Zizek on the bombing

Sebastian Budgen sebastian at amadeobordiga.u-net.com
Thu Sep 13 14:52:34 MDT 2001


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
    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.
The unthinkable which happened was thus the object of fantasy: 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 rel-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. The US just got the taste of what goes on around the world on a daily
basis, from Sarajevo to Grozny, from Rwanda and Congo to Sierra Leone. If
one adds to the situation in New York snipers and gang rapes, 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 this 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:
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?
    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 have such a disregard for their own lives?" Is
not the obverse of this surprise 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? Furthermore, the
notion of America as a safe haven, of course, also is a fantasy: 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; 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?
    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 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!". America's
"holiday from history" was a fake: America's peace was bought by the
catastrophes going on elsewhere. 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.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message

More information about the Marxism mailing list