Od n an

DVCI8CD8 C PQCC3
)
Q8C
8LAvCJ 2I2LK.-
8CkI8 uuXJLvIC
boris Canjevics cnarers rrans/ared om rne
Croarian by L//en L/ias-barsac

SevenStoriesPress
New Yrk
LOQyt_htZlZbyolaVOjZZCkaDdbOt8 LuDjCVC
JoCVCDotOtC8tC88 t8tbdtOD
JCQublCatODOth8bOOk88uQQOttCdbya_taDttOmthC%D8ttyO
LultutCOthC KCQublCO LtOata.
Pt_ht8 tC8CtVCd. OQattOth8bOOkmaybCtCQtOduCCd, 8tOtCdD a
tCttCVal8y8tCm, OtttaD8mttCdDaDyOtmOtbyaDymCaD8, DCludD_
mCChaDCal, ClCCttC, QhOtOCOQyD_, tCCOtdD_, Ot OthCtw8C, wthOut thCQtOt
wtttCD QCtm88ODOthCQubl8hCt.
oCVCDotOtC8tC88
l9Yatt8ottCCt
Cw 1Otk, 1 ll
w .8CVCD8tOtC8.COm
LOllC_CQtOC88Ot8mayOtdCtCXamDatODCOQC8OoCVCDotOtC8tC88ttlC8
OtatCC8XmODthttalQCtOd.JOOtdCt, V8thttQ://www.8CVCD8tOtC8.COm/
tCXtbOOkOt8CDdaaXOD8ChOOllCttCthCadtO |ZlZ) ZZl9ll.
bOOkdC8_DbyblZabCth LCLOD_&JODLlbCtt
LbtatyO LOD_tC88 LatalO_D_-D-ublCatOD Lata
ZZCk, olaVOj.
[bO_Damukama.bD_l8h]
LOdDQaD:DVCt8OD8OJQOCalyQ8C/olaVOjZZCkaDdbOt8 LuDjCVC ,
bOt8 LuDjCVC8ChaQtCt8ttaD8latCdtOmthCLtOataDbybllCD bla8but8aC.
JoCVCDotOtC8tC88l8tCd.
Q. Cm.
DCludC8bblO_taQhCaltCCtCDCC8.
ob !oloo |Qbk.) - ob loo |Qbk.)
l. KCl_ODaDdQOltC8.Z. KCl_OD-hlO8OQhy--M8tOty. .LuDjCVC, bOt8,
l!Z .JtlC.
bLO.!ZOlZlZ
Z.l-dCZ
ZlZlOl
tDtCdDthCUDtCdotatC8
o ! O 9 Z 1
LOHtCHt8
ntroducton: ForaTeoIogico-PoIiticaI
SuspensionottheEthicaI5lvo] Zizek
ntroducton: TeMystagogyot
RevoIution8oris Cun]evic
1. ChristianityAgainsttheSacredZizek 4
Z. abyIonianVirtues-MinorityReport Cun]evic
.ACIanceintotheArchivesotIsIamZizek 1
4. EveryookisLikeaFortress-FIesh
ecameWord Cun]evic 1Z
b. OnIyaSuheringCodCanSaveUsZizek 1bb
. TeTriIIing RomanceotRadicaI
Orthodoxy-SpirituaIExercisesCun]evic 1
. TeAnimaICaze ottheOtherZizek ZZ1
. PrayandWatch-TeMessianic
SubversionCun]evic Z41
ReterencestorTeMystagogyotRevoIutionand
Chapters2,4,5,and8 Z1
5
DlICUuClICD
OIu
JCO!OgCO
!OlItICu!
u8
]
CH8IOH
O tHC tHICu!

Slavoj /izol.
It, once upon a time, we pub-
IicIypretendedto beIievewhiIe
privateIy we were skeptics
or even engaged in obscene
mocking ot our pubIic beIiets,
today we pubIicIy tend to pro-
tess our skepticaI, hedonistic,
reIaedattitudewhiIeprivateIy
we remain haunted by beIiets
Cntnuednpage27
7
DlICUuClICD
JC
m8tu_O_y
O
HCVOlutIOH
ois
Uunjcvic
e arn oj rne rignreoas man is
beser on a// sides by rne iniqai-
ries oj rne se/sn and rne qranny
oj evi/ men. b/essed is ne wno, in
rne name oj cnariq and good wi//,
snenerds rne weak rnroagn rne
va//ey oj darkness, jor ne is rra/y
nis brorners keeer and rne nder
oj /osr cni/dren. And wi// srrike

Introduction
dowo apoo rbee w/rb grear veogeaoce aod r/oas aoger rbose wbo
woa|d arrempr ro po/soo aod desrroy My brorbers. Aod yoa w/|| koow
My oame /s rbe Lord wbeo l |ay My veogeaoce apoo rbee.
EzekieI 25. I'
Initshrstversion, thisbookwasputtogethertromunpubIished
materiaI stemming trom a debate on the Te Monstrosity ot
Christ" between SIavoj

izek and John MiIbank. Atter 8og oa

makama (CodinPain)hrstappearedinCroatianin2008, triends
suggestedwe pubIish it in the United States. To that end

izek
oheredseveraInewessaysandthesechangesdidsomewhataIter
the book's concept, though not its substance. Te proj ect was
conceptuaIizednot as apoIemicbut as a reection, a conversa-
tion between a phiIosopher and a theoIogian, a psychoanaIyst
andapriest,who,athrstgIance,havenothingincommon.
TepIacewhereIstandandwhenceIwriteisonaborder.Tis
pIace-between East and West, the kan and the Mediterra-
nean,EuropeandEasternEurope-ohersaspecihcperspectiveon
theoIogyaboutwhichIhavewritteneIsewhere. ' Fromwithinthe
ideoIogicaI constructknownas rraos/r/oo (nothingmore than an
opportunitytorvioIenceandpiIIage otbibIicaIproportionsunder
theguiseotsateguardingnationaIinterestsandtraditionaIvaIues),
andtromapIaceinwhichCathoIics, EasternOrthodox, MusIims,
andJews have Iivedtor centuries in suppressedconict, IwouId
IiketospeakouttogetherwiththoseindividuaIsandmovements
vioIentIyshovedto themarginotdiscourse, tossedtromhistory
to its veryperipherywherehistorymocks and taunts anygeog-
i AsmisguotedbyJues(SamueL. Jackson)intheQuentinTarantinohmPu/
Ficrion (i994).
2 orisGunjevicandPredragMatvejevic,Tko je ru, odavde je-Povijesr mi/osri
(Whoeveris Here, HaistromHere-aHistoryotCharity) (Zagreb.Nakada
Ljevak,20i0).
Uc Mysrngogy o[ Kcvo/urion (Cunjevic) U
raphy. Terehas been noIackotsuchheterogeneousmovements
andindividuasinthispartottheworId,be theyhereticaIogu-
mis,Patarenes,osnianChristians,ApostoIics,toIIowers otJohn
WycIihe,radicaAnabaptistsects,orheterocIiticmovementssuch
as the Cagoiticpriests, the Hussites, Cavinists, and Lutherans,
to which I myset beIong. Teirs is either a theoIogy written in
theirown bIood oritisnotheoIogyat . TeborderonwhichI
stand, inareamthatIies
"
inbetween,hashostedandsheItered
over a reIativeIybrietperiod (and I say this with no smaI mea-
sureotpride)twoseriousMessianicpretenderswhotettheywere
among their own in this psycho-geographic cornerotthe worId.
TehrstwasFraDoIcino, aMessiahandprogenitorottheradic
FranciscansknownastheApostoIics,whoIivedinSpIitandUIcinj,
bothcitiesontheAdriaticCoast.Teother,betterknown,isSab-
bataiZev,aconverttoIsIam,aJewishMessiah,whopracticedthe
JewishtaithinsecretuntiIhissuddendeathamongtheIegendary
Ucinjpirates.
Tisveryborder area, this reaIm
"
inbetween, i sa manites-
tation ot the coordinate system I am setting up between two
stories. Te hrstconcerns Lenin's speechto the AII-RussiaCon-
gressotTransportWorkersinIJ2I, thesecondoccaccio'scom-
mentaryonadreamaboutDante.Tisbookcameaboutinagap
withinthe systemotcoordinatesto be outIinedbywayotthese
twoapparentIyunreIatedstories.
I
etoreheembarkedononeothist_icaIrousingspeeches,Lenin
addressedthe assembIed transportworkers with a noteworthy
comment. WhiIe waIking through the haI where over i,
Congressattendeeswere gathered, Lenin had spottedapIacard
dispaying the sogan.
"
Te reign ot the workers and peasants

Introduction
wiII Iasttorever. Itwasno surprise, Leninremarked,thatthe
signhadbeenpIaced
"
ohina corner, tortheworkerswhohad
written it were, generaIIy speaking, stiII contused about the
tundamentaIs otsociaIism eventhree anda haItyearsatterthe
OctoberRevoIution. FoIIowing the hnaI and decisive battIe, he
expIained,therewouIdnoIongerbeadivisionbetweenworkers
and peasants, since aII cIasses wouId have by then been aboI-
ished. AsIongas therewere cIasses, therewouIdberevoIution.
EvenitthepIacardhadbeensideIinedandreIegatedtoacorner
therewasstih, soLeninteIt, acIearIackotunderstandingmani-
testedinthesIogan'sinwidespreaduse. Tereweretewworkers
whounderstoodagainstwhat,orwhom,theywerewagingoneot
theIastdecisivebattIesottherevoIution.TiswaspreciseIywhat
Leninhad cometospeakaboutbetoretheCongress.
Sowhati sremarkabIeaboutthisintroductorydigression7First,
LenintaiIedtotakeinthemoredangerousmessageonthepIacard.
Wecaninterpretitas atormottheoIogicaI subversion. Tatthe
kingdomotworkersandpeasantswhavenoend,thattheirreign
wbeeternaI, does notspringhomtheontoIogyotmateriaIism
espousingthe eternaInature otmatter. No, itis a cIeartheoIog-
icaItormuIationas describedandinvokedbythe existenceotthe
Niceno-ConstantinopoIitan Creed, one ot the most important
Christian documents ever written. Te Niceno-ConstantinopoI-
itan CreedisaruIeotChristiantaithandpracticewithwhichthe
workersappeartohavebeentamiIiar,andwhichwouIdhavecome
downtothemhompre-RevoIutionaryRussia.Temessageonthe
pIacardmakesitcIearthattheworkershadindeedtakentheRevo-
Iution thewrongway. Inthat, Leninwas right. Hedid not, how-
ever,mIyunderstandwhatwaswrongwiththeirunderstanding.
Lenin was convnced that the transport workers needed to
be toIdwhat to think andwhat to do it they were to serve as
anauthenticproIetariattorthebenehtottheRevoIution. Itwas
Ue Mysrngog o[ Kevo/urion (Cunjevic)
necessary to pIace the phiIosophy otrevoIution in the service
ota proIetariat that did not understand it. Tis can be readiIy
demonstrated by the most tragic moment otthe Russian Rev-
oIution, the Kronstadt uprising, aboutwhich Lenin rants Iater
in the same speech. Te crushing otthe uprising was nothing
more than a party crackdown on those to be eIiminated at aI
costs-thosewho thoughtdiherentIytromLeninhimseIt. Here
Ceorg Lukcs is sureIyrightwhen he says thatwhatever point
the theoreticians ot revoIutionary discourse arrive at using
theirinteIIectuaIpowers andsiriraa/ /abor, theproIetarianwiII
aIreadybe there thanks to the tactthat he is a member otthe
proIetariat-assuming, ot course, that he remembers his true
cIass membership and aII the consequences arising theretrom.
In otherwords, Lukcs is aIerting us to the ontoIogicaI superi-
orityottheproIetariatovertheinteIIectuaIs,whoremainatthe
onticIeveIotrevoIution,aIthoughone mighthavethe opposite
impression. Tose workers who participate directIytrom start
tohnishintheprocess otproduction-withtheheIpotgenuine
companionship, andIiving, as Lukcs says, in a
"
spirituaI com-
munity-arethe onIy ones abIe to tuIhII themissionotmobi-
Iizing revoIutionarytorces in a process unmarred by intrigue,
sociaI cIimbing, orbureaucracy. Teyrecognize andpush aside
theopportunistsandscoundreIsandencouragethewaverers. In
hisspeechexpIainingtothetransportworkerswhattheyought
tobethinkinganddoing,Lenindoesquitetheopposite.
Leon Trotsky saw this very earIy on, in an entireIy diherent
contextconcerningtheeverydayIiteottheproIetariat.Inastudy
on aspects oteverydayIite, Trotskyargues that the worker is
J GeorgLukcs,Po/irica/ Wrirings,J9J9-J929. Ue Quesrion o[Par/iamenrarianism
and Orher Essays, trans.MichaeIMcCoIgan(London.NL, i972), 59.
4 OriginaIIypubIishedinPravda JuIyi2, i92J. AvaiabIeathttp.//W .manists.
org/archive/trotsky/women/ite/2J_07 _i2. htm

Introduction
trappedbetweenvodka,thechurch, andthecinema.Toughhe
seesaIIthreeasnarcoticswhichharmtheproIetariat,hesetsthe
cinemaaparttromtheothertwo. Comparedtogoingtoatavern
anddrinkingoneseItintoastupor,orattendingchurchwherethe
same dramaisperpetuaIIypertormedout othabit andmonoto-
nous rituaI, Trotsky preters the cinema, whose roIe is entireIy
diherent.EncounteringthesiIverscreenprovdes atheatricaIity
otgreatergripthanthatprovidedbythechurch,which seduces
witha thousandyears otstage experience. Te cinema cIothes
itseItin a morevaIuabIegarbthan thevestments otthe church
anditshierarchyismorevaried-itamuses, educates, andmakes
a powertuI impression. Trotsky says that the cinema quashes
everydesiretorreIigion,thatitisthebestwaytocountertavern
and church. He suggests that the cinema shouId be secured as
an instrumenttor controI ottheworkingcIass. In other words,
TrotskyteeIsseductivespectacIetobeessentiaItorevoIutionary
discourseandpractice.
Tis, in a nutsheII, is the argument againstLenin's critique
ot the pIacards at the Congress haII. Since he must expIain
to the transport workers what is expected ot them, they are
ehectiveIypurgedtromthe revoIutionarydiscourse, and, once
purged, mustberepIacedby others, torwithoutworkers there
canbenorevoIutionorhistory. Leninespousesa certaintorm
ot pedagogy that invariabIy taiIs and aboIishes itseIt chiey
because itdoesnotsucceedininstiIIinganysortotvirtue.Tis
isthetundamentaIerrorothiswhoIespeechtotheCongressot
TransportWorkers,atatimewhentheOctoberRevoIutionwas
stiIItormaIIyinprocess.
TeRevoIutiondidnotsucceedbecauseitdidnotinstiIIvirtue,
norwas itintormedbyvirtue. TemostgeneraIthingthatcan
besaidisthatrevoIutionitseItisatormotvirtue. Such astate-
ment,however, isaIIbutmysticaI, andtheretoretheonIything
Uc Mysrngog o[ Kcvo/urion (Cunjevic) J
remaining tor us is to procIaim revoIutionary terror a virtue-
which is obviousIy ridicuIous. Tere is no reason at this point
torus not to agree with Saint-Just's prophetic insight that he
who does notwant either revoIutionaryterrororvirtue inevi-
tabIy turns to corruption-aIways the consequence ota taiIure
tochoosebetweenthehrsttwooptions.
TeonIyvirtueottherevoIutionisinandotitseIt.Assuchit
cuIminatesinoccasionaIecstaticstates,inorgiesotpurevioIence
that go unpunished. Tis too otten has as its consequence an
abandonmentottherevoIutionaryideaI,bywhichtheproIetariat
disquaIihes itseIttoranynumberotreasons, suchas agrowIing
stomach, mediocre Ieaders, shenanigans within the party and
bureaucracy,poorIeadershipamonghomegrownrevoIutionaries
jockeying tor position within the party nomencIature. Trotsky
ascribesaIIthistovodkaandthechurch.
ItwouIdseemthataproIetariatwithoutvirtuestripsitseItot
its priviIeges and disquaIihes itseIt, yet at the same time revo-
Iution cannot proceedwithouta proIetariat. RevoIutionary dis-
course presupposesa sacrihceanditwe seethis as avirtuein
Lenin'srevoIutionarycontext then itisways aboutsacrihcing
othersinthenameotathirdparty-sonowonder
"
protessionaI
revoIutionaries resembIe trustratedhedonistic nihiIists. Every
revoIutionisdoomedto taiIititIacks virtue, itithas noadhoc
participative asceticism which wouId assume a transcending
dimension, nobuiIt-in dimension otspirituaI exercise, orwhat
MicheI FoucauIt caIIs
"
technoIogies ot the seIt. RevoIution
withoutvirtue isnecessariIycaughtbetweenavioIentorgiastic
Iunacyandabureaucratizedstatistautism.
Trotskyseemstohavebeenrightwhenhesaidthatmandoes
not Iive by poIitics aIone, cIearIy aIIuding to the story ot the
temptation otJesusinMatthew's CospeI, as man does notIive
bybreadaIonebutby everywordthatissuestromthemouthot
4
Introduction
Cod. WearetheretoreIettwithonIya tewoptions. the tavern,
thechurch,thecinema . . . OrTereignottheworkersandpeas-
ants wiII Iast tor ever." CIearIy Lenin did not comprehend the
impIicationsotthetransportworkers'pIacardandhencemissed
thetheoIogicaImessageIurkingtherein,otherwise, hewouIdnot
haveIimitedhiscritiquetothequestionotcIass. Itseemsthatin
criticizing the pIacard, Leninwas dispIaying his own ignorance
ottheeIementaIreIigiousreterencesintormingtheirperceptions
and torming their habitus. In particuIar, that otthe transport
workers,who,asmodernnomads, conveygoods andproduceto
the state, IinkingcapitaI, Iabor, and the market inwhat is per-
haps themostintimatetashion.
Tisisthehrststoryservingasasub-texttorthisbook.
II
TesecondstoryisCiovanni occaccio'sandit concerns Dante
AIighieri. ItistarmoreromanticandcertainIyotgreatersignih-
cance. Taking Dante as his exampIe, occaccio means to show
howpoetryand theoIogyare one and the same, and, moreover,
that theoIogyis nothing more than divine poetry. ythe same
token, in deconstructing" the Decameroo, he opines thatwhen
Jesus is said to be a Iion, Iamb, or rock in the CospeIs, this is
nothing more than a poetic hction. Furthermore, occaccio
cIaimsthattherearestatementsbyJesusintheibIewhichmake
no apparent sense it interpreted IiteraIIy, andwhich are better
understoodaIIegoricaIIy. He concIudes trom this that poetryis
theoIogy, and theoIogy poetry. Describing Dante's Iite and his
Comedy, occacciowishesto substantiatehis importantinsight
notonIybyreIyingonAristotIebutaIsobyusingexampIestrom
Ue D/v/oe Comedy in reIationto the poIiticaI and sociaI context
withinwhichitwaswritten.
e Mysrngogy o[ Kevo/urion (Cunj evic)

Ue D/v/oe Comedy was pennedi nexiIe, aproduct otDante's

nomadic Iite. It is theretore no wonder that the Comedy itseIt
describesaj ourneythroughHeII, Paradise,andPurgatoryinthe
companyotunusuaI teIIow traveIers whohave a speciaI signih-
cancetortheauthor.AtteraschisminthepoIiticaIpartyotthe
Whites, otwhichDantewas a member, andanattacktromthe
papaIvassaIs,reterredtoastheIacks,Dantewasbanishedtrom
FIorence in iJ2, and subsequentIy condemned in absentia to
being burnedat the stake. Tis sentence turned Dante into a
poeticandpoIiticaInomadwhowouId neverreturntohisnative
city. Atter roaming through Europe, he reached Ravenna and
there he eventuaIIy died. occaccio says that Dante meant to
describeinthevuIgate,inrhyme,aIIworksbyaIIpeopIeandtheir
meritsinhistory. TiswasaremarkabIyambitiousandcompIex
projectrequiringtimeandIabor, especiaIIyas Dantewas a man
whose tootsteps were doggedbytate at every turn, Iadenwith
theanxietyotabittergaII.
Te Comedy becameDante's Iite work. When poIiticaIoppo-
nents broke into his home (trom which hehadedi nhaste,
Ieaving everythingbehind) , theytoundportions othis manu-
script in a traveIing trunk. Tese were preserved and handed
overtothe thenmosttamousotFIorentinepoets, DinoFresco-
baIdi. FrescobaIdi recognized that betore him was a master-
piece, andthrough acquaintanceshadthemanuscriptssent to
Dante's triendtheMarquis MoreIIo MaIaspina, inwhosehome
DantehadtakensheIter.TeMarquishadencouragedDanteto
persevere,andsohedid.occaccioteIIshowDante'sdeathpre-
ventedhimtromcompIetinghismasterpiece. theIastthirteen
cantos were missing. Dante's triends were dismayed that Cod
hadnotpermittedhimtoIiveIonger,sothathemightcompIete
hisextraordinarywork.AIIhopewasIostoteverrecoveringthe
hnaIcantos.
b
Introduction
Dante's sons, Jacopo and Piero, themseIves poets, agreedto
compIete theirtather's Comedy. One night, eight months atter
Dante's death, Jacopo had an odd dream. Te son asked his
tatherwhether hehadhnishedthegreatworkand, itso, where
those hnaI cantos were hidden. Dante answered that, yes, the
workwashnished,andhehadstowedthemanuscriptinthewaII
othis bedroom. Jacopowent ohthat very night to consuItwith
PieroCiardino, tormanyyears adiscipIeotDante's.
Having roused Ciardino in the middIe ot the night, Jacopo
couId not wait. oth proceeded at once to Dante's house to
search thebedroomwaIIs. Atapestrywas drapedoveronewaII
and behinditwas a IittIe door. Opening the door, the two men
toundthe manuscripts tucked away inside, coatedin moIdand
aImost destroyed. Having tound the hnaIthirteen cantos, they
passed them on to Dante's triend Cangrande deIIa ScaIa, to
whom Dantehadgivenhis manuscriptin stages as hewroteit.
According to occaccio, Dante dedicated the entire Comedy to
Cangrande,whiIeeachotthethreepartsisthoughttohavebeen
dedicatedtodiherentindividuaIs. Furthermore,Dantehadgiven
Cangrandeahermeneutickeytorinterpretingthe Comedy using
asimpIeexegeticaItormuIa,hrstmentionedbyNichoIasotLyre,
acontemporaryotDante's,butattributedtoAugustineotDacia.
TetormuIa-which,accordingto HenrideLubac,canbetound
in the work Rora|as pag/||ar/s, pubIished around I250-was
cIearIyamedievaIinterpretationottheibIe,handeddowntrom
thePatristics,withrootsinOrigen's textPer/ Arcboo. Itreadsas
toIIows.
Litteragestadocet,
QuidcredasaIIegoria,
5 HenrideLubac,Medieva/ Exegesis: Ue Four Senses o[ Scrirure, Vo.i, trans.
MarkSebanc(GrandRapids.Wm..EerdmansPubishingCo.,i998),i.
e Mysrngogy o[ Kevo/urion (Cunjevic)
MoraIisquadagas
Quo tendasanagogia.
7
In aIetterto Cangrande, Dante expIains thathisworkispoIy-
semic, in other words that the meaning in the Comedy is Iiter,
aIIegoricaI,moraI,andanagogic,andheprovidesasanexampIean
interpretationotthehrstverseotPsaImII4. AIegoryisextended
metaphor and it must meet certain conditions dictated by the
theoIogicaItraditionititisnottobearbitrary. LiteraIandaLegor-
icaImeaningare inareIationship ottensioninthe Comedy. Tey
do notmerge, but neitherare theyseparate. Tis iswhatmakes
theDanteotUe D/v/oe Comedy bothan apostIeandaprophet.
Dante's teIIowtraveIersonthej ourneythrough HeII, Purga-
tory, andParadise-VirgiI, eatrice,andSt. ernard-couIdbe
deemedeccIesiaInomads,withVirgiIrepresentingreason,ea-
tricedivinemercy,andSt. ernardIove.Havingpassedthrough
HeII and Purgatory, each describedinpedagogicaIterms, Dante
converses in Paradise with St. Peter on the subj ect ot taith,
with St. Jacob on hope, and with St. John on charity. From
theseconversationsitis cIearthatDanteteeIsonecannotpass
through HeIIandPurgatorywithouttheaidottheoIogicaIvir-
tuessuchastaith,hope, andcharity.Todoso, onemustbecome
an eccIesiaInomadand dweII invirtue. Hencewe cansay that
theComedy isamedievaIspirituaIaIIegorydepictingthenature
ot humankind, its purihcation, and its renewaI through the
theoIogicaIvirtues.
5 Ibid.,27i, n. i. Atreetransationwoudreadas toIows. "Tepowertuwords
(gesta)otGodinhistoryarethetoundation ottheChristiantaith.Tistaith
seekstormuationotitsownunderstandinginadoctrine(aegoria).True
beiethnds moraexpressioninaction"("whatwe shoudbedoing"-moraia).
Temeaningotthetourthine, i.e. thepurposeandgoaotdivineredemptive
action,givestheansweras"taiththatactsthroughove,"andactionotthis
kindeadsusonwardandupward(anagogia).
b
Introduction
Dante otten pIays sIyIy with the poIiticaI reaIity othis day,
scrutinizingit cIoseIytoarriveatottenprovocativeconcIusions.
TisisevidenttromthepoIiticaIandspirituaItopographywithin
which he situates the participants in his Comedy. we might
expect to hnd the heretics in HeII, tor instance, but Dante up-
ends things. Pope NichoIas III, as a swindIer and Simonist, is
consignedto HeII,whiIethe LatinAverroist Sigerotrabant is
to be tound in Paradise. Sigerwas aproponent otthe so-caIIed
theory ot doubIe truth"-the truth ot reason and the truth
ottaith. StrongIyinuencedbyIsIam, this hadbeenbranded a
heresy. Yetthere stands Sigerin Paradise, aIongsideSt. ernard
who, as a priest, had bIessed the HoIy Crusades and the mas-
sacreottheFrenchCathars.InDante'scase, theheresywasmore
inspirationaI than inuentiaI. its signihcance was to introduce
a poIiticaI diherentiationIinked to a prophetic vision otsociaI
reIations.
CertainIythemostimportanttactabouttheUe D/v/oe Comedy
is that Dante thought otit as instructionaI and emancipatory.
HismasterworkwastobepracticaIandcontempIative,asevery
metaphysicaIspecuIation must come down to ethicaI action, its
uItimate obj ective being an upIitting otthe individuaI towards
Cod and unity with a bIessed vision ot the Trinity. Te way
Dantespeaks otthe visionotCodin Ue D/v/oe Comedy isworth
remarking on. It might escape the notice ot us uItramodern
readersthatthereisnoCodtobeseenin Dante's Paradise. Tis
istheapotheosisothispoetictheoIogy. TereisnoCodinPara-
disebecauseParadiseisin Cod, andthisiswhythevisionotthe
Trinity matters to Dante. Heintendedto articuIate amodeItor
ethicaI transcendencebypresentingandevaIuatingthe pIace ot
everypersonin eternity. His ambitiousproj ectis otgreattheo-
IogicaIimporttorustoday. Tisisthesecondstoryservingas a
sub-texttorthisbook.
e Mysrngogy o[ Kevo/urion (Cunjevic) U
III
Atthispoint,itwouIdbeappositetoexpIainwhy, inintroducing
this coIIaborative voIume, I chose not to use stories that were
cIosertousintimeandamnity.IcouIdhavetakentoIessmyth-
oIogicaI"storiesthatwouIdhavebeenmoreauthentic."However,
Iater interpretations otthe stories, no matter how schoIarIy
and protessionaI, are rooted in the initiaI myth." It we truIy
want to understand we must return to the origins, to see what
sortotconnectionthesestorieshavetous today. In otherwords,
betweenLenin's speech tothetransportworkersand occaccio's
commentary on a dream, there is a coordinate system reaching
throughtimeandspacewithinwhichI intendto situatemy ow
theoIogicaIvision.Tecartographyotthatvisionbeginsatterthe
poIemicbetweenSIavoj

izekandJohnMiIbankpubIishedinUe
Moosrros/q oj Cbr/sr. 'InmyopinionthatpoIemicisnotyetdone,
thoughthingsseemtohavereachedaIogicaIconcIusion.We can
readtheirdebateintwoequaIIypIausibIeandcompatibIeways.
Te hrst reading is possibIe with the heIp ot Martin Luther's
key-the distinctionbetween the theoIogy otthe cross and the
theoIogyotgIory.Inthiscase,

izekwouIdbeamateriaIistictheo-
Iogian otthe cross (atter LutherhimseIt, Jakob hme, C.W.F.
HegeI,KarIMarx,JacquesLacan)whiIeMiIbankmightjustas weL
be a Tomistic theoIogian ot gIory (atter Augustine, theurgic
Neo-PIatonism, NichoIas ot Cusa, FIix Ravaisson, Sergius uI-
gakov, C. K. Chesterton,HenrideLubac,OIivier-TomasVenard) .
Such a cIaim stems trom

izek's and MiIbank's insistence on the

importance ot Meister Eckhart's (proto-)modern" work, which
theyboth seeas cruciaI and inuentiaI, though theyinterpretit
in diametricaIIy opposing ways. MiIbankgoes sotaras to cIaim
7 SeeSIavojZizekandJohnMiIbank,Ue Monsrrosiq o[ Chrisr. Paradox or Dia/ec
ric (CambridgeMA. MIT Press, 2009) .

Introduction
thatBckharthasIaidthegroundworktorapathto an aIternate
modernism," incontrasttothepathwhichwasactuaIIytaken, in
thewakeotDuns ScotusandWiIIiamotOckham.
TesecondreadingotthedebatedrawsonDante'sdistinction
betweentragedyand comedy. Tragedybegins sottIy, impercep-
tibIy, and aImost atrandom,"Iike a marveIous promise, yet it
ends tragicaIIy, in vioIence. Comedy, converseIy, begins with a
crueI reaIity and yet ends up happier and more j oyous than it
began. Tis proposed reading invoIves a juxtaposition otrevo-
Iutionary and theoIogicaI discourse, revoIution and theoIogy.
A revoIution begins sottIy, imperceptibIy," and ends in vioIent
tragedy, whiIe theoIogy, Iike comedy, begins with a crueI act ot
incarnationbutendshappiIyintheNewJerusaIem.Tisreading,
however, is not assimpIeisitmight seem,indeedthereismuch
inittocriticize.
Te tragic aspect ot theoIogy consists in its countIess
attemptsto interpretthe vioIencethatruns through theNew
Testament, where even that j oyous New-JerusaIem endingis
preceded by the cosmic terror ot retribution trom the Anti-
Christ and his Iegions ot angeIs. In revoIution the situation
is reversed. it begins with revoIutionary tervor and a j oyous
vision otuniversaI transtormation. RevoIution is at hrst and
in the middIe borne by this enthusiasm, right up to the very
end-whichisinvariabIytragic.
My intentionin therestot this introductionis to describe
myowntheoIogicaItraj ectoryusinga poetics otcIoseobser-
vationanddescription" ot what is in between. "I wish to sit-
uate this by probing what is in between"-in between the
theoIogy otthe cross and the theoIogyotgIory, tragedy and
comedy, revoIution and theoIogy-within the paradox ot a
reIationship ot tension, tor tension is considered to be a pri-
mordiaItheoIogicaIcategory, andthewordtension"suggests
e Mysrngogy o[ Kevo/urion (Cunjevic)

an intensity I hoIdto be cruciaIinmyown theoIogicaIinqui-

ries . It might seem that my intention in j uxtaposing Lenin
and Dante is somehow to mock both the revoIutionary and
the theoIogicaI discourse. ut nothingcouIdbe turthertrom
the truth. It is in tact

izek's own treatment ot Lenin's revo-

Iutionary texts (and ot StaIin's terror) , and the comparison
Craham Ward has drawn between John MiIbank's !beo|ogy
aod 5oc/a| !beory and !be D/v/oe Comedy, that make possibIe
this
paradoxicaIj uxtaposition. Iwishtoshowthatthe

izek-
MiIbankdebate is notoverbecause, as is true otaIIpoIemics,
it ends up reducing the tundamentaI arguments and concIu-
sions invoIved. The book must be tinished but the debate
cannotbecIosed. Thisbecomes cIearerinIightotthoseparts
ottheircorrespondencewhichwerenotincIudedinthebook.
These are tragments which demonstrate how a debate can
suddenIyshootottonaditterenttangent. ItispreciseIythese
unpubIished passages and discarded tragments-which may
attirstgIanceseempointIess-thatIaminterestedin. Attera
certainamountotback-and-torthin the tormotrepIiesto the
initiaIthesesset outinthe text, MiIbanksays thetoIIowing. '
MyrepIytotherepIytotherepIywouIdbe.
utI don't wager on a punitive Cod. I wager on
St. PauI or Origen or Cregory ot Nyssa's Cod who
8 When speakingotUeo/ogy and Socia/ Ueory, GrahamWardseesitasanepic
andheroicwork,insinuatingthatMiIbank'sbookisapostmodernversionot
Ue Divine Comedy. SeeGrahamWard,'JohnMibank'sDivinaCommedia,"New
/ackiars 7J (i992) .Jii-i8.
9 Toserepiesnotincudedinthebookwerepubishedaterinseparateartices.
SeeJohnMibank,SavojZizek,andCrestonDavies,Pau/s New Momenr:
Conrinenra/ Phi/osohy and rhe Furure o[ Chrisrian Ueo/ogy (GrandRapids.
razos, 20i0), JohnMibank,"WithoutHeavenTereisOnyHeIonEarth.i5
VerdictsonZizek'sResponse,"Po/irica/ Ueo/og ii.i (20i0),SavojZizek,"Te
AtheistWager,"Po/irica/ Ueo/ogy ii. i(20i0) .

Introduction
wiIIhnaIIyredeemaII.WithoutthisbeIietonecannot
hope that one day being wiII be shown to coincide
withthegood. TiswouIdindeedIeaveonewithonIy
`moraIity'-onIy the despairing gesture ot trying to
hoIdback death tor a time. OnIyan endIesswrangIe
about how to portion out scarce and damaged
resources. ycontrast,onIyChristianityaIIowsoneto
hopeandtheretoretoworktortheinhnitetuIhIIment
otaIIinharmonywithaII."
ZizekoncemoreremarksincIosingthattheirarguinghasturned
intoa successionotmonoIogues.
TimetoconcIude.
When, at the beginning ot his repIy to my repIy,
MiIbank cIaims that, in my previous repIy, I mereIy
reiteratedmymainpoints,withoutproperIyengaging
withhis specihcarguments, myreactionis that this,
exactIy,iswhatheisdoinginhissecondrepIy-acIear
sign that our exchange exhausted its potentiaIs. So,
sincewearebothreducedtoreiteratingourpositions,
the onIy appropriate way tor me is to concIude the
exchange. '
TheseareportionsIteeItobeimportant, eventhoughthey
may seem to be useIess, commonknowIedge which is aIways
best avoided, the common knowIedge shouId be rearranged
and themateriaItrom whichit is constructedshouIdbe reas-
sembIed. Thisreminds me othowonemightteeIaboutbeing
asked to write a book about Venice, when there are at Ieast
I0 Tesetwoexchangesappearinane-maitromJohnMibanktotheauthor,
Septemberi5, 2008.
e Mysrngogy o[ Kevo/urion (Cunjevic) J
tittybookspubIishedyearIyonthesubj ect, eachonetouching
on the Doge's PaIace, St. Mark's Church, Casanova, Titian,
Tintoretto, andtheworIdtraveIerswhohaveturnedupthere,
whetherintentionaIIy orotherwise, such as Coethe, Ruskin,
Wagner, orRiIke.WhenPredragMatvej evicwasaskedtowrite
aboutthe cityhedecIined, otcourse, tor thisveryreason. At
Josephrodsky'sprompting,theVenicetowntathers respon-
sibIetorcuIturesuggestedthatMatvej eviccometostayinthe
citytor severaIweeks, anditsomethingweretointriguehim,
thenthatwas whathe shouId write about. In acceptingthis
invitation, Matvej evicdidsomethingIhoIdtobequiteimpor-
tant,cIoseIyaIignedwiththewayI seetheroIeottheoIogyin
thecontextotthewhoIeotthehumaneconomyotknowIedge
andpractice.
IV
WithasubtIementaIarcheoIogy, PredragMatvej evicworks to
make visibIe the torgottentacts otwhat makes the citywhat
it is, buriedunder Iayers otpreconceptions. He comes across
a graveyard tor dogs and seaguIIs, and pecuIiar pIants with
which even eminent botanists are untamiIiar. He describes
hidden, negIectedgardens, Iayersotrust, patina,androck. He
describesoId,abandonedmonasteriessinkingintothecanaIs,
psychiatric asyIums, stone bridges on hidden-away back
streets, crackedwaIIs trom which sproutthe oddestotpIants
used in times past to treat the vocaI cords ot opera singers .
Matvej evic aIso writes ot gambIers, specuIators, schemers,
ventriIoquists, tortune hunters, swindIers, quacks, and s ev-
eraItribesotsIaveswhoperishedaboardtheVenetiangaIIeys.
He even reIates the history ot Venetian bread, woven into
thebackdrop otaII otVenetian history, without which there
4
Introduction
wouIdhave beennoVenice, orits maritime tIeet, poIitics, or
architecture. ''
OneothisdiscoveriesinparticuIarI considercruciaI. aIong-
negIecteddump tor a potteryworkshop. roken shards otpot-
tery, tragments otwhat were once beautituI vases and dishes,
were discarded there. Tese rej ected pottery pieces are caIIed
cocci, andinventiveVenetians buiIt them into their homes and
thetoundationsotpaIaces. ybargetheyhauIedthecocci tothe
dump andthen,attera time, the detective pieceswouIdbeter-
ried to buiIding sites to be used as construction materiaI. 1e
masons mixed the pieceswith mortarand sandand buiIt them
into the bridges that Iink the city, into thetoundations otthe
tortresses which detended Venice. Today these tortresses can
noIongerdetendeventhemseIvestromruin,whiIethecocci stiII
de|theassauItsottime,damp,andpatina.
Tesepiecesotpotterywiththeirtraces otVenetianwomen
andmen, saints, angeIs, the Madonna, andChristare, today, a
rarity. Tey are precious and hard to hnd. What was trash hve
hundredyearsagoisnowcherishedinmuseumsandprivate coI-
Iections, tront and center in tancy dispIay cases. Te tact that
they are rare is what makes them so much more coveted than
mass-producedceramics. Tesetragments, shards, bits thatcan
beretrievedtromthemud,grass, andsandotthe shore,washed
bythewaves ottimeandtossedbythesea, representmyvision
ottheoIogicaIdiscourse. WhatweusedtothinkotuntiIrecentIy
asrej ectsandtrashcanserveinbuiIdingsociaIreIationsandthe
worIdaroundusinanaItogethernewway.
ii SeePredragMatvejevic,Ue Orher venice. Secrers o[ rhe Ciry, trans.Russe
ScottVaentino(London.Reaktionooks, 2007),Medirerranean. A Cu/rura/
Landscae, trans. MichaeHenryHeim(erkeeyandLosAngees.Universityot
CaIitorniaPress,i999), erween Exi/e and Asy/um. An Easrern Eisro/ary, trans.
RusseIScottVaIentino(udapestandNewYork.CentraEuropeanUniversity
Press, 2004).
e Mysrngogy o[ Kevo/urion (Cunjevic)

Wecannotknowhowmanyexquisitecocc/ stihIieburiedtorus
to
un
cover. TatwouId seemtobe one otthe tasks ottheoIogy.
Unearthing these shards which are hundreds, even thousands,
otyears oIdandbuiIdingthemintotheverytoundations otour
exstenceandthepIacesthatshape us isanotherotthetasksot
theoIogy.ForitispreciseIythesetragmentsthatbuiIdanewimage
otreityandchangeperceptionotreIations, remindingusotour
own tragiIity. It is hardIy a coincidence thatAtonio Negri gave
one othis recentbooks the titIePorce|a/o Worksbop. Aswithpot-
teryandthecocc/, workngwithporceIainrequiresagentIe,steady,
cautious hand, much Iike contempIation and spirituaI exercises.
TeoIogyiswhathandIesthetragiIetragmentsottrashandrejects
to create, usingthe Scriptures, a spIendid mosaic tora king, as
Irenaeussays inhis discourseagainstCnosticism. AIthoughsuch
shardswerediscardedasworthIess,theirworthisincaIcuIabIe.
uthere, aswitheveryaIIegory, itis notsimpIyamatterotan
arbitrary opposition toIIowing no ruIes. Irenaeus criticized the
CnosticstoragreatdeaI,butparticuIarIytortheirexcessive arbi-
trariness intaiIingtobeIedbythe ruIe otthetaith." Instead ot
tashioninga spIendid mosaicotprecious stones httoraking, the
Cnosticsmadeamosaicdepictingadogoratox, anditwasugIy.
RearrangingthechaptersottheScriptureastheysawht, asitthey
were oId wves' tes, the Cnostics aItered words, phrases, and
parabIes to suit the prophecies they themseIves had concocted.
ToavoidstrayingintoapopuIistCnosticismandaneIitismotthe
seIect,IrenaeuscautionsustoresisttheCnosticsystemotthought,
basedasitisonthingstheprophetsdidnottoreteII,thingsJesus
didnotteach,andthingstheApostIesdidnotsay. PertectknowI-
edge is not eIitist. It is pertect simpIybecause it is accessibIe to
everyoneatahtimeswhiIeresistingthedrawotpopuIism.
Hence we embk on 8 adventure, coIIecting discarded hag-
mentsmatserveasmetaphorstor8 eccIesiaIpracuceinwhichpar-
b
Introduction
ticipatestheapocypticcoLectivewetermtheChurch,agatheringot
theradicaLyequ.Tisiswhat Christcommunicatesto us through
his exampIe, hisIite,andhisparabIes.TisisthewayotIitmgicIite
shapedbythe|ogos (theIogic ot|aue/a, Romans I2. I-2)which PauI
put into pracuceinaspecihcwayinthecommunitiesheestabIished
inAsia Mmor, therebybringingradic yinto questionmepoIiticaI
reityotthe RomanEmpire. InasmuchastheoIogyisadeIiberauon
oneccIesipracuceinmeIightotCod'sword,thenmispracucemust
beshapedbythetheoIogicvirtuesottaith, hope, andcharity, ever
readytocommunicateIiberty,equaIity,andhatemity.
Furthermore, I considermeoIogytobe the onIyhtungdiscourse
which can oher incamauon resources, incamauon tooIs, tor
changingthewodd.TehneSIovenianpoetdChrisuanSociist,
Edvard Kocbek,who took an acuvepart in the nauonIiberauon
movement, dscussed Chrisuanity and Communism in mid-IJ4J
withJosipVidmar,aseIt-taughtCommunistrevoIuuonary`Vidmar
toIdKocbekthatChrisuanityhadnotsucceededintranstormingman
dme worId, whichis the program, requirement, and incIinauon
ot Christianity, because it had not ohered adequate incamationaI
resources."Vidmar teIt that Communism was nowneededbecause
onIy itcouIdmeetthe conditionsrequiredto tosterman's spiritu
quiues. Toughmis discussionmight seemusinginmemidde
otcombatoperationsinSIovenia,Vidmarhadsomethingmportant
tosay-thatChristianityhadnotmmishedthe necessaryincama-
uonresources."TisisthekeytothemeoIogicaIvisionI settorth.
OmytheoIogycanmishtherightincuonaIresources,thetooIs
withwhich tobuddme spirituaIquues needed to transtorm the
perceptionotmeindividuandtranstormthecommunity.Techap-
tersthattoLoww discusstheincamationaItooIsandeccIesiprac-
ucesmatChristianity,onewayoranother,ohersus.
i2 SeeEdvardKocbek,Svedocansrvo. dnevnicki zaisi od 3. maja do 2. decembra
J043, trans. MarijaMitrovic (eIgrade. Narodnaknjiga, i988),i22.
|or n eo/ogico-Po/iricn/ 5uspension o[ rhe Lrhicn/ (

izek)
7
Coor/oaed om page
and severe prohibitions. Terein resides, tor Jacques Lacan, the
paradoxicaIconsequenceottheexperiencethatCodisdead".
Te Father C emcientIyprohibit desire onIybecause he
is dead,and, Iwomdadd,becausehehmseItdoesn'tknow
it-nameIy, mat he is dead. Such is the myth that Freud
proposes to themodemman 8 me mtorwhomCodis
dead-nameIy,whobeIievesthatheknowsthatCodisdead.
Why does Freud eIaborate this paradox7 In order
to expIain how, in the case ottather's death, desire
wiIIbemorethreateningand, consequentIy, theinter-
dictionmorenecessaryand more harsh. AtterCodis
dead,nothingisanymorepermitted. '
InordertoproperIyunderstandthispassage, onehastoreadit
together with (at Ieast) two other Lacanian theses. Tese dis-
persedstatementsshouIdthenbetreatedaspiecesotapuzzIeto
becombinedintoonecoherentproposition. ItisonIytheirinter-
connectionpIustheimpIicit reterence tothe Freudiandreamot
the tatherwho doesn'tknow that he is dead that enabIes us to
depIoyLacan'sbasicthesisinitsentirety.
(I) TetruetormuIaotatheismisnotCod /s dead-
evenbybasingthe originotthetunctionotthetather
uponhismurder, Freudprotectsthetather-thetrue
tormuIaotatheismisCod /s aocoosc/oas."'
i JacguesLacan,Le rriomhe de /a re/igion, rcd de Discours aux carho/iques
(Paris. SeuiI,2005), J5-5.
2 JacguesLacan,Ue Four Fundamenra/ Concers o[ Psycho-Ana/ysis (London.
Penguinooks, i979), 59.
b
Introduction
(2)`1syouknow,. . . IvanIeadshistatherKaramazov]
intothoseaudaciousavenuestakenbythethoughtot
the cuItivated man, andin particuIar, hesays, /j Cod
doeso'r ex/sr . . . -lj Cod doeso'r ex/sr, the tather says,
rbeo everyrb/og /s perm/rred. Quite evidentIy, a naIve
notion, tor we anaIysts know tuII weII that it Cod
doesn' t exist, then nothing at aII is permitted any
Ionger.Neuroticsprove thattouseveryday.'
1emodernatheistthinks heknows thatCodis dead, what he
doesn'tknow is that, unconsciousIy, he continues to beIieve in
Cod. What characterizes modernity is no Ionger the standard
hgureotthebeIieverwhosecretIyharborsintimatedoubtsabout
hisbeIietandengagesin transgressive tantasies. Whatwehave
today is a subj ect who presents himseItas a toIerant hedonist
dedicatedtothepursuitothappiness,butwhoseunconsciousis
thesite otprohibitions-whatisrepressedarenotiIIicitdesires
orpIeasures, butprohibitionsthemseIves. ItCod doesn'texist,
theneverythingisprohibited"meansthatthemoreyouperceive
yourseItas anatheist, the more yourunconsciousis dominated
by prohibitions which sabotage your enj oyment. (One shouId
nottorget to suppIement this thesis with its opposite. itCod
exists, theneverythingispermitted" -isthisnotthemostsuc-
cinct dehnition otthe reIigious tundamentaIist's predicament7
Forhim,CodtuIIyexists,heperceiveshimseItashisinstrument,
whichiswhyhecandowhateverhewants,hisactsareredeemed
inadvance,sincetheyexpressthedivinewiII. . . )
ItisagainstthisbackgroundthatonecanIocateDostoyevsky's
mistake.DostoyevskyprovidedthemostradicaIversionottheIt
Coddoesn' texist,theneverythingispermitted"ideainobok,"
J JacguesLacan,Ue Seminar o[ Jacques Lacan. ook H:Ue Ego in Freud's Ueory
and in rhe Technique o[ Psychoana/ysis (NewYork.Norton,i988),i28.
|or n Ueo/ogcoPo/iricn/ 5uspension o[ rhe Lrhicn/ (

izek)
9
his weirdestshortstory, which eventodaycontinues toperpIex
itsinterpreters.Isthisbizarremorbidtantasy"simpIyaproduct
otthe author's own mentaI disease7 Is it a cynicaI sacriIege, an
abominabIe attempt to parody the truth otthe ReveIation7 In
obok,"an aIcohoIic IiterarymannamedIvan Ivanovichis sut-
teringtromauditoryhaIIucinations.
I am beginning to see and hear strange things, not
voicesexactIy,butasthoughsomeonebesidemewere
muttering,bobok,bobok,bobok| "
What's themeaning otthis bobok7 I must divert
mymind.
Iwentoutinsearchotdiversion,IhituponamneraI.
Soheattends thetuneraIota distant reIative, remaininginthe
cemetery, he unexpectedIy overhears the cynicaI, trivoIous con-
versationsotthedead.
And how it happened I don't know, but I began to
hear things ot aII sorts being said. At hrst I did not
payattentiontoit,buttreateditwithcontempt. ut
the conversation went on. I heard mumed sounds
as though the speakers' mouths were coveredwith a
piIIow, and at the same time they were distinct and
verynear.I cametomyseIt, satupandbeganIistening
attentiveIy.
He discovers trom these exchanges that human conscious-
nessgoesontorsometimeatterthedeathotthephysicaIbody,
IastinguntiItotaIdecomposition,whichthedeceasedcharacters
4 FyodorDostoyevsky, "obok,"avaiabeathttp. / /cassicit.about. com/ibrary/
b-etexts/tdost/b-tdost-bobok.htm
J
Introduction
associatewiththeawtuIgurgIingonomatopoeia,bobok."Oneot
themcomments.
Te great thing is that we have two or three months
more otIite and then-bobok| I propose to spend
thesetwo months asagreeabIyaspossibIe, andsoto
arrangeeverythingonanewbasis. CentIemen| Ipro-
posetocastasideaIIshame.
1e dead, reaIizing their compIete treedom trom earthIy con-
ditions, decide to entertain themseIves byteIIingtaIes ottheir
existenceduringtheirIives.
. . . meanwhiIeIdon'twantustobeteIIingIies.Tat's
aIIIcareabout,torthatisonethingthatmatters.One
cannotexistonthesurtacewithoutIying,torIiteand
Iying are synonymous, but here we wiII amuse our-
seIves by not Iying. Hang it aII, the grave has some
vaIue atteraII| We'IIaIIteIIourstoriesaIoud,andwe
won'tbeashamedotanything. FirstotaIII'IIteIIyou
about myseIt. I am one ot the predatorykind, you
know.AIthatwasboundandheIdincheckbyrotten
cords up there on the surtace. Away with cords and
IetusspendthesetwomonthsinshameIesstruthtuI-
ness| Letusstripandbenaked|
Let us be naked, Iet us be naked| " cried aII the
voices.
TeterribIestenchthatIvanIvanovichsmeIIsisnotthesmeIIot
the decaying corpses, but a moraI stench. Ten Ivan Ivanovich
suddenIysneezes, andthedeadtaIIsiIent,thespeIIisIost,weare
backintoordinaryreaIity.
|or n Ueo/ogcoPo/iricn/ 5uspension o[ rhe Lrhicn/ (

izek)
J
And here I suddenIy sneezed. It happened suddenIy
and unintentionaIIy, but the ehect was striking. aII
became as siIent as one expects it to be in a church-
yard, it aII vanished Iike a dream. A reaI siIence ot
the tomb set in. I don't beIieve they were ashamed
on account otmy presence. they had made up their
minds to cast ohaIIshame| I waitedhve minutes-
notaword,notasound.
MikhaiIakhtinsawinobok"thequintessenceotDostoevsky's
art, a microcosmothis entire creative output whichrenders its
centraI motit. the idea that everything is permitted" it there
is no Cod and no immortaIity otthe souI. In the carnivaIesque
underworIdotIitebetweenthetwodeaths,"aIIruIesandrespon-
sibiIitiesare suspended. ItcanbeconvincingIyshownthatDos-
toyevsky's mainsource was BmanueI Swedenborg's Oo Heaveo,
rbe Wor|d oj 5p/r/rs aod oo He||, as Uey Were 5eeo aod Heard by
5wedeoborg (transIated into Russian in I85J) . According to
Swedenborg, atter death the human souI goes through severaI
stages ot purihcation ot its internaI content (good or eviI) and
as a resuIthndsitsdeservedeternaIreward. paradise orheII. In
thisprocess, which can Iast troma coupIe otdays toa coupIeot
months, thebodyrevives, butonIyinconsciousness, intheguise
otaspectraIcorporeaIity.
Wheninthis secondstate spirits becomevisibIyjust
whattheyhadbeeninthemseIveswhiIeintheworId,
whattheythen didandsaidsecretIybeingnowmade
manitest, tortheyare nowrestrainedbyno outward
5 See IIyaVinitsky, "Whereobokis uried. TeosophicaI RootsotDostoevskii's
'FantasticReaIism',"S/avic Review 55. J(Autumn, 2005) . 52J-54J.
J
Introduction
considerations,andtheretorewhattheyhavesaidand
donesecretIytheynowsayandendeavortodoopenIy,
havingnoIongeranytearot Iossotreputation,suchas
theyhadintheworId.
TeundeadcannowcastasideaIIshame,actinsaneIy, andIaugh
at honesty andjustice. Te ethicaI horror otthis vision is that
itdispIays theIimitotthe truthandreconciIiation" idea. What
itwe have a perpetrator torwhom the pubIic contession othis
crimesnotonIydoesnotgiverisetoanyethicaIcatharsisinhim,
butevengenerates anadditionaIobscenepIeasure7
Teundead"situationotthedeceasedisopposedtothatotthe
tather in one otthe dreams reportedbyFreud-thetatherwho
goes onIiving (in the dreamer's unconscious) becausehedoesn't
knowthatheisdead.TedeceasedinDostoyevsky'sstoryaretuIy
aware thattheyare dead-itis thisawarenessthataowsthemto
castawayaIIshame. So what is the secretthat the deceasedcare-
m yconceaItromeverymortaI7Inobok,"wedonothearanyot
the shameIess truths-the specters otthe deadwithdraw at the
verypointatwhichtheyshouIdhnaLydeIivertheirgoods"tothe
Iistener andteLtheirdirtysecrets. Sowhatitthe soIutionis the
sameasthatattheendottheparabIeottheDoorottheLawtrom
KaHa'sUe !r/a|, when,athisdeathbed,themantromthecountry
whohasspentyearswaitingtobeadmittedbytheguardian,Iearns
that the doorwas there onIytorhim7 What it, in obok" so,
theentirespectacIeotthecorpsespromisingtospiLtheirdirtiest
secretsisstagedonIytoattractandimpresspoorIvanIvanovch7
Inotherwords, what itthe spectacIe otthe shameIess truthtu-
ness" ottheIiving corpses is onIya tantasyotthe Iistener-and
otare|/goas Iistener,atthat7WeshouIdnottorgetthatthescene
5 Ibid. , 528.
|or n Ueo/ogco-Po/iricn/ 5uspension o[ rhe Lrhicn/ (

izek) JJ
|ostoy
evsky paints is oor that ot a godess universe. What the
taIk
ingcorpsesexperienceisIiteatter(bioIogicaI) death,whichis
in
itseItaproototOod'sexistence-CoJ/s rbere, keep/og rbem a|/ve
a
er dearb, wb/cb /s wby rbey cao say everyrb/og.
What Dostoyevsky stages is a re|/g/oas tantasy which has
nothingwhatsoevertodowithatruIyatheistposition-though
he stages it to ihustrate the territying godess universe inwhich
everythingispermitted."Sowhatisthecompusionthatpushes
the corpses toengagein the obscene sincerityotsayngit a"7
TeLacanianansweriscIear.saperego-nct asan ethicaIagency,
but as the obscene injunction to enjoy. Tis provides the insight
into what is perhaps the uItimate secret that the deceasedwant
tokeeptromthenarrator.theirimpuIsetoshameIessIyteIIathe
truthisnottree, thesituationisnotnowwecanhnahysay(and
do) thatwewerepreventedbomsayng(anddoing)bytheruIes
andconstraintsotournormIives." Instead, theirimpuIseissus-
tainedbyacrueIsuperego imperative. thespectersbave to doit.
It,however, what theobsceneundeadhidetrom thenarrator is
the compuIsivenature ottheir obscene enjoyment, anditwe are
deaIingwthareIigioustantasy,thenthereisonemoreconcIusion
tobemade.rbar rbe aodead are aoder rbe compa|s/ve spe|| oj ao ev/|
Cod. 1erein resides Dostoyevsky'suItimateIie.whathepresents
asaterri|ingtantasyotagodessuniverseisehectiveIyaOnostic
tantasyotaneviI obscene Ood. A moregeneraIIesson shouIdbe
drawn tromthiscase. whenreIigious authors condemn atheism,
theyatooottenconstructavsionotagodessuniverse"which
isaprojectionottherepressedundersideotreIigionitseIt.
Ihaveusedherethetermgnosticism"initsprecisemeaning,
astherejectionotakeyteatureottheJewish-Christianuniverse.
the exreroa|/q oj rrarb. 1ereis an overwheImingargumenttor
the intimate Iink between Judaism and psychoanaIysis. both
tocus onthe traumaticencounterwiththeabyss otthe desiring
J4
Introduction
Other, withtheterri|inghgureotan impenetrabIe Otherwho
wants something trom us, without making it cIear what that
something is-the Jewish peopIe's encounterwith Cod, whose
impenetrabIe CaII throws oh the raiIs the routine ot human
daiIy existence, the chiId's encounter with the enigma ot the
Other's (in this case, parentaI) enj oyment. In cIear contrast to
this Jewish-Christian notion ottruth as reIying onan externaI
traumaticencounter(thedivineCaIItotheJewishpeopIe,Cod's
caIItoAbraham, theinscrutabIe Crace-aIItotaIIyincompatibIe
with our inherent quaIities, even with our innate ethics), both
paganism and Cnosticism (as the reinscription ot the Jewish-
Christianstancebackintopaganism) conceivethepathtowards
truth as an inner j ourney" ot spirituaI seIt-purihcation, as a
returnto one's true InnerSeIt, theseIt's rediscovery." Kierkeg-
aardwas rightwhenhepointedoutthat the centraIopposition
ot Western spirituaIity is Socrates versus Christ". the inner
journeyotremembranceversusrebirththroughtheshockotthe
externaI encounter. Withinthe Jewish-Christian universe, Cod
b/mse|j /s rbe a|r/mare barasser, theintruderwhoisbrutaIIy dis-
turbingtheharmonyotourIives.
Traces ot Cnosticism are cIearIy discernibIe even in today's
cyberspaceideoIogy. Is not the technophiIiacdream otapureIy
virtuaI SeIt detached trom its naturaI body, capabIe otoating
tromonecontingentandtemporaryembodimenttoanother,the
hnaI scientihc-technoIogicaI reaIization otthe Cnostic ideaI ot
theSouIIiberatedtromthedecayandinertiaotmateriaIreaIity7
No wonder that the phiIosophy ot Leibniz is one ot the pre-
dominant phiIosophicaI reterences otthe cyberspace theorists.
Leibniz conceived the universe as a harmonious composite ot
monads,"microscopicsubstances each otwhich Iives inits own
seIt-encIosed inner space, with no windows onto its environs.
One cannot miss the uncanny resembIance between Leibniz's
|or n eo/ogico-Po/iricn/ 5uspension o[ rhe Lrhicn/ (

nek) J

monadoIogy"andtheemergingcyberspacecommunityinwhich
gIobaI harmony and soIipsism strangeIy coexist. 1at is to say,
does ourimmersion into cyberspace not go hand in hand with
our reduction to Leibnizian monads which, aIthough without
windows"thatwouIdopendirectIyontoexternaIreaIity,mirrors
initseIttheentireuniverse7Arewenotmoreandmoremonadic
in this sense, with no direct windows onto reaIity, interacting
aIone with the PC screen, encountering onIyvirtuaI simuIacra,
andyetimmersedmorethaneverinagIobaInetwork, synchro-
nousIycommunicatingwiththeentireworId7
And does the space inwhich the (un) deadcan taIkwithout
moraI constraints, as imaginedby Dostoyevsky, notprehgure
this Cnostic-cyberspace dream7 1erein resides the attraction
ot cybersex. since we are deaIing onIy with virtuaI partners,
thereisnoharassment. 1isaspectotcyberspacetounditsuIti-
mateexpressioninaproposaItorethink" therights otnecro-
phiIiacs which recentIy resurtacedin some radicaI" circIes in
the US. 1eideawas tormuIated that, in the samewaypeopIe
give permission tor their organs to be used tor medicaI pur-
posesattertheirdeath,theyshouIdaIsobeaIIowedtosignover
their corpses tor the enj oyment ot trustrated necrophiIiacs.
1is proposaI pertectIy exempIiheshowthe PoIiticaIIy Correct
anti-harassment stance reaIizes Kierkegaard's oIdinsight that
the onIygoodneighboris a deadneighbor.A deadneighbor-
a corpse-is the ideaI sexuaI partner tor a toIerant" subj ect
tryingtoavoidanyharassment. ydehnition,a corpsecannot
beharassed, atthesametime, adeadbodydoes oor eooy, sothe
disturbingthreatottheother'sexcess-enj oymentiseIiminated
torthesubj ectpIayingwiththecorpse.
1eideoIogicaIspaceotsuch toIerance"i sdeIineatedbytwo
poIes. ethics and jurisprudence. On the one hand, poIitics-in
itsIiberaI-toIerantasweIIas initstundamentaIist"version-is
Jb
Introduction
conceivedasthereaIizationotethicaIstances (onhumanrights,
abortion, treedom, etc. ) which preexist poIitics, on the other
hand(andinacompIementaryway), itistormuIatedintheIan-
guageotjurisprudence(howtohndtheproperbaIancebetween
therightsotindividuaIsandotcommunities,etc. ) . Itisherethat
thereterencetoreIigioncanpIaythepositiveroIeotresuscitating
theproperdimension otthe poIiticaI, otre-poIiticizingpoIitics.
it can enabIe poIiticaI agents to break out ot the ethico-IegaI
entangIement. 1e oId syntagm theoIogico-poIiticaI" acquires
newreIevancehere. itisnotonIythateverypoIiticsisgrounded
ina theoIogicaI"viewotreaIity, itisaIso thateverytheoIogyis
inherentIypoIiticaI, an ideoIogyotnewcoIIective space (Iikethe
communities otbeIievers in earIy Christianity, or the amma in
earIyIsIam) . ParaphrasingKierkegaard,wecansaythatwhatwe
needtodayisarbeo|og/co-po|/r/ca| suspensionottheethicaI.
Intoday'sprohterauonotnewtormsotspirituaIity,itisoendim-
cuIttorecognizetheauthentictracesotaChrisuanitywhiUremns
tmmto its own theoIogico-poIiticaI core. Ahintwas providedby
C. K. Chesterton,who med aroundthe standard (mis)perception
accordng to whiU the ancient pagan atutude is one otthe joymI
asseruonotIite,whiIeChrisuanip imposes a somber orderotgmt
d renmciation. It is, on the contrary, the pagan stce whiU is
deepIymeIanchohc. evenHitpreaches apIeasurabIeIite, itis in me
modeotenjoyitwhiIe itIasts, because, in the end,thereis aIways
deathanddecay."1emessageotChrisuanityis,onthecontrary,one
otaninhnitejoybeneaththedeceptivesurtaceotguiItandrenuncia-
uon. 1eouterringotChrisuanityisarigidguardotethicabnega-
uonsandprotessionaIpriests,butinsidethatinhumanguardyouw
hndtheoIdhumIitedancingIikechiIdren,ddgwineme
men,torChrisbityistheonIyhametorpaganheedom."'
7 G. K. Chesterton,Orrhodo (SanFrancisco. Ignatius Press, i995), i54.
|or n Ueo/ogco-Po/iricn/ 5uspension o[ rhe Lrhicn/ (

izek) J7
I snotToen's Ue Lord oj rbe R/ogs the mtimate proototthis
p
a
radox7OnIyadevoutChristiancouIdhaveimaginedsuchamag-
nihcent pagan universe, thereby conhrming that pagao/sm /s rbe
a|r/mare Cbr/soao dream. Which iswhythe conservative Christian
critics who expressed their concern at how Ue Lord oj rbe R/ngs
underminesChristianitywithitsportrayaIotpaganmagicmissthe
p
oint, i. e. , theperverseconcIusionwhich isunavoidabIehere.You
want to enjoy me pagan dream otpIeasurabIe Iite withoutpaying
the
priceotmeIanchoIicsadnesstorit7ChooseChristianity|
TisiswhyC. S. Lewis's vsionotNarniaisuItimateIyataiIure.
it doesn'tworkbecause it tries to inmse the pagan mythic uni-
versewithChristianmotits (theChrist-IikesacrihceottheIionin
the hrst noveI, etc. ) . Instead otChristianizing paganism, such a
movepaganizes Christianity, re-inscribingitbackinto thepagan
universe where it simpIy doesn't beIong-the resuIt is a tase
paganmyth. 1eparadoxishere exactIythe same as that otthe
reIationshipbetweenWagner'sR/og andhisPars/ja|. 1estandard
cIaimthat the R/og is an epic otheroicpaganism (since its gods
are Nordic-pagan), and that Pars/ja| marks the Christianization
otWagner(hiskneeIinginhontotthecross,asNietzscheputit)
mustbereversed. itis in the R/og thatWagner comes cIosestto
Christianity, whiIe Pars/ja|, tar trom a Christianwork,stages an
obscene re-transIation otChristianity into a pagan myth ot the
circmarrenewottertiIitythroughtheKng'srecuperation.1is
iswhyonecaneasiIyimagineanaIternateversionotPars/ja|, adit-
terent directionthat thepIotshouIdtakeinthe midde,which,in
8 Inprivateconversations,WagnerwasguiteexpIicitabouttheunderIyingpagan
obscenityotParsija/-ataprivatereceptionontheeveotitshrstpertormance,
he"described [it]asabIackMass, aworkthatdepictsHoIyCommunion `qot
youwhoareinvoIvedinthepertormancemustseetoitthatyouhavethedevin
you,andyouwhoarepresentasIistenersmustensurethatyouweIcomethedeviI
intoyourheartsl "' CitedinJoachimKohIer,Richard Wager. Ue Lasr o[ rhe Tirans
(NewHaven.YaIeUniversityPress, 2004), 59i.
Jb
Introduction
away,wouIdaIsohavebeentaithtuItoWagner-akindotFeuer-
bachianized" Pars/ja|, inwhich, inAct II, Kundrydoes succeed in
seducing ParsitaI. Far trom deIivering ParsitaI to the cIutches ot
KIingsor,thisActdeIiversKundrytromKIingsor'sdomination.So
when, at the Act's end, KIingsor approaches the coupIe, Parsit
doesexactIythe same asinthe actuaIversion (hedestroys KIing-
sor's castIe), but he then Ieaves tor MontsaIvat w/rb Kundry. In
the aIternativehnaIe, ParsitaI arrives in the Iast seconds to save
Amtortas,but this timewithKundry,procIaimingthatthesteriIe
mascuIine ruIe otthe CraiIis over, and that temininity mustbe
readmittedinordertorestoretertiIitytotheIandandthe(pagan)
baIanceotMascuIineandFeminine. ParsitaIthentakesoverasthe
new King with Kundry as Queen and, a yearIater, Lohengrin is
born.
Oneotten taiIs totake noteotthetact, eIusive initsverybIa-
tancy,thatWagner'sR/og istheuItimatePauIinianworkotart.the
centrconcernintheR/og isthetaiIureottheruIeotLaw,andthe
shittthatbestencompassestheinnerspanottheR/og istheshitt
tromLawtoIove.Whathappenstowardstheendotthe!w/|/gbr is
thatWagner overcomes hisown (pagan" Feuerbachian) ideoIogy
ottheIove otthe (hetero)sexuaI coupIe as theparadigmotIove.
runhiIde's Iast transtormation is the transtormation trom eros
toagape, trom eroticIovetopoIiticaIIove. Eros cannottruIyover-
come Law, itcanonIy expIode in punctuaI intensity, as the Law's
momentary transgression, Iike the ame otSiegmund and Sieg-
IindewhichinstantIydestroysitseIt.Agape iswhatremainsatter
weassumetheconsequencesotthetaiIureoteros.
1ere is ehectiveIy a Christ-Iike dimension in runhiIde's
death-but onIy in the precise sense that Christ's death marks
the birth otthe HoIy Spirit, the community otbeIievers Iinked
byagape. NowonderoneotrunhiIde'sIastIinesisRuhe,Ruhe,
du Cott| " (Die in peace, Cod| ")-her act tuIhIIs Wotan's wish
|or n eo/ogico-Po/iricn/ 5uspension o[ rhe Lrhicn/ (

izek)
J U
to
treeIy
assume his inevitabIe death. What remains atter the
_
iIight
is the humancrowdsiIentIy observingthe catacIysmic
e
vent, a crowd which, in the Chereau-ouIez path-breaking
staging, is Iett staring into the audience when the music ends.
hverythingnowrestsonthem,withoutanyguaranteetromCod
oranyotherhgure otthebigOther-itisuptothemtoactIike
theHoIySpirit,practicingagape.
1eRedempuonmotitisamessagedeIiveredtotheenme
woHd, but Iue pymonesses, the orUestra is undear
andthereareseveraIwaysotinterprebgitsmessage. . . .
Doesn'tonehearit, shomd'tonehearit,wimmistrust
dep,amisuustwhichwouIdmatchtheboundIess
hopewhichthishumitynurses andwhichhas aIways
beenatste, siIenuyand invisibIy, inme atrociousbat-
ueswhichhavetomhumanbeingsapartthroughoutthe
R/og7 1egodshaveIived,mevaIuesottheirworIdmust
bereconstructedandreinvented. Menarethereasiton
meedgeotacm -theyIisten,tenseIy,totheoracIewhich
rumbIeshomthedepthsotmeearth.'
1ereis noguarantee otredemption-through-Iove. redemption
is mereIygivenas possibIe. Weare thereby attheverycore ot
Christianity. it is CodhimseItwhomadea PascaIianwager. y
dyingonthe cross, hemadea riskygesturewithnoguaranteed
hnaIoutcome, he providedus-humanity-with theemptyS
'
,
Master-Signiher, and it is up to us to suppIement it with the
chainotS
'
. FartromprovidingtheconcIusivedotonthe`i, the
divine act ratherstands torthe openness ota New eginning,
andittaIIs tohumanitytoIiveuptoit,todecideitsmeaning,to
9 PatriceChereau,citedinPatrickCarnegy, Wagner and rhe Arr o[ Uearre (New
HavenandLondon.YaeUniversityPress,2005),J5J.
4
Introduction
makesomethingotit. AswithPredestination,which condemns
ustotranticactivity, theEventisapare-empq-s/go, andwehave
toworktogenerateitsmeaning.TereinresidestheterribIer/sk
oj reve|ar/oo. what ReveIation" means is that Cod took upon
himseIttheriskotputtingeverythingatstake,ottuIIyengaging
himseItexistentiaIIy"byway, asitwere,otsteppingintohisown
picture,becomingpartotcreation,exposinghimseIttotheutter
contingency ot existence. True Openness is not that ot unde-
cidabiIity, but that otIiving in the attermath ot the Event, ot
drawing out the consequences-otwhat7 PreciseIy otthe new
space opened up by the Event. Te anxiety otwhich Chereau
speaksistheanxietyottheact.
Today'spropaganda-notjustinthenarrowpoIiticaIsense-
targets theverypossibiIity otsuch Openness. it hghts against
somethingotwhichitisnotitseItaware,somethingtowhichitis
structuraIIybIind-notitsactuaIcounter-torces (poIiticaIoppo-
nents) , buttheposs/b/|/ry (theutopianrevoIutionary-emancipa-
torypotentiaI)whichisimmanenttothesituation.
Te goaI otaIIenemypropaganda is not to annihi-
Iate an existing torce (this tunction is generIy Iett
topoIicetorces),butrathertoannihiIateanaooor/ced
poss/b/|/ry oj rbe s/raar/oo. TispossibiIityisaIsounno-
ticedbythosewhoconductthispropaganda,sinceits
teatures are to be simuItaneousIy immanent to the
situationandnottoappearinit. '
Tis is why enemy propaganda against radicaI emancipatory
poIitics isbydehnition cynicaI-notin the simpIe sense otnot
beIievingitsownwords,butatamuchmorebasicIeveI.itiscyn-
i0 Aainadiou,"SeminaronPIato'sReub/ic" (unpubIished),FebruaryiJ, 2008.
|or n Ueo/ogco-Po/iricn/ 5uspension o[ rhe Lrhicn/ (

izek)
4
icaI preciseIy insotar as it does beIieve its own words, since its
messageisaresignedconvictionthattheworIdweIive in,itnot
thebestotaII possibIeworIds, is the Ieastbadone, sothatany
radicaIchangecanonIymakeitworse.
1
LHII8tIuHI| _uIH8t
tHC uCICd

