ISSN 1751-8229

Volume Six, Number One

Following Atheism: on a Debate in Contemporary Psychoanalytic Theory

Thomas Brockelman, Philosophy Dept., Le Moyne College.

"Religion" is a concept of sufficient brea th that any simple embrace or re!ection of "hat it encompasses is boun to be as much mislea ing as true. The follo"ing comments confirm this in follo"ing out polemics about religion "ithin contemporary Lacanian#$reu ian psychoanalysis. That is, they sho" the truth of the hypothesis that any effort simply to negate or, e%ually, to affirm the religious in icates a point "here some more comple& truth is being o'erlooke . But that oesn(t mean that religion is insignificant "ithin the $reu o)Lacanian tra ition* %uite the contrary, it names a foun ational concern of the Lacanian analyst or theorist. +hat makes a iscussion about religion in the aca emy of interest to me is the 'alue of e&posing, so as to "in through to "hat psychoanalysis can teach us about it, the falsity of the easy a analytic conte&t. The follo"ing comments pursue this teaching in follo"ing a ,)part agen a* - start ./ection 01 from a presentation of the theological element in psychoanalysis 2 from, that is, an e&planation of a foun ational atheism in $reu ian#Lacanian thought. 3fter that ./ection 41, in icate ho" this psychoanalytic atheism naturally lea s t"o of its important contemporary e&ponents .3 rian 5ohnston 6 /la'o! 7i8ek9 a stu ent an his teacher1 to bin psychoanalysis to resses to religion in an

contemporary polemics about religion. The fact, ho"e'er, that these polemics irectly oppose each other ."ith 5ohnston articulating a militant anti)religiosity an 7i8ek embracing an e%ually militant ra ical Christianity1 "ill gi'e us the clue for the final part ./ection ,1 of this paper. There - "ill propose that that the atheistic ethos of $reu an Lacan has its 'alue in outlining a nuance critical theory of contemporary society, a theory that attempts to comprehen the changing historical status of religious belief. 1. Fundamental Fantasy: Unconscious Theism en source of psychoanalysis( fruitfulness for

Let me begin from "hat - take to be the hi

Lacanian thought about religion 2 "hich is containe in Lacan(s i ea, as intro uce beginning in about 0:;<, of a "fun amental fantasy." /ince for Lacan this i ea is a re)casting of a seminal $reu ian motif, let me begin 'ia the case that later became central in $reu (s o"n accounts of an Urphantasie, namely, the case of the so)calle "+olfman." $reu "iel s the term Phantasie in 'arious "ays all of "hich ha'e in common the notion of a psychically constructe an coherent scene in "hich the sub!ect or .in the case of reams1 reamer is present as an obser'er. .Laplanche 6 Pontalis 0:=,, ,0>),0;1 Beginning in 0:0?, moreo'er, $reu speaks of @primal fantasyA .Urphantasie1 2 using that term in relationship to a @primal sceneA .most typically the scene of "itnesse parental coitus1 that is present to the in i'i ual e'en "hen it represents no actual e&perience. ./ee, $reu 0:0>#=> 6 0:0=#=>1. -n such a scene, $reu sees a literaliBation of the reference to origins, a kin of staging or representation of oneCs o"n conception. .Laplanche 6 Pontalis 0:=, ,,41 /o, the $reu ian primal fantasy suggests a uni'erse close on itself 2 one in "hich the analysan "atches her#himself come into being as that e'ent happens. +hat is this position that inclu es "e'erything" .or, as "ill be seen, almost e'erything1D 3s /la'o! 7i8ek suggests, it resembles the me ie'al image of a complete cosmos represente for Eo .0 $antasy pro!ects the real qua totality 2 "hat "e call "reality" )) by imagining it, at least tra itionally, from the position of transcen ence, from a pri'ilege sub!ectCs perspecti'e. -n or er to concei'e of the "orl as @ontologically close A "e imagine a @'ie"pointA from which it appears as totality.4 Fo", the elegant thing about the +olfman case is that its "primal scene" also in icates, in "hat it excludes from such a picture, the necessity that an irre ucibly unconscious element enter into the constitution of reality. The fantasy of the analysan (s o"n presence at his conception inclu es consciousness of that presence, but only in the sense that the fantasy is for it* this consciousness remains necessarily also e&ternal to the scene, ne'er a fully represente ob!ect
2

of its representation. Gn the contrary, its conscious token is only the anxiety accompanying the +olfman(s repeate ream of ""ol'es in a tree," an uncanny affect that tips us off as to the peculiar half)presence of an "ob!ectile" self., The "primal fantasy" proper behin the "primal scene" is "hat eals "ith this uncanny e&clusion, repressing it an thus guaranteeing that it oes not isturb the "reality" pro uce by that original sho". Here, $reu only hints at "hat Lacan an his follo"ers ha'e fille in "ith the i ea of the "fun amental fantasy," namely another an this time necessarily unconscious formation responsible for the stable totality of reality. To suggest that fantasy, "e might !oin Iric /antner an 7i8ek in returning to a ifferent $reu , the speculati'e theorist of Moses and Monotheism "ho proposes that the myth of Moses the patriarch an , in ee , the accompanying pro uction of a patriarchal @Eo )the)$atherA amount to responses to a represse murder of the actual .Igyptian1 Moses.> 3fter all, $reu Cs e uce lesson from the eath of the actual Moses, the @father,A is that there are no e&ternal conse%uences, no i'ine retribution for mur er. .$reu 0:,=#=>, J0)J?1 3ccor ing to this account, the fun amental fantasy 2 that we are guilty of some horrible primal crime an thus must en lessly atone for it 2 actually aims to efeat an unbearable an&iety, to transform it into guilt, the punishment e&acte by the superego. The fun amental fantasy, then, is the necessarily unconscious content of the act by which reality itself, "ith its %uality of apparently seamless totality, is forme . It is unconscious because, by transforming sub!ecti'ity into the ob!ect of the superego, it hi es the incompletion of reality at the point of the sub!ect. That is, guilt transforms the stain of sub!ecti'ity into a efinite person "racke by guilt, an , in so oing, it hi es the gap or hole in being emerging at that site of an&iety. -t eli'ers up the consolation of a "orl "e can inhabit, but only at the price of an en less punishment. @+eA are sinners .in the Christian 'ision, original sinners, guilty of isrupting the basic fabric of Being1. Iffecti'ely, reality, a complete "orl , is "on by repressing our o"n uncanny presence, a presence that the fantasy con'erts into a efinite but e&clu e element. -n such a cosmos, "e as human beings are primor ially guilty of isrupting the fun amental or er an therefore e&clu e from it. 3n or ere uni'erse, essentially complete in itself, still hol s @no placeA for the spontaneous human "ill, the subject. The cosmos is "hole* only, short of the re emption posite by ortho o&y, "e cannot belong to it. Gf course, this tragic situation also brings its o"n consolation, in the form of the community of sinners, or, in $reu (s terms, the form of the group of brothers "ho share the social tie of guilt an humiliation. That is, a stabiliBe reality is of)a)piece "ith a social bon base upon share renunciation. +e can see the other person as something other than a potential competitor or

