An Officer of Civilization
Page 19
[«Lors des premières phases de mon ascension vers la gloire et la fortune, j’avais occasionnellement goûté aux joies de la consommation, par lesquelles notre époque se montre si supérieure à celles qui l’ont précédée. On pouvait ergoter à l’infini pour savoir si les hommes étaient ou non plus heureux dans les siècles passés; on ← 128 | 129 → pouvait commenter la disparition des cultes, la difficulté du sentiment amoureux, discuter leurs inconvénients, leurs avantages; évoquer l’apparition de la démocratie, la perte du sens du sacré, l’effritement du lien social […]. Reste que, sur le plan de la consommation, la précellence du XXe siècle était indiscutable: rien, dans aucune autre civilisation, à aucune autre époque, ne pouvait se comparer à la perfection mobile d’un centre commercial contemporain fonctionnant à plein régime. J’avais ainsi consommé, avec joie, des chaussures principalement;» (Possibilité, pp. 29–30)]
As all of Houellebecq’s heroes, in spite of his ability to see reality with total clarity, Daniel1 is neither a conservative reactionary nor a fire-breathing preacher. Rather, he collaborates with the ubiquitous capitalist ideology. It is correct to say that Daniel1 is a typical child of his time, contemporaneous in his adherence through disjunction.21
Daniel1 buys into the hegemony of capitalistic thought but at the same time is fully aware of its shortcomings. He aims to achieve financial and media success, and to do so he is willing to call upon loaded concepts purely in order to empty them of their meaning, except their value to Mammon. The hero is aware of his socio-economic surroundings, and exploits them cleverly to serve his own purposes, although remaining aware of the need to triumph over individualistic separation. He does so despite his understanding that the absence of a system imbuing the world with meaning creates havoc, as does the lack of beliefs in eternity, continuity and divine benevolence. Thus he uses religious concepts as tools; so, for example, he says that “I had had the idea of introducing a touch of anti-Semitism, aimed at counterbalancing the rather anti-Arab nature of the show” (Possibility, p. 34) [«j’avais eu l’idée d’introduire un soupçon d’antisémitisme, destiné à contrebalancer le caractère globalement antiarabe du spectacle» (Possibilité, p. 47)]; “[…] Updating St. Paul’s premise that all authority comes from God, I sometimes elevated myself to a somber meditation, not unlike that of Christian apologetics. I did it, of course, by evacuating any theological notion […] (Possibility, p. 41) [«[…] Réactualisant l’enseignement de saint Paul selon lequel toute autorité vient de Dieu, je m’élevais parfois jusqu’à une méditation sombre qui n’était pas sans rappeler l’apologétique chrétienne. Je le faisais bien entendu en évacuant toute notion théologique […]» (Possibilité, p. 61). He is able to tell his audience the bitter truth and at the same time amass a huge ← 129 | 130 → fortune because the audience is blinded and incapable of transcending the contemporary boundaries of thought. Audience and critics alike mistake Daniel1 for a humanist, which he perceives as a complete misunderstanding: “What’s worse is that I was considered to be a humanist” (Possibility, p. 15; emphasis in the original) [«Le pire est que j’étais considéré comme un humaniste» (Possibilité, p. 22; emphasis in the original)]. In his commentary on Daniel1’s writing, his descendent, Daniel25, concludes:
Intelligence permits the domination of the world; this can appear only within a social species, and through the medium of language. This same sociability, which had enabled the appearance of intelligence, was later to hinder its development – once technologies of artificial transmission had been perfected. (Possibility, p. 115).
