ISSN 1751-8229 Volume Six, Number Two

Religion and Neoliberalism: TV Serial Rmyaa and the Becoming of an Ideology, 1 !"#1 " Vikash Singh, Sociology Dept. Rutge s !ni"e sity.
In a #ilieu inun$ate$ %y e"e #o e st iking an$ sophisticate$ technologies, tele"ision #ay appea to us a $ate$ #e$iu#, too &a#ilia to p o"oke any special inte est $espite its pe "asi"e in&luence. 'ut (hen in the 198)s in In$ia the *V sta te$ to %eco#e a &eatu e o& #i$$le-class ho#es it (as no less than a #agical $e"ice +on one han$, t easu e$ %y the state ,(hich cont olle$ % oa$casting ights- &o its instant e&&ects an$ e.tensi"e each an$, on the othe , its atione$ telecasts eage ly a(aite$, an$ gape$ at, %y &ascinate$ #asses. *his technological $e"elop#ent coinci$e$ (ith a pe io$ o& i#po tant uphea"als in the nation/s nascent postcolonial histo y an$ politics. *ill the 197)s, the 0ong ess ha$ ule$ as the p ee#inent national pa ty, the o"e a ching "angua $ 1upli&ting2 In$ia an$ its populace into the co##ittee o& nations an$ peoples o& the (o l$. 'y then, ho(e"e , the li#itations o& a putati"e $e#oc atic socialis# ha$ co#%ine$ (ith othe national an$ glo%al $e"elop#ents to un$e #ine the p epossessing signi&icance o& this "angua $ ,itsel& split into se"e al & actions-, the e%y opening the political &iel$ to a plu ality o& social &o ces. 3ith its a%ility to channel collecti"e a&&ects ac oss the % ea$th o& the nation, the tele"ision e#e ge$ as a no"el technology to a$$ ess this con4unctu e, %oth in te #s o& a ne( nationalist i#agina y an$ to a$"ance a ne( e a o& consu#ption, an$ the e%y

econo#ic li%e alis#. 5long (ith the &etish o& the co##o$ity, at this stage, eligious i#age y se "e$ as a #a4o sou ce &o e-$e&ining the nation. *he opening o& the In$ian econo#y an$ the su &eit o& co##o$ities that &ollo(e$, thus, con"e ge$ (ith the ise o& 6in$u eligious nationalis# an$ an unp ece$ente$ su ge in the political &o tunes o& ight-(ing g oups ,see e.g., 6ansen 19997 Ra4agopal 2))17 "an $e Vee 1998-. 5s Ra4agopal ,2))1- has sho(n, the tele"ision se ial Rmyaa +a (il$ly popula p og a# %ase$ on the epony#ous epic sc eene$ & o# 9anua y 1987 to 9uly 1988 + is a con$ense$ e.a#ple o& the social t ans&o #ati"e e&&ect o& this peculia co#%ination o& &o ces. 3hile the political t ans&o #ations t igge e$ %y this telecast o& co#ple.ly co$e$ eligious i#age y in the Rmyaa ,as (ell as the Mhbhrata, %ase$ on the othe #a4o epic, sc eene$ sho tly a&te -, a e (ell ecogni:e$ in schola ly lite atu e ,;utgen$o & 199)7 Rich#an 199)7 Ra4agopal 2))17 <ankeka 2))2-, this a ticle analy:es the su%4ecti"e e.pe ience o& these &o ces. 5naly:ing the inte -su%4ecti"e st uctu e o& the *V se ial an$ the au$ience it c eates in e&e ence to the Ra#ayana se ial, this a ticle teases out the co#ple. play o& co##o$ity &etishis# an$ #ythopoeic in"est#ent in the e.pe ience o& the au$ience, an$ ho( the political ight capitali:e$ on these p ocesses. I a gue that tele"ision an$ the Rmyaa se ial ope ate$ as #e$iu#s pa ticipating in the &o #ation o& a ne( i$eological &o ce in In$ia o& the 198)s. Se"e al Schola s ha"e c itici:e$ the p o$uce s o& the Rmyaa &o con&o #ing to $o#inant en$itions o& the epic (hile #a ginali:ing othe "e sions ,Rich#an19917 Ra4agopal 2))17 <ankeka 2))2-. 6o(e"e , I a gue that gi"en ho( intensely this p esentation o& the epic as a soap ope a in a synch oni:e$ nation-(i$e telecast in the ho#ogenous ti#e o& the nation is $ete #ine$ %y the #echanis#s an$ i$eologies o& capitalist p o$uction, the choice o& "e sion can %e a #atte only o& secon$a y signi&icance. =ngaging the eception o& the se ial & o# a psychoanalytic pe specti"e, this a ticle sho( ho( the co#pulsion to epetition, an$ the jouissance o& the darana ,"ision- o& the >o$, an$ his (o $s, &acto e$ in this t ans&o #ati"e p ocess. In the conte.t o& a #a4o ity li"ing un$e $i e econo#ic con$itions, su%4ecte$ to a a"ishing encounte (ith an e.t a"agan:a o& the co##o$ity &o #, an$ yet slo(ly (eane$ o&& the "isions o& a #o$e nist $ ea# an$ a socialist utopia, the *V >o$ (o ke$ to su%li#ate the t au#atic #o#ent in the "e y #o#ent an$ #e$iu# o& its inception.

The $olitical field of the TV %od

?ollo(ing a con& ontation (ith the 4u$icia y o"e electo al #alp actices, in 1978, the 0ong ess @ i#e <iniste , In$i a >an$hi, $ecla e$ a National =#e gency an$ assu#e$ autoc atic po(e s.