/Izt.
AIthough the statement It there is no Cod, everything is
permitted" is usuaIIy traced back to Ue 8rorbers Karamazov,
Dostoyevskyneverintactmadeit' (thehrst to attribute itto
him was Sartre in 8e/og aod Norb/ogoess) . However, the very
tactthatthismisattributionhaspersistedtordecades demon-
strates that, even it tactuaIIy taIse, it does hit a certainnerve
in ourideoIogicaIedihce. NowonderconservativesIiketoevoke
it aproposscandaIs amongtheatheist-hedonisteIite. trom miI-
IionskiIIedinguIags up to animaIsexandgaymarriage, here is
whereweendupwhenwedenyaIItranscendentauthoritywhich
wouId set unsurpassabIe Iimits to human endeavors. Without
suchIimits-sothe storygoes-there is no uItimatebarrierto
expIoiting one's neighbors ruthIessIy, using them as tooIs tor
proht and pIeasure, ensIaving and humiIiating them, or kiIIing
them bythe miIIions. AI that then separates us trom this uIti-
i TecIosestwecometothisstatementaresomeapproximations,IikeDmitri's
cIaimtromhisdebatewithRakitin(asDmitrireportsittoAIyosha)."'utwhat
wiIIbecomeotmenthen?'Iaskedhim,'withoutGodandimmortaIIite?A
thingsarepermittedthen, theycandowhat theyIike?'"SeeFyodorDosto-
evsky, Ue rorhers Karamazov (NewYork.DoverPubIications,2005), 572.In
thistransIation,theastsentencebeginswith`A thingsareIawtuIthen"atter
comparingitwiththeoriginaI,IrepIaced"IawtuI"with"permitted,"ozvo/eno
inRussian .
4J
44
SIavoj

izek
mate moraI vacuum are temporary and non-obIigatory pacts
among woIves," seIt-imposedIimitations accepted in the inter-
ests ot one's own survivaI and weII-beingwhich can be vioIated
atanymoment . . . utarethingsreaIIyIikethat7
As isweIIknown, Jacques Lacan cIaimedthatpsychoanaIytic
practice teaches us to turn around Dostoyevsky's dictum. It
there is no Cod, then everythingisprohibited." 1is reversaI is
hard to swaIIow tor our moraI common sense. in an otherwise
sympatheticreviewotabookonLacan, a SIovene Lettistnews-
paperrenderedLacan'sversionas. Evenitthereisno Cod, not
everything is permitted| " -a benevoIent vuIgarity, changing
Lacan's provocative reversaI into a modestassurance that even
we godIess atheists respect some ethicaI Iimits . . . However,
evenitLacan'sversionappearsanemptyparadox,aquickIookat
our moraIIandscape conhrms thatit is much more appropriate
to describe the universe otatheistIiberaI hedonists. they dedi-
cate theirIite to the pursuit otpIeasures, but since there is no
externaIauthorityguaranteeingthemthespacetorthispursuit,
theybecomeentangIedinathickwebotseIt-imposedPoIiticaIIy
Correct reguIations, as it a superego much more severe than
that ot traditionaI moraIity is controIIing them. 1ey become
obsessedbytheideathat,inpursuingtheirpIeasures, theymay
humiIiateorvioIateothers'space,so theyreguIatetheirbehavior
with detaiIedprescriptions othow to avoid harassing" others,
nottomentionthenoIesscompIexreguIationottheirowncare
otthe seIt (bodiIyhtness, heaIth tood, spirituaI reIaxation. . . ) .
Indeed, nothingi s more oppressive and reguIatedthanbeing a
simpIehedonist.
1esecondthing,strictIycorreIativetothehrstobservation,
is thattodayitisratherto thosewhoreterto CodinabrutaIIy
direct way, perceiving themseIves as instruments otCod's wiII,
that everything is permitted. It is so-caIIed tundamentaIists
Chrisrinniry Agninsr rhe 5ncred 4
wh
o
pr
actice a perverted version ot what Kierkegaard caIIed
th
e re
Iigious suspension otthe ethicaI. on a missiontrom Ood,
one is
aIIowed to kiII thousands otinnocents . . . Sowhydo we
wi
tn
esstodaythe riseotreIigiousIy (or ethnicaIIy) justihedvo-
Ience7 ecause weIive in an erawhichperceives itseItas post-
ideoIogicaI. SincegreatpubIiccausescannoIongerbemobiIized
asgrounds tormassvioIence (orwar),i. e. , since ourhegemonic
ideoIogycaIIs on us to enjoyIiteand to reaIize our SeIves, it is
dimcuIttorthemaj orityto overcome theirrevuIsionatthe tor-
ture and kiIIing ot another human being. 1e vastmaj ority ot
peopIe are spontaneousIy moraI. torturing or kiIIing another
humanbeingisdeepIytraumatictorthem. So, inordertomake
themdoit, aIargersacred" Causeis needed, onewhichmakes
pettyindivduaIconcernsaboutkiIIingseemtriviaI.ReIigionand
ethnicbeIonginghtthisroIepertectIy. Otcoursetherearecases
ot pathoIogicaI atheists who are abIe to commit mass murder
justtorpIeasure, torthesakeotit,buttheyarerareexceptions.
1e majority otpeopIe need to be anaesthetized against their
eIementarysensitivitytotheother'ssuhering. Forthis,asacred
Causeisneeded. withoutit,wewouIdhavetoteeIaIItheburden
otwhatwedid,withnoAbsoIuteuponwhomtooh-IoadouruIti-
materesponsibiIity.ReIigiousideoIogistsusuaIIycIaimthat,true
ornot, reIigionmakessomeotherwisebadpeopIedosomegood
things. Fromtoday's experience,weshouIdrathersticktoSteve
Weinberg's cIaim thatwhiIewithoutreIigiongoodpeopIewouId
continuedoinggoodthingsandbadpeopIebadthings, onIyreIi-
gioncanmakegoodpeopIedobadthings.
NoIessimportantIy, thesame aIso seems to hoId torthe dis-
pIayotso-caIIedhumanweaknesses". isoIatedextremetormsot
sexuaIityamonggodIesshedonistsareimmediateIyeIevatedinto
representativesymboIsotthedepravityotthegodIess, whiIeany
guestioning ot, say, the Iink between the much more massive
4b
SIavoj

izek
phenomenon otpriests' pedophiIia andthe Church as an insti-
tutionisrej ectedasanti-reIigioussIander.1eweII-documented
storyothowtheCathoIicChurchasaninstitutionprotectspedo-
phiIiacsinitsownranksisanothergoodexampIeothow,itCod
exists, then everything is permitted (to those who Iegitimize
themseIvesashisservants) .Whatmakesthisprotectiveattitude
towardspedophiIiacs sodisgustingis thatitis notpracticedby
toIerant hedonists, but-to add insuIt to injury-by the very
institutionwhichposesasthemoraIguardianotsociety.
utwhataboutthe StaIinistCommunistmasskiIIings7What
abouttheextra-IegaIIiquidationotnameIessmiIIions7Itis easy
to see howthese crimes were aIways justihedby the StaIinists'
ownersatz-god, the CodthattaiIed," asIgnazioSiIone, one ot
thegreatdisappointedex-Communists, caIIedit-theyhadtheir
own Cod, which is why everythingwas permitted to them. In
otherwords, thesameIogicasthatotreIigiousvioIence appIies
here. StaIinistCommunists do notperceivethemseIvesashedo-
nistindividuaIistsabandonedtotheirtreedom,no,theyperceive
themseIves as instruments othistoricaIprogress, otanecessity
whichpusheshumanitytowardsthe higher" stage otCommu-
nism-anditisthisreterencetotheirownAbsoIute(andtotheir
priviIeged reIationship to it) which permits them to do what-
evertheywant (orconsidernecessary) . 1isiswhy,themoment
cracksappearintheirideoIogicaIprotectiveshieId,theweightot
whattheyhaddonebecameunbearabIetomanyindividuaICom-
munists, sincetheyhadtocontronttheiractsastheirown,with
nocoverinahigherReasonotHistory.1isiswhy,atterKhrush-
chev's IJ55 speech denouncing StaIin's crimes, many cadres
committed suicide. theyhad not Iearned anything new during
thatspeech,aIIthetactsweremore orIess knowntothem, they
hadjustbeen deprived otthe historicaI Iegitimization ottheir
crimesbytheCommunisthistoricaIAbsoIute.
Chrisrinniry Agninsr rhe 5ncred
47
StaIinismaddsanotherperversetwisttothisIogic.inorderto
justi|their ruthIessexercise otpowerandvioIence, the StaIin-
istsnotonIyhadtoeIevatetheirownroIeintoaninstrumentot
theAbsoIute,theyaIsohadtodemonizetheiropponents,topor-
traythemascorruptionanddecadencepersonihed.1iswastrue
to an evenhigherdegreeotFascism. Forthe Nazis, everyphe-
nomenon otdepravitywas immediateIy eIevatedinto a symboI
ot Jewish degeneration. A continuity betweenhnanciaI specu-
Ia
tion,antimiIitarism,cuIturaImodernism,sexuaItreedom,and
soon,wasimmediateIyasserted,sincetheywereaIIperceivedas
emanating trom the same Jewish essence, the same haIt-invis-
ibIeagencywhichsecretIycontroIIedsociety. Suchdemonization
had a precise strategic tunction. itjustihed the Nazis in doing
whatevertheywanted, since,againstsuchan enemy, inwhatis
nowapermanentemergencystate,everythingispermitted.
And,IastbutnotIeast,weshouIdnoteheretheuItimateirony.
aIthoughmanyotthosewhodepIorethe disintegrationottran-
scendent Iimits present themseIves as Christians, the Ionging
tor a new externaI/transcendent Iimit, tor a divne agent who
imposessuchaIimit,isprotoundIynon-Christian.1eChristian
CodisnotatranscendentCodotIimitations,butaCodotimma-
nentIove-Cod, atteraII,isIove,heispresentwhenthereisIove
betweenhistoIIowers.Nowonder,then,thatLacan'sreversaI,It
Codexists,theneverythingispermitted| ,"isopenIyassertedby
someChristians, asaconsequenceottheChristiannotionotthe
overcomingottheprohibitiveLawinIove. ityoudweIIindivine
Iove, then you needno prohibitions, you can do whateveryou
want, since, ityoureaIIydweIIinthedivineIove,then,otcourse,
you wouId never want to do anything eviI. . . 1is tormuIa ot
the tundamentaIist" reIigious suspension ot the ethicaI was
aIreadyproposedbyAugustine whenhewrote. Love Cod and
doasyoupIease." (Or, anotherversion. Love, anddowhatever
4b
SIavoj

izek
youwant" -trom the Christianperspective, thetwouItimateIy
amount tothe same, since Cod /s Love. )1e catch, otcourse, is
thatityoureaIIyIove CodyouwiIIwantwhat hewants-what
pIeaseshimwiIIpIease you, andwhat dispIeaseshimwiIImake
you miserabIe. So it is not that you canjust do whatever you
want". your Iove tor Cod, it true, guarantees that in whatever
youwant to doyouwiIItoIIowthehighestethicaI standards. It
is a IittIe bit Iike the proverbiaI j oke. My hance is never Iate
tor an appointment, becausewhen she is Iate, she is no Ionger
my hance" -ityou Iove Cod, you can do whatever you want,
becausewhenyoudosomethingeviI,thisisinitseItaprootthat
you do not reaIIy Iove Cod. However, the ambiguity persists
sincethereisnoguarantee, externaItoyourbeIiet, otwhatCod
reaIIywantsyoutodo-intheabsenceotanyethicaIstandards
externaItoyourbeIietinandIovetor Cod, thedangerisaIways
Iurkingthat youwiIIuse your Iove otCodasaIegitimizationtor
themosthorribIedeeds.
Furthermore, when Dostoyevsky introduces the Iine ot
thought it there is no Cod, then everything is permitted," he
is in no way simpIy warning us againstIimitIess treedom-i. e. ,
advocating Cod as the agency ot a transcendent prohibition
whichwouIdIimithumantreedom. Ina society runbyInquisi-
tion, everythingis dehniteIynotpermitted, since Codis opera-
tivehereasahigherpowerconstrainingourtreedom,notasthe
sourceottreedom.1epointottheparabIeottheCrandInquis-
itorispreciseIythatsuchasocietyobIiteratestheverymessage
otChrist-were Christto return to thatsociety, hewouIdhave
been burned as a deadIy threat to pubIic order and happiness,
sincehebroughttothepeopIethegitt (which turns outtobea
heavyburden) ottreedom and responsibiIity. 1e impIicitcIaim
thatitthereisno Cod, theneverythingispermittedthus turns
outtobemuchmoreambiguous-itisweIIworthtakingacIoser
Chrisrinniry Agninsr rhe 5ncred
4U
IookatthispartotUe 8rorbers Karamazov, theIongconversation
in ookFivebetween IvanandAIyosha which takespIace at a
restaurant. Ivan teIIsAIyoshaastoryaboutthe CrandInquisitor
thathehasimagined. ChristcomesbacktoearthinSeviIIeatthe
timeottheInquisition,atterhepertormsanumberotmiracIes,
the peopIe recognizeandadore him, butheis soonarrestedby
theInquisitionandsentencedtobe burnttodeaththenextday.
Te Crand Inquisitor visits him in his ceII to teII him that the
ChurchnoIongerneedshim-hisreturnwouIdinterterewiththe
missionottheChurch,whichistobringpeopIehappiness. Christ
has misjudged human nature. the vast maj ority ot humanity
cannothandIethetreedomhehasgiventhem,ingivinghumans
treedomtochoose, ChristhasexcIudedthemaj orityothumanity
tromredemptionanddoomedittosuher.
InordertobringthepeopIehappiness, theInquisitorandthe
ChurchthustoIIowthewisespirit,thedreadspiritotdeathand
destruction" -the deviI,whoaIonecanprovidethetooIsto end
aIIhumansuheringanduniteeveryoneunderthebannerotthe
Church. 1e muItitude shouId beguidedbythose tewwho are
strong enough to take ontheburden ottreedom-onIy in this
waywiII aII humankind be abIe toIive and die happiIyin igno-
rance.1esestrongtewarethetrueseIt-martyrs,dedicatingtheir
Iivestoprotectinghumanitytromhavingtotacethetreedomot
choice. 1is iswhy, in the temptation inthe desert, Christwas
wrongto rej ect the deviI's suggestion thathe turn stones into
bread.thepeopIewiIIaIwaystoIIowthosewhowiIIteedtheirbeI-
Iies. Christrej ectedthe temptationby saying Man cannot Iive
onbreadaIone,"ignoringthewisdomwhichteIIsustohrstFeed
men, and then ask otthemvirtue| "(or,as recht put it in his
8eggar's Opera. Lrsr kommr das Fresseo, daoo kommr d/e Mora||") .
Instead ot answering the Inquisitor, Christ, who has been
siIentthroughout,kisseshimontheIips. Shocked,theInquisitor

SIavoj

izek
reIeasesChristbutteIIshimnevertoreturn. . . AIyosharesponds
tothistaIebyrepeatingChrist'sgesture.heaIsogivesIvanasott
kissontheIips.
1epointotthestoryisnotsimpIytoattackthe Churchand
advocate the return to the tuII treedom given to us by Christ.
DostoyevskyhimseItcouIdnotcomeupwith a straight answer
on the matter. One can argue that the story otthe Iite otthe
EIderZosima,whichtoIIowsaImostimmediateIythechapteron
the Crand Inquisitor, is an attemptto answer Ivan's questions.
Zosima, on his deathbed, teIIs how he tound his taith i n his
rebeIIiousyouth,inthemiddIeotadueI,anddecidedtobecome
a monk. Zosima teaches that peopIe must torgive others by
acknowIedgingtheirown sins andguiItbetore others. nosinis
isoIated,soeveryoneisresponsibIetortheirneighbor'ssins. . . Is
thisnotDostoyevsky'sversionotItthereisnoCod,thenevery-
thingisprohibited"7Itthe gitt otChrist is to makeus radicaIIy
tree, then this treedom aIso brings with it the heavy burden ot
totaIresponsibiIity.DoesthismoreauthenticpositionaIsoimpIy
asacrihce7Itdependsonwhatwemeanbythisterm.
Inhis Sketch ota PhenomenoIogicaI Concept otSacrihce,"
Jean-LucMarionbegins with the cIaim thatourgodIess times
haveaboIishedeverydiherencebetweenthesacredandthepro-
tane, thus everypossibiIity otcrossing overitbya sacr/emeor
(oronthecontrary,byaprotanation) ."1ehrstthingtoaddhere
is Agamben's distinctionbetween the secuIar and the protane.
the protane i snotthe secuIar-utiIitarian, butthe resuIt otthe
protanationotthesacredandisthusinherenttothesacred. (We
shouIdaIsotake the tormuIa otmakingitsacred"IiteraIIy. it is
the sacrihce itseItwhich makes an ordinary object sacred, i . e. ,
2 Marion'sunpubIishedessayi sbasedonhis"SketchotaPhenomenoIogicaICon-
ceptottheGitt,"whichappearedinM. M. OIivetti,ed.,Fi/osoa de//a rive/azione
(Rome. ibIiotecadeII'Archivio di Fi/osoa, 994) .
Chrisrinniry Agninsr rhe 5ncred

th
ereisnothingsacredabouttheobj ectassuch,initsimmediate
be
ing.) MarionthenprovidesadetaiIeddescriptionotthethree
mainmodesotsacrihce.
First, there is the negative-destructive aspectwhich survives
in our godIess era as pure (terrorist) destruction. the onIy way
that remains to grasp the Sacred is through pointIess acts ot
destruction which subtract something trom the everyday utiI-
itarian-tunctionaI run ot things. A thing is made sacred" by
destroying it-this is why the ruins ot J/II (Cround Zero")
aresacred. . . (Here Marionaddsa subdivisiontothisnegative-
destructive sacrihce. the asceticsacrihce otaIImateriaI, patho-
IogicaI"goodsorteaturesottheSeIttoasserttheSeItitseItinits
autarchicautonomy.Sincewhatissacrihcedhereisnon-essentiaI
pathoIogicaI" content,which enabIestheauto-approprIation ot
the SeIt's autarchic autonomy-in making the sacrihce I Iose
nothing,i . e. , onIythatwhichisinitseItirreIevant. )
Second, there is the exchange aspect, or sacrihce as condi-
tionaIgitt-wegivesomethingtogetsomethingback. sacrihce
nomoredestroysthanthegittgivesup,sincebothotthemwork
to estabIishtheexchange,orrather,whensacrihcedestroysand
when the gitt gives up, theywork in exactIy the same way to
estabIishtheeconomyotreciprocity."1isendsupinadeadIock,
sincethesacrihceasanactotexchangecanceIsitseIt.
1etruthotsacrihceendsupinexchange,thatistosay
inthenon-truthotsacrihce,becauseitoughttoconsist
preciseIyingivngupwthoutreturn,soitwouIdaIso
amounttothetruthotthenon-gittparexceLence,that
istosay,totheconhrmationthatwhereveronebeIieves
he speaks ot sacrihce and makes it, in tact he ways
hopestoranexchange, and toranexchangeearninga
themore,astarashecIaimedtohaveIosteverything.

SIavoj

izek
1e probIem is. do these two dimensions ot sacrihce sumce7
MarionmakesitcIearthat,intheIogicotexchange,theessentiaI
dimension otsacrihce, that otpure superuous giving, is Iost.
thegittcanandthusmustbetreedtromexchange,byIettingits
naturaImeaningbereducedtogivenness. For,whiIetheeconomy
(otexchange)makesaneconomyotthegitt,thegitt,itreducedto
givenness, inverseIyexcepts itseIttromtheeconomy, bytreeing
itseIttromtheruIesotexchange." Noteheretheexactsymmetry
otthe two aspects. itsacrihce-as-destruction ends in the auto-
appropriationotautonomy,whichcanceIstheverydimensionot
sacrihce(sinceweIoseonIytheinessentiaI-indiherent),sacrihce-
as-exchange aIso canceIs the dimension otexchange-I do not
reaIIysacrihceorgiveanythingaway,sinceIcountonbeingpaid
backtorwhateverIhavegivenbythehigherauthoritytowhich
Imakethesacrihce.othtimes, thesacrihciaIIossiscanceIed.
Whatis missing in this description is a moreradicaI dimen-
sion otsacrihce which is immanent to sacrihce-as-exchange. I
must,inadvance, sacrihcesomethinginorderto enterthevery
heIdotexchange,andthissacrihceispriortoanyparticuIarsac-
rihce otsome content or obj ect-it is the sacrihce in my very
subj ective positionwhichmakes me a subj ectotexchange. 1is
sacrihceisthepricetobepaidtormeaning.Isacrihcecontenttor
torm,i . e. , IgainentryintothediaIogictormotexchange.1atis
tosay, evenitmysacrihcehasnoehect,I caninterpretthisasa
(negative)repIy,sincewhateverhappenscan nowbeinterpreted
byme as a meaningtuI response-eitherway, there is someone
tocommunicatewith,someonetowhomIcanohermysacrihce.
1ird,inordertoeIaborateanotionotsacrihcewhichdoesnot
canceIitseItIiketheprevioustwo, Mariontocusesontheparadox
ot(sacrihceasa)gitt,apureactotgivingwithnoreturn.1epar-
adox is that itthegittis truIygiven, outside otanyeconomy ot
exchange,thenitagaincanceIsitseItasagitt,sincethegivenness
Chrisrinniry Agninsr rhe 5ncred
J
otthegittandthusitsgiverbothdisappearinit.1egiveecannot
take the gitt given torhis own, soIongas he stiII sees in it the
ta
ce
andthe power otits previous owner. 1is owner(thegiver)
mustdisappear,sothatthegittcanstarttoappearasgiven,hnaIIy
thegivermustdisappearcompIeteIytorthegitttoappearasgiven
dehnitiveIy, that is to say given up." Here enters the sacrihce. it
rendersthegivenness(andtherebythegiver)visibIe.
Sacrihce gives the gitt back to the givenness, trom
whichitcomes, byreturningittotheveryreturnthat
originaIIy constitutes it. Sacrihce does not Ieave the
gitt,butdweIIsinittotaIIy.Itmanitestsitbyre-giving
the gitt its givenness, because it repeats it starting
tromitsorigin. . . . Itis absoIuteIynota question ota
counter-gitt, as it the giver needed eitherrecovering
his due (exchange) , or receiving a suppIementary
tribute (gratitude as a symboIic saIary) , but ot rec-
ognizing the gittas such, byrepeatingin an inverse
sense the process ot givenness, reinstating the gitt
there, andrescuingittromitstactuaItaIIbackto the
rank(withoutgivenness)otatoundobj ect.
InsuchastructureotsacrihceIreaIIyIosenothing,itisjustthat
the gitt-status otwhat I have is asserted as such. No wonder
thatMarion'smainexampIeisthatotAbrahamandIsaacwhere
AbrahamdoesnotreaIIyIosehisson-aIIhehastodoistomani-
testhisreadinesstosacrihcehim,basedontherecognitionthat
hissonisnothisinthehrstpIace,butgiventohimbyCod.
Ontheconditionotseeingindeedthatbyrestraining
himtromkiIIingIsaac, CodpreciseIy does notretuse
thesacrihceotAbraham,butannuIsonIyhisbeingput
4
SIavoj

izek
todeath,becausethatdoesnotbeIongtotheessence
otsacrihce. theactuaIdeathotIsaacwouIdonIyhave
satishedsacrihceinitscommonconcept(destruction,
dispossession,exchangeandcontract). . . . ysparing
Isaactrom nowonrecognized(byAbraham) asagitt
(otCod) , Codre-giveshimtohim,giveshimasecond
time,andbypresentingagittbyaredundancy,which
consecrates it dehnitiveIy as a gitt. . . . 1e sacrihce
redoubIesthegittandconhrmsitassuchtorthehrst
time.
1e term as such" is cruciaI here. through repetition, the gitt
is no Ionger obIiterated in the given, but asserted as a gitt. So
who sacrihceshere7 Citt and sacrihce are opposed. Codgives a
gitt, man sacrihcestheappropriatedgitttoregain itasgiven . . .
SacrihceisstoppedattheIastmoment,simiIarIytopoIiteohers
meanttoberej ected.Ioher(toapoIogize,topaythebiII. . . )-on
condition that youwiII rej ectmy oher. 1ere is, however, a key
diherence here. whiIe in an oher meant to be rej ectedboth the
giverandthegiveeknowthattheoherismeaor toberej ected,in
the sacrihce as repeatedgitt I getthegitt back (itis re-given to
me) onIyitIwas rea||y readytoIoseit. ut does the same reaIIy
gotorChrist'ssacrihce,whereheIoseshisIiteandgetsitbackin
Resurrection7Who is the giverandthegivee here7 Ina convo-
IutedandratherunconvincingattempttosqueezeChrist'ssacri-
hce intohisscheme,MarionseesCodthe Fatherasgiver,Christ
asgivee, andtheHoIySpiritastheobj ectotsacrihcewhichChrist
returnstohistatherandgetsback(inResurrection)asagitt.
1edeathottheChristaccompIishesasacrihceinthis
sense(morethaninthecommonsense) .byreturning
his spirit to the Father, who gives it to him, Jesus
Chrisrinniry Agninsr rhe 5ncred
prompts theveiIottheTempIe(whichseparates Cod
trom men and makes him invisibIe to them) to be
torn, andatonceappearshimseItas truIythesonot
Cod" (Matthew 27. 5I, 54), thus making appear not
itseItbuttheinvisibIeFather.1egittgiventhusIets
thegiverandthe process (hereTrinitarian) otgiven-
nessbeseen.

Is
the
senseotChrist'ssacrihce-whichis thatotChristhimseIt,
whobyway ot dying on the cross gives his Iite as a pure uncon-
ditionaI gitt to humanity as givee-not Iost here7 Is Marion's
readingherenotbasicaIIypre-Christian,reducingChristtoamere
mediator,tocusingonCod-the-FatherastheonIytruegiver7Are
things not the exact opposite7-Is what in the most emphatic
senseappears onthe cross notpreciseIy ChristhimseItasgiver,
andnotCodtheFatherwhodisappearsinthebackgroundotthe
tascinating hgure otthe suhering Christ7 Is his act otsacrihce
nottheuItimategitt7Inotherwords,isitnotmuchmoreappro-
p
riate to read Christ's death as a sacrihce tor the reaI. Christ
reaIIyandtuIIydiesonthecross, sothatwehumansgetthegitt
otthe HoIySpirit(the communityotbeIievers)7Furthermore,it
wetakethisgittinaIIits radicaIity, doesitnotcompeIustoread
its meaning as thetuIIacceptance otthe tact that Cod is dead,
thatthere is nobigOther71eHoIySpiritis notthe bigOther
otthe symboIic community, but a coIIectivewhich oe saaror/se
qae de |a/-mme, in the radicaIabsence otanysupporttrom the
big Other. What this means is that Christ's sacrihce preciseIy
aboIishes (sacrihces) the most perverse torm ot sacrihce, the
onemissinginMarion'scIassihcationandwhosecentraIroIewas
depIoyedbyLacan.
For Lacan, this additionaIperverse"sacrihcehas twomodes.
First, a sacrihce enacts the disavowaI otthe impotence otthe
b
SIavoj

izek
big Other. at its most eIementary, the subj ect does not oher
hissacrihcetoprohttromithimseIt, buttohIIintheIack/o rbe
Orber, tosustaintheappearanceottheOther'somnipotenceor,
at Ieast, consistency. Let me recaII 8eaa Cesre, the cIassic HoI-
IywoodadventuremeIodramatrom IJJ8, inwhich the eIderot
thethreebrotherswhoIivewiththeirbenevoIentaunt,inwhat
seemstobeanungratetuIgestureotexcessivecrueIty, steaIsthe
enormousIy expensive diamond neckIace which is the pride ot
theaunt'stamiIyanddisappearswithit,knowingthathisrepu-
tationisruined, thathewiIIbetoreverknownastheungracious
embezzIerothisbenetactress-sowhydidhe do it7Atthe end
otthehIm,weIearnthathediditinordertopreventtheembar-
rassing discIosure that the neckIace was a take. unbeknownst
toaII others, heknewthat, some time ago, the aunthadto seII
theneckIacetoa rich maharaja in order tosave the tamiIytrom
bankruptcy, and repIaced it with a worthIess imitation. Just
priortohis thett,"hehadIearnedthata distantuncIewhoco-
ownedtheneckIacewanteditsoIdtorhnanciaIgain, ittheneck-
IaceweretobesoId,thetactthatitwasatakewouIdundoubtedIy
be discovered, so the onIy way to protect the aunt's and thus
the tamiIy's honor was to stage its thett. . . 1is is the proper
deceptionotthe crimeotsteaIing. tooccIude thetactthat, uIti-
mateIy, rbere /s oorb/og ro srea|-this way, the constitutive Iack
ottheOtherisconceaIed,i. e. theiIIusionis maintainedthatthe
Otherpossessedwhat was stoIen trom it. It, in Iove, onegives
whatonedoesn'tpossess, inacrimeotIove, onesteaIstromthe
beIovedOtherwhattheOtherdoesn'tpossess. . . tothisaIIudes
the beau geste" otthe hIm's titIe. And therein resides aIso the
meaning ot sacrihce. one sacrihces oneseIt (one's honor and
tuture in respecttuI society) to maintain the appearance otthe
Other'shonor,tosavethebeIovedOthertromshame.
1ereisyetanother, much more uncanny, dimensionotsacri-
Chrisrinniry Agninsr rhe 5ncred
7
hce.LetmetakeanotherexampIetromcinema,JeannotSzwarc's
]o/gma (IJ8I), the story ot a dissident j ournaIist-turned-spy
whoemigratedtotheWest andis then recruitedbytheCIAand
sent toBastCermanyto get hoId otascrambIing/descrambIing
computer chip whose possession enabIes the owner to read aII
communications between KC headquarters and its outposts.
SmaII signs teII the spythat therei ssomethingwrongwith his
mission, i . e. , that Bast Cermans and Russians have been toId
in advance about his arrivaI-so what is going on7 Is it that
the Communists have a moIe in the CIAheadquarters who has
intormed them othis secret mission7 As we Iearn towards the
hIm's end, thesoIutionismuchmoreingenious. the CIAa|ready
possesses the scrambIing chip, but, untortunateIy, the Russians
suspect this, and so have temporariIy stopped using the com-
puter network tor their secret communications. 1e true aim
otthe operationwas to convince the Russians thatthe CIAdid
nothave the chip. the CIA sent the agent to get it and, at the
sametime,deIiberateIyIettheRussiansknowthattherewas an
operation going on to get the chip, counting, otcourse, on the
probabiIitythattheRussianswouIdarresttheirspy.1euItimate
resuIt wiII thus be that, bysuccesstuIIy preventing the mission,
the RussianswiIIbe convincedthattheAmericans do notpos-
sessthechipandthatitistheretoresatetousethiscommunica-
tionIink. . . 1etragic aspect otthestory, otcourse, isthatthe
CIAwaors themissiontotaiI. thedissidentagentissacrihcedin
advancetorthehighergoaIotconvincingtheopponentthatone
doesn'tpossesshissecret.
1e strategy is here to stage a search operation in orderto
convince the Other(the enemy) that one does notaIreadypos-
sesswhatoneisIookingtor-inshort, oneteignsaIack,awant,
in order to conceaI trom theOther that one aIready possesses
theaga|ma, the Other's innermost secret. Isthis structure not
b
SIavo]

izek
somehowconnectedwith thebasicparadox otsymboIic castra-
tion as constitutive otdesire, in which the obj ecthas tobeIost
inordertobe regainedonthe inverseIadderotdesirereguIated
by the Law7 SymboIic castration is usuaIIy dehned as the Ioss
otsomethingthatoneneverpossessed, i . e. , the obj ect-causeot
desireisanobj ectwhichemergesthroughtheverygestureotits
Ioss/withdrawaI,however,whatweencounterhereistheobverse
structureotteigningaIoss. InsotarastheOtherotthesymboIic
Lawprohibitsoa/ssaoce, theonIywaytorthesubj ecttoenj oyis
toteign thatheIacks the obj ectthatprovidesoa/ssaoce, i . e. , to
conceaI trom the Other's gaze its possessionbywayotstaging
thespectacIeotthedesperatesearchtorit.
1isaIsocastsanewIightonthetopicotsacrihce. onesacri-
hcesnotinordertogetsomethingtromthe Other,butinorder
to dupe the Other, in order to convince him/it that one is stiII
missing something, i . e. , oa/ssaoce. 1is iswhyobsessionaIneu-
roticsexperiencethecompuIsionrepeatedIytoaccompIishtheir
rituaIs ot sacrihce-in order to disavow theiroa/ssaoce in the
eyesottheOther. . . WhatdothesetwopsychoanaIyticversions
otsacrihcemeantoratheoIogicaIperspective7Howcanweavoid
their trap7 1e answer is outIined in Jean-Pierre Dupuy's Ue
Mark oj rbe 5acred, abook ontheIinkbetweensacrihceandthe
sacred. 1isbookcontrontstheuItimatemysteryottheso-caIIed
humanorsociaIsciences, thatottheoriginsotwhatLacancaIIs
thebigOther,"whatHegeIcaIIedextemaIization" (Loraasseraog),
what Marx caIIed aIienation," and-why not-what Friedrich
Hayek caIIed seIt-transcendence". How, out otthe interaction
otindividuaIs, cantheappearance otan obj ectiveorder"arrive
whichcannotbereducedtotheirinteraction,butisexperienced
bythemasasubstantiaIagencywhichdeterminestheirIives7It
J Jean-PierreDupuy,La marque du sacre (Paris. CarnetsNord,2008). Numbersin
bracketsIaterinthetextretertopagesinthisbook.
Chrisrinniry Agninsr rhe 5ncred
U
i
s
aIItooeasytounmask"suchasubstance,"toshow,bymeans
ot
a
p
henomenoIogicaI genesis, how it graduaIIy gets reihed"
a
ndis
sedimentedoutotindividuaIs'interaction. theprobIemis
thatthepresuppositionotsuchaspectraI/virtuaIsubstanceisin
a
wayco-substantiaIwithbeing-human-those whoareunabIe
toreIatetoitassuch,thosewhodirectIysubj ectivizeit,arecaIIed
p
s
ychotics. it is tor psychotics that, behind every impersonaI
big
Other, there is a personaIbig Other, the paranoiac's secret
agent/masterwhopuIIsthe strings. (DupuypreterstoIeavethe
big questionthatIurksbehindthistopic-cansuch a transcen-
dentsubstanceemergeoutotindividuaIs'immanentinteraction,
orshouIditbesustainedbya rea| transcendence7-undecided,
whiIe we shaII tryto demonstrate that, the moment one raises
this question, the materiaIist" answer is the onIy consistent
one. )
Dupuy's great theoreticaIbreakthrough is to Iink this emer-
gence ot the big Other" to the compIex Iogic ot the sacrihce
constitutive otthe dimension otthe sacred, i . e. , ot the rise ot
thedistinctionbetweenthesacredandtheprotane. throughthe
sacrihce, the big Other, the transcendent agencywhich poses
Iimits to ouractivity, issustained. 1ethirdIinkinthischainis
hierarchy. theuItimate tunction otsacrihce is toIegitimizeand
enacta hierarchicorder(whichworks onIyitit issupportedby
some hgure otthe transcendent big Other) . Itis here that the
hrstproperIy d/a|ecr/ca| twist in Dupuy's Iine otargumentation
occurs. reIyingonLouis Dumont'sHomo H/erarcb/cas, heshows
how hierarchy impIies not onIy a hierarchic order, but aIso its
immanentIooporreversaI. true,the sociaIspaceisdividedinto
higher and Iower hierarchicaI IeveIs, but w/rb/o rbe |ower |eve|,
rbe |ower /s b/gber rbao rbe |ower. An exempIary instance is pro-
4 LouisDumont,Homo Hierarchicus (NewDemi. OxordUniversityPress,i988).
b
SIavoj

izek
videdbythe reIationship between Church and State in Christi-
anity. inprincipIe, otcourse,ChurchisaboveState,however,as
thinkers tromAugustine to HegeImade cIear, w/rb/o rbe seca|ar
order oj rbe 5rare, 5rare /s above Cbarcb (i. e. , Church as a soc/a|
/osr/rar/oo shouIdbesubordinated to State)-itit is not, itthe
Church wants directIy to ruIe aIso as a secuIar power, then it
gets unavoidabIy corruptedtromwithin, reducing itseItto just
anothersecuIarpowerusingitsreIigiousteachingasanideoIogy
to justi| its secuIar ruIe. (As Dumont has demonstrated, Iong
betoreChristianity,thisparadoxicaIreversaIiscIearIydiscernibIe
intheancientIndianVeda, the hrsttuIIyeIaboratedideoIogyot
hierarchy.thecastotpreachersisinprincipIesuperiortothecast
otwarriors,but,within theactuaIpowerstructure otthe state,
theyarede jacro subordinatedtowarriors. )
Dupuy's next, even more cruciaI move is to tormuIate this
twist in the Iogic ot hierarchy, which is the immanent condi-
tionotitstunctioning,intermsotthenegativeseIt-reIationship
betweentheuniversaIandtheparticuIar,betweentheAIIandits
parts-i. e. , as aprocessinwhichtheuniversaIencountersitseIt
among its species in the guise ot its oppositionaI determina-
tion." ackto the exampIe otChurch and State, Church is the
encompassing unity otaII human Iite, standing tor its highest
authorityandconterringonaIIitspartstheirproperpIaceinthe
greathierarchicaIorderotthe universe, however, it encounters
itseIt as a subordinate eIement ot the terrestriaI State power
whichis inprincipIe subordinatedtoit-theChurchas a sociaI
institutionisprotectedbyandhastoobeytheIawsottheState.
InsotarasthehigherandtheIoweraIso reIatehere as theCood
andtheEviI (the gooddomain otthedivine versus theterres-
triaI sphere otpower struggIes, egotistic interests, the search
torvainpIeasures, etc. ), onecanaIsosaythat, throughthisIoop
ortwistimmanentto hierarchy, the higher" Cood dominates,
Chrisrinniry Agninsr rhe 5ncred
b
co
nt
roIs, andusestheIower" EviI, eveni ti tmayappear, super-
hciaIIy (i. e. , to a gazeconstrainedbythe terrestriaIperspective
otreaIityas the domain otegotisticpowerstruggIes andsearch
torvainpIeasures) ,thatreIigion,withitspretensetooccupyinga
higher"pIace,isjustanideoIogicaIIegitimizationottheIower"
interests (say, that the Church uItimateIyjustIegitimizes sociaI
hierarchicaI reIations) . From this perspective, itis reIigion that
secretIypuIIs thestrings, that remains thehiddenpowerwhich
aIIows and mobiIizes EviI tor the Iarger Cood. One is aImost
temptedhere tousethetermover-determination". aIthoughit
is
the secuIar powerwhich immediateIy pIays the determining
roIe, this roIe is itseIt over-determined by the reIigious/sacred
AI. (Otcourse, tor partisans otthe critique otideoIogy," this
very notion that reIigion secretIy dominates sociaI Iite, as 3
powergentIycontroIIingand steeringits chaoticstruggIe, isthe
ideoIogicaIiIIusionparexceIIence. )Howarewetoreadthiscom-
pIexseIt-reIatingentwinementotthe higher" andthe Iower"7
1erearetwo main aIternatives, whichpertectIyhtthe opposi-
tionbetweenideaIismandmateriaIism.
(I)TetraditionaItheoIogicaI-(pseudo-)HegeIianmatrix
otcontainingthepbarmakoo. thehigheraII-embracing
AI aIIows the Iower EviI, but contains it, making it
serve the highergoaI. Tere are many hgures otthis
matrix. the (pseudo-)HegeIian Cunning ot Reason"
(ReasonistheunityotitseItandparticuIaregotisticaI
passions,mobiIizingthemtoachieveitssecretgoaIot
universaIrationaIity) , theMarxistmarchothistory"
inwhichvioIenceservesprogress,theinvisibIehand"
otthemarketwhichmobiIizesindividuaIegotismstor
thecommongood. . .
(2) Te more radicaI (and truIy HegeIian) notion ot
b
SIavoj

izek
EviIdistinguishing itseIttrom itseItby externaIizing
itseItinatranscendenthgureottheCood. Fromthis
perspective,tartromencompassingEviIasitssubor-
dinated moment, the diherence between Cood and
EviI is inherent to EviI, Coodis nothingbut univer-
saIized EviI, and EviI is itseItthe unity otitseIt and
the Cood. EviI controIs/contains itseItbygenerating
the specter ota transcendent Cood, however, it can
onIy do this by way ot superseding its ordinary"
mode ot EviI with an inhnitized/absoIutized EviI.
1is is why the seIt-containing ot EviI through the
positing otsome transcendentpowerwhich Iimits it
canaIwaysexpIode-whichiswhyHegeIhas toadmit
an excess otnegativitythat aIways threatens to dis-
turb the rationaI order.AII thetaIkaboutthe mate-
riaIist reversaI" otHegeI, aboutthe tensionbetween
the ideaIist" and the materiaIist" HegeI, is point-
Iess itit is notgroundedin this precise topic ottwo
opposed and conicting ways ot reading the nega-
tive seIt-reIating ot universaIity. 1e same can aIso
be putinterms otthe metaphorotEviIas a stain in
thepicture.it,withinthetraditionaIteIeoIogy, EviIis
a stain Iegitimized by the overaII harmony, contrib-
uting to it, then, trom a materiaIist standpoint, the
Cood itseIt is a seIt-organization/seIt-Iimitation ot
thestain,theresuItotaIimit,aminimaIdiherence,"
withintheheIdotEviI.1isiswhymomentsotcrisis
are so dangerous-in them, the obscure obverse ot
the transcendent Cood, the dark side ot Cod," the
vioIencewhichsustainstheverycontainmentotvio-
Ience, appears as such. One beIieved that the good
ruIesoverthe eviI, its `opposite,' butitappearsnow
Chrisrinniry Agninsr rhe 5ncred
thatitisrathertheeviIwhichruIes overitseItbyway
otassuminga distancetowards itseIt, bywayotpos-
itingitseItoutside itseIt, thus `seIt-externaIized,' the
superiorIeveIappearsasgood"(IJ) .
bJ
|upuy'spointi sthatthe sacredi s, astoits content, the same as
th
eterribIeeviI,theirdiherenceispureIytormaI/structuraI-what
makesitsacred"isitsexorbitantcharacter,whichmakesitaIimi-
tati
onotordinary"eviI.Toseethis,weshouIdnotonIytocuson
reIigious prohibitions and obIigations, butso bearin mind the
rituaIspracticedbyareIigion,andthecontradiction,aIreadynoted
by HegeI, between prohibitions and ritus. Otten, the rituaI
consists in staging the vioIation otthese prohibitions andvioIa-
tions"(I4J) .TesacredisnothingbutthevioIenceothumans,but
expuIsed,externized,hyostazied"(I5I). Tesacredsacrihceto
the gods is the sameas anact otmurder-whatmakesitsacred
is the tact that it Iimits/contains vioIence, incIuding murder, in
ordinaryIite. Intimes otcrisis otthesacred, this distinction dis-
integrates.thereisnosacredexception, asacrihceisperceivedas
a simpIemurder-butthis aIso means thatthere is nothing, no
externIimit,tocontainourordinaryvioIence.
Terein resides the ethicaI diIemma Christianity tries to
resoIve. how to contain vioIence without sacrihciaI excep-
tion, without an externaI Iimit7 FoIIowing Ren Cirard, Dupuy
demonstrates how Christianity stages the same sacrihciaI pro-
cess, butwith a cruciaIIy diherent cognitive spin. the story is
nottoIdby the coIIective which stages the sacrihce, butby the
victim, tromthe standpointotthe victimwhosetuII innocence
is therebyasserted. (Te hrst step towards this reversaI can be
discernedaIreadyinthebookotJob,wherethestoryistoIdtrom
the standpoint ot the innocent victim ot divine wrath. ) Once
theinnocenceotthesacrihciaIvictimiskoowo, theemciencyot
b4
SIavoj

izek
theentiresacrihciaImechanismotscapegoatingisundermine
d.
sacrihces (even otthe magnitude otahoIocaust) becomehyp
o-
criticaI, inoperative, take, but we aIso Iose the containment
ot
vioIence enactedbythe sacrihce. ConcerningChristianity, it
is
nota moraIitybut an epistemoIogy. itsays the truth aboutthe
sacred, and thereby deprives it ot its creative power, tor better
or torworse. Humans aIone decide this" (I5I) . 1erein resides
theworId-historicaIrupture introducedbyChristianity. oow we
koow, andcanno Iongerpretendthatwe don't. And, as we have
aIreadyseen,theimpactotthisknowIedgeisnot onIyIiberating
,
but deepIyambiguous. it aIso deprives societyotthe stabiIizing
roIe otscapegoating and thus opens up the space tor vioIence
notcontainedbyanymythicIimit. 1isishow,inatruIyperspic-
uous insight, Dupuyreads the scandaIous Iines trom Matthew.
Do notthinkthatI cametobringpeaceontheearth, I didnot
come tobring peace, but a sword" (Matthew I. J4) . 1e same
Iogic hoIds tor internationaI reIations. tar trom makingvioIent
conictsimpossibIe,theaboIishmentotsovereignstatesandthe
estabIishment ota singIe worId state or power wouId open up
the heIdtornewtorms otvioIencewithin suchaworIdempire,"
with no sovereign state to set a Iimit to it. Far trom guaran-
teeing eternaIpeace, the cosmopoIiticideaIwouIdratherbe the
tavorabIeconditiontoraIimitIessvioIence."
1e roIe ot contingency is cruciaI here. in the post-sacred
worId, once the emciency ot the transcendent Other is sus-
pendedandtheprocess(otdecision)hastobecontrontedinits
contingency,theprobIemisthatthiscontingencycannotbetuIIy
assumed, so it has tobe sustainedbywhat LacancaIIed|e pea da
re|, a IittIe piece otthe contingentreaIwhich acts as |a rpoose
da re|, theanswerotthereaI." HegeIwasdeepIyaware otthis
5 MonigueCanto-Sperber,inJean-Pierre Duuy. Dans /cei/ du cyc/one. Co//oque de
Cerisy (Paris. CarnetsNord,2008),i57.
Chrisrinniry Agninsr rhe 5ncred b
p
aradoxwhen he opposed ancient democracy to modern mon-
archy. itwaspreciseIybecausetheancientCreekshadnohgure
otpuresubj ectivity(theking)atthesummitottheirstateedihce
thattheyneededtoresortto superstitious"practices-suchas
ooking tor signs in the ight-paths otbirds or the entraiIs ot
animaIs-to guide thepo|/s in making cruciaI decisions. Itwas
cIear to HegeI that the modernworIdcouId not dispensewith
thiscontingentreaIandorganizesociaIIiteonIythroughchoices
anddecisionsbasedonobjective" quaIihcations (theiIIusionot
whatLacanIatercaIIedthediscourseottheUniversity) .thereis
aIways somethingota rituaIinbeinginvestedwithatitIe,even
ittheconterringotthetitIetoIIowsautomaticaIIytrommeeting
certain obj ective" criteria. A semantic anaIysis ot, say, what
passing one's exams with the highest grades" means cannot
bereducedtoprovingthatonehas certainactuaIproperties-
knowIedge,capacities,etc."-toaIIthis,arituaImustbeaddedby
means otwhich the resuIts otthe exam are procIaimedand the
gradeisconterredand acknowIedged. 1ere isaIwaysaminimaI
gapordistancebetweenthesetwoIeveIs. evenitIamabsoIuteIy
sure Ihave answered aIIthe exam questions correctIy, there bas
to be something contingent-a moment otsurprise, the thriII
otthe unexpected-in the announcementotthe resuIts, which
iswhy,whenwaitingtortheresuIts tobeannounced,wecannot
ever tuIIy escape the anxietyotexpectation. Take poIiticaI eIec-
tions. evenittheresuItisknowninadvance,its pubIicprocIama-
tion is anticipated with a thriII-in ehect, to make something
into Fate, contingency is needed. Tis iswhat, as a ruIe, critics
otthewidespreadprocedures otevaIuation" miss. whatmakes
evaIuationprobIematicisnotthetactthatitreducesuniquesub-
jectswiththeweaIthottheirinnerexperienceto a set otquan-
tihabIeproperties, butthatittriesto reducethesymboIicactot
investiture(theinvestingotasubj ectwithatitIe)toaprocedure
bb
SIavoj

izek
totaIIygroundedintheknowIedgeandmeasurementotwhatth
e
subj ectinquestionreaIIyis."
VioIence threatens to expIode not when there is too much
contingencyinthesociaIspace,butwhenonetriesto eIiminate
that contingency. It is at this IeveI that we shouId search tor
what one might caII, in ratherbIand terms, the sociaI tunction
ot hierarchy. Dupuy here makes yet another unexpected turn,
conceiving hierarchy as one ot the tour procedures (symboIic
dispositits") whose tunction it is to make the reIationship ot
superioritynon-humiIiatingtorthosesubordinated. (I)b/erarcby
itseIt (the externaIIy imposed ordering ot sociaI roIes in cIear
contradistinctiontotheimmanenthigherorIowervaIueotindi-
viduaIs-I thereby experience my Iower sociaI status as totaIIy
independentotmyinherentvaIue) , (2) demysr/car/oo (the crit-
ico-ideoIogicaI procedure which demonstrates that reIations ot
superiority/interiority are not tounded in meritocracy, but are
theresuItotobj ectiveideoIogicaIandsociaIstruggIes. mysociaI
status depends on obj ective sociaIprocesses, not onmy merits
-as Dupuy acerbicaIIy puts it, sociaI demystihcation pIays in
our egaIitarian, competitiveandmeritocraticsocietiesthesame
roIeashierarchyintraditionaIsocieties"(208)-itenabIesusto
avoidthe paintuI concIusion that the other's superiority is the
resuItothismeritsandachievements) , (J)coor/ogeocy (thesame
mechanism,onIywithoutitssociaI-criticaIedge. ourpositionon
thesociaI scaIe depends on a naturaI andsociaI Iottery-Iucky
are those who are born with better dispositions and into rich
tamiIies), (4) comp|ex/ry (superiority or interiority depend on
a compIex sociaI process which is independent ot individuaIs'
intentionsormerits-theinvisibIehandotthemarket, say,can
cause my taiIure and my neighbor's success, even it I worked
muchharderandwasmuchmoreinteIIigent) .Contrarytohowit
mayappear,noneotthesemechanismscontestorthreatenhier-
Chrisrinniry Agninsr rhe 5ncred b7
r
ch
y,butrathermakei tpaIatabIe, since whattriggersthetur-
goiI
ot
envyistheideathattheotherdeserveshisgoodIuckand
n
ot
t
he
opposite ideawhichis the onIyone that can be openIy
express
ed" (2II) . Dupuy draws trom this premise the (tor him
o
bvious) concIusion. itis agreatmistake tothinkthata society
w
hich is
just andwhichaIso perceives itseItasjustwiIIthereby
betreeotaIIresentment-onthecontrary,itispreciseIyinsuch
societythatthosewho occupyinteriorpositionswiIIonIyhnd
no
utIettortheirhurtprideinvioIentoutburstsotresentment.
Dupuy'sIimitationsareherecIearIydiscemibIeinhisrejectionot
cIassstruggIeasbeingdeterminedbythisIogicotenviousvioIence.
cIassstruggIeistorhimmeexempIarycaseotwhatRousseauced
p
ervertedseIt-Iove,inwhichonecaresmoretorthedestructionot
meenemy(perceivedasanobstacIetomy happiness)thantorone's
own happiness. 1eonIyway out, tor Dupuy, is to abandonthe
IogicotvictimhoodandacceptnegotiationsbetweenaIIparties
concerned,treatedasequaIintheirdignity.1etranstormation
ottheconictsbetweensociaIcIasses, betweencapitaIandIabor,
in the course ot the twentieth century ampIy demonstrates
thatthis way is notutopian. WeprogressiveIypassedtrom the
cIassstruggIe tosociaIcoordination,therhetoricotvictimhood
mostIy repIaced by wage negotiations. From now on, bosses
andtrade organizationsvieweach otheraspartnerswith inter-
estswhichare simuItaneousIydivergingandconverging"(224) .
ut is this reaIIy the onIypossibIe concIusiontobe drawn trom
Dupuy's premises7 Does such a repIacement ot struggIe with
negotiation not aIso reIy on a magicaI disappearance ot eny,
whichthenstagesasurprisingcomebackinthetormotdiherent
tundamentaIisms7
Furthermore,we stumbIehere uponanotherambiguity. itis
not thatthis absence otIimits shouId be read in terms otthe
standard aIternative. either humanity wiII hnd a way to set
bb
SIavoj

izek
itseItIimitsoritwiIIperishtromits ownuncontainedvioIenz
e,

It there is a Iesson to be Iearned trom so-caIIed totaIitarian

experiences,itisthatthetemptationisexactIytheoppositeon
e,
thedangerotimposing,intheabsenceotanydivineIimit,ap_
pseudo-Iimit,ataketranscendenceonbehaItotwhichIact(tro
_
StaIinismtoreIigioustundamentaIism) . Even ecoIogytunctions
asideoIogythemomentitisevokedasa new Limit. ithasevery
chance ot deveIopingintothepredominanttorm otideoIogy
to
r
gIobaI capitaIism, a new opium torthe masses repIacingtheoId
reIigionbytakingovertheIatter'stundamentaItunction,thatot
assuminganunquestionabIeauthoritywhichcanimposeIimits.
1eIessonecoIogyconstantIyhammershomeisthatotourhni-
tude.wearenotCartesiansubj ectsextractedtromreaIity,weare
hnitebeings embeddedinabiospherewhich vastIy transgresses
our horizons. In our expIoitation ot naturaI resources, we are
borrowing trom the tuture, and so shouId treat our Earthwith
respect,assomethinguItimateIySacred, somethingthat shouId
not be unveiIed totaIIy, that shouId and wiII torever remain a
Mystery,apowerweshouIdtrust,notdominate.
It is tashionabIe, in some ot today's neo-pagan post-sec-
uIar" circIes, to amrm the dimension otthe Sacred as a space
in which every reIigion dweIIs, but which is prior to reIigion
(therecanbetheSacredwithoutreIigion,butnottheotherway
round) . (Sometimes, thispriorityottheSacredis evengivenan
anti-reIigiousspin. awayto remainagnosticwhiIenonetheIess
engagedin a deep spirituaI experience. )FoIIowingDupuy, one
shouIdexactIyturnthingsaroundhere. theradicaIbreakintro-
ducedbyChristianityconsistsinthetactthatitisthehrstreIi-
gionw/rboar thesacred,areIigionwhoseuniqueachievementis
preciseIytodemystitytheSacred.
5 ItakethiseyressiontromAainadiou.
Chrisrinniry Agninsr rhe 5ncred bU
yhat
pr
acticaI stance toIIows trom this paradox ot reIigion
|th
o
ut
the sacred71ereisaJewishstoryaboutaTaImudspe-
|

|st
opp
osed to the death penaItywho, embarrassed by the
j

t
t
hat
the penaIty is ordained by Cod himseIt, proposed a
o
nd
ertuIIypracticaIsoIution. one shouIdnotdirectIy overturn
th
e
di
vine inj unction, which wouId be bIasphemous, but one
sh
o
uIdtreatitas Cod's sIip ottongue, his moment otmadness,
ndin
ventacompIexnetworkotsub-reguIationsandconditions
hich,
whiIeIeavingthepossibiIityotthe deathpenaItyintact,

ouId
ensure that this possibiIity wouId never be reaIized. '
}ebeautyotthissoIutionisthatitturns aroundthestandard
p
rocedure otprohibiting something in principIe (Iike torture) ,
but then sIipping in enough quaIihcations (exceptin specihed
extreme circumstances . . . ") tomakesure it canbedonewhen-
everonereaIIywantstodo it. Itisthus either, In principIeyes,
butinpracticenever,"or, InprincipIeno,butwhenexceptionaI
circumstances demand it, yes." Note the asymmetry between
thetwocases. theprohibitionismuchstrongerwhenoneaIIows
torture in principIe-in this case, the principIed yes" is oever
aIIowed to reaIize itseIt, whiIein the other case, the principIed
no" is excepr/ooa||y aIIowed to reaIize itseIt. . . Insotar as the
CodwhoenjoinsustokiII"isoneotthenamesottheapocaIyptic
Ting, the strategyottheTaImudschoIaris away otpracticing
what Dupuy caIIs enIightenedcatastrophism". one accepts the
hnaI catastrophe-the obscenity otpeopIe kiIIing their neigh-
borsasatormotj ustice-asinevitabIe,writtenintoourdestiny,
and then one engages in postponing it tor as Iong as possibIe,
hopetuIIy indehniteIy. Here is how, aIong these Iines, Dupuy
resumesCuentherAnders'sreectionsapropostheexpIosionot
theatomicbombaboveHiroshima.
7 I owethisstoryto Eric Santner.
7
SIavoj

izek
On that day history became obsoIete. " Humanity
became abIe to destroy itseIt, and nothing can make
itIosethis negative omnipotence,"evenagIobaIdis-
armament or a totaI denucIearization ot the worId.
Ue apoca|ypse /s /oscr/bed as a desr/oy /oro oar rare,
aod rbe besr we cao do /s ro de|ay /odeo/re|y /rs occar-
reoce. We are in excess. OnAugust IJ45 we entered
the era ot treeze" and ot the second death" ot aII
that existed. since the meaning ot the past depends
on tuture acts, the becoming-obsoIete otthe tuture,
itsprogrammedending, does not mean thatthepast
hasnoIongeranymeaning,itmeansthatitneverhad
anymeaning. (240)
ItisagainstthisbackgroundthatoneshouIdreadthebasicPau-
Iinian notion otIiving in an apocaIyptic time," a time at the
end ot time" . the apocaIyptic time is preciseIy the time otthis
indehnitepostponement,the time ottreezeinbetweenthetwo
deaths. insomesense,weareaIreadydead,sincethecatastrophe
isaIreadyhere, castingits shadowtrom thetuture-atterHiro-
shima, we cannotanyIongerpIaythe simpIe humanist game ot
thechoicewehave(itdependsonuswhetherwetoIIowthepath
ot seIt-destruction or the path ot graduaI heaIing") . Once the
catastrophehashappened,weIosetheinnocenceotsuchaposi-
tion, we can onIy(indehniteIy, maybe) postpone its happening
again. (In a homoIogous way, the danger otnano-technoIogyis
notonIythatscientistswiIIdesignamonsterwhichwiIIdeveIop
out ot (our) controI. when we try to create a newIite, it is our
direct aim to bringaboutanuncontroIIabIe seIt-organizing and
seIt-expanding entity (4J) . 1is is how, in yet another herme-
neutic coup, Dupuyreads Christ's skepticaIwordsaddressedto
theprophetsotdoom.
Chrisrinniry Agninsr rhe 5ncred
AshewentoutotthetempIe,oneothisdiscipIessaid
to him, Teacher, seewhatkind ot stones and what
kind ot buiIdings| " Jesus said to him, Do you see
thesegreatbuiIdings71erewiIInotbeIetthereone
stoneonanother,whichwiIInotbethrowndown."As
he sat onthe Mount ot OIives opposite thetempIe,
Peter, James, John,andAndrewaskedhimprivateIy,
TeII us, whenwiII these things be7 What is the sign
thatthese things are aII abouttobetuIhIIed7" Jesus,
answering, began to teII them, e caretuI that no
oneIeadsyouastray. FormanywiIIcomeinmyname,
saying,`Iamhe| ' andwiIIIeadmanyastray.Whenyou
hear otwars and rumors otwars, don't be troubIed.
For those must happen, but the end is not yet . . . .
1enitanyoneteIIsyou,`Look,hereistheChrist| ' or,
` Look,there| ' don'tbeIieveit. For therewiIIarisetaIse
Christs andtaIse prophets, andtheywiII show signs
and wonders, that they may Iead astray, itpossibIe,
eventhechosenones. utyouwatch."(MarkIJ. I-2J)
7
Tese Iines are tremendous in their unexpected wisdom. do
theynotexactIycorrespondthestance ottheabove-mentioned
TaImud schoIar7 1eir message is. yes, otcourse, there wiII be
a catastrophe, butwatchpatientIy, don'tbeIievei ni t, don'tget
caught in precipitous extrapoIations, don't give yourseIt up to
the properIyperverse pIeasure otthinking 1is is it| "inaII its
diversetorms (gIobaIwarmingwiIIdrownusaIIinadecade,bio-
geneticswiIImeantheendotbeing-human,et cetera,et cetera) .
Far trom Iuring us into a perverse seIt-destructive rapture,
adopting the properIy apocaIyptic stance is-today more than
ever-theonIywaytokeepacooIhead.
Z
DuDlOHIuH IItUC8=
IHOII| HC
]
OIt
Uunjovic
As
5a/
or Aagasr/oe says, rbe grear re/gos are oo|y rbe eo|arged pro-
ecr/oos oj |/rr|e rb/eves. Aagasr/oe oj H/ppo, bowever, so rea|/sr/c
/o rb/s ess/m/sr/c coocepr/oo oj powe( woa|d be srrack damb by
roday's |/rr|e rb/eves oj mooerary aod oaoc/a| power. Rea||y, wbeo
cap/ra|/sm |oses /rs re|ar/oosb/p ro va|ae (borb as rbe measare oj /od/-
v/daa| exp|o/rar/oo aod as a oorm oj co||ecr/ve progress) /r appears
/mmed/are|y as corrapr/oo. '
MichaeI Hardt and Antonio Negri are right to say that Augus-
tinewouIdbedumbtoundedbytheIeveIotcorruptioninEmpire
today, but he wouId be justas surprisedby the way Hardt and
Negri nterpret this in their discussion ot imperiaI practices.
Whatthetwo otthem are doing, i nthe mostgeneraIway, is a
postmodern (whatever that notorious notion might mean) Spi-
noza-izingotAugustine, which seems aItogethercharmingand
orgnaI. 1ere isa needtorreciprocityhere, however, meaning
that Spinoza aIso needs to be Augustine-ized. John MiIbank
consders thisparticuIarIycruciaItor constructing an authentic
postmodernChristiantheoIogy,whichcouIdheIpinwhatHardt
l MichaeIHardtandAntonioNegri,Emire (Cambridge.HarvardUniversiq
Fress, 2000),J90.
7J
74
BorisCun] evic
and Negri
mean to accompIish. 1eir intention is to show
hoy
the
muItitude becomes a poIiticaI subj ect, but despite their
seriousattempts,thisremainsunreaIizedbecauseSpinozamu
st
be Augustine-izedin away entireIyopposedtowhatwe hnd in
HardtandNegri.Lmp/re shouIdbere-readaIongsideAugustine's
C/ry oj Cod inordertoshowwhatthemuItitudeneedstobecome
apoIiticaIsubj ect-thecruciaIquestionaroundwhichtheirbook
turns. HardtandNegrispeakotthema|r/rade as an irreducibIe
muItipIicityotsubj ects, a concept otcIasswhich is, at thesame
time,ontoIogicaIpower.1eircriticsteeIthat thema|r/rade con-
cept is too abstract, too pompous, whiIe MiIbank terms it san-
guine.
HardtandNegritaketheconceptotmuItitudetromthepoIit-
icaItheoryotAntiquity,"asdescribedbyhistorianssuchasPoIy-
bius and Livy. MachiaveIIi took the concept otmuItitude trom
PoIybius.AugustinestandshereasanexactingcriticotPoIybius
sincehehimseItwrites history, aIthough trom theIinearrather
thanthecycIicaIperspectivewhichwas theapproachotthehis-
torians otAntiquity. 1e ishop otHippo is the hrstwriterot
AntiquitytoventureastoryotthecreationottheworId,itsexis-
tence, and its end (yet to come) through the theoIogicaI prac-
ticeotcommunity. In doing so heisthehrsttodescribehuman
history based directIy on a phiIosophy ot history which HegeI
doesn't even mention. Augustine wrote a story about history,
interpoIated by Christ's incarnation. Hence the whoIe ot his-
toryis expIainedin the Iight otthe incarnation (|ogos) andthe
originotcommunity-acontinuationottheincarnationintime.
In Augustine's meta-story there is a simpIe outcome which is
readiIyunderstandabIe. !orab + Logos Cbr/sr.
ItgoeswithoutsayingthattheworIdweIiveindihersinmany
ways trom the worId ot Antiquity and the Roman Empire, to
whichAureIiusAugustineaddresseshiscritique. Athoughthese
nby/oninn \irrues-Minoriry Keporr 7
t
wo
wo
rIds are vastIy diherent, there are simiIarities otwhich
Hardt
and Negri make caretuI note, anditis theretore not sur-
p
risin
gth
atAugustineisoneottheirmostimportantreterences .
}is
is
why the two texts shouIdbecompared, the hrst having
i
nto
rm
edthesecond. Lmp/re canberead,Iikeanybook,inseveraI
wa
ys.
Whetherthis isthe Communist Manitestootthetwenty-
hr
stc
enturyoranexerciseinDeIeuzianpoIitics, Lmp/re isabook
otimportantandinuentiaIinsights.WecanreadLmp/re equaIIy
asanintroductiontothehistoryotpoIiticaItheoryorasamate-
riaIistic commentaryonAugustine'sC/ry oj Cod. Inmyopinion,
the two textsshouIdbe readtogether since Negri and Hardt's
Lmp/re IargeIy reIies on Augustine's concIusions tromhis voIu-
minouswork.TwothingsspringindirectIytromthis. 1ehrstis
thatstrategiesotreadingdetermineperceptionotpoIiticaIprac-
tice, thesecond,andjustasimportantastarasIamconcerned,
is to construct a pIausibIe critiquethatAugustine might have
made ot Hardtand Negri, beingwhat I describedas making an
Augustinianversion otSpinoza. FirstIet us Iookatwhat Hardt
andNegrihavetosayaboutAugustine.
In this regardwe mighttake inspiration trom Saint
Augustine'svisionotaproj ecttocontestthedecadent
RomanEmpire. NoIimitedcommunitycouIdsucceed
and provide an aIternative to imperiaI ruIe, onIy a
universaI, cathoIic community bringing together aII
popuIations and aII Ianguages in a common journey
couId accompIish this. 1e divine city is a universaI
city coming together, cooperating, communicating.
Our piIgrimage on earth, however, in contrast to
Augustine's, has no transcendent re|os beyond, it is
and remains absoIuteIy immanent. Its continuous
movement, gathering aIiens in community, making
7b
BorisCunj evic
thisworIditshome, isbothmeansandend,orrather
ameanswithoutanend.'
WithinAugustine'svision,astheauthorsremark,thereisapoy
-
ertuI torm otstruggIe against imperiaI postmodernism, w
hiz|
articuIates its discoursethrough discord.To be againstitmean
s
tobeginbydiscoveringthebestmeanstorunderminingimperia
sovereignty. Hardt and Negri cIaim with authority that battIes
againstEmpire arewonbyretusaI,bydesertion,bydeIiberateIy
embracing exodus, mobiIity, and nomadism. We resist the net-
worked systems ot reguIation and power by desertion, whic
|
means thatwe do nothingmore than deIiberateIyabandon the
pIacesotpower.Desertion,exodus, andnomadismare theinitia
phases otthe repubIican principIe, say the authors. 1is wouId
seemtobe easiersaidthandone. Howcan one desertitaIIthat
exists is immanentIaboronthe surtaces otEmpire, networked
with systems ot sovereign reguIation7 Whither to take one's
exodus itthere is nothingobj ective standingoutside otus, and
howtothinknomadismwhenEmpirehoIdsvrtuesandpractice
undercontroI,andkeepsacIoseeyeontheverymarginsthrough
capitaIistrationaIity71eanswertothe questionposedis more
intuitive than intriguing. 1e answers ohered by Hardt and
Negri are more enigmatic than inarticuIate and theyare Iinked
withthewayinwhichthepoIiticaIsubj ectottheabstractmuIti-
tudebecomesauniversaIsinguIar.
Accordingto HardtandNegri, thepersonwhobestembodies
thej oyotneo-CommuniststruggIeagainstEmpireisnoneother
thanFrancisotAssisi.1isisasignihcantstatementanditsconse-
quenceshavenotbeentuIIytathomed.AretheauthorsotLmp/re
suggestingthatFrancisotAssisiisnotonIyamodeIpostmodern
2 Ibid. , 207.
nby/oninn \irrues-Minoriry Keporr 77
p
oiti
caIactivist, butamodeIembodyingthemuItitudeaspoIit-
|ca
s
ub
j ect7 Whence this sudden invocation ota romanticaIIy
da
n
gerous
Francis andhisunprecedentedasceticism7Athough
a
t
thebeginningotLmp/re the authors advocate the Franciscan
n
o
minaIisttheoIogyotDuns Scotus out otwhich, according to
their
th
inking, emerged the consequentiaI nominaIist poIiticaI
g
atrix,
the actotinvokingFrancis andhisasceticism seems to
be
re
gre
ssion toa reIigious discourse onimmanencetorIack ot
g
ore
robust arguments. 1is is a case otasceticism (as weII as
otreIi
gion) that Negri embraces in principIe as an internaIiza-
t|on otthe objectas a constituent state that is simuItaneousIy
a transtormation ot the senses, imagination, body, and mind.
NormaIIy, NegridoesnotacceptasingIetormottranscendence,
butheacceptsasceticismwhichheseesasnecessarytoraIite ot
vr
tue,aboutwhichmorewiIIbesaidIater.
InordertoIiveweIIandconstructthecommon, ascet-
icism is aIways necessary. Christ-Iike incarnation,
whichisakindotasceticism,isakindotasceticguid-
ance, orrather a path towards the virtuous Iite-as
Spinozarecommended.ItisprobabIyinsecuIarasceti-
cismthatsinguIarities andsensuaIityaremostehec-
tiveIyintertwinedin orderto constructtheworId to
come. '
Tis, itseems, iswhy Francismatters to HardtandNegri. With
his simpIe, romantic asceticism and his chiId-Iike imagination
Francis counters the very kerneI ot capitaIism, emerging in a
way that is identihed with the poorest and most oppressed.
Tis, according to the authors, is an inherentIy revoIutionary
J AntonioNegri,Negri on Negri. Anronio Negri in Conversarion wirh Anne Du[ourm
anre//e (London.RoutIedge,2004),i58.
7b
BorisCun] evic
act. Francis disempowers himseItinthe name otthe muItitud
e,
embracing discipIine consisting otthe j oy otbeing in order
o
opposethewiII otpower and rej ect every torm otinstrumen
t
_
discipIine. He amIiates himseItwith aII otnature, the anim
aIs,
birds, the brothersun and sistermoonin his battIe against t
|
e
corruption and venaIity otearIy capitaIistsociety. In Francis o