[«L’intelligence permet la domination du monde; elle ne pouvait apparaître qu’à l’intérieur d’une espèce sociale, et par l’intermédiaire du langage. Cette même sociabilité qui avait permis l’apparition de l’intelligence devait plus tard entraver son développement – une fois que furent mises au point les technologies de la transmission artificielle.» (Possibilité, p. 163)]
There is a theological aspect to the social processes arising from consumer society and technological advancement, directly related to subjects’ ability to become devoted to faith and its adoration, even when they do so of their own free will. Houellebecq touches upon this, attacking the concepts of “subject” and “free will” which undermine the very capacity to possess metaphysical aspirations and become dedicated to the Chosen One. Late capitalist civilization has witnessed a deconstruction of the humanist liberal subject, now hardly perceived as the enlightened self-sufficient agency but rather as a sensitive locus of social conflicts and fragmented identity. The ‘I’ is perceived as belonging to several loosely interconnected systems, making it a mere illusion. Identity is defined only by performance: a system of electronic messages that transmit desires, beliefs, and ideological responses; forms of speech and discourse; hormones and pheromones; and gender-based conditioning. Humanism, aspiring to construct a culture and society with a moral-rational nature is in the midst of a process of decay and descent, since man’s basic concepts and the deep relativism that is thought to be a precondition for free society have been undermined.22 In the postmodern era, relativism has become the masses’ ← 130 | 131 → faith and the foundation for the most advanced social concepts of multiculturalism and multiple narratives. Jean-Francois Lyotard justifies pagan relativism precisely because the contemporary human foundation is the heteronymic pagan subject, moving at will among value-laden discourses and code levels.23
This new pagan relativism is the key to understanding Houellebecq’s moves and his approach to the possibility of faith in a secularized world. Eilon Shamir has expanded Lyotrad’s argument and views late capitalist culture as idolatry, from a moral perspective, reviving the relativism that originated in ancient Greece.24 This indicates a reversal of historical direction, since the monotheism of biblical origin displaced relativism in the development of western culture. Shamir explains that the pagan element re-emerging with postmodernism is based upon a renewed development of a multiple ‘I’, according to which several mental forces are simultaneously empowered without a clear hierarchy. Idolatry includes a multiplicity of world views and mental entities, and is closely related to instinct and passion:
Worshipping man had various foci of devotion in his world, and the various gods were personifications of the multiplicity that was the foundation of his world. Alongside this world of multiplicities, idol worshippers have an image of the soul that is composed on various and many elements. Using theological terms we might say that for the worshipper, a world perspective that includes multiple gods creates an image of multiplicity in the world at large, and this is represented by the various gods. Within the total mental image of the idol worshipper there was a split in which various foci of devotion and identification (i.e., various gods) empowered different, even contradictory elements in the believer’s soul […]. The multiplicity of the world-image and of the psyche-image is the foundation of the moral relativism that developed in Greek idolatry.25
Houellebecq’s Elohimite religion is a cultural construct that expresses and reflects the scope of the subject’s possibility for faith. In terms of moral relativism, the image of the Elohimite prophet is similar to that of the Greek gods, many of whom were not revered as moral role models ← 131 | 132 → who acted justly. On the contrary, Greek gods were renowned for behaving impulsively and following their capricious desires. In a similar fashion, the prophet displays impulsive-egotistical rationalism, and sees no contradiction between reason and instinct. According to Elohimism, the fact that rational man is multifaceted is not related to an hierarchical system of morals, and reason is intended to serve man’s instincts. The Elohimite system represents the essence of consumer society’s construct, and is thus essentially idolatrous.26 Houellebecq utilizes the Elohimites to highlight how some elements of reality are worshipped and the soul has been split into its instinctual dimensions. Capitalist culture, as related in Daniel1’s life story, is itself idolatrous; in other words, it splits the ‘I’ into distinct persona
lity segments, fostering one’s worship of “partial mediators” such as money, power, sex, or status. As Shamir notes:
This is a return to the idolatrous image of the soul […] without returning to ceremonial-ritual idol worship. They neither build temples for the gods of fame, nor for the gods of sex or enjoyment, but they do indeed worship these abstract concepts.27
