In this reflection I would like to explore how the themes of Žižek’s article ‘From Western Marxism to Western Buddhism’ (2001) are resonant with Columbus’ ‘Narrative of the Third Voyage’. Both pieces situate a relation between East and West as a site for developing the themes of loss and fetish.
Žižek raises two points of interest in his article ‘From Western Marxism to Western Buddhism’ which it may be worthwhile to develop. The first is the conceptualisation of Western Buddhism as a fetish. Žižek uses ‘fetish’ in the Marxist sense, playing upon a notion of appearance/reality; he writes that the fetish constitutes “the embodiment of the lie which enables us to sustain the unbearable truth”, that of capitalist exploitation (Ibid.: paragraph 3). Western Buddhism, for Žižek, constitutes both an acceptance and a disavowal; one ostensibly accepts the conditions of “techno-logical progress” (Ibid.: paragraph 1), while clinging to the acts of Western Buddhism as a disavowal of those conditions. Žižek claims that “the subject’s “rational” acceptance of the way things are dissolves when his fetish is taken away from him” (Ibid.: paragraph 4). The second aspect of interest is the context of a Western appropriation of an Eastern practice; this links to our previous discussion of Orientalism. What is most fascinating in Žižek’s account, however, is the claim that one must understand this appropriation in the context of loss: “the lost object-cause of desire, which we in the West long ago betrayed” which “could be recuperated out there in the forbidden exotic place” (Ibid.: paragraph 10). Žižek, therefore, links fetishism in the context of capitalism with the “search for the lost spiritual innocence of our own civilization” (Ibid.).
These themes of fetish and loss in the context of Western appropriation resonates fruitfully with Columbus’ ‘Narrative of the Third Voyage’. Columbus’ metaphorical construction of the lands he is visiting uses Spain as a referent: “long straight hair cut in the Spanish manner” (1969: 210); “the water was flowing from east to west as furiously as the Guadalquivir in flood” (Ibid.: 211). I would like to associate this construction with Žižek formulation of Western Buddhism with the “the lost object-cause of desire” (2001: paragraph 10). This is because both posit the West as referents against which to understand the ‘East’ (which Columbus believed he was discovering). In this context, Columbus’ journey West becomes more significant, as it could signify desire for a self-discovery, just as Žižek interprets Western Buddhism.
Columbus journey of discovery holds significance for the theme of loss in his apparent discovery of the location of the earthly Paradise, that “no one can enter except by God’s leave” (1969: 221). Primordial loss and the East are therefore both themes in Columbus and Žižek. As Žižek formulates, the loss in relation to Western Buddhism is related totally to a lost spiritual state of civilization (Western). That Columbus suffuses his account of discovery with this site of primordial loss is significant, and perhaps finds resonance in the notion of fetish.
I would argue that Columbus’ ‘discovery’ of the earthly Paradise acts in a similar fetish character as Western Buddhism and here we must return to Žižek’s discussion of fetish in this context as both acceptance and disavowal. I believe that Columbus’ placement of the site of primordial loss in his account of discovery mirrors this sense of acceptance and disavowal. Just as, for Žižek, Western Buddhism is “the embodiment of the lie which enables us to sustain the unbearable truth” (2001: paragraph 3), the discovery of earthly Paradise acts simultaneously as an acceptance of a fallen state, and the appearance of the divine truth that makes that state bearable.
Columbus, C. & Cohen, J. M. (trans) The four voyages. London: Penguin Books
Žižek, S. (2001) From Western Marxism to Western Buddhism [online] Available From: https://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2011/05/04/slavoj-zizek-heresy-western-buddhism-and-the-fetish/ (Accessed 22/2/19).
This engaging reflection provides an interesting comparison between the themes of Žižek’s article and Columbus’ third voyage. You’re right to note that Žižek is using ‘fetish’ in the Marxist (rather than Freudian sense), and you accurately summarise Žižek’s language in an accessible manner. Your use of textual evidence (particularly with reference to Columbus’ voyage) is excellent.
It might have been helpful to elaborate somewhat further on the relevance of Orientalism (although it was clear to me, it might not be to another reader who is less familiar with Said). I wonder as well, whether it might be possible to say a bit more about the notion of fetish in Columbus (and perhaps in the texts of other Spanish explorers?
Overall your writing is clear and error-free, but be sure to indent the first line of all paragraphs. Great work!
LikeLike