Exoticism and the Truth of Revolutionary Desire in Nepal and Tibet

How is it that Tibet is, on the one hand, mystical and exotic, while on the other hand being one of the most politically heated regions in the world? It seems that exoticism, when it comes to Tibet, is embroiled in a Foucauldian “technique of government,” where exoticism enables a certain management of the population, and more importantly, a regulation of the desire of the Western revolutionary who wishes to fight for a “Free Tibet.” Indeed, "making exotic" may be one of the first "techniques of government" employed by the West on territories like Tibet and Nepal, just in order to make political engagement in these territories a matter of mature and sophisticated political institutions rather than students in a university or college. The key point regarding Tibet, for Western power, is to maintain a kind of balance. The message from power is this: Tibet is in trouble, yes, but it can also be enjoyed. All it takes to enjoy Tibet is only a little effort, and a subscription to the myths of exotic Tibet. Also, it seems that in Tibet an enjoyable way of countering oppression is sought by Western powers, shaping the struggle there as a romantic struggle, but even more than romantic, an enjoyable struggle, a struggle enjoyable as long as it lasts, to the point where some Western revolutionary practices and organizations do not want it to end. ..and indeed the exotic and the revolutionary have fused into a common image when it comes to Tibet and Tibet-related movements. Another important development has been how the struggle has been watched, discussed and acted upon from a distance, as if Westerners have not considered that the struggle may require more direct actions, such as direct visits by students protesting about Tibet. There will be no "remote control revolution." 

To a lesser intensity, Nepal is similar to Tibet in its ability to inspire revolutionary desire, and this desire is here too stunted by exotic appeal, embodied in Nepal by the figure of the tourist. There is power being exercised upon Western foreigners as is evident from the fact that these people have to come to Nepal conforming to an image of a tourist; any other reasons for travel here are still considered dangerous, but in fact this image of a dangerous Nepal is a way to stunt the real potential of Nepal as a place inspiring a revolutionary spirit. Like Tibet, Nepal is both appealingly exotic and dangerous. The political problems of Nepal are considered confined within its national boundaries and there hasn't been the kind of exposure as is being received in Tibet, but Nepal has the same potential to inspire a particular kind of approach to politics which is represented by a subject invested with what we are calling here "revolutionary desire."  

What does this "revolutionary desire" look like? Perhaps we can come to it by witnessing its opposite, exoticism, in action. Whereas the “exotifying” person, the tourist, is not to present to and attentive of the realities of Nepal (being distanced as he is into an artistic-creative spirit focused on Nepal's natural and cultural objects and practices), the revolutionary subject is very attuned to the more humanistic, social realities, and becomes fully immersed in the everyday of Nepal. He/she becomes, in Deleuzian-Guattarian terms, “deterritorialized” as a subject, not belonging to any place or time, including his/her Western homeland and its myths. He/she has not destroyed his/her desire, but found in the place where revolution is ripe and certain, a home. The link between identity and politics is broken when it comes to revolutionary desire; it can emerge to fight on the side of justice anywhere...The sacrifice of one's feelings for one's home territory is precisely what concerns Western powers. They are content with exoticism of the other, but they do not want any kind of abandonment of the homeland by their own citizens that results when the exotic image is removed. What inspired a loyal relationship to one's homeland was a kind of distance maintained with the other, a distance created between West and East by the forces that "make exotic," and once this distance is gone, the result is a lack of belief in the idea of a homeland and a motivation/desire to work towards the struggles of people elsewhere.  

If Nepal fuels the (revolutionary) desire of foreigners, then Nepal is what in Lacan is called the “object small a,” also known as the "object-cause of desire." The object-cause is itself not the desired object, but rather, it is some kind of a elusive material which in the subject causes desire for something else. The exotic-seeker piles layers to shroud such an “object small a,” so there is spirituality, mystique, religion and culture, all of which are layers to prevent the potent political scenario of Nepal from influencing foreigners to the full. What is truthful is that the first thing one would notice about Nepal, if it were not for its identity as exotic, is its politics, meaning that any subject who traverses beyond the exotic comes to confront the political. A kind of comparative politics between Nepal and the West is made possible, eventually leading to a revolutionary desire through the realization of the injustice upon Nepal. Perhaps we can understand Lacan's crucial idea of "traversing the fantasy" as precisely traversing the exotic, going beyond the exotic, so that the contemporary world's political identities come to the fore. This consciousness of the politics all over the world will make the Western subject more fruitfully and actively engaged in the world rather than remain a passive tourist. Finally, we can begin to understand how the “objects small a,” such as Nepal and Tibet,  are also felt as “objects of anxiety” when they are approached, if we are to think that we are approaching them as a powerful subject, as a subject who does not want to see revolutionary desire develop.