Upon his first encounter with the Elohimites, Daniel1 attributes no importance to them. To him, the organization is “nonsense” (Possibility, p. 76) [«conneries» (Possibilité, p. 109)], just as the hero of Lanzarote refers to the Raëlians as “jokers” (Lanzarote, p. 40) [«guignols» (Lanzarote, p. 46)] when he first meets them. It is only when Daniel1 learns the true motivation behind the sect that it begins to make sense to him – an enterprise designed to raise funds for building a scientist’s laboratory is completely comprehensible to Daniel1, and it explains the foundation and justification of the religion. Indeed, the religion was established in order to realize the prophet’s desire for eternal life by creating a research laboratory which will achieve the dream of eternal life. For marketing purposes, the prophet surrounds himself with celebrities, such as Daniel1 himself, who can serve as the presenters of his faith and attract crowds. This relationship to celebrity is purely utilitarian and there is no substance to it. Herein ← 132 | 133 → lies a reference to Scientology, which “no doubt benefited from the presence in its membership of John Travolta and Tom Cruise” (Possibility, p. 161) [«bénéficiait sans nul doute de la présence parmi ses adhérents de John Travolta ou de Tom Cruise» (Possibilité, p. 228)]. Even the request that Daniel1 write his own life story is motivated by the idea that it will attract more people to convert.28 The prophet’s character is portrayed as that of a mythological guru,29 one who requires a gathering of followers and a feeling of blind adoration. Images of the charismatic prophet are prominent against the backdrop of the colossal crisis of the leader/father image current in the secularized postmodern world. He surrounds himself with monumental self-portraits, most of which depict him “surrounded by twelve young women dressed in see-through tunics who stretched out toward him” (Possibility, p. 88) [«entouré de douze jeunes femmes vêtues de tuniques translucides qui tendaient les bras vers lui» (Possibilité, p. 125)]. The prophet, perceived by the crowd as a shepherd and leader, is modeled on Hugh Hefner sex temples. Paradoxically, the spiritual shepherd’s attitude toward his believers is one of alienation, a result of his perception of the other as a part or a means, the part of the other that is the means to indulging his impulses. This mental attitude reflects not a love of giving but rather of taking:
The prophet took his place in his reclining chair; we sat on ottomans down below. At a sign from him, the young girls scattered and returned, carrying stoneware dishes filled with almonds and dried fruit; others carried amphora filled with what turned out to be pineapple juice. So he was dwelling in the Greek style […]. ‘Susan…,’ said the prophet softly to a very blond girl, with blue eyes and a ravishing candid face, who had remained seated at his feet. Obeying without a word, she knelt between his thighs, opened the dressing gown, and began to suck him off; his sex was short and thick. He wanted, apparently, to establish from the outset a clear position of dominance; (Possibility, pp. 161–162)
[«Le prophète s’assit dans son fauteuil relax; nous nous installâmes sur des poufs en contrebas. Sur un signe des a main les jeunes filles s’égaillèrent et revinrent, portant des coupelles en grès remplies d’amandes et de fruits secs; d’autres portaient des amphores emplies de ce qui s’avéra être du jus d’ananas. Il restait, donc, dans la note grecque […]. ‘Susan…’ dit doucement le prophète à une jeune fille très blonde, aux yeux bleus, au visage ravissant et candide, qui était restée assise à ses pieds. Obéissant ← 133 | 134 → sans un mot, elle s’agenouilla entre ses cuisses, écart ale peignoir et commença à le sucer; son sexe était court, épais. Il souhaitait apparemment établir d’entrée de jeu une position de dominance claire;» (Possibilité, pp. 228–229)]
The prophet is not a spiritual shepherd who fails to fulfill his role. On the contrary, his main goal is personal happiness, the major aspiration in the world of consumers, and thus of Elohimism. Similarly to New Age religion, Elohimism remains within the bubble, wholeness, and happiness of the individual, disregarding broader circles. So too, the sacraments accompanying conversion to Elohimism are related to the prophet’s primary interests – they are not ceremonies of essence but rather of practical and economic value. The first ceremony is the taking of DNA samples, at which time the convert signs over all his wealth and possessions to the church. This is followed by the stage waiting for resurrection or voluntary departure from life – meaning suicide. Belief in a god is not a tenet of the Elohimite religion, and the founders themselves bear witness to this (Possibility, p. 208; Possibilité, p. 295). Thus it is unsurprising that among the first converts to the faith were Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Richard Branson “and then a growing number of the most important firms in the world” (Possibility, p. 249) [«puis par un nombre croissant de dirigeants des plus importantes firmes mondiales» (Possibilité, p. 352)]. Elohimism is an instrument, not a being, as will be discussed below.
