Sunday, July 06, 2003
(11:50 AM) | Adam Kotsko:
Defining Fundamentalism
The term "fundamentalism" has been bandied about a great deal ever since a group of fundamentalists flew some planes into important buildings, and while there is a general understanding of what fundamentalism is ("something bad"), I don't think that it has been adequately defined in most media outlets. Various inadequate definitions have been attempted, mainly centered on the idea that fundamentalists believe things a little too hard, but I am not satisfied with that -- the problem can't simply be knowledge or a belief in some kind of truth. (For those who are interested, I think what I'm about to outline resonates well with Robb's post on "The Wanting Seed." I know it's long, but read it.)
Slavoj Zizek, in his Sublime Object of Ideology, points out that for classic Marxists, "the only solution to their [single-issue activists'] problem is to be found in the global revolution: as long as social relations are dominated by Capital, there will always be" problems such as sexism, war, etc. Marxists have found the one single problem that, once solved, will cause all other problems to fade into the mist. In our post-Marxist age,
almost any of the antagonisms which, in the light of Marxism, appear to be secondary can take over this essential role of mediator for all the others. We have, for example, feminist fundamentalism (no global liberation without the emancipation of women, without the abolition of sexism); democratic fundamentalism (democracy as the fundamental value of Western civilization; all other struggles -- economic, feminist, of minorities, and so on -- are simply further applications of the basic democratic, egalitarian principle); ecological fundamentalism (ecological deadlock as the fundamental problem of mankind); and -- why not? -- psychoanalytic fundamentalism ... (the key to liberation lies in changing the repressive libidinal structure)
All of these fundamentalisms, to which we could add Christian/Islamic fundamentalism (all social problems would go away if we could return to traditional Christian/Islamic values) or market fundamentalism (all social problems would go away if the market was allowed to operate unfettered), share in common one underlying logic:
- They recognize the fundamentally conflictual nature of human life.
- They see this conflict as undesirable.
- They identify one particular conflict as the key to undoing the whole conflict.
In short, they see human life as containing a gaping wound and seek to cure that wound. In the end, for all their differences, Pat Robertson = Osama bin Laden = the Wall Street Journal editorial page = the PETA terrorists. If carried through to its logical end, fundamentalism will inevitably lead to mass death and destruction; as Zizek points out: "the attempt to abolish [the conflict at the heart of human life] is precisely the source of totalitarian temptation: the greatest mass murders and holocausts have always been perpetrated in the name of man as harmonious being, of a New Man without antagonistic tension." If the fundamentalist project was carried through to its logical end, as I see it, human life itself would end: it is no coincidence that biblical imagery of a radical cure for human sin at the end of history is saturated with horrific violence.
Some questions naturally arise: What is the solution, then? Should we just attempt to believe in nothing and do nothing, or else embrace fundamentalism as an unavoidable activity? Are we all doomed to be fundamentalists -- and if Zizek identifies fundamentalism as the fundamental problem, is he not simply a fundamentalist? To all the yes/no questions in that list, I answer with a resounding "No." The "solution" is precisely to sustain the gap itself, keep the wound open as long as possible, "tarry with the negative." The human project is always going to be tentative, hanging over an abyss, but if we are to have any hope at all, we must keep the gap open as long as possible, because once we close that gap, it is all over.
What does it mean, in the concrete, to tarry with the negative? It will vary according to every situation, but I think that in the current situation of the United States, it means to vote Democrat as often as possible -- yes, they're disappointing, unappealling, half-ass kinds of guys, but they're not fundamentalists. The same cannot be said of the brilliantly marketted, "on message" Bush Republicans -- perhaps the last political party to be so effectively marketted, to have such a control over the terms of the debate, to have such overwhelming party unity, was the National Socialist Party. I think Zizek would agree with me here: we have to get rid of these guys, even if it means voting for Joe Lieberman.
