Enfoques centrados en la sociedad

Freud’s fable shows that the socius formed by the brotherhood was possible only because the brothers no longer felt excluded but established an imagi-nary identification after the revolt with the oppressive Father—now deified and transcendent. Such a socius or Symbolic Order led to the formation of several grand narratives which, as Lyotard (1984) signaled, have begun to unravel. These grand Western narratives have failed to deliver their teleologic claims for a “better” and more just world (the promise of Communism, the promise of greater democratic participation, the promise of salvation). The narrative of the Enlightenment was to erect a non-patriarchal state based on a fraternal egalitarian norm of which the French Revolution was, at one time, an exemplar model. This was to be a political state based on liberty, equality, and fraternity, a democratic state free of any irrational hierarchy (equality). It was to assure that arbitrary procession by a despot would not come about (liberty), and allow for the recognition of a common humanity for all its members (fraternity).

Since then, the secularization of God and the overcoming of the cult of the ancestor (Tradition) through the trajectory of the Enlightenment and its subsequent modernization has continually undercut the patriarchal power of the Church and Royalty. Democratic nation-states continue to be ruled, on the whole, by a fraternity of brothers. But these emergent leaders are all

“post-patriarchal” in the sense that they are not privileged sons or heirs, but only “one” amongst brotherhood. The degree of loss of symbolic privilege, despite the retention of wealth can be seen by the British tabloids that cease-lessly promulgate and exploit the Royal Family’s domestic troubles. Both The Bushs’ and The Blairs’, who are to represent the model families for their respective nations, have had trouble with their siblings, which make them less than ideal examples of how to raise children, although there is an unspo-ken expectation that both the first Lady, Laura, and the Prime Minister’s wife, Cherie are supposed to comment and exemplify to the nation proper child-raising procedures. Bush’s twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna (both 19) were caught buying alcohol illegally; while Jenna was found drinking in a bar and ordered to do community service. Blair’s 16-year-old son, Euan was

found face down in his own vomit in Leicester Square, in London’s West End. What this indicates is that there is a lack of identification with an Ego Ideal, which authority in the past was supposed to maintain.

Popstars are slowly becoming the “new” secular Royalty in postmod-ernism. They have taken over as the Ego Ideal through, paradoxically, a nar-cissistic self-admiration of their own Ideal Ego. Symbolic Ego Ideal and Imaginary Ideal Ego have imploded into one another to emerge as ONE. We have Michael Jackson, the “King” of Pop who now has two sons: Prince Michael Jackson I⫹ II, which appear more like collectable playthings than the usual father/son relationship. In a visit to Berlin in November 22, 2002, “Jacko”

was almost charged for child neglect and endangerment when he “waved”

his, then, nine-month-old son (Prince II) over the fourth-floor balcony rail-ing of the opulent Adlon Hotel to adorrail-ing fans below. Entertainment stars now embody the magic of the gaze.

The only thing that distinguishes a leader from the rest of the nation is his/her particular charisma, acting on simulacra affects of a paternal or mater-nal metaphor—more an Ideal Ego than an iconic Ego Ideal of a transcendent figure. From the very beginning of her reign, Queen Elizabeth II attempted to invite people into her “home” through her televised Christmas and New Year messages. Although she failed miserably with her stiff formal style, the older she got, the more maternal she seemed to become. With the death of the Queen Mother, Queen Elizabeth has slowly become the nation’s “mom,”

occupying the vacancy that her mother left behind. The Queen’s awkward trait of formal familiarity has become an endearing trait for the public. The very feature that seemed to undermine her early attempts to present a human face, has become a trait that begins to “stick out” after so much media expo-sure and, sustains her imaginary charisma. Ronald Reagan’s constant “stum-bling,” or falling asleep during an international summit, or his consultation with his wife’s (Nancy) astrologer were seen as “human” flaws, which then humanized his authority, made him more “real.” Clinton’s famous “lie”

about “that woman” (Monica Lewinsky) was also taken as a human frailty, as long as he was able to maintain the illusion of his presidency. By working hard and going about cementing his international foreign policies that gave him a global profile, with the economy booming his indiscretion was not perceived by the general public as being grave enough to warrant an impeachment.

Americans could relate to his private folly, which they themselves consider a fundamental right “to enjoy.” Generic consumerism and advertising already presuppose lying and deceit, as long as it done with convincing style—“lying well.” Warren Beatty’s film left-leaning political satire Bulworth (1998) demonstrates quite well how politics and lying are necessarily tied together.

Senator Bulworth (Warren Beatty) has put out a mob contract on himself dis-gusted with the way he has sold out his left-leanding democratic beliefs for neoconservative pap against welfare, affirmative action, and the poor to win elections. His daughter will then collect ten million in insurance claims.

Caught by his own death drive to kill who he has become, Bulworth begins to embody the fantasy of “telling it like it is” and reveal the “truth” about

his government policies and what he “truly” thinks about society while cam-paigning in front of an African–American congregation. Following a series of these “truth-telling” death drive incidents he finds his old self again by hav-ing traversed the fantasy of his former neoconservative ideology. A new group of constituents emerge as the world of the underprivileged opens up and his former world of privilege recedes. He begins to “rap” the truth hav-ing found a new hip-hop voice. A love interest (Halle Barry as Nina) and the impossibility of having the hit called off change things. Becoming once more seriously committed he finds out that he needs to lie to establish the truth.

The figure of Bulworth demonstrates that politicians are structured by the lie if they are to ingratiate themselves to the Symbolic Order that has a hold over them (McGowan 1999, 77–78).