enemy, so $reu an Lacan, to the e&tent that "e all share in the fantasmatic casting)out of oursel'es from para ise. 3ll that(s necessary to complete the emonstration of ho" basic to psychoanalytic thought is $reu (s atheism, is to follo" the links by "hich psychoanalytic treatment aims to loosen the bon s of guilt hol ing the analysan to his or her misperception of the Real. $or Lacan, analysis aims to "tra'erse the fantasy" potentially liberating the "patient" both from guilt an from the illusion of a transcen ence pro ucing an stabiliBing reality itself. .Lacan, 0:=J#;4, 4=,1 Fo "on er, then, that for 7i8ek an other members of the /lo'enian school of Lacanian thought, the process of an analysis aims irectly at a kin of re'olution, a challenging of the "goo forms" of li'e ontology. That, by this mo el, such liberation sails close to ma ness is, of course, neither inci ental nor tri'ial to my mo eling here, but that, too, must remain a theme for another ay.

2.

ohnston ! "i#e$: %eligion and the Atheistic &mperati'e o( Psychoanalysis

These me itations "oul seem to lea'e a clear imperati'e for contemporary psychoanalysis* follo" out the atheistic comman ment by challenging those fantasmatic structures, share or in i'i ual, that stabiliBe any illusory social reality. 3bo'e all, this "oul imply a challenge to $reu himself "ho, "hile famously opposing the "illusion" of organiBe religion, famously oes so in the name of an alternati'e "religion" of science, inclu ing the science of psychoanalysis. ? I&actly that challenge to $reu (s positi'ism marks an important strain of 5ac%ues Lacan(s criti%ue of $reu )) namely, the i ea that the 'arious scientisms an rationalisms "ith "hich $reu allie himself are not, in fact, atheistic enough, that they actually represent a resi ual, if unackno"le ge "religion of science" "hose carry, "hen couple "ith the broa er cultural construction it accompanies, efines our reality to ay. ; -n se'eral recent essays an books, the "ell)kno"n Lacanian scholar 3 rian 5ohnston has ma e the case for !ust this as the inescapable logic of Lacan(s reception of the atheist $reu . -n brief, he argues that $reu (s hi en sympathies "ith re ucti'e scientism lea him in his "ritings on religion to mistake the eman s of an early mo ern 'ie" of nature for those of a genuine atheism. $or e&ample, in "Conflicte Matter* 5ac%ues Lacan an the Challenge of /eculariBing Materialism," 5ohnston interprets Lacan as arguing against the 0= th an 0Jth)Century mechanists, early a herents of scientistic re ucti'ism.= /uch re ucti'ism implicitly totaliBes reality 2 implying the "min of Eo " in "hich all causal chains are complete 2 unintentionally reinforcing the illusion of a transcen ent, %uasi) i'ine gaBe, a gaBe "hich assures us of the
4

continuity an self)consistency of all that is. 3s a result, 5ohnston, follo"ing Lacan, argues that the apparent materialism of self)a'o"e atheists like /a e, La Mettrie or Di erot .but also of more contemporary analytic philosophers of science1 is simply the e%ui'alent of, as he puts it, "a isguise bo y of religious belief espite itself." .5ohnston 4<<J, 0;:1 The 'ital task 5ohnston engages in his essay is to istinguish more rigorously these still @fi eistA materialisms from the real 2 genuinely atheist 2 thing. $ollo"ing Lacan(s analysis of /a e in /eminar K--, . The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, Lacan 0:;<#:41, 5ohnston fin s that Inlightenment materialists reassert "the ultimate cohesion of the material uni'erse as a self)consistent Gne)3ll." .5ohnston 4<<J, 0;:1 -n other "or s, the "orl pro uce by that Inlightenment, "ith its faith in technical progress an its suspicion of superstition, is itself result of a kind of religion. $rom 5ohnston(s perspecti'e, psychoanalysis remains a fun amentally anti religious phenomenon, in ee the positi'ist scientism that $reu still thought to be his ally, fails because it is still compromise by a totaliBe 2 ie., religious, ontological 'ie". 5ohnston persistently calls for a more ra ical anti) religiosity, a re'olutionary Leninist attitu e, refusing compromise an mo eration. J Gne "ay to put this* in the famous Mar&ist phrase, it is no accident that, inten ing a coherent an complete ""orl 'ie"," positi'ist scientism becomes in its content a kin of re ucti'e e%ui'alent of religion, itself pro!ecting a fantasmatic totality of being. To the e&tent that mo ern science .or at least i eological pro!ections of it1 inclu es the possibility of a complete kno"le ge, a re uction of e'ents to a close causal account, it repeats or represents the ontological function of the fun amental fantasy. Because 5ohnston himself fails to o so, ha'en(t one !ustice to the unconscious element that un erlies the pro!ection of such a reality,