*his e"ent #ay %e seen as a conseAuence o& In$ia/s e"ol"ing political scena io +a &i st esponse to a api$ly changing political lan$scape, (he e a p e"iously un$ispute$ "angua $ ha$ %een challenge$. *he eactiona y e.cesses o& the =#e gency in"ol"e$ a %latant use o& &o ce against political an$ i$eological opponents. ? o# an analyst/s pe specti"e, this (as a athe uninte esting #o"e#ent as #uch in te #s o& se#antic co#ple.ity, as &o its social potential. *he secon$ #o"e#ent, ho(e"e , (as signi&icant. *he =#e gency $i$ not su "i"e long, an$ in the &ollo(ing elections, the 0ong ess go"e n#ent (as th o(n out o& po(e 7 ho(e"e , only to etu n in the ne.t elections. In te #s o& histo ical signi&icance, this i#plie$ a e4ection o& &etishi:e$ i$eals an$ a%solute autho ity as e&&ecti"e techniAues o& po(e , the e%y lea$ing into a athe no"el step in the technology o& li%e al $e#oc atic politics. @olitical pa ties, it see#e$, coul$ no #o e gene ate po(e th ough i$eals an$ institutions so e#o"e$ & o# the #asses. 5 politics o& engage#ent ha$ %eco#e necessa y +po(e no( ha$ to %e $e i"e$ in #e$iating the acti"e constitution o& the su%4ect population. It is i#po tant to note he e that the 1thi $ (o l$2 o postcolonial su%4ect o& li%e al $e#oc atic politics (as at this point not a $iscu si"ely &a#ilia o 1kno(n2 entity, he (hi#s not Auite p e$icta%le & o# e.tant 3este n li%e al $e#oc atic technology. *he a i"al o& the tele"ision on the social scene as a po(e &ul #eans o& #ass #e$iation e.clusi"ely cont olle$ %y the state, %oth signale$ an$ $e&ine$ the co#ple.ity o& this histo ical 4unctu e. *he go"e n#ental e#ploy#ent o& this #e$iu# #ay %e sepa ate$ into th ee $i&&e ent &o #s ,see Ra4agopal 2))1-. ?i st, its e#ploy#ent as a pe$agogical #e$iu# $isse#inating e.pe t kno(le$ge an$ culti"ating social i$eals + such as lessons in &a #ing technology, science lessons &o school chil$ en, #essages o& eco##en$e$ social an$ pat iotic "alues. Secon$, the *V sc een %eca#e a egula host to sole#n i#ages o& state &igu es, #i o ing the ,#is- ecognitions o& popula ep esentationB political lea$e s $ esse$ in i##aculate (hite, e.t a"agantly co$e$ atti es announcing sche#es o& social upli&t#ent, (hile cutting i%%ons in "a ious inaugu ation ce e#onies as i& unleashing the nation/s potential in the &o # o& e"e ne( institutions an$ oppo tunities. *he a$$ition o& tele"ision/s "isual $i#ension to the e.isting #eans o& #ass #e$iation, like a$io an$ ne(sp int, p o"i$e$ a e#a ka%le oppo tunity &o the &etishi:ation o& these i#ages o& the i$eal, e"entually to %e et ie"e$ as political $i"i$en$s. In this &o #, ho(e"e , the &etish $oes not as yet %elong to the gen e o& &etishes p ope to the cultu e o& li%e al capitalis#, no ep esents an alte nate social constitution o& capital. *his is #o e a &i st o $e &etish, a &etish o& inte pe sonal elations, (hich to ou ti#es is pe haps the co elate o& an o%st ucte$ political &o #ation %elonging to the sa#e egiste as the hypothetical, p e-#o$e n &etish o& the king ,see Ci:ek1997B 1))-1)5-. In these t(o #o$es, the space o& the tele"ision #ay %e $esc i%e$ as an e.tension o& e.isting political technology, a Auantitati"e acc etion (hose Aualitati"e e&&ect (ill ha"e to %e ecogni:e$ else(he e, in anothe #o#ent.

*he thi $ #o$e inclu$e$ co##issione$, state- ati&ie$ 1ente tain#ent2 p og a#s. 6e e, in the #o$e o& play o ente tain#ent, tele"ision/s cont i%ution in the con&igu ation an$ e"olution o& political technology is at its #ost signi&icant. *he sc eening o& the Rmyaa ,an$ the #ultitu$e o& soap ope as to &ollo( suit-, (ith its i##e$iate an$ &utu e political co elates %elongs to this catego y. *he sc eening o& the epic #a ks an instance o& the tapping o the engage#ent o& #ythico-i#agina y t aces in the cause an$ politics o& the sy#%olic net(o k +in othe te #s, the , e-gene ation an$ #o%ili:ation o& one net(o k o& sy#%ols in the te #s an$ cause o& anothe . 5s #entione$ p e"iously, this situation $e"elope$ at a ti#e (hen the In$ian political elite (as &o ce$ to ente the pu%lic & ay &o the constitution o& political po(e . 5t &i st sight then, as se"e al schola s ha"e a gue$, such eligious #a keting (as suppose$ to in$ulge a$he ents o& 6in$u cultu e an$ %elie&s to (in thei app o"al &o the uling pa ty, the 0ong ess, (hich ha$ he eto&o e p o4ecte$ itsel& as a %astion o& secula i$eals an$ #ino ity ights ,see Ra4agopal 2))17 <ankeka 2))2-. ?o the 0ong ess, this #a ke$ a shi&t in political o ientation +&ea ing the e osion o& its political #onopoly, it atte#pte$ a ne( #oti&, a ne( techniAue to(a $ consoli$ating its political %ase. *he Auestion, ho(e"e , isB In (hat econo#y o& the li%i$o, in (hat #echanis#s o& signi&ication, a e (e to locate the political e&&icacy o& this #o"e to #ythico- eligious ente tain#entD *o espon$ to this Auestion, one nee$s to &i st consi$e the #agnitu$e o& the e"ent. *he se ial/s popula ity pa allele$ the epical signi&icance o& the Rmyaa itsel& to the In$ic t a$itions. In a ti#e (hen tele"isions (e e in In$ia athe a e, (ithin #onths o& its inaugu ation, the "ie(e ship &o a Rmyaa episo$e a$$e$ to 8) to 8) #illion ,Ra4agopal 2))1-. En Sun$ay #o nings, Rmyaa &e"e sei:e$ the count y, in pa ticula the no th. *hus, ;utgen$o & o%se "e$B Visi%le #ani&estations o& the se ial/s popula ity inclu$e$ FGH cancellation o& Sun$ay #o ning sho(s in cine#a halls &o lack o& au$iences, the $elaying o& (e$$ings an$ &une als to allo( pa ticipants to "ie( the se ies, an$ the ee ily Auiet look o& #any cities an$ to(ns, especially in the No th $u ing sc eenings FGH. 'a:aa s, st eets, an$ (holesale #a kets %eca#e so $ese te$ they appea ,e$- to %e un$e cu &e( FGH t ains (e e $elaye$ (hen passenge s e&use$ to lea"e the plat&o # until a % oa$cast (as o"e . ,199)B 1IJ-7*he e.e#pla ily &etishist cha acte o& this popula ity is e"i$ent & o# the piety that the se ies an$ the *V sc een a ouse$. 10 o($s gathe e$ a oun$ e"e y (aysi$e tele"ision set, though &e( coul$ ha"e seen #uch on the s#all %lack an$ (hite *V sets (ith so #any p esent. =ngine $ i"e s (e e epo te$ to $epa t & o# thei sche$ules, stopping thei t ains at stations en oute i& necessa y, in o $e to (atch2 ,Ra4agopal 2))1B 88-. ?u the , as <el(ani o%se "esB

In #any ho#es the (atching o& the Ramayan has %eco#e a eligious itual, an$ the tele"ision set FGH is ga lan$e$, $eco ate$ (ith san$al(oo$ paste an$ "e #illion, an$ conch shells a e %lo(n. > an$pa ents a$#onish youngste s to %athe %e&o e the sho( an$ house(i"es put o&& se "ing #eals so that the &a#ily is pu i&ie$ an$ &asting %e&o e Ramayan. ,cite$ in ;utgen$o & 199)B 1IJ-