Assisiwehavea symboI otthe impossibiIityotcontroIIingco

op-
erationandrevoIution. CooperationandrevoIutionasembodied
byFrancisremaintogetherinIove,simpIicity,joy,andinnocence,
Such cooperationandrevoIution insimpIicityare theirrepress-
ibIeIightnessandjoyotbeingCommunist.
utthere is somethingequaIIyimportantherewhich shouId
not go unremarked. a reading ot PIotinus which in a certain
wayAugustine and Hardt and Negri have in common, both in
their acceptance and their rej ection ot it. Tis seems particu-
IarIyimportant.Augustine,atthe cIoseotthe ninthbookothis
Coojess/oos, attemptsaresponsetoMonica'squestionaboutthe
nature otthe eternaI Iite otthe saints. When discussing PauI's
epistIe in PhiIippians J. J, he says the PhiIippians graduaIIy teII
intoj oy, IittingthemseIveswithamoreardentahectiontowards
Cod,towards rbe 5e|jsame asAugustineputs it. Further,hesays,
they came to their own minds and graduaIIy roseabove aII cor-
poreaIthings, above themoon, sun, andstars shining uponthe
earth. Atterthat, admiringCod's work, they came to theirsouI,
reaching into it to the experience ot the divine, the untaiIing
pIenty, where Iite is wisdom and the truth by which aII things
that are made exist, outside the transience ottime. Augustine
describes how, as they were speaking and straining atter this
wisdom, theysIightIytouchedupon it with thewhoIe ehortot
theirhearts andexperiencedthewisdomthatis CodhimseIt.
Andwe sighed, and there Iettbound the hrst-truits
nby/oninn \irrues-Minoriry Keporr
ottheSpirit," (Rom. 8. 2J)andreturnedtothe noise
otourownmouth, where thewordutteredhasboth
beginning and end. Andwhat is IikeYour Word, our
Lord,whoremainsinHimseItwithoutbecomingoId,
andmakesaIIthingsnew7"(Wis. 7. 27)
7U
WritingtheseIines, AugustinewasnotmereIyrespondingto
hi
srath
erpossessivemotheronatheoIogicaIquandary,norwas
heshowinghowtheChristianecstasywhichawaitsusineternity
is intended tor aII, whether or not we Ieda contempIative Iite,
as did Augustine, or an active Iite, asdidMonica. Instead this
was, in tact, a critique ot PIotinus' mysticaI phiIosophicaI dis-
courseinwhichthegoaIwasecstasy,whichonereachedthrough
one's inner being and by ascending to the divine by means ot
wisdom,butwithoutChrist. TeprobIemwithPIotinus'ecstasy,
asAugustineshows,isits temporaIIimit,itsbrevity, atterwhich
we must come backtothe reaI"worIdandgo onIiving-asthe
ishopotHipposaid,wereturntothenoiseotourownmouth."
Augustine's critique otPIotinus is thataIthough in eternitywe
wiIIbeinthatstateotecstasy, thisisnotpossibIeinourearthIy
Iives,herewemustactandnotmereIycontempIate. Teecstasy
they shared in Ostia, otwhichAugustine speaks, is actuaIIy a
synthesis oteccIesiaIpracticeinwhichcontempIationandaction
mingIe, asbecomescIearIater,inthethirteenthbookotCoojes-
s/oos, inhis commentaries ontheHexameroo, asthe sbdays ot
creation,inwhichhrst, third,andhtthdaysaretorcontemepIa-
tionandsecond,tourth,andsbtharetoraction.
JustasAugustine criticaIIy rej ects PIotinus, sodoHardtand
4 Augustine,Con[essions, 9. i0. 24,trans. J. G. Pikington,inPhiipSchah,ed. ,
Nicene and Posr-Nicene Farhers, FirstSeries, vo. i (uhao,NY. Christian
LiteraturePubishingCo., i887). RevisedandeditedtorNewAdventbyKevin
Kight,avaiabeathttp.//W .newadvent. org/tathers/ii0i09.htm
b
BorisCunj evic
Negri, but tor an entireIy diherent reason. 1ey teeI that y
e
cannot surrender to the state in which PIotinus tound himseIt
by caIIing peopIe to ee to the heavenIy FatherIand" through
mysticaI contempIation. Inanattemptto detecttheactions
ot
the muItitude which enabIe it to become a poIiticaI subj ect
y
e
cannot, in the opinion otthe authors, surrender to the mysti-
cism PIotinus' Enneads espouse. In answer to the question
othow to organize the muItitude and how to channeI energ
y
againstthepermanentterritoriaIsegmentation ot Empire, PIo-
tinus' insightsandecstasieswiIInotsumcebecausetheyincIude
no Cod the Fatherandno transcendence, say HardtandNegri.
P themuItitudehasIettisitsimmanentIabor.1isisIaboron
thesurtacesottheimmanentpIanethatgeneratesaninsistence
ontherightotreappropriation,whichwouIdincIude.
J CIobaIcitizenship,whichisconnectedtoautonomy
andtherighttoreguIateone'sownmovement.
J SociaIwagesandaguaranteedincometoraII,ata
time otcoIIectiveexistencewithin the muItitude.
J KnowIedge,seIt-reguIation,andautonomousseIt-
production, which the authors interpret as an
attemptatmakinganewpIaceinthere|os within
thebodyotthemuItitude.
Hardt and Negri state that in this process ot reappropriation
there is a materiaI mythoIogy ot reason" at work which is
nothing short ota specihc materiaI reIigion otthe senses that
keepsthemuItitudebeyondthegraspotimperiaIsovereignty.In
tactthisreterstoamythoIogyotreason,symboIicaIIyandimagi-
nativeIyshapingandenabIingthe ontoIogyotthemuItitudeto
5 HardtandNegri,Emire, J95.
nby/oninn \irrues-Minoriry Keporr b
e
xp
ress
itseItasactionand consciousness. 1is is an ontoIogy,
|n
deed,whichinterpretsthere|os ottheearthIycityinanewway.
It
makespossibIe a strategybywhich the absoIute constitution
otIaborandcooperationisreaIizedwithintheearthIycityotthe
m
uItitudeinthebattIeagainstvioIenceandcorruptionwithout
the h
eIp otmetaphysicaI andtranscendentmediation. In other
wo
rds, thisiswhatHardtand Negridescribe asthe theurgicaI
t
eIeoIogyotthemuItitude."HereinIiesthekey
probIemtorthe
co
nst
itution otthe muItitude as poIiticaI subject, and it reIates
indirectIytoAugustine.1isisprimariIybecausetheirinterpre-
t|ve tramework assumes a nominaIist poIiticaI theory that is
bothprogressiveintermsotpaganismandsteaIthiIyCnostic.A
diherenttrameworkis neededto supersede the critique otPIo-
t|nus' (proto)modern mysticism to which Hardtand Negri are,
in tact, j utaposing their paganisticaIIy progressive theurgicaI
teIeoIogy."Inotherwords, itisnotpossibIetocounterPIotinus'
mysticaI phiIosophicaI theoIogy using IambIichus' and ProcIus'
mysticaI theurgicaI theoIogy/teIeoIogy (they were the hrst to
popuIarize the theurgicaI discourse with Porphyry within the
phiIosophicaI context ot Iate Antiquity, interpreting it in a
PIatonistic key) in a postmodern version, as Hardt and Negri
approachit. Totheauthors'regret,thisissimpIynotteasibIe.
1eurgy can be summed up as a popuIarizedreIigious (neo)
PIatonism,hencethetactthatamongtheurgicaIphiIosophers"
there is taIk notonIyotthe One, the Divine, orthegods, but
ot Cod himseIt, incommunicabIe beyond the One, is not sur-
prising.1eurgycan be interpretedwithin thecanonotthe PIa-
tonicphiIosophicaI tradition. IttoIIows thattheurgicaIpractice
5 Ibid. , J95. "TeteIeoIogyotthemuItitudeistheurgica!,itconsistsinthepossi-
biIityotdirectingtechnoIogiesandproductiontowardsitsownjoyanditsown
increaseotpower. TemuItitudehasnoreason toIookoutsideitsownhistory
anditsownpresentproductivepowertorthemeansnecessarytoIeadtowards
itsconstitutionasapoIiticaIsubject."
b
BorisCunj evic
is reminiscent, in part, otthe magicwhich Augustine criticizes
soharshIyinthetenthbookotC/ry oj Cod, comparingtheurgyto
demonworship. 'CregoryShaw, one otthe mostknowIedgeabIe
commentatorsonthesubj ect,arguesthatinordertounderstand
IambIichus' PIatonism one must Iook cIoseIy at his distinction
between theurgy and theoIogy. For IambIichus, theoIogy is a
discourse about the gods," whiIe theurgy is the gods' Iabor to
make man Divine. IambIichus was the hrst to oher a rationaI
toundation tor theurgy, wanting to show how theurgicaI prac-
tice is a part otPIato's phiIosophy, since theurgy, according to
IambIichus, tuIhIIs the purpose ot that phiIosophy. 1eurgy is
notabeginningtorphiIosophyasitiswithPorphyry, butrather
a rituaI work ot the gods who aIIow us an encounter with the
Divine and a transtormation into the Divine. 1is means that
in theurgicaI practices we encounter Cod not in seeingbutina
rituaI cuIt invocation otthe Divine, IambIichus states that this
is part otthe very canon otthe PIatonic tradition. In theurgy
Cod exists tor us where we invoke him and where we do the
prescribedworks otthe gods" to harmonize withhisworks, in
ordertoreceivewhatthegods"wouIdgiveus. 1eneo-PIatonic
discourse, towhichwereaddedIambIichus'Cba|deao Orac|es and
the neo-Pythagorean discourse, made it possibIe tor the theur-
gicaI practitioner orwise man to make himseIt, through rituaI,
more receptive to the Divine and capabIe otactingin harmony
with the naturaI processes surrounding him. It is important
to note thattheurgicaIpractices communicate divine Iove," or
goodness, whichaIIowspractitionerstoascendtotranscendence
andridthe souI otthephysicaI. 1etheurgicaIbeginswiththe
7 Augustine,Ciry o[ Cod, i0. i. i-i0. J2. 4, trans. MarcusDods,inPhiIipSchah,
ed. , Nicene and Posr-Nicene Farhers, FirstSeries,voI.2 (uhaIoNY.Christian
LiteraturePubIishingCo., i887) . RevsedandeditedtorNewAdventbyKevin
Knight, avaiIabIeathttp./ /W .newadvent. org/tathers/i20i02.htm
nby/oninn \irrues-Minoriry Keporr
bJ
|ivine descending" among us which gives us the possibiIity
ot harmonizing ourseIves with the Divine in an entireIy new
ascending" way. 1roughtheseprocessesotharmonizationwe
reachastateinwhichwearereadytoreceivetheDivineconcern
we have suhered without. According to IambIichus, the gods"
gatheraIIbeings togetherwiththeminaunity. HencetheIight
otthe DivineiIIuminatesinatranscendentaIwaythosewho are
gatheredthrough theurgyandpIaces themintheir own cosmic
orderottheDivine, ensuringtheirparticipationtortheentirety
ottheir existence. From thetexts IambIichus wrotewhichhave
come downtous (and trom Damascius' writings about him) we
can seehowthe author otthe Cba|deao Orac|es interpreted the
One. IambIichus'OneisbeyondaII Coodandevenbeyondeing
itseIt. In a paradoxicaI way, beyond cognition, the divine worId
descendsintotheearthIyworId,participatinginitsacramentaIIy
bymeansotareaIitywhichisthecosmosexpandingintime and
space. 1e gods andwhat is genericaIIy termedthe muItipIicity
(or many) in metaphysics contained in themseIves a unity ot
totaIityandatotaIityotunity.1ebeginningotthemuItipIicity,
its middIe, and its end, exist in various torms otunityto which
the muItitude aspires, as IambIichus' reading ot PIato makes
cIear.
ForIambIichusthereisasingIebeginning." Itprecedesevery
duaIity, beyond the One thatgivesIite to the dyad. 1e One is
beyond contrast between the participating and that in which
therecanbenoparticipation.1ereisanabsoIuteinIambIichus'
workthatconhrms the mediation between these two origins.
1ismediationeIudescomparisonas, torinstance,i nthecaseot
the Iimited andthe IimitIess, the many and the One, the hnite
and the inhnite. IambIichus' One is not onIy a uni|ingorigin
whichaIways remainsaIien toeverythingwhichoriginates init
b4
BorisCunj evic
and beyond any torm otparticipation. It is at Ieast somewhat
imaginabIe as a kind ot sacrament ot the earth transcending
this distinctionbetweenthe Oneandthemany (theIimitedand
the unIimited, the hnite and the inhnite) , which in a specihc
theurgicaI torm ottrust" transcends matter and the scattered
muItitude in an entireIy diherent way trom what PIotinus, tor
instance, suggests, as shown by Pierre Hadot. ' ProcIus' theur-
gicaIinquiries canbereIatedtotheseconcIusionsotIambIichus'
according to which one reaches the proximity ot the Divine
through initiation into knowIedge, in contrast, tor exampIe, to
the teachings otPauI theApostIe (and, Iater, Augustine) where
thistranspiresthroughtaith. utwhenre-readingthesetextuaI
reports, one notes a certain paradox according to which things
actuaIIyproceedinacontrarydirection.1ewiseman,according
toProcIus,progressestromknowIedgetotaith,whiIePauIargues
that tor the Christian, a person reaches a state, when in taith,
otimmediate knowIedge otCod, theretoremercyisinherentto
knowIedge.1eseconcIusionsshouIdnotbedismissedIightIytor
twoimportantreasons.
1e hrstis the cruciaI event otincarnation which aIIows the
participation ot the hnite in the inhnite, as weII as participa-
tion ot the scattered muItipIicity which ascends towards the
Onethroughamercywhichdoes notrej ectmatterandcorpore-
aIity(as does theurgy) . 1e secondreason is equaIIyimportant
tor itreIates to a Christianized ProcIianismwhichhas become
an inseparabIepartotChristiantheoIogythrough theworksot
Dionysius theAreopagite, Eriugena, and1omasAquinas. 1e
personwhosegreatandinestimabIeworkstandsbetweenthese
8 GregoryShaw, Ueurg and rhe Sou/: Ue Neo/aronism o[ |amb/ichus (PhiIadeI-
phia. PennsyIvaniaStateUniversityPress, i995), i4J-52.
9 PierreHadot,P/orinus, o( rhe Sim/iciq o[ vision (Chicago.ChicagoUniversity
Press, i99J), 2J-4.
nby/oninn \irrues-Minoriry Keporr
b
t
wo
reasons is Augustine. Trough his destructive critiques ot
theur
gyhe connects the incarnationaI action otmercy and the
mate
riaI ascent to Cod, on the one hand, and ceIebrates the
ri
tu
aI,intactsacramentaI,dedicationotthecorporeaI,byvirtues
e
xpIainedintermsotsocietyandontoIogy, ontheother.
Augustine's insistence on the importance ot Cod's mercituI
descentamongmen (in the incarnation) and the eccIesiaIrituaI
ascentto CodthroughvirtueheIpsus to see theurgyinanaIto-
getherdiherent Iight, especiaIIy as appIied to the Iiturgy. Ood
showsthehumancommunity, whichhadbeenscatteredbysin,
howtoharmonizewiththeDivine,how,throughparticipationin
theIiturgyasakindotmystagogy,theycanbeIongcompIeteIyto
Cod.ParticipationintheIiturgyagainpointsusto,andexposes,
man's divineorigin,andguidestheindividuaIthroughthecom-
m
unitytohisdivinere|os, i . e. , todeihcation. 'Inotherwords,the
paradoxotincarnationshowsusthedivineexampIeotkeoos/s in
which CodhimseItcomes down amongmen to oherusa peda-
gogicaIexampIeothowtoworship Cod. Here I agreewithJohn
MiIbankwho cIaimsthatpagantheurgicphiIosophycanheIpus
inaveryspecihcwaytoaturtherunderstandingotthereIation-
shipbetweenincarnationandparticipationinparadoxicaIterms,
whiIe atthesametimeit iIIuminates in a newway the impor-
tanceotaIiteotvirtueasdescribedbyAugustineinC/ry oj Cod.
InthehtthchapterotC/ry oj Cod, AugustineinventiveIydecoo-
i0 ItwouIdbepossibIetoestabIishhowIambIichusandProcIusreIegatedthis
mysticaIdiscourse,thoughnotintentionaIy,to Christian theoIogy,whichhas
neverentireIy"rejected"theurgy,asthepositive statementsaboutitinAu-
gustine'swritings suggest. Augustine'scritiqueandmodihcationottheurgicaI
practices enabIedtheoriginotthesoIeoriginaIdiscourseinhisownthought
ina compIeteIynewcosmicperspective.TisperspectiveissimuItaneousIy
Iocated,poIiticaIIy, intermsottopographyandtramedbyacommontheoIogi-
caIcenter.TiswiIIbecomeevidentintherigorousChristianmysticismot
DionysiustheAreopagiteandMaximtheContessor,thoughherewearenot
concernedwiththis.
bb BorisCunj evic
srracrs the virtues ot the Roman Empire. Within the eccI
es
ia
I
contextotNorthernAtrica where hewas Iocated, the ishop
o
t
HippoattemptedindirectIytoeIucidatewhathadIed,attereight
hundred years, to the taII ot Rome. His intertextuaI reading,
both theoIogicaIandpoIiticaI, otRomanpoIiticaIhistorycanbe
appIiedina criticaIway to Hardt and Negri's proj ectinLmp/re.
Augustine'shrsthvebooksarewrittenasacritiqueotthosewho
wanttohoIdontotheworshipotmuItipIepagangods,whiIethe
secondhvearedirectedagainstthose apoIogistswhocIaimthat
therewere aIwaysIesserandgreatereviIs. HenceaIIthe hrst ten
booksareanassauItonthosewhoopposeChristianity.1enext
tourbooksdescribethe originottheearthIycity and otthe city
ot Cod. Atter that, Augustine speaks in another tour books ot
the path anddeveIopmentotthesetwocities, whiIetheIasttour
bookssettorththecities'purpose.
1e htth book ot C/q oj Cod serves as a turning point in
Augustine's impassionedargument againstpagan attacks on the
Christian taith. His rebuttaI brings with it interpretations and
critiquesotimperiaIvirtues. AugustineobservesthegeneaIogyot
the Roman Empire through the compIexnetworkotreIations ot
powerinwhichhehimseItisimmersed. Heisawareottheinter-
woven nature otRoman history and poIitics andhe cIaims that
thisisnocoincidence-itisnottheworkottate,norisitthework
otpagan gods. Augustine argues thatRuhusAntoniusAgrypinus
VoIusianus'remonstrance,hoIdingChristianityresponsibIetorthe
scourgesotwarthatnearIydestroyRome, isirreIevantandpoint-
Iess,he sets thistorthinthe hrsttenbooks otC/q oj Cod. 1ere
had aIways been these and simiIar caIamities,Augustine opines,
sothisone is no exception. 1e ishop otHipporeIatesthehis-
toryottheRomanwars-nottewinnumber-someIastingmore
thanthirtyortortyyears. LaterChristianapoIogists,particuIarIy
the medievaIapoIogists, as aderents ottheAugustinian schooI,
nby/oninn \irrues-Minoriry Keporr
b7
l
rgeIy
interpretedAugustine's apoIogistinsights superhciaIIy, in
ter
msotideoIogy.PreciseIytorthisreasonthesehvebooksshouId
be
re
-readas theyprovidethebestpossibIecritiqueotHardtand
_
e
gri's Lmp/re, and in particuIar theirinsistence on a theurgic
te
IeoIogyotthe
muItitude.
Te questionto whichAugustine indirectIyresponds is. Why
di
d CodheIp the Romans expand the Empire7" In other words,
for what theoIogicaI, poIitic, or other reasons, did Cod make
the Romans the worId's most powertuI torce7 Cod, according to
Augustine,eIevatedtheRomanEmpiresohecouIdbringintoIine
the venaIity otmanypeopIes. Augustine wshedto convince his
readersthattheRomanEmpirewasexpandedasrecompensetor
those peopIe who served their homeIand tor gIory, honor, and
p
ower, andwhowerepreparedtogivetheirownIives to save the
homeIandsotheycouIdattaingIory.Athoughthiswasasininthe
eyesottheishopotHippo,Ioveotpraiseservestosuppressother,
morepernicious, vicessuchas,torinstance,avariceandthecruder
torms otthe struggIe torpower. Such peopIe are hardy saints,
buttheIust torhuman gIory is aIessereviI than othervices, as
CiceroandHoraceaIsoargue.Otcourse,Augustinecontinues,one
oughttoresistsuchadesireratherthansuccumbtoit. utCoddid
reward the Romans with tempor success even it they aunted
theirgIorywhiIedoinggood. 1esepeopIearerewardedinthisIite
becausetheyeschewweaIthandchampionthecommongood,not
covetousorwickedIysuccumbingtopIeasuresbutstrivingtorgIory
and honor. HereAugustine commends, as does S ust, thegreat
menotRomanhistorysuchas MarcusCatoandCaiusCaesartor
theirvrtue.1eyhungeredtormastery,torthearmy,tornewwars
inwhichtheymightexercisetheirvirtues.AccordingtoAugustine,
the Roman Empirewas made greatby simpIe things such as the
diIigenceothousehoIdsandjustadministrationabroad,anobjec-
tive andtree spiritincounseI, not motivatedbycrime andinjus-
bb
BorisCunj evic
tice,andmodestpersonwethaIongsidearichpubIictreasury
.
1eEmpiredidnotbecomevastandpowertuIbecauseotpoIit-
icaIaIIiesoritsmiIitarymightbutbecauseattersubj ectingother
nations, the Romans brought them into the common Roman
state. AIweregrantedequaIrightsandpriviIegesinthecommu-
nityotRomethatonIyatewhadenjoyedbetore.Whatmadethe
Empire poIiticaIIy unstabIe and decadent was not so much the
distortion otbenehciaI" Roman customs as it was the Iuury
,
avarice, arrogance, and impoverishment ot the pubIic treasury,
andtheburgeoningotpersonaIweaIth.WeaIthwasgIorihed,Iei-
sure worshipped, and the recompense tor virtue was an ambi-
tioninwhichtherewasnocIeardistinctiondrawnbetweengood
andeviI. 1e citizen thoughtonIyothimseIt, athomehewas a
sIaveothispassions,whiIeinpubIichewassIavetoinuenceand
money.Assuchthe Empirewashardpressedtosustaintheever
more trequentonsIaughtsotthebarbarians.
AugustinecontendsthattheRomansdesiredgIoryandriches
acquiredhonestIy.1eyIoved,desired,andIivedtorgIorytosuch
a degree that theywere ready to die tor it. 1eirIust tor gIory
suppressedaII other desires. He argues thatboth a goodanda
bad man might covet gIory, honor, and power, the hrst going
aboutittherightwaybecausehehadtheskiIIs, meaninghewas
virtuous, the second going about it the wrongwaybecause he
hadnoskiIIs,andtheretorereIiedontraudanddeceit. Inasmuch
as the individuaI despises gIoryyet worships power, this man,
Augustine states, is a viIe and vicious beast. FortunateIy there
were tew such men in Rome, though a certain Nero might be
singIed out. Inthe theopoIiticaIimaginationotAureIiusAugus-
tinus, Nerowasportrayedas theincarnation otarawgreedtor
power. What was essentiaIIy a caricature ot Nero-possessed
with the madness otavarice and power-representedthepin-
nacIeotvicetorAugustine. HesawthehandotCod'sprovidence
nby/oninn \irrues-Minoriry Keporr
bU
e
ven
in
thebehavior otsuchbeasts,permittingthemto ruIe at
a
ti
me
when the Empire deservedthem. Shakespeare describes
su
ch
decadence and decIine in a modern" way in his tragedy
3a|/as Caesar, portraying Caesar's paranoia and the scheming
character ot Cassius with remarkabIe perspicacity. Cassius is a
thin, siIent, hungry character, his greatestcrime being that he
thin
ks toomuch. CaesarspeakstoAntonio,commentingonthe
parad
igmaticcharacterotthesubversiveRomanpIotter.
WouIdheweretatter| utItearhimnot.
YetitmynamewereIiabIetotear,
IdonotknowthemanIshouIdavoid
So soonasthatspare Cassius. Hereadsmuch,
HeisagreatobserverandheIooks
Quitethroughthedeedsotmen. heIovesnopIays,
Asthoudost,Antony,hehears nomusic,
SeIdomhesmiIes, andsmiIesinsuchasort
Asithemock'dhimseItandscorn'dhisspirit
1atcouIdbemovedtosmiIeatanything.
Suchmenashebeneveratheart's ease
WhiIestheybehoIdagreaterthanthemseIves,
Andtheretorearetheyverydangerous.
IratherteIItheewhatistobe tear'd
1anwhatI tear, toraIwaysIamCaesar.
Comeonmyrighthand,torthisearisdeat,
AndteIImetruIywhatthouthink'stothim.
(ActI, Scene2)
According to theishop otHippo,the one true CodheIped
theRomansattaingIoryandsupremacybecause, bycertainstan-
dards and opinion, earthIysupremacymaybe benevoIent, and
the Romans came the cIosest, through theirown merit, to the
U
BorisCunj evic
ideaIottheHeavenIyCity. HereAugustine acknowIedgesthathe
isunawareotanyotherreasonstortheRomansupremacy, these
reasons being a question otprovidence (better known to Co
d
than tohumankind) , tor though the Romansarenotcitizens ot
the HeavenIyCity, theyhave a specihcunderstandingotvirtue,
tarbetterthanhavingnovirtueataII. Forthedevoutwhounder-
take piIgrimages to the HeavenIy City, it is better that those
nearestthemmakeaIegacyotavirtuethanthattheybebarbar-
iansberettotaIIvirtue. CodIikesnothingotwhatisunjustand
thisiswhatCodmeanttoimpartwiththestoryotthetwocities.
ut Augustine's critique is tar more compIex because he
contends that Roman virtues cannot be reconsidered criticaIIy
withoutadeconstructionotthe Roman Empire, thecommunity
Iivingbythesevirtues. HencethereissignihcanceinAugustine's
argument that the Romans are nota nationbecause they were
notjust, andtheywerenotjustbecausetheyhadaIwayscometo
peace through vioIence, toisting themseIves on their subj ected
peopIes with the right ot might. Augustine is here criticizing,
with an ironic twist, Scipio's dehnition otnation (set torthby
CicerointheIostDe re pab|/ca), byappIyingthis criticismtothe
Roman Empire as a community otnations. A peop|e, as Scipio
says,isanassembIageotsome sizeassociatedwithoneanother
throughagreementonIawandcommunityotinterest."''Augus-
tine in the nineteenth book otC/ry oj Cod ohers his own deh-
nition. a peopIe is an assembIage otreasonabIe beings bound
togetherbyacommonagreementastotheobj ectsottheirIove."''
Augustine'sdehnitionismorecompIexbecausethispeopIeisnot
boundbyanagreementdehningwhatisjust, nordoesheadvise
them as to how they might reach their goaI. At the core othis
On rhe Commonwea/rh and On rhe Laws, trans. anded. James E. G. ZetzeI(Cam-
bridge. CambridgeU[ 999), B.
2 Augustine,Ciry o[Cod, 9. 24.
nby/oninn \irrues-Minoriry Keporr
U
o
wn
dehnitionAugustinepIacesIoveandthebeIoved, meaning
t
ha
t he sets torth desire. Heproposes a modeIthatin a certain
wa
ywouIdguidetheIovetoaneternaIanduniversaIbeIoved.In
oth
erwords, Augustine says thatorderIyguidancetordesire is
what matters. Cuiding desire determines whether the assem-
bIage"isacommunitythatisunitedandjust,meaningwhether
ithasthevirtuetobuiIdcommunity. HereatworkisAugustine's
indirectcritiqueottheStoicnotionotdesirewhichexistseither
asordereddesirereguIatedbyreason,or,incontrast, asexcessive
desire governedbypervertedpassions. Augustine is aware that
reason itseItmightbepervertedin such awaythat it becomes
subj ect to desires that ensIave and determine action. Hence
reason can desire undesirabIe things and goaIs. Understood as
such,subj ective reason opens theway totheperversion otthe
personandthecommunity.AIso, desiresthatgovernreasonmay
desiretaIsegoaIs, meaningthatinsodoingtheymaynegatethe
goaI ot a united and just community, its sociaI structure, and
nature.
Augustine's dehnition ot community is Iess personaI than
Scipio's. ScipiointerpretstheRomancommunityasapersonaIIy
understooddom/o/am ottheheroicvirtues othonor, gIory, and
power, andassuchitcannevertuIhII theideaIotAntiquepoIi-
tics. 1isis evidentinAugustine'scritiqueotCicero's insight at
theverybeginningotC/ry oj Cod thateveryoneshouIdbeabIeto
enj oywhatishis,"andtheretorethepeacethatEmpireohersis
mereIyacompromise,aIwaysattainedbyvioIencebetweenstub-
bornIyvyingwiIIs. Inotherwords,Augustine negatesthe onto-
IogicaI toundation ot dom/o/am, he negates power tor its ow
sake, thereby questioning the absoIute quaIity ot Lmp/re, the
absoIute quaIityotprivate property and otmarketcompetition
pureIytorproht.AugustineseesthistormotimperiaIpracticeas
wrongandvioIent, startingtromthetactthatitentaiIs a depri-
U
BorisCunj evic
vationotbeing.Furthermore,atruIyjustcommunity, according
toAugustine,mustimpIyanecstaticandreIationaIconsensusot
oneandaII"astowhatthecommunitydesires. Suchaconsensus
invoIves, bythatsametoken,aharmonyamongthemembersot
acommunityinwhichthebeingotthecommunityisrenewed. A
communityso conceivedcarriesinitseItsomethingtribaI,which
the po|/s and c/v/ras tend to negate. In this tribaI community
the cuItivation otheroicvirtues is notwhatmatters but rather
theever-renewedtransmissionotthe signs otIove, charity, and
the bringing to birth otnew members bybaptism, with which
the IiteIong emancipatory process otpa/de/a begins. No one is
excIuded trom pa/de/a (as wouIdbe the case, tor exampIe, with
PIato or AristotIe), trom receiving divine Iove and charity, no
matter whether a sIave, a chiId, a woman, a crippIe, or a poor
man. Noonecanbepreventedtromjoiningthecommunityand
this is one otthe importantnoveIties otAugustine's universaI-
isticnotionotcommunity.
1e goaI ot the po|/s thus understood is not coIIective gIory
andthepowerotRome,asthecityisnotaRomanhero. Paradox-
icaIIyspeaking,thepo|/s becomesthediherentiaIsequencewhich
has as its goaIbeyondgoaIthegenerationotnewreIationships,
which themseIves situate and dehne new individuaIs. A goaI
beyond goaI is one that cannot be describedor imaginedin its
tuIIbreadth,unIikeanearthIycitywhichcontainsitsgoaIwithin
itseIt andwhich is a vestige otthe pagan dom/o/am, stretching
back, asAugustinedemonstrates, toabyIon. abyIonisameta-
phor tor a citytoundedin the vioIence otciviIwar and within
whichthereareno obj ectivepoIiticaIgoaIs thatare good inand
otthemseIves. abyIonianvirtuesserveonIytormaintainingthe
dom/o/am, hence they must be rej ected. Augustine is convinced
thateverythingthathasanyvaIueshouIdcorreIatetothereaIity
otthe City otCod. Everythingthat is in anywaydistincttrom
nby/oninn \irrues-Minoriry Keporr
UJ
the eccIesiaI practice otthe divine nomadic city" indicates the
reaIity ot sin otone's reIativity. What is outside the Church is
subj ecttoapower(vioIence)thatis aIways arbitraryandaIways
excessive. Te poIiticaI characteristics ot the c/v/ras rerreoa are
sIavery, excessive poIiticaI torce, and compromise between the
competing economicinterests otindividuaIs. At the same time
thisisthewaytheearthIycityattainspeace.
One otthe mostimportant cIaims in C/ry oj Cod which MiI-
bankaptIyremarksuponisthatapagansocietymisses notonIy
justice, but virtue in generaI. Where does Augustine ground
this unusuaIassertion, noted eIsewhere asweIIin his ownway
by CiambattistaVico7Augustine says that pagans had not per-
tormed|arre/a, theworshipotasingIeCod,hencetheyhadwith-
heIdj usticetromhimwhomostdeservesit.TeyhaddeniedOod
thehonorottrueandproperworship, |arre/a, whiIeatthesame
timehonoringpagangodswhowere,torAugustine, maIignant
demons ceIebrated in the theurgicaI rituaIs described earIier.
Augustine's criticismispitchednotmereIyat theIeveIoteccIe-
siaIpracticeottheIiturgy,whichthepagansdidn'tpertormina
mannerarrangedbycharity. TisissomethingtarmorecompIex
because eccIesiaIIy organized worship ot the true Cod (which
PauIsaysisthetrueandpropertormotworshipinRomansI2. I)
Ieads to the de-coding otAntique poIiticaI antimonies. Augus-
tine suggests that through eccIesiaIpractices one arrives at the
properorderotpsycbe, o/kos, po|/s andcosmos.
AnditiswhenthesouI serves Codthatitexercisesa
right controIoverthe body, andinthe souIitseItthe
reason mustbesubj ectto Cod ititis to governas it
ought the passions and other vices. Hence, when a
man does not serve Cod, whatjustice can we ascribe
tohim,sinceinthiscasehissouIcannotexerciseajust
U4
BorisCunj evic
controI over the body, nor his reason overhis vices7
And itthere is nojustice in such an individuaI, cer-
tainIy there can be none in a community composed
ot such persons. Here, theretore, there is not that
common acknowIedgment ot right which makes an
assembIage otmen a peopIe whose ahairs we caII a
repubIic. AndwhyneedI speakottheadvantageous-
ness, the commonparticipation in which, according
tothedehnition,makesapeopIe7''
Augustine states that true worship consists ot aIIowing Cod
to subordinate himseIt ephemeraIIy to what is constant and
unchanging. Such a subordination is reaIized primariIy in the
reIation ot the souI towards Codinwhich desires and passions
are therapeuticaIIy subordinated to Cod who channeIs them in
an orderIy manner, thereby heaIing." Atter this tundamentaI
subordination, the souI is shapedconsecutiveIythroughproper
positioning inreIationto the househoId, the househoId to the
city,thecitytothecosmos. 1eoppositeotthissubordinationot
aIIdesirestoasingIeCodis reverseworshipotpagangods that
aims to makedom/o/am and Empire (as thatwhichistransient)
ends unto themseIves. In that case thepersonandthe commu-
nitytomenttheworsttormotidoIatry,whichAugustineequates,
otcourse, withprimaIinjustice. EverydesiretoturnthesecuIar
paganauthoritiesintoauniversaImeasureotreaIity(nomatter
how just they may seem) is uItimateIy a case ot injustice and
idoIatry. In other words, Augustine sees how a Iack ottrust in
transcendenceIeadstosociaIinjustice,becausewithoutbeIietin
transcendence,virtue-whichhedehnesasorderinIove-couId
notbeestabIished.1eIackotorganizedworshipotthetrueCod
iJ Augustine,Ciq o[ Cod, i9. 2i.
nby/oninn \irrues-Minoriry Keporr
U
ea
ds to inj ustice and negates the eccesiaI practice ot charity,
m
eaningthatitnegates theorderotIove.
For
theRomans,theretore,virtuecannotbepracticedbecause
th
ey have cut themseves oh trom the reterence to transcen-
d
enc
e,totheceIestiaIpeaceottheCityotCod,attainedthrough
mutuaI absoIution. 1e pagans are unjust and cannot properIy
understand virtue because they have not given priority to tor-
giveness andpeace. So itis that they cannot estabIish a proper
order that reIates to the sou, thehousehod, the city, andthe
cosmos, hence theyremaintrappedin the antinomy otvirtues
attainedbyvioIence.InasmuchasthesouIsubordinatesboththe
body and its own passions, Augustine states that a third IeveI
shouIdbe introduced, missingamongthepagans, theIeveIthat
reates to |arre/a inwhich the souI itseItis subordinatedto one
Cod. CommentingontheSermonontheMount,Augustineasks
how peopIe wiIIunderstandthat in man's souI, no matterhow
depraveditmaybe, therewiIbeatraceotreasontowhichCod
speaks through the conscience. Continuing his commentary,
Augustinegoesontoargue thatasIongasthe DeviIhimsetpos-
sessesatraceotreasonhecanhearCodspeaktohim. 'Inother
words, Codaddresses the rationaI part otthe souI bygiving it
heavenIy peace. In so doing, Cod requires that the souI hrst
subordinate itseIttohiminan orderIyandharmonioustashion
sothatitcan then subordinate thebody to itseIt. 1is strategy
appIiesthereattertothehousehoIdandthecommunity.
Inotherwords,itthecommunitydesirestobejustitmustreect
8 absoIute sociaI consensus andharmony, the community must
hoIdto the convictionotinhnitejustice in terms otwhichwe sit-
i4 Augustine,Sermon on rhe Mounr, 2. 9. J2, trans. WiIIiamFindIay, inPhiIipSchah,
ed.,Nicene and Posr-Nicene Farhers, FirstSeries,voI.5(uhaIo,NY.Christian
LiteraturePubIishingCo., i888) . RevisedandeditedtorNewAdventbyKevin
Knight,avaiIabIeathttp. / /V .newadvent. org/tathers/i50i2.htm
Ub
BorisCunj evic
uateIove. Inhnitejustice, soconceived,isabIeto ordereverythin

properIy in terms ottime so that there w be no chaotic ves

ti
e
otdsorder.Justiceinterpretedinthismannerisdistincthom
the
paganvirtueswhich(withinherentIydangerous psychiceIements,
asAugustineshowsinthehmbookotC/q oj Co arecomparedto
whatstandsinoppositionandwhatmustbevanquishedinadver-
sariaI struggIe hom without." Hence the metaphor ot Atique
virtue as a war tortihcation" (the originaI meaning ot the wor
d
po|/s) capturedinamiIitarytashionbyheroicvirtue.Inatortihcation
understoodinthesetermsonestrivestosecureinnerspacethrou
h
heroicvirtuebythe rme otonegroup againstothers, whiIe atthe
same time the territorymustbepreservedhom extern enemies
in the interest otthe whoIe. Inasmuch as the city encourages the
virtuesotindviduaIs, thesearecertainIyprivatevirtueswhichceI-
ebratevictoryoverrivsinthecity,andtheretoreitiscIearthatthe
virtues otindvidusinvariabIyreIatetoachievingintern controI
overthepassionsinthestruggIeagainstvicesinwhichtherecanbe
nocharity. ForAugustine, charityis the arrangementotreciprocaI
activitynecessarytorproducingasociaI and aesthetic order. OnIy
charitycancompIementjusticeandreason,whichmustassumean
ontoIogicaIpriorityotpeaceopposedtotheprimevaIvioIenceotthe
earthIycity, abyIon.TisassumptionisbasedonparabIes,signs,in
aneventwhosesociaIidiom otabsoIutionotsinandcharityJesus
demonstratedtous,invitingpeopIeintoacommunitywhichantici-
patesmereityottheHeavenIyCity.
ForAugustineabsoIutionotsinisthepreconditiontorasociaI
constructs, to be summarized as toLows. Virtue can tuIIy mnc-
tiononIyitthewhoIe communitypossessesitandIivestogether
inaIiteotvirtue. Tis communaIpossessionotvirtueinuences
the sequencing ot individuaI diherences and as such resembIes
the heavenIyvirtue otcharity. Te attempt inwhichouractions
most resembIe heavenIyvirtues compensate tor, substitute tor,
nby/oninn \irrues-Minoriry Keporr
U7
e
ven
sh
ort-cut this totaI absence otvirtue," as Mdbankputs it
niceIy.' y not taRng ohence, assuming the guiIt ot others,
doing what they shouId have done (beyond the bounds ot any
responsibiIityas dehned byIaw), we arrive at an important par-
adoxin which we begin to incorporate heavenIy virtue, which is
anothernametortaith,hope,andcharity, orasAIain adiouputs
it, hdeIity, perseverance, and Iove. 1e paradox Iies in the tact
that virtue is genuineIy and currentIy present onIy in exchange
and sharing, in acceptance otresponsibiIity tor and bearing the
burdenotthosenearesttous. 1isisnot aboutaperson'saccom-
pIishment as dictatedby theIawotthe community, since virtue
otthat sort, accordingtoAugustine,womdintactbeavice, as it
was notattainedthroughmutuaItorgivenessandabsoIutesociaI
consensus,meaningtheharmonyotheavenIypeacethatreIocates
uswithinthecommunityotthebodyotChrist.
Hardt and Negri shouId be commended tor their shrewd
observation that St. Augustine is an exceIIent coIIocutor in the
currentpoIiticaIdebate. 1eyarerightwhentheypositthatonIy
a cathoIic, universaI community can oher an aIternative to the
practices otBmpirewhich, undertheguiseotcapitaIcircuIating
astastaspossibIe,invariabIyceIebratevioIenceandterrorwhich
thenIeadtonihiIism. AthoughitmightseemseIt-congratuIatory
toprocIaim these assertionstromtheoIdCommunist,Negri, to
be insumcientIyradicaI, sothey seem to me. SimpIyput, Hardt
andNegriarenotradicaIenough. ForhoweIsetointerprettheir
assertionthatacathoIicsocietyotaIiens,comingtogether,coop-
erating, communicating,knowthatthis is a means without an
end7 How otherwise to interpret their statement that Francis
otAssisi is a postmodern modeItorthe activistwho embodies
thej oy otCommunistbeing7 Hardt and Negri's Spinoza-esque
I5 JohnMiIbank,Ueo/og and Socia/ Ueory (London.IackweII,2005),4I7.
Ub
BorisCun] evic
Augustinizedneo-Communistvisionpreventsthemtromseeing
beyond what is immanent on the surtaces ot Empire. Despite
this, theirreadingotAugustineshouIdnotbe dismissedasaIto-
getherwrong. I have juxtaposedto their critique otAugustine
the onIy possibIe response trom an Augustinian perspective.
Such duaI criticism is a theoIogicaI attempt at bringingAugus-
tinetoSpinozaandSpinozatoAugustine.
Hence we can adopt the Augustinian vision ot two cities
despite the tact that their boundaries are not aIways cIear
and distinct, that they overIap and remain porous. We are
not aIways sure who is inside and who is out, though there
are externaI signs ot membership in the universaI commu-
nity ot which Augustine speaks, modest means ot saIvation
such as sacraments, prayers, Iiturgy, reading the HoIy CospeI.
CIearIy, these signs andmeans have been abusedmany times
in manyways, though theywere meantto ease thejourney ot
theeccIesiaInomadswhomAugustinementions. 1esemodest
meanshavearegenerative andtherapeuticehectonaIIpeopIe
who bear Christ's burden in the worId, as described, through
paradox, in Matthew's CospeI at the Iastj udgment (Matthew
25. JI-45) , or in Luke's CospeI in the parabIe about the good
Samaritan (Luke I0. 2D-J7) .Amongthe nomads anddeserters
in permanent exodus there are some, Augustine argues, who,
aIthough they manitest the outward" trappings otbeIonging
to a community (such asbaptism, reading the CospeI, partici-
pating in Iiturgy) , do not beIong to the City ot Cod tor their
heart is not with Cod. 1ere are aIso those who though they
manitest no outward trappings ot Christ's yoke and are not
in visibIe commune with the Church, beIong to Cod's peopIe
andhis city. OnIy Codknows who truIybeIongswithhimand
who doesnot, whiIepeopIe, thankCod, aresparedthisknowI-
edge. In one pIace Augustine argues thatwe wiII be surprised
nby/oninn \irrues-Minoriry Keporr
UU
gy
wh
omweencounterinheavenandwewiIIbethemostsur-
p
risedotaIIwhenwethere encounterourseIves.
AsI saidabove, I contendthatNegri'sandHardt'scritiqueot
PIotinus isaninsumcientIy radicaIoptionwhichwiII not,using
thetheurgicaIteIeoIogyotmuItitude,"sumcetoreaIize,orrather
constitute, thepoIiticaIsubj ect. NomatterhowIogicaIthis may
seem, theirproposaIthatthemuItitudeisthenewpoIiticaIsub-
jectremainsundeveIoped. Teintensityneeds tobeheightened
andtheyneedtoexpIoreadiherenttacktromthetheurgicaIteIe-
oIogy otthe muItitude, moving towards the eccIesiaI practices
thatAugustine suggests, and not his pagan, popuIar-reIigious,
PIatonic counterpointas expoundedby Hardt and Negri.AIter-
native practices need to be sought which can be jutaposedto
the virtues that Empire gIorihes. Tis is how I see the Augus-
tinian critique otHardt and Negri. My concIusion is simpIe. A
sharedpiIgrimageotthecathoIiccommunityonearthistheonIy
aIternativetoanimperiaImeta-narrativethatcantormtheprac-
ticeneededtortheconstitutionotthepoIiticaIsubject. 1iscon-
stitutionmustbetoundedonasingIeassumption.
WhatitthereisagoaIwhichwecannotimagineexisting,ago
beyondgoaI7ItwecannotcaIIuponourownimagination,which
Empireis destroyingwithmoreandmorevigorandcIarity, then
aII that is Iett to us is common sense. Herein Iies the probIem,
as C. K. Chestertonsaidwhendescribingamadmanassomeone
who has Iost everything but his reason (his imagination, his
sensibiIity, his emotions, whichhereI understandto meanthat
which enabIes intensity in eccIesiaI practices) . Inhis critique ot
thevirtuesotEmpirethataIways increase capitaIandIegitimize
various torms otterror, Augustine suggests stripping away the
supportstorsuch decadentandcorruptpracticesbysummoning
peopIe to eccIesiaI practice, to counter the imperi virtues
shapingthe characterotthosewho are members otthe City ot

BorisCun] evic
Cod. As we have seen in thehtth book (in tact trom the secon
d
tothenineteenth)otC/ry oj Cod, AugustineiscaIIingtoracert
ain
tormotdesertion,exodus,andnomadism. He isaskingtoradis-
cipIinedasceticism.1isiswhatis missingnotonIytrom Negri's
anti-imperiaIpostmodernactivism but trom the very muItitude
whichheconstitutesashispoIiticaIsubject. IncontrasttoHar
dt
and Negri, I contend that it is especiaIIy important to consider
FrancisotAssisiwithintheuniverscommunitythatundertakes
piIgrimagestotheCityotCodaccordingtothemodeIoheredby
Augustine.CathoIicityinAugustine'sinterpretation,withitsIocaI
concept ot the universaI, is a subversive counter-parabIe to the
imperiaImeta-narrativeandheIpsusanswerthequestionothoy
we might rightIyunderstanddesertion, exodus, andnomadism,
whichweseehereasaspecihctormotasceticexercise.
Inotherwords,themindIessnessotthemuItitudeaboutwhich
HardtandNegrispeakIiesinthetactthatthereisnoasceticexer-
cise required tor theirpoIiticaIpractice, as notedbythe ItaIian
phiIosopher. Itwe acceptWaIterenj amin's assertionthatcapi-
taIism isareIigion,wouIdnot themostradicaIcritique-andin
tact the onIy possibIe, pIausibIe critique-ot capitaIism be one
articuIatedbyreIigion71is iswhy, with theheIp otAugustine,
Iamworkingonaresponsetothe questionposed. 1ecapitaIist
matrixwithinwhichimperiaIpracticestunctioncanbecriticized
reIevantIy onIy it the critique embraces a certain theoIogy, tor
EmpirewiIIotherwiseaIwaysprevaiI,asithas untiInow, thanks
toits diaboIicadaptabiIitytothemarket.
1isis why a measured doseotvoIuntary, discipIined asceti-
cism is necessary, trom which rough tragments ot emcacious
truths maysurtace andheaI ourdesire, asAugustine says, since
wewiguideourdesirenottosomethingbeautituI,desirabIe,and
transitory, buttoeautyitseIt,immutabIeTruthitseIt,andIiss
itseIt. 1is iswhywe need asceticism, as onIyasceticism can re-
nby/oninn \irrues-Minoriry Keporr

direct
desiretowardseternaIpIenitude. Forasceticexerciseisnot
the
destructionotdesireasissuggestedbyvarioustormsotud-
@
is
m. Augustine'sunderstandingotasceticpracticebeginswith
a
voIuntaryrenunciation otdesiretorgIoryandthirsttorpower.
A
tterthattoowstherenunciationotsubmissiontopIeasure,the
renunciationotaweakeningotthesouIandbody, andrenuncia-
tion otthe avaricious aspiration to greater weaIth. 1e Iust tor
gIoryisanastyviceandanenemyottruedevotion,saysAugus-
tine, caing on the words otthe carpenter trom Nazareth and
theApostIes whosepractice was to pIace theIove ot Cod above
human gIory. Ascetic exercise in eccIesiaI practices is a deIiber-
ateIyembraceddiscipIineinterms otagoaIthatsurpassesus,yet
is
soavehicIe. 1is isanimportantstatementbecausethereis
nocheapandcertainIynotreeradicism.ToberadicaImeansto
bepreparedtopaytheprice,itmeansto make sacrihces,andin
thiscaseitmeanstoacceptandadoptadiscipIinedasceticismas
awayotIite.AthoughthearmchairIettistsandIiberaIswithgen-
erousacademicsaIariesunanimousIyattackedandridicuIedhim,
IbeIievethatinthisinstanceSIavoj

izekwasright. Speakingot
thehImdUU,abouttheattIeot 1ermopyIae,

izekinanentireIy
diherentcontextoheredanimportanttact,quotingadiou.
WeneedapopuIardiscipIine. IwouIdevensay. . . that
thosewho have nothinghave onIy their discipIine."
For the poor, those with no hnanciaI or miIitary
means,thosewithnopower,aIItheyhaveistheirdis-
cipIine,theircapacitytoacttogether.1isdiscipIineis
aIreadyatormotorganization. '
Within thegIobaIImperiaI matrb which ohers onIyabinary
i5 SeeSIavojZizek,"TeTrueHoIIyoodLett,"avaiIabIeathttp. / /w .Iacan
.com/zizhoIIyood. htm
I
BorisCunj evic
capitaIisttaonomy(incIuded-excIuded,outside-inside,thehaves
andhave-nots) there isIittIeroomIetttorimprovisation,unI
ess
we constantIy question this division with a certain asceticisp
,
asAugustine suggests. We couIdunderstandAugustine's vision
oteccesiaIpractice, in contrast to the abyIonian virtues,
as

synthesis otnomadism and asceticism, as aj oint therapeutic

journeyto the City ot Cod. Nomadism and the ascetic exercise
ot eccesiaI practices therebybecome the tundamentaI coordi-
nates that heIp us ground the poIiticaI subj ect, interpreting in
a newway the desertion and exodus otwhich Hardt andNegri
speak. SuchapoIiticaIsubj ectwouId be revoIutionary, and capi-
taIistrationaIitywouIdnotbeabIeto tame it. Indiherentterms,
andinaadiou-Iiketashion,eccesiaIpracticerecognizesthatIt
is better to do nothing than to contribute to the invention ot
tormaIways otrenderingvisibIe that which Empire aIreadyrec-
ognizesasexistent."''
i7 IshouIdsayherethatinasubsequentversionadiouchangedthetormuIa-
tion otthissentence.Inhis "Fitteen Teses onContemporaryArt"pubIished
inLacanian |nk, no.2J(seetheexcerptavaiIabIeathttp. / /ww. Iacan. com/
trameXIII7. htm)thephraseusedwas"whichEmpireaIreadyrecognizes asex-
istent."TreeyearsIaterinPo/emics, abookotarticIesandinterviews, thesame
htteentheses appearbutsomewhatchangedandredehnedintitIeandsub-
stance.TeIaterarticIeiscaIIed"TirdSketchotaManitestootAmrmationist
Art."IntheeditedversionotthearticIethewordEmire hasbeenrepIacedby
thewordWesr, sothatnowitreads"whattheWestdecIarestoexist."SeeAain
adiou,Po/emics, trans. SteveCorcoran(LondonandNewYork.Verso,2005),
i48. IpretertheearIierversion,reterringtothehtteenththesisottheadiou
manitesto(adiou,"FitteenTesesonContemporaryArt," ii9).
o
\!uHCC IHlO lHC
CHIVC8 O8!um

/Izt.
WhatisIsIam,thisdisturbingexcessthatrepresentstheBasttor
the West and the Westtor the Far Bast7 In his La psycbaoa|yse
|'preave de |'ls|am, Fethi ensIama undertakes a systematic
searchtorthearchive" otIsIam,torits obscenesecretmythicaI
support which oe cesse pas de oe pas s'cr/re and as such sus-
tains the expIicit dogma. ' Is the story ot Hagar, tor exampIe,
notIsIam's archive," reIatingto IsIam's expIicitteachinginthe
same way the Jewish secret tradition ot Moses reIates to the
expIicitteachingsotJudaism7 InhisdiscussionottheFreudian
hgure ot Moses, Bric Santner introduces the key distinction
betweensymboIichistory (the expIicit mythicaI narratives and
ideoIogico-ethicaI prescriptions that constitute the tradition
ota community, whatHegeIwouIdhave caIIedits ethicaIsub-
stance") and its obscene Other, the unacknowIedgeabIe spec-
traI," tantasmatic secret history that ehectiveIy sustains the
expIicitsymboIictradition,buthas to remaintorecIoseditit is
to be operative.' What Freud endeavors to reconstitute in his
i FethiensIama,La sychana/yse /reuve de /Js/am (Paris.Aubier,2002).
NumbersinparenthesesIaterinthistextretertopagesinthisbook.
2 SeeEricSantner, "TraumaticReveIations.Freud'sMosesandtheOriginsot
Anti-Semitism,"inRenataSa!ecI,ed. , Sexuarion (Durham.DukeUniversiq
Press, 2000).
i0J
4
SIavoj

izek
Mosesbook(thestoryotthemurderotMoses, etc.)isjustsucha
spectraIhistorythathauntsthespaceottheJewishreIigioustra-
dition. One becomes atuIImemberota communitynot simp
Iy
byidenti|ingwith its expIicitsymboIictradition,butonIywhen
one aIso assumes the spectraI dimension that sustains it, the
undeadghosts that haunt the Iiving, the secrethistoryottrau-
matic tantasies transmitted between the Iines," through the
Iacks inand distortionsotthe expIicitsymboIictradition. Juda-
ism's stubborn attachment to the unacknowIedged and vioIent
tounding gesture-which haunts the pubIic IegaI order as its
spectraI suppIement-enabIed the Jews to persist and survive
torthousandsotyearswithoutaIandoracommoninstitutionaI
tradition. theyretusedtogiveup theirghost, to cut oh theIink
to their secret, disavowed tradition. 1e paradox otJudaism is
thatitmaintainshdeIitytothevioIenttoundingEventpreciseIy
byoor contessingorsymboIizingit. this repressed"statusotthe
Eventiswhatgives Judaismits unprecedentedvitaIity.
What,then,istherepressedEventwhichgivesvitaIitytoIsIam7
1ekeyisprovidedbytheanswertoanotherquestion. Howdoes
IsIam,thethirdReIigionottheook,htintothisseries7Judaism
isthereIigionotgeneaIogy, otthe succession otgenerations, so
when,inChristianity, theSondiesonthecross, thismeansthat
the FatheraIso dies (as HegeI wastuIIyaware)-thepatriarchaI
geneaIogicaIorderassuch dies, andtheHoIySpirit,introducing
apost-paternaIcommunity, noIongerhtsintothetamiIyseries.
In contrast to both Judaism and Christianity, IsIam excIudes
CodtromthedomainotthepaternaIIogic.AIahisnotatather,
notevenasymboIicone-Codisone,heisneitherbornnordoes
hegive birth to creatures. Uere /s oo p|ace jor a Ho|y Fam/|y /o
|s|am. 1isiswhyIsIampIacessomuchemphasisonthetactthat
Muhammad himseItwas an orphan, this is why, in IsIam, Cod
intervenespreciseIyatthosemomentsotthesuspension,with-
A C/nnce i nro rhe Archives o[ |s/nm

dra
wa
I,taiIure,orbIack-out"otthepaternaItunction(whenthe
moth
er orthe chiIdare abandonedorignoredby thebioIogicaI
tath
er) . What this meansis that CodremainsthoroughIyinthe
domainottheimpossibIe-ReaI.heistheimpossibIe-ReaIoutside
ta
th
er, sothatthere is a geneaIogicaIdesertbetweenmanand
Cod" (J2) . For Freud, thiswas the probIem with IsIam, since
hisentiretheoryotreIigionwasbased ontheparaIIeIbetween
Codandthetather. MoreimportantIyeven, this inscribespoIi-
tics into theveryheartotIsIam, sincethe geneaIogicaIdesert"
renders it impossibIe togrounda community in the structures
otparenthoodorotherbIood-ties. the desertbetweenCodand
Father is the pIace where the poIiticaI institutes itseIt" (J2) .
With IsIam, it is no Ionger possibIe to ground a community in
the mode ot!orem aod !aboo, through the murderotthetather
and the ensuing guiIt that brings the sons together-thence
IsIam'sunexpectedactuaIity. 1isprobIemIiesattheveryheart
otthe (in)tamous amma, theMusIimcommunityotbeIievers",
itaccountstorthe overIappingotthereIigious andthepoIiticaI
(the communityshouIdbegroundeddirectIyin Cod's word), as
weIIas tor the tactthat IsIam is at its best" when it grounds
the tormation ota communityout otnowhere," in the genea-
IogicaI desert, as an egaIitarian revoIutionary traternity-no
wonderIsIamotten appeaIs toyoungmenwho hndthemseIves
deprivedota traditionaItamiIysatetynetwork.And,perhaps, it
isthisorphanic"characterotIsIamwhichaccountstoritsIackot
inherentinstitutionaIization.
1e distinctive mark ot IsIam is that it is a reIigion
which did not institutionaIize itseIt, it did not, Iike
Christianity, equip itseItwith a Church. 1e IsIamic
ChurchisintacttheIsIamicState.itisthestatewhich
invented the so caIIed highest reIigious authority"
!b
SIavo]

izek
and it is the head otstatewho appoints the man to
occupythatomce,itisthestatewhichbuiIdsthegreat
mosques, which supervises reIigious education, it is
the state again which creates the universities, exer-
cises censorship in aII the heIds otcuIture, and con-
sidersitseItastheguardianotmoraIity.'
Wecan seehereagainhowboth the best andtheworstarecom-
bined in IsIam. it is preciseIy because IsIam Iacks an inherent
principIeotinstitutionaIizationthatitwas sovunerabIetobeing
co-opted by state power, which did the work otinstitutionaIiza-
tiontorit.1ereinresidesthe choicethatcontronts IsIam. direct
poIiticization"is inscribedintoitsverynature, andthis overIap-
pingotthereIigiousandthepoIiticaIcanbe achieved eitherinthe
guiseotstatistco-optionorintheguiseotaor/-srar/sr coIIectives.
IncontrasttoJudaismandIsIam, inwhichthesacrihce otthe
son ispreventedattheIastmoment(the angeIintervenestostop
AbrahamkiLingIsaac) , oo|y Cbr/sr/ao/q oprs jor rbe acraa| sacr/ce
(k/||/og oj rbe soo (258) .1isiswhy,aIthoughIsIamrecognizesthe
ibIe as asacredtext, ithas to denythis tact. inIsIam, Jesusdid
not reIy die on the cross. As the Qur'an (4. I57) puts it. 1e
Jews] said(inboast), `WekiIIed ChristJesusthe son otMary,the
Messenger otAIIah', but they kiIIed him not, nor crucihed him,
butsoitwasmadetoappeartothem."1ereisehectiveIyinIsIam
aconsistentanti-sacrihciaI Iogic.intheQur'an's version otIsaac's
sacrihce,Abraham's decisiontoKhissonisreadnotastheuIti-
mateindicationothiswIIingnesstodoCod'swL,butasaconse-
quence otAbraham's wroog /orerprerar/oo oj b/s dream. when the
angeIpreventstheact, hismessageisthatAbrahamgotitwrong,
thatCoddidnotreaIIywanthimtodoit(275) .
J MoustaphaSatouan,Why Are rhe Arabs Nor Free: Ue Po/irics oj Wriring (unpub-
Iishedmanuscript).
A C/nnce i nro rhe Archives o[ |s/nm
7
Insotar as, i n IsIam, Cod i s an impossibIe-ReaI, this works
b
othwayswith regard to sacrihce. it can workagainst sacrihce
(thereisnosymboIiceconomyotexchangebetweenthebeIievers
and Cod, Cod is the pure One oteyond), but aIso in tavor ot
sacri
hce, aswhenthedivineReaIturnsintothesuperegohgure
otobscuregodsthatconstantIydemandbIood,asLacanonceput
it.IsIamseemstoosciIIatebetweenthesetwoextremes,withthe
obscene sacrihciaIIogic cuIminatingin its re-description otthe
storyotAbeIandCain. HereishowtheQur'anreportson
the truth ot the story ot the two sons ot Adam.
ehoId| they each presented a sacrihce (to AIIah) .
It was accepted trom one, but not trom the other.
Said the Iatter. e sure I wiII sIay thee." SureIy,"
said the tormer, AIah doth accept the sacrihce
ot those who are righteous. It thou dost stretch
thy hand against me, to sIay me, it is not tor me to
stretch my hand against thee to sIay thee. tor I do
tear AIIah, the cherisher ot the worIds. For me, I
intend to Iet thee draw on thyseIt my sin as weII as
thine, torthouwiIt be among the companions otthe
hre, and that is the reward otthosewho do wrong."
1e(seIhsh)souIottheotherIedhimtothemurderot
his brother. hemurderedhim, andbecame (himseIt)
oneottheIostones. (5. 27-J0)
SoitisnotonIyCainwhowantsthekiIIing.AbeIhimseItactiveIy
participates in this desire, provoking Cain to do it, so that he
(AbeI) wouIdgetridothis own sins aIso. ensIama is right to
discernheretracesotanideaIhatred,"diherenttromtheimagi-
naryhatredotaggressiontowardsone'sdoubIe(28D) .thevictim
itseItactiveIydesiresthecrimewhosevictimitwiIIbe,sothat,as
Ib
SIavoj

izek
amartyr, itwiIIenterParadise,sendingtheperpetratortoburn
in heII. From today's perspective, one is tempted to pIay with
the anachronisticspecuIationonhowtheterrorist"Iogicotthe
martyr's wish to die is aIready here, in the Qur'an-aIthough
,
otcourse, one has toIocate theprobIemin the contextotmod-
ernization. AsisweIIknown, the probIemot the IsIamicworIdis
that sinceitwas exposedtoWesternmodernizationabruptIy~
without adequate time to work through" the trauma ot its
impact,toconstructasymboIic-hctionaIspace orscreentorit~
the onIypossibIe reactions to this impact were eithera superh-
ciaImodernization, an imitation destinedto taiI (the regime in
Iranunder theShah) , or,withthetaiIureotthepropersymboIic
space othctions, a direct recourse to the vioIent ReaI, an out-
right warbetween IsIamic Truth and the Western Lie, with no
space torsymboIicmediation. Inthis tundamentaIist"soIution
(a modern phenomenon with no direct Iinks to MusIim tradi-
tions) , thedivinedimensionreassertsitseItinitssuperego-ReaI,
as a murderous expIosion otsacrihciaIvioIence requiredto pay
oh the obscenesuperegodivinity.
A turtherkeydistinctionbetweenJudaism(togetherwithits
Christiancontinuation)andIsIamturnsontheirrespectiveatti-
tudes to Abraham. Judaism chooses Abraham as the symboIic
tather,i . e. , adopts thephaIIicsoIutionotthepaternaIauthority,
ottheomciaIsymboIicIineage,discardingthesecondwoman,and
enactingaphaIIicappropriationottheimpossibIe"(I5J) .IsIam,
onthecontrary,optstortheIineageotHagar,torAbrahamasthe
bioIogicaI tather, maintaining the distance between tather and
Cod, andkeepingCodinthedomainottheImpossibIe(I4D) .
4 Otcourse,onecancIaimthataIreadyinGenesisthereisanimpIicitundermin-
ingotitsownomciaIideoIogyatwork,whereGodintervenestosaveHagar's
son,promisinghimagreatmture-Genesisdoes(a!so)takethesideotthe
otherwomanwhowasreducedtoaninstrumentotprocreation.
A C/nnce i nro rhe Archives o[ |s/nm
U
oth Judaism and IsIam repress their tounding gestures-
how7 As the story ot Abraham and his two sons by two dit-
terentwomenshows, inbothJudaismandIsIam,thetathercan
become tather, canassumethe paternaI tunction,onIythrough
themediationotaoorber woman. Freud'shypothesisis thatthe
repression in Judaism concerns the tact that Abraham was a
toreigner(an Egyptian), notaJew-itis the tounding paternaI
hgure, the onewho brings reveIationand estabIishes the cove-
nantwith Cod, thathas to cometromthe outside. WithIsIam,
therepressionconcernsawoman(Hagar, theEgyptiansIavewho
gaveAbrahamhishrstson) .aIthoughAbrahamandIshmaeI(the
progenitor otaII Arabs, according to the myth) are mentioned
dozensottimesintheQur'an,Hagargoesunmentioned,erased
trom the omciaI history. As such, however, she continues to
hauntIsIam,hertracessurvivinginrituaIs, IiketheobIigationot
thepiIgrims toMeccatorunsbtimesbetweenthetwo hiIIs ot
SataandMarwah, inakindotneuroticrepetition/reenactment
otHagar'sdesperatesearchinthedeserttorwatertorherson.
Here, trom Cenesis, is thestoryotAbraham's twosons, the
keyumbiIicaIIinkbetweenJudaismandIsIam-hrst, the birth
otIshmaeI.
Now Sarai, Abram'swite,hadnotgivenbirth to any
chiIdren, but she had an Egyptian servant named
Hagar.SoSaraisaidtoAbram,SincetheLordhaspre-
ventedmetromhavingchiIdren,havesexuaIreIations
withmyservant. Perhaps I canhaveatamiIybyher."
AbramdidwhatSaraitoIdhim.
So atterAbramhadIivedin Canaan tor tenyears,
Sarai,Abram'swite,gaveHagar, herEgyptianservant,
toherhusbandtobehiswite.HehadsexuaIreIations
with Hagar, and she became pregnant. Once Hagar
U
SIavoj

izek
reaIized she was pregnant, she despised Sarai. 1en
SaraisaidtoAbram, Youhavebroughtthiswrongon
me| IaIIowedmyservanttohavesexuaIreIationswith
you, butwhenshereaIizedthatshewaspregnant,she
despised me. May the Lord judge between you and
|

me.
Abram saidto Sarai, Since your servant isunder
your authority, do to her whatever you thinkbest."
1en Sarai treated Hagar harshIy, so she ran away
tromSarai.1eLord'sangeItoundHagarnearaspring
otwater in the desert-the spring that is aIong the
roadto Shur. Hesaid, Hagar, servantotSarai,where
have you come trom, andwhere are yougoing7" She
repIied,I'mrunningawaytrommymistress, Sarai."
1enthe Lord's angeI saidtoher, Return to your
mistress and submit to her authority. I wiII greatIy
muItipIy your descendants," the Lord's angeI added,
sothattheywiIIbetoonumeroustocount."1enthe
Lord's angeI said to her, You are nowpregnant and
areabouttogivebirth toa son.Youaretonamehim
IshmaeI, tor the Lord has heardyourpaintuI groans.
HewiIIbeawiIddonkeyotaman.HewiIIbehostiIeto
everyone,andeveryonewiIIbehostiIetohim. HewiII
Iiveawaytromhisbrothers."
So Hagar namedthe Lord who spoke to her, You
are the Codwho sees me," tor she said, Here I have
seenthe one who sees me| "1at is why the weIIwas
caIIed eer Lahai Roi. (It is Iocatedbetween Kadesh
andered. )
SoHagargavebirth toAbram's son, whomAbram
namedIshmaeI. (CenesisI5. I-I5)
A C/nnce inro rhe Archives o[ |s/nm

_
tter
the miracuIousbirth otIsaac (whose immacuIate concep-
ti
on
seems to point torward to Christ-Cod visited Sarah"
and
made her pregnant) , when the chiId was oId enough to be
weaned,Abrahampreparedagreatteast.
utSarahnoticedthesonotHagartheEgyptian-the
son whom Hagar had borne to Abraham-mocking.
So she said to Abraham, anish that sIave woman
andherson, torthe son otthatsIavewomanwiIInot
beanheiraIongwithmysonIsaac| "
Sarah'sdemanddispIeasedAbrahamgreatIybecause
IshmaeI was his son. ut Codsaid toAbraham, Do
notbeupsetabouttheboyoryour sIave wite. DoaII
that Sarah is teIIingyou because through Isaacyour
descendantswiIIbecounted. utIwiIIaIsomakethe
sonotthesIavewiteintoagreatnation,torheisyour
descendanttoo."
EarIy in the morning Abraham took some tood
anda skin otwaterandgave them toHagar. Heput
them on her shouIders, gave herthechiId, andsent
her away. So she went wandering aimIessIy through
thewiIderness oteerSheba.Whenthewaterin the
skinwas gone, she shovedthe chiIdunder one otthe
shrubs. 1en shewentandsatdownbyherseItacross
tromhimat quite a distance, aboutabowshotaway,
tor she thought, I retuse to watch the chiId die." So
shesatacrosstromhimandweptuncontroIIabIy.
ut Cod heard the boy's voice. 1e angeI ot Cod
caIIedto Hagartromheavenandaskedher, Whatis
thematter,Hagar7Don'tbeatraid,torCodhasheard
theboy'svoicerightwhereheis crying. Cet up| HeIp
theboyupandhoIdhimbythehand,torIwiIImake

SIavoj

izek
himinto agreatnation." TenCodenabIedHagarto
seeaweIIotwater. ShewentoverandhIIedthe skin
withwater, and then gave the boya drink. (Cenesis
2I. I0-ID)
InCaIatians, PauIprovidestheChristianversionotthestory
o
t
Abraham,Sarah,andHagar.
TeIIme,youwhowanttobeundertheIaw, doyounot
understand the Iaw7 For it is written thatAbraham
hadtwosons, onebythesIavewomanandtheotherby
thetreewoman. utone,thesonbythesIavewoman,
wasbornbynaturaIdescent,whiIetheother, theson
by the tree woman, was born through the promise.
1esethings maybetreatedasanaIIegory, tor these
womenrepresenttwo covenants. OneistromMount
SinaibearingchiIdrentorsIavery, thisisHagar.Now
Hagar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia and corre-
spondstothepresentJerusaIem,torsheisinsIavery
withherchiIdren. uttheJerusaIemaboveistree, and
sheisourmother. Foritiswritten.Rej oice,Lbarren
womanwho does notbearchiIdren,breaktorth and
shout,youwhohavenobirthpains,becausethechiI-
drenotthedesoIatewomanaremorenumerousthan
those ot the woman who has a husband." ut you,
brothers andsisters, are chiIdren otthe promise Iike
Isaac. ut just as at that time the one born by nat-
uraIdescentpersecutedtheonebornaccordingtothe
Spirit, so itis now. utwhat does the scripture say7
Trow out thesIave woman andher son,tortheson
otthesIavewomanwiIInotsharetheinheritancewith
the son otthe tree woman." Teretore, brothers and
A C/nnce i nro rhe Archives o[ |s/nm
sisters,wearenotchiIdrenotthesIavewomanbutot
thetreewoman. (CaIatians4. 2I-JI)
IIJ
PauIstageshere a cIearsymmetricaIcontrontation. Isaacversus
IshmaeIequaIsthesymboIictather(Name-ot-the-Father)versus
th
ebioIogicaI(raciaI)tather,theoriginthroughnameandspirit
versus origin through substantiaI transmission ot Iite" (I47) ,
ch
iId otthe tree womanversus chiId otthe sIave, chiId otspirit
versuschiIdotesh. 1is reading, however, has tosimpIi|the
bibIicaInarrativeon(atIeast)threecruciaIpoints.
(I) Cod's obvious care tor Hagar and IshmaeI, his
interventiontosaveIshmaeI'sIite.
(2)1eextraordinarycharacterizationotHagarasnot
simpIy a woman otesh andIust, a worthIess sIave,
but as the one who sees Cod (So Hagar named the
Lord who spoke to her, `You are the Cod who sees
me,' torshesaid,`Here I have seentheonewho sees
me| "` ) . HagarastheexcIudedsecondwoman, outside
thesymboIicgeneaIogy,standsnotonIytorthepagan
(Egyptian)tertiIityotLite,butaIsotoradirectaccess
toCod-sheseesCodhimseItseeing,whichwasnot
giveneventoMoses, towhomCodhadtoappearasa
burningbush. Assuch,HagarannouncesthemysticaI/
teminineaccessto Cod (deveIopedIaterinSuhsm) .
(J) 1e (not onIy narrative) tact that the choice
(between esh and spirit) cannot ever be contronted
directIy, as a choice between the two simuItaneous
options. ForSarahtohaveason,Hagarhashrsttohave
hers, i. e. , there is a necessity ot succession, otrepeti-
tion, here,asit,inorderto choosespirit,wehrsthave
to chooseesh-onIythe secondson can be the true
II4
SIavoj

izek
son ot spirit. Tis necessity is what symboIic castra-
tion is about. castration" means that direct access to
TruthisimpossibIe-as Lacanputit, |a vr/r sarg/r de
|a mpr/se, thewayto Spiritis onIythrough FIesh, etc.
RecaII HegeI's anaIysis otphrenoIogywhich cIosesthe
chapteronObservingReason"inhisPbeoomeoo|og oj
5p/r/r. HegeIresortsheretoametaphorwhichconcerns
preciseIythephaIIus,the organotpaternaIinsemina-
tion,inordertoexpIaintheoppositionotthetwopos-
sibIereadings otthepropositiontheSpiritis abone"
(the vuIgar materiaIist reductionist" reading-the
shape otoursku ehectiveIy and directIy determines
the teatures ot a man's mind-and the specuIative
reading-theSpiritisstrongenoughtoassertitsiden-
titywith the most inert stuhand to subIate" it, i. e. ,
even the most inert stuh cannot escape the Spirit's
power ot mediation) . Te vuIgar materiaIist reading
isIikethe approachwhichsees intheph usonIythe
organoturination,whiIethespecuIativereadingisaIso
abIetodiscerninitthemuchhighermnctionotinsem-
ination (i. e. , preciseIy conception" as the bioIogicaI
anticipationottheconcept) .
Te depth which the Spirit brings torth
trom within-but onIy as tar as its pic-
ture-thinking consciousness where it Iets
it remain-and the ignorance otthis con-
sciousness about what it reaIIy is saying,
are the same conjunction ot the high and
the Iowwhich, in the Iiving being, Nature
naiveIy expresses when it combines the
organ otits highest tuIhIIment, the organ
A C/nnce i nro rhe Archives o[ |s/nm
otgeneration,withthe organ oturination.
Te inhnitejudgment, quainhnite, wouId
bethetuIhIImentotIitethatcomprehends
itseIt, the consciousness ot the inhnite
judgment that remains at the IeveI otpic-
ture-thinkingbehavesasurination.