$reu ian#Lacanian atheism lea , not to a militant polemic against the religion in science, but, rather, to a .so the author claims1 sub'ersi'e embrace of one specific religious tra ition. Recently calling himself an "atheist Christian," 7i8ek has !oine Thomas 3ltiBer in connecting Chrisitianity "ith a oubling or eepening of atheism, one apparently capable of "ithstan ing reinterpretation as systematic or ogmatic belief. : -n ee , for 7i8ek Christianity is not a "orl 'ie" but rather a kin of machine for a'oi ing the trap of a para o&ically theistic atheism. -n his account, the structure of Christian theology eman s a oubling or "paralla& shift" in our un erstan ing of oursel'es as e&clu e from the ontological totality of the "orl . Recall the basic economy of the fun amental fantasy* it manages to assert that the "orl is complete, a totality, by e&clu ing us from the "all." %e oursel&es are the unruly an e&traneous element in an other"ise @"holeA creation, the e&ception that allo"s e'ery create element to en!oy a pre)gi'en place in the cosmos. .7i8ek 4<<,, J?1 7i8ek(s key mo'e is to claim that in Christianity, at its most essential, the relational negati'ity of the $all ."herein the nullity of being is e&ternaliBe 1 is ouble an thus reflecte back onto being itself. The "nullity" lies in the totality of being itself rather than in us. 3bo'e all, 7i8ek fin s this essence of Christianity in a 5esus "ho pro'es his @$atherA impotent to @sa'e himA from eath "hen he calls out to him in espair upon the cross .@$ather, "hy ha'e you forsaken meDA1 3s 7i8ek puts it, "Gur alienation from Eo is at the same time the 'ery alienation of Eo from himself." .7i8ek 4<<:1 -n 7i8ek(s un erstan ing, Eo canCt sa'e 5esus, because he .Eo 1 doesn't exist. There simply is no force to the uni'erse guaranteeing that e'erything "ill @turn outA in the en . This atheism of the ying 5esus allo"s, as a kin of @secon blo"A the $all to appear as "hat it @reallyA al"ays "as 2 an assertion of the essential, meaningless non totality of the uni'erse. ./ee, 7i8ek 4<<,, 04;1 7i8ekCs 5esus "ants us to see that, precisely because, actually, this "orl is incomplete, "e coul only miss this by positing our @sinfulA sel'es as e&ception to Eo (s "ill. 5esus teaches that the 'ery i ea of a reality against "hich "e sin is an illusion repro uce in the gesture by "hich "e first free oursel'es .as sinners1 from it. -n other "or s, the @fictionality of the GtherA sustaining fantasy first appears as fantasy. $or 7i8ek, 5esus oes not come to @re eem usA from 3 amCs $all but only to help us @shift our sub!ecti'e position,A our perspecti'e, so that "e coul see @that it Lre emptionM is alrea y thereA in the $all )) that there ne'er "as a @cosmosA from "hich "e rebelle . .7i8ek 4<<,, J;)=1 To "follo" 5esus," in 7i8ek(s 'ersion of Christianity, man ates a mo'ement beyon the sterile %uestions of belief, "ith their rationalist bias. The real 'alue of 7i8ek(s Paulinian# Hegelian theology, thus, is that it man ates the ina e%uacy of this 'ery language* that is, the
6

point is not so much a systematic belief about the incompleteness of ontology .as 5ohnston takes it to be1 but rather an imperati'e to act "ithout the possibility of foun ation or groun , "ithout any possibility for a certainty about the reality upon which - act. ./ee, for e&ample, 7i8ek 4<<,, 44 an 7i8ek 0:::, 0?J1. To ackno"le ge that there is no Eo is !ust a "ay of embracing the necessity that one take responsibility for one(s o"n free om. Buil ing upon Nierkegaar (s i ea of the "leap of faith" as "ell as Lacan(s notion of the psychoanalytic act, 7i8ek buil s an ans"er to the fun amental problem of human free om an creati'ity. /pecifically, the (act( e'i ent in Christianity allo"s a genuinely unanticipated story to unfol 2 base upon a "faith" beyon any rational belief. $or 7i8ek, furthermore, this ethics of the act pro uces a ifferent social bon than the community of guilt an renunciation man ate by the fun amental fantasy. Re'olutionary collecti'ism, a social link in epen ent of the share guilt foun ational for all tra itional "community," e&ten s the free om of the act. ./ee, 7i8ek, 4<<, (0,<1 The collecti'e ."hether the re'olutionary commune or the psychoanalytic association1, is a group self)consciously )) fully kno"ing that it has no place in the cosmos, no hi en i entity a"aiting isco'ery 2 producing itself through choices it kno"s to be its o"n. +hat, accor ing to 7i8ek, o - ha'e in common "ith the others surroun ing meD Gnly the fact that "e all act together, freely shaping our o"n li'es.0< 3n so, in opposition to 5ohnston, 7i8ek presents himself as not only someone "ho embraces at least one form of "religion," but "ho oes so in the name of the 'ery imperati'e that $reu announce in his polemics against it. The irony eepens, too, "hen "e consi er ho" 7i8ek(s embrace of "atheist Christianity" e&plains both his criticisms of 'arious Inlightenment) tinge or "ne" age" spiritual irections 2 +estern Bu hism, Onitarianism, Reform 5u aism, etc. 2 an "hen he announces his sympathy for 'arious forms of religious fun amentalism. 00 That is, 7i8ek(s numerous polemics all follo" the impulse of a ra ical "act" or leap of faith, one unsupporte by any rational belief. Those "ho insist upon a "reasonable" religion, a religion me iate by "progress" or "orl liness, fail the basic test necessary to li'e up to the atheist insight. Thus, "religion" marks a site of ispute bet"een 5ohnston an 7i8ek, a place of uncertainty about applying the ethical force of psychoanalysis. +hile, of course, "hen it comes to that moral#political imperati'e, the positions of pupil an teacher remain remarkably close, they iffer marke ly about "hether to i entify religion as the problem or the solution. Still, underlying this appearance of disagreement is something else, a further underlying similarity beyond their shared Lacanian commitment: for both Johnston and iek, "religion" plays a similar role in their
7