The prophet’s vision and halo clearly utilize computerized presentations, pyrotechnic shows, and art installations, in what seems to the narrator “such a good understanding of mass psychology” (Possibility, p. 203) [«une si bonne compréhension de la psychologie collective» (Possibilité, p. 288)], with the cooperation of the broadcasting media. The latter concentrates the energies of millions of viewers, through hundreds of broadcasting stations surrounding the prophet’s compound. The prophet’s resurrection and deification are nothing but an illusion: indeed the prophet’s son appears instead of his dead father. The whole episode is a prime example of how a referent – that which lies behind the things – disappears in the kingdom of hyper-reality, and with it disappear also depth, essence, and reality. The resurrection, rather than producing an essential energy originating internally and radiating outward, reverses the direction of the energy flow: the flat, external energy of millions of television viewers radiates toward the prophet and imbues him with transcendence and grandeur through the gazes concentrated upon him. The success of the staged resurrection relies on the extent to which postmodern subjects are affected by ← 134 | 135 → the media, technological experiences and hyper-reality. The masses seek the spectacle, not the significant; simulacrum, not reality. When meaning and certainty disappear, the potential for resistance dissolves, leaving nothing but a vacuous hollow. The character of the prophet is intentionally constructed in the image of a guru, since gurus allow mental elements such as adoration, worship, and faith to burst through culture’s secular-atheist trappings. The prophet promises eternal life through science, revealing to his believers in part his idolatrous nature but at the same time perpetuating their delusion that they are rational beings. Indeed, the open worship of the idol-like guru – the Elohimite prophet – is not morally binding; quite the contrary, it frees the soul to pursue its impulses without being reined in by any organizational constrictions. Any part of reality assumes an idolatrous aspect when worshipped by man, who grants it supreme importance and serves it. Therefore, the prophet’s apologetics regarding pedophilia (Possibility, pp. 85–86; Possibilité, pp. 122–123)30 is a reductio ad absurdum of the idolatrous cultural principle of multiplicity, namely consumerism; in his sermons approving of sex between consenting adults, adulthood begins between the ages of 11 and 14. In the worship of this prophet, Houellebecq exposes something of which many members of consumer culture are unaware: the worship of hidden gods, better known as the system’s super-values. Through the worship of the deities of sex, health, and technology, the Elohimites offer an instrument to a society that is no longer willing to accept the “discovery about happiness being the exclusive preserve of youth, and about the sacrifice of generations” (Possibility, p. 277) [«découvertesur le bonheur réservé à la jeunesse et surle
sacrifice des générations» (Possibilité, p. 390)].
Daniel1 does not present all of this material ironically or critically, as deviant, but rather as a natural result of the ideology of his times: that of a consumer society and its values. The book repeatedly describes how he climbed the ladder of success and amassed ever-growing wealth. This is also true of his serial car purchasing, emphasized throughout the novel: the car is not a utilitarian object but a fetish, an object of accumulation for the sake of accumulating status symbols. The fetishist consumption of brand names is one of the central loci of modern idol-worship magic. Increasing numbers of cars, novelties, and accessories are proof positive ← 135 | 136 → of one’s success in a consumer society. As Shamir also mentions, in a consumer society the ultimate value is winning.31 This is clearly conveyed in the conversation between Daniel1 and the prophet, when they are seated at the prophet’s table:
[…] he possessed only a Ferrari Modena Stradale (a slightly souped-up version of the ordinary Modena, and made lighter by the use of carbon, titanium and aluminum) and a Porsche 911 GT2; in short, rather fewer than a middling Hollywood actor. It’s true he planned to replace his Stradale with an Enzo, and his 911GT2 with a Carrera GT; but he wasn’t sure he’d have the means […]. To feed the conversation, I mentioned the Bentley Continental GT that I had just traded in for a Mercedes 600 SL – which, I was conscious, could be read as a sigh of gentrification. (Possibility, p. 90)