AcIosereadingotthispassagemakesi tcIearthatHegeI'spointi s
oor that,i ncontrasttothevuIgarempiricistmindwhichseesonIy
urination,theproperspecuIativeattitudehastochooseinsemi-
nation. TeparadoxisthattochooseinseminationdirectIyisthe
intaIIibIewayto missit. itis notpossibIe to choosedirectIythe
truemeaning", onebas tobeginbymakingthe wrong" choice
(ot urination)-the true specuIative meaning emerges onIy
through therepeatedreading,astheatter-ehect (orby-product)
otthehrst, wrong,"reading. . . as, we mayadd, Sarahcanhave
herchiIdonIyatterHagarhashadhers.
Where,preciseIy, iscastrationhere7PriortoHagar'sentryon
thescene,Sarah,thephaIIic-patriarchaIwoman,remainsbarren,
intertiIe, preciseIy because she is too powertuI/phaIIic, so the
oppositionisnotsimpIytheoppositionotSarah,tuIIysubmitted
tophaIIic-patriarchaIorder,andHagar,independentandsubver-
sive, it is inherent to Sarah herseIt, in her two aspects (phaIIic
arrogance,maternaIservice) . Itis SarahherseItwho is toopow-
ertuIandbossy,whohastobehumiIiatedthroughHagarinorder
to receive a chiId and thereby enter the patriarchaI geneaIogic
order. Tis castration others is signaIed through the change ot
hername, trom Sarai to Sarah. Is notAbraham, however, aIso
castrated7 With Hagar, he i s abIe to conceive a chiId directIy/
bioIogicaIIy, but outside the proper geneaIogy ot the symboIic
5 G. W. F. HegeI,Phenomeno/og o[ Sirit(Oxtord.OxtordUniversiqPress,i977),
2i0.
b
SIavoj

izek
Iineage, conception within thatIineage becomes possibIe on
Iy
through the externaIintervention ot Cod, who visits Sarah"~
thisgapbetweensymboIicandbioIogicpaternity/s castration.
1e choice within IsIam ot Hagar, the independent seer o
t
Cod, over the dociIe housewite Sarah, provides the hrst hin
t
otthe insumciencyotthe standard notion otIsIam, that ot
an
extreme mascuIine monotheism, a coIIective ot brothers trop
which women are excIuded and have to be veiIed, since their
monstration" isas such excessive, disturbing orprovocative to
men, divertingthemtromtheirservicetoCod. RecaIItheridicu-
Ious TaIibanprohibition otmetaI heeIs tor women-as it, even
when entireIy covered with cIoth, the cIicking sound ot their
heeIs wouId stiII provoke men . . . 1ere is, however, a whoIe
seriesotteatureswhichdisturbthisstandardnotion.
First, the need to keep women veiIed impIies an exrreme|y
sexaa|/zed universe in which the very encounterwith a woman
is a provocation that no man wiII be abIe to resist. Repression
has to be so strong because sex itseItis so strong-whatkind
ota society is this in which the cIick ot metaI heeIs can make
men expIodewithIust7AccordingtoanewspaperreportacoupIe
otyears ago, anunreIatedyoungwoman andmanweretrapped
tora coupIeothoursinawire-gondoIawhenthemachinebroke
down. AIthough nothing happened, the woman kiIIed herseIt
atterward. the very tact otbeing aIone with a toreign man tor
hours had renderedthe idea that nothinghappened"unthink-
abIe. No wonder that, in the course ot anaIyzing the tamous
5 Whatseems tocharacterizetheMusIimsymboIicspaceisanimmediateconha-
tionotpossibiIityandactuaIity.whatismereIypossibIeistreated(reacted
against)asititactuaIIytookpIace.AttheIeveIotsexuaIinteraction,whena
manhndshimseItaIonewithawoman,itisassumedthattheopportunitywas
taken,thatthe sexuaIacttookpIace. AttheIeveIotwriting,thisiswhyMus-
IimsareprohibitedtousetoiIetpaper.itmay have been thatversesotQur'an
werewrittenorprintedonit
A C/nnce i nro rhe Archives o[ |s/nm
7
Sign
oreIIi" dreaminhisPsycboparbo|ogy oj Everyday L/je, Freud
r
ep
ortsthatitwasanoIdMusIimtromosniaandHerzegovina
hoimpartedtohimthe wisdom" otthenotionthatsexis the
on
Iy
thingthatmakesIiteworthIiving.OnceamanisnoIonger
bIe
tohave sex, theonIythingthatremainsistodie."
Second,thereistheverypre-historyotIsIam,inwhichHagar,
th
ough unmentioned in the Qur'an, is the primordiaI mother
otaIIArabs,pIusthestoryotMuhammadhimseIt, with Khadija
(his hrst wite) as the one who enabIed him to drawthe Iine ot
separation between truth and Iie, between the messages trom
angeIsandthosetromdemons. Tereare caseswherethedivine
messages Muhammad received come dangerousIy cIose to seIt-
servingtabrications,thebest-knownamongthembeinghismar-
riagewithZaynab,hisadoptedson Zayd'swite.Atterseeingher
haIt-naked, Muhammad began to covet her passionateIy, atter
Zaydbecameawareotit,hedutituIIyrepudiated"(divorced)her,
so that his steptather couId move in and marry her. Untortu-
nateIy, under customaryArabIaw, such aunionwasprohibited,
but-surprise, surprise| -Muhammad soon received a timeIy
reveIation in which AIIah exempted Muhammad trom the Iaw
(Qur'an JJ. J7, JJ. 50) . Tere is even an eIementotthe Ur-varer
in Muhammad here, otthe tather hgure who possesses aII the
womeninhisIargetamiIy.
However, a good argument tor Muhammad's basic sincerity
is that he himseIt was the hrst to doubt radicaIIy the divine
nature othis visions, dismissingthemas haIIucinatory signs ot
madness oras cases otdemonicpossession. HishrstreveIation
occurredduringhis Ramadanretreatoutside Mecca. he sawthe
archangeI CabrieI, caIIing upon him to Recite| " (Qar', whence
Qaro) . Muhammad thought he wasgoing mad, andsince he
didn'twant tospendtherestothisIite as Mecca's viIIage idiot,
preterring death to disgrace, he decided to throw himseIttrom
IIB
SIavoj

izek
ahighrock. utthenthevisionrepeateditseIt. heheardavoice
trom above saying. L Muhammad| 1ou art the apostIeotCo
d
andIamCabrieI."uteventhisvoicedidnotreassurehim,so
he
sIowIyreturnedtohishouseand, indeep despair,askedKhadija,
his hrstwite (asweIIas the hrstbeIiever inhim) . Wrap me in
a bIanket, wrap me up in abIanket." Shewrappedhim up, and
Muhammad toId her what had happened to him. My Iite is in
danger." KhadijadutituIIysoIacedhim.
When,duringthe toIIowingvisions otthe archangeI CabrieI,
Muhammad'sdoubtspersisted, Khadijaaskedhimto noti|her
when his visitant returned, so that they couId veri| whether
itreaIIywas CabrieI oran ordinary demon. So, the next time,
Muhammad said to Khadij a. 1is is CabrieI who has just
come tome." KhadijarepIied. Cet up andsitbymyIettthigh."
Muhammaddidso, andshesaid.Canyouseehim7"Yes."1en
turn round andsit onmy rightthigh." He did so, andshe said.
Can you see him7" When he saidthathe couId, Khadija asked
himtomoveandsitonherIap,and,atterdiscIosinghertormand
casting aside her veiI, asked again. Can you see him7" And he
repIied. No." She then comtortedhim. Rejoiceandbeotgood
heart,heisanangeIandnotaSatan."(1ereisaturtherversion
otthisstoryinwhich,inthehnaItest,KhadijanotonIyreveaIed
herseIt,butmadeMuhammadcome inside hershitt" penetrate
her sexuaIIy] , and thereupon CabrieI departed. 1e underIying
assumption is that, whiIe a IusttuI demon wouId have enjoyed
the sight otcopuIation, an angeIwouIdpoIiteIywithdrawtrom
the scene. )OnIyatter Khadijahadprovidedhim with this proot
otthegenuinenessothismeetingwithCabrieIwasMuhammad
curedothisdoubtsandabIetoembarkuponhiscareeras Cod's
spokesman. '
7 TeonIyIateroccasiononwhichdemonicinterventionspoiIshisvisionsisthe
tamous episode otthe "Satanicverses."
A C/nnce i nro rhe Archives o[ |s/nm
IIJ
Muhammad thus hrst experienced his reveIations as signs
ot poetic haIIucinations-his immediate reaction to them was.
Now none ot Cod's creatures was more hatetuI to me than
an
ecstatic poet or a man possessed." Te one who saved him
tr
om this unbearabIe uncertainty, as weII as trom the tate ot
beingasociaIoutcast,wasKhadij a, thehrstbeIieverinhismes-
sage, the hrst MusIim, and a womao. In the above scene, she
isthe Lacanian bigOther," the guarantee ottheTruth otthe
subj ect's enunciation, anditis onIybyway otthis circuIarsup-
port, through someonewho beIieves in him, that Muhammad
can beIieve in his own message and thus serve as a messenger
otTruthto beIievers. eIietis never direct. in ordertor me to
beIieve, somebody eIsehas to beIieve in me, andwhatI beIieve
inisthisothers'beIietinme. RecaIItheproverbiaIdoubttuIhero
or Ieader, who, though himseIt desperate, tuIhIIs his mission
becauseothers(histoIIowers)beIieveinhim,andhecannotbear
theprospectotdisappointingthem. Isthereastrongerpressure
than thatwe experiencewhen an innocent chiIdIooks into our
eyesandsays. utIbeIieveinyou"7
Years ago, some teminists (in particuIar Mary Ann Doane)
accusedLacan otpriviIegingmaIedesire. onIymen can tuIIy or
directIydesire,whiIe women canonIy desire to desire, hysteri-
caIIy imitate desire. With regard to beIiet, we can turn things
around. women beIieve, whiIe men beIieve those who beIieve
in them. Te underIying topic is here that otthe ooer per/r a.
theotherwhobeIievesi nme"seesinmesomethingmorethan
myseIt, somethingotwhichImyseItamnotaware,theooer 0 in
8 I oncehadadream,theusuaIdisgustingIyseIt-induIgentoneaboutgetting
somebigprize, myinitiaIreaction,in rhe dream, wasthatthiscoudnotbetrue,
thatitwasonIyadream,therestotthedreamthenconsistedotmy(uItimateIy
successtuI) ehorttoconvncemyseIt,bywayotpointingtoaseriesotindica-
tions, thatitwasnotjustadream,butreaIity-theinterpretive taskhereisto
discoverwhowasthewomanhiddeninthedream,whowasmyKhadija.
I2
SIavoj

izek
me. AccordingtoLacan,womenaretormenreducedtotheober
a. utwhatitit is the otherwayaround7Whatitamandesires
hisobj ectotdesire, unawareotthecause thatmakeshimdesire
it,whiIeawomanismoredirectIytocusedonthecauseotdesire
(ober a)7
1is teature shouId be given aII its due. a woman possesses
aknowIedgeaboutthe truth which precedes even theprophet's
own knowIedge. What turther compIicates the picture is the
precisemode otKhadija's intervention. the way she was abIeto
draw the Iine between truth andIie, between divine reveIation
anddemonicpossession,byparr/og jorward orerpos/og berse|[
ber d/sc|osed body, as rbe aorrarb embod/ed, as a temptation to a
true angeI. Woman. a Iiewhich, at its best, knows itseItasaIie
embodied. Opposite otSpinoza, torwhom truthis its own and
theIie'sindex-heretheIieisits ownandtruth'sindex.
1is is how Khadija's demonstration ot truth is achieved
through her provocative monstration" (discIosure, exposure)
(27) . One thus cannot simpIyopposethe good" IsIam (rever-
ence otwomen) and the bad" IsIam (veiIedoppressedwomen),
and thepointis not simpIy toreturnto the repressedteminist
origins" ot IsIam, to renovate it in its teminist aspect by way
ot this return. these repressed origins are simuItaneousIy the
very origins ot the repression otwomen. Repression does not
just repress the origins, it has to repress /rs owo origins. 1e
keyeIementtorthegeneaIogyotIsIamis thissIippagebetween
the woman as the onIyonewho canveri|Truth itseItandthe
womanwhobyhernatureIacksreasonandtaith,whocheatsand
Iies and provokes men, interposing herseItbetween them and
Ood as a disturbing stain, andwho theretore has to be erased,
renderedinvisibIeandcontroIIed,sinceherexcessiveenj oyment
threatenstoenguItmen.
WomanassuchisanontoIogicaIscandaI,herpubIicexposure
A C/nnce i nro rhe Archives o[ |s/nm
I2I
is anahront to Cod. Shei snotsimpIy erased, but re-admitted
in a cIoseIy controIIeduniversewhosetantasmatic toundations
are most cIearIy discernibIe in the myth ot the eternaI virgin.
the
(in)tamous boar/s, the virgins awaiting martyrs in Paradise
ho
never Iose their virginity, since atter every penetration
theirhymenismagicaIIyrestored. Tetantasyisherethatotthe
un
divided and undisturbedreign otthe phaIIicoa/ssaoce, ot a
universein which aII traces otthe teminine aarre oa/ssaoce are
erased (255-5) . Te protoundestreaction ota MusIim woman,

hen askedwhyshewears a veiIvoIuntariIy, is to saythat she

doessooutothershameintrontotCod,"inordernottoohend
Cod. thereis, in a woman's exposure, an erectiIeprotuberance,
an obsceneIy intrusive quaIity, and this combination otvisuaI
intrusion and an enigmatic knowIedge is expIosive, disturbing
theveryontoIogicaIbaIanceottheuniverse.
Sohowareweto read, againstthis background, administra-
tive measures Iike the French State's prohibition on MusIim
womenwearingtheveiIin schooIs7Teparadoxis doubIehere.
First, the Iawprohibits somethingwhich it, too, quaIihes as an
erective exposure, a too-strong-to-be-permissibIe sign ot one's
identitythatperturbstheFrenchprincipIeotegaIitariancitizen-
ship-wearingaveiIis,tromthisFrenchrepubIicanperspective,
aIso a provocative monstration." Te second paradox is that
wbar rb/s 5rare prob/b/r/oo prob/b/rs /s prob/b/r/oo /rse|j (2I5), and,
perhaps, this prohibition is the most oppressive otthem aII-
why7 ecause itprohibits the very teature that constitutes the
(soco-institutionaI) /deor/ry otthe other. itde-institutionaIizes
this identity, changing it into an irreIevant personaI idiosyn-
crasy. What suchprohibiting otprohibitions creates is a space
ot universaI Man tor whom aII diherences (economic, poIitic,
reIigious, cuIturaI,sexuaI. . . )areindiherent,amatterotcontin-
gentsymboIicpractices, etc. Isthis spacereaIIygender-neutraI7
I22
SIavoj

izek
No-butnotinthesenseotthesecrethegemonyotmaIephaI-
Iocentric"Iogic. on the contrary, the space without aIegitimate
outside, the space not markedbyany cut which draws aIin
e
ol
incIusion/excIusion, is a teminine" non-AII, and as such anaII-
encompassingspace,aspacewithnooutside,inwhichweareaII
Iocatedwithin a kind ot absoIute temininity, a Woman-WorId"
(2I7) embracingus aII. Inthis universe, with its prohibitionol
prohibition,thereisnoguiIt,butthisabsenceotguiItispaidtor
byanunbearabIeriseotanxiety. Te prohibitionotprohibitions
is a kind otgeneraI equivaIent" otaIIprohibitions, a universaI
andtherebyuniversaIizedprohibition,aprohibitionotaIIactuaI
otherness. toprohibittheother'sprohibitionequaIsprohibiting
his or her otherness (2I5) . Terein resides the paradox otthe
toIerant muIticuIturaIist universe otthe muItitude otIitestyIes
andotheridentities. themoreitistoIerant,themoreitisoppres-
siveIyhomogeneous. MartinAmisrecentIyattackedIsIamasthe
mostboringotaII reIigions,with its demandthatbeIieversper-
tormagainandagainthesamestupidrituaIsandIearnbyheart
the same sacredtormuIas-hewas deepIywrong. itis muIticuI-
turaItoIeranceandpermissivenesswhichstandtorreaIboredom.
acktotheroIeotwomeninthepre-historyotIsIamand,one
shouId add, the story ot Muhammad's own conception, where
westumbIeagainuponamysteriousbetween-the-two-women."
Atterworking the cIay on his Iand, AbdaIIah, the tather-to-be,
wenttothehouseotanotherwomanandmadeadvancestoher,
shewaswiIIingbutputhimohonaccountotthecIaythatwason
him. AtterIeavingherandwashinghimseIt, hewenttohiswite
Amina and had intercourse with her-thus Amina conceived
Muhammad. AbdaIIah thenwentbackto the otherwoman and
asked her it she was stiII wiIIing, she repIied. No. When you
passedbymetherewasawhiteIightbetweenyoureyes. I caIIed
toyouandyourej ectedme.YouwenttoAminaandshehastaken
A C/nnce i nro rhe Archives o[ |s/nm
I2J

aytheIight. "TeomciaIwitegetsthechiId,theotherknows-
she
se
es in AbdaIIah more than AbdaIIah himseIt, the Iight,"
so
me
thinghe has withoutknowing it, somethingthatisinhim
more
than himseIt (the sperm that wouIdbeget the Prophet) ,
ndi t
i sthisober a thatgeneratesherdesire.AbdaIIah'sposition
isIiketheoneottheheroinadetectivenoveIwhoaIIotasudden
hnds himseIt persecuted, even threatenedwith death because
heknows somethingthatcanputabigcriminaIindanger, even
though he himseIt (or she-it is more otten a woman) doesn't
knowwhatthisis.AbdaIIah,inhisnarcissism,contusesthisober
a inhimseItwithhimseIt(he contuses the obj ectand the cause
otthewoman'sdesire) ,whichiswhyhereturnstoheratterward,

rongIyassumingthatshewiIIstiIIdesirehim.
Tis reIiance on the teminine (and on the toreign woman at
that)isIsIam'srepressedtoundation,itsun-thought,thatwhichit
endeavorstoexcIude,toeraseoratIeastcontroIthroughitscom-
p
IexideoIogicaIedihce,butwhichpersistsinhauntingit, sinceit
istheverysourceotitsvtaIity.Why, then,iswomansuchatrau-
maticpresencetor IsIam, such an ontoIogicaI scandaI thatithas
tobeveiIed7TetrueprobIemisnotthehorrorottheshameIess
exposureotwhatIiesbeneaththeveiI,but,rather,thenatureotthe
veiIitseIt. OneshouIdIinkthisteminineveiIwithLacan'sreading
ottheanecdoteaboutthecompetitionbetweentwopaintershom
ancient Creece, Zeuxis and Parrhasius, over who wiII paint the
moreconvincingihusion.'ZeuxisproducedsuchareaIisticpicture
otgrapes thatbirds were Iuredinto pickingat it. ut Parrhasius
wonbypaintingacurtainonthewahothisroom,soreaIisticthat
Zeuxis,whenParrhasiustookhimtoseethepainting,asked. OK,
nowpIeasepuIIasidetheveiIandshowmewhatyoupainted| "In
Zeuxis's painting, the iIIusionwasso convincing that theimage
9 SeeJacgues Lacan, Ue Four Fundamenra/ Concers o[ Psycho-Ana/ysis (Harmond-
sworth. Penguin ooks,i979),i0J.
I24
SIavoj

izek
wastentorthereaIthing, inParrhasius'spainting,theiIIusion
residedintheverynotionthatwhatweseeintrontotusisjust
veiIcoveringupthehiddentruth.1isisaIsohow,torLacan,temi-
nine masquerade works. shewears a maskto make us react Iike
Zeuis intront otParrhasius's painting-OK, par dowo rbe m
ask
aod sbow as wbar yoa rea||y are| 1ings arehomoIogous in Shake-
speare'sAs Yoa L/ke |r, inwhich OrIando taIIspassionateIyinIove
with RosaIindwho, in order to testhis Iove, disguisesherseItas
Canymede and, now as amaIe companion, interrogates OrIando
abouthisIove. SheeventakesonthepersonaIityotRosaIind(ina
redoubIedmasking,shepretendstobeCanymedepIayingatbeing
RosaIind) andpersuadesherhiend CeIia (disguisedasAiena) to
marrytheminamockceremony. Inthisceremony, RosaIindIiter-
aIIyteignstoteigntobewhatsheis. truthitseIt, inordertowin,
has to be sraged in a redoubIed deception. We can thus imagine
OrIando,atterthemockweddingceremony, turningtoRosaIind-
Canymede andteIIingher. YoupIayed RosaIind soweIIthatyou
aImostmademebeIieveyouwereher,youcannowreturntowhat
youareandbe Canymedeagain."
It is not anaccidentthatthe agents otsuch doubIe masquer-
ades are aIways women. whiIe a man can onIy pretend to be a
woman, onIy a woman can pretend to be a man who pretends
tobe awoman, as onIyawoman canprereod ro be wbar sbe /s (a
woman) . To accounttorthis specihcaIIyteminine status otpre-
tending, Lacanretersto a ve/|ed womanwhowearsa conceaIed
take penis in order to evoke the idea that she is the phaIIus.
Such is woman conceaIed behind herveiI. it is the absence ot
thepenisthatmakesherthephaIIus, theobj ectotdesire. Bvoke
thisabsenceinamoreprecisewaybyhavingherwearacutetake
oneunderatancydress, andyou, orrathershe,wiII have pIenty
A C/nnce inro rhe Archives o[ |s/nm
I25
to
teII us about. "' Te Iogic here is more compIex than it may

pp
ear.itis not mereIythattheobviousIytakepenis evokesthe
bsence otthe reaI" penis. Ina strictparaIIeIwithParrhasius's
p
ainting,theman'shrstreactionuponseeingthecontoursotthe
t
ke penis is. Take this ridicuIous take ohandshowme what
you'vegotbeneath| "Temantherebymisseshowthetakepenis
is
thereaIthing.the phaIIus"thatthewomanis istheshadow
generatedbythetake penis, i . e. , thespecterotthenon-existent
reaI" phaIIus beneaththecover otthetake one. Inthisprecise
sense, the teminine masquerade has the structure otmimicry,
since,torLacan,inmimicryI donotimitatethe image Iwantto
mimic, but thoseteatures otthe image which seemto indicate
thatthere is some hiddenreaIitybehindit. As withParrhasius,
Idonotimitatethegrapes, buttheveiI. MimicryreveaIssome-
thinginsotarasitis distincttromwhatmightbecaIIedan/rse|j
thatisbehind."''Te status otthephaIIus itseItis thatotmim-
icry.TephaIIusisuItimateIyakindotstainonthehumanbody,
anexcessiveteaturewhichdoesnothtthebodyandtherebygen-
eratestheiIIusionotanotherhiddenreaIitybehindtheimage.
And this brings us back to the tunction otthe veiI in IsIam.
Whatitthe true scandaIthisveiIendeavors to obtuscate is not
the temininebodyhiddenbeneath it,but the /oex/sreoce otthe
teminine7 What it, consequentIy, the uItimate tunction otthe
veiIis preciseIy to sustain the iIIusionthat there /s something,
the substantiaITing, behindtheveiI7It, toIIowing Nietzsche's
equation ot truth and woman, we transpose the teminine veiI
intotheveiIwhichconceaIstheuItimateTruth,thetruestakesot
theMusIimveiIbecomeevencIearer.Womanisathreatbecause
she stands tor the undecidabiIity" ottruth, tor a successionot
i0JacquesLacan,Ecrirs: A Se/ecrion, trans. ruceFink(NewYork.W. W. Norton&
Company, 2002),Ji0.
ii Lacan,Ue Four Fundamenra/ Concers oj PsychoAna/ysis, 99.
b
SIavoj

izek
veiIsbeneathwhichthereisnouItimatehidden core,byveiIin

her,wecreatetheiIIusionthatthere is,beneaththeveiI, thetep

-
inineTruth-thehorribIetruthottheteminineasIieanddecep-
tion, ot course. 1erein resides the conceaIed scandaI otIsIap
.
onIy a woman, the very embodiment ot the indiscernibiIity
ot
truth and Iie, can guarantee Truth. For this reason, she has
to
remainveiIed.
1isbringsusbacktoourearIiertopic. womanandtheOrien
t.
1etruechoiceisnotthatbetweentheNear-EastmascuIineIsIap
andtheFar-Eastmore teminine spirituaIity, butbetweentheFar
Eastern eIevation ot woman into the Mother-Coddess, the gen-
erative-and-destructive substance otthe WorId, and the MusIim
distrustotwomanwhich,paradoxicahy, inanegativewayrenders
much more directIy the traumatic-subversive-creative-expIosive
powerottemininesubjectivity.

VC DOOK Is
IKC a OIlICs3
CsH DCtaHC OIO
|unj cvic
l'm asr ao Amer/cao boy ra/sed oo M!\
Aod l've seeo a|| rbose k/ds /o rbe soda pop ads
8ar oooe oj'em |ooked |/ke me
5o l srarred |ook/o' aroaod jor a |/gbr oar oj rbe d/m
Aod rbe rsr rb/og l beard rbar made seose was rbe word
Oj Mobammad, peace be apoo b/m
A sbada /a /|aba /|/a A||ab
Uere /s oo Cod bar Cod
lj my daddy coa|d see me oow-cba/os aroaod my jeer
He doo'r aodersraod rbar somer/mes a mao
Has gor ro gbr jor wbar be be|/eves
Aod l be|/eve Cod /s grear, a|| pra/se dae ro b/m
Aod /j l sboa|d d/e, l'|| r/se ap ro rbe sky
Jasr |/ke Jesas, peace be apoo b/m
We came ro gbr rbe J/bad aod oar bearrs were pare aod srroog
As dearb ||ed rbe a/( we a|| oered ap prayers
Aod prepared jor oar marryrdom
i27
!2B
BorisCunj evic
8ar A||ab bad some orber p|ao, some secrer oor revea|ed
Now rbey're dragg/o' me back w/rb my bead /o a sack
!o rbe |aod oj rbe /ode|
A sbada |a /|aba /||a A||ab
A sbada |a /|aba /||a A||ab'
1ecartographersotEmpirewhodrattedthebordersottheworId
withhumanIivesandbarbedwireare notburdenedbyreadingor
printingbooks. ut they are made uncomtortabIe by unpredict-
abIe and dangerous readers whom Empire deIiberateIy tried to
make iIIiterate bycreating torthemaniIIusion otIiberty, human
rights,anddemocracy. One suchunusuaIreaderwasayoungman
withanordinaryname,JohnWaIkerLindh.HisIiteisdescribedby
Steve EarIe (whotoryearswashimseItonthemarginsottheIaw)
in the marveIous songJobo Wa|ker's 8|aes. JohnWaIker was the
AmericanTaIibanarrestedinAtghanistanatterabungIedattempt
atmartyrdom.InthestruggIeagainsthistormercountrymenand
theirahies, JohnWaIkerdidnotsucceedindyingtorP . What
irony|HewasraisedonMT\asthesongsays,andhavingheardthe
words otthe ProphetMuhammad(whichwas the hrst thingthat
had ever made sense to him), the young WaIker embracedIsIam
and readiIy responded to the caII otthe Atghanistan McJihad."
Instead otdyingin the struggIe againstthe inhdeIs, however,he
endedup shackIedin chains behindbarbedwire. TeCoodP a
had another pIan, known onIy to him, tor this unhappy young
man.Waerisaparadigmatichgure.HisunsuccesstuImartyrdom
conhrms what we have aIready Iearned trom Louis AIthusser.
1ereisnosuchthingasaninnocentreading,andeachotusmust
say what reading we are guiIty ot. 1is assertion otAIthusser's
l SteveEarIe,`JohnWaIker'sIues,"tromJerusa/em (ArtemisRecords,2002).
Lvery ook is Like n |orrress-|/esh ecnme Hord
!2J

p
p
Iies nowhere so aptIyasi tdoes toreading the Qur'an. I twe
deci
de
toreadtheQur'anasJohnWaIkerdidweexposeourseIves
to
m
uItipIe periIs. Notbecause theQur'ansanctions the reading
ot
dangerous"books suchas Ue 5arao/c \erses, My Name /s Red,
or
R
ead/og Lo|/ra /o !ebrao, butbecausethe Qur'anictextisaret-
erentiaI heId, a hermeneutic key, and a parameter sanctioning
d

ngerous readers. Whathappenswhenanon-MusIimreadsthe

Qur'an, as the Qur'anitseItbans non-MusIims trom readingthe
hoIy
text7OnIyitwepersistinoutingthisbancanweunderstand

hatwedidnotwishtoknow.PreciseIywhatwehaveIearnedto
denyserves as the RoyaIRoadtoourunderstanding. Everybook
is
Iike a tortress that cannotbeconqueredtrom without. Other-

isewewouIdhndsumcienttherequiredreadingassignedtousin
schooI.1ere canbenothinggainedtrom readingunderpressure.
Iteverybookisatortress,itmustbeconqueredtromwithin.there
mustbe adesiretomasterthetextbysubjective intention. OnIy
thatkindotreadingbecomes,andwesaythiswthatingeotwry
anachronism, a cIass struggIe. Hence readingis primardy a muI-
tipIetormotcommunication anda|ocas otideoIogic struggIes,
ashasreadybeenshownbyRoIandarthes. '
ItweventureonsuchareadinginthecontextotcIasswemust
2 Todaythepracticeotreadingembodiesareactiontotheterrorotthemedia.Te
roeot"mediaterror"withinEmpireisthreetoId.First,aconstantterrorizing
withimagesotvioIencedesignedtodestroyreadingandthinking. Second, the
terrorottheimagesystematicayunderminesandredehnesourpastbysaturat-
ingandinundatinguswithvastamountsotintormation,impossibIetoprocess.
Adthird,throughterrorizingbytheuseotvioIentimagestheintentionisto
permanentyinjectamnesiainadromo/ogca/ mannerinordertocreateavioIent
matruot"newtormsotiteracy"whichimposeiIIiteracyandcatatonia.InUe
Pracrice o[ Eveqdq Li[e, MicheIdeCerteauwritesthat"arthesdistinguished
threetypesotreading.theonethatstopsatthepIeasureahordedbywords,the
onethatrushes ontotheendand'taintswithexpectation,'andtheonethat
cutivatesthedesiretowrite. erotic,hunting,andinitiatorymodesotreading.
Tereareothers,indreams,battIe,autodidacticism,etc."(erkeIey.Universityot
CtorniaPress,i984),i75.
!J
BorisCunj evic
hnd aids andteIIowtraveIers to ease the scaIingotsuch textu
aI
tortresses. Mysuggestionhereisthat aids be toundtoheIpus
in
readingthe Qur'anictextIargeIybecausereadinginatime do
mi-
natedbytheimage"isnoIongersomethingdoneatIeisure,or
as
the priviIege ota ruIingminority, but as aneverydaypractice
ol
resistanceto the networked systems otpowerandcontroI.
Jis
iswhystrategiesotreadinghavebecomeatundamentaIcategory
otpoIiticaIstrategies. LetusstartwiththecaIItoreadtheQur'an
inSuraD5. I-5inordertopointtoapossibIestrategyotreading.
TisisaIsothehrstQur'anicsurathatwaspubIished.
ReadintheNameotyourLordWhohascreated
He has createdmantromacIot
Read|AndyourLordisthe MostCenerous
HeWhohastaught(writing)bythepen
Hehastaughtmanwhatheknewnot.
Te Qur'anic textinaparticuIarway both interiorizesandsum-
marizes the reading that is described here. SeemingIy, the text
intends to obstruct the universaI reading to which the reader is
caIIedbecausethe Qur'anistobeIearnedbyheart,internaIizedso
that itcan aIways be recited. Te word is onewith the book. Tat
iswhyweshouIdnotbesurprisedbythewordsotSuhAbuIQasim
Curganiwhocomparesmantothebook,assertingthatmanisthe
bookinwhichaLdivineandnaturaIbooks arej oined. yreading
the Qur'an andmemorizing it, the esh otthe textbecomes the
souI otthe reader. Te esh otthe text simuItaneousIybecomes
thewordandmodeIotcommunication. From this ittoIIows that
the substance ottheQur'anicmessageis exceptionaIIyimportant
itthereisanimperativetorreaderstomemorizethetext.AIthough
this caII is issuedonIy to MusIims,whydo we non-MusIims not
take seriousIyenough the caIItoreadthe Qur'an7 Ittornoother
Lvery ook is Like n |orrress-|/esh ecnme Hord
IJI
reason
,thensothatwedonotbungIeourIivesasJohnWaerdid,
q
e
do
notbecome a bomo S0C8l. Itis not enough to hide behind
one's
deteats seeking stupidjustihcations and cheap excuses by
in
voking kismet, a word that appears nowhere in the Qur'an, a
q
ord
inventedbyKarIMay,CermanauthorottheW/ooeroa series
otadventurenoveIssetintheAmericanOIdWest.
SomedaywhenwegetaroundtowritingageneogyotourtaiI-
ures, inadequacies, and disappointments, an important pIace in
sucha studyw be thebookswe never read, torwhatever reason.
Aside hom themusicwenever Iistened to, the moves wenever
q
atched,ortheoIdarchivesandmapsweneverexpIored,thebooks
wenever read w be one otthe indicators otour anachronisms
and our awed humanity. When our imagined detense systems
crumbIe and we are betrayed by our ow mechanisms otdeniaI,
onIythenw readingpreservethe dignityottheIoser. Is thisnot
intactthecasetodaywhenweseemtobehghtingabattIethathas
readybeenIost7ItwebeIieveweshomdbesavingwhatevercan
be saved,wemustacceptthereadingotthetextsweIove tohate.
TeQur'aniscertainIyone.SomeoneshomdvoIuntardyberespon-
sibIe tor reading and interpreting suchbooks. Tis is certainIy a
textwhichis toovaIuabIeanditshomdbetaken, Iiterahywrested,
hom the grip ot the mndamentaIists. Christian mndamentaIists
readtheQur'anictextasititwereaterrorismhandbook.Inreading
the Qur'an, IsIamic mndamentists meantohavemonochromatic
controIotthetext,andwiththeirIiteraI,superhci,uItra-modem
interpretations they intend to mutdate it, destroying the entire
bookintheprocess. Bverymndamentist,IiteraIreadingotatext
rebeIsagainstmodernism,butthisrebeIIionremainsIodgedwithin
theheIdotreterenceotthediscourseagainstwhichitrebeIs.Ahis-
toricexegesisottheQur' anisnotareIativizingotthemessageora
dangerousIungeateterntruths,itisanaidtacditatingthereading
eventorsomeonewhoisnotaMusIim.
IJ2
BorisCunj evic
AttheoutsetMaximeRodinsonmaybeotheIptous. Hereads
the Qur'anasbeing,withoutquestion,AIIah'sword,transmitting
the message ot downtrodden, despised, and battered human-
kind. Itisamessagetothosewhohavebeenthebuttotsinsand
who have, tuII otdehance, stoodup to subj ection and injustice.
Humankind has tound a cIearappeaI torj ustice and equaIity
in
themessageottheQur'an.PeopIehaveturnedthewordotsoIace
into a tooI to gird them in their struggIe against injustice. For
MusIimsaroundtheworIdwhobeIieve intheverbaIinspiration
otthe Qur'an, there can be no doubt. the Qur'an is a compIex
text which cannot be reduced to a mere struggIe ot the down-
trodden demandingaredistributionandimpIementationotjus-
tice. TeQur'anis morethanapoIiticaImanitestojustas IsIam
ismore thanareIigion. Codis notmadeeshasinChristianity,
but insteadhis word is made book. More poeticaIIy put, Cod's
word is book/ed. Tehrst sura ot the Qur'an, aI-Fatihah, is not
justaprayerpertormedbyan observantMusIimduringhishve
obIigatorydaiIyprayers, it aIso iIIuminates the substance otthe
Qur'an and speaks its message. In tact, in this third sura to be
pubIished,accordingtoIsIamicteachings,atterSurasD5and74,
IiestheessenceottheQur'an.
Praisebe toAIIah, LordottheWorIds.
Teenehcent,theMercituI.
MasterottheDayotJudgment.
Tee(aIone)weworship,Tee(aIone)weasktorheIp.
Showusthestraightpath.
TepathotthosewhomTouhasttavored,Not(thepath)
otthosewhoeTyangernorotthosewhogoastray.
Athough reminiscentotthe creed, the aI-Fatihah is IargeIya
sort otdoxoIogicaI hymn. Itwe are atter the IsIamic creed, we
Lvery ook is Like n |orrress-|/esh ecnme Hord
IJJ
m
u
stgototheShahada. TeShahadaisadecIarationottaithin
th
e
torm otan acknowIedgment with both an amrmative and
a
n
egative piece. Te Shahada and the aI-Fatihah are the cores
aboutwhichthe Qur'anic text speaks. In the Shahada decIara-
tionwe have a synthesis otthe whoIe IsIamictheoIogy otrev-
eIation and ot IsIamic practice. Tere is no god but Cod and
Muhammad is the messenger ot Cod." Tis tormuIamay seem
simpIe to us, who have neverbeen modern" as runo Latour
says,butthereisnothingmorecompIex. Tisiswhyaskingthe
right questions matters. A question that might be raised by
an unintormedreader otJorge Luis orges about the Prophet
MuhammadwouIdbenaIve onIyathrstgIance. ItMuhammad
themessengerisaprophet, as theQur'ansayshe is, whydidhe
not pertorm miracIes and why hadthe Torah andthe CospeIs
notprophesiedhiscoming7"TeanswerisDerridian.Uere /s oo
rrarb oars/de rbe rexr. TeanswerIiesinthebook. TeQur'anis
theprimordiaImiracIeotIsIam.TeproototMuhammad'sbeing
amessengeristhe miracuIous metaphysicaIbeautyotthebook
that Cod reveaIed to the prophet. ' Te Cod about whom the
Qur'an speaks is inehabIytranscendent. Bverythingis subordi-
J "[I]twasnotthecontentsottheQur'an,butitsIinguistictorm,thatMusIims
cametoIookuponassupernaturaIandtheretorecompIeteIyinimitabIe. God
speaksArabic,andGodnevermakesamistake.TeconseguencesotthisbeIiet
wereincaIcuIabIe.Grammar, rhetoric,andpoeticswereorientedtotheQur'an.
WhathadoncebeentheIanguageotanecstatic(whoIaterhadtoIegisIate
torhiscommunity),atextthathadbeenthoroughIyrearrangedinthe'Uth-
manrecension'andinmanycasesjoinedtogetherwithnothingmorethan
tragmentsandremnants,nowbecomesthesupremestyIisticnorm.Nowthe
Ianguagehadbeen hxedtoraIIeternity, itcouIdn'tchangeexcepttortheworse.
EventodaytheArabsarestruggIingwiththisdiIemma.TeyrevereaIanguage
thatmanyotthemhavenotpertectIymasteredandsomeotthemnotatq,
andtheyspeakdiaIectswhichtheycanviewonIyasthe resuIt otdecadence,
nototnaturaIgrowth."JosetvanEss, "MuhammadandtheQur'an.Prophecy
andReveIation,"inHansKng,JosetvanEss,HeinrichvonStietencron,Neinz
echert,eds. , Chrisrianiq and Wor/d Re/igions. Parhs ro Dia/oge, trans. Peter
Heinegg(NewYork.DoubIeday,i985),i5-i7.
IJ4
BorisCun] evic
nated tohis unquestioningwiII, andman is answerabIe to Co
d.
OnJudgment DayhewiIIbetakento account torhis deeds an
d
his misdeeds. To subordinate oneseItto Cod's wiIIis not aIway
s
easy because, in the history otIsIam, Cod's wiIIwas /ocaroared
toomanytimesinthepoIiticaIinstitutionotthe caIiphatewhose
voIuntarismbecameaIegaIcategorywithin whichthetuIIreaIity
otthe IsIamictheocraticstatewas interpretedandconstructed.
TisvoIuntaristicconceptuaIizationotreaIityhadvastrepercus-
sionstortheIiteottheindividuaI,his saIvation,andthepoIiticaI
reaIityottheIsIamiccommunity.LetusIeaveasidetoramoment
thecommonknowIedgewecanhndineverypopuIarbookabout
IsIam. Let us dweII instead on that which is otten torgotten or
deIiberateIyignored.
TeQur'angreatIypraiseshumanreason. AImostaneighthot
the Qur'an probIematizes thequestion otreason as juxtaposed
to tataIism-nothing more than a cheap and resigned excuse
torthosewhohavenotrecognizedandtakenadvantageottheir
chance. AIargesegmentottheQur'anisdedicatedtothetheme
otstudy. Itis more Iike the psaIms than the Pentateuch orthe
CospeIs. Qur'an IiteraIIy means recitaI, book, or even reading.
Recitingthe Qur'an is consideredthe most subtIe and supreme
artisticexpressioninIsIam. Withits II4 suras and52J5verses
the Qur'anictext does nothavethe obvious Iink to narrativity
thatthePentateuchhasor,torthatmatter, thepropheciesotan
Amos, a Jeremiah, oraJonah. Te Qur'anicsuras are simiIarin
parttosomeaspectsotthewisdomIiteratureintheHebrewibIe,
particuIarIytheookotProverbs. TerearesurasresembIingthe
ookotReveIation. ApocaIypticthemesarenotephemeraIinthe
Qur'anicmessage,noris Messianism-more pronounced inthe
Shi'iteinterpretation,particuIarIyin certain Shi'itemovements,
andinSuhsm.
Itweaspire to candor, the absenceotnarrative structure, the
Lvery ook is Like n |orrress-|/esh ecnme Hord
J5
unexpected repetitions, the impossibiIity otbringing the overIy
vergent themes together into a singIe whoIe, may conmse and
e
austeventhemostearnestreader.Ontheotherhand,thereare
manybranchings in the Qur'an. DiherentthemesoverIap thatare
reIatedinthemostunusuaIways.Ittornootherreason,itshouIdbe
readbecauseitsnon-IinearitycannotbeeasdyexpIained,itshomd
bereadtoritsIackotcohesion,toritsIackotacenter,torthecbrooo-
|og/ca| d/sorder oj rbe rexr. ItispreciseIythisquestionabIeandsuperh-
ciasymmetrythatwehoIdtobethemostinterestingandorigin
quaIityotthetext.Tatitisrepetitive,hagmented,disjointed,mat
it cannotbe reducedto the commondenominatorotabanand
obvious interconnection-these aspects are preciseIy what pro-
vokenon-MusIimreadersandbeckonthemtoexpIorethetext.1e
Qur'an proposes a rhizomatic modeI otreading, which means we
canapproachitbyreadingseIectiveIy,orinhagments,hommeend,
themidde,orthebeginning,withouteverIosingsightotthemain
message.Tis,otcourse,isbynomeansadrawbackoratamt,tome
contrary,itiswhatchaIIengesandmotivatesthereader.Teperspec-
tiveisaIwayscIearandunambiguous,anditreads.rbere /s oo god bar
Cod, aod Mabammad /s rbe messeoger oj Cod. utthe Qur'anictext
itseItincIudesotherperspectivesraisingthemesthatareotinterest
tous,otwhichStephenSchwartz,arecentconverttoIsIam,speaks.
SchwartzsuggeststhattheQur'anisaguidetoconductandasource
otIegwisdomwhichcan be dividedintotwocategories-those
dengwithotherreIigions(Sura5. 5I)andthosereIevantto/bad,
whichhas,ontheonehand,reintorcedthepositionandconviction
otapureIsIamicsocietyamongIsIamicmndamentstsotvarious
provenancesand,ontheomer,hasbeentakenbyIsIamophobes as
proototthe deep-seatedenmityharboredbyMusIims towards a
non-MusIims.
4 StephenSchwartz,Ue Two Faces o[ |s/am (NewYork.DoubIeday.2002),i8.
!J6
BorisCun] evic
AIthough there are Iess excIusive and more conciIiatoryatti-
tudestowardsothers"expressedintheQur'an,contrastingwith
thoseuponwhich Schwartzhaschosento remark, theIatterare
the themes most otten paraded to show the aggressive nature
otIsIam. ut Schwartz is onIypartiaIIy right. Te poIiticaI and
metaphysicaI compIexity otthe Qur'an cannot be reducedto a
tew keydisputes. Tere are many more such disputes. Tis is
a
tact conhrmed by IsIamic exegetics and phiIosophers, particu-
IarIy it one considers the very act ot transIating the Qur'anic
text tromArabic into one otthe Indo-Buropean Ianguages. Te
questionothermeneuticsandcommentaryonthe Qur'anopens
up scores ot new probIems about which the eminent osnian
schoIar, Bnes Karic,hasthetoIIowingtosay.
IsIamic schoIars are in agreement on one point. the
Qur'anisabookwhichisreadinseveo (or reo or joarreeo)
ways.MuhammadhimseItmadethispossibIeandheIped
hisearIytoIIowers (asb/b) understandtheQur'anictext.
TisdoesnotcontradictthetactthatIsIamicorthodo
doesnotquestion the iIIiteracyotthe IsIamicprophet.
Te scribes to whomhe dictated the reveIation otthe
Qur'anicsurastormorethantwentyyearsunderstood
that the Qur'an is a miracuIous document that is not
revea|eJcoocea|ed with a singIe vocization, a singIe
consonantaIization,asingIepunctuation.
It there are seven, or ten, or tourteen ways ot reading the
Qur'an,thencIearIytheremustbeatIeastseven,orten,ortour-
teen key" disputes, especiaIIy it the reader is a non-MusIim.
Tere wiII probabIy be a htteenth interpretation, a sixteenth,
5 EnesKaric,Hermeneurika Kur'ana (Zagreb. HrvatskohIozotskodrustvo,i990),
i27(transIationotguotationbyEIIenEIias-ursac).
Lvery ook is Like n |orrress-|/esh ecnme Hord
IJ7
ora seventeenthway toreadit. Readersbeware. Te Qur'an is
isotropicandthereisnosimpIereadingto Iead uswithoutpain
and
ehort to the pIeasure inreadingotwhich arthes speaks.
]e
Qur'anic text istartromany idyIIic notionthat itmightbe
readiIyunderstood. PreciseIybecauseitisdevoidotanyimposed
system and artihciaI spatiaI cohesion, theQur'anictextIeaves
us with muItipIe options tor reading and interpretation. Tis
is both a bIessing and a curse, depending onwho reads it and
to whatpurpose. Without a trace otWestern and Burocentric
ahectation Iet us say that the Qur'an is |/rera||y a postmodern
text. etorej umpingtoanyconcIusionswemustnottorgetthat
Muhammad was himseItiIIiterate. Tis is whyit is important
tobeawareotthe hnaIUthmanrecensionotthe Qur'anic text
whichbringstoanendthetormativeperiodottheIsIamiccom-
munity. Speaking ot constructing the IsIamic community as
apoIiticaIbody, HegeIprovides severaIimportantinsights inhis
Pb/|osopby oj H/srory. '
5 Uthman's group otschoIars,headedbyMuhammad'sscribeZaidibnTabit,
wasguidedbyaIogicaboutwhichreaderstoday,particuIarIynon-MusIims,can
onIysurmise. TosesuraswhichwerereveaIedtotheprophetatMecca,which
maketaithinasingIeGodtheirtheme,speakottheunityottheDivine,good
deeds, variousprophesies,andpromisetuturepeaceandserenity. TeMedina
reveIations,meanwhie,takeastheirthemehowthetaithtuIshouIddemon-
stratetheirgooddeeds,howgooddeedsaretobedone,howtodiscerngood
andeviandbehavetowardsman,howprosperitycomes,andhowtheprophe-
ciesaremIhI!ed.TisstructureinitsconsonantaItormisnodiherenttromthe
onethatUthmanreadpubIicIy. Itstextua!,rhythmiccoherenceIeavesnoroom
torchanges,additions, abbreviation,ortaIsihcationotanykind.Tebeautyot
theutteranceissuchthateventhosereaderswhoknownothingotArabiccan
appreciateit. Forthosewhoread(recite)theQur'aninArabicitisrichwith
rhyme,arehnedstyIe, anda simpIicityotexpression. TeQur'anisunigueand
thatiswhytheattemptismadetoreciteitoverandoveragain.Weneedn'tbe
theIeastbitworriedthat, oneday,wemayseeahImcaI!edUe Qurun Da vinci
Code.TereisnotasingIeMusIimintheworIdwhoinhisworstnightmare
couIddreamsuchanodiousdream. Caricaturists aretheirworstheadaches.
7 GeorgWiIheImFriedrichHegeI,Phi/osohy o[ Hisrory, trans.J. Sibree,(Kitch-
ener. atocheooks, I900).
!Jb
BorisCun] evic
TephenomenonotIsIamwasarevoIutionintheMiddIeEast
which cIeansed and enIightened the souI ot the Arabs with
an
abstractOne, makingitthe absoIutesubj ectotknowIedgean
d
the soIepurposeotreaIity. UnIikeJudaisminwhichJehovah
is
the oneCodotonepeopIe,the CodinIsIamisCodoteveryone.
Any particuIar race, any geneaIogy, aII caste distinction and
poIiticaIcIaimotbirthorpossession Iegitimizingthe primacy
otthe priviIegedvanishes. Te obj ectotIsIamicsubj ectivity is
pure adoration ot the One containing activity through which
aII that issecuIarmust be subjugatedtothe One. Teobj ectot
IsIamispureIyandvoIuntaristicaIIyinteIIectuaI,norepresenta-
tions orimages aretoIerated. IsIamis ruIedbyabstraction,the
obj ect otwhich is to earn the right to abstract service, this is
why earning this right toments such intense tervor. Abstract
and theretore aII-comprehensive enthusiasm, restrained by
nothing, hnding its Iimits nowhere, and absoIute indiherence
to aIIis at the core ottanaticism, as HegeI wouId instruct us.
Tis jaoar/c/sm tor abstract thought sustains a negative posi-
tion towards the estabIished order otthings . Itis the essence
ottanaticism to bearonIya desoIating destructive reIationto
theconcrete.
Theimage otIsIamas avioIentideoIogytranscendingthe-
oIogy,Iaw,andpoIiticscanbeinterpretedthrougheventsthat
happenedattertheprophet's death. Three otthetourcaIiphs
were pertidiousIy murdered by tormer teIIow adherents . Is
this not a serious intimation otthe vioIence inherent to the
IsIamiccommunityatitsorigins7HegeIconsiderssuchtanati-
cismcapabIeotanyeIevation, aneIevationtree tromaIIpetty
interests that appertain to the virtues ot magnanimity and
vaIor. The simpIe spirit otthe Arab edouins is an exceIIent
8 MuhammedKair,"HegeandIsam,"Ue Phi/osoher. 90. 2(2002),
http. //w .thephiosopher. co. uk/hege&isam.htm
Lvery ook is Like n |orrress-|/esh ecnme Hord
IJJ
h
ost
tor the tormIessness which worships the One, beIieves
in
it,
gives aIms, rej ects physicaI and raciaI particuIarities,
un
der
takespiIgrimages . ThisshouIdmeanthateveryMusIim
is
aw
are ot the nomadic disIike otaII particuIar possessions
in
th
is worId. This is what MusIims are Iike, says HegeI,
r
esem
bIing their prophet who is not above human traiIties.
AndpreciseIyas such Muhammadis a paradigmatic exampIe
torMusIimbeIievers, as HegeI remarks. A prophet yetstiII a
man, Muhammad succeeds with his powertuI exampIe and
authoritytoIegitimizeradicaImonotheism. Thesethoughtsot
HegeI's trom !be Pb/|osopby oj H/srory have become common
knowIedgewhenoneisconceptuaIizingIsIamandtheProphet
MuhammadtromaphiIosophicaIperspective. Longbetorethe
untortunate caricatures otthe ProphetMuhammad, a deepIy
rooted scorn smoIdered in the West towards any torm ot
IsIamicvaIues, towardseverythingIsIamic. The MusIimswere
not, otcourse, the onIy ones responsibIe tor this perception
otIsIam. Intheeighth century, JohnotDamascusinhisher-
ezioIogicaI studies presented IsIam as it it were yet another
Christian heresy. InternoIogist Dante pIaced the prophet/
messengerMuhammadandhiscousinAIi in the eighthcircIe
otheII,or, morepreciseIy,initsninth chasmwhereinwerethe
sowersotpoIiticaIandreIigiousdiscord.
WhiIsteagerIyIhonhimmygaze,
Heeyedme,withhishandsIaidhisbreastbare,
Andcried,NowmarkhowIdoripme. Io|
HowisMohammedmangIed.betoreme
WaIksAIiweeping,tromthechinhis tace
CIetttothetoreIock. . . '
9 DanteAighieri,Ue Divine Comedy, He//, trans. Rev. H.F. Cary(London.Casse
&CompanyLtd. , i892), XIII,28-Ji.
4
BorisCunj evic
Forstepping,spakeMohammed,ontheground
Tenh'dittodepart. '
IsIam(andits prophetswhohave meanwhiIe beencompIeteIy
identihed) has never stopped representing a threat to the
Christian West. Te same is thought ot IsIam today but on
Iy
right-wing extremists voice such Eurocentric things in pub
Iiz
.
IsIamisperceivedtobeadespotic,theocratic,vioIent, andaor/-
modero reIigion. Te quintessentiaI symboI ot tanaticaI and
primitive IsIam in the cuIturaI archive ot the West is Omar's
untorgiveabIe destruction otthe AIexandriaIibrary, which set
humankindbackcenturies. TisisperceivedasaterribIecrime
otIsIamicsavagery. Te cuIturaIinteriority otthe Westin the
earIyMiddIeAgesturtherexacerbatedthisimage.Eventhoughit
wastheArabswhobroughtAristotIetoEurope, IsIamremained
theirrationaIOther. ArabicphiIosophy,whichthroughIbnSina
and Ibn Rushd indirectIy shaped SchoIasticism, did aIter the
image otIsIamintheWesternworId. CIassicWesternSchoIas-
ticismwithaIIitspoIiticaIdeviationswouIdneverhaveexisted
haditnot been tortheArabs. Te ChristianandArabictheoc-
racies in the MiddIe Ages were not so diherent as they might
have seemedathrstgIance. TeirIikenessesweretar too great
to be coincidentaI. TatiswhyIsIam andits prophetwere the
obj ectsotsuchahercetheoIogicaIandpoIiticaIapoIogeticcam-
paign tor centuries, the intensity otwhich did not diminish.
Sumce it to consider what the Christian apoIogists dreamed
up aboutthe Qur'an andMuhammadto seecIearIywhere this
coIoniaI disdaintor IsIam comes trom. Luther shouId be men-
tionedhere, hesawthe spreadotIsIamaspunishmenttorour
sins. He considered the SuItan in IstanbuI more devout than
i0 Ibid. , XIII,50-i.
Lvery ook is Like n |orrress-|/esh ecnme Hord
4
t
h
ePopeinhisday. ItistheretorehardIysurprisingthatpeopIe
s
uch
as Tariq Ramadanare being tagged as hypocriteswitha
cI
ear
pIan tor the IsIamihcation ot Burope with their openIy
Iib
eraIviews."AthirdoptionmustbetoundbetweenChristian
tun
damentaIismandIsIamicIiberaIism,both otwhichwrongIy
p
er
ceive theProphetMuhammad.
A
great deaI isbeingwritten about Muhammadthesedays.
]ewideIy acceptedwisdom about him is that the messenger
baIancedapocaIypticmysticismandpoIiticaIactivismwithhis
own Iite in a prophetic way. Tis baIancing act was the truit
notonIyotAIIah's mercybutaIso otMuhammad's contempIa-
tive disposition. Atter exhausting and protracted traveIs, the
tuture prophet otten ed the city tor secIuded spots to con-
tempIatethemeaningotIite, death, andthe question otgood
andeviI. Intheyear5I0-II, onthetwenty-seventhdayotthe
monthotRamadan,whiIemeditatinginacaveonMountHira,
Muhammadhadhishrstvision. TisvisioncouIdbe described
as a sudden break," the breaking otthe dawn." It appeared
as ititwere daybreak, sunrise . Tis is how Muhammad expe-
rienced the aII-permeating presence ot the eing who had
addressed him. IsIamic thinkers agree unanimousIy that the
being who communicated with Muhammad was the angeI
CabrieI, speakingtohiminCod'sname.
ut Muhammad wasn' t sure what was happening. He was
appaIIed by the numinous experience which tascinated and
terrihed. " How couId he not have been shaken whenheheard
the cIeardivineimperative. Read| Did not theAImightyknow
hewasiIIiterate7Andagain. Read|Wecannotbegintoimagine
howMuhammadmusthaveteIt. Teperemptory Read| "was
aninvitationtoreceiveinstructionandobeyCod,theonIyone
who teaches man ot that which transcends the imagination.
ypIedging his obedience t oCodand submitting humbIy t o
!4
BorisCun]evic
his wiII MuhammadwouIdserve as an exampIe tormiIIions
o
f
MusIims . Hiswite Khadij aresoIvedhis bewiIdermentinaprac-
ticaI way. She sent Muhammad to Waraqa, who was not onIy
her much oIder god-tearing reIative, but aIso a bao/j, an edu-
cated man, a poIygIot tamiIiar with the Jewish and Christian
Scriptures. Waraqa encouraged Muhammad, and with Khadij a
becameanimportantsource otsupporttor him trom the very
hrst ot the reveIations. Te reveIations continued tor the next
twenty-threeyears .
Visions, ecstasies, and mysticaIj ourneys toIIowed one upon
the other at Iesser and greater intervaIs. Tere was a mysticaI
night j ourney, the m/'ra, in which the ProphetMuhammadvis-
ited the sevenheavens where he met aII the prophets who had
comebetorehimandsawwhateyescannotsee, heardwhatears
cannot hear, and grasped what the mind cannot understand.
During their encounter Cod toId the prophet that he required
otbeIievers that theyprayhvetimes aday. Tisj ourneywouId
become an inexhaustibIe theme tor IsIamic mystics and poets
through the centuries, particuIarIy Suh thinkers. At hrst the
prophet hid his reveIations, as does every mystic, and then he
begantoshare them withthesmaII, intimatecircIeothis imme-
diate tamiIy.' Te Prophet Muhammadwas a compIex person,
ritewithcontradictions,whodedicatedhimseItwithequaItervor
ii GraduaIIyathrst, andthenasthecommunitygrew, Muhammad,receivng
instructionstrom GodhimseIt,begantospeakmoreandmorecIearIyand
eIoquentIyinpubIictothepeopIeotMecca. GodspokeinArabicandthatwas
thehrsttimethatGodhadcommunicatedwithArabsintheirnativetongue.
TeibIehadnotyetbeentransIatedintoArabic,andtheJewsandChristians
thoughtottheArabsassavagesandprimitivesottheworstkind.TeChris-
tianswereespeciaIIyscorntuIottheArabsbecausetheydidnotevenhavetheir
ownchurch,asRodinsonremarks,buttherewerenon-OrthodoxChristian
monasteriesaIongtheArabiccoastwhichwereunderPersianpatronage.Itwas
onIyJacobiteandNestorianmissionariesandpoIygIotswhogavesermonswith
greatpassionandenthusiasmastheypassedthrough Meccaontheirwayto
theFarEast.
Lvery ook is Like n |orrress-|/esh ecnme Hord
I4J
to
at
tacks otasceticism,poIitics, wartare,andpIeasures. Hewas
cunningbuthadnogitttororatory,hewasreticent,courageous,
n
erv
ous, proud,virtuous. He had atendencyto make inexcus-
ab
Iep
oIiticaIbIundersandtorgavethestupidityandbIundersot
histeIIowbeIievers.Tisdidnotpreventhimtromvoicingpoetic
images tromhis own ecstasies that seduce us stiII today. 1ese
raptures tug at us modestIy to readthe Qur'an. uthowto do
so7HowtoscaIethistortress, thisimpassabIetextwhichdehes
aIIthecanonswehaveIearnedtorreading7Towhomcanweturn
torheIp7AsaIwayswhenontheIookouttorheIp,wehnditwhere
weIeastexpectit. Inthis caseheIpcan come tromthe Suhsand
AIainadiou,twounreIatedaIIieswhomaybeabIetoprovidethe
constitutive eIements tor a readingstrategy. So I am proposing
hereapossibIemodeItor readingthe Qur'anthatwouIdconsist
ottwooptionsconvergingintoasingIestrategywithinthecon-
temporarygeopoIiticaI constitution otBmpire. 1e hrstoption
reIatestothepoeticsotSuhmetaphysicswhichisaIways onthe
borderotIsIamicorthodoxy.AsIIackthespaceIwiIInotturther
pursue its geneaIogyhere. Te second option is a materiaIistic
onethatIcameuponunexpectedIyinadiou'swork.hishetero-
doxicaIreadingotPauI'sepistIes.
Te Qur'an couIdbereadin aSuhkey, toIIowingthepath ot
what one ot the greatest IsIamic phiIosophers and Suhs, Ibn
Arabi,accompIished,andinthisinstancewecouIdappendtohim
someShi'itethinkersasweII.TreemetaphorsarekeytortheSuh
practiceotreadingbothreaIityandtexts.veiI,mirror,andocean.
AII three metaphors can betound in the poetic metaphysics ot
IbnArabi'svastopusinwhichhisaccountotmysticaIeIevation
andunionwith CodontheothersidewouIdseemathrstgIance
to bea pantheisticmatrix. InIbnArabi's metaphysics, Codisa
verb andthe Qur'anisseenasabookwhoseauthoris,otcourse,
Codwhocreatedbothbookandreader,meaningus.Tereading
I44
BorisCunj evic
otthis text, andotnature, is aboutremovingtheveiIandabout
themirrorwhichreects notonIythepurityotoursouI,butthe
IightotCod'snearnessshiningintheworId-anoceanotDivine
Iove. ForSuhs, aII prophetic speech, incIuding Muhammad's, is
tuII otmetaphors so that everypersoncan understandit. Meta-
phorsmakeiteasiertograsp,whiIetheprophetsareawareotthe
degreeotinsightotthosewhotruIyunderstand.
y the same token, everything that the prophets
have brought trom knowIedge is cIothed in torms
accessibIetothemostwidespreadmentaIabiIities, so
thatonewhodoesnotenterintothedepthotthings
stopsatthatpart,seeingitassomethingwhichisthe
mostbeautituI thing there is, whiIe a man ota more
sensibIe understanding, a diverwho seeks pearIs ot
wisdom,knowshowto expIainwhy the divine Truth
was cIothed in such and such an earthIy guise, he
gauges the raiment and the tabric trom which it is
made and by it sees aII that it conceaIs and thereby
attainsknowIedgethatremainsinaccessibIetorthose
whodidnotenjoyawarenessotthisorder. ''
Here, aIong with Ibn Arabi, we can mention other Suhs who
speak, as he does, otthe stages otdeveIopment andthe Iadders
torbeings suchas RumiandAttar, ortheyspeakotthe stations
oteIevationto Cod, suchaswthaIHarawitorwhomthepertect
SuhbecomesamirrorotCod'sattributes. PHarawispeaksotten
sections, caIIingthem the ten stations. Tese are the stations ot
beginning, gateway, conduct, virtuous habits, rudiments, vaIIey,
i2 IbnArabi,inEvadeMeyerovitch,Anrho/ogie du sousme (Paris.Sinbad,i998)
iJJ(transIatedtromaCroatianversionbyEIIenEIias-ursac).
Lvery ook is Like n |orrress-|/esh ecnme Hord
I45
g
)
sticaI experience,guardianship,tacts, andsupremesojourns. ''
ha
ch
otthesestationshastenpartswhichpractitionersinacom-
gun
ity must master in order to ascend to ahigher station. 1e
Suhb
rotherhoodasanimportantreadingcommunitycanheIpus
inreading the Qur'an in a way thatis orthodoxyetat the same
time not orthodox, meaning that it stands in a paradoxicaI in
between" pIace. PeopIe such as Ibn Arabi are stiIIbeing accused
otunorthodoxy atter seven hundred years, yetthe context ot
the muItinationaI intercontession" Spain in which this great
phiIosopherIived decodes and eases the reading otthe Qur'anic
text.AIthoughIamtakingIbnArabiasaparadigmtorthereader,
IcouIdIistuntoIdnumbersototherSuhauthors,menandwomen,
who, suchasRabiatrom asraorShihab DinSurawardi, shine
t
heirunusuaImetaphysicsotIightonthepagesottheQur'an.
AIainadioucanheIpusjustasmuchinthisreading.WewiII
makeuse otadiou's concIusions andargumentsaboutPauIthe
ApostIeinordertoconstructanadhocreadingotQur'anictexts.
Tis means thatwewiII appIy adiou's critique otPauI, with a
twist, to the Prophet Muhammad and the discourse he estab-
Iished. In adiou's opinion, as we know, PauI with his epistIes
constructed a new universaIistic discourse which wouId have
tar-reaching consequences tor worId history. adiou reters to
PauI's texts as /orerveor/oos and that is why PauI, tor him, is a
poet-thinker oteventsandamiIitanthgure. PauIwants to sub-
tract the truth trom the communitarian proj ect ota peopIe, a
race, an empire, he meanstoseparatetheprocessottruth trom
historyand concrete cuIture. PauI is an antiphiIosopherwho is
searchingtora theorytostructurethesubj ectbystrippingit ot
everyidentity, PauIconstitutesasubj ectwhichisIegitimizedby
event. 1etocus on event assumes the subj ect's taithtuIness to
iJ AHaraw,inibid.
I46
BorisCunj evic
whatisbeingdecIared.TruthiseventaI, singuIar, subj ective,and
consistsothdeIitytothedecIarationottheevent. Truthisapro-
cedurewhichdoes nottunctionbydegree, whichtranscendsiIIu-
minationandassuchisindependentottheapparatusotopinion
entrenchedby, inPauI'scase, the Roman Bmpire.
y the same token, truth is not iIIumination but is diagon
aI
reIativetoaIIcommunitariansubsets. Te processottruth does
not permit entering into competition with estabIished struc-
turaI, axiomatic, orIegaI opinions. For the truth process to be
universaIitmustbesupportedbyanimmediatesubj ective con-
sciousness ot its own singuIarity through an operation which
adioudehnesashdeIity,perseverance,andIove-nothingmore
than a materiaIistic interpretation ot taith, hope, and charity.
PauI, accordingtoadiou,estabIishedtheChristiandiscourseby
criticizingCreekandJewishdiscourses, pursuingadiagonaItra-
j ectory, and reIying onhis ownexperiencewhich was notIegiti-
mizedbya singIeinstitutionorIaw. Counter tothe Creekswho
seekwisdom,PauIconstructsaradicaIantiphiIosophythatques-
tionscosmicandnaturaIIaws.UnIikeaphiIosophywhichsetsout
toexpIain,PauI's antiphiIosophydiscIoses, henceadiou,unsur-
prisingIy, compares PauI to PascaI, tor whom ridicuIing phiIos-
ophywasinitseItatormotphiIosophy. PauIembracesmadness
andpowerIessnessbecauseCod,asPauIsaysinhishrstepistIeto
theCorinthians, hadchosenrbe rb/ogs rbar are oor-ro oa||/[ rbe
rb/ogs rbar are. NowonderPauImetwithIittIesuccessinAthens.
HehadthesameexperiencewiththeJewsottheDiaspora.
Te Jewish discourse introduces the subj ective hgure otthe
prophet. JewsseekasignandamiracIe. Teirperceptionotexcep-
tiondehes thetotaIityotthe cosmicorder,soimportanttorthe
Creeks. PauI'sAnnouncementtortheJews isa scandaIousbIas-
phemybecausetheythinkthatPauIwithhisapostoIicdiscourse
is negating Cod's Iaw. Justas the Creeks, who at an important
Lvery ook is Like n |orrress-|/esh ecnme Hord
47
s
)
mb
oIic IeveI dehne themseIves as aII non-Jews, teeI that the
cos
micIawot|ogos iskey, sotortheJewsthereveIationonSinai
nd the Union conhrming the Lawarewhatmatter. PauIhere
turns things around, creating his own project that transcends
both discourses. AsadiouexpIains.
It is in tact ot utmost importance tor the destiny ot
universaIistIabor that the Iatter be withdrawn trom
conicts otopinionandcontrontationsbetweencus-
tomarydiherences. TetundamentaImaximisme e/s
d/akr/se/s d/a|og/smoo" do notargue aboutopinions"
(Rom. I4. I) .
Tis injunction i s aII the more striking i n that
d/akr/s/s means primariIy discernment ot diher-
ences." Tus, it is to the imperative not to compro-
misethe truthprocedurebyentangIingitin theweb
otopinions anddiherencesthatPauIis committed. It
is certainIypossibIe tor a phiIosophy to argue about
opinions,torSocrates, thisisevenwhatdehnesit. ut
theChristiansubj ectisnotaphiIosopherandtaithis
neither an opinion, nor a critique otopinion. Chris-
tian miIitantism must traverse worIdIy diherences
indiherentIy, andavoidaIIcasuistryovercustoms. '
oth these discourses, the Creek and the Jewish, were two
aspects, tor him, otthe same reaIity, twotaces otthesamehgure
ottheMasrer, as adiouputsitin Lacanianterms. TeuniversaI
IogicotsaIvation cannot be basedonatotaIityas thematizedby
phiIosophynorontheexceptionstototaIityasthematizedbythe
HebrewibIe, i. e. , theLaw.TeIogic otsaIvation is basedon an
i4 Aainadiou,Sainr Pau/. Ue Foundarion o[ Universa/ism, trans.Rayrassier
(PaIoAto.StantordUniversityPress, 200J), i00.
!4b
BorisCunj evic
eventthatistrans/cosmicandantinomian. utthistrans/cosp
ic
and antinomian event in the Iogic otsaIvation shouIdbe under-
stoodproperIy. It is notenough to be a phiIosopher who k
noy
s
theeternaItruths norisitenoughtobeaprophetwhoknowsth
e
univocaIsenseotthetuture. One mustbecomeanapostIe,aqg
tantottruthwhotaithmIIydecIarestheeventotaradicaInewpos-
sibditydependentonnothingbutaneventaIgrace,asadioup
uts
itenigmaticaIIy. Inotherwords, anapostIeknowsIittIeinreIation
tothephiIosopherandtheprophet.TeapostIeiscertainotwhat
hehasIearnedbecausehe is certainthatonIybyamrminghisoy
ignorancecanhe pursuethe madnessothisnarrative.
ut what is otexceptionaIimportance tor us at this point is
the tourth discourse," which PauImentions modestIy onIyin a
tewpIaces. Tis isthemysticaIdiscourse. What is reterredto as
the tourth discourse is a discourse ot subj ective exaItationper-
meatedbyaquietmysticaIintimacyotunspeakabIewords. PauI
isanoverIyinteIIigentpersonwhoretusestocaIIonprivatedec-
IarationstosupporttheeventaIgraceottheuniversaIAnnounce-
ment. PauIisnodemagoguenorisheatundamentaIist. Whatis
unutterabIemustsoremain. Tereisnopointtopersuadinghis
readershipothisprivateecstasies,thoughPauIundoubtedIyexpe-
riencedthem.PauIteeIsthatattemptingtodosomightharmthe
entireproj ectwhichhadgatheredonIyahandtuIotgod-tearing
adherents and sympathizers. Te radicaI noveIty ot the Chris-
tianAnnouncementhad to bepreservedtromprovingwisdom
andinvokingpropheticsigns.AndtheChristianAnnouncement
hadtobepreservedtromreterencestoprivatephenomenasuch
as ecstatic trances, mysticaI experiences, and initiation into a
supernaturaIgoos/s. Wisdom and miracIe-working give way to
Announcementwhichbecomesthe sourceotpower.IhoIdthese
insightsotadiou'stobeimportant.
ReterringtoHegeI'sLog/c, adioumaintainsthatHegeIshows
Lvery ook is Like n lorrress-l/esh ecnme Hord
I4J
o
_
the absoIute KnowIedge ot a ternary diaIectic requires
f
ourth term. "' Might not this tourth term, as HegeI caIIs it,
eb
rought into connection with IsIamic discourse7 Is not this
disco
urse, as wehaveseen, the discourse otecstasy7 Is notthis
the
dis
courseotsubj ective exaItation,otthesubj ectmovedbya
piracIe7Is this not Muhammad'sdiscourseotnon-discourse7 Is
thisnotamysticaItextwhichtheprophetreceivedinavarietyot
ecstasies in a temporaI discontinuityIasting more than twenty
years7 With a dose otreserve, I answer these questions in the