theory. $or both of them it marks the site of a significant 2 in ee , symptomatic 2 i'ersion, a place "here subtle analysis gi'es "ay to polemic, so that significant %uestions are left una resse . -n both of these thinkers, rhetorical attack recalls the mo'e of the +iBar of GB "hen, in the film of that name, his a'atar eman s that "e "pay no attention to the man behin the curtain." $or 5ohnston, -('e alrea y mentione this point of "religious" i'ersion, "hich calls our attention a"ay from a sustaine a ress of ho" the new religion of mo ern scientistic re uctionism isplaces an replaces the unconscious function of the fun amental fantasy. 3llo"ing 5ohnston to maintain a iscourse entirely at the le'el of possible philosophical "positions," this turn not only e'a es the %uestion of the relationship bet"een science an the philosophy of science but also, more essentially, "ins him a relati'ely untrouble embrace of systematicity in his "ork as a "hole. To put this in other "or s, "religion" gains for 5ohnston the possibility of a'oi ing the %uestion of the e&tent his position amounts to a ""orl 'ie"" an thus has the hi struggles. -n the case of 7i8ek, the "fun amentalist" polemical e ge of his theology 2 against ne" age spirituality, against "progressi'e" or "tolerant" forms of Christianity, etc. 2 has a similarly i'ersionary effect. -n re!ecting the entire gamut of mo ern an post)mo ern forms of enlightene spirituality, 7i8ek ri'es contemporary theologians into a tiBBy, i'erting their attention from the real remaining labor eman e by his o"n categories 2 namely, the "ork of istinguishing between genuine re'olution an religious fun amentalism. 04 Gr, to put this in other "or s, 7i8ek ten s to occlu e the difference bet"een "really belie'ing" .as oes the fun amentalist1 an respon ing a e%uately to the atheistic eman s of psychoanalysis. Ho"e'er, at the 'ery least, "e can say that psychoanalysis calls for something more than a mere leap of faith* it eman s the right leap of faith 2 a istinction that, as -('e argue else"here, in icates the e&tent to "hich 7i8ek cannot .an "oul not "ant to1 e'a e the 'ery enlightenment kno"le ge he seems to re!ect.0, Put other"ise, in his theological polemics, 7i8ek treats a symptom as a cause* he suggests irect opposition at the le'el of theory to cultural formations .like ne")age Bu hism or "suspen e " religiosity1 that are themsel'es only the 'isible manifestations of fun amentally unconscious formations. -n this "ay, para o&ically, e'en "hen he e'a es the lure of escribing the esire "en of treatment" as a belief)system, 7i8ek actually falls into the same trap as 5ohnston, the trap of treating a psychoanalytic critical theory of contemporary society as a kin of prophyla&is against incorrect belief.
8

en effect of reinforcing the 'ery phenomenon against "hich, in its content, it

).

Diagnosing the Present: The Per'ert*s Fantasy

$or all the parallels, there(s an essential ifference between 5ohnston an 7i8ek here, namely, that 7i8ek knows better than his theological polemics "oul in icate. 0> -n ee , "e might say that his "ork e'er since The )ublime $bject of Ideology .0:J:1 has circle aroun the increase importance to ay of such non)conscious elements in social formations. These are elements that 7i8ek i entifies "ith fetishism an per'ersion 2 terms that, for him, name t"o poles of a single personality type. To this e&tent, 7i8ek alrea y a umbrates a theory of "hat replaces the tra itional fun amental fantasy "hen reality takes on the shape pro!ecte by mo ern science, the shape that 5ohnston lea'es uninterrogate as merely "religious." Behin 7i8ek(s lou embrace of Christianity lies a much %uieter but more po"erful analysis of the specific historical con itions meriting his inter'entions, an it is this analysis 2 emerging from an un erstan ing of $reu an Lacan on superego an ri'e )) that can bear fruit in figuring out !ust ho" the basic structures of faith as "ell as those of fantasy are changing to ay. $reu (s iscussion of the superego in *i&ili+ation and its ,iscontents contains a istinction that is critical to 7i8ek an to our iscussion. Concerning the misery to "hich the superego(s operation con emns progressi'ely more "ci'iliBe " human beings, $reu makes a key obser'ation* "ere the purpose or en of the superego simply the curbing of the eath ri'e in or er to socialiBe us, then the saint or upright moral person "oul be free from its grip. The truth, claims $reu , is precisely the opposite* the more "correct" a person(s actions are, the more he or she is likely to be "racke by guilt, torture by a ba conscience. Ei'en such a result, $reu retreats from the i ea that the superego can simply be e%uate "ith an internaliBe "father" or authority an posits instea that its primor ial function is a re) irection of the eath) ri'e back onto the sub!ect, a re)channelling of aggression back onto its source. .$reu 0:4=#=>, 04?);1 +hile by the en of *i&ili+ation and its ,iscontents $reu re)captures the superego "ithin a secon ary moral frame"ork, for Lacan an 7i8ek, the cat is out of the bag* the operations of this "faculty" on(t originally coinci e "ith conscience 2 punishment for "rong) oing, etc.. The superego can "ork in that "ay, of course. Ho"e'er, it oes so only insofar as inflicting guilt for moral transgression is one "ay of punishing, an punishment is al"ays excessi&e al"ays more than any specific isor er pro uce by our "ba " acts or intentions. To put it bluntly, the purpose of the superego is to 'isit this e&cess upon us. That(s "hy, in the 'ersion of its function that - iscusse un er the "fun amental fantasy" "e coul e%uate its structural operation "ith the moral catastrophe of the "$all" in Christian Theology 2 that is, "ith an infinite guilt, a guilt
9