*he "i tual ep o$uction & o# the #ythico- eligious eal# su ely incite$ a passionate esponse. I p opose that this st iking appeal o& the #ythico- eligious "i tual p o$uction, this un% i$le$ attach#ent is %ut an instance o& jouissanceB the p o#ise o& an ulti#ate association, a &inal i$enti&ication o& the su%4ect (ith (hat it pe cei"es as its constituti"e + an$, as I late suggest, histo ic + %eyon$. 6o(e"e , (e shoul$ not hastily i$enti&y, catego i:e this, as is so o&ten the case, as yet anothe instance o& the u%iAuitous appeal o& 1 eligion.2 ?o jouissance, like #ost ;acan, #ay not %e un$e stoo$ %eyon$ the st uctu e in (hich it gene ates. *he au$ience o& the Rmyaa shoul$ %e analy:e$ not as a gene al, p e-e.isting au$ience o& the eligious #yth o pe &o #ance %ut as an au$ience co-p o$uce$ in the tele-pe &o #ance o& the &antasy pa ticula 7 the au$ience, the $esi e that ani#ates it, is $ialectical. *he analysis o& the pheno#enon thus has to %e as #uch an analysis o& the p o$uct, this o%4ect that is the egulating cente o& the pheno#enon.

The tele&ision serial: an analysis

In the Puppet and the Dwarf, KiLek cha acte i:es 'ataille as p e-#o$e n &o the latte /s c itiAue o& the se.ual e"olution un$e the p e#ise that p ohi%ition (as a necessa y con$ition to t ansg ession. 0on"e sely, KiLek a"e s that the supe ego in4unction 1=n4oyM2 o& the late capitalist pe #issi"e society that 1ele"ates e.cess into the "e y p inciple o& its no #al &unctioning2 ,p.5J- plays a ho#ologous ole although at a $i&&e ent le"el. @a aph asing ' echt, he says 13hat is a poo 'ataillean su%4ect engage$ in his t ansg essions o& the syste# co#pa e$ to the late capitalist e.cessi"e o gy o& the syste# itsel&.2 KiLek locates the an.iety cha acte istic o& ou age in an e&&ect o& 1this ele"ation o& t ansg ession into the no #, the lack o& the p ohi%ition that (oul$ sustain $esi e2 ,p.5J-. *he 'ataillean &iel$ is $e&ine$ %y a p ohi%ition, the e to %e t ansg esse$. In t ansg essing, the su%4ect #a ks he agency, Nen4oy#ent/ %e the p o$uctO esi$uu#. 0on"e sely, in the late capitalist (o l$, the social &iel$ is itsel& st uctu e$ on the #o$el o& en4oy#ent, that is, su plus en4oy#ent, (hich the 'ataillean su%4ect t ansg esses &o , he e $e&ines the "e y su%stance o& the &iel$. *he $i&&e ence %et(een the t(o ope ations o& $esi e co elates (ith the

$i&&e ence in the t(o types o& econo#ies. In the ea lie social &o #ations, the econo#y is p i#a ily gui$e$ %y the logic o& utility + %ette , use-"alue + o ientation, (hile un$e the late capitalist apotheosis o& e.change, the p i#e o gani:ing the#e o& the econo#y %eco#es, in a athe i onic sense, play. In othe (o $s, un$e late capitalis#, 1to en4oy2 is not 4ust an in4unction to consu#e, it o gani:es the &iel$ o& p o$uction itsel&. *he *V se ial is an instance o& this st uctu e o& p o$uction. *he psychoanalytic t ope o& N epetition/ is use&ul in analy:ing the #echanis# o& this pheno#enon. Se ial en4oy#ent is constitute$ th ough the insistent uptu e o& the &antasy %on$ %y the pe e#pto y int usions o& the 'ig Ethe . In Beyond the Pleasure Principle, ? eu$ speaks o& the little ga#e o& fort da he sa( his g an$chil$ play. *he chil$, in #aking up &o the #othe /s a%sence, (oul$ epeate$ly hi$e an$ pull %ack a cotton- eel that he hel$ %y a th ea$, letting out a soun$ o& 1&o t2 as he th e( it a(ay, an$ 1$a2 (hen pulling %ack. 6e e, ? eu$ ecogni:es the N$ i"e/. *he se ial pe &o #s a si#ila ga#e o& supply an$ $enial %ut in an in"e te$ &o #. In this late e$ition, the si$es ha"e change$B no longe is it the su%4ect (ho &in$sOhi$es the eel, athe it is the 'ig Ethe that in a e"e se &unction suppliesO$enies the o%4ect o& the li%i$o. I& the ga#e is the chil$/s #echanis# o& gene ating en4oy#ent th ough a $ialectic o& possession an$ $ispossession o& the o%4ect-cause, the *V se ial eali:es this #echanis# o& p o$uction o& su plus en4oy#ent in the &o # o& a co##o$ity. ;ike #ost hu#an potentialities, the $ i"e he e is acco##o$ate$ as a p o$ucti"e &acto in capital/s e.ploits. *he soli$ p esence o& the social o $e an$ its call on the supe ego is a&&i #e$ in the st uctu e o& the se ial as a piece-#eal p o$uct $i"i$e$ on the %asis o& the p ag#atics o& a capitalist social o $e . *he Rmyaa use$ to %e telecast (eekly on Sun$ay #o nings, (ith co##e cial % eaks e"e y &e( #inutes. 3atching this se ial as a teenage on a s#all %lack-an$(hite set, hu$$le$ in the li"ing oo# o& a neigh%o ing &a#ily, one o& #y st ongest i#p essions is the intense (aiting $u ing the (eek, as (ell as $u ing the co##e cials. *he &antasy supply thus is continuously inte spe se$ (ith %u sts o& 1 eality2 1 in the &o # o& co##e cials +o in the &o # o& e"e y$ay li&e + (hich a e in"ol"e$ like a supe ego e#in$ing us o& the &antastic Auality o& the "ie(ing e.pe ience an$ ou o%ligations to the co##e cial sphe e #aking it possi%le. <o e i#po tantly, ho(e"e , the episo$ic telecast allo(s the *V se ial to e#ploy the N epetition co#pulsion/ in its p o$ucti"e st ategy. *he en4oy#ent o& this &antasy co##o$ity thus $oes not lie 4ust in the c eation o& the au$io"isual p o$uct %ut &ollo(s ight up to the &o # an$ #o#ent (he e it is se "e$ &o consu#ption. *his st uctu e (he e the su%4ect/s cathectic %on$ (ith the &antasy is % oken a&te &i.e$ inte "als an$ hel$ in suspension a&te e"e y episo$e is pa t o& the st uctu e o& the "ie(e /s jouissance. In psychoanalytic te #s, $i&&e ent episo$es o& the se ial a e repetitions. No $ou%t e"e y ne( episo$e is a pe &o #ance o& the sa#e #ate ial + it is e"en the sa#e se ial a&te all +