mrmative. IteeIitsumcientthatatourthdiscoursebeopened
tor the space otIsIam within which non-MusIims can readthe
Qur'an in an entireIy newway. I hoId that it is exceptionaIIy
importantto readthe Qur'anas a mysticaItextwhich, with its
poetic-mysticaI insights, incorporates ecstatic discourse. Tis is
anextremeIyradicaIizedtorm otwhatPauIdescribesas exaIted
speech,anon-discoursethatisaddressingus.
In his own ingenious way Nietzsche remarked on this in Ue
Aor/cbr/sr, j uxtaposing PauI and Muhammad by arguing that
the prophet borrowed everything trom PauI. WewiII not err it
we attribute Muhammad's mysticaI ecstasies to the discourse
otnon-discourse, to theintimateandquietdiscourse thatatter
twenty-three years wouId become text. It we understand the
Qur'anic text in this manner we arrive at a pIace in which our
readingcanbeasourceotunusuaIb|ess/og, abIessingwereceive
bythis reading arisingtromthetactthatwewiIIunderstandthe
Qur'an better, whichI beIieve to be important. Our reading in
thiskeywiIIbeIess pretentious, Iesscircumscribedbythejurid-
icaI, and certainIy Iess pompous in terms ot modernity. What
mightbeunusuaIandcontusinginthebIessingisthatattersuch
areadingwemightteeIthewaywedoatterreadingJacquesDer-
i5 Ibid. , 4i.
I5
BorisCunj evic
rida's texts in which the truth is aIways deterred. CIearIy y
it|
such a reading we are Iurching towards a canonicaI readi
ng
o

the Qur'an itseIt, one in essentiaIconictwithaII thoseIsIa

m
ic
readers who readthe textprimariIyinjuridicaIandmodernist
ic
terms. Such readings today are popuIar in the ruraI madr
asas
ot the Wahabi and other tundamentaIist encIaves througho
ut
Bmpireinwhichapostatesareputtodeath,despitethetactth
at
theQur'ansays theremustbe no coercionin questions ottait|
.
1ediherenceis, asaIways,intheinterpretationottheverses.
Itwe read the Qur'anic text as the mysticaI discourse otan
ecstatic, as proposed in part by Fethi ensIama, Christian
Jambet, andSIavoj

izek, then Jacques Lacan's psychoanaIysis

is not mereIy common knowIedge but can serve as an interpre-
tative keywhichwiIIheIp us more than merephiIoIogy. 1is is
IargeIybecause Lacansayswe mustseekthetruthotthetextin
error, in dream, in repetition, and in discontinuities. 1ese, as
we know, are the standard tooIs otpsychoanaIysis. Here, tor a
moment,wecan agree withLacan'sassertionthat discontinuity
isanimportantwayinwhichtheunconsciousappears tousasa
phenomenon. Is not discontinuity, aswehave aIreadyseen, one
otthe tundamentaIcharacteristics otthe Qur'anic text7 Repeti-
tion, discontinuities, andoneiricecstasiesteIIusaboutthedeep
hssuresinthetextthroughwhichshinesthetorceottheuncon-
scious. 1e unconscious shining ecstaticaIIy through imagina-
tionand Ianguage isthemostsignihcantand authoritativepart
otthe Qur'anic text, as conhrmed by the need tor psychoana-
IyticaItooIswheninterpretingit,inthiscasetheunconscious is
IiteraIIystructuredasIanguageandastext. Tisisatactwemust
keepinmindwhiIereadingtheQur'an.
Lacan turther states in his

crits that what is most impor-

tantbeginswithreadingthetext,readingwhatisgivenusinthe
processingandrhetoricotdream. 1ese arethemodeIsthrough
Lvery ook |s L|ke n lorrress-l/esh ecnme Hord I5l
hich
the subj ect creates his or her own speech patterns and
story.
We mustunderstandthesemodeIswhethertheybepIeo-
nas
ms,
syIIepses, regressions, repetitions, syntacticaI changes,
peta
ph
ors, catachreses, aIIegories, or metonymies. We must
learn to readdemonstrative intentions, breaking through con-
vi
ction
sandseductiveiIIusionsto understandthespeechotthe
s
ubject. Itweseethatourunconsciousisachapterotourhistory
hIIedwith metaphoric Iies, then truthmaybe tound inscribed
on monuments, in archivaI documents, insemantic evoIution,
legends, and traditions. Te cuIturaI artitacts Lacan Iists were
ap
pIiedtosubj ectsotthepsychoanaIyticaImethodthatpIayeda
huge
roIeinshapingandorientingmodernsubj ectivity.Andthis
subj ectivityis the pIacewhere historyis writtenwhichwiII one
daybestagedpubIicIy.As Lacanputsit,historywiIIbestagedin
anoutside torum otwhich we, in the worst possibIewaytoday,
are ourseIveswitnesses.
Itwedonotwanttobecomeabomo sacer, asJohnWaIkerdid,
weneedto readtheQur'an.JohnWaIkerwasnotjustanuntor-
tunate paradigm ota Western MusIim about whom peopIe Iike
TariqRamadan have IittIe to say, in fact he is a poor parody ot
the modern tragichero. Te image othim bound in chains, so
thin,staringduIIyintothedistance,cIearIygivinghimseItvoIun-
tariIyover to death, is nothingmore thanagraphic exampIe ot
thebomo sacer asAgambenusestheterm. Readingisnotwithout
itsperiIsnorisitatriviaIactivity. Itisthebeginningotanideo-
IogicaIbattIebeingwagedwithin Empire. TiscanbeappIiedto
thecaseotanon-MusIimreadingottheQur'an,thetaII-outtrom
which is obvious in the case otJohnWaIker. In the ideoIogicaI
struggIewemustmakeaseriousehortnottoknuckIeunderand
submittothetemptationsottheMessianiccompIexonthe one
handorbecome a bomo sacer onthe other. Readingthe Qur'an
can heIp us pedagogicaIIy to keep trom getting trappedinboth
I52
BorisCunj evic
ways,whichwouIdbeperniciousevenintheshortterm. 1
is
is
preciseIywhat Empire wants Ieast. that we shouIdget to kn
oy
those whom Empire has named our enemies. Te Mas|/m
ol
whomAgamben speaks inhis movingtext about theRemoaors
oj Aascbw/rz has again become the homeIess witness ot what
Empire is doing, and theretore the Mas|/m must be made not
onIy a witness butprimariIyan enemy to bebIudgeoned. 1is
iswhy reading the Qur'an matters, so that we don'ttaII tor the
taIse aIternatives ot Empire which seein the Qur'anic textonIy
Messianism and homosacerism, two images ot vioIence which
can have staggeringconsequences and iterations over whichwe
can easiIyIosecontroI. Such consequencesmay turn againstus.
1ingscansIipoutothand,asintheorgesstorybeIow,inwhich
weII-intentioned advice turns into its opposite with aIarming
repercussions. '
In I5I7, Fray artoIome de Ias Casas, teeIing great pity tor
the Indianswho grewwornandIeanin the drudginginternosot
the AntiIIean goId mines, proposedto Emperor CharIes V that
Negroes be brought to the isIes otthe Caribbean, so that rbey
mightgrowwornandIeaninthe drudginginternosottheAntiI-
IeangoIdmines. Tothatoddvariantonthespeciespb/|aorbrop/sr
we owe an inhnitude otthings. WC. Handy'sbIues, the success
achievedinParisbytheUruguayanattorney-painterPedroFigari,
thehnerunaway-sIaveproseottheIikewise UruguayanVicente
Rossi,themythoIogicaIstatureotAbrahamLincoIn,thehaIt-miI-
Iion deadottheWarotSecession,the$J. JbiIIionspentonmiIi-
tarypensions,thestatueottheimaginarysembIanceotAntonio
(FaIucho) Ruiz, the incIusion ottheverb Iynch" in respectabIe
dictionaries,theimpetuousKingVidorhImHa||e|aab, thestout
i5 JorgeL. orges,"TeCrueRedeemerLazarusMore.TeRemoteCause,"inA
Universa/ Hisrory o[ |niquiq, trans.AndrewHurey (NewYork. Penguin Cassics
2004), 7.
Lvery ook is Like n |orrress-|/esh ecnme Hord
I5J
ba
yon
etcharge ottheregiment otIacksandTans" (the coIor
o
t
th
eirskins, nottheirunitorms)againstthattamoushiIInear
g
ont
evideo, thegracetuInessotcertaineIegantyoungIadies,the
bIack
manwhokiIIedMartin Fierro, thatdepIorabIerumbaUe
}eaoar-5e||er, thearrestedandimprisonedNapoIeonismotTous-
sain
t LOuverture, thecrossandtheserpentin Haiti,thebIood
otgoatswhosethroats are sIashedbythepapa|o/s machete, the
babaoera thatisthemotherotthetango, thecaodombe. Andyet
another thing. the eviI and magnihcent existence ot the crueI
redeemerLazarusMoreII.
D
LH\ a HHCIIH_
\OO \aH aVC \s

/Izt.
}ekeyquestionaboutreIigiontodayis. CanaIIreIigiousexperi-
ences and practices ehectiveIybe contained within the dimen-
sionottheconjunctionottruthandmeaning7Tebeststarting
pointtorsuchaIineotinquiryisthepointatwhichreIigionitseIt
tacesa trauma, a shock which dissoIves the Iinkbetween truth
andmeaning,atruthsotraumaticthatitresistsbeingintegrated
into the universe otmeaning. EverytheoIogiansoonerorIater
taces theprobIemothowtoreconciIetheexistenceotCodwith
the tactotthe Shoah orsomesimiIarexcessiveeviI. Howare we
to reconciIe the existence otanomnipotentandgood Codwith
theterri|ingsuheringotmiIIionsotinnocents, IikethechiIdren
kiIIedinthegaschambers7SurprisingIy(ornot), thetheoIogicaI
answersbuiIdastrangesuccessionotHegeIiantriads.Tosewho
want to Ieave divine sovereignty unimpaired and thus have to
attribute to CodtuIIresponsibiIitytor the Shoah, hrst oher (I)
the IegaIistic" sin-and-punishment theory (the Shoah has to
beapunishmenttorthepastsins othumanity-orottheJews
themseIves) , theythenpassonto (2)themoraIistic"character-
educationtheory(theShoahis tobeunderstoodaIongtheIines
otthestoryotJob,asthemostradicaItestotourtaithinCod-it
we survive this ordeaI, ourcharacterwiIIstandhrm. . . ), hnaIIy,
they take retuge ina kind otinhnitejudgment"whichwiIIsave
i55
I56
SIavoj

izek
the dayatteraII common measure between the Shoah and
its
meaningbreaksdown,appeaIingto(J)thedivinemystery
th
eo
ry
(whereintactsIikethe ShoahbearwitnesstotheuntathomabIe
abyss ot divine wiII) . Inaccordancewith the HegeIianmot
to
of
a redoubIedmystery (the mystery Cod is torus has to be aIso
a
mysterytor CodhimseIt), the truth otthis inhnitej udgment
can onIybe todenyCod'stuIIsovereigntyand omnipotence.
1enexttriadisthusproposedbythosewho, unabIetocom-
bine the Shoah with Cod's omnipotence (how couId he hav
e
aIIowed it to happen7) , opt tor some torm ot divine Iimita-
tion. (I) Cod is directIypositedas hnite or, atIeast, contained,
not omnipotent, not aII-encompassing. he hnds himseIt over-
wheImedbythedenseinertiaothisowncreation, (2) thisIimita-
tion is then reectedback into Cod himseItashistree act. Cod
is seIt-Iimited, hevoIuntariIy constrainedhis powerin orderto
Ieave the space open tor human treedom, so it is we humans
who are tuIIy responsibIe tor the eviI in the worId-in short,
phenomenaIiketheShoaharetheuItimatepricewehavetopay
torthe divine gittottreedom, (J) hnaIIy, seIt-Iimitationisexter-
naIized, the two moments are posited as autonomous-Codis
embattIed, there isacounter-torceorprincipIeotdemoniacBviI
activeintheworId (the duaIisticsoIution) .
1isbringsustothethirdpositionwhichgoesbeyondthehrst
two(thesovereignCod,thehniteCod) .thatotasuheringCod-
notatriumphaIistCodwhoaIwayswinsintheend, aIthoughhis
ways aremysterious"sincehesecretIypuIIsaIIthestrings,nota
CodwhoexertscoIdjustice,sinceheisbydehnitionaIwaysright,
but a Codwho-Iike the suhering Christ on the cross-is ago-
nized, who assumes the burden otsuhering, in soIidaritywith
humanmisery. ' ItwasaIreadyScheIIingwhowrote. CodisaIite,
i SeeFrank!inSherman,"SpeakingotGodatterAuschwitz,"inMichaeIL. Mor-
gan,ed. , A Ho/ocausr Reader (Oxtord.OxtordUniversiqPress, 200i).
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us
!57
n
ot
pe
reIyabeing.utaIIIitehasatateandissubj ecttosuhering
a
n
d
ecoming. . . . Without the concept ota humanIy suhering
(o
d. .
.aIIothistoryremainsincomprehensibIe."'Why7ecause
(o
d's
suheringimpIiesthatheisinvoIvedinhistory, ahectedby
|t
,notjustatranscendentMasterpuIIingthestringstromabove.
(o
d's
suheringmeansthathumanhistoryisnotjustatheaterot
shadows, but the pIace ota reaI struggIe, the struggIe in which
t
heAbsoIute itseItis invoIved andits tate is decided. Tis is the
phiIosophicaI background otDietrich onhoeher's deep insight
that,attertheShoah, onIyasuheringCodcanheIpusnow"'-a
propersuppIementtoHeidegger'sOnIyaCodcansaveus | "trom
hisIastinterview. OneshouIdtheretoretakethestatementthat
theunspeakabIesuheringotthesixmiIIionisaIsothevoiceotthe
suheringotCod"quiteIiteraIIy.theveryexcessotthissuhering
overanynormaI"humanmeasuremakesitdivine. RecentIy,this
paradoxwassuccinctIytormuIatedbyJrgenHabermas.SecuIar
Ianguages which onIy eIiminate the substance once intended
Ieave irritations. When sinwasconvertedto cuIpabiIity, andthe

reakingotdivinecommandstoanohenseagainsthumanIaws,
somethingwasIost."
Which is why secuIar-humanist reactions to phenomena
Iike the Shoah or the guIag (amongst others) are experienced
as insumcient. in order to reachthe IeveI otsuch phenomena,
2 F. W. J. Scheing,"PhiosophicaInvestigationsintotheEssenceotHuman
Freedom," inErnsteher, ed., Phi/osohy oj Cerman |dea/ism (NewYork.Con-
tinuum,i987),274.
J QuotedbyDavidTracyinMorgan, ed.,A Ho/ocausr Reader, 2J7.
4 MartinHeidegger,"OnyaGodCanSaveUs,"in RichardWoin,ed. , Ue Hei-
degger Conrroversy (Cambridge, MA. MIT Press,i99J).
b DavidTracy, "ReigiousVauesattertheHoocaust,"inMorgan,ed. , A Ho/ocausr
Reader, 2J7.
5 JrgenHabermas,Ue Furure oj Human Narure (Cambridge. PoityPress, 200J),
ii0.
I5B SIavoj

izek
somethingmuchstrongeris needed, somethingakinto the
oId
reIigious topic ota cosmic perversion or catastrophe in which
theworIditseItis outotj oint"-when one controntsapheno
m-
enonIike the Shoah, the onIyappropriatereactionis to ask t
he
perpIexedquestionWhydidtheheavensnotdarken7" (thetitIe
otArno Mayor's book) . Terein residestheparadox otthetheo-
IogicaIsignihcanceottheShoah.aIthoughitisusuaIIyconceived
astheuItimate chaIIengetotheoIogy(itthere isa Codandithe
isgood,howcouIdhehaveaIIowedsuchahorrortotakepIace7) ,
itisat the same time onIytheoIogythat canprovide the trame
enabIingustosomehowapproachthescopeotthecatastrophe-
thehascootCodisstiIIthehascootCod.
RecaIIthesecondotenj amin's TesesonthePhiIosophyot
History". TepastcarrieswithitatemporaIindexbywhichitis
reterredtoredemption. Tereisasecretagreementbetweenpast
generations and the present one."' Can this weak messianic
power" stiII be assertedin the tace otthe Shoah7 Howdoes the
Shoahpointtowards aredemption-to-come7Is notthesuhering
otthevictimsottheShoahakindotabsoIuteexpenditurewhich
cannoteverbe retroactiveIyaccountedtor, redeemed, rendered
meaningtuI7 Itis at thisverypointthat Cod'ssuheringenters.
whatitsignaIsis thetaiIure otanyAaebaog ottherawtactot
suhering. Whatechoeshere, morethantheJewishtradition,is
thebasicProtestantIesson. thereisnodirectaccesstotreedom/
autonomy, between the master/sIave exchange-reIationship ot
manandCodandthetuIIassertionothumantreedom,aninter-
mediarystageotabsoIutehumiIiationhas tointerveneinwhich
man is reduced to a pure obj ect ot the untathomabIe divine
caprice. Do the three main versions otChristianity not torm a
kind otHegeIiantriad7InthesuccessionotOrthodoxy, CathoIi-
7 WaIterenjamin,|//uminarions (NewYork.Schockenooks,i959), 2b4.
On/y a 5ugering Cod Can 5ave Us
l5J

|s
p
,andProtestantism,eachnewtermi sasubdivision,spIitoh
fro
p
apreviousunity.Ti striadotUniversaI-ParticuIar-SinguIar
anbe
designatedbythreerepresentativetoundinghgures(John,
}et
er, PauI) asweIIas by three races (SIavic, Latin, Cerman) . In
the
asternOrthodoxy,wehavethesubstantiaIunityotthetext
andthecorpusotbeIievers,whichiswhythebeIieversareaIIowed
tointerpretthesacredText, theTextgoesonandIives inthem,
itdoesnotstandoutsideotIivinghistoryasitsexempIarystan-
dardandmodeI-thesubstanceotreligiousIiteis the Christian
co
p
munityitseIt. CathoIicism stands torradicaI aIienation. the
entitywhichmediatesbetweenthetoundingsacredTextandthe
corpusotbeIievers,theChurch,thereIigiousInstitution,regains
its tuIIautonomy. Te highestauthority resides in the Church,
whichiswhytheChurchhastherightto interpret theText, the
Text is read during the Mass in Latin, a Ianguage whichis not
understoodbyordinarybeIievers,anditisevenconsideredasin
toranordinarybeIievertoreadtheText directIy, by-passingthe
priest's guidance. For Protestantism, hnaIIy, the onIyauthority
istheTextitseIt, andthewageris oneverybeIiever'sdirectcon-
tactwith the Word ot Codas it was deIivered in the Text, the
mediator(the ParticuIar)thusdisappears,withdrawsintoinsig-
nihcance, enabIing the beIieverto adopt the position ota uni-
versaISinguIar,"theindividuaIinadirectcontactwiththedivine
UniversaIity, by-passing the mediating roIe ot the particuIar
Institution. Tese three Christian attitudes aIso invoIve three
diherent modes ot Cod's presence in the worId. We start with
the created universe directIy reecting the gIoryotits Creator.
aIItheweaIthandbeautyotourworIdbearswitnesstothedivine
creative power, and creatures, when they are not corrupted,
naturaIIyturntheireyestowardshim. . . CathoIicismshittstoa
moredeIicateIogicotthehgureinthecarpet".theCreatorisnot
directIypresentintheworId,histracesarerathertobediscerned
I6
SIavoj

izek
indetaiIswhichescapethehrstsuperhciaIgIance,i. e. , CodisIik
_
apainterwhowithdrawstromhishnishedproduct,signaIinghis
authorshipmereIywithabareIydiscernabIesignatureatthepic-
ture's edge. FinaIIy, Protestantismasserts Cod's radicaIabsenc
_
trom the createduniverse, trom this grayworId which runs
as
bIindmechanismandwhereinCod'spresenceonIybecomesdis-
cernibIe in the directinterventions otCrace which disturbs th
_
normaIcourseotthings.
Tis reconciIiation, however, onIy becomes possibIe atter
aIienationisbroughttotheextreme. incontrasttothe CathoIic
notion ot a caring and Ioving Codwith whom one can commu-
nicate, negotiate even, Protestantism starts with the notion ot
Cod deprived ot any common measure" shared with man, ot
CodasanimpenetrabIeeyondwhodistributesgraceinatotaIIy
contingent way. One can discern the traces ot this tuII accep-
tance otCod's unconditionaIand capricious authorityin oneot
theIast songs JohnnyCashrecordedjustbetorehis death, Te
Man Comes Around,"anexempIaryarticuIationottheanxieties
containedinSouthernaptistChristianity.
Tere'samangoingaroundtakingnames
AndhedecideswhototreeandwhotobIame
Bverybodywon'tbetreatedaIIthesame
Tere'IIbeagoIdenIadderreachingdown
WhentheMancomesaround
TehairsonyourarmwiIIstandup
Attheterrorineachsipandineachsup
WiIIyoupartakeotthatIastoheredcup7
Ordisappearintothepotter'sground
WhentheMancomesaround
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us
Hear the trumpets,hearthepipers
OnehundredmiIIionangeIssinging
MuItitudesaremarchingtothebigkettIedrum
VoicescaIIing,voicescrying
Somearebornandsomearedying
It'sAIpha andOmega'skingdomcome
AndthewhirIwindisinthethorntree
TevirginsareaIItrimmingtheirwicks
TewhirIwindisinthethorntree
It'shardtortheetokickagainstthepricks
TiIIArmageddonnoshaIam,noshaIom
TenthetatherhenwiIIcaIIhischickenshome
TewisemanwiIIbowdownbetorethethrone
AndatHisteetthey'IIcasttheirgoIdencrowns
WhentheMancomesaround
WhoeverisunjustIethimbeunjuststiII
WhoeverisrighteousIethimberighteousstiII
WhoeverishIthyIethimbehIthystiII
I6I
Te songis aboutArmageddon, theend otdays when OodwiII
appear and pertorm the Last Judgment, an event presented
as pure and arbitrary terror. Ood is presented aImost as BviI
personihed, as a kind otpoIiticaI intormer, a man who comes
around"andprovokesconsternationbytakingnames,"deciding
whoissavedandwhoIost. Itanything,Cash'sdescriptionevokes
the weII-known scene otpeopIe Iined up tor abrutaIinterroga-
tion, and the intormerpointing out those seIected tor torture.
thereisnomercy,nopardonotsins, nojubiIation,weareaIImed
in our roIes, thejustremainjustandthe hIthyremainhIthy. In
I62
SIavo]

izek
thisdivineprocIamation,wearenotsimpIyjudgedinajustway,
we are intormedtrom outside, as itIearningaboutan arbitrary
decision,whetherwewere righteousorsinners, whetherweare
saved or condemned-the decision has nothingto do with our
innerquaIities. And, again, this darkexcess otaruthIess divine
sadism-in excess over the image ot a severe but nonetheIess
just Cod-is a necessary negative, an underside, otthe excess
otChristianIove over the Jewish Law. Iove which suspendsthe
Law is necessariIy accompanied by the arbitrary crueIty which
aIso suspendstheLaw.
Martin Luther directIy proposed an excrementaI dehnition
otman. manisIikeadivineshit, heteIIoutotCod's anus. One
can, otcourse, pursue the question othow Lutherwas pushed
towards his new theoIogy by being caught in a vioIent, debiIi-
tating superego cycIe. the more he acted, repented, punished
and tortured himseIt, did good deeds, etc. , the more he teIt
guiIty. Tis convincedhim that gooddeeds are caIcuIated, dirty,
seIhsh. tar trom pIeasing Cod, they provoke Cod's wrath and
Iead to damnation. SaIvation comes trom taith. it is our taith
aIone, taith in Jesus as savior, which aIIows us to break out ot
the superego impasse. However, his anaI" dehnition ot man
cannot be reduced to a resuIt ot this superego pressure which
pushed him towards seIt-abasement-there is more to it than
that. itisonIywithinthis ProtestantIogic otman's excrementaI
identitythatthetruemeaningotincarnationcanbetormuIated.
InOrthodoxy, ChristuItimateIyIoses his exceptionaI status. his
veryideaIization, hiseIevationtoanobIemodeI,reduceshimto
an ideaIimage, a hgure tobeimitated (aII men shouIdstrive to
becomeCcd)-/m/rar/o Cbr/sr/ ismoreanOrthodoxthanaCath-
oIic tormuIa. In CathoIicism, thepredominantIogic is that ota
symboIicexchange. CathoIictheoIogians enj oydweIIinginscho-
IasticjuridicaIargumentsabouthowChristpaidthepricetorour
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us
I6J
sin
s,
etc. -nowonderthatLutherreactedtotheIowestoutcome
ott
hisIogic,thereductionotredemptiontosomethingthatcan
be
bought trom the Church. Protestantism, hnaIIy, posits the
r
eIationshipbetweenCodandmanasreaI,conceivingChristasa
Codwho, inhis act otincarnation,treeIyidentihedhimseItwith
his own shit, with the excrementaI reaI that is man-and it is
onIyatthisIeveIthattheproperIyChristiannotionotdivineIove
can be apprehended, as the Iove tor the miserabIe excrementaI
entitycaIIedman."
Itisinthissensethat,withregardtoChrist, HegeIpointstor-
wardtosomekeyKierkegaardianmotits(thediherencebetween
geniusandapostIe,thesinguIareven taIcharacterotChrist)with
his emphasis on the diherence between Socrates and Christ.
Christis oor Iike the CreekpIastic individuaI" through whose
particuIar teatures the universaI/substantiaI content directIy
transpires (as in the exempIary case otAexander) . What this
meansisthataIthoughChristisMan-Cod,thedirectidentityot
thetwo,thisidentityaIsoimpIiesanabsoIutecontradiction. there
isoorb/og divine"aboutChrist,evennothingexceptionaI-itwe
observe hisparticuIarteatures, heisindistinguishabIetromany
otherhumanindividuaI.
Itwe consider Christ onIyin reterence tohis taIents,
hischaracterandhismoraIity,asateacher,etc. , weare
puttinghimonthesamepIaneasSocratesandothers,
even itwepIace him higher trom the moraI point ot
view. . . . It Christ is onIy taken as an exceptionaIIy
hne individuaI, even as one without sin, then we are
ignoring the representation ot the specuIative idea,
itsabsoIutetruth.
8 G. W. F. HegeI,Lecrures on rhe Phi/osohy o[ Hisrory (NewYork. DoverPubIica-
tions, I9b5), J2b.
!64
SIavo]

izek
Tese Iines reIy on a very precise conceptuaI background. Itis
not that Christis more" than othermodeI hgures otreIigious
or phiIosophicaI or ethicaIwisdom, reaI or mythicaI (uddha,
Socrates, Moses, Muhammad) , divine" in the sense ot the
absence ot anyhuman taiIings. With Christ, the veryreIation-
ship between the substantiaI divine content and its represen-
tation changes. Christ does not represent this substantiaI
content, Cod, he directIy /s Cod, which iswhyhe no Iongerhas
to resembIe Cod, to strive to be pertect and Iike Cod." RecaII
the cIassic Marx brothers j oke. You Iook Iike EmmanueI Rav-
eIIi." ut I am EmmanueI RaveIIi." WeII no wonder you Iook
Iikehim. utIstiIIinsistthereisaresembIance. "TeunderIying
premise ot this j oke is that such an overIapping otbeing and
resembIingisimpossibIe,thereisaIwaysagapbetweenthetwo.
uddha, Socrates, etc. , resembIe Cods, whiIe Christ /s Cod. So
whenthe Christian CodmanitestshimseItto othermenas an
individuaIman, excIusive andsingIe . . . IikeamanexcIudingaII
others,"' we are deaIing with the singuIarity ot a pure event,
with contingency brought to an extreme-onIy in this mode,
excIudingaIIehorts to approach universaIpertection, can Cod
incarnate itseIt. Tis absence ot any positive characteristics,
this tuII identityotCodand man at the IeveI otproperties, can
onIy occur because another, more radicaI, diherence makes
anypositivediherentiaIteatures irreIevant. Tis change canbe
niceIy renderedasthe shitttrom theupwardmovementotthe
becoming-essentiaIottheaccidenttothedownwardmovement
otthebecoming-accidentaIottheessence(IID) .theCreekhero,
this exempIary individuaI," eIevates his accidentaI personaI
teatures into a paradigmatic case otthe essentiaI universaIity,
9 G. W. F. HegeI,Lecrures on rhe Phi/osohy oj Re/igion, voI. III(erkeIey. Univer-
sityotCaIitorniaPress,i9Bb),i42. NumbersinparenthesesIaterinthetext
retertopagesinthisbook.
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us
65
hiI
ein
theChristianIogicotincarnation, theuniversaIEssence
e
m
bo
diesitseItinanaccidentaIindividuaI.
An
otherwaytomakethispointis tosaythattheCreekgods
app
ear to humans in human torm, whiIe the Christian Ood
ap
pearsashumanro b/mse|j. TisisthecruciaIpoint.incarnation
is
tor
HegeI not a movebymeans otwhich Cod makes himseIt
accessibIeorvisibIetohumans, butamoveinwhichCodIooksat
himseIttromthe(distorting)humanperspective. `1s Codmani-
testshimseIttohis owgaze, the specuIarpresentationdivdes
the divine seIttrom itseIt, ohering the divine the perspectivaI
visionotits ownseIt-presence" (II8). Or, to putitin Freudian-
Lacanianterms. ChristisCod'spartiaIobject,"anautonomized
organ withouta body, as itCodhaspIucked hiseyeout othis
headandturneditto IookathimseIttrom theoutside. We can
guess,now,whyHegeIinsistedonthemonstrosityotChrist.
K/oo-Lye (K/oog|az) , Dziga Vertov's siIent cIassic trom IJ24
(one ot the highpoints ot revoIutionary cinema) , takes as its
embIemtheeye (otthecamera)asanautonomousorgan"wan-
deringaroundthe SovietUnionin the earIy IJ20s, showingus
snippets otIite under the NEP (new economicpoIicy") . RecaII
the common expression to cast an eye over something," with
its IiteraI impIication ot picking the eye out ot its socket and
throwing it around. Martin, the Iegendary idiot trom French
tairy taIes, did exactIy this when his mother, worried that he
wouIdneverhndawite,toIdhimtogotochurchandcastaneye
overthegirIsthere. So Martin hrstgoesto thebutchertopur-
chaseapigeye,andthenthrowsitaroundoverthegirIsatprayer
in the church-no wonder he Iater reports to his mother that
thegirIswere not tooimpressedbyhisbehavior. Tis, preciseIy,
is whatrevoIutionarycinemashouIdbe doing. usingthecamera
as a partiaI obj ect, as an eye" torn trom the subj ect and treeIy
thrown around-or, to quote VertovhimseIt. Te hIm camera
I66
SIavoj

izek
drags the eyes ottheaudiencetromthehandsto theteet,
trop
theteettotheeyesandsooninthemostprohtabIeorder, an
d
it
organisesthedetaiIsinto areguIarmontageexercise."'
We aIIknow those uncanny moments in our everyday Iiv
es
when we catch sight ot our own image and this image is
not
Iookingbackatus. I rememberonce trying to inspecta strange
growth on the side otmyheadusinga doubIe mirror, when, aII
ota sudden, I caught agIimpseotmy tace inprohIe. Te image
repIicatedaIImygestures, but ina weird uncoordinatedway. In
such a situation, ourspecuIarimage is tornawaytrom us and,
cruciaIIy,ourIookis noIongerIookingatourseIves."''Itisinsuch
weird experiences that one catches what Lacan caIIed the gaze
as ober per/r 0, the part ot our image which eIudes the mirror-
IikesymmetricaIreIationship. When IseemyseIttromoutside,"
trom this impossibIe point, the traumatic teature is not that I
am obj ectivized, reduced to an externaI obj ect tor the gaze,
but, rather,thatitismygazeitseItwhichis obj ectivized,which
observes me trom the outside, which, preciseIy, means thatmy
gaze isnoIongermine,thatitisstoIentromme. Tere is areIa-
tiveIy simpIe and painIess eye operation which, nonetheIess,
invoIves a very unpIeasant experience. under IocaI anesthetic,
i. e. , withthepatient's tuIIawareness,theeyeistakenoutotthe
socketandturnedaroundintheairaIittIebit(inordertocorrect
thewaythe eye-baIIis attachedto thebrain)-atthismoment,
the patient cantorabrietmomentsee (parts ot) himseIttrom
outside, trom an obj ective" viewpoint, as a strange obj ect, the
wayhereaIIyis" asanobj ectintheworId, nottheway oneusu-
aIIyexperiencesoneseItastuIIyembeddedin"one'sbody. Tere
I0 QuotedinRichardTayIorandIanChristie,eds. , Ue Fi/m Facrory (London.
RoutIedge,I9BB),92.
II DarianLeader,5rea/ing rhe Mona Lisa: Whar Arr 5ros Us om 5eeing (London.
FaberandFaber,2002),I42.
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us
I67
i
s
so
mething divine in this (very unpIeasant) experience. one
sees
on
eseIt as ittrom a divine viewpoint, somehow reaIizing
th
e
mysticaI motto according towhich the eye throughwhich I
see
Codis the eye through which Codsees himseIt. Something
h
o
moIogous to this weird experience, appIied to Cod himseIt,
o
cc
ursintheincarnation.
IntheStrugatskybrothers'noveIUe Roads/de P/co/c, onwhich
_
drei Tarkovsky's masterpiece 5ra|ker is based, the Zones"-
th
ere
aresbotthesesecIudedareas-areIocationscontainingthe
debris ota roadsidepicnic," i. e. , otashortstay onourpIanetby
someaIienvisitorswhoquickIyIettit,hndingusuninteresting.In
thenoveI, the Staers are more adventurous and down-to-earth
thaninthehIm, notindividusonatormentingspirituaIsearch,
butdettscavengersorganizingrobbingexpeditions,somehowIike
theproverbiAabsorganizingraidingexpeditionsintothePya-
mids (another Zone) torweaIthyWesterners-are the Pyramids
not,accordingtopopuIarscienceIiterature,ehectiveIytracesotan
aIienwisdom7 Te Zoneis thus notapureIymentaItantasmatic
space in which one encounters (or ontowhich one projects) the
truthaboutoneseIt,but(IikethepIanetSoIarisinStanisIavLem's
noveI otthe same name, the source tor another Tarkovsky sci-h
masterpiece)themateripresence,theReaIotanabsoIuteOther-
nessincompatibIewiththeruIesandIawsotouruniverse. ecause
otthis, atthenoveI's end,theStaIker,whencontrontedwith the
CoIden Sphere" -as the Room in which desires arereaIizedis
cahed-doesundergoakindotspirituaIconversion,butthisee-
rienceismuchcIosertowhatLacancaLedsubjectivedestitution".
anabruptawareness ottheuttermeaningIess otoursociaIIinks,
thedissoIutionotourattachmenttoreaIityitseIt-Iotasudden,
otherpeopIeare de-reaIized,reaIityitseItis experiencedasacon-
msed whirIpooI otshapes and sounds, so that we are no Ionger
abIetotormuIateourdesire.
I6B SIavoj

izek
It is to this incompatibiIity between our own and the aIien
universe that the noveI's titIe (Ue Roads/de P/co/c) reters. the
strangeobj ectstoundintheZones,andwhichtascinatehumans,
are in aII probabiIity simpIy the debris, the garbage Iett behind
atteraIienshavebrieystayedonourpIanet,comparabIetothe
rubbishagroupothumansIeavesbehindatterapicnicinator
est
nearamainroad.TetypicaITarkovskianIandscape(otdecayin

humandebrishaItrecIaimedbynature) isin the noveI preciseIy

what characterizes the ZoneitseIttrom the (impossibIe) stand-
pointotthevisitingaIiens.whattousisaMiracIe,anencounter
with a wondrous universe beyond our grasp, is just everyday
debris to the aIiens. Is it then, perhaps, possibIe to draw the
rechtianconcIusionthatthetypicaITarkovskianIandscape(the
human environmentin decay recIaimedbynature) invoIves the
view ot our universetromanimaginedaIienstandpoint7Again,
the samegoes tor the incarnation. in it, the divine obj ectcoin-
cides with human debris (a common destitute preacher sociaI-
izingwithbeggars,whores, andothersociaIIosers) .
It is theretore cruciaI to note how the Christian modaIity ot
CodseeinghimseIt"hasnothingwhatsoevertodowiththehar-
monious cosedIoop otseeing myseItseeing," otan eye seeing
itseIt and enjoying the sight in this pertect seIt-mirroring. the
turnottheeyetowardsits"bodypresupposestheseparationot
theeyetromthebody, andwhatI see throughmyexternaIized/
autonomized eye is a perspectivaI, anamorphicaIIy distorted
imageotmyseIt.ChristisananamorphosisotCod.
Anotherindication otthisexternaIity otCodwith regardto
himseItispointedoutbyC. K. ChestertoninhisTeMeaningot
theCrusade," wherehequoteswithapprovaIthedescriptionhe
heardtromachiIdinJerusaIemottheMountotOIives. A chiId
tromoneottheviIIagessaidtome, inbrokenBngIish,thatitwas
thepIace where Cod saidhisprayers. I tor one couId not asktor
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us
!6U
a
hn
erormore dehantstatementotaIIthatseparatestheChris-
ti
an
tromtheMosIemortheJew."'' lt,inotherreIigions,wepray
to
Cod,onIyinChristianitydoes CodhimseItpray,thatistosay,
a
ddr
essan externaIuntathomabIeauthority.
TecruciaIprobIemis how tothinkthe Iinkbetween the two
aIienations" -theoneotmodernmantromCod(whoisreduced
toan unknowabIe In-itseIt, absenttrom theworId subj ectedto
mechanicaI Iaws), the other otCod trom himseIt (in Christ, in
the incarnation)-they are rbe same, aIthough not symmetri-
caIIy, but as subj ect and object. In order tor (human) subj ec-
tivitytoemergeoutotthesubstantiaIpersonaIityotthehuman
animaI,cuttingIinkswithitandpositingitseItastheI Idispos-
sessedotaIIsubstantiaIcontent,astheseIt-reIatingnegativityot
anemptysinguIarity, CodhimseIt, theuniversaISubstance,has
tohumiIiate"himseIt,totaIIintohisowncreation,obj ectivize"
himseIt, to appearas a singuIarmiserabIehuman individuaI, in
aII its abj ection, i . e. , abandoned by Cod. Te distance ot man
trom CodisthusthedistanceotCodtromhimseIt.
Te suheringotCodandthesuheringothumansub-
j ectivitydeprivedotCodmustbeanaIysedastherecto
andverso otthe same event. Tere is a tundamentaI
reIationshipbetweendivinekenosisandthetendency
otmodern reason to posit a beyondwhich remains
inaccessibIe. Te EncycIopaedia makes this reIation
visibIebypresentingthe DeathotCodatonceas the
PassionottheSonwhodiesinthepainotnegativity"
andthe human teeIingthatwe can knownothing ot
Ood`
I2 G. K.Chesterton,"TeMeaningottheCrusade,"i nUe New Jerusa/em avaiabeat
http.//ww.onhne-iterature.com/chesterton/new-jerusem/ii
IJ CatherineMaabou,Ue Furure oj Hege/ (NewYork. Routedge, 200b),I0J.
I7
SIavoj

izek
Tis doubIe kenosis is what the standard Marxist critique of
reIigionastheseIt-aIienationothumanitymisses. modernphi-
IosophywouIdnothaveitsownsubj ectitCod'ssacrihcehadnot
occurred."' For modern subj ectivity to emerge-notas a mere
epiphenomenonotthegIobaIsubstantiaI ontoIogicaI order, but
asessentiaItoSubstanceitseIt-thespIit,negativity,particuIar-
ization,seIt-aIienation, must bepositedassomethingthattakes
pIace in the very heart otthe divine Substance, i . e. , the move
trom Substance to Subj ect must occur within Cod himseIt. In
short, man's aIienation trom Cod (the tact that Codappears to
himasaninaccessibIe In-itseIt, as apure transcendenteyond)
mustcoincidewiththeaIienationotCodtromhimseIt(themost
poignant expression ot which is, ot course, Christ's Father,
tather, whyhaveyoutorsakenme7"on the cross) . hnite human
consciousness onIy represents Cod because Cod re-presents
itseIt, consciousnessisonIyata distancetrom Codbecause Cod
distanceshimseIttromhimseIt."'
TisiswhythestandardMarxistphiIosophyosciIIatesbetween
the ontoIogy otdiaIecticaImateriaIism," which reduces human
subj ectivity to a particuIar ontoIogicaI sphere (no wonder that
Ceorgi PIekhanov, the creator ot the term diaIecticaI materi-
aIism,"aIsodesignatedMarxismasdynamizedSpinozism"), and
the phiIosophy otpraxis which, trom the young Ceorg Lukcs
onward, takes asitsstartingpointandhorizonacoIIective sub-
j ectivity which posits/mediates every obj ectivity, and is thus
unabIetothinkitsgenesistromthesubstantiaIorder-theonto-
IogicaIexpIosion,origang,"whichgivesrisetoit.
Sowhen Catherine MaIabouwrites that Christ's death is at
oncethedeathotthe Cod-manandthe DeathottheinitiaIand
immediateabstractionotthedivinebeingwhichis notyetpos-
i4 Ibid. , iii.
i5 Ibid. , ii2.
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us
7I
ited
asaSeIt,"'thismeansthat,asHegeIpointedout, whatdies
on
the
cross is not onIy the terrestriaI-hnite representative ot
Co
d, but Cod himseIf, the very transcendent Cod otbeyond.
oth
terms otthe opposition-Fatherand Son, the substantiaI
Cod
as the AbsoIute In-itseIt and the Cod-tor-us, reveaIed to
us-
die, are subIatedintheHoIySpirit.
Testandardreadingotthis subIation-Christdies"(is sub-
Ia
ted) as the immediate representation ot Cod, as Cod in the
guiseota hnitehumanperson,inordertobe rebornastheuni-
versaI/atemporaI Spirit-remains aII too short. Te point this
reading misses is the uItimate Iesson to be Iearned trom the
divineincarnation. the hnite existence otmortaIhumansisthe
onIysite ottheSpirit,thesitewhereSpiritachieves itsactuaIity.
Whatthismeansisthat,in spiteotaIIitsgroundingpower,Spirit
is a virtuaI entity in the sense that its status is that ota sub-
jectivepresupposition. itexists onIyinsofarassubj ectsactasit
it exists. Itsstatus is simiIarto that otan ideoIogicaI causeIike
Communismorthe Nation. itisthesubstanceottheindividuaIs
whorecognizethemseIves in it, thegroundottheir entire exis-
tence, thepointotreterencewhichprovidestheuItimatehorizon
otmeaningtotheirIives, somethingtorwhich theseindividuaIs
arereadytogive theirIives, yettheonIythingthatreaIIyexists
aretheseindividuaIsandtheiractivity, sothissubstanceisactuaI
onIyinsotarasindividuaIsbeIieve initandactaccordingIy. 1e
cruciaImistake to be avoided, theretore, is toreadthe HegeIian
Spiritasakindotmeta-Subj ect,asaMind,muchIargerthanan
individuaI human mind, aware otitseIt. once we do this, HegeI
has to appearas a ridicuIous spirituaIistobscurantist, cIaiming
thatthereisakindotmega-SpiritcontroIIingourhistory.Against
thiscIich, weshouIdemphasizehowHegeIistuIIyawarethatit
i5 Ibid., i07.
I72
SIavoj

izek
isinthehniteconsciousnessthattheprocessotknowingspirit's
essence takes pIace and that the divine seIt-consciousness thus
arises. Out ot the toaming terment ot hnitude, spirit rises
up
tragrantIy. "''TishoIdsespeciaIIytor the HoIySpirit.ouraware-
ness, the (seIt)consciousnessothnite humans, isits onIyactuaI
site,i . e. , theHoIySpiritaIsorisesup outotthetoamingterment
othnitude."
WecanseeaproposthiscasehowsubIationisnotdirectIythe
subIation ot otherness, its return into the same, its recupera-
tion by the One (so that, in this case, hnite/mortaI individuaIs
are reunitedwith Cod, returned to his embrace) . With Christ's
incarnation, the externaIization/seIt-aIienation ot divinity, the
passage trom thetranscendent Codto hnite/mortaIindividuaIs
isaja/r accomp|/, thereisnowayback-tromnowon, aIIthereis,
aIIthatreaIIyexists,"areindividuaIs,therearenoPIatonicIdeas
orSubstanceswhoseexistenceis somehow more reaI."Whatis
subIated" in the move trom the Son to the HoIy Spirit is thus
Cod himseIt. atter the crucihion, the death otthe incarnated
Cod, the universaI Cod returns as the Spirit otthe community
otbeIievers,i . e. , He istheonewhopassestrombeingatranscen-
dent substantiaI ReaIity to a virtuaI/ideaI entity which exists
onIyas the presupposition" otactingindividuaIs. Testandard
perceptionotHegeIasanorganicisthoIistwhothinksthatreaIIy
existing individuaIs are just predicates" otsome higher" sub-
stantiaIWhoIe,epiphenomenaottheSpiritconceivedasamega-
Subj ectwhoehectiveIyrunstheshow,totaIIymissesthiscruciaI
point.
ForHegeI,thisco-dependenceotthetwoaspectsotkenosis-
Cod'sseIt-aIienationandtheaIienationtromCodotthehuman
individuaIwho experienceshimseItas aIone in agodIessworId,
i7 Hege,Lecrures on rhe Phi/osohy oj Re/igion, voI. III, 2JJ.
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us
!7J
a
bandonedbyCodwhodweIIsinsomeinaccessibIetranscendent
e
yond-reaches its highest tension in Protestantism. Protes-
tan
tism and the EnIightenment critique ot reIigious supersti-
tionsare two sides otthe same coin. Testarting point otthis
entiremovement is the medievaI CathoIicthoughtotsomeone
Iike Tomas Aquinas, torwhom phiIosophy shouIdbe a hand-
maiden ottaith.taithandknowIedge, theoIogyandphiIosophy,
suppIementeachotheras aharmonious,non-conictuaIdistinc-
tion within (under the predominance ot) theoIogy. AIthough
Cod in himseIt remains an untathomabIe mystery tor our Iim-
ited cognitive capacities, reason can aIsoguide us towards him
byenabIingustorecognizethetracesotCodincreatedreaIity-
thereinresidesthepremiseotAquinas'shveversionsottheproot
otCod(therationaIobservationotmateriaIreaIityasanetwork
otcausesandehectsIeadsustothenecessaryinsightthatthere
must be a primaI Cause to it aII, etc. ). With Protestantism, this
unitybreaksapart. wehaveontheonesidethegodIessuniverse,
theproper obj ect otourreason, and the untathomabIe divine
eyondseparatedbyahiatustromit.Whencontrontedwiththis
break, we can do two things. eitherwe denyanymeaningtoan
otherworIdIyeyond,dismissingitasasuperstitiousiIIusion,or
we remain reIigious and exempt our taith trom the domain ot
reason,conceivingitasanactot,preciseIy, puretaith(authentic
inner teeIing, etc. ) . What interests HegeIhere is how this ten-
sion between phiIosophy (enIightened rationaI thought) and
reIigion ends up in their mutuaI debasement and bastardiza-
tion" (I0J) . ReasonseemstobeontheohensiveandreIigionon
thedetensive, desperateIytryingtohndapIacetoritseItoutside
the domain underthe controIotReason. underthepressure ot
the EnIightenmentcritiqueandtheadvance otscience, reIigion
humbIyretreatsintotheinnerspaceotauthenticteeIings. How-
ever, theuItimatepriceispaidby EnIightenedReasonitseIt. its
I74
SIavoj

izek
deteatotreIigionendswithitsseIt-deteat, itsseIt-Iimitatio
n,
so
that,attheconcIusionotthisentiremovement,thegapbetween
taith and knowIedge reappears, but transposedinto the heIdof
knowIedge(Reason)itseIt.
Atter its battIe with reIigion the best reason couId
managewas to take a Iook at itseItand come to seIt-
awareness. Reason, having in this way become mere
inteIIect, acknowIedges its own nothingness by
pIacingthatwhichisbetterthanitinataithoutside
andaboveitseIt, as a eyond to bebeIieved in. Tis
is what has happened in the phiIosophies ot Kant,
Jacobi and Fichte. PhiIosophy has made itseIt the
handmaidenotataithoncemore. '
oth poIes are thus debased. Reasonbecomes mere inteIIect,"
a tooI tor manipuIating empiricaI obj ects, a mere pragmatic
instrumentotthehumananimaI,andreIigionbecomesanimpo-
tent inner teeIing which cannot everbe tuIIy actuaIized, since
the moment one tries to transpose it into externaI reaIity, one
regressestoCathoIicidoIatrywhichtetishizescontingentnaturaI
objects. Te epitome otthis deveIopment is Kant's phiIosophy.
Kantstartedoutasthegreatdestroyer,withhisruthIesscritique
ottheoIogy, but ended up-as he himseItput it-constraining
thescopeotReasontocreatea spacetortaith.WhathedispIays
inamodeIwayishowthe EnIightenment'sruthIessdenigration
andIimitation otits externaIenemy (taith, whichis denied any
cognitive status-reIigion is a teeIing with no cognitive truth
vaIue) inverts into Reason's seIt-denigration andseIt-Iimitation
(Reasoncan onIyIegitimateIydeaIwith the obj ects otphenom-
I8 G. W.F.Hege.Ueo/ogian oj rhe 5irir, ed.PeterC. Hodgson(Minneapois.For-
tress Press, I997),bb-5.
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us
I75
e
naI
exp
erience,trueReaIityisinaccessibIetoit) .1eProtestant
i
n
sistenceontaithaIone, onhowthetruetempIesandaItarsto
Co
dsh
ouIdbebuiItintheheartottheindividuaI,notinexternaI
rea
Iity, isanindicationothowtheanti-reIigious EnIightenment
attitudecannotresoIveitsownprobIem,theprobIemotsubj ec-
ti
vitygrippedbyabsoIute soIitude."''Te uItimate resuItotthe
hnIightenmentisthustheabsoIutesinguIarityotthesubj ectdis-
p
os
sessedotaIIsubstantiaIcontent,reducedtotheemptypoint
ot se
It-reIating negativity, a subj ect totaIIy aIienated trom the
substantiaI content, incIuding /rs owo content. And, tor HegeI,
thepassagethroughthiszero-pointisnecessary, sincethesoIu-
tionisnotprovidedbyanykindotrenewedsynthesisorreconciI-
iationbetweenFaithandReason. withtheadventotmodernity,
the magic ot the enchanteduniverseistoreverIost,grayreaIity
ishere tostay. TeonIysoIutionis, aswehaveaIreadyseen, the
veryredoubIingotaIienation,theinsightintohowmyaIienation
[om theAbsoIute overIapswiththeAbsoIute's seIt-aIienation. I
am in" Codinmyverydistancetromhim.
ItwaswithoutdoubtKierkegaardwhopushedtoextremethis
divine paraIIax tension, best encapsuIated in his notion ot the
teIeoIogicaI suspension ot the ethicaI." In 1e Ancient Trag-
icaIMotitas Reectedinthe Modern,"a chapterinVoIume I ot
L/rber/Or, Kierkegaard proposedhis tantasy otwhata modern
AntigonewouIdhavebeen. '1econictisnowentireIyinternaI-
ized. thereisnoIongeraneedtorCreon.WhiIeAntigoneadmires
and Ioves her tather Oedipus, the pubIic hero and savior ot
Tebes, sheknowsthetruthabouthim(themurderothistather,
his incestuous marriage) . Her deadIock isthat she isprevented
9 Maabou, Ue Furure ojHege|, 4.
20 SrenKierkegaard,Eirher/Or, VoumeI(NewYork.Anchorooks,U59),
J7-52.
!76
SIavoj

izek
tromsharingthis accursedknowIedge (Iike Abraham, who
aIso
couIdnotcommunicatetoothersthe divine injunctiontos
acri-
hcehisson) . she cannotcompIain, or shareherpainandsorroy
withothers. Incontrastto SophocIes'Antigonewho acts(tob
ury
her brotherand thus activeIy assumehertate), she is unabIe to
act, condemnedtorever to impassive suhering. Tis unbearab
Ie
burdenothersecret,otherdestructiveagaIma,hnaIIydrivesher
todeath, inwhich aIone she hnds thepeaceotherwiseprovided
by symboIizing or sharing her pain and sorrow. Kierkegaard's
pointis that this situationisnoIongerproperIytragic(again,in
asimiIarway, Abrahamis aIsonotatragichgure) . Furthermore,
insotarasKierkegaard'sAntigoneisaparadigmaticaIIymodernist
one, we can go onwith this mentaI experiment and imagine
postmodernAntigone, with, otcourse, a StaIinisttwist. incon-
trasttothemodernistone,shewouIdhndherseItinapositionin
which, to quoteKierkegaardhimseIt, the ethicaI itseItwouIdbe
thetemptation. OneversionwouIdundoubtedIybetorAntigone
to pubIicIy renounce, denounce, and accuse her tather (or, in
diherentversion, her brotherPoIynices) othis terribIe sins, oar
oj ber aocood/r/ooa| |ove jor b/m. TeKierkegaardiancatchisthat
suchapab|/c actwouIdrenderAntigoneevenmore/so|ared, abso-
IuteIyaIone. no one-with the exception otOedipus himseIt, it
he were stiII aIive-wouId understand that her act otbetrayaI
was thesupremeactotIove. . . AntigonewouIdthus be entireIy
deprived other subIime beauty-aII that wouId signaI the tact
that shewasnotapure andsimpIetraitortohertather, thatshe
actedoutotIovetorhim,wouIdbecomesomebareIyperceptibIe
repuIsivetic,IikethehysterictwtchotSygnedeCoutontaine'sIips
inCIaudeI's Ue Hosrage-a ticthatnoIongerbeIongs tothetace,
butisagrimacewhoseinsistencedisintegratestheunityotatace.
ItispreciseIyonaccountottheparahaxnatureotKierkegaard's
thoughtthat, aproposhistriad"ottheAesthetic,theBthic, and
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us I77
th
eR
eIigious,oneshouIdbearinmindhowthechoice,theeither-
o
r,"
is
aIwaysbetweenthetwo-eitherthehrsttwo (Aestheticor
hthicaI)orthesecondtwo(EthicaIorReIigious) .TetrueprobIem
isnotthechoicebetweentheaestheticandethicIeveIs(pIeasure
versus duty), but between the ethicaI and its reIigious suspen-
sion. it is easyto do one's dutyagainst one's desiretorpIeasure
ore
gotisticinterests,itismuchmoredimcmttoobeytheuncon-
diti
onaI ethico-reIigiouscaIIagainstone's veryethicaIsubstance.
(TisisthediIemmatacedbySygnedeCoutontaineasweIIas the
e
xtremeparadoxotChristianityas rbe reIigionotmodernip. Iike
Jmia inWaugh's 8r/desbead Rev/s/red, to remain taithtuI to one's
unconditionaIDuty, one shouIdinduIgeinwhatmayappeartobe

n aesthetic regression or opportunistic betrayaI.) In L/rber/Or,

Kierkegaardgives nocIearpriorityto the EthicaI, hemereIycon-
hontsthetwochoices,thatottheAestheticandottheEthicaI,ina
pureIyparaIIaxway, emphasizingthe jump" thatseparatesthem,
the Iackotanymediation between them. Te ReIigious is byno
meansthemediatingsynthesis"otthetwo,but,onthecontrary,
the radicaIassertionottheparaLaxgap (or paradox," theIackot
commonmeasure, the insurmountabIeabyssbetweenthe Finite
andthe Inhnite) . Tatis to say,whatmakes theAestheticorthe
BthicaIprobIematicisnottheirrespectivepositive characteristics,
buttheirverytormaInature. thetactthat, inbothcases, thesub-
jectwantstoIiveaconsistentmodeotexistenceandthusdisavows
theradicaIantagonismotthehumansituation.TisiswhyJmia's
choiceattheendot8r/desbead Rev/s/red isproperIyreIigious,even
though,initsimmediateappearance,itisachoiceottheAesthetic
(passingIove ahairs) against the EthicaI (marriage) . what mat-
tersis that shehas controntedandtmIyassumedtheparadoxot
humanexistence.WhatthismeansisthatheractinvoIvesaIeap
ottaith". there is no guarantee that her retreatinto passingIove
ahairsisnotjustthat-a retreattromtheEthicaItotheAesthetic
!7B SIavo]

