoliberalismWas will das Weib?]], </i>” ("[[ChiracWhat does Woman want?]] and the present French government"), admitting his perplexity when faced with the influx of immigrant workers from [[Polandenigma]] who lower the of [[wagefeminine sexuality]]s of . Doesn’t the French workers, etc. (And before dismissing this last complaint as racist, one should keep in mind that this influx of immigrant workers is not imbroglio with the consequence of European Constitution bear [[multiculturalsim|multiculturalwitness]] "to the same puzzlement: [[toleranceWhich Europe]]." It effectively is part of capital's strategy to hold in check the demands of workers!)do we want?

HoweverTo put it bluntly, even if there is an element of truth do we want to live in a world in all this, which the very fact that only choice is between the No was not sustained by a coherent alternative political vision is American [[civilization]] and the strongest possible condemnation of emerging Chinese authoritarian-[[capitalist]] one? If the political and media eliteanswer is no, then the only alternative is Europe. The [[Third]] World cannot generate a monument strong enough [[resistance]] to their inability to articulate and translate the people’s longings and dissatisfactions into a political visionideology of the American [[Dream]]. InsteadIn the present constellation, in their reaction to only Europe can do so. The [[true]] opposition today is not the one between the [[United States]] and the No votersThird World, they treated them as retarded pupils who did not get but the lesson of one between the experts: Their self-criticism was that [[whole]] of the teacher who admits that he failed to properly educate his pupilsAmerican global [[Empire]] (and its Third World colonies) and Europe.

So while [[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 choice was not Id]] (the choice individual’s illicit [[aggressive]] [[drives]]). Rather, we have a [[perverse]] pact between two political options, neither was it the choice between punitive Superego’s legally sanctioned social [[authority]] and the Id’s illicit aggressive drives at the enlightened vision expense of a modern Europethe Ego’s [[rationality]]. Today, ready to fit something structurally similar is going on at the new global order, and old confused political passionslevel. When commentators described We have a weird pact between [[postmodern]] global [[capitalism]] and premodern societies at the No as a message expense of confused fear, they were wrong[[modernity]] proper. The main fear was the fear that the refusal itself provoked United States is essentially “at home” in the new European political eliteThird World countries, the fear that people will no longer easily buy into their “post-political” vision. For all others, the No is exploiting them (economically and culturally) in a message and expression true [[relationship]] of hope—hope that Politics is still alive symbiosis: exporting high tech products and possiblefood, that importing raw [[materials]] and the debate about what the new Europe shall products of sweatshops, flooding them with U.S. pop [[culture]] and appropriating selected “authentic” aboriginal culture and should be is still open[[arts]]. This It is why those on easy for the left should reject the sneering insinuation by liberals that, in our No, we found ourselves strange bedfellows with neo-FascistsAmerican multiculturalist global Empire to integrate premodern local traditions. What the new populist right and the left share is precisely <i>this</i>: the awareness The foreign [[body]] that Politics proper it cannot effectively assimilate is still aliveEuropean modernity.

For in factSo although the French and Dutch No is not sustained by a coherent and detailed alternative vision, there it at least <i>wasclears the [[space]] for it</i> a positive choice in the No: the choice of the choice itself, the rejection of the blackmail by the new elite that offered us only the choice to either confirm their expert knowledge or to display our "irrational" immaturity. The No vote is the positive decision to start a properly Political debate about what kind of This [[Europevoid]] we really want. Late in his life, demands to be filled with new projects—in contrast to the pro-Constitution stance that effectively precludes <i>[[Freudthinking]] asked the famous question “</i>, presenting us with an administrative-political <i>Was will das Weib?fait accompli</i>” ("[[What does Woman want?]]"). 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, admitting his perplexity when faced with the [[enigma]] of [[feminine sexualityliberal-multiculturalist]]package to prevent us from thinking. Doesn’t the imbroglio with the European Constitution bear witness It is time for us “Europeans”—both citizens and lovers of Europe—to become aware that we have to the same puzzlement: [[Which Europe]] do make a properly Political decision of what we want?. No enlightened administrator will do the job for us.

==Source==* [[Theodor AdornoThanks, But We'll Do It Ourselves]]. ''In These [[Times]] 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)''. RatherJune 19, 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 rationality2005. <http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2169/>. Today, something structurally similar is going Also listed on at the political level''[[Lacan]]. We have a weird pact between postmodern global capitalism and premodern societies at the expense of modernity propercom''. The United States is essentially “at home” in Third World countries, exploiting them (economically and culturally) in a true relationship of symbiosis<http: exporting high tech products and food, importing raw materials and the products of sweatshops, flooding them with U//www.Slacan. pop culture and appropriating selected “authentic” aboriginal culture and artscom/zizekamish. It is easy for the American multiculturalist global Empire to integrate premodern local traditions. The foreign body that it cannot effectively assimilate is European modernityhtm>.