%ut #o e signi&icantly, it is a epetition o& the $i&&e ence the &i st #a$e. 5s 0onstantin 0onstantius, the pseu$ony#ous autho o& Pi kegaa $/s Repetition, una%le to epeat the e.pe ience o& the &i st holi$ay, conclu$es in a 1su$$en shi&t o& pe ception2B 1the only epetition (as the i#possi%ility o& epetition2 ,@oun$ 2))7B 58-. 5n$, as @oun$ ela%o ates, 1one can ,onlyepeat the holi$ay %y ha"ing an enti ely $i&&e ent holi$ay %ut (hich nonetheless ec eates the initial $i&&e ence the &i st holi$ay #a$e, that is, one esta%lishes continuity in te #s o& $i&&e ence2 ,p. 58-. Repetition is the la%o o& the atte#pts to et ace the neu al net(o k in t ying to % ing a%out an i$entity o& #e#o y an$ pe ception. In the case o& the *V se ial, (e #ay suggest, it is the pleasu e an$ the la%o o& atte#pts to et ace the &antasy e.pe ience o& p e"ious episo$es. *he epetiti"e p ocess sets up a concatenation o& cathectic $epa tu es. Since *V se ials in any case e.ten$ &o e"e , these pleasu es o sti#ulations o& neu al e-t aces #ay %e e.pecte$ to su%sist e"en (he e one #ay not actually %e "is-Q-"is a pe &o #ance. 5 &eatu e o& epetition ,a&te all, (hy is 0onstantin $ying to epeatD- is that the jouissance it is a&te is al(ays an e.cess, it is not to %e achie"e$. Repetition is p ope ly speaking the epetition o& the &ailu e, o& the lack in the su%4ect7 it is 1(hat goes against li&e2 ,;acan 2))7B85-. *he su%4ect keeps e-enacting the action, a step ahea$ each ti#e, i& only to continuously lose (hat is epeate$7 th o(s itsel& to(a $ a jouissance ne"e any longe the e. 5s ? eu$ sho(s in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, the su%4ect is $ i"en %y 1an u geGto esto e an ea lie state o& things,2 a co#pulsion to epeat, $ i"en %y 1 ep esse$ #e#o y-t aces o& his p i#e"al e.pe iences2 ,1989B J12-. *he co##on #elo$ a#a o& the soap ope a is an e.a#ple o& such co#pulsion. 5s though co#pensating &o the ep ession o& e#otions in #o$e n li&e, e"e y act o& the soap ope a is steepe$ (ith senti#entalityB e#otions a#pli&ie$, sho(n in epeate$ close-ups2, satiating the su%4ect. *he lack that the su%4ect e.pe iences in eality is co#pensate$ as an e.cess in the "i tual7 e.cess that pe &o #s on the #o$el o& epetition, that is, %y #eans o& the p i#al lack in the su%4ect. In a late capitalist cultu e steepe$ in e.cess consu#ption, then, it is ha $ly su p ising that the st uctu e o& jouissance %ut $ i"es the p o$uction chain. *he e.cess supplie$ in the "i tual sphe e is co#pensation &o the lack in eality at the sa#e ti#e as it is a &acto to the p o$uction o& late-capitalist eality7 the "i tual e.cess is %o n as the necessa y supple#ent o& conte#po a y eality. It #ay ne"e $etach & o# the logistics o& capital that has a constituti"e ole in its p o$uction. Reality is #ost "i"i$ly "isi%le in the co##e cials inte spe se$ in the &antasy p o$uct, continuing as a su%te.t to the $esignate$ &antasy e.pe ience. *he te#po al contiguity o& the &antasy p o$uct an$ the eality ,o the &antasyM- o& the co##e cial ensu es that %oth a&&ect the ea$e togethe , that they en& a#e each othe . *hus, i#ages o& %o#%s $ opping on a city o people $ying o& sta "ation sha e &antasy space (ith a$"e tise#ents o& shoes an$ sha#poos. *he eal %eco#es i#agina y, it is $eli"e e$ as a &antasy, as "i tual7 the &antasy space is #o e o less pheno#enologically ho#ogenous.

Rememberance, Jouissance, and the R'm'yaa

*he e a e suppose$ to %e hun$ e$s o& "e sions o& the Rmyaa, en$e e$ p i#a ily in o al t a$itions an$ th ough eligious itualsI. E& these, the Val#iki an$ *ulsi$as "e sions en4oy a canonical status. ?o all his $e#u als8, Ra#anan$ Saga is o&ten %la#e$ &o a$opting these canonical "e sions +(hich, &ollo(ing Re$&iel$/s ,19J5- $istinction, (e #ay classi&y as pa ts o& the 1g eat t a$ition2+ &o his se ial. *his issue o& the choice o& "e sion has att acte$ signi&icant schola ly attention ,Ra4agopal 2))17 ;utgen$o & 1991-. Ret, the p o%le# o& the p esentation o& the epic as a soap ope a in a synch oni:e$ nation-(i$e telecast, in (hat 5n$e son ,1991- calle$ the ho#ogenous ti#e o& the nation, ope ates at a le"el altogethe $i&&e ent. So intensely $ete #ine$ is this p o$uct %y the &acto s o& capital an$ i$eological con"entions that the i#plications o& the choice o& the "e sion #ay %y the#sel"es only %e o& secon$a y signi&icance. *he inte lacing o& econo#ic &acto s an$ the "i tual en$e ing o& the #ythology is cent al to the st uctu e o& the Rmyaa, its e&&ects, its politico-econo#ic ope ation. *hese e&&ects nee$ to %e analy:e$ in the st uctu e o& $esi e. *he e.ploits o& the go$-king RS#a, (e #ay suggest, ha"e &eatu e$ in the 6in$u collecti"e consciousness &o ages. ?o the "ie(ing su%4ect, the ,tele-"ision o darana o& the $eity an$ his $i"ine escapa$es in the *V se ial is, the e&o e, al(ays an e"ent a&te the o iginal. It is al(ays a ecollection, a e-#e#%e ing +that is, it has an attache$ histo ical $i#ension. *his is cha acte istic o& the $ i"e that #a ks jouissance. 5s ;acan says, *he $ i"eG e#%o$ies a histo ical $i#ension (hose t ue signi&icance nee$s to %e app eciate$. *his $i#ension is to %e note$ in the insistence that cha acte i:es its appea ances7 it e&e s %ack to so#ething #e#o a%le %ecause it (as e#e#%e e$. Re#e#%e ing, 1histo ici:ing2, is coe.tensi"e (ith the &unctioning o& the $ i"e in (hat (e call the hu#an psyche. ,2))7B 2)9-