izek
(inthesamewaythereisnoguaranteethatAbraham'sdecision
to
kIsaacisnotaresuItothisprivatemadness) .Weareneversa
teIy
withintheReIigious,doubttoreverremains,andthesameactcan
be seenas reIigious oras aesthetic, in a paraIIa spIit which can
neverbeaboIished, since the minimaIdiherence"whichtrans
ub-
stantiates(whatappearstobe)anaestheticactintoareIigiouson
e
cannoteverbespecihed,Iocatedinadeterminateproperty.
However, thisveryparaIIaxspIitis itseItcaughtin aparaIIax.
it can be viewed as condemning us to permanent anxiety, but
aIso as something inherentIy comicaI. Tis is why Kierkegaard
insisted on the comicaI character otChristianity. Is there any-
thing more comicaI than the incarnation, this ridicuIous over-
Iappingotthe Highestand the Lowest, the coincidence otOod,
creator otthe universe, with a miserabIe man7' RecaII the eIe-
mentarycomicscenetrom a hIm. atter the trumpets announce
the King's entryinto theroyaIhaII, the surprisedpubIic sees a
miserabIecrippIedcIown comestaggeringin. . . this istheIogic
otincarnation. Te onIyproper Christian comment on Christ's
deathisthus. La com med/a o/ra . . . And,again,thepointisthat
thegap thatseparates Ood trommanin ChristispureIythatot
aparaIIax. Christisnotapersonwithtwosubstances,immortaI
and mortaI. Perhaps this wouId aIso be one way to distinguish
between pagan Onosticism and Christianity. the probIem with
OnosticismisthatitisaIItooseriousindeveIopingitsnarrative
otanascenttowardsWisdom,thatitmissesthehumorousside
ot reIigious experience-Onostics are Christians who miss the
j oke otChristianity. . . (And, incidentaIIy, this is whyMeI Oib-
son's Pass/oo isuItimateIyananti-ChristianhIm. ittotaIIyIacks
thiscomicaspect. )
As is otten the case, Kierkegaard is here unexpectedIy cIose
2I SeeTomasC. Oden,ed. , Ue Humor oj Kierkegaard. An Anrho/ogy (Princeton.
FrincetonUniversityPress,2004) .
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us !7J
t
o
his
omciaIbig opponent, HegeI, tor whomthepassage trom
t
ra
ge
dyto comedy concerns overcomingthe Iimits otrepresen-
tation. whiIe, in a tragedy, the individuaI actor represents the
universaIcharacterhepIays,inacomedy, heimmediateIy/s this
character. Tegap otrepresentationis thus cIosed, exactIyasin
the case otChristwho,in contrasttopreviouspagan divinities,
does not represent" some universaI power or principIe (as in
Hinduism, inwhich Krishna,Vishnu, Shiva, etc. , aIIstandtor"
certain spirituaIprincipIes orpowers-Iove, hatred, reason) . as
this miserabIe human, Christ directIy/s Cod. Christis not aIso
human, aparttrombeingagod,heis amanpreciseIyinsotaras
he is Cod, i . e. , theecce bomo /s thehighestmarkothis divinity.
Tere is thus an obj ective ironyin Pontius PiIatus's Ecce bomo|,
whenhepresentsChristtotheenragedmob. itsmeaningisnot
LookatthismiserabIetorturedcreature7Doyounotseeinita
simpIe vuInerabIe man7 Have you not any compassion tor it7,"
but, rather, HereisCodhimseIt| "
Inacomedy,however,theactordoesnotcoincidewththeperson
hepIaysinthewaythathepIayshimseItonthestage,inthesense
thathesimpIyiswhathere yisonthestage. Itis ratherthat,in
aproperIyHegeIianway, thegapwhichseparatestheactorhomhis
stagepersonainatragedyistransposedintothestagepersonaitseIt.
a comic character is never h yidentihedwithhis roIe, he ways
retains the abditytoobservehimseIthom outside, mngtun ot
himseIt." (RecIthe immortaILucyhoml Love Lacy, whosetrade-
markgesture,when something surprisedher,was tosIightIybend
herneckandcastadrecthedgazeotsurpriseintothecamera-this
was not Lucme aL, the actress, mockingIyaddressingthe pubIic,
but an attitude otseIt-estrangement thatwas part otLucy," as a
screen persona, herseIt.) Tis is howthe HegeIian reconciIiation"
works.notasanimmediatesynthesisorreconciIiationotopposites,
but as a redoubIing otthegap or antagonism-the two opposed
IB
SIavoj

izek
momentsarereconciIed"whenthegapthatseparatesthemispos-
itedas inherent to one ottheterms. In Christianity, thegapthat
separates Ood homman is notehectiveIysubIated" in the hgure
otChristasgod-man, butonIyinthemosttensemomentotcruci-
monwhenChristhimseItdespairs(Father,whyhaveyoutorsen
me7"). inthis moment, thegap is transposedinto OodhimseIt, as
thegapmatseparatesChristhomOodtheFather,meproperIydia-
IecticaItrickhereisthattheveryteaturewhichappearedtoseparate
mehomOodturnsouttounitemewithOod.
For HegeI, what happens in comedy is that the UniversaI
appears as such," in direct contrast to the mereIy abstract"
universaI which is the mute" universaIity ot the passive Iink
(commonteature)betweenparticuIarmoments. Inotherwords,
in comedy, universaIity directIy acrs-how7 Comedy does not
reIy on the undermining ot our dignitywith reminders otthe
ridicuIouscontingenciesotourterrestriaIexistence,itis, onthe
contrary, the tuII assertion otuniversaIity, the immediate coin-
cidence otuniversaIitywith the character's orthe actor's singu-
Iarity.1atistosay,whatehectiveIyhappenswhen,inacomedy,
aIIuniversaIteatures ot dignityaremockedandsubverted71e
negative torce that undermines them is that otthe individuaI,
the hero with his attitude ot disrespect towards aII eIevated
universaI vaIues, and this negativity itseIt becomes the onIy
true remaininguniversaI torce. And does the same not hoId tor
Christ7AIIstabIe-substantiaIuniversaIteaturesareundermined,
reIativized, byhis scandaIous acts, so that the onIyremaining
universaIityis the one embodied inhim, inhisverysinguIarity.
1e universaIs underminedby Christ are abstract" substantiaI
universaIs (presentedintheguiseottheJewishLaw), whiIethe
concrete" universaIity is the very negativity ot undermining
abstractuniversaIs.
AccordingtoananecdotetromtheMay' 58period,therewas
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us
bI
apieceotgramtionaPariswaII.Codisdead-Nietzsche."Next
da
y, another piece ot gramti appeared beIow it. Nietzsche is
dead-Cod."Whatiswrongwiththisj oke7WhyisitsoobviousIy
reactionary7 Itis not onIythatthe reversedstatementreIies on
a
moraIistic pIatitude with no inherent truth, its taiIure goes
deeper, and concerns the torm otreversaI itseIt. What makes
the j oke a bad one is the pure symmetry otthe reversaI-the
underIyingcIaimotthehrstgramti. Codisdead.Signedby(the
obviousIyIiving) Nietzsche," is turnedaroundinto a statement
whichimpIies.Nietzscheisdead,whiIeIamstiIIaIive.Signedby
Cod." CruciaItorthepropercomicehectis notdiherencewhere
we expectsameness, but,rather,samenesswhereweexpectdit-
terence-whichiswhy,asAIenkaZupancichaspointedout,the
properIy comic version otthejoke wouIdhave been something
Iike. Cod is dead. And, as a matterottact, I don'tteeI tooweII
either . . . . " Is this nota comicversion otChrist's compIaint on
the cross7 Christ dies on the cross not to be rid othis mortaI
tormandrejointhedivine, hediesbecauseheisCod.Nowonder,
then, that intheIastyears othis inteIIectuaIactivity Nietzsche
usedto sign his texts andIetters as Christ". the proper comic
suppIementto his procIamationthat Cod is dead"wouIdhave
been tomake Nietzsche himseItaddto it. `And I don't teeI too
weIIeither . . . . "
Fromhere,we can aIso eIaborateacritique otthephiIosophy
othnitude which predominates today. Te ideais that, against
the big metaphysicaI constructs, we shouId humbIy accept our
hnitude as ouruItimatehorizon. there is no absoIuteTruth, aII
we candois acceptthe contingencyotourexistence,theunsur-
22 Onwhoseessay"Te 'Concrete Universa,'andWhatComedyCanTeIUsAbout
It" (inSavoj Zizek, ed. , Lacan: Ue 5i/enr Parrners [London.Verso ooks, 2005J)
Ireyhere.
IB2
SIavoj

izek
passabIecharacterotourbeingthrownintoasituation,thebasic
IackotanyabsoIutepointotreterence,thepIaytuInessotourpre-
dicament. However,thehrstthingthatstrikestheeyehereisthe
utmostseriousnessotthisphiIosophyothnitude,itsaII-pervasive
pathos whichrunsagainstthe expectedpIaytuIness. theuItimate
tone otthis phiIosophy othnitudeis that otan heroic anduItra-
serious controntation with one's destiny-no wonder that the
phiIosopherothnitudepar exceIIence, Heidegger, is aIsothe one
phiIosopherwho utterIyIacks any sense othumor. SignihcantIy,
the oo|y j oke-or, itnot joke then atIeastmoment otirony-in
Heideggeroccursinhisratherbadtastequipabout Lacanasthat
psychiatristwhoishimseItinneedotapsychiatrist"(inaIetterto
Medardoss) . (Tereis, untortunateIy, aIsoaLacanianversionot
thephiIosophyothnitudewhen,inatragictone,weareintormed
thatwe must renounce ourimpossibIe strivingtortuIIoa/ssaoce
andacceptsymboIiccastration"astheuItimateconstraintonour
existence.assoonasweenterthesymboIicorder, oa/ssaoce has
topassthroughthemortihcationotthesymboIicmedium,every
attainabIe objectisreadyadispIacement otthe impossibIe-reaI
objectotdesirewhichisconstitutiveIyIost. . . . )ArguabIy,Kierkeg-
aardreIiedsomuchonhumorpreciseIybecauseheinsistedonthe
reIationshiptotheAbsoIuteandrejectedtheIimitationothnitude.
Sowhatis itthatthis emphasis onhnitudemisses7Howcan
weassertimmortaIityinamateriaIistway,withoutanyresortto
spirituaItranscendence7Teansweris, preciseIy, ober per/r a as
the undead" (non-castrated") remainderwhich persists in its
obsceneimmortaIity. NowondertheWagnerianheroeswantso
desperateIytodie.theywanttogetridotthisobsceneimmortaI
suppIementwhichstandstortheIibidoasanorgan,torthedrive
atitsmostradicaI, i. e. , thedeathdrive. Inotherwords,theprop-
erIyFreudianparadoxis thatwhatexpIodes the constraints ot
ourhnitudeisthedeathdriveitseIt. Sowhenadiou,inhisdis-
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us
bJ
paragingdismissaIotthephiIosophyothnitude,taIksaboutthe
positive inhnity" and, in a PIatonicway, ceIebrates theinhnity
otthegenericproductivityopenedupbythehdeIitytoanEvent,
what,tromaFreudianstandpoint,hetaiIstotakeintoaccountis
theobsceneinsistenceotthedeathdriveasthetruemateriaI(ist)
s
up
portotthe positiveinhnity."
Otcourse, accordingtothestandardviewotthephiIosophyot
hnitude,CreektragedysignaIstheacceptanceotthegap,taiIure,
deteat,non-cIosure,astheuItimatehorizonothumanexistence,
whiIe Christian comedyreIies on the certaintythata transcen-
dentCodguarantees a happyhnaIoutcome, the subIation" ot
thegap, thereversaIottaiIure intohnaItriumph. Te excess ot
divinerageastheobverseotChristianIoveaIIowsustoperceive
what this standard view misses. that the Christian comedy ot
Iove can onIy occur against the background otthe radicaI Ioss
ot human dignity, ot a degradation which, preciseIy, under-
minesthetragicexperience. toexperienceasituationastragic"
is onIypossibIewhen the victimretainsa minimum otdignity.
Tis is why it is not onIy wrong, but aIso ethicaIIy obscene, to
designate a MuseImann in the concentration camp or a victim
ot a StaIinist show triaI as tragic-their predicament is aII too
terribIe to deserve this designation. ComicaI" aIsostands tor a
domain which emerges when the horror ota situation exceeds
theconhnesotthetragic.AnditisatthispointthattheproperIy
ChristianIoveenters.notthe Iove tormanasatragichero,buta
IovetorthemiserabIeabj ecttowhichamanorwomanisreduced
atterbeingexposedtothearbitraryoutburstotthedivinerage.
Tis comicaI dimensionis what is missing today in the tash-
ionabIe OrientaIspirituaIity-ourpresentpredicamenthndsits
pertectexpressionin5aodcasr|es: 8addb/sm aod C|oba| F/oaoce, a
documentarybyAexanderOey(2005) ,awondertuIIyambiguous
workwhich combines commentaries trom economist Arnoud
IB4
SIavoj

izek
oot, socioIogist Saskia Sassen, and the Tibetan uddhist
teacherDzongzar Khyentse Rinpoche. Sassenand ootdiscus
s
the gigantic scope, power, and socioeconomic ehects otgIoba
I
hnance. capitaI markets, now vaIued at an estimated $dJ triI-
Iion,existwithinasystembasedpureIyonseIt-interest, inwhich
herd behavior, otten based on rumors, can inate or destroy
the vaIue ot companies-or whoIe economies-in a matter ot
hours. Khyentse Rinpoche counters them with ruminations on
the nature othuman perception, iIIusion, and enIightenment,
hisphiIosophico-ethicaIstatement,ReIeaseyourattachmentto
somethingthatisnotthereinreaIity,butisaperception,"issup-
posedtothrownewIightonthemaddanceotbiIIion-doIIarspec-
uIations. Bchoingtheuddhistnotionthat thereisno SeIt, onIy
a streamotcontinuousperceptions,SassencommentsotgIobaI
capitaI.It'snotthatthereare$dJtriIIion.ItisessentiaIIyacon-
tinuoussetotmovements. Itdisappearsanditreappears. . . . "
TeprobIemhere,otcourse, ishowtoreadthisparaIIeIbetween
uddhistontoIogyand the structure otvirtuaIcapitaIism'suni-
verse. TehImtendstowardsthehumanistreading.seenthrough
a uddhistIens,the exuberance otgIob hnanciweaIthisiIIu-
sory, divorced trom obj ective reaIity-the very reaI human sut-
teringcreatedbydeaIs madeontradingoorsandinboardrooms
is invisibIe to most otus. It, however, one accepts the premise
thatthevaIue otmateriaIweaIth,andone's experienceotreaIity,
is subjective, and that desire pIays a decisive roIe in both daiIy
Iite andneo-IiberaIeconomics, is it not possibIe to draw trom it
the exact opposite concIusion7 Isitnot thatourtraditionaIIite-
worIdwasbasedonthe nave-reaIistsubstantiistnotion otan
externaIreaIitycomposedothedobjects,whiIe the unheard-ot
dynamics ot virtuaI capitaIism" contronts us with the iIIusory
natureotreaIity7Whatbetterproototthenon-substantiaIchar-
acterotreaIitythanagigantictortunedissoIvingintonothingina
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us
IB5
coupIeothours, duetoasuddentaIserumor7ConsequentIy,why
co
m
pIain that hnanciaI specuIations with tutures are divorced
trom the obj ective reaIity," when the basic premise otuddhist
ontoIogy/s thatthereisnoobjective reaIity"7TeonIycriticaI"
Iessontobedrawntromtheuddhistperspective ontoday'svir-
tu capitaIism is thus that we are deaIing with a mere theater
ot shadows, with non-substantiaI virtuaI entities, and, conse-
quentIy, thatwe shouId not tuIIy engage ourseIves in the capi-
taIistgame,thatweshouIdpIayitwithaninnerdistance.VirtuaI
capitaIismcouIdthusactasahrststeptowardsIiberation. itcon-
trontsuswiththetactthatthecauseotoursuheringandensIave-
mentisnotobjectivereaIityitseIt(thereisnosuchthing) ,butour
Desire, ourcravingtormateriaIthings,ourexcessiveattachment
tothem,aonehastodo,atteronegetsridotthetaIsenotionota
substantiaIreaIity,isthustorenounceone'sdesireitseIt,toadopt
theattitudeotinnerpeaceanddistance. . . NowondersuchBud-
dhismtunctionsas thepertectideoIogicaIsuppIementtotoday's
virtuaI capitaIism. itaIIows us to participate initwith an inner
distance,wthourhngerscrossedasitwere.
For decades, a cIassic j oke has circuIated among Lacanians
whichexempIihes thekeyroIe otthe Other's knowIedge. aman
whobeIieveshimseIttobeaseedgrainistakentoamentaIinsti-
tutionwhere the doctors do theirbesttoconvincehim thathe
is nota grain buta man. However, atterhe is hnaIIycuredand
aIIowedtoIeavethehospitaI, heimmediateIycomesback,trem-
bIingwith tear-there is a chicken outside the door and he is
atraid itwiII eat him. DearteIIow," sayshis doctor, youknow
veryweIIthat youarenotagrain otseedbut aman." Otcourse
Iknowthat,"repIiesthepatient,butdoesthechickenknowit7"
Terein resides the true test otpsychoanaIytic treatment. it is
notenoughtoconvincethepatientotthe unconscious truthot
hissymptoms,theUnconsciousitseItmustbebroughttoassume
B6
SIavoj

izek
this truth. ItisherethatHannibaI Lecter,thatproto-Lacanian,
was wrong. itis not the siIence otthe Iambs but the ignorance
ot chickens that is the subj ect's true traumatic core . . . Does
exactIythesamenot hoIdtorthe Marxian notionotcommodity
tetishism7Hereistheverybeginningotthe tamous subdivision
4 otChapterI otCap/ra|, on Te Fetishismotthe Commodity
and its Secret". AcommodityappearsathrstsightanextremeIy
obvious, triviaIthing. utitsanaIysisbringsoutthatitisavery
strange thing, abounding in metaphysicaI subtIeties and theo-
IogicaIniceties."''
Tese Iines shouId surprise us, since they turn around the
standardprocedureotdemystityingatheoIogicaImyth, reducin

it to its terrestriaIbase. Marx does notcIaim, in the usuaIway

otBnIightenment critique, that criticaIanaIysis shouIddemon-
strate howwhat appears as a mysterious theoIogicaI entity in
tact emergedoutotordinary" reaI-Iite processes, hecIaims, on
the contrary, that the task otthe criticaI anaIysis is to unearth
the metaphysicaI subtIeties and theoIogicaI niceties" in what
appearsathrstsighttobejustanordinaryobj ect. Inotherwords,
whenacriticaIMarxistencountersabourgeoissubj ectimmersed
in commodity tetishism, the Marxist's reproach to him is not,
TecommoditymayseemtoyoutobeamagicaIobj ectendowed
with speciaI powers, but it is reaIIyjust a reihed expression ot
reIationsbetweenpeopIe." Itis, rather, Youmaythinkthatthe
commodityappearstoyouasasimpIeembodimentotsociaIreIa-
tions (that,torexampIe, moneyisjustakindotvoucherentitIing
you to a part otthe sociaIproduct) , but this is not howthings
reaIIyseemtoyou-inyoursociaIreaIity, bymeans otyourpar-
ticipation in sociaI exchange, you bear witness to the uncanny
tact thata commodityreaIIyappears toyouas a magicaI obj ect
2J KarMarx,Caira/, vo. I (Harmondsworth.Penguinooks,i990),i5J.
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us
IB7
e
n
dow
edwithspeciaIpowers."Inotherwords,wecanimaginea
ourgeoissubj ecttakingacourseonMarxismwhereheistaught

o
ut
commoditytetishism,however, once thecourseisoverhe
co
mesbacktohisteacher, compIainingthatheisstiIIthevictim
of
co
mmodity tetishism. Te teacher teIIs him. ut now you
know
howthingsstand, that commodities areonIyexpressions
ofso
ciaIreIations,thatthereisnothingmagicaIaboutthem| "To
w
hichthepupiIrepIies. OtcourseknowaII that,butthecom-
moditiesIamdeaIingwithseemnottoknowit| "Tisisthevery
situationevokedbyMarxinhis tamous hction otcommodities
thatstarttospeaktoeachother.
ItcommoditiescouIdspeak,theywouIdsaythis. our
use-vaIue mayinterest men, but it does not beIong
to us as obj ects. What does beIong to us as obj ects,
however, is our vaIue. Our own intercourse as com-
moditiesprovesit. WereIate to eachothermereIyas
exchange-vaIues.'
So, again, the true task is to convince not the subj ect, but the
chicken-commodities. to change not the way we speak about
commodities, but the way commodities speak among them-
seIves. . . AIenkaZupancicgoeshereto the endandimaginesa
briIIiantexampIethat reters toCodhimseIt.
In the enIightened society of, say, revoIutionary
terror, a man is put in prison because hebeIieves in
Cod. yvariousmeans, butabove aIIbymeans otan
enIightenedexpIanation,heis brought tothe knowI-
edge that Coddoes not exist. When he is treed, the
24 Ibid. , 75-7.
bb
SIavoj

izek
mancomesrunningbackandexpIainshowscaredhe
isotbeingpunishedbyCod. Otcourseheknowsthat
Cod doesnotexist,butdoes Codknowtoo7'
And, otcourse, thisis exactIywhathappened (onIy) in Christi-
anity, when,dyingonthe cross, Christuttershis Father,tather,
why did you torsakeme7"-here,torabrietmoment, Codhim-
seItdoesnotbeIieveinhimseIt-or,asC. K. Chestertonputitin
emphaticterms.
When the worIdshookand the sun waswipedout ot
heaven, it was not at the crucihion, but at the cry
trom the cross. the cry which contessed that Cod
was torsaken ot Cod. AndnowIetthe revoIutionists
choosea creedtromaIIthe creeds andagodtromaII
the gods otthe worId, caretuIIyweighingaIIthegods
ot inevitabIe recurrence and ot unaIterabIe power.
1eywiIInothndanothergodwhohashimseItbeenin
revoIt. Nay(themattergrowstoo dimcuIttorhuman
speech) ,butIettheatheiststhemseIveschooseagod.
1eywiIIhndonIyonedivinitywhoeverutteredtheir
isoIation, onIyonereIigioninwhich Cod seemedtor
aninstanttobeanatheist. '
Itisinthis precise sensethattoday's eraisperhaps Iess atheist
than any prior one. we are aII ready to induIge in utter skepti-
cism and cynicaI distance, the expIoitation ot others without
any iIIusions," the vioIation otaII ethicaI constraints, extreme
sexuaIpractices, etc. -protectedbythesiIentawarenessthatthe
bigOtherisignorantotit.
2b Zupancic,"Te'ConcreteUniversa',"7J.
25 G. K. Chesterton,Orrhodo (SanFrancisco.IgnatiusPress,995), 45.
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us
Te subject is ready to do quite a Iot, change radicaIIy,
itonIy she can remain unchangedin the Other (in the
SymboIic as the externaI woHd in which, to put it in
HegeI's terms, the subject's consciousness otherseItis
emboded,materiaIizedassomethingthatstiIIdoes not
knowitseItas consciousness) . Inthis case,beIietinthe
Other (inthe moderntormotbeIievingthatthe Other
doesnotknow) ispreciseIywhatheIpstomaintainthe
same state otthings, regardIess otaII subjective muta-
tionsandpermutations.Tesubject'suniversewre y
changeonIyatthemomentwhensheattainsthekowI-
edgethattheOtherknows(thatitdoesnotexist).''
!bU
NieIsohr,whogavetherightanswertoEinstein'sCoddoesn't
pIay dice" (Don'tteII Codwhatto do| "), aIsoprovidedthe per-
tectexampIe othow atetishistdisavowaI otbeIietworks inide-
oIogy. seeingahorseshoeonhisdoor, the surprisedvisitorsaid
that he didn't beIieve in the superstition that it brings good
Iuck,towhichohrsnappedback. Otcourse not,butI'vebeen
toId that it works even it one doesn't beIieve in it| " What this
paradoxmakes cIearis the wayabeIietis a rehexive attitude. it
is never a caseotsimpIybeIieving-onehas to beIieve inbeIiet
itseIt. Which iswhyKierkegaardwas right to cIaim thatwe do
not reaIIybeIieve (in Christ) , we just beIieve we beIieve-ohr
justcontrontsuswiththeIogicaInegativeotthisrehexivity(one
canaIso oor beIieveone'sbeIiets . . . )
At this point, AIcohoIics Anonymous meets PascaI. Fake it
untiIyou make it."However, this causaIitybyhabitismorecom-
pIexthanitmayappear. tartromoheringanexpIanationothow
beIiets emerge, it itseItcaIIs tor an expIanation. Te hrst thing
27 Zupancic, "Te'ConcreteUnivers',"74.
IU
SIavoj

izek
tocIari|isthat PascaI's KneeIdownandyouwiIIbeIieve| "has
tobe understoodasinvoIvingakindotseIt-reterentiaIcausaIity
.
KneeI down and you wiII beIieve that you kneIt down becaus
e
you beIieved| "Te second thing is that, in the normaI" cynica
tunctioning otideoIogy, beIietis dispIaced onto another, onto
a subj ectsupposedtobeIieve," so that the true Iogic is. KneeI
down andyouwiIItherebymake someooe e|se be|/eve| " Onehasto
takethisIiteraIIyandevenriskakindotinversionotPascaI'stor-
muIa.YoubeIievetoomuch,ortoodirectIy7YouhndyourbeIiet
too oppressinginitsrawimmediacy7 Ten kneeI down, actasit
youbeIieve,andyoa w/|| ger r/d oj yoar be|/ej-ycu wiIInoIonger
have tobeIieveyourseIt, yourbeIietwiIIaIready exist objectihed
in your act otpraying| "Tatis to say, what itone kneeIs down
andpraysnotsomuchtoregainone'sownbeIietbut,onthecon-
trary, toger r/d otit, to gain a minimaI distance trom its over-
proximity, abreathingspace7TobeIieve directIy"-without the
externaIizingmediationotarituaI-isaheavy, oppressive,trau-
maticburden,which,througharituaI, onehasachanceottrans-
terringontoanOther. ItthereisaFreudianethicaIinj unction,it
isthatoneshouIdhavethecourageotone'sownconvictions,one
shouIddaretotuIIyassumeone'sidentihcations. AndexactIythe
same goes tormarriage. the impIicit presupposition (or, rather,
injunction)otthestandardideoIogyotmarriageispreciseIythat
there shouIdbe noIove in it. Te PascaIian tormuIaotmarriage
istheretorenot. You don'tIoveyourpartner7Tenmarryhim
orher,gothroughtherituaIotasharedIite,andIovewiIIemerge
byitseIt| "but, onthe contrary. `1reyou too much in Iovewith
somebody7Tengetmarried,rituaIizeyourreIationshipinorder
tocureyourseItottheexcessivepassionateattachmenttorepIace
itwithboringdaiIycustoms-andityouhndyou cannotresist
passion'stemptation,thereaIwaysareextra-maritaIahairs. . . . "
1is brings us to so-caIIed tundamentaIism," the opposite
On/y n 5ugering Cod Cnn 5nve Us
l Jl
ot
th
e toIerant" attitudeotdispIacedbeIiet. here, the normaI"
tun
ctioning otideoIogyin which the ideoIogicaIbeIietis trans-
p
osed onto the Other is disturbedbythe vioIent return otthe
i
m
mediatebeIiet-thetundamentaIist reaIIybeIievesit." Ordo
the
y7 Whatitneo-obscurantisttaith in aII its torms,tromcon-
spiracy theories to irrationaI mysticisms, emerges when taith
itseIt, the basic reIiance on the big Other, the symboIic order,
t
iIs7 Is this not the casetoday7
Tis brings us to the tormuIa ot tundamentaIism. what is
torecIosedtrom the symboIic (beIiet) , returns in the reaI (ota
directknowIedge) . AtundamentaIistdoesnotbeIieve, hekoows
directIy. Toput itinanotherway. IiberaI-skepticaIcynicismand
tundamentaIismboth sbare a basicunderIying teature. the Ioss
ottheabiIitytobeIieveinthepropersenseottheterm. Forboth
otthem,reIigious statements are quasi-empiricaI statements ot
direct knowIedge. tundamentaIists accept them as such, whiIe
skepticaIcynicsmockthem. WhatisunthinkabIetorthemisthe
absurd" act otdec/s/oo which instaIIs every authentic beIiet, a
decisionwhich cannotbe groundedin the chain otreasons,"in
positiveknowIedge. the sincerehypocrisy" otAnneFrankwho,
inthetaceottheterri|ingdepravityottheNazis,inatrueactot
credo qa/a absardam, assertedherbeIietinthetundamentaIgood-
ness ot aII humans. No wonder that reIigious tundamentaIists
areamongthemostpassionatedigitaIhackers,andaIwaysprone
to combine theirreIigionwiththeIatestscientihcadvances. tor
them, reIigious statements and scientihc statements beIong to
the same modaIity ot positive knowIedge. (In this sense, the
status otuniversaI human rights" is aIso that ota pure beIiet.
they cannot be grounded in our knowIedge othuman nature,
theyareanaiompositedbyourdecision. )OneisthuscompeIIed
to draw the paradoxicaI concIusion. in the opposition between
traditionaI secuIar humanists and reIigious tundamentaIists, it
IU2
SIavoj

izek
is the humanists who standtorbeIiet, whiIe the tundamentaI-
ists stand tor knowIedge-in short, the true danger ottunda-
mentaIism does not reside in the tact that it poses a threat to
secuIarscientihcknowIedge,butinthetactthatitposesathreat
toauthenticbeIietitseIt.
C
JC JIIIH_ OHaHtC
O aOIta LIlHOOO\
QIIIlHa XCItIsCs
|unj cvic
U/s / s rbe rbr/||/og romaoce oj Orrbodoxy. Peop|e bave ja||eo / oro
a joo|/sb bab/r oj speak/og oj orrbodoxy as somerb/og beavy, bam-
dram, aod saje. Uere oever was aoyrb/og so per/|oas or so exc/r/og
as orrbodoxy. '
Today we seIdom reach tor C. K. Chesterton when speaking ot
Christian orthodo as something at once romantic, thriIIing,
andperiIous, yet these are the terms usedto describe the con-
temporaryAngIo-CathoIicmovementknownas RadicaI Ortho-
doxy, an academic initiative begun at Cambridge University in
theIate IJJ0s. InageneraIsense we couId speakotsensibiIity,
metaphysicaIvision, cuIturaIpoIitics, and hermeneutic disposi-
tion. Te br/co|age ot RadicaI Orthodoxy consists otseemingIy
heterogeneous" tooIs such as participative ontoIogy, iIIumina-
tiveepistemoIogy,patroIogicaIexegesis,cuIturaIreection,Iitur-
gicaIaesthetics, poIiticaIandpostmodern" theory. ForhimseIt,
John MiIbank says that he wishes to articuIate a more incar-
nationaI,participative, aestheticaI, amore erotic, amoresociaI-
I G. K. Chesterton,Orrhodoxy (Chicago.MoodyPubIishers,99b), b2.
9J
IJ4
BorisCun] evic
ized, an even more pIatonized Christianity."' MiIbank wiII aIso
say that RadicaI Orthodoxy is a movement ot mediation and
protest. Whether this be inteIIectuaI, ecumenicaI, cuIturaI, or
poIiticaImediation,whethertheprotestbe againstinsistenceon
puretaithorpurereason,RadicaIOrthodoxyprotests,bywayot
mediation, the apparentIyextremepositions typicaI tormodern
thought. RadicaI Orthodoxy counters a theoIogy thattunctions
as an autistic idioIect otthe Church as weII as a theoIogy that
embraces the assumptions ot secuIarism without questioning
them. In comparison to other torms otmodern theoIogy, Rad-
icaI Orthodoxyis Iess adaptabIe to the autonomous reaIities ot
secuIardiscourse,yetatthe same time moremediating,partici-
pating, andintensi|ing,whiIeretusingtoChristianizenihiIism
as does contemporary negative theoIogy. Tis is what its pro-
posedtheoIogicaItrameworkIooksIike.
Te centraItheoIogicaI tramework tor RadicaIOrtho-
doxy is participation" as deveIoped by PIato and
reworkedbyChristianity,becauseanyaIternativecon-
hguration pertorce reserves a territory independent
ot Cod. Te Iattercan Iead onIyto nihiIism (though
in diherent guises) . Participation, however, retuses
anyreserve otcreatedterritory, whiIe aIIowing inh-
nite things their own integrity. . . the idea is] that
everydiscipIinemustbetramedbyatheoIogicaIper-
spective,otherwisethesediscipIineswiIIdehneazone
aparttromCod,groundedIiteraIIyinnothing. '
RadicaI OrthodoxydoesnotIimit theoIogyto a pureIyexegetic
2 JohnMibank,CatherinePickstock,GrahamWard,eds. , Radica/ Orrhodo: A
New Ueo/og (London.Routedge,i999), J.
J Ibid. , J.
e ri//ing Komnnce o[ Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy-5pir|run/ Lxercises
U
interpretation ottheibIe according to its own toundedIogic,
n
or
doesitseetheoIogyasausetuIcrutchintheserviceotchurch
t
ea
chings. Its intention is a radicaIization otthesejutaposed
positions sothatbyway otmediation itreaches a third option
which wouIdnotbe apoIogeticbutratherradicaIIy transtorma-
tive and intenseIy imaginative. From this statement may be
extrapoIatedanimportanttact. ForRadicaIOrthodoxy,theoIogy
is the onIymetadiscourse thatcanpositionaII otherdiscourses
insuchawaythattheydonotcuIminateinnihiIism. Despitethe
secuIarannouncementotthedeathotCodandtheIackotacaII
tortheoIogyinpubIicspace,RadicaIOrthodoxyseekstorecon-
hguretheoIogicaItruth."CrahamWardsumsthisupastoIIows.
RadicaI Orthodoxy is invoIved in reading the signs ot
thetimesinsuchaway. ItIooksatsites"thatwehave
investedmuch cuIturaI capitaI in-thebody, sexuity,
reIationships, desire,painting,music,thecity, thenat-
uraI, the poIiticaI-and it reads them in terms ot the
grammarottheChristiantaith,agrammarthatmight
besummedupinthevariouscreeds.InthiswayRadicaI
Orthodo must vew its own task as not onIy doing
theoIogybutbeing itseIttheoIogicaI-participatingin
the redemption ot Creation, bybeing engaged in the
gatheringotdiherent|ogo/ intotheLogos.

OrthodoxmeanscommitmenttocontessionaItormuIae that are
dehnedatecumenicaIcounciIsandsituatedinauniversaIpatristic
matrb ottheoIogy and practicewhich endured a compIex sys-
4 lbid. , i.
b GrahamWard,"RadicaOrthodoand/asCuturaPoitics,"inLaurencePauI
Hemming,ed. , Radica/ Orrhodo A Carho/ic Enquiq (uringtonV.Ashgate,
2000), 0J.
IJ6
BorisCun] evic
tematizationintheearIyMiddIeAgespriorto II00. Orthodog
isaIso understoodasapracticaItheoIogicaImodeI,breakingo
ut
otand transcendingthe narrowcontessionaI boundaries estab-
Iishedduringthepost-Retormationandaroqueeras. MiIbank
,
inthe contextotacritiqueotpost-RetormationtheoIogy,wouId
speak ot RadicaI Orthodoxy as an attempt at constructing
an
aIternativeProtestantism."
RadicaI means a return to roots. Tis means, hrst ot aII,
a
return to the vision ot Augustine, Maimus, and, somewhat,
Aquinas, otknowIedge as divine iIIumination and participation
inthe divine |ogos. ForMiIbank, this understandingottheoIog-
icaIepistemoIogyisoneottheessentiaItooIstoracritiqueotthe
contemporarymodernistunderstandingotcuIture,poIitics, art,
science, and phiIosophy. RadicaI means embracing the carbo|/c
Christian tradition, especiaIIy the torgotten part otthat tradi-
tion withinwhichwe might set apart authors such asJohannes
ScotusEriugenaandNicoIasotCusaontheonehand,and,onthe
other, CiambatistaVico, SamueITayIorCoIeridge, John Ruskin,
or CharIes Pguy, who with their specihc view ot Christianity
questionedEnIightenmentdecadenceandsecuIarCnosticism.
John MiIbank is ot the opinion that orthodoxy makes no
sensewithoutaradicaIitywhichonIyChristianitycanbringtoit.
ChristianityanditspracticecannotbecomparedtoaIIotherhis-
toricaIIytragictorms otradicaIism,becausetheChristianagape
setsitseItaboveanyIaw.TismeansthatChristianityestabIishes
a person-in-processbetore itunderstandsthe personas an iso-
Iated or coIIective individuaI instrumentaIized or subordinated
to coIIective andtechnocratic interests. Orthodoxy enabIes and
creates an /orerpersooa| community pIacing the person in the
mysr/ca| aod merapbys/ca| body otthecommunity,whichis,atthe
sametime,the|ocas oj rrarb thatconnectsthepastoraI,economic,
andpoIiticaI. Otherwise, without the heIp ota Christianmeta-
e ri//ing Komnnce o[ Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy-5pirirun/ Lxercises
!J7
p
hysicaI participation everything wouId drown in neo-pagan
in
dividuaIismwhich, through a taIse concerntorthe corporeaI,
ensIaveswithutiIitariantorms ottechnocratic controI, creating
n
iIIusionottreedomandsatety. MiIbankassertsthattherad-
icaI in orthodoxymeansaseriousreceptivitytothemeaningot
a
properunderstandingotitsintegrity. Tis seriousnessimpIies
radicaIizationotorthodoxyitseItintwo aImostcontradictory,
yetinterreIated,ways.
Te hrst consists ot reecting on the aon/sbedoess oj rbeo
|og/ca| d/scoarse. Te BngIish theoIogian argues that Christian
doctrine is not o/sbed, demonstrating this with the exampIes
otChrist'sincarnationandaneccIesiaIreadingottheScriptures.
MiIbankmaintainsthatatterhisincarnationandkeoos/s, Christ
is entireIyconstituted by substantive reIations" to the Father
and the HoIy Spirit. Tese reIations, he says, are stiII under-
expIoredand that iswhyitis exceptionaIIyimportanttoreect
on an ontoIogy ot these reIations which shouId not be inter-
preted in psychoIogicaI categories. Furthermore, according to
MiIbank'sthinking,wewiIIneverbeabIetoreadcompIeteIythe
inhnitepIenitudeotmeaningcontainedintheScripturesthatwe
readinaIiturgicaIandcontempIativeway,asHenrideLubachas
said. Tis is a traditionaIreading otthe Scriptures originating
with Origen-a Iiterary, historicaI, aIIegoricaI, and anogic
reading in a medievaI matrb. It is distinct trom the abstract,
uItra-modern, and5o|a 5cr/pram Protestantreadingthatstrives
to preserve the boundaries otacceptabIe taith, conceptuaIizing
themostpIausibIe modeI torchurchpractice. MiIbanksays that
thisuItra-ProtestantreadingottheibIeis everybitasperiIous
asthereadingottheQur'an.
Tesecondwayorthodoxyis radicaIizedisbycaIIstoraredis-
5 JohnMibankandSimonOiver,eds. , Ue Radica/ Orrhodo Reader (London.
Routedge,2009), J94.
IJB
BorisCunjevic
coveryandre-readingotauthorswhomMiIbankdescribesas the
byperbo|/ca||y orrbodox, particuIarIy Johannes Scotus Eriugena,
Johannes Eckhart,' NikoIas ot Cusa, ede, in part, as weL as
RobertCrosseteste,AnseIm,RaIphCudworth,SrenKierkegaard,
and C. K. Chesterton. What these authors have in common, MiI-
bankargues, isthatina specihcaLycooceorrared Iogic theythink
throughtheentireChristiandoctrine,seekinganddeepIyprobing
theparadoxesotorthodoxy, andindoingso seemtobedeviating
trom what they intend to study. Tis is the strategypursuedby
RadicaI Orthodoxy. Te hyperboIicaLy orthodox consistentIy
pushthingsturther"andthatiswhywecannotnowignorethem.
InaveryspecihcwaytheyespouseavisionotuniverscosmicsaI-
vation. TisvisioniscompatibIewiththegIoryotCod,orso MiI-
bankargues,whichiswhyitcandeIiverustromperverseregimes
ottruthanddiscipIiningpractices strayingintodevianttorms ot
controI. TeEngIishmanis awarethattherearegroupsotpeopIe
whowiIIapproveotandsupportthehrstwayinwhichorthodoxy
is radicaIized. He is so aware that there w be those who w
protest against the hrst way yet embrace the second. However,
accordingto him, this is theveryreasonwhy RadicaI Orthodoxy
exists, and itwiII attract those rare and romantic souIs who are
convnced that such a doubIe radicaIism is both authentic and
cruci" notonIytor the mture ottheoIogybut tor the tuture ot
Christianity. ForaChristianradicismnotpromotingorthodoxy
cannotbe radicaI, but equaIIyanorthodoxythat does not seekto
radicaIizeitseItcontinuousIycannotbe orthodox."TetoIIowing
concIusionsarisetromthesestatements.
RadicaI Orthodoxy is primordiaIIy an ecumenicaI discourse
which means to transcendan eccIesiaIIy crumbIing Protestant
7 SIavojZizekandJohnMiIbank,Ue Monsrrosiq oj Chrisr: Paradox or Dia/ecric
(CambridgeMA. MITPress, 2009), B9.
B MibankandOIiver,eds. , Ue Radica/ Orrhodo Reader, J95.
e ri//ing Komnnce o[ Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy-5pirirun/ Lxercises
IJJ
bibIicaItundamentaIismandpost-tridentinepositivistauthor-
itarianism which are, according to MiIbank, two unhnished
torms ot authority in the church. MiIbank says that RadicaI
Orthodoxy is not some rootIess theoIogy ot ecumenism, nor
is
it a diaIoguebetween churches. We canunderstand RadicaI
Orthodoxy as an ecumenicaI theoIogy with a particuIar ecu-
menicaI diagnosis"which sets torth a set otconcrete, theopo-
IiticaI proposaIs. Understood in this way RadicaI Orthodoxy
is the hrst ecumenicaI theoIogy ot modern times" which is
neithernarrowIy ProtestantIikeneo-orthodoxy, nornarrowIy
CathoIic Iike new French theoIogy. AIthough since its incep-
tion RadicaIOrthodoxyhas been perceived tobean academic
movement, it is tounded in AngIo-CathoIic eccIesiaI practice
thatremains opentoaIiteraI cathoIic" orientationas dehned
at the seven counciIs . Tis naturaI openness otthe movement
consists primariIy ot its intention to incIude in its own dis-
coursepartsottheOrthodoxtheoIogyandtraditionthatreIate
to modern Russian reIigious phiIosophy. An important tact
emphasizedbyRadicaIOrthodoxyauthors,especiaIIyMiIbank,
isthattheydonotseethemseIves asanti-modernistconserva-
tives, butasthosewhoarecarryingonindeepeningandbroad-
eningtheintegraIvisionotreaIityespousedbythenewFrench
theoIogyIedby Henri de Lubac. ' New French theoIogy is the
most important theoIogy otthe twentieth century, according
to MiIbank, and de Lubacis its mostauthenticrepresentative,
his concIusions, works, and insights shouIdbe broadenedand
turthered. RadicaI Orthodoxy sees such turthering primariIy
in terms ot reviving the doctrines on the supernaturaI, the
aIIegoricaI reading otthe Scriptures, and the ternary body ot
Christ. MiIbankhasdescribedthisastoIIows.
9 John Mibank,"TeProgrammeotRadicaI Orthodo,"inHemming,ed. ,Radi
ca/ Orrhodo, J5.
2
BorisCunjevic
TetranstormationottheoIogyinthepre-IJ00situa-
tiontothemodernonewiIInowbeconsideredunder
three headings. the supernaturaI, the corpas mys-
r/cam and aIIegory. Trough aII these three headings
runs a tourth,whichwiII notbeexpIicitIyconsidered
on its own, and this is participation. Te hrst three
categories derivemostIytromthe work otde Lubac,
especiaIIy as re-interpreted by MicheI de Certeau,
Jean-Yves Lacoste and OIivier ouInois. Te tourth
category derives in part trom Brich Przywara, Sergej
uIgakov, Hans Urs von aIthasar, Rowan WiIIiams
and, again,OIivierouInois.
What is at issue under the hrst heading is the-
oIogybetween taith and reason, under the second,
theoIogyundereccIesiaI authority, underthe third,
theoIogybetweenscriptureandtradition. '
Tis cIearIy sets out the theoIogicaI disposition ot RadicaI
Orthodoxy which is broadened and deepened upon criticaI
examination. Tisnewapproachwasmarkedbyseriousconsid-
eration ot contemporary postmodern thought especiaIIy in its
French variants, but at the same time a preparedness to criti-
cizethisthoughttromatheoIogicaIvantagepoint."''Itmustbe
mentionedthatatheoIogicaIcritique otFrenchpostmodernism
began in the UKIongbetore the appearance otRadicaI Ortho-
doxy. Oraham Ward pursuedthis criticismIargeIy in the earIy
nineties,andhewenttheturthestinhisresearch.Tetextspub-
IishedbyMiIbank,Ward,andPickstockwerekeytorthepubIica-
0 JohnMibank,eing Reconci/ed. Onro/og and Pardon (London.Routedge,
200J), J.
CatherinePickstock,"RepytoDavdFordandGuyCoins,"5corrish Journa/ o[
Ueo/og b4. J (2009) . 405.
e ri//ing Komnnce o[ Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy-5pirirun/ Lxercises
2!
tion
otthecoIIectionRad/ca| Orrbodoxy: A New Ueo|ogy whichina
spe
cihcwayinauguratedtheentireproj ect. ''RON!, asitisotten
ca
IIed, was the thirdvoIume to come out, whichbrought nine
more authors togetherwithin the RoutIedgepubIishinghouse.
RoutIedgehaspIayedapivotaIroIeinthepubIicpresentationot
Rad/ca| Orrbodoxy: A New Ueo|ogy, whiIe the Cbroo/c|e oj H/gber
Ldacar/oo has said that RadicaI Orthodoxy may weII become
thebiggest deveIopment in theoIogysince Luther's ninety-hve
theses` ImmediateIy atter pubIishing this voIume, RoutIedge
inauguratedtheRadicaIOrthodoxy"series,withMiIbank,Pick-
stock, andWardas its editors. One otthe series' authorsIater
quippedthatRadicaIOrthodoxyisabookseriespubIishedbythe
RoutIedgepubIishingcompany, notatheoIogicaImovement.
RON! was initiaIIy supposed to be caIIed 5aspeod/og rbe
Marer/a|. 1eeditorswantedtoavoidthepretentious wording
otA New Ueo|ogy, and in agreement with the pubIishers, tor
whom the titIe Rad/ca| Orrbodoxy was very interesting, the
voIume was giventhe name ithas today. Tis name was Iater
giventothemovementwhichtoratimewasknownastheCam-
br/dge Movemeor, amorethanobviousnodtotheOxtordmove-
ment otCardinaI Newman. Te essays pubIishedinRON! are
reminiscent otworks byAngIican authors trom Oxtordin the
centurybetoreIast, gatheredinLax Maod/, avoIume otessays
edited by CharIes Core. One can righttuIIy state that RadicaI
Orthodoxy is a postmodern" continuation ot the Oxtord
2 GrahamWardeditedUe Posrmodern Cod: A Ueo/ogica/ Reader (Oxtord. ack-
we, 997) . Teeditors otRadica/ Orrhodo: A New Ueo/og metwhieworking
onthisvoume. ProgrammatictextswhichwoudnotonyshapetheRadica/
Orrhodoxy coectionbuttheirentirecareersasschoarswerepubishedhere.
Fhiip ondput togetherPosr-secu/ar Phi/osohy: erween Phi/osohy and Ueo/-
ogy (London. Routedge, i99B) theverynextyear,acoectionwhich,withan
additionareviewotcontinentaphiosophy,buitontheWardvoume.
J JehSharet,"TeoogiansSeektoRecaimtheWordwithGodandPostmod-
ernism,"Chronic/e oj Higher Educarion, June2J, 2000.
22
BorisCunj evic
movement. Tis is evident trom MiIbank's recent statements
which conhrm their Oxtord Iegacy. MiIbank goes so tar as to
cIaim, I' mquite cIear that church unityhas tohappenaround
the pope,"' which is known to have been the program otthe
Oxtordmovement. ApparentIyPickstockwas the hrst to come
up with thename RadicaIOrthodoxy, usedathrstwitha dose
otseIt-ironyonthepartottheeditors. TeessayspubIishedin
RON!mayvary inquaIitybuttheydo manitesta systematic,
interconnectedapproach. Te editors spontaneousIytusedthe
tweIve essaysinto anunhnishedwhoIe. TeintentionotRON!,
asthe editorssuggestin the introduction,was asortotserious
theoIogicaIexperimenttoprovoke,examine, andmakestabsat
possibIesuggestions. TevoIumeis characterizedbyprotound
insights, powertuIintuition, excess, hyperboIicIanguage, risky
generaIizations which despite the inventive syntheses remain
inadequateIyargued, as weII as eccentricityinarticuIatingthe
aImost scandaIous theses which as raw materiaI appear to be
provocative, but onIy now await their subsequent argumen-
tation, interpretation, and additionaI systematization. From
the very hrst pages, in the AcknowIedgments, there is ampIe
evidence otthe many thinkers who have inuenced the con-
tributors to RON! in signihcant ways . Tey are a presence
throughoutthebook. TementionotcIassicaIauthorscIarihes
thecentraIstrategyotthenascentproj ect. DrawingoncIassicaI
authorssuchasPIato,Augustine,AnseIm,andAquinas, RadicaI
Orthodoxy wouId suggest a diherent approach to theoIogicaI
andphiIosophicaIauthorswithintheIargerAngIo-CathoIiccon-
tessionaIstrategy.WhethertaIkingaboutDunsScotus,Johann
Oeorg Hamann, SrenKierkegaard, orHenri de Lubac, RadicaI
4 GrahamWardandJohnMiIbank, "ReturnotMetaphysics,"inMichaeI HoeIzI
andGrahamWard,eds. , Ue New visibi/iq oj Re/igion: 5rudies in Re/igion and
Po/irica/ Cu/rure (London.Continuum,200B), 50.
e ri//ing Komnnce o[ Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy-5pirirun/ Lxercises
2J
Orthodoxy ohers a newreading ot marginaIized" authors in
an entireIy new cuIturaI matrix. RadicaI Orthodoxy as it is
presentedinRON! couIdbeunderstoodas are-dehned, earIy-
twenty-hrstcenturyOxtordmovement,aIthoughitisIargeIya
coIIectionotCambridgeauthors. Tis much isevidenttromthe
tactthattheeditorsthankandciteRaIphCudworthandChris-
topher Smart. Cudworth is the mostweIIknown otthe Cam-
bridgePIatonists, withwhomRadicaIOrthodoxyinsistsonthe
signihcance ot PIato's ontoIogy otparticipation. Christopher
Smart was a tragic and eccentric hgure within AngIicanism,
consideredbyRadicaIOrthodoxytobeanexceptionaIIyimpor-
tantmetaphysicaIpoetwhosemost tamous poem is dedicated
to his cat Jeohry andteIIow inmatestromthe insane asyIum.
A verse trom his most quoted poem Jab/|are Agoo opens the
voIumewiththewords. For7hasthepow'rotthreeandthere-
toreheisOod. "'
Contemporary authors trom Cambridge who had an indi-
rectintIuenceonRON! arejustasimportanttothevoIume's
editors . These are Cambridge writers, protessors, or per-
sonaItriends ot John MiIbank, OrahamWard, andCatherine
Pickstock. First among them are Rowan WiIIiams, NichoIas
Lash, David Ford, Janet Soskic, Tim Jenkins, DonaId MacK-
innon, and Lewis Ayers . The tinaI group who contributed to
the shaping ot RON! consists ot those outside Cambridge,
the bestknown amongthembeing StanIey Hauerwas, David
urreII, MichaeI uckIey, WaIter Ong, and OiIIian Rose. MiI-
bank,Pickstock, andWardopenthebookwithanintroduction
whichisaIso themostottenquotedtext, ottenrecommended
to beginners intheoIogy. Themes such as knowIedge, reveIa-
tion,Ianguage, nihiIism, desire, triendship,sexuaIity, poIitics,
ib ChristopherSmart,Ue Re/igious Poerry (Manchester.CarcanetPress,9B0), 4B.
24 BorisCunj evic
aesthetics, perception, and music, which the book posits as
issues, tIesh out the reterentiaI range ot the proj ect itseIt.
ShortIy atter it was pubIished, RON! became the obj ect ot
tierce debate and criticism that has not subsided tor a tuII
tenyears . Pickstock acknowIedges that the tuture ot RadicaI
Orthodoxy is tar Iess important than the tuture ot theoIogy,
j udgingbyhowRadicaIOrthodoxyis doingtodaywehave no
cause tor concern on that score. It is important to add that
RON! enj oys no canonicaI status in the movement, hence it
must be buiIt upon and critiqued. RadicaI Orthodoxy hoIds
thataportionotthecriticismottheessayspubIishedinRON!
spIausibIeandj ustitied. The essaysinwhichthe authorssub-
sequentIy revised, suppIemented, and sharpened their argu-
mentsturthercontirmthis .
AsIwritetheseIines,sIightIymore thantenyearshavepassed
since RON! hrst appeared and, as I have said, set the move-
ment" in motion. Tis is distance enough to contempIate the
path RadicaIOrthodoxyhascovered.Todaytheydescribethem-
seIvesasaporousgroupotteIIowtraveIers,anetworkottriends
and sympathizers. ' SeveraI essay coIIections have appeared on
the reIation between theoIogy and poIitics. Tese were edited
by RadicaI Orthodoxy adherents or their sympathizers` Six
thematic issues were pubIishedin the Ieading theoIogicaI j our-
5 See Hemming,ed. , Radica/ Orrhodoxy (2000), AdrianPabsandChristot
Schnider,eds. , Radica/ Orrhodoxy and Easrern Orrhodoxy (uringtonV.Ash-
gate, 2009), JamesK. A. SmithandJamesH. Othuis,eds. , Crearion, Covenanr,
and Parriciarion: Radica/ Orrhodoxy and rhe Rejormed Tradirion (GrandRapids.
akerAcademic,2005).
7 JohnMibank,GrahamWard,andEdithWyschogrod,Ueo/ogica/ Persecrives on
Cod and eauq (London.Continuum,200J), GrahamWard,/ackwe// Coman-
ion ro Posrmodern Ueo/og (Oxtord. ackwe, 2004), JohnMibank,Creston
Davis,SavojZizek,eds. , Ueo/ogy and rhe Po/irica/: Ue New Debare (Durham.
DukeUniversityPress, 2005), GrahamWardandMichaeHoez,eds. , Re/igion
and Po/irica/ Uoughr (London.Continuum,2005), HoezandWard,eds. , Ue
New visibi/iq oj Re/igion (2009) .
Ue Uri//ing Komnnce o[ Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy-5pirirun/ Lxercises
25
naIs dedicated in theirentiretyeitherto RadicaI Orthodoxy or
one otits authors, such as MiIbank or Pickstock. ' Itwas rea-
sonabIetoexpectthatRadicaIOrthodoxywouIdpubIishseveraI
signihcantbooks and articIes over the next ten years to which
there wouId be apoIemicaI responsetrom a number otauthors
in theAngIo-SaxonworId. ''Texts by MiIbank,Ward, and Pick-
stockattractattentionastheyhavebeenpubIishingthe writing
otthe greatestquaIity. Ue Rad/ca| Orrbodoxy Reader, pubIished
in the spring ot 200D, was certainIy a touchstone, reprinting
the most important and ott-quoted texts by MiIbank, Ward,
and Pickstock, pIus a textby Cavanaugh. Te Reader endswith
aIongpiecebyMiIbankwhichreviews the hrst tenyears otthe
movement. InhisanaIysis, MiIbankestabIisheshowaninitiaIIy
aspontaneousacademicinitiativegrewintothe embryootacuI-
turaIandpoIiticaImovementespousingagIobaIChristianorder
in the tace otthe scandaI otdivided Christianity. Te division
otChristianitytortheRadicaIOrthodoxthinkershashadapro-
toundideoIogicaIandcuIturaIconsequencesrootedinamodern
understanding ottheoIogy andpoIitics. Today this poIitics Iies
in the triangIe tormed by the AngIo-Saxon worId, continentaI
Burope, andRussia. AIthoughthereisa desiretoencourageecu-
menicaI practice at everyIeveI, RadicaI Orthodoxy is extremeIy
skepticaI ot the omciaI ecumenicaI diaIogue and intercontes-
sionaI documents, rite with compromises and insincerity, that
B SeeNew /ackiars 7J. B5 (UU2), Arachne 2. (UU5), Modern Ueo/ogy 5. 4
(UUU), Anronianum 7B. (200J), Ue Journa/ oj Re/igious Erhics, JJ. (2005),
ConradGrebeIReview 2J. 2 (2005).
U CIaytonCrockett,A Ueo/ogy oj rhe 5ub/ime (London. RoutIedge,200), Gavin
Hyman,Ue Predicamenr oj Posrmodern Ueo/og: Radica/ Orrhodo or Nihi/-
isr Texrua/ism (LouisviIIe.JohnKoxPress,200), DavidentIeyHart,Ue
eauq oj rhe lnnire: Ue Aesrherics oj Chrisrian Trurh (GrandRapids.Eerdmans,
200J), ChristopherJ. InsoIe,Ue Po/irics oj Human Frai/q: A Ueo/ogica/ Dejense
oj Po/irica/ Libera/ism (NotreDame.UniversityotNotreDamePress,2005) .
26
BorisCunj evic
hoIdnobroadersignihcance. Whatwe needto do inthetuture,
MiIbankcontends, is extendthe activities otintercontessionaI
cuIturaIbodiessuchas,amongothers,RadicaIOrthodoxy"which
tend to encourage and support ad hoc initiatives in intercom-
munion and an increasingIy shared theoIogy. Such shared ini-
tiatives can spur cooperationinsimpIethings, suchas diherent
denominations sharing the same sacred pIaces, as has aIready
beenthecasein Creat ritain. Itreunionwith Rome canhnaIIy
beachieved,as MiIbankhopesitwiII, thenthiswiIIbebecauseit
hasaIreadybecomeadetactoreaIity.
1e tuture ot RadicaI Orthodoxy wiII be decisive, MiIbank
asserts, inthe contextotmediatingwithintheAngIicancorpus,
because the AngIican Churchtodayis going through protound
crisisanddivision.TisisknownasthehomosexuaIcrisis,"and
isoneotthemostseriousinthehistoryottheAngIicans.Among
other things, the mediating strategy otAngIican centrism, as
endorsed by RadicaI Orthodoxy, shouId be embraced. It ques-
tions evangeIicaIIy conservative extremistswithin theAngIican
church (who care nothing tor any sort otchurch order beyond
theircampaignagainstgaymarriageandgaypriesthood) asweII
as the arguments ot the AngIican IiberaIs (who are indiherent
to aII but their diherentness, which they consider the uItimate
theoIogicaIvirtue) .ItistheretorehardIysurprisingthatRadicaIIy
Orthodox centrism is criticizedonbothsides assimuItaneousIy
eIitist and sexist, as anti-modern conservatism and Europocen-
tricexcIusivism. 1isisthepricetobepaiditthesetwoextreme
positionsaretobemediated. EquaIIy, MiIbanksaysthatRadicaI
Orthodoxy couId exert a serious inuence on ritish poIitics
because it is no Ionger enough to be theoIogicaIIy conservative
andpoIiticaIIyradicaI. 1isis entireIy cIeartromhis debatewith
SIavoj

