Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:54:10 +1000
From: saeed urrehman <saeed.urrehman-AT-anu.edu.au>
Subject: slavoj zizek on recent events


WELCOME TO THE DESERT OF THE REAL!
Slavoj Zizek


The ultimate American paranoiac fantasy is that of an individual living in 
a small idyllic Californian city, a consumerist paradise, who suddenly 
starts to suspect that the world he lives in is a fake, a spectacle staged 
to convince him that he lives in a real world, while all people around him 
are effectively actors and extras in a gigantic show. The most recent 
example of this is Peter Weir's The Truman Show (1998), with Jim Carrey 
playing the small town clerk who gradually discovers the truth that he is 
the hero of a 24-hours permanent TV show: his hometown is constructed on a 
gigantic studio set, with cameras following him permanently. Among its 
predecessors, it is worth mentioning Philip Dick's Time Out of Joint 
(1959), in which a hero living a modest daily life in a small idyllic 
Californian city of the late 50s, gradually discovers that the whole town 
is a fake staged to keep him satisfied... The underlying experience of Time 
Out of Joint and of The Truman Show is that the late capitalist consumerist 
Californian paradise is, in its very hyper-reality, in a way IRREAL, 
substanceless, deprived of the material inertia.

So it is not only that Hollywood stages a semblance of real life deprived 
of the weight and inertia of materiality - in the late capitalist 
consumerist society, "real social life" itself somehow acquires the 
features of a staged fake, with our neighbors behaving in "real" life as 
stage actors and extras... Again, the ultimate truth of the capitalist 
utilitarian de-spiritualized universe is the de-materialization of the 
"real life" itself, its reversal into a spectral show. Among others, 
Christopher Isherwood gave expression to this unreality of the American 
daily life, exemplified in the motel room: "American motels are unreal! 
/.../ they are deliberately designed to be unreal. /.../ The Europeans hate 
us because we've retired to live inside our advertisements, like hermits 
going into caves to contemplate." Peter Sloterdijk's notion of the "sphere" 
is here literally realized, as the gigantic metal sphere that envelopes and 
isolates the entire city. Years ago, a series of science-fiction films like 
Zardoz or Logan's Run forecasted today's postmodern predicament by 
extending this fantasy to the community itself: the isolated group living 
an aseptic life in a secluded area longs for the experience of the real 
world of material decay.

The Wachowski brothers' hit Matrix (1999) brought this logic to its climax: 
the material reality we all experience and see around us is a virtual one, 
generated and coordinated by a gigantic mega-computer to which we are all 
attached; when the hero (played by Keanu Reeves) awakens into the "real 
reality," he sees a desolate landscape littered with burned ruins - what 
remained of Chicago after a global war. The resistance leader Morpheus 
utters the ironic greeting: "Welcome to the desert of the real." Was it not 
something of the similar order that took place in New York on September 11? 
Its citizens were introduced to the "desert of the real" - to us, corrupted 
by Hollywood, the landscape and the shots we saw of the collapsing towers 
could not but remind us of the most breathtaking scenes in the catastrophe 
big productions.

When we hear how the bombings were a totally unexpected shock, how the 
unimaginable Impossible happened, one should recall the other defining 
catastrophe from the beginning of the XXth century, that of Titanic: it was 
also a shock, but the space for it was already prepared in ideological 
fantasizing, since Titanic was the symbol of the might of the XIXth century 
industrial civilization. Does the same not hold also for these bombings? 
Not only were the media bombarding us all the time with the talk about the 
terrorist threat; this threat was also obviously libidinally invested - 
just recall the series of movies from Escape From New York to Independence 
Day. Therein resides the rationale of the often-mentioned association of 
the attacks with the Hollywood disaster movies: the unthinkable which 
happened was the object of fantasy, so that, in a way, America got what it 
fantasized about, and this was the greatest surprise.

