7. The Perverse Subject of Politics: Lacan as a Reader of Mohammad Bouyeri
Perversion, states Lacan, is an inverted effect of phantasy. The subject puts himself in the position of an object and when that object becomes the object of another’s will then what we have is sadomasochism, where the sadist himself occupies the place of the object without knowing it and for the jouissance of another.
Based on this notion, political totalitarianism can be defined when I, as political figure, inflict pain on others, on humanity, not as myself but as part of the big Other’s plan or will. I am therefore absolved from any guilt, shame or responsibility over my actions (or that is what I tell myself). The subject in this case is seemingly not guilty since all he does is realize an “objective, externally imposed necessity”. However, the sadistic pervert takes it a step further and actually rejoices in the act finding an obscene enjoyment in what he does. It is indicative that the Nazis told knew very well the suffering they brought upon their victims but portrayed it as a burden they had to endure in order to fulfill their duty; the violation of the spontaneous ethical instinct to pity and those suffering was in its fake form of ‘I had no choice, they made me do it, it was my job to do it and I endured the consequences of it’ transformed onto proof of ethical grandeur…
Similar is the case of Islamist extremist Mohammad Bouyeri who after murdering the filmmaker Theo van Gogh wrote a letter to Hirshi Ali, a member of the Dutch parliament and strong supporter of the rights of Muslim women, in which he in effect imputed terror her as his opponent. In it he accused her of not having the courage of her convictions and challenges her to wish for death as proof that she indeed does. “I shall wish this wish for you” he writes and in this shows that the sadistic attitude that invokes terror and suffering in its addressee is possible only in the case where the sadist subject makes himself the instrument-object of another’s will.
Nearing the end of Zizek’s book we read about belief and what constitutes it. It does not concern facts so much as it gives expression to an axiomatic, unconditional ethical commitment. Liberal/skeptical cynics along with (religious) fundamentalists have BOTH lost the ability to believe…It has come to a point where traditional secular humanists are the ones connected to belief and religious fundamentalists to knowledge. For the latter, belief has been reduced to knowledge by way of their continuing way of presenting religious statements as quasi-empirical statements of direct knowledge, of seeing (to put it roughly) religion and science as belonging to the same sort of positive knowledge.
In closing I would like to leave you, dear reader, with Zizek’s statement that at the end of the day, the stuff ethics is made of is the simple persistence against all odds…
Links and kinks…
Mohammad Bouyeri
![http://media.photobucket.com/user/larcen_vie/media/Open_Letter_to_Hirshi_Ali_2-2.jpg.html?filters[term]=mohammed%20bouyeri&filters[primary]=images&filters[secondary]=videos&sort=1&o=0](http://media.photobucket.com/user/larcen_vie/media/Open_Letter_to_Hirshi_Ali_2-2.jpg.html?filters%5bterm%5d=mohammed%20bouyeri&filters%5bprimary%5d=images&filters%5bsecondary%5d=videos&sort=1&o=0){kind=link}
‘Laughing Killer’: Bouyeri and the Murder of Theo van Gogh
http://religionresearch.org/martijn/2012/11/02/laughing-killer-bouyeri-and-the-murder-of-theo-van-gogh/ –>I am only including this link because of the performativity of its title… A laughing killer is provocative, it implies someone not only guiltless but also ENJOYING what he did. As a title it leads readers to have a certain reaction from the start… The importance of “appearance” is obvious to me here and not necessarily completely in tune with the truth…
Speech by Imam Abu Laban in Copenhagen after murder of Theo van Gogh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFqYpdMcEhA –>how can it be that they can find excuses for taking a human life? Is it because it was done in the name of the big Other in the guise of religious honor?
Père–version and Im–mère–sion: Idealized Corruption in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and The Picture ofDorian Gray –> found through “find it at Lincoln” an interesting approach to Lacans wordplay.
Walt Disney & Illuminati : Subliminal Perversion Exposed (2013)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLiGIkiiH70 –>a very curious result when I typed “perversion” in YouTube… I am not sure how to link it to Lacan and Zizek but I did feel there was a link… I cannot put my finger on it but I know it is there… Perhaps that notion is inself the link to all I have read so far on Lacan by Zizek…
Slavoj Žižek on Sex, Desire, Fantasy, Reality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfz2jjJEy7k
jew ritual murder of gentiles (GOYIM)//Blood Libels & Sacrifice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw0zAVy6oD8
ART(?)
The Mask
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRUvbeP_vCo–>a mask that when put on turns you into the version of you that you dream of being… it is not then what is hidden behind the mask that matters, but what is hidden behind/inside the person wearing the mask, it is the wearer’s secret fantasy.
Eugenie: Story of Her Journey into Perversion (1970) trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIc6pxEFHJs
ΤΡΥΠΕΣ – Η ΜΑΣΚΑ ΠΟΥ ΚΡΥΒΕΙΣ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEdJ1LluoxY
Personal Thoughts…
“I shall wish this for you”… A very ineresting title for a performance of project based on audience interaction. How does a performer understand the other’s wishes? How would they be translated and brought to life? Is my wish mine? Is it yours? Is it the Other’s? And if you don’t want to wish the wish I ask of you, then how can I manipulate you into thinking it is your own wish and acting upon it? And if you put on the mask of another is it really an act? Or is it your secret wish to be the other? to have the other? to have the other desire you? to have the other want to be you?
Let’s put on a mask and walk through town. Let’s see what we do differently…
So long Zizek, it was a nice ride… I am sure we’ll meet again 😉