Friends, Slavoj Zizek speaks of belief as being projectable and transferrable, kind of like a carbon credit I suppose. What is a carbon credit, by the way? What is this whole "cap 'n trade" market-based policy proposal on global warming?

It is a system of belief transference or belief projection, isn't it? I can pollute because the other guy's gonna be twice as clean. This is what it comes down to, and note, once again, how supposedly "irrational," "illogical" ideology underpines the supposedly rational, logical, dispassionate, efficient market.

Individuals do not have to believe. But they can invest others with belief. They can project belief onto others, thereby allowing the structure of belief to function. Zizek gives as an example the film, based on the Edith Wharton novel, The Age of Innocence.

It seems that Daniel Day Lewis played the male lead. His character was married to Winona Ryder and his character had had an affair with Michelle Pfeifer. Winona Ryder's character died in the movie. Lewis's character then gets ready to marry Pfeifer's character.

However, before he can do so he learns that his deceased wife, Winona Ryder's character, had known all along about his affair with Michelle Pfeifer. At this point Lewis is crushed and he cannot go through with marry Michelle Pfeifer. And this point is the end of The Age of Innocence, his belief in Winona Ryder's innocence and, perversely so it might seem, his own.

He could behave dishonorably as long as he thought his wife believed he was being honorable. His "innocence" comes from the fact that he obviously thought of himself as a "good guy." Otherwise it would not have been so important for him to cast a projection of this idealized good guy unto his wife. Follow?

If he did not think he was a good guy, he wouldn't have cared what his wife thought. But few people who have ever passed through this life have ever thought of themselves as self-consciously evil, have they?

However hard people may try to execute a psychological fission of their Selves (Jekyll and Hyde), the creature always returns to his master. Daniel Day Lewis's character tried to split himself into two parts, his good and bad parts, one that was cheating on his wife and one that was not cheating on his wife.

The same way that Jekyll could not ultimately slough off Hyde, we can say that if Winona Ryder's character had died without having learned of her husband's affair or if Lewis had never learned that his wife had known of it, his innocence would have been preserved and he would have been able to marry Michelle Pfeifer.

But the revelation that Ryder had known, was the Lewis's Jekyll's confrontation with the inescapable Hyde, and the onrush of the knowledge that they are the same. It is the confrontation of the Self with the Self.

This brings me to one more topic I'd like to touch on before calling it a night: the ideological root of patriarchy.

wingedcentaur