These unary “traits” of politicians, like Clinton and Bulworth’s lies, are no different than what catches the eye of an adoring fan as a signifier of identi-fication. This is experiencing the person in his or her Real dimension. Just as a trait might be one of erotic allure and affect, it can—for another, be exactly what s/he hates. The objet a, as this unary trait, has this paradoxical sense about it. Its presence can bring on anxiety on a number of fronts. A pop idol or a movie star can become too close so that a fan may be hysterized—the right distance has to be kept (by police, bodyguards, secret agents); or one just can’t “stand” a particular star because of the way s/he smiles, grins, laughs. This was certainly true of the Republicans and conservative Moral Majority fundamentalists, hate for the Clintons.

Clinton’s indiscretion exposes the “near” impossibility of maintaining the public/private split of the Presidential Office in postmodernity, which is absolutely necessary if the illusion of a good Oedipal Protective Father of the country is to be maintained. The Presidential Office must not be tarnished, but remain an exceptional pure and empty space to maintain such a belief in the system. Collapsing the two reduces the office to the banal status of just another man with just another family, rather than the mythic exemplar of the First Family. In light of Freud’s myth we can see why the Republican attempt to impeach Clinton rested on casting him as the Father of Jouissance, “The Great Fucker.” As bearer of the ever-precarious Oedipal Law, he could not be an exception to the Law, but had to be held accountable and responsible for his actions. Yet, Clinton as the first baby boom president had confessed to smoking marihuana and had tacitly admitted to an illicit affair with Gennifer Flowers. He claimed oral sex was not intercourse (which many young people do as well), he jogs, plays s(a)x, and has been accused of sex-ual harassment by a string of women. Clinton, cast as Satan, offers lies, adul-tery, perjury and a mockery of justice. His retractors said he suffered from a

“sexual addiction.” John F. Kennedy was no different, perhaps he was worse than Clinton was when it came to womanizing. Seymour Hersh’s (1997) exposition of JFK in The Dark Side of Camelot, described the scenes of lib-ertine partying, daily sexual liaisons, and of course, JFK’s notorious and secretive affair with Marilyn Monroe. The difference was that Kennedy’s womanizing was still maintained by patriarchal privilege. The Kennedys had

aristocratic roots. Tradition was on their side. His private and public spheres were strictly maintained by his Secret Service. His affairs remained discrete (as in Europe with Miterand). Word never got out; the fraud of the Phallus could be maintained. JFK’s showdown with Nikita Kruschev during the Cuban missile crisis and his assassination as the good and protective Oedipal Father of his country pretty well assured him of a hero’s death upon his assassination in Dallas, Texas in 1963.

With Clinton, the patriarchal roots were gone. He was fatherless (William Jefferson Blythe died in a car accident before he was born), raised by his mother and grandmother who competed for his affection. His womanizing and open personality was part of his “feminine” charisma that got him elected as governor of Arkansas. In the team of Bill and Hillary (“Billary”), Hillary, as the maternal superego took over the moral high ground while Clinton remained an adolescent with a “mother” problem (Paglia 1998). Lewinsky was attracted by his feminine qualities of softness, tenderness, and neediness.

It was the “sweet, little boy” that she loved (Morton 1999; Glass 2001). It remains to be seen whether the Republican George W. Bush can restore the claim of an Oedipal Father in a post-Oedipal age; whether his “unorthodox”

use of the English language will be seen as a charismatic trait or a sign of stu-pidity and weak-mindedness; whether he can achieve authority or “bully” and threaten the UN Security Council with behind-the-scene deals; whether his moral position, backed by an extreme Christian Right, will be perceived as yet another attempt to establish The New World Order called on by his father as has been the long-standing patriarchal legacy for divination; and whether his foreign policies are but an obscene supplement to the Law, motivated to help U.S. big business in extracting gas and oil reserves from Central Asia with the building of the Caspian Sea pipeline that will run across Afghanistan (also gas and oil rich), thus effectively subverting the OPEC consortium.

Islam and Christianity are once more in dangerous tension with one another. It should not be forgotten that Bush’s National Security Advisor had an oil tanker, Condoleezza Rice, christened in her honor by Chevron for services rendered while Rice sat on the oil giant’s board of directors, from 1991 until the day before G.W. took office. It has since been quietly renamed

“Altair Voyager.” When Vice President Dick Cheney was running Halliburton, the oil field services company, he won a multibillion dollar contract with Chevron to build a Caspian Sea pipeline for them to use in moving oil out of the Tengiz field in Central Asia. In summer 2001, shortly before the events of September 11, Taliban officials were in Houston, Texas meeting with Unocal Oil Company officials in an attempt to negotiate a pipeline deal.

That deal never went through. Now that Afghanistan has been “liberated,”

the door is once again open. This chain of events can be “spun” as just a series of coincidences. Said often enough, questionable doubt sets in and the obvious possibility of an obscene conspiracy will fade. But these series of events wait in their repression to haunt the Bush administration, like the Iran Contra Affair haunted Reagan, The Gulf War and his CIA involvement haunted George Bush Sr. It should not be forgotten that war, more than any

other national disaster, binds a nation together behind its leader. The 9/11 event has produced an invisible terrorist enemy in the form of Al-Qaeda, one that is global in reach, enabling the rhetoric of “war on terrorism” to be extended and fought in the “backyard” of any country that harbors these ter-rorists. Iraq has become the testing ground to shore up presidential impo-tency. There are no more hard-and-fast borders. Cynicism and trust in authority can only worsen in a climate where Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and solid evidence of Al-Qaeda links to Sadam Hussein are not to be found, and if found, will be strongly suspected of being planted by American interests.