izek. At a time dominated by three equaIIy inuentiaI

discoursessuch as capitaIistrationaIity, Christianity, and IsIam,
e ri//ing Komnnce o[ Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy-5pirirun/ Lxercises
27
the customary divisions ot Lett and Rght must be overcome.
F
oIIowingAndr de MuraIt, MiIbankis convincedthat contem-
poraryAngIo-SaonpoIiticsisstiII,ontoIogicaIIyandgeneaIogi-
caIIy, groundedentireIyin a poIiticaI" nominaIism. Withinthis
sortotnominaIist sociaI ontoIogythere is stiIIwhatis thought
otas a naturaI" divisioninto LettandRightthatMiIbankteeIs
tobearchaicandentireIyinadequate, primariIybecauseitisnot
naturaI-the division itseIt onIy postdates the French RevoIu-
tion. Suchan (uItra)moderninvention, asMiIbanksays, returns
us to a certaintormotpaganismwhichcannotohera coherent
poIicy,andhetheretoreassertsthatitisimportanttooherarad-
icaIIynewtormoterbos. OnIytheCathoIiccenter"wiII,torhim,
be adequateIy extreme to constitute such an erbos. In a tyicaI
paradoxicaIassertion, MiIbanksays that onIya CathoIic center,
more extremethaneitherottheextremes, can Ieadthewayout
ottoday's immoraI, neo-pagan, hereticaI, and destructive capi-
taIistrationaIity. MiIbanksees thetutureotRadicaI Orthodoxy
astoIIows.
PoIiticaIIy, cuIturaIIy, eccIesiaIIy, theoIogicaIIy, RadicaI
Orthodoxyisjustoneotthenewcreativeminorities"
spokenotbyPopeenedict,whoseyouthtuIandspon-
taneous spirit is renewing Christendom throughout
theworId.utitisaIreadypIayingitspartandItrust
wiIIcontinuetodoso. '
Itwe want to see RadicaI Orthodoxy as a creative attempt at
renewingChristianity, as MiIbanksays, then itshouIdbe inter-
preted ina more youthtuI and spontaneous way. We can inter-
pretandrepresentitasacertaintechnoIogyottheseIt,"orwhat
20 MibankandOiver,eds. ,Ue Radica/ Orrhodo Reader, 402.
2B
BorisCunj evic
Pierre Hadot caIIs spirituaI exercise. In other words, Radic
aI
Orthodoxy cannot be seen mereIy as an academic initiative,
a
sensibiIity, orevenametaphysicaIdisposition,butassomething
whichIargeIypertains to everydayexperienceandpractice. 1e
renewaI ot Christendom we are taIking about here is possibIe
to seethrough the supporting categories otRadicaI Orthodo
which, at the same time, uphoId an interpretative tramework
tor spirituaI exercise. I reduce RadicaI Orthodoxy at this point
to three categoriestorthesakeotcIarity. ItwouIdseemthatby
probIematizing Ianguage, desire, and community in a specihc
waytheentirevisionotRadicaIOrthodoxycanbeencompassed.
Sinceit is myintention to interpret RadicaI Orthodoxy as a
spirituaI exercise, I wiII use Hadot's'' concIusions trom which
is visibIe the degree to which the phiIosophicaI discourse ot
Antiquityhas aIways correspondedto avoIuntariIyeIected and
embracedwayotIitewhichcontained,inaninherentway,certain
therapeuticandpedagogicaImodeIs.TiswayotIite,inseparabIe
trom the phiIosophicaI discourse in the various phiIosophicaI
schooIs, was examined through priviIeged pIaces and specihc
ropo/, whetherthesebePIatonists, AristoteIians, Cynics, Stoics,
Bpicureans, or NeopIatonists. Hadot'smajorcontributionIies in
showing that ChristianityitseItwas presentedas a phiIosophy,
meaninga specihcmodeI otspirituaIexercising. Hadotreminds
us otOrigen's exampIe otinterpreting thewisdomIiterature in
theibIe(accordingtoOrigenthegoaIistoIiveinharmonywith
divine|ogos) reducingittothreeropo/. ethics,physics,andmeta-
physics. OrigenconsideredChristianitytobethemostcompIete
expression ot aII phiIosophy, interpreting ethics through the
ookotProverbs, physicsthroughBccIesiastes, andmetaphysics,
or,ashecaIIedit,epopre/a (whattodaywethinkotastheoIogy"),
2i PierreHadot,P/orinus or rhe 5im/iciry oj vision (Chicago.UniversityotChicago
Press),99J.
e ri//ing Komnnce o[ Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy-5pirirun/ Lxercises
2J
through the Songs otSongs. Here one couIdspeakotthemany
ChurchFatherswhooheredsimiIarmodeIs,suchas,torinstance,
Bvagrius PonticusandevenDorotheusotCaza. Whatmattersis
thatthesethreeropo/ invariousphiIosophicaIschooIshavebeen
interpreted in diherent ways, and I have settIed on one ot the
possibIe interpretations that Hadot suggests. Te Frenchman
asserts that in the Iater period ot HeIIenic Roman phiIosophy,
at theveryendotAntiquity,phiIosophybeganagaintobeinter-
pretedas away otIite (and not mereIy asa theoreticaI exegesis
otearIierphiIosophicaItexts) . PhiIosophyasadiscourseisinter-
preted ina tramework torwhich Iogic, physics, and ethicswere
decisive, especiaIIypertainingtotheIate StoicsandBpicureans.
TisispreciseIywhatImeantodowithRadicaIOrthodoxy,inter-
pretingitasspirituaIexercisesIinkingIogicandIanguage,desire
andphysics, andethicsandcommunity.
THBLOCICOF LANCUACB
For RadicaI Orthodoxy, Ianguage is both a priviIeged pIace ot
theoIogy and a medium tor true doxoIogiciaI order. Ward has
stated that Ianguage is aIways and ineradicabIy theoIogicaI."
MiIbankarguesthatonIyChristianityinits entiretyanticipates
theideathatreaIityisshapedbyIanguageandthatIanguagehas
thepowerto reshape reaIity. InparaIIeI,he seesIanguageas an
interactiveIy dynamic reaIity grounded in reIations, meaning
thatreIations andcommunication come hrst andonIyIater are
hedidentitiesconstructed. TisiswhyMiIbankarguesthatour
articuIationthroughIanguagereects thedivineactotcreation,
whiIe Long says that Ianguage itseIt became participation in
Cod's inhnite abundance. Ward suppIements thiswithhisterse
22 GrahamWard,arrh, Derrida and rhe Language oj Ueo/og (Cambridge. Cam-
bridgeUniversiq Press, i995), 9.
2I
BorisCunjevic
poeticstatement, Communicationconters communionand
cr
e-
ates community."'' Tis understandingotIanguage comestrop
the specihcaIIy Christian conviction that Jesus Christ is simuI-
taneousIy Ood's Word, Ood's Ianguage, sign, image, and meta-
phor, which aII adherents otRadicaI Orthodoxy espouse. ' 1e
primary roIe otIanguage is to enabIe us to participate in reIa-
tionships. Tis means that Pickstock, tor exampIe, wishes to
renewaspecihcnotionotIanguageasIiturgywhich enabIesand
guidesusto our roIe indivine Iite. TetruthwouId theretorebe
anevent,a manitoIdparticipativereIationshipintime, continu-
aIIyreectedintheIiturgicaIcommunity. MiIbankhoIdsthataII
othumancreativityparticipatesinOod,whiIe OodhimseItisan
inhniteIypoeticarticuIation.
THBPHYSICSOFDBSIRB
In this instance RadicaI Orthodoxy turns to Augustine and his
interpretation ot desire. Its adherents argue that desire is the
constitutiveeIementwhichmakesushumanandthatitisexcep-
tionaIIy important to direct desire in a teIeoIogicaIIy orderIy
manner. For Pickstockdesire is divine mercywithin us." Ward
asserts that desire is compIex, muIti-tocused and heId to be
maintainedbyapowerthatisgreaterthanthatotanyindividuaI
orevencoIIective."' FoIIowingAugustine, RadicaI Orthodoxyin
its textswantstoshowthatdesireitseItisensIavedandtainted
by sin because it is not directed to Ood but to ourseIves, and
2JWard,"RadicaIOrthodoxyand/ asCuIturaIPoIitics,"iii.
24 GrahamWardwroteabookabouttheimportanceotJacguesDerrida'sphiIoso-
phyintermsotKarIarth'stheoIogy.WardcertainIyhasamoreconciIiatory
reIationshiptoDerridathandoPickstockorMiIbank(seeWard,arrh, Derrida
and rhe Language oj Ueo/og, xvii).
25 GrahamWard, Cu/rura/ Transjormarion and Re/igious Pracrice (Cambridge. Cam-
bridgeUniversityPress, 2005),ibJ.
e Uri//ing Komnnce o[ Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy-5pirirun/ Lxercises
2II
t
h
eretore ourhearts are restIess untiI theyhndrest in Tee."
}is restIessness ot the souI, argues RadicaI Orthodoxy, is evi-
dent in the postmodern obsessionwith variousperverse torms
otsexuaIitywhichdestroyeros,Iove,andthebody, shapingthem
in
terms otthe Iaws otthe marketwhere everything becomes
merchandise. Desire inthis casegets dehnedasaIackandpau-
citywhich are perpetuaIIy directed at ourseIves. We can never
tu
IIysatis|this desire. Henceinamimeticwaywe desirewhat
othersdesire. Tisisthe tundamentaIassumptionotacapitaIist
rationaIityaccordingto which tunction theIaws otthemarket-
pIace,ontoIogicaIIy"ensIavingdesire.
InterpretingCiIIesDeIeuze,DanieIM. eIIJr. argues thatcap-
itaIismisasintuIdiscipIineotdesire.CapitaIismisatormotsin,
away otIite thatcaptures and distortshumandesire in accord
with the goIden ruIe otproduction tor the market. "' It seems
that capitaIist production prevaiIs because its victory is onto-
IogicaI"as it is toundedonan ehective discipIining otdesire as
constitutivehumanpower.InordertotreeourseIvestromsucha
technoIogyotdesire"weneedaveryspecihctherapy"otdesire.
Weneeda theoIogicaI anti-practicethatwiII heaI ourdesire, as
Pickstockhas aptIynoted. RadicaI Orthodoxyis convincedthat
onIyChristianitycan reshape andre-direct desire. Experienced
through thephysics otthe Iiturgy, thebeauty ot the Christian
storycanheaIthewoundederosbyre-channeIingdesiretowards
the inhnite pIenitude otCod's beauty. 1ecourse otdesire and
theopennessotthewoundederoscanbewrestedtromthecapi-
taIistrationaIityotthemarketinaromanticwaythroughaIitur-
gicaItherapywhichwiIInot interpretnatureasagiven,butasa
gitt. Pickstockremarks thatAquinasaIreadyspokeaboutmodu-
IatingdesirethroughIiturgy,andthattheveryactotpreparation
25 DanieM. eIJr. ,Liberarion Ueo/ogy Aer rhe End oj Hisrory: Ue Resa/ ro
Cease 5ugering (London,RoutIedge,200i),2.
2I2
BorisCunj evic
torIiturgyiscIoseIytiedtohumandesire.Pickstocksummedthis
upsuccinctIy.
1us we can see that what the Bucharist is is desire.
AIthough we know via desire, or wanting to know,
and this circumstance aIone resoIves the aporia ot
Iearning, beyond this we discover that what there is
toknowisdesire.utnotdesireasabsence,Iack,and
perpetuaI postponement, rather, desire as the tree
howotactuaIization, perpetuaIIyrenewedandnever
torecIosed. ''
THBBTHICSOFTHB COMMUNITY
RadicaIOrthodoxy considers thathrstwe areoheredthe eccIe-
siaI practice otthe Church-such as the Iiturgy and the sacra-
ments-andonIythenarewe caIIedtodeIiberateuponcompIex
doctrinessuchasJesus'incarnationandtheTrinity.1eChurch
isthewayinwhichChristiansIiveandareshapedasChristians.
1e Church is the emcacious continuation ot the incarnation
through history, as Christ is present through the text ot the
Word,thesacrament,andinthewaythatpeopIeIivehisjourney.
What startedwith the incarnation continues in the Bucharist,
stagedin the IiturgicaI practice otthe Church. In thisway the
circIe ot doxoIogy never ends, but instead begins anew. 1e
Churchstretchesthroughtime, meaningtheChurchisacommu-
nityoteccIesiaInomadstraveIingtotheCityotCod.1eChurch
cannothaveaparticuIarethicbecausetheChurchisitseItethic.
1eChurchisacompIexspacemuchIikeaCothiccathedraIto
which additionaI chambers are aIways beingannexed. CompIex
27 CatherinePickstock,"TomasAguinasandtheQuesttortheEucharist,"Mod
ern Ueo/og i5 (Apri i999) . i78-9.
e ri//ing Komnnce o[ Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy-5pirirun/ Lxercises
2IJ
s
pace understood this way consists otmuItipIe sociaI reIation-
shipswhichhavevarious centersandgraduatingIeveIsotpower
because it incIudes numerous associations, guiIds, universities,
househoIds, movements, traternities, andmonasticorderseach
having its own specihc merit, inuence, and ruIes. Authority,
power, and spheres ot inuence must be kept separate within
this compIex space-not hierarchicaIIy dispersed-because it
that does not happen the Church remains an ideoIogicaI Iever
in theserviceotthestate, a semi-teudaIassociationresembIing
a totaIitarian parody ot the modern state and its bureaucracy.
TeChurchincarnates atthesametimeatruthcommunityand,
thereatter, its poIitics, as MiIbank otten argues. Te Church in
thatcase doesnotcaIItoranyspecihcpoIiticaIoption, nordoesit
haveaspecihcpoIitics,buttheChurchisapoIity. TeChurch,at
thecenterotwhichisthe Eucharist,remainsopenandincIusive
since the BucharistitseItis a certain torm otpoIitics, as Cava-
naughhasdemonstrated.
Z
AsWardsuggests,theexcIusivityand
truthtuInessottheChristianstorydonotmean being cIosedto
communicationwithothers. CaIIingonAugustine,Wardinvites
hisreaderstosuspendtheircondemnationototherreIigionsand
constructastrategyotprayerandwatching.Tissortotstrategy
otwaiting"wouIdopenspacetorimportantquestionsaboutthe
interreIation with other reIigions, because other reIigionshave
thepotentiaIandtheresourcestoraisequestionsaboutthecapi-
taIistensIavementotdesireandnihiIismas theuItimategoaIot
capitaIism.
Tisunderstanding otIanguage, desire, and communityispre-
ciseIywhatIhndthriIIingandromanticinthediscourseespoused
28 WiIIiamT. Cavanaugh,Ue Ciq: eyond secu/ar arodies inJohnMibank,
CatherinePickstock,GrahamWard,eds. , Radica/ Orrhodo: A New Ueo/og
(London. Routedge,i999),i82-200.
2I4
BorisCunj evic
byRadicaIOrthodo.ItcantheretorebeunderstoodasspirituaI
exercise. AswesaidearIier,whatwascaIIedphiIosophyinAntiq-
uity was inseparabIe trom the way ot Iite that incarnated the
seIecteddiscourse. TisbondbetweenIite and discourseisremi-
niscent otwhat MicheIFoucauItoheredas the modeItor tech-
noIogiesotthe seIt."TebondbetweenIite anddiscoursecanbe
tound equaIIy in the proj ect and vision as espousedby RadicaI
Orthodoxy. A return to Augustinian patroIogicaI synthesis as a
methodoIogicaI modeI can be tound in texts pubIishedby MiI-
bank, Pickstock, and Ward. Tis step back ismeaningtuI onIyit
theythentaketwostepstorward,astheyare nowdoing, eachin
theirownway. WhatIinks thethreeauthorsisthetactthat they
see the Augustinian synthesis as one ot the determinants ota
commondiscourse, aIthough each otthemreads itin a distinct
way. In theirreading otAugustine there are common constitu-
tive eIementswhichcanbeunderstoodsimpIyas spirituaIexer-
cisesinthe Hadotsense.
HerewedonothavewhatwouIdamounttoapre-moderninsis-
tence on a theoIogicaI interpretation ot historicaI-phiIosophic
categoriesandropo/, sinceAugustinewritesatheoIogichistoryot
thesouI (Coojess/oos), atheoIogicaIhistoryotthecommunity(C/q
oj Co, and a theoIogichistoryot Cod (Oo rbe !r/o/q) . Instead
whatwehaveis anewinterpretationotAugustine'snon-substan-
tiaIreIationTrinitarianontoIogyIeadingtoanewunderstanding
otme souI andits reIation to (househoIdand) communitywithin
a theoIogic-cosmoIogic context. Te intention is to show how
Augustine oheredasoIutionotCIassicaIpohticaIantinomieswhich
PIatohadnotsucceededindoing,havingbeentrappedintheCreek
myrbos. Inotherwords, RadcaI Orthodoxyintends to oheranew
readngotC/q oj Cod wththeheIpotDe Mas/ca, aIesserkowntext
otAugustine's.ItispreciseIyinitssynthesisotthesetwotextsthat
IunderstandRadicOrthodoxyasspirituaIexercise.
e ri//ing Komnnce o[ Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy-5pirirun/ Lxercises
2!5
De Mas/ca is one otAugustine's earIy NeopIatonic works. ''
]e hrst hve books ot De Mas/ca are on rhythm and meter
whiIe thesixthis onharmony. AugustinehimseItteItthatthe
hrst hve books were insignihcant. Te sixth book is, without
doubt, the most importantbecauseittocuseson the question
otmusicwithinthecosmoIogicaIandphiIosophicaItheoIogicaI
context as weII as on a hierarchy otnumbers, since numbers
are constitutive ontoIogicaI categories in understanding the
souI, the being, the universe, and angeIs. It is not possibIe to
distiI ontoIogy trom De Mas/ca itwe don't read this hermetic
and impassibIe text as a spirituaI exercise, which is visibIe in
the textitseIt. Augustine's text is written in the torm otCIas-
sicaItherapeuticdiaIoguesbetweenteacheranddiscipIe. Tese
are spirituaI exercises which point to a musicaI ontoIogy."
MiIbankand PickstockinterpretAugustine's musicaI ontoIogy
usingPIato'spoIiticaIepistemoIogy,which,asweknow,cannot
beseparatedtromontoIogy. Here we neednogreatwisdomto
hear an echo, in the background otAugustine's research into
the theory ot music, ot PIato's statement. tor any musicaI
innovationistuIIotdangertothewhoIeState,andoughttobe
prohibited. So Damon teIIs me, andI can quite beIieve him."'
In other words, Augustine's text on music is important tor
them because it points to a certain musicaI" ontoIogywhich
connectstothepoIiticaItheoIogy"otC/ry oj Cod, aIsoreterred
29 Augustinespenttouryears,tromJ87toJ9i, writingDe Musica. A things
consideredthisishismost enigmatictext.Esotericandopague, torcenturies
itwasnegIectedintavorototherbetterknownwritings.De Musica wastobe
partotaIargeprojectinwhichAugustinewishedtocontextuaIizethecIassicaI
artsotAntiguityintheChristiandiscourse. TeonIypartshehnishedwerethe
textsOn Crammar andOn Music, whiIeheIettunhnishedtextsondiaIectics,
rhetorics,geometry,arithmetic,andphiIosophy.
J0 PIato, Ue Reub/ic, trans. enjaminJowett(Digireads.comPubIishing, 2008),
75.
b
orisCunjevic
to in some pIaces as a sociaI ontoIogy. 'Attheverybeginning
otCiry oj Cod, Augustinespeaks otpoIiticaItheoryinterms ot
thej usticeotthe HeavenIyCityand the EarthIyCity, usingthe
metaphorotmusicina very specihcwaywhich tuIIyenhances
his concusionsinDe Masica.
Now Scipio, at the end ot the second book, says. As
amongthediherentsoundswhichproceedtromIyres,
hutes,andthehumanvoice,theremustbemaintained
acertainharmonywhichacuItivatedearcannotendure
toheardisturbedorjarring, butwhichmaybeeIicited
in m and absoIute concord by the moduIation even
otvoices veryunIikeone another, so, where reason is
aIIowedtomoduIatethediverseeIementsotthestate,
there is obtained a pertect concord hom the upper,
Iower,andmiddIecIassesastromvarioussounds,and
whatmusicianscaIIharmonyinsinging, isconcordin
matters otstate, whichis the strictest bond andbest
securityotanyrepubIic,andwhichbynoingenuitycan
beretainedwherejusticehasbecomeextinct.
Itisworth keepingin mindthat music, torAugustine, is a sci-
ence otpropermoduIationsandstructuredhowthatdeniesthe
31 "FerhapsthisispartywhyAugustine,inDe Musica, understoodthatcreating
ex nihi/o impIies. . . a'musica'ontoogy."JohnMibank, '"Postmodern Critica
Augustinianism'.AShortSummainForty-twoResponsestoUnaskedQues-
tions,"inWard,ed., Ue Posrmodern Cod, 258. Herewecertainymustmention
thetwomostimportantontoogicatexts."EpisteI8"andtheessay"OnIdeas"
tromAugustine'sEighq-Uree Digerenr Quesrions, section45(seeFhiipCary,
Augusrine's lnvenrion o[ rhe lnner 5e/[. Ue Legacy o[ a Chrisrian P/aronisr [Oxtord.
OxtordUniversityFress, 2000] , I49-50).
J2 Augustine,Ciq o[ Cod, 2. 2I. I, trans. MarcusDods,inPhiipSchah,ed. , Nicene
and Posr-Nicene Farhers, FirstSeries,vo.2(uhaoNY.ChristianLiterature
FubishingCo. , I887). RevisedandeditedtorNewAdventbyKevinKnight,
avaiabeathttp.//W .newadvent.org/tathers/I20I02.htm
Ue Uri//ing Komnnce o[ Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy-5pirirun/ Lxercises
2I7
p
riorityotspatiaIharmonyand,assuch,throughpoIyphony,baI-
an
cesspatiaIharmonyintotemporaImeIody. ForAugustineand
the whoIe HeIIenistic and Christian tradition up to Descartes,
musicis themeasureotthe souI's reIationtothebody through
q
hichweareabIetoparticipateineternaIharmony. Justas the
souI can recognize in disharmonious music its own distortions
andmistakenness, inthe samewaymusiccanarticuIateimbaI-
ances in the psychoIogicaI, poIiticaI, and even cosmic orders.
Augustine's teaching on music has serious ethicaI impIications
since he understands the body in a specihc way as a musicaI
instrument ot the souI necessary tor the souI to communicate
with the po|/s and the cosmos within an ethicaI tramework.
AccordingtoAugustine'sreadingotPIato,usingmusictodomi-
nate peopIe is possibIe onIybydistortingmusicaI harmony, so
nowonderAugustinewasthehrsttopointtothemeaningota
musicaI erbos, arguing that thereisnopossibiIityotusinggood
musicto abadend. MusictorAugustine is metonymictorthe
physicaIthatsteaIs"the attention otthesouI,thatis, musicis
Augustine'swayotdescribingwhatitmeans tobephysicaIIyin
theworId. HenceDe Mas/ca shouIdbereadasspirituaIexercises
corresponding to the cIassicaI HeIIenic and Roman therapeutic
discourses. We must distance ourseIves trom rhythm which
brings with it pIeasure and instead embrace the unchanging
truth ot|ogos, which brings heaIing in the torm ota vision ot
creation and resurrection through Christ's exampIe and which
therebyintroducesustothewhoIecontempIationotCod. Augus-
tinedemonstratesthiswithtwoexampIes. TehrstisAmbrose's
beautituIhymnDeas crearor omo/am, which the mantromMiIan
readstromtheperspectiveotthescripturaItextsaboutcreation
andresurrection.TeotherisatexttromtheCospeIotMatthew
abouthow one needn'tworryanxiousIyabouttomorrow (Mat-
thew5. 25-J) .utthetherapeuticdiscoursesotAntiquitytunc-
2IB
BorisCunjevic
tion within a map otcertain ropo/ and a particuIar ontoIog
ic
aI
conceptwhich therapeuticexercise makes possibIe. It is Radic
aI
Orthodoxywhichhas ohered adescriptionottheseropo/ ot
Ian-
guage,desire,andcommunity.
Interpreting Augustine, MiIbank understands the souI in
a
specihcwayasanumberthatmustbepIacedcorrectIyinaseries.
BverynumberhasaninhnitecapacitytorseIt-expansionthrough
divisionand muItipIication,justas every musicaInoteorpoetic
syIIabIe canbeinhniteIydivided.Teinherentpowerottreedom
isproportionaItoanyseriesthatcanbe repeatedandrevisedas
aseries. TisisimportanttonotebecauseAugustine'sDe Mas/ca
ohers a compIeteIy new tormuIa in which spatiaIity is subordi-
nated to intervaIs ottime. Tis means that every partbeIongs
to the whoIe whiIe at the same time every part transcends the
possibIeimaginedwhoIe.ForthewhoIeisahnaIseriesotuncIear
continuation towards an inscrutabIe and inhnite Cod. BquaIIy
theseriesissequencesotmediationbetweenthe individuaI, the
househoId,thecity,andthecosmos. AninternaIcorrespondence
bondingthesouI,thehousehoId,andthecityispossibIebecause
aIIthree, tromthe start ottheirowninternaI organization, are
pIacedinacorrespondencewithwhatisexternaI,pubIic,andvis-
ibIe andthat is other souIs, otherhousehoIds, and other cities
connected by the Iaws otthe cosmos, the metaphor tor which
is music. SouIs, househoIds, and cities may be pIaced reguIarIy
insotarastheirinternaIorderisentireIyconnectedtoanexternaI
sequencebytheaidotwhichtheyareproperIysituated.
1e idea that this practice is essentiaIIy music". . .
impIies community" in a very particuIar sense. For
Christianity, true communitymeans the treedom ot
peopIeandgroupstobediherent, notjusttobetunc-
tions ot a hed consensus, yet at the same time it
e Uri//ing Komnnce o[ Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy-5pirirun/ Lxercises
2IJ
totaIIy retuses /od/ereoce, a peacetuI, united secure
communityimpIiesabso|are consensus,andyet,where
diherence is acknowIedged, this is no agreement in
an idea, or something once and tor aIIachieved, but
a consensus that is onIy in and through the inter-
reIations ot the community itseIt, and a consensus
thatmovesandchanges". acooceoras mas/cas. Chris-
tianity(andnotevenJudaism,whichpostponesuni-
versaIity to the escbaroo, a hnaIchord) uniqueIy has
thisideaotcommunity. this iswhatChurch"shouId
beaIIabout. ''
]
esestatementsshouIdnotbeseenonIyasaIIegoriesintended
to Iegitimize the discourse put torward by RadicaI Orthodo.
To them we can add serious insights into the music ot OIivier
MessiaenanditsinuenceonmodernphiIosophyintroducedby
CatherinePickstockbywayotDeIeuze. EquaIIy, JohnMiIbank's
argument can betuIIybroadenedby CrahamWard's marveIous
study onangeIs andthe church as an erotic community, which
can be read as the hnest postmodern commentary on Augus-
tine's C/ry oj Cod. Tis is why MiIbank's assertion that Christi-
anitydiscoveredtruemusicandtheway its harmonytunctions
isnotsurprising. ChristianitydiherentiatesitseItwithoutdisso-
nances, andonIymusicwhichisIistenedtointhiswaysupports
and Iegitimizes ontoIogicaIreectionon diherentiation. Is not
thisunderstandingotChristianityasmusicenoughtoIegitimize
RadicaI Orthodoxy as a thriIIing, romantic, creative endeavor
which I have described as a caII to spirituaI exercise7 Tis is a
romantic technoIogyotthe seItand an initiation into coopera-
tionwithCodunderstoodinsymboIicIiturgicaIterms.Tetech-
JJ Mibank,"'PostmodernCriticaAugustinianism',"inMibankandOiver,eds. ,
Ue Radica/ Orrhodo Reader, b2.

BorisCunj evic
noIogyottheseItunderstoodinthiswaymakespossibIean
inn_
r
seIt-transcendenceandatransmittingotthe strengthotchar
ip
intheIightotdivineknowIedgetothosewho havebeeninitiat
_
q
into eccIesiaIpracticeswhich arenotjustthriIIingandroman
t
ic
butaIso, as Chesterton says, periIous. Tis is the way in w
hic|
I understandRadicaI Orthodoxy and what it does. Cod
has n
o
t
bIessedmewiththegittotprophecy so Icannotreadthe
tut
ur
_
ot RadicaI Orthodoxy, but what I can saywith certaintyis
th
at
the unsystematic triIogy compiIed" by MiIbank (Ueo|ogy
0hJ
5oc/a/ Ueory) , PickstockQer Wr/r/og) , andWard(C/r/es oj
Coq
presents RadicaI Orthodoxyina very inspiringway as spiritua
I
exercise.
1
JC IHa \aZC
O lHC LlHCI
Levinas Iocated the gap that separates Judaism trom Christi-

nityinthewayspirituaIsaIvationandworIdIyjusticeareIinked.
incontrasttotheJewishadmissionotterrestriaIIiteasthevery
terrain otourethicaI activity, Christianity simuItaneousIygoes
tootarandnottarenough-itbeIievesthatitispossibIetoover-
comethishorizonothnitude,toentercoIIectiveIyabIessedstate,
tomovemountainsbytaith" andreaIizeautopia,aod itimme-
diateIytransposesthepIaceotthisbIessedstatetoanEIsewhere,
whichthencompeIsittodecIareourterrestriaIIiteotuItimateIy
secondaryimportanceandtoreachacompromisewiththemas-
ters otthisworId, givingto CaesarwhatbeIongs to Caesar. Te
IinkbetweenspirituaIsaIvationandworIdIyjusticeiscutshort.
AIong these Levinasian Iines, Jean- CIaude MiIner' recentIy
eIaborated the notion ot the `Jews" in the European ideoIog-
icaI imaginary as an obstacIe that prevents unihcation-peace
andwhich theretore has to be annihiIated in ordertor Burope
to unite. Tis why the Jews are aIways a probIem/question"
demanding a soIution"-HitIer being mereIy the most radicaI
point otthis tradition. For MiIner, the European dream is that
i SeeJean-CaudeMiner,Les enchanrs crimine/s de |'Euroe dmocrarique (Paris.
EditionsVerdier,200J).
22i
222
SIavoj

izek
otparoas/a (CreekandChristian) ,otaIuII oa/ssaoce beyondLay
,
unencumberedbyanyobstacIesorprohibitions.ModernityitseIf
ispropeIIedbya desire to move beyond Laws, to a transparen
t
seIt-reguIated sociaI body, the Iast instaIIment in this sag
a,
today's postmodern neo-pagan Cnosticism, perceives reaIity
as
tuIIymaIIeabIe,enabIingushumanstotranstormourseIvesinto
amigratingentityoatingbetweenamuItitudeotreaIities, sus-
tainedonIybyinhnite Love. Againstthistradition,theJews, in
a radicaIIy anti-miIIenarian way, persist in their hdeIity to the
Law, insisting on the insurmountabIe hnitude othumans, and,
consequentIy, ontheneedtoraminimumotaIienation,"whi
ch
is why they are perceived as an obstacIe by everyonebentona
hnaIsoIution."
1isapproachisbasedonapreciseIineotdistinctionbetween
JewishMessianismandChristian teIeoIogy. torChristians, his-
tory is a process directed towards its goaI, the redemption ot
humanity, whiIe tor the Jews, history is an open-ended, unde-
cidedprocessinwhichwewanderwithoutanyguaranteeotthe
hnaIresuIt.However,whatitsuchanapproachnonetheIessbaIks
(as ChristiansthemseIves ottendo) atdrawingoutthetuIIcon-
sequences otthe basic shitt trom Judaismto Christianitywith
regard to the Bvent,bestencapsuIatedwith regardto the status
otthe Messiah7 In contrast to the Jewish Messianic expecta-
tion (where thearrivaIottheMessiahistoreverpostponed,tor-
ever to-come, Iike Justice or democracy tor Derrida), the basic
Christianstance isthat rbe expecred Mess/ab bas a|ready arr/ved,
i. e. , that we are aIready redeemed. the time otnervous expec-
tation, ot precipitousIy rushing towards the expected ArrivaI,
is over, we |/ve /o rbe aermarb oj rbe Lveor, everyrb/og-rbe 8/g
U/og-bas a|ready bappeoed. ParadoxicaIIy, ot course, the resuIt
ot this Bvent is not atavism (Ithas aIready happened, we are
redeemed, so Iet us just rest and wait") , but, on the contrary,
Ue Animn/ Cnze o[ rhe Orher
22J
an
extreme urgencyto act. it happened, so oow we bave ro bear
rbe
a|mosr aobearab|e bardeo oj |/v/og ap ro /r, oj draw/og oar rbe
co
oseqaeoces oj rbe Acr . . . . Manproposes, Coddisposes"-man
is
incessantIy active, intervening, but it is the divine act which
decides the outcome. With Christianity, it is the obverse-not
Codproposes, mandisposes,"butrather, Cod(hrst) disposes,
(and then) manproposes." What this means is that, aIthough
the Bvent has aIreadyhappened, its meaning is not decided in
advancebutisradicaIIyopen. KarIarth drewtheconsequences
otthistactwhenheemphasizedhowthehnaIreveIationotCod
wiIIbetotaIIyincommensurabIewithourexpectations.
Cod is not hidden to us, He is reveaIed. ut what
and howwe shaII be inChrist, andwhatandhow the
WorId wiII be in Christ at the end ot Cod's road, at
the breaking in ot redemption and compIetion, that
isnotreveaIedto us, thatishidden. Letusbehonest.
wedonotknowwhatwearesayingwhenwespeakot
Jesus Christ's comingagaininjudgment, and otthe
resurrection ot the dead, ot eternaI Iite and eternaI
death. Tat with aII these there wiII be bound up a
piercingreveIation-a seeing, compared to which aII
our present vision wiII have been bIindness-is too
ottentestihedin Scripturetorus toteeIweoughtto
prepare ourseIves tor it. For we do not know what
wiII be reveaIed when the Iast covering is removed
tromoureyes, tromaIIeyes. howweshaIIbehoIdone
another andwhat we shaII be to one another-men
ot today and men ot past centuries and miIIennia,
ancestorsanddescendants,husbandsandwives, wise
and tooIish, oppressors and oppressed, traitors and
betrayed, murderers and murdered, West and Bast,
4
SIavoj

izek
Cermansandothers, Christians, Jews, andheathen,
orthodox and heretics, CathoIics and Protestants,
Lutherans and Retormed, upon what divisions and
unions, what controntations and cross-connections
the seaIs otaIIbooks wiII be opened, howmuch wiII
seem smaII and unimportant to us then, how much
wiII onIy then appeargreat and important, tor what
surprises ota kindswe must prepare ourseIves. We
aIsodonotknowwhatNature,asthecosmosinwhich
wehaveIivedandstiIIIivehereandnow,wiIIbetorus
then,whatthe consteIIations,the sea,the broad vaI-
Ieysandheights,whichweseeandknownow,wiIIsay
andmeanthen.
From this insight, it becomes cIear how taIse, how
"
a!I too
human, the tear is that the guiIty wiII not be properIy pun-
ished-here, especiaIIy, we must abandon our expectations.
"
Strange Christianity, whose most pressing anxiety seems to
be that Cod's grace might prove to be aII too tree on this side,
thatheII,insteadotbeingpopuIatedwithsomanypeopIe,might
somedayprovetobe empty|Andthe same uncertaintyhoIds
tor the Church itseIt-itpossessesno superiorknowIedge, itis
IikeapostmanwhodeIiversmaiIwithnoideawhatitsays.
"
Te
Church can onIydeIiveritthewayapostmandeIivershis maiI,
the Churchisnotaskedwhat itthinks itistherebystarting, or
whatitmakesotthemessage.TeIessitmakesotitandtheIess
itIeavesonitits ownhngerprints,the more itsimpIyhandsit
onasithasreceivedit-andsomuchthebetter.TereisonIy
one unconditionaI certainty in aII this-the certainty otJesus
2 KarIarth,Cod Here and Now (NewYork. RoutIedge,2OO3),45-G.
3 Ibid., 42.
4 Ibid. , 49.
Ue Animn/ Cnze o[ rhe Orher
225
Christas oursavior,whichisarigiddesignator"remainingthe
sameinaIIpossibIeworIds.
We knowjustone thing. thatJesusChrististhesame
aIso ineternity, andthatHisgraceiswhoIeandcom-
pIete, enduring through time into eternity, into the
newWorIdotCodwhichwiIIexistandberecognized
inatotaIIydiherentway, thatitisunconditionaIand
henceiscertainIytiedtonopurgatories, tutoringses-
sions,orretormatoriesothereatter.
1e turther cruciaIconsequenceotthis radicaI opennessis that
we mustmovebeyondLevinasattheverytoundationotethics.
thebasicethicaIstepistheonebeyood thetaceottheother,the
oneotsaspeod/og thehoIdotthetace,i . e. , thechoiceaga/osr the
taceintrontotme,tortheabsentrb/rd. TiscoIdness/s j usticeat
itsmosteIementary. EverypreemptingottheOtherintheguise
othistacereIegatesthe1irdtothetaceIessbackground.Andthe
eIementarygesture otj usticeisnotto showrespecttorthetace
in tront otme, to be open to its depth, but to abstract trom it
andretocusontothetaceIessTirdsinthebackground.ItisonIy
sucha shittottocus thatehectiveIyaproors j ustice,Iiberatingit
trom the contingent umbiIicaI Iink that renders it embedded"
inaparticuIarsituation.Inotherwords, itisonIythisshittonto
the1irdthatwiIIgroundjusticeinthedimensionotao/versa|/ry
proper.WhenLevinasendeavorstogroundethicsinthe Other's
tace, is he not stiII cIinging to the uItimate root ot the ethicaI
commitment, atraid to accept the abyss ot the rootIess Law as
the onIy toundation ot ethics7 Justice being bIind thus means
preciseIy that it cannot be groundedin the reIationship to the
5 Ibid. , 45.
226
SIavoj

izek
Other's tace. In otherwords, does Levinas, inhis accentonthe
Other'stace,not(dis)misspreciseIythemostpreciouspartotthe
Jewish Iegacy, the endeavor to assert a new torm otco//ecr|r|ry
grounded in the dead Ietter" ot an uprooted Law, the Iegacy
which toundits Iastgreat expressionin the kibbutz movement
(andinstitution)intheearIyyearsottheStateotIsraeI7
Tere is thus a cruciaI consequence ot this primacy ot the
Tird. itwe accept that the Tird is-not onIy empiricaIIy but
at the conceptuaI IeveI ottranscendentaI constitution-a/ways
a/reaJyhere,thatitdoesnotarrivesecondariIy,asacompIication
ottheprimordiaI reIation to the Other's Face, thenwhat is tor
Levinas themosteIementaryethicaIexperience, that otgetting
hated on an Other's Face, is ehectiveIy (the appearance ot) its
veryopposite. aprimordiaI, zero-IeveIEviIthatdisturbsthebaI-
anceotthecoIIectivebywayotanegotisticaIpreterencetorone
taceattheexpenseotaIIothers. Doesthismeanthatwe shouId
supportacommunaIethics,anethicswhichgivesprimacytothe
vaIuesotthecommunityandseesindividuaIsasembeddedinit7
Levinas's criticaI rej ection ot HegeI is best rendered by the
verytitIe othishrstbigwork. !ora/|ryanJ|nn|ry. ForLevinas,
HegeIiantotaIity"standstortheharmoniousorganicaIIyhierar-
chicaIOrderotTings,witheachthinginitsproperpIace,whiIe
theencounterwiththeOther'sFacestandstortheintrusionota
totaIIyheterogeneousinhniteOthernesswhich de-raiIs this baI-
anced immanent order. Is the HegeIian totaIity, however, reaIIy
such an aII-encompassing WhoIe that mediates" and thereby
incorporates aII aIterity, aII transcendence7 Is there not some-
thing missing in the aIternative ot totaIity qaa organic WhoIe
and inhnity qaa the singuIar intrusion otradicaI Otherness-
nameIy, the space otegaIitarian coIIectivitywhich is evenmore
destructive ot the organic-hierarchic WhoIe than any singuIar
Otherness7 In otherwords, what the Levinasian opposition ot
Ue Animn/ Cnze o[ rhe Orher
7
totaIityandinhnity, ot Sameness and Otherness, Ieaves outis
s/oga|ar ao/versa|/ry, theaccessotasinguIartouniversaIitywhich
b
y-passesthehierarchic order otparticuIarity. And, contraryto
manyinterpretations, the whoIe point otthe HegeIian totaIity
is thatitis not anorganicWhoIebutaninconsistent/tractured,
seIt-reterentiaI non-AII consisting ot the incessant interpIay
betweenthe organicWhoIe and the singuIaruniversaIityunder-
miningit.
Tis singuIaruniversaIityhasnothingwhatsoeverto dowith
the universaIity otthe high-ground position otneutraIity, eIe-
vatedabove the combatants' partisan passions (recaII the roIe
otinternationaI observers in the osnian conict in the earIy
IJJ0s, tanaticaIIy cIinging to neutraIity" in the tace ota cIear
conictbetweenanaggressoranditsvictim) . suchapositionis
oneotthe exempIarytorms otethicaIbetrayaI inwhichuniver-
saIityappearsintheguiseotitsopposite,asahighmoraIstance.
Tediherencehereisthatbetweenabstract"andconcrete"uni-
versaIity. neutraIity assumes the abstract-universaI" position
eIevatedabovetheconict,whiIesinguIaruniversaIity"achieves
universaIitybyway ot taking sides and tuIIy identi|ingwith a
singuIar partisan position-the one which, within the space
otthe conict, stands torthe universaI dimension. Tis brings
us back to Levinas. taking the Tird into account does not (as
Levinasthinks)bringusintothepositionotpragmaticconsider-
ation, ot comparingdiherent Others, the task israthertoIearn
to distinguishbetween taIse" conicts and the true" conict.
For exampIe, today's conict between Western IiberaIism and
reIigioustundamentaIismisataIse"one,sinceitisbasedonthe
excIusionotthethirdtermwhichisitstruth". theLettisteman-
cipatoryposition.
AtthemostradicaIIeveI,thisTirdisnotonIyathirdhuman
beingoutsidetheduaIityotmeandthetacecontrontingme,but
22B
SIavoj

izek
thethirdtace, the inhuman animaItaceexcIudedby Levinas as
anethicaItact (andone can add,notwithoutirony, thatthetrue
argumentagainstthe Levinasian tace is the tace itseIt, the tace
negIected,excIuded,byhim) .DerridaeIaboratedthispointinhis
Ue Ao/ma| Uar Uerejore Am. AIthough the titIe is intended
as an ironic stab at Descartes, one shouIdperhaps take itwith
a more IiteraI naivety. the Cartesian cog/ro is not a substance
diherent and separabIe trom the body (as Descartes himseIt
misunderstood it in his iIIegitimate passage trom cog/ro to res
cog/raos)-at the IeveI otsubstantiaI content, I am nothingbut
theanimaIthatIam.Whatmakesmehumanistheverytorm,or
tormaIdecIaration,otmeas ananimaI.
Derrida's startingpointis that everycIearandgeneraIdiher-
entiationbetweenhumans and the animaI" thatweknowtrom
the history otphiIosophy (trom AristotIe to Heidegger, Lacan,
andLevinas)shouIdbedeconstructed.whatreaIIyIegitimizesus
tosaythatonIyhumans speak, whiIeanimaIsmereIyemitsigns,
thatonIyhumansrespond,whiIeanimaIsmereIyreact,thatonIy
humans experience things as such,"whiIe animaIs arej ustcap-
tivatedby their Iite worId, that onIy humans canteign toteign,
whiIe animaIs just directIy teign, that onIy humans are mortaI,
experience death, whiIe animaIs just die, orthat animaIs enj oy
a harmonious sexuaI reIationship ot instinctuaI mating, whiIe
tor humans /| oj a pas de rapporr sexae|, etc. Derrida dispIays
here thebestotwhatwe cannot but caIIthe common-sense ot
deconstruction,"askingnavequestionswhichunderminephiIo-
sophicaIpropositionstakentorgrantedtorcenturies. What,tor
exampIe,aIIowsLacantocIaimwithsuchseIt-conhdence,without
providinganydataorarguments, thatanimaIs cannotteign to
teign7WhataIIowsHeideggertocIaimasaseIt-evidenttactthat
G Jacgues Derrida, Ue Anima/ Uar Uerejore l Am (NewYork.FordhamUniversiq
Press,2008).
Ue Animn/ Cnze o[ rhe Orher U
animaIsdon'treIatetotheirdeath7AsDerridaemphasizesagain
andagain, the pointotthis questioningis not to canceI thegap
that separates man trom (other) animaIs and attribute aIso to
(other) animaIs properIy spirituaI"properties-thepath taken
bysomeeco-mysticswho cIaimthatnot onIyanimaIs, but even
trees and otherpIants communicate in a Ianguage ottheir own
to whichwe humans are deat. Te point is ratherthat aII these
diherences shouId be re-thought and conceived in a diherent
way, muItipIied, thickened,"andthehrststeponthispathisto
denouncetheaII-encompassingcategoryottheanimaI."
SuchnegativecharacterizationsotanimaIs(speechIess, worId-
Iess, etc. ) engender the appearance otpositive determinations
whicharetaIse.animaIsascapturedbytheirenvirons,etc. Dowe
notencounterthesamephenomenonintraditionaIEurocentric
anthropoIogy7 Viewed through the Ienses ot modern Western
rationaI"thoughttakenasthestandardotmaturity,itsOthers
cannot but appear as primitives" trapped in magic thinking,
reaIIybeIieving" that their tribe originates trom their totemic
animaI,thatapregnantwomanhasbeeninseminatedbyaspirit
andnotbyaman,etc.RationaIthoughtthusengendersthehgure
ot irrationaI" mythic thought-what we get here is (again) a
process otvioIent simpIihcation (reduction, obIiteration) which
occurswiththeriseottheNew. inordertoassertsomethingrad-
icaIIyNew, theentirepast, withaIIitsinconsistencies,hastobe
reducedtosomebasic dehningteature (metaphysics," mythic
thought," ideoIogy". . . ) . Derrida himseIt enacts thesamesim-
pIihcation in his deconstructive mode. aIIthe past is totaIized
as phaIIogocentrism" or metaphysics otpresence," which-it
canbeargued-issecretIymodeIeduponHusserI. (Derridahere
dihers trom DeIeuzeand Lacan, who treatphiIosophers oneby
one, withouttotaIizingthem. ) Is itnotthe sameto oppose the
Western Judeo-Creek Iegacy to the OrientaI" stance, thereby
2J
SIavoj

izek
obIiterating the incredibIe weaIth ot positions covered by the
term OrientaI thought"7 Can we reaIIy put into the same cat-
egory, say, the Upanishads, with their corporate" metaphysics
otcastes,andContucianism,withitsagnostic-pragmaticstance7
ut is such a vioIentIeveIingnot necessary in every criticaI
move, in everyriseottheNew7So, insteadotdismissingeo b|oc
such binary Iogic," one shouIdperhaps assert it, not onIy as a
necessary step otsimpIihcation, but as inherentIy true in that
very vioIent simpIihcation7 To put it in HegeIese, itis notonIy
that the totaIization ehected under the heading the animaI,"
say,vioIentIyobIiteratesacompIexmuItipIicity,itisaIsothatthe
vioIentreduction otsuch a muItipIicityto a minimaI diherence
isthemomentottruth. Tatistosay,whatitthemuItipIicityot
animaItormsistobeconceivedasaseriesotattemptstoresoIve
some basic antagonism or tension which dehnes animaIity as
such, a tension which can onIy be tormuIated trom a minimaI
distance,oncehumansareinvoIved7RecaIItheweII-knowneIab-
orationotthegeneraIequivaIenttromthehrsteditionotCap/ra|,
voIume I,whereMarxwrites.
Itis asit, aIongsideandexternaItoIions, tigers, rab-
bits, and aII other actuaI animaIs, which torm when
grouped together the various kinds, species, sub-
species, tamiIies, etc. ot the animaI kingdom, there
existedinadditionrbe ao/ma|, theindividuaIincarna-
tionottheentireanimaIkingdom. '
(Marx droppedthis sentence trom the second edition, where he
rearrangedthehrstchapter.)Tisimageotmoney,astheanimaI"
romping aIongside a the heterogeneous instances otparticuIar
7 KarIMarx,Caira/, avaiIabeathttp.//V .marxists. org/archive/marx/
works/i857 -ci/ commodity.htm
Ue Animn/ Cnze o[ rhe Orher 2JI
sorts otanimaIity that exist around it, does it notIenditseItto
capturing what Derrida describes as thegap that separates the
AnimaI trom the muItipIicity otactuaI animaI Iite7 In HegeIese
again, whatman encounters in rbe Aim is itseItin the oppo-
sitionaIdetermination. viewedas an animaI, manis rbe spectraI
animaI existingaIongsidereaIIyexisting animaI kinds. Is this not
aIsohowwecouIdgiveaperversetwisttotheearIyMarx's deter-
mination otman as Carraogsweseo, abeing-ot-species. itis as it,
aIongsideparticuIarsubspecies,thespeciesassuchcomestoexist.
Perhaps thisis howanimaIs viewhumans, andis thereasontor
theirperpIexity.
Te keypointhere is that it isnotenoughtosaythat,whiIe
such a determination otanimaIs as speechIess, etc. , iswrong,
the determination ot humans as rationaI, speaking, etc. , is
right, so thatwejusthavetoprovidea more adequate dehni-
tion otanimaIity-the entire heId is taIse. Tis taIsity can be
thoughtinthetermsottheKierkegaardiancoupIeotbecoming
and being. the standard opposition animaI/human is tormu-
Iated trom the perspective otthe human as being, as aIready
constituted, it cannot think the human in its becoming. It
thinks animaIs trom within the given human standpoint, i t
cannotthinkthehumantromtheanimaIstandpoint. Inother
words, what this human/animaI diherence obtuscates is not
onIy theway animaIs reaIIyareindependentIyothumans, but
theverydiherencewhich ehectiveIymarks the rupture otthe
humanwithintheanimaIuniverse. HerepsychoanaIysisenters.
whatFreudcaIIs the death drive" is his nametor the uncanny
dimension ot the human-in-becoming. We hnd a hrst indica-
tionotthisdimension-neithernaturenorcuIture-aIreadyin
Kant, torwhomdiscipIine andeducation do not directIywork
on our animaI nature, torging it into human individuaIity. as
Kant points out, animaIs cannot be properIy educated since
2J2
SIavoj

izek
their behavior is aIready predestinedby their instincts . What
this means is that, paradoxicaIIy, in order to be educatedinto
treedom(qaa moraIautonomyandseIt-responsibiIity) ,a|ready
bave ro be jree inamuch moreradicaI-noumenaI,"monstrous
even-sense. Te Freudianname torthis monstrous treedom,
otcourse, isthedeathdrive. ItisinterestingtonotehowphiIo-
sophicaInarrativesotthe birth otman" are aIways compeIIed
to presuppose a moment in human (pre)history when (what
wiII become) man is no Ionger a mere animaI and simuItane-
ousIy not yet a beingotIanguage,"boundbysymboIic Law, a
moment otthoroughIyperverted," denaturaIized," deraiIed"
naturewhichisnotyetcuIture. InhisanthropoIogicaIwritings,
Kant emphasized that the human animaI needs discipIinary
pressureinordertotameanuncannyunruIiness"whichseems
tobeinherenttohumannature-awiId,unconstrainedpropen-
sitytoinsiststubbornIyonone's ownwiII,costwhatitmay. It
isonaccountotthisunruIiness"thatthehumananimaIneeds
a Masterto discipIinehim. discipIinetargetsthisunruIiness,"
notthe animaInatureinman. InHegeI'sLecrares oo Pb/|osopby
oj H/srory, asimiIarroIeispIayedbythereterencetonegroes".
signihcantIy, HegeI deaIswith negroes"betorehistoryproper
(which startswithancientChina) , in the sectionentitIedTe
NaturaI Context or the CeographicaI asis otWorIdHistory."
WhiIebeingtuIIyawareotthedeepIyracistimpIicationsotthese
Iines, oneshouIdnonetheIessnoticethatnegroes"standhere
torthehumanspiritinits stateotnature,"theyaredescribed
asa kind otperverted, monstrous chiId, simuItaneousIynaIve
andextremeIycorrupted, i . e. , Iivingina pre-Iapsarianstate ot
innocence, and, preciseIy as such, the most crueI barbarians,
part ot nature and yet thoroughIy denaturaIized, ruthIessIy
manipuIatingnaturethroughprimitive sorcery,yetsimuItane-
ousIy terrihedbyragingnaturaI torces, mindIessIybravecow-
Ue Animn/ Cnze o[ rhe Orher
2JJ
ards. . . Tisin-betweenistherepressed"otthenarrativetorm
(inthiscase, otHegeI'sgrandnarrative"ottheworId-historicaI
successionotspirituaItorms) . notnatureassuch, but the very
breakwithnaturewhich is (Iater) suppIementedbythevirtuaI
universeotnarratives. TeanswertoDerrida'scIaimthatevery
teatureattributedexcIusiveIytoman"isahctioncouIdthusbe
thatthis hctionnonetheIesshasareaIityotitsown,ehectiveIy
organizing human practices-sowhat ithumans are preciseIy
animaIswhobecomecommittedtotheirhctions,stickingtuIIy
tothem(aversion otNietzsche's cIaim that man is the animaI
thatcanmakepromises)7
DerridabeginshisexpIorationotthisobscuretwiIightzone"
withareportonakindotprimordiaIscene.atterwaking,hegoes
nakedtothebathroomwherehiscattoIIowshim,thentheawk-
ward moment occurs-he is standing in tront ot the catwhich
Iooksathisnakedbody. UnabIetoendurethissituation,hedoes
something.heputsatoweIaroundhiswaist,chasesthecatout-
side, andenterstheshower. . . Tecat'sgazestandstorthegaze
ottheOther-aninhumangaze, buttorthisreasonaIIthemore
theOther'sgazeinaIIitsabyssaIimpenetrabiIity. SeeingoneseIt
being seenby an animaI is an abyssaI encounterotthe Other's
gaze, since-preciseIybecauseweshouIdnotsimpIyproj ectonto
the animaI our inner experience-something is returning the
gazewhichisradicaIIyOther.TeentirehistoryotphiIosophyis
baseduponadisavowaIotsuchanencounter,rightuptoadiou,
whocharacterizesaIItooeasiIyahumanbeingnotyetconverted
into a subj ect (to theEvent) as a humananimaI." Sometimes,
atIeast, theenigmais admitted-by, amongothers, Heidegger,
whoinsiststhatwearenotyetabIetodeterminetheessenceota
beingwhichisIiving."And, sporadicaIIy,we can even hnddirect
reversaIsotthisdisavowaI.notonIyisthegazeottheanimaIrec-
ognized, it is aIso directIy eIevated into the keypreoccupation
2J4
SIavoj

izek
otphiIosophy, as in Adorno's surprisingprocIamation. PhiIos-
ophy exists in order to redeemwhatyou see in the gaze otan
animaI."
Irememberseeingaphotootacatatterithadbeensubj ected
tosomeIabexperimentinacentrituge,itsboneshaIt-broken,its
skin haIt-hairIess, its eyes IookingheIpIessIyinto thecamera. . .
thisisthe gaze ottheOtherdisavowednotonIybyphiIosophers,
but by humans as such." Bven Levinas, who wrote so much
aboutthetaceottheheIpIessotherastheoriginaIsiteotethicaI
responsibiIity, expIicitIy denied that an animaI's tace can tunc-
tionIike this. One otthe tew exceptions is here entham, who
made a simpIeproposaI. insteadotasking, Can animaIs reason
andthink7CantheytaIk7,"etc. , weshouIdratherask.Canthey
suher7"HumanindustryaIoneiscontinuousIycausingimmense
suhering to animaIs, which is systematicaIIy disavowed-not
onIy Iaboratory experiments, but speciaI regimes to produce
eggsandmiIk(turningartihciaIIightsonandohtoshortenthe
day, the use othormones, etc. ), pigs which are haIt bIind and
bareIyabIe towaIk, tattenedup tast to be sIaughtered, etc. Te
maj orityotthosewhovisita chicken tactoryarenoIongerabIe
to eatchicken meat, andaIthough aII otus knowwhat goes on
in such pIaces, thisknowIedge has tobeneutraIizedsothatwe
can act as it we don't know. One otthe ways to taciIitate this
ignorance is with the Cartesian notion ot the ao/ma|-macb/oe.
theCartesians were warningpeopIe againsthaving compassion
toranimaIs. Whenwe hearananimaIemitting sounds otpain,
weshouIdaIwaysbearinmindthatthesesoundsdonotexpress
any reaI inner teeIing-since animaIs do not have souIs, they
arejustsounds generated bya compIexmechanism otmuscIes,
bones, uids, etc. , that onecan cIearIy see through dissection.
B TeodorAdornoandMaxHorkheimer,"TowardsaNewManitesto?,"New Le
Review 5b (Sept/Oct20i0). bi.
e Animn/ Cnze o[ rhe Orher 2J5
TeprobIemi sthatthenotionottheao/ma|-macb/oe hastoend
upinLaMettrie'sL'Homme-Macb/oe. itoneisatuIIycommitted
n
euro-bioIogist,thenexactIythesamecIaimcanbemadeabout
the sounds and gestures emitted byhumanswhentheyare in
pain, there is no separate interior domain ot the souI where
pain is reaIIyteIt," the sounds and gestures otpain are simpIy
produced by the compIex neuro-bioIogicaI mechanisms ot the
humanorganism.
InordertoprovdetheIargerontoIogicaIcontexttorthisanimaI
suhering, Derrida resuscitates the oId motit otCerman Roman-
ticism and ScheIIing, taken overby Heidegger and enjamin, ot
the great sorrow otnature". It is in the hope otrequitingthat
sorrow] ,otredemptiontromthatsuhering,thathumansIiveand
speak in nature."' Derrida rejects this ScheLingian-enjaminian-
Heideggerianmotitotthesadnessotnature,theideathatnature's
numbnessandmutenesssignaIsaninhnitepain,as teIeoIogicIy
Iogo-centric. Ianguage becomes a re|os ot nature, nature strives
towardstheWordtobereIievedotitssadness,toreachitsredemp-
tion. utthismysticaIropos nonetheIessraises therightquestion
by,again,turningaroundthestandardperspective. notWhatis
naturetorIanguage7CanwegraspnatureadequateIyin/through
Ianguage7"butWhatisIanguagetornature7 Howdoes itsemer-
gence ahect nature7" FartrombeIonging to Iogo-centrism, such
a reversaIis the strongest suspension otIogo-centrism andteIe-
oIogy,inthesamewaythatMarx'sthesisontheanatomyotman
asprovdingthekeytotheanatomyotapesubvertsanyteIeoIog-
icaIevoIutionism.DerridaisawareotthiscompIexity.hedescribes
howtheanimaIsadness
doesn't just derive trom the inabiIity to speak and
9 Derrida, Ue Anima/ Uar Uere[ore l Am, i9.
2J6
SIavoj

izek
trom muteness, trom a stupehed or aphasic priva-
tion otwords. Itthis putative sadnessaIso gives rise
toaIament,itnatureIaments,expressingamutebut
audibIe Iament through sensuous sighing and even
therustIingotpIants, itisperhapsbecausetheterms
have to be inverted. enj amin suggests as much.
TeremustbeareversaI,anUmkebraog intheessence
otnature. . . nature(andanimaIitywithinit)isn'tsad
becauseitismute. Onthecontrary, itisnature's sad-
ness or mourning that renders it mute and aphasic,
thatIeavesitwithoutwords. '
FoIIowingenjamin, Derridathus interprets this reversaIinthe
sense that what makes nature sad is not a muteness and the
experience otpowerIessness, an inabiIity ever to name, it is, in
the hrst pIace, the tact otrece/v/og ooe's oame."'' Ourinsertion
into Ianguage, ourbeinggivena name, tunctions as a memeoro
mor/-in Ianguage, we die in advance, we reIate to ourseIves as
aIreadydead.LanguageisinthissenseatormotmeIanchoIy, not
otmourning. init,wetreatanobj ectwhichisstiIIaIiveasaIready
dead/Iost, so thatwhenenjaminspeaksabouta joresbadow/og
oj moaro/og," we shouId take this as theverytormuIaotmeIan-
choIy.
Tere is, however, a bareIy conceaIed ambiguity in Derrida's
cIaims. It sadness is prior to muteness (Iack ot Ianguage), it it
causes muteness, is the primordiaI tunction otIanguage then to
reIease/aboIishthis sadness7utitthisisthecase,howcanthen
this sadness originaIIy be the sadness ot receiving one's name7
A I Iett wthoutwords at the unheard-otvoIence otsomeone
namingme, stickingasymboIicidentityonto mewithoutasking
i0 Ibid.
ii Ibid. , i9-20.
Ue Animn/ Cnze o[ rhe Orher
2J7
myconsent7Andhowcanthesadnesscausedbythisreductionto
thepassivityotbeingnamedbeexperiencedbynatureitseIt7Does
suchanexperiencenotpresupposethatoneaIreadydweIIsinthe
dimension otnaming, otIanguage7 Shomdone not Iimit such a
cIaimtoso-caIIeddomesticanimaIs7Lacannotedsomewherethat,
whiIeanimaIsdonotspeak,domesticanimaIsnonetheIessaIready
dweIIinthedimensionot Ianguage(theyreacttotheirnames,run
to theirmasterwhentheyhearitcaBed, obeyorders, etc. ), which
iswhy,aIthoughtheydo nothaveaccesstonormaI"subjectivity,
they can nonetheIess be ahected by (human) pathoIogy. a dog
canbehystericized,etc.So, toreturntothesadperpIexedgazeot
theIaboratorycat,whatitexpressesisperhapsthecat'shorrorat
havingencounteredTeAnimaI,nameIyourseIves,humans. what
thecatseesisusinaIIourmonstrosity, andwhatwe seeinitstor-
turedgazeisourownmonstrosity.Inthissense,thebigOther(the
syboIicorder)isaIreadyheretorthepoorcat.Iiketheprisonerin
Katka'spenaIcoIony,thecatsuheredthemateriaIconsequencesot
beingcaughtinthesymboIicgridIock.TecatehectiveIysuhered
theconsequencesotbeingnamed,incIudedintothesymboIicnet-
work.
To resoIve this probIem, shouId we distinguish between mo
sadnesses. the sadness ot naturaI Iite prior to and independent
otIanguage, and the sadness otbeingnamed, submitted to Ian-
guage7Tereis,hrst, theinhnitemeIanchoIyotaIIIivingthings,"
atensionorpainwhichis resoIvedwhenaWordis spoken, then,
however, the pronunciation otaWord itseItgenerates a sadness
otitsown(reterredtobyDerrida) . Doesthisinsightintotheinti-
mateIinkbetweenIanguageandpainnotbringuscIosetoRichard
Rorty'sdehnitionothumans asbeingswhosuherandareabIeto
narrate theirsuhering-or,as Derridaputit,tomanastheauto-
biographicaIanim7WhatRortydoesn'ttakeintoaccountis the
additionaIpain(surpIus-pain)generatedbyIanguageitseIt.
24
SIavoj

izek
Tis iswhatChesterton cahed thinkingbackwards". we have to
pIace ourseIves back in time, betore the tatem decisions were
made or betore the accidents occurred that generated the state
which now seems norm to us, and the royaIway to do it, to
renderppabIe this open momentotdecision,istoimaginehow,
atthatpoint,historymayhavetakenadiherentturn.Withregard
toChristianity, insteadotIosingtime probing into howitreIates
toJudaism,howitmisunderstandstheOIdTestamentbyreading
itas announcingthearrivaIotChrist-andtryingto reconstruct
howitwaswiththeJewspriorto Christianity, unahectedbythe
retroactive Christian perspective-one shouId rather turn the
perspectivearoundandextraneate"ChristianityitseIt,treatitas
Christianity-in-becomingandtocusonwhatastrangebeast,what
ascandousmonstrosity, Christmusthaveappearedtobe inthe
eyes otthe JewishideoIogicaIestabIishment.
C
Ia\ aHO altHJC
CssIaHIt HDVCIsIOH
Uunjovic
Ue oo|y pb/|osopby wb/cb woa|d sr/|| be accoaorab|e /o rbe jace oj
despa/( woa|d be rbe arrempr ro coos/der a|| rb/ogs, as rbey woa|d be
porrrayed om rbe sraodpo/or oj redempr/oo. Cogo/r/oo bas oo orber
|/gbr rbao rbar wb/cb sb/oes om redempr/oo oar apoo rbe wor|d, a||
e|se exbaasrs /rse|j /o posrcoosrracr/oo aod rema/os a p/ece oj recb
o/cs. Perspecr/ves masr be prodaced wb/cb ser rbe wor|d bes/de /rse|[
a|/eoared om /rse|[ revea|/og /rs cracks aod ssares, as oeedy aod
d/srorred as /r w/|| ooe day |ay rbere /o rbe mess/ao/c |/gbr. '
1e text otthe CospeIAccording to Mark is an exampIe otthe
socio-Iiterarygenre otthe hrst Church. Te author otthis sub-
versive text, hiddenbehind his HeIIenized name, is a member
ot the marginaIized muItitude. Mark's protagonist, Jesus ot
Nazareth,aIsoonthemarginsinCaIiIeeandapparentIyatragic
hgure, issomeoneotwhomreadersat hrstknewveryIittIe. 1e
text was written tor a poIiticaIIy marginaI community Iurking
ontheborders otthe Roman Empire. Interms otthenarrative,
Mark's textdescribesthreeworIds,Jesus',Mark's, andthethird
worId otthe reader whom Mark addresses. In the societies ot
I TeodorAdorno,Minima Mora/ia, aphorismI5J, trans.DennisRedmond,
avaiIabIeathttp.//V .marxists. org/reterence/archive/adorno/I95I/mm/
index.htm
24I
242 BorisCunjevic
AntiquityaImost80percent otthe inhabitants IivedinviIIages
and tew couId read. Literacy was a priviIege otthe urban eIite
whoIivedsheItered,comtortabIeIivesinweII-organizedcities. In
suchacontext,theoraItraditionisconsideredthereIevantmode
tor passingon sociaIknowIedge. Mark's story otJesus-which
was, at hrst, onIy memorized-was the hrst text in Antiquity
written by someone trom the margins about someone on the
marginsandtoramarginaIizedreadership.Temannerinwhich
the text iswrittenandtheperiodinwhichitoriginatespointto
the theopoIiticaI, subversive nature otthe story, and the ques-
tion otthe Messianic secret" runs through the sub-text. Let
himthatreadeth understand," Marksays crypticaIIyin Chapter
IJ. Mark's text is not a Creek tragedy, abiographyot Jesus, a
historiography otmiracIe-working, or anAntique hagiography,
norisitanapoIogiatorthedestructionottheJerusaIemTempIe.
Mark'sstoryisatextthatdehesinterpretationusinganobj ective
and steriIe academic ibIicaI theoIogy ot the bourgeois variety.
Mark's CospeI mocks contemporary exegesis and resembIes
moreamanitestoorgueriIIamanuaItormiIitantsthanitdoesa
paradigmtorahistoricaIcritiqueIistingthe numberotirreguIar
verbsinthetext.
Te hrst question is how the Jesus whom Mark presents
resists any poIiticaI identihcation, distancing himseIttrom aII
poIiticaI and theoIogicaI Jewish movements, parties, ortoIIow-
ings, whiIeatthe same time embracing disempowermentinthe
name otthe marginaIizedmuItitude.AnemptiedtheopoIiticaI"
spaceiscreatedthroughthispubIicdistancingandvoIuntarydis-
empowerment,aspacewhichMarkhIIswithanewmeaningand
interpretation otthe notion otMessiah" whenJesus, as Mes-
siah,torbidsanyonetospeakotthisortotesti|.Inotherwords,
Mark totaIIy deconstructs" the Messianic scenario. Mark's
writing is characterized by irony, repetition, and understate-
Prny nnd Hnrch-Ue Messinnic 5ubversion
24J
ment. MarkIeavesagreatdeaItothereader'sj udgmentbecause
h
e doesnottreathisreaders as tooIs, as MicheIDe Certeauhas
saidinadiherentcontext. EquaIIy, Mark'swordstothecommu-
nityotreadersandtoIIowersotthe Messiahareaninvitationto
an unexpected practice that requires a protound deIiberation,
suchastorexampIe, whenJesuswaswaIkingatthesea. Hecame
toatrightenedcommunityotpeopIeouthshinginthenight. In
writingotthis,inonepIaceMarksays,HewouIdhavepassedby
them." WhywouIdhehave comero them,yetintendingtopass
bythem7CIearIyMarkhadsomethingeIseinmind. Mark'stext
istuIIotsuchnotesotironicdissonance.
J Te reader trom the start knows that Jesus Christ
is the Son ot Cod, whiIe this awareness is withheId
trom everyoneeIse (exceptthe demons who aretor-
biddentromspeakinganddiscIosingJesus'identity) .
Itisworthremarkingthatin Mark's textthedemons
obeyJesus'wiII, whiIe peopIearegivena choice. Te
onIy characterwhorecognizes, testihes to, andcon-
tessestoJesus'identityisnoneotherthanhisideo-
IogicaIenemy,"theRomancenturionunderthecross
whosymboIizes Roman imperiaI power. Tese para-
doxes run through aII the CospeIs. Te paradoxes
otthediscipIes"aretheonIycIearsignsthatindicate
Messianic practice thanks to which one reaches the
Kingdom ot Cod (Mark 4. 2b, 8. Jb, D. Jb, D. 42, D. 4J,
D. 47, I0. Ib, I0. 4J-b). Messianic practices are reaI-
izedthroughthetensionotparadox.
J Mark'stextbringsgoodnews,"yetonIybyannouncing
that an innocent man was crucihed (Mark's tragic
protagonist), andthe story's ending is not cIear. we
can bareIy make out the event ot the resurrection.
44
BorisCunjevic
TisendingindicatesthecycIicaInatureotthetextin
whichthediscipIes,inordertomeetwiththeirresur-
rectedteacher, mustgotobacktowherethestoryot
thediscipIesbegan,inCaIiIee(MarkI6. 7) .
I Jesus' triends and tamiIy think he is beside himseIt
(Mark 3. 2I) . Teywant to soothe him andIeadhim
away to satety. Teysendothers totetchhim. Jesus
decIareshehasnotamiIyandthathistamiIyarethose
sittinginthecircIearoundhimanddoingCod'swiII.
HecaIIsthesepeopIehisbrethrenandsistersbecause
theyare the ones whobeIong to the community ot
the radicaIIy equaI, the Messianic emancipatorycoI-
Iective.Moreover,someotthoseimmediateIyaround
him insuIthim indirectIyin the worstpossibIe way,
given that theirs was a patriarchaI society.
"
ehoId,
thy mother and thy brethren without seek tor
thee" -impIyingthathistatherisnotIookingtorhim
(Mark3. 32) . His opponents, inotherwords, wishto
discredit him (Mark 6. J) by suggesting that he is a
bastard. HowcouId suchapersonbeaMessiah7
I From the very beginning ot his story Mark packs
manyeventsintoabrietintervaIottime,astimehas
been
"
tuIhIIed and the apocaIyptic campaign otthe
KingdomotCodisbeginning."Teurgencyandhaste
in the very hrst chapter are describedby the Creek
word earbys, most accurateIy transIated as
"
imme-
diateIythereatter, quickIy, that same moment." Te
wordearbys appearseIeventimesinChapterI. Mark
seemstobeinahurrytopresenthisprotagonistand
the story about him, so much so that he skips the
partsabouthisbirth.TisisnopIacetorChristmassy
sentimentaIity. EquaIIy Mark does not teII otJesus'
Prny nnd Hnrch-e Messinnic 5ubversion
245
SermonontheMount, asitsuggestingindirectIythat
thereaders themseIvesmustwritetheirownsermon
onthemountwiththeirIives, asbecomescIeartrom
Jesus'apocaIypticdiscourseinChapterIJ.
J Te key moments tor understandingMark's text are
not thequestions asked otJesus, noraretheyJesus'
answersorhis symboIicactions (heaIing, exorcisms,
the miracIes othim teeding the hungry), nor even
hisparabIes,butratherthe questionsheaskshisdis-
cipIes, his opponents, and, intact,his readers, such
as. Is itIawtuItodogoodonthe Sabbathdays, orto
doeviI7Whoismymother, ormybrethren7Whyare
yesoteartuI7Howisthatyehavenotaith7Areye so
withoutunderstandingaIso7Whomdomensaythat
Iam7utwhomsayyethatIam7Whatwasitthatye
disputedamongyourseIvesbytheway7Canyedrink
otthe cup thatI drinkot7Andbe baptizedwith the
baptismthatIambaptizedwith7Whoseisthisimage
andsuperscription7My Cod, myCod,whyhastthou
torsaken me7" Tese questionsare directedhrstIyto
us, the readers, today, not onIy to the characters in
the story. Jesus does not answer a singIe question
expIicitIybutinsteadusesparabIesandstories.
J With an abundant use otirony (bIind artimaeus is
the onIy one who sees who Jesus is, and by heaIing
himJesusshowsthateveryonearoundartimaeusis
bIind) , Mark does not portray Jesus as a wandering
charismatic and miracIe-worker, but chiey as non-
vioIentMessiahandapocaIypticSonotManwhorad-
icaIIy redehnes and subverts the sociaI and cuIturaI
hierarchicaI structure ot power which is invariabIy,
as is weIIknown,symboIicaIIycodihed. Tis symboIic
4b
BorisCunjevic
taxonomy is tounded in the reIigious discourse ot
theJewisheIiteandIegitimizedthroughthepoIiticaI
andeconomicpracticeotvioIenceperpetratedbythe
RomanBmpire.
J FromthestartotthestoryMark'sJesusquestionsthe
sociaI orthodoxy" that Iegitimates the patriarchaI
reaIity construct. Jesus in CaIiIee heaIs the mother
otPeter'switeandsheministereduntothem"(Mark
I. JI) . Tisdoes notmeanthatshemadethematasty
dinnerbut that she served them (d/akoo/a) in a way
characteristicotthosewhorespondto the Messianic
caIIandwhoseetheiractuaIizationinJesus.Teterm
d/akoo/a is mentionedonIytwice in the entire text.
Tesecondmentionotthissameverbisinthe most
importantsentence. Foreventhe Sonotmancame
nottobeministeredunto,buttominister. . . " (Mark
I. 45) . Women in Mark's text are shown as para-
digmatic modeIs otMessianicpractice. To the inner
circIeotpriviIegeddiscipIes,Peter,James, andJohn,
thewriterjuxtaposesthreewomen. MaryMagdaIene,
Mary,motherotJames, andSaIome(MarkI5. 4-I) .
Anunknownwomananointshimandrecognizeshim
astheMessiahwhiIehisdiscipIebetrayshim.Women
testi|tohisagonyonthecross. TeytoIIowhimand
minister to him trom the beginning otthe mission
in CaIiIee. Many other women tromJerusaIemjoin
them. Tey are the hrst to come to the sepuIcher,
askingthequestion.WhoshaIIroIIusawaythestone7
(Mark I5. J), as Christ's sepuIcher was seaIed by a
bouIder. Te women wish to corroborate the truth
otJesus'words. Inhis speecheshehadpromisedhe
wouId be resurrected. Te women, incarnating the
Prny nnd Hnrch-Ue Messinnic 5ubversion 24 7
modeI otthe discipIes, come to the Messiah's sepuI-
cheranddemonstrate the needtoratwo-toIdvision
otreaIity. AndwhentheyIooked,theysawthatthe
stonewasroIIedaway"(MarkI6. 4) .
J 1e onIy reIevant modus tor participating in the
KingdomotCodistheparadoxotthecrosstowhich
aII are summoned, and the onIy htting theoIogy ot
that Kingdom, it one can even speak ot a theoIogy,
is the Messianic practices which are represented by
themetaphorotway."ParadoxicaIIy,thediscipIesare
notonIythosewhoIiteraIIy"toIIowJesus,yetdonot
understandhim,butaIsothosewhodonottoIIowhim
(orare sittingbytheway"), yetdounderstandhim,
as does one otthe ruIers ot the synagogue, Jairus,
or bIind artimaeus, or the Syrophenician woman
whosedaughterwaspossessed(i. e. , mentaIIyiII) .
AImosthaItotMark's storyspeaksotJesus'suheringanddeath,
soitis nowonder that Markarrives atthe story otJesus' sut-
tering atter a Iengthy introduction. Mark's readers need to be
convinced that Jesus is the apocaIyptic Son ot Cod, and not
an apoIiticaI charismatic, mercituI heaIer. With their miracIe-
working, the heaIers otAntiquityIegitimized the poIiticaI and
sociaI sraras qao, and in doing so secured tor themseIves eco-
nomicandpoIiticaIpriviIeges. 1isisaItogethertheopposite ot
the Messianic practice on which the carpenter trom Nazareth
insists. ItJesushadbeenanapoIiticaIcharismatic, awandering
heaIer, otwhominAntiquityin the MiddIe Bastthere were tar
too many, therewouIdhavebeen no reasonwhatsoevertor the
unprincipIed coaIition ot Herodians and Pharisees to conspire
againsthim, asreIatedinthehrsthtthottheCospeI(Mark3. 6) .
In that hrst htth, Jesus exorcises an uncIean spirit trom a man
24B
BorisCunjevic
inCapernaum,heaIsseveraIpeopIetromdisease,andsummons
atewdiscipIes, openIyvioIatingcertaintaboosandbringinginto
questionthesociaIstratihcationinrituaIcIeansing.ImmediateIy
attertheconspiracyJesus consoIidateshiscommunityotradicaI
equaIsbydecIaring ideoIogicaIwartareonthe poIiticaIandreIi-
gious eIitewhoopposehismission(Mark3. 20-3b) . Surrounded
byamuItitudeottoIIowers, Mark's Jesusisaware ottheimpact
othisownmissionwhichmustmovetromthemarginsotsociety
(thedesertandtheviIIagesotCaIiIee)tothecenter(JerusaIem) ,
in which the hnaI controntation wiII happen with the corrupt
representativesottheTempIeandtheurbaneIitewhowiII,with
the Roman occupying torces, be responsibIe tor his being put
to death. IdeoIogicaI wartare is decIared through a simpIe par-
abIe and exampIes trom theIite otthosewho tiIIthe soiI (Mark
4. I-34) ,whichJesus'audiencecouIdreadiIyunderstand.Mark's
commentaries onJesus'parabIes are inspirationaIbecausethey
addressthecommunityotreaders,meaningus, today.
TemuItitudetoIIows Jesus, andMark'suseotthewordocb|os
(muItitude) twice in a singIe sentence is intended to bring this
to our attention. Te word
"
muItitude," in contrast to the word
tor
"
peopIe" (|aos), comes up inMark's text anincredibIe thirty-
eighttimes. TeteachingotthemuItitude isoneotthepractices
torwhich the discipIes have been summoned. Te methodoIogy
otcoIIectiveemancipatoryteachingistoundedonsimpIeparabIes
drawntromrawexperienceandanaIysisottheeverydayIiteotthe
tarmIaborer. TecompIexityottheKingdomotCodaboutwhich
Jesus speaksIiesinthetactthatthemanitoIdreIationshipswithin
itcontradicteveryconceptotruIingandpowertowhichthemuIti-
tudewasaccustomed.Tisis, otcourse,theRomanEmpire,butit
isaIsotheJewishtheocraticstate,whichIivesoninthestoriesand
witings otthe Jewish peopIe who ceIebrate an ideahy mythoIo-
gizedpast. eing subjectedto the horrihcrepressive practices ot
Prny nnd Hnrch-e Messinnic 5ubversion
24J
Bmpire,itis dimcuIttorthemuItitudeto imagine thepracticeot
the KingdomotCodbecausetheimpactotsuchrepressionupon
psychoIogicaI Iite is so great that, as the anti-psychiatrist R. D.
Laing once said, it destroys experience, hence their behavior is
destructive. ' Mark describes this destroyed experience" and
destructivebehavior"vividIyintheterribIe caseotthepossessed
manotCadarenes,mentionedbyHardtandNegriasrepresenting
thedarkside"otthemuItitude.'
TemuItitudeasthesubj ectotrepressivepracticesotBmpire
in Mark's text is chiey those who are sociaIIy excIuded and
dependent, those marginaIized by taith, the physicaIIy handi-
capped,thementaIIyiII, andthe spirituaIIymeek. ItispreciseIy
amongthese, Markisarguing,thatthenewsociaIorderisbeing
sown.Tis incIudesIepers,thosewithspeciaIneeds,prostitutes,
widows, orphans, customs omciaIs, in other words those on
the margins. Jesus reIies on the tacticotspecihc speech in the
parabIes. ysodoinghedescribes andsummonsintobeingthe
reaIityottheKingdomotCodandrenewsthepowerotimagina-
tionandthedestroyedperceptionotthedowntroddenmuItitude
sothatitcanparticipateintheMessianicpracticesJesusisinau-
gurating. Jesus' parabIes are not onIyearrb|y sror/es w/rb d/v/oe
meao/og, theyareaIsoconcretedescriptionsotapracticethatwas
accessibIetothedisentranchisedmuItitude.SuchparabIesotten
containunpredictabIe andsurprisingtwists which question the
muItitude's aIreadyentrenched assumptions. Te parabIe about
thesubversivesowerdescribeswithcrystaIcIaritythereaIityot
agricuIturaI Iabor and poverty, turnishedwith dimcuIties with
which every resident ot Judea was tamiIiar. Tis is the reaIity
determinedbythearid, unirrigatedsoiIotoccupiedJudea.
2 R. D. Laing,Ue Po/irics o[ Exerience (NewYork. Pantheonooks,i957),I2.
3 MichaeHardtandAntonioNegri,Mu/rirude. War and Democracy i n rhe Age
o[Emire (NewYork. Penguin,2004) , iJ8.
25
BorisCunj evic
Te peasant scatters the seed and hopes tor the best. 1is
method ot sowing was typicaI throughout PaIestine. First the
seedis sown, then the heId is pIowed so that the seeds wiII be
pIantedasdeepIyaspossibIeinthesoiI,whichhasbeenpIoughe
d
tor many generations. Tere is no pIace tor optimism in such a
process. Te best that can be hopedtor is a good year, despite
theweeds andthepoorsoiI.Tisimageotthesowerisanimage
ot agrarian poverty and its critics. Te peasant must not onIy
teedhis tamiIyandpayIandtaxes, he must aIso paytaxonthe
earningstromthesaIeothisharvest. Ithe has too tewtooIs, he
mustrentthemtromvariousIenders,whichonIyraiseshiscosts.
Andto make things even more dimcuIt, hemustsave seedstor
the nextyear tohaveenoughtosowagain. Tis sortotagrarian
poIicyotrepressionotthemuItitudeexpIainsthetactthat7bper-
centottheseedsowniswastedbecauseitneversprouts. Itthere
is not enough ota harvest at the end otthe year, the peasant
mustreIyonIoans trom the Iarge Iandowners at steep interest
rates, torcinghim to mortgage what IittIe Iand he has and go
intodebtor'sservitude.HehnaIIyarrivesatasituationwherehe
mustseIIhisIandtorapricewhichisseveraItimesIowerthanits
marketvaIue.InthiswayhebecomescheapIaboror,inthemore
extreme cases, seIIs himseItinto sIaverytoraperiodottime so
thathecanpayohtheprincipaIonhisIoan.TebigIandowners
becomericherandricher,whiIethepoorgrowpoorerandmore
desperate.
At such a moment Jesus speaks ot a good seed ourishing
beyondbeIietandbringing a pIentituI harvest, somethingthat
contounds the muItitude. ItwouIdbereaIisticto expectthirty-
toIdmorethanwhatwassown,butahundred-toId-thatseems
morethanabitmuch. Intact,itwouIdbebynomeansexcessive
torapeasantwithatamiIytoteed,taxestopay, seedtosetaside
torthe nextyear, andthe need tor surpIus to share with those
Prny nnd Hnrch-e Messinnic 5ubversion 25!
whohavenothing.ItwouIdseemthatJesushadtakenaperiIous
IungeattherationaIityotthemateriaIIyandpsychoIogicaIIydev-
astated poor. ut, Jesus, when speaking otMessanicpractices,
hassomethingeIseinmindandheconveysitonIyenigmaticaIIy.
Tosewho wishtohear the parabIe otthe seed, the sower, and
tertiIe soiI must have ears and must Iisten. Nothing, it wouId
seem, couIdbe easier. Letus take a cIoserIookat theparabIe ot
the sower, which was, tor Mark, the most important ot them
aII, and, as we'II see Iater, provides the hermeneutic keytoran
understandingotaIIotJesus'parabIes.
Wecanimagine a simpIe musicaI backdrop toJesus' parabIe
such as the song recorded by the Rastatarian band ad rains
(in my opinion one ot the most important bands currentIy in
America)thatspeaksothowthemeekwiIIinherittheearth.ad
rains' theoIogy is in this case otgreaterheIpthana modern
historicaIIy criticaI exegesis because HR, the Iead singer, Iinks
intertextuaIIy, as does Mark, severaI theoIogicaI traditions in
hissong, desiringto describeanewthepoIiticaIreaIitybycaIIing
torchange. Itis obvious thatthe meekhave neverinheritedthe
earth nor wiII they. ut HRIargeIychanges themeaning otthe
songbyinterpoIatingthehrstPsaImintohisIyric.
Iessedistheone
whodoesnotwaIkinstepwiththewicked
orstandinthewaythatsinnerstake
orsitinthecompanyotmockers,
butwhosedeIightisintheIawottheLORD,
andwhomeditatesonhisIawdayandnight.
TatpersonisIikea treepIantedbystreamsotwater,
4 AsidetromthisonewehaveonytwomoreparabesinMark'stext,and
thesearetheoneaboutthecrimeinthevineyard(Marki2. i-i2)andtheone
aboutthetheoogyotrevoutionarywatching(Marki3. i-35) .