It is precisely now, when we are dealing with the raw Real of a 
catastrophe, that we should bear in mind the ideological and fantasmatic 
coordinates which determine its perception. If there is any symbolism in 
the collapse of the WTC towers, it is not so much the old-fashioned notion 
of the "center of financial capitalism," but, rather, the notion that the 
two WTC towers stood for the center of the VIRTUAL capitalism, of financial 
speculations disconnected from the sphere of material production. The 
shattering impact of the bombings can only be accounted for only against 
the background of the borderline which today separates the digitalized 
First World from the Third World "desert of the Real." It is the awareness 
that we live in an insulated artificial universe which generates the notion 
that some ominous agent is threatening us all the time with total destruction.

Is, consequently, Osama Bin Laden, the suspected mastermind behind the 
bombings, not the real-life counterpart of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the 
master-criminal in most of the James Bond films, involved in the acts of 
global destruction. What one should recall here is that the only place in 
Hollywood films where we see the production process in all its intensity is 
when James Bond penetrates the master-criminal's secret domain and locates 
there the site of intense labor (distilling and packaging the drugs, 
constructing a rocket that will destroy New York...). When the 
master-criminal, after capturing Bond, usually takes him on a tour of his 
illegal factory, is this not the closest Hollywood comes to the 
socialist-realist proud presentation of the production in a factory? And 
the function of Bond's intervention, of course, is to explode in firecraks 
this site of production, allowing us to return to the daily semblance of 
our existence in a world with the "disappearing working class." Is it not 
that, in the exploding WTC towers, this violence directed at the 
threatening Outside turned back at us?

The safe Sphere in which Americans live is experienced as under threat from 
the Outside of terrorist attackers who are ruthlessly self-sacrificing AND 
cowards, cunningly intelligent AND primitive barbarians. Whenever we 
encounter such a purely evil Outside, we should gather the courage to 
endorse the Hegelian lesson: in this pure Outside, we should recognize the 
distilled version of our own essence. For the last five centuries, the 
(relative) prosperity and peace of the "civilized" West was bought by the 
export of ruthless violence and destruction into the "barbarian" Outside: 
the long story from the conquest of America to the slaughter in Congo. 
Cruel and indifferent as it may sound, we should also, now more than ever, 
bear in mind that the actual effect of these bombings is much more symbolic 
than real: in Africa, EVERY SINGLE DAY more people die of AIDS than all the 
victims of the WTC collapse, and their death could have been easily cut 
back with relatively small financial means. The US just got the taste of 
what goes on around the world on a daily basis, from Sarajevo to Grozny, 
from Ruanda and Congo to Sierra Leone. If one adds to the situation in New 
York rapist gangs and a dozen or so snipers blindly targeting people who 
walk along the streets, one gets an idea about what Sarajevo was a decade ago.

It is when we watched on TV screen the two WTC towers collapsing, that it 
became possible to experience the falsity of the "reality TV shows": even 
if these shows are "for real," people still act in them - they simply play 
themselves. The standard disclaimer in a novel ("characters in this text 
are a fiction, every resemblance with the real life characters is purely 
contingent") holds also for the participants of the reality soaps: what we 
see there are fictional characters, even if they play themselves for the 
real. Of course, the "return to the Real" can be given different twists: 
one already hears some conservatives claim that what made us so vulnerable 
is our very openness - with the inevitable conclusion lurking in the 
background that, if we are to protect our "way of life," we will have to 
sacrifice some of our freedoms which were "misused" by the enemies of 
freedom. This logic should be rejected tout court: is it not a fact that 
our First World "open" countries are the most controlled countries in the 
entire history of humanity? In the United Kingdom, all public spaces, from 
buses to shopping malls, are constantly videotaped, not to mention the 
almost total control of all forms of digital communication.