*he tele"ise$ na ati"e o& the $eity utili:es the st uctu e o& jouissance. 5s jouissance appea s as the %eyon$ o& a $ i"e, the elusi"e en$ o& an insistent e.cess, so the "i tual co##o$ity-o%4ect ,the *V se ial- is e.cessi"e. In Saga /s Rmyaa, the $i"ine gestu es, RS#a/s acts o& passi"e g ace, a e epeate$ in en$less close-ups, allo(ing us to i##e se in the g ace o& the othe (ise inaccessi%le go$-hea$. 'ut the pa a$o. o& jouissance is such that it #ay only %e encounte e$ in its inaccessi%ility. *he i##e sion in the $i"ine is, in the #anne o& the psychoanalytic session, cut sho t a&te $e&inite inte "als (hen the "ie(e O$e"otee is th o(n %ack into the (o l$. *he epetiti"e #o$e o& the $ i"e is the e%y st uctu e$ into the concept o& the *V se ial, as a &acto o& capitalist p o$uction. *he esponse o& the "ie(e O$e"otee #ay %e ep esente$ %y the ;acanian

&o #ula &o &antasy, TUa, as the oun$a%out elation %et(een the e#pty, %a e$ su%4ect an$ the objet petit a, an ele#ent in the o%4ect that ep esents the su%4ect, though only as &a as it is lost on he . *he &antasy-o%4ect p o$uce$ as a co##o$ity in a $o#inant i$eological sche#a, ho(e"e , is al(ays al ea$y a su%"e sion o& the su%4ect/s pa ticula &antasy. *his is illust ate$, &o e.a#ple, in the ;acanian #athe#e o& the #aste /s $iscou se , e&e section 8, &ig I-, (he e the t(o &antasy co#ponents a e su%#e ge$ in the tVte-Q-tVte %et(een the #aste signi&ie ,S1- an$ the %atte y o& signi&ie s ,S2-. *he #anu&actu e o& the Rmyaa as an i$eologically locate$ au$io-"isual p o$uct e#ploying the epetition co#pulsion is an instance o& the #aste $iscou se/s &unctioning. ;ike co##o$ity &etishis#, the &etish o& the *V go$ p o"i$es the &oun$ation &o the #aste /s $iscou se +suppo ts it on its %ack, as it (e e +(hile the &oun$ing &antasy g opes a%out in the inte stices. In the se ial, thus, p i#e"al histo ical t aces a e $eploye$ in constituting an econo#ically success&ul p o$uct. 5s I in$icate$ ea lie , in the 198)s con4unctu e in In$ian society the p o%le#atic o& the econo#y is i#plicate$ in the ise o& the political ight. *he Rmyaa se ial is not si#ply an instance o& an econo#ic ope ation, it #etony#ically ep esents a ne( i$eological %eco#ing. *he &ollo(ing section analy:es the st uctu e o& N eligion as i$eology/ using notions o& Nsu plus/ an$ Nt au#a/ in ;acanian theo y.

(x$loits of the Sur$lus

I& i$eology $esignates 1a totality set on effacing the traces of its own impossibility ,KiLek 1989B 89-, the co##issioning o& the Rmyaa is an e.e#pla y instance o& an i$eological ope ation. 5s schola s ha"e sho(n, the se ial (as co##issione$ at a histo ical 4unctu e (he e the e.tant i$eology o& the uling $isposition ha$ %een uptu e$, (oul$ no #o e close in on itsel& ,Van $e Vee 19987 Ra4agopal 2))1-. *he sc eening o& the Rmyaa the e%y #a ks the #o#ent o& an i$eological shi&t, an instance (he e the uling i$eology has to inclu$e anothe ele#ent to #aintain the &iction o& totality. *his chink in the i$eological enclosu e that necessitates the inco po ation o& a a$ically ne( &acto is (hat #akes this a pe io$ o& t ansition7 a con4unctu e (he e co#ponent &acto s easse#%le an$ a e haule$ as ne( social &o ces. *he Auestion isB (hat is the pa ticula signi&icance an$ &unction o& the Rmyaa se ial as this i$eological eeAuip#entD *o put it si#ply, the &unction o& the Rmyaa se ial (as to e#ploy go$ in the i$eological cause7 supple#ent the i$eological totality (ith the na#e o& >o$. 5t the sa#e ti#e, ho(e"e , as pa t o& the la ge tele"ision pheno#enon, the se ial % ought ho#e tantali:ing co##o$ity i#ages into the g eate In$ian lan$scape. *his a i"al o& >o$ an$ the co##o$ity ,in

its ne(, li%e al &o #-, t(o o& hu#anity/s ca $inal achie"e#ents, in the sa#e #o#ent, is (hat #akes this con4unctu e so p egnant. >o$ co#es to %e e#ploye$ as an inte #e$ia y, a space ,an$ ti#e- that (ill allo( the t ansition & o# one #o$e o& the econo#y ,an$ an atten$ant i$eology- into anothe . 6e ope ates as a su plus7 the ole o& the su plus is not to %e un$e esti#ate$. *he ;acanian concept o& su plus jouissance o su plus "alue is help&ul in un$e stan$ing this &unction. 1Su plus-en4oy#ent is not a su plus (hich si#ply attaches itsel& to so#e Nno #al/, &un$a#ental en4oy#ent, %ecause enjoyment as such emerges only in this surplus, %ecause it is constituti"ely an Ne.cess/2 ,KiLek1989B 52-. *he eligious su plus is constituti"e o& the p o4ect o& the ne( econo#y. Religiosity is not an e.te nal ele#ent that attaches itsel& to the ne( econo#ic p o4ect7 it is an e.cess, a su plus that constitutes it. I (oul$ conten$ that in the conte.t o& (i$esp ea$ $ep i"ation in In$ia o& the 198)s, the &etish o& the co##o$ity (as %y itsel& not enough to legiti#i:e a & ee #a ket cultu e. 3he e #ost people (oul$ ha"e little access to co##o$ities that (e e to soon satu ate the lan$scape, the p oposition o& & ee #a ket ethics (oul$ ha"e %een an electo al $isaste &o any political agent. In$ee$, gi"en the political agent locate$ (ithin the st uctu e o& the society, an agency (ith such an agen$a (oul$ %e un"ia%le. *he eligious $iscou se (as necessa y to this t ansitional st uctu e. In othe (o $s, the li%e al econo#ic o $e coul$ only %e ushe e$ in the na#e o& >o$, this latte (as the necessa y supple#ent o& a cultu e ap opos the ne( econo#y. Nonetheless, as the ne( econo#y takes shape, the su plus has to attain a consistency that is inte nal to it, that is, &in$ itsel& an i$eology. Right (ing eligious i$eology + eligious nationalis#, as it is calle$ in In$ia +is this i$eology o& the su plus that e&&aces the lack that constitutes it (hile gi"ing a t(ist to its engage#ent (ith the econo#ic e.te nality ,see Van $e Vee 19987 6ansen 2))1-. *he eligious i$eology, (ith its epetiti"e #essage, thus &unctions as a co"e . Its social &unction +an$ he e I inclu$e the political pa ties (ith thei "este$ agen$as an$ agentic $i#ensions et cete a + is to hi$e so#ething that #ay not %e countenance$. It is &oun$e$ on a necessa y $enial. Ret, is it not that in psychoanalytic theo y, such $isto tion o $issi#ulation is itsel& t eate$ as 1 e"ealing2D 5s KiLek aptly puts, 1(hat e#e ges "ia $isto tions o& the accu ate ep esentation o& eality is the Real +that is, the t au#a a oun$ (hich social eality is st uctu e$2 ,1998B 2J-. 3hat then is the t au#atic co e that (ill only %e ecogni:e$ in the consistency that it gi"es to this social pheno#enon o& a su$$en eligious upsu ge an$ the i$eology that atten$s to itD 3hat $oes this su$$en, insistent attach#ent to eligion, this al#ost ne( $isposition, signi&yD It ce tainly a i"es (ith the ne( econo#ic o $e , %ut (he e p ecisely shoul$ one locate the lack o su plus in this o $e that (a ants as &un$a#ental a suppo t as >o$/sD ?o the p esent e.e cise, I suggest (e sea ch &o the t au#atic Real that gi"es ise to the $issi#ulating asse#%lage in p ecisely (hat is ne( to this #o#entB the a"ishing ent ance o&