BorisCunj evic
whichyieIdsitstruitinseason
andwhoseIeatdoesnotwither-
whatevertheydoprospers.
Notso thewicked|
1eyareIikechah
thatthewindbIowsaway.
1eretorethewickedwiIInotstandin thejudgment,
norsinnersintheassembIyottherighteous.
Forthe LORDwatchesoverthewayottherighteous,
butthewayotthewickedIeadstodestruction.
Itwe read HR's song through theprism otthe hrst psaIm, an
entireIynewvisionotreaIityopensupbetoreus.1isispreciseIy
thesamethingMarkisdoinginhisstoryotJesus'parabIe otthe
sower.
JahchiIdren,j ahchiIdren,yeah
1emeekshaIIinherittheearth.
JahchiIdren,jahchiIdren,yeah
1emeekshaIIinherittheearth.
Indueseason,eachwiIIpay
accordingtotheworksthat
theyhave done onBarthtoday.
So I and I, weshaIIIive intruth.
HisMajesty, His Majesty
has shown usabetterday.
Letusseewhattranspireswiththeseedandotwhatsortotseed
Jesusspeaks.
5 adrains,"TeMeekShaIIInherittheEarth,"tromRock [or Lighr (CaroIine
Records, i99i) .
Prny nnd Hnrch-Ue Messinnic 5ubversion
25J
J Te hrst portion ot seed sown taIIs by the wayside
andiseatenbythetowIsottheair.1isisametaphor
torcapriciousunreIiabiIityandretersinIargepartto
themuItitudewhichtoIIowedJesus, amuItitudewho
adored him as he entered JerusaIem, the seItsame
muItitude whowitnessedhis miracIes andwho Iater
shoutedandhaiIedhispubIiccondemnationandvio-
Ientdeath.
J Te secondportion otseed sown taIIs on stony soiI
and is scorched by the sun. 1is is a metaphor tor
superhciaIityandrootIessness. 1is seedreterstothe
Jerasa|em re|/g/oas e|/re, who do not recognize Jesus
anddonotrespondtohiscaII,withthe exceptionot
JosephotArimathaea(MarkIb. 43) .
J Te thirdportionotseedsowntaIIsonthornyground
andissoonchokedbybrambIesandweeds. Teseed,
here, servesasametaphortoranavariciousandanx-
ious obsessionwithweaIth. 1ebrambIesandweeds
inthiscaseare the domesticpoIiticaIeIiteasweIIas
theRomanimperiaIgovernment,withtheexception
otthe centurionunderthe crosswhogivesthemost
accuratecontessionottaith. TruIythismanwasthe
SonotCod."
J FinaIIy, onIythe tourth portionotseedtaIIs ongood
ground. Cood ground is a metaphor tor the cuIti-
vation otpIentituI truit otthe heId. Tis is truit so
pIentituIas to de|theimagination. 1isIastpartot
theparabIereters to a|| rbose wbo w/sb ro parr/c/pare
/o Mess/ao/c pracr/ces regardIess otthe position they
hoId insociety. MarkteIIsusthatavarietyotpeopIe
respondedtoJesus'caII,andtoIIowedhisexampIe.
4
BorisCunj evic
Itthe discipIes do not understandthis parabIe,howwiII others
understandit,asthisparabIeis thekeytorunderstandingaIIthe
rest7Accordingto Fernando eIo, this parabIe is keybecause/r
/s rbe parad/gm jor Jesas' Mess/ao/c m/ss/oo. Not onIyis Jesusthe
sower, sowing the word /o oar bearrs, but herein is shown the
success ortaiIure otthe Messianicmission, which is the thrust
otMark'swhoIestory. Moreover,JesussaysthattheKingdomot
OodisIikeamustard seedtromwhichtheJewsmadenoherbs,
viewing it as a species otpesky weed to be controIIed to keep
ittromdestroyingtheharvest. Interms otthe currentorderot
things, the Kingdom ot Cod is nothing more than that weed.
ItshouIdtheretorecome as no surprise that the discipIes need
anexpIanationtortheparabIeaboutthesowerandtheunusuaI
seed. In theseparabIes JesusispubIicIypresentingthe doctrine
otthe KingdomwhiIe, when conversinginprivatewith the dis-
cipIes, he expIains the points theyhave not understood. When
hewas speakinginparabIes, otcourse, itwas nothis intention
tomuddythings orhidethem,rathertodiscIosewhathadbeen
conceaIed. with what measurewemeteit shaIIbe measuredto
us.JesusisnotbeingcynicaIwhenhewarnsusthathewhohas
manypossessionswiIIbegivenevenmore. Tatwas, atteraII, a
practicehis Iisteners knew tar too weII. It was the raw everyday
reaIityotagrarianreIationsinwhichtherichIandownersbecame
aIIthemorepowertuIwhiIethepoorhadwhatIittIetheyowned
wrestedtromthem.
Jesusis noheartIessdemagoguewhenheconhrmswhatthe
muItitude aIreadyknows onIy too weII. Tings are as they are,
we can change nothing, so it is in the worId. Yetwithhis nar-
rative organization MarkisteIIingus somethingaItogetherdit-
terent. Markiscautioningthe reader. bebo|d andbear (Mark4. J,
4. 24) . 1ose are Messianic practices. Seeingandhearing. It is,
in tact, a caIIto revoIutionary patience which the discipIes are
Prny nnd Hnrch-Ue Messinnic 5ubversion
255
beingaskedtoembrace. LaterJesusasksthemtopray andwarcb.
TeAnnouncementottheWordisthestrewingottheseed. Te
seed otthenewsociaI ordereIudes notice as it sprouts andthe
discipIes arecaIIedtoapatienthearing,behoIding,praying, and
watching. Mark's Jesus eIaborates on this yet again in what is
knownastheapocaIypticdiscourseinChapterIJ,wherehecaIIs
tor perseverance, described by the imperative Watch" (Mark
IJ. J7) . IsthisnotthemostradicaItormotMessianicpractice7
WereturnonceagaintothetactthatMark'stextisacircuIar
story ot two parts, two constitutive narrative threads which
couIdbetreatedastwo separatebooks. Tehrst threadis Mark
I. I-8. 7.
Te second thread is the rest otMark's CospeI (Mark 8. 8-
I6. 8) . Tetextturns onthepassagein8. 22-D,reIatingthecru-
ciaIeventinMark'sstoryaboutJesus. Inconversationwiththe
discipIes, Jesus addresses them at hrst by introducing himseIt
(Mark8. 27) , andthenasksthekeyquestion. Whomsayyethat
Iam7"(Mark8. 2D) . Tequestionisaddressedtous,thereaders.
WhodowethinkJesustobe7Bveryanswerweohercommitsus,
butwecannottaiIto answer. Itwehave nothingtosayinrepIy,
we mustcontinue onthe path otthe discipIes untiI we cometo
theanswer,torthestoryproceedsinacircIe.
Franois LarueIIe, inventor" ot non-phiIosophy, IiteraIIy
heIpedme to read the CospeIAccording to Mark. LarueIIe sug-
gests a modeI known as the Mbius strip. In Mark's text the
b BorisCunj evic
MbiusstripisdoubIed,notonIyconnectingthetwopartsothis
story ot Jesus but, toremost, heIping to answer the question
askedotusasreaders.TestripasitistwistedaroundIeadsthe
reader and practitioner (the discipIe) trom the outside to the
inside and then back out again. Te circuIarityot the two-sided
strip asproposedbyLarueIIe expIains in the simpIestwaypos-
sibIethemessageMark'sCospeIissendingtothereader.
AndwhenhehadcaIIedthepeopIeoch/os-muItitude]
anto h/m with his discipIes aIso, he said unto them,
WhosoeverwiIIcomeatterme,Iethim denyhimseIt,
andtakeup his cross, andtoIIow me. Forwhosoever
wiIIsavehisIiteshaIIIoseit,butwhosoevershaIIIose
his Iite tormysake andthe gospeI's, the same shaII
save it. ForwhatshaIIitproht a man, itheshaIIgain
thewhoIeworId,andIosehisownsouI7OrwhatshaII
amangiveinexchangetorhissouI7Whosoeverthere-
toreshaIIbeashamedotmeandotmywords inthis
aduIterousandsintuIgeneration,othimaIsoshaIIthe
Prny nnd Hnrch-Ue Messinnic 5ubversion
Sonotmanbe ashamed,whenhecomethinthegIory
othisFatherwiththehoIyangeIs. (Mark8. J4-8)
7
Jesus'anti-triumphaI"entryintoJerusaIemhappenswithinthis
narrativetramework. Fromthemarginotsociety, theperiphery
otJudea, Mark describes Jesus' arrivaI atthe seat otpower in
anunusuaIandimaginativeway. TepathotradicaIdiscipIeship
runstromthedesertwhichiscontroIIedbynoone,throughruraI
pagan toponyms, aIIthewayto the seat otpower inJerusaIem
whereruIesanurbaneIiteotanumberotdiherentprovenances.
WithoutconceaIing his irony, Mark is bent on showing us that
we wiII not encounter Cod's presence in the JerusaIemTempIe
(whichistheguarantee, toreveryJew,otCod'spresenceamong
hispeopIe) , butthat Cod is, instead, encountered inthe desert.
IntactthedesertcouIdbeconsideredapriviIegedpIaceotradicaI
discipIeshipwhere,inaparticuIarapocaIypticway, thetextitseIt
begins.
Markgivesusthespecihc,thoughambivaIent,toponymotthe
desert. Tedesertisthesiteotcoercion,anxiety,exiIe,andespe-
ciaIIyordeaI, hencewe haveverytewpositive statementsabout
it. ItisadimcuItpIace,apIaygroundtoreviIspiritsanddemons,
andwhenwearethere we mustansweronIyonequestion.how
tosurvive7utthedesertisaspaceotsiIenceandpeacewhichis
tartromthenoiseotthecityandciviIization. Inthedesertthere
is nowrangIingover space, noquibbIingas there is in the city,
and what is quite important to say, the desert ohers a kind ot
sheIterbecauseaIIsociaIbondsarebrokenandphysicaIneedsare
reducedtoaminimum.Wegotothedesert"whenwewouIdIike
todistanceourseIves trom the cityandits compIexandurban"
styIe otIite. Markwarns us thatwe must adopttheprimordiaI
Messianic practice ot contessing sin, which begins, paradoxi-
caIIy, inthe desert, since the desertis the onIypriviIegedpIace
25B
BorisCunj evic
torencounteringCod. utatthesametimethedesertisapIace
toIeaveinorderto controntinterms otideoIogythe eIite inthe
seats otpowerwho oppress thepooron the margins otsociety.
Mark describes this journeyto the seat otpowerin aIucidand
moderateIy"deconstructivistway.
In Mark'scase deconstructionshouIdbeunderstoodasaspe-
cihcstrategyotreadingthatbrings intodoubteverypriviIeged
structuraItaxonomybyintroducinga new diherence,trace, and
suppIement to the reading. Deconstruction insists on a mar-
ginaI irreducibIe remainder which generates heterogeneity by
insisting on digressions, quotes, commentaries, parodies. And
hnaIIy, deconstructioninthis instanceshouIdbe thoughtotasa
tooIthatbrings into questionareadingwhich cIaims tobeprivi-
Ieged.Understoodinthisway, deconstructioninMark's case can
beatormotpoIiticaIstrategy.
I wiII maintain thatbywriting his own text Markis decon-
structing the Messianic scenario by retusing to endorse any
version otJewish Messianism, whiIe, at the same time, never
dismissing the Messianic discourse out ot hand-indeed
indirectIy he is endorsing it. Ched Myers remarks that Mark
describes aII opponents otCod's Kingdomwith irony and bit-
terness, in tact he car/carares them, ohering a poIiticaI car-
toon, which to be ehective must at once be exaggerated and
unmistakabIy recognizabIe. " EquaIIy Mark portrays the
discipIes as amazed, anxious, and atraid. DiscipIes are those
who know not, cannot, and wiII not. Tey have no taith and
they do not recognize the path otradicaI discipIeship (Mark.
I0. J2) . Jesus' grotesque entry into JerusaIem has, in a spe-
cihcway, a therapeuticpedagogicaItunctionwhichisintended
tor the discipIes. It is weIIknown that moments otnervous-
G ChedMyers,inding rhe 5rrong Man: A Po/irica/ Reading oj Mark's 5rory oj
Jesus (NewYork. Orbisooks, i989), i07.
Prny nnd Hnrch-e Messinnic 5ubversion U
ness oruncertainty are bestheaIed"bya sudden outburst ot
Iaughter at a pun or a j oke. A weII-temperedj oke pertormed
pubIicIycanpromptasuddenshittotperspectivethatohersus
compIeteIynewinsightintoasituation. Tisisjustthesortot
change thatthediscipIes needinthepredicament into whch
theyhave beenthrust. De Certeau caIIs the parodicaI twist ot
Jesus' street theateraneveryday practice otresistance, whIe
SIoterdjkdescribesitascynicism.
An unexpected cIinicaI incision can provoke an entireIy
new vision ot ourseIves which we couIdn't have seen untiI
thatshitt,havingbeenobsessedbyourownphobiasandtixa-
tions . This iswhat Jesus does withhis carnivaIesque" entry
nto the city, ridinginto JerusaIem on a donkeytoaI. This s
hs stab at parodying the titIe ot Messiah that represents,
at a symboIic IeveI, a compIex power structure. At the same
timeitisaninstructionaIwayotIighteningtheheavyburden
otanxiety borne by his discipIes. For aII those who want to
toIIowJesus, MarkisnototteringinstantsoIutions, torinthe
poIitcaI chaos ot the state ot emergency" in which Mark's
nterpretative community tound itseIt, between AD 66 and
70, suchasoIutionwouIdnothavebeenteasibIe. Markmeans
to contound us, despite everything, with his intertextuaI
strategywhichisIargeIyreminiscentotwhatMikhaiIakhtn
describesastheconstructotpartiaIIytoIkIoricIiterarytorms
otaparodicaIandsatiricaInatureknownascarnivaIization. In
Mark's caseweunderstandintertextuaIityas textuaIanaIyss
that asks the question ot the range ot interIinkages among
varioustextswhichcorrespondtoaspeciticmateriaIproduc-
tion otmeaning"withinthevariousinterpretative commun-
tesstandingbehind"thetextitseIt.
Jesus,togetherwththediscipIes,arrivesattheJerusaIemsub-
urbs, reaching ethany onthe MountotOIives, whichis a Mes-
26 BorisCunj evic
sianic toponym and heterotopy ot the tuture apocaIyptic battIe
between the Lord's peopIe and enemy nations. ' Mark naturaIIy
wishes to re-symboIize this eschatoIogy andpIace it in the con-
textottheciviIwarheiswitnessingashewrites. Jesussendstwo
otthediscipIestoprepare their entryintoJerusem-apractic
tactic otsoIidarity on the path to a risky and subversive action.
Markwishes to showthatthe Sicarii, Zeots,andotherpoIitic
andrevoIutionarymovementswere notthe onIyoneswhohada
wide-reachingnetworkotaiders andabettors. Heis showingthat
Jesus'coIIectivewasaIsoweLorganizedwithinJerusaIem,theseat
otpower. Markgives us the storyotJesus' entryinto JerusaIem
withthegreatestpossibIedoseotirony,reducingto absurdityany
tormotMessianictriumphaIismwhichmighthavebeenexpected
byanensIavedpopuIationIongingtortreedom.
IindartimaeusisthehrsttoseethatJesusisSonotDavid"
(Mark I0. 46-b2) . Son otDavid" is a royaI titIe and a compIex
theopoIiticaI symboI which every Jew trom that time readiIy
understood. It Jesus was a royaIist pretender" then he wouId
havebeenexpectedtoarriveathisJerusaIeminaugurationwith
greatimperiaIpomp,horses, chariots,apowertuIarmedtorce, a
personaIguard, andotherroyaItrappings. HebehavesinexactIy
7 "ehod,thedayottheLordcometh,andthespoisha!bedividedinthe
midstotthee. (2) ForIwigatheranationsagainstJerusaemtobattIe, and
thecityshabetaken,andthehousesrihed,andthewomenravished,andhat
otthecitysha!gotorthintocaptivity,andthe residue otthepeopeshanot
becutohtromthecity. (J) TenshatheLordgotorth,andhghtagainstthose
nations,aswhenhetoughtinthedayotbatte. (4)Andhisteetsha!standin
thatdayonuponthemountotOives,whichisbetoreJerusaemontheeast,
andthemountotOivesshaceaveinthemidstthereottowardstheeastand
towardsthewest,andthereshabeaverygreatvaey,andhatotthemoun-
tainsharemovetowardsthenorth,andhatotittowardsthe south. (5)And
yeshaheetothevaeyotthemountains, torthevaeyotthemountainssha
reachuntoAza.yea,yeshahee,ikeasyehedtrombetoretheearthguakein
thedaysotUzziahkingotJudah.andtheLordshacome,andaIthesaints
withthee"(Zechariahi4. i-5).
Prny nnd Hnrch-Ue Messinnic 5ubversion 26I
theopposite way. With hisentry into the PaIestinian metrop-
oIis on a donkeytoaI-atorm otpoIiticaI street theater"-he
ridicuIes,parodies, triviaIizes, andtakestotheabsurdthepoIit-
icaI symboIs otthe earthIykingdom" that, in Mark's case,was
incarnatedbythe Roman Bmpire. Inthis madcapway, withina
IiturgicaI carnivaI," the carpentertrom Nazareth is not mereIy
mockingthetitIeotemperorbutbringingintoquestionthevery
notionotMessianismwhiIeatthesametimegettingaIaughout
otthecrowd,particuIarIyhisanxiousdiscipIes.
Mark constructs this event very caretuIIy in intertextuaI
terms as a separate soco-IiteraryparadigmwhichwiIIserve to
Iegitimize Jesus' controntation with the reIigious and poIiticaI
eIite in JerusaIem (Mark II. I4-I2. 40) . Mark is cIearIy reter-
encing events trom the gIorious Jewish past that he caretuIIy
interweaveswith thepresent,inordertobringinto question.
J 3 popuIistideoIogicaI Messianism andpopuIartataI-
isticapocaIypticism,
J nationaIistic mythoIogy (Iegitimized through the
banaIpracticeotvioIence),
J thegueriIIatoIkIore otpeasantbandswhowithequaI
intensity Ioathe the weaIthy, the coIIuding Jewish
eIite, andtheRomanoccupyingtorces.
How does Mark impIement and interpret the OId Testament
prophesies7 1e answer is. as a subversive modeI otresistance
to the dominant ideoIogy ot nationaIistic Messianism. Mark's
textuaIparadigm is the bareIy IegibIe or negotiabIe apocaIyptic
prophetZechariah.
Rej oicegreatIy,LdaughterotZion,shout,Ldaughter
otJerusaIem. behoId, thyKingcomethunto thee. he
262
BorisCunj evic
/s just, andhavingsaIvation,IowIy,andridinguponan
ass, anduponacoItthetoaIotanass. (ZechariahJ. J)
It is enough to use words such as just," having saIvation,"
IowIy," and even more, riding upon an ass," to provide a con-
trast to the triumphaIist entry and miIitary victory ot Simon
MaccabeeaboutwhichtheookotMaccabeesspeaks.
Andthe Jews enteredinto itthethree andtwentieth
day ot the second month, in the year one hundred
andseventy-one,withthanksgiving,andbranches ot
paIm trees, and harps, and cymbaIs, and psaIteries,
and hymns, and canticIes, because the great enemy
wasdestroyedoutotIsraeI. (IMaccabeesIJ. bI)
Within these two texts, Mark situates Jesus' entry into Jeru-
saIem, Iending it an entireIy diherent meaning. ut these two
texts intermingIe with a number otother OId Testamenttexts
andaIIusionstothesetexts(Cenesis4D. II, ISamueI 5. 7, 2Kings
J. IJ, PsaIm II8. 2b) that he arranges skiIItuIIy and with great
precisionintoacoIIagewhich,IikeapaIimpsest, showsdiherent
images under diverse retractions otIight. Not onIy does Mark
read the poIiticaIeventswhichstandbehindthe textotthe his-
toryotsaIvation," buthereadsand inscribes theseeventsinto
the contemporary sociaI, economic, and cuIturaI reIations in
whichhe, probabIyindirectIy, tookpart. Inaspecihcway,Mark's
storyisanhistoricaIinterpretationintendedtorthepresent-day.
Jesus'entryinto JerusaIemisnotthesIightestbitIiketheentry
otMenahem,whohadbecomeoneottheIeadersottherebeIIion,
joiningupwithotherIessorganizedrebeIs"againstRomeinthe
yearAD 55. Nor is Jesus' entry into JerusaIem simiIar to that
otyet another Messianic royaIist pretender, Simon bar Ciora,
Prny nnd Hnrch-Ue Messinnic 5ubversion
26J
orthatottheradicaIJohnotCischaIa.AIIthree ottheseothers
pretendedtotheMessianicroyaI titIe, squabbIingamongthem-
seIves, and,inthisway,weakeningtheotherwiseweII-organized
detenseotJerusaIemata time ota state otemergency" which
Iastedtortouryears.
Let us use HorsIey and Hanson's socioIogic studies about
that time to present inbrietthe poIiticaIreaIitybehind" Mark's
text, describing the state ot emergency within which he is criti-
cizingtheseMessianicroyaIistpretenders. Jesus'non-vioIentand
humbIe entry into JerusaIem is not, as we have said, remoteIy
simiIar to the entry ot the Sicarii Ieader and rebeI Menahem
(someevencIaimhewassonorgrandsonotJudasotCiIee)who
attacked Herod's armories in the year AD 55 with sever other
rebeIsandrobbers"attheMasadatortihcation.Menahemarmed
themenhehadassembIedinruraICaIiIeeand,togetherwithsome
otherinsurgents,beganabIoodyuprising,swittIycapturingJeru-
sem. HedoesnotdeservecredittortheJerusemuprisingbut
heddasserthimseItastheIeaderotvariousZeotgroupsinthe
city.TroughhisremarkabIeorganizationaIskiLs(anddespitehis
tohowersbeingintheminority) hedrewtogetherwhatisknown
as theZeotcoaIition,withinwhichhehadhisownsetotbody-
guards,andquickIyprocIaimedhimseItking."
Menahem'stoIIowers(aheterogeneousbandotSicarii)were
responsibIe tor the sIaying otthe high priest Annas andhis
brother BzekieI at the very start otthe uprising. Portugues e
writer Fernando eIo, the most radicaI Iett-wing interpreter
otMark's story ot Jesus, attributes this cIaim to Josephus .
There is an interesting tact worth mentioning here. imme-
diateIy upon entering the TempIe treasury and archive, the
rebeI Ieader gave an order tor aII TempIe books and Iists ot
8 FernandoeIo,A Mareria/isr Reading oj rhe Cose/ oj Mark (AnnArbor.Orbis
ooks,I99I), 84.
264
BorisCunjevic
debts to be burned. ApparentIy he thought that by doing so
he wouId destroy the strangIehoId ot the reIigious eIite and
poIiticaIestabIishmentwhichrepressedthepeopIe usingvar-
ioustormsotIoansandinterest, hoIdingtheminthethraIIot
debtandsIavery.
As Mark showsus,JesusisnotintheIeastIike anotherMes-
sianicpretender,SimonbarCiora,whotookpart, IikeMenahem,
in the uprising against the Romans as commander ot Jerusa-
Iem's detense. We can onIyimaginewhat the cIash must have
beenIikebetweenroyaIpretenderMenahemand Messianicpre-
tenderSimonbarCiorawhentheradicJohnotCischaIaIeaped
into the poIiticaI tray. Aside trom John, EIeazar ben Ya'ir, the
captainottheTempIe guard, aIsopIayeda decisive roIe, sIaying
MenahembecausehehadkiIIed EIeazar'stather, thehighpriest
Annas .Wemustn'ttorgetthatatthetimeotthesiegetherehad
been negotiations underwaywiththe RomansthatonIyaggra-
vatedthe internaI ZeaIot struggIe tor powerwithin JerusaIem.
JohnotCischaIawasonemoreMessianicpretenderwhowasnot
entireIyharmIessashehadmusteredaconsiderabIebandotdis-
gruntIedpeasants in northernCaIiIee and tormedthem into a
respectabIemiIitaryunit.
Simonbar CiorameanwhiIebecameanrenegade,arobberand
adespot,andwaspoIiticaIIyunsuccesstmbecausehetaiIedtowin
overtheweII-organizedSicariigueriIIaswhohadtheircheckpoints
inthenearbyhiIIs. Tisdidnot,however,swayhimtromhisvio-
Ient attempt atconquestandtormingaprovisiongovernment.
InamoveotpoIiticintrigueheprocIaimedanendtosIaveryand
indebtednessandinsodoingdrewapowertuIarmyandbeganto
comporthimseItinaroyaItashion.HeconsoIidatedhisranks,and
withareIativeIyIargeandweII-suppIiedarmy,hecapturedIdumea
andJudeawithoutahght(whichservedhimasarobustIogisticaI
supporttortood,weapons, andtroops),butIost controIotJeru-
Prny nnd Hnrch-e Messinnic 5ubversion b
saIem.AinternaIstruggIeoverthecityensued(whichweakened
its weh-organizeddetenses) between Simonbar Ciora andJohn
otCischaIa, to whom the city tathers" hadbegun to shitttheir
support. Tese were chiey non-aristocratic priests, and, unex-
pectedIy, John ot CischaIa received a burst otsupport trom the
ZeotswhowerehoIdingtheTempIe. SimonbarCiorasIayedsev-
eraIprominenthgures ottheSanhedrin, evenMatthewhomone
otthehigh-priestIytamiIies,sonotoethus(whohadarrangedtor
Simon'sentryintoJerusematthestartottheuprising),accusing
himothightreasonandcoIIudingwththeRomans. '
ut tour years atter the Jewish revoIution," JerusaIem was
in Vespasian's hands, despite the vaIiant hght put up by its
detenders duringa hve-month siege. In September ottheyear
AD 70, theTempIeteIItothe Romans, andthe ZeaIotsvaIiantIy
gave up their Iives. Simon attempted to ee with a handtuI ot
his most tanatic adherents, but he was apprehended. Wearing
awhite tunic anda purpIe cap,wrappedinaroyaI cIoak, Simon
bar Oiora appeared at the site otthe TempIe ruins and aImost
symboIicaIIy oheredhis Iite as a sacrihce to CodonthedemoI-
ishedTempIeaItar.However,unIikeJohn otCischaIa, whowas
j aiIed and put to death Iike the most ordinary IowIite criminaI
andrebeI,SimonwasescortedtoRomeinanaImostsoIemncer-
emony as proot otVespasian's triumph in Judea. Tere hewas
puttodeathastheJewishking.
9 FernandoeIodescribesthischaotic,aImostaIkan,situationastoIIows.
"theZeaotschoseanewhighpriestbyIottromamongtheoIdIegitimatehigh-
priestIytamiIiesthathadehectiveIybeenexcudedtromtheomce since i72
. C. , thechoiceteIIonasimpIemanwhowaspracticingamanuaItrade.FinaIIy,
theZeaIotsputupadesperatedetenseottheTempIethroughoutthewar,and
especiaIIyinitshnaIphase.A thisshowsthattheZeaIotswerenot seekinga
'revoIution'thatwouIddoawaywiththesubasiaticmode otproduction,buta
'rebeIIion'thatwouIdrestoreittoitspure torm. Ina numberotwaystheZeaIot
movementremindsusottheDeuteronomistmovement(thenotabeexception,
otcourse,beingthatthemonarchywasnoIongeranissue)"(ibid.,85).
266
BorisCunj evic
In this extended historicaI digression I wished to eIucidate
Mark'snarrativeaboutJesus'entryintoJerusaIem,whichbegins
underateIIingandsuggestiveaegis,directedtothepIayersinthe
story. Whydoye this7" Inotherwords, why doyoupreparein
suchawaysothatJesusshouIdenterJerusaIemasdidMenahem
or Simon bar Ciora, as did the seIt-procIaimed kings and Mes-
siahs7Such distastetuIaIternativeswereunthinkabIetorMark.
ForMark'sMessiah,aboutwhomtheookotMaccabeesandthe
prophet Zachariah had spoken, the entry into JerusaIem was
nottoinvoIveamiIitarysiege,anuprising,arevoIution,"orthe
torchingottheTempIearchives.
Jesus enters the JerusaIem TempIe quite Iate i nthe evening,
unobtrusiveIy, one might even say in a seIt-ehacing manner, he
hasaIookaround,andthenhereturnstoethany. Hecomesback
totheTempIethenextdayandtherebeginshispubIiccontronta-
tionwiththereIigiousandpoIiticeIite,thehighpriests,scribes,
eIders, Pharisees,Herodians,theSadducees,andtheZeots.Tis
isquiteunanticipatedtorsomeonewhoaspirestothetitIeotMes-
siah. CIearIy Mark's Jesushad somethingaItogether diherent in
mind. Who knows what7 Tough he was greetedwith Messianic
greetingsandpresentedwithMessianictrappings(pmbranches
and cIoaks) that suggest a royaI pretender, Mark's Jesus rebuhs
anyvestigeotMessianicidentihcation. His conductattheTempIe
andthe conictheprovokes with the reIigious andpoIitic eIite
suggest a new notion ot Messianism. In this notion ot Mes-
sianism, the man hom Nazareth identihes with thosewho are
heIpIess,withthedisempoweredandthemuItitude, incarnated"
by a poor widowmakinga donation to a corruptTempIewhich
wassoontobe destroyed. TereshaIInotbeIettone stoneupon
another" (Mark IJ. 2) . Messianicpractices are ananticipation ot
that destruction anda modeI othowtoIive when the oId struc-
turesareinruinsandthereisnothingnewonthehorizon.
Prny nnd Hnrch-e Messinnic 5ubversion 267
Mark ohers us a radicaIIy diherent interpretation ot Jesus'
Messianisminwhichthemostobviousmeaningremainshidden.
Markseemstowanttosuggestthat one can onIycome to know
the Messiah by participating in Messianic practices-hearing
and seeing, watching and praying. Despite the tact that the
modeIotMark'scommunityisquitespecihc,itweIcomesasaIIies
those who do not tormaIIybeIong there, though it expeIs eviI
ideoIogicaIspirits"inJesus'name. Jesus conhrmsthistothedis-
cipIeswithasimpIeincIusivetormuIa. he iswithus who isnot
againstus."TisisyetanothermotivetorendorsingaMessianic
practice whichpertains to the nomadicbodyotthe community
onthewaytoJerusaIem.
Andit thy hand ohend thee, cutit oh. it is better
torthee to enterintoIite maimed,thanhaving two
handstogointoheII, into thehre thatnevershaIIbe
quenched. Wheretheirwormdiethnot, andthehre
is not quenched. And it thy toot ohendthee, cut it
oh. it is better tor thee to enter haIt into Iite, than
havingtwoteettobecastintoheII,intothehrethat
never shaII be quenched. Where their worm dieth
not, and the hre is not quenched. And it thine eye
ohendthee, pIuckitout. itisbettertortheetoenter
into the kingdom otCodwith one eye,thanhaving
two eyes tobecastinto heII hre. Where their worm
diethnot, andthehreisnotquenched. Foreveryone
shaIIbesaItedwithhre, andeverysacrihceshaIIbe
saItedwithsaIt. SaIt/s good. butitthesaIthaveIost
hissaItness, wherewithwiIIyeseasonit7HavesaItin
yourseIves, andhave peaceonewith another. (Mark
D. 43-b0)
26B
BorisCunjevic
Hand, toot, andeye are metaphorstor virtues which represent
at the same time portions ot a community tounded through
virtue. Messianic practices ot that virtue pIace in a paradoxi-
caIIy inverse sequence charity, hope, and taith. Te hand is a
metaphortor charity, the organ with which we teedourseIves.
ItisthesymboIotIaborandthememberweusetordetense, to
shake hands, andtouchthecommunity. Apointinghngerand
a cIenched hst are an authoritarian expression ot power con-
centrated in a singIe person, whiIe extended arms and hands
representthepowerotparticipationandsoIidaritytoundedon
charity.TeIegandtootareametaphortorhope,withwhichwe
stride torthinto the tuture. Feet propeIus in motion, conquer
space, andaIIowustowaIktogether.Itwearetocometosome-
one'saidandextendtothatpersonahand,wehrstmustwishto
seethemwiththeeyeottaith.EyesheIpusreaIizeourhrstcon-
tactsandthemomentsotatuturereIationshipandtoopenour-
seIvestothosewewishtogettoknow. Itwewanttogettoknow
them,weIookthemintheeye, itnot, we evadetheirgaze. Tis
is notmereIya question otIust, towhichweare enticedbythe
eyes, butotthedesireto deIiberateIynotsee theobvious, orto
see onIywhat onewants tosee. Tisisatorm otbIindness. We
scandaIizeotherswhenwehavenotthecourageto Iookthemin
the eyes, tor the eyes representtaith. It is no coincidence that
Mark caIIs us to Messianic practices othearing, seeing,prayer,
andwatching. TediscipIes, otcourse, taiIinthesepractices at
the most dimcuIt moment ot Jesus' mortaI anguish in Ceth-
semane (MarkI4. J0) .Whatis easiestseemstobeindescribabIy
dimcuIt. Messianicpracticesarenot cheap evenittheyaretree.
AIthough theymay seem remarkabIy harmIess andnave, tor
Mark they are protoundIy subversive and dangerous. As Ched
MyersputsitsoweII.
Prny nnd Hnrch-e Messinnic 5ubversion bU
theIiteraryoovam caIIedtheCospeIotMarkwaspro-
ducedinresponsetoahistoricaIandideoIogicaIcrisis
engendered by the Jewish war. In this apocaIyptic
moment,acommunitystruggIedtomaintainitsnon-
vioIent resistance to the Roman armies, the Jewish
ruIing cIass, and rebeI recruiters, whiIe sowing the
seeds ota new revoIutionary order through practice
andproseIytism. To be sure, 5JC. B. was notthebest
ottimestora radicaIsociaIexperiment. Perhaps this
wouIdexpIaintheurgencyotthestory,itsexpectation
otsuhering, and its ideoIogy ottaiIure and starting
over.'"
0 Myers,inding rhe 5rrong Man, 44J-4.
CCICHtCs OI JC
\sla_O_y OCVOHIOH
aHO LHaQlCIs Z, , U, aHO O
Adorno, Teodore. Minimn morn/in, ISJ. TransIated by Dennis Red-
mond.Internetsource. http. / / . marists. org/reterence/archive/
adorno/IDSI/mm/index.htm
Agamben, Ciorgio. Homo 5ncer. 5overeign Power nnd nre Li[e. Trans-
IatedbyDanieIHeIIer-Roazen.PaIoAto. StantordUniversityPress,
IDD8.
AicheIe, Ceorge andCary PhiIIips. Introduction. xegesis, isegesis,
Intergesis."5emein, 5D/70(IDD5) . 7-I8.
AIighieri, Dante. Ue Divine Comedy. TransIatedbytheReverend H. F.
Cary. London.CasseII&CompanyLtd. , I8D2.
AIthusser, Louis and

tienne BaIibar. Kending Cnpirn/. TransIated by

BenBrewster.NewYork.Verso,200D.
AureIius, Augustinus. Ciq o[ Cod. TransIated by Marcus Dods. Nicene
nnd Posr-Nicene |nrhers, First Series, voI. 2. dited by PhiIip Schah.
(Buho, NY. Christian LiteraturePubIishingCo. ,I887.)Revisedand
editedtorNewAdventbyKevinKnight.http. / / .newadvent. org/
tathers/I20I02. htm
AureIius,Augustinus. Con[essions. TransIatedbyJ. C. PiIkington.Nicene
nnd Posr- Nicene |nrhers, First Series, voI. I. d. PhiIip Schah. (But-
taIo, NY. Christian Literature PubIishing Co. , I887. ) Revised and
editedtorNewAdventbyKevinKnight. http. / / .newadvent. org/
tathers/II0I0D.htm
Ayres, d.Cod's Lnsr Oger. NewYork.FourWaIIsightWindows,IDDD.
Badiou, AIain. |nnire Uoughr. !rurh nnd rhe Kerurn ro Phi/osophy.
TransIated by Justin CIemens and OIiver TeItham. London. Con-
tinuum,200J.
Badiou,AIain.Po/emics. TransIatedbyBarbaraP. FuIks. London.Verso,
2005.
27i
272
Reterences
Badiou,AIain.5ninr Pnu/. e |oundnrion o[ Universn/ism. TransIatedby
RayBrassier.PaIoAto.StantordUniversityPress,200J.
Barthes, RoIand. e P/ensure o[ rhe !exr. TransIatedbyRichardMiIIer.
NewYork.HiII&Wang,ID7S.
BeIo,Fernando.A Mnrerin/isric Kending o[ rhe Cospe/ o[ Mnrk. NewYork.
Orbis Books, ID8I.
BeII,DanieIM. Libernrion eo/ogy Aer rhe Lnd o[ Hisrory: e Kesn/ ro
Cense 5ugering. London.RoutIedge,200I.
Bencivenga,rmanno.Hege/'s Din/ecricn/ Logic. Oxtord. OxtordUniver-
sityPress, 2000.
Benjamin,WaIter.|//uminnrions. NewYork.SchockenBooks,ID5D.
BensIama, Fethi. Ln psychnnn/yse 0 /'epreuve de /'|s/nm. Paris. Aubier,
2002.
Bienenstock,Myriam.Qu'est-ceque`'espritobj ectit 'seIonHegeI7"In
Lecrures de Hege/, editedbyOIivierTinIand,22J-257. Paris. Livrede
poche,200S.
Boccaccio,Ciovanni.e Li[e o[ Dnnre. TransIatedbyPhiIipHenryWick-
steed. Cambridge, MA. RIversidePress,ID04.
Borges, Jorge L. Te CrueI Redeemer Lazarus MoreII. Te Remote
Cause. "A Universn/ Hisrory o[ |niquiq. TransIatedbyAndrewHurIey,
7-IS. NewYork. PenguinCIassics.
Carnegy, Patrick. Hngner nnd rhe Arr o[ enrre. New Haven. YaIe Uni-
versityPress, 2005.
Cary,PhiIIip.Augusrine's |nvenrion o[ rhe |nner 5e/[: rhe Legncy o[ n Chris-
rinn P/nronisr. London. OxtordUniversityPress, 2000.
Cavanaugh, WiIIiamT. !orrure nnd Luchnrisr: eo/ogy, Po/irics, nnd rhe
ody o[ Chrisr. Oxtord. BIackweIIPubIishers,IDD8.
Certeau, MicheI de. e Cnprure o[ 5peech Orher Po/iricn/ Hriring.
TransIated by Tom ConIey. MinneapoIis. University ot Minnesota
Press, IDD7.
Certeau,MicheIde. e Prncrice o[ Lverydny Li[e. BerkeIey.Universityot
CaIitorniaPress, 2002.
Certeau, MicheI de. e Mysric |nb/e. TransIatedbyMichaeI B. Smith.
Chicago. UniversityotChicagoPress,IDDS.
Chesterton,C. K. Orrhodoxy. SanFrancisco. IgnatiusPress,IDDS.
Chesterton, C. K. e Lver/nsring Mnn. SanFrancisco. Ignatius Press,
IDDJ.
Reterences 27J
Chesterton, C. K. Ue Mnn Hho Hns Uursdny. A Nighrmnre. NewYork.
ModernLibrary, 200I.
Chesterton,C. K. TeSIaveryottheMind."Co//ecred Horks. 28D-2DI.
SanFrancisco. IgnatiusPress,IDD0.
Chesterton,C. K. \ecni covek. SpIit.Verbum,200S.
Crockett,CIayton,A Ueo/ogy o[ rhe 5ub/ime. London. RoutIedge,200I.
Cunningham, Conor. A Cenen/ogy o[ Nihi/ism. Phi/osophies o[ Norhing
nnd rhe Digerence o[ Ueo/ogy. London. RoutIedge, 2002.
Diderot, Denis. Observations sur Hemsterhuis." In Oeuvres comp/ere,
voI. 24, 2IS-4ID. Paris. Hermann,2004.
Dupuy,Jean-Pierre.Perire mernphysique des rsunnmis. Paris.SeuiI,200S.
ss, Josetvan. Muhammad and the Qur'an. Prophecy and ReveIa-
tion."Chrisrinniry nnd rhe Hor/d Ke/igions, eds. HansKng,Josetvan
ss, Heinrich von Stietencron, Neinz Bechert. TransIated by Peter
Heinegg.CardenCity, NY.DoubIeday, ID85.
Fawcett, BiII, ed. How ro Lose n nrr/e. |oo/ish P/nns nnd Crenr Mi/irnry
/unders. NewYork. Harper, 2005.
Cun] evc, Borisand Predrag Ma

ve]evic. !ko e ru, odnvde e. Poviesr

mi/osri. Zagreb.NakIadaL]evak,20I0.
Habermas,Jurgen. Ue |urure o[ Humnn Nnrure. Cambridge,UK. PoIity
Press, 200J.
Hadot,Pierre.P/orinus, or, rhe 5imp/iciry o[\ision. Chicago.ChicagoUni-
versityPress, IDDJ.
Hardt, MichaeI andAntonio Negri. Lmpire. Cambridge, MA. Harvard
UniversityPress,2000.
Hart, DavidBentIey. Ue enury o[ rhe |nnire. Ue Aesrherics o[ Chrisrinn
!rurh. CrandRapids.erdmans, 200J.
Hauerwas, StanIey. Hi/derness Hnnderings. Probing !wenrierh-Cenrury
Ueo/ogy nnd Phi/osophy. BouIder. WestviewPress, IDD7.
Hays, Richard B. Ue Morn/ \ision o[ rhe New !esrnmenr. Communiq,
Cross, New Crenrion. n Conrempornry |nrroducrion ro New !esrnmenr
Lrhics. SanFrancisco. HarperCoIIins, IDD5.
HegeI, Ceorg WiIheIm Friedrich. Lecrures on rhe Phi/osophy o[ Hor/d
Hisrory. |nrroducrion, Kenson in Hisrory. TransIatedby H. B. Nisbet.
Cambridge,UK. CambridgeUniversityPress, ID7S.
HegeI,CeorgWiIheImFriedrich.Phi/osophy o[ Hisrory. TransIatedbyJ.
Sibree. Kitchener.BatocheBooks,ID00.
74
Reterences
HegeI, CeorgWiIheIm Friedrich.Lecrures on rhe Hisrory o[ Phi/osophy.
NewYork. DoverPubIications, IDS5.
HegeI, CeorgWiIheIm Friedrich. Lecrures on rhe Phi/osophy o[ Ke/igion.
TransIatedbyR. F. Brown. BerkeIey. UniversityotCaIitorniaPress,
ID88.
HegeI,CeorgWiIheImFriedrich.Phenomeno/ogy o[ 5pirir. TransIatedby
A. V MiIIer. Oxtord.OxtordUniversityPress,ID77.
HegeI,CeorgWiIheImFnednch.Phi/osophy o[ Mind. TransIatedbyWiIIiam
WaIIace.Oxord. CIarendonPress,ID7I.
HegeI,CeorgWiIheImFriedrich.Phi/osophy o[ Nnrure. TransIatedbyA.
VMiIIer.Oxtord.CIarendonPress, ID70.
HegeI, Ceorg WiIheIm Friedrich. \or/esungen ueber die Ceschichre der
Phi/osophie. VoI.J. Leipzig.VerIagPhiIipRecIam, ID7I.
HegeI, CeorgWiIheIm Friedrich. Herke. VoI. I7. Frankturt. Suhrkamp
VerIag, ID5D.
Heidegger, Martin. OnIy a CodCanSave Us. "In e Heidegger Con-
rroversy: A Criricn/ Kender, editedbyRchardWoIin. Cambridge,MA.
MITPress, IDDJ.
Hodgson,PeterC. , ed. C. W |. Hege/: eo/oginn o[ rhe 5pirir. Minneapo-
Iis.AugsburgFortressPubIishers,IDD7.
HoeIzI, MichaeIandCrahamWard. e New \isibi/iry o[ Ke/igion: 5rud-
ies in Ke/igion nnd Po/iricn/ Cu/rure. London. ContinuumPress, 2008.
Horgan,John. e Lnd o[ 5cience: |ncing rhe Limirs o[ Know/edge in rhe
!wi/ighr o[ rhe 5cienric Age. Reading,MA.Addison-WesIey, IDD5.
HorsIey, RchardA. andJohnS. Hanson.nndirs, Prophers Messinhs:
Popu/nr Movemenrs in rhe !ime o[ Jesus. MinneapoIis.WinstonPress,
ID8S.
InsoIe,ChristopherJ. e Po/irics o[ Humnn |rni/q: A eo/ogicn/ De[ense
o[ Po/iricn/ Libern/ism. London.SCMPress,200D.
Karic, Bnes. Hermeneurikn Kurunn. Zagreb. Hrvatsko hIozotsko
drustvo, IDD0.
Khair, Muhammed. HegeIandIsIam." In e Phi/osopher. D0. 2, 2002,
http. //w .the-phiIosopher. co. uk/hegeI&isIam. htm
Kierkegaard, Sren. Conc/uding Unscienric Posrscripr. TransIated by
David Swenson. Princeton. PrincetonUniversityPress, ID4I.
Reterences
7
Kierkegaard, Sren. Lirher/or: A lrngmenr o[ Li[e, voI. I. TransIatedby
David SwensonandLiIIianMarvinSwenson. NewYork. DoubIe-
day,IDSD.
Kocbek, dvard. 5vedocnnsrvo: dnevnicki znpisi od d. mnn do Z. decem-
brn 1d9d. TransIatedbyMarij a Mitrovic. BeIgrade. Narodnaknjiga,
ID88.
KurzweiI, Ray. e Age o[ 5pirirun/ Mnchines: Hhen Compurers Lxceed
Humnn |nre//igence. London. Phoenb,IDDD.
Lacan, Jacques. Lcrirs: A 5e/ecrion. TransIated byAanSheridan. Lon-
don.RoutIedge,ID77.
Lacan,Jacques. Lcrirs. A 5e/ecrion. TransIatedbyBruceFink.NewYork.
W.W.Norton&Company, 2004.
Lacan, Jacques.
_
eriri reme/nn pomn psihonnn/ize. Zagreb. Naprijed,
ID85.
Lacan, Jacques. Le rriomphe de /n re/igion, precede de Discours nux
Cnrho/iques. Paris.SeuiI,2004.
Lacan, Jacques. e lour lundnmenrn/ Conceprs o[ Psycho-Ann/ysis.
TransIatedbyAIanSheridan. London. PenguinBooks,ID7D.
Lacan,Jacques. e 5eminnr o[ Jncques Lncnn. VoI. 2. e Lgo in lreud's
eory nnd in rhe !echnique o[ Psychonnn/ysis. NewYork. W.W. Nor-
ton&Company, ID88.
Leader, Darian. 5ren/ing rhe Monn Lisn: Hhnr Arr 5rops ds om 5eeing.
London. Faber&Faber,2002.
Lvi-Strauss, CIaude.!risres rropiques. Paris.PIon,IDSS.
Lubac, Henride. Medievn/ Lxegesis: e lour 5enses o[ 5criprure. VoI. I.
TransIatedbyMarkSebanc. Crand Rapids. Wm. B. erdmans Pub-
IishingCo. , IDD8.
Lukacs, Cyrgy. Po/iricn/ Hrirings, 1d1d1dZd. rhe Quesrion o[ Pnr/in-
menrnrinnism nnd Orher Lssnys. TransIated by MichaeI McCoIgan.
London. NLB,ID72.
MaIabou,Catherine.e lurure o[ Hege/: P/nsriciq, !emporn/iq, nnd Din-
/ecric. London. RoutIedge,2004.
Marx,KarI. Cnpirn/, voI.I. Harmondsworth. PenguinBooks, IDD0.
Matvej evic, Predrag. erween Lxi/e nnd Asy/um: An Lnsrern Lpisro/nry.
TransIatedby RusseII Scott VaIentino. Budapest. CentraI uropean
UniversityPress, 2004.
7b
Reterences
Matvejevc,Predrag.Medirerrnnenn, A Cu/rurn/ Lnndscnpe. TransIatedby
MichaeIHenryHeim.BerkeIey.UniversityotCaIitorniaPress, IDDD.
Matvejevc, Predrag. e Orher \enice: 5ecrers o[ rhe Ciq. TransIatedby
RusseIIScottVaIentino. London. Reaktion Books,2007.
Meyerovtch,Bvade. Anrho/oge du sousme. Paris. Sindbad,IDD8.
MiIbank, John. eing Keconci/ed: Onro/ogy nnd Pnrdon. London. Rout-
Iedge, 200J.
MiIbank, John, Creston Davis, andSIavoj

izek. Pnu/'s New Momenr:

Conrinrenrn/ Phi/osophy nnd rhe |urure o[ Chrisrinn eo/og. Crand
Rapids. razos Press,20I0.
MiIbank, John. `"Postmodern CriticaI Augustinianism'. a Short
Summa in Forty-two Responses to UnaskedQuestions." e Kndi-
cn/ Orrhodoxy Kender, eds. JohnMiIbankandSimonOIiver.London.
RoutIedge,200D.
MiIbank, John. Te Programme ot RadicaI Orthodoxy." In Kndicn/
Orrhodo A Cnrho/ic Lnquiry, editedbyLaurence Hemming,JJ-4S.
AIdershot. Ashgate,2000.
MiIbank, John, Catherine Pickstock, andCraham Ward. Suspending
theMateriaI.TeTurnotRadicaIOrthodoxy." InKndicn/ Orrhodo:
A New eo/ogy, editedbyJohn MiIbank, Catherine Pickstock, and
CrahamWard, I-20. London.RoutIedge, IDD8.
MiIbank, John. Te TeoIogicaI Critique ot PhiIosophy in Hamann
and Jacobi." InA Kndicn/ Orrhodo: New eo/ogy, edited by John
MiIbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Craham Ward, 2I-J7. London.
RoutIedge,IDD8.
MiIbank, John, Creston Davs, andSIavoj

izek, eds. eo/ogy nnd rhe

Po/iricn/: e New Debnre. Durham. DukeUniversityPress, 200S.
MiIbank, John, CrahamWard, anddithWyschogrod. eo/ogicn/ Per
specrives on Cod nnd enury. London.ContinuumPress, 200J.
MiIbank,John.eo/ogy nnd 5ocin/ eory. Oxtord. BIackweII, 2006.
MiIbank,John. WithoutHeavenTereisOnIyHeIIonBarth. ISVer-
dicts on

izek's Response." Po/iricn/ eo/ogy, VoI II, No I (20I0).

I26-IJS.
Miranda,Jos. Communism nnd rhe ib/e. NewYork.OrbisBooks,ID82.
Myers, Ched. inding rhe 5rrong Mnn: A Po/iricn/ Kending o[ Mnrk's 5rory
o[ Jesus. NewYork. OrbisBooks,2000.
Reterences
277
Myers, Ched. Hho Hi// Ko// Awny rhe 5rone/ Discip/eship Queries [or rhe
|irsr Hor/d Chrisrinns. NewYork. Orbis Books,IDDD.
Nancy,Jean-Luc.No/i me rnngere. On rhe Knising o[ rhe ody. NewYork.
FordhamUniversityPress,2008.
Negri,Antonio. Negri on Negri. Anronio Negri in Conversnrion wirh Anne
Du[ourmnnre//e. London.RoutIedge,2004.
NikoIaidis, Andrej .Mimesis. Zagreb.Durieux,200J.
L DonneII, James. Commentary" Books 8-IJ. Con[essions, voI. III.
Oxtord.CIarendonPress,IDD2.
Oden, Tomas. C. , ed. e Humor o[ Kierkegnnrd. An Anrho/og. Princ-
eton. PrincetonUniversityPress,2004.
Pabst, AdrianandChristophSchneider,eds.Lncounrer erween Kndicn/
Orrhodoxy nnd Lnsrern Orrhodoxy. AIdershot.Ashgate,200D.
Page,Andrew. e Mnrk Lxperimenr. How Mnrk's Cospe/ Cnn He/p You ro
Know Jesus errer. Nremberg.VRPubIications, 200S.
Peat, DavidF. 5ynchroniciq. e ridge berween Nnrure nnd Mind. New
York.antam,ID87.
Pinchbeck,DanieI.!ownrd Z1Z.Perspecrives on rhe Nexr Age. NewYork.
TarcherPenguin,2007.
Pickstock, Catherine. Aer Hriring. On Lirurgicn/ Consummnrion o[ Phi-
/osophy. Oxtord.BIackweIIPubIishers,IDD8.
Pickstock,Catherine. RadicaIOrthodoxyandMeditationsotTime."In
Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy/ A Cnrho/ic Lnquiry, 5J-75. AIdershot. Ashgate,
2000.
Pickstock,Catherine.RepIytoDavIdFordandCuyCoIIins."In5corrish
Journn/ o[ eo/ogy S4(200I) .40S-422.
Pickstock, Catherine. Tomas Aquinas and the Quest tor the ucha-
rist."Modern eo/ogy, VoI.IS(ApriI IDDD) . ISD-I80.
PIato.e Kepub/ic. TransIatedbyBenjaminJowett. Digireads. comPub-
Iishing, 2008.
Razac,OIivIer.nrbed Hire. A Po/iricn/ Hisrory. TransIatedbyJonathan
Kneight. NewYork.TeNewPress,2002.
Rodinson,Maxime. Muhnmed. Zagreb.HIadiSinovI, IDD8.
Rogerson,Barnaby. e Propher Muhnmmnd. A iogrnphy. Mahwah,NJ.
HiddenSpring,200J.
Said,dwardW. Krivorvorene is/nmn. Zagreb.VB. Z. , 200J.
Said,dwardW. Cu/rure nnd |mperin/ism. NewYork.Knopt, IDD4.
7b
Reterences
Matvej evic, Predrag.Medirerrnnenn, A Cu/rurn/ Lnndscnpe. TransIatedby
MichaeIHenryHeim.erkeIey.UniversityotCaIitorniaPress, IDDD.
Matvejevic, Predrag. e Orher \enice: 5ecrers o[ rhe Ciq. TransIatedby
RusseIIScottVaIentino. London.Reaktionooks,2007.
Meyerovitch,vade. Anrho/ogie du sousme. Paris.Sindbad, IDD8.
MiIbank, John. being Keconci/ed: Onro/ogy nnd Pnrdon. London. Rout-
Iedge,200J.
MiIbank, John, Creston Davis, andSIavoj

izek. Pnu/'s New Momenr:

Conrinrenrn/ Phi/osophy nnd rhe |urure o[ Chrisrinn eo/ogy. Crand
Rapids. razosPress,20I0.
MiIbank, John. `Postmodern CriticaI Augustinianism'. a Short
Summa in Forty-two Responses to Unasked Questions." e Kndi-
cn/ Orrhodoxy Kender, eds.JohnMiIbankandSimon OIiver.London.
RoutIedge,200D.
MiIbank, John. Te Programme ot RadicaI Orthodoxy." In Kndicn/
Orrhodoxy A Cnrho/ic Lnquiry, editedbyLaurence Hemming, JJ-4S.
Adershot.Ashgate,2000.
MiIbank, John, Catherine Pickstock, andCraham Ward. Suspending
theMateriaI.TeTurnotRadicaIOrthodoxy." InKndicn/ Orrhodoxy:
A New Ueo/ogy, editedbyJohn MiIbank, Catherine Pickstock, and
CrahamWard, I-20. London. RoutIedge, IDD8.
MiIbank, John. Te TeoIogicaI Critique ot PhiIosophy in Hamann
and Jacobi." InA Kndicn/ Orrhodo: New eo/ogy, editedby John
MiIbank, Catherine Pickstock, and CrahamWard, 2I-J7. London.
RoutIedge,IDD8.
MiIbank, John, Creston Davis, andSIavoj

izek, eds. eo/ogy nnd rhe

Po/iricn/: e New Debnre. Durham. DukeUniversityPress,200S.
MiIbank, John, CrahamWard,anddithWyschogrod. eo/ogicn/ Per-
specrives on Cod nnd benuq. London.ContinuumPress, 200J.
MiIbank,John.eo/ogy nnd 5ocin/ eory. Oxtord. IackweII,2006.
MiIbank, John. WithoutHeavenTereis OnIyHeIIonarth. ISVer-
dicts on
g
izek's Response." Po/iricn/ eo/og, VoI II, No I (20I0) .
I26-IJS.
Miranda,Jos. Communism nnd rhe bib/e. NewYork.Orbisooks,ID82.
Myers,Ched. binding rhe 5rrong Mnn: A Po/iricn/ Kending o[ Mnrk's 5rory
o[ Jesus. NewYork. Orbisooks,2000.
Reterences 277
Myers, Ched.Hho Hi// Ko// Awny rhe 5rone/ Discip/eship Queries [or rhe
|irsr Hor/d Chrisrinns. NewYork. OrbisBooks, IDDD.
Nancy,Jean-Luc.No/i me rnngere. On rhe Knising o[ rhe ody. NewYork.
FordhamUniversityPress, 2008.
Negri,Antonio.Negri on Negri. Anronio Negri in Conversnrion wirh Anne
Du[ourmnnre//e. London.RoutIedge,2004.
NikoIaidis,Andrej .Mimesis. Zagreb.Durieu,200J.
L DonneII, James. Commentary" Books 8-IJ. Con[essions, voI. III.
Oxtord. CIarendonPress,IDD2.
Oden, Tomas. C. , ed. Ue Humor o[ Kierkegnnrd. An Anrho/og. Princ-
eton. Princeton UniversityPress,2004.
Pabst,AdrianandChristophSchneider,eds. Lncounrer erween Kndicn/
Orrhodoxy nnd Lnsrern Orrhodoxy. AIdershot.Ashgate,200D.
Page,Andrew. Ue Mnrk Lxperimenr. How Mnrk's Cospe/ Cnn He/p You ro
Know Jesus errer. Nremberg.VRPubIications,200S.
Peat, David 5ynchroniciry. Ue ridge berween Nnrure nnd Mind. New
York.Bantam,ID87.
Pinchbeck,DanieI.!ownrd Z1Z. Perspecrives on rhe Nexr Age. NewYork.
TarcherPenguin,2007.
Pickstock, Catherine. Aer Hriring. On Lirurgicn/ Consummnrion o[ Phi-
/osophy. Oxtord.BIackweIIPubIishers, IDD8.
Pickstock,Catherine. RadicaIOrthodoxyandMeditationsotTime."In
Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy/ A Cnrho/ic Lnquiry, 5J-75. AIdershot. Ashgate,
2000.
Pickstock,Catherine. RepIytoDavidFordandCuyCoIIins."In5corrish
Journn/ o[ Ueo/ogy S4(200I) . 40S-422.
Pickstock, Catherine. Tomas Aquinas andtheQuesttor the ucha-
rist."Modern Ueo/ogy, VoI.IS(ApriI IDDD) . ISD-I80.
PIato.Ue Kepub/ic. TransIatedbyBenj aminJowett. Digireads. comPub-
Iishing, 2008.
Razac, OIivIer.nrbed Hire. A Po/iricn/ Hisrory. TransIatedbyJonathan
Kneight. NewYork.TeNewPress,2002.
Rodinson,Maime.Muhnmed. Zagreb.HIadiSinovi, IDD8.
Rogerson,Barnaby. Ue Propher Muhnmmnd. A iogrnphy. Mahwah,NJ.
HiddenSpring,200J.
Said,dwardW. Krivorvorene is/nmn. Zagreb.VB. Z. , 200J.
Said,dwardW. Cu/rure nnd |mperin/ism. NewYork. Knopt, IDD4.
7b
Reterences
SampIe, Ian. Frankenstein's MycopIasma." In Ue Cunrdinn, 8 June
2007.
Santner,Bric. Freud'sMosesandthethicsotNomotropicDesire."In
5exunrion, editedbyRenata SaIecI, S7-I0S. Durham. Duke Univer-
sityPress, 2000.
ScheIIing,FriedrichWiIheImJosephvon. PhiIosophicaIInvestigations
intotheBssenceotHumanFreedom."InPhi/osophy o[ Cermnn |den/-
ism, editedbyBrnstehIer.NewYork. Continuum, ID87.
Schwartz, Stephen.Ue !wo |nces o[ |s/nm. NewYork. DoubIeday, 2002.
Shakespeare,Wi

iam.Ju/ius Cnesnr.
Shakespeare,Steven. Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy: A Criricn/ |nrroducrion. London.
SCPK, 2007.
Shaw, Cregory. Ueurg nnd rhe 5ou/ - rhe Neop/nronism o[ |nmb/ichus.
PhiIadeIphia.PennsyIvaniaStateUniversityPress, IDDS.
Sherman, FrankIin. SpeakingotCodatterAuschwitz." InA Ho/ocnusr
Kender, edited by MichaeI L. Morgan. Oxtord. Oxtord University
Press,200I.
Smart, Christopher. Ue Ke/igious Poerry. Manchester, UK. Carcanet
Press, ID80.
Smith, James and James OIthuis, eds. Kndicn/ Orrhodoxy nnd rhe
Ke[ormed !rndirion: Crenrion, Covennnr, nnd Pnrricipnrion. CrandRap
ids. razos Press, 200S.
Stock, rian.Augusrine rhe Kender: Medirnrion, 5e/[-Know/edge, nnd rhe
brhics o[ |nrerprernrion. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press,
IDD6.
TayIor, RchardandIanChristie, eds. Ue |i/m |ncrory. London. Rout-
Iedge, iD88.
Ward,Craham. nrrh, Derridn nnd rhe Lnngunge o[ Ueo/ogy. Cambridge,
UK.CambridgeUniversityPress, IDDS.
Ward, Craham. /nckwe// Compnnion ro Posrmodern Ueo/ogy. Oxtord.
IackweII, 2004.
Ward, Craham. Chrisr nnd Cu/rure. Oxtord. IackweII, 200S.
Ward, Craham. Cu/rurn/ !rnns[ormnrion nnd Ke/igious Prncrice. Cam-
bridge, UK. CambridgeUniversityPress,200S.
Ward, Craham,ed. Ue de Cerrenu Kender. Oxtord. IackweII,2000.
Ward, Craham, ed. Ue Posrmodern Cod: A Ueo/ogicn/ Kender. Oxtord.
IackweII, IDD7.
Reterences
7U
Ward, Craham. RadicaI Orthodoxy and/as CuIturaI PoIitics." InKndi-
cn/ Orrhodo A Cnrho/ic bnquiry, edited by Laurence Hemming,
D7-III. AIdershot. Ashgate,2000.
Ward, Craham andMichaeI HoeIzI, eds. Ke/igion nnd Po/iricn/ Uoughr.
London. ContinuumPress,2005.
Ward, Craham. Ueo/ogy nnd Conrempornq Criricn/ Ueory: Crenring
!rnnscedenr Horship !odny. NewYork. St. Martin'sPress,IDDD.

izek,SIavoj . Ue |rngi/e Abso/ure: oj Hhy is rhe Chrisrinn Legncy Horrh

|ighring |or London.Verso,2000.

izek, SIavoj andJohn MiIbank. Ue Monsrrosiq o[ Chrisr: Pnrndox or

Din/ecric. Cambridge,MA. MITPress,200D.

izek,SIavoj .Lv]erovnn]u: Nemi/osrdnn /]ubnv. Zagreb.AIgoritam,200S.

izek,SIavoj .5ub/imni ob]ekr ideo/oge. Zagreb.Arkzin,2002.

izek, SIavoj . TeAtheist Wager." In Po/iricn/ Ueo/ogy, VoI II, No I

(20I0) . IJ5-I40.
SIavoj

izek, Ue Perverr's Cuide ro Cinemn, J0. http. / / .Iacan. com/

zizhoIIywood.htm

upancic,AIenka.`"TeConcreteUniversaI'andWhatComedyCanTeII
Us About It." In Lncnn. Ue 5i/enr Pnrrners, edited by SIavoj

izek,
I7I-ID7. London.VersoBooks,200S.
AOUTSLAVOJ
g
I
g
EK
SIovenianphiIosopherandcriticaItheoristSIavoj
g
izeki samong
the most distinguishedinteIIectuaIsotthetwenty-hrstcentury.
He has been a visiting protessor at Princeton, CoIumbia, and
NYandcontinuestoteachworIdwide.
AOUTORISCUNJEVI
_
orisCunjevicservesasaIecturerinethicsattheibIijskiInstitut
inZagreb, Croatia. He is the authorotCrac/ed 5abecr. W/rboar
rbe Cra//.
28I
AOUTBLLBNBLIASURSA
_
BLLBN BLIAS-URSA
_
's transIations have appeared in 8esr
Laropeao F/cr/oo 2UJ U,Harper's, andCraora. Sheisthewinnerot
the20I0NationaIBndowmenttortheArtsTransIationFeIIow-
ship (TeCoIdsmith'sCoId)andthe2006NationaITransIation
Award (CtzandMeyer) .
28J
AOUTSBVBNSTORIBSPRBSS
Seven Stories Press i sanindependent book pubIisherbasedin
New York City. We pubIish works ot the imagination by such
writers as NeIson AIgren, RusseII anks, Octavia B. utIer, Ani
DiFranco, Assia Dj ebar, ArieI Dortman, Coco Fusco, arry Oit-
tord, Hwang Sok-yong, Lee Stringer, and Kurt Vonnegut, to
nameatew,togetherwithpoIiticaItitIesbyvoices otconscience,
incIuding the ostonWomen's HeaIth CoIIective, Noam Chom-
sky, AngeIa Y. Davis, Human Rights Watch, Derrick Jensen,
RaIph Nader, Loretta NapoIeoni, Oary NuII, Proj ect Censored,
arbara Seaman, AIice WaIker, Oary Webb, and Howard Zinn,
amongmanyothers.SevenStoriesPressbeIievespubIishershave
aspeciaIresponsibiIityto detendtree speechandhuman rights,
and to ceIebrate the gitts otthehumanimagination, wherever
wecan. ForadditionaIintormation,visitW. sevenstories. com.
285