Along the same lines, Rightist commentators like George Will also 
immediately proclaimed the end of the American "holiday from history" - the 
impact of reality shattering the isolated tower of the liberal tolerant 
attitude and the Cultural Studies focus on textuality. Now, we are forced 
to strike back, to deal with real enemies in the real world... However, 
WHOM to strike? Whatever the response, it will never hit the RIGHT target, 
bringing us full satisfaction. The ridicule of America attacking 
Afghanistan cannot but strike the eye: if the greatest power in the world 
will destroy one of the poorest countries in which peasant barely survive 
on barren hills, will this not be the ultimate case of the impotent acting 
out? Afghanistan is otherwise an ideal target: a country ALREADY reduced to 
rubble, with no infrastructure, repeatedly destroyed by war for the last 
two decades... one cannot avoid the surmise that the choice of Afghanistan 
will be also determined by economic considerations: is it not the best 
procedure to act out one's anger at a country for which no one cares and 
where there is nothing to destroy? Unfortunately, the possible choice of 
Afghanistan recalls the anecdote about the madman who searches for the lost 
key beneath a street light; when asked why there when he lost the key in a 
dark corner backwards, he answers: "But it is easier to search under strong 
light!"

To succumb to the urge to act now and retaliate means precisely to avoid 
confronting the true dimensions of what occurred on September 11 - it means 
an act whose true aim is to lull us into the secure conviction that nothing 
has REALLY changed. The true long-term threat are further acts of mass 
terror in comparison to which the memory of the WTC collapse will pale - 
acts less spectacular, but much more horrifying. What about bacteriological 
warfare, what about the use of lethal gas, what about the prospect of the 
DNA terrorism (developing poisons which will affect only people who share a 
determinate genome)? Instead of a quick acting out, one should confront 
these difficult questions: what will "war" mean in the XXIst century? Who 
will be "them," if they are, clearly, neither states nor criminal gangs?

There is a partial truth in the notion of the "clash of civilizations" 
attested here - witness the surprise of the average American: "How is it 
possible that these people display and practice such a disregard for their 
own lives?" Is the obverse of this surprise not the rather sad fact that 
we, in the First World countries, find it more and more difficult even to 
imagine a public or universal Cause for which one would be ready to 
sacrifice one's life? When, after the bombings, even the Taliban foreign 
minister said that he can "feel the pain" of the American children, did he 
not thereby confirm the hegemonic ideological role of this Bill Clinton's 
trademark phrase? It effectively appears as if the split between First 
World and Third World runs more and more along the lines of the opposition 
between leading a long satisfying life full of material and cultural 
wealth, and dedicating one's life to some transcendent Cause. However, this 
notion of the "clash of civilizations" has to be thoroughly rejected: what 
we are witnessing today are rather clashes WITHIN each civilization. 
Furthermore, a brief look at the comparative history of Islam and 
Christianity tells us that the "human rights record" of Islam (to use this 
anachronistic term) is much better than that of Christianity: in the past 
centuries, Islam was significantly more tolerant towards other religions 
than Christianity. NOW it is also the time to remember that it was through 
the Arabs that, in the Middle Ages, we in the Western Europe regained 
access to our Ancient Greek legacy. While in no way excusing today's horror 
acts, these facts nonetheless clearly demonstrate that we are not dealing 
with a feature inscribed into Islam "as such," but with the outcome of 
modern socio-political conditions.

Every feature attributed to the Other is already present in the very heart 
of the US: murderous fanaticism? There are today in the US itself more than 
two millions of the Rightist populist "fundamentalists" who also practice 
the terror of their own, legitimized by (their understanding of) 
Christianity. Since America is in a way "harboring" them, should the US 
Army have punished the US themselves after the Oklahoma bombing? And what 
about the way Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson reacted to the bombings, 
perceiving them as a sign that God lifted up its protection of the US 
because of the sinful lives of the Americans, putting the blame on hedonist 
materialism, liberalism, and rampant sexuality, and claiming that America 
got what it deserved? America as a safe haven? When a New Yorker commented 
on how, after the bombings, one can no longer walk safely on the city's 
streets, the irony of it was that, well before the bombings, the streets of 
New York were well-known for the dangers of being attacked or, at least, 
mugged - if anything, the bombings gave rise to a new sense of solidarity, 
with the scenes of young African-Americans helping an old Jewish gentlemen 
to cross the street, scenes unimaginable a couple of days ago.