10

the #a ket. *he &etish o& the co##o$ity + this o%4ect that 1&ascinates the su%4ect, e$uces hi# to a passi"e ga:e i#potently gaping at the o%4ect2, ,KiLek 1997B 115- + is a po(e &ul e&&ect, not to %e un$e esti#ate$. So %e(itching is this o%4ect %uilt a&te , in the i#age o&, one/s &antasies ,the#sel"es constitute$ as pa t o& a signi&ying st uctu e- that in this elation, it assu#es a position no less than the su%4ect/s. KiLek, in the notion o& Ninte passi"ity/, o&&e s insights into this e&&ect o& the co##o$ity %eco#e su%4ectB *he su%stitution o& the o%4ect &o the su%4ect is thus in a (ay e"en #o e p i#o $ial than the su%stitution o& the signi&ie &o the su%4ectB i& the signi&ie is the &o # o& N%eing acti"e th ough anothe /, the o%4ect is the signi&ie in the &o # o& N%eing passi"e th ough anothe /+ that is to say, the o%4ect is p i#o $ially that (hich su&&e s, en$u es it, &o #e, in #y placeB in sho t, that (hich enjoys &o #e. So (hat is un%ea a%le in #y encounte (ith the o%4ect is that in it, I see myself in the guise o& a su&&e ing o%4ectB (hat e$uces #e to a &ascinate$ passi"e o%se "e is the scene o& myself passi"ely en$u ing it. ,1997, 11JRet, co##o$ity &i.ation is not t au#atic %y itsel&. In the ;acanian analytical st uctu e, to %e so &i.e$ on so#ething o the othe is pa t o& the su%4ect/s constitution7 the co##o$ity %elongs to the eal# o& signi&ie s. Neithe shoul$ the t au#a %e t ace$ to the $enial, the inaccessi%ility o& the &antasy o%4ect, that is, in the con$ition o& %eing $ep i"e$ the co##o$ity, o N%eing poo /. *he concent ation o& the t au#a is athe in the ina%ility to &ace this $enial o& the o%4ect, it is the e&usal to countenance this $enial, the ina%ility to p o"i$e it a signi&ying st uctu e. 1? eu$ $e&ines the pathogenic nucleus as (hat is %eing sought, %ut (hich epels the $iscou se, (hat $iscou se shuns. Resistance is the in&le.ion the $iscou se a$opts on app oaching the nucleus2 ,;acan 1988B I9-. In ou analysis, the na#e o& >o$, the eligious hype %ole, signi&ies this esistance +it is the in&le.ion o& the $iscou se o& the co##o$ity itsel&. *he eligious i$eology enacte$ in the Rmyaa is %ut the $iscou se o& the co##o$ity constituting itsel& as esistance, a%out the gap in the su%4ect. *his e.plains (hy an i$eology like eligious nationalis# ne"e eally goes too &a & o# the $o#inant i$eology o& capital, ho( it spins a%out the sa#e cente ,see, &o instance, 6ansen 1999-. It also in$icates (hy the tele"ision go$, RS#a, is in the en$ little #o e than an i$eological ca icatu e.5 *he &ollo(ing $iscussion on $iscu si"e p o$uction using ;acan/s Aua tet o& $iscu si"e co#positions an$ a ticulate$ in e&e ence to the <a .ist $iscou se shoul$ &u the eluci$ate #y a gu#ent.

11

In absence of the analyst: The hysteric, the master and the $roduction of religious ideology
Speaking o& N$iscou se/ then, (oul$ it %e too #uch to suggest + e"en &o ou sho t analytical ope ation + that the a$ical histo ical achie"e#ent o& Nclass analysis/ is the analysis itsel&7 the $iscou se that p o"i$es a signi&ying st uctu e to the 1t au#atic social antagonis#2 ,KiLek 2))Io alienation in the hea t o& societyD Ene has to %e ca e&ul he e, &o to say that such is the eal achie"e#ent o& this analysis, is al ea$y to go against the g ain. *he analysis only #akes it to its histo ical signi&icance as long as it e.ten$s to(a $ a co e that is al(ays outsi$e it, that is, it is not &o e-close$ as kno(le$ge %ut e.ten$s to(a $ a little so#ething, the objet petit a that is %eyon$ it. <a ./s conce n is (o k o la%o , not kno(le$ge. 1="en i& (o k is acco#plishe$ %y those (ho ha"e kno(le$ge, (hat it p o$uces can ce tainly %e t uth, it is ne"e kno(le$ge + no (o k has e"e p o$uce$ kno(le$ge2 ,;acan 2))7B 79-. <a ./s (o k is the e%y (o k in the Nt ue/ sense. 3hat it is at pains to #aste is the enig#a o& the (o ke /s con$ition o his la%o , as &a as the (o ke %eco#es only in his la%o 7 the enig#a o& this lack in sy#%olic ep esentation, that continues to echo in the te #, alienation. It is the a, inaccessi%le o& the capitalist/s $iscou se an$ to kno(le$ge ,at least %e&o e the $iscou se (hich, in $ue cou se, co#es to %e calle$ the <a .ist $iscou se-, setting this signi&ication chain in #otion in the "e y act o instance o& its e.clusion, that <a . a$$ esses hi#sel& to. I& 1the e&e ence o& a $iscou se is (hat it ackno(le$ges it (ants to #aste 2 ,;acan 2))7B J9-, in ;acan/s &ou -legge$ sche#a o& $iscou ses, <a .ist analysis + like the analysis o& that othe #aste (ho spoke o& the a, o& jouissance, ;acan + is the $iscou se o& the analyst. 5 #a4o histo ical signi&icance o& <a ./s analysis is in the signi&ying st uctu e that it p o$uces in its atte#pt to #aste the t au#atic co e o& the con$ition o& the (o king class. *he t au#a, as ;acan sho(s, is not o& the natu e o& a pathological %lo( that as i& $isto ts the su%4ect/s histo y e"e a&te . *he histo icity o& t au#a &unctions in the othe $i ection. It is the signi&ication syste# that et oacti"ely const ucts the p i#e"al #o#ent as t au#atic in the $eal that it #akes (ith the su%4ect. *he o%4ect o& t au#a is thus a conseAuence o& a $iscu si"e t eat#ent, o a lack the eo&. In the analyst/s $iscou se, the objet petit a, the alien o%4ect that is non-assi#ila%le in the syste# o& signi&ication, en4oys the place o& p i$e. *his $iscou se is $ i"en to(a $s the objet a7 epeats itsel& a%out it.