against "hich no purely human action coul be a sufficient response. The "contract" of the fantasy guarantees the perpetual punishment of humanity .e'en "hile it offers the istant promise of Eo (s re emption1 in return for a stable reality. -t is the ongoing nature of this torture, this e&cessi'eness of its infliction rather than any particular change in human beha'ior, that is the superego(s en . +hen Lacan translates this superego function as "jouissance" ."en!oyment"1 he inten s precisely such e&cessi'eness, since, as 7i8ek points out, the o'ertones of the $rench term ."hich suggests se&ual orgasm, among other thingsP1 point to"ar precisely "hat cannot be place in any economy of pleasures an pains. .7i8ek 4<<;c =:)J<1 -ouissance marks precisely that realm of e&cessi'e pleasure that "e "oul choose e'en beyon any rational interest, "hat is "to ie for." -n other "or s, the superego can be taken to be e&cess itself9 because of this, its action .rather than any result of it1 can be taken to capture the gap in totality pro uce by the sha o" of the sub!ect kno"ing it. +hich is !ust to suggest that there e&ists a secon possible "ay of ealing "ith the an&iety of the sub!ect(s stain on being, an alternati'e to the path of guilt an e&clusion that "e foun to un er"rite the tra itional fun amental fantasy. +hat if the stability of reality coul be "on by anne&ing to a "lifeless" fiel of representation, the immanent organic unfol ing of superego acti'ityD +hat if, to %uote 7i8ek, in i'i uals "ere sometimes to "push to irectly enact the (loss(Qthe gap, cut, istanceQitself"D .4<<;a 00=1 /uch an "enactment" "oul promise another "ay to close the gap that other"ise ya"ns in the mi promise an alternati'e route to the constitution of reality. $ollo"ing Lacan in this, 7i8ek names such a path to the constitution of reality "per'erse" or, in its transforme relationship to language, "fetishistic." Osing either term .or combining both as - "ill o belo"1, the point is to in icate a psychoanalytic concept far from any moralistic o'ertones, one "not efine by the content of "hat .the per'ert1 is oing." .7i8ek 4<<;c 00;1 Rather, per'ersion names "hat precedes any such action, an initial sacrifice of sub!ecti'ity, a transformation of consciousness into an element capable of filling the gap pro uce by consciousness. 3s Lacan himself puts it, in per'ersion "the sub!ect etermines himself as an ob!ect." .Lacan 0:=J#;4 0J?1 /uch a etermination has t"o imme iate conse%uences, conse%uences that, bet"een them, e&plain "hy Lacan an 7i8ek associate such a sub!ecti'e isposition "ith "hat "e usually call "per'ersion." Gn the one han , because of its sacrifice of sub!ecti'ity, the per'ert assumes a "reality" "ithout substantial gap or lack, a fiel appearing to it as peculiarly ""hole" an yet, also, istance 2 like, in fact, the 'irtual reality pro!ecte by a 'i eo game. Fothing can hurt the per'erse sub!ect, "ho ackno"le ges no point of connection to or 'ulnerability "ithin its "orl .
10

le of being, "oul

Gn the other han , this "hole, this totality appears to ha'e a irect, superego, ""ill" )) to merge "ith "hich becomes the per'ert(s principle. $or this reason the "game)playing" of the per'erse sub!ect is chillingly a)moral* he#she simply follo"s the superego#Gther(s comman s, assuming these, as the imperati'es of reality itself, to nee no !ustification. $or e&ample, in .ow to /ead 0acan, 7i8ek proposes this amorality as e&planation for a particular kin of totalitarian 'iolence, a 'iolence in "hich the sub!ect seems to absol'e himself of all responsibility. To the e&tent that -, as /talinist or FaBi .7i8ek mentions the Iichmann "ho fascinates Hannah 3ren t here1, take the position of "instrument of the Big Gther(s "ill," "it is not my responsibility9 it is not really me "ho is oing it. - am merely an instrument of the higher Historical Fecessity. The obscene en!oyment of this situation is generate by the fact that concei'e of myself as exculpated for what I am doing1 - am able to inflict pain on others "ith the full a"areness that - am not responsible for it, that - merely fulfill the Gther(s +ill." .7i8ek 4<<;c, 0<?1 -n his ,iscourse on Metaphysics .0=0<1, E+$ LeibniB compares the uni'erse to the sum of all possible pictorial perspecti'es on a single to"n. 5ust such an immanent or formal totaliBation, totaliBation "ithout a point outsi e itself to stabiliBe it, increasingly efines the social construction of reality itself in the years since the 0= th)Century. 3bo'e, - note that the per'ert rea s the "orl he faces as a fiel of representation, complete by efinition, an thus interprets ""hat(s missing" "ithin representation to be only "life" or " ri'e." This means, of course, not only that the per'erse construction ten s to pro uce the con itions of mo ernity, but also that mo ern reality reinforces the per'erse#fetishistic type )) since, to the e&tent "e are socialiBe through mo ern science, "e ten to isco'er reality(s "lack" in a ri'e or ynamism missing from an other"ise complete uni'erse. Gne coul rea much of the most important post)Lacanian critical theory 2 the theory of 7i8ek, Ba iou an others 2 as articulating the result of this mo ern#post)mo ern circle of mo ern science an per'erse fetishism. Certainly, 7i8ek(s o"n "ork since 0:J: has been a persistent in'estigation of ifferent aspects of such a knot. +hether the topic is contemporary cynicism as i eology .The )ublime $bject of Ideology1, the emergence of a "post)oe ipal" sub!ect)type . The Ticklish )ubject1 or the post)mo ern aca emy(s preference for pseu o)re'olution .The Puppet and the ,warf, /e&olution at the 2ates1, 7i8ek(s consistent pro!ect is to relate such phenomena to the homogeneous representational fiel pro!ecte by mo ern science an capitalism. Thus, to gi'e perhaps the most famous e&ample, 7i8ek(s criti%ue of post)mo ern an post)structuralist 'aloriBations of "social construction" notes the implicitly conser'ati'e gesture at "ork in such theories, a gesture that in'ol'es, precisely, immanent totaliBation in its suggestion of a neutral gri of perspecti'es or of etermining
11

