Two specific levels of shame…
January 8, 2010
My people, if my presence among you and my reminding you of God’s signs is too much for you, then I put my trust in God. Agree on your course of action, you and your partner-gods—do not be hesitant or secretive about it—then carry out your decision on me and give me no respite.[i]
These few words by Noah encapsulate such a great deal of direction that it would be a pity to view it as simply negligible. The operative word in the first sentence—in my estimation—is “presence”. This word has in many ways been a focus of an entire tradition of political thought. Notwithstanding the meandering that has taken place concerning its precise conceptualization and the perennial threat of representative modes of democracy, it can be said that an authentic and truly inclusive political arrangement must take into account the substantial weight of presence. It is this factor that is constantly elided by the observer qua necromancer. On the one hand, when the observer gives the shrouded being a facelift, we are immediately within the realm of perfunctory representation. Presence is only accounted for when the observer is overwhelmed. Revolutionary upheaval—specifically proletarian modes—is perfectly analogous in this instance. This is the presence of something that is beyond reproach or reconciliation. No matter how vigorously the appendages of ideology seek to disrupt the movement through distortion, the built up momentum is almost infallible. Thus, the practice of elision conducted by the observer coincides with its internally conceived failure. We are not dealing with the Lacanian notion that repression and the return of the repressed is one and the same thing, though it may be mistakenly conceived in this manner. What is elided is not a signifier.
The last sentence is of particular importance because it signals the cognizance and acceptance of what is about to befall Noah. In a similar gesture, the shrouded individual allows for the onslaught of meaning to befall her as a form of acquiesced retribution. But why is there a need to permit perpetual signification? Why, because the initial stage of primal exposure was deemed shameful on the part of the Muslim woman. We have now discovered two specific levels of shame.
[i] The Qur’an, trans., M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, 133; 10:71.