12

;acan i$enti&ies the a as su plus jouissance o su plus "alue. *he su plus "alue, (hich is also the su plus jouissance o& the #aste , is, I suggest, %ut st ictly the (o ke /s alienation con"e te$. In the natu e o& the analyst/s $iscou se ,?ig 1-, he e the objet a a$$ esses the split su%4ect ,the alienate$ (o ke , T- %y su%"e ting the ne( #aste /s ,capitalist/s- kno(le$ge ,S2-. 0lass consciousness is this a$$ ess. *he esi$ue o& the analysis, (hat $ ops out, is the (o ke /s status ,the signi&ie o& the (o ke , S1- in the capitalist sche#a. *he "alue o& this $iscou se is in (he e it situates itsel&, at the co e o& the t au#a. 1It is not "e y co#&o ta%le to %e situate$ at this point (he e $iscou se e#e ges, o e"en, (hen it etu ns he e, (hen it &alte s, in the en"i ons o& jouissance !;acan 2))7B 71-. 5s ;acan sho(s us, the analyst/s $iscou se is %ut a Aua te tu n in the hyste ic/s $iscou se ,?ig. 2-. 1Git/s the hyste i:ation o& $iscou seGthe st uctu al int o$uction o& the hyste ic/s $iscou se2 ,;acan 2))7B II-. <a .is# is the e%y p i#a ily a p o4ect o& the t ans&o #ation o& the su&&e ing (o ke /s hyste ic $iscou se into a classconsciousness (hose &i st a$$ essee is the t au#atic content o& the (o ke /s con$ition. *his ;acanian ea$ing also p o%le#ati:es 5lthusse /s catego i:ation o& the 1ea ly <a .2 as i$eological, as oppose$ to his late (o ks ,5lthusse 19J9-. *he note on the alienation ,su plus jouissance- o& the (o ke that <a . %egan (ith in (o ks like the >e #an i$eology an$ the =cono#ic an$ @hilosophical <anusc ipts (as the "e y ke nel o& the Real that (oul$ st uctu e the est o& <a ./s oeu"re. *o eali:e the &ull signi&icance o& the analyst/s t eat#ent o& the hyste ic/s $iscou se, (e ha"e to see (hat happens to this $iscou se in the han$s o& the #aste . *he i$eology o& eligious nationalis# (hich is one o& the #oti&s in this essay p o"i$es an e.a#ple.

*he eligious $iscou se, the na#e o& >o$, is, %y itsel& + to this analysis + the $iscou se o& the hyste ic ,?ig. 2-. It is the split, %a e$ su%4ect ,T- shouting out to the su%4ect/s signi&ie ,S1in the na#e o& an e.cess, a nothing, a po(e that is %eyon$ ti#e an$ eason, yet en4oys the &o ce o& histo y.J *he eligious i#age yOthe#ata is constitute$ (he e the split su%4ect a$$ esses the signi&ie ,S1- %y e.clu$ing the $o#inant sy#%olic syste#. In the ;acanian sche#a, po(e &ul (he e this c y is, it e#anates out o& the ep ession o& the objet a. In the eligious &iel$ that has %een the &ocus o& this pape , the hyste ic/s eligious $iscou se ,?ig 2- e#anates & o# the ep ession o& the assault & o# an in ush o& inaccessi%le &antasy o%4ects &ollo(ing the neo-li%e al opening. 6o(e"e , as I ha"e #aintaine$, the t au#atic assault is a conseAuence o& a $iscu si"e t eat#ent, the t au#atic #o#ent is the sy#pto#atic se$i#ent o& a $iscu si"e lack. 6e e, in the

13

ep ession o& this lack, (hich is the objet a, the hyste ic shouts out in the na#e o& >o$. 'ut no soone has she spoken than he $iscou se is e"e te$ into the o iginal ,$e&ault- &o # o& the #aste /s $iscou se in the i$eology o& eligious nationalis#.

In this $iscou se ,?ig I-, the signi&ie that the split su%4ect o& the hyste ic a$$ esses hi#sel& to is instea$ tu ne$ to(a $ the "e y sy#%olic syste# o kno(le$ge ,S2- that (as e.clu$e$ in

the hyste ic/s $iscou se. *he split su%4ect is ep esse$, as the $iscou se is conce ne$ (ith #aste ing the su%4ect/s signi&ie . *he p i#e"al lack, the objet a, that the analyst/s
$iscou se t ie$ to % ing into the &ol$ is, in this $iscou se o& the #aste , ep o$uce$, as usual, as esi$uu#.

)onclusion
*he i$eology o& 6in$u eligious nationalis# thus &unctions, to use a Deleu:ian #etapho , as a et og essi"e #achine that tu ns the out ageous seAuences sp inging out o& the #o#ent o& c isis %ack into the #aste /s &ol$. *o(a $ this pu pose, it co#es up (ith a #ythological st uctu e to assu e itsel& a #ini#u# $iscu si"e consistency. 6in$u eligious nationalis# $oes so %y con&igu ing itsel& a oun$ an a.is co#pose$ & o# the const uction an$ e.ploitati"e #aneu"e ing o& (hat #ay %e calle$ the 6in$u-<usli# &acto , the incite#ent o& a 6in$u i$entity against the <usli# as the i##e$iate othe . *his i$eological $iscou se is acti"ely p o$uce$, an$ tappe$ %y political pa ties. *he &unction o& the pa ty the e%y has p ecisely %een to displace the hyste ical st uctu e o& the eligious pheno#enon into an i$eological st uctu e. 7 *he political agency a%so %s the eligious su plus ,he e, st ay #ythsOactsOe"i$ences o& 6in$u-<usli# antagonis#- in the econo#y o& its o(n st ategy, gene ating in the p ocess an i$eological st uctu e in (hich this su plus is gi"en the ca $inal location (he e the cause o& the social pheno#enon can %e i$enti&ie$ (ith the pa ty/s o(n political cause o o%4ecti"e. 5n$ the e%y, a ne( i$eological &o ce ente s the $o#ain o& In$ian politics an$ cultu e. 14

