apparently some kind of major sporting event took place at the weekend. no doubt there are 43 reasons why i should have been paying more attention. but instead i was engrossed in a few good films, some pages and a little bit of paint. i read zizek's on belief. (london: routledge, 2001.)despite the gorilla-like appearance and wild gesticulations, (see the trailer for zizek! the movie) the slovenian philosopher once again delivers provocative commentary on belief in a postmodern age, turning to what he perceives as the subversive potential of christianity in an era of decaffeinated belief.
he diagnoses the loneliness of our interconnectedness under the 'postpolitics' of the third way and its accompanying global 'multiculturalist' policy:
"are we not more and more monads with no direct windows onto reality, interacting alone and with the pc screen, encountering only the virtual simulcra and yet immersed more than ever in the global network, synchronously communicating with the entire globe?" (26).
he is critical of 'western buddhism', which he sees as a fetishist mode of ideology, allowing you to participate in the frantic pace of the capitalist game while sustaining the perception that you are not really in it. this is challenging to me - and to those of us who value an inward journey - reminding me of the danger of not paying attention to the bigger spectacle of the global playground in which we bounce around.
zizek critiques moral majority fundamentalists and tolerant multiculturalists, each fascinated by the Other. he rebukes the multiculturalist tolerance of the Other for its secret desire to the Other to remain "Other", not to become too much like us. in this context, he argues, the truly tolerant attitude towards the Other is that of the authentic radical fundamentalist.
'human rights' and 'freedom' are not solid foundations. zizek asks, with lenin, "Freedom - yes, but for WHOM? To do WHAT?". at what cost do these highly prized ideals come, and are they worth the breath it takes to utter them? we value freedom of choice, but what about the radical choice? instead of choosing (a) or (b) from within the given co-ordinates, why not choose to change the set of co-ordinates itself?
calling christianity the religion of love and comedy, zizek sees it as one which acknowledges god's fundamental imperfection. it was because of god's Otherness in himself, he says, that Christ has to emerge to reveal God not only to humanity, but to God himself. this limitation and failure is crucial, and it is from this horizon that a love beyond mercy can emerge.
"The only way for God to create free people is to open up the space for them in HIS OWN lack/void/gap: man's existence is the living proof of God's self-limitation...
Love is always love for the Other insofar as he is lacking - we love the Other BECAUSE of his limitation, his helplessness, ordinariness even. In contrast to the pagan celebration of the Divine (or human) Perfection, the ultimate secret of Christian love is, perhaps, the loving attachment to the Other's imperfection." (147)
he urges a kierkegaardian suspension of the ethical for the sake of an authentic ethical engagement. he sees the notion of re-invention and re-birth inherent to christianity as a radical alternative to the re-discovery of one's true Self popular in the current wisdom. for zizek, christ is the ultimate objet petit a, no longer functioning as the executioner with regard to the Law, but, on the contrary, suspending the dimension of the Law and signaling its demise.
"If Jews assert the Law without superego, Christians assert love as jouissance outside the Law" (135).
a little more jouissance would be lovely... as would a return to the provocative potential for encountering the Other that jesus seems to offer. how far contemporary christianity seems to have come from all of this, seduced by secularism, and asserting a new law, where we walk the extra mile and turn the other cheek and give ten percent to the poor but where our imaginations and our hearts wilt without the will to live... and love.