characteristics .the famous %ua ruple of "race, class, gen er an se&ual i entity"1. ./ee, 7i8ek 0:::, 40;)40=1 The point here is that the i eology of scientism 2 "hat 5ohnston simply ismisses as a rene"e "religion" 2 belongs inseparably "ith the basic possibilities of the per'erse#fetishistic position. 3n that allo"s us to raise the %uestion that 5ohnston fails to ask, namely the one about the unconscious structure allo"ing the per'ert(s immanent totaliBation of reality. -f reality can only be stabiliBe at the price of a primally represse fantasy, "hat form of fantasy characteriBes per'ersionD -n other "or s, "e can in%uire into the structure of the "contract" alternati'e to the tra itional fun amental fantasy, the one un erlying the per'erse# fetishistic formation of mo ern reality. -nterestingly, 7i8ek se'eral times references "hat he calls "the ultimate per'erse fantasy," "hich he also, in an essay on the +acho"ski(s brother(s first Matrix film, names "the 'ery fun amental fantasy that sustains our being to ay" 2 that is, a kin of perfect re'erse)si e of the conscious fantasy of the per'ert of merging into the ynamic po"er of super)ego jouissance. .7i8ek 4<<;b, ,0,1 -f the reality of our "orl is, like that of The Matrix, a kin of representational system .in this case, pro!ecte by a net"ork of computers1, an if our " ream," gi'en such a situation is to latch on to the hi en mastery of this "orl in the fashion of "the Gne" foretol in the film an embo ie by The Matrix#s protaganist, Feo, then the unconscious element of this contract is re'eale in The Matrix#s un erlying conceit* beneath the appearance of e'ery ay life is the "orl of the computers "ho, for their o"n en!oyment, maintain persons as batteries immerse in amniotic flui . Ha'ing accepte the challenge to @go o"n the rabbit holeA an face "hat lies beneath the 'irtual pro!ection he has al"ays li'e , Feo a"akens to fin himself cra le in a @fiel A of such a ult embryos ten e by monstrous, insect)like machines. 3n , "hile of course the i ea of a "real reality" un erlying our o"n is i eological nonsense, it is this image, that, so 7i8ek, lets us glimpse the other side of the per'erse formation, the fantasmatic price "e constantly pay for a "society of en!oyment." To ay "e are .perhaps1 less torture by moral guilt than pre'ious generations ha'e been, but in conscience(s stea "e bear a kin of stan ing horror, an una ressable fear that our "merging" "ith the Gther is only a co'er for our consumption by it. +e bear a fun amental fantasy in "hich, ""e are ultimately instruments of the Gther(s !ouissance, sucke out of our life)substance like batteries.A .7i8ek 4<<4, 0?1 $rom the per'erse stan point, the price for a stable reality is not so much moral e&clusion as it is a kin of lurking horror, a monstrous, paranoi sense of threat. +e are sure that things are about to fall apart, or, more precisely, things "ill no oubt go against us in some
12

unpre ictable an coor inate "ay. 3n "e, facing this threat, are alrea y e&hauste , eplete , "ithout reser'es* that(s the sense "ith "hich the per'ert constantly li'es. This inner, fatalistic certainty, this "sublime" sense of pen ing oom, is !ust the sign that our reality rests upon another pact, another fantasm than the moralistic one constructing tra itional symbolic reality. 3rme "ith this account of the per'erse fun amental fantasy, "e at last can lea'e behin the ari territory of "religion" an a ress the %uestion of psychoanalytic atheism at the le'el it eman s 2 a le'el heterogeneous to all pro) or anti)religious polemic. +e can see that the important issue here is ho" to challenge the fi&ity of reality in a "ay that oesn(t simply re) pro uce it in its per'erse form. Ho" to negotiate the /cylla of transcen ence an the Charyb is of immanent totalityD That(s ultimately the challenge $reu ian#Lacanian thought lea'es for us. -n a passage from The Parallax 3iew in "hich he e%uates the per'ert(s embrace of superego e&cess "ith Lacanian " eman ," 7i8ek puts this as follo"s* . . . +hat one nee s is a demand no longer addressed to the $ther. Both esire an eman rely on the Gther 2 either a full .ominipotent1 Gther of eman or a @castrate A Gther of the La"9 the task, therefore, is fully to assume the non existence of the Gther 2 e'en an also of the dead Gther. .7i8ek 4<<;b, 4:;1 +hile 7i8ek himself has oscillate bet"een different "ays of theoriBing such a eman no longer a resse to the Gther, to reality itself in its "holeness, his "ork is consistent in its support of such a pro!ect.0? -t is this imperati'e, an not the i'ersionary religious "culture)"ars" "age by either 5ohnston or 7i8ek himself that, so - "oul assert, marks the legitimate challenge set by to ay(s psychoanalysis.