Now, in the days immediately following the bombings, it is as if we dwell 
in the unique time between a traumatic event and its symbolic impact, like 
in those brief moment after we are deeply cut, and before the full extent 
of the pain strikes us - it is open how the events will be symbolized, what 
their symbolic efficiency will be, what acts they will be evoked to 
justify. Even here, in these moments of utmost tension, this link is not 
automatic but contingent. There are already the first bad omens, like the 
sudden resurrection, in the public discourse, of the old Cold war term 
"free world": the struggle is now the one between the "free world" and the 
forces of darkness and terror. The question to be asked here is, of course: 
who then belongs to the UNFREE world? Are, say, China or Egypt part of this 
free world? The actual message is, of course, that the old division between 
the Western liberal-democratic countries and all the others is again enforced.

The day after the bombing, I got a message from a journal which was just 
about to publish a longer text of mine on Lenin, telling me that they 
decided to postpone its publication - they considered inopportune to 
publish a text on Lenin immediately after the bombing. Does this not point 
towards the ominous ideological rearticulations which will follow, with a 
new Berufsverbot (prohibition to employ radicals) much stronger and more 
widespread than the one in the Germany of the 70s? These days, one often 
hears the phrase that the struggle is now the one for democracy - true, but 
not quite in the way this phrase is usually meant. Already, some Leftist 
friends of mine wrote me that, in these difficult moments, it is better to 
keep one's head down and not push forward with our agenda. Against this 
temptation to duck out the crisis, one should insist that NOW the Left 
should provide a better analysis - otherwise, it concedes in advance its 
political AND ethical defeat in the face of the acts of quite genuine 
ordinary people heroism (like the passengers who, in a model of rational 
ethical act, overtook the kidnappers and provokes the early crush of the 
plane: if one is condemned to die soon, one should gather the strength and 
die in such a way as to prevent other people dying...).

So what about the phrase which reverberates everywhere, "Nothing will be 
the same after September 11"? Significantly, this phrase is never further 
elaborated - it just an empty gesture of saying something "deep" without 
really knowing what we want to say. So our first reaction to it should be: 
Really? Is it, rather, not that the only thing that effectively changed was 
that America was forced to realize the kind of world it was part of? On the 
other hand, such changes in perception are never without consequences, 
since the way we perceive our situation determines the way we act in it. 
Recall the processes of collapse of a political regime, say, the collapse 
of the Communist regimes in the Eastern Europe in 1990: at a certain 
moment, people all of a sudden became aware that the game is over, that the 
Communists are lost. The break was purely symbolic, nothing changed "in 
reality" - and, nonetheless, from this moment on, the final collapse of the 
regime was just a question of days... What if something of the same order 
DID occur on September 11?

We don't yet know what consequences in economy, ideology, politics, war, 
this event will have, but one thing is sure: the US, which, till now, 
perceived itself as an island exempted from this kind of violence, 
witnessing this kind of things only from the safe distance of the TV 
screen, is now directly involved. So the alternative is: will Americans 
decide to fortify further their "sphere," or to risk stepping out of it? 
Either America will persist in, strengthen even, the deeply immoral 
attitude of "Why should this happen to us? Things like this don't happen 
HERE!", leading to more aggressivity towards the threatening Outside, in 
short: to a paranoiac acting out. Or America will finally risk stepping 
through the fantasmatic screen separating it from the Outside World, 
accepting its arrival into the Real world, making the long-overdued move 
from "A thing like this should not happen HERE!" to "A thing like this 
should not happen ANYWHERE!". Therein resides the true lesson of the 
bombings: the only way to ensure that it will not happen HERE again is to 
prevent it going on ANYWHERE ELSE.

America's "holiday from history" was a fake: America's peace was bought by 
the catastrophes going on elsewhere. These days, the predominant point of 
view is that of an innocent gaze confronting unspeakable Evil which stroke 
from the Outside - and, again, apropos this gaze, one should gather the 
strength and apply to it also Hegel's well-known dictum that the Evil 
resides (also) in the innocent gaze itself which perceives Evil all around 
itself.

In the electoral campaign, President Bush named as the most important 
person in his life Jesus Christ. Now he has a unique chance to prove that 
he meant it seriously: for him, as for all Americans today, "Love thy 
neighbor!" means "Love the Muslims!" OR IT MEANS NOTHING AT ALL.




     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---