surplus and other stuff

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Zizek (qtd by Doug):
>What lurks in the background of these
>features is the Spinozist idea that, imperceptibly, at a presubjective
>level, we are entangled in a network by way of which others encroach upon
>us: ultimately, the very presence of others as such is perceived as
>violence. However, in order for this enhanced awareness of how others
>threaten us, of how we are totally "exposed" to them, to emerge, a certain
>solipsist shift had to occur which defines the "postmodern" subject: this
>subject has as it were withdrawn from the big Other, maintaining a
>protopsychotic distance toward the Other; i.e., this subject perceives
>himself as an out-Law, lacking the common ground shared with others. And
>for this reason, every contact with others is perceived and experienced as
>a violent encroachment.
>
>The so-called "fundamentalism" on which today's mass media more and more
>confer the role of the Enemy par excellence (in the guise of
>selfdestructive "radical Evil": Saddam Hussein, the narco-cartels ... ) is
>to be grasped as a reaction to the ruling Spinozism, as its inherent Other.

Zizek's analysis may make sense as is when it is applied to Euro contexts,
but with regard to the USA, it seems odd to say that fundamentalists are
the ruling Spinozism's inherent other. Aren't fundamentalists (esp. of
Christian, survivalist kinds) nothing but Spinozist Subjects that Zizek
describes? The logical (if extreme) extension of liberal
individualism---what may be called subindividualism, in pursuit of the
elusive It, which in America may be defined as Innocence--perfectly
comfortable with the idea of a Beloved Community (or God and Country).

Yoshie