13

"+hat psychoanalysis calls RfantasyC is the en ea'or to close this gap by .mis1percei'ing the pre) ontological Real as simply another, Rmore fun amentalC, le'el of reality )) fantasy pro!ects on to the pre)ontological Real the form of constitute reality .as in the Christian notion of another, suprasensible reality1." .7i8ek 0:::, ?=1 2 -n a passage from The 4ragile 5bsolute, 7i8ek articulates this point in relationship to se&ual fantasy* @one shoul notA 7i8ek "rites, @confoun this Rprimor ially represse C myth .Rfun amental fantasyC1 "ith the multitu e of inconsistent ay reams that al"ays accompany our symbolic commitments, allo"ing us to en ure them.A -n or er to make this istinction, he then elaborates on t"o pre ominant forms of .heterose&ual1 fantasy to ay ))Peter HoegCs i ea, from The %oman and the 5pe, @of a "oman "ho "ants a strong animal partner, a potent RbeastC, not a hysterical impotent "eaklingA an the notion of the @cyberneticA lo'er from male fantasy, the @ perfectly programme R ollC "ho fulfils all his "ishes, not a li'ing being.A The point of this e&cursion into gen ere se&ual fantasy is that, in this conte&t, the le'el of the fundamental fantasy coul be metaphoriBe through @the unbearable ideal couple of a male ape copulating with a female cyborg, the fantasmatic support of the Rnormal couple of man an "oman copulating.A That is, the fun amental fantasy is the fantasy of an Gther in both senses of the geniti'e* it is the fantasmatic pro!ection of an Gther "hose perspecti'e inclu es all possible perspecti'es .in this case, the female an the male of the couple1. Gn the other han , reality is concei'e .by us1 as the GtherCs 'ie"point or fantasy. 7i8ek 4<<<, ;?);. 3 $reu traces to this affect a series of represse representations of the sub!ect 2 first, the opening an closing of the "in o" separating the reamer from the tree9 then the esire for copulation "ith the father an the mother .ie., to return to her "omb1 an finally, in as the membrane or "caul" "ith "hich he "as apparently born. /ee, $reu 0:0=#0:=>. 4 /ee, /antner 4<<< an 7i8ek 4<<,, 04J):. 5 The locus classicus for such an argument is The 4uture of an Illusion, "here he e&plicitly i entifies the alternati'e "religion" of psychoanalysis. ./ee, $reu 0:4=#=>, >;)>:1 6 Perhaps the most famous site for Lacan(s challenge to $reu regar ing religion is his 0:=>, "The Triumph of Religion," printe in Lacan 4<<?#0:=>. 7 /ee the e&cellent historical account of 'arious Inlightenment "materialisms" in "Conflicte Matter." .5ohnston 4<<J, 0;:)0=>1 8 That, for 5ohnston this comes out to an embrace of the most ra ical possibilities of science itself, that it lea s to a ra ically materialist philosophy of science, one that takes the Inlightenment beyon itself, is important but nee not etain us here. $or more, see !i"ek#s $ntology1 .5ohnston 4<<Ja1 9 7i8ek uses the phrase in a !oint appearance "ith Thomas 3ltiBer at the 4<<: annual meeting of the 5merican 5cademy of /eligion in Montreal. /ee, 7i8ek 4<<:. 10 "Holy /piritA esignates a ne" collecti'e hel together not by a Master)/ignifier, but by fi elity to a Cause, by the effort to ra" a ne" line of separation that runs @beyon Eoo an I'il,A that is to say, that runs across an suspen s the istinctions of the e&isting social bo y. The key imension of PaulCs gesture is thus his break "ith any form of communitarianism* his uni'erse is no longer that of the multitu e of groups that "ant to @fin their 'oice,A an assert their particular i entity but that of a fighting collecti'e groun e in the reference to an uncon itional uni'ersalism." .7i8ek 4<<,(0,<1 11 $or an e&ample of this sympathy "ith fun amentalism see the intro uction to The Puppet and the ,warf .7i8ek 4<<,1 or the iscussion in The Parallax 3iew .7i8ek 4<<;b, 4J,)4J>1. 12 -n the final chapter of .ow to /ead 0acan, 7i8ek calls attention to this task, noting the essential o'erlap bet"een to ay(s liberal cynics an their fun amentalist opponents* "Both liberal)sceptical cynics an fun amentalists share a basic un erlying feature* the loss of the ability to belie'e, in the proper sense of that term. +hat is unthinkable for them is the groun less ecision that installs all authentic beliefs, a ecision that cannot be base on a chain of reasonings, on positi'e kno"le ge." .7i8ek 4<<;c 00=1 13 /ee my article, "Polemical 3mbi'alence* Mo ernity an Otopia in 7i8ek(s The Puppet and the ,warf." . 4<<=1. 14 -t is 'ital to see this "kno"ing better" as precisely the form that 7i8ek himself takes to be en emic to the fetishistic#per'erse construction of reality ."- kno" 'ery "ell that. . . but, ne'ertheless, . . ."1 -n other "or s, it is 'ital to see 7i8ek(s error here as a kin of per'ersity rather than simply a tra itional "unconscious" structure.
1

Gne such inconsistency concerns the "master signifier," a signifier that, "ithin the structure of the tra itional fantasy, locates the presence of the Gther for the sub!ect. 7i8ek 'acillates about "hether the re'olutionary simply replaces the master signifier ./ee 7i8ek 4<<;b ,<=)J1, or "hether, alternati'ely, as 7i8ek proposes in "Gb!et a in /ocial Links" .7i8ek 4<<;a1 the key is to isrupt the 'ery function of such a signifier. Gf perhaps e'en more concern is 7i8ek(s failure to establish a consistent "ay of speaking of the fun amental fantasy itself. 3t times, he seems to in icate that a per'erse social link is "post)fantasmatic", "hile at other times .see the te&t - %uote from 7i8ek(s essay on The Matrix1 he suggests the e&istence of a "per'erse fantasy." - iscuss this latter impass at more length in my book, !i"ek and .eidegger6 the 7uestion *oncerning Techno *apitalism .Brockleman 4<<J ;<);?1.
15

