"When today we hear a politician or an ideologist offering us a choice between liberal freedom and fundamentalist oppression, triumphantly asking (purely rhetorical) questions such as "Do you want women to be excluded from public life and deprived of their elementary rights? Do you want every critic or mocker of religion to be punishable by death?" what should make us suspicious is the very self-evidence of the answer - who would have wanted that? The problem is that such a simplistic liberal universalism long ago lost its innocence. This is why, for a true Leftist, the conflict between liberal permissiveness and fundamentalism is ultimately a false conflict - a vicious cycle in which two opposed poles generate and presuppose each other. Here one should take an Hegelian step backwards , placing in question the very measure from which fundamentalism appears in all its horrors. Liberals have long ago lost their right to judge. What Horkheimer once said should also be applied to today's fundamentalism: those who do not want to talk (critically) about liberal democracy and its noble principles should also keep quiet about religious fundamentalism. And, even more pointedly, one should emphatically insist that the conflict between the State of Israel and the Arabs is a false conflict: even if we all come to perish because of it, it is a conflict which only mystifies the true issues."
Slavoj Zizek | First as a tragedy, then as farce | Verso 2009 | pp. 75, 76
Slavoj Zizek | First as a tragedy, then as farce | Verso 2009 | pp. 75, 76
هیچ نظری موجود نیست:
ارسال یک نظر