*his a ticle has a gue$ that in In$ia o& the 198)s, tele"ision an$ the Rmya#a se ial ope ate$ as #e$iu#s pa ticipating in the &o #ation o& a ne( i$eological &o ce. *he hu#an co#pulsion to epetition an$ a jouissance conseAuent to a p e-e.isting collecti"e unconscious (e e ha nesse$ as a%le allies in this t ans&o #ati"e p ocess. 3hile tele"ision, %y itsel&, %elonge$ to the eal# o& co##o$ities an$ thei #e$iu#s, (hose a"ishing encounte &acto e$ in the t au#atic constitution, the na#e o& >o$ ,o the acts o& the go$, Rmal$l- in the Rmya#a se ial (o ke$ to su%li#ate the t au#atic in the "e y #o#ent an$ #e$iu# o& its inception. *he Rmya#a se ial #ay thus %e seen as #etony#ic o& the i$eological app op iation o& the hyste ic/s sc ea# &o go$ at the t au#atic #o#ent o& neo-li%e al a i"al, %oth as a &loo$ o& co##o$ities an$ as $iscu si"e hege#ony. *he se ial an$ its e&&ects &o esha$o(e$ the e a o& 6in$u eligious nationalis#, (hich has continue$ loo# o"e the society an$ its $e#oc atic p o#ise e"e since.

References
5lthusse , ;. ,19J9O19J5-. %or Mar&. ;on$on, Ve so. 5n$e son, '. ,1991- 'magined (ommunities) Reflections on the *rigin and +pread of ,ationalism, ;on$onB Ve so, 1991. ?a #e , V.;. ,199J- 1<ass <e$iaB I#ages, <o%ili:ation, an$ 0o##unalis#,2 in D. ;u$$en ,e$.(ontesting the ,ation) Religion, (ommunity, and the Politics of Democracy in 'ndia, @hila$elphiaB !ni"e sity o& @ennsyl"ania @ ess. ? eu$, S ,1989- -he %reud Reader, t ans. %y @. >ay, Ne( Ro kB 3.3. No ton. 6ansen, *. '. ,1999- -he +affron .a"e) Democracy and /indu ,ationalism in Modern 'ndia, @ inceton, N9B @ inceton !ni"e sity @ ess. ;acan, 9. ,1988O1978- -he +eminar of 0ac1ues 2acan, Boo3 '') -he 4go in %reud5s -heory and in the -echni1ue of Psychoanalysis, 6789:6788, e$. 9.5. <ille , t ans. %y S. *o#aselli, Ne( Ro kB No ton, 1988. ;acan, 9. ,1992O198J- -he +eminar of 0ac1ues 2acan, Boo3 ;'') -he 4thics of Psychoanalysis, 6787:67<=, e$. %y 9.5. <ille , t ans. %y D. @o te , ;on$onB Routle$ge, 2))7. ;acan, 9. ,2))J- 4crits) -he %irst (omplete 4dition in 4nglish, t ans. %y '. ?ink, Ne( Ro kB 3.3. No ton W 0o. ;acan, 9. ,2))7O1991- -he +eminar of 0ac1ues 2acan, Boo3 >;'') -he *ther +ide of Psychoanalysis, 19J9-197), e$. %y 9.5. <ille , t ans. %y R. > igg, Ne( Ro kB No ton. ;utgen$o & @. ,199)- 1Ra#ayaB *he Vi$eo,2 -he Drama Re"iew, I8, 2B 127+17J.

15

<ankeka , @. ,2))2- 1=pic 0ontestsB *ele"ision an$ Religious I$entity in In$ia,2 in ?.D. >ins%u g ,e$.- Media .orlds) ?nthropology on ,ew -errain, 'e keleyB !ni". o& 0ali&o nia @ . @oun$, <. ,2))7- -heology, Psychoanalysis, -rauma, ;on$onB S0< @ ess. Ra4agopal, 5. ,2))1- Politics ?fter -ele"ision Religious ,ationalism and the Reshaping of the 'ndian Public, 0a#% i$ge, !PB 0a#% i$ge !ni"e sity @ ess. Re$&iel$, R. ,1989--he 2ittle (ommunity and Peasant +ociety and (ulture, 0hicagoB !ni"e sity o& 0hicago @ ess. Rich#an, @. ,1991- Many Ra a ma a @ABACDEFGHEIJKHLCJM@ENOEAEPALLAMJKHEMLAIJMJNPEJPEQNRMGESCJATE 'e keleyB !ni"e sity o& 0ali&o nia @ ess, 1991. Saga , R, $i ecto ,1987- Rmyaa, 'o#%ayB Saga =nte p ises. Van $e Vee , @. ,1998- Religious ,ationalism) /indus and Muslims in 'ndia. 'e keley, 05B !ni"e sity o& 0ali&o nia @ ess. KiLek , S ,2))I- -he Puppet and the Dwarf) -he Per"erse (ore of (hristianity, 0a#% i$ge, <assachusettsB <I* @ ess, 2))I. KiLek, S. ,1989- -he +ublime *bject of 'deology, ;on$onB Ve so. KiLek , S. ,1998- Mapping 'deology, ;on$onB Ve so. KiLek, S. ,1997- -he Plague of %antasies, ;on$onB Ve so, 1997.

16

1 2 3 4

Gin the sense o& its econo#istic logic. *his is pa ticula ly t ue o& the Rmyaa. See, Ra4agopal ,2))1-. See, &o instance, "a ious essays in Rich#an ,1991-.

=piso$es o& the se ial (oul$ o&ten close (ith a pe sonal a$$ ess %y Ra#anan$ Saga na ati"i:ing the p o$uction p ocess, inclu$ing "ignettes on ho( the se ial $epictions ha$ %een co o%o ate$ "ia a pletho a o& sou ces. 5 ?o an e.tensi"e $esc iption o& the i$eological location o& the cha acte o& RS#a, see Ra4agopal ,2))1-. 6 ?o the e.istential signi&icance o& eligion in conte#po a y In$ia, see autho ,2)11-. 5 st uctu e that has to %e ock soli$ in its insistence. 5s KiLek illust ates in *he Su%li#e E%4ect o& I$eology th ough the e.a#ple o& the i$eologically #atu e anti-se#ite (ho, &in$ing a nice a#ia%le pe son in his 9e(ish neigh%o , easons that these #asks a e p ecisely (hat #ake the 9e( so $ange ous. 15n i$eology only succee$s (hen e"en the &acts (hich at &i st sight cont a$ict it sta t to &unction as a gu#ents in its &a"o ,1989B 89-.2
7