%e(erences
Brockleman, Thomas. .4<<J1. !i"ek and .eidegger6 the 7uestion *oncerning Techno *apitalism. Continuum Press* Lon on. Brockleman, Thomas . .4<<=1. "Polemical 3mbi'alence* Mo ernity an Otopia in 7i8ek(s The Puppet and the ,warf." -n *ontemporary Political Theory* Kolume ;, -ssue ,. Dolar, Mla en. .0::J1. @Cogito as the /ub!ect of the OnconsciousA in *ogito and the Unconscious. /. 7i8ek, e . Duke Oni'ersity Press* Durham, FC. $reu , /igmun . .0:,=#=>1. "Moses an Monotheism." The )tandard Edition of the *omplete Psychological %orks of )igmund 4reud, 'olume 4,. Translate from the Eerman un er the general e itorship of 5ames /trachey. Hogarth Press* Lon on. $reu , /igmun . .0:4=#=>1. "Ci'iliBation an its Discontents" an "The $uture of an -llusion." The )tandard Edition of the *omplete Psychological %orks of )igmund 4reud, 'olume 40. Translate from the Eerman un er the general e itorship of 5ames /trachey. Hogarth Press* Lon on. $reu , /igmun . .0:0=#=>1. "$rom the History of an -nfantile Feurosis." The )tandard Edition of the *omplete Psychological %orks of )igmund 4reud, 'olume 0=. Translate from the Eerman un er the general e itorship of 5ames /trachey. Hogarth Press* Lon on. $reu , /igmun . .0:0>#=>1. "3 Case Gf Paranoia Running Counter To The Psycho)3nalytic Theory Gf The Disease." The )tandard Edition of the *omplete Psychological %orks of )igmund 4reud, 'olume 0>. Translate from the Eerman un er the general e itorship of 5ames /trachey. Hogarth Press* Lon on 5ohnston, 3 rian. .4<<J1. "Conflicte Matter* 5ac%ues Lacan an the Challenge of /ecularising Materialism." -n Pli6 The %arwick -ournal of Philosophy, no. 0:, 0;;)0JJ. 5ohnston, 3 rian. .4<<Ja1. !i"ek's $ntology6 5 Transcendental Materialist Theory of )ubjecti&ity. Forth"estern Oni'ersity Press* I'anston. Lacan, 5ac%ues .4<<?#0:=>1. "0e triomphe de la religion18 -n 0e triomphe de la religion precede de ,iscours aux catholiques, e itor 5ac%ues)3lain Miller* u /euil* Paris. Lacan, 5ac%ues. .0::4# 0:;<91 The Ethics of Psychoanalysis( :;<; =>1 The )eminar of -acques 0acan( ?ook 3II1 5.)3. Miller, e ., D. Porter, transl. Forton* Fe" Sork 6 Lon on. Lacan, 5ac%ues. .0:=J# 0:;41. The 4our 4undamental *oncepts of Psycho 5nalysis. ./eminar 001. 5.3. Miller, e ., 3. /heri an, transl. Forton* Fe" Sork 6 Lon on.

Laplanche, 5ean 6 Pontalis, 5.B. .0:=,1. The 0anguage of Psycho analysis, Donal Ficholson) /mith, transl. Forton* Fe" Sork 6 Lon on. /antner, Iric .4<<<1. @Traumatic Re'elations* $reu Cs Moses an the Grigins of 3nti)/emitism,A in )exuation, e . Renata /alecl, Duke Oni'ersity Press* Durham. 7i8ek, /la'o! 6 Lenin, K.I. .4<<41. /e&olution at the 2ates6 5 )election of %ritings from 4ebruary to $ctober :;:@. Kerso* Lon on 6 Fe" Sork. 7i8ek, /la'o! .4<<:1. "Gn the Death of Eo ." Paper presente at the annual meeting of the 5merican 5cademy of /eligion, Fo'ember J, 4<<:, Montreal, Tuebec. http*##""".youtube.com#"atchD'U$G$fPM+yO3T 7i8ek, /la'o! .4<<;a1. RGb!et a in /ocial LinksC, in, 5. Clemens an R. Erigg, e itors, -acques 0acan and the $ther )ide of Psychoanalysis6 /eflections on )eminar A3II# /-C, ;. Duke Oni'ersity Press* Durham an Lon on. 7i8ek, /la'o! .4<<;b1. The Parallax 3iew. The M-T Press* Cambri ge, Mass. 6 Lon on. 7i8ek, /la'o! .4<<;c1. .ow to /ead 0acan. Eranta Books* Lon on. 7i8ek, /la'o! .4<<,1. The Puppet and the ,warf6 The Per&erse *ore of *hristianity, M-T* Cambri ge, Mass. 6 Lon on. 7i8ek, /la'o! .4<<41. @The Matri&, or, The T"o /i es of Per'ersion,A in The Matrix and Philosophy, e ite by +illiam -r"in. Gpen Court * Chicago an La /alle. 7i8ek, /la'o! .4<<<1. The 4ragile 5bsolute6 $r( %hy the *hristian 0egacy is %orth 4ighting 4or1 Kerso* Lon on 6 Fe" Sork. 7i8ek, /la'o! .0:::1. The Ticklish )ubject6 the absent center of political ontology. Kerso* Lon on 6 Fe" Sork. 7i8ek, /la'o!, e . .0::J1. *ogito and the Unconscious. Duke Oni'ersity Press* Durham, FC. 7i8ek, /la'o! .0:J:1. The )ublime $bject of Ideology. Kerso* Lon on 6